ML20207S924
| ML20207S924 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/27/1987 |
| 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, REF-WM-60 NUDOCS 8703200406 | |
| Download: ML20207S924 (2) | |
Text
. . . . . . -
- ; r _
, , s
- b.
- g >
w.
pgg39 g7
^
WM-39/60'/GNG/2/18/87 4 - 4
_ MEMORANDUM FOR: ! Michael ~J. Bell, Deputy Director Division of Waste Management-FROM: Giorgio N. Gnugnoli,' Project Manager Uranium Recovery Projects Section Low-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch Division of Waste Management
SUBJECT:
INFORMAL MEETING ON CO-DISPOSAL OF RADI0 ACTIVE TAILINGS UNDER UMTRCA TITLES I AND II Date: February 17, 1987 >
Location: Offices of.NRC Silver Spring, MD (WILLSTE Bldg.)
~ Attendees: -DOE NRC J. Arthur, UMT/AL D. Gillen
- J. Gatrell, HQ G. Gnugnoli D. E. Martin Sumary:
J. Arthur was visiting DOE /HQ and requested to meet with NRC staff regarding options for co-disposal of Riverton tailings at the ANC 4
commercially licensed site in the Gas Hills. Arthur indicated DOE's
-intention of addressing only the excavation, transportation and placement of the tailings at ANC in the Riverton RAP. DOE' plans to rely on the NRC licensee's reclamation plan for further documentation. We pointed out to the DOE attendees that the DOE would need to evaluate the reclamation plan, adopt it as their own, and to commit to its performance and completion.
DOE' staff was concerned that the present ANC reclamation might not be; completed by the Congressionally mandated Title I completion date without significant expenditure to accelerate compaction. J. Arthur inquired about the possibility for DOE to piggyback on NRC's NEPA analysis for the decomissioning at the ANC site. NRC staff indicated that since NRC did not have to concur on DOE's NEPA evaluation of remedial action impacts, there appeared to-be flexibility in utilizing the NRC NEPA analysis to supplement DOE's evaluation. DOE staff also inquired regarding the NRC O
WM Reccrd FHe V!M Prr D e tTh __
PDR M LFUR.__ _ _
DistributYr.:
8703200406 870227 PDR WM-39 WASTE PDR _.
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ! - ~ --~
~
(Rd 4 M W", @ MS) a
. FEB87w WM-39/60/GNG/2/18/87 UMTRCA Title II requirements for reclamation and associated financial assurance. It was pointed out that present financial assurance mechanisms may not provide DOE with significant protection from future liability, because of certain aspects of implementation under UMTRCA_ Title I; e.g.,
accelerated compaction to meet program deadlines. Arthur indicated that DOE's two main implementation areas of concern are the cost ceilings for DOE funding for relocation /co-disposal options and the extent of DOE risk and liability for future conditions, i.e., licensee insolvency impacts on DOE's reredial action responsibilities.
WW Giorgio N. Gnugnoli, Project Manager Uranium Recovery Projects Section Low-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch Division of Waste Management cc: R. Dale Smith, URF0 J. Gorn, OCA i
p 9 --
--mm -,--m--*---* '
-r- ----m- -------Tv -- -- --
"mr- * ---- - r3 --- m- M y- , - - " - - ' *