ML20002C024
| ML20002C024 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/14/1980 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20002C021 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-44FR50012, RULE-PR-150, RULE-PR-170, RULE-PR-30, RULE-PR-40, RULE-PR-70 44FR50012, NUDOCS 8101070590 | |
| Download: ML20002C024 (60) | |
Text
_
.e 1.
m m
..,w.,'
'. 7..
.n
-g m,
.N ? J.
I i>
%-S9:.e. -
y g'
,,l".,
s ;..
J.,.'. R.
2.%..
.'a+.
n. %.
.s
...f m u L 9.. :Transcn.
t of Pro,p
.. ~.
......r o
p ceed..mgs
. y
~
it
.~
.-(, 7 s
.w wr.r..
e,
.m
-. :..,a -...
..-m 1
,r.,.
..s.<..
2.
, p
. 2.,
.,. ~
.A.. :
~. ;.? '
A.~. **; -
.. ' '. -. n',.
%=,.,.
-,t,.'
,r J.
s 2
..,.4,.b.,.,
.... s 9,.
.^-
. m. f., y...
.,.,,,, ub...y...,.,~
b m.
-..y.
.,....s
.s
-e,..*
.y v 4.
~.y.. s.
..9
<t s
.z.,.,,......
..m ~. ~ mw3? )..
u :. ~..
. -4:8
. ~..
.+
p.
c.
r s;.
........ g r,3
.... :.J,,;. N. N... *
.? ;g ;;,;..,; u.,,,... a.,..r..,,,.. c.,. _.;.t m..r.*,.c p..
e-i ik
".g.,
. 7. *g f+.q.
d>
1:2". -.
9..
e 4 s.
m
.r..
..r.. v., h.;,
.'5,.+..
~..
UNITED'-STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY. C' MMISSION' D'? ~
~'
? '..i O
p.:.,..
... c. us, n.....,.
..... -. c. ~ ;.r
. s:....
n
- a. :l.n'a;%.u.=:.w;-%.., w.t-r r..&..w.M..>
x:.~ >.: A y;a..~,..;m.w~~.:g;&p '.%.rwm :.ww!.
..3.n..
ew
.m,.g. -
e
. =....,.
..z.. :,c.._.. n.:a Hw n....u,_..,..
_u... ;
,,,7_..r.,
... :. n,. q,.
,u
..4>
-.. c..n.....,..
s e.
.r,
- r... w. %.
.s
.r.....
..~. <, r.c.. e
,,.a, z
....< w.
..J,.: w...,..
.., G.,.' Q r; V'.-x 'M
- ', :,\\.;.
ry.,q' s,,", t.
- C,#.,at. F.s u. j..;..y;.
.f....
Q. ** '...,.,L E + c h e ;;ry '.x#..,. paa
- .w'..
- *.
- Q 4,Lg '/ Jp'1,.
... W V,
. > g' a. >. e W h
s- - -*%
- ,. s. t ~.
.. jp
- . r, w.
4
..,,-.-,.C. t= 33y w, g f*.
- 4.,.
e.
r.,-.s,v.g n..%.- w.+. < %<,...,.
.~,.y.....
n.s.
n. s..v r.s.tr-
.n
- i.,.:
y * - * :.. '_...
- w. % *~:.% n.;..'..r,..'.'r n. :..,. ',
'&. n.1;u. m.,,s :.r;.." Q.:.".).
a.u. M-4.'... -
' i >
4 4f,. ;'.p. ( g* 4 0...gCF.R.190.. ; 2 " ' C r. C ;'t W*Jg #, *, ;an;P. u.p ; 4. t -M ' T r> ?. N..r,n_,J.*D 7 @..$',. T "
O f..r.,,...-
p
~
<,y.
o.
'"lZ~4
.o....
j) j j
.4,,,
'a A =,.'.N~i
/,.T-.
e ; v.
- W.h.
+.v.
s.
e
. e,.... ' ~..,. he tp e, -*.,
^r d'**
,..'.l.
h
..Ah ly %.9W.pd*.%'
- ..J lM 4 ,..
.,7'e.".
'ea s J..
ss e s
.'s a.
.s
- n. ;ss n :: ','..
1 G! :t.lL'e s, o.; *.
eb
- ..h. ; 9.'.' e- :.o e
- l "f :
~ 1., - 4 8
..l
- 5 *91. -
4
- $....'.... ',,../ y. a **
h.. P % 7 %.-t; :.2".,
. o, y..=.-
.c..,o.A :: -
- .;.v.
?f e.pa.*
a n',.. e... e ;
.lh.
-d
- .* =%.%u (*. -
.-w.*
.,n
.%f4
,,..~ss.,.....
-.->w<...
...r-U$m;'Q.3... 8...A:.$ ' 5.... P. '".Q~* M ; '.# < % :*.'. ~.. s, y..,.t.']:? &. ':s 2CCK.".1ED -..S o
.. n r.
.w
..-.-n m.<.
W; } 4 i
p.
.~-..
USNRc
.r:v.. >.k..o,.: '. +
.m l-
~
+
s
. ;. ~
QCh...A~
v % :,O,w 4.a
.. s....+. <
. t.
- .. ~ n.y,
a
'...~.y.
..- m.
L.
cf-.
w f.u,. x.e.wA,a,... u 4. 2,..g<,m.4.,..
,..e.
s 34.
y
.i l
.~4
~.-. % (,
~.,,.J.
. w,
' xW.
- v, _.'W^.;.
- y.:.4..:.g.-:: -
- .~W u
- .;;.tw.
- .9... : y. g' gx, :, v
,,,. 'rgace3 ~ ^e -
..y&i&. ;,.. y &,..: :'
....x...
W ' b aCk &
,s..
N. W
- Q,..
& y v..->, p.n
..Y.*.
2.....
., m.
- m..
$71*
- AM%
S.4.,,a%e
- d I
/....7
,.g.w.w
",5viF~'.y,n,**'*C*Q A }. ) n. :n y 2 m~,,. ~.<; 6 h. & #'. $ -',*h : *.;; U
-m:
. % f w,. a.', '-
% %: ~.
w.":.;-M. ~RRI.,f:,:.'W.
Q
-M
^
NrA i.f. J. >
u n.
.,1.
cf
..e.~..
, s. w.
...m n+
..a.. w..,, : ;.,..,,.,..-,. u......
.t,s
- .:.: w t.. w.n,._.r.:. s%..,n.#.
n %. r.-*.,.:-M+$.. sf."... _s...w.g... +.
m am.
s.#,
.wv.. rep 2^. ~.,
~
t /,w C.'.s. 4 2
- r. e.1 r,.e. - ar A W M 6,,,.
,3 7; H:. x -'.4 >
., =..
.h:.'d,. >
w.
W :.-- ~>;:,. %..s:,. 4.. 4.:.#,....
<*i W -M..'.t..a.'~ '
..<.~,u.c*.n....m.,,....,....g:W'E 1+* r---
W,,
....t.
.,..e
....,,..w....... ~...
..,,.e.
I O Ww.c.;y*.'s,...
..n_
g.
.c.w.v.....
..r y
w _T,p.7.
. ~...
.. J;. ?
... w A %.',..+.%,.A--
.[ !.,.,c',-...,,.
-... W W..t' :. :..
4 p
'o
~
Yy'4.,:f
.. c.~.
.~ -
. m.r m.m.s.p y
m.
y :Q*~.n W.S. t'* e' p. h* 1.;,5. l-* v t.,
' r%A1=) *E*( *.~ ~
- .di* 2d
~
~, ;. ~ -% -
L. kWfi.Y k.sf. 6.s':.C. n.%W:~... vc'. ::
,,+ - %. i >
?>.$,.h -
+,*s'~%.?
.m. *:h.*.1-q<...c s
.,q SL1v.
. n t M. ar/. lan.d ~.,6*.+ &.3
- n:H.
2 &.w j i.c.t vi.
, - ~ ~
c,
s.c c.
=.-.n. c,,.
,t+.~- e....
.w.,.
..,+g..'. -.,. -.,- v. 4,. m.
,.e w. i**.J s,,4 M..e z.,.,we s.
e.
~
a
..m....
u
.= * - - A m.....-.-.-*p..r._..-+a*T.,g--,-e.-..
L 3
. #. i
.3
,,M.$.
g.
.48
=
.e,.4.,
.y.e e...
...e.... -
a.:,.--
.. < ~...._r*,s #.c
- 3 y
- e. 4 14, 1980.,.
...~.,..j.;..
... q
-. a. i.. ;
A.4..
e
.s
. -.u.,.
>-(....:<.,
z : ~.;.,.~
~.
r
.~
%. cr, November..--. ^
. ~.. w n..
c.,,,z,.. n,. m w e p:.
.r..g
.. w,,. s_.. -
. o c.# <....e.-.
. e.... w -.,. c.~. n. c...
.. -. c...
y.
e e
~
V 4p.g s < f4 e.s.e r
.... x**i.:'.Ue.Wi.4 7..;'. s,C'4J3..:. ;.* P..l T.,,,~ @p';.
as '/c.
- g.e. f..
.,9 p
.g5
,. 4...,'C..
.e e.a.a
. ye. J.e S.<t 6..t.f c
~..,m.*.....
Q.ar 4
m e q y
.c. 6
.a e.
g
.t v. _. (..
+.. -. -
..e.
.'.."}I.'-
- :*.*.N.L.. g,;.:.,. ;.r.k,.'. ;..a.=;?.,w' ~;'
Fu.m. e
~
.at f----
.f.*
e 3....
-. o 6...-. -..
- ~.....m.y 1
..a
.n.-.en-o n
m.m. &...+..
.,)
o
. n. x + v, y's.li,3 *n gg f re *f...
,..e..
v..
~...,..-
.:. m.
.w ~.. n......, Q s.(.,.g
.a. n
,,g,.,*j Cg M 9 w. Qs */4
- .% defe?. # *.....
gy-se.,. (' p, e j,4 ' *.r. y. "
- .L.
.*T c** ~e. + -n M se 4
.r. w.. t
..~.e=
' F-j )
} :.v w.aG.., w< 224W.s.m p.c.--Q
- ;w a. m.3. N. e..p ;,p @. : set *%
r'.
- ys4..g,. n 21 n r:f'. W.w* c gn.s.,;.y. fy,n &*,"We
.m. 93 W.m,s. a
..,2 :,n
- .. - l
--. - m *.-
.m
, sex d.
eA7:ee.Wi P
-*ecn:
g_g.g.g e.......
