ML23270B389

NRC-2021-000227 - Released Set Part 1

ML23270B389
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/11/2023
From:	NRC/OCIO
To:
Shared Package
ML23270B522	List: ML23270B389 ML23270B391 ML23270B392 ML23270B393 ML23270B503
References
NRC-2021-000227
Download: ML23270B389 (1)

Text

From: Albert, Michelle Se nt: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 2:41 PM To: Spencer, Mary; Safford, Carrie Cc: Harris, Brian; Gendelman, Adam; Stokes, Tracey; Mccann, Carrie

Subject:

FW:l(b)(5) ~ DOE Legacy Management response to NRC letter regarding SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIUM M ILL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE MINE WASTE Attachments: NRC Church Rock Site Oct2020_cm_s.pdf; SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIUM MILL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE M INE WASTE; Letter to Mr. Carmelo Melendez transmitting the UNC SER.pdf; UNC SER (enclosure).pdf; James Smith.vcf Mary and Carrie, b)(5)

Thanks, Michelle Michelle D. Albert Senior Attorney I Office of the General Counsel Legal Counsel, Legislation, and Special Projects Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (301) 287-92591 Michelle.A lbert@nrc.gov

• • • OFFICIAL USE ONLY -- ATTOR ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT, AND/O From: Orlando, Dominick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 2:20 PM To: Albert, Michelle <Michelle.Albert@nrc.gov>

Cc: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Subje ct: FW:~ - DOE Legacy Management response to NRC letter regarding SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR 1

LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIUM MILL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE MINE WASTE Hi Michelle (b)(5)

Nick (b)(5) 2

From : Smith, James <James.Smit h@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 1:48 PM To: McIntyre, David <David.Mclntyre@nrc.gov>; Weil, Jenny <Jenny.Weil@nrc.gov>

Cc: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley

<Ashley.Waldron@nrc.gov >; Orlando, Dominick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<Christine.Pineda@nrc.gov>

Subject:

~b)(5) 1- DOE Legacy Management response to NRC letter regarding SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDM ENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIUM MILL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE MINE WASTE Hi David and Jenny-b)(5)

General information about the LAR and the site can be found at https://nrcweb.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/uranium/united-nuclear-corporation-unc-.html I am available to provide any further information that you may need regarding this issue. I can be reached via Microsoft Teams, or you can contact my cell phonel<b)(6) lif you prefer.

Thanks Jim 3

James Smith

~ l>toJtttM11Ng<*

O!f,u ol MicJ.4, Mrunal s.ldy 111d s.fegu,ilh

°""- of O<<OMmnliOftll\!a, Um,..,,, R.<o,,ny and W~tt P,og,arM uw.,.m~<ml)'lx,m,ng,ll,dM.tm.ts~;,onm,gfl,_,,

Wa.lh,r.g1cn, DC 20555

\',or (301) 415-'103

£ rmdl.a~UI011rc.9(1V From: Melendez, Carmelo <carmelo.melendez@hq .doe.gov>

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 3:52 PM To: Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>

Cc: Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven (GC) <steven.miller@hq.doe.gov>; Shafer, David (LM)

<david .shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Sm ith Taylor, Tania <tania.smith@hq.doe.gov>; O'Konski, Peter

<peter.okonski@hq.doe.gov>; Robinson, Donovan 0 . EOP/OMB <Donovan 0. Robinson @omb.eop.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] RE: SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIUM MILL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE MINE WASTE Ms. Trish - Hope all is well.

Please see attached our response to your October 14 letter concerning the Church Rock Site. Look forward to seeing you soon. Thank you for staff's efforts.

David - FYI/FYA as discussed.

Donovan - FYI/FYSA. Will follow up later this week.

V/R Carmelo Carmelo Melendez EngD, PE, PMP - Director Office of Legacy Management {LM-1)

U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., SW {FORS 6G-030}

Washington, DC 20585-1615 Ph: 202-586-7550/Fax: 202-586-8403 E-Mail: carmelo.melendez@hq.doe.gov

• ENET RGY ~a9;actement 8 Ti

• e is intended only for the use of the named recipient(s). Information contained in this email messa e and its attachments may be pnv, tected from disc/a please do not read, copy, use or

• en e ete it from your system.

4

From: Richie, Christine fmailto:Christine.Richie@nrc.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 2:03 PM To: Melendez, Carmelo <carmelo.melendez@hq .doe.gov>

Cc: Holahan, Trish <Patricia .Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[EXTERNAL] SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIUM MILL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE MINE WASTE Good afternoon Mr. Melendez, Please find attached the letter and enclosure addressed to you dated October 14, 2020, signed by Patricia Holahan, RE:

Safety Evaluation Report For License Amendment Request, for the Former UNC Church Rock Uranium Mill and Tailings Site to Relocate Mine Waste.

Regards, Chrissy Ch.rishne L. Richie Administrative Assistant (Contractor)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Division of Materials Safety, Security, State, and Tribal Programs (MSST)

W Ph: 301-415-7289

'1!Email: Christine.Richie@nrc.gov This message does not originate from a known Department of Energy email system.

Use caution if this message contains attachments, links or requests for information.

5

Full Name: James Smith Last Name: Smith First Name: James Job

Title:

Senior Project Manager Business Address: Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs Uranium Recovery Licensing and Materials Decommissioning Branch Washington, DC 20555 Business: (301) 415-6103 Email: James.Smith@nrc.gov Email Display As: James Smith (James.Smith@nrc.gov) 1

From: Albert MjcheUe To: Harris. Brian: Spencer. Mary: Safford. Carrie Geftge1man, dam: Stokes. Tracey: Mccann. carrje; kiio.Ja.n Cc:

Subject:

1 REihHS\ : : DOE Legacy Management response to NRC letter regarding SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIUM MILL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE MINE WASTE Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 2:57:00 PM Attachments: imaaeoos.pna Brian, (b)(5)

Michelle Michelle D. Albert Senior Attorney I Office of the General Counsel Legal Counsel, Legislation, and Special Projects Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (301) 287-9259 I Michelle.Albert@nrc.gov

• • • OFFICIAL US ORNEYWORK PRODUCT, AN From: Harris, Brian <Brian.Harris@ nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 2:51 PM To: Albert, Michelle <M ichelle.Albert@nrc.gov>; Spencer, Mary <Mary.Spencer@nrc.gov>; Safford, Carrie <Carrie.Safford@nrc.gov>

Cc: Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Stokes, Tracey <Tracey.Stokes@nrc.gov>;

Mccann, Carrie <Carrie.McCann@nrc.gov>; Irvin, Ian <lan.lrvin@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE :l(b)(5) I-DOE Legacy Management response to NRC letter rega rding SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDME NT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URAN IU M M ILL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE M INE WASTE Michelle, b)(5)

Best regards, Brian

From: Albert, M ichelle <Michelle.Albert@n rc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 2:41 PM To: Spencer, Mary <Ma ry.Spencer@nrc.gov>; Safford, Carrie <Ca rri e.Safford@nrc.gov>

Cc: Harris, Brian <Brian.Harris@nrc.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gende lman@nrc.gov>; Stokes, Tracey <Tracey.Stokes@nrc.gov>; Mccann, Carrie <Ca rrie.McCann@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: ~b}(5) 1- DOE Legacy Management response to NRC letter regard ing SAFETY EVALUATION RE PORT FOR LICENSE AMENDME NT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIUM M ILL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RE LOCATE MINE WASTE Mary and Carrie, b}(5)

Thanks, Michelle Michelle D. Albert Senior Attorney I Office of the General Counsel Legal Counsel, Legislation, and Special Projects Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (301) 287-9259 I Michelle.Albert@nrc.gov

• • • OFFICIAL USE ONLY -- ATTO NFORMATION, ATTORNEY WORK PRODUC From: Orla ndo, Dominick <Dom inick.Orlando@ nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 2:20 PM To: Albert, Michelle <M iche ll e.Albe rt@nrc.gov>

Cc: Von Ti ll, Bi ll <Bill.VonTil l@nrc.gov>; Smit h, James <James Sm ith@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FwJb)(S) ~ DOE Legacy Management response to NRC letter regarding SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDME NT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIUM M ILL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE MINE WASTE Hi Michelle b)(5)

Nick (b)(5)

(b)(5)

From: Smith, James <James.Smjth@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 1:48 PM To: M cI ntyre, David <Dayid.Mc!ntyre@nrc gov>; Wei l, Jenny <Jenny.Weil@nrc.gov>

Cc: Von Ti ll, Bi ll <Bi ll.VooTill@orc.gov>; M andeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>;

Waldron, Ashley <Ash ley.Waldron@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dom inick <Dom inick.Orlando@nrc.gov>;

Pineda, Christine <Christine.Pineda@nrc.gov>

Subject:

l(b)(5) I-DOE Legacy Management response to NRC letter regard ing SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AM ENDME NT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIU M M ILL AND TAILI NGS SITE TO RELOCATE M INE WASTE Hi David and Jenny-(b)(5)

(b)(5)

General information about the LAR and the site can be found at https://nrcweb.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommjssjonjng/uranjum/unjted-nuc!ear-corporatjon-unc-.html I am available to provide any further information that you may need regarding this issue. I can be reached via Microsoft Teams, or you can contact my cell phone l{b}(6) lif you prefer.

Thanks Jim James Smith

~ "'°~ Mor,tg6 Off,cc of ttu<lur I.\IIO!hll s.ltfy*t>d s.ftg,14,lh l'.lw,s,on of Ot<omn,,wo,n,ng.

Uta"""" ~....c,y. a"'1 Wtit~ Prog*OIIIS u , - il<<Ol-'tty~ aftd Miiffllfl~ Dt<OtM\oSSOO(IOllg 9,..,.1, WaiM>g(on. DC io,ss

\',o 1'301) 41H10.3 f m, J1mtt..$tru1h@nrt.90V From: Melendez, Carmelo <carmelo.melendez@hg.doe.gov>

Sent: Monday, Octobe r 19, 2020 3:52 PM To: Holaha n, Trish <Pat ricia Holahan@n rc.gov>

Cc: Zimmerma n, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Mandevil le, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Smith, James <James.Sm it h @nrc.gov>; M iller, Steven (GC)

<steven.miller@hq.doe.gov>; Shafer, David (LM) <dayid.shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Sm ith Taylor, Tania

<tania.sm jth@hq .doe.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@hq.doe.gov>; Robinson, Donovan 0.

EOP/OMB <Donovan 0 . Robinson@omb.eop.gov>

Subject:

[External _Sender] RE: SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIUM M ILL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE M INE WASTE Ms. Trish - Hope all is well.

Please see attached our response to your October 14 letter concerning the Church Rock Site. Look forward to seeing you soon. Thank you for staff's effort s.

David - FYI/FYA as discussed.

Donova n - FYI/FYSA. Will follow up later t his week.

V/R Carmelo Carmelo Melendez EngD, PE, PMP - Director Office of Legacy Management (LM-1)

U.S. Deportment of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., SW (FORS 66-030}

Washington, DC 20585-1615 Ph: 202-586-7550/Fox: 202-586-8403 E-Mail: carmelo.melendez@hq. doe. aov

• ifNET RGY ~;;iiement

• message is intended onlyfor the use of the named recipient(s). Information contained in this email message an disclosure. if you are not the intended recipient, use or disclose this communication to other otif y the sender by replying to this message a em.

From: Rich ie, Christine [mai!to:Christjne.Richie@nrc.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 2:03 PM To: Melendez, Carmelo <carmelo .melendez@hq.doe.gov>

Cc: Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@orc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>;

Mandevil le, Douglas <Douglas.Mandevjlle@nrc.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[EXTERNAL] SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URAN IUM M ILL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE M INE WASTE Good afternoon Mr. Melendez, Please find attached the letter and enclosure addressed to you dated October 14, 2020, signed by Patricia Holahan, RE:

Safety Evaluation Report For License Amendment Request, for the Former UNC Church Rock Uranium Mill and Tailings Site to Relocate Mine Waste.

Regards,

Chrissy Christine L. Richie Administrative Assistant (Contractor)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm ission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Division of Materials Safety, Security, State, and Tribal Programs (MSST)

~ Ph: 301-415-7289

'11JEmail: Christine.Rich ie@nrc.gov This message does not originate from a known Department of Energy email system.

Use caution if this message contains attachments, links or requests for information.

From: Smith, James Se nt: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 3:03 PM To: Irvin, Ian; Gendelman, Adam Cc: Von Jill Bill* M r deville, Douglas; Orlando, Dominick; Albert, Michelle

Subject:

FW:](b)(S) DOE Legacy Management response to NRC letter regarding SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIUM M ILL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE MINE WASTE Attachments: NRC Church Rock Site Oct2020_cm_s.pdf; SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIUM MILL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE M INE WASTE; Letter to Mr. Carmelo Melendez transmitting the UNC SER.pdf; UNC SER (enclosure).pdf; James Smith.vcf; RE: ~b)(5) I- DOE Legacy Management response to NRC letter regarding SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URAN IUM M ILL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE M INE WASTE; James Smith2.vcf Ian and Adam-Thanks Jim James Smith Senior Project Manager Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Division of D~ommissioning, Uranium Recovery# and Waste Programs Uranium Recovery Licensing and Materials Decommissioning Branch Washingto n, DC 20555 Worlc(301) 415-6103 E-maiJJames.Smith@nrc.gov From: Smith, James Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 1:48 PM To: McIntyre, David <David.Mclntyre@nrc.gov>; Weil, Jenny <Jenny.Weil@nrc.gov>

Cc: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley

<Ashley.Waldron@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<Christine.Pineda@nrc.gov>

Subject:

l b)(5) 1- DOE Legacy Management response to NRC letter regarding SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE MENDM ENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORM ER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIUM MILL AND TAI LI NGS SITE TO RELOCATE MI NE WASTE 1

Hi David and Jenny-b)(5)

General information about the LAR and the site can be found at https://nrcweb.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/uranium/united-nuclear-corporation-unc-.html I am available to provide any further information that you may need regarding this issue. I can be reached via Microsoft Teams, or you can contact my cell phone l{b)(6) lif you prefer.

Thanks Jim James Smith Senior Project Manager Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs 1

Uranium Rocovery licensing and Materials Docommissioning Branch Washington, DC 20555 Wori<(301J 41 5 -6 103 E-maiJJames.Smith@nrc.gov 2

From: Melendez, Carmelo <carmelo.melendez@hq.doe.gov>

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 3:52 PM To: Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>

Cc: Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven (GC) <steven.miller@hq.doe.gov>; Shafer, David (LM)

<david .shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Sm ith Taylor, Tania <tania.smith@hq.doe.gov>; O' Konski, Peter

<peter.okonski@hq.doe.gov>; Robinson, Donovan 0. EOP/OMB <Donovan_O._Robinson@omb.eop.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] RE: SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIUM MILL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE M INE WASTE Ms. Trish - Hope all is well.

Please see attached our response to your October 14 letter concerning the Church Rock Site. Look forward to seeing you soon. Thank you for staff's efforts.

David - FYI/FYA as discussed.

Donovan - FYI/FYSA. Will follow up later this week.

V/R Carmelo Carmelo Melendez EngD, PE, PMP - Director Office of Legacy Management (LM-1}

U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., SW (FORS 6G-030}

Washington, DC 20585-1615 Ph: 202-586-7550/Fax: 202-586-8403 E-Mail: carmelo.melendez@hq.doe.gov u., . OCPAtm,mn o, Legacy

• ENERGY Management

• tended only for the use of the named recipient(s). Information contained in this email messa e and its attachments may be privilege , c r m di please do not read, copy, use en delete it from your system.

From: Richie, Christine [1]

Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 2:03 PM To: Melendez, Carmelo <carmelo.melendez@hg .doe.gov>

Cc: Holahan, Trish <Patricia .Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[EXTERNAL] SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIUM MI LL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE MINE WASTE Good afternoon Mr. Melendez, Please find attached the letter and enclosure addressed to you dated October 14, 2020, signed by Patricia Holahan, RE:

Safety Evaluation Report For License Amendment Request, for the Former UNC Church Rock Uranium Mill and Tailings Site to Relocate Mine Waste.

3

Regards, Chrissy Ch.rishne L. Richie Administrative Assistant (Contractor)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Division of Materials Safety, Security, State, and Tribal Programs (MSST)

~ Ph: 301-415-7289

"'elEmail: Christine.Richie@nrc.gov This message does not originate from a known Department of Energy email system.

Use caution if this message contains attachments, links or requests for information.

4

From:

To :

Cc: =11,1w:all.lloiL.,l>==l5ili.1,_=wi Mandeville, Douglas

Subject:

DOE Legacy Management response to NRC letter regarding SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR uc&rt-.......,m-,:',DMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIUM MILL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE MINE WASTE Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 3:20:42 PM Attachments: imaaeoos,ona From: Albert, M ichelle <Michelle.Albert@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 2:26 PM To: Orlando, Dom inick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Cc: Von Ti ll, Bi ll <Bi ll.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Sm it h, James <James.Sm ith@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE :~b)(5) ~ DOE Legacy Management response to NRC letter regarding SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URAN IU M M ILL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE M INE WASTE Nick, Michelle Michelle D. Albert Senior Attorney I Office of the General Counsel Legal Counsel, Legislation, and Special Projects Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (301) 287-9259 I Michelle.Albert@nrc.gov

• • • OFFICIAL D INFORMATION, ATTORNEY WORK PRODUC From: Orlando, Dominick <Dominick Orlando@nrc gov>

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 2:20 PM To: Albert, M ichelle <M ichell e.Albe rt@nrc.gov>

Cc: Von Ti ll, Bi ll <Bi ll.VonTi ll@nrc.gov>; Sm it h, James <James.Sm it h@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW:l(b)(5) I-DOE Legacy Management response to NRC letter regarding SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URAN IU M M ILL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RE LOCATE M INE WASTE Hi Michelle b)(5)

(b)(5)

Nick (b)(5)

From: Smith, James <James.Smith @nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 1:48 PM To: McIntyre, David <David.M cl ntyre @nrc.gov>; Wei l, Jenny <Jenny.Weil@nrc.gov>

Cc: Von Ti ll, Bi ll <Bill VooJ ill@nrc gov>; M andeville, Douglas <Douglas Mandevil le@nrc gov>;

Waldron, Ashley <Ashley Wald ron@nrc gov>; Orlando, Dominick <Dominick Orlando@nrc gov>;

Pineda, Christine <Christine.Pjneda@nrc.gov>

Subj ect ~(b)(S) I- DOE Legacy Management response to N RC letter regard ing SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URAN IU M M ILL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE M INE WASTE Hi David and Jenny-b)(S)

General information about the LAR and the site can be found at https://nrcweb .nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/uranium/united-nuclear-corporation-unc-.html

I am available to provide any further information that you may need regarding this issue. I can be reached via Microsoft Teams, or you can contact my cell phonei(b)(6) lif you prefer.

Thanks Jim Jam@S Smith w..o, PYoJffl ....~

()f'(,c~ of tfu<Jur M*ttr..i s.ldy tml s.ttgv,tlk llmslo<I of O<<omlM!JOMI~

U.*tlMII R<<ow,y. 1nd WMto l'rog,.-

U ~ A<<OrtiYti<<ftu,g and Moltt11t,.O<<:offlMwaOftil"9 8rM1<II W~on,0( 20SS5

' c, (301) 41S~103 f m *J, mtt..SmkthOo~v From: Melendez, Carmelo <carmelo.melendez@hq.doe.gov>

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 3:52 PM To: Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@ nrc.gov>

Cc: Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Mandevil le, Douglas

<Douglas Mandeville@nrc gov>; Smith, James <James Sm itb@nrc gov>; M iller, Steven (GC)

<steven.m il ler@ hq.doe.gov>; Shafer, David (LM) <david.shafer@lm.doe .gov>; Sm ith Taylor, Tania

<tan ia.sm ith@hq .doe.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <pet er.okonski@hq.doe.gov>; Robinson, Donovan 0.

EOP/OMB <Donovan o Robinson@omb eop gov>

Subject:

[Ext ern al_Sender] RE: SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIU M M ILL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RE LOCATE M INE WASTE Ms. Trish - Hope all is well.

Please see attached our response to your October 14 letter concerning the Church Rock Site. Look forward to seeing you soon. Thank you for st aff's efforts.

David - FYI/FYA as discussed .

Donovan - FYI/FYSA. Will follow up later this week.

V/R

Carmelo Carmelo Melendez EngD, PE, PMP - Director Office of Legacy Management (LM-1)

U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., SW (FORS 6G-030)

Washington, DC 20585-1615 Ph: 202-586-7550/Fax: 202-586-8403 E-Mail: carmelo.melendez@hq.doe.gov

• E.NifRGY ~fnaacJement E um Cl T

• ssage is intended onlyfor the use of the named recipient(s). Information contain this email message an I s disclosure. If you are not the intended recipien or disclose this stem.

From: Richie, Christine .Richie@nrc.gov

Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 2:03 PM To: Melendez, Carmelo <carmelo .melendez@hq.doe.gov>

Cc: Holaha n, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>;

M andevil le, Douglas <Douglas Mandeville@nrc gov>; Smith, James <James Smith@nrc gov>

Subject:

[EXTERNAL] SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIUM MI LL AND TAI LI NGS SITE TO RELOCATE MINE WASTE Good afternoon Mr. Melendez, Please find attached the letter and enclosure addressed to you dated October 14, 2020, signed by Patricia Holahan, RE:

Safety Evaluation Report For License Amendment Request, for the Former UNC Church Rock Uranium Mill and Tailings Site to Relocate Mine Waste.

Regards, Chrissy Christine L. Richie Admin istrative Assistant (Contractor)

U.S. Nuclea r Regulat ory Comm ission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Division of Materials Safety, Security, State, and Tribal Programs (MSST)

irPh: 301-415-7289

~ Email: Christine.Ricbie@nrc.gov This message does not originate from a known Department of Energy email system.

Use caution if this message contains attachments, links or requests for information.

From: Duncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 6:21 PM To: carmelo.melendez@hq.doe.gov Cc: Manzanilla, Enrique; Stenger, Wren; Mahmud, Shahid; Stalcup, Dana; Lubinski, John

Subject:

[External Sender) FW: (b)(5)

Attachments: (b)(5)

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Mr. Melendez,

(b)(S)

Will C. Duncan Ill Assistant Director Superfund & Emergency Management Division Region 9 USEPA 75 Hawthorne Street (Mailcode SFD-6)

San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 972-3412 From: Manzanilla, Enrique <Manzanilla.Enrique@epa .gov>

Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 12:54 PM To: Duncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>

Subject:

RE:l(b)(5) I l(b)(S)

Thanks!

From: Duncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 202012 :43 PM To: Manzanilla, Enrique <Manzanilla.Enrique@epa.gov>

Subject:

RE f b)(5) I Enrique, Will C. Duncan Ill Assistant Director Superfund & Emergency Management Division Region 9 USEPA 75 Hawthorne Street {Mailcode SFD-6) 1

San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 972-3412 From: Manzanilla, Enrique <Manzanilla.Enrique@epa .gov>

Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 11:14 AM To: Duncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>

Subject:

FW: r b)(5) I From: Duncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 11:02 AM To: Manzanilla, Enrique <Manzanilla.Enri

Subject:

b)(5)

Enrique, b)(5)

Thank you Will C. Duncan Ill Assistant Director Superfund & Emergency Management Division Region 9 USEPA 75 Hawthorne Street (Mailcode SFD-6)

San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 972-3412 2

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 026 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 027 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

From: Orlando, Dominick Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2020 5:43 AM To: Von Till, Bill; Holahan, Trish; Zimmerman, Jacob Cc: Mandeville, Douglas; Gendelman, Adam; Smith, James; Waldron, Ashley; Quintero, Jessie

Subject:

Notes from EPA call on 12/1/2020 on UNC Attachments: EPA 11 2020 response to DOE LM 11 2020Questions - Churchrock-UNC Site.docx; 11 2020 lssuesAgenciesRolesResponsibilities UNC_Mill.docx; ATT B_LTRP _OM Chart_Roles&Responsibilities 11-30-2020.docx b)(5)

Thanks Nick 1

Page 029 or 863 W~hheld pursuant to exemption (b)(S) of the Freedom of Information an<l Pnvacy Act

Page 030 or 863 W~hheld pursuant to exemption (b)(S) of the Freedom of Information an<l Pnvacy Act

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 031 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

l I

I I

I I

Page 032 or 863 I

Withheld ptnUant to exemptton (b)(5)

I of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad I I

I I

I I

I I

I l

l I

___________________ I

I I

I I

l I

I I

I I

Page 033 or 863 I

Withheld ptnUant to exemptton (b)(5)

I of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad I I

I I

I I

I I

I l

l I

___________________ I

I I

I I

l I

I I

I I

Page 034 o r 863 I

Withheld ptnUant to exemptton (b)(5)

I Of the Freedom Of lnformatlOll and Pnvacy Ad I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l l

I

___________________ I

I I

I I

l I

I I

I I

Page 035 or 863 I

Withheld ptnUant to exemptton (b)(5)

I of the Freedom of Information and Pnvacy Ad I I

I I

I I

I I

I l

l I

___________________ I

I I

I I

l I

I I

I I

Page 036 o r 863 I

Withheld ptnUant to exemptton (b)(5)

I Of the Freedom Of lnformatlOll and Pnvacy Ad I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l l

I

___________________ I

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 037 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 038 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 039 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

Fage 040 of 863 Withheld pu*suant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy M

Fage 041 of 863 Withheld pu*suant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy M

Fage 042 of 863 Withheld pu*suant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy M

Fage 043 of 863 Withheld pu*suant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy M

Fage 044 of 863 Withheld pu*suant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy M

Page 045 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 046 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 04 7 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 048 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 049 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

From: Gendelman, Adam Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 1:03 PM To: Smith, James

Subject:

RE: Action Items from November 4, 2020, UNC Church Rock License Amendment Request Federal Agency Status Meeting Attachments: NRC role post license termination at conventional uranium mills asg.docx b)(5)

From: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 11:21 AM To: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>;

Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel

<Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley

<Ashley.Waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <Christine.Pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R

<steven .miller@hq.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Williams, Laurie

<Williams.Laurie@epa .gov>; 'Hogan, Sean' <hogan.sean@epa.gov>; 'Will Duncan' <Duncan.will@epa .gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob

<Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; 'Travis, Pamela' <Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>;

Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller.Matthew@epa.gov

Subject:

RE: Action Items from November 4, 2020, UNC Church Rock License Amendment Request Federal Agency Status Meeting Attached please find NRC Role Post License Termination at Conventional Uranium Mills for discussion at the next meeting on November 18th

• Thanks Jim From: Smith, James Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2020 2:37 PM To: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>;

Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel

<Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley

<Ashley.Waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <Christine.Pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R

<steven.miller@hq.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam .Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Williams, Laurie

<Williams.Laurie@epa.gov>; 'Hogan, Sean' <hogan.sean@epa.gov>; 'Will Duncan' <Duncan.will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob

<Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; 'Travis, Pamela' <Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>;

Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller.Matthew@epa.gov 1

Subject:

Action Items from November 4, 2020, UNC Church Rock License Amendment Request Federal Agency Status Meeting Thank you all for participating in the UNC Church Rock License Amendment Request Federal Agency Status Meeting call, held on November 4, 2020. We will have our next meeting on November 18, 2020. As requested, the action items from the meeting, as noted by the NRC, are as follows:

Action Items:

b)(5)

If we have missed an item or mischaracterized it, please let me know.

Thanks Jim Smith James Smith Senior Project Manager Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Division of Decommiss:ioning, Uranium Recovery~ and Waste Programs Uranium Recovery Licensing and Materials Dtt.ommissioning Branch Washington, DC 20555 Wo rk(301) 41 5 -6103 E-mailJames.Smith@nrc.gov 2

Page 052 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

From: Irvin, Ian Se nt: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 8:49 AM To: Gendelman, Adam

Subject:

RE: SES call notes b)(5)

Regards, Ian Irvin Attorney Reactors & Materials Rulemaking Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Email: ian.irvin@nrc.gov Phone: (301)287-9193 This message ma a en al. Please do not release without prior co From: Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>

Se nt: Monday, October 26, 2020 4:27 PM To: Spencer, Mary <Mary.Spencer@nrc.gov>; Harris, Brian <Brian.Harris@nrc.gov>

Cc: Irvin, Ian <lan.lrvin@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: SES call notes b)(5) 1

From: Orlando, Dominick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 3:56 PM To: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Striz, Elise <Elise.Striz@nrc.gov>;

Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>

Cc: Orlando, Dominick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Subject:

SES call notes b)(5) 2

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 055 of 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

(b)(S) 4

From: Orlando, Dominick Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 7:10 AM To: Lubinski, John; Lewis, Robert Cc: Holahan, Trish; Zimmerman, Jacob; Gendel man, Adam; Smith, James; Mandeville, Douglas; Tappert, John; Quintero, Jessie

Subject:

Summary of 12/9/20 NRC/EPA/DOE staff call and material for today's briefing at 2:30 on the UNC site Attachments: 12-9-2020v5 DRAFT UNC Mill- NECR LAR Presentation for 12- 16-2020 NRC- DOE- EPA Mtg.pptx (b)(5)

Thanks Nick 1

Page 058 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 059 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 060 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page '161 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempllDn

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page ~2 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page "'13 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page '164 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuan1 to exemp110n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnforma11on and Privacy Act

Page "'\5 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page "'\6 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page "'i7 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page "'i8 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page "'-9 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page ft70 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page ft71 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page ft72 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page ft73 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page ft74 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page ft75 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(S) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page ft76 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page ft77 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page ft78 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page ft79 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page ORO of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempl10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

From: Yoom Bill To: Lubinski. John; Lewis. Robert Cc: Holahan. Trish; Zimmerman. Jacob: Smith. James: Jappert. John: Oujntero. Jessie: Waldron. Ashley:

Gendelman. Adam; Spencer. Mary; Mandeville. Douglas: Orlando. Dominick

Subject:

Summary of UNC Churchrock three Agency call today and talking points form each Agency on post closure roles Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 4:50:06 PM Attachments: Churchrock*UNC Site Questions-Comments from DOE LM*merged Nov162020 FINAL {003).docx EPA DRAFT RolesResponsjbi!ities UNC Mi!I OM 11* 16-2020 (002).docx EPA DRAFT 11-16-2020 Chart LTRP OM RolesandResponsibilities (002).docx NRC role post license termination at conventional uranium mills !003}.docx Summary of EPA, NRC, DOE call of November 18, 2020 1 pm EST (b)(5)

Action Items:

p )(S)

Next Meeting for part of the group working is November 25 then December 2.

High level meeting scheduled for December 16 at 12:00 noon.

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 082 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 083 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 084 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 085 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(5)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 086 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

Page 087 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 088 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 089 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 090 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 091 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 092 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

From: Gendelman, Adam Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 5:19 PM To: Harris, Brian; Spencer, Mary; Irvin, Ian

Subject:

Church Rock Meeting (b)(5)

Are we having fun yet!?

Adam Gendelman Senior Attorney Reactor and Materials Rulemaking Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1

From: Gendelman, Adam Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 4:17 PM To: Harris, Brian; Spencer, Mary; Irvin, Ian

Subject:

FW: RE: SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIUM MI LL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE MINE WASTE Attachments: NRC Church Rock Site Oct2020_cm_s.pdf (b)(5)

From: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 4:14 PM To: Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Spencer, Mary <Mary.Spencer@nrc.gov>

Cc: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: RE: SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIUM MILL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE MINE WASTE From: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 4:10 PM To: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: RE: SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIUM MILL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE MINE WASTE You might want to read this.

From: Melendez, Carmelo <carmelo.melendez@hq.doe.gov>

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 3:52 PM To: Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>

Cc: Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven (GC) <steven .miller@hq .doe.gov>; Shafer, David (LM)

<david .shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith Taylor, Tania <tania.smith@hq.doe.gov>; O'Konski, Peter

<pet er.okonski@hg.doe.gov>; Robinson, Donovan 0. EOP/OMB <Donovan 0 . Robinson@omb.eop.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] RE: SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIUM MILL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE MINE WASTE Ms. Trish - Hope all is well.

Please see attached our response to your October 14 letter concerning the Church Rock Site. Look forward to seeing you soon. Thank you for staff's efforts.

David - FYI/FYA as discussed.

1

Donovan - FYI/FYSA. Will follow up later this week.

V/R Carmelo Carmelo Melendez EngD, PE, PMP - Director Office of Legacy Management (LM-1)

U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., SW (FORS 66-030}

Washington, DC 20585-1615 Ph: 202-586-7550/Fax: 202-586-8403 E-Mail: carmelo.melendez@hq.doe.gov 8 EN'iriiov ~a9nactement 0 8 ii message is intended only for the use of the named recipient(s). Information contained in this e and its attachments may nd rotected r e not the intended recipient, please do not read, cop u r b replying to this en delete it from your system.

From: Richie, Christine fmailto:Christine.Richie@nrc.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 2:03 PM To: Melendez, Carmelo <carmelo.melendez@hq .doe.gov>

Cc: Holahan, Trish <Patricia .Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[EXTERNAL] SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIUM MI LL AND TAI LINGS SITE TO RELOCATE MINE WASTE Good afternoon Mr. Melendez, Please find attached the letter and enclosure addressed to you dated October 14, 2020, signed by Patricia Holahan, RE:

Safety Evaluation Report For License Amendment Request, for the Former UNC Church Rock Uranium Mill and Tailings Site to Relocate Mine Waste.

Regards, Chrissy Ch.risHne L. Richie Administrative Assistant (Contractor)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Division of Materials Safety, Security, State, and Tribal Programs (MSST)

W Ph: 301-415-7289

-'e!Email: Christine.Richie@nrc.gov 2

This message does not originate from a known Department of Energy email system.

Use caution if this message contains attachments, links or requests for information.

3

From: Gendelman, Adam Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:44 PM To: Irvin, Ian

Subject:

FW: FYI/Action: Church Rock From: Gendelman, Adam Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 10:15 AM To: Orlando, Dominick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Cc: M andeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: FYI/Action: Church Rock (b)(5)

Be safe .

Adam From: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:36 AM To: Orlando, Dominick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Cc: Gendelman, Adam <Adam .Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE : FYI/Action: Church Rock Nick-Thanks Jim 1

From: Orlando, Dominick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:24 AM To: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>

Cc: Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: FYI/Action: Church Rock Here is some thoughts for the impact on the Navajo nation:

b)(S)

From: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:14 AM To: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>

Cc: Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: FYI/Action: Church Rock Importance : High See the action below, .... l(b_)_

( s_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____.

Thanks From: Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:12 AM To: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FYI/Action : Church Rock Importance : High b)(S) 2

Thanks, fide Jacob I. Zimmerman Acting Deputy Director Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B E-mail: Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov I Office: (301) 415-1220 I 3

From: Von Till, Bill Se nt: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 11 :23 AM To: Smith, James Cc: Gendelman, Adam; Orlando, Dominick; Irvin, Ian; Mandeville, Douglas

Subject:

Re: FYI/Action: Church Rock From: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 11:20 AM To: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Cc: Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>; Irvin, Ian

<lan.lrvin@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: FYI/Action: Church Rock Bill (b)(5)

Jim From: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 3:42 PM To: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>

Cc: Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>; Irvin, Ian

<lan. lrvin@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: FYI/Action: Church Rock (b)(5)

Thanks From: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 2:20 PM To: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>

Cc: Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>; Irvin, Ian

<lan.lrvin@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: FYI/Action: Church Rock From: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:45 PM To: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>

1

Cc: Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: FYI/Action: Church Rock b)(5)

From: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:08 PM To: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>

Cc: Gendelman, Adam <Adam .Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: FYI/Action: Church Rock From: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:14 AM To: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>

Cc: Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: FYI/Action: Church Rock Importance : High 5

f See the action below, ....b_)<_ _i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __.

Thanks From: Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:12 AM To: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FYI/Action: Church Rock Importance: High (b)(5) 2

Thanks, flak Jacob I. Zimmerman Acting Deputy Director Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

[81E-mail: Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov I Office: (301) 415-1220 I 3

From: Smith, James Se nt: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 2:20 PM To: Von Till, Bill; Mandeville, Douglas Cc: Gendelman, Adam; Orlando, Dominick; Irvin, Ian

Subject:

RE: FYI/Action: Church Rock Attachme nts: UNC Informat ion 10 20 2020 rev 1.docx (b)(5)

From: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:45 PM To: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>

Cc: Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: FYI/Action: Church Rock b)(5)

From: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:08 PM To: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>

Cc: Gendelman, Adam <Adam .Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: FYI/Action: Church Rock b)(5)

From: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:14 AM To: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>

Cc: Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: FYI/Action: Church Rock Importance: High 5

See the action below,f~b-)(_ _) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~

Thanks From: Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>

Se nt: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:12 AM To: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FYI/Action: Church Rock Importance : High (b)(5) 1

b)(5)

Thanks, fide Jacob I. Zimmerman Acting Deputy Director Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B E-mail: Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov I Office: (301) 415-1220 I 2

Page 105 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 106 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 107 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 108 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 109 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

From: Olmstead, Joan Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 5:47 PM To: Alley, David; Rakovan, Lance Cc: Talley, Sandra

Subject:

FW: Material for 12/16/20 call on UNC Attachments: UNC Mill- NECR LAR Presentation for 12 2020 NRC-DOE- EPA Mtg talking points12 14 20.pptx; 12-14-2020v2 JointAgencies_DraftBriefingMemo_Transfer_NECR Mine Waste to UNC_Mill.docx; ATT D_LTRP_OM Chart_AnticipatedRolesRespons_12-9-2020Iw.docx Dave/La nee/Sandy,

FYI, Joan From: Orlando, Dominick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 5:17 PM To: Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>; Lewis, Robert <Robert.Lewis@nrc.gov>; Tappert, John

<John.Tappert@nrc.gov>; Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Spencer, Mary <Mary.Spencer@nrc.gov>;

Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <Ashley.Waldron@nrc.gov>; Quintero, Jessie

<Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Olmstead, Joan <Joan.Olmstead@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <Christine.Pineda@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Material for 12/16/20 call on UNC Slides and other material attached per our discussion, in "clean" version. I will be advancing the slides for EPA tomorrow (just requested by EPA), but Laurie will do the talking except for the introductions and the NRC and DOE slides 1

Page 111 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Inf ormation and Priv acy Act

Page 112 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 113 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 114 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 115 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 116 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 117 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 118 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 119 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 120 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 121 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 122 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 123 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 124 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 125 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 126 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 127 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 128 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 129 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 130 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 131 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 132 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 133 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 134 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 135 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(5)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 136 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 137 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 138 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 139 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 140 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 141 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 142 of 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 143 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 144 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 145 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(5)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 146 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 147 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

Page 148 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 149 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 150 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 151 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 152 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

NMSS Briefing on United Nuclear Corporation Church Rock Draft EIS Comment Extension Request December 30, 2020 b)(5)

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 154 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 155 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 156 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

From: Olmstead, Joan Se nt: Thursday, December 17, 2020 2:00 PM To: Alley, David

Subject:

RE: UNC Churchrock MATLS

Dave, Since there were so man ether and focused on the tribal issues for our MATLS. (b)(5) Let me

~have know if you - -any

-- ---------------------------~

questions.

Joan b)(5)

Joan Olmstead Liaison Project Manager Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, MD 20852 Email: Joan.Olmstead@nrc.gov Ph: 301-287-9106 1

From: Olmstead, Joan Se nt: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 5:33 PM To: Alley, David Cc: Rakovan, Lance; Talley, Sandra

Subject:

RE: Notes on the Churchrock pre-meeting with John L.

Dave, (6)(5)

The NRC/DOE/EPA will have the meeting at noon tomorrow. I haven't received the meeting scheduler from Nick 0. yet, but can ask for it.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Joan Joan Olmstead Liaison Project Manager Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, MD 20852 Email: Joan.Olmstead@nrc.gov Ph: 301-287-9106 ODUCT. DO NOT RELEASE WITHOUT COMMISSION 1

From: Olmstead, Joan Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 5:39 PM To: Alley, David; Rakovan, Lance

Subject:

FW: RE: Information on Church rock briefings for John Lubinski - evaluation of tribal information Attachments: Church Rock POP for DUWP FO Briefing 9 23 2020 VT edit.docx; POP for Schedule delay in UNC Church Rock License Amendment 02 12 2020 (002)-1 VT edit 3_18 (002).docx; POP UNC brief to John October 27 2020-2.docx Dave/Lance, (b)(5)

Joan From: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 4:54 PM To: Olmstead, Joan <Joan.Olmstead@nrc.gov>

Cc: Rakovan, Lance <Lance.Rakovan@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley

<Ashley.Waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <Christine.Pineda@nrc.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>;

Alley, David <David.Alley@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: RE: Information on Church rock briefings for John Lubinski Here's all that I have, but again there are only two for John and one for the DUWP FO.

From: Olmstead, Joan <Joan.Olmstead@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 4:53 PM To: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Cc: Rakovan, Lance <Lance.Rakovan@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley

<Ashley.Waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <Christine.Pineda@nrc.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>;

1

Alley, David <David.Alley@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: RE: Information on Churchrock briefings for John Lubinski Hi Jim, I also reached out to Ashley for information from the REFS side.

Let me know what you can provide. Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Joan Joan Olmstead Liaison Project Manager Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, MD 20852 Email: Joan.Olmstead@nrc.gov Ph: 301-287-9106 ED WORK-PRODUCT. DO NOT From: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 4:37 PM To: Olmstead, Joan <Joan.Olmstead@nrc.gov>

Cc: Rakovan, Lance <Lance.Rakovan@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>; Mandevi lle, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley

<Ashley.Waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <Christine.Pineda@nrc.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: RE: Information on Churchrock briefings for John Lubinski Joan Jim From: Olmstead, Joan <Joan.Olmstead@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 4:16 PM To: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Cc: Rakovan, Lance <Lance.Rakovan@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: RE: Information on Churchrock briefings for John Lubinski 2

Our branch chief, Dave Alley.

Joan From: Smith, James <James.Smit h@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 4:15 PM To: Olmstead, Joan <Joan.Olmstead@nrc.gov>

Cc: Rakovan, Lance <lance.Rakovan@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: RE: Information on Churchrock briefings for John Lubinski Dave?

From: Olmstead, Joan <Joan.Olmstead@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 4:12 PM To: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Cc: Rakovan, lance <Lance.Rakovan@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Information on Churchrock briefings for John Lubinski Hi Jim, Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Joan Joan Olmstead Liaison Project Manager Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, MD 20852 Email: Joan.Olmstead@nrc.gov Ph: 301-287-9106 UCT. DO NOT 3

Page 162 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 163 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 164 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 165 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 166 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 167 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 168 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 169 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 170 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 171 of 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

Page 172 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 173 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

From: Olmstead, Joan Se nt: Monday, December 14, 2020 5:55 PM To: Alley, David; Rakovan, Lance

Subject:

FW: RE: Churchrock follow- up Attachme nts: Final Church Rock Scoping Report.pdf; March 2019 Church Rock trip report ML19326B781 .pdf Dave/Lance, It looks like they had a road trip out in March 2019 and asked the Navajo Nation if they were interested in being a cooperating agency. The Navajo Nation declined and said they would prefer to do things more informally.

They had a 70 day comment period on scope of the EIS and held two public scoping meetings (March 19, 2019 and March 21, 2019). They received approximately 432 uniaue comments. 11 oieces of comment correspondence and two transcripts from the public meetings. Kb)(5)

( b)(5) b)(5)

I Joan Joan Olmstead Liaison Project Manager Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, MD 20852 Email: Joan.Olmstead@nrc.gov Ph: 301-287-9106

- RODUCT. DO NOT From: Waldron, Ashley <Ashley.Waldron@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 5:08 PM To: Olmstead, Joan <Joan.Olmstead@nrc.gov>

Cc: Rakovan, Lance <Lance.Rakovan@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: RE: Churchrock follow-up Hi Joan, 1

We met with Navajo Nation EPA in March 2019 during scoping process - we did bring up the idea of a cooperating agency. They declined at the time (see attached trip report for details). However, it was agreed upon that NRC would share an early copy of the draft EIS prior to public comment and we asked for input. We did receive comments from NNEPA and incorporated where appropriate into the DEIS. See attached scoping summary report.

There have a been a few joint briefings with the FO (env and safety) - I think Jim forwarded those to you.

Thanks, Ashley From: Olmstead, Joan <Joan.Olmstead@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 4:03 PM To: Waldron, Ashley <Ashley.Waldron@nrc.gov>

Cc: Rakovan, Lance <Lance.Rakovan@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Churchrock follow-up Hi Ashley, Thank you for talking to us this morning. I had a couple questions after the afternoon call with the Navajo Nation.

Did the Navajo Nation ever ask to be a cooperating agency for the EIS? I was wondering if having them as a cooperating agency would address some of their concerns of ensuring that the EIS reflects the community concerns and input. For example, the Prairie Island Indian Community was a cooperating agency for the Prairie Island nuclear power plant license renewal and ISFSI environmental reviews' historic/cultural and socio-economic resource sections.

Can you also send me the summary of the scoping report?

Dave would also like to know if there were any briefing with John Lubinski on the Church rock site. If you can send an slides/briefing papers/POPs for the briefings it would be appreciated. I'll also reach out to Jim Smith to see if they did anything on the safety side.

Let us know if we can help you with any further outreach.

Joan Joan Olmstead Liaison Project Manager Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, MD 20852 Email: Joan.Olmstead@nrc.gov Ph: 301-287-9106 2

From: Olmstead, Joan Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 1:48 PM To: dave.alley@nrc.gov Cc: Talley, Sandra; Rakovan, Lance

Subject:

FW: NRC 665 with Email regarding UNC Church Rock SER.pdf Attachments: [External_Sender] RE: SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URAN IUM M ILL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE MINE WASTE; NRC 665 with Email regarding UNC Church Rock SER.pdf; NRC Church Rock Site Oct2020_cm_s.pdf Categories: Churchrock FOIA

Dave, FYI, this is the DOE Churchrock correspondence that the staff discussed with EPA and DOE last week.

Joan From: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 11:29 AM To: NMSS_DUWP_Admin Resource <NMSS_DUWP_Admin.Resource@nrc.gov>

Cc: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <Ashley.Waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<Christine.Pineda@nrc.gov>; Olmstead, Joan <Joan.Olmstead@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob

<Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>

Subject:

NRC 665 with Email regarding UNC Church Rock SER.pdf Please place the attached email from Carmelo Melendez with the attached letter from Mr. Melendez to Trish Holahan. Please ensure that it is logged under the UNC Church Rock Docket Number Docket Number 04008907.

Thanks Jim Smith 1

ML020170279 NRC FORM 665 (08-201 9) 1

\,¥,\

.......~i ADAMS DOCUMENT SUBMISSION Instructions for completing NRC Form 665 - "Cheat Sheet* (ML 1~31JA31Q)

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Document Owner Originated By Phone No. (Enter 10 digits) Mail Stop LANID Date James Smith James Smith (301) 415-6103 T5A10 JAS4 10/21/2020 If documents are to be put into a package and have the same release properties, list the Document Titles or Accession Numbers below in the order they should appear. Documents with different release properties and sensitivity levels should be listed on additional forms in the order they should appear. Examples (ML16035A181 J Note: Document Owner is solely responsible for setting the Availability, Document Sensitivity and Document Security Access l evel.

Document No. Total Number of Documents in this package 1 Document Title(s) or Accession No.

Email from Carmelo Melendez DOE-LM regarding UNC Church Rock Safety Evaluation Report - Docket Number 04008907.

Package Title (if necessary):

0 Is this a brief title that can be changed by DPC according to template instruction? Yes No 0

SUNSI Rev iew has been completed (for Publicly Available Documents) Yes No Initials jas4 Document AVAILABILITY (select one) 0 Publicly Available D Non-Publicly Available MD 3.4 Non-Public Item Code (A.3-A.9, 81)

(Indicate Release Date~) Document SENSITIVITY (select one) 0 Immediate Release ID A.3 Sensitive-Security Related -

Periodic Review Required D A.7 Sensitive Internal Info - No Periodic Review (attorney work product & client privilege, Normal Release and pre-decisional enforcement)

D Delay Release Until I I A.4 I Sensitive - Proprietary I A.8 Sensitive- Critical Electric Infrastructure Information (CEIi) - Pending FERC Date ID A.5 Sensitive - PA/PII (includes Personally Identifiable designation Information (PII))

A.8 Sensitive- Critical Electric Infrastructure Information (CEIi) - FERC designation Non-Sensitive Copyright ID Non-Sensitive A.6 Sensitive - Fed, State, Foreign Gov't, International Agency Controlled Info A.9 Sensitive- Export Controlled Information (ECI)

Note: Package to be marked for release if two or more ID A.7 Sensitive Internal Info -

I documents within the package are publicly available Periodic Review Required (all other sensitive internal info) 1 s.1 I Non-Sensitive I

I 1 s.1 I Non-Sensitive - Copyright I Document SECURITY ACCESS LEVEL 0 Document Processing Center I =Owner I ID NRC Users I= Viewer D Limited Document Security (Defined by Group or User e.g., Joe Smith =Owner)

Package Accession No. ADAMS Template No. RIDS Code (if applicable) Other Identifiers Special Instructions Submitted By Phone No. (Enter 10 digits) Mail Stop LANID Date Submitted to DPC

From: Olmstead, Joan Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 10:18 AM To: Alley, David Cc: Rakovan, Lance

Subject:

FW: NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - Updated "Finalv3" PowerPoint Slides Attachments: FINALv3 UNC Mill-NECR LAR Presentation_12-16-2020 NRC-DOE-EPA Mtg.pptx

Dave, These are the final slides. If you attend use the phone number on the prior email. John Lubinski only wants NRC staff named on the slide to use the meeting's teams line, but he is ok with other staff calling in to listen to the meeting.

Joan From: Orlando, Dominick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 10:00 AM To: Olmstead, Joan <Joan.Olmstead@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - Updated "Finalv3" PowerPoint Slides Final slides From: Williams, Laurie <Williams.Laurie@epa.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 1:13 AM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Kleinrath, Art

<Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel

<Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley

<Ashley.Waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <Christine.Pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R

<steven .miller@hq .doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>;

Duncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela <Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>;

Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew <Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; Stalcup, Dana

<Stalcup.Dana@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@hq.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid <Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>;

Poore, Christine <Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia <Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda

<VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>; Walker, Stuart <Walker.Stuart@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>; Manzanilla, Enrique

<Manzanilla .Enrique@epa.gov>; Stenger, Wren <stenger.wren@epa.gov>; Paul.Kerl@lm.doe.gov; Lubinski, John

<John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>; Spencer, Mary <Mary.Spencer@nrc.gov>; Chiang, I-Jung <chiang.i-jung@epa.gov>; Atkins, Blake <Atkins.Blake@epa.gov>; Meyer, John <Meyer.John@epa.gov>; Price, Lisa <Price.Lisa@epa.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] NECR-UNC LAR_ NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - Updated "Finalv3" PowerPoint Slides

Dear All,

Please download this hopefully-final updated PowerPoint.

While we plan to review the slides on Teams, NRC has indicated that a snow storm is expected that may cause power outages.

In order to be able to continue the meeting by phone, in the event of a power outage that shuts down the Teams website:

1

Please make a note of this Call-In Number and Conference ID:

The Teams Audio Only Call-In Number is: 301-576-2978 Conference ID: 1(6)(6) ~

6 Thanks very much! Laurie.__ f_x _>_ _ _ ___,I, From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 7:42 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Kleinrath, Art

<Art.Kleinrath@lm .doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel

<Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas .Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ash ley

<ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R

<steven.miller@hq.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam .Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa .gov>;

Duncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@ lm .doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela <Travis.Pamela@epa .gov>;

Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew <Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; Stalcup, Dana

<Stalcup.Dana@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@hq.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid <Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>;

Poore, Christine <Poore.Christine@epa .gov>; Wright, Felicia <Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda

<VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>; Walker, Stuart <Walker.Stuart@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>; Manzanilla, Enrique

<Manzanilla.Enrique@epa.gov>; Stenger, Wren <stenger.wren@epa.gov>; Paul.Kerl@ lm.doe.gov; john.lubinski@nrc.gov; mary.spencer@nrc.gov; Chiang, I-Jung <chiang.i-jung@epa.gov>; Atkins, Blake

<atkins.blake@epa.gov>; Meyer, John <Meyer.John@epa.gov>; Price, Lisa <Price.Lisa@epa .gov>

Subject:

RE: NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting -Attachment H, link to Call and Call-in Number Dear All l(b)(S) I b)(5)

Below, please find a link to the NRC Teams meeting (which you hopefully already have in your calendars), as well as the call-in information.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Thank you! Laurie 1(6)(6) I Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer or mobile app Click here to join the meeting Or call in (audio only)

~ - - -~

+ 1 301 - 576-2978 b)(5) United States, Silver Spring Phone Conference ID: (b)(5)

~---~

Find a local number I Reset PIN

-- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission --

Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

2

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: 415 947-3570 Cell: X6)

From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 6:26 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Kleinrath, Art

<Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel

<Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas .Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley

<ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R

<steven.miller@hq .doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam .Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>;

Duncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela <Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>;

Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew <Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; Stalcup, Dana

<Stalcup.Dana@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@hq.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid <Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>;

Poore, Christine <Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia <Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda

<VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>; Walker, Stuart <Walker.Stuart@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>; Manzanilla, Enrique

<Manzanilla.Enrigue@epa.gov>; Stenger, Wren <stenger.wren@epa.gov>; Paul.Kerl@lm.doe.gov; john.lubinski@nrc.gov; mary.spencer@nrc.gov; Chiang, I-Jung <chiang.i-jung@epa.gov>; Atkins, Blake

<atkins.blake@epa.gov>; Meyer, John <Meyer.John@epa.gov>; Price, Lisa <Price.Lisa@epa.gov>

Subject:

NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - Hopefully Final - Updated Briefing Paper, PowerPoint and Attachment D (DRAFT Anticipated Roles and Responsibilities in LTS&M)

Dear All,

Attached please find our hopefully final documents for tomorrow:

b)(5}

Please write down the following information in case NRC loses power due to the anticipated snow and drops the Teams call, which is hopefully in your calendars:

In case of loss of power (snow/ice storm expected in DC area Wednesday afternoon)

TEAMS audio-only call-in number is: 301-576-2978 PIN/call ID: l<b}(6} I#

Other notes on t he call:

Sara Jacobs and I will act as Me's.

Nick Orlando of NRC has kindly agreed to be our wrangler. He will share his screen and advance the PowerPoint slides.

3

(6)(5)

We will identify which slide we are on, as we progress.

Nick and I will join the call at least 10 minutes early to greet people as they check in and to answer any last minute questions.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions, concerns or suggestions.

Thank you! Lauriel(b)(6) I Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: 415 947-3570 Cell: :b)(6)

From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 10:38 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Kleinrath, Art

<Art.Kleinrath@ lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel

<Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley

<ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R

<steven.miller@hq .doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>;

Duncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm .doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela <Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>;

Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew <Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; Stalcup, Dana

<Stalcup.Dana@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@hq .doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid <Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>;

Poore, Christine <Poore.Christine@epa .gov>; Wright, Felicia <Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda

<VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>; Walker, Stuart <Walker.Stuart@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - Updated Briefing Paper, PowerPoint and Attachment D

Dear All,

I appreciate vour ongoing efforts to bring this matter to a successful conclusion.

b)(5}

4

r_x6 Thanks very much! Laurie .... _>_ _ _____,

From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 11:37 AM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Kleinrath, Art

<Art.Kleinrath@lm .doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel

<Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.M andeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley

<ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R

<steven.miller@hq .doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam .Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa .gov>;

Duncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm .doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela <Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>;

Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew <Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter

<peter.okonski@hq.doe .gov>; Mahmud, Shahid <Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine

<Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia <Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda

<VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - Letter from DOE r b)(5)

From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 1:11 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTil l@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Kleinrath, Art

<Art.Kleinrath@lm .doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel

<Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley

<ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R

<steven.miller@hq.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa .gov>;

Duncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm .doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela <Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>;

Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew <Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter

<peter.okonski@hq.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid <Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine

<Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia <Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda

<VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

RE: NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - 12/16/2020 - UPDATED DRAFT Briefing Materials for your review

.... )(_S_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____.I Laurie r_

From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 1:06 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTil l@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Kleinrath, Art

<Art.Kleinrath@lm .doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel

<Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.M andeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley

<ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R 5

<steven.miller@hq.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>;

Duncan, W ill <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia. Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela <Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>;

Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew <Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter

<peter.okonski@hq.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid <Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine

<Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia <Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda

<VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - 12/16/2020 - UPDATED DRAFT Briefing Materials for your review

Dear All,

Attached please find the updated PowerPoint that I received from David Shafer at DOE today.

(b)(5)

Your assistance is much appreciated! Laurier )(6) l(cell)

Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: J-415) 947-357Q Cell: ,....._

f b)(6)

____ I~

From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 10:15 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Kleinrath, Art

<Art.Kleinrath@ lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel

<Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley

<ashley.wa ldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R

<steven.miller@hq.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>;

Duncan, Will <Duncan.W ill@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@ lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela <Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>;

Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew <Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter

<peter.okonski@hq.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid <Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine

<Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia <Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda

<VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - 12/16/2020 - UPDATED DRAFT Briefing Materials for your review 6

Dear All,

Thank you for participating in our NECR-UNC License Amendment Request meeting today.

Attached please find an updated version of the following draft documents for our meeting on December 16, 2020.

Please review and send me any questions, comments, corrections or suggestions by COB Friday if possible, or by early Mondav. December 14th.

(b)(5)

I look forward to your comments, corrections, suggestions and questions.

Please contact me if I can be helpful at any point.

6 Thank you for all of your work on this challenging project! Laurie r'-_x_)_ _ _ __.

Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: 415 947-3570 Cell: )(6) 7

Page 185 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 186 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 187 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 188 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 189 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 190 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 191 of863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 192 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 193 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 194 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 195 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 196 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 197 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 198 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 199 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 200 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 201 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 202 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 203 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 204 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 205 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 206 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 207 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 208 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 209 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 210 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

From: Orlando, Dominick Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 10:01 AM To: Olmstead, Joan

Subject:

FW: NECR- UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - Hopefully Final - Updated Briefing Paper, PowerPoint and Attachment D (DRAFT Anticipated Roles and Responsibilities in LTS&M)

Attachments: 12-15-2020 JointAgencies_FinalBriefingMemo_Transfer_NECR Mine Waste to UNC_Mill_DOE.docx; FINAL UNC Mill-N ECR LAR Presentation_12-16-2020 NRC-DOE-EPA Mtg.pptx; ATT D_LTRP_OM Chart_AnticipatedRolesRespons_12-1 5-2020DRAFT.docx Categories: Church Rock Nav 5 year plan b)(5)

From: Williams, Laurie <Williams.Laurie@epa.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 9:26 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Kleinrath, Art

<Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel

<Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley

<Ashley.Waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <Christine.Pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R

<steven.miller@hq.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>;

Duncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela <Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>;

Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew <Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; Stalcup, Dana

<Stalcup.Dana@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@hq.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid <Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>;

Poore, Christine <Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia <Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda

<VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>; Walker, Stuart <Walker.Stuart@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>; Manzanilla, Enrique

<Manzanilla.Enrique@epa.gov>; Stenger, Wren <stenger.wren@epa.gov>; Paul.Kerl@lm.doe.gov; Lubinski, John

<John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>; Spencer, Mary <Mary.Spencer@nrc.gov>; Chiang, I-Jung <chiang.i-jung@epa.gov>; Atkins, Blake <Atkins.Blake@epa .gov>; Meyer, John <Meyer.John@epa.gov>; Price, Lisa <Price.Lisa@epa.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - Hopefully Final - Updated Briefing Paper, PowerPoint and Attachment D (DRAFT Anticipated Roles and Responsibilities in LTS&M)

Dear All,

Attached please find our hopefully final documents for tomorrow:

b)(5)

Please write down the following information in case NRC loses power due to the anticipated snow and drops the Teams call, which is hopefully in your calendars:

In case of loss of power (snow/ice storm expected in DC area Wednesday afternoon)

TEAMS audio-only call-in number is: 301-576-2978 1

PIN/call lD:rb)(5) ~

Other notes on the call:

Sara Jacobs and I will act as MC's.

Nick Orlando of NRC has kindly agreed to be our wrangler. He will share his screen and advance the PowerPoint slides.

(b)(5)

We will identify which slide we are on, as we progress.

Nick and I will join the call at least 10 minutes early to greet people as they check in and to answer any last minute questions.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions, concerns or suggestions.

Thank you! Lauriel(b)( )

6 I

Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: (415) 947-3570 Cell: r )(6) I From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 10:38 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Kleinrath, Art

<Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel

<Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Wald ron, Ash ley

<ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R

<steven.miller@hq.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa .gov>;

Duncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@ lm .doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela <Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>;

Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew <Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; Stalcup, Dana

<Stalcup.Dana@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@hq .doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid <Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>;

Poore, Christine <Poore.Christine@epa .gov>; Wright, Felicia <Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda

<VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>; Walker, Stuart <Walker.Stuart@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - Updated Briefing Paper, PowerPoint and Attachment D

Dear All,

I appreciate your ongoing efforts to bring this matter to a successful conclusion.

b)(5) 2

(b)(5)

Thanks very much! Laurie ~ )(6)

~----~

I From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Monday, December 14, 202011 :37 AM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Kleinrath, Art

<Art.Kleinrath@ lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel

<Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley

<ashley.wa ldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <christ ine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R

<steven.miller@hq.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>;

Duncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela <Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>;

Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew <M iller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter

<peter.okonski@hq.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid <Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine

<Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia <Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda

<VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - Letter from DOE From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 1:11 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Kleinrath, Art

<Art.Kleinrath@ lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel

<Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.M andeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley

<ashley.wa ldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R

<steven .miller@hq .doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>;

Duncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <cost ello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia. Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela <Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>;

Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew <Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter

<peter.okonski@hq.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid <Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine

<Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia <Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda

<VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

RE: NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - 12/16/2020 - UPDATED DRAFT Briefing Materials for your review r~-)(_S_)____________________~ ll aur;e From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 1:06 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill 3

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Kleinrath, Art

<Art.Kleinrath@lm .doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel

<Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas .Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley

<ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R

<steven.miller@hg.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam .Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa .gov>;

Duncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Ma rk.Kautsky@lm .doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela <Travis.Pamela@epa .gov>;

Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew <Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter

<peter.okonski@hg.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid <Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine

<Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia <Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda

<VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - 12/16/2020 - UPDATED DRAFT Briefing Materials for your review

Dear All,

Attached lease find the u dated PowerPoint that I received from David Shafer at DOE toda .

b)(5)

Your assist ance 1s muc appreciate . Laurie (b)(6) ce Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: (415)947-3570 Cell: f'b)(6) I From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 10:15 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Kleinrath, Art

<Art.Kleinrath@lm .doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel

<Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley

<ashley.wa ldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R

<steven.miller@hg.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa .gov>;

Duncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@ lm .doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela <Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>;

Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew <Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter

<peter.okonski@hg.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid <Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine

<Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia <Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda 4

<VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - 12/16/2020 - UPDATED DRAFT Briefing Materials for your review

Dear All,

Thank you for participating in our NECR-UNC License Amendment Request meeting today.

Attached please find an updated version of the following draft documents for our meeting on December 16, 2020.

(b)(5)

I look forward to your comments, corrections, suggestions and questions.

Please contact me if I can be helpful at any point.

Thank you for all of your work on this challenging project! Laurie '~(b_X6_>_ _ _ _~

Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: (415) 947-3570 Cell: P,)C6) I 5

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 216 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 217 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 218 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 219 of 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 220 of 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 221 of 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 222 of 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 223 of 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 224 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 225 of 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(5)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 226 of 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 227 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 228 of 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 229 of 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

Page 230 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 231 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 232 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 233 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 234 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 235 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 236 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 237 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 238 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 239 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 240 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 241 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 242 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 243 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 244 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 245 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 246 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 247 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 248 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 249 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 250 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 251 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 252 of 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(S) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 253 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 254 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 255 of 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 256 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 257 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 258 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 259 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 260 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

From: Smith, James Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 2:02 PM To: Olmstead, Joan Cc: Waldron, Ashley

Subject:

Re: RE: UNC Churchrock alignment meeting regarding Navajo Nation 90 day extension request Ashlev Waldron mav know about it. I know we have a short meetin2 with the front office Wednesdav mornin2. kbH5) b)(5)

On: 28 December 2020 12:33, "Olmstead, Joan" <Joan.Olmstead@nrc.gov> wrote:

Hi Jim, Non-Responsive Record Hope you had a good Holiday.

Joan Joan Olmstead Liaison Project Manager Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, MD 20852 Email: Joan.Olmstead@nrc.gov Ph: 301-287-9106 1

NOTE: r -

PRODUCT. DO NOT R ILEGED WORK-N AUTHORIZATION.

2

From: Smith, James Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 5:13 PM To: Lubinski, John; Lewis, Robert; Holahan, Trish; Zimmerman, Jacob; Von Till, Bill; Gendelman, Adam; Tappert, John; Spencer, Mary Cc: Orlando, Dominick; Waldron, Ashley; Quintero, Jessie; Mandeville, Doug las; Coyne, Kevin; Alley, David; Olmstead, Joan

Subject:

RE: Briefing in Preparation for 12/16/20 N RC/EPA/DOE Senior Managers CREall on UNC FYI- l(b)(5)

---

Original Appointment-----

From: NMSS_Sec_Leave_Cal Resource <NMSS_Sec_Leave_Cal.Resource@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, December 07, 2020 6:23 AM To: NMSS_Sec_ Leave_Cal Resource; Lubinski, John; Lewis, Robert; Holahan, Trish; Zimmerman, Jacob; Von Till, Bill; Smith, James; Gendelman, Adam; Tappert, John; Spencer, Mary Cc: Orlando, Dominick; Waldron, Ashley; Quintero, Jessie; Mandeville, Douglas; Coyne, Kevin; Alley, David; Olmstead, Joan

Subject:

Briefing in Preparation for 12/16/20 NRC/EPA/DOE Senior Managers CREall on UNC When: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 4:00 PM-5:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

Where: Microsoft Teams Meeting Rescheduled from 12/8 per email from Nick Orlando (ke, 12/7/2020)

Requested by Nick Orlando Scheduled by Kathy Entz, 12/7/2020 Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer or mobile app Click here to join the meeting Or call in (audio only)

+ 1 301 - 576-2978]~( b-)(-=-S-) -~~ United States, Silver Spring Phone Conference IDJ b)(5) I#

Find a local number I Reset PIN

-- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission --

Learn More I Meeting options 1

From: Olmstead, Joan Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 11 :49 AM To: Rakovan, Lance; Alley, David

Subject:

FW: NECR- UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - Updated Briefing Paper, PowerPoint and Attachment D Attachments: 12-14-2020v2 JointAgencies_DraftBriefingMemo_Transfer_NECR Mine Waste to UNC_Mill.docx; 12-14-2020v2 DRAFT UNC Mill-NECR LAR Presentation_12-16-2020 NRC-DOE-EPA Mtg.pptx; ATT D_LTRP_OM Chart_Anticipated RolesRespons_12- 14-2020Iw.docx Dave/Lance, Joan Joan Olmstead Liaison Project Manager Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, MD 20852 Email: Joan.Olmstead@nrc.gov Ph: 301-287-9106 NOTE: ORK-PRODUCT. DO NOT RELEA From: Von Ti ll, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 11:09 AM To: Olmstead, Joan <Joan.Olmstead@nrc.gov>; Alley, David <David.Alley@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - Updated Briefing Paper, PowerPoint and Attachment D From: Williams, Laurie <Williams.Laurie@epa.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 1:38 AM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Kleinrath, Art

<Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel 1

<Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas .Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley

<Ashley.Waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <Christine.Pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R

<steven.miller@hq.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam .Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa .gov>;

Duncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela <Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>;

Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew <Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; Stalcup, Dana

<Stalcup.Dana@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@hq.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid <Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>;

Poore, Christine <Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia <Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda

<VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>; Walker, Stuart <Walker.Stuart@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - Updated Briefing Paper, PowerPoint and Attachment D

Dear All,

I appreciate your ongoing efforts to bring this matter to a successful conclusion.

( b)(5)

Thanks very much! Laurie~ 6)_ _ _ _~

ICb_X_

From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 11:37 AM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTil l@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Kleinrath, Art

<Art.Kleinrath@lm .doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel

<Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley

<ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R

<steven .miller@hq.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam .Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa .gov>;

Du ncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela <Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>;

Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew <Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter

<peter.okonski@hg.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid <Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine

<Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia <Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda

<VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

NECR-UNC LAR_N RC, DOE & EPA Meeting - Letter from DOE From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 1:11 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Kleinrath, Art

<Art.Kleinrath@lm .doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel

<Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ash ley

<ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R

<steven.miller@hq .doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>;

Duncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia. Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick 2

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm .doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela <Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>;

Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew <Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter

<peter.okonski@hq.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid <Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine

<Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia <Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda

<VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

RE: NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - 12/16/2020 - UPDATED DRAFT Briefing Materials for your review (b)(5) I l

....._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___, Laurie From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 1:06 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@ nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Kleinrath, Art

<Art.Klein rath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel

<Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley

<ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R

<steven.miller@hq.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa .gov>;

Duncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm .doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela <Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>;

Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew <Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter

<peter.okonski@hq.doe .gov>; Mahmud, Shahid <Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine

<Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia <Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda

<VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - 12/16/2020 - UPDATED DRAFT Briefing Materials for your review

Dear All,

Attached please find the updated PowerPoint that I received from David Shafer at DOE today.

b}(5)

Your assistance is much appreciated! Laurie l(b)(6) l(cell)

~----~

Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: 415 947-3570 Cell: rb)(6) 3

From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 10:15 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTil l@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Kleinrath, Art

<Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel

<Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley

<ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R

<steven .miller@hq.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam .Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa .gov>;

Duncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm .doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela <Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>;

Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew <Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter

<peter.okonski@hq.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid <Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine

<Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia <Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda

<VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - 12/16/2020 - UPDATED DRAFT Briefing Materials for your review

Dear All,

Thank you for participating in our NECR-UNC License Amendment Request meeting today.

Attached please find an updated version of the following draft documents for our meeting on December 16, 2020.

(b)(5)

I look forward to your comments, corrections, suggestions and questions.

Please contact me if I can be helpful at any point.

Cb-)<_>_ _ _~

6 Thank you for all of your work on this challenging project! Laurie ~'

Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 4

Fax: 415 947-3570 Cell: )(6) 5

Page 269 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 270 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 271 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 272 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 273 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 274 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 275 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 276 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 277 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 278 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 279 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 280 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 281 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 282 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 283 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 284 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 285 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 286 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 287 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 288 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 289 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 290 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 291 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 292 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 293 of 863 W ithheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Priv acy Act

Page 294 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 295 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(S) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 296 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 297 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 298 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 299 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 300 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 301 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

From: Gendelman. Adam To: Spencer Mary: Harris, Brian

Subject:

DOE Response re: Church Rockil( ,._),.,..,.._ _ _~

.,_b.._).,,.,

(5 Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 10:08:38 AM Attachments:

Greetings, b )(5 )

Thanks, and be safe.

Adam Gendelman Senior Attorney Reactor and Materials Rulemaking Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm ission NOTE : THIS - IS NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE UNTIL DET

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 303 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 304 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 305 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(5)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 306 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

From: Gendelman. Adam To: Spencer Mary: Harris, Brian

Subject:

FW: Church Rock Date: Monday, December 14, 2020 10:43:05 AM Attachments: 20201214083110960.odf (b)(5)

From: Smith, James <James.Smit h@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 10:36 AM To: Jacobs, Sara (Jacobs.Sara@epa .gov) <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Williams, Laurie

<Williams.Laurie@epa .gov>

Cc: Kleinrath, Art <Art.Klein rat h@ lm.doe.gov>; Wa ldron, Ash ley <Ashley.Waldron@nrc.gov>;

Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Qui nt ero@ nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christi ne <Christine.Pineda@nrc.gov>;

Gendelman, Adam <Adam .Gendelma n@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bil l <Bil l.VonTil l@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick <Domin ick.Orlando@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Church Rock Sara and Laurie I thought you might want a copy of this letter from Peter O'Konski. I'll have try to have it placed into ADAMS today, but thought you'd like a copy.

Thanks Jim James Smith Senior Proj*ct Manag*r Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Division of Oeco m m~sioning, Uranium R<<ove,y, and Wast* Programs Uranium Recove ry Licensing and Materials. Decommissioning Branch Washington, DC 20555 Work (301) 4 15-6103 E-mailJa mes.Smith@nrc.gov

---

Original Message-----

From: Holahan, Trish <Patrjcia,Holahan@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 10:02 AM To: Von Till, Bill <BilLVooJill@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick <Domioick.Orlando@nrc.gov>;

Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Cc: Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Church Rock

Here is the O'Konski letter.

One thing John wants added to the agenda for tomorrow is contingency plans for Wednesday in case we lose power or connectivity with the snow storm.

Patricia K. Holahan, Ph.D.

Director, Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: 301 415-7319 Cell: b)(6}

.........,.,~~ ~~-=-=-

Fax: (301) 415-5369 "Protecting today, tomorrow, and cleaning up the past"

---

Original Message-----

From: Lubinski, John <John,Lubinski@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 8:57 AM To: Holahan, Trish <Patrjcia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob

<Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Lewis, Robert <Robert.Lewis@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Church Rock Thanks John W. Lubinski, Director, NMSS

---

Original Message-----

From: O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@bq.doe.gov>

Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 8:56 AM To: Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>

Cc: Shafer, David (LM) <david.shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Miller, Steven (GC)

<steven.miller@hq.doe.gov>; Banks, Francesca (CONTR) <francesca.banks@hq.doe.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Church Rock

John, Good morning. Attached is a PDF of the final signed memorandum regarding Church Rock. Looking forward to our discussion later in the week.

Seasons' Greetings.

Peter

From: Von THL Bill To: Zimmerman Jacob; Holahan Trish Cc: Gendelman. Adam: Smith. James: Orlando. Dominick: Spencer. Mary: Mandeville. Douglas

Subject:

FW: RE: Action Items from November 4, 2020, UNC Church Rock License Amendment Request Federal Agency Status Meeting Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 4:29:07 AM Attachments: EPA DRAFT RolesResponsibilities UNC Mill O&M 11-16-2020.docx EPA DRAFT 11-16-2020 Chart LTRP QM RoiesandResoonsibjljtjes.docx FYI - l(b)(S)

From: W illiams, Laurie <Wi lliams.Laurie@epa.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 12:42 AM To: Smith, James <James.Sm ith@nrc.gov>; Von Ti ll, Bi ll <Bi ll.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet

<Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sa ra <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Kleinrath, Art

<Art.Kleinrath@ lm .doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandevil le, Douglas <Douglas.Mandevil le@nrc.gov>;

Waldron, Ashley <Ashley.Wa ldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <Christine.Pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R <steven.miller@hq .doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam .Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sea n <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Wi ll <Duncan.Wil l@epa.gov>; Costello, James

<costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob

<Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<Dominick.Orlando@n rc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kaut sky@ lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; M iller, Matthew

<M iller.Matthew@epa.gov>

Cc: Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] RE: Action Items from November 4, 2020, UNC Church Rock License Amendment Request Federal Agency Status Meeting Dear Al1. l(b)(5) b)(5)

Please contact me w ith any questions or concerns.

Thanks so much! Laurie Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: (415) 947-3570 Cell: P,)(6) I

From: Smith, James [ma ilto:James.Smith@nrc.gov]

Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 8:2 1 AM To: Von Till, Bi ll <Bill.VonTi ll @nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks Janet@epa gov>; Jacobs, Sara

<Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Kleinrat h, Art <Art.Kleinrath@ lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia

<Wet more.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathanjel@epa.gov>; M andeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <ashley.waldron@nrc gov>; Pineda, Christine <christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Mi ller, Steven R <steveo miller@hqdoe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Wil liams, Laurie <Wil liams. Laurje@epa .gov>; Hogan, Sean

<Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Du ncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James

<costello.james@epa.gov>; Hola han, Trish <Patricia.Holahao@orc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob

<Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc gov>; Shafer, David <David Shafer@lm doe gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominjck.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm .doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa .gov>; Qu intero, Jessie <Jessie.Ou intero@nrc.gov>; M il ler, Matthew

<M iller.Matthew@epa.gov>

Subject:

RE: Action Items from November 4, 2020, UNC Church Rock License Amendment Request Federal Agency St atus Meet ing Attached please find NRC Role Post License Termination at Conventional Uranium Mills for discussion at the next meeting on November 18th .

Thanks Jim From: Smith, James Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2020 2:37 PM To: Von Till, Bi ll <Bj ll.VonTill@orc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara

<Jacobs Sara@epa gov>; Kleinrath, Art <Art Klejnrath@ lm.doe gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia

<Wetmore Cynthia@epa gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate Nathaniel@epa gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <Ashley.Wa ldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <Christine.Pineda@nrc.gov>; M iller, Steven R <steven.mi ller@hq.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gende!man@nrc gov>; Wil liams, Laurie <Williams Laurje@epa.gov>; 'Hogan, Sean'

<hogan.sean@epa.gov>; 'Will Duncan' <Duncan.wil l@epa.gov>; Costello, James

<costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob

<Jacob.Zimmermao@orc.gov>; Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<Domioick.Orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark ; 'Travis, Pamela'

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Qu intero, Jessie <Jessie.Ouintero@nrc.gov>; Mil ler Matthew@epa.gov

Subject:

Action Items from November 4, 2020, UNC Church Rock License Amendment Request Federal Agency Status Meeting Thank you all for participating in the UNC Church Rock License Amendment Request Federal Agency Status Meeting call, held on November 4, 2020. We will have our next meeting on November 18, 2020. As requested, the action items from the meeting, as noted by the NRC, are as follows:

Action Items:

(b)(S)

If we have missed an item or mischaracterized it, please let me know.

Thanks Jim Smith James Smith Stniot i>,oject M111t~

Office of Nucr.., Mat.,..,J SalflY *nd Sar<guard, Division of Dttom.mi~toning..

Ur1ruum Recovey, and Wirt* Progr*ms Um11um R<<ovtl)l llCtnsing ind Maton1!-. Dec:om,n,ssl0ning Br~nch Washington. OC 20SSS Worx(301) 4 15-6103 E-m~ilJames.Smilh@nrc.gov

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 312 of 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 313 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 31 4 of 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(S)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

Page 315 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 316 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 317 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 318 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 319 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

From: Spencer. Mary To: Gendelman Adam: Harris, Brian: lndn.....Ia.n

Subject:

FW: Status of UNC Churchrock issue Date: Thursday, October 22, 2020 5:36:00 PM Attachments: imaaeoo1.ong From: Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>

Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 5:20 PM To: Von Till, Bi ll <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Cc: Lewis, Robert <Robert.Lewis@ nrc.gov>; Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holaha n@nrc.gov>; Tappert, John <John.Tappert@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Pham, Bo

<Bo.Pham@nrc.gov>; Qu intero, Jessie <Jessie.Qu intero@ nrc.gov>; Spencer, Mary

<Ma ry.Spencer@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Status of UNC Churchrock issue Bill, (b)(S)

Thanks John W. Lubinski, Director, NMSS Be riskSMART

'--..__/

From: Von Till, Bill <Bili VooJ ill@nrc gov>

Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 4 :16 PM

To: Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>

Cc: Lewis, Robert <Robert.Lewis@nrc.gov>; Holahan, Trish <Patricia Holahao@nrc.gov>; Tappert ,

John <John.Tappert@nrc.gov>; Zimmerma n, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Pham, Bo

<Bo.Pham@nrc.gov>; Qu intero, Jessie <Jessie Ouintero@nrc.gov>; Spencer, Mary

<Mary.Spencer@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Status of UNC Chu rch rock issue John,

b)(S)

Bill von Till Chief, Uranium Recovery and Materials Decommission ing Branch Division of Decommission ing, Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-415-0598 "Protecting today, tomorrow, and cleaning up the past"

From: Von THL Bill To: Gendelman Adam: Orlando Dominick; Mandeville. Douglas; Smith James Cc: Spencer. Mary: Harris. Brian

Subject:

RE: ACTION: i(b)(5)

Date: Tuesday, Octo!'l:o-="

er"'"2"'

0,~2"'

o,..

2o,...,i,.,.2.,.,

3..,,..,

4:"" 46...,P

""M

.--- - - - ~

From: Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:21 PM To: Orlando, Dom inick <Domi nick.Orla ndo@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas. M andeville@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Smith, James

<James.Smith@n rc.gov>

Cc: Spencer, M ary <Ma ry.Spencer@nrc.gov>; Harris, Bria n <Bria n. Harris@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE : ACTION : ~b)(S) I b)(S)

From: Orla ndo, Domin ick <Dom inick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 11:43 AM To: Mandevi lle, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>.: Von Till, Bill <Bill VonTill@nrc gov>; Smit h, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Cc: Gendelman, Adam <Adam .Gendelman@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: ACTION : r~b_)(_S_ ) ------------~

(b )(5)

From: Ma ndeville, Douglas <Douglas Mandeville@nrc gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 11:26 AM To: Von Till, Bi ll <Bi ll.VonTill@orc.gov>; Smith, James <James Smith@nrc gov>

Cc: Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<Dom inick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE : ACTION: ~b)(5) b)(5)

Doug From: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:09 AM To: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Mandevil le, Douglas <Douglas Mandeville@nrc.gov>

Cc: Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<Dom inick.Orla ndo@n re.gov>

Subject:

ACTION: ~l (b-)(-5)- - - - - - - - - - - - ~

(b)(5)

{b){5) I l~-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______.Thanks Bill von Till Chief, Ura nium Recovery and Materials Decommissioning Branch Division of Decommissioning, Urani um Recovery, and Waste Programs Office of Nuclear M at erial Safety and Safeguards 301-415-0598 "Protecting today, tomorrow, and cleaning up the past"

From: Smith. James To: Gendelman Adam: Orlando Dominick; Mandeville. Douglas; Von Till. Bill Cc: Spencer. Mary: Harris. Brian

Subject:

RE: ACTION: .k..,_h""'-\"-'-

/S .:..a.

\ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___,

Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:34:19 PM b)(5)

From: Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:21 PM To: Orlando, Dom inick <Dominick.Orla ndo@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Von Ti ll, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Smit h, James

<James.Sm ith@nrc.gov>

Cc: Spencer, Mary <Mary.Spencer@nrc.gov>; Harris, Brian <Bria n.Harris@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: ACTION: rb)(5) I (b)(5)

From: Orlando, Dominick <Dom inick.Orlando@ nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 11:43 AM To: Mandevi lle, Douglas <Douglas Mandeville@nrc gov>; Von Till, Bill <Bill VonTi ll@orc gov>; Smith, Ja mes <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Cc: Gendel man, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: ACTION: ._l

<b_)(_5)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __,

b)(5)

From: Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 11:26 AM To: Von Till, Bi ll <Bi ll.VonTil l@orc.gov>; Sm it h, James <James.Smith@n rc.gov>

Cc: Gendel man, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<Dom inick.Orlando@nre.gov>

f

Subject:

RE: ACTION :.....b_H_S_

) ------------~

(b)(S)

Doug From: Von Till, Bill <Bill VonTill@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:09 AM To: Smith, James <James.Smith@ orc.gov>; Ma ndevil le, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>

Cc: Gendelman, Adam <Adam .Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Subject:

ACTION:r.....b_)(_S_

) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __.

b)(S)

(b)(5)

(b)(5) I l-~- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~Thanks Bill von Till Chief, Uranium Recovery and Materials Decommissioning Branch Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-415-0598 "Protecting today, tomorrow, and cleaning up the past"

From: Spencer. Mary To: Gendelman Adam: Harris, Brian

Subject:

RE: DOE Response re: Church Rocki1{b)(5 )

Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 1:43:00-- P---M~ - - - - ~

Attachme nts: f )<5) I Adam, Thanks Mary From: Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2020 10:09 AM To: Spencer, Mary <Mary.Spencer@nrc.gov>; Harris, Brian <Brian.Harris@nrc.gov>

Subject : DOE Response re: Church Rock/GAO Recommendations Greetings, (b)(5)

Thanks, and be safe.

Adam Gendelman Sen ior Attorney Reactor and Materia ls Rulemaking Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm ission NOTE: THIS E-MAIL CO IONAL IN FORMATI URE UNTIL DETERMINED 0

From: Gendelman. Adam To: Von THI Bill; Smith James; Mandeville Douglas Cc: Orlando. Dominick; lrLiD.....Ifill; Spencer. Mary: Harris. Brian

Subject:

RE: FYI/Action: Church Rock r Date:

)(5); (b)(6)

Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:44:57 PM Be safe.

Adam From: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@ nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:45 PM To: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; M andeville, Douglas <Douglas. Mandevi lle@nrc.gov>

Cc: Gendel man, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<Dom inick.Orla ndo@ nre.gov>

Subject:

RE: FYI/Action: Church Rock From: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:08 PM To: Von Til l, Bi ll <Bill.VonJj ll@nrc.gov>; M andeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandevj lle@nrc.gov>

Cc: Gendel man, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: FYI/Action: Church Rock b)(S)

From: Von Ti ll, Bill <Bill VonJill@nrc gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:14 AM To: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Mandevil le, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>

Cc: Gendel man, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<Dom ioick.Orlando@nre.gov>

Subject:

FW: FYI/Action: Church Rock Importance: High l '- -_ _______________.

See the action below,r b)(S) l(b)(S)

Thanks From: Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:12 AM To: Von Till, Bi ll <Bill VonJill@nrc gov>

Subject:

FYI/Action : Church Rock Importance: High b)(5)

Thanks, flak Jacob I. Zimmerman Acting Deputy Director Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B E-mail: Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov I Office: (301) 415-1220 I

From: Gendelman. Adam To: Orlando Dominick; Von Iill Bill; Spencer Mary: Harris, Brian

Subject:

RE: ML20273A247 - Letter to carmelo Melendez transmitting Safety Evaluation Report of UNC Church Rock License amendment Request, Docket number 04008907 Date: Monday, October 19, 2020 6:50:42 AM (b)(5)

From: Richie, Christine <Christine.Richie@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 2:23 PM To: Chapman, Gregory <Gregory.Chapman@ nrc.gov>; Quinlan, Kevin <Kevin.Quinlan@nrc.gov>;

Waldron, Ashley <Ashley.Wa ldron@nrc.gov>; Mandevil le, Douglas <Douglas.Ma ndeville@nrc.gov>;

Guo, Lifeng <Lif eng.Guo@nrc.gov>; Barnhurst, Daniel <Daniel.Barnhurst@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<Christine.Pineda@nrc.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; See, Kenneth

<Ken neth.See@ nrc.gov>; Hayes, Barbara <Barbara.Hayes@nrc.gov>; Quintero, Jessie

<Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Arlt, Ha ns <Hans.Arlt@nrc.gov>; Cheng, Yuan <Yuan.Cheng@nrc.gov>;

Achten, Sarah <Sarah.Achten@nrc.gov>; Sm ith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Cc: Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>;

Von Ti ll, Bi ll <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Subject:

ML20273A247 - Letter to Carmelo Melendez transmitting Safety Evaluation Report of UNC Church Rock License amendment Request, Docket number 04008907 Good afternoon, Please use the ADAMS link below to view the correspondence dated October 14, 2020, signed by Patricia Holahan.

Note: The ADAMS document was sent to ADAMS DPC Immediate release folder for processing and will be dispatched via ListServ once the file is declared.

View ADAMS Properties M L20273A247 Open ADAMS Document (Letter to Carmelo Melendez transmitting Safety Evaluation Report of UNC Church Rock License amendment Request. Docket numbe r 04008907)

Regards, Chrissy ChristLne L. Rich,ie

Admin istrative Assistant (Cont ract or)

U.S. Nuclea r Regulatory Comm ission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Division of Materials Safety, Security, State, and Tribal Programs (MSST) irPh: 30 1-4 15-7289

-'clEmail: Christine.Richie@nrc.gov

From: Gendelman. Adam To: Smith. James Cc: Spencer. Marv: van n11. Bill; lrllir1...l211; Mf cis, Brian

Subject:

RE: NRC 665 Letter to Carmelo regarding (1') (5)

Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 11:36:27 AM ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~

Attachments:

~~f fgfooo I coo

Gendelman, Adam has sha,ed a OneDrive for Business file with you. To view it, click the link below.

~ (b)(5)

b)(5)

From: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Sent: M onday, Octobe r 26, 2020 5:34 PM To: Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Ge ndelman@nrc.gov>; Irvin, Ian <lan. lrvi n@nrc.gov>

Cc: Von Ti ll, Bi ll <Bi ll.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: NRC 665 Letter to Carmelo regardinglCb)(S) f'b)(S) I ~----------~

Adam and Ian-(b)(5)

Thanks Jim

James Smith Senior Project Manag*r Office of Nuclear Material Safety ,md Safeguards Division of Oecomminioning..

Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs Uranium Rttow,y Licons,ng and Mat*nals D*comminion,ng Branch Washington, DC 2055S Work(30 1J 415-6103 E-mailJames.Smith@nrc.gov From: Von Till, Bill <BilLVonTill@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 4:59 PM To: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob Zimmerman@nrc.gov>

Cc: Mandevi lle, Douglas <Douglas Mandevil le@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dom inick

<Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: N RC 665 Letter to Carmelo regarding r )(S) r )(S) I ~--------~

From: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 4:32 PM To: Holahan, Trish <Patricia Holahan@nrc gov>; Von Till, Bil l <Bill VonTill@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>

Cc: Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dom inick

<Dominick Orlando@orc.gov>

Subject:

RE: NRC 665 Letter t o Carmelo rega rding ~~-) (5_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~

[b)(S) I From: Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc gov>

Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 4:28 PM To: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bil l <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob

<Jacob Zimmerman@nrc gov>

Cc: Mandevi lle, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dom inick

<Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE : NRC 665 Letter to Carmelo regarding p ~,_

x )-_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____.

r )(S) I Patricia K. Holahan, Ph.D.

Director, Division of Decommission ing, Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs Office of Nuclear Mat erial Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 Telephone:u Cel l: b)(5 )

Fax: -

uProtecting today., tomorrow., and cleaning up tlte past-

From: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, Octobe r 26, 2020 4:23 PM To: Holaha n, Trish <Pat ricja .Holaha n@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bil l <Bil l Vooiill@ nrc.gov>; Zimmerma n, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>

Cc: Mandevi lle, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: NRC 665 Letter t o Carmelo rega rding ~ r _)<5_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~

P,)(5) I From: Holahan, Trish <Patricia Hoiahan@nrc gov>

Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 4:13 PM To: Von Till, Bi ll <Bill.VonTi ll @nrc.gov>; Sm it h, James <James.Smith@ nrc.gov>; Zimmerma n, Jacob

<Jacob.Zi mmerma o@ore.gov>

Cc: Mandevi lle, Douglas <Douglas.M andeville@nrc.gov>

5

Subject:

RE: NRC 665 Letter to Carmelo regarding l(b_ .... ><_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____.

r )(S) I Patricia K. Holahan, Ph.D.

Director, Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs Office of Nuclear M at erial Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 415-7319

~b)(6)

Cel l: [

Fax: (301) 415-5369 "Protecting today, tomorrow., and cleaning up the past

From: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc gov>

Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 4:05 PM To: Holaha n, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>

Cc: Mandevi lle, Douglas <Douglas Mandeville@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: NRC 665 Letter to Carmelo rega rding r- ....)(5) r)(S) I Jim,l(b)(5)

From: Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 3:58 PM To: Von Till, Bi ll <Bill.VonTi ll@nrc.gov>; Sm it h, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob

<Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>

Cc: Mandevi lle, Douglas <Douglas Mandevjlle@nrc gov>

Subject:

RE: NRC 665 Letter to Carmelo rega rding r )(S)

~ ~-------------~

b)(5)

Pat ricia K. Holahan, Ph.D.

Direct or, Division of Decommission ing, Urani um Recovery, and Waste Programs Office of Nuclear M at erial Saf ety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: -7 19 Cell : (b)( 6)

~------'

Fax: (301) 415-5369 "Protecting today., tomorrow., and cleaning up the past

From: Von Ti ll, Bill <Bill VooJill@orc gov>

Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 3:52 PM To: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>

Cc: Mandevi lle, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc gov>

Subject:

RE: NRC 665 Letter to Carmelo regarding r )(5) r )(S) I ..________________,

From: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, Octobe r 26, 2020 3:39 PM To: NMSS_DUWP_Ad min Resource <NMSS DUWP Admin.Resource@n rc.gov>

Cc: Mandevi lle, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Von Til l, Bill <Bill VonTill@nrc INY>

Subject:

NRC 665 Letter to Carmelo rega rding r.:b)

__cs_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___.

Please place the attached draft letter into ADAMS and format check for concurrence.

Thanks Jim Smith James Smith w-otPt<,cCI~

Otfot~oltM-..,"'-'tr-"'Uctt-""WC?-...,ds 0..-d O << - ~

u--114<o-.~.-iw~~-

u,.,_R<<o.'f<YlKcm-"9and1/4ttNIIO<<-~lrfftdo v,,~. oc .!OS>>

\',~ (301t .CIS*6103 E* rN '-SrnitltOlvC'-90"

From: Spencer. Mary To: Gendelman Adam: Harris, Brian: lndn.....Ia.n

Subject:

RE: RE: SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIUM MILL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE MINE WASTE Date: Monday, October 19, 2020 4:20:00 PM Attachments: imaqe004.png 6

I can but I'll have to drop off at 4:50 ~ r )_c_) - - - - ~

From: Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 4:17 PM To: Harris, Brian <Brian.Harris@nrc.gov>; Spencer, Mary <Mary.Spencer@nrc.gov>; Irvin, Ian

<lan.lrvin@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: RE: SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIUM MILL AND TAILI NGS SITE TO RELOCATE MINE WASTE b)(S)

From: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 4:14 PM To: Gendel man, Adam <Adam .Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Spencer, Ma ry <Mary.Spencer@nrc.gov>

Cc: Smith, James <James.Sm ith@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: RE: SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIUM MILL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE MINE WASTE From: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 4:10 PM To: Von Til l, Bi ll <Bil l.VonTil l@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: RE: SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIUM MI LL AND TAILI NGS SITE TO RELOCATE MINE WASTE You might want to read this.

From: Melendez, Carmelo <carmelo.melendez@ha.doe.gov> Refer to DOE Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 3:52 PM To: Holahan, Trish <Pat ricia .Holahan @nrc.gov>

Cc: Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Mandevil le, Douglas

<Douglas Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Sm ith, James <James.Smith@nrc gov>; M iller, Steven (GC)

<steven .miller@ha.doe gov>; Shafer, David (LM) <david shafer@im.doe gov>; Smith Taylor, Tania

<tania.sm it h@ha.doe.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@ha.doe.gov>; Robinson, Donovan 0.

EOP/OMB <Donovan o. Robinson@omb.eop.gov>

Subject:

[Extern al_Sender] RE: SAFETY EVALUATION RE PORT FOR LICENSE AMENDME NT REQUEST, FOR T HE FORM ER UNC CHURCH ROCK URANIU M MI LL AND TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE MINE WASTE M s. Trish - Hope all is well.

Please see attached our response to your October 14 letter concerning t he Ch urch Rock Sit e . Look forward to seeing you soon. Thank you for staff's effort s.

Dav id - FYI/ FYA as discussed.

Donovan - FYI/FYSA. W ill follow up lat e r this week.

V/R Carmelo Carmelo Melendez EngD, PE, PMP - Director Office of Legacy Management (L M -1)

U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., SW (FORS 66-030}

Washington, DC 20585-1615 Ph: 202-586-7550/Fax: 202-586-8403 E-Mail: carmelo.melendez@hq.doe.<;;ov

• ifN~ifRGY 8

~einacJement ssage is intended only for t he use of the named recipient(s). Information contained in this email message an I may be privileged, confidential a rom disclosure. if you are not the intended recipient copy, use or disclose this communication to others notify the sender by replying to this mes delete it em.

From: Richie, Christ ine [ma ilto:Christine.Rich ie@nrc.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 2:03 PM To: M elendez, Carmelo <ca rmelo melendez@hq.doe.gov>

Cc: Holaha n, Trish <Pat ricia .Holaha n@nrc.gov>; Zimmerma n, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>;

M andevil le, Douglas <Douglas.Ma ndeville@nrc.gov>; Smit h, James <James.Sm it h@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[EXTERNA L] SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR LICENSE AMENDME NT REQUEST, FOR THE FORMER UNC CHU RCH ROCK URA NI UM MI LL AN D TAILINGS SITE TO RELOCATE M INE WASTE Good afternoon Mr. Melendez, Please find attached the letter and enclosure addressed to you dated October 14, 2020, signed by Patricia Holahan, RE:

Safety Evaluation Report For License Amendment Request, for the Former UNC

Church Rock Uranium Mill and Tailings Site to Relocate Mine Waste.

Regards, Chrissy Christine L. Richie Admin istrative Assistant (Contractor)

U.S. Nuclea r Regulatory Comm ission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Division of Materials Safety, Security, State, and Tribal Programs (MSST) irPh: 301-415-7289

--'e!Email: Christine Bicbie@nrc gov This message does not originate from a known Department of Energy email system.

Use caution if this message contains attachments, links or requests for information.

From: ~

To: Spencer Mary: Gende!man. Adam; Harris Brian

Subject:

RE: Status of UNC Churchrock issue Date: Friday, October 23, 2020 6 :14:27 AM Thank you , Mary.

(b)(5)

Regards, Ian Irvin Attorney Reactors & Materials Rulemaking Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Email: ian.irvin@nrc.gov Phone: (301 )287-9193 nv1eged From: Spencer, M ary <Mary.Spencer@nrc.gov>

Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 5:47 PM To: Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Irvin, Ian <lan. lrvi n@nrc.gov>; Ha rris, Brian

<Brian.Harris@ nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Status of UNC Ch urchrock issue From: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 4 :16 PM To: Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>

Cc: Lewis, Robert <Robert.Lewis@nrc.gov>; Holahan, Trish <Patricia Holahan@nrc.gov>; Tappert, John <John.Tappert@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob Zimmerman@nrc gov>; Pham, Bo

<Bo.Pham@nrc.gov>; Qu intero, Jessie <Jessie.Ouintero@nrc.gov>; Spencer, M ary

<Mary.Spencer@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Status of UNC Ch urchrock issue John, b)(5)

'.b)(5)

Bill von Till Chief, Ura nium Recovery and Materials Decommissioning Branch Division of Decommissioning, Urani um Recovery, and Waste Programs Office of Nuclear Mat erial Saf ety and Safeguards 301-4 15-0598 "Protecting today, tomorrow, and cleaning up the past"

From: Von THL Bill To: Lubinski John Cc: Lewis. Robert: Holahan. Trish; Taooert. John: Zimmerman. Jacob: Pham. Bo; Ouintero. Jessje: Spencer. Mary

Subject:

RE: Status of UNC Churchrock issue Date: Friday, October 23, 2020 3:44:48 PM Attachments: image00l.ong (b)(5)

Thanks From: Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>

Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 5:20 To: Von Till, Bi ll <Bill.VonTi ll @nrc.gov>

Cc: Lewis, Robert <Robert.Lewis@nrc.gov>; Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Tappert, John <John.Tappert@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Pham, Bo

<Bo. Pham@nrc.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Spencer, Mary

<Mary.Spencer@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Status of UNC Church rock issue Bill, (b)(5) subject.

Thanks John W. Lubinski, Director, NMSS

Be riskSMART

'--.__/'

From: Von Ti ll, Bill <Bill.VonTill@orc gov>

Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 4 :16 PM To: Lubinski, John <lohn.Lubinski@nrc.gov>

Cc: Lewis, Robert <Robert.Lewis@nrc.gov>; Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Tappert, John <John Tappert@nrc gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob Zimmerman@nrc gov>; Pham, Bo

<Bo.Pham@nrc.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Ouintero@nrc.gov>; Spencer, Mary

<Ma ry.Spencer@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Status of UNC Ch urchrock issue John, Kb)cs)

(b)(5)

Bill von Till Chief, Uranium Recovery and Materials Decommissioning Branch Division of Decommissioning, Urani um Recovery, and Waste Programs Office of Nuclear M aterial Safety and Safeguards 301-4 15-0598 "Protecting today, tomorrow, and cleaning up the past"

From: LubinskL Joho To: Von m. Bill; Lewis Robert Cc: Holahan. Irish; Zimmerman. Jacob: Smith. James: Jappert. John: Oujntero. Jessie; Waldron. Ashley:

Gendelman. Adam; Spencer. Mary: Mandevilie. Douglas: Orlando. Dominick

Subject:

RE: Summary of UNC Churchrock three Agency call today and talking points form each Agency on post closure roles Date: Thursday, November 19, 2020 10:22:41 AM Attachments: imaaeoo1 png

Bill, Thanks r b)(S)

Thanks John W. Lubinski, Director, NMSS Be riskSMART

'-....___...,/

From: Von Ti ll, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 4:50 PM To: Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>; Lewis, Robert <Robert. Lewis@nrc.gov>

Cc: Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>;

Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Tappert, John <John.Tappert@nrc.gov>; Qu intero, Jessie

<Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Wa ldron, Ashley <Ash ley.Waldron@nrc.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Spencer, Mary <Mary.Spencer@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@ nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick <Dom inick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Summary of UNC Church rock three Agency call today and talking points form each Agency on post closure roles Summary of EPA, NRC, DOE call of November 18, 2020 1 pm EST

• (b)(5)

Action Items:

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

Next Meeting for part of the group working is November 25 then December 2.

High level meeting scheduled for December 16 at 12:00 noon.

From: Shafer David To: Yoo m. Bill; Pham. Bo

Subject:

[External_Sender] FW: Niil Flj vr1 \ VIA ,. .... !( Serbs at" 2 P e@@!S pi,LI; i!it@ pt NECR Mine Site/UNC Mill Site - Discussion of Recent Correspondence and Next Steps Date: Thursday, October 22, 2020 3:00:23 PM Attachments: imaqeOOl.ioq Bill-As we d iscussed. Please distribute to others in NRC as needed. Thanks, David From: W illiams, Laurie <Williams.Lau rie@epa.gov>

Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 12:32 PM To: Miller, Steven R <steven.m iller@hq.doe.gov>

Cc: Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Costello, James

<cost ello.james@epa.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hoga n.Sean@epa.gov>; Chil inga ryan, Sona

<Chilinga ryan.Sona@epa.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia

<Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>; Rongone, Marie

<Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Shafer, David

<David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>

Subject:

[EXTERNAL] ouo~RO'f 'elieRt 'eoR1R1URi0i;itioR li!lelieen1ti:*e P~oee66 F9 11 I.HORlf)t NECR Mine Site/UNC M ill Site - Discussion of Recent Correspondence and Next Steps l(b)(5)

Steve, I I

(b)(5)

Please feel free t o contact me with any questions o r concerns.

Thank you! La urie f )(6) I Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: 415 947-3570 Cell: X6)

This message does not originate from a known Department of Energy email system.

Use caution if this message contains attachments, links or requests for information.

From: Tappert, John Sent: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 21:23:24 +0000 To: Lubinski, John;Lewis, Robert Cc: Coyne, Kevin;Quintero, Jessie

Subject:

Church Rock EIS Comm Plan Attachments: Communication plan CR (1).docx John/Rob Attached is the Church Rock DEIS Comm Plan. We had briefed out plans on the CISFs up to the DEDO and informed the Commission staff but because this approach is largely consistent with those previous plans and has much less public interest, we were not planning senior management briefings unless you think that is necessary. Similar to the CISFS, due to the COVID PHE, we are not planning in-person meetings in New Mexico and would hold two webinars to receive public comments (the same number of meetings we held for scoping). The Navajo Nation is probably the most important stakeholder in this project and they have expressed an interest in expediting this review. With that feedback in mind, we are planning to publish the DEIS with the minimum 45 day comment period. We would plan to grant an extension if asked but did not want to delay the project if all stakeholders could provide comments in that timeframe. We are also conducting additional targeted outreach to the Navajo. Final thing to note, we are trying something new and are offering an additional option to provide comments - we will have a toll free number set up with a voicemail box to receive comments - in additional to all of the standard means. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns or would like a briefing. Thanks John R. Tappert, P.E.

Chief Environmental Review and Permitting Officer Director, Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-2486

• llffS:

Prov1dmg the expertise yuu need/

D1~111on of R11l~111,1kJ11g. Lttv1u1n111r11t.1I . .and Un,1nt1.1I ~uppcu I US. :iur- lt,tulalot)' C-lnlH-fOfllc,ofN:tlu1 ~1-n* SJ,cy utd s,,......,ds

E9FFIOl"'L USE E9NLY 9Ef4Sl'Tl'e1E lf4TEFU4"'t 114FE9Rfo1"'Tl6N COMMUNICATION PLAN REGARDING THE CHURCH ROCK DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PURPOSE: The objective of this Communication Plan is to deliver clear and concise messages regarding the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) position on the NRC's approach for conducting public meetings and the period in which comments will be accepted on the Church Rock draft environmental impact statement (DEIS).

KEY MESSAGES

• The Church Rock Draft EIS will be made available for public comment by October 23, 2020. The NRC and EPA's Federal Register Notices (FRNs) are expected to be published by October 30, 2020.

• The comment period will be 45 days. Despite the ongoing COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE), the NRC is using the minimum comment period timeframe due to the Navajo Nation's request for the NRC to expedite its review.

• The staff plans to conduct two public meetings via webinar on November 10@ 4:00 PM EST/2:00 PM MST and on December 2 @4:00 PM EST/2:00 PM MST. Meeting dates and times will be announced in the FRN for draft EIS availability.

• The staff plans to have a separate meeting with the Navajo Nation via webinar and phone (date: TBD).

• Due to the PHE the staff has determined that in-person meetings during the current comment period cannot occur safely. In-person meetings would contradict the Governor of New Mexico's executive order prohibiting gatherings of more than 10 people (effective through October 16, 2020) and the Navajo Nation's similar (but more stringent) order that is effective until modified by a subsequent order. In addition, it is unlikely the situation will change regarding large gatherings prior to the end of the comment period , when we hoped to hold the public meetings. NRC will continue to monitor the PHE and reassess these plans based on local circumstances.

• The meetings will be noticed in the FRN , newspaper and radio ads, NRC public meeting notices, e-mails to the project distribution list, and in NRC social media platforms .

• In addition to the public meetings, the public can provide comments on the draft EIS via:

• e-mail: UNC-ChurchRockEIS.Resource@nrc.gov

• online at: https://www.regulations.gov/ (search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0026)

• leaving a voicemail at this toll-free number: 888-672-3425

• by mail to: Office of Administration, Mall Stop: TWFN-7-A60M, ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

• Holding webinars aligns with NRC's commitment to openness and public participation. It results in the same number of public meetings held for scoping (in March 2019). Use of virtual meetings is consistent with current practice of other NRC offices and federal agencies during the COVID-19 PHE.

1

0 FFIOl"'L UOE E9NLY 9Ef491Tl1e:1[ lr4TEF04"'L ll4FE9FUv1MIE9r4

• The staff plans several additional communications to mitigate not having in-person meetings. As mentioned elsewhere in this plan, this includes additional government-to-government meetings with local and tribal governments and enhancing communications on the different ways that members of the public can provide comments.

• One of the primary concerns raised by the public has been that they want this site to be remediated/cleaned up as soon as possible.

BACKGROUND Scoping

• The NRC provided a 70-day public scoping period and held two public meetings in Gallup, New Mexico, on March 19 (58 attendees) and March 21 (45 attendees), 2019. In total, the NRC received approximately 432 unique comments contained in 11 pieces of comment correspondence and two meeting transcripts. Scoping meeting information is at https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/uranium/united-nuclear-corporation-unc-public-mtqs.html.

NRC Commitments to Navajo Nation

• Based on the Navajo Nation's interest in cleaning up the site as soon as possible, the NRC is evaluating areas where it could expedite its review; for example, if fewer public comments are received than expected, NRC may issue its Final EIS ahead of schedule.

• The staff has committed to communicating with the local community of the Navajo Nation (Red Water Pond Road community) throughout the NRC's review process and has outlined these commitments in a communication plan specifically for the community. Some of these commitments are: We send the community regular email updates and participate in monthly status calls. When the draft EIS is published we will communicate with Navajo by phone, email, and by sending hard copies of the EIS and reader's guide to ensure they know the EIS is available and understand how to provide comments. During the public comment period, we will hold a separate meeting or meetings to discuss the EIS and answer questions. A meeting is tentatively scheduled for December 16, 2020. We will ensure members of the local community have received hard copies of meeting materials before the public meetings and as needed before any additional Navajo-specific meetings. In addition, we will set up a toll-free phone number as another option for leaving comments on the draft EIS. We have asked and will continue to seek their input and suggestions about how they can participate .

2

e rr1e1"'t U9E 8NLY SEf4E:WFllo1[ IPfFEFm,s,t IPffORM,A."FION AUDIENCE External Stakeholders Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)- Regions 6 and 9 Department of Energy (DOE)

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA}

New Mexico Environment Department Navajo Nation United Nuclear Corporation (UNC)

Members of the public Media representatives Internal Stakeholders Office of the Secretary of the Commission (SECY)

Office of the Executive Director for Operations (OEDO)

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS)

Office of the General Counsel (OGC)

Office of Public Affairs (OPA)

Office of Congressional Affairs (OCA)

Communications Team Name Organization Responsibility/Role John Lubinski NMSS Front Office NMSS Management Rob Lewis John Tappert NMSS/REFS Environmental COE managers Kevin Coyne Trish Holahan NMSS/DUWP Decommissioning and Low-Level Jake Zimmerman Waste Business Line Owner -

managers Jessie Quintero NMSS/REFS/ERMB BC environmental review (acting from July to October 23)

Bill Von Till NMSS/URMDB BC Licensing review James Smith NMSS/URMDB Licensing project manager Ashley Waldron NMSS/REFS/ERMB Environmental project managers Christine Pineda Adam Gendelman OGC Lead attorney Dave McIntyre OPA/HQ Respond to media inquiries Angel Moreno OCA Respond to congressional inquiries Contractor CNWRA Technical team 3

COMMUNICATION TOOLS This communication plan and associated information will be provided to NRC staff for use, as needed. Information that will be prepared and maintained by the communication team includes a list of questions and answers (below) for use in communicating with both internal and external stakeholders.

Internal Stakeholders Briefings to NRC management as needed. Distribution of this communication plan for consistent messaging with external stakeholders.

External Stakeholders The communication team will provide information to OPA, OCA, and other staff, as appropriate.

Information includes the attached questions and answers that can be used in responding to calls from the general public, members of the press, members of Congress, governmental agencies, or international stakeholders.

As described above, the NRC staff is committed to communicating with the Navajo Nation agencies and local community to ensure people with no or limited internet access receive the information they need to participate in the NRC's review process. The staff developed a plan for communicating directly with the Red Water Pond Road community and requested feedback from the community on the plan. The staff will follow the commitments outlined in the plan through completion of the licensing action .

4

OFFIQhA1L UOE ONLY 6Et'81;i:11e'E IPJo/EFHJ,a,L IPWOFUe1NFIOPJ Frequently Asked Questions

1. When will the NRC hold public meetings on the draft EIS and what are the details?

The NRC will host two webinar meetings. The time/date and information for those meetings are:

Wednesday. November 101 2020 - 2:00 pm MT Webinar Event address: https://usnrc.webex.com/

Event number:

Event password:

Telephone access Phone number:

Passcode:

Wednesday. December 2 1 2020 - 2:00 pm MT Webinar Event address: https://usnrc.webex.com/

Event number:

Event password:

Telephone access Phone number:

Passcode:

2. Where can I find information about this project?

You may obtain information related to this action by the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Web site :

Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0026.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS):

You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select "Begin Web-based A DAMS Search." The draft EIS can be found by searching for ADAMS Accession No. MLXXXXXXXXXX. For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 30 1-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

• Project Webpage: Information related to the Church Rock project can be accessed on the NRC's Church Rock Web page at https://www.nrc.gov/info-flnder/decommissioning/uranium/united-nuclear-corporation-unc-.html. Scroll down to Environmental Impact Statement, Draft Report for Comment.

• Public Libraries: A copy of the staffs draft EIS can be accessed at the following public libraries (library access and hours are determined by local policy):

o Octavia Fellin Public Library, Gallup, NM 5

3. Why is the NRC changing in-person meetings to webinars?

The NRC believes that the webinars align with its commitment to openness and offer the pubic a safe way to provide oral comments on the draft document. The webinars are expected to provide the NRC with sufficient information to make a decision in a timely manner. Prior to the public health emergency (PHE), staff had planned to hold two in-person meetings located near the proposed project. Since the PHE, the Governor of New Mexico and Navajo Nation have issued orders to limit the number of persons that can congregate. Under these orders , the planned in-person meetings cannot be held. Webinars, however, are a method of public outreach that align with the current orders.

4. Why does NRC offer public meetings for the draft EIS?

Although meetings on the draft EIS in person or virtually are not required by NRC regulations, the NRC believes they are a good practice that supports gathering of comments on its draft report

5. Will the comment period be extended beyond 45 days?

The NRC believes a 45-day comment period is a reasonable timeframe in light of the Navajo Nation's desire to expedite the cleanup of the site. The NRC at a minimum, per 10 CFR 51.73, must provide 45 days for collecting public comments on its draft EISs. If requested, the NRC will consider an extension of the public comment period.

6. How can I make comments if there are no in-person meetings?

There are five ways to comment on the draft EIS:

1. Orally at public webinars - A court reporter will be recording all comments for the record and a transcript of the meeting w ill be made available.

2. Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov/ and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0026.

3. Mail comments to: Office of Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN-7-A60M, ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4. E-mail comments to: UNC-ChurchRockEIS.Resource@nrc.gov

5. Leave comments by voicemail at: 888-672-3425

7. How can I speak with the NRC if there are no open houses? Before each of the scoping meetings, NRC employees were available for questions. Why are you denying the opportunity to interact in person with you and present their comments?

Although there won't be open houses prior to the webinars, the public can reach out to the NRC environmental project manager with questions or a request for a call. Ashley Waldron is the Environmental PM and can be reached at Ashley.Waldron@nrc.gov. In addition, the NRC will hold a separate call or calls specifically for the Navajo Nation to answer questions or provide additional information about the NRC's process and role in the cleanup.

6

OP/ ICl>2<L USE Ol~LY 9Ef4E:WfPe'E IPJo/E~Pli9,L l~ffQ!ilP,4,A.+l~m

8. How can I be sure that I will be able to make a comment during the webinar?

It is important to follow the operator's directions to notify them of your intent to make a comment. Once you have identified yourself, you w ill be placed in the queue for commenting and will be taken in turn.

9. How will I know that the NRC has received my comment?

All comments the NRG receives, regardless of the method of submittal, will be placed in the Church Rock review docket for the NRG Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under docket 40-8907. Comments made during each webinar are captured in the publicly available transcript for the webinar, which is posted to the NRC's Church Rock website (https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/uranium/united-nuclear-corporation-unc-.html) All comments will be reviewed by NRC staff and responded to in an Appendix to the Final EIS.

10. Many of the people in southeastern New Mexico do not have reliable Internet coverage to allow them to participate in webinars. How can they participate?

Members of the public can still participate in the meetings with telephone only. The NRC will provide its presentation to local community members in hard copy by U.S. mail before the meetings are held. Comments can be submitted by U.S. Mail as explained above. Copies of the Draft EIS were made available at local libraries and to those requesting a printed copy.

11 . The people of New Mexico are dealing with a public health and economic crisis; they do not have time to comment on a document of this size. If public outreach is so important to the NRC and its process, why not wait until the PHE is over?

The NRC is committed to making licensing decisions in a timely manner. The staff has determined that the comment period provides a meaningful opportunity for public review and comment on the Draft EIS , and the webinars will provide the NRC with the information necessary to make its conclusions regarding the licensing action.

12. How can the people of New Mexico have confidence that the NRC has their best interests at heart if your experts won't even come here and meet face-to-face?

The NRC staff, in its commitment to openness in this licensing review, had planned for two in-person public meetings. Unfortunately, under the current PHE, these meetings cannot be held in person as planned. The NRC staff is adhering to the New Mexico Governor's order for public gatherings and is following similar guidance from the State to its own agencies for converting in-person meetings to a virtual format. The NRC staff plans several additional forms of o utreach to ensure person-to-person outreach given this situation, including additional government-to-government meetings and providing a specific NRC staff ipoint of contact for individuals to contact with comments. They may contact the NRC staff directly by email:

Ashley.Waldron@nrc.gov and Christine.pineda@nrc.gov.

13. How can the NRC make a decision regarding licensing of this site without observing the local site conditions?

The staff has traveled to the proposed project location several times during the review of the Church Rock application. The staff observed the proposed site's physical conditions on several 7

occasions and met with local community groups and leaders during the scoping process. The staff again traveled to the site for review of and consultation on cultural resources.

8

From: Tappert, John Sent: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 13:35:32 +0000 To: Quintero, Jessie Cc: Coyne, Kevin

Subject:

Churchrock John L had a good conversation with LM. rxs) I*

Thanks ~------------------~*

John R. Tappert, P.E.

Chief Environmental Review and Permitting Officer Director, Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-2486 expertise you needt D,vluon o f Rul*maldng. En,iro.nm~nt:\I, ,and .-in:111d.al Support US Sucl,u R-Jul>tory Commiu,cnl Of!k,ofS0<:.., M,,.,w Smty anrl SI!.,.,,~.

From: Lubinski, John Sent: Mon, 7 Jun 202115:07:40 +0000 To: Roberts, Darrell Cc: Lewis, Robert;Dennis, Suzanne;Shane, Raeann;Lubinski, John

Subject:

DEDM/NMSS weekly 6/7 /21

• Medical Event (FL) - potential AO

• COVID lessons learned on remote inspections - NRR/RA meeting

• Holtec - new schedule by Friday

• UNC Churchrock - information Navajo Nation Wednesday

• GE Val CA briefing

• IMPEP of NRC programs this week

• NEI drop-in - any follow up? Preparation for next meeting?

• Any support from NMSS this week or next for acting DEDM?

• Post meeting item

From: O'Konski, Peter Sent: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 12:08:36 +0000 To: Lubinski, John

Subject:

[External_Sender) Draft Letter Attachments: Draft Letter to JL RE CHURCH ROCK.doc Hi John, Hope all is well. Let me know your thoughts on the draft letter.

Looking forward to the December meeting. I would like to c hat with you before hand.

Have a good Tha nksgiving.

Peter

I I

I I

l I

I I

I I

Page 363 or 863 I

Withheld ptnUant to exemptton (b)(5)

I Of the Freedom Of lnformatlOll and Pnvacy Ad I I

I I

I I

I I

I l

l I

___________________ I

Page 364 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 365 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

From: Edie M ae Sent: Wed, 26 May 2021 20:03:22 +0000 (UTC)

To: Doane, M argaret;Lubinski, John;Quint ero, Jessie

Subject:

[External_Sender) Fw: RWPRCA Response Attachments: DOC659.PDF

--- - Forwarded Message ----

From: Edie Mae <ediehood@yahoo.com>

To: UNC-ChurchRockEIS Resource <unc-churchrockeis.resource@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 , 10:11 :45 AM PDT

Subject:

RWPRCA Response

doodo Red Water Pond Road Comi11unity Association P.OBox 182 Churchrock, New Mexico 87311 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Administration Mail Stop: TWFN-7-A60M Washington, DC 20555-0001 ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Ediling Staff.

Re: Docket ID NRC-2019-0026, Red Water Pond Road Community Association Preliminary Comments on Waste Consolidation Draft Environmental lmpact Statement

[License No. NUREG-2243]

May 10, 2021

Dear Mr. Tappert:

Please accept U1e following preliminary comments from we, the members of the Red Water Pond Road Community Association ("Community"), regarding the above matter.

As noted, these are our preliminary comments. We 1/2rill be submitting additional, more detailed, comments by the May 27, 2021 comment deadline.

The weight of the United States' atomic history lies most heavily on Indigenous communities like ours. Since the dawn of the atomic age, our communities on the Navajo Nation have suffered from the natural resource destruction and public health catastrophe caused by uranium development. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ("NRC's") and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA's")

treatment of our community in this context of consolidating 11ranium mine 1,vaste from the Northeast Churchrock Mine ("NECRM") with mill tailings at the United Nuclear Corporation ("UNC") Mill is emblematic of the Federal Government's continued

mistreatm.ent of Native communities and the utter disrespect for our communities',

culh1re and sovereign government. Although saddened by Federal agencies' fundamental unwillingness to change the way the U.S. Government has treated Native communities since Europeans first set foot on this land, we are not surprised. We are under no illusion that expressing our concerns will unlikely result in any substantive changes to the U.S. EPA's and NRC's waste consolidation plans, but we insist that ou1' voices be heard. As such, we again submit our opposition to General Electric's proposed license amendment that would allow NECRM waste to be dumped on top of the mill tailings pile at the UNC mill and ask that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") supporting this waste consolidation be withdl'awn.

The Northeast Churchrock Mine is the largest abandoned uranium mine(" AUM") on the Navajo Nation. Our community, the Red Water Pond Road Community, is located between the NECRM and the Kerr-McGee-Quivira Churchrock r Mine ("Quivira Mine), and within one mile of the UNC uranium mill and mill tailings disposal facility.

The NECRM and Quivira Mine are located principally on Navajo Tribal Trust Land, while the UNC mill and tailings impoundment is located on private land immediately adjacent to the Navajo Nation.

The UNC mill tailings impoundment was the site of the July ]6, 1979 Churchrock Dam Break which released 94 million gallons of acidic and radioactive wastewater and 1,100 tons of radioactive mill tailings h1to the North Fork of the Puerco River in what remains the largest release of radioactive waste, by volume, in U.S. history. Published reports indicate that contaminalion from the taiJings spill, combined with more than twenty years of discharge of contaminated mine water from mines in the Churchrock aren during the 1960s through 1980s, still remains in downstream communities, including in the area of Sanders, Arizona and the Navajo community of Nahata' Dziil.

Over the past twelve years, we, along wilh residenls of the surrounding areas, have testified on several occasions before the U.S. EPA that consolidating NECR\.1 waste at the UNC Mill is unacceptable. We have reiterated our opposition to the waste consolidation in countless private meetings and correspondence with the U.S. EPA. We now - again - voice our opposition to this waste consolidation. Our community should no longer be forced to bear the overwhelming and disproportionate burden of 11ranium contamination.

As we have repeatedly expressed to both U.S. EPA and NRC, we insist that the NECRM waste be removed to an appropriate site outside the boundaries of Navajo lndian 2

Country. We are tired of living with the consequences of the federal Government's umvillingness to form a coherent policy for uranium mine and mill waste disposal.

Rather than continue to dispose of mine waste on an ad lzoc basis, we demand that the Federal Government devise a holistic policy of uranium mine and mm remediation that includes one or more repositories for uranium mine and mill waste. The NRC and U.S.

EPA should work with tribal, state and especially community stakeholders to develop criteria for siting a repository that would serve as a safe and secure location to emplace uranium waste in perpeltu ty and designate a site for that purpose. Sites could include geotechnically appropriate Department of Energy legacy sites, public lands, off-reservation Superfund LU'aniLtm s ites or New Mexico state lands. Continuing to cover uranium waste piles in place or near uranium-impacted communities is unacceptable as a matter of pol icy and of environmental and racial eqt.1ity.

Alternatively, we ask that the U.S. EPA, NRC and General Electric, the current party responsible for the NECRM waste, collectively relocate our community to a culturally appropriate location identified by our Community. If the Federal Government refuses to create a serious and cogenl uranium mine and mill waste policy, it ~hould, as a secondary alternative, move Red Water Pond Road community members to a culturally appropriate location of their choosing.

Despite our insistence on an equitable solution to the mine waste contamination in our community, the DEIS does not include an alternative to remove the NECR Mine waste to an off-Navajo disposal site. ln fact, the only alternative proposed in the DEIS is removal, in one way or another, to the UNC tailings impoundment, ignoring the threats to this location of erosion due to flash floods in the nearby Pipeline arroyo and the continued harm this 'A-aste will have on the Community. Indeed, lhe DEIS fails entirely to consider the impacts of catastrophic flooding in the Pipeline arroyo and its tributaries and the ability of cover materials to withstand such flooding over a 1000-vear period. Further, the U.S. EPA's current 10-Year Plan (2020) for addressing the Navajo Uranium Legacy does not include any plans or initiatives for finding off-Navajo disposal locations for manium mine wastes, as our Community is seemingly expected to continue to bear the burden of uranium development indefinitely. These fai1L1res to consider the most fundamental aspects of precautionary planning are both grossly irresponsible and unjust.

3

We therefore demand that the NRC and U.S. EPA take the following steps with respect to removal of the NECRM and subsequently Quivira Mine waste:

1. The NRC should withdraw the DEIS from further consideration and instead start a process, in cooperation with impacted communities, Navajo Nation agencies, and other Federal and New Mexico regulatory agencies, and, to look for acceptable disposal sites for AUM and miU wastes in the region that are outside the Navajo Nation and not immediately adjacent to the Navajo Nation;

2. The NRC shoLt ld DENY General Electric's application to amend its license to allow for the consolidation o f NECRM waste on UNC milJ tailings;

3. Alternatively, all parties responsible for the NECRM waste should collectively relocate the Red Water Pond Road Community to a culturally appropriate location of the community's choosing.

Regards,

~ ~

............... ~----rA--~

~~~On 1~(/µU CJJzt,J{__ ~l~

Cc: Ms. Ashley Waldron, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. James Smith, U.S. Nuclear Regulator} Commission Ms. Sara Jacobs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 4

From: Lubinski, John Sent: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 10:58:38 +0000 To: Lubinski, John

Subject:

FW: Correction to the Status of Inspections Late but complete - 1, 2 (2 ISFSI) - 3 NMU, 2 ISFSI Late pending - 1, 1, 4 - 6 NMU Fuel Facilities - inspection completed, hour based , some less hours, used new program as guidance.

From: Einberg, Christian <Christian.Elnberg@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 1:53 PM To: Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>; Lewis, Robert <Robert.Lewls@nrc.gov>

Cc: Williams, Kevin <Kevin.Williams@nrc.gov>; Kock, Andrea <Andrea .Kock@nrc.gov>; Regan, Christopher <Christopher.Regan@nrc.gov>; Alley, David <David.Alley@nrc.gov>; Clark, Theresa

<Theresa.Clark@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Correction to the Status of Inspections Hi John and Rob, I wanted to correct the inaccuracies on the summary of inspections that I provided on Friday.

The updated information is highlighted in yellow below and has been verified by DFM. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused.

Chris Region I:

\/on Responsive Record Region II:

Non Responsive Record Region Ill:

Non Responsive Record IN on Responsive Record Region IV:

Non Responsive Record

Non Responsive Record For decommissioning, all inspections were completed on-time. RIV extended the inspection period at one site (UNC Churchrock) within guidance in June, and the inspection was completed in September.

From: Williams, Kevin Se nt: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 16:55:08 +0000 To: Lubinski, John;Lewis, Robert Cc: Clark, Theresa;Alley, David

Subject:

FW: Current Status of Inspections Hi John and Rob, Non Responsive Record Kevin From: Howell, Linda <Linda.Howell@nrc.gov>

Se nt: Friday, October 23, 2020 9:57 AM To: Williams, Kevin <Kevin.Williams@nrc.gov>; Muessle, Mary <Mary.Muessle@nrc.gov>

Cc: Clark, Theresa <Theresa.Clark@nrc.gov>; Welling, Blake <Blake.Welling@nrc.gov>; Nick, Joseph

<Joseph.Nick@nrc.gov>; Pelton, David <David.Pelton@nrc.gov>; Lipa, Christine

<Christine. Lipa@nre.gov>

Subje ct: RE: Current Status of Inspections Non Responsive Record

Non Responsive Record Linda

From: Williams, Kevin <Kevin.Williams@nrc.gov>

Se nt: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 7:10 AM To: Muessle, Mary <Mary.Muessle@ nrc.gov>; Howell, Linda <linda.Howell@nrc.gov>

Cc: Clark, Theresa <Theresa.Clark@nr c.gov>

Subject:

FW: Current Status of Inspections Good morning Mary and Linda,

'Ion Responsive Record Kevin From: Einberg, Christian <Christian.Einberg@nrc.gov>

Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2020 3:54 PM To: Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>

Cc: Lewis, Robert <Robert.Lewis@nrc.gov>; Smith, Shawn <Shawn.Smith@nrc.gov>; Alley, David

<David.Alley@nrc.gov>; Williams, Kevin <Kevin.Williams@nrc.gov>

Subje ct: Current Status of Inspections Hi John, As requested, the following update provides the current status of inspections:

• r Region I:

on Responsive Record

, on Responsive Record

Region II:

Lon Responsive Record Region Ill:

Non Responsive Record Region IV:

"Ion Responsive Record For decommissioning, all inspections were completed on-time. RIV extended the inspection period at one site (UNC Churchrock) within guidance in June, and the inspection was completed in September.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Chris

From: Lubinski, John Sent: Tue, 1 Jun 202114:25:07 +0000 To: Roberts, Darrell;Lewis, Robert;Dennis, Suzanne;Shane, Raeann;Lubinski, John

Subject:

FW: DEDM/NMSS 6/1/21 weekly meeting

• UNC Churchrock - letter reauestina another extension criticism in-oerson meeting(?)

• Non Responsive Record

From: Lubinski, John Se nt: Fri, 16 Apr 202116:53:08 +0000 To: Coyne, Kevin;Williams, Kevin;Tappert, John

Subject:

FW: FW: Draft Position Statement NECR/ RWPR Attachments: Ltr. Statement on DEIS for Disposal of NECR Mine Waste at UNC Mill Site 04.12.21.pdf Have you seen this letter yet?

Thanks John W. Lubinski, Director, NMSS Be riskSMART

'-.___/

From: Manzanilla, Enrique <Manzanilla.Enrique@epa.gov>

Se nt: Friday, April 16, 202112:33 PM To: Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>

Cc: Duncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Ebbert, Laura <Ebbert.Laura@epa.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] FW: Draft Position Statement NECR/ RWPR Hello John :

We just received a copy of this letter. Talk to you in a bit.

Enrique From: Duncan, Will Se nt: Friday, April 16, 20219:28 AM To: Manzanilla, Enrique <Manzanilla.Enrigue@epa.gov>

Subject:

FW: Draft Posit ion Statement NECR/ RWPR Good Morning Enrique, Attached is President Nez Position statement on the NECR DEIS Will C. Duncan Il l Assistant Director Superfund & Emergency Management Division Region 9 USEPA 75 Hawthorne Street (Mailcode SFD-6)

San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 972-3412

From: Dariel Yazzie <darielyazzie@navajo-nsn.gov>

Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 7:24 AM To: Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Lee, Lily <LEE.LILY@EPA.GOV>; Duncan, Will

<Duncan.Will@epa.gov>

Subject:

Draft Position Statement NECR/ RWPR Good morning Sean, As I had shared yesterday I would share as soon as I got, here it is.

Thank you.

-DYazzie

THE NAVAJO NATION JONATHAN NEZ I PRESIDENT MYRON LIZER I VICE PRESIDENT April 12, 202 1 John R. Tappert, Director Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555-0001 RE: Statement on DEIS for Disposal of N.ECR Mine Waste at UNC Mill Site

Dear Mr. Tappert,

We submit our comments regarding the Drafl Environmental f mpact Statement (DEIS) prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposing to amend a source material license held by United Nuclear Corporation (UNC). The proposed license amendment wou ld allow UNC to transfer the uranium mine waste currently at the Nottbeast Church Rock (NECR) abandoned uranium mine on the Navajo Nation and dispose of it on top of the neighboring uranium mill tailings impoundment at the UNC Church Rock Mill Site (UNC Mill Site). My comments are general in nature; the Navajo Nation also will be submitting more detailed comments on the DEIS.

The UNC Mill Site is immediately adjacent to the formal Navajo Reservation and less than one mile from the NECR mine site. It is within the Eastern Navajo Agency and is surrounded by Navajo trust lands and Navajo communities. In particular, the Red Water Pond Road Com1mm:ity is situated between the NECR mine and the Kerr-McGee Quivira mines (additional abandoned uranium mines in the vicinity of the NECR Mine and the UNC Mill Sites) and is within 0.22 km (0. 14 miles) of the UNC Mill Site. DEIS at xviii. It is closer than any other community to the site. DEIS at xxiv.

The Red Water Pond Road Community and many other Navajo commu11ities have been severely impacted by the legacy of uranium mining on the Navajo Nation. The DEIS find s that there were serious impacts to groundwater, public and occupational hea lth, and historic and cultural resources from past uranium activitie at the NECR mine and UNC Mill S.ite. See id. al xx iii. Indeed, the largest hazardous waste spill in U.S. bistory occurred at the UNC mill site, when tbe eartbeo dam to the pond holding UNC Mill uranium tailings was breached.' The spi ll released over 1,000 tons of radioactive mill waste and 93 million gal lons of acidic radioactive tailings solution into the Puerco River and traveled downstream through 1J1e Navajo Nation to the community of Sanders, AZ. 2 The negative consequences of this spill are still being felt today by residents in the immediate vicinity and in surrounding commu11ities.

Clearly the radioactive mine waste left abandoned at the N ECR site must be removed; leaving it in 1

Community Involvement Plan (20 16). https://www.cpa.gov/sitcs*produc1ion!fiks/2017-J I /documcnts/cip northeast churchrocijgr-mcgcc quh 1ra.p<lt: See also DEIS at xvii - xviii.

2 Community Involvement Plan. supra n. I; DEIS at xvii - xviii.

--J .\ V,\JO ~ .\TI O:'\ OFFICE OF TIIE PIU'.Sll)E::--;T ,\:'\D \"I CC PRESIDE'.\" ('

l'OST OFFI CE BO:\ 71 10 * \\' I NDOW HOC K. .\Z, 8HS l.i

• Pl 10, E: (!)28) 871-7000

• F.\X: (!Jjl8) 87 1-102.1

place would have large" health and environmental impacts. see, e.g., DEIS Table ES- I (xx-xxi): DEIS at xxi ii-xx iv. Even removal of the waste will have "disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts on nearby Navajo communities, due to transportation-related effects, impacts to air quality.

increased noise levels, and visual disturbances, id. at xix; Section 4.12, but those impacts will last a few years only, in contrast to the decades of harms from leaving the waste in place. The DEIS also recognizes that these nearby communities are environmental justice communities (minority and low-income populations). Id. at xix, xx (Table ES- I). We owe them the best solution possible, which in their minds and my own is to remove the waste to an appropriate repository away from the Navajo Nation.

The Navajo Nation has asked USEPA in the past to require the radioactive uranium waste currently at NECR to be transported to an offsite waste repository away from the Red Water Pond Road Community and other communities in the area. USEPA requires the removal of Principal Threat Waste (PTW), the most toxic or highly mobile waste, to an off-site facil ity, but the Navajo Nation also asked, and continues to ask, for off-site removal of mine waste exceedi ng USEPA ' s "action level" but not qualifying as PTW. This waste remains a threat to human health and the environment, as noted in the DEIS and as discussed above.

While I appreciate it is very costly to transpo1t such waste off~site, that cost cannot compare to the costs borne by the local communities - and indeed, the Navajo Nation as a whole - over Lhe past 70 some years. As is now recog11ized, the Navajo Nation and its people have suffered disproportionately from the legacy of uranium mining and processing on Navajo lands.3 Many Navajo uranium workers and their fam ilies became ill, and many died, from diseases associated both with the uranium work itself and with living near uranium mines, mills, and waste dumps. The Navajo Birth Cohort Study has revealed that uranium and toxic metals remain in the Navajo environment and continue to be a sign ificant concern.

It is also my obligation to support the local communities under Dine' Fundamental Law. Dine' Fundamental Law requires that we engage respectfolly through our identifiable clans as Navajo people.

We extend that respectful approach to those with whom we share our environment, and especially to the conununities who have been directly impacted by the uranium mining activities and uranium waste that are at issue here.

The Navajo Nation therefore remains steadfast in its position that all NECR radioactive mine waste registering above USE PA 's action level should be removed from the community; simply transporting it to a faci lity less than one mile away from the reservation boundary, while it technically is removing it from the Navajo Nation, in reality is just taking it from one side of the road to the other. Since the United States led the effort to conduct uranium mining on the Navajo Nation, which resulted in approximately 30 million tons of uranium ore being extracted from Navajo lands from 1944 to 1986,4 3

See, e.g.. Henllh and Environme ntal Jmpacts of Uranjum Contamination in lhe Navajo Nation: Hearing Before the House Comm. on Oversight and Legislative Reform, I 10th Cong. (Oct. 23, 2007) (Opening Statements of Rep.

Waxman, Chainnan, and Rep. Davis, Member, H. Comm. on Oversight & Legis. Reform).

4 Navajo Nation: Cleaning Up Abandoned Ura11ium Mines (April 12, 20 19). https://www.epa.gov/oavajo-nation-uranium-cleanup N ,\ \'.\JO N/\TI O'\' OFFIC'F. OF TIIF. PRESIDE:\" r ,\:'\D \"I C' E PHESIDEl\"T

!'OST OFFICE BO~ 7 1W * \\'l l'\DOW ROCK ..\Z 81>5 1.i

• PllO~E: (9'.l8) 87 1-7000

• F.\ X: (!)~Hl 87 I-W2.:i

it would seem appropriate for the United States to support the complete removal of the uranium waste that was improperly left behind from that effort. lf addi.tional funding is needed to achieve that goal, such appropriations should be considered as well.

Sincerely, Jonathan Nez, President THE NAVAJO NATIO Cc: US EPA Region 9 - Pacific Southwest The Honorable Tom O'Halleran N,\ V,\ J O NATI O\' OFFl ('f. OF T II F. P R ES IDE:S-T Ai': D VI CE PR F:S )l) F.l\"T POST OFFI CE BOX 71 IO

• W I NDOW ROCK . *\Z 8<i515

• l'IIO NE: (!)28) 871-7000

• F.\ X: (928) 87 1-W25

From: Doane, Margaret Sent: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 22:52:37 +0000 To: Lubinski, John;Holahan, Trish

Subject:

FW: Q&As for DLLW NMU BL Commission Briefing on November 5, 2020 Attachments: DLLW Qs and As for Nov 5 BL Briefing 4-2020.docx, NMU QAs for Nov 5 BL Briefing 4-2020.docx Importance: High John and Trish, On the question of "what do other countries do with VLLW, Europe and the IAEA have release standards for material and equipment. They have a "Clearance standard. I am not sure how this compares but I know this because we require an import for any level of LLW, which conflicted with Europe because of its release standard.

I found this on the internet - not sure If its correct, but it's consistent with my understanding.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the European Commission (EC) have established an essentially dose based criteria of 1 mrem/y (10 µSv/y), even though the derived mass-specific and su rface-specific levels may vary in different countries. Some relevant documents are IAEA-TECDOC-855 (17), Safety Series No. 89 (18), and European Commission Radiation Protection 89 (19). The IAEA uses the concept of "exclusion", "exemption" and " clearance". The amount of activity related tol mrem/y is considered "negligible radioactivity" and it is taken as the criterion for clearance.

From: Diaz Sanabria, Yoira <Yoira.Diaz-Sanabria@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 4:02 PM To: Doane, Margaret <Margaret.Doane@nrc.gov>; Roberts, Darrell <Darrell.Roberts@nrc.gov>

Cc: Haney, Catherine <Catherine.Haney@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Q&As for DLLW NMU BL Commission Briefing on November 5, 2020 See attached. Want to highlight that the DLLW has about 73 questions, but the staff provided a table of content to assist finding the information. Note that 0#49 has a question about why did the Part 61 paper took long to get to the Commission.

Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste Q&A DLLW NMU BL Commissioning Briefing November 5, 2020 Table of Contents URANIUM RECOVERY................................................................................................................................5 QUESTION 1: Regarding Uranium Recovery Licensed Facilities and Major Licensing Actions, please justify the resources identified for FY 2021 , given the very limited number of facilities in the planning assumptions. ................................. ................................................................. 5 QUESTION 2: Is the staff considering any process changes (or has the staff made any process changes) to its reviews for new uranium recovery facilities? .............................................. 5 QUESTION 3: Are there any lessons learned from issuance of the 6 current licenses ? ............ .. ............. 5 QUESTION 4: What additional tools do you envision using to monitor the progress of uranium recovery licensing actions? ..................... ........... ........ ..... ..... ........................... .. ................................ 6 QUESTION 5: Can you provide an example of where the use of pre*application audits, or RA! calls have had a positive impact on our licensing activities? ............................................................... 6 QUESTION 6: What is the current level of interest in companies pursuing new uranium recovery facilities? What impact will establishment of a uranium reserve have on lfcensing and oversight activities? ..................................... ....................................................................... 6 QUESTION 7: What is the current spot price for yellowcake? ................................... ................................ 7 QUESTION 8: What is the current annual fee for uranium recovery (UR) facilities? What is the current makeup of the UR fee class?............................ .................................................................. 7 QUESTION 9: What are you doing to increase fee transparency? .................................... ........................ 7 QUESTION 10: What is the status of NRC 's draft proposed rule for ground water protection at in situ uranium recovery (/SR) facilities, and what is the current rulemaking schedule? .... .......... 7 QUESTION 11: The NRC has stated that the regulatory framework for new UR facilities is sufficient to protect public health and safety. We understand that NRC is currently revising regulations for ISRs? How does this bear on your statement that the regulatory framework is sufficient? .. .. ............. .... .. ............. ............................... ... ................... ........ ..... 8 QUESTION 12: What is EPA 's involvement in the !SR rulemaking and associated working group? What is EPA's concurrence role in the rulemaking? .. ..................................................... ............. 8 QUESTION 13: What sort of NEPA analysis will be prepared for the NRC rule? ........................................ 9 QUESTION 14: What are the NRC's and EPA 's general regulatory roles for /SR operations at the proposed Dewey Burdock site In South Dakota? .. ............... ......................... ........ ............. 9 QUESTION 15: Do NRC's and EPA's regulatory roles overlap? If so. how will the agencies avoid regulatory uncertainty and dual regulaUon?............................. ...................... ........ ........ ..... 9 QUESTION 16: What are the NRC's and EPA 's specific regulatory roles in requiring aquifer restoration to ensure protect;on of USDWs? ............................................................................................ 9 QUESTION 17: How will NRC and EPA work together to ensur:e that groundwater is protected so that /SR wellfields can be timely decommissionedlc/osed? ...................................... ...................... 10 QUESTION 18: What are NRC 's plans to ensure the American Nuclear Corporation (ANC) site in Gas Hills, Wyoming will finally be cleaned up? ........ .......................................... ...................... 10

QUESTION 19: What actions has the NRG taken to ensure we are not left with additional legacy sites like ANG? .... ... ..... ................... ................................. ..... .............. ......... ................. ...... .......... ... 10 QUESTION 20: What is the status of the UNG Ghurchrock license amendment request for the mine waste relocation? ......................................... .. ........ ..... ................................................................ 10 REACTOR DECOMMISSIONING .............................................................................................................. 11 QUESTION 21: What are the NRG requirements related to nuclear decommissioning? ........................... 11 QUESTION 22: Do you believe the NRG could improve on the issue of transparency In decommissioning nuclear plants? ................................................................................................................. 11 QUESTION 23: Do you agree that it is reasonable for a nuclear plant host state to have a significant and meaningful role to play during the decommissioning process by having a seat at the table, helping to determine the outcome? What were the results of the NE/MA efforts in this area? .................... ..... .... ............................. ................................ .. .............................. 11 QUESTION 24: What efficiencies and improvements can be made to the decommissioning program ? ... 12 QUESTION 25: There are now 25 shutdown reactors in the U.S. and 8 additional plants expected to close over the next several years. Won 't this surge in shutdown necessitate more staff to oversee utilities decommissioning? .................................................................................. 13 QUESTION 26: What do you see as challenges to the decommissioning program and are you sufficiently funded to manage these challenges? ... .................................................... ................... ..... 13 QUESTION 27: Do you envision issues with maintaining a technically qualified staff? ....... ... ........... ..... ... 14 QUESTION 28: You refer to multiple decommissioning business models. Can you describe the different models? ............................ .................... .............................................. ........... ....... ............ 14 QUESTION 29: Are there any concerns with the decommissioning business models?....... ..... ................. 14 QUESTION 30: What specific areas does the staff look at when it reviews license transfer applications (LTAs)? ............................................................................................................................. 15 QUESTION 31: Has the NRG ever not approved a license transfer application? ...................................... 15 QUESTION 32: What would happen if a decommissioning company and license holder were to file for bankruptcy at some point in the future? What recourse would the NRG staff have? ...... 15 QUESTION 33: How does the staff continue to monitor nuclear plant decommissioning funds throughout the decommissioning process? ........................................................................................ 16 QUESTION 34: What was the result of the RDFAWG's evaluation? ......................................................... 16 QUESTION 35: What is the basis for the 60-year required decommissioning timeline? What are the staff's Views on whether the required decommissioning timeline should be shortened?.. 17 QUESTION 36: What updates have occurred to the guidance for decommissioning reactor oversight (i.e.,

IMC 2561) ? .. .... ...................... ........................................................................................ ... 17 QUESTION 37: What is the status of the NRG and DOE NAVAL Reactor Surface Ship Decommissioning Oversight and Inspection MOU?....................................................................................... 18 MATERIALS DECOMMISSIONING ........................................................................................................... 19 QUESTION 38: What is defined as a "complex nmaterials site undergoing decommissioning? ................ 19

QUESTION 39: Provide some examples of risk-informing reactor and complex material decommissioning? ........... ................................. ..... ......... ..... ......... ........... ............ .. ... ........ 19 QUESTION 40: What is the current strategy to decommission the Fansteel/FMRI site? ........ ......... ....... ... 19 QUESTION 41: Considering that the NRG began oversight of radium in discrete sources in recent history, what are licensing requirements for radium? ............. .................................................. ..... 20 QUESTION 42: What are some of the lessons teamed with the Radium program? ....... ..... ......... .......... ... 21 QUESTION 43: What is the status of the Agreement State response to the NRC's non-military radium program? .......................................................... ................... ...... ....................................... 21 QUESTION 44: What was the source of the radium contamination at the GKP, SCP, and DHB sites? .... 21 QUESTION 45: How is NRG involved with military cleanups for unlicensed radium? ............................... 22 LOW-LEVEL WASTE .................................................................................................................................23 QUESTION 46: How is Hanford treated differently from other WIR activities? .... .............. ................... ..... 23 QUESTION 4 7: What would be the effect of changing the 10 CFR Part 61 Subpart C Performance Objectives (POs) on the NRG staff WIR activities? .......................................................... 23 QUESTION 48: What is the status of DUWP's self-assessment of the LLW surcharge? ......... .. ............... 23 QUESTION 49: Why did the GTCC/Part 61 SECY paper take so long to get to the Commission for review? .............................................. .. ............................................................................. 24 QUESTION 50: There are several follow-on activities to the Part 61 rulemaking, including evaluating whether the waste classification tables should be revised. What Is the status of these activities and what are the staff's current thoughts on revising the waste classification tables? .............................................................................................. ............................. ... 24 QUESTION 51: How did the staff solicit inputs from the State of Texas and other stakeholders as the regulatory basis was developed? ..................... ................................................................ 24 QUESTION 52: What type of public comments were received on GTCC Waste? .................... .... .. ........... 25 QUESTION 53: What is the staff's basis for determining the NRG can relinquish regulatory oversight of GTCC waste to Agreement States ? ................................................................................. 25 QUESTION 54: Where is very /ow-level waste being disposed in the current regulatory disposal scheme?

How do other countries address VLL W? ........................ ............ .. .............. ........... ........ ... 26 QUESTION 55: What are the options for addressing VLLW and what would be the impact on our stakeholders if we established a VLL W category? ..................................... ........... ........ ... 26 QUESTION 56: When was the 10 CFR 20.2002 guidance issued? ........................................................... 27 QUESTION 57: How does the NRC typically evaluate 10 CFR 20.2002 requests? .................................. 27 QUESTION 58: After so many decades of VLLW disposal, how did you arrive at the new 10 CFR 20.2001 interpretation of "authorized recipient"? ....... ..... .... ........................ .... .. .............................. 27 QUESTION 59: What is the purpose of the proposed 10 CFR 20. 2001 interpretation ? How is different from the10 CFR 20.2002 process? .............. ................... ...... ...................... ................... ... 28 QUESTION 60: How will you implement the 10 CFR 20.2001 proposed interpretation? .......... .............. ... 28 QUESTION 61: What is an "interpretive rule as it applies to the NRG regulations? ................ ................. 28

QUESTION 62: What is the benefit of this proposed 10 CFR 20.2001 interpretation? .............................. 28 QUESTION 63: How is this proposed 10 CFR 20.2001 interpretation different from the withdrawn below regulatory concern (BRC) policy? ....... .................... .............. ........ ... ........... ...................... 28 QUESTION 64: Generally, can you say how 20.2001 might be applied to disposal, as opposed to a more specific rule such as 20.2002? ...... .................................................................. ................. 29 QUESTION 65: How many persons/entities currently hold specific exemptions for disposal? How are these exemptions obtained?.......... .............. ......................... ......................... ........... ........29 QUESTION 66: Does the NRG have any figures for how many requests for alternative disposal of VLLW it has received over any period of time, covering how much material? How many of those were approved? ........................ .............. .............................. .................................... ........29 QUESTION 67: Why can't a licensee request a specific exemption for disposal under the provisions of 10 CFR 61.6? ........................................................................... .......................... ................... 29 QUESTION 68: What is the impact of the proposed interpretive rule on 10 CFR Part 61 licensed disposal facilities, such as WCS and EnergySolutions, including RCRA facilities that may be licensed under equivalent Agreement State regulations? ................................................ 30 DECOMMISSIONING INSPECTION PROCEDURE UPDATES ................................................................ 31 QUESTION 69: Where and who regulates Uranium Recovery and In Situ Leach Facilities currently? ..... 31 QUESTION 70: How will the Commission be engaged in the revisions to the Uranium Recovery Operations/Construction and Materials Decommissioning inspection guidance? ............ 31 QUESTION 71: Does the new inspection guidance change the frequency and/or time for conducting inspections? ....................................................... ....................................................... ........ 31 QUESTION 72: What are the greatest challenges faced in the Region in the Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery oversight areas? ................................................................................ 32 QUESTION 73: How has COVID-19 impacted these activities? ........... ................. ............................ ........ 32

Uranium Recovery QUESTION 1: Regarding Uranium Recovery Licensed Facilities and Major Licensing Actions, please justify the resources identified for FY 2021, given the very limited number of facilities in the planning assumptions.

ANSWER:

The Uranium Recovery Licensing Actions Product contains 4.0 FTE and $25K in FY 2021. This budget assumed licensing and oversight of one operating facility, Powertech's Dewey Burdock facility, one facility in stand-by, Cameco's Crow Butte facility, and one licensed facility, Hydro Resources' Crownpoint facility, that is licensed but has not been constructed. The Crow Butte facility will continue to produce uranium as a result of pumping to ensure containment of the impacted groundwater in the uranium recovery zone and pumping due to groundwater restoration. Therefore, the facility will require continued oversight. The budget assumes review of routine licensing actions, including preoperational licensing associated with the Dewey Burdock facility. The budget also supports modest infrastructure improvements such as guidance updates (e.g. , NUREG 1569, "Standard Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License Applications" and updates needed to support increased licensing terms consistent with SECY-17-0086.

QUESTION 2: Is the staff considering any process changes (or has the staff made any process changes) to its reviews for new uranium recovery facilities?

ANSWER:

Recently the staff evaluated increasing the term of uranium recovery licenses from 10 to 20 years in SECY 17-0086. The NRC staff recommended implementing a license term of 20 for new applications and renewals. The Commission approved this change in November 2017.

In addition , the staff has developed a streamlined and modernized approach to reduce new application review schedules from a historical 36 months to 24 months (33% reduction). The schedule relies on early interactions with potential applicants, use of pre-submission audits, and rigorous application of acceptance review criteria. To support this effort, staff will also clearly communicate review schedules when an application is determined as being acceptable for review. This effort considered licensing practices used across the NRC. Staff will continue to evaluate or implement new techniques to reduce review time further, as new ideas are identified. The staff's efforts are documented in an NMSS P&P, which is being finalized.

QUESTION 3: Are there any lessons learned from issuance of the 6 current licenses?

ANSWER:

On April 10, 2019, the NRC submitted its report on duration of uranium recovery license issuance and amendment reviews to Congress. The primary lesson learned is that high quality applications and a motivated applicant make the licensing process much smoother. We have implemented the voluntary pre-application audit process that has in fact improved application quality. We continue to work with applicants, however, to keep improving on this front.

The April 2019 report also contained recommendations to improve efficiency and transparency of uranium recovery license issuance and amendment reviews. The staff has implemented the

improvements identified in the report. The staff has also the NRC staff has undertaken several other activities, such as increasing the term of uranium recovery licenses, to improve the licensing and oversight process for uranium recovery facillities.

QUESTION 4: What additional tools do you envision using to monitor the progress of uranium recovery licensing actions?

ANSWER:

Staff developed tools to better monitor the progress of review of licensing actions. This included a tracking table with major milestones and goals and a new metric that measures the percent of milestones met. DUWP management has also instituted monthly management meetings with the NRC staff to review progress on licensing actions and to better identify schedule risks.

QUESTION 5: Can you provide an example of where the use of pre-application audits, or RAI calls have had a positive impact on our licensing activities?

ANSWER:

One trend that the staff has observed with respect to the use of pre-application audits relates to the number of RAls asked and the time it takes for applicants to respond. The pre-submission audit worked well in the Strata-Ross review. In that review, Strata took a minimal amount of time to respond to the staffs RAls. One trend that we have seen so far is that the use of the pre-submission audit decreases the amount of NRC staff RAls and it also tends to decrease the amount of time necessary for applicants to respond. Strata took about 72 days to respond to 117 RAls. In the AUC Reno Creek review, AUC took 123 days to respond to 188 RAls.

Reviews without pre-submission audit typically had many more RAls asked (average of 248 versus 153) and longer licensee response times (average of 317 days versus 145).

So for these two cases, the pre-submission audit had a positive impact. (Note this is still an applicant dependent issue - can't be certain that it will always work as we have one example -

still in progress, the Cameco Smith Ranch license renewal - where it took an exceptional amount of time for Cameco to respond to RAls). With respect to RAI calls, we don't currently have quantitative data. But for the Jane Dough review, NRC staff reached its licensing decision about 20 months from acceptance of the application for review (accepted 8/10/2015, issued 3/22/2017). The staff has held numerous calls with the applicant to clarify RAls. For the Jane Dough review, it took the NRC staff approximately 7 months to complete the review after the RAI responses were submitted (RAI responses submitted 8/17/2016, issued 3/22/2017). For the Lost Creek East/KM Horizon review, it took the NRC staff approximately 15 months to complete the SER from the date of acceptance (accepted 5/2/2017, completed SER 8/7/2018).

These reviews are examples of where coordination and clarification discussions with the licensee have been helpful.

QUESTION 6: What is the current level of interest in companies pursuing new uranium recovery facilities? What Impact will establishment of a uranium reserve have on licensing and oversight activities?

ANSWER:

Staff sees little interest in companies submitting applications for expansions of existing facilities or licensing of new facilities. Preparation and submittal of applications for new facilities or

expansion of existing facilities are company specific decisions, however, the current price of uranium is delaying new proj ects. At this time, it is unclear what impact establishment of a uranium reserve will have on NRC licensing and oversight activities. If a reserve is est ablished, the staff anticipates that initial licensing activities would increase in the Agreement States of Texas and Wyoming. Staff will continue to engage with the Agreement State programs to remain informed on changes in market conditions.

QUESTION 7: What is the current spot price for yellowcake?

ANSWER:

As of October 27, 2020, the spot price for U3O8 was $30.45 per pound. For reference, the spot price was around $24.00 per pound a year ago.

QUESTION 8: What is the current annual fee for uranium recovery (UR) facilities?

What is the current makeup of the UR fee class?

ANSWER:

The one annual fee payer in the uranium recovery fee class pays an annual fee of $49,200. To maintain annual fees for the uranium recovery fee class steady, a portion of the uranium recovery annual budget has been placed into fee relief.

The UR fee class consists of 1 Basic ISR facility (Cameco Crow Butte), 2 licensed UR facilities that have not been constructed (HRI Crownpoint, Powertech Dewey Burdock - these two facilities would not pay an annual fee).

QUESTION 9: What are you doing to increase fee transparency?

ANSWER:

Staff in NMSS regularly communicates with licensees to discuss upcoming work and activities on licensing actions. Staff in NMSS worked with OCFO to publish a table on the public uranium recovery website that shows the range of hours for various licensing actions. Applicants and licensees also have the ability to work with OCFO to obta in reports of costs incurred on a more frequent basis. This helps minimize the potential for surprises when the quarterly fee invoices are issued. We continue to work with OCFO on enhancing fee predictability and transparency.

QUESTION 10: What is the status of NRC's draft proposed rule for ground water protection at in situ uranium recovery (ISR) facilities, and what is the current rulemaking schedule?

ANSWER:

On October 22, 2020, the Commission directed the NRC staff to resume its rulemaking specific to ISR facilities. The staff is in the early stages of the rulemaking process and is on track to provide the proposed rule to the Commission within the timeframe identified in the associated SRM (9 months). Specifically, the NRC and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) worked cooperatively to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to address roles and jurisdictional issues related to the regulation of ISR facilities, which was signed by EPA Administrator Wheeler on July 23, 2020. The main objective of the MOU is to provide a

framework for cooperation and coordination between the NRC and the EPA for implementing each Party's statutory responsibilities under AEA §§ 84 and 275 with respect to the regulation of ISR activities in a timely, efficient, and thorough manner.

The staff provided SECY 19-0123, "Regulatory Options for In-Situ Recovery Facilities," to the Commission on December 16, 2019, to propose options on how to proceed on ISR regulation including: (1) No Action; (2) Update ISR regulatory guidance only; (3) Proceed with limited scope ISR rulemaking (recommended approach). On October 9, 2020, the Commission approved the staff's recommended approach. Since the rulemaking will affect some Agreement States, the staff has already engaged with the Organization of Agreement States for representation during the rulemaking effort. The overall schedule for the rulemaking will be determined as the initial stakeholder interaction are completed .

QUESTION 11 : The NRC has stated that the regulatory framework for new UR facilities is sufficient to protect public health and safety. We understand that NRC is currently revising regulations for ISRs? How does this bear on your statement that the regulatory framework is sufficient?

ANSWER:

The NRC has concluded that its current regulatory framework adequately protects public health and safety for uranium mills. The underlying regulations for uranium mills, found primarily in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40, is focused on the regulation of conventional mills (those that process mined ore that result in tailings impoundments). The NRC has primarily regulated ISRs through a general application of its Part 40 regulations and site-specific license conditions, as informed by appropriate guidance, such as the Commission approved guidance in NUREG-1569, "Standard Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License Applications" (ML032250177). This strategy has been successful to adequately protect public health and safety for uranium mills. The NRC staff believes that codifying aspects of the NRC's c urrent ISR guidance and regulatory practices, by updating Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40, would result in a more efficient regulatory process and greater regulatory clarity.

QUESTION 12: What is EPA's involvement in the ISR rulemaking and associated working group? What is EPA's concurrence role in the rulemaking?

ANSWER:

The EPA is not represented on the ISR rulemaking working group (WG). SECY-19-0123 discusses EPA involvement only in terms of obtaining EPA's concurrence, pursuant to AEA section 84a.(3), on certain "general requirements" (to control non-radiological hazards) during the development of the draft final rule, not the proposed rule. Additionally, EPA was not included in the WG given the expedited schedule and because the July 2020 MOU entered into between the two agencies resolved the longstanding issue concerning the post-operation monitoring term. Further, the SRM explicitly discussed working with the Agreement States on the rule but was silent on EPA representation. EPA can provide comments on the proposed rule during the public comment period and the staff will contact EPA during the development of the draft final rule to obtain concurrence pursuant to AEA section 84a.(3) and the recent MOU.

Under section 84a.(3) of the AEA, the EPA's role in any NRC ISR rulemaking would be to concur on any NRC "general requirements" to control non-radiological hazards arising from the licensed possession, transfer, and disposal of AEA section 11e.(2) byproduct material. EPA's

concurrence is limited to finding that those NRC general requirements are comparable to the requirements for the possession, transfer, and disposal of similar hazardous material regulated by EPA under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended [essentially, now the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended or RCRA].

QUESTION 13: What sort of NEPA analysis will be prepared for the NRC rule?

ANSWER:

The NRC's proposed rulemaking is expected to only require an Environmental Assessment because the rulemaking primarily clarifies and codifies existing NRC guidance and practices already allowed under the existing regulatory structure.

QUESTION 14: What are the NRC's and EPA's general regulatory roles for ISR operations at the proposed Dewey Burdock site in South Dakota?

ANSWER:

NRC issued its license for th is project in 2014 under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) to protect public health from non/radiological hazards. The EPA is deliberating on a permit and aquifer exemption in 2020 under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA) to protect underground sources of drinking water (USOWs) by regulating Class Ill injection wells.

QUESTION 15: Do NRC's and EPA's regulatory roles overlap? If so, how will the agencies avoid regulatory uncertainty and dual regulation?

ANSWER:

While the license and permit requirements arise from different statutory authorities (UMTRCA for NRC and SOWA for EPA), there are requirements that are similar (e.g., for groundwater monitoring). Accordingly, NRC and EPA have been , and will continue to be, in communication to ensure effective implementation of their respective requirements. To the extent these requirements are duplicative, both agencies are committed to working together in their analysis and interpretation of any/all data, etc. to maintain regulatory certainty for the licensee/permittee.

QUESTION 16: What are the NRC's and EPA's specific regulatory roles in requiring aquifer restoration to ensure protection of USDWs?

ANSWER:

Under its UMTRCA authority, NRC requires the licensee to remediate groundwater within the aquifer exempted for ISR operations during the wellfield restoration phase to the applicable groundwater protection standards issued by EPA under UMTRCA, not SOWA. Specifically, these standards require aquifer restoration to a contaminant's background level or maximum concentration level (whichever is higher), or an alternate concentration level (ACL). For an ACL to be established for one or more contaminants, NRC would require the licensee to demonstrate that the proposed ACL in the wellfield would not lead to a concentration that exceeds maximum concentration levels or background (whichever is higher) at the aquifer exemption boundary.

Under its SOWA authority, EPA requires the permittee to meet specific contaminant concentration limits at the aquifer exemption boundary, including during aquifer restoration.

These permit limits are either maximum contaminant levels for drinking water (i.e., equivalent to NRC's maximum concentration limits) or background (whichever is higher). EPA has authority to require aquifer cleanup and monitoring, if necessary and feasible, to ensure the limits are met.

QUESTION 17: How will NRC and EPA work together to ensure that groundwater is protected so that ISR wellfields can be timely decommissioned/closed?

ANSWER:

Prior to NRC decommissioning wellfield under the license and EPA approving the wellfield closure plan under the permit, both agencies must determine that USDWs adjacent to, and downgradient of, the wellfield will be protected. Accordingly, NRC and EPA are committed to working closely together in their analysis and interpretation of any/all aquifer restoration-related data, etc. to maintain regulatory certainty for the licensee/permittee.

QUESTION 18: What are NRC's plans to ensure the American Nuclear Corporation (ANC) site in Gas Hills, Wyoming will finally be cleaned up?

ANSWER:

All decommissioning funds have been expended to complete the stabilization of the site. The staff continues to work with DOE and the State of Wyoming to gain consensus on a possible path toward remediation and will inform the Commission about the results of these discussions.

QUESTION 19: What actions has the NRC taken to ensure we are not left with additional legacy sites like ANC?

ANSWER:

NRG staff routinely (i.e. , yearly) evaluates the status of the decommissioning financial assurance for operational sites to ensure that adequate funds are maintained by the licensee to complete decommissioning of the site.

QUESTION 20: What is the status of the UNC Churchrock license amendment request for the mine waste relocation?

ANSWER:

Staff completed its associated safety evaluation on September 30, 2020. The staff plans to publish the draft EIS on November 13, 2020 for public comment. The staff is also working with the DOE to get their commitment and concurrence prior to completing the license amendment and the NRC, EPA, and DOE are discussing post closure roles and responsibilities.

Reactor Decommissioning QUESTION 21: What are the NRC requirements related to nuclear decommissioning?

ANSWER:

The regulations related to the decommissioning of power reactors are included in Title 10, "Energy," Chapter I-Nuclear Regulatory Commission; for example, Part 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation"; Part 50--"Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities"; and Part 51--"Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions." The subparts related to decommissioning are 20.1402, "Radiological criteria for unrestricted use"; 20.1403, "Criteria for license termination under restricted conditions"; 20.1404, "Alternate criteria for license termination"; 20.1405, "Public notification and public participation"; 20.1406, "Minimization of contamination"; 50.75, "Reporting and recordkeeping for decommissioning planning"; 50.82, "Termination of license";

51.53, "Post-construction environmental reports", and 51 .95, "Post-construction environmental impact statements." These regulations state the technical and financial criteria for decommissioning licensed nuclear facilities. They address decommissioning, planning needs, timing, funding methods, and environmental-review requirements.

QUESTION 22: Do you believe the NRC could improve on the issue of transparency in decommissioning nuclear plants?

ANSWER:

Openness is among the NRC's organizational values and principles of good regulation , and the NRC's general policy is to share information with the public in a transparent manner whenever possible. Under the existing decommissioning regulations, the NRC already involves the public, State, local government, and other stakeholders in the decommissioning process. This involvement includes mandated public meetings to discuss topics such the Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR), any partial site release requests, and the License Termination Plan (LTP). In addition, the NRC staff routinely attends a number of meetings to answer decommissioning questions prior to the plant shutting down. These are not NRC mandated meetings, but are usually at the request of a stakeholder group, including various State agencies. When invited, the staff also provides presentations at Community Advisory Board Meetings, provides information and briefings to U.S. Congress members and staff, and holds meetings with State and local elected officials to discuss the decommissioning process.

The agency also engages with international nuclear regulatory bodies, including IAEA and others, to ensure that any decommissioning guidance or other positions under consideration by the agency are informed by those of other regulatory agencies.

Finally, the NRC maintains a level of oversight at decommissioning power reactors commensurate with the reduced risks at a permanently shutdown facility. The NRC conducts inspections under the Decommissioning Power Reactor Inspection Program to maintain an appropriate level of oversight and engagement throughout the decommissioning process. The results of all these inspection activities (unless they are security related) are available to the public in the NRC's publicly available document system, ADAMS.

QUESTION 23: Do you agree that it is reasonable for a nuclear plant host state to have a significant and meaningful role to play during the decommissioning

process by having a seat at the table, helping to determine the outcome? What were the results of the NEIMA efforts in this area?

ANSWER:

Many host states have their own inspectors that we work with on inspections. The role of States to provide licensees with the means to collect revenues for decommissioning, typically through State Public Utility Commissions, to ensure that adequate funding would be available to complete decommissioning as required by the NRC, as well as to address any additional requirements, such as site restoration, that may be established by States. In some cases, States have site cleanup standards as part of the State permitting process that are in addition to the NRC's nuclear safety requirements (e.g. Pilgrim, Vermont Yankee). We still make our decision based on the decommissioning standard of 25 mrem.

As part of the NEIMA efforts related to identifying best practices for the establishment and operation of local community advisory boards (CABs), the staff exceeded the Act requirement of 10 public meetings, conducting 2 public webinars and 11 public meetings throughout the United States. Meetings were held in the vicinity of all locations requested in a March 2019 Federal Register notice. As a result of these efforts, the staff evaluated over 1200 comments received through written correspondence and public meetings as it prepared the report. The final report was provided to Congress in July 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20113E857).

To aid in the formation of CABs, some of the best practices, including lessons learned, gathered as part of the NRC's efforts in response to the requirements in Section 108 of NEIMA are:

• Early formation of CABs in the decommissioning process;

• Development of a charter or guiding document to formalize their purpose, organizational structure, and general operations;

• Consideration of local preferences for engagement and CAB meetings should be open to the Diversity in CAB membership;

• CAB meeting frequency and topics for discussion based on the site status, ongoing activities, and level of stakeholder interest;

• Specifically assigned funding sources to support operations and activities; and

• Access to technical experts or specific training to better inform their discussions with the communities they serve.

As such, the NRC staff is not currently proposing to pursue any additional rulemaking or other regulatory changes in this area. The NRC does not require that licensees involve the public and State and local governments in their decommissioning activities. Nonetheless, openness is among the NRC's organizational values and principles of good regulation, and the NRC's general policy is to share information with the public in a transparent manner whenever possible. For this reason, the NRC would continue to communicate the value of creating some form of community advisory board or outreach organization at decommissioning facilities.

QUESTION 24: What efficiencies and improvements can be made to the decommissioning program?

ANSWER:

We are continually making updates to the decommissioning regulatory infrastructure, guidance documents, and lessons learned. Our experience has shown that keeping our guidance up to

date makes us and the industry more effective and efficient. We try to incorporate lessons learned to share our experiences for industry and o ur decommissioning staff. Secondly, we have a tremendous amount of experience with decommissioning requirements and we need to have a higher threshold for accepting decommissioning and license termination plans. We have over 20 years' experience with our process and technical approaches, they are very effective and proven. We also expect to see some new licensing activities after implementation of the decommissioning transition rulemaking, as PSDAR and other licensing activities that normally occur before transition may occur after transition to NMSS, once the rulemaking is fully implemented. We are also adding capabilities to several of the decommissioning computer codes to make them more user friendly in meeting their desired applications QUESTION 25: There are now 25 shutdown reactors in the U.S. and 8 additional plants expected to close over the next several years. Won't this surge in shutdown necessitate more staff to oversee utilities decommissioning?

ANSWER:

A continued increase in decommissioning activities should not present an overall resource or staffing challenge to the NRC. The Operating Reactors Business Line would be reduced by 4 FTE in oversight functions approximately six to nine months after a plant shuts down and 1 FTE would shift to the Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste Business Line split between licensing and inspection. Therefore, any increase in decommissioning would result in a net decrease to the Agency of 3 FTE per shutdown power reactor. The staff has updated its procedures to enhance the internal coordination necessary to ensure adequate training and knowledge transfer based on the expected growth in the number of decommissioning reactors over the next several years. Specifically, Region 1 has adjusted their resources by cross training their HPs from operations to decommissioning, Region 3 is finishing up Zion and La Crosse, and Region 4 has requested additional resources for training.

QUESTION 26: What do you see as challenges to the decommissioning program and are you sufficiently funded to manage these challenges?

ANSWER:

Future challenges to the decommissioning program include: 1) availability of contract resources,

2) maintaining qualified and experienced staff, 3) the need to keep our guidance current, and

4) resources needed to support the new business models should they become more popular.

We are funded to meet these challenges. However, with the new business models with license transfers and sale of the plants , many plants are entering active decommissioning. We continue to stay informed of licensee announcements and inform our budget projections accordingly.

While adequate resources are available, if more plants move into immediate decommissioning, we would need to work internally to ensure resources are transitioned in a timeframe that supports these activities. Humboldt Bay, La Crosse and Zion Units 1 and 2 should be completing decommissioning and license termination by 2021. The 2 General Atomics research reactors are also expected to complete decommissioning activities and terminate their license.

QUESTION 27: Do you envision issues with maintai ning a technically qualified staff?

ANSWER:

Due to recent staffing changes, we are hiring and training , but are on track to have an adequate number of trained staff at this time, in the area of health physics there could be a future challenge if staff losses occur. We are monitoring this situation closely and taking actions to address this through hiring, cross training and working across offices to ensure health physics resources are available to support the highest priority projects.

QUESTION 28: You refer to multiple decommissioning business models. Can you describe the different models?

ANSWER:

Over the last decade, power reactor licensees have adopted new business approaches (i.e.,

models) for accomplishing decommissioning. In general, there are currently four models:

1. The Licensee Model: The licensee for the reactor when it was operating maintains the license in decommissioning and performs the decommissioning (e.g ., Humboldt Bay).

The licensee could be an electric utility or a non-ut ility company (i.e., a merchant plant),

including a limited liability company.

2. The Decommissioning Contract Model: The licensee for the reactor when it was operating maintains the license in decommissioning and manages a decommissioning contractor (e.g., Fort Calhoun and San Onofre).

3. The Temporary License Transfer Model: The licensee for the reactor when it was operating requests a transfer of the 10 CFR Part 50 license to a decommissioning company for accelerated decommissioning (i.e. , decommissioning in significantly less time than the allowed 60 years). At the completion of the decommissioning, the license and property are transferred back to the original licensee for spent fuel management (e.g., Zion and Lacros se).

4. The Permanent License Transfer Model: The licensee for the reactor when it was operating requests a transfer of the 10 CFR Part 50 license as part of an asset sale of the nuclear power plant, associated land, and spent fuel to a decommissioning company for accelerated decommissioning and spent fuel management (e.g., Vermont Yankee, Oyster Creek, and Pilgrim).

QUESTION 29: Are there any concerns with the decommissioning business models?

ANSWER:

Two attributes of the temporary and permanent license transfer models introduce information and approaches that may not have been contemplated when the current reactor decommissioning financial assurance program was developed:

1. The significant acceleration of decommissioning schedules, which may accelerate withdrawals from decommissioning trust funds (DTF) and, in conjunction with more reactors permanently ceasing operations before the operating term of their licenses expire due to recent changes in the energy market, may challenge previous assumptions regarding the time available for DTFs to grow.

2. The conduct of decommissioning by non-utility, limited liability companies that are dedicated to decommissioning and may have financial assurance methods that are significantly different than those available to traditional regulated electric utilities to finance decommissioning and ongoing spent fuel management expenses (although non-utility companies have been operating plants since the 1990s).

After reviewing the current reactor decommissioning financial assurance program with respect to these attributes, the RDFAWG determined that the program continues to provide the means for the NRC staff to determine whether there is reasonable assurance of sufficient funding for decommissioning. This may be resource intensive as we are seeing more aggressive schedules and a propensity for not sharing lessons learned due to competitive nature.

QUESTION 30: What specific areas does the staff look at when It reviews license transfer applications (LTAs)?

ANSWER:

The majority of NRC staff review of LTAs consists of determining whether the ultimately licensed entity meets the financial qualifications, decommissioning funding, foreign ownership, control, or domination, insurance and indemnity, and technical qualifications requirements in the NRC's regulations. Per 10 CFR 50.80(b), an application for transfer of a license shall include as much of the technical and financial qualifications information described in 10 CFR 50.33 and 50.34 on the proposed transferee as would be required for an initial license. Ultimately, to approve the license transfer, the Commission must determine that: (1) the proposed transferee is qualified to be the holder of the license; and (2) the transfer of the license is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission.

QUESTION 31: Has the NRC ever not approved a license transfer application?

ANSWER:

Yes, the NRC has previously denied license transfer applications. For instance, in 2013, the NRC denied a license transfer application for a research reactor after it concluded that it did not have reasonable assurance that the transferee would have sufficient funding to conduct the activities authorized by the license if the license were transferred (78 FR 46618; Aug . 1, 2013).

Additionally, when the NRC does approve license transfer applications, its approvals are often subject to specific conditions that ensure that the transferee is financially qualified. For instance, in 2019, the NRC subjected its approval of the license transfer application for FirstEnergy plants on the implementation of a provisional trust agreement to address a shortfall in a decommissioning fund (84 FR 66936; Dec. 6, 2019).

QUESTION 32: What would happen if a decommissioning company and license holder were to file for bankruptcy at some point in the future? What recourse would the NRC staff have?

ANSWER:

A bankruptcy filing does not relieve licensees of their obligations to comply with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), the NRC's regulations, or their licenses. The NRC participates in bankruptcy proceedings to ensure that licensees continue to comply with these requirements, including the requirement to maintain a decommissioning trust fund (DTF). The Department of

Justice represents the NRC's interests in bankruptcy proceedings, including the protection and preservation of DTFs to promote completion of decommissioning activities.

QUESTION 33: How does the staff continue to monitor nuclear plant decommissioning funds throughout the decommissioning process?

ANSWER:

This is accomplished through reviews of required annual decommissioning funding reports. The staff also upgraded inspection procedures to include more detailed guidance on financial reviews. The holder of a power reactor license (the licensee) is solely responsible for the radiological decommissioning of its facility and site, regardless of the amount of funds in its decommissioning trust fund, and remains under the authority of the NRC until the NRC determines that the radiological decommissioning of the facility and site has been completed consistent with the NRC's regulations and that the license can be terminated. The NRC has prescribed regulations at 10 CFR 50.75 and 50.82 to ensure that sufficient funds will be available for radiological decommissioning. For example, 10 CFR 50.82 requires that, after the permanent shutdown of the facility and until the NRC has terminated its license, the licensee annually submit to the NRC a financial assurance status report. If this report does not identify sufficient funds (i.e., the sum of the balance of any remaining decommissioning trust funds, plus earnings on such funds calculated at not greater than a 2 percent real rate of return, together with the amount provided by other financial assurance methods being relied upon) to cover the estimated cost to complete radiological decommissioning, then the licensee must include additional financial assurance to cover the estimated cost of completion. Moreover, under AEA Section 161 i.(4 ), the NRC has the statutory authority to issue orders as it may deem necessary to ensure that sufficient funds will be available for decommissioning of the facility and site.

QUESTION 34: What was the result of the RDFAWG's evaluation?

ANSWER:

No regulatory gaps were identified ; however, the working group recommended enhancements to the guidance and procedures implementing the program to improve its effectiveness, efficiency, and transparency:

• Clarify Oversight of Decommissioning Trust Fund Expenditures as Part of Reviews of Annual Decommissioning Funding Status Reports

• Periodic Cost-Baselining

• Develop 30-day Notification Guidance

• Revise Financial Assurance Inspection Procedures

• Develop Reactor Decommissioning Financial Assurance Spot Check Program for Power Reactors in Decommissioning

• Establish Reactor Decommissioning Financial Assurance Training Program

• Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report Update Triggers

• Clarify Applicability of the Formula Amount

• Provide Irradiated Nuclear Fuel Funding Guidance for use of Provisional Trust Funds

QUESTION 35: What is the basis for the 60-year required decommissioning timeline?

What are the staff's views on whether the required decommissioning timeline should be shortened?

ANSWER:

The Commission determined that it was safe to complete decommissioning of the power plants within 60 years. 60 years allows for 50 years of radioactive decay and radiation dose rates to decrease to approximately 1-2 % of dose rates when the plant is initially shutdown.

Improvements in technology have decreased the dose significantly as well as time, distance and shielding, which allows the decommissioning companies to complete their work on accelerated schedules while managing radiation doses.

QUESTION 36: What updates have occurred to the guidance for decommissioning reactor oversight (i.e., IMC 2561)?

ANSWER:

As a follow-on effort to our update to IMC 2651 in March 2018, all of the referenced inspection procedures were recently revised and will become effective January 2021 . By the end of the year, staff will have completed its updates to all the core inspection procedures, which includes a deep dive on certain challenging requirements to become more risk-informed. To risk-inform the inspection activities, the inspection procedures direct the inspector to select several risk-significant safety activities to observe. The IPs provide guidance that allows the inspectors the flexibility to select reviews that have the most safety consequences for nuclear, radiation and environmental decommissioning operations. These would include high radiation activities, ALARA, activities that generate airborne activity, compliance with DOT/NRC transportation of radioactive waste. Another example is the focus on higher risk final status surveys, such as Class 1 survey units versus Class 3 survey units. These inspection procedures are not prescriptive and instead allow inspectors to plan and focus their activities commensurate with ongoing site activities, which will vary based on the status and configuration of the reactor and where it is in the decommissioning process.

When IMC 2561 was updated in 2018 to risk-inform the inspection activities and incorporate lessons learned., it included 8 categories of plants in decommissioning and the estimated annual resources needed for each phase broken down by Inspection procedure. These categories are defined as follows:

1. Post-Operation Transition Phase 2 . Actively Decommissioning (DECON), Fuel in the Spent Fuel Pool

3. Actively Decommissioning (DEGON), No Fuel in the Spent Fuel Pool 4 . SAFSTOR, Fuel in the Spent Fuel Pool

5. SAFSTOR, No Fuel in the Spent Fuel Pool 6 . SAFSTOR, Co-Located with Operational Unit, Fuel in the Spent Fuel Pool

7. SAFSTOR, Co-Located with Operational Unit, No Fuel in the Spent Fuel Pool 8 . Final Status Surveys Underway, No Fuel in the Spent Fuel Pool The hours included in these estimates are not prescribed hours for inspections but rather a tool to help with planning and budgeting to ensure adequate oversight resources for all reactors in our portfolio.

QUESTION 37: What is the status of the NRC and DOE NAVAL Reactor Surface Ship Decommissioning Oversight and Inspection MOU?

ANSWER:

The staff has been preparing for the new Naval Reactors work on the Surface Ship Support Barge (SSSB) by issuing in August 2020 the new Inspection Manual Chapter 2565, Regional Inspection Activities for Naval Reactors Naval Vessels Undergoing Decommissioning.

The staff held pre-submittal meetings with Naval Reactors and their contractor APTIM to review NRC requirements for their Decommissioning Plans and to how the NRC inspection process is conducted. In September 2020, the contractor submitted their Decommissioning Work Plan and regulatory compliance programs to the NRC for review and comment. We expect to complete our review of these programs in early 2021.

Materials Decommissioning QUESTION 38: What is defined as a "complex" materials site undergoing decommissioning?

ANSWER:

Complex materials sites are defined as sites where the complexity of the decommissioning process will require more than minimal technical and administrative support from the headquarters program office. It is expected that for these sites, it will take more than a year to complete the decommissioning process. Examples of complex materials sites include: sites with groundwater contamination; sites containing significant soil contamination; sites in which the owners are in bankruptcy; any site where a decommissioning plan is required; all fuel cycle facilities undergoing decommissioning; and sites where there is significant public and/or Congressional interest. As of September 30, 2020, 11 complex materials sites are undergoing decommissioning.

QUESTION 39: Provide some examples of risk-informing reactor and complex material decommissioning?

ANSWER:

The risk-informed methods are qualitative in nature as there is no formal PRA for reactor and complex material decommissioning. The methods used are based on previous Operat ing Experience, history of the site, inspector knowledge and the specific task at hand. The task would be evaluated , qualitatively, as to the possible events that could occur, the likelihood of them occurring based on our knowledge, and what are the consequences of those events.

Some tasks may involve higher radiological risks such as moving damaged spent fuel, transporting high activity waste or clean-up of ground water contamination; some may have high industrial risk that can have radiological implications, like demolition of the auxiliary building/containment or changing the design of the site's electrical distribution; and some may have high public interest.

The details of some unique tasks will be critically important to assess the risk. For example, cleanup in an area known to have contained a high quantity of alpha emitters could warrant more inspection as a possible uptake could occur if not done properly. The inspectors work with their supervisor and discuss the specific tasks based on the decommissioning schedule.

QUESTION 40: What is the current strategy to decommission the Fansteel/FMRI site?

ANSWER:

Fansteel filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy for a second time in September 2016, which was subsequently changed to Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and is now liquidating. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is representing the NRC and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the bankruptcy proceeding. The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) is also party to the proceeding . Fansteel's liquidation plan including an environmental stipulation settlement was filed with the bankruptcy court in November 2019. The judge issued an order approving the stipulation (i.e ., environmental settlement) o n June 2, 2020. The NRC staff are not expecting any significant funds to further result from the liquidation of Fansteel relative to the

site's decommissioning cost. While Fansteel will continue to exist, it will only exist to complete the last few remaining actions specified in the liquidation plan and has almost no assets.

On August 6, 2020, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Iowa confirmed a Plan of Liquidation for Fansteel (see attached). The Plan incorporates an Environmental Settlement Agreement between Fansteel, FMRI, a wholly owned subsidiary of Fansteel, the NRC, EPA and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ"),

which the Court approved on June 2, 2020 (se attached). Under both the Plan and Settlement Agreement: (1) the Debtor will transfer Parcel D of the Muskogee property to FMRI; (2) FMRI will use any funds received for activities necessary to maintain health and safety, fulfill obligations mandated by the NRC license and Amended Decommissioning Plan, and conduct response actions under CERCLA; (3) the Debtor will transfer any causes of action the Debtor may have against potentially responsible parties to FMRI; (4) the Debtor and the Environmental Authorities will allocate between them any net proceeds received; (5) the Environmental Authorities will receive any net insurance proceeds for losses related to environmental liabilities; and (6) the Environmental Authorities and FMRI will share the proceeds from any settlement or adjudication of the third party environmental claims.

EPA has also issued 104(e) letters to Fansteel and FMRI to collect information potentially applicable to CERCLA assessments. EPA and the State of Oklahoma have performed an extended site investigation to assess how the site would score on the NPL and possible inclusion in the Superfund program. EPA is still deliberating on if the site will list under CERCLA.

Should the EPA not list the site, the staff will evaluate potential options going forward.

QUESTION 41: Considering that the NRC began oversight of radium in discrete sources In recent history, what are licensing requirements for radium?

ANSWER:

Ra-226 sources and the materials or devices containing them are either generally licensed or specifically licensed unless an exemption has been provided by the NRC or an Agreement State. Certain products containing radium subject to general licensing are identified in 10 CFR 31 .12 and include antiquities (items originally intended for public use such as radium emanator jars, radium salt baths, and revigators (radium clay urns) which were originally made available in the late 19th and early 20th centuries), certain luminous products (timepieces and dials/gauges), and small sources used for instrument calib ration, static elimination, and as lightning arrestors. When an individual proposes to possess more radioactive material than is allowed by a general license (e.g., more than 100 of certain luminous items) or proposes to undertake activities beyond the scope of a general license, a specific license is required.

There are currently two categories of sources exempt from licensing under NRC regulations.

The first of these, contained in 10 CFR 30.15(a)( 1)(viii), relates to intact timepieces containing a quantity up to 0.037 megabecquerel ( 1 µCi) of Ra-226 per timepiece which were manufactured prior to November 30, 2007. Such timepieces are exempt from regulatory requirements. The second category, contained in 10 CFR 30.20, relates to radium-containing smoke alarms and includes gas and aerosol detectors manufactured or distributed before November 30, 2007 in accordance with a specific license issued by a State under comparable provisions to 10 CFR 32.26 authorizing distribution to persons exempt from regulatory requirements. The NRC has no plans to add an exempt concentration or exempt quantity of radium-226 to its regulations.

QUESTION 42: What are some of the lessons learned with the Radium program?

ANSWER:

The most significant lesson learned was our ability to leverage the initial site visit to determine the level of contamination present and, together with risk insights, whether controls and/or cleanup would be necessary instead of needing to return for a more detailed scoping survey to make that determination.

QUESTION 43: What is the status of the Agreement State response to the NRC's non-military radium program?

ANSWER:

As outlined in CA Note Dated September 20, 2018, the Agreement States continue their efforts to develop or implement plans to address potential non-military radium contamination. Most Agreement States have conducted a prioritized review of the sites within their jurisdictions, focusing on the most risk-significant sites. Feedback from the Agreement States continues to indicate that their investigations have resolved the question of potential radium contamination at a significant number of the listed sites. At this time , 25 Agreement States have completed their investigation activities, have eliminated all the sites from their list, and plan no further actions.

QUESTION 44: What was the source of the radium contamination at the GKP, SCP, and DHB sites?

ANSWER:

Great Kills Park As part of a counterterrorism search, radioactive material was first identified at Great Kills Park in 2005 when a police flyover of New York City detected a positive reading for radioactive material there. The 488-acre park was the depository for 15 million cubic yards of fill in the 1940s and 1950s, including medical and sanitary waste. The fill was dumped across wetlands to turn marshy areas into usable recreation space. The source of radium appears to be from medical waste.

Spring Creek Park Similar to Great Kills Park, 1 14-acre Spring Creek Park was developed, in part, through landfilling during the same timeframe. This compelled NPS to conduct a limited gamma walkover survey at the site in December 2017. The survey identified five man-made radioactive articles containing radium in near-surface soils as well as other localized areas of elevated levels of radioactivity. Four of those items were deck markers and the fifth item was an object that had been painted radium. Investigation into the source of the radium contamination is ongoing but it appears that the man-made radioactive articles are from discarded materials brought to the site through landfilling . Radium present in these articles may have caused contamination of the soil immediately surrounding the article.

Dead Horse Bay Similar to the other parks, 178-acre Dead Horse Bay was developed through landfilling during the same timeframe . In 2019, NPS conducted gamma walkover surveys at the site and identified two locations with man-made radioluminescent articles (i.e., deck markers) containing radium. Radium present in these articles caused contamination of the soil immediately surrounding the article.

QUESTION 45: How is NRC involved with military cleanups for unlicensed radium?

ANSWER:

The MOU, which the NRC and DoD signed in 2016, provides two ways the NRC will be involved in military cleanup of unlicensed AEA material. The first way is to stay informed of remediation activities. At sites where the EPA has oversight under Superfund, NRC staff limit our involvement to staying informed about remedial actions, oversight activities, and issues. This approach involves document reviews, site visits and meetings with the Army, Air Force, Navy, Defense Logistics Agency, EPA and state agencies.

The second way is to monitor remediation activities. At sites without EPA oversight, the NRC monitors the cleanup of unlicensed material, which could include document reviews and comments, site observations, and confirmatory radiological surveys. This monitoring collaborates with the state agencies and provides independent federal oversight to confirm the remediation adequately protects public health and safety and the environment.

Annually, the DoD provides NRC an inventory of sites with confirmed unlicensed material. The NRC then selects sites, based on a prioritization, to stay-informed or monitor. The staff describes its involvement in the Annual Decommissioning Report.

Low-Level Waste QUESTION 46: How is Hanford treated differently from other WIR activities?

ANSWER:

In Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (NOAA), the NRC has two functions where the U.S. Department Of Energy (DOE) must consult with the NRC prior to making the final waste determination, and then the NRC monitors the DOE disposal actions. The NOAA covers the DOE sites in Idaho and South Carolina.

The DOE Hanford site is not covered under the NOAA; however, DOE has established an lnteragency Agreement with NRC to perform a consultation role similar to the NRC responsibilities under the NOAA. Currently, the NRC is reviewing the draft WIR Determination for the Vitrified Low-Activity Waste, which is waste that will be created in vitrifiying the waste from the 177 HLW storage tanks and will be disposed on site at Hanford.

QUESTION 47: What would be the effect of changing the 10 CFR Part 61 Subpart C Performance Objectives (POs) on the NRC staff WIR activities?

ANSWER:

It depends on the criteria in the new 10 CFR Part 61 final rule. The staff will need to re-evaluate its safety evaluations and site-specific monitoring plans, in light of the changes, to continue to focus on the factors that are most important to safety and at the appropriate level of effort. The relative importance of various barriers that provide isolation and confinement of the waste may change. For example, the importance of the information on cover performance will likely rise as the reduction of infiltration is most important in the first hundreds to one-thousand years. In addition, NUREG-1854, "NRC Staff Guidance for Activities Related to U.S. Department of Energy Waste Determinations", would need to be revised to be consistent with the final rule.

QUESTION 48 : What is the status of DUWP's self-assessment of the LLW surcharge?

ANSWER:

Collection of the LLW surcharge is based on a Commission policy decision communicated in the 1991 Fee Rule. The Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for the Manifest Information Management System (MIMS) database that was created to monitor the disposal of commercial LLW in the United States. The allocation of the LLW surcharge to power reactor, fuel facility, and NRC materials licensees reflects a five- year average of the relevant data available in MIMS.

In February 2019, DUWP completed a self-assessment of the methodology for determining the LLW surcharge. The objective of the self-assessment was to review the methodology to assess whether it is equitable, transparent and defensible and to provide options for improving the methodology as appropriate. One focus area was the variability in the LLW surcharge allocation for fuel facility licensees in recent years, as noted by NEI in a comment on the FY 2018 Fee Rule. However, NMSS staff found that the existing methodology does not appear to be disproportionally affecting fuel facilities at present. NEI did not comment further on this matter during the development of the FY 2019 or FY 2020 Fee Rules. The self-assessment determined that significant additional LLW data for operating reactor and fuel facility licensees would be needed to provide a basis for any new methodology. Given the NRC and industry

resource burden required to obtain and analyze this data, and the uncertain outcome of such efforts as compared to the current LLW surcharge allocations, DUWP staff determined there was insufficient justification to further pursue changes to the LLW surcharge methodology.

QUESTION 49: Why did the GTCC/Part 61 SECY paper take so long to get to the Commission for review?

ANSWER:

The GTCC/Part 61 SECY paper addresses complex technical and policy issues. The timing of the paper provided proper time to ensure that the NRC staff thoroughly analyzed the complex issues associated with LLRW.

QUESTION 50: There are several follow-on activities to the Part 61 rulemaking, including evaluating whether the waste classification tables should be revised. What Is the status of these activities and what are the staff's current thoughts on revising the waste classification tables?

ANSWER:

The Commission directed staff in a March 26, 2013, Revised SRM-SECY-13-0001, that:

After the limited rulemaking is complete, the staff should provide a Commissioner's Assistant (CA) note to the Commission on the second rulemaking effort for the waste classification tables. The CA note should outline the objectives and timeline for developing the regulatory basis of this second rulemaking, in consideration of the outcome of the near-term limited rulemaking that will precede it. The CA note to the Commission should identify the specific comments that have been received on the need for a second rulemaking, and clearly articulate the b asis in accepting or dismissing their comments. Additional changes to Part 6 1 that have the potential to further extend the time needed to complete the limited ongoing rulemaking should be avoided, if possible.

Based on this direction, after the rulemaking instituting the requirements for site specific analyses is completed, staff plans to seek stakeholder input on whether a revision of the waste classification tables is necessary, This is because the need for a revision to the waste classification tables to address DU and other isotopes may be reduced by the use of site-specific analyses by Part 61 licensees. After the CA note is submitted, the staff would likely receive an SRM on how to proceed on a potential revision of the waste classification tables.

QUESTION 51: How did the staff solicit inputs from the State of Texas and other stakeholders as the regulatory basis was developed?

ANSWER:

The staff initially sought stakeholder input on the technical issues associated with GTCC disposal. The staff published multiple Federal Register notices, developed a draft technical analysis (ADAMS Accession no. ML17362A012), held several public meetings, including one in Texas, and made presentations at various stakeholder meetings including the 2018 Waste Management Symposia, the Low Level Waste (LLW) Forum, the EPRI LLW Meeting, and the 2018 Organization of Agreement States meeting to seek feedback on the GTCC

proposal. These initial efforts helped inform the staff's preparation of the draft Regulatory Basis published in July 22, 2019, with an extended comment period that ended on November 19, 2019. The staff conducted a webinar on August 22, 2019, and a public meeting on August 27, 2019, in Austin, Texas, to provide an overview of the regulatory basis and to invite members of the public to submit written comments.

Separately, in a letter dated April 26, 2019, Governor Abbott of the State of Texas indicated to Chairman Svinicki that, "The Federal government should allow States with disposal sites for low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) to accept or reject such changes, rather than forcing them to take on the increased hazards of Greater-than-Class C (GTCC) or equivalent waste. At this time, I oppose any increase in the amount or concentration of radioactivity authorized for disposal at the facility in Andrews County, Texas." Governor Abbott repeated these concerns in a letter to President Trump on September 30, 2020.

QUESTION 52: What type of public comments were received on GTCC Waste?

ANSWER:

On February 14, 2018, the staff issued a Federal Register notice (83 FR 6475) with a 60-day comment period that ended on April 16, 2018. The NRC sought stakeholder participation and involvement in identifying the various technical issues that should be considered in the development of a regulatory basis for the disposal of GTCC and transuranic (TRU) radioactive waste through means other than a deep geologic disposal, including near surface disposal. A high-level summary of comments received follows:

• Many comments were supportive of rulemaking

- NRC needs to do a thorough analysis of the issues and protect the public

• Alternative solutions were proposed:

- Treat GTCC as High-Level Waste

- Possibly create a new category of Low-Level Waste (e.g. , Class D)

- Many commenters stated a conservative approach was needed

- A national framework is needed

• NRC needs to define what GTCC and TRU waste is, versus what it is not

• Differing views on Agreement State licensing of GTCG and TRU waste were provided

- Security could be an issue

• The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Agreement States have information on disposal of radioactive wastes that may assist the NRG in developing criteria

• Previous DOE (e.g., Final Environmental Impact Statement) and NRG documents provide sufficient information already for a regulatory basis QUESTION 53: What is the staff's basis for determining the NRC can relinquish regulatory oversight of GTCC waste to Agreement States?

ANSWER:

In SEGY-20-0098, "Path Forward and Recommendations for Certain Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Rulemakings," staff provides its recommendations to the Commission for the next steps related to both the 10 CFR Part 61 rulemaking and the GTCC rulemaking activities.

Accompanying the paper is a differing view related to a P,lain English read of the Low-level Waste Policy Act. Notwithstanding these views, the staff determined the NRC can relinquish its authority for the near-surface disposal of GTCC waste that the staff determines is not too

hazardous. Regarding the differing view, the staff determined that these views were compelling but not dispositive of the issues.

This paper is largely focused on the health, safety and environmental considerations of disposing of waste in a licensed low-level waste, near-surface facility, rather than a deep geologic repository. This question was previously left unresolved and now having considered the characteristics of the waste, from a technical perspective, the staff finds that a portion of the waste characterized as GTCC waste, possibly can be safely and securely disposed of in a near-surface, low-level waste facility. Importantly, the staff also finds that from a health and safety matter this material is not so hazardous that it requires exclusive federal jurisdiction as contemplated under the Atomic Energy Act.

Moreover, the staff finds that as a policy matter, the better view is that surface disposal is best handled in a consistent manner. GTCC waste, like other low-level waste not requiring exclusive federal jurisdiction from a safety or security perspective, should be eligible for the NRC Agreement State program. This decision would also not affect the NRC's responsibility over the national materials program to develop safety and security regulations, and compatibility standards for this material. Further, any GTCC waste requiring deep geologic disposal would remain a federal responsibility consistent with the NRC's jurisdiction to license a deep geologic repository for high level waste.

QUESTION 54: Where Is very low-level waste being disposed in the current regulatory disposal scheme? How do other countries address VLLW?

ANSWER:

Currently, disposal options for VLLW include licensed low-level waste facilities or Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste facilities. Additionally, applicants and licensees can use alternative disposal requests under the provisions of 10 CFR 20.2002, "Method for obtaining approval of proposed disposal procedures" to dispose of VLLW on a case-by-case basis.

The international community has addressed VLLW using a variety of approaches. Some countries have not established a VLLW category, while a few countries have VLLW disposal sites with established Waste Acceptance Criteria (e.g. Spain and France). There has not been a consistent approach lo addressing VLLW.

QUESTION 55: What are the options for addressing VLLW and what would be the Impact on our stakeholders if we established a VLLW category?

ANSWER:

At the conclusion of the VLLW Scoping Study, the results of the staff's assessment and associated recommendations will be presented to the Commission in a SECY paper. Potential results of the VLLW Scoping Study include:

• Promulgating a rule that would define the conditions under which VLLW could be disposed;

• Developing guidance that summarizes disposition options for low-end radioactive materials and waste;

• The need for additional coordination with other Federal agencies regarding VLLW disposal;

• The need for further analysis; or

• No action, maintain status quo.

In collecting stakeholder input on the VLLW scoping study, the NRC staff received numerous comments providing perspectives on establishing a specific VLLW category. The main points from stakeholders included: 1) this could be a more efficient and consistent approach to dispose of VLLW; 2) this could cause financial hardship for operating Low-Level Waste disposal sites; and 3) this effort could increase disposal at EPA RCRA Subtitle C facilities.

QUESTION 56: When was the 10 CFR 20.2002 guidance issued?

ANSWER:

In April 2020, NMSS issued the guidance document for alternative disposal requests entitled ,

"Guidance for the Reviews of Proposed Disposal Procedures and Transfers of Radioactive Material Under 10 CFR 20.2002 and 10 CFR 40.13(a)." The revision incorporates changes made in response to comments received on the draft guidance document, as well as interactions with NRC stakeholders.

QUESTION 57: How does the NRC typically evaluate 10 CFR 20.2002 requests?

ANSWER:

The NRC independently evaluates the information submitted by licensees to determine whether public health and safety and the environment will be protected from the effects of ionizing radiation associated with the disposal. In a typical evaluation, the NRC reviews and/or independently calculates radiation exposures from the proposed disposal: 1) workers, considered members of the public, involved in processing and disposal activities at the disposal site; 2) intruders who are exposed while inadvertently or purposely occupying the site; and 3) post-closure doses associated with individuals who may occupy the site following closure of the disposal facility. The NRC's results are documented in an SER and EA and are available to the public in ADAMS. The NRC will not approve any 10 CFR 20.2002 requests unless the licensee demonstrates that public health and safety and the environment will be protected.

QUESTION 58: After so many decades of VLLW disposal, how did you arrive at the new 10 CFR 20.2001 Interpretation of "authorized recipient"?

ANSWER:

Recent stakeholder feedback has resulted in NRC reviewing its VLLW disposal regulatory framework. As a result, the NRC staff is proposing an interpretation of "authorized recipient" as defined in 10 CFR 20.2001 which would provide an efficient means by which the NRG may issue specific exemptions for disposal, and by which licensees may transfer appropriate material to these exempt facilities.

QUESTION 59 : What is the purpose of the proposed 10 CFR 20.2001 interpreta tion?

How is different from the10 CFR 20.2002 process?

ANSWER:

The proposed interpretation would allow an additional method (i.e., from the 10 CFR 20.2002 process) for waste generators to transfer VLLW to hazardous or municipal solid waste landfills with explicit regulatory approvals to dispose of certain wastes. The NRC currently issues specific exemptions for the purpose of disposal in conjunction with individual 10 CFR 20.2002 authorizations for offsite disposal of VLLW at unlicensed facilities. The proposed 10 CFR 20.2001 interpretation would focus the regulatory approval (a specific exemption) on the disposal facility to VLLW and be exempt from a 10 CFR Part 61 license without a specific regulatory approval associated with the waste generator.

QUESTION 60: How will you implement the 10 CFR 20.2001 proposed interpretation?

ANSWER:

The staff is evaluating the comments received in response to the FRN and deciding the best path forward for the proposed interpretation. The path forward could include the rule being adopted (additional activities such as updating associated guidance document) or withdrawn.

Regardless of the path forward, the NRC will issue an additional FRN to notify stakeholders of the final decision-making.

QUESTION 61: What is an "interpretive rule" as it applies to the NRC regulations?

ANSWER:

There's a well-established body of law (case law and statutes) and guidance that explain what an interpretive rule is. An interpretive rule is a rule or statement that advises the public of the NRC's construction, or interpretation, of its regulations. This definition is from the Administrative Procedures Act, which states that interpretive rules are "rules or statements issued by an agency to advise the public of the agency's construction of the statutes and rules which it administers." Interpretive rules are guidance documents. In contrast to the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR, interpretive rules are not legally binding.

QUESTION 62: What is the benefit of this proposed 10 CFR 20.2001 interpretation?

ANSWER:

The proposed interpretation would provide an efficient means by which the NRC may issue specific exemptions for disposal, and by which licensees may transfer appropriate material to these exempt facilities. It will allow waste generators to use a site-specific analysis to dispose material at a non-Part 61 facility for multiple disposals instead of having to get approval under 10 CFR 20.2002 for each disposal on a case by case basis.

QUESTION 63: How is this proposed 10 CFR 20.2001 interpretation different from the withdrawn below regulatory concern (BRC) policy?

ANSWER:

This proposed process will require a site-specific evaluation at each disposal facility that would like to use the process. There will be limits on the amount of material that could be disposed based on the site-specific analysis. The BRC policy would have set generic limits on radioactive material that would not require a site-specific analysis for disposal, reuse, or recycle.

QUESTION 64: Generally, can you say how 20.2001 might be applied to disposal, as opposed to a more specific rule such as 20.2002?

ANSWER:

Under the approach the staff is considering, the NRC could interpret the term "authorized recipient" in 20.2001 (a)(1) to apply not only to a license holder for those listed parts of the regulations, but also to a person who is specifically exempted from those parts of the regulations for the purpose of disposal. This approach could allow, for example, a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) disposal site to request a specific exemption from the NRC or an Agreement State to receive specific wastes for disposal. A waste generator could then ship that type of waste to such a facility pursuant to 20.2001, without the need for a separate authorization under 20.2002.

QUESTION 65: How many persons/entities currently hold specific exemptions for disposal? How are these exemptions obtained?

ANSWER:

The NRC has not issued any specific exemptions for disposal of VLLW, as envisioned in the FRN , but new ones could be issued using this interpretation of 10 CFR 20.2001. The method for reviewing the specific exemptions (technical requirements) is in the FRN. The staff notes that under the current 10 CFR 20.2002 approval process, disposal facilities are granted exemptions on a case-by-case basis, while this new interpretation would allow facilities to receive overarching VLLW disposal exemptions not based on an individual disposal request.

10 CFR 20.2002 will also remain in effect for licensees wishing to continue to use that process.

QUESTION 66: Does the NRC have any figures for how many requests for alternative disposal of VLLW it has received over any period of time, covering how much material? How many of those were approved?

ANSWER:

As of 2009, the NRG had received 23 requests since January 1, 2000, or about 2 to 3 per year. Of these, 21 were for disposal off-site, and 2 were for disposal on the licensee's site. Sixteen were approved. Approximately eight additional requests were received between 2009 and 2019, all of which were approved. The requests covered a wide range of VLLW, but all were well within the "few millirem per year" standard set out for the review of AD Rs.

QUESTION 67: Why can't a licensee request a specific exemption for disposal under the provisions of 10 CFR 61 .6?

ANSWER:

The exemption regulation in 110 CFR 61 .6 applies to the Part 61 regulations, which are written for land disposal in a facility intended to be used for the disposal of radioactive wastes. The

regulations in Part 61 do not apply to "Disposal of licensed material as provided for in part 20 ...." In this case, the proposed interpretation of 10 CFR 20.2001 would allow for disposal of some radioactive wastes in facilities that were not designed specifically for disposal of radioactive wastes, so other exemptions are more appropriate.

QUESTION 68 : What is the impact of the proposed interpretive rule on 10 CFR Part 61 licensed disposal facilities, such as WCS and EnergySolutions, including RCRA facilities that may be licensed under equivalent Agreement State regulations?

ANSWER:

Part 61 and RCRA facilities are licensed and regulated per the NRC or equivalent Agreement State LLW regulations. Therefore, the transfer of low-level waste to one of these licensed facilities for disposal is permissible pursuant to 10 CFR 20.2001 (a) as long as it meets the waste acceptance criteria and any other applicable requirements. The proposed rule could expand the pool of "authorized recipients" under 10 CFR 20.2001 (a)(1) to include persons specifically exempted to receive VLLW for disposal in accordance with the restrictions of the specific exemption, which may include waste acceptance or other criteria.

Decommissioning Inspection Procedure Updates QUESTION 69: Where and who regulates Uranium Recovery and In Situ Leach Facilities currently?

ANSWER:

NRC Oversight Active/Standby Decommissioning/Closure License Issued - no Total construction or operations 1 4 2 7 Nebraska 1 in Wyoming, 1 in New Mexico, 3 in New Mexico 1 in South Dakota Agreement State Oversight Agreement Active/Standby Decommissioning/Closure License Totals State Oversight Issued - no operations Colorado (2018) 0 6 1 7 Texas(2018) 3 4 2 9 Utah (2015) 2 1 0 3 Washington 0 1 0 1 (2018)

Wyominq (2018) 6 6 2 14 Totals 11 18 5 34 QUESTION 70 : How will the Commission be engaged in the revisions to the Uranium Recovery Operations/Construction and Materials Decommissioning inspection guidance?

ANSWER:

We are very early in the process with revisions to Uranium Recovery procedures and just starting the Decommissioning guidance review and plan to engage the Agreement States. We will evaluate the recommendations for any potential policy issues and we will engage or inform the Commission appropriately when we know more.

QUESTION 71 : Does the new inspection guidance change the frequency and/or time for conducting inspections?

ANSWER:

The new guidance aims to be more risk informed and performance based . The aim is to focus inspection efforts on risk significant activities such as those that contribute to environmental contamination and occupational or public exposure. The intent of the update is not to reduce the level of inspection effort but to ensure the inspections are conducted in a performance-based, risk-informed manner. We are still too early in the process to comment on specific changes.

QUESTION 72: What are the greatest challenges faced in the Region in the Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery oversight areas?

ANSWER:

Staffing is the number one challenge. The small number of inspectors and unpredictable or changing licensee schedules can make it challenging to support special activities at sites. The sites also vary significantly which adds time and complexity for site familiarization . Many of our inspectors are also nearing the end of their careers, and there has also not been staff growth in the area. We also expect at least the decommissioning work to continue to decrease in the future. We are addressing the challenge through cross qualifying and leveraging inspectors from other disciplines and locations, frequent communications with licensees regarding schedules, as well as the revised inspection guidance. Additionally, general planning and predicting resource needs in the future is a challenge.

QUESTION 73: How has COVID-19 impacted these activities?

ANSWER:

There were some initial impacts to the program as a result of travel restrictions and licensees ceasing some activities. Today, there is not significant impact. Given the locations of and activities of the sites, inspectors have been able to support current work.

Nuclear Materials Users Q&A DLLW NMU BL Commission Briefing November 5 th, 2020

1. How was the review of the Exubrion Therapeutics' proposed license application template risk-informed and how did staff apply aspects of the Be riskSMART framework?

The staff has implemented a risk-informed decision-making approach using the Be riskSMART framework to manage the risk that the public dose limit would not be exceeded. Early on in the review, the staff recognized that there is an associated risk with relying solely on instructions as a means to ensure that the public dose limits would not be exceeded. To effectively manage this risk, the staff required pre-screening criteria, development of limiting commitments, and follow-up by the veterinarian one-week post-treatment to ensure proper implementation of the instructions. The staff issued the technical evaluation report (TER) to cast a wider net for Agreement State and NRC license reviewers, including the pre-set limiting conditions that license reviewers should employ during their review. Use of a TER by the staff across the National Materials Program will ensure consistency in the review process and will provide additional assurance that the staff is properly managing the risk associated with the use of this veterinarian radiopharmaceutical.

2. What does Compatibility D mean for the use and implementation by the Agreement States of the NRC's technical evaluation report (TER) for Exubrion Therapeutics' proposed license application template?

A Compatibility D designation means that the Agreement States can require additional conditions on the license, as appropriate. The Standing Committee on Compatibility determined that the TER is not a program element that is a matter of compatibility since the guidance only instructs staff and licensees how to meet existing and applicable regulatory requirements.

3. What are the options proposed in the rubidium-82 (Rb-82)/emerging medical technologies (EMTs) rulemaking plan?

• Address the medical use of Rb-82 generators only, with no changes related to EMTs

• Address Rb-82 generators along with a subset of current, well-established EMTs, including gamma stereotactic radiosurgery units (i.e. Leksell Gamma Knife, Xcision Gammapod' ; MASEP lnfini) and microspheres (i.e. TheraSphere; SIRSpheres; Oncosil)

• Address Rb-82 generators along with all current, well-established EMTs and create added flexibility to accommodate future EMTs, including the development of generic and performance-based requirements

4. Has the staff reviewed new emerging medical technologies using the new streamlined approach?

The staff started applying the new review process in fiscal year (FY) 2020 for two 35.1000 technologies: Oncosil (P-32 microspheres used for pancreatic tumors) ; and

AlphaDart (Ra-224 seeds that release alpha particles to treat lung tumors). By applying this new review process, we hope to reduce our review time by 6 months and better utilize resources across the National Materials Program.

5. How does NMSS strike a balance between risk informing its processes, such as with the phased review of Inspection Manual (IMC) 2800 and maintaining public health and safety?

The goal of incorporating risk insights into our processes, such as in the revision of IMC 2800, is to provide tools to staff to better focus resources in the activities that are of highest risk to the public health and safety. By focusing on the activities of highest safety and security significance, the staff can prioritize performance-based activities over low safety significance compliance-based activities which deter focus from our safety and security mission.

The staff is engaging experts from across the NRC and Agreement States to obtain the best expertise and experience and to ensure that all views are considered. For example, the staff plans to incorporate lessons learned from other NMSS efforts such as the "Building a Smarter Fuel Cycle Program" and ISFSI Inspection initiatives. The staff is considering modifications to inspection activities to better align the inspection programs with the risk of activities and modify inspection procedures to reduce overlaps between different inspection areas. The staff is also evaluating lessons learned from our COVID-19 response and considering how to incorporate those efforts into oversight guidance. The staff is also incorporating aspects of enterprise risk management into our processes to ensure that we are identifying any potential impacts to our activities and formulating mitigation strategies to address any future issues. For example, the staff is routinely engaging with external stakeholders through public meetings and government-to-government meetings to ensure that stakeholder feedback is incorporated in a timely manner to avoid any reputational risks to the agency. The staff continues to seek Agreement State staff participation in working groups and early alignment with Organization of Agreement States to incorporate ideas and best practices into our processes. The revised guidance in IMC 2800 and associated inspection procedures will provide tools to our inspectors to enable them to identify what activities are important and safety-significance from a risk perspective.

6. What is the timeline for the completion of Phase 3 of the revision of IMC 2800?

The staff has initiated the revision of IMC 2800 and associated inspection procedures (IPs). The staff will also revise several associated inspection manual chapters in during calendar year 2021. The staff plans to complete these revisions by late fall 2021 . In addition, outreach activities to discuss changes to the IPs and IMCs will commence in FY 2022.

7. How is the Nuclear Materials Users Business Line incorporating the Agreement States into its processes?

The NRC continues to engage the Agreement States as co-regulators in conversations to ensure early alignment and open and transparent communications on a number of issues. The staff has routinely gathered feedback from the Agreement States during their technical evaluations of several medical issues through government-to-government meetings, teleconferences, presentations at the annual Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors and the Organization of Agreement States (OAS) meetings, and by providing draft technical documents for review and comment. The staff continues to engage the Agreement States in conversations regarding the regulation of fusion reactors and considers them to be integral to the development of a regulatory framework for fusion reactors. During the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE),

the OAS participated in the three public meetings helld by the NRC to discuss temporary regulatory relief with materials licensees. The NRC continues to solicit participation of the Agreement States in working groups and, recently, the NRC solicited an Agreement State representative for the new standing committee for the review of emerging medical technologies.

During FY 2020, the NRC and the Organization of Agreement States (OAS) Co-champions began a series of periodic "Champions' Chats" so that NRC and Agreement State staff could communicate about what the Champions can do to enhance the NRC and Agreement State regulatory partnership. The Champions have conducted three Chats between June and November 2020.

8. How did staff risk inform the Temporary Instruction, Evaluating the Impacts of the COVID-19 PHE as art of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) T/-003?

The staff determined in Tl-003 that activities outside of a Program's control and that adversely affected the Program's performance would not be negatively affect the overall rating of an IMPEP performance indicator. The staff evaluated each performance indicator objective and made a risk-informed determination of which objectives have a direct impact on public health, safety, and security. For example, the staff indicated in Tl-003 that activities that could lead to onsite response or to prompt regulatory action should not be adversely affected by COVID-19 PHE impacts. The intent of the Tl is to address the delayed completion and resolution of items directly impacted by the PHE.

9. How did the NRC support the Agreement States during the COVID-19 PHE?

We engaged the Agreement States early during the PHE to offer NRC assistance as needed, and to share our experiences and approaches to deal with the challenges presented by the PHE. This included sharing inspection, licensing, and enforcement approaches with the Agreement States to enhance our mutual decision-making. Early on during the PHE, we extended the date for Agreement States to review and comment on NRC documents and communicated to the Agreement States how the NRC was

considering the use of virtual communication technologies such as Skype, Webex, and other platforms. Some IMPEP reviews were conducted remotely along with the Management Review Board (MRB) meetings as a result of the travel restrictions imposed by the PHE. Both NRC and Agreement State staff participated in public meetings with licensees to discuss pathways for regulatory relief. We also maintained frequent communications with the States via the Regional State Agreement Officers (RSAOs) and Regional State Liaison Officers (RSLOs) to exchange valuable information regarding the implementation of the National Materials Program during the PHE.

With respect to training, the NRC Technical Training Center (TTC) transitioned several NRC courses from in-person to remote instruction to ensure continued support to Agreement State staff during their qualification process. Training courses at the TTC have been rescheduled, or will be held virtually, through December 2020. The NRC online training cou rses remain available and the TTC staff continues to evaluate how to transition additional courses to virtual or on-line instruction.

10.Did the COVID-19 PHE have any impacts on Agreement States' budgets?

During the COVID-19 PHE, the State Agreements and Liaison Programs Branch chief, through the RSAOs, tracked Agreement States' budgets to maintain awareness of any budgetary impacts to their respective programs. Some Agreement States announced and instituted furloughs and as result, prioritized theirr work. However, the Programs' performance were not affected by work prioritization and licensing and oversight activities remained high priority.

At this time, some States' budgets are being revisited due to delays in the submittal of tax returns and to evaluate COVID-19 impacts. The staff continues to communicate with all Agreement States to ensure that they can maintain reasonable assurance of public health, safety, and security within their current budgets. Staff continues to track these updates in the COVID-19 dashboard.

11 . What is staff doing to ensure that NRC is providing timely information to the Agreement States via the State Communication Portal?

The staff has developed a project plan to address ongoing changes to the State Communications Portal on the US NRC public website. The project plan addresses strategies to ensure that the portal is informative, user friendly, and updated in a timely manner. The portal is a comprehensive information resource for procedures, guidance documents, schedules, training materials, and other items of interest. The National Materials Program (NMP) website, a key feature of the portal, highlights goals, priorities, ongoing activities, and key messages from the NMP Co-Champions. The staff plans to solicit feedback from website users to ensure that future enhancements to the portal serve the needs of its users.

12. How is the Nuclear Materials Users Business Line maintaining reasonable assurance of public health & safety with the strategies to delay or defer from the appropriate inspection manual chapter due to the COVID-19 PHE?

NMSS has been engaging licensees to understand their needs and challenges in meeting our regulatory requirements as we continue to operate in the COVID- 19 environment. NMSS and the Regional Offices also recognize that possible resurgence of COVID-19 across the country may challenge our ability to implement our inspection programs as required by the applicable inspection manual chapters. The staff continues to conduct inspections in consideration of local conditions and necessary precautions for each facility. The staff continues to evaluate inspections on a case-by-case basis to determine if inspections should be conducted on-site, remotely, a combination thereof, or deferred in accordance with current flexibilities. We also continue to evaluate strategies to complete, as appropriate, any inspections that were temporarily delayed or deferred due to the COVID-19 PHE, while maintaining reasonable assurance of public health and safety.

In the April 7th letter to byproduct material, uranium recovery, decommissioning, fuel facilities, and spent fuel storage licensees (ADAMS Accession No. ML20094G166), the staff identified the following methods for regulatory relief: (1) exemptions from regulatory requirements, (2) amendments to license conditions or technical specifications, and (3) enforcement discretion. Examples of specific requests for regulatory relief include routine monitoring activities, procedures for receiving and opening packages, leak testing and physical inventory of sealed sources and brachytherapy sources, annual instrument and survey instrument calibrations, reviewing official certifications, reinvestigations of individuals granted unescorted access, and maintenance and testing requirements. The staff continues to process requests for temporary regulatory relief and has approved 38 requests to date.

13. During the NRC's response to the COVID-19 PHE, were any materla Is inspection late?

There were a few instances where inspections were overdue during the COVID-19 PHE. These inspections have already been completed. There are currently some inspections that are overdue and those are scheduled to be completed by the end of this calendar year. Moving forward , the Nuclear Materials Users Business Line is engaging more with the Regional Offices to develop, as appropriate, additional strategies to maintain reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety while ensuring the safety of our inspectors.

14. What measures is NMSS putting in place to strengthen the National Materials Program?

• The staff is currently developing an integrated communication plan to take advantage of current activities and identify gaps in how we communicate with internal and external stakeholders.

• The staff continues to evaluate and upgrade the State Communications Portal to meet the current needs of the NRC and Agreement State stakeholders.

• The staff and management have enhanced communications with the OAS board to better coordinate and collaborate on regulatory and emerging issues.

15. What Is the NRC doing to help the Agreement States with their staffing needs?

We recognize that with the ongoing and anticipated continued retirements of experienced staff, the need for training of new radiation protection personnel in state and federal programs is becoming increasingly acute. We are committed to coordinating and collaborating with the Agreement States to develop strategies to address the hiring of skilled health physicists {HPs) and to address any barriers for hiring. This includes working with Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer to determine how to share information on potential candidates that align better with Agreement States' hiring strategies and working with the Agreement States in being a part of any Task Force that is formed to examine and address the key aspects of the HP hiring issue.

16. ls NRC accurately capturing the resource expenditures by Agreement States in maintaining compatibility with NRC requirements?

We have ensured that recent rulemaking packages accurately reflect the cost of promulgating new regulations and implementing supporting guidance for licensees, NRC, and Agreement States. Given the time for Agreement States to adopt new NRC regulations , a number of Agreement States bundle NRC requirements to enact them together. This is an efficiency for the States because it reduces the cost to adopt and implement NRC amendments.

17. What are the most current goals and priorities for the National Materials Program?

The 2020-2021 NMP Goals and Priorities are as follows:

Tier One Priorities:

• IMPEP - create new vision in the context of the NMP, the NRC-Agreement State partnership, modern risk-informed regulators and NRC's oversight responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act

• Centers of Excellence - develop structure and provide resources to make them sustainable; identify new centers as needed

• Training - evaluate and address Agreement States training needs

• NMP performance metrics - identify metrics to track the ability of the NMP to meet its mission

• COVI D-19 Activities - re-establishing and coordinating routine activities

• NMP Communication Platform - develop platform {similar to RADRAP listserv) to enhance communication across the NMP

Tier Two Priorities:

• Guidance on Technical issues - establish working groups to address high priority technical issues as needed

• Risk-inform Program Elements - revisit time period for adoption of program elements (including regulations) and identify specific regulatory activities of low-risk that could be shed

• WBL - review commitments and encourage Agreement State participation

• IMC 2800 and Enforcement - enhanced communication on inspection and enforcement findings

• Recruiting and Retaining - what initiatives or actions can NMP leaders take to keep trained staff in careers with the government 18.Can you expand more on the five objectives of the National Materials Program?

a. Optimize the resources of the NRC and the Agreement States programs

i. Implement regulatory priorities through resource sharing by materials regulatory programs.

ii. All materials regulatory programs should participate to the extent possible. Participation means a commitment of resources , such as staff time and/or financial support.

iii. Prevent duplication of effort among regulatory programs.

b. Account for individual agency needs and abilities

i. The NRC and Agreement States have developed expertise in specific regulatory and technical areas that should be shared throughout the NMP.

ii. Despite the need for consistency and cooperation , there wiill be situations in which the NRC and Agreement States have unique legal, jurisdictional, or managerial obligations that must be met.

These specific obligations must not be impeded by the NMP.

c. Promote consensus on regulatory priorities and approaches

i. Regulatory priorities should be established and periodically reviewed through a collaborative process involving both the NRC and Agreement States in which general agreement is reached. This includes input that could be considered in the NRC rulemalking process.

ii. Regulatory priorities should be jointly established and periodically reviewed consistent with regulatory goals (e.g., rulemaking ,

guidance development, etc.). The priorities are currently developed and revised annually.

d. Promote consistent exchange of information

i. Maintain the State Communication Portal for the collection of information to ensure its availab:ility to the NMP.

ii. Maintain open lines of communications at all levels throughout the NMP.

e. Recognize and share successes

i. The NRG and Agreement States have individual regulatory successes as well as successful efforts that are cooperative. It is important to recognize those regulatory successes that can be used to enhance program elements and practices throughout the NMP.

19. What is the long-term strategy for data visualization and analytics in the NMU business line?

We view data visualization and data analytics as an office-wide initiative. The staff is focused on finding solutions that make efficient use of agency resources in serving all business lines under the Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety Program. The Integrated Source Management Portfol io (ISMP), particularly Web-Based Licensing (WBL), already contains a significant amount of NMU and Spent Fuel business line data. We are also working towards capturing low-level waste, uranium recovery, environmental analysis, financial assurance, and fuel cycle related data in the system.

20. What has your experience been with your current dashboards?

Our workload management tool has been very helpful for keeping track of major activities within MSST. The data underlying the dashboard is still entered manually, but planned upgrades to WBL will capture this data and allow staff to track other projects within WBL. The dashboard to track expiring materials licenses was created in response to regional staff needs and demonstrated that dashboards can be leveraged to quickly analyze and present existing WBL data in a meaningful way to assist staff in their routine licensing tasks. The staff is exploring how to refresh the dashboard daily.

21 . What is the overall vision for the Integrated Source Management Portfolio and for the Web-Based Licensing?

We want WBL to be at the center of daily and routine materials licensing and inspection activities. These include online application submittals; completion of licensing actions and inspection activities; and generation of correspondence such as licenses and inspection reports.

We continue to offer the use of WBL - free of charge - to Agreement State prog rams.

The system has numerous functions designed to support use by the Agreement States, who would be very hard pressed to pay for a system with equivalent capabilities. We continue to engage our users to enhance and evolve the system to meet changing needs. We strive to keep modernizing ISMP and WBL, not only to maintain the systems current with technology (i.e., we don't want any of the underlying systems to become obsolete), but also to facili:tate our work processes.

Licensees also are the key users of WBL. In FY 2021 , we will roll out an external facing portal to allow licensees to electronically submit licensing actions directly in WBL.

Licensees will also be able to track the progress of their actions in WBL.

22. How do the Regional Offices view the role of the RSAOs and the RSLOs in communications with the States?

The RSAOs and RSLOs play a critical support role in how the NRC communicates with the Agreement and non-Agreement States. RSAOs and RSLOs also allow the Regional Offices to stay connected with and receive feedback from the Agreement States and non-Agreement States who are interested in entering into Agreements with the NRC.

RSAOs, RSLOs, and regional staff all partner with Regional Public Affairs Officers to streamline and coordinate communications with the public/media and to coordination with the Office of Congressional Affairs on materials oversight issues of public and congressional interest.

23. What processes does the Nuclear Materials Users business line have in place to collect and provide feedback from internal and external stakeholders?

The RSAOs and the RSLOs) are vital in the NRC's efforts to maintain open channels of communications with the Agreement States and all State governments. The staff in NMSS and the Regional Offices routinely hold public meetings and government-to-government meetings to engage the public and state government officials in issues of common interest and seek input and feedback on the issues at hand. In addition, the staff uses State and Tribal Communications (STC) letters and Radiation Control Program Director (RCPD) letters to seek feedback from Agreement States, the Organization of Agreement States (OAS), and the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD).

License reviewers and inspectors often receive feedback directly from licensees in their interactions during the conduct of licensing and oversight activities. Regional staff in turn conveys these insights about licensee performance and challenges in their participation in working groups for rulemaking and guidance development and are crucial in striking an appropriate balance of viewpoints and perspectives in these regulatory products. The staff also engage all lSMP/WBL users to identify beneficial and necessary changes to WBL.

From: Von Till, Bill Sent: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 21:32:00 +0000 To: Entz, Kathy Cc: Holahan, Trish;Zimmerman, Jacob;Pham, Bo;Tappert, John

Subject:

Fw: RE: Re: Revised DOE LM-1 Position Paper on SER Letter for Churchrock, NM Kathy, per John's request, please contact Francesca to set up a one on one discussion with John and Carmelo. Sounds like next week.

Thanks From: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>

Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 5:27 PM To: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Cc: Pham, Bo <Bo.Pham@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] RE: Re: Revised DOE LM-1 Position Paper on SER Letter for Church rock, NM Bill-Carmelo Melendez' Executive Assistant is Francesca Banks. She can be reached at 202-586-7550, Francesca.banks@lm .doe.gov. Thanks for sending the bio information for John.

Sincerely, David Shafer From: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 2:32 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>

Cc: Pham, Bo <Bo.Pham@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[EXTERNAL] RE: Re: Revised DOE LM-1 Position Paper on SER letter for Churchrock, NM

David, Can you give me the name of Carmelo's EA as John Lubinski still does want to have a one on one.

Thanks From: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>

Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 8:06 AM To: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Cc: Pham, Bo <Bo.Pham@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: Revised DOE LM-1 Position Paper on SER Letter for Churchrock, NM Thanks. When i get to the office i will provide you the name of Carmelo Melendez' EA so that a call can be scheduled with Mr. Lubinski and LM-1. Thanks, David Shafer From: "Von Till, Bill" <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Date: Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 2:27:54 AM

To: "Shafer, David" <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>

Cc: "Pham, Bo" <Bo.Pham@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[EXTERNAL) RE: Revised DOE LM-1 Position Paper on SER Letter for Churchrock, NM Thanks David This version is accurate.

From: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 6:38 PM To: Pham, Bo <Bo.Pham@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@ nrc.gov>; Melendez, Carmelo nmn

<carmelo.melendez@hq.doe.gov>

Cc: Miller, Steven R <steven.miller@hg.doe.gov>; Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Kerl, Paul <paul. kerl@lm.doe.gov>; Jasso, Tashina

<Tashina.Jasso@lm.doe.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Revised DOE LM-1 Position Paper on SER Letter for Churchrock, NM Importance: High

Dear Bo and Bill,

Thanks for the meeting today. Based on it, I made some revisions to the DOE LM-1 Position Paper on the Church Rock UMTRCA Site. As I think you know, this w as on t he agenda for t he DOE-NRC Senior Managers M eeting on Monday the 25 th. However, I hope you agree that we do not need to cover it then.

Thanks again, David Shafer David S. Shafer, PHO Deputy Director for Field Operations Office of Legacy Management US Department of Energy Westminster, CO 80021 David .Shaf er@lm.doe.gov 303-410-4806 (Office)

~ )(6) l(Cell)

Visit DOE Legacy Management at https:ljwww.energy.gov/lm/office-legacy-management This message does not originate from a known Depa11ment of Energy email system.

Use caution if this message contains attachments, li nks or requests for information.

This message does not originate from a known Department of Energy email system.

Use caution if this message contains attachments, links or requests for information.

From: Tappert, John Sent: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 14:26:25 +0000 To: Coyne, Kevin

Subject:

FW: Talking Points and information for DOE call - Peter O'Konski Attachments: DOE John and Carmelo call talking points.docx, LM-1 Position on SER for Church Rock-Oct 12020.pdf, Letter from Carmelo to Tappert 3 918 (003).pdf, UNC Information 10 20 2020 to John Oct 22.docx fyi From: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 4:55 PM To: Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>

Cc: Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>;

Lewis, Robert <Robert.Lewis@nrc.gov>; Tappert, John <John.Tappert@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Talking Points and information for DOE call - Peter O'Konski John, Please see the suggested talking points with bios of O'Konski and Melendez and supporting information attached and below.

October 14 letter from Trish to Carmelo View ADAMS Properties ML20273A247 Open ADAMS Document (Letter to Carmelo Melendez Transmitting Safety Evaluation Report of UNC Church Rock License Amendment Request, Docket Number 04008907)

October 19 letter from Carmelo to Trish View ADAMS Properties ML20301A830 Open ADAMS Document (Letter from Ca rmelo M elendez, DOE dated October 19, 2020 RE: NRC Church Rock Site)

Email from Carmelo to Trish, transmitting Carmelo's October 19 letter View ADAMS Propert ies ML20301A829 Open ADAMS Document (E-Mail From Carmelo Melendez, DOE dated October 19, 2020 RE: Safety Evaluation Report for License Amendment Request, for The Former UNC Church Rock Uranium Mill and Tailings Site to Relocate Mine Waste)

Email from David Shafer agreeing to retract October 19, 2020 letter View ADAMS Propert ies ML20301A828 Open ADAMS Document (E-Mail From David Shafer, dated October 22, 2020 RE : Request for NRC to r )(5)

From: Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>

Se nt: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 4:26 PM To: Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Cc: Lewis, Robert <Robert.Lewis@nrc.gov>

Subject:

DOE Call Apparently Carlos Melendez is unavailable for 2 more weeks. Therefore, I have a call with his Deputy, Mr. O'Konski , on 11/3. Can you please provide me the talking points by noon Monday.

Thanks John W. Lubinski, Director, NMSS Be rlskSMART

'-..____-/

Talking Points for John's call with Carmelo Melendez Peter O' Konski of DOE (6)(5)

Peter O'Konski Deputy Director, Office of Legacy Management Peter O'Konski, LM Deputy Director Peter O'Konski is the Deputy Director of the Office of Legacy Management (LM) and provides leadership for DOE to continue to fu lfill the Department's post-closure responsibil ities and ensure the future protection of human health and the environment. LM, established in 2003, is responsible for activities at sites where DOE's mission has ended and active environmental cleanup is complete. Activities include long-term surveillance and

maintenance, records management, benefits continuity, property management, land-use planning, and community assistance and engagement. Since inception, LM's responsibilities have grown steadily from 33 sites to over 100, today.

Previously, Mr. O'Konski was Director of the Office of Administration where he was responsible for logistics and facility operations at the Forrestal and Germantown complexes as wel l as other mission-critical headquarters functions including facility operations, space management, safety and health, printing, media production, graphics, transportation, and international travel. Prior to this position, Mr. O'Konski was Director of Facility Policy and Professional Development within the Office of Engineering and Construction Management where he was responsible for development of DOE facility management policy, which emphasized maintenance, master planning, and life-cycle cost management of the Department's $100 billion real property portfolio. He also led the Department's Project Management Career Development Program to include policy formulation, Certification Review Board activities, and course development.

Before joining the DOE, Mr. O'Konski was Chief Engineer at the Navy Public Works Center where he was responsible for all design and engineering services for Navy facilities in the Washington Capital Region. Prior to that position Mr. O'Konski served as the Utilities Director managing generation, distribution, and delivery of steam and chilled water from eight plants, as well as distribution of high-voltage electricity and water. As Utilities' Director, he implemented a Most Efficient Organization after successfully leading his Department through a Commercial Activities Study.

Mr. O'Konski holds a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from the Catholic University of America, a master's degree in fire protection engineering from the University of Maryland, and a Master of Business Administration from George Mason University. He is a licensed professional (mechanical) engineer {PE) in the State of Maryland, a certified energy manager (CEM), a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design accredited professional (LEED-AP), and a certified cost engineer (CCE).

Carmelo Melendez Director, Office of Legacy Management Home >> Carmelo Melendez Carmelo Melendez, LM Director Mr. Melendez is the Program Office Director of the Office of Legacy Management ( LM) and provides the leadership for DOE to continue to fulfill the Department's post-closure responsibilities and ensure the future protection of human health and the environment. LM, established in 2003, is responsible for activities at sites where DOE's mission has ended and active environmental cleanup has been completed, including long-term surveillance and maintenance, records management, benefits continuity, property management, land-use planning, and community assistance and

engagement. Since inception, LM's responsibilities have grown steadily from 33 sites to 100 sites, today.

Mr. Melendez was the previous Director of the Office of Asset Management within the Office of Management, Head of Contracting Activity for Real Estate, and Senior Real Property Officer for the DOE. Over the years, Mr.

Melendez has served in the Office of Engineering and Construction Management, the Office of Environmental Management, and the Office of Acquisition and Project Management. Prior to returning to DOE in 2012, he served as the Assistant Chief of Staff for Facilities and Infrastructure for Marine Corps Combat Development Command and Director Installation and Environment Division for Marine Corps Installations in the National Capital Region. He has led the delivery of products/services covering real estate, planning, engineering, maintenance, construction, housing, community plans and liaison, natural/cultural resources, environmental planning and restoration, and contracting. He has been a career member of the Senior Executive Service, Vice Chairman of the National Academies' Federal Facilities Council, and member of the Office of Management and Budget's Federal Real Property Advisory Council. He has served in the Departments of Defense, Energy, and State and as a Commander in the Navy's Civil Engineer Corps.

He holds the following degrees: BS in Mechanical Engineering from UPR, MBA in Financial Management from SNHU, MEng in Civil & Environmental Engineering from UF, EngD in Engineering Management from GWU. He completed his Executive Education at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management. His qualifications include: Registered Professional Engineer (PE), Certified Project Management Professional (PMP), Certified Facilities Manager (CFM),

Sustainability Facilities Professional (SFP), Certified Leadership in Environmental and Engineering Design Green Associate (LEED GA), member of DoD's Acquisition Professional Community, Level III DAW IA Certified in Facilities Engineering and Contracting, and held Unlimited Level III Contracting Officer Warrants for Design, Construction, Environmental Management, Real Estate, and Facilities Engineering. He led teams recognized with: San Diego Business Journal's "Best Places to Work",

Department of the Navy's Meritorious Unit Commendation, ACHP Chairman's Award in Historic Preservation, SECNAV's Energy and Water Management Award and Secretary of Energy's Honors Award. His recognitions include:

National Society of Professional Engineer's Top Ten Federal Engineer of the Year, Department of the Navy's Facilities Engineering Military Engineer of the Year, Secretary of Energy's Achievement Award, Department of State's Superior and Meritorious Honor Medals, Department of the Navy's Superior

and Meritorious Civilian Service Medals, Department of Energy's Superior Service Award, and several Navy/Marine Corps military decorations.

October 21, 2020 Carmelo Melendez (LM-1) Position on October 14, 2020 NRC Letter on SER for Church Rock UMTRCA Title II Site License Amendment

)(5) 1

)(5)

David S. Shafer, PHO Deputy Director for Field Operations DOE Office of Legacy Management Westminster, CO 80021 david .shafer@I m.doe .gov (O) 303-410-4806 (C)r x6) I 2

Department of Energy Washington. DC 20585 March 9, 2011 Mr. John Tappert Deputy Director Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recover, and Waste Programs Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop TS F5 Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

Mine Waste Placement on the Church Rock, New Mexico, Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act Title II Disposal Cell Site

Dear Mr. Tappcrt:

Since 2009. the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Legacy Management (LM) bas been actively working with you regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposal to dispose of mine waste from the Northeast Church Rock Mine on the Chw-ch Rock Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) Disposal Cell Site (Church Rock) io New Mexico. Our collaboration has been productive, for the good of both the people and the environment, and we would like to thank you for yow- efforts thus far. Nonetheless, as previously discussed, LM remains concerned from a practical, regulatory and technical standpoint with placing additional material on a completed UMTRCA cell. The existing cell was constructed appropriately for termination of the operator's license issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). For DOE to assume long term stewardship responsibitities for an envisioned combined disposal structure under a dual post-closure regulatory posture is unfeasible, unsuitable and unacceptable.

DOE has tracked and reviewed the design of the combined mine waste/mill tailings disposal and we apprecia1e the opportunity to do so. However, DOE is concerned that the mine waste when placed on top of the tailings will affect the integrity oftbe cell, and the recently revised "95 percent design" would result in a cell with steeper slopes, which is not conducive to low maintenance, and is inconsistent with the 1000 year design life expected under UMTRCA. In addition, DOE does not support the proposal that the site be regulated by both EPA and NRC with post-closure care being carried out by the Department, for the reasons stated below.

Under UMTRCA, DOE can onJy obtain funding for addressing material that meets the definition of byproduct material under section I I.e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

There is NRC guidance which provides for the inclusion of non-11 .e.(2) material al mill tailing disposal sites. However, NRC must declare the material is accept.able and similar in nature to byproduct material. Additionally, DOE must be given lhe opportunity to agree that the material is acceptable. Finally, DOE has onJy accepted non-I I .e.(2) material in the past if the new rnateriaJ would not result in any other regulations or regulators to be involved in its long-lenn surveillance and maintenance of the site.

That said, our understanding of what is currently proposed is for EPA to regulate the mine waste portion of the cell and NRC to regulate the 11 .e.(2) material. This proposal would effectively result in two separate disposal facilities on top of one another, with a different set of rules applying to each layer. DOE staff predicts that this could result in significantly higher costs for long-term surveillance and maintenance of the site, and potentially create a situation where DOE might face conOicting opinions from the regulating agencies on management of the site. The situation is further complicated by possibly having two EPA regions involved in regulating the long-term stewardship of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) portion of the site, particularly if there were contaminants cliscovered off the Church Rock Site. Under the applicable UMTRCA regulations, the design of a disposal cell must be protective and not allow any escape of hazardous waste or leachate. However, if there were releases of such material, it could be difficult to determine from what part of the cell it originated.

One possible solution would be to have EPA manage the entire Church Rock disposal cell site under its CERCLA authority with the General Electric Corporation subsidiary as the primary Potentially Responsible Party. Another possible solution would be to allow NRC to retain the General Electric Corporation subsidiary's license for the foreseeable future, at least until all concerned parties agree no further work is anticipated. The United States has already agreed to provide partial funding for post-closure care of the Northeast Church Rock Mine through the 20 IO Consent Decree and Judgment. The Atomic Energy Act (AEA) requirement is that a Federal (or State) agency own and manages the site. However, the Federal agency need not necessarily be DOE. Under the AEA, as amended by UMTRCA, any Federal agency, including EPA can potentially fulfill this responsibility. A third possible solution would be that DOE, NRC, and EPA enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would define the respective roles and responsibilities in a manner similar to the 2002 MOU between NRC and EPA. That MOU is enclosed with this letter.

DOE shares with both EPA and NRC a desire that the mine waste and 11.e.(2) materials be managed in a way that protects human health and the environment. DOE further believes each of the three agencies must agree on a path forward that is workable and acceptable to all, and therefore should hold an executive conference to discuss the ultimate end-state and the extent of our respective responsibilities regarding the Church Rock site. We will be looking forward to bearing from you so that we can come up with an appropriate solution that is acceptable to the three agencies.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me to discuss this further, you may call me at (202) 586-4882, or contact David S. Shafer, Ph.D., Director of the Office of Site Operations for DOE-LM at (202) 586-8324 or david.shafer(ci!hg.doe.g,ov.

Sincerely, Director Office of Legacy Management

Enclosure cc w/enclosure:

J. Smith, NRC J. Brooks, EPA R6 C. Edlund, EPA R6 S. Jacobs, EPA R9 E. Manzanilla, EPA R9 A. K.leinrath, DOE-LM (e)

M. Kautsky, DOE-LM (e)

S. Miller, DOE~GC (e)

D. Shafer, DOE-LM (e)

J. Elmer, Navarro (e)

File: CHR 0030.10 (records)

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THEEN~RONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCYAND THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CONSULTATION AND ANALITY ON DECOMMISSIONING AND DECONTAMINATION OF CONTAMINATED SITES I. Introduction The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in recognition of their mutual commitment to protect the public health and safety and the environment, are entering into this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) In order to establish a basic framework for the relationship of the agencies in the radiological decommissioning and decontamination of NRC~licensed sites. Each Agency is entering into this MOU in order to facilitate decision-making. It does not establish any new requirements or rights on parties not subject to this agreement.

II. Purpose The purpose of this MOU is to identify the interactions of the two agencies for the decommissioning and decontamination of NRC-llcensed sites and to indicate the way in which those interactions will take place. Except for Section VI, addressing corrective action under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), this MOU is limited to the coordination between EPA, when acting under its Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and liability Act (CERCLA) authority, and NRC, when a facility licensed by the NRC is undergoing decommissioning, or when a facility has completed decommissioning, and the NRC has tenninated its license. It continues a basic policy of EPA deferral to NRC decision-making in the decommissioning of NRG-licensed sites except in certain circumstances, and establishes the procedures to govern the relationship between the agencies in connection with the decommissioning of sites at which those circumstances arise Ill. Background An August 3, 1999, report (106-286) from the House Committee on Appropriations to accompany the bill covering EPA's FY1999 Appropriations/FY 2000 budget request states:

Once again the Committee notes that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has and will continue to remediate sites under its jurisdiction to a level that fully protects public health and safety, and believes that any reversal of the long-standing policy of the Agency to defer to the NRC for cleanup of NRC's licensed sites is not a good use of public or private funds. The interaction of the EPA with the NRC, NRC licensees, and others, with regard to sites being remediated under NRC regulatory requirements-when not specifically requested by the NRC-has created stakeholder concerns regarding the authority and finality of NRC licensing decisions, the duration and costs of site cleanup, and the potential future liability of parties associated with affected sites. However, the Committee recognizes that there may be circumstances at specific NRC licensed sites where the Agency's expertise may be of critical use to the NRC In

- I-

the interest of ensuring that sites do not face dual regulation, the Committee strongly encourages both agencies to enter into an MOU which clarifies the circumstances for EPA's involvement at NRC sites w'hen requested by the NRC.

The EPA and NRC are directed to report to the Committee on Appropriations no later than May 1, 2000, on the status of the development of such an MOU.

Since September 8, 1983, EPA has generally deferred llsting on the CERCLA National Priorities List (NPL) those sites that are subject to NRC's licensing authority, in recognition that NRC's actions are believed to be consistent with the CERCLA requirement to protect human health and the environment. However, as EPA indicated in the Federal Register notice announcing the policy of CERCLA deferral to NRC, if EPA "determines that sites which it has not listed as a matter of policy are not being properly responded to, the Agency will consider listing those sites on the NPL* (see 48 FR 40658).

EPA reaffirms its previous 1983 deferral policy. EPA expects that any need for EPA CERCLA involvement in the decommissioning of NRC licensed sites should continue to occur very infrequently because EPA expects that the vast majority of facilities decommissioned under NRC authority will be decommissioned in a manner that is fully protective of human health and the environment By this MOU, EPA agrees to a deferral policy regarding NRC decision*making without the need for consultation except in certain limited circumstances as specified in paragraphs V.C.2 and V.C.3.

One set of circumstances in which continued consultation should occur, pursuant to the procedures defined herein, relates to sites at which the NRC determines during the license termination process that there is radioactive ground-water contamination above certain limits.

Pursuant to its license Termination rule, NRC applies a dose criterion that encompasses all pathways, including ground water. In its cleanup of sites pursuant to CERCLA, by contrast, EPA customarily establishes a separate ground-water cleanup standard jn which it applies certain Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs, found at 40 CFR 141) promulgated for radionuclides and other substances pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act NRC has agreed in this MOU to consult with EPA on the appropriate approach in responding to the circumstances at particular sites with ground-water contamination at the time of license termination in excess of EPA's MCLs or those sites for which NRC contemplates either restricted release or the use of alternate criteria for license termination, or radioactive contamination at the time of license termination exceeds the corresponding levels in Table 1 as provided in Section V C.2.

IV. Principles In carrying out their respective responsibilities, the EPA and the NRC will strive to:

1. Establish a stable and predictable regulatory environment with respect to EPA's CERCLA authority in and NRC's decommissioning of contaminated sites.

2. Ensure, to the extent practicable, that the responsibilities of the NRC under the AEA and the responsibilities of EPA under CERCLA are implemented in a coordinated and consistent manner.

V. Implementation A. Scope This MOU is intended to address issues related to the EPA involvement under CERCLA in the cleanup of radiologically contaminated sites under the jurisdiction of the NRC. EPA will continue its CERCLA policy of September 8, 1983, which explains how EPA implements deferral decisions regarding listing on the NPL of any sites that are subject to NRC's licensing authority.

The NRC's review of sites under NRC jurisdiction indicates that few of these sites have radioactive ground-water contamination in excess of the EPA's MCLs. At those sites at which NRC determines during the license tennination process that there is radioactive ground-water contamination above the relevant EPA MCLs, NRC will consult with EPA and, if necessary, discuss with EPA the use of flexibility under EPA's phased approach to addressing ground-water contamination. NRC has agreed in this MOU to consult with EPA on the appropriate approach in responding to the circumstances at particular sites where ground-water contamination will exceed EPA's MCLs, NRC contemplates either restricted release or the use of alternate criteria for license termination, or radioactive contamination at the time of license termination exceeds the corresponding levels in Table 1 as provided in Section V.C.2.

B. General Each agency will keep the other agency generally informed of its relevant plans and schedules.

will respond to the other agency's requests for information to the extent reasonable and practicable, and will strive to recognize and ameliorate to the extent practicable any problems arising from implementation of this MOU.

C. NRC Responsibilit ies

1. NRC will continue to ensure remediation of sites under its jurisdiction to a level that fully protects public health and safety.

2. For NRG-licensed sites at which NRC determines during the license termination process that there is radioactive ground-water contamination in excess of EPA's MC Ls, or for which NRC contemplates either restricted release (10 CFR 20.1403) or the use of alternate criteria for license termination (10 CFR 20.1404), NRC will seek EPA's expertise to assist in NRC's review of a decommissioning or license termination plan. In addition, NRC will consult with EPA if either the planned level of residual radioactive soil concentrations in the proposed action or the actual residual level of radioactive soil concentrations found in the final site survey exceed the radioactive soil concentration in Table 1. With respect to all such sites, the NRC will consult with EPA on the application of the NRC decommissioning requirements and will take such action as the NRC determines to be appropriate based on its consultation with EPA. For example, if NRC detennines during the license termination process that there will be radioactive ground-water contamination in excess of EPA's MCLs at the time of license termination, then NRC will discuss with EPA the use of flexibility under EPA's phased approach for addressing ground-water contamination. If NRC does not adopt recommendations provided by the EPA, NRC will inform EPA of the basis for its decision not to do so.

3. NRC will defer to EPA regarding matters involving hazardous materials not under NRC's jurisdiction.

D. EPA Responsibilities

1. If the NRC requests EPA's consultation on a decommissioning plan or license tennination plan, EPA will provide, within 90 days of NRC's notice to EPA. written notification of its views on the matter.

2. Consistent with this MOU, EPA agrees to a policy of deferral to NRC decision making on decommissioning without the need for consultation on sites other than those presenting the circumstances described in Sections V.C.2 and V.C.3. The agencies will consult with each other pursuant to the provisions of this MOU with respect to those sites presenting the circumstances described in Sections V.C.2 and V.C.3. EPA does not expect to undertake CERCLA actions related to radioactive contamination at a site that has been decommissioned in compliance with the NRC's standards, including a site addressed under Section V.C.2, despite the agencies decision to engage in consultation on such sites. EPA's deferral policy, and its expectation of not taking CERCLA action, continues to apply to sites that are covered under Section V.C.2.

3. For NRC-licensed sites presenting the circumstances described in Section V.C.2 and for which NRC has not adopted the EPA recommendation, EPA will consult with NRC on any CERCLA actions EPA expects to take if EPA does not agree with the NRC's decision.

4. EPA will resolve any CERCLA concerns involving hazardous substances outside of NRC's jurisdiction at NRC licensed sites, including concerns involving hazardous constituents that are not under the authority of NRC. As provided in Section V.D.2, EPA under CERCLA will defer or consult with NRG as appropriate regarding matters involving AEA materials under NRC's jurisdiction.

E. Other Provisions

1. Nothing in this MOU shall be deemed to establish any right nor provide a basis for any action, either legal or equitable by any person, or class of persons challenging a government action or failure to act

2. Each agency will appoint a designated contact for implementation of this MOU. The designated individuals will meet at least annually or at the request of either agency to review NRG-licensed sites that meet the criteria for consultation pursuant to Section V.C.2.

The NRC designated contact is the Director, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, and the EPA designated contact is the Director Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, or as each des1gnee delegates.

3. This MOU will remain in effect until terminated by the written notice of either party submitted six months in advance of termination.

4. Within six months of the execution of this MOU, each party will revise its guidance to Its Headquarters and Regional Offices to reflect the terms of this MOU.

5. If differences arlse that.cannot oe resolved by senior EPA and NRC management within 90 days, then either 84infor EPA or NRC*management may raise the issue tc:i"their respective agency head..

~on VI. Comtctlv.* ~ct.Ion under RCRA Some NRC si1'8s undergoing d800mmlsslonlng may be subject to.cfeanup under RCRA corrective action authority. This *authority, administered either by EPA or authorized-states, requires cleanup of releases of hazardous waste or constituents at hazardous waste treatment, sto~e or disposal facilities. NRC sites subject to ~CRA corrective*action will be expected to 1'1'.'9.C.ft~~eanup stan~ards for.~emlc.al contamination within E.PA'sjurisdiclion; EPA Offlc:e of Solid Waste's policy is to encourage regional and State program implementers to coordinate 'RCRA cleai:tups with decommissioning, as appropriate, at those NRC sites subjecf' to EPA's correcih(e action authority.1 EPA win continue to ~upport coordination of cleanups under the RCRA corrective action program with deoomrnissloning at NRC sites consistent with Its March 6, 1997 policy. In addition, under RCRA the majority of states are authorized to Implement the corrective action requlrements. S1ates are not signatories to this MOU; however, EPA will encourage States to act in accordance with this policy where they have responsibility for RCRA corrective action at NRC sites undergoing decommissioning.

Items 1* and 3 of the *other Provisions* of Section V.

JLk .srt:l/9 30 *~--4!--

Christine T. Whibnan Administrator Date Ric ard A. Meserve Chainnan Date US Environmental Protection Agency US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1

See letter from Elizabett_t C o ~: Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste to James R.

Roewer, USWAG, dated ~arch 5, 1997:

-s-

Duplicate first page - Inserted to aflow word searching

5. If differences arise that cannot be resolved by senior EPA and NRC management within 90 days, then either senior EPA or NRC management may raise the issue to their respective agency head.

Section VI. Corrective Action under RCRA Some NRC sites undergoing decommissioning may be subject to cleanup under RCRA corrective action authority. This authority, administered either by EPA or authorized states, requires cleanup of releases of hazardous waste or constituents at hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities. NRC sites subject to RCRA corrective action will be expected to meet RCRA cleanup standards for chemical contamination within EPA's jurisdiction. EPA Office of Solid Waste's policy Is to encourage regional and State program implementers to coordinate RCRA cleanups with decommissioning, as appropriate, at those NRC sites subject to EPA's corrective action authority.1 EPA will continue to support coordination of cleanups under the RCRA corrective action program with decommissioning at NRC sites consistent with its March 5, 1997 policy. In addition, under RCRA the majority of States are authorized to implement the corrective action requirements. States are not signatories to this MOU; however, EPA will encourage States to act in accordance with this policy where they have responsibility for RCRA corrective action at NRC sites undergoing decommissioning.

Items 1 and 3 of the "Other Provisions" of Section V.E. apply to this section.

Christine T. Whitman Date Richard A. Meserve Date Administrator Chairman US Environmental Protection Agency US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1

See letter from Eliz.abelh Cotsworth, Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste to James R.

Roewer, USWAG, dated March 5, 1997.

MOU Table 1: Consultation Triggers for Residential and Commercial/Industrial Soil Contamination Except for radium-226, tboriom-232, or total uranium, concentrations should be aggregated using a sum of the fraction approach to determine site specific consultation trigger conccntratfons. This table is based on single contami_nant concentrations for residential and commercial/industrial laud use when using generally accepted exposure parameters. Table users should select the appropriate column based on the site's reasonably anticipated land use.

Residential lndustriaUCommercial Radionuclide Soll Concentration Soil Concentration ll-3 228 pCi/g 423 pCi/g C- l4 46pCi/g 123,000 pCi/g Na-22 9 pCi/g 14 pCi/g S-35 19,600 pCi/g 32,200,000 pCi/g Cl-36 6 pCi/g I0,700 pCi/g Ca-45 13,500 pCi/g 3,740,000 pCi/g Sc-46 105 pCi/g 169 pCi/g Mn-54 69 pCi/g 112 pCi/g Fe-55 269,000 pCi/g 2,210,000 pCi/g Co-57 873 pCi/g l,420 pCi/g Co-60 4pCi/g 6 pCi/g Ni-59 20,800 pCi/g 1,230,000 pCi/g Ni-63 9,480 pCi/g 555,000 pCi/g Sr-9o+D 23 pCi/g 1,070 pCi/g Nb-94 2 pCi/g 3 pCi/g Tc-99 25 pCi/g 89,400 pCi/g I- 129 60 pCi/g 1,080 pCi/g Cs-134 16 pCi/g 26 pCi/g Cs-137+O 6 pCi/g 11 pCi/g Eu- 152 4 pCi/g 7 pCi/g Eu-154 5 pCi/g 8 pCi/g

• 6-

MOU Table 1: Consultation Triggers for Residential and Commercial/Industrial Soil Contamination Except for radium-226, tborium-232, or total uranium, concentrations should be aggregated using a sum of the fraction approach to determine site specific consultation trigger concentrations. This table is based on single contaminant concentrations for residential and commercial/industrial land use when using generally accepted exposure parameters. Table users should select the appropriate column based on the site's reasonably anticipated land use.

Residential Industrial/Commercial Radionuclide Soil Concentration Soil Concentration lr-192 336 pCi/g 544 pCi/g Pb-2lo+O 15 pCi/g 123 pCi/g Ra-226 5 pCi/g 5 pCi/g Ac-~27+O JOpCi/g 2 1 pCi/g Th-228 O 15 pCi/g 25 pCi/g Th-232 5 pCi/g 5 pCi/g U-234 401 pCi/g 3,310 pCi/g U-235+O 20 pCi/g 39 pCi/g U-238 l-O 74 pCi/g 179 pCi/g total uranium 47mg/kg 1230 mg/kg Pu-238 297 pCi/g 1,640 pCi/g Pu-239 259 pCi/g 1,430 pCi/g Pu-241 40,600 pCi/g 172,000 pCi/g Am-241 187 pCi/g 568 pCi/g Cm-242 32,200 pCi/g 344,000 pCi/g Cm-243 3S pCi/g 67 pCi/g

United Nuclear Corporation (UNC)/Church Rock Site

1. Site Overview

• The UNC Mill Site is a decommissioning uranium mill and tailings disposal site located approximately 17 miles northeast of Gallup in McKinley County, New Mexico.

The Mill Site included an ore processing mill and a tailings disposal area (T DA) that covered approximately 1O and 40 hectares (25 and 100 acres), respectively.

• In June 1987, UNC submitted a proposed reclamation plan for the UNC Mill Site to the NRC, which was approved by NRC on March 15, 1991 and revised on August 30, 1991 . The reclamation plan was later modified by UNC submittals dated March 5, April 10, and June 21 , 1996, which were approved by the NRC on July 18, 1996.

• Remaining site reclamation activities, as detailed in License Condition 35 of the NRC license SUA-1475, are specific to the area of the existing evaporation ponds located on the South Cell of the TOA and include placement of a final radon barrier and erosion protection and the completion of groundwater corrective actions in accordance with the groundwater corrective action plan (GCAP) approved by NRC and . The GCAP is detailed in License Condition 30 of the NRC License.

2. Background

• On September 24, 2018, General Electric (ADAMS Accession Numbers ML18360A424 and ML18267A235) requested an amendment to their reclamation plan approved as described in License Condition 34 as well as the reclamation timelines defined in License Condition 35. This amendment, if granted, would allow activities at the site include construction of a Repository for mine-impacted soil and debris on the licensed mill tailings disposal area. Mine waste will be removed from the Northeast Church Rock Mine Site transported to and placed in the Repository, located on the existing TDA.

• On December 21 , 2018, the NRC staff contacted GE-UNC, to advise them that the application had been deemed acceptable for review and the formal review process would begin. On March 7, 2019, the NRC staff sent a formal acceptance letter, (ADAMS Accession Number ML19044A592) which contained an initial schedule for the review.

A revised schedule letter was issued July 29, 2020.

Projected/Actual NRC Milestones Completion date Safety review RAls - Group 1 May 2019 Safety review RAls - Group 2 July 2019 Environmental review RAls August2019 September 2020 Safety Evaluation Report Draft Environmental Impact Statement October 2020

Final Environmental Impact Statement August2021 Complete Concurrence Process with appropriate December 2021 Federal and State entities.

Issue Amendment Decision January 2022

• Additionally, the NRC staff published a Federal Register Notice, Federal Register Volume 1i4..

Issue 49. ( March 13, 2019), regarding the License amendment application; the opportunity to request a hearing and to petition for leave to intervene.

• The NRC began Its environmental review after acceptance of t he license application for detailed review. The NRC's environmental review process started with the publication in the Federal Register of the Not ice of Intent to prepare the EI S (84 EB 2935 for this project) .

On March 19 and 21, the NRC staff conducted a set of public scoping meetings in Gallup, New Mexico to develop the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement for the application.

3. Key Messages

a. NRC is responsible for:

i. Licensing, Inspection and Oversight of the remaining site reclamation activities of the site.

ii. Review and approval of amendment request to place mine spoils on the TDA.

b. EPA Responsibility.

• For the mill tailings site, under Superfund, the EPA divided the United Nuclear Corporation National Priority List Site (NPL) (UNC Site), into two areas, or operable units, for cleanup: groundwater (OU01) and surface soil (OU02).

• EPA is the authority overseeing the cleanup of the Northeast Church Rock Mine (NECR) site located near the mill site and partially on the Navajo Nation reservation lands. Out of over 500 abandoned uranium mine sites on the Navajo Nation this site is priority number 1.

• Congress has been actively involved with uranium contamination on the Navajo Nation and has an interest in a solution for the NECR site.

c. DOE Responsibility.

The Church Rock UMTRCA Title II site will eventually transfer from GE to DOE Legacy Management (DOE-LM) after all NRC license requirements are met.

DOE-LM will then perform long-term surveillance and maintenance of the collocated uranium mine material and mill tailings.

d. r )(S)

(b)(S)

4. Next Steps (b)(5)

From: Rand, Jennifer Sent: Thu, 1 Apr 202116:32:59 +0000 To: Lubinski, John;Lewis, Robert;Holahan, Trish;Rivera*Varona, Aida;Williams, Kevin;Clark, Theresa;Kock, Andrea; Regan, Christopher;Coyne, Kevin;Mossman, Tim;Ralph, Melissa;Rand, Jennifer;Flores, Mirna;Clark, Theresa Cc: Diaz Sanabria, Yoira;Jones, Kimberly;Valentin-Rodriguez, Celimar;Conway, Kimberly;O'Neill, Marie;Gwo, Jin-Ping;Shoemaker, Mirabelle;Banovac, Kristina;Barto, Andrew;.Downs, James;Billoch Colon, Araceli;Conway, Kimberly

Subject:

FY21 Budget Briefing, March 2021 for DFM and REFS Attachments: 4.1.21 FY21 Budget Briefing to FO for DFM and REFS.xlsx, FY21 List of Returns and Reprogrammings Outside of NMSS 4.1.21.xlsx Good afternoon John and Rob, As requested, attached is the file with the list of contracts from today's meeting with DFM, and REFS.

The changes that were decided on, at the meeting , are listed below, and they were updated on the file:

DFM: ~ -----------------------~

Non Responsive Record REFS:~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~

ron Responsive Record

• Churchrock - Working with COR to validate the following: contract shows a shortfall of

$50k in January 2022. Just wanted to verify that (1) the spend plan in BFS is most accurate, and (2) for any shortfall, we will make it far enough into FY2022 to deal with anv funds needs in the next fiscal vear.

• INon Responsive Record

We will provide the final shortfalls list along with the travel returns as discussed today as funding the shortfalls depend on available returned travel funding.

Please let me know if you have any concerns or questions.

Thank you, JenniferM.Rand Senior Program Analyst Program Management, Policy Development and Analysis Staff Phone: (301) 415-6281 Email: Jennifer.Rand(ft nrc. gov

--""'~.........._~

~-c::...t~*-,,

Below is a snapshot of the Returns and Reprogrammings outside of NMSS (also attached).

NMSS has a total of $1.8M identified in contract funding. As mentioned we are still working to finalize the travel returns and I will send a separate email once complete.

An option for the $1 .8M would be to transfer the funds to ISMP to accelerate development work and to avoid any reduction in the system modernization pace.

Alternatively, these funds can be returned and we can look to reprogram funds to ISMP in June, should there be a subsequent resource review request from OCFO. We expect a subsequent resource review but at this time it is not guaranteed.

1st o f Retums an dRe rogrammIngs 0 utsI'd e o fNMSSAII owance BL Name NIIH llliclget *-- ....,rtpton To Alt.Im To Une 11am ,,,_ Tllllle Olv191on to OCFO Reprogram OutofNMH DFM

'38 1 179 1001 SAH:H Sysrom Sonwaro Renewal S44 .ba3 Prosof(C<1'1'CProvod 1,10 41 Fuel FaclHtl*s DFM 33 2 222 020

_1 bNIX:loar MalofllJls Ma'W')l11ort end $246.008 Proscrtodl/\pprO\/o<l 1110 fSltfecJllHd, Syslem (!lMMSSJ 27 38-5-156-6191 {1106) Fool F&Clloes Bankcard Smdll $9,000 Proscr*COl/'Cl)<Ollod IR\C OFM Mis,,nn IT Purd1a.<e<1 4',

33-d- 156-0191 (I 034) SFSI 8dnl!Catd SinatlM6S!Oll $8,226 PIOSCl(Cdl/\.pp/0\/0d l,IC DFM Spent Fuel Storage and DFM .o 11 l'**cMSfK 33..4,.:>, 4 179t HW'SW LrcUll!,ll R11rlowals

• Wdlll'l.l $6.823 -- IIM44 P1uwr100 1'4>1,,rovod-111111 Transportation t---

lor m~l !IW~rd !llllOUnl J_ lIna4/

REFS

,n 4 I ?~ 1001 1EIS fo, lrder1tn Stu,~119 Part,,.,,, LLCs -$100 000 ~ Pur,e11~iAllprrJV8<l- lim, (ISl'l 10

'Krowledqa Cdj]hle Revmw 11.. .;47 T00 '!flail of d R eh,1111<1 36 149-1001 I00<.lrnap I01 lh8 HLWICl)<)$lOfV Prosc,c High Level Waste DFM pro,ea ~nd provde r.omm!'<t, {APP-71 NMSS0013)

Oosme1,y An~lys,s and Sl.l'P011 tor -$?0.000 Presef1ed1Approvad-lne MSST 3-11 151 1001 RAMPlools ro, 1110<Jrcal i,(Of,SIIQ f$20K lI11e35 c:omllllJ rrom GI ISi I IG,~1010I L1t;t111S8 Tr..ckn1 Systan1 Sl 29,000 Prescrted'/lj)pmved 111<1 MSST *1-1 *

• 1',1 1001

!Gl 1~> ooorillonal S\innnn IHlO 1~

'.14 4 l ',6 fH'l1 ( 1107) Small II plld.,ses - l'I~ U BL -$8 701 Pn,..,11e<1 1Appr c,ved-l11e MSST Nuclear Materials Users 41 3<I ~ l Rad!Altoo Pro1echon AMl)'S,s -$8.000 P1eserted 1Approvoo- l11e MSST 39 1044 l1Dosmo1orsl 38

'.l.l-tl- 10?- Siwo~ tor 1he rnA r.cart ro, Asw,ng -$1?',,000 Pr-m,d 'Approved- i.ie MSST F1212 IRIO<lul1011 P,010000 37

<>'i;i(i c;yiie, iw,irry l'rO!)rAm s ,~)1)011 -$65,::J_ l'rMc11Nf1Approvll4 Ill<'

MSST 3-l-2-1 !'iG-61I0 Setv"" ,31 t1iiMo,. 01001 l'r!'lm11v,ry l)raft Ann $!>48.000 l'rosort!ld'Approvod hno Frial ~emertal Envtormef'fal 11 Impact srmomrut I or I ho 3!;-4-110- Dacommt.so.ung And'Or Lorg-Term REFS S1owardsh(J Ill The Wost Vatov 1001 Oemo!l'ln!lnn PtOff'('I And We*tam Now YO<I! Nueloar SorvlCO Co11or In Wa~ vnq~y Now Ynrk "tup<1a10 HOVISIOn ol MJREG 1301 $101 0001 *Oron*I IOO('I cr(ona tor Report 011 Wdslt, O"llOSdl CI0nqe, µreS8nlilt1>11 Changes in Occomm,ss ,o,.rg Waste REFS 11*4-151-1001 01!,p()~I Costs al I ow I ewl W~'10 Bll'cl FacUrOS Decommissioning & Low- I OUWP

)ouWP 3',-4.- l f,&(3170 &1j(ca1d

-t

l', t !,t';-6191 flarj(raul 3S-4-11f\. Jo t Co111111rto11 on S., fttlV of

• d 56.850

-$75 000 Q,Jri'I lllOO( ti ledla IOI

!!

e,;,,rt;,mn OrOn'I moot tlCOfltl (\)I oreserta110n Or1ril m11~t t:t i~lld for Level Waste OUWP 1061 flad!OOCINO wasI0 Manogc-mo11 prcsertat,on 1

DUWP n 1~ 4 4 tll lO M11111a11 Scerfd1r. &lftware l rcor.;e<; $15 000 Ordn'I rm>el rrl er111 lor I . IPORf-LOWl orcwrtutlon OUIM> 1 4

~ n~ nl'll {~) Mar11a11 Sc1ertd,r. Software -$4 975 Or1n'I meet cuena lor ILIcurt.0s (Gok!Sml orcsorc.1I1011 Mal/'lla11 :,C,ef(dlC 5onwere l lC- -$6 tll~ 1Jrdn'1 meel rrrena lor

(!:SRI) Amw softwoto 11,a11aore11co p,ewrtc1t1011 and SW{)Ort for I SUI ArcGIS {)e<,l(lop IJUWP 3S 4 22*1 Spalral AnHly,,I an! 30 Arlllly'.,I h l 1II solwaro I tY" S<Jnwaro "used lor processr,g a11d 81\dlymg GIS data I ond makrla moos I lOOl SAMPl f AHAi YSIS (R[SI ) *S'>O 000 P!Pseried!Approved- l11e OUWP 35 4 11 I 19

' (;Onll'IMIO,Y ~ll\"OY'I portOOMd by $?:16,!IOO Pr-rifld 'Approvnd o.,;, Rl\lqa hl'..llh.Ca tor Sc11111ce dr'rO 17 '"'"

IJUIM> J', d 11111l>I I Cltx:atlOII (OH l!il) OHAU 01 Rll<llllt>Qical Oearl() Acl1Yl18s for t ,ccnsc lomm011011 1 Rl.leinakng T rackr,g ..,id Rep011,,g -$100 000 P,esertedlApp,oved- l11e Operating Reactors REFS 11 7 18,1 OM7 Syslem 1" 611 Bl 11 411 Grand Total -$1,852,305 -$84,683

Assumptions and Field Descrigtions:

PIVTO Presontotion Tob excludes Travol and REIM FY20 Obligated [Fl Total obHgated In FY20 r,om FAIMIS The spend plan as ol June 2020, for service period September 2019 thru January 2021, Plus any Invoices lagging for service period August 2019 or Prior.

Jun 2020 Proj Spend Plan Sep2019-Jan2021 (G] Q:: Why Is September2019 seivlce period included in the FY20 spending year.

A:: It Is Included for the san,e reason that October, November and December 2019 (and any additional rorward funded month) Is included In lhe FY21 Spend Plan Year, b4ceuso It wa1be paid after 10/1/19 (FY20) using the canyover moneys Paymen1$ lrcm FAIMIS approved durtng October 2019 thru February 2021 .

Assumes a 30 day Invoice lag and, lhererore, these are assumed 10 be payments for se,vloe period Sepl ember 2019 thru January 2021.

Spent Sep2019-Jan2021 [HJ These payments were made using obligated funds from FY20 and FY19 and prior.

This Spend Plan IOlal does NOT Include the Spent moneys that were already ubllzed, but not lnvoi,ced to the NRC du<lng this period

• does not account for Invoice lag, A measure of hoW well we pro1ectod on June 2()20, Docs NOT include ihe Spent moneys that were already ulillzed, bui nol invoiced to the NRC during this period

• does not DELTA Actual Expended vs June Pro]ectloM [l* H*GJ account for Invoice lag Formula* Spent Sop2019on202 I

• Jun 2020 Proj Spend Pion Sep2019-Jan2021 A measure or hoW well we projected in June 2020.

Does NOT ine!ude the Spent moneys that were already uullzed, but not Invoiced to thG NRC during lh*s periOd

• does not DELTA% iJ=I/GJ account for Invoice lag.

Formula* DELTA Actual Expended vs June Pr(lJ8C1ions/Jun 2020 Prcj Spend Plan Sep2019-Jan2021, The Prior Yea111 (PY) Unliquldaled Obligation Total, from FAIMIS, as of 2128/21, PY Rumalnlng Balance (FAIMIS) 2128/21 (Kj Anumlng a 30 Invoice lag, it aasumos this ropr0$ont1 u,o PY Romalnlng Bolnnce after Jan 2021 sorvlce pe<iod.

Does NOT account for Spent but not Invoiced by2!2Sl21 for *etVlce period Jan 2021 or Prior.

The Pnor Years (PY) Unhquldatlld Obhgatlon Total, from FAIMIS, as of 2128121, minus lnvooces lllgg,ng lor se!Vlce period Acll.lal PY Remaining Balance After Jan 2021 Service Pd Ill from Jan 2021 or Prior.

FY2I Formulated Budget (Ml FY21 Formuleted Budget The FY21 Total Adjustments accounts for lunds moved In or out or the contract to Include, Internal Shifts:: Funds moved from one contract lo another, one product to another, based on current spending needs.

FY21 Total Adjustments IN! To be Returned to OCFO:: Funds planned to Return lo OCFO To be Reprogrammed Out of NMSS Allowance:: Funos ptanned to be transferred io another Office/Region, FY21 Ex8CIJttQn Budget (O=M+NJ Current FY21 Exewtlon Budget, which Is lhe Formulated Budget adjusted to the spend plan needs on a oonlract.

FY21 Committed (Pl Total Commitlod in FAIMIS, Funds ,n Iha FY21 Exocutlon Buefge1 that 8'8 currently uncommitted FV21 Unoommltted [O~0-PJ Formula: FY21 ExeCIJtlon Budget - FY21 Comro,tted Includes any Current Year funds In the Budget that have not been expended as of 2/28121.

CY FY21 Total Unexpended Budget 2/28121 (RI Fonmula: FY2 t Funds Commltled But Not Expended + UnC01M1ltted Funds.

Total Available for expending lhe ra&l of lhe ye-ar (Wall fronds are oomm~ted).

2128121 Total PY*CY Unexpanded Budget [S%L+RJ Formula* Actual PY Remaining Balanco After Jan 2021 Servioe Pd + CY FY21 Total Unexpended Budget The spend plan total from BFS, based on the Projected Spend Plan (or MLSR) trom BFS for service period February 2021 Spend Plan Feb 2021 thru Jan 2022 [T] thru January 2022, Plus any w,volce(s) lagging for seivlce period January 2021 or Prior, Pro] Bolonco After Jan 2022 (U] Projttc:tod unllquldated obllgoUon IOt91 (Remaining Balonce) allot January 2022 FY20 Monihly Avg Spent 1VJ Total Expended In FY20, d1vi<lod by the number of months actJve spending on the con1ract In FY2D Total lor 12 montns spend<ng on a contract, assuming;; ~noar spending Based on the FV20 montNy average spent Linear 12 Monlh Total 1w ~v*121 Formula: FY20 Monthly Avg Spent*12 To Return to OCFO (Xl Arrount to Relurn to OCFO To Reprogrem Out of NMSS [Y] Amount to Reprogram out of lho NMSS Allowance, to another Offico Shortfall IZJ Amount of additional funds needed lo Increase the FY21 ExeC1Jtlon Budget on a contract

_ _ . . ._ _ _ ,._ _ _ _.(II _ _ _ _ _ __ . . . . ,

h=,_ :::. -== 7...'"'.1"'

JIiii

~ ~--~-~-:;-cc

~r-::-:a~

a-,..-

.,'",~,,_,~=:-ec~:1;-7;..

.=..~ -:.~

~-

~~,-'/!!'m-~--~-=---"'."'.,~'\c-,-~.~.~...- ,~,.~.~*- ~

• ~ =.,,- '"-"'~-""""L.,--=---~=...;

--. 1--.......-

I'll

.._. 1c=-. Pl -=- .._._1 11111-D-'1 -

==---=~

T . - ~ c . lttf...,_(IOJl

~~-----

..__..llftfO.....

..,_,.1111..._......,

--.,_N

,_ _ _ ,_a.-.--,

f-

-~--....,---.,

=:::-,, . .:::::::::l#C

~-------.....

KM.l~-t 111,.-M

--rr-~o....,.. ' ..

. --===-'

_,,,___ ::: ~

r- __ ...... -- ---- 151191~~

..o.,.~,_ ...,.__._

c.-,,_.,..,.__

t',t,1- .,-

... , ...... c.c: .........-

• ~..,.,-c:-.,._n..__ __._,_*-~

"",.~-----

........ ~~ ...- *. . 14.111'

• -I

"""'--ti.,

oc,oc.-,......~...............

• ---llf~-,--.

~,...._.,..... - *._.._.__

.,_.,.., n.,.... ~

- _._*.:--.. lllllltou;,-.;-.;;....

""-""C-..0-,.0*----.-

V . . . ~ r A ~.... - - ,.....

-+--- ...... -- -- -~ -

t

-- -+- .....---- -+-...+-~- + -

~-

~+--1-~-- - -+ - - -+- t t I I

--T"--

WT *- .-y- _..

...+- ...

TT" .... -

+

t

--+

List ofR eturns andReprogrammmgs 0 utsideofNMSS All owance BL Name NMSS Budget String Dnc:rlptlon To Return To Un* Item from Tabl*

Division toOCFO Reprogram Out ofNMSS OFM 38-1-179-1001 SAFER System Sonware Renewal -$44,683 Presented/Approved- line 41 Nuclear Materials Management and -$246,008 Presented/Approved- line Fuel Faclllties OFM 38*2-222-1020 Safeauards Svstem (NNMSSI 27 (1106) Fuel Facilities Bank Card: Small -$9,000 Presenled/Approved-llne OFM 38-5-156-6191 Mission IT Purchases 45 (1034) SFST Bank Card: Small Mission -$8,226 Presented/Approved-line OFM 33-4-156-6191 IT Purchases line44 Spent Fuel Storage and HW/SW License Renewals

• Wailing -$6,823 Presented/Approved-line OFM 33-4-224-6179 Transportation Ifnr final award amount line 47 EIS for Interim Storage Partners LLCs -$100,000 Presented/Approved- line REFS 33-4-125-1061 IIISPI 10 Knowledge Capture: Review the -$47 Too small of a Return to roadmap for the HLW repository project Present High Level Waste OFM 36-4-149-1061 and provide comments (APP-21-NMSS-10013\

Dosimetry Analysis and support for -$20,000 Presented/Approved-line MSST 34-4-151 -1061 RAMP tools for medical licensing [$20K line 35 I.-nmlna frnm l'::I_TSl General License Tracking System -$129,000 Presented/Approved-line MSST 34-4-151 -1061 lfGt TS\ n=ratln""' C::uooort Iline 35 (1107) Small II purchases - NMU BL -$8,701 Presented/Approved-line MSST 34-4-156-6191 Nuclear Materials Users 43 Radiation Protection Analysis -$8,000 Presented/Approved* line MSST 34-5-139*1044 I(Dosimeters\ 138 34-8-102* Support for the FDA Grant for Assuring -$125.000 Presented/Approved- line MSST F1212 Radiation Protection 37 OCIO Cyber Security Program Support -$65.000 Presented/Approved* line MSST 34-2-156-6110 IServices 31 Review Of DOE Preliminary Draft And -$548,000 Presented/Approved- line Final Supplemental Environmental 11 Impact Statement For The 35-4-1 16- Decommissioning And/Or Long-Term REFS 1061 Stewardship At The West Valley Demonstration Project And Western New York Nuclear Service Center In West Valley, New York Update Revision of NUREG 1307. -$101 ,000 Oldn1 meet criteria for Report on Waste Disposal Changes: presentation REFS Changes in Decommissioning Waste 11-4-151 -1061 Disposal Costs of Low-level Waste Burial Facilities Didn1 meet criteria for OUWP 35-4-156-6179 Bankcard -$3,000 1 oresent<>tlnn

-$6,850 Didn1 meet criteria for OUWP 35-4-156-6191 Bankcard Ioresen1..11nn Decommissioning & Low- 35-4-116- Joint Convention on Safety of -S75,000 Oldn1 meet criteria for Level Waste DUWP 1061 Radioactive Waste Manaaement InrAsentation Maintain Scientific Sonware Licenses -$15,000 Didn1 meet criteria for OUWP 35-4-224-6179 IIPORFLOWl Ioresentation (384) Maintain Scientific Software -$4 ,975 Didn't meet criteria for DUWP 35-4-224-6191 Licenses (GoldSiml 1 oresentation Maintain Scientific Software Licenses -$6,675 Dldn1 meet criteria for (ESRI) - Annual software maintenance presentation and support for ESRI ArcGIS Desktop, 35-4--224-OUWP Spatial Analyst, and 30 Analyst 6191 software. The sonware Is used for processing and analyzing GIS data, 1--..i _ ..... t.:...... -----

Presented/Approved- line DUWP 35-4-117-1061 SAMPLE ANALYSIS (RESL) -$50,000 119 Confirmatory surveys performed by -$236,000 Presented/Approved- line Oak Ridge Institute for Science and 17 OUWP 35-4-117-1061 Education (ORISEVORAU of Radiological Cleanup Activities for II l~6n*A

1. Rulemaklng Tracking and Reporting -$100,000 Presented/Approved- line System (1261)

• BL 11 48 Operating Reactors REFS 11-7-184-6147

Grand Total *$1,852,305 l -$64,683!

From: Ralph, Melissa Sent: Mon, 12 Apr 202120:17:15 +0000 To: Lewis, Robert;Lubinski, John Cc: Flores, M irna;Rand, Jennifer

Subject:

Midyear resource review information Attachments: FINAL March 2020, FY21 Budget Briefing to FO.xlsx Good afternoon, John and Rob, Per your request, below is a summary of the midyear resource review.

For contract dollars, we are returning $1,682,604 to OCFO and reprogramming $554,683 out of NMSS. For travel we are returning $1 ,167,212, for a total of $3,404,499.

Of the returns you approved to OCFO in the budget briefings, 1 of them was not reflected in the numbers above due, and one included a different amount due to the following:

Item 1) The amount of $101 K for PNNL NUREG-1307, these funds were part of the transfers NRR was just completing to NMSS, however since we decided to return the funding, NRR didn't include that amount in the transfers to NMSS. -

Item 2) The amount of $100K for Rulemaking and Reporting, in NMSS we had $40K o*f this budget in our account and were to receive the additional $60K in the pending transfers from NRR, however since we decided to return the funds to OCFO, we have returned the $40K and NRR will not send over the $60K in the transfers.

NMSS's FY 21 budget, the returned funds reflect 15% of NMSS's FY 21 budget of

$23,033,200.

Funds returned were to eliminate expected carryover beyond January of 2022 and travel that was not anticipated to occur due to COVID.

For FY 23, the divisions report that they all adjusted the FY23 budgets to better align with the Executions Budgets .

Below are the itemized tables. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.

Melissa Ralph (she/her/hers)I Director I Program Management, Policy Development, and Analysis Staff Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 1

'- Melissa.Ral h Working together to ensure the safe, secure, and environmentally responsible use of radioactive materials and nuclear facilities.

~

llstol Returns and Reoro1 rarrmnas Outside of NMSS Allov.ence l,M[~ 11~ !>:>t4l-. .........

. ~*-

IOOCfO *

.,,._d.. ,

oao .

Oulof . .11 OFII  ;.a,..1 ~ ;3-,,0* -54* ,:0;

",.:-..1* u a,"r..1_1 Vr~*-:t":1..-: S:.i.it;-J':. Syt*,..,

OFM 3!-:,;:.*r.: ,,,uss -~*e ~" -t=*~ Xii Fut I Fatlltbt*

.,~ Fie,,._, Et** CUI S"'*

F. lf ,......-

~ ,.

OFII 1>>*~-,- ~ ..e**..., -I,,>; -Si~

• ~ S;ST E.,*, C:1-: s-,Hhto,, If =.-.rnu CA, .B...t,l !t..ie*;* !4:::e .~.:,

Sp.m F..I Stongt lr>d TrJn,por\110<\ "") .;l,,r ~'"'J.tR~*u .,._,., ..., t;t t-.J *111..,

DAI ,µ~; ,..,e* *-s 1-t*.o-..*t *S!&:l -S! ;.;,

ES tit ~*r,r,- St.:~ =*ot..r t ~

• 1~"P REFS 13-4_, ,~..*:e* .,*~; )): . , ,:.; :0:

K"'*,qtC'-vt ~~ t** r.c-,:,,.u, to, r** M**v, H,i;t Lntl Wuto OFM >>-'-**;.i.( ,

"CCI ,-.~ :-"t_:t I"~ pt')-..:.* :o-"'"~U

.1,,1* 4,*

0C:t-t"','A*i)1 I t "'4 t ..<<'O'J bt AAVO ~ t, IUST J.U.~!*.,)!,

-.:a -er*~ ;l.'"')ol,..... ** t:,... :kTS,

.s:, ),:

I'"-*** l..OI .. H ,a:,*~ ~~- 'Ii~*~ COl'lt-O*J MSST }.t.L* :*..*!)!*

s.~ -1*:3 ;:ia -s*:n:,i

,*:* ~~ I c..;7..Hn * ...,I.; e..._

"'\IClt1rMai.nalt lUST  ;.a.....*eu*s* -li *;1 U*n t.lHT  ?'*!-* ?i-*,.u ~*c.* 1='~*:*c.,A*.a_)"a. Oel""'t:rlJ -!,! ,:-: ,$!;,,,

S . - I:* t*e F:µ G-1*1 t, -'11*-2 ~! l'O" IUST  ?..t.-1,,,!:2-F':1: l>c:ti::Of" ..Jt:! >>: -$':! l)j l(X:IC :::)t S+:...*.r,, Foi'l"'a- S.* *~*

PM~ lC..:-*!~*!l

-~!m ~.se: :o:i

~ * ..,. c*:xic ,,. -**-ytnt >*o F ** s~* .,....,

E* rv* ....**!J l""µ:.t St,*~*t c,r,.,

REH 2!-4--1 '~'"'~1 ~ - nq*;, A*J Of LO-:,-it""!"'.": s:.e.....,_._.." A,-n--. ..1!'43)).l .~~! x-:

,\t.1t,, *yC*f'INY**~*O" P-,,o :c,1 ... , \\.a*~***

)*~ ***:-....,s. -,:.*Cr:rtrt-.\u*V1...ty ~ '>'or,.

1,,..0, 1* ~ , 1 ~ o'~E3 *)~f Pt:0'1 V ~u*e REFS ...... ,,.-:e, Q,.j_.'"C.f* C.**"";'tl 0--1-;.t

• c+,(.('t!"-"o* *; .-.ui, *S')t :J O.:et* ~ ttJ c~t..~ .. 'W',ua 8 ...** c,~

• u DUWl'  !!-t-,~-e,.;: Sa**:.a.~ -,~ '-.--0 -SJ>>:

DUW1' 3!.....,,1~li' e,..,u-., -se *~..: -se :t.J

~ ~, c:.,. ~ ~ ~ !l'-1')1~' R:lltC;.1.:: * ,*,u.ta 0........1won1~,

OUWP ,;:>,_**7..>-CT 1!.....1*e-*Je* \Jt"'->w.....,,.*"t -S"!>>: -n:.:,J lo,..-t.attlW* . . OUWP  !!...C.:Z*-'!**;, U 1*11* St¥tie Set.,,..-._. l'C'I.F,0/,J *l'!:<< ..$'!)):

raJWP  :!...a--::*~*:, 1" V***** s~**t.:s,, ..,. ..:.-u, ten.d.- *!A ;*i -s* t*~

1vi..,.o-.s.:..-::!.1t~":"-~, , .... ~* ...* i :::>~ -A *-.3 OUV.P 1!,,,A-Z:*~"9 OH*J<T ~,u _.. * .,_..,..t 1.;t , .. 1.MC~~u-;,..:,,.A~*13S,;a~

=

• ) +,. *"t ff"J **t*:.t":-4 r .: 1..flOO"l e,, E5c A-:-OS

!O>*J)-sa~t-., ~... -see-: .se i-:

. .~,,..,.. ~ e t t l IJJWP ,Z!...C,.t .......~Qe, s ....vF..E >>*"'- YSIS "IES.. .s1/4~ -l!~M"'

1....-.-, wy,.*~ w-e-.,e1* Chf\.::0 r1*...:..*tv llUWI'  ! ~-t.* *-:.*,o, s =--:* **dE~---*"" tO!'"IErCAAue*lb:ei>Qu *1:l~ )~ *J.23'. X,J c..*.: ~ "'" 'ot~er1t ~.,.., **=

! ~ . .... . ~. * **:*-v *"4"-*1i),'1* "1(!::,1 Op.rating Aucten REFS '1 *-*~14*

=-.. -S*)l>>) .$-l~l))

GnndT-1 U .IISUO~ .sun.* 4".W

• -- I*

I*

.......... r: r:

r:

r:

Procy 1 RA=> ,,.---,.erg:: a,,a l Ape:,~ :,y ~,c:r,1 0 1~ ._.. l!-ff'ltl o,,:ir..~

An~ ea ~nd ~ oc DfM ~~*99-tt* ~ ~=ooo N,s hn,ed t Gffl8tDBL38 TtM!I St'O'tta* "'"' RE S ~n* 0-y Fr.::r,1 OA-c:e '-"II em1_. betweer, f'Torcy 2 RA? S*t*P~ A.naea a rd Pde Sp*nt fu*l Stong* !3)0.,,- are n ~ ect ~ ... e 1orre i!IOQI.Q"\M l,,m Sf'. ,I/as hnlod t om !!L33 BL"8 TtM

,1nd T1.1n,,o rb b oo OFM nc 199-1 l"t a..-..0, O" thv r:::Dn:t*CS S:JlOOOO

>E,<pe<ni..ul p,QgJ8m -..re,e adeq..ele i , , ~ o,,

" " ~ f"l"tx)'tant St-o.tlal m l"ES A.oo-0\ilell by ~r: rn OeCJE: ...-a-2"1d UEt"'e-e-!

OFM 3~199-1 '4~ Rs, trt>tint"Q CISCC Tas,,. 'l d fl'e.,,Ut<.~ S-.0000 Anaeaand ~CIC w.. hn3tid l om 8 L3lc l.?,S T,_

Gntncl Total s,eQ,000

111..SS FY2021 T1.M1But1r,o.ts 00M' BuSIMULIM Product FY21 Pru Toe.I ReffiNIIIIQ TOIM Proi-cted Returned Ou,cl SPl'lldlllo OM~ Heed CS&T (SI() Oct2020 111111 s..>2011 P-158

• lhstlOII Tr*,tl a'lCJ BL ,;.ouw S2'0.000 S.MX> S244 i70 S89 275 Sl&O 72~ 00 Ell+mal TrllftlllCI P*217 lnt*rnMn,al Bl*3S*OUN "'C".,, ~1 Tra,'!I 580000 SC so $0 saoooooo focal DtJWP $340,000 SS.030 $254,970 $19.215 S2'40.72S.OO REFS 80IIIIUSLIIM PrOduct f'Y21 Prff local RllffllmlO TOUI Projltcted fmllrlleel BIHi $clllldllo UowqJtftded Cs&T[11Q """

Oct 2020 1/1111~2011 l!l.*11

• Optra*r.g P-1S8

• I.IIUIOII r,,.*,anc $71 000 so $400'1() $0 SJt 000 00 e.,1 m11 Tr11n111g RUCIOtl P-158

• l.ldUtM Tt***' I/Id

a. 33.~sr E.,t*mM Tra,n1no

$5 000 so S.,OOV $5000 $000 P 158

• UJU- Tr3',*I ,nd Bl 34 *III.IU e**tmal Tra1111no s~ ooo so S50c.) ,~.000 scoo P-158

• 1h$!IOO Tra,..I JIit! ,. 000 BL-~~-OU~ EdHl\31 Tr,11n,no

$~000 iO $~ 000 sooo P-1~

• u,nlOO Trii<i!I and Bl-.,8 - FF E*!tm:11 Tl'ill'lln<J

$6000 so S&OOO '6000 SCOO Tofa!REIS st2,000 so $61,000 $21.000 5-31,000.00 PI.IOAt<\dFO BuslMJSUne Product FY21 Pm TOCII RlnYalftO TOIM PrOjtcted Retllm-ecl Bud ~ Wn.K* Need CS&T(St<) OcU020 IIIN s..>2021 P-'58

• l.b.SIOn f11,tl ana r l*SFST r ri~rn,t Tran11M sn ooo so $23000 Stt ~00 $11~()()

P*158*UIUIOl'IT!**'el..0 s~

BL-~5 .OI LW Errtmal TrJil'lino

$23 0()() U3000 so $23000~

p. 158 I ~SSIOI\ Tra-,11 and ll. 38

• FF E*!&ma1 Trl#\lno

$18000 $0 $11000 so $1800000 f OWi PM04 IIIICI f 0 S14.ooo so SM,000 S11,500 ss2.soo.oo OFM ButlMU UH PrOd<<t fY21 Pfff foul Rtmail!IIIO TOCII Pfottettd TfllltltfllOAES R.ait'Md BINI sc-ilillo Utltl,-clH NNd CS4T(Sl() OCI 2020 lllnl s.p 2021 P* 158

• l.lltslOtl Trt,fl ana ll. 33-SFST El!!f'llal Tra11111111 $205 000 00 $9~549 Sl9a 944 51 $19~500 $170 346 00 Sl5Ja9 00 p.717

• 1nttmibonal Bl-33-SFST  ;..a,,nes T~,el S120.00000 sooo $12000000 sooo $120 000 00 sooo P 159 ° t.!ln10t1 rr,*.i ana

&.*.s8*FF E.t!tma1 Tr..nmv $1~~ 00000 $1' 18894 $140 211 06 $35 346 00 S1196!JOO sooo P* 217

• 1n1tmaD011al Bl-38*FF "a/,,*.u Tri,.t '8000000 $000 '80 eoooo sooo saoooooo sooo TotalDrM SS60 Mt: UO_..,. $S391S6 SSl,611 $490.00000 ltUltllOQ MSST Dullntss IJl'HI Prodvel rY21 PIU TOIII RfmlinlllCI TOUII PrOIKtlCI ~otraMWIQ RlturMd Bud ~ Ufttq,endecl Need IO~

CS&T(St<) Oct2020 IIIN s..>20'1 P-1~ *l'stOIITta,.itnd

!!L-34

• ll&.IU E.u.tnal Tr11n1no S?.2900000 SJ 177 ,io $22A8t2111 1.39 17800 $3000011<1 $15982200 P*103 ~*tt'!'IMCSIJ*~*

ll. 34

• I JJU Tra~I $1223 91 $6911776 ni S101 22, 00 S.598776 00 P-217

• lnl*mati0/111

$700 00000

'°°"

Bl-. J

• IU.lU Adi,,* U Tli,el $6900000 sooo U!IOOOOO sooo sooo '6!100000 TOCIIMSST $998,000 SMQ2 590,_!,98 St41l402 U0 .111111.00 S821.5-.00

Assumptions and Field Descrigtions:

PIVTO Presontotion Tob excludes Travol and REIM FY20 Obligated [Fl Total obHgated In FY20 r,om FAIMIS The spend plan as ol June 2020, for service period September 2019 thru January 2021, Plus any Invoices lagging for service period August 2019 or Prior.

Jun 2020 Proj Spend Plan Sep2019-Jan2021 (G] Q:: Why Is September2019 seivlce period included in the FY20 spending year.

A:: It Is Included for the san,e reason that October, November and December 2019 (and any additional rorward funded month) Is included In lhe FY21 Spend Plan Year, b4ceuso It wa1be paid after 10/1/19 (FY20) using the canyover moneys Paymen1$ lrcm FAIMIS approved durtng October 2019 thru February 2021 .

Assumes a 30 day Invoice lag and, lhererore, these are assumed 10 be payments for se,vloe period Sepl ember 2019 thru January 2021.

Spent Sep2019-Jan2021 [HJ These payments were made using obligated funds from FY20 and FY19 and prior.

This Spend Plan IOlal does NOT Include the Spent moneys that were already ubllzed, but not lnvoi,ced to the NRC du<lng this period

• does not account for Invoice lag, A measure of hoW well we pro1ectod on June 2()20, Docs NOT include ihe Spent moneys that were already ulillzed, bui nol invoiced to the NRC during this period

• does not DELTA Actual Expended vs June Pro]ectloM [l* H*GJ account for Invoice lag Formula* Spent Sop2019on202 I

• Jun 2020 Proj Spend Pion Sep2019-Jan2021 A measure or hoW well we projected in June 2020.

Does NOT ine!ude the Spent moneys that were already uullzed, but not Invoiced to thG NRC during lh*s periOd

• does not DELTA% iJ=I/GJ account for Invoice lag.

Formula* DELTA Actual Expended vs June Pr(lJ8C1ions/Jun 2020 Prcj Spend Plan Sep2019-Jan2021, The Prior Yea111 (PY) Unliquldaled Obligation Total, from FAIMIS, as of 2128/21, PY Rumalnlng Balance (FAIMIS) 2128/21 (Kj Anumlng a 30 Invoice lag, it aasumos this ropr0$ont1 u,o PY Romalnlng Bolnnce after Jan 2021 sorvlce pe<iod.

Does NOT account for Spent but not Invoiced by2!2Sl21 for *etVlce period Jan 2021 or Prior.

The Pnor Years (PY) Unhquldatlld Obhgatlon Total, from FAIMIS, as of 2128121, minus lnvooces lllgg,ng lor se!Vlce period Acll.lal PY Remaining Balance After Jan 2021 Service Pd Ill from Jan 2021 or Prior.

FY2I Formulated Budget (Ml FY21 Formuleted Budget The FY21 Total Adjustments accounts for lunds moved In or out or the contract to Include, Internal Shifts:: Funds moved from one contract lo another, one product to another, based on current spending needs.

FY21 Total Adjustments IN! To be Returned to OCFO:: Funds planned to Return lo OCFO To be Reprogrammed Out of NMSS Allowance:: Funos ptanned to be transferred io another Office/Region, FY21 Ex8CIJttQn Budget (O=M+NJ Current FY21 Exewtlon Budget, which Is lhe Formulated Budget adjusted to the spend plan needs on a oonlract.

FY21 Committed (Pl Total Commitlod in FAIMIS, Funds ,n Iha FY21 Exocutlon Buefge1 that 8'8 currently uncommitted FV21 Unoommltted [O~0-PJ Formula: FY21 ExeCIJtlon Budget - FY21 Comro,tted Includes any Current Year funds In the Budget that have not been expended as of 2/28121.

CY FY21 Total Unexpended Budget 2/28121 (RI Fonmula: FY2 t Funds Commltled But Not Expended + UnC01M1ltted Funds.

Total Available for expending lhe ra&l of lhe ye-ar (Wall fronds are oomm~ted).

2128121 Total PY*CY Unexpanded Budget [S%L+RJ Formula* Actual PY Remaining Balanco After Jan 2021 Servioe Pd + CY FY21 Total Unexpended Budget The spend plan total from BFS, based on the Projected Spend Plan (or MLSR) trom BFS for service period February 2021 Spend Plan Feb 2021 thru Jan 2022 [T] thru January 2022, Plus any w,volce(s) lagging for seivlce period January 2021 or Prior, Pro] Bolonco After Jan 2022 (U] Projttc:tod unllquldated obllgoUon IOt91 (Remaining Balonce) allot January 2022 FY20 Monihly Avg Spent 1VJ Total Expended In FY20, d1vi<lod by the number of months actJve spending on the con1ract In FY2D Total lor 12 montns spend<ng on a contract, assuming;; ~noar spending Based on the FV20 montNy average spent Linear 12 Monlh Total 1w ~v*121 Formula: FY20 Monthly Avg Spent*12 To Return to OCFO (Xl Arrount to Relurn to OCFO To Reprogrem Out of NMSS [Y] Amount to Reprogram out of lho NMSS Allowance, to another Offico Shortfall IZJ Amount of additional funds needed lo Increase the FY21 ExeC1Jtlon Budget on a contract

~.......,...-,.,.*.. **-*u,_,...,.._,.~.. - - - - - --- _,._

k

-~-""',_.,,,_,..,,.,_---- ~ *~i,_.

'=

--f- '~~~-~

• :i:: LT ~

r~~ ! ~ ---~*

- ""i'""l'S' .,.

~ ~~

=p *:: *. = =- * =- -=r

• w.. ~ ~.:; Ni~~

'11" -F = .::.~- ... *====------

'~~F: !w,~ -t-:= - -* -

':""'r 1-1-~~-- .t-..

.+-,....-1,--.+--.+-.-.~ "'""

...t,-..-t-=,._ri--;+-.,:ti--.-t--.+--..t-......-,+-..h

-*h-t-o----1~ --

~~-u -*.

--~.*-~::.--=_:::=_= .=---!

t-:-"'I 1*- **-"- "'art ---~.,-~--ri---, ................. *=t-.,*t---t---+--*wai*=~--11""=,.__~**--* ***

.* -* I I *- *- -.:::::;=-~-

So;: __..__.,_ I

_ _ _..:.=Ef-...::=:::,;.-;.~...

~f;:=::=:- I I ==-~!:?--

--, I I

,_ ......_. ~ a .__.

I ~-fo.i::.~7:,.-:-.:..;_;..I

- . - ~ - . . , ---- -~ i---,s., . . . . _ . , _ _ _ , ; . ~

~ .. tr-~ . : : . z . ~ ~

==-- --*

1- - - * - - * -

I1~=-~~-;,-.,. _________,

• =-*

1=- . ..., I

• -1

=.=! I

_J I

.=+-H=i!!-=-rt-..--+--.J--t--...--!---t--...t--l--rlr-t--,,,t-..,t-rf--,.,-1--

I I

..t--........t-,nt-,,t-,t-,.,-t--t_- __...

_......,. ,:::_-_--t

I LW*--------'---o..w.r.af._.,_

- __,_,=--__ _

__,_,.. --===---

---

~

I

=.*_-:,::-.,::. ____

i:=-....- -....... ,...........

- -~---

• ----t--+-~+----+.=E~:;;..":-':_:..?-~

,;,_.~ ..,._ ___ .,..,,_

- - t-- -+---1

_ _ _ _.._ __ .._,.,ca.--

,_ .o l NH*

_g, _ _ , ______

, _ _ _S e , . . ~

0,,.,..C...rl

<<-,itC..,.-_

Mlli'I'),~ . . .. -

=.==.-=:=--

,c_ _ .,.__'°__

-- ~ ....... *~ *-*"' 1-.,-,-1--

- .,-. .-. *-+----,-<

NMSS FY2021 Travel Budoots DUWP BuslneH Line Product FY 21 P,-s Total Remaining Tolat Pro)eclod Returned Bud lpondlng UneJponcltd Nffd CSU ($K) Oct 2020 lhru Sep 2021 P -153

• Mi*SIOn Travel anCI

$260.000 $5,030 $244,870 $89,275 $160,72$.00 BL-35-0UW EJ<temal Tra;n1na P-217 - lnremab0n81Actlvltleo BL 0UW TnMll

$80,000 so $0 $0 $8000000 BL 0UW Fode,ol REIM . Hanlcro Travel $10,000 so $10,000 so Not Returned Tottl OUWP $3-40,000 SS,030 $2154,970 S69,27S S240,7 2S.OO R EF S 8 utlntH Une Product FY 21 P,-, Total RtmJ1lnlne T olal Pro)eclod Rt1umed Bud Spondlng Unexponcltd Nffd CS&T (SK) Oct 2020 lhru Stp 2021 BL-11

• Operating P*1S8 , MosslOnTravotaod Reect011 Ex1ornal lf8lnlng

$71,000 so $40,000 $0 $31.000.00 P*153

• Mo..lon Travoland BL-33

• SFST E>1omot Tralnlna SS,000 so $5,000 $5,000 $0.00 P-153 - MiUlon Travoland BL*34

• NMU EwtetMI Trelnlna

$5,000 so $5,000 $5,000 S0.00 P-153

• Mi..lon rravol and

$5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $000 BL-35-0UW External Tra,n1na P-153

• M...,on Travoland BL FF E><l1!fn81 T18lnln<J

$6,000 so $6,000 $8,000 sooo To tal REFS sn,ooo so $61,000 $21,000 $31 ,000.00 P MDA endFO Business Line Pr*oduct FY 21 p,.* Tola! Romalnlne Total Projected Returned 8ud &ponding llalnact NHd CS&T (SK) Oct 2020 lhru Sep 2021 P -153 . MlhlOO Travelaod

$23.000 $0 $23,000 $11,ISOO $1 1,500.00 BL SFST E<temal Tralnlno P -158. Mo.slon Travolaod BL OUW Extomal Trainlno

$23,000 $0 $23,000 so S23.00000 P*153 - Misslon Travolano BL FF Ewtomel Tra,nlno

$18,000 so $18,000 so 518.000 00 Total PMOA and FD s<<.ooo so $64,000 $11,500 $52,500.00 OF M 8u1lntH Line Ptoduot FY 21 Pres Total R...,.lnlng Total Pro)tctod Translero to RES Returned Bud &ponding Unexponcltd NH d CS&T (SK) Oct 2020 lhru kp 2021 P -158

• Mission Travol and BL-33 -SFST E<torriat Tralnlna 5205,000.00 $8,05549 $198,944.51 519,26500 5110.346.00 $15,38900 P-217 - lnlemallOnal AclNltleS BL-3.3 - S FS f Trove! $120,000.00 $000 $120,00000 $000 $120,000.00 $000 P -158 . MiSStOO Travolaod BL-38

• FF E<tornal Trainlna $155000.00 $ 14,788.94 $140.211 06 $35,34600 $119,654 00 $000 P*217

• lnitmlllONII AclNillel BL-.38 - FF Trovol $80,000.00 S0.00 $80,000.00 $80,000.00 S0.00 Total DFM u eo,ooo $20,60 $539,158 S54.811 $490,000.00 $15,369.00 MSST 8 ualne11 Line Product FY 21 Pres Tola! Remalnlr19 T ottl Pro)eclod Reprogramming Ret"m.d Bud lpondlng Une1pondad Nffd loPMOA CS&T(SK) Oct 2020 thru Seo 2021 P-153 - Mi$81on Travollnd BL,34- NMU E.<1e<nal Tra,nlno

'-'-"-,,...,.- $229,000.00 $4,17790

== =--t-~=-'----t---"'= $224.822-10

= = +-- -S3 = 9"- 1a__.oo

,1.. ---+- --"S30=.ooo=---OO

' + -$-'t~ -'--1 $35K Includes p;,y1ng 59"'.8-"22=00 ror conferences P -103

• Agreomont Slates BL*34 - NMU Travel $700,000.00 $1,223.91 $698.776.09 $101,224.00 $0.00 $598,776.00 P-217

• lntema"""81Acuvltles BL NMU r~ $69,000.00 $000 $11900000 sooo $000 $69.000 00 ToLll MSST S998,000 SS,402 S992,5911

From: Von Till, Bill Sent: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 17:52:52 +0000 To: Entz, Kathy Cc: Lubinski, John;Tappert, John;Zimmerman, Jacob;Holahan, Trish;Lewis, Robert

Subject:

Please add to the meeting w ith John on UNC at 3 pm - thanks Attachments: brief with John on UNC 11_ 2_20 final.docx, EPA response to 2018 letter.pdf Talking points from your questions and EPA's response letter in 2018.

Brief with John to prepare for call with DOE regarding the UNC Churchrock site 11/2/2020

(b)(5)

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 6 REGION IX 1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200 75 HAWTHORNE STREET DALLAS, TX 75202-2733 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 April 9, 2018 Mr. Carmelo Melendez, Director Office of Legacy Management U.S. Department of Energy 100 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20585

Subject:

March 9, 2018 Letter to Mr. John Tappert Regarding Mine Waste Placement on the United Nuclear Corporation Superfund Site In Church Rock, NM

Dear Mr. Melendez:

Thank you for providing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with a copy of your March 9, 2018 letter to Mr. John Tappert at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Your letter expressed concerns with a dual post-closure regulatory situation following the termination of the NRC license at the United Nuclear Corporation site. You also raised concerns about whether the current design will meet Uranium MIii Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) requirements for a 1000-year design life and low maintenance.

We appreciate DOE raising the issue of clarifying post-closure roles and responsibilities.

We share your goals of achieving a post-closure structure that is workable and acceptable to each agency while achieving our mission of being protective of public health and the environment. To this end, we support your proposal to hold an executive conference. As you know, Steven Miller, counsel for DOE, has coordinated an ongoing conference call with EPA, NRC, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to discuss this Issue. In addition, we understand that EPA Headquarters' Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office's will meet with you on April 11, 2018 to address post-closure concerns at several sites where both EPA and DOE are currently involved.

With respect to the design concerns you raised, we want to assure you that compliance with the UMTRCA 1000-year design life and low-maintenance design standards are also legal requirements of the EPA remedy under 40 CFR § 192.02 (a) and 10 CFR § 61.23(e) respectively. Prior to approval of the final design, EPA will require UNC/GE to address these legal standards. After subsequent conversations with DOE's technical staff and legal counsel, we understand that DOE has confidence that the design review

process, overseen by EPA and then subject to NRC license review, is the appropriate path forward to address any outstanding technical concerns of DOE.

Please feel free to contact us at edlund.carl@epa.gov (214) 665-8124 or manzanilla.enrigue@epa.gov (415) 972-3843 if you have any additional questions or concerns. We look forward to continuing to work with your agency on this project.

Sincerely,

&~

Carl Edlund, P.E.

Director Enrique Manzanilla Director Region 6 Superfund Division Region 9 Superfund Division CC: John Tappert, NRC Steven Miller, DOJ Paul Leonard, FFRO Betsy Smldinger, Region 8

From: Valentin-Rodriguez, Celimar Sent: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 19:24:07 +0000 To: Diaz Sanabria, Yoira Cc: Lubinski, John;Lewis, Robert;Wilfiams, Kevin;Holahan, Trish;Clark, Theresa;Zimmerman, Jacob;Shane, Raeann;Conway, Kimberly

Subject:

Q&As for DLLW NMU BL Commission Briefing on November 5, 2020 Attachments: DLLW Qs and As for Nov 5 BL Briefing 4-2020.docx, NMU QAs for Nov 5 BL Briefing 4-2020.docx Good afternoon, Attached for OEDO's consideration are the Q&A documents for the DLLW and NMU Business Lines to support tomorrow's briefing to the Commission.

Thank you, Cefimar Ya{entin<Roanguez, Pfi.'D.

T echnical Assistant NMSS/MSST U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission tr (301 ) 415-7 124

-'O Celimar.Valentin-Rodrigucz@nrc.gov

I I

I I

l l

I I

I I

Page 483 or 863 I

Willllleld pursuant to exempt10n Non Responsive I

or ltle Freedom 01 Information and Privacy M I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

l l

I I

I I

Page 484 or 863 I

Willllleld pursuant to exempt10n Non Responsive I

or ltle Freedom 01 Information and Privacy M I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

l l

I I

I I

Page 485 or 863 I

Willllleld pursuant to exempt10n Non Responsive I

or ltle Freedom 01 Information and Privacy M I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

___________________ j

From: Shane, Raeann Se nt: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 22:09:00 +0000 To: Lubinski, John;Lewis, Robert;Tappert, John;Kock, Andrea;Williams, Kevin;Holahan, Trish;Weil, Jenny;Mclntyre, Dave;Teal, Charles;Sapountzis, Alexander;Spencer, Mary;Moulding, Patrick;Safford, Carrie;Lemoncelli, Mauri;Vrahoretis, Susan;Silvia, Andrea;Bielecki, Jessica;Holahan, Vincent;Abu-Eid, Boby;Harrison, Donnie;McCartin, Timothy;Ki, DaBin;Wagner, Brian;Morgan-Butler, Kimyata;Regan, Christopher;Pham, Bo;Widmayer, Derek;Fields, Leslie;Jones, Kimberly;Smith, Shawn;Marcano, Damaris;Criscione, Lawrence;Karagiannis, Harriet;Clark, Theresa;Lynch, Jeffery;Coyne, Kevin;Ralph, Melissa;Conway, Kimberly;Valentin-Rodriguez, Celimar;Billoch Colon, Araceli;Bartlett, Matt Subje ct: October 19th NMSS Meeting Summary Attachme nts: NMSS Meeting Summary 10-19-20.docx NMSS Staff Meeting Summary - October 19, 2020

-DUWP

• Non Responsive Record

• On October 14, the safety evaluation report for the relocation of the mine waste on top of the existing tailings lmpoundment at Church Rock was transmitted to DOE-LM. The letter informs DOE-LM of the staffs findings and requests DOE-LM's concurrence to ultimately accept the site with the mine waste within 120 days of receipt of the letter. On October 15, an email came in from DOE-LM with a request to cease and desist review of this Issue. A meeting is scheduled to discuss this issue on October 26.

• On October 26, the DUWP managers and staff along with OGC will participate in a quarterly meeting with DOE's Office of Legacy Management managers and staff to discuss issues associated with the management of uranium recovery sites.

• On October 29, the DUWP managers and staff will participate in a quarterly meeting with DOE's Office of Environmental Management managers and staff to discuss waste management topics of mutual interest.

REFS

• Non Responsive Record

• Non Responsive Record

• The staff is preparing to issue the draft EIS for the Church Rock project and plans for two public webinars/teleconferences In November and December. The EIS will be published for a 45-day public comment period that the staff expects to close in mid-December. This activity has high interest from the Navajo Tribe. REFS and DUWP are meeting w ith NMSS front office to discuss the path forward on this topic in light of recent feedback from DOE.

• Non Responsive Record

-DFM

• Non Responsive Record

Non Responsive Record MSST Kon Responsive Record

From: Alley, David Se nt: Mon, 26 Oct 202012:18:10 +0000 To: Lubinski, John;Lewis, Robert Cc: Diaz Sanabria, Yoira;Smith, Shawn;NMSS LT

Subject:

COVID 19 Brief 26 Oct 2020 Attachme nts: INSPECTIONS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY COVID 19 2020-10-22.docx This is what I will brief from at 0830

• EGMs (Michele this is mostly you)

'I on Responsive Record

• Inspections (Primarily DUWP and DFM)

Non Responsive Record

• Public Meetings (REFS this is primarily you)

• The Environmental staff ls planning two future public webinar meetings for the Church Rock draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). These meetings will be scheduled based on the release of the DEIS for public comment. but are tentatively planned for 11/10 and 12/2.

A 45 day comment period is planned . To facilitate receipt of comments, the staff also plans to use a toll free number set up with a voicemail box to receive comments in additional to all of the standard means. Staff also plans targeted outreach to the Navajo is planned based on their strong interest in the project. The staff is currently assessing the impact of a recent letter sent by the DOE Office of Legacy Management noting concerns with the resolution approach for Church Rock (i.e., moving mine waste to a disposal area on the milling site).

Staff is working to set up a meeting between the DOE LM office director and the NMSS front office to address concerns. In an email sent to DUWP staff on Wedneday, 10/21, David Schafer, DOE LM Deputy Director for Field Operations, indicated that DOE felt "il seems premature for LM to commit to accepting the placement of the mine waste on the mill tailings or conducting post-closure care of the site until after the NEPA analysis is complete."

• Non ResponsiYe Record

rExemptions/Licensing Actions (this is mostly mine) on Responsive Record

• State Impacts (Usie this is mostly you)

Non Responsive Record

• Drills and Exercises on Responsive ecord

• Other David Alley PhD.

Chief, Materials Safety and Tribal liaison Branch US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville MD 20852 301-415-2178

Page 491 Of 863 W~hnekl pursuant to exempuon Non Responsive of t.ne Freedom of tnfcrmation an<l Privacy Ad

I I

I I

l l

I I

I I

Page 492 or 863 I

Willllleld pursuant to exempt10n Non Responsive I

or ltle Freedom 01 Information and Privacy M I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

l l

I I

I I

Page 493 of 863 I

W~llhekl pursuant to exempuon Non Responsive I

of the Freedom ol lnlormauon anCI Privacy Ad I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

___________________ j

From: Alley, David Se nt: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 12:59:50 +0000 To: Lubinski, John;Lewis, Robert Cc: Diaz Sanabria, Yoira;Smith, Shawn;NMSS LT

Subject:

COVID 19 Brief 2 Nov 2020 Attachme nts: INSPECTIONS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY COVID 19 2020-10-22.docx This is what I will brief from at 0830

• EGMs (Michele this is mostly you)

"1on Responsive Record

• Public Meetings (REFS this is primarily you)

• The Environmental staff is planning two future public webinar meetings for the Church Rock draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). These meetings will be scheduled based on the release of the DEIS for public comment, but are tentatively planned for November and December. A 45 day comment period is planned. To facilitate receipt of comments, the staff also plans to use a toll free number set up with a voicemail box to receive comments in additional to all of the standard means. Staff also plans targeted outreach to the Navajo is planned based on their strong interest in the project. The staff Is currently assessing the Impact of a recent letter sent by the DOE Office of Legacy Management (LM) noting concerns with the resolution approach for Church Rock (i.e .,

moving mine waste to a disposal area on the milling site). Specific plans will be finalized after LM leadership meets with the NMSS front office on 11/3.

• Exemptions/Licensing Actions (this is mostly mine)

• State Impacts (Brian this is mostly you)

• Drills and Exercises Ton Responsive ecord

• Other Non Responsive Record David Alley PhD.

Chief, Materials Safety and Tribal Liaison Branch US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville MD 20852 301-415-2178

Page 496 Of 863 W~hnekl pursuant to exempuon Non Responsive of t.ne Freedom of tnfcrmation an<l Privacy Ad

I I

I I

l l

I I

I I

Page 497 or 863 I

Willllleld pursuant to exempt10n Non Responsive I

or ltle Freedom 01 Information and Privacy M I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

___________________ j

I I

I I

l l

I I

I I

Page 498 of 863 I

W~llhekl pursuant to exempuon Non Responsive I

of the Freedom ol lnlormauon anCI Privacy Ad I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

___________________ j

From: Alley, David Sent: Mon, 2 Nov 202013:53:01 +0000 To: Lubinski, John;Lewis, Robert Cc: Diaz Sanabria, Yoira;Smith, Shawn;NMSS LT

Subject:

RE : COVID 19 Brief 2 Nov 2020 Update to add two items From: Alley, David Sent: Monday, November 02, 2020 8:00 AM To: Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>; Lewis, Robert <Robert.Lewis@nrc.gov>

Cc: Diaz Sanabria, Yoira <Yoira.Diaz-Sanabria@nrc.gov>; Smith, Shawn <Shawn.Smith@nrc.gov>; NMSS LT <NMSSLT@usnrc.onmicrosoft.com>

Subject:

COVID 19 Brief 2 Nov 2020 This is what I will brief from at 0830

• EGMs (Michele this is mostly you)

• Inspections (Primarily DUWP and DFM)

Non Responsive Record

• Public Meetings (REFS this is primarily you)

• The Environmental staff is planning two future public webinar meetings for the Church Rock draft environmental Impact statement (DEIS). These meetings will be scheduled based on the release of the DEIS for public comment, but are tentatively planned for November and December. A 45 day comment period is planned. To facilitate receipt of comments, the staff also plans to use a toll free number set up with a voicemail box to

receive comments in additional to all of the standard means. Staff also plans targeted outreach to the Navajo is planned based on their strong interest in the project. The staff is currently assessing the impact of a recent letter sent by the DOE Office of Legacy Management (LM) noting concerns with the resolution approach for Church Rock (i.e .,

moving mine waste to a disposal area on the milling site). Specific plans will be finalized after LM leadership meets with the NMSS front office on 11/3.

• Exemptions/Licensing Actions (this is mostly mine)

• State Impacts (Brian this is mostly you) r on Responsive Record

• Drills and Exercises on Responsive ecord

• Other David Alley PhD.

Chief, Materials Safety and Tribal Liaison Branch US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville MD 20852 301-415-2178

From: Von Till, Bill Sent: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 13:36:09 +0000 To: Lubinski, John Cc: Holahan, Trish;Zimmerman, Jacob;Tappert, John

Subject:

RE: Quick question on Churchrock - Draft EIS Thanks John From: Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2020 8:27 AM To: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTlll@nrc.gov>

Cc: Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>;

Tappert, John <John.Tappert@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Quick question on Churchrock - Draft EIS

Bill, Thanks. I gave REFS the thumbs up to go forward with the Draft EIS.

Thanks John W. Lubinski, Director, NMSS Be rlskSMART

'-.____/

From: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2020 8:24 AM To: Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>

Cc: Holahan, Trish <Patricla.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zlmmerman@nrc.gov>;

Tappert, John <John.Tappert@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Quick question on Churchrock - Draft EIS This will come up at the thr~e_e_A~ e_n_c~ m _e_e_t_in~ - ~ - - - - - - - - - - ~o_u_o_n_ o_u_

r -~

decision for the draft EIS. X5>

p,xs> ~-----------------------~

lor do you want to go ahead with the draft EIS?

Thanks Bill von Till Chief, Uranium Recovery and Materials Decommissioning Branch Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste P1rograms Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-415-0598 "Protecting today, tomorrow, and cleaning up the past"

From: Orlando, Dominick Sent: Wed, 28 Oct 202011:47:07 +0000 To: Lewis, Robert;Lubinski, John Cc: Talley, Sandra;Von Till, Bill;Alley, David;Pham, Bo;Pringle, Marcia;Shane, Raeann;Williams, Kevin;Holahan, Trish

Subject:

RE: Review requested: draft Ten-year plan-Federal Actions to Address Impacts of Uranium Contamination on the Navajo Nation Attachments: RAES_T0-006_10yrPlan_DRAFT_09.22.20_reduced.pdf Hi Rob It's not been issued >(5>

~ )(5) I* No idea of their schedule but have asked EPA if they ave any insights. Current version Is attached From: Lewis, Robert <Robert.Lewis@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 7:20 AM To: Orlando, Dominick <Dominlck.Orlando@nrc.gov>; Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>

Cc: Talley, Sandra <Sandra.Talley@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Alley, David

<David.Alley@nrc.gov>; Pham, Bo <Bo.Pham@nrc.gov>; Pringle, Marcia <Marcia.Pringle@nrc.gov>;

Shane, Raeann <Raeann.Shane@nrc.gov>; Williams, Kevin <Kevin.Williams@nrc.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Layton, Michael <Michael.Layton@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Review requested: draft Ten-year plan-Federal Actions to Address Impacts of Uranium Contamination on the Navajo Nation Can you send the final Navajo 10 year plan? (I think it was issued right?)

Do you know why it is not yet on EPA's website?

From: Orlando, Dominick <Domin ick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Se nt: Monday, March 02, 2020 4:31 PM To: Lubinski, John <John. Lubinski@nrc.gov>; Lewis, Robert <Robert.Lewis@nrc.gov>

Cc: Talley, Sandra <Sandra.Talley@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Alley, David

<David.Alley@nrc.gov>; Pham, Bo <Bo.Pham@nrc.gov>; Pringle, Marcia <Marcia.Prlngle@nrc.gov>;

Shane, Raeann <Raeann.Shane@nrc.gov>; Williams, Kevin <Kevin.Williams@nrc.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Layton, Michael <Michael. Layton@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Review requested: draft Ten-year plan-Federal Actions to Address Impacts of Uranium Contamination on the Navajo Nation Hello John and Rob Attached, for your review, is the draft Ten-Year Plan: Federal Actions to Address Impacts of Uranium Contamination on the Navajo Nation.

The Navajo Nation encompasses 27, 000 square miles in Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico.

From 1944 to 1989, 30 million tons of uranium ore was mined on the Navajo Nation, much of which was purchased by the Atomic Energy Commission. Uranium mills were located on the

Navajo Nation at Shiprock, NM, Tuba City and Monument Valley, AZ and Mexican Hat, UT.

Uranium tailings disposal sites are currently located at the former mill sites in Shiprock, Tuba City and Mexican Hat. There are 523 abandoned uranium mines on or near the Navajo Nation.

Many Navajo worked in the mines and mills and are suffering health impacts from exposure to radon in mines, and in homes constructed from ore and mill waste, and contaminated water.

NRC has been working with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Bureau of Indian Affairs {BIA), the Indian Health Service (IHS), the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the National Institutes of Health (NIH),

and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention {CDC), since 2008 to address the legacy of uranium contamination on the Navajo Nation. This 10-year plan builds on two previous five-year plans (2008-2014 and 2014-2018) that were initiated in 2007 at the request of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Sandra Talley and I have been working with DUWP, MSST and REFS staff to update the NRC portions of the plan.

The plan includes goals and actions for addressing abandoned uranium mines, former uranium mills, contaminated structures, remediation of contaminated water, access to drinking water, health impacts of prior mining and milling, community involvement and workforce development.

NRC's role is: 1. Oversight of the DOE who is responsible for the long-term care and maintenance of the three disposal sites and the former mill site in Monument Valley; 2. the decommissioning of the United Nuclear Corporation Northeast Church Rock (NECR) mill and working with EPA, and others, to transfer waste from the adjacent mine to the mill site and, 3.

community outreach.

NEXT STEPS:

Kb)C5)

NRC related information is on pages:

15 (NECR),

23 (our activities at the former mills and current disposal sites),

38 (Uranium 101workshop - Sandra was the lead for NRC for the development of the Uranium 101 workshop., Knowledge enhancement through courseware sharing discusses a course Sandra developed with the TTC , and highlighted sentence on outreach), and 43 (our role in the plan).

Note that the spacing is off on some pages as I converted the EPA pdf to Word to make it easier to do redline/strikeout revisions. What I have sent you is the "clean" version that incorporates our comments and revisions . We would send the redline/strikeout version to EPA If you would like a briefing on the ten-year plan please let me know.

Thanks Nick Orlando

Page 505 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 506 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 507 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 508 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 509 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 510 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 511 or 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnfmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 512 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page ~,3 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 0 14 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 515 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 516 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 517 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 518 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 519 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 520 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 521 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 522 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 523 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 524 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 525 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 526 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 527 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 528 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 529 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 530 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 531 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 532 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 533 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 534 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 535 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 536 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 537 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 538 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 539 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 5-10 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exemption (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 541 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 5-12 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 543 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 544 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 545 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 546 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 54 7 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 548 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 549 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 550 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 551 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 552 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 553 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 554 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 555 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 556 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 557 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

From: Orlando, Dominick Se nt: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 20:00:16 +0000 To: Lubinski, John;Lewis, Robert Cc: Von Till, Bill;Smith, James;Gendelman, Adam;Quintero, Jessie;Mandeville, Douglas;Waldron, Ashley;Tappert, John;Spencer, Mary

Subject:

Summary of NRC/DOE/EPA weekly cal l on United Nuclear Corporation Attachments: EPA 11-30-2020 response to DOE LM 11-16-2020Questions - Churchrock-UNC Site.docx, 11-30-2020 lssuesAgenciesRolesResponsibilities UNC_Mill.docx, ATT B_LTRP_OM Chart_Roles&Responsibilities 11-30-2020.docx, 11-16-2020 NRC-DOE-EPA Meeting Draft Agenda.docx Staff from NRC, DOE, EPA held a UNC coordination call on 12/2/2020. The focus of the call was to begin preparation for the 12/16/2020 Senior Manager's call and to discuss the materials sent by EPA (attached}.

Items discussed (b)(5) 1.

2.

3.

r)(5)

Action items:

Provide EPA with comments on the draft agenda and issues/question responses by Friday 12/4/20 Meeting next Wednesday December 9, prior to the high level meeting.

Please let Jim Smith or I know if you have any questions Thanks Nick

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 559 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(5)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

From: Entz, Kathy on behalf of NMSS_Sec_Leave_Cal Resource Sent: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 14:34:38 +0000 To: Lubinski, John;Holahan, Trish;Von Till, Bill;Zimmerman, Jacob Cc: Tappert, John;Quintero, Jessie

Subject:

UNC ChurchRock Discussion Attachments: POP UNC brief to John October 27 2020.docx, Letter to Carmelo Melendez DOE LM regarding 1 5

~Cb_)<_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~1 Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer or mobile app Click here to join the meeting Or call in (audio only)

+ 1 301-576-2978.J~:b)-(6-) -~~ United States, Silver Spring Phone Conference ID: 337 189 308#

Find a local number I Reset PIN

-- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission --

I Learn More Meeting options

Page 561 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 562 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 563 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 564 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

I I

I I

l I

I I

I I

Page 565 or 863 I

Withheld ptnUant to exemptton (b)(5)

I Of the Freedom Of lnformatlOll and Pnvacy Ad I I

I I

I I

I I

I l

l I

___________________ I

Page 566 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

I I

I I

I l

I I

I I

I Page 567 o f 863 W~hheld pursuan1 to exemption (b)(5)

I of the Freedom of lnformal1on and Privacy Act I

I I

I I

I I

I I

l I

I

___________________ j

From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 05:24:41 +0000 To: Shafer, David;Smith, James;Von Till, Bill;Brooks, Janet;Jacobs, Sara;Kleinrath, Art;Wetmore, Cynthia;Applegate, Nathaniel;Mandeville, Dougl as;Waldron, Ashley;Pineda, Christine;Miller, Steven R;Gendelman, Adam;Hogan, Sean;Duncan, Will;Costello, James;Holahan, Trish;Zimmerman, Jacob;Orlando, Dominick;Kautsky, Mark;Travis, Pamela;Quintero, Jessie;Mi lier, Matthew;O'Konski, Peter;Mahmud, Shahid;Poore, Chri stine;Wright, Felicia Cc: Rongone, Marie;Pyatt, Suzanne

Subject:

[External_Sender] CORRECTED: NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting 12/16/2020 - DRAFT Briefing Paper Attachments: 12-8-2020v3 JointAgencies_DraftBriefingMemo_Transfer_NECR Mine Waste to UNC_Mill.docx, ATT B_LTRP_OM Chart_RolesResponsibilities 12-8-2020.docx

Dear All,

The attached draft briefing paper includes a few corrections to the version I sent earlier this evening.

Please review the attached revised version.

As I noted earlier:

I look forward to our meeting tomorrow, December 9th at 1 pm Eastern, to continue our work on preparing for the December 16th "high-level' meeting.

Please contact me with any questions or concerns.

Thank you! Laurie ICbX6) I From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 8:15 PM To: 'Shafer, David' <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; 'Smith, James' <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; 'Von Till, Bill'

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>;

'Kleinrath, Art' <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>;

Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; 'Mandeville, Douglas'

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; 'M iller, Steven R' <steven.miller@hq.doe.gov>; 'Gendelman, Adam'

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will

<Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; 'Holahan, Trish'

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; 'Zimmerman, Jacob' <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; 'Kautsky, Mark' <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; 'Qu intero, Jessie' <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; 'O'Konski, Peter' <peter.okonski@hq.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid

<Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine <Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia

<Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

NRC, DOE LM & EPA Meeting 12/16/2020 - DRAFT Briefing Paper Dear All Attached lease find the u dated *oint-a encies briefin a er.

)(5)

I loo orward to our meeting tomorrow, Decem er 9t at 1 pm Eastern, to continue our work on preparing for the December 16th "high-level' meeting.

Please contact me with any questions or concerns.

Much appreciated. Laurie r)(6) I From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 4:33 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, BIii

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>;

Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>;

Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R <ste\/en.miller@hg.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will

<Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.iames@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Z.immerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessle.Qu intero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@hq.doe.gov>

Subject:

RE: NRC, DOE LM & EPA Meeting 12/16/2020 - DRAFT PowerPoint and Anticipated Roles for your review and comment_ re UNC Church Rock LAR Running a bit late on briefing paper and attachments, but I will send later today.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.

Thanks very much I Laurie [0 )(6) I From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 1:17 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>;

Kleinrath, Art <Art.Klelnrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>;

Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R <steven.mlller@hg.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will

<Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<M iller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@hg.doe.gov>

Subject:

NRC, DOE LM & EPA Meeting 12/16/2020 - DRAFT PowerPoint and Anticipated Roles for your review and comment_ re UNC Church Rock LAR

Dear All,

Thanks for all your work on preparing for our December 16, 2020 meeting and our meeting tomorrow December 9th.

b)(5)

Thanks so much for your review of the two attached drafts.

I look forward to providing a revised draft briefing paper later today and speaking with you tomorrow.

Thank again! Laurie Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: (415) 947-3570 Cell: ~ )(6) I

Page 572 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 573 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 57 4 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 575 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 576 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 577 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 578 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 579 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 580 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 581 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Fage 582 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information and Privacy Act

Fage 583 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information and Privacy Act

Fage 584 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information and Privacy Act

Fage 585 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information an<l Privacy Act

Fage 586 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information and Privacy Act

From: Williams, Laurie Se nt: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 22:58:47 +0000 To: Ronnie Ben;darielyazzie;Von THI, Bill;Mandeville, Douglas;Smith, James;Jacobs, Sara;Duncan, Will;Hogan, Sean Subje ct: (External_Sender] CORRECTION - Monday Dec. 14 10:30 AM Pacific, 11:30 AM Navajo; 1:30 PM Eastern- Please accept NRC Teams invite

Dear All,

As my Teams application was not working today, NRC has sent the invite for Monday Dec. 14.

10:30 AM Pacific, 11:30 AM Navajo; 1:30 PM Eastern Please accept that invitation from Bill Von Till at NRC and ignore the information I previously provided below.

Please let me know if ou need any assistance.

Laurie (b)(6)

From: Williams, Laurie Se nt: Friday, December 11, 2020 9:40 AM To: 'Ronnie Ben' <ronnieben@navajo-nsn.gov>; Dariel Yazzie (darielyazzie@navajo-nsn.gov)

<darielyazzie@navajo-nsn.gov>; 'Von Till, Bill' <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Jacobs, Sara

<Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will <Duncan .Will@epa.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>

Subject:

Monday Dec. 14 10:30 AM Pacific, 11:30 AM Navajo; 1:30 PM Eastern- Teams Calendar Invite did not go through- hoping you can use link below

Dear All,

We appreciate your availability on short notice.

Please see a link to this Teams meeting and a call-in number below.

Unfortunately, I am having technical issues and the calendar invite I attempted to send to all of you did not go through.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns you may have prior to the meeting.

Monday Dec. 14 - 10:30 AM Pacific, 11:30 AM Navajo; 1:30 PM Eastern.

Please also feel free to forward this information/invite to othe rs in your organization.

I will work with our tech support and may be able to send out a calendar invite later today.

Thank you! Best regards, Lauriel(b)(6) I Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: 415 947-3570 Cell: )(6)

Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer or mobile app Click here to join the meeting Or call in (audio only)

+ 1 619-375-3276.f.--)<6-=-

) '------.~ United States, San Diego Phone Conference ID: 655 422 127#

Find a local number I Reset PIN By participating in EPA hosted virtual meetings and events, you are consenting to abide by the agency's terms of use. In addition, you acknowledge that content you post may be collected and used in support of FOIA and eDiscovery activities.

I Learn More Meeting options Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: 415 947-3570 Cell: X6)

From: W illiams, Laurie Se nt: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 21:05:44 +0000 To: Shafer, David;Smith, James;Von Till, Bill;Brooks, Janet;Jacobs, Sara;Kleinrath, Art;Wetmore, Cynthia;Applegate, Nathaniel;Mandeville, Dougl as;Waldron, Ashley;Pineda, Christine;Miller, Steven R;Gendelman, Adam;Hogan, Sean;Duncan, Will;Costello, James;Holahan, Trish;Zimmerman, Jacob;Orlando, Dominick;Kautsky, Mark;Travis, Pamela;Quintero, Jessie;Mi lier, Matthew;O'Konski, Peter;Mahmud, Shahid;Poore, Chri stine;Wright, Felicia;Van Epps, Amanda Cc: Rongone, Marie;Pyatt, Suzanne

Subject:

[External_Sender] NECR-UNC LAR_ NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - 12/16/2020

• UPDATED DRAFT Briefing Materials for your review Attachme nts: 12-9-2020 JointAgencies_Draft BriefingMemo_Transfer_NECR Mine Waste to UNC_Mill.docx, ATT D_LTRP_OM Chart_AnticipatedRolesRespons_12-9-2020Iw.docx, 12-9-2020v5 DRAFT UNC Mill-NECR LAR Presentation for 12-16-2020 NRC-DOE-EPA Mtg.pptx

Dear All,

Attached please find the updated PowerPoint that I received from David Shafer at DOE today.

K\,)(5)

Your assistance is much appreciated! Laurie.._P,_)(6_) _ _ ___.~cell)

Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: (415) 947-3570 Cell: P,)(6) I From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 10:15 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>;

Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>;

Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathanlel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R <steven.miller@!hq.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will

<Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia. Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Qui ntero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@hq.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid

<Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine <Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia

<Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda <VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - 12/16/2020 - UPDATED DRAFT Briefing M aterials for your review

Dear All,

Thank you for participating in our NECR-UNC License Amendment Request meeting today.

Attached please find an updated version of the following draft documents for our meeting on December 16, 2020.

(b)(5)

I look forward to your comments, corrections, suggestions and questions.

Please contact me if I can be helpful at any point.

6 Thank you for all of your work on this challenging proj ect! Laurie~f_)c_)- - - ~

Laurie Williams

Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: 415 947-3570 Cell: )(6)

Page 592 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 593 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 594 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 595 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 596 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 597 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 598 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 599 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 600 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 601 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 602 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 603 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 604 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Fage 605 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information an<l Privacy Act

Fage 606 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information and Privacy Act

Fage 607 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information and Privacy Act

Fage 608 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information and Privacy Act

Fage 609 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information and Privacy Act

Page 6iO of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 6<< Of Sf'l Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 612 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 6i3 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 614 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 6i5 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 616 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 617 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 6i8 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 619 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 620 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 621 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 622 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 623 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 624 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 625 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(S) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 626 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 627 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 628 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 629 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 610 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 6~1 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 6'32 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

From: W illiams, Laurie Se nt: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 22:09:04 +0000 To: Orlando, Dominick Cc: Von Till, Bill;Gendelman, Adam;Mandeville, Douglas;Smith, James;Jacobs, Sara

Subject:

(External_Sender] NECR-UNC LAR_ NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - 12/16/2020 -

UPDATED DRAFT Briefing Materials for your review Thanks very much! I will stud this and resend the affected documents to all.

Much appreciated I Laurie X6)

From: Orlando, Dominick [2]

Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 1:50 PM To: Williams, Laurie <Williams.Laurie@epa.gov>

Cc: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Subje ct: RE: RE: NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - 12/16/2020 - UPDATED DRAFT Briefing Materials for your review Hi L aurie AttachP.d n le~~e find I . (6)(5) 2.

3.

I will not be checking email anymore this weekend so thanks for all the work and have a good weekend Nick From: Williams, Laurie <Williams.Laurie@epa.gov>

Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 4:11 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Blll.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>;

Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthla@epa.gov>;

Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniej@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandevllle@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <Ashley.Waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<Christine.Pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R <steven.miller@hg.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will

<Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.iames@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patrida.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm .doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Qui ntero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@hg.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid

<Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine <Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia

<Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda <VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone. Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender) RE: NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - 12/16/2020 - UPDATED DRAFT Briefing Materials for your review Apologies .

r _)()-_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___.I Laurie From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 1:06 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@ lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>;

Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>;

Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<christihe.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R <steven.miller@hg.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will

<Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Qui ntero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@hq.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid

<Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine <Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia

<W rlght.Felicia@eoa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda <VanEpps.Amanda@eoa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone .Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@eoa.gov>

Subject:

NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - 12/16/2020 - UPDATED DRAFT Briefing Materials for your review

Dear All,

Attached please find the updated PowerPoint that I received from David Shafer at DOE today.

(b)(5)

Your assistance is much appreciated! Laurie .___ ___

yi,)(6) ___.l(cell)

Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: (415) 947-3570 Cell:[b)(6) I

X From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 10:15 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>;

Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>;

Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R <steven.miller@hq.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will

<Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dom1nick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@hq.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid

<Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine <Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia

<Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda <VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting

• 12/16/2020

• UPDATED DRAFT Briefing M aterials for your review

Dear All,

Thank you for participating in our NECR-UNC license Amendment Request meeting today.

Attached please find an updated version of the following draft documents for our meeting on December 16 2020.

(b)(5)

1,)(5)

I look forward to your comments, corrections, suggestions and questions.

Please contact me if I can be helpful at any point.

Thank you for all of your work on this challenging project! Lau rie.._)(6_) _ _ ____.

[1'_

Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: 415 947-3570 Cell: rb)(6)

X

From: Gendelman, Adam Sent: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:12:50 +0000 To: Smith, James Cc: Mandeville, Oouglas;Orlando, Dominick

Subject:

RE: FYl /Action: Church Rock 1

Attachments: UNC Information 10 20 2020 asg.docx (b)(S)

From: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 10:50 AM To: Gendel man, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>

Cc: Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: FYI/Action: Church Rock Hey Adam From: Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>

Se nt: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 10:15 AM To: Orlando, Dominick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Cc: Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandevllle@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE : FYI/Action: Church Rock

b)(S)

Be safe.

Adam From: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:36 AM To: Orlando, Dominick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Cc: Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: FYI/Action: Church Rock Nick-(6)(5)

Thanks Jim From: Orlando, Dominick <Domln ick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:24 AM To: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>

Cc: Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill <Blll.VonTill@n rc.gov>

Subject:

RE: FYI/Action: Church Rock Here is some thoughts for the impact on the Navajo nation:

(6)(5)

From: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:14 AM To: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>

Cc: Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: FYI/Action: Church Rock Importance: High See the action below, this is for John's information for the meeting with Carmelo. Again, quick action.

Thanks From: Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:12 AM To: Von Till, Bill <BIII.VonTiil@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FYI/Action: Church Rock Importance: High FYI: Providing per our discussion.

John Lubinski confirmed outline and added one bullet (red below).

p)(S)

Action: Please share with me for review once drafted.

Thanks, f/4M Jacob I. Zimmerman Acting Deputy Director Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

~ E-mail: Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov I Office: (301) 415-1220 I

Page 641 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 642 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 643 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 644 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

From: Waldron, Ashley Sent: Mon, 19 Oct 202013:45:25 +0000 To: Pineda, Christine;Quintero, Jessie

Subject:

RE: initial thoughts RE: REQUEST: Notes for Church Rock FO Briefing Hi Jessie, (b)(S)

Ashley From: Pineda, Christine <Chrlstine.Pineda@nrc.gov>

Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 1:21 PM To: Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quinter o@nrc.gov>

Cc: Waldron, Ashley <Ashley.Waldron@nrc.gov>

Subject:

initial thoughts RE: REQUEST: Notes for Church Rock FO Briefing Hi Jessie,

1>)(5)

From: Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>

Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 12:38 PM To: Waldron, Ashley <Ash ley.Waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <Christine.Pineda@nrc.gov>

Subject:

REQUEST: Notes for Church Rock FO Briefing Ashley and Christine, For the briefing with Rob and Lubinski on Monday afternoon, we should t hink through a few things l(b)(5) I (b)(5)

Doug also mentioned that Adam G was trying to speak with the DOE attorneys but its not clear if he will be able to do so before the Monday afternoon briefing.

Thanks, Jessie Jessie Muir Quintero Acting Branch Chief (July-Oct 2020)

Environmental Review Materials Branch Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Phone: 301.415.7476 Email: Jessie.Quintero@NRC.gov fl Environmental

'- c rter 01 r ner 1se

From: Orlando, Dominick Se nt: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 13:36:55 +0000 To: Von Till, Bill;Holahan, Trish;Zimmerman, Jacob Cc: Mandeville, 0ouglas;Gendelman, Adam;Smith, James;Waldron, Ashley;Quintero, Jessie Subje ct: RE : Notes from EPA call on 12/1/2020 on UNC Thanks Bill, I wasn't sure of Costello's affiliation. I wanted to mention after Costello made the comment, but held back, that he might want to check and see what the EPA stated to the Navajo Nation President and Council during the G to G call in August regarding the priority of the site. I don't recall if the EPA senior manager that made the EPA intro was R6 or R9 From: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Se nt: Wednesday, December 02, 2020 8:29 AM To: Orlando, Dominick <Dominlck.Orlando@nrc.gov>; Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>;

Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>

Cc: Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley

<Ashley.Waldron@nrc.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>

Subje ct: RE: Notes from EPA call on 12/1/2020 on UNC Thanks Nick I will be on the 1 pm call today and the public meeting at 3 pm. Jim Costello is the EPA Attorney for Region 6 and Laurie Williams the Attorney for Region 9. EPA Region 6 has oversight of the CERCLA action for the mill site and EPA Region 9 for the Northeast mine site cleanup and Indian Tribe relations.

From: Orlando, Dominick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov >

Se nt: Wednesday, December 02, 2020 5:43 AM To: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob

<Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>

Cc: Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Gendel man, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley

<Ashley.Waldron@ nrc.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@ nrc.gov>

Subje ct: Notes from EPA call on 12/1/2020 on UNC Last evening Jim, Adam, Doug and I had a call with EPA regarding the upcoming 12/16/20 NRC/DOE/EPA senior managers call.I

~--- - - - -- - - ------'\Other items:

1. (b)(5) 2.

3.

4. We all agreed that today's call needed to focus on the 12/16/20 call prep as we don't have a lot of time left to get everything together.

Jim, Adam, Doug, please correcUaugment as appropriate Thanks Nick

From: Quintero, Jessie Sent: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 13:44:45 +0000 To: Von Till, Bill;Tappert, John Cc: Waldron, Ashley;Pineda, Christine

Subject:

RE: Quick question on Churchrock - Draft EIS Bill

Thanks, Jessie From: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2020 8:37 AM To: Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Tappert, John <John.Tappert@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Quick question on Churchrock - Draft EIS I have a three Agency call at 1 pm today and this will come up.

r )(S) 1 f)C 5)

~------~

Thanks From: Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2020 8:27 AM To: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Cc: Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Hol ahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>;

Tappert, John <John.Tappert@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Quick question on Churchrock - Draft EIS

Bill, Thanks. (b)C5)

Thanks John W. Lubinski, Director, NMSS Be riskSMART

'-.___../

From: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2020 8:24 AM To: Lubinski, John <John.Lubinsk1@nrc.gov>

Cc: Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>;

Tappert, John <John.Tappert@nrc.gov>

Subject : Quick question on Churchrock - Draft EIS This will come up at the three A enc meetin toda so I wanted to check with ou on our decision for the draft EIS. )(5)

Thanks Bill von Till Chief, Uranium Recovery and Materials Decommissioning Branch Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 301-415-0598 "Protecting today, tomorrow, and cleaning up the past"

From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 19:36:53 +0000 To: Shafer, David;Smith, James;Von Till, Bill;Brooks, Janet;Jacobs, Sara;Kleinrath, Art;Wetmore, Cynthia;Applegate, Nathaniel;Mandeville, Dougl as;Waldron, Ashley;Pineda, Christine;Miller, Steven R;Gendelman, Adam;Hogan, Sean;Duncan, Will;Costello, James;Holahan, Trish;Zimmerman, Jacob;Orlando, Dominick;Kautsky, Mark;Travis, Pamela;Quintero, Jessie;Mi lier, Matthew;O'Konski, Peter;Mahmud, Shahid;Poore, Chri stine;Wright, Felicia;Van Epps, Amanda Cc: Rongone, Marie;Pyatt, Suzanne

Subject:

[External_Sender] NECR-UNC LAR_ NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - letter from DOE Attachments: 20201214083110960.pdf FYI - )(S)

From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 1:11 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>;

Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>;

Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R <steven.miller@hq.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will

<Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@ lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, M atthew

<Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@hq.doe.gov>; M ahmud, Shahid

<Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine <Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia

<Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda <VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

RE: NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - 12/16/2020

• UPDATED DRAFT Briefing Materia ls for your review Apologies.

)(5) Laurie From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 1:06 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>;

Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>;

Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R <steven.miller@hg.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will

<Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.iames@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, M ark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis. Pamela@epa.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, M atthew

<Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@hg.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid

<Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine <Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia

<W right.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda <VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subje ct: NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - 12/16/2020 - UPDATED DRAFT Briefing Materials for your review Dear All Attached olease find the undated PowerPoint that I received from David Shafer at DOE todav.

~ )(5) 6 Your assistance is much appreciated I Laurier )( )  !(cell)

~----~

Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: 415 947-3570 Cell: )(6)

From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 10:15 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>;

Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>;

Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<christ ine.pineda@nr c.gov>; Miller, Steven R <steven.miller@hg.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will

<Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<Miller.Mat thew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@hg.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid

<Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine <Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia

<W right.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda <VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone. Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - 12/16/2020 - UPDATED DRAFT Briefing Materials for your review

Dear All,

Thank you for participating in our NECR-UNC License Amendment Request meeting today.

Attached please find an updated version of the following draft documents for our meeting on December 16, 2020.

'b)(S)

I look forward to your comments, corrections, suggestions and questions.

Please contact me if I can be helpful at any point.

6 Thank you for all of your work on this challenging project! Laurief, __

X_) _ _ ____,

Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: (415) 947-3570

Cell: rX 6

__ I

)

Department of Energy 1Nas1ingtori, DC 20585 December 11, 2020 John Tuhiliski Director Office of Nuclear Material and Safeguards US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, UC ~ /'J /

Dear M r . ~ t . /~ l

.  !/

I appreciated the opportunity lo discuss with yoLJ the challenge~ related to the final disposition of the "mine spoils," from the Northeast Chun.:h Rock mine. Specifically, the planned containment of chis material in a permanent repository at the United Nuclear Cor:1oration (UNC} site and transfer of the entire site to the Department of Energy, Office ofl.egacy Management (DOE) for Long-Term Surveillance and Monitoring. I understand this i~ the solution pre:emxJ by EPA Regions 6 and 9, Navajn Nation EPA and the l\cw Mexicl~ Environmental Department.

As l indiL:aku iu our earlier ciscussion, \vhile the DOE had misgivings r~ganling the viability of the solution as indicated i:l our lener of October 19, 2020; we now bdieve adequate analysis has been performed demonstrating the solution is technicf.!ly v:able.

Moreover, the DOE is willing to accept the transfer of the site as long as the details of the Regu:atory oversik are estahlishcd and documcn'.cd so allthoritic-s and responsibilities nrc clearly defined. Ry clearly estahlishing the Regulatory convention, the DOE can, working with the.: established Rcguh1lur, gc.:11c1a\c rcc:1lislic csliurntcs of the sustainment and maintenance of the site tu accurately inform estimates <Jf long-tc:1m liahi lity and prepare defensible, repeatable budgets.

Tam pleao:;ed we will he meeting on December 16 1h tn identify the remaining impediments to generating a iin<!l brief:.ng paper setting frirth 1hc understanding of the thrC'c atcncics 1*cgarding the long-term management of the C'hurch Rock site. T look tixward to being

))mi of a solution tlrnt is trauspan:nl and workable. My point rJf cunt.1d for this nMllcr is David Shafrr, Deputy Director for Field Operations. Dr. Sbafer cnn be reached at (103) 410-4806 or david.shakricllrn .doe. e:ov.

/,:>~~dy, .

,/Lil_ --

// fVo,K:~:

Dcpuly Dircdor Office iif 1 .egacy Management

Copy to:

GC-5 l Steven Miller L.\1-1 Carmelo Melendez LM-20 David 8hafer

From: W illiams, Laurie Se nt: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 06:38:09 +0000 To: Shafer, David;Smith, James;Von Till, Bill;Brooks, Janet;Jacobs, Sara;Kleinrath, Art;Wetmore, Cynthia;Applegate, Nathaniel;Mandeville, Dougl as;Waldron, Ashley;Pineda, Christine;Miller, Steven R;Gendelman, Adam;Hogan, Sean;Duncan, Will;Costello, James;Holahan, Trish;Zimmerman, Jacob;Orlando, Dominick;Kautsky, Mark;Travis, Pamela;Quintero, Jessie;Mi lier, Matthew;Stalcup, Dana;O'Konski, Peter;Mahmud, Shahid;Poore, Christine;Wright, Felicia;Van Epps, Amanda;Walker, Stuart Cc: Rongone, Marie;Pyatt, Suzanne Subje ct: [External_Sender) NECR-UNC LAR_ NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting . Updated Briefing Paper, PowerPoint and Attachment D Attachme nts: 12-14-2020v2 JointAgencies_DraftBriefingMemo_Transfer_NECR M ine Waste to UNC_Mill.docx, 12-14-2020v2 DRAFT UNC Mill-NECR LAR Presentation_12-16-2020 NRC-DOE-EPA Mtg.pptx, ATT D_ LTRP_ OM Chart_AnticipatedRolesRespons_ l 2-14-20201w .docx our on o in efforts to brin this matter to a successful conclusion.

Thanks very much! Laurie :b)(6)

From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 11:37 AM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>;

Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>;

Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R <steven.miller@lhq.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will

<Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia. Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<domlnick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@hq.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid

<Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine <Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia

<Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda <VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subje ct: NECR-U NC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting

• Letter from DOE FYI - )(S)

From: Williams, Laurie Se nt: Friday, December 11, 2020 1:11 PM

To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>;

Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>;

Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R <steven.miller@hg.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will

<Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.iames@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Pat ricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zlmmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@hg.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid

<Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine <Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia

<Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda <VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

RE: NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - 12/16/2020 - UPDATED DRAFT Briefing Materials for your review Apologies.

~r_x_s)______________________ ~I Laurie From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 1:06 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@ lm .doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Safa <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>;

Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>;

Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<christ ine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R <steven.miller@hg.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will

<Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricla.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zlmmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konskl, Peter <peter.okonski @hg.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid

<Mahmud.Shahld@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine <Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia

<Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda <VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - 12/16/2020 - UPDATED DRAFT Briefing Materials for your review

Dear All,

Attached please find the updated PowerPoint that I received from David Shafer at DOE today.

K\>)(5)

6 Your assistance is much appreciated! LaurieF ~_

)<_)_ _ _~ l(cell)

Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (41 5) 972-3867 Fax:f 415) 947-3570 Cell: )(6) I From: Williams, Laurie Sent: W ednesday, December 9, 2020 10:15 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>;

Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; W etmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>;

Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<christlne.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R <steven.mlller@hg.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will

<Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.goV>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessle.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@hg.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid

<Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine <Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia

<Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda <VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - 12/16/2020 - UPDATED DRAFT Briefing Materials for your review

Dear All,

Thank you for participating in our NECR-UNC License Amendment Request meeting today.

Attached please find an updated version of the following draft documents for our meeting on December r~~2020

(b)(5)

I look forward to your comments, corrections, suggestions and questions.

Please contact me if I can be helpful at any point.

r_)c_6>_ _ ____.

Thank you for all of your work on this challenging project! Laurie ....

Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: 415 947-3570 Cell: )(6)

Page 661 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 662 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 663 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 664 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 665 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 666 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 667 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 668 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 669 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 670 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 671 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 672 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 673 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 674 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 675 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(S) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 676 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 6 7 7 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 678 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 679 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 6'i0 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 6Q1 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 6~2 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 6~ Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 6~4 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuan1 to exemp110n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnforma11on and Privacy Act

Page 6'i5 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 6% Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuan1 to exemp110n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnforma11on and Privacy Act

Page 6Q 7 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 6'i8 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 6~9 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 6'10 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 691 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 6'12 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 693 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 694 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 6'15 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(S) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 6'16 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 697 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 698 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Fage 699 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information an<l Privacy Act

Fage 700 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information an<l Privacy Act

Fage 701 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information and Privacy Act

Fage 702 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information and Privacy Act

Fage 703 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information and Privacy Act

From: W illiams, Laurie Se nt: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 02:15:06 +0000 To: Shafer, David;Smith, James;Von Till, Bill;Brooks, Janet;Jacobs, Sara;Kleinrath, Art;Wetmore, Cynthia;Applegate, Nathaniel;Mandeville, Dougl as;Waldron, Ashley;Pineda, Christine;Miller, Steven R;Gendelman, Adam;Hogan, Sean;Duncan, Will;Costello, James;Holahan, Trish;Zimmerman, Jacob;Orlando, Dominick;Kautsky, Mark;Travis, Pamela;Quintero, Jessie;Mi lier, Matthew;O'Konski, Peter Subje ct: [External_Sender] NRC, DOE LM & EPA Meeting 12/16/2020 - DRAFT joint agencies briefing documents for your review and comment_ re UNC Church Rock LAR Attachme nts: 12-2-2020 JointAgencies_DraftBriefingMemo_Transfer_NECR Mine Waste to UNC_Mill.docx, EPA 12-2-2020 Responses to DOE LM 11-16-2020 Questions.docx, ATT B_LTRP_OM Chart_Roles&Responsibilities 12-2-2020.docx

Dear All,

\

(6)(5)

Please contact me with anv questions or concerns.

Many thanks! I I Laurier )(6) I Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: (415\ 947-3570 Cell:r )(6) I From: Williams, Laurie Se nt: Monday, November 30, 2020 9:13 AM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>;

Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>;

Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R <steven.miller@hq.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will

<Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<M iller. M atthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@hq.doe.gov>

Subject:

3rd Set of Attachments: Action Items from November 18, 2020, UNC Church Rock license Amendment Request Federal Agency Status Meeting 6

Here are the last two documents. Thank you! Laurie l._(b_ >< _) _ _ ____.

6. Attachment E - 2002 NRC EPA MOU

7. Attachment F - 2011 Consent Decree UNC/GE and United States Please let me know if ou have an questions or concerns.

Thank you! Laurie )(6)

From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 9:10 AM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>;

Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>;

Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R <steven.miller@hg.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will

<Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zlmmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@hg.doe.gov>

Subject:

2nd Set of Attachments as links: Action Items from November 18, 2020, UNC Church Rock license Amendment Request Federal Agency Status M eeting Since the 2nd set of Attachments are large, I am providing the links instead:

4. Attachment C - 2016 DOE LM Transition Guidance is available at https://www.enerqy.gov/lm/downloads/process-transition-uranium-mill-tailinqs-radiation-control-act-title

5. Attachment D - 2011 EPA Closeout Procedures Guidance is available at https://www.epa .gov/superfund/close-out-proced ures-national-priorities-l ist-superfund-sites 6

Thank you I Laurier....)_c_) _ _ __.

From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 9:04 AM To: Shafer, David <Davld.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smlth@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>;

Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>;

Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R <steven.miller@hg.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will

<Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@ lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski @hg.doe.gov>

Subject:

RE: Action Items from November 18, 2020, UNC Church Rock License Amendment Request Federal Agency Status Meeting

Dear All,

I am resending attachments in 3 batches (please note a I have resaved the main briefing memo to correct one typo corrected and provide a new date 11-30-2020).

This email :

Attachments:

I. Draft red line responses to Art' s Questions on behalf of DOE LM

2. Draft Summary of Issues/Briefing Paper with Attachment A - EPA Five Year Review Provisions

3. Attachment B - DOE LM & EPA Role & Responsibilities Chart (Art and Cynthia)

)c_) _ _ _~

6 Apologies for the overload created by the 7 attachments! Laur ie~

r _

From: Shafer, David [3]

Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 6:27 AM To: Williams, Laurie <Williams.Laurie@epa.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>;

Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthla@epa.gov>;

Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<chrlstine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R <steven.miller@hg.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will

<Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<M iller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@hg.doe.gov>

Subject:

RE: Action Items from November 18, 2020, UNC Church Rock License Amendment Request Federal Agency Status Meeting

Dear Laurie,

If you have them on hand, could you provide copies of the 1998 and 2013 RODs. Thanks, David David S. Shafer, PHO Deputy Director for Field Operations Office of Legacy Management US Department of Energy Westminster, CO 80021 David.Shaf er@ lm.doe.gov 303-410-4806 (Office) r)(6) I(Cel I)

Visit DOE Legacy Management at https:llwww.energy.gov/lm/office-legacy-management From: Williams, Laurie <Wllliams.Laurie@epa.gov>

Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 2:00 AM To : Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet

<Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sar a@epa.gov>; Kleinrath, Art

<Art.Klelnrath@ lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel

<Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldr on, Ashley

<ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R

<steven.miller@hq.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean

<Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will <Duncan.W ill@epa.gov>; Costello, James

<costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob

<Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm .doe.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<M iller.Matthew@epa.gov>

Subject:

(EXTERNAL] RE: Action Items from November 18, 2020, UNC Church Rock license Amendment Request Federal Agency Status Meeting

Dear All,

Attached please find draft redline responses to DOE LM's questions (provided by Art on Nov.

16, 2020).

I look forward to speaking with all of you Wednesday, December 2nd at 10 am Pacific Time.

6 Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Thank you! Laurier )( ) I Attachments:

1. Draft redline responses to Art's Questions on bebalf of DOE LM

2. Draft Summary of Issues/Briefing Paper with Attachment A -EPA Five Year Review Provisions

3. Attachment B - DOE LM & EPA Role & Responsibilities Chart (Art and Cynthia)

4. Attachment C - 2016 DOE LM Transition Guidance

5. Attachment D - 20 I l EPA Closeout Procedures Guidance

6. Attachment E- 2002 NRC EPA MOU

7. Attachment F - 201 1 Consent Decree UNC/GE and United States Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: 415 947-3570 Cell: X6)

X From: Smith, James lmailto:James.Smith@nrc.gov]

Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 9:21 AM

To: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara

<Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia

<Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R <steven.m iller@hq.doe.gov>; Gendeiman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Williams, Laurie <Williams.Laurie@epa.gov>; Hogan, Sean

<Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James

<costello.james@epa .gov>; Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob

<Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<M iller.Matthew@epa.gov>

Subject:

Action Items from November 18, 2020, UNC Church Rock License Amendment Request Federal Agency Status Meeting Thank you all for participating in the UNC Church Rock License Amendment Request Federal Agency Status Meeting call, held on November 18, 2020. We will have our next meeting on November 25, 2020. As requested, the action items from the meeting, as noted by the NRC, are as follows:

Action Items:

K6)(5)

If we have missed an item or m ischaracterized it, please let me know.

Thanks Jim Smith

James Smith S.-PtoJt<11,\aNg4r Ol!llc fJ t-1,,(lu, l,t<<* ...i ~cly * ...., SIi.....

0,.,....,, ol 1 ) 1 1 ( ~

u,..,..,,.,,<<.,."Y ...,\\~P....-

Ur-~CM!yl1t"'11119 ir<CI I I ~ O.C.---,S.-11 ll"""'9I011, 0( 20m

\'lo,\ (301) 415-610) f /,t-s,n.1h~

T his message does not originate from a known Department of Energy email system.

Use caution if this message contains attachments, Links or requests for information.

Page 711 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 712 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 713 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 714 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 715 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 716 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 717 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 718 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 719 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 720 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 721 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Fage 722 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information an<l Privacy Act

Fage 723 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information and Privacy Act

Fage 724 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information an<l Privacy Act

Fage 725 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information and Privacy Act

Fage 726 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information and Privacy Act

From: W illiams, Laurie Se nt: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 21:16:45 +0000 To: Shafer, David;Smith, James;Von Till, Bill;Brooks, Janet;Jacobs, Sara;Kleinrath, Art;Wetmore, Cynthia;Applegate, Nathaniel;Mandeville, Dougl as;Waldron, Ashley;Pineda, Christine;Miller, Steven R;Gendelman, Adam;Hogan, Sean;Duncan, Will;Costello, James;Holahan, Trish;Zimmerman, Jacob;Orlando, Dominick;Kautsky, Mark;Travis, Pamela;Quintero, Jessie;Mi lier, Matthew;O'Konski, Peter

Subject:

[External_Sender] NRC, DOE LM & EPA Meeting 12/16/2020 - DRAFT PowerPoint and Anticipated Roles for your review and comment_ re UNC Church Rock LAR Attachments: 12-8-2020v2 DRAFT UNC Mill-NECR LAR Presentation for 12-16-2020 NRC-DOE-EPA Mtg.pptx, ATT B_LTRP_OM Chart_RolesResponsibi lities 12-8-2020v2.docx

Dear All,

Thanks for all your work on preparing for our December 16, 2020 meeting and our meeting tomorrow December 9th.

(b)(5)

Thanks so much for your review of the two attached drafts.

I look forward to providing a revised draft br iefing paper later today and speaking with you tomorrow.

Thank again I Laurie Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: (415) 947-3570 Cell: [1>)(6) I

Page 729 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 710 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 7~1 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 712 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 733 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 714 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuan1 to exemp110n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnforma11on and Privacy Act

Page 715 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 716 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 7~7 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 718 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 719 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page HO of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 711 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 712 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 7 *13 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 714 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuan1 to exemp110n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnforma11on and Privacy Act

Page 7 *15 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(S) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 716 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 717 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Page 7-18 Of 8f'3 Wrthheld pursuanI to exempI10n

,b)(5) of the freedom or lnformaI1on and Privacy Act

Fage 749 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information and Privacy Act

Fage 750 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information an<l Privacy Act

Fage 751 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information and Privacy Act

Fage 752 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information and Privacy Act

Fage 753 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information an<l Privacy Act

From: W illiams, Laurie Se nt: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 17:03:49 +0000 To: Shafer, David;Smith, James;Von Till, Bill;Brooks, Janet;Jacobs, Sara;Kleinrath, Art;Wetmore, Cynthia;Applegate, Nathaniel;Mandeville, Dougl as;Waldron, Ashley;Pineda, Christine;Miller, Steven R;Gendelman, Adam;Hogan, Sean;Duncan, Will;Costello, James;Holahan, Trish;Zimmerman, Jacob;Orlando, Dominick;Kautsky, Mark;Travis, Pamela;Quintero, Jessie;Mi lier, Matthew;O'Konski, Peter

Subject:

[External_Sender) RE: Action Items from November 18, 2020, UNC Church Rock License Amendment Request Federal Agency Status Meeting Attachments: EPA 11-30-2020 response to DOE LM 11-16-2020Questions - Churchrock-U NC Site.docx, 11-30-2020 lssuesAgenciesRolesResponsibilities UNC_Mill.docx, ATT B_LTRP_OM Chart_Roles&Responsibilities 11-30-2020.docx

Dear All,

I am resending attachments in 3 batches (please note a I have resaved the main briefing memo to correct one typo corrected and provide a new date 11-30-2020).

This email:

Attachments:

I. Draftredline responses to Art's Questions on behalf of DOE LM

2. Draft Summary oflssues/Briefing Paper with Attachment A - EPA Five Year Review Provisions

3. Attachment 8 - DOE LM & EPA Role & Responsibilities Chart (Art and Cynthia) 6 Apologies for the overload created by the 7 attachments! Laur ie 1....

Cb_)C_) _ _ __.

From: Shafer, David [4]

Se nt: Monday, November 30, 2020 6:27 AM To: W illiams, Laurie <Williams.Laurie@epa.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>;

Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>;

Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R <steven.miller@lhq.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will

<Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konskl, Peter <peter.okonski@hq.doe.gov>

Subje ct: RE: Action Items from November 18, 2020, UNC Church Rock license Amendment Request Federal Agency Status Meeting

Dear Laurie,

If you have them on hand, could you provide copies of the 1998 and 2013 RODs. Thanks, David David S. Shafer, PHO Deputy Director for Field Operations Office of Legacy Management US Department of Energy Westminster, CO 80021 David.Shafer@!m.doe.gov 303-410-4806 (Office) r)( 6) I(Cel I)

Visit DOE Legacy Management at https:ljwww.energy.gov/lm/office-legacy-management From: Williams, Laurie <Williams. Laurie@epa.gov>

Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 2:00 AM To: Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet

<Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Kleinrath, Art

<Art.Kleinrath@ lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthla@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel

<Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley

<ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine <christine.plneda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R

<steven.miller@hq.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean

<Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James

<costello.james@epa .gov>; Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob

<Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Qulntero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<Miller. Matthew@epa.gov>

Subject:

[EXTERNAL) RE: Action Items from November 18, 2020, UNC Church Rock license Amendment Request Federal Agency Status Meeting

Dear All,

Attached please find draft redline responses to DOE LM's questions (provided by Art on Nov.

16, 2020).

I have also prepared an initial rough draft summary of the issu,es that may be relevant to senior management preparing for the anticipated interagency meeting, proposed for December 16th.

Please note that the attached materials only provides my initial effort to summarize the situation, along with proposed attachments.

I include a summary of each agency's roles and responsibilities (based on the materials provided by each agency to date).

Due to the Thanksgiving holiday, I have not yet had an opportunity to seek review from my EPA colleagues.

I look forward to everyone's input.

I hope we can discuss these materials and a draft agenda for the proposed December meeting on Wednesday (12/2).

I look forward to speaking with all of you Wednesday, December 2 nd at 10 am Pacific Time.

Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Thank you I Laurie r )(6) I Attachments:

I. Draft red line responses to Art's Questions on behalf of DOE LM

2. Draft Summary of issues/Briefing Paper with Attachment A - EPA Five Ycar Review Provisions

3. Attachment B - DOE LM & EPA Role & Responsibilities Chart (Art and Cynthia)

4. Attachment C - 2016 DOE LM Transition Guidance

5. Attachment D - 2011 EPA Closeout Procedures Guidance

6. Attachment E - 2002 NRC EPA MOU

7. Attachment F - 2011 Consent Decree UNC/GE and United States Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: 415 947-3570 Cell: )(6)

X From: Smith, James [5]

Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 9:21 AM To: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara

<Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia

<Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas <Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda,, Christine

<christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R <steven.miller@hg.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Williams, Laurie <WilHams.Laurie@epa.gov>; Hogan, Sean

<Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will <Ouncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James

<costello.iames@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob

<Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>

Subject:

Action Items from November 18, 2020, UNC Church Rock License Amendment Request Federal Agency Status Meeting Thank you all for participating in the UNC Church Rock License Amendment Request Federal Agency Status Meeting call, held on November 18, 2020. We will have our next meeting on November 25, 2020. As requested , the action items from the meeting, as noted by the NRC, are as follows:

Action Items:

'b)(5)

If we have missed an item or mischaracterized it, please let me know.

Thanks Jim Smith James Smith S-- P>o,en Ml""9<'

Olfkt of H\klul Milv..i 5-ftf t .... S,,. . ., . .

.,,._oto.<<-........

u,....,_ ,......ctr)'. ......... _llH9f*-

"'-'ttlM')'lR~ ** l,lo!c,i,I\ D1-<o,1,m1t1,0""'9 "-"

..,~...,.oc~

Yi ,(301) 4 IS-6103

[ a J-~ll*O<Wt.9<'¥ This message does not originate from a known Department of Energy email system.

Use caution if this message contains attachments, links or r equests for information.

Page 759 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 760 of 863 Wlthheld pursuant to exempuon (bJ(5) of ttle Freedom of lnlmnation lWld Pnvacy Ad

Page 761 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 762 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 763 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 764 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 765 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 766 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 767 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 768 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 769 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Fage 770 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information and Privacy Act

Fage 771 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information an<l Privacy Act

Fage 772 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information and Privacy Act

Fage 773 of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information and Privacy Act

Fage 77J of 863 Wrtht1ekl pu*suant to exemption (b)(5J of the Freedom or Information an<l Privacy Act

From: Williams, Laurie Sent: W ed, 23 Dec 2020 21:15:09 +0000 To: david.shafer@ lm.doe.gov;Kleinrath, Art (Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov);steven.miller (steven.miller@hq.doe.gov);Gendelman, Adam;Von Till, Bill;Smith, James;Orlando, Dominick;Waldron, Ashley;Holahan, Trish;Mandeville, Douglas;Kautsky, Mark Cc: Brooks, Janet;Applegate, Nathaniel;Jacobs, Sara;Costello, James;Miller, Matthew;Travis, Pamela;Wetmore, Cynthia;Hogan, Sean

Subject:

[External_Sender) RE: NECR M ine Site/ UNC Mill Site Coordination - Thanks for Today's Meeting & Next Steps - Please comment, correct and suggest any additional items Attachments: President letter to US NRC extension request 12-21-2020.pdf, NNEPA Letter NECR LAMARTINEZ.pdf, 12-2-2020 Comment by Navajo Nation Sr Proj Manager LeeAnnaMartinez.docx

Dear All,

Thanks to all who were able to meet today. Many thanks to Jim Costello, who will retire from EPA next week!

We will have our next interagency weekly meeting on Wed. January 6th at 10 am Pacific, 1 pm Eastern.

Please forward this message to anyone I have inadvertently omitted (and please let me know that I should add them for future communications of this kind)

Next High Level Meeting:

One action item prior to the January 6th meeting is:

Please confirm whether you and our management expect to be able to make the proposed t ime of the next high-level meeting - Wednesday, March 17 for 90 minutes starting at 9 am Pacific, noon Eastern.

Please contact me with any questions or concerns.

6 Thank you! laurie~ r _)C

- )- - - ~

From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 12:48 PM To: david.shafer@lm.doe.gov; Kleinrath, Art (Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov) <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>;

steven.miller (steven.miller@hq.doe.gov) <steven.miller@hq.doe.gov>; adam.gendelman@nrc.gov; bill.vontill@nrc.gov; james.smith@nrc.gov; domlnlck.orlando@nrc.gov; ashley.waldron@nrc.gov Cc: Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>;

Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; Travis, Pamela <Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia

<Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>

Subject:

NECR Mine Site/ UNC M ill Site Coordination - Thanks for Today's Meeting & Next Steps - Please comment, correct and suggest any additional items

Dear lnteragency Weekly Team Members,

Thanks for a,11 of your work leading up to today's call and for your participation today!

Please forward this follow-up email to anyone at your agency I may have inadvertently omitted.

Here are what I understand to be our immediate next steps. Please feel free to comment, correct, et c.

Our next weekly meeting is W e d. December 23 at 10 am Pacific {however, I know some, or perha ps man, of vou, mav be taking time off):

'.b)(5)

Of course, the goal of these processes is optimal interagency collaboration and doing all we can to ensure the protection of public health and the environment over the short and long-term.

Our Region 9 team was encouraged by the meeting, and we look forward to your questions, comments and suggestions.

Please feel free to other staff and your managers, as appropriate, and to contact me at any time.

Thank you! laurier~ )<_) _ _ _~

6 Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: 415 947-3570 Cell: X6)

THE NAVAJO NATION JONATHAN NEZ I PRESI DENT MYRON LIZER I VICE PRESIDENT December 21, 2020 Office of Admin istration Mail Stop: TWFN A60M ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm ission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 By Email to: UNCChurchRockE lS.resource@nrc.gov; John.Tappert@NRC.gov Re: Request for Extension of Public Comment Period for Draft Environmental Impact Statement for License Amendment for United Nuclear Corporation Church Rock Project, Docket ID NRC- 2019- 0026

Dear Mr. Tappert,

l am writing to request an extens ion of 90 days from the current deadline of February 26, 202 1 for the comment period on the Draft Environmental lmpact Statement (DEIS) for a license amendment for the United Nuclear Corporation Church Rock Project (UNC Mill Site). The work contemplated under the proposed license amendment would have a "disproportionately high and adverse environmental impact" on the Navajo communities surrounding the project area, as stated in the DEIS itself, and those communities must be given a meaningful opportunity to comment on the DEIS.

Under the license amendment, radioactive waste from the Northeast Church Rock (NECR) Mine Site, which is located within the fonnal Navajo Reservation, would be placed into a repository located at the UNC Mill Site. The UNC Mill Site is located less than one mi le from the NECR Mine Site, immediately adjacent to tJ1e formal Navajo Reservation. It is within the Eastern Navajo Agency and is surrounded by Navajo trust lands and Navajo communities. For examp l.e, the Red Water Pond Road Community is situated between the NECR Mine and the Kerr-McGee Quivira Mines (additional abandoned uranium mines in the vicinity of the NECR Mine and the UNC Mi ll Sites) and is with in 0.22 km (0.14 miles) of the UNC Mill Site. This community and many other Navajo communities have been severely impacted by the legacy of uranium mining on the Navajo Nation. lndeed, the DEIS itself finds that Navajo communities are closer than any other communi ty to the proposed project area and would be disproportionately affected due to transportation-related effects, impacls to air quality, increased noise levels, and visual disturbances. (DEIS Section 4. 12.)

The NRC provided two public webinars on the DEfS, on December 2 and 9, 2020, lasting three hours each. Al the webinars, NRC informed the public that comments on Lhe DEJS are due by December 28, 2020. Unfortunately, these webinars were inadequate to provide and receive information from the Navajo communities that will be the most directly impacted by the proposed project. Moreover, the timeframe provided for the comment period, even though it apparently has been extended to February 26, 202 l, is too short to allow the necessary exchange of information to take place.

First, many members of the community were unable to participate in the webinars. Cell phone coverage in and around the Navajo Nation is spotty at best, and not everyone even has access to a cell phone.

ln addition, the matters at issue are technical and complex, and they require a ful l exphU1ation to the public. Many members of the commun ities near the Quivira Mines, NECR Mine, and UNC Mill Site need the situation to be explained to them more fully and the details about the proposed action to be made clear. Our Navajo Nation EPA (NNEPA) staff have spoken with some of these individuals, and it is evident that there are significant misconceptions about the proposed action.

An open dialogue with these communities is needed, which can be achieved only through engagement on a more individual level rather than through webi.nar presentations. For example, the Red Wate r Pond Road community, which is the conunu11ity that will suffer the brunt of the impacts from the proposed action, has already stated concerns to NNEPA staff that need to be recognized and resolved as part of the DEIS comment process.

Dine' Fundamenta l Law requ ires that we engage respectfully through our identifiable clans as Navajo people. We extend that respectful approach to those we share ow- environment with, other five-fingered people. We therefore need to ensure the impacted communities fully understand and are afforded a true opportunity to provide comments on the proposed action.

Navajo Nation Super-fund, a long with the United States Environmental Protection Agency -

Region 9, have embraced the inc lusion of Dine' Fundamental Law in their efforts in addressing abandoned uranium mine sites on the Navajo Nation, and we hope that the NRC will do the same.

Moreover, due to the COVJD -19 pande mjc and corresponding mandatory and voluntary restrictions, a longer public comment period is imperative. The NRC's current approach would resu lt in action being taken even though only a small fraction of the affected community was represented on the two publ ic webinars. The cun-ent stay at home order that is in place on the Navajo Nation prevented families from travel ing to an area where cell service or Wi-Fi was available for them to paiticipate. See Navajo Dept. of Pub lic Health, Public Health Emergency Order No. 2020-031 ( extending prior stay at home orders to December 28, 2020). The logistics of establishing productive methods of commun icating with ALL of the impacted community need to be considered and addressed.

H is critica l that the publi c have an adequate opportunity to meaningfull y review and comment on the DEIS to ensure that the NRC's analysis is comple te and considers all the options for and impacts of the proposed project. There have been many discussions between the relevant agencies to identify the matters at issue and possible approaches to them, and the community needs to be given an opportunity to hear and tmderstand the issues suffi ciently to allow them to provide meaningful comments. We believe that allowing adequate time for a well-considered review and thorough comments on the DElS by the impacted conunu11ities will lead to better evaluations that protect the e nvironmental and cultural resow*ces at issue. Forty-five days (the original comment period), or even an additional 60 days (an extension to February 26, 2021 ), is clearly not sufficient in light bf all the circumstances discussed above. We therefore request that POST OFFICE BOX 7440 I WINDOW ROCK, AZ 86515 I Pl IONE: (928) 871-7000 I FAX: (92.8) 871- 4025

the NRC provide until May 27, 2021 for public comment on the DEIS, given the complexity of the proposed project, the nature of the Navajo communities who are most affected, principles of Fundamental Law, and the still ongoing pandemic. We believe this extension of the comment period is essential for the NR C to provide meaningful opportunity to comment. r look forward to yottr affirmative response to this request.

Sincerely, Jonathan Nez, President THE NAVAJO NATION cc: Margaret Doane, Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Margaret.Doane@NRC.gov John W. Lubinski, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety ,md Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission John .Lubinski@NRC.gov Jessie Quintero, Chief, Environmental Review Materials Branch U.S. Nuclear Regula tory Commission lessie.Ouintero@\NRC.gov Ashley Waldron, Environmental Project Manager, Environmental Review Materials Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ashley.Waldron@NRC.gov Ronnie Ben, Delegated Executive Director, Navajo Nation EPA Dariel Yazzie, Navajo Nation Superfund Program POST OFFICE BOX 7440 I WINDOW ROCK, AZ 86515 I Pl JONE: (928) 871-7000 I FAX: (928) 871- 4025

JONATHAN NEl PRES I DEN f TI-lE NAVAJO NATION MYRON LJ7LR VICE PRESIDENT December 18. 2020 To: Lance Hauer Legacy Site Team Leader 412 Creamery Way Exton. PA 19341 Tel: 484 213 0300 Sara Jacobs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 75 l lawthornc St. (SFD-6-4)

San Francisco. CA 94105-3901 Janet Brooks (6SF-RL)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 1445 Ross Avenue. Suite 1200 Dallas. TX 75202-2733 Ashley Waldron Environmental Project Manager NMSS/REFS/ERMB U.S. NRC

Subject:

Lee Anna Martinez-Silversmith. Sr. Remedial Project Manager This is to inform the parties that Ms. Lee Anna Martinez-Silversmith, Senior Remedial Project Manager within the Navajo Superfund Program, will be the Navajo Superfund lead on lhe United Nuclear Corporation Superfund Site and Northeast Church Rock (NECR) Mine Removal Site Mc Kinley County. New Mexico. Lee Anna Martinez-Silversmith will assume oversight and enforce compliance with the Navajo Nation CERCLA. 4 N.N.C. §§ 2101-2805. Please provide Lee Anna Martinez-Silversmith with all necessary documents for the NECR site and include her in all correspondences. meetings, and field activity.

Should you have any questions, I can be reached at darielyazzieta,nava jo-nsn.gov or 928.871.7325.

Dariel Yazzie Dariel Yazz.ie. Program Supervisor Navajo Superfund Division Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency

Email: darielyazzie@navajo-nsn.gov NNEPA Lttr NECR Lee Anna Martinez Final Audit Report 2020-12-18 Created: 2020-12-18 By: Valinda Shirley (valindashlr1ey@gmall.com)

Status: Signed Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAHcu9AeplkKFm_Mx-3bPBpzgGEBo3CaaT "NINEPA Lttr NECR Lee Anna Martinez" History ri Document created by Valinda Shirley (vallndashirley@gmail.com) 2020-12 5:33:04 PM GMT- IP address: 67.44.224.147 C1 Document emailed to Dariel Yazzie (darielyazzie@navajo-nsn.gov) for signature 2020-12 5:40:34 PM GMT

~ Email viewed by Oariel Yazzie (darielyazzie@navajo-nsn.gov) 2020-12 5:42:23 PM GMT- IP address: 104.240.54.184 0'c, Document e-signed by Oariel Yazzie (darlelyazzie@navajo-nsn.gov)

Signature Date: 2020.12-18

• 5:48:28 PM GMT* Time Source: server-IP address: 104.240.54.184 0 Agreement completed.

2020-12-18

• 5:48:28 PM GMT fJ Adobe Sign

December 2, 2020 Transcript of NRC Public Hearing at page 71 - 73:

I'm Lee Anna Martinez. I recently began work with Navajo Nation Superfund. I'm new to the program, less than a month. And I would like to have to agree with Ms. Morgan on the option of these comment periods being held during a high pandemic.

It's not only ridiculous but 71 disrespectful. Many of the people in indigenous Navajo don't have internet yet alone within the area that we're speaking of, Red Water Pond north of Church Rock, the phone service is terrible if any of you have ever been out there. There's no cell phone coverage.

If this was at a public setting, such as a chapter house, which it typically is at, the audience wouldn't be silent. I'm computer savvy myself to a certain extent. But I tried to get on with the Webex to view the presentation that was given, and I was not able to get on.

I think that this waste should be moved off of the Navajo Nation completely. The Navajo Nation people have suffered enough. They've been impacted by these mine wastes for decades. There's generations, children and many Dines' health and well being have suffered.

And another thing that I'd like to say is how are these comments going to be addressed? Chip kind of answered that and said the NRC will be

responding.

In that nature, is this just another formality that the U.S. government is utilizing to follow as part of the formality, oh, we went about the public notice process. These are the comments that were created. But yet the solution or the authority consensus, that's not even agreed upon with the Navajo Nation, the Navajo people or the community. Thank you.

From: Williams, Laurie Sent: W ed, 16 Dec 2020 03 :42:15 +0000 To: Shafer, David;Smith, James;Von Till, Bill;Brooks, Janet;Jacobs, Sara;Kleinrath, Art;Wetmore, Cynthia;Applegate, Nathaniel;Mandeville, Douglas;Waldron, Ashley;Pineda, Christine;Miller, Steven R;Gendelman, Adam;Hogan, Sean;Duncan, Will;Costello, James;Holahan, Trish;Zimmerman, Jacob;Orlando, Dominick;Kautsky, Mark;Travis, Pamela;Quintero, Jessie;Mi lier, Matthew;Stalcup, Dana;O'Konski, Peter;Mahmud, Shahid;Poore, Christine;Wright, Felicia;Van Epps, Amanda;Walker, Stuart Cc: Rongone, Marie;Pyatt, Suzanne;Manzanilla, Enrique;Stenger, Wren;Paul.Kerl@lm.doe.gov;Lubinski, John;Spencer, M ary;Chiang, 1-Jung;Atkins, Blake;Meyer, John;Price, Lisa

Subject:

[External_Sender] RE: NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - Attachment H, link to Call and Call-in Number Attachments: Att H_GE_ UNC vs US Consent Decree EDS Entered 2012.pdf

Dear All,

Attached please find the UNC/GE vs US Consent Decree, which is Attachment H to the Joint Agencies Briefing Paper (all other attachments and details were provided with my prior message earlier this evening) for tomorrow's meeting:

December 16th at 9 am Paciflc/10 am Mountain/11 am Central and noon Eastern.

Below, please find a li nk to the NRC Teams meeting (which you hopefully already have in your calendars), as well as the call-in information.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Thank you! laurier )(6) I Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer or mobile app Click here to join the meeting Or call in (audio only)

+ 1 301 -576-2978l~ Cb-X6..;._)_ _~~ United States, Silver Spring Phone Conference ID: 421 266 769#

I Find a local number Reset PIN

-- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission --

Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: 415 947-3570 Cell: )(6)

From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 6:26 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>;

Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>;

Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R <steven.miller@hq.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will

<Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; Stalcup, Dana <Stalcup.Dana@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter

<peter.okonski@hq.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid <Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine

<Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia <Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda

<VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>; Walker, Stuart <Walker.Stuart@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>; Manzanilla, Enrique <Manzanilla.Enrique@epa.gov>; Stenger, Wren <stenger.wren@epa.gov>;

Paul.Kerl@lm.doe.gov; john.lubinski@nrc.gov; mary.spencer@nrc.gov; Chiang, I-Jung <chiang.i-jung@epa.gov>; Atkins, Blake <atkins.blake@epa.gov>; Meyer, John <Meyer.John@epa.gov>; Price, Lisa

<Price.Lisa@epa.gov>

Subject:

NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - Hopefully Final - Updated Briefing Paper, PowerPolnt and Attachment D (DRAFT Anticipated Roles and Responsibilities In LTS&M)

Dear All,

Attached please find our hopefully final documents for tomorrow:

)(5)

P ease write own t e o owing in ormation in case NRC ose s power drops the Teams call, which is hopefully in your calendars:

In case of loss of power (snow/ice storm expected in DC area Wednesday afternoon)

TEAMS audio-only call-in number is: 301-576-2978 PIN/call ID: 1Cb><6> In Other notes on the call:

Sara Jacobs and I will act as Me's.

Nick Orlando of NRC has kindly agreed to be our wrangler. He will share his screen and advance the PowerPoint slides.

(b)(5)

We will identify which slide we are on, as we progress.

Nick and I will join the call at least 10 minutes early to greet people as they check in and to answer any last minute questions.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions, concerns or suggestions.

Thank you I Laurief0 )(6) I Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: 415 947-3570 Cell: :b)(6)

From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 10:38 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@ lm .doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>;

Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>;

Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R <steven.miller@hg.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will

<Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; Stalcup, Dana <Stalcup.Dana@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter

<peter.okonski@hg.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid <Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine

<Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia <Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda

<VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>; Walker, Stuart <Walker.Stuart@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - Updated Briefing Paper, PowerPoint and Attachment D

Dear All,

I appreciate your ongoing efforts to bring this matter to a successful conclusion.

'6)(5)

Thanks very much! Laurie r X6)

~----~

I From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 11:37 AM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>;

Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>;

Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R <steven.rniller@hg.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will

<Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@hg.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid

<Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine <Poore.Chrisllne@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia

<Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda <VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

NECR-UNC LAR_ NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - Letter from DOE FYI - )(5)

From: Williams, Laurie Se nt: Friday, December 11, 2020 1:11 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>;

Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>;

Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R <steven.miller@hg.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will

<Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Qui ntero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<M iller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@hg.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid

<Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine <Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia

<Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda <VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone. Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

RE: NECR-UNC LAR_ NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - 12/16/2020 - UPDATED DRAFT Briefing Materia ls for your review Apologies.

~r_)C_5)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~1 Laurie From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 1:06 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>;

Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>;

Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R <steven.miller@hg.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will

<Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.james@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zirnmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis. Pamela@epa.gov>; Qui ntero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonski@hg.doe.gov>; M ahmud, Shahid

<Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine <Poore.Christine@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia

<W right.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda <VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - 12/16/2020 - UPDATED DRAFT Briefing M aterials for your review Dear All Attached lease find the u dated PowerPoint that I received from David Shafer at DOE toda .

)(5)

Your assistance is much appreciated! Laurie (cell)

Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (41S) 972-3867

Fax: (415) 947-3570 Cell:r )(6) I From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 10:15 PM To: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@ lm .doe.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Von Till, Bill

<Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>;

Kleinrath, Art <Art.Klelnrath@lm.doe.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia <Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>;

Applegate, Nathaniel <Applegate.Nathaniel@epa.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandevllle@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <ashley.waldron@nrc.gov>; Pineda, Christine

<christine.pineda@nrc.gov>; Miller, Steven R <steven.miller@hq.doe.gov>; Gendelman, Adam

<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will

<Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Costello, James <costello.iames@epa.gov>; Holahan, Trish

<Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zlmmerman@nrc.gov>; Orlando, Dominick

<dominick.orlando@nrc.gov>; Kautsky, Mark <Mark.Kautsky@lm.doe.gov>; Travis, Pamela

<Travis.Pamela@epa.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Miller, Matthew

<Miller.Matthew@epa.gov>; O'Konski, Peter <peter.okonskl@hq.doe.gov>; Mahmud, Shahid

<Mahmud.Shahid@epa.gov>; Poore, Christine <Poore.Christlne@epa.gov>; Wright, Felicia

<Wright.Felicia@epa.gov>; Van Epps, Amanda <VanEpps.Amanda@epa.gov>

Cc: Rongone, Marie <Rongone.Marie@eoa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>

Subject:

NECR-UNC LAR_NRC, DOE & EPA Meeting - 12/16/2020 - UPDATED DRAFT Briefing M aterials for your review

Dear All,

Thank you for participating in our NECR-UNC License Amendment Request meeting today.

Attached please find an updated version of the following draft documents for our meeting on December 16 2020.

K!,)(5)

[6)(5)

I look forward to your comments, corrections, suggestions and questions.

Please contact me if I can be helpful at any point.

6 Thank you for all of your work on this challenging project! Laurier...._><_>_ _ ___,

Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S . EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: 415 947-3570 Cell: )(6)

UNITED STA.TES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO TI IE GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY Civil Action No. l :10-CV-00404 and UNITED NUCLEAR CORPORATION, Hon. M. Christina Armijo, U.S.D.J.

Plaintiffs, V.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, UNITED STATES BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, UNlTEO STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, and UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMlSSION, Defendants.

PARTIAL CONSENT DECREE AND JUDGMENT This Consent Decree (Agreement) is made, as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, as defined in Paragraph 3 below, between Plaintiffs The General Electric Company ("GE") and United Nuclear Corporation (UNC") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") and Defendants the United States of America, the United States Department of the lnterior, the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, the United States Department of Energy, and the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (collectively, ..the United States") . Plaintiffs and the United States collectively are referred to as the Parties."

WHEREAS, this action involves claims by Plaintiffs against the United States for declaratory relief, cost recovery, and contribution under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675 ("CERCLA");

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs' claims relate to the Northeast Church Rock Mine site, a closed uranium mine located near Gallup, New Mexico, which is further defined in Paragraph 4.s;

WHEREAS, the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs in this action on April 26,2010, seeks to recover or obtain contribution from the United States for certain costs Plaintiffs allegedly have incuned, or will incur, in response to the release or threatened release of hazardous substances at or from the Site, along with a declaration as to the liability of the United States for costs to be incurred at the Site in the future; WHEREAS, on April 25, 2011, the United States filed its answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint as well as counterclaims against UNC for declaratory relief, cost recovery and contribution under CERCLA; WHEREAS, on May 19, 2011, UNC filed its answer lo the United Stales' counterclaims; WHEREAS, the Parties now wish to enter into this Agreement: ( I) to have a full and final resolution of any and all claims (witl1 certain exceptions expressly reserved below) that were, could now be or hereafter could be asserted by Plaintiffs against the United States in connection with the response to the release or threatened release of hazardous substances at or from the Site; (2) to establish the percentage cost allocation binding as between the Parties that will apply to GE's Payment Demands to the United States for reimbursement of Future Response Costs as defined herein; and (3) to avoid the complication and expense of litigating such claims; WHEREAS, the Parties enter into this Agreement without an admission by any Party as to liability or any other issue of fact or law arising from the allegations of the Complaint; and WHEREAS, the Parties agree, and the Court finds, that this Agreement is fair, reasonable, lawful and in the public interest; NOW, 11IEREFORE, IT JS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:

1. Jurisdiction and Venue. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject-matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 9613(b). Venue is proper pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 9613(b).

2. The Parties. The Parties to this Agreement arc GE, UNC, and the United States.

3. Application Of This Agreement. This Agreement applies to, is binding upon, and inures to the benefit of GE, VNC, and the United States. This Agreement does not e>.1end to or inure to the benefit of any party, person, or entity other than GE, UNC and the United States. and nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to make any other person or entity not executing this Agreement a third-party beneficiary of this Agreement.

4. Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Agreement shall be the date on which this Agreement is approved by the Court.

5 Definitions. Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, terms used in this Agreement that are defined in CERCLA or its implementing regulations shall have the meaning assigned to them in CERCLA or its implementing regulations. Whenever the terms listed below are used in this Agreement, the following definitions shall apply.

a. "Agreement" shall mean this Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree.

b. "CERCLA" shall mean the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675.

c. "Complaint shall mean the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs in this action on or about April 26, 2010.

d. "Contamination'* shall mean any pollutant, contaminant, hazardous substance, solid waste, or hazardous waste, as those terms are defined under CERCLA and/or RCRA.

c. "Covered Matters shall mean any and all claims for Response Costs that were, could now be, or hereafter could be asserted by GE or UNC against the United States, arising out of or in connection with the presence of, the release or threatened release of, or the response to Contamination at or emanating from the Site. "Covered Matters" do not include: (i) tort claims against OE, UNC, or the United States by third parties alleging personal injury or property damage resulting from alleged exposure to Contamination, except to the extent that the sums claimed qualify as Response Costs~ or (ii) claims for natural resource damages brought pursuant to CERCLA section 107(f), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(f), or any equivalent state law.

f. "Day" shall mean a calendar day. In computing any period of time under this Agreement, where the last day would fal l on a Saturday, Sw1day or Federal holiday, the period shall run until the close of business of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or federal holiday.

g. "EPA" shall mean the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

h. "Fulure Response Costs" shall mean: (1) any "necessary costs of response" incurred "consistent with the national contingency plan, within the meaning of CERCLA section 107(a)(4)(B), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(B), that GE or UNC may incur subsequent to December 31, 2010 perfonning a Response Action pertaining to Contamination at or emanating from the Site, pursuant to an order, consent agreement, or directive issued by EPA or by such other regulatory authority as may have jurisdiction during the time period in which the Response Action is performed: or (2) any "costs of removal or remedial action" not inconsistent with the national contingency plan," within the meaning of CERCLA section 107(a)(4)(A), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(A). that EPA has or may incur performing or overseeing the performance of a Response Action pertaining to Contanunation at or emanating from the Site, for which GE or UNC agrees or is held liable to reimburse EPA.

1. "GE" shall mean The General Electric Company, the named Plaintiff described in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, as well as GE's predecessors, successors, assigns, affiliates, parent companies, subsidiaries, and all related entities.

J. "Interest" shall mean interest at the rate that is specified for interest on investments of the Hazardous Substances Superfund established under subchapter A of Chapter 98 of Title 26 of the United States Code.

k. "NCP shall mean the "national contingency plan, as codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 300 and referenced in CERCLA section 107(a)(4)(B), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(B).

1. Except where otherwise indicated, "Paragraph" or "Sub-Paragraph" shall mean an enumerated paragraph or sub-paragraph of this Agreement.

m. "Past Response Costs" shall mean all Response Costs incurred by Plaintiffs, as of December 31, 20 l 0, including monies paid to reimburse EPA for costs EPA has incurred performing or overseeing the performance of Response Actions. GE and UNC hereby certify that the sum of all such costs Plaintiffs collectively have incurred is $9,196,413.32. GE and UNC further certify that to date UNC has received $786,000.00 in insurance proceeds related to contamination at the Site.

n. Plaintiffs shall mean GE and UNC .

o. "Remedial Action" shall have the meaning set forth at 42 U.S.C. § 9601 (24).

p. "Removal"' shall have the meaning set fo,th at 42 U.S.C. § 9601(23).

q. "Response Action" shall mean any Removal or Remedial Action.

r. "Response Costs" shall mean "co!.1S of removal or remedial action" within the meaning of CERCLA section 107(a)(4)(A), 42 U .S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(A). and "necessary costs of response" within the meaning ofCERCLA section 107(a)(4)(B), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(B),

incurred perfonning Response Actions pertaining to Contamination at or emanating from the Site.

s. The "Site" shall mean the Northeast Church Rock Mine site located northeast of Gallup, New Mexico, in Sections 34 and 35, Township 17 North, Range 16 West and Section 3, Township 16 North, Range 16 West in McKinley County, New Mexico, and additional areas affected by Contamination from the Northeast Church Rock Mine site. The Site, as of the date of the lodging of this agreement, is generally depicted on the map attached as Appendix A to this Agreement.

t. "UNC shall mean United Nuclear Corporation, the named Plaintiff described in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint, as well as UNC' s predecessors, successors, assigns, affiliates, parent companies, subsidiaries, and all related entities,

u. "United States" shall mean the United States of America and all of its departments, agencies, and instrumentalities (including but not limited to Defendants named in the Complaint), and their officers. directors, employees and agents.

6. Releases And Covenants Not To Sue By Plaintiffs.

a. ln cousideration of the payments that will be made by the United States to the Plaintiffs pursuant to Paragraphs 9 and 10 of this Agreement, and except for claims or causes of action expressly reserved by Paragraph 12, GE hereby covenants not to sue the United States and releases, surrenders and forever discharges any and all claims or causes of action against the United States, in law or in equity, whether known or unkno\\-'Tl, that GE has asserted, could have asserted. or hereafter could assert based on CERCLA or any other federal law, state law or common law, arising out of or in connection with the presence of, the release or threatened release of. or the response lo Contamination at or emanating from the Site. GE further agrees that it shall not seek or accept reimbursement, and hereby certifies that it has not been reimbursed, for any costs related to Covered Matters, in connection with any past, existing, or future contracts or other agreements with, or grants or subsidies funded by or received from, the United States. If GE becomes aware of or is offered any such reimbursement or other benefit, it shall promptly give notice of the terms of this Agreement to the individual, agency, or other entity that is offering or has provided such reimbursement or other benefit, and shaJI simultaneously notify the United States at the address specified in Paragraph 26.

b. In consideration of the payments that will be made by the United States to the Plaintiffs pursuant lo Paragraphs 9 and 10 of this Agreement, and except for claims or causes of action expressly reserved by Paragraph 12, UNC hereby covenants not to sue the United States and releases, surrenders and forever discharges any and al I claims or causes of action against the United States, in law or in equity, whether known or unknown, that UNC has asserted, could have asserted, or hereafter could assert based on CERCLA or any other federal law, state law or common law, arising out of or in connection with the presence of, the releac:;e or threatened release of, or the response to Contamination at or emanating from the Site. UNC further agrees that it shall not seek or accept reimbursement, and hereby certifies that it has not been reimbursed, for any costs related to Covered Matters, in connectjon with any past, existing. or future contracts or other agreements with. or grants or subsidies funded by or recejved from, the United States. If UNC becomes aware of or is offered any such reimbursement or other benefit.

it shall promptly give notice of the terms of this Agreement to the individual, agency, or other entity that is offering or has provided such reimbursement or other benefit, and shall simultaneously notify the United States at the address specified in Paragraph 26.

c. The covenants not to sue in Paragraphs 6.a and b shall take effect on the date on which the United States makes payment in full for Past Response Costs pursuant to Paragraph 9.

7. Indemnification by Plaintiffs.

a. Effective on the date on wh.ich the United States makes payment in full for Past Response Costs pursuant to Paragraph 9 of this Agreement, GE agrees to indemnify and hold hannless the United States against all future claims or causes of action by any person or entity not a Party to this Agreement for the costs ofremoval or remedial act.ion allegedly incurred by that person or entity in connection with the presence of, the release or threatened release of, or the response to Contamination at the Northeast Church Rod< Mine (see the area within the "permit bolll1dary" on the map attached as Appendix B) that GE has committed, prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement, to remove or remediate pur.ruant to an 01-der, consent agreement, settlement, or directive issued by EPA, but only if GE has materially failed to fulfill its commitmen15 under such agreement settlement, or directive.

b. Effective on the date on which the United States makes payment in full for Past Response Costs pursuant to Paragraph 9 of this Agreement, UNC agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the United States against all future claims or causes of action by any person or entity.

not a Party to this Agreement for the costs of removal or remedial action allegedly incurred or reimbursed by tha1 person or entity in connection with the presence of. the release or threatened release of, or the response to Contamination at theNortheastChurch Rock Mine(seethearea within the "permit boundary on the map attached as Appendix B) that UNC has committed, prior to the Effecti vc Date of this Agreement, to remove or remediate pursuant to an order, consent agreement. settlement, or directive is.sued by EPA. but only ifUNC has materially failed to fulfill its commitments under such agreement, settlement, or directive.

c. Plaintiffs' total obligations pursuant to this Paragraph shall not exceed the amount of the payments made by the United States pursuant to Paragraphs 9 and 10 of this Agreement.

d. The portions of the Site that are subject to the indemnifications in tbis Paragraph are those shown on the map attached as Appendix B to this Agreement.

8. Protection Against Claims.

a. The Parties acknowledge and agree, and the Court fmds, that the payments to be made by the United States pursuant to Paragraphs 9 and 10 of this Agreement represent a good faith compromise of disputed claims and that the compromise represents a fair, reasonable, and equitable resolution of Covered Matters. With regard to any claims for costs, damages or other claims against the United States for Covered Matters, the Parties acknowledge and agree for purposes of this agreement, and the Court finds that the United States is entitled, as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, to contribution protection pursuant to CERCLA section 113(f)(1 ), 42 U.S.C. § 9613(t)(l), and any other applicable provision of federal or state law, whether by statute or common law, extinguishing the United States' liability to persons not party to this Agreement. Any rights the United States may have to obtain contribution or otherwise recover costs or damages from persons not party to this Agreement are preserved.

b. The Parties agree to join in and support, as may be appropriate, such legal proceedings as may be necessary to secure the Court's approval and entry of this Agreement.

9. Payment for Past Response Costs.

Within a reasonable time after the Effective Date ofthis Agreement, the United States shall pay GE, on behalf of GE and UNC, U1e swn of$2,523,124.00. Payment shall be made by electronic funds transfer to the account designated by GE. If such payment is not made in full within 60 days after the Effective Date of this Agreement, then the United States shall pay Interest on the unpaid balance, commencing on the 61 st day after the Effective Date unti I the date that payment in full is made. lf the payment required under this Paragraph is not made within 180 days after the Effective Date of this Agreement, GE may apply to the Court for such relief as the Court may deem appropriate, subject to Paragraph 11 of this Agreement.

I 0. Payment for Future Response Costs. The United States further agrees to reimburse an aUocatcd share of Plaintiffs' Future Response Costs in the manner set forth below:

a. Plaintiffs shall make a written demand, either separately or jointly, for payment from the United States ("Payment Demand) on an annual basis, with tl1e first Payment Demand to be submitted to the United States no earlier than one calendar year following the Effective Date of this Agreement. Each subsequent Payment Demand shall be submjtted at one-year intervals following the first Payment Demand, except that no Payment Demand seeking less than

$100,000.00 (one hundred thousand dollars) shall be submitted unless it has been designated in writing as the "Final Payment Demand." Any such non-final Payment Demand for less than

$100,000.00 shall be carried forward to the succeeding calendar year. All Payment Demands shall be sent to the United States at the notice address set forth in Paragraph 26.

b. Each Payment Demand (including the Final Payment Demand) shall include:

(i) reference to the EPA order(s), consent agreement(s), or directive(s) pursuant to which Plaintiffs have incurred the Future Response Costs requested in the Payment Demand; (ii) reference lo the relevant contract(s), purchase order(s), application(s) for expenditure or other cost authorizing document(s); (iii) an invoice showing the amount of payment requested, fully divided into its detailed component cost items and related back to the relevant cost authorizing document(s); (iv) supporting documentation and information sufficient to identify each contractor, vendor, or other person to whom money for which Plaintiffs seek reimbursement was paid, and to show, for each such contractor, vendor or other person, the amount of money they were paid and the services or goods they provided; (v) evidence that PlaintiITs have actually incurred each claimed cost; and (vi) a certification by each Plaintiff submitting the Payment Demand that the information in or with the Payment Demand is true and accurate to the best of the Plaintiff's knowledge and that the Plaintiff believes in good faith that it is entitled to recover the amount requested. A Payment Demand that does not comply with the requirements of this Sub-Paragraph shall be returned to Plaintiffs for proper completion or documentation. ln the event of a disagreement between the Parties concerning whether a Payment Demand complies with tbe requirements of this Sub-Paragraph, the dispute l'esolution provisions of this Paragraph shall apply.

c. P laintiffs shall not demand, and the United States shall not reimburse, any of the following: (i) attorney's fees except as allowed under CERCLA; (ii) costs that are not supported by accurate accounting information as agreed to by the parties or determined by the Coun under the dispute resolutions of this Paragraph; (iii) costs that have been reimbursed by insurance or other form of recovery or subrogation from any insurance company, subrogee, or any other party including another responsible party under CERCLA; or (iv) costs for which a Plaintiff has received reimbursement from the United States by any means unrelated lo this Agreement.

d. The United States shall pay its allocated share of the Future Response Costs identified in each Payment Demand, less any amount that the United States disputes, within a reasonable time following the United States' receipt of the Payment Demand. Payment shall be made by electronic funds transfer lo the account specified by Plaintiffs. For any payment made later than 90 days following the United States' receipt of the Payment Demand, the Unjted States shall pay Interest commencing on the 91 s t day until the date payment is made. ff payment of any

- Il -

• undisputed amount is not made within 180 days following the United States' receipt of the Payment Demand, Plaintiffs may apply to the Court for such relief as the Court may deem appropriate, subject to Paragraph 11 of this Agreement.

e. For purposes of this Paragraph, the United States' allocated share shall be 33 percent, except that if any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States is responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Response Action selected by EPA, the United States' allocated share in each applicable calendar year shall instead be 30 percent of the Response Costs incurred collectively during that calendar year by Plaintiffs and by such department, agency, or instrumental ity of the United States that is responsible for long-tenn operation and maintenance of the Response Action selected by EPA. The following shall not be considered Response Costs when calculating the United States' aJlocated share in each applicable calendar year for purposes of this Paragraph: (i) costs that the United States is obligated to incur pursuant other federal laws such as the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C.

§ 2011 et seq. (as amended), or the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978

("UMTRCA) (as amended); and (ii) the United States' expenditure of monies paid into escrow by Plaintiffs. In addition, EPA-incurred Response Costs that have not been reimbursed by Plaintiffs shall not be included when calculating the United States' allocated share in each applicable calendar year for purposes of this Paragraph.

f. If the United States in good faith questions or contests any expenses for which payment is requested, in whole or in part, for any reason except as provided in Sub-Paragraph 9.h, it shall have the right to withhold payment of such disputed amount; provided, however, that the United States shall notify Plaintiffs in writing of any such disputed amount as soon as reasonably practical, and no later lhan 60 days following the United States' receipt of the Payment Demand. If the United States' dispute is based, in whole or 1n part, on the ground that the payment requested by Plaintiffs would exceed the United States' allocated share as calculated pursuant to Paragraph l 0.e because the United States has incurred Response Costs within the same applicable calendar year, the United States shall include with its written notice of the dispute documentation consistent with the requirements of Paragraph l 0. b. The Parties shall promptly make a good faith effort to resolve any dispute regarding the Payment Demand. ln the event that the Parties do not resolve the dispute within 60 days afler the date of the United States' written notice, either Party may thereafter seek relief from the Court unless the Parties can agree to an altemative dispute resolution process.

g. In the event that a Party seeks relief from the Court to resolve a dispute under Sub-Paragraph 10.f, Interest shall be awarded as follows: (i) if the Court wholly accepts Plaintiffs' position regarding the amount of costs for which the United States owes reimbursement, the United States shall pay Interest on that entire amount commencing on the 91 51 day following the Uruted States' receipt of the Payment Demand until Lhe date payment of the disputed amount is made; (ii) if the Court wholly accepts the Uruted States' position regarding the amount of costs for which the United States owes reimbursement, the United States shall pay no Jnterest; and (iii) in all other cases, the Court may, in its discretion, award Interest, commencing no earlier than the 91 st day following lhe United States* receipt of the Payment Demand and continuing until no later than the date payment is .made

h. The United States shall not contest a Payment Demand based upon any fact or circumstance known or in existence as of U1e Effective Date of this Agreement.

1. Plaintiffs shall include with each Payment Demand a copy of any notices received from EPA in the preceding calendar year concerning a determination by EPA that no further action is necessary with respect to Contamination at or emanating from the Site or any portion thereof. If EPA has determined that no portion of the Site or the Contamination at or emanating therefrom requires further action by Plaintiffs, Plaintiff shall designate the subsequent Payment Demand as the Final Payment Demand."

J* FoJlowing the completion of payment under this Paragraph in response to the Final Payment Demand, the United States shall have no further obligations under this Paragraph.

l l. Compliance with the Anti-Deficiency Act. All payment obligations by the United States under this Agreement are subject to the availability of appropriated funds applicable for that purpose. No provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted as or constitute a commjtment or requirement that the United States obligate or pay funds in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 1341-44 and 1511-19, or any other applicable provision of law.

12. Covenant Not to Sue by United States and Reservation. The United States hereby covenants not to sue GE or UNC and releases, surrenders, and forever discharges any claims or causes of action against GE or UNC arising out of or in connection with the presence of, the release or threatened release of, or the response to Contamination at or emanating from the Site, except that: (a) the United States specifically reserves its right to assert against GE or UNC any claims or causes of action brought on behalf of EPA or a federal natural resource trustee; and (b) nothing in this Consent Decree shall constitute or be construed as a waiver, limitation or release of any claims or causes of action by the United States to enforce any federal laws or regulations at or in connection with the Site or any off-Site area. In any subsequent administrative or judicial proceeding initiated by the United States for injunctive relief, recovery of response costs, or other appropriate relief relating to the Site, GE and UNC shall not assert, and may not maintain, any defense or claim based upon the principles of waiver, res judicata, collateral cstoppels, issue preclusion, claim-splitting, or other defenses based upon any contention that the claims raised by the United States in the subsequent proceeding were or should have been brought in the instant case. GE and LJNC otherwise reserve any claims, defenses or causes of action they may have in response to any claim or cause of action reserved by the United States pursuant to this Paragraph, except that under no circumstance shall GE or UNC seek any additional payment by the United States, beyond those payments required under Paragraphs 9 and 10 of this Agreement, to reimburse any portion of GE's or UNC's Past or Future Response Costs.

13. Records Retention and Audits. Plaintiffs agree that they shall retain aU records related to their perfonnance of Response Actions to address Contamination at or emanating from the Site for a period of no less than ten calendar years after the date of the last payment made pursuant to this Agreement. Plaintiffs shall make available to the United States any of these non-privileged records promptly upon request at any time prior to their actual destruction. Plaintiffs preserve their ability to assert that certain cost infonnation is confidential business information and should be treated as such by the United States.

14. Notification Regarding Claims. *n1e United States shall notify Plaintiffs in writing, at the address specified in Paragraph 26 below, of any complaint that is fi.led against and served upon the United States relating to the Site. and for which the United States is entitled to Indemnification by Plaintiffs pursuant to Paragraph 7 of this Agreement, as soon as practicable.

The United States agrees not to settle any such action without first notifying Plaintiffs of the United States' intent to settle any such action and providing Plaintiffs with a reasonable

~ 15 -

opportunity to discuss any proposed settlement with the United States. The United States further agrees not to oppose the efforts of GE or UNC to intervene in any such action.

15. Effect of Settlement/Entry of Judgment.

a. This Agreement was negotiated and executed by Plaintiffs and the United States in good faith and at arms length and is a fair and equitable compromise of claims that were vigorously contested. This Agreement and U1e Parties' performance of any obligations thereunder shall not constitute or be construed as an admission of liability by any Party. Nor shall they constitute or be construed as an admission or denial of any factual allegation or legal assertion set forth in the Complaint or elsewhere, or as an admission of violation of any law, rule, regulation, or policy by any Party.

b. Upon approval and entry of this Agreement by the Court, this Agreement shall constitute a final Judgment with respect to the claims resolved by this Agreement.

16. Retention of Jurisdiction. This Court shall retain jurisdiction both over the subject matter of this Agreement and over the Parties for the duration of the perfom1ance of the terms and provisions of lhe Agreement, for the purpose of enabling any Party lo apply to the Court consistent with this Agreement for such further order, direction, and relief as may be necessary or appropriate to construe this Agreement, to effectuate or enforce compliance with its tenns, or to resolve any disputes arising under this Agreement.

17. No Use As Evidence. This Agreement shall not be admissible as evidence in any proceeding other than an action brought by a Party to enforce this Agreement, or any proceeding where the United States seeks Lo establish that it is entitled to contribution protection.

18. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with United States federaJ law.

19. Severabilitv. If any provision of this Agreement is deemed invalid or unenforceable, the balance of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

20. Headings. Any paragraph headings or section titles to this Agreement are provided solely as a matter of convenience to the reader and shall not be construed to alter the meaning of any paragraph or provision of this Agreement.

21. Original Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of original counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to constitute one agreement. The execution of one counterpart by any Party shall have the same force and effect as if that Party had signed all other counterparts.

22. Integration Provision. This Agreement, including Appendices A and B thereto, constitutes the entfre Agreement between Plaintiffs and the United States with respect to the subject matter addressed herein. AU prior drafts or writings and all prior contracts, agreements, understandings, discussions or negotiations, oral or written, relating to the subject matter hereof are specifically and fully superseded by this Agreement and may not be used to vary or contest t.he tem1s of this Agreement. There are no warranties or representations, oral or written, relating to the subject matter hereof that are not fully expressed or provided for herein.

23. Modification. This Agreement shall not be modified or amended except by mutual written consent of the Parties.

24. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on any successors and assigns of the Parties. Any change of ownershi.p, corporate or other legal status of any Party to this Agreement shall in no way alter the obligations of any Party under this Agreement. Plaintiffs shall provide written notice to the United States. at the address specified in Paragraph 26 within 30 days after the effective date of any material change in ownership, corporate, or other legal status.

25. Non-Parties to this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute or be construed as a waiver or release of, or covenant not to sue for, any claim or cause of action, in law or in equity, whether known or unknown, which Plaintiffs or the United States may have against any person or entity that is not a Party to thjs AgreemenL

26. Notices. AU notices and written communications pertaining to this Agreement shall be sent to the Parties at the addresses specified in this Paragraph. In addition, notices addressed to the U.S. Department of Justice shall reference DJ# 90-11-6-18770.

a. For the United States:

i. For notices sent via the United States Postal Service:

Chief, Environmental Defense Section U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 23986 Washington, D.C. 20026-3986 ii. For notices sent via any private delivery service:

Chief, Environmental Defense Section U.S. Department of Justice 601 D Street, NW, Suite 8000 Washington. D.C. 20004 (202) 514-2219 (tel.)

b. For GE:

Jane Gardner, Esq.

Senior Counsel/Strategic Advisor General Electric Company Corporate Environmental Programs 844 Racquet Lane Boulder, CO 80303 Chet M. Thompson Crowell & Moring 1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20004-2595

c. ForUNC:

Stephen Hill President-United Nuclear Corporation OE-Aviation I Neumann Way, MD 1'165 Cincinnati, OH 4521 ~ USA

27. Representative Authority. Each signatory 10 this Agreement hereby certifies that he has been duly authorized to enter into this Agreement by the Party on whose behalf the signatory indicates he is signing.

FORGE:

Date: B/2=>/ J I AMR. Klee Vice President Corporate Environmental Programs FORUNC:

Date:

- -- - - Stephen Hill President-United Nuclear Corporation GE-Aviation rOR THE UNITED STATES:

ROBERT DREHER Principal Deputy AS3istant Attorney General Envi~uroesDivlsion By:

BRIANH.LYN1<

Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice

- 19

• Chet M. Thompson Crowell & Moring 1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20004-2595

c. ForUNC:

Stephen Hill President-United Nuclear Corporation GE-Aviation l Neumann Way, MD T165 Cincinnati, OH 4521~ USA

27. Representative Authority. Bach signatory to this Agreement hereby certifies that he has been duly authorized lo ent.ei jnto this Agreement by the Party on whose behalfthe signato.ry indicates lie Is signing.

FOR OE:

Date: _ _ _ __

AnnR. Klee Vice President Corporate Environmental Programs FORUNC:

Date: 4v7vef -t~ ?oil President-United Nuclear Corporation GE-Aviation fOR THE UNlTED STATES:

ROBERT DREHER Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Environment and Natural Resources Division Date: By:

BR!~

Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Environmental Defense Section P.O. Box 23986 Washington D.C. 20026-3986 (202) 514-6 J 87 ORDER UPON CONSlDER/\TlON OF THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby finds that this Agreement is fair and reasonable, both procedurally and substantively, consistent with applicable law, in good faith, and in the public interest. THE FOREGOING Agreement therefore is hereby APPROVED.

The United States is entitled, as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, to contribution protection pursuant to CERCLA section 113(!)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(l), and any other applicable provision of federal or state law, whether by statute or common law, for Covered Matters.

AU claims against the United States in lhis action are hereby dismissed with prejudice.

l laving detennjned that there is no just reason for delay, this Court directs, pursuant to RuJe 54(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.. ENTRY OF FfNAL JUDGMENT in accordance with the tenns of this Agreement, SIGNED and ENTERED this _ _ _ day of _ _ _ __ _ , 2011.

Plaintiffs and the United States each shall bear their own costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, in this case.

M. CHRISTINA ARMIJO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE From: Williams, Laurie Sent: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 18:37:07 +0000 To: Smith, James;Von Till, Bill;Brooks, Janet;Jacobs, Sara;Kleinrath, Art;Wetmore, Cynthia;Applegate, Nathaniel;Mandeville, Douglas;Waldron, Ashley;Pineda, Christine;Miller, Steven R;Gendelman, Adam;Hogan, Sean;Duncan, Will Cc: Costello, James;Holahan, Trish;Zimmerman, Jacob;Shafer, David;Quintero, Jessie;Travis, Pamela;Miller, Matthew

Subject:

[External_Sender] RE: UNC Church Rock License Amendment Request Federal Agency Status Meeting https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-five-year-reviews Superfund: Five Year Reviews

• iiiililMuffi

• Writing FYRs

• Memoranda and Fact Sheets

• Annual Report to Congress

• Search for FYRs Five-year reviews (FYRs) generally are required by CERCLA or program policy when hazardous substances remain on site above levels that permit unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Five-year reviews provide an opportunity to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy to determine whether it remains protective of human health and the environment. Generally, reviews take place five years following the start of a CERCLA response action, and are repeated every succeeding five years so long as future uses remain restricted.

Five-year reviews can be performed by EPA or the lead agency for a site.

EPA retains responsibility for determining the protectiveness of the remedy.

• CERCLA §121 (c) states the following : "If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial action no less often than each five years after the initiation of such remedial action to assure that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented. In addition, if upon such review it is the judgment of the President that action is appropriate at such site in accordance with section [1 04] or [106], the

President shall take or require such action . The President shall report to the Congress a list of facilities for which such review is required , the results of all such reviews , and any actions taken as a result of such reviews ."

Related Information More info on FYRs of Federal Facility Cleanups

• The National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300.430(f)(4)(ii) states: "If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less than every five years after the initiation of the selected remedial action."

---

Original Appointment-----

From: Smith, James [6]

Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 1:30 PM To: Smith, James; Von Till, Bill; Brooks, Janet; Jacobs, Sara; Kleinrath, Art; Wetmore, Cynthia; Applegate, Nathaniel; Mandeville, Douglas; Waldron, Ashley; Pineda, Christine; Miller, Steven R; Gendelman, Adam; Williams, Laurie; Hogan, Sean; Duncan, Will Cc: Costello, James; Holahan, Trish; Zimmerman, Jacob; Shafer, David; Quintero, Jessie; Travis, Pamela; Miller, Matthew

Subject:

UNC Church Rock License Amendment Request Federal Agency Status Meeting When: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 1:00 PM-2:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

Where: Microsoft Teams Meeting Join Microsoft Teams Meeting

+ 1 301-576-2978 United States, Silver Spring (Toll) 6 l(b_X_) _ _

Conference ID:... _,I#

Local numbers I Reset PIN I Learn more about Teams I Meeting options

- - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission --

Proposed Agenda Topics

l. Tnh*oductions

2. Status updates from each agency regarding addressing DOE LM ' s concerns about future roles and responsibilities with respect to the NECR mine waste.

a. NRC

b. DOE

c. EPA

3. General process for working through DOE LM's concerns and ensuring that the anticipated roles and responsibilities during long-term stewardship are clarified.

4. Plan for engaging upper level management at the agencies throughout the process identified.

5. Status update and plans for communication with GE.

From: Orlando, Dominick Sent: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 10:26:23 +0000 To: Gendelman, Adam;Smith, James;Mandeville, Douglas;Quintero, Jessie;Waldron, Ashley

Subject:

Agenda for 12/16 senior managers UNC call Attachments: 11-30-2020 lssuesAgenciesRolesResponsibilities UNC_Mill.docx The subject call is coming fast and we need to have an agenda and do the requisite briefings.

was not a participant in the last call, but based on Laurie's write up of the issues (attached) I think we can come up with some ideas to propose at the Wednesday call.

Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer or mobile app Click here to join the meeting Or call in (audio only)

+ 1 301-576-2978 )(6) United States, Silver Spring Phone Conference ID: :b)(S)

Find a local number I Reset PIN

-- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission --

Learn More I Meeting options

Page 819 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 820 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 821 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 822 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 823 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

Page 624 of 663

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 625 of 663

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 626 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

From: Orlando, Domi nick Sent: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 18:55:38 +0000 To: Von Till, Bill;Quintero, Jessie;Waldron, Ashley;Smith, James;Gendelman, Adam

Subject:

BRIEFING FR JOHN LUBINSKI ON UNC 12 16 20 CALL dao 12 15 20.docx Attachments: BRIEFING FR JOHN LUBINSKI ON UNC 12 16 20 CALL dao 12 15 20.docx For today's discussion with John at 4 , based on who participated in meetings with DOE and EPA I would suggest that Jim and Adam handle the first and second bullets, Bill, Jessie and Ashley handle the third bullet (and sub-bullets), I will take the last three bullets (see below).

OK with everyone?

(b)(5)

Page 828 or 863 Witllttekl pursuanl to exemption (b)(5) of tile Freedom of mrormauon ana Privacy Act

From: Smith, James Sent: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 15:00:15 +0000 To: Lubinski, John;Orlando, Dominick;Von Till, Bill;Mandeville, Douglas;Holahan, Trish;Zimmerman, Jacob;Gendelman, Adam;Waldron, Ashley;Quintero, Jessie;Pineda, Christine;Tappert, John

Subject:

EPA VM regarding~kb~)~(5~)- - - - - - - - - - - - ~

Attachments: James Smith.vet FYI-Jim James Smith Senior ProJectManage, OffKo al Nuclear Matenal Safely and Saf,guards O,v,,,on of Oo<:ornmo<MOrung.

Uranium Rc<:avtty, ,ndW*st* P,og,.ms Uranium R<<ove,y licensing and Matenals Dttomm,u,oning Branch Washington, DC lOSSS Woric (301) 415-6103 E-r,,ailJames.Sffllth@nrc.gav

, I , , 111

From: Von Till, Bill Se nt: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 19:05:51 +0000 To: Holahan, Trish;Tappert, John;Gendelman, Adam;Spencer, Mary;Smith, James;Quintero, Jessie;Waldron, Ashley;Zimmerman, Jacob;Pham, Bo;Mandeville, Douglas;Orlando, Dominick Cc: Richie, Christine

Subject:

FW: FW: AH0111c9 Clitill 0111111011icatio11 Bclibc,atioc P1 occss f011' Exc111pt NECR Mine Site/UNC Mill Site - Discussion of Recent Correspondence and Next Steps Please see below.

(b)(5)

Thanks From: Shafer, David <David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>

Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 3:00 PM To: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Pham, Bo <Bo.Pham@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] FW: Attorney Client Communication - Deliberative Process - FOIA Exempt -

NECR Mine Site/UNC Mill Site - Discussion of Recent Correspondence and Next Steps Bill-As we discussed. Please distribute to others in NRC as needed. Thanks, David From: Williams, Laurie <Williams.Laurie@epa.gov>

Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 12:32 PM To: Miller, Steven R <steven.miller@hg.doe.gov>

Cc: Jacobs, Sara <Jacobs.Sara@epa.gov>; Kleinrath, Art <Art.Kleinrath@lm.doe.gov>; Costello, James

<costello.iames@epa .gov>; Hogan, Sean <Hogan.Sean@epa.gov>; Chilingaryan, Sona

<Chilingaryan.Sona@epa.gov>; Brooks, Janet <Brooks.Janet@epa.gov>; Wetmore, Cynthia

<Wetmore.Cynthia@epa.gov>; Pyatt, Suzanne <pyatt.suzanne@epa.gov>; Rongone, M arie

<Rongone.Marie@epa.gov>; Duncan, Will <Duncan.Will@epa.gov>; Shafer, David

<David.Shafer@lm.doe.gov>

Subject:

(EXTERNAL] Attorney Client Communication - Deliberative Process - FOIA Exempt - NECR Mine Site/UNC Mill Site - Discussion of Recent Correspondence and Next Steps (b)(5)

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.

Thank you! Laurie F~

6

)c_)_ _ _~

Laurie Williams Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 972-3867 Fax: (415) 947-3570 Cell: r )(6) I This message does not originate from a known Department of Energy email system.

Use caution if this message contains attachments, links or requests for information.

From: Smith, James Sent: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 14:48:27 +0000 To: Waldron, Ashley;Quintero, Jessie;Pineda, Christine

Subject:

FW: NRC Daily Notes for December 16, 2020 FYI From: Grossman, Christopher <Christopher.Grossman@nrc.gov>

Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 9:47 AM To: Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>

Cc: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Linton, Ron <Ron.linton@nrc.gov>; Mandeville, Douglas

<Douglas.Mandeville@nrc.gov>; Smith, James <James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Conway, Kimberly

<Kimberly.Conway@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: NRC Daily Notes for December 16, 2020 Trish & Jake -

Bill, Jim, and Ron provided the following Daily for your approval:

On December 16, the NMSS staff and management met with the staff and management of the Environmental Protection Agency Regions 6 and 9, and the Department of Energy, Office of Legacy Management, to discuss their prospective roles with respect to the oversight of the General Electric -United Nuclear Corporation Church Rock Mill site if the NRC grants the license amendment request to co-dispose of mine spoils from the adjacent North East Church Rock Mine site atop the Mill Site's Tailings lmpoundment.

The three Federal Agencies have been working well together on this project.

POC: James Smith, 301-415-6103 I'll send over all three after you've approved this.

Chris From: Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 4:36 PM To: Grossman, Christopher <Christopher.Grossman@nrc.gov>; Snyder, Amy <Amy.Snyder@nrc.gov>;

Cruz Perez, Zahira <Zahlra.CruzPerez@nrc.gov>

Cc: Watson, Bruce <Bruce.Watson@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob <Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: NRC Daily Notes for December 16, 2020 You can use the second one on NRR's list as a template for the Pilgrim and OC because it is the almost verbatim, just switch the names Patricia K. Holahan, Ph.D.

Director, Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 415-7319 Cell: !CbX6) I Fax: (301) 415-5369 From: NRC Intranet <drupal@nrc.gov>

Sent: W ednesday, December 16, 2020 4:01 PM To: NRC Daily Notes <NRCDailyNotes@nrc.gov>

Subject:

NRC Daily Notes for December 16, 2020 elll , Ill,! Cd ~ of t'I .._ .HU -. , ....... : ;.,_,; ., .:e (......... :cc ,

Daily Notes for December 16, 2020 NRR Non Responsive Record

Non Responsive Record RIi i Non Responsive Record NMSS~IN-'o_n_R_ e-sp_o_n_s_i_v_e _R_e_c_o_rd- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~

From: Von Till, Bill Sent: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 15:49:57 +0000 To: Gendelman, Adam;Orlando, Dominick;Smith, James;Mandeville, Douglas Cc: Waldron, Ashley

Subject:

FW: Revised POP Attachments: POP UNC brief to John October 27 2020-2.docx See this revised path forward from the brief to John Lubinski. ... off to an all afternoon meeting.

From: Von Till, Bill Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 11:49 AM To: Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>

Cc: Lewis, Robert <Robert.Lewis@nrc.gov>; Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Tappert, John

<John.Tappert@nrc.gov>; Quintero, Jessie <Jessie.Quintero@nrc.gov>; Zimmerman, Jacob

<Jacob.Zimmerman@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Revised POP Per your direction, I revised the path forward in the attached POP to reflect our discussion. We will develop talking points for the call with Carmelo.

Page 836 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 837 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 838 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 839 of 863

\'.'itnriekl pursuant to exemption (0)(5) of Ille Free<lom of Information and Privacy Act

From: Waldron, Ashley Sent: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 16:06:27 +0000 To: Pineda, Christine

Subject:

FW: Revised PowerPoint presentation Attachments: 12-9-2020v5 DRAFT UNC Mill-NECR LAR Presentation for 12-16-2020 NRC-DOE-EPA Mtg.pptx From: Orlando, Dominick <Dominick.Orlando@nrc.gov>

Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 3:21 PM To: Von Till, Bill <Bill.VonTill@nrc.gov>; Waldron, Ashley <Ashley.Waldron@nrc.gov>; Smith, James

<James.Smith@nrc.gov>; Holahan, Trish <Patricia.Holahan@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Revised PowerPoint presentation

),)(5)

Page 84 1 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 842 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 843 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 844 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 845 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 846 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 84 7 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 848 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 849 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 850 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 851 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 852 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 853 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 854 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 855 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 856 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 857 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 858 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 859 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 860 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 861 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 862 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 863 or 863 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act