ML20248C630
| ML20248C630 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/03/1986 |
| From: | Heyer R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248C571 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-89-242 NUDOCS 8908100107 | |
| Download: ML20248C630 (8) | |
Text
[% p. ;-i MP:ni 6/! iM CO'c/Ca , l
- f) I M il t} (CUT 5z6L &GMA-UJoe0,RM M ~
h p
ua -
APR 3 h..o mr gg 3
MEMORANDUM FOR: Colorado Files i I FROM: Ralph S. Heyer, Health Physicist !
State and Governmental Affairs Staff, Region IV
SUBJECT:
STATE RESPONSE TO NRC LETTER OF FINDINGS SUBSEQUENT TO THE 1985 REVIEW OF THE COLORADO RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM l
BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION:
On October 25, 1985, the NRC completed the 1985 review of the Colorado Radiation Control Program and provided written comments and recommendations to the State by letter dated December 4, 1985, (Enclosure 1). ;
On February 4, 1986, the State responded to two Category I and three Category II indicators identified during the program review (Enclosure 2). ;
On March 28, 1986, the NRC provided the State of Colorado with a letter i offering a finding of adequacy and compatibility (Enclosure 3). The following i discussion provides additional information relating to the subjects in the State's response letter. The State and Governmental Affairs Staff (SGAS) plans to discuss the State's progress, cencerning some of these subjects with the ,
Colorado Radiation Control Program Management at a later time. j i
DISCUSSION: ,
The Febcuary 4, 1986, response letter from Colorado provided specific !
information to the two Category I and three Category 11 comments identified during the program review. The Radiation Control Division's (RCD) answers to our comments addressed our primary concerns and appeared acceptable. The ,
letter also expressed concern regarding the basis for a Category I comment with respect to the licensing actions and the quality of regulatory work as related to staffing level. A response to the State's concerns are briefly discussed in the following paragraphs.
i
- 1. " Technical Quality of Licensing Actions," a Category I Indicator.
l The Category I comment for the four licensing action items identified under this indicator was developed because several comments were reported and identified at one time or another during previous reviews. Again, we
- reiterate that while each comment taken separately did not denote a significant Category I comment we believed that t'se number of comments and RIV:SGAS C:SGA!(
RSHeyer;ap RJDoda i , j 9 /l /86 p/j/86 l 8908100107 090B01 y PDR FOIA BOLOTIN99-242 PDR
- e tof Memorandum For Colorado File -2 -
the repeating nature of some of the comments concerning this indicator appropriately justified a Category I comment. It should be noted that the l
-RCD's response to each of'the four comments were reviewed and subsequently found acceptable.
.a. Our comment regarding the May 22, 1984, PELRS for Uravan, was not CE ~~
intended to. request the RCD to conduct any actions contrary to the State's regulations but only to encourage the RCD to recognize that this document is dated and may not provide current support to the-RCD's actions without substantive and updated documentation. The RCD's statement that the PELRS cannot be revised was appropriate
'since our comment was not clearly written on this point.
- b. With respect to our comments relating to the implementation of *E- -
40 CFR 192, we acknowledged the State's efforts and supported a timely resolution to the CERCLA litigation. It was recommended that subsequent to resolution of the CERCLA litigation, a determination be made by the RCD with respect to actions necessary to be taken to assume proper ground water monitoring, restoration and cleanup activities, as they relate to 40 CFR 192, are implemented.*
- 2. " Staffing Level," a Category IT Indicator e; -
Our comment;regarding this indicator was intended as an observation and caution since RCD's staff involvement in CERLA related activities has noticeably increased. The reviewers concerns focused on the decrease in staff years dedicated to the uranium mill regulatory program, which was 1.7 staff years, identified during the previous review, to .97 staff years. 'The decrease in the RCD's staff resources was the primary concern addressed in the comment letter. We recognized the increased effort ass-'tated with the CERCLA activities and the extraordinary amount of sts. esources utilized; however, we continue to believe that specific manai .ent attention should be directed toward the decrease in staff effort dedicated to the uranium mill regulatory program. Our concern focused on the lack o.f completeness and timeliness of certain documents (as was addressed under the " Technical Quality of Licensing Actions" indicator) and not the quality of regulatory work.*
Based on our overall review, the State's response to the Category I and Category II comments indicated above, and the routine exchange of information between the State and NRC, we believe the Colorado radiation cortrol program is
- These issues will be discussed with the RCD management in July 1986, to review the status of the RCD progress as committed to in the state's response letter.
$! co.-
u ao ..
a l::
If M:morandum'For Colorado File p, adequate to protect the public health'and safety'and is compatible with the i NRC's/ program for.the regulation of similar materials. This conclusion was otated in the. letter to Dr. Vernon, dated March 28, 1986.
1 l
~
Ralph S. Heyer Health Physicist
Enclosures:
1)': December 4, 1985 letter to Dr; Vernon 2)' ' February 4, 1986 letter.to Mr. Martin
- 3) . March-28, 1986 letter to Dr. Vernon bec w/ enclosures:
- R. D.iA. Dale Nussbaumer, Smith, URFO.- OSP [
D. M. Sollenberger, NMSS ,
l.
bec w/o enclosures:
R.-D. Martin
'P. S. Check ,
R.'J. Doda
'G. F.-Sanborn R. S. Heyer 9
';, . ' ' % l. * '
> ,, "V,- ". . .
,. .2 Li. g 4; men 4 645 W,ef
~
- f. i O o r co 9 .n- 0 '
/&
sr%Y y
e' s
...bq.4. 4 e
. o CC1 ORADO .OEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Richard D. Lamm Govemor
'4 J676 W'44 Thomas M. Vernon, M.D.
Executive Director December 5, 1985 Sheldon Meyers, Acting Director Office of Radiation Programs (ANR-4' $)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc Washington, DC Re: Colorado Status of 40 CFR 194, Arts D & E ,
Dear Mr. Meyers:
}
In response to 7our letter of October 23, 1985, the fon owing is provided regarding commercial uranium mills in Colorado.
Following receipt of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) legal advisory to address the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (IPA) active min standards on an ad bec basis, Colorado adopted a policy which implemented the
~
EPA standards carte'ITanc. The State is thus regulating uranium' impoundments in a manner highly consistent with the Colorado Hazardous Waste Regulations (1985), by which 40 CFR 260 through 267 are implemented in Colorado. A copy of the February 1984 policy is enclosed.
The State of Colorado'.s z.in regulations are more stringent than EPA's standards or NRC's regulations in at least 'two (2) respects. With regard ' to design criteria for cover, the design must be effective for thousands of years and meet a 2 pCi Radon-222/m 2 .see criterion. With regard to groundwater, an existing facility shan not contaminate off-site groundwater and a new facility. shall not degrade any waters.
Umetco Minerals Corporation has proposed new waste disposal facilities for their Ursvan operation. 'lhe Radiation Control Division, fonoving adjudicatory hearings, is currently reviewing Umecco's proposal using all applicable criteria and standards.
Cotter Corporation's Canon City facility is currently up for license renewal.
All applicable criteria and atandards win be used in reviewing and taking appropriate licensing action.
6
h Sheldon Meyers, EPA
{. l --
4 i
December 5,1985
- ]
4 Page Two j J
Specifically with regard to detection monitoring programs, ground water '-
1 monitoring systems capable of detecting indications of hazardous cons tituents were in place on October 1, 1984 at all commercial uranium mill sites in
[
j Colorado. In fact, at Canon City we anticipate deleting or replacing a number of sampling locations, preferring quality over quantity.
I as sure that you cre aware that the State of Colorado has sued both Cotter and Union Carbide Corporation for natural resource damages under Section 107 of CERCIA for their respective operations at Canon City and Uravac. Also the State of Colorado is currectly seeking adoption of statewide groundwater standards that will aleo be applicable to uranium mills and mill tailings.
Because of the lawsuits and the effort to adopt groundwater standards, we have not actively pursued greater formalization of the matter of 40 CFR 192.32 i (a)(2)(iii). Actions to implement such provisions may complicate the lawstrit situation unnecessarily. In fact, for these facilities the minimum monitoring
{
effort required by the EPA standards may be a moot issue due to more demanding {
court decrees. As lawsuits are involved, further discussion of matters l pertinent will not be provided herein.
