ML20206A750
| ML20206A750 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/15/1986 |
| From: | Gnugnoli G NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Bell M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-39 NUDOCS 8704080156 | |
| Download: ML20206A750 (7) | |
Text
______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ .
DISTRIBUTION NMSS r/f DGillen WM s/f /
SZJones
. SEP 1519M LEmbrey WMLU r/f REBrowning JGreeves
.WM-39/GNG/86/08/29 MRKnapp PJustus 1 J0 Bunting DEMartin GNGnugnoli LGilbert OGC MEMORANDUM FOR: Michael J. Bell, Deputy Director RFonner, OGC Division of Waste Management DSollenberger EHawkins, URF0 FROM: Giorgio N. Gnugnoli Low-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch
SUBJECT:
MEETING ON C0. DISPOSAL OF RADI0 ACTIVE TAILINGS UNDER UMTRCA TITLE I AND II Date: August 28, 1986. ## ~
DuM l} ; -
Location: Silver Spring, MD N' -- - --
Offices of NRC LM -. -
! _Dc :t . __ .. --
Attendees: See Enclosure 1 ~
Discussion: is,a ta ,l,', u. ; . 1 , _ _ . _ _ y)
DOE program and legal staff provided a copy of discussion items (Enclosure E),
which DOE felt were of concern prior to pursuing a co-disposal policy in UMTRAP. Before considering any request for legislative relief, DOE wanted to thoroughly investigate possible administrative alternatives to permit such co. disposal.
The DOE is motivated to seek such disposal flexibility to reduce the costs of remedial action, and to expedite the completion of the remedial action on schedule.
Site Acquisition DOE and NRC staffs discussed the advisability of DOE's postponing possession of the co-disposal area at a Title !! licensed site until after the remedial action had been completed. It was pointed out that under UMTRCA Title I, NRC would need to concur with the required State acquisition of land where tailings are to be relocated prior to DOE's initiating any remedial action. Such State acquisition was considered to be conducive to expeditious completion of remedial actions, because the State would not be able to transfer the disposal site to the Federal Government prior to the remedial action completion. DOE indicated that they would need to investigate land acquisition issues in greater depth.
0704000156 060715 PDH WAGTE WM-39 PDR 6FC :WMLU :WftLU : : : : :
0....:............:............:............:............:............:............:...........
NAME :GGnugnoli:jh DEMartin : : : : : :
0....:............:............:............:............:............:............:...........
DATE 286/08/29 :86/09/ : : : : :
,WM-39/GNG/86/08/29 2
Applicability of Title I and II EPA Standards DOE is investigating the option of transporting Title I tailings to a Title II site and thereafter being relieved of any further responsibility for remedial action or for post-closure performance. NRC staff pointed out the previous 0GC determination suggesting that DOE could not simply relinquish responsibility for remedial action and that such an approach may not be permissible under UMTRCA. NRC/0GC staff indicated that perhaps the previous legal reading could be reexamined for flexibility, but that DOE liability would probably continue until remedial action could be determined to be complete. In the case of co-disposal, it appears that meeting EPA Title II standards would also result in compliance with EPA Title I standards. However Title I ultimately requires transfer of title to DOE. InthisaspectTitleIIsmorestringentthanTitle II, and the State would have no option to retain custody of the completed co-disposal areas at Title 11 sites.
l Petition to Congress for Legislative Relief Participants discussed the chances for success associated with an appeal for legislative clarification from the Congress. Most participants saw this as an l alternative with limited chance of obtaining the desired goal. Factors seen as l disadvantageous included:
1 I
o Lengthy timeframe in obtaining Congressional relief.
o Possibility of Congress changing other aspects of the legislation, l which would complicate rather than expedite completion of the UMTRA Project.
! o Unlikely event that Congress would even consider such a change.
The discussion continued in areas such as the Congressional a; ' val of the UMTRA Program extension until September 1993 the effect of the proposed UraniumRevitalizationandTallingsReclamatIonActandtheextentofDOE liability with respect to various courses of action in the area of co-disposal.
Furthermore, it was pointed out to DOE that Title II financial liability arrangements through NRC or Agreement States merely provide a financial guarantee that reclamation will be conducted. It does not create a payout fund for the actual reclamation performance.
Conclusions:
- 1. For the co-disposal option, it appears that DOE's legal responsibility under VMTRCA does not end upon delivery of tailings to the Ti+1e II licensee.
OFC :WMLU :WMLU : : : : :
NAME :GGnugnoll:jh DEMartin : : : : : :
DATE :86/08/29 :86/09/ : : : : :
l t
,WM-39/GNG/86/08/29 3
- 2. In pursuing an " arrangement" with individual licensees with respect to co-disposal, DOE faces a potentially greater liability in the future.
- 3. The option for Congressional relief in the case of co-disposal does not appear practicable.
- 4. .The flexibility for an administrative "fix" which would eliminate DOE's continued liabil.ity in the case of co-disposal appears to be limited.
/s/A7 .iEv/t6-Giorgio Gnugnoli Low-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery ProjectsBranch
Enclosure:
- 1. DOE list of issues for discussion
- 2. List of attendees cc: R. D. Smith URF0 AttendeesIIstedinEnclosure1 RECORD NOTE: Meeting Minutes have been coordinated with M. J. Seemann (WMPC) on September 4, 1986 and L. Gilbert (OGC) on September 5, 1986.
f i
1 0FC : :WHL : : : : :
:- --7 . p
.in NAME :G d
s.
- Jh : : : :
DATEi86/Of//p :86/09//f $ i i $ $
l 1
Enclosure 1 Aurust 28, 1986 Meeting on Co-Disposal of Title I and Title II Tailings Name Organization Giorgio Gnugnoli NRC/NMSS Dennis Sollenberger NRC/NMSS Linda Gilbert NRC/0GC Dan E. Martin NRC/NMSS Steve R. Miller 00E/0GC Rich Marquez 00E/0CC
. Mary Jo Seemann NRC/NMSS Mal Knapp NRC/NMSS James Turi DOE /NE
LSECE GERf1ANTCWH NO.000 002 08/27/06 12:23 "
ENCLOeURE2 DISCUSSION ITEMS ON CO-DISP 05/iL OF ,
TITLE I AND TITLE II TAILINGS BACKGROUND o American Nuclear Ccrporation and Quivera Mining Company have approached.." .
DOE with proposals to dispose of Title I tailings at Title II sites -
(Riverton at Gas Hills and Ambrosia Lake at Quivera, respectively) o Other potential sites Naturita, CO (HECLA) and Falls City TX (CONOCO) o Technical / Economic Advantages 3
- Reduce number of disposal sites
- Decrease cost cf design / construction / surveillance and maintenance o DOE requested NRC to evaluate co-disposal feasibility in April 16, 1986 4 letter from J. Themalis to M. Knapp o NRC response provided in June 16, 1986 lett.er from M. Knapp to J.
Theme 11s ISSUES AND POTENTIAL RESOLUTIONS NRC Position: Active (Title II) site licensee must be authorized s by NRC to accept Title I tailings. Ownership of site '
(or portion to be co-disposed) may be acquired by Federal / State government prior to licensee temination.
00E Position: Agreed. DOE policy is not to acquire site until after certification.
NRC Position: Co-disposed tailings must meet most stringent of Title I and Title II EPA Standards.
DOE Position: Since Title !! licensees aust comply with 10 CFR 40 AppendixA(activesites),DOEwouldliketodiscuss and clarify (in future) what the difference in requirerents would be.
4
. - - . - - . . , . - - - , _ , - . . . - - . _ , , , _ _ _ , . - . , , - - , , - ,-,..,-,_n.,-. , . . - . ,n,..,,- -_ ,,n.--_,, .,,_.,n.,---..,-,..- , -.--
12:28 LSDOE GERtW4T0uti t10.008 003
' 08/27/96
- NRC Position: Certification of remedial action would not occur untti Title I/II tailings are stabilized; this only applies to that portion of pile where co-disposal occurs, in the event that remainder of Title II pile is stabilized at later time.
DOE Position: Would like to discuss time frame by which certification must occur: (1) If stabilization is perfonned under UMTRCA Title I authority, disposal must be certified by September 1993; therefere. Title II licensee must show intent for financing and assuring completion ..
of disposal site per overall 00E UMTRA Project .
schedule.' (2) If licensees can receive Title I material.
and stabilization can be performed under Title !!
authority: (a) September 1993 deadline no longer applies, and (b) NRC woule require licensee to provide e evidence of bond sufficier.t to cover stabilization g !
of all tailings located at licensed site.
NRC, Position: Stabilized co-disposal areas would need to be maintained
' with a surveillance and meintenance program designed '
to assess the performance of the reclaimed co-disposed _ .
areas.
DOE Position: Agreed, if relocated Title I tailings are stabilized
- prior to stabilization of Title II tailings; otherwise
" surveillance and maintenance of Title !! tailings would
' apply to relocated Title I tailings.
'Other Open Items: 1. Ability of licensees to receive Title ! material l Does
'y and stabilize later underIfTitle II authority:f fixes $
ability currently exist? not, what type o are necessary?
i
?
\
s d
i 08/27/06 12:28 LSDOE GERr144TOLJta to.000 002 eNCLOeURe2 DISCUSSION ITEMS ON CO-DISPOSAL OF TITLE I AND TITLE !! TAILINGS 8ACKGR00ND o American Nuclear Ccrporation and Quivera Mining Company have approached.,
DOE with proposals to dispose of Title I tailings at Title II sites -
(Riverton at Gas Hills and Ambrosia Lake at Quivera, respectively) o OtherpotentialsitesNaturita,CO(HECLA)andFallsCity.TX(CONOCO) l o Technical / Economic Advantages ,
- Reduce number of disposal sites
- Decrease cost cf design / construction / surveillance and maintenance o DOE requested NRC to evaluate co-disposal feasibility in April 16, 1986
- letter from J. Theme 11s to M. Knapp o NRC response provided in June 16, 1986 letter from M. Knapp to J.
Themelis ISSUES AND POTENTIAL RESOLUTIONS NRC Position: Active (Title II) site licensee must be authocized by NRC to accept Title I tailings. Ownership of site (or portion to be co-disposed) may be acquired by Federal / State government prior to licensee tennination.
DOE Position: Agreed. DOE policy is not to acquire site until after certification.
NRC Position: Co-disposed tailings must meet most stringent of Title I and Title II EPA Standards.
l DOE Position: Since Title II licensees aust comply with 10 CFR 40 l
. Appendix A.(active sites) DOE would like to discuss i
and clarify (in future) what the difference in i requirements would be.
- _ . _ _