ML19270G890
| ML19270G890 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/17/1979 |
| From: | Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-79-88, NUDOCS 7906210079 | |
| Download: ML19270G890 (26) | |
Text
-
r atsin: c' r
,kfh'j5AitL f
NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING IN THE MATTER OF:
CONTINUATION OF SECY-79-88 URANIUM MILL TAILINGS
(
Place -
Washington, D.
C.
Date -
Thursday, 17 May 1979 Pages 1 - 26 2240 204 1.... _.
(202)347-3700 ACE, FEDER.tL REPORTERS. INC.
79062100 R Offici.tl Reporters au Ner*h C :itei Street Weshingten. D.C. 20001 NATIONWICE COV! RACE. D AILY
1 DISCLADIER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission held on Thursdav,.17 Mav 1979 in the Commissions's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
Tnis transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Co=J.ssion in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Comission may authori::e.
2240 205 e
w u
eme-me-Mg..
Nw mw
-ww 4
m.-
e-we-
i CR4823 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA "ELTZER/
i 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
3' l
l 4,
I PUBLIC MEETING Sl 6!
CONTINUATION OF SECY-79-88 i
7l I
URANIUM MILL TAILINGS 8
9,.
l 10 '
Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.W.
11 Washington, D.C.
12 Thursday, 17 May 1979 l
13 I i
I#
Hearing in the above entitled matter was convened, 15 pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m.,
JOSEPH M.
HENDRIE, Chairman, 16 presiding.
I7 l P RESENT :
i IO JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman 19 l i
VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 1
20 i RICHARD KENNEDY, Commissioner
'l PETER BRADFORD, Commissioner JOHN AHEARNE, Cctmissioner Messrs. Malsch, Dircks, Slaggie, Stoiber, Sickwit,
'4 l Scarano and Libenau.
ic.-e.cersi aeocenn. i.
2240 206 l
l
l i
mm 1
_P. _R _O C _E _E _D _I _N _G _S i
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If we could come to order.
The 3
Commission meets this afe rnoon to continue the discussion of l
4, matters related to the uranium mill tailings bill enacted in t
i 5!
the last Congress.
l 6
Perhaps a useful introduction would be to ask --
7 Marty, are you in a position to summarize where we stood at the 8i end of the last meeting?
I 9
MR. MALSCH:
Okay.
10 At the last meeting the Commission reviewed the 11 letter it had received from the committees in the Congress which 6
12 -
had been involved with passage of the legislation; which letter 13 expressed the Congress' view as towhat was intended by the 14 act in terms of when the NRC's licensing jurisdiction became 15 effective,and when the new procedural ; requirements on I
i 16 l agreement states became effective.
I t
17 That letter said in essence that the procedural l
l 18 l requirements on agreement states were intended to be delayed by:
I 19 three years, and that NRC jurisdiction in agreement states 20 was to be delayed by three years, but to be effective right away-21 in nonagreement states.
22 '
The Cc= mission asked us to draft clarifv.ine. lecisla-23 i tion to accomplish that intent.
We did so, sent it down to the 24 i C = mission the next day.
That is, I think, the 10th.
ic..r.cus a. omn. me.
25 Sinc e then there have been scme further, essentialli 2240 207 j
4 l
1 i
?
i 4
mm 1! clarifying changes made and recirculated around to you from the i
2 General Counsel's Office.
We have no problem with any of those
)
3 clarifying changes.
l i
4l You have before you, I think, possibly subject to l
1 i
5 some later minor changes, what we think will accomplish the l
i l
6 intent of the letter we got from the Hill.
I l
7 The Commission, however,did not reach a decision on l
8, what it should do between now and the time any clarifying legis-l l
l 9j lation should be enacted. Should it adopt the view reflected in i
10 ! the letter, or should it adopt the view espoused by the Staff I
f I
l 11 !
and the Commission paper which Staff view was based upon the I
i 12 legislation as written.
13 The basic issue being, should the Commissioners 14 assert jurisdiction in agreement states over tailings, or i
I 15 ; should it not,during the three-year period.
And that's where l
l 16 l we stand.
i i
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's see.
17 l!
18 l; Suppose I see where the weight-of Cormission opinion 19 ! appears to lie with regard to the draft legislation, the I
1 20 clarifying snendments to the Mill Tailings Act as reflected in 21 the memorandum of the 16th from the General Counsel's Office.
22,
Do you people ". ave that?
22 COMMISSICNER SRACFORD:
I think with the apprcpriate 24 icovering letter, that is about it.
Ae... :.m a eocn.n. ec.
- 5 COMMISSICNER KENNEOY:
Is it this cue?
2240 208 a
l 5
I t
l I
l mm II CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It looks suspicious # like it.
I i
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It is the moral equivalent 3
of mill tailings.
i d
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Any comments on it?
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Looked all right to me.
6i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Suppose I propose then that we 7
ask the Counsel's Office to put these amendments in the f
I 8
section-by-section analysis in final form and prepare a suitablej 9
transmittal letter.
10 MR. BICKWIT:
Would you authorize us to make technical II changes?
I2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Since, I am not a lawyer --
I3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What does that mean?
I4 MR.BICKWIT: That means changes so minor that we 15 don't want to disturb you with them.
I i
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
I 17 !
But I thought you had already done that.
i 18 MR.3ICKWIT:
In rereading them, there might be some --
I9, COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That's all right with me.
i 20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: By all means frcm my perspecrive.
2I CHAIRMAN HENDRII: Okay.
l
.,1 Those in favor?
23 CCMMISSICNER 3RADFORD:
Aye.
2240 209 2#
COMMISSICNER KENNEDY: Aye.
ace,,cer36 ReOOr*ers. !FC. t
- C CCMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
Aye.
l
^
6 mm 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But we spoke about a suitable 2j covering letter.
I would submit it saying this is an amendment 3l that accomplishes what you want it to do, and leave it at that. l 4
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: You would say what?
l 5
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, --
i I
i 6l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: In response to your letter l
i 7' of --
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes. These amendments accomplish 9, what appears to be your intent in the letter sent to us.
I 10 l COMMISSIONER KENFlDY: Fine.
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think that sounds -- that's what 12 it is, so I think that certainly is f air.
13 I think for myself, I think the letter ought also 14 to indicate that the Commission feels it would be very desirable 15 to have these clarifications in place.
I don't know if one 16 l wants to --
I i
i 17i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: If we are going to comment on i
l i
18, that, from my perspective it would be appropriate and indeed i
19 l necessary to say, if that is what you want, gentlemen, you have 20 to put this legislation in place or we can't do what you suggest 21 is the intent of Congress.
22 CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That's your opinion.
23,
COMMISSIONER 3RACFORO:
I agree with Dick on that.
22 CCMMISSICNER KENNEDY: No questien in T.y mind.
acaec Wer at R eOOr'ers, I nc. 3 25 '
CCMMISSIONER BRACFORO:
I don't have to see it there, I
2240 210
7 l
i 1
but I certainly agree with you.
j i
2l CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I have no doubt. that that i
mm 3I was their intent, and indeed I would hope it war.
l d
But it seems to me that hope is sort of irrelevant.
I Sj The fact is the law, it seems to me, says something different.
t l
6!
And if they want it to do what their letter says, and I have 7
no doubt that that's the case,then they have to change the law 8
so that we can do it.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I guess I wouldn't go that I3 far.
II MR. BICKWIT: I didn't think you would.
I2 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think it would be fair to express 13 the opinion of the Commission that these changes are desirable Id and should be made.
15 I wouldn't go beyond that.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Nowknit. We cannot let them l
16 17' have the impression, I hope -- I certainly could not vote for 18 l it at least -- that failing these changes, if the Co ngress l9 doesn't make them, that we are in a position to act as though
+
20 they had. Because I don't believe we are.
21 CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, I guess I would have 22 I recommended that we do.
y" COMMISSIGNER KENNEDY:
You can reccamend if you wish.
I cannot participate in violating the law.
Aca r etjtf 38 AfDorters. !nc.
m CHAl?S.Mi HENDRIE:
I guess that would have to be 2240 211 4
i
.~
,~
_.... - ~ ~
8 l
l I
jl amended to be your reading of the law.
mm i
i 2
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's correct.
1 i
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: It is also mine.
3 I
4j COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It is certainly true that if 5
a majority of you. feel that you could not follow that j
l 6i direction in the absence of those changes, that it probably i
t 7,
would be pertinent to say that in a letter.
l a;
I would hope the majority of you wouldn't inel that I
9l-way, but if you did, then you ought to say that in the letter.
i i
10 That's right. Because then it would be misleading.
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That's my concern.
t 1
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes, it would then heighten 13 their sense of the urgency of making the changes.
I 14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's right.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I presume that was the second!
16 point you were about to take up?
17' (Laughter.)
18 ;
CHAIP EN HENDRIE: Yes.
i 1
19 ;
Because you know, as Marty says, we have to decide - -
20 and there was discussion about it last time -- we have to 21 ] decide what positien the Ccmmission is going to take with r
221 recard to the imolementation of the law until -- in ef fect, until i
23 i further nctice.
24 And as I read John's thrust, his view would ' e that r
w,...e.r., a.cor en. u,c.
25 i we cugnt to implement what we understand the sponscrs of the 2240 212 i
i 9
I an 1l measure to have meant in writing it, ncv that they very I
unambiguously assured us of that intent.
And others may have 2l I different views.
I 3:
t I
i,j And why don't we see how the weight of the house 5. falls on that, since that, in turn tells us then, what the l
\\
l
\\
j rest of the cover letter on the already-voted-upon and agreed-to, I legislative amendments, how that would read.
7;;
l 1
l Peter, I guess you were going --
8l-COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes.
9 It is one thing to look to a letter like this when 10 the law is ambiguous, and you really are sort of tumbling around 11 I l
l 1 as to what was really meant.
12 I don't have the impression, at least as to this 13 exercise of immediate authority, that there is any feeling in j,
1 15 l the other -- in the ELD or OGC that the law is ambiguous. And I
without -that as a starting point, it doesn't seem right to me l
16 l
to take what six congressmen -- albeit the most eloquent l,e i
congressmen for purposes of this legislation -- tell us that l
jg r,
they felt that it meant,as being a better guide than what the j9 language f the Act itself states.
20 t CHAIRMAN HENDRIZ:
Okay.
I Dick,I took it from your remarks your view is --
i' COMMISSICNER KENNEDY:
Aside frcm my perscnal Ipreferences, it seems to me the law is clear.
That, cerhars,
,e.-.eeni a.cocen.i e 3.is unfortunate in the circumstances Peter suggests that the 2240 213 4
n
10 l
l l
mm 1
_ language of the law is clear.
I 2
Now, albeit that probably is not what they intended, i
3!
nonetheless, that's what they wrote and that's what they l
i I
I J
enacted and what the President signed.
l l
5 So, given that, I think it is accepted. We have l
I l
6:
had many expressions of this in the past and references to 7
the Courts in this regard, that retrospective legislative 8
history is not very helpful.
Indeed, it almost has no stature 1
9l whatever.
I 10 And particularly is that true --
11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
In the absence of ambiguiuty 12 -
it is very compelling.
13 (Laughter.)
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's right.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: W only comment to it, Dick, i
i 16 would be that it appears to me that some of these same j
i l
17 questions were posed to us back in February in front of several !
i 18 l committees, and apparently at that time we didn't, for whatever 1
19 ;
reason in the intervening months, see that there was this 20 clear difference.
21,,
COMMISSIONER KENUEDY:
That's a different issue.
I 22 3 ! didn't want to take our time here today worrying about that.
23,
I guess I do have the questien, why, since 24 ! February, we haven't done anything about it, which is a differen:
ac. -,c.ev aer.or en. rne.
- s ; questien.
And as I say, I eien't wan: :o taxe ci=e 25 cut tha:
2240 214
. ~ ~ _
l 11 I
jl today.
