Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/10/40/appendix-A?quicktabs_7=0
Timestamp: 2013-12-11 20:29:20
Document Index: 116882722

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 40', 'art 40', 'art 40', 'art 40', '§ 40', '§ 20', '§ 40', 'art 192', 'art 100', 'art 192', 'art 61', 'art 440', 'art 20', 'art 192', 'art 192', 'art 40']

10 CFR 40, Appendix A to Part 40 - Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material From Ores Processed Primarily for Their Source Material Content | Title 10 - Energy | Code of Federal Regulations | LII / Legal Information Institute
CFR › Title 10 › Chapter I › Part 40 › Appendix A	prev | next
10 CFR 40, Appendix A to Part 40 - Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material From Ores Processed Primarily for Their Source Material Content
There is 1 rule appearing in the Federal Register for 10 CFR 40. Select the tab below to view, or View eCFR (GPOAccess)
Pt. 40, App. A
Appendix A to Part 40—Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material From Ores Processed Primarily for Their Source Material Content
Link to an amendment published at 76 FR 35570, June 17, 2011.
Introduction. Every applicant for a license to possess and use source material in conjunction with uranium or thorium milling, or byproduct material at sites formerly associated with such milling, is required by the provisions of § 40.31(h) to include in a license application proposed specifications relating to milling operations and the disposition of tailings or wastes resulting from such milling activities. This appendix establishes technical, financial, ownership, and long-term site surveillance 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. As used in this appendix, the term “as low as is reasonably achievable” has the same meaning as in § 20.1003 of this chapter.
In many cases, flexibility is provided in the criteria to allow achieving an optimum tailings disposal program on a site-specific basis. However, in such cases the objectives, technical alternatives and concerns which must be taken into account in developing a tailings program are identified. As provided by the provisions of § 40.31(h) applications for licenses must clearly demonstrate how the criteria have been addressed.
The specifications must 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 (for example, where large quantities of ore now marginally uneconomical may be stockpiled), the amenability of the disposal system to accommodate increased capacities without degradation in long-term stability and other performance factors must be evaluated.
Licensees or applicants may propose alternatives to the specific requirements in this appendix. The alternative proposals may take into account local or regional conditions, including geology, topography, hydrology, and meterology. The Commission may find that the proposed alternatives meet the Commission'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 this appendix and the standards promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency in 40 CFR qart 192, subparts D and E.
All site specific licensing decisions based on the criteria in this appendix or alternatives proposed by licensees or applicants will take into account the risk to the public health and safety and the environment with due consideration to the economic costs involved and any other factors the Commission determines to be appropriate. In implementing this appendix, the Commission will consider “practicable” and “reasonably achievable” as equivalent terms. Decisions involved these terms will take into account the state of technology, and the economics of improvements in relation to benefits to the public health and safety, and other societal and socioeconomic considerations, and in relation to the utilization of atomic energy in the public interest.
The following definitions apply to the specified terms as used in this appendix:
Aquifer means a geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation capable of yielding a significant amount of ground water to wells or springs. Any saturated zone created by uranium or thorium recovery operations would not be considered an aquifer unless the zone is or potentially is (1) hydraulically interconnected to a natural aquifer, (2) capable of discharge to surface water, or (3) reasonably accessible because of migration beyond the vertical projection of the boundary of the land transferred for long-term government ownership and care in accordance with Criterion 11 of this appendix.
As expeditiously as practicable considering technological feasibility, for the purposes of Criterion 6A, means as quickly as possible considering: the physical characteristics of the tailings and the site; the limits of available technology; the need for consistency with mandatory requirements of other regulatory programs; and factors beyond the control of the licensee. The phrase permits consideration of the cost of compliance only to the extent specifically provided for by use of the term available technology.
Available technology means technologies and methods for emplacing a final radon barrier on uranium mill tailings piles or impoundments. This term shall not be construed to include extraordinary measures or techniques that would impose costs that are grossly excessive as measured by practice within the industry (or one that is reasonably analogous), (such as, by way of illustration only, unreasonable overtime, staffing, or transportation requirements, etc., considering normal practice in the industry; laser fusion of soils, etc.), provided there is reasonable progress toward emplacement of the final radon barrier. To determine grossly excessive costs, the relevant baseline against which cost shall be compared is the cost estimate for tailings impoundment closure contained in the licensee's approved reclamation plan, but costs beyond these estimates shall not automatically be considered grossly excessive.
Closure means the activities following operations to decontaminate and decommission the buildings and site used to produce byproduct materials and reclaim the tailings and/or waste disposal area.
Closure plan means the Commission approved plan to accomplish closure.
Compliance period begins when the Commission sets secondary ground-water protection standards and ends when the owner or operator's license is terminated and the site is transferred to the State or Federal agency for long-term care.
Dike means an embankment or ridge of either natural or man-made materials used to prevent the movement of liquids, sludges, solids or other materials.
Disposal area means the area containing byproduct materials to which the requirements of Criterion 6 apply.
Existing portion means that land surface area of an existing surface impoundment on which significant quantities of uranium or thorium byproduct materials had been placed prior to September 30, 1983.
Factors beyond the control of the licensee means factors proximately causing delay in meeting the schedule in the applicable reclamation plan for the timely emplacement of the final radon barrier notwithstanding the good faith efforts of the licensee to complete the barrier in compliance with paragraph (1) of Criterion 6A. These factors may include, but are not limited to—
(1) Physical conditions at the site;
(2) Inclement weather or climatic conditions;
(3) An act of God;
(4) An act of war;
(5) A judicial or administrative order or decision, or change to the statutory, regulatory, or other legal requirements applicable to the licensee's facility that would preclude or delay the performance of activities required for compliance;
(6) Labor disturbances;
(7) Any modifications, cessation or delay ordered by State, Federal, or local agencies;
(8) Delays beyond the time reasonably required in obtaining necessary government permits, licenses, approvals, or consent for activities described in the reclamation plan proposed by the licensee that result from agency failure to take final action after the licensee has made a good faith, timely effort to submit legally sufficient applications, responses to requests (including relevant data requested by the agencies), or other information, including approval of the reclamation plan; and
(9) An act or omission of any third party over whom the licensee has no control.
Final radon barrier means the earthen cover (or approved alternative cover) over tailings or waste constructed to comply with Criterion 6 of this appendix (excluding erosion protection features).
Ground water means water below the land surface in a zone of saturation. For purposes of this appendix, ground water is the water contained within an aquifer as defined above.
Leachate means any liquid, including any suspended or dissolved components in the liquid, that has percolated through or drained from the byproduct material.
Licensed site means the area contained within the boundary of a location under the control of persons generating or storing byproduct materials under a Commission license.
Liner means a continuous layer of natural or man-made materials, beneath or on the sides of a surface impoundment which restricts the downward or lateral escape of byproduct material, hazardous constituents, or leachate.
Milestone means an action or event that is required to occur by an enforceable date.
Operation means that a uranium or thorium mill tailings pile or impoundment is being used for the continued placement of byproduct material or is in standby status for such placement. A pile or impoundment is in operation from the day that byproduct material is first placed in the pile or impoundment until the day final closure begins.
Point of compliance is the site specific location in the uppermost aquifer where the ground-water protection standard must be met.
Reclamation plan, for the purposes of Criterion 6A, means the plan detailing activities to accomplish reclamation of the tailings or waste disposal area in accordance with the technical criteria of this appendix. The reclamation plan must include a schedule for reclamation milestones that are key to the completion of the final radon barrier including as appropriate, but not limited to, wind blown tailings retrieval and placement on the pile, interim stabilization (including dewatering or the removal of freestanding liquids and recontouring), and final radon barrier construction. (Reclamation of tailings must also be addressed in the closure plan; the detailed reclamation plan may be incorporated into the closure plan.)
Surface impoundment means a natural topographic depression, man-made excavation, or diked area, which is designed to hold an accumulation of liquid wastes or wastes containing free liquids, and which is not an injection well.
I. Technical Criteria
Criterion 1 —The general goal or broad objective in siting and design decisions is permanent isolation of tailings and associated contaminants by minimizing disturbance and dispersion by natural forces, and to do so without ongoing maintenance. For practical reasons, specific siting decisions and design standards must involve finite times (e.g., the longevity design standard in Criterion 6). The following site features which will contribute to such a goal or objective must be considered in selecting among alternative tailings disposal sites or judging the adequacy of existing tailings sites:
Remoteness from populated areas;
Hydrologic and other natural conditions as they contribute to continued immobilization and isolation of contaminants from ground-water sources; and
Potential for minimizing erosion, disturbance, and dispersion by natural forces over the long term.
In the selection of disposal sites, primary emphasis must 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 and engineering design, overriding consideration must be given to siting features given the long-term nature of the tailings hazards.
Tailings should be disposed of in a manner that no active maintenance is required to preserve conditions of the site.
Criterion 2 —To avoid proliferation of small waste disposal sites and thereby reduce perpetual surveillance obligations, byproduct material from in situ extraction operations, such as residues from solution evaporation or contaminated control processes, and wastes from small remote above ground extraction operations must be disposed of 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 offsite disposal is demonstrated to be impracticable or the advantages of onsite burial clearly outweigh the benefits of reducing the perpetual surveillance obligations.
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) must 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 ground-water 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, bedrock may be sufficiently near the surface that blasting would be required to excavate a disposal pit at excessive cost, and more suitable alternative sites are not available. Where full below grade burial is not practicable, the size of retention structures, and size and steepness of slopes associated exposed embankments must be minimized by excavation to the maximum extent reasonably achievable or appropriate given the geologic and hydrologic 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.
Criterion 4 —The following site and design criteria must 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 floods which could erode or wash out sections of the tailings disposal area.
(b) Topographic features should provide good wind protection.
(c) Embankment and cover slopes must 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 1 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 full self-sustaining vegetative cover must 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 or other conditions, such as in semi-arid and arid regions, rock cover must 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 must be considered in establishing the final rock cover design to avoid displacement of rock particles by human and animal traffic or by natural process, and to preclude undercutting and piping:
Shape, size, composition, and gradation of rock particles (excepting bedding material average particles size must be at least cobble size or greater);
Rock cover thickness and zoning of particles by size; and
Steepness of underlying slopes.
Individual rock fragments must be dense, sound, and resistant to abrasion, and must be free from cracks, seams, and other defects that would tend to unduly increase their destruction by water and frost actions. Weak, friable, or laminated aggregate may not be used.
Rock covering of slopes may be unnecessary where top covers are very thick ( 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 points (a) and (b) of this Criterion.
Furthermore, all impoundment surfaces must 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 must be well protected with substantial rock cover (rip rap). In addition to providing for stability of the impoundment system itself, overall stability, erosion potential, and geomorphology of surrounding terrain must be evaluated to assure that there are not ongoing or potential processes, such as gully erosion, which would lead to impoundment instability.
(e) 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 CFR qart 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.
(f) The impoundment, where feasible, should be designed to incorporate features which will promote deposition. 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.
Criterion 5— Criteria 5A-5D and new Criterion 13 incorporate the basic ground-water protection standards imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency in 40 CFR qart 192, subparts D and E ( 48 FR 45926; October 7, 1983) which apply during operations and prior to the end of closure. Ground-water monitoring to comply with these standards is required by Criterion 7A.
5A(1)—The primary ground-water protection standard is a design standard for surface impoundments used to manage uranium and thorium byproduct material. Unless exempted under paragraph 5A(3) of this criterion, 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, ground water, 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, ground water, 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, etc.), 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.
5A(2)—The liner required by paragraph 5A(1) above must be—
(a) 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;
(b) 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
(c) Installed to cover all surrounding earth likely to be in contact with the wastes or leachate.
5A(3)—The applicant or licensee will be exempted from the requirements of paragraph 5A(1) of this criterion if the Commission 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 ground water or surface water at any future time. In deciding whether to grant an exemption, the Commission will consider—
(a) The nature and quantity of the wastes;
(b) The proposed alternate design and operation;
(c) The hydrogeologic setting of the facility, including the attenuative capacity and thickness of the liners and soils present between the impoundment and ground water or surface water; and
(d) All other factors which would influence the quality and mobility of the leachate produced and the potential for it to migrate to ground water or surface water.
5A(4)—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, or run-on; from malfunctions of level controllers, alarms, and other equipment; and from human error.
5A(5)—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.
5B(1)—Uranium and thorium byproduct materials must be managed to conform to the following secondary ground-water protection standard: Hazardous constituents entering the ground water 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 Commission pursuant to paragraph 5B(2) of this criterion. Specified concentration limits are those limits established by the Commission as indicated in paragraph 5B(5) of this criterion. The Commission 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 ground water. The point of compliance must be selected to provide prompt indication of ground-water contamination on the hydraulically downgradient edge of the disposal area. The Commission shall identify hazardous constituents, establish concentration limits, set the compliance period, and may adjust the point of compliance if needed to accord with developed data and site information as to the flow of ground water or contaminants, when the detection monitoring established under Criterion 7A indicates leakage of hazardous constituents from the disposal area.
5B(2)—A constituent becomes a hazardous constituent subject to paragraph 5B(5) only when the constituent meets all three of the following tests:
(a) The constituent is reasonably expected to be in or derived from the byproduct material in the disposal area;
(b) The constituent has been detected in the ground water in the uppermost aquifer; and
(c) The constituent is listed in Criterion 13 of this appendix.
5B(3)—Even when constituents meet all three tests in paragraph 5B(2) of this criterion, the Commission 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 Commission will consider the following:
(a) Potential adverse effects on ground-water quality, considering—
(i) The physical and chemical characteristics of the waste in the licensed site, including its potential for migration;
(ii) The hydrogeological characteristics of the facility and surrounding land;
(iii) The quantity of ground water and the direction of ground-water flow;
(iv) The proximity and withdrawal rates of ground-water users;
(v) The current and future uses of ground water in the area;
(vi) The existing quality of ground water, including other sources of contamination and their cumulative impact on the ground-water quality;
(vii) The potential for health risks caused by human exposure to waste constituents;
(viii) The potential damage to wildlife, crops, vegetation, and physical structures caused by exposure to waste constituents;
(ix) The persistence and permanence of the potential adverse effects.
(b) Potential adverse effects on hydraulically-connected surface water quality, considering—
(i) The volume and physical and chemical characteristics of the waste in the licensed site;
(iii) The quantity and quality of ground water, and the direction of ground-water flow;
(iv) The patterns of rainfall in the region;
(v) The proximity of the licensed site to surface waters;
(vi) The current and future uses of surface waters in the area and any water quality standards established for those surface waters;
(vii) The existing quality of surface water, including other sources of contamination and the cumulative impact on surface-water quality;
(viii) The potential for health risks caused by human exposure to waste constituents;
(ix) The potential damage to wildlife, crops, vegetation, and physical structures caused by exposure to waste constituents; and
(x) The persistence and permanence of the potential adverse effects.
5B(4)—In making any determinations under paragraphs 5B(3) and 5B(6) of this criterion about the use of ground water in the area around the facility, the Commission will consider any identification of underground sources of drinking water and exempted aquifers made by the Environmental Protection Agency.
5B(5)—At the point of compliance, the concentration of a hazardous constituent must not exceed—
(a) The Commission approved background concentration of that constituent in the ground water;
(b) The respective value given in the table in paragraph 5C if the constituent is listed in the table and if the background level of the constituent is below the value listed; or
(c) An alternate concentration limit established by the Commission.
5B(6)—Conceptually, background concentrations pose no incremental hazards and the drinking water limits in paragraph 5C 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 Commission 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 Commission must consider. The Commission will establish a site specific alternate concentration limit for a hazardous constituent as provided in paragraph 5B(5) of this criterion if it finds that the proposed limit is as low as reasonably achievable, after 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 Commission will consider the following factors:
(i) The physical and chemical characteristics of the waste in the licensed site including its potential for migration;
(vii) The existing quality of surface water including other sources of contamination and the cumulative impact on surface water quality;
5C—Maximum Values for Ground-Water Protection
Milligrams per liter:
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)
Lindane (1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma isomer)
Methoxychlor (1,1,1-Trichloro-2,2-bis (p-methoxyphenylethane)
Toxaphene (C10 H10 C16, Technical chlorinated camphene, 67-69 percent chlorine)
2,4,5-TP Silvex (2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxypropionic acid)
Picocuries per liter:
Combined radium-226 and radium -228
Gross alpha—particle activity (excluding radon and uranium when producing uranium byproduct material or radon and thorium when producing thorium byproduct material)
5D—If the ground-water protection standards established under paragraph 5B(1) of this criterion 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 eighteen (18) months after the Commission finds that the standards have been exceeded. The licensee shall submit the proposed corrective action program and supporting rationale for Commission approval prior to putting the program into operation, unless otherwise directed by the Commission. The objective of the program is to return hazardous constituent concentration levels in ground water to the concentration limits set as standards. The licensee's proposed program must address removing the hazardous constituents that have entered the ground water 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 ground water 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 ground-water protection standard. The Commission will determine when the licensee may terminate corrective action measures based on data from the ground-water monitoring program and other information that provide reasonable assurance that the ground-water protection standard will not be exceeded.
5E—In developing and conducting ground-water protection programs, applicants and licensees shall also consider the following:
(1) 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 ground-water 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)).
(2) 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.
(3) Dewatering of tailings by process devices and/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).
(4) Neutralization to promote immobilization of hazardous constituents.
5F—Where ground-water 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 ground-water quality. The specific seepage control and ground-water 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.
5G—In support of a tailings disposal system proposal, the applicant/operator shall supply information concerning the following:
(1) The chemical and radioactive characteristics of the waste solutions.
(2) 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 ground water. 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 chemi-sorption attenuation properties of underlying soil and rock.
(3) Location, extent, quality, capacity and current uses of any ground water at and near the site.
5H—Steps must be taken during stockpiling of ore to minimize penetration of radionuclides into underlying soils; suitable methods include lining and/or compaction of ore storage areas.
Criterion 6 —(1) In disposing of waste byproduct 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 design 1 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 byproduct materials, and radon-220 from thorium byproduct materials, to the atmosphere so as not to exceed an average 2 release rate of 20 picocuries per square meter per second (pCi/m 2 s) to the extent practicable throughout the effective design life determined pursuant to (1)(i) of 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 non-soil 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.
1 In the case of thorium byproduct materials, the standard applies only to design. Monitoring for radon emissions from thorium byproduct 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 a least one year, but a period short compared to 100 years. Radon will come from both byproduct 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 byproduct materials to the atmosphere.
(2) As soon as reasonably achievable after emplacement of the final cover to limit releases of radon-222 from uranium byproduct material and prior to placement of erosion protection barriers or other features necessary for long-term control of the tailings, the licensee 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/m 2 s averaged over the entire pile or impoundment using the procedures described in 40 CFR qart 61, appendix B, Method 115, or another method of verification approved by the Commission as being at least as effective in demonstrating the effectiveness of the final radon barrier.
(3) When phased emplacement of the final radon barrier is included in the applicable reclamation plan, the verification of radon-222 release rates required in paragraph (2) of this criterion must be conducted for each portion of the pile or impoundment as the final radon barrier for that portion is emplaced.
(4) Within ninety days of the completion of all testing and analysis relevant to the required verification in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this criterion, the uranium mill licensee shall report to the Commission the results detailing the actions taken to verify that levels of release of radon-222 do not exceed 20 pCi/m 2 s 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 and/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.
(5) 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.
(6) The design requirements in this criterion for longevity and control of radon releases apply to any portion of a licensed and/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 byproduct 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 byproduct 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 byproduct material, radium-228, averaged over 15-cm thick layers more than 15 cm below the surface.
Byproduct 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 above standard (benchmark dose), and must be at levels which are as low as is reasonably achievable. 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 Commission after consideration of the recommendation of the NRC staff. This requirement for dose criteria does not apply to sites that have decommissioning plans for soil and structures approved before June 11, 1999.
(7) 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.
Criterion 6A —(1) For impoundments containing uranium byproduct 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, Commission-approved reclamation plan. (The term as expeditiously as practicable considering technological feasibility as specifically defined in the Introduction of this appendix 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, Commission-approved reclamation plan.