All of the active uranium tailings piles have existing p1*ns for reclamation and stabilization. We are now on our second round of reviews and approvals in the context of license renewals.
With regard _ to 40 CFR 192.32 (a)(1) (liners), I have already mentioned tne :.ew waste impoundments proposed by Union Carbidc/Umetco. If, following final i evaluation of the written record, the State determines that the action called for is approval of a reconfigure design, we will be glad to discuss consideration of your standards, including 40 CFR 192.32 (a)(2)(iv).
I am sorry for having to address your request so generally. Due to the constraints of formal governmental deliberative process for licensing actions and due to the legal constraints of being involved with major lawsuits regarding both Canon City and Uravan, I am unable to respond with greater specificity at this time.
I would reques t, since Colorado is under agreement with the NRC regarding regulatory control under UMrRCA, Title II, that your review of 40 CFR 192 )
implementation be conducted through the Office of State Programs, NRC.
We believe this to be the proper protocol based on respective regulatory responsibilities. ,
, Sincerely, l
bert J. Haz eg Director Radiation Control Division AJH/ms cc* Nussbaumer -
Robert Doda 1 H. Lammering 1
__ __ _ i
..L , . .
f _ f" . . . , - _
h, * ,, .. .,, .. ... .....a I.
&, Radiation Control Division Lc ~ Pa ne -1 of 3' _
Rovininn: 0 Approved By: %te: Effective: 02/01/84 y< q a -
POLICY ON RULES y0R DISPOSAL OF TAILINGS AND OTHER WASTES AT SOURCE MATERIAL MILLS .
Purpnne ,
l' To provide clear guidance, in the face of recent federal rules changes,
, concerning standards to be applied in licensing reviews and compliance determinations for waste disposal systems at uranium ai31s in Colorado.
Basis The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated
- Aenerally-spplicable standards, which became effective December 6,1983, for Lcetive commercial uranium and thorium mills (40 CFR 192).1 The U.S. Nuclear ReEulatory Commission (URC) is required 'to implement and enforce the new EPA ctandards and must conforn NRC rules (10 CFR 40)2 to them. Agreement States, and thus Colorado, are required to adopt standards which are (quivalent, to the extent practicable, or more stringent than, the NRC and EPA otandards for uranlun hyproduct material.3 The State may adopt alternatives (including, where appropriate,' site-specific alternatives) to the requirements adopted and enforced by NRC if such citernatives will achieve a level of stabilization and containment of the sites concerned, and a leve.! of protection for public health, safety,'and the environment f rom radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with such cites, which is equivalent tn, to the extent practicable, or more stringent than th'e level which would he achieved by str.ndards and requirements adopted and_eeforced by NFC and EPA.'
A hasic premise of this policy is that, until clarified by Colorado rulemaking, the standard more protective of human health and the environment nust apply in cases where a new federal rule and existing Colorado rules
- appear to conflict.
In reaching the determinations which follow, the Department continues to cdhere to the primary objective for Colorado of providing reasonable assurance that potentially harmful contaminants remain well confined for the long tern.
Clarification of Standards:
In accord with the criteria in Schedule E. Part III of the Radiation Rules 5, the gentechnien1 design atnndards for waste manarenent systems at source rmterial mills in Colorado are reaffirmed to include:
'). That sites he chosen where isolation of tailings and assock'sted contaminants f rom the public and the environment can be reasonably arsured for at least 1001 years.6,7
- 2. That the primary method for achieving long-term containment must emphasize superior site characteristics, to minimize the* potential *
- impacts of natural forces, ar.d sust rely on passive control rather
- than active maintenance, to maintain continued safe confinement of the, contaminants.8 ,
-____.___E_____ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _
-c , + '
.z , - . . ~ - . .
.s v _
i q- .
Colorado Department 'of Health a Radiation Control Df vision - ,
.(
1 i Pa ge - 2 of--3 Revision 0 Ef fective: 02/017ET POLICY ON RULES FOR ' DISPOSAL OF TAILINGS AND OTHER WASTES AT SOURCE MATERIAL MILLS-cont. . .
