ML20239A202

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Transcript of 980825 Public Meeting on Draft Rulemaking for 10CFR41 in Albuquerque,Nm.Pp 1-38.W/Certificate
ML20239A202
Person / Time
Issue date: 08/25/1998
From:
NRC
To:
References
REF-WM-5 NUDOCS 9809080313
Download: ML20239A202 (52)
v • d • e


Text

,,

N i .3 3

1 f

A

- 'i'

./ .

7.:

EA'02Sti9eosas WM-5 pg F

]

l . . ,x S

A m;,

1,

.. ":' r g , .

~"

_s k,,,im 1l.@sld$,6i

~s! .$

1

.-o

'T - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -----

W, l. c/t., , 2

' +

+.

' ' -)-

,. ev r

-{i

& l,fg' : ,2.Q,:!h  ? ! p:

, j p, ,,

., x D'^ ! " y ,,

  • l c.

., ' ^

'I

,'", e , 'L, .l

..c _,,

l

,.g8*s-e .

3,,* 4 i

i

N'O k' ..- .

t '" g =,,,f ,

N - .,;,, . ',: ,jp . c L,8-i r ,

,,iu. , i i N a:

  • c' N. - , -

,P ,

i j, 6 ,L

]j

, , , g, ,_

f4 p-- X{'}-s; wm v ,we j,. , fOFFICIAILTRANSCRIPT LOF PROCEEDINGS - .

sp%

4:. . . . <

c . v, yy'~w, g7 ..

, < m 1

q

.J!s ,

hb L I. [' 4 #  ;

M i m.J i$ m' ! ' ,W 1, UNITED;STATESiOF. AMERICA 1 p.-

- V .

i

,x .

M+ 4 a' . ,

, + ,

u p. -

a

~"5 , . , .. i. .

1

, % (oALxC, g? qNU.CI3EARVREGULATORY?

c

,e .- 3. q >

x -

. COMMISSION; 1 t ?h /' ce d e, ,

l$Y ' ..; 8i

  • I

, , e, . ,  %. . g ' pa i / # : ' y' ~d

  • 4 c,, x,.w , > t
  • -- d'> h.g__ cv- A, t . e W

a

, . .f [

, (o . (: '

! .g u-- .g -

p

';H ,

- .:n , <

W.W' p- ;s -4 -, i

w. .. ... ,,

i

=

m

  1. g;Spc. ,iTitleR m '

?PUBLIC MEETINGE.. DRAW _

. . . . . . '. e>

l' A hN. d . A[dM .

/ k['. ,. - ' , # #

q //-

4#

et-'

[:

i

[ , 3 ..

5 3

.1

$.w,n,Ng E f. , : \ . . .5 1 . ,. j 'k r; . . g 9,e y

.,,. iRULsMAIGNG y.

FOR;10 CFR'PART:41: 4 3.,< < m. ,, r 4s

. c 1 .

t 3.,.g Ll pI,.,,f, ..

t , , , - E " ' "

W' M s+ n

,,, ff-1 Doc'ket No.F'64 , '

g gm;Wa m m _ r.#

, g.; m

, w

, m, , ,

+

l[ ![ , &c fj

> m u 0w,i ;u l < i'

?

i, < a

' W:

,'. , . , x O,. ' e; q ,. .

s f'

~ '9 +

3 s.p.

3 e.a , u r g

g ,;,.gno v u s *

~,

6

.x, 4

f .(, '*. ,. ,. + , _4., g, ,?,, "

,_# s - .

nn, c 'w@n > r 3 Work m ...

n~ OrderiNo'.': P 7ASB;300-418F ,

- c.y, ; m: ~ c <. ,

-g ,

oh 3l+ ^ q 2 e ,

h, b 8r y s *-'l

< '3 *-

  • 7'

='

. r

i 't..,

,f. !

.' ' 'f , ,- ^

%. , g -e d- ';,s;'

c

~~

s - c;.

}.s }m Q'my f

, +

. i j 'a,;:;

x - - , ,

,,!,',,:d: 4:n < 2 F_;,

i

  • ,{[.

+ s s  ?

y

, y

< = 1e

, A r~

, 1

  1. Y

/ .-

. ) * ' Q' %h l, - - --

q t

.R% ~ * ,b.-

( . a p

, b ,,

/I' 7'; i5 -

j$..- ' . <

a 4

1 i,'r,% y . t y

- ' ik. ,,j P'.' ,. ,,, , , , , k 4 j, s

[ '

., :4: .

i- n,~. '

a . . ,

c ,s.

M ,~ , ' 9 * ' ' j LOCATION: < >

Albuquerque NewMexico M +3g, -- ; e%

g ,

3 x

a

.. ~

w  ;  : .' '

y

't f-i 7 .. _ . ' ;DATE: Tuesday, August 25,1998 PAGES: 1 -38

&. l[y.. n ,

i).

s ,v,, .Lc

4 j

%g 4 ,,

tgg a h} L d.

mw s

,an .r r .

,- I a.4 s gi,y , .

, ,,, 3

% " 1 %, rf". f"3 9809080313 980825 i 1 e

' i

.1 PDR WASTE ~ M d 3 p Mf y \ [ WM-5 PDR pr n:2 z.ymb; y-r n '. myan y

g

' yps [)

@a ;g;.3 ' '

" ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD Af& * ^

1250i Street,NW Suite 300 3

NQRC& . w.' Washington,D.C. 20005

%a 1Y$'/ s (202) 842-0034 k &. =- ?. y '

i .

,,E ..

. 1:n + t G

( ,,

N i, / < n l% 7 iU9 y

n .,, -

vgy .  ; ,

g .~. g' a  ; \

5 fpp r$! I

._,c.,- rup $ '

'l %N

'yl- i

> W

? N;sd; f -

A x,^ ,, '{;ld _, . _. - -, , ' % 'I , ._

f . l..

yl*f- ,, --._i- - -- "'

l l- '

l l

1-1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

/~T Q 2 PUBLIC HEARING 3

4 5 Federal Building 6 Room 4031 7 517 Gold SW 8 Albuquerque, New Mexico 9.

10 August 25, 1998

. ,11 12 13 14 15 16- APPEARANCES:

17 18 FROM THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS 19 Joseph J. Holonich 20 Myron H. Fliegel 21 Maria Schwartz 22 Anne Ramirez 23 Patrick Macicin 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

r-2 1 SPEAKERS (q- -

2 PAGE l 3 By Mr. Holonich 3 l .. 4 By Mr. Fliegel 4 l 5 By Mr. Goranson 11 6 By Mr. Clement 13 7 By Mr. Shusy 17 8 By Mr. Holonich 22 9 By Ms. Curran 23 i

10 By Mr. Shuey 24 11 By Mr. Holonich 24 12 By Mr. Shuey 25 13 By Ms. Curran 26 14 By Mr. Robinson 26

( 15 By Mr. Holonich 32 16 By Mr. Robinson 33 17 By Mr. Capitan 36 18 By Mr. Wittrup 38 19 By Mr. House 38 20 By Mr. Clement 40 21 .By Mr. Holonich 40 22 By Ms. Archuleta 41 23 By Mr. Holonich 43 24 By Mr. Luthiger 43 25 i

I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

I / Court Reporters i

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

l

  • 3 PROCEEDING'S

~

1 l-

! '\-. ( 2 (9:00 a.m.)

3 MR. HOLONICH: Why don't we go ahead and get 4 started. Good morning, I would like to welcome you to the 5 Nuclear' Regulatory Commission's public meeting on its 6 regulatory framework for uranium recovery facilities. For 7 those of you who don't know me, my name is Joe Holonich and 8- I'm the Chief of NRC's Recovery Branch. I'm here this 9 morning with, on my right, Marie Schwartz from our Office of 10 General Council. Marie works with us on issues like rule 11 -making or guidance and development. On my left is Mike 12 Fliegel, who is the project manager for this regulatory 13 ' review we're undertaking, as well as Pat Mackin who provides 14 us support, and he is a contractor at the Center for Nuclear I 15 Waste Regulatory Analyses. We also have out here helping us 16 with slides and candies and water, or whatever, Anne 17 Ramirez, who is our licensing assistant in the branch.

18 We're here this morning because NRC is basically looking at 19 the regulatory framework for the uranium recovery program.

20 What we're going to do is give a short presentation that 21 takes about 10 or 15 minutes. For those people who aren't 22 familiar'with us, it talks a little bit about the NRC and 23 its view and how we regulate, and then what we're hoping to 24 accomplish by the meeting. This is the second meeting of 25 four that we have scheduled. We held one yesterday in i

l

/3 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

(s l Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

4 1 Austin. We are going to hold one tomorrow in Casper and 2 Thursday in Denver. What we're hoping to do is get input 3

and. ideas from folks of what their view is of the regulatory 4 framework for the uranium recovery program. At this point 5 we have three speakers signed up, Paul Goranson from Rio 6 .Algom, Dick Clements from Hydro Resources and Chris Shuey-7 from Southwest Research Information Center. Chris isn't 8 here yet, correct, Diane?

9' MS. CURRAN: .Not yet. He should be here pretty 10 soon.

11- MR. HOLONICH: So we'll go through the 12 presentation and then we'll start off with the speakers.

13 We've got the room scheduled until 3:00 this afternoon, and 14 if we get that much discussion we're willing to stay.

-( ) 15 Yesterday in Austin we were done at 10:00 so who knows what 16 will happen at this point. What we'll do is have Mike 17 Fliegel give a little background on the NRC and its process.

18 For folks who work in the process it's probably redundant,

19. but for the people who don't work with us every day it was 20 intended to give the public a little bit more background, 21 and then open it up to the speakers. I put down a 10-minute j 22 time limit because I didn't know how many speakers we would 23- .have. If-we only have three. speakers, then we won't impose 24 a time limit on folks and let them speak their peace and let 25: them take whatever time they need. We also have some other ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
  • O Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)' 842-0034

i

(

5 i

1 information available on the table. Besides copies of our i

' (h

/~

w) 2 slides we have copies of the National Mining Association's 3 White Paper and we have copies of the presentation that the 4 National Mining Association gave back to the Commission in 5 June. Those are available for anybody who would like a copy 6 of those. What I'm going to do at this point is turn it 7 over to Mike Fliegel so he can give you some information and 8 background, and then we can go on and have the speakers.

9 MR. FLIEGEL: I'm Mike Fliegel. As Joe said, I'm 10 the project manager for this effort, which is intended to 11 initially determine what path NRC should follow in terms of 12 whether or not we revise our regulations or our regulatory 13 guides or leave things as they are. The first thing I want

-.s 14 to do is just talk a little bit about the NRC, and probably

() 15 it's unnecessary for most of the people here, but this is a 16 public meeting and we may have some people who are 17 unfamiliar with it. We are an independent regulatory l 18 agency. We were established in 1974. We had been part of 19 the Atomic Energy Commission before that and we have 20 approximately 2500 staff members. We're responsible for the 21 licensing of civilian use of radioactive materials, and 1

22 that's the reactor program, which is what most people 23 understand NRC to be, also source, special nuclear and 24 byproduct material, which is where this program fits in.

25 Transportation of low-level and high-level waste. NRC is

( l i

') ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

s/

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i

L___________.._

6 1 organized. We have three offices that are mandated by

~T 2 legislation; that's reactor regulation, nuclear material

[O 3 safety and safeguards and research.

i The Uranium Recovery 4 Branch, where this effort is coming out of, is a branch in 5 the Division of Waste Management and the Nuclear Material 6 Safety and Safeguards Office. We put out our basic NRC 7 framework. We share a common responsibility with the i

8 licensees for public health and safety. Federal regulations 9 and regulatory programs are important elements in the g 10 protection of the public. NRC's philosophy is that our 11 licensees have the primary responsibility for the safe use 12 of nuclear material. The NCR's regulatory role. We develop 13 regulations and guidance and that's what the purpose of this 14 meeting falls under is the development of our regulations

("

(,) 15 and guidance. We review applications for proposed actions 16 to determine if they meet our regulations. When we do that 17 review, the burden of proof is on the licensee or applicant 18 to prove that what they propose meets our regulations. We 19 do not select sites or designs or participate with our 20 licensees or applicants in selecting a proposed site or 21 design. That's especially frustrating to some of our 22 project managers when the press continues to -- when there's 23 a controversial site or design, continues to couch it in 24 terms like it's NRC's site or design. We don't do that.

25. It's mostly something they don't understand. Our role as an

/ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters  ;

l- 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036  ;

(202) 842-0034 '

1

~ __ .- _ _ _ - _ _ - . - _ - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - -

. l

. 7 1 independent regulatory agency is that we can either grant 2 the proposed application. We can grant the proposed subject 3 to conditions that have been agreed to by the licensee or 4- applicant or we can deny the application. We can't tell the 5 applicant to do something different. We're now seeking 6 public input. We're conducting an evaluation of our 7 regulatory framework for the uranium and thorium extraction 8 program. Our experience in using the current regulations 9 has led us to undertake a review of those regulations.

10 We're looking to implement a more consistent and effective 11 uranium program. We have also received a White Paper from 12 the National Mining Association in which four areas were 13 discussed, and those are concurrent jurisdiction and in situ 14 leach and NRC's oversight of the groundwater aspects of I)

V 15 that, the allowance of materials other than natural ore to 16 be used and to be brought into a mill to be processed and 17 disposal of material other than byproduct material tailings.

