ML20196E327

Forwards Draft Technical Position on Alternate Concentration Limits for U Mills Dtd June 1988 & Fr Notice Re Technical Position on Info Needs to Demonstrate Compliance W/Epa Groundwater Protection Stds

ML20196E327
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/24/1988
From:	Nussbaumer D NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA)
To:	COLORADO, STATE OF
Shared Package
ML20150E008	List: IA-88-514, Forwards Summary of 870224 Meeting on Large Irradiators. Provides Guidance on Licensing of Large Irradiators & as Supplementary Ref Document to Std Review Plan for Applications for Licenses for Use of Different Irradiators ML20150E005 ML20196E152 ML20196E202 ML20196E250 ML20196E287 ML20196E327 ML20196E405 ML20196E424 ML20196E591 ML20196E703 ML20196E736 ML20196E820 ML20196E833 ML20196E865 ML20196E882 ML20196E897
References
FOIA-88-514 NUDOCS 8812090317
Download: ML20196E327 (1)

Text

. .

. M. /4

. /hd JUN14 W Ref: SA/JFK -

COLORADO TEXAS WASHINGTON TECHNICAL POSITION ON ALTERNATE CONCENTRATION LIMITS (ACL'S) FOR URANIUM MILLS AND A FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE ABOUT THE BRANCH TECHNICAL POSITION ON INFORMATION NEEDS TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH EPA'S PROPOSED GROUNDWATER PROTECTION STAhDARDS Enclosed for your infomation and coment is a copy of the Draf t Technical Position on Alternate Cor. centration Limits for Uranium Hills, dated June 1988, and a Federal Register Notice about an NRC Branch Technical Pesition on liifomation heeds to Demonstrate Ccepliance with EPA's Groundwater Protection Standart!s.

In the first rentio.ied document (ACL's), the NRC has requested it to be published in the Federal Register by June 14, 1988. Coments should be provided to the R' Des and~Trocedures Branch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration and Resources Managerent U.S. NRC, Washington, DC 20555.

For further infomation contact: Michael Weber Division of Low Lovel Waste Managerent and Decomissioning, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. NRC, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone (301)492-0565.

Original Signed tf g3110 A. P!SS3AWIE Donald A. Nussbaurer Assistant Director for State Agreements Program State, local and Indian Trt'oe Prograns

Enclosures:

As stated _

G9)20 Q 7 001202 FELTON80-514 PDR

e WM.39/MFW/88/05/31/FRN 1

JUN 10 ,m MEMORANDUM FOR: David L. Meyer, Chief DISTRIBUTION Rules and Procedures Branch central File LLWM s/f Division of Rules and Records ARM LLTB r/f hMSS r/f PBar.gart JGreeves .

fROM: John J. Sunneter, Chief MKnapp JSurmeie: '

Technical Branch RJ$ tanner MWeber Division of Low. Level Waste Management KDragunette JKendig and Decossissioning, HMSS MHaisfield GGnugnol' PDR SU3 JECT: FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE ABOUT THE BRANCH TECHNICAL xe FDTITION7 N INFORMATION HEEDS TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE *N WITH EPA'S PROPOSED GROUhDWATER PROTECTION STANDARDS "

Please find enclosed a Federal _ Register Notice that announces the availability of and request for public corcent on the Branch Technical Position ,

entitled "Draf t Technical Position on Information Needs to Demonstrate Compliar.ce with EPA's Proposed Groundwater Protection Standards." This memorandum transmits the original of the notice and 5 copies in accordance with SECY procedures. The date to be inserted on page two of the notice shculd be 60 days af ter the date of publication in the Federal Register. Also enclosed is a copy of the Technical Position to be forwarded to' the PDR.

Please publish this notice in the Federal Register by June 17, 1988, to avoid delays in irplementing the Technical Position.

I John J. Surmeier, Chief l

Technical Branch Division of Low. Level Waste Management and Decoer.issioning, HMSS

Enclosures:

, 1. Fedreal Register Notice l

2. Ticlin~TeaTPosition

. _ nir sc LLTB I. :LLT5 :LLIF  :  :  :  :

I

. . . . : . . . . $g. . . . : . . . . g. p. . . : . . . . . {. . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . .

I

RJStarmer :JJSurmeie WE Weber  :  :  :  :

LTE tCJ/4 //* :88/4//0 :88/b/l0  :  :  :  :  ;

0FFICIAL~ RECORD COPY

! MNON D _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

l

~

[7590-01]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N Inactive Uranium Mill Facilities

Notice of Availability and Request for Public Comment on a Draf t Technical Position on Information Needs to Demonstrate i Compliance with EPA's Proposed Groundwater Protection Standards l

J AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Request for Public Comment.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (hRC) is announcing the availability of and soliciting public cocrent on a draf t "Technical Position on Inforretion Necds to Demonstrate Corpliance with EPA's Proposed Groundwster Protection Standards in 40 CFR Part 192, Subparts A-C." The Position provides NRC guidance on the types of information and assessments that the NRC staff j l considers acceptable to demonstrate compliance with standards proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for groundwater protection at inactive uranium mill tailings sites. NRC is requesting public corrent on the draft Technical Position before it is finalized, i 1

l .

t (7590-01]

DATE: Consnents un the draf t Technical Position should be submitted by to ensure that the ecsaents are considered by NRC staff in developing the final Technical Position.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the draft Technical Position may be obtained by writing to Michael Weber at Mail Stop SE4, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission, Washington, D.C., 20555. Connents on the draft position should be sent to the Rules and Procedures Branch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Acministration and Resources Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission, Washington, D.C. 2C555, or may be hand delivered to Rocm 4000, Maryland National Bank Building, 7735 Old Georgetown Road, Bethesda, Maryland, between the bours of 7:30 a.m. and 4: 15 p.m. weekdays except Federal holidays. Copies

- of comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Weber, Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decormissioning. Office of Nuclear Material Safety and l Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission, Washington, D.C. 20555.

j Telephone: (301)492-0565.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NRC staff is developing guidance to assist the Department of Energy (DOE) in developing remedial action plans to demonstrate compliance with standards proposed by EPA for groundwater 2

[7590-01) protection at inactive uranium mill tailings sites. Title I of the Uranium MillTailingsRadiationControlActof1978(UMTRCA)requirestheNRCto concur with DOE's selection and perforr.ance of rer4 dial action in accordance i

with EPA's standards. The draft Technical Position provides guidance on the types of inforr.ation and assessments that the staff considers acceptable to demonstrate compliance with EPA's proposed groundwater protection standards.

These standards are contained in proposed revisions to Subparts A-C of 40 CFR Part 192 published in the Federal Register on Septer6er 24, 1987 (52FR36000). Under Section 108 of UMTRCA, as amended, and Section 275 of the Atomic Energy Act, remedial action taken by DOE must corply with these proposed standards until EPA protulgates final standards, i

l EPA's proposed disposal and control standards in Subparts A and C of 40 CFR Part 192 require DOE to derenstrate that disposal of residual radioactive i material complies with site-specific groundwater protection and closure f performance standards. The purpose of the groundwater protection and closure performance standards is to establish minimum acceptable performance for the disposal and control of residual radioactive material to prevent or control future releases c,f hazardous constituents. The disposal and control standards also requite ter;1ementation of a monitoring and corrective action program to provide the basis for performance assessment, confirm the performance of disposal units, and provide for corrective actions that may be necessary if disposal units do not perform adequately.

3

[7590-01]

EPA's proposed cleanup standards in Subparts B and C cf 40 CFR Part 192 require DOE to demonstrate that existing groundwater contamination at inactive uranium mill sites will be cleaned up or otherwise controlled to protect humans and the -

environment. The clean up standards require a demonstration consisting of three components:

a groundwater cleanup standard, a cleanup demonstration, and a cleanup monitoring program. The groundwater c1vanup standard specifies target concentrations for cleanup of hazardous constituents in contaminated groundwater.

The cleanup demonstration shows how the planned reredial action l i

will attain the cleanup standard. The cleanup monitorinD program defines the extent of grounctwater contamination, orovides feedback on the effectiveness of thc cleanup program, and monftors ccepliance with the groundwater cleanup standard. .

Consistent with EPA's proposed standards for groundvater protection, the draft Technical Position distinguishes between aspects of the disposal and control of residual radioactivt material at new disposal sites and at existing inactive mill sites, and the cleanup of existin5 groundwater contamination at inactive mill sites. In the interim, before EPA promulgates final groundwater protection standards, the NRC staff will review groundwater protection informat' 3 and assessments submitted by DOE using the draft Tcchnical Position along with relevant procedures and cceeptance criteria provided in Chapter 4 of t

4

{

c DRAFT 4 TECHNICAL POSITION ON ALTERNATE CONCENTRATION LIMITS FOR URANIUM MILLS STANDARD FORMAT Ai.D CONTENT GUIDE AND STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR ALTERNATE CONCENTRATION LIMIT APPLICATIONS i

i 4

)

JUNE 1988 1

{

TECHNICAL BRANCH DIVISION OF LOW-LEVEL WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DECOMMISSIONING 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0 m !S$10N i

l i

t k

• f f

ORAFT TECHNICAL POSITION ON ALTERNATE CONCENTRATION LIMITS FOR URANIUM MILLS i STANDARD FORMAT AND CONTENT GUIDE AND STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR ALTERNATE CONCENTRATION LIMIT APPLICATIONS i

Section Page Number i.

1 REGULATORY POSITION

)

}.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2 Purpose of the Guidance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3 ACL leplementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 APPLICATION CONTENT AND FORMAT a 2.1 Application Content. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2 Application Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3 APPLICATION REVIEW PROCECURES .

3.1 Areas of Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

, 3.2 Acceptance Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.3 Review Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E6 3.4 Review Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 e

t 2-I

1. REGULATORY POSITION 1.1 Introduction Pursuant to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA),

the U, S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated Environmental Standards for Uranium and Thorium M111 Tailings at Licensed Comercial i Processing Sites (40 CFR Part 192, Subparts D and E) on September 30,198'[48  :

FR 45926). These standards incorporated grour.dwater protection regulatioct [

previously developed by EPA under authority of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

i The incorporated regulations include provisions for establishing alternate i

concentration limits (ACLs) as a part of site-specific groundwater protection programs. These provisions have been subsequently incorporated into the U. S. ,

Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC's) regulations governing the disposal of uranium mill tailings (10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A) on November 13,1987[52FR 43553].

The site specific groundwater protection programs are comprised of four eierents: (1) a list of hazardous constituents; (2) groundwater concentration limits for these constituents; (3) a location where compliance with the concentration limits is verified; and (4) a time period during which compliance is required. Concentration limits may be established as concentrations representative of background groundwater quality (background limits),

concentrations listed in Table SC of Criter!on 5 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 (drinking water limits), or ACLs. Under 40 CFR Part 192.32(a)(2)(iv), NRC rn approve ACLs for contaminants in groundwater provided that these concentration lisiits are as low as is rea m bly achievable considering practicable corrective actions, and that the ...etaminants will not pose a

, substantial prestnt or potenttal hazard to human health or the environment, as long as the ACLs are not exceeded at the conipliance point.

l Soon af ter EPA promulgated its regulations for active uranium mills in 1983, NRC and EPA staffs agreed to develop a w tually-acceptable ACL methodology for l

i

e 3-estabitshing ACLs at uranium mills. This Technical Position provides the evtually acceptable methodolugy to review and approve ACLs at uranium mills en a site-spkcific basis.

This Technical position has been tailored for general characteristics of uranium and thorium mill taisings sites that exist or are likely to exist during the next several decades in the United States. The Position yplies only to review of ACL applications for uranium and thorium mill tailirgs sites regulated under LHTRCA. It does not apply to reviews of ACL applications at

~

hazardous waste nanagement sites regulated by EPA or authorized States under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or Comprehensive Environmental Response, Ccepensaticn, and Liability Act (CERCLA). This Position is based on and is generally consistent with EPA's "Alternate Concentration Limit Guidance, Part 1: ACL Policy ind Inforration Requirements," which EPA published in July 1987 for establishing ACLs at hazardous waste manager 4nt sites under RCRA. ,

This Position provides a uniforn framework for consideration of the 19 criteria listed in 40 CFR Part 264.94(b) as referenced in 40 CFR Part 192.32(a)(2)(iv) and incorporated into NRC's regulations in Criterion SB(6) of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40.

1.2 Purpose of Guidance l The purpose of this Tecnnical Position is to establish: (1) NRC staff's interpretation of requirements for establishing ACLs in Criterion 58(6) of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40; (2) standard format and content of applications for ACLs at uranium mills; and (3) NRC staff review procedures for ACL applications. This Position is intended to help licensees assemble, assess, NRC staff anticipates that EPA will formally endorse the Technical Position as a mutually acceptable r.ethodology after completing its fcrral agency review during the public coment period.

4 and prepare infortnation in the form of an application to the NRC for establishirig site-specific ACLs at uranium mills. In addition, the Position describes the characteristics of an ACL applicaticn that the NRC staff would find generally acceptable under Criterion SB(6) of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A.

This Technical Position also provides guidance to the NRC staff about the conduct of and criteria for reviews of licensee applications for ACLs. The principal purpose of Chapter 3 is to ensure quality and unifonnity of stsff

. reviews and to present a well-defined basis from which to evaluate changes in the scope and requirements of reviews. This Technical Position documents the regulatory process that the NRC staff will use to develop findings about the acceptability of licensee applications for ACLs, thus improving public understanding about the staff review process. Although Chapter 3 of this Technical Position is intended to be used by NRC staff, it can also be used by Agreement States and other interested parties responsible for conducting reviews of ACL applications.

1.3 ACL Implerientation ACLs may be established as part of site-specific groundwater protection star!dards. In accordance with NRC's requirements for uranium mills in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40, licensees imalement detection ronitoring programs to detect early release of hazardous ccnstituents from mill tailings impoundments.

These programs progress into compliance monitoring if they indicate that constituent concentrations and parameter values exceed background concentration limits. Site specific groundwater prutection standards provide the framework for the conduct of compliance ronitoring programs. These standards consits of a list of hazardous constituents, concentration limits for the hazardous constituents, a point of corpliance (POC) in the uppermost equifer, and a period of compliance. The concentration limits are generally specified as either background concentrations or as the concentration limits selected from the table in Criterion SC of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40. As an alternative to background concentrations or the limits listed in Criterion 5C, Itcensees

e#

I may propose ACLs for specific hazardous constituents, provided that they demonstrate that: (1) the constituents will not pose a substantial present or

- potential hazard to human health or the environment as long as the ACLs are not exceeded; and (2) the ACLs are as low as reasonably achievable considering practicable corrective actions.

Upon approval by the Comission, ACLs will be established as the concentration limits for hazardous constituents at the POC. If concentrations of hazardous constituents in groundwater exceed these limits, corpliance monitoring progresses into corrective action, the third phase of the graduated groundwater monitoring and response programs at uranium et11s. Licensees ray not propose ACLs to delay irplerentation of corrective action. However, licensees may propose revised ACLs if new information indicates that the ACLs should be increased or decreased to protect humans or the environment or to maintain concentrations that are as low as reasonably achievable.

The hRC staff considers two locations in reviewing applications for ACLs at i uranium mill sites: thePOCandpointsofexposure(POEs). The Introduction to

! Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 defines the POC as the site-specific location in the uppermost aquifer where the groundwater protection standard rust be met. .

In contrast, POEs are defined for the purposes of this Technical Position as the locations where humans, wildlife, or other environmental species could

) reasonably be exposed to hazardous constituents from the groundwater in the [

uppermost aquifer. For example, humans could construct a domestic well at the

]

POE and withdraw contaminated groundwater for consumption as drinking water. l As another example, the POE could be the locations where aquatic biota may be expose 6 to hazardous constituents as a result of contaminated groundwater i discharge to a river. Thus, groundwater quality at the POEs must be at levels I that are protective of potential hur.an and environmental receptors.

The NRC staff expects that there may be ruitiple plures of groundwater  !

i contaminated with hazardous constituents and multiple POEs at uranium tailings '

sites. These two aspects of actual groundwater contamination contribute ,

1 6-additional complexity in the establishment of ACLs. ACL applications need to consider the site-specific characteristics that significantly affect the hazards posed by hazardous constituents and the practicability of corrective actions. In all cases, ACLs applications avst demonstrate that hazardous constituent concentrations will not pose substantial present or potential hazards to humans or the environeent at the POEs, and that the ACLs are as low as reasonably achievable considering practicable corrective actions for existing and projected groundwater contamination.

Understanding the spatial relationship between the POC and POEs is critical to implementation of ACLs at uranium mills. Natural processes such as dilution, '

dispersion, decay, and sorption ny attentuate hazardous constituent concentrations between the POC and POEs. Thus, hazardous constituent concentrations ray be established at the POC that are greater than appropriate health and envircr. rental concentration limits for hazardous constituents established at the POEs.

For example, the two cases depicted in Figure 1 illustrate the irportance of considering the POC and POE in establishing ACLs at uranium mill tailings sites. Both of these cases could exist at the sabe site, where the migration of one hazardous constituent ha; been retarded relative to another constituent.

In the first case, groundwater tenitor g my indicate limited contamination of groundwater by a hazardous const' ent associated with seepage from the ,

tallings impoundrent. ACLs ny , established at the P0C by considering attenuation of the transport of u.e hazardous constituent between the POC and POE. If hazardous constituent concentrations do not exceed the ACL at the POC presently or in the future, then the licensee would not be required to irplerent a corrective action program to attain corpliance with the groundwater protection standard. Compliance with the ACL at the POC would prevent substantial present or potential hazards to humans or the enviror, rent at the POE(s). However, the licensee would be required to implement corrective action if groundwater ronitoring at the POC indicates that the ACLs have been exceeded. Such corrective action would be expected to limit the migration of a

.m-,,-,,,m,,

TAllINGS

,o,~ ,.p . "' ~'" "'. _,,,,h P O C

.,,,or -- .

PoE

.9 - '-- - -

i.;; q

_ %. .. :i7'.: 1.s .

k..... . . <. .;:%.

t

• CONSTITUENT X

" rr n\w r %\'YV R' v v y TAILINGS - . . .

POE

-T'".~ %....

3 .

.~..wi.__.

,[.S_]Q9 0

\ - . . .

n ', . . ' '; 9 . ; .;. 7

[

~i ',%_

g.....'

4 t

CONSTITUENT Y  %

f L

I f

l Figure 1 F1unes of contaminated groundwater for constituents l "X" and "Y"3 POC 1r the point of compliance and l POE is the point of expostre groundwater flow  ;

direction is from left to right.  ;

a i

k i

l p

l

t 7

the hazardous constituent above appropriate health and environmental levels to l thePOE(s). 1 In contrast, the groundwater contaminant plume for another hazardous constituent ray extend considerably downgradient from the POC as a result of '

seepage from a uranium mill tailings impoundment. In this case, the hRC staff would place special erphasis on the contaminated groundwater between the P0C andPOE(s)initsreviewofanACLapplication,toassurethattheACLprevents substantici present and potential hazards to humans and the environrent at the  ;

l POE(s), in this case, the ACL would be applied at the P00 and downgradient  :

l from the POC, in coajunction with the corrective action program, to ensure that

> 'de ACL prevents substantial present and potential hazards to humans or the environrent, and that the ACLs are as low as reasonably achievable.

