Current through Register Vol. 24-18, September 15, 2024
As used in this section, the term "by-product material" means
the tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium
or thorium from any ore processed primarily for its source material
content.
As required by WAC
246-235-110(6),
each applicant for a license to possess and use source material in conjunction
with uranium or thorium milling, or by-product material at sites formerly
associated with such milling, is required to include in a license application
proposed specifications relating to the milling operation and the disposition
of tailings or waste resulting from such milling activities. This section
establishes criteria relating to the siting, operation, decontamination,
decommissioning, and reclamation of mills and tailings or waste systems and
sites at which such mills and systems are located and site and by-product
material ownership. Applications must clearly demonstrate how these criteria
have been addressed. The specifications shall be developed considering the
expected full capacity of tailings or waste systems and the lifetime of mill
operations. Where later expansions of systems or operations may be likely, the
amenability of the disposal system to accommodate increased capacities without
degradation in long-term stability and other performance factors shall be
evaluated.
Licensees or applicants may propose alternatives to the
specific requirements in these criteria. The alternative proposals may take
into account local or regional conditions, including geology, topography,
hydrology, and meteorology. The department may find that the proposed
alternatives meet the department's requirements if the alternatives will
achieve a level of stabilization and containment of the sites concerned, and a
level of protection for public health, safety, and the environment from
radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with the sites, which is
equivalent to, to the extent practicable, or more stringent than the level
which would be achieved by the requirements of the standards promulgated by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency in 40 C.F.R. 192, Subparts D and
E.
(1) Criterion 1 - In selecting
among alternative tailings disposal sites or judging the adequacy of existing
tailings sites, the following site features which would contribute to meeting
the broad objective of permanent isolation of the tailings and associated
contaminants from man and the environment for 1,000 years to the extent
reasonably achievable, and in any case, for at least 200 years without ongoing
active maintenance shall be considered:
(a)
Remoteness from populated areas;
(b) Hydrogeologic and other environmental
conditions conducive to continued immobilization and isolation of contaminants
from groundwater sources; and
(c)
Potential for minimizing erosion, disturbance, and dispersion by natural forces
over the long term.
The site selection process must be an optimization to the
maximum extent reasonably achievable in terms of these features.
In the selection of disposal sites, primary emphasis shall be
given to isolation of tailings or wastes, a matter having long-term impacts, as
opposed to consideration only of short-term convenience or benefits, such as
minimization of transportation or land acquisition costs. While isolation of
tailings will be a function of both site characteristics and engineering
design, overriding consideration shall be given to siting features given the
long-term nature of the tailings hazards.
Tailings shall be disposed in a manner such that no active
maintenance is required to preserve the condition of the site.
(2) Criterion 2 - To
avoid proliferation of small waste disposal sites, by-product material from
insitu extraction operations, such as residues from solution evaporation or
contaminated control processes, and wastes from small remote above ground
extraction operations shall be disposed at existing large mill tailings
disposal sites; unless, considering the nature of the wastes, such as their
volume and specific activity and the costs and environmental impacts of
transporting the wastes to a large disposal site, such off-site disposal is
demonstrated to be impracticable or the advantage of on-site burial clearly
outweighs the benefits of reducing the perpetual surveillance
obligations.
(3) Criterion 3 - The
"prime option" for disposal of tailings is placement below grade, either in
mines or specially excavated pits (that is, where the need for any specially
constructed retention structure is eliminated).
The evaluation of alternative sites and disposal methods
performed by mill operators in support of their proposed tailings disposal
program (provided in applicants' environmental reports) shall reflect serious
consideration of this disposal mode. In some instances, below grade disposal
may not be the most environmentally sound approach, such as might be the case
if a groundwater formation is relatively close to the surface or not very well
isolated by overlying soils and rock. Also, geologic and topographic conditions
might make full, below grade burial impracticable; for example, near-surface
bedrock could create prominent excavation costs while more suitable alternate
sites may be available. Where full below grade burial is not practicable, the
size of the retention structures, and the size and steepness of slopes of
associated exposed embankments, shall be minimized by excavation to the maximum
extent reasonably achievable or appropriate, given the geologic and
hydrogeologic conditions at a site. In these cases, it must be demonstrated
that an above-grade disposal program will provide reasonably equivalent
isolation of the tailings from natural erosional forces.
(4) Criterion 4 - The following site and
design criteria shall be adhered to whether tailings or wastes are disposed of
above or below grade:
(a) Upstream rainfall
catchment areas must be minimized to decrease erosion potential and the size of
the probable maximum flood which could erode or wash out sections of the
tailings disposal area.
(b)
Topographic features shall provide good wind protection.
(c) Embankment and cover slopes shall be
relatively flat after final stabilization to minimize erosion potential and to
provide conservative factors of safety assuring long-term stability. The broad
objective should be to contour final slopes to grades which are as close as
possible to those which would be provided if tailings were disposed of below
grade; this could, for example, lead to slopes of about 10 horizontal to one
vertical (10h:1v) or less steep. In general, slopes should not be steeper than
about 5h:1v. Where steeper slopes are proposed, reasons why a slope less steep
than 5h:1v would be impracticable should be provided, and compensating factors
and conditions which make such slopes acceptable should be
identified.
(d) A fully
self-sustaining vegetative cover shall be established or rock cover employed to
reduce wind and water erosion to negligible levels.
Where a full vegetative cover is not likely to be
self-sustaining due to climatic conditions, such as in semi-arid and arid
regions, rock cover shall be employed on slopes of the impoundment system. The
NRC will consider relaxing this requirement for extremely gentle slopes such as
those which may exist on the top of the pile.
The following factors shall be considered in establishing the
final rock cover design to avoid displacement of rock particles by human and
animal traffic or by natural processes, and to preclude undercutting and
piping:
(i) Shape, size, composition,
gradation of rock particles (excepting bedding material, average particle size
shall be at least cobble size or greater);
(ii) Rock cover thickness and zoning of
particles by size; and
(iii)
Steepness of underlying slopes.
