ML22230A088
| ML22230A088 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/09/1978 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M780209 | |
| Download: ML22230A088 (45) | |
Text
..,. ~
REfURN TO SECRET~,RIAT RECORDS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
IN THE MATTER OF:
Public Meeting on SECY-78-48, ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF URANIUM MILLS IN AGREEMENT STATE Place
- Date*
Washington, D. c.
Thursday, 9 February 1978 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Offici.al Reporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington. D.C. 20001 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE* DAILY Pages 1 _ 41 Telephone:
(202) 3.47-3700
(_
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on February-=9, 1978 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.-
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, 9r edited, and it may contain inaccuracies~
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.. Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not neces*sari ly reflect final determinations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or arg~1merit contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
I
~
- N UCL EAR REG U l AT O RY COMM I S SJ O N I
IN.THE MATTER OF:
Public Meeting on SECY-78-48, ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL**
IMPACTS OF URANIUM MILLS IN AGREEMENT STATE Place- -
Date -
Washington, D. c.
Thursdayr"9 February 1978 ACE
- FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Offici,al Reporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington*, D.C. 20001 NATIONWIDE COVERAG&
- DAILY Pages.
1 _ 41 Telephone:
(202) 347-3700
~--. :*.. *.~.,,.. ', **.:
- ,.~... *-.* --~--~.... *-:,.-. *,:,:*-.. ;.:*.:... *',,:*.::;.._:_.*,
I
.,.....,.,._,..,....,_*'...,* *...,** '....., *..,.,,*.....,...,.,,,,.."="",.......,......,,..
.. -.I:).. ~--*-.. ~
.. -...... ~.-.,_..,.,_.*.*,_.,
.. _**:~*-~.*.. ?.:'""".'.!:"_*.::_*_r.:,.~?:-:..,**
a:;."":;,:::,:.,-.;,6.g*t'*-. :--t:~_... : *.*,.. *. " :.
.~.;_ **::~~- *::* \\ ~-~?'i -~<:_~.. :*.~*-:~?:~~=-~-.,~-~.'-:r-~*-::J;~_~::~~Y-Y-~'~".'.., '_:*,-,*:>
- -~~-*.. A**:.~ *'._... :_.. '."; : :;*. ~::~. -- -. :.. -:.
CR 6339 Barther 1
1.
3 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Monick. Reo,:,r1irig Compariy 25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COI:-11'-HSSION Public Meeting On SECY-78-48,ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF URANIUM MILLS IN AGREEMENT STATE Thursday, February 9, 1978 Commission Meeting Room 1717 H Street N.W.
Washington, D.C.
1 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, on the above-entitled matter at 2:45 p.rn.
PRESENT:
Commissioners Hendrie, Gilinsky and Kennedy.
2 3
- 4.
s 6
will start assessment agr.eement
.2 CHAIRMAN gENDRIE:
If we could come to order, we.
this afternoon with a discussion of the matter of of environmental :LT£i.pacts,.of unanium mills in states.
I see the staff arrayed.
Who will have the lead?
MR. DIRKS: I think Mr. ~-'leyers will ~:bake* the lead, 7_ Mr. CHairman.
8 I ihink we might mention that this is one of a
9 series of items that_ we will be talking about over the next 10 several months, dealing with uranium mill tailings.
This 11 12 13 one deals particularly with the environmental impact statement procedures.
Within two weeks or so we will be gathering the 14 front end-of the uranium mill tailings question in the S-3 15* table.
Then in August we will be coming down with the 16 generic environmental impact statement on uranium milling, 17 the statement itself.
18 so I think this is the beginning of a string of 19 these things you will be seeing.
20 21 22 23 24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Very good.
Shelly, do you want to go ahead?
MR. MEYERS:
The subject at hand is whether or not to recommend a course of action with regard to providing NRC assistance to the agreement states for the preparation Mcniel<: Reoorr;ng Company 25 of environmental assessments for uranium mills.
You probably have a January 26 paper that was prepared that outlines all the background -materials, the various alternatives and the recommendations.
3 2
3 4
Cm1MISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let's see, you are already 5
choosing one of the alternatives there, aren't you?
Or 6
phrasing it in terms of one of the alternatives.
7 8
MR. MEYERS:
In there?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
When you said whether or 9
not to supply assistance to the states?
10 11 MR. MEYERS:
Right.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I mean that is one of the 12 alternatives.
There are other alternatives.
13 14 15 of the 16 17 true.
18 19 MR. MEYERS:
Right.
There are three alternatives.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Dealing with the question environmental statement on mills in --
MR. MEYERS:
In the agreement states, that is COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
OKar.
MR. MEYERS:
THere is a recommendation in the 20 paper, that is why I did it that way.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I know that is why you 22 did it that way.
23 MR. MEYERS:
I will be delighted to discuss*the 24 recommendations when we get to them.
Monick Report;r,g Company 25 Just for your information, and I am sure you know
r 4
l this, the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a suit 2
- ,.-in., the State of New Mexico against the State and
- NRC, 3
on two counts:
One, whether or not NRC should write an 4
impact statement on the 1-icensing of the mill there, or whether 5
or not the State of New Mexico should prepare an impact 6
statement as a matter of compatability under Section 274 of 7
the Act.
8 In both of these cases ELD says the answer is no, 9
and there is an attached legal opinion, I believe.
10 Right now the current status of environmental 11 assessments in the various agreement states is variable.
12 Colorado and New Mexico require the applicants 13 to submit about the same kind of information we require from 14 applicants.
15 However, they do take that information and convert*-
~
16 it into an independent impact statement, nor do they provide 17 a written assessment of that particular document.
18 Texas and Washington require some environmental 19 information to be submitted as part of the application, not a 20 separate document.
21
- The State,.. of.~.Arizona has no requirements at all.
22 There* are di.fferences between the environmental reports that 23 are prepared and submitted to the state governments and the 24 impact~. statements we do as a matter of course before we licens Mon!ck Repi,rting Ce>mpany 25 a uranium mill.
