ML20247K894

Completion Review Rept for Remedial Action at Grand Junction,Co,Disposal Site (Cheney Reservoir Disposal Site)

ML20247K894
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/31/1998
From:	NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:
Shared Package
ML20247K889	List: ML20247K884 ML20247K894
References
REF-WM-54 NUDOCS 9805220242
Download: ML20247K894 (17)

Text

~

1 COMPLETlON REVIEW REPORT l

FOR THE REMEDIAL ACTION AT THE GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO DISPOSAL SITE (CHENEY RESERVOIR DISPOSAL SITE)

May 1998 DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9805220242 980505! '

PDR WASTE HN-54 PDR 1

~

r l

k l

l TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

. .. .. . .. . .. . ... . . . .1

2.0 BACKGROUND

. .. .. ... .. . . . ........... ...... .1 2.1 UMTRCA ... . ..... .. .. . . ..... . ...... ........... 1 2.2 CONCURRENCEPROCESS FOR THE SELECTION OF DOE'S REMEDIAL ACTIONS

... .... .. .... . . . . ... .. .. .... .. . ... .. 1 2.3 CONCURRENCE PROCESS FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF DOE'S REMEDIAL ACTI ON S . . . . . . . . . .... . ... . ..... .. .. ... ....... .2 2.4 GRAND JUNCTION DISPOSAL SITE (CHENEY RESEcuOIR DISPOSAL SITE) . . . . . . . . ... ... .... .2 2.5 COMPLETION REVIEW REPORT ORGANIZATION ..... . . ....3 3.0 ANALYSIS OF DOE REMEDIAL ACTION PERFORMANCE . . . .. .. .... .....3 3.1 PREVIOUS ACTIONS ....... .. . .. . .... . ... ........3 3.2 REVIEWOF REMEDIAL ACTION PERFORMANCE . . ...... .... .... 4 3.2.1 Geotechnical Engineering . . . . . . .. ...... .. .. .... ... .4 3.2.2 Surface Water Hydrology and Erosion Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2.3 Radiation Control .. . ...... . .. ... .... ... .. ...... 6 3.2.4 Water Resources Protection Review Results .. .. ......... 7 4.0 S U M M ARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ............... ... .. . .. 7

5.3 REFERENCES

... ........... ................................. .. ... 8 APPENDIX A NRC SITE VISITS TO THE GRAND JUNCTION DISPOSAL SITE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 APPENDIX B l

UMTRCA, THE EPA STANDARDS, AND THE PHASED UMTRA PROJECT ....... B-1 Cheney CRR i May .998

~

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Grand Junction Disposal Site (Cheney Reservoir Disposal Site) is located at Cheney Reservoir in Mesa County, Colorado, approximately 18 miles southeast of the city of Grand Junction. Starting in March 1991, uranium mill tailings and contaminated materials from the Grand Junction Processing Site, one of the 24 abandoned uranium mill tailings sites to be l

remediated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA), were relocated to the Cheney site. UMTRCA requires, pursuant to Section 104(f)(1), that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) concur with j DOE's determination that the remedial action has been properly completed. This Completion '

Review Report (CRR) documents the NRC staffs basis for its concurrence decision with respect to DOE's Certification Summary for the completion of tailings disposal at the Cheney site.

2.0 BACKGROUND

l 2.1 UMTRCA Title I of UMTRCA provides for remedial action at abandoned uranium mill tailings sites and associated vicinity properties. The purpose of this legislation is to protect the public health and safety and the environment from radiological and non-radiological hazards associated with the process related materials at these sites.

UMTRCA directs DOE to select and perform remedial actions ni 24 abandoned uranium mill tailings sites to ensure compliance with the general environmt ntal standards promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Section 275(a) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by UMTRCA. UMTRCA also requires DOE to obtain NRC's concurrence with DOE's selection and performance of the semedial actions. Following t completion of the remedial actions, UMTRCA authorizes NRC to license the long-term custody, maintenance, and monitoring of the disposal sites to ensure continued protection of the public health and safety and the environment. Appendix B includes a more detailed discussion of this legislation.