That is sort of the wav we are doinc our business mm l
these days, which is a different question.
2 But the fact is, the law calls upon us to do 3I i
i some thing, and right now we are not implementing the law.
And !
4 it seems to me we have no option other than to indicate that
{
5 i
6l, we are going to do so.
I l
Now I think what we ought to do in this letter, is 7
1 explain to them we understand their view, and in order for us i
to do that, given the law, the clear language of it, enactment 9
I of the enclosed would be essential.
Not just desirable, but 10 li l
essential.
They should not be under the illusion that if, in jj fact, they don't enact it, we are going to be able to do some-g thing other than what the law calls upon us to do.
13 Meanwhile, we should tell them that we are making l
14 i
l ur preparati ns to enforce the law.
That is sort of what l
15 1
the Constitution says we are all supposed to do when the g
legislature legislates.
1,/
i I
l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
As we read the law.
i And I guess if you get Victor of Joe, or both 39 f them to join you, then that paragraph should begin that 20 letter.
g CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Where dc you come dcwn, Vic?
COMMISSICNER GILINSKY: Well, I would go with the g,
i reading of the law -- (Inaudible.)
g W.e m;er at ReOOrters, lFC.
CEAiRMAN HENDRIE: Just so we can all understand what
,e I
1 2240 215
-e,w.
,em
12 l
I mm that is, let me say in the poor and simple language available 2
to a Chairman what I understand that to be, and see if there I
3 is agreement.
i i
a What it anounts to is that we believe the law 1
5 may fairly be read to postpone for three years the new i
l 6
requirements on the states for the licensir., of tailings and I
so on.
7!
I l
MR. MALSCH:
And mills.
B l
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And mills.
10 But, that as it reads, the law requires that the 11 NRC immediately assume licensing responsibility for tailings 12 both in agreement and nonagreement states.
13 In agreement states, the milling operation is l
1.s licensed and possession of material for purposes of milling l
15 source material is licensed by the state, and that would 16,
continue.
i t
i 1
17 MR. MALSCH: Yes.
i 18,
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: In nonagreement states we license i.
19 that and would continue to do so.
20 So that the crunch point of the burden which then 21 gets imposed is the addition of NRC licensing of tailings every-22 l where, and the vrunch point is in agreement states where the
- 2 1 states already are licensing the mill, and new we are going to 24 i ccme alor.g and license the tailings part.
aCW esctf al A fDor'Tf t. i nc. r 25 Is nhat what we all understand?
4 2240 216
13 I
l mm 1
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: So far.
t 2
CEAIRMAN HENDRIE: By the reading of the law which i
l 1
3i has been reflected to us by the legal of fices.
i 4,
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes.
l i
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay. Good.
t 6!
Well, I must say I vote with John on the basis 7
that I assume that among -- that at least several of the 8i gentlemen who wrote us the letter from Congress, also have l
9l some ccmpetence to read the language they have draf ted and I
10 their feeling about it seems fairly clear.
11 So I would not have implemented the parallel or the 12 second-stage licensing in agreement states.
13 We are, however, divided three-two in favor of 14 following the interpretation of the law which has been set 15 !
down by legal counsel.
l 16 '
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Let's just say the law.
i 17 CHAIFb93 HENDRIE: No, I prefer to continte to i
18 refer to it as the interpretation, Peter, i
i i
l 19 '
And that what that means --
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would rather think that 21 the majority probably was thinking of the law, and others as 22 ] thinking of interpretations.
23 '
(Laughter.)
24 Isn't that the normal way of lcoking at it?
.c. <,cean necer et we.
25 '
CCMMISSIONER BRA 2FORO : That, in fact, then beccmes 2240 217
14 l i
i I
=m 1l the case, doesn't it, until it is enacted or codified or set l
21 down, or whatever we do in this case.
I guess Joe's language l
i i
I 1
3, is not improper.
j i
i (Laughter.)
l 4l l
I S
MR. STOIBER: Mr. Chairman, would you like a minority I
1 6
view also in the letter?
I i
7!
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: It is not necessary as far 8
as I am concerned.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I don't feel it necessary to make l
10 a speech in this letter.
