ML20214N754
| ML20214N754 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/30/1987 |
| From: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Hoyal J ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| REF-WM-5 NUDOCS 8706030051 | |
| Download: ML20214N754 (3) | |
Text
.
DISTRIBUTION:
LLWM SF F NMSS RF APR 3 0 t W ttoB RF 65/S8/87/04/20 SBilhorn, LLos
-1 GGnugnoli, LLOB RFonner, OGC MFliegel, LLOB PLohaus, LLOB James G. Hoyal, Jr., Chief MKnapp, LLWM
/05eeves, LLy ~
Programs and R&D Branch wt,;
rg Contracts and Industrial Relaticns Divisirn fhr~j,g-D IW Albuquerque Operations Office ID d--_
U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 5400 Li'Ja ___
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87115 IO* @*.%__
F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
Dear Mr. Hoyal:
' hy!Y, w Z)
The NRC 3taff has completed the review oE Cooperative Agreement No.
DE-FC04 87AL20532 between the U.S. Depar went of Energy and the State of Texas supporting remedial actions at the Falls City, Texas inactive uranium mill tailings site. Enclosed are staff comments based on this review and three of the four copics submitted for NRC concur ence. We have retained the fourth for our records.
NRC concurrence in this agreement is cont:ingent on the assurance, provided through discussion with T. Coalson of yo :r staff, that the enclosed comments will be addressed in the first modificat.on to this agreement. This contingency is noted on the signature page. hRC statf intends to review the next modification for concurrence, to assure the staff concerns have been adequately addressed.
If you have any questions regarding this r.atter please contact S. Bilhorn of mystaffat(FTS) 427-4145.
Si:cerely, Pau' H. Lohaus Acting Chief Ope ations Branch Div sion of Low-Level Waste Management tnd Decomissioning Office of Nuclear Material Safety aqd Safeguards
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
J. Anderson, 00E/AL F. Bosiljevac, DOE /AL T. Coalson, DOE /AL
((
nor DFC: LLOB
- LLO y / : occy.......f../.....:' LOB,
- Lif f
...............,.... h'L..
NAME:SBilKofpV:GC w o( i enner :Mfliegel :Fi.ohaus OkTF4fkbbh k)hhhh:4)k)hh 4h5k)bh 4Yb)bh
/
'0FFICIAL kECORD COIY 0706030051 070430 PDR WASTE WM-5 PDR
i 65/SB/87/04/20
_ i i
Specific NRC Consnents on DOE Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC04-87AL20532 -
i Falls City. Texas i
1.
DEFINITIONS, Page 2, Jtem H
" EPA Standards" l
This definition implies that, in the absence of newly promulgated EPA J'
standards for ground water protection, DOE and the State of Texas can agree on their own criteria for use in design of remedial action at the Falls City site. However, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) provides 1
that " DOE and NRC agree to continue to use Subpart C of EPA Standards (as prosulgated at 48 FR 45926, October 7,1983) as' guidance on an l
interim basis, and will make appropriate project changes when new rulemaking is completed." Furthermore, the NRC staff conveyed this understanding in coments on DOE's draft Interim Grcund-Water Protection j
Plan, transmitted to DOE September 29, 1986.
DOE and Texas should at least indicate that the criteria they may establish will be based on Subpart C of the EPA standards as guidance.
j and acknowledge that changes, as appropriate, will be made when the new t
rulemaking is completed.
In addition, the NRC staff consider it I
inappropriate to establish criteria for ground-water protection in exclusion of NRC and/or EPA.
i l
2.
DEFINITIONS, Page 3, Item M
" Remedial Action" 1
The statement "following issuance of the draft Remedial Action Plan" in a
sentence (2) indicates that significant remedial action may be conducted prior to review (and concurrence) by NRC. The staff considers this j
approach to be generally unacceptable. -This subject has been previously j
addressed in a letter to J. Hoyal from M. Knapp, June 27, 1986, regarding the Cooperative Agreement between DOE and the State of Oregon. In that agreement, the' definition of " remedial action" with respect to millsites allowed 00E to perform preliminary and final design' work concurrent with finalization of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP). Other activities associated with remedial action, such as construction, were to be conducted after execution of the RAP, which requires NRC concurrence.
l While this concern is resolved in the ensuing discussion on the final RAP (page 9), Item M sentence 2 needs to be modified for clarification j
l and to provide consistancy.
i i
)
65/SB/87/04/20
_3 3.
CONCURRENCES AND CONSULTATIONS, Pace 33 Item A The last sentence in this paragraph is ambiguous with regard to the DOE /NRC M00. DOE needs to provide clarification through reference to the MOU in effect and discussion of the M00's governing precedence over this Cooperative Agreement.
The NRC staff believes this clarification will be provided through addition of paragraph "X", presented on page 4 of the December 31, 1986 letter from J. ifoyal to D. Martin (Attachment 1). DOE committed to modify the DOE-Texas Cooperative Agreement at the next available opportunity to include this paragraph in the subject article, CONCURRENCES AND CONSULTATIONS.
l
)
)
I