2.2 CONCURRENCE PROCESS FOR THE SE dCTION OF DOE'S REMEDIAL ACTIONS To document its selection of the remedial action to be implemented at a particular site, DOE develops and issues a Remedial Action Plan (RAP). The RAP describes the series of activities and presents the design proposed by DOE to provide for the long term protection of the public and the environment. Usually this involves cleanup of the processing site, adjacent windblown areas, and vicinity properties, in addition to stabilization of the residual radioactive materials (RRM). In addition, DOE issues a Remedial Action Inspection Plan (RAIP), which establishes the quality control program of testing and inspection that will be employed for the remedial action in accordance with UMTRCA Section 108(a)(1), the NRC staff reviews and concurs with the RAP and the RAIP, and any subsequent modifications. By its concurrence in the remedial action selection, the NRC staff concludes that the planned remedial actions will Cheney CRR 1 May 1998 i

comply with EPA's cpplicable standards in 40 CFR 192, Subparts A, B, and C. The basis for the concurrence in DOE's selection of remedial action is documented in a Technical Evaluation '

Report (TER).

2.3 CONCURRENCE PROCESS FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF DOE'S REMEDIAL ACTIONS The remedial action work is performed by DOE contractors under Federal procurement  :

regulations. During the remedial action, DOE inspects and documents activities in accordance with the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project Quality Assurance Plan, the RAIP, and the RAP. In addition, the NRC staff conducts site visits or inspections of the site, as determined necessary.

Upon completion of the remedial action, DOE compiles cleanup and construction (in the case of a disposal site) records and prepares a completion report (CR) to document that remedial actions were performed in accordance with the RAP or RAP modifications, and the RAIP.

Based on this information DOE certifies that all provisions of the RAP have been satisfied and, therefore, that the remedial actions comply with the applicable EPA standards in 40 CFR 192.

Based on its review of DOE's documentation, and on its site visits and observations, NRC makes a concurrence decision with regard to DOE's remedial action completion determination for each site, and then documents the basis for this concurrence decision in the CRR. By its j concurrence in the remedial action performance, the NRC staff concludes that the remedial j action has been completed in accordance with the NRC approved plan. NRC's concurrence j with DOE's completion determination fulfills the Commission's responsibility under UMTRCA Section 104(f)(1). Because contaminated materials from the Grand Junction processing site were relocated for stabilization at a separate site (Cheney site), DOE's CR (DOE,1997), and therefore this CRR, deal only with the construction actions for disposal of the uranium mill tailings and contaminated material at the Cheney site. DOE provided, under separate cover for NRC's concurrence, a CR for the Grand Junction Processing Site Cleanup (DOE,1995), for which the NRC staff documented its concurrence in a separate CRR (NRC,1997).

2.4 GRAND JUNCTION DISPOSAL SITE (CHENEY RESERVOIR DISPOSAL SITE)

)

The 330 acre Grand Junction (Cheney) uranium mill tailings disposal site is located in Mesa County, Colorado, about 18 miles southeast of Grand Junction, Colorado. Starting in March, 1991, approximately 4 million cubic yards of emnium mill tailings and contaminated material from the Grand Junction Processing Site, located on the south-southeast side of the city of Grand Junction, were relocated to the Cheney site. The disposal site was completed in 1994, except for a pit (" cell-closure" hole) in the tailings pile kept open for future disposal of vicinity property material. The Public Law amendment to Section 112(a)(B) of UMTRCA authorized the continued operation of the Cheney disposal cell for receiving and disposing of RRM from vicinity properties until the cell has been filled, or 2023, whichever is first.

