ML20031F000
| ML20031F000 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/09/1981 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Meyers S ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| REF-WM-39 NUDOCS 8110190012 | |
| Download: ML20031F000 (1) | |
Text
-
kiugyt
-h>
W /h0 A 94a/
_U LU M-M fM-SEP 0 9 1981 DISTRIBJTION:
WM-39 NMSS r/f JBMartin & r/f WM r/f RAScarano PJ1UR file EEBrowning WMUR r/f EDO r/f Mr. Sheldon Meyers WJDirck Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for JGDa -
DR ha ffer fluclear Waste Managanent & Fuel Cycle Programs A
JLinehan
['g'd NE-30 h[g)g.#Petten U.S. Department of Energy p p r. tin Washington, D.C.
20545
. 9,
Dear Mr. Meyers:
C>,.
s.v
,i During the last few months, our staffs have worked clo ly on ren(dial J action plans for the first several Uranium Hill Tailings' Remedial,Actio'n Program (UMTRAP) processing sites. Based upon this interaction"and the experience we have had in dealing with tailings at existing sites still under license, I would like to make an observation on the direction the program is taking and to offer some suggestions for your consideration.
It woul1 appear that some of the options being favored for some of the UMTRAP sites involve costs (primarily for transportation) beyond that really required for an adequate rernedial program. This may have the effect of stalling the whole program or result in not ever taking action at the medium and lower priority sites due to lack of funds.
In particular, I believe it would be desirable to re-examine the strategy in those cases where tailings must be removed from populated areas.
t l
l Based upon our experience, I would offer the following two suggestions l
vhich we have been pursuing with your staff and the field office staff.
Where tailings must be moved, move the tailings only as short a distance (a few miles) as needed to achf.tve reasonable isolation from populated areas. Secondly, consideration should be given to moving only the tailings portion. This is the material which contains the high radium content, presents the most hazard, and has in the past proved to be attractive as a construction material. This approach would still leave lightly con-taminated subsoil at the site which resulted from seepage through the l
tailings over the years. The hazard posed by this material is much lower i
than the tailings, however, and could be reclaimed in place. We have recently worked out some limits for such lightly contaminated soil. We recognize, of course, that there would probably be some land use restric-l tions required on the reclaimed site.
I hope you find the suggestions useful. We are available to discuss this in more detail at your earliest convenience.
j Sincerely, 8110190012 810909 i
PDR WASTE l
WM-39 PDR dM dh"lhM8rt,i"'.Dir*ct r c
f tes mo.!..'.I.3.'.T..'.'.. E.'.?...'.7.T.~........
.w.w.....[dfl.1.ad................
- omer, BM.s.ar..n.o.;.e n........ mDa aaDircis........
wome >
yf[/D.l.......... 31.31/U........... f/.g/. 32......... 4 /. 4 / 81...........
one>
NRc FORM 31S no-80) NRCM ONO OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usom mi meeo