I 18 The purpose of this meeting is to obtain early input on the 19 interception areas and to obtain public comments on the 20- National Mining Association White Papei. Based on that, we 21 will consider the potential for future actions, if any, and 22 are certainly interested in input from public sources on 23 what we should do. These are all generic concerns. We're 24 not here to discuss specific actions related to individual 25 sites or licenses. All of the comments we receive will be l

l O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 I

Washington, D.C. 20036  ;

(202) 842-0034 =

8 1 considered. We have a court reporter who is taking down

() 2 every word that anyone says, but in considering comments

-3 what we will do, obviously, is all of the actions must be 4 consistent with our regulatory philosophy. We're 5 responsible for regulating the production of source material 6 from uranium and thorium mills, including in situ leach 7 facilities. We must ensure that inactive uranium mills are 8 properly reclaimed. We confirm acceptable implementation 9 through our inspection program. We must also ensure that 10 reclaimed uranium mill sites are closed in a manner that's 11 appropriate and are properly taken over by the long-term 12 custodian, which in most cases will be the Department of 13 Energy although the individual states have the right to do 14 that. Now, again, in addition to our regulatory program we

() 15 received a White Paper from the National Mining Association 16 that requested NRC to perform a strategic assessment of key 17 positions that we have taken in the uranium recovery 18 program. The White Paper said that NRC needs to reassess 19 the question of a jurisdiction _by non-agreement states and 20 the uranium recovery program of non-radiological components 21 of byproduct material. NRC needs to reassess its 22 jurisdiction over in situ leach facilities, the disposal of 4

23 radioactive material that doesn't meet the definition of 24 11e. (2) byproduct material in tailings impoundments and 25 NRC's policy of allowing alternate feed material to be O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L

~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I 9

1 ' processed with its uranium content. There was a

() 2 recommendation of NMA that the non-agreement states don't l 3 have jurisdiction over the non-radiological componencs of 4 11e.(2) byproduct material and that NRC should not regulate 5 the well fields and in situ leach mining facility, that the 6 disposal policy for non-11e. (2) byproduct material is too 7 restrictive and should be revised, and NRC should explore 8 allowing other kinds of radioactive material to be disposed 9 of at mill tailing facilities other than the narrow group of 10 materials that our current position paperwork would allow to 11 be disposed of. There are also a couple of concerns about 12 the policy for allowing material other than natural ore to 13 be processed for its source material content, and that one 14 of the primary concerns is that we should not focus on the C)

(, 15 economics when a licensee proposes to do that. Future 16 actions. We have this meeting. We had a meeting yesterday 17 in Austin. We're having two more meetings. Based upon the 18 information gained at NRC we're going to have to internally 19 determine what we're going to do next in terms of the 20 regulatory program. There are several obvious options. We 21' can design. We can decide that we need to revise some 22 regulatory guidance. We can decide that we need to revise 23 our regulations and we can write down most of the 24 regulations for uranium recovery at 10 C.F.R. Part 40. We 25 can revise that. Another suggestion is to create a new part i

1 fbL

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

( Court Reporters l

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

_ _ - -_ _ _____ _ ___-_ __ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ __ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _

+

l-.

10 1 exclusive for uranium recovery, tha s another option. We m,

2 can, based upon the feedback we , c, come to the conclusion 3 that no major action is needed, that the program is running 4 well. We also have to decide how best to respond to the l

L 5 industry issues. That's basically our presentation and the 6 major part of the meeting. The remainder of the meeting is i 7 to receive input from the public and for those interested 8 stakeholder. The meeting is being transcribed. We ask l 9 that all speakers, before they speak, clearly state your 10 name and spell your name and provide the name of any 11 organizations that you're representing or associated with.

12 The meeting is not intended as a question and answer session 13 with NRC, it's primarily just to get public input. We have 14 a time limit and so we would ask people to keep to that time

) 15 limit, but if we've gone through all of the speakers and 16 people still want to speak, we're here until our planes 17 leave. We ask the audience to refrain from asking questions 18 to the speakers. With that, we're ready for the first 19 speaker. MR. HOLONICH: Paul, would you like to go first?

20 Right there is fine if you want to come up and speak to the 21 audience, whatever, it's your choice.

22 MR. GORANSON: I don't necessarily have a pulpit 23 up here. My name is Paul Goranson, G-o-r-a-n-s-o-n. I 24 represent Quivira Mining Corporation Company here in New 25 Mexico. .I want to thank you for the opportunity to comment

[ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD l Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 I (202) 842-0034  :

l

. 11 1 on this' proposed rule-making regulatory framework review.

2

[ f"]

\-./ -'

First of all, we want to go ahead and state that we support 3 the NMA's White Paper and.the positions placed in it. We j 4 feel that those positions go a long way to improving the

! 3 . regulation of our operations. Secondly, it's kind of hard i6 ' to comment cx1 a' regulation or on a proposed regulation

.71 without saying anything in front of us so I can't really 8 comment on any proposed rule making. Our opinion right now 9 is that we believe that if we go in and implement the NMA's 10 recommendations and existing rules, that we believe that the 11 rules as they stand will work well. Our concerns with the 12 new rule making mainly is concerned with a change in 13 standards, tightening standards or changing cleanup 14 standards. When operations or a site has improved a

( 15 commissioning plan, how that's going to apply back, is there 11 6 going to be a back fit, and standards to an improved plan.

17 We're concerned about that the last guy standing will end up 18 cleaning up everybody else's mess. And by increasing or by 19 applying additional standards will increase our costs 20 significantly and delay the closure of these sites. If you 21 do go ahead and start new rule making, we ask that you 22 please consider the NMA's positions in those rule makings.

23 We also ask that we have more meetings like this, allow 24 licensees to have some input into the rule making. One of 25 the strongest points we would like to emphasize is the dual ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O- . Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

_ _ - _ -. _____ ___- - _- _ __-__ _D

12 1 regulation aspect. There are several situations where we 2 have state agencies and NRC positions that are either 3 opposite or in conflict with each other and that puts the 4 licensee in a very difficult position. By clearing up some 5 of these concurrent jurisdictions we feel it would make the 6 implementation of those license conditions and regulations 7 much more efficient and effective. That's really all I 8 have. I want to thank you again. I appreciate your time.

9 MR. HOLONICH: Dick?

10 MR. CLEMENT: Yes, I'll be glad to go next. My 1

11 name is Dick Clement, Richard Clement, R-i-c-h-a-r-d, 12 C-1-e-m-e-n-t and I'm president of Hydro Resources, 13 Incorporated, which does business in New Mexico as HRI, Inc.

14 HRI is a subsidiary of Uranium Resources, Inc., which has T

j 15 been in the business since 1977 in situ leach mining. The 16 company has developed four in situ leach operations in South 17 Texas and has completely mined two of them and has restored 18 those properties. We're currently operating on two other 19 properties in south Texas, and we have two other properties, 20 mainly Vasquez and Alfa Mesa in south Texas that we intend 21 to develop and are in the permitting prep phase. We have a 22 number of properties in New Mexico that are in the process 23 of being permitted and licensed. We began our licensing 24 process with the NRC back in 1988 after we first acquired 25 our first property, which was Church Rock, and Church Rock t

(~'

\

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

13 1 we acquired in 1987 We put in an application in 1988 and

() 2 since that time we have acquired a number of other 3 properties. And then in association with the Bureau of 4 Indian-Affairs, we signed approximately 200 allottees, 5 Native American allottees in the vicinity of Crownpoint, New 6' Mexico that wish to see their properties developed. As part 7 of the process for ratification of those leases by the area 8 director,'the Bureau of Indian Affairs required that an 9 environmental impact statement be written in order to meet 10 the environmental requirements. That was started in 1993 11 and the draft environmental impact statement was released by 12 the NRC out of the URFO Office, then out of the Denver area, 13 in 1994, October. At that time a number of comments were 14 received by the NRC, approximately 1,000 comments by

