ML24032A006
| ML24032A006 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/09/2024 |
| From: | Rachel Johnson NRC/NMSS/DMSST/ASPB |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Download: ML24032A006 (6) | |
Text
Utah Agreement State Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program Review Management Review Board Meeting Minutes January 9, 2024 ML24032A006 Management Review Board Meeting Objectives: The purpose of the January 9, 2024, Utah Agreement State Program (Utah) Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) Management Review Board (MRB) meeting, was for the MRB to discuss the results of the September 2023 IMPEP with the IMPEP team and representatives from the State of Utah, and for the MRB Chair to determine: (1) the overall adequacy and compatibility of the Utah Agreement State Program, (2) the need to open new recommendations, and (3) the timing of the next IMPEP review(s). The final Utah IMPEP report (ML24022A151) is the official record of the MRB Chairs decisions.
MRB Meeting Attendees: Meeting attendees for the January 9, 2024, are provided in the appendix.
Meeting Minutes:
1.
Mr. Johnson convened the meeting, outlined the meeting objectives, and introduced the meeting participants. Mr. Johnson noted that this MRB meeting was an NRC public observation meeting, and that members of the public would be given an opportunity to provide comments to the NRC after the business portion of the meeting.
2.
Ms. Haney welcomed the meeting participants and made opening remarks on the scope, timing, and mechanics of the IMPEP review and MRB meeting.
3.
Ms. Ford introduced the IMPEP review team members, their respective performance indicators, and led the team presentation of the Utah IMPEP review results. Ms. Ford and the respective IMPEP team members summarized the teams findings for each of the performance indicators reviewed. MRB members asked questions and Utah was given an opportunity to comment on the teams findings. The IMPEP teams findings are provided below:
3.1. Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements: Ms. Ford presented the teams results for the non-common performance indicator, Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements. Her presentation corresponded to Section 4.1 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The MRB discussed the results of the IMPEP review and posed questions to the IMPEP team and Utah. Utah was also given the opportunity to provide any additional information or insights. The IMPEP team found, and the MRB Chair agreed, that Utahs performance with respect to this indicator to be satisfactory but needs improvement.
3.2. Technical Staffing, and Training: Mr. Gause presented the teams results for the common performance indicator, Technical Staffing, and Training. His presentation corresponded to Section 3.1 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The MRB discussed the results of the IMPEP review and asked questions to the IMPEP team and Utah. Utah was also given the opportunity to provide any additional information or insights. The IMPEP team found, and the MRB Chair agreed, that Utahs performance with respect to this indicator to be satisfactory.
3.3. Status of Materials Inspection Program: Mr. Seeley presented the teams results for the common performance indicator, Status of Materials Inspection Program. His presentation corresponded to Section 3.2 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The MRB
Utah Agreement State Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program Review Management Review Board Meeting Minutes January 9, 2024 ML24032A006 discussed the results of the IMPEP review and asked questions to the IMPEP team and Utah. Utah was also given the opportunity to provide any additional information or insights. The IMPEP team found, and the MRB Chair agreed, that Utahs performance with respect to this indicator to be satisfactory.
3.4. Technical Quality of Inspections: Mr. Ayala presented the teams results for the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections. His presentation corresponded to Section 3.3 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The MRB discussed the results of the IMPEP review and asked questions to the IMPEP team and Utah. Utah was also given the opportunity to provide any additional information or insights. The IMPEP team found, and the MRB Chair agreed, that Utahs performance with respect to this indicator to be satisfactory.
3.5. Technical Quality of Licensing Actions: Mr. Greenwood presented the teams results for the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. His presentation corresponded to Section 3.4 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The MRB discussed the results of the IMPEP review and asked questions to the IMPEP team and Utah. Utah was also given the opportunity to provide any additional information or insights. The IMPEP team found, and the MRB Chair agreed, that Utahs performance with respect to this indicator to be satisfactory.
3.6. Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities: Ms. Cook presented the teams results for the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities. Her presentation corresponded to Section 3.5 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The MRB discussed the results of the IMPEP review and asked questions to the IMPEP team and Utah. Utah was also given the opportunity to provide any additional information or insights. The IMPEP team found, and the MRB Chair agreed, that Utahs performance with respect to this indicator to be satisfactory.
3.7. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program: Mr. Grossman presented the teams results for the non-common performance indicator, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program. His presentation corresponded to Section 4.2 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The MRB discussed the results of the IMPEP review and asked questions to the IMPEP team and Utah. Utah was also given the opportunity to provide any additional information or insights. The IMPEP team found, and the MRB Chair agreed, that Utahs performance with respect to this indicator to be satisfactory.
3.8. Uranium Recovery Program: Ms. OBrien presented the teams results for the non-common performance indicator, Uranium Recovery Program. Her presentation corresponded to Section 4.3 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The MRB discussed the results of the IMPEP review and asked questions to the IMPEP team and Utah. Utah was also given the opportunity to provide any additional information or insights. The IMPEP team found, and the MRB Chair agreed, that Utahs performance with respect to this indicator to be satisfactory.
4.
Ms. Ford provided a summary of the teams recommendations for the: overall finding of adequacy and compatibility and the timing of the next IMPEP review. Based on the results of the IMPEP review, the team recommended that Utah be found adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible. The team also recommended and the MRB Chair agreed
Utah Agreement State Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program Review Management Review Board Meeting Minutes January 9, 2024 ML24032A006 to open four new recommendations for improved program performance. The team recommended, and the MRB Chair agreed, that the next periodic meeting take place in approximately 2 years and the next IMPEP review take place in approximately 4 years. The MRB discussed the results of the IMPEP review and gave Utah an opportunity to provide any additional information or insights.
5.
Members of the public were given an opportunity to comment after the business portion was concluded. Two members of the public made the following comments.
5.1. Comment 1 - Mr. Peter Ortego, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe: Did the review team meet with the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, do any public surveys, look at any epidemiology studies, or conduct a review of the impact to cultural resources of the operations at the White Mesa Mill? Mr. Williams responded that while these topics are outside of the scope of the IMPEP review, the NRC and State of Utah consulted with the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe in August 2024, and we will continue to engage in the future.
5.2. Comment 2 - Ms. Sarah Fields, Uranium Watch: Did the IMPEP team give any advice to the State of Utah related to Anfield Resources Shootaring Canyon Mill? Ms. OBrien responded that Utah is following the NRCs licensing guidance and engagement with Utahs licensee, on this and other matters, is under the purview of the State of Utah.
5.3. Comment 3 - Ms. Sarah Fields, Uranium Watch: On June 28, 2023, NRC issued SECY-23-0055: Options for Licensing Emerging Technologies Used for Remediation of Mine Waste. It doesnt appear that NRC engaged stakeholders like the State of Utah on the important decisions made in the paper. Mr. Lubinski noted that the paper had been provided to the Commission and that the Commission had not made any final decisions on that paper to date. Mr. Lubinski also stated staff engaged the Organization of Agreement States and the State of Utah to get input on the recommendations in the paper, as it was being developed, and that the NRC will continue working with stakeholders after the Commission makes a decision on the recommendations contained in the paper.
6.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:16 pm ET.
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A MRB Meeting Attendees - January 9, 2024
Appendix - Management Review Board Meeting Attendees - January 9, 2024:
Management Review Board:
Cathy Haney, OEDO John Lubinski, NMSS James Grice, Colorado Jessica Bielecki, OGC John Monninger, RIV IMPEP Team Members:
Monica Ford, RI Juan Ayala, RI Matt Greenwood, Tennessee Shawn Seeley, NMSS Gehan Flanders, RIII Adam Gause, South Carolina Jackie Cook, RIV Chris Grossman, NMSS Brandi OBrien, Wyoming State of Utah:
Douglas Hansen Charles Bishop Tyler Hegburg Stevie Norcross Brandon Davis Larry Kellum Bailey Anderson Gage Fausto Otis Willoughby NRC Staff:
Huda Akhavannik, NMSS Robert Johnson, NMSS Marti Posten-Brown, RIV Tammy Bloomer, RIV Doug Mandeville, NMSS Hector Rodriguez, OEDO Mary Casto, NMSS Sherrie Flaharty, NMSS Lee Smith, NMSS Sheldon Clark, OGC Lisa Forney, RI Candace Spore, NMSS Farrah Gaskins, RI Jeff Lynch, NMSS Bill Von Till, NMSS Adelaide Giantelli, NMSS Karen Meyer, NMSS Kevin Williams, NMSS Ute Mountain Ute Tribe:
Janice Archuleta Peter Ortego Michael Keller Gwen Cantsee Scot Clow U.S. Senator Bennet Staff:
Susanne Brooks John Whitney U.S. Senator Hickenlooper Staff:
Carlee Brown Helen Katich U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
Treasure Bailey Colin Larrick Christopher Razzazian Kai Elgethun Kenyon Larsen Linda Jacobson Jonathan Major Grand Canyon Trust:
Chaitna Sinha Aaron Paul Energy Solutions:
Jonathan Anderson Organization of Agreement States:
Keisha Cornelius Beth Shelton Other Members of the Public:
Sarah Fields, Uranium Watch Jim Nizamoff, State of Maine
SUBJECT:
UTAH AGREEMENT STATE IMPEP REVIEW MRB MEETING MINUTES ADAMS ACCESSION NO: ML22189A114 OFFICE NMSS/MSST NMSS/MSST NAME ERaphael RJohnson DATE 01/25/2024 01/25/2024 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY