ML20195J218
| ML20195J218 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/21/1988 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-1636, NUDOCS 8801270036 | |
| Download: ML20195J218 (148) | |
Text
- _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1) o } )nl i\\
v O
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
............... =..................................................................
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
WASTE MANAGEMENT MEETING VOLUME II O
LOCATION: WASHINGTON DC PAGES: 139 through 229 DATE:
JANUARY 21, 1988
, =
.n o' rg)W;
{;
.,,3g M
r v
i-
- y e.c.;.,
p
(' [](i t t lg
- ) !!
3 g
} y; L.
[10Nothe..,_i,tu\\lgu li
- Q' r3 r,
t Heritage Reporting Corporation Official Reporters 12 L Stree. N.W.
0; Wuninston. D.C. 20005 (2021628 4 l
'8801270036 880121 l
_T-1636 DCD
~
()
139 1
AFTERNOON SESS ION 2
(1:30 p.m.)
3 DR. MOELLER:
The meetinD will resume and we will 4
call upon paul Lohaus to introduce our next segment.
5 MR. LOHAUS:
As I indicated this morning, the Uranium 6
Recovery Field Office in Region IV carries out a major part of 7
the program of licensing and inspection for the active sites.
8 Dale Smith is Director of the Uranium Recovery Field i
9 Office, and will talk about their program.
c 10 DR. MOELLER:
Thank you.
11 MR. SMITH:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Committee 12 Members, consultants.
13 What I would like to do this afternoon is run through 14 a series of slides I have to kind of give you an overview of r
15 what we do and some of the programs that we are carrying out in 16 Denver.
And then we can get down to brass tacks and talk about 17 any of the specific questions you may have regarding 18 implementation of the programs.
19 DR. MOELLER:
Can you,-of course we heard Just before 20 lunch that the handling of the uranium mill tailings projects 21 were assigned to the regional, to the Denver Regional Office.
22 MR. SMITH:
Right.
23 DR. MOELLER:
Are all of the sites in your region or 24 they said there was one in the east.
25 MR. SMITH:
All of the NRC licensed sites are within Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
d.
i 6
..O 140 1
Region IV..There are severa1' agreements state sites that are 2
not in Region I V, and there are a couple of the Title I DOE 3
clean-up sites that are in the west but are'not within Region 4
I V, but we essentially have the responsibiilty for all of the-5
'facilicies.
6 L
MOELLER:
And what. size staff do you have?
7 MR. SMITH:
There are 17 people-in our office in 8
Danver.
9 DR. MOELLER:
Thank you.
10 MR. SMITH:
It is with a little trepidation that I 11 ask to turn the lights out immediately after lunch to show 12 slides but we will take that risk.
13 (3lides are being shown.)
14 M R.
SMITH:
So the Uranium Recovery Field Office in 15 Denvor was created in October of 1982, with the transfer of the 16 uranium recovery licensing function from the office of Nuclear 17 Material Scfety and Safeguards out te Region IV.
[
18 The De ver office was formally opened in the spring 19 of 1983 by then, Chairman Paladin. And the responsibility for 20 the uranium recovery licensing program is vested in the 21 cirector of NMSS by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 that 2F created the NRC, 23 Evo v-noagh
- , authority for the conduct of the egion I V, the director of NMSS 24 program w.<
u'
~s s
aesight through the establishment of 25 maintains e,
O Hern y;.
Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
... ~ ~ -
1 141 V
1 policy and guidance as weil as ongoing audits.
E The regional administrator ensures that activities at 3
URFO are carried out consistent with regional policies and 4
procedures.
5 I like to call this my Levi Strauss slide.
If any of 6
you, the next time you put on a pair of Levi's look at the logo 7
on the back and it shows two tean;s of mules pulling in opposit e 3
directions attempting to pull a pair of pants apart, that is me 9
down there at the bottom.
10 Shortly after we were established the inspection of 11 uranium recovery facilities was assigned from Region IV to our 12 office. And programmatic oversight for this function was (s) 13 provided by the old office of inspection and enforcement 14 through its manual chepters and periodic audits.
15 That function is now the responsibility of NMSS as a 16 result of the recent reorganization.
17 The Denver office in staffed by 17 peersons, the 18 professional staff of geologists, gechydrologists, 19 bydrologists, health physicists, and geotechnical engineers is 20 augmented by secretarial management support.
21 The staffing level of our office has remained l
22 constant sines its inception.
l l
23 The Uranium Recovery Field Office carries out a 24 program of licensirg, and inspecting uranium mills and in-situ l
l 25 mining operations.
In addition, the office participates along I
w/
I l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4889 l
l
t v.
-]
i
[
142 1
with NMSS in the review of the remedial action activities 2
carried out by the Department of Energy on inactive mill 3-tailing sites.
4
.As a service to Agreement States with uranium 5
recovery _ facilities, our office provides technical assistance 6
in the form of technical reviews, training and consultation.
7 These. activities will be discussed shortly.
8 DR. MOELLER:
Excuse me, you are looking mainly at 9
milling.
P 10 MR. SMITH:
Yes.
11 DR. MOELLER:
But you are looking at the.in-situ 12 mining.
()
13 Now, what percent cf the uranium is actually mined L
14 that way?
15 MR. SMITH:
At the present time, if you lock 16 historically the contribution from in-situ has'been relatively 17 small.
If we look to the future, we expect the contribution to 18 be major because of the high cost of uranium production when 19 you, by conventional mining means.
20 In fact, the only interest we have now in developing 21 new uranium mining activities are in the solution mining, the 22 in-situ operations.
23 D R.
MGELLER:
Nell, at the present time, you would 4
24 have undetground minos, you would have strip mines, and you E5 have in situ, what are the relative percerts production from Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 626-4888
i-f 143 1
each, Just ballpark?
2 MR. SMITH:
Again, looking historically, I would 3
guet.s that we are talking about 45 percent approximately half 4
of it from open piti approximately half from undergroundi-and a 5
relatively small percentage left over for in-situs.
6 DR. MOELLER:
Thank-you.
7 MR. SMITH:
I would l'.Re to quickly review the be.ste 8
technology of uraniurn recovery operations.
And primarily the 9
disposal of uranium mill tailings.
10 As Dr. Moeller pointed out, uranium ore comes j
i 11 generally from large scale open-pit mines, they are j
12 predominantly located in the State of Wyoming. Some mills 13 receive ore from underground mines, such as this rider one on 24 the Colorado plateau.
And most of the mines in New Mexico are 15 deep underground.
This is typical of the mom-and-pop mines 16 that were the early exploration on the Colorado plateau.
17 Basic process for extracting uranium from its parent 18 ore has not really changed much over the last thirty yea.s of 19 commerci&1 operation.
20 In this process, uranium ore is first crushed and 21 then gr>und to a fine pa-ticle size.
After mixing with water 22 and acid in the process stream, uranium is leach.ad from the ore 23 and then is chemically separated prior to drying and packaping.
24 The waste materials are known as eaanium tai.ings and 25 these are removed from the process stream.<: toe urani(m is a
h Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.. _. ~. - -,,.. -.,.. _ _.. _ _ _
\\
1 10=
144 1
being chemically separated.
2 This mill was built in the mid-1950's. It
's the 3
oldest mill in the State of Wyoming and it_uses the same acid
-4 leaching process as this more modern, largely computer 5
controlled mill built in the late 1970's.
r d Desert Basin of 6
This mill is located in the e
7 Wyoming and the 7,iajor difference between the mills of the early 8
' 50's and those of the late ' 70's lie in improved technology of 9
uranium extraction, improved worker health and safety and 10 better uranium mill tailings disposal.
11 And we will now focus on this latter point.
12 DR. MOELLER:
Now, you say that they are computer 13 operated, do they use robotics to any degree?
14 MR. SMITH:
Not to any degree, it is a modern
{
15 chemical processing plant. A lot of the functions feedback into I
16 computers for monitoring purposes, 17 DR. MOELLER:
Okay.
t I
18 MR. SMITH:
Tailings produced by milling processes 19 are typically about 50 percent sci 1s and 50 percent liquids.
20 And consequently they are transpe ed as a slurry through large 21 hoses for discharge into -an impouniment as shown here.
22 And when discharged as waste the tailings separate 23 naturally into three cor,ponents, A coarse fraction which we 24 call sandst a fine fraction called slimesi the process 25 water or liquor.
And as shown here, the slimes traction of O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
1
1 I
l gO 145 1
tailings has a si Dnificantly higher level of radioactivity than 2
the sanas fraction and this is due to the higher concentration 3
of radium 226, in the slimes.
4 DR. MOELLER:
Encuse me, > Shen you say it naturally 5
separates, one floats and one sinks or something like that?
6 MR. SMITH:
No, the method of discharge through a 1
l 7
spigot out onto the beach, the heavy particles tend to drop out 8
of that fluid stream first.
9 DR. MOELLER:
Close-in?
10 MR. SMITH:
Close-in and the finer particles are 11 carried more to the center and by locating the spigot around 12 the perimeter of the pond, they buildup a beach that always has O
k/
13 this gentle slope towards the center.
14 So the slimes congregate in the center and that is 15 where the radioactivity concentrates because that is where the 16 radium is.
17 DR. MOELLER:
And you called it, this was the sand 18 and what was the previous one?
19 MR. SMITH:
Slimes.
20 DR. MOELLER:
What is the third?
i 21 MR. SMITH:
Liquor or liquid.
22 DR. MOELLER:
Fine.
23 DR. STEINDLER:
I guess I have got a couple of 24 questions.
25 MR. SMITH:
Sure.
q i
QJ l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4838 L
i
/~T
\\-)
146 1
DR. 5 TEINDt.ER:
Is the segrepation of radium into the 2
slimes an obvious chemical process or is this largely ill-3 defined, or what is the cause?
4 MR. SMITH:
I suspect that it has more to do with 5
absorption and particle size than it does with chemistry. The 6
slimes are very fine particle size, they are a clay-like 7
consistency and I suopect that has as much to do with it as 8
anything as well as the solubility of radium and radium 9
cor.' pounds and they would go with the water and end up with the 10 slimes.
11 Tailings impoundments are of three general types.
12 Those that are constructed by, created by constructing an
(')
\\/
13 embankment across a natural basin or drainage area. And there 14 are those that are created by constructing an above-grade 15 engineered cell, and unfortunately in a few locations in New 16 Mexico, deposition is directly on the surface as a free-17 standing pile.
18 Now, the first type is by far the most common.
19 Here we have got an aerial view of a tailings 20 disposal area that is created by impounding a natural drainage.
21 You can see several characteristics of such impoundments.
One 22 is the beach, that is created by the sands as they are 23 deposited and then the slimes or finer materials are deposited 24 in the general ponding of water. And now, as this pond is 25 filled up and operations cease at this mill, the pond will f3
\\)
Heritage Reporting Corporativn (202) 628-4888 i
l 7
147 1
begin to evaporate and the water will be eliminated and that 2
will be the first step toward closure.
3 DR. MOELLERi Now, what, that is an artificial bed or 4
excavation?
5 MR. SMITH:
Right, it is -- there is some excavation 6
' work here but this general area through here-is a natural 7
drainage basin and they created a dam across the lower edge of 8
that and there has obviously been some excavation here for 9
increasing the capacity.
10 DR. MOELLER:
Well, now, if they ran the tailings, 11 looking toward the future, into an excavated pit, such as that 12 and then put six or eight feet or some meter or two or less of 13 uncontaminated relatively speaking soil, on top, you would not 14 have too bad a situation.
15 MR. SMIYH:
The problem is that with this kind of 16 location it is built in a natural drainage basin.
And heavy 17 rainfalls tend to concentrate it. It is by our current criteria 18 it is not an acceptable site.
But our current criteria post-a 19 dated the building of almost all of the mills we have.
20 Through uranium recovery field office we license and i
21 regulate -- I apologize for the distortion of the short angle 22 lens -- we licensu and regulate 20 uranium milling facilities 23 in Wyoming, Utah, South Dakota and New Mexico.
24 At the present time, there are only four mills that 25 are in operation out of those 20 and 16 of them are shut down.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
(
148
,1 One of the operating mills is in Utah, two-are in Wyoming and 2
one is in New Mesico.
And I think, in addition, there is one 3
mill-in Texas which is an agreement state which is still 4
operating under limited capacity.
5 And but every one of the dots on the riap represents a 6
site of interest to the NRC and in some cases to DOE because 7
some of those are the Title I sites.
8 There is a considerable variation between the 9
environmental conditions in the uranium mining areas such as-10 the canyon lands of southeastern Utah, and Shirley Basin in 11 Wyoming, the Red Desert of Wyoming and the Gas Hills of Wyoming 18 and also the New Mexico desert.
13 There are some very broad similarities among these 14 sites.
For example, all NRC licensed mills are located in 15 remote, sparsely populated areas. And there are no NRC licensed 16 mills within 75 miles of a city of 50,000 or greater r
17 population.
18 Most are at least 30 or 40 miles from a city of.
j 19 10,000 to 50,000 population. For example, Casper, Wyoming is 20 the largest city in the Wyoming uranium milling area, that NRC 21 regulates and it has a current population of about 49,000 I
22 people.
23 Climatic conditions out in this part of the country 24 are generally harsh.
Annual precipitation is in the range of f
25 only 6 to 12 inches. Winters, especially in Wyoming may begin l
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888
r G
(j) 149 1
in October and often last well into May.
Wind speeds are 2
typically high and contribute to a high rate of 3
evapotranspiration.
Soils are generally thin and poorly 4
developed.
5 The major issues beinD dealt with by URFO through our 6
licensing activities area one, ensuring the safe operation of 7
those facilities that are still in operationi the controlled 8
maintenance of those that are temporarily shut downl and the 9
decommissioning and reclamation of permanently closed 10 facilities.
11 Now, while our program of in-house reviews of license 12 amendment applications and operating and environmental data (3
N/
13 helps us to ensure that operations are being conducted in 14 accordance with NRC rules and license requirements.
And it is 15 our program of routine and special inspections in the field 16 that rounds out our efforts to ensure compliance.
17 Each uranium recovery facility is routinely inspected 18 at least once a year.
In addition to review of records and 19 data, our inspectors observe operations and make independent 20 measurements.
Special inspections are conducted to investigate 21 unusual occurrences.
22 As a part of the license program at mills, 23 environmental monitoring stations are established that measure 24 both direct and airborne radioactivity at NRC licensed mills.
25 DR. MOELLER:
Can you operate those or --
O Heri age Reporting Corporation (202: 628-4888
i (3
150 N) 1 MR. SMITH:
No, these are operated by the licensee 2
as part of the requirements in his license. We do independent 3
measurements as a part of our inspections.
4 D R.
MOELLER:
And they give you an annual report?
5 MR. SMITH:
A semi-annual report of environmental 6
conditions at the mill.
7 DR. STEINDLER:
There is no independent check?
8 MR. SMITH:
We do independent checking on a periodic 9
basis with our inspection activities.
We will go out and take 10 a confirmatory water sample, soil samples, spot check air 11 samples.
12 We have an extensive program of groundwater and pond b
x/
13 water sampling to provide en inde. pendent check.
14 DR. MOELLER:
Now, in one of the background documents 15 that was provided to un, was a staff technical position for 16 environmental monitoring of the low-level waste si'e.
c 17 And does that apply to this or do you have your own?
18 MR. SMITH:
We have our own.
19 Generally similar but there are --
20 DR. MOELLER:
Could we see that some t ime?
21 We would like to see it.
22 MR. SMITH:
Okay.
23 DR. MOELLER:
Those are not solar collectors or --
24 MR. SMITH:
This is an interesting site.
This is one 25 up in Edgemont, South Dakota.
And those are solar panels, 7sd Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-+888
[
p.(
151 1
D R.
MOELLER:
Okay.
2 MR. SMITH:
That were used to provide remote power,to.
3 air sampling equipment and things like this.
I don' t know, 4
.maybe our friends from DOE.in the back of'the room can explain
~
5 how that energy grant was given to TVA but -- do you know 6
anything about it, Jim?
7 Gkay, I will pass on that.
But I will tell you those 8
are solar powered remote stations.
9 DR. MOELLER:
Thank you.
10 MR. SMITH:
And the Prairie Dog hunting -- I have to 11 digress Just a minute about TVA/Edgemont and their prairie dogs 12 up there, there are a lot of prairie dogs in that part of the 13 country and there was a suspected sighting of a black-footed 14 ferret. The suspected sighting was scatological and I don' t 15 know, green eyes looking out instead of blue, whatever.
16 It became quite an issue because black-footed ferrets 17 are extremely rare and so now, along the haul road, where all 18 the big trucks go, are big signs warning the truck drivers to 19 look out for the black-footed ferrets and along the side of the 20 road are low-slung fences to try to impede the traffic of the 21 black-footed ferret, if indeed, there is one.
22 I suspect no prairie dog hunting had more to do with 23 them being afraid of somebody shooting up their solar panels 24 but prairie dogs are feed for the black-footed ferret and we
[
25 don' t darn endanger them.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (re2) 628-4888
L
()
152-1 Our regulations require that off-site doses be 2.
limited to 25 millirem per year to any individual.
3 DR. MOELLER:
Now, that is, you are following the s
4 ETA 5
MR. 9MITH:
That is essentially the epa 40 CFR 190 6
provision.
7 DR. STEINDLER:
Is that a fence-pout, dose?
8 MR. SMITH:
Is that a what?
9 DR. STEINDLER:
Is that a fence-post dose?
10 MR. SMITH:
Yes.
No, it is not fence-post, it is 11 nearest individual.
12 DR. STEINDLER:
Nearest individual?
13 MR. SMITH:
Yes, and in some places the nearest 14 individual may be 10 miles away but it is not a fence-post.
15 dose.
16 DR. MOELLER:
Yes. it is the maximum that any 17 individual can receive.
18 DR. STEINDLER:
Yes, and that has been interpreted in 19 many cases as being a fence-post.
20 D R.
MOELLER:
That is true.
21 MR. SMITH:
In some of our situations, I guess it i
22 would be a fence-post dose particularly if there were people in l
23 proximity to the site.
And or a mill is located, where many of 24 these are, the nearest habitation may be five or 10 miles away.
25 In which case, they take that into consideration.
f l
H tritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
I I--.
1
()
153 l
1 DR. STEINDLER:
Now, there are other standards that 2
then govern how much activity can be thrown out of the stack or 3
-whatever?
4 So that you don' t have a plume. that ends up at 25
'i 5
millirem 10 miles a.ay but in the interim from the plant to 6
that 10 mile away, you have got an enormous amount of activity 7
spread all over the ground?
8 MR. SMITH:
No.
9 There are two considerations. One is F-lant (sic) 10 limits measured at the stack, 10 CFR part 20, with the layer 11 applied and they generally govern, but in looking at the things 12 that aren' t etack controlled and I am bypassing radon 13 momentarily but direct gamma from the_ piles and things like 14 that as well as the exposure.
15 All of these things are calculated to ensure that no 16 one does rece.'ve the 25 millirem dose.
17 DR. STEINDLER:
In 10 CFR 20, am I not correct, 10 18 CFR 20 does not deal with stack emissions.
Those are --
l 19 DR. MOELLER:
They are the release rate to the air i
20 and water.
El MR. SMITH:
There are two ways of measuring, for 2R example, airborne concentrations from part 20, and one is to go l
23 out to the edge of the restricted area and soraehow measure 24 across a wide profile.
f 25 The simple thing to do is to go back to the stack and
{
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
/~T) 154 1
measure and we haven' t, we don' t have any situations where you 2
have to calculate for dispersion and that sort of thing.
3 We control it as the stack so that off-site dosage 4
are pretty well under control.
5 DR. MOELLER:
The 10 CPR 20 liquid and gaseous or 6
airborne releases are set at 10 percent of the worker limit so 7
that on the old idea that no member of the public shall receive 8
more than a half of the rem per year.
9 A quick one on this, now do you have a release limit 10 for Radon from a stack and if so, what is it?
11 MR. SMITH:
The part 20 limits are three peco curies 12 per liter at the site boundary --
O k/
13 DR. MOELLER:
The concentration at the site boundary 14 should not exceed -- do you have a limit of concentration 15 coming right at the stack?
16 MR. SMITH:
No.
17 DR. MOELLER:
What are --
18 MR. SMITH:
Again, si r, we if we are measuring at a 19 stack, that i s, the first test we will put it to and if it 20 meets that then we don' t worry about the, you know, we know the 21 concentrations by dispersion are going to be less.
22 DR. MOELLER:
What are some typical concentrations of 23 radon you see leaving the stack?
24 MR. SMITH:
I don' t have those numbers handy, I will i
25 get back to you on that.
,~
g
\\-)
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
155 1
DR. MOELLER:
Okay, I would be interested in that.
2 Now, in terms of EPA's 40 CFR 190, it is 25 millirem whole 3
body and 75 thyroid and now, what is it, for the lungs due to 4
5 MR. SMITH:
40 CFR 190 does not apply to radon.
Is 6
that right?
7 DR. MOELLER:
Okay.
8 MR. SMITH:
Okay, I am getting the right kind of nods 9
back there.
10 DR. MOELLER:
All right.
11 So when you, so that is exclusive of radon?
12 MR. SMITH:
That is exclusive of radon and --
\\_/
13 DR. MOELLER:
And the radon is limited by this other 14 thing of three curies per liter at the boundary.
15 MR. SMITH:
Right.
16 DR. MOELLER:
Okay.
17 MR. PARKER:
If 191 remand applied, eventually 18 applies to everything else, would you have any problems meeting 19 those kinds of limits, do you think?
20 MR. SMITH:
Which limits are those, sir?
21 MR. PARKER:
Four millirem per year.
22 MR. SMITH:
I think that we have some operating mills 23 that would have difficulty, I mean, mills were they in 24 operation, that would have difficulty meeting a four millirem e
25 level.
(m)
Lj Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.~
t 156 1
DR. MOELLER:
Okay.
2 MR.-SMITH:
NRC licensed uranium mills don't 3
discharge any liquid affluence from their sites to surface 4
waters.
5 Recently established EPA standards and subsequently 6
our regulations require that all new impoundments and all i
7 expanded areas of existinD impoundments must have a' liner that 8
will prevent any migration of. waste out of the impoundment 9
durinD its active li.e.
10 Even before the EPA requirements, the NRC required 11 all new impoundments licensed since 1977 to br lined either 12 with synthraic or natural materials. Synthetic liners have been 13 in place at two NRC licensed mills with mixed results.
14 This liner performed well when first installed 15 however, a combination of inadequate maintenance and harsh 16 weather conditions led to tears in the liner and eventual loss 17 of integrity.
18 Recognizing that synthetic liners may fail or that 19 existing impoundments may leak, current EPA standards and NRC's 20 conforming regulations include provisions for groundwater 21 compliance monitoring programs at all the licensed mills.
22 Such programs are intended to control groundwater 23 contamination due to the presence of hazardous constituents in 24 quantities above background levels.
25 Implementation of the recently required groundwater O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
m I
()
157 1
protection requirements has been considerably aided by the fact 2
that all NRC mills have long had a r.etwork of monitoring wells 3
which are sampled at least quarterly to detect evidence of 4
seepage from impoundments.
5 MR. PARKER:
Is the RECRA requirement --
6 MR. SMITH:
They are RECRA related, I think in 7
Giorgio's presentation this morning, he mentioned they are 8
RECRA compatible which is what epa was directed to do.
They do 9
not encompass the entire RECRA regulation, only pieces and 10 bits.
11 Monitoring determines that hazardous constituents 12 are, in fact, present in unacceptable quantities and corrective O
f ks#
13 action programs would be required. Such programs, once 14 implemented would have as their goal a return of groundwater to 15 background quality.
16 Mitigative actions already in place at NRC licensed 17 mills include aquifer withdrawal and pumpback systems. Another 18 mitigating --
19 DR. MOELLER:
Excuse me, what is that box?
20 MR. SMITH:
In this we are located down radi. tnt from 21 a mill and the general flow is from this direction and there 22 are a series of large walls that have been introduced into the 23 seepage plume from that mill, from that pond, and these pumps 24 here house pumps for 25 DR. MOELLER:
This is the sampling monitoring?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
=
f
~158 i
1 MR. SMITH:
Well, this is a pumpback well, this is 2
actually withdrawing water from that aquifer and returning it 3
back to the pond.
4 And we do this in two phases. One is that during 5
oper.stions we are attempting to hold the line if you will, and 6
not allow the seepage to go beyond this hydraulic barrier and 7
then ultimately then we need to cause actions to get rid.of the.
8 water that is in the pond so that we don' t have an endless 9
cycle of pulling it out of the ground and putting it back in 10 the pond.
11 DR. MOELLER:
From what you said, it would rapidly 12 dry.
13 MR. SMITH:
It would rapi6ly dry and we do things to 14 help that out.
i 15 DR. STEINDLER:
How effective have these measures 16 been?
l 17 MR. SMITH:
The; have been moderately effective. I 18 can' t say that they have been absolutely effective but the 19 groundwater pumpback systems have been substantially effective, 20 particulary in the areas where we get it early. There are some l
21 areas that simple pumping has not done the Job and they have 22 actually dug interceptor trenches down to through bedrock and 1
23 are co1lecting and pumping in the trenches.
l l
24 Another scheme uses a little imagination, and this is t
l 25 a collection sump of what amounts to a very large French drain l
v l
Heritage Reportinh Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
T O
>=e 1
along the down gradient edge of this tailings impoundment.
2 And --
3' D R.
STEINDLER:
Excuse me, how deep are those wells?
4 MR. SMITH:
It depends on the individual 5
DR. MOELLER:
They are not too deep.
6 MR. SMITH:
They are not too deep, they are probably-7 in the first hundred feet of the surface in most cases.
8 DR. STEINDLER:
But if you happen to be tapping into 9
a giant aquifer you could be Just drying it u p.
10 MR. SMITH:
Well, if it were a giant aquifer you 11 could not pump enough water. If it is a little aquifer, the 12 insult of the contaminants is greater and you have more reason 13 to pump it.
14 To monitor the effectiveness of these systems and 15 find out whether they really are working, we long have had a 16 network of monitoring wells that are sampled at least quarterly i
17 to detect evidence of seepage and the effectiveness of our 18 pumpback systems.
19 DR. STEINDLER:
What is it that you are looking for, 20 are you looking for radium or are you looking for uranium, or 21 what are you seeking?
22 MR. SMITH:
The epa standard that we recently 23 implemented says that we have to do two things with the 24 monitoring. One determine whether or not the pond is leaking at 25 all.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
3(G 160 1
And to do that we look at mobile species and 2
parameters that would indicate, be an early indication of 3
leakaDe. We have chosen in most cases, arsenic and selenium and 4
we also look for a decrease in ph, since most of these are 5
acidic ponds.
6 Once we see that and we think that we have a leakinD 7
pond, epa has provided us a grocery list of 375 constituents to 8
choose from and look for, some of which can' t exist in s
9 groundwater and many of which there are no analytical 10 procedures to measure.
l 11 But there they are.
f 12 We have conducted a comprehensive orogram of pond 13 sampling to try to narrow down and winnow that list to those 14 things that we think are the most logical things to look for.
15 And in addition to arsenic and selenium we find a 16 wide assortment of heavy metals, cadmium, lead, molly, things 17 like that. The radioactive species you would expect, the radium 18 226, and thorium compounds, a little bit of uranium, the system 19 is not 100 percent efficient.
20 Very seldom any organics. There may be some kerosene 21 type of compound or something they use in salt and extraction 22 process but essentially we are talking about native heavy 23 metals that you would find in ore.
24 And those are the things that would call for some 25 sort of corrective action program.
And as a complement to this
\\
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 f
1
(
()
-161 1
mitigation system we required things like enhanced evaporation 2
where.the pond, the groundwater as it is being pumped out of 3
the ground instead of simply being returned to the pond to 4
percolate again, goes through sprayer systems, and it does a j
5 couple of things for us.
6 It helps evaporate water and it also helps keep that 7
sandy beach area dampened so that there is less dispersal by 4
8 wind.
9 And these kind of systems can evaporate considerable 10 amount of water and are very inexpensive to create and operate.
11 Mills have all kinds of pipe laying around and this system 12 here, which turned out to be highly effective, has, you know, a
(
13 series of 98 cent sprinkler heads that you would put on your
~
14 lawn, innovative but it works.
15 And we find this to be a great adjunct to our other l
16 systems to keep the water lovels down.
17 Our regulations also contain requirements for post-4 18 closure period following the cessation of operations and 1
~
19 reclamation of the site.
20 DR. MOELLER:
Now, that is tailing pile behind us 21 there?
i 22 MR. SMITH:
Yes, that is a tailing pile behind this i
23 mill and this is an old out of commission mill in central
{
24 Wyoming and the American Nuclear Mill and our -- we are dealing
)
25 now with many such old facilities where the mill has to be torn l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~
9
, r-():
162 1-down and the tailings pile reclaimed.
2-And our requirements are intended to ensure control-3 of radiological hazards for a thousand years to the extent that 4
that is reasonably achievable, and in any case, two hundred 5
years.
6 Now, examples of measures to ensure stability are 4
7 recontouring of the oile and use of rip-rap to resist water 8
erosion, engineered channels to divert flood waters from 9
reclaimed tailings and establishment of native vegetation on 10 reclaimed areas.
11 Most of our tailings piles that we regulate will be 12 reclaimed in place.
However, at least one NRC licensed
'( )
13 facility, Edgemont, South Dakota, they are moving all of their 14 tailings to newly constructed di'aposal cells nearby.
15 Our regulations also require that post-closure radon 16 releases to the atmosphere will be limited to 20 pCi/m2/second.
17 Now, achievement of this standard will be affected by placement 1B of several feet of earth or other materials in a tailings 19 reclamation cover.
20 These longevity requirements do not, however, apply 21 to any portion of a site that contains radium 226 22 concentrations below those allowed by our standards.
And 23 Giorgio mentioned this morning a concentration of 5 pCi curies 24 per gram in the upper 15 centimeters and 15 below that.
25 And for example, the land surface under and around O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
rm
(_)
163 1
the partially decommissioned mill will be surveyed and those 2
areas above radium concentrations will be excavated for 3
disposal.
4 As mentioned earlier and the DOE people will explain 5
in more detail as will Mike Kleigle, uranium recovery field 6
of fice does participate with NMSS in carrying out NRC's 7
responsibilities under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation 1
8 Control Act of 1978.
9 Under this Act, the Department of Energy in 1
10 cooperation with States and Indian Tribes designates inactive 11 uranium processing sites such as these at Mexican Hat, Utah, 12 and Monument Valley, Arizona, -- I have to throw in pictures of l
(~JT N
13 tailings once in a while, you know, you get the government to l
l 14 pay for these pictures.
l 15 (Laughter.)
16 MR. SMITH:
In addition, DOE selects and performs 17 remedial actions at these sites and they also conduct cleanup 18 of nearby and off-site properties.
19 The NRC's role is to concur in the designation of 20 sites and remedial actions to ensure compliance with 21 appropriate epa standards. Remediated sites are monitored and 22 maintained by DOE under a license issued by the NRC. And 26 23 siter, were designated for remedial action and over 5,000 or so 24 vicinity properties were identified for study and cleanup as 25 necessary.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation f
(202) 628-4888
()
164
\\m/
1 Remedial actions have been c..Mpleted at Cannonsburg, 2
Pennsylvania, and Shiprock, New Mexico, and construction is 3
currently under way at Galt Lake City, Utah.
4 DR. MOCLLER:
What depth of rock is that?
5 (1R. SMITH:
Shiprock must have what, four feet?
6 MR. SOLLENBERG No, the rock I think is only 12 7
inchets or 14 inches.
O MR. SMITH:
Okay.
3 We are working at Salt Lake City, and this proJoct is 10 essentially done and Lake View, Oregon and Durango, Colorado.
11 Construction is anticipated to commence in 1987 at Tuba City, 12 Arizona and also at Riverton, Wyoming.
( )/
x-13 DR. STE1NDLER:
How did you select the sites?
14 MR. SMITH:
Parden?
15 DR. STEINDLER:
How did y$u select these sites to 16 start out with, since, you have such a large number?
17 h R.
SMITH:
I think that Jim Curry and his folks will 18 explain that in more detail, they were selected on a priority 19 basis and designated as such.
20 DR. MOELLER:
Tell me again, you had said that there 21 were 20 operating or how many mills were there that you are 22 dealing with in toto?
23 MR. SMITH:
Okay, I will play the numbers game again 24 with you.
25 There are approximately 20 mills that are considered O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
()
165 1
to be active mills in that they have NRC licenses in effect.
2 And in addition to that, there are some 8 mills located in 3
agreement states that are under agreement state Jurisdiction.
4 And 5
DR. MOELLER:
And are any of those now being 6
remediated?
7 MR. SMITH:
Yes.
8 There are approximately three of those are under 9
active remedial action at the present time.
10 So that gets us up to about 28 that bear either a 11 state license or a Federal license.
In addition there are 12 these some two dozen, 26 I think it was, abandoned sites, the 13
. inactive sites for which DOE is responsible. So roughly half of 14 the sites are under our direct jurisdiction and half of them 15 are the responsibility of the DOE.
16 DR. MOELLER:
All of these you have shown us are 17 abandoned sites, the ones where you are doing actually --
18 MR. SMITH:
These last few here.
Some of those 19 earlier pictures were from active sites.
20 DR. STEINDLER:
Did somebody in your organization 21 calculate what would happen if you did not do anything to any 22 of them?
23 MR. SMITH:
Not in our organization but EPA did in 24 their environmental impact statement to establish standards.
25 There were a couple of kinds of numbers that came out Heritage Reporting Corporation 1
I (202) 628-4888
O tes-1 of that.
One that I recall was that the -- in the do-nothing 2
alternative, that they corsidered, the lifetime risk cancer 3
risk to a resident living within 600 meters of a pile, was 1 in 4
50 to 1'in 100.
5 After remediating to the EPA standards, their 6
estimate was that the lifetime risk of that same person would 7
now be 1 in a 1,000.
8 They also estimated at that time, there were only 30-9 such people to be_ protected.
10 Now, there are other calculations that deal with -- I 11 had better be careful how I express it -- but the concept of 12 multiplying very small doses by very large populations, and
)
13 those numbers came up, I think depending on whose numbers you 14 like, anywhere from three to six impaired health effects on the 15 North American continent per year.
16 Do I have my numbers straight.
Okay.
17 DR. STEINDLER:
Three to six buried in a statistic of 18 what, 500,0007 19 MR. SMITH:
Well, there are 2 million people die 20 every year in the United States.
21 MR. PARKER:
And weren' t those based upon a gross 22 over s he by EPA?
I mean Just that they are their 23
- meaav,
". :n?
24 MR. SMITH:
I cannot comment on that.
I would not be 25 surprised.
But --
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
. - -, ~ ~
, _, _. ~..
167' 1
MR. PARKER:
Isn' t that detailed-in the National 2
Academy of Sciences report on uranium mill tailings that was 3
Just recently issueG7 4
MR. SMITH:
Thank you for the comment.
1 5
Okay, we are in Tuba City, Arizona.
The most 6
interesting thing about Tuba City, I have got to tell you this, 7
is that the Navaho Indians and the Hopis have been arguing over 8
land for several hundred years and there is a lot of bitter.
9 acrimony and-Tuba City happens to be in the disputed land that 4
10 both the Navaho Nation and tNi Hopi Tribe claim.
11 And the interesting thing is that whenever DOE has a 12 meeting, in comes Tommy Degay from the Navaho Nation and Leroy 13 from the Hopi Nation with their arms around each other and they 14 are fully united to see that the Federal Government does this.
15 right whoever enos Tip with it, so that is one of the fun 16 things.
17 Okay, back to the things that we do, we do some 18 construction reviews during the construction of these piles to 19 ensure that remedial actions are performed in accordance with 20 the approved remedial action plars.
21 DR. MOELLER:
How do you get the rock there?
22 MR. SMITH:
Oh, this is a good one.
23 This is the best project that DDE has because the 24 tailings pile sets on an escarpment right above the river and 1
25 it is an alluvial wash and they had to haul those rocks all of 0
l l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l
()
168
\\_/
1 a quarter of a mile and the quarry for the rocks was 2
immediately behind the tailings pile.
3 It also worked out real nice because over on the 4
other side was suitable soil for the radon barrier and the 5
Navaho engineering company that was doing the construction work 6
carefully excavated the area so that it now is going to be 7
probably the site for the northern Navaho Nation Tribal fair 8
every year, is going to be the new fairground.
9 So it worked out to be an excellent payoff in that 10 respect and it was nice that there were a lot of durable hard, 11 big rocks very close by.
12 (Continued on the next page.)
p)
(-
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 i
20 21 22 23 24 n
25 U
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
y 3-
- ~
169 1
DR. STEINDLER:
I have another question.
You'have 2
-an average rate for throughout some of these areas that seem 3
fairly modest if not trivial.
And then in some of the remedial 4
measures you talk about floods.
Can you-somehow-convince tae 5
that, the kind of floods that I'm used to in the Midwest which 6
come out of a lot more rainfall than you' re talking about, are 7
useful to consider here?
8 MR. SMITH:
Probably not.
But let me explain what we 9
have done in the past.
You notice one very large diversion 10 ditch, and that happened to be in the Red Desert where the 11 annual rainfall is at the lower end of that six inches.
12 But in postulating what the maximum rainfall might
' ()
13 be, the so-called probable maximum precipitation, spread over 14 that area and creating a maximur.: flood, that particular site 15 happened to be located at the confluence of a large collection 16 area.
17 So, postulating a very extreme rainfall over a very 18 short period of time came up with.a very large erosive flood.
19 So it's not the, you know, the snow melt on the upper bounds of 20 the Mississippi kind of thing, it's the gully washer, sudden 21 destructive kind of precipitation.
22 The best recent example, if you are familiar with the 23 Big Thompson flood in Colorado which happened eight or 10 years f
24 ago, up near the Continental Divide over Estes Park, around 25 Estes park is the major collection basin for this river.
And Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l
(
170 th'y had a rainfall event thatLlasted a short time, I think it 1
e 2-was only a matter of an hour or so, that was coming very close 3
to the probable maximum precipitation.
4 It lit'in this very large basin, was channeled down 5
into this very narrow canyon, killed, I don' t know, a dozen, 6
two dozen people.
Washed out the road, took all the cabins 7
out.
It was that sort of very sudden insult that we 8
contemplate in our flood evaluations.
9 MR. PARKER:
I want to mention, Marty, that 10 hydrologist use as the maximum flow comparison to the lowest 11 flow in the stream.
And something like the St. Lawrence would 12 have something like say, 0.1 or 0. 2.
Streams out there will be v
13 200 up to 1,000 in the maximum flow.
It's typical pattern of 14 the flows out there.
15 MR. ORTH:
Yes.
Also having been out there during 16 some of those events, what happens is that there may be a dozen 17 inches of rain a year, and six inches of which fall in one 18 thunderstorm.
And if you' re downstream from it you have a 19 problem.
20 DR. STEINDLER:
We are much more sensible in our 21 area.
22 MR. SMITH:
This is a Colorado mill that we have been 23 providing some technical assistance to the state.
This is the j
24 upper portion of the old Uravan Mill operated by Union Carbide.
l 25 The large tanks are thickeners.
They' re about the l
fgU
{
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
-... - -. _ _. - - -..-.~._.. - _.. _,... _ _. _. _... ~.,. - _. _.. _, _. _ -,- _, - - -.
()
171 i
same thing you use in sewage treatment plant, if you will.
The 2
last vestiges of chemicals and activity are washed off of the 3
sands in these things before the sand -- the tailings are sent 4
out to the pile.
5 The important part of our program is to provide the 6
three agreement states, Colorado, Texas and Washington with 7
technical assistance as they requested in form of reviews, 8
training and consultation.
9 When an agreement state wishes to terminate one of 10 their licenses the NRC has to concur in the action after we 11 determine that the standards have been met.
12 We have no direct Jurisdiction other than our 13 agreement state oversight role in how the state does this 14 business.
But we long since have agreed with these people that 15 anything that they do that might affect the ultimate 16 concurrence of the NRC in their site closure, in their license 17 termination, we better talk about it and see it up front and 18 offer our advice and our comments.
Because we don' t want to be 19 in the position 10, 15 years down the line saying, we don' t 20 like what you have done, go do it over again.
21 So we have a very active program of dealing on a 22 consulting basis because they are our peers, not our 23 subordinates in this case.
And we have worked closely with the 24 state of Colorado in the review of the closure of plants for 25 the old Uravan Mill.
And we' ve also worked with the state of
()
f s-Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(_)/
f 172 1
Texas in reviewing activities at several of the South Texas 2
facilities.
3 This wind blown bunch is examining some geotextile 4
fabrics.
This is at the Exxon facility down near Fall City, 5
One of the difficulties in beginning the reclamation 6
.;r that these slimes are very unstable.
This stuff had about 7
the consistency of axle grease and about the appearance of it 8
too.
So, Exxon, because they make this kind of fabric, was 9
experimenting with spreading a plastic membrane material over 10 the slimes in order to provide a basis then for supporting a 11 dirt load and eventually equipment.
12 It's sort of like walking across a water bed, you can b) 13 see the impressions of the guys feet there, it's kind of scary 14 really.
15 But Texas has completed complete reclamation on one 16 site down there now, the Concesta site and the Exxon site is 17 pretty close.
And there you get a little better view of this 18 operation that they' re carrying out.
19 Now, the last function I want to talk about is our 20 involvement with non-agreement states.
There are several of 21 the non-agreement states that have uranium recovery facilities 22 and they have responsibilities for enforcing water quality l
i 23 standards for the non-radiological contaminants.
24 And there is an area of overlapping dual 1
25 jurisdiction.
One of our efforts has been to work very closely
~
l Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 l
~
.~.
U fn
\\m)>
173 1
with the states to make our program and their programs as a
closely compatible as we can while still meeting our individual 3
legal requirements.
4 Here in Nebraska, for example, which you don' t 5
normally think of Nebraska as being an uranium producer, but 6
there is a large in-situ operation being contemplated here in 7
Crawford, Nebraska, up near Fort Robertson in the very 8
northwestern corner.
9 We have worked closely with the state because they 10 have responsibilities and authorities that are derived from 11 their statutes, and also to some extent from epa.
12 Our regulations also derive from epa standards and 13 they apply to certain non-radiological constituents.
We worked 14 with the staffs of Wyoming, New Mexico and Nebraska to ensure 15 that our requirements and responsibilities are met with the 16 minimum of duplication of effort with a consistent approach 17 that keeps the licensee who has to answer to both of us from 18 being whipsawed back and forth.
19 That's the end of my slide talk.
I' ll be happy to 20 entertain any more questions that you have.
l i
21 DR. MOELLER:
Any questions for Mr. Smith?
22 DR. STEINDLER:
How bid is your staff?
23 MR. SMITH:
There are 17 of us there in Denver.
We 24 have 10 professional technicals there.
25 DR. MOELLER:
Well, I don' t think that our Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 f
2
(
174 1
subcommittee has-ever had on overview of the total situation 2
such as you have given us.
I know I speak on behalf.of all of 3-us when I appreciate our appreciation.
4 MR. SMITH:
Thank you.
5 DR. MOELLER:
Don.
6 MR. PARKER:
One question back there, you talked 7
about there being something like more than 300 things that epa 8
has you looking for in the water.
What fraction of those 9
really constitute any kind of a menace to people, and how many 10 of them are Just idle curiosity on the part of somebody in 5pA?
11 MR. SMITH:
That's a question you have to address to 12 E9A.
()
13 MR. SMITH:
A personal judgment, if you don' t mind 14 having somebody copy it.
15 MR. SMITH:
I' ll be honest with you, I don't know, 16 about 300 of them aro, they' re exotic organics.
17 MR. PARKER:
This is appendix 77 18 MR. SMITH:
Appendix 8.
I know that 19 hydrohexachlodicyla-dipenodiene is a nasty compound because I 20 use to mix the stuff.
But some of the other things, I don' t 21 know, they' re recognizable things on there, are sneak and 22 salinium and you intuitively know.
But there are a lot of 23 organics that I just don' t have any feel for.
24 DR. STEINDLER:
Early on you made a comment about 25 solution mining and what I wrote down here doesn' t make a whole Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I
("}
\\_/
175 1
lot of sense.
What did you say about solution mining?
Is that 2
currently being done or is no longer being done?
3 MR, SMITH:
It is probably the wave of the future in 4
this country.
If there is to be any uranium ',ndustry revival 5
in this country it will likely be in the solution mining area, 6
because it's much less capital intensive.
You juut go drill a 7
bunch of holes in the ground.
8 DR. MOELLER:
Do you pump acid or something there?
9 MR. SMITH:
You pump a liqcivent and in general it's 10 a very, very weak acid.
It's usually a sodium carbonate or 11 carbonic acid, perhaps.
Club soda is the best analogy.
12 D R.
MOELLER:
And do you have it permeate through 13 this well and you draw out at one point.
14 MR. SMITH:
The typical formation that you mine is 1en 15 aquifer that is confined below and above by an aquitard or some 16 confining layer.
And the wells are drilled down into that.
17 The liqcivent, it sort of dissolves.
What it does is 18 it releases depositive uranium from the granular faces of the 19 sedimentary sands.
These are old stream beds that -- I' m 20 getting out of my element -- but the redox front deposits the i
21 uranium on the grains of sand.
22 You go down and you reverse that state and you l
23 release the uranium.
And by system of injection and pumping I
l 24 and confinement up abcve and down below, you can direct the 25 flow of that solution back up to the surface.
On the surface 1
1 Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 l
l J
0 175 1
it's a simple chemical plant with an SX or non-exchange system 2
up there.
3-RSo you circulate this water until.you don' t get any 4
more yields and you move on to some more and some more.
When 5
you get through you clean up the water usually by just a simple 6
groundwater sweep, that i s, pumping out the stuff you have been 7
messing around with and allowing clean water to flow in.
And 8
that's the end of the environmental in-salt after you plug the 9
wells.
So there are great advantages.
And it's a fairly 10 efficient operation.
11 DR. STEINDLER:
It's not being done.now, is that 12 right?
()
13 MR. SMITH:
We have right now a couple of commercial 14 operations that are getting under way.
The old Erie Garry l
15 project in Wyoming has been reactivated by an outfit called 16 Malipy.
There's a subsidiary on a public service.
I 17 Wa also have that northwestern Nebraska field is in 18 for commercial scale operation.
And we have very serious 19 interests in another area in Wyoming and also one down in New 20 Mexico.
In South Texas this in a very large scale operation 21 down there.
22 DR. MOELLER:
Any other questions or comments?
23 MR. PARKER:
Do you consider that deep well 24 injection?
25 MR. SMITH:
Yes, they do.
As a matte of fact, I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
,/ '
%.))
177 1
mentioned the state authority.
If the state has that authority 2
it's primacy under the underground injection program.
So the 3
guy who wants to do this gets a license from us and essentially 4
a UIC permit from the state or EPA if the state hasn' t given 5
them primacy.
6 DR. MOELLER:
Well, thank you.
Once again we' ll take 7
15 minutes.
8 (Recess.)
9 (Continued on next page.)
10 11 12 O(>
13 14 15 16 1 "/
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
(
Heritage ReportinD Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
I f
. C:)
278 1
DR. MOELLER:
The meeting will come to order and 2
resume.
We are going on now to the presentation on DOE's 3
Title I program.
And we have with us Jim Turi and Tony Brazley 4
from the U.S.
Department of Energy.
And you should have in 5
front of you a handout here'to follow along with their 6
presentation.
Gentlemen, it is a pleasure to have you with us.
7 MR. PARKER:
Mr. Chairman, since I have an internship 8
program with these two gentlemen, I would like to recluse 9
myself from this presentation, and I will step back from the 10 table.
11 DR. MOELLER:
All right.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
12 MR. TURI:
Thank you very much for the invitation to 13 be here before you today to talk about our program.
We think 14 that we have a successful program in the sense that we are 15 accomplishing something.
A lot of what you are going to hear 16 has been repeated or said previously by the previous speaker.
17 So some of this may seem like old hat.
But we are going to go 18 through the reorganization, a little about the legislation, the 19 different parties that are involved, where the sites are, and i
l 20 what we are doing.
21 I have some viewgraphs of some of the sites.
And if 22 you would bear with me, I have about a fifteen minute videotape 1
23 which I think you will enjoy because it does show you the 24 tailings being moved, and it does talk about people in the 25 field and their reaction to mill tailings in our remedial O
l l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 action project.
2 (Slide) 3 Some people do not know too much about mill tailings.
4 But every now and then, we get some from publicity.
I do not 5
know if you caught this cartoon in the papers about a month or 6
so ago when some of this was occurring.
We get fourth billing 7
here, "How has Southeast been eneating?
Uranium mill tailings 8
glowing in his hair when you turn of f the light."
I do not see 9
any glowing today.
10 I want to show you organizational 1y where we are, 11 because not many people are familiar.
We have got the 12 Secretary of Energy.
There are basically three main offices ym
(_)
13 that I want to talk about.
One, is the Office of Civilian 14 Radioactive Waste Management, which is a high level waste 15 repository program that most of you are probably familiar with.
16 It also has the defense programs, and they have a 17 waste management program which includes the high level waste 18 tanks at Savannah River and at Richland in Idaho.
19 Tony and I are located in the Office of Nuclear 20 Energy in the Office of Remedial Action and Waste Technology, 21 and we have about a half a dozen programs, one of which is the 22 uranium mill tailings remedial action project.
23 Organizational 1y, at headquarters, we have the Office 24 of Remedial Action and Waste Technology in our division.
We 25 have delegated day to day manager responsibility to the i
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
180
)
1 Albuquerque Operations Office which has about a sixteen person 2
project office located in Albuquerque.
3 They have basically four centractors that are 4
involved with their program.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 5
which does a survey for the vicinity properties that were 6
talked about a little bit earlier, and I will get into that in 7
a few minutes more, Jacobs Engineering Group, that is 8
basically technical assistance type work, and does our 9
environmental documents and conceptual designs, and overall 10 project control type activities.
Morrison-Knudsen, who does 11 the detailed engineering and design for the processing site and 12 remedial action activities as well as the construction manager.
s/
13 That is they put out the contracts on the street, and manage 14 the actual construction contracts.
15 We also have the Department of Energy's Idaho Grand 16 Junction Project Office and their contract with UNC, which is 17 responsible for the vicinity properties in Grand Junction.
As 18 mentioned earlier, there are about 8000 plus properties that we 19 will be serving, of which aoout 4800 will require remedial 20 action.
Of the 4800, approximately 85 percent are in the 21 City of Grand Junction, Colorado.
And since we had a DOE 22 office there and a contractor there, it made sense for them to 23 be responsible for that portivn of the action.
24 DR. MOELLER:
Say that percentage again.
25 MR. TURI:
Of the 4800 properties that we estimate Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l O
181 1
will require clean-up, about 85 percent are in Grand Junction, 2
3 Basically, the 1978 legislation from the Department 4
of Energy's perspective gave us the authority and 5
responsibility to conduct remedial action at the processing 6
sites of the broad vicinity properties.
In particular, to 7
desiDnate which processing sites, to enter into cooperative 8
agreements with the states and Indian tribes as partners in the 9
remedial action, to conduct the necessary remedial action, and 10 then basically to have perpetual care responsibility for 11 disposal sites as mentioned earlier.
12 The basic problems with the uranium mill tailings 13 depends on your perspective.
For the vicinity properties, we 14 are concerned about the misuse of the tailings where it has 15 been used as backfill material around the foundation, where it 16 has been mixed with cement to make patios, basements floors, 17 garage floors, and swimming pools where can lead to radon gas 18 problems or gamma radiation.
19 Also we are concerned in the larger piles about the 20 run-off of environmental into surface water as well as 21 groundwater.
Also, the radon gas and the wind dispersion of 22 the tailings themselves.
For those who would like to see the a
23 niceties of where all of this comes about, we have included a 24 decay chain for you.
25 As you can see, most of our sites are in the western fgO Heritage Reporting Cerporation (202) 628-4888 i
~
.O 1e2 1
United States, of which approximately one-third are in the 2
State of Colorado.
The CanonsburD, Pennsylvania site.has been 3
completed, and that has been submitted to NRC for certification 4
in terms that we complete remedial action in accordance with 5
the remedial action plan.
The Shiprock, New Mexico.
6 We have two sites that will be completed during 1988.
7 the Lakeview, Oregon and the Salt Lake City.
And there is a 8
possibility that the Green River, Utah site will also be 9
started and completed this year.
A lot depends on how fast we 10 get the engineering complete and we get our concurrence, and we 11 can start the structure.
And there is a schedule later on in 12 the presentation where it has all of the details on this.
(
13 DR. MOELLER:
Now with Green River being a low 14 priority, that means that you are moving along pretty well?
15 MR. TURI:
Our basic strategy is to conduct the high 16 priority sites first.
And there is basically a third high
]
17 priority, third mrdium, and a third low.
Those are all 18 relative.
They are not 2.bso l ut e.
And I think that there was 19 an earlier question of how are those priorities assigned.
20 We put together a ranking and gave it to EPA, and I 21 think that we also discussed with NRC, and asked them if they l
22 agreed with our grouping, and they basically agreed with our l
23 grouping.
There is no absolute quantification of health i
24 effects like one is times more unhealthy then the other.
They 25 are very broad categories.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
\\
~
3
+
_'183 1
Now what happened in the case of Green River is that 2
the_ State of Utah Department of Health was on a_ roll in the 3
sense that they convinced the legislature that they have a good 4
program, and since they are finishing up Salt Lake City, to 5
keep-the funding going, and go ahead and get Green River out of-6 the way.
7 So we call them institutional opportunities that 8
arise, and we go for the brass ring, and go ahead and do the 9
remedial action at those sites.
So that is how we got'a low 10 priority site such as Green River.
I 11 DR. STEINDLER:
What was the basis on which the DOE 12 ranking was done, there had to be some kind of a mechanism, it 13 surely was not alphabetic?
14 MR. TURI No, it was not.
We did a health effects l
15 analysis back in 1978 and 1979.
And there are some numbers.
16 And there was a question earlier today about the health 17 effects.
And one of the ways that epa did the calculation was 18 that they did a northern hemisphere calculation using a linear 19 dose model.
So when you have so many curies exposed to 20 billions of people, theoretically you are doing to see a number 21 of health effects.
22 One of the things that I would like to first stress l
23 is that it is the responsibility of the five agencies in the l
24 legislation.
EPA has the responsibility to establish the 25 health and safety standards that govern NRC and the Department U
L l
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j
,q 184 V
1 of Energy in conducting remedial action.
The DOE does have 2
that responsibility.
3 The NRC responsibilities are many-fold.
They develop 4
the implementing regulations to follow the epa standards.
We 5
develop our environmental impact statements and environmental 6
assessments.
We discuss those both informally and formally 7
with NRC to get their comments.
8 And we "ave cooperative agreements that are very 9
formal and 1sJalistic agreements with each state and Indian 10 tribe.
Those are reviewed and concurred in by the Nuclear 11 Regulatory Commission.
They concur on our remedial action plan 12 which is our specifications and our blueprints, and our quality
()
13 assurance program for conducting that activity.
14 They ensure that we carry it out in conformance with 15 that plan.
In the end, we submit a completion report, and we 16 request a certification from NRC that it was designed and 17 constructed in accordance with the remedial action plan as 18 modified.
So as you are going through, you might decide to do 19 something a little bit different, or you get a surprise that 20 you come up with that you have to face.
So all of those 21 mod i f icat ior:2 are concurred in by the NRC.
22 Then in the end, they issue a license for 23 surveillpnce and maintenance to the Department of Energy, and 24 we have perpetual care responsibility for these sites.
25 The Department of Interior is involved because some a
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 s
A
185 s_)
1 of these sites where we would like to relocate the lands are on 2
BLM lands.
We have to transfer the lands from BLM to the 3
Department of Energy.
Also there are four sites that are on 4
Indian reservation land.
And so the Bureau of Indian Affairs 5
gets involved with that somewhat.
6 The Department of Justice gets involved.
Because 7
there is seine Indian legislation, they had some words about 8
liabilities of previous owners.
And if we get into any 9
lawsuits, and if we need their help, then acquiring the sites.
10 The states and Indian tribes play a major role in 11 this.
It is a partnership program.
They do enter into the 12 cooperative agreement, as I mentioned previously.
The O)
N-13 legislation provides that the state acquires a disposal site.
14 And then upon completion of remedial action and certification 15 by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, title is then transferred 16 to the Department of Energy.
So eventually, we do get title to 17 the tailings and the disposal site, i
18 In the cooperative agreement, arrangements are made 19 for their concurrence on their remedial action and the 20 completion and certification process.
It is a cost sharing 21 arrangement.
The federal government pays 90 percent of the 22 costs, and the state 10 percent.
23 Some of the problems that we have run into is the 24 st at e' s inability to come up with their funds.
If the cannot 25 come up with their funds, we cannot go forward, because it is a O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
o 186 1
matching situation.
2 So if somebody like Utah has the money, we will go 3
ahead and provide our 90 percent matching funds _and do the 4
remedial action.
The State of Idaho has had some difficulties 5
in obtaining their funds.
So that means that we have to delay 6
the engineering and the remedial action until they can identify 7
their dollars.
It is a voluntary program.
8 The Indian tribes are in the same situation as the 9
states.
The only difference is that the federal governmente B
10 the Department of Energy, pays 100 percent of the remedial 11 action costs on Indian lands.
1 12 There was a lot of discussion about standards
()
13 earlier.
I add this in for your information.
I am not going 14 to spend time on it unless you have some questions.
You will i
15 notice that the water protection one is blank.
Six months ago, 16 there would have been words there.
i 17 There were some groundwater protection standards, and 18 the epa was sued by various parties.
And the Tenth Circuit 19 Court of Appeals basically ruled that the groundwater standards 20 that EPA promulgated were inconsistent with the legislation, in 21 that epa was required to put out standards of general I
22 applicability, and they ended putting out site specific l
23 standards.
I 24 So now epa is in the process of developing the 25 standards of general applicability, and comments on those l
4 1
l Heritage Reporting Corporation 7
(202) 628-4888 f
H
.\\
I
()
187:
1 standards are due next Friday.
This is a good pictorial in 2
terms of putting all of those words on a picture, and you can 3
see what it means.
4 EPA standards do require that we stabilize for the 5
long' term.
And what t' hat' requires us to do is that we either 6
isolate the tailings in place which is really our preference, 7
because it.does cost money to pick up the tailings and relocate 8
them.
But where a site is technically unsuitable or whether 9
there are institutional considerations,'we do relocate the 10 sitos some distance away.
11 There are also some also contaminated open lands.
12 And what that means is on some of these sites that the tailings O.
13 were left uncovered and basically exposed to the elemento, 14 wind, rain, snow, and they moved off-site.
So there are seme 15 open lands, and there are gullies that are contaminated with 16 tailings.
And so we will have to recover those tailings and 17 return them to the disposal pile.
18 There are also some contaminated structures.
In 19 particularly the Grand Junctior, area, people are not aware of 20 the health effects early on that Nere associated with the 21 tailings.
And as we became smarter, we recognize that there j
22 was a hezard.
On some sites, the tailings were available for j
23 people to use for their own needs.
In fact, they were even 24 encouraged to.
a 25 On one site, for example, there was a key in a
()
Heritage Reporting Corporation 3
(202) 628-4888
(~'b 188 t
1 conveyor belt.
You would back up your pick-up truck, turn on 2
the conveyor belt, and load as many tailings as you wanted and 3
take them home.
Well, the tailings are very nice sandy 4
material.
You can mix it with clay, and it is great for 5
gardens.
You can use it as backfill on utility lines and 6
around your property.
It is a perfect material, and the price 7
is right.
You can mix it with portland cement, and you can 8
make some nico patios.
9 And that is what happened in many of these areas.
So 10 we have to go out and find out where these tailings have been 11 taken and misused and bring them back to the disposal pile.
It 12 turns out that about 25 percent of the project costs are f"%
's_)
13 associated with cleaning up these vicinity properties.
So it 14 is not a trivial matter.
That is roughly about $220 or $250 15 million.
16 In terms of the disposal file, this is pictorial of a 17 typical one, if there is a typical one.
In this case here, we 18 show an excavation, basically a hole.
We put in embedding 19 material, a kind of geochemical liner, put in the tailings, put 20 on the radon barrier.
The radon barrier is anywhere from a 21 couple of feet to maybe four or five feet.
And then you have 22 the erosion barrier to protect for the thousand year 23 requirement.
24 What the erosion barrier also serves is as 25 discouraging human intrusion.
So if we are not around and our Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
' /^)\\
189 1
signs go away a couple o' hundred of years from now, these 2
rocks will discourage people from going in and misusing the 3
tailings again.
So it serves a dual purpose.
4 There are a number of sites to be relocated.
And on 5
this figure, we have shown the sites that are to be relocated, 6
and those potentially that will occur.
And I could go through 7
the different sites.
It is up to you, and how much time you 8
would like to spend on this figure.
9 DR. MOELLER:
Well, to be sure that we understand.
10 Relocated metans that you move the entire material?
11 MR. TURI:
Yes.
12 DR. MOELLER:
Where do you take it?
13 MR. TURI:
We would find a suitable disposal site in 14 the vicinity.
And we would negotiate with NRC, the state, and 15 the local governments on finding an acceptable disposal site.
16 And that causes probably many of our problems.
Because as you 17 can well imagine, nobody wants it in their backyard.
18 DR. MOELLER:
What is the guidance on whether you i
19 relocate or fix it in place?
20 MR. TURI:
Mainly, it is the NRC regulations in the l
21 sense that it has to meet certain size requirements.
We talked 22 about flooding earlier.
And remoteness does not enter in 23 specifically, but certainly remoteness enters into it.
I 24 Salt Lake City, for example, that site was four miles l
25 from the downtown Salt Lake City in a heavily industrialized 0,
I l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
1
1
(:)
1ee 1
area.
That does not make sense for the long term to leave it 2
there.
And that Salt Lake City contributed about 80 percent of 3
the health effects of the entire program.
So that was moved 65 4
miles west to Utah which is barren desert, and it was moved by 5
train.
6 Grand Junction, Colorado.
We are relocating that 7
one.
That is a downtown city, and it is right next to the B
Colorado River.
Belfield is a small site, but it turns out 7
9 that there is another site called Bowman.
And so it does not 10 make sense to have two disposal piles, so we are going to i
11 combine them into one.
12 Riverton, Wyoming was moved because the state with 13 some congressional help thought that it was better if we i
b 14 relocated some distance from the City of Riverton, and they are 15 willing to pay some of the extra costs associated with that, i
16 Durango, I think also we have that on our videotape, 17 is in a downtown city.
It is right next to the river, and it i
18 is right along side of a mountain.
So that is an unstable 19 situation.
So we are picking that up and moving it over on the 20 other side of the mountain.
I think those are the keys one.
\\
21 DR. MOELLER:
Thank you.
i 22 DR. STEINLLER:
What sort of analysis do you have to l
23 go through to determine whether a risk or health effects r
24 problem in relocation does not become greater than the existing i
i 25 situation, the classic other example is thr. problem of
~
/
Heritage Reporting Corporation j
1 (202) 628-4888 I
()
191 1
transuranic waste disposal sites?
2 MR. TURI:
We l l., through our Environmental Policy Act
^
3-limitation, we do the environmental impact statement or 4
environmental assessment.
And in that,'we look at various 5
alternatives, one of which is no action.
You Just leave it the 6
way that it is.
And then the other alternatives are relocating 7
it to one or more sites.
And so it is through the NEpA process 8
that we look at the health effects.
9 MR. ORTH:
Have you really worked out the procedures 10 to be sure that the stuff is not spread across thirty miles 11 along the highways as dust comes off trucks, and people are not 12 breathing, and all of that kind of thing?
()
13 MR. TURI:
Absolutely.
In fact, you will see later 14 this afternoon that we have tarpon over it.
We spray it with 15 water for dust control.
In Salt Lake City where they moved it 16 by railroad cars, ther*e was a polymer that was sprayed on the 17 top.
So as the stuff moved the 65 miles out to Clyde, Utah, 18 there was no dispersion.
19 So dust control is very important to us.
It is very 20 import ant from a public standpoint too.
Because when you are 21 in these cities, people are watching you.
You are working in a 22 fishbowl environment, and they can see dust, and we will 23 receive telephone calls.
So we work that into the problem very 24 closely.
25 The next one is the schedule for the project.
And Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 U
I 192 1
you can see then that we have a number of sites well underway 2
mostly'in the high priority area.
An v,
still have a lot more 3
to go.
And you can see from the cost information that it is an
\\
4 expensive pr6Jech.
And there are various reasons for'that, j
5 some of which we have control over and some we do not.
6 So the question earlier about the cost of Title II, 7
we would not expect the other sites to experience the same cost 8
experience that we are having.
Because we are going to have to 9
relocate, and they will probably be stabilized in place.
They 10 already have a management structure and an operations crew in 11 place, but we have to go out and hire these people to come in.
12 So those are some of the various contributing factors.
O.
13 We are hoping to finish our construction by September 14 of 1992.
We have allowed one year to finish the licensing 15 process with NRC.
The agreement that we have with NRC is that-16 they are proceeding with their licensing and rule making 17 proceedings.
And we would license each site as it comes off l
18 the assembly lines in terms of completing remedial action.
l 19 So some of the sites are completed in 1992, and we l
l 20 will need the 1993 time frame to finish the licensing process.
1 21 And we have allowed one year as a grace period in case you run 22 into problems.
Right now, we have legislation before Congress 23 that would require complete remedial action by September 1994.
I
{
24 DR. MOELLER:
What is one of the states cannot meet I
25 their 10 percent?
d i
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
J
()
193 1
MR. TURI:
We would not conduct remedial action.
And 2
if it cannot be done by 1994, they would have to work with.the 3
legislative process to change that.
4 There are some backup items, and why do I not.Just 5
run through these quickly, Just so you know what is there.
6 There is a listing of all of the sites by state telling what 7
year they opervted and our estimates of tailings and other 8
materials.
Other materials, for example, includes contaminated 9
mill structures.
10 Ambrosia Lake is a good example.
There basically was 11 a large mill that was left behind, and that material had to be 12 disposed of.
Ambrosia Lake is in New Mexico.
13 The next one goes with each one of the sites, and it 14 tells you what priority the site is, the approximate acres of 15 the site and tailings, and how many vicinity properties.
And 16 the vicinity property varies from year to year as we add and 17 subtract sites.
18 The next couple of pages just give you soins estimates 19 of what our cost is for the project.
The difference between 20 TEC and the other one is that TEC estimated cost includes a l
21 federal share plus a state share.
And you can see in these 22 first two, for example, which are on Indian land that the 23 federal government picks up the entire sites.
But then on 24 D u r,.ig o, for example, you can see the 90-10.
It is not quite 25 10 percent, because there are some costs that the state is not O
i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j
im
'(-)
194 1
required to pay.
So that is why it is not exactly 10.
i 2
Then I have some new graphs before we go to the 3
videotape.
This shows Caronsburg.
And you can see that this 4
was a metropolitan area.
In the loior left-hand side, you can 5
basically see a ball field essentially.
It is an industrial 6
complex that goes back hundreds of years.
This building here I 7
believe is the one that is shown on the videotape which you 8
will enjoy.
9 DR. MOELLER:
The uranium ore was transferred here to 10 deep process?
11 MR. TURI:
Yes, this one is a strange one in the 12 sense that it does not meet the classical definition of a 13 uranium mill tailinD site.
This is was an add-on by the 14 Congressman representatives in Pennsylvania.
But this did 15 factor into the Manhattan engineering district.
So it is l
16 related to federal government operations.
17 This is not a very good one, but it shows that all of 18 those buildings have been knocked down.
You start to put in l
l 19 the pile.
There are the tailings here, putting in the cover 20 material.
We have a water treatment facility and retention 21 pond here.
There were some vicinity properties over on this l
l 22 side that were knocked down.
i l
23 About two years ago, there was a Sixty Minutes that 24 did deal with Canonsburg.
And if you had seen that show it 25 interviewed people along this area here.
7se)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
'I
()
195 1
This shows the cover material and the erosion barrier 2
being placed.
And you can see that~we are not talking about 3
stones.
I know people in the area.
Here you see the rocks.
4 Because it was a downtown area, we were concerned about the 5
aesthetics.
And so at this site, we are putting a dirt 6
material and then vegetating it.
And we will show you some 7
pictures of that.
8 DR. MOELLER:
What ultimately will it become?
9 MR. TURI:
Well, I will show you a picture of it.
10 Basically, it is a grassed area with a fence around it.
)
11 DR. MOELLER:
Okay.
12 MR. TURI:
That is what it looks like.
These control 4.
13 the run-off and to divert it.
There is basically a fence all 14 f,he way around it.
And there are signs up there no 15 trespassing.
This area is now cleaned up.
We are deeding this 16 back to the city for uSe, and they are going to use it.
It is 17 all clean.
They are going to use it for a bus depot, a school 18 bus depot.
But this is the site. As you can see, it is in thw 19 middle of a residential area.
20 MR. ORTH:
What kind of radon flux comes out of that 21 site?
22 MR. TURI:
It is way below the epa standards.
I do 23 not have a number with me.
l 24 MR. ORTH:
But there is no reason that it could not 25 be a park?
l l
[
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
~-. ~~-
196 1-MR. TURI:
That is correct..
Because the EPA 2
standards basically are assuming that someone is residing on 3
the tailings, and that there is a structure to contain the A
radon, and you are bearing a radon gas.
And this is an open 5
environment, and you could make it a park.
I do'not know what 6
the radiation.ievels are, but I think that you could be able to 7
do that.
8 This is Shiprock, and this one of those sites that 9
Dale Smith was talking about, the San Juan R,ver.
This shows 10 some of the tailings already being moved.
This was some of the 11 burrow area that was talked about.
The fairgrounds are over in 12 this area, I guess.
Again this Just shows the construction.
i
- v 13 And it struck in the discussions this morning that we i
14 are 5
.og about concrete bunkers, and that we are talking 15 about high integrity waste forms, and high integrity l
16 containers.
And these projects can be likened to heavy highway i
l 17 construction activities where-someone is clearing an area to l
18 put in a shopping center.
You will see bulldozers and scrapers 19 and backhoes.
Nobody is wearing white suits, and no one is I
20 wearing those kinds of things that you normally associate with l
i
[
21 handling waste.
22 I came from the reactor business, and there you talk 23 about MR and Rs, and this is an entirely different ball game 24 from that.
This is a completed site, and I would say that it f
l 25 looks beautiful.
It looks very sharp.
You have good stone.
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
-s
=
197 i
This is the river.
2 This is an area here that was contaminated as part of 3
our project.
We cleaned that up and we put in some wildlife 4
ponds, and it is a very successful project.
5 Lakeview, Oregon.
This one. basically, all of the 6
tailings have been located at the disposal site which we 7
completed this year.
This was a wetter site than many of our 8
sites, and the ponds that were associated with the tailings 9
operations.
10 This is the disposal site.
What is interesting about 11 this is that we took a hill, and basically took a big bite out 12 it.
As you can see here, this is the big bite that we took 13 out.
And then putting in the bedding area, and backfilling the 14 tailings.
And then put on the radon barrier and the erosion 15 barrier.
And basically, we contoured and blended in with the 16 rest of the area.
Here you can see some water retention ponds, 17 and we had a water treatment facility.
18 (Continued on next page.)
19
(
20 21 22 23 i
24 l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
()
198 1
MR. TURI:
This is Durango, Colorado.
You can see 2
here this is the area right across the river, right next to the 3
interstate, you have the tailings piles.
These are two piles, 4
this is the large one and another one over here.
5 The water collection basin.
This is road that a 6
truck here, they' re hauling the tailings to the disposal site.
7 This is Bodo canyon disposal site where the Durango 8
tailings are being relocated.
It turned out in this area here 9
during our archaeological investigations we discovered some 10 very primitive dwellings and indian burial grounds.
All those 11 were categorized in studies and they have all been filed away 12 and donated to the state as part of our project.
13 The vicinity properties, this one'is an interesting 14 one because of the extensive nature of it.
Here you can see we 15 have relocated little shacks.
We' ve got a big backhoe in there 16 Just scooping out all the tailings that were used, Just throw 17 out this vicinity property to fill in the low spots.
18 We can use heavy equipment sometimes, other times 19 requires the use of hand tools.
But there you have basically a 20 water pipe or sewer pipe and you excavate around that to remove 21 the tailings.
22 Here you can see the front yard has all been 23 excavated, basically about three foot it looks like.
It's 24 being back-filled and is being rolled now to compact that.
25 In this case here we had to knock out, this was an Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
-. ~..
J
199 1
add-on and there were tailings underneath the add-ons.
So we 2
knocked out the family room, dug out the tailings, put in a'new 3
slab and are reconstructing the family room that was added on 4
the back.
5 DR. MOELLER:
Now, what if the individual homeowner's 6
property -- again, is this a state 10/90?
7 MR. TURI:
90/10, the homeowner does not pay 8
anything.
The state pays 10 and we pay 90.
Again, it's all 9
voluntary.
We request the permission to come on site, do a 10 radiological survey to see if it meets the EPA standards.
If 11 it does not we send them a letter and will record in the land 12 records that it does meet the EPA standards.
If it does not we 13 will come back and ask the owner for permission to do a more 14 detailed radiological survey.
We will then come with an 15 engineering plan of how to fix it.
We will. ask the owner's 16 concurrence and get their approval to come on site and to do j
17 the cleanup.
l
(
l 18 At the end we will do surveying to see that it does 19 meet the EPA standards and will so survey and indicate in the 20 land records.
If there is any other activities that are needed 21 we take care of that.
What I mean by that is, we restore the 22 ground to, excuse me, the vicinity property to its original I
23 form as much as possible.
l 24 So, for example, we resod this whole area.
There was 25 a tree here, so we put in a new tree.
We put the windmill back l
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j
i l
l l
( )
200 a
1 up.
This is the family room, we were seeing the previous one.
2 That's all part of our program.
3 Now, if it turns out the owner wants a different kind 4
of tree or different kind of shrub he can work that out with 5
the constructor who is working on his property.
6 Now, if the homeowner decides not to participate, we 7
cannot do anything.
Ano all we can do then is record in the 8
land records that we believe this property to be contaminated 9
and exceeding EPA standards and that's where it ends.
10 DR. MOELLER:
How frequently does that occur?
11 MR. TURI:
It varies from site to site.
And in many 12 places people are very interested in their report coming and
(,)
13 participate.
And in other areas they say, we have lived with 4
14 it for 50 years, my father and my grandfather worked in the 15 mines and we don' t see a problem, it's a waste of taxpayers 16 f unds and we don' t want to participate.
Other situations you 17 have the elderly who get confused, so it's necessary to pay 18 special attention to them.
19 Other ones say, "Hey, I' m going to die in 10 years 20 and let my, whoever inherits it, let them worry about it."
21 There are various reasons.
Many are bored, they say, it has 22 been talked about for 10 years, I' m just tired of hearing it, I 23 don' t want to deal with it.
24 Now, we' ll show you a video tape.
Every year we put 25 together an accomplishment tape.
This is the one from a year
)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l
()
201 1
ago, so unfortunately I do not have the one for this last 2
calendar year.
We use it primarily to brief the Congressional 3
staff and committees on our programs.
Also, it's very usef ul 4
for a Dathering such as this and when we have visitors in 5
Germantown or Washington.
6 (Continued on next page.)
7 8
9 u
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 o5 C:)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I l
-)
.h 202 1
MR. TURI:
Turning to vicinity properties, we' re 2
cleaning up about 1,000 vicinity properties this year and about 1
3 another 900 next year, and then basically we' re tailing off.
4 So we' re in a very high level of effort right now in vicinity 5
properties.
6 This year we would expect to start construction at 7
Grand Junction, Colorado processing site as well as Riverton, 8
Wyoming.
There's a possibility of Green River, Utah that I 9
mentioned earlier.
f 10 We are underway at Ambrosia Lake, New Mexico.
11 There's a possibility of Rifle, Colorado.
So this is an ' 88 l
12 and '89 are two very big years, reporting years from the A(/
13 Department of Energy's perspect ive in getting out with the 14 project.
15 Most of the problems seem to be on reaching agreement 16 to go ahead.
And once you reach agreement on what is to be 17 done, then it seems to go relatively smooth.
And so that's the 18 main problem, is finding the disposal site and reach an 19 agreement on the design of that disposal site.
20 MR. ORTH:
How are you doing with respect to budget?
21 MR. TUR/:
We' re doing very well.
Our budget 22 basically is a level of effort of $116 million a year and I 23 think it shows up on one of the handouts.
24 In its previous we requested 116 and we ended up with 25 112 I believe it was.
So that's very significant.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~. -
O ecs 1
MR. ORTH:
I mean, spend out though in terms of 2
meeting all your obligations for the. allotted money.
3 MR. TURI That has fallen behind in two places,-
4 Riverton, Wyoming and Grand Junction, Colorado..
In Riverton, 5
Wyoming we were ready to av..x.rd a contract last year.
The 6
Department of Energy was sued by the losing firm.
The court 7
ruled in our favor in December.
There is a second litigation 8
still underway.
As soon as that litigation.is solved, we will 9
be able to start that project.
10 So meanwhile we' re on hold for six months until the 11 legal battles have been completed.
12 At Grand Junction, Colorado there were some 13 discussions or alternative disposal sites and the method of 14 transport.
For example, we were looking at two modes of 15 transport, a truck.
The second one would be truck and rail.
16 The community favors truck and rail,-but it's about $10 million 17 for expensive than by truck.
The community people also favor a
(
18 water slurry pipeline to be constructed.
That cost about $30 19 million more than transport by truck.
l 20 And so it takes some time to work these social 21 political issues with these communities.
And then once the 22 disposal site alternative is selected upon and the 23 transportation mode is agreed upon we can go forward.
l 24 presented by Grand Junction we' re proposing to bid l
25 the contract both ways.
We allow a bidder to propose to do it Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 r
b
)
204 1
by truck or truck by rail.
Bother are environmentally 2
acceptable.
And'whatever is the cheapest way to go, we would 3
go that way.
If it turns out the truck is the cheapest and the
-4
' community still wants to go truck and rail, we would have to 5
. work out a different cost-sharing arrangement where they would 6
pick up a greator portion of the-incremental cost to move it by 7
truck and rail over by truck only.
8 DR. MOELLER:
Are there other questions or comments?
9 DR. STEINDLER:
How has this program been received in 10
. Congress?
11 MR. TURI:
Very favorably.
Being it's in the west 12 there are a lot of Congressmen and Senators whose districts are
~
13 affected by it.
So there's a lot of support for it.
The only 14 negative one, I think we discussed a little bit earlier, in the 15 cost benefits.
If you look at the big picture and you weigh 16 options of money for this versus money for education or 17 national security, and those are decisions that are beyond me.
18 DR. MOELLER:
Well, thank you, Tony and Jim, for your 19 presentation, and again for the nice handout that you provided 20 to us.
21 MR. TURI:
Thank you.
22 DR. MOELLER:
We' ll move on then to the last formal 23 presentation for the afternoon and that is on NRC Title I 24 program and our speaker is Myron Fliegel, Uranium Recovery 25 Section Leader in the Operations Branch of the Division of Low Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
A 205 1
Level Waste Management.
2 Welcome.
3 MR. FLIEGEL:
Thank you.
4 DR. MOELLER:
Go ahead.
5 MR. FLIEGEL:
You have heard by now a lot about the 6
legislation, about the regulations, about the standards 7
relevant to uranium recovery.
Dale Smith told you something 8
about the Title II program that URFO was involved in.
9 You' ve heard about the Title I program from DOE.
10 What I' m going to talk about is the Title I program from NRC 11 perspective.
12 Now, one thing about the Title I program, it's the N.)
13 Waste Management program that most closely resembles reactor 14 licensing.
DOE provides us with a specific proposal to do 15 something and includes a specific design.
We review it, we ask 16 questions, we make comments on it.
Eventually we have an 17 action.
Our action is a concurrent rather than a construction 18 permit or an operating license, but it does resemble in many 19 respects the reactor licensing process.
20 Currently, the Title I program is split between 21 headquarters, NMSS and URFO, and that's primarily for resource 22 balancing reasons.
Resources with URFO, and as their programs 23 of Title II change we want to keep their staff fully occupied.
24 DR. MOELLER:
Now, URFO is --
25 MR. FLIEGEL:
That's our Denver of fice, basically.
S l
u.)
i l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
s-(-)
206 1
DR. MOELLER:
All right.
Region IV in Denver of 2
NRC.
MR. FLIEGEL:
And the first 3
slide just shows the current breakout of sites.
Currently 4
there are 15 sites that NMSS has the lead on and seven sites 5
that URFO has the lead on.
The next one 6
is a map with the sites and you have seen that already.
7 My discussion is going to concentrate on the review 8
process, primarily how headquarters does the review, but most 9
of it is applicable to URFO also.
10 First off, organizational framework.
The Tit:1e I 11 reviews and NMSS are performed in the Division of Low Level 12 Waste Management and decommissioned in it.
Our division has O
(/
13 three branches, the operations branch, a technical branch and 14 the regulatory branch.
15 In the operations branch the uranium recovery section 16 has the responsibility for project management.
Of Title I 17 reviews we also have the health physics expertise.
18 The technical branch performs most of the technical 19 reviews.
They' ve got two sections, the siting and the 20 engineering section.
The engineering section is responsible i
21 for the technical reviews.
The siting section is responsible 22 for reviews in geology and related sciences, surface water 23 hydraulic erosion protection and ground water hydraulic.
24 The regulatory section in the regulatory branch is 25 not normally involved in specific reviews, but does get CJ l
f Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L
i
/",
207
%J 1
involved in generic issues relevant to Title I.
For instance, 2
they were dealing -- we had interactions with EPA on the 3
recently proposed draft of ground water standards.
And that 4
was done out of that section.
5 In our division, four out of our six sections are in 6
someway involved in the Title I program.
7 DR. STEINDLER:
Could you identify the kind of skills 8
in the uranium recovery group that handles the health physics 9
problems that you folks have?
What kind of people have you got 10 that know something about health physics?
11 MR. FLIEGEL:
We basically have a health physicist.
12 DR. STEINDLER:
One, two, three?
w/
13 MR. FLIEGEL:
In terms of the reviews at headquarters 14 we have one health physicist.
Dale, how many health physicist 15 have you got in Title I?
16 MR. SMITH:
We have two health physicist, one health 17 physicist, industrial hygienist combination.
And one of my 18 branch chiefs has a doctor.
19 MR. FLIEGEL:
Now, there are some other health 20 physicist within the division.
21 DR. MOELLER:
Now, maybe you' re going to cover it 22 later, but you were saying that you -- that DOE comes to you 23 with a proposal and you review it and you feed back and forth, l
24 and then finally, although you' re not licensing, you finally f
25 approve it and then they do the Job.
I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
208 1'
MR. FLIEGEL:
That's what I' m-going to talk about.
2 DR. MOELLER:
Well, what I' m wondering is, what power 3
do you have if you turned them down and Just told them on any 4
project that absolutely there's no way you.will accept it.
5 MR. FLIEGEL:
We will concur in it.
We haven' t come 6
to that, but the legislation and that's where it rests, 7
specifically requires NRC concurrence.
And if they were to 8
come in with a proposal that we said, absolutely we won' t 9
concur in-that remedial action plan and they went ahead and 10 built it.
I doubt if it would ever come to that.
We would 11 reach some --
12 DR. MOELLER:
So they cannot do the work until you
()
13 have concurred?
14 MR. FLIEGEL:
Giorgio.
15 MR. GNUGNOLI:
The way we initially interpreted this l
16 is they could proceed with the work.
We don' t have an 17 enforcement function, but they proceed at their own risk.
When i
18 they get to the point where they need to have our concurrence 19 we' ll transfer the land of the state to them, and that could 20 not be done with our concurrence.
21 Also, we might in the end deal with the state, if 22 they went ahead and strong armed the whole thing, we don' t see 23 this as happening, we would eventually be in the licensing 24 mode.
And then we would have in effect a power.
25 DR. MOELLER:
Go ahead.
(
(2) l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
n
th
(_)
209 i
MR. FLIEGEL:
Now, as I said before, the one process 2
is analogous in some way to reactor review process.
I' m going 3
to focus on the first stage in the process which is the review 4
process that leads to concurrence and the remedial action plan, 5
that is what they propose to do.
And in some ways that can be 6
considered analogous to a reactor construction permit review.
7 The end product of our review is a concurrence in 8
DOE's remedial action plan, that's what they propose to do.
9 Involved in that we review and comment on several types of 10 documents.
11 In the next viewgraph shows four different types of 12 documents that we' l l see and review during the process that
(~)
(se 13 ends up in our concurring the remedial action.
14 The first document we' ll typically see is the cadsar.
15 Comparative analysis of disposal site alternatives report.
And 16 that's a preliminary document that looks at various 17 alternatives, stabilization in place, stabilization on site i
l 18 which basically means moving the tailings from one location on 19 the site to another location on the site or various offsite l
20 locations.
l 21 And it will compare several sites and come to some i
22 conclusions.
And we will see that report in the draft version 23 and the final version.
The draft version we' ll comment on, l
24 send comments back to DOE.
Those comments will be reflected in 25 their final version.
f-
\\'
i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l l
i i
210
()
1 The final version we may also comment on, but we will 2
see those comments addressed in the next document we see which 3
iG the actual remedial action plan.
4 We' ll also see in EA or EIS, usually it's in EA.
And 5
we review the EA for two purposes.
We review it as an expert 6
government agency just commenting on the EA.
We also use the 7
EA as an information source.
For instance, lots of times in 8
discussing a remedial -- proposed remedial action some of the 9
basic information on the keychydrolic or geolicy will actually 10 be in the EA.
11 We do not concur in DOE's EA.
We do not have to 12 write our own impact statement.
O) x_
13 We see the remedial action plan which is the actual 14 basic document that describes what DOE proposes to do remediate 15 the site to comply with epa standards.
We' l l see that in draft 16 form.
We' ll comment on that.
We' l l see a preliminary final.
17 And then the final version which is for our concurrence.
18 Now, we' ll also see a design document which will have 19 details of the actual design details.
So, for instance, if 3
20 you' re looking at erosion protection the remedial action plan 21 may describe in general, we' re going to have slopes of five on 22 one.
We' re going to use four in trock or whatever, and the 23 design will actually show you schematics of how a tow is to be f
24
- built,
)
25 When we see the draft we' ll see that separate from 7,,
k.)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(}
211 1
the remedial action plan.
But when we see the preliminary 2
final we see the two documents together because they constitute 3
a package, you then have to see them together.
4 DR. MOELLER:
Now, the cads are -- is that a 5
comparative analysis of costs, meaning economic in health or 6
comparative analysis of environmental impacts or what?
7 MR. FLIEGEL:
Giorgio.
I had thought it was 8
primarily from our point of view, looking at it in terms of the 9
standard and how best to comply with the standards, 10 MR. GNUGNOLI:
It's sort of a pre-evaluation of a 11 number of alternatives.
There are usually more alternatives at 12 DOE to look at then the two or three that reportedly show up at
()
13 the environmental assessments.-
14 Certainly cost is one of the considerations.
If they 15 find that one grouping of alternative sites are much, much more 16 expensive, they may eliminate them versus the cost that would 17 be expended for those.
I 18 So, in fact, it's sort of a pre-screening analysis.
(
19 Granted they may not at that point have in-depth I
20 characterization of all the sites.
But with the available j
21 information at that point they can do the screening to see what 22 is going on.
So it's sort of a screening process.
l 23 DR. MOELLER:
I' m trying to understand the factors, 24 the key factors that go into the screening.
I 25 MR. GNUGNOLI:
The cort?
O l
1 Heritage Reporting Corporation I
(202) 628-4888
()
212 1
DR. MOELLER:
Cost is important.
2 MR. GNUGNOLI:
And they make an initial estimate 3
about how expensive it can be.
If a site maybe at that point, 4
there might be 10 or 12 sites, if one of them are almost 5
impossible, these standards would be eliminated regardless of 6
the cost.
7 DR. MOELLER:
Jim has some comments.
8 MR. TURI:
If I could Just add to what has been said.
9 Basically as a screening of potential disposal sites, because 10 we found in trying to reach agreement with the states and the 11 indian tribes of where to relocate these tailings piles, if r
12 they hava to relocate.
In many cases people are identifying 13 disposal sites very late in the game.
So we had to throw out a 14 lot of man years of engineering and start over again.
15 So, trying to feree an initial decision up front of 16 what disposal sites are qualifiec', cost is a very small 17 consideration at this point, a consideration very small.
18 The primary one is, will it meet the EPA standards 19 and the NRC regulations.
And to whittle that down to a 00 legitimate handful of disposal sites, you can' t look at 20 21 disposal sites, we Just don' t have the funds to do that.
22 So to try to force that consensus building to locate 23 two or three disposal sites in addition to stabilization on 24 site.
So that prepares the ground work for our environmental 25 analysis and also our more detailed engineering.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
213 1
The amount of engineering we do at this stage is 2
preconceptional.
It is very, very preliminary.
It's just a 3
first blush, does it look like it's going to make it or not.
4 DR. STEINDLER:
Is this the document, Jim, at which 5
the public begins to provide some input?
6 MR. TURI:
Yes.
For ext.1ple, we saw on the video 7
tape a couple of, Greg Hawk from the Durango task force.
Each 8
state is setting up a task force to provide for community 9
input.
So we have a number of public meetings and discussions 10 with the state, with the locals, with the Nuclear Regulatory 11 Commission we' ll identify a legitimate set, reasonable number 12 of disposal sites.
That would be the first step that the 13 public would have.
'imes 14 Again, this is pretty deep process.
A lot of c
15 this is a year to two years before environmental document hits 16 the streets for them to comment on.
17 DR. MOELLER:
Thank you.
18 MR. FLIEGEL:
The next slide lays out the review 19 process itself on the time line, for our review leading to 20 concurrence in proposed remedial action.
21 The numbers on the top are the days that we have 22 agreed to turn around these documents.
And that's in our 23 memorandum of understanding.
That's the ideal situation.
It's 24 also dependent upon how many six documents would we have, our
)
25 staff resources are limited.
So if we are working on four of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
.( )
214 1
them we can' t turn the next one around. in 30 days' or 45 days.
2 The,re are several things that I should bring to your-3 attention.
In the early ctages of review, what we' re providing 4
to DOE are comments.
The-final action at the end is an NRC
)
5 concurrence.
6 And towards the end what we provide are TERs, which 7
I' ll discuss later.
They' re technical evaluation reports that 8
basically are NRC's documentation, how we conclude that'the 9
proposed action will meet epa standards.
10 There are also several stages where we need more than 11 one document to perform our review.
At the draft rap stage we 12 need the environmental assessment with it.
We consider it a O-13 package.
We' ve tried to do some reviews in the past with Just 14 one document or another document and we found that it's 15 wasteful resources, because you need information in the other 16 document.
17 The same thing when we' re near the end and looking at 18 the proposed remedial action we need the remedial action plan 19 and the design plan together.
When we' ve tried to do them 20 separately we' ve had problems.
21 Now, in addition to this process the next slide shows 22 that there are really, in addition to the formal process of 23 commenting and our writing documents, there's additional 24 interactions with DOE.
25 For example, if we have written some comments and DOE Heritage Reporting Corporation
<202) 628-4888
215 1
provides a response, in many cases we' ll look at that response 2
at the next document review.
But if a reviewer looks at the.
32 response and says, oh, my God, DDE is Just completely off base, 4
they' ve got the wrong idea.
We can get back with DOE early and 5
let them know that.
6 DOE has meetings where they bring their contractors 7
in to discuss their proposed design at various stages.
I think 8
they have a 30 percent design meeting.
They have a 60 percent.
9 What do you have an 80 or a 90 percent design meeting?
- Well, 10 they have indicated that it would be very helpful to them if we 11 would have some of our technical experts at the 60 percent 12 design meetings.
13 And to the extent that we have the resources and the 14 travel funds we try to do that.
15 DR. MOELLER:
Where are those held, at the site?
16 MR. FLIEGEL:
They tend to be at the engineer's 17 office.
Most of them or many of them in San Francisco.
So i
18 staf f doesn' t complain about being told to go to one of those.
19 (Continued on next page.)
20 21 22 23 24
(:)
i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
216 1
(Continued from previous page.)
2 and towards the end of the process when we' ve seen a 3
preliminary final design or preliminary final rap, and are 4
getting to the point where we' re saying we can concur except 5
for the following three things, or four things, or two things.
6 That is the potential for NRC DOE meetings, telephone 7
conferences -- and so on, and so forth -- that are in those few-8 remaining items out.
9
- Finally, I' d like to talk a little bit about what's 10 down here as a draft or a final TER.
And this is -- has to do 11 with concurrence.
12 And that's because in this review that's our product
()
is concurrent.
And the last page just shows you where that 13 14
-- shows up in the legislation -- a couple places in the 15 legislation.
16 It says that the action should be selected'and 17 performed with the concurrence of the Commission.
18 DR. MOELLER:
And what does the Secretary of Interior 19
-- Department of Interior -- what do they do?
Or do they have 20 any clout?
21 Is that for DOE to --
22 MR. FLIEGEL:
That ' s -- yes, when it says the 23 secretary it means -- in that Act, the secretary means the 24 Secretary of DOE, which in reality is the people we deal with 25 at a much lower level than DOE 1 and the Conmission refers to O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
217 1
NRC.
2 DR. MOELLER:
Well, wait.
Now in your section 3
108 (a) ( 1 ), the top one --
4 MR. FLIEGEL:
Yes.
5 DR. MOELLER:
The Secretary of Interior, I assume, is 6
the Secretary of the Department of the Interior.
7 MR. LOHAUS:
I believe that's primarily directed at 8
insuring an adequate level of coordination and involvement on 9
the part of the Indian tribel and also if there's any land 10 ownership issues --
11 DR. MOELLER:
Oh, yes.
12 MR. LOHAUS:
-- that may come up -- would involve j
v 13 consultation with the Department of the Interior, i
14 MR. FLIEGEL:
That's DOE's responsibility -- to 25 ensure that they do that coordination with the othur agencies.
16 I' ve underlined where NRC --
17 DR. MOELLER:
Well, what does that consultation Indian tribe, and 18 include?
Could you comment on it?
With 19 the Secretary of Interior -- I now hear t.' e *
'bviously only oly with the 20 with the Indian tribe that's near the v
. ' x 21 Department of Interior if it's public lano 22 MR. TURI:
That's correct.
And we wou4d -- if we had 23 a disposal site on a Bureau of Land -- Management of Lands --
24 BOM is part of the Department of Interior.
25 So we deal with DOM.
The Secretary of Interior has t
l l
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 l
l
p (m
218
(_)
1 basically delegated authority down to DOM.
So that when we 2
negotiate with DOE, the transfer of such lands to the 3
Department of Energy --
4 DR. MOELLER:
So this has not given you any problems 5
or anything?
6 MR. TURI:
No, it's just difficult to transfer lands 7
from DOM to the Department of Energy.
It's not something one 8
does in one month or two months.
It could take several months.
9 The whip Cph], for example, was taken I think four or 10 five years to transfer to the Department of Energy.
It's an 11 entirely different situation than ours, but that gives you an 12 example that it's not something that's readily done.
f3
')
13 DR. MOELLER:
Okay.
's 14 D R.
STEINDLER:
I guess my question i s, from your 15 standpoint, the way this process is outlined here, is this 16 functional?
17 MR. FLIEGEL:
This is the way we' re doing it now.
18 DR. STEINDLER:
I d idn' t pose the question right.
Is 19 it -- does it work fairly smoothly?
You' ve got very short 20 times for your processes -- certainly shorter than some other 21 things that I ' ve -- we' ve encountered.
22 MR. FLIEGEL:
Yes, we' ve tried to accommodate DOE in 23 an on-going project to the extent that we can, but we have --
24 there are some cases where it is difficult to meet these dates, 25 especially if we have other projects in-house at the same time.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
219
./
1 MR. SURMEIER:
You raise a good point -- since I 2
have a technical branch with technical people by and large 3
working inLmy group.
The MOU between DOE and NRC was put 4
together, hopefully, in a very optimistic way to meet these 5
deadlines.
6 We have talked to DOE about possibly even modifying 7
some of these dates because it is very difficult, mostly if DOE 8
starts changing priorities of all the schedules coming in.
9 And all of a sudden we have staf f that's going to be 10 working on one thing, and then we' ve got some more things a
11 coming in.
You raise a very, very good point.
So I don' t we.nt 12 to have it look like these dates are not a concern.
()
13 We' d like to look successful from meeting deadlines 14 ourselves.
And right now we' re not doing a very good Job of 13 meeting the date which Dr. Fliegel has been --
16 DR. STEINDLER:
And you believe that you' re primarily 17 resource limited in this case -- that there isn' t anything l
18 else?
19 If you had additional group of staff to handle those 20 problems, you could probably meet the deadlines?
l 21 MR. SURMEIER:
Depends on parties --
1 22 DR. STEINDLER:
Where's the hang-up?
23 MR. SURMETER:
We go back to what Bob Browning was j
24 talking about this morning about high q'tality application this 25 morning, you know.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
220 1
When we get good products from DOE -- and we have.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4
)
1 We' ve got some good - - other t imes you don' t.
The better the 2
product, the better communication you had orally with DOE, 3
before they!ve sent something in.
4 You know, if we had resources, and everything worked 5
out beautifully from communication we got but we were expecting 6
to get, I think we could do it.
7 The problem where we run into hang-ups at times is we 8
get something in.
And there are things which are missing.
Ano 9
when things are missing we have to get back to DOE for them to 10 then provide us with additional clarifying information.
11 And again, if you' re using a stop watch -- when it 12 comes in our mail room you start clicking the clock and saying I')
\\-
13 it's 30 days from the time we physically received it as opposed 14 to the time we physically accepted it, as far as saying it's
- t. 5 worthy of review, I think that if we' re using the latter we' d 16 be in a much better position of saying, hey, we could do it 17 within that period of time.
18 MR. FLIEGEL:
And we' re in the process now of trying 19 to approach it that way.
We' ve had an agreement that in the 20 future what we will do shen we get a document during document 21 packing, we' ll try and de a real quick acceptance review.
22 And if there are pieces missing we' ll go back to DOE 23 and tell them that -- wait until those come in before we start 24 our review.
25 In terms of operational, we have written some TERs, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i
("%
\\-)
222 1
but we' ve not yet done one the way this time line envisions.
2 And I was going to get into that next.
3 That is, from DOE's perspective the concurrence is i
4 accomplished when they get the proper signature, an NRC 5
signature, on the appropriate document.
6 And in the past, what had been done is that based 7
upon our reviews and comments, and comments being responded to, 8
we' ve concurred.
9 But we came to the realization that we really needed 10 our own document, that lays out Just from our perspective how 11 the applicable epa standards are met by DOE's proposed remedial 12 action at a particular site.
13 And so we develop the concept of a technical 14 evaluation report, which is in some ways analogous to a reactor 15 safety evaluation report.
16 It's no where near as complex t and of course the 17 criteria aren' t as many.
The reactor -
you have numerous 18 criteria.
STE' NDLER :
Why did you decide you needed -- you 19 DR.
I 20 don' t have a license responsibilityi you don' t have enforcement 21 responsibility.
l l
22 Why did you inject another layer of writing which, in 23 the potential of a tight time schedule would simply give you f
24 additional difficulty?
l 25 MR. FLIEGEL:
Because we ran in -- for instance l
m)
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 1
{
223
' nto one problem when we were looking at the next step of a i
1 2
process, where we' re concurring in the completion.
3 What happens is you -- there's a concurrence and the 4
proposed design.
Then DOE goes and builds it where we' re 5
idonitoring the performance.
6 And then they ecne in with a report that says it's' 7
complete. And then we have to have another concurrence.
And 8
the first one in Canonsburg -- we didn' t have any of our own 9
documentation that explained why we concurred at a particular 10 aspect.
11 For instance if the design would meet the epa's 12 standard.
And in many -- and in some of' the cases the people
()
-13 who had come to that conclusion are no longer with the agency.
14 So there Just was no documentation to explain how we 15 came to that concurrence.
And if we ever had to go explain 16 that - _ i f, for instance, there was a lawsuit or a hearing 17 proposed, we didn' t have our own documentation.
18 We have written a few TERs.
We' ve written one for i
19 Salt Lake Cityl for Lakeview and Durango. Eph3 But what we i
20 propose to do -- and we haven' t done it yet on any of -- none 1
21 of the sites come up to this day.
22 Rather than trying to resolve comments toward the end l
l 23 of a design, what we propose to do now is, when we get to the 24 later stages of a design, rather than a comment, and a comment-l 25 response, so on and so forth, just take that information, and i
I l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
O) 224
\\_
1 try and write out basically our story of how it meets the EPA's 2
standards.
3 And if we can do that then we can concur.
If we have 4
a sticking point then that's where we have an issue that has to
}
5 be resolved before concurrence.
n[
6 DR. STEINDLER:
I gu ess I' m a little confused.
I 7
looked at Jim's schedule in terms of how many things that were 8
done up to 1980 -- wherever we are.
And there is a lot -- been 9
a lot of activity.
Okay?
1 10 And one, two -- heaven knows how many.
And-if you i
11 tell me you've not written any TERs --
?
12 MR. FLIEGEL:
No, we' ve written 3 TERs.
We' ve
?
e
\\ -
13 written TERs for Salt Lake City, Lakeview, and Durango, but we I
14 have not yet tried to write a TER before we've given our 15 concurrence.
16 That i s, on some of those we' ve reviewed DOE's l
17 documentation.
We' ve said, "Yes, based upon the fact that 18 you' ve answered all of our comments, we' ll concur, and then i
19 we' l l go and write our documentation."
l 20 And sometimes when you do that -- when you try and l
l 21 write it down, you find a point that you -- I guess in
[
22 reviewing ether people's documents that present you with l
23 difficulties.
24 We' re also in the process of developing another 1
25 document similar to the TER to document or concurrence in the l
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1.
l
p(_/
225 1
performance and completion of the remedial action.
2 And we' re working on that for the Canonsburg site, 3
which is the first site that DOE has presented us with 4
documentation that they completed.
5 And we hope to have the draft of that done -- NRC 6
document out soon.
That's basically what I wanted to talk 7
about today.
8 DR. MOELLER:
Any other questions or comments?
9 DR. STEINDLER:
Yes, I wonder if I can address one to 10 Jim.
I' ve asked the NRC folks how the process goes as far as 11 they' re concerned.
Would you be willing to -- you know, you' ve 12 given us a hint about how long it takes to get the Bureau of O
\\l/
13 Land Management on the ball.
14 Are you willing to stick your neck out and answer the 15 notion of how well do you see the process from your standpoint?
16 MR. TURI:
We think it's going vary well.
We think 17 there's been a very good relationship developed.
l l
18 Early on -- I think it was Dale, but I' m not sure --
19 talked about the standard review plan, and technical approach l
20 document to be redeveloped.
l 21 These two sister parallel documents, I think, helped
(
22 us a lot because it told our contractors what they were
(
l 23 supposed to dol and it told the NRC staff what they were l
24 supposed to do in the sharing of these document, in the early 25 draft stages -- make sure they were consistent.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
O e26 1
So it made the NRC staff Job easier and it made our 2
Job easier.
There are problems.
Sometimes we screw upi and we 3
don' t send in a good quality document.
That happens.
4 There are legitimate, technical differences.
5 Sometimes those past couple of years we've had disagreements on 6
rock durability.
We think one rock meets the standard, and NRC' 7
doesn' t -- those legitimate technical differences.
8 There are_ timing problems.
Sometimes we run into 9
institutional problems and we can' t -- we have to delay a 10 submittal to NRC.
11 And that screws up your staff assignment.
We get hit f
12 in saying, "Hey, say you -- we' re ready to go.
Get this in to I
13 NRC now."
Well, that causes man-power problems for NRC.
l 14 It occurs to them to get the people out for our 15 meetings.
Somet imes they' ve been able to do that, ano other 16 t imes they haven' t.
And they' re good reasons -- legitimate 17 reasons for that.
18 I think also there's a dif ference in the sense that 19 from the reactor side I think NRC is used to applicants 20 submitting a final product.
21 And I think our motive operation sometimes is -- we 22 think this is the right way to go, but we' d kind of like to get 23 your feeling early on before we devote too much time, energy l
24 and money to it.
25 And I think that's a dif ferent mode of operation.
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
l
(~)
227
(_/
1 And so there's a philosophical difference, I think, in that i
2 motive of operation.
3 But overall we' re very pleased, very happy with the 4
relationship.
So I' ll agree with all the good things that have 5
been said today.
6 DR. STEINDLER:
The high level waste folks uses this 7
consultive draft approach that we heard about this morning.
Is 8
that of any use as a concept, as far as you' re concerned?
9 MR. TURI:
Yes, in fact they may even have borrowed 10 it from us, if I think about it, because we had the cadsar, 11 which is doing thatl we have draft wrapsi we hava the draft 12 beneath the documents.
We have these periodic meetings.
()
13 We have periodic technical meetings --rock 14 durability.
Let's get this point down -- exactly what standard 15 are we going to use?
What test are we going to use, so I don' t 16 have to be arguing this site, after site, after site?
17 DR. STEINDLER:
Thank you.
18 (MALE VOICE, WEARING GREY PINSTRIPES)s I want to 19 respond, too, from the stand point that the evaluation report 20 that Mike's referrinD to can -- while they do take an extra 21 amount of work, they do provide, I think, a help to the process l
22 in identifying and documenting a basis for the design and the 23 remedial action plan meet ing the EPA's standard.
24 And if there are some problems or difficulties or l
25 issues that might not have surfaced, by doing that at an early l
l i
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
()
228 1
time, those issues are identified, which then allows DOE to 2
deal with them at an early time before.
3 Maybe the design is cast in concrete, or the bull-4 dozer are out there beginning to go burst. Eph3 5
There's an advantage we see to preparing those 6
documents -- not only to document our evaluation on the basis 7
for the concurrence, but also to identify issues at an early 8
timet surface those so we can all focus on them and bring them 9
to resolution.
10 MR. TURI:
We support the NRC and its technical 11 evaluation report because it does provide a written record.
12 Just as Mike said, people move on, and people sometimes have O
(/
13 lapses of memories.
14 Why did I say I agree to that?
15 (Laughter) 16 MR. TURI:
And this provides written documentation 17 that we both can fall back on.
And I think we both have to 18 assume -- both agencies -- potentially, we could end up in some 19 third party litigation.
20 And so we need, from DOE's st andpoint, to be able to 21 have a fully documented record of why we selected the designi 22 what it looks like.
23 NRC has to have a fully documented record of why it 24 concurred.
We have to be able to support our decisions in the 25 social, as well as legal environment.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
229 i
MR. FLIEGEL:
Yes, and I said it was analogous to an 2
SER or reactor.
When I left NER the SERs were running hundreds 3
of pages.
4 Our documents are what -- a dozen or two dozen pages?_
5 Something like that.
So it's analogous --
6 DR. MOELLER:
Any other comments or questions for Mr.
7 Fliegel?
8 (No response) 9 DR. MOELLER:
Okay.
Thank you very much.
I think 10 then that wraps up the formal program for today.
The Waste 11 Management Subcommittee will immediately go into executive 12 session following the closeout this afternoon.
13 And then we will be resuming the meeting tomorrow I
14 morning at 8:30, at which time we will be concentrating 15 primarily on the research program, both in high level and low 16 level waste -- the research program within the U.S.
NRC.
17 Let me close out, then, by thanking all of our people 18 today.
The NRC people -- and most importantly the visitors --
19 the DOE people who have kindly come here and met with us.
20 With those remarks I declare today's formal program 21 recessed.
?
22 (Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m.,
the above matter was i
i 23 concluded.)
l 24 25 i
Heritagrs Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 CERTIFICATE 2
(
3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 4
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
5 Name:
6 Low Level Waste Management 7
Docket Number:
8 Place Washington, D.C.
9 Date:
January 21, 1988 10 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 11 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 12 Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me and, 13 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction 14 of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a 15 true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
16
/S/ t u
h 17 (Signature typed):
Joan Rose 18 Official Reporter 19 Heritage Reporting Corporation 20 21 22 23 24 25
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
J y
og R Um u= % i m > V> weses-I
~T~l O M, R & 6-' *N 1WG.
7?ra=EOccam i/
O
/-2/- F#
V 3
1 (5) INTRODUCTION 2,3 (Q) The Uranium Recovery Field Office was created in October 1982,,
with the transfer of the uranium recovery licensing function from the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards to, Region IV.
(?) The Denver office was formally opened in. the spring of 1983 by Chaiman Palladino.
4 (6) The responsibility for the uranium recovery licensing program is vested in the, Director, NM55, by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 that created the NRC.
Even though the authority for the conduct of the program was transferred to Region IV, the Director, HMSS maintains programatic oversight through the establishment of policy and guidance as well
'a s ongoing audits.
The Regional Administrator ensures that activities at URF0 are carried out consistent with Pegional pol ~icies and procedures.
Shortly after its establishnent, inspection of uranium recovery facilities was assigne'd from Region IV to URF0.
The programatic --
g oversight for this function Yprovided by IE through its manual 4g chapters and periodic audits) L b w h M o4-ts M<0 Ww g
ve qc w hth g cb#,n6 % as a gesu/f sr90u_ %d geocqtd?{bhoq, t
5
(%) The Denver office is staffed by 17 persons.
The professional staff of geologists,
geohydrologists, hydrologists, health physicists, and geotechnical engineers is augmented by secretarial f
and management support.
The staffing level of the office has remained constant since its inception.
l O
l J
.' O 2
6 (6) The Uranium Recovery Field Office carries out a program. of' licensing and inspecting uranium mills and in-situ minin'g operations.
In addition, the office participates, along with NMSS, ~
~
in the review of remedial action ac'tivities carried out by the Department of Energy on inactive-uranium mill sites.
_s[aservice to Agreement States with uranium recovery facilities, the office provides technical assistance in the vfor'm of technical reviews, training, and consultation.
These activities will be discussed shortly.
7 (4)(TITLESLIOE) 8
(%) First, let's look at the basic technology of uranium recovery operations and the disposal of uranium mill tailings.
9-10 (5) Uranium ore gcaswH7 comes from large scale open pit mines, '
although some mills receive ore from underground mines (5) such as this older one on the Colorado Plateau._ cuJ A/C N M)f/C 11
(%) The basic process for extracting uranium from its parent ore has changed little over the past 30 years of commercial operation.
In f
this process, uranium ore is first crushed and then ground to a fine particle size.
Af ter mixing with water and acid in the process I
stream, uranium is leached from the ore and then chemically separated prior to drying and packaging.
The waste materials are known as uranium tailings and these are removed from the process i
stream as the uranium is being chemically separated.
I l
l
\\
J
Q '
a e-
,[--
3 12,13
(!) This mill was built in the mid-1950's and uses the same acid-leaching process as (9) this
- modern, largely computer-controlled mill built in the late 1970's.
The major,
differences between the mills of the 1950's and those of the late 1970's lie in improved technology in extraclion, worker 1 ealth and 3
safety and uranium mill tailings disposal,
, e will now focus on W
this latter point.
14-15 (s) Tailings produced by the milling process are typically about 507 solids and 50'4 liquids.
(h) Consequently, they are transported as a slurry through large hoses for discharge in an impoundment as shown here.
16
(?) When discharged as waste, the tailings separate naturally into O
three compoments:
e coerse frection ceiied sends, e fine frect4en called slimes and process water or liquor.
17-18
($) As shown here, the slimes fraction of tailings has a significantly higher level of radioactivity than the (9) sands fraction due to the higher concentration of Radium-226 in the i
slimes.
l 19-21 (6) Tailings impoundments are of three general types:
those created by constructing an embankment across a natural basin or
(
drainage a rea (!) those created by constructing an above-grade engineered cell, and, (6) at a few locations in New Mexico, deposition directly on the surface as a free-standing pile.
The first type is by far the most comon.
O l
O 4
22 (6) In this aerial view of a tailings disposal area created.by impounding a natural drainage, you can see several characteristics of such impoundments.
One is the beach created by ta,ilings discharge from behind the embankment's' upstream face.
This beach is created when the coarse heavy sa'nd fraction of the' discharged tailings separates out.
The, finer,, lighter sline's ' fraction separates more slowly and sinks to the ' bottom of the pond of tailings liquid.
When operations cease at this mill, the pond will begin to evaporate relatively rapidly as a resul t of the high
~
evaporation rate in the area.
23 (9) The NRC, through the Uranium Recovery Field Office, licenses an'd regulates 20 uranium milling facilities in Wyoming, Utah, South O
Oexote eed new Mexico.
^t 'the present time, four miiis ere 2
o-operating and six pn are shut down.
operating mill /jd located in V'ah, in Wyoming, and one in flew Mexico.
t 24-29
(?)
Although there is considerable variation betwen environmental conditions in uranium mining areas such as (5) the l
Canyonlands area of Southeastern Utah, (6) the Shirley Basin, (6) the Red Desert and (%) the Gas Hills of Wyoming, and (6) the New Mexico Desert, there are some broad similarities.
l 30-32 (5) For example, all NRC-licensed mills are located in remote, sparcely-populated areas.
(G) There are no NRC-licensed mills within 75 miles of a city of 50,000 or greater population. Post are at least 30-40 miles from a city of 10,000-50,000 population.
(6)
For example, Casper, Wyoming is the largest city in the Wyoming O
l
[
J
5 uranium milling areas that NRC regulates and has a current population of about 49,000.
~
33-37 (6) Climatic conditions are generally harsh, (6) with annual precipitation in the range of only 6-12 ; inches.
(6)"Winters, especially in Wyoming, may begin,in October and often last well into May.
(6) Wind speeds are typically high 'and contribute to a high rate of evapotranspiration.,(9) Soils are generally thin and poorly developed.
38 (5) LICENSING AND INSPECTION OF URANIUM REC 0VERY FACILITIES The major issues being dealt with by URF0 through its licensing activities are ensuring the safe condition of operating facilities.
O the controiled me4ntenence of t80se thet ere temporerily shut down, and the decommissioning and reclamation of permanently closed facilities.
39-42 (9) While URF0's program of in-house reviews of license and amendment applications and operating and environmental data, helps to ensures that operations are being conducted in accordance with NRC rules and license requirements, (6) it is our program of routine and special inspections in the field that rounds out our efforts to ensure compliance.
($) Each uranium recovery facility is routinely inspected at least once a year.
(6) In addition to review of records and data, our inspectors observe operations and make independent measurements.
Special inspections are conducted to investigate unusual occurrences O
\\
/']
6 43-45 (6) As part of the licensed program at mills, environmental moni.toring stations are established that measure both direct and airborne radioactivity at NRC-licensed mills.
($) Regulations,
require that off< site doses be limited to 25 mrem per year to any individual.
(6) NRC-licensed uranium mills do,not discharge any liquid effluents from their sites to surface waters.
46-49 (9) Recently establis.hed EPA standards and NRC regulations require that all new impoundments and all expanded areas of existing impoundments must have a liner that will prevent any migration of wastes out of the impoundment during its active life.
(%) Even before the EPA requirements, the NRC required all new impoundments licensed since 1977 to be lined, either with synthetic or natural materials.
Synthetic liners have been emplaced at two NRC-licensed mills with mixed results.
This liner performed well when first installed.
(6) However, a combination of inadequate maintenance and harsh weather conditions led to tears in the liner and (%) eventual loss of integrity.
50 (s) Recognizing that synthetic liners may fail or that existing C
l impoundments may already leak, current EPA standards and NRC's W regulations include provisions for ground-water E8;NOn monitorinyograms at licensed mills.
Such programs are intended sv &-as thesc ground-water contagination ic sentte wella to l
byahruimr-ttr3T subs-N indicative Of the presence of hazardous constituent u rc ; __
t in quantities wWabove background levels.
9 i
51-52
(%
Implementation of the recently required dr.;;thn ab nW~
I rn - g ams has been considerably aided by the fact that all i
O i
l
\\
7 NRC mills have long had a network of monitoring wells (5) which are sampled at least quarterly to detect evidence of seepage from impoundnients.
(6) If ironitoring detennines'that hazarhous cons'tituehts are in 53-56 fact present in unacceptable quantities e corr.ective action programs would be required.
Such programs, oned implemented, would have as their goal the return of gr.ound water to background quality.
(6)
Mitigative actions already in place at NRC-licensed mills include aquifer withdrwal and pumpback systems.
(%) Another mitigative action technique involves a tile drain which functions to cut off and drain contaminated water from an aquifer for pumpback.
(6)
Performance of such systems is monitored by sampling appropriate wells on a quarterly basis.
57-58 (s) As a complement to the ground-water mitigation systems, we have required emplacement of enhanced evaporation systems such as the sprayer systems shown here in Wyoming.
(6) Rather than allowing seepage water to be returned to the impoundment in a perpetual cycle, such systems can evaporate considerable amounts of water and assist in control of ground-water contamination.
59 (6) NRC's regulations contain requirements for the post-closure period following the cessation of operations and reclamation of the assure cont of
.<ea % d,rol3 uw woble._
site.
These requirements are intended to radiological hazards for 1000 years to the extent pr:d::% but in no case less than 200 years.
O
1
'O 8
60-62
(%)
Examples of mea sures to ensure stability are the reco.ntouring of the pile and use of rip rap to resist water erosion,
(%) engineered channels to divert flood waters from reclaimed tailings and (6) establishment of native vegetation on reclaimed areas.
s 63-64 (5) Most tailings piles will be reclaimed in place; however, at least one NRC-licensed facility is moving all of its tailings (Q) to newly constructed disposal cells nearby.
65-66 (6) Our regulations also require that post-closure radon 2
releases to the atmosphere will be limited to 20 pC1/m /second.
Achievement of this standard will be effected by (%) placement of several feet of earth or other materials in a tailinos reclamation
~
O
~
cover.
67-68
($) These longevity requirements do not, however, aoply to any portion of a site that contains radium-226 concentrations below those allowed by our standards.
(6) For example, the land surface under and around this partially decommissioned mill will be surveyed and those areas above the radium concentrations will be excavated for disposal, PARTICIPATION IN URANIUM MILL TAILINGS R DIAL ACT ION PROGRAM 69-77 (5) The Uranium Recovery F eld fice is participating with NMSS in carrying out NRC's respony ilities under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Ac / of 1978.
Under this act, the Department of Energy, in c erat ion with States and Indian Tribes
~
O 4
i
,me---
-e-ey.
p
-936y e g,, e.me.
g
O O
9 designates intetive uranium processing sites such as these,at' Mexican Hat, Utah 's) (5) and (6) (6) Monume t Valley, Arizona.
(5)
~
In addition, DOE sbl ts and (9) perfonns remedial actions,at the sites.
They also con et cleanup of earby (%) (6) off-site ~
properties. The NRC's role s to. concur i the designation of sites and the remedial action plans o, ensure, ompliance with'a'ppropriate EPA standards.
Remediated sites are mon'to' red and maintained by 00E under a licensed issued by NRC.
78-86 (6) Twenty-six, sites were desi ated for remedial action and over 5,000 vic'inity properties wer entified for study and clean up as necessary.
Remedial tion have been completed at Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, a
(6)
- Shiprock, New flexico.
Construction is currently unde wayat(6) alt Lake City, Utah; (5)
Lakeview, Oregon; and (9) 00rango, Colo do.
Construction is Q
anticipated to commence i 1987 at (%) T a City, Arizona and j
Riverton, Wyoming.
(6)/URF0 performs constr tion inspections at these sites (6) to enSthe that remedial actions a performed (6) in d
accordance with app ved remedial action plans.
6-TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO AGREEMENT STATES 87-92
(%) There are three Agreement States with responsibility for regulating uranium recovery facilities (Colorado,
- Texas, and Washington). We have provided technical assistance to these States, as requested, in the form of reviews, training, and consultation.
(%) When an Agreement State wishes to terminate a license for a urar.iun recovery facility, the NRC must concur in the action af ter detemining that all appropriate standards have been met.
Much of O
O-20 our activity is to review and comment on State actions that nay' affect the final reclamation of the site.
(6) For example, we have been working with the State of Colorado in the review of closure and
~
reclamation plans for the mill at Uravan, Colorado.-
(%) In addition, we have worked with the State of Texas (%) in' reviewing activities at (5) several South T,exas facilities.'
INTERACTION WITH NON-AGREEMENT STATES 93-95 (9)
Several Non-Agreement States with uranium recovery facilities have responsibilities for enforcing water quality standards for non-radiological contaminants.
For example, here in northwestern Nebraska, the state's responsibilities and authorities derive from state statutes and, to some extent, frcm EPA.
(G)NRC's Q
regulations, which derive from' EPA standards, also apply to certain non-radiological constituents.
(6) We have worked closely with the staffs of Wyoming, New Mexico, and Nebraska to ensure that our respective responsibilities are met with a minimum of duplication of i
effort and with a consistent approach to the licensee who must comply with both programs.
96 (6) This concludes the prepared presentation.
Questions about the Uranium Recovery Field Office's program would be welcomed.
i
!O l
sum um num amm uma amm mum uma nums amm nas uma sum amm amm num suum ums num O
O O
\\
l URANIUM MILL l
TAILINGS REMEDIAL ACTION PROJECT l
l T!
JANUARY 21,1988 e
w b
(
W W
S W
W M
M W
W W
W W
'E W
M M
W W
W O
O O
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROGRAMMATIC RESPONSIBILITIES SECRETARY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY DEFENSE PROGRAMS I
Geologic Respositories Storage and Transportation Systems Nuclear Waste Fund OFFICE OF REMEDIAL DEPUTY ACTION & WASTE ASSISTANT SECRETARY TECHNOLOGY FOR NUCLEAR MATERIALS Low-Level Waste Waste Treatment West Valley OFFICE OF DEFENSE WASTE Byproducts 18 Citation AND TRANSPORTATION Remedial Actiens MANAGEMENT FUSRAP GJRAP UMTRAP V!aste Operations SFMP Lo73 Term Technology Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Defense Waste Processing Facility GENMS 02 005
M 1
00 20
.M PAR O
TMU M
. M
. M fM E
t E
CA P
C g
I T NVN g
E VS - GM
)
OT O g
I O
I NT M
R DS P
I T
AS J
COC C
G LN NMA
/
U I
CI S.
JGA D
AI UEL C
(
M T
N NE D DID E
HC N
E U
I CV ADM C
E R RNE T
E GAR S
U M
=
R PV T
Y L
)L N N A
OEN DA M
S M
(
AT U
E I
Y I S I
C R UM EMT R G D
NS EI O NO I EC E
T L
O R AY AG UF I
M KC SRA F
C T F E
S N
MWG E
RN YN O
I T OO F
MO A
RE EDL ULC R
AF A
S O
T R N O F I E E
R AJ U N S A R TT I
I I
N I T A FA N O TO QIO MC SE O H NLR UT U
E E
SR N C OILP BA J
L E
M O
G E
O L
)
E T
U I T R
A N
AN I
N F C VI AE S
F SI P P
P
(
B R CA U
I T OA I
O O
T E
D EO N S C NR HI M
A JG G C S AI S
E N
TA Z
E I
M N
)
E L N
A
(
D N B S
R O
GA OS I
Y I
E M
G R
RO A U V I
L U
KTL R
C C
S A A U
R N
N E
O N I S B
O O
I C
R CI JAT M
r ROOP
/
ET NDDE S E
L-T U--
A S-T N-S O-M C-M O
M M
l l
O O
O l
URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REMEDIAL ACTION PROJECT 1
OBJECTIVE Stabilization and Control of Residual Radioactive Material Associated With inactive Mill Tailings Sites AUTHORITY Public Law 95-604, Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (November 1978) l SCOPE l
Designate Sites Enter into Cooperative Agreements with States and Indian Tribes Conduct Remedial Actions at Processing Sites and Vicinity Properties Perform Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance of Disposal Sites UMTRAP 03 008
me uns se uso e am num os em uns e as num sur ma sus sus mee mas O
O O
I The Problem of Radioactivity from Uranium Mining & Milling i
1
~
r
.=LE:-
' //
/J Z.
E M25TC.x
'c-
// /
gf,ff j
{..-
Radon &
Rain Erosion / / / j / / /yf,f/,~,.
Daughters on the Pile
. Se
/
r./f 7
Dust
/
/ jdf;*.N N
'r
,- - - - -.:., - - e 5-g g#o
.'.. Uranium ^,
2,
' --Mill Tailings:.
at
, ranium. -
\\
- urrs U
Pile
'M
' - Resi h
' ' : ;,7. - ^ -
" Radium "
M.igration Salts Leaching s
in - -
2 a
+_. =
Radon Gas Concentrates Groundwater in Buildings URANIUM RADIUM RADON LEAD U-238 Ra226 Rn 222 BISMUTH (STABLE)
(Parent)
(Daughter)
(Gas)
(Solid) m1 TRAP 11 003
O O
O u - 2.
_,A
. m URANIUM - 238
~ ~"'"
RADIOACTIVE DECAY 45to MittlOst VfARS t
CHAIN 3 MINUTE I"
~
252.000 YE.R$
ALPlea PARISC11 24 DAYS T m M-234
,l' 18eUNIUne 234 ALPHA PA TBCLE 8088VEANS RADrute 226 BfTA PARTICLE ALPHA PARTICLE e 822 Yt An$
LEAD-214
/
AADOst-222 27 MINUTfS St$tfuTH 214 l
eD.vs 3
TE E
/
no uM.2..
-1A PA 1m.
.. APAR, m ALPHA PAMOE 1 # 16.000 SfCOND l
_ M 2..
if AD-218 n--
- 2...
, a,A.A, m I
sesMuTu2is
& DAYS m.2..
/
_,0 2,.
A.
INTRAP 11 014
O O
O URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REMEDIAL ACTION PROJECT SITE LOCATIONS i
BE LF BE LD '
e 90WM AN l
[
L AKEVltw SPOOM EDOEMONT l
f RIVERTON t AME, 1
civ v j'7MAYBELL-g nivt R ON O
g GH AND JC T NA TUfttT A 3 3l "N
ME NiCA80 H AY le g
g MO=uut = T.
.3,,,,noc, r 1 USA Auv4ROSsA city tA.c PRIORITIES r Atts ciTv a
a - HIGH
[
t a - MEDIUM Note:
EDGEMONT. SOUTH DAKOTA e - LOW viclNITY PROPERTIES ONLY 1RtTRAP 01 004
T aus sus est aus sai aus as aus mas an one sus ser eut aus ass um ase amp O
O O
RESPONSIBILITIES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
- Establishes Health and Environmental Standards DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
= Conducts Remedial Action NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- Estab!ishes Disposal Regulations
- Consults on NEPA
= Concurs on Cooperative Agreements
- Concurs on Remedial Action, Certification, and Surveillance and Maintenance
- Licenses Disposal Site DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
- Assists in Site Acquisitions
- Assists in Indian Affairs DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
- Determines Liabilities of Operators / Owners of Processing Sites
- Assists in Site Acquisitions UMTRAF 02 006
O O
O URANIUM MILL TAILINGS RADIATION CONTROL ACT OF 1978 (Public Law 95-604)
STATES Enter into Cooperative Agreement with DOE Acquire Disposal Site Concur on Remedial Action & Certification Pay 10% of Remedial Action Costs Transfer Site to DOE INDIAN TRIBES Enter into Cooperative Agreement with DOE Concur on Remedial Action & Certification UMTRAP 03 012
hN M
M N
M Qg M
N Q
m: mM M.
M.
M M
M O
O MILL TAILINGS STANDARDS 40 CFR 192.12 CONTROL OF TAILINGS PILES
- 1. LONGEVITY UP TO 1,000 YEARS, TO THE EXTENT REASONABLY ACHIEVABLE, BUT AT LEAST 200 YEARS 2
20 pCi/m s, OR 0.5 pCill IN AIR OUTSIDE THE DISPOSAL
- 2. RADON EMISSIONS FROM DISPOSAL SITE SITE: EQUIVALENT TO ABOUT 96% REDUCTION
- 3. WATER PROTECTION CLEANUP OF BUILDINGS
- 1. INDOOR RADON DECAY SHALL NOT EXCEED 0.03 WL: TO THE EXTENT PRODUCTS PRACTICABLE, ACHIEVE 0.02 WL
- 2. INDOOR GAMMA 20 MICRO R/hr RADIATION CLEANUP OF LAND
- 1. SURFACE 5 pCilg IN THE 15 cm SURFACE LAYER
- 2. BURIED 15 pCilg IN ANY 15 cm LAYER BELOW THE SURFACE LAYER EXCEPTIONS
- 1. PROCEDURE SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS (MAY BE APPLIED ON GENERIC OR SITE SPECIFIC BASIS)
- 2. APPLICABILITY WHERE HEALTH AND SAFETY WOULD BE ENDANGERED, OR WHERE COSTS CLEARLY OUTWEIGH BENEFITS. ALSO PROVIDED TO AVOID CLEANUP OF SMALL AMOUNTS OF l
TAILINGS AND INACCESSIBLE TAILINGS POSING MINIMAL HAZARDS UMTRAP 11 005
1 i
an em see sua ses sus-sus am mm am, em my
== e en see
= = >
aan se i
O O
O EPA INACTIVE MILL TAILINGS STANDARDS (40 CFR 192) 2 Radon Flux <20 pCi/m -sec or concentration <0.5 pCi/ liter at edge of pile j
<.03 WL
<20 micro R/hr 0 Pile Top 15 cm
<5 pCi/g
<15 pCi/g U:1TPAP 11 00f>
es esa sus em ses um seu een s u a m seu aus as a ses sus cium aus tus l
O O
O REMEDIAL ACTION REQUIREMENTS & SOLUTIONS EPA STANDARDS SOLUTIONS Stabilize & Control Tailings isolate in-Place or at New Piles and Control Radiation Location Emissions 200-1000 yrs Clean-Up Contaminated Excavate & Remove to Open Lands Disposal Site l
Clean-Up Contaminated Excavate & Remove to Structures Disposal Site; Sealants, Ventilation / Filtration Systems UMTRAP 03 004
N CO h
C O
s l
If.
s a9 h'.
/
k f
,,d
.V s
..e
.'**?,"
e !.l..l'
?.
. : :'.. c
.. i. ~* '
. a.
. v l*
g s,
\\
. [..
NQNN i
sN
\\\\\\
N s\\N NNNN N\\\\\\
N'. \\\\ \\
\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\NNNN NNN\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\
y
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\ \\ %.N \\ \\ \\ N h,i
+
h
,\\\\NN\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\NN
,l,
,NNN\\\\NNN N',\\\\\\\\\\\\N
- A
,\\\\NNNNNN
\\\\\\\\\\NNNN
.A\\\\\\NNNN4 %\\\\\\\\\\\\\\N W#
/.8.*,
, \\ N N N N N N N Nfs \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ N N N d
,\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ '.N \\ h \\ \\ N N \\ \\ \\ \\ N
,\\NNNNNNN 4N\\'.N\\\\\\\\N
',s L
,'l
.N\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\NNN\\\\\\\\N
, O M
.\\\\\\\\\\NNNN \\\\\\N\\NNNN Z
./
,N\\\\\\NNN\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\N\\N l
Q
=s'.*
,\\\\\\\\NNN\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\N Q
1
/l +. '
.\\NNNNNNN\\ \\\\NNNN\\\\N l
,\\\\\\\\NNN\\
NsNN\\\\\\\\N
.i a
,N\\\\NNN\\\\SNN\\\\\\\\\\\\N
- j m
- *./
,\\\\\\\\'N'.\\ d\\\\NN\\\\\\\\N
,N\\NNNNNN WNN\\\\N\\\\NN V#
Q
,'.. [ a
=
l
,\\\\\\\\%Ns\\ %%\\\\NN\\NNN
[l
..,. ~,
,\\NNNNNNN
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\NN I
,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\NN\\\\\\\\N l
,.a
,\\\\N\\\\\\\\N
\\\\\\Ws\\\\\\
Z I.'. 5...-
s\\ N,\\ N N N N N
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\N s
e.J E
O
- fff,
,\\NN\\NNN\\\\ NNNN\\\\\\NN R
W l
F
,N%.NN\\\\\\ \\ \\.NN \\\\ \\NN\\N N
Z O
E
$x 2
]
a.'/'.<
,\\N N\\ \\ N'.\\
\\\\\\\\\\NNNN Q
NNN\\\\\\\\\\
N\\\\\\NN \\\\'
LL.
E W
\\\\\\\\\\% \\\\ NN\\\\NNN 3
l
\\sN\\\\
\\ \\ w, O
a w F
\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\s e....
g O l
sN\\\\\\
- s. ws e
I f:,;.,
\\s\\ NN O
g E s
ss o v O,
w 4
c.
l
- ~ i..
t J F 2 M mz
<<W c
x x
z O_
5 f
z >< o g O m l
9O O =! O O E xW < < Z O W O H E W l
9 8@@@@@
g O
9..
g l
s L_________---________---
M M
M g
g g
g g
g g
g g
g g
o O
O l
l SITES TO BE RELOCATED 1
i
^
Y__'
J BELFIELD (R)
O LAKEVIEW l
(R) g Q
SALT I
RIVERTON C TY, m
[
(R) 6 RIFLE (R) n
(
& GRAND JCT. (R) 6 GUNNISON (P)
NATURITA (P)
DURANGO (R) _
U i
MONUMENT (P)
KEY O HIGH PRIORITY II O MEDIUM PRIORITY gp3 O LOW PRIORITY (P) POTENTIAL RELOCATION I
(R) RELOCATION UMTRAP 01 003
see met aus en sus uma sua ese aus ama sus aus est aus me en gun aus em O
O O
UMTRA PROJECT SCHEDULE ($ IN MILLIONS)
FY80.111 FY82 FY83 FYS4 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FYBS FY90 FYS1 FYS2 FY S3 FY94 TEC PRK)RITY PROCESSING SITE 1i!!!!I I I t I f L.1LL.J.LL I t i I f 1 I I I f i 1 I t f I I I t I t i I f CANONSBURG PA I
^
49 2 SALT LAKE CITY UT I
87.0 SHIPROCK NM I
W 21.2 DURANGO CO I
m 49 6 i
1 HIGH GUNNISON CO I
1 37.6 GRAND JUNCTION PS CO I
i i
n, i
102.0 GRAND JUNCTION VP CO I
MMM 160 0 RtFLE-2 CO I
i ml MMM 69 0 RIVERTON WY I
i QM M
48.1 TUBA CITY AZ I
I mv on 24 9 MEXICAN HAT UT I
s-M.1 E
41 6 LAKEVIEW OR I
I
WY-20 7 AMBROSIA LAKE NM E
i i
1*"um-37 6 NATURITA CO I
I I
-,--vL3 E
E 23.4 FALLS CITY TX I
I E
m i.1 3ts 2 GREEN RIVER U1 m'"'
11.9
"-MW EM 16 9 SLICK ROCK-2 CO BELFIELD NO I
-N M\\W ME 89 BOWMAN ND I
-'"\\\\W ME 90 MAYBELL CO
^N M
22 8 LOWMAN ID C
I em M1 M
15 4 O
I r
mi 95 SPOOK WY 3
a MONUMENT VALLEY AZ I
I sss 1
s iX9 EM 18 4 V P. ONLY EDGEMONT SD EM 50 ANNUAL BUDGET (FY7914) 10.1/11 5 18 2 20 9 27 8 60.7 91 4 1150 1160 1160 1160 116 0 93 5 85 1.9 924 9 l
l PLANNING & DESIGN NEPA INSiOM] ENGINEERING REMEDIAL ACTION
'RfrRAP 05 006
a a
a
--aaa m
a-_-
s.---
--a 2,
!I i!I O
g I
il
\\
,I i
i l5O lI 3
I I
I I
3 O
I I
ens an em an ens semi aun sus aus em aus aus at as me
- ame, as en se O
O O
i UMTRA PROJECT SITES l
Tons of Contaminated Materials (000)
Years Operated Tailings Other Materials Arizona Monument
- 1955-1967 1,100 314 Tuba City
- 1956-1966 800 790 Colorado Durango 1943-1963 1.555 605 Grand Junction 1951-1970 1,900 1,273 Gunnison 1958-1962 540 435 Maybell 1957-1964 2,600 1.025 Naturita 1939-1963 344 New Rifle 1958-1972 2,700 444 Old Rifle 1924-1958 350 230 Stick Rock (NC) 1931-1943 37 321 Slick Rock (UC) 1957-1961 350 314 Idaho Lowman 1955-1 % 0 88 103 New Mexico Ambrosia Lake 1953-1963 2,600 1,323 Shiprock*
1954-1968 1.650 1,575 North Dakota Belfield 1964--1966 72 Bowman 1963-1961 97 O egon Lakeview 1958-1960 130 400 j
Pennsylvama Canonsburg 1909-1957 455 I
Texas Falls City 1961-1973 2,500 738 l
Utah Green River 1958-1961 123 176 Mexican Hat
- 1957-1965 2,200 677 Salt Lake City 1951-1968 1,880 1,523 Wyoming Spook 1962-1965 187 Riverton 1963 900 848 TOTAL 24,190 14.082
- Site on Indian Tribal Lands M7
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
mM M
W M
M M
M M
O UMTRA PROkCT SITES O
Area (Acres)
Vicinity Priority Site Tailings Properties Arizona Monument
- Low 90 30
~--
Tuba City
- Medium 105 33 1
Colorado Durango High 126 14 102
~ ~ ~ -
Grand Junction High 105 60 3,648 Gunnison High 62 35 9
Maybell Low 110 80 0
Naturita Medium 50 23 39 New Rifle High 300 32 242 Old Rifle High 22 11 4
Slick Rock (NC)
Low 44 6
3 Slick Rock (UC)
Low 99 19 Idaho Lowman low 37 10 8
New Mexico Ambrosia Lake Medium 200 105 Shiprock*
High 144 72 15 North Dakota Belfield Low 29 0
5
~ ~ ~ ~
Bowman Low 12 0
1 Oregon Lakeview Medium 258 30 6
i Pennsylvania Canonsburg High 30 0
121 South Dakota Edgemont High 0
0 154 Vicinity Properties Texas Falls City Medium 1,500 150 10 1
Utah Green River Low 39 9
39
~~
Mexican Hat
- Medium 173 68 10 Salt Lake City High 128 100 109 Wyoming Spook Low 60 5
1
~ ~ - ~ ~
Riverton High 173 72 20 TOTAL 3,896 964 4,543
- Site on Indian Tribal Lands
" wind mawn Oniv
W M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M W
M M
W M
M O
O O
l SITE COST ESTIMATES (IN M!LLIONS OF DOLLARS) l l
STATE SITE (PRIORITY)
TEC FEDERAL / STATE SHARE ARIZONA MONUMENT VALLEY * (L)
$ 18.4
$ 18.4 /-
TUBA CITY * (M)
$ 24.9
$ 24.9 / -
COLORADO DURANGO (H)
$ 53.5
$ 49.6 / $ 3.9 GRAND JUNCTION (H)
$284.0
$262.0 / $ 22.0 GUNNISON (H)
$ 40.2
$ 37.6 / $ 2.6 M AYBELL (L)
$ 24.3
$ 22.8 / $ 1.5 NATURITA (M)
$ 25.1
$ 23.4/ $ 1.7 RIFLE (2) (H)
$ 74.7
$ 69.0/ $ 5.7 SLICK ROCK (2) (L)
$ 17.9
$ 16.9/ $ 1.0 IDAHO LOWMAN (L)
$ 10.2
$ 15.4/ $ 0.8 NEW MEXICO AMBROSIA LAKE (M)
$ 40.7
$ 37.6 / $ 3.1 SHIPROCK* (H)
$ 21.0
$ 21.0 /-
- PROCESSING SITE ON TRIBAL LANDS OWNED BY THE NAVAJO NATION TPfrRAP 04 009
M M
M M
M M
M M
M N
M M
M N
N M
M N
M O
O O
SITE COST ESTIMATES (CONT.)
(IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
STATE SITE (PRIORITY)
TEC FEDERAL / STATE SHARE NORTH DAKOTA BELFIELD (L)
$ 18.6
$ 17.9/ $ 0.7 BOWMAN (L)
OREGON LAKEVIEW (M)
$ 22.2
$ 20.7 / $ 1.5 PENNSYLVANIA CANONSBURG (H)
$ 52.9
$ 49.3/ $ 3.6 SOUTH DAKOTA EDGEMONT** (H) 5.5
$ 5.1/ $ 0.4 TEXAS FALLS CITY (M)
$ 37.8
$ 35.2/ $ 2.6 UTAH GREEN RIVER (L)
$ 12.5
$ 11.9/ $ 0.6 MEXICAN HAT * (M)
$ 41.6
$ 41.6/-
SALT LAKE CITY (H)
$ 95.1
$ 87.0 / $ 8.1 WYOMING SPOOK (L) 9.8 9.5/ $ 0.3 RIVERTON (H)
$ 52.0
$ 48.1/ $ 3.9 TOTAL
$988.9
$924.9 / $64.0
- PROCESSING SITE ON TRIBAL LANDS OWNED BY THE NAVAJO NATION
- VICINITY PROPERTY REMEDIAL ACTION ONLY MfTRAP 04 010
/
s.
a, j y, *-
- ?., j,,
y,
,'.f*.$)t
? j'j,o,J.l - l;i. ' Wfy{'3
.,n j ~: b- }
.f y
. y,'
4l.f'.v g. y F
n,
' u,
- n v..J..
fr
.. ri
.,i 1
r p'
- f.s 9
N n ~.. ~.'
..}y}
,, }.fy. p __.
]:. !
..;l.J. l[(x.f;_khjf.
~
pk.., v.
.m.
,v.
- 2 k'
f) ink,g,,, h'er yw fii 8. q'
,,-[ j
- '[ N S ;
.c h
8![
L.
- 5. p~'p4,.~
,f
- { l. in g_~';;p e
gy u
w' Y., y.
e
. y [ s& r m ; 'y,..
.m
.. p ;g -
y 4..sp,:.
=
p s,
- n, y
x
- 4. x:.,,
r.
e o
j r
. s.s y _ k,
I m,,y ~g % $ g g La%-
n n
fkj fh h,
Tyh.f i c :n.j@AM A CR L 2.mrg'4%Q$m 4 mg T
syc,.;. L. g,
- 9 ga (,y,, ~
p c L.,:
g' QA:y
,y g
L
-g _.
- .:.g
:,'r T.'
. % ; [4 '
- g
.fg s.
8:
. '. ' *hpbygN1.
9 y.
c.
., f.' '}'
_... _,p '
&M y..
f'
'l g..
fl.'.f.
ikh f,a,' j ',,,, wh'_
/.f'f.&;W ::., $.?n&,.. a-s. ~ :
_ f hg. ^lpj r
. s. u
. v, E-
.t.
'h ' Y,. %)~ l y
.l 7, " l
' iQ 4;
~
'h fQ
.s l9'.? l Q l ;,,(f (
l:
.:e g ' gj n' h'.
) %
g fy
\\
y g-g_
y
- f., Q_, g.]f5 g.??pp,'%,y-[y gg_
wy
.5 39-m
- g
- gan,;a j
s.r p p W p=t)gn
..f xw, e..
a p ~:, ~
p w_
.t@py, j
-. x.y ; x
.y s
g: :
. n 7 a.. k 's G.i, s,4 q :,.by_.g+1 *g,>g pl, y
.h:.%.
%s 9$2lW..
~
1
{ lc.f. v.k.f,f f h $ f.. l j,l f f
f w
.z H,,*
'V.
~
u a
, =. -
x,.
a
~
E" k
,a s.
.,.,3~
4 m g w w w: - m m _n %.; w ? y:
e e
m[.!:pC 5.f[cv/ g.q,fSN4W2 yw a
.,v f.
f
.y g p w; x, 2 o, hn 3..m 1 m. nw e..
I e
E8;,
c
=
- .,~;.
r.
,,j
~
iI L
/
i j
.1.(
g P
.J,.
9 fl
'5;, '-
if:
lg i..
. y
]
y
.g IE!
5 b) i ?:.! ;
i R
x
- f ej;4.p..
s R
f, f
f I 's.) j q
f I
y e, e w : s+$.;,,
t 7 t g
EI i8
.. d
.~a.
+.a+--g
-a-a a-a z
A g-fl0 lI t
b
~
l lI lE ll
[."i
,j t -
l ye' a.'h h
l? ltif u.
,ao
. +
I a
s i
l
/,
i.; >
r,.
. )!
- .i l
' j, f
s
-'[
i
^
. i l
e i
n
.?
g, p<
~
?'
lO l-by
\\;
' ' l"\\, I t
3f+.,
e a
- su s.
?l hJM%.. 5 $. 3...;:
' %.,ny.n;
.. FM r..
,a p.,
'., s..%tt.
,f, p, ' n.m v.x,..x. e a,y'h' h j $s s'!.
N e
,q
,h,,
t
'3 h '* i ' '
- i. h!
f.
d
'[. ;,
. g, 5
- w..y v y p<, u'.y.g:.,r y-l....*}
- k> p.. :s.w a....
m..t p
...m,9
,.g m.y p.3
~s r
-b,.'-
's
~...
'. ).
.,z.. G '.'.
,....'l l,e
- . l,>' '..,
-, ;- [,
\\,
....., s; s,.
3 p
v, r
I'
.)
N s y,"',f, Ww. d.f. M n,(, $T3:
. [, +.,
. Q[f b.'
',..s d.
M
.[.'
1
,e
.,x.w
.n a..
+
,h
..yy9 j <..
c
. *s.
- x.
Q
.. a
(.
'. e
.I.
b' T
nf.
' \\ w,. Q E_-
i
~
r T
- f;
- FQ;mh ~ h, c't ma n,.
7
,..73..y
+
.l y, e
- ]
.z %p$l{Nf '
9' l.
?
,k
'$ e
.u L-s.&,ff-l. ','i
~
4 e
9
. J' v.
e
...;. q.. a. ~.a w
- g., - _, p:?.Q i.,
g r '
t 2,
'.6.cS^J g e~
t 34. ' 4 4 m.."
a' A.
c
. y,,.
':4Q',,,.p,y 1
=
p 4.
g 6
- q.Q 'p y: :<,.
r.g.
t.y n.
c.
. I
- ['JN. '"'
' ' * " ' - --~ M h' Y * $.-
2 I /' >p- [S '5
. ' 'J ~ "' ' '
[.
p I.,. '
^"
- 2' J
t
-.k.I,q..
4
, (f[g.1y l4J di,
b 1p t7 - -
' 1
- v. v.4, 4
.a y ap&m:.
,a..
n
[ &e q j
lf d.Q j f-)g. Q f T }
T hW u n,1.e r+
. Y,u
=n y
e m, i.T..[ h ep # #y, 9 s m,,c f}4N ~[.
' N..'
N,i,
T 0,'
'f qQ
[
. hi
. i
=
u fh
$b k[N b
N l f. {.; [, Yg. [sAkkkQ~ f' _ $[f '. ~'?if J{ %
?
r
~
s, g i.
.,?,.'
_' ~ "8
... ).
jf
% )i. A ' #
ct m
\\p v
f re -
9
.y
.-i l~
}
g:
f},'
% W q. [.
4, W
~
l 1,
/
c
.^. '
g f [J ~ ( (Q
- u s a p ( g l g.} 1 ~7 k.s Y
l
[ Q l\\
W, ?.y 1
- r. hy i
i,..(....3 y Q w3 ).
vh.. *3,...
y g-
[
i
$h' fk&.j? hfi fk.f m4S.:. w wfc,5p a en man w
.ws x.s. " f.. g.4. >..(;,a{-?,...
' ' '4@.;ij;.f.3,, o. -:
e 1%
, w'.P '
',9. 3
_ 6,<.. ~ J 'i
'w
, y
m c:vm~rmmytyny w<
l
,~3_
't :'
'k -
%l
., b' f. {. bY '
lk_ 'l ' y
'$'I 3:,;hfl$ '
+$ l h.
0-
.Yn^
'l
., [
'r:
J.
l
}
~1
.. i
,*?
l
- 3. \\ e..
.~
_"y.
, \\;w;_
r s..;:
' h v --
J i
%~
i e
u
..n
,g
- - -A
+:
4 y,k p p
-[
-, f,; r,; -
[
y :,.
?...-
y a
s
- 5. 4 :%.x V
- ; %e u? ' Q jp Q L l 1 y
.,if,' *. '
,)n
~
. Rkg(;_5.g'jlh hl * -
'l 1*}
. n
-: t j
gn.
n' N)&q w 4.-
1.
_'.Q.
>~ t g :.7 c
- 2 R
- s. ~., y. d,Q:, ;. wt n.s mj o[; 4 z,
y u + s,
.1.9.
n
. v. s pl, _g.
\\.:.
~
_q 7 c.:. 3g. g.
hf f',
.., k; hhf
(\\,,3; y:yl.
j ~?.lhhy 3,.: y
- n p q y.,
a a
8 w,p.,
,,n
~w
~5tc.
./g.,s.,.-
-c
.,; e a
- +z.
N.)p;;gt
- p p
.. Q;. i_
?. ;;. '
.c f f f
)~' {;g h.Q...
y g. Q g g {j J'
.y':
y
-: f b
ggy.,}Q*Q[.) g >eN$)jf:,3 :
Qd*
wn g n %n ;
g;y,... mn. n. 16
- ;,n c c
- : ~
,y : ;,e
.y.
ya s, w.;. x, y_ f r.,> y,l % ~.
w.
. ; p f.. ".
T s'
- f
\\ e,
.p N
3 1, ;
4 c
m, v.
2
$* y
(
- 26* -
.l
[
. p.
s.
f m
4%<;;w\\,4;gonnh2 3 n9hwNr..g.
n
,4 e.,
g
- f A;is 17 4
97 g i g
y
~~
s '. 4 ' id' M%~
T%
'R EE,p?!'t;.. V
;f..\\( lt. r;'
~
v+
-d..d.
g- [
?
g w.,
.y y3g y.,-
4, p
g1 A M $.1@9.mpm,. 9~N % w$ d %
M dj mw 4-ug.
y 3
m o
e s.
I 7*
M
(/ '.N
_n
a
-m--,m-a aAAs s
4 ua.m m
-m uma-oAwsa
,s4-m-__
_,A mu-m--
u-
..-a, am
,m-ma u
-a-I....,
~
Ih,f.
tp.
/
\\
lI de
'I/$N]
le Q.
Nk t E..
ll_
g'
- mgg, ll f,vg 5
8%1 Edhh.. s o/
![!
m.
,i 3
f
- g')ji'yd pgig
- l #
$q s
- t
,gy i: l !
i,.
3 -
[...
(.
lp ' '5, J ] F kk
).
- n+
+
l q;:y y
}
EI:p }f i"
4}, a Q $ }.
I
'[
7 f
oil gi ; W( h{ q [ 7' L J n%,7 a
d:
h A
1
]
4,
/,f f ',f}
.s g
$t
' ' k.
p ',f,,4 9.
c, ;:.
- s-
{
q.
a g
^)
)
f A-l T
. ~
,sf~.
sth g
4
[* *
^
'[*-
1
'y ?
~, Y.,
' q.g
-p E
c,,
7
,4
,.4 t,
t'.
.l:.'..
6?.W lq.
'_.,9 ;.. f-i3,y;.,c ; ;.:>
?-
- rf 4
j.
4'
?(
,\\;4
' ').
, -[
l f'
/ ~
f,.
l E~
)
l f ',.'
. h l'.
/.
f,.
h, s.
l c d:{
j[
,[,.-
k-,f; '
i
- ,d-kkI'
- U!
~
/
- Q-.
1
.t a
s.,...
'>,W.
- g% ' ;
y{
!g p
. 3 E
. i' '- '
s
, k[
h-
, g.
,.. Q I.
I'.
/.
b D-5 f
,f:
~ l
+h.! ? lh~
,)j{. ~ ?.h }*.
h' f
h '
3 F.h O
M.~.
os
_ q. r :Y 's JK-*
T
...,.,.y' 4.:l. -
+. -'i..
y
~
- .6,~.
dffl.
' ",?. l.1 ;; f '.
W y @
~
.' ' _:se
.L g
g$ ?g g
,,M
{.
4 f^
W.k,h '
.-$,i h*Y,- ~
f ;.
'. Y';
f.',
.'.h,.Y
- N *
~
' 9, i {, -
. L ':
g 'n. - t y@ %c2.' ' 4'd p[ y D -[ ev j D%
b
.
- g.1
. s.
k' N
y T
s
' n.
4 e.a;... ;
. r.tg... g x,,.. g i.w g,
y a
.c
,t.
s,.
w llr -
' ? '
e,
.y*. a :.I..A**' t' lO '
i
- ' I. f *,
,e
, ' }'f_ ; ' V.'%e.-;.g(N, Q:W.C?.$'" )
4jf
- l O F & ;,h; f
7 YKe,')_
?. M *
+ -
.n g*
, y',)
.g ig b g {.
,2,.
, g.,
- hIlhI-ei S.e
...s.
s
- i
' #e
's) - - l.g f
.a p. (. 4 yA -
., f '.fr. [
j./[ f. '
I' vi > '
. m,.'.
- *<c.....'k,.
% ;..,,y
. I
, ~ y.
.9.;.
n s
(,
,.s.
.,, p,,_.; ;.4 r 'g s,
h,
- v
. [' ?. ;:.. ? *1,
.w e.,
. y u
-u y.
y
{>
- p\\..
/
[*-
o f
e #-
9, n,,
- r
- 8.'
e.
~}y
'g
, ee
' ' [, y
- f\\
'k m &
C, f'
%m
'*:L..'
e e
.:'.,,,....,'.'bW.
- y, A>
'V w
p-
.' ' t.fo Q ' v'*.3.'.-
l r
- 4 p 7
y
,S
- h. 'h *. !'*
y.. -
.m' ty_
'S J uni
- ann -r 4 4,
')
, s.
e
~.,v,,s 9 a e
.:,,% ( A.py
~
Y,,
j n.
s-e
>. g, +.
.:=
.w
\\
f9< 4 n ' ;
-r.
.e 2
4 Y Ql$,e W
'.'r,,,-) h 'k jl,'w 4 5; y.,*g,..y s
p;
'J.V.
s
~
.- l}. 's..
.,' f R)b iQ
~
- G
\\\\ ~
g j
$}e '
w
~
.g
,g
-\\'$
s
- 4) )
.4 - 6 J.3N -,
)i.
f a-I
,f f -
m; n.
s
.g -
f, ',
^ -
\\
J i.
I. - '.
(
..[
ezd. (
y
.r j
~
S $-
4 i
r
'(\\ '
.N t-1 k
e.
'%,e.
(T y
/n_.
e.
5 t
c i
3.g. T -
4..
.s
- ?
- f, z
[
a
).,....
. f..p g.
me E
-h h.9, r@ :. J :.; -.u.tv s 9
l j
h ( ).
..g.-
?
sn,.)s.,:.
- x..hw
.t-u
..g
- n y,-
w v
W r.s..
f 9
i 4.',.',t 4
.i ; ),
i. ; 2- [
d!M;ik,..- 4
-L+.s s yt
,s e>l u
'h.
5 '). 4
. l '-Q f l? ;h \\, M,,. y ' j ?.;..?
/ j f Q $ f.MM:w, p. &
- t p W.,
K.&
l p
w
~.
~w
- ~
a
li) }oJ $'\\
1
!I
$4j 5'
[
3
). ~ ' \\ '
s t.,
, s h
.'. j
\\
'i y
1{,@g
%s k
./
\\t o +
!I
$ $p
!i a
i db
. 'HI
.A
'I kg I1
. Inji S g
g:y,q
.C.:p.
r,.
p;,4 7
r i
l l
" i T4',"
- ,.;y g
m E
3 i
U E
j I
I lI
^
y,c s, D'p + + $
I#
q
.
- ry. f'
/
W,;
/
m';' _&y*...,l#f e
j,
/
y
, (/($
/
,~
m
.f.J.,.t? g}1;;
ry:,f m
/
/
e
~
- $2 h.
- 8.
- k^ ^ %
, g '.
~f
~
. fr
/
.;, j ' {,
4
/
3
.:)R,, i"ly, W,
- ~!
j
/
y bl;y, y $... ly ~')j;f'
^
/ p l't w
/
l f,, ; '
Z h'
l },$a;,,,,',
a n.
7 j
,lI j$
p n
' N aW,,
Q# '$'
/
?
f h S
Q lf,-
t p.
,y' r
n-y l
p':
<.v g
/
r n
j E
pcjll%w..>
j m
I
/
y f
- I 7
~
y.
i 4.2*
g>
4.
.Y
/
.,,. $. kj.:
,4, j,
s
{.c y
q c
f.'
.g'
{l' g
e p
L "' '
pv*
q
?
4,,
%.n e
f
(
is%l% *'re 44~.,;
n f 4p Q !Vig E
x
~
r, 1
ga
~
Y re s
/
\\
~ ~
% 29_
Oj
M_-.;:.
- - : -- ;.....~ " " '.
E I
! p,a..g.Q Q N W T. W.. @%..fMi 4
l
. i.ca
- y...,.g a
g.'
g-z.
c 8
=
c
,.. (-
(*
- .f
. y, g
- (
g.,
- h ',s. a
... w:,:$yyy,_; y# r'.'yy/pg a
.,n n 4 '
ec l
j.y -
P yg Rn
. ;; [
y
.l.
{
p 9
c
.... g,.. ;f,i...,. 4 i
..y
-)
, Qqt. l :.
.W a :f. J:] * +-...
s
,4
', $ :[
. ~... _
- ;. ? [ ' ~ l*. L ; j f
t
_ j
^.
j d } f.
'i
- g.
g:;;
'_ Qy. ~.
_ '[_ L [. ' ~. _
'l * ),. i
'. -; }
}
~
i. t.
y 3
.:;.%w^
).
4F;
~., '
f 'i.
3 y
~ '
y W'
K,
\\g
.sc a qq;...;c.M :l n.g:
n w!'t vl4. +y:. ).i ;, ' : :;4.s*. x: : ' -
,., a
. L. '.
,'g
)
Q 'A j -l Ys.;4.,..
r:
- e,
..h
,_..j E
.f.
~f'1 1
}.
\\
- ';^
%r g
n,.
ll$n..,..,#p%%-n h
- .a c
7
- s. s..
.c
.g 7 sgt{pp'hd gj..
.s.
- f, _
- h. '
'.~.{Q'f
.'.';;..,4- [ ~
.8
^
&~f-'s
--[ ~ ' I
'a
.57
~~
I._
s.
e x
~.
g g ;'
g7 3
F l N v fT}b.s$m.4.+w...
K'f W 7.
j
~
.93
/
,9 bb 1
g,,9,y g,..,
. 7,. ; ;
r.~,,
1 3
'{'
8,
+
.m
-'*[
.m
.O j
- ' '3-b M
4
.,f g,
~.. ' - [
[
k4 m'.:. x. e ~.. -
s
._L'
^
.g_..
'4
I Q
ir s
r > $.
l
.,Y j y ';
.k g
m
- y I
e lIo
[
fy.h il N<
x.
- g x
a
~
v kf h)
I f4I I
I 1:
3 y:
j y 7
I t. '
',_. ' /r ),' t{
(
,o aa s
I 1
_m-fI Am
$,.r.[j
'O I
.. g c.
I gl; I
,y I
c:
4 g
f r
k g
.j.
- IO r&'
L' L 0
i S
r, l
~
- p. )
- h st
. [B,j$g l
I'1 3
llfjl'f 4{
>![-[j;y l
if
~
\\\\
m pg.
'I kt;. If*.
j i
p.
j.
g i
e si.
O M
g I
(jff.
l t
'9.
- y.. p a,.
,?g
,\\
,, g.'.
s.,s,
~
I*
'e
,g
'd I
e
~
w l@J ggc y$ { N h./
8 I
- I
%..y.y
.4u.
w,.g
.w
. e,.
s l
,.,?. '
~
4.
'E
. w im 6.c l
,;4-
$4'
.Jg" w
q p4y A; -
psa {;';p~:o;g a, ~ e >- A A M
-. ~ ', 4. ; G ( 'T b e
l
% %., y L~
$. t-. nT
$(j g.;
e f
o..
j; L.
5g 4
gn.;
. : :q 4,7-
- m.,..f ;A=
g g s e a w..;
+
y
. y.~
...g; +.,,
a
.,y.
...,t
,.[
,,.;,,l. ')n....
- l
. W j [ *,._'.
~
, e*
.,.,9..
t tt...$.
..rs.
. g g :[n.
j c
. i, hl Y
\\':
'*1 4
{ -:
l
' ~ y,,. I ;
s....
.c. n f
~,
,.y, I
g.
e
- j. i
(
'd,
Ib e
s.1
- 0.. i ~ '.
ad*%.
g. %,(
~
l
.;..g;.
E 1
y
- e. - %~
.> erv n
y
%.),f^.f.3m h h ; "
f,l. f ;-
m n
_-[ 0 l$q,* ;pf f
~
y
\\ r.... i.y
' (*
-->g
- 1w>
't -
1 4
3 v,,.g,?,
.y*g.
p, Ja.:, -e?..
- 1..,,
,' p.k g-L
.f _
. ;..py 1,$s; ' ', 4 Q+y ;;g
.;j.;j.:C'.4
,. ~. -
g..
m
... a. ~.~ :7 -
1ly'*.
..;p?p
-;a..,
.,. A. -
=
['k / '.
.3.
- 6
!L
.. _ j '
{. %
5 g } I.... ( [b ~
'.4.. [l*7.."*'jf;'lla'c;yy.7
- .y
.g;l,-
p
_,te
'
- h ~ 8Mg.' ' p
~ [.y. %
8
~..
. ;. :.v.,
,g'
- o
.g
?m~
i h Nl{~812 ' k (Q 7..
'l,._y.4 ', g
. g '*e.
n
)*
c
$,'!.{,j. ['[ L'
[.5
(
,....e
- c...n; g.g f g4 g,,.y.gf,.
g,
,c-n.4,g,g7}M
.;,j Q R Q C L,
wyg,;wyp%}g.g, c$)
l
<Q:v y
L:
. *.T M, 4,. :*t y. y 1 Wk.e.i :
F M.
.,a m
a
.., m.
g,.
.. M%kk I
,.. ' O,([../-); D.'.'..u;';..; [.;,
ki..f u;, -
I
.. ~
gyQ;f.
f:
y. + qg; p.,
._ y.x.
y:ly g
- p );;.,.
..~4,
[..
. a.n;.u;~ :
y t,..~ ;.., g
>;..- 2:. }.. (* 5 1,,.-
}_
g > ? T :q
-. ;. g g
y c...,
s x
~ m..;.
. ~;. w........
~s f'f',
N= l4 yt.,mll'.f m
- u. x ;
r pfs
.l l '~
.f 1
. g...
w
- @ t;- : v - f f ; J ; fa h y;, y 1;;>
- q..J ' -
.pgg x
47
- .m.p-
- g.;g;g p-
- ..x p
s
.. v,,
=
- . y ; p.t..py D
. n, & 4 ~,.
9.,
3; _ -
.s.
u v.
.te.
I if
.[
J
.llf
^
.l 4
E y M [3 x,,.. g - Q. f~ f is M%QJ R
-,hh.fhf f
O
(. [f;.
~
jI
$hNh hhh
?
42 iB i
1 v
2
~
oy g
k M
, '/
h
,i
+ s.
i
=
s II
}
.y+.
0l w.
y.
'Wi R#
- 1. ' \\ l-i iI f *.;
a,
=
a I
M "4
i
.s
{
MV (p
'.gn.
i g*
s.
a a
g ffaE\\.jf
}
I i
g{:A
( b s
g g
!B
{
I 4
' ;:s
(
i
.s i
i lg
/d i
"g
.a g i. ;.]
t 2
m
s__
a
_aa g
enaA,,-
G
.E-a e-4L--A FL-m A-a-m
+A<A=
--me-
~*----\\-
,Ma.nX a'-ea.=
A w
I
.c.
f I* ' '
7 9
g s.
[
o D'F 9~~~'
s.ei J
s f.
./.
E
~.
4.
1
\\
4.
L I
\\
.)
g E
,s
?
p'f _
- g
~.
l E 4
l-f s
l t
E 3
&f t,
- ,'a
. ~..
t 4
at.
{
e
.~
y.
s.
I l;
s
-.T*
m.
}
10 j m ', - y js i.,
. e.
l i
i 1
y m.
- g
~. 4-py i
+ ~
~
ji r
Il> w,.
e<
i
! 5 4
.g 4
k
,f 8
' ~
g;
-= n h*J
[15 n
%1 24 ? g l
'!.1b':g>%
M O
.. ~
.l d iy, O'<>>' ~
i y
g.
4
g y
c, I k
e3 B
r a
h',
s dg
?
I
$4
{
ti 4
l5 z
x
[
4<
[
g e ' h h*
i-
,?
=
$,, 5 d
ia L
I 0
'I'
~
- E q
.y hl f
bs[;
i i !
- i v.,
y 3
r fl
'1 5
Fg s
i# y e
i "I
- 3 1
t o
NRC'S TITL3 I P30G3AY January 21, 1988 O
Myron Fliegel Section Leader Uranium Recovery Section Il0B O
1O TIT] I SITES NMSS BEL / BOW - Bellfield/ Bowman, ND CAN Canonsburg, PA FCT
- Fall City, TX GRJ
- Grand JuncUon, C0 GRN
- Green River, UT GUN
- Gunnison, C0 LOW
- lowman, ID MAY
- Maybell, C0 O
rit
- airle CO (e)
RYT Riverton, WY SHP Shiprock, NH SLC
- Salt Lake City, UT SPX
- Spook, WY SRK
- Slick Rock, CO (2)
URF0 AMB
- Ambrosia lake, NM DUR
- Durango, C0 HAT Mexican Hat, UT LET
- Lakeview, OR O
MON Monument Valley, AR i
NAT
- Naturita, C0 TUB
- Tuba City, AR 1
?
O UMTRAP SITES PROGRAM PRIORITY FOR REMEDIAL ACTION p,.. '
Y
= ' = Lowesaas
{
/j w
r asi nr I
/
y\\
,L c y sevae
,. u
""% ;.q="*4".u I
1 O
o ro.,,.. ~-
W.,........g =c.....,
';aa, '
I#v' t,",
h, J
=
q PRIORITIES
- - HIGH
- - MEDIUM e - LOW ~
OlVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT 3
URANIUM RECOVERY EXPERTISE LLWM i
1 l
OPERATIONS TECHNICAL REGULATORY BRANCH BRANCH BRANCH SP pgOfE LLW UR SITING ENGNRG RGLTRY S
- I 9Y Geotech Prj Mgnt SW Hydro Hith Phscs GW Hydro ng.
O O
O
Remedial Action Plan Review D o c uments
- RAP - Remedial Action Plan
- De: sign.
O O
O
e N
&p a
G C
P I
SA R C ER E
Df T R IN f
h 4
N G
R P
d ISA E
0 ER T
4 Df f p d
P M N O
G d
LI I
ES 54 RE P D S
T P
N T A d
FA R E
5 R/
M 4
D AE M
O R
LA C
d AS ND C
0 I
3 FAC R
N R
T F A d
0 A S 3
R D D A C
y 2
30 d 30 d 45 d 45 d 45 d DRAFT FINAL DRAFT PRELIM.
PfDESIGN fDESIGN smT CADSAR CADSAR EA/ RAP DESIGN fRAP
\\ pfRAP NRC COMMENTS dTER ITER &
NRC Cp 1
COMMENT 60% DESIGN NRC/ DOE RESPONSES MEETING MEETINGS ADDITIONAL INTERACTION g
9
O ua^ston ata r^1'1"os a^otartos conimo' ^cm or 1978 Sec. 108. (a)(1):
"The Secretary or such person as he may designate shall select and perfom remedial actions at designated processing sites and disposal sites in accordance with the general standards prescribed by the Administrator nirsuant to section 275 a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The State shall participate fully in the selection and perfomance of a remedial action for which it pays part of the cost. Such remedial action shall be selected and perfomed with the concurrence of the C-inalen and in consultation, as appmpriate, with the Indian tribe and Secretary of Interior."
Sec. 104. (f)(1):
"Each agree m nt under section 103 shall provide title to-( A) the residual radioactive materials subject to the agreement, and (B) any lands and interests therein which have teen acquired by the State, under subcection (a) or (b), for the disposition of such 1
materials.
shall be transferred by the State to the Secretary when the Secretary (with the concurrence of the Ccanission) determines that the remedial action is completed in accordance with requirements imposed pursuant to this title..."
s O
O erh.-
-