ML22230A115

Tran-M790806: Public Meeting Briefing on SECY-79-413 Licensing Requirements for Uranium Mills

ML22230A115
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/06/1979
From:	NRC/OCM
To:
References
Tran-M790806
Download: ML22230A115 (37)

Text

RETURN TO SECRET"!11AT RECORDS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:

PUBLIC MEETING BRIEFING ON SECY-79-413 LICENSING RE QUIREMENTS FOR URANIUM MILLS Place - Washington, D. C.

Date - Mond ay , 6 Au g ust 1 9 7 9 Pages 1-35 Teleohone :

(202 ) 3-!7 -3700 ACE

• FEDERAL REPORTERS, Il'l"C.

Official Reporten 444 North Capitol Street Washington , D.C. 20001 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE* DAlLY

CR6329 1

• D*ISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting*of the United States Nuclear Reg~latory Commission held onMondav, 6 August 1979 in the Cornmissions's offices at 1717 H Street, N. w., Washington, D. C. The meeting was open to public attendance and observation. This transcript has no*t been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.

• The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes. As provided by 10 CPR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.* Exp:z::essions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily 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 argument contained herein, except as the

• Connnission may authorize.

CR6329 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

4 PUBLIC MEETING 5

BRIEFING ON SECY-79-413 6

LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR URAi..'HUM MILLS 7

8 9

Room 1130 10 1717 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C.

11 Monday, 6 August 1979 12

- 13 14 The CorrimissioD met, pursuant to not~ce, at 3:05 p.rn.

BEFORE:

15 DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman 16 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 17 PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner 18 JOHN F. AHEAR.c\TE, Commissioner PRESENT:

W. Dircks, E. Grammer, and G. Sege.

22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25

CR 6329 #1 DAV/PV 3

P R O C E E D I N G S 2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Since we are a quorum, .why don't 3 I we go ahead. We meet this afternoon on the subject of licensing 4 requirements for uranium mills. We have NMSS with us. For the 5 i benefit of those would be*,tnore-: comfortable with out jackets, I I

61 think I can announce that the Commission will not regard it as 7 untoward if people take them off.

8 Bill, why don't you go ahead and outline.

9 MR. DIRCKS: I am just oging to say a few words in the lO !

I beginning. Our main purpose for being here todav is to encourageI I ~

11 I

i i the Commission to consider the rule and publish it as quickly cJ.S~

i i

- 121 we 13 14 i 1,

jl can. Jack Martin and Huck Miller will be carrying on the substan~ive technical part of the briefing and will pick up on the legal side of it.

1s II Again, I would just like to urge that the Commission 161I take action as quickly as possible. I think the Uranium Mill I

17 I: Tailings Act passed Congress last year, and we would like to get I

18 i..1' the proposed rule out on the street before they come back in 11 ii 9

i  !! October and ask us what happened to it.

?Q !I Ii

- ii Jack?

') , \I

.,_' II MR. MILLER: What I have are a few slides.

22!i (Slide.)

i:

23 I I

\* What I will do is essentially walk through the impor-: : *

- 24

\I tant elements of. the regulation.. This essentially does two Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 things: One is to incorporate the conclusions of the recently

pv2 4

- 2 3

I issued generic environmental impact statement on uranium mill-ing, incorporating both the technical and institutional con-I clusions on the technical and institutional aspects of uranium 4 milling and tailings disposal.

5 The second aspect of it involves implementing the 6

I requirements of the Mill Tailings Act. I will speak on the 7 II first part, and, as Bill mentioned, Elise Grammer will speak to; 8 the legal aspects.

I 9!I (Slide.)

I i

10 ! As far as the schedule goes, the Mill Tailings Act 11

!1 1 l I,*1 was passed in November of last year. We issued the GEIS on ii ii 12 ii H

uraniu_m milling in April. We have extended the comment period

.e I 13 11- on the GEIS to September 24, which is a very likely comment

!i 14  ;; period. We took some time to interpret various aspects of the 15 Mill Tailings Act. That delayed somewhat our getting this regu-'

16 lation down to you. But the regulation's basis is the GEIS on 1\

11

,I 17 :: uranium millings, and we are very anxious to have the two con-18 sidered, the GEIS and the proposed rules.

1 ....

Our schedule calls for at this time September in 20 Albuquerque and Denver having public meetings on the rule and 21 the GEIS*. That's somewhat touch-and-go right now, depending 22 upon how soon we can propose the rules.

23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Have you heard anything from 24 the states?

Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 MR.* MILLER: They- have asked to participate, and, of

pv3 5

course, they will.

2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Let me ask it differently --

3 MR. MILLER: I have been down to Albuquerque three 4 times in the last three months. I have been successful in get-51 ting in and out. The final GEIS and rule,according to our 6 schedule, is early 1980.

7 Let me now walk through and touch on the important 8 I elements that are in the rule, as far as technical aspects go.

9 (Slide.)

10 ! Basically, it sets a limit on radon emissions from I

1l I the tailings pile on final tailings disposal. It's a level I

12j

- 13 14 iI I

!i It

I I

I which is essentially background or very near background.

We are also proposing that the final cover over the tailings be a minimum of three meters.

15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: What's the "final cover" mean? :

I 16 I MR. MILLER: This is upon the abandonment of the tail-;

i!

17 ings disposal area, that the soils cover, which is what we're i

18 !I talking about here primarily, be a minimum of three meters. Now~

I  ;

l you can attain radon rates that are at the prescribed level withi I

i 20 I i somewhat thinner covers; but the thinner you get, the more you I

- 21 I 22 II i

I 23i time.

have to rely on things like clay, moist clay, and rely upon the clay to maintain those characteristics over long periods of We felt it prudent to have some lower limit of final f-

- 2J Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.  !

cover.

l 25 CHAifil'T.AN HENDRIE: What do you do during the milling

pv4 ------------------- ---- -- - - - - - - - - - - - -~

6 operation?

2 MR. MILLER: - During milling operation, of course, the 3 tailings are susceptible to blowing, and the kind of techniques 4 that are used vary, but primarily to keep the tailings covered 5 11 by solution, by also wetting, the tailings, the dry tailings 0

, II

' that aren't covered by solution from the mill. Or use of chemi-~

7 cal stabilizers. This is a point that is addressed also in the 8 I. regulation.

9! We're allowing for flexibility. It calls for flexi-I 10 I I bility because it is a site-specific kind of problem. And so ii 11 I there are a number of ways of creating them.

J ii l ")..._ !I'I The seqond major point ii ii 13 i' COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Before you get past the first

, A Ii one, how long does it have to be covered?

1s li MR. MILLER: We have no set figure. The approach we 16 III! are taking -- and this involves talking about the third point, 17 :;

,1 long-term isolation -- is to, by siting and design techniques,

!I

,8 :r

' :: to render the tailings as free from destruction from erosion as

d is possible and, in fact, to try to build into the tailings sys-:

'"> n ij

~-,;tern a depositional kind of character.

I:

') ,' II

.:. Maybe I should speak about the third point, and then i1 Ii 22 Ii!1 maybe if that doesn't answer your question -- we have identified; 23  ! the goal essentially of eliminating any kind of need for active I

24 I care of the tailings pile to preserve the cover that's placed

>.ce-Federal Recorters, Inc.

25 over the tailings. And what this means, more specifically, is

pv5 7

- using techniques like disposing of the tailings below the nor-21 mal grade, the grade of the surrounding environment.

I That, in£

- 3 41 s:II I fact, is identified as the primary option on the most desirable I

I I

mode of tailings disposal.

We also identify in the regulation, however, for those;

, III.

Oj situations where the topography or other environmental impacts 7 preclude, make it undesriable to place the tailing below grade.

8 We identify specific siting features and design features that 9 should be built into the tailings disposal scheme to eliminate 10 and minimize the amount of disruption or dispersion.

l1 COMi'1ISSIONER BRADFORD:. When does the three-meter 12 minimum apply?

13 MR. MILLER: That would pccur, of course, after the 1A :I

..

• termination of milling operations. Before that time, it,is, as 15 I said earlier, a matter of either by covering with solutions 16 11 or spraying with water or chemicals to suppress the dust.

Ii MR. MARTIN: We have for some time required that the II II 18  !! dam,. any features of the impoundment itself, be constructed of ii 11 19 !I earth, to start with. So, you sort of build those things into 11 "I'\ ii

.:.vii it at the very beginning, and then what's left at the end of

. . , Ii

.,_' ,; life is to cover it with a minimum of three meters, prior to

,, .... 1:

ii

-L allwoing anybody to leave the site, that that would have to be 23 done, and w_e would have to watch it. for a few years -- maybe 24 five to 10 years- -- to make sure it's staying that way.

Aca-Fed2ral Reporters, Inc.

25 MR. MILLER: Perhaps I could illustrate that with a

8 slide showing one of the recent cases in Wyoming that we have licensed operators.

(Slide.)

4 This schematic shows the case where the tailings will 51 be disposed of into the spent mine pits. It involves lining the:

II 6* bottom and the sides of the pit with an impermeable clay liner, 7 filling into above the water table with the materials that were si! strict in getting to the ore zone, to start with, and then I

9 I placing the tailings into the pit, and then finally upon the 10 l1 abandonment or completion of the milling operation, covering *,

!I II 11 i! with a combination of soil and clay --

, 2 ii I 11 (At 3*: 20, Commissioner Gilinsky arr~ves .. )

11 13 !.*\ MR. MILLER: To, in this case, I believe, a.total 11 1.i thickness of about 10 feet -- it adds up to various figures --

I 15 !j of cover.

I!

!I 11 1,t; Ii The next slide --

, - I!

i7 (Slide.)

-- Shows how this will be done in a series of in a il

'7 ,i sequenced fashion. The ore zone has a linear kind of shape,

o !\*' and this shows, in the :middle section there, how the tailings

..,, ii 1,

• i, L, ,; are being slurried into one cell or one section of the total ore:

i:

1!

,., 1:

2L zone.

(At 3: 21, Commissioner Gilinsky leaves room.)

MR. MILLER: The ones upstream of that, to the right,

~ce-FeCeral Reoorters. inc.

25 show areas that -- just immediately upstrea shows an area

pv7 9

- drying out, because the tailings in this case are slurried in a 2 solution out to the tailing area.

3 I Upstream of that one -- further to the right is an I

4 area that's been reclaimed or finally covered. To the left, of 5 course, are cells that are areas that are being actively mined.

i 0' The advantage of this kind of disposal is that it 7 minimizes the period of time over which you have the tailings 8 exposed, essentially.

9! 1 MR. DIRCKS: I think that's part of the question, too. 1

!I 10 j You don't have to wait for the whole mill operation to stop.

I 11 \i You could reclaim permanently as you go down the various pits.

MR. MILLER: If you plan °it from 'the beginning.

