ML20239A196
| ML20239A196 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/24/1998 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-WM-5 NUDOCS 9809080310 | |
| Download: ML20239A196 (42) | |
Text
i 7"g@ac$Eq$WWBMMF?%$MMESW3M9M swum % ;
y$3M 5% 9&%'gnatyesmshnnw&Mga '
- zw% 2 DTR i ,&yw?k*g@&g$%x%dgwn&d w %$
K pQ&gnpf A WBWi@ANSCRIPF0FRPROCEEDINGSE p%JW% i%99%;m%%ByM;;6Wi;36 #4#
- - ea,g 4 suggggtsspggy,auggggggggg,gg n sny wncau gg gw9 navn a
,3 gg h . j{ .gg-e w ww wgwaggw TORE n%e w,gnmyg
' );kT ._ 50KR[ OW h gh h
- ade$pywwrw~e+weegpa
%gp w e e g e) 4 m M
_r ;, w. j . g _ gg _g g r
'fifdi@iMk~e Q_fII 4[,% ad .
Jh; e
gM
- k f wa ,Manenfkanadwnsas'ggW_m._
qqp 5 wa m uey gpenmeagkQ4 4~wg a p myp@q%nnmasonehuran&,MtSAcissG4k+g %m y igk g hh fh h h f y
M PDR WM-5 VASTE PDR 4 ph:,% p Q $l gje$dt
%j$f 9M%%tWh;pyg:n h
~@j %
fWRQ !qm'
@ih;VQs m
OA h h
jW< <_
M 3, .
A _
h a 4
%. f0FFICIALLTRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS M, -
- UNITED
- STATES.'OF AMERICA' '
w 1
=
+
j 4y ,
m
( ,
LNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
) ik
- a. sF
,I_t
,,i ,
f .te r *'
- f. 1A9, i ;.
t t
iTijleif
',' } 'I' , .,
LPUBLIC MEETING -
, , , i. .. , ,J *,. g~ DRAFT:RULEMAKING FOR T10 CNR '
O s .
c
?: ' ri p . ,
- 1 <
M7
, 1 1 PART 41L
-.c g y. v .~. .
- .4 .- ,
tu c; y , '
(" .j'{j p -;,ap t r
- q. ; < ,n-<' .
[.. . ,
'. " (( ' ' . . , . j ' 1 [, . -
/ l.
("*
4 s 7 m .M
,2 '4 !
N (Cass No.::
'T '
. N ,j i 3 >A w.'r,; Y
- s 4 , 1 , , , , @; a _ s.- ,.
l +- ;:, , , 'N "
hi', - , <
_ , -l-
%;_ *' > ' ~
L./ , '
' ' "f' 4
s t' 1 D ' : ;; %
.. 4 ,
s , < ,
> .. 5 ..
' i:-
{p,7.,
i' y. t
, r >
- /-t
,- a jg t h* 3 , , , +
, 1st 4 t , . ,. 4 -
7 h ' y ^ [ ' LWorli O'rder:No.:: LASB-300N172 L P 1 m;u , 4, ca: ,
- s
,f . .. ' D,
./p; ; t.
e y
n r. ,
3
.i'if f ,
j.r . '4 -
A:
[- ,
r
" 1# 5
' ' ' 4 p; , tw ,
s 1
s, ,
2 ) .
-^
~ .,A b .:' t'_' -
, s . ~
i fLOCATION: ,
(Austin, TX uf ,
..o &
y s
i,m,, .
- ^
w DATE: Monday, August 24,1998 PAGE 1 '40 .
.I i
i r HJ g (
(. -j 3
Ih 4
- 'fh m
[ a,, 7 : y. y- ) ..j l} \
M< ,
- ,,a r ,
- p( , j .A s ,e Q' .QWQ (
L, ,
io c- ;
q g ,
-m, % ,
. l-) J yl , J j
.4 s, ANN 'RI'LE & ASSOCIATES,'LTD.
L 12501 Street, NW. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 ,
W1 (202) 842-0034 !
,4, .;3., ,
, 1 4 qq !
- 7. .
' I
...:d,.1 9809080310 980824
, p# -d" WAGTE
-i - PDP 4 WM-5 PDR D: ,
% ,, . .i. ,,, ' < ' . . -
s
..3 4 A> 'J
. 1 1 -UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l l
tT 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'% )
3 ***
j 4 PUBLIC MEETING -
5 DRAFT RULEMAKING FOR 10 CFR PART 41 .
6: *** I 7
8 Homer Thornbury Judicial Building 9' Room 116 ~
10 903 San Jacinto 11 Austin, TX 78701 12 13 Monday, August 24, 1998 14
() 15 16 The above-mentioned public meeting commenced, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m.
17 18 PARTICIPANTS:
19 20 MYRON FLIEGEL, Uranium Recovery Branch i
21 PATRICK MACKIN, Southwest Research Institute 22 MARIA E. SCHWARTZ, Office of General Counsel
-23 24 L
25
' i i l
(~N
( ,) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
.. 2
- j. 1- PROCEEDINGS
(}
\~-
2
[9 : 00 a.m. )
3 MR. HOLONICH: Good morning. I'd like to welcome 4 you all.here this morning to the NRC's public meeting on its 5 regulatory framework-for uranium recovery facilities.
6 My name is Joe Holonich. I'm the chief of NRC's l 7 Uranium Recovery Branch, out of Washington, D.C. I have 8 with me this morning Dr. Mike Fliegel who's our project
! 9 manager for this regulatory review effort, Maria Schwartz 10 from our office of general counsel, Pat Mackin from the 11 Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses in San Antonio, 12 Texas, who's helping us with some of the work, and. Ann 13 Garcia, who's our licensing assistant and who's been helping 14 produce all the slides and get the overheads and all those
! [-s l(-) '15 other things.
16 What we have planned is a tour of four cities, 17 four states where' uranium recovery activities are going on.
18 This is our first stop here in Texas. We chose Austin and i
L 19 Texas for a couple of reasons.
l l 20 First, you folks have got an agreement-state i
21 status with NRC, and so depending on what we do, it could 22 impact what you're doing, and we'd like to hear from people l
l 23 in. Texas, the regulators and the regulated community and the 24 lpublic.
25 Second, there's a lot of solution mine, in situ
/"N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
'\,,) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
. 3 1 leach experience here in Texas, and if people have some Q 2 background and information they can give us on that, we'd Q-3 certainly like to hear that, as we consider what we ought to l
4 be doing with our regulatory framework. l 5 And, third, as somebody told me back in
]
6 Washington, you guys in Texas know how to do it better than 7 the federal government, so we figured we'd sit here and 8 listen to what you've got to say.
