ML20058H477
| ML20058H477 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/01/1993 |
| From: | Joseph Holonich NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Blubaugh R ATLAS CORP. |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 9312130088 | |
| Download: ML20058H477 (6) | |
Text
'
DEC 1 - 23 Richard E. Blubaugh Vice President of Environmental and Governmental Affairs Atlas Corporation 370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3150 Denver, Colorado 80202
Dear Mr. Blubaugh:
Enclosed is a meeting summary for the meeting held on November 8,1993, between Atlas Corporation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in NRC's offices in Rockville, Maryland. This rep' aces the copy sent you recently which was inadvertantly marked as a dra't.
de appologize for any confusion this may have caused.
If you have any comments or questions concerning the summary, please contact me at (301) 504-3439 or Allan Mullins of my staff at (301) 504-2578.
Sincerely, Joseph J. Holonich, Chief Uranium Recovery Branch Division of low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning Office of Nuclear Material Safety 1
and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
S. Manz, Atlas M. Gross, Atlas DISTRIBUTION: Central File LLWM r/f JGreeves PLohaus JAustin NMSS r/f DGillen MBell Mark:Small :B6xe~s 'in: Concurren'ce/B1ock to Dsfine~'Distributibn[Copf Pr'eferenc'ei In~ small Box ~o'n "0FC" lins' enter: C' =~ Cover; E = Cover 1 Eni:losure N= 'No Copy
~
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE Of C LLUR*
LLUR
[
LLUR/
/8 NAM AMULLINS/jj MFLIEGEL JHOL H
i DATE 12/01/93 12///93
[
12// /93 M
/ /93
/ /93 S:\\LLWMfYPl\\JOAN\\MidITRANS.AT2 OfflCIAL RECORD COPY S:\\LLWMTYPE\\J0AN\\ATLMTG.JJH In small Box on "DATE" line enter: M = E-Mail Distribution Copy; H = Hard Copy PDR: YES X
NO Category:
Propcietary or CF Only ACNW: YES NO X
IG: YES N0 X
Delete file after distribution:
Yes X No _
0 7 01. ->
o
.si(o M [f(pi
{
9312130088 931201 PDR WASTE WM-3 PDR I
@~' b
l Richard E. Blubaugh i
Vice President of Environmental and Governmental Affairs Atlas Corporation
\\370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3150 Denver, Colorado 80202 Ded'rMr.B1ubaugh:
Enclosed is a meeting summary for the meeting held on November 8, 1993, between ' Atlas Corporation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in NRC's offices in Rockville, Maryland. This replaces the copy sent you recently which was inadvertantly marked as a draft.
We appologize for any confusion this may hav'e caused.
If you have a._ comments or questions concerning the summary, please contact me at (301) 504-3439 or Allan Mullins of my staff at (301) 504-2578.
Sincerely, Joseph J. Holonich, Chief Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
S.Manz, Atlas M. Gross, Atlas r
DISTRIBUTION: Central File LLWM r/f JGreeves PLohaus JAustin NMSS r/f DGilleni MBell Mark Small Bokes -in' Concurrence Block t'o Osfine Distributic_n' Copy [Preferencei In small Box on "0FC" line enter: C' = Cover; E = Cover &~ Enclosure; N= Nci Copy I
Of C LLUR LLUR LLUR KAME AMULLINS/jj MF L IE GEL JHOLONICN DATE 12/ //93 12/ /93 12/ /93 \\
/ /93
/ /93 S:\\LLWMTYPE\\JOAN\\MTGTRANS.AT2 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 5:\\LLWMTYPE\\J0AN\\ATLMTG.JJH In small Box on "DATE" line enter: M = E-Mail Distribution Copy; H = Hard Copy PDR: YES X
NO Category:
Proprietary or CF Only ACNW: YES NO X
X.
IG: YES NO X
Delete file after dis'tribution:
Yes X No _
. i
t NOVEMBER 8, 1993 MEETING
SUMMARY
ATTENDEES:
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATLAS CORPORATION G. Arlotto J. Greeves S. Mantz J. Holonich R. Hall M. Gross P. Lohaus M. Fliegel R. Blubaugh R. Fonner T. Combs A. Mullins TELEPHONE CONNECTION W. Sinclair, Utah Department of Environmental Quality B. Hedden, Grand County Council, Utah P. Haney, Grand County Council, Utah D. Kimball, U.S. Park Service G. Smiley, U.S. Park Service B. Jackson, U.S. Park Service W. Wilson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency PURPOSE: Atlas Corporation requested the meeting to discuss:
- 1) the reevaluation process of the reclamation plan submitted by Atlas;
- 2) the likely outcome of the reassessment;
- 3) recognition in the surety of reimbursement under Title X to the t
Energy Policy Act of 1992; and
- 4) economic considerations.
DISCUSSION:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulators Commission staff began by stating that the meeting was between NRC and Atlas and discussing the agenda. Telephone participants were asked to allow the interactions to be completed before they offered comments. The NRC staff also stated that the recent allegation that radioactive material was improperly released from the Moab mill site-was currently under investigation by NRC and could not be discussed at the meeting.
In its opening remarks, Atlas discussed the history and background of the mill and its purpose in requesting the meeting.
The recent ownership in the company, acquired by a Canadian group, was described. Atlas further explained -
that the investors believed that a capital infusion and new management should make the company viable.
In addition,- Atlas stated that reliance was placed on the " Finding Of No Significant Impact"(FONSI), noticed in the Federal Reaistee on July 20, 1993, to cap the liability for the Moab uranium mill.
1 Enclosure
1 l
Atlas 'also mentioned that it has remediation liabilities for other locations of about $5.3 million and that, to its knowledge, NRC had never before rescinded a FONSI on a uranium mill.
4 In response to Atlas' first item of discussion, NRC explained that the reevaluation was a phased process with the first phase now underway.
This phase consists of a technical evaluation of the proposed reclamation plan against the Criteria in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 and, upon completion of i
the work, NRC will prepare a Technical Evaluation Report (TER) including a i
criterion-by-criterion evaluation against 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A.
In response to an Atlas question on why the staff was reassessing the reclamation plan that NRC had approved, the staff stated that because of the number and scope of the comments received on the FONSI, and the new issues raised, it believed a more detailed evaluation was needed. The staff further stated that the proposed action considered in the earlier.eview primarily addressed the radon barrier and erosion protection aspects of the reclamation plan, and the r
reassessment will look at all aspects of the reclamation plan.
New informatiun has already been requested from Atlas and additional information will be requested in the near future on fault capability and erosional aspects of the Colorado River with a 30-day turnaround for a response. The draft TER is expected to be completed by the end of January if the information requested is provided by mid-December.
In describing the second phase of the re-evaluation, the staff noted that it will involve either an Environmental Assessment (EA) after which NRC will notice a new FONSI, or commit to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The staff projected that the EA will be completed about a month after the TER if requested information is provided on a timely basis, and that the EA process will take approximately 90 to 120 days to complete.
If the decision is that an EIS is not needed, a FONSI would be noticed in the Federal Reaister along with the availability of the draft TER for comment.
If the decision is to prepare an EIS, the draft TER would be noticed for comment and the scoping process started for the EIS. NRC stressed that the schedule for completing the TER and EA depends on the promptness of Atlas in providing responses to the requests for information.
Atlas asked if the process is the same as was used for the previous FONSI and if it is the only licensee undergoing this process. NRC responded that the process for completing the present review is the same as the one for the i
previous FONSI; however, the scope of the current review is broader because of j
the comments received which raised new issues. NRC also stated that the Atlas Moab mill was the only license undergoing this type of review.
In response to j
a second Atlas question on the time that would be allowed for the public to i'
review, NRC stated that the public comment period for a new FONSI will probably be longer than the 30 days allowed in the July FONSI; a 45-day period was mentioned. Atlas asked if the process could go through another iteration if new critical comments were received, and NRC stated that it is possible but i
that the depth of the current review makes it unlikely. i
Because of its concern with the comments received and the potential for additional comments, Atlas stated that it had large amounts of information in its files which has been made available to NRC and that should be provided to the commenters.
NRC staff explained that during the reassessment, representatives of commenting organizations and individuals would participate and have access to the information.
In addition, the staff noted that the new TER will describe areas not discussed in the previous TER, such as groundwater i
monitoring and the corrective action plan now underway.
This will make a more complete document for better understanding of the proposed project.
Atlas indicated its desire to participate in a public forum to further disseminate the information and inform the public.
NRC responded that this was being considered and discussed with Grand County officials, but that no decision had been reached. NRC staff would certainly participate if such a meeting was organized by local or State officials and Atlas would be invited to participate.
In response to an Atlas question on item 2 on the agenda (the likely outcome of the staff's review), NRC noted that it would be premature to comment at this time on the probable outcome of the reassessment, since the evaluations are in progress and the assessment is not complete.
Atlas asked that NRC consider the economic impact of decisions on other operations of the company, as it employs several hundred people in Nevada.
Under item 3, Atlas asked how NRC planned to factor reimbursement payments under the Title X program into the surety required of licensees. NRC responded that procedures would be developed to do this once the U.S.
Department of Energy (00E), as the responsible Federal Agency, has published l
its regulations implementing the program.
NRC would also have to be certain that sufficient funds had been appropriated to DOE by Congress before reducing licensee sureties.
In response to questions on the EIS process, the NRC staff stated that if an EIS is determined to be necessary, the applicant's proposal would be the prime alternative.
If a hearing is requested, NRC indicated that the schedule could i
be lengthened to several years.
Several questions were raised by those on the telephone connection, such as what is Title X, will there be another public meeting, and would there be an EIS for a new site? NRC responded to the first question by stating that Title X is the portion of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 which provides reimbursement to mill owners for the costs of reclaiming uranium mill tailings which resulted from the sale of uranium to the Federal Government, and that DOE will administer the program.
In response to the second question, Representatives from Grand County, Utah stated that another public meeting is possible, but one has not been scheduled or planned at this time.
, )
.~
t In responding to the third question, NRC stated that a decision on whether an EIS would be required for a new site would be made at such time as detailed information becomes available so that an evaluation could be made of the environmental impacts.
Atlas asked who would be responsible for the costs if there is a finding that there is a need for movement of the tailings to another site and Atlas is not there. NRC responded that it would first collect from the surety, and if that were insufficient, it would attempt to find other responsible parties such as parent companies.
If after this, sufficient funding was still not available, the site could be placed on the Superfund list.
The State of Utah added that there are now 13 sites in Utah on the list and that a new site would have to be evaluated.
The site would then have to fit onto the list on a priority basis, with a probable low listing such that a long time could go by before any action was taken.
i t
s t
i.
I e
1 i
)
_. -