ML19309E062
| ML19309E062 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/17/1980 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Udall M HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309E063 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-PROJ-M-25 NUDOCS 8004180279 | |
| Download: ML19309E062 (10) | |
Text
r;r; UNITED sTATEo
%g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g,
e o
E WASHINGTON D. C. 2055E March 17, 1980 k....
n CHAIRMAN l
The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman Ccmmittee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515 c
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for your letter of December 6,1979, raising several questions about the NRC Agreement States Program and the Church Rock dam failure.
Answers to these questions are enclosed.
At the outset, I would like to report that the Commission is considering a number of actions which touch on your concerns about the conduct of For example, the Commission will decide NRC's Agreement States Program.
in the next several months on the future role of the Office of Stata f
Programs, and on revised criteria for assessing the radiological safety Since the Commission has not yet programs of the Agreement States.
decided on these actions, only prelimintry answers can be provided to your questions which have policy implicutions (Qut.stions 1, 4, and 5).
I have, however, included complete answers to questions requesting factual inf'ormation (Questions 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8) and to your concern over the Commission's decision to admit Rhode Island as an Agreement State.
In the near future, I will be responding to the concerns addressed in your March 6,1980 letter regarding groundwater monitoring results in I
the area affected by the Church Rock spill.
Silcerely, h
John F. Ahearne
Enclosure:
i l
Responses to Questions
~
cc: Rep. Don Clausen 8004.1 go $$g g79 t
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS in December 6,1979 Letter _
From Chairman Udall GENERAL QUESTION:
Concern Over Admission of Rhode Island as Agreement State.
ANSWER Your letter raised one issue that your questions did not address.
You mentioned you were disturbed by the Comission's decision to admit Rhode Island as an Agreement State in view of the impending changes in the evaluation criteria.
The Commission did not consider the shortcomings of the criteria to be of sufficient significance to warrant a moratorium on admitting new States. The Commission acted according to Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act, which states that the Commission shall enter into an agreement after a finding of compatibility and adequacy. The Rhode Island submission satisfied the requirements of the NRC criteria for a Section 274 agreement.
Commissioners Gilinsky and Bradforo did not concur in this decision.
QUESTION 1:
Does the Commission agree with me that it would be productive to involve more fully and formally the Commission's licensing divisions in review of Agreement States' licensing activities?
ANSWER.
The Agreement States Program was, until 1976, a part of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS). At that time, the Commission transferred the Program to the newly created 0;fice of State Programs (0SP).
The Commission is now reconsidering this decision.
The Commission's deliberations, which will take several months to complete, are likely to lead to more clearly defined involvement of licensing offices in the review of Agreement States' licensing activities. During % course of our deliberations, we will solicit the views of the various offices on ;he options. We will inform you of the results of these deliberations when they are complete.
Commissioner Gilinsky favors the transfer of OSP's functions to NMSS.
l l
l i
QUESTION 2:
Since the dual licensing arrangement has ended, what role is the Commission playing in reviewing mill tailings impoundments in Agreement States in light of the dam break at Church Rock? What is the status of reviews being carried out by the Agreement States?
ANSWER:
The NRC performs two roles related to mill tailings impoundments in Agreement States.
First, the NRC provides technical assistance to States that request it for specific licensing cases. This involves the NRC licensing staff very directly in evaluating specific technical issues in individual cases. These evaluations are documented in reports which are provided to the States.
The NRC staff also provides technical assistance, at the request of the States, with respect to evaluations and corrective actions associated with specific incidents.
Second, the NRC is required by the amendment to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) to ensure that the Agreement States fulfill the technical and procedural requirements of the UMTRCA to the maximum extent practical.
In a January 3,1980 letter, the NRC staff informed the Agreement States of the procedures the staff considers necessary for them to meet the requirements of the UMTRCA, and of the NRC offer of technical assistance to help the States comply with UMTRCA during the interim period before the UMTRCA becomes fully effective in 1981. A key step that the staff considers should and can be taken by Agreement States in connection with their licensing actions is to prepare documented assessments for public review and connent.
With regard to the embankment failure at Church Rock, the NRC has issued an infor-mation bulletin to the Agreement States so that they can take appropriate actions regarding their reviews of mill tailings impoundments.
The bulletin contains (1) a description of the probable cause of the Church Rock failure, and (2) NRC recommen-dations for the inspection and review of tailings embankment retention systems to reduce the probability of the recurrence of such a failure.
In addition, personnel from the staffs of the Offices of State Programs, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Inspection and Enforcement, and Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards were dispatched to New Mexico to assist the State in its evaluation of the dam failure at Church Rock and the environmental impacts of the failure. We have requested the States to inform the NRC staff of the action they are taking; the staff will provide technical assistance to the States as requested.
According to the States involved (Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Washington, and Arizona), the impoundments of all Agreement States except for Arizona have been inspected either by the Corps of Engineers or by the State Engineer. Arizona is planning to return this part of their program to the NRC. The other four States expect inspection reports in the next several weeks.
l l
, QUESTION 3:
At our hearing on the Church Rock dam failure in October, there was a discrepancy in testimony regarding the State of New Mexico's action on milling and tailings licenses.
A state official, Cubia Clayton, testified that because of the state licensing agency's "other environmental protection mandate and staffing, there is opportunity for a more comprehensive review of license applications than is
)
generally possible at the federal levei." Another witness, representing Southwest Research and Information Center, claimed that although four licenses in New Mexico came up for renewal in 1976, " licenses have not been renewed and the companies are still in operation." The witness, Paul Robinson, also claimed that "New Mexico has never renewed a single uranium mill license in the history of its Agreement State status dating back to 1974."
I understand license renewal to be an important means of reviewing or requiring improvements for milling and dispoal operations. What.is the Commission's policy regarding relicensing? What is the normal time frame for processing license renewals? What is the status of license renewals in other Agreement States where uranium milling operations are licensed?
ANSWER.
With reference to the testimony of Paul Robinson, the claim that New Mexico has never renewed a uranium mill M cense since becoming an Agreement State is true. Upon becoming an Agreement State in 1974, New Mexico assumed responsibility for four li-censes which are due to expire in 1976.
All four licensees applied for renewal and are being allowed to continue to operate during the renewal review. This is consis-tent with NRC's policy which allows continued operation while an application for license renewal is under review.
In 1979, the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board adopted revisions to the State regulations which the State believes will conform to the requirements of UMTRCA. This will require significant changes in the mill applicants' environmental report for renewal.
New Mexico will review the renewal applications of these four mills under the new regulations of January 1980.
One other mill license will expire in July 1980.
On January 28, 1980, New Mexico licensed a new mill (Bokum).
Based on an environmental j
assessment of the mill prepared for the State of New Mexico (copy attached), the NRC staff concluded that the Bokum tailings management concept is acceptable subject to the conditions itemized in the assessment.
Regarding your question on NRC's relicensing policy, we feel that license renewal reviews provide a regular periodic opportunity for a systematic evaluation to deter-mine if a facility is operating in a manner to assure public health and safety and to minimize environmental hazards to as low as reasonably achievable.
I l
l j
In May 1977, the NRC issued interim criteria for uranium mill tailings management in the form of a Branch Technical Position.
This position noted how the licensing staff would implement these criteria for existing tailings piles as well as for developing programs for new positions.
The NRC has utilized these interim criteria to evaluate and upgrade the tailings management progrt;n for all operations in Non-Agreement States, most of them in conjunction with license renewal reviews.
It has been the experience of the licensing staff that working with the operators to develop an acceptable tailings management program for an existing facility is a much more difficult and time consuming task than reviewing a new proposal where options are virtually unlimited.
This will be particularly true in New Mexico where the largest tailings piles exist and where remedial action plans are expected to be the most difficult to develop and implement.
The licensing staff urged New Mexico in early fall, 1978, at a meeting in Santa Fe, New Mexico to i::itiate the process by requiring existing mill operators to perform an environmental impact study of their tailings pile and propose tailings reclamation alternatives for regulatory review.