5 I mentioned earlier the states do not prepare an 2 independent assessment of the environmental report submitted 3 by the Applicant.
They do not prepare an independent statement 4 either.
5 Now while all states have procedures for public 6 involvement, they are variable.
None have regulations which 7 would prohibit
- the start of construction before the environment 1 8 report is completed.
So it is possible, while they are 9 going through the review process, to start construction of 10 the site,which we don't allow.
11 In order to discuss the various issues, we held 12 a meeting in conjunction with the Office of State Programs 13 last nOvember 17 and 18 in Colorado to get a feel from 14 the* various agreement states, and non-agreement states as 15 to what they felt would be a good course of action.
16 Most of the states felt they are doing an 17 adequate job.
However, they all felt that some NRC assistance 18 would be desirable.
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Did they specify the 20 kind of assistance, or are we going to get to that later?
21 MR. MEYERS:
Well, what they would like would be 22 for us to just send money, mostly.
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That sounds like the way 24 I used to write my mother. She always wrote something which Mor>ic~* Reporting Company 25 made me re-think the problem.
6 MR. MEYERS:
Maybe they will, too.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Ever since the Phoeneticians 3
invented money, there has been a clear answer to the question 4
"What can I do for you?"
5 MR. MEYERS:
Yes, send more.
6 Another point they made was that this desired 7
NRC assistance should not impede the state licensing process.
8 Some states felt that the Federal EIS process was 9
unduly burdensome, and there are many people who believe that 10 as well.
11 As a matter of fact, the state legislatures of New 12 Mexico, Texas and Colordado have considered legislation to 13 develop state environmental policy acts and it was rejected 14 in those three states.
15 Incidentally, New Mexico and Colorado have the 16 lion's share of the agreement state mills.
17 The states all felt strongly that the licensing 18 of mills should remain with the states in those agreement 19 states:that have it. They were uniformly opposed to NRC 20 recapturing such authority.
All of the states did, however, 21 agree that NRC assistance would improve the
- . quality of their 22 environmental reviews.
They also felt it would improve the 23 public understanding of the consequences of the various 24 licensing actions.
They also felt that by doing the kind of Mor,ic~ Reporting Company 25 environmental review we are going to recommend, it would reduce
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 7
the unanticipated problems that result after the start of a mill operation, and also, as an ancillary benefit in their minds, it would also reduce the prospects of litigation.
Now e have identif-ied in the paper three al terna-tive approaches, one of which is the setatus*guo, do nothing.
The second -alternative is reassertion of NRC authority through legislation with a provision that we would later redelegate tothe states, but under prescribed circumstances, such as an adguate review process, agreeing to do environmental impact statements, perhaps, things of that nature.
The last item is to provide technical assistance to the states --
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Wait a minute.
Under that option (B) you also discuss the possibility of recapture of authority without legislation, regarding it as being 16 theoretically possible, but you don't seem to think much of it.
17 18 MR. MEYERS:
Yes.
The reason for that is under the existing law, if we made a determination that they 19 were not adequately doing their job in protecting the heal th 20 21 22 and safety of the citizenery of the state, we could recapture it through that.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That is -the only way,without 23 new legislation.
24 Monie~ Reporting Cc,mpeny 25 say that we would have a very very difficult case proving that.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let's see.
There is a 2
memorandum from the General.Council, which I haven't read 3
yet, that speaks to that.
4 MR. *EILPRIN:
We agree that the touchstone~.is the 5
public health and safety, and that the only ground for 6
recapturing authority and terminating an agreement is a 7
finding that the state is not adequately protecting the public 8
health and safety.
9 MR. MEYERS:
We are really not talking about that 10 kind of situation.
From what I have been able to see, and 11 from what I have been told by others, they are doing the 12 kind.of job that does prtect the health and safety.
13 Now we are talking about the kind of public 14 information that comes out in forms --
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Excuse me.
Is that the.
16 charge of the state agency, essentially the charge of the 17 state agencies that are involved; to protect the public health 18 and safety?
19 20 21 22 23 MR. MEYERS:
You mean with regard to the mills?
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
MR. MEYERS:
As far as I know, yes.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I wasn't sure what --
MR. RYAN:
The agreements state -- the program, 24 for instance, in the State of Colorado, proceeds under the Mon;cl* Reporting Company 25 Colorado Health Department, Dr. Robbins.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And the agreement is 2 programmed -- by accepting agreement state status, they assume 3 the responsibility for protecting the public health and 4
safety?
5 MR. MEYRS:
Right,_radiological, yes.
6 Getting on, the third -option is to provide 7 technical assistance to the states, but have it conditioned.
8 T-his would be an agreement.
We would do something for them; 9 in turn, they would do something f.hat*we feel is important:
10 Develop written assessment of the Applicant's environmental 11 report; expand public participation; and provide for 12 preventing any long-term commitments being made before this 13 environmental review process is complete. In other words, 14 some way or another avoid the start of construction until 15 we have completed the environmental review.
16 An important part and parcel of that package would 17 be to encourage the states to develop legislation to set 18 up some sort of fee system, so they can get some revenues 19 comingin, so we can pull out of this kind of exercise in 20 the future.
21 MR. RYAN:
In the case Of Colorado, Mr. Chairman, 22 we discussed this matter at the time we talked of the 23 draft agreement, and it is the intention of the Colorado 24 Health Department, and other state agencies, to develop such Monie!- Reporting Company 25 licensing legislation.
10 Obviously we have.no ilpower to coerce such a thing.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
But the Colorado Health Department has informed us that it is the intention of the administration of Governor Lamb to develop such legislation and recommend it to the.legislature.
MR. MEYERS:
Those then are the alternatives that we have identified, and as you can see from the paper, the Staff does recommend that the third option, which is to provide technical assistance in a limited way: -;.~.-*by limited way, I mean it will have a beginning and an end; it is 10 not a continuing program that will go on forever.
