ML20239A193
| ML20239A193 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/27/1998 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-WM-5 NUDOCS 9809080307 | |
| Download: ML20239A193 (68) | |
Text
@_V;yp 8;j.l_f g
Ni-df N
)gy ih f R y R j=
ggl A
gquQamy % m.jm, .
ejy$g$$$$f 73 9' ,
hhh w p s
Y ww:x.;g.s w(p 3;p t . .." ;. ,$ g 7 ;,; p
- e.
g g.,
I j
th:,bll:]: .h?$
ema.g:n{hikjf}if g i
gq p .l;ln l
gm
\-
- [v u
w-<
Ag t am ew <
g r q _ . - - .
%m:3Aww$p;4mp$p j@%p gw p i ,
1 e [t ld j
]j$f (Nel89 MMRa%g4 amA ag~ -
i .
W x
-m En El e n.B:J:
w e$w. ghg4 t a -#gm g w, h,
)
om e.
N937 $,g h ,
s@echeg&gAz y . g"1 pW"50'" yg g 7hyqqp
" i Jwa= a
[ m%,rsf7i%l gg g 4,. a g . 1 g q . . _
7 h g
,hkhgppe.Mgc.n
- w. we.1: ;;g 1
i me
. ,~
N, hQ +h m
._.m "
!g
=
f %,,4b
=
s -
+ o 0
_lh h
-1 c' m i .
I j: ;fg 'j .1 .. .
l u.
? 3::'.Ej :. .n,".,4j.if; w, w[!pq. .v, . m[. !M ,M_ $
b6 mc }
e :.u uw.
a, 7
-_a r \,-.-
s
(( i .; i ;
fyd$
~
$.[$ fj;) $ j I
[
I gg qT825=%gssp y 1,1k U::.i'hlh.hy[$
Mi py. $'ly b4@f [l w %w m.c Elf?$ y m?
i w, #-%.
f, k al m_ e D . , :-. Y N'w e mm V<
- m m.
dMW ' =
4 mp h % fk M gl qfB , hy7w y
_ a ,- , o ,
- if
(
l l hs; l#U.N
, : ,a n.,dk%
l' P. h. I V5 y ; .I *'}.
'; @~ ; 4 wg %
+u
- S; ,,
sp ,&i-$ 'l r ;~gl%g en i ( 4 ~m
,p
@h:yiff l ;
- ff t psi
- a !
hh h 3
6 ' 'yk h fps g3 u a pg%qpyk@
W@H A< r%sd%f ?&y% a hxd s
4 3
g a
$J6,$rt .s,pr$r$m$Q&yedb rc_ _ - y geo,oeoao7 9eoa27 9 ;
5 $$I 5555Y $
_' ~ C,J:- >
s c w. { up d,ti. ' s-w- = -- - -- - -- -- - - - - - - - -
cy. AM M, # 3.. (g l [ , ,
7 dc.: '>p --
@-.5)7"t.;o f t
s<
- f, m ,g+ w ,f
" g M e -Q c. - ,
+.i .. s4;i _
it v', _y. .,7 ~ ~ .,?.
p' oc ' g-d %- J ' -< -; 7 //. -, .. -
1
~ . . . . . . ,
b j.,p. g .( p ,, 1 e
,2- ' . .
I i 4 uelulip
> ? Y (l' E' n.N N yD ( .[.k h. .;;P - -
,% . f[
~
9 sn.%m
&. , w u m <- 'f Q tOFFICIAL4 TRANSCRIPT OFLPROC p' .~f ?
!?
>- $.? f, '
g
&l.$l:}:, 4
_I
's ( n
- \U' r ! ,s
+ Q. ,fJm W :q.cg p3 n
%:f
.g
.,i.*,,
y;;_ , f g I I 1 f ' ai 9
- l' _ j') a ,Y'y c , J 'l. 4 .!~ f . ' I. .'O' h;i :
s W,./ g::p rW7W m # y' o: KUNITED; STATES;OFiAMERICA:
- s. 2c m.,.
x ,,v.m. gA- - v; , ,4,1+&... ", ,;
,(
# +#> ,
3..,.,~.
,m,t _vt ; \ y ,
4 m .- , 7 ,, c: ; ._,, '
.j .. , , . ., : - . - - . ~
,1 M M4mC+L+ * ?NU.+uCLEAR)REGULATORYLCO,MMISSION: i g m:
L
%. f :,4.
4n. Mf.hp..? a
- e: i s. Q~Q p Q e p, & .
w ~~ r n a W '
- o. % .m ~~,v 4 g.
i fjl &?%& 4 r. t, 3 %3
+ i i > '
' M9 y. ..a- .r
?
.g' .. 1. . '
...+,
1,._.yf: i w), W, I l% ; ,, g 1 '
}
; 4 ,0 t tN 47 o Nj ~gg:~yy.
- . s. + - 1 m _- m - - . o p't s n ,' 1PUBLIC! MEET. ING:s DR^FT4 X..
nTitler ' y .rY- , . ' , M^
~ ~ , ,~...,[
g3cv . 43 4 *&g
-le ' w.
f 4 ^ v
- +. .),~< ,*>
; i 4 .> . . . < - _ , ,. , , .,
~ ; . .g
.M l,' & m^ : h. c. ,p p- ..o, i-s,p , " w s
_ lRULEhfAKING FOR 10:CFR1PART.41f n 1 3 -
, _ :., i 7 0' N N *, s,,. st 4'*' 6 s,. ,((a.bOl!
l ' b a e cp . - ,
; E
'J:<
~. . .
;.jW l JV D' m.s ^ 5. . ,ocket Nog, y
~. ,w- v;y ? wmw: w.g _.,r s
.m , .
.y
;A 4- - - se , -
r . i
.{.4 ' x i j d. 3 s a , , , ,
t 1 . , > , o 's , L)w. :.s b .w,9(c g. y..,4 %. r ( 4^ * ' ' ,, , %, y' ;* ,, Mw %}":[e% g . ,
;w . :t
/F. J. g+: ~.. ,', -
. , e l r>-
1
'I, t.w'!U
, ~(G 't.
.. ,Qc in ,
^
< .p, .1v f .a e L 2, , a; -
- d:e * ^'c , .,
;':w mm.
q i me . . ..
- m. . o. - .
i y W '.c P. %yh W l. @y 3'.Voik1 Order ho.WASB-300-420) ' ' y N;d
,% w - -
s'~ _ m ~ ~ < u m _-
~
c
?r -
g' " , a$- r uom&Qh fg @'i F"e i,- Mi--KM %' if; NT p :.3 ' '
, ym.
..l{i '
d ' *, s C ' * - , sQ u; 3 3 Md u m W> , o,
,s
.- 4 3
, m$ o
./C" 9 " ofi 3 s - d; c ,- ,
nf * ' i-6 c 1 J, W o e, mn i kJ,fQ';) p',+ f yf 4 4
^
,s *f.,
~
f,e lY >
, ,. , y
..V '
$ gll Q*
.'. M ' so:wpam , we, , , o '
' ?8 ' . u ' ' '
W , y,m,e 3 e .t < e L r, .~; m q-
, i;:...
- y. ;,. y
, Y&
u , %n.m ,w> nm p+n-
+ ,.
- . 3.
w m , ,. ,9 , a. hjg mpt.p3p/ p g r , , , , o
* , ,i "t
1, ^u av or - da 1 e z' '. 4 QU a
+
4
, 1 .
y.
;" -a.
' 1,
- ggw
_, w n nE%,g g(. gmq \_ c , w
<g
, s cmy:; JyJ r-
, y u
+
s :; ' y y' v:0 ,;:gm d.x: w m e 1 ce s - , ,r 3g Ly y ,x < '-
^
L t -g , y
. , - a, y
m'icM GMT d;l: . '.i [R,.t d/ 2 , I :- I :y' % '#h-i 3
;6 ,
; sf_y uc 7-t 2
w ; 1
. O'~
4, , i 4 ( i l2
- s
.? ,s s :.. < ,-.
x - g Q Hj , A1 ,P : i " > 1s ' 1
)3-s 4
;(
agn m~g ' , , , ,
; a: , .
MM + n h.,.
' ~,
4
.g LOCATION: - Denver, Coloradol
- ,% , - ums m .
7f/f Ml.. u ,. an v
. ~ ,
,p W 4 f;j;_4 f!W.l f: 1
'*'(
.v. i
: k 1
.,_, }
lMC+, . _ DATE: M ; Thursday, August 27,1998 - PAGES: 1 - 66 i..N . p / y. }M, w , , c 2
'r,. ,
e [h } , ("
+,.#i '
41 n ,w ' qq s c u -
,_)
f O _.' Y k}, j - ;. w',. a, w. ner n m m g,> e . g ir a4 3, , s w .c,;' e,, , , is .n ! Y K.i ( -j , p Q('I * ?." p 1 r .. l} l
.%m !:W
, Al y , vp u- -
Ml ' n! CA , . p; M y.a ? . su Q ;): ' d, '-TJQ*J4 - , ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Op%W 4, 1250 I Street, NW, Suite 300 8 Washington,D.C. 20005 W, h :, ' d@i.J i , ,> w x N, w,, uUy
, . M *,,
(202) 842-0034 I
;n ' ' !
s t 3
.~
c. l d[ ;;f. ns 9809080307 980827 g7'y'
- n. "i.Q(}n .s,' +
s sJ p9p WASTE O "
.s ,e, 1,- -s WM-S PM i I f y- ,
, '; 4' : ys s ,
Q h i j@ LNy Y v, y<;'*3 p
- i.
1~ 1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA () 2 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 PUBLIC MEETING ON EVALUATION OF 5 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR
- j. 6 URANIUM AND THORIUM EXTRACTION FACILITIES 7-8 THURSDAY, 9 AUGUST 27, 1998 10 11 DENVER, COLORADO 12 13 The public meeting was held at 1961 Stout Street, 14 Conference Room 1083, Denver, Colorado, at 9:00 a.m., Joseph
()
.n 15 J.'Holonich, Chief, Uranium Recovery Branch, presiding.
16 17 ALSO PRESENT: 18 MYRON FLIEGEL, Project Manager 19 Uranium Recovery Branch 20 PATRICK MACKIN, Assistant Director, 21 Southwest Research Institute 22- MARIA E. SCHWARTZ, ESQ. 23 Office of General Counsel
'2 4 -
25 I L l f)
\-
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 l u___________-_-____ - - - _ _ _ _ - _-- - - - - - - - -- -
+
2 1 INDEX 2 SPEAKER
./ PAGE 3 Opening Comments 3 4 Joseph Holonich 5 Background Presentation 5 6 Joseph Holonich 1 7 PUBLIC COMMENTERS:
8 Katie Sweeney 14 ' 9 National Mining Association 10 Oscar Paulson 31 11 Kennecott Uranium Company l 12 Kenneth Alkema 32
.13 Envirocare 14 Bill Sinclair 38 .,m -( ,) 15 Utah Department of Environmental Quality 16 Division of Radiation Control 17 David Frydenlund 41 18 International Uranium (USA) Corporation 19 Sylvia Barrett 56 l 20 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
- 21. Rick Chancellor 60 i
22 -Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality l l 23 Leonard C. Slosky 62 24 Rocky Mountain Low-Level Radioactive j
-25 Waste Compact Board i
IY ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\2 Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
3
.1 PUBLIC COMMENTERS:(cont.)
