ML20245H597
| ML20245H597 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/01/1989 |
| From: | Greeves J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Miller V NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245H601 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-89-157 NUDOCS 8903020194 | |
| Download: ML20245H597 (10) | |
Text
__
1 M - 1 1999 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Vandy L. Miller, Assistant Director for State Agreements Program State, Local and Indian Tribe Programs, GPA FROM:
John T. Greeves, Acting Director Division of Low-level Waste Management and Decommissioning, NMSS
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO SLITP/GPA ON THE STATE OF WASHINGTON REQUESTS REGARDING THE SHERWOOD MILL In a memorandum dated January 31, 1989, you asked for assistance in responding to two requests posed by the State of Washington. These requests relate to ownership transfer of the Sherwood mill from Western Nuclear Inc. to the Spokane Tribe of Indians. The following is our response to each request.
These responses have been coordinated with Dale Smith of URF0 and R. Fonner of OGC.
1.
The State wishes to enter into a contract with the NRC to allow the State to continue its environmental monitoring activities at the mill.
LLWM and URF0 do not consider it appropriate to fund the State's monitoring program at the Sherwood uranium mill site. Requirements for environmental monitoring are incorporated into the licenses issued by NRC for the uranium mill facilities. The monitoring is then conducted by the licensee according to these requirements. NRC staff conducts periodic confirmatory measurements as part of our routine inspection program.
We have not funded additional independent.nonitoring at any of the NRC licensed uranium mill sites.
NRC staff will consider the environmental monitoring program presently conducted under the State license when developing the monitoring requirements for an NRC license of the Sherwood Mill.
If the State wishes additional monitoring to that specified in the NRC licence, it may either petition to intervene in the licensing process for the Spokane Tribe or it may choose to work it out with the Spokane Tribe separately.
2.
The State is concerned regarding the loss of the surety bond paid by Western Nuclear Inc. to support closure of the Sherwood Mill facility.
Before issuance of a license, the NRC staff will make sure that the licensee has adequate financial assurance to cover the costs of I
reclamation (see 10 CFR Part 40 Appendix A, Criterion 9).
LLWM is aware that Western Nuclear Inc. and the Spokane Tribe signed an agreement on February 16, 1989 wherein Western Nuclear Inc. will transfer 4.4 million dollars to the Spokane Tribe with the transfer of property, a portion of which is expected to be utilized for future reclamation costs.
~
h3$Ll/W ?%
6%
'4.
y SHERWOOD/2/89' 2
We' think it is important to also notify the State that the Sherwood mill is
.still'under their. license to-Western Nuclear Inc. until an NRC license is in
- place with the new' owner.
The regulatory responsibility will not be transferred to the NRC until'that time.
'Please contact me if we can be of further assistance.
,, e..m...
- 9 By
..z John T. Greeves, Acting Director Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Deconnissioning, NMSS DISTRIBUTION:
(LLWM89010)'
NHSS Subj 414.6' Central File JGreeves a'
PLohaus Ml 4f MBell RFonner JSurmeier MFliegel NMSS r/f SBilhorn LLOB r/f AHenry ACNW Yes L, /
No
/T/
'PDR/NUDOCS Yes //
No
/T/
SUBJECT ABSTRACT:
Response to SLITP/GPA on the State of Washington Requests Regarding the Sherwood Mill n
l~C:.:LLOB
- 0
- LLO
/ S
- 0GC
.,)
.:......s....
L....:.......
NE-:SBilhorn
- MF i e
- PLo aus ner
- J p
__ __ :.......... :7.- /23/89 :4/
89
- L / 28/89 iTE :2 F J/89
- dtT/89 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
i l
(
APR-05 '89 14:08 ID:DSHS FMD F4ROTECTION TEL NO:206-753-1495
- 755 P06 p ',
y 1
ur
\\
l.
NLE u SLCAJtMw j
Scaeury l
STATE OF WASMNGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES Olynpla, Washington 98504W)5 March 30, 1989 l
TO:
Paul Trause THROUGH:
Carole Washbur FROM:
Terry Strong
SUBJECT:
DAWN MINING COMPANY SCHEDULE You asked for a schedule of ovents regarding the Dawn Mining Company Environmental Impact Statement and the record of thc decisions we must make.
This schedulo starts with Mr. Thomprec,'c roccipt of an invitiation from The Spokane Tribe of Indians tc.
establish a technical committco to assist the department in the identification and resolution of several outstanding issues.
(
The chargo to the committee deals principally with the technical issues of hydrology and geology concerning the closure of the mill and its tailings impoundments.-
There arc obvious political and economic overtones which will be procont, although those at not be placed on the table for specific resolution by this committoc.
Mr. Thompson should receive the invitation this wook. The I
schedulo should look like this:
liarch_n -
Mr. Thompson receives the invitation from the Tribe for the department to host a technical committoo.
April 10-14 DSHS sets the first meeting, to take place in Wellpinit, the seat of the Tribab government.
The committee should be limited to ten or less; membership will be based principally on recommendations of the Tribe and probably include:
The Tribe (including Scholz and Buchannan)
DSHS Ecology BIA BLM
\\
\\
NRC
}
Dawn Mining Company
APR-05 '89 14:09 ID:DSHS RAD PROTECTION
-TEL'NO:206-753-1496
~ 4735 P07
. EN Paul Trause Carole Washburn March 30, 1989 Page 2 other interested parties (but not at the table) will probably include: a Ford citizen, the Hanford Education Action League, EPA, and U.S.
DOT.
Also involved will bc Dan Silver (from the Governor's Office) and Richard McCarten (our Assistant Attorney General), although these may also not be at the tabic.
April 24 -
The committoo meets again if the only progrccs at the first meeting was to identify the issues.and give homework assignments for the samplos, tests, ovaluation techniques, etc.
This cecond meeting, occurring 4twd wcaka after the first, would be to determine who will do which tests, how the tests are to-be-conducted, and whbre and by whom the tests are to be mado, if these decisions cannot be made at the April 10 meeting.
Ap;rprimately May 15 - This will be the first committoc meewing where results are placsd on the*tible for evaluation by the committoc.
Negative results, absence of' specific data, and "nothing to report" are as significant as positive results.
The portinent questions are:
- What is the level of groundwater?
what is the rate of flow of the groundwater?
What constituents / concentrations are prdsent in the groundwater?
What are the seeps doing,in view of basic groundwater data?
What do the upstream groundwater results tell us about contamination during high groundwater levels under the impoundments and in the seeps?
Etc., etc.,etc.
j 1
Time for the next meeting is set.
j Approximately June 15th, came agendat Evaluation of new data, reevaluation of old data in light of new information.
i i
j
yo'-8Frk l
~ ~ " ' " '
APR-05~'89 14:01 ID:DSHS RAD PROTECTION TEL NO:206-753-1496 t1734 P01 vif@
I TELECOPY TRANSMITTAL FROM THE OFFICE OF RADIATION PROTECTION DATE:
J~
f NUMBER OF PAGES: COVER + f Mge&
2
~ LEASE DELIVER TO: @M ADDRESS: D MM O-.
PHONE:
$n\\(- 303'?.30- A7.3Y FROM:
u 0FFICIAL DOCKET ADDRESS:
d //o p
PHONE: pgg g-7g i
N h -
a h w a,, s w
e s
<wM<w x pa antit W M/t1 A >v#(([l,((,h0 TELECOPIER NUMBER: (206) 753-1496 h
/,
m APR-ErJ '99 14:04 ID:DSHS RAD PROTECTION TEL NO:206-753-14%
- 735 P01 1
luu M.SUCARMAN STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES olynpia, Washington 96504M.15
\\
April 4, 1989 TO:
Richard McCartan Assistant Attorney Gonoral g
a FROM:
T. R. Strong, Chief s
Office of Radiation ~
otection
SUBJECT:
DAWN MINING COMPANY --
. ~. -
The following issues have been raised either by staff or in comments made to the department during a public hearing on the d
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the closure of the Dmm Mining Company's millsite at Ford, Washington.
The questions are wide-ranging and I probably cannot adequately present in this memo all the background information you will need in order to
' answer them.
Hy. staff and I will meet with you at your convenience and provide you with whatever additional materic1._,you need.
Will you confirm or deny the conclusions reached by the U.S.
i Department of Energy when it states that U.S.
DOE has no responsibility for closure of the Dawn Mining Company's tailings impoundments 1 and 2?
I have attached a copy of the letter from U.S. DOE to the Dawn Mining Company which clearly says U.S. DOE has no responsibility.
However, the tailings were produced as a result of a contract between the company and the federal government, and the company disputes the government's conclusion. " Ownership" and
" responsibility" are key issues concerning who will pay for the cost of the final closure of the facility.
If the government bears responsibility for closure costs, it is important for the state to know this. If it is a shared responsibility, what proportion must each entity cover?
3 opies of the pertinent correspondence are attached.
C 6 11 x
0FFICIAL DOCKET L
f4H-05-l 89 14: 05 ID:DSHS RAD FHOTECTION TEL ND:206-753-1496
- 735 P02 Richard McCarten April 4, 1989 Page 2 What are the consequences of materials which were not produced as a result of uranium mill tailings operations being placed in the tailings impoundments at the Dawn millsito?
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) interprets its regulations to say that if non-uranium mill tailings materials (i.e., non-by-product materials) are placed in a uranium mill tailings impoundment, such materials may (my emphasic) prohibit either the stato or the federal government from assuming ownership of the facility under the conditionc prescribed in Section 83 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA). I have attached a copy of the NRC's most recent correspondence to us, noting again its
(
" prohibition" against disposal of non-by-product material.
~
There are several corollary questions which accompany thic issue.
'The NRC is always careful to say it and/or U.S. DOE "may" not be able to assume ownership.
Under what circumstances would they absolutely not bo_able to assume ownership?
And if ownership cannot be acsumed under Section 83 of the Atomic Energy Act,~~~can ownership be undertaken under some other provision of ntate or l
federal law? Keep in mind that neither the state nor the federal government, undcr any circumstances, would release control of these facilitics for a very, very long period of time.
The facilities are hazardous and would be radioactive,. literally.,
forever.
Given this, what is so special about Section 83 of the 1
AEA?
What is the likelihood of the state's " piercing the corporate veil" if the DMC does not meet its legal obligations under the terms of its radioactive materials license to properly close its millaite facilities?
l The DMC is bankrupt, according to its officers, and is paying its fees to the state of Washington and its other costs out of moniec borrowed from its principlo stockholder, the Newmont Mining Company, which, we are lead to believe is very solvent.
(The company's closure proposal would place slightly radioactive The but nonuranium mill tailings materials in the impoundment.
company would be paid by procent owners of such material to do l
this.
The fees the company would receive from this process would be used to continue to pay DSHS fees, to develop an adequate l
perpetual care and maintenance (PC&M) fund, and to realize a J
If this proposal is denied for either technical or legal l
profit.
causcu, the company says it has no funds to move ahead with other closure scenarios for which there would be no revenuo coming to the company.
What is your estimate of the success the state l
l
I f
AP8-O F,89.14:06 ID:DSHS RAD PROTECTION TEL NO:206-753-14S6
- 735 P03 Richard McCarten
' April-4, 1989.
.Page'3 might have'in recovering the cost of the closure procedures, roughly estimated to be between $10 and 15 million, if.the state has to pay these costs up front?)
Can the federal government reassert its regulatory authority over the' Dawn uranium millaite yet, at the same time, continue to hold Washington responsible for any liability associated with the proper closure of that facility?
Washington can give the regulatory responsibility for the Dawn millsite back to the NRC simply by Governor Gardner writing to NRC and stating that he does so.
New Mexico has done it because New Mexico, by its own admission, could not adequately regulate
'The NRC accepted the return of the regulatory the-mills there.
responsibility but not the liabiJity associated with the New I assume this to mean that if NRC were to Mexico millsites.
order-the owners of uranium mills in New Mexico to close their facilities and they refused, then the state of New Mexico would be held responsible by the.NRC to complete _the closure process in accordance with NRC requirements.
One of Washington's options for. resolution of thisauranium mill
~
issue is in fact to give the regulatory responsibility back to the NRC.
If, however, there is no relief to Washington from the
~
responsibility / liability..for the closure of a. facility, there does not seem to be much advantage in doing so Does th'e spokane Tribe of Indians have the au'thority to establish its own water quality standards which might be different from existing NRC, EPA, and/or state of Washington standards; and require that these standards be met by the state of Washington or the Dawn Mining Company as the L
closure process goes forward?
In written testimony to the department from the Tribe's attorney, Brian Collins, Collins holds that the Tribe has the authority to l
- set its own standards and to require that the state and the company meet such standards.
Can the Tribe do this? Does the state of Washington have to meet such standards?
Collins' testimony is attached.
Where is the boundary between the Spokane Indian Reservation and-lands owned by DMC?
The DMC's millsite and tailings impoundments are on property adjacent-to, but not on, the Spokane Indian Reservation.
Chamokane Crook flows between the two.
In 1881, then President of the United States Rutherford B. Hayos, issued a proclamation which said that the Spokane Reservation includes Chamokane Creek
APR-65 '89 14:07 ID:DSHS PAD PROTECTION TEL NO:206-753-1496
- 735 PO4 e
Richard McCarten April 4, 1989 Page 4 and both of its banks.
DMC believco its property runs to the middle of the crock.
From a technical standpoint (that is, technical from a radiation contamination standpoint) it makes no differonce to us where the boundary is.
A contaminated scop ontering Chamokane creek from the DMC side of the creek is introducing uranium concentrations into the crock at levels above what one would expect to find in the natural background scopage water of the area.
It is generally agreed, by all parties, that the contamination does indcod come from the company's operations.
The extent of the contamination, the source of the contamination, and the remedial action neccGGary to stop the contamination, are all technical issuos which can be answered.
But the legal question of who in fact owns the bank of chamokane Crcok adjacent to the DMC property will no doubt have legal overtones about what and how the Tribe will view the closure process.
Can the department instruct (through its licensing authority) or otherwise allow the DMC to proceed with phace one of the total closure. project (elimination of the contaminated water in TDA #4) before the total EIS process is finished?
I The vator must be removed regardless of the specific procedures to be followed for the other phases of the project.
If we could begin phase one, it would allow us to begin this one year project now, giving us more time to settle the specific procedures for tho oth<4r phases.
I have attached a stack of material and a list of names you will probably need in order to answer my questions.
Call me if you nood background, more names, more materials, etc.
We will do overything we can to help.
As you might imagine, those are sensitivo and significant issues for us as wo determine the actual closure proceduro to be followed by the DMC.
The technical issues are p s "kly quite cacy to solve but every such issue has legal, ecuaomic, and political overtones which in the final analysis will probably 4
determine what we are able to do.
Help!
)
J f
y, l
Note To:
Vandy Miller From:
Don Macken:ie g
On February 14, 1989, Jack Hornor called ne to pr ovide an update on the transfer of the Sherwood Uranium Mine from Western Nuclear to the Spokane Tribe of Indians.
There is a meeting scheduled for February 16 to discuss the la test proposal by the spokane Tribe of Indians.
Briefly the proposal in that the mine will be transferred to the Indians, who will keep the mine in standby for 2 years.
In 2 years if the price of U ran i urr-goes up to a level where it is p r o f.i t a b l e to re-open the mine it will put into operation, if not Western Nuclear will fund the first 5.7 million dollars of reclamation with the iemainder, if any, to be funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
It is not clear at this time wheter Western Nuclear will supply the S.7 million in reclamation funds if the Indians operate the mil 1 for a period of time.
)
i 1
i i
N 6, lY
~
_.____.-___m____m_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __