ML23158A162

PR-051 - 59FR14912 - Reclamation of Atlas Corporation'S Uranium Mill Facility at Moab, Utah: Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS and to Conduct a Scoping Process

ML23158A162
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/30/1994
From:	Joseph Holonich Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
To:
References
59FR14912, PR-051
Download: ML23158A162 (1)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:ADAMS Template: SECY-067 DOCUMENT DATE: 03/30/1994 TITLE: PR-051 - 59FR14912 - RECLAMATION OF ATLAS CORPORATION'S URANIUM MILL FACILITY AT MOAB, UTAH: NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE AN EIS AND TO CONDUCT A SCOPING PROCESS CASE

REFERENCE:

PR-051 59FR14912 KEYWORD: RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

DOCKET NO. PR-51 (59FR14912) In the Matter of RECLAMATION OF ATLAS CORPORATION'S URANIUM MILL FACILITY AT MOAB, UTAH: NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE AN EIS AND TO CONDUCT A SCOPING PROCESS DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT - 03/30/94 03/23/94 NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) AND CONDUCT A SCOPING PROCESS FOR THE EIS INCLUDING A SCOPING MEETING 04/21/94 04/14/94 COMMENT OF UTAH DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (WILLIAM J. SINCLAIR) ( 1) 04/26/94 04/15/94 COMMENT OF LLOYD M. PIERSON ( 2) 04/29/94 04/23/94 COMMENT OF WILLARD W. HOLOWAY ( 3) 05/06/94 04/25/94 COMMENT OF KATHRYN KEMP ( 4) 05/06/94 04/29/94 COMMENT OF GARY A. HAZEN ( 5) - 05/12/94 05/13/94 05/13/94 05/10/94 04/23/94 05/12/94 COMMENT OF NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, US DEPT INTERIOR (ROBERT M. BAKER) ( 6) COMMENT OF HARLEY BLANCHARD ( 7) COMMENT OF STATE OF UTAH DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (WILLIAM J. SINCLAIR) ( 8) 05/13/94 05/13/94 COMMENT OF ATLAS CORPORATION (RICHARD E. BLUBAUGH) ( 9) 05/13/94 05/08/94 COMMENT OF GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH (BILL HEDDEN, VICE CHAIRMAN) ( 10) 05/16/94 05/12/94 COMMENT OF ALETHA A. BUTCHER ( 11) 05/16/94 05/10/94 COMMENT OF GRAND COUNTY COUNCIL (PETER HANEY) ( 12) 05/17 /94 05/12/94 COMMENT OF USEPA, REGION VIII, DENVER, COLORADO (ROBERT R. DESPAIN) ( 13) 05/23/94 05/05/94 COMMENT OF DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR - BUREAU OF MINES (MARK H. HIBPSHMAN) ( 14)

DOCKET NO. PR-51 (59FR14912)' DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 05/23/94 05/13/94 COMMENT OF DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR - FISH & WILDLIFE (ROBERT D. WILLIAMS) ( 15)

          ~\,t\T O;    r q.<.               N~      United States Department of the Interior DOCKETED ~

t:

      \_
             . I
                 ,   ~
                              ~              FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE UTAH FIELD OFFICE US!-'RC          &

LINCOLN PLAZA

             ~**   ; ,**q                            14 EAST 1300 SOUTH, SUITE 404               *94 HAY 23 p J :2 l SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 In Reply Refer To (ES)                                                May 13, 1994 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                         DOCKET NUMBER     PR     51 PROPOSED RULE...!...!!....:;_- - -

ATTN: Docketing and Services Branch Washington, D .C . 20555 ( GCf~ /< l'iC/11.)

Dear Sir/Madam:

The Utah Field Office of the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Notice of Intention (NOi) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for reclamation of Atlas Corporation's Uranium Mill Facility, in Moab, Grand County, Utah (ER #94/0289). The Service' s Regional Office in Denver, Colorado, made extensive comments regarding the Environmental Assessment prepared for this project in August of 1993 (copy of comments enclosed). The Service has major concerns regarding contaminants and endangered species issues. The issues raised in this memo need to be fully addressed in the EIS. The Service is not satisfied with the statement in the NOi (p. 11) that water monitoring has identified no contamination in the Colorado River; therefore effects on biota will not be assessed . If the issues raised in the Service's September 1, 1993 , memo are not addressed in the EIS , then they need to be addressed in a separate letter to this office. If they are not adequately addressed, the Service will raise them again at the time the Draft EIS is released for public comment. Since an EIS is now being prepared for this project, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is required to prepare a Biological Assessment under the Endangered Species Act. It is the Service's position that this project will likely adversely affect listed species, therefore formal consultation will be necessary. If you would like to further discuss these issues in preparation of the EIS , please contact me or Susan Linner at (801) 524-5001. Robert D. Williams Assistant Field Supervisor

                                                                                                                    ~

Enclosure cc: Department of Interior , Office of the Secretary, Washington, D .C . 20240 ARD , ES , R6 , Denver, CO Acknowf JUL 2 1 1994 by card .......................*--*-*1*

I . Due. ~ . . _ - .... , , * -'c ::iECTION OFF CE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE CO ~MISSION Cocument Statistics Postmark Date l 1 --Z '1 " Coples Receiv0d _ _ _ l _ _ _ __ Add'I Copies Reproduced .3

                              = ---c-- -

Special Distribu.~\cn ~ u- lI PO/lj =

United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Mountain-Prairie Region

  . IN'fwE/ECTO:                        MAJUNG ADDRESS:                       STREET LOCATION:

Post Office Box 25486 134 Union Blvd. Mail Stop 60120 Denver Federal C.ente:r Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Denvie:r, Colorado 80225 Sti.I J. 19~3 Memorandum To: Regional Environmental Officer, USDI, Denver, Colorado From:t'-.;,.'0~):""'1* Regional Director, Region 6

               .               U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Denver, Colorado

Subject:

Review of Activities Related to the Reclamation of the Atlas Mill Disposal Area, Moab, Grand County, Utah (ER 93/671) The Fish and Wildlife Ser~i~e (Service) has reviewed the background materials and Environmental Assessment for closure of the Atlas Mill DisposJl Area (Area) and has a number of concerns. First, the August 12, 1993, letter from Ray Hall to Lillian Stone, indicates that the reclamation plan is simply a modification of previous actions to correct flaws. The Service has examined available files and found that the Nuclear Regulatory Convnission (Convnission) had consulted informally on endangered species related to the Area by requesting a list of threatened and endangered species in the general vicinity. A response to this request was sent August 28, 1992. The Commission concluded in the Environmental Assessment that there would be no impacts on endangered fishes of the Colorado River system and formal consultation was not requested. Examination of available data for the Area indicates that the Commission conclusion on the need for consultation is questionable and should be reconsidered. Information presented in the letter to Ms. Stone indicates a ground water

      ...£Q.n1amjnation problem associated with the Area. From available documents, the Service is unable to determine the nature and extent of the ground water contamination, the location(s) where contamination was detected, or the adequacy of ground water monitoring data supporting conclusions in the environmental assessment .

2 The Service is particularly concerned about the following:

1. Selenium in surface water associated with the Area is proposed to meet the standar..d of .01 mg/L. This is the State of Utah water quality standard for protection of human health. The Federal water quality standard for protection of aquatic life is currently .005 mg/L. Most recent research indicates that selenium should be in the range of .002 mg/L for adequate protection of aquatic life. No assessment was presented on impacts from selenium or other toxic elements on endangered fishes of the Colorado River system. Concentrations of these elements associated with this project would trigger a "may affect" determination and require formal consultation.

2. Dust suppression will require a source of water during the construction

   - 3.

phase. Any depletions of water from the Colorado River for dust: suppression creates a "may affect" situation for endangered fishes that requires formal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The Service is concerned that after capping, the Area will continue to be a radiological hazard to wildlife. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standard is 4 pCi/m 2 /second for the radioactive particle emission rate protective of human health. Emi ssion rates protective of wildlife health are generally unknown but likely occur at or below levels that protect humans. The expected emissions after capping are 20 pCi/m 2 /second. As described, the Area likely will be a nesting site for shorebirds requiring rocky/gravelly areas with little vegetation. Are these levels of radiation a hazard to migratory bird reproduction or a cause of cancer/tumors or other physiological conditions causing indirect mortalities? Such radiation induced disorders would violate the "taking"

   - 4.

provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and could subject responsible officials to criminal prosecution because this law is a strict liability statute. The Environmental Assessment claims that the existing disposal facility could structurally withstand high flows in the Colorado River. The Service believes that potential flows discussed in the Environmental Assessment would result in water levels 25 feet above normal river stage at elevations higher than the level of the tailings pile. This would result in substantial movement of water into the tailings pile creating a bank storage of toxic elements dissolved in water that subsequently would be released into the Colorado River when river levels returned to normal. No discussion of E~gro[rul..c.o~£entr_4.tj_Qns_of these elements . in the Colorado River was presented.

3

5. Releases of toxic elements_ from this site will compound contaminants problems in the Colorado River system, and constitute a "may affect" situation for endangered fish species which requires the Commission to initiate formal consultation with the Service under provisions of the Endangered Species Act. In addition, the uncontrolled release from the Area of selenium, uranium, or other hazardous elements covered by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund), will trigger initiation by the Service of natural resource damage assessment against the parties responsible for such releases.

6. The Service is concerned that no discussion of the laboratory practicQ..S-for chemical analysis of toxic elements, such as selenium, are discussed in the Environmental Assessment. Most data for selenium and some other biologically active elements are suspect until/unless methods of sample preparation and analysis can be confirmed as reliable. Accurate techniques for selenium determination in most environmental samples have only been available for the past 5 years and many analytical laboratories simply have not kept current on required procedures and

• equipment. The Environmental Assessment should be revised to address the quality assurance/quality control of analytical methods used to obta~n chemical results.

7. The attitude that the Area will be a maintenance free closed system for 200-1000+ years is grossly in error and needs rethinking. The Colorado River alone, is a major challenge to the structural longevity of the tailings site because high flows during spring in the mainstem Colorado River are common (e.g. near-record runoff in 1993) and the tailings pile is in the immediate floodplain.

8. Information available to the Service indicates that no studies of contaminants in fish of the Colorado River have been conducted in relation to the Area. The Service believes that studies should be initiated to monitor for toxic elements and physiological conditions of fish indicative of contaminants problems.

In general, the Service believes that this site is improperly located and is likely to be a hazard to endangered fish species and migratory birds for hundreds of years. There is a bonafide need for the Commis.sion to prepare a biological assessment and enter into formal consultation with the Service to address, at a minimum, the endangered species concerns listed above. The Commission should be required to enter into formal consultation before proceeding and should be notified of potential Endangered Species Act violations if consultation is not initiated. The Service believes the Commission's conclusion that the proposed action is simply to correct minor problems with the Area is seriously in error and needs revision to avoid future liabilities under Federal wildlife and hazardous materials law. In addition, it is the Service's opinion that the Commission should reconsider tailings disposal options and move the tailings out of the floodplain to a safer location. This approach has been accomplished in some other floodplain tailings sites in Durango and Grand Junction, Colorado.

4 This case is being referred to the Service's Law Enforcement Division for review and possible investigation. Technical questions about endangered species consultation requirements should be referred to the Regional Section 7 Coordinator (Mr. Wayne Wathen; 303-236-8166). Questions or needs for information about Federal hazardous materials laws applied to this case should be directed to the Regional Env i ronmental Contaminants Coordinator (Mr. Tom Jackson; 303-236-8180) .

                                                 ~&/                   ~
                                                       .Wt LB!.1~ !'L LJ\DL) .J~:~.

cc : ARD , law Enforcement,

  -        Region 6

United States Department oftlljo!~fi(or BUREAU OF MINES US RC Intermountain Field Operations Center P.O. Box 25086 *94 NAY 23 p J :4J Building 20, Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 OFFICE OF SECRETAR Y DOCKETING Ci SERY!C ay 5, 1994 BRANCH Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission DOCKET NUMBER PR s I Washington, D.C. 20555 PROPOSED RULE..:....:.:.~-- Attention: Docketing and Services Branch ( S-'1 Fft 1'-!C/ 12)

Subject:

Review of Federal Register Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on the Reclamation of Atlas Corporation's Uranium Mill Facility, Moab, Grand County, Utah (ER 94/289) As requested by the Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, U.S. Department of Interior, tr. S. Bureau of Mines personnel reviewed the subject notice. The Bureau is primarily concerned that mineral resources and mineral production facilities are adequately considered during the planning process. Our comments are drawn from available information, are provided on a technical assistance basis only, and may not reflect the position of the Department of Interior. Although our comments are based on the general information in the Notice of Intent, the project appears to be located in an area that could contain high value potash and near areas of past uranium production. Because of the nature and small size of the project, it is unlikely that impacts to these resources would occur. Nevertheless, if these resources do occur at the proposed construction sites, a discussion should be provided in the EIS on the types minerals present, their potential value, and how proposed project actions could affect future development of the resources. If no adverse impacts to mineral resources are anticipated, a statement to that effect should be included. We appreciate the opportunity to provide an early comment on this project. If you have questions regarding this review, please contact Roger Dolzani at (303) 236-0421. Sincerely,

                                   ~~Mark H. Hibpshman Supervisory Physical Scientist rld/cvl
                                                                       'JUL 2 1 1994 Acknowledged by card ....- ..- .....*--......

                                        ~ - ... ... *v.:llvl'C 0OCKt: 1 li~u tit bt.F.VICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics stmark Date lz / I        r:11    L/

Copies Receiv..,d _ _----=/_____ Add'I Copies Reproduced 3 Special Distribu *on }2,T.~iJ - ~____,f,. Q

                                                 . . -=-,z
                   /  I

q, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VIII DOCKE TED 999 18th STREET - SUITE 500 DENVER , COLORADO 80202-2466 USN C l.!_3

                                                                           *94 NAY 17 P5 :01 MAY I 2 1994             DOCKET NUMBER    PR      5I -

PROPOSED RULE-=-.:.:...-::::-~ Ref: 8ART-RP { 5q F (?.. /L/Cf ll) Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Docketing and Services Branch Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Madame/Sir:

Pursuant to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's published notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the decommissioning and reclamation of the Atlas Corporation's (Atlas) uranium mill facility at Moab, Utah, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does have comments on the necessary scope of the EIS. EPA commends the NRC on the decision to rescind the FONSI, noticed in 1993, and in proceeding with the EIS process to evaluate the reasonable disposal options for the uranium mill tailings located on the Atlas mill site. As stated in our letter of September 2, 1993, to Mr. David Meyer, Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch, new information and concerns expressed with the 1982 on-site reclamation decision do necessitate review, updating, and re-evaluation. In particular, the several disposal/reclamation options require re-evaluation to insure all pertinent cost factors are included as well as cost updating. The major components of the EIS which EPA considers to be essential to disposal options evaluation and selection of a preferred option are listed below.

1. The potential suitability of the on-site disposal option and each off-site disposal alternate should be determined in accordance with achieving compliance with EPA's remedial standards for longevity against loss due to errosive forces, radon gas emission control, and groundwater protection. One purpose of this comparative evaluation process would be the determination of whether any disposal option has a decidedly lower risk of stabilization failure over the long-term .

o Printed on Recycled Paper Acknowl ed by ca'd ..":J".r...12-l .,,.

v-.Jl~iMIS::ilQN Liu,,,, , .;*t.HVICE SECTION OFF!:_;[. ;.1f f HE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics lostmark DZ.!" _s_l~ ,::;~/~e._, L<_/____ Copies Recci**~'d __ _ _ J_ _ _ _ __ Add'! Cop:es R~;mxh.:ccd .J ________ Spec::.! Dbtri:,uti Jt,,r ~ l"!J(l M ,...__,/II ti\

2

2. The total cost (design, construction, and long-term surveillance) of each disposal option should be reviewed and updated. This probably will involve more than adjusting earlier cost estimates for currency inflation. For example, the total cost of the on-site disposal option should include the cost of groundwater restoration, any required installation of off-site groundwater monitoring wells, and long-term environmental surveillance. Addttionally, addressing the expressed concerns of residents/officials from Castle Valley over cover materials haulage may be a source of increased cost for the on-site disposal option if materials source locations must be changed with resultant increased haulage distances (in comparison to earlier evaluations).

3. The extent and .magnitude of existing groundwater contamination in the environs of the mill site ,

including the areal extent of a resultant contamination mixing zone in the Colorado River, should be described in the EIS. Correspondingly, groundwater restoration procedures to remediate this situation should be presented; including the findings of any pilot program conducted to date. If there is a probable compliance need to supplement groundwater restoration procedures with Alternate Concentration Limits (ACL's) , the estimated magnitude of the specific ACL's should be included in the EIS.

4. EPA disagrees with the intent of NRC to omit from the EIS any discussion of river biota impacts linked to Colorado River water quality degradation attributable to groundwater contamination. The potential for such adverse impacts must be discussed in the EIS irrespective of any conclusion in earlier evaluations.

The EIS should be the vehicle for documenting existing water quality and biological monitoring data to support NRC's conclusion of no adverse impacts on stream biota. Considering the large dilution capacity of the Colorado River, the lack of adverse impacts on stream biota appears to be a reasonable conclusion. However, water quality and biological data are required to verify the lack of significant impact not only at downstream locations of complete mixing, but also close-in locations such as the mixing zone.

3

5. For the case of on-site disposal, the predicted level and duration of Colorado River water quality degradation , if any , should be evaluated for major flood events.

6. On a "criterion-by criterion" basis, the compliance/acceptability of each disposal option with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, should be documented in the EIS. This is particularly important in the case of the on-site disposal option preferred by NRC.

- Please contact either Weston Wilson at (303) 293-1439 or Milton Lammering at (303) 293-1440 if we can further explain our recommendations on the scope of the Atlas _EIS. Si ne~ , ? ~ ~ Ro7!:tt R. Despain, Chief Environmental Assessment Branch

County Council: GRAND COUNTY Clerk/Auditor: Telephone(801)259-1346 STATE OF UTAH Telephone(801)259-1321 Paul Menard, Chairman 125 East Center Fran Townsend Bill Hedden, Vice Chairman Ken Ballantyne Peter Haney John Hartley John Maynard Moab, UT 84532 FAX: (801)259-2959 @ Charlie Peterson DOCKET NUMBER PR r / 10 May 94 PROPOSED RULE..:...:.:._;J~ - - Secretary ( S-'7 F p_ J'-/C, JL) '° _p,. Cl U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

3: c 'g

                                                                                     ==<     (../1 ~

Washington, D.C. 20555 ~ rr: ATTN: Docketing and Services Branch

                                                                                     °'
                                                                                      -0

('") ~ C) N The Grand County Council appreciates the l,J

                                                                                       -...I comment on the NOI to prepare an EIS and scoping process for reclamation of Atlas Uranium Recovery facility near Moab, UT.

unty Council &

                                                                 ~ ,~,..,.mittee Member Comments pertaining to the proposed NOI outline:

2.2 Box Canyon site alternative. Should be dropped from further analysis because the 1979 FES clearly illustrates why. 2.3 Plateau Site (Airport) Please specifically identify this site and give details as required by 40 CFR Part 1502.14.

3. The Existing Environment.

Needs to be evaluated by the EPA as a cooperating agency according to the National Contingency Plan 40 CFR part 300, appendix A, the Hazard Ranking System. Acknowledged by card ..*~~ .. ~!..-,!~ .......

1..,;

fostmark Date _s/!..l /--,------

1'i itopies Recciv.:d_ _ /_ _ _ __ Add'I 8pe Copies Reproduced =-- -A-,,t- -

The Grand County Council requests that the Environmental Protection Agency be a cooperating agency throughout this EIS process. The EPA will be responsible for tracking the Hazard Ranking System as laid out in the National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR part 300, appendix A . This request is due to the following statements in appendix (c),"Identify and eliminate from detailed study issues which are not significant or which are peripheral or which have been covered by prior environmental review.

     " ..... Extensive water monitoring has identified no contamination in the Colorado River; therefore, there are no effects on river biota, and they will not be assessed. There should be no harmful impacts on terrestrial biota and no assessment is required, ... " From the 1979 FES to this 1994 NOI, the NRC has consistently refused to examine the Colorado River ecosystem for impacts, please refer to accompanying photographs which clearly illustrate harmful impacts on terrestrial biota.

The water samples sampled have been extensively monitored, but the samples themselves are not representative of the ecosystem. The 1979 FES documents that there was and is ongoing contamination of the Colorado River. It shows that there is 43-166 gallons per minute seepage into the Colorado River( 4.6.2 Aquatic). 4.3.2 Groundwater of the 1979 FES states that "The area affected by seepage from the tailings pond will be limited to the restricted area between the pond and the Colorado River, which borders on the site from the downgrade side, serving as a cut off for the seepage from the site." Again, please refer to enclosed photos of the restricted area between the pond and the Colorado River. Also the 1979 FES documents contamination of the Colorado River in 2.9.2 Aquatic paragraph 7, where for 20 years the Atlas Mill discharged 1000-2000 gallons per minute of effluent from the facility's radium treatment ponds to the Colorado River. Other monitoring that has been required of the licensee has not been done. The 1979 licensure permit required the applicant to determine the soft tissue body burden of rodents near the Atlas site, 6.5.1 Terrestrial. This was never done. The 1988 application for renewal of licensure required the monitoring of 3 fish per year for bioaccumulation. This was not done. The 1988 license renewal required that soil and vegetative sampling shall be analyzed annually for Ra-226 and Pb-210. This too was not done. Because the NRC has not enforced the minimal monitoring requirements to date and has not addressed present or potential Colorado River ecosystem impacts; it is imperative that the EPA be the cooperating agency responsible for processing this site according to the National Contingency Plan 40 CFR part 300, appendix A, the Hazard Ranking System.

4.2 Land Use. Three Professional Appraisals by Utah licensed appraisers need to evaluate the site and alternatives for land value after reclamation both for onsite and offsite disposal. This site has the potential for being the most valuable real estate in Grand County and would be a sizeable loss of future tax revenues as well as present tax revenues if the reclamation is onsite. The effects on local property tax revenues over the next 1000 years need to be included in the final comparative figures of onsite versus offsite disposal. 4.4 Biological Resources. As is illustrated in the accompanying photographs, please determine what has killed the tamarisks and the status of the remaining ecosystem adjacent and down stream to the tailings pursuant to 40 CFR Part 1502.16. 4.5 Socioeconomic Considerations. The Atlas site potentially represents the most valuable privately owned recreational acreage in Southern Utah, please quantify and compare the impacts of the proposed action and the offsite alternatives. 4.9 Relationship between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity. Again, please quantify the proposed action versus the alternatives on long-term productivity over the next 1000 years. 6.2 Quantifiable Socioeconomic Impacts Including Environmental Justice Considerations. What does this mean????? Appendix (c) Identify and eliminate from detailed study issues which are not significant or which are peripheral or which have been covered by prior environmental review. " .... There should be no harmful impacts on terrestrial biota and no assessment is required, ... " Please explain what has happened to the tamarisks in the accompanying photographs. The original FES in 1979 and subsequent ERS's consistently state that there should be no impacts to the environment, yet any monitoring that was

required by the applicant shows otherwise or was not done. There is no available evidence to support the NRC's view of no impacts to the environment. If it exists please make it available to the Grand County Council as soon as possible. Appendix (e) Identify other environmental review or consultation requirements related to the proposed action. " ... NRC anticipates continued consultation with these and other agencies, as appropriate, during the development of the EIS." The Grand County Council determines appropriate to mean weekly updates due in writing the Monday following the previous week's activities; along with the scheduled activities for the ensuing 3 weeks. Appendix (f) Indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparation of environmental analysis and the Commission's tentative planning and decision making schedule. "The NRC intends to prepare and issue for public comment a draft EIS in October 1994

• II It is difficult to fathom how the NRC plans to meet an October 1994 deadline for a draft EIS and still fulfill its obligations under 40 CFR Parts 1502.14 and 1502.16.

In conclusion, should the draft EIS support the proposed plan to reclaim the tailings in place, then the draft EIS will have to clearly illustrate that the DOE has wasted billions of taxpayer dollars in moving other similarly located piles.

Comments on Atlas Mill Tailings 5-6-94 Jeff McCleary Atlas Reclamation Committee Memeber

1) The EIS should evaluate the potential for movement of the Moab fault related to salt dissolution as well as movement related to regional extension. The concern is differential movement across an existing plane of weakness (the Moab Fault) that could disrupt that clay cap. Therefore all mechanisms that could cause differential movement need to be investigated.

2) The amount of contaminated ground water moving off-site into adjacent properties or into the Colorado River must be quantified. In addition to the sampling recommended by the State, calculations based on the transmissivity of the sediments and the potentiometric surface would be useful in this quantification.

3) The zone of seismicity along the Colorado River between Moab and the confluence with the Green River must be assessed relative to its impact on the tailings pile. Migrating the largest earthquake recorded during the 1979-1985 monitoring period to a position under the pile at shallow depth would be a reasonable, though not conservative, approach. The model must take into account the relatively unusual geologic situation of a salt body overlain by cap-rock ( in soluble material left by salt dissolution) overlain by the unconsolidated, saturated river sediments on which the pile is located. Liquefaction or settlement which could disrupt the clay cap must be evaluated as well as actual failure of the pile.

4) Low cost and/or low exposure strategies for relocating the pile should be evaluated. For example a slurry pipeline laid along the railroad may be a very economical way to move the tailings. If tailings were removed from near the base of the pile by an anchor system the whole process could be automated and contained and exposures would be minimized.

5) Any alternate sites considered should offer real advantages over the current site in terms of waste isolation, environmental protection , and land use. The box canyon site may have appeared reasonable in the mid 1970's but with the intense recreational land use of the mid 1990's it is probably no more realistic than a site in downtown Moab or the town of Castle Valley. The resources available for this EIS should be spent on detailed evaluations of the two main alternatives (cap in place and relocation to the airport site) . If resources are available for other alternative evaluations they should be spent on optimizing the location of the "airport site" relative to ground water protection, access to the railroad or other transportation corridors, and other factors related to the technical suitability and economics of the site.

--~ = ~~ MRS. ALETHA A. BUTCHE 4993 s. H'W\' 191 MOAB, UT. 84532-3922 R

 \

I*

• r- *

                       "6t*Z~ *.Lfl '&VOW -
                                               ~-,

161 an *s t 6 6 t ~ ll3HJJ.fl8 *v VH.131V 'SllW ~ ~

                                               ~
                                                   '?Yr'

(

                                               ~

li-~ vvMMISSION DOCi~.:*.l lN'-:1 ~ Sl::.RVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Occumcnt Statistics Postmark o... te " / / ')- /vJ ~ Copies Recsivvd __ __ _.:.../_ _ _ __ Add'I Cc*p1es R~pro*~1.;,:(.d . . . e-- ---- Spec, 1 o:::~ribu~on l ) ~ pl.JJ2,

    ,v1 v1- , , 1      S:- - - - - - -

Dead H orse Poin t Moab-West Rim Delicate A rch Fi she r Towe rs County Council: Lilly Mae Noorlander 259-7339 259-7425 Recorder Charlie Peterson Grace Eastin Chaiman 259-5835 Treasurer Dorothy Gough Paul Menard 259-7696 Assessor Vice Chairman Jim Nyland Fran Townsend 259-8115 Sheriff Clerk and Auditor c::> 0 Wil liam L. Benge 259-5645 -,,259-7621. Attorney 0 c:,-n \,Q FAX 259-2959 May 8, 1994 x:-*TimK~ h rn :., 59-8111 secretary c:*-

                                                                                                           --1'

0

c'.: -r I Q

                                                                                                                             =
                                                                                                 , , . . ;:;-)  ,n U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                                                            . . _'-~r r, Washington, D.C. 20555                                                                         *-;           C)

J l)?J -0 ATTN: Docketing and Services Branch .~r-, .i::,.

                                                                                                             -**-1
                                                                                                             ~   1'":.i*         **

SCOPING COMMENTS FOR RECLAMATION OF ATLAS CORPORATION' 1;h 1.J;RAN ro M RECOVERY FACILITY AT MOAB, UTAH (DOCKET NO. 40-34S3 The Grand County Council, which is the local governing body with jurisdiction over the site of the Atlas Mill, appreciates this opportunity to provide scoping comments for the Environmental Impact Statement on the reclamation plan for the mill and associated tailings pile. we do not propose to repeat the detailed comments that we submitted last year in response to the Environmental Assessment and FONSI noticed in the Federal Register. Since then, we have consulted with NRC in its technical review as well as working closely with the Utah Division of Radiation control, the EPA, National Park Service, and the BLM, and we are confident that nearly all the relevant technical issues have been brought to your attention. Instead, these comments are aimed at reminding you of the difference between a real EIS, in which well developed alternatives are honestly compared; and a public relations sham , in which time and money are wasted justifying a decision made before the process ever began. It is simply not good enough to rework the same old data about the existing site and compare that plan to a generic 'airport' site: that exercise has been completed before, and it led to a contorted and problematic concl u sion. Yet, how do you propose to do anything more in the extremely short and arbitrary time frame given for this EIS? Many crucial questions cannot be answered with the existing information. That is why the 1993 Environmental Assessment included so much hand waving. The unbiased professionals from Oak Ridge National Lab should demand enough time to collect new information for a real EIS. Some of the important issues needing further study are described in the following two sections.

                                                                                                                         \IUl 2 1 1994 .

Grand Coun ty is an eqJI opportun ity employer owledged by cardu_N _ ____

u..;J. 11 '- V *

• v '-' ,*i,1.S *1 l oocvr.*, ,*:;' :i SERVICE SECTION OFFiCE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Qocument Statistics Postmarl< Date _6--'-'/,._._~- - - -

Copies Received _ _ _ , _ _ _ __ Add'I Copies Reproduced .1__ ___ __ Specia Oistribu'ion~~=5:J.-'-.,.11t,1-;:.;;:r..- - _f14'- // JA

unanswered Questions About Reclamation in Place socioeconomics The socioeconomic implications of leaving the tailings in the Moab valley have never been addressed. It is difficult to overstate the value and unusual nature of the Atlas site. The pile sits on the only buildable riverfront land in the only habitable valley and town along hundreds of miles of the spectacular Colorado River Canyon. If it were cleaned up, Moab could relate to and develop along the river in a way that has not been possible with the tailings in place. The land could easily become one of the most desirable parcels in this destination resort. It is mere yards from Arches National Park, an international scenic treasure where visitation is rising at a rate of about 25% per year. Directly across the river is the richest nature preserve in all of southern Utah, and the river itself has been designated critical habitat for four threatened or endangered fish species. This is a desert oasis, and any release of hazardous materials at the site will have the greatest possible adverse consequences for the natural environment and the local population, which is confined in the valley with the tailings. The river flowing past the pile, and being contaminated by the pile, provides drinking water for sixteen million people. How are you going to put prices on all these very real issues? Because of the Colorado River and the spectacular surrounding country, Moab has become one of the fastest growing destination areas in the U.S. Housing is completely unavailable. Only 4.5% of the County is private land in the first place. Prices have been doubling annually. This land would be very valuable today, and its value in the future could be astronomical, if the tailings were removed. Realistic estimates of the future land price (Consult local real estate professionals) need to be factored into the decision. Furthermore, if development continues along anything like the current trajectory, the pile will eventually be moved from this unique piece of property by our descendants, who will curse us for our short-sightedness. How much extra will that cost? The much smaller pile in Monticello, Utah, which has gone through something like that process, will cost over $250,000,000 by the time it is finally laid to rest. Geology and Geophysics Considering the socioeconomic problems with reclamation in place, the technical characteristics of the site ought to be extremely good for that disposal option to receive any further consideration at all. unfortunately, the site is an unusually dynamic one that offers little hope of maintenance-free long term 2

isolation of the waste. The unlined pile sits on a wet, unconsolidated alluvial fan formed where a major wash meets the major river of the southwestern United States. This wash, which sometimes carries nearly as much water as the Colorado River, .u sed to aim directly at the center of the tailings pile before it was rerouted around the upstream side of the pile. The river scours at the pile during high water years, and its tidal action pumps contaminants out of the bottom of the pile in all seasons. The ground under the pile is subsiding, and it is subjected to frequent small earthquakes; both factors which could cause rerouting of the river. In order to address all these forces acting to dismantle the pile, disposal in place is a heavily engineered solution. But, the cumulative effect of all the wear and tear on the pile has not been addressed. What will happen if the weight of the rock armour causes differential settling of the pile, and small quakes compromise the integrity of the radon barrier and rip-rap? And then, what if small floods in Moab Wash claw at the side of the pile and cause sloughing into the rerouted channel. We know where the Wash wants to be, so suppose it cuts into the upstream side of the pile, just several years before a really big flood comes down the Colorado and finds the upstream flank of the tailings unprotected. Accumulation of small problems could cause catastrophic failure. Who is going to take care of long-term maintenance, and who is going to pay for it? There is not much room for error when the drinking water of tens of millions of people is at stake. And if you continue to believe that even catastrophic failure wouldn't be so bad, believe us when we say that NRC might get a chance to explain that idea on national television. One additional point about the river: the analysis of the probable maximum flood was flawed, as NRC is aware. In such an event, the Moab valley will act as a large eddy rather than as an active part of the channel. This means that flows past the tailings will be much faster than anticipated, requiring larger rip-rap. We have said it before and we say it again: that kind of rock is not easily available locally, and it will be enormously expensive and dangerous to get it from the sites NRC has identified. The County owns the most of the roads the rock must travel, and we will have to evaluate whether that is an appropriate sort of traffic to allow. Where is the accurate, detailed analysis of sources, costs, fuel consumption, and potential for industrial accidents? Hydrology very little is known about the aquifer below the tailings pile, except that it is being seriously contaminated with salts, heavy 3

metals and alpha radiation, and that it flows just a few yards into the Colorado River. It is necessary to thoroughly understand the aquifer and its interaction with the river in order to evaluate the Groundwater Corrective Action Plan. From the monitoring well data, it is almost certain that there is offsite contamination down-gradient, and nobody has done the sort of sampling of river sediments and biota that would reveal whether contamination is accumulating at localized sites in the river. Both Grand County and the State of Utah have valid CERCLA claims because there have been releases of hazardous substances into the environment that exceed permit levels. If NRC is not going to require additional study of the groundwater, the river, and the aquatic and terrestrial biota, then the County is going to use the natural resource damage component of CERCLA to recover costs from Atlas for proactive actions to prevent further release. This will include, among other things, funding for monitoring and testing programs designed to determine whether offsite contamination has occurred. It is clear that the corrective action program is not going to get releases of hazardous substances into the groundwater down to acceptable levels, so NRC has stated that it intends to change the rules and allow alternate concentration levels. These ACL's might be acceptable in the gas hills of Wyoming where nobody is drinking the water, but this is a different kind of site. All of the Title I sites along major river systems were moved rather than allow ACL's, and this pile is larger, and the river it sits beside is larger, than any of those sites. It should be cleaned up to meet standards or it should be moved. NRC should develop costs for a real clean-up and add those to costs for reclamation in place, or should put a price on degrading the major water supply of the southwest for a few thousand years. In summary, a real accounting of the cost of reclamation in place would reveal that any initial savings of such a plan will be offset by a huge ongoing expense for development potential lost, damage to priceless natural resources, and continuing maintenance of the highly engineered containment structure. And, since this is the least attractive option from the perspective of safe, long-term isolation of the waste, it seems more than prudent to look very seriously at other options for reclamation. Unanswered Questions About Moving the Tailings In previous documents about this issue, NRC has considered moving the tailings to a generic 'airport' site, and dismissed the option after a cursory analysis of costs and hazards. However, the 1993 EA clearly found that even a generic mancos shale site offered much better prospects for meeting the overall objectives of long term, maintenance-free isolation of the waste, than the 4

river site. The uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act clearly requires detailed analysis of alternative sites so that the best may be chosen for final analysis. This whole project is unquestionably deficient in this regard, and it is past time for NRC to do a real search for the best possible site in the mancos shale area north of Moab. We are confident that an excellent location can be found, one that combines efficient access with great safety. But it is necessary to actually look for such a place if you mean to study it seriously. Not all areas have sufficient depth to groundwater, nor do they all give adequate assurance that erosion or flooding will not be a problem. Location will have great bearing on transportation costs. So, the first question is: where is the plateau or 'airport' site? Having identified a location, careful engineering analysis is needed to determine the best method of getting the tailings to the site. Ready rail access makes that an attractive option to consider, but how would the cars be loaded? rs a conveyor system feasible? What would be the methods of suppressing radon emmissions? And, once the cars are loaded, is it cheaper to construct a rail spur to the site, or load trucks at a special haul road built to access the railroad? Perhaps a more attractive option would be to build a slurry pipeline and move the tailings that way. oust and emissions at the pile could be kept very low, road and transport hazards could be eliminated, and the coal and other industries have found it the most economical way of moving large amounts of materials. A third major area of the design is the containment area itself. The soil in the area has been found to have extraordinarily low permeability to water. rt should be possible to build a disposal area with world-class characteristics. Perhaps no liner would be needed. What would the design be? How much weight should be given to the relatively assured success of the reclamation process as compared to the uncertainty of covering the pile up on the riverbank? The fact that nobody has ever attempted to answer any of these questions gives a good indication of how serious NRC has been in considering alternatives to reclamation in place. Apparently, the EIS is to be ready in draft form just five months after the scoping process closes. We don't believe that is sufficient time to address most of our questions. Accordingly, we request NRC to create a technical advisory committee to oversee progress on the EIS. Members would be Grand County, State of Utah, EPA, DOE (especially including somebody who has moved a pile before), National Park Service, and BLM. This group should get weekly updates on progress, as well as projections for work to be accomplished in the next month. If the EIS is not addressing the concerns of the group, then the schedule must be 5

re-written , s o that a fair and lawful document emerges . This may s e e m inconvenient, bu t the public i n t e res t d em a nds s u ch a process. This site sits on top of the water supply for the southwestern united states. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. SinceJ:ely, ~~ Bill Hedden vice-Chairman Grand County Council 125 E. Center St. Moab, Utah 84532 6

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR 57-- - (51FRJL/Cf12) ATLAS CORPORATION ~ Republic Plaza, 370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3150 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 825-1200 Fax : (303) 892-8808 RICHARD E . BLUBAUGH Vice President of Environmental and Governmental Affairs The Honorable Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary I. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission \. MJl.Y 13 1994 Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Services Branch Re: Reclamation of Atlas Corporation's Uranium Mill Facility at Moab, UT Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

Dear Secretary Chilk:

Atlas Corporation submits these comments in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and conduct a scoping process for the EIS on the decommissioning and reclamation of Atlas' uranium mill facility at Moab, Utah. 59 Fed. Reg. 14912 (March 20, 1994). As the Commission is aware, Atlas strongly believes that its proposed reclamation plan as last revised in April 1993 to satisfy revisions in NRC stabilization requirements and in accordance with NRC license conditions noted in NRC's notice of intent to approve the revised reclamation plan (58 Fed. Reg . 38796 (July 20, 1993)) will assure adequate protection of public health and safety and the environment. Atlas' plan meets NRC's 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A requirements and should be approved. Nonetheless, in the interest of addressing concerns raised by NRC, the State of Utah, federal agencies and the general public, Atlas intends to continue to cooperate with NRC as it undertakes the EIS process. These comments set forth several points for NRC to consider in developing the scope of the EIS and in preparing the actual statement. ulUL 2 1 19M. Ackn w1edg by care ....-",_"_" __ _;

                                    )~ION l,\.. ,- _              v'- -.'.LCTIQN Off l.i:. O, 1r,E SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION

Secretary Chilk Moab EIS May 13, 1994 Page Two Introduction During the April public meeting in Moab, the NRC staff emphasized that: the [determination to prepare an] environmental impact statement does not mean that we have made a decision that the tailings should be moved. In fact, the environmental impact statement is an evaluation of Atlas' proposed action, which is reclamation of the tailings in place and considering reasonable alternatives, one of which is moving the tailings pile. But, the focus of the EIS is of reclamation in place, the licensee's proposed actions... Going to an EIS did not mean we necessarily decided that the tailings need to be moved. (Tr. at 5) (Emphasis added.) Atlas urges the Commission to adhere firmly to this position not to proceed under a presumption that moving the tailings pile will be necessary or warranted. Atlas also agrees with the Commission and the State of Utah (Tr. at 11) that the EIS's detailed analysis of the reclamation options should be limited to on-site stabilization of the tailings and the primary alternative of moving the tailings pile to the airport site (Alternative A). It is Atlas' position that given the long history of NRC licensing and regulation at the Moab site a wealth of data exists on all aspects of the site including critical aspects of the proposed reclamation plan. Therefore, it should be necessary to update existing data or develop new data only when studied analysis suggests it is absolutely necessary. NRC has stated repeatedly that reclamation plans must satisfy NRC requirements and that there is no need or requirement for a plan to be the very best plan imaginable. The EIS should explain the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements that drive NRC's uranium mill tailings regulatory program to put into context the relevance of the Appendix A criteria and the site-specific nature of reclamation decisions. Atlas' reclamation plan has not just appeared out of the blue. It has been modified several times since the original submission in 1981 under NRC guidance to meet changing NRC requirements. It presently meets those requirements. Atlas respectfully requests that in reviewing the Atlas plan the Commission consider this historical context in applying its criteria to the site-specific circumstances at the Moab site, but at the same time to do so in a manner consistent with recent approvals of reclamation plans at other Title II sites and other lle.(2) sites in Utah. To that end, to satisfy the requirements for an EIS, NRC must evaluate the "net impact" of the two prime alternatives. The net impact will require analysis of several components including

Secretary Chilk Moab EIS May 13, 1994 Page Three the "net risk" to public health and the environment and the "net economic impact" of the alternatives, as well as the "net regulatory impacts" and related complexities, and costs thereof. Off-site burial would create more risks to public health and the environment, more costs and more regulatory complications than the on-site reclamation plan. Instead of decreasing public health risk, moving the tailings pile will likely result in substantially increasing the risks to public health and the environment. In the final analysis, a decision to move the tailings pile should not be based on "perceptions" or "beliefs" or "feelings", but only for sound technical reasons -- that is, reasons why in place stabilization will not satisfy NRC requirements and reasons why Alternative A would do so more effectively in terms of cost and risk. The following comments develop more fully these guiding principles for the EIS. I. Background - The Reclamation Plan The Moab uranium mill and tailings site has been strictly regulated and licensed by NRC since the mid-1950's. Based on extensive data, a materials renewal license was issued in 1988. Atlas submitted its original reclamation plan to NRC in 1981. The plan was revised in 1988 and 1989 due to changes in NRC requirements. Again, in April 1993, in response to NRC's questions and comments on Atlas' proposed reclamation plan and changes in NRC requirements, Atlas submitted a modified plan (prepared by Canonie Environmental Services Corporation). All these submittals were in response to changing regulatory requirements. As summarized in the 1993 Canonie report, the major modifications and clarifications to the plan include:

1. Regrading of the top of the impoundment to create a depressed channel versus an original domed top configuration to promote surface water drainage. This modification significantly reduces the anticipated settlement of the tailings and the associated potential for damage to the final cover, provides greater long-term stability of the impoundment, and minimizes materials handling quantities, exposed tailings, and reclamation costs.

2. Reducing the soil cover thickness for radon attenuation purposes, based on an increase in the allowable radon emanation rate from 2 picoCuries per square meter per second (pCi/m2/sec) to 20 pCi/m2/ sec since the time of the original reclamation plan submittal to the NRC (Dames & Moore, 1981).

Secretary Chilk Moab EIS May 13, 1994 Page Four

3. Providing designs for riprapped surface water control ditches, rock armor slope protection of the reclaimed tailings disposal impoundment embankments, and soil/rock matrix erosion protection of the reclaimed tailings disposal impoundment top.

4. Relocating and reconfiguring of the Moab Wash Channel to contain the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) and minimize the flood's impact on the reclaimed site. (Canonie report, p. 2)

(Emphasis added.) Atlas has never attempted to avoid its reclamation responsibility, but rather has always responded to NRC inquiries or requirements to modify its plan to satisfy NRC requirements. II. The UMTRCA Regulatory Program As an initial matter, the EIS needs to explain the UMTRCA regulatory program and the site-specific flexibility built into the criteria governing disposal of uranium mill tailings to the public at large. One of the purposes of UMTRCA, is upon termination of uranium mill operations, "to stabilize and control such tailings in a safe and environmentally sound manner and to minimize or eliminate radiation health hazards to the public health." 42 U.S.C. § 7901. UMTRCA and the regulatory program developed under the Act provide for site-specific flexibility in determining compliance with the regulations. UMTRCA provides that a licensee may propose alternatives to specific requirements that: take into account local or regional conditions, including geology, topography, hydrology and meteorology. The Commission may treat such alternatives as satisfying Commission requirements if the Commission determines that such alternative will achieve a level of protection for public health, safety, and the environment from radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with such sites, which is equivalent to, to the extent practicable, or more stringent that the level which would be achieved by standards and requirements adopted and enforced by the Commission for the same purpose and any final standards promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency .. .42 U.S.C. § 2114.

Secretary Chilk Moab EIS May 13, 1994 Page Five Appendix A to 10 C.F.R. Part 40 notes that "in many cases flexibility is provided in the criteria to allow achieving an optimum tailings disposal program on a site-specific basis." (Emphasis added.) Indeed, flexibility is a critical component of NRC disposal decisions since the criteria sometimes may appear to be in conflict. For example, Criterion 3 notes that the "prime option" for tailings disposal is below grade placement. Many sites, though, have above-ground tailings piles that were in existence long before the UMTRCA regulatory program was developed. If this criteria were strictly applied, causing all of these piles to be moved for burial below grade, there would be a conflict with Criterion 2 which dictates against creating multiple disposal sites. NRC recognizes this problem and, therefore, looks at site-specific circumstances. While below grade disposal may often be the best option, NRC has allowed above-ground disposal where, according to NRC, burial would not necessarily provide greater stability. For example, the NRC recently approved an above-ground disposal plan for another tailings pile in Utah. Thus, it is important that NRC explain its regulatory program in the EIS so that the public can understand the realities of the operating framework. For example, NRC should explain that where a groundwater standard cannot be met at the point of compliance (POC), a licensee must undertake a correction action program (CAP). Even where NRC limits are exceeded beyond the POC, if there is a CAP in place (which may include Alternate Concentration Limits (ACLs)), then the licensee is in compliance with NRC requirements. NRC must ultimately determine whether a CAP, which may include an ACL, provides adequate protection for public health and the environment. Again, this involves consideration of site specific factors. For example, with respect to the Moab site, the EIS needs to acknowledge that there is not an aquifer beneath the site (in terms of a usable source of groundwater) that would be impacted. In light of this, NRC must evaluate the realistic impact of the potential threat to public health and the environment from any contamination that can be attributed to tailings seepage, if any. The flexibility inherent in the existing mill tailings regulatory program must be reflected in the EIS. Most of the uranium mill tailings (including the Atlas pile) were in place before these UMTRCA-driven requirements became effective and, as a result, these requirements were developed and have been implemented with that basic fact in mind. The legislative history of UMTRCA demonstrates that Congress was concerned with the law's impact on existing licensees as follows:

Secretary Chilk Moab EIS May 13, 1994 Page Six The Committee notes that many of the provisions of the [Mill Tailings] Act may make it difficult for existing licensees to comply with because of the financial impact or the time it will take to do so. The NRC should take such factors into account. 1 III. Reliance on Existing Data NRC should recognize that the reclamation plan has been developed in the context of a mature, comprehensive and highly restrictive regulatory program. A tremendous amount of data on the Moab facility is available to NRC. NRC should take full advantage of this material in preparing the EIS. There is no need to spend valuable resources or time, in effect, to "reinvent the wheel." Only where NRC deems it absolutely necessary should new data be sought. Where material needs to be updated, then it is appropriate to do so. Otherwise, the Commission should rely on the existing, extensive data on the Atlas tailings pile and the proposed reclamation plan. Moreover, the EIS can incorporate by reference relevant data from other sites. For example, seismic data on the Colorado Plateau has already been evaluated in conjunction with the Envirocare of Utah's application for an lle.(2) disposal license. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Homestake mill site in Grants, New Mexico found that there was no increased radon exposure to residents living in homes in residential developments directly abutting the facility fence line at the site. IV. Beliefs vs. Facts On a related note, the EIS must have a factual basis for its findings. Many of the comments sent to NRC in response to the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) simply made bold (and often emotional) assertions or conclusions without any supporting data. It is not sufficient to say we "believe" there may be an impact as the National Park Service did in its comments. NRC must make its findings in the EIS on the basis of facts, and sound scientific, technical and regulatory analyses. As explained at length in prior submissions to the Commission, Atlas' proposed above-ground disposal plan meets NRC's reclamation requirements. It is Atlas' expectation as a licensee that the guiding factor in reclamation is protection of public health and the environment from significant risks of harm. It is Atlas' position that its reclamation plan does protect public health H.R. Rep. No. 1480, Part 2, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. 44 (1978).

Secretary Chilk Moab EIS May 13, 1994 Page Seven and the environment. For example, it is generally recognized that radiological standards designed to protect human health also adequately protect the environment and other species. 2 The public disclosure on the Atlas site also appears to be clouded by misperceptions about decisions at Title I sites judging by references to sites that DOE has moved. As the Commission is well aware, NRC does not decide that a tailings pile at Title I site should be moved, but rather only has authority to approve of such plans if submitted by DOE, the agency responsible for management of those sites. The Title I UMTRCA program (including moving several sites) has cost American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of guilt-edged closure plans and other decisional consideration that were not necessary to satisfy NRC requirements. NRC's EIS should only address whether moving the Moab pile is appropriate given the net impact of such an alternative and not whether it would represent the best of all possible theoretical solutions. NRC can only require that the tailings pile be moved for technical reasons and only if the proposed reclamation plan does not meet NRC requirements. V. Moving the Tailings Pile - Creation of New Risks Although there were a few individuals at the public meeting in Moab that described the alternative of moving the tailings pile to the airport site as the "near perfect" spot for containment, there are significant potential adverse health effects associated with this alternative. A thorough consideration of the risks associated with this alternative may indicate that there would be little, if any, net risk reduction as compared to Atlas' proposed reclamation plan or, indeed, a net risk increase. Atlas' preliminary analyses indicate that when the off-site burial alternative is considered in its entirety (i.e., net risk benefits with realistic cost estimates), this proposal cannot be justified on public health and environmental protection grounds as, at a minimum, it does not provide significant incremental risk reduction benefits and, at worst, it significantly increases net impact (i.e., net risks, net costs and net regulatory impacts). Moving the tailings pile is not an appropriate option if by so doing the risks to health and the environment are increased or are merely moved around and at a greatly increased cost. As EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) stated with respect to EPA's proposed radon in drinking water rule the Agency should "consider performing a risk assessment that includes the occupational risks to reassure itself, and others, that the risks of exposure to radionuclides in 2 See, International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), Publication 26 (1977); ICRP Publication 60 (1991); National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Report No. 109, "Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Aquatic Organisms" (1991); National Academy of Science "Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation" (1972).

Secretary Chilk Moab EIS May 13, 1994 Page Eight drinking water are indeed being reduced and not just moved around as the result of their concentration and disposal. 3 The EIS for the Atlas site must consider the impacts both to workers and the general public from staging areas at both sites, transportation from the old to the new, construction at the new site, water pumping and dewatering at the sites for dust control, to name just a few of the many activities associated with moving the tailings pile. For example, in the process of moving the pile (which could take 10 to 15 years versus the five year time-frame for on-site disposal) there could be precipitation or other events that would create hazardous releases from the tailings at both sites and from the material in transit. The EIS evaluation process will require much more than just looking at each site in isolation. The cumulative impacts associated with each alternative must be evaluated. Off-site burial of tailings, moreover, would complicate the reclamation process. The groundwater, rock armor and other such issues surrounding the Atlas site would need to be addressed at a new site as well. By moving the tailings pile, NRC would create a 20 mile corridor subject to contamination. Transporting the tailings involves risks from accidents, releases due to rain or snowfall, and increased occupational exposure as the tailings are loaded and unloaded. If transport is by slurry, the tailings will have to be dewatered which would delay placement of a radon barrier, result in two sites releasing radon, and pose a contaminated water disposal problem. If transport is by rail or truck and the tailings are dry, there will be a "dusting" problem at both sites. The potential for a major spill contaminating a third site during transport remains a problem whatever the mode of transport. There are also regulatory issues that must be addressed. Will the disposal at the Alternative A site be required to comply with EPA's Clean Air Act work practice standards in Subpart W of 40 C.F.R. Part 61 -- i.e. continuous disposal of dry tailings with no more than 10 acres uncovered or phased disposal in 40 acre impoundments with no more than two impoundments operating at one time. What would compliance with either of these standards do to cost estimates and time to complete? A variance from 10 C.F .R. Part 20 exposure limits might be necessary for emissions during transportation for the entire "closure" period throughout the entire transportation corridor. In light of these issues (which are only an illustrative few of the multitude facing a move to another site), the EIS should include a net impact analysis. The National Council of Radiation Protection (NCRP) has stated: Draft of SAB Radiation Advisory Committee Comments on EPA' s "Suggested Guidelines for the Disposal of Drinking Water Treatment Wastes Containing Naturally-Occurring Radionuclides , " July 6, 1992 at 12-14

Secretary Chilk Moab EIS May 13, 1994 Page Nine In risk-benefit analysis for purposes of decision making, numerical estimates of radiation-related risks, even when realistic, are of little use in a vacuum, i.e. without comparable numerical estimates of associated benefits, and of risks and benefits for alternative means to achieve the desired ends. 4 And Congress stated in the legislative history of UNTRCA, as amended: The conferees are of the view that the economic and environmental cost associated with standards and requirements established by the Agencies (EPA and NRC) should bear a reasonable relationship to the benefits expected to be derived. 5 (Emphasis added.) The complications surrounding creation of a new site - questions on phased or continuous disposal, increased time frame to complete reclamation, and increased health risks to workers and the public - need to be factored into the net impact analysis. In addition, the costs associated with moving the tailings pile must be considered. Atlas estimates the costs would be more than $ 100 million to move the pile, as opposed to the approximate $13 million under Atlas' reclamation plan. Atlas does not have the resources to sustain such an economic burden. The socio-economic consequences to Atlas as a company, its employees and Eureka County, Nevada would be devastating. Where there is little or no net risk reduction from the alternative and the costs are, as they are here, beyond reasonable levels, then the alternative should be dismissed from further consideration. Conclusion Atlas has provided NRC with extensive data on the mill operations and closure plans throughout the years the Moab site has been licensed and regulated by the Commission. Atlas is ready and able to begin reclamation and, indeed, wants to see the Moab site reclaimed and decommissioned NCRP Report No. 43, "Review of the Current State of Radiation Protection Philosophy," (1975), at 3. H.R. Rep. No. 884 (Conference Report), 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 47 (1982).

Secretary Chilk Moab EIS May 13, 1994 Page Ten as soon as possible, thereby minimizing potential radon emissions. To that end, Atlas requests that there be no more surprises from the Commission, such as the earlier recision of the original FONSI. Such surprises could delay or entirely frustrate final closure and add significantly to he costs thereof. In the final analysis, moving the pile would result in two disposal sites that must meet NRC's decontamination, decommissioning and reclamation standards, while increasing greatly the risks to public health and the environment from both piles and in the transportation corridor between the two piles and would destroy Atlas as a company. Such an outcome is unnecessary and unwarranted and should be rejected by NRC in the EIS. Please contact me if you have any questions or if we can provide further assistance. Sincerely, Richard E. Blubaugh cc: Joseph J. Holonich

State of Utah DOCKETED DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY is* RC DMSION OF RADIATION CONTROL Michael 0 . Leavitt 168 North 1950 West Governor Dianne R. Nielson, Ph.D. P.O. Box 144850 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4850

                                                                                       *94 NAY 13 A10 :14 Executive Director (801) 536-4250 Office William J. Sinclair    (801) 533-4097 Fax Director (801) 536-4414 T. D    CKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE      PR  5I May 12, 1994                                  ( SC, F (( l'-11 JJ-)

Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATIN :Docketing and Services Branch

Dear Mr. Secretary,

Attached are written comments from the State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality concerning the scope of the Moab, Utah Atlas Tailings Environmental Impact Statement. We urge the NRC to conduct periodic public meetings throughout the Atlas EIS process with allowance for as much public review time as possible. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the scope of the Atlas EIS and hope that our comments are addressed in the EIS document. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, irector Utah Division of Radiation Control Printed on recycled paper L 2 1 1994 Ackno ,edged by C8ld ***-"*--H---

jJ "~ ~-, .. 1v11.;;>:::,1u,-J OOGK- f ;I \) '* ~tt11/1CE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TH[ COMMISSION Docurr.cnt Statistics Postmark Dr.It' /.:l?---

                          . ,_~ .6-'- - - -

Copies Rec..,iv* c _ - ------ Add'I Cop es Repr~ t.: ed ___ _ _ __ Sp~ I r "ILJ\i',cn _l'J;:c~_rP_f) ..,_._, JZ,_ _ - ~lall/nJ

State of Utah DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DMSION OF RADIATION CONTROL Michael 0. Leavitt 168 North 1950 West Governor P.O. Box 144850 Dianne R. Nielson, Ph.D. Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4850 Executive Director (801) 536-4250 Office William J. Sinclair (801) 533-4097 Fax Diredor (801) 536-4414 T.D.D. Atlas EIS Public Scoping Written Comments submitted by the Division of Radiation Control Utah Department of Environmental Quality May 12, 1994 The State of Utah applauds the decision of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to re-examine the reclamation options for the Atlas Mill Tailings through the process of perfonning an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on the scope of the EIS. We look forward to working with the NRC and other agencies involved on a continuing basis to facilitate the process as much as possible. Specific comments on the scope of the EIS are listed below. Comment 1 - Proposed Timetable The Federal Register notice of March 30, 1994 lists a proposed completion date of October 1994 for completion of a draft EIS and April 1995 for the final EIS. The proposed dates are unrealistic and do not allow enough time to perform a thorough EIS. More time should be allowed for conducting the various studies and for gathering the pertinent data that is necessary for a thorough EIS. The process should take as much time as needed rather than being rushed to meet artificial deadlines. Furthermore, the process should include as much public review time as possible. Comment 2 - Detailed Site Selection of Viable Off-Site Locations The EIS should contain a rigorous comparison of viable alternative sites, with the primary alternatives being: 1) Relocating the tailings to an "ideal" site with a significant thickness of Mancos Shale beneath the site (such as the airport site), and 2) Capping the tailings in-place. Serious consideration of the "box-canyon" site would not be productive, and it is suggested that the available resources be focused on a more detailed examination of the main alternatives. For the off-site alternative, the chosen site should be specifically identified. Once a site is selected, land ownership concerns can be addressed. Suitable sites near the Moab airport will probably be owned by the BLM or the State of Utah, and the appropriate agency should be contacted to investigate land use concerns that may arise at a given site. A specific site location will also aid in proper cost estimation of site specific items such as the transportation route of the tailings, a conceptual embankment design, any site characterization needed, surface drainage requirements, groundwater monitoring requirements, etc. Specific permits and approvals Printed on recycled paper

Atlas EIS Written Comments May 12, 1994 (archeological clearances, BLM or county permits, etc.) will also need to be identified; these will depend on the actual location of the chosen site. Comment 3 - Identification of Rip-rap Source Similarly, the riprap source for each alternative should be specifically identified. Land ownership concerns at the riprap site should be addressed, and the appropriate agency should be contacted to investigate land use concerns. A specific site location will also aid in proper cost estimation of site specific items such as the transportation route of the riprap, reclamation that may be needed, etc. Specific permits and approvals (archeological clearances, BLM or county permits, State permits, etc.) will also need to be identified; these will depend on the actual location of the chosen site. Comment 4 - Detailed Cost Estimates of Transportation Alternatives For the off-site alternative, detailed cost estimates of transportation to the proposed reclamation site should be done. The transportation options could include rail, truck, and slurry pipeline, with the emphasis on the most cost-effective option (probably rail). This will require that a detailed transportation plan be formulated, with the appropriate engineering considerations. Comment 5 - Detailed Total Cost Estimates of Each Alternative Action The EIS should contain a rigorous cost comparison of the viable alternative actions. Each of the primary alternatives should receive a comprehensive and thorough engineering cost analysis. Each primary alternative should receive a sound technical analysis consistent with the intent and specifications of 10 CFR 40 Appendix A. Careful consideration should be given to cost estimates of the following items:

1) Any groundwater remediation or other groundwater monitoring costs should be included in the total costs for each alternative. Costs for on-site groundwater modeling should also be included in order to formulate remediation strategies. The entire existing groundwater monitoring system may need to be upgraded or replaced to ensure that the site is being monitored properly. This may even require new well placements; these costs should be included in the on-site reclamation option. Any costs for groundwater monitoring at an off-site location should also be addressed.

2) Riprap costs will be significant, and riprap quantities should be carefully estimated.

3) The clay for the on-site cover will be imported Mancos Shale, and again will be relatively expensive compared to on-site material. Quantities should be carefully estimated.

4) The potential value of the Atlas property should be taken into consideration in the cost-benefit analysis. The Atlas site has much potential value if cleaned up, due to its prime location in relation to the Moab Valley, Arches National Park, and the Colorado River.

The site has obvious potential value as a future commercial or industrial development, or could be developed to the public benefit of Grand County, the city of Moab or Arches

Atlas EIS Written Comments May 12, 1994 National Park. The fact that the site is currently owned by Atlas is irrelevant to its potential future value if cleaned up, and the EIS should recognize the site's potential future value as an economic benefit to relocating the tailings off-site.

5) Due to the in-place tailings embankment being situated adjacent to the Colorado River and in Moab Wash, the erosion potential of an in-place tailings embankment will be quite high. Long-term maintenance will most likely be required (especially as compared to an off-site location). Costs for this purpose should be included in the in-place reclamation option; the off-site alternative should have less maintenance costs and this should be reflected in the cost analysis.

The cost estimating work should be reviewed or separately calculated by a third party consultant hired by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This will either confirm or dispute the numbers to be provided by the Atlas consultant. Comment 6 - Assessment of Impacts to Colorado River Ecosystem It was noted that the proposed scope of the EIS states "Extensive water monitoring has identified no contamination in the Colorado River; therefore, there are no effects on river biota, and they will not be assessed." According to Peter Haney of Grand County, there are dead tamarisk visible down gradient from the Atlas tailings near the Colorado River bank. This is visible evidence that detrimental impacts are occurring to biota near the Colorado River. The probable localized contamination of the near-shore river bank on the Atlas side of the river should be characterized through proper sampling of vegetation, soils, sediments, and terrestrial and aquatic biota. Localized groundwater sampling or sediment pore water sampling just adjacent to the river are also needed to fully characterize the extent of any existing contamination. This section of the Colorado River has been designated an Area of Critical Concern by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for endangered fish species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should be consulted for an assessment of any impacts to endangered species. Directly across the river from Atlas lies the Matheson Wetlands Preserve. The EIS should assess the potential for negative impacts on the biota of the Matheson Preserve, which most probably will become a destination center for future visitors interested in wildlife viewing. If the conclusion of the EIS is truly that there are no impacts to the biota, then there should be ample scientific evidence presented in the EIS to support that claim. Comment 7 - Assessment of Impacts to Colorado River Water Quality The groundwater contaminant flux from the Atlas tailings site to the Colorado River has not been adequately quantified. This flux should be modeled to determine over time the amount of incremental degradation that will occur to the water quality of the Colorado River, particularly for IDS. The amount of incremental degradation should be assessed in light of the extensive Federal programs and requirements in place to desalinize the Colorado River.

Atlas EIS Written Comments May 12, 1994 It is also possible that the continuing contaminant flux from the tailings will have a much more significant impact on the river and river biota during low flow conditions when there is not as much dilution; an assessment of this possibility should be included in the EIS. Comment 8 - Comparative Risk Assessment Based on the various data obtained, the EIS should contain a thorough, impartial analysis and evaluation of the relative risks and relative benefits (including both long-term and short-term benefits and risks) to public health, safety and the environment associated with each alternative. The risks of moving the tailings, which will be mainly short-term risks (transportation accidents, potential for temporary increased radon exposure, etc.) should be compared to the long-term risks of leaving the tailings in-place (potential for incremental increase in long-term radon exposure, potential for major increase in radon exposure due to long-term erosion of the cover or other catastrophic event). In addition to the risks to human health, the EIS should also assess the long-term risk to local river biota due to existing and future groundwater contamination and any residual sediment contamination. Comment 9 - Population Estimates The effective population in the vicinity of the Atlas tailings is much greater than the 4,050 residents shown for Moab in the 1990 census. In addition to the resident population, which has grown substantially since 1990, during the tourist season there is a tourist and visitor population in and around Moab of approximately 20,000 people. There are an estimated 1.2 million visitors to Arches/Canyonlands National Parks annually. The EIS should include population estimates that reflect the current reality, and the EIS should recognize the potential for an extended period - of growth in the area, adding even more permanent residents. Comment 10 - Impacts to Tourism and the Local Economy The EIS should include an assessment of the impacts of each alternative on tourism and the local economy. If the tailings are capped-in-place, there is a potential for a long-term decrease in tourist visitation in Moab due to the negative perception caused by the Atlas tailings residing at the "gateway" to Moab Valley and Arches National Park. If the tailings are moved, there may also be temporary negative impacts on tourism (increased highway traffic near Atlas, potential dust, etc.). These potential impacts should be addressed in the EIS. Comment 11 - Seismic Analysis The potential seismicity of the Atlas site should be carefully assessed and documented in the EIS. The geotechnical stability of an in-place embankment should be documented for the design basis seismic event. Information that the NRC and Atlas has obtained from the recent work by the Utah Geological Survey on the potential for ground movement at the site should be included in the EIS.

Atlas EIS Written Comments May 12, 1994 Comment 12 - Erosion Control For the capping in-place alternative, the EIS should document that the embankment design could withstand the erosive forces of both the Colorado River and Moab Wash. The potential of the Colorado River eventually meandering so that it directly flows adjacent to or against the embankment should be addressed. The ability of the embankment to withstand a Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) in both Moab Wash and the Colorado River should be documented in the EIS.

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR 5' I (sci F R 1'-/ c, ry DOCK[TED April 2 3 1994 USNRC @)

                                                                *94 MAY 13 p 4 :13 Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Washington DC 20055                                491 LocmlJbf-rlCE,qf SECRETA RY CKtrTt,G & c::ERVICE Attn: Docketing & Service Branch.                  Moab, Utah 845~~4~q 3 e,(1/

There seems to be a lot of discussion Atlas Mill tailings dump. I thinh it s h ould be left t her e and capped. The water will not

                                                              !Yr .

go through it, some of the sides might leach. Most of life was - spent in the under ground mines division. we tried to leach a large mine dump in souteastern Ariz. We had to drill it to get water to go through it to leach . It. Most of the people opposing, don't no 7/iosf!" anything about leaching. ~ that have lived here for sometime are not in favor of moving it. They say cap it, it will ~create a lot of dust and mess,Al~o will cost a lot more money than they say. Because it will still have to be cap after moving it

 ;;~*£,~

Harley E. Blanchard Harley Blanchard L'.191 Locust Lane Moab, Utah 84532-2713

                          , -,-.1lv1i\liS$ION DOC,<t., ii*.*: :, Sd1\'ICE SECTION OFF ICE i':'F lHE SECRETARY OF "THE C0~\.~11ssioN

SENT BY: 5-10-94 4:18PM : 301 504 2259;# 2/10 United States Department of the Interior DOCKETED IN IU,J'LY llhl'lill. 'JU: NATIONAL PARK SERVfCF. ROCKY MOUNTAIN HHOIONAL 0!"~1CE 12795 W. ALAMEDA fAruCWAY P.O. 'ROX 2.5287 DENYER. COLORADO 00225-02.87

                                                                                          *94 MY 12 P4 :31 OFFIC~ n-:- r--':~ TA:-' '

occ:* . :* * , ~, . . E L76l9 (RMR-PSE) NAY 1 O 19!i~ L DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE _ _ PR 5_ I _ ( S Cf F ({ I '-/9 1 ;) Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission y~~hing~nTI, nr. ?O~~~ ATTN: Docketing and Services Branch

Dear Sir or Madam:

The National Park Service (NFS) has reviewed the Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Statement O':IS) for the Rccl ;.m:i.ti.on of Atl.:u:: Corpor.:ition' e Ur:inlum Mill Facility at Moab, Utah, that was published in the Federal Register on March 30, l'J94. We e1re plea&ed t:hat a decision wo.a mode to prepare an EIS, and we look forward to participating as a coope.rating Agency in thF. ET$ prepAr.:it.i.on , As you know, NPS manages five units of the National Park System that will be affected by deci.sl.orn:; .l'el!,a.tUlll.!; Lhti L llt.:1<4lllclLlu1l arnl t.:lu.sui.:t:: u.r Lht:: ALlas Mu-11.., Tai lings lrupoundme.nt. These uni ts include Canyonlands, Arches, and Grand Canyon N~tionAl P~rk~ and G1an Canyon and Lake Mead National Recreac1on Areas. As we indicated in our co.lnlll.ents on the Environmental Assessment, we believe that an unlined, l l*million ton ur.aniwn mill ta1llngs pile over the shallow alluvial a.qui.fer immediately adjacent to the Colorado Kiver for t:he next 1,000 yP.al'.'s represents a signific~nt, long-term threat to t he re~ource~ and public use and enjoyment of downstream units of the National Park System. ln particular, we are very concerned about flooding and ground-wa t er induced threats to the Colorado River resulting from permanent disposal of uranium mill tailings at the Moab site. Th~ enclosed comments provide a more thorough explanation of the concerns that we have with respect co this licensinf, activity. Ye look forward to our meeting with Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in Washington, l). c.;. on May 16, 1994. Acknowledged by card ... ~~.!.!..2~.!._.

SENT BY: 5-10-94 4:19PM 301 504 2259 :# 3/10 2 Our contact for this project is Mr . Noel Poe , Superintendent, Arches National Park, who can be reached at (801) 2~~ - 8161. Sincerely.

       ~
      ~ohert K. Baker Regional Director Rocky Mnuntain Region Enc.] o.s:ure cc : (all ~/enc.)

Director, Uraniwn Recovery Field Office, Nuclear Regulatory Corunission , Lakewood, ColorAdo U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Regional Director, Denver , Colorado Director, Utah State Offlca, Bureau of Lanrl MAnAgeme n t , Salt Lake City, Utah Environmental ~rotection Agency, Region VIII , Denver , Colorado, Mr. Wilson

    \'

5-10-94 4: 19PM 301 504 2259;# 4/10 COMMENTS Notice u.r I11tent to Prcpa.re An Knvironment11l Tmpact Statement Reclamation of Atlas Corvoration'a Uranium Mill Facility at Moab, UT Nuclear Regulatory Commission (ER 94/0289) National lark Service May 9, 1994 GENERAL COKKltNTS Alternatives the EIS should include an in dept:h assessment of alternative::i li:m~lng fl:'oin in-place reclamation to offsit~ relocation of the Moab Atlas tailings. We are concerned about the lack of information available to characterize alternative locations rui Lailing5 cH sposal. Information should be presented in the EIS in suffichmt detail to determine viability of other disposal sites. Failure to docwuent th1s 1.nformaLiuu bi~~es ~hP- RT~ towards leavin~ the tailings in place. Detailed designs should be completed for each alternative site so that an accurate comparison ot alternac1ves ii: possible. 'T'hP. feasibility of transporting the pile to a pre-existing waste disposal facility (such as Envirocare in Toole, Utah) should also be discussed , In additional to alternative sites i the EIS should consider alternative methods tor relocation of the tailinss pilP. (t.ruck, rail, slurry pipeline, etc.), As in<llc~t..t:d in the specific comments: provinP.rl hP.1 ow, we believe that a number of additional studies are needed so that the impacts of permanent place~ent of tailings at the Moab slLt! 1u<1.y be comprehcn::.ilvoly und.$r5:tood . AncH t:ional surveys and studies are also needed at alternative disposal site(s) so that the implications and teasibility of these !:illt!(s) and the impa.cto 0£ transporting ~~i 1 i-r,g.s to these sites may be adequately analyzed. Based on the need for these additional su-r:veys and studies, we find the schedule pruvv:st:d iu the NOI (pnragr~ph .C) QXtremely Ol't.irniRtic. We recommend that the scheuule be modified to include these additional surveys and studies before proceeding with ETS pre1H:u;c1tion. Withou.t thio information, a c.ompnihensive assessment of the various alternatives and associated illlpacts cannot be carried out . '!'he following studies are needed to fully analyze r1r1 otSppropria.te range of alternatives.

• Core drilling of the existing iotpoundment to determine the accurate depth of tailings, extent (depth) of underlying contaminated soils, and chemict1l. wakeup of tailings liquor:
• r.nrP. drilling of lands, whether public or private, surrounding the tailings and mill site to de~ermine the extent of contamination;
• Detailed, accurate modP.ling of possible erosion of the existing impoundment from Moab Wash ~nd the Colorado River for the projected 1000-year life of the Moab Atlas tailings site; 1

SENT BY: 5-10-94 4:20PM 301 504 2259;# 5/10

• An analysis of poi.~ible impacts resulting from ~ehmi.c <E>v~nt.~ on the existing site as well as alternative sites;
• Same core drilling and modeling ctssessments as listed above for all alternative lmpoundment sites;
• Detailed engineering methods and safeguc1.tu.:s employed if NRC choocor;: .a removd alternative;
• Analysis of all available methods of transport of tailings to alternative sites including truck, train, slurry, etc.;
• Analysis of health illtpacts on employees and vi.sltors to Arches Nationt1.l Pi.Li.:k from blowing dust resulting from capping or removal efforts.

Cost Comparisons A ct~t:~iled cost comparison is essenLial to a well*reasoned analysis of alternatives and their effects. This analysis should consider all factors contributing to each alt&rnA~ivP , ;nC!luding such things as flood damage repair and 1000-year maintenance. CWllulative Effec~s The cffootc 0£ tho propos~] nn 1~ ~ hP. added to other actions proposed for the area and the cwnulative effects assessed. For exa~ple , how do county landfill proposals and t his proposti.l inters.ct? How will h:m1 t.l"ur.ks, park visitors . and other area residents and visitors interrelate? The impact analysis should also consider the effects of cumulative events (e.g. 500-yeaL tluuu, earthqUAke of 3.5, etc . ) on th~ pil~ .

!conom1cs Although an adequar:e EIS analy:<1t!t; 1:1.:.onomic factors associntod with each alternative, we caution that economics and the relativ e solvency of the Atlas Corporation should not be the driving factor Ln choosing a ptt:![to: i:c:d alternative.

Issues Eliminated From Deta1Led ~tudy We disagree with the decision not to .assess tailings 1mpoundmenL lu1i,c4c.:L:s to aquatic or terrestrial biota. The NOI states this analys is is not importanL beca11se past water monitoring efforLs " . . . identified no cont.amination in t:he Colorado River ." Monitoring results and associate.d envi rorunental Lnformation offered in the 1993 Envirollillental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact do not constitute adequate study for the EIS . Monitoring of aquatic and terrestrial biota in addition to river sediments and many other para.meters (detailed below) are necessary components of the EIS. More information on our concerns can be found int.he specific comments . TP.r.hnir.al Advisory Group BE1c~11~P. of t:he high l evel of controversy surrounding this action and the fact that. in simil.ar circumstances , uranium mill tailings adjacent to the Colorado River have bgon moved t-n 11pl and and/or engineered sites, we recommend that NRG consider the formation of a Technical Advisory Committee to provide advice to NRC and its EIS contractor(~) in r~e~~~ t.o additional surveys and stuuias that are needed, identification and analysis of altcTnatives, and other technical aspects of the EIS. 2

SENT BY: 5-10-94 4:20PM 301 504 2259 ;# 6/ 10 S?ECIFIC COMMENTS

   ~valuation of Iw~acta to Aquatic Biota In paragraph (c.) lde11Llt_y ~nd eliminate fr.om d&t.:1-iled st11ny i s1mes which are not Rignificant or which are peripheral or which have been covered by prior environmental review, the NOI st:ates 1..l1<l.l Extensive wa.tcr monitoring h;:ii;: 1 dP.ntifled 110 contamination in the Colorado River; therefore, there are no effects on river biota, and they will not be assessed."             Al:!, lmlicatcd prP.vi.oualy in our EA comment!!:, t:hP.

results of water qu~l.ity sampling in the Colorado River are not definitive relati~e to assessing impacts to local aquatic \JluLa. or ~ediments. Thu(:, river biota (particularly biota in the immediate vicinity of the tailings pile) and the local riparian ecosystem should be studled ill the tleld and urn:dyzed , This inform(lt:ion is needed in order to carry out adequate assP.ssments of the snort- and long-term impacts to river biota and the associated riparian ecosystem. We aLe ~~rticularly concerned about ex.istin,11; and potential impacts to threatened and endange.red species living in and along the river corridor such as razorback suckers, Colorado squawfhh, hwupback chubs, peregrine falcons, and bald eagles that may be affected by this discharge of contaminants. This concern shoul d be addressed in detail in the EIS. We recuJJuui::ml th~r ~hP. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Biological Survey be contacted in rega~d to these studies and assessments. Leachate from the Tailin&s Entering Alluvial Ground Watar and Flowing toward tbe Colorado ltiv*r There i.c a need to hav1:1 ::111 independent review of ~round water quality data Lhat have been collected, including review of QA/QC and sampling protocols to insu~e that t he d.t:a ar~ vs.lid. l'reviou$ .:i.n.slyA&i!': nf i.mpacts of leachate moving through the alluvial aquifer focused on radioactive constituents . There is a need to also look at heavy meull l;uncentrations nnd orsanic s:olvent!I: r.hl'l t may occur in the leachate. These constituents may have oore impact and/or be more u.obile thau the radioactive const1tuenl.s.

   !£vent-based sampling }.l.t:Ocedu1*e:s should be initiated to irlP.nt:i fy periods when contaminant concentrations may be highest in the alluvial aquifer or more discharge may be occurring from the aqu.11."i::r to the rivel::". Thees avsn.ts might: inr.1 mlP. periods when Moab Wash 1s flow lug and flushing alluvial ground water toward the river . Also ,

the effect of high and low flows fn the Cvlura.do River sho\lld be inveetiga.tiad because. . the water level and flow direction of alluvial ground water are directly affected by river stage. As part o:t these analyses, the iufurw.tltion requested by NRC of Atlas Corporation on March 2, 1994, -with -respect to hydro geologic characterization and aquifer testing data of the tailings would be particulttllJ lwport~nt. NRC has previously used mass -balance calcuLations co determlm~ t.l1t:: theoreticlil increase of radiological contaminants in the Colorado Rtver . The results derlved from this method are only indicative 0£ the contaminant concentrat.1ons afl..i!L c..;umplete wlxing of the river and the contaminant plume has occurred. The ground watar plume entering the ri.ver from the tailings pile most likely travels several huud1.1:ala. or t:housands of feet downstrealll before it is vertically and horizontally mixed with the river. We believe that it is necessary to focus fielu investigations a11d modeling P.ffrH"tR on thl'! near* shore area below the tailings to determine if radioactive hot spots or other contamination exist in the water, sediments, or biota. In addition 1 we have no information (conceptual or quantitative) on the causes of leaching of t:".nnt.Ami.nants to the alluvial J?,:t"ound water or to the river. Right now that. problem is controlled by mitigative ground Wflt.er pumping and land-surface disposal 3

SENT BY : 5-10-94 301 504 2259;# 7/10 of pumped waL.t!1 . How doe,s the le3chin0 ocr.1.1r? Ts leaching precipitation-induced (this is a very arid site where ground water recharge is typically almost non-occurrent except in tluvial washc~) or is it inr.h1r.P.d by shallow ground water fluctuations? Given this information, to what extent will tailings *capping" t!liminate the lcachtng and -~~uciated ground w~ter cont~minatinn prnhlem? Will the remediation pWJ1pS remain in place and operable? If so, who ~ill be responsible for operating and maintaining chem? Th~1 i.;usts of ground watnr rQm9di:ation (f1AY't:i ~ularly over the long-term) should be carefully analy;,;ed. The previous EA indicated that the projected date for completion of the ground water corrective program is December 1998. Whac 1s the lnu;l:s for this projected oompletion date? Will not the de-contamination hMve to be completed prior to capping? mi.at will prevent the wells from being re-conL!illiinated w1t:h leachciL~::. and, if so, how will they be de-contaminated? This mat:ter should be C!amprehensi-lely addressed in the EIS . As a related ground water JD.atter, it is likely that the Golorado :River is a '°t::~lunal disr.h-Hrge area for bedrock aquifers. If this is the case, then ground water from tho~e aquifers would have an upward flow component toward the r1ver and any leachaLt! Qmanatine f~om the tailings would be prevented from entering the bedrock aquifers . Instead, it would be carried toward the river in the alluvial aquiter. This scenarto w~c uot documentP.tl in the previous EA, so we do not know if this is the case or if there are other hydrogeologic conditions that need to be considered . Regional ground water £low ctudia~ ar~ nRP.rlP.rl, or should be referenced, to allow determination of P.nvironmental i~pacts. Needed information includes: 1) head differentials between Ledrock and alluvial aquiferg anrl i.hP. river , 2) identify local and regional ground water recharge and discharge areas, and 3) ~ffects of periodic water table flucL.uaLions And c4pillnry ground watqr ri~P. in flushing chemical constituents from the bot~om of the tailings pile . As an additional point with x-espect ta ground water , tailings are deposited to a depth of 3965 feet msl. Noxmal rive~ elevation is 3960 f~o.r m~1 . High flows in thP. sprin~ will Hkely result in higher river stages, recharging the alluvial aquifer, and allowing ground water lt!vt::ls to rise up into the bot.tom of i.hP. tailings pile . Capillary rise from the ~ater table will be another mechanism for continual ~etting and flushing of contaminants fr.uw the tailingiS pile. Evwn with t:he t-np nf the tailings pile covered and "caµped , " the bottom of the tailings pile will be open to the ground water environment and will be a peq11o1 l..u.a.l source of leachate. The prlilvious EA dismissed the importance of seasonal and daily fluctuations in ground water under/in the tailings pile with the commenc chat th~ La.Llings bue is of "low permeability . M Data should be presented to document this "low permeability." The effect of constant flushing of the base material over hundreds uf years is not addre1:1sed. Is the base of suffid ent thickness and competence to retain its integrity After going through thousands of high/low water cycles *, This tssue shu1.llt.l o11lso be Rddressed in the EIS. Al t.arnatlve Concentration Limics for G~ound Water Quality Beneath the Tailings Pile According to modeling conducted by Atlas, EPA' s Maximum Concentration Limit for uranium beneath the tailings pile is and will be exceeded. As such, NK~ will have to 5rant Al~P.rnacive Concentration Limits (ACLs) for ground water benQath the pile . IL is our understanding that ACLs have only been approved for remote areas where water qu3lity degradat-inn would have minimal impact. We question if it is appropriate to allow any incremental degradation of water quality at the Moab site due to its itnlllcdi.'3-ts proximity t-n r.h?. Colorado River and Lhu:; to the drinking water supply of 4

5-10-94 4:22PM 301 504 2259 ;# 8/10 several million p~o~le who di~crt Colorado RivP.r ~ater downstream. The utilization and implications of ACLs at this site should be thoroughly addressed in the EIS. Surface Water Runoff Control Previous documents associated with the Moab site indicated that precipitation falling on the pile will be diverced by ~ seric5 of channels to Mo~h Wash. At a minimum, precipitation should be drained to lined se~tling ponds to insure that no radioactlve material enters surface or ground wauns. The entire is.e:ue of iarrf;,ir.P. water runoff control should be comprehP.nsively addressed in the EIS. Geomorphic Stability of the Tailings 'T'hP. tailings pile at the Monb site is loc;i.ted on the alluvial fan of Moab Yash. Alluvial fans are typjcally aggrading sections of stream~ . Further limiting of the ~ctivP. ~rP.a of the alluvial fan may increase the rate at which this section of Moab Wash aggrades, making it necessary to i ncrease the heigh~ of rlpL~p vn the u.pstrc~m cidQ of thP. tailings pile to insure stability for flood events hundreds of years from now. Velocities during large flood events on the Colorado River were est:lmatecl \.Jy l;vwputcr modeling. The~e monAls assume that downstream flow occurs across the entire area of inundation. It appears likely that during a large flood, much of the inv.ndat:ed anG (uu t11c :!Jouth oide of thl? dvP.r) will be an eddy. Therefore, downstream flow will be concentrated on the outside of the meander, and velocities against the tailings pile wlll be much grc~ter than p~P.viously estimated. A velocity of 2.5 ft/sec was measured in the Colorado River at a discharge of 5300 cfs (November, 1~93), approx1mliL~ly the ~IUIIC velocity pr~dinr.P.d for R probable maximum flood discharge of 100,000 cfs, Thus, it wnuld appear that previous estimates of velocities, and thus needed riprap sl~~s, a~e ~eriouoly fl~wed . The EA states that l..l1t:1 normal elevation of the r i vP.r is 5 feet bP.low the bottom of the tailings and that river elevation controls (and equates to) the ground water elevation under thP. tailings. Durin~ :spring runoff, the rfvl'!T always rises more than 5 feet. During the 1993 spring runoff , water was against the tailings pile. What is the discharge associated wtch the "uui:mal elevation" of the riv~r? Nowhere in the EA was there information on Lhe relationship between Colorado River stage and discharge or information on the sactiratiou .Ct*eq\lency of th~ tailings hy river-controlled p;round \tl'ater . This information should be supplied in the EIS . The EA also stated that a probable maximum flood cm the Colorado River would ere.st at over 20 feet over the elevation of the tailings . No j11Curmation was provided on th() P.xUnt of inundation of rnore r.ommon floods such as the 100-year flood or the 500

• year flood. Also, we point out that the EA s t ated that Colorado Rlver floods o.ro of

.whort d11r~t.i on because they are caused by short, high-intensity stor(I~.              This is incorrect. Colorado River floods stem from Rocky Mountain snowmelt ~ml ca.n last *3 lo*ng .as: sew'!rA.1 mouths . Finally, we have no information on the number of inunda.tionlio possible over a 1000-year time fr8.lle.               Given past incidents (c1.tetl u_y NRC) of contli.Dlin.ants lP.Ar.hing to ground water and to the Colorado River, it would seem pru.denL to evaluate inundation frequencies of the tailings and to translate that occurrence into the effect nn contaminants leaching and the associated impacts to Colorado River water quality and associated biota .

5

SENT BY: 5-10-94 4:22PM 301 504 2259;# 9/10 Catastrophic Fa1lur~ Catastrophic failure of Ll1e tailings i11poundnient .;it- r:he Moab .site and proposed alternative sites and resultanL effects should be comprehensi,rely addressed in the EIS. In particular, the EIS i.huuld addresiJ potential cont'l'lmina.tion from such a failure on Colorado River delta deposits in Lake Po~ell. Clays in the delta could capture radionuclides, ll7hich could L-111:m become wind-bo-rne eont:a.min.,.nt.~ with changing lake levels. The EIS should state that Lake Powell will effectively function as the "ultimate sink" for any rel.ease of ca1lingi:; f:i:0111 the Atlao t3ilin5.s: pilP.. Related to this concern, the EIS should include a comprehensive assessment of short~term and long- tArtn risk associated with permanent dispo~.t of t4ilings 4t the Moab sj~P. And other proposed sites. F,mttine and Ea1:thquakes

   '!'he facr r.h~t the Moab tailings pile is located on the Moab Fault should be thoroughly assessed in the EIS. The previous EA briefly discussed the Moab Fa~lL; however, no montion ~ag mA~P. of ground water flow through it . Faults often provide preferred routes for ground water flo~. What potential exists for leachate from the t~lling&

pile to travol dot.m ~hP. fault to contaminate lower aquifers , or along the fault to contaminate more distant areas of the Moab Valley? The previous KA made a statement that very little ri.sk frnm future seism~c activity l~ ~u~tulated and then ref~rrPn to the 1953 tremor. When the future seismic activity was evaluated, did the study consider a time frame up to 1,000 years in the tuture? The tl~L.sll.s of thi::i ctudy mus:t bP. ,q t:ated . More specifically, relying on recorded earthquakes is far too short a temporal baseline from which to extrapolate. J\.ddltional .:\/'idence fi;om dieruption of QnA.ternary and Pleistocene strata should be sought to dcterJnine hov active the Moab Fault actually is . Impacts of Transportin& Tailings to an Alternate Site Impacts associated with moving the tailings to any alternat ive site will need to be addressed in the .l!:lS. such impacLis include mobili..z:s.tion of r~rlinAr.tive dust, release of -radon gas during moving* potential for spills, transportation accidents, and worker safety. Water Resoux-ces Monitoring The EIS should clearly indicate the water resource~ 1uunito,~ing program propo1:ed for r.hP. Moab site and proposed alternative sites. The monitoring plan described in the previous EA "'7AS deficient. For example, it fails to lncludH sufficient wcll.o to adequ.at-P.ly measure movement of contami.nants in the shallow alluvial ground water system away from the pile. Further, there wa.s no discussion of wha1. acllun would be tak"n if s11r.h movement of contaminated ~atcr occurred; what mitigation has !:ilready occun:ed; who will be responsible for long-term monitoring; and how the 111uuitcn.7 ins program will hP. funded , These issues should be comprehensively addressed in the EIS . Riprap Source AY~as The :>pccific area~ from which r lprap ll7i 11 be obtained need to b~ addressed in the EIS, as well as the effects of hauling riprap to the reclamation site. 6

SENT BY: 5-10-94 4:23PM 301 504 2258;#10/ 10 s0c1oeconomic Efrec~s The EIS should consider the effects of a catasl.l'u~hl.,; tallui:e of the pile on the multi-million dollar tourism industry associated with the Colora.du River ($10*20 million). Adverse pubiic perception may outweigh actual adverse err~cL Lu L~~uur~~s (i.e., people think Lake Powell is polluted and unsafe), with a disastrous effect to the tourism industry. 7

GA.RY A. HAZF.N ** POST OFFICE BOX 422 ** MOA.B, UTAH 84532 oocKETNUMBERPR PROPOSED RULE fl --- H,. A1)ri1 29, 1994 °ci~rlo 0 05 Secretary ( 51 Ff< JL/ q 1[) Nuclear Regulatory Commission *94 MAY -6 P2 :39 Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Services Branch OFFI CE OF SECRETA RY OOCKE TH G & SERY ICE BRANCH RE: Written comment to NRC's intent to prepare an EIS for the decom-missioning and reclamation of the Atlas uranium mill at Moab, Utah. Comment period ending May 13, 1994. Dear NRC; Before Atlas began milling urani um ore in 1956, a 4~ foot sub-surface pit was graded out beneath a 96 acre . base of the tailings pile. That graded sub-surface pit beneath the tailings pile is in direct contact with the surface groundwater of the Colorado River. ~he water downstream of the Atlas mill s t te is a primary natural resource to 40 million Americans - a natural infrastructure of the Southwest. The Atlas tailings pile is located directly on the Colorado River, in the flood plain of the Moab Wash, directly over the seismically active Moab Fault that is capable to produce a quake which would split the 7 million cubic yard pile open. The radioisotopes located in the Atlas tailings pile will eventually undergo radioactive decay, it gradually becomes the stable element lead (Pb) through the disintigration process. The Atlas uranium tailing site is already contaminating the surface grounwater of the Colorado River. Continued contamination by radioactive waste and heavy metals of our nation's number one natural resources, water, will become a serious health problem for our nation's population. nilution of this toxic poison into the groundwater of so many Americans is unacceptable and contrary to the laws of the EPA and the Clean Water Act. According to 10 CFR 51.29, the scoping process, Appendix B(c) it states: "The mill property will be reclaimed and decontaminated to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards allowing for unrestricted use, thus mitigating any ~dvers~ effects. Ex-tensive water monitoring has identified no contam i nation in the Colorado River; therefore, there are no effects on river biota, and they will not be assessed. There should be no harmful impacts on terrestrial biota and no assessment is required, as the tailings pile will be covered and radon emanations reduced to comply with EPA standards." Extensive and exhaustive groundwater monitoring should be im-plimented in the EIS, to the extent that new and developed tech-niques insure groungwater quality. This is a primary concern for the State of .Utah, Division of Radiation Control, Department of Environmental Quality. L 211~ Acknowl by ...........................

u.s.NU ... - ..... . #V * - vvMMISSION OOCk'.ETli 'G & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Ccet:ilClit Statistics Postmark De.ta ~ / '- "1 /ffL"f Copies Receivcd _ _- ~ - - - - Md'I Copies Repic, ,.;...cd .J..___ _ _ Spe~ Distribu on _n:;r;.,PJ_, PfJ!lr =

Page Two 4/29/94 Written comment to NRC's EIS Section 102 .(1) of NEPA requires that the policies regulations 1 and public laws of the United States be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in NEPA. As well, extensive and ex~austive study of the two alternative sites for off-site remediation of the tailings pile should be the primary consideration of th i s F.IS. The NRC's EIS will be fully evaluated for these considerations. My written comment also includes my understanding that: In July 1986 the NRC had amended it's regulations to comply with Uranium Mill Tai lings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRA) and the NRC Authorization Act for 1982 and 1983; these Acts requires the NRC to bring it's tailings regulations into conformity with the standards issued by the EPA. UMTRA requires the federal gov-ernment to eliminate hazards associated with inactive tailing piles left from uranium milling operations carried on under Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) contracts. Nearly all uranium produced between 1947 and 1970 was produced for the AEC. UMTRA requires the federal government to pay 90% of the clean-up cost. The EPA is responsible for setting applicable environment stand-ards for all radiatipn direct~y or indirectly affecting public ~ealth and setting the criteria for handling and disposal of all radioactive waste. UMTRA requires the EPA to estabtish standards for all uranium mill tailings. The Department of Energy (DOE) is in charge of handling all inactive uranium mill tailing sites. Tha ~DOE is the responsible agency for the federal government's nuclear waste management; the published OOE is: "To develop the technology and facilities necessary to provide for the permanent isolation of civilian and military waste from the biosphere so that these wastes pose no :~ significant threat to public health and safety." UMTRA accounts the U.S. federal government 90% liable for the Atlas clean-up cost. UMTRA also requires the EPA to set criteria standards to be followed by the DOE and NRC. The Clean Water Act and EPA dictates the law to the NRC, the NRC cannot grant a waiver to this Act or the EPA. In August 1993 Region VIII of the EPA wrote the NRC concerning the EPA's exceptions to the NRC's "exemptd. ons" to it's own recla-mation criteria of it's published FONSI. This resulted in the unprecedented withdrawl of the FONSI by the NRC, further resulting in the subsequent Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which this is a written comment too.

   'rhe State of Utah has veto authority over capping the pile in place, because of continued contamination and violating the state's groundwater protection standards.

Any contamination to the groundwater and health risks to the American public is the primay consideration to the NRC's EIS for offsite remediation for the Atlas uranium mill tailing site.

Page Three 4/29/94 Written comment for NRC's EIS Also find enclosed 23 pages, containt ng 313 legible names, addresses and signatures of persons who oppose the capping of the Moab urani um tailing site in place. You will note on page one, signature numb er 12 is that of Mr. Charlie Steen, the first owner, operator and CEO of the Atlas Uranium Mill of Moab, Utah.

I CITIZENS' PEI'ITION Aug/Sept 1993 To the Moab City Council, Grand County Council, State of Utah, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Dept of Energy, U.S. Dept of Interior and the U.S. Dept of Justice. OUR OPPOSED POSITION to the Nucle 0 r Reg-ulatory Commission's publishe~Finding of No Significant Impact ( FONSI) to approve the Atlas Corporation Moab Uranium Mi ll Site Pl an to reclaim, by capping, the 130 acre (1 0 .5 million tons) of uranium mill tailings pile in place, on the Colorado Ri ver Corridor j_n Moab, Utah. FULL ADDRESS SIGNATURE I ros:o, l c r~s , e::r--1 Lol'I~ Mr,,-ir ec,

• 3 ; uA/lf,,6 W/t-~5'32 Wc~ k f 0 &v{&t:;5Z-

 +5             *IC4'                                                      ~

a ~~ Pac V ft u

CITIZENS ' PEI'ITION Aug/ Sept 1993 To the Moab City Council , Gr an d Coun t y Council , State of Utah , Nuclear Regulato r y Commission , Environmental Protection Agen cy , U. S . Dept of Ene r gy , U. S . Dept of Interior and the U. S . Dept of Justice . OUR OPPOSED POSITIO N to t he Nuclear Reg-ulato r y Commission ' s published Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI ) to approve the Atlas Co r poration MOab Urani um Mil l Site Plan to r eclaim , by capping , the 130 acre ( 10 . 5 million tons) of uranium mill tailings pile in place , on the Colo r ado River Corrj_dor 1.n Moab , Utah . NAME ( print)

                                       ':)3"2...

121Jfw~ J~~ ~1\6 C.Llf61 e.-0 1 ~ .\(\NNEft:B- ~ S CII~ R 2'1-o ~ ['1\£0:B, ~~- jc..,-,.s 1--/uE"aJJ f:-(2_; i=?o. °8.::? X 7t-Z MG-'l~ ur t?f

CIT I ZENS' PETITION Aug/Sept 1993 To the Moab City Counc il , Grand County Council, State of Utah , Nu cl ear Regulatory Commission , Envi ronm ental Pro te ction Agency, U.S. Dept of Energy , U. S . Dept of Interior and the U. S . Dept of Jus tic e . OUR OPPOSED POSITI QN to the Nuclear Reg-ulatory Commission's puliTish e d Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to appr ove the Atla s Corporation Moab Uranium Mil l Site Plan to reclaim, by capping, the 130 acre (1 0 . 5 million tons) of uranium mill tailings pile in place , on the Colorado Rive r Corridor j_n Moab , Utah . NAME (print ) FULL ADDRESS SIGNATURE

Pa~~6ll IVlo;ib lff ~

"bc \3a...tlll" "l?o. Wt~ Kekl,..,. I D 'il5l'lo 11 * .,i.._____ .

, 1/n--v-,,:> (/, LLt~ !'.".\2           \$1:    S   7-o D   F    M~h      $$t-,3'Z.-   J2~~

( Co""/ f-tJ ('.'2,1 µ Ct ff{ c., vv5}-[ ~ ,'{1... 4{'fl,Yz.. J1 ~ Ow-en r4 z.. Af. r 1;l";~st~rA 1,.,_ M-0:;;1,\.~ O~JM ~ ~s,i txb Nraef .. l3 3 1 P~ ; i e kf?/L zJ *01,duv ~it;J cvsR. ~5>D MOA

CITIZENS' PETITION Aug/Sept 1993 To the Moab City Counc il , Gr and County Council, State of Utah , Nuclear Regulato ry Commission , Environmental Protection Agency, U. S . Dep t of En er gy , U.S. Dept of Interior and the U. S . Dept of Justi c e . OUR OPPOS ED POSITION to th e Nucle ar Reg-ulatory Commission's published Findi n g of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to approve the Atla s Corporation Moab Uranium Mill Site Plan to recla im , by capping, the 130 acre (1 0 .5 million tons) of uranium mill tailings pile in place , on the Colorado Rive r Corridor j_n Moab , Utah. FULL ADDRESS

                     ?o 13v N 'IC /V ~ /OQ I I

CIT IZENS ' PETITION Aug/Sept 1993

                                                                                                                             ,,s To the Moab City Council, Grand County Council, State of Utah , Nuclear Regulato ry Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, U. S . Dept of F,ne r gy , U. S . Dept of Interior and the U. S . Dept of Justice . OUR OPPOS ED PO S IT I ON to the Nuclear Reg-ulatory Commission's published Finding of No Si g nificant Impact (FONSI) to approve the Atla s Corporation Moab Uranium Mill Site Plan to reclaim, by capping, the 130 acre (10.5 million tons) of uranium mill tailings pile in place , on the Colorado Ri ver Corrido r in Moab , Utah.

NAME (pr int ) FULL ADDRESS ~ I GNAT UR

       .- "") 1
     ~    '                                       /</JJ              loD E 11

- L Ii ll 77J- f>t ,!/ ereelL

f. I). {JO,.r t{ :J

                                                                                      /itl)(Lh S 17    e   'Ft   fr,  t f    1,    Ne     1<.,._  /J? o 17 (3 v TR II-
                                                           ~1 :',I\  ;?          r.J"i:
                                                                                                            ';7 ~ L           u .,,.

. 1 ~:..-_.*

                        ...- .... ..,                 /
                                                       --~. t tr
                                                                 ~ ~... - ,
                                                               <~ ..,-.-~ £~, ".

i~ - ~ - - ~ "'"- ** " -~ I

                                                                                                             .:;,MN't
                                                                                                                                     /
                                                          </7 a.00 ff\                                                   ~              (Z-<
                                                           ~                          ~         81/f?L

- i3r;2..6-rr ;t:.re~tt:,-n_ CV'>R. 22f/J3/ MoAa. uT

                                                           ~.o.go~ (fqf
                                                               ~~811.f~
                                                                                               ,g '-(5"3.;}

r... ,r 111 ,- .

                                                                    -v ..

C~ ¥Cf( _,6 _ _ ~ L ~W1

v~.,..~ , ---- -

Q.;(

CIT I ZENS' PETITION Aug/Sept 1993 To the Moab City Counc il , Grand County Council , State of Utah , Nuclear Regulatory Comm ission , Environmental Protection Agency, U. S . Dept of Energy , U.S. Dept of Interio r and the U. S . Dept of J ustic e . OUR OPPOSED POSITIO N to the Nuclear Reg-ulatory Commission's published Finding of No Significan t Impact (FONSI) to approve the Atla s Corporation Mo ab Uranium Mill Site Plan to reclaim , by capping, the 130 acre (1 0 . 5 million tons) of uranium mill tailings pile in place , on the Colorado River Corr idor j_n Moab , Utah . FULL ADDRESS

                               /'1/ /5       ,..,. "'
                          '11bO Mo,&

l'le,,(h Lt -r /}q s 3 ?.. f', 1

  *;T.  /Y] B,1~ £ IL        J..                                i:::_

os~~re__ lU H* St- S'LC

                                                   . ~t,03 vr co C      'f,R- ~ Mb/
                                 /l,1bfrB u:r.i lf-S3t--
                           ~~,q MIA~~ ~ (2J

( " ot, o

CIT IZENS ' PETITION Aug/Sept 1993 To the Moab City Counc il , Gran d County Co uncil , State of Utah , Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Envi ronmental Protection Agency, U. S. Dept of Ene r gy , U. S . Dept of Interior and the U. S. Dept of Justice . OUR OPPOSED POSITION to the Nuclear Reg-

           ~latory Commission ' s publ ish ed Finding of No Signifi cant Impact

( FONSI ) to a pprove the

• Atlas Corporation Moab Uranium Mi ll Site Plan t o reclaim , by capping , the 130 acre (1 0 . 5 million tons) of uranium mill tailings pile in place , on the Colorado River Corridor i n Moab , Utah .

NAME (print) FULL ADDRESS

         ~le 'EU.ill-~ 113-LL!fK               f>~t,µµ0PF-f<,ck

• Jo\u1SoYl I( 8P Nor\-b f~7v,~k Dr, tio"b

                                                        /J         L e -'
                                        µ IA. (~E\K.11\,-. iJ,.\J~
                                                                   '-M e ~~'cec.c°'    N..o-.~ ~
                 ~

161

l <t- , 6 X re 1cp '-" \0.::'r'l"\J G--0\s ELc. Y - E

  -ya R.."'

J

CITIZENS ' PEI'ITION Aug/ Sept 1993

                                                                      ,,~**

To the Moab City Council , Gr and County Coun cil , State of Utah , Nuclear Regulato r y Commission , Environmental Protection Agency , U. S . Dept of Bne r gy , U. S . Dept of Interio r and the U.S . Dept of Jus t i c e . OUR OPPOSED POSITION to the Nuclear Reg-ulatory Commissio n' s published Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to approve the At las Co r poration Moab Urani um Mill Site Plan to reclaim , by capping, the 130 acre (1 0 . 5 million tons) of uranium mill tailing s pile in pla c e , on the Colora do Rive r Corridor i n Moab , Utah . NAME ( p r int ) FULL ADDRESS

 --;f;vrt Nit .QI V-Brre      /3 00 ~ Ci (2Cl6
                 ,~ WM)

I 'r:ln d/41,#A/ in_, Pe>/; K9~~,-r~w 3WN10tl~~lb~~ ~ * -,- - J 1/4

CITIZENS' PETITION Aug/Sept 1993 To the Moab City Council, Gran d County Council, State of a Utah , Nuclear Re gulato r y Commission, Environmental Protection

• Agency, U. S . Dept of Energy , U.S. Dept of Interior and the U.S . Dept of Justice . OUR OPPOSED POSITION to the Nuc l ear Reg-ulatory Commissio n' s published Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to approve the Atlas Corporation Moab Urani um Mill Site Plan to reclaim, by capping, the 13 0 acre (10.5 million tons) of uranium mill tailings pile in pla ce , on the Colora~o Rive r Corridor j_n Moab , Utah .

NAME (print) FULL ADDRESS SIG NATURE l~\3 s,. HuJy 191 fno4h;u-r l..~nn,e_ lJ ,'tf,.a.wis Cl-A) 1/' 3 1-7 Br,cEgym

CITIZENS' PETITION Aug/Sept 1993 To the Moab City Council, Grand County Council, State of Utah , Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, U. S . *Dept of Energy, U.S. Dept of Interio r and the U.S. Dept of Justice . OUR OPPOSED POSITIO N to the Nuclear Reg-ulatory Commission's published Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to approve the Atlas Corporation Moab Uranium Mil l Site Plan to reclaim, by capping, the 130 acre (10.5 million tons) of uranium mill tailings pile in place, on the Colorado River Corridor j_n Moab, Utah . a,, NAME (print) FULL ADDRESS 4 ~to-

 \?o iJ             '5 2 2 C: tvo 1~ C....;vtc__ 1) I\' \f"t..-. L-v-" I ~ Ct-u.. k_ CA 915 7-f
                                          <- V JIIL        ~

CITIZENS' PETITION Aug/Sept 1993

                                                                 ~n l To the Moab City Council, Gran d County Council , State of Utah , Nuclear Re gulatory Commission , Environmental Protection Agency , U.S. Dept of F.ne r gy, U. S . Dept of Interior and the   .

U. S . Dept of Justice . OUR OPPOSED POSITION to the Nuclear Reg-ulatory Commission ' s pu blished Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to approve the Atlas Corporation Moab Uranium Mi ll Site Plan to reclaim, by cappi ng, the 130 acre (1 0 . 5 million tons) of uranium mill tailings pile in place, on the Colorado Ri ver Corridor j_n Mo ab, Utah . NAME (print) FULL ADDRESS o <!, 5wat e. -+-+------=----+-I-~'------~-------__.."""--__._;...__ s~ Ckwiul&cl :W~s ~~ - ~ L,14 n ~ y g((p<,..,/d

£.,,,;_., .d#,r,,

If

CITIZENS' PETITION Aug/Sept 1993

                                                                                                             ~,,.

To the Moab City Council, Gran d County Council, State of Utah, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S . Dept of Energy, U.S. Dept of Interior and the U.S. Dept of Justice. OUR OPPOSED POSITION to the Nuclear Reg-ulatory Commission's published Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to approve the Atlas Corporation Moab Uranium Mil l Site Plan to reclaim, by capping, the 130 acre (1 0 . 5 million tons) of uranium mill tailings pile in place, on the Colorado River Corridor i n Moab, Utah . NAME (print) FULL ADDRESS SIGNATURE fl (Ay- v~ f Mel/;d hJS G *t) 31Nl,, Jl- frl~lv ~ ur stf5? I- ~ ;;.' ~ / - ~ *D\£\[ (~ 0 . T"mhE. & ~ 8'63 (11oqk v+ B 'l53 Z & ~.

                                    ~ 13               ), :zbo G 1¥~16 tvS32-
                                               ?('.? . ,8c,,x          /~ /3            /V)cJ/4 8            t/ 1
                                                         & f ;J                fft/};/1/
    ~wdJ s~et,e/1,~                ,S s I       Po..r-l R)_~h ~ ~ , ? . _

Clt:l I! Lvl Q:~ Uf,. 53"-;;> - 1'1K'""

     '         1uo IV\,

l;zwb_ bvvar1 v, ( J .L..f::::"? JU L ,'-':-011AA< o, NrE . ,co f:/:Jla jf,5fe1 ])r, 6remailJn 1./ '~)?k' w '"* , o..:,-*-  :/1 \I r1Y::MAJ'( , 1,......: ~ Jban

                                            ?-: a*       3ore           g9'         ~o~ ~               /<d-7..l II         ///......-7 J >C:o j ~
 -UJ¥- <f~                                     /t1 t1J -?{')~

f%d /.1of"r:fj. vf ,

• 7Je1+1, 1/-4/' c~r.3"1 "&4-5 32- Wt1Yfot-1 r~~

1 r Po &x iB /4,Sd ~r(I/Sd Dh r ~ (i? tf}£JA 7_? -L~ I ,-v. r ~ /;oyo/c i ~~u4 ---,, c-d- " Tl - 2/4:::,-

CITIZENS' PETITION Aug/Sept 1993 To the Moab City Council, Grand County Council, State of Utah , Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Envi ronm ental Protection Agency, U. S . Dept of Ene r gy , U.S. Dept of Interior and the U.S. Dept of Justice. OUR OPPOSED POSITION to the Nuclear Reg-ulatory Commission's published Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to approve the Atlas Corporation Moab Uranium Mill Site Plan to reclaim, by capping, the 130 acre (1 0 .5 million tons) of uranium mill tailings pile in place , on the Colorado River Corrj_dor i.n Moab ,_ Utah . NAME (print) FULL ADDRESS SIGNATURE Lavi cc-e Gi. H:"'yes L/L/wd;Jao !Vodi ~ J/JI~ (\'

CITIZENS ' PETITION Aug/Sept 1993 To the Mo ab City Counc il , Gran d County Council, State of

                                                                                         ~'*

Utah , Nuclear Regulatory Commission , Envi ronmental Prot e ction Agency , U. S . Dept of Energy, U. S . Dept of Interior and the U. S . Dept of Justi ce . OUR OPPOSED POSITION to the Nuclear Reg-ulatory Commissi on's publish ed Fi nding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to approve th e Atla s Co r po rat io n Moab Urani um Mill Site Plan to r e claim, by cappi ng , the 130 acre (1 0 . 5 million tons) of uranium mill tailings pile in place , on the Colorado River Corridor in Mo ab, Utah . NAME (print ) FULL ADDRESS SIGNATURE trrJ oritclers 44 V *J t7i> 11 , 'rno afo v t d. A tA:-/L'/r .,.._ T AC-L A . . ~.A:1- ~ - Li /1C-

                                                          ,       d f'  -

2:?? E o1~rou.l--i .dl/4tltd

 ~-:1~~                                        3 39     E c2 ~     c)1 J.+h mmb ( H-f:q!mfg {2ge-;olU                             b
                                               ,        /9/2 (/}1t)/;b-~

tf c,,.J lv -2o 9 l"-1 Moc:: k , 4 '£,

                                                                                                          -4 :-,~
                                                                                                       .,X/~
 /.L  v ~             /  '<:./~           ;" . v , 'L/ ~/2:     Z:/,/    ( /c~ t v f              ?f"~..)' -<_

CITIZENS' PETITI~N Aug/Sept 1993 To the Moab City Council, Grand County Council, State of Utah, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Envi ronme ntal Protection Agency, U.S. Dept of Energy, U.S. Dept of Interior and the U.S. Dept of Justice. OUR OPPOSE~ POSITION to the Nuclear Reg-ulatory Commission's published Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to approve the Atlas Corporation Moab Uranium Mill Site Plan to reclaim, by capping, the 130 acre (10.5 million tons) of uranium mill tailings pile in place, on the Colorado River Corridor j_n Moab , Utah . NAME (print)

                     --1 '-I ~ L a-c.,vS r L-~ ~
                                  / 5 tf ~ t;;,(3 ARea !J Je.D, Al ~C-iI

CITIZENS' PETITION Aug/Sept 1993 To the Moab City Counc il , Grand County Counc il , State of Utah, Nuclear Regulatory Commi ssion , Envi ronmental Protection Agency, U.S. Dept of Energy , U. S . Dept of Interior and the U.S. Dept of Justice. OUR OPPOSED POSITION to ~he Nuclear Reg-ulatory Commission ' s published Findi ng of N6 . iignificant Impact (FONSI) to appr ove the Atlas Corporation Moab Uranium Mil l Site Plan to recla im , by capping, the 130 ac r e (1 0 .5 million tons) of uranium mill taili ngs pi l e in place , on the Colorado Rive r Corrj_dor i.n Moab , Utah . NAME (print) FULL ADDRESS SIGNATURE

CITIZENS' PEI'ITION Aug/Sept 1993 To the Moab City Council, Grand County Council, State of Utah, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Dept of Energy, U.S. Dept of Interior and the U.S. Dept of Justice. OUR OPPOSED POSITION to the Nuclear Reg-ulatory Commission's putl,J_ished Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to approve the Atlas Corporation Moab Uranium Mil l Site Plan to reclaim, by capping, the 130 acre (10.5 million tons) of uranium mill tailings pile in place, on the Colorado Ri ver Corridor j_n Moab, Utah. NAME (print) FULL ADDR ESS SIGNATURE fov_e- f'r;ccvJJ 31 la. >r;( RJ~ r'-roq/J ur~'-{ S ~ l ~?2 ~ r

  -....1.J;:2!Jl..f:l.J~~;d.1,,H;,._~~_.!:321...l-.-!::::!..

llt:t...::S?.!:t!::..... t ts:..:. I?~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' { i ! ! f f j-- j ~1t~ 1* 1 N1=1> Rcu,,JS.,,U ,:tQ1"\ fl.,..-.11;:J',O (j Ii". f'!ks1 u+f</SJL ~ - ' - d .';z, '3 L < 4 ~ 00)'- qS':f f1/2:'?\::8-:> ,Ut'\ 01/<;'3z_.. d.J?;Jn./L/\

   / &#~/2-4 &x= .>>'~ /44-6 ~r fr~SY-<-

CITIZENS' PETITION Aug/Sept 1993 To the Moab City Council, Grand County Council, State of Utah, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Dept of Ene r gy , U.S. Dept of Interior and the U.S. Dept of Justice. OUR OPPOSED POSITIO N to the Nuclear Reg-ulatory Commission's published Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to approve the Atlas Corporation Moab Uranium Mill Site Plan to reclaim, by capping , the 130 acre (1 0 .5 million tons) of uranium mill tailings pile in place , on the Colorado River Corridor j_ n Moab , Utah. NAME (print) FULL ADDRESS SIGNATURE (Jo Obu- 't)e.JI.. ""I... s~,~~ ~;F--'--~~~~~--i<:.-__..:__~~.i.........:.::~~ /< C,Aflr:l"'.NrF 'R__

                                                         /1 tllf' lA r   tf¥5JA......

CITIZENS ' PETITION Aug/ Sept 1993 To the Moab City Council , Grand County Council , State of Utah, Nuclear Regulatory Commission , Environmental Protection Agency , U. S . Dept of Bne r gy , U. S. Dept of Interior and the U. S . Dept of Justice . OUR OPPOSED POSITION to the Nuclear Reg-ulato~J ommissio n' s publis}?.ed* Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to approve the Atlas Corporation Moab Uranium Mil l Site Plant reclaim , by capping , the 130 acre ( 10 . 5 million tons) of u-r ani m mill tailings pile in place , on the Colorado River Corridor in Moab, Utah . NAME (print) " FULL ' ADDRESS SIGNATURE

CITIZENS' PETITIO N Aug/Sept 1993 To the Moab City Council, Grand County Council, State of Utah, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protecti on Agency, U.S. Dept of Energy, U. S. Dept of Interior ~nd the U.S. Dept of Justice. OUR OPPOSED POSITION to the Nuclear Reg-ulatory Commission ' s published Finding of No Significant Impact ( FONSI ) to approve the Atlas Corporation Mo ab Uranium Mil l Site Plan to reclaim, by capping, the 130 acre (1 0.5 million tons) of uranium mill tailings pile in place, on the Colorado Ri v e r Corridor j_n Moab, Utah. NAME (pri nt) FULL ADDRESS SIGNATURE n'\,DA-(3 1 U 'fAt+ I I 6\ ~Vr)1LLCR-c.tK-0R., so V\_ l 00 l (\] . ~ 00 uJ. mo l4 (j

CITIZENS' PEI'ITION Aug/Sept 1993 To the Moab City Council, Gran d County Council, State of Utah, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Dept of Energy, U.S. Dept of Interior and the U.S. Dept of Justice. OUR OPPOSED POSITION to the Nuclear Reg-ulatory Commission's published Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to approve the Atlas Corporation Moab Uranium Mill Site Plan to reclaim, by capping, the 130 acre (10.5 million tons) of uranium mill tailings pile in place, on the Colorado River Corrj_dor

1. n Mo ab, Utah.

NAME (print) FULL ADDRESS J , UY5oN Z,pp l9o tJe. 1i*:;'llt fl S

CITIZENS' PEI'ITION Aug/Sept 1993 To the Moab City Council, Grand County Council, State of Utah, Nuclear Re gulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Dept of Energy, U.S. Dept of Interior and the U.S. Dept of Justice. OUR OPPOSED POSITIO N to the Nuclear Reg-ulatory Commission's published Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to approve the Atlas Corporation Moab Uranium Mill Site Plan to reclaim, by capping, the 130 acre (1 0 .5 million tons) of uranium mill tai lings pile in place, on the Colorado Ri ver Corridor i n Moab, Utah. NAME (print) FULL ADDRESS c.-vS~J. 3:1c? I Wlti'ff6 I tA[ 8\fSJ.2 , '>>J{).;~

                                                                              *                 ,    l ~~ -l1A_o4g
                   ; ~:...;;____;;__---i...--...t..........1--=~. .l. .--.,;2~ ~ -~,;...__.=o Rb

-~---:;..::.._~___,e_°'-- ~~ 01;i.ft,U Ln ~ur h~ l.

CITIZENS' PETITION Aug/Sept 1993 To the Moab City Council, Grand County Council, State of Utah, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Dept of Energy, U.S. Dept of Interior and the U.S. Dept of Justice. OUR QPPQS~D POSITION to the Nuclear Reg-ulatory Commission's published Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to approve the Atlas Corporation Moab Uranium Mill Site Plan to reclaim, by capping, the 130 acre (10.5 million tons) of uranium mill tailings pile in place, on the Colorado River Corridor j_n Moab, Utah. NAME (print) eoy FB-r 5JAW~el-

I. 0

             . *, - vi I "1 i ~ SECRETARY

WILLARD w. "~b~lftrt Corau.fun9 g c:.;t'4?JJiHR c Telephone 801-259-5378 Office and Mailing Address 821 Oak Street

                                         *94 APR 29 P12 :so                Moab , UT 84532 OFFICE OF SECRETAR Y DOCKETING & SERVICE BRANCH April 23, 1994 Secretary, U.S. NRC Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir:

The purpose of this ietter is to comment on the re - clamation of the Atlas uranium mill tailings. The only logical solution is to proceed with your original plan of capping the pile "in situ" after the EIS is completed. In my opinion, removal of the tailings would create much more of an air hazardous problem (if there is such a thing) than non-disturbance. I am quite disturbed by the scare tactics used by proponets of tailings removal. These alarmists are self appointed "experts" on everything from radon emanation to geologic tectonics. By far the most mis-represented statement from these people is that the tailings are sitting on an "active" earthquake fault zone. Any geologist with knowledge of the Paradox Basin would agree with me that the fault systems associated with salt anticlines are inactive and are considered to be one of the most earthquake safe areas in the nation. This of course is opposite to the Wasatch Front which is in the Basin and Range geological pro-vince as compared to our Colorado Plateau province here in Moab. Do not think the majority of Moab citizens are for re-moval of the pile. Because the alarmists are more vocal than realistic people it may appear so. As a long time resident I know that if a vote was taken now, the public would elect for non-removal by a good margin.

                                           ;J;:t)J~ ..

Willard w. Hol~ 821 Oak St. Moab, UT 84532 MAY 1 0 1994 j Acknowledged by card ........,_,,__,n,,,,,,,,,;

U.S. Ut:, * . ____ _,,1 vH¥COMMISSIOl'i OOCKt. i 1NG & SERVICE SECilON OFFICE OF ,HE SECAETAR'1' OF ,HE COMMISSION oocument StatistlG1 Postmat1< Oate _ __ _ _ _ _ __ Copies Received ____,_/_ _ _ __ Add'\ Copies Reproduced _ _ _ __ ecial Oistri tion ~<K I tJn(l, IA-, !i1' J

DOCKETED 3101 Sunset Dr. , Moab, Utah l..lfi4'ffl!2 4/15/94 Secretary *94 APR 26 P5 :56 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 OFFICE OF SECRETARY ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch DOCKET! G & SERVICE

Dear People:

BRANCH Regarding the Atlas Tailings Study I should like to comment. When the uranium mill now owned by Atlas was started in the mid-50s I lived at the headquarters of Arches National Monument (now park). As I drove into town on various occasions I had a clear view of the valley and town, a beautiful sight that never failed to give me a tingle of excitement. I felt fortunate in having been able to live in such a beautiful little valley. Now as one drives down past the Arches one sees a huge pile of muck blocking the view and about as inspiring, except perhaps to miners and millers, as a broken leg. For a tourist oriented town this is an insult to the sensitivities of our visitors. If for no other reason the pile should be removed so that the scene that welcomes the visitor is compatible with the rest of the spectacular scenery surrounding us. This pile is comparable to having a garbage dump in front of the White House or in the center of the mall and we resent it now that the cold war is over and uranium mining and all that went with it is a dead issue. We have been loyal red white and blue citizens and have put up with a lot of crap in the name of national defense. The war is over but we in Moab seem to have been the losers. Dump the dump. - Other than esthetics is the real problem. The process used at first at the mill left much to be desired. The stuff at the bottom of the tailings is more radio active than anything available today and it was placed on porous sand that is impossible to seal off and will leach water soluable radium, uranium and heavy metals into the Colorado* River. Lets get real, this is a problem that can only be solved by moving the tailings pile. A covered conveyer belt, well wetted down, up to the railroad into covered hopper cars out to the Mancos shale desert will be safer and no more money than leaving it in place and risking the health and welfare of not only Moab but everyone clear to Mexico and Los Angeles. Lloyd M. Pierson MAY 1 0 19941 Acknowledged by card ..._ .._'"'"'...~.::=:;

1,i...... * ~- .ui>ll->vi\JN ooc;<ETi'. G CA SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE coM:"1\SSION ooc~mert s:atisticS Postmant O:ite - ~ ~ =-'-',___ __ Copies Received_ __ -'--_ _ __ Add'I Copies Reprocuced - ~ - - - - Si)eclal o:stribution ftL 'IX  !'lv,fl.,, IJ-"u ., r t:J.J.

                                                                     'DOCKET NUMBER                 c.

State of Utah PROF>OSEDRULEPR v * - (£c, r-1<o~~ Dirh) DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DIVISION OF RADIATION CONfROL US ~t~ (j) Michael 0 . Leavitt 168 North 1950 West Governor Dianne R. Nielson, Ph.D. P.O. Box 144850 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4850

                                                                                          *94 APR 21 A10 :23 Executive Director (801) 536-4250 Office William J. Sinclair   (801) 533-4097 Fax Director (801) 536-4414 T.D.D.

April 14, 1994 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN :Docketing and Services Branch

Dear Mr. Secretary,

Attached are comments from the State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality submitted for the Atlas EIS Public Scoping Meeting held April 14th at Moab, Utah. The State of Utah will be providing more detailed written comments prior to May 13, 1994. Sincerely, illiam J. Sin 1 rr, Director Utah Division of Radiation Control Printed on recycled paper MAY 1 0 1994 Acknowledged by card ..- ........_,.,, __ -....

I.;. ,. , ,, 11'/i l.:>~lUN o<JCt(... *i*.l o .,c.1 CE SECTION OFF!CE Of THE SECRETARY OF 11!E. ( '- :-1,MISSION Post::,a1' C *~ _ -*- -- - - - - Cop:~s R-::ca; *;:j_ .Add'I (;01ies li;p* ..d ~ ----- t e~,- ... c11;t..;ti0n ~ ..A'.>£.J..+.,_:,;;.s.~- M t,\.,/ll ......

State of Utah DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DIVISION OF RADIATION CONfROL Michael 0. Leavitt 168 North 1950 West Governor P.O. Box 144850 Dianne R. Nielson, Ph.D. Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4850 Executive Director (801) 536-4250 Office William J. Sinclair (801) 533-4097 Fax Director (801) 536-4414 T.D.D. Atlas EIS Public Scoping Meeting Comments submitted by the Division of Radiation Control Utah Department of Environmental Quality April 14, 1994 The State of Utah applauds the decision of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to re-examine the reclamation options for the Atlas Mill Tailings through the process of performing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). We appreciate the opportunity tonight to submit comments on the scope of the EIS. We look forward to working with the NRC and other agencies involved on a continuing basis to facilitate the process as much as possible. Major Points

1. The EIS should contain a rigorous comparison of viable alternative actions, with the primary alternatives being: 1) Relocating the tailings to the "airport" site (close to an ideal site), and 2) Capping the tailings in-place. Serious consideration of the "box-canyon" site or of the "no-action" alternative as in the proposed EIS scope outline would not be productive, and it is suggested that the available resources be focused on a more detailed examination of the two main alternatives. Each of the primary alternatives should receive a comprehensive and thorough engineering cost analysis. Each primary alternative should receive a sound technical analysis consistent with the intent and specifications of 10 CFR 40 Appendix A. Any groundwater remediation or other groundwater monitoring costs should be included in the total costs for each alternative.

Problems with Past Cost Estimates: Past cost estimates of the proposed reclamation options are now outdated and should be rigorously redone. This will require that new detailed engineering designs and new detailed transportation assumptions be performed. To simply use previous cost estimates (originally derived in 1977) and then just inflating to current dollars is not acceptable. Since 1977 the relative costs of reclamation in-place have risen due to new technical information and regulatory requirements. Some examples: (1) To meet current design requirements, the amount of riprap (protective rock armor) that will be required for in-place stabilization of the pile is much greater Printed on recycled paper

Atlas EIS Comments April 14, 1994 than that which was originally anticipated. The additional riprap is required due to potential meandering of the Colorado River and also the potential for erosion by Moab Wash. The amount of riprap required for tailings relocation would be less than that needed for capping in-place. (2) Groundwater remediation costs have not been included in past cost estimates for capping in-place. There has been no effort yet to quantify treatment costs of contaminated water from underneath the pile or contaminated water escaping the site. Modeling accomplished by Atlas has shown that Atlas cannot meet the EPA's Maximum Concentration Limit (MCL) for uranium beneath the tailings pile. The entire groundwater remediation scenario is based on NRC granting an alternative concentration limit. There are no standards in-place as yet for Title II sites. There will be costs for submission of a ACL petition, subsequent reviews and responses, potential administrative challenges, etc. that have not been factored into the groundwater remediation costs. (3) There is the potential for increased costs due to thickening of the in-place cover design to address seismic (earthquake) concerns. (4) The availability of suitable riprap is an open question. The Green River UMTRA site had to import riprap from near Salina. In any case riprap will be expensive, and the capping in-place option will require more riprap, thus raising the relative cost of capping in-place. (5) For capping in-place, the clay content of the cover may be increased at least 6 to 12 inches to meet radon emanation requirements. The clay will have to be imported and engineered in-place. In contrast, there is abundant clay available on-site at the proposed airport relocation site. (6) The entire existing groundwater monitoring system may need to be upgraded or replaced to ensure that the site is being monitored properly. This may even require new well placements, yet no costs were included for this in Atlas's 1993 E.A. The cost estimating work should be reviewed or separately calculated by a third party consultant hired by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This will either confirm or dispute the numbers to be provided by the Atlas consultant. The philosophy of the 1000-year design is a discriminatory factor in relation to off-site removal. An off-site tailings depository will be a more maintenance-free alternative and will likely last much longer than an in-place repository that will be continually exposed to erosion by the Colorado River and Moab Wash. For comparative purposes, it is noted that high level radioactive waste disposal facilities have a 10,000 year standard. The

Atlas EIS Comments April 14, 1994 Atlas uranium mill tailings will pose a hazard almost indefinitely due to uranium's long half-life and subsequent radon emanation by uranium decay radionuclides. The potential threat to human health and the environment will certainly last much longer than 1,000 years. It makes common sense to consider longer-term consequences of where the tailings are placed.

2. Based on the various data obtained, the EIS should contain a thorough, impartial analysis and evaluation of the relative risks and relative benefits (including both long-term and short-term benefits and risks) to public health, safety and the environment associated with each alternative. The public needs to know and understand what the risks are. Long-term risk assessments should be performed that will compare the actual risks to the public from the various exposure pathways of each alternative. The EIS should address both the risks to human health as well as the ecological risks.

3. The EIS should include the impacts of each alternative on the people of Moab and Grand County, and on tourism and the local economy. The original 1979 EIS was based on very conservative growth estimates for Moab and Grand County that have been obviously exceeded. The original EIS also did not consider the substantial transient population of Moab due to tourism.

4. As the title "Environmental Impact Statement" obviously implies, the EIS should examine the general environmental impacts of each proposed alternative, including impacts to wildlife, the Colorado River ecosystem and its endangered species.

5. The EIS should include the impacts of each proposed alternative on the State of Utah's water resources, especially including the Colorado River and groundwater resources.

It was noted that the proposed scope of the EIS states "Extensive water monitoring has identified no contamination in the Colorado River; therefore, there are no effects on river biota, and they will not be assessed." Such a statement is simplistic and misleading. If the tailings pile is stabilized in-place, there will be a continuing flux of contaminants into the Colorado River. Due to the large volume of water in the Colorado River, once the contaminants have thoroughly mixed with the river, they are not easily measured. Nevertheless, some contamination will occur and the Colorado River will experience incremental degradation. The overall flux of contaminants to the river should be quantified. Concentrations of contaminants could be locally higher in the sediments and in the sediment pore waters on the Atlas side of the river. To simply assert that at some point downstream contaminants are not measurable is overly simplifying the situation. We urge the NRC, in consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other interested agencies, to conduct localized sediment and biota sampling and sediment pore water sampling adjacent to the Atlas side of the Colorado River to assess the potential for

Atlas EIS Comments April 14, 1994 localized negative impacts to river biota and endangered fish species. The impact of incremental degradation to the water quality of the Colorado River should also be assessed. If there are truly no detrimental impacts to water quality and river biota, the new EIS should contain valid data to support that claim.

6. The EIS should include the impacts of each proposed alternative on the surrounding National Parks and archeological and historical resources.

7. We urge the NRC to conduct periodic meetings throughout the EIS process (quarterly basis). The NRC may wish to consider formation of a Citizen's Advisory Committee (such as has been established in Monticello to deal with the Superfund tailings cleanup).

If the "new NRC" is really committed to enhanced public participation and that is why you are here tonight, we would appreciate your commitment to ensure that a steady dialogue continues between NRC and the citizens of Utah.

' l r ,.. *"'/ ;'" i ~ .. ..."I- - ...

"--..***r* :*:: -~/ ..*: ~~: "."~*: ~

r [7590-01] DOCKETED US RC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

                                                          *94 MAR 30 A9 :2 1 Reclamation of Atlas Corporation's Uranium OFFI CE G- SEC~':TAI\:

Mill Facility at Moab, Utah: Notice of Inferft' to ' Pr.epare an-. Environmental Impact Statement and to Conduct a Scoping Process AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and conduct a scoping process for the EIS including a scoping meeting.

SUMMARY

The NRC intends to prepare an EIS for the decommissioning and reclamation of the Atlas Corporation's (Atlas) uranium mill facility at Moab ,

Utah . Atlas has been licensed by the NRC to process ores (source material) to produce uranium, in the form of yellowcake. As a result of processing ores, the facility produced a large quantity of sand and slime tailings which contain much of the radioactive materials from the ore in the form of daughter products . Atlas no longer actively processes ore at the Moab, Utah mill. It is however, decommissioning the mill, and has submitted a revised reclamation plan to NRC which, like the reclamation plan approved by NRC in 1982, proposes onsite stabilization of the tailings . This notice indicates NRC's intent to prepare an EIS in conjunction with this proposed action and to conduct a scoping process that will include a public scoping meeting.

Written comments on matters covered by this notice received by May 13, 1994, will be considered in developing the scope of the EIS. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: Written comments on the matters covered by this notice should be sent to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. ATTN: Docketing and Services Branch. Hand deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., on Federal workdays. The scoping meeting will be held at Starr Hall, 155 East Center Street, Moab, Utah, on Thursday, April 14, 1994, from 7-10 pm. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allan Mullins, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone: 301-504-2578. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The NRC has the statutory responsibility for protection of public health and safety and the environment related to the use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. One portion of this responsibility is to assure safe and timely reclamation at nuclear facilities which the NRC licenses. For the Atlas uranium mill, reclamation would ensure the long-term stability of uranium tailings for up to 1000 years and control of radon releases to a low risk level. In August 1988, Atlas submitted for NRC review, a revision to the tailings reclamation plan for the Moab mill which had been approved in 1982. This plan was revised by Atlas in response to NRC questions by submittals in January 1989, June 1992, and April 1993. Atlas submitted an Environmental Report Supplement in support of the reclamation plan in April 1993. This document supplemented Atlas' Environmental Report of 1973, NRC's EIS on the Moab facility of 1979, NRC's Final Generic EIS of 1980, and Atlas' license renewal application in 1984. In July 1993, NRC staff noticed a "Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI), including an Environmental Assessment (EA), in the Federal Register in anticipation of approving the reclamation plan submitted by the licensee for onsite disposal of mill tailings. NRC received more than 20 letters with comments opposing the proposed action and identifying issues requiring additional evaluation and consideration. As a result, the FONS! was rescinded by Federal Register notice in October 1993. The technical evaluation is underway by NRC staff with additional information requested from the licensee . Need For Proposed Action Atlas is licensed by the NRC (License Number SUA-917) to possess and store source material in the form of uranium mill tailings at a site located near the town of Moab, Utah. The mill operated from 1956 until 1984 under license from NRC or the Atomic Energy Commission. It has been owned by Atlas since 1962. The mill produced 7 million cubic yards (11 million tons) of tailings during its operating life. These tailings are near the mill and are contained in a pile which covers 53 hectares (130 acres) and rises 33.5 meters (110 feet) above the adjacent land level. Source material is no longer processed at the site and Atlas has been engaged in decommissioning the site for the last several years. A reclamation plan for onsite disposal of the mill tailings was approved by the NRC in 1982. Atlas has submitted a revised onsite reclamation plan for NRC approval which is currently being evaluated for technical adequacy and compliance with the requirements in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40. The NRC has determined that approval of the revised reclamation plan constitutes a major Federal action and that based on the level of controversy related to the proposed action and uncertainties associated with the unique features of the Moab site, preparation of an EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the NRC's implementing requirements in 10 CFR Part 51 is warranted. The Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 contain requirements for conducting a scoping process prior to preparation of an EIS. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.26, whenever the NRC determines that it will prepare an EIS in connection with a proposed action, NRC will publish a notice of intent in the Federal Register stating that it will prepare an EIS and conduct an appropriate scoping process. This scoping process may include the holding of a public scoping meeting. NRC describes, in 10 CFR 51.27, the content of the notice of intent and requires that the notice describe the proposed action and, to the extent that sufficient information is available, possible alternatives. In addition, the notice of intent is required to describe the proposed scoping process, including the role of participants, the comment process, and the need for a public scoping meeting. In accordance with §§51.26 and 51.27, the proposed action and possible alternative approaches and the scoping process are discussed below. Description of proposed action The proposed action is approval by NRC of a revised reclamation plan for the mill tailings at the Moab site. The licensee has submitted a plan which calls for the reclamation of the tailings impoundment in place, covering the tailings with a soil cover to reduce radon emanation, re-configuring the surface of the tailings impoundment to drain toward collection ditches, and flattening the embankment side slopes. The collection ditches would merge to form a drainage channel which would convey water runoff from the covered tailings surface into Moab Wash. Moab Wash would be reconfigured to convey flood level flows into the Colorado River east of the tailings pile. On the southwest side of the tailings embankment, another drainage channel would divert runoff from the natural sandstone bluffs southwest of the channel. To protect against erosion, the top of the tailings impoundment would be covered with a layer of compacted rock and soil and the embankment side slopes covered with rock native to the region. Two alternative sites have been identified. One site is in a box canyon about 7 miles away and the other site is near the airport, about 15 miles away. The tailings would be placed partially below grade at either site, with the pile rising approximately 11 meters (37 feet) above the ground surface. Detailed designs have not been completed for these potential sites but similar issues for erosion, floods, seismic effects, and groundwater protection would have to be considered in any detailed design. However, the environmental aspects of the sites will be addressed in the EIS. The technical evaluation of the proposed onsite disposal of the tailings by NRC staff is in progress. The environmental evaluation will consider both onsite and offsite disposal options. The acceptability of the licensee's proposal will be determined based on the results of the technical and environmental review process . Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement Under NEPA, all Federal agencies must consider the effect of their actions on the environment. Section 102(1) of NEPA requires that the policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in NEPA. It is the intent of NEPA to have Federal agencies incorporate consideration of environmental issues into their decision-making processes. NRC's regulations implementing NEPA are contained in 10 CFR Part 51. To fulfill NRC's responsibilities under NEPA, NRC intends to prepare an EIS that will analyze the environmental impacts and costs of the proposed action and alternatives. Two alternative sites and the "no action" alternative will be analyzed. The scope of the EIS includes consideration of both radiological and non-radiological impacts associated with the alternative actions. This notice announces the NRC's intent to prepare an EIS . The principal intent of the EIS is to provide a document that describes the environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives which will be available to support the NRC's licensing decision on the reclamation plan for the Moab site . The Scoping Process Participants may attend and provide oral discussion on the proposed action and possible alternatives at the public scoping meeting to be held at Starr Hall, 155 East Center Street, Moab, Utah, on Thursday, April 14, 1994, from 7 to 10 p.m. A transcript of the meeting will be prepared. The Commission will also accept written comments on the proposed action and alternatives from the public. Written comments should be submitted by May 13, 1994, and should be sent to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. ATTN: Docketing and Services Branch. Hand deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays. According to 10 CFR 51.29, the scoping process is to be used to conduct the following activities: (a) Define the proposed action to be the subject of the EIS. The proposed action is the reclamation of uranium mill tailings onsite at the Atlas uranium mill facility in Moab, Utah. (b) Determine the scope of the EIS and the significant issues to be analyzed in depth. The NRC is proposing to analyze the costs and impacts associated with the proposed action and alternative reclamation approaches. The following proposed outline for the EIS reflects the current NRC staff view on the scope and major topics to be dealt with in the EIS: l Proposed Outline: Environmental Impact Statement Abstract Executive Summary Table of Contents

1. Introduction 1.1 Summary of Proposed Action and Alternatives 1.2 History of Moab Mill Facility 1.3 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action 1.4 Scope of Environmental Impact Statement

2. Alternatives including the Proposed Action 2.1 The Proposed Action 2.2 Box Canyon Site 2.3 Plateau Site (Airport) 2.4 No Action 2.5 Comparison of Impacts of Alternatives

3. The Existing Environment 3 .1 Introduction 3.2 Description of the Moab mill facility 3.3 Land Use 3.4 Geology/Seismology 3.5 Meteorology and Hydrology 3.6 Ecology 3.7 Socioeconomic Characteristics 3.8 Radiation 3.9 Cultural Resources 3.10 Other Environmental Features

4. Environmental Consequences, Monitoring, and Mitigation 4.1 Air Quality and Noise 4.2 Land Use 4.3 Hydrology, Water Quality, and Water Use 4.4 Biological Resources 4.5 Socioeconomic Considerations 4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources 4.7 Public and Occupational Health and Safety 4.8 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts 4.9 Relationship between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity 4.10 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

5. Radiological Impacts

6. Costs and Benefits Associated with Reclamation Alternatives 6.1 General 6.2 Quantifiable Socioeconomic Impacts Including Environmental Justice Considerations 6.3 The Benefit-Cost Summary 6.4 Staff Assessment

7. Permits and Approvals

8. List of Preparers

9. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Contacted

10. Distribution List Receiving Copies of the Draft EIS

11. References Appendix A - RESERVED FOR COMMENTS ON DEIS Appendix B - Results of Scoping Process (c) Identify and eliminate from detailed study issues which are not significant or which are peripheral or which have been covered by prior environmental review. The decommissioning plan for the mill facility was approved by NRC in November 1988 and amended in September 1991 . The mill property will be reclaimed and decontaminated to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards allowing for unrestricted use, thus mitigating any adverse effects. Extensive water monitoring has identified no contamination in the Colorado River; therefore, there are no effects on river biota, and they will not be assessed. There should be no harmful impacts on terrestrial biota and no assessment is required, as the tailings pile will be covered and radon emanations reduced to comply with EPA standards . Rock armor will prevent burrowing animals from intruding into the tailings.

(d) Identify any Environmental Assessments or EISs that are related but are not part of the scope of this EIS. The operational aspects of the Atlas Moab mill facility were considered in the EIS completed in January 1979. A Generic EIS on Uranium Milling was completed in September 1980. An EA of the proposed reclamation plan was completed and noticed in the Federal Register on July 20, 1993. Based on issues identified in comments received on the EA, NRC determined that an EIS was required for the proposed action. (e) Identify other environmental review or consultation requirements related to the proposed action . NRC will consult with other Federal, State, and local agencies that have jurisdiction or interests in the Moab site. For example, NRC has already been coordinating its technical review activities for the Moab site with EPA, the U.S. Department of Interior, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Radiation Control, and the Grand County Council. NRC anticipates continued consultation with these and other agencies, as appropriate, during the development of the EIS. In addition, the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act require coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Utah State Historical Society . (f) Indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparation of environmental analysis and the Commission's tentative planning and decision making schedule. NRC intends to prepare and issue for public comment a draft EIS in October 1994 . The comment period would be for 45 days. The final EIS is scheduled for publication in April 1995. Subsequent to completion of the final EIS, the NRC will act on a license amendment approving a reclamation plan for the site. (g) Describe the means by which the EIS will be prepared. NRC will prepare the draft EIS according to the requirements in 10 CFR Part 51. The EIS will be prepared by the NRC staff and Oak Ridge National Laboratory which has been contracted to provide technical assistance in the preparation of the EIS. In addition, NRC anticipates requesting specific information from the licensee to support preparation of the EIS. Any information received from the licensee related to the EIS will be available for public review, unless the information is protected from public disclosure in accordance with NRC requirements in 10 CFR 2.790 . In the scoping process, participants are invited to speak or submit written comments, as noted above, on any or all of the areas described above. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.29, at the conclusion of the scoping process, NRC will prepare a concise summary of the determinations and conclusions reached, including the significant issues identified, and will send a copy to each participant in the scoping process. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2.3 day of March, 1994. FOR THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

                   ~                   --J&,c1 Joseph J. Holonich, Acting Chief Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
                                    }}