This first step in the review process could take as long as one year to complete.
It takes two additional years for the NRC to review the licensee's study proposing alternative tailings programs in terms of NRC licensing requirements; to document the NRC evaluation and state conclusions, including changes the staff finds necessary in the licensee's proposal, and receive public comments; to resolve these comments; and to issue the final document with specific proposed license conditions.
As shown in Enclosures 1 and 2, the NRC staff repeated its recoctnendations that New Mexico act as promptly as possible to develop programs meeting NRC criteria for managing tailings at existing sites. is the New Mexico response to the NRC staff recommendations.
The State of New Mexico's Environmental Improvement Board adopted regulations to require applications to review alternative tailings management methods in November 1979.
These regulations are not yet effective.
There are six conventional uranium mill licensees in Agreement States other than New Mexico.
Three of these, one in Washington and two in Colorado, have applied for license renewals.
In Washington, the license of Dawn Mining Company expired on August 31, 1979.
Assuming the successful resolution of certain technical problems, the State intends to complete action on the renewal application in late 1980.
In Colorado, Union Carbide and Cotter Corporation have applied for renewals.
Since the expiration of the Union Carbide license on July 31, 1975, the Company has tried unsuccessfully on two occasions to prepare environmental reports acceptable to the State.
If the Company's current effort is successful, the State hopes to decide on the renewal application in mid-1980.
The Cotter license expired on January 31, 1978.
The State is delaying consideration of the renewal application pending the outcome of a non-safety-related investigation of the Corporation and the outcome of litigation against both the Corporation and the State regarding a recent authorization of expansion of Cotter's activities, i
t l
QUESTION 4: The Uranium Mill Tailings Control Act requires that Agreement States programs be carried out in a manner equivalent to the Commission's.
While there existed dual licensing authority, the Commission was setting licensing requirements for new operations in Agreement States.
Since the States have begun carrying out all licensing activities, have substantive licensing requirements remained equivalent to those the Commission has imposed?
ANSWER.
The Commission is presently considering revised criteria for judging the effective-ness of Agreement States' programs.
Once the Commission has decided on new criteria, the NRC will be able to improve its ability to evaluate the extent to which the States' programs are equivalent to that of the NRC.
In the meantime, the licensing staff is providing technical assistance to some Agree-ment States in support of their licensing actions.
This assistance essentially includes an independent environmental evaluation w: lch would conform with the requirements of Section 204e of UMTRCA. All but a few of these cases are evaluations related to new projects.
The four Agreement States with active conventional uranium mills (i.e., Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, and Washington) committed to adopt the requirements resulting from the final generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) on uranium milling prior to the passage of the UMTRCA in November 1978. Although all of the Agreement States generally agree with the interim tailings management criteria the NRC issued in May 1977, and New Mexico is attempting to promulgate regulations for tailings manage-ment that are consistent with these criteria (See response to Question 3), the NMSS staff is not aware of the extent to which the criteria are being applied in cases where they have not provided technical assistance. This is because there have been no independent documented evaluations in support of Agreement State licensing actions.
However, in all cases where the NRC has been request 2d to provide technical evaluations, the 1977 interim criteria have been applied and, therefore, the review and conclusions are consistent with NRC actions. The Office of State Programs has requested the appropriate Agreement States to provide information on the extent which the States have applied the NRC's interim tailings management criteria.
Until the States have developed their compliance procedures, the NRC cannot begin to review individual mill licensing actions of Agreement States as is necessary to assure that these actions comply with the requirements of UMTRCA.
However, the NRC is evaluating Agreement State regulatica in general to determine. areas' that do not meet UMTRCA requirements, and, as noted.n the response to Question 2, is offering technical assistance to help ensure that the requirements are met. The States are attempting to obtain the needed legislation and resources to conduct the type of review required by the passage of UMTRCA. Although the NRC's proposed regulations pertaining to uranium mill licensing have not yet been promulgated in final form, the NRC is encouraging the Agreement States to implement the UMTRCA requirements and the technical guidance issued by NRC to the extent practicable.
6 QUESTION 5:
It has been suggested by members of Congress and witnesses at our hearings that research and development on improved methods of tailings control be increased.
What recommendations can the Commission make in this regard?
ANSWER.
Because we had not completely developed our program prior to submission of the FY80 budget, we have delayed expansion of the scope of the program until FY 1981 and beyond.
To minimize the impact of these delays, we are working closely with DOE to assure that our respective research programs are coordinated and that they will complement each other.
Until an expanded research program can be developed, research is being conducted by NRC which will identify methods which can be employed to minimize impacts to groundwater. Also, we plan to begin projects which will identify techniques which might permit safe return of tailings to deep uranium mines for disposal, and to examine the feasibility of utilizing alternative mill leaching processes which potentially remove contaminants from mill tailings to a greater extent than is possible from current conventional leaching methods.
The Commission does plan to expand its uranium milling research program in FY 1981.
A broad program was developed and initiated during FY 1976 to provide a technical basis for preparation of the generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) on uranium milling and the associated regulations on tailings management and disposal (44 FR 50015).
As a result of our experience in developing rules, and with tailings disposal problems at specific sites, as well as the knowledge learned through this research, we may require a much larger program than was originally anticipated and budgeted for.
OUESTION 6: What is the current status of the clean-up being conducted by United Nuclear Corporation of contamination resulting from the Church Rock spill?
ANSWER.
The staff has not closely monitored the actual cleanup operations (conducted on-site inspections and the like) since the Tailings Act was' amended and the NRC's authority to license in Agreement States was eliminated. We understand that, as of January 1980, cleanup of contamination has been completed in the most heavily affected areas near the mill.
The operator has a contractor crew of about 20 people using moderate to heavy duty equipment (such as front end loaders, bulldozers, and dump trucks) to remove about seven to eight truck loads of contaminated soil per day from the arroyo to the mill tailings area. As of mid-January, about 207,460 cubic feet of contaminated soil has been removed from the affected arroyo and returned to the tail.ings impoundment. The cleanup crew has usually been working six days a week since early November, and cleanup of the remaining " hot spots" may take several more months to complete.
Phile we were involved in a dual licensing role, we worked with the State to estab-lish cleanup criteria and we issued a radiological assessment in support.of this.
We also provided sophisticated mobile laboratory facilities to process over 3,~000 soil samples to guide the cleanup efforts.
In our current role, we are continuing to provide sample analysis as requested by the State and will be assisting the State with technical resources to establish definitive cleanup verification procedures.
We will provide assistance to the State in preparing a final report on the incident and cleanup.
9 e
i 4
e O
. QUESTION 7:
What is the status of groundwater and well ~.snitoring in the area affected or potentially affected by the spill?
ANSWER NRC involvement in monitoring the impacts of the incident has focused primarily on defining the extent of soil contamination needing cleanup.
The responsibility for monitoring groundwater contamination rests with the State of New Mexico, State of Arizona, the Indian Health Service,~ and the Environmental Protection Agency.
A joint monitoring program of these agencies is being conducted on wells at selected locations near affected sections of the Rio Puerco.
The program, which will run for about one year, will consist of monitoring wells in the following communities: Church Rock, Gallup, Mentmore and Manuelito in New Mexico; and, Lupton, Houck, and' Sanders in Arizona.
- O e
i l
p 9
9 QUESTION 8:
United Nuclear Corporation representatives at our hearing stated that the Church Rock tailings impourdment met "all design criteria established by the NRC," including 'tegulatory Guide 1.101.
Did the Church Rock facility meet all iRC's impoundment design criteria?
ANSWER.
In a post-incident analysis, the NRC staff concluded the initial dam design, which was approved by New Mexico, did not meet all of NRC's impoundment criteria. The following areas in the design of the Chruch Ror.k facility are considered inadequate in meeting NRC criteria and conservative engineering practice:
1.
Stability analysis:
The results of stability studies completed by the applicant prior to the dam failure are not acceptable.
The results are unacceptable because the shear strengths adopted for the foundation soils and used in the stability studies did not adequately anticipate the significant loss in shear strength caused by the wetting of foundation soils resulting from the tailings pond impoundment.
The factors of safety computed in the submitted stability studies are therefore based on unconservative soil shear strengths and a direct comparison cannot validly be made with minimum factors of safety that are listed in Regulatory Guide 3.11, " Design, Construction, and Inspection of Embankment Retention Systems for Uran!um Mills."
2.
Settlement studies:
Settlement and potential cracking within the retention embankment was addressed and analyzed in design.
However, the extent of the analysis was not sufficient to properly estimate the magnitude of the settlement problem over the collapsible foundation soils.
A more detailed evaluation of settlement would likely have resulted in design measures that would hase provided a satisfactory engineering solution against harmful embankment cracking.
3.
Dam safety instrumentation:
Basic instrumentation (piezometers and movement devices) to monitor the retention embankment's performance and safety was not installed as suggested in Regulatory Guide 3.11.
Enclosures:
1.
Ltr to T. E. Baca from R. A. Scarano dated 10/3/79 2.
Ltr to T. E. Baca from R. A. Scarano dated 12/4/79 3.
Ltr to R. A. Scarano from T. E. Baca dated 10/18/79 4.
Environmental Assessment by NRC staff to Bokum mill tailings management concept
l l
\\
ENCLOSURE 1 l
l OCT. 31979 Mr. Thomas E. Baca, Director l
Envirorsnental Improvement Division l
P. O. Box 958, Crown Building -
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503 Oear Mr. 5aca:
As you are probably aware the imC has, over the last couple of years, e:nbarked on a syste::iatic program of requiring an upgrading of tailings management programs for uranium mills in non-agreement states. We
'r. ave acconplished this by~ requiring each mill operator to perform a detailed study of alternative methods of tailings managemant and submit it in support of their license renewal application.
We recomend that you require those mills within your jurisdiction operating under timely renewal to perfom this study and submit it within six months for regulatory review. Alternative methods of tailings canagement should be evaluated in confomance with the performance objectives listed 'in the Branch Technical Position transmitted to you by G. Wayne Kerr in May,1977 (copy enclosed).
l Please let ne know if you cannot comply with this request.
l Sincerely, Odginal signed by Ross A. Scarano, Chief Urantun Recovery Licensing Branch Division of Waste Management
Enclosure:
As stated DUPLICATE DOCUMENT Entire document previously entered into system under:
ANO 79)()Q SQ 5"lY No. of pages:
//
7
,..j.g;;.. p..,.y _ g(:; %.y.. 'f V: 7 r
7, g: y. y
- Gj.S??-1..d's
. r T
Li 7 4 rNCLOSURE 2
- .~.,:
p.
(
r
~
v
- 9. g:n.
,e
~- ~."DEC '04 :1979
- =t.
2
. _j J..
1r. Thomas:E.IBacar Director
~; Environmental' Improvement: Division P.. :0. -Cox '968,. Crown' Bldg.
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503
+-
.y---
i
Dear:
Mr. - Bac$:' ',...c
- ..._.. T..: ' ?
- _
~
..... :,..r....-....-.-.--- w.-.... g.n.~ m.,.... g--
c m
- G..' "..
9
~
Based on the May 17,1979,' Comission detemination that the Uranium 3
i
-Mill Tailings Radiation Control.-Act (UMTRCA) of 1978_ gave NRC concurrent -
.i.,;
. jurisdiction :over tailings ~in Agreement States,*.theIURC issued a general license to possess-tailings. The ' August 14, 1979,. Federal ' Register
~7,,.
, i notice of the Comission action also noted'that-the authority to possess,
.own, or receive title to rtailings underithe general license-was subject A
to NRC remedial orders as 'necessary to. protect the.public health and
?-l :
safety.
..e
<+
1
.i s,.
u
.-z,.;... ; ;..
1
'.Accordin~ gly, Mr. John J. Linehan of my staff and Mr.4iike Mustain', HRC 9 '- -
~
),
Region IV, visited the operating mills in ;Newtexico on-September 20 and
~ 21, 1979, to determine if any immediate remedial acti.ns should-be taken at operating-tailings disposal areas.
~
-( '
As you-knc6 Congress has recently passed an. amendment to the UMTRCA of 1978 to make it clear that the NRC has no-direct licensing. responsibility
- over tailings materials in Agreement States-for at least the three-year period following enactment.of'UMTRCA. Accordingly, we are hereby transmitting.our. observations and recomendations.and urge.you to take appropriate licensing actions. We will, of.. course, provide;any technical i
assistance you mi.ght need -in.this. matter.
tj. -
t
- 7 :.
n.
'You will note that.one of~ the recomendations' is to require the operators
~
to perfom a study of alternative methods of managing the existing and
. future uranium' tailings and.was the subject of my October 3,1979, 9
letter to you. We feel this is a matter of utmost importance and again
'+'
recomend that this effort be sinitiated as soon as possible.
c.s::..%g:p..,
..g
.~
Sincerely.
-=.:...:..jy;3.h5@....
'O. /?-
6..
.. ;. - -l.%,w..1.:
y.:4*.pn :
.c n
y-
~
4
.. IS$$j-f;$Ed '
'y?
'f;)*.'*s.
~
"i
- Original-Signed by i.
'I.Q.75lP"ii'9@...
, 3,. ; -.'._.- -
- s..
~
h...
~
Z Ross A..Scarano,. Chief I'.W '
Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch 4
- Divisfon of Wastet.anagement
.2.. _..
(bol WY
~
1 i
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT l
IVi RdUEfI MILL FACILITY
~
~
BOKUM RES URd5S CDRPORATIOA~
February 1980 l
DUPLICATE DOCUMENT U. S. Nuclear Regulator / CommiSS Entire document previously entered into system under:
$00 3Q 000 7/ __
ANO No. of pages: __ _ /Mt-/
(
(.- ~
(
g naco UNITED STATES 4
NUca EAR REGULATORY.. COMMISSION
[ :w g
WASHINGTON,t D. Ci10555
,a a
.af g
$0V 1-61979 2.-
~
MEMORANDUM FOR: -Ross A. Scarano, Chief Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch
'FROM:
John J. Linehan, Section Leader Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch
SUBJECT:
REPORT ON SITE VISITS TO SOHIO, ANACONDA, KERR-MCGEE AND UNC HOMESTAKE PARTNERS URANIUM MILLS IN NEW MEXIC0
. Dates:
' September 20 and 21,1979
Participants:
M. Mustain, I & E, Region IV J. Linehan, WMUR
Purpose:
To familiarize NRC staff with the conditions of tailings areas at operating uranium mills in New Mexico and to determine if, under the NRC's concurrent jurisdiction over tailings in New Mexico, any immediate remedial et:ons should be taken at operating tailings disposal areas.
During a September 6, 1979 telephone conversation with J. Linehan, T. Wolff, New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division (EID), declined NRC's invitation for EID personnel to accompany NRC on these site visits.
Discussion:
Discussions of the site visits to each of the for mills are attached.
Recommendations and
Conclusions:
Based on the attached discussions, it is recommended that we take the actions, listed below, at all four sites.
Since the problem areas and areas of concern identified at the four sites are similiar in type, although they differ greatly in severity or extent as evidenced by a comparison of the discussion of the Anaconda visit with the discussion l
of the Kerr-McGee visit, it is felt the following actions are needed across the board:
1)
Require all four licensees to develop and implement a program
'for interim stabilizati
' '~
not covered by standing written operating proce DUPLICATE DOCUMENT to determine the effect Entire document previously entered into system under:
fff)}lQ}Q ANO No. of pages:
7 l
-