ML23108A037

Cimarron Environmental Response Trust NRC Schedule for Review of License Amendment Request

ML23108A037
Person / Time
Site:	07000925
Issue date:	04/17/2023
From:	Halliburton B Environmental Properties Management
To:	John Marshall Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Document Control Desk
References
Download: ML23108A037 (1)

Text

April 17, 2023

Ms. Jane Marshall U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738

Re: Docket No. 07000925; License No. SNM-928 Cimarron Environmental Response Trust NRC Schedule for Review of License Amendment Request

Dear Ms. Marshall:

Solely as Trustee for the Cimarron Environmental Response Trust (CERT), Environmental Properties Management LLC (EPM) herein addresses some concerns regarding the schedule for the review and issuance of a license amendment approving Facility Decommissioning Plan - Rev 3 (the D-Plan). In a letter dated March 30, 2023, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) accepted the D-Plan for detailed technical review.

EPM acknowledges that NRC policy provides up to 24 months from the acceptance of a decommissioning plan to issuance of a license amendment. EPM also recognizes that James Smith, NRC Project Manager for the Cimarron license, provided a schedule that reduces that schedule to 21 months, and his effort to expedite the process to this degree is much appreciated.

However, EPM believes that the unique circumstances surrounding the evolution of the D-Plan warrant a much more significant reduction in the time required to achieve the desired amended license. The D-Plan is the third revision of a plan to remediate groundwater to reduce the concentration of uranium to less than the concentration stipulated in license SNM-928.

Throughout the several revisions of the decommissioning plan, there has been no substantial change in the treatment process (removal of uranium via ion exchange) or the processing, packaging, and disposal of low-level radioactive waste (primarily spent ion exchange resin). The primary revisions to the decommissioning plan were the removal of groundwater remediation from areas containing uranium at concentrations below the NRC criterion and nitrate; such changes have no bearing on radiation safety. Other revisions (related to environmental assessment or radiation safety) were base d on multiple NRC reviews (both acceptance and detailed technical reviews). Attachment 1 provides more detailed information on the revisions and reviews of the Trusts decommissioning plans.

Each time the decommissioning plan was revised, NRC review of the document was performed as though it were a new plan which had not been previously reviewed. The decommissioning plan has now been through three acceptance reviews, one pre-application audit, and one detailed technical review. As time progresses and available funding declines, the NRC must streamline the review and EA/SER development process to the maximum extent reasonable.

9400 Ward Parkway

• Kansas City, MO 64114 Tel: 405-642-5152

• jlux@envpm.com

The schedule in the March 30 letter provides NRC six months to issue environmental review for RAIs and to issue safety review RAIs. Considering NRC has already reviewed the decommissioning plan multiple times (including one detailed technical review), it is hard to imagine it will require six months to c onduct that review yet one more time.

It is also difficult to believe that RAIs could be very numerous or significant after having responded to multiple requests for supplemental information related to both the Environmental Assessment (EA) and the Safety Evaluation Report (SER).

The schedule provides NRC five months after receiving responses to RAIs to draft the EA (presumably also the SER). EPM requests that NRC prepare a draft EA and a draft SER concurrent with its technical reviews to issue RAIs. RAIs should be minimal, and it will take far less time to modify draft versions of the EA and SER after receiving EPMs responses to RAIs than to start from scratch after waiting to receive responses to RAIs.

Maintaining compliance with the license and other on-going expenditures (including administrative expenses) averages nearly $100,000 per month if field work and design work are minimal. Because design drawings and specifications will be advanced to issue for bid status as soon as RAIs have been received and evaluated, those expenditures will increase significantly.

The NRC is one of the primary beneficiaries of the Cimarron Trust. As the NRCs Trustee, EPM must advise the NRC that it is in the NRCs interest to make the review / RAI / license amendment process as efficient as possible. It is in both the NRCs and the public interest to preserve as much of the available funding as possible for the actual remediation of groundwater.

EPM requests that NRC management encourage NRC staff to re-evaluate the most recent schedule and fast-track the issuing of a license amendment as described above. EPM believes it would be easy to reduce the schedule by five to six months, which would save over a half a million dollars that can be spent on remediation. EPM suggests a working meeting between all the necessary stakeholders to develop a strategy to expedite the review and license amendment process. EPM looks forward to receiving your feedback on this issue.

Sincerely,

Bill Halliburton Trust Administrator

Cc: Bill Von Till, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, DUWP James Smith, NRC Project Manager Kelly Dixon, Director, DEQ Land Protection Division Paul Davis, DEQ Project Manager

9400 Ward Parkway

• Kansas City, MO 64114 Tel: 405-642-5152

• jlux@envpm.com

ATTACHMENT 1 REVISION AND REVIEW OF CIMARRON ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE TRUST FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLANS

ATTACHMENT 1 REVISION AND REVIEW OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLANS

2015 - Facility Decommissioning Plan Facility Decommissioning Plan was submitted to the NRC on December 31, 2015. In a letter dated April 7, 2016, the NRC accepted Facility Decommissioning Plan for detailed technical review (ML16154A741). In a letter dated February 9, 2017 (10 months later), the NRC issued requests for additional inform ation (RAIs) based on the detailed technical review (ML16336A198). EPM submitted a preliminary response to RAIs in a letter dated March 21, 2017, and a final response in a letter dated May 25, 2017 (ML17150A495).

Revision of the decommissioning plan required pilot testing to test the capacity of subsurface material to deliver impacted groundwater for transmission to a water treatment facility and, in other areas, to receive treated water that would be injected to drive contaminated water to extraction components. The pilot test cost several million dollars and extended into 2018.