The Climax Uranium Company opened its mill in Grand Junction in 1951. The mill was designed and built for the production of uranium, with capability for by-product vanadium Cheney CRR 2 May 1998 1

s

• ~

( ,

productien. Processing capability of the mill was 330 tons of ore per day at its opening, increasing to 500 tons per day in 1955. The mill used an acid-leaching and solvent extraction process to recover uranium from sand. Slimes were salt roasted and water-leached to remove vanadium, and then acid-leached by solvent-extraction to extract uranium and any remaining vanadium.

A total of 4,425,244 cubic yards of contaminated material was relocated to the Cheney disposal site and the site cleanup was verified according to EPA standards. The processing site was recontoured with uncontaminated fill, covered with topsoil, snd reseeded. Twenty acres were restored as wetlands. Reclaniation activities at the Cheney site, including cell stabilization, radon barrier construction, and erosion protection were conducted by DOE's contractors. NRC staff performed periodic on-site reviews to monitor the progress of the remedial action activities (See Appendix A).

2.5 COMPLETION REVIEW REPORT ORGANIZATION The purpose of this CRR is to document the NRC staff review of DOE's Grand Junction disposal site CR (DOE,1997) and supplemental information provided by DOEs letter of February 3,1998. Because contaminated materials from the Grand Junction processing site were relocated for disposal at the Cheney site, DOE's CR deals only with the construction activities at the Cheney site. Therefore, this CRR also deals only with NRC's review of the completion of construction at the Cheney disposal site. DOE's CR (DOE,1995) of the cleanup of the Grand Junction processing site was submitted as a separate document and NRC completed a separate CRR (NRC,1997) for that review. Appendix A of the CRR provides a listing of NRC staff visits to the Grand Junction (Cheney) disposal site. Appendix B provides a detailed description of the requirements of UMTRCA and the resulting phased process of the UMTRA project.

3.0 ANALYSIS OF DOE REMEDIAL ACTION PERFORMANCE 3.1 PREVIOUS ACTIONS NRC staff, based on its review of the RAP (DOE,1991), and the RAIP (MK-Ferguson,1991) concurred that the remedial action, as proposed in the RAP, would meet the applicable EPA standards. This concurrence was based on technical findings that there is reasonable assurance that the selection of the remedial action for the Cheney disposal site would meet the standards for pile stability, radon attenuation, and erosion protection.

i The NRC notified DOE that it had completed its review of the final RAP and the RAIP on  !

July 18,1994, and signed the original signature pages signifying the NRC's concurrence in the l remedial action on December 6,1994. The basis for the NRC staff's concurrence in DOE's l I

selection of remedial action at the Grand Junction processing and disposal sites is documented in the TER issued in July 1994 (NRC,1994).

l l

l a \

l 1

Cheney CRR 3 May 1998 l l

1

_______ _ _______a

3.2. REVIEW OF REMEDIAL ACTION PERFORMANCE NRC staffs primary objective in reviewing DOE's certification of remedial action completion is to determine whether the remedial actions have been performed in a manner consistent with j specifications provided in the RAP, any RAP modifications or Project interface Documents (PIDs), and the RAIP, and if not, that deviations to these specifications still result in compliance with the EPA standards. In support of this action, the NRC staff participated in site reviews (See Appendix A), field observations, assessments of on-site data and records, and review of {

DOE Site Audit Reports.

The results of the staffs review of the remedial action are contained in this section of the CRR.

For the Cheney disposal site remedial action completion review, the pertinent technical disciplines are geotechnical engineering, surface water hydrology and erosion protection, adiation cleanup and control, and water resources protection.

3.2.1 Geotechnical Engineering The NRC staff reviewed the Grand Junction CR (DOE,1997) to determine whether the geotechnical engineering aspects of the remedial action had been completed in accordance with (1) the applicable technical specifications in the RAP (DOE,1991), and (2) the RAIP, Revision C (MK-Ferguson,1991), and applicable Class I PIDs. NRC did not review all of the testing and inspection records due to the voluminous amount of documentation. However, the staff did review records during on-site visits during construction. In addition, the staffs review was based on statements made by DOE in the CR that the cell, as constructed, complied with all requirements. The staff also verified that the CR contained descriptions of construction operations, as-built drawings, and summaries of laboratory and field testing data and DOE quality assurance audits.

