« PreviousContinue »
1/ Navajo Reservation. 2/ Being evaluated for tailings processing or residual values. 3 And Successor.
We have not yet received the documents you promised to furnish us in your June 20 response to our question no. 14. Please provide them.
Documents promised in our June 20 response are being provided.
Please explain to us why section 5(h) of H.R. 12535 is necessary.
We agree that section 5(h) of H.R. 12535 is not essential.
Section 5(8) requires that the State designate disposal sites and have ownership of the residual material and "retain ownership of the land on which they are located."
(a) What if a suitable disposal site does not exist in a State? Where
would these materials be deposited and who would own and control
Do you intend that the States retain the site and materials
Should not the sites be Federally owned or at least licensed by the NRC?
Could not this provision result in multiple disposal sites which may cause future problems?
If the materials are removed to a disposal site, what will be done at that site to prevent future adverse environmental and health effects?
As a practical matter, suitable disposal sites do exist in the eight
It is our intention that the State be required to retain the disposal
In the event the State failed to perform in accordance with its
Federal ownership is a viable alternative to State ownership. However, we favor the latter. Licensing by NRC does not provide an effective control method for an inactive site. The only enforcement mechanism offered by a license is the threat of its cancellation, which has little significance for a shutdown site.
If the disposal sites are properly selected, they should not cause future problems, and can result in a smaller number of sites than presently exist. As an example, one option examined in Colorado was the removal of tailings from two sites in Rifle and one in Grand Junction to a single disposal site.
The action to be taken at a disposal site to prevent future adverse
As these reports indicate, the results to be achieved depend on a
In reply to our question 2(a), you estimate the total costs of
Please provide your estimates of the cost of each of the options
In our estimates the $126 million represents the sum of the high
The estimates include no escalation figure. They represent
The estimate of the cost of each of the options in the Ford,
Enclosed is a copy of a July 10, 1978, letter we received from the Union Carbide Corporation. Attached to that letter is a 1966 "Joint Federal Agency Position Regarding Control of Uranium Mill Tailings" which clearly states that "the responsibility" for these piles rests with the "individual mill owners." It also states obtaining and enforcing plans to contain and stabilize the piles "should rest initially with the states concerned.'