ML20197D174

Summary of 861218 Meeting W/R Marquez in Silver Spring,Md Re Umtrap Cooperation Agreements.Doe Proposed Cooperative Agreement Ltr & marked-up MOU Between NRC & DOE Encl

ML20197D174
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/30/1986
From:	Gnugnoli G NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Martin D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
References
REF-WM-5 NUDOCS 8702270182
Download: ML20197D174 (18)

Text

() n172 0p S C DEC 301986 GNG/12/19/86

$\\

g gN-

,9 f

huGdivg.

i 0FFICIAL CONCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION RECORD u.dpN08/g k i c w"

~

WR%%

//

MEMORANDUM FOR:

Dan E. Martin, Section Leader Uranium Recovery Projects Section

~

Low-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery 9

N Projects Branch ONO g %7 s 5

~

FROM:

Giorgio N. Gnugnoli, Project Manager

~

u4#

ocel//p'84 Uranium Recovery Projects Section 9

p Low-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch or v

g

SUBJECT:

MEETING WITH R. MARQUEZ (D0E) ON UMTRAP COOPERATION AGREEMENTS DATE:

9 DISTRIBUTION / enclosures WM FILE WMLU/SF MBell, WM GNGnugnoli, WMLU RDSmith, URF0 EHawkins, URF0 /

DGillen, WMLU RFonner g

CONCURRENCES ORGANIZATION /CONCUREE INITIALS DATE CONCURRED WMLU/GNG WMLU/DMG g,

pg

/2/go 0FFIC A1. DOCE"C0?Y rpasf

,_mener

t gE,0%0 Y GNG/12/19/66 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Dan E. Martin, Section Leader

]

Uranium Recovery Projects Section Low-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch FROM:

Giorgio N. Gnugnoli, Project Manager Uranium Recovery Projects Section Low-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch

SUBJECT:

MEETING WITH R. MARQUEZ (DOE) ON UMTRAP COOPERATION AGREEMENTS Logistics:

December 18, 1986 12:45PM Willste Building (Silver Spring, MD)

Conference Room 728

Participants:

G. Gnugnoli - NRC/WMLU R. Marquez - DOE /AL/0CC Discussion:

Marquez and I discussed my concerns with the Cooperative Agreement modifications sent to NRC for concurrence beginning in September of 1986. He provided me with a draft copy of a letter from the 00E Contracts Division, which addressed my concerns for modifications to the Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota and Colorado Agreements (Enclosure 1).

In essence, the letter conr.its DOE to conditioning all cooperative agreements to acknowledge precedance of NRC statutory responsibilities over g

tenns and conditions of the cooperative agreement. Marquez requested that I initiate processing the above agreements for NRC concurrence with the understanding of the letter.

I indicated that I would begin processing the agreements, but formal concurrence would need to await the receipt of the fonnal letter.

I indicated that the response letter would provide NRC concurrence subject to the conditions of the letter.

He indicated that as agreements were modified routinely for cost-sharing purposes, the changes would be implemented as well.

He also indicated that the New Mexico 'greement was going to be sent to NRC shortly and that the changes will have alre::dy been made.

However, he indicated that the forthcoming Texas agreement will not reflect these changes.

.f DEC 2 6 M _

GNG/12/19/86 2.

I suggested that he and I go over coments on tho Memorandum of Understanding (M00). We discussed the few remaining concerns and indicated that all but two items should be easily remedied. These two items cover NRC's right to unannounced ir.spections and to discretion in changing DOE's future custooial licenses at the UMTRA sites. He indicated that he would get back to me with regard to these items. Enclosed is a copy of the marked-up portions of the MOU (Enclosure 2).

oE1615Ab3705ED WY

(

Giorgio N. Gnugnoli, Project Manager Uranium Recovery Projects Section Low-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch

Enclosure:

1.

Proposed Cooperative Agreement Letter 2.

Mark-up of MOV h

01Ch3Mf_ $

l

~

Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations Office i

P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87115 o

Mr. Dan E. Martin Section Leader Uranium Recovery Projects Section Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conssission Albuquerque, New Mexico 87115 Dear Mr. Martin O

Enclosed you will find modifications to UMTRA Proj ect cooperative agreements as listed below:

1.

Modification No. M015 to Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC04-81AL16309 (Utah);

2.

Modification No. M012 to Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC04-81AL16257 (Colorado);

3.

Modification No. M001 to Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC04-82AL20536 (North Dakota); and 4.

Modification No. M003 to Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC04-83AL19454 (Wyoming).

S. Ms 0, e eM 00 t

4. Tb4@

NRC concurrence with these modifications is pending DOE resolution of G

ieveral concerns which have been raised by your office.

It is ny understanding that you and your staff have discussed those concerns with Richard Marques, of our Of fice of Chief Counsel, and that NRC's concerns have been reconciled as follove:

1.

NRC CONCERN - A stipulation should be included that the remedial action shall be performed in accordance with the RAP.

DOE continues to include such a provision.

DOE RESPONSE Paragraph C.5.

Construction and Site Work, provides:

"Upon concurrence with the final RAP by the State and the Commission, and upon acquisition of property interests as necessary, DOE shall carry out the construction and other site activities as necessary to ensure compliance with the Remedial Action Plan, EPA Standards, and other applicable Federal and State law."

~

2.

NRC CONCERN - The CADSAR site characterization data is too brief to fully evaluate adequacy of candidate disposal sites with respect to the EPA Standards.

a

Mr. Dan E. Martin 2

DOE RESPONSE - The UMTRA Project Office and your of fice recently met to discuss the intended purpose of tbc CADSAR and the site characterization sequence.

The CADSAR is intended by DOE to help focus state consideration of one or a few versus several apparently suitable disposal sites.

Rather than positively coniarming that a site will meet the disposal criteria, the CADSAR site characterization effort should be of greater assistance to DOE and the State by indicating that some candidate sites are not suitable.

DOE's site characterization (ffort should continue through preliminary design prior to NRC commitment to such d.ta.

3.