,; p.
c ___,
~
r, ".?'d s'j '. a. > V.p **'*"** %'.**.'.:. Q.g h8~'
~M.
- ***g.. q*
++ < ~.,,.;s w.a w*.e +-e...
- 5*...
4% ' f.** <. -
.*a
- * ?*
+
T.
t e...,c e*d
- d..
24 6,. ' '/...~... it*,.f?.P. g +'i..s g %.- g' f s* 4 og:Rehr 1 }.s*;.:%.;. p.t e. * -
f we
." X.
- ~.y
- '.s..,..e'.~./,.
c.*.h e+.w
%..F,*t *.;4 %..., *,... ' -
s.eA, & y c
.n..
~
.. aJ; g'p# '.s. ~>
.7,.4 +
..t s.. 489 -
s e am -.
.h, w.e'
(.n.
,s
-o-4
'*'.y
- 7., d
- f T.t' ';.. i. ';pe :,1.'..,-
. i.** * 'w
. t * -... 7./ ;
a. ;~aV. ipn'#" ~' **,4*g t.h'% ed *d ',4 % r,48 *.*'.
- a.
.f,.
M.pf:
T.d*
9
. +
-... ~.
a
.s..;,_
p s.
see
- p
.. e9 + m.
..e._
r, w w
- @f
' d 2.%',.'.*.* ~ ^ ;~ *** *l.
. :' *,. :*r***:'.'l._.'
. ~~
'..,. ..;.R t.* *z. '.**.'.'v'N c. v' f*
- 0.W[fla
.,.,O iM.'i ' **.E,.
.MV '-* * *% '* *...
~
s
._-.a..
. _...in
.s a..
---..s w
,u n f
-;* -W?h'4'ur4* **6"4 4 ' %dd%.1NC,->dd4.t'Nr *.da'WW*h
- I *e 3
_t d
N A
WAcme Rep.orting Com,,..t-.pa.npW.'".'1-4.i. j s.a.m. 4. M.. s.gy)'#,#.-.. :,,.....
...- *m.e..
. Ts
......*e.-t..*4#.-
.j f N.* e
)
a-4.
4
+
n
=
,q 1
3-
~
~ ?..
OM. '-lD1J.6.. ?h*7: ~5. - 4M *,.I.. I'..
J
~k >. x,.A A;' %,,..
fL Cqq.',;;'..%... w. A. ;as h
- %.:* f^f..,
..,u ?<l,..
- .:' ^.
. ' *. ": '1411 R & RR.* b *~* "l'6
~ T.'
.a.. +.w. asNngeon. D C 20005.p..2n. g' Tf g,.
2 ?-
n m' *.4ge.st
'r;ug.-d,y..a g
~z*
,.ns:
4.u.M pg,.
,e sa-
.a r, w. ;,n.s...,,.
a.v
. s +>y...
.a
-~;. ' ' " 'g6g, ~.y.g.-.s g.ig4A-av.'.A ~Av u.
wm 83-*..~.r@4,. 5g154 -+ -~ A ea t * *m
,...,.Q ~
.:yx.4 >.%e q-L.\\ r:
- . we %ny.e v. s..'m.Mp-'.;r.<;.s
. y M.
m ~n ~
w s+3 4
-e
~~* 4,v.e<. W' w 4;%+ d.f1,*..,..
4+.
u.v
.,y +**o+4
- 4 Ab, ei.s:,rf* :%m.Wv.uu eh.,;e N... -..w s
C,.a an aer
- ,%. -f,, *.w w*y*Ypv V='
<t.4:.D.
- 3. a pu d-,
- * *3,. y;_.@<:p?.n. '*t '
4
,_,Wy ~.u <*:*at Wh 1.n,,,% 4Jy+.., N+pt.*'L,y f.-.
- o". p" **%ces. q h
=
w. < - Q,t u ~ 1 *.v. w-~. s dL q.
- g y,9>
s
- e.
p s
g
[g *
--*; ~ * + g N H.-g %, ye,<
_,=w%9.,_
or
..s
,Ne p. y w
's.*f 9*1
,f W
4.'
-. o 9'
., q;.,..,,s." g 1.,, [ r - v..........,.., w,
w g.
%e.,:3.~3. -.f.a,p.,..or,..,..-* y *F ):t.e v-p M
-~.r'
' +. d.,4 hg., M* N R D C d '.M M.aM:f M
. c @ g..b)E,** M.4 w te < A4g#h+ +@.....,. / a 4. m>+
.'& g C
s.+.-
- +-
' 4 s
A 4"
p I
C q
T
'e f *1 ' 6' z S.4 n..a
'~~
. 4',
l h c.
u
~r-...-
7 e i s.-
I UNITED STATES 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COfiMISSION 2
40 CFR 190 3
(
4 5
6 7
8 7915 Eastern Avenue Silvar Springs, Marylcnd 9
- Fridav, 10 Noveinber' 14,'1980 11 The meeting was held pursuant to notice at 9:00 a.m.
12
(
gg APPEARANCES:
14 HUBERT J. 11 ILLER, Chairman JOHN J. LINEHAN GREGORY EADIE 15 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 16 Washington, D. C.
20555 17 18 19 20 21 22 s
23 04
(.
25 Acme Reporting Company l
,,os, <>......
2 1
EESSEEEEUSE
(
2 MR. MILLER:
Thank you for coming.
We called 3
this meeting with the purpose in mind of informing our
(
4 licensees of the NRC of the steps that we are taking, and 5
the steps that you will have to take to implement the EPA's s
environmental fuel cycle standard 40 CPR 190 which goes into ef fect for uranium mills on December 1st.
s It is a meeting intended primarily to inform our 9
licensees.
There is, of course, broader interest so we io have consented to others being present.
11 The meeting grows out of an awareness on our part 12 that as we get nearer and nearer to December 1st that more
(,
13 and more questions come up.
Concerns get raised about 14 implementation of the standard, and we thought it most 15 appropriate and most effective to have you together as a is group to lay out the program, both what we will Le doing i-in the near term, December 1st, and over the long term on 18 an ongoing basis to implement the standard.
19 In laying this out for you we hope to show how 20 the program we have established or will establish recognizes 21 and accounts for the concerns and questions that have been 22 raised.
23 There are several petitions before the NRC which 2
effectively request that the standard -- that the enforcement 25 and implementation of the standard be stayed.
Acme Reporting Company aoa,.>.....
,S 3
1 The theory is that because there are also
(
2 petitions before the EPA requesting reconsideration of the 3
standard as it applies to m311s, that would NRC stay C
4 implementation.
5 The course we are on is to implement the standard 6
on December lat.
The lawyers of NRC, several of which are 7
present, have concluded, or are about to make a recommendation 8
to the Commission--and Sheldon, you can help me out--the 9
gest of it is that it's a valid Federal regulation and, theref ore 10 we are duty bound to enforce it.
11 I am sure I didn't get it exactly right, Sheldon, 12 but I will let you, later, give a more fine tuned answer.
(
13 What I am trying to say is that we are not here 14 to discuss the merits of the petitions before the EPA.
We 15 want to talk about our implementation program, and I will 16 avoid answering questions that relate to that petition.
17 My name is Hubert Miller, and I am the head of 18 the New Uranium Mill Licensing Section.
I will be giving 19 a pNsentation, a briefing,of the program.
To help me on 20 that is Greg Eadie of my staff who is the lead person in 21 implementation of the standard; and also John Linehan who 22 I am sure you all know is the Section Leader of the operating 23 Facilities Section.
24 Also in the room to assist if they are needed 25 are members of the Office of General Counsel of the NRC, the Acme Reporting Company l
.,o,,.,.....
4 3
Office of Executive Legal Director.
That's Sheldon
(
2 Trubatch, and Bob Fonner respectively; INE, I believe Doug 3
Sly.
Doug, are you here?
If he is not, he should be here
(
4 shortly.
5 The office of Standards Developmant, John Hickey, 6
Don Harmon; and other members of the Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch Staff.to help us on this presentation.
g What I had in mind as far as an agenda was to 9
give a presentation.
It takes a few minutes to describe ig the program.
I will beg your indulgence while I am giving 11 the briefing.
12 Unless you have a question where you just don't
(
33 understand what I am saying, it's just not clear, I would 34 ask you to hold questions until I can go through the g
presentation.
is Then I wauld like to entertain questions and 3-discuss the program with you.
is I want to back up one minute and thank the gg American Mining Congress for helping us with getting notice, ge'tting such short notice to people.
29 21 I should mention right here that the American 22 Mining Congress has requested that the meeting be transcribed.
k 23 We are a public agency.
We have no problem with that.
24 Before we progress any further though, I want k
25 to see if there is any overwhelming objection to transcription Acme Reporting Company
,an,.
~
5 e
1 of this meeting.
If there is, we won't allow it.
(
2 (No response.)
3 MR. MILLER:
I don't see that there is any
(
4 overwhelming objection.
5 QUESTION:
Do you have any arrangement s to get 6
some more of the handouts?
7 MR. MILLER:
Yes.
I was going to get to that 8
in a minute.
Apparently you don't have enough.
More 9
copies are being made.
in There are two handouts, one of which is the--
11 the material has some text.
It's the description of 12 procedure for compliance determination I think. -We have
{
13 limited copies of that...If you could share copies.
14 If I just talk through the briefing it would take 15 about one-half hour, but I expect there will be some 16 discussion and questior3 So, perhaps it could take 17 several hours.
is I hope that the ventilation holds up long enough, 39 if it's not already unbearable.
I don't know what we can 20 do to make it any batter except to just go quickly.
i 21 After the meeting I believe what we present 22 will be all you'll want to know about how we are going to -
k 23 implement 40 CFR 190 and what you have to do. There are l
l k-a few facilities where we would like to review site o4 l
l 25 specific points with you, and we can meet. with you af terwards.
i Acme Reporting Compony
. m........
j
6 i
After our. meeting there are a number of licensees,
(
2 and we will seek you out--perhaps we will have a break and 3
we will contact you--but we want to make some time to meet
(
with a few of you, and then anybody else who has questions 4
5 beyond what we present here today are welcome to meet with 6
us.
One word about security.
I have been asked to say that you have got to have this badge that you have been a
9 given visible at all times, and you can be on the first to floor and you can be on the basement level without an it escort.
12 If you come up to see one of the project managers
(
13 or come up to our offices for some reason, somebody has to -
14 be escorting you.
l 15 There are two pass-outs.
Hopefully you will hava 1
16 a copy.
If you don't -- There is a copy of procedure for i-compliance determination and then a copy of the viewgraphs is that I will be talking from.
l 39 MR. TRUBATCH:
My name is Sheldon Trubatch from go the Office of General Counsel.
I just want to emphasize, ni especially because this meeting is being transcribed, that l
l(
22 this is an informal meeting with the staff and I believe
~
23 most of you now have a copy of a letter which reflects the 1
24 Commission's views on the Commission's contemplated enforcement 23 of this regulation.
l Acme Reporting Company
.,ev......
7 1
MR. MILLER:
On December 1st the standard does 2
take effect at uranium mills, and we will essential begin 3
the implementation thrcugh orders which amend licenses,
(
4 and I will get into more about what those orders are in 5
a minute.
6 At the same time that we are issuing the orders we will be issuing a report which will be the supporting 8
regulatory document for the orders.
9 Sometime in the near future--it probably won't 10 be December 1st -- but sometime in the near future 10 CFR 11 part 20 will be revised to incorporate the requirements of 12 40 CFR 190.
That was proposed a while back, and it is near
('
la the point where it will be finalized.
14 As with any new standard, it is not possible is to immediately be to the point where you are operating your is determine and compliance.
You are carrying it out in the 17 way that you, after a period of time, would be doing.
l 1s The program that we have outlined is-- it involves 19 a phased implementation of the standard.
20 Just to briefly give you an overview, we have 21 been, for the past several years, begun the process of lk 22 evaluating through our licensing action new mill licensing 23 renewals, the performance and operations of mills in terms 24 of how they would meet 40 CFR 190.
25 For those facilities that that was not done on Acme Reporting Comp any I
J'*": "1""..
l 8
in the new licensing actions, we have over the past three j
1 I
our four months completed radiological assessments much 2
like those we have done in licensing cases, with the 3
(
objective in mind of identifying potential problem areas, 4
highlighting those areas requiring environmental monitoring 5
to essentially establish a base upon which to begin implementa-6 tion of the standard.
on December 1st we will issue orders which formally g
invoke the standard.
Then there will be a phase, the 9
compliance determination, the problems of implementing the go standard will be worked out.
33 A second phase will then be ultimately reached 3g or achieved, and I will go into more of this in a minute,
{
33 where we reduce the problems of compliance determination 34 to hopefully simplify procedures.
15 There is going to be a period 'M time when there 16 is more intensive monitoring, and then later there eventually t-l will reach a phase where it will be not a large commitment.
l ig I
Let me say a few things about the conclusions of ig the report that we are working on that will essentially 20 l
kick off the standard.
33 As I mentioned, we formed objective assessments -
f(
The conclusions are that with the existing of each mill.
g3 requirements that has been established at mills through
'4
(
(,
the renewals and through new licensing actions, the 33 Acme Reporting Compony
9 i
commitments made under the interim tailings performance I
2 objectives, controlled blowing of tailings and whatnot, 3
should assure that 40 CFR 190 is being met at each f acility I
4 that no specific additional measures beyond the requirements 5
already committed to appear at this time, or have been 6
identified as being necessary.
I think what I am trying to s.ay is on December 1st g
the order won't say as of today you've got to do this,that 9
or the other thing in addition to what you have already 10 committed to in the past.
ii However, our assessments have involved both 12 predictive modelin.~ as well as consideration of what
(
13 environmental monitoring data we had available.
34 We have identified the need for additional 15 information in many cases before a further conclusion about 16 complir.nce can be made.
i; In many cases it involves us screening out ig extraneous sources.
In other cases it is incomplete data, i
39 and many cases it's uncertainty about the effectiveness of the controls that have been previously committed to.
go 2i Let me say a few words about what the standard i
covers and what it doesn't.
First, it's 25 millirem limit-oo
, (
~~
23 to a whole body or any other organs, and there must be 24 reasonable assurance, and I underline those words, that 25 that is being met.
Acme Reporting Company s202p 628 4908
10 It includes routine releases from normal 3
(
2 operations.
It doesn't include releases from an accident.
3 It's an annual average.
It isn't the sort of f
thing, at least in our implementation program, where if you 4
got in one quarter greater than the 25 millirem limit you 3
are in violation.
It's an annual average.
I will get to 6
more in a minute how that works out.
3 Cumulative mill sources.
It involves the exposure to the public to not only your mill, but one that might be g
nearby.
What it excludes, of course, is radon and its in daughters, natural background radiation, mining operations 33 and associated activities.
This could be stockpiles and 37 whatnot that are around the mines.
(
33 n
It does not include transportation, it does not 3.,
include decommissioning and decontaminatien.
IT does not 16 include releases prior to 1980 and the ground contamination that's associated with that.
3 l
3g As I mentioned before, we were talking about l
phase implementation.
It is going to take some time to get 3g i
gg to the point where it is reduced to simple operating procedure 21 The objectives of our compliance determination (k
22 program is to achieve at each mill a simple standardized 23 assessment procedure with correspondingly simple reporting requirements.
l g4 I k 25 The objective is to assure consistency between Acme Reporting Company m e,.,.....
~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
11 1
mills and to have consistency over time.
We don't do
(
2 it differently from this month, or this six month period 3
to the next.
(
4 Eliminate uncertainty.
The minds of the public 5
are saying are the mills operating within the limits or not; e,
do the mill operators reduce exposure on the part of the operator and any kind of uncertainty that might exist in g
the public, in the minds of the regulatory agencies which 9
would be the NRC; and uncertainty on the part of our Federal to agencies and State agencies that are interested in the way 11 the mills operate.
32 Another objective is to facilitate prompt 33 identification of problems where they exist.
You avoid
(
34 a situation where you have to go through a complex procedure 3,3 in order to get to the point where you determine that there 16 is a problem; and to minimze the costs and staff time for g
you and for us.
is The primary basis for the compliance determination will be actual monitoring data, not computer codes.
The 19 emphasis will be on measurements at the nearest residence, 20 the location of concern.
ei 22 Codes.
Let's take Mildos for instance.
The kind of code that I'm talking about is one that includes estimation 23 24 of cource terms, atmospheric transport and dosimetry.
As anyone who is familiar with these codes'knows 25 Acme Reporting Company
12 I
that there is a good deal of uncertainty about estimates of 2
source terms; considerable uncertainty about atmospheric 3
transport, particularly if there are terrain effects.
For these reasons it is most appropriate to 4
5 not go through the process of computing tha+ concentration 6
at the nearest residence, but to measure it.
7 Now, while the code isn't our primary method g
of compliance determination--of course there is value and 9
necessity for codes..We 6bviously have to use them in 10 licensing action because we have an obligation to predict 11 the potential impacts of the licensing action.
12 So, on a prospective basis protective codes are
(
13 a must.
They can also -- they are also helpful in developing 14 environmental monitoring requirements and identifying potentia:
15 problem areas.
16 As we talk more you will see them actually aiding 17 in the interpretation of the environmental monitoring data 18 that will be gathered in the programs that are established.
19 Very simply, the program involves having an 20 environmental monitoring program in place, and these are 21 the environmental monitoring programs that we have established 22 for ALARA and NEPA reasons over the past three years as 23 documented in staff positions several years ago, and most 24 recently in our reg guide 414, to gather the data at the 25 nearest residence, to subtract out the contribution from Acme Reporting Company 12021 628-4005
..-m
_.,..-,,._,,...~,m._..
13 1
background and other sources.
I 2
In most cases that is going to be one of the 3
things that causes us to spend some time in phase one.
I I will get to that in a minute.
4 5
To compare the dose with the standard and determine compliance, identify any additional controls that may be 6
necessary or if appropriate, possibly some additional g
monitoring to supplement or confirm a problem if it is first identified.
Then to report, of course, periodically g
39 to the NRC the compliance determination or compliance 11 assessments that you do as mill operators, because the burden is primarily with you for that determination.
33 13 This is part of the package, the figures on
(
procedures that was handed out.
Once we get it our project 34 is managers will be reviewing your reports.
Of course, if compliance is determined it's no 16 nevermind.
Some action would have to be taken obviously 1-18 where there is a potential problem that arises, or if there is unusual conditions under the provisions that were 39 established at EPA in setting the standard for variance.
go That, too, is another pathway that can be taken.
21 22 We expect to annual be issuing a brief report
(
that summarizes the status of the industry.
23
~
Let me talk about where we are headed as to
.y
(
what we have in mind, or what our objective is.
It is to 23 Acme Reporting Company a202i 628 4888
14 i
establish that simple standarized procedure which would 2
involve establishing some point of receptor concentration 3
or dose action levels.
I am not sure what it would be.
(
4 It may be 25 or higher than 25 millirem, but it will be 5
developed based upon the experience of going through phase 6
one.
It will be, of course, combined with a commitment of specific control measures and to acknowledge that there were g
no significant changes in the surrounding environs--that 9
there wasn't a new mine that opened up nearby and so on.
in We expect to establish eventually some point of u
receptor concentration or dose action levels.
We would do 12 that--we would enter from phase one to phase two with some 13 license amendments, because your initial orders or licenses
(
34 would not be set up in such a fashion that you have such is levels.
is Back to the pru lous slide, the trick is going to 1;
be in subtracting out the other sources that are not covered 13 by the standard.
ig Greg Eadie, I will have him describe to you one go case that we have recently gone through where we have, in gi fact, calculated doses of higher than 25 millirem, but through l
22 observation and through evaluation of environmental monitoring lk 23 data and so on we have been able to determine that it is 24 most likely that it's not the mill tailings that are causing 25 the exceeding of the 25 millirem.
Acme Reporting Compony (2021 628-4888 m
15 During phase one we expect tc be completing the I
(
2 implementation or the installation of environmental monitoring a
programs that have been committed to by and large up until
(
4 now.
3 I think there may be only one operator who does not right now have an approved environmental monitoring 6
7 program, that is one that is consistence in performance a
with the reg guide and that will be done shortly.
9 During that period of time we are going to be in sorting out--or you will be sorting out other contributions it to the dose at that nearest residence.
ie We may, in certain cases, be working with you
(
13 to establish some short-term limited sampling and in studies, 14 but the outcome will be, or it is our objective and our 13 hope of simplified procedure.
16 Now, the orders.
On December 1st they will, 17 where there is not an environmental monitoring program in is place, it will effectively establish one.
19 In some cases we have committed, or we have nailed en down our worked-out environmental monitoring programs over 21 a period of time.
It has been over the past three years.
22 There may be a few that need some minor modifications to be 23 consistent with the regulatory guide.
24 We will specify where there are not environmental 25 monitoring programs in place and operating right now, we will Acme Reporting Company i,u,.2.....
16 i
specify some time frames, dates, certain by when the
(
2 program has to be installed.
We will be envoking quality 3
insurance requirements where they are not now envoked.
j l
4 We will be committing operators to the dose 3
assessments that are described in the one handout, or the 6
procedure that you have a copy of, and it's Appendix A of that document which effectively takes the dose conversion a
factors from the regulatory guidance we have out on that.
The number on that is 802-4.
I think most of you are familiar 9
with that.
93 ii The objective there was to try to make it as 12 simple as possible to compute these doses from the concentra-tion, and to establish reporting requirements.
(
ta The next major category of conditions that would 14 be in these letters are call for short-term studies.
Greg 13 16 will give you an example of what that might involve.
We will be looking for at each site where there i-is is not already a year's worth of meterology.and met data or an accumulation of a year's worth of met data, identification 19 and characterization of all significant nearby extraneous 20 That is part of that sorting out that I talked 21 sources.
about earlier.
22 Over the past several years the commitment was 23 to a program for controlling the blowing of tailings and 24 25 dusting from diffused sources.
Acme Reporting Company
.,o,,.,.....
_.._..-..m
17 1
We will do what we have done in the recent
(
2 cases, and that is to formally require written operating 3
procedures.
I think that is standard everywhere.
We will
(
formall require the written operating procedures and weekly 4
inspections to confirm that those procedures are being 5
6 following.
7 The EPA standard is a strict one for mills.
I g
don't think I would have anybody in this room argue that 9
with me.
10 However, for the past several years we have 11 upgraded programs.
We have, under the performance objectives, 12 required the control of the blowing of tailings and dust
('
13 control.
14 Our final regulations issued on October 3rd.
i3 Again, state that requirement flexibility as to how you te do it.
But, whatever you do, document it in some way to 17 give it a discipline.
is I'm thinking primarily of the tailings pile.
You 19 can't put an automatic control device on the tailings pile.
20 It takes management attention.
It takes discipline, and that 21 is the reason for the written procedures.
22 The primary emphasis must be on a mission control' 23 and secondarily on controls such as moving the fence, or 24 mosing the residence; although, that may be, in some cases, 25 called for.
Acme Reporting Company
18 I will review reporting requirements before I k
2 ask Greg ta aay a few words.
I think during phase I you've got the picture, or hopefully you have the picture of having 3
I to sort of work our way through the process of implementation.
4 We are going to be learning and during that period of time 3
6 we are going to want more frequent reports than the semi-annual report that is called for in the procedure that you have.
3 9
Eventually when we get to phase II that will be in the requirement.
Routine reporting would be as you get the quarterly data that is required to be analyzed by your it ig environmental monitoring programs, that that would be
(
13 submitted to us.
i4 The non-compliance reporting requirement that is 33 in the part 20 regulation change that John Hickey is now 16 finalizing would not apply.
.That would not apply during i-this period.
is Howevel 1 an ongoing basis in phase II it would ig be a requirement 30 days after identification of a problem go that you would report that.
gi What I will ask Greg to do is take a case, a real-life case.
We won't name who it is, but you can 33 k
23 probably figure out.
The calculation alone 'of taking 34 monitoring data at the nearest residence, or even via the k
33 code, you come up with doses that are in excess of 25 Acme Reporting Company
,,o,,.>.....
19 l
1 millirem.
(
2 I should mention something about the code.
We have done what is prudent in licensing, and that is to a
(
4 use conservative assumptions and simplifications on the 3
predictive analyses that we have done.
6 There have been many cases where we have computed 7
in the licensing action a dose that is close to 25 millirem, g
and in some cases over.
But we recognize that there are no simplifications in the use of the predictive code, that there 9
ni are these conservatisms and so we find that it's still ti reasonable to go and making a finding that is likely that 12 the mill.is meeting 25 millirem.
(
13 Greg, why don't you run through this case.
4 14 MR. EADIE:
I have to work from the hand-out, is so I would like to start the discussion with the map.
It 16 is about half-way through the first handout.
l i;
This procedure I am about to describe we have l
t is gone through for all our license facilities.
I'll take 19 the time and explain the procedures.
20 First of all, the map of the site is a typical 2i site that has many influences, some of which contribute to 22 the nearest residence exposure potential which are not 23 covered under 40 CFR 190.
For example, mining activities 24 ongoing in those areas.
23 When they are around the mill site, even close Acme Reporting Company
<>ca,.2.....
20 to the nearest receptor, you may have mine overburden, I
(
2 poor storage pads and so forth.
The mill influence and the 3
tailings piles under reg guide 4.14 will have nearby
(
particular monitoring stations.
We are also working to the 4
3 closest receptor.
In this diagram we call it a camp to help particular monitoring stations set up and operate 6
7 continuously.
So, this is a typical diagram of a mill site 3
that we are looking at.
9 The next page, mildos computer code generated in n
50 year dose commitments.
Let me try and describe our initial assessments based on the computer ccde.
It is the 32 13 mildos computer code.
It is a 50 dose commitment.
(
That is for each year of exposure we project over i
u the remaining 50 years what the dose would be.
We break 13 it down into two pathways.
We call it the direct exposure 16 pathway due to the actual inhalation of the air-borne 37 particulates, and also external gamma radiation due to cloud g
immersion and the deposition of this material on'the ground 19 and the direct exposure to the gamma.
en We focus on the uranium, radium, lead.
We are 21 l
i 22 not dealing with radon and its daughters.
(
The second pathway we talked about is the ingestion l
23 exposure pathway, and this is the pathway, as you can see 24 in the table, has the greatest potential exposures.
25
(
Acme Reporting Company l
62023 625 4888
21 1
However, this is where the code seems to break
(
down and we have the poorest accurate assessment of input 2
3 parameters.
For example, the met data is very limited
(
We don't have, for example, in many cases four years worth 4
of met data.
3 6
Also, we are finding out that the closest receptor, one might have to go in and get additional met data at that 7
point.
3 9
We have made assumptions, for example, on the vegetable intake pathway.
If there is a potential for in locally grown vegetables,that all vegetables would be 11 grown there and consumed at that point.
33 33 The same for meat ingestion where you have cattle
(
grazing.
You pick the highest potential grazing area that g
the animal has the greatest up-take.
The individual at 3.,
16 that local consumes that meat for the entire year.
So, this is the mildos of the predictive model 37 that we go through initially to give us an idea of what the gg potential exposure at the nearest receptor is.
gg Any questions on the mildos assessment?
.,g (No response.)
r.1 MR. EADIE:
Okay, on the next page, for this 22 l
l particular facility and several others we have been able 23 l
l to review actual environmental monitoring data.
This is y-(
where the instrument and air sampler has been set out.
,3, l
Acme Reporting Company a n,.
22 It has been running continuously.
We have a quarterly 3
i 2
analysis of the samples reported.
3 We have taken a look in this particular location 5
at two off-site residences.
For the air-borne particulates, 4
,5 uranium, rcaium, thorium and lead, these are excellent c,
reported data now, concentration on pCi/m.
7 The next one gives you the dose factors that we g
have applied.
These were also given to you in the other handout which describes the procedures, that is the inhalation 9
go pathway of those conversion factors.
You simple multiple the uranium natural, the ii air-borne concentration, times the dose conversion factor 32 for uranium whole body and the volume is.0656.
It is a
(
ja SO year dose commitment for one year of exposure.
34 The point here to make is that if one looks at i,s the bone or lung for example at the nearest residence south, t r, we see a value like 61 for bone and 124 for lung.
This is i;
based on actual data.
is Looking back at your map you can see it is more 39 than likely that this exposure is not caused solely and 20 not predominately by the new operations.
21 The most influential exposure pathway is probably 22 23 for mining activities, from transportation activities 24 throughout that area.
So, what we've had to do is go back to the licensee 25 Acme Reporting Company m
nw..
23 I
and, if you will skip about two pages it is example E, we
(
2 have gone back trying to look at the actual data.
3 MR. MILLER:
Let me back up just to talk for a
(
4 minute on this map.
You can see that the prevailing wind 5
is out of the south, southwest, and the point of receptor 6
here is over to the right.
I believe there are sections 7
there, so you are talking about a mile or more to the east 3
of the tailings pond and the mill, and on the other side 9
of a topographic high or anticline type of formation.
to It doesn't take an expert to conclude from this 11 that the primary source for concentrations at that camp 12 are from mining activities and not from the tainings pond.
(
ia In addition to that, we know the conditions of 14 the tailings and by and large they appear to be--I believe 13 they are in pretty good condition.
I mean, we know that there 16 is not a lot of blowing going on.
17 So, it's a case where if you calculate and take 18 the data, the raw data from the nearest residence, and you 19 calculate a problem.
You can see it through this process.
2o Any reasonable person would conclude that not necessarily, et and most likely not.
22 Let's have Greg talk more about how we are going.
23 to confirm that conclusion.
24 MR. EADIE:
This is the example EMP modification.
First of all, to go in there and do an inventory of materials 25 Acme Reporting Company (202s 6284988
24 in the area.
For example, identify the mining areas, any 3
areas of mine over-burden or storage pads.
Perhaps go into characterizing by giving the volumes, the heights, the 3
f concentration of radioactive materials in that area.
4 Also, we have asked the licensee to establish 3
the supplemental air monitoring program.
Not an additional 6
station.
Move one that is in existence for a brief period 7
of time to a location between the mining activities and the 3
closest residence as a short term sampling, five weeks, 9
maybe two months, limited analyses perhaps on uranium and g
33 In this case since we are trying to identify 3.,
contribution from mining activities, or we want to look at
(
33 the ratios of the radionuclides, so we have asked the 34 licensee to look at all parameters.
33 As a matter of fact, if you go back to the actual 16 environmental monitoring reported data, you would see that 3
l uranium is quite high in comparison to the other.
It seems 3g j
to indicate that it's not tailings.
It is probably an 3g 1
actual material, for example, ore.
.y l
Back on what we have asked them to do for a short
.,3 l
period of tima to help us sort out the contribution at the~
{
t nearest residence.
g3 Correlation of met data.
Here again, with the
,,4
(
l intervening terrain, the mill site and so forth, we have 25 Acme Reporting Company
- -.9*'.*^"!*-
25 asked the licensee to put portable met station for a limited
(
time to correlate met data, wind speed and direction with g
the actual measured air-borne concentrations at the nearest 3
k receptor.
4 of course, all of this information that we will 3
get in, we will review it and reevaluate the dose estimates.
6 That is pretty much the procedure we're going through.
MR. MILLER:
It is awfully warm in here.
Let's g
take a break for ten or 15 minutes.
This will give you g
some time to think about what we have just presented.
3g We may have a few more things to present when 33 we come back, but after the break we will open it up.
12 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
g 13 MR. MILLER:
I apologize for the warmth of this 34 ro m.
It is not a tactic to cut down on the number of 15 9
8 0
8' 16 What I would like to do is entertain questions.
g There is a sign-out sheet that wasn't at the door when you g
first came in, but it is now near the door.
Would you please g
sign in on your way out or sometime before we break up.
I don't know how long the questioning is going to go.
That's
.g really up to you.
We are here to make sure that you under~
3, C
stand what it is we are doing to implement this standard.
.g
^
So, as long as you desire, if it runs on for a G
while, I think we ought to take another break, but we can Acme Reporting Company
- ~""
g 26 decide that later.
I With that, are there any questions?
g QUESTION:
Are there any cases where the NRC 3
k will take meterological data and look at the site and say, 4
based on a mildos calculation, they show that the nearest residence, wherever it is, is like 10 or 15 millirems a 6
year?
7 In that particular case, will you still request 3
that we go out there and put a sample at that location in 9
order to determine the fact that it is?
jo MR. MILLER:
We began about three years ago.
33 As I said before, for reasons of ALARA and for reasons ig of our NEPA responsibilities to require environmental
(
13 monitoring at mills.
14 One element of that is to determine at the point 3.,
of nearest receptor where the potential greatest impact 16 would be, what kind of impact is, in fact, happening.
37 So, the answer to the question is that you've 3g I
got to have that kind of program anyway.
It happens to 39 l
l serve the purpose of determining compliance with 40 CFR 190.
gg Those are programs which were being instituted two or three 21 22 years ago.
So, the answer is we've got to have an environmental 23 monitoring program, and that includes, of course, the point 34
(
I 3,.,
of receptor sample.
Acme Reporting Company 12 O 21 620 4908
27 i
1 QUESTION:
I' notice in your handouts that you
(
2 are listing lead 210 which is a radon daughter.
I infer l
3 from that that you are going to count lead 210 for the
(
4 compliance of 40 CFR 190, and I wonder how that can be 5
since 40 CFR 190 excludes radon and its daughters.
6 MR. EADIES:
It is also in the natural material ore.
As a particulate we will include it, of course recogniz-8 ing you cannot distinguish the particulate versus the lead 9
grown in from radon and decay.
to QUESTION:
40 CFR 190 excludes radon and its n
daughter, and lead 210 is a daughter.
How can you attempt 12 to enforce 40 CFR 190 with respect to lead 210?
(
13 MR. EADIE:
It is also in the ore, is it not?
14 QUESTION:
That may well be the case, but the 13 regulation doesn't apply to radon and its daughters.
16 MR. EADIE:
Lead 210 is in the ore.
1; QUESTION:
So is radon, but the regulation doesn't is exclude radon and its daughters except for radon and its l
l 19 daughters which are in the ore.
20 MR. HICKEY:
I'm John Hickey from NRC Standards.
21 I would suggest that we not give a final answer, because 22 I don't think that there is unanimity of an agreement that.
23 lead 210 is included in 40 CFR 190.
24 Unless we could attempt to come to an agreement 25 on that, the way I would like to leave it is we expect Acme Reporting Company i
I a w.......
28 i
you to monitor for lead 210.
My personal opinion is that k
2 lead 210 is not 40 CFR 190, but it is of concern as far as 3
protecting the public from the 210.
4 Paul, would you say that lead 210 is covered by 40 CFR 190?
I would suggest that we leave that question 5
6 OPen-ended.
7 MR. MAGNO:
It is clearly ambiguous the way it is stated.
g 9
QUESTION:
I don't see that it's ambiguous.
It in says excluding radon and its daughters.
If lead 210 is excluded from the calulations --
it MR. MAGNO:
I say it's ambiguous with respect 12 to the intentions.
(
13 MR. MILLER: In a plain reading it seems to be 14 excluded.
I think that is one we will have to, as John 33 Said, not give you a definitive answer right now, and we 16 will consult with the EPA as we have done all along.
i-We have laid out this program and we have kept ig in touch with Allen Richardson and Paul Magno and the folks in at EPA who were responsible for the standard initially.
We go will touch that base.
a 22 QUESTION:
The differentiation between background and particulates arising from the mill, how did you arrive et at that?
To begin with, what was the background level and 3
g k
1
. j what kind of variation did it have?
d Acme Reporting Company
'** L'**
29 1
MR. MILLER:
Let me attempt a general answer 2
and then, Greg, why don't you add to it.
3 Environmental monitoring program is more than 4
just a point of receptor.
I'm talking now about air 5
sampling.
It includes a background monitor.
It would be 6
judicious in selecting a location, but you want to try by 7
that background monitor to pick up all those sources that 8
would be present in the environment near the mill, but 9
would not include mill tailings.
So you have to look at to it on a site specific basis to determine where is the best 11 place to put that.
12 In addition, there are monitorings around the
(
13 tailings and around the boundary of the mill.
It is a 14 combination of looking at'various monitore, and knowing 15 prevailing winds on an annual average basis, on a basis 16 that's short.
It is not a grab sample.
It is continuous I;
monitoring.
18 You should be screening out the short-term kind 19 of effects that make grab samples not appropriate for 20 our purposes.
ei I don!t know if Dan or Greg could say something 22 more specific about the general trend in the monitors in 23 this case here.
Greg or Dan, do you want to attempt --
24 Wasn't there some falling off in the direction going from 25 several monitors down wind from the mining areas?
Acme Reporting Company i n,,.
- 4...
30 If it were the tailings pond or the mill, you 1
2 wouldn't to have the monitors further away from the miller.
3 You would have higher readings than the ones near the mill.
{
k It is a process of looking not just at a point 4
of receptor, but a number of different points and not just 5
6 the environmental monitoring data.
It is looking at other things.
It is an assessment of all of the circumstances a
that are given.
They are going to be required to sort out 9
and portion out the contributions to the dose.
p, QUESTION:
40 CFR excludes the contribution prior u
to December 1980;is that right?
ig MR. MILLER:
That's the way we are going to
{
33 implement it.
y QUESTION:
How do you determine the vegetation n
and the livestock to what they eat?
Do you take it to what they ate prior to 1980, or do you go out and sample the 16 g
cattle now and then aample it again af ter December 1980?
Ig How~are we suppose to determine what impacts we i
19 have before and after?
I go MR. MILLER:
That is part of this process that l
l I'm talkingabout in phase I through step by step figuring 21 22 out how to sort these things.
I can't give you a.real..go6d.
j 33 answer right now.
I haven't thought that one through, but 24 perhaps somebody else has an answer on how to do that.
25 QUESTION:
During the rule making proceeding I think l
Acme Reporting Company (2021 629-e888
~_.
m.
31 I
NRC indicated that physical monitoring was not possible.
(
2 Has something come up that has changed this?
I thought 3
NRC had indicated this was impossible to do, and I'm trying
(
4 to find out if something came up in the meanwhile to change 5
your mind?
6 MR. MILLER:
I won't attempt to speak for the 7
people who are speaking for the NRC three or four years ago.
g Based upon our licensing experience and based upon 9
the expertise that we have on staff and with our consultants, 30 we conclude that it is feasible.
11 You can see this program is one that is phased.
12 It is not one where we have all the answers right away.
The 33 objectives are to streamline, to standardize it, simplify
(
it.
14 15 There is going to be some time during which we l
16 are sorting things out to some extent.
37 QUESTION:
I would like to explore for a mom 9nt is the question of your licensing experience in the past two l
l 39 or three years.
"How many applications for renewal of existing new go 21 licenses has NRC examined in the past two or three years?
l l(
MR. MILLER:
Ross, did you hear that question?
22 MR. SCARANO:
We have gone through all but one 23 24 of the milling operations.
It is quantified at the five
(
to somewhere around eight.:'
25 Acme Reporting Company
. sos,.>......
l s
32 j
1 MR. LINEHAN:
It is probably about between six
(
2 and eight that we have been in the process of reviewing.
3 We have two-right now that are pending renewal.
I'd say
(
4 it's about six to eight of the mills.
s 5
QUESTION:
It is NRC's contention that it has 6
actually monitored or required the mill licensees to monitor 7
to detect how well they are presently in compliance with g
part 190, the license renewal applications?
9 MR. LINEHAN:
We have monitoring data from a few to sites over a period of a. year or greater now.on which we 11 are making this determination.
12 MR. MILLER:
What are you driving at?
(~'
13 QUESTION:
All I'm trying to do is explore the 14 foundation for the statements that have been made earlier 13 that NRC has -- well, you have expressed confidence that the 16 m ills will be able to obtain the 40 CFR 190 standard on the 17 basis of your experience with license renewals.
is I was interested in seeing how much experience 39 NRC had had with license renewals and how much your confidence 20 was resting on things like mildos?
23 MR. MILLER:
I think what I said is with the controls that have already been committed through renewals -
22 and through renewal licensing, In many cases it is just simply 23 put as the control of blowing tailings and other control 24 requirements that are consistent with ALARA under part 20, 25 Acme Reporting Company I202t 628 4888
33 i
and consistent with NEPA that those requirements should g
be adequate.
There are casas in our states where we have 3
analyzed the situation and should be adequate to meet the standard.
We can't make it as a firm statement.
4 3
As I said, some cases we are looking at are addition studies to be done to confirm that preliminary 6
conclusion.
It will require strict control of blowing 7
g the tailings.
It will require the short of things that have been at some mills where clearing materials have been 9
placed over embankments, embankments were made of tailings, g
g chemical stablizers had been used, flexibility in the way you do it.
ig 33 What we are saying is with the commitments that were already made, those were followed through and it 34 should be doable.
j.,
QUESTION:
So, the NRC's position is that if this 16 17 licensee implement the controls that NRC is posing on the license renewal process, then NRC believes that they will 3g be able to comply with part 190?
ig MR. MILLER:
Subject to what I said before.
.g That's what it looks like to us.
It's likely that they will.
gi 22 The environmental monitoring programs will tell us for sure, QUESTION:
I would like to ask a technical question g3 as to what extent NRC has done to document the confidence n4 limits they can put on these measurements?
They seem to 25 Acme Reporting Company ae,,.>.....
34 I
be very down in the range where they may be very difficult
(
2 to make up with a high degree of accuracy.
MR. EADIE:
I will help out and I will ask John 3
(
Hickey to help me.
I think one of the big things that 4
3 we would like to stress in the environmental monitoring 6
program is establishing a good quality assurance program, 7
not only on simple collection, but particularly on sample g
analysis.
We do have a reg guide on that, 4.15.
9 Perhaps if John could help me out.
MR. HICKEY:
I will answer the questions in 10 11 two parts.
We looked very hard at whether you could take 12 a sample and analyze it to a certain degree of uncertainty within reasonable uncertainty limits.
We feel that samples
{
33 can be collected and analyzed using good analytic techniques 34 within reasonable certainty.
33 16 Now, as far as our certainty that that result will be translateable into a dose that a real person is 3-is getting with a degree of certainty, there is much more uncertainty associated with that.
19 go So, when you talk about uncertainty. you have to differentiate between the technical analysis and the 21 conversion to a dose.
no MR. MILLER:
What we are doing is essentially 23 establishing in that Appendix A of the procedure that you 94 k
have which, again, is derrived from or taken from our 25 Acme Reporting Company (2029 628 4888
35 i
reg guide on dose modeling, the dose conversion factors
(
2 that we are' going to use.-
3 So, that in a sense eliminates the uncertainty as far as getting from those concentrations.you measure 4
3 to what we're going to be looking for.
Those are dose 6
conversion factors that have been in regulatory guidance and have received scrutiny.
8 We feel it is a very good regulatory basis upon 9
which to be using those factors.
to QUESTION:
What I am asking for is, in fact, a il numerical number that you people say.
Whan you say 25 12 millirem, based upon these measurements, to you feel it's
{
ia accurate plus or minus 5, 10, 15 or 100 percent, based on 34 your experience?
p MR. HICKEY:
I don't feel comfortable answer g
that question.
The issue of uncertainty has not been dealt i-with.
It is a generic issue.
It has not been dealt with g
by the commission.
It is not dealt with in the regulations.
39 They say you have to meet these limits and they go don't say you have to meet the limits with 50 percent 21 uncertainty, or 95 percent uncertainty.
22 Because the conversion of a concentration to a 23 dose depends on assumptions as to how the material gets 24 into the body and how it behaves in the body, there are 25 uncertainties associated with that.
It is difficult to Acme Reporting Company ao,,.
36 I
answer either in generic terms or specific terms.
(
3 MR.' MILLER:
In a sense our procedure mutes that.
3 In any kind of standard, any kind of radiation protection s tandard. that's in term of the dose, you always have 4
3 a question of what models to use to get from concentrations 6
to dose.
What we have done by our procedure is to establish g
the ones that we are going to use, we expect you to use, that we can defend.
9 in There is uncertainty and I guess we could do 33 studies to try to precisely determine that.
By the p rocedure i3 you are not going to have uncertainty as to use of those
{
33 and how we are going to react to that, nor do I think you have to worry about anybody else.
34 We are the regulatory agency.
We are responsible 1.3 for implementing it.
So, I think I would feel comfortable
- g in that sense.
g ig QUESTION:
This goes to the confidence that you expressed in the regulation.
Again you said you were a l
39 responsible agency.
I talked briefly with your counsel in go l
l gi the hall, and I had scme question as to the confidence you have in 40 CFR 190.
._>.3 If you have such confidence, I would see no l
23 i
particular reason to revise 1020.
Would you like to address 34 lk 25 the confidence you have in EPA's rate?
l l
Acme Reporting Compony
. m,.>.....
37 1
MR. FONNER:
From the strictly legal point of
(
2 view, the amendments of 10 CFR 20 is not a very great one 3
to persons who are: licensees of the NRC, because under the
(
Atomic Energy Act we can proceed by order with respect to 4
5 our own licensees.
6 The 10 CFR 20 amendment is significant; however, with respect to enforcenent of the EPA standard in agreement 7
g States.
9 QUESTION:
If a facility turns in to you a p) report that says they cannot comply with that standard, ii diat would be your procedures?
Are you going to issue a shut-down order?
What will you be doing there?
12
(
13 MR. MILLEF.:
First of all, I will repeat something I said before.
The primary burden of determining compliance 14 i.,
resides with you.
You've got to meet the limit.
16 In the interest of trying to be sure of consistency 17 and reduce uncertainty, we have prescribed the formulas that is can be used, our calculating doses.
As I mentioned on one of the viewgraphs, when 39 l
you see that you've got a dose higher it is up to you to go 21 sort out the extraneous sources.
Once you have isolated
,(
an idea of what's coming from the mill, you determine you 23 have, in fact, taken steps, reasonable steps, to control the source.
24 23 After that kind of study the is provision for Acme Reporting Company 1202 628-48a9
l 38 i
variance, but it is under unusual type of situation.
I forget the exact words, but we would not entertain a request 2
3 or submittal that did not clearly indicate that a serious k
4 good faith attempt was made to control the emissions.
3 I don't know if I'm answering your question, but I can't give you an answer, quite frankly, on a generic 6
basis anymore than I have.
g QUESTION:
Your proposed regulations would have 9
been 10 CFR 20 on coal for the licensee to ascertain the 10 extent of exposure of individuals, levels of radiation and it concentration of radioective materials involved, the cause 12 of the exposure, and the plan to implement the course of
(
p cot ---'Lve action to assure against a recccurence.
That's al. chat is required for this 30 day report.
y g
Does NRC have any experience to believe that a 16 mill could provide all that data and prevent a reoccurence i-in 30 days?
g MR. MILLER:
Go back to what I said about reporting requirements.
We are trying to recognize--I think the ig go program we have outlined recognizes the kinds of concerns gi that you are raising.
During phase I there is a lot of 32 sorting out to do and we don't think that you can get it 23 down to a point where you can quickly determine whether you l
34 are incompliance or not.
lt l
25 During that period of time we expect -- Say the l
l Acme Reporting Compony o u,........
39 regulation that requires a 30 day notification would not I
be applicable during that period of time until we can amend the licenses and get very specific about it and get 3
I that more simplified procedure, it is not going to be possible to do that.
3 After that time we hope that the program will be 6
tailored to allow for rapid determination of a problem if it exists.
That is one of the objectives.
g After that time we feel it is.
g QUESTION:
At present what level exposure exists which would necessitate a report to !!RC of non-compliance?
Do you know?
MR. MILLER:
During this phase I, as I said before, there will be none.
QUESTIO!!:
Is there anything in the present regulations which imposea on uranium mill a requirement to report over exposure at any particular level?
MR. HICKEY:
Yes.
There are requirements.
First of all, there are requirements for various facilities dependin g g
on the facility.
They might have to file a 30 day report
,,g at levels of a few millirem a year for nuclear power reactors g
for uranium mills.
They are only subject to requirements that apply to all licensees that include short-term emission g
levels, that are more on the order of rates of 100's of g
k millirem per year.
3 Acme Reporting Company aan,.>.....
40 1
The reason we have been going to the lower levels 2
is because 40 CFR 190 talked in terms of doses of a few 3
millirem a year.
There are no radiation standards in
(
4 existence anywhere that I know of other than 40 CFR 190, 5
and some requirements for reactors that talk in terms of 6
doses of a few millirem a year.
7 QUESTION:
I guess -- It seems to me it's hard s
to put your finger on what the problems are, but we've got 9
a set number, 25 millirem, to meet.
We've got uncertainty to in the statistical conference of the monitoring programs.
it I don't think anybody is sure that you can separate 12 out what comes.
We haven't resolved the questions of what
(
i3 we are going to do with radon yet.
14 If there is no environmental monitoring program i3 in place, we are going to use the predictive models which is are recognized as inadequate.
Yet, we still have to meet i;
a 25 millirem standard.
is It sounds like it is completely open-ended and l
19 you probably won't have -- I think it's not accurate to say --
20 You are asking us to meet a 25 millirem standard and you are 1
21 stating whether it is statistically valid or not is irrelevant, 22 MR. MILLER:
I don't agree with your characterization 23 as being uncertaint as what you're saying.
There is 24 uncertainty 'in any kind of measurement you make, and you face l
23 it in meeting any standard, whether it's 40 CFR 190, whether l
Acme Reporting Company l
41 1
it's part 20, any of the EPA standards.
(
)
2 What I am saying is that always exists, and what a
we have tried to do in recognition of that is to lay out
(
4 a program that defines this is what we, the NRC, is going 5
to expect as being that reasonable assurance that is required s
in part 20.
QUESTION:
What I am saying is right now that s
reasonable assurance is pretty much whatever you decide.
9 There isn't any criterion.
10 Take for example radon citation from MSitA.
They 11 have a variability factor figures in.
It's in policy 12 statements and all the operators know when they are going
(
13 to get cited.
14 You look at sampling methods with OSHA.
They p
have variability factors built in.
You are telling us m
here we don't have any idea what the variability is.
1; MR. MILLER:
I can't say what that phase II is program is going to look exactly like.
We try to characterize 19 its basic elements, but it very well may have factors of l
20 uncertainty associated with it.
l 21 In the meantime we feel we have an adequate 22 regulatory basis upon which to proceed through a phase.*(,
,k l
23 not to shut people down on December 1st, not to take 24 precipitous actions.
We feel we have that basis.
25 During that period of time there is not going Acme Reporting Company
.aos,.>......
42 I
to be a requirement for people, as soon as they run out
(
2 and calculate 125 milliren from the monitoring data at the 3
nearest point of receptor, to report daemselves.
4 At least in our cases it looks like there are 5
not mills exceeding-the standard.
I think our program, 6
the phase I that I've talked about, accounts for the kind of concern that you are raising.
g QUESTION:
I'd like to address a question to Mr.
Fonner..
I did not understand your real statement 9
to you made relative to 10 CFR 20 amendment prior to implementation of 25 millirems.
Could you repeat that?
11 12 MR. FONNER:
What I said was because we could
(
13 Proceed by order under the Atomic Energy Act, this program 14 can be implemented with respect to NRC licensees without 15 the necessity of amending 10 CFR part 20.
16 However, we stand at a different posture with t-agreement State licensees.
They are not our licensees, and l
ig it is the expectation of EPA that the standard would be 39 enforced in agreement States by the States.
.)
However, we are, in a sense, an intermediary 3
l gi between the United States Government and the agreement States 22 throu7h the agreement, through the formal understanding,
,k l
23 by which we relinquish regulatory authority.
l 24 The agreement States feel that they would prefer l
25 to have the 40 CFR standard incorporated in our regulations l
Acnue Reporting Compony wo,,.......
43 before they would proceed with their implementation of the j
(
2
- programs, So, that is a matter of the understanding between a
(
NRC and the agreement States under the agreement.
4 3
QUESTION:
Are you saying the next step is you e
would have to incorporate it as a change to 10 CFR 207 MR. FONNER:
Yes, Sir.
Mr. Hickey is working on g
a rule to that effect right now.
It also includes some g
reporting requirements which would be applicable to the p3 implementation.
11 M R.
HICKEY:
I can elaborate on that.
Licensing 32 orders have already been written for-fuel fabrication plants p
incorporating the requirements of 40 CFR 190 and slapping
(
14 the 30 day reporting requirement on it.
15 If part 20 is never amended, all licenses are p;
still going to be amended incorporating the requirements I;
of 40 CFR 190.
m Now, for mills reporting requirements are not i9 going to be 30 days initially.
The other rescion for revising en part 20 is that if we don't revise it, then you can read 21 all the way through part 20 and never see 40 CFR 190 mentioned.
+>
23 It's a help to somebody reading the regulations 24 to have a cross reference to 40 CFR 190 juat' notifying them 25 they are subject to those provisions.
Acme Reporting Company
.s w.>......
44 3
QUESTIO!!:
Can you talk more about the amount
(
2 of time which you anticipate we are going to be in this phase I, and also is that going to depend upon each licensee 3
(
and how they progress, or is it going to be a generic into
,3 that period of time?
5
!!R. MILLER:
I showed on the view graph it's 6
going to be a variable time.
They are far enough below 7
g the standard, they do not suffer source problem, and it should be a short period of time.
At' mills where there are g
more extraneous sources, it may take longer.
tiaybe a year, 3g maybe longer than a year.
33 We have tried to and have an obligation to not 12 let it string out forever.
We are going to put into these
{
33 orders dates by when these programs have got to be operational 34 We are asking for this three month quarterly 33 reporting requirement during phase I so that we can : actively 16 37 follow it and make sure that these programs are progressing, and that we get to phase II as soon as possible.
3g It is a variable kind of thing.
39 QUESTIOti:
I would like to stop back on this 3
reporting requirement point, because my reading of the 33 current regulations is that licensees are required to file.
22 k
a non-compliance report if they see some 10 times level 23 specificed in 10 CFR part 20.
NRC is preparing an amendment
,,4 k
to part 20 right now which would require a licensee to report 25 Acme Reporting Company
, m,.......
45 1
non-compliance with the precise 25 millirem level specific 2
in part 190.
3 That is an extraordinary departure from past 4
practices, and I don't see that there are any health and 5
safety reasons for requiring that kind of reporting require-6 ment.
I have not heard anything here today that suggests to me that uranium, in any way, would be compared to comply a
with that 30 day period, or it would be possible for them 9
to comply with that 30 day period.
Since part 190~itself 10 nowhere requires this report requirement, I wonder what 11 basis, in fact, NRC has, if any, for imposing it?
12 MR. MILLER; I don't think you did hear what I
(
13 said before, because I did say during this phase I it will not exist.
g4 1,
In this level that we specified, this action is level would not necessarily be 25 millirem.
17 Now, I won't attempt to answer the other questions is about le times on one standard and not here.
19 MR. HICKEY:
I explained that 40 CFR 190 is en an extraordinary regulation, and the Commission's response 21 to regulations which were strict doses to a few millirem 22 a year, we've been doing it for five years.
It is our 23 response to do it for 40 CFR 190.
24 The 40 CFR 190 is considered a public health 25 and safety regulation and we are obligated to enforce it.
Acme Reporting Company
,,o,,.,.....
46' 1
If we don't have a reporting requirement we have no way 2
of knowing whether or not the licensees are abiding by 3
40 CFR 190.
4 QUESTION:
You requiring a licensee to monitor 5
and under the regulations, as I read them, you have access 6
to their books, their reports and records?
7 MR. HICKEY:
That's right.
We have 20,000 licensees g
that keep records.
9 QUESTION:
You have about 25 uranium mills and to those are divided between the agreement States and NRC?
it MR. HICKEY:
That's right.
We are talking about 12 uranium mills at this meeting, but we are talking about
{
13 inspectors that have to visit 20,000 licensees.
i4 QUESTION:
Given the situation where you have 33 several facilities that might be in close proximity to one 16 another, how does a licensee in one particular facility 17 consider the activities of the other facilities, if at all?
is How does the NRC do it, and how does the NRC ig insure that they are in phase I, and later, that the actions go that these several facilities considered together and 21 without duplicating expenses and so on to the licensees?
22 MR. MILLER:
Let me first of all say that most l k i
23 mills are not so close together that the contribution from 24 o.ther mills to its nearest residence, and correct me if I'm k
25 wrong here-- I believe that there is not -- The additional Acme Reporting Compony
,m,.,......
O/
n.
contributions are very secondary from other mills.
Almost g
exclusively the contribution from the mill-- I don't think 7
it is going to be a big problem.
It does'a' t appear to be 3
a big problem.
4 However, the standard is such that you've got to 5
consider it.
I think how we sort that out is by the same g
kind of process that you will be sorting out other mining 7
sources.
g I think it's a hypothetical and I can't give any g
real clear answer on it right now.
ig QUESTION:
My question is related.
You stated gj that the burden is clearly upon the licensee to determire 33 compliance and radiation is radiation.
{
g There are 40 CFR 190 sources, and there are 34 non-40 CFR 190 sources.
By what standards are they to g
determine what is and what is not a 40 CFR 190 source?
16 Something measurable that they can rely on.
Do you have 3
any idea?
18 MR. MILLER:
The purpose for talking through 39 this case is to show you how, on a site specific basis, go There are that kind of sorting out process will happen.
23
,(
~~
enough -- In cases where there is an extraneous source, it.
4, is normally quite a few sources and there are large area 23 It is not a thing that lends itself sources in many cases.
24 to s ome sort of generic formula.
It's got to be a.
l 25
{
Acme Reporting Company l
i m,
.2.-....
.,__,.-..-w
48 I
site specific kind of program, and I think this environmental
(
2 monitoring programs with the monitors around the tailings 3
pile, and the monitor at the nearest residence should build
(
a strong enough case so that it's not,so uncertain that we 4
3 would be able to meet that reasonable assurance burden.
6 QUESTION:
That poses a problem.
We are talking about 25 millirem standard.
He just said over here that a
this is a very difficult standard.
We have a set number.
9 You are talking about with a whole lot of sources.
Just to sorting all these things out and coming up with 26.5 or 11 24.9, I mean, I don't think anybody believes you can do 12 that.
(
13 There are those. sources of uncertainty that I 14 talked about because we have talked about them here today, is and there isn't any resolution to those.
The operator has is no idea., and you say we would be working for maybe a year i;
with some guy trying to figure out a problem.
is The example you gave may be an easy one compared 19 to some of the others.
Let's say meterological conditions 20 are a little bit more variable, or something of that nature.
21 What is going to happen to this guy if a year later you.are 22 still getting readings that are over 25 millirem based on ~
23 all different kinds of samples?
24 If you are saying you are not going to shut him 25 down, that's fine.
Let's say that in the letter.
Let's say Acme Reporting Company
.,o,,.>.....
49 I
we're not going to shut people down while we are working 2
with them until we have given them adequate time to go 3
through all the reasonable testing procedures to see what 4
the problem is.
5 MR. MILLER:
I would be repeating myself if I s
tried to give much of an answer to that.
The program is 7
calculated and intended to minimize uncertainties to provide g
the kind of reasonable assurance that I talked about.
9 We feel on the basis of what we know right now, 30 we feel it's likely that we will be able to do it.
- Frankly, 11 we may learn differently a year or so frem now, but from 32 what we know right now it appears as though it is something 13 that is practical.
34 QUESTION:
To be more specific and get away from some of these variables, as I understand it absent some 33 16 order affecting our license we can proceed on the assumption 17 that we have an approved monitoring program?
is MR. MILLER:
John, maybe you can --
19 MR. LINEHAN:
You indeed do have an approved 20 monitoring program.
Any facilities that don't before 21 December 1st, we will be contacting you.
This will be Z2 addressed in the audit if you do not have an approved one. -
23 If it isn't addressed, you've got one that is approved.
24 MR. SCARANO:
If you donft mind, I would like 25 to say a few words.
I know that the people up front have Acme Reporting Company
,,c,..,.....
50 I
gone through this once.
Let me try one more time, because
(
2 I hear words like, "What's going to happen when it's shown 3
ultimately that a mill may not meet that 25 millirem."
4 We feel confident with the control measures that 5
are already required as a result of the ALARA and NEPA reviews 6
Those control measures are what we have the confidence in 7
in controlling the mill to meet that standard.
It is not 8
the monitoring program, it is the control method.
9 Now, if indeed through the phase I that we wind to up at the end where a few years down the path after sorting 11 all this out there is a mill that has a contribution in 12 excess to 25 millirem, what do you look for?
You look for
(
13 another control mechanism, an added control mechanism, not 14 shutting down the miJl.
15 You would be called upon to say okay, we have 16 isolated the source.
We know we can do this, and that 17 will reduce the contribution to that 25 millirem.
Is The goal is to reduce the radiation hazard to 19 the public, not shutting down the mill.
20 QUESTION:
Am I to understand that what Mr.
21 Scarano has said that during the one year interim period 22 while you are working with mill operators that no mill 23 will be shut down?
24 Let's address ourselves specifically to the 25 question of shut-down and what the effect of showing-Acme Reporting Company
.ua,.>......
51 i
non-compliance through these variable measures will be?
(
2 MR. MILLER:
The letter speaks for itself.
3 QUESTION:
The letter says precisely that, "We
(
4 do not expect during the period to enforce the standard 5
through a shut-down or some other type of procedure. "
6 I want to know specifically does that mean you will not, during that one year period, shut down any mill?
8 MR. MILLER:
Our licensees are committed to the 9
program of controlling blowing of tailings.
I don't think to in the past three years or so where we have had these it requirements in licenses that we have shut down anybody.
12 There may be cases where we have in an inspection (E
13 found it as a deficiency,in looking at that requirement, 14 whatever procedure was developed by the operator to ir, accomplish that.
ja My own opinion, and Ross can add to this, I n
don't expect during this period of time that we are going 18 to have a basis necessarily to shut anybody down.
It 19 doesn't mean that during this time we wouldn't,against t
'o those license conditions which require an operator to be l
21 carrying out these controls, cite him and list as a deficiency,in l
22 an'.
inspection and enforcement action, cite him on not meeting l C 23 those criterion.
24 Until we get to phase II it is going to be 25 difficult to have basis upon which to shut somebody down Acme Reporting Company
. m........
52 1
in 40 CFR 190 non-compliance.
(
2 MR. SCARANO:
I would think we would say in working through our licensees and looking at the preliminary 3
(
compliance, we would have no basie in the world for 4
5 closing down any of our licensees.
6 There are certainly some mills that look like 7
they may be on the borderline, and that is the process of 8
sorting out, you know, where are these contributions coming 9
from.
10 Again, let's look at what happens down the path.
11 We will be looking at the control measurae, are they working, 12 a nd do we need more control ~ measures to meet that standard.
(
13 That is the bottom line.
14 QUESTION:
Are you going to be sending something to the agreement States on the same lines and suggesting 15 16 similar procedures?
17 MR. MILLER:
I am sure, consistent with our 18 normal policy, we will be and have in the past worked on informing the agreement States how we are proceeding on 19 20 this, and I would expect that we would do -- This has been 21 somewhat of an evolutionary process.
22 We started a year or so ago to go through these 23 assessments to develop a reasonable rational scheme that 24 addresses the kind of concerns that you raise.
We have had 25 the same ones, and we try to build that in.,
Acme Reporting Company
. m,.>.....
l 53 3
1 I can't say that there is any specific meeting 2
in mind, but I am sure that there will be some presentation.
- g.
.;?.
3 with the agreement States to help them with the same -
or. $ '.
- !..: ~ n..s
....y:
(
.- sc.y to ensure that they are taking the same kind of course, M
L2h,&&, - Ly.=,
3 same, kind of approach.
- _ -e.;..n -
4
" ap; 6
QUESTION:
When do you think that will take
'f'E '
II place?
- ?.-l g
MR. MILLER:
I can't say.
We have kept them
' -> y.-M 9
informed through sending them copies of materials and a
. u..,v..:..
whatnot.
We don't have a date or anything.
r s f m,. gJ, p)
?.-i -
gi MR. FONNER:
The agreement State program is
._w 12 handled by another office -in the agency, and I don't
,.j-f i,-
..>.z..,.
13 think there is anybody here from that office.
".'.,$,.(:
(
awfe
.- + -..n I'm John Kendig, Office of State %. !E.'; ii MR. KENDIG:
y p
- .. M. /M 15 Programs.
~e 3.y i.
.~ W 2r Wehavebeentrackingwhatisgoingonwithregard]
1r, g
- m..-rtw
~-
i-to 40 CFR 190, and the people on the site keep us informed..;'
-vg m
ig and we, in turn, provide that to the agreement States.
.=.-
Whether or not Hub is going to proiride this q,, -; 9 39
_...; d.1.,
2n pack of information or not I'm not sure.
I suppose they will.
That information, the two documents plus the letter 3-.f, ei 22 from our legal department, will be going down to the.'.;,._.
l
.m.. n.nw 3.: :- 9 ep.p 23 agreement States.
- ~:jy.yg
_,.e 24 Whether or not there will be any separate MM
(
.;p.my3;=:.
23 discussions, I don't know at this time.
I ;. w4uld imagihe f.
. x; :;. wM_
%* #2
- i~
Acme Reporting Company
. J (202e 629 4898
"*.o**=
.w.mc=c>.-.-
54 o
3
.there would be.
(
2 QUESTION:
I'd like to know what you are going to consider your value, or how you would define the background 3
(
Is it an absolute, or is it a value plus or minus?
4
.5 Second, I would like some references so we can 6
determine how you determine the dose conversion factors.
MR. MILLER:
The ones I mentioned before, it's 3
the regulatory guide.
9 A VOICE:
Those dose conversion factors have un been changed.
The new ones are in the code package.
11 MR. MILLER:
In the mill dose code package 32 that we documented and distributed.
(
p The other question was about the uncertainty on 34 background.
I expect that it will be subject to about the g
same errors in background measurement as you will from the monitoring samples around the mill, and it will be a straight 16 g
subtraction.
p QUESTION:
Are you talking about a 96 percent 39 confidence level?
20 MR. EADIE:
The determination is no different 21 from the point of the nearest receptor or the monitors 92 nEar the tailing piles.
You simply collect the sample and.
23 analyze it.
24 QUESTION:
This compliance determination procedure 23 says draft on it.
Are you passing this out to us now Acme Reporting Company 1200 628 dese
.. _. ~
55 i
because it's alment a non-draft?
2 MR. MILLER:
The reason I put that there is 1
3 because there are some minor differences between what is k
4 in this package that I just presented in viewgraphs and 5
what is in that.
It is largely more just emphasis in 6
the way it is presented.
7 I expect to emphasis, although it's in there, a
more of the phased process.
So, I didn't want that to be 9
taken as the gospel.
That will be a reference in the orders to that we make, and it will be final then.
11 QUESTION:
Does MRC have any estimates of the 32 cost of the monitoring and reporting requirements that it
{
13 is imposing through the regulatory guide and through its 14 imposed amendment to impose on the uranium mills?
13 MR. MILLER:
Let me say a general statement and 16 then I will ask John or Greg to make some statements.about 17 specific parts of your question.
18 We don' t feel that the level of monitoring that 19 was established under the part 20 ALARA and NEPA requirements l
20 of the past three years ago.
The increment above that for l
l 21 40 CFR 190 is significant.
22 There is, during this initial phase, some studies 23 that will be conducted,primarily short-term studies, We 24 expect to be looking to streamline the environmental monitoring
. k l
25 and reporting requirements as best we can over time.
Acme Reporting Company s2021 628 4888
56 Certainly the reporting requirements, the i
determination of compliance, this action level, is a kind 2
of simplication that we are looking to provide.
3 Now, the costs --
4 MR. HICKEY:
There have been cost estimates made 5
of 4.14 and those were provided to everybody that commented 6
on 4.14 which included some new licensees.
It was also 7
g provided to the American Mining Congress.
There are not requirements in 4.14 that were 9
added because of 40 CFR 190.
All of those monitoring 10 requirements stood on their merits.
11 The reporting estinates were done as far as the 12 actual cost of preparing the report, not the cost of
[])
33 identifying the causes of failure to comply, not the cost 14 of assembling the information you need to comply with 40 CFR 15 190, but the cost of filing the actual report with NRC.was 16 deemed to be insignificant.
17 The reason for that was that we don't expect is after this phase--You know, we are not going to be having 39 this after that.
We don't expect very many of these to be 2o filed,and those that are filed are nto going to be very gi e xpensive.
on k)
QUESTION:
I would like to mention another 23 potential eleme.nt of uncertainty.
NRC has justput out its 24 proposed general statement of policy procedure for enforcement 25 Acme Reporting Company
.me,.>....
57 o
1 noting raises and penalties and all that available.
(
2 It also mentions that they are going to emphasis a
prompt and vigorous enforcement in dealing with persons who
(
4 are unable or unwilling to comply with NRC requirements.
3 It is the Commission's intend that an enforcement 6
program be marked by an aggressive enforcement strategy.and 7
seek more use of stronger enforcement measures with particular g
attention to detail, high standard of complience will be 9
achieved.
Furthermore, licensees who cannot achieve and in maintai. adequate levels of protection will not be permitted 11 to operate.
12 That sounds somewhat inconsistent with phase I.
(
33 MR. MILLER: I think I have given the basis for 14 the approach we are taking during phase I.
As I said, we n
are confident.
The basis for our confidence will be laid is out in the report that we issue on December 1, that there n
is a defensable regulatory basis upon which to go through a m
phase I.
19 I think it is a policy of INE, but go INE has a problem too.
In order to enforce that regulation 21 they have to show non-compliance.
22 We have the same problem you have.
To show non -
23 compliance we are going to have to have some kind of a 24 formula to go through.
23 So, when your problems are solved so are curs.
Acme Reporting Company
.aca..>.....
~ _ _. _
58 s.
In the interim it looks like what is going to happen is 1
l that we are going to inspect solely on the license additions 2
3 that are put on your license by NSS. Those will be judged 4
on our basic inspection.
It looks like they will all end 5
up as deviations or something like that.
It depends on how serious we find that you are not following that particular 6
addition.
7 g
We are not going to be shutting down mills.
We are going to try to get this regulation incorporated into 9
the mill.
to MR. TRUBATCH:
With regard to the general statement 11 f policy, that is a proposed general statement of policy 12 regarding enforcement.
{
33 Some f you today have received your letter which 14 has been read by the commissioners which address the 33 is particular enforcement policies for phase I for this g
program.
MR. MILLER:
It is specific to this problem today 3g and I think it should be taken as superceding the general 3g i
statement of policy.
gg QUESTIOM:
This is a follow-up question to the 21 22 earlier one that I asked about cost of monitoring.
I have regulatory guide 4.14 in front of me, the provision 23 dated April 1980, and I note for the record that it expressly
,4 calls for 25 pre-operational sampling to detect compliance Acme Reporting Company aea,.>.....
59 I
with 40 CFR 190, and also operational sampling to detect 2
compliance or non-compliance with that regulation.
3 I ask 1.ty question again, has URC made any estimates to determine the incremental cost of that kind 4
of monitoring?
5 MR. MILLER:
Clearly that program serves the 6
7 purposes -- Those monitoring requirements serve the purpose of compliance determination with 40 CFR 190.
g 9
We have contacted the various people that we wanted to talk to.
Is there anybody that wanta to meet 10 with us in. addition to those who have been contacted?
If 11 so, you don't have to raise your hand now, but seek either 12 John Linehan or myself out and we will arrange a time to 33 meet with you, 34 I appreciate your coming.
If there are any g
follow-up questions, don't hesitate to call this branch.
16 Thank you.
3-(Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m. the meeting was concluded. )
18 l
19 l
20 21 O
I 23
,O 25 l
l Acme Reporting Company
,m,.,.....
-t:0 L
5 60 4,
1 2
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 3
4 DOCKET UUMBER:
5 CASE TITLE:
Meeting: 40-CFR-190 6
UEARING DATE:
November 14, 1980 7
LOCATION:
9 I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence 10 herein are contained fully and accurately on the tapes and 11 notes reported by me at the hearing in the above case before 12 Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
13 and that this is a true and correct transcript of the same.
14 15 16 Date:
November 17, 1980 17 18 19
/
gwp 7_
20 Official Reporter Acme Reporting Company, Inc.
21 1411 K Street, N.U.
Uashington, D.C.
20005 22
(
23 04 k
~
25 Acme Reporting Company
<an,.a......
.