ML20154J912
| ML20154J912 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/04/1988 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Simpson A SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154J917 | List: |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 8809230176 | |
| Download: ML20154J912 (26) | |
Text
f',.
\\
t s
a non
[dd o
UNITED STATES
( P( g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
h,
/: $
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%**...W CHAIRMAN August 4, 1988 The Honorable Alan X. Simpson Subcomnittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D. C.
20510 Dr.c-Se.nator Simpson:
I am responding to your letter of May 13, 1988, in which you expresst>d concern about potential generic implications of the Memorandum of Understanding (M0U) that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission'; (NRC's) Region IV and the U.S.
invironmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Region VI have been negotiating for the Church Rock, 'lew Mexico mill tailings site.
Our responses to the 13 questions /cu raised are enclosed.
In our view, the MOU has limited generic implications for other mill sites on the National Priority List (NPL).
However, the MOV is needed to formalize the EPA /NRC procedures already being followed at this site for interactions on reclamation and cleanup matters.
From our perspective, it is clearly in everyone's best interest to pursue a coordinated approach at the Church Rock site rather than risk a series of conflicting or counterproductive requiremants which may result if each agency acts independently.
Therefore, we have concluded that the MOU should not be delayed.
With respect to your request that we provide the opportunity for public comment on the MOU, we believe the current version of the MOU, which reflects further negotiations with EPA based en discussions with members of your staff and review by the NRC, i
addresses many of the concerns you raised.
In view of the need to formalize the document for ongoing activities and the provisions included in ti.o text for amendment of the agreement, the Commission plans to direct the NRC sta f f to sign the MOV and seek public comment on it on a concurrent basis.
We believe this approach will satisfy the need for formal procedures at the site while ensuring that we have the benefit of public comments in amending the agreement if needed.
We have discussed with EPA the issue of removal of the Church Rock site from the NPL.
Based on discussions with EPA staff in the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Hazardous Site Evaluation Division, it is our understanding uhat EPA is 1
considering policy changes that would address removing or recategorizing sites now on the NPL, based on the concept of deferral to another regulatory agency that has authority to l
address contamination at a given site.
EPA plans to publish this proposed policy change for public comment.
t 8809230176 880804 DFA PDR COMMS NRCC CURRESPONDENCE PDC
\\
{
~
~
f 4 We appreciate your continuing interest in this matter and believe the MOU has been strengthened and clarified by your office's contributions to it.
We are providing a copy of the revised text as an enclosure.
As with earlier copies of the MOV provided to your office, we ask that this letter and enclosures not be released to the public until the MOU has been signed and noticed.
Until signed, the M00 remains predecisional.
Sincerely, fu.
Lando W.
Ze
, Jr.
Enclosures:
1.
Responses to questions 2.
Draft M00 cc:
The Honorable John Breaux The Honorable Lee M. Thomas, Administrator, EPA Robert E. Hannesschlager, EPA Region VI i
i l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l
f' ~ c QUESTION 1.
How are the respective roles and responsibilities of the NRC and EPA defined at the site?
t I
ANSWER.
Article II of the revised Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) establishes the basis for the agreement. Article II sets forth the following principles which are developed further in the MOU:
NRC will assume the role of lead regulatory agency for the byproduct material disposal area reclamation and closure activities and EPA will monitor all such activities and provide review ano comments directly to NRC. The objective of EPA's review and comment will be to assure that activities to be conducted under NRC's regulatory authority allow attainment of applicable or relevent and appropriate requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (dCERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. 59601 et seg outside of the byproduct material disposal site.
NRC will requTre the Licensee to implement an approved disposal site reclamation plan which meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, as amended at 52 Fed. Reo.
43553 through 43568, "Uranium Mill Tailings Regulatiens; Groundwater Protection and other Issues," which conforms with the EPA 40 CFR 192, Subpart D.
i In effect, NRC will ensure that reclamation activities within the byproduct material disposal site meet the groundwater protection requirements in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, which EPA (later in Article II) agrees are the Federal environmental and public health requirements applicable or relevant and appropriate to the disposal site. EPA will ensure that its CERCLA responsibilities with regard to groundwater are met outside of the byproduct material disposal site.
(See also the response to Question 6.)
i
s-QUESTION 2.
Has the flRC preserved its statutory authority (and responsibility) to make site-specific determinations with regard to site stabilization and reclamation, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, which may require variances from the specific requirements imposed under NRC regulations, without obtaining EPA concurrence? Specifically, has the flRC preserved its authority to set alternate concentration limits
("ACLs") without first obtaining EPA approval?
OVESTION 3.
Has the NRC preserved its statutory authority and responsibility to review and approve a site stabilization and reclamation plan consistent with NRC regulatory requirements, with consideration given to, but independent of coments submitted by other agencies, including the EPA? How will such a plan be integrated into the EPA Remed.al Investigation / Feasibility Study, Remedial Design / Remedial Action, and Record of Decision processes under the 1
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and t'
Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (referred to collectively as "CERCLA")?
1 QUESTI0fl4 Similarly, has the flRC preserved it statutory authority with regard to site reclamation work to be perfonned by the licensee pursuant to ilRC regulations, including the l
new NRC groundwater regulations?
l
QUESTIONS 2, 3, 4 (Continued) ANSWER.
Yes. 'nder the MOU, the NRC will preserve its statutory authority to make appropriate and independent decisions within the disposal site in accordance with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A.
Appendix A includes the option for NRC approval of licensee-proposed variances or alternatives to any provision of Appendix A consistent with Section 84c of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and indepenaent NRC approval of ACLs.
NRC's consideration of input from EPA will be limited to matters which could impact off-site groundwater quality.
Both NRC and EPA believe that adherence to an appropriate 10 CFR Part 40 requirement within the disposal site will result in EPA being able to assure that relevant CERCLA requirements are met outside of the disposal site.
Under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 40. Appendix A, ACLs are to be established on-site. The off-site consequences of any ACLs established by NRC must be included in the required finding that no present or potential hazard to human health and safety or the environment is posed by the value established.
(This issue. as well as other matters, is addressed in the methodology the staff is developing for establishing ACLs that will be provided to licensees for guidance.)
In view of the planned coordination with EPA, the NRC does not envision that it would authorize an ACL which would be of a magnitude that may result in the licensee's inability to confom to EPA CERCLA requirements outside the byproduct material disposal site. The MOU is consistent with Commission policy disallowing EPA site-specific concurrences.
I e
QUESTIONS 2, 3, 4 (Continued) The NRC intends tc approve separate aspects of the licensee's reclamation plan by several independent licensing actions. Many aspects of the plan, such as the cleanup of windblown tailings, the decommissioning of the milling facilities, and the interim stabilization of the tailings impoundments, have no impacts on groundwater matters and will not necessitate comment by other agencies.
However, as indicated in the proposed MOU, both NRC and EPA would seek mutual agreement before formal approval of an aspect of the reclamation plan which directly impacted the licensee's ability to conform to areas of dual jurisdiction, such as groundwater cleanup and protection.
The MOU doe not explicitly address how EPA will use the plan.
It is our understanding that EPA will strive to maintain a schedule and level of review that will result in both agencies taking independent regulatory actions in the same approximate timeframe. One purpose of the MOU is to coordinate our actions so as tc minimize any impacts on the licensee that would be anneces-sarily duplicative or counterproductive. Our expectation is that EPA will use the infortnation provided in the licensee's reclamation plan as the basis for its Record of Decision and any subsequent Consent Decree entered into by EPA and the Licensee, l
I 1
9 OUESTION 5.
With respect to work performed by the licensee pursuant to an approved stabilization and reclamation plan as required by NRC regulations, has the NRC retained oversight and approval authority? Will the EPA have duplicative oversight performed on its behalf?
ANSWER.
As defined in Articles IV and V of the MOV, the NRC will be the lead agency i
and as a consequence will be responsible for direct oversight and assurance that the licensee is appropriately conforming to the approved aspects of the reclamation activities, in accordance with the license and the regulations.
i The one specific area of duplicative oversight, as discussed in Article IV of the MOU, is groundwater mitigation.
The licensee will be carrying out specific actions within the disposal area that may directly impact groundwater conditions outside tne disposal area.
EPA may find it necessary to accompany NRC or even independently visit the site to review the licensee's performance in that regard.
i
o CUESTION 6.
How is "off-site" defined? Will the NRC actually retain authority for en-site activities? Hcw will the division of responsibility between EPA and NRC really work, since almost any significant activities performed on-site with respect to the tailings impoundment, such as cover design and emplacement, will have some direct or tangential impact upon the fate of the seepage plume from the tailings?
ANSWER.
The term "off-site" is not defined in the M0V.
The jurisdictional demarcation established by the MOU is based on the land transfer provisions of Criterion 11 of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A.
(See Article II of the draft MOU.) The "site" or "byproduct material disposal site" is that land which will be turned over to the Federal or State government for long-term surveillance and control under NRC license, pursuant to UllTRCA and the NRC regulations.
It is outside this area of perpetual government-controlled land where EPA uill ensure that its environmental responsibilities under CERCLA are met. The exact boundaries will be established as final decisions and actions en remedial and corrective L
actions are completed. The term "disposal area," which is also used in the MOU, is defined in the Introduction to Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40 to be the area subject to stabilization under Criterion 6 of Appendix A.
Additional land may be transferred for government control for reasons such as protection of stabilization features. None of these terms necessarily equate to "licensed site," as defined in Appendix A, or to current property boundaries.
l
-.--n---,
1 QUESTION 6 (Continued) The NRC retains authority for disposal site activities. The M00 provides that NPC will take the legal action to approve the reclamation plan; we will do so by license amendment. NRC is also responsible for assuring compliance with the reclamation plan.
However, as the question suggests, at the very heart of the agreement is the understanding that reclamation activities within the disposal site could affect groundwater outside of the disposal site.
Both parties agree that the groundwater protection requirements in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A are the Federal environmental and public health requirements applicable or relevant and appropriate to the disposal site.
(See revised Article II of the t
MOU.)
Furthermore, both parties believe that conformance with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, will generally assure conformance with CERCLA requirements outside the disposal site.
To build further confidence in this, EPA is being offered the opportunity to review and comment on all activities within the disposal site that would directly affect its CERCLA interests outside the disposal site. Furthermore, in order to avoid inconsistent regulation of the licensee, NRC does not intend to approve any spec'efic aspects of the reclamation plan affecting groundwater or require their execution until EPA has determined that those proposed plans are consistent with CERCLA requirements and/or remedial actions likely required to conform with CERCLA.
i l
[
i 0
,1w, mo-+w-w-a y-~-y
-w------y-wg-~q,gw w v-w----
QUESTION 7.
How will the NRC participate in the CERCLA planning process, such as the determination of clean-up standards i
under Section 121 of CERCLA, and decisions regarding the l
RI/FS, RD/RA, and the R0D processes?
ANSWER.
Through the exchange of correspondence and documents, as provided in the MOV,
\\
\\
I the NRC will be kept informed of CERCLA planning and activities. Through other provisions of the MOV, periodic meetings and consultation before either agency's independent action will provide ample opportunity for exchange of r
i i
information and views.
In the unlikely event that EPA off-site activities could impact NRC on-site matters, the continuing consultation will provide a
[
l l
mechanism to address this contingency (see Item 3 of Article IV of the MOV).
l
\\
i I
i 1
l I
i 4
{
l, t
l I
l t
I i.
OVESTION 8.
Will the NRC's stabilization and reclamation requirements, as set forth in 10 CFR Part 40, be used by EPA as the legally applicable standards for clean-up pursuant to Section 121(d) of CERCLA? If not, why not?
ANSWER.
t t
The revised text of Article II of the MOV recogni:es NRC's groundwater protection requirements as the legally applicable standards to be applied within the disposal site, but also reflects confidence that their application will meet CERCLA needs outside the disposal site.
EPA has a review and comment role on other reclamation activities (e.g., cover design), within the disposal area, which might affect. the achievement of 10 CFR Part 40 groundwater standards, in the future.
Y b
l
QUESTION 9.
How will disagreements between the NRC and EPA under the M00 be resolved? What mechanism is in place to ensure that the licensee does not pay the price for disagreement between the two agencies?
QUESTION 10.
How will disagreements regarding the adequecy of clean-up actions be resolved?
For example, what happens if in the NRC's judgment groundwater clean-up actions meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 40 and are protective of human health and the environment, but EPA believes otherwise?
Vice-versa? How will disagreements regarding the timing and implementation of clean-up actions under the two programs be resolved? For example, timing questions regarding the implementation of groundwater remediation actions and the performance of impoundment stabilization?
i ANSWER Article VI of the MOV describes the mechanism for elevating disputes between j
the agencies through supervisory chains to the respective Regional Administrators for resolution. As specified in Article IV, the NRC does not intend to approve l
any specific aspects of United Nuclear Corporation's (UNC's) groundwater l
protection and recovery actions contained in UNC's proposed reclamation plan l
until such time as any inconsistencies have been resolved. Thus, the licensee will not be required by NRC to carry out groundwater activities as long as there are unresolved issues between the agencies.
In the case of groundwater cleanup, both agencies clearly believe a mutually acceptable solution is t
achievable based on our preexisting knowledge of site groundwater conditions.
i
.~
QUESTION 11.
Does the MOU recognize that seepage from tailings constitutes "byproduct raterial" that may be within the "federally permitted release" provisions of CERCLA, and thus subject to the ban on CERCLA cost recovery actions pursuant to Section 107(j) of CERCLA? What are the Comission's views on the extent to which releases from Title II mill tailings should be considered "federally permitted releases"?
ANSWER.
The MOV does not explicitly recognize that seepage from the tailings is byproduct material.
It does recognize that the tailings are byproduct material.
It is implicit, therefore, that any contaminant in seepage water that comes from the tailings would be byproduct material. Both 40 CFR Part 192, Subpart D, and the confoming NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 4
also recognize implicitly that contaminants in groundwater that derive from tailings impoundrents are byproduct material.
In the Comission's view, any release of source, byproduct, or special nuclear material, in compliance with a legally enforceable license, pemit, regulation, or order issued pursuant to i
the Atomic Energy Act, is a Federally pcmitted release.
Releases of source, byproduct, or special nuclear naterial into the air in compliance with regulations or permits under the Clean Air Act are also Federally pemitted releases. Accordingly, with respect to any given site, whether a release of byproduct material is a Federally pemitted reldase will depend on the tems l
of the licenses, pemits, regulations, and orders applicable to that site.
\\
QUESTION 12.
How will the agencies coordinate their efforts, and how will the licensee be expected to communicate with them?
Will the agencies review licensee proposals in a coordinated manner? How is sign-off authority addressed?
ANSWER.
The coordination between agencies is specified in several parts of the POV, particularly in Article IV. Since NRC is recognized as the lead regulatory authority for activities within the disposal site, all comunications and applications relative to the reclamation of the disposal area will be addressed to NRC by the licensee as an addendum to the reclamation plan, and copies will be provided to other appropriate agencies for review and comment.
Through the exchange of information, periodic meetings, and telephone contacts, the facility coordinators (who are responsible for oversight of the implementation of the M0V and the activities required therein) will be able to ensure a coordinated review of licensee proposals.
The MOV does not establish any new "sign-off authorities." EPA does not concur or "sign-off" on NRC's licensing actions and NRC does not concur in EPA CERCLA actions. Within the authority oranted to each of the Regional Administrators, appropriate agency approvals and agreements will be granted by them or their designees.
.e OUESTION 13.
Does the fiOU address Church Rock alone?.What are its implications for all other active uranium mill tailings sites (Title II sites) at which groundwater or other contamination is present?
ANSWER.
The Memorandum of Understanding has been prepared exclusively to deal with the situation at Church Rock. Only one other Title II site regulated by the NRC, Homestake Mining Company, near Milan, New Mexico, is on the National Priority List (NPL). The Homestake site was also placed on the NPL before the return of the New Mexico program to NRC. The situation at the Homestake site does not require coverage by this or a similar MOU at this time.
If the principles set forth in the Church Rock M00 are successfully carried out, the MOU would set a workable framework for dealing with EPA in circumstances similar to those at Church Rock.
The MOU is an effort by the two agencies to carry out their respective legal and regulatory responsibilities with the least amount of duplicative effort and cost to the government and to provide the licensee with an integrated single approach to reclamation and remedial actions. This MOV does not invite future listing of Title II sites on the NPL.
Our interactions with EPA indicate that EPA will continue its policy of not listing such sites if they are actively under NRC (direct Federal) regulation, even though it has the authority to do so.
J
.l Memorandum of Understanding g
Between Region VI of The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Region IV of The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission for Remedial Action at the UNC-Churchrock Uranium Mill In McKinley County, New Mexico I.
PURPOSE This document estabitshes the roles, responsibilities, and relation-ship between Region VI of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")
and Region !Y of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC"), hereinafter cellectively referred to as the ' Parties," regarding remedial action at the UNC-Churchrock uranium mill in McKinley County, New Mexico. The Parties have overlapping authority in connection with this site, and this Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") will help assure that remedial actions occur in a timely and effective manner.
II. BASIS FOR AGREEMENT NRC will assume the role of lead regulatory agency for the oyproduct material disposal area reclamation and closure activities ano EPA will l
i monitor all such activities and provide review and coments directly to l
NRC. The objective of EPA's review and coment will be to assure that l
activities to be conducted under NRC's regulatory authority allow attainment of applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended l
l l
l
2
("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. $9601 g _s.eg outside of the byproduct material e
disposal Site. NRC will require the Licensee to implement an approved disposal site reclamation plan which meets the requirements of 10 7R Part 40, Appendix A, as amended at 52 M. R_eg 433553 through 43568, "Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations; Groundwater Protection and other t
t Issues," which conforms with the EPA 40 7R 192, Subpart D.
EPA develop-ment and implementation of its own site action requirements for ground-s water contamination outside of the disposal area will be conducted in accordance with CERCLA and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan ("NCP") 40 GR Section 300 including any revisions L
thereto.. The EPA and EC agree that the groundwater protection require-ments of 10 7R Part 40, Appendix A are the Federal environmental and T
public health requirements applicable or relevant and appropriate to the t
t disposal site. The EPA and MC believe that conformance with 10 7R Part l
40, Appendix A (with the possible exception of nitrate), will generally assure conformance with CERCLA requirements. However, each Party will be I
i l
responsible for assuring compliance with it's specific regulatory require-p
(
l ments as discussed in this section. The parties believe that the U.S.
t i
Oopartment of Energy or another responsible State or Federal authority will.ssume responsibility for long-tera care of the byproduct material
(
k i
l disposal site, following remediation of the site.
I l
!!!. BACKGROUND i
The State of New Mexico was responsible as an ' Agreement State" for licensing and regulating uranium mills within the State untti June 1,1986, l
t r
i l
3 at which time the NRC resumed this authority at the request of the Governor of New Mekico. Prior to this change, EPA had placed the UNC-Churchrock site on the National Priority List ("NPL") of sites for response action under CERCLA. EPA's policy is to list only those uranium mills meeting criteria for placement on the NPL which are located in Agreement States, that is States which have entered into agreements with the NRC pursuant to Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to regulate certain nuclear activities in a manner compatible with the NRC's program.
Mills in states where NRC has direct licensing authority have not been l-placed on the list. Although New Mexico is no longer an Agreement State insofar as uranium recovery operations are concerned and the NRC has re-assumed primary jurisdiction, the site was properly placed on the NPL and the physical conditions resulting in that placement are still present.
Therefore, EPA has no intention of recommending delisting the site from the NPL until all authorized EPA and NRC controlled remedial activities, addressing releases or threats thereof, at this facility are completed.
IV. AGREEMENT In order to achieve satisfactory cleanup of the UNC site, the NRC and the EPA agree to do the following:
1.
The Parties shall cooperate with each other in the oversight l
of reclamation and remedial activity at the UNC site.
2.
Upon submittal by UNC of a proposed site reclamation plan
("the plan"), NRC and EPA will begii cor. current reviews of the
4 proposed plan. EPA will review the plan and will provide s
comments to the NRC. NRC will review and, if necessary, require revisions to the plan to assure conformance to 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, as amended, prior to approving the plan via license amendments.
If EPA cannot conclude that the plan approved by NRC meets CERCLA requirements, then EPA may initiate separate actions as may be necessary to ensure conformance with CERCLA requirements outside o' the disposal area site. NRC will not approve any specific components of the groundwater protection and recovery aspects of UNC's proposed reclamation plan until EPA has determined, in a Record of Decision or by review of l.
the UNC plan and statement to NRC, that it is consistent with CERCLA requirements and/or remedial actions required under CERCLA.
NRC does not intend to approve any specific aspects of UNC's groundwater protection and recovery actions contained in UNC's proposed reclamation plan until such time as any incon-sistencies have been resolved.
If remedial action is determined in a Record of Decision to be necessary EPA intends to either enter into a Consent Decree with UNC under which UNC will conduct, with EPA oversight, remedial actions equal to or exceeding those outlined in an EPA Record of Decision, to take appropriate enforcement action, or perform remedial
- c. ion itself pursuant to Section 104 of CERCLA, reservitig al' rights l
l to seek cost recovery 6' der Section 107 of CERCLA.
Such actioris i
(
I
4 5
may bu conducted as part of the h' ;'s approval of the UNC plan n
or separately; but in any e"ent EPA intends to coordinate its
, actions first with tne NRC.
3.
If either Party determines that remedial actions are deficient or unsatisfactory, then that Party shall provide notice to the other Party of the deficiency.
The NRC shall assume the lead role for notification to UNC, except for such notificat an as EPA might statutorily be required to provide in certain events. The notification shall specify a time period in which regulatory compliance is expected to be achieved.
Should compliance nct be achiaved in this time period EPA will assume the lead for taking or seeking any enforcement action necessary for off-site groundwater and NRC will assume the lead for any other e.iforcement actions necessary within its area of regulatory responsibility.
Both Parties reserve all rights i.nder this M00 to take whatev ir actions are determined to be necessary, including the conduct of remedial actions on and off-site in order to fulfill their regulatory requirements.
In any event no action will be taken by either party without prior consultation with the other Party.
4.
Both Parties shall appoint a facility coordinator who shall be responsible for oversight of the implementation of the MOU and the activities required herein. The facility coordinators
6 shall be appointed by each Party within seven (7) days of the effective date of this MOU. The Parties each have the right to appoint a new facility coordinator at any time. Such change shall be accomplished by notifying the Party, in writing, at least five (5) days prior to the appointment of the name, tele-phone number, and mailing address of said facility coordinator.
5.
The Parties will meet periodically at the request of either Party and at least semiannually insofar as it is necessary to accomplish the objectives of the MOV. The facility coordinators should contunicate with each other on a routine basis by telephone.
6.
The Parties will provide technical advice and any necessary regulatory consultation to one another upon request.
7.
The Parties will generally provide each other with copies of all official corraspondence and documents related to remedial actions at the site. The Parties will also normally provide copies of other information upon request.
In the event that one of the parties does not wish to furnish certain specific information, documents, or correspondence to the other, then said material shall be identified to the other party along with the reasons for withholding it.
8.
Whenever notice or information is required to be forwarded by one party to another under the terms of this MOU, it shall be m
- i given by and directed to the individuals at the addresses specified s
below:
EPA:
Allyn M. Davis Director Hazardous Waste Management Division Regian VI, U.S. EPA 1445 Ross Ave.
Dallas, Texas 75202 NRC: Dale Smith, Director Uranium Recovery Field Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission P.O. Box 25325 Denver, Colorado 80225 9.
Routine connunications may be exchanged verbally, in person, or by telephone between the Parties to facilitate thi orderly conduct of work contemplated by this MOU.
- 10. Enforcement documentation provided under this MOV will be kept as e.vempt material by EPA and NRC, to the extent legal'y possible, according to the policies and procedures under 40 CFR Part 2 and 10 CFR Part 2.790, respectively.
4 Y.
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES A.
NRC responsibilities 1.
The NRC will require the owners / operators of the UNC Churchrock mill (UNC) to imolement an approved on-site reclamation plan that meets all relevant NRC requirements, including 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, as amended.
If any such plan is not complied with by UNC, NRC will take whatever actions it deems appropriate to ei.sure complin e.
i l
e.
8 2.
The NRC will direct UNC to provide both parties with copies of major work product submittals as they become available. Such work products will include, but not be limited to, an adequate overall reclamation plan, and any other plans and specifications for assessment, remediation, and nonitoring, including all analytical data.
3.
The NRC agrees to provide progress reports on UNC remediation on a quarterly basis.
4.
The NRC will assist in the developmant of information to support EPA's deletten of the site from the NPL upon completion of the remedial action.
5.
The NRC shall notify EPA of all pending visits to the Churchrock property which relate to the site closure plan and shall afford EPA and its consultants opportunity to accompany NRC personnel on i
such visits.
B.
EPA RESPONSIBILITIES 1.
EPA will provide formalized review, consultation and comment throughout the entire project.
2.
EPA will review and provide connents on the site reclamation plan, and other associated deliverables, within timeframes as agreed to between NRC and EPA.
In the ever: that EPA determines that the implementation of the site reclamation plan has not resulted in, or may not result in, cleanup conditions that meet applicable 3
~-- -
~ ---
9 o,r relevant and appropriate requirements under CERCLA, then EPA L
may take whatever action it deems appropriate.
3.
EPA intends to pursue and complete a Remedial Investigation end Feasibility Study, public coment and agency response process, and Record of Decision (R00) directed at off-site groundwater contamination, with the intention of completing this process by to October 1, 1988.
EPA intends to implement, or require UNC or other potentially responsible parties to implement, any EPA selec ed remedial actions set.* orth in a R00. Any remedial actions conducted by UNC or other potentially responsible parties to implement an EPA selected remedy will be done under EPA oversight and in accordance l
with the terms of any Consent Decree entered into with EPA. EPA intends that any such Consent Decree would cover actions outside I
the byproduct material disposal site needed to implement the ROD remedy.
l VI. O!SPUTE RESOLUTION In the event of dispute between EPA and the NRC concerning site activities, the persons designated by each Agency as primary or, in their absence, alternate contact points will attempt to promptly resolve such
{
disputes.
If disputes cannot be resolved at this level, the problem will 1
be referred to the supervisors of tnese persons for further consultation.
i The supervisory referral and re.olution process will continue, if necessary to resolve the dispute, to the level of the Regional Administrators of l
a I
10 the NRC and EPA.
Both Parties shall continue to maintain their respective rights or'responsibilites unoer the M00 during the dispute resolution 1
process.
VII. EXECUTION AND MODIFICATION This agreement shall take effect upon execution by EPA and the NRC.
It shall remain in effect for the duration of the program addressed herein unless terminated by mutual agreement by the two Agencies; or, the MOU may be terminated unilaterally if e.iy of the conditions set forth below are present.
1.
The planning or conduct of groundwater cleanup actions fail to meet standards set forth in the Basis for Agreement (Section !!)
of this M00.
2.
The rite is deleted from the NPL.
3.
The site is turned over to the Department of Energy or other responsible j
f State or Federal authority for long term care.
t 4.
Regulatory, Statutory, or other events occur which make this MOV unnecessary, illegal, or otherwise inappropriate.
VI!!. M00!f! CATION The Parties may modify this MOU from time to time in order to simpilfy and/or define the procedures contained herein. Each Party shall keep the other infonied of any relevant proposed modifications to its basic statutory or regulatory autterity, forms, procedures, or priorities.
11 This MOU shall be revised, as necessary, by the adoption of such modifi-cations. The MOV should be reviewed on an anr1al basis by both the Director.
URF0, Region !Y, NRC, and the Director-Hazardous Waste Management Division, Region VI. EPA or their designated representatives.
IX. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS The Perties reserve any and all rights or authority that they may have, including but not limited to legal, equitable, or administrative rights. This specifically includes EPA's and NRC's authority to conduct, direct, oversee, and/or require environmental response in connection with the site, as well as the authority to enter the site and require the production of information, within each of their own areas of responsibility.
Executed and agreed to:
Robert D. Martin Date Regional Administrator i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV, Arlington, Texas Robert E. Layton Jr., P.E.
Date Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency l
Region VI, Dallas, Texas l
l v.
-+.----.-----------,,--v~
-r
~ - -,-
,