9 But the way we're going to approach these meetings 10 is really we're going to give you a short presentation.
11 It's probably redundant for a lot of folks, just a little 12 bit of background on the NRC, what our program is, what we 13 do, and what we're hoping to achieve this morning. It's a 14 short presentation,' shouldn't go more than about 20 minutes n
15 or so. And then really we're opening it up for public 16 discussion, public input, public participation.
17 We're ready to stay as late as we need to stay. I 18 think three o' clock, 3:30 is probably the deadline that we 19 can still make it to the airport and catch our flight, but i 1
l 20 we'd like to hear from folks. The room and folks seem to be '
21 small, enough, I'm not sure we need to put a particular time 22 limit on things, but we'll kind of see how it goes.
23 When you speak, we have a reserved chair here.
24 We'd like to ask people to come up, sit in the chair, state 25 your name and your organization, so the transcriber can get p ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Qi Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
)
. 4 1 all that information, and then make your presentation on E 'N 2 whatever you'd like to have us hear.
(%
3 And there's a sign-up sheet, with a check that 4 'says if you'd like to get a copy of the transcript along 5 with the presentation that Mike's going to give here in a 6 few. minutes, we'll be more than happy to mail you one.
7 So what I'd like to do is start it off by letting 8 Mike go ahead through a little bit of a presentation on 9 where we are, what we do, and kind of why we're doing this.
10 DR. FLIEGEL: While Joe collects his stuff, we had 11 copies of the handouts for everybody, and they're somewhere 12 between Washington, D.C., and here in a Federal Express 13 truck or something, so you'll just have to follow along.
14 We've done the introductions.
() 15 16
-A little bit of background on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: We're an independent regulatory 17 agency. We were established through the Energy
-18 Reorganization Act of 1974. Those of you who can remember 19 back that far, we had been part of the Atomic Energy 20 Commission, and there are still some of us left from those 21 days. We have approximately 2,500 staff.
22 We're responsible for licensing and regulation of 23 civilian use of radioactive material: reactors, which is 24 what most of the public sees us as regulating; source, 25 special nuclear, and byproduct material; transportation; and ges) . ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
. (,j Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
1 .
1 5
1 waste management.
,['~N-3 2 The Atomic Energy Act mandates three offices:
, \_)
l 3 reactor regulation, nuclear material safety and safeguards, 4 and nuclear reactor research. The Uranium Recovery Branch l 5 is in Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards office in the 6 Division of Waste Management. And that's where Joe and I l 7 and Ann are from, and that's where this effort is coming 8 from.
9 I'll just read you a general statement. "The NRC 10 and its licensees share a common responsibility to protect 11 the public health and safety. Federal regulations and the 12 NRC regulatory program are important elements in the 13 protection of the public. NRC licensees, however, have the 14 primary responsibility for the safe use of nuclear I[m L)
T 15 material."
16 And we take that seriously. When we do our 17 regulations, most of the time we're not there. We don't 18 have inspectors at these facilities, other than 19 occasionally. It's not like a nuclear reactor. Our 20 licensees are responsible for their facilities, and we view 21 it that way.
22 NRC's regulatory role: We develop regulations and
- 23 guidance. And that's part of -- that's what we're doing 24 now. As we go a little further on, we're going to be 25 discussing what this meeting -- why we called this meeting,
(~T ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
() Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
l
I 6
l 1 and it's basically in this aspect of developing regulations
(} 2 and guidance, or contemplating whether we ought to do that.
3 We review applications for actions to determine if
'4 they meet our regulations. And, again, the burden of proof 5 is on our licensees or applicant to prove that what they're 6 proposing to do meets our regulations.
l 7 And again this is -- most you probably know this.
8 The NRC does not select sites or designs or participate with L '9 licensees or applicants in selecting proposed sites or 10' designs. And this strikes homes, especially to me, involved 11 in a very controversial project in another state.
i l 12 The. newspaper's always talk about it as if it's i
! 13 NRC's site and NRC is going to do this or NRC is going to do 14 that, no matter how many times you tell people, No we're
() 15 not; it is not ours; it is our licensee's, and we only look 16 at it. There's that misconception that somehow we own these 17 things.
18 NRC's action reflects its role as an independent 19 regulatory agency. And we've tried to tell people, we 20 really only have a few options open to us. We can grant the 21 application; we can grant the application subject to 22 conditions that the licensee or applicant agrees to; or we 23 can deny the application.
24 We can't tell people who want to build a site here 25 to build it someplace else. If we do an environment O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
l e
- 7 1
assessment or an EIS determined that another site would be a 2 better site, but we can't make them move the facility.
3 Now into what these meetings are about: We're 4 looking for public input. We're conducting an evaluation of 5 the regulatory framework, the entire regulatory framework 6 for uranium and thorium extraction facilities.
7 Our experience using the current regulations has 8 led us to undertake this in-depth review of our existing 9 regulations. We're looking to implement a more consistent i 10 and effective program in uranium recovery.
11 In addition, we have received white paper from the l 12 National Mining Association, and they actually made a 13 presentation before our commission on several items, several 14 issues. They were concurrent jurisdiction, in situ leach,
() 15 alternate feed, and disposal of material other than natural 16 uranium ore.
17 Now,-the purpose of this meeting and the three 18 others we're going to have is to obtain early public input 19 in the process, and the process is just beginning. And as 20 I'll describe later, we're not even -- we haven't decided I 21 what we're going to do. Part of the direction we take will ,
22 be as a result of comments we get from these public 23 meetings.
24 We also want public comments on the National l 25 Mining Association white paper. We have heard from the i
' ('N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
' \q,)
Court Reportcre
, 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
- Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
L
.< 8 industry on these issues. JWe'd like to hear from other
(~N 2 stakeholder on these same issues.
3 And then we then will consider what future 4 actions, if any, we will take in our regulatory program.
5 All comments that we receive will be considered.
6 .And if you speak, we ask you, as Joe said, tc sit in that
- 7. speaker's seat, and that way, because we're having the 8 ' meeting transcribed, and so_we will be able to go back on 9 record and get everybody's comments.
10 Any actions that we take must be consistent with 11 our regulatory philosophy.
12 NRC is responsible for regulation of production of 13 source material from uranium and thorium mills, including in 14 situ facilities. We'must -- and that comes under the Atomic
(). 15 Energy Act.
l 16 We must ensure that inactive uranium mills are 17 reclaimed, and that comes out of UMTRA-C. We confirm -- we 18 use'our inspection process to confirm that acceptable L
19 implementation has been achieved.
l 20 And when we look at reclamation of uranium mill 1
21- sites, we're looking at a long-term situation, that must be 22 reclaimed to be effective for 1,000 years.
23 And we're also making sure that the reclaimed 24 facility is appropriately transferred and taken over by the t '25 - custodian, which is -- in most cases, will be the Federal s ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,' LTD.
( Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
I
. 9 1 Government; States have the option. I know in the past, 2 Texas has informally _ told us that they would like to take 3 over the sites in Texas. I'm not sure that that's still the 4 thinking in the state of Texas.
5 The National Mining Association has requested NRC 6 to perform a strategic assessment of NRC positions regarding 7 certain aspects of uranium recovery, and they presented 8 this -- they prepared a white paper, made a presentation to 9 our Commission, and in their paper, they said that NRC needs 10 to reassess the jurisdiction of non-agreement states over 11 non-radiological components of 11e.2 byproduct material.
12 What that basically means is that our 13 interpretation of UMTRA-C -- we've come to the conclusion 14 that unlike the radiological components in which we conclude
-( ) 15 that the Federal ~ Government has preemptive jurisdiction for 16 non-radioactive components such as -- and this is primarily 17 groundwater contaminants from a mill site -- that the. State 18 has concurrent jurisdiction with NRC.
19 The industry disagrees with that legal 20 interpretation, and they have asked the Commission to 21 reconsider that.
22 NRC jurisdiction over in situ leach facilities:
23 When UMTRA-C was originally written, the primary method of 24 uranium extraction was surface mills. People would -- the I
l 25 mill was designed to take rock, crush the rock, run it A ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(,) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 n
. 10 1 through the mill, so and so forth.
2 In situ was not considered to be a major component 3 in uranium recovery. It has since changed, where the in 4 situ facilities are the primary facilities now for uranium 5 production in the United States.
6 When NRC looked at this after the passage of
'7 UMTRA-C, we concluded that our authority began in the 8 aquifer itself, and so we regulated groundwater aspects and 9 we continue to regulate groundwater aspects of the in situ 10 mining facilities. The industry has said that we should 11 reconsider that, that their reading of the legislation is 12 that that is not our responsibility.
13 Disposal of non-11e.2 byproduct material in 14 tailings impoundments: We have a policy paper that was
() 15 published in the Federal Register in September of 1995 that
(
16 lays out guidance to allow people to dispose of radioactive 17 material that does not meet the definition of 11e.2 1 18 byproduct material in tailings impoundments.
19 The industry wants us to reconsider that, because 20 their argument is that the guidance itself is very 21 restrictive, and because it is so restrictive, none of the l
22 facilities have been able to take advantage of it.
23 And then NRC's alternate feed policy: We have 24 another position, published at the same time, which will 25 allow our licensees of conventional mills to bring in to L
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. I Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
( Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L -__-______ ___ _ _-
f-11 1 their facility to process material other than rock that had k-2 just been mined. And, again, the industry asks us to relook 3 at that, that the guidance in that policy is too 4 restrictive.
5 Future Actions: We're actually looking at what 6 we're going to do in the program. We're going to look at 7 the information, listen to the opinions stated in these
! 8 meetings, to determine what future actions to pursue.
9 And there's several options. One option is, based i- 10 upon the opinions, to go back to some of our regulatory 11 guidance documents and revise them. Another action is 12 actually revising our regulations. We can decide that, 13 based upon comments, we really need to take no major action, 14 maybe only just a couple of minor actions.
15 And then we also have to decide how best to
- 16 respond to the industry issues that were presented in that-
- f. 17 white paper.
l 18 This is basically all that NRC is really going to
, 19 say on the subject. The remainder of the meeting is to 20 receive public input, and so we're going to open the meeting i
21 up to everybody else.
22 The meeting will be transcribed. I ask everybody I 23 to, when they want to speak, that we have a seat set up with I' I 24 a microphone. All speakers should state and spell your 25 name, and identify what organization you represent.
A ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
E _ _ --_--__ __ _ -- - - - - - - -
l l
, 12
'l The meeting is not intended as a
(N 2 question-and-answer session with NRC. Again, we'd like I
d l
3 people to limit the time that they use, because we want to 4 hear'from everybody. And please refrain from asking 5 questions to the. speakers.
6 Did we have a list, Ann, of speakers who'had --
7 MR. HOLONICH: People who requested in advance --
8 DR. FLIEGEL: Requested in advance, so we will go 9 through those first.
10 MR. HOLONICH: There were three people on the 11 list, I think, if my memory serves me correct: Mark Pelizza 12 from HRI; Alice Rogers from the Texas NRC Commission; nd 13 .Harley Shaver. Is Harley here? I haven't seen him walk in, 114 so we're down to two.
() 15 16 How many other folks would like to present some information? You guys all came to listen like us, huh?
17 VOICE: As time goes along, we might.
18 MR. HOLONICH: Okay. Well, why don't we start.
19 Alice, would you like to start us off this morning?
20 MS. ROGERS: Oh, sure. Kind of like walking the 21 gauntlet.
22 MR. HOLONICH: Uh-huh. We figured we had to be in 23 front; the speakers have to be in the front.
24 MS. ROGERS: Good morning. My name is Alice
- 25. Rogers, and-I'm the section manager of the Underground ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
, Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington,.D.C 20036 (202) 842-0034
I 13 1 Injection Control and Radioactive Waste Section of the Texas
/~'} 2 Natural' Resource Conservation Commission.
\m/ I 3 I want to first welcome you to Austin and to the 4 great state of Texas, and to thank you for coming to Austin.
5 As you know, many of your regulatory people who are here 6 today spend a lot of time, doing this same traveling that 1 l
7 you did yesterday, and we appreciate that you did it this 8 time and not us.
9 The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 10 is the primary environment agency in Texas. We regulate 11 air, water, and waste.
12 TNRCC is the agency tasked with regulating 13 disposal wells and in situ mining wells under EPA's UIC 14 regulations, low-level radioactive waste disposal under
(
A) 15. NRC's regulations, and hazardous waste storage treatment and 16 disposal under EPA's RCRA regulations. We do a number of 17 other things as well, but those the ones that are important 18 to what we're talking about today.
19 And so as to confuse you further, the Texas 20 Department of Health has jurisdiction over uranium recovery 21 and byproduct disposal. As-you are aware, Texas is an 22 agreement state and is also an EPA primacy state for UIC.
23 -
I wish to talk today about two of the issues 24 addressed in the NMA's white paper: first, the jurisdiction 25 over the UIC mining and disposal activities at an in situ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034
14 1 uranium site, and second, the disposal of non-11e.2
~
2 byproduct material in an 11e.2 tailings impoundment.
3 Regarding NRC jurisdiction over the well fields 4 used for_ mining at in situ uranium sites, it is TNRCC's 5 position that NRC has no jurisdiction in the well fields.