() 15 commentors, and over the last few years the NRC was 16 reviewing and answering those comments in the final 17 environmental impact statement. The EIS was finalized in 18 January of 1997 and the company received its license to 19 operate in January of this year. What we have done in the 20 past is that in terms of the process, the EIS process and 21 the licensing process we spent over one-million-and-a-half 22 dollars in NRC fees. On the properties in New Mexico we 23 spent over $16 million in development of these properties, 24 the' majority of which is spent in the permitting area. Now, 25 from what we understand, the NRC is reviewing its position

() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 i (202) 842-0024

)

14 1 on its regulatory program, vis-a-vis, in situ leach

(~'i 2 operations. I have very mixed feelings about that. There

\)

3 -has been some suggestion that the NRC may get out of the in 4 situ leach mining phase of the regulatory business. I feel 5 that the staff, the NRC staff has a very good and strong 6 technical group that has reviewed our application. I would 7 obviously prefer to see it done more speedily and there are 8 some people here who would like to see it drag out, but, 9 nevertheless, our working relationship with them has been 10 very much arms-length but I feel that the number of 11 conclusions that they have come to have been proper. On the 12 other hand, working with the EPA, which we know covers our 13 operations under the Safe Drinking Water Act, requires the 14 EPA to have oversight on the underground injection control

() 15 program. We're dealing with many different regions'within 16 that agency, so consequently it's an education process, the 17 industry educating the regulator. We find that to be our 18 role. That is exactly what we're responsible to do. We 19 propose and they dispose. So consequently that means that 20 we have to make well-known what our intent is, what the 21 simplicity of our operations are and what our capabilities 22 are of meeting all of the regulatory requirements. My only 23 concern is if the NRC continues to stay within the 24 regulatory framework of the in situ leach business, that it 25 look at it from the risk-informed perspective. We're O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

[- ,

i , 15 1 dealing with a method of mining which is the most benign 2 mining method employed in the United States and that it is,

)

I 3 I feel, the responsibility.of the NRC to inform the public 4 of how'little impact there is from this type of operation, 5 because we spend a lot of time communicating with people 6 outside that just really do not understand how minimal of an 7 impact there is in situ leach. Consequently there, in fact, 8 is.an interesting aside. I understand that a nuclear 9 reactor was started up at Sandia Labs for the purpose of 10 generating radioisotopes for medical purposes just recently l

11 and no one cares about that, a nuclear reactor operating in

! 12 the middle of Albuquerque versus an in situ facility who are 13- predominantly in very remote parts of the U.S.

14 Consequently, my feeling about this is that the people, the

() 15 16 public need to be informed about the mineral impacts. Thank you.

17 MR. HOLONICH: Chris. You both can speak. We 18 have plenty of time. You guys can both speak if you want.

19 No problem. You may not have heard this but give your name, j 20 spell it and the organization.

1 21 MR. SHUEY: My name is Chris Shuey, C-h-r-i-s, f i

22 S-h-u-e-y. I'm on the staff of Southwest Research and 1 23~ Information Center here in Albuquerque and I direct the 4 24 community water waste and toxics program. Our group here 25 .

today includes Diane Curran, our Washington D.C. based

('") ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-(_/ Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034  !

l

16 1 lawyer with the firm of Harmon, Curran, Spielberg &

2 Eisenberg. We have Paul Robinson the research director at

)

3 ' Southwest Research and Information Center, and we have Mr.

4 Mitchell Capitan who is the president of the Eastern Navajo 5 Department Against Uranium Mining Organization based in 6 Crownpoint. Our organization has been involved in uranium 7 recovery issues for more than 20 years. Some of us, 8 including Mr. Robinson, were involved in the original debate

.9 over UMTRCA., Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 10 1978, an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act. We have been

.11 observing the uhanges in the uranium recovery industry over 12 the last two decades or more, and became involved in the 13 particular proposal for ISL mining at Church Rock and 14 Crownpoint at the request of the citizen groups back in r

l )j 15 1994, 1995. We have to be careful of what we say in this 16 forum about the proceeding that we're involved in right now.

17 It is clearly one of the only times that we're aware of and 18 that we can find in the record in which there is an 19 adjudicated proceeding related to an ISL license, the one 20 Mr. Clement referred to as being awarded by the NRC staff to 21 HRI in January of this year. Several issues that will be 22 litigated in this proceeding have a direct bearing on the i 23 NRC staff's policy initiatives. We find it very difficult 24 and awkward,.on one hand, to be faced with a. policy 25 proceeding that may end up in rule making at the same time I'T ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

(_s/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L  !

17 1 that we may be involved in litigating some of the same  !

[ 'l 2 issues. The risk-informed performance based licensing is g

3 just one of those. We were concerned to hear about and read 4

about the current initiatives of the NRC from the Commission 5 through the staff level by way of literature on the Web site l 6 and had known, of course, that the National Mining 7 Association had been raising concerns about some of these 1 8 issues in the past but were not aware and were not directly 9 informed of the proceeding for the Commission in June in 10 which the NMA gave a presentation about its White Paper.

11 There are other points of view other than the uranium

, 12 recovery industries that you should be aware of. There are l

l 13 significant risk-associated issues in the case that we're i 14 involved in. There are significant risk-associated issues e

( 15 with many other ISLs. We do not believe, at least on the '

16 basis of the NMA paper, that there was a substantial amount )

17 of site specific, license specific evidence to necessarily 18 change the status quo to justify the notion that the NRC 19 does not have jurisdiction underground, or to drastically 20 alter the NRC's almost 20-year determination that the 21 ~ processing of source material actually begins underground 22 with the injection of oxygenates. The lixiviant action 23 strips the grains of uranium. That only happens underground 24 at an ISL operation. That's very unlike a typical I 25 underground uranium mine where the addition of oxygen is

[ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

t -

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

. i 18 j 1 simply by the sinking of shafts and creation of stopes and I-e f '% -2 underground mine workings. There's no processing, really, b 3 that happens there. So there seemed to be a legitimate 4

basis, a scientific basis for the NRC's determination many 5 years ago that ISL operations were one continuous loop. We 6 don't see any reason to change that notion. I believe that 7 you'll find that there are significant differences between i i

8 the coverage of the NRC program underground and the EPA 9 underground injection control program underground. We are 4 i

10 also aw*re that the concern over alternative feedstocks and 11 the petitioning involved or the petitioning for different 12 kinds of waste going in to the White Mesa facility has 13 generated some significant concern in the local communities, 14 with the State of Utah and with the Navajo Nation. Not too 15

) long ago, a week and a half or so ago we received a couple 16 of calls from council delegates from the Navajo Nation and 17 the president's office seeking information as to what could 18 be done to get a handle on the concerns raised by the I 19- importation of other kinds of wastes that may or may not be 20 11.e(2) byproduct material. Clearly the perception of the 21 local communities is that that particular uranium mill 22 tailings impoundment is becoming a little radioactive waste 23 dump. There is a concern over the expansion of the facility l l

24 related to the grave site protection and National Historic  !

! 25 Preservation Act issues. So we could potentially raise all l

l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

'O Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l

l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 t

w._____1_______.__________.

