Generic Environmental Impact Statement And Proposed Regulations On United States Uranium Milling Industry

1. INTRODUCTION In April 1979, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) on Uranium Milling (NUREG-0511) for public comment. While the GEIS is a broad environmental impact assessment of the U.S. uranium milling industry as a whole, its primary focus is on the issue of uranium mill tailings disposal and long term isolation. In August of 1979, proposed regulations (U.S. Federal Register Notice 44FR50012), incorporating both conclusions of the GEIS and provisions of recent U.S. legislation on uranium mill tailings (Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978--UMTRCA), were also issued for public comment. This paper (1) briefly reviews the major conclusions of the draft GEIS, (2) summarizes the major elements and rationale of the associated, proposed regulations, and (3) reviews some of the major issues raised during the public comment period and changes which the NRC staff expects will be made in finalizing the GEIS and regulations. The risk in summarizing a document of such broad scope and complexity as the GEIS is that the depth of evaluation and the full technical bases for conclusions reached may not be adequately conveyed. Recognizing this, those Sections of the draft GEIS where a more complete discussion of the issues is presented are parenthetically noted in this paper in order to facilitate location of additional background and supporting material. 2. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS In the GEIS, a full range of tailings disposal alternatives was considered. These alternatives ranged from the past practice of doing little or nothing to control tailings, to advanced treatment alternatives such as nitric acid leaching to increase removal of radioactive elements and fixation of tailings in cement or asphalt. Our broad conclusions were: -Any alternative which results in the need for ongoing, active maintenance to assure long term containment, is unacceptable. (12.3.2.