2 ; John Patterson 64 3. 4 5 6 7
~8' 9
10 11 12 13 14 (D. U 15 16 17. 18-19 20 l
.21 22.
1 !. .23 24 l 25 { l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court' Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
4 1 PROCEEDINGS 2. ([ (9:00 a.m.) 3 MR. HOLONICH: Good morning. Why don't we go 4 ahead and get started this morning. 5 For those of you who don't know me, I'm Joe 6 Holonich, and I'm chief of NRC's Uranium Recovery Branch. 7 We're here this morning as part of our effort to start to 8 get early input on a review of our regulatory framework for 9 uranium and thorium recovery facilities. 10' I'd like to take a moment to introduce folks who 11 here with me today. On my right, I have Mike Fliegel, who's 12 our project manager for this effort. On my left, I have Pat
'13 Mackin, who's with our Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory 14 Analyses, who's providing us technical support, and Maria
/~
J 15 Schwartz from our office of General Counsel, who's providing 16 us legal support. Behind us here is Anne Garcia, who's our 17 administrative assistant. 18 This is the fourth of four meetings the NRC 19 scheduled this week, to try to get out and get early public 20 involvement in the process. Essentially what we've been 21 doing is giving a short background of about ten minutes on 22 our regulatory philosophy and our approach and how that gets 23 applied and then what we're looking for from these meetings, 24 and then going over and turning it over to the speakers to 25 come forward and make presentations and give us feedback on t i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suita 1014 2 84 I b34 l. l-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ 5 1 some of the things we're going to consider.
; 2- One of the issues, concerns, suggestions that has 3 been identified in the process as we've been through the 4 other three public meetings is that there's not a tangible 5 product out there that people can grasp and comment on.
6 There's not on a draft rule; there's not a draft set of 7 guidance or anything. And we recognize that. 8 In fact, as I get into the presentation and 9 discussion, you'll see that we're not sure what we're going 10 to do at this point. But what we were trying to do is get 11 early input before we sat and wrote anything down. 12 One of the concerns people often raise is you sit 13 and you write something down, and then you're locked into it 14 and get us involved early, and so that's really the intent () es , j 15 of the meeting. If people don't have anything out there and ) i 16 this seems pretty unfocused at this point, the reason is 17 - we're trying to get early input, trying to get early 18 comment. 19 So what I'd like to do is start this morning by 20 going through our short presentation. We have a list of 21- . eight speakers who have signed up -- I'm sorry -- seven 22 speakers who've signed up to give comments. That doesn't i 23 mean that anybody else who'd like to give comments at the j i 24 end of the speaker sign-up is completed, if they want to, l 25 they can. j.
\
s_/
") ! ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters [ 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l 1
6 1 At one point, we considered a time limit on () 2 speakers, just because we weren't sure how many folks we 3 would have and how long the meetings would take. What we're 4 finding is the meetings are taking somewhere about an hour 5 and a half. We've usually been done about 10:30, 11 6 o' clock, so we're not going to put a time limit on speakers. 7 With only seven speakers,~ people can feel free to lay their 8 story out in front of us and let us know what they need to 9 consider, especially those of you who enjoy public speaking. 10 So what I'd like to do is first go through a 11- little bit of background for folks, so they can understand 12 the NRC process. Obviously those of you in the regulated 13 community live this every day, but there are stakeholder 14 here who don't always interact with the NRC, so we wanted to () 15 give them some background on how we operate as a regulatory 16 agency and what we do. 17 Essentially a little bit of background on the NRC, ! 18 what we are is an independent regulatory agency, and we were 19 created through the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. That 20 Act took the old Atomic Energy Commission and broke it into 21 two agencies, the NRC and then eventually the Department of 22 Energy who first was ERDA, Energy Resource and Development 23 Administration. I 24 'Right now we've got a staff of about 2,500 people 25 that work in Washington and four regional offices, that do ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Os Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 J Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l _ _ _
7 1 the licensing and inspection, and what we're responsible for 2 is the civilian use of radioactive material. We deal with 3 nuclear. reactors;. source, special nuclear, and byproduct 4 material; transportation; and waste disposal issues. 5 The organization of NRC is mandated by the Energy 6 -Reorganization Act to have three offices at a minimum. 7 These three offices are nuclear reactor regulation, which I 8 licenses the 100 power plants that are currently operating ' 9 in the country; nuclear material safety and safeguards, 10 which licenses all the other civilian uses; and the office 11 of nuclear regulatory research - " reactors" is a typo 12 there; it should be regulatory research -- that help support 13 research and investigations that are used as a basis for 14 developing rules. (-,), 15 The Uranium Recovery Branch, which I'm chief of, 16 is'in the Division of Waste Manage and Office of Nuclear 17 Material Safety and Safeguards. And what we focus on 18 particularly is all of the uranium recovery activities and 19 any 11e.2 disposal cells that are operating out there. 20 The basic framework that NRC has and the way it 21 approaches its regulatory responsibilities is best kind of 22 summarized in a quote from our information digest, and what L 23 the quote says is: 24 "NRC and its licensees share a common
- 25 responsibility to protect public health and safety. Federal
/~'l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
ss/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 c__-____________ _- _.
8 1 regulations and the NRC regulatory program are important j 2 elements in the protection of the public. NRC licensees, 3 however, have the primary responsibility for the safe use of 4 nuclear material." 5 To kind of put that more succinctly, what it says 6 is that the safe use of nuclear material is the 7 responsibility of the licensees. We don't get out and tell 8 people how to run their facilities; we don't get out and 9 tell them what they should do, how they should manage their 10 facilities, how they should take care of waste generated at 11 the facilities. 12 What we tell them to do basically is, You figure 13 out how you want to operate your facility; make sure you can 14 conclude it meets our regulations; and then come to us and b) g, 15 "we'll decide whether we agree with that. We'll determine 16 whether you're in compliance with the regulations. It's a, 17 They propose; we dispose, kind of approach to what we do. 18 Our role essentially boils down to a couple of 19 things. We develop regulations and guidance. We review 20 applications for the actions to determine if they're in 21 compliance with our regulations. 22 But the burden of proof's on the licensee or the 23 applicant to prove that the regulations are met and ensure 24 compliance with the regulations. We don't do that. We 25 check to make sure that's happening, but it's up to the I ( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. L/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l l C_____m.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _
, 9 1 licensee to make sure and confirm that they're in compliance
!< , 2 .~ with our requirements. 3 How we implement that framework, essentially: We 4 don't pick sites; we don't pick designs; we don't work with 5- the licensees to decide what they want to do. It's solely 6 up to them to decide how they want to design, operate and 7 reclaim their facility. We as an 4. dependent agency have 8 three actions that are available to us. 9 Number one, we can grant the application, and. 10 usually that happens on more minor types of amendments.
- 11. Number two, we can grant the application with 12 modifications, and that's involving a question-and-answer 13 session, where people change a little bit of this, change a 14' little bit of that, but it's kind of a negotiation session O 15 back and forth, t
i is-] 16 Or, number three, we can deny the application. 17 Those are essentially the options that are open to
'18 us. That's what we can do.
19 As I noted earlier, today we're seeking early 20 puolic input on our process of looking at our regulatory 21 framework, and what we're doing is trying to figure out a 22 way that we can maybe have a more consistent regulatory 23 _ program. { 24 We've had some experience in implementing our l 25 current regulations that indicated to us that such a review l 70R7 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. k's/' 'l Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 l. L_________-_________-____-. . ___ ___--_______ _ _-_______ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ . . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
10 1 might be. prudent to undertake at this point. And we also
' V[~l) 2 -have, that was submitted to the Commission back in April, 3 white paper by the National-Mining Association, where the 4 NMA outlined four issues that they would like the Commission 5 to consider.
6 And those four involve concurrent jurisdiction of 7 11e.2 byproduct material between individual states and the 8 NRC; dual regulation of groundwater at solution mines; the 9 processing of alternate feed material by operating milla; 10 and the disposal of other material besides 11e.2 byproduct 11 material in mill tailings impoundments. 12 Essentially this morning, the meeting is wide 13 open. We'd like to hear from folks on issues, concerns that 14 they have with-the program. We also would like to get input (Oj 15 on the NMA white paper, early indications of what people's 16 views are, because obviously the Commission has in front of 17 it the industry's perspective. 18 The Commission in a June 17 briefing from the NMA 19 said they would be interested to understand what other 20 organizations are doing. And when they wrote Katie an 21 acknowledgment letter, the chairman said she wanted to get 22 early public involvement in these issues, to find out what 23 the other views are. And then look at what future actions, 24 if any, we're going to take. 25 Obviously we're interested in all the comments. l l ('
\
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters L 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington,_D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l Lm__________._.____.___ . - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
11 1 We're going to take a hard look at the comments. There's ( ) 2 been a mixed bag. Some folks just unhappy with the NRC-in
- 3. general; some folks that really focused good, technical 4 comments, so we've got kind of a full view of what's going 5 on, people telling us we need to be more proactive in 6 getting notices out to public, to get more involvement early 7 in this process.
8 So it's covered everything from technically what 9 we're doing in the program to how well we're interacting 10 ~ with other stakeholder and the public. 11 Anything we do is going to be consistent with the 12 framework I discussed earlier, so as we develop the 13 regulations, if we choose to make a change or if we develop 14 . guidance, it's going to be consistent with the approach () 15 of -- we're going to'give guidance on what can be done, but 16 it's going to be up to the licensees to really make sure 17 that it gets done properly. 18 When you look at our current program, as I noted 19 earlier, we're responsible for regulating the production of 20 source material, whether it be uranium or thorium, from 21 conventional mills and from solution mines. 22 We're responsible for overseeing the reclamation 23 of mills. We do these two aspects *.hrough a licensing 24' program, and we confirm that people are following their 25 licenses in compliance with our regulations through an t
/\ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 u-_ _-_ _ _ _ . .
l . 12
\
1 inspection program. l . [ng). 2 And then finally we make sure that sites that are
- 3. reclaimed that contain 11e.2 byproduct material are taken 4 over by a long-term custodian, consistent with the Uranium 5 Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act.
6 Just to give a little focus on the opinions of the
.7 National Mining Association and what they presented in the 8 white paper, basically when the Commission did a strategic 9 review several' years ago, they did not look at the uranium 10 recovery program, and NMA in its white paper requested NRC 11 to perform a strategic assessment of key staff positions in 12 the uranium recovery program. !
13 And what the NMA said was the Commission needed to
.14 reassess, number one, the jurisdiction of non-agreement b
v 15 states over nonradiological hazards of le.2 byproduct 16 material; the NRC's jurisdiction over groundwater aspects of 17 solution mining; the disposal of non-11e.2 in tailings 18 impoundments; and NRC's alternate feed policy. l 19 What the NMA recommended is that the current staff .