That's right.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Peter, it's also a characteristic 15 of the radon problem that, with reasonable care on the ponds and l6 1 keeping them moist until you get ready to cover a section i:

ii 17 1 1 finally; even though they may be more or less open for several 11

1 18 \\years, the substantial dose commitments that can derive from i

19 if the radon are a result of the very long half-life of the materials

,_,, II _

Lu i.*1that are concerned, and the fact that you can go on ror

,., ' I L 1 11 thousands of years --

1 22!1. (At 3:22, CoTIL~issioner Gilinsky returns to room.)

Ii

'I 23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So the open period is quite a 24 small piec~ of that. Say, even if you took a 40-year period --

Ace-f'ederal Reoorters, Inc.

25 and I doubt that any pits stay open anything like that, compared:

pv8 10 to the total integrated dose commitment you get over the half-2 life of the material, say, or even some shorter time, but still 3 I I comparable -- ice ages and so on, several tens of thousands of I

41 years, a small chunk of the thing. The concern is really not I

- I j 11

'I to have the radon bleeding out over just thousands and thousandsI l1 6j of years, or at least do reasonable things to try and damp that I

71 down.

8 i Obviously, the further underground you can get it, ii 9 i 11 the better off you are.

I*

10  !: Please go ahead.

!1 11 11 ii MR. MILLER: I might show another slide that takes a ii 12li case wher~ there is not a pit ~vailable.

p

,I i3\j (Slide.)

,.11 1'1 ':*!

In another recent case where the tailings will be 15 disposed of in pits that are especially dug for* the purpose of lh

• V 11 tailings disposal. This is not the scale, or near the scale, 11 II but i t shows the idea. The materials are excavated and pushed

!l 18 I!;i up on the side to form essentially a dam around the impoundment.

II

'-;- ;, The bottom is lined with a synthetic material to eliminate seep-:

.i.v

!1 age from the tailing pond

• The tailings are again slurried out ij

,., , II LI 1[

to the mill area or to the disposal area.

,., ., Ii ii

"'-"- ii When you line the bottom of the tailings pond, of 23\i course, you have to get rid of the solution somehow. In most of:

24 these cases where drying goes off by evaporation, and so essen-

,<\ce-Feaeral Reoorters, Inc. ,

25 i1 tially the dikes are there to hold both the tailings solids,and

pv9 II 11 I

I the solutions until the solutions can evaporate off. After theyi 2 evaporate, the level of tailings solids will be below natural I

3 I grade in a sufficient amount to allow -- again, this is 15 feet 1

4 of cover in this case, so that the final reclaimed area will be 5 I! again essentially at grade.

6 \I The dikes will be merely pushed in over the top of 7 the tailings, and then the final area is re-vegetated. Although 8 I don't have a slide showing it, again the concept here is to 9

do :this in stages. There are four of these cells, in allowing 10 1 the stage covercimg

• on the thing.

i, iI On-e* or**the other -points that I should make that we

,i II 12 ,I have in the regulations*.-- and i t 9ccupies a lot of our time in I 13 licensing -- is groundwater protection. You're identifying the

]4 ,I , , .

regu 1 ation to essentially say that the seepage should be mini-15 q' mized 1

to the maximum extent reasonably achievable or eliminated .

.1, l.6 ii 1

'1 1 This typically means the use. of a liner of some sort. The 17 Ji concern is for nonradiological hazards perhaps even more than I!

3 :: the radiological hazards in this case, because of the mill solu-:

, f"'\ ,i 1; tions being in an. acid solution.

We covered the fourth point on mill operation.

21 ii 7he fifth point relates to site decommissioning. Here

,1

1 22 :1 I am now talking about the site away from the tailings disposal 1: area itself. This is the mill, and the places where ore is i

24 I stockpiled. during an operation. What we are proposing is that Acs-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 these be cleaned up for unrestricted use, that the site away*

pvl0 12

- 2 from the tailin.gs pile not have to rely on institutional con-trols over long periods of time.

- 3 4

5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Do you assume some type of institutional control is maintained, a barrier boundary along the area of the tailings?

6 MR. MILLER: That Is the next slide.

7 (Slide.)

8 We have concluded in the .analysis done in the GEIS 9 that i t would be prudent for there to be some sort of land owner-10 ship. The tailings will be disposed of at or near the surfaces 11 und~r 10 feet of cover.

i 12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I thought the law required that:.

13 ii MR. MILLER: Well, the law requires that also.

II I,

MR. MARTIN: That's one of the reasons why it's in the' 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's see. Did the law finally I

17i pass mandating state or federal ownership, or is there still I

I 18 : that provision that is somebody wants .to hang onto it, why, okay-,

i

., i but he stays a licensee of ours and gets inspected?

20 i MS. GRAM.MER: It's mandatory if the Commission makes

')

1 I l' t so.

I The Commission can make a determination that it's 22' unnecessary a£ter finding that there is no danger to public 23 health and safety and the envir0nment.

24 Also, the Commission is supposed to give leeway to A~-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 people who have their milling operations going before the

pvll 13 enactment of the law.

2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Is that the way they dealt with 3 that constitutional issue of taking of property?

4 MS. GRAMMER: Yes. This would. have grandfathered the

~ i1 system.

11

, II 0

CHAIR.1'\ilAN HENDRIE: And what they did Wets to pass*7. t 7 down to us, figuring, I guess, that i t was likely to be uncon-8 stitutional for them to mandate, but they just let us pass a ii 9 [\ regulation.