Based on its review of the geotechnical engineering aspects of the remedial action completion documentation, the NRC staff noted the following:

1. DOE concluded that appropriate tests (gradation and classification) and inspections were performed to assure that the proper type of material was placed for each feature of earth construction. The loose thickness of the lifts was continuously monitored to ensure compliance with the specifications for that material. Placement and compaction operations were routinely inspected and tested to assure that the moisture and density requirements were met and that the soil moisture was satisfactory throughout the compacted lifts.

2. DOE concluded that laboratory and field tests were adequately documented indicating that the tests were conducted in accordance with acceptable procedures by trained and qualified personnel

3. The CR shows that frequencies of materials testing and inspection comply with the frequencies specified in the RAIP.

Cheney CRR 4 May 1998

4. As-built drawings adequately document that the completed remedial action was consistent with the design concurred in by the NRC (TER; NRC,1994).

5. DOE concluded that final slope, elevation, and placement of the disposal cell cover were adequately inspected to ensure that the final conditions were consistent with those stated in the RAP and final design.

Based on the above conclusions, and on the results of on-site inspections performed by the NRC staff during construction, the NRC staff concludes that the geotechnical engineering aspects of the construction were performed in accordance with the design and specifications identified in the RAP and the RAIP. The staff's conclusion applies to all geotechnical aspects of the cell except the engineered " hole" for additional vicinity property material. A separate CR will be generated for NRC's review in 2023, or when the hole is filled.

3.2.2 Surface Water Hydrology and Erosion Protection NRC staff reviewed the surface water hydrology and erosion protection aspects of rernedial actions at the Cheney site to ensure that construction was in accordance with the applicable construction specifications and final design as stipulated in the RAP (DOE,1991), RAP modifications, and RAIP (MK-Ferguson,1991). Areas of review included construction operations, laboratory and field testing, and qustity assurance audits. In addition, the review was also based on NRC observations of the remedial actions and review of records and testing l during NRC onsite inspections.

l The remedial action design included erosion protection in several specific areas, including: (1) riprapped top and side slopes and diversion channels, and (2) a riprap toe adjacent to the side slope. The top and side slopes and diversion channels of the cell were designed to prevent long-term erosion and gullying of the cell cover. The buried riprap toe was placed to prevent erosion and migration of gullies toward the cell.

I The NRC staff reviewed slopes, channels, and riprap and determined that testing, placement, and configuration complied with specifications in the RAP, RAP modifications, and the RAIP.

The review was partially based on NRC staff observations and review of onsite records during I the remedial actions, as well as assessment of the verification results presented in the CR (DOE,1997). In addition, the NRC staff reviewed records of the placement of riprap on the top l and side slopes of the cell. I During the review, the NRC staff noted the following:

1. Tests (gradation and durability) and inspections were performed by DOE or its agents to ensure that erosion protection materials were properly selected. The review of the documentation indicated that placement of materials was routinely inspected by DOE or its agents to ensure that the rock size and gradation specifications were met. Likewise, the thickness of the rock layers were verified periodically by DOE or its agents to ensure compliance with the specifications for the particular type of material.

Cheney CRR 5 May 1998

i

2. - Laboratory and field tests were conducted by DOE or its agents in accordance with

, specified test procedures.

3. Testing and inspection frequencies for materials used at the site for erosion protection 3 were documented by DOE as complying with the frequencies specified in the RAIP.

Based on NRC staff observations and review of onsite records during remedial actions, as well as assessment of the verification results presented in the CR, the NRC staff concludes that the required durability and gradation tests were performed during the remedial action. The riprap is of adequate quality and has been acceptably placed. The NRC staff concurs the remedial action has been adequately completed at the Cheney disposal site, with respect to erosion protection.