I l

l I

1 t

l i

i

[

(

I

-. - _ _ ~ -. . _ _ _ _ _ _ .

8-

2. APPLICATION CONTENT AND FORMAT 2.1 Application Centent Table 1 provides on outline of a generic ACL application. ACL applications shculd contain or reference sufficient information to demonstrate that: (1) hazardous constituent concentrations will not pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment as long as the ACLs are not exceeded; and (2) ACLs are as 1cw as reasonably achievable considering practicable corrective actions. The desonstration should consist of an assessment of the hazards assot.iated with present and potential esposure to hazardous constituents, and an assessment of the reasonableness of concentration limits, considering corrective actions. The demonstration should consider the 19 factors listed in Criterion 58(6) and in Table 2 of tnis cosition. In general, hazard essessrents should evaluate the (1) existing distribution and extent of hazardous constituents as well as the potential source (s)forfuturereleasesoftheseconstituents;(2)transportofhazardous constituents in groundwater and hydraulically-connected surface water; and (3) risks associated with exposure of humans and the environment to hazardous ccnstituents. Corrective action assessments should include: (1) identification of alternative corrective actions; (2) assessrent of the technical feasibility of alternative corrective actions; (3) assessment of the costs and benefits associated with performance of practicable corrective actions; and (C) selection of practicable corrective actions to achieve hazardous constituent concentrations in groundwater that are as low as is reasonably achievable.

Section 3.2.2 of this Fcsitfon provides a more detailed description of the content of ACL applications that the NRC staff would find acceptable.

ACL applications prepared by licensees should be sufficiently detailed to permit the NRC staff to verify independently that the ACLs will not pose a substantial present or potential hazard to humans or the environment and that they are as low as reasonably achievable considering practicable corrective actions. It is expected that noch of the inforsation required to support a

l successful ACL application is already available in other docum nts submitted in  !

support of the license reviews. For example, informtion about hydrogeologic  :

characteristics should alr6ady be included in environmental reports, license (

applications, previous detection monitoring submittals, or documents prepared j by the licensees to resolve licensing issues identified by the staff.

Additional inforn tion needed to support the ACL application say include ,

assessrents of transport rates and directions of hazardous constituents, and }

effects of human and environmental exposure to hazardous constituents, f l

The content of site-specific applications is expected to vary from site to Jte t because of differences in site characteristics, milling processes, disposal l operations, and ore corposition. Licensees are encouraged to reflect these  !

differences in the content of site-specific ACL applications. Detailed f inforation related to each of the 19 factors listed in Criterion 5B(6) of I Appendix A to 10 CFR part 40 is not necessarily required. For example, a licensee ray not need to consider 1rpacts of contaminated groundwater discharge to surface water if contaminated g.'oundwater does not and is not projected to cischarge to any surface water bodies near the facility. In this example, a  ;

licensee rey not rved to provide detailed inforation such as stream flow characteristics and transport assessments withth surface water. However, the i burden of proof resides with the licensee to demonstrate that selected factors do not need to be considered in the demonstration.

f l

[

2.2 Application Format This section provides guidance about the Standard Formt of ACL applications for uranium all) tailings sites. Use of a Standard Forn t for ACL applications will: (1) help assure that applications contain the inforation required in 10 l CFR Part 40, Appendix A; (2) aid the licensee and the NRC staff in ensuring I that the inforntien is complete (3) help persons reading the application to locate inforation; anJ (4) contribute to reducing the time needed for the ACL application review process. Conformance with this formt is not required. The NRC staff will accept applications with different formats if these applications k

I l

- -.- _-- . Y

6dequately demonstrate the suitability uf the proposed ACLs. However, staff '

raviews of ACL applications with different formats my require more tire, because the staff is familiar with the Standard Format described in this  ;

section, and the staff's review procedures are based on receipt of applications  ;

in this Standard Forinat. I The licensee should present the information contained in the ACL application as

. clearly as possible. Technical bases should support the licensee's demonstration of the adequacy of the ACLs relevant to the requirements in Criterion SB(6) of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 40. Licensees should follos rse nurbering system and headings of the Standard Forrat. Licensees are encouraged to use appendices to the application to provide supplementary information not specifically identified in this section. Conventional abbreviations should be used consistently throughout the ACL application. Any abbreviations, symbols, or special terms should be defined where they first appear in the text. Where appropriate, calculated error bands or estimated uncertainties should be r included along with numerical values. Graphic presentations such as maps, ,

graphs, drawings, and tables should be tsed to present informatian more clearly l or core conveniently than text descriptions. Licensees should ensure that f graphic raterials are legible and that the physical scales are sufficiently  :

large so that details and notations can be easily read. Systols sMuld be  !

t clearly defined.

j ACL applications shuuld conform to the following physical specif tettions: (1)

! paper size shou!d be 81/2 x 11 inches with larger charts and maps folded into i

the application so that the beund size does not exceed 81/2 x 11 inchest (2) ink must be sufficiently dense to record the application on microfilm or j trage copying equipment; (3) text should be singla spaced and printed on both sides; (4) pages should be punched fcr a standard three. hole looseleaf binders (5) revisions to the application should be provided on pages that will replace f l

the original pages, with the changes indicated by a "change line," which is a  !

vertical line placed in the outside rargin next to the portion of the text that f was changed; (6) the date of changes and change nurters should be indicated in l 1 ,

D

11 the bottom outside margin of each change page, and each change submittal should include a listing of all pages changed in that submittal.  !

l As noted Table 1 provides an outline of a generic ACL application. This -

outline is based on the general types of information that the NRC staff [

considers necessary to address the two criteria and nineteen factors listed in Section 3.1. As previously discusseo, however, licensees should adjust the content of ACL demonstrations to acccernodate facility-specific characteristics.

Therefore, the forut arid content of ACL applications may vary somewhat because l of site specific differences in compliance demonst-stions.

l i

I l

Table 1 Standard Format of an Alternate Concentration Limit Application at a Uranium Mill Tailings Site EXECUTIVC

SUMMARY

1. GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Introduction 1.2 General Facility Description 1.3 Extent of Groundwater Contamination 1.4 Proposed Alternate Concentration Limits

2. HAZARD ASSESSMENT 2.1 Source and Contamination Characterizaticn 2.2 Transport Assesspent 2.3 Exposure Assessment

3. CORRECTIVE ACTION ASSELSMENT 3.1 Alternate Corrective Actions 3.2 Feasibility of Corrective Actions 3.3 Correcti/e Action Costs 3.4 Corrective Action Benefits 3.5 Selection of Corrective Actions

4. PROPOSED ALTERNATE CONCENTRATION LIMITS 4.1 Proposed Alternate Concentratian Limits 4.2 Proposed Implementation Measures ,

l S. REFE':ENCES

\ . . -- .

1 4

3. PROCEDURES FOR NRC REVidW OF APPLICATIONS 3.1 Areas of Review Based on NRC's regulations in Criterion 5B(6) of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40, NRC staff has developed a systematic approach to review RL appitcations. As components of this approach, the NRC staff has identifier two major and eight minor eleirents of its review of ACL applications to apprcve or deny proposed ACLs for hazardous constituents in groundwater at uranium n.ill tailings sites.

The two major elements include:

1. Hazard Assessment Review The NRC staff reviews the licensee's assessment of the: (1) existing distribution and extent of hazardous constituents, as well as potential source (s) for future releases of constituents; (2) transport of hazardous l

constituents in groundwater and hydraulically-connected surface water; and (3) risks a::sociated with exposure of humans and the environment to j

hazardoes constituents.

2. Corrective Action Review Tha NRC staff reviews the licensee's: (1) identification of alternative corrective actions for groundwater contamination; (2) assessment of the technical feasibility of the corrective actions; (3) estimated costs of j

I practicable corrective actions; (4) estimated benefits of practicable corrective actions; and (5) selection of practicable corrective actions for controlling, reducing, mitigating, or eliminating groundwater contamination. Based on the hazard assessment and corrective action reviews, the staff evaluates the licensee's proposed ACLs and accompanying selection of measures necessary to ensure compliance with proposed ACLs.

l l

l J

.o S

3.2 Acceptance Criteria Upon receipt of an ACL application, the NRC staff performs an acceptance review to determine whether the types and amounts of information submitted in the application provide a sufficient basis for reviewing the proposed ACLs relative to the requirements in Criterion 5B(6) of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40. If the staff concludes that the information submitted in the application is insufficient, the NRC staff will return the application to the applicant and identify what additional information is necessary before the staff can begin its review. If the application contains sufficient information, the NRC staff will accept the application and begin its review in accordance with the procedures described in this Technical Position. Acceptance of the ACL application after the completion of the acceptance review does not preclude subsequent requests for additional information by the NRC staff during the course of the review.

3.2.1 Regulatory Basis and General Criteria EPA issued standards for control of uranium and thorium rill tailings at cormercial, licensed mill sites (40 CFR Part 192, Sut, parts D and E) pursuant to Section 275 of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C 2022) as amended by UMTRCA, et seq. EPA standards in 40 CFR Part 192.32(a)(2)(iv) provide for the establishment of site-specific ACLs. HRC has incorportted thir, provision in its requirements in Criterion SB(6) of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40. Criterion SB(6) provides for establishment of ACLs as follows:

Conceptually, background concentrations pose no incremental hazards and the drinking water limits in paragraph SC state acceptable hazards but these two options may not be practically achievable at a specific site.

Alternate concentration limits that present no significant hazard may be proposed by licensees for Connission consideration. Licensees must provide the basis for any proposed limits including the demonstration that limits are as low as reasonably achievable considering practicable

s corrective actions and information on the factors the Commission must consider. The Comission will establit.h a site specific alternate concentration limit for a hazardous constituent as provided in SB(5) of this criterion if it finds that the proposed limit is as low as reasonably achievable considering practicable corrective actions, and that the constituent will not pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment as long as the alternate concentration limit is not exceeded. In making the present and potential hazard finding, the Comission will consider the factors listed in Table 2.