We are 11 planning a three-year effort, at the end of which time we will 12 assess how the program went, did it do what we intended, 13 it is worthwhile, did the states develop internal mechanisms 14 15 16 for getting r~venues, so that they can continue the program, et cetera.
So, summing it all up, we feel that rather than 17 one of the reasons we rejected the second option, which in 18 my view is the most decisive and the best way to go, is that 19 we feel the states would probably oppose that.
In'.* other 20 words, it would be difficult to get support for it in the 21 states, and perhaps in the Congress as well.
22 And even if you were able to do it, it would take 23 several.. years.
24 The problem is that many of the mills that are Monick Reporting Company 25 going to be -licensed in the agreement states are going to be
11 1
coming up in the next couple of years.
So even if you 2
were successfull in getting that legislation through the mill, 3 it would probably be after you had gone through this exercise 4
of licensing ten or fifteen mills.
5 We feel that it is important to avoid the kind of 6
bickering back and forth-as to what is the. right thing, when 7
we know we can provide the kind of assistance that will focus 8
in on the site problems., the mill tailing problems, the 9
radiological effect problems, essentially focused impact 10 analyses, and do it quickly.
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
How would you go about 12 providing this assistance?. What would you do?
13 MR.MEYERS:
We would most likely do it through 14 contractors.
Let me give you an example.
\\
We have one such exercise underway right no~_ that 15 16 is a little cleaner, and that is the Pitch Projec~A-17 Colorado.
It is a project that is being worked on on Forest 18 Service lands, so that the Forest Service is obligated to 19 prepare an impact statement. What we are doing is assiting 20 the Forest Service in preparing their impact statement.
21 It is taking almost a manyear of effort on our part and 22
$150,000.
But that work is being done by a national lab, 23 Oak Ridge.
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That is something I was Mor>ic~ Reoorting Compar,y 25 going to get to.
It is possible to assist the states to
- 1.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 12 use the national labs to help them in connection with environmental statements, exactly as we do.
MR. MEYERS:
Let me tell you how it would work.
If the Commission approves this concept, what we would do would be to find out in more specific detail the kind of action the state anticipates in the next two years.
On each one we would assign an individual and they would assign an individual.
We don't want to get into a positio of ramming something down their throats that they don't want.
9 10 We would try to find out f;i:-om them what they perceive their 11 problems to be in the areas of concern to us, such as siting, 12 tailings management, radiological health, and agree with them on the work that has to be done.
13 14 We would then work with the national lab.
In 15 other words, no dealings between the state and the national 16 lab~
17 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why the national lab?
MR. MEYERS:
Or a contractor.
The point is we 19 would be dealin~ with the contractor, not the state.
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I only raised the national lab, because we used them.
21 22 MR. MEYERS:
It doesn't have to be a national lab.
23 It could be an industrial contractor.
24 The point is we don't want to confuse whoever is Monie'- Rep()rtfr19 Company 25 doing the work by getting directions from the state and us.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What are we trying to do 2
here?
What *is the objective?
3 MR. MEYERS:
THe objective is to provide the kind 4
of independent analysis of environmental*reports that we 5
do, which they do not do now.
They get an application in 6
7 and that is it.
COMMISSIONER GILINSK~:
Are they doing an inadequat 8
job of re*gulating the mills?
9 MR. MEYERS:
YOu can't say they are doing an 10 inaequate job. of regulating the mills.
rt.:..is:*similar to the 11 cases that were involved in the National Environmental Policy 12 Act in the early days, where an application with an 13 environmental report came in, and the Federal agencies merely 14 took it and said-this is our environmental impact statement, 15 without doing an independent ana],ysis.
16 They were shot down in __ court.
The Judge said 17 you have got to go through that and make sure it is like you 18 would do it if you had written it from scratch.
19 So it is that kind of independent analys_is we 20 would provide through a contractor of an applicant's report, 21 and further, *make sure that there is adequate public 22 participation,**which is variable in the states now, in part 23 because the people who are interested can't really come to 24 grasp on a particular document that represents the state's Monie~ Repc,ning Company 25 point of view.
They have what the Applicant submitted.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
- 9.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But they do have, as I understand it, access to comments of *Federal agencies?
MR. MEYERS:
They have access to everything that is available.
In other words, the states do have administrativ procedures that allow the public to get involved in their processes.
But the information has to be there.
And what is lackirig is this independent analysis of an applicant's work, which may be self-serving.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What you are saying on the onehand is that the states are doing a pretty good job.
But on the other hand we nought to be helping them do more.
It soundsd a little bit like we are trying to cope with technological unemployment here.
MR. MEYERS:
NO.
What I said was it would be difficult for us to make the case that *:they are not doing an adequate job in protecting the health and safety of the citizens from radiation.
They may be doing that okay.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But then you ar.e saying these statements really aren 1 t relevant to the protection of the public?
MR. MEYERS:
Yes, they are.
I think the same.
anaology exists at the national level between Federal actions with NEPA and Federal actions without NEPA.statements. We Mor,;c, Reporting Company assume Federal actions after passage of NEPA have been more 25 balanced with the environment.
15 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, that's right.
2 IsnJt the C6ngress setting a higher standard for Federal 3 decision-making, and the decisio:i;i-making in this area, at 4* least in the agreement states, if I utiderstand you correctly, 5 doesn't measure up to that standard?
6 7
MR. MEYERS:
I would say that is correct.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY*:
And it seems to me that 8 the touchstone of all of this ought to be to bring the standard 9 into some *-- have the:.1same standard, whether the mill would 10 be regulated by the Federal Governme1:t, or by state govern-11 ments.
You know, that's what we ought to be trying to do.
12 MR. MEYERS:
I would agree.
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Some agreed minimum standard, 14 at least..
15 MR. MEYERS:
The way to do that would be that 16
~econd.option.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Whether the exact form has 18 to be identical is another matter.
But it seems to me it 19 ought to be substantially identical in some sense. I mean 20 substantially the same, because that is important for the 21 health and safety of the public, in one way or another.