3.2.3 Radiation Control The NRC staff reviewed radiation cleanup aspects of remedial actions at the Grand Junction processing site and presented that evaluation in a separate CRR (NRC,1997). 9is section documents the NRC staff review of radiation control (radon attenuation) aspects of the Grand Junction disposal cell at the Cheney site. Areas of review included construction data for the disposal cell cover to ensure compliance with the RAP (DOE,1991) design for limiting radon releases and the radon attenuation calculation to ensure compliance with the long-term radon flux design standard in 40 CFR 192.02. The review was based primarily on the staff's )

assessment of information presented in the CR (DOE,1997), and calculation 05-691-07-00, that was provided by DOE letter of February 3,1998.

The radon attenuation design was established in the RAP and concurred in by NRC staff as providing assurance that the disposal cell would meet the EPA requirements (radon flux and stability) of 40 CFR Part 192. The RAP radon attenuation (barrier) design was based on construction of a compacted clayey soil radon barrier 2 feet (61 cm) thick. The other cover layers were not considered in the radon flux modeling (calculation). The NRC evaluation of this RAD radon barrier design stated that the design must be substantiated by further testing of i materials (during cell construction) and a final long-term radon flux analysis. This is consistent f with the commitment made by DOE in the RAP indicating that "The final cover design will be based on actual measurements of the as-placed contaminated materials and will incorporate any restrictions on the quantities of the radon barrier materials."

During the review, with respect to the above criterion and commitments, NRC staff noted the following:

l

1. The long-term radon flux estimates for the disposal cell in CR calculation 05-691-07-00 were based on very conservative moisture values and conservative diffusion coefficient values for most of the contaminated material. DOE performed sampling and testing of the contaminated material at 22 locations on the cell, at 2-foot depth intervals, to provide radium and radium emanation values for the radon flux model. Because the Cheney disposal cell has a large area (22 acre cell-closure hole) on top that is still receiving contaminated material, and will not be covered until 2023, DOE used assumed values in

)

Cheney CRR 6 May 1998

(

~

\

j i

l l the flux model for this incoming material, based on limited testing of previously stockpiled

, vicinity property material. These assumed values were used for 2 to 20 feet of material for 11 of the 22 locations modeled. The cell side slopes were not modeled because they are composed mainly of clean-fill dikes and the full cover extends 20 feet over the dike material, as indicated in CR drawing 10-0221.

1 l 2. The DOE model resulted in a calculated average long-term radon flux of 3.6 pCi/m 2/s from ,

the radon barrier. The NRC staff performed a radon flux analysis, assuming more j conservative values for the incoming material. The results indicated that the average cell radon flux would still be substantially below the 20 pCi/m2/s limit.

3. The staff noted that the as-built data as of August 1994 (CR Appendix E), indicated that higher values of compaction were achieved than required in the construction

, specifications. This increased density would provide additional radon attenuation. Also, the final cover design includes, in addition to the radon barrier,1.5 feet (45.5 cm) of j transitional material, 0.5 foot (15 cm) of sand bedding,2 feet (61 cm) of frost barrier, and j the rock erosion mtection Isyer. This material will provide additional radon attention. I

4. Radon flux measurements on the radon barrier will not be completed until the radon barrier is complete when the " cell-closure" hole is filled, or 2023, whichever is sooner. The data for the initial 55 measurements resulted in an average flux of 0.3 pCi/m s. This value supports the conclusion that the radon attenuation cover design is conservative.

Based on this information and the findings discussed under Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of this CRR, that the integrity of the radon barrier will not be significantly degraded for the design life of the cell, the staff concludes that there is adequate assurance that the long-term radon flux standard of 20 pCi/m2/s will be met at the Cheney disposal cell.

3.2.4 Water Resources Protection The NRC staff reviewed the construction activities conducted during the performance of remedial actions that relate to groundwater resource protection. During its review, the NRC staff noted the following:

DOE provided abandonment schedules for thirteen wells at the disposal site; however, no as-built drawings showing the locations of these wells were provided in the CR. DOE should provide as-built drawings and confirmation that the well abandonments were performed. These drawings should also include the location of any wells or piezometers which are still serviceable.

4.0

SUMMARY

Based on the above observations and on the results of on-site reviews conducted by staff during site cleanup, the NRC staff has determined that DOE has performed actions at the i

Grand Junction Cheney disposal site in accordance with specifications in the RAP, addenda to l

I Cheney CRR 7 May 1998

the RAP, other supporting documents, and the EPA standards in 40 CFR Part 192, Subparts A-C. With the exception of the cell-closure hole and radon flux measurements for the i completed radon attenuation cover, and information related to groundwater well locataions and

, abandonment schedules, remedial actions are complete for the site. The NRC staff is prepared to concur in the completion of conservation at the Grand Junction Cheney disposal site through August 1994 when DOE provides the above information related to groundwater protection.

5.0 REFERENCES

DOE,1991, Remedial Action Plan and Site Design for Stabilization of the inactive Uranium Mill Tailings Site at Grand Junction, Colorado: U.S. Department of Energy, Final, UMTRA-DOE /AL 050505.0000, September 1991.

DOE,1995, Grand Junction, Colorado, Process Site Completion Report; U.S. Department of Energy, January 1995 DOE,1997, Final Completion Report, Grand Junction, Colorado, Disposal Site, Februa~ 1997.

Contract No. DE-AC04-83AL18796.

MK-Ferguson Company,1991, Remedial Action inspection Plan, Grand Junction, Colorado:

July 1991.

NRC,1994, Final Technical Evaluation Report for the Proposed Remedial Action at the Grand Junction Uranium Mill Tailings Site, Grand Junction, Colorado: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l Commission, July 1994.

I 1

l l

Cheney CRR 8 May 1998

APPENDIX A l

l NRC SITE VISITS TO THE GRAND JUNCTION DISPOSAL SITE (CHENEY RESERVOIR DISP SAL SITE) 1 l

u A

Cheney CRR May 1998

APPENDIX A NRC SITE VISITS TO THE GRAND JUNCTION DISPOSAL SITE (CHENEY RESERVOIR DISPOSAL SITE)

DATE NAMEmTLE PURPOSE 08/02/88 S. Wastler/ Project Manager Site review J. Cf;mm/ Geologist L. Deering/ Hydrologist 06/15/89 D. Gillen/ Project Manager Discuss approach for T. Johnson / Surface Water Hydrologist remedial action M. Weber /Geotechnical Engineer M. Fliegel/

09/05/89 J. Grimm / Geologist Site review 05/02/90 D. Gillen/ Project Manager Site review T. Johnson / Surface Water hydrologist A. Fan  ;

J. Gilray/ Quality Assurance Specialist i 1

08/13/90 D. Gillen/ Project Manager Site review T. Johnson / Surface Water Hydrologist

, A. Fan /

10/24/90 M. Thaggard/Hydrogeologist Site review 0S/19/91 D. Gillen, Section Leader Construction review 08/20/91 C. Gillen/Section Leader Construction review D, Rom /Geotechnical Engineer M. Layton/ Hydrologist A. Mullins/ Project Manager '

R. Miller / Health Physicist  ;

Cheney CRR A-1 May 1998 I

s

6/16/92 D. Rom, Geotechnical Engineer Construction review T. Johnson, Surface Water Hydrologist M. Al-Hussaini/Geotechnical Engineer 08/04/93 D. Pom, Geotechnical Engineer Construction review 1

06/13/95 C. Abrams/ Project Manager Site review D. Gillen/ Assistant Branch Chief J. Holonich/ Branch Chief Cheney CRR A-2 May 1998

(.

l APPENDIX B UMTRCA, THE EPA STANDARDS, AND THE PHASED UMTRA PROJECT Cheney CRR May 1998 1

APPENDIX B UMTRCA, THE EPA STANDARDS, AND THE PHASED UMTRA PROJECT Title i of UMTRCA defines the statutory authority and roles of the DOE, the NRC, and the EPA with regard to the remedial action program for inactive uranium mill tailings sites.

The Standards UMTRCA charged the EPA with the responsibility for promulgating remedial action standards for inactive uranium mill sites. The purpose of these standards is to protect the public health and safety and the environment from radiological and non-radiological hazards associated with -

radioactive materials at the sites. UMTRCA required that EPA promulgate these standards by no later than October 1,1982. After October 1,1982, if the EPA had not promulgated .

standards in final form, DOE was to comply witn the standards proposed by EPA under Title I of UMTRCA until such time as the EPA had promulgated its standards in final form.

The final EPA standards were promulgated with an effective date of March 7,1983 (48 EB 602; January 5,1983); see 40 CFR Part 192 - Standards for Remedial Actions at inactive Uranium Processing Sites, Subparts A, B, and C. These regulations may be summarized as follows:

1. The disposal site shall be designed to control the tailings and other residual radioactive materials for up to 1000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years (40 CFR 192.02(a)).

2. - The disposal site shall provide reasonable assurance radon-222 from residual radioactive material to the atmosphere will not exceed an average release rate of 20 picocuries per square meter per second, or will not increase the annual average concentration of radon-222 in air, at or above any location outside the disposal site, by more than one-half picocurie per liter [40 CFR 192.02(b)].

3. The remedial action shall be conducted so as to provide reasonable assurance that, as a result of residual radioactive materials from any designated processing site, the concentrations of radium-226 in land averaged over any area of 100 square meters shall not exceed the background level by more than 5 picocuries/ gram averaged over the first 15 centimeters of soil below the surface and 15 picocuries/ gram averaged over 15 centimeter thick layers of soil more than 15 centimeters below the surface [40 CFR 192.12(a)).

4. The objective of remedial action involving buildings shall be, and reasonable effort shall be made to achieve, an annual average (or equivalent) radon decay product concentration (including background) not to exceed 0.02 WL and the level of gamma radiation shall not exceed the background level by more than 20 microroentgens per hour [40 CFR 192.12(b)].

5. The portion of the EPA standards dealing with groundwater requirements,40 CFR 192.20 (a)(2)-(3) were remanded by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on September 3,1985.

Based on this court decision, EPA was directed to promulgate new groundwater standards.

Cheney CRR B-1 May 1998

l EPA proposed these standards in the form of revisions to Subparts A-C of 40 CFR Part 192

,in September 1987, and the final groundwater standards were promulgated January 11, 1995.

Before groundwater standards were finalized, as manated by Section 108(a)(3) of UMTRCA, the remedial actions at the inactive uranium processing sites were to comply with EPA's l proposed standards until such time as the final standards are promulgated. DOE performed remedial action at the inactive processing sites in accordance with NRC's concurrence with the remedial action approach based on the proposed EPA groundwater standards (52 EB 36000; September 24,1987). Delaying implementation of the remedial action program would be

' inconsistent with Congress' intent of timely completion of the program. Modifications of disposal sites after completion of the remedial action to comply with EPA's final groundwater protection standards may be unnecessarily complicated and expensive and may not yield commensurate benefits in terms of human and environmental protection. Therefore, the Commission believes that sites where remedial action has been essentially completed prior to EPA's promulgation of final groundwater standards will not be impacted by the final groundwater standards. Although additional effort may be appropriate to asser nd clean up contaminated groundwater at these sites, the existing designs of the disposal sites should be considered sufficient to provide long-term protection against future groundwater contamination.

NRC does not view UMTRCA as requiring the reopening of those sites that have been substantially completed when NRC concurred with the selection of remedial action in accordance with applicable EPA standards, proposed or otherwise in place at the time such NRC concurrence was given.

DOE Selection (Desian) Phase For each site, UMTRCA requires that DOE select a plan of remedial action that will satisfy the EPA standards and other applicable laws and regulations, and with which the NRC will concur.

For each site, this phase includes preparation by DOE of an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement, and a Remedial Action Plan (RAP). The RAP is structured to provide a comprehensive understanding of the remedial actions proposed at that site and contains specific design and construction requirements. To complete the first phase, NRC and -

the appropriate State or Indian tribe will review the RAP and then concur that the RAP will meet L

' the EPA standards.

The Performance (Construction) Phase in this phase the actual remedial action (which includes decontamination, decommissioning, and reclamation) at the site is done in accordance with the RAP. The NRC and the State / indica tribe, as applicable, must concur in any changes to the concurred-in plan that arise during construction. At the completion of remedial action activities at the site, NRC concurs in DOE's determination that the activities at the site have been completed in accordance with the approved plan. Prior to licensing (the next phase), title to the disposed tailings and contaminated materials must be transferred to the United States and the land upon which they are disposed of must be in Federal custody to provide for long-term Federal control. Disposal

. sites on Indian land will remain in the beneficial ownership of the Indian tribe.

l l

l Cheney CRR B-2 May 1998

i 1

NRC concurrence in the DOE determination that remedial action at a processing site has been ,

accomplished in accordance with the approved plan may be accomplished in two steps where  !

residual radioactive material is not being moved from the processing site to a different disposal site. The Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Amendments Act of 1988 allows for a two-step approach for Title I disposal sites. The Amendments Act will allow DOE to do all remedial actions, other than groundwater restoration, for the first step of closure and licensing. The second step, which can go on for many years, will deal with existing groundwater restoration.

When groundwater restoration is completed, the Long-Term Surveillance Plan required under the licensing phase will be appropriately amended. For sites that are being moved, licensing will occur in one step. There is no groundwater restoration at the disposal site and the processing site will not be licensed after completion of remedial action.

The Licensino Phase Title I of UMTRCA further requires that, upon completion of the remedial action program by DOE, the permanent disposal sites be cared for by the DOE or other Federal agency designated by the P~ ddent, under a license issued by the Commission. DOE will receive a general license under 10 CFR Part 40.27 following: (1) NRC concurrence in the DOE determination that the disposal site has been properly reclaimed, and (2) the formal receipt by NRC of an acceptable Long-Term Surveillance Plan (LTSP). NRC concurrence with DOE's performance of the remedial action indicates that DOE has demonstrated that the remedial l action complies with the provisions of the EPA standards in 40 CFR Part 192, Subparts A, B, and C. This NRC concurrence may be completed in two steps as discussed above. There is no termination date for the general license.

Public involvement has been and will continue to be provided through DOE's overall remedial action program for Title I sites. The local public will have an opportunity to comment on the remedial action or closure plans proposed and implemented by DOE and to raise concerns regarding final stabilization and the degree of protection achieved. NRC fully endorses State / Indian tribe and public input in all stages of the program. At th, time the LTSP is submitted, the NRC will consider the need for a public meeting in response to requests and public concerns.

The Surveillance and Monitorino Phase in this phase, DOE and NRC periodically inspect the disposal site to ensure its integrity. The LTSP will require the DOE to make repairs, if needed.

One of the requirements in the EPA standards is that control of the tailings should be designed to be effective for up to 1000 years without active maintenance. Although the design of the stabilized pile is such that reliance on active maintenance should be minimized or eliminated, the NRC license wil; require emergency repairs as necessary. In the event that significant '

repairs are necessary, a determination will be made on a site specific basis regarding the need for additional National Environmental Policy Act actions, and health and safety considerations based on 10 CFR Parts 19,20, and 21. l Cheney CRR B-3 May 1998 l

l l

l

,