ML20126F775

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to Re Disposal Site Selection for U Mill Tailings at Durange,Co.Nrc Participation in Selection Process Should First Be Established in More Generic Sense for All Sites Designated by DOE
ML20126F775
Person / Time
Issue date: 01/29/1981
From: Scarano R
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To: Ramsey R
ENERGY, DEPT. OF
Shared Package
ML19247C510 List:
References
REF-WM-39, REF-WM-48 NUDOCS 8103190706
Download: ML20126F775 (2)
v • d • e


Text

- --

..r

-p t

. 6...

~

/

5.

. 4e..

D-a t

.y i8 I

t-d.

.N.

'h l ;5 --

.v.

. a : -r ^

1 gip. d. o -w hup.% w.y

? :k-M k - A &;!Cn49 Q...:..

' DisYribu'ti6nf. VM-80-405V JAN 2 91981 v wma.wns Project -file WM-48 PDR WW.48 q,

gna

.}r Q~':' ~ ~"

WPUR r/f

.~

W-;.

.n.

Mr. Robert W. Ramsey, Jr.

S. r/f._ _

3 Pmgram Manager --

WPUR c/f n

i : r) Mill fil'.

Remedial Action 7.w WMShaffer Nuclear Wasta44anagement ?R,. as--- --

Office of Nuclear-EnergydlE-301- '::

RAScarano-

e -.. REBrowning U. S. -Department of Energy H - r 2 Washington, D. C.- 20545:M d3:Y = '--

5.- JBMartip :

,=

w -- :: -

NGill.

. e - --

~

DeaFMrkRamsey:

pl%.

In response to your November 25i 1980 letter regarding disposal siteM '.f..-

selection'.for the uranium mill tailings at Durange. CO. we would pMfer p-that NRC participation in the disposal s established in. a more generic sense for'.i.te selection process be first all processing sites designated i

for. remedial action by the 90E.- Irrthat contaxt, we expect that the DOE \\

has formulated -a generic plan for. ideritification, evaluation and selection of alternate disposc1 sites when~ alternative sites are necessarf.. The

~

areas of NRC concern in this plan would not pertain to the administrative #

~

organization and process leading the DOE to selection of a disposab site, but rather the technical decision cHteria to'be. applied to initiaT1f screen and identify a wide range of. candidate. sites, narrow that range to a few prime sites, and eventually select one.

~

f)'

1 As a general responsibility, 'Section 105(a)(1):of the LHTRCA redvires.

NRC concurrence in the selection.and performance of remedial actions at .

designated processing and disposal' sites; The' NRC views, as a logicat* ' '

part-of-its overall concurrence in a remedial action, its specific ~/

conchrtence to DOE in any site which may be< selected as part of thah

~

rernedial actio'n for the purpose of' ultimate tailings disposal. This isN--

of particular importance because cf the subsequent NRC responsibility 'to license such sites following completion of the' remedial action. In addition, while the new NRC final regulations specifying uranitse mill' i

licensing requirements. as published in the October 3,1980 Federal Register, specifically state that they do not apply to' licenses issued for-material covered under Title'I of UMTRCA (ref. FR Vol. 45 No.194,

p. 65531, October 3,1980), it is our intent to apply the Technical l

Criteria and Long Term Site. Surveillance Criteria of the newly added I

Appendix A to 10 CFR 40, as. stated therei t. to the maximisa extent practicable f

at both the original inactive' processing sites and any alternate ultimate disposal. sites selected'and designatedeby DOE under its LMTRAP.

.. :s.

.. s,7 s

M

..................(..

M

.p..g.......

.... g.g. m.

, w

.........................................................................................................................t.

[m.

.-.-.m

y

.p

-g

-s' 4

  • [

=i

-p.

4

- M, 3

3_.._....

g,,

y

.. =. _

s

,yj e

J C Mr. Robert,W. Ramsey, Jr.,.

,-2

.c'p 9...f

e....,, 3

. ~.

_=

x

llll::=

?

lllF As _a consequence of the ainve' discussion, we,, anticipate our participation 5-

.~ in the disposal site selection process to be as follows:

.t 1)

Formal NRC concurrence in a generic DOE disposal site selection

- ~-

- ' plan.

.2)' ~ NRC' attendance at. major ' decision oriented site selection meetings

~. for the purpose of.subsequentl

. ' ~ Xffect such de.cis' ions..;....

y providing NRC input to DOE that may -

3). MRC attendance at. site selection' meetings where progress in meeting

~ major techMcal~mifestones is being reviewed for the purpose of subsequently providing NRC technical consnents to DOE.

4)

Joint DOE /NRC site visits _ as _ appropriate.

5)

Formal NRC concurrence in any site selected by the DOE for ultimate tailings disposal.

It is felt thd this leveT of MC particiisticin ~is required to aburn l

that any site fina11y' selected by DOE for ultimate tailings disposal will also meet the intent of NRC regulations for new tailings disposal sites. This will thus result in the most expeditious NRC licensing of the selected site following comple. tion.of.the.ramedial action.

~

Please advise as soon as feasible'as ~to the availability of a DOE generic

.~

disposal site selection plan, and whether you, agree.with the approach * '~~~~

outlined.in steps 1) through -5) 4bove for NRC participation in the site selection process. Once our overall agrunent has been achieved, then we say jointly implement it for.the Durango tailings as a specific case.

j l

The awn,;Wiate point of contact on'ay staff'for this, and all satters pertaining to fulfillmer:t of HRC's responsibilities under Title.I of the UMTRCA, is William M. Shaffer. III (FTS 427-4205),

's, Sincerelyf i

s higinal Signed by:

)

l R.1. Scarono Ross A. Scarano. Chief Uranium ~ Recovery Licensing Branch Division of Waste banagement N:c:

Richard M. Campbell. DOE', Albuquerque W1111am E. Mott, DOE.

1-22-81 -- MAG II

.A h ecy.WMUK. 4l.................)'/./[.................................................

WMUR l

.tri.er.::::b...RASct.rano...

-> v a. m..........u d m....

f:=,, _

M.dAEF ('TC (

g i

3 sl, j.

Zuw,

f 3

a

./

..Mr. Robert W. Ramsey, Program Manag'er -

'=*

=

Remedial Actions Programs Nuclear Waste Management Programs Office of Nuclear Energy, NE-301 y.S. Department of Energy'

~';"r

' : ~ ~

m Washington, D.C. 20545

Dear Mr. Ramsey:

qM

. e have Wthe,0ctober ;3r1980 Draft D0E NEPA Implementation Plan for W

4 the Uranium Mill Tailings. Remedial. Action. Program ~ (UMTRAP) and.are providing detailed NRC 'coments' by Xttachment I to this letter. The comments are keyed

^

I o Figures 1-5 in the Draft :Plarcand the curresponding explanatory text C.

t

^~

associated with each of the figures. A sunmary of t}iese'cominents is provided as follows:

1.

The NRC should be activeiy 1nvolved'~ earlier in the various NEPA

~

process pathways.

This involvement would encompass joint DOE /NRC decisionmaking and NRC formal review, coment and concurrence in DOE actions and key documents. : - -

2.

The Plan itself does not provide adequate documentation of an overall approach that will assure that the NRC has sufficient information to grant a license at the completion of remedial action at a processing site (including " vicinity" proc,es_ sing sites).

g gg To t' e extent that NRC involvement is described in,Jhly draft, the 3.

h Plan does not consistently and clearly note this involvement.at the appropriate points in the figures and explanatory test.

4. ~The Plan incorporates' no girovision or notation indicating that it will itself have received NRC concurrence...,.We feel that NRC formal concurrence in the UMTRAP NEPA Implementation Plan is required because it documents the overall approach to be. utilized assuring that the program is conducted in accordance with NEPA requirements as ' ell as those of the UMTRCA of 1978.

)

w We believe the comments provided are in accordance with agreements reached at the June 25, 1980, DOE /NRC UMTRAP meeting at Silver Spring, Maryland (meeting minuta attached). Any questions relating to this matter should be addresse'd to myself or William M. Shaffer III (FTS 427-4055) of my staff.

S.

~

RAS Attachments: as stated cc: Richard H. Campbell, DOE-Albuquerque tJ411 J.== Maee MI ei n m ream

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20126F775&oldid=4274827"