22 23 MR. *:MEYERS :
Agreed.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Now what you are suggesting 24 is offering a kind of free consulting service.
Mor,ic~ Reporting Company 25 MR. MEYERS:
I guess that is a different way of putting it.
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: "That would go part way toward 1
me_eting these problems, but it is just not clear what use 2
will be made of it.
3 4
5 6
MR. MEYERS:
By the :_states?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
MR. MEYERS:
Well, clear-ly part.of any agreement we would work out with them would*oblige them to factor into 7
their licensing process the information that was developed.
8 9
Remember, we are not talking about doing a 10 complete environmental impact statement.
We are focusing in on the siting, focusing in on the management of tailings, 11 and, *you know, without accusing anybody of anything.
12
- 13.
_Unless *you go through a complete analysis of the various sites -- when I say you, I mean the state -- you 14 pretty much accept what comes in with-the application.
And 15 it is not all clear that:.the applicant will do the same kind 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Mon;c,* Reporting Company 25 of analysis with regard to alternative sites, with regard to different methods of stabilization of the tails, that the state or governmental body would do.
That is why, I. think, it is important to have this kind of independent analysis so one can qouble check that which is done by the applicants.
MR. RYAN:
It is not the kind of analysis that would simple be put on a shelf, or in a volume to be filed and forgotten, because in the draft agreement Colorado would
I 2
agree, for in_stance, to use that analysis as part of its normal licensing process.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
In other words, they 4* are basically agreeing to use this to put together your 5
environmental statement or some equivalent thereof?
6 MR. MEYERS:
An independent document that ---we 7 characterize it 8
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And to use that statement 9 in their licen~ing process.
10 MR~ RYAN:
Right, as part of it. It is characterize 11 in the draft agreement as an environmental report.
And 12 the stipulationis that this report, when delivered, would be 13 used as a decision-making tool in the licensing process, by 14 the licensing authorities.
15 MR. DIRKS:
It would be *subject to public review 16 and comment and.~gency review and comment.
17 MR. RYAN:
That is another aspect :*:of it.
Part 18 of the undert~king is an agreement by the state,*and 19 again in the case of the Colorado draft agreement, that the 20 state., through its normal administrative processes, will 21 see to it that th~ environmental report is given exposure 22 to the public.
23 M.R. MEYERS:
One last point:
There-are resource 24 requirements that go along with this.
In other words, if Mor,ic!-c Reporting Company 25 you approve this, we would need additional money and people
- 1.
1 to follow through to the extent of the anticipated 15 2
actions over the next two years.
3 Right now we have a program during f iscaL 4
years '78 and '79, enough resources to cover*about five of 5
6 those fifteen.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see, this is proposed 7
15 actions over a three-year MR. MEYERS:
Two years, '78 and '7 9.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
FY?
MR~ MEYERS:
Right.
18 8
9 10 11 MR. DIRKS:
You will need two manyears and $250,000 12 extr~ in '78, and three manyears and $550,000 in fiscal 13
'79.
14 15 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The '78 supplement was what?
MR. DIRKS:
We never budgeted for:-*this.
- MR..MEYERS :
We would need two man years and 17
$250,000 for '78,.and three manyears and $550,000 for '79.
18 MR. RYAN:
There is another point I would like 19 to make,,Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Meyers said at the beginning that 20 the preferred solution or the ideal solution might be to 21 recapture control of uranium mills, and regulation of uranium 22 mills for the Federal Government.
23 I don't know that I necessarily agree that that 24 is the ideal solution.
A~ a matter~cif fact, I don't think Monie~ Reporting Company 25 we have sufficient information at our disposal at this time
- 1.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Monie~ Reporting Company 25 19 on which to make a value judgment of that sort.
I will suggest, however, that at some future time it may be desirable to do that, in the interest of uniformity, as Commissioner Gilinsky has suggested, in the interest of taking care of a national problem with a national solution.
I do think that the adoption by the Commission of a cooperative agreement with the State of Colorado, which is th specimen agreement, and the authority and delegating the authority to the staff to enter into similar agreements with other a~reement states would have another benefit to the Codmmission, indeed to the country, in addressing this long-term problem.
And that is it would supply us with information on the basis of which we could make a more informed judgment at some future time.
As Mr. Meyers pointed out at the outset, what we are talking about is not an open-ended arrangement here. We are talking about an agreement which has a date certain for termination.
And three years is the term that we hit upon, in the draft agreement.
meantime.
A number of other }*:.things will happen in the We will have in hand in the summer of this year the draft gneeric environmental impact statement on uranium mills and tailings.
We will have exposed that to public scrutiny and asked interested parties for comments and
20 so on in.. the summer and fall of this year, and probably we will 2 have in hand this time next year a final environmental 3 impact statement.
4 I think that if we were *to *propose legislation 5 at some future time asking the Congress for *authority to 6 resume control over mills and tailings in agreement states, 7 we would have a better information base a year and a half or 8
two years or three years hence than we have at this point.
9 We can, I think, learn a good deal from the operati 10 of such proposed agrements with the states, and indeed that 11 is one of the provisions in the draft agreement, that is, that 12 the state will share information which they derive from 13 their licensing process with us and we with them.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We already license 15 some of them?
16 17 MR. RYAN:
We do indeed, in non-agreement states.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
About what fraction of the 18 population of such mills?
19 20 MR. EILPRIN:
It is close to 50-50.
MR. RYAN: I think so, yes.
It is 8 and 8, isn't 21 it?
One extra.
~--- - --~ ----------
22 MR. CUNNINGHA.M:
Nine and 11, I believe.
11 in the 23 non-agreement states, end 9 in the agreement states.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
This agreement with Monie, Reporting Company 25 Colorado, is that the model agreement?
Will other agreements
21 be essentially identical to that?
2 MR. RYAN:
":Jes, it would be a model agreement.
3 Obviously I think it would be worked out to meet the peculiar 4 needs of the state involved, and in each case obviously it 5 would be initialled, as this one was, subject to Commission 6 ratification and approval.