6 These activities are properly under the jurisdiction of the 7 EPA's Class 3 UIC well regulations.
8 TNRCC has been administering these regulations 9 since 1982 and has a proven record of protecting 10 groundwater at these sites. The NMA's white paper makes 11 numerous legal arguments regarding this position, and I have 12 nothing further to add to those.
13 However, I'd like to explain some of the practical 14 considerations of NRC asserting jurisdiction over
() 15 16 groundwater in UIC well fields at this time.
Texas obtained primacy for its UIC program in i
! 17 1982, and as part of that program, Texas was given l i
l 18 jurisdiction over Class 3 injection wells. These wells 19 incl.J4 the wells found at the ISL uranium mine sites and l
20 encompass injection, production, and monitoring wells.
21 The regulations, as well as the permitting 22 procedures set out in the UIC program, include provisions !
E i i
23 for the protection of groundwater of the State. These !
24 provisions protect surrounding groundwater from l 25 contamination through monitoring of the integrity of the N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
s ') Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 I
15 1 wells themselves, as well as monitoring the chemical and 2 physical movement of fluids.
3 State regulations also require restoration of 4 affecced groundwater at these sites to levels consistent 5 with baseline. Once restoration is achieved, the wells are 6 plugged and abandoned in accordance with other provisions of 7 the rules, and once surface remediation is achieved and 8 verified by the Texas Department of Health, the land ic 9 turned back over to the landowners.
10 In Texas, the UIC portion of 23 entire ISL sites, 11 covering 38,000 acres and 15,000 wells, have been restored 12 and released. These sites, under the oversight of the US 13 ' EPA, have been closed out in accordance with approved
-14 standards. The wells have been plugged; casing has been cut
()
,-s 15 16 below grade; and the surface has been remediated back to its former or a beneficial condition, and financial assurence 17 has been released.
18 If the NRC were to now step in at this late date 19 and'try to assert its jurisdiction over the subsurface 20 groundwater aspects of the ISL mines, all of the closed and 21 abandoned sites,'some of which have been closed for 19 l 22 years, could be fair game for re-evaluation of groundwater 23 restoration effectiveness, a restoration program that ha's 24 already been approved by the State as well as a federal
~25 agency.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
16
- 1. The impact of NRC's decision on this issue could 2
have far-reaching, expensive effects without a corresponding 3 benefit. This does not make good sense, nor is it a wise 4 use of regulatory resources, especially when both the NRC 5 and the TNRCC are continually faced with funding and i 6 staffing' cuts.
7 Next I'd like to address disposal of non-11e.2-8 materials at 11e.2 byproduct disposal sites, and that's 9 really hard to say. First, I'd like to urge NRC that any 10 rule proposal be clear about whether it applies only to 11 byproduct tailings impoundments associated with the mill or 12 mine, or whether it applies also to a commercial disposal 13 facility-that is not associated with any mine or mill.
14 Although it is unlikely that Texas will-have
! 15 tailings impoundments in the future, it is likely that 16 commercial waste disposal operators may seek this kind of 17 authorization.
L 18 Second, I'd like to remind NRC that the public 19 becomes outraged at the mere mention of siting commercial
.20 low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities. Texas and 21 other compact states have been trying to site a low-level 22- radioactive waste disposal facility for over 15 yecrs, and l~ 23 -none of them have a fully authorized site yet.
24 Third, I need to explain that Texas has unique 25 statutory provisions regarding commercial low-level ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-9034 i L _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ - _ . - - - _ . - - - _ _ - - - - _ - _ _ - _ _ ._ - - _ _ - -- -o
- 17 1 radioactive waste disposal. State statute specifically
()g . 2 created a state agency to own and operate a low-level w
3 radioactive waste disposal facility in Texas. Statute 4 further prohibits a license from being issued to a private 5 company for commercial disposal of low-level' radioactive 6 waste.
7 In order to implement the proposal in the NMA's 8 white paper, statutory changes would be necessary. All 9 changes to radioactive laws are difficult to effect.
10 ~ Depending on what division of compatibility NRC were to make 11 these new rules, Texas would have a difficult time 12 implementing them in the three-year period NRC requires.
13 Fourth, the NMA white paper proposes that mixed 14 radioactive and hazardous waste be disposed of in tailings 15 impoundments. The legal arguments aside, the technical
{}
16 requirements for a byproduct disposal site and a RCRA, 17 Subtitle C, landfill are quite different.
18 And,-last, it is unclear from the white paper 19 which radionuclides are under proposal to be allowed at a 20 tailings impoundment, and the NRC should carefully clarify 21 this in any proposed rule.
i 22- In closing, I'd like to thank you again for the 23 opportunity to comment at this early point in the process !
24 and look forward to working with the NRC as it works on this !
25 proposal.
i p ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Q Court Reporters 1025. Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 L Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
18 1
And I was going to offer to answer questions, but 2 somebody earlier said we couldn't.
3 MR. HOLONICH: If you want to answer a few 4
questions, we try to do that more for the speaker's 5 protection, but if you would like to answer --
6 MS. ROGERS: Whatever.
7 MR. HOLONICH: -- some questions, if people have 8 some questions of Alice --
9 [No response.)
10 MR. HOLONICH: Thank you, Alice.
11 MS. ROGERS: Appreciate it.
12 MR. HOLONICH: Mark, you're the next pre-signed 13 speaker. Why don't you come on up.
14 MR. PELIZZA: My name's Mark Pelizza, 15 P-E-L-I-Z-Z-A. I'm with URI, HRI, both who were with 16 Uranium Resources, Inc. I'm representing URI today.
17 I have two points that I'd like to make today, two 18 points that are important for URI doing business in Texas.
19 We've been in the in situ mining business in Texas for 20 20 years, plur or minus a little bit. And there's really two 21 issues now that NRC is revisiting regulations that I think 22 need to be looked at pretty hard.
23 One is the 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criterion 2 24 policy on waste disposal we believe is obsolete, and it 25 needs to be revisited and revised. We think that it would 9 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
19 1
be a good idea also that some definitive rules be adopted
() 2 3
that strengthen that. We believe that the nonproliferation policy just doesn't make sense anymore.
4 Secondly, very similar to what Alice just 5
mentioned, we believe that NRC should not be revisiting 6 agreement-state decisions on a variety of issues where the 7
agreement state has the authority to make those decisions.
8 Expanding a little bit on my first point, on the 9 Criterion 2 issue, back when 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, 10 Criterion 2, was struck, there was the thought that by the 11 year 2000, there'd be a whole bunch of tailings facilities 12 scattered all over the Western United States and there'd be 13 an abundance of locations for in situ miners to dispose of 14 their discrete wastes.
() 15 And given that there were going to be tailings all 16 over the Western United States, it was a good idea to use 17 these tailings and dispose of in situ wastes and not have 18 small, isolated sites at every single in situ leach site, 19 and that it made a lot of sense 20 Well, now let's take a look at it in almost the 21 year 2000. What we've got is maybe two or three, maybe four 22 tailings left. They are in the latter stages of their life.
23 Some of those tailings may or may not be able to take --
24 some of those few may or may not be able to take in 25 situ leach materials right now, based on company policies, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
9 20 1 state concerns, or whatever.
("'i 2 Confounding this problem, let's look at Texas.
(/
3- There are no tailings open in Texas anymore. Yet there are 4 in situ miners; we're still here. There's a number of other 5 companies that are in groundwater restoration phase.
6 They'll-have solids to dispose of, so what we're faced with 7 is trucking our materials to another state, New Mexico, or 8 as we are-Utah, over 1,000 miles to dispose of these 9 discrete wastes.
10 The problems are cost. I guess cost and cost.
11 First of all, the few facilities that are left can charge as 12 a monopoly, because they are the last few, and we have to 13 pay the prier.- and it's a regulated industry. So the tipping 14 fees at these sites are high.
() 15 Secondly, the transportation is very expensive, 16 when you're trucking essentially dirt on the order of 1,000 17 plus miles. Not only is the tipping fee high, but the cost 18 of getting the material there is more than the tipping fee.
l 19 So we're paying a very, very high premium to 20 dispose of our wastes, which are low-hazard; they're 21 -low-activity wastes; they're chemically neutral; and they're l
22 small volume and we believe would present little risk to 23 dispose of on site.
L 24 And that's where I'm heading with this discussion, 25 as we'believe that Criterion 2 ought to be revisited to make l
(\ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. j l \m) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 j
, 21 1 it a firmer policy where in situ miners can dispose of their
\ 2 wastes on site, using a variety of options that they have I(V 3 available to them.
I j 4 Again, these wastes are low-volume, they're 5 chemically neutral, and they're dry. Tailings, on the other l
6 hand, are large volume; they're not chemically neutral; 7 they're generally low pH; and they're wet. Tailings are 8 about 50 percent water, 50 percent solid.
9 So when you look at the regulations that are 10 needed to safely dispose of tailings, you've got one thing.
11 You've got to consider your groundwater; you've got to 12 consider solution that is'pH2 or something like that, that 13- will need.to be neutralized before your contaminants are 14 going to be contained.
() 15 16 And in situ leach, by the very fact that we have to manage our water during our operations, when we're all 17 done, the solids are dry, so you don't have those types of
..18 groundwater issues.
19 We believe that, given the general character of 20 our wastes, there are manageable solutions for on-site 21 disposal, and we believe that we need a policy and 22 regulations'which will allow that to be.
- 23. We believe that we ought to take another-look at 24 .the fairly large perpetual care fee. It makes sense for 25 tailings, but it doesn't make sense for small, low-risk E
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut ~ Avenue,'NW, Suite 1014-Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
22 1 disposals, sites at an in situ leach operation. I'm not 2 saying it shouldn't be zero fee, but it ought to be 3
commensurate with the amount of material and the amount of 4- maintenance that's required, and if we can demonstrate zero l5- maintenance is required, well, that's what the fee ought to 6 be.
7 Finally, I think that we need to take a strong 8 'look at the policy of mixing wastes on site for closure. A 9: lot of times if the volume is adequately small and the 10 activity is low and the material is essentially chemically 11 neutral, I think it's an option that we just shouldn't 12 automatically eliminate, simply because of policy. I think 13 we need to look at it and see if it's the safe thing to do.
14 The second comment has to_do with revisiting
() 15 16 agreement-state decisions-. I think that Alice covered it well, but I'll say it again from a miner's perspective.
l'7 In Texas, we have, I believe, about the only 18 uranium agreement agreement-state program that there is.
19 There are other states that'll have an EPA-type agency
-20 that'll do UIC and NRC does radioactive materials, but here 21 we have agreement-state agencies that do both UIC and
- 22- radioactive' materials licensing.
23 Now, NMA talked in their white paper about the 24 jurisdiction over in situ leach well fields, and I think 25' that they brought up very good legal issues, and they D ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
_(_)- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l-j-
c - . - - - _ - _-_ _- ___ -
23 1 warrant scrutiny. But that's the situation that we have 2 here in the state of Texas, or we haven't had.
3 What we've had is TNRCC. TNRCC regulates the UIC 4 side'of activities. They do it through the EPA 5 agreement-state status. We've got Departm3nt of Health.
6 They regulate radioactive materials, and they do it through 7 agreement-state status with NRC.
8 There hasn't been a jurisdictional question among 9 the two. Texas -- the TNRCC does their thing; the Health 10 Department does their thing. When we're mining, the 11 byproduct and the source material are regulated through 12- Health Department. The UIC activities are regulated through 13 the TNRCC.
14 When we're finished mining, groundwater
() 15 ' restoration is regulated'by TNRCC. D&D, decontamination and 16 decommission, are regulated by the Health Department. .And 17- then the final-sign-offs are the same. The UIC groundwater
'18 sign-off is done'by the THRCC, and the Health Department 19 signs offion the surface' clean-up. So there just hasn't 20 been a crossover of jurisdictional purviews. I L
21-Now -- and I say, until now -- we have two sites, i l'
12 2 . we being.URI, has-two sites that are reclaimed. These are i
- .2 3 old sites, old in our views. Some of the NRC sometimes 24 ' thinks of old, and they think back to Title I, and that's 25 'real old, b'ut in terms of us, these are sites that were j Q'
s ,/ .-
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-Court Reporters 1025, Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202).842-0034
l
\
24 l
)
1 mined in the late '70s and '80s, and they're now reclaimed. )
2 The TNRCC has written us letters and taken action 3 where we've gone through all of the hoops, and the .
{
4 reclamation is done TDH has filed with NRC a request for 5 license termination. So they're happy with the surface D&D.
6 The problem now is NRC's scratching their head and 7 looking at groundwater and trying to determine whether they
-8 ought-to take a second look at the groundwater phase of 9 things because of their jurisdiction and other states and on 10 a federal level, and I see this as a big problem. It's a 11 ' problem immediately for us. We'd like to be terminated; we 12 want to be out of there.
13 It's a problem for us -- and I will suppose i 14 everyone -- that's an in situ miner in Texas and finds 15 -himself in-a similar situation right now, because what 1 16 happens if the NRC sees something that they don't like?
l l 17 TNRCC is the agency that signed off on this i 18 reclamation. TNRCC is an agreement-state agency with EPA, 19 not NRC. So the way I view it is NRC here really doesn't 20 have a contract, if you will, with TNRCC.
21 If they went back to TDH and said, Well, we don't 22 like molybdenum in the water or we don't like uranium in the 23 . water, TDH would say, Well, we didn't really have Laything l 24 to do with that; that was TNRCC that did that determination.
l 25 And when NRC would go to TNRCC, TNRCC would say, Well, we ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 s
25 1 have an agreement-state deal with EPA. What do we do?
2 So I see you folks as really, on paper at least, 3 on a contract, as just another member of the public coming 4 in. Yet you have a lot more expertise and a lot more reason l
l 5 to say things. So, again, I go back to my initial statement 6- is: If it's within the scope of the state's authority, we I 7 don't believe that NRC should be revisiting state decisions.
8 I guess one other thing I might add. With a ;
9 company like ours and other in situ miners that we find 10 ourself faced with is while NRC is reviewing this policy, a l
11 company like ours is sitting here, paying fees. And since l 12 we're dealing with a fee-based situation, we think that --
1 j
13 I'll go back to my original statement -- that NRC should not ,
14 revisit the State's decision and let the agreement-state
()
15 agencies more or less move on as they always had, and let 16 these licenses be terminated.
17 Those are my two comments. If there are any 18 comments, I'll be gl&d to answer them.
19 MR. HOLONICH: Questions? Questions of Mark?
20 (No response.]
- 21. MR. HOLONICH: Okay. Other speakers? Yes. Come l-22 on up.
23' MR. RATLIFF: Good morning. My name is Richard 24
- Ratliff. I'm chief of the Texas Department of Health's 25 Bureau'of Radiation Control.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
i O' Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036
.(202) 842-0034
26 1
What I wanted to bring up was the fact that, you 2 know, the last session of the legislature, the uranium 3
recovery regulation was transferred back to the Department 4
of Health, so our staff has been busy working at doing 5 close-out surveys at multiple in situ sites.
6 When we had this program prior to 1994, we had the 7 same thing. We survey in detail. We do soil samples to 8
assure that the facilities are clean. We actually have 9
standards in our rules for contamination in buildings on 10 slabs, et cetera, which I don't think NRC has even gone that 11 far by putting it in rule.
12 And then we would take the data from TNRCC, which 13 was the Water. Commission at the time, and our surveys, and 14 if the licensee had done their -- we don't even go until a
( 15 licensee has surveyed and said it's clean. Then we would 16 submit a one-page letter to NRC. And we had several sites 17 that have been closed with that one-page letter.
18 Now we've come back, and sites have been sitting 19 for so long, and we have done detailed surveys. We have 20 soil samples; we have looked at the records from TNRC2, and 21 we're told now that the NRC legal staff is holding up 22 letting these sites be released.
23 What we plan to do is submit all the ones we have, 24 that we have done our final surveys on, and really let the 25 ball be in NRC's court, because we feel that if it was O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
)
27 )
f 1 acceptable back in the late '80s and early '90s, it should l l.
/~N 2 be acceptable now.
3 As agreement states, we basically have staff 4 equivalent to NRC. We're regulatory partners. We're not '
5 people that are regulated by NRC, and this is -- the 6 agreement-state organization, the organization of agreement 7 states, has brought this forward multiple times to the NRC, 8 !
and as we briefed Chairman Jackson and the Commission as a (
9 whole, we've got this buy-in, that the agreement states are 10 regulatory partners with the NRC. l 11 We feel that this is an area that really is 12 causing problems, because we really feel that we have an 13 obligation to get these surveys done. We had a directive in 14 the law that passed that we have to do close-out surveys, so I\ 15 that the companies that are trying to get out of business L) 16 can do this.
17 What we see in South Texas that you don't see in 18 Washington or other areas -- you'll see it in my hometown in i
19 Granites, New Mexico, is surface outcrops of uranium, and 1
20 South Texas is no different. There are surface outcrops 21 that are still there that are much higher than any of the 22 decommissioning standards that were never mined.
23 And so the risk is low. I think it's just that 24 there has to be a format where the states can do their 25 surveys, submit the reports to NRC and not have to submit i
7' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(s,)T Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 f
l-
28 1 voluminous records that would probably collect dust, where
(~ 2 we have requirements in our law that we keep every record
(_]f 3 for all radiation sources, which includes x-ray, lasers and 4 radioactive material, forever. So we have a state library 5 that we microfiche, and we have multiple copies of 6 everything. So there's no question the records will always 7 be there.
8 We release facilities that have much more 9 hazardous contaminants all the time, without any NRC 10 oversight, because we are an agreement state. We've shown 11 that we have the equivalent staff, the equivalent 12 regulations, and so it almost seems at this point that it's 13 a legal issue, because the law requires the NRC to do the 14 sign-off, but it shouldn't be where NRC has to second-guess l')
v 15 the states.
16 That's all I have to say on this.
17 MR. HOLONICH: Any questions?
18 [No response.]
19 MR. HOLONICH: Thank you, Richard.
20 Other folks? Who else would like to speak? Every 21 one of you can talk today, if you'd like. Nobody else? No 22 other speakers?
23 Literally, if there are no other speakers, we are 24 done. Yes. Come on up.
25 MR. CLARK: I'll keep this short and sweet. My
"% ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1((,) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
29 1 name is Jim Clark. I'm with the Everest Exploration, Inc.
2 in Corpus Christi. We're also involved in mining.
('])
Q 3 I might just touch on something that both Mark 4 picked up and addressed and Richard did, is we've been 5 involved in mining in Texas for over 20 years, and the 6 thought of reopening files on sites that are closed and been 7 signed off and released and back to the surface owners is a 8 thought that just conjures up many, many, many bad things, 9 and I can't think of any good things that can come out of 10 that.
11 I think Mark laid it out very well, that that's an 12 issue that we as miners don't want to see, and I think as 13 the TNRCC, as Alice pointed out, they don't want to see. We 14 don't have the resources, the manpower, to address that, and J (m ) 15 then the question is: What happens later if NRC raises an
- J R
16 issue on something that's many years past this point?
17 The other main issue that is of importance to us 18 personally, our company, but I think is important to every l i
l 19 mining company that is represented here today and those that 20 are not is the issue of the TDH being an agreement state as 21 the TNRCC is an agreement state with EPA.
22 Our concerns are -- I think where we'd like to see 23 things head is Texas has been charged as an agreement 24 state -- and I'm focusing primarily on the TDH functions l
25 now -- by the NRC. NRC comes down and they do their audits l
fq ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
( ,/ Court Reporters
-1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
I i
f
.- 30 1 and spot checks, and if, in fact, the NRC is in agreement
() _2 3-that the TDH is administering the program to the rules and regulations that are set out, we personally think that we 4 ought to -- if you've charged them with that event, you let 5 them run the program, and then, you know, the issue comes up i
6 at the end for license termination, that we come to you one 7 last time.
8 We personally are concerned about issues we have l
9 before the TDH now and where others may have issues that 10 have to -- that we run and submit proposals to the TDH, and 11 there again, those programs then go upstream to the NRC for l
12 NRC concurrence as we go. We see that as a major flaw in 13- this program, in the fact that it just delays, adds time and 14 delays to the program.
- () 15 And our view if you've charged them with that 16 responsibility, let them run the program. Let them deal l
i 17 with the licensees and let us all move down the path towards 18 getting these sites closed out.
l 19 And that's in a nutshell just re-emphasizing what 20 others have said, but specific items that are important to 21 our needs.
l 22 23- MR. HOLONICH: I have a question, for you or Mark i 24 or Alice, any one of you folks, or Richard.
i I
25 Where is the impression coming from that whatever
'~\ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
b Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 w _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ ___ _
31 1 we do as a result of these meetings, we would be going back
(' } 2 and reopening decisions that were made on site closure? Why 3 do people think that? I mean, that seems to be a common 4 thread I've heard here this morning? {
S Mark, do you want to --
6 MR. PELIZZA: That's not where I'm coming from at 7 all. What I'd like to see is these meetings result in you 4
8 go back and take a look at some of the things that are being 9 held up that we want that have closed and decide, we don't 10 want to hold these things up anymore.
11 We've got two sites that are Benavides and 12 Alamagorda sites that have been a long time now, and what 13 I've been told is the stuff's at NRC, and I've been -- I 14 don't see him here, but there's a fellow within TDH that I
) .10 just sent that much material, per the request of NRC, on 16 groundwater restoration, that NRC's trying to determine what 17 they want to look at before they terminate this site.
18 And I've got a couple of problems. One is --
19 MR. HOLONICH: You need to come to the mike.
20 MR. PELIZZA: One is that we just want to 21 l
. terminate the sites. We don't even have leases on the j 22 property anymore. And keep in mind, the difference between l 23 Texas, for the most part, and other Western states is these 24 are all private leases with private landowners.
25 So when the mining's done and the royalties stop, l t
l l
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
O)
\m- Court Reporters !
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l f Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034
l l
32 1 they want you out of town. If you don't get out of town,
()
1 2 you get sued. I can tell you a story about that, too. If 3 you don't get into production real fast on the front end, 4 you get sued, and I can tell you a story about that. So 5 while the royalties are flowing, they're very happy, and I
6 when the royalties stop, they want you out of town.
7 We've got two sites. There are no leases on those 8 properties anymore. They're clean; the groundwater's 1
9 finished. I've got letters -- I think my most recent letter 10 from TNRCC is 1992 on groundwater, so -- and the wells are 11 plugged. There's nothing there anymore, and it rests with 1 12 you folks to give the state concurrence. And I believe 13 Richard would probably have a letter out to me in about two 14 weeks, once concurrence is finished.
(O) 15 The second problem is, you know, in the meantime, 16 I've got a fee invoice that'll be coming through pretty 17 soon, and Richard and I will probably have a fairly spirited 18 discussion whether we ought to be paying the fees while 19 nothing's happening. And they're not cheap. You know, 20 everyone knows what fees are. l l
21 So that's where we're coming from, not so much 22 that these meetings are going to cause NRC to start looking 23 at something new, but rather it's something that sort of 24 gravitated in terms of what NRC looks at, and we'd like all 25 that undone. Don't second-guess or don't revisit l l
1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
[~'/)
%,, Court Reporters {l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L-_---
i l .
33 1
agreement-state decisions if it's within their authority.
, /i 2 MR. HOLONICH: So it's not that we will do b 3 something prospectively --
l 4 MR. PELIZZA: It's what's being done right now.
5 MR. HOLONICH: -- to go revisit. It's really the i
6 fact that nothing's being done right now, and if we're going 7 to do something with the regulatory program, look at what B
can be done to expedite terminations in agreement states, 9 rather than NRC going back and revisiting all that's being 10 done --
11 MR. PELIZZA: Right.
I 12 MR. HOLONICH: -- all that's been done by the 13 agreement state. Is that a better --
14 MS. ROGERS: Joe, as I said earlier, we don't
[-w} 15 think you have any authority at all for the groundwater in
(/ j 16 the well fields. We believe that the time that this 17 information should be looked at is before our Commission 18 rules on final clean-up, and then after that, neither TDH 19 l through their agreement with you, nor you, have any ability l 20 to question groundwater.
21 Groundwater -- the TNRCC is the groundwater agency 22 in this state, and we do have UIC primacy, is the word, and 23 we believe that that decision is appropriately made by our '
24 Commission.
25 MR. HOLONICH: Okay. Please give your name and
/N ANN RILEY &. ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(_) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
- .. 34 1 organization.
g 2 MR. FORRER: My name is Gene Forrer. I'm the 1
l 3 chief of the uranium licensing project for the Texas 4~ Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Control, and I L 5 think I can clarify what Mark and Mr. Clark are nervous 6 about.
7 We contacted states' programs to find out what 8 material they would want for sign-off on concurrence of a 9 license termination. At the time, we were told the one-page 10 letter, one- or two-page letter, would suffice. We sent 11 such a letter in, in draft form, to see if NRC would find 12 that acceptable, and they passed it around to their legal 13 staff and everything.
14 The legal staff came back and said they wanted to
( 15 look at everything, and this is what we were told. They 16 wanted to see our surveys; they wanted to see the 17 groundwater clean-up; they wanted to see the final samples 18 that authorized the well capping;.they wanted to see 19 well-capping reports.
20 Apparently the state's program people talked to l 21~ 'them and said, Well, this is crazy; what are we going to do 22 with it. And the idea was they were going to archive.
23 Well, the state's program said, Well, if we receive it, we l 24 .have to review it. This is where it's sitting now: What do 25 they want? Do they want a two-page letter? Do they want i
l 1 g g} ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. {
' (',) Court Reporters ;
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 i (202) 842-0034
'l' i
u___.._____.________
35 1 four boxes of all the records and everything? And that's
~N . 2 (d where we're waiting right now.
3 And the concern of the licensees as they've been 4 expressed to me is, well, if they review this material and 5 they look at it and they find something wrong with a 6 ten-year-old capped well, what are we going to do? You 7 know, they said, Do you realize the cost of going in and 8 opening up a well that's already been plugged.
9- And that's where it stands now is we can't really 10 do anything until these licenses have been terminated, and 11 we don't -- they don't even know what the NRC wants at this 12 point.
13 So that's where the concern of the licensees are 14 coming from, that if they get it, they'll review it, find
,~
15 something they don't like, so --
(u) 16 MR. HOLONICH: Okay.
17 MR. RATLIFF: Richard Ratliff, again. I think 18 part of the concern I had is we had submitted one request to 19 have a site terminated, and the letter I got back was July 20 17, 1998, signed by Richard L. Bangert [ phonetic), director, 21 office of state programs. And it's real short, if I could 22 read it'into the record. l 23 MR. HOLONICH: Uh-huh.
24 MR. RATLIFF: It says, "This is in response to 25 your June 16, 1998, letter regarding the Texas Department of )
l
.l
/i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. )
(_,) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034
36 1 Health proposal to terminate an in situ mine license. l
[~')
v 2
"In accordance with section 274 (c) of the Atomic 3 Energy Act as amended, prior to termination of a specific !
4 license for 11e.2 material, the NRC is required to make a 5 determination that all applicable standards and requirements 6 have been met.
1 7 "We are currently in the process of developing )
1 8 policy and guidance to specify the extent of the information {
}
9 the NRC would need from an agreement state to make this '
10 final determination. You will be advised if NRC needs 11 additional information when we complete reviewing your 12 submittals, based on that policy and guidance."
13 So we had submitted licensees before. We've
, 14 terminated, I think, at least three, and what we see now is
, 's
- i 15 if there's a change in policy, when what was good then, what 16 happens to those sites, especially since there's really l 17 nothing's that's changed. The standards haven't changed; I
l 18 the staff we have is highly qualified health physicists.
l 19 They look at the licensee's records, make sure that it's 20 clean, first, before we go there.
21 And so with both agencies looking at it, it's 22 almost like we're going back. We're doing a lot of work now 23 on former licenses that NRC terminated and didn't have any 24 records of what was there. And, you know, this is a real 25 expense to the states.
/i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
k._,/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _J
. 37 1 And so we have to maintain the records anyway; we l
! /~N 2 have competent people. We do the job well. We just worry iN) l 3 that we'll come back and there'll be another second-guess l 4 on, Should this limit be 25 millirem versus the radium and .
l 5 uranium standards, and so there really is concern there.
6 MR. HOLONICH: Thank you. That's helped. I 7 understand, after you guys gave me a little more detail.
8 I'm on the periphery of the issue and I'm aware of it. As 9 you said, it's more of a state programs.
10 Tony? I knew we wouldn't get by without --
11 MR. THOMPSON: My name is Anthony Thompson. I 12 guess I would also frame this issue in a slightly different 13 context, and that is that we are, as we all know, and as 14 people here in Texas and other places in the country, are
/N
- (v) 15 beginning to deal with sites that are coming to the end of 16 their life cycle, both on the conventional mills and the 17 ISLs.
18 We are having to deal with the realities as 19 opposed to the theory of site closure. And one of the 20 things that we have found, I think, is that we were very 21 fortunate that when the Appendix A regs were put in, there 1 22 was some understanding by the NRC staff and the people 23 involved in commenting, that there is a need to preserve a 24 great deal of flexibility, in order to address site-specific 25 circumstances at any particular type of site.
l l
[^^ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(_,) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ - - __ a
. 38 1 And in that regard, where you have agreement I ("'j - 2 states making decisions on, for example, licensee-proposed V
3 alternatives, recognizing NRC has to sign off on the final 4 licensing termination, I think it is the view of the
.5 industry, and frankly I thought -- and I think at least it's 6 a view that I've heard expressed by NRC at numerous public 7 meetings here in the last couple of meetings with NMA and 8 others -- that where an agreement-state program is competent 9 and has the highly qualified people that Texas does and NRC 10 in monitoring it, however it does that, through audits and I
l-11 spot checks and reviewing the quality of the work that comes 12 in, that if the agreement state makes a decision about
- 13 license termination, that essentially, barring something,
.14 either the fact that the program is simply not up to snuff
() 15 'or-that there's some totally bizarre thing that nobody's 16 ever seen before and that doesn't make any sense, doesn't 17 seem to fit within the rules or the guidance or the laws or 18 .anything else, the NRC essentially is not going to 19 second-guess the agreement states on those kinds of 20 decisions.
l 21 And that, I think, is a very important issue.
l 22 It's not just a specific site; it's the whole idea that as 23 . we go to termination, with each site being different, that l
24 the local conditions give the -- that the local people in l
25 agreement states have the authority and have the ability to L
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. j x, Court Reporters j 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 1 Washington, D.C. 20036 j (202) 842-0034 1
39 1
assess those site-specific conditions and make a decision.
2 And if NRC doesn't find something glaringly wrong 3 with it, they're not going to second-guess it. That's 4
really sort of a larger point about what they're saying.
5 MR. HOLONICH: Good. Other folks? Come on up.
6 MR. WENTZ: My name is Chuck Wentz, W-E-N-T-Z. I 7 represent USX, Texas Uranium Operations. And just to make 8
this real short, I'd like to agree with the speakers before 9 me.
And although Mark brought it up, I'd like to say again 10 that we don't own our land, and the landowners would like to 11 get it back.
12 They see it being released by the agency. Why 13 can't we have it? I have some that want to build a house.
14 They have to wait till they're in the grave to do that, so I
() 15 16 would like expedient results.
That's all I have.
17 MR. HOLONICH: Okay. Other folks like to speak?
18 [No response.]
19 MR. HOLONICH: Okay. Then we're done. I 20 appreciate people coming out. I guess more came to listen 21 than to talk, but I think we got some good comments. I 22 understand some of the issues -- I understand, of course, 23 all the issues, but I think the one that's of the most 24 importance to folks, we've been involved with. We're aware 25 of in this program.
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
40 1 Really when you look at what we're doing here, i
l(~'g- 2 we're doing more of how we would regulate our sites, and the
, G/
3 agreement-state issues that you raised really are addressed 4 more to our state programs office, but I think you've given 5 us a good picture of some of the concerns you've got.
6 We're a consultant in that process. They will J
7 come to us and ask us for advice as they need it, but I 8 think having this information and background, it at least
! 9 gives us an opportunity to talk with some of those folks. l 10 Maybe Maria can talk to some of the people in OGC, in 11 general counsel's office, find out what's going on up there 12 also.
13 So I appreciate the time. I certainly was 14 expecting more comments, but I guess other than a few areas,
'[s} 15 you guys in Texas are pretty happy, huh? l 16 So we're going to end it. ;
17 [Whereupon, at 10:00 a.m., the public meeting was 18 concluded.]
19 l
l 20 21 22 l
l 23 24 25 l
C ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
( ,g/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 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 the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: PUBLIC MEETING -
DRAFT RULEMAKING FOR 10 CFR PART 41 CASE NUMBER:
PLACE OF PROCEEDING: Austin, TX were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear l
t
[O
%d Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewrit.ing 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.
~
~
Y R$6CE s
Patricia Alex Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
t 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ -