DOCSLIB.ORG

Of Shelley Schutterle on NRC's Low Level Radioactive Waste Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Of Shelley Schutterle on NRC's Low Level Radioactive Waste Program Page 1 of 1 NRCREP - Comments on NRC's low level radioactive waste program From: "Shelley Schutterle" <[email protected]> ' / z/O/ To: <[email protected]> Date: 08/02/2006 2:07 PM Subject: Comments on NRC's low level radioactive waste program CC: "Oscar Paulson" <[email protected]> Attached please find Kennecott Uranium Company's comments regarding the NRC's low level radioactive waste program. Shelley Schutterle Administrative Coordinator Kennecott Uranium Company PO Box 1500, Rawlins, WY 82301 307-324-4924 Email: [email protected] C::) 7-fl cTI~ 0 G) 71 '-U iv] Cf) U I.AJ /fte- •0)57ý file://C:\temp\GW }00001.HTM 08/03/2006 c:\tempýGW)00001.TMP PaFge 1 ! c:\temp\GW)OOOQ1 .TMP Pa~ie 1] I Mail Envelope Properties (44DOE9B5.2B8: 2: 21176) Subject: Comments on NRC's low level radioactive waste program Creation Date Wed, Aug 2, 2006 2:06 PM From: "Shelley Schutterle" <[email protected]> Created By: [email protected] Recipients nrc.gov TWGWPOO1.HQGWDOO1 NRCREP tribcsp.com paulson CC (Oscar Paulson) Post Office Route TWGWPO01.HQGWDOO1 nrc.gov tribcsp.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 273 Wednesday, August 2, 2006 2:06 PM TEXT.htm 760 LLW-Comments.doc 461312 Mime.822 634677 Options Expiration Date: None Priority: Standard ReplyRequested: No Return Notification: None Concealed Subject: No Security: Standard Junk Mail Handling Evaluation Results Message is eligible for Junk Mail handling This message was not classified as Junk Mail Junk Mail settings when this message was delivered Junk Mail handling disabled by User Junk Mail handling disabled by Administrator Junk List is not enabled Junk Mail using personal address books is not enabled c:\temp\GW}O0001 .TMP Page I Block List is not enabled RI TINTO 1 August 2006 Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Mail Stop T6-D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Gentlemen: Subject: Kennecott Uranium Company's Comments Regarding: Federal Register: July 7, 2006 Volume 71, Number 130 Pages 38675-38676 Request for Comments on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Low Level Radioactive Waste Program Kennecott Uranium Company is a uranium recovery licensee that operates the only remaining conventional uranium mill and operating (Subpart W) uranium mill tailings impoundment in Wyoming under Source Material License SUA-1350. The facility is located in the Great Divide Basin in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The following are Kennecott Uranium Company's comments in response to the Commission's questions regarding the Low Level Waste Program: Initial efforts on addressing low level waste issues The request for comments states, "The NRC last initiated a strategic assessment of its LLW regulatory program in August 1995." The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) released a document entitled StrategicPlanning Framework, dated Sept. 16, 1996. This StrategicAssessment and Rebaselining Initiative (SARI), examined in detail all aspects of the Commission's regulatory program, and in it the Commission expressed its willingness to consider broader uses for uranium mill tailings facilities. The Commission specifically reviewed the option of expanding the use of uranium tailings impoundments to allow the disposal of waste generated during decommissioning of nuclear facilities along with 1 le.(2) byproduct material. This document states: Because several.., sites [currently undergoing decommissioning] have large quantities of uranium- and thorium-contaminatedwaste with characteristicssimilar to those of mill tailings,it may be cost effective to dispose of decommissioningwaste at existing mill tailingssites.... Reclamation costs at uranium mill tailings sites average about $0.97 per ton (about $0.05 per ft3). This cost is substantiallyless than disposal costs at licensed low-level waste disposalsites, which charge,as a minimum, about $20 to $30 perft3 for decommissioning-type wastes .... Kennecott Uranium Company •42 Miles NW of Rawlins * Post Office Box 1500 - Rawlins. Wyoming 82301-1500 T + 1.307.328.1476 - F + 1.307.324.4925 The Commission has been rightfully considering disposal of low activity radioactive wastes in uranium mill tailings impoundments for almost a decade, beginning in September 1996. Key safety and cost drivers and concerns relative to LLW disposal The issue of Low Level Waste Disposal is a complex one; however, regarding this issue the National Mining Association (NMA) has, over the previous decade, shown unique leadership. A brief history of the Association's efforts to have uranium mill tailings impoundments used as sites for the disposal of non-1 le.(2) byproduct material is provided in the text that follows. On May 13, 1997, the United States uranium recovery industry, as represented by the National Mining Association (NMA), the Wyoming Mining Association (WMA) and the Uranium Producers of America (UPA), briefed the Commissioners on the state of the uranium recovery industry in the United States (PowerPoint Presentationentitled Uranium Briefing May 13, 1997 NMA/WMA/UPA included by reference). In this presentation the issue of the disposal of non-i le.(2) materials in uranium mill tailings impoundments was discussed. Following this presentation, the Commissioners requested that the industry prepare and submit a white paper to the Commission regarding this and other issues. In 1998, the National Mining Association (NMA) submitted a white paper to the Commission entitled Recommendationsfor a CoordinatedApproach to Regulating the Uranium Recovery Industry: A White Paper Presented By the National Mining Association. This document is included by reference. This document in Section IV entitled DISPOSAL OF NON-lle.(2) BYPRODUCT MATERIAL IN TAILINGS IMPOUNDMENTS discussed the option of disposal of certain radioactive wastes other than 1 le.(2) byproduct material in tailings impoundments. This section stated: Consideringthe potentially significantpublic health, safety and environmental benefits of allowing non-1le.(2) byproduct material disposal in tailings piles, NRC should revise the 1995 Final Guidance to make the present policy less restrictive and more workable. For example, the Commission should examine whether the four criteria NRC applied prior to the 1995 Final Guidance were sufficient. In addition,NRC should explore allowing the disposal of NORM, mixed wastes, SNM and even Ile.(1) material if they are similar to uranium mill tailings. Moreover, in considering these options and evaluating other ways of optimizing disposal at existing uranium mill tailings disposal sites, NRC should be prepared to "think outside the box" by, for example, considering state/interagencyMemorandums of Understanding(MOUs) or perhaps legislation. It concluded by stating: Accordingly, NMA urges the Commission to reevaluate its policy on the disposal of non-lie.(2) byproduct materials in uranium mill tailings impoundments. As discussed above, a number of compelling public policy considerationsfavor allowing the disposal of materialsthat are physically, chemically, and radiologicallysimilar to 11 e.(2) byproduct material in such tailings impoundments. Therefore, NRC should work with its sisteragencies and with relevant state authoritiesto develop creative and cooperative approaches (such as the use of MOUs or interagency agreements) to ensure that protection of public health, safety and the environment are optimized by facilitatingthe utilization of existing disposal capacity at uranium mill tailings sites. -2- Following the submittal of this white paper, the Commission staff prepared SECY-99-012 entitled, "USE OF URANIUM MILL TAILINGS IMPOUNDMENTS FOR THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE OTHER THAN 11e.(2) BYPRODUCT MATERIAL AND REVIEWS OF APPLICATIONS TO PROCESS MATERIAL OTHER THAN NATURAL URANIUM ORES". Based upon this paper the Commission issued STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-99-0012 -" USE OF URANIUM MILL TAILINGS IMPOUNDMENTS FOR THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE OTHER THAN 11e.(2) BYPRODUCT MATERIAL AND REVIEWS OF APPLICATIONS TO PROCESS MATERIAL OTHER THAN NATURAL URANIUM ORES" dated July 26, 2000. This Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) revised the pre-existing September 22, 1995 guidance by stating: The disposalof material otherthan 11e.(2) byproduct material- which may include listed hazardous wastes - in mill tailings impoundments should be allowed only if. 1) there is adequateprotection of the public health, safety, and the environment; 2) the long-term custodian of the site has indicated its willingness to accept responsibilityfor maintenance of the site prior to NRC approving the disposal; and 3) necessary approvals of other affected regulators(e.g., States, EPA ) have been obtained.Regarding consent of the long-term custodian, considerationshould be given to requiring written confirmationfrom DOE or the State that it would accept responsibilityfor the maintenance of the site priorto NRC approving the disposal of non-lie.(2) material. This was a substantial step forward in that it dramatically changed the older restrictive 1995 guidance. The now superseded 1995 Final Guidance contained a total of nine criteria for the disposal of non- 1 le.(2) byproduct material in uranium mill tailings impoundments: 1. NARM (including NORM) cannot be disposed of in an 1 le.(2) byproduct material impoundment. 2. Special nuclear material (SNM) and 1 le.(l) byproduct material will not be considered as eligible for disposal "without compelling reasons [i.e., immediate health and safety concerns] to the contrary. 3. The licensee must demonstrate that the material proposed for disposal is not subject to applicable
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THESIS URANIUM CONTAMINATION VALUES and LIMITS Submitted By
    THESIS URANIUM CONTAMINATION VALUES AND LIMITS Submitted by Aaron Paul Miaullis Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Master of Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Summer 2012 Master’s Committee: Advisor: Thomas Johnson Co-Advisor: Alexander Brandl Thomas Borch Copyright by Aaron Paul Miaullis, 2012 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT URANIUM CONTAMINATION VALUES AND LIMITS Hypothesis: Current soil contamination limits for non-enriched uranium are not consistent and are not optimized to allow the beneficial use of uranium while protecting the health of the public. Objective: Assess available health impact data regarding non-enriched uranium ingestion and inhalation as well as past soil contamination recommendations to determine if the regulatory limits for uranium are optimized, as recommended by the ICRP. Provide supporting data for keeping current soil contamination limits for non-enriched uranium, or suggest new limits based upon chemical uptake ratios. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the following persons for their help, guidance, mentoring, and support during the research and compilation of this paper: The Lord God My family: Maureen, Nicholas, Caitlin and Helena Miaullis My parents: J. Bart Miaullis and Laura White The United States Army Dr. Tom Johnson Dr. Alexander Brandl An additional thank you to the following people for providing their time and effort in obtaining and providing much needed reference material: LTC Andrew Scott, PhD, US Army MAJ(R) Carlos Corredor Steve Brown The Armour Archive Finally, thanks to the significant number of other individuals with whom I have conversed and discussed many additional points within this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Tailings and Their Component Radionuclides from the Biosphere-Some Earth Science Perspectives
    Tailings and Their Component Radionuclides From the Biosphere-Some Earth Science Perspectives Isolation of Uranium Mill Tailings and Their Component Radionuclides From the Biosphere-Some Earth Science Perspectives By Edward Landa GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 814 A critical review of the literature dealing with uranium mill tailings, with emphasis on the geologic and geochemical processes affecting the long-term containment of radionuclides 1980 United States Department of the Interior CECIL D. ANDRUS, Secretary Geological Survey H. William Menard, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 79-600148 Free on application to Branch of Distribution, U.S. Geological Survey 1200 South Eads Street, Arlington, VA 22202 CONTENTS Page Abstract 1 Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------­ 1 Acknowledginents ---------_----------------------------------------------- 2 Quantity and location of the tailings --------------------------------------­ 2 Radioactivity in tailings --------------------------------------------------­ 4 Sources of potential human radiation exposure from uranium mill tailings ------ 6 Radon emanation ----------------------------------------------------- 6 VVind transport ------------------------------------------------------- 6 Surface water transport and leaching ----------------------------------- 7 External gamma radiation -------------------------------------------­ 8 Contamination of terrestrial and aquatic vegetation ---------------------- 8 Seepage ----------------------------------------------------~--------
    [Show full text]
  • Measurement and Calculation of Radon Releases from Uranium Mill Tailings
    I I I I I I I I I io-1 ^*"^^-dL ^-. : tfl ^^ ^-----^_ • . w 2 E 10- _o^ Q • " ^N^^v +-*m "•'•^^N• ^«Nr \ S 10-3 0 • •• VN V it; 0 . • •• *>*v* * O • ^* \ O 10 vV\ \ • 1 ^ • Measured diffusion coefficients # X\ >« CO 3 p = 0.41 • ,\v i\N TJ P - 0.55 (top), 0.26 (bottom) N C 0 10-5 ~ Fitted function: r -, • *• 2 5 QC D = 0.07 exp -4 (m - mn + m ) • • • 10-6 ! I I 1 I I I I I c ) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Moisture saturation, m TECHNICAL REPORTS SERIES No 333 Measurement and Calculation of Radon Releases from Uranium Mill Tailings if sk\ \ %}$?J INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, VIENNA, 1992 MEASUREMENT AND CALCULATION OF RADON RELEASES FROM URANIUM MILL TAILINGS The following States are Members of the Internationa! Atomic Energy Agency: AFGHANISTAN HAITI PANAMA ALBANIA HOLY SEE PARAGUAY ALGERIA HUNGARY PERU ARGENTINA ICELAND PHILIPPINES AUSTRALIA INDIA POLAND AUSTRIA INDONESIA PORTUGAL BANGLADESH IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF QATAR BELARUS IRAQ ROMANIA BELGIUM IRELAND RUSSIAN FEDERATION BOLIVIA ISRAEL SAUDI ARABIA BRAZIL ITALY SENEGAL BULGARIA JAMAICA SIERRA LEONE CAMEROON JAPAN SINGAPORE CANADA JORDAN SOUTH AFRICA CHILE KENYA SPAIN CHINA KOREA, REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA COLOMBIA KUWAIT SUDAN COSTA RICA LEBANON SWEDEN COTE D'lVOIRE LIBERIA SWITZERLAND CUBA LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC CYPRUS LIECHTENSTEIN THAILAND CZECHOSLOVAKIA LUXEMBOURG TUNISIA DEMOCRATIC KAMPUCHEA MADAGASCAR TURKEY DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S MALAYSIA UGANDA REPUBLIC OF KOREA MALI UKRAINE DENMARK MAURITIUS UNITED ARAB EMIRATES DOMINICAN REPUBLIC MEXICO
    [Show full text]
  • REGULATORY GUIDE 3.59 (Task WM 407-4)
    0 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION March 1987 )0C REGULATORY GUIDE 11-1 , ****41r' OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH REGULATORY GUIDE 3.59 (Task WM 407-4) METHODS FOR ESTIMATING RADIOACTIVE AND TOXIC AIRBORNE SOURCE TERMS FOR URANIUM MILLING OPERATIONS USNRC REGULATORY GUIDES The guides are issued in the following ten broad divisions: Regulatory Guides are issued to describe and make available to the public methods acceptable to the NRC staff of Implementing 1. Power Reactors 6. Products specific parts of the Commission's regulations, to delineate tech 2. Research and Test Reactors 7. Transportation niques used by the staff In evaluating specific problems or postu 3. Fuels and Materials Facilities 8. Occupational Health lated accidents or to provide guidance to applicants. Regulatory 4. Environmental and Siting 9. Antitrust and Financial Review Guides are not substitutes for regulations, and compliance with 5. Materials and Plant Protection 10. General them is not required. Methods and solutions different from those set out in the guides will be acceptable if they provide a basis for the findings requisite to the issuance or continuance of a permit or Copies of issued guides may be purchased from the Government license by the Commission. Printing Office at the current GPO price. Information on current GPO prices may be obtained by contacting the Superintendent of -This guide was issued after consideration of comments received from Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Post Office Box the public. Comments and suggestions for improvements in these 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082, telephone (202)275-2060 or guides are encouraged at all times, and guides will be revised, as (202)275-2171.
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium Mining in Virginia
    Nontechnical Summary Uranium Mining in Virginia In recent years, there has been renewed interest in mining uranium in the Common- wealth of Virginia. However, before any mining can begin, Virginia’s General Assembly would have to rescind a statewide moratorium on uranium mining that has been in effect since 1982. The National Research Council was commissioned to provide an independent review of the scientific, environmental, human health and safety, and regulatory aspects of uranium mining, processing, and reclamation in Virginia to help inform the public discussion about uranium mining and to assist Virginia’s lawmakers in their deliberations. eneath Virginia’s convene an independent rolling hills, there committee of experts to Bare occurrences of write a report that described uranium—a naturally occur- the scientific, environmental, ring radioactive element that human health and safety, and can be used to make fuel for regulatory aspects of mining nuclear power plants. In the and processing Virginia’s 1970s and early 1980s, work to uranium resources. Addi- explore these resources led to tional letters supporting this the discovery of a request were received from large uranium deposit at Coles U.S. Senators Mark Warner Hill, which is located in and Jim Webb and from Pittsylvania County in southern Governor Kaine. The Virginia. However, in 1982 the National Research Council Commonwealth of Virginia study was funded under a enacted a moratorium on contract with the Virginia uranium mining, and interest in Center for Coal and Energy further exploring the Coles Hill Research at Virginia deposit waned. Polytechnic Institute and In 2007, two families living in the vicinity of State University (Virginia Tech).
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Existing and Proposed Tailings Impoundment Technologies
    Final Report Review of Existing and Proposed Tailings Impoundment Technologies Prepared by S. Cohen & Associates 1608 Spring Hill Road, Suite 400 Vienna, VA 22182 Under Contract Number EP-D-05-002 Work Assignment No. 4-11, Task 5 Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Radiation and Indoor Air 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 Reid J. Rosnick Work Assignment Manager September 25, 2008 In accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan: Technical and Regulatory Support to Develop a Rulemaking to Modify the NESHAP Subpart W Standard for Radon Emissions from Operating Uranium Mills (40 CFR 61.25), this document has been reviewed and approved by the following individuals: Work Assignment Task Manager: ________________________ Date: __09/25/2008__ Harry Pettengill Project Manager: ________________________ Date: __09/25/2008__ Abe Zeitoun Corporate Quality Assurance Mgr: ________________________ Date: __09/25/2008__ Gregory Beronja Work Assignment QA Manager: ________________________ Date: __09/25/2008__ Stephen Ostrow WA 4-11, Task 4 – NESHAPs History i SC&A – September 25, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Historical Conventional Tailings Impoundments ............................................................... 1 2.0 Profile of the Existing Industry........................................................................................... 2 3.0 Anticipated Changes in the Industry Profile....................................................................... 3 4.0 Comparison of Uranium Tailings Disposal
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Activities in Uranium Mining and Milling
    Nuclear Development Environmental Activities in Uranium Mining and Milling A Joint NEA/IAEAReport NUCLEAR•ENERGY•AGENCY OECD, 1999. Software: 1987-1996, Acrobat is a trademark of ADOBE. All rights reserved. OECD grants you the right to use one copy of this Program for your personal use only. Unauthorised reproduction, lending, hiring, transmission or distribution of any data or software is prohibited. You must treat the Program and associated materials and any elements thereof like any other copyrighted material. All requests should be made to: Head of Publications Service, OECD Publications Service, 2, rue AndrÂe-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France. ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES IN URANIUM MINING AND MILLING A JOINT REPORT BY THE OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY AND THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: ± to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in Member countries, while maintaining ®nancial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy; ± to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and ± to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Perceptions and Realities in Modern Uranium Mining
    Nuclear Development 2014 Perceptions and Realities in Modern Uranium Mining Extended Summary NEA Nuclear Development Perceptions and Realities in Modern Uranium Mining Extended Summary © OECD 2014 NEA No. 7063 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT PERCEPTIONS AND REALITIES IN MODERN URANIUM MINING Perceptions and Realities in Modern Uranium Mining Introduction Producing uranium in a safe and environmentally responsible manner is not only important to the producers and consumers of the product, but also to society at large. Given expectations of growth in nuclear generating capacity and associated uranium demand in the coming decades – particularly in the developing world – enhancing awareness of leading practice in uranium mining is important. This extended summary of the report Managing Environmental and Health Impacts of Uranium Mining provides a brief outline of the driving forces behind the significant evolution of uranium mining practices from the time that uranium was first mined for military purposes until today. Uranium mining remains controversial principally because of legacy environmental and health issues created during the early phase of the industry. Today, uranium mining is conducted under significantly different circumstances and is now the most regulated and one of the safest forms of mining in the world. The report compares historic uranium mining practices with leading practices in the modern era, and provides an overview of the considerable evolution of regulations and mining practices that have occurred in the last few decades. Case studies of past and current practices are included to highlight these developments and to contrast the outcomes of historic and modern practices. With over 430 reactors operational worldwide at the end of 2013, more than 70 under construction and many more under consideration, providing fuel for these long-lived facilities will be essential for the uninterrupted generation of significant amounts of baseload electricity for decades to come.
    [Show full text]
  • P-05-837 Green Energy for the Wellbeing of Future Generations in Wales – Correspondence from the Petitioner to the Committee, 01.10.18
    P-05-837 Green Energy for the Wellbeing of Future Generations in Wales – Correspondence from the Petitioner to the Committee, 01.10.18 Dear Kayleigh Further to your email of September 24th and attachment I attach our response to the correspondence from the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs in line with your deadline of October 2nd for the Petitions Committee meeting on October 9th. Most of the evidence backing our response is outlined under the appropriate section in the attachment but I also attach a further document which to date has not yet been published backing our arguments about uranium mining. The Author is Pete Roche who has prepared the article for Greenpeace International . As you can see it is a complex topic and we would be delighted to attend any future Meetings of the Petitions Committee to present our points in more and illustrative detail. We have kept to the 4 page outline as requested but would be happy to elaborate further . Please confirm you have received and can open both attachments Thank you for your support and I look forward to further information about the process in due course Yours sincerely Mag Richards (Secretariat to Welsh Anti Nuclear Alliance) https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.wana.wales&amp;data =02%7C01%7CSeneddPetitions%40Assembly.Wales%7Ccbdcdfe58b514fd5b58c08d6 277b2f1b%7C38dc5129340c45148a044e8ef2771564%7C1%7C0%7C63673980840 9606583&amp;sdata=Lx3lXzeOEqjrhhI7Gxnx2kGX3X0LtlG7gPVjOitKdqc%3D&amp;r eserved=0 PO Box 90. Llandrindod Wells. Powys LD1 9BP [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for the URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REMEDIAL ACTION GROUND WATER PROJECT Volume I
    DOE/EIS-0198 FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REMEDIAL ACTION GROUND WATER PROJECT Volume I October 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 ALTERNATIVES 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 5.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 6.0 SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 7.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 8.0 REFERENCES 9.0 GLOSSARY 10.0 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 11.0 PREPARERS OF THE FINAL PEIS 12.0 ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED DURING PEIS PREPARATION 13.0 AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS RECEIVING COPIES OF THE PEIS Appendices Appendix A - Comments and Responses Appendix B (electroic copy is unavilable) SUMMARY This programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) was prepared for the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Ground Water Project to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This PEIS provides an analysis of the potential impacts of the alternatives and ground water compliance strategies as well as potential cumulative impacts. On November 8, 1978, Congress enacted the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) of 1978, Public Law, codified at 42 USC '7901 et seq. Congress found that uranium mill tailings ". may pose a potential and significant radiation health hazard to the public, and that every reasonable effort should be made to provide for stabilization, disposal, and control in a safe, and environmentally sound manner of such tailings in order to prevent or minimize other environmental hazards from such tailings." Congress authorized the Secretary of Energy to designate inactive uranium processing sites for remedial action by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxicological Profile for Uranium
    URANIUM 273 5. PRODUCTION, IMPORT/EXPORT, USE, AND DISPOSAL 5.1 PRODUCTION No information is available in the TRI database on facilities that manufacture or process uranium, because this chemical is not required to be reported under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986) (EPA 1998a). Uranium is present in the earth’s crust at approximately 3 ppm (2 pCi/g) (Clark et al. 2006; du Preez 1989; WNA 2011). Of the more than 100 uranium ores, the primary (brannerite, carnotite, coffinite, davidite, pitchblende, thucholite, uraninite) and secondary (tobernite, autunite, tyuyamunite) are the main ores of commercial interest. The main ores are described in Table 5-1. The most economically attractive uranium ores have uranium concentrations >1,000 ppm (700 pCi/g) (Clayton and Clayton 1981; Weigel 1983; WNA 2011). In the United States, the major ore deposits are located in Colorado, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Texas (EPA 1985a). The steps necessary to produce uranium for its various uses include mining, milling, conversion to uranium hexafluoride (UF6), enrichment, reduction to metal or oxidation to uranium oxide, and fabrication into the desired shape. The steps for preparing commercial reactor grade, submarine reactor grade, or weapons-grade uranium are the same, except the last two require a more aggressive enrichment process. Depleted uranium metal is produced by reducing the depleted uranium hexafluoride byproduct. Conventional fabrication methods are used to configure the uranium for specific uses, such as rectangular solid blocks for helicopter rotor counterbalances and parabolic or cylindrical solids for military depleted uranium projectiles.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of the Western Slope
    ~~ MESco,A STATE '-"'~G'-"'~ -- JOURNAL OF THE WESTERN SLOPE VOLUME 8, NO. 1 WINTER 1993 NEW IIIEXICO URANIU". MI LLS in I~ ' FOUR CORNERS AREA ~ "" •• "'" ~ "L • •. " •. $ . , ........ ~- JOURNAL OF THE WESTERN SLOPE is published quarterly by two student organizations at Mesa State College: the Mesa State College Historical Society and the A1pha-Gamma-Epsilon Chapter of Phi Alpha Theta. Annual subscriptions are $ I O. ISingle copies are available by contacting the editors of the Journal.) Retailers are encouraged to wrlte for prices. Address subscriptions and orders for back issues to: Mesa State College Journal of the Western Slope P.O. Box 2647 Grand Junction, CO 8 1502 GUIDEUNES FOR CONTRIBUTORS, ~ purpose: of THE JOURf'VoL. OF THE 'W'ESTERN SlOPE is to MCourage scholarly sW<tj of CoIorado's western Slope. ~ prirM!y pis to pre'SeIVe and record ~ hIstoty: however, iIfticIes on antlYopoiogy. economics. governrnent. natural histoIy. and sociology 'Will be considefed. ~ip is open to anyone >Mlo wishes to submit oOgi"la1 and scholarly material about the Westem SIopIe. The editor> encourage ~ of inquily from prospective authors. send materials and ~en; 10 THE JOt..IR~ Of THE ~mRN SLOPE. Mesa College. P.O. Box 2647. Grand Junction. CO 8 1502. I ) ConlIibutors must send two copieS of articles. DO NOT SEND THE ORIGINAL Editors 'Will not ren-n manuscripts. Material ~ be typed, double spaced (inCk.lding footnotes), and footnoted. The editors v.tI glYe preference to submissions of about 25 pages. 2) NDN the editors 60 clays to r~ manuscripls. cung this trne, the editors ask that )'OU not submit the anIde to anothef pubIstIef.
    [Show full text]