(e) Individual rock fragments must be dense,
sound, and resistant to abrasion, and free from defects that would tend to
unduly increase their destruction by water and frost actions. Weak, friable, or
laminated aggregate may not be used. Shale, rock laminated with shale, and
cherts may not be used.
Rock covering of slopes may be unnecessary where top covers
are very thick (on the order of 10 meters or greater); impoundment slopes are
very gentle (on the order of 10h:1v or less); bulk cover materials have
inherently favorable erosion resistance characteristics; and there is
negligible drainage catchment area upstream of the pile, and good wind
protection as described in (a) and (b) of this subsection (Criterion 4).
(f) Impoundment surfaces shall be
contoured to avoid areas of concentrated surface runoff or abrupt or sharp
changes in slope gradient. In addition to rock cover on slopes, areas toward
which surface runoff might be directed shall be well protected with substantial
rock cover (riprap). In addition to providing for stability of the impoundment
systems itself, the overall stability, erosion potential, and geomorphology of
surrounding terrain shall be evaluated to assure that there are no processes,
such as gully erosion, which would lead to impoundment instability.
(g) The impoundment may not be located near a
capable fault that could cause a maximum credible earthquake larger than that
which the impoundment could reasonably be expected to withstand. As used in
this criterion, the term "capable fault" has the same meaning as defined in
Section III (g) of Appendix A of 10 C.F.R. Part 100 . The term "maximum
credible earthquake" means that earthquake which would cause the maximum
vibratory ground motion based upon an evaluation of earthquake potential
considering the regional and local geology and seismology and specific
characteristics of local subsurface material.
(h) The impoundment, where feasible, should
be designed to incorporate features which will promote deposition of suspended
particles. For example, design features which promote deposition of sediment
suspended in any runoff which flows into the impoundment area might be
utilized; the object of such a design feature would be to enhance the thickness
of cover over time.
(5)
Criterion 5 - Criteria 5(a) through 5(g) and new Criterion 13 incorporate the
basic groundwater protection standards imposed by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency in 40 C.F.R. Part 192, Subparts D and E (48 FR
45926; October 7, 1983) which apply during operations and prior to the end of
closure. Groundwater monitoring to comply with these standards is required by
Criterion 7.
(a) The primary groundwater
protection standard is a design standard for surface impoundments used to
manage uranium and thorium by-product material. Surface impoundments (except
for an existing portion) must have a liner that is designed, constructed, and
installed to prevent any migration of wastes out of the impoundment to the
adjacent subsurface soil, groundwater, or surface water at any time during the
active life (including the closure period) of the impoundment. The liner may be
constructed of materials that may allow wastes to migrate into the liner (but
not into the adjacent subsurface soil, groundwater, or surface water) during
the active life of the facility, provided that impoundment closure includes
removal or decontamination of all waste residues, contaminated containment
system components (liners), contaminated subsoils, and structures and equipment
contaminated with waste and leachate. For impoundments that will be closed with
the liner material left in place, the liner must be constructed of materials
that can prevent wastes from migrating into the liner during the active life of
the facility.
(b) The liner
required by (a) of this subsection must be:
(i) Constructed of materials that have
appropriate chemical properties and sufficient strength and thickness to
prevent failure due to pressure gradients (including static head and external
hydrogeologic forces), physical contact with the waste or leachate to which
they are exposed, climatic conditions, the stress of installation, and the
stress of daily operation;
(ii)
Placed upon a foundation or base capable of providing support to the liner and
resistance to pressure gradients above and below the liner to prevent failure
of the liner due to settlement, compression, or uplift; and
(iii) Installed to cover all surrounding
earth likely to be in contact with the wastes or leachate.
(c) The applicant or licensee will be
exempted from the requirements of (a) of this subsection if the department
finds, based on a demonstration by the applicant or licensee, that alternate
design and operating practices, including the closure plan, together with site
characteristics will prevent the migration of any hazardous constituents into
groundwater or surface water at any future time. In deciding whether to grant
an exemption, the department will consider:
(i) The nature and quantity of the
wastes;
(ii) The proposed alternate
design and operation;
(iii) The
hydrogeologic setting of the facility, including the attenuation capacity and
thickness of the liners and soils present between the impoundment and
groundwater or surface water; and
(iv) All other factors which would influence
the quality and mobility of the leachate produced and the potential for it to
migrate to groundwater or surface water.
(d) A surface impoundment must be designed,
constructed, maintained, and operated to prevent overtopping resulting from
normal or abnormal operations; overfilling; wind and wave actions; rainfall;
run-on; from malfunctions of level controllers, alarms, and other equipment;
and human error.
(e) When dikes are
used to form the surface impoundment, the dikes must be designed, constructed,
and maintained with sufficient structural integrity to prevent massive failure
of the dikes. In ensuring structural integrity, it must not be presumed that
the liner system will function without leakage during the active life of the
impoundment.
(f) Uranium and
thorium by-product materials must be managed to conform to the following
secondary groundwater protection standard: Hazardous constituents entering the
groundwater from a licensed site must not exceed the specified concentration
limits in the uppermost aquifer beyond the point of compliance during the
compliance period. Hazardous constituents are those constituents identified by
the department pursuant to (g) of this subsection. Specified concentration
limits are those limits established by the department as indicated in (j) of
this subsection. The department will also establish the point of compliance and
compliance period on a site specific basis through license conditions and
orders. The objective in selecting the point of compliance is to provide the
earliest practicable warning that the impoundment is releasing hazardous
constituents to the groundwater. The point of compliance must be selected to
provide prompt indication of groundwater contamination on the hydraulically
downgradient edge of the disposal area. The department must identify hazardous
constituents, establish concentration limits, set the compliance period, and
adjust the point of compliance, if needed, when the detection monitoring
established under criterion 7 indicates leakage of hazardous constituents from
the disposal area.
(g) A
constituent becomes a hazardous constituent subject to (j) of this subsection
when the constituent:
(i) Is reasonably
expected to be in or derived from the by-product material in the disposal
area;
(ii) Has been detected in the
groundwater in the uppermost aquifer; and
(iii) Is listed in WAC
246-252-050 Appendix
A.
(h) The department may
exclude a detected constituent from the set of hazardous constituents on a site
specific basis if it finds that the constituent is not capable of posing a
substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment. In
deciding whether to exclude constituents, the department will consider the
following:
(i) Potential adverse effect on
groundwater quality, considering:
(A) The
physical and chemical characteristics of the waste in the licensed site,
including its potential for migration;
(B) The hydrogeological characteristics of
the facility and surrounding land;
(C) The quantity of groundwater and the
direction of groundwater flow;
(D)
The proximity and withdrawal rates of groundwater users;
(E) The current and future uses of
groundwater in the area;
(F) The
existing quality of groundwater, including other sources of contamination and
their cumulative impact on the groundwater quality;
(G) The potential for health risks caused by
human exposure to waste constituents;
(H) The potential damage to wildlife, crops,
vegetation, and physical structures caused by exposure to waste
constituents;
(I) The persistence
and permanence of the potential adverse effects.
(ii) Potential adverse effects on
hydraulically connected surface water quality, considering:
(A) The volume and physical and chemical
characteristics of the waste in the licensed site;
(B) The hydrogeological characteristics of
the facility and surrounding land;
(C) The quantity and quality of groundwater,
and the direction of groundwater flow;
(D) The patterns of rainfall in the
region;
(E) The proximity of the
licensed site to surface waters;
(F) The current and future uses of surface
waters in the area and any water quality standards established for those
surface waters;
(G) The existing
quality of surface water, including other sources of contamination and the
cumulative impact on surface water quality;
(H) The potential for health risks caused by
human exposure to waste constituents;
(I) The potential damage to wildlife, crops,
vegetation, and physical structures caused by exposure to waste constituents;
and
(J) The persistence and
permanence of the potential adverse effects.
(i) In making any determinations under (h)
and (k) of this subsection about the use of groundwater in the area around the
facility, the department will consider any identification of underground
sources of drinking water and exempted aquifers made by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
(j) At the point of compliance, the
concentration of a hazardous constituent must not exceed:
(i) The department approved background
concentration of that constituent in the groundwater;
(ii) The respective value given in the table
in subsection (5)(l) of this section if the constituent is listed in the table
and if the background level of the constituent is below the value listed;
or
(iii) An alternate concentration
limit established by the department.
(k) Conceptually, background concentrations
pose no incremental hazards and the drinking water limits in (j)(i) of this
subsection 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 department
consideration. Licensees must provide the basis for any proposed limits
including consideration of practicable corrective actions, that limits are as
low as reasonably achievable, and information on the factors the department
must consider.
The department will establish a site specific alternate
concentration limit for a hazardous constituent as provided in (j) of this
subsection if it finds 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 establishing alternate concentration
limits, the department will apply its as low as reasonably achievable criterion
in this chapter. The department will also consider the following
factors:
(i) Potential adverse effects
on groundwater quality, considering:
(A) The
physical and chemical characteristics of the waste in the licensed site
including its potential for migration;
(B) The hydrogeological characteristics of
the facility and surrounding land;
(C) The quantity of groundwater and the
direction of groundwater flow;
(D)
The proximity and withdrawal rates of groundwater users;
(E) The current and future uses of
groundwater in the area;
(F) The
existing quality of groundwater, including other sources of contamination and
their cumulative impact on the groundwater quality;
(G) The potential for health risks caused by
human exposure to waste constituents;
(H) The potential damage to wildlife, crops,
vegetation, and physical structures caused by exposure to waste
constituents;
(I) The persistence
and permanence of the potential adverse effects.
(ii) Potential adverse effects on
hydraulically connected surface water quality, considering:
(A) The volume and physical and chemical
characteristics of the waste in the licensed site;
(B) The hydrogeological characteristics of
the facility and surrounding land;
(C) The quantity and quality of groundwater,
and the direction of groundwater flow;
(D) The patterns of rainfall in the
region;
(E) The proximity of the
licensed site to surface waters;
(F) The current and future uses of surface
waters in the area and any water quality standards established for those
surface waters;
(G) The existing
quality of surface water including other sources of contamination and the
cumulative impact on surface water quality;
(H) The potential for health risks caused by
human exposure to waste constituents;
(I) The potential damage to wildlife, crops,
vegetation, and physical structures caused by exposure to waste constituents;
and
(J) The persistence and
permanence of the potential adverse effects.
(l) MAXIMUM VALUES FOR GROUNDWATER
PROTECTION:
|
Constituent or Property
|
Maximum Concentration
|
|
Milligrams per
|
|
Arsenic ....................................
|
0.05
|
|
Barium .....................................
|
1.0
|
|
Cadmium ...................................
|
0.01
|
|
Chromium ..................................
|
0.05
|
|
Lead .......................................
|
0.05
|
|
Mercury ....................................
|
0.002
|
|
Selenium ...................................
|
0.01
|
|
Silver ......................................
|
0.05
|
|
Endrin (1,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro-1,7
-expoxy-1,4,4a,5,6,7,8,9a-octahydro-1, 4-endo, endo-5,8-dimethano naphthalene)
....................
|
0.0002
|
|
Lindane (1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma
isomer) ..............................
|
0.004
|
|
Methoxychlor (1,1,1-Trichloro-2,2-bis)
(p-methoxyphenylethane) ......................
|
0.1
|
|
Toxaphene
(C10H10Cl6,
Technical chlorinated camphene, 67-69 percent chlorine) ...............
|
0.005
Milligrams per liter
|
|
2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid)
..........
|
0.1
|
|
2,4,5-TP Silvex (2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxypropionic
acid) ......................................
|
* 0.01
Picocuries per liter
|
|
Combined radium - 226 and radium - 228
.........
|
5
|
|
Gross alpha - particle activity (excluding radon and
uranium when producing uranium by-product material or thorium when producing
thorium by-product material) ...................
|
15
|
(m)
If the groundwater protection standards established under (f) of this
subsection are exceeded at a licensed site, a corrective action program must be
put into operation as soon as is practicable, and in no event later than 18
months after the department finds that the standards have been exceeded. The
licensee shall submit the proposed corrective action program and supporting
rationale for department approval prior to putting the program into operation,
unless otherwise directed by the department. The objective of the program is to
return hazardous constituent concentration levels in groundwater to the
concentration limits set as standards. The licensee's proposed program must
address removing the hazardous constituents that have entered the groundwater
at the point of compliance or treating them in place. The program must also
address removing or treating in place any hazardous constituents that exceed
concentration limits in groundwater between the point of compliance and the
downgradient facility property boundary. The licensee shall continue corrective
action measures to the extent necessary to achieve and maintain compliance with
the groundwater protection standard. The department will determine when the
licensee may terminate corrective action measures based on data from the
groundwater monitoring program and other information that provide reasonable
assurance that the groundwater protection standard will not be
exceeded.
(n) In developing and
conducting groundwater protection programs, applicants and licensees shall also
consider the following:
(i) Installation of
bottom liners (where synthetic liners are used, a leakage detection system must
be installed immediately below the liner to ensure major failures are detected
if they occur. This is in addition to the groundwater monitoring program
conducted as provided in Criterion 7. Where clay liners are proposed or
relatively thin, in-situ clay soils are to be relied upon for seepage control,
tests must be conducted with representative tailings solutions and clay
materials to confirm that no significant deterioration of permeability or
stability properties will occur with continuous exposure of clay to tailings
solutions. Tests must be run for a sufficient period of time to reveal any
effects if they are going to occur (in some cases deterioration has been
observed to occur rather rapidly after about nine months of
exposure)).
(ii) Mill process
designs which provide the maximum practicable recycle of solutions and
conservation of water to reduce the net input of liquid to the tailings
impoundment.
(iii) Dewatering of
tailings by process devices or in-situ drainage systems (at new sites, tailings
must be dewatered by a drainage system installed at the bottom of the
impoundment to lower the phreatic surface and reduce the driving head of
seepage, unless tests show tailings are not amenable to such a system. Where
in-situ dewatering is to be conducted, the impoundment bottom must be graded to
assure that the drains are at a low point. The drains must be protected by
suitable filter materials to assure that drains remain free running. The
drainage system must also be adequately sized to assure good
drainage).
(iv) Neutralization to
promote immobilization of hazardous constituents.
(o) Where groundwater impacts are occurring
at an existing site due to seepage, action must be taken to alleviate
conditions that lead to excessive seepage impacts and restore groundwater
quality. The specific seepage control and groundwater protection method, or
combination of methods, to be used must be worked out on a site-specific basis.
Technical specifications must be prepared to control installation of seepage
control systems. A quality assurance, testing, and inspection program, which
includes supervision by a qualified engineer or scientist, must be established
to assure the specifications are met.
(p) In support of a tailings disposal system
proposal, the applicant/operator shall supply information concerning the
following:
(i) The chemical and radioactive
characteristics of the waste solutions.
(ii) The characteristics of the underlying
soil and geologic formations particularly as they will control transport of
contaminants and solutions. This includes detailed information concerning
extent, thickness, uniformity, shape, and orientation of underlying strata.
Hydraulic gradients and conductivities of the various formations must be
determined. This information must be gathered from borings and field survey
methods taken within the proposed impoundment area and in surrounding areas
where contaminants might migrate to groundwater. The information gathered on
boreholes must include both geologic and geophysical logs in sufficient number
and degree of sophistication to allow determining significant discontinuities,
fractures, and channeled deposits of high hydraulic conductivity. If field
survey methods are used, they should be in addition to and calibrated with
borehole logging. Hydrologic parameters such as permeability may not be
determined on the basis of laboratory analysis of samples alone; a sufficient
amount of field testing (e.g., pump tests) must be conducted to assure actual
field properties are adequately understood. Testing must be conducted to allow
estimating chemisorption attenuation properties of underlying soil and
rock.
(iii) Location, extent,
quality, capacity and current uses of any groundwater at and near the
site.
(q) Steps must be
taken during stockpiling of ore to minimize penetration of radionuclides into
underlying soils; suitable methods include lining or compaction of ore storage
areas.
(6) Criterion 6 -
(a) In disposing of waste by-product
material, licensees shall place an earthen cover (or approved alternative) over
tailings or wastes at the end of milling operations and shall close the waste
disposal area in accordance with a design1 which
provides reasonable assurance of control of radiological hazards to:
(i) Be effective for 1,000 years, to the
extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years;
and
(ii) Limit releases of
Radon-222 from uranium by-product materials, and Radon-220 from thorium
by-product materials, to the atmosphere so as not to exceed an
average2 release rate of 20 picocuries per square
meter per second (pCi/m2s) to the extent practicable
throughout the effective design life determined pursuant to (a)(i) of this
subsection (this criterion). In computing required tailings cover thicknesses,
moisture in soils in excess of amounts found normally in similar soils in
similar circumstances may not be considered. Direct gamma exposure from the
tailings or wastes should be reduced to background levels. The effects of any
thin synthetic layer may not be taken into account in determining the
calculated radon exhalation level. If nonsoil materials are proposed as cover
materials, it must be demonstrated that these materials will not crack or
degrade by differential settlement, weathering, or other mechanism, over
long-term intervals.
(b)
As soon as reasonably achievable after emplacement of the final cover to limit
releases of Radon-222 from uranium by-product material and prior to placement
of erosion protection barriers or other features necessary for long-term
control of the tailings, the licensees shall verify through appropriate testing
and analysis that the design and construction of the final radon barrier is
effective in limiting releases of Radon-222 to a level not exceeding 20
pCi/m2s averaged over the entire pile or impoundment
using the procedures described in 40 C.F.R. part 61, appendix B, Method 115,
or another method of verification approved by NRC as being at least as
effective in demonstrating the effectiveness of the final radon
barrier.
(c) When phased
emplacement of the final radon barrier is included in the applicable
reclamation plan, the verification of Radon-222 release rates required in (b)
of this subsection (this criterion) must be conducted for each portion of the
pile or impoundment as the final radon barrier for that portion is
emplaced.
(d) Within 90 days of the
completion of all testing and analysis relevant to the required verification in
(b) and (c) of this subsection (this criterion), the uranium mill licensee
shall report to the department the results detailing the actions taken to
verify that levels of release of Radon-222 do not exceed 20
pCi/m2s when averaged over the entire pile or
impoundment. The licensee shall maintain records until termination of the
license documenting the source of input parameters including the results of all
measurements on which they are based, the calculations or analytical methods
used to derive values for input parameters, and the procedure used to determine
compliance. These records shall be kept in a form suitable for transfer to the
custodial agency at the time of transfer of the site to DOE or a state for
long-term care if requested.
(e)
Near surface cover materials (i.e., within the top three meters) may not
include waste or rock that contains elevated levels of radium; soils used for
near surface cover must be essentially the same, as far as radioactivity is
concerned, as that of surrounding surface soils. This is to ensure that surface
radon exhalation is not significantly above background because of the cover
material itself.
(f) The design
requirements in this criterion for longevity and control of radon releases
apply to any portion of a licensed or disposal site unless such portion
contains a concentration of radium in land, averaged over areas of 100 square
meters, which, as a result of by-product material, does not exceed the
background level by more than:
(i) 5
picocuries per gram (pCi/g) of radium-226, or, in the case of thorium
by-product material, radium-228, averaged over the first 15 centimeters (cm)
below the surface; and
(ii) 15
pCi/g of radium-226, or, in the case of thorium by-product material,
radium-228, averaged over 15-cm thick layers more than 15 cm below the
surface.
(g) By-product
material containing concentrations of radionuclides other than radium in soil,
and surface activity on remaining structures, must not result in a total
effective dose equivalent (TEDE) exceeding the dose from cleanup of radium
contaminated soil to the standard (benchmark dose) contained in (f) of this
subsection, and must be at levels which are as low as is reasonably achievable
(ALARA). If more than one residual radionuclide is present in the same 100
square meter area, the sum of the ratios for each radionuclide of concentration
present to the concentration limit will not exceed "1" (unity). A calculation
of the potential peak annual TEDE within 1000 years to the average member of
the critical group that would result from applying the radium standard, not
including radon, on the site must be submitted for approval. The use of
decommissioning plans with benchmark doses which exceed 100 mrem/yr, before
application of ALARA, requires the approval of the department. This requirement
for dose criteria does not apply to sites that have decommissioning plans for
soil and structures approved before June 11, 1999.
(h) The licensee shall also address the
nonradiological hazards associated with the wastes in planning and implementing
closure. The licensee shall ensure that disposal areas are closed in a manner
that minimizes the need for further maintenance. To the extent necessary to
prevent threats to human health and the environment, the licensee shall
control, minimize, or eliminate post-closure escape of nonradiological
hazardous constituents, leachate, contaminated rainwater, or waste
decomposition products to the ground or surface waters or to the atmosphere.
1 In the case of thorium
by-product materials, the standard applies only to design. Monitoring for radon
emissions from thorium by-product materials after installation of an
appropriately designed cover is not required.
2 This average applies to the
entire surface of each disposal area over a period of at least one year, but a
period short compared to 100 years. Radon will come from both by-product
materials and from covering materials. Radon emissions from covering materials
should be estimated as part of developing a closure plan for each site. The
standard, however, applies only to emissions from by-product materials to the
atmosphere.
Criterion 6A -
(a)
For impoundments containing uranium by-product materials, the final radon
barrier must be completed as expeditiously as practicable considering
technological feasibility after the pile or impoundment ceases operation in
accordance with a written, department-approved reclamation plan. (The term as
expeditiously as practicable considering technological feasibility as
specifically defined in WAC
246-252-010
includes factors beyond the control of the licensee.) Deadlines for completion
of the final radon barrier and, if applicable, the following interim milestones
must be established as a condition of the individual license: Windblown
tailings retrieval and placement on the pile and interim stabilization
(including dewatering or the removal of freestanding liquids and recontouring).
The placement of erosion protection barriers or other features necessary for
long-term control of the tailings must also be completed in a timely manner in
accordance with a written, approved reclamation plan.
(b) The department may approve a licensee's
request to extend the time for performance of milestones related to emplacement
of the final radon barrier if, after providing an opportunity for public
participation, the department finds that the licensee has adequately
demonstrated in the manner required in subsection (6)(b) of this section
(Criterion 6) that releases of Radon-222 do not exceed an average of 20
pCi/m2s. If the delay is approved on the basis that
the radon releases do not exceed 20 pCi/m2s, a
verification of radon levels, as required by subsection (6)(b) of this section
(Criterion 6), must be made annually during the period of delay. In addition,
once the department has established the date in the reclamation plan for the
milestone for completion of the final radon barrier, the department may extend
that date based on cost if, after providing an opportunity for public
participation, the department finds that the licensee is making good faith
efforts to emplace the final radon barrier, the delay is consistent with the
definitions of available technology, and the radon releases caused by the delay
will not result in a significant incremental risk to the public
health.
(c) The department may
authorize by license amendment, upon licensee request, a portion of the
impoundment to accept uranium byproduct material or such materials that are
similar in physical, chemical, and radiological characteristics to the uranium
mill tailings and associated wastes already in the pile or impoundment from
other sources, during the closure process. No such authorization will be made
if it results in a delay or impediment to emplacement of the final radon
barrier over the remainder of the impoundment in a manner that will achieve
levels of Radon-222 releases not exceeding 20
pCi/m2s averaged over the entire impoundment. The
verification required in subsection (6)(b) of this section (Criterion 6) may be
completed with a portion of the impoundment being used for further disposal if
the department makes a final finding that the impoundment will continue to
achieve a level of Radon-222 releases not exceeding 20
pCi/m2s averaged over the entire impoundment. In
this case, after the final radon barrier is complete except for the continuing
disposal area:
(i) Only by-product material
will be authorized for disposal;
(ii) The disposal will be limited to the
specified existing disposal area; and
(iii) This authorization will only be made
after providing opportunity for public participation.
