ML20137K540
| ML20137K540 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1997 |
| From: | Joseph Holonich NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Chancellor R WYOMING, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137K545 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 9704070051 | |
| Download: ML20137K540 (4) | |
Text
. .
( ui&
y UNITED STATES. i
- -* j
{
t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C,2066H001 1
March 31, 1997 i
~ Mr. Richird'A.= Chancellor, Administrator I
Land Quality Division 1 Wyoming Department of Environmental. Quality i i . Herschler Building l t
l 125 West 25th Street 1 . Cheyenne,_ Wyoming 82002 j
~
SUBJECT:
CONCERNS RECENTLY EXPRESSED BY MR. MARK M0XLEY OF THE LAND'
. QUALITY DIVISION, WYOMING DEPARTMENT-0F ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 3 i
Dear Mr. Chancellor:
As you.know, on-March 20-21, 1997, I had .the pleasure of attending the !
U.S. Uranium and Nuclear Energy Conference with you in Riverton, Wyoming. i I found the presentations at the conference extremely informative, and !
believe that overall, my attendance at the conference will help me perform my duties at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. However, I !
, an extremely concerned about the presentation made by Mr. Mark Moxley of
- - the Land Quality Division (LQD) of.the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) on the panel dealing with cleanup from uranium mining and milling.
4
)- As part of his panel presentation, Mr. Moxley reported that the WDEQ had experienced problems with the NRC staff review of the State of Wyoming reclamation of the American Nuclear Corporation (ANC) Gas Hills uranium mill site. First, Mr. Moxley stated that the NRC had required that the i WDEQ place rock. protection at the ANC site. He'further noted that these additional "NRC requirements" would use up the available surety money, and that only additional payments received from the U.S. D e ,tment of Energy would allow the WDEQ to complete the reclamation. Second, Mr.
! Moxley was concerned that NRC was requiring WDEQ to destroy acres of grassland to remove what he considered an insignificant amount of windblown tailings.
4 ~ This is not an accurate representation of the situation occurring at the I ANC site, and it was disconcerting that the first time WDEQ had raised
\
( any concern about the NRC staff review was-in an open, public forum. The purpose of this_ letter is to restate the NRC position on the i \
stabilization design of the ANC mill tailings and windblown-tailings .( \
t cleanup. \
. With respect to the stabilization design of the impoundment, in June 1995, the Commission directed the hRC staff not to reevaluate the gh l
)
. previously approved reclamation' plans for eight uranium mills. The ANC site was one of these eight mills. By letter dated July 18, 1995, I informed Mr. William Salisbury, the President of ANC at that time, that i W . .. l 7
ih S, (
'9704070051 970331 PDR WASTE l 3
WM-3 PDR g j tA)m .
= y mi -
RETURN TO REGULATORY s *.e ef.- .%,
CENTRAL MLES 774
]
.R. Chancellor 2 the NRC would not revisit its previous review. The letter was also provided to Mr. Moxley, and a copy is provided in Enclosure 1 for your I information. It is clear from this letter that construction of the previously approved ANC design could proceed. However, on September 8, 1997, you wrote me, and stated that it was the intent of the WDEQ "to achieve a plan that will improve on the 1984 approved plan for the ANC site." Your letter further acknowledges that:
" Based on the Commission's decision, we (WDEQ) could theoretically fall back and simply construct the reclamation in accordance with the old ,
approved plan. We (WDEQ] do not think this approach would be acceptable l to either the NRC and DOE. j My reading of your letter is that the WDEQ planned to make, and 1 subsequently initiated, all changes to the previously approved ANC !
design. A copy is provided in Enclosure 2 for your convenience.
In September 1995, the NRC met with WDEQ, and discussed the situation at the ANC site. Representatives from the NRC included myself, Mr. John Greeves, Director of the Division of Waste Management, Mr. Ken Hooks, the NRC Project Manager for the ANC site, and Mr. Robert Fonner from the NRC's Office of the General Counsel. Representatives from the WDEQ included yourself and Mr. Moxley as well as Mr. Tom Roan from the State of Wyoming Attorney General's Office. At the close of that meeting, Mr.
Greeves recommended that the NRC and WDEQ hold a monthly telephone call to discuss the status of the ANC reclamation work. I pursued this suggestion with both you and Mr. Moxley, and in fact held seven or eight telephone calls with Mr. Moxley to discuss the WDEQ reclamation activities.
During these calls, Mr. Moxley would report on the design and construction work being completed by the WDEQ, including consultation with NRC technical staff on the erosion protection provision of the l design. At no time did Mr. Moxley indicate to me that the WDEQ believed l the NRC staff was requiring any design change, nor did Mr. Moxley indicate that he was concerned with the ongoing staff review.
Eventually, the NRC and WDEQ discontinued the calls in the Summer of 1996 because the information being provided by Mr. Moxley indicatid that there were no problems at the ANC site. Now, nearly a year later, in an open l conference with over 230 people in attendance Mr. Moxley reports that the NRC has imposed new requirements on the WDEQ, and that these new l requirements have caused the WDEQ to use up all of its surety funding.
As has been stated above, the WDEQ chose on its own to initiate changes to the ANC design. In fact, the formal NRC position as documented in my July 18, 1995 letter is that no design changes were needed. If Mr.
Moxley believed that the NRC was imposing unreasonable design provisions on the ANC design revisions that WDEQ was undertaking he should have informed me of this during one of the monthly calls or at anytime subsequent to the discontinuance of those calls. However, just the opposite perspective was being given by Mr. Moxley. Routinely he presented a picture that the design and construction work was going well
.. , ,R. Chancellor 3 at the ANC site. His reports on the monthly NRC/WDEQ calls gave the impression of a project undergoing routine work with little, if any, significant problems. In addition, discussions I had with my staff indicated that WDEQ and its contractors routinely asked about undertaking improvements in the ANC design, and solicited NRC staff recommendations for designs that would meet the current NRC guidance.
The concern raised by Mr. Moxley on windblown tailings clean up also needs clarification. Enclosure 3 is a copy of an April 18, 1997, letter from me to Mr. Moxley. In that letter, I inform Mr. Moxley that the NRC would certainly consider the WDEQ proposed approach of discing and tilling certain areas of windblown tailings as an acceptable alternative for meeting NRC requirements. Ultimately, the application of this methodology could not be successfully used at the ANC site. However, the acceptance of this alternate approach by NRC demonstrates cur commitment to working with WDEQ, and all uranium recovery licensees, to identify the most cost-effective methods of reclamation. As I stated during my presentations at the conference last week, the NRC will review any method individual licensees believe are appropriate for achieving compliance with our regulations.
It is important to note that this is now the second time that Mr. Moxley ;
has painted a less than positive picture of the NRC in an open, public i forum. At the National Mining Association /NRC jointly sponsored workshop in March 1995, Mr. Moxley made a presentation on uranium recovery activities in the State of Wyoming. This jointly sponsored conference is attended by nearly all of NRC's licensees as well as state I representatives, industry groups, and members of the public. In his presentation during that workshop, Mr. Moxley reported that the WDEQ had problems with communicating with the NRC following the closure of the Uranium Recovery Field Office in Denver, Colorado. As with the recent situation in Riverton, this public presentation was the first time either I or Mr. Greeves had heard of this problem from the WDEQ.
The NRC and WDEQ both face challenges with the recent uranium price increase and its associated upswing in industry activities. In order for our agencies to successfully face these challenges, we must work together to help ensure a fair and objective regulatory program. It is unfortunate when representatives from either agency damage the integrity of the other in a public forum. I am sure you can appreciate why Mr.
Moxley's actions give me concern. However, other than these two, isolated instances, I believe the WDEQ and NRC staffs are working well together, and both are looking for ways to help coordinate our activities such that, where appropriate, both agencies support one another. An example of this commitment on the NRC's part is the fact that I along with three members of the NRC groundwater review staff, and representatives from the NRC contractor supporting uranium recovery activities arrived in Wyoming on Monday, March 17, 1997, three days before the Riverton conference. This early arrival was to allow the NRC and its contractor to meet with representatives of WDEQ to discuss issues of mutual concern. The information exchanged among the parties will certainly help the NRC in implementing its regulatory program, and I hope
'R. Chancellor 4 l l
the same is true for the WDEQ. One of the positive outcomes of the meeting was an agreement that NRC and WDEQ would reinitiate the routine telephone calls. It was agreed that these calls will be held on a i bimonthly basis, and will discuss the status of all uranium recovery I activities in the State of Wyoming. The NRC is currently holding such call on a quarterly basis with the State of Utah, Division of Radiation Control (DRC), and they are very successful in ensuring close coordination between DRC and NRC. i In closing, I would like to encourage you or any WDEQ staff member to contact the NRC to discuss significant issues of concern to the WDEQ. )
For your information, Enc 1dsure 4 is a list of the NRC Project Managers assigned to the uranium recovery program. One important aspect of these individuals job is to work with outside organizations such as the WDEQ to ensure appropriate coordination of ongoing NRC reviews. If you have any l questions, please feel free to call me at (301) 415-7238. I assure you :
that I and the staff working in the NRC's uranium recovery program want to maintain an open and productive working relationship with the WDEQ. l Sincerely, I
(Original signed by) I l
Joseph J. Holonich, Chief Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety l and Safeguards i
Enclosures:
As stated cc: Senator Robert Peck, State of Wyoming Senate Representative Bruce Hinchey, State of Wyoming Legislature Dennis Hemmer, Director, WDEQ Mark Moxley, WDEQ
{
DISTRIBUTION: FILE CENTER PUBLIC MBell JAustin i JHickey NMSS r/f URB r/f CNWRA !
ACNW CCain RIV DOCUMENT NAME: S:\DWM\ URB \JJH\M0XLEY l
0FC URQ \h h ,
NAME JHokich DATE h/M/97 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
~