- 3. That potential' disruption by natural force = be limited by
, site / design features suf ficient to withstand maximum credible events,
, in particular, the probable maximum flood and maximum credible earthquake, and to withstand active geomorphic-processes, auch as gullying and river meander.9,10 1's ,
'4. 'That initial mobility of contaminants be limited by " process" and "in situ". dewatering and neutralization and by natural site
~ characteristics.11 .
In accord with EPA's 40 CFR'192, the ground water protection standards in .
' ef fect af ter December 6,1983 for waste management systems at source. 44aterial-mills in Colorado include: -
- 5. 'That operations be conducted consistent with the Colorado , Hazardous l Waste Regulations 12, Part 264, Sec. 92-94, 100, Ill, and 221, and
' provisions referenced in the above sections but found in Part 264, Sec.112-120,' 222 and 228, and Part 26', Sec.12 and 13.
6.' Consistent with 40 CFR 192, that for uranium and molybdenum the numerical concentration requiring corrective action be the background '
- concentration determined on site-specific basis.
In accord with Division policy 13.14, the radio 1ogical standards fcr cleanup and inng-term care of source material n111 wastes in Colorado-include:
- 7. That radioactive and toxic contaminants in surface or buried deposits not part of a final disposal area be removed to consolidated disposal and the areas be cleaned up to background ranges wherever possible.15
- 8. That long-tetu confinement be designed to limit average radon releases from the tailings or wastes to 2 pCi/m2-s in any year for 1000 years and that an anbient radon perfomance standard of 0.5 pCi/L above hackground be met at the controlled area boundary at any time following stah111 stion.16 A list of general steps to be taken by Department staff and written guidelines for technical reviewers will be made available. Licensees are to decemine and document that present plans, operations and actions are not in conflict with statements 1-R above. In addition to provisions of the Radiation Rules in place, information submitted in support of licensing requests is to be suf ficient to demonstrate conformance with statements 1-8 above. ,
Exemptions or exceptions will be determined by the Department in accord with R!l 1.7 of the Radiation Rules.
Rules revisions by NRC or EPA prior to appropriate Colorado Radiation Rules
- amendments will be duly considered as provided by the Colorado Radiation Control Act and Colorado Administrative Procedure Act and the Radiation Rules.
,e 1 4
pl l .
i I. h O.7 f p q _ . . . . .
l Colorado Department of Health i
- f. Radiation Control Division rage J of 3 Revision 0 E f f ect i ve 02/01/84 POLIbY ON RULES FOR DISPOSAL OF TAILINGS AND OTHER LfASTES AT SOURCE MATERIAL MI LL5 -c on t .
FOOTNOTES -
- l. .
- 1. 48 FR 45926-45947, October 7, 1983
- 2. 45 FR 65521-65538, October 3,1980, . suspended in part.
48 FR 35350-35355, August 4,1983
- 3. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended Sec. 274o, Interpretation of U.S. NRC Of fice of the Executive Legal Director in " Responses to Four ,
Questions Concerning EPA's 40 CFR 192 and Agreement State Implementation The reof" A. pub. L.97-415, Sec.19(a), 96 Stat. 2078
- 5. In particular. Schedule E of Part III, Colorado Rules and Reg .4ations Pertaining to Radiation Cont rol, 6 CCR 1007-1-1 et, seq.
- 6. Criterion 1 of Schedule E, supra
- 7. Recuiremeats for Siting of Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites, July 1,1983,
'6 CCR 1007 2.5.3 g . .
- 8. Criterion 1 of Schedule E, aupra 4 David C. Shelton, Letter to P. Rekemeyer on Seismic Risk Analysis f o Uravan Tailings Ponds, September 13, 1978 10 W. Rahe Junge and Lawrence E. Derman, "An Analysis of Control Standards for the Long-Term Containment of Uranium Tailings", June 1983
- 13. Criterion 5 of Schedule E., supra
- 13. Colorado Department of Health, Radiation Control Division, " Policy en Elements of Long-Tern Care Agreements", Revision 1, ef fective October 31, 1983 14 Colorado Department of Health, Radiation Control Division, " Soil Contamination Guidance Policy", Revision 1, ef fective October 31, 1983
- 15. Criterion 2 of Schedule E, supra 16 Criterion 6 of Schedule E, supra e
p e s
__________.__m_ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -