ML20137C391

Informs That Recent Mods in Cooperative Agreements W/States of or & Nm Require NRC Concurrence.Potential Latitude Which Language Allows DOE in Conducting Remedial Action Unacceptable.Acceptable Language for Concurrence Submitted

ML20137C391
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/12/1985
From:	Higginbotham L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Themelis J ENERGY, DEPT. OF
References
REF-WM-5 NUDOCS 8601160302
Download: ML20137C391 (2)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _

. .o b',/,f ]

- ~

-~~.

u mp-h/MMP/W-. py 12 % LPOL__ ]

,r,

k. . _ .. . -

DJm L., .. ~n Mr. John G. Theme 11s, Project Manager DJstribution:

Uranium Mill Tailings Project Office 4 06.1.4 DM Gillen Department of Energy RE Browning RFonner, ELD w/ incoming Albuquerque Operations Office MJ 0011 FBA P. O. Box 5400 RD Smith, w/ incoming Albuquerque, New Mexico 87115 H. Rose w/ incoming DE Martin

Dear Mr. Themells:

GN Gnugnoli Certain recent modifications in the cooperative agreements with the States of Oregon and New Mexico require concurrence by the NRC in our view. Modifications No. A004 to Agreement No. DE.FC04 84AL 20534 dated November 8, 1985 and No M001 to Agreement No. DE.FC04 85AL 20533 (undated) appear to permit initiation of remedial action prior to execution of a Remedial Action Plan and receipt of NRC concurrence.

Although our Memorandum of Understanding allows DOE to proceed at ite own risk with changes tc remedial actions, there is no allowance for DOE to proceed with remedial action prior to NRC's concurrence in the selection of such action.

Under these modifications as written, it would appear that the NRC need not concur on a decision to initiate remedial action, which might precede concurrence in the RAP.

In discussing this concern with T. Coalson of DOE /AL/ Contracts and R. Marquez of DOE /AL/ Chief Counsul, it appears that DOE will attempt to execute revisions to all cooperative agreements with the same provision. Mr. Marquez indicated to G. Gnugnoli of my staff that this was only done to initiate cost sharing with the states at an earlier point in the process. I have no difficulty with the intent, however the potential latitude which the language allows the DOE in conducting remedial action is unacceptable in light of NRC's responsibilities according to UMTRCA Title 1.

Further discussions resulted in acceptable language to permit NRC concurrence in these two modified cooperative agreements. Specifically, in the definition paragraphsfor"remedialaction" item (2)shouldberevisedtoread:

(2) With respect to millsites, are conducted af ter execution of a \

Remedial Action Plan unless the Contracting Officer and the \

State Site Representative agree by exchange of correspondence, ,

and with the written content of the NRC, that such activities should be conducted prior to execution of a Remedial Action Plann...

0601160302 051212 WASTE

[-0 EM OFC thMLutrj WMLU l0 ELD WMLU  :  :  :

ILD Higginbotham  ::

NAME :GN Gnugno11 :DE Martin :R Fonner  :

85/11/  :

DATE 185/11/ 185/11/ l05/11/  :  :

o* ..

406.1.4/GNG/85/12/02 DEC 12 25 i

With the above change in the language of the Oregon and New Mexico cooperative -

agreements, I concur with the modified agreements as identified above.

Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me or Giorgio Gnugnoli of my staff.

Sincerely, crisient done W

fo 11. lilmstnbothese Leo B. Higginbotham, Chief Low. Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material and Safety and Safeguards ,

cc J. Baublitz, DOE /HQ James G. Hoyal, Jr., DOE /AL 0FC # :WMi /  :  :  :

WM Vir[....::W.MLUbl......:

c....:.. <+L ..... h....f..(::0E..

NAME :G ,,Mdgr11:DEMartin :R onner  : gginbotham  :  ::

.....:....>........:............:............:.......s....:............:............:...........

85/12/03 85/11/g  :  :  :

DATE :85/11/oh :85/11/l}

,