11 I guess -- but it is clear now that the nature of 12 :
the covering letter, that part of what it has to say is, thank 13 you.
You know, with the greatest admiration and respect for 14 the authors of the letter we have received, we nevertheless 15 regrettably conclude that the law must be read to require --
16 i and then it ought to spell out what we read it to require.
I 17 And that if the intent of the authors is reflected in the
{
18 letter we have received, is to be implemented,there do indeed i
i 19 I needs must be clarifying amendments to the legislation, and 20 attached hereto is a draft and a section-by-section analysis 21 which, in our view, would acccmplish the purposes -- those 22 l purposes.
23 Okay.
I regard that then as a decision made. And, 24 l cf course, estaElished.
And we will look for you 20 draft the
%'t evCeral A egor+9rs, l oc.,
25 l letter, and I think expeditiously we need to get fo rward with it.
l 2240 218
15 l
i I
mm i
I would note before we quit on this subject, just 2,
by way of information for the record, thatone of the reasons 1
3 that there were not meetings on this in the period af ter our i
I l
aj initial meetings with the authori:Ing committees where it was I
,l i
5, mentioned in testimony back in early February, was that I had i
i 6'
understood indeed that there was consideration of such a i
7 letter as the one which we eventually got, and it finally came j
l I
3 down here on the 26th of April.
l 9
And it seemed to me premature to gather the i
i 10 Commission as long as that seemed a strong possibility that i
e 11 there, indeed, would be some letter for the Commission's i
12 information and whatever we cared to make of it.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: In order to get to any of the 14 authorizing comittees, it has to be there when?
Tomorrow?
15 i MR.3ICKWIT: No.
i i
16 '
The committee -- the only authorizing committee i
I i
17 ;
that has enacted it, is the Interstate Foreign Commerce 18 Committee. The subcommittee is meeting on Monday and we are 19 advised by the subcommittee staf f that it would be extremely 20 difficult to move this into that legislation in subcomm ittees.
21 However, the full committee will not be meeting for 221 another two weeks, and at that point he was, while not 23 committing himself, he was more optimistic.
24 CHAIRMAN HENORIZ: And I suppose there is at least CS c e. trat A GOOr*Wf 5, I"C.
25 ; the remote possibility of floor amendments and so on on either 2240 219
l t
l l
16 i
1l side.
mm i
i i
2!
It is r.ot quite in a situation where the subject is i
3 foreign to the Congress, there hasn' t been an ample airing of I
l d!
the issues back and forth in public hearings and so on. That i
I i
5!
all went on last year.
6' It might be that the sponsors would see their way I
7; clear to trying move on it.
I 3l Now, one other subject then which we have to deal l
with, and while we have our heads pointed in the direction of 9
l 10 !
mill tailings.
l 11 There are, I will point out to you -- there are in 12 agreement as well as in nonagreement states, mills now operating 1
13 which have tailings piles. And the Commission has now voted Id these tailings piles require licenses.
And we are to issue 15 l those licenses regardless of whether it is an agreement state i
i 16 l or nonagreement state.
I I7 !
And I guess I wonder whether, alongwithobeyingthel i
I3 law, as my colleagues in the majority would put it, you also 19 contemplate shutting those mills down tonight.
20 COMMISSIONER KEmiEDY:
Not I.
I contemplate, as is
'l always the case with wise regulation, proceeding with all
" ! deliberate speed on the part of the Staf f to develcp the 23 regulations that will be apprcpriate, referring them to the
- i Commission for careful consideration and putting them in place.
2e..
ceni a emn n. i-c,
ac MR. MALSCH: We had addreszed this subject in the 2240 220
17 I
i i
l I
i mm ti earlier paper, February 1 paper.
l i
l i
i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Remind me what you said, Marty, 21 l
! because if I try to go back and find it, why I will never 3
get there.
MR. MALSCH: Sure.
It is on page 15.
l 5'
i l
l What we said was for new mills we would act along l
7; the same schedule as the agreement states.
For existing mills, we said --
8,:
i 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Wait. Wait. Steady.
9, o
new mCls --
10 MR. MALSCH: We would act as though we had authority
))
and proceed on a schedule hopefully consistent with the g
schedule the agreement state provides us.
g In other words, proceed in parallel.
g For existing mills, we propose to issue a general 15 t
license authorizing existing agreement state milling licensees l
16 j i
to possess the tailings, which license will be subject to j7, remedial action orders by the NRC in the event there should
)g be some immediate danger.
And that we would act on the renewal j9 application at the same time the state acted on renewal g
g' application, gl The effect of which would be to put existing mills 1 sort of en ice for a while, unless s cething cntoward happened, 31 until both we and the agreement states were prepared to act en kCS-e ederal R L Cor*trs, I FC,
,, : a renewal acclicatien.
2240 221 t
13 l
i j
i mm 1l It seemed to us at the time to be the sensible l
2j compromise that would avoid shutting down all existing mills I
3: for lack of an NRC license.
i l
l ai CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If I ask what your assessment of l
i 5l the likely success of that venture in the f ace of likely challenge i
i 6+ in the courts, would that lead to a discussion you would prefer l i
l 7l not have at a public meeting?
I a
Or, could it be summarized suitably round terms.
l t
l f
9 MR. BICKWIT: I could answer that in a way that I i
l 10 6 would have no problem dealing with it in a public meeting.
j I
i 11 l And that is to say, that point has been put to our 12 solicitor and he feels quite confident that there would be no 13 problems proceeding in that way.
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Slugged the muscle, thinks he 15 can carry it now.
{
l I
16 !
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Doesn't give too much I
17 l advantage away.
18,
(Laughter.)
i 19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, I don't think we have tipped 20 anybody's hand.
l 21 l Well, could I see if it is the weight of Ccmmission i
22 i cpinion that indeed, that is a reascnable course to follow 23 with regard to the existing mills, as a way of avoiding 24 discontinuity.
~
Aecorters. inc.
.co...cerat 25,
CCMMISSICNER AHEARNE: Well, I am not sure there 2240 222 i
l 19 i
I i
i 1l is an alternative.
I mean, you certainly wouldn't want to l
CA i
2l bring the mills here and the tailings here, would you?
l t
i 3;
Would we take possession?
i i
i 3l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I don't know, John.
I am ready j
l 5
to vote against it, but I have lost before.
l i
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I think that's a reasonable 6
l course.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
(Nodding affirmatively.)
g COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
(Nodding affirmatively.)
9 I
l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I gather nothing but assent up I
10 I
i 11 ;
and down the table, and by rule, the Commission has so l
12 l determined.
13 Now, what other strings and threads remain authanging' 14 on this subject that you might turn to.
l 15 MR. DIRCKS:
As a matter of interest for the j
16 Commission, just as background, of the 11 mills out there 17 :
in agreement states, 4 of them are now on timely renewal.
l i
18 So I don't know how that affects the general license --
19 (Inaudible. )
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I assume we issue a general 21 license, allow them two days to fire in a telegram -- we just
- 1 issue a general license and phrase the timing, I assume, to 23 imatch.
COE'4ISSICNER KENNZIY: This is not er.actly as thcugh :.:
Ac.u.r.. a.comes. i.,c. l 75 ! has happened in the last week.
2240 223 i
l 20 i
i i
t 1
MR. DIRCKS:
It hasn't happened in the last week.
i 2
They have been on timely renewal.
3l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: For quite some time.
l i
i l
l 4l COMMISSIONR AHEARNE: For a couple of years.
j l
5 MR. MALSCH:
But the states would be on some kind 6
of general obligation to act on the new application in its i
I I
7 original period of time.
I l
8l It is hard to define when that would be.
We l
9' couldn't, ob viously, sit around and wait for a year.
10 I think a general license would tide us over.
l l
11 i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But the record on timelv i
12 renewal is nothing like a couple of years. What is Sheffield, l
i 13 nine or ten years?
j l
14 MR. MALSCH:
Yes, there are some bad ones.
I don't 15 know how long the mills --
t 16 I (Simultaneous discussion.)
l 1
t 17 MR. DIRCKS:
(Inaudible.) -- problems with the i
la l existing mills and the timely renewal -- (Inaudible.) --
19 specific operating mills new in this connection.
1 20 I have a suspicion that maybe -- (Inaudible.)
21 MR. MALSCH: Yes. I think some of them present 22 l problems in terms of tailings that the states are attempting 22 t to wrestle with. And that is, perhaps why they haven't extended 24 j the licenses, m.w..aeoonen.:re.j 25 :
CCMMISSICNER ASEARNE: One has been in
'76, another
'71, 2240 224
i 21 i,
i mm 1,
another '76, another '73 --
l
\\
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: My recollection was that Jack was j
i i
3!
trying to make some progress towards getting lined up on those, l 4
but I don't recall what the details were.
i S'
MR. DIRCKS:
I think the progress we made was to 6'
identify the problems..
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Am I wrong in thinking we 8
have yet to deal with the question of standards and requirements 9,
and when they become effective in state licensing?
That is,
I 10 ! not to assume anything we have done --
II,
MR. MALSCH: The letter said the agreement state i.
I 12 requirements would be postponed for three years.
I think we 13 just agreed to postpone the whole package, which is procedural 14 requirements and the minimum national requirements. They all 15 go together in one chunk. But, to urge the states to comply as 16 soon as practicable before the three-year period.
l 17i (Pause) i i
18 l CHAIRyaN HENDRIE:
Let me wait a mcment and see 19 ' if a new thread appears.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
We wrote, I assume, a letter 21 back to the various people that have written us --
l 22,
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I was coinc to say, in addition, 23 j let us try to get this th'9.g out to Congress first thing 24 i because there is some pressure to get it ap there.
Ace, Weral AfD0rters. IFC.
25 But then I think we ought to ad'.ise -- w e had letters d
2240 225
I 22
(
l i
mm 1 !
from states, parties, companies, what have you, and I suspect i
1 2l we owe that correspondence list a summary of our conclusions i
3 and actions.
3l Did that last conversation turn up anything?
l i
i i
5 MR. DIRCKS: We have been licensing our own mills 6
I t
l 6l under our interim criteria, which was sort of in line with our 7
draft generic environmental -- (Inaudible.)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Right.
8i 9
Well, I,would assume that the kind of -- it is also 10 true with nonagreement states where we do the licensing, that 11,
they would also have tailings piles, and I would assume that l
12 :
the same sort of general license with the opportunity for 13 remedial orders as appropriate.
14 And then full licensing on renewal would apply 15 there.
f i
+
16 l MR.MALSCH: Oh, yes, we had a parallel recommendation I l
i 17}
in the paper that we simply track for tailings what we are i
la '
presently planning on doing for the source material.
1 i
19 MR. DIRCKS:
(Inaudible.) -- it wasn't just legal 20 '
questions.
There are operating -- (Inaudible.)
Once we assume
'I authority on an iterim basis we are taking responsibility for the Oceratine -- (Inaudib le. )
- l MR. MALSCH
Yes. For example, if a citizens group 24 'in New Mexico crders a le :er saying shut dcwn X, Y,
I mills, ace.e.eerai Aeomers. !."c.
25.; we couldn ' t deny it simply on che grounds that it is --
2240 226
23 mm l
1 MR. DIRCKS:
Yes. If there was a tailings pile only 2
-- (Inaudible.)
i i
3l CEAIRMAN HENDRIE: We would have to explain that we 1
l 4
could deny the use of a tailings pile, but couldn't shut the i
i 1
5 mills.
I 6!
MR. MALSCH: That's essentially right.
l l
7; COMMISSIONER AREARNE:
We have some of the mills we 8
license on timely renewal also, for lengthy periods.
9 MR.DIRCKS:
I think we do, but I'm not clear about i
10 it.
11 MR. SCARANO: We are in the final processes on all 12 except one, and that one should be completed in about three or 13 four months.
14 But we do have an upgraded tailings branch in the l
t 15 program for all the -- (Inaudible.)
l i
16 MR. DIRCKS:
Which, in turn, pending the action of 17 the Congress, we will be applying to the agreement states.
18 CEAIRMAN HENDIRE:
Any other items that fall under i
19 l this heading that should be covered?
20
'No response) 21 l Does everybcdy know what he has to do?
22 MR. MALSCH: Yes.
22 MR. DIRCKS:
I don't know whether jou want to talk --
24 i there was a paragraph in the latest memo, I guess inserted by
.ce-,oerei s coor.<s.
i,c.
25; State Prcgrams, that they need three more pecple to upgrade the 2240 227 i
24 I
i mm 1
programs, I guess, in the agreement states.
l I
2 I don't think we have ever focused on who takes i
3l, I
the technical lead in that area.
I am just mentioning it. We l
4 can discuss it some other time.
l 5j But, if we take action on that, I think we ought to I i
6; flag the issues -- (Inaudible.) -- where there is some technical i
)
7 upgrade of agreement states -- (Inaudible.)
a I don't think we got in on this.
9j MR. MALSCH:
Well, we just entered this paragraph 10 at State Programs' request.
l 11 I had thought the major effort would be involved in 12 simply continuing with our present program to upgrade t=ilinge 13 management plans with agreement state mills.
14 I don't know what else beyond that there would be.
15 MR. DIRCKS:
I don't know whether it is a liaison 16 function or --
l 17 MR. LIBENAU:
Mr. Chairman, some of that staff will 18 be needed, first of ally to' administer the $500,000 grant 19 ; program.
20 '
We also have to renegotiate agreements --
21,
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Wait -- first of all, we have to
)
22 'l get the S500,000.
22
- MR. LIBENAU:
Correct.
24 CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is it in anybody's milk T.oney?
m a erat Recor*gr1. Inc. '
25 '
MR. LI3ENAU:
I don't know at this stage.
Mr. R yan
~
j 2240 228
i i
25
=m j
i li sent a memo to Mr. Barry following last week's meeting reminding!
2f him that money needed to be added to the appropriations. bill.
l i
I 3i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, I'm not sure that Mr. Bar ry I
ai gets to write the final line on the appropriations bill.
i l
5; At the moment, why I'm not sure how it stands on I
l 6!
the appropriations bill.
I don' t think it is in any of the I
I 7l authorizations bills.
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Where is this memo?
I i
9 (Simultaneous discussion. )
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Anyway, I interrupted you in 11 mid --
12 MR. LIBENAU:
The other work that needs to be done, 13 for which we requested additional staff; develop model legislation, 14 model renegotiated agreements, new criteria for agreements, 15 we have got to develop internally new procedures for reviewing l
l l
16 agreement state programs, training of state staff, and then 17 ; count on an expansion of our review program when we review 18 agreement state programs for adequacy and compatibility.
19 '
So that request focused on expanding existing 20 programs within the State Programs Office.
21 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE: Now that really didn't deal with i
2 2 1 t." a kinds of things Bill is talking about, which were the 231 technical aspects for getting state standards practices up to 24 a meet what will be called the "new national standard" which ic.~.c.,. a. con.n. me.
25 NRC establishes.
And I would assume that those technical i
2240 229 1
I 26 l
l I
aspects are done by NMSS, and that State Programs' relation l
2 to them is a liaison function with State Offices.
i 3l Yes, I understand what the three-person request is l
I J
about now.
I think it doesn't seem to me to be an item that
{
i I
I want to deal with this afternoon as an individual facet of 5 i 6l an office which has a number of additional demands on it, for l
7 which other consideration on a broader base, I think, is 8
appropriate as we can come to it.
9 Very good.
I 10 Thank you very much.
11 MR. MALSCH: Thank you.
12 MR. DIRCKS:
Thank you.
(
13 (Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m.,
the hearing in the 14 above-entitled matter was adjourned.)
i 15 l 16 f i
17
'S ;
2240 230 19 20 21 j a
22 22 t
.ce. odefst AtOQrters, Inc.
25 i
.. _ -