'20 position on nonradiological regulation, concurrent 21 jurisdiction by non-agreement states, is not correct; that, 22 in fact, non-agreement states do not have the jurisdiction; 23 that there is not concurrent jurisdiction; that the Mill 24 Tailings Act preempted sole federal jurisdiction to the 25 Federal Government; ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
s Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
(. . 13 t
'l That we should not be regulating groundwater at l- [V~)
2 solution mines; that we need to look at ways to make the 3 non-11e.2 disposal capability of cells less restrictive; and l 4 'that we should explore allowing the disposal of things like
,5 NORM, mixed wastes, special nuclear material, and maybe even 6 11e.1 by product material in a mill tailings site, if they 7 are similar in characteristics to what's currently in the 8 site;
- 9. Look at how we judge applications for processing 10 alternate feed material; and question whether we should be 11 -focused on evaluating the economics of such proposals, to 12 determine if the material's truly being process for its 13 uranium content, or if there is a sham processing there, to 14 just process the material, to change its definition, so that
- f. :15 it could be 11e.2 byproduct material.
16 Our future actions: Essentially part of what 17 comes out of this meeting is going to help us determine what-18 we want to pursue. We have options that could include 19 revising _our regulatory guidance, revising our regulations, 20 or undertaking no major action. 21' We're not sure yet what we're going to do, but, 22 again,-we wanted to get early involvement, early feedback, 23 so that as we went forward and made decisions, we could have 24 early stakeholder views on this. Plus we're also going to 25~ decide how best to respond to the industry issues. l
/~ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
( Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 w--- - - - _ . - _ - _ _ . . . - _ - _ _ . - - _ . _ - - _ . _ - - - . _ . _ -
14 1 For the remainder of the meeting, we're looking [ ) 2 for input from the public. We've got, again, seven speakers 3 signed up, but other folks are certainly welcome to speak 4 after the speakers have finished their presentations. 5 The meeting is transcribed, and if folks will sign 6 up on the attendance sheet if you would like a copy of the 7 NMA white paper -- we've brought some. If the copies run 8 out, please check, and we'll send you a copy when we return 9 to Washington. If you only want a copy of the transcript, 10 just write in there, Transcript only, and we'll make sure 11 you just get a copy of the transcript from this meeting. 12 When you come forward and you're speaking, we've 13 got a reserved space here with a microphone. Please state 14 and spell your name, and say the organization you're with, () 15 so the transcriber can have that information. 16 We're not looking at this as a question and answer 17 session with NRC. We're really looking at this as an 18 opportunity for folks to come up and give us feedback. 19 The little bullet there says, Please keep to time 20 . limits. Again, we weren't sure how many participants we 21 would have and if we had to impose time limits at this 22 poin't . We've not had to do that in the previous three 23 meetings, and I don't think we'll have to do it here today. 24 Try'to refrain from asking the speakers questions. 25 They're really here to give us their views. We don't want ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. N Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 ) (202) 842-0034 l l i
15 1 to get into a debate or question-and-answer session with the 2 speakers. 3' With that, that kind of finishes our presentation. 4 'What I'd like to do is turn it over and start the public 5 speakers, and the first speaker on the list is Katie Sweeney 6 from the National Mining Association, with a big smile on 7 her face. 8 MS. SWEENEY: My name is Katie Sweeney, K-A-T-I-E p 9 S-W-E-E-N-E-Y. I'm associate general counsel for the l 10 National Mining Association, a national trade association of 11 mining companies, including many uranium recovery companies. 12 NMA has been involved since the late 1970s in 13 uranium recovery issues and has attempted through comment, 14 litigation, and negotiation to ensure that the Federal O
\ _j 15 . Government's uranium recovery regulations are fair and 16 effective.
j 17 NMA congratulates the Nuclear Regulatory 18 Commission on its decision to review the current uranium 1 19 recovery regulations, to determine ways of implementing a 20 more consistent and effective program. NMA appreciates this 21 opportunity to provide comment on how to best revise the 22 current regulatory framework. 23 At the outset, I must note, as Joe has just 24 stated, that NMA has been concerned for some time about 25 certain NRC staff positions regarding uranium recovery I l i: ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. s Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
16 1 operations, and to that end, NMA submitted a white paper, ( ) 2 and it's entitled, Recommendations for a Coordinated 3 Approach to Regulating the Uranium Recovery Industry, and 4 I'm not going to go over this again, because Joe told you 5 the four main issues that we'd like to see addressed. 6 NMA appreciates the fact that the Commission 7 recognized the importance of the issues raised in the white 8 paper by specifically requesting input on the paper during 9 this public comment and evaluation process. 10 I don't want to belabor the points made in the 11 white paper, since the paper's been submitted and the 12 Commission has already directed the staff to consider the 13 paper. However, NMA believes that an adequately protective 14 and efficient program cannot be achieved by amending either r 15 the current Part 40 regulations creating a new Part 41 or 16 through any other NRC action, unless the Commission 17 addresses head-on the concerns raised in the white paper. 18 Most importantly, NRC .;eeds to adopt NMA's 19 recommendations to affirmatively assert and vigorously 20 defend federal preemption of non-agreement state regulation 21 of all aspects of 11e.2 byproduct material and also to 22 relinquish jurisdiction over the subsurface aspects of ISL 23 mining. 24 Once NRC adopts the white paper recommendations on 25 jurisdiction, NRC then needs to clearly explain its f~') V ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C 20036 l (202) 842-0034 . I L__--_--______-- -
17 1 regulatory program, so states will understand what NRC will (,,} 2 do, won't do, and cannot do. 3 NMA is not convinced that NRC needs to promulgate 4 a new body of regulations in order to implement the 5' recommendations made in NMA's white paper. Although some 6 additional regulations or regulatory practices may be 7 required in order to implement those recommendations, for 8 instance, regulations governing the nonradiological, 9 nonhazardous constituents of 11e.2 byproduct material, 10 perhaps incorporating EPA's secondary standards for 11 groundwater, but NMA does not believe a substantial new body 12 of regulations is needed. !
'13 While nonhazardous constituents are already 14 addressed the Uranium Mill Tailings Reclamation and Control (O ,f 15 Act, or UMTRCA, as part of 11e.2, how they are included in 16 criterion 13 is a matter that needs to be considered only #
17 after substantial input.
-18 Furthermore, any new regulations or changes in 19 regulatory practices should reflect the current NRC 20 requirement to balance risks using a cost benefit analysis.
21 Although NMA doesn't object to consideration of a 22 new 10 CFR Part 41, we would not want to see NRC discard 23 what has proven to work in 10 CFR Part 40. Accordingly, if 24 NRC decides to proceed with a new CFR section designed 25 specifically for uranium recovery facilities, it should [. N-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 91shington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 w-__________-__
18 1 build upon what works within the existing framework, taking (} 2 . what is relevant and appropriate from Part 40, while 3 modifying or eliminating provisions that are inadequate or a irrelevant. i 5 The bottom line is that the public comment and 6 evaluation process that NRC has embarked upon should not be 7 used as a platform for developing a host of new proscriptive 8 regulations for the uranium recovery industry. 9 Instead, this process should be used as the white 10 paper was intended and consistent with NRC's approach and 11 its strategic assessment and re-baselining initiative, to 12 look for ways of fashioning a more efficient and effective 13' regulatory program that optimizes the protection of public 14 health, safety, and the environment. D ( ,\/ 15 Any changes made to the regulations should be ; 16 designed to promote a-risk-informed, performance-based 17 regulatory environment, consistent with the requirements of 18 UMTRCA.
~19 In addition to the concerns raised in the white 20 paper, NMA has identified other issues that NRC needs to 21 consider during its assessment of the uranium recovery 22 program.
23 As noted above, NMA understands that one option 24 NRC may consider is creation of a new Part 41 for uranium l 25 recovery facilities. Again, NMA is not convinced that I O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Court Reporters Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
19 1 rulemaking is essential, but does not want to forecluse
/h 2 consideration of this option, as long as it doesn't result G
3 in a whole host of new proscriptive regulations. 4 It is our understanding that the most likely 5 framework for the Part 41 would take what is applicable from 6 Part 40, keep with perhaps modifications Appendix A, create 7 an Appendix B for ISL facilities, and create an Appendix C 8 for disposal of non-11e.2 materials in tailings impoundments 9 and for alternate feed issues. 10 NMA believes that some modifications to Appendix A 11 are necessary, and I'll discuss these in a minute. 12 Regarding an Appendix B, NRC needs to review what in 13 Appendix A is truly relevant to ISL facilities, especially 14 if NRC relinquishes jurisdiction over the subsurface aspects in. () 15 of ISL facilities. 16 Also an Appendix B should allow on-site disposal 17 for ISL facilities, because of the relatively small volumes 18 of wastes involved and the low activity level of those 19 wastes, without imposing the same kind of land transfer 20 requirements applicable to uranium mill tailings facilities. 21 Regarding creation of Appendix C, NRC needs to 22 look at ways to permit disposal of any waste materials l 23 radiologically, physically, and chemically similar to those l 24 already in the tailings pile. 25 NMA believes that the Department of Energy or DOE [)
't._/
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 a_-_ - __________ - _
20 1 has the' authority under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to 2 accept title to such waste. [} As a result, NRC should modify 3 existing requirements to allow tailings piles to co-dispose 4 of these compatible materials. Proscriptive siting criteria 5 for low-level waste sites would therefore be unnecessary. 6 The uranium mill tailing performance-based 7 reclamation standards, in concert with the DOE long-term 8 surveillance, maintenance, and custody of these sites 9 provides protection of human health and the environment, 10 equivalent to that provided by the low-level waste siting 11 criteria. 12 Also, if Appendix C addresses alternate feed 13 issues, NRC should review the International Uranium 14 Corporation's petition for rulemaking and adopt its () 15 recommendations for regulation. 16 Given the importance of the definition of 17 licensable source material in 10 CFR 40 and the role it 18 plays in the analysis of ISL well fields and alternate feed, 19 it would be ill-advised for NRC to consider changing the .05 20 percent 1evel as was previously discussed in proposed
~
21 changes to Part 40. 22 NRC appears committed to a risk-informed, j 23 performance-based approach to regulations, as is seen in 24 NRC's strategic plan for fiscal years '97 to 2002. NMA R25 strongly supports such an approach. This approach ensures ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. s/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite l'il4 l Washington, D.C. 20036 i' (202) 842-0034 l ! L_______-_-______-____-_______--___--___---------_-_---------__--------------------------------------- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
. 21 1 that the greatest risks are addressed first in ways that
() 2 actually work. 3 There is a cost-benefit component to this approach 4 as well, to make sure that the regulations do not require 5 money to be wasted on ineffective efforts. This approach ! 6 does not mean that we are risking away our resources, but it i 7 does ensure that the cure is not worse than the disease. 8 For example, would it be worth destroying 50 units 1 9 of wetlands to save one unit of groundwater? Risk-informed, l 10 performance-based regulations ensure that the right 11 . balancing act is followed. I 12 NMA believes that 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, is in 13 .nany ways consistent with such an approach. The regulatory ! 14 history of Appendix A reveals that the regulations were () 15 intended to be performance-based, with an emphasis on 16 site-specific factors. j 17 The Appendix A regulations were drafted with the i 18 unusual foresight to focus on site specificity, because at 19 heart, the regulations deal with natural systems which 20 require maximum flexibility. 21 Appendix A's long regulatory horizon, 200 to 1,000 22 years, also necessitates flexibility and makes the use of 23 probablistic analysis particularly appropriate. There are L 24 certain changes, however, that should be considered to make 1 25 the Appendix A regulations more risk-informed and l g ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. N Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 ! (202) 842-0034
22 1 performance-based. 2 { For example, the proscriptive standards in 3- Appendix A, such as slope steepness, should~be eliminated.
'4 The'use of probablistic analysis should be specifically 5 permitted, and the performance-based licensing approach 6 should be codified.
7 Performance-based licensing is particularly 8 important, because it allows NRC to focus resources where 9 truly needed: on the non-routine, more difficult issues. 10 It focuses emphasis on exceptions to the known pattern, and 11 thus, performance-based licensing might be well suited in a 12 variety of contexts, such as RAD verification or other parts 13 of the tailings. reclamation process. 14 Also, NRC should add discussion regarding the 13 ( ,/ 15 reasonable assurance standard in Appendix A.. The reason why 16 the standard is reasonable assurance is because we're 17 dealing with natural systems, long time frames, and no 18 treatment to remove radiation. I 19 NRC should expressly state that reasonable 20 assurance should not be interpreted to necessarily require 21 most'proactive, rather than adequate, protection in light of 22 the applicable standards. 23 The risk-informed, performance-based approach 24 called for under UMTRCA and NRC's existing regulations by 25 its very nature allows flexibility to tailor solutions to i l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters ; F 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 J l Washington, D.C. 20036 ! (202) 842-0034
. 1
_ - _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ _ . . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 23 1 appropriately reflect the risks involved in a given O Q 2 activity. 3 This approach must be followed, in particular, 4 when considering new regulations for ISL facilities, since 5 ISL mining is such a safe and environmentally benign process 6 for recovering uranium. Hopefully, if NRC follows NMA's 7 white paper recommendation to relinquish jurisdiction over 8 .the subsurface aspects of ISL mining, the new for new 9' regulations in the ISL area will be minimal. 10 It follows naturally from this risk-informed,. 11 performance-based approach that supplemental standards and 12 passive restoration currently available to Title I, 13 Department of Energy sites, pursuant to the Environmental 14 Protection Agency's groundwater standards for remedial ("% t
) 15 action at inactive uranium processing sites -- and those 16 standards are contained in 40 CFR 192 -- these should also 17 be available to Title II sites where appropriate.
18- While Title II licensees can currently propose 19 such groundwater clean-up methodologies as an alternative to 20 the generic standards contained in the Part 40 regulations, 21 it would be simpler and more efficient if such Title I 22 approaches were specifically allowed under the regulations. 23 Also, it would be helpful in achieving the 24 integration of the Title I and Title II programs if NRC 25 . publishes the level of radionuclides left by DOE. L
- . l i
/~'} \s)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters ) l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 ! Washington, D.C. 20036 ; (202) 842-0034
t \ 24
\
l 1 It also follows from the risk-informed, (T 2 performance-based approach that creative reclamation options i \ G 3 should be available for grandfathered and existing tailings 4 sites. When the reclamation plans for some of the sites l 5 were developed, the regulatory mindset was completely 6 different than it is now. 7 Different risks were focused on. Active ! I 8 maintenance was precluded. Licensees with reclamation plans 9 approved in 1993 or '94 do not have the option of waiting 20 10 years to see what new positions, mindsets, or technologies 11 developed. They have clean-up milestones in their license 12 that must be met. 13 If an older site would like to amend its 14 reclamation plan to improve it, to better protect public ) t O)
\._./
15 health and the environment, NRC should not be allowed to 16 then re-examine the entire reclamation plan. Instead, NRC 1 17 should only look to determine if the changes are an 18 improvement, and if so, the Commission should approve the 1 19 changes. l 20 NRC and agreement states should recognize these 21 sites do not have to make such changes, but if they decide 1 22 to do so, NRC or the agreement states should encourage these 23 efforts, because the result is an overall increase in I 24 protection of the public and the environment. 25 Furthermore, all NRC activities that lead to (V ) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
25 1 rulemaking, development of regulatory guidance, staff
/)T L
2 technical positions, technical re-evaluations of previously 3 approved plans or other similar documents should necessarily 4 involve public input, starting with scoping and continuing 5 through completion. 6 Uranium recovery regulations should include a 7 backfit provision -- or some people call it anti-backfit 8 provision -- similar to that for the reactor program, so 9 licensees will not be forced to revise already approved 10 reclamation plans to meet new regulations, when those plans 11 present no threat to public health, safety, or the 12 environment. A backfit rule would be appropriate for 13 uranium recovery operations which pose a much lesser risk 14 than reactors. (O, 15 Whether in changes to the current regulatory
\_/
16 provisions or whether in discussion of a new Part 41, the 17 NRC/ agreement state relationship needs to be considered. 18 First, if an agreement state is in good standing, NRC should 19 not be able to revisit or second-guess agreement-state 20 decisions that NRC is required to sign off on, without 21 serious reasons for doing so. 22 This is particularly case with r.ite-specific 23 alternatives to NRC's generic standards. The agreement 24 states need flexibility to deal with sites within their 25 jurisdictions in the most ef ficient and optimized .nanner i l
/~T ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(_,) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 j (202) 842-0034 I I I __ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
26 1 that protects public health, safety, and the environment. - 2 Indeed, the 1983 UMTRCA amendments were ( 3 specifically intended to give the agreement states the right ! 4 to allow alternatives to NRC's generic requirements. 5 We have heard of examples where agreement states 6 are reluctant to approve licensee-proposed alternative, 7 because the states believe NRC could overturn the decision. 8 The regulations should clearly state that as long as an ) 9 l agreement state has an approved program and is in compliance 10 with all agreement-state program requirements, NRC will not' l i 11 review an agreement-state's decision to allow a 12 licensee-proposed alternative. 13 Also, the agreement state's role regarding the 14 long-term surveillance plan, or LTSP, needs to be more () 15 clearly defined to ensure that the state is only review the 16 LTSP, and not looking beyond the LTSP to revisit design of 17 the tailings impoundment. The same could be said of NRC's 18 review of the LTSP or NRC's signing off on the agreement 19 state's review of the LTSP. 20 NRC should not be able to require more than the 21 250,000, in 1978 dollars, as set forth in Appendix A, 22 Criterion 10, unless the approved reclamation design
'23 specifically requires active maintenance. If a plan does l 24 not allow for active maintenance, the minimum amount should 25 not be increased to reflect need for potential emergency
/ 'h ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
~s/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036
; (202) 842-0034 a-________-_-_______________-___
27 1 repairs,'since the disposal should obviate the need for () 2 active maintenance. 3 In keeping.with.the flexibility that is and should
- 4. be associated with Appendix A, there needs to be recognition 5 'that there may be some cases where some active maintenance 6 -and/or institutional controls such as fencing are
~
7; . appropriate alternatives for the licensee, as opposed to 8 tremendous over-design. 9 While active maintenance or limited institutional l 10 controls are not the preferred approach, they should be 11 allowed on a site-specific basis. Since termination 12 requires a federal finding that federal or agreement-state 13 closure criteria have been satisfied, the Federal 114 Government, not the licensee, should be responsible for any (' (T) 15 post-closure failures, catastrophic or otherwise. 16 Although NRC staff have conceded this staff in L 17 various meetings, it needs to be codified in the L 18 regulations. l 19 also a more a realistic rate of return should be 20 allowed for determining LTSP amounts. Fo~ instance, the 21 State of Colorado permits a company to assume 6 percent, 22' versus-the unrealistic 1 percent assumed by 1 percent. i L 23. In addition, the' funds should not be paid into the 24 general treasury,.but instead should be put into an ! 25 interest-bearing account for DOE's use. While this may l l
/~ Y . ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1 % lf Court Reporters !
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l !~ Washington,'D.C. 20036 ! (202) 842-0034 I g r. L. _ _ . _ . . _ . . . . _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______J
l 28 1 require legislative changes, NMA stands willing to assist NRC in drafting and supporting such legislation. D} [ 2 3 Regarding criterion 2, NRC believes criterion 2 4 needs to be examined, since the assumption underlying this 5 criterion about the future of uranium recovery industry were 6 wrong. New mills have not been built, and ISL facilities 7 predominate. 8 Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the 9 on-site disposal of ISL wastes, particularly given the 10 relatively small volumes and benign nature of the waste, and 11 also because as more uranium mill tailings sites close, 12 there will be fewer and fewer waste disposal sites for ISL 13 wastes. 14 Regarding criterion 6, NRC should not make changes () 15 to the 5/15 picoCuries per gram radium standard for soil 16 clean-up for several reasons. One, it likely cannot be 17 changed without EPA approval. Two, Title I and Title II 18 sites that are deep into the reclamation process have relied 19 on the standard. 20 Three, EPA initially determined and recently 21 confirmed that these limits are protective of human health 22 and safety. And, four, standard practice for site clean-up 23 reduces residual radionuclides concentrations to levels that
~
24 are low as reasonably achievable, below the applicable l 25 standards, l l L O 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
29 1 NRC should also allow variances to the 5/15 () 2 3 picoCuries per gram standard on a site-specific basis as would likely be necessary for sites in heavily mineralized 4 mining regions. Many state-abandoned mine land clean-ups 5- use 20 picoCuries per gram as a goal in mineralized mining 6 systems. 7 Regarding criterion 7, NRC must consider the 8 appropriateness of applying the one-year preconstruction 9 monitoring to ISL facilities. This isn't really relevant to 10 ISL facilities. It's not necessary to monitor one year 11 before you start construction. You can't -- ISL facilities 12 cannot get their UIC permit or NRC license without providing 13 some hydrological information beforehand. 14 Regarding criterion 9, this criterion should be () 15 clarified to state that a licensee does not have to increase , 16 surety until its reclamation plan or amendment thereto has 17 been approved. i 18 Either preamble discussion or actual regulatory 19 language should reflect'the fact that there are separate and 20 distinct requirements to be met-for site closure. First, 21 there's mill and related structure decommissioning, soil 22 clean-up, placement of radon barrier and long-term ;
)
23 stabilization of the tailings pile, then groundwater l 24 corrective action plan, and this logical order of proceeding 25 should be. recognized. t] (_s/ ANN RILEY.& ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 a-_-____________________ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . ._ -
30 1 NRC needs to codify its alternate concentration (; 2 limit guidance. However, the guidance needs to be changed V 3 to reflect the changes the National Mining Association 4 advocated in its letter to Joe Holonich, dated July 30, 5 1996. l 6 In that letter, NMA advocated that NRC clarify the 7 final ACL guidance's requirement of a predetermination by 8 DOE to take the property between the point of compliance, 9 POC, and a point of exposure, POE, to say that it's intended 10 to apply only to circumstances where the POE is or is likely 11 to be beyond the boundary of the land that is necessary for 12 byproduct disposal. 13 Thus, the regulations should clearly state that 14 DOE can properly take custody of any and all land beyond the () 15 edge of the tailings impoundment or pile, as long as the 16 land between the POC and POE is determined by NRC to be 17 necessary for the disposal of 11e.2 byproduct material. 18 It is important to note that UMTRCA itself 19 requires that the area necessary for byproduct disposal must 20 be transferred to the Federal Government at no cost. It is 21 not the licensee determining that an area is sacrificial. 22 The ACL guidance also needs to be changed to 23 reflect the white paper position that NRC has sole 24 jurisdiction over all aspects of 11e.2 byproduct material in 25 non-agreement states.
/ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
ks ,)% Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
)
31 1- NRC needs to finalize regulations containing
- .( ) 2 radiological criteria for license termination of uranium 3 . recovery facilities. The final rule should use the existing
'4 5/15 picoCuries per gram radium standard for soil clean-up i
L 5' at uranium cells as a source term to establish a dose 6 benchmark for the clean-up of radionuclides other than 7 radium. 8 And regarding seismicity, NMA believes that 9 references to 10 CFR 100 should be deleted, and the use of 10 .probablistic analysis should be~specifically allowed. g. l 11 Thank you. i l 12 MR. HOLONICH: Thank you, Kate. 13 MS. SWEENEY: I don't even have to ask if there l i. 14 are any-questions. That's great. () 15' MR. HOLONICH: Unless you want to take them. I 16 see by your quickness in getting out of the chair, the
~
l l l 17 answer's no. 18 The next speaker is Oscar Paulson. 19 MR. PAULSON: Good morning. My name is Oscar l 20' Paulson, 0-S-C-A-R P-A-U-L-S-O-N, and I work for Kennecott ] i 21 Uranium Company. I am the facilities supervisor of the l 22 Sweetwater Uranium Project, which lies northwest of Rawlins, i 23 Wyoming. 24 I wish to address the issue of adequacy of public- ! 25- notice for these four meetings. Kennecott Uranium Company O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1025 Connecticut' Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Court Reporters f Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 l I o C____-n-___---------u--.--- . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I l . 32 1 believes that public notice for these meetings was more than
/\ 2 adequate to allow participation by the general public and V
3 affected groups. 4 Public notification for these meetings was
- 5 . excellent, and in addition to conventional forms of notice, 6 the NRC also provided notification via the Internet.
7 In addition, the choice of location for these 8 meetings'was good, and the meeting locations in Austin, 1 9 Texas; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Casper, Wyoming; and Denver, 10 Colorado, were all easily accessible by members of the 11 general public who live or work near uranium recovery sites. 12 In the case of Kennecott Uranium Company, two of 13 the meetings, Casper, Wyoming, and Denver, Colorado, were 14 within a four-hour drive of our facilities. ( 15 Thank you. 16 MR. HOLONICH: Next speaker is Ken Alkema, from 17 Envirocare. 18- MR. ALKEMA: Thank you. Appreciate this l 19 opportunity. Let me put my glasses on, so I can read this. 20 My name's Kenneth Alkema, A-L-K-E-M-A. I'm vice 21 president of corporate development for Envirocare of Utah 22 and appreciate the NRC's allowing us an opportunity to 23 provide comments on -- 24 MR. HOLONICH: Can you speak up? they're all 25 going like this in the back. 1 El '\ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\msI Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 !
(202) 842-0034 l l L ___
1 33 ' 1 MR. ALKEMA: I'll try and do that. It would be (~h/. 2 better if I was facing the other way. But, yes. i .\~
-3' I. appreciate this opportunity. hit's good to be !
l 4 We look forward to providing additional comments as I
'here.
l l l 5 the process proceeds. I'd like to just go ahead and begin 6 my comments that I've put together, and my comments focus f 7 mostly on the National Mining Association's white paper. 8 Currently there already exists a process for i l 9' obtaining.a license to dispose of all types of radioactive i 10 ~ wastes. There are also. existing processes for obtaining a
- 11- permit'to dispose of mixed waste.
The proposed changes, as 12- outlined in the white paper, are unnecessary in this area. 13 'Anyone wanting to dispose of these materials 14 should just simply follow the existing processes. These (~~T g ,); 15 processes have been developed to provide full public input, 16 state involvement, and protection of public health and l
.17 safety,.and protection of the environment.
l' 18 The processes proposed by the-NMA would' eliminate
'some of the safeguards that have been put in place for I
19 i
, 20 developing disposal sites for radioactive material and 21 hazardous waste.
22 The licensing process for milling operation is not
.23 =the'same as the process for disposal of these materials. It
- 24 does n'ot provide the same level of protection as the 25- regulation for low-level waste disposal, for low-level i
l' ~ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025. Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 : Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 p L-___ ___L.-.-__. .___2.__ _- -
L
- l l 34 1
radioactive' waste disposal, or for hazardous waste disposal.
/ 2 These current, existing processes should be followed.
V) 3 .And I've also identified several specific comments 4 relative to what's presented in the paper, outlining some of 5 the issues that I'think maybe are a little unclear or may be 6 a little misleading. l 7 One, currently the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8 does allow the states to have concurrent jurisdiction with 9 NRC over the nonradiological components of mill tailings. 10 The white paper would have the Commission overturn these
.11 legal policy positions that have been followed by the staff 12 for 18 years', and instead claim total preemption for all 13 ' aspects of the management of mill tailings, radiological and 14 nonradiological.
(ov) 15 Commission acceptance of the NMA position on 16 preemption would prevent non-agreement states of having any 17 regulatory authority over groundwater at mill sites, and on 18 the other hand, agreement states can, and so they are still i 19 protected, be more stringent and do what they feel is 20 necessary to protect state groundwater. 21 The mining association would have the Commission 22 considerably relax the nine criteria that effectively limit 23 the policy to source material contaminated waste that are 24 free of both RCRA hazardous wastes and CRCLA issues. Such a i 25 revision could have the potential of opening up uranium mill l l-I' l[ ] ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\s / Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
)
.- l 35 1 tailings disposal sites to.any number of kinds of low-level -[')
V 2 radioactive waste. 3 The fourth issue presented by the National Mining 4 Association would have the Commission accept the proposition 5 that the decision of the mill operator and the consignor of 6 the material to run feed stock through a uranium recovery 7 circuit is, in itself, sufficient evidence that the primary 8 purpose of the action is to recover uranium, that no 9 certification is necessary. 10 It is in the area of the issue concerning the 11 disposal of non-11e.2 byproduct material that the agenda 12 becomes more clear of the white paper. The paper suggests 13 that many of the regulatory problems could be readily 14 resolved if the NRC would only think outside the box and (') 15 consider state. interagency memoranda of understanding or 16 perhaps legislation to allow the disposal of NORM, SNM, 17 fission and activation byproducts in mill tailings ponds. 18 The paper suggests that any problems with the DOE 19 can be overcome by application of Section 151(b) of the
' 20' Nuclear Waste Policy Act. These recommendations display 21 somewhat a lack of understanding of the workings of the 22 Federal Government.
23 For example, NRC and DOE have been negotiating off 24 and on since 1983 on the implementation of Section 151(b), 25 but.never in the context of mill tailings ponds, but for the l 49
\s /
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
I
.. 36 1 areas of on-site disposal of thorium-contaminated
( 2 metallurgical wastes from the production of specialty alloys 3 for defense purposes. 4 No MOU has been reached because of DOE's concerns 5 about the Federal Facilities Compliance Act and CRCLA. It 6 refuses to buy into a program with open-ended liabilities, 7 that is, the Department of Energy.
'8 Also, the paper errs in claiming that there should 9 be a blanket exemption from Part 61 because, quoting the NRC 10 staff, "the basic objectives of Part 40 and 61 are the same, 11 protection of the public health and safety, and the
-12 environment by disposal that controls and isolates the waste 13 for long periods of time."
14 The quote, page 143, is a statement that could (~~) (_j 15 also apply to spent-fuel recovery -- spent-fuel repository. 16 It is merely a statement of general principle that, as 17 quoted, obscures the basic differences between Appendix A 18 and Part 61. 19 Part 61 has no parallel to the radon barrier and 20 groundwater protection requirements of Part 40. Part 40, on 21 the other hand, has no parallel to the waste classification 22 system and waste form requirements, for example, in Part 61. 2 31 The longevity standards have different bases. The 24 thousand-year standard for the radon barrier was basically a 25 . regulatory compromise. A radiation-based standard could (
^s-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L
h 4 l !
37 1 have been 80,000 years, the half-life of thorium 230. The f%Jh) 2 300- to 500-year standard in Part 61 is based on half-lives 3 of fission byproducts disposed of in the concentrations ! 4 allowable under 10 CFR 61.55. 5 One cannot safely dispose of byproduct material, 6 other than tailings, in a tailings ponds without observing 7; the concentration and form requirements of Part 61, and to 8 do so would make it a Part 61 site. Disposal of SNM raises 9 a whole new set of issues not even alluded to in the white 10 paper. 11 On page 146, the paper refers to the 1981 branch 12 technical position on disposal of uranium- and thorium-13 contaminated soils. As there noted, under the most 14 restrictive use option, one could have disposed of up to 25 L( ) 15 picoCuries per gram of insoluble uranium 235. However, with 16 the development of the site decommissioning management plan 17 in 1990, the restricted use disposal options were abandoned, 18 and in fact, the restrictions use option of the branch 19 technical position was never used. 20 On-site disposal under restricted use is now 21 possible, only by meeting the requirements of 10 CFR Part 22 20, Subpart (e). Options 1 and 2 of the branch technical i _23 position covering unrestricted release now only apply to a 1 24 handful of grandfathered STMP sites. The white paper does 25 not address the implications of the new commissioning rule l: ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ( Court Reporters I 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
-------------o
, 38 l 1 for its logic.
( 2 'Again, the white paper demonstrates a simplistic 3 view of hazardous waste regulation. NRC has no authority to 4 set rules for treatment and disposal of listed hazardous 5 wastes. If feed stocks with listed hazardous wastes were to 6 be processed through the uranium mill, the operator would 7 need an EPA or state permit for the treatment and disposal. 8 Again, I thank the NRC for the ability to -- 9 allowing me to come and present testimony, and again look 10 forward to continuing to participate in your process. Thank ; 11 you. 12 MR. HOLONICH: Thanks, Ken. 13 Our next speaker is Bill Sinclair, who is director 14 of the Utah Radiation Control. O( j 15 MR. SINCLAIR: Thank you, Mr. Holonich. My name 16- is Bill Sinclair, S-I-N-C-L-A-I-R. I'm the director of the 17 Division of Radiation Control for the Utah Department of 18 Environmental Quality. 19 First, I'd like to compliment the NRC for having 20 the vision to look forward and recognize the need for 21' -stakeholder involvement in reshaping the regulatory process. 22 We would urge you to consider all views, and we appreciate 23 you gathering stakeholder comment, including public comment, 24 so you can make a decision whether to carry out your charge 25 to protect human health and the environment. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
./- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
39 1 I would also like to note that any future time ([ 2 you'd like to come to Salt Lake City, you're sure welcome to 3 do that, and I'm sure such a meeting would be well attended. 4 I'd like to start my comments by indicating that 5 the State of Utah believes that it is important for the NRC 6 to enhance its current policy and regulations regarding 7 uranium mill regulation and especially alternate feed 8 material in terms of environment protection. 9 Some examples are better definition of what 10 constitutes acceptable alternate feed material would 11 certainly help. Enhanced environment protection for mills 12 receiving alternate feed materials is absolutely necessary. 13 The NRC needs to revisit and/or re-establish the 14 environmental controls that will protect the environment and b) (j 15 public. This could include such things as enhanced cell 16 design, rigorous construction QA/QC procedures for new 17 facilities, increased monitoring of the groundwater in terms 18 of both frequency and parameters, requirements for a 19 routine, comprehensive groundwater monitoring evaluation by 20 the facility, which is similar to what is required in RCRA, 21 periodic split sampling of environmental samples by the NRC, 22 increased financial assurance for materials being stored on i 23- site, enhanced on-site storage capabilities, and more ! 24- compliance inspections by the NRC staff. 25' The State of Utah has spent and invested many i I ,I~' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \ss Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
40 1 hours in establishing a waste policy for the state. It I
'[}.
y 2; allows new radioactive waste disposal facilities, if siting
- 3 criteria are met, if licensure and permitting of the 4 facility is approved by the Department of Environmental 5 Quality, and if the state legislature and the governor 6' approve the. facility, following criteria and licensing 7' approvals.
8 If NRC actions creates a disposal facility as
.9 opposed to a uranium processing facility, whether 10 intentionally or-not, this type of facility is governed by
- 11 Utah state law as a commercial-waste facility.
12 We are also concerned about the lack of public 13 involvement and state involvement in NRC action. One
.14 - - example of concern that we've addressed to you specifically, (9 j 15- Mr'. Holonich, is allowing performance-based licensing for 16 determining alternate feed requests.
17 We would suggest that any action that you take 18 regarding change in regulation or policies, look closely at 19 the issue of public' involvement. This is one of the issues 20 that the State of Utah raised.in the strategic re-baselining 21 comments a few years ago. 22 It does appear that there is some interest in excluding the broad policy interests of a state by ensuring 1 1 23 I l 24 that 11e.2 and other qualifying non-11e.2 materials can be
'25 reprocessed or disposed at facilities directly under the t , ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 l L I
41 1 1 control of the NRC or an agreement. state. i
.() 2 It really forces non-agreement states to close 3 evaluate the need to pursue primacy. As it is well known, 4 it is really a Catch-22 situation. State and federal !
5 programs are being cut or scaled back; new programs are 6 frowned upon. The agreement-state process is a lengthy and 7 costly process for a state to pursue for a few facilities. 8 No one disagrees that recycling is a good concept, 9 but with recycling comes responsibility. Several Superfund 10 sites in Utah have been created due to good intention 11 recycling efforts. 12 An example would be a facility called 13 Micronutrient in Toele County, where we had air emission 14 control dust that was to be reprocessed and certain metals j
- A
( ,) 15 recovered. Well, the material piled up; the corporate 16 officers filed bankruptcy; and the state and federal J j 17 . government was left with the mess. 18 A state, whether an agreement or non-agreement 19 state, has responsibilities to protect the environment. 20 Sometimes there is overlapping jurisdiction, and sometimes 21' even when you try to avoid dual regulatory jurisdiction, you 22 have to exercise it, either on behalf of the NRC or on 23 behalf of a non-agreement state. So it is a reality. i-24 Let's try to find ways to work within the system 25 and not always find ways to try to change the system to
} ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
[/ A- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 t--_________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ . _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ __- -_-____________=_ - _ ___ _________ __-__ _ _____ ______ _____ _
42 1 i exclude stakeholder. () 2 That's my comments, Mr.. Holonich. I appreciate 3 the. opportunity to come before you today, and thank you. ' 4 MR. HOLONICH: Thanks, Bill. 5 Next speaker will be Dave.Frydenlund, the only guy 6 who makes me thankful I have the last name Holonich.
]
- 7. MR. FRYDENLUND: Good morning. My name's David !
8 Frydenlund. That's F-R-Y-D-E-N-L-U-N-D. I'm vice president I 9 and general counsel'of International Uranium (USA) ; 10 Corporation. IUC operates the White Mason Uranium Mill in 11 Blanding, Utah, and is an active. member of the NMA, and-12 fully supports the recommendations contained in the NMA 13 . white paper. 14 Of particular interest to IUC at this time are.the 15 NMA's recommendations relating to the NRC's alternate feed 16 ' policy. IUC has submitted to the NRC a petition that 17- endorses and expands upon the NMA's recommendations relating 18 to that policy. { 19 I.would like'to take this opportunity to say a few 20 words about the'NMA's and IUC's-suggested changes to the
.21 alternate feed policy.
22 Under the current alternate feed guidance, the
.23 licensee must demonstrate that the ore is being processed 24L primarily for its source material content. This requirement ,
1 25 .is' based on the definition of 11e.2 byproduct material and I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. i Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) _842-0034 a___-___-__-_-_ -_ _______-- . _ _ _ - _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . .__ _- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ ._-___________-__________-_1
43 t 1 was made explicit in the policy to address concerns about [U ') 2 sham disposal whereby it has been argued that waste that
- 3 would have to be disposed of as low-level radioactive waste l
I 4 or mixed waste would be milled at a uranium mill primarily 5 to be able to dispose of it in the tailings pile as 11e.2 l 6 byproduct material at less cost. 7 To ensure that the proposed feed is being milled 8 primarily for its source material content and that the 9 resulting wastes properly qualify as 11e.2 byproduct 10 material, NRC has established two sets: the co-disposal 11 test and the certification test. 12 Under the co-disposal test, if material would be 13 approved for disposal under the guidance for disposal of 14 non-11e.2 byproduct material, it can be concluded that if a rm ( ,) 15 mill operator proposes a process, that the processing is l 16 primarily for the source material content. 17 Under the certification test, the licensee must ' 18 certify that the feed material is to be milled primarily for 19 the recovery of uranium and thorium and no other primary 20 purpose. The licensee must also justify with reasonable l 21 documentation the certification. 22 The justification can be based on financial l 23 considerations, the high uranium content of the feed ! 24 material, or other grounds. 25 The NMA white paper and IUC's petition seeks
}') ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
N/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
44 1 revision of the policy to facilitate the milling of a wider () 2 3 variety of alternate feed materials than apparently has been
' contemplated by the policy, or at least as has been 4 interested by some, while ensuring that regulatory concerns 5 relating to the protection health, safety, and the 6 environment in the milling of such materials and disposal of 7 resulting waste will be adequately addiassed.
8 Both the legislative history underlying the Atomic 9 'nergy Act as amended by UMTRCA and' case law interpreting 10 those statutes evidence an intent on the part of Congress 11 and the Commission to broadly define the term " ore" to allow 12 such milling and to treat all waste resulting from such 13 activitias as 11e.2 byproduct material, eligible for 14 disposal in uranium mill tailings impoundments. ( 15 (_ IUC submits that, by definition, ore, which would 16 include alternate feed materials, from which source material ' 17 is being extracted or concentrated at an AEA-licensed 18 uranium mill is being milled primarily for its source i 19 material content. 20 Explicit recognition of this presumption also 21 would be consistent with the Commission's policy on 4 22 sidestream recovery operations of source material, that is, 23 operations that are not primarily for the recovery of source 24 material content. 25 To the extent that concerns about sham disposal of I' l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. N Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 ( L J
45 1 low-level radioactive waste have driven the current policy, (} 2 such concerns.are inappropriate and should be discounted 3 completely. 4 As a matter of policy, NRC should shift its focus 5' from a sham disposal to the regulatory issues that are more 6 relevant to the milling of alternate feeds. They are 7 promoting of recycling and expeditious waste disposal, 8 assuring the objectives of the NRC as stated by Mr. Holonich 9 this morning of protection of public health, safety, and the 10 environment, including reclamation and long-term care of 11 uranium mills and mill tailings. 4
~21 Neither concerns about the economics of milling 13 alternate feeds nor the concept of sham disposal serves any 14 regulatory purpose, other than to reduce competi tion in the
( ). 15 low-level radioactive disposal and recycling business, 16 ultimately resulting in higher costs to the American public. 17 From a policy point of view, there is much-to be 18 gained by promoting of milling of alternate feed materials. 19 Recycling of radioactive waste containing valuable source
.20 material reduces the radioactive content of such wastes,
- 21. making them safer for disposal, and tailings or other waste I 22 generated during such processes are disposed of in 11e.2 j 23 byproduct material impoundments that are subject to 24 stringent regulations under UMTRCA, and that in some 25 important respects, are more protective of public health and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. j Court Reoorters 1025 Connecticut Ave.2ue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 !
(202) 842-0034
46 1 the environment than .1.ow-level radioactive waste disposal
\ 2-
[O facilities. Such activities also further NRC's longstanding 3 policy of favoring disposal of radioactive ~ waste over 4 storage. 5 As noted in the NMA white paper and as more 6 particularly stated in IUC's position, it is proposed that 7 the policy be revised as follows: 8 The current co-disposal and certification tests 9 set out in the policy should be replaced with the following 10 test; that is, a material will be considered to have been 11 processed primarily for its source material content if 12 source material is extracted in a licensed uranium or 13 thorium mill and processing the material at a licensed 14 uranium or thorium mill and disposal of the resulting () 15 tailings in the tailing cells will'not cause significant 16- incremental adverse effects to public safety, health, and 17 -the environment, and.will not compromise the reclamation of 18 the tailings impoundment and will be in compliance with the 19 reclamation and closure criteria set forth in 10 CFR Part 20 40, Appendix A. 21 In determining whether or not these conditions are 22 satisfied, it should be irrelevant whether or not it is 23 economically viable to process the material for its source j 24 material content. 25 While the primary purpose tests in the current l l O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters
'1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 L Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
i-47 1 policy are broad enough to allow for an interpretation 2 consistent with many of the suggestions put forth by the NMA {} i 3 in-its white paper and by IUC in its petition, and have 4 generally been interpreted by the NRC to date in this 5 manner, tests are unfortunately interpreted by some much too 6 narrowly,-thereby causing confusion and frustrating the 7 intent of Congress under the AEA and UMTRCA. 8 Some state regulatory authorities limit the 9 certification test, which can be justified based on 10 financial considerations, the high uranium content of the 11 feed material, or other grounds, to the following simple 12 economic test: Is the market value of the extracted uranium 13 greater than the cost of production? 14 If it is, then the material passes the () 15 certification test. If it is not, the material does not 16 pass the certification test, and it cannot be processed as 17 alternate feed. 1 18 There is even being some suggestion that even if 19 the market value of the extracted uranium is greater than 20 the cost of production, the material is not being processed 21 primarily for its uranium content if a recycling or 22 reprocessing fee is paid to the owner of the mill by the 23 supplier of the material. 24 These types of arguments make no regulatory sense. 25 They have nothing to do with protecting health, safety, and t ANN RILEY & ACSOCIATES, LTD. t x_) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
-Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
j 48 1 the environment. How can one material with high uranium , O'- 2 content, that is acceptable for processing as an alternate 3 feed material, have any different health, safety or 4 environmental concerns associated with it, compared to an 5 otherwise identical material that has a lower uranium 6 content, but which, on this interpretation of the alternate 7 feed policy, cannot be processed as an alternate feed? This 1 8 makes no regulatory sense. , 1 9 The only reason for this type of interpretation is 10 to restrict competition faced by disposal-only facilities, 11 which should not be the objective of this policy. 12 Moreover, applying such an economic test is 13 fraught with difficulties and logical inconsistencies. Let i 14 me give you some examples. First, let's look at the revenue l () 15 side of the equation. l l 16. If the spot price per pound of uranium is, say, ! 17 $10.50 one month and $18.50 the next, should this affect whether or not it is appropriate to process materials at a i ! 18 l 19 mill during one month but not the next? What if the mill 20 has some contracts at significantly above this market price? 21 Is the decision whether or not the mill sells the l-22 uranium from the materials into higher priced, long-term 23 contracts, rather than on the spot market, relevant in 24 determining-whether or not the material can be processed as 25 alternate feeds? ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 ;
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
49 1 What does any of this have to do with public () 2 health, safety, and the environment? The materials do not 3 change, the process does not change, and the tailings do not 4 change if the price of uranium changes. 5 Now, let's look at the cost side of the equation. i 6 Suppose a mill has 100 employees. How many of these 7 personnel would be engloyed in any event, and how many are 8 employed just to process the materials? How much of this 9 labor cost should be allocated to the processing of the 10 materials, how much to other activities, and how much to 11 stand-by? Regr.lators should not even attempt to determine i 12 how a mill shoald be making these types of decisions in ' 13 running its business. 1 1 14 Now, let's assume that the market value of the l O) (, 15 extracted uranium from a particular feed material is clearly 16 greater than its cost of production. This material would 17 qualify as alternate feed under the strict economic 18 interpretation and could be processed at the mill. 19 Why should this conclusion change if the mill i 20 receives a recycling fee for processing the material? Most 21 alternate feed materials, by their very nature, are 22 materials that cannot be processed at conventional 23 facilities, either because of their radiological content or 24 for other reasons, and as a result become a disposal or 1 25 waste problem for the generator. I l f')
\m-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite-1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 ! f' t
50 l l 1 Often the generator of the material is prepared to ) ['] 2 pay a fee to someone to solve this problem. A mill, like C' 3 any other business, should be able to charge whatever fee 4 the market will bear in order to recycle the material for 5 uranium. l 6 IUC, along with the NMA, believes that these t 1. 7 economic tests should be replaced with the proposed criteria l 8 I mentioned earlier. These criteria assume the presumption 9 that, by definition, a licensed uranium or thori.um mill is 10 licensed for-and dedicated primarily to milling ore for its 11 source material content. 12 Legislative history underlying the Atomic Energy 13 Act, case law interpreting that statute, and past policies j 14 of the Commission all provide ample support that that (% () 1 15 presumption should govern the alternate feed criteria. 16 Let's look at legislative history. The definition 17 of 11e.2 byproduct material, as originally presented in 18 UMTRCA, was -- and I quote - "the tailings or waste l 19 produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium or 20 thorium from any source material." 21 However, there was concern that tailings resulting [ 22 from the processing of ore containing less than 0.05 percent 23 uranium, which is the minimum concentration that would still 24 meet the definition of licensable source material, would 25 fall outside the definition. [N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\s l Court Reporters 1025 Conn.cticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 5ashington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
51 1 To preclude that possibility, it was suggested , 1 b4 '1 2 that'the words "any ore processed primarily for its source kJ 3 material content," be substituted for "any source material." i 4 This change in definition indicates that the term l t 5 "primarily" in the current definition of 11e.2 byproduct { 6 material was intended to broaden rather than narrow the l 7 category of feed materials that could be milled for their 8 source material content, in stark contrast to the use of ; 9 this term by some in the manner that restricts milling of 10 alternate feed material. 11 This presumption finds additional support in the 12 opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the l l 1 13 District of Columbia in Kerr-McGee versus NRC, which states 14 that the word "primarily" can reasonably be interpreted to l () 15- mean the word "substantially" for the purposes of milling 16 ore for its source material content. 17 The decision of the Court in Kerr-McGee is 18 instructive in that once again, it underscores the fact that 19 the term "primarily," as used in the definition of 11e.2 20 byproduct material, does not mean solely or only, much less 21 most economic. 22 There can be, and frequently are,,other good and 23 substantial reasons associated with a transactions involving 24 milling of alternate feed material, including sidestream 25 recovery of other materials, for example, vanadium and l' , I' T' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\I Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
- Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
1
)
52 1 -tantalum,'which at a given point in time may be more ID 2 valuable than the source material extracted. L.) 3' Also, the presumption would encourage rather than 4 discourage the expeditious disposal of low-level radioactive ) 5 waste at less cost as another good and substantial purpose. 6 The presumption that a uranium mill is processing 1 7- materials primarily for their source material content is 8 also consistent with the Commission's policy of linking the 9 definition of 11e.2 byproduct material to the nuclear fuel l 10 cycle. 11 The Commission has note -- and I quote - "The 12 definition of 11e.2 material continues to be tied into the ' 13 nuclear fuel cycle. Because the extraction of uranium in a 14 licensed mill remains the primary purpose of processing the n, j I. ) 15 feed material, it excludes secondary uranium sidestream 16 recovery operations at mills processing ore for other 17 metals." 18 In other words, even if a molybdenum or copper 19 mill operates a byproduct circuit for recovery of uranium, 20 pursuant to a source materia license, its tailings or waste 21 do not qualify as 11e.2 byproduct material, because its 22 primary purpose is not the recovery of uranium. 23 Then the reverse logic should be equally valid; 24 that is, a uranium mill may recovery other byproduct 25 materials of value, such as vanadium or tantalum, and may l f} ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\~- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L
L--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -
53 1 also reduce disposal costs in the process, since the wastes () 2 generated during the process qualify as 11e.2 material and 3 may be disposed of in the tailings pile, but its primary 4 purpose, nevertheless, is presumed to be the recovery of 5 uranium. 6 After all, sidestream recovery operations are a 7 common practice in the mining industry. For example, IUC's 8 White Mason mill was designed primarily as a uranium mill 9 and'to meet the regulatory regime applicable to such { 10 facilities, with vanadium as a byproduct. Given current 11 market conditions, vanadium extracted from the conventional l I 12 Colorado Plateau ores milled is worth several times more 13 than the value of uranium that is-being extracted. I 14 However, when it initially started operations and , (O _j 15 for most of its history, the market conditions were 16 reversed, so that the value of uranium from those ores 17 exceeded that of vanadium. 18 If taken to its logical extremes, the current 19 policy would treat the tailings generated during earlier 20 mining of Colorado Plateau cres as 11e.2 byproduct material, l 21 while those currently generated from those cres would not 22 qualify as 11e.2 byproduct material. 23 Such a result is nonsensical, given the fact that 24 the neither the milling process nor the resulting tailings 25 have changed. Such an anomaly demonstrates where the ' l t ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\~- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington,-D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l'
L_ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ - _ - _ - _ . - _ _ _ - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - _ - _ . _ _ - . _ _ - - - - -_-__-____-_-__--_-____-__--_:
54 1 economics of' source material recovery is irrelevant'to-the~ () 2 3;
. determination of whether an ore is being milled at an AEA-licensed uranium mill, primarily for its source material 4 content.
5 Once the Commissi'on recognizes the presumption 6 that alternateLfeed material that an AEA-licensed uranium or 7 thorium mill are by definition being milled primarily for 8 its source material content, the'only remaining concerns are
'9 whether or not such milling has any significant incremental 10 impacts on health, safety, the environment of long-term 11- tailings waste management.
- 12. NMA's_and IUC's proposed changes to the alternate 13 feed-guidance are-intended to focus on those issues. As a 14~ policy matter, there should be no reason not to take 15 advantage of'the opportunity to mill alternate feed 11 6 containing low levels of source material for its value, 17- whatever that value may be, the value of any other 18' components lin the ore, and for a supplemental toll milling, 19 recycling or disposal fee.
20 This approach encourages recycling of valuable ll I 21 uranium from what otherwise would be waste streams, while ' 22 still focusing on the proper regulatory concerns of health, 2 31 safety, the environment, and reclamation and long-term care 24 of uranium mills and mill tailings. 25 In conclusion, there is considerable legal I 1004 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
55 i 1 support, if not a mandate, for the Commission to recognize l' I /~') 2 the presumption that a licensed uranium or thorium mill, by O 3 definition, is licensed for and dedicated primarily to 4 milling ore for its source material content and 5 appropriately revise its policy. 6 Furthermore, as a matter of policy, NRC should 7 focus on the protection of health, safety, and the 8 environment, and reclamation and long-term care of the mill, 9 rather than the economic viability of milling alternate 1 10 feeds. The concept of sham disposal is not relevant to such ; 11 activities. 12 Finally, from a practical point of view, milling i 13 alternate feed produces many tangible benefits. By 14 recycling radioactive materials as alternate feed, one r~s () 15 reduces the radioactive content of such materials, making i 16 them safer for disposal. 17 More importantly, the resulting waste would be 18 disposed of in 11e.2 byproduct material impoundments that 19 are subject to a stringent regulatory regime under UMTRCA, 20 and in some respects, offer better protection of public l 21 health and the environment than low-level radioactive waste 22 disposal cells or other disposal sites. j 23 Additionally, the generator gains by being able to 24 dispose of waste at less cost than if it were disposed of at 25 existing low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities, l
/~'\ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
k_ / Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 i (202) 842-0034
. I 56 l l .while the mill' gains by. extracting valuable source material O 2 from such materials. In other words, it is a classic lV -l T3 win-win situation.
4 This may be the rare situation where NRC can 5 promote recycling and recovery of' valuable resources and i 6 expeditious waste disposal, while assuring the protection of l l 7 public health, safety, and the environment and reclamation i l i
- 8 and long-term care of uranium mills and mill tailings, and j 9 -at the same time, reducing cost to the American public. 1 10 Thank you.
11 MR. HOLONICH: Thank you, Dave. 12 Our next presenter is' Sylvia Barrett from the 13 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. ! l 14 MS. BARRETT: Good morning. My name is Sylvia ff 15 Barrett, S-Y-L-V-I-A 5-A-R-R-E-T-T. I'm principal chemist 16 at the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California in . i 17- Laverne, California. i l 18 What I would like to do is read a letter from our l 19 general manager, John Wodraska, to Dr. Myron Fliegel, and l 20 it's' signed by our deputy general manager, Edward G. Means. j i 21 "
Dear Dr. Fliegel:
Future Rulemaking on Uranium i 22 and Thorium Extraction - Water Quality Concerns: ! 23 "Thank you for the opportunity to allow the 24 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 25 (Metropolitan) to comment on the rulemaking related to the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
.\ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
57 1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) revising the current () 2 3 regulatory framework for licensing of uranium and thorium extraction. We would like to focus on environmental issues 4 that the NRC should consider in the environmental assessment 5 or environmental impact statement associated with the
'6 rulemaking. Because Metropolitan is a drinking-water 7 supplier, these comments will focus on water quality
- 8. concerns.
9 "
Background:
Metropolitan delivers supplemental 10 treated-and raw water to 27 member public agencies within 11 its 5,200-square-mile service area in Southern California. 12 These agencies in turn provide wholesale or retail water to 13 approximately 16 million people reciding within about 240 14 cities and unincorporated areas. Metropolitan receives
) 15. imported water from two sources: the State Water Project i 16 through the' California Aqueduct, and the Colorado River 17 through the Colorado River Aqueduct.
18 " Source Water Protection: As a stakeholder in the 19 Colorado River watershed, Metropolitan is very concerned 20 about any activities or practices that might affect 21 Metropolitan's source-water quality. Although the overall 22 quality of Colorado River water is good, continued efforts 23 to prevent water quality deterioration are necessary, j 24 Protecting source water quality is essential to ensure our 25 ability to deliver adequate supplies of high quality ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
58 1 drinking water in the future. For this reason, Metropolitan () 2' and its member agencies are very interested that all 3 governmental agencies ensure that necessary regulations are L 4 in place to protect water quality in its source waters. 5 " Health Concerns - Drinking Water Regulations: 6 Uranium is a known kidney toxicant and is considered by the 7 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to be 8 a Class A (proven) human carcinogen. The State of l 9 California has an existing drinking water regulation for 10 uranium with a maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 20 l 11 picoCuries per liter. The USEPA is currently in the process I ~ j l 12 of developing a new regulation for uranium. With
.13 regulations becoming increasingly more stringent, 1 14 conservative protection of drinking water sources is a I
( 15 prudent-practice and an obligation of interstate government 16 agencies. 17 " Recommendations for Future Rulemaking: l l 18 Metropolitan would like the NRC to consider the following ! 19 issues in its rulemaking: 20 "1. NRC's licensing procedures should take into 21 consider the downstream impacts of any action involving I l 22 radioactive substances in the watershed of rivers used as 23 sources of drinking water. 24 "2. Future uranium and thorium extraction 25 facilities should not be licensed to operate in locations t O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Court Reporters Washington, D.C. 20036 i (202) 842-0034
59 1-that could result in uranium contamination of sources of 2 drinking water, such as the Colorado River. (} Existing 3 facilities that are currently causing uranium contamination 4 should be totally remediated to prevent any further 5 contamination or moved to a location such that further 6 contamination can no longer occur. 7 "3. Comprehensive monitoring of ground and 8 surface waters with the potential to be contaminated should 9 be included in plans submitted for licensing. Monitoring 10 should be designed to product information that will provide 11 for good decisions to be made on prevention and remediation 12 and will result in long-range plans based on sound science. 13 "4. NRC's licensing regulations should ensure 14 that remediation of groundwater contamination from a site
/M 15
( ) proceeds simultaneously with remediation actions above 16 ground designed to prevent escape of radioactive materials
.17 into source water. Groundwater remediation actions should 18 not be held up by delays in decisions dealing primarily with 19 above-ground issues. The regulations should require that 20 movement of contamination from a site via the groundwater 21 should be stopped. Surface waters should not be used to 22 dilute the levels of contaminants in groundwater, i.e., the 23 Atlas site, Moab, Utah.
24 "Because uranium is a proven carcinogen and there 25 is no known threshold level above zero at which there is not l l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
%-- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
=_=_________________________________=______-______-__-________-____________________-
60 1 some increased risk, the amount of uranium that enters into
'2 drinking water sources should be minimized to the greatest
)
3 extent-possible. 4 "S. Unforeseen events in the future such as major
.5 earthquakes or floods could disrupt protective features at 6 extraction facilities. Adequate features are needed to 7 provide a good margin of safety. Facilities such as 8 tailings piles should not be located in close proximity to a 9 river or in the flood plain.
10 "
Conclusions:
Future regulations should 11 concentrate on protection of drinking water sources from 12 radioactivity now and in the future. The regulations should 13 fully address drinking water quality and related human 14 health concerns. Cost associated with implementing the 15 regulations _should be secondary to-protecting water quality [%.)n 16 and public health. 17 "If you have any' questions or would like 18 additional information, please contact Mr. Mark Beuhler, 19 Director of Water Quality at 213/217-6647. I 20 "Very truly yours, John R. Wodraska." 21 Thank you. 22 MR. HOLONICH: Thank you, Sylvia. ! 23 Okay. Our next speaker is Rick Chancellor from 24 the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.
-25 MR. CHANCELLOR: Thank you. My name is Rick
/T ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\_,/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 L (202) 842-0034 l-L____________.__---_____.- _ . _ - - - - _ _ - - - - - _ - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
61 1 Chancellor, C-H-A-N-C-E-L-L-O-R. I'm administrator of the (~'): 2 land quality division of the Wyoming Department of
-v 3 Environmental Quality.
4 Our agency regulates all mining within the state i 5 of Wyoming, including in situ uranium mining. We have a
.6 comprehensive set of regulations that not only protects the 7 public health and safety, but also restores the groundwater 8 to equal use as prior to mining.
l 9 In addition, new regulations are being promulgated 10 after a multi-year effort to ensure our program is in l 11 compliance with the EPA's underground injection program, 12 which has been delegated to the State. 13 There'are several main points I'd like to point 14 out. We encourage the NRC to look at state programs that ! r~ (Sf 15 have a good regulatory framework, and wherever possible,-to 16' defer to the state, regulation of groundwater for in situ 17 mining, where those states have demonstrated capability and 18- willingness to ensure the public health and safety. l 19 We also ask that where the NRC feels they must 20 maintain jurisdiction, to continue to cooperate and ; 1 ' l L 21 coordinate with the state agencies to ensure the two
.22- agencies do not conflict in their requirements to the mining j 23 industry. It's much better to have one master instead of f i 24- two masters, and we encourage to strengthen the existing l
25 cooperation to make it even better. !
'(3 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\%/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
62 1 Also in those areas that NRC feels they must (v') 2 maintain jurisdiction, is to look at maybe expanding their 3 list of parameters that are looked at to be more in sync 4 with the state concerns that the whole picture is looked at 5 and not just part of the picture. We feel that will reduce 6 the amount of conflict between the NRC and the State. 7 Thank you. 8 MR. HOLONICH: Thanks, Rick. 9 That completes the presentation of folks who 10 signed up who would like to speak, but as we went through 11 the presentations this morning, if there's anybody who would 12 like to speak, we certainly have the time. 13 MR. SLOSKY: Thank you. I'm Leonard C. Slosky, 14 L-E-O-N-A-R-D, middle initial C, S-L-O-S-K-Y. I'm executive e ( ,)/ 15 director of the Rocky Mountain Low-Level Radioactive Waste 16 Compact Board. We appreciate this opportunity to be able to 17 share our thoughts with you on this important issue. 18 The Compact has a very different jurisdiction than 19 the NRC or even the agreement or non-agreement states. The 20 Compact regulates waste disposal policy and the interstate 21 commerce aspects of low-level radioactive waste. 22 The members of the Rocky Mountain Compact are 23 Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. My comments today will be 24 restricted to Compact issues and not touch on state 25 regulatory issues. ['}\- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
63 l 1 First of all, it's important to understand the 2 jurisdiction of the Compact. The Compact regulates Rf")/
\_ ,
3 low-level radioactive waste. That waste does not include i 1 4_ ~11e.2 byproduct material, but it does include most other l l 5 radioactive waste. ; 6 It also does not include ore that is processed
]
7 primarily for ita -- it does include -- I'm sorry -- ore 1
- 8. that is procassed primarily for its radium content. So the )
9 Compact does include' source, non-11e.2 byproduct material, l 10 NORM material, and most other radioactive wastes. 11 There are two authorities of the Compact that are i 12 important to this discussion. One is the so-called 13 exclusionary authority. Under this authority, any waste 14 subject to the Compact's jurisdiction that is sought to be i 15 brought into our member states has to be approved by the 16 Compact. 1 17 So, for example, if an 11e.2 byproduct facility ; l 18 ' wanted to dispose of waste that was subject to the Compact's 1 19 jurisdiction and that waste originated outside of the I 20 Compact, that waste would have to be approved by the Compact 21 board. 22 The other critical jurisdiction is that low-level 23 waste can only be disposed of within the Compact region at 24 facilities approved by the Compact as a regional facility. 25 So out-of-region waste or in-region waste that was proposed I l' I h ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. kl
% Court Reporters '
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 1 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
64 1 to be disposed of at an 11e.2 facility would require that
/~' 2-N ]i ' that facility be-designated as a regional facility for the 3 Compact.
4 We appreciate'some of the existing provisions in 5 NRC. regulation and policy. We strongly support the policy 6 that 11e.2 facilities have to obtain approval by.the 7 originating Compact and the Compact in which the facility is 8 located. 9 We also support the Commission's current policy on 10 use of alternate feed materials at 11e.2 processing 11 facilities. 12 Thank you. 13 MR. HOLONICH: Okay. Thank you, Leonard. 14 Other folks who would like to make presentation?
'( ) 15 Come on.
16 MR. PATTERSON: My name is John Patterson, 17 .J-O-H-N P-A-T-T-E-R-S-O-N. I represent Bechtel Jacobs 18 Company out of Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 19 I'd like to first start out by saying my comments 20 are based solely on my role as a citizen and DOE contractor 21 and are not intended to be a DOE position, perceived or 22 actual. 23 Since 1989, EM has been generating waste with 24 really one non-DOE disposal option, and despite the
'25 successes that we've had with Envirocare, which we consider O- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. \-- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 Lz---____------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- -
65 1- a tremendous asset to our national EM program, I believe
)
2 it's reasonable to assume that the contractors, taxpayers, 3 and DOE would benefit from competition. 4 So to this end, the NMA position to dispose of 5 'non-11e.2 byproduct material should be considered,'and I'll 6 give two other primary reasons. 7 Generally speaking, as an engineer, we understand 8 that human ecological and environmental receptors do not 9 differentiate between elements on the periodic table or 10 where they came from, only what the potential dose risk is 11 to those receptors. 12 And then, secondly, you may or may not be aware 13 that DOE is considering right now a similar proposal that 14 was submitted to them by Subtitle C facilities, and they're (O j 15 currently doing a policy analysis right now with conclusions 16 expected sometime this fall, so you may want to keep your 17 eye out for what comes out of that policy analysis done by 18 the DOE. 19 That concludes my remarks. 20 MR. HOLONICH: Thank you. 21 Other folks? 22 (No response.) 23 MR. HOLONICH: Okay. That essentially concludes 24 the public meeting. I certainly appreciate all the speakers 25 who have taken the time to come forward and make their
'" ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
k_-]/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 _ 22 84 Ib3 I l
-4.
66 1 . presentations.
- 2. This'is the final meeting we were going to have on
{ 3 the regulatory. framework, although, Bill,. we may see if we 4' can.come to Salt Lake. City here in the not-too-distant 5 future. But you know we'll be in Moab and other places, so 6 I think people will probably give'us some feedback there.
'7 Once again, thank you to all the speakers. As I 8 noted earlier, we'll take this information. We're going to 9 . kind of do an analysis and digest it and figure out where 10 we're going to go from here.
11 But thank you very much, and at this point, we're 12 adjourned. 13 (Whereupon, at 10:40 a.m., the public meeting in 14 the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 15 16-17 18 19 20 21 22' 23 24 25
.k O)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in x_.) the. matter-of: NAME OF PROCEEDING: PUBLIC MEETING: DRAFT RULEMAKING FOR 10 CFR PART 41 CASE NUMBER: 1
)
i PLACE OF PROCEEDING: Denver, Colorado were held as herein appears, and that this is the original. transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced-to
. typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the-foregoing proceedings.
nn . vu$sa - V l Helene S. Hershey Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd. .a
- _}}