DRC-2010-003211 - 0901a0688018aff4

DENISON MINES (USA) CORPORATION
WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL
GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT MODIFICATION
PUBLIC HEARING
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
7:00 p.m.
Held at the Blanding Arts and Events Center
715 West 200 South
Blanding, Utah
Reported by Vicky McDaniel, CSR, RMR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
2
FOR THE UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL:
Phil GobleDepartment of Environmental Quality
168 North 1950 WestSalt Lake City, Utah 84144
Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
3
P R O C E E D I N G S
MR. GOBLE: Okay, it's seven o'clock and
I'll go ahead and get started.
My name is Phil Goble. I'm with the
Division of Radiation Control, and today I have
Mr. David Rupp assisting me. We're here to take
public comment regarding the proposed changes for the
White Mesa Mill permit and also license amendment.
The way this will work today is, I'll go
ahead and make a brief statement, then I will open
the time over to you to speak.
The way we've set it up, and you saw our
public notice, is because we have two different
documents we're talking about today, the license and
also the permit. We're going to set it up so we'll
talk about the license first and then we'll talk
about the permit. So from seven to eight we'll talk
about the license, eight to nine we'll talk about the
permit. There may be some people who only want to
make comment on one of them, so we'll give them an
opportunity to let me know now, and if they would
like to leave, they can leave, so they don't have to
stay for the whole time. But if you want to stay for
the whole time, that's fine.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
4
The way this is going to work is, I'll
give each and every person a chance to talk. You'll
have five minutes to speak. Everyone gets an
opportunity to speak. We have seven people to talk
right now. And then at the end of your five minutes,
what we'll do is -- actually, after four minutes
we'll say "one minute" to give you a warning, and
then we'll say "time." And then we'll need you to
stop your public comment, and the next person gets
the opportunity.
At the end of the public comment, after
everyone has had a chance, those who still have more
to say will get the opportunity to speak again. So
we want to hear everyone if they have anything to
say.
Also, the public comment period actually
doesn't close till this next Monday, on May the 10th.
So if you don't say everything you'd like to say and
you forget about it, you still have the opportunity
to make public comment. And you can submit that to
me either by e-mail, which is [e-mail], or you
can also mail that to us. Our address can be found
on our website, which is radiationcontrol.utah.gov.
So what I'd like to do now is, I'm going
to look at the list, and I want to determine who is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
5
going to speak just on the license, who on the
permit, or who's going to speak on both. So it looks
like the first person here -- well, he actually says
he's unsure if he wants to make a comment or not, is
Steve Hancock. Do you want to make a comment?
MR. HANCOCK: I'm still not sure.
MR. GOBLE: Okay, we'll put you at the
end. The next person I have here is Bradley Angel.
MR. ANGEL: I'll just make one comment
addressing both.
MR. GOBLE: Okay. That sounds fine. So
you'll do both.
Okay. Next we have Toni Turk. Do you
want to do just the license or the permit, or both?
Or are you just making a general statement?
MR. TURK: Just a general statement.
MR. GOBLE: Okay. All right. And
Mr. Chris Webb?
MR. WEBB: One comment.
MR. GOBLE: Okay. And Ms. Fields?
MS. FIELDS: On both.
MR. GOBLE: Both. And Mr. Lyman?
MR. LYMAN: Both.
MR. GOBLE: Both.
Okay. Well, what I'll do first is, I'll
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
6
just tell you, I guess, what some of the changes are
for the permit and the license, and then we'll go
ahead and open up the public comment. And it looks
like the first person to speak will be Mr. Angel.
I'll let you know when that time has come.
So since we're going to be talking about
the license first, now, the big thing here is Denison
Mines have proposed to make a new tailings cell,
Tailings Cell 4B. That is the reason for having this
public meeting today. Some of the changes or
additions to the license include the submittal of an
updated Reclamation Plan and specifications for
approval to include Tailings Cell 4B, changes in
tailings cell wastewater freeboard requirements, the
submittal for approval for written Standard Operating
Procedures, and improvements for content for the
Annual Technical Evaluation Report.
And then regarding the permit, we have an
addition of a definition for engineering design
standards for the new Tailings Cell 4B, definition of
BAT performance standards for Tailings Cell 4B,
installation of at least three new monitoring wells
hydraulically downgradient of Tailings Cell 4B, the
submittal of an updated BAT monitoring plan for cell
4B, the submittal of an additional hydrogeologic
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
7
investigation report of nearby seeps and Ruin Spring,
and the submittal of an engineering as-built report
regarding Cell 4B.
So, do we have anyone else who's making
public comment? We have one more? Can you bring
that to me, please.
MR. RUPP: Sure. Actually, not.
Actually, it's a question. Maybe. It's a maybe.
MR. GOBLE: Okay. Mr. Taylor Lyman, you
have a question mark here. Are you wanting to make
comment?
MR. T. LYMAN: We'll see.
MR. GOBLE: Okay. Well, we can wait until
the end and I can ask you.
All right. Now, like I said, the first
person who will make public comment will be
Mr. Bradley Angel. And like I said, what we'll do is
we'll give you five minutes, you'll hear a one-minute
warning, and then we'll tell you "time." Then you
also have the opportunity to give your comment again.
So let's turn this over to Mr. Angel.
MR. ANGEL: Thanks. Good evening. Again,
my name is Bradley Angel, and my address is P.O. Box
1078, Moab. And I'm here as director of an
organization called Green Action for Health and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
8
Environmental Justice and on behalf of our
constituents in both Grand and San Juan County
including White Basin Ute community.
A few comments. One is that I've been
coming to hearings on this mill for a number of years
now, and I know it's not how your agency does this,
but it's a problem and it's a flaw that I didn't
receive notice. And unless you affirmatively sign up
on your website on the ListServ, you don't get these
notices.
And that might be something I can do, but
for people who are actually most directly affected by
decisions the state makes and is making around this
facility, it's a big problem. Because, for example,
a lot of folks at the White Basin Ute community are
low income and do not have regular access to
Internet. So the way the rules are set up
systemically makes it a reality that most folks who
are most affected have no idea this meeting is even
happening, and I think that's a real problem. And
one of the reasons it's such a big problem is that
your agency and other state agencies consistently
fail to assess the impacts of actual ones that are
documented as well as potential in the future on the
health and environment and cultural resources of this
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
9
area.
So, for example, you know, when was the
last time you all assessed the yellowcake coming out
of the stacks at the uranium mill? When is the last
time the people of White Mesa, the actual tribal
members, were informed about that? I don't know if
that ever happened.
For the discussion and issues before us
today, in particular we are very concerned and
opposed to this new construction that's proposed
because, once again, with the blessing of the State
of Utah, the company is destroying ceremonial,
potential ceremonial but certainly culturally
significant sites that are well documented, that,
just as you at the state, the people in this audience
would not want or churches and temples desecrated,
this once again with the state blessings is what's
happening.
We think not only is that unethical and
immoral, we also think it's illegal. And it doesn't
matter from our perspective if it's happening on
private land, because it's happening courtesy of
state permits.
The State of Utah has an obligation. You
are making consideration under federal rules. You
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
10
have delegated authority from the federal government
to run this program. And I would venture to guess
that the Division of Radiation Control receives some
other additional types of benefits, maybe financial
benefits, such as grant program or other support from
the federal government.
If any of that is true, which I think all
of it probably is, then the state once again is
violating the United States Civil Rights Act, Title
VI. And I've raised this before, and it's completely
ignored by the state.
As a recipient of federal funding, you are
prohibited from taking any actions that would have
discriminatory or disproportionate impact on low
income people of color, like the White Mesa Ute
people. It's illegal.
MR. RUPP: One minute.
MR. ANGEL: And the desecration and
absolute destruction of ancient sites that could
involve burials that are certainly culturally
significant, not just some ancient artifact for a
museum; they're part of the living culture of the
people here. And your agency, by the decisions
you've made in the past and by the one I believe
you're planning on approving, which you should not,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
11
would not only help desecrate these sites, continue
to devastate the culture of the native peoples of
this area, and we believe violate the Civil Rights
Act. So we really want you to take a look at that
before any decisions are made. Thank you.
MR. GOBLE: Mr. Angel, did you want to
reserve any time for later?
MR. ANGEL: No. Thank you.
MR. GOBLE: All right. Our next person
will be a Mr. Toni Turk.
MR. TURK: Thank you. I appreciate the
opportunity to address this body. I'd like to
introduce myself. I'm the mayor of Blanding, and I
would like to respond to some of Mr. Angel's
comments. Since he is from Moab, he may not be, you
know, as informed about the communications and the
processes that occur here as someone that is local.
I would point out that White Mesa, Inc. is
a major employer of the White Mesa Ute community and
works in collaboration with Denison Mines for that
employment.
The other part to that is that Cleo
Bradford, who has worked very closely with the White
Mesa Utes, is very computer literate and is able to
receive and disperse all communications that pertain
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
12
to that community and, to my knowledge, does that.
In fact, they have a Ute meeting house just close to
this facility.
The other is, at Rotary Club recently we
had a detailed presentation of the archeological
recovery of knowledge that Denison Mines has funded,
and that has added significantly to the database of
understanding of the cultures that have lived here
anciently. And all of those artifacts that are
recovered and recovered according to archeological
procedure are made available for further research at
the Edge of the Cedars Museum.
Now, I would like to address the plans for
this expansion of the new cell and express confidence
in the science that the White Mesa management,
Denison Mines, their oversight that they have
exercised. If there was something that was going to
be going on ten miles from this community that was a
threat to this community, Blanding City would be the
first in line to be concerned. But we do have
confidence that they are professional and that good
science is going forward. And there is a place for
regulatory oversight, and that is to ensure that
those processes are appropriate and timely and that
the necessary adjustments are made as adjustments are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
13
seen to be needed.
I would like to point out that San Juan
County is the most impoverished county in the state
of Utah. By some reckoning, it's somewhere between
the 8th and the 15th most impoverished county in the
United States. And to not support one of the main
economic engines that support this economy and
support a large portion of our indigenous peoples and
their livelihoods I think would be shortsighted. It
certainly would fall short of being concerned for the
life, liberty, pursuit of happiness of our population
that reside here.
And I would express the opinion that
Denison Mines is good for our community, it's good
for our area, and we have every confidence that they
are being good neighbors and that they are being good
contributors to our economy.
Those are my thoughts.
MR. GOBLE: All right. Thank you,
Mr. Turk. Our next person that wanted to speak is
Mr. Chris Webb.
MR. WEBB: Hello. My name is Chris Webb.
I am the Blanding city manager.
I have been associated with the mill most
of my life growing up here in Blanding. In fact, I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
14
was involved in the construction of the mill, though
at that time was not aware at what point I might get
involved or be involved with the mill and their
operations there.
As I started my job as the Blanding City
manager 14 years ago, the mill operations have been
up and down. They've been able to propose different
actions out there again to continue to see the
further viability of the operations there.
As those things have happened, it's raised
questions in the minds not only of Blanding citizens
but of other people around in the region. And a lot
of people get very, very emotionally involved in
these things, saying, listen, we love the area, we
love the surroundings, and we're worried, what's this
going to do to us. And we can't get too caught up
emotionally. We have to rely on the sciences and we
have to get involved.
For those reasons, as a community we
approached the NRC and said, okay, tell us what's
real. We need to know if there is a health and life
safety threat here. We need to know if there is a
problem. Because again, as our mayor has just stated
previously, we'll be the first to step in line.
Because the health and life safety of our citizens is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
15
more important than any economic development,
obviously; although, again, that's an important part
of a community if it can be done right.
So meeting with them and having the
sciences explained to us and what's happening and how
those protections are in place and what needs to
happen, it was amazing. It was absolutely amazing to
find out the things that have to be done and all the
regulations in place to ensure public safety.
The State of Utah, Blanding City, San Juan
County, none of us want to see anybody hurt or
damaged. And what we have found out in our
experience over the many, many years now in dealing
with the mill is that they are a very good steward
and a very good partner and a very good community
member. And if those regulations are followed to the
T, all the way down to what kind of pencil you can
use in making your reports and signing your names and
those kind of things, it's just amazing to me all the
regulations that you have to follow through.
And as those things, the sciences and
stuff were explained to us, we became very supportive
of the processes and became very confident that they
can continue those processes if those regulations
that are set up by the scientists that run our nation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
16
and run our state. We appreciate that. Again,
emotions set aside, we support what's happening there
and want to speak in favor of that.
MR. GOBLE: All right. Thank you,
Mr. Webb. The next person that wanted to speak is
Ms. Fields.
MS. FIELDS: My name is Sarah Fields, and
I represent an organization named Uranium Watch in
Moab, Utah. And I thank you for the opportunity to
speak.
I agree with the previous speakers that
the regulations and the implementation of the
regulations by the licensee are very important. I
will be submitting some written comments, but I also
have a few oral comments.
First regards the archeological resources
at the mill. Currently archeological excavation is
taking place from either -- a few over ten
archeological sites are being excavated. Most of the
archeological sites on White Mesa are ancient pit
houses.
When the site was constructed in the late
1970's and early 1980's, there was extensive
archeological excavation. Artifacts were taken.
Some of those ended up at the University of Utah;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
17
some of those ended up at Edge of the Cedars. And
yet in the past 30 years, none of those artifacts
have been exhibited at Edge of the Cedars, and there
have been no additional studies and there have been
no presentations related to that extensive
archeological excavation.
Although artifacts will be taken,
essentially these historic, to me, incredibly
beautiful and significant sites that could have been
the basis for a national monument here in San Juan
County, which would probably over the years have
brought more economic benefit to this area, these
sites will also be destroyed. They will be destroyed
by the construction of the mill.
So the essence of these sites will be
destruction. And as the mill expands, more sites
will be destroyed, because White Mesa of itself is an
archeological district, and I would think that the
community would have more of an interest in
preserving those sites.
I've talked with the NRC recently about
whether Section 106 consultation was required. I
have not yet gotten a response from them. They're
looking into this. But I think the failure of the
Division of Radiation Control and the failure of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
18
Utah Historical Society to consult with the White
Mesa Ute and the Ute Mountain tribal governments and
the Navajo tribal historic preservation is
unacceptable, and I feel the Division of Radiation
Control must consult with these entities before they
approve this license amendment.
Also, license condition 9.7 needs to be
stricken from the license. That license condition
pertains to cultural resources at the mill and refers
to a memorandum of agreement between the Utah State
historical preservation officer --
MR. RUPP: One minute.
MS. FIELDS: -- the advisory council in
historic preservation, the NRC and energy is nuclear.
This MOU is totally out of date. It's from 1979,
amended in 1983. It doesn't refer to the current
conditions of the license, so that license condition
should be reviewed and should be brought up to date.
Let's see. I'll just go on what I have
time for. Oh. Also, the Division of Radiation
Control should make the effluent monitoring reports
and any additional effluent monitoring information
submitted by the licensee pursuant to license
condition 11.2 available on the DRC website. You've
done a really good job to make all the documents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
19
relating to this license amendment request, the cell
4A --
MR. RUPP: Time's up.
MS. FIELDS: -- the license available, and
I commend you for that. Thank you.
MR. GOBLE: Thank you, Ms. Fields. Would
you like to reserve some time after everyone else has
had the opportunity to speak?
MS. FIELDS: Yes.
MR. GOBLE: Okay. We'll go ahead and do
that for you. The next who wanted to speak was
Mr. Joe Lyman.
MR. J. LYMAN: I kind of stumbled into
finding out this meeting was happening, and I sent
out an e-mail to a few people, hoping they could get
here. And I'll address a thought to that a little
bit later.
But my impression of what's happened with
the mill over the years that it's been there, I
worked there for a period of time when I was younger,
is that by and large they've been very responsible
with what they've done. I think that Mr. Webb's
comments addressed that point.
I have seen at times, some of the
opposition to activity of the mill have not been well
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
20
founded. Maybe some of them have, maybe some of them
haven't; but I know there's been some of the
opposition expressed that turned out to not be
particularly well founded. So I can't address what
anybody is saying today. It's just been historical
observation.
I think the employment that they provide
is critical. As Mayor Turk illustrated, we're in an
extremely depressed economy, and a lot of the
employment that the mill provides is to the very
people that some say we should be protecting from the
mill. And it could be devastating to the entire area
to not have that employment and support that, which I
do.
I'm pretty sure we could probably have a
roomful of people here in support of the mill, but
they, like me, are businessmen who are trying to
provide for themselves and provide opportunities for
others to provide for their families. We're just too
busy. We're trying to make this country run, and
frankly, we're too busy trying to do that to spend a
lot of time and energy coming to these kinds of
meetings.
And on that note, I've still got work to
do tonight, so I've got to go. But I've got to think
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
21
I would represent 50 people if they only had the time
and the ability to become aware of these things to
come and speak and support the mill. I think they
would be here. So I support what they're trying to
do. Thank you.
MR. GOBLE: All right. Thank you,
Mr. Lyman.
So the next person, we have a Mr. Steve
Hancock. You had unsure. Would you like to make
a --
MR. HANCOCK: I'm good for now.
MR. GOBLE: All right, Steve. And another
person we have as kind of a maybe was Taylor Lyman.
Would you like to --
MR. T. LYMAN: No.
MR. GOBLE: No. Okay, Ms. Fields. And
presently we don't have anyone else on the list, so
go ahead and speak till you're done, I guess.
MS. FIELDS: I won't take too much time.
MR. GOBLE: Okay.
MS. FIELDS: In going over the safety
evaluation report, and I, too, have other employment
and did not have a lot of time to go over all of
this; but when you talk about long-term impacts of
the mill, it states that the SERs, which is the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
22
Safety Evaluation Report, which is the environmental
analysis that you're required to do for a major
license amendment under the Atomic Energy Act; the
Atomic Energy Act has specific requirements for
agreement states, and the state of Utah is an
agreement state under the NRC's regulation under the
Atomic Energy Act where the federal government has
given the state of Utah the responsibility for
regulating uranium mills in Utah.
But when you talk about long-term impacts,
you don't really define what long-term impact means.
The SER states that Cell 4B has been designed to
provide reasonable assurance that radiological
hazards will be suitably controlled for 1,000 years
to the extent reasonably achievable, and in any case,
for at least 200 years. The federal regulations
limit the technical assessment for -- the technical
requirements for long-term containment of the
tailings to that 200-year to 1,000-year period.
However, we all know that those tailings
are going to be there in perpetuity, forever. So 200
to 1,000 years isn't a very long time period when you
think that they are going to be there forever and
ever.
So eventually the liners will break down,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
23
the tailings cover will erode, and eventually the
tailings and associated radioactive and
nonradioactive contaminants will disperse into the
air, water, and soil. It's not a matter of if, it's
a matter of when. Most -- you, me, the people in
this room are not going to be here then. But there
still will be, hopefully, a population in this area.
And I think when the Division of Radiation
Control looks at the long-term impacts that they
really have to at least honestly assess what's going
to happen to those tailings 10,000 years from now --
you know, 2,000, 10,000, 100,000 years from now.
Also, in your SER you talk about isolation
without ongoing maintenance. And I think the
Division of Radiation Control in conjunction with the
NRC and in conjunction with the Department of Energy,
which now has responsibility, that's Department of
Energy now has the responsibility for long-term
maintenance for all the old type, what they call
Title I uranium mills, and for any uranium mills,
other uranium mills that have closed.
So they're finding out what the issues are
even over the short period of time of 50 years from
the closure of some of these sites. So they've been
discovering what some of the long-term maintenance
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
24
issues are, whether it's contamination of the
groundwater. And in the west there are billions of
gallons of groundwater that has been contaminated by
uranium mills.
So they're looking at groundwater
contamination, they're looking at the erosion, and
even now the Department of Energy is looking into
different types of caps for mill tailings, because I
think they're finding that some of the previously
designed caps that have been put in place are really
not as adequate as they had predicted.
So I think the Division of Radiation
Control with the NRC and the DOE should take a harder
look at what really -- what is a realistic long-term
maintenance scenario for White Mesa and for other
uranium mill tailing sites, whether in Utah or in
other states, and take advantage of the new data and
the new information that is being generated so that
when this tailing cell and the other tailing cell at
White Mesa are complete, have gone through operation,
they get covered, the plan, the long-term reclamation
plan is adequate.
Thank you.
MR. GOBLE: Thank you, Ms. Fields. Is
there anyone else who didn't sign up who would like
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
25
to speak now?
MR. TURK: Is it possible for additional
comment?
MR. GOBLE: Absolutely, Mr. Turk. You can
come up, absolutely.
MR. TURK: The point that I would like to
bring forward at this time is, following Katrina,
that disaster on the Gulf Coast, which was
devastating to our country, the Associated Press
conducted a study to determine what city in the
United States would be the safest city from natural
disaster, and they came to the conclusion that
Blanding would be that city. And that was an AP
publication.
I think that really speaks to the
substructure of the land that we're in. We're not in
an earthquake prone area. We don't have significant
natural disturbance in this area. It would seem that
if you're going to have a location to contain the
materials that need to be contained when we're, you
know, talking in terms of many years into the future,
it would seem that this would be a place that would
certainly rise to the top as a location that would
have a long-term, secure dynamic coming from nature
itself.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
26
So with that in mind, I believe that
this -- you know, with science, with nature, we have
the potential to create what we need to create in
order to produce the energy that this nation is going
to require.
There's been a lot of debate about nuclear
energy, and that's not what this meeting's about; but
on the green side of the equation, nuclear energy is
free from a lot of the downsides of other energy
forms. So I just want to add that part.
MR. GOBLE: All right. Thank you,
Mr. Turk.
Let's see. Also, Mr. Angel, do you have
more? And then we'll follow up with Mr. Webb.
MR. ANGEL: Bradley Angel. You know,
science that allows radioactive materials to be
unprotected and unwatched and have no provisions for
it for thousands of years after Denison Mines is gone
and we're all gone is a big problem. And as we all
know, for example, in this area the wind blows pretty
fiercely, and leaving radioactive materials blowing.
I would also ask you if the state agency is aware of
any time, for example, that radioactive materials
associated with this facility ended up not contained,
such as by the highway.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
27
And again, you know, issues of what comes
out in the stack, particularly yellowcake. When was
the last time? I think that's really important,
because we're all in a need for good economy, for
health as well. And I think that is more important
than that. But, you know, people also have a right
in our democracy to know what they're being exposed
to, and I don't think that information's been fully
disclosed; and I know for a fact in talking to a
number of tribal members over the years, they did not
know, for example, that yellowcake was coming out of
that stack. And that's unacceptable.
In terms of an economic boom, I think if
you look at, in one short sentence, there's an
economic boom in Moab right now resulting in the
cleanup of the radioactive pile of tailings from the
old Atlas Mill. But that's not a good situation.
It's costing taxpayers millions and millions and
millions of dollars. So I think we need to be
protective of health.
Also that, whatever your perspective, if
you're for this facility, against it, don't know, I
again want to say that it's not just enough that
Mr. Bradford at White Mesa, Inc. knew about this. We
know a number of tribal members, at least, I can't
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
28
speak for all, had no idea this was going on tonight.
And that's why I think the state has to do a better
job and change the rules to ensure that in a
democracy people have the right to exercise their
democrat rights to participate in decisions that
affect their lives, and that includes knowing about
meetings like this. But thank you.
MR. GOBLE: Thank you, Mr. Angel.
Mr. Webb, you wanted to say more?
MR. WEBB: I did. Just a couple points,
hearing these additional comments.
There's a lot of things, being in a city
position and having to go through this process
myself. In addition to a city manager, I'm also the
environmental certifying officer for the city, state
recognized. We've got to go through these processes
all of the time.
And there's a lot of these existing laws
that we'd like to see changed one way or the other.
It's been addressed here tonight. I think the state
ought to change the rules. They ought to do this,
they ought to do that. And some of those rules will
probably go through a process of change.
I also sat on the State Division of
Drinking Water board for eight years, went through
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
29
all kinds of processes and public processes in these
rules. And there's people that come in all the time
saying, these rules need to change; we've got to get
tougher, because what if, what if, what if.
Well, some of those "what ifs," as we
discover more and the sciences change and they're
saying that rules need to be changed, great, change
them. But these applications before you today aren't
about those what ifs. And yeah, and this a good
forum to encourage the state to change the rules.
But these applications ought to be judged today on
today's rules and the rules that are today in place.
And if those rules at some point require additional
monitoring, great.
But I can tell you that the monitoring is
happening, that the state ensures the monitoring's
happening, and that the rules are being followed as
they are in place. And so we encourage the state to
make sure that when they judge these applications for
processes that they're judging them based on today's
rules, not on hopes for changes in future rules, but
those rules are changed today.
The other point that I wanted to make is
with regard to archaeology. We understand the
important heritage that comes to the citizens of our
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
30
community in these archeological sites. The city of
Blanding is over 40 percent Native American, so we
understand how important those sites are, and we
spend as a city in doing our projects hundreds of
thousands of dollars in collecting data, in analyzing
that data so that we can find out and make sure that
we're not letting some valuable resource go or some
valuable data go.
But as we go to an area like our big
reservoir, when we went out there and put in out Big
Fork Reservoir, there are so many sites in our area
that nothing would happen if we didn't let any site
go. So sometimes sites have to be mitigated. We
collect all the data we can, and then a site is
covered, or could even be lost after that process
happens.
So we understand that process is
happening, that these applications -- through these
applications that that process is happening, that the
mill has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in
collecting data so that they too could move forward
with their projects. And we would encourage that in
this case, that these applications be approved.
MR. GOBLE: Thank you, Mr. Webb.
Okay. If there's no one else that wanted
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
31
to speak, we don't have anyone else that signed up.
We're scheduled until 9 o'clock. So what we'll do
right now is, I'm going to go ahead and call a
recess. We'll call a recess for -- let's see. Right
now the time is -- it's 7:42. Let's call a recess
until 8:15 and see if anyone shows up.
For those that are here, you guys are
welcome to stay. You might have more comment in the
future. And we're going to be here for I guess the
next half hour to see if anyone else wants to show up
and make comments. So I'm going to go ahead and call
a recess right now, and we'll take pretty much a
half-hour break.
(Recess from 7:42 p.m. to 8:15 p.m.)
MR. GOBLE: The time is now 8:15. We'll
go ahead and open back up the meeting. It looks like
no one else has signed up to make public comment. So
do any of you gentlemen who are here want to make
comment? Okay.
I just want to let you guys know that
public comment can be received up to 5 o'clock on
Monday, May 10th. And like I said, you can either
e-mail that to me at [e-mail], or you can go
on our website and you can find our address and mail
it to us. And so long as it has the postmarked date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
32
of that date, May 10th, we'll accept it.
I forgot to thank Vicky here. The person
who was helping us today is Vicky McDaniel. I forgot
to introduce her earlier today, so I wanted to do
that now.
Since we don't have anyone else to make
public comment, I'm going to go ahead and call this
meeting ended. So this meeting is now adjourned.
Thank you for attending, and when we have one in the
future, we'd like your presence again. So thank you
very much.
(Meeting adjourned at 8:16 p.m.)
* * *
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
33
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
STATE OF UTAH )) ss.
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE )
I, VICKY McDANIEL, Registered Merit Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of
Utah, do hereby certify:
That on May 4, 2010, the foregoing proceedings were reported by me in stenotype and
thereafter transcribed, and that a full, true, and correct transcription of said proceedings is set
forth in the preceding pages.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL this 9th day of May, 2010.

VICKY McDANIEL, CSR, RMRNotary Public
Residing in Salt Lake County
t.
a.
Minutes (Board Action ltem)
Approval of the Minutes from the April 13,
2010 Board Meeting
Rules
No ltems
Radioactive Materials Licens
No ltems
X-Ray Registration/lnspection
a. Certification of Individuals as
"Mammography lmaging Medical
Physicists"
Radioactive Waste (Board Information ltems)
No ltems
Uranium Mill Llcensing and Inspection
No ltems
Other Division lssues (Board Info ltems)
No ltems
Public Comment
lX. Other lssues:
The Next Scheduled Board Meeting: June 8, 'l
2010, (Tuesday), MSOB, Gonference
Room 1015, 195 North 1950 West, Salt Lake City,
Utah, 3:00 - 5:00 P.M.
il.
tv.
V.
v[.
vilt.
I.
DRC Board Meeting - MaY ll' 2010
Minutes (Board Action ltem)
a. Approval of the Minutes from the
April 13,2010 Board Meeting
Corrected Minutes of April 13,2010
Please Replaced with the Previous Minutes
Please Note: These corrected minutes will
be mailed out on 516/2010 and will be distributed
to you by email to you. They will also be scanned
and put on the DRC web page. If you wish to run a
hard copy from the web page to be able to read
them please feel free to do this, or either expect them
in the mail.
MINUTES
OF
THE UTAH RADIATION CONTROL BOARD
April 13,2010
Department of Environmental Quality, DEQ Building #2
Conference Room 101
168 N 1950 W
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4850
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Ptter A. Jenkins, M.S., CHP, Chair
Elizabeth Goryunova, M.S., Vice Chair
Dane L. Finerfrock, Executive Secretary
Scott Bird
Patrick D. Cone
Frank D. DeRosso, MSPH, CIH
Christian K. Gardner
Colleen Johnson
Douglas S. Kimball, DMD
Amanda Smith, DEQ Executive Director
John W. Thomson, M.D.
David A. Tripp, Ph.D.
Total Board Members Attending: 1l
Joseph K. Miner, M.D., MSPH
Total Board Members Absent: 2
Kevin Carney, DRC Staff
Denise Chancellor, Attorney, Atty General's Offrce
David Esser, DRC Staff
Phil Goble, DRC Staff
Philip Griffrn, DRC Staff
John Hultquist, DRC Section Manager
Boyd Imai, DRC Staff
Ryan Johnson, DRC Staff
Craig Jones, DRC Section Manager
Laura Lockhart, Attorney, AttomeY
General's Office
Loren Morton, DRC Staff
Fred Nelson, Attorney, Attomey General's
Office
Raymond Nelson, DRC Staff
Tom Rushing, DRC'Staff
Donna Spangler, PIO, DEQ - PPA Staff
PUBLICffint: Public Attendance List
BOARD VTEMBEIRS 4B$ENII
Edd Johnson
GREETINGSMEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Peter A. Jenkins, Chairman, called the Board meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. and welcomed the Board
members and the public. He indicated that if the public wished to address any iterns on the agenda,
they should sign the public, sign-in sheet. Those desiring to comment would be given an opportunity
to address their concerns durirlg the comment period.
I. APPROVAL OF MINLITES @oard Action Item)
a. Approval of the Minutes from the March 9,2010 Board Meeting
Peter A. Jenkins, Chairman, asked the Board members for corrections to the minutes
from March 9,2010. There were no corrections to the minutes.
MOTION MADE BY ELIZABETH GORYI]NOVA TO APPROVE THE
MINUTBS OF MARCH 9,2OIO AS WRITTEN
MOTION SECONDED BY JOIIN W. THOMSON
MOTION CARRIED A}{D PASSED I.INAI\IMOUSLY
II. RULES
No Items
III. RADIOACTTVEMATERIALSLICENSING/INSPECTION
@oard Action Items)
a. Proposed Amendments to R3l3-19, "Requirements of General Applicability to
Licensing Radioactive Material"' and R3l3-21, "General Licenses"
Philip Griffrn, DRC Staff, addressed the Board on this item. He explained that he
was there to present some changes to the proposed rule, R3l3-19, "Requirements of
General Applicability to Licensing of Radioactive Material," and R313-21, "General
Licenses." He said that the rules and changes came about due to changes to the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (I.[RC) rules in 10.CFR Parts 30, 31,32, and 150.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Executive Secretary recommended that the Board approve the proposed changes
to the Utah Radiation Control Rules, direct staff to file the changes for rule making,
and direct staff to give notice to the public of a 30-day comment period.
MOTION BY SCOTT BIRD TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMBNDATION A}ID
DIRECT THE STAFF TO GIVE A 3O-DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD .
SECONDBD BY ELIZABETH GORYUNOVA
MOTION CARRIED AND PASSED I'NANIMOUSLY
b. Proposed Amendment to R313-34r "Requirements for lrradiators"
Raymond Nelson, DRC Staff, informed the Board on this item. He said that during
the February 9,2070 Board meeting Craig Jones reported that during the process of
pleading the 5-year review of R3l3-34, "Requirements for Irradiators," it was noted
ry.
v.
that the rule incorporated by reference portions of the 2001 edition of the Code of
Federal Regulations. It was proposed that the rule be amended to update the
incorporated material to the 2010 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations
(specifically l0 CFR 36).
Mr. Nelson reported that the Proposed Rule Amendment, DAR No 33368, was
submitted to the Division of Administrative Rules on February 10, 2010. The 30-day
public cornment period began on March 1 , 201 0 and ended on March 3 I , 201 0. The
Executive Secretary did not receive any comments.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Executive Secretary recommended that the Board approve the proposed rule with
an effective date of April25,2010,
MOTION MADB BY PATRJCK D. CONE TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED
RULE R3t3-34, AND TO MAKE THE RULE EFFECTTVB ON APRrL 15,
2010
SECONDED BY FRANK D. DeROSSO
Peter A. Jenkins, M.S., CHP, Chair - Abstained
Elizabeth Gornrnova, M.S., Vice Chair - Yes
Scott Bird -Yes
Patrick D. Cone - Yes
Frank D. DeRosso, MSPH, CIH - Yes
Christian K. Gardner -Yes
Colleen Johnson - Yes
Douglas S. Kimball, DMD - Yes
Amanda Smith, DEQ Executive Director -Yes
John W. Thomson, M.D. - Yes
David A. Tripp, Ph.D. - Yes
The Board members voted on this action:
Vote: l0 Yes; and I Abstention
MOTION CARRIED AND PASSED
RADIOACTTYE WASTE DISPOSAL
Proposed Depleted Uranium Rule, R313-25-8
1. Approval: Findings and Opinion Regarding Adequacy of
Corresponding Federal Regulations @oard Action Item)
Laura Lockhart, Attorney General's Office, reported to the Board on this
item. Ms. Lockhart went over the proposed rule and response to comments
received regarding the proposed amendments to Utah Administrative Code
R3 1 3-25-8 Addressing Depleted Uranium.
The rule (as it now being recommended to the Board) is set forth in
Attachment 2. The difference between the two versions is discussed in Part
)
B of the Board packet.
Ms. LocKiart went over the public comments with the Board' She also went
over the changes on the rule R3l3-25-8, and the Technical Analysis, as it
was being presented to the Board. The Board voted on this item'
MOTION MADE BY ELIZABETH GORYI.]NOVA THAT TIIE
BOARD APPROVE THE RULE AS IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE
BOARD
SECONDED BY DAVID A. TRIPP
Peter A. Jenkins, M.S., CIIP, Chair - Abstained
Elizabeth Goryunova, M.S., Vice Chair - Yes
Scott Bird -Yes
Patrick D. Cone - Yes
Frank D. DeRosso, MSPH, CIH - Yes
Christian K. Gardner -Yes
Colleen Johnson - No
Douglas S. Kimball, DMD - Yes
Amanda Smith, DEQ Executive Director - Yes
John W. Thomson, M.D. - Yes
David A. Tripp, Ph.D. - Yes
The Board members voted on this action:
Vote: 9 Yes; I No; and I Abstention
MOTION CARRIBD AND PASSEI)
Approval: Recommended Changes to the Proposed Rule
(Board Action Item)
Laura Lockhart, Attorney General's Offtce, reported to the Board that they
could see the actual changes in Attachment 2, and the descriptions were on
Page 3 of the "Comment Response Document." Ms, Lockhart explained that
there were recommended changes. First the U'S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission OIRC) did not approve of using the term "Depleted LJranium"
(DtD. The NRC recommended using the term "Concentrated Depleted
IJranium," and keep the definition that is,within the rule. Another change is
in Attachment 2, which reads: "Additional simulations *4ll shall be
performed for @ the period where peak dose occurs
and the results shall be analyzed qualitatively."
Peter A. Jenkins, Chairman, said that first on the Board's agenda is to accept
the changes to the rule as presented to the Board by Ms' Lockhart.
DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD:
Patrick D. cone said he supported all of the changes as recommended by
Laura L,ockhart.
Chairman Jenkins said that the Board would now accept public comments,
,4
3.
before the Board voted on this item.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
ffi Citizen from Provo, Utah, said that he concurred
with the Board's Action, the Depleted Uranium Rule, and the changes. He
said that he thought it was wise to protect the public. Mr. O'Neal said that
as a member of the public he appreciated the action of the Board.
Ed Firmage, Concerned Citizen, suggested that the minimum period be more
than ten thousand years. He said the period needed to be increased to
"something that approximated geologic-time:" fifty or one hundred thousand
years.
MOTION MADE BY PATRICK D. CONE TO ADOPT THE THREE
CHANGES IN THE PROPOSED RULE AS WRITTEN IN
ATTACIIMENT 2 OF THE DOCTINIENT
SECONDED BY FRAIIK D. DeROSSO
Peter A. Jenkins, M.S., CHP, Chair - Abstained
Elizabeth Goryunova, M.S., Vice Chair - Yes
Scott Bird -Yes
Patrick D. Cone - Yes
Frank D. DeRosso, MSPH, CIH - Yes
Christian K. Gardner -Yes
Colleen Johnson - Yes
Douglas S. Kimball, DMD - Yes
Amanda Smith, DEQ Executive Director - Yes
John W. Thomson, M.D. - Yes
David A. Tripp, Ph.D. - Yes
The Board members voted on this action:
Vote: 10 Yes; and I Abstention
MOTION CARRIED A}ID PASSEI)
Approval: Effective Date of the Depleted Uranium Rule
@oard Action Item)
Laura Lockhart, Attomey General's Office, informed the Board on this item.
She said the rule change could only be effective from 30 to 120 days after it
is published. Ms. Lockhart said that she did not see why they could not get it
published on May 1, 2010.
DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD:
ad already discussed this action item for
a long period of time and they were on the verge of making a decision. Dr.
Tripp said that they had listened to the public and listened to everyone;
consequently, the board should approve the rule and proceed with making it
effective.
b.
MOTION MADE BY DAVID A. TRIPP TO ADOPT THE MINIMAL
TIME PERIOD FOR THE PIIBLIC NOTICE
SECONDED BY CHRISTIAN K. GARDNER
Peter A. Jenkins, M.S., CHP, Chair Abstained
Elizabeth Go4nrnova, M.S., Vice Chair - Yes
Scott Bird -Yes
Patrick D. Cone - Yes
Frank D. DeRosso, MSPH, CIH - Yes
Christian K. Gardner -Yes
Colleen Johnson - Yes
Douglas S. Kimball, DMD - Yes
Amanda Smith, DEQ Executive Director - Yes
John W. Thomson. M,D. - Yes
David A. Tripp, Ph.D. - Yes
The Board members voted on this action:
Vote: l0 Yes; and I Abstention
MOTION CARRIED AND PASSED
Presentation: Policy and Legal Considerations for a Blending Rule by Randy
Horiuchi (Board Information ltem)
Randy Horiuchi, Concemed Citizen and Representing Studsvik, and Joe DiCamillo,
General Counsel for StudSvik, reported to the Board on this item.
Mr. Horiuchi said that under the proposal EnergySolutions inthe two scenarios they
give you would increase the radioactivity of their site by 700o/o to 844%. He said that
if the sight is changed fundamentally by seven to eight times, the public ought to
have the right to have this rule be heard and to have an opportunity to discuss it.
Secondly, he and others believed there were economic considerations of B and C
waste. If you allow B and C down blending, Utah will be accepting two+hirds of the
existing B and C waste that is disposed of in this country'
Joe DiCamillo, General Counsel for Studsvik, addressed the Board. He asked the
Board to consider the enabling legislation by the Utah Radiation Control Board and
by the Utah Division of Air Quality Board, and the Utah Water Quality Board. He
said legislation specifically states that separate statutes be created "to promote the
planning and application of pollution prevention and radioactive waste minimization
measures and to prevent the unnecessary waste and the pollution of natural
resources."
Peter A, Jenkins, Chairman, informed the Board that the next agenda item addressed
some of the same questions that Mr. DiCamillo referred to, He asked Mr. DiCamillo
to remain available should questions arise from the Board.
Chainnan Jenkins informed the Board that Energy Solutions had asked to make some
public comments on this information item after the presentation'
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
c.
Thomas Magette, EnergySolu/iolls, said that it would literally be impossible for
EnergySolutions totake two+hirds of Class B and C waste material. Mr' Magette '
said first of all Energy Solutions would not take any of the largest Class B and C
waste streams activating from nuclear power plants. He said EnagySolulions would
also not take any of theb and C medical waste stream (which is the next largest
waste stream). He said about half of the waste stream that Energy^So lutions expected
to take would be from resin from liquid waste processing. He said 700% is a gross
misrepresentation.
Mr. Magette said the NRC's Chairman agreed and approved a down blending paper
for pubfic release. The paper will be releised on April 8, 2010. He said that the
Board will know exactly what the NRC's thinking is on this issue' Mr' Magelte said
that it would behoove the Board to wait for the deliberations in the paper from NRC,
since it is literally a few more days, until it is made public'
Recommendations from the Radiation control Board subcommittee:
1. Approval: Position Statement on Down Blending Waste
(Board Action Item)
Patrick D. cone informed the Board on this item. He said that the
subcommittee met on March 15, 2010, and it was the subcommittee's third
meeting on the issue. Mr. Cone said that the Board members that met were:
Amand-a smith, David A. Tripp, christian K. Gardner, Peter A' Jenkins, Edd
Johnson and Patrick D. Cone. Mr. Cone reported that the subcommittee met
to discuss two things: (1) address the down blending of radioactive waste
and (2) look at concentiaied rule for unique waste streams. Mr' Cone said
that ire could report that the subcommittee had accomplished both things and
had come up wiih two recomrnendations. They are in the Board's packet'
He said that the subcommittee did not prohibit looking at a rule in the future'
Mr. Cone read the "Position Statement on Down Blending Waste," that was
included in the Board packet. He said that the subcommittee encourages the
NRC to expand the ruie for classification of waste to make sure that the
waste classification system is intact, but also has to do with the second policy
rule #2 that the subcommittee suggested.
Peter A. Jenkins, Chairman, said that the recommendation to the Board was
that the Board accepts the Position Statement as recommended to the Board
from #1 thru #3. Chairman Jenkins said the Board would have a discussion
on this recommendation and then he would entertain a motion to accept the
recommendation by the subcommittee; to accept it with amendments; or to
reject the recommendations from the subcommittee'
MOTION MADE BY DAVID A. TRIPP THAT THE BOARI)
ACCEPTS THE PosITIoN STATEMENT oN DowI\ BLENDING
OFRADIOACTIVEWASTEAsCONTAINEDINTIIEBoARI)
HANDOUT, WITHOUT FURTHER AMENDMENT
SECONDED BY PATRICK D. CONE
2.
Discussion on Motion bv the Board:
The Board members discussed whether the Board felt there was immediate
health and safety issues to the public in down blended waste that were not
present in other classes of low-level radioactive waste.
Chairman Jenkins asked for members of the Public to come forward and
make their comments on this item, before the Board would take a vote on this
item.
PI.IBLIC COMMENTS:
Christopher Thomas, HEAL-Utah, addressed the Board, he said that HEAL-
Utah fully supported the Position Statement as articulated. Mr. Thomas said
that he would urge the Board members to vote in favor of it. Mr. Thomas
asked the Board to look at what the NRC does, because the NRC may have
some technical analysis to consider. He said there was some waste taken by
EnergySolutions that he felt uncomfortable with how the waste became
classified as Class A. He said a Position Statement and the rulemaking
would be something that HEAL-Utah would support.
Craig Galli, Holland and Hart - Attomey for EnergySo lutions,said that if he
were the Board's counsel he would point out something that he thought was
very important. He said that Board member, Dr. David A. Tripp's statement
was "right on the mark." This is an important issue and the pubic, and the
regulated community needs to have a say and involvement in the policy.
Public comment would allow the Board to get clarification on some of the
issues that are obviously technically and legally confusing.
Fred Nelson, Utah Attorney General's Office, said that when the Board
adopts a policy statement they do it through the open meetings act. f-n-e
Board made "Notice" to the public through the Agenda. Individuals at the
Board meeting can provide comment to the Board.
MOTION MADE AGAIN BY DAVID A. TRIPP THAT THE BOARI)
ACCEPT THE POSITION STATEMENT ON DOWI\ BLENDING OF
RADIOACTTVE WASTE AS CONTAINED IN THE BOARI)
HANDOUT, WITHOUT FT]RTHBR AMENDMENT
SECONDED BY PATRICK D. CONE
MOTION CARRIED AND PASSED I]NANIMOUSLY
Approval: Policy on Maintaining Waste Classification Integrity
@oard Action ltem)
Patrick D. Cone informed the Board on this item. He said that one of the
issues they discussed during the subcommittee was how the policy would
affect Class A, B and C, and greater than C classification. Mr' Cone quoted
the policy that was submitted to the Board in their packet. After reading the
statement Mr. Cone said that really all it was saying was that the Board
wanted the classification system to be what it is and without circumvention'
He said hopefully this would be a notice to the rule makers back East
3.
(Federal) that the Board was interested in classification integrity.
Chairman Jenkins said that the other part of this was that the Board not make
any decisions based upon what might be, or what could be, but rather what is'
Chairman Jenkins asked if there was a discussion on the statement. There
was none by the Board. Chairman Jenkins asked for a motion from the
Board to adopt, or reject, or to adopt with amendments the subcommittee's
recommendation to the Board.
MOTION BY DAVID A. TRIPP THAT THE BOARD ADOPT THE
POLICY MAINTAINING WASTB CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
INTEGRITY AS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARI)
SECONDED BY CHRISTIAN K. GARDNER
MOTION CARRIED AND PASSBD UNANIMOUSLY
Consideration of Proposed Rule for Site-Specific Performance
Assessment (Board Action Item)
Patrick D. Cone, reported to the Board that this item was a little bit more
comprehensive. He said this rule looked at "Rule for Site-Specific
Performance Assessment," on unique waste streams. Mr' Cone said that he
had seen a number things "come down the pipe" towards them, and he
thought it would be nice to have a "logic tree'lin place;
After reading the proposed rule Mr. Cone said that the rule would provide a
structure and a process where licensees know what to expect when they are
applying for a waste stream that is not clearly defined, and how the Board or
the Executive Secretary will address it'
Mr. Cone said that the recommendation from the subcommittee was that the
Board adopt this rule and to go to a rulemaking process'
Amanda Smith, DEQ Executive Director, asked Chairman Jenkins to explain
the reasoning behind creating a general rule for people who were not in
attendance at the last Board meeting.
Chairman Jenkins said that three or four issues have come before the Board
where the Board has wanted to say: "hey, before a new and unknown
scenario does occur, the Board would like to see a performance assessment
and the Board would like to "weigh in" on some of the issues of the
Performance Assessment." The Board has not been in a position to halt
processes that have become an issue or to require an assessrnent as part of the
board's process. Chairman Jenkins said that as Patrick D, Cone had
mentioned eighteen months ago about having a Depleted Uranium
Performance Assessment--if i Performance Assessment Rule (such as this)'
were in place before, then the first part of the meeting today would have been
unnecessary.
Chairman Jenkins said he would like to think of this rule this way, if the
primary purpose of this committee is to assure public health and safety and
the primary scientific tool we havq to ensure that it is the Performance
Assessment, then the Board needs the authority to require requiring a
Performance Assessment, Now it is good practice and as EnergySolutions
has said numerous times they do this as part of business anyway.
It is a prudent rule to have in place. There are situations where there is clear
precedent for how this waste is handled, and we can proceed. Issues have
arisen not only for EnergySo lutions but also for Denison Mines (alternative
feed material). He asked the Board if there were further discussion or if there
would be a motion.
The Board discussed that they would like to add a time period to the public
comment period and agreed on 60-days.
Legal counsel, Fred Nelson, Attorney, said that the rule read "Consideration
of the Proposed Rule." Mr. Nelson said that the Board has two choices as he
understood it based on this description; you can either (l) propose it for
public comment as a rule and notice it with the archivist or (2) you can send
it out simply for public comment, solicit public comment, not post it with the
archivist, solicit public comment and bring it back to the Board to decide
whether the Board would like to go forward with a proposed rule'
Elizabeth Goryunova left at 5:00 p.m. and was not included on the action
item vote. After Ms. Goryrrnova left there ten Board members left in
attendance at the Board meeting and they all voted "yes," on this item'
MOTION MADE BY CHRJSTIAI! K. GARDNER THAT THE BOARI)
SEND THE RI.]LE OUT AND SOLICIT COMMENT FOR 6O-DAYS
AND AT THE END OF 6O-DAYS CONSIDER THE RULE FOR
RIJLEMAKING
SECONDED SCOTT BIRI)
Peter A. Jenkins, M.S., CHP, Chair- Yes
Scott Bird -Yes
Patrick D. Cone - Yes
Frank D. DeRosso, MSPH, CIH - Yes
Christian K. Gardner -Yes
Colleen Johnson - Yes
Douglas S. Kimball, DMD - Yes
Amanda Smith, DEQ Executive Director -Yes
John W. Thomson, M.D. - Yes
David A. Tripp, Ph.D. - Yes
The Board members voted on this action:
Vote: l0 Yes
MOTION CARRIED AND PASSED
TIRANIUM MILL LICENSING A}{D INSPECTIONVI.
l0
No Items
vII.oTHERDIVISIONISsI']Es@oardlnformationltems)
a. Report: Tc-99 Sample Results from the savannah River DU LLRW at
EnergYSolutions
John Hultquist, DRC Section Manager, and Ryan Johnson, DRC Staff M.ember,
reported to the Board on this item. iohn Hultquist asked the Board to refer to the item
in the supplemental packet. He said that backln February, 2010 Governor Gary R'
Herbert urtrO tf,, Division to sample the DU material that had came in from the
Department of Energy (DOD, i;;"nnah River Site (DOE-SRS).-Mr' Hultquist said
they went out ro the Energyiolu/ions Clive Facility on Fe-bruary 23 undMarch 1,2010
and collected 1?2 samples based on EPA-RCRA waste sampling meth-odology' Based
on the total number of drums that were at Clive, Utah, and a95% confidence limit the
EPA method required the DRC to sample 172 drums'
Mr. Hultquist asked the Board to refer to the "summary Infollgtion about the
Sampling Event," on their memorandum. He said they took 172_samples, and they
also did some split samples and duplicate samples fora total of 202 samples' The
Arithmetic means that ii was well below the Class A limits, the maximum
concentration in the samples was also well below the Class A limit' Mr' Hultquist
asked the Board to refer io the "sampling Overview," on the back page of the
document. He said the bullets are just some of the sampling overview regarding EPA
guiJu""" document that they used and the Random Sampling method that we
employed and some of the ,"uron, why you do that statistical method approach' Mr'
Uritqrirt said that theirconclusion was ihat the material is Class A waste' He said
they also took into account the profile record where it had a density range up to 4'5.
glcl, andput that into the equation, and even with that number, the results were still
were well below the Class A limit.
Mr. Hultquist said that on the last page of his report was a graph showing the
conclusion of how the sample r.rdtJra-. out. Mr. Hultquist referred to the gaph
and said the thick line on top was is the class A limit for Tech - 99' He said that the
square-triangles on the bottom are the actual sample resultsfor the 172 samples' Mr'
fluttquist sald that they were very low concentrations, well below the Class A limits'
Mr. Hultquist asked the Board members if they had any questions'
Ouestions bv the Board:
@eyhadlookedandhadseen.anythinglikegarnma-rays.from
Americium - 241 or anything of that nature. John Hultquist responded that they had
only looked at Technicium-99-it was the one that was of gteatest concern'
David A. Tripp said if that was the one that seem to the largest of all the gamma peaks
they saw.
John Hultquist responded: yes, that was the possible offender for exceeding the class
A limit.
peter A. Jenkins, Chairman, asked John Hultquist if he could explain the justification
of 172 drums in the statistical sampling methods'
ll
John Hultquist said that came about from the EPA-RECLA guidance document. Mr.
Hultquist said that they knew the total number of drums they had out there; and to get
the 95oh confidence, you can "plug and chug" in the formula that is in the record
document and that will tell you the number of samples you need to obtain for that
confidence interval, and that is how they had come up with that number. He used the
formula that was in the RECLA waste sampling document.
b. Division of Radiation Control Quarterly Activities Report
Peter A. Jenkins, Chair, asked the Board if they had any questions on the Division
Quarterly Activities Report. The board members had none.
VIII.PT]BLIC COMMENT
IX. The Next Scheduled Board Meetins: May 11,2010 (Tuesday), DEQ Bldg#2'
Conference Room 101, 168 North 1950 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 3:00 - 5:00 P.M.
THE BOARD MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:14 P.M.
l2
Public Attendance Sheet
Utah Radiation Control
Board l\{eeting
DEQ Bldg. #2,Conf. Room l0l
168 N 1950 W, Sall Lake City, UT 84114-4850
3:00 - 5:00 P.m.
April 10,2010
Please Print
NA]\{E
(Please Print )
Organ ization/A ffi li ation
Phone Number and Email
Address:
Speak: Yes or No? If Yes'
u'hich Agenda Item would You
tike lo Address, List ltem No.:
1 r),tA EouTy QU,rtouo
^1d
1z''' B-p rluk0,),W,G"tl lLCr:f-o usA r{o
G.=-tn t,,4 C,; e5 :{cnil,rL) o*o,,n F,,^rtzalrc{A>t /r)
''r4u u 14. tltt t)oo)
)Jt
3<.. (,L/ zf f,< i
T", N./nn bzc Na
7
7/r, 1,,7, 6.;#)^D2(ilot1,^ A,,,l,n {nr^urrfj} t'i;r4l Al, a
b.",, Arctr DRC_Nt
'o bvol Drz-c-AJn
"' C,^, 1" G n tt,Nrlla^J + Nnc t-!o
1\
. L&rrr r\ac^&[r, q \Tn,-n-\l-l'.,:.^--t /\/ "
13.'!(
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
t9.
.,/4
Public Attendance Sheet
Utah Radiation Control
Board N{eeting
DEQ Bldg. #2,ConI. Room l0l
168 N 1950 W, Salt Lake City' UT 84114-4850
3:00 - 5:00 P.m.
April l0' 2010
Please Print
NAl\{E
(Please Print )
O rganization/A ffi liation
Phone Number and Email
Address:
Speak: Yes or No? lf Yes,
n'hich Agenda Item would You
like to Address, List ltem No.:
-\fxEPGx\eu1rtanl &8"lfr b
e7 ' Lar,n lo&J'/f UJar. A+J- k*\-"
98. | ., t
J^'n-".- n ('/L''-^-l C,44 aon \s Var> / l'to-)- |
Yfrn"wL
I
YcS gq v.c-.
'oo:.+$ H*rL, a*k N6tot-o*
?t"s[r,;5 oac No
102.._ft t€MATAE s'FrF gea
r 03.
104.
r 05.
1 06.
107.
l 08.
1 09.
I 10.
111
112.
1 13.
rt4.
'i*,:,
l.]r;',;
Public Attendance Sheet
Utah Radiation Control
Board Meeting
DEQ Bldg. #2, Conf. Room 101
168 N 1950 W, Salt Lake City, UT 84f 14-4850
3:00 - 5:00 P.m.
April 10,2010
Plesse Print
NA]\{E
(Please Print )
0 rgan ization/Affi liation
Phone Number and Email
Address:
Speak: Yes or No? If Yes,
which Agenda Item would You
like to Address, List Item No.:
tt5 (4o4tu/ fl,uO A{n L'r''
il66r(t /
117.
l 18.
I 19.
120.
121.
r22.
123.
124,
125.
126.
r27.
128.
129.
I 30.
131
132.
133.
't "nf (
Public Attendance Sheet
Utah Radiation Control
Board Meeting
DEQ Bldg. #2,Canf. Room 101
168 N 1950 W, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850
3:00 - 5:00 P.m.
April 10,2010
Plesse Print
NAX{E
(Please Print )
Organization/Affi li ation :
Phone Number and Email
Address:
Speak: Yes or No? If Yes'
which Agenda ltem would You
like to Address. List Item No.:
"o'kn;n {ton^t S+.LJ'\.{tlt-,{\h&:-S(
r3s' .l'e hC*,[b rr It ' )
I 36.
137.
138.
t39.
140.
141.
142.
t43.
144.
14s.
146.
147.
I 48.
149.
1 50.
l5l.
152.
'{oof'tl
o ry. X-Ray Registration/Inspection (Board Action ltem)a. Certification of Individuals as "Mammography Imaging
Medical Phvsicists"
-
-
o
MAMMOGRAPHY IMAGING MEDICAL PHYSICISTS
CERTIFICATION OF APPLICANTS
BOARD ACTION ITEM
In accordance with Section l9'3-104(4)(cXii) of the Utah Code Annotated, the Board may make rules to
establish.the certification procedure and qualifications for persons who survey marnmography equipment
and oversee quality assurance practices at mammography facilities. A number of individuals recently
filed an application to be certified as a Mammography Imaging Medical Physicist. Craig Jones will
present information about the certification of Mammography Imaging Physicists and the Executive
Secretary will recommend an action for the Board to consider,
Board Meeting May l l,2010