ML19263D767
| ML19263D767 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/22/1979 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Jerrica Johnson HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19263D768 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904130240 | |
| Download: ML19263D767 (12) | |
Text
j#" "'%,?g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y 7 ' ~e g
WASHINGTON. O. C. 20555
(, V >
g
,~
us
(,+
t '.,
[
March 22,1979
%,.....f OFFICE OF THE CH AI RM AN The Honorable James P. Johnson United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Congressman Johnson:
We are pleased to respond to your letter of January 25, 1979. As you know, the NRC was vitally interested in the promulgation and passage of Public Law 95-604.
We feel that the bill fills the legislative gap in assuring the proper control of mill tailings; both those generated in the past and those that will be generated in the future.
In an effort to provide guidance to the industry in resolving the t !1ings problem the NRC developed perfonnance objectives for tailings management programs.
These objectives are intended to assure the proper disposition of uranium tailings and thereby not create more " inactive tailings sites" that would consume public funds.
The staff and industry have utilized these criteria to develop appropriate tailings stabilization and reclamation plans for operating and proposed new mills within NRC jurisdiction.
The Agreement States, including Colorado, have generally agreed to utilize the same cr'teria.
The Colorado Department of Health (CDH) decided to take advantage of the NRC's offer to assist in working out tailings disposal methods with the industry and requested technical assistance in evaluating all pending mill applications in Colorado, including the Ranchers' Durango project.
NRC's review of tailings management alternatives includes an evaluation of the alternative tailings impoundment sites as well as the stabilization and reclamation programs.
The efforts of the staff in the Ranchers' case were directed toward assuring that the hazards associated with the tailings pile would not simply be transferred from one location to another.
Enclosed is a copy of a December 22, 1978 letter from CDH to Ranch'ers' (Enclosure 1) containing a list of major outstanding issues to be resolved before a licensing decision can be made.
We are still prepared 'to assist the State in working out a technologically sound tailings management program for this project.
You specifically asked about the ten feet of cover " required" for the reclaime'd tailings. While CDH indicated that several feet of cover would be necessary to properly isolate the tailings from the environment, the applicant did not submit sufficient information regarding site soil 7904130 %'b
Honorable James P. Johnson characteristics to detemine the precise amount of cover that would be neces sa ry.
The NRC's draft Generic Enviroi. mental Impact Statement (GEIS) on uranium milling will recomend that reclaimed tailings be covered with a minimum of three meters of soil.
A minimum cover re-quirement will not be imposed until public review of these recomendations is accomplished.
In the interim, cover requirements will be based on site specific charactecistics of the materials proposed for use in the tailings reclamation program.
Current NRC licensing experience, obtained during site specific reviews, has indicated that between 6.5 feet and 16 feet of soil cover has been sufficient to meet NRC's performance objectives.
You also expressed concern about the economic viability of tailings reclamation programs. The NRC has received tailings impoundment area reclamation comitments from all its current licensees and applicants for new licenses that meet the perfomance objectives mentioned above.
Cover thicknesses for these programs range from 6.5 feet to 16 feet at an estimated cost of one to four million dollars (about 0.2-1.0% of product cost).
Although the applicant did not provide information regarding the costs for the soil cover for the proposed project, the NRC staff believes that the estimated cost of the cover thickness for the Durango project would have been consistent with these estimates.
You will also find enclosed (Enclosure 2) a letter from CDH to Congressman Kramer responding to the Ranchers' letter dated December 28, 1978.
We feel that the CDH letter sumarizes the situation rather well.
In sumary, the NRC staff was called upon by Colorado state officials to assist in detemining the adequacy of the Rancher's proposal.
Unfortunately, the staff was never afforded the opportunity to make this determination because the applicant failed to provide the information needed to conduct a complete review of the propos?l.
Please let me know if we can provide further information.
Sincerely, M
.44^.
y Jose >ph M. Hendrie
Enclosures:
1.
Ltr fm CDH to Ranchers' Exploration & Development Corp. dtd 12/22/78 2.
Ltr fm CDH to Congressman Kramer dtd 12/28/78
[.W?k,y;o,.. &.
l
%W '!. '
y y,,9 C O L 0 fi A D O D E P A P.TME.9 T Of HEALTH 4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE DENVER,QCl,ORADO' 807)p PHONE 320~8333 g q...
I - g G t I *f,
December 22,,-h978 O
G V
DOCYM j
05N.P,C Maxie L. Andersen, PresiJent
.Mg o E @ ?
Ranchars Exploration & Development Corp.
' g-ptA55 grat C'g g,, $;cn -
Box 6217 1776 Montano Road, N.k'.
O, s-?
Albuquerque, New Mexicc, 87107 4;g {f Tear Mr. Anderson:
l The purpose of this letter is to sumarize the review made of your responses to questions and con:nents regarding the proposed uranium mill tailings leaching operation in Durango, Colorado.
t These questions and comments were prepared by the Colorado Department of Health, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the citizens of Durango.,Several members of my staff, working full time since our meeting of Deccaber 15, have reviewed your responses to questions and comments contained in letters dated April 11, 1977, May 25, Junc 5 (two letters), June 12, June 26, July 21, August 31 (two letters), September 12, September 18 (F. M. Fox), September 20, September 29, October 6, October 23, Novecher 29, November 30, and December 18, 1978.
1:RC and EPA rcviewers have not had enough time to review adequately your responses.
liewever both agencies did provide us with some coc:nents over the telephcne.
Eased on our intensive revicu and evaluation during the past seven days the Department has concluded that the radioactive materials license for which you apptied cannot be issued prior to December 31, 1978.
We are prepared however, to announce a public hearing pursuant to the State Administrative Procedures Act indicating our intention to grant the license you have requested at such time as the items in this letter have been satisfactorily resolved.
ATTACHMEllT 1 mv i.=>.
~ ~
7.anchers Er.ploration 6 hevoIngment Corp.
FJge T#_, Decc=ter 22, 1975 1e have consolidated the comments from the various agencies into fifteen (15) major issues and have indicated their current status.
It must be noted that many of these issues involve Colorado State laws 'and regulctions which cannot be compromised for any reason.
1.
Raf.ation dose estimates to the general population due to tailincs excavation and transportation.,
This item is currently unresolved for the following reasons-
~
~
No calculations have been made by Ranchers.
a.
b.
If the dose is insignificant, it has not been documented by Ranchers.
Radiation impact must be determined prior c.
to licensure due to regulatory require =ents.
d.
i The citizens of Durango have a right to know*
what their radiation exposure vill be.
Analysis of transportation accidents, spills, collisions.
2.
and noise.
This item is cu.rently partially resolved for the following reasons:
Additional analysis must be conducted regarding the a.
impact of collision, spills and noise resulting specifically from the transportation of tailings to the Long Ho11cw site.
b.
The use of generalized Department of Transportation data is not site specific and may not reflect the actual estimated impacts.
It must be documented t~nnt noise IcVels from trucks c.
operating 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> per day, 5 days per week for 3 years will not exceed Colorado standards for noximum allowabic community noisc IcVels.
e
b.axie L. Ander:cn, Presidcnt R.nidie n I'.spinra t inn i. Dev.nepment cerp.
Page T,hree. Decc=ber 22, 1978 3.
Field and/or laboratory test data supporting theoretical calculations regarding radon and gamma' radiation retention by a 21/2 foot Lewis shale and soil cover over the tailings.
This item is currently unresolved for the following reasons:
No tests have been conducted despite specific a.
written requests from this Department contained in letters dated July 10 and October 24, 1978.
b.
Without this data it cannot be adequately demon-strated that the proposed 21/2 foot cover will be sufficient to meet regulatory requirements prior to license issuance.
4.
Additional overburden cover (i.e. 7 1/2 feet) to protect the shale cap from drying, cracking, and eroding.
i This item is currently unresolved for the following reasons:
Ranchers has indicated this additional protective a.
cover is not economically viable and would be impossibic to achieve if a profit margin is to be realized.
b.
Moner ultimately provided through a Colorado /U.S.
Department of Energy agreement could solve this prob 1cm.
HovcVer no such agreement or commitment can be made by either the State or Federal government this time or in the immediate future.
at The provision of adequate cover is essential to c.
the long term impoundment of the residues.
5.
Alternatives to the proposed project and reprocessing site.
This issue is partially unresolved for the following reasons:
The Departnent and other Colorado reviewers believe a.
this issue has been resolved by Ranchers, b.
The NRC has stated they have not fully evaluated this subject and cannot consider it resolved at this time.
This information is needed to determine if the c.
Long Hollow sfte is the one of preference.
.m Rhnchers C glere: ion & Development Corp.
Pn u Fm27 DecerJ_u: 22, 1973 g
5.
Tull year mateorological data for both Durango and Long Hollow sites.
This issue is partialls unresolved for the following reasons:
The data may be adequat e, however.it was collected a.
30 years ago (i. e. 194 6-1950).
b.
The data was submitted to the Department and NRC 4 days ago. There has not been sufficient time to thoroughly review.
No Long Hollow meteorological data has been developed c.
by Ranchers as stated in their Environmental Report (page 34).
d.
This data is essential in determining the rirborne impacts associated with operations at both sites.
7.
Decontamination and decommissioning procedures at the Durango and Long Hollow sites.
This item is currently _ unresolved for the following reasons:
No details on how the sites would be decontaminated a.
at the project's conclusion have been provided by
- Ranchers, b.
Criteria for levels of decontamination of land, water and equipment have not been provided by Ranchers.
Adequate decontamination to acceptable icvels is c.
essential to preclude having two sites with significant deposits.
8.
Quantitative analysis of leach and evaporation tank liner adequacy.
This item is currently partially resolved for the following reasons:
Review of recently submitted Ranchers data has not a.
been completed by several agencies including NRC and EPA.
(Considerable data has been submitted meeting the requirements of several state agencies.)
'b.
This evaluation of the potential impacts from non-point discharges to groundwaters is essential.
Ma::ie L..?.nder::ca, Prcs1. feat Ranchers Exploration & Devclopment Corp.
Pcge Five, Deccabcr 22, 1978 9.
Radiation protection program for plant'cmployees.,
This item is currently resolved for the following reasona:
~
The Department's prior experience with Ranchers a.
at Naturita indicates an acceptable health physics program exists.
License conditions will be used to resolve the minor matters requiring action.
10.
Environmental monitoring for radioactive and toxic materials.
This item is currently resolved for the following reasons:
The Department's prior experience with Ranchers a.
at Naturita indicates an acceptable environ = ental monitoring program exists.
License conditions vill be used to resolve the minor matters Icft to be addressed.
11.
Engineering details for tailings excavation, dust and radon release control.
This item is partially resolved for the following reasons:
Consid'crable details of excavation have been provided a.
by Ranchers.
b.
Complete resolution of.this item is dependent on adequate radiation dose estimates described in item #1.
Procedures proposed will have a significant effect c.
on the radiation and other impacts due to the project.
This is e'ssential information.
12.
Financial surety and long term monitoring and maintenance provisions.
This irca is currently unresolved for the following reasons:
No cost estimates for tailings excavation, transportation, a.
stabilization or reclamation have been provided by Ranchers.
b.
No surety or long term care agreements have been made.
License issuance is precluded until these matters are c.
resolved and provided for.
- u. i e.
ersc n, Fieside::t Ranchcr. 'xploration & Development Corp.
Pcge Six, Dece=ber 22,197S 13.
Air pollution permits.
This ite= is currer.tly unresolved for the following reasons:
a.
The permits have not been issued.
b.
Processing of the permit application is pending until Ranchers submits acceptable ambient air monitcring data, meteorological data, air pollution redeling results and c=i'ssion estimates. A request for this information was sent to Ranchers in letter dated October 13, 1978.
14.
Public hearings under the State of Colorado Administrative Procedures Act.
This item is currently unresolved for the following. reasons:
a.
A public hearing has not been held.
b.
A public hearing is required by-law and regulations.
Prior public notice of the hearing cust be made (usually 20 days).
Interp'retation of Federal law (PL 95-604, Title II) c.
as' it relates to judiciary hearings may add further requirements.
15.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) ccmmitment to provide funds for ultimate stabilization of tailings in accordance with NRC -
4.
and State of Colorado criteria.
This item is currently unresolved for the following reasons:
The procedures as stipulated in PL 95-604, Title I a.
nest be met and funded by Congress.
b.
The State Legislature has not authorized or funded the remedial program, The NRC cannot recommend approval for licensure by c.
the State if total stabilization is not guaranteed prier to the license issuance.
Should the Department issue such a license without the required guarantet it vould violate its own regulations and would require the NRC, under PL 95-604, Titic II, to regulate the tailings causig.g further delay of the licensurc of the Ranchers Durango project.
M,,M a r.
onderzuu, F:csidcr.t Ranchcrs Exploration 6 Development Corp.
Page Seven, December 22, 1978 For your internation we have calculated the cost for initial tailings excavation, transportation, stabilization and reclamation at Durango and Long flo11cw as follows:
transportarion (haulage)
$2,100,000.00 excavation 1,500,0,0.00 tailings cover:
21/2 feet 350,000.00 additional 7 1/2 fee,t 2,500,000.00 decontamination & decommissioning 3,200,000.00 (Durango site) common costs (e.g. access road, fence, interceptor ditches) 1,000,000.00 on site engineering (dust control, supervision, etc.)
850.000.00 TOTAL.
$11,500,000.00
~
Our estimate of the long term monitoring and maintenance costs is:
Option A * = 2 ft. shale, 6 inches of soil plus vegetation cost = $20,000/yr. at today's costs.
Option B * =' 10 ft. cover
$3,200/yr. at today's cost cost =
This concludes our reply to the 1ctt rc previously listed.
As soon as vc receive your response to this let:xc ue vill immediately continue the' processing of your application.
A thorcugh and scientifically accurate study and response to these itcas by your staff and consultants will significantly expedite further processing of your application.
- These estimates do not include cost of fence maintenance, fertilization vatcring, or repair of irrigation equipment, etc.
~
A corpus must be generated suf ficient to provide annual funds at the rate of 1*/. above inflation.
.r.nciers r.xp oration eve opment Co,p.
Page Eid s, Deced er ??. 1978 I wish to re-emphasize our desire to sea your project ucceed without any compromise of Federal, state or local laws and regulations.
The requirements which vc have listed for your project are the same for all Colorado uranium projects over which the Department has licensing authority Within this framework our Department will continue to cooperate and. work with you and your staff to achieve our.cutual goal of moving the uranium mill tailings out of Durango, Colorado.
If you have questions concerning this letter or need further information please contact Al llazle or Jim Montgomery of my staff.
Sincerely,
)
was W =.=
l Thomas M. Vernon, M.D.
Acting Executive Director
'nIV/JDI:els e
S e
e A
en O
i/,
V.f
..F l
.p,.i, f..v-.;,,
L C O L C.u,0 0 Pt..".Tr.:lt:T OF i: E t. i.TX 4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE DENVER, COLORADO 80220 FNONE 320-8333 January 31, 1979 Representative Kenneth B. Kracer U.S. House of Representatives Ecuse Office Building Vashington, D.C.
20515 Dear Po -----~~~'"- "------
Thank you for your letter of January 17, 1979, concerning the Durita Develop-cent Corporation's (Ranchers Exploration and Development Corporation)
Durango Project.
I will answer each of your questions in the order listed including page three of Mr. Anderson's Dece=ber 28th letter.
Written and oral co==unications with Ranchers between August and December 1978 clearly indicated several cajor environ = ental and public health issues had not been addressed or were inadequately answered.
Colorado state law and our Department's regulatiens require these issues to be fully addressed prior to a decision being cade on licensure.
Our response to Ranchers stated that the license could not be issued by December 31, 1978, because of their failure to adequately resolve these issues.
I tust emphasize the Ranchers project was never refused for licensure by us; it was near enough to conpletion before its withdrawal that we were prepared to announce public hearings uith intent to license as socn as several technical but i=portant details were provided.
The December 31, 1978, date for licensing was Ranchers' deadline, not our own, and we hope for an opportunity to continue the process in the future.
The uranium cill tailings pile in Durango is a health hazard.
The government (federal and state) cay pay for removal and final reclamation of the tailings if industry is not interested.
Governcent financing will depend on Congressional and state funding for PL 95-604, "Uraniu= Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978."
ATTACHMENT 2
- cpresent tive Nc.inc th L. T.raber January 31. 1979 Page 2 The ten feet tailings cover "requirerent" has ocen proposed in the Draft Generic Envircnrcntal Icpact StatcLeul (CEIS) cu uranium
- 1111ng (soon.
to be relcased for public co: rent by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sivu).
We beJieve at.lcast several feet of cover is necessary to isolcte the tailings f rca the environnent for 1cng periods of tice.
A cover requirement of up to ten feet is currently being applied to all companies wishing to process uraniu er uranium mill tailings in the United States.
The GEIS indicates the requiretent is economically feasible.
Ranchers of ficials claim it is not feasible for their project.
' Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials indicated they had not completed their evaluation of the proposed sitc; and alternative sites.
They were not necessarily rejecting the pre ased site.
Information necesscry to complet this evaluaticn had been requested of Rancher. by the NRC.
Page three of lir. Anderson's December 28, 1978, letter contains many adverse co= cents directed at the ITC and two NRC staff ecmbers.
These coracnts are, in our opinion, urjustified.
The conclusion recched by Mr. Anderson are unfortunctc and do not agrec with ty stcff's evaluatica of the meeting.
The URC in general and Messrs. Scarcno and Rothfleish in particulcr have provided valuable technical assistence to our Department upon request.
The NRC is one of fiftcen reviewing agencies who are asked by our Department to co= rent on specific portions of applicatiens for uranium mills.
Messrs. Scarcno and Rothfleish have devoted considerable tire and effort both in Washington, D.C. cnd Colorado studying not only the Ranchers proposal but other uranium projects as wall.
The comments rcccived frca cll reviewers including NRC are used by our Departcent in reaching a license or no liccnse decision.
For a eorc thorough response to !!r. Anderson's co: cents I suggest you contact the NRC. My staff and I would also be avcilabic to discuss the matter with you personally.
To s"--vrize, our decision to not issue the radioactive materials license on or before December 31, 1978, was based solely on Ranchers' failure to addres basic cnd crucial public health and envitcncental issues which are currently required for all uraniut processing within the United States.
As much cs ce wanted to see the project succeed, we cculd hcvc licensed it by December 31 only by severely corprctising or ignoring the 1cus and regulaticas which we, as wc11 as industry, tiust abide by.
If I can provide additional infortatier or caster nuestions concerning this letter, please contact this office.
Sinecrcly, h
Frank A. Traylcr, Jr., M.D.
Tnecutive Director Colorado DeparLrent of I!calth Fl.T: J LM: bv cc:
Joseph !!cndric. SEC bec: Tm 's Scarano, NRC
)
$ o :was f
M