[Senate Hearing 112-961]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-961
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON FEDERAL ACTIONS TO CLEAN UP CONTAMINATION FROM
LEGACY URANIUM MINING AND MILLING OPERATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CHILDREN'S HEALTH
AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 6, 2011
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
24-964 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TOM UDALL, New Mexico MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Children's Health
and Environmental Responsibility
TOM UDALL, New Mexico, Chairman
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BARBARA BOXER, California (ex JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex
officio) officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
OCTOBER 6, 2011
OPENING STATEMENTS
Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico....... 1
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 3
WITNESSES
Weber, Michael, Deputy Executive Director For Materials, Waste,
Research, State, Tribal and Compliance Programs, United States
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.................................. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Responses to additional questions from Senator Udall......... 16
Geiser, David , Director, Office of Legacy Management, Department
of Energy...................................................... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Responses to additional questions from Senator Udall......... 31
Woolford, James, Director, Office of Superfund Remediation and
Technology Innovation, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency................. 44
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Responses to additional questions from Senator Udall......... 52
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements:
Uranium Producers of America................................. 75
Cibola County Commission..................................... 87
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON FEDERAL ACTIONS TO CLEAN UPCONTAMINATION FROM
LEGACY URANIUM MINING AND MILLING OPERATIONS
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Udall
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Udall and Barrasso.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. The Subcommittee will come to order.
I told the witnesses, but I will tell everybody that is
here, we are expecting a vote at 10:30. It looks like it is
going to be right in that range. So what we will try to do here
is get through the opening statements, your opening statements.
Any other members of the Committee that show up, and then we
will have to take a short break for that.
My understanding is that it is only one vote, so we will be
able to go over and come back quickly and then proceed into the
questioning. I hope that we can get you back to your jobs at
your offices quickly.
So hello and welcome to the Subcommittee on Children's
Health and Environmental Responsibility's Oversight Hearing on
Federal Actions to Clean Up Contamination from Legacy Uranium
Mining and Milling Operations. We will begin with some brief
opening remarks and then we will hear from our witnesses.
This hearing is needed to focus attention on the long
legacy of contamination left by the rapid development of
uranium in the Southwest during the cold war. We must not
forget who paid the price for our national defense. I
appreciate the participation of the three Federal agencies here
today. They share a responsibility for the cleanup and
monitoring of uranium legacy sites.
I also appreciate the participation of communities, groups
and tribes in preparation for this hearing. Some of these
communities have submitted valuable written testimony for the
record and the record will be open for 2 weeks for other
stakeholders who would like to submit testimony.
Here is what I hope this hearing will accomplish. First,
maintain the focus of these agencies at the headquarters level
about the obligation to clean up these abandoned uranium mine
and mill sites. Second, meet those obligations with funding of
the current 5-year plans and develop and fund followup plans
where necessary. Third, ensure Federal agency cooperation, not
only with each other, but also with the tribes and affected
communities. And finally, ensure regulatory agencies make sure
that this type of contamination never happens again, especially
at or near existing legacy sites.
The story of uranium development in the United States is a
human story, and I must say, a tragic human story. During the
early phase of uranium development, miners and mill workers
were largely unaware of the dangers of radiation exposure. Even
as the understanding of the dangers grew, the Federal
Government failed to ensure that uranium workers and their
families were safe from the hazards of exposure to radioactive
materials.
As a result, numerous illnesses and cancers began to emerge
in the men and women who worked and lived near the mines and
mills. Communities and families lost their water wells because
of unsafe levels of radiation. Wives lost their husbands to
cancer and developed their own sicknesses after years of
washing clothes covered in yellow cake. Children played on
uranium tailings piles and lived in radioactive homes.
Thousands of individuals unwittingly gave their health and
many gave their lives to national efforts to develop uranium
for our cold war nuclear arsenal during the mid-20th century.
While the cold war is over, the communities continue to
struggle with contamination. Much of New Mexico's northwestern
area is scattered with hundreds of uranium mines that were left
abandoned and contaminated as the cold war was won and the
uranium boom faded away.
The Pueblo of Laguna was home to the Nation's largest open
pit uranium mine. And many mines and mills were opened within
the Navajo Nation. There has been so little realization of the
uranium legacy outside the Southwest that even the largest
release of radioactive material in U.S. history, in 1979, is
not widely known outside the Navajo Nation. The catastrophic
collapse of the United Nuclear Corporation uranium mill
tailings facility near Church Rock, New Mexico, ranks second
only to the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident in total
radiation released. The spill of contaminated materials
released over 1,000 tons of radioactive tailings and 90 million
gallons of toxic wastewater into the Rio Puerco, contaminating
about 80 miles of the river. People and livestock were burned
by the flowing acidic water.
Finally, in 2008, Federal agencies responsible for the
cleanup of legacy uranium on the Navajo Nation created a 5-year
plan for cleanup. EPA has followed with an additional 5-year
plan for the nearby Grants Mining District in 2010.
While cleanup is moving decades after the initial
contamination, some of these communities are faced with new
proposals to restart uranium mining for energy purposes,
opening up old wounds and arousing new passions. Regardless of
our personal beliefs about nuclear weapons, nuclear power or
future uranium mining, everyone should agree the Nation and the
companies that profited from uranium development owe a debt to
communities with legacy contamination and that can only be paid
in full with a complete cleanup.
Before I turn to our witnesses, I want to make one further
connection to a related issue at the Judiciary Committee. In
this Congress, I am working on a bipartisan basis to update the
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to better cover individuals
exposed to radiation at mines, mills and downwind of nuclear
test sites. I encourage my colleagues in the Judiciary
Committee to take up this bill and ensure that compensation is
fair for those who lost their health and lives to uranium
development.
And now let me turn to Senator Barrasso, who I welcome for
any opening statements he may want to give. I very much
appreciate his participation and involvement in this hearing
today.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I too
want to thank the witnesses for being here.
Today's hearing is focused on the cleanup and legacy of
cold war uranium mining. As many here may not know, Wyoming
actually played an important part in the history of the defense
of this Country, because nuclear missile silos have been in
Wyoming since the early days of the cold war. Wyoming residents
are proud of this legacy.
We also believe that Washington has a responsibility to
leave Wyoming as clean as when they found it. I have remained
vigilant in ensuring that progress continues to be made in
addressing the cleanup of cold war sites in my State. That
includes having the Army Corps of Engineers cleanup our TCE
contamination in the city of Cheyenne's water wells. TCE was
used to degrease the rocket motors of our nuclear missiles to
keep them ready during the Cuban missile crisis.
In addition, Wyoming also has two cold war Legacy uranium
mines, one in Riverton and the other about 32 miles north of
Glenrock. Both have undergone environmental remediation by the
Department of Energy. The Department continues to monitor those
sites.
As Ranking Member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, I
understand the concerns of the tribes regarding the legacy of
cold war uranium mines. I believe it is a fair question to ask:
is the Department of Energy doing all that it can for the
tribes and tribal members affected by this legacy?
We must also not forget uranium mining today is much
different than it was in what occurred years ago. It would be a
mistake to compare cold war uranium mining decades ago with the
modern uranium mining today. Wyoming residents understand this
because we are an energy producing State with an abundance of
uranium. There are people that work at the mines and they see
the uranium production process first-hand. They know the
importance of developing clean domestic energy for our Nation.
The Department of Energy projects that U.S. energy demand
will increase 21 percent between now and 2035. World energy
consumption is estimated to grow by 49 percent in that same
period of time between now and 2035. Meeting this increased
demand is a major challenge. Access to affordable power is
crucial for economic development. Our Country was built on
inexpensive power. For our economy to remain competitive, we
need cheap power.
Families struggling to balance their budgets deserve access
to affordable power. That is why when it comes to American
energy, we need it all, nuclear, coal, natural gas and all the
renewable sources. Nuclear energy currently provides about 20
percent of our electricity. It generates roughly 70 percent of
America's carbon-free power.
Other nations are moving forward quickly on nuclear power.
On the floor this week, we have been debating the China
currency bill. China is currently building 25 new nuclear
reactors. They know that nuclear power is essential to their
economic engine.
A key part of the overall issue of providing affordable
energy is a nuclear fuel supply. We must have a stable and
secure supply of nuclear fuel. We currently import nearly 90
percent of uranium used in the United States nuclear reactors.
Building new nuclear capacity without increasing domestic
uranium production will make us more dependent on foreign
sources for our electricity.
The Administration must do more to support American uranium
development, which will help our economy, will strengthen our
job security and will create new jobs. I believe we can achieve
this in a responsible and environmentally safe way.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to the
testimony.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Barrasso, for that
opening statement.
At this point, we will proceed with our three witnesses.
Why don't we start on the right here, with Mr. Michael Weber,
with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and then just
proceed down the row here. You each will have 5 minutes and
your full statement will be put in the record. So that will be
there for people to read so that you know that is in there.
Mr. Weber, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WEBER, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR
MATERIALS, WASTE, RESEARCH, STATE, TRIBAL AND COMPLIANCE
PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Weber. Good morning, Chairman Udall, Senator Barrasso.
It is a pleasure for me to appear before you today to discuss
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulation of uranium
recovery facilities to protect public health and safety and the
environment.
In my testimony I will focus on several key points. First,
most of the environmental contamination associated with uranium
production activities in the United States occurred before
Congress clarified the authority in this area in 1978, and
certainly well before the current regulatory framework was put
into place following that clarification. Second, today's
conventional uranium mills and in situ recovery facilities are
operating safely and in a manner that is protective of the
environment. And third, NRC regulates these facilities in close
coordination with other Federal agencies as well as State and
tribal governments.
Uranium mining and milling in the United States expanded
considerably in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's, driven by an
increased demand for uranium to support both our national
military uses and commercial nuclear power. Concerns about
potential environmental and health hazards associated with mill
tailings led the Congress to hold hearings in the late 1970's.
These concerns compelled the Congress to enact what is referred
to as the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, or
otherwise known as UMTRCA, as an amendment to the Atomic Energy
Act.
With the enactment of UMTRCA, mill tailings and other
associated wastes generated after 1978 became subject to NRC
regulation. Contamination associated with hard rock and open
pit mines that produced uranium ore was not addressed by this
legislation.
For facilities that were licensed on or after November 8th,
1978, the NRC has jurisdiction over mill tailings under Title
II of UMTRCA and implements standards issued by the
Environmental Protection Agency through a comprehensive
regulatory program.
NRC is also cooperating with other Federal agencies in a
coordinated effort to address uranium contamination at legacy
mine sites in the Navajo Nation under the 5-year plan.
Similarly, we are working with EPA and the State of New Mexico
to address uranium contamination in and around Grants, New
Mexico.
UMTRCA authorized the inclusion of uranium recovery
facilities within the framework established under the Atomic
Energy Act, thus allowing NRC to enter into agreements with
States to regulate uranium recovery facilities in lieu of
Federal regulation. NRC has established agreements with Texas,
Colorado, Utah and Washington to regulate uranium recovery
facilities in those States.
The State of New Mexico's agreement with the NRC included
uranium recovery facilities until this part of the program was
withdrawn by the State in 1986. NRC evaluates State regulatory
activities through an integrated materials performance
evaluation program to ensure that State regulatory activities
remain both adequate to protect public health and safety and
compatible with NRC's requirements. Under Title II of UMTRCA,
NRC and agreement States regulate uranium waste generated
during the operation to ensure protection of public health and
safety and the environment. Our comprehensive regulatory
framework ensures safe operation and decommission of both
existing facilities and planned facilities. This includes
comprehensive safety and environmental review of new
applications for uranium recovery.
After a license is issued for a new facility, the NRC or
agreement State provides continued oversight of operations
through periodic licensing reviews, inspections, assessment,
enforcement and investigation.
NRC works closely with other Federal agencies, State
agencies and tribal governments. NRC recently issued three new
licenses for uranium recovery facilities in Wyoming. The
licensing process required extensive coordination with the
Bureau of Land Management, with EPA, the Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality and the Wyoming State Historic
Preservation Office.
As part of our review on both the National Environmental
Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, we
consulted with State agencies and tribal governments that
expressed interest in protecting environmental and cultural
sites near these facilities. We are currently conducting
additional licensing reviews for three new facilities or
expansions of new facilities.
Based on the letters of intent from uranium recovery
companies, more applications for new facilities, possibly as
many as up to 19 applications, could be submitted in the next
several years. With this projected workload, we certainly
expect extensive coordination and consultation with our Federal
partners as well as State agencies and tribal governments.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate
the opportunity to appear before you today to describe NRC's
regulatory program for uranium recovery. I would be pleased to
respond to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Udall. Thank you very much.
Mr. Geiser, please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF DAVID GEISER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF LEGACY
MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Geiser. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Barrasso.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department of
Energy's activities related to uranium mining and milling.
The Department has four primary responsibilities associated
with uranium mining and milling. First is long-term
surveillance and maintenance of former uranium mill sites. The
second is the cleanup of the Atlas site in Moab, Utah. The
third is reimbursements for uranium and thorium cleanup that is
ongoing. And the fourth is the management of the uranium
leasing program in Western Colorado.
The Department's authority related to uranium mill sites is
provided by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, or
UMTRCA. UMTRCA originally passed in 1978 and has two major
sections, Title I, which addresses the uranium mill sites that
were inactive when the law was passed, and Title II, which
addresses the mill sites licensed as of 1978.
The Department of Energy currently manages 21 Title I sites
and 6 Title II sites. An additional 17 Title II sites are
expected to be transferred to DOE by 2020. Title II sites are
cleaned up by the commercial site owners.
Funding for long-term surveillance and maintenance of our
27 UMTRCA sites in 2011 was almost $8 million. In Moab, Utah,
the Department is excavating and shipping more than 12 million
cubic yards of mill tailings to a new disposal cell near
Crescent Junction, Utah. DOE began moving the tailings in 2009
and more than 4.6 million tons have been relocated to Crescent
Junction.
Title 10 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 directed DOE to
reimburse certain licensees of uranium and thorium mill sites
for the portion of their cleanup costs attributed to sale of
material to the Atomic Energy Commission. Licensee claims for
reimbursement are audited and eligible costs are reimbursed by
DOE on an annual basis. Since 1994, DOE has reimbursed $628
million under that program.
Last, the Department manages 31 uranium lease tracks,
covering approximately 25,000 acres in Southwestern Colorado.
The leasing program began in 1948 when Congress authorized the
Atomic Energy Commission to withdraw lands from the public
domain for the purposes of exploring, developing and mining
uranium and vanadium ore bodies.
In closing, DOE has and will continue to work with other
Federal agencies, tribal nations, State and local governments
to ensure that our actions are protective of human health and
the environment. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Geiser follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Udall. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Woolford, please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF JAMES WOOLFORD, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SUPERFUND
REMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Woolford. Mr. Chairman, Senator Barrasso, my name is
James Woolford. I am Director of the Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide an overview of the
status of EPA's efforts in addressing legacy uranium mining
contamination on Navajo and other lands, and EPA's efforts
related to uranium in situ recovery operations. I am
accompanied today by my colleagues from EPA's Office of
Groundwater and Drinking Water and from EPA's Office of
Radiation and Indoor Air, who will be available to answer
questions related to the agency's air and water programs
referenced in my testimony.
Decades of uranium mining in Arizona, New Mexico and Utah,
primarily on Navajo Nation land, have left a legacy of uranium
contamination, including more than 600 abandoned uranium mines,
dozens of homes built with contaminated mine waste rock and
contaminated groundwater wells. EPA has led the development and
implementation of a coordinated Federal plan to address the
uranium legacy on the Navajo Nation.
The 5-year plan was developed in 2008 in conjunction with
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service,
Centers for Disease Control, Department of Energy, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and the Navajo Nation. We are now in the
fourth year of implementing that plan. The 5-year plan
outlines, among other items, the Federal commitments to address
contaminated homes, water sources and abandoned uranium mines.
EPA maintains a strong partnership with the Navajo Nation,
and since 1994, EPA has provided technical assistance and
funding to assess potentially contaminated sites and develop
and implement response actions. Since October 2007, USEPA and
Navajo EPA have assessed 683 structures, 240 unregulated water
sources and 452 abandoned uranium mines. The agencies plan to
complete the screening of the remaining mines by the end of
2011 and identify and prioritize response actions for the
highest risk mines sites.
In addition, 33 contaminated homes and other structures
have been demolished, and 14 replacement homes have been
constructed. We have identified 28 uranium contaminated wells
and water systems have been built for more than 300 residents
to replace contaminated water supplies.
Last week, EPA released its cleanup plan for the Northeast
Church Rock Mine in Northwestern New Mexico, which is the
largest abandoned uranium mine site in the Navajo Nation. EPA
also uses its enforcement authorities to address contaminated
sites, and we have taken enforcement actions against five
responsible parties and cleanup work has begun at four sites.
Additional actions are planned.
In addition to the Federal 5-year plan to address uranium
legacy mining on Navajo lands, EPA and other Federal agencies
developed a 5-year plan with New Mexico in 2010 to address
releases from legacy uranium mining and milling operations in
the Grants Mining District in New Mexico.
I would like to quickly mention the USEPA's efforts related
to in situ uranium recovery. There is growing interest in
developing uranium mining sites in several States due to
significant increases in the price of uranium. In situ
leaching, or ISL, uses injection wells to introduce alkaline
fluids into underground formations to mobilize uranium in the
groundwater. Production wells subsequently bring the uranium-
bearing fluids to the surface where they are processed for use
by the nuclear industry. The Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
is the lead EP office for this effort.
EPA shares authority with the NRC and with States in
overseeing operations at ISL leaching facilities. However, if
the operation is occurring on Federal lands, the Federal Land
Management Agency will also have a role. NRC and agreement
States regulate ISL operations, including the injection of
fluids using environmental radiation and groundwater protection
standards developed by EPA in accordance with the Uranium Mill
Tailings Radiation Control Act.
In 2010, the agency began an effort to review our
regulations for uranium and thorium to determine if they should
be updated. In the meantime, NRC has deferred its own
regulatory effort while EPA continues its regulatory review.
EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air requested the
agency's science advisory board conduct an advisory review to
provide scientific and technical advice on ISL post-closure
groundwater monitoring issues. Those efforts are ongoing. EPA,
NRC, States and as appropriate Federal land management
agencies, will continue to work together to coordinate our
regulatory efforts.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my remarks. I or
one of my EPA colleagues would be pleased to answer any
questions regarding EPA's efforts related to uranium legacy
mining or recovery issues.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Woolford follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Udall. Thank you, and thanks to all three of you
for your testimony today.
I don't know whether you all were involved or at the
agencies when Congressman Waxman held his hearings back in 2007
over at the House. But the thing that was apparent then was
that we had these massive cleanup problems and contamination
problems, and there wasn't much coordination with the agencies.
I think what grew out of those hearings that was very positive
was the 5-year plan, all of your agencies including other
agencies like the Bureau of Indian Affairs, came forward and
participated in the development of those plans.
As we have seen, we have made some real progress. I think
that has been noted in your testimony.
My first question really to each of you is, from your level
in the agency, will you make the commitment to continue to do
this until the job is done, until we get this cleanup done? Mr.
Weber?
Mr. Weber. We will certainly continue coordinating with our
Federal colleagues as well as with the State of New Mexico and
the Navajo Nation, within the scope of our authority. As you
know, NRC is a regulatory agency. So we have specific
authorization from the Congress to regulate the uranium
recovery activities.
Mr. Udall. We appreciate that, and we understand each of
your agencies have overlapping responsibilities. But I think
the important thing about this hearing is to have an
understanding that you are going to work together and that we
are going to move forward to get the job done as far as
cleanup.
Mr. Geiser.
Mr. Geiser. Yes, sir, I actually had the opportunity to
testify before Congressman Waxman on behalf of the Department.
I totally agree with your statement, it really helped get all
the agencies together in a coordinated manner.
The Department of Energy established the Office of Legacy
Management in 2003 with the express purpose of having a long-
term, sustainable management of closed sites. So today we have
87 sites around the Country that legacy Management is
responsible for. Those include the former uranium mill sites
that have been remediated and put in the Department's
responsibility.
So the Department set up the office explicitly for that
long-term purpose.
Senator Udall. And you all are committed to move forward to
get the job done on cleanup, and to work with the other
agencies?
Mr. Geiser. Yes, sir.
Senator Udall. Mr. Woolford, same question.
Mr. Woolford. Thank you, Senator.
Recently, the Navajo Nation informed EPA that they intend
to request a second 5-year review plan. I think we all are in
agreement that those plans help us organize and prioritize our
work. The agency plans to work with the Navajo Nation and our
colleagues to put together that plan over the next year.
So yes, you have our commitment, Senator, that we will
continue to do what is necessary here.
Senator Udall. And for your agency perspectives, all three
of you believe that an additional 5-year plan is probably going
to be needed to get the job done out there? Mr. Weber?
Mr. Weber. Yes, sir.
Senator Udall. Why is that?
Mr. Weber. There is a lot of work that remains to be done.
Senator Udall. Mr. Geiser.
Mr. Geiser. I think another 5-year plan would be helpful to
get all the different agencies' activities in one place. I
don't anticipate it would actually change what we will do with
respect to the Navajo Nation. But it helps to see what the
other agencies are doing and making sure that we have the time
and planning to coordinate.
Senator Udall. Thank you. Mr. Woolford.
Mr. Woolford. As Mr. Weber indicated, there is still a lot
more work to be done. We think the next 5-year plan will help
us identify the mining sites that need additional work, and
work to coordinate among the Federal agencies and with the
Navajo Nation. So yes, there is a lot more to be done, and I
think we all see the necessity of having an additional 5-year
plan.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much.
Senator Barrasso, I am going to turn to you now for your
questioning.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Geiser, you may not know the specifics, but with regard
to the legacy uranium mill sites that I had mentioned, I don't
know if you can explain how things are at the sites now, or if
not, if you could get that information to me.
Mr. Geiser. Sir, I am somewhat familiar with the sites in
Wyoming. I know we have three at this point, Riverton, Shirley
Basin South and Spook. We have, I think the site that has risen
to my attention in particular in Wyoming is the Rivertonsite.
We have had a fairly long relationship with the Wind River
Environmental Quality Council and the individual tribes of the
Northern Arapaho and the Shoshone.
We recently put a new cooperative agreement in place with
the Northern Arapaho for activities at Riverton. Unfortunately,
the cooperative agreement we had with the Wind River Council
was extended twice and has currently expired. Our intention is
to continue to work with them and get a new cooperative
agreement in place as soon as we can work through the remaining
issue with them.
The primary institutional control that we installed was a
drinking water supply system for the local population. We have
had some problems with that we have worked on with the tribes.
We currently believe that we are being protective of human
health and the environment and we do have a commitment to
continue to work with those tribes.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you. If I could perhaps get in
writing some of the followup on the other side. Thank you.
Mr. Weber, when I was making my opening statement, I saw
you nodding in agreement. Could you describe for me some of the
differences between today's uranium mining and mining that
occurred back during the cold war?
Mr. Weber. Certainly, sir. As I alluded to in my testimony,
we learned the lessons from the early experiences with the
legacy sites, primarily from the uranium recovery facility
perspective. So if you look at the requirements that we have in
place today and that we actively enforce, they are in place to
ensure protection of people and the environment.
If you take, for example, the 1979 failure of the
embankment at the Church Rock site that Senator Udall referred
to, our regulations today ensure that you are not going to see
the same kind of dam failure that occurred back then. So we
have made substantial progress, not only in ensuring the
protection of people that work at the mills or that work in the
nearby or live in the nearby area, but also more stringent
groundwater protection requirements, more stringent long-term
isolation requirements for the mill tailings and the other
wastes that are generated through the uranium recovery process.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Mr. Weber, and Mr. Woolford, I will start with you. Mr.
Woolford, you stated in your testimony that the EPA will
continue to maintain responsibility for permitting the in situ
leading injection wells.'> I note in your testimony, Mr. Weber,
that the NRC regulates the uranium recovery. It sound a bit
like dual regulations to me. I am just wondering if you two
would please clarify your respective authorities with regard to
the in situ recovery. Mr. Woolford, do you want to start?
Mr. Woolford. Senator, I would need to defer that to my
colleague who is here, from the Office of Radiation and Indoor
Air. It is not within my purview.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, if we
could get that answered?
Senator Udall. That would be just fine.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. Please State your name and the division that
you are with within the agency.
Mr. Simon. Thank you. It is Roy Simon, I am with the Office
of Groundwater and Drinking Water in the Office of Water in
EPA. We spend a lot of time working with NRC on uranium mining
sites, and we have cooperated. I have been involved for 4 years
in working with NRC. We don't see it as duplicating, we see it
as complementary. We both deal with the injection wells, we
deal with the injection wells in EPA under the Safe Drinking
Water Act, and we regulate the injection wells. But they
perfectly in tune with the licensing processes.
Mr. Weber. Just to build on that, NRC regulates the in situ
recovery process in toto. The purpose of that is to ensure that
the operations, if they are conducted, are conducted in
accordance with our requirements. We consider all the way from
the injection of the lixiviant into the reservoir or into the
aquifer where the mining takes place all the way through to the
extraction and concentration of the uranium and the production
of the yellow cake product as constituting processing.
Therefore, it meets out authority under the Atomic Energy Act.
But I agree with my colleague from EPA, both colleagues,
that we are working together collaboratively. There was a point
last decade where NRC actively considered whether we should
give up the regulation of groundwater and yield to EPA in order
to avoid any apparently duplication. Based on a lot of analysis
and involvement from the Commission, the Commission ultimately
decided that was not the way to go, and that in fact the two
programs are complementary. By close coordination with each
other, we can carry out our respective jurisdictions in a way
that makes sense and accomplishes both human and environmental
protection.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have additional questions I could submit in writing. I
know we have already started a roll call vote, and I wanted to
provide additional time for you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. Senator Barrasso, did you have any more
specifics you wanted to get out on that particular issue? OK.
Senator Barrasso is correct, at about 10:31, a 15-minute
roll call vote went off. So my intention is to go to about
10:41 and then adjourn and go over and vote and come back right
afterwards. My understanding, it is still only one vote. So if
that is acceptable we will go ahead and proceed here for
another 7 minutes or so, and then take a break. I would guess
we will be back in 15 to 20 minutes, something like that, from
the time we adjourn.
Mr. Woolford, could you talk a little bit about the basic
heath issues that we deal with when somebody lives near a
contaminated, abandoned uranium mine? There are children and
families in these areas exposed to contamination from abandoned
mines. Has the legacy uranium mining and milling contamination
impacted drinking water? Some of those kinds of questions. I
think it is important to just lay the general groundwater of
what has happened here on the health side.
Mr. Woolford. Thank you, Senator. The exposure could occur
via several routes. First, there could be wind-blown
contamination that could affect individuals living nearby.
There is also erosion that occurs on many of these tailing
sites, which transports the contamination to other areas. Then
we have seen that people will, children especially, will
sometimes play in the contaminated tailings that are there.
In addition, as you mentioned, there is the groundwater
contamination that can occur at the site. So I think it is
important for us to look at, examine really all three exposure
routes, from the wind, from the erosion and then from the
potential exposure to groundwater.
Senator Udall. Is it also the case that we have had homes
where they have built the homes out of material that has come
from the tailings, and therefore we have had, when I said in my
opening statement, radioactive homes, what you are talking
about, I think, is the release of radon daughters that create
radon gas. That can, if in a contained area, that would usually
disperse, but in a contained area like a home or a closed mine
without ventilation, you can have the buildup of that gas. It
is a known carcinogen, causing lung cancer. That I think has
happened in some circumstances at these sites, has it not?
Mr. Woolford. Yes, sir, precisely. In fact, EPA has gone in
and sampled several homes in the Navajo Nation. We have
demolished 34 of their homes due to the unacceptable risks that
those home pose.
Senator Udall. Was that an unacceptable risk in terms of
too high of a radiation level from the radon?
Mr. Woolford. Yes. And we have replaced 14 homes.
So yes, we have heard, as I mentioned in my opening
remarks, there are homes, hogans, et cetera, that are built
with the waste rock. We have been working with the Navajo
Nation to assess those properties, and where they do pose a
risk, then demolish those homes and replace them.
Senator Udall. And the families that have lived in those
homes for a period of time, what has been done there in terms
of evaluation of the impact on their health in these kinds of
circumstances? It takes, as I understand it, I am no expert or
anything, but if you have exposure to radon over a certain
period of time, it raises, the more exposure you get, the
higher cancer risk, lung cancer risk you have. What happens
there as far as the families and their health impacts? What is
recommended?
Mr. Woolford. Our first recommendation is obviously
disassociation from the facility. So we provided alternate
living quarters. But then we would have to monitor their
health. Precisely what is happening with respect to the
individual families, I would have to get back to you on those,
Senator, to find out what monitoring and health assessments
have been done.
Senator Udall. But it is clear that after a period of
exposure that some kind of monitoring and health inquiry should
be done to see where they are in terms of their health?
Mr. Woolford. Yes.
Senator Udall. We have reached the point where I think it
is probably best to just terminate the questioning here, and
temporarily recess while we do the vote. Then we will be back.
I apologize for that. I know that all of you are very busy in
the responsibilities that you have. But I will get over and
back as quickly as I can and look forward to continuing. Thank
you very much.
[Recess.]
Senator Udall. Thank you very much for being patient with
us on the break there. We will get going again. I think I have
been given permission by the minority staff to proceed until
Senator Barrasso either gets back here or we get other members
of the Committee here.
So we will come back into session. The Committee comes back
into session.
Let me ask a few questions here about the 5-year plans and
funding questions. I think these are basically directed to all
three witnesses. What I want to try to get at is the feel for
the funding. Where does the funding for the 5-year plans come
from in your agency budgets? What is the funding status for the
two 5-year plans in Fiscal Year 2012 and 2013 agency budgeting?
Why don't we just start with Mr. Woolford and move to your
left.
Mr. Woolford. Thank you, Senator.
As to the source of the funding for the 5-year plan within
EPA, EPA has been obligating approximately $12 million a year
for the 5-year plan. This is done through our Region IX office,
which is located in San Francisco, which has responsibility for
the Navajo Nation.
The funding comes from several line items in our budget. We
have a removal line item and an enforcement line item. Those
are the principal ones that we have. We also provide grant
dollars to the Navajo Nation as well.
For 2012, as you know, Senator, the EPA does not have a
budget yet. And so at this point in time, we cannot commit to a
particular dollar figure until we have the budget. The
President's budget has not been submitted to the Hill and won't
be until February. So there is a great deal of uncertainty,
obviously, with our budget levels and our budget authority.
Having said that, the Administration and our Administrator
within EPA has made this one of the highest priorities within
our program. So while I can't provide you a particular dollar
level at this time, I can tell you that we will do our best to
fund the work at the maximum level we can. But I just can't
commit to a particular dollar figure at this time.
Senator Udall. You are under now, just so people
understand, this 6-week continuing resolution. Do you have any
sense of, are we going to be close to the $12 million level
during the 6-week period for this, pro-rated out and all that?
Mr. Woolford. The $12 million figure is obviously for the
entire year. Our regional office has not indicated to myself, I
am one of the funding managers in the program at EPA, they have
not indicated any funding needs during this timeframe. They
will be using dollars that were appropriated in prior fiscal
years to carry them through the first quarter of this year.
Senator Udall. OK, thank you. Mr. Geiser?
Mr. Geiser. The funding for both the 5-year plan for the
Navajo Nation and the 5-year plan for grants all comes from the
legacy management budget within the Department of Energy, which
is other defense appropriations. Historically that has been
averaging about $4 million a year for the four sites we have on
the Navajo Nation. And that would be about half of the total of
about $8 million a year we spend on all the UMTRCA sites
together.
There was one exception to this. In the 2009 Omnibus
Appropriations, there was $5 million put in that appropriations
for the remediation of the Highway 160 site outside Tuba City,
Arizona. That work was just completed in August of this year.
Senator Udall. OK, thank you.
Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Senator. The NRC has a relatively
modest involvement in the implementation of the 5-year plans
because of the sphere of our responsibilities. So we don't have
a specific account set aside to support the implementation of
those. When I say modest, it really involves staff involvement
in coordination with the other agencies, and then
implementation of review activities associated with the
licensed activities that we do have responsibilities for. So it
is nowhere near as large as my colleagues have described.
But at the present time, provided the Congress enacts the
budget that the Administration has requested, we are fine with
resources.
As the workload increases or decreases, if there is more
work to be done, then provided sufficient priority, we would
use those resources and draw that away from other activities
that we conduct in the uranium recovery area.
Senator Udall. And I assume if it grew large enough then
you would just make an additional request for additional
funding to try to make sure that we got the job done on this.
Mr. Weber. NRC seldom does that. There are some unique
situations. But usually we try to make do with the resources we
have to meet the needs of the Nation.
Senator Udall. OK. Thank you all very much.
I want to ask a question about Crown Point to Mr. Weber.
Crown Point is the location of a proposed in situ leach uranium
recovery operation near the Church Rock legacy site. I
understand the NRC has set up a license for HRI at the Crown
Point site that is dependent on several conditions, including
legacy cleanup. Can you clarify the status and content of HRI's
permit at these sites and how the permitting for the four sites
is interconnected with legacy cleanup?
Mr. Weber. Certainly. The NRC ha issued the license to HRI.
They are in the process of completing some preparatory
activities that they need to conduct. So I would expect that in
the near future we would issue letter to HRI authorizing them
to proceed under their license, which had been issued some time
ago.
It is important to point out that the first activities will
take place at some distance from the local residences that
could ultimately be affected down the road, if those other well
fields are eventually developed. But at this point, they
haven't even started on their first well field that they intend
to develop. So it will be likely years before they would be in
a situation where they would operate under those conditions
which would require closure of some existing wells and
providing a suitable alternative water supply for the community
that would be most directly near where that other development
would occur.
Senator Udall. And really what we are talking about is a
community, a Navajo community of some size, for the Navajo
Nation, pulling groundwater from the aquifer there right near
Crown Point, which is fairly good water, is my understanding.
And this community has relied on that for a long time. What HRI
has done is propose to come in and do mining in that aquifer.
So you and your permit have put a number of conditions as to
status and content in their permit.
And my next question really goes to, if the requirements of
the permit were fulfilled, could the NRC and the EPA guarantee
a safe and consistent water source for the Crown Point
community? Because that is the key to them. I think that is the
big concern the Crown Point community has.
Mr. Weber. That is the requirement that is in our license
condition that applies to providing alternative water for the
local community. I would point out that in the history of in
situ recovery regulation that we have not seen a situation
where a local supply well has been adversely impacted by the
mining. We monitor those sites quite carefully. There are very
rigorous requirements that are imposed on the operators of the
in situ recovery operations.
They have seen excursions. An excursion is where an
elevated level has been detected in either a monitoring well
laterally, distant from the mine field, or above or below the
aquifer that is being mined. But then if those excursions are
detected, the licensee has to take action to correct that
situation and at the end of active mining, has to restore the
aquifer back to suitable water quality standards.
So in the situation with HRI Crown Point, the objective is
really two-fold, that before they start doing any mining, they
would have to provide that alternative water supply for the
local community. And that is a large requirement in and of
itself. But even beyond that, there would be requirements in
place to ensure that the groundwater is protected outside of
the mining zone and that when the mining, if it is conducted,
when it is completed, the aquifer is then restored to a
suitable quality.
Senator Udall. Is that what you have done at other sites
over the years, is require that, and you have been able to
establish, to some kind of scientific certainty, that can be
done?
Mr. Weber. Yes. We have approved restoration of mine fields
that are no longer in use. I would say the provision by the
licensee of an alternative water supply is unique. Typically,
the in situ recovery facilities are located at some distance
from communities. So that doesn't present itself.
But in this situation, because of the unique circumstances
involving HRI Crown Point, that was a provision in the
licensing of the facility.
Senator Udall. And I think that is one that has been
greatly appreciated by the local community that you put that in
there and that you are going to aggressively protect their
groundwater supply.
A question now to Mr. Woolford on Church Rock. Let me first
say that I applaud the EPA's recent announcement of an improved
plan to clean up the Northeast Church Rock Mine, the largest
and highest priority uranium mine on the Navajo Nation. I would
like first to get a little more information from you on the
details of this plan and the potential time line for
completion.
Could you please describe the high points of the approved
cleanup plan?
Mr. Woolford. Thank you, Senator. I would be happy to do
that.
This plan is the culmination of many years of efforts
between the EPA and the Navajo Nation and the Redwater Pond
Road community living near the site. We have held extensive
meetings with the community to come up with a remedy that we
have selected. And we believe the plan has the general support
of the Navajo Nation and the local community.
We considered 14 disposal sites. Ultimately we chose what
in concept is a pretty simple remedy to move the contaminated
waste rock and contaminated soils from the Northeast Church
Rock Mine site literally almost across the street to the UNC
site. But it is over 870,000 cubic yards of contaminated waste
rock and over 100,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil.
The cleanup will involve first and foremost working with
the community to ascertain whether the work we are going to be
doing will impact them. We will offer the community members
relocation opportunities. We will then, and that will be the
first thing that we do. So we are going to start that activity
this fall.
We then have to design the repository for the final mine
cleanup. We will be doing that in conjunction with the Navajo
Nation, New Mexico DP, the NRC, the Department of Energy and
General Electric. This will probably take about a year. So we
are looking at, that will probably take 2012 into 2013.
The NRC and the Department of Energy, DOE will be the
ultimate overseer of this remedy. So we have to work with my
colleagues from the Department of Energy to ensure that what we
are doing is consistent with their requirement and with the NRC
requirements.
We also, because this is going to a separate Superfund
site, we are working on a remedy there. That remedy has to be
selected before we can do all that?
Then we have to go through the licensing amendment process,
with the NRC. All told, we are thinking that will probably take
into 2014. At that time, assuming there are no glitches, we
will begin the cleanup process. And then we think we will
complete the cleanup actions by 2018 or 2019.
Senator Udall. I think you have said this here, but there
are two separate areas that the contaminated mine waste goes
to. I think one is offsite, which will be trucked to a licensed
disposal site. Then there will also be a disposal cell
designed.
Mr. Woolford. Yes.
Senator Udall. I want to ask a question about, to what
extent has the disposal cell been designed and how has or will
the surrounding community be involved in that decision and be
able to comment on that?
Mr. Woolford. The disposal cell has yet to be designed.
That is what we will need to work on with my colleagues to my
left, the State of New Mexico and the Navajo Nation. When the
design is completed, we will offer an opportunity for public
comment on that disposal cell. So there will be extensive, as
we committed to with our prior actions, there will be extensive
community interaction and an opportunity for community comment
on that disposal cell.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Mr. Geiser, do you have any comment on what you just heard,
or anything to add to that? Is that your understanding as to
how the agencies are proceeding on this, and specifically your
agency?
Mr. Geiser. Yes, sir. EPA approached us about 2 years ago
with the idea of combining the mining waste with the mill
waste. For the last 10 to 12 years, the Department has agreed
to accept non-mill waste in the disposal cells under certain
conditions.
So this has a precedent that we have been able to do this
in the past. This is the single largest volume of non-11(e)(2)
material that would be put in the disposal cell. We appreciate
EPA inviting us to be on the design team for the disposal cell.
We feel we have a lot of expertise to offer in that area. And
particularly since we would be the long-term manager for the
disposal cell, we are interested in making sure that design
works for the long term.
So it seems like a practical solution, and we will continue
to work with EPA and NRC on how to accomplish that.
Senator Udall. Mr. Weber, do you have anything else to add
to that?
Mr. Weber. Sure thing, thanks, Senator. As Jim talked
about, there will be a license amendment that will be required,
because it will require a revision to the reclamation plan for
UNC's tailings enpanelment. You asked about public involvement,
just like under the EPA Superfund process, there will be the
complementary process that we conduct where there will be an
opportunity for public comment. We anticipate preparing an
environmental assessment to support this revision. That would
be going out for public comment. There would be opportunities
for parties to request an opportunity for a hearing associated
with reclamation plan revision.
So there are numerous opportunities. I think it behooves
all of us to work together to do that in a collaborative way so
that we don't confuse the public and involve them and give them
more opportunities. I think we want to give them meaningful
opportunities to be involved early on in the process, as they
already have had under the EPA Superfund process.
Senator Udall. Great. Thank you very much.
A question now on the Tuba City site. And this is to Mr.
Woolford, but if any of the other witnesses have any comment,
we are happy to hear that. It is my understanding there is a
significant groundwater contamination problem at the site of
the Tuba City dump. Since 1995, there have been more than 35
studies conducted on the Tuba City open dump.
I further understand that an EPA study did not find
evidence of tailings in the dump. Can you describe the findings
of EPA's recently completed study of the Tuba City open dump
and what does the EPA believe is the source of contamination at
the Tuba City dump?
Mr. Woolford. Senator, I am not familiar with any recent
EPA study. I am familiar with a study that was conducted by the
Hopi Tribe, which they submitted to EPA in August. And that
study concluded that there was groundwater contamination
adjacent to the dump.
Senator Udall. Do you all agree with that?
Mr. Woolford. We received it in August. We are currently
reviewing it, and we have plans to meet with the tribe at the
end of October to go over the study.
We have an enforceable agreement with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs to actually conduct a comprehensive investigation and
feasibility study to ascertain whether or not the dump is
actually contaminating the groundwater. The groundwater is
contaminated. Everyone knows that. We are not 100 percent sure
of the source. That is what the RFS that we are working on is
designed to accomplish.
However, if it turns out that there is good information in
this Hopi study, we would certainly use it to accelerate our
process.
Senator Udall. Does the Tuba City open dump site pose a
threat to drinking water of the Navajo Nation or the Hopi
Tribe?
Mr. Woolford. Yes, we believe it does.
Senator Udall. And what is the plan for the remediation of
the dump, and are efforts underway at this point? What are the
remaining hurdles?
Mr. Woolford. It would be premature, we haven't selected a
remedy as yet. That is what would be the outcome of the RFS
process that we are currently engaged in with the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. So it would be premature for me to say what the
remedy would be without the completion of that study.
Senator Udall. I fully understand. Mr. Geiser or Mr. Weber,
do you have any comment on that?
Mr. Geiser. There is, both the Navajo and Hopi believe that
there was mill tailing material dumped in the Tuba City open
dump and that is the source of the uranium contamination. There
have been over 200 borings taken of the open dump. None of them
found mill material. EPA recently led an effort, about a year
ago, to excavate areas near the highest recorded uranium in the
open dump and again found no evidence of mill material.
Our belief is that the mill that operated near Tuba City,
about four miles out of town, dumped all the mill material at
the mill site, and that is now in our Title I disposal cell
there. There was also some discussion about the disposal cell
site, that contamination was migrating in the subsurface from
the disposal cell site to the Moenkopi Village wells. At the
request of the Navajo Nation, we installed additional wells, or
actually worked with the Navajo, who installed the additional
wells.
All those wells came up clean for uranium. So we don't
believe there is a hydrological connection between our disposal
cell and the Moenkopi Village wells. There is no evidence to
date that there is mill tailing waste in the Tuba City open
dump, which is closer to the town.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
One final question here, and this is a little bit different
direction, but I think it helps address the overall issue, and
that is the issue of 1872 mining law reform and potential
abandoned mine funding. The President's Fiscal Year budget for
2012 includes a proposal for fees and royalties for hard rock
mining leasing and production, similar to the process we have
for oil, gas and coal leasing. In the President's proposal,
part of the revenue would be used for an abandoned mine land
cleanup fund.
In your experience, is there a need for a reliable source
of funding for abandoned uranium mine cleanup? Mr. Woolford?
And you can answer that just yes or no if you want.
Mr. Woolford. I would say, yes, it would be nice to have,
Senator.
Senator Udall. Mr. Geiser.
Mr. Geiser. Senator, I had the opportunity to testify
before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in
March 2008 on the Department's uranium leasing program. In that
program, we do collect royalties, both a base fee and any kind
of production related royalties. The companies also have, in
lieu of payments, done mine waste reclamation on those lease
tracks. So there seems to be value in collecting those
royalties, and also other forms, financial mechanisms such as
bonds, to make sure that as the company completes their mining
activity, there is money available to do the reclamation
immediately following the end of the mining.
Senator Udall. Great. Mr. Weber, do you have a yes or no
answer on that?
Mr. Weber. Your question falls well outside of NRC's scope
of authority, so I would not offer a response.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Let me just once again thank all of our witnesses. I am at
this point going to conclude the hearing. We will keep the
record open for 14 days and will submit any further questions
in writing to our witnesses. We hope that you will diligently
work on those.
With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]