[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 17, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13239-13241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6454]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 40-2259]
Pathfinder Mines Corporation
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final finding of no significant impact notice of opportunity
for hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) proposes to amend NRC Source Material License SUA-672,
approving Pathfinder Mines Corporation's (PMC's ``no action'' proposal
on cleanup of Reid Draw located downgradient of the Lucky Mc tailings
system at Gas Hills, Wyoming. This license currently authorizes PMC to
possess byproduct material in the form of uranium waste tailings
generated by the licensee's milling operations at the site. In
accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51, an Environmental
Assessment (EA) was performed by the NRC staff in support of its review
of PMC's Environmental Report (ER) on the status of Reid Draw. The
conclusion of the Environmental Assessment is a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) of ``no action'' proposal on cleanup of Reid
Draw.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
By its letter dated August 28, 1998, PMC submitted an ER on the
status of radiological contamination of Reid Draw. The draw is
downgradient of the Lucky Mc tailings system at Gas Hills, Wyoming. PMC
presented three action alternatives in the ER, and requested the NRC
concurrence on its proposed ``no action'' alternative.
Reid Draw developed as a result of surface water erosion in the
general area of the current Lucky Mc uranium mill site and portions of
the uranium mine site that lie further to the south. Upon developing
the mill, the mill tailings management structures were built at the
head of Reid Draw. In the early days of mill operation, there was only
one embankment, the No. 1 solid tailings dam. It served as the sole
tailings storage facility from the inception of milling in 1958 until
1960 when the No. 2 dam was constructed. A review of early company
records indicates that excess tailings solution was routinely
discharged down Reid Draw from the No. 1 dam until June 1, 1960, when
the No. 2 dam was commissioned. Apparently, this discharge was
considered acceptable and normal practice in those days since the site
was subject to Atomic Energy Commission inspections during the
timeframe of interest. The furthest down-gradient embankment in the
tailings system, the No. 4 dam was constructed in 1961.
Reid Draw is subject to only intermittent flows. However, a period
of unusually rainy weather in June 1963 culminated with a protracted
storm on June 15. The No. 4 solution pond capacity had been taxed due
to the earlier precipitation, and the three inches of rain on June 15
proved too much for the system. Out of concern for the integrity of the
No. 4 dam in the imminent event of an uncontrolled overtopping, the
decision was made to cut a relief overflow, allowing some of the
impounded water to escape. The licensee documentation at the time
indicates that an estimated 23 million gallons of water were released.
It should
[[Page 13240]]
be noted that this released water was significantly diluted due to the
precipitation runoff.
The early releases and the single No. 4 dam breach event account at
least in part for the levels of radionuclides found in Reid Draw at the
present time. It is also likely that there is a natural contribution to
the radionuclide levels in Reid Draw due to the fact that Reid Draw
heads at the outcrop of a naturally mineralized area. It is reasonable
to hypothesize that the erosion forces that created Reid Draw over time
carried some of this mineralization down the draw. Since the controlled
release during June 1963, there have been no other releases of tailings
solutions to Reid Draw.
The No. 4 dam underwent a major reconstruction during 1980-1981
that entailed excavation down to competent Cody Shale in order to key
the dam into impermeable material, and the overall size of the dam was
expanded greatly. There is no evidence of ground-water impacts from
seepage through the reconstructed dam, based upon the monitoring data
from the piezometers, and the monitoring of water quality in the
immediately down-gradient point of compliance well R-2 located in Reid
Draw.
The Reid Draw gamma surveys conducted down-gradient from tailings
dam No. 4 and beyond Reid Reservoir, located on the draw owned by Philp
Sheep Company, indicate that the measurable contamination terminates
just above Reid Reservoir. Reid Reservoir is some 3,000 meters (1.9
miles) down the draw from the toe of No. 4 dam. The reservoir existed
prior to any up-gradient milling activity.
Additionally, radionuclide analysis of surface water and a sample
of water taken from Reid Reservoir indicate that the concentrations are
well within the NRC effluent water concentration limits for
radionuclides, as specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2.
Cleanup criteria for off-pile areas of uranium mill sites are specified
in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Technical Criteria.
Summary of the Environmental Assessment
In accordance with 10 CFR Part 51, Licensing and Regulatory Policy
Procedures for Environmental Protection, the NRC staff performed an
appraisal of the environmental impacts associated with the ``no
action'' proposal on cleanup of Reid Draw. In conducting its appraisal,
the NRC staff considered the following information: (1) PMC's ER on
remediation of Reid Draw, and its subsequent submittal providing
additional information and revised pages to the ER; (2) results of NRC
staff site visits and inspections of the facility; and (3) consultation
with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Bureau of Land
Management, and Philp Sheep Company. The technical aspects of the
proposal will be discussed separately in a Technical Evaluation Report
(TER) that will accompany the final agency licensing action.
The results of the staff's appraisal are documented in an EA placed
in the docket file. Based on its review, the NRC staff has concluded
that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the
``no action'' proposal.
Conclusions
The NRC staff has examined actual and potential impacts associated
with PMC's ``no action'' proposal on cleanup of Reid Draw, and has
determined that authorizing implementation of the ``no action''
proposal will not have long-term detrimental impacts on the
environment. The following statements summarize the conclusions
resulting from the staff's environmental assessment, and support the
FONSI:
(1) Present and potential risks were assessed. The NRC staff
determined that the risk factors for health and environmental
hazards are insignificant in the licensee proposed ``no action''
alternative; and
(2) Remediation would cause irreversible damage to the current,
very stable, environment of Reid Draw.
Because the staff has determined that there will be no significant
impacts associated with approval of the ``no action'' proposal, there
can be no disproportionally high and adverse effects or impacts on
minority and low-income populations. Consequently, further evaluation
of Environmental Justice concerns, as outlined in Executive Order 12898
and NRC's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Policy and
Procedures Letter 1-50, Revision 1, is not warranted.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
The proposed action is to amend NRC Source Material License SUA-672
authorizing PMC to implement ``no action'' proposal on cleanup of Reid
Draw, as requested by PMC. Therefore, the principal alternatives
available to NRC are to:
(1) Approve the licensee's ``no action'' alternative, as
proposed; or (2) Amend the license with such additional conditions
as are considered necessary or appropriate to protect public health
and safety and the environment; or (3) Deny the licensee's request.
Based on its review, the NRC staff has concluded that the
environmental impacts associated with the ``no action'' proposal on
cleanup of Reid Draw do not warrant either the limiting of PMC's future
operations or the denial of the licensee's request. Additionally, in
the TER for this action, the staff will document its evaluation of the
licensee's proposal with respect to the criteria for cleanup of off-
pile areas of uranium mill sites as specified in 10 CFR Part 40,
Appendix A. Therefore, the staff considers that Alternative 1 is the
appropriate alternative for selection.
Finding of No Significant Impact
The NRC staff has prepared an EA for the ``no action'' proposal on
cleanup of Reid Draw. On the basis of this assessment, the NRC staff
has concluded that the environmental impacts that may result from the
``no action'' proposal would not be significant and, therefore,
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not warranted.
The EA and other related documents are available for public
inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room, in the Gelman
Building, 2120 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20555.
Notice of Opportunity for Hearing
The NRC hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding on an
application for a licensing action falling within the scope of Subpart
L, ``Informal Hearing Procedures for Adjudications in Materials and
Operators Licensing Proceedings,'' of the Commission's Rules of
Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders in
10 CFR Part 2 (54 FR 8269). Pursuant to Sec. 2.1205(a), any person
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding may file a request
for a hearing. In accordance with Sec. 2.1205(c), a request for a
hearing must be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of
publication of this Federal Register notice. The request for a hearing
must be filed with the Office of the Secretary either:
(1) By delivery to the Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff of the
Office of the Secretary at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, MD 20852; or
(2) By mail or telegram addressed to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff.
Each request for a hearing must also be served by delivering it
personally or by mail to:
(1) The applicant, Pathfinder Mines Corporation, 935 Pendell
Boulevard, P.O. Box 730, Mills, Wyoming 82644, Attention: Tom
Hardgrove; and
[[Page 13241]]
(2) The NRC staff, by delivery to the Executive Director of
Operations, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD
20852, or by mail addressed to the Executive Director for Operations,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
In addition to meeting other applicable requirements of 10 CFR Part
2 of the Commission's regulations, a request for a hearing filed by a
person other than an applicant must describe in detail:
(1) the interest of the requestor in the proceeding;
(2) how that interest may be affected by the results of the
proceeding, including the reasons why the requestor should be permitted
a hearing, with particular reference to the factors set out in
Sec. 2.1205(g);
(3) the requestor's areas of concern about the licensing activity
that is the subject matter of the proceeding; and
(4) the circumstances establishing that the request for a hearing
is timely in accordance with Sec. 2.1205(c).
The request must also set forth the specific aspect or aspects of
the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes a
hearing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mohammad Haque, Uranium Recovery
Branch, Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T7-J8,
Washington, D.C. 20555. Telephone 301/415-6640.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of March 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
N. King Stablein,
Acting Chief, Uranium Recovery Branch, Division of Waste Management,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 99-6454 Filed 3-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P