ML20198A943
| ML20198A943 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/23/1984 |
| From: | Gnugnoli G NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | NRC |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3, TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9801060139 | |
| Download: ML20198A943 (3) | |
Text
,
i 1
NOTE FOR:
DISTRIBUTION FROM:
Giorgio Gnugnoli, WMLU
SUBJECT:
WEEKLYCONTACTREGARDINGUMTRAPSTATUS(AUGUST 22,1984) 00E/AL CONTACT:
John Arthur Last week's phone conference was postponed due to schedule conflicts between Arthur and tryself.
- Arthur discussed the Durango and Gunnison nestings in Denver between NRC and DOE technical staffs from Aucust 20th - August 22nd.
At present DOE saw no significent problenis in resolvint RFC concents for Durango and plar, to publish the EIS in late !cpto br.r.
Gunnison is nore of a problem.
The DOE still has cifficulty with the additional ground-water monitoring requested by NRC staff and by the State of-Colorado for the altcrnative disresal sites' characteriretion. Arthur pointed out that DOE nteds n: ore guidance from NRC on whether stabilizatien-in-place (SIP) is a potentie11y acceptable-option, or whether NRC will witt4cid ccncurrence on the RAP regardless of the sip schcae. This hes surfaced as a problem because of the DOE cnntern that e design for a N;F at the Gunnison site is rear inrossible, l'orcover. DOE is concerned about the aquifer restcraticr.
at the site.
If KRC wants DOE to consider providing alternative water supplies, significant cost entlysis needs to.te initiated by DOE.
At present
.Os DOE staff is trying to investigate n:eens to resolve NRC concerns rientioned at the August 21st nceting.
Arthur indicated that the Salt Lake City (SLC) RAP would be transmitted to NRC by the end of this week. They request that the NRC review be as timely as possible and sooner than the six weeks discussed for the review of first draft RAPS.. Should this not be possible I am to alert Arthur of this.
TheRecordofDecision(ROD)forSLCwasdiscussed,andanomissionwaspointed out.
At the suggestion of NRC, some textual changes were made by DOE.
However, a phrase was intdvertently omitted which was not intended.
This was:
"All renedial actions must be selected and perforrred with concurrence of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC)."
=
g 2
Arthur indicated that this would be avoited in future RODS and FONSIs.
Mark Day of the Utah Department of Health will visit NRC offices Silver Spring, MD., on August 29th at 9:00 a.m.
Mark Matthews DOE /AL will also attend with Kelly Peil of the TAC.
The discussion will center on the Disposal Site Design by the State of Utah for the SLC Renedial Action. The design is at the 20% completion stage and Day would like to get feedback from NRC to rake sure that the general direction is appropriate.-
The Menorandum of Understanding (MOV) has been sent to 00F/HQ, and present DOE /AL estimates are that it will be transtnitted to NRC by mid-to late September. After NRC has had a chance to review the MOU, DOE will send a four-or five-person negotiation team to NRC with the authcrity to inodify and O
negotiate iter.s in the MOV.
Representatives will include DOE /AL, DOE /HQ and DOE's Office of the Chief Counsel.
It is expected that NFC will contribute significt.nt portions to the MOV, as well ts to the DOE UMTRAP Licensing Plan.
Arthur reiterated the need for clearly establishing the decutents end records nocdid to be subnitted for certificat1cn of cor.pletion of renedial ection, es kell as for NRC licensing.
It was sussested that NRC could specify these in the MOV modifications.
InresponsetomyqucstioncntheresolutionofVicinityFroperties(VP) concurrence procedures Arthur pointed out that the MOU wculd also address the roles of NRC/ DOE in concurrence ord certificttien of VP cleen up actions.
I retninded Arthur that DOE nad acreed to send all Radiological and Engineering Assesstents (REA's) for VFs prior to July 1, 1984 Pe said be wculd look into it.
Other items:
h*
If WMGT still desires to see the Sergent, Hauskins and Beckwith S0W. a Written rcquest needs to be sent to DOE, otherwise no acticn will be taken.
Daniel M. Gillen (WHEG) had requested the starting date for test fill activity at Canonsburg.
Arthur said it will begin on September 4,1984.
The NEPA Schedule for Processing Sites will be transmitted to NRC this week.
Arthur was told that NRC would not submit formal coments on the PDE!S, since we did not have sufficient tirne and that DOE would not have sufficient time to answer corments prior to publication. NRC will submit coments on the published staternent.
6 3
4 Some concern was expressed by Arthur that Utah acting as the RAC may not
-be collecting the information necessary for DOE to obtain a license from
- NRC, furthermore, /,rthur was concerned that due to the weaker level of
-control over a state as opposed to a cormercial RAC, there coulf be other problems at the certification and licensing stages.
Please contact me:regarding any aspect of-NRC/ DOE UMTRAP coordination prior to-Tuesday of next week.
O I
O
- - - " " - - - " - " " " - - -