ML20205E779
| ML20205E779 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/25/1999 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | J. J. Barton, Domenici P, Inhofe J, Packard R HOUSE OF REP., HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS, SENATE, APPROPRIATIONS, SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9904060027 | |
| Download: ML20205E779 (10) | |
Text
-
i-Mib
- UNITED STATES "4
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.[
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20665 0001
$y # -
5 r
Q f
March 25, 1999 CHAmMAN The Honorable Pete Domenici, Chairman i
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations.
United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Mr. Chairman-
)
The " Final Senate FY99 Appropriations Report" (hereafter, Senate Report) for the U.S. Nuclear
)
Regulatory Commission (NRC), dated June 8,1998, directed the NRC to provide information to j
your Committee regarding the Agency's imposition of economic feasibility requirements on some uranium recovery license applicants. The Senate Report included language stating that, "The Committee is aware that the NRC imposes an economic feasibility requirement on some
)
applicants to the Commission. Within 180 days of enactment of this act, the NRC should 1
provide to the Appropriations and relevant authorizing committees of the House and Senate a
)
summary of the cases in which NRC considered the economic feasibility of applicants' i
proposals, the langth of time required by the NRC to dispose of those cases, and the final disposition of each of those cases." This letter responds to the directive in the Senate Report and provides the requested information.
First of all, we recognize that the NRC regulatory requirements must focus on public health and safety and not market economics considerations. As such, the NRC does not impose
" economic feasibility requirements" on its licensees. In the situation where a licensee applies to the NRC for approval to process alternate feed material through a uranium recovery mill, existing NRC guidance provides that the licensee must demonstrate that it is processing the alternate feedstock material primarily for its uranium content. Requiring the demonstration is
/f l
consistent with the definition of byproduct materialin section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act
/f of 1954, as amended. The NRC's current alternate feed guidance indicates that one of several methods a licensee may use to provide certification to this effect is to demonstrate that financial considerations justify processing the material to extract the uranium. Currently pending in the kl NRC adjudicatory process are two proceedings raising questions about the proper
' interpretation and application of the criteria contained in the NRC's guidance on alternate feed material.
To date, staff has reviewed and approved a total of seven applications to process alternate feed material; All of these applications were from a single milllicensee, International Uranium
)
Corporation (IUC), for processing at its White Mesa Mill, in Blanding, Utah. The enclosed table provides'ir. formation, requested by the Committee in the Senate Report, concerning those seven applications, including a description of the requests, the length of time required by NRC
^
to dispose of the requests, and the final disposition of each of them. For all seven applications, the financial consideration of the proposed action was used by the licensee to justify that the
_qp C
RE
e.
2-material was being processed primarily to extract its uranium content. Other means could have been used by the licensee to demonstrate that the processing was primarily for the extraction of uranium. However, the licensee, and not NRC, relied on financial considerations as the basis, in addition, in April 1998, the National Mining Association (NMA) submitted a report to the Commission that identified specific concerns with NRC's current position and guidance on the ability of licensees to process alternate feed material at uranium mills, concurrent jurisdiction at uranium mills and other policy issues. The Commission held a public briefing with NMA in June 1998 to discuss these important issues. This was followed by several public workshops conducted by the NRC staff in western states in August 1998 on the NMA report and associated issues. The staff is in the process of evaluating NMA's concerns and will submit recommendations to the Commission for its consideration in the near future. The next public i
briefing to the Commission by NMA is scheduled for April 15,1999.
I trust this letter responds to your concerns.
Sincerely,
^
Enclosure:
As stated i
cc: Senator Harry Reid l
l l
1 i
f
'w o
o ls C e "e r
e eA 4
9 f
1_
1 6
1 5
3 8
1 c
Rivm 5
seR 4
2 6
n Nei 1
1 1
2 sl ts a
RT e na u
u en s
qico s
el it i
rad i
e e
f i fd f
c n
g a;a tl l i
io d
d d
d d
d d
a n
sAi e
e e
e e
e e
r r
t v
v v
v v
v v
e CRo S
is o
o o
o o
o o
v e
o r
r r
r r
r r
a Re8 p
p p
p p
p p
p Nn0 r
s O
s p
p p
p p
p p
e e o1 i
A A
A A
A A
A y2 t
lpl m
D a
it t
n oR iu S
lu F
n d
meuC e
a r
it e s0 n
dis U
g U
lci 1
f n 9
8 8
7 7
6 5
ul o
a oi n 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
m l
l t
t t
in wt.
r so
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
3 2
3 5
2 0
8 e
n e ni 0
0 2
1 0
2 2
u f
a e t
/
/
/
/
/
/
s yfa u e t
aec t
a Dica 2
1 6
8 m
1 9
e at 0
1 0
0 O
1 0
w msslp N
L r
eCu mR pm n
e o
h a
i Ndc t
h T
e f
,i e T
o enr g
)
e o m
n
.r r
n e
o h
y ly u
atdm s
o l
h ig r
rdl es ig imebb t
t u e
ee t
t t
mra f
l 0
a e e
f t
ls b
a n ia 1
O ue c
r da eac mo iv m
t u
bhdli iei c
o e
e l
n ir r e 7
xp a
utluw l
emp t r a
o s aa a
ea m
dmv aius oj t
o e
sn o r
r o
i hu%,
f r
r n t
I.he r
r r
+
a e
eih nf o
po l
e t
s e
mi.
ci a si aa o gP miw pit P
st t ss t u t
t c4 t
t s n a
rs nn u,
(a o
ns so ac M
n os0 u n.
im s. %
o%io Ct m
' i nEw mu n oa t
i n.
lat da%
ee ep N s.
r o
e o r
d cuus F r
t s
i f
o smt rU5 ae5 au at ix a
i r
qqe E
- 3. t nhi t
f a
t u r e r
l ee op p 6 r
t s
p c
it s
r o
lar rI tni0 e0t ia n n ol e
lo y
udu bs3 ga a po sA m
e ir t h i
v n
oi0 s
at c
c dds siy ctc2 s d e )m e
t h 'e R o
t r
r r
o oie daf a e c n e ma C
leMu g
i o
s on n nc r
it ul l f
r e
pait i
u ed l
ct n
o wiob Be%
id g
nniu e
e i
ri f
P D
o bdr af m e n ct co mt 0 ar ne h
o ssn li a
d a
h yea r a a
t t
o ir o na M la t
t e
r 1
u et el st n i or bl a a m
i f n n v ni el t
ae u o en r o e f
e o
asica a
r t
x t
r oe io d
v f
s e
l e
t s
f f
g m m ba t
t sbc ot o uen oCid sda Del t
r sei e
.tc n r
dr o f
u u m m nhm M r
(
e er r ap s
a dhn istc psa a d
u se inis o
e otb r co.
acp e
M at c
ysr eia e em bet m isea r
iu dsv as r
u yi c t f
c npr u e
)
r t
h yb ou cau r
q pmi ses it j
a n
u o
h s
f g
ioue ef n or i f
ut a) r a l
ec n o
rm d
ieh e cf n
oo ya ro e
t rt Pa o
c ee W r l t f
b i
eito s
s pl r o op u u r
R 5 ugnw pl aehs f
nn n
an in p
r e9 c n ay sua oa um o nca o pd s/e nd a
s Csewn e
fo t
t t e u ioit sye e9 0sUb nf r ir e
h t
l n
oim sr e
Rnr t
or n 0 a gi 0t m (s t
nl c
6 l
0had 0 col o ai t x u nu r
0s t a s1 e eil f
0, c s. %
a oi e
ana int 5r n o
o Ncdl o
e 0e c nr a nr t
en 0, t ot 0 gn 7da t%
i ee 0oe0 0cn 0, a isa r
e a
it ip 0uo 5
va 6xc 0io 4yr 20 l
laldni cb 0r r r
h Lm 2 po 0 2nc 2Mav eem 4oC 2hu 25 u
i a ci r
r n non s
i 1
f t
e a
I foeye e
ft n
ah n
smt w
op e
n e e t
e m
l l
i all ail all i
t l
an a
o s S a
ail all al al w
sm sm sm sm sm sm sm n
i i
l i
i s
DeCh d iin N
c t
iR e
e e
e e
e e
e e
o
(
e y
sl Nr m
v e i
Mm Mm Mm Mm Mm Mm Mm it t
a ae u
u e c l
t iu eiu eiu eiu ei eiu ei r
u u
dth e,s s
e t
t t
t t
t t
Rn i
in in in in i n in in n
e t n s
c mle e a f a a
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha e
t fd F
Wu Wu Wu Wu Wu Wu Wu c
la o pl C
r r
r r
r r
r r
l ai n
uf miw IU t u o
c)o S
c la :s c h G
Re m
m cat c 7,
C oa 9
d r
sRno u
a 9
i u) e in r
s(sp 1
Ne e
iC lc n
a. a oI 0,
y nip F
e aU u) u%
d r
f iAa s
rI o e NN t
1 st e
lU (n n
,3 aRis n
n y
o C
C sF N
N o0 im h
a a
t E
e c
ai or I
U C
le(
F F
s er l n iL U
iy oh T M t r nt a
a I
U u.
E E
mf rl t
se it C
o I
Fc ae inod e
elt n
pt t
ie v
a i t RA R
ap yi mr g
m m wlaef itc N
o r
oi e nsi t e
eC e
cx ivons f
t n
o eiou f
n r
t r
ipj E
I E
op Rdse Fp der
- a " ar a "
p[
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
\\,,,g/
March 25, 1999 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Ron Packard, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
{
The " Final Senate FY99 Appropriations Report" (hereafter, Senate Report) for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), dated June 8,1998, directed the NRC to provide information to your Committee regarding the Agency's imposition of economic feasibility requirements on
)
some uranium recovery license applicants. The Senate Report included language stating that, j
"The Committee is aware that the NRC imposes an economic feasibility requirement on some 1
applicants to the Commission. Within 180 days of enactment of this act, the NRC should provide to the Appropriations and relevant authorizing committees of the House and Senate a summary of the cases in which NRC considered the economic feasibility of applicants' proposals, the length of time required by the NRC to dispose of those cases, and the final disposition of each of those cases." This letter responds to the directive in the Senate Report and provides the requested information.
First of all, we recognize that the NRC regulatory requirements must focus on public health and safety and not market economics considerations. As such, the NRC does not impose
' economic feasibility requirements" on its licensees. In the situation where a licensee applies to the NRC for approval to process alternate feed material through a uranium recovery mill, existing NRC guidance provides that the licensee must demonstrate that it is processing the alternate feedstock material primarily for its uranium content. Requiring the demonstration is consistent with the definition of byproduct materialin section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The NRC's current alternate feed guidance indicates that one of several methods a licensee may use to provide certification to this effect is to demonstrate that financial considerations justify processing the material to extract the uranium. Currently pending in the NRC adjudicatory process are two proceedings raising questions about the proper interpretation and application of the criteria contained in the NRC's guidance on alternate feed material.
To date, staff has reviewed and approved a total of seven applications to process alternate feed material. All of these applications were from a single mill licensee, International Uranium Corporation (IUC), for processing at its White Mesa Mill, in Blanding, Utah. The enclosed table provides information, requested by the Committee in the Senate Report, concerning those seven applications, including a description of the requests, the length of time required by NRC to dispose of the requests, and the final disposition of each of them. For all seven applications, the financial consideration of the proposed action was used by the licensee to justify that the
. material was being processed primarily to extract its uranium content. Other means could have been used by the licensee to demonstrate that the processing was primarily for the extraction of uranium. However, the licensee, and not NRC, relied on financial considerations as the basis.
In addition, in April 1998, the National Mining Association (NMA) subinitted a report to the Commission that identified specific concerns with NRC's current position and guidance on the ability of licensees to process alternate feed material at uranium mills, concurrent jurisdiction at
{
uranium mills and other policy issues. The Commission held a public briefing with NMA in June i
1998 to discuss these important issues. This was followed by several public workshops conducted by the NRC staff in western states in August 1998 on the NMA report and
{
associated issues. The %an is in *be process of evaluating NMA's concerns and will submit
)
recommendations to tr.e Commission iu:!ts consideration in the near future. The next public briefing to the Commission by NMA is scheduled for April 15,1999.
I trust this letter responds to your concerns.
Sincerely, b
Enclosure:
As stated 1
cc: Representative Peter J. Visclosky
{
i 4
{
l
g UNITED STATES p*
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20$55-0001
(*****/
March 25, 1999 CHAmMAN The Honorable James M. Inhofe, Chairman Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The " Final Senate FY99 Appropriations Report" (hereafter, Senate Report) for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), dated June 8,1998, directed the NRC to provide information to your Committee regarding the Agency's imposition of economic feasibility requirements on i
soma uranium recovery license applicants. The Senate Report included language stating that, "The Committee is aware that the NRC imposes an economic feasibility requirement on some l
applicants to the Commission. Within 180 days of enactment of this act, the NRC should provide to the Appropriations and relevant authorizing committees of the House and Senate a summary of the cases in which NRC considered the economic feasibility of applicants' proposals, the length of time required by the NRC to dispose of those cases, and the final disposition of each of those cases." This letter responds to the directive in the Senate Report I
and provides the requested information.
First of all, we recognize that the NRC regulatory requirements must focus on public health and safety and not market economics considerations. As such, the NRC does not impose
" economic feasibility requirements" on its licensees. In the situation where a licensee applies to the NRC for approval to process alternate feed material through a uranium recovery mill, existing NRC guidance provides that the licensee must demonstrate that it is processing the alternate feedstock material primarily for its uranium content. Requiring the demonstration is consistent with the definition of byproduct materialin section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The NRC's current alternate feed guidance indicates that one of several methods a licensee may use to provide certification to this effect is to demonstrate that financial considerations justify processing the material to extract the uranium. Currently pending in the i
NRC adjudicatory process are two proceedings raising questions about the proper interpretation and application of the criteria contained in the NRC's guidance on alternate feed material.
q To date, staff has reviewed and appeved a total of sevvi upplications to process alternate feed material. All of these applications w:a from a single milllicensee, International Uranium Corporation (IUC), for processing at its White Mesa Mill, in Blanding, Utah. The enclosed table i
provides information, requested by the Committee in the Senate Report, concerning those seven applications, including a description of the requests, the length of time required by NRC to dispose of the requests, and the final disposition of each of them. For all seven applications, the financial consideration of the proposed action was used by the licensee to justify that the
p
\\
l material was being processed primarily to extract its uranium content. Other means could have -
i
- been used by the licen.see to demonstrate that the processing was primarily for the extraction of uranium. However, the licensee, and not NRC, relied on financial considerations as the basis, in addition, in April 1998, the National Mining Association (NMA) submitted a report to the I
Commission that identified specific concerns with NRC's current position and guidance on the ability of licensees to process alternate feed material at uranium mills, concurrent jurisdiction at uranium mills and other policy issues. The Commission held a public briefing with NMA in June 1998 to discuss these important issues. This was followed by several public workshops conducted by the NRC staff in western states in August 1998 on the NMA report and associated issues. The staff is in the process of evaluating NMA's concerns and will submit
)
recommendations to the Commission for its consideration in the near future. The next public briefing to the Commission by NMA is scheduled for April 15,1999, I trust this letter responds to your concerns.
Sincerely, b
Enclosure:
As stated cc: Senator Bob Graham
e
[
%g UNITED STATES e-4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
o WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 4001 5
March 25, 1999 CHAmMAN The Honorable Joe Barton, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
{
The " Final Senate FY99 Appropriations Report" (hereafter, Senate Report) for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), dated June 8,1998, directed the NRC to provide information to j
your Committee regarding the Agency's imposition of economic feasibility requirements on some uranium recovery license applicants. The Senate Report included language stating that,
)
"The Committee is aware that the NRC imposes an economic feasibility requirement on some j
applicants to the Commission. Within 180 days of enactment of this act, the NRC should provide to the Appropriations and relevant authorizing committees of the House and Senate a summary of the cases in which NRC considered the economic feasibility of applicants' proposals, the length of time required by the NRC to dispose of those cases, and the final disposition of each of those cases." This letter responds to the directive in the Senate Report and provides the requested information.
First of all, we recognize that the NRC regulatory requirements must focus on public health and safety and not market economics considerations. As such, the NRC does not impose
" economic feasibility requirements" on its licensees. In the situation where a licensee applies to the NRC for approval to process alternate feed material through a uranium recovery mill, existing NRC guidance provides that the licensee must demonstrate that it is processing the alternate feedstock material primarily for its uranium content. Requiring the demonstration is consistent with the definition of byproduct materialin section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The NRC's current alternate feed guidance indicates that one of several methods a licensee may use to provide certification to this effect is to demonstrate that financial considerations justify processing the material to extract the uranium. Currently pending in the NRC adjudicatory process are two proceedings raising questions about the proper interpretation and application of the criteria contained in the NRC's guidance on alternate feed material.
To date, staff has reviewed and cpproved a total of seven applications to process alternate feed material. All of these applications were from a single milllicensee, International Uranium Corporation (IUC), for processing at its White Mesa Mill, in Blanding, Utah. The enclosed table provides information, requested by the Committee in the Senate Report, concerning those seven applications, including a description of the requests, the length of time required by NRC to dispose of the requests, and the final disposition of each of them. For all seven applications, the financial consideration of the proposed action was used by the licensee to justify that the
p p,
2 material was being processed primarily to extract its uranium content. Other means could have been used by the licensee to demonstrate tnat the processing was primarily for the extraction of uranium. However, the licensee, and not NRC, relied on financial considerations as the basis In addition, in April 1998, the National Mining Association (NMA) submitted a report to the Commission that identified specific concerns with NRC's current position and guidance on the ability of licensees to process alternate feed material at uranium mills, concurrent jurisdiction at uranium mills and other policy issues. The Commission held a public briefing with NMA in June 1998 to discuss these important issues. This was followed by several public workshops conducted by the NRC staff in western states in August 1998 on the NMA report and associated issues. The staff is in the process of evaluating NMA's concerns and will submit recommendations to the Commission for its consideration in the near future. The next public briefing to the Commission by NMA is scheduled for April 15,1999.
I trust this letter responds to your concems.
Sincerely, b
Enclosure:
As stated cc: Representative Ralph M. Hall i