ML19294B886
| ML19294B886 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/25/1980 |
| From: | Scarano R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Lange T AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19294B887 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-34 NUDOCS 8003060263 | |
| Download: ML19294B886 (2) | |
Text
bob w n s,ts wm-sy
- pa arcoq'o UNITED STATES
[\\
',i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g,y-qp WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 k....+./
JAN 2 51580 Mr. Timothy Lange P. O. Box 6159 Denver, Colorado 80206
Dear Mr. Lange:
The purpose of this communication is to respond to your inquiries of January 4,1980, concerning the Union Carbide Uravan eranium recovery operations. The following numbered responses address four correspondingly numbered questions.
1.
The Uravan operation was one of the first mills constructed in the U.S. and, being one of the first operating mills, its tailings management systems do not meet many of the f!uclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) performance objectives for tailings management.
Since the Uravan mill is a licensee of the State of Colorado, we do not have enough operational data to compare this operation with other milling operations.
There are presently 22 operating mills in the United States.
2.
The HRC currently spends approximately $250,000 for the environmental assessment of a proposed new mill and somewhat more for the renewal review of an operating mill where a full environmental statement has not been prepared in the past.
Recognizing both budget and staffing constraints on Agreement States, the GRC has offered to provide technical assistance to Agreement States, such as the assistance the NRC is now providing to the State of Colorado for the linion Carbide Uravan mill.
3.
Because of Colorado's A reement State status, Union Carbide is a State H eensee. Therefore, NRC contact with Union Carbide on the Uravan mill is usually through the State of Colorado. We suggest you contact Mr. James Montgomery of the Colorado Department of Health for this information.
4.
ilRCiscurrentlyawaitinginformationfromUnionCarbide(viathe State of Colorado) which will allow a full assessment of alternative tailings management schemes for the Uravan operation.
It is the opinion of the fiRC staff that relocation of the existing piles must be considered as one of the alternatives evaluated for tailings disposal and the f:RC has informed the State accordingly.
Regarding your question on leaching along the face of the mesa, it is the opinion of the flRC staff that clay caps, when properly installed, can provide a barrier to the percolation of rainwater which would be the only driving force for continued leaching over the long-term after the pile had dried out.
However, no conclusion can be reached about the Uravan piles until a full assessment has been completed.
OM2O
./
Mr. T. Lange -
5.
Until we have completed our radiological. computer assessment of the Uravan operations, and our evaluation of existing monitoring data, we cannot say whether or not the EPA 40 CFR 190 standard can be met.
6.
An amendment was passed to the UMTRCA on flovember 9, 1979, which abolished dual jurisdiction in Agreement States. At the present time, NRC has no regulatory control over the Uravan tailings. This control lies entirely with the State of Colorado.
7.
Uravan does not meet the requirements for a " uranium processing site" as specified in Title I of the Uranium Milling Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) since it has a current milling license.
It is our belief that most or all of the processing sites were designated by flovember of 1979.
However, more information on this subject can be obtained from Mr. Stephen Miller at the Department of Energy (telephone 301-252-6947).
If there are any further questions, do not hesitate to le s know.
Sincerely,
/
p.
Ross A. Scarano, Chief Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch Division of Waste Management cc: Mr. Al Hazle, Colorado Department of Health