Reclamation of the disposal area, as appropriate, must be
completed in a timely manner after disposal operations cease in accordance with
subsection (6)(a) of this section (Criterion 6); however, these actions are not
required to be complete as part of meeting the deadline for final radon barrier
construction.
(7) Criterion 7 - At least one full year
prior to any major site construction, a preoperational monitoring program must
be conducted to provide complete baseline data on a milling site and its
environs. Throughout the construction and operating phases of the mill, an
operational monitoring program must be conducted to complete the following:
(a) To measure or evaluate compliance with
applicable standards and regulations;
(b) To evaluate performance of control
systems and procedures;
(c) To
evaluate environmental impacts of operation; and
(d) To detect potential long-term effects.
The licensee shall establish a detection monitoring program
needed for the department to set the site-specific groundwater protection
standards in Criterion 5 of this section. For all monitoring under this
paragraph, the licensee or applicant will propose for department approval as
license conditions, which constituents are to be monitored on a site-specific
basis. A detection monitoring program has two purposes. The initial purpose of
the program is to detect leakage of hazardous constituents from the disposal
area so that the need to set groundwater protection standards is monitored. If
leakage is detected, the second purpose of the program is to generate data and
information needed for the department to establish the standards under
Criterion 5. The data and information must provide a sufficient basis to
identify those hazardous constituents which require concentration limit
standards and to enable the department to set the limits for those constituents
and the compliance period. They may also need to provide the basis for
adjustments to the point of compliance. For licenses in effect September 30,
1983, the detection monitoring programs must have been in place by October 1,
1984. For licenses issued after September 30, 1983, the detection monitoring
programs must be in place when specified by the department in orders or license
conditions. Once groundwater protection standards have been established
pursuant to Criterion 5, the licensee shall establish and implement a
compliance monitoring program. The purpose of the compliance monitoring program
is to determine that the hazardous constituent concentrations in groundwater
continue to comply with the standards set by the department. In conjunction
with a corrective action program, the licensee shall establish and implement a
corrective action monitoring program. The purpose of the corrective action
monitoring program is to demonstrate the effectiveness of the corrective
actions. Any monitoring program required by this paragraph may be based on
existing monitoring programs to the extent the existing programs can meet the
stated objective for the program.
(8) Criterion 8 - Milling operations shall be
conducted so that all airborne effluent releases are reduced to as low as is
reasonably achievable. The primary means of accomplishing this shall be by
means of emission controls. Institutional controls, such as extending the site
boundary and exclusion area, may be employed to ensure that off-site exposure
limits are met, but only after all practicable measures have been taken to
control emissions at the source. Notwithstanding the existence of individual
dose standards, strict control of emissions is necessary to assure that
population exposures are reduced to the maximum extent reasonably achievable
and to avoid site contamination. The greatest potential sources of off-site
radiation exposure (aside from radon exposure) are dusting from dry surfaces of
the tailings disposal area not covered by tailings solution and emissions from
yellowcake drying and packaging operations. During operations and prior to
closure, radiation doses from radon emissions from surface impoundments shall
be kept as low as is reasonably achievable. Checks shall be made and logged
hourly of all parameters (e.g., differential pressure and scrubber water flow
rate) which determine the efficiency of yellowcake stack emission control
equipment operation. It shall be determined whether or not conditions are
within a range prescribed to ensure that the equipment is operating
consistently near peak efficiency; corrective action shall be taken when
performance is outside of prescribed ranges. Effluent control devices shall be
operative at all times during drying and packaging operations and whenever air
is exhausting from the yellowcake stack.
Drying and packaging operations shall terminate when controls
are inoperative. When checks indicate the equipment is not operating within the
range prescribed for peak efficiency, actions shall be taken to restore
parameters to the prescribed range. When this cannot be done without shutdown
and repairs, drying and packaging operations shall cease as soon as
practicable.
Operations may not be restarted after cessation due to
off-normal performance until needed corrective actions have been identified and
implemented. All such cessations, corrective actions, and restarts shall be
reported to the department in writing, within 10 days of the subsequent
restart.
To control dusting from tailings, that portion not covered by
standing liquids shall be wetted or chemically stabilized to prevent or
minimize blowing and dusting to the maximum extent reasonably achievable. This
requirement may be relaxed if tailings are effectively sheltered from wind,
such as may be the case where they are disposed of below grade and the tailings
surface is not exposed to wind. Consideration shall be given in planning
tailings disposal programs to methods which would allow phased covering and
reclamation of tailings impoundments since this will help in controlling
particulate and radon emissions during operation. To control dustings from
diffuse sources, such as tailings and ore pads where automatic controls do not
apply, operators shall develop written operating procedures specifying the
methods of control which will be utilized.
Milling operations producing or involving thorium by-product
material shall be conducted in such a manner as to provide reasonable assurance
that the annual dose equivalent does not exceed 25 millirems to the whole body,
75 millirems to the thyroid, and 25 millirems to any other organ of any member
of the public as a result of exposures to the planned discharge of radioactive
materials, Radon-220 and its daughters excepted, to the general
environment.
Uranium and thorium by-product materials shall be managed so
as to conform to the applicable provisions of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 440, Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category: Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards, Subpart C,
Uranium, Radium, and Vanadium Ores Subcategory, as codified on January 1,
1983.
The licensee shall establish a detection monitoring program
needed to establish the groundwater protection standards in subsection (5)(f)
of this section. A detection monitoring program has two purposes. The initial
purpose of the program is to detect leakage of hazardous constituents from the
disposal area so that the need to set groundwater protection standards is
monitored. If leakage is detected, the second purpose of the program is to
generate data and information needed for the department to establish the
standards under subsection (5)(f) of this section. The data and information
must provide a sufficient basis to identify those hazardous constituents which
require concentration limit standards and to enable the department to set the
limits for those constituents and the compliance period. They may also need to
provide the basis for adjustments to the point of compliance. For licenses in
effect September 30, 1983, the detection monitoring programs must have been in
place by October 1, 1984. For licenses issued after September 30, 1983, the
detection monitoring programs must be in place when specified by the department
in orders or license conditions. Once groundwater protection standards have
been established pursuant to subsection (5)(f) of this section, the licensee
shall establish and implement a compliance monitoring program. The purpose of
the compliance monitoring program is to determine that the hazardous
constituent concentrations in groundwater continue to comply with the standards
set by the department. In conjunction with a corrective action program, the
licensee shall establish and implement a corrective action monitoring program.
The purpose of the corrective action monitoring program is to demonstrate the
effectiveness of the corrective actions. Any monitoring program required by
this paragraph may be based on existing monitoring programs to the extent the
existing programs can meet the stated objective for the program.
Daily inspections of tailings or waste retention systems must
be conducted by a qualified engineer or scientist and documented. The
department must be immediately notified of any failure in a tailings or waste
retention system that results in a release of tailings or waste into
unrestricted areas, or of any unusual conditions (conditions not contemplated
in the design of the retention system) which if not corrected could indicate
the potential or lead to failure of the system and result in a release of
tailings or waste into unrestricted areas.
(9) Criterion 9 -
(a) Pursuant to chapter 70A.310 RCW, and
except as otherwise provided, financial surety arrangements must be established
by each mill operator before the commencement of operations to assure that
sufficient funds will be available to carry out the decontamination and
decommissioning of the mill and site and for the reclamation of any tailings or
waste disposal areas. The amount of funds to be ensured by such surety
arrangements must be based on department-approved cost estimates in a
department-approved plan, or a proposed revision to the plan submitted to the
department for approval, if the proposed revision contains a higher cost
estimate for:
(i) Decontamination and
decommissioning of mill buildings and the milling site to levels which allow
unrestricted use of these areas upon decommissioning; and
(ii) The reclamation of tailings or waste
areas in accordance with technical criteria delineated in this section.
(b) Each cost estimate
must contain:
(i) A detailed cost estimate
for decontamination, decommissioning, and reclamation, in an amount reflecting:
(A) The cost of an independent contractor to
perform the decontamination, decommissioning, and reclamation activities;
and
(B) An adequate contingency
factor.
(ii) An estimate
of the amount of radioactive contamination in on-site subsurface
material;
(iii) Identification of
and justification for using the key assumptions contained in the
decommissioning cost estimate; and
(iv) A description of the method of assuring
funds for decontamination, decommissioning, and reclamation.
(c) The licensee shall submit this
plan in conjunction with an environmental report that addresses the expected
environmental impacts of the milling operation, decommissioning and tailings
reclamation, and evaluates alternatives for mitigating these impacts. The plan
must include a signed original of the financial instrument obtained to satisfy
the surety arrangement requirements of this criterion (unless a previously
submitted and approved financial instrument continues to cover the cost
estimate for decommissioning). The surety arrangement must also cover the cost
estimate and the payment of the charge for long-term surveillance and control
required by subsection (10) of this section.
(d) To avoid unnecessary duplication and
expense, the department may accept financial sureties that have been
consolidated with financial or surety arrangements established to meet
requirements of other federal or state agencies or local governing bodies for
decommissioning, decontamination, reclamation, and long-term site surveillance
and control, provided such arrangements are considered adequate to satisfy
these requirements and that the portion of the surety which covers the
decommissioning and reclamation of the mill, mill tailings site and associated
areas, and the long-term funding charge is clearly identified and committed for
use in accomplishing these activities.
(e) The licensee's surety mechanism will be
reviewed annually by the department to assure, that sufficient funds would be
available for completion of the reclamation plan if the work had to be
performed by an independent contractor.
(f) The amount of surety liability should be
adjusted to recognize any increases or decreases resulting from:
(i) Inflation;
(ii) Changes in engineering plans;
(iii) Activities performed;
(iv) Spills, leakage or migration of
radioactive material producing additional contamination in on-site subsurface
material that must be remediated to meet applicable remediation
criteria;
(v) Waste inventory
increasing above the amount previously estimated;
(vi) Waste disposal costs increasing above
the amount previously estimated;
(vii) Facility modifications;
(viii) Changes in authorized possession
limits;
(ix) Actual remediation
costs that exceed the previous cost estimate;
(x) On-site disposal; and
(xi) Any other conditions affecting
costs.
(g) Regardless of
whether reclamation is phased through the life of the operation or takes place
at the end of operations, an appropriate portion of surety liability must be
retained until final compliance with the reclamation plan is
determined.
(h) The appropriate
portion of surety liability retained until final compliance with the
reclamation plan is determined will be at least sufficient at all times to
cover the costs of decommissioning and reclamation of the areas that are
expected to be disturbed before the next license renewal. The term of the
surety mechanism must be open ended, unless it can be demonstrated that another
arrangement would provide an equivalent level of assurance. This assurance
would be provided with a surety instrument which is written for a specified
time (for example five years) and which must be automatically renewed unless
the surety notifies the department and the licensee with reasonable time (for
example 90 days) before the renewal date of their intention not to renew. In
such a situation the surety requirement still exists and the licensee would be
required to submit an acceptable replacement surety within a brief time to
allow at least 60 days for the department to collect.
(i) Proof of forfeiture must not be necessary
to collect the surety. In the event that the licensee cannot provide an
acceptable replacement surety within the required time, the surety shall be
automatically collected before its expiration. The surety instrument must
provide for collection of the full face amount immediately on demand without
reduction for any reason, except for trustee fees and expenses provided for in
a trust agreement, and that the surety will not refuse to make full payment.
The conditions described previously would have to be clearly stated on any
surety instrument which is not open-ended, and must be agreed to by all
parties. Financial surety arrangements generally acceptable to the department
are:
(i) Trust funds;
(ii) Surety bonds;
(iii) Irrevocable letters of credit;
and
(iv) Combinations of the
financial surety arrangements or other types of arrangements as may be approved
by the department. If a trust is not used, then a standby trust must be set up
to receive funds in the event the department exercises its right to collect the
surety. The surety arrangement and the surety or trustee, as applicable, must
be acceptable to the department. Self-insurance, or any arrangement which
essentially constitutes self-insurance (for example, a contract with a state or
federal agency), will not satisfy the surety requirement because this provides
no additional assurance other than that which already exists through license
requirements.
(10) Criterion 10 -
(a) A minimum charge of $250,000 (1978 United
States dollars) accrued as specified in WAC
246-235-086(4) to cover the costs of long-term surveillance shall be paid by each mill
operator to the agency prior to the termination of a uranium or thorium mill
license. If site surveillance or control requirements at a particular site are
determined, on the basis of a site-specific evaluation, to be significantly
greater than those specified in (a) of this subsection (e.g., if fencing is
determined to be necessary), variance in funding requirements may be specified
by the department. The total charge to cover the costs of long-term
surveillance shall be such that, with an assumed one percent annual real
interest rate, the collected funds will yield interest in an amount sufficient
to cover the annual costs of site surveillance. The charge will be adjusted
annually prior to actual payments to recognize inflation. The inflation rate to
be used is that indicated by the change in the consumer price index published
by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Contributions by a licensee to the long-term care trust fund pursuant to
chapter 70A.310 RCW shall be transferred to cover the costs assessed under this
criterion.
(11) Criterion
11 - These criteria relating to ownership of tailings and their disposal sites
become effective on November 8, 1981, and apply to all licenses terminated,
issued, or renewed after that date.
Any uranium or thorium milling license or tailings license
shall contain such terms and conditions as NRC determines necessary to assure
that prior to termination of the license, the licensee will comply with
ownership requirements of this criterion for sites used for tailings
disposal.
Title to the by-product material licensed pursuant to WAC
246-252-030 and land, including any interests therein (other than land owned by
the United States or by the state of Washington) which is used for the disposal
of any such by-product material, or is essential to ensure the long-term
stability of such disposal site, shall be transferred to the United States or
the state of Washington. In view of the fact that physical isolation must be
the primary means of long-term control, and government land ownership is a
desirable supplementary measure, ownership of certain severable subsurface
interests (for example, mineral rights) may be determined to be unnecessary to
protect the public health and safety and the environment. In any case, the
applicant/operator must demonstrate a serious effort to obtain such subsurface
rights, and must, in the event that certain rights cannot be obtained, provide
notification in local public land records of the fact that the land is being
used for the disposal of radioactive material and is subject to either a NRC
general or specific license prohibiting the disruption and disturbance of the
tailings. In some rare cases, such as may occur with deep burial where no
ongoing site surveillance will be required, surface land ownership transfer
requirements may be waived. For licenses issued before November 8, 1981, NRC
may take into account the status of the ownership of such land, and interests
therein, and the ability of a licensee to transfer title and custody thereof to
the United States or the state. If NRC, subsequent to title transfer,
determines that use of the surface or subsurface estates, or both, of the land
transferred to the United States or to a state will not endanger the public
health, safety, welfare or environment, NRC may permit the use of the surface
or subsurface estates, or both, of such land in a manner consistent with the
provisions provided in these criteria. If NRC permits such use of such land, it
will provide the person who transferred such land with the right of first
refusal with respect to such use of such land.
Material and land transferred to the United States or a state
in accordance with this criterion must be transferred without cost to the
United States or a state other than administrative and legal costs incurred in
carrying out such transfer.
The provisions of this part, respecting transfer of title and
custody to land and tailings and wastes, do not apply in the case of lands held
in trust by the United States for any Indian Tribe, or lands owned by such
Indian Tribe subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United
States. In the case of such lands which are used for the disposal of by-product
material, as defined in this section, the licensee shall enter into
arrangements with NRC as may be appropriate to assure the long-term
surveillance of such lands by the United States.
(12) Criterion 12 - The final disposition of
tailings or wastes at milling sites should be such that ongoing active
maintenance is not necessary to preserve isolation. As a minimum, annual site
inspections must be conducted by the government agency retaining ultimate
custody of the site where tailings or wastes are stored, to confirm the
integrity of the stabilized tailings or waste systems, and to determine the
need, if any, for maintenance or monitoring. Results of the inspection must be
reported to NRC within 60 days following each inspection. NRC may require more
frequent site inspections if, on the basis of a site-specific evaluation, such
a need appears necessary, due to the features of a particular tailings or waste
disposal system.
(13) Criterion 13
- Secondary groundwater protection standards required by Criterion 5 of this
section are concentration limits for individual hazardous constituents. The
list of constituents found in Appendix A of this chapter, chapter 246-252 WAC,
identifies the constituents for which standards must be set and complied with
if the specific constituent is reasonably expected to be in or derived from the
by-product material and has been detected in groundwater. For purposes of this
criterion, the property of gross alpha activity will be treated as if it is a
hazardous constituent. Thus, when setting standards under subsection (5)(j) of
this section, the department will also set a limit for gross alpha
activity.
Statutory Authority:
RCW
70.98.050 and
70.98.080. 02-17-005, §
246-252-030, filed 8/8/02, effective 9/8/02. Statutory Authority:
RCW
70.98.050. 00-08-013, § 246-252-030,
filed 3/24/00, effective 4/24/00; 97-13-055, § 246-252-030, filed 6/16/97,
effective 7/17/97; 94-01-073, § 246-252-030, filed 12/9/93, effective
1/9/94. Statutory Authority:
RCW
70.98.050 and
70.98.080. 91-16-109 (Order 187),
§ 246-252-030, filed 8/7/91, effective 9/7/91. Statutory Authority:
RCW
43.70.040. 91-02-049 (Order 121), recodified
as § 246-252-030, filed 12/27/90, effective 1/31/91. Statutory Authority:
RCW
70.98.080. 87-01-031 (Order 2450), §
402-52-100, filed 12/11/86. Statutory Authority:
Chapter
70.121 RCW. 81-16-031
(Order 1683), § 402-52-100, filed
7/28/81.