7 But basically those are the points which we feel 8 ought to be contained in there.
The main point that this 9 instrument which is provided to an agreement state would 10 not be a hollow document to be filed and forgotten, but rather 11 an operative instrument to be used by the agreeement state 12 agenciies in the course of their licensing process.
13 The notion of the states establishing licensing fees 14 for mills within their borders also, I think, is a thing that 15 we would urge on other states if we were authorized to negotiate 16 with other states.
17 I think, also, if I may depart from the specifics 18 of uranium mills, I think it is an opportunity for the 19 Commission to reach out and to take advantage of the provisions 20 of Section 274(i), which authorize it to enter into 21 agreements with states or groups of states to perform 22 inspections or other functions on a cooperativ~ basis as the 23 Commission deems appropriate.
24 It is an opportunity to extend to the states our M""ic,: Repnrring Company 25 expertise in matters of this sort, and in other matters, indeed where it exists and where it is firmly established,
22 and to do what the statutory language says, cooperate, enter 2 into cooperative agreements, to make Federalism into a 3 more meaningful and shared experience.
4 I think it would be innovative and desirable to 5
move out in this direction, and to let the states know that 6
we are interested in doing that, that it is not empty talk
- 7. about partnerships and help and cooperation, but rather a 8
genuine feeling that we have something to share and they have 9
something to share with us, and that we ought to get along 10 and do the public's business as cooperatively as we possibly 11 can.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Could I hear from ELD on some 13 of the questions of the underlying authority for us to 14 provide this kind of assistance?
15 MR. MALSCH:
Well, we have taken a careful look 16 at this.
There are a couple of legal issues, which, '.the 17 way the recommendation in the paper here has been formulated 18 and the way the agreement has been drafted, these issues 19 are avoided for the time being.
20 I think we have concluded that the proposal here 21 is within the Commission's present statutory authority.
22 Now on the other hand, it is not something that we 23 would maintain the Commission is obligated to do.
It is 24 discretionary authority by the Commission.
25 In that regard, it is precedent setting in the sens
23 1.that.if I, were a state official and saw this pro.posal adopted, 2
I would be *very much interested in exploring with the 3
Commission the possibility of proper arrangements with respect 4
to other kinds of licensing, like waste burial grounds, 5
or maybe pharma~eutical manufacturing concerns.
Thi~ is 6
something where* we are really getting into a new area, where 7
the Commission never before rendered this kind of technical 8
assistance in* aid of a national agreement state'... licensing 9
process.
10 Incidentally, there is one qualification. We 11 have a disucssion of the legal authority to do *this in 12
.Attachment D to the paper.
And *.:+/-.here is a caviat in the 13 bottom of the paper _that talks about problems with regard to 14 the open-ended nature of the obligation.
There.* is.. no problem l5 with that, really.
The staff is in agreement that when it 16 came down to actually executing the agreement, it would 17
.have to be subject to available appropriations.
18 So that is a caviat, but it is not a difference 19 of opinion_ in any respect with regard to this particular agreem nt.
20 MR. EILPRIN:
This could be incorporated into 21 the agreement.
22 MR. MALSCH:
Very easily.
23 MR. RYAN:
I don't think Colorado would object 24 to that, or any -other state.
Monie~- Reporting Company 25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Any comments at the moment?
24 2
3 4
If you didn't have anything right at the moment, I was going to ask OPE if they wanted to comment.
MR. PEDERSON:
I have just a few comments, Mr.
Chairman.
5 I think I largely subscribe *to what I heard Bob 6
Ryan saying here.
I think my preferred course would be 7
8 9
10 11 to either reassert authority, or to have the states regulate these in conformance with some kind of clear-cut Federal standards, if I felt that were feasible in the short run.
I don't think it is.
guestions right now.
I think we have got too many unanswered I think we have got a number of irons l2 in the fire with regard to GEIS, with regard to clarification 13 of our authority vis a vis other Federal agencies in this 14 regard.
The New England Coalition petitions will shortly 15 be before us in terms of the calcul~ting of the appropriate 16 time periods for long-term dose, and so forth.
17 I think we are simply going to be in a better l8 position, a short way-down the road, to provide those kinds of 19 standards, not only for-the states but for ourselves.
20 I think there is an implication here that we are doing a 21 great job and have.all of the guestions answered.
That is 22 simply not true for our own reviews.
23 My concern would be it be made very clear that 24 we see this assistance as an interim step towards something Mor>ick Repi,ning Company 25 else.
In that regard I have some concern for the precedential
25 aspects that Marty raised.
I think if we present it as an 2 interim step to a very difficult and complex problem, that 3 has in large part been left us with as a result of perh~ps 4 mistakes that were made in the past,- whatever.
5 So I would recommend that the Commission accept 6 the staff's recommendation of alternative C, that they 7 clearly do so in recognition that it is an interim step,
.8 that, quite frankly, to ur.g~ the staff to be about the work 9 of getting these other papers and issues clarified, many of 10 which are already the subject of upcoming things, as Bill has 11 mentioned.
And to recognize that the long-term solution here 12 is n6t thig kind of assistance, I don't believe, but some 13 standards which the states can in one way or another do their 14 job in conformance with.
And if they can't or won't,that 15 would of course provide us the basis for us reasserting our 16 authority and regulating in conformance with those ourselves.
17 MR. MALSCH:
I think that all of these really 18 long-term difficut issues are all going to be discussed in 19 detail in the generic impact statement that is forthcoming.
20 21 22 MR. DIRKS:
Including the issue of standards.
MR. MALSCH:
Right, yes.
MR. PEDERSON:
Our experience with draft GEIS's in the 23 past has been that we have tended in some cases to expect 24 too much of them.
What we had gotten was not everything we Moriic!< Rep!:lrtirig Company 25 had hoped.
So I don't want to pin our whole hopes on this
26 draft GEIS.
2 MR. MEYERS:
This is specifically aimed at better 3
ways to manage mill tailinqs.
