ML20135E669

Summary of 961115 Meeting W/Nrc & DOE to Discuss Closure & post-closure Issues for Sites

ML20135E669
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/06/1996
From:	Joseph Holonich NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	David Williams ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
References
REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 9612110410
Download: ML20135E669 (9)

Text

_. - _ _ . . _ - - -. -. . . - .

Mr. Donald Willians

'Superfund Division (6SF-LN)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 1445 Ross Avenue Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 SUBJECT; MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 15, 1996, MEETING ON URANIUM MILL TAILINGS I TITLE II/ CERCLA SITES CLOSURE

Dear Mr. Williams:

Enclosed for your information is a report of the November 15, 1996, meeting between staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U. S. Department of Energy.

The meeting was held to discuss closure and post-closure issues for sites subject to both NRC or Agreement States licensing requirements and EPA permitting under the Comprehensive Environmental Resource Compensation and l Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).

! If you have any questions regarding the enclosed meeting report, please contact Ken Hooks, the NRC Project Manager for the New Mexico sites, at (301) 415-7777.

Sincerely, Joseph J. Holonich, Chief Uranium Recovery Branch l Division of Waste Management  ;

Office of Nuclear Material Safety ,

and Safeguards l

Enclosure:

As stated l i l cc: S. Ghose, USEPA Region 6 i S. Kent, NMED i J. Curtiss, NSP J. Velasquez, UNC je3 qf l

l R. Cellan, Homestake D. Simpson, Colorado gfg,j,Q (1

,j l

l Attendees DISTRIBUTION w/ Encl.: File Center NMSS r/f URB r/f PUBLIC AGarcia CCain, RIV DGillen RFonner CAbrams I '

w/o Encl.: JSurmeier#

DOCUMENT NAME: S:\DWM\ URB \KRH\ CERCLA 0FC URB g OGC y URB NAME KHooks/aeglk MSchwartzh JHNnich DATE Q/f/96 I Q/[/96 [ 13/b/96 l OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 9612110410 961206 PDR WASTE ,r,f f HM-3 PDR 96- i a V g {Q{ frNEb

l l

4 MEETING ON TITLE II/ CERCLA SITE CLOSURE

Purpose:

To discuss closure and post-closure issues for sites subject to both NRC or Agreement State licensing requirements and EPA permitting under CERCLA.

Date: November 15, 1996 Place: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Two White Flint North 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland Attendees: NRC Maria Schwartz, OGC Joe Holonich, NMSS/DWM j Ken Hooks, NMSS/DWM EPA Don Williams, Region 6 Jim Turner, Region 6 Joyce Olin, Headquarters

• Carolyn Hallett, Region 8 David 0'Very, Headquarters l _D01 l

Joe Virgona, Grand Junction l Don Metzler, Grand Junction Keith Landolt, Albuquerque Tom Crandall, Headquarters CONTRACTORS Mark Plessinger, MACTEC Grand Junction Carl Jacobson, MACTEC Grand Junction Pat Mackin, CNWRA San Antonio

!

• Participated by telephone l

l l

DISCUSSION A meeting was held at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Headquarters on November 15, 1996, among representatives of the NRC's Uranium Recovery Branch and Office of the General Counsel; the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's)

Headquarters and Grand Junction, Colorado, offices; and the U.S. Environmental l Protection Agency's (EPA's) Headquarters, Region 6 and Region 8. The meeting l was held at the request of DOE to discuss closure and post-closure issues for the Church Rock and Homestake sites in New Mexico (licensed by the NRC) and the Cotter-Canon City and Uravan sites in Colorado (licensed by Colorado, an Agreement State). The four sites are presently subject to NRC or Colorado licensing requirements under Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) and EPA permitting under the Comprehensive l Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). The

! New Mexico sites will be transferred to DOE for long-term care under the I

10CFR40.28 general license, and the Colorado sites will be transferred to the State of Colorado, or to DOE if Colorado declines to take possession.

The major items discussed at the meeting were regulatory responsibility, ,

integration of regulatory requirements, and possible effect of CERCLA on DOE's j l long-term care of the sites. The Memoranda of Understanding between the NRC '

I and EPA for Church Rock and Homestake were discussed (attached). The NRC is responsible for groundwater within the site boundary (including EPA requirements), and the EPA is responsible outside the site boundary. I Since DOE will be required to submit annual site status reports to the NRC, EPA stated that it may be possible to summarize these reports to form the five year report required by EPA. Although no final conclusions were reached l during the meeting, EPA stated that it may be possible to remove one or more

, of the sites from the National Priorities List if the sites are cleaned up l prior to transfer to D0E. Such "de-listing" would be subject to state and i possibly other agency concurrence. EPA will investigate the question of " lead i agency" designation for the sites, and will provide NRC and DOE with copies of  !

relevant regulations. j l DOE suggested that EPA Region 8 and State of Colorado personnel meet with DOE i and NRC personnel in Denver in May/ June in conjunction with the NRC/ National i Mining Association meeting.

l 4

l

1

i j,

. . MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING I

h* Effice of Governmental and Public Affairs related to NWPA issues. In thesessanduenof UnderstensAng Segueen U.S.Ituelserllegulatory I. Purpose l

carrying out its responsibilities covered This document establishes the roles, Conomiesten and U.S. Esistrennental i by tais Memorandum of Understanding. Proteseen Agency re8ponsibilities, and relationship

the NRC will avoid unnecessary between Region VI of the UA d

duplication of activities performed by Ae msev: Nuclear Regulatory EnvironmentalProtection Agency

} DOE. Commission. (" EPA") and Region IV of the U.S.

i Additional activities may be added to Acteest: Publication of Memorandum of Nuclear Regulatory Centissim i those listed above. after consultation Understanding WRC'), hminefier conectinly between OCRWM and NRC. mbrred k as the " Parties." maarding suesenAav:On August 23.1933, the remedial action at the UNC-Churchrock 4

11.Managemet and Progrm Guldelines Administrators of the UA Nuclear uranium millin MclGaley County, New i

i As soon as practicable, following the Regulatory Commission's (NRCs) Mexico. The Parties have overlapping end of each fiscal year, the NRC shall Region IV and the UA Environmental authority in connection with this site.

l

provide the DOE with a statement Protection Agency's (EPA's) Region VI and this Memorandum of Understanding

' certified by an independent auditory signed a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU' ) will help assure that remedial i setting forth the amount DOE is (MOU) concerning the Churchrock. New actions occur in a timely and effective i obligated to pay for NRCs costs Mexico uranium mill site. manner.

l incurred for work as defined in this The Churchrock site is licensed by the II. Basis ForAgreement i MOU during the fiscal year just NRC and is also on EPA's National

completed. DOE shall promptly. Priority ust for remedial action under NRC will assume the role oflead i following the appropriation of funds., Superfund.ne MOU provides the segulatory agsscy for the br. N'

, deposit into the Ceneral Fund of the procedures which the two agencies will material disposal aree reclamation and i Treasury of the United States a sum follow to help assure that rernedial clwm activities and EPA wiB mnitw j equal to the certified NRC costs. If in actions at the site occur la a timely and all such activities and pmvide mview

' any year, the NRC audited costs effective manner. and =====*= directly to NRC The j significantly exceed the funds available The MOU is printed inits entimty objective of EPA's review and comment

! for NRC reimbursement based upon below, wW be 2 assus kat activWes to be

! funds appropriated to OCRWM' DOE conducted under NRCs regulatory If a y member of the public muld authority adiow attainsnent of applicable i shall promptly notify the NRC so that a t con"*888 08 8

! payment schedule can be set w mlevant and appropriate m a y h amnh saluaments under the Canywhensin The NRC shall provide OCRWM. prior of the document, they would be most

Environmental Response Compensation I 8u * " and umbility Act of1930, as amnded the cost expect to inc l the next three fiscal years. These (* CERCLA"). 42 UAC 9e01 et seg I estimates shall include a description of Aponsas

Mail comunents to: Regulatory outside of the bypsoduct meterial i anticipated work and an explanation of Publications Branch. Division of disposal site. NRC will require the how these amounts were derived. This Freedom of Information and - I h=a- to 3=pla===t an approved l Publications Services. Office of disposal site reclamation plan which 4 information shall be included in NRCs 8 budget submission to the Office of Administration and Resources meets the L ,

• ts of to CFR Part

' Management. UA Nuclear Regulatory 40. Appendix A.as annended at 52 FR Management and Budget.

Commission. Washington. DC 20585. 433553 through easse," Uranium Mill Further deiails regarding billin and

! payment will be set forth in the annual Comments may be hand.delivwed to Tailings Regulations: Croundwater s

interagency Agreement between the 7920 Norfolk Avenue.Bethesda. Protection and other Issues." which

Maryland between the hours of 7

45 am. conforms with the EPA 40 CFR 192.

NRC and the Department of Energy,

! and 4:15 p.m. weekdays except Fed ral Subpart D. EPA development and l Ill. Ai=1=1straties holidays. Cor=maats received may be irnplementation ofits own site action i %is Memorandum of Understanding viewed at NRCs Public Document Roosi requirernents for groundwater

! in the Celman Budding,2120 L Street, conta.nination outside of the disposal may be modified or amended by written

! agreement between NRC and OCRWM NW Waaliingka.DC.betman the ama wm be conduckd in acewdance d i db h hours of 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. with CERCLA and the National Oil and by r ten notic the othe pa7ty. weekdays except Federal holidays. Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan ( 'NClr') 40 CFR 300 including any This Merr.orandum of Understanding is Po# Puermest asPonsnavsoas costract:

effective when signed by both parties. Harry J. pottengill. Uranlurn Recovery revisions thereto.The EPA cnd NRC The following signatures constitute Field OfRce,730 Simms Street. Suite agmf that the groundwater protection acceptance nf tMs altree nent. 100A. Golden, Colorado 80401 requirements of to CFR Part 40.

(Telephone (303) 236-2810). Appendix A are the Federal Nuclear Rc2ulatory Commission environmental and public health Date: July 2o.19As. Dad at g,,Reint h%end.nis M de requirements applicable or relevant and og g,p ggg, Viceer Stello. )r appropriate to the disposal site.%e For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Erecutive Directorof 0pemtions. EPA and NRC believe that conformance e . Chief

• with 10 CFR Part 40. Appendix A (with Department of Energy.

Resulofory 8macA the possible exception of nitrate), will Dee Wa. m - generally assure conformance with

g. Memoranden of U-i

1. a m i1 as a t , o 4.

A and Region IV of De U.S. Nuclear comphance with it s specific regulatory Regulatory Commimmiam for Rennedial mquiments as discussed in ths 53 FR 37887 ge,g,, ,, g g section.%e parties believe that the U.S.

Putpltshed 9/28/84 Department of Energy or another Comment period expires 11/2s/88. MiH in Mdinig County, NM responsible State or Federal authority will assume responsibility for long-term care of the byproduct material disposal site, following remediation of the site.

nail rt Sentemt er 30.1993 freset)

MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING i

1. L5ackground

• g oundwatzt protection and recovery

7. ne Parties will generally provide

%e State of New Mexico was actions contained in UNCs proposed each other with copies of all official

• responsible as an Agreement State for reclamation plan until such time as any correspondence and documents related lic;ns and regulating uranium mills inconsistencies have been resolved. lf to remedial actions at the site.ne within State until June 1.1986, at remedial action is determined in a Parties will also normally provide copies which time the NRC resumed this Record of Decision to be necessary, EPA of other information upon request. in the cuthority at the request of the Governor intends to either enter into a Consent event that one of the parties does not l

I j

[

' g d M' pl hy' "8

sits on ge Nationsy Priority List ( NPL'.)

Decree with UNC under which UNC will c nduct, with EPA ove actions equal to or exc

t. remedial ng those wish to furnish certain specific information, documents, or corresondence to the other, then sa,d i l of sites for response action under outlined in an EPA Record of Decision.

to take appropriate enfortement action. material shall be identified to the other CERCLA. EPA s policy is to list only party along with the reasons for or perform remedial action itself withholding it.

men ont e ic 1 a1 Pursuant to section 104 of CERCLA.

8. Whenever notice or information is I t

in Agreement States, that is States reserving all r ghts to seek cost recovery

• h b required to be forwarded by one party

!' under section 107 of CERCLA. Such wi the acti ne may be conducted as part of the to another under the terms of this MOU.

u to 274 of it shall be given by and directed to the the Atomic Ene'EY Act of1964, as NRCs approval of the UNC plan or

{

separately; but in any event EPA intends individuals at the addresses specified

, caended, to regulate certain nuclear below-i

)

i cctivities in a manner compatible with to coordinate its actions Aret with the the NRCs prograsa. Mills in stat" NRC. EPA: Allyn M. Davis. Director.  :

where NRC has direct licensing 3. If either Party detemines that Hazardous Waste Management euthrrity have not been placed on the remedial actions are deficient or Division, Region VI. U.S. EPA.1445 list. Although New Mexico is no long" unsatisfactory, then that Party shall Ross Ave Dallas. Texas 75202.

cn Agreement f tale insofar as uranium provide notice to the other Party of the NRC: Dale Smith. Director. Uranium rec:very operations are concerned and deficiency.%e NRC shall assume the Recovery Field Office. U.S. Nuclear th) NRC has reassumed primary lead role for notification to UNC, except Regulatory Commission. P.O. Box z i

jurisdiction, the site was properly placed for such notification as EPA might 25325. Denver, Colorado 80225.

en th) NPL and the physical conditions statutorily be required to provide in j

9. Routine communications may be resulting in that placement are still certain events. De notification shall exchanged verbally,in person, or by l specify a time period in which  !

l present. Therefore, EPA has no intention telephone between the Parties to cf recommending delisting the site from regulatory compliance is expected to be achieved.Should compliance not be facilities the orderly conduct of work l thm NPL until all authorised EPA and achieved in this time period EPA will contemplated by this MOU. .

NRC controlled remedial activities. assume the lead for taking or seeking 10.U.nforcement documentation ,

l cddressing releases or threats thereof, at provisd under this MOU will be kept '

this f

cility are completed. any enforcement action necessary for

' off. site groundwater and NRC will as exempt material by EPA and NRC, to IV. Agreement asurne the lead fw any one the extent legally possible, according to

" "'" "' " the policies and procedums under to i In ceder to achieve satisfactory i

clIanup of the UNC site, the NRC and [t are ory respons?bi CFR Part 2 and to CFR Part 2.790, Both Parties reserve all rights under this respectively.

l tha EPA agree to do the following:

i

1. The Parties shall cooperate with MOU to take whatever actions are V. AgencyResponsibilities e:ch cther in the oversight of" determined to be necessary, including the conduct of remedial actions on and A. NRC responsibilities l rtcitraation and remedial activity at the UNC site, off. site in order to fulfill their regulatory 1. The NRC will require the owners /

2. Upon submittal by UNC of a requirements. In any event no action operators of the UNC Churchrock mill proposed site reclamation plan ( .the will be taken by either party without (UNC) to implement an approved on-site pt:n"). NRC and EPA will begin prior consultation w th the other Party. reclamation plan that meets all relevant

( 4. Both Parties shall appoint a facility NRC requirements, including to CFR

concurrent reviews of the proposed j pt

n. EPA will review the plan and will coordinator who shall be responsible for Part 40. Appendix A, as amended. lf any i provide comments to the NRC. NRC will oversight of the implementation of the such plan is not complied with by UNC, l tzvi:w and,if necessary, require MOU and the activities required herein. NRC will take whatever actions it revisions to the plan to assure The facility coordinators shall be deems appropriate to ensure l c:nf:rmance to 10 CFR Part 40. appointed by each Party within seven compliance.

l Appendix A, as amended. prior t (7) days of th effative date of this 2.The NRC will direct UNC to provide epproving the plan via license MOU.ne Parties each have the right to both parties with copies of major work carndments. If EPA cannot conclude appoint a new facility coordinator at product submittals as they become th t the plan approved by NRC meets sbH be available. Such work products will CERCLA requirements. then EPA may Qti"{; ,p Such shed by chnot ying the Party,in include, but not be limited to, an j

initi te separate actions as may be writ ng, at least five (5) days prior to the adequate overall reclamation plan. and necusary to ensum confamanca with appointment of the name, telephone any other plans and specifications for j CERCLA requirements outside of the number, and mailing address of said assessment. remediation, and disposal area site. NRC wiu not approve i nit monitoring, including all analytical data.

tny specific components of the 5fcoordinator' Putin wil1 meet periodicaHy at 3.The NRC agrees to provide progress repwis m UNC minediation on a i

groundwater protection and recovery the re9uest of either Party and at least aspects of UNC's proposed reclamation semiannually insofar as it is necessary quarterly basis.

pl n until EPA has determined. In a to accomplish the objectives of the 4. The NRC will assist in the i i Rzcord of Decision or by review of the MOU.The facuity coordinators should development ofinformation to support '

UNC plan an statement to NRC that it is communicate with each other on a 's deletion of the site from the NPL consistent with CERCLA requirements routine basis by telephone. upon completion of the remedial action.

and/cr remedial actions required under 6. The Parties will provide technical 5.The NRC shall notify EPA of all CERCLA. NRC does not intend to advice and any necessary regulatory pending visits to the Churchrock approve any specific aspects of UNC's consultation to one another upon property which relate to the site closure request. plan and shall afford EPA and its September 30,1993 (reset)

/, MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING p' .

consult:rits opportunity to ccccmp:ny meet st:.ndards set f:rth in the Basis for entzred into a Memor ndum of l NRC personnel on such visits. Agreement (Section II) of this MOU. Understanding (MOU) to provide  ;

2. %e site is deleted from the NPL B. EPA Responsibilities general

3. The site is tumed over to the between theguidelines for MOU two agencies.The interfac is

1. EPA will provide formalized review, Department of Energy or other designed to ensure that there will be no 1 consultation and comment throughout responsible State or Federal authority gaps in the protection of workers at i the entire project. for long term care. NRC-licensed facilities where the OSHA '

2. EPA will review and provide 4. Regulatory. Statutory, or other also has health and safety jurisdiction. l comments on the site reclamation plan, events occur which make this MOU At the same time, the MOU is designed  ;

and other associated deliverables, unnecessary, illegal, or otherwise to avoid duplication of effort on the part within timeframes as agreed to between inappropriate. of the two agencies in those cases where NRC and EPA. In the event that EPA yIll. Modificorion it is not always practical to sharply determines that the implementation of identify boundaries between the NRC's the site reclamation plan has not The Parties may modify this,MOU responsibilities for nuclear safety and resulted in, or may not result in, cleanup from time to time in order to simplify ,

and/or define the procedures contained the OSHA's responsibilities for I conditions that meet applicable or herein. Each Party shall keep the other industrial relevant and appropriate requirements inf rmed of any relevant proposed The MOU.safety' whic h replaces an ex under CERCLA. then EPA may take procedure for interagency activities' whatever action it deems appropriate. modifications to its basic statutory or regulatory authority, forms, procedures. M h d-d

3. EPA intends to pursue and complete re8ponsigities o og agencies.

a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility or priorities. This MOU shall be revised, as necessary. by the adontion of such describes generally the efforts-of each to Study' public comment and agency ,

achieve worker protection at NRC-resporise process, and Record of modifications.The MOU should be ,

reviewed on an annual basis by both the licensed facilities, and provides general i Decision (ROD] directed at off-site procedures fir the coordination of groundwater contamination, with the Director.URFO Region IV. NRC and the Director.Hazardcus Waste Management interface activities and exchange of intention of completing this process by Division. Region VI. EPA or their information between the NRC and October 1.1988. EPA intends to implement. or require UNC or other designated representatives. HA.The text of the MOUls set out potentially responsible parties to IX. Reservation ofRights implement, any EPA selected remedial Purpose and Background The Parties reserve any and all rights actions set forth in a ROD. Any remedial ~

or authority that they may have. 1.The purpose of this Memorandum of i actions conducted by UNC or other including but not limited to legal. Understanding between the U.S. Nuclear potentially responsible parties to Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the equitable, or administrative rights. This implement an EPA selected remedy will

, rpecificauy includes EPA's and NRC's Occupational Safety and Health authenty to conduct. direct. oversee. Administration (OSHA) is to delineate acco nce ith t e 17r s and/or require environmental response the general areas of responsibility of Consent Decree entered into with EPA. in connecti n with the site, as well as each agency: to describe generally the 1

EPA intends that any such Consent the authority to enter the site and efforts of the agencies to achieve worker Decree woulci cover actions outside the require the production of information, protection at facilities licensed by the byproduct material disposal site needed to implement the ROD remedy. within each of their own areas of NRC: and to provide guidehnes for responsibility, coordination ofinterface activities '

VI. Dispute Resolution Executed and agreed to: between the two agencies. If NRC In the event of dispute between EPA Dated: August 26,1988. licenses observe OSHA's s'.andards and and the NRC concerning site activities. regulations. this will help minimize '

Robert D. Martin.

the persons designated by each Agency w rkplace hazards.

Regional Ad.vrainistrator. U.S. Nuclear as primary or, in their absence, alternate Regulatory commission. Region IV.

2. Both NRC and OSHA have contact points will attempt to promptly Ar/ington. Texas. jurisdiction over occupational safety resolve such disputes. lf disputes cannot Dated: August 28,1988. and health at NRC. licensed facilities.

be resolved at this level, the problem Because it is not always practical to Robert E. Layton. lt.. P.E.,

will be referred to the supervisors of sharply identify boundaries between the

"" ' ' nuclear and radiological safety NRC these persons for further consultation. k#8l,##N, yy "j. . NloNf$h77e as.

The supervisory referral and resolution regulates and the mdustrial safety process will continue,if necessary to $3 FR 43950 OSHA regulates, a coordinated resolve the dispute, to the level of the interagency effort can ensure against Put>llshed 10/31/88 l Regional Administrators of the NRC and gaps in the protection of workers and at !

EPA. the same time, avoid duplication of DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Both Parties shall continue to effort. This memorandum replaces an maintain their respective rights or Occupational Safety and Health ex sting procedure for interagency responsibilities under the MOU during Administration activities. " General Guidelines for the dispute resolution process. interface Activities between the NRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY Regional Offices and the OSHA.

VII. Execution ondModification COMMISSION This agreement shall take effect upon *** "' "'

execution by EPA and the NRC. It shall Memorandum of Understanding Between The Nuclear Regulatory

"'m**'

Fa e*s^*

remain in effect for the duration of the Commission and the Occupational 3.There are four kinds of hazards that program addressed herein unless Safety and Health Administration; may be associated with NRC-licensed terminated by mutual agreement by the Worker Protection at NRC-Ilcensed nuclear facilities:

two Agencies: or, the MOU may be Facilities a. Radiation risk produced by terminated unilaterally if any of the radioactive materials:

conditions set forth below are present. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission b. Chemical risk produced by

1. The planning or conduct of (NRC) and the Occupational Safety and radioactive materials; groundwater cleanup actions fail to Health Administration (OSHA) have MU-45 September 30,1993 (reset)

- - - - . - . - . . - . . - - - - - .-----~~.-

MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING I

! D. He NRC's General Counsel has the issued in accordance with title 10 of the Licensee to implement an approved I

. IIAal autbority toprovide legal Code of Federal Regulations, part 40. disposal site reclamation plan which la on of me Commission's Prior to June 1,1986, activities at the meets the requirements of 10 CFR part site were regulated under a license 40. Appendix A. as amended at 52 FR issued by the State of New Mexico in 43553 through 43568 (November 1987),

fr. Elective Defe accordance with its status as an NRC " Uranium Mill Tallings Regulations:

This Agreement will take effect after agreement state. During the period of Ground Water Protection and other it has bue signed by both parties. State regulatory authority, the issues," which conforms with EPA 40 l X. Durotion Homestake site was placed on the EPA's CMt part 192, subpart D. EPA and NRC l Superfund National Priorities List at the agree that the requirements of 10 CFR Afo 1 " ' *9" *f the State. A copy of the MOU, part 40. Appendix A. are the Federal afterthe flective is iY1 which dehneates agenc responsibilities environmental and public health ed b tb t the site,is printed fo owing this requirements applicable or relevant and t e eata on o e and tice.

l resolve any problems identified. This appropriate to the disposal site. EPA ,

Agreement will be subject to riodic 10 CFR part 40. Appendix A,"will reviews and may b ame *Ramon

"". Hall.

E DirectorJ mn Recovery Field Office. Ryun IV, U.S. generally assu,re conformance with modi 8ed upon written agreement b CERCLA requirements. However, each both parties, and a b w Nuclear Regulatory Commission. P.O.

Party will be responsible for assuring i Box 25325. Denver. Colorado. 80225.

i upon 30 deys written notice by either Telephone: (303) 231-5800. compliance with its specific regulatory P8MY- requirements as discussed in this XI Sepaiobdhty MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING section. The parties believe that the U.S. 7 l

i BETWEEN REGION 8 OF11EE U.S. DePanent oihergy or another l If any provision (s) of this Agreement, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECI10N AGENCY t or the application of any provision (s) to AND REGION IV OF T1EE U.S. NIX 2. EAR responsible State or Federal authority any person or circumstances is held REGULATORY COMMISSION FOR will assume responsibility for long-term invalid, the remainder of this ""m4L ACTION ATTHE HOMESTAKE care of the byproduct material disposal MINING WMPANY URANIUM MILL IN site following remediation of the site.

Agreement and the application of such cmotA COm, NM provisions to other persons or III. Background l circumstances will not be affected. I Purpose The State of New Mexico was l

• * * *

• This document establishes the roles, responsible as an " Agreement Stato" for i For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory responsibilities, and relationships licensing and regulating uranium mills +

Canmission. between Region 6 of the U.S. within the State until June 1.1986, at  !

Deted: November 2,1993.

Environmental Protoction Agency (EPA) which time, NRC reassumed this James M. Taylor. and Region IV of the U.S. N'uclear authority at the request of the Governor Esecutive Direeforfor Operonons- Regulatory Commission (NRC), of New Mexico. Pnor to this change, ,

i hereinafter collectively referred to as the EPA had placed the HMC site on the  !

! For the State of Arkansas. " Parties," regarding remedial action at National Priority List (NFL) of sites for  !

Dated: November 17,1993. the Homestake Mining Company (HMC) response action under CERCLA. EPA's Grete Joy Dicus, uranium rnillin Cibola County, New policy is to list only those uranium Director Dwision o/Jiadiation Controland Mexico. The Parties have overlapping mills meeting criteria for placement on EmergenqMonagemest. Arkansos authority in connection with this site the NFL which are located in Agreement D'Portment ofHocWA. and, consistent with the purposes of the States,i.e., States which have entered

! March 16,1992. interagency into agreements with NRC pursuant to Memorandum of Understanding section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of l

I between EPA and NRC entitled 1954, as amended, to regulate certain l gg pyl 3700 " Guiding Principles for EPA /NRC nuclear activities in a manner Pubashed vases Cooperation and Decision Making," this compatible with NRC's program. Mills Ennethe 12/14/03 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in States where NRC has direct licensing will help assure that remedial actions authority have not been placed on the occur in a timely and effective manner, list. Although New Mexico is no longer Uranham W ReW Moe **I8 I ' 8""'"I an Agreement State insofar as uranium AosNcy: Nuclear Regulatory recovery operations are concerned and Commission. NRC will assume the role of lead NRC has reassumed primary Acnow: Notice of signing of regulatory agency for the byproduct jurisdiction, the site was properly Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) material disposal area reclamation and placed on the NPL and the physical between the Nuclear Regulatory cfosure activities and EPA will monitor conditions resulting in that placement all such activities and provide review are still present. After completion of the Commission (NRC) and the closure of the disposal area and other Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) comments directly to NRC. The objective of EPA s review and comment Iamedial measures undertaken in full concerning the Homentake Uranium compliance with to CFR part 40, g;gg' will be to assure that activities to be conducted under NRC's regulatory Appendix A (the applicable Federal guensAny:On December 14,1993, the authority will allow attainment of :tandards for disposal site reclamation),

NRC and the EPA s6gned an MOU applicable or relevant and appropriate EPA. pursuant to 40 CFR parts 425(e) 1- delineating agency responsibilities in requirements under the Comprehensive and 515(c)(3) and in consultation with regulating activities at the Homestake Environmental Response Compensation the State of New Mexico, shall Mming Company's Grants Uranium and Liability Act of 1980, as amended determine whether all required response Mill. The NRC has regulated edivities at (" CERCLA"). 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., actions with respect to the site have

' the site since June 1,1986, under e outside of the byproduct material been implemented. Following such a source and byproduct material license disposal snelNKC will require the determination, the site may be considered for deletion for the NFL MU 113 September 29,1995

MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING IV. Agreement semiannually insofar as it is necessary levels, and diminish redon exhalation to In order to achieve satisfactory to accomplish the objectives of this appropriate regulatory standards. If any cleanup of the HMC site. NRC and EPA MOU. The facility coordinators should part of such plan is not complied with agree to do the following: communicate with each other on a by HMC, NRC will take whatever

1. The Parties shall cooperate with routine basis by telephone, actions it deems appropriate to ensure each other in the oversight of 6. The Parties will provide technical compliance.

reclamation and remedial activitv at the advice and any necessary regulatory

' 2. NRC will ensure that the owners /

HMC site. consultation to one another upon operators of the HMC uranium mill

2. EPA will review the amendments to request. implement a compliance monitoring the site reclamation plan ("the plan") 7. The Parties will generally provide program for hazardous constituents that l and will p ovide comments to NRC. each other with copies of all official meets all relevant NRC requirements, l NRC will review and. If necessary, correspondence and documents related including 10 CFR part 40. Appendix A, require revisions to the plan to assure to remedial actions at the site. The for the establishment of ground water l conformance to 10 CFR part 40. Parties will also normally provide protection standards and points of l

l Appendix A, as amended. prior to Copies of other information upon compliance. NRC will verify approving the plan via license request. In the event that one of the implementation by HMC of any required l amendments. NRC will provide EPA Parties does not wish to furnish certain compliance monitoring and/or gneund i with copies of all license amendments specific information, documents, or water corrective action at the HMC which affect the site closure plan prior correspondence to the other, then said uranium mill site resulting from the to issuance for comment. If no material shall be identified to the other establishment of ground water comments are received within 30 Pany along with the reasons for Protection standards as soon as such is calendar days, NRC willissue the withholding it. reviewed and accepted by NRC. If any j amendment. 8. Whenever notice or information is ground water requirements are not <

3. If EPA determines that remedial required to be forwarded by one pa.ty complied with by HMC NRC will take l actions are deficient or unsatisfactory, to another under the terms of this MOU, appropriate action to ensure ,

then EPA shall provide notice to NRC of it shall be given by and directed to the compliance. 1 the deficiency. NRC shall assume the individuals at the addresses specified as 3. NRC will direct HMC to provide 1 lead role for notification to HMC. except follows: bcth Parties with copies of major work for such notification as EPA might l

EPA: Director. Hazardous Waste Management product submittals 6s they become statutorily be required to provide jn Division (6H). U S. EPA Region 6.1445 available. Such work products will certain events. The notification shall Ross Avenue, suite 1200. Dallas, Texas include a reclamation plan and any i specify a time period within which 75202-2733. other plans and specifications for -

l regulatory compliance is expected to be NRC: Director. Uranium Recovery Field assessment, remediation, and achieved. Should compliance not be Office, Region IV, U S. Nuclear Regulatory monitoring, including all analytical ,

achieved in this time eriod, EPA will Commission P.O. Box 25325. Denver, data.

's 8 225- I assume the lead for ta ing or seeking 4. NRC agrees to provide EPA with l any enforcement action within its area 9. Routine communications may be progress reports on HMC's remediation, '

f onsibility and NRC exchanged verbally, in person, or by semiennuall .

l of will regulatory assume the resfend for any telephone between the Parties to 5. NRC wi 1 assist in the development i within facilitate the orderly conduct of work ofinformation to support EPA s deletion enforcement its actions area of regulatory responsi necessar(ility.

contemplated by this MOU. of the site from the NPL upon Both Parties reserve all rights under this 10. EPA enforcement documentation completion of the remedial action,if MOU to take whatever actions are Provided under this MOU will be kept appropriate.

determined to be necessary, including as exempt material by EPA and NRC, to B. EPA Responsibihties the conduct of rernedial actions within the extent legally possible, according t the pohcies and procedures under 40 1. EPA will provide formalized and outside the disposal area. in order review, consultation and comment to fulfill their regulatory requirements. CFR part 2 and to CFR part 2.790' respectively. hout the entire pr ject.

In any event, no actions affecting site throuhA

2. l will review and provide remediation will be taken by either 11. The Parties shall notify each other OI y Pendin visits to the C comments on the various components of Party without prior consultation with the reclamation plan, groundwater property c, the Aner Party. monitoring, and corrective action

4. Both Parties shall appoint a facility P l an. To the extent that they are submittals, and other related coordinatr who shall be responsible for otherwise authonzed to do so, either . documentation, within timeframes as l oversigF o he implementation of this Party and their consultants may, at their

' agreed to between NRC and EPA. In the MOtf .d as activities required herein. Option, accompany the other Party on such visits. event that EPA determines that the l N "..cW / coordinators shall be implementation of the site reclamation l apr n u a by each Party within seven V. Agency Responsibilities plan, closure activities, and/or (7. sys of the effective date of this .

groundwater corrective action has not i MOU. Each Party has the right to A. NRC Responss.bilities resulted in, or may not result in, l appoint a new facility coordinator at 1. NRC will ensure that the owners / cleanup conditions that meet applicable l any time. Such a change shall be operators of the HMC uranium mill or relevant and appropriate accomplished by notifying the other implement an approved reclamation requirements under CERCLA, then EPA Party, in writing, at least five (5) days plan that meets all relevant NRC may take whatever action it deems prior to the appointment, of the name, requirements, including 10 CFR part 40, appropriate.

telephone number, and mailing address Appendix A, as amended. The of said facility coordinator. reclamation plan will require HMC to R Dispute Resolution S. The Parties will meet periodically assure long term stability of the tallings, In the event of a dispute between EPA at the request of either Party and at least reduce gamma radiation to backgmund and NRC concerning site activities, the i

I September 29,1995 MU-114

' I, ,

. MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING require the production of information, loint Statement of Understanding persons designated by each Agency as l / tacility coorcinators, or in their absence, within each of their own areas of By October 24,1994, pursuant to Title XI altamate contact points will attempt to responsibility- of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (the "Act"),

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the promptly resolve such disputes. If X. Severability "NRC")is directed to establish standards (the l disputes cannot be resolved at this level, The nunancation of any one or more " standards") for regulation of the gaseous the problem will be referred to the na r pr visions of a section of diffusion ursnium enrichment facilities (the supervisors of these persons for further this MOU,either by Agreement of the "facihties* or "GDPs") owned by the i consultation.The supervisory toferral Department of Energy (the " DOE *) in order Prrties or b Admmistretive or Judicial

( and resolution process will continue, if ^C' Ion. sha 1 not affect the other to rotect the pubuc health and safety from neces to resolve the dispute. to the ra iological har.ard and provide for the level of e Regionai Adm'nistrators i of 5'W.on8/Pmvisions of this MOU. common defense and security. Title XI of the Executed and agreed to' NRC and EPA. Both Panles shall Act also specifies that NRC establish a continue to maintain their respective Dared: December 14.1993 certification process to ensure that the U.S.

j rights or responsibilities under this James L Mdhoan, Enrichment Corporation (the Corporation"I, Begional Admmisfrator. U S Nuclear which is to lease the facihties from DOE.

MOU during the dispute resolution process. ResulatoryCommission.ReponIV. Artmston, complies with the NRC standards. After NRC Teros establishes the standards, the Corporation is Vll. Execution and Termination required to apply at least ann,ually to NRC for j -

a cecate of comphance wee l This agreement shall take effect upon standards.The requirement for a certificate of i

execution b EPA and the NRC. It shall go,o~wg,gg,'.

N#8'On "n N. nt- S an)nmental MmP tianca is in heu of any requirement for remain in e fect for the duration of the *c0 n Assen as n E Dann 7m a hcen2e for the facihties leased by the pf STom addressed hmin unless Corporation.The Act also provides that the terminated by mutual agreement by the Corporation may not operate the facihDes l

two Agencies; or this MOU may be unless the NRC makes a determination that l the facthties are in compliance with the NRC i

terminated unilaterally if any of the standards to be established by October 24, conditions set Icnh below are present; 1994. or NRC approves a plan prepared by

1. The planning or conduct of DOE for achieving comphance with such j reclamation plan, closure activities, 59 FR 4729 Published 2/1/94 standards.

and/or groundwater cleanup actions fail Title XIof the Act also provides that the to meet standards set forth in the Basis NRC, in mmhanon wgh the Environmental for A reement (Section !!) of this MOU. Protection Ager.cv (the EPA ), shall review i

2. he site la deleted from the NPL Joint Statement of Understanding the operations of 't he Corporation to ensure

3. The site is turned over to the Between Nucleer Regulatory that pubhc health and safety are adequately Department of Energy or other Commission and Departmentof protected. Further. Title IX of the Act responsible State or Federal authority pmvi+s the Corporanon shail lease the Energy on implementing Energy Policy gaseous diffusion facilitics of DOE at for long. term care. Act Provisions on Regulation of Paducah, Kentucky and Portsmouth. Ohio for

4. Regulatory, statutory, or other Gaseotas Mtssion Wanium a six year period,beginning July 1,1993.

events occur which make this MOU Enrichment Plants Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, unnecessary, fliegal, or otherwise as amended,includingin particular the inappropriate. AGENCV: Nuclear Regulatory provisions of the Energy Policy Att of 1992 Vill. Modificatson Cornmission. on regulation and certdication as generally l

' Action: Publication of Joint Statement of desenbed above, NRC and DOE are issuing The Parties may modify this MOU Understanding Between the Nuclear this loint statement of understanding (the from time to time in order to simplify Regulatory Commission and the loint Statement") to address matters relating and/or define the Procedurea contained Department of Energy. to the process by which NRC will assume, herem.. Each Party shall keep the other and DOE will rehnquish at the time and to informed of any relevant proposed svuuAny:The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory the extent provided by law. responsibihty for modifications to its basic statutory or Commission (NRC) and the U.S, regulatory oversight under the Act for the i

DOE facihties leased by the Corporation as regulatory authority, forms, procedures. Department of Energy (DOE) have specmed by the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

or priorities. This MOU shall be revised, entered into a Joint Statement of 1" *i'""Ith* **pticit framew rk of the Act as necessary,by the adoption of such Understanding which describes the under which NRC is to assume respons@ility modifications. The MOU should be roles of the DOE and NRC in I P reviewed on an annual basis by both the implementing the Energy Policy Act of he h nd y nd e or o def e Director, Uranium Recovery Field 1992 provisions on the regulation of and security after NRC standards are

! Office, Region IV, NRC, and the gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment established and become effective for that Director, Hazardous Waste Management plants. The text of the Joint Statement purpose,this loint statement of Division, Region 6, EPA, or their of Understanding is set forth below. Understanding identifies certain resp nsibilities of NRC and DOE with respect designated representatives. FOR FURTHER INFORMAftON CONTACT: Mr. p l

! IX. Reservation of Rights S. R. Ruffin, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, MS 4-E-4, U.S.

[t u s

Chpy es g oc ayn 9 .

successfut implementation of the process, 3

ne PMes reserve any and aH Hghts Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and serves such other purpoacs as may be or authority that they ma have, Washington, DC 20555, telephone 301- related thereto.

locluding but not,limite to legal. 504-2696. In NRC requesting and DOE agreeing to equitable. or administrative nghts. This supply information. DOE and NRC Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day understand that the purpose is to help specifically includes EPA's and NRC's of January,1M establish NRC's regulatory framework under authority to conduct, direct, oversee, For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. the Act, not for NRC to estabbsh oversight and/or require environmental response before NRC asrumes regulatory jurisdicHon in connection with the site, as well as samuef f.ChifA Secretaryof the Cominission. over the facilities.

the authority to enter the site and l,

MU-115 September 29,1995 I