10 MR. MARTIN: I think it's even a little more compli-II I

!t 11 !i cated than that. As I recall, the provision was that the by-product material has to be turned over to DOE. Now, the surface*

use of the land and everything, it's encduraged that it be that 14 'i there are extenuating circumstances. We've given a lot of 15 :i exceptions to that, and the state could do it instead of DOE, d

16 ti at their option. But I think the by-product material. So, even:

l~

though you can 1 t get hold of land ownership, say, for existing l Q

!I i1 iV ,1

• operations, at least hte controller ownership of the subsurface

.. - !1 I  ;

,, by-product material reverts to the government.

'r 20 ;;

ii MS. GRAM.J.\1ER: That's not the way we've read it in the il 21 !!  !! regulation. We've read the by-product material and the land 22 !i together.

23 MR. M..~RTIN: Both together?

24 MS. GRAJ.'1MER: Yes. For a number of reasons.

Ace-Federal Reoorters, Inc.

25 MR. MILLER: But essentially, I think, while we are

pvl2 14 on one hand saying 2 COMJ.vJ:ISS I ONER AHEARNE: Jack, I am glad you could make 3 [ the meeting today.

I 41 5

6 7

8 9

10 I

l 11 I 12 II

• I I

!I

]1 :;

~ i1 14 ,i 15 l I

16 I I!

17:i 1!

11

Q ,;

• V 1]

23 I I

24  !

Acs-Federal Reoorters, Inc. [

25 i I

53 29 02 01 15 kap MR. MILLER: We 11, we 1 re saying on one hand the 2 tailings ought to be disposed of in such a fashion that no 3 active kind of pairing is required to keep it intact. I 4 think that what we/re saying here is that it would be 5 prudent to have some sort of control while it can be 6 provided, recognizing that institutions won't perhaps, or 7

-;_..=l- can'Lbe counted on for thousands of years for which the 8 hazard is present.

9 But it's a prudent measure to keep the disruption 10 of that, to preclude the disruption of that from occurring.

l I The next point is that we 1 re proposing, and I 12 guess formalizing, actually, the requirement that operators 13 provide surety that ac the end of their operation there will

• • 14 15 16 be money around to carry out all of the things that we/re r e .:i u i r in g

• he r e

• VI e an a l y zed i n the GE I S a ,,., ho l e specific mechanisss and concluded that there were a number ho s t o f 17 of them that would be okay. And so, we're providing 18 flexability for the operator to tailor his own kind of 19 surety arrangement.

20 ~1-he last point is that we"re proposing a one-time 21 charge to the treasury of 5250,000 minimum to cover what 22 small emount of expense that will be incurred by the

~..,

c.~ government in watching over these sites.

- 24 25 sure -cy '?

5329 02 02 16 kap MR. MILLER: This is really a separate issue.

2 First, it/s jusc to make sure that the operator carries out 3 what he is required ~o do. The second is essentially a way 4 to have him contribute to the general treasury funds that we 5 feel should cover the kinds of monitoring and continuing 6 oversight that will go along with that government 7 ownership

• 8 And the sort of thing tha~ this is based upon is 9 an annual inspection on the part of the DOE inspector of the 10 site, site photographs, and the liks. Some oversight of 11 that by NRC. The provision is here to go higher. This, we 12 felt, was warranted or was appropriate because at some of 13 the curr.ent sites you don"t have all of the options that you 14 do when you"re starting anew, with new cases, so there ought 15 to be some mechanism where ic"s more uncertain about a site 16 as co what kind of control would be needed over ti~e, to 17 charge more than that $250,000 figure.

18 COMMISSION ER .A.HEARNE: Before you go to the next 19 slide, may I ask a question on the surety? Is one of t~e 20 options that you-'ve proposed that the licensee pay into a 21 fund to the state? In other words, it"s another way of 22 asking the question, is -- in the long-term situation, is it 23 allowable?

24 25 a sense, an escrow account.

5329 02 OJ 17 kap CCH.U.HSSIONER AHEARNE: More like paying against 2 the cost of decommission, in other words, your long-term 3 funding, when they pay that S250,000 to the treasury, the 4 treasury does not open an account number 749 and put in a 5 file so that at some time they keep drawing on it; it just 6 goes into the funds, and at some time in the future, when 7 say, DOE or we have to have a certain amount in the budget 8 that has to go in and be authorized or appropriated at least 9 separately, the same way in your financial surety for 10 decommissioning, do you require that the funds actually be 11 earmarked there, or is it allowable that it be paid into the 12 state general treasury, at which time, when decommissioning 13 co~es around, it has to be appropriated specifically from 14 the state?

i :S  ;.(?. iHLi.c~~ r can,.1: quite honestly answer 1:hat 16 off the top of my head. We analyzed in the GEIS, as I say, 17 a nu,:1ber of ,nechanisms. One cd the@ was an earmarked escrow 18 account, and I can,.t recall if in the regulation we had the 19  ;:,rovision that ,.,1ould prohibit that specific thing from I think that the alternatives that we evaluated 21 were ones that were assumed to be earmarked.

22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But you are not sure 23 whether you required it?

24 MR. MILLER: Aoparently we did not specifically 25 tal~ about that in the regulation. Let m~ go to the next

6329 02 04 18 kap slide --

2 (Slidee) 3 MR. MILLER: -- which is a brief summary of the

- 4 6

5 things that we looked at in the GEIS and the things that formed the basis for the proposed regulations.

it is the GEIS on uranium milling.

Essentially We analyzed a range of 7 alternatives for tailings dis~sal, ':thich, by the way, was 8 tb.e main focus of the document, ranging from doing 9 essentially nothing to a series of alternatives that 10 involved near-surface burial of the sort that I/ve just Il described, to several advanced treatment kinds of 12 alternatives.

13 One involved fixing the tailings in a cement or an

'I..,.

~

asphalt type of compound, the second involved nitric acid 15 leaching of the ore, which offers the potential benefit of 16 removing more than just the uranium. It would remove large 17 portions of the residual radioactivity, radium and thorium.

Id However, just in general we concluded chat because 19 of the combination of very high costs and uncertainty about 20 the benefits that are associated with these advanced 21 alternatives, that we could not require them of the 22 industry.

23 ~or example, the nitric acid leaching alternative,

- 24 25 e~sentially eliminate the radon problem, is not at a stage

6329 02 05 19 kap yet where you can remove all of the radium. You're still 2 left with residual amounts that are well above what anyone 3 would accept as a de minimus kind of quantity. You/re then 4 left with, if you do go that route, you're left with the 5 problem of disposing of the concentrates, the radium and 6 thoriuffi, which are alpha emitters, not unlike the 7 transuranic wastes. You've got a whole other problem.

8 The factors considered more specifically ~ere 9 potential health effects to individuals 9 to the western

]0 re..;iions, to the continental populations, over the short. term 11 and over the very long term. We made integrations of doses 12 and heath effects per thousand years, and beyond that time 13 we presented the information that would allo\*/ the leader to

- 14 15 16 draw his own scenarios about future cli~ate and po~ylation growth and whatnot, to corae up with integrations ovew longer periods of time and of course, we considered costs.

17 The total costs of the kinds of programs t-1e,re 1

18 talking about range from about a half a percent to two Jy percent of the price of tha mill product, the yellowcake.

20 Tha~ essentially concludes my presentation.

21 I have some comments, I'd like to 22 highlight on some of the ambiguities ELD tried to resolve in 23 these regulations. What we did was, to the maximum extent 24 ~e could, ~9 t~ied to pie~ out as ~any questions es we cou!d 25 and then add t.hem, to the best of our ability, into the

[9 02 (-..,0

)'

20 kap regulation.

- 2 3

The first thing we did was reflect all the Commission decisions of the May 17th meeting. They are,

- 4 5

6 there are new responsibilities --

believe.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Good, bad and indifferent, I 7 MS. GRAMMER: They're all good.

8 COMMISSIONER AHEAP.?-fE: There is a split dee i sion 9 on that.

10 :1fS. GRAMMER: Yes. There are no new II responsibilities for agreement states until 1981. Also, 12 there is immediate NRC duty to regulate tailings which are 13 now limited to by-product material in both non-agreement and Also there's a eneral li~~nse foi 1,e 14 15 agreewent states.

• existing ongoing o~er~cions that heve ~ valid license from 16 either NRC or an agreement state.

17 This is to prevent their being in technical 18 violation of the law. The general license and the 19 regulations relating to it would be immediately effective 20 without public notice and comment under 5 USC 553. This 21 falls within exception four, good cause is in the public 22 interest. To avoid their being in technical violation -

23 also it imposes no new requirements beyond what's already in 24 the statute. It is the interpretive exception to notice and 25 co~illent requirements.

02 07 21 r329 kap Also, these regulations would be immediately

- 2 3

4 effective and merely reflect the Commission decision of May 17th upon which the Co~mission did allow extensive comment, remembering the New Mexico comment avidly.

5 Secondly, the regulations reflect a determination 6 that was discussed at the May 17th meeting and resume the 7 Commission paper dated May 9th, that a definition of 8 tailings would include above-ground wastes from in situ 9 extraction, but not depleted underground ore bodies. This 10 was discussed also.

11 Third -- and this is, I?m afraid, the most 12 confusing section -- we did our best. to interpret Section 83 13 which governs long-term disposal and tailings maintenance

- 14 and ownership. No*N, this section is extremely complicated I

IS bec~usa it/s full of drafting errors. In Enclosure G, we 16 went through and listed the questions and the answers.

17 These are what we believe to be the best 13 interpretation of this statute, and they're not as 19 controversial as the ori~inal question about the immediate 20 effectiveness, and they will not be immediately effective 21 and by and large wi.ll not go into effect until l98l.

22 I/11 try to very briefly go through this, and 23 spare you the details. If you have any questions you can 24 ask.

25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let ms just ask, the J

,6329 02 08 22 kap legislation 111hich has been* proposed and is now embedded in

- 2 3

the Senate authorization bill, would not speak to any of this material, I guess?

- 6 4

5 MS. GRAMMER: It would be the first one, the Commission determination of May 17th, on immediate effectiveness.

7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay, but aside from that.

8 MS. GRAMMER: Aside from that, it would be very 9 easy just to take out the sections relating to that.

10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But even with that passed, and l I the immediate ettectiveness relieved, one sti.11 is left 12 with --

13  ;,{S. GRAW:~ER: Section 83 ~*1asn"t really addressed 14 in tha~ amendme-nt.* And it's quite a challenge *

.e *I5 CHAIR~AN HENDRIE:

I So it"s going to continue to be 16 a legal delight?

17 i'I'. S

• Gr~ A.'1G'I\ ER : Ye s

• The prob l em Ls t ha t the y w e re 18 doing it at the last moment and there are a lot of sentences 19 that aren"t correct sentences and a lot of sections that 20 don"t go together, and sections that don,,~ exist that are 21 referred to. It's just a challenge.

22 The first issue in Section 83 we addressed is the 23 conflict between Section 83-A, which seems to require, as 24 Jack mentioned, mandatory government ownership of tailings 1 2s and Section 83-B, which says that there is flexaiblity in

~329 02 0 u

23 I

kap government ownership of tailings and their disposal site.

- 2 3

4 The conclusion we reached, and I/11 go into more detail if you-"d like 1 is that you should read Section 83-8, which talks about both tailings and the disposal site as 5 modifying 83-A, as the flexibility would apply across the 6 board and there are reasons in the legislation, the way it/s 7 written it seems to refer to both. And in the legislative 8 history and in the way it would work.

9 The second issue we addressed has to do with the 10 resolution of various issues dealing with the effective date 11 of Section Generally, it-"s effective in 1981 and not 12 until then.

13 There are some i.ssues about the grandfathering

- 14 IS i6 provision that we talked about a little bit. We decided that it .should apply to both the tailings and cheir disposal site, in keeping with the flexibility provision. Also, thac 17 this grandfathering provision would continue upon the 18 renewal of the pre-existing license, so that when you are 19 renewed you wauldn/t all of a sudden be stuck wich 20 requirements that you wouldn/t have otherwise.

21 And also, there was what could have been read as a 22 loophole in the decommissioning requirements.

23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: How did you reach that 24 logic?

25 MS. GRAMMER: Okay, 1

,vhen you have this provision,

bJ29 02 IO 24 kap it's 83-8-4, it provides a grandfathering provision so that

- 2 3

someone who has a pre-existing license on the date of effectiveness, 1981, of this ownership requirement, would

- 4 6

5 not have to have mandatory ownership.

make a determination that it was not necessary if this person did not own or could not manage to buy --

The Commission could 7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Stricty focusing on that 8 one optional ownership 9 MS. GRAMMER: Right. Okay, al so there is a 10 provision in Section 83-A that could have been read as a 11 loophole and people .1ho got their licenses in between the 1

12 date of enactment and the effective date might have gotten 13 off without having any decommissioning responsibilities.

14 And we decided not to read that as a loophole,. and closed 15 16 A third issue we discussed is perhaps the one that 17 would be tha most controversial. It has to do with the 18 relationship between the agreement states and the NRC, the 19 lcng-ter~ maintenance and ownership of pailings.

.::..u Tradi ti8n2 lly, a gr e e rr. e n t s -c a -c e program chere is no 21 overlapping at all. Once the agreement state has 22 responsibility, NRC pretty much stayed out unlass ~here was 23 some sort of a lack of compatibility or something, then NRC 24 could come back in.

25 ~ell 1 the mill tailings act sort of jumbles these

6329 02 l1 25 kap authorities somewhat. To try to follow the traditional 2 approach you would replace the name of a state with the word 3 Commission throughout, and that just does not work. There 4 are a lot of authorities in here that seem to be directed 5 solely to the Commission or the federal government.

6 (At 3:45, Commissioner Gilinsky left the room.)

7 For one thing, it's much more than incompatibility 8 here *. It's very clear they have to meet minimum federal 9 requirements, which means requirements that NRC develops 10 under Section 83. Also, another example, before termination 11 of a state license, the NRC must have made a determination 12 that all the applicable requirements are met. This is sort 13 of a lot of NRC involvement compared to what it had been in 14 the  ;:ia s -c.

JS The legi~lative history and the act itself l6 indicates that NRC is to apply standards. If the states are 17 to apply standards that are equal to or more stringent than 18 those developed by NRC, in other words, this will mean that 19 under the mill tailings act the federal government will 20 establish the standards the agreement states will enforce 21 and administer. TI1is also means that the Commission will 22 interpret and make necessary determinations under Section 23 83.

24 This is sc~e*:rhet enelogous to ou::- sit*Jeticr.

25 vis-a-vis E?A. Under Section 275, EPA will adoot general

b329 02 12 26 kap standards for tailings disposal and NRC will implement them,

- 2 3

and there are certain authorities that are reserved to the NRC and that's in Section 150.15-A of the regulations, and

- 4 c:;.

6 they're pretty specific.

They de al with once DOE has authority over a tailing site, for example. NRC would be the one to tell a1E 7 if more maintenance or other actions are necessary, and 8 that's pre tty much it.

9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Is there a possible 10 inconsistency in that the state might be licensing with one i

11 set of requirements, and we may require another set before I

~1 12 termination?

I GI 13 MS. GRAMMER: Well, I would hope that our

-- 14 lS 16 terminaiion requirements would be laid out at the very these regulations, and the state, in its regulations. would 17 have to ~eet those or be Gore stringent than those 18 requirements, and I guess if we haven/t changed ours, the 19 state would have to. Hopefully we won/t do it a~ the very

.:::.0 l ast ~11 o 1J e n I.

• 21 MR. MILLER: Now, the standards, the provisions of 22 the regulations that they talked about were the things that 23 will effectively constitute the minimum national standards 24 that the act talks about.

25

CR 6329 #3 DAV/PV 27

\I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's see. The proposed regula-i 2 tions become our governing regulations for mills that we licensel 3

I And by virtue of the minimum federal standards requirement, the 1 4 agreement states the licensed mills will also have to pick these,

- ii up and do at least as well as this.

6 ti I'

MR. DIRCKS: Yes.

7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: States can impose requirements 8 stricter than ours; is that correct?

11 9 i II

, MS. GRAM1'*'1ER

Yes.

I 10 ! COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: If they have imposed* stricter

!i 11 !!" requirements, do we have to accept those stricter requirements Ii 12 !I as a Commission determination?

'I III,

!3 MS. GRAMMER: It says "all applicable standards." It i

14 [1 doesn't say whose. I would imagine that the state, would also l'i 15 II

! require that their standards be met before termination. I would

!i

!I 16 Ii

!~ hope that wouldn't be too much of a problem.

17 ,,

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Any other corrnnents?

l*'.l

i

,I

,v

': COMMISSIONER AHEA.RNE *: -.Jack, what do you think of the ii I

,,'J li

,,11 problems on getting the. Commission to act on it, other than

• i 20 *I getting the Commission to act on it?

'.I i

?l ii MR. MARTIN: I don't -- I think that effectively we have applied certain -- except for the ownership question --

23 we've applied the technical process for 10 cases, and I will 24 put them through the process, environmental impact statements, Ace-Federal Reoorters. Inc.

25 I comments, and work with the state agencies, and have effectively

pv2 28 applied the same technical rules in both the agreement states 2 on a cooperative basis. I think most of the sharp edges are 3 knocked off that.

4 Of course, we have yet to try to work through these

<: I ownership issues, and I think that t1/2ere 1 ll probably be some 6 interesting things develop there. But I think they 1 are all 7 provided for. They're in the rules. I think this question, 8 we would like to wind up with all of these existing tailings 9 owned by either the state or the federal government, but the 10* law and our rules do provide some latitude in case there is a I

1 1. i; hardship case or people who originally owned the land and never 12, entered the venture with that in mind.

I I

i3 i I think, as Elise points out, this does imply, I 1d think, enough flexibility to work with. In neT"' cases, it's 1 c; 1i

• - !I pretty clear; £or some lucky existing ones, we're just going

1 16 1i to have to do things on a judgment basis.

17 :*

', MR. DIRCKS: I think there may be problems here. If Ii

!2. :; they were starting ones, we'd try to correct them.

I think the important thing to do is to get it out for.

20 ,; comment and see what others have to say about it.

'2 1 II Jack 1 s been putting it together ~ith the knowledge

"!l 22 , and assistance of the states and others, but the benefit of get-

'i~

,,_..., I ting it out would be to find out if there is anything working I'

24 ! out there in the woodwork.

j Ace-Federal Reoorrers, Inc. 1 25 i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: They could just send in another 1 I

pv3 29

- 2 3

comment.

MR. DIRCKS:* It's on that one issue. But I think on I the regulation itself and on the substantive technical parts of II 4 the regulation, I don't think I can see anything major out there

.; They may be .

61 I

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So far as I know, there hasn 1 t been:

I 7 any suggestion from the New Mexico people who are rather torn 8 up by the Coro1nission's decision on May 17, to take particular 11 9 il1 objection to the technical requirements.

II 10 !iiI ~ MR. MILLER: That's right.

II I',j 11 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: They' re just saying, "We don It want!

ii,, ,

p:! you in here licensing tailings piles where we 1 ve licensed the

- I' 1!

!1:

'_) i mill," and so on. And I guess there they 1 ve sent us a letter

• ~ ,.

1 *' and said, "Look, you ought to have a 30-day comment period 15 before this becomes effective." And I don 1 t know, I guess 16 they' re bristling there is over the establishment --

17 :i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The latest is over the waiving

.I1' I'

18  !!q of the 30 days.

ii 17 ,1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, but I take it, again, that 1

20 their complaint there relates to the issuance of a general

"-' license for tailings piles in the states, which they, of course,*

will regard as an unreasonable moving* forward on our part to 23 assume this authority where they continue to feel that we' v_e 24 misinterpreted. the Act *.

ACB-Feceral Reocrters, Inc.

25 Well, John?

pv4 30 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: If the House accepts the 2 Senate language and that version gets passed, is it a relatively 1 I

simple. matter to make the changes?

i MS. GRAMMER: Yes. We just strike some of the regula-:

I tions that would no longer apply.

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But the framework itself won't change?

MR. DIRCKS: The framework itself would stand intact.

9 The regulation would stand intact, except for these narrower 10 provisions.

CHAIRMA.~ HENDRIE: And the general licenses that have been issue~, either we revoke them or they become null and void*

1"'

,.) :i with pas sage of the ~ct, I assume.

14 MS. GRAMMER: Some may still be applicable for people 1s Ii., with valid licenses from NRC who didn't have the specific tail-

,,)i 16 ! 1 11 ings licenses in all agreement states. That would apply only 17 :,

to our own licensees.

Ii CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I would assume for our own licen-Ii 1

il cees*, that I s right,. yes . And what you say -- Peter, at the 1:

'20 :iii moment, we I ve got you cornered here.

~; *,'I i COM..MISSIOUJ,.--:R BR/\DFORD: I naven 1 t proposed a vote here.

II II

?2 ii (Laughter.)

CHAiffill..AL'\! HENDRIE : Time to quickly get out and remove 24 I the quorum.

Ace-Feceral Reporters, Inc. :

25 Even though I continue to hold my sentiments of May

pvS II 31 17 on this issue, it does seem to me that it is true --

2 COMMISISONER AHEARNE: Time has verified the wisdom 3 of that position.

4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I can't fault a remark that caters 5 to my prejudices.

6 It does seem to me that the comment of the law has 7 passed, the majority decision does stand, there is a responsi-Bi bility, and the people who have the tailings, the operators out 9 there, are in fact in technical violation of the law right now, 10 !I I guess.

ii ii 11 ii MS. GRAMMER: Theoretically.

\I 12 ili ' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: At least in p~inciple, the law I

13 : doesn 1 t say you're okay unti~ the NRC gets its regulations in 1

i place. It just says do it. Or it appears to say do it. And 15 the value in issue of the general license would be to relieve 16 ,, that technical violation.

1- :I I/ !I Now, since we have some hope that the authorization i

181! .. , bi'll may s +-_raig

• ht en ou_

+- an d pass wi'th the re 1*1ev1ng provisions It II

• ..... I in the near tenn, it seems:1.unlikely to me that we would want to 20 immediately launch a major review an effort against those general 2l licenses. But I think there is probably merit in issuing them.

22 ! COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: For a layman, what is the 23 difference between a violation and a technical violation?

24 MS *. GRAMMER: I guess we don't go out and enforce the

\~-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 technical violations as much.

pv6 32 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But it's still a violation?

2 MR. DIRCKS: I don't know whether anyone could come 3 along and bring a lawsuit against us.

4 MS. GRAM.1'1ER: The way it worked was the section 81 5 1 i requires a license for by-product materials from the NRC, the ti 1!11 0 *i Hill Tailings Act plugged into the definition of by-product 7 material tailings. So, if you read section 81 -- but where the 8 i people are supposed to have an NRC license or some sort of 9 exemption of general license for mill tailings.

lO II MR. MILLER: I should note that with regard to new I!

11 1! applications, the staff has gone through and has begun a full ii 1')_ ,_1, * * *

"deeper review of new'mill applications in agreement states. We Ji

,I 13(\,, have been, for the past several years, engaging in technical

!i 1,:! 'assistance to the agreement states. We do a bit more than in 15 ., ii technical assistance. So, we hope to be involved, in any case .

i!

16 Ii CSAIR.i.1\Ln..N HENDRIE: I was going to say, p~esumably if 17 :. the relieving legislation passed, those EIS efforts wuld con-i1

'.S ;: verge into technical assistance to the state, sort of substan-1

,1 tive material in that work that was useful there.

?O 1l MR. MA.RT IN: That's the way they' re being pursued.

') 1 Ii CHAIFJ;IAN HE:NDRIE: Is there anything that's likely to 22 i happen with the licensing action, or need to happen in the way 23;I of a licensing action during, say, between now and I don't know I

211

• when the Act might pass, but over the authorization bill?

.-\c,i-Feneral Reporters, Inc.

25 MR. MILLER: There are several small cases in Texas

pv7 I

I I

33 I of in situ operations, in situ mining operations, which, as far I

I 2 l1 as what's covered by the Act is concerned, is not very large,

! l 3 I because obviously you don't have tailings in the case of in situ!

I 4 operations. You do have some waste brought to the surface a.s 5 well as some wastes that are brought to the surface and then 6 reinjected into deep aquifers.

7, I

i So, we are going through a review and will likely take,.

I I

81 some licensing action.

9 COMMISSIONER AHEAR~E: What does "take some licensing 10 action" mean?

I, I[

11 11 I, MR. MILLER: As to approval, take action and issue a

'I H

12 *; license.

'I ii 13 1i CO~.MISS.IONER AHEARNE: Issue a license, or i.ssue some iI~

14 :i additional requirements to them?

l -i:; :I,1 MR~ MILLER: Essentially, we have done the review in

![

II 16 \\ this case, and I think that applying any requirements beyond i

what the state is already applying CHAIRIVlAN HENDRIE: These would be cases under this general license?

20 ; ~IR. MILLER: Not actually. The general license would 21 apply* to those people who are cu:!'."rently milling or currently 22 operating. In a sense, they're the people who are now in tech-23 ; nical violation.

I 24 I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I see. Okay-. These would be new.

Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.  !

25 I Essentially, this one case:

MR. MILLER:. That's right.

pv8 34 I is essentially near the point of beginning to operate. The 2

states have gone through a full review. That, of course, makes 3

our job much easier.

41 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Peter, do you have thoughts on the :

I s: matter?

t_

II.

'..J :r it COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Not at the moment. Do you Ii II 7 lj propose to vote now?

8 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: No. Because Dick isn't here, and 9

Vic was only here for a limited time.

10 What I would propose to do is urge us all to please Ii 1t !I

,i take action on 413.

ii 12:; COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I would propose to do that.

. ii 13 ;;

I:! CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, please.

14 ,, I MR. DIRCKS: The basic action, in my mind, is to issue 15 i

' l! the memo for public comment, to get it out.

16 ii

!i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes.

1-,

, I ,,.

CHAifiltl~.N HENDRIE: John, do you have anything further?

i (No response . )

' CHAIRMA.."J\l' HENDRIE: I think we' re we 11 finished, for a

• 20 1 very well-considered outline of both the technical and legal

'2 1 i

' merits. It helped considerably, I would say. I asked you about 22 t it, and I can't remember what it was; whatever it was, I will 23 !

ask you about it in order to call it to the attention of the i

24 i ACl!-Federal RePorters, Inc.

Commissioners.

25 MR. DIRCKS: It's the letter to the three governors,

I pv9 35 proposing the action plan which they thought they were going to 2 get around August 1, we'd very much appreciate it if you'd get 3

it out soon, within the first week of August, at least.

4  !

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Just that. Okay, the letter. Okay!,I 5 I just signed mine out. All right.

6 (Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.)

End#3 7 8

ii

!i 9

11 11 10 11 1,II 1l ii ii 12 "li

,~ IIll 1.j II

, ii

• 1 14 15 ii ii 1*"

16 ,,i I/

]l 18 ii ii11

. -1 I "ti I

20 *:

1 21 :1 22 I 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25