NRC CONCERN - 1) The implication that DOE will execute one RAP for two or more UMTRA sites d' es not appear appropriate to the states in question.

ii) The D. aft RAP language appearJ to commit DOE to participate in a formal review meeting within 45 days of state receipt of the 1:raf t RAP.

Dlc RESPONS2 - 1) The referenced language is generic language intended to provide maximum flexibility to DOE and the sta to tu their consideration of remedial action alternatives as contemplated by Section 106 of the UMTRCA, regarding consolidation of tailings materials.

There are many such

" generic" or " boiler plate" type provisions in thm cooperative agreement.

It would probably be preferable to specifically tailor each provision of each agreement to tha particular circumstances; however, to date our policy has been to tailor only those provisions of substantive impact o t*

of particulpr concern to the state.

ii) The language does appear to commit dRC to participation in a formal review meeting within a specified y

period of time.

To the extent this commitment is inconsistent with the DOE-NRC MOU, the MOU should take precedence.

See DOE GENE 1AL RESPONSE below.

)

4.

NRC C0hCERN - NRC's position is that its consent to initiation by DOE of preliminary design is not required.

i DOE RESPONSE - DOE agrees that the elimination of the requirement y

for NRC consent would streamline the remedial action process.

3 g !#

Consider $as the administrative burden of eliminating th e.

J.

provN w in view of the pressing neaJ for the modifications, m

57 p

suggest that you consider this n DOR's request for a " blanket" 0

consent to the init.iation of preliminary design at UMTRA sites f

and that you respond with such a " blanket" consent.

5.

NRC CONCERN - NRC's role its remedial action performance should be acknowledged in the paragraph regarding Construction and Site Work.

DOE agrees with the principle expressed; the DOR RESPONSE NRC's role in construction is a etitical aspect of the DOE-NRC MOU.

We recommend reconciliation of this comment in accordance i

with ue DOE GENERAL RE8PONSE, bslor.

i W

h

_m

Mr. Dan E. Martin 3

NRC's responsibility to concur with DOE's 6.

NRC CONCERN determination that remedial action is completed should be included in the provision regarding Transfer of Title.

DOE RESTONSE - The UMTRCA, Section 104(f), clearly provides for NRC concurrence with DOE's determination that remedial action is completed.

The DOE-NRC MOU mirrors that requirement.

Consequently, DOE vould seek and obtain much a concurrence prior to acceptance of title to a disposal.ite and tailings.

The provistou you cite is intended as a brief summary of the tail-end of the remedial action process sequence that is outlined in Paragraph C.

The specifics of property acquisition and transfer are set forth in the article of the Cooperative Agreements entitled Acquisition. Disposition and Use of Property.

Por example, Paragraph J.

of that article in the Utah Cooperative Agreement provides that the State shall transfer title to the Government "when the Secretary (with the concurrence of the O

c i

i => d

• r i= - th t at i

=ia

i-2 cpi 4 i=

accordance with the EPA Standards and other requirements of Title 1 of the Act."

The lead-in to Paragraph C.

of the subjecg modification states that the remedial action sequence is as set forth in said Paragraph C.

"except as specifically provided elsewhere in this Agreement."

As such, the Acquisitiosg Disposition and Use of Property article takes precedence with respect to land acquisition and transfers.

See also the D05 GENERAL RESPONSE, below.

l DOE GENERAL RESPONSE The process associated with the UMTRA cooperative agreements is quite cumbersome even vi e NltC l

concurrence is not requited.

WLere NRC concurralce is required the process can become very time consuming.

Typically, for I

rodifications that require NRC concurrence, the UMTRA Project Office identifies a prcposed revision to its State-Tribe remedial action process, such as the CADSAR process.

This office the s

O UMTRA Project Office, and the Office of Chief Counsel then a month-ic7g process) and develop a modification (at 1gast I

pro 9ose that language to the gffected state.

Generally the change impacts the cost-sharing scheme.

State or Tribe execution takes at least a month assuming that there it r.o negotiation regarding the laaguage.

NRC concurrence adds at least another month to the process, assuming no concerns are raised.

Because j

cf the dynamic nature of the UMTRA Project, it is not unusual for tha UMTRA P oject to identify further refinements to the process d(--

before the originally proposed revisions are incorporated in a finally executed modification.

WNtn the Cooperative Agreements were first instituted, DOE and NRC had not identified a decailed concurrence / cooperation process -to implement the specific statutory responsibilities.of NRC.

Consequently, the Cooperative Agreements were viewed by Dog as a general definition of the total remedial action process, including the NRC interf ace.

Now, however, DOE and NRC have executed a DOE-NRC MOU with datailed concurrence / cooperation e

4 Y 4 cu fed 4cJ LL &

%,, pf o ggg O

c.IIn s, ~tk (c.opa.rc h ^

1. e*~^

wof %

MN S k.4 A locJ cht.t y c s At J4 Mr. Dan E. Martin 4 '*W procedures.

As defined in the M 0, DOE views the State-Tribe Cooperative Agreements as a contractual instrement between DOE and the af fected State or Tribe for the purpose o defining the DOE and State / Tribe responsibiTities.

DOE considers e MOU as the instrument defining the DOE and NRC responsibilities.

Of course, ceither the Cooperative Agreements not the MOU can alter the statutory responsibilities cf NRC as set forth in UMTRCA.

We believe t t.a t the bulk of NRC's concerns regarding the subject modificationi have been reconctied through recent discussions between Mr. Marques and your office and by this letter.

However.. the basic probles remains that in the process of negotiating a modification there may be conflicts betwem the language of the modification and the MOU, or, more likely, modification may not provide the clarification provided by the MOU.

In that vein, we propose that NRC concur with the modifications, as well as the forthcoming DOE-Texas cooperative agreement, with the assurance that at the next available opportunity we will modify the O

c

> r tiv-

^E

• - <- i= 2 4-

• • - <> tie r E >* i- **-

CONCURRENCES AND CONSUI.TATIONS article.

I "X.

The parties acknowledge that the Commission has significant statutory responsibilities unde.' Title I of the Act, that DOE and the Consission have executed Memorandum of Understanding haber DOE-G!t04-85AI.26037 for the purpose of providing an orderly process for executing said responsibilities, and that DOE has provided the State with a copy of said Memorandum of Understanding (H00). { DOE and the Stato agree that to the extent that a termK or condition of this Agreement 8,

provides for an action or responsibility by the Commission that is in conflict with a term or condition of the MOU, then the ters or condition of the HOU, shall govern said action or responsibility.

DOE and the State further agree that to the extent either this

'O Agreement or the MOU is in conflict with the Act, then the provisions of the Act shall govern.

The parties agree that the MOU may be amended from time to time by DOE and the Cossaission.

DOE agrees to provide a copy of any such modification to the State."

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Please retain one fully executed copy of each modification for your files and return the rest to my office.

Sincerely, James G. Hoyal, Jr.

Chief, Programs and R&D Branch Contracts & Industrial Relations Division

) -,.

Mr. Dan E. Martin 5

Enclosures Col J. G. Thedlis, UMTRA P0 R. A. Marques, 000 T. Coalson, CIRD Mr. G. Cugnoli Uranium Recovery Projects Section Division of Weste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety sad Safeguards.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Albuquerque, New Mexico 87115 0

4 t

d O

d 4

f

tm 2004-45At260*,7

+

.]

DGH5C 900

~

• M k Pro $*Ct

[n c$o5it-S ce 1

s!

3ME:

I

b.. -

. ;.nn 34

" Disposal sits

• seans the site, Wdds muy incia.'s a stoconsing site or vicinity gwii, used fcc the pervenant diaposition, stabilizatim and control of sysidual radioactive noterials.

W.'" C 4.

' EPA 5tandards" amans the standarde of geoecal application

~

..o.

gretallgatad by tia BA at 40 CFR 192, for the gv6^1cm of ttis public health, safety an2 the environment from radial 1 and nonradiological basants===ar inted with res radioactive seterials. Das and tec intaqret the WA standards to reexire specific analyses of and a determinstim of the need for grounestar protection oc e-zoeteration in accordance with kibpart C, and to regaire the implementation of any such kvi i.icr. or restoration sammares ao determined to be needed. Exn and me additionally recognize that **==rt C P 40 e 112 has been resard.4 E=zine flirther EPA rulegeR.tng. IS and W aeret to continue to use======6%G C of WA arcAgen.b4 4 4(FC #f a g Q

stansares as e%w an an Enterim basis ~, and wn! sehe de 3 444,

=v 41sta pro $ect char _w won new rujeenk.ine is

- _ sletas.

D 5.

"De41pation" amans the DDR action to formally identify a proonsaing site or potential vicinotp w nf as eligible for remedial acticn ny Das under ?Le I or the tancR, an the baats of radiological surseys or assessnents of historical data available.

.h'

6., ' Inclusion

• neans the DOE actions ofa confiziming, on the bestE T detailed surveys, that radiological conditicos at a designated potential vicinity property exceed t2e t.

concentrations or lowls or contamination set forth in the DA standards; and fornelly incitading the gpy within the desigration of the processing sita as eligible for remedlal action.

y 7.

' Remedial _ action" emans the c thila.zation and control of,

.4 t ;-

deocatamissbien and d=ar==i==ioning of, and cleanup of processing sites and vicinity g o Eties in accordance with t$le EPA Standards and canalstant with applicable federal and stata law.

h' '-

8.

• nummetal Actica Plan" amans the docmar t, developes by 4.

005 in ceder to obtain face the NBC (and the affected state or Indian tribe) concurrence with IX3E's selection of r===mial action and to docment the basis for DOE's coer-clusion that the g @: d zeendfal actions for a proceaa-

' 4:~

ing sits or Mmenaal site, or both, will meet the DA Stan-dards, and Wdds includes at various etages of devolco-4.

g -sita characterization datap wo.

wiual dwigns '

L preliminary desians final doelens the estiasted costs of otsign, construct 1an and ary necessary land acquisitiones

7 N'

.s

~

] g ggggy

" *6 1,

Dan a sen UNERA Project

,I

~

ICO 1

s DMs

/*

the emirannantal, health and safety $ ant the remedial actica lan; the radiological s.

support plans tM gaality assurance p schedules the public participation and information plans a discusei m of the requisite permita and approvals; and any additional analyses and doeuroentaticrt necesMry to

p. &menstrate that the proposed zwf al actim da fully fl,,

g onnoistant and complies with the EPA Standards.

g,. g gd f

, 9.

'Itarticipating agency" insens:

(1) the lect and (2) any state SM8d

'i

/

cc Incuari mas party to a co:yerative p -

.L with IGl

!x/d 4

tmder Title I of the GefpCL A

y

10.

• Cooperative agreement" means, a contractual instrument:

to A

• . Ng W samenstad by an affected state or Indian tribe and the Da, and concurtid with by the tec, for the purpose of defining g/4 the DCE and state / tribe zusponsibilitime in connection with W se ho r

aial.etion, and *1ch contains suen tarms and conditions F*-

Mg t as Dat deaneyviate and consistent with the purposes of

't the INZmCA.

,:q.,.. b L

. /.

V.

800FE COG O D ATICH A.

For the purposes of this 400, KC responsibilitieg under ths

~

p:

UmCA are indicated below

.cy.s -

teenCA h*'

tatmCA P3stasts1LITr 1R?lT55 yacxxx S4'i'

1.

Designaticm N

Designation of proconsing 102(a)

Consultation with sites and potentini 102(e) 005.

vicinity propertias and W'

deter.aination of site b'

boundarias.

k...

^

2.

namedial Actions

.D#

selection and perferwance 108 (a) concur in Das of remedial action at selection and mzoessing, disposal, and performancm.

?.!

vicinity w i.y sitas.

h..

Debesininstion that radio.

104(b) (1)- Concur in DOE active materials abould be Stata decision.

W<'

removed fatan proconsing 105 (b),-

W, sites.

Tribe 8

'h'..'. '.

Allowing mineral to:overy 108(b) concur in DOB frostreefdel radioactivs teciaica to allow

.f,,

materials.

recovery.

a.-

Deterudnatica that !.smedial 104(f)(1)

Concur in DCE P..

action la coupleted.

determination.

.$,c

~

rh..

\\,

~

~

e

,yM y

8~

mg Ei' IMSA Fw Mi, Os i kl i

DA3Ta e.

I Documentation of EM29A t

hv&4.

114(e)

E action with DCE.

d A '4peddix A, noview and ccmcurrence trw.sures, sets forth taw detailed gwJares oce DCE and 10C ocordination in the inplementation of Title I of the*QN:A.

i,.

f from time to time by the parties to W_.__.esta the #namic natame Appendix A say be amended p

/,

cf the IMmA Project.

y' ' gh I3 qualit/ tMmA Project coordinaticri *am in a theely manner fbeDa B

WIC rwiew, incluiirg all portinert infocati ni I any IX2 preposed reandial action casign, perw=on or data concerning

[j, site cc vicinity g % iy.

mairy site, disposal y/

M h j respo,nd within the response times for action set forth in 49en y!i.:

CD.5

' d A

time to time, shall serve as the inneline plannity schedule I

g ocordination of responsibilities trder this 700.

1:.C and maintain a currsnt detailed amual achedule itemizing theDCS thall prepare

/g documsotation to be submitted iy txE to Mc for the purproe of twimw, ocnnant and/or concurrrxe, and aball provide su&

h h

• 9&mdules, and any revisions thereto, to MC.

et..-

k.. A g

prwide a achadu3e identifying various miketones in the remedial

.p DOR shall further h

Q F

action fee sech proces::ing/ disposal sits by whid Mc can establists bc a visitete =&edule to participate in the quality assurance ma11ts'f g Bb W h /,4,p

/

as twy prtain to ocap1Mce with the EPA Seandards.

'[;

h.h ' A'b h,

DCE and MC agree that the principal focus of MC coordination and

,q ' -

concurs-w under this 600 is to asaurs conpliance with the EPA E

AfM Standards in the DOE's selection of remedial actica arieng reasonable T"

d remedial actice alternatives ard inplenent.stion of sucts remedial.

F action.

Mettur!(N OF IMDAGDCI CDFIICTS A

Any required concurrence of NIC under thu >ou shall be coceunicated to the DDR Liaison in writing.

shall be commnicated to the DCE Liaison with a written rat therefor.

Concurrences shall not he unreasonably withheld or

@t.

denied.

compliance, with the EPA standards shall constitute reasonab M"

2-grounds for withholding or denying otrcurr=rs.e in the selection or perfoceance of remedial action e

review and ocncun w pcocess. Inicaal coccuriication durirq the is to be encouraged, inc1tt!!rg notification by HIC to [XE at the earliest opportunity of issues

'$k4,#

whid may preclude NC concurrero, tid notification by 00s to NRC at the searliest opportunity of any significant darryss to documents

. j,f under review tr/ NC.

.V A

possible level of acyncy decision mak.ing but shall be re 4 :"

4

=ww==sive levels of agency decimica nekirg until resolution is

".l reachad.

_ _ _ _ - - - - - - - ' ^

,f.

~~

k'M00DWW S.

S iaBG.I @ k TDS J

M, +f.

'M lesdtf W % to Gttdance hwiw/C. a.

30 days 4

. 'I! 3L../,'

1 y.,

Bar m. 7.u

d. a r ve n -

P;T3." '

h sed WW

~

'.e/

(, g h, #

t Duart Cooperative Agree-Review /Communt 30 days 2

i.

met or atgificatica "2-RumouKal Ctxiperative Oorcuanrenos 21 days 4

d.

Agressant or Itsdification s

.t. f t Arraial huport to Or.msultation/

Timely 2

Consrues separate

Response

ic.

oc.,,nt.

f: *

.i

• 2.1 Frenessins sites - Dot, in cenaultatir.m with tec, nas designated y

the gc-- nLM sitas included within the UkrPA Project.

g,, ' ' connectJan with such designation, DOE assigned to each Mte a In relative primity fcr carrying out repelial action at mmh k;g '..;,

mits.

1he prioritise are indicated in 44 FR 74892 (Decenbar it, L,

1979).

(.N.2 ty 7 iies -

Doe, with the conew.t.r.;4 of NFC,

~ Iceed a amumry 7-t4-1 for the Survey and Inclusion of Vicinity 7swdae (Sausary Protocol) as guidance for p.

4. J., -

designation and inelusion of vicinity properties.

DOE will g:.,

incluas designat d propertiaa within tho secpe of the UMTPA Project, clearup offort in mocordance with ths accary Protocol.

g..

t

.. W PCFih6

, h'.1 Delection of hemodial ActW - DCE has the primary

~

g'c.. i responsibility for select 15 remedial action under Title 1 of r.

the LaffgCA. Selection of ruesdial action shall be with the h.'.-

concurrunas c((articipat;ni) agencies. Niac concurrence shall he

,s s.

effec p vegnum hefe,n.

i

. Q*.1.1

~-

1. Mg.

~ Reagarstive Analysis of Disp =al !!ite.*.1temativee E--L D==2 - During the early site characterization and i.

analysesi activities for +2h mill site and a1 ternate-h.o.,

l.

m__.==1 sita(s), DCE shall g fare and sitmit_ to NFC a s.,

4

... y.. t.

...s -

Sc.u.

, I '. l,4 u

.i!.;...

M

~

..e

.?.. -

m.-

^~~

, 7. n:.

j a-DCE W

~~

g.

oce e c gx; y.

CMA Project

'g.

1 and final focm ard modificatinns. Adiitionally after release of the j

draft PAP and prior tr the firaf RAP, L2 shall provide to cou. t-- h-g-

p%;

cf.tte prelistinary design for review crd careent. NIhe final RAP _ shall inc1

• the final design.

,h' ** '

MLth transmittal of_stelisdnary design, rm shall_ W er e4T 41= - mm mich m; rwiew is zwassees.

N

\\

lac shall rwiew the RAP, in draft and final form and nodifiestictag

.e and provido conments to DCE. DOE aiTNIC ahall attegt to IsoonciIm l

ary HIC comnents in the course of !XE's preparation of a final RAF.

b/..

following In u-rsien with ary final RAP, NIC aball provide me of the

.. F

.1 Irdicate in writing its concurrence with the selection of the runndial action by concurrorce with the PAP. *lle IEC say

'l pectide comments to CEE cn arrf section of the RAP, IGC concurrence is required only for those aspects which are pertinent to a determinstien as to %ethat the proposed remedial action complias L

with the EPA standards. ard other applicable law, and is consistent A

with the purposes of Title 1 of the u m CA. Canesquently, MC'

}

?.-

concurrence is not required for sections of the RPP conmenings j

p..

quality assurm:=, environrental health and safety, ook

%, e e'stimataar schedules; and rublic participation and informatica.

S. ~. -

!sc review of quality assurance an$ envirorsnental health and h..

safety gg-bres is addrer. sed in Sections 3 2.1, and 3.2.2, r&dvely.

~

a WJ

.2 indicate in writing its conditional concurrence with ttis RAP. In

• 4

, such conditional concurren:e NIC shall specifimlly ideniify any issues %ich prevent full corcurrence. tuc shall separately 4

r.t-advise DDR of the extant of arv construction activities, micit DOE 4..-

proposes to purcsue in advance of full 150 concurrence, Wid DCE usy pursus without prejudice to NBC's conditional concurrueco.

DCE and NIC aball attanp. to reconcile such issues in a timely i

ranneer NIC nay reocamend technical approaches or, methods to l

); p resolve sta:h issues.

w-

.3 Initonta in witing its non-conew2m.e, identifying eich aspects

$thm rf the resedial actico are inadequate to meet the EPA Standards.

Mith respect to nodifications tu a RAP, _includirq the final design, 1,

tsc concurrence is required only for_ those aspects mich are pertinent j'

to attaining canpliance with the EPA standards._ Por all RAP c.

motilfimtlans, DN will provide bOC with a notification of pF- -

^4

.%r; modification and an analysis of whether the nodification directly -

r, affects reeting the EPA standart*s. For Wifications rering NIC fe.

corcurrence, DCE nsy gM with remedial actions at its own risirJ Ge pendisup NIC'corcurrence. DCE and NIC aball attegt to reconcile art

• N 15C comments as necessary to obtain NGC ococurrence with modifications to the RAP. Upon concurrence by 35C and any other affected participating agency or agencien, the RAP, or any modification r

.o."

thocene, shall become an appendix to the cooperative agressant with

?

suits participating agency or agencies.

l

-r.

A-5

,.. ~

i

~

' ~

N' j

~ --

_,,,,..,,,g.

j

~

txt Oc4-45ALN037 DCEMUC M2 g, -

CHIRA Project p**.:.3.2 Perfcommens of >==*m1 Actions at Proomasim/Dimensat sites '

gj'.,

3.21 4m1Lty Aneurance - Copies of (to Proje

. w %to isc for inforention surroses.ct Oh Plan have been pewidad @..'

w.

rce ahan pewide to sec.'

s9

r. :,s,

copias of any nodifications to the Project M Plan.

3,

..f?

D08 shall impleemnt a graded approach to m darirq site runedial E.. '.

actim activities as follcase

' I~ '.

.1 DOB shall cause its prime reseafat actions contracters to define

,(

gaelity assurance praamawes in a site wific momedial Action

((F.'

q' regarding or pro, visions foreLWlan Plan Which will oesttain, as a minimam, d F.

and inspectirn, gan111Teetions and certificate of inspectSoc etteganizat P.. -

h,,,

test persormels gas 11ty assurarce rec day' y*.'. '

a.uring and t e e, an nororda controit oortrol of w...

s a

ou - and ecuve action.

Prior to fieldpplementation, DCE shall pewide to IWc 15 copies of tM IEE-epprmas Remedial Action Inspection Plan for IRC concurrer.co.

o

,. y.

.F'

.2 DtB dull perform in-process at:veillance activities in ceder tos y4 '

evaluate 11ty and conpliance of the remedial actions with 4

relevant ign specifications and standardar assure acunrate R

maamugement of appropriate redinicgical and physical conditiones

, assessesnt of coupletion of renumiial actions and readinses of the g,,

g% ty l sita for D 2 certificettxt,

/

. W...

~

3 DOE will pcwide to NRr.*a scisedu.le of zwandial action milestema g[4

• f ocupletica dates.

NIC may crudact co-site zwiews of rdh1 action activities from time to time for the primary pu; poses of amazring that the DOE-peen:ribed system of quality assurance is in Q,:;.,

place and ia functioning in a cannar Which assures coop 11arce with

%lJ the PAP and the DA Standards, rmC on-sita reviews will be

}E '.^

j performed in accordance with NRC mnual Chapter 2620.

}h dj ' reasons for axh on-site visits include surveillance of rip-rup l

Seocedary

_and raden barrier source areas aid urusual con'structics fanbres ard re> a8' N desian = NIllt-E shall provide notification

$/'".

to__Dc5 at least 5 days in advance of anvG+Metion to enable e ~

gw,

Un i.

weentative to be prewd.. NHC insrstars shall be J' '

awed the ----z%nity for a ore Irons _ discussion of site activitIms and r+vde with alte personnel. NIC and DN shall R.

attempt to inunediately reeolve any issues arlsing out of msh i%

inspection.

from such inspection to the DOE Liaison upcm NRC issuance of theHt hy.

f'ql. s report. Dat will notify the NRC Liaison of analyses and resolution of issues identified during NaC on-site rwiews.

U,, p

 % i.4 -

1.: s..

N} '

n-y h Ya

• g,

. I,

• l'

, s..

%a

.n c.

. y.

n

~

1:.

a.

..',.c

. M.,.

q y,.,..;.

~

l~*

$...~ ?

DiI G C4-45AL26437

+

oce4cc Mao LMMA AvJos;.

s Flan far that site. E ocoeucrence with such Mar = dial Action Plan shall 1

he considered emurrence with Dat's ex:ision to permit remilling,

)4...

that E shall also have the right to twiew and connent on arg.

agusement or contract, between DCE ard the person enlacted to gj.

remill the r==*=1 radiceetive notarials, which sets forth the terme and -;-

s.U conditimes of remilling.

y F4.0 JgEET13 MC DISPOSAI. OF IAN_0$

k' ' 4.1 ]tidst of ant:ry - Das shall assure that E has a permanent right ed entry

$ r, To inspect Ir++===ing sites and disposal sites, incluiing those tm Irdian 4

79.-

lanor, in furtherance of the prwisions of Title I of the UW9CA and to enforce the tMmCA are ary rulee prescribed thereunder.

. /;.

DCE shall also t..w.,.

assure that the E has a right to inepect any vicinity ep rty, pg,.

incitding ary on Irdlan lands, for the sene purposes dur

- the course of remedial actions on that w if. Any E entry onto a gracessing site, V dispoesi mite, or vicinity property shall be coordinated in advance by IEC

'g<

l with the DCE fA=4aar-4

.F

., /$,.,2

& py.. -Q CN4g hAl g e 4.?'

,mA ition

[*

• 4.2.1 stets Aczndsition - E has a roepensibility to mehn e concurrence decialen under DHmCA regardire CCE deciatrms to S.,

require State acquisition of proceszing sites, disposal sitse, (g.;.

and vicinity properties.

p E cor. m with Dat acquisition decisions normally will be effactuated by its ecoeurrenos with N

the SAP. In those cases Ware ar,dsition will be initiated price to Dcz sdnittal to E of a RAP for concurrenos, and la -

(, '.

thoes cases where COC deeldes that acquisition of a vicinity i

g,s.s

Eve =Ly is approprhte, than DCE shall provide to E written ri notice of its decision regarding acquisition and the rationnie p.,3 therefor and request PPC cone'.trrence with such decision.

4.2.2 V."* '

"l.-

Das kquisition - From time to tire ECE coy, pursuant to Section 106 of the (N mCA, initiate either of the following methces of direct federal acquisition of a p' r-atng site,

- N.

disposal aits, or vicinity prtputtys

[ i, t,

.1 witMrsial of p411c land ptrsuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FR).

D

.2 Otilisatics) of the D. S. Arr/ Corps of Engineers (Corps)

.f.W.

to acquire real estate by purchsse, & nation, or condemetion on behalf of DCE.

.V*'

In the event of such direct fe$eral acquisition, 008 shall f

q pewide to E information regarding the acquisition in the riv i

. assepriate licanairy submittal.,

u.

n,

.e gg e.

• (.,,.S c. '

.f

+

' t.;s e-sn n

~

s.

y,..

. r.

.,h 1

D1E (M04-854L26037 OcnHenc non

.0 @

[9GSA Auj.we.

D sale of sites - The partias acknrw!adas that in ttn case of any praremair site or vicinity p.wr.ciry to Wict DCE ce an affected state acgairs titis 2,Q..

and hu* *id !M and aus state share the costs of mead =4tien taider a br..

ojaporativevegressent, the state may sell aus site or property w retain '. '. 'S sue site ce gg.y for permanent une by the stata solely for park, b ;.

u.'

rebr*%, pewide to NIC written nctice of the prcposed sale nee.icnal, cr other p@lic purposes.

DOE skall, gice to mm:ta sale er fl.;

and rupset IWC concurrence witti same.

{;,.,

y'4.4 takian P. ands ~ DCE aball provMe to 100 infornetion copies of ag p enesmen:, rI@t-of-<:rttry or other real estate agreement authorizing Das to

,/

condunt re==Mm1' actions or maintansnes, monitoring or ansegency measures

g.g.

at disposal altas on Irdtan lands.

Transfer of Title - The parties ar*nowledys that title to ary disposal

.. C 4. 5 A

/

mite aoguired my a state under a cooperative agrsement witit act, and all l

realdum! radioactivo notariale depretted at aus disposal sita, samt be D [-

7 (N'.! - transferred to the Government tpan completion of remedial action.

t.f.

aball, prior to sucts transfer of title, provide to MIC written notice of i

DCS the proposed transfer of title requesting tec concurrence with name wittiin 1

4;.

a reasonable period of time.

' h;,

period of tfas.

10C shall respond to DOE within a reasonable s

i p,,yj IDO4ElW MRINIENA?G CF DISPOSAL Sp!ES 4

gh' i.1 S

n=narel - C uw exceptica of tbs disposal site for residus't radioactive Rlp*(.

untarials rearwed from F4;cnont, South Didcota vicinity g,w.d.ies, eie is an ast-liceused TVA-owned site, DOE ahall assume custody of eart.

d,3 disposal site tid has been transferred to or otherwise aapired by the c',

coverment and perform nonitoring, amintenance, and maargency measures f;t r===ey to protect pslic tealth, safety, and the enviroment and sue other actiers required by a license to be issued by NIC, until such time,

- 'e if ever, as the President designates another federal agency to perform sus monitoring, saintenance, and emergericy naasures.

p 5.2 License - Pursuant to Sectione 104(f)(2) and 105(b) of the UM11CA, NIC l

h stall Iloenen the Ico p

site after tec occcurr;r-tam monitoring, rnaintenan:e, and surwillance of a, ence with D08's certificatico repoet.

h -In ordse to facilitate the licensing proosas, NIC aball prepare a 1trunnincr plan for tecSA sitas, 6ttich aball cxansist oft a descrTption of

(.

,A.

the Heensing process for CHIRA sites; milestones in the licensfag y.

process; and teC and Dos responsibilitime.

' paaed tpon the tse licensing plan, for eeets sita DCE; shall prepare and t/ submit to lec six copies of licensing suptert documentation (incluiing the M.'

alte surwillarca and maintensnce plan) for long-term maintenance of eacif -

(.9, dispu==1 site.

Af ter LR review and corrxrrence with this licensing apport dscumentatice, t@C shall issue a license ta DOS or such vther j.,

H feMrel agency desig5ated by the President to raintain the site accort11Ds x..

to en. condition. oc th. ucen.i m s e rt a m _ u tion e u w

' I?. 5 M ttt hccs.har M M,

1. Mts 4Als es. 44l CmAWM N $' NC*'M

. n.yyd kw,W.

he e.

i C

(fw'4 Ar

., q} Y h

\\

. h

,,.la sa. y 1,

wa.Wr.*5 o.

sw..y a

s n

l

...__....,_m.

,. _,,, _ _ _ _ ~ _

w. n... --- -- -.;..,....

...;.... ::.. ::;.~.: - ;

.. _.e

.:.S i. -

00s GM04-454L26037,c IXFe4lK.' O

{(,

Gttim Project

.1 h

.~3' tarvelilence anS Maintonaren - nMelires for the surveillance and

$,fO p

p5fttim of tas licanoe a6 plication shall be presented in a,.C;c..

tisled Guidance for_ amA Projact Surwillanos M petir==i,

/-

'y

• M dem: r% the acnitoring, mintenance, ans energency :masu*ren ton ' * :.

.i perfoomed by Int, cc such other za4=. cal agency as dosipated by the g.,

v..

pres **, in cedne to saintain design :enditions as omrtiftsa.

?;.

% m a ee,ener.i.-,ur,.nanetosectim m =

• en G. =,ts.

w.

3 -ary of the latoricr say dispone o:! subourface udneral ri@te, by pf.V male or lease, in s. c4.ian with any disposal sits to which the

{$.

Government takes title tudar Title 1 of the tamtCA. Such sale er lease is addect to i

7. 7,

concurrence by DOS and Er and issuance of a linense or licenma modification by E dtich shall govern distintance und restoratian

., [

r y *.

et the dispoeml site.

' f,.

N' JOtDUSTWATIG8 s

x k 6.1 ' Cooperative AC -.i q.

x..

$l

,'^ ?.%

J '

6.1.1 concurrenz - DCE shall pcwide to E, for review and consent, 4

copies:of si ecoperative agreement, in draf" form at tiin same time

b..l-sucta draft oc revioed draft is provided to othne participating g4 agercies.

Upm esecution of the ;;ce..tive agressant or p k.. -

iwdification therect by the affected state or tribe, oct shall s

W (J.

transmit the agreenent to E fee review and cimcarrances pewidad '.

W.,.<

that modifications dtidt serely increams the estimated costs of i

).

furuss obligated in the cooperativo agressant without revision to T.v "

the PAP shall not require E corx:urrence.

e...

sa es vam47th2 O.

b'-

5.1.2 Administration - The partnem Aantmplate that IXP. and E will he.

Interface with otherp.cipdERT'19encies in the perforasnoe of

)'-

this p. However, ti wdaos 4 contracting officer shall be responsible for the administration of the ocioperative agreteents, including sole twoponsibility ces behalf of the G.,,,..

Governam*. foe the sodification thereof or any change thueto

' a..

affacting cost, mA=Mie ce parforsiance thereundar. The Menegar, j.y.(

meIE Project Offios, shall be designated by DCE as the C-#W.

r.. '.

Officer's 14epresentative (COR) for purposen of the administratica j

of cooperative agreements. The CCR shk11 be responsible fcr Q

soni the technical conpliance of each Ftate or Indian tribe

.Q.

and og tha performance of DOE under the cooperative p.

agree cats. Eacts party shall attawt to keep the other inforund

.. j,.

f.@K regardir.g any inbarface with participating agencies which, effect:s, 3

g.

activities within the scope of this M.

.. g... " o

.. ~

~%..

2ik' a.

.. ~,

a.u

.i

g.,%

f D

?.I,,, ; *

=

"m.-.

.j$

JN$

... Q.-

S.

..t

. fih _ __

_ - - - - ~. - - - - - -

. }4 -

^

D k D o.

y, DCE M 8 b st

~-

oczyge a N.

M Project

.c

- - [,yf s,, u "T.2 Arvasi mucort to cmamas

< Uttil Jianuary 1,1986, except as mat date is extended by Ctogress, DtX f.

' aball peopmee an anraal riport to Osngress cm the rtatus of the (Mim Project as req:uired by Sectica m4(4) of the UNI 1CA. 'Ihn report shall be prepared in conscitation with NIC and aball coctdin any separate viams, comments, or recommudstions d the NRC. NIC shall provide a tlasly

+

4 response to Dat's regaest for.' input to mm:h rugort.

. h. '

6.3 Docuentation of UNIMP m

, _ _ e t. - m ee, o, _..C, _ _,,

9i stull T.vu that aqr relevant information, other than trade secreti an6 D*'

other '4aprietary infonnation otherwise emmeted fran nardatory di ac'esure

<l.

unos e snr other prwisica of Inw, obtained from the con &act of ressaial,

t'.,:

acticos is documented systematically, and nede p@licly available.

~ '.

l4 convenient.ly for use.

Qn = A vf2 J bd-wp + W

>1..

~

r

./

d / PbR 2.M

/\\)J if 6huA jhi

.,u....

n.

• g'

$^:*b,lp.

..',l se.-

.' s'. '

\\

),Q$,

\\

.9) 4 m..

o.

R,, /

\\;.

'..

.. ? ?.

'gj{

• a*}.

t..)., '

.,y

^

q,y,,,

5k *.* ?

.Mt.D

-~1p{

,,.3.x..

'r.x v.,,

.g9

,s. g f*d

.:4 WD

.,e a

<y

,b

.e

M..

- j., y s -

b,',^

a....~

• .f

f..

h e.r.*

4 c..

c.

." f.,

6

. e;;

4'3h

, f t.%,-

Om W m

+ft-

t

/,jm772/) h/ML b

DEC 4 g

406.1.1/GNG/86/11/20 1

o NOTE FOR: Dan E. Martin, 'Section Leader Uranius Recovery Project Section 6

FROM:

Giorgio H. Gnugnoli, Project Manager Uranium Recovery Project Section

SUBJECT:

MEETING WITH DOE ON IMPACTS ON THE PROPOSED URAN!UM PF. VITALIZATION AND TAILINGS RECLAMATION ACT OF 1986 LOGISTICS:

NRC Silver Spring, MD Offices V g 6-Tuesday, November 18, 1986 9

6 f*

y, 2:00 pm. 4:20 pm D

• p' O

r^artCre^xTS waC ooe G. Gnii~iioli T.Trazely ps#

g D. Sollenberger J. Turi 4

'w The discussion began with DOE's intent-to prepare a program plan for cleaning up vicinity properties, as stipulated by the subject proposed legislation.

To some extent the proposed legit,lation adopted the UMTRCA Title I approach in including contaminated areas and structures nearby the actual processing sites. The NRC will have a consultation role in determining and designating j~

such vicinity properties near an active uranium mill. The DOE participants brought up a very good point regarding the financial contribution by participants in tne proposed cleanup fund based on quantities of existing tailings versus the cost of cleaning up associated vicinity properties, for which there would be no specific financial contribution.

DOE's program plan t.

includes an active role for DOE in surveying and cht.racterizing these vicinity Q

properties.

Furthennore, the DOE participants raised the issue of which regulatory authority would apply in the cleanup of these associated vicinity properties.

We indicated that UMTRCA Title II, from which we established our regulations, does not address vicinity property cleanup. We did, however, point out that 10 CFR Part 40 Appendix A Criterion 6 does use the same radium soil concentration cleanup criteria as UMTRAP for the purpose of oxcluding portions of licensed and/or active dist.osal sites which do not n6ed to meet design control requirements. Moreover, we cited an EPA August 8,1986 letter to NRC indicating that the radium cleanup levels as cited in both NRC Criterion 6 and EPA inactive site standards wculd be appropriated for offsite cleanup at active milling sites.

Present EPA and NRC standards do not specify cleanup levels at active sites.for offsite unrestricted areas.

i:

WMLU

... :............ :............ :.. 0 fBR: - mF~ ~:: m y---- : -------.--- : -----------

(E :GNGnugnoli:ch IE :12/ /86 4Ht @.N c:/,%.

EC4 h

406.1.1/GN6/86/11/20 2-

, Related to the discussion above, I pointed out that in the proposed legislation Section 223, DOE is given broad regulatory authority to accomplish the purpose of remedial action at tailings sites. Although, NRC staff had identified previously to Congressional staff that such langange constituted dual authority for NRC and 00E, 00E could ostensibly establish regulatory authority in the cleanup of vicinity properties. if it desired to do so.

The DOE participants indicated that DOE would probably not elect to take on that mgulatory role. But, they admitted there was some uncertainty in the

-language.

.nts discussed the shortcomings of the legislation in the area of NRC particip< ligation. The legislation identifies the owner / licensee as the financial ob 2m

(_./

agent for perfoming the remedial action. Should the licensee contribute faithfully, but then suffer bankruptcy, there is no financial mechanism for insuring completion of the. remedial action, outside of an NRC or Agreement State surety arrangement.

Thus, participation in tl:e cleanup fund established by the legislation would not by itself sat;sfy NRC financial surety requirements as promulgated under UMTRCA. The licensee could then be faced with contributing to the fund, maintaining a bond to satisfy the NRC mgulations and then have to expend resources to actually perform the cleanup-before being able to apply to 00E for reimbursal.

3 The participants went on to discuss pos:iible remedies, including petitioning for legislative relief or changes in the legislation.

NRC participants suggested that some relief cou' d be provided. by DOE implementation. For instance DOE could reimburse in stages as the remedial action progressed, meanwhile gauging reimbursal-to insure that there would be sufficient funds to complete the wcrk in a marmer to satisfy an NRC-approved remedial action plan..

O NRC participants explained what would happen if an NRC licensee would suffer bankruptcy, and not be able to continue financially to perform remedial action.

It was pointed out to DOE that NRC could not itself hold any such funds, but usually these funds are in the hands of the appropriate st6te agencies. Participants agreed that there were numerous areas where the scope and extent of the DOE's, the licensee's/ owner's and the NRC's roles should be in the legislation in case the licensee goes bankrupt. faults should be provided clarified in the legislation.

If nothing else, some de This would free funds and provide for alternative mechanisms W perfom remedial action.

Mr :WLU WE :GNnugnoli:gh

-WE ::12/ /86-

~_ _ _ _ _

406.1.1/GNG/86/11/20

-3 The meeting closed with a discussion of the Riverton, Wyoming UMTRAP cleanup and the options of co-disposal with the active site owned by American Nuclear Corporation in the Gas Hills. The DOE participants were aware of the license amendment request to NRC to allow the Gas Hillr. site to accept the Riverton tailings. However, DOE intends to contact authorization committees (U.S.

Congress) to detennine whether DOE can just transport Riverton tailings to the Gas Hills site without further responsibility, since such co. disposal options

.i were not envisioned nor addressed by UMTRCA Title 1.

DOE participants indicated that cost sharing between DOE and Wyoming were still under discussion.

O

" ' ' ' = = = = = = = = = =

Giorgio N. Gnugnoli, Project Manager Uranium Recovery' Project Section 3

O r

'C

WMLUf E :GNG g<

gh TE :12/et/86

MO4 g

406.1.1/GNG/86/11/20

-4 Distribution W s/f 406.1.1 and410.3.1(SenateBillS.1004) and W.60 WLU r/f REBrowning MJBel)

DEMartin E.F.Hawkins DMG111en J.Gorn, OCA T. Rothschild. OGC R. Fonner, OGC

) O

t. Gii6ert. 0GC H. Pettengill L

)

l-v i

y f

ic :WLU ME :GNGnugnoli:gh g............:............:............:............:.........................:............

TE :12/ /86 n-.

__