NUREG-1531, Responds to Raising Concerns Re Proposed Reclamation of 10.5 Million Tons of Uranium Mill Tailings Located Near Colorado River in Moab,UT.NUREG-1531, NUREG-1532 & NRC Response to Draft Biological Opinion Encl
| ML20199C744 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/16/1998 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Reid H SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20199C749 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-1531, RTR-NUREG-1532 NUDOCS 9801300083 | |
| Download: ML20199C744 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _. _ _ _
7DL 4.%
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p
WASHINGTON. D.C. 30605-2001
)
g g
k,,
January 16, 1998 cwAnMAN The Honorable Harry Reid United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510-2803
Dear Senator Reid:
I am responding to your letter of November 8,1997, in which you raised concems about the proposed reclamation of 10.5 million tons of uranium mill tallings located near the Colorado River in Moab, Utah. Several other members of Congress have also raised concems about the proposed reclamation. To address these and other technical concems, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has worked with the Department of the interior (DOI) and the Department of Energy (DCE), under the auspices of the Council on Environmental Quality
~ (CEO), over the past several months. As discussed below, a program to collect more data was agreed upon. The following provides background on our review to date and future actions, as j
related to your specific concems.
]
The site is owned by Atlas Corporation, which holds NRC license SUA 917. Atlas has proposed that the mill tallings be reclaimed on site, and over the past four years, the NRC has conducted a very tholough evaluation and analyais of Atlas' propcsed plan. The NRC's review of Atlas' plan has included two equally important evaluations, in one analysis, the NRC staff conducted a detailed review of the proposal to determine if the appropriate NRC safety standard for tallings reclams' ion found in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, would be met. In the second analysis, the j
NRC staff is preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) to debrmine what j
. environmental impacts could be expected if NRC were to find the Atlas proposal acceptable, as i
well as the impacts of reasonable attematives to Atlas' proposal. As discussed further below, the major environmental impact assodated with this site reclamation is from ammonia contamination, and not from residual radioactivity in the tallings.
In March 1997, the NRC staff concluded that the proposal for on site stabilization meets the f
requirements in Part 40, Appendix A. These findings are documented in NUREG-1532," Final j
j Technical Evaluation Report for the Proposed Revised Reclamation Plan for the Atlas i
Corporation Moab Mill." A copy is provided in Enclosure 1. In the draft EIS issued in January 1996, NRC found that either on-site stabilization or relocation of the tallings to an attemate site Mi 18 miles away was envlronmentally acceptable. The staff's analysis indicated that relocation to the attemate site could cost $100 million more than stabilizatio i on die. The NRC was directed i
by Congress in Section 84a.(1) of the Atomic Energy Act to cons! der economics in evaluating the reclamation of uranium mill tallings. A copy of the draft EIS, NUREG-1531, " Draft j
EavironmentalImpact Statement Reland to Reclamation of the Uranium Mill Tallings at the Atlas e
S/te, Moab, Utah," is providai as Enclosure 2. As part of its evaluation of groundwater cleanup analyzed in the draft Elc, the NRC staff recognized that there is a small mixing zone in the Colorado River with elevated levels of some constituents, with ammonia being of greatest concem. This contamination is a remnant of mill operatione from decades ago;it exists independently of wheSer the tallings are moved. However, this situation is a short-term impact
- that should be substantially Iraproved once reclamation, including the installation of an impermeable cover to reduce infiltration into the tallings, is complete, and the groundwater is cleaned up to appropriate standards.
- 1a m ea = m ll!Illll!Iill llll llll 4
PDR COMMS NRCC
==>
a ' -
(;
CORRESPONDENCE PDR
1 2
With respect to the final EIS, we are currently working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)in the preparation of a final Biological Opinion, under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, which is the last piece of information the NRC needs to issue the final EIS. FWS has stated that the conclusion in its draft Biological Opinion dated June 27,1997, that the Atlas proposal would likely jeopardize the continued existence of four endangered species of fish in the Colorado River, is necessarily conservative because of uncertainties in the existing data. As a result, NRC staff have worked with CEO, DOE, DOI, and Atlas to develop additional data. At recent meetings the parties agreed on a program to coPect additional data related to groundwater contamination. This program is currently under way, and should be completed in January 1998. FWS will then prepare the final Biological Opinion, and the NRC will incorporate FWS' findings into the final EIS. The current schedule for the FWS to complete the final Biological Opinion is March 1998. Based on that date, the NRC expects to complete its final EIS this summer, and will take no action until the final EIS is issued.
With respect to the Clean Water Act, Utah is a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) permitting State with responsibility to ensure that appropriate water quality standards, including those with respect to ammonia are met. Recently, the Utah Water Quality Board required Atlas to propose a schedule for submission of a contaminant Investigation report and a corrective action -)lan. Utah had previousiy deferred its actions pending the outcome of NRC's review.
The NRC plans to closeY follow the State of Utah review of the ammonia situation in addition, the NRC has worked closely with the EPA Denver office in preparation of the final EIS. This working relationship has helped NRC understand and address all concems raised by EPA as a
. result of the EPA review of the draft EIS.
Your concem with the proposed on-site reclamation appears to be based on the assumption that the tallings extend below the groundwater level, if this is correct, the earthen cover proposed by Atlas to limit infiltration into the pile will not slow the leaching of contaminants into the grovtJwater, and, ultimately the Colorado River. However, our information indicates that the bottom of the tailings !s at least three feet above the natural groundwater level. Based on this information, the staff has concluded that the seepage rate from the tallings to the groundwater will be controlled by the rate of infiltration of precipitation into the pile. The staff's estimate is that, following installation of the earthen cover, the infiltration rate will be below eight gallons per minute which is a small fniction of the present rate, and should be sufficient to limit any future leaching of contaminants in accordance with applicable Federal groundwater protection requirements. One of the tasks that will be pedormed under the current data collection effort is intended to establish the elevatbn of the bottom of the tallings by performing additional drilling through the pile. Another task will analyzc the seepage rate from the pile.
You also raised a concem that Colorado River floods will bring river water into contact with the tallings. However, because of the earthen cover that will be placed over the tallings, river water will not be in direct contact with tallings. FWS raised a similar concem in its patt Biological Opinion which the NRC addressed in its response (see Section 2.b of the NHC's August 12,
- 1997, comments provided as Enclosure 3). NRC's analyses show that, although some seepage of contaminants from the pile could occur as a result of severe Colorado River floods, the amount is insignificant and meets the safety standards in 10 CFR Part 40.
. o n
)=
3 k
~
in closing, the NRC recognizes that the Colorado River is a vital natural resource that must be -
protected. To this end,- I would like to assure you that the NRC has conducted its review of the Atlas proposal in a thorough and diligent manner in accoroance with statutory and regulatory c
standards. I trust that this reply responds to your request and clarifies our position. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.
Sincerely, N
p Shirley An Jackson
Enclosures:
- 1. NUREG 1532 2.' NUREG 1531
' 3. NRC Resp. to Draft Biological Opinion i-I M
{
4 4
i 4
4
-l
..w y.
yyu y
,, - ~ ~ -
.-.v~.
-