2018 - Facility Decommissioning Plan - Rev 1 Facility Decommissioning Plan - Rev 1 (Rev 1 herein) was submitted to the NRC on November 2, 2018 (ML19352E486). In a letter dated February 28, 2019, the NRC accepted Rev 1 for detailed technical review (ML19056A515). The letter included a schedule for the NRC staff review showing that RAIs would be issued by July 15, 2019 (approximately 5 months after acceptance of the decommissioning plan), and appr oval of the decommissioning plan in October 2020 (20 months after acceptance of the decommissioning plan).

Christine Pineda reviewed Rev 1 for issues related to the environmental assessment. Ron Burrows reviewed Rev 1 for issues related to the safety evaluation. Lifeng Guo reviewed Rev 1 for issues related to hydrogeology and groundwater modeling.

The acceptance letter included a request for supplemental informati on To expedite the detailed technical review (ML19056A514). EPM met with the NRC and the DEQ on March 4-5, 2019, to discuss issues associated with the request for supplemental information. During those meetings, EPM, the NRC, and the DEQ identified potential issues related to the impact of technetium-99 (Tc-99) on waste and on compliance with discharge criteria.

In letters dated April 18, 2019, the NRC requested consultation from both the Oklahoma Historical Societys State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Oklahoma Archeological Surveys State Archaeologist (accession numbers ML19093A051, ML19093A052, and ML19106A245). It was determined that a cultural resources survey would be required prior to approval of the decommissioning plan.

EPM submitted an evaluation of the impact of Tc-99 on influent, effluent, and waste in a letter dated May 3, 2019 (ML19126A052). It was determined that it was likely that the Tc-99 would be present in the biosolids generated by biodenitrification at detectable concentrations. Oklahomas statutes prohibit disposal of radioactive material in Oklahoma, and the cost impact associated

Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 REVISION AND REVIEW OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLANS

with the disposal of large quantities of biosolids would make it impossible to achieve the NRC criterion for groundwater if groundwater remediation included treatment for both nitrate and uranium.

Several factors resulted in the need to submit a second revision of the decommissioning plan.

The most significant factors were:

1. Treatment for nitrate and disposal of the waste generated by the biodenitrification process needed to be removed from the decommissioning plan.

2. A report on the cultural resources survey needed to be incorporated into the decommissioning plan.

3. Discussion with both NRC and DEQ personnel resulted in a decision to initially remediate only those areas in which uranium concentrations exceed the NRC Criterion, but to provide for potential expansion to areas in which uranium concentrations exceed the State Criterion.

The cultural resource survey was completed with the submission of Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Cimarron Environmental Response Trust Property on June 14, 2020 (ML20199M159). After review by State and Federal agencies, the report was revised and submitted to the NRC on September 9, 2020 (ML20254A140).

2021 - Facility Decommissioning Plan - Rev 2 EPM submitted reviewed Facility Decommissioning Plan - Rev 2 (Rev 2) on February 26, 2021 (ML21076A479). Rev 2 proposed a phased approach to groundwater remediation, as described in #3 above. In a letter dated August 11, 2021 (ML21193A181), the NRC notified EPM that Rev 2 could not be accepted for detailed technical review. The letter included two enclosures: a request for supplemental information (RSI) (ML21193A179) and a request for clarification (ML21193A180).

Ms. Pineda reviewed Rev 2 for issues related to the environmental assessment. Mr. Burrows reviewed Rev 2 for issues related to the safety evaluation. Lifeng Guo had been replaced by John Saxton, who reviewed Rev 2 for issues related to hydrogeology and groundwater modeling. The letter and enclosures required information on the three following issues:

Confusion about the phased approach to decommissioning. The NRC was concerned that Rev 2 did not provide a single path to license termination.

The hydrogeologist believed the groundwater flow model presented in Rev 2 did not adequately predict the duration of remediation.

Submittal dates for a number of referenced documents that did not agree with the document date shown in ADAMS.

Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 REVISION AND REVIEW OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLANS

Removing a potential second phase of decommissioning, revising groundwater flow models, removing remediation infrastructure and biodenitrification systems, and more, so changed the text, figures, tables, and drawings that a third revision was necessary.

2023 - Facility Decommissioning Plan - Rev 3 Mr. Smith recommended that EPM submit a draft of Facility Decommissioning Plan - Rev 3 (Rev 3 herein) to the NRC, based on the idea that a pre-application audit could expedite the review process. EPM submitted Rev 3 on November 29, 2021 (no accession number, as this was an informal submittal).

Ms. Pineda reviewed the draft Rev 3 for issues related to the environmental assessment. Mr.

Burrows reviewed the draft Rev 3 for issues related to the safety evaluation. Mr. Saxton reviewed the draft Rev 3 for issues related to hydrogeology and groundwater modeling.

In a letter dated January 31, 2022, the NRC responded to the submittal of draft Rev 3 (ML22031A178). Mr. Burrows and Mr. Saxton generated requests for clarification or supplemental information (ML22031A175 and ML22031A177). EPM requested clarification on some of the requests for info rmation via email on February 1, 2022 (not in ADAMS), and the NRC provided clarification via email on February 4, 2022.

EPM incorporated all the requested information in Rev 3 and submitted it on October 12, 2022 (ML22287A079). Missing pages or inadvertent references to proprietary or confidential information were identified in some files and the last file was submitted to the NRC on October 26, 2022 (ML22299A119).

Page 3 of 3