(2) The Commission 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 Commission finds that the licensee has adequately demonstrated in the manner required in paragraph (2) of Criterion 6 that releases of radon-222 do not exceed an average of 20 pCi/m 2 s. If the delay is approved on the basis that the radon releases do not exceed 20 pCi/m 2 s, a verification of radon levels, as required by paragraph (2) of Criterion 6, must be made annually during the period of delay. In addition, once the Commission has established the date in the reclamation plan for the milestone for completion of the final radon barrier, the Commission may extend that date based on cost if, after providing an opportunity for public participation, the Commission finds that the licensee is making good faith efforts to emplace the final radon barrier, the delay is consistent with the definition of available technology, and the radon releases caused by the delay will not result in a significant incremental risk to the public health.
(3) The Commission 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/m 2 s averaged over the entire impoundment. The verification required in paragraph (2) of Criterion 6 may be completed with a portion of the impoundment being used for further disposal if the Commission makes a final finding that the impoundment will continue to achieve a level of radon-222 releases not exceeding 20 pCi/m 2 s averaged over the entire impoundment. In this case, after the final radon barrier is complete except for the continuing disposal area, (a) only byproduct material will be authorized for disposal, (b) the disposal will be limited to the specified existing disposal area, and (c) 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 paragraph (1) of Criterion 6; however, these actions are not required to be complete as part of meeting the deadline for final radon barrier construction.
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 measure or evaluate compliance with applicable standards and regulations; to evaluate performance of control systems and procedures; to evaluate environmental impacts of operation; and to detect potential long-term effects.
7A—The licensee shall establish a detection monitoring program needed for the Commission to set the site-specific ground-water protection standards in paragraph 5B(1) of this appendix. For all monitoring under this paragraph the licensee or applicant will propose for Commission 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 ground-water protection standards is monitored. If leakage is detected, the second purpose of the program is to generate data and information needed for the Commission to establish the standards under Criterion 5B. The data and information must provide a sufficient basis to identify those hazardous constituents which require concentration limit standards and to enable the Commission 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 Commission in orders or license conditions. Once ground-water protection standards have been established pursuant to paragraph 5B(1), 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 ground water continue to comply with the standards set by the Commission. 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.
Criterion 8— Milling operations must be conducted so that all airborne effluent releases are reduced to levels as low as is reasonably achievable. The primary means of accomplishing this must be by means of emission controls. Institutional controls, such as extending the site boundary and exclusion area, may be employed to ensure that offsite 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 offsite 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 of uranium or thorium byproduct materials must be kept as low as is reasonably achievable.
Checks must be made and logged hourly of all parameters (e.g., differential pressures and scrubber water flow rates) that determine the efficiency of yellowcake stack emission control equipment operation. The licensee shall retain each log as a record for three years after the last entry in the log is made. It must be determined whether or not conditions are within a range prescribed to ensure that the equipment is operating consistently near peak efficiency; corrective action must be taken when performance is outside of prescribed ranges. Effluent control devices must be operative at all times during drying and packaging operations and whenever air is exhausting from the yellowcake stack. Drying and packaging operations must terminate when controls are inoperative. When checks indicate the equipment is not operating within the range prescribed for peak efficiency, actions must be taken to restore parameters to the prescribed range. When this cannot be done without shutdown and repairs, drying and packaging operations must 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 these cessations, corrective actions, and restarts must be reported to the appropriate NRC regional office as indicated in Criterion 8A, in writing, within ten days of the subsequent restart.
To control dusting from tailings, that portion not covered by standing liquids must 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 must be given in planning tailings disposal programs to methods which would allow phased covering and reclamation of tailings impoundments because this will help in controlling particulate and radon emissions during operation. To control dusting 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 byproduct material must 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 byproduct materials must 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.
Criterion 8A —Daily inspections of tailings or waste retention systems must be conducted by a qualified engineer or scientist and documented. The licensee shall retain the documentation for each daily inspection as a record for three years after the documentation is made. The appropriate NRC regional office as indicated in appendix D to 10 CFR qart 20 of this chapter, or the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555, 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) that is 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.
Criterion 9— Financial surety arrangements must be established by each mill operator prior to 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 Commission-approved cost estimates in a Commission-approved plan for (1) decontamination and decommissioning of mill buildings and the milling site to levels which allow unrestricted use of these areas upon decommissioning, and (2) the reclamation of tailings and/or waste areas in accordance with technical criteria delineated in Section I of this appendix. 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 surety must also cover the payment of the charge for long-term surveillance and control required by Criterion 10. In establishing specific surety arrangements, the licensee's cost estimates must take into account total costs that would be incurred if an independent contractor were hired to perform the decommissioning and reclamation work. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication and expense, the Commission may accept financial sureties that have been consolidated with financial or surety arrangements established to meet requirements of other Federal or state agencies and/or local governing bodies for such 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. The licensees's surety mechanism will be reviewed annually by the Commission 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. The amount of surety liability should be adjusted to recognize any increases or decreases resulting from inflation, changes in engineering plans, activities performed, and any other conditions affecting costs. 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.
This will yield a surety that is 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 period of time (e.g., 5 years) yet which must be automatically renewed unless the surety notifies the beneficiary (the Commission or the State regulatory agency) and the principal (the licensee) some reasonable time (e.g., 90 days) prior to 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 period of time to allow at least 60 days for the regulatory agency to collect.
Proof of forfeiture must not be necessary to collect the surety so that in the event that the licensee could not provide an acceptable replacement surety within the required time, the surety shall be automatically collected prior to its expiration. The conditions described above 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 Commission are:
(a) Surety bonds;
(b) Cash deposits;
(c) Certificates of deposits;
(d) Deposits of government securities;
(e) Irrevocable letters or lines of credit; and
(f) Combinations of the above or such other types of arrangements as may be approved by the Commission. However, self insurance, or any arrangement which essentially constitutes self insurance (e.g., a contract with a State or Federal agency), will not satisfy the surety requirement since this provides no additional assurance other than that which already exists through license requirements.
Criterion 10 —A minimum charge of $250,000 (1978 dollars) to cover the costs of long-term surveillance must be paid by each mill operator to the general treasury of the United States or to an appropriate State 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 Criterion 12 (e.g., if fencing is determined to be necessary), variance in funding requirements may be specified by the Commission. In any case, the total charge to cover the costs of long-term surveillance must be such that, with an assumed 1 percent annual real interest rate, the collected funds will yield interest in an amount sufficient to cover the annual costs of site surveillance. The total charge will be adjusted annually prior to actual payment to recognize inflation. The inflation rate to be used is that indicated by the change in the Consumer Price Index published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
III. Site and Byproduct Material Ownership
Criterion 11 —A. 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.
B. Any uranium or thorium milling license or tailings license must contain such terms and conditions as the Commission 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.
C. Title to the byproduct material licensed under this part and land, including any interests therein (other than land owned by the United States or by a State) which is used for the disposal of any such byproduct material, or is essential to ensure the long term stability of such disposal site, must be transferred to the United States or the State in which such land is located, at the option of such State. 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, however, 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 an 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, the Commission 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 a State.
D. If the Commission 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, the Commission 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 the Commission 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.
E. 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.
F. 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 byproduct material, as defined in this part, the licensee shall enter into arrangements with the Commission as may be appropriate to assure the long-term surveillance of such lands by the United States.
IV. Long-Term Site Surveillance
Criterion 12 —The final disposition of tailings, residual radioactive material, 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 responsible for long-term care of the disposal site to confirm its integrity and to determine the need, if any, for maintenance and/or monitoring. Results of the inspections for all the sites under the licensee's jurisdiction will be reported to the Commission annually within 90 days of the last site inspection in that calendar year. Any site where unusual damage or disruption is discovered during the inspection, however, will require a preliminary site inspection report to be submitted within 60 days. On the basis of a site specific evaluation, the Commission may require more frequent site inspections if necessary due to the features of a particular disposal site. In this case, a preliminary inspection report is required to be submitted within 60 days following each inspection.
V. Hazardous Constituents
Criterion 13 —Secondary ground-water protection standards required by Criterion 5 of this appendix are concentration limits for individual hazardous constituents. The following list of constituents 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 byproduct material and has been detected in ground water. For purposes of this appendix, the property of gross alpha activity will be treated as if it is a hazardous constituent. Thus, when setting standards under paragraph 5B(5) of Criterion 5, the Commission will also set a limit for gross alpha activity. The Commission does not consider the following list imposed by 40 CFR qart 192 to be exhaustive and may determine other constituents to be hazardous on a case-by-case basis, independent of those specified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in part 192.
4-Aminobiphenyl ([1,1′-Biphenyl]-4-amine)
6-Amino-1,1a,2,8,8a,8b-hexahydro-8-(hydroxymethyl)-8a-methoxy-5-methyl-carbamate azirino[2′,3′:3,4]pyrrolo[1,2-a]indole-4,7-dione, (ester) (Mitomycin C) (Azirino[2′3′:3,4]pyrrolo(1,2-a)indole-4,7-dione, 6-amino-8-[((amino-cabonyl)oxy)methyl]-1,1a,2,8,8a,8b-hexa-hydro-8a methoxy-5-methy-)
Antimony and compounds, N.O.S. 3
3 The abbreviation N.O.S. (not otherwise specified) signifies those members of the general class not specifically listed by name in this list.
Arsenic and compounds, N.O.S. 3
Auramine (Benzenamine, 4,4′-carbonimidoylbis[N,N-Dimethyl-, monohydrochloride)
Barium and compounds, N.O.S. 3
Benzidine ([1,1′-Biphenyl]-4,4′ diamine)
Beryllium and compounds, N.O.S. 3
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane (Ethane, 1,1′-[methylenebis(oxy)]bis[2-chloro-])
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether (Ethane, 1,1′-oxybis[2-chloro-])
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether (Propane, 2,2′-oxybis[2-chloro-])
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol (DNBP) (Phenol, 2,4-dinitro-6-(1-methylpropyl)-)
Cadmium and compounds, N.O.S. 3
Chlorinated benzenes, N.O.S. 3
Chlorinated ethane, N.O.S. 3
Chlorinated fluorocarbons, N.O.S. 3
Chlorinated naphthalene, N.O.S. 3
Chlorinated phenol, N.O.S. 3
Chloroalkyl ethers, N.O.S. 3
Chlorobenzilate (Benzeneacetic acid, 4-chloro-alpha-(4-chlorophenyl)-alpha-hydroxy-,ethyl ester)
Chromium and compounds, N.O.S. 3
Cyanides (soluble salts and complexes), N.O.S. 3
Cyanogen bromide (Bromine cyanide)
Cycasin (beta-D-Glucopyranoside, (methyl-ONN-azoxy)methyl-)
Cyclophosphamide (2H-1,3,2,-Oxazaphosphorine, [bis(2-chloroethyl) amino]-tetrahydro-,2-oxide)
Daunomycin (5,12-Naphthacenedione, (8S-cis)-8-acetyl-10-[(3-amino-2,3,6-trideoxy)-alpha-L-lyxo-hexopyranosyl)oxy]-7,8,9,10-tetrahydro-6,8,11-trihydroxy-1-methoxy-)
DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) (Ethane, 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis (p-chlorophenyl)-)
p-Dichlorobenzene (Benzene, 1,4-dichlor-)
Dichlorobenzene, N.O.S. 3 (Benzene, dichloro-, N.O.S. 3)
3,3′-Dichlorobenzidine ([1,1′-Biphenyl]-4,4′-diamine, 3,3′-dichloro-)
Dichloroethylene, N.O.S. 3 (Ethene, dichloro-, N.O.S. 3)
Dichloropropane, N.O.S. 3 (Propane, dichloro-, N.O.S. 3)
Dichloropropanol, N.O.S. 3 (Propanol, dichloro-, N.O.S. 3)
Dichloropropene, N.O.S. 3 (Propene, dichloro-, N.O.S. 3)
Dieldin (1,2,3,4,10.10-hexachloro-6,7-epoxy-1,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a-octa-hydro-endo, exo- 1,4:5,8-Dimethanonaphthalene)
1,2:3,4-Diepoxybutane (2,2′-Bioxirane)
Diethylstilbesterol (4,4′-Stilbenediol,alpha,alpha-diethyl, bis(dihydrogen phosphate, (E)-)
3,3′-Dimethoxybenzidine ([1,1′-Biphenyl]- 4,4′-diamine, 3-3′-dimethoxy-)
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene (Benzenamine, N,N-dimethyl-4-(phenylazo)-)
3,3′-Dimethylbenzidine ([1,1′-Biphenyl]-4,4′-diamine, 3,3′-dimethyl-)
alpha,alpha-Dimethylphenethylamine (Ethanamine, 1,1-dimethyl-2-phenyl-)
Dinitrobenzene, N.O.S. 3 (Benzene, dinitro-, N.O.S. 3)
Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid, salts and esters (1,2-Ethanediyl-biscarbamodithioic acid, salts and esters)
Halomethane, N.O.S. 3
Heptachlor epoxide (alpha, beta, and gamma isomers) (4,7-Methano-1H-indene, 1,4,5,6,7,8,8-heptachloro-2,3-epoxy-3a,4,7,7-
tetrahydro-, alpha, beta, and gamma isomers)
1,2,3,4,10,10-Hexachloro-1,4,4a,5,8,8a-hexahydro-1,4:5,8-endo,endo-dimethanonaphthalene (Hexachlorohexa-hydro-endo,endo-dimethanonaphthalene)
Hexachlorophene (2,2′-Methylenebis(3,4,6-trichlorophenol)
Lasiocarpine (2-Butenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 7-[(2,3-dihydroxy-2-(1-methoxyethyl)-3-methyl-1-oxobutoxy)methyl]-2,3,5,7a- tetrahydro-1H-pyrrolizin-1-yl ester)
Lead and compounds, N.O.S. 3
Mercury and compounds, N.O.S. 3
Methacrylonitrile (2-Propenenitrile, -2-methyl-)
Methapyrilene (Pyridine. 2-[(2-dimethylamino)ethyl]-2-thenylamino-)
Methoxychlor (Ethane, 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2′-bis(p-methoxyphenyl)-)
4,4′-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) (Benzenamine, 4,4′-methylenebis- -(2-chloro-)
N-Methyl-N′-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine (Guanidine, N-nitroso-N-methyl-N′- nitro-)
Methylthiouracil (4-IH-Pyrimidinone, 2,3-dihydro-6-methyl-2-thioxo-)
Molybdenum and compounds, N.O.S. 3
1,4-Naphthoquinone (1,4-Naphthalenedione)
Nickel and compounds, N.O.S. 3
Nitrogen mustard and hydrochloride salt (Ethanamine, 2-chloro-, N-(2-chloroethyl)- N-methyl-, and hydrochloride salt)
Nitrogen mustard N-Oxide and hydrochloride salt (Ethanamine, 2-chloro-, N-(2-chloroethyl)-N-methyl-, and hydrochloride salt)
Nitrosamine, N.O.S. 3
N-Nitrosodiethanolamine (Ethanol, 2,2′-(nitrosoimino)bis-)
N-Nitrosomorpholine (Morpholine, -N-nitroso-)
N-Nitrosopiperidine (Pyridine, hexahydro-, -N-nitroso-)
Parathion (Phosphorothioic acid, O,O-diethyl O-(p-nitrophenyl)ester)
Phosphorodithioic acid, O,O-diethyl S-[(ethylthio)methyl] ester (Phorate)
Phosphorothioic acid, O,O-dimethyl O-[p-((dimethylamino)sulfonyl)phenyl] ester (Famphur)
Phthalic acid esters, N.O.S. 3 (Benzene, 1,2-dicarboxylic acid, esters, N.O.S. 3)
Polychlorinated biphenyl, N.O.S. 3
Propylthiouracil (Undecamethylenediamine, N,N′-bis(2-chlorobenzyl-), dihydrochloride)
Reserpine (Yohimban-16-carboxylic acid, 11,17-dimethoxy-18-[3,4,5- trimethoxybenzoyl)oxy]-, methyl ester)
Selenium and compounds, N.O.S. 3
Silver and compounds, N.O.S. 3
Streptozotocin (D-Glucopyranose, 2-deoxy-2-(3-methyl-3-nitrosoureido)-)
Tetrachloroethane, N.O.S. 3 (Ethane, tetrachloro-, N.O.S. 3)
Tetrachloroethane (Ethene, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro-)
Tetraethylpyrophosphate (Pyrophosphoric acide, tetraethyl ester)
Thallium and compounds, N.O.S. 3
Thorium and compounds, N.O.S.,3 when producing thorium byproduct material
Tolylene diisocyanate (Benzene, l,3-diisocyanatomethyl-)
Trichloromonofluoromethane (Methane, trichlorofluoro-)
Trichloropropane, N.O.S. 3 (Propane, trichloro-, N.O.S. 3)
O,O,O-Triethyl phosphorothioate (Phosphorothioic acid, O,O,O-triethyl ester)
Trypan blue (2,7-Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 3,3′-[(3,3′-dimethyl (1,1′-biphenyl)- 4,4′-diyl)bis(azo)]bis(5-amino-4-hydroxy-, tetrasodium salt)
Uranium and compounds, N.O.S. 3
[50 FR 41862, Oct. 16, 1985, as amended at 52 FR 31611, Aug. 21, 1987; 52 FR 43562, Nov. 13, 1987; 53 FR 19248, May 27, 1988; 55 FR 45600, Oct. 30, 1990; 56 FR 23473, May 21, 1991; 58 FR 67661, Dec. 22, 1993; 59 FR 28229, June 1, 1994; 64 FR 17510, Apr. 12, 1999]
Pt. 40, App. A, Sec. II, Nt.
At 76 FR 35570, June 17, 2011, Part 40, Appendix A, Section II, Criterion 9 was revised, effective Dec. 17, 2012. For the convenience of the user, the revised text is set forth as follows:
II. * **
Criterion 9—(a) 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 Commission-approved cost estimates in a Commission-approved plan, or a proposed revision to the plan submitted to the Commission for approval, if the proposed revision contains a higher cost estimate, for:
(1) Decontamination and decommissioning of mill buildings and the milling site to levels which allow unrestricted use of these areas upon decommissioning, and
(2) The reclamation of tailings and/or waste areas in accordance with technical criteria delineated in Section I of this appendix.
(b) Each cost estimate must contain—
(1) A detailed cost estimate for decontamination, decommissioning, and reclamation, in an amount reflecting:
(i) The cost of an independent contractor to perform the decontamination, decommissioning and reclamation activities; and
(ii) An adequate contingency factor;
(2) An estimate of the amount of radioactive contamination in onsite subsurface material;
(3) Identification of and justification for using the key assumptions contained in the DCE; and
(4) 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 Criterion 10 of this section.
(d) To avoid unnecessary duplication and expense, the Commission may accept financial sureties that have been consolidated with financial or surety arrangements established to meet requirements of other Federal or state agencies and/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 Commission 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.
(1) Inflation;
(2) Changes in engineering plans;
(3) Activities performed;
(4) Spills, leakage or migration of radioactive material producing additional contamination in onsite subsurface material that must be remediated to meet applicable remediation criteria;
(5) Waste inventory increasing above the amount previously estimated;
(6) Waste disposal costs increasing above the amount previously estimated;
(7) Facility modifications;
(8) Changes in authorized possession limits;
(9) Actual remediation costs that exceed the previous cost estimate;
(10) Onsite disposal; and
(11) Any other conditions affecting costs.
(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 (e.g., 5 years) and which must be automatically renewed unless the surety notifies the beneficiary (the Commission or the State regulatory agency) and the principal (the licensee) with reasonable time (e.g., 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 regulatory agency to collect.
(i) Proof of forfeiture must not be necessary to collect the surety. In the event that the licensee can not 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 Commission are:
(1) Trust funds;
(2) Surety bonds;
(3) Irrevocable letters of credit; and
(4) Combinations of the financial surety arrangements or other types of arrangements as may be approved by the Commission. If a trust is not used, then a standby trust must be set up to receive funds in the event the Commission or State regulatory agency exercises its right to collect the surety. The surety arrangement and the surety or trustee, as applicable, must be acceptable to the Commission. Self insurance, or any arrangement which essentially constitutes self insurance (e.g., 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.
Title 10 published on 2013-01-01The following are ALL rules, proposed rules, and notices (chronologically) published in the Federal Register relating to 10 CFR 40 after this date.2013-01-04; vol. 78 # 3 - Friday, January 4, 201378 FR 663 - Decommissioning Planning During Operations