ML20055D401
| ML20055D401 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/06/1987 |
| From: | Nussbaumer D NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA) |
| To: | Doda R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055D365 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-TUYL90-36 NUDOCS 9007060268 | |
| Download: ML20055D401 (2) | |
Text
,
/[
(<I UNITED STATES t
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$ TON Ref:
SA/JFK
_ [&g v[j i L
j-WASHINGTON, D C. 20555
-.....f
, t ( y;)
liEM0RANDUM FOR:
Robert Doda, Chief State and Governmental Affairs Staff, RIV FROM:
Donald A. Nussbaumer l
Assistant Director for State Agreements Progran Office of State Programs
SUBJECT:
CONOCO CONQUISTA TAILINGS POND This refers to a letter dated January 26, M87 from the law firm of Henry and Kelly in Austin, Texas a copy of wnich I understand you have.
This law firm states that they have been retained as legal counsel for the " Citizens for Closing the Conquista Tailing Pond."
In order to respond to this letter we ask that you look. into the following matters which are expressed in the Henry & Kelly-letter and attachments.
1.
Was the application for license renewal timely filed?
2.
Status of Texas licensing review procedure for the request for renewal.
What did the_ request for renewal ask for?
3.
Has URF0 encountered such a situation where it has authorized transfer of a uranium mill license before reclamation and stabilization was completed to a company that is not in the business of processing ore solely for its uranium content?
4.
What does the Rhone-Poulenc license allow? -Is the license for a process for extracting or concentrating uranium or thorium i
from any ore processed primarily for its source material content, or is it primarily for processing and recovery of rare earths? Do any of the waste streams contain concentrations of uranium or thorium?
5.
Is the reauest for transfer of license for the same purpose as -
originally issued?
6.
Did Texas Bureau of Radiation Control personnel evaluate the qualifications of personnel c' Conquista Project Corporation (CPC)forconductingasafetodiationprotectionprogramfor 1
9007060260 900515 i
VAN TUYL90-36 PDR bl/n a
w operating'the tailings impoundment and' reclaiming and stabilizing the tailing impoundment?
7.
Has Texas conducted a financial test of CPC (Conquista Project Corporation) to determine if the proposed new licensee has the financial' resources to complete an approved Reclamation and Stabilization of the tailing impoundment?
8..
What has been the compliance history of the Rare Earths Facility and Conoco Conquista Project?
9.
What is the chemical and radiochemical characteristics of Rhone-Poulenc's waste strean that is'being deposited in the Conoco Conquista tailings impoundment? How do these chemicals compare with the chemicals and radiochemicals introduced in the tailing pond from the waste strean of the Conoco Conquista project?
10.
Regarding 40 CFR 192 ground water monitoring, what does the ground water monitoring for the Conoco Conquista tailing pond reveal?
Is there seepage? What is the extent of the seepage?
What chemicals and radiochemicals bre present and what are the concentrations? Are the concentrations within regulatory limits of 40 CFR 192? What have been the trends over the years?
11.
Did Texas perform a technical evaluation of the proposal for disposing of wastes from the Rhone-Poulenc facility before granting permission for disposal into the Conoco-Conquista tailing impoundment?
l 12.
What is the status of the reclamation plan and. surety for the Conoco-Conquista uranium tailings pile, 1
We would like a response by February 20.-1987.
.h
&=
6onald
. Nussbaumer.
Assistant Director for State Agreements Program Office of State Programs t
..