19 1

sorts of a number of concerns about the initiatives that are 2 going on.

[~)'

\s We would simply ask at this point to be 3 adequately informed. When the staff comes up with some sort 4 of policy paper in and of itself, we need to be informed for 1

5 potential rule making. We would like to be involved. As I 6 understand it, the staff has to prepare some sort of 7 rule-making justification to present to the Commission 8 before being authorized to go to rule making. We would like l

9 to be informed of those proceedings and have an opportunity 10 to comment. We get lumped in with the environmental 1 11 community. The environmental community is not any more 12 monolithic than the uranium recovery industry, as in uranium 13 recovery operations of specific companies our resources are i 14 even more limited. We cannot be everywhere at all times but (n) 15 we do need to have an opportunity so that we can get out the 16 word to other communities and constituencies that you may 17 need to hear from. I would close by simply saying if there 18 is any of my colleagues here who would like to have an 19 opportunity to say something, I would appreciate that. One 20 aside is that our organization and other organizations in 21 this community were actively involved in the whole debate 22 over whether the CME reactor should produce medical l 1

23 isotopes, one of the few times that we have actually not 24 prevailed in a proceeding. So the notion that there was no 25 concern is incorrect. And the notion that the particular y

l'\_/') ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters  :

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014  !

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L

, 20 1 facilities in which Mr. Clement is involved in trying to get

(} 2 operating are in remote areas is not consistent with the

\m-3 notion of the 3,000 people that live in and around 4 Crownpoint and the 15,000 people who drink from the sole 5 source of drinking water. Thank you.

6 MR. HOLONICH: Chris, if I can try to break the 1

7 rule and ask the speaker some questions? There's two things 8 I want to get a little more clarification on. First, when 9 you t2Lk about getting people involved and making sure 10 people know about what is going on, we tried very hard to 11 send out notices of this meeting to everybody who has ever 12 contacted us on uranium recovery issues. Is there something 13 else that we could be doing different as we move from this 14 in the future? Are there groups that we missed that you

() 15 could give us names of, people or groups? MS, CURRAN: I'll 16 speak to that. As you know, ENDAUM/SRIC are intervening in 17 the HRI licensing case. We didn't find.out about the 18 -presentation by the National Mining Association to the 19 Commissioners until after it took place, or maybe it was the

-20 day of and no one could go. I actually called counsel for 21 the NRC staff because it was something that I felt should 22 have been put into a board notification. This is something 23 that bears directly on our case that we're involved in and 24 it feels to the interveners like an end run by the industry 25 because we weren't informed before the fact of this o /'T ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

(/ Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

21 1 presentation at the highest level of the agency on an issue 2 that directly bears on the litigation. We would ask in the 3 future that if there's any further action on this that there 4 be immediate notification to the parties of the licensing 5 proceeding. It's the only proceeding that I'm aware of that 6 involves ISL mining. I don't think there's a great burden 7 to notify the parties through this proceeding because 8 certainly the industry parties to that case are involved in 9 this effort and we would like to know about it.

10 MR. HOLONICH: That's a point well taken, Diane.

11 As you well know, the Commission is a body and the staff is 12 a body and the Commission does the scheduling and the 13 notification of its meetings, and I just never followed up 14 and said, well, does the staff or should the staff put out 15 some kind of notice to the parties. That is a good point 16 and that's the kind of feedback we wanted to get so I 17 appreciate that.

18 MR. SHUEY: We could provide an extensive list of 19 organizations. I think that any time there's anything about 20 uranium in the Four Corner's area there are tribal 21 governments that need to be directly informed.

22 Government-to-government contact is the appropriate method 23 in that regard. Clearly the State of Utah has had some 24 interest here recently. This particular proceeding we heard 25 about and made some inquiries, but the only piece of paper L

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

C Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 842-0034 l

\ _ ._____________________L

22 1 we ever got is we're on the NRC's Office of Public Affairs

() 2' 3

press release list so we got that.

MR. HOLONICH: That was actually us. We took the

4. initiative and actually mailed it out, that's why I'm trying 5 to find a little bit more background because we did that.

6 Did we send it to Window Rock? We sent it to the Navajo 7 Nation at Window Rock and we sent it to the Navajo Utah 8 Commission, we sent it to the parties and petitioners on 9 HRI, not any folks who were admitted but the folks who 10 petitioned but didn't get admitted, anybody who has written 11 us letters on uranium mining. So what I'm trying to find is 12 if we're missing somebody please tell us because we would 13 like to make sure those people ere involved because we do 14 want to get the feedback, we do want to get both sides of

( 15 the story so that we can make a well-informed and a 16 well-balanced decision whenever we decide to move forward 17 and address the issues. The second question I had was you 18 made a statement that said there are major -- maybe major 19 wasn't the word -- significant differences between the UIC 20 Program and the NRC's regulation of the groundwater. Could 21 you give me a little more input on that? MR. SHUEY:

22 I think I said there may be differences in coverage and 23 differences in focus.

24 MR. HOLONICH: Can you give me some examples?

I 25 MR. SHUEY: Well, in the EPA program there is the l

l T

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

('d i j

Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l l

Washington, D.C. 20036  :

(202) 842-0034 l

w__-______

i t

23

1 concern for the protection of underground drinking water

'\ 2 sources. The radiological aspects of ISL are clearly the

) [d 3 concern of the NRC and so the focuses of the two programs 4 are different and, in fact, there probably is overlap, but 5 the combination of those allow for a comprehensive approach 6 that one agency or another may not have. I think that as we l

7 go forward in our case we will begin to see more significant 8 differences and would be willing to share that with you.

9 MR. HOLONICH: Other folks who would like to 10 speak.

l 11 MS. CURRAN: I just wanted to add something to 12 what Chris said. I'm Diane Curran. I'm one of the 13 attorneys for ENDAUM/SRIC. I think one of the previous l 14 speakers said how difficult it was to comment on a proposal

p( ~). 15 that hadn't gelled yet. In my view, if the NRC is planning 16 to take some kind of regulatory action I think it would be 17 appropriate in this case to do an advance notice of proposed l

18 rule making and get some preliminary comments on that 19 because I don't think it would be wise to launch into 20 full-scale role making without letting the public and the 1 21 industry have something a little more focused to comment on.

22 MR. HOLONICH: We had some hands here. Paul.

l l 23 MR. ROBINSON: I'll follow precedent. I believe 24 Pauls are supposed to stand over here. Thank you very much 25 for the opportunity. Welcome to New Mexico. My name is ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O_ Court Reporters i 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i I

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

24 1 Paul Robinson. I'm the research director for the Southwest 2

[ Research and Information Center and I'm also a participant 3 in the mining reform working group middle policy center, a 4 national organization concerned about mining, as well. I 5 got a real kick out of reading the NMA's position. They 6 neglect to mention much of their history either in its 7 predecessor organizations, the ANC or its many participant 8 corporations. In the development of the rule making that 9 they now find so inappropriate, certainly you as 10 representatives of the Commission have a responsibility to 11 be more thorough in your research and not look at an 12 advocacy position as the sum total of an argument, And 13 certainly in this case it will be very important to just 14 look at this as one way to see the issues. It's certainly a

() 15 strong statement by a mature and diverse organization, but 16 looking at what the role of the members of the NMA that are 17 part of the Uranium Producers' Association was in the 18 effective delay of the implementation of the uranium mill 19 tailings regulations. Certainly if we're looking at 20 mechanisms to delay implementation of statute we need to 21 look no further to the challenge issued by those 22 organizations. At the same time I would like to just 23 mention that my master's thesis from the University of New l

24 Mexico Planning Program is one for planning for reclamation ,

25 of uranium mines in the former East Germany which took the f)i

\_

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Court Reporters Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

(_-_ - ______ - __-__

25 1 gold medal in uranium production during the Cold War, beat 2 New Mexico, and their in situ uranium mines have proven to

(}

3 be extremely difficult to restore. Sulfuric acid leach 4 mines, also, in the Czech Republic. I don't know if you 5 ladies and gentlemen have had the opportunity to see some of 6 these mines, but major water resources, water supplies for 7 northwestern Bohemia are at great risk from the storage 8 wastes left underground and the Koenigstein facility in 9 Saxony would be the one to look at to look at the estimate 10 of 800,000 cubic meters of sulfuric acid left in a drinking 11 water aquifer that's protected only by the cone of 12 depression from the de-watering operations. We're looking 13 at yet another example of permanent pump and treat here. So 14 the type of mine that is proposed at Crownpoint is an in

() 15 situ mine. The initials are not EBISL. It is not 16 environmentally benign in situ. That is a marketing term.

17 It is very difficult to restore an aquifer once contaminants 18 have been mobilized. There are excellent technologists in 19 many of the mining companies who have strong approaches to 20 address this problem. The particular ore body near 21 Crownpoint, which was first leached by Mobile was not 22 restored to the permit standards, and a variance was issued 23 by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to allow that facility 24 to be shut down for two heavy metals found in association 25 with the ore. NRC recognized this certainly in its

/'S ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 L Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L

\

I 26 1 conditioning of the license which it issued in January of

() 2 this year. Calling something environmentally benign is not 3 the same as demonstrating the case with strong technical 4 evidence. I think that is just a couple of the major 5 factual differences that one might find if one established a 6 dialogue to hear different parties discuss a matter in some 7 depth. I appreciate your coming to New Mexico. We don't 8 really mind being out in the field here. We know we're not 9 inside the beltway. But a dialogue is not really what 10 you're getting with this kind of a discussion and there are Il many different models for dialogue, where one tries to 12 explore issues in depth trying to build on some sort of a 13 common interest or collegiate approach. Some of the 14 representatives of some of the mining companies in New

()

15 Mexico and community organizations have been able to work 16 together on a number of different mining issues and-this 17 certainly is an excellent one. But we're not going to get' 18 that dialogue unless there's some other alternatives added 19 to the list of options, which the Commission staff 20 identified in the opening statement. We don't see that I

21 dialogue building process. NMA would have had options of l 22 petitioning for rule making seeking statutory change, i

23 instead they are asking for something that is much less 1 l

24 clear or substantive than that degros of change. And 25 whether the NRC has to see this as a basis for rule making, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

4 27 1 I note their comment, their quoting of the NRC talking about

/T 2 how this process is diverting NRC staff permitting O

3 activities, but there are a number of reasons to look at 4 some of these long-term issues. I think that the example of 5 the White Mesa Mill where a facility which was long dormant 6 kept a license just by renewing per forma, and then reopened 7 with a whole different feed stock. I think that that is an 8 example of another kind of problem in the NRC permitting 9 system. This standby role was not addressed in a 10 substantive way and an innovative operator was allowed to 11 use this in a manner which did not allow effective public 12 review of a revision. The same matter occurred related to 13 the Dawn mining facility in Washington State where there is, 14 I think, a reclamation plan held hostage for a new feed A

~ ( ,) 15 stock where a company is arguing it can not afford to clean 16 up and must get new feed in order to generate the new 17 capital all using DOE waste cleanup funds. I noticed the 18 NRC neglected to identify where it came from in 1974. Some 19 of us remember. The DOE relationship to uranium mining is i

20 mentioned briefly in Mr. Clement's statement where he talks 21 about the new U.S. enrichment corporation efforts to market 22 something of the 75 million pounds of uranium. Certainly l

23 that will make it more difficult for new producers in that 24 there's another player in the market. Whether privatization l 25 of enrichment is actually cheaper than uranium production, I O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

J 28 1 don't think that's really been shown yet, but there are l f) 2 certainly many, many other large supplies coming into the 3 ~ market that the Department of Energy is actively involved.

4 The Russian high-issue uranium is the largest bulk of that 5 material, much of which came from eastern Germany. I 6 mention the DOE role because I'm flipping around in my 7 e-mail and I see that NMA and DOE have formed a partnership 8 of some unknown dimension to develop innovative mining 9 technology and permitting systems, so I'm wondering whether 10 we have your classic good cop, bad cop role where NMA is 11 walking arm-in-arm with DOE, but they're talking about rule 12 making and major changes with the NRC. One really needs to 13 look at a full picture in order to establish what are the 14 issues, and then what are the substantive matters behind the 15 issues. Chris mentioned the appeal of the environmental 16 assessment on the Molly 99 facility and I won't go into that 17 further. Certainly there are many, many other points that 18 could be made, but the one I want to emphasize is the need 19 for the Commission to build communication with the different 20 interests which it works with, and inviting someone to a 21 hearing or an informal public meeting is only one of many 22 ways to build communication and it's not particularly modern 23 or thorough or effective and those would be good measures 24 for the kind of communication that you look for in the 25 future as you evaluate these issues. I wouldn't be l

{

O C/

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1

f

, 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 I i Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l

29 1 surprised if your staff could find a few issues, as well, to

/)

a 2 supplement NMA's list. If we thought you were looking for 3 issues to build a dialogue around, we would probably 4 respond. But I want to thank you for coming. Certainly if 5 there are any questions I would be glad to addresa them and 6 I appreciate the opportunity to address you today.

7 MR. HOLONICH: Thank you. Paul, I definitely want 8 to emphasize that if you can identify issues that you think

9 there are things that we ought to be focusing on as we do

-10 this review, we want to hear that. That is part of the 11 reason why we were trying to hold these public meetings with 12 the dialogue and listen to people, hear what they've got.

13 If you've got issues you can send us letters, but we're 14 interested and you can speak to them now. But we're

. 15 interested in getting that kind of information because 16 that's what we want to do. We want to make sure that we've 17 got a full picture of what's out there and what are the 18 concerns and what are the different views. If you've got 19 some we would love to hear them.

i 20 MR. ROBINSON: I'll take another moment or two 21 then. This question of dual jurisdiction sort of 22 understates the problem when operations are in Indian 23 country where you've got at least three of everything and 24 there's only 19 kinds of land jurisdiction in what we call a 25 checkerboard. It's a lot tougher to play our chess than

[ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

-. 30 1 Star Trek chess, and that's the situation. Dual is easy, of

() 2 course, you have the reference to the EPA Safe Drinking 3 Water Act Underground Injection Control Program. Well, that 4 subject is state primacy too. Are we supposed to be 5 eliminating all opportunities for state primacy in order to 6 streamline the licensing program for this one setting? We 7 felt, I think, that the NRC did not well understand the 8 roles of tribes in Indian country even though it's been 9 licensing facilities in Indian country for quite a long 10 time, and that the failure of the licensees to recognize 11 these difference where HRI has applied for state 12 jurisdiction under the UIC Program, that's the state version 13 of the Safe Drinking Water Act Program. Are we supposed to 14 understand that we're only removing the agreement state for O

(,,) 15 the radiological and not doing the underground? Those of us 16 who kdow the uranium ore bodies in New Mexico know that our 17 average ore grade is in the .1 percent. All the ore mines 18 in New Mexico are above the source material criteria. I 19 understand Dick and Paul's arguments that these are not 20 source materials underground. I don't know why they weren't 21 source materials in the '50s because the ore that 22 Kerr-McGee, United Nuclear, the great uranium companies of 23 New Mexico have mined have always been above this cutoff 24 .svel for which there's never been any evidence that I've 25 ever seen as to where that cutoff level occurs. Certainly i O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i

t Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 L___________________.__ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

31 1 the uranium underground is above that .05 in all of the

() 2 Crownpoint area ore bodies. Some of the other ore zones in 3 the country are somewhat lower, but I think that those are 4 very important concerns. The in situ operations, as with 5 other hard rock operations, tend to come in fits and starts.

6 They operate at economic levels. If the market changes they 7 shut down temporarily. This ability to manage temporary 8

shut down is one that has not been addressed well in uranium 9 recovery, in my opinion, both with respect to the hard rock 10 and the in situ where what's done during temporary 11 cessation, how those are planned for, as well as bonded for, 12 I think that those are very important differences. And the 13 one last point I would make is that I was intrigued by the 14 statements that Mr. Clement just made and I read his letter

) 15 briefly where he is making a lot of economic arguments 16 implying that there's some costs and that maybe that cost 17 might be a burden. But I look at the NMA's summary and they 18 don't want to see economic issues used as a basis for 19 decision making. It's very hard to be in a U.S. permit 20 setting without discussing economic issues. But what is the 21 proper role? How does one balance these issues? Those are 22 not really addressed in the NMA because it's not a balanced 23 presentation, it's an advocacy document. I don't think the 24 Commission is going to have a chance to explore these issues 25 .with much substance unless it creates a real working -

l-l(

' ) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters i

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i

32 1 dialogue which allows some continuous discussion where the

() 2 3

staff can benefit from exchanges with the parties, as well as exchanges among parties and I hope that's the next 4 opportunity to discuss these matters with you or your 5 associates.

6 MR. HOLONICH: Mitchell.

7 MR. CAPITAN: Good morning. I come before you on l 8 behalf of over 1,000 Indian members from my community that 9 are concerned about this mining. I am a Navajo Indian. I 10 am from Crownpoint. I have lived in Crownpoint for the past 11 35 years. We are very concerned, gentlemen, in my l 12 community. I speak for them. Le have pristine water in the l

13 Crownpoint area which we are very protective of and we have 14 our clean air, which I'm sure will be contaminated if the

() Y3 mining company that is being proposed by HRI comes into l 16 Crownpoint, and that's what really worries us, the community 17 members in the Crownpoint area. As Mr. Clement stated, it's 18 a remote area. No , I don't think it's a remote area, 19 there's people. My community people are living there and 20 living their daily lives. They work there, there's children 21 that go to school, there are many that come into Crownpoint 22 for the hospital, churches and small business, Basha's and 23 stuff like that and we're very concerned about this. I 24 don't know why a mining company wants to come near a 25 community like Crownpoint. Is it because it is a minority ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

]

1 33 4

1 con- nity people? The company might think that these people

/'T 2 can just jump for the economic development which will be I b 3 provided to them, but I don't think so. This economic 4 development and. jobs will only provide a short-term 5 opportunity for the community. We are looking way, far 6 beyond that. I am thinking and I am always talking for the 7 future generation like my children and grandchildren that 8 will live there. And if this water is going to be 9 contaminated, and we know it's going to be contaminated 10 because under the FEIS that's what it states. HRI, NRC 11 wants NTA to move their wells. They tell us that these 12 wells need to be moved further from the mining area.

13 There's a risk involved and we don't want that. That's our 14 very concern now. As far as this process, the mining 15

]) process that went on, the agreement between whoever the 16 agreement was made was never brought to the community 17 people. People that live there and make a living there, 18 this was never brought to our attention. All of this mining 19 stuff was made as an agreement under the table with this 20 mining company. HRI came in and paid money under the table 21 to some'of these allottees and poor people that could just

! 22 go out there and just sign their name. That's what happened 23 out there and we are very concerned with what is going on.

l 24 To this day it is still going on. This company is coming in 25 paying money to our poor people just to sign their name to O

\, /

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters I 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L- - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - . - - - . _

34 t 1 \

sign their land out, that's how it is. That's how these ts 2 mining companies are coming in and we are very concerned.

\) I 3

think this is the first time that we can really stand up to 4

a company like this and hopefully we will stop this mining.

5 I speak for over 1,000 people that come into Crownpoint. l l

6 Not only the Crownpoint community use that water. l We have {

7 other people that come in to our community to haul water 8 with their old trucks, with their barrels. I'm thinking 9 about those people, and I hope you guys make a decision to 10 that and say, hey, there is a risk involved here of 11 humanity. We want environmental justice. Thank you.

12 MR. HOLONICH: Mark had his hand up first about 20 13 minutes ago. Can we let him speak and then you can be next.

14 MR. WITTRUP: Mark Wittrup, W-i-t-t-r-u-p, with fD O

15 Power Resources out of Casper, Wyoming. I just wanted to 16 point out that EPX has a very strong program right now 17 looking at radionuclides in drinking water and developing 18 standards thereof. That's all I wanted to add.

19 MR. HOUSE: My name is Benjamin House and I'm with 20 HRI. I speak on behalf of the allottees that own those 21 allotments that HRI is proposing to mine. My mother is one 22 of the allottees. These people that signed the lease l 23 agreement with the company would like to have uranium 24 developed on their land. We're not talking about somebody 25 else's land. We're not talking about his land, in fact,

(

I

(~N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

\ ) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 1

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

35 1 Mitchell's home is originally located about 30 miles

. ff 2 northwest of Crownpoint. The allottees have signed leases 3 about six years ago and they have been waiting to have 4 something done. I believe that HRI, the facilities that I 5 visited in south Texas, physically observed the operation, 6 and I know it's safe. I know what they're doing. I know 7 they're experts in hydrology. All of the other things that 8 Mr. Mitchell said that money is being paid under the table, 9 that's not true. The contaminants that they're talking 10 about, you know, we're concerned about that. We would like 11 to continue to have good water and we would like to see for 12 our children and we would like to benefit from the uranium.

13 If you have oil on your land or gas or something, I'm sure 14 you want to have that developed and that's the way we feel G

k_) 15 about it. Thank you.

16 MR. HOLONICH: Dick, I would like to, if we can, 17 keep focused. I know we are diverting.

18 MR. CLEMENT: I understand and I agree. We were 19 accused of doing something under the table. I would like to 20 address that one small issue, if I'may. My name is Dick 21 Clement. Again, I'm president of HRI. In 1988 we first 22 communicated with the Bureau of Indian Affairs because we

'23 had an interest in leasing lands that were owned by 24 individual Native American allottees. Over that period of 25 time we communicated and negotiated with the Bureau of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenuo, NW, Suite 1014 2 84 I b3 t ______________________________________O

36 1 Indian Affairs.

L The allottees elected to have the Bureau of

(} 2 Indian Affairs be their representative in the discussions 3 and in the negotiations to lease their lands. There was no 4 money that was put under the table, they were all 5 well-informed and it was monitored and dealt with by the 6 Bureau of Indian Affairs. The company has been accused of 7 doing something that sounds illegal and possibly immoral.

8 There is no information, no case. There is nothing here.

9 I'm fully' aware of all of the details that would indicate

~

10 that those accusations are not true.

11 MR. HOLONICH: I knew we were going to get a 12 little bit off into Crownpoint here in the New Mexico 13 session, but I would like to return now to the generic 14 issues, the general regulatory framework, the NMA White

() 15 Paper. If other folks would like to make any comments or 16 raise any issues, any discussions. Well, at this point it 17 was our intent to let the public speak as much as it wanted, 18 and if nobody else has anything to say --'oh, yes. Please 19 come up and give us your name and organization. MS.

20 ARCHULETA: My name is Jan Archuleta from the State of New 21 Mexico Environment Department and I work at the Hazardous 22 and Radioactive Waste Material Bureau and I haven't been 23 -able to read the whole entire White Paper presented by NMA, 24 however, I read the little blurb that came along with the 25 public announcement, and then I saw the executive summary ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

37 1 and I'm not quite sure how much the state might have

(~ 2 disposal -- what facilities in the state might be used for C}/

3 the disposal, which I kind of picked up from the summary.

4 But I think the fact that there might be some components of 5 waste that might have hazardous waste associated with it, it 6 spoke possibly of having mixed waste at the facility, I 7 mean, being disposed in the facilities. I think the state 8 would be, and especially our bureau who is in charge of RCRA 9 permitting and RCRA enforcement, would be very concerned.

10 It's a little bit interesting because ultimately it sounds 11 like DOE would be owning these facilities and they might be 12 disposing of mixed waste at these facilities. The state has 13 just had a long dialogue with EPA and the Department of 14 Energy about disposing mixed waste and DOE's radiological O) q 15 facilities, and it was more or less tabled because all the 16 states concerned were adamantly opposed to the Department of 17 Energy, which is currently self-regulating, being in charge 18 of those facilities. Currently EPA is proposing that 19 possibly mixed waste may be able to be disposed in NRC 20 licensed or agreement state licensed facilities and this is 21 just now being discussed. Another thing is that even if 22 like materials were going to be disposed, for example, norm 23 or just slightly above background natural occurring 24 radionuclides, do these facilities meet the requirements in 25 10 C.F.R. 461 or other applicable regulations which have ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

\/

s

,)' Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l

o- _ _-_ - - - - . --

38 1 bsen already established? These are a few comments I wanted r'wg 2 to make. I'm not sure how much the State of New Mexico was b' 3 -- I mean, especially our bureau in the environment 4

department was notified of this, but we are prettf far down 5 on the hierarchy. But if you could ensure that at least our 6 bureau is notified, I'm sure, especially in regards to the 7 RCRA type regulations, they would be very interested. Thank 8 you.

9 MR. HOLONICH: Are there any other folks who would 10 like to speak? If there are no more speakers, essentially 11 we are done. We appreciate you folks coming out and giving 12 your presentations. I think we got some good information 13 here. Wherever the process is going, like Mike said, we're 14 gathering information on what we will do and what process 15 will be in place. We appreciate you folks coming out. We A

16 received some good feedback and background. Thank you very 17 much. Yes.

18 MR. LUTHIGER: Is there a time line you have 19 perceived at all on any of the options, or are you just 20 going to wait and see?

21 MR. HOLONICH: What we've got to do is tr.ke this 22 and digest it and see where we are going to go and that's 23 going to kind of dictate the time line.

24 (Whereupon The Public Hearing Concluded at 10:15 a.m.)

25 lgs ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

l ( Court Reporters j 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings p , 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: Albuquerque,'New Mexico 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.

la M

( N Lv. . , A, n l, //

GLINDA FABOK Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.

O

,--.--.,.--.------m_m ,-..,--------.----,--.----------y.-----.----.------..-.-,---------r----- - - . - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - , - - - - - , - - - - , - , . --.r,,---- -.. - - - , - -7.--ry-----.----.---,

9 g

P* s' ATTACHMENT A RATES IN'SECTION B OF , J CONTRACT NO. SECHQ1-90-D-0170 WITH HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION Y

e 4

3 I

i O

l t

G l-O - . .

ATTACHMENT A RATES IN SECTION B OF _

CONTRACT NO. SECHQl-90-D-0170 WITH HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION 5

O

i O .

Y ATTACHMENT A RATES IN SECTION B OF ,

CONTRACT NO. SECHQ1-90-D-0170 WITH HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION 1

l 1

i O

O

i 4

l f

l ,

l e*

l. ,

ATTACHMENT A RATES IN SECTION B OF _

CONTRACT NO. SECHQ1-90-D-0170 WITH HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION i

l I

+

l L

l l

l.

I 4

l 1

i

\

i l J

=

b O - . -

l I

l ATTACHMENT A l

RATES IN SECTION B OF CONTRACT NO. SECHQ1-90-D-0170 WITH HERITAGE REPokTING CORPORATION f.

4 O .

O

O 4 '

t ATTACHMENT A RATES IN SECTION B OF .

CONTRACT No. SECHQ1-90-D-0170 WITH HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION i

h l

)

9-i l

e I

l l

l-

^

(

r,...___._i.-_.m ,

9

.e O - . r RATES IN SECTION B OF .

CONTRACT NO, SECHQ1-90-D-0170 WITH HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION i

e e

O F

O l

f

.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ ___________

O O .

t ATTACHMENT A RATES IN SECTION B OF .

CONTRACT NO. SECHQ1-90-D-0170 WITH HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION 1

, i O

I O

L:

[

O -

l ATTACHMENT A RATES IN SECTION B OF ,

CONTRACT NO. SECHQ1-90-D-0170

- WITH HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION j.

l 9

0 i

O  :

1 I

e 4

O ATTACHMENT A RATES IN SECTION B OF ,

CONTRACT NO. SECHQ1-90-D-0170 WITH HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION t

O O

m________ __-__. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - - . . _ _ _ _- _ _ . _ - . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _

h O - . ,

ATTACHMENT A RATES IN SECTION B OF ,

CONTRACT NO. SECHQ1-90-D-0170 WITH HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION O .

l O

e O - .

ATTACHMENT A RATES IN SECTION B OF .

CONTRACT NO. SECHQ1-90-D-0170 WITH HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION O

l O

-- -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20239A202&oldid=3108580"