ML20039H183
| ML20039H183 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/15/1981 |
| From: | Scarano R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Ramsey R ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| REF-WM-39 NUDOCS 8201190692 | |
| Download: ML20039H183 (4) | |
Text
CM1 $8 : W 910IL yfsf ss DISTRIBUTION: kg g _3 9 WMUR s/f CEC 1 5 1901 WMUR w/f fDR WMUR r/f WM r/f WM-39/WMS/81/23/0/00P NMS5 r/f
-1 WShaffer DEMartin BFisher JLInehan WMUR:WMS HPettengill WM-39 RScarano REBrowning JBMartin 9
R Mr. Robert W. Ramsey, Jr., Program Manager th field Remedial Action Programs
\\
D g D./%99 [y a
7(f
@Cg O /SS Nuclear Waste Ibnagement Programs Office of Nuclear Energy, NE-30
~
r
[O 7x
-l U.S. Department of Energy Washington, D.C.
20545
\\
/
\\
l a
Dear Mr. Ramsey:
As part of both our agencies' continuing efforts to better define appropriate points of formal interagency interaction regarding the DOE's I
execution of the UllTRAP, the NRC staff has been concentrating most recently on the area of remedial action environmental documentation and i
its relationship to NRC concurrence in the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for an Ut1 TRAP processing site. The RAP referred to is the final version, as fomally concurred in by NRC. and incorporated as an integral part of a DOE executed Cooperative Agreement with an affected State or Indian Tri be. The executed Cooperative Agreement would also have received NRC
(
concurrence in accordance with Section 103. (e) of Title I of the UMTRCA of 1978, as amended.
The Final RAP is expected by NRC to fom a part of any License Application submitted to us by DOE for an UMTRAP disposal operation.
However, we have concluded that in order to assure the most expeditious licensing action on the part of NRC it will also be necessary for the License Application to include the environnental decision naking documents which support the RAP and which were jointly developed by DOE and NRC prior to the RAP. These documents should consist of either an FEIS, and the subsequently published Record of Decision based upon it, or a Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) and the Finding of No Significant Impact (F0NSI) based upon the FEA, all as concurred in by NRC.
Inclusion of such previously concurred in documents in the License Application will obviate the significantly time consuming step of the NRC preparing DIST:
TICKET N0:
0FC :
- ---}---------- $1gg2 811215
"----------- j----------- j----------- ------------
g
........ __ un _ag_
PDR DATE
\\h.
QV
J DEC151981 WM-39/WhS/81/23/0/ DUP
_2_
separate environmental analyses and related documents to support licensing decisions and actions.
In this context, we currently consider the RACP, though a useful pre-NEPA process basic planning document arranting NRC concurrence, to be of inadequat' depth to be fully supportive of licensing decisions in terms of enviroimental analyses and ruledial action alternatives evaluation.
Regarding providing interagency concurrence systems leading to such key documents, the UMTRCA Title I, as you know, does not define points of interagency interaction and concurrence outside of the RAP itself.
However, in lieu of other specific guidance in this area, my letter of fla rch 17, 1981 to Richard H. Campbell, Project Manager, UMTRAP Project Office, DOE-Albuquerque formalized NRC agreement to participate with the DOE, as a cooperating agency under the NEPA of 1969, in the preparation of any EISs required by execution of the UMTRAP. This, in turn, has led to the current interagency understanding that four NRC concurrence points related to such an EIS would be appropriate.
These are NRC concurrence in:
(1) The Final DOE RACP; (2) the DOE published Notice of Intent (N0I) to prepare the EIS; (3) the DOE published Record of Decision (rod) announcing the chosen course of action as defined by the FEIS; and (4) the Final RAP, as developed from the chosen course of action.
In addition to these, we propose to concur in the DEIS and FEIS documents themselves, as published for a processing site, since these are the critical documents to be released for public and interagency comment.
This 'l:'C status as cooperating agency does not, however, require, specity, or imply a similar system for the case where only an EA is finally developed.
By this letter we are proposing a system for this case as shown on Attachment I.
Please advise if the proposed EA system, as well as our current under-standing of and further proposals for the EIS system, is acceptable to the D0E. We would like to re_ emphasize that our proposal is geared to assuring the most expeditious licensing action which can be accor.;plished by eliminating the need for the performance of separate NRC environmental analyses and environmental document preparation at the time of license application.
In addition, we feel this system will result in an adequate depth of NRC participation and concurrence in the selection of remedial action as required by the UMTRCA. Any questions you may have should be DIST:
TICKET NO:
0FC :
NAME :
DATE,
l c.
l Ett.151981 WM-39/WMS/81/23/0/ DUP l addressed to me or William ti. Shaffer III (FTS) 427-4538 of my staff. We continue to look forward to working closely with the DOE risarding execution of the UtiTRAP.
Sincerely, j
l5 Ross A. Scarano, Chief Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch Division of Haste fianagement cc: Richard H. Campbell, DOE-Albuquerque Dr. William E. Mott, D0E-HQ Robert J. Stern, DOE-HQ Robert L. Fcnner, ELD Case Closed: (33000039030E)
DIST:
TICKET N0:
l WMUR Y
1FC : WMUR
_ _,,p_ 'r. q,. - : g NAt1E :
ffer DEMa tin ---:----...----:----__---_-_:
12///[/81
} ATE : ' 12/(k/81
ATTACHttENT I DOE /NRC Concurrence System for UffTRAP Processing Sites Where Only An EA Is Required l
1.
The Final RACP will receive NRC concurrence.
2.
The NRC will work closely with the DOE on the development of the scope for the EA and interact as appropriate in its preparation.
As a key step, this interaction will involve NRC review and comment on Draf t EAs.
3.
The Final EA, as published by the DOE, will receive NRC review and concurrence.
NRC concurrence at this point will also serve as prior l
concurrence in the EA's recommended course of action and the anticipated conclusion that a FONSI is warranted.
4.
Should DOE subsequently decide that an EIS is required, the NRC will be consulted and, assuming NRC concurrence in such a decision, will participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of any such EIS.
5.
Assuming a FONSI is the final outcome, the DOE will publish it in the Federal Register vdthout reobtaining NRC concurrence.
6.
The Final RAP developed from the EA 5dll receive NRC concurrence prior to impleaentation.
l I
i i
(
~ _ -.
__