ML20198B893
| ML20198B893 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/07/1986 |
| From: | Browning R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Olmstead W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-39, TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9801070106 | |
| Download: ML20198B893 (1) | |
Text
_
I Distribution
^~~
WM s/f WMLU r/f 8
NMSS s/f Agy MR Knapp 7 $66 RE Browning M1 414.9/GNG/86/05/01 1
MJ Bell R:
William J. Olmstead, Director E
4 and Chief Counsel JO Bunting
'b DE Martin Regulation Division PS Justus U
Office of the Executive Legal Director 2
g.
31 T Greeves EF-Hawkins
}p Robert E. Browning Director Division of Waste Manegement GN Gnugnoli D
g [8 Office of Nuclear Material Safety DM Gillen and Safeguards DM Sollenberger S
C:
REQUEST FOR NRC INTERPRETATION -0F UMTRCA WITH REGARD TO DISPOSAL OF RESIDUAL RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL AT LICENSED TITLE II URANIUM i1ILL SITES Please review the enclosed DOE request and provice a legal opinion on the issues raised by D0E.
If other NRC regulations apply to the questions and concerns expressed by DOE, please include these in your analysis of the subject disposal option. Thirdly, in areas where neither UMTRCA nor NRC or other statutory' restrictions explicitly affect a given DOE concern, your legal guidance end insight into feasible courses of action would be most useful.
In-light of the need to resolve these concerns quickly, I ask that you provide written-response and guidance by May 21, 1986.- R. Fonner (ELD) has indiccted that ELD could respond in that time frame.
Should yeu have any questions regar'aing this request, please contact Giorgio Gnugnoli (x74788) of my staff.
3(d g c -'- d. y1
- 7. -..c. ;c:c:mng Robert E. Browning, Director i
Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
- C.
DOE April 16, 1980 letter
' e',
cc:
R. Dale Smith, w/ encl.
2 N
R. Fonner Smith w/ encl.
f MAY 121983
- 9801070106 860507 kJ W#
PDR WASTE J
DOC G M s.
M9 PDR c'
0FC :W
- r'
- W
- WMLU WM
- WM
- ............ :...h-A I
NAME :
u noli
'n
- MR Knapp
- MJ Bell
- RE Browning :
DAN :86/05/ 5
- 86/05g
- 86/05/(
- 86/05/
- 86/05/ J
~-
% mmL 0 FIC A 30CECOJY
u f*3 e
Department of Energy W
Albuquerque Operations Office I
P O. Box 5400
.,8 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87115 4mt 161986 Mr. Malcolm Knapp Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7915 Eastern Avenue Silver Spring, Maryland 2091C
Dear Mr. Knapp:
The Department of Energy (DOE) is currently evaluating the feasibility of the disposal of residual radioactive materials associated with the UMTRA Project at currently licensed Title II uranium mill sites.
Specific locations for which this remedial action alternative is a consideration include Falls City, Texas; Naturita, Colorado; Riverton, Wyoming; and A irosia Lake, New Mexico.
In previous informal discussions of the issue, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has indicated that such an alternative appears feasible.
In fact, this is the approach we used for the Edgemont vicinity properties; residual radioactive' materials f t:.m those properties are being disposed of at the TVA mill.
The general concept is that the Title II mill site licensee would assume custody and responsibility for the UMTRA Project materials until the mill site is decommissioned in accordance with 9
applicable license requirements.
Thereafter, the Government (DOE or such other federal agency designated by the P-esident) would take ti e and assume custody ~and control of the disposal site.
This alternative is attractive because of its potential for reducing the total number of mill tailings disposal sites.
It may also offer technical and economic advantages.
Prior to serious consideration of this alternative, DOE must resolve several issues regarding specific requirements of the program legislation.
We would appreciate your opinion regarding these issues, which are listed below:
1.
The program legislation, Title I of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 ("UMTRCA"), requires that, where the remedial action selected is removci of the residual radioactive materials from a Title I mill site to a separate i
disposal site, the affected state must acquire the materials and WM Record fee TA'fDillit M1 Occhet No.
P0d V LPDR Ice.c2 [M I
.Distn utjom.
i Mu.EeIcf
}(
_OFM UN 3 JQ)h.ube U b ybD Wh*1 7/
ro w, n ':m m
a s..
t.
Malcolm Knapp the land used as the disposal site.
We would like NRC's view of whether Title II of the UMTRCA allows for a state acquisition prior to final decomissioning of the site by the operator / licensee?
Inasmuch as the TVA mill site is not a
]
privately owned site, these issues were moot at Edgemont.
2.
The UMTRCA also requires that the state convey to the Government title to the residual radioactive materials and the disposal site upon completion of remed!al actions.
DOE, or such other federal agency designated by the President, is to thereafter assume custody of the disposal site and to provide long-term maintenance of the site pursuant to an NRC license.
Key issues are:
whea are Title I remedial actions completed?; when does the Government accept title to the site?; and what if, any, impact is there to G
- he operator / licensee's surety requirements?
In the case of the Edgemont situation, state acquisition and federal ownership were not problematic because TVA holds property in the name and title of LSe Government.
Moreover, pursuant to each individual Remedial Action Agreement with vicinity property owners, the Edgemont tailings become Government property upon cleanup of each 0
vicinity property.
Thus, the radioactive materials and the disposal site are already in federal ownership.
3.
The UMTRA remedial actions are to r.omply <5ith the general health and environmental standards promulgated by the U.
S.
Environmental Frotection Ager s (EPA) at 40 CFR Part 192.
We are assuming that the operator /'. eensee will have to comply with the EPA Standards promulgated for Title II mill sites.
At issue is whether compliance with the EPA Title I standards is technically accomplished through compliance with the EPA Title II standards.
Because of the relatively small quantity of vicinity property materials involved at Ed emont, we assumed that the Title I 3
standards will be met or exceeded.
4.
DOE's statutory authority to perform remedial action expires in 1990, although we anticipate a Congressional extension to 1993.
Assume that a Title II site at which we have disposed of Title I materials is not finally decommissioned until after 1993.
Is
" remedial action" completed when we have deposited tailings at the Title II site or when the Title II site is finally decommissioned?
5.
At some sites where DOE is considcring relocation to a Title II site, the owners have indicated that they would chart,e a certain
" fee" for accepting the UMTRA Project materials.
Ia this permissible under the Title II program?
Is a license amendment required to allow for such receipt and for such a " fee"?
j e.
,e Malcolm Knnyp We would appreciate your input from a perspective as an implementing agency under Title I of the UMTRCA, and as a regulating agency und.tr Title II of the UMTRCA.
Your ea-liest possible written response to this request will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely, i
./-
I 3'/ JC v su D ( < v.i,v; s
O JoNnG.Themelis Project Manager OCC:229: RAM:lf UMTRA Project Office cc:
J. Turi, (NE-24) HQ S. Miller, (GC-11) HQ R. Marquez, OCC s
4 9
e
__