ML20008F246
| ML20008F246 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/23/1981 |
| From: | Scarano R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Ramsey R ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| REF-WM-39 NUDOCS 8103120627 | |
| Download: ML20008F246 (6) | |
Text
y"84
][
~
9[9,;
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y ;)c/ 3 g
,/ j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
+., v /
. = '!
FEB 2 3 1993 43
\\
w ~
,?
(
N
= N $ 1 ?n$2!'
e su
~
_g("Q Mr. Robert W. Ramsey, Program Manager
'y Remedial Actions Programs
%j b t i m Nuclear Waste Management Programs Office of Nuclear Energy, NE-301 U.S. ' Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20545
Dear Mr. Ramsey:
We have reviewed the October 3,1980 D aft DOE NEPA Implenientation Plan for the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Program (UMTRAP) and are providing detailed NRC cocinents by Attachment I to this letter. The comments are keyed to Figures 1-5 in the Draft Plan and the corresponding text associated with each of the figures.
We believe the comments provided are in accordance with agreements reached at the June 25, 1980, DOE /NRC UMTRAP meeting at Silver Spring, Maryland. Any questions relating to this matter should be addressed to myself or William M. Shaffer, III (FTS 427-4055) of my staff.
Sincerely, f
Ross A. Scarano, Chief Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch Division of Waste Management
Attachment:
As stated 1 * *]' ]-
cc:
- R. H. Campbell, DOE-Albuquerque Q'
W. E. Mott, DOE g
5
~ $ ! $b
~
.8]
i n WN t-o r]
k"S;$ lr c}l*l}
5
!?
n w.n;y w..
8103 Is o f27
Attachment I NRC Conrnents on October 3,1980 Draft DOE UMTRAP NEPA Implementation Plan 1.
Pre-NEPA Process Activities (Fia.1 and associated text, p.10-13):
It is stated that a major prerequisite to developing a Remedial Action Concept Paper (RACP) for a processing site is a determination of need to move tailings from the site. But it is not indicated that this determination is made with NRC concurrence in accordance with Section 104(b)(1) of the UMTRCA. Since the roles of NRC are delineated in other parts of the draft NEPA Plan, we feel that they should also be noted in the Pre-NEPA Process section for consistency and clarity.
Similarly, the identification of candidate alternati disposal sites may be made preliminarily by State recomendation to the DOE, and we suggest that "may" is a preferable way to describe this rather than " ideally" as noted on p. 11.
This identification would be key to development of a final RACP. However, after completion of remedial action involving alternate disposal sites, these sites are to be maintained under NRC license in accordance with Section 104(f)(2) of the UMTRCA. Thus, to assure that licensable sites are being identified, it should also be indicated that the identification process will involve NRC participation, though formal NRC concurrence is not anticipated at the early stage where a RACP is being prepared in draft form. Since, however, the final RACP will identify alternate remedial actions and indicate the preferred one, it should be clearly noted that the NRC staff will participate in the review of a draft RACP as well as formally concur in the final RACP.
This will partially fulfill NRC's responsibility under UMTRCA Section 108(a)(1) to concur in the selection and performance of remedial actions. We feel this point is not clearly made in Fig.1 or p.
12(5), though it is discussed in Appendix A "The RACP" (p. 45).
The NEPA Status of the approved course of remedial action is determined by approval of the " Site Package" discussed on p.12-13.
Thus, to assure coordinated and timely interagency agreement on NEPA status, it is felt that the NRC staff should concur in the Site Package as submitted to DOE-ASEV. The supporting RACP will already have received NRC concurrence, but thi' alone would not indicate the NRC s
staff position regarding NEPA status.
This appears even more necessary considering that, if the UMTRAP Project Office recomends that an EIS or EA is appropriate, then DOE's NEPA Affairs Division (NAD) is not required to review the Site Package. Thus, NRC concurrence a
a.
' at' the Site Package submittal stage would represent the only point of NRC final interaction regarding NEPA status.
2.
NEPA Compliance at Off-site Properties (Fig. 2 and associated text,
- p. 14-18): We anticipate that the NRC staff would formally concur in DOE 6nal deci'sions, and any subsequent authorization to its contractors to proceed with remedial actions, based upon the Radiological and Engineering Assessment (REA) reports prepared for offsite or " vicinity" processing sites. This is because the REA not only evaluates the site status, but also recomends and documents the preferred remedial actions for that specific site.
Section 101(6)(B) of the UMTRCA defines offsite or " vicinity" sites as one type of " processing site" and Section 108(a)(1) specifies NRC concurrence in selection and performance of remedial actions at processing sites. The decision point, based.on the REA, thus is the appropriate one at which to begin NRC staff concurrence for remedial action at off-site properties.
Fig. 2, line (1) should clearly reflect this. The NRC staff would then also be in a sound reference position from which to review and concur with the actual performance of the remedial actions selected. We thus view the REA as analogous to the RACP prepared for the original processing site, only much more limited normally in the scope of remedial actions considered.
In this context, page 15 (para 2.) should then also reflect NRC staff concurrence with the conduct of remedial actions as well as the approval of those parties already noted. We believe that concurrence by NRC staff in the Memorandum of Record (MR), filed with the REA to 00E-ASEV, could then initially document that n:-
concur in the decision based upon the REA.
If the MR is to state a finding that no significant environmental impact is the case for that specific site, then the REA should only be of sufficient depth to clearly support this finding in order to receive the appropriate NRC staff concurrence.
If, on the other hand, significant environmental impacts are anticipated (whether. short tenn or long term), then we agree that the REA should be scoped to adequately serve as an Environmental Assessment (EA) which can then be used as a basis for deciding, with NRC concurrence, whether or not a full EIS is required.
We do not agree however that the resulting EA for an unusually significant " vicinity" property, should necessarily be included as part of the EIS for the original processing site though it would appear desirable to prepare such an REA on a parallel NEPA process
. path as discussed on p. 16. Such a site may present its own unique characteristics, such as size or location relative to the original tailings pile, such that it may be more expeditious to consider it, l
in effect, a stand alone processing site.
?
. In any of the situations discussed, we feel, however, that formal NRC staff concurrence is required before performance of the remedial action can be initiated at each " vicinity" processing site and it appears that the UMTRAP Project Office would be a logical focal point for DOE to obtain this concurrence.
3.
liEPA Process leading to an EIS (Fig. 3 and associated text, p.18-22): We believe that NRC staff involvement in the process leading to an EIS should begin with HRC staff concurrence with the Notice of Intent (NOI) as submitted for publication in the Federal Register.
This is implied at line 3a of Fig. 3, but not clearly indicated.
In addition, this would serve as the basis for the NRC staff to assist in defining the scope of the EIS assuring that when the FEIS is published it will contain sufficient information to permit the fiRC to grant a license to tn:: DOE, or other designated parties, including conditions for inonitoring, maintenance, and emergency measures.
If public EIS scoping meetings are held, the NRC would expect to then also assist the DOE, as required, in planning for such meetings, and participating in them.
This would help to assure the correct public perception that execution of the UMTRAP is a DOE responsibility, with full NRC assistance and concurrence, leading to NRC licensing of final disposal sites at completion of the program. Using this approach would also assure the most expeditious review of a PDEIS by the NRC staff, when it is submitted as shown on line lla of Fig. 3, since we would have been involved early in its scoping.
Regarding the DOE /NRC interface for reviewing and commenting on a PDEIS, we are willing to coordinate it through any specific DOE organizational entity that the DOE may choose to designate.
Our only suggestion is that the group chosen be involved in performing that function in an overall way for the UMTRAP and that they be l
clearly indicated on p. 9 as the interface point.
I Once the DEIS has been prepared, we feel that the DOE should nominate any Hearing Board that it deems necessary, assuming that public hearings are appropriate for the specific processing site under consideration. We would prefer that the NRC staff participate in any such hearings as a cooperating agency, recognizing the role of l
the DOE as lead agency. Thus we would not anticipate an NRC member l
on the Board, but an NRC prescence at the Hearing to respond to those aspects of the DEIS which will have an impact on the licensability l
of the chosen course of remedial action. Particularly with regard l
to resolution of coments received from the hearings, it is recomended l
that the NRC staff be involved early in working with the UMTRAP Project Office to resolve them since this could significantly l
i affect the content, and timing of publication, of the PFEIS.
In this regard, the NRC staff wou'.d anticipate concurring in the Sumary and Resolution of Public and Agency Coments, as well as the FEIS Preparation Plan, which we believe should be a formal draft plan rather than an informal one as noted.
While, as discussed in the Draft Plan, it may not be desirable to begin work on an FEIS prior to final publication of the planned EPA 40 CFR 192 Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium Mill Tailings, we believe that some meaningful preparation work could be undertaken in the interim utilizing the basic intents of the Technical Criteria of the new flRC Regulations on Uranium Mill Tailings Licensing (Appendix A, 10 CFR 40) as published October 3, 1980 (ref. 45 FR 65521).
Schedular flexibility may, however, make consideration of this approach unnecessary if the EPA Standards are published early enough in CY1981.
Pertaining to the final steps leading to conversion of the PFEIS to an FEIS, lines 19a, 20a, and 21a in Fig. 3 do not clearly reflect the discussion of their significance on p. 21. We feel that Fig. 3 should reflect that the NRC staff anticipates its review and concurrence in the revised PFEIS leading to the UMTRAP Project Office's preparation of an FEIS. Final NRC staff concurrence in the FEIS would then be a single concurrence in the Notice of Availability sent by DOE-HQ to the EPA Office of Federal Activities coincident with its publication
^
in the Federal Register. As a final NRC staff involvement in the EIS Process, we feel it imperative for NRC to concur in the Record of Decision based on the conclusions reached in the EIS. At this point, the NRC staff would then anticipate concurring in any document issued by the UMTRAP Project Office which authorizes initiation of the remedial actions selected.
4.
NEPA Process leading to an EA (Fig. 4 and associated text, p. 22-73): Our major comments regarding tne NEPA process for an EIS do not apply to the NEPA process for an EA, the focus previously being on our desire for earlier NRC involvement than shown in Fig. 3.
We do, however, feel that more clearly noted points of fomal NRC staff participation need to be identified than currently shown in F'q. 4.
For example, we believe it adequate for the NRC staff to review and concur at line 9b in the final NEPA Status because this will reflect only an updating and. reanalysis of the draft EA in accordance with the RACP which will have already received NRC concurrence. But we also feel that line 8b and the 60 day joint decisionmaking period between lines 8b and 9b should more clearly
- a. note the active participation by NRC staff in this decisionmaking and formal NRC staff concurrence in the resulting NEPA Status determination. Thus, by implication, we also feel that any decision to prepare a full EIS should be an outcome of this joint decisiorunaking.
Consequently, the decision to prepare an EIS from a revised EA would be coupled with appropriate NRC staff concurrence to any similar potential decision to prepare a FONSI in an integrated process. This would eliminate the possibility for DOE to decide a FONSI is warranted, only to reverse that decision in favor of an EIS based on later DOE /NRC interaction.
5.
NEPA Process leading to a FONSI (Fig. 5 and associated text, p. 24):
As discussed in 4., it is felt that a determination that a FONSI is justified should be a result of the joint decisionmaking shown on Fig. 4 and incorporate fonnal NRC staff concurrence.to DOE in this determination. Assuming this is done,.and that a FONSI is the outcome, then NRC concurrence will already have been obtained to publish the FONSI in the Federal Register. At the end of the FONSI coment period, NRC staff should once again, as with the case of an EIS, be involved in a joint review and resolution of corrnents received.
This is net reflected in Fig. 5 or in the discussion on
- p. 24. The subsequent step, also not reflected, would be for NRC staff to formally concur in the final decision to uphold the FONSI or to reverse that decision and prepare an EIS. As in the case where an EIS is considered required from the outset (Fig. 3), the NRC staff feels it imperative to concur in the document which the UMTRAP Project Office would issue to initiate remedial action should the F0NSI be upheld as the final outcome.
l l
i
!