4 MR. PEDERSON:
By the time it goes out for 5
comment and we are able to finalize and make policy on the 6
basis of it, we are really probably into '79, I expect.
7 MR. MEYERS:
I think so.
This one specifically-8 is the "be-all and end-all."
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.:
What is the intersection with 10: that litigation?
11 12 13 14
- 15.
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 MR. EILPRIN:
First, I think we also favor this technical ~ssistance agreement as a sensible way of going about this problem.
I think that the alternative of re~asserting authority at this point i*s just not feasible, because I don't think we could make any finding at this time that the states are not doing an adequate job.
So that I don't consider it very much of a realisti alternative, and we would just create problems and exacerbate the feelings between the states and ourselves.
The other idea of sort of imposing on the states specific requirements to do environmental impact statements, 23 I think there are serious legal difficulties with that.
24 Mor,;c:.: Reporting Company 25 Basically that is because this is primarily a public health and safety law, and I think that has to be the touchstone,
2 3
4 5
.6 7
27 and I think we would first have to demonstrate that whatever we did is very very closely tied to public health and safety.
So I think instead of a generalized regulation like that, I think a cooperative agreement such as that suggested here is a good idea, and a better way to approach it.
In terms of the litigation, there is a lawsuit stil 8 pending in New Mexico.
There will be argument in that 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Mur,!c!<: Reporting Company 25 case on May l; that is the present schedule.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Is that the Federal District Court, or*is that a state court?
MR. EILPRIN:
That is the Federal District Court, and we had advised Judge Bratton that the Commission would eaching a policy judgment on these matters that are under discussion today, reaching it early this year.
be F-or that reason_, and also because I think it would assist public understanding, I think.*it would be useful if the Commission coula.have a short policy statement explaining whatever policy they adopt.
It is always preferable in litigation, especially if a Federal agency wants to get its point across about what they think the statutory obligations are, and why they have adopted one course rather than another course, the best way for that.to get across is for the Commission and agency to speak, rather than having a lawyer invent words for it.
28 1
So I think that I ~gree with the staff's 2
suggestion here, I thirik it is sensible for the Commission to 3
adqpt it, and I would hope, in addition to that, the 4
Commission over the next couple of weeks could come up with a 5
policy statement which would take some of these considerations 6* into accoun~ and*explain quite clearly and precisely the 7 basis for the decision that the *commission wishes to reach.
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That sounds reasonable to 9
me.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What about the resources?
You 11 are going to need the equivalent of a couple of people, and 12 a quarter of a million d6llars in '78 you said.
13 MR. MEYERS:
We have right now one person and 14
$250,000, or $200,000, set aside for that kind of assistance.
15 But the individual and $150,000 of the $200,000 is already 16 committed to this Pitch J?roject for the Forest Service.
So 17 during fiscal '78 we have no resources to help any other 18 states, unless we get acouple more people and that $250,00 19 I mentioned.
20 I might add we would not reprogram out of our own 21 resources _to provide*thi-s kind of aid at the expense of our 22 own licensing activities.
23 24 Mo,.,;c;.: Repnmng Company 25 MR. RYAN: I agree with that entirely.
MR. DIRKS:
Well, when we get into resource requirements, the natural inclination is, in a program like
29 1 is to take a look at where they have resources in other 2
areas.
We have not lo"oked around the Agency for this type 3
of resource.in other.offices.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see.
We have a letter 5
from Mr. Udall and Mr. Hart jointly talking about legislation 6
that might s_oon be considered to address the issue of uranium 7
mill tailings and so on.
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Is this the one that we 9
just received yesterday?
10 11 12 know when 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It's dated the.. 27th.
MR.
- PEDERSON: I ju.st received it. today.
I don't COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I had never seen:a copy of 14 it until it was sent up*--
--*------------~
15 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It just came. up, I guess.
MR. MEYERS:
Well, on that one, th.is kind of 17 activity would provide some assistance.
But what we are really 18 talking about *there is right now whatever regulatory control 19 we exercise over uranium mill t~ilings is done because of the 20 material lic*ence at the outset.
Once the mill stops operating, 21 we have no regulatc;,ry authority over the mill tailings.
And 22 we have already suggested to you, and received your approval 23 to prepare a legislative package to request such authority 24 to regulate the mill tailings expl*icitly.
Monie!< Reporting Company 25 MR. RYAN:
I would also point out that the Chairmans
30 2
3 letter was about a call on the Treasury to take care of abandoned sites, if that is indeed the same letter that I saw.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It is actually both.
It is 4
22 inactive sites.and 5
6 MR. RYAN:
Well, in any event, it seeems to me CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And also gaps in existing 7
statutes and regulations which could allow this to occur 8
again in the future.
9 I believe that they have a bill up there that they 10 11 MR. RYAN:
$200 mill.ion, I believe.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, a fair piece of money 12 to deal with the inactive sites.
There is the question 13 now what do we do to make sure this doesn't happen.
14 MR. RYAN:
Inactive sites, Mr. Chairman, were 15 largely and should be a Federal responsibility.
They were 16 developed originally as part of the weapons program, and so 17 on.
So it really isn 1 t the states.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes. What caught my eye in the 19 letter was:
"Further, the situation existing in states which 20 currently regulate uranium mill tailings under the Nuclear 21 Regulatory Commission state agreement plan should be of 22 special concern."
23 So there are g.oing to be questions raised about the 24 differences in handling the things.
Mor-ic~- Reporting Company 25 MR. RYAN:
Mr.Chairman, perhaps you would like
to hear from Colorado now.
2
- CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would appreciate it very 3
much.
Would you like -- it seems to me we might even be 4
able to shove down a little bit and*bring a-chair up here 5
for you.
6 MR. MEYERS:
I might add one thing we are 7
doing with the mills that we license is requiring a mill 31 8
tailing plan and financial arrangements to see that the plan 9
is carried out.in the future.
And we have got all of our 10 mills to agree.
We are working with the various agreement 11 states to do the same sort of thing, but that is not complete 12 yet. If they are willing, fine, that problem is taken care 13 of.
14 But in terms of being able to regulate the tailing 15 itself, once the mill operation stops, there there would be 16 a conflict with another agency, and we don't have the 17 authority, and that would be EPA.
EPA, under the Resource 18 Conservation Recovery Act, could classify mill tailings as 19 a hazardous material, and thereby draw it into their regulatory 20 process for that program.
You would then be faced with a 21 mill operator goin.g to two organizations.
I think we spoke 22 about this before.
You get a license at the wrong time
- 23 in the process, when it is all over.
The best time to attack 24 that particular problem is before you license the mill, not Mo,-,ic~ Reporting Company 25 after.* it is all over.
32 MR. RYAN:
Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt for a 2
moment, in our experience with the agreement states,. it has 3-been that every time we.have a matter like this, conditioning 4
of a license or something, which is suggested at the Federal 5
level, it is accepted at the agreement state level.
So I 6
think -if _ we _go by history, I think we would have to say the 7
agreement *st~tes would no doubt agree to conditioning licenses 1
8 and stipulations of this sort.
Excuse me.
9 10 11 DR*.
ROBBINS:
I am Dr. Apthony Robbins, the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Health.
I appreciate the description of what we have been 12 through with your staff.
Let me make just a few points, if 13 I may.
14 Oh this latest issue, one of the interesting 15 situations is that the Colorado statute, from which the Health 16 Department gets its authority, and the regulations that they 17 are developing, covers just the problem you are talking 18 about.
19 We have provis.ions for perpetual management of 20,-
tailings_, and -we have the authority to deal with the radium 21 and other low level wastes that are in those piles.
22 From that same statute, we assume that we have a 23 responsibility to do an environmental assessment that includes 24 radiation, air, water, and the social and ecnomic impact Mor,;c!,: Reponfr,g Compa_ny 25 of these developments.
2 3
4 You may know that in our dealings with the Departments of Agriculture and Interior, -we are trying to work out ways that the environmental *impact statements in Colorado *be somewhat.'::borader than individua-1 projects, that 33 5
we can take into consideration the impact on regions where energy devel9pment will be occurring.
6 7-8 9
10
- I guess the point that is interesting*.~ to us and I appreciate the opportunity to have th.is discussion with you, because it has never been completely clear where everyone was going until this came along.
This would be a very 11 valuable kind of arra:qgement for us.
It seems to us it would
.12 13 14 15 16 17 18 let us define, in terms of our state statute, the needed review, what kinds of information have to come out for us to be able to issue or not issue a license.
It would iet us have a very constructive and useful diaglogue with your staff, and your people, over the tasks that need to be performed to get to that point.
I think that, frankly, one of the problems in 19 the agreement-state programs is that they have not provided 20 maybe.. as much cross-fertil.ization on these issues as maybe they 21 22 could.
And f.rom our point of view, the other matter, 23 which is that the Commission would be providing us resources 24 to do the job; that is very important.
The question of whether Mon;c;., Reoorling Company 25 we could do this without that help is really one of time.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 34 We have a.much smaller staff, we can eventually eget all of the people we**.. need to do all of the things that need to be done, but there is no question that we would be into a much slower and less* efficient process than what we could do with your help.
This raises an interesting problem, and one of the things all of our discussion, ~r alto of our discussions with your staff have been in terms of this agreement.
We have been talking il). terms of a document, an agreement, a formal arrangement.
It is not clear to me wheher in fact that agreement is necessary from our point of view to get the kind of help we feel we need.
I have been enlightened by some of the comments here today in terms of what purposes it serves for the Commission.
But one of the problems we would get into in this is that once we have this agreement and once we go through a process in which we tell the applicant for a license that 19 we are going to a certain kind of environmental review, we are 20 21 22 23 then in a terrible bind if we get into a situation where the resources th~t are needed to do that job don't materialize, for one reason or another.
If you want to turn down the license.. at that 24 point beca~se you don't have it, you are going to be challenged.
Mo,,ic~ Repc1ning Company 25 *And if we want to give the license without that review, we
35 1 will.also be challenged, presumably from the other side.
2 And we are *concerned with this agreement, which is still 3 -very general, *that it doesn't protect us from that situation 4
adequately.
5
.I guess what we might be interested in is some 6
7 8
9 commitment.
What we have been talking about up to now is no cash going to the states, but simply making available the resources-out of the Commission's staff.
I thin_k that is in general fine.
But we are the 10 ones within the state who will be counting on this and probably 11 need some sort of back-up guarantee in terms of money being 12 available if staff isn't available to do the job.
13 Finally, I guess what you are getting at -- and
- 14 I think it is very reasonable --- is some* kind of national 15 policy in the long-run on licensing of uranium mills.
16 I must tell you, at this point, tha:t, if anything, 17 Colorado is probably more conser~ative than any other state 18 right now. We have had very bitter experiences with tailings 19 piles, and the Hart and Udall proposed legislation reflects 20 some of that problem.
The politics in Colorado, I think, 21 is *fairly determined that that isn't going to happen again.
22 And that is' the real basis why at this time we are looking 23 for this kind of help so we can do an adequate review.
24 If there is developed out of the Commission a Mor,ic~ Reporrirog Compar,y 25 national policy that ~elates to supply, that relates to where
36 1 uranium is going to come from, all of these issues seem 2 appropriate to be developed at the*national level.
From 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Colorado's point of view, we are concerned about the public heal th and safey, and therefor ethe enciromnental impact of wha goes on in Colorado, and that is all we are seeking help for at this time.
On~ other point *is that any agreement that comes out of here, we have committed ourselves publicy to taking the dra£t agreement that has been agreed to, if it is agreed upon, to -public hearings in Colorado.
And I think you should know that.
CHAIRMAN HENDREI:
We thank you very much.
It is very helpful to have these comments from interested parties, perhaps the most interested party.
DR. ROBBINS:
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I guess I have one question.
Maybe two.
How far do we go with the question of public participation in the states as a general rule? It is one thing in Colorado, where I think there is a very high order of public participation.
In some other states that is not quite true.
And that is by their own design and indeed by their own legislative authorities.
Now * *are we in effect legislating something for**
them that they refuse to legislate for themselves?
Monie, Reporting Company 25 MR. MEYERS:
I think not. We are talking cbout degree here.
37 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I am only suggesting that, 2 or I am asking,, really~
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. MEYERS:
I would suggest that assuming we provide the aid, the location of the particular mill --
perhaps you open up a public document room, which they may not.do now.
Perhaps hold a public hearing in that particular area, circulate the document that is now independently analyzed by the state with the aid that we provide to Federal agencies, state agencies, enviromental groups in the state, et cetera, things like that.
The various states do have public participation by virtue of their own administrative laws.
We are talki_ng about degree here rather than something that is not being done, or forcing them to do something.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But you do not see this as a stumbling block of significance?
MR. MEYERS:
No, I think that this kind of assistance would be welcomed by all parties.
MR. RYAN:
May I make a comment, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
MR. RYAN:
I -hesitate to generalize about *states, but we are talking here basically about Monie~ Reporting Company COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That is a very dangerous things to do.
25 MR. RYAN:
We are talking here about Western states
Washington, Oregon, Nevada, *Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, 2
Colorado, the uranium belt,:so-called.
Utah, Wyoming, of 3
4 course, are not agreement states.
If I could generalize, I would say that the 38 5
statutes commanding and demanding and urging public participati n 6
are probably as extensive in the Western states as they are 7
in any other p~rt of the country, and probably more so.
8 They have introduced a lot of this stuff.
9 MR. EILPRIN:
I think New Mexico is not quite 10 that far along.
11 MR. RYAN:
That is the danger of generalizing.
12 MR. EILPRIN:
Right.
I think as a legal matter, 13 when you enter.into a contract with a. state, with anyone, 14 you are allowed to impose conditions.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I guess my real question 16 is, to rephrase it, are those conditions -- I am not arguing_
17 the question of whether they are right or wrong -- but are 18 those conditions likely to be serious stumbling blocks, thus 19 making it impossible to go forward with this notion?
20 MR. RYAN:
Not in my judgement.
21 MR. 'MEYERS:
I think not.
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
One other question.
A 23 number of the states, as you mentioned earlier, have specifical y 24 not voted to call for environmental assessments.
would Mor>ic~ Reportir,g Cc,mpariy 25 they be able to call upon us for this kind of assistance?
- 1.
2 3
MR. *MEYERS:
Colorado is one of them, and remember, when you pass a state environmental policy act, you are talking about all state actions, as you would all 39 4 -Federal actions.
This is a rather narrowly confined area 5
that the State of Colorado has already said, based upon 6 bitter past e.xperience, they want to do right.
So this just 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 helps them*do it right.
That is hard to say, whether New Mexico would rebel aginst doing the kind of independent analysis COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Actually New Mexico is doing a very substantial job right now, as I understand it.
MR. MEYERS:
Yes.
But again they -- as a matter of fact, New Mexico had a state environmental policy act that was repealed~-
.MR. RYAN:
No, it wasn't funded. It sort of died on the vine.
. MR. EILPRIN:
It wasn't funded and then it was repealed.
You were both right.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That, I might say, is at least consistent.
MR. MEYERS:
At least it is in the right order.
COMMISSIONERKENNEDY:
~s.
If you are not going to fund it, don't leave it there, repeal it~
Monie!- Reporting Cc,mpany MR. EILPRIN:
THese agreements would be signed by the Governor of the state. so I would think that that 25
40
- l.
2 would establish state policy in terms of being able to conduct the kind of reviews we contemplate.
MR. MEYERS:
Let's take a hypothetical case, 4
where a particular state said no, not for me.
We wouldn 1 t 5
have an agreement with that state.
6' 7
8 9
10 11
- 12.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That is the answer to the question.
MR. MALSCH:
Also *the draft agreements avoid a
_strong-connotation of coercion.by the Federal Government.
It is very carefully drafted as to what to do with certain documents.
MR. DIRKS:
I think that is the reason for the 13 time limit on this thing, to see how far we can go with***.this program.
14 15 16 tome anyway.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The time limit makes sense You really need to know where this program is 17 going.
18
. MR. PEDERSON:
That is why I mentioned, that's 19 right, it has to be used as an interim thing.
Preci_sel'l. __ cQr_r~ect 20 21 MR.* *RYAN:
This will give you an opportunity to do it.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, I must say there seem to be 23 a number-o;f good reasons why this is a direction that the 24 Commission should move.
Mcniel: Reponing Ce>mpar,y I would be*very interested to see 25 the-- and I would ask the staff to please start forming some J
2 5
6' 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Monie~ Repc.rting Company 25 41 drafts of *a suitabi"e policy statement along this line. And I thirik *. I would like to see that outline perhaps before we lock the agreement here in firmly.
It also gives me a chance to query the financial
_.administrative side of the Agency about where the resources come from.
THey*are not large, measured against the total size df the Agency or its budget.
On the otehr hand, it is my assumption that all of the people in the Agency are doing some-thing, and planning to do something useful this year, so I ass if we squeeze out one or two, that there:'_is some other job which will then not be :done, and I think we ought to have in *mind what that.will be.as a part of the whole process.
I think this has been a very useful discussion, with-particular thanks to our visitors from Colorado.
I think I would like to leave the discussion at that*po:Lnt then, and ask you to come back as soon as you reasonably can do so, with a draft on the policy statement.
And for whoever the prime drafter may be, I assume you will touch bases with the several legal offices of the Commis*sions, so all of our assorted litigation interests can be suitably served~
- Okay.
I would like to turn, if I could then, to a matter which came close to decision yesterday -- before we do that, let's recess for a short time to reform.
(Thereupon, at 3:45 p.m. the m~eting on
.Impacts of Uranium Mills was concluded.)
e