To approve licensee-proposed ACLs, the NRC must find with reasonable assurance that (1) the ACLs will not pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment as long as the ACLc are not exceeded and (2) the ACLs are as low as is reasonably achievable, considering practicable corrective actions. Successful ACL demonstrations, therefore, synthesize site-specific, regional, and generic information to demonstrate that hazardous constituents in groundwater will meet these two critoria. The ACL application l should provide or reference sufficient information to allow the NRC, as an independent reviewer, to verify the demonstration used to support the proposed ACLs and to reach comparable, but not r,ecessarily identical, conclusions.

T l

Table 2 Factors for Consideration in Establishing A1 ternate ConcentrationLimits[10CFR40,AppendixA, Criterion 5B(6)]

A. Potential Adverse Effects o" Groundwater Quality

1. Ph3 sical and chemical characteristics of the waste in the licensed

- site including its potential for migration

~

2. Hydrogeological characteristics of the facility and surrounding land

3. Quantity of groundwater and the direction and rate of groundwater flow

4. Proximity and withdrawal rates of groundwater users

5. Current and potential future uses of groundwater in the area

6. Existing quality of groundwater, including other sources of contsmination and their cumulative impact on groundwater quality

7. Potential for health risks caused by human exposure to waste constituents

8. Potential damage to wildlife, livestoch, cropr, vegetation. and '

physical structures caused by exposure to raste constituents

9. Persistence and permanence of potential adverse effects B. Potential Adverse Effects on Surface Water Quali',y

1. Volume and physical atd chemical characteristics of waste in the licensed site

2. Hydrogeological characteristics of the facility and surrounding land

3. Quantity and quality of groundwater, and the di 9ction and rate of groundwater flow 4 Patterns of rainfall in the region

Table 2 Factors for Consideration in Establishing Alternate ConcentrationLimits[10CFR40,AppendixA, Criterion SB(6)](continued)

5. Proximity of the licensed site to surface waters

6. Current and potential future uses of surface waters in the area and water quality criteria established for those surface waters

7. Existing quality of surface water, including other sources of contamination and their cumulative impact on surface water quality

8. Potential for health risks caused by human exposure to waste constituents

9. Potential damage to wildlife, livestock, crops, vegetation, and physical structures caused by exposure to waste constituents

10. Persistence and permanence of potential adverse effects l

l t

t

3.2.2 Specific Criteria 3.2.2.1 Review Element 1: Hazard Assessment Review The hazard assessment review includes three minor elements thr.t are based on the 19 criteria provided in Criterion 5B(6) of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40.

These elements are: (1) characterization of the source (s) and extent of groundwatercentamination;(2)assessmentofhazardousconstituenttransportin groundwater and hydraulically-connected surface water; and (3) assessment of risks associated with exposure of humans and the environment to hazardous constituents. Information from these three elements should be synthesized into a demonstration that the proposed ACLs will not pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment as long as the ACLs are not exceeded.

3.2.2.1.1 Source and Contamination Characterization Characterization of the contaminant source (s) and extent of cuntanination provides the source term for contaminant transport assessments, which are needed to estimate the hazards associated with potential human and l environmental exposure to hazardous constituents. Sours chr.racterization is l acceptable if it provides reliable estimates o' or conser vatively limits existing and potential release rates of hazardous co..itituents arn i

characterizes existing distributions of 'hese constituents.

. Soutce characterization includes characterization o' the uranium milling facility, on-site wastes, and groundwater and soll contaminated with hazardous constituents.

(

l Facility characterization is acceptable if it includes such information as detailed descriptions of: (1) the uranium recovery process (es) used at the facility; (2) types and relative quantities of the reagents used in the milling process; (3) ore compositions milled at the facility; and (4) waste management practices (e.g.,locationofwastedischarges,retainingstructuresforwastes,

relative amounts of wastes, and history of waste discharges). This information should be considered in conjunction with the physical and chemical composition of the waste and properties of the waste constituents, to estimate the source term for contaminant transport.

Waste characterization is acceptable if it includes such information as (1) identification of hazardous constituents in the waste, including any degradation products of the constituents; (2) assessinent of the leaching potential of the hazardous constituents from the waste, described as a relationship between estimated aqueous concentrations of constituents and the composition of the waste; and (3) spatial distribution of hazardous constituents in the waste. Additional information may be necessary to support acceptable waste characterization depending upon the hazardous constituents present in the waste, such as: (1) physical and chemical characteristics of the hazardous constituents such as density, solubility, valence state, vapor pressure, viscosity, and octanol-water partitioning coefficient; (2) presence and effect of cortplexing ligands and chelating agents, to the extent that they may enhnnce constituent mobility; (3) pctential for constituents to degrade as l

a result of chemical, biological, and physical processes; and (4) attentuation properties of constituents and affected hydrogeologic media to characterize l

l processes as ion exchange, adsorption, absorption, precipitation, dissolution, j and ultrafiltration. Waste characterization includes those characteristice l that significantly influunce or control the release or transport of hazardous constituents.

At sites where release of hazardous constituents has contaminated extensive volumes of groundwater, soils, sediments, or rocks, characterization of the j extent of contamination should include assessment of the distribution of hazardous constituents in groundwater and contaminated soils at the facility.

This information is needed to calibrate contaminant transport models and to evaluate whether humans and environmental ' populations are currently being exposed to elevated concentrations of hazardous constituents. Characterization of the extent of contamination is acceptable if it provides such information

as: (1) the distribution of hazardous constituents in groundwater; (2) the distribution of hazardous constituents in contaminated raterials other than the uranium tailings; (3) concentrations and values of indicatory water and soil quality constituents and parareters determined in the detection monitoring program, including pM, Specific Conductance, major ions, minor ions, trace constituents, uranium (natural), radium-226/228, and thorium-230; and (4) documentation of sampling, analysis, and quality assurance programs used to sample groundwater and soil, analyze the samples, and assess the distribution of hazardous constituent concentrations.

3.2.2.1.2 Transport Assessment The transport assessment provides the basis for assessing the site-specific, projected distribution of and exposure to hazardous constituents.

Characteristics of the transport assesse.ent should be tailored to be consistent with site-specific characteristics that affect the significance and extent of hazardous constituent transport. For some aspects of the transport assessment, applicants ray develop estimates that conservatively bound the ragnitude of processes or phenomena that affect hazardous constituent transport. The transport assessment generally censists of the following subelements: (1) hydrogeologic characteristics: (2) groundwater flow direction and quantity;  ;

(3) rainfall patterns; (4) background water quality; and (5) estirated rates of transport and concentrations of hazardous constituents in groundwater anu hydraulically-connected surface water. The information in subelements 1-4 should be used to estimate the rates and directions of hazardous constituent transport and constituent concentrations in groundwater and hydraulically-connected surface water.

Acceptable characterizations of site hydrogeology, groundwater flow rates ar.d directions, and rainfall patterns should consider advection of groundwater .nd surface water, as well as advection and dispersion of contaminants feca the.

sources of contamination. The scope of hydrogeologic characterization should be commensurate with the anticipated magnitude of pctential hazards associated

~

21 with groundwater contamination, as well as the relative distance of human and environmental populations frcm existing and projected contamination.

Acceptability of hydrogeologic characterization is determined based on its completeness and adequacy to support assessment of hazardeus constituent ,

transport. Such assessmenu may either provide conservative limits or reasonably likely estimates of hazardous constituent concentrations.

Acceptable characterizations of site hydrogeology should generally include:

(1) identification of hydrogeologic units that have been or may be affected by transport of hazardous constituents; (2) representative characteristics of hydrogeologic units (including unsaturated units that may significantly 1 influence contaminant transport) tuch as geometry, stratigraphy, structural geology, 11thology/ mineralogy, hydraulic conductivity, effective porosity, hydraulic head distribution arid gradients, recharge / discharge locations and rates, and dispersivity; (3) representative conceptual models of the ground. <

water flow system that is or ny be affected by cottaminant transport; (4) reliable surface water characteristics to be used in assessing the significance of surface water transport of hazardous constituents, such as location, volume, flow rate, bed and suspended load fractions, channel morphology, current patterns, and hydrographic rodifications; (5) representative climatic characteristics such a distributtuns and amounts of precipitation, potential evapotranspiration, temperature distributions, and estim ted infiltration rates into contaminated materials, and the effects of variable recharge on grcund-water and surface water flow characteristics; (6) representative lateral end vertical groundwater flow rates and directions, including information such as

! groundwater flow nets, estimated discharge and recharge rates, temporal variations in flow rates and directions, and the calculations and assumptions used to estimate flow rates and directions; and (7) descriptions of generally accepted characterization and monitoring practices, procedures, and quality assurance programs used to characterize site hydrogeology.

Background water quality is defined as the quality of water that would bc

expteted if contamination had not occurred from the designated f acility.

2

e Background groundwater quality should be established based on monitoring data collected at the site. Background water quality characterization is acceptable if it includes the following types of information, as appropriate: (1) maps of sufficient detail showing the locations of background monitoring locations; (2) characteristics of background monitoring devices, including wells, springs, comunity water supplies, surface water samplers, suction lysimeters, and other devices; (3) descriptions of the distribution of wastes at and near the site; (4) descriptions of historical changes in hydraulic heads, flow directions, and flow rates relevant to the location of background locations; (5) analytical background water quality data; (6) descriptions and analysis of potential sources of off-site contamination; and (7) descriptions of generally accepted and reliable protocols for sampi;ag, analysis, preservation, transportation, and quality assurance used to characterize background water quality.

Estimates of contaminant transport are based on the licensee's assessment of hydrogeologic characteristics, background water quality, extent of contamination, and sources of contamination discussed previously. The objective of the hazardous constituent transport assessment is to develop conservative, but realistic, exposure estimates baced on reasonable projections of contaminant concentrations in groundwater and surface water. This dssessment should consider anticipated future eVer,tf that may significantly perturb exposure or transport pathways and censider transfer of hazardous constituents from aqueous redia to other environental media as necessary on a site-specific basis. Transport assessments are accepta' ole if they f aclude:

(1) reasonably conservative or best estimates of the rate of transport af hazirdous constituents in groundwater and hydraulically-connected surface l

water; (2) reliable estimates of the duration of constituent migration and deterministic or statistical representation of constituent concentrations relativetodurationofexposureandconstituentcharacteristics(i.e., average daily concentrations over an exposed individual's lifetime for carcinogenic constituents, mean daily concentrations for acutely toxic constituents, and rean annual concentrations for chronically toxic constituents); (3) projee+ed temporal variability of constituent concentrations; (4) projected spc' al l

.o distributionofhazardousconstituents;(5)solidcompositionandwaterquality monitoring data used to validat; projections of constituent transport; (6) assessments of the long-term .rtential for release of contarinants from the solid phase into groundwater or hydraulically-connected surface water (e.g.,

desorption); (7) character'1stion of the source term for hazardous constituents for groundwater and surf h rater transport (see Section 3.2.2.1.1); and (8) complete assessment of wcertainties associated with the projected concentrations and distribut sns of hazardous constituents.

3.2.2.1.3 Exposure Assessrent The objective of the exposure assessment is to assess the risks associated with human and environmental exposure to hazardous constituents, to determine whether projected concentrations of hazardous constituents pose substantial present or potential hazards to human health or the environment, and to identify maximur levels below which such hazards do not occur. The maximum

allowable concehsrations provide the basis for the proposed ACLs. The exposure assessment element is composed of three component assessments

(1) resource classification and water uses, (2) evaluation of human health hazards, and (3) evaluation of environmental hazards, i

! Assessment of groundwater and surface water uses supports the analysis of human 1

exposure to hazardous constitusats. The rigor of the human exposure analysis, i

in part, depends on the extent to which people are likely to use water

! resources that say be affected by contamination from the site. Acceptable analysis of current and future uses of groundwater and surface water includes assessment of such factors as existing and anticipated water uses, classification of water resources, institutional controls on water uses.

relevant water quality standards, and the availability and characteristics of l

! alternative water supplies. The following types of information should be included in assessments of existing and future water uses: (1) characteristics of existing water uses in the vicinity of the site (e.g., locations, types, l intended uses, rates of withdrawal / injection, statutory and legal constraints

on water use); (2) relevant water quality criteria, standards, and guidelines; (3) classifications of groundwater resources based on EPA's Groundwater Protection Strategy or con; parable State water protection strategies; and (4) availability and characteristics of alternative water supplies and comparison of these resources with present water supplies. Types of water uses to be considered include ag*icultural, industrial, domestic /ninicipal, environmental, and recreational uses.

Health and environmental hazard assessments are composed of four components:

exposure pathway identification, hazard identification, dose-response assessment, and risk characterization. Acceptable hazard assessments project the response of human and environmental populations to exposure to hazardous

constituents based on projected constituent concentrations, anticipated exposure pathways, and available toxicological and epidemiological information.

Hazard assessetnts consider two potential .iumn exposure pathways: ingestion of contaminated water and ingestion of contaminated foods (e.g., aquatic i

organisms or irrigated produce). Hazard assessments also evaluate inhalation and dermal exposure pathways, if these pathways could result in substantial hazards to people or the environment based on the properties of the hazardous constituents and projected levels of exposure. The assessments distinguish

between health impacts associated

• with threshold' and non-threshold constituents. Nutagenic, teratogenic, and synergistic effects are considered l

in the analysis, if available information indicates their occurrence based on toxicological testing, structure-activity relationships, or epidemiological studies. Information supporting the hazard assessment justifies significant assumptions invoked in preparing the assessment and identifies uncertainties associated with projected health and environmental impacts.

i

' Hazard assessments also assess potential responses of envircnmental (non-huNn) populations to exposure to hazardous constituents, if such populations may reasonably be exposed to contaminatsd groundwater or hydraulically-connected surface water. Ac:eptable environmental exposure assessments consist of analyses of projected responses of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, plants,

livestock, and crops from estimated exposures to hazardous constituents. The L assessments should provide: (1) inventories of potentially exposed ,

environmental populations; (2) reconsended tolerance or exposure li Jits; (3) interactions of contaminants and their cumulative effects on exposed populations; (4) projected respor.~: of environmental populations from exposure to hazardous constituents; and (5) anticipated changes in populations

' independent of exposure to hazardous constituents. Alternatively, an applicant may demonstrate that environmental hazards are not anticipated because exposure to wildlife, livestock, plants, crops, and aquatic biota does not and will not occur.

Acceptable hazard assessments evaluate potential damage to physical structures caused by exposure to hazardous constituents in groundwater and hydraulically-connected surface water. Such assessments examine potential exposure pathways, waste characteristics (e.g., corrosivity), environmental l I variables that may influence damage (e.g., temperature), and structural

! materials that may be exposed to hazardous constituents. Alternatively, an  :

I applicant may demonstrate that damage to physical structures is not anticipated i because exposure does not and will not occur. *

! Acceptable hazard assessments conclude with a brief statement of the

• l concentration limits below which hazardous constituer,ts do not pose substantial present or potential hazards to human health or the environment. The concluding section also provider, sunmary descriptions of the basis for each t

proposed concentration limit.

l 3.2.2.2 Review Element 2: Corrective Action Review l

Acceptable assessments of corrective actions are composed of six elements, l including: (1) identification of alternative corrective actions; (2) l assessment of the technical feasibility of the corrective actions; (3) evaluation of the costs associated with impleswntation of practicable f

corrective actions; (4) evaluation of the benefits associated with l

t

implementation of practicable corrective actions; (5) selection of practicabit corrective actions for implementation based on appropriate optimization of the costs and benefits associated with the corrective actions; and (6) demonstration that the proposed concentration limits are as low as reasonably achievable, considering practicable corrective actions. Acceptable assessments provide supporting calculations and identify important assumptions used in estimating the costs and benefits of alternative corrective actions.

The assessments are linked with the proposed concentration limits identified in the concluding portion of the hazards assessment section. Acceptable assessments demonstrate that ACLs will be no higher than the maximum allowable concentration limits identified in the hazards assessment. If these concentration limits are higher than the lowest concentrations that can be achieved by practicable corrective actions, the corrective action assessment considers at least three different target concentration limits that represent a reasonable range of limits that may be attained by practicable corrective actions. The assessment identifies and evaluates costs and benefits associated with each set of target concentrations. Evaluation of the costs and benefits associated with corrective action to attain the target concentrations assures that the proposed ACLs are as low as reasonably achievable, considering practicable corrective actions.

3.3 Review procedures 3.3.1 General in conducting reviews of ACL applications, the NRC staff may cnnduct literature surycys, data assessments, and perforr.ance evaluations as needed to audit the basis for the proposed ACLs and to verify that the proposed ACLs satisfy the two general criteria listed in Section 3.2.1. ItRC staff identifies open issues that preclude approval of the proposed ACLs if reviews indicate that supporting information is ambiguous, incomplete, inadequate, or incorrect. These issues will be conconicated to the licensee in the form of written comments. The I

1

comments document the issue, prnvide the basis for the staff's comment, discuss the relative significance of the comment in terms of the proposed ACLs, and suggest, if appropriate, at least one approach that the NRC staff would find acceptable to resolve the issue. In general, the staff focuses its review on information that significantly affects the selection and justification of the proposed ACLs.

3.3.2 Review Element 1: Hazard Assessment Review NRC staff reviews the hazard assessment used to support ACL demonstrations to ensure that the following criteria are satisfied:

1. Has the source term of hazardous constituents been adequately characterized with respect to transport assessments?

2. Have the rates and directions of hazardous constituent migration been adequately determined with respect to exposure assessments?

3. Have the routes, amounts, and effects of human and environmental exposure to hszardous constituents been adequately assessed?

4. Do the proposed concentration limits for hazardous constituents ensure prevention of substantial present or potential hazards to humans and the environment?

3.3.2.1 Source Term Characterization The reviewer evaluates information relevant to the characterization of the source term of hazardous constituents as necessary to support the transport as sessment. Source term includes existing contaminated groundwater, contaminated soils, and tailings and other wastes that ray cause future releases of hazardous constituents. Based on the adequacy of this information, the reviewer determines whether source term characterization is sufficient to

. I provide a conservative or realistic estimate of the types, characteristics, and release rates of hazardous constituents that have been or are anticipated to be re' ased from contaminated groundwater, soils, and tailings at a given facility.

l The reviewer will ensure that the demonstration: (1) identifies hazardous  !

constituents present in the tailings or in leachate derived from the tailings; l

- (2) identifies hazardous constituents potentially derived from the degradation or reaction of waste constituents; (3) identifies the extent and characteristics of contaminated groundwater and soils; (4) characterizes the properties of the hazardous constituents that affect their transport and fate in the environment surrounding a facility; and (5) estimtes release rates of hazardous constituents as a function of time and space,' as appropriate.

Adequacy of the demonstration is reviewed with respect to the source term required in the assessment of contaminant transport rates and directions.

The reviewer assesses: information on the extraction process used at the facility to recover uranium; the relative amounts and types of reagents used in the extraction process; composition of ores; likely chemical and biologically-udiated reactions within the tailings; transport characteristics of the hazardous constituents (e.g., solubility, sorption / desorption.

l complexation, degradation information); leachability of dissolved and solid

! species present within the tailings; tntal volues of waste materials at tP.e l facility; physical characteristics of the waste materials as they weald affect leaching potential, composition and distribution of uranium tailings and contaminated soils; corposition and distribution of contaminated groundwater; and the leaching characteristics of the waste materials, considering both the duration of leaching and magnitude of leached concentrations. The reviewer may also assess information about characteristics such as volatility, octar.ol-water partitioning coefficient, viscosity, degradation rate constants, and dentity, if these properties may significantly affect transport or toxicity of hazardous constituents. Based on this assessment, the reviewer either confirms the licensee's characterization of the source term or determines that the source

7-

.. j

~

term has not been conservatively or realistically characterized with respect to hazardous constituent transport assessment. ,

3.3.2.2 Rate and Direction of Transport i i

In reviewing the adequacy of the licensee's determination of the rate and direction of hazardous constituent transport in groundwater, the reviewer verifies the licensee's characterization of: (1) site hydrogeology; (2) rate and direction of hazardous constituent transport in groundwater and surface  ;

water; and (3) rainfall patterns near the facility as they may affect transport of hazardous constituents. The reviewer also verifies the licensee's characterization of background water quality to support assessment of existing and potential future uses of water resources. ,

Inreviewingthelicensee'scharacterizationoftherate(s)anddirection(s)of I hazardous constituent transport, the reviewer determines whether the ,

hydrogeologic characterization of the site is adequate to support assessr.ents and conclusions about the projected extent and distribution of hazardous constituents. The scope of the staff review includes consideration of  !

site-specific and regional (i.e., beyond the immediate zone of influence of the facility) information on the physical and hydrogeologic characteristics of l groundwater and surface water systems, as appropriate. The reviewer determines (

! whether the licensee's hydrogeologic characterization employed accepted and l I defensible practices, techniques, methods, and approaches supporting the

determination of transport rates and directions. The reviewer also evaluates

'

(1) anticipated and potential changes in transport rates and directions caused

{

by reasonably foreseeable events; and (2) historic changes in transport rates l and directions that may have been caused by the construction or operation of i I the facility. The reviewer also confirms assessments of the effects of ,

4 existing and likely distributions of rainfall at and around the facility to the I extent that such patterns may significantly affect transport rates and i

directions. This assessment includes consideration of

temporary increases in I recharge into waste materials; effects on releases of hazardous constituents; j l

.- . -_ _-- - - - - - _ =

changes in the location of recharge and discharge of groundwater systems; and modifications to surface water-groundwater relationships.

The reviewer verifies assessments of the transport of hazardous constituents in groundwater. This review includes evaluation of hazardous constituent transport in surface water, if contaminated groundwater discharges or is projected to discharge to surface water. The reviewer determines whether

- estimated hazardous constituent conce:trations and projected distribution of hazardous constituents are best estimate or reasonably conservative representations of the rate, extent, and direction of constituent transport based, in part, on the existing distribution of constituents in contaminated groundwater. The reviewer confirms that all likely and significant pathways of constituent transport in groundwater and surface water have been identified and adequately assessed with respect to estimating conservative or realistic effects caused by human or environmental exposure to hazardous constituents.

In addition, the reviewer verifies that the assessments used to estimate constituent transport are appropriate for use in support of regulatory decisions. For best estimate projections, the reviewer confirms that the projections have been sufficiently validated and calibrated based on available site-specific information. The reviewer confirms that temporal and spatial estimates of hazardous constituent cdncentrations are ' adequate to support assessments of the risks of human and environmental exposure to the constituents.

The reviewer evaluates information relevant to the establishment of background water quality at facilities, including, but not limited to, water quality data, facility characteristics, protocols used to establish background concentrations, vicinity characteristics, and conceptual and analytical hydrogeologic models. Based on the adequacy of this information, the reviewer determines whether the assessment reasonably characterizes the background quality of groundwater and surface water that has been or may be impacted by the facility. Establishment of background water quality may be complicated at sites where existing or potential water contamination may affect water quality

in several aquifers or water bodies. The reviewer determines whether the assessment establishes background water quality for each aquifer potentially affected by water contamination, and for surface water bodies that are hydraulically connected with hydrogeologic units that are downgradient from the facility.

At sites where water samples representative of background quality cannot be collected (e.g., where entire aquifers are contaminated by seepage of tailings leachate), the reviewer evaluates (1) the licensee's justification for not characterizing background quality and (2) the licensee's assessment that proposes reasonably conservative concentration and value estimates for appropriate water quality constituents and parameters. The reviewer evaluates site and facility inforntion and either confirms the determination of background water quality or determines that the estimates are not reasonably conservative. The reviewer ensures that estimates of background water quality are sufficient to support analyses of potential use of water resources and adverse offects associated with hunan and environrental exposure to hazardous constituents that may be transported in the groundwater and surface water.

3.3.2.3 Exposure Assessrent Based on the confirmed characterizations of the source term and rates and directions of hazardous constituent transport, the reviewer evaluates tht assessrent of the risks associated with human and environmental exposure to' hazardous constituents. The scope of the assessment includes characterization of existing and potential uses of water resources that ray be affected by the facility, evaleation of human and environmental exposure to hazardous  ;

constituents, and assessrent of the permanence and persistence of any adverse effects associated with exposure. .

The reviewer determines whet' hor the characterization of exposure pathways is adequate with respect to relevancy, corpleteness, reliability, and accuracy of input to the assessments of human and environmental exposure to hazardous l l

s l I

constituents. The scope of this characterization includes quantitative and/or qualitative description of physical and biological pathways of ccnstituent transport via groundwater and surface water to exposed populations. The reviewer confirms the licensee's identification and characterization of sensitive human and environmental populations. The reviewer also confirms that ,

sensitive populations have been adequately considered in the exposure assessinent. The reviewer dettrmines whether the assessment adequately  ;

characterizes physical and biological exposure pathways. The reviewer verifies that the licensee has at least assessed the following two pathways in assessing human exposure: drinking water ingestion and ingestion of contaminated food products.

Based on the confirred characterization cf exposure pathways, the reviewer verifies the licensee's assessment of adverse effects associated with present and potential human exposure to hazardeus constituents. The scope of the human exposure assessment includes: (1) classification of affected water resources; (2) assessment of existing and potential uses of water resources; (3) evaluation of the likelihood that people will be exposed to hazardous constituents; and (4) evaluation of adverse effects associated with exposure to hazardous constituents, including assessment of the permanence and persistence of adverse effects.

1 3.3.2.3.1 Resource Classification and Water Use I The reviewer assesses the classification of water resources at the facility and I i the existing and potential uses of these water resources. The reviewer ,

confirms that the licensee considers the following uses of surface water and i groundwater in the area surrounding the facility: domestic and municipal drinking water, fish and wildlife propagation, industrial, agricultural (

(livestock watering and irrigation), recreation, and special ecological corenunities. The reviewer verifies the licensee's: (1)assessmentofexisting f and potential uses of water resources; (2) assessment of potential and safe {

yields of water resources in relation to requisite supply rates; (3) evaluation  !

I 1

.. l of the relative costs for development of water resources for beneficial uses; and (4) assessment of legal, statutory, or other administrative constraints on I use and development of the water resources. The reviewer assesses the licer.see's evaluation of existing and potential water uses for both surface water and groundwater. The reviewer verifies that the licensee's assessrent of existing and potential uses of water at the facility is generally consistent with evaluations prepared by Federal, Sta te, and local governmental organizations (e.g., State water well inventories, U.S. Geological Survey  !

(USGS) surinary appraisals of groundwater resources, state water use surinary reports). The reviewer confirms that the evaluation of water uses provides an adequate basis on which to assess existing and potential human and environmental exposure to hazardous constituents.

The reviewer ensures that the assessment conservatively estimates the probability of human exposure to contaminated water. Such estimates are often difficult to establish quanti' tively, so defensible qualitative estimates may suffice in lieu of quantitat .. determinations. Exan:ples of such qualitative i determinations include the fo. lowing:

(1) Reasonably likely - cxposure has or could have occurred in the past, or available information insicates that exposure may reasonably occur during the duration of the contamination; and (2) Reasonably unlikely - exposure could have occurred in the past, but will probably not occur in the future, because initial incentives for water use have been reroved, or available information indicates that no incentives for water use are currently identifiable, based on foreseeable technological developments.

Review of qualitative determinations of exposure probability considers existing and potential water uses and comparison of background water quality with appropriate water quality criteria. In general, the reviewer considers existing and potential uses of water resources that r.ay be affected by the

- 34 facility. Existing use r.ay include past use, even though water resources are not presently being used. Potential uses include anticipated and possible uses. Anticipated water use includes only those uses that are reasonably sure to occur. Possible uses are those that are compatible with background water quality without water treatment before use.

In reviewing long-term wa'sr use, the reviewer also considers aquifer classifications consistent with EPA's Groundwater Protection Strategy ( August 1984) and the "Guidelines for Groundwater Classification under the EPA Groundwater protection Strategy" (December 1986). The reviewer assumes that l exposure is likely to occur for Class I groundwaters, unless the licensee demonstrates that exposure to people using the Class I groundwater is impossible. The reviewer considers potential uses of Class 11 groundwaters, but such uses are not considered for Class !!! groundwaters, unless they currently supply water for beneficial purposes.

The reviewer confirms the assessment of existing and anticipated uses of water by comparing background water quality with relevant Federal, State, and local water quality standards. Appropriate water quality standards are selected for

. comparison based on background water quality, existing and potential water uses, and legal considerations. When standards are inconsistent, .the most stringent criteria prevail, unless the licensee demonstrates that less stringent standards preempt the more stringent criteria, based on legal or

' technical argurents. In addition to inform tion provided in the assessrent, the reviewer my assemble and consider infors.ation on water use from such

organizations as local water supply companies or agencies, regional water comissions, State and Federal agencies, and local water users. In addition, the reviewer considers water use based on demography of the facility vicinity,  ;

demographic projections, zoning patterns, and average and Nximum projected estimtes of population growth.

' The reviewer generally assumes that the most significant pathway for human exposure to waterborne contaminants is through consumption of contaminated

~

I drinking water, unless scoping assessments indicate that other exposure  :

pathways (e.g., dermal contact, inhalation, food ingestion) may be of equal or greater significance. Consistent with this assumption, the reviewer classifies the water resources in accordance with EPA's Groundwater Protection Strategy (August 1984). The reviewer further classifies Class II groundwater as either Class A or B resources in support of the exposure assessment. As an initial approach, the staff considers that Class A resources have a mean annual total  ;

dissolved solids (TDS) concentration less than 3,000 mg/l in water [

4 representative of background quality. Class B resources are defined as l aquifers or surface water bodies in which the mean annual TDS concentration equals or exceeds 3,000 mg/l in water representative of background quality.

However, the reviewer s.ny determine whether the water is Class A or 8, on a i

site-specific basis, by considering concentrations of other constituents that affect human exposure to hazardous constituents. l r

For class A resources, the reviewer assumes that humans withdraw water from i

affected aquifers an$/or surface water bodies at any point beyond the tite I

boundary in the direction that is hydraulically downgradient from the facility.

This ascutption applies for Class A resources regardless of whether water i resources are currently being used. For class B resources, the reviewer evaluates adverse effects on human health due to exposure to hazardous  :

3 constituents considering the location (s) and purpose (s) of the nearest,  !

i I downgradient, existing or potential water use. In. general, the reviewer does not consider evaluation of human health effects due to exposura from the j f

use of Class III groundwater resources (PA's Groundwater Protection Strategy) j l  ;

and water resources with background mean annual TDS concentrations in excess of

! 10,000 mg/1, unless ~ such an evaluation is warranted because of existing or I anticipated uses, f I i 3.3.2.3.2 Evaluation of Health Hazards f.

3 The reviewer determines whether the licensee's assessment provides reasonably f conservative or best estimates of potential health effects caused by human  ;

i i

1

, , - , - - , , , - - - - - - - _ , - - - , - - - , , _ - - - - . - . - - - - - - . ,--_-n- - , . - . ~ , - - - - - - - - , . , - - -

l i

i exposure to hazardous constituents associated with existing or potential uses j of water resources. This determination is based on comparisons of existing and j projected constituent concentrations with appropriate exposure limits and  !

dose-response relationships from available literature. The reviewer confirms  ;

that the licensee considers Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for drinking  !

water, reference doses (RfDs), or risk specific doses (RSDs) in assessing l l potential health hazards for each hazardous constituent for which an ACL is l l

- proposed. In the absence of applicable MCLs, RfDs, or RSDs, the reviewer l l confirms that the licensee has assessed dose-response relationships for the f I constituents, based on comprehensive literature searches or toxicological l l research. The reviewer verifies that the exposure analysis distinguishes l 1

between threshold (toxic) and non-threshold (carcinogenic) effects associated  ;

with human exposure. The reviewer also verifies that the licensee. considers f i other adverse effects such as teratogenic, fetotoxic, mutagenic, and l j synergistic effects, based on available information.

J l The RfDs discussed above are amounts of toxic constituents to which humans can be exposed on a daily basis without suffnring any aJverse effect. RSDs

[

characterize the potency of carcinogenic constituents or suspecte4/ potential  !

carcinogens. RSDs are secunts of constituents to which humans can be exposed (

j j on a daily basis without increasing their risk of contracting cancer above a l

specified risk level. RSDs and RfDs for most hazardous constituents in uranium l mill tailings can be obtained from EPA. Both of these types of .alues are ,

j calculated based on laboratory testing and/or epidemiological < search. In-l reviewing the RfDs and RSDs selected by the licensu, the reviewer verifies l l that the licensee assumes a human mass of 70 kg and consumption of 2 liters of

(

drinking water per day, unless sensitive populations are likely to be exposed j l

to the hazardous constituents. The reviewer also confires that the licensee's j l assessment assumes reasonable exposure to hazardous constituents via pathways l

e other than ingestion of drinking water (e.g., consumption of food containing l l i j thehazardousconstituent). The reviewer confirms that the licensee adequately characterizes for sensitive populations the exposure variables that [

{  ;

l significantly influence the adverse effects due to hazardous constituat l

l l

0

~

e,:posure. In calculating the RSDs, the reviewer confirms that the Itcensee has l used an appropriate risk level. In general, risk levels of the order of IE-6  :

lifetime risk associated with exposure should be assuined. The reviewer i confirms the licensee's selection and justification of an alternste risk level in the range of 1E-4 to IE-7 considering: (1) facility-specific considerations ,

that influence the li:<*, hood of human adverse effects associated with  !

exposure; (2) other envireccental health factors borne by the affected {

population;and(3)uncertaintiesassociatedwiththedataandassessmentsused }

to evaluate potential adverse effe.is.

The reviewer will ensure that the licensee considers the cumulative effects of human exposure to hazardous constituents. The reviewer verifics that the  ;

licensee's assessment evaluates effects associated with exposure to hazardous l constituents for which ACLs are proposed and other constituents present in j contaminated groundwater. As a minimum, the reviewer confirms that the L licensee uses an additive approach in assessing ac' verse effects associated with f exposure to conctituynts that produce the same adverse effects by similar f toxicological mechanisms.

The reviewer conflims that the licensee identifies and adequately justifies a l max %m allowable human exposure level for ecch Act. constituent. The reviewer l Verifles that the justifications for the wximum exposure levels identify  !

une.ortainties inherent in estimating the risk of adverse exposure to  !

constituents. The reviewer verifies that the licensee considers the persistence and perinanence of adverse effects on people. The reviewer  !

deterdnes whether the proposed human exposure levels are reasonably j conservative, defensible, and sufficiently protective of human health to avoid [

a substantial present or potential hazsrd to people for the estimated duration [;

of the contamination, j i

i

1

)

t 3.3.2.3.3 Evaluation of Environmental Hazards Similar to the review of human health effects, the reviewer verifies the licensee's assessment of risks associated with hazardous constituent exposure to environmental populations. The scope of the review includes consideration of adverse effects to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, plants, agricultural i

crops and animals, and physical structures. The reviewer verifies that the assessment especially considers potential adverse effects on endangered species and critical habitats. The reviewer confirms that the evaluation adequately identifies endangered species and critical habitats by consulting with appropriate organizations within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The reviewer confirms that the assessment adequately identifies and evaluates t

adverse effects such as contamination-induced biotic changes, loss or reduction of unique or critical habitats, and jeopardization of endangered species. The reviewer also confirms that the assessrent is adequate with respect to

) relevancy, completeness, reliability, and accuracy to justify raxirv:n allowable environmental exposure levels, c

For each potential exposure pathway, the reviewer compares existing and l predicted constituent concentrations with chronic toxicity levels for plants and animals. The reviewer may consider acute and subchronic effects, when l I warranted, based on estimated constituent concentrations and limits for acute and subchronic enviroerental exposure. For physical structures, such as ,

foundations, underground pipes, and roads, the reviewer ensures that estimated l constituent concentrations will not result in any substantial degradation or

• loss of function as a result of exposure to the contamination. The reviewer verifies that the licensee's assessrent adequately identifies all environmental  ;

species or representative groups of species and physical structures that may i reasonably be exposed to contaminated groundwater and hydraulically connected l surface water. e appropriate. The reviewer confirms that the assessrent l adequately idtniU1es and assesses potential adverse effects associated with  ;

environmental exposure to hazardous constituents and other constituents that i I

may be present in contaminated water.  ;

1

'O e ,

In reviewing adverse effects, the reviewer ensures that bicaccumulation and food web interactions are adequately considered, based on ava!1able literature.

For effects on aquatic wildlife, the reviewer confirms that estimates of water dilution potential are reasonably conservative with respect tc maximizing potential constituent concentrations and environmental exposures. Tht' reviewer '

generally evaluates aquatic wildlife effects by cogaring estimated constituent concentrations with appropricte Federal and State water quality criteria. The reviewer ensures that the licensee considers terrestrial wildlife exposure to

, constituents via direct axposure and food web interactions. At sites where terrestrial wildlife may be exposed to hazardous constituents, the reviewer confirms that the assesscent adequately identifies and assesses dominant terrestrial habitats in the vicinity of the facility, and that comunity -

diversity assessrents of these habitats include consideration of species r richness and ccanunity structure. The reviewer confirms the licensee's ,

characterization of terrestrial habitats based on comparisons with  !

representative background data.

Review of agricultural effccts considers both direct and inoirect exposure pathways, including crop frpacts, reduced productivity, and bicaccumulation of constituents. Similar to the review of aquatic wildlife effects, the reviewer compi.res reasonably conserystive estimates of constituent concentrations with relevant Federal and State water quality criteria and literature values to  ;

estimate agricultural effuts associstso with constituent exposure. The reviewer verifies that the assessNnt censiders crop 6.vposure via contaminated soil, shallow groundwater uptake, and irrigation. The reviewer also verifies that the assessment considers livestock exposure via direct ingestion of contaminated water and indirect exposure via foraging and grazing. The reviewer ensures that the agricultural assessment is consistent with any assessment of human exposure to hazardous constituents via ingestion of contaminated food products.

For both huran and environmental hazard assessments, the reviewer confirms that the assessment provides an reasonsbly conservative or best estimate basis for

t establishing ACLs to prevent substantial present and potential hazards associated with exposure of people and the environment to hazardous constituents.

i 3.3.3 Review Elelynt 2: Corrective Action Review f i In conjunction with the NRC sttff hazard assessment review, the staff reviews the licensee's assessment of the neeo for and selection of corrective actions, .

The scope of the evaluation includes previous, ongoing, and future corrective  ;

actions. The reviewer determines whether the licensee a.toustely demonstrates j

that the proposed ACLs are as low as reasonably achievable, considering i practicable corrective actions. The scope of the demonstration includes  !

identification of alternative corrective actions, assessment of the technical

]

feasibility of these actions, evaluation of the costs and benefits associated l with wslementation of feasible corrective actions, and selection of l

J practicable corrective actions, based a comparison of the costs and benefits !

l of feasible corrective actions for contar.inated groundwater. l i

The NRC staf f reviews the corrective action assessment used to support ACL  ;

demonstrations to ensure that the following criteria are satisfied:

f

! 1. Have a relatively complete set and range of alternative corrective l l actions been identified? .

l f

}

2. Does the assessment adequately identify feasible corrective actions i that are appropriate to reduce hazardous constituent concentrations in (

f '

i contaminated groundwater at the site?

1 t i 3. Have the corrective actions been designed adequately to optimize their

- effectiveness in reducing hazardous constituent concentrations and to sitigate potential haza'ds that may be associated with their  !

isr,lementation? l t

l

t

(

4. Does the assessment provide an objective corparison of the costs and  ;

benefits associated with the performance of feasible correctivu actions?

5. Does the assessment demonstrate that the proposed ACLs are as low as f reasonably achievabic, considering practicable corrective actions?

The reviewer verifies that the assessernt identifies and assesses a reasonatte l range of corrective actions and that these actions have been designed to j cptimize their effectiveness in protecting people and the environment. The l reviewer confirms that optimization calculations provide representative i approximations of the performance of the affected hydrogeologic system. The j i reviewer also ensures that the set of corrective actions represents a '

i m sonable range of actions that are appropriate to reduce, control, mitigate, or eliminate water contamination.

l  !

Af ter reviewing the identification of a range of corrective actions, the reviewer verifies the licensee's assessment of the technical feasibility of f implementing these actions. Reviews of the technical feasibility vary, based l

) on site-specific considerations, such as hydrogeologic characteristics, extent l I

of contamination, and potential for human and enviromnents) exposure. The reviewer verifies the feasibility assessment based on the hydrogeologic characterization and hazard assessment reviewed under Review Element 1 and the optimization calculations discussed above. The reviewer confirms that the j licensee's feasibility assessment is also based on proven applications of l corrective action techniques and methods at other contaminated sites With [

similar characteristics. The reviewer ensures that the assessment .- ders (

combinations of corrective action measures, including natural y n Jon,  ;

where appropriate. The reviewer confirms that the licensee identifies a range f cf feasible corrective actions, based on the assessment. l The reviewer determines whether corrective actions have been designed to optimize their effectiveness in reducing hazardous constituent concentrations j and to mitigate hazards associated with their implementation. The reviewer

confirms that conceptual designs of the corrective actions are sufficiently detailed to implement the corrective actions upon selection. The scope of the review varies based on the: selection of feasible corrective actions; characteristics of the affected hydrogeologic system; probability of human and environmental exposure; and potential hazards associated with exposure. For example, the review of a corrective action that includes a slurry wall would include confirmation of: (1) the compatibility of the wall with anticipated geochemical conditions; (2) barrier wall composition and mixture ratios; (3) design specificat %ns; (4) methods of determining the effectiveness of the slurry wall; (5? thod of trench excavation and wall construction; (6) contact with adjacent afining beds; (7) hydraulic properties and geochemical characteristics .8) projected changes in the hydrogeologic system cavsed by wall construction; and (9) contingency measures. For an aquifer restoration program, the reviewer would confirm such design aspects as: (1) the characteristics of contaminated water treatment techniques; (2) installation and construction of withdraw 11 aAd injection wells or trenches; (3) projected performance of the restoration system; (4) pumping rates and locations; (5) dist, sal of treatment wastes (both liquid and solid); (6) characteristics of thetreatmentwastes;(7)methodsofdeterminingrestorationeffectiveness;(8) l restoration target levels; (9) estimated duration of restoration, (10) the )

monitoring prog-am during restoration; a'nd (11) contingency measures.

The reviewer confirms that corrective action programs can effectively enhance

protection of the public and enviroment from hazardous ennstituents in water, which includes confirmation that

(1) the actions are reasonable (i.e.,

actions are appropriate and achievable at the factitty); and (2) the actions are specific, clearly documented, and designed such that their implenintation and the results of their implementation can be verified through subsequent  !

field observations.

The reviewer confirms that perforrance of the feasible corrective actions cosplies with relevant Federal, State, and local reg.lations and statutes. A i i

comitment by tha licensee to comply with these provisions satisfies the

reviewer's responsibilities, unless the reviewer is aware of other regulations or provisions that have not been specifically identified. In this case, the omitted regulations will be identified through the comenting process.

Authority for detertnining compliance with all such regulations and statutes resides with the agency or administrative body charged with implarenting these regulatory programs (e.g., the or authorized State for the National Pollutant DischargeEliminationSystem(NPDES) program).

The reviewer confirms that the direct and indirect benefits of performing the corrective actions have been objectively coupared with the costs of such actions. Adequacy of the cost estimates is based on coc71eteness ab.t accuracy of cost assessment, including consideration of such components as: capital coste for implereotation; eparation and maintenance costs for continued operation; and depreciation and discount modifications to projected costs.

Adequacy of the benefits assessment is evaluated on a similar basis, consider;ng such benefits as: avoidance of adverse health effects; protection end recovery of the value of contaminated groundwater resources; prevention of land value depreciation; benefits accrued directly from performance of the

, corrective action; and other benufits realized by avoiding adverse environmental effects identified in the hazard assessment under Review Element j 1.

1 The reviewer verifies estimates of the current and projected value of contaminated water resources by first confinning that the resources have been identified and appropriately valued in the licensee's assessment. The reviewer confirms tret the estimatu are rn11able, based on inforreation such as:

appropriated water rights; costs of bottled water; availability of alternative water supplies; and projected water use demands. The reviewer generally considers the value of potentially contaminated water resources to be equal to either: (1) the produr.t of the safe yield of the water resources and the unit a

cost of supplied water for 'its intended purpose (e.g., cost of potable water for domestic or municipal drinking water supplies); or (2) the cost of supplied water to replace the contaminated resources. The reviewer determines whether 1

a e .

proposed alternate water supplies would be adequate to replace contaminated supplies considering the availability and characteristics (e.g., capital and operationalcosts,suppliablerates,andquality)ofalternativesupplies. The absence of alternative supplies on a local or regional scale increases the relative value of potentially contaminated water resources. ,

The reviewer assesses the adequacy of the licensee's consideration of practicable corrective rctions and demonstration that proposed ACLs are as low as reasonably achievable. The reviewer confirms that the assessment provides e reascnable balance between the cost of the corrective actions and the societal, J

environmental, and economic benefits to be accrued in the inmediate future and over the long-term through performance of the corrective actions. The reviewer

! considers relevant guidance such as the as low as reasonably achievable '

philosophy in Appendix ! to 10 CFR Part 50, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements Report Nur.ber 39, and International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 22. The reviewer verifies that the licensee's assessment demonstrates that the proposed ACLs are as low as reasonably achievable, considering practicable corrective action.

I A

I

1

~

c 45 -

3.4 Review Findings _

i If the licensee's ACL application satisfies the acceptance criteria and the NRC staff's review confirms the basis for the proposed ACLs, the reviewer concludes that the dennonstration provides reasonable assurance of compliance with NRC's requirement in Criterion SB(6) of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40. Based on this conclusion, the reviewer recomends approval of the site-specific alternate concentration limits for the constituents requested by the licensee. The reviewer documents the recomendation, provides the technical basis for the recomendation, and concludes the recomendation as follows:

Based on NRC staff review of the alternate concentration limits (ACLs) proposed by [specify name of licensee) on [specify date) in accordance with Criterion SB(6) of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 for [specify name and location of f acility), the staff recow4nds that ACLs be established for (specify hazardous constituent (s)) in groundwater at this facility because (1) the proposed ACLs will not pose a substantial present or potential hazard to hurnan health or the environment as long as constituent concentrations do not exceed the ACLs, and (2) the proposed ACLs are as low as reasonably achievable considering practicable corrective actions.

The reviewer may also recomend establishing ACLs for only those constituents for which the licensee's dsmonstration is sufficient to satisfy NRC's requirement in Criterion SB(6) of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40. In this case, the reviewer would docunent the recomendation as above and include a description of the ACLs proposed by the licensee that were not recossnended for establishirent. Such descriptions should list the unapproved ACLs, cite specific inadequacies that caused the licensee's demonstration to fail for selected constituents, describe the technical basis for the review conclusions, and identify alternative technical approaches that the NRC staff finds acceptable to resolve the inadequacies, if appropriate.

l i

e

$ 4.

.  ; 6~*

If the reviewer concludes that the licensee's (v.nonstration fails to demonstrate compliance with Criterion SB(6) of Appendix A to 10 CFR Fart 40, then the reviewer documents the basis fcx failure, cites specific inadequacies that caused the demonstration es fi!. li (ascribes the technical basis for the review conclusions, and idt .nsl altnin' tive approaches for the licensee to resolve the inadequacies, i' i4 fopriate.

- In addition, documentation s ' cchcra a.- ens for or against establishment of ACLs identify: (1) aspect, of the ACL review that vere particularly emphasized; (2) deviations of she review from the review criteria and procedures detailed in this technical position; (3) justifications for these deviations; and (4) any conclusiens that require confirmatory monitoring or surveillance to ensure consistency with assumptions invo~ked in support of the ACL demonstration.

l G

9