ML19330C075
| ML19330C075 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/15/1980 |
| From: | Trager E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Remple L CITIZENS FOR SAFE ENERGY |
| References | |
| REF-WM-24 NUDOCS 8008070516 | |
| Download: ML19330C075 (2) | |
Text
b05' UNITED STATES
,e[ A ucg'o, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON
/
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 4 ]gg g
N.%w,/
JUL 151980
...+
Ms. Lois Remple Citizens for Safe Energy 419 Van Buren Pueblo, Colorado 81004
Dear Ms. Remple:
This is in response to your letter of June 22, 1980, concerning a proposal that a cumulative impact study be made of the potential uranium development in the 5-county area in Colorado comprised of Custer, El Paso, Fremont, Pueblo and Teller Counties.
You stated that you are specifically looking for support for the concept of the study and funding sources to enable an agency to conduct the study.
With regard to your first question, a determination concerning the need for a costly regional study would have to be based on firm infomation on the likely amount and concentration of uranium development. Although the Pikes Peak Justice and Peace Comission's paper entitled " Potential Uranium Develc mnt in Southern Colorado" does indicate large holdings y
by companies of. nds in the area, it is not clear that these holdings can be correlated with uranium development. On the basis of DOE projections as reported in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling (GEIS) it does not currently appear that uranium development in Colorado will be particularly concentrated (see GEIS, pp. 3-13 to 3-17).
In addition, the GEIS included the results of an evaluation for a case in which a concentration of uranium milling was postulated (121800-MT/ day mills within a 50-mi radius).
As a result of that evaluation, it was concluded that because impacts tend to be localized, unacceptable accumulations of radiological and non-radiological impacts are not expected to occur for cases where there will be a concentration of.
(See, for example, Sections 5.1 and 5.4 of mining and milling) activity.The cumulative effects that will potentially be the GEIS, Sumary.
most significant are socio-economic ones. Although the GEIS states that in some worst case conditions a regional approach towards mitigating socio-economic impacts may be desireable, the impacts can generally be mitigated on a case-by-case basis.
It is not clsar, and even doubtful, 8008070516
Ms. Lois Remple JUL 151990 that significant socio-economic impacts warranting a special, regional study will occur given the level of uranium development which has been projected for the region of your concern. The current situation does not call for more than the site-specific environmental assessments which I referred to in my letter of June 19,1S80. Therefore, we do not currently have a basis upon which to support the concept of your study.
With regard to your second question, we'are unaware of sources of funding for such a study if it were to be done. Please note, however, that the Congress in passage of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (Section ll4(c)) charged the 0. S. EPA with preparing a study on the potential public health, safety and environmental hazards associated with uranium mining activities. Therefore, the EPA's Office of Radiation Programs may be of assistance to you in this matter.
If you have any further questions or connents concerning this, please call me at (301) 427-4547.
Sincerely, 4.Q. hap Eugene A. Trager New Facilities Section Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch D' vision of Waste Management cc: Dr. A. Hazle, Executive Director Radiation and Hazardous Wastes Control Division, CDH
CITIZEUS FOR SAFE EMEMY
[
f)
[
'i 419 Van Buren Pu-blo, CG 81004 (303) 544-2327 pCM l
Sp g
/l &
June 22, 1980 j2 i % c S:y. y" 1
JU A0
- %Qt; 61980s, l~-
ma.y J/
i "M
1.T. Eugene /.. Trager 4
Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch
= f@N Division. of Waste 14anagement N
I Nuclear Regula tory Commission Wpshington, DC 20555
Dear 12. Trager:
Thanks for your letter of June 19, regarding a proposed study of potential uranium development in Colorado.
I'm afraid perhaps I did not make as clear as I should have' what our concerns are.
We are rw re of Colorado's strtus as an agreement state a
and we do rerlize that each individual uranium development project is subject to lic.ansing regulations and assessment.
In fact, we have testified at all the hearings so far held on the Hansen project of Cyprus 1.ines Corporation and c:<pect to testify at those to be held in the future.
That is one area of involvement f or us.
However, the potential uranium development is another matter.
We are asklng for a cumulative impact study of the entire area that has been staked out for notential development (uraniund in
, the 5-county area I rnentioned in my letter.
Dr. Traylor, of the Colorado Health Lepartment, has met with us and supports the conc ep t, as do several stste legislators, the Pueblo c.rea Council of Governments, the local health department, and others.
Ue believe that a study of the total impact should be done, rather than the crse by case evaluation that your letter mentions,
~ although the 1ctter would have to be done, too, as licenses are applica for.-
Me you familiar with the irrge, very comprehensive study that was done of the San Juan Basin in New 1.exico?
Specifically,we are looking for two things:
support for the concept of the s tudy, and funding sources, not f or our organization or the Pikes Peck Justice and Pecce Cormission, Dr.
but for the agency tha t will ultimately conduct the study.
l Ircylor s6ggested we seek funding sources and agreed to see whrt he could do.
Sinc erciv, -
c W
f4 Lois nemple dM pH on : rd Hazeitlous
'o '.3slET tbnii'roDow -, m,.o rnvLivision,~ CDH' u-_,,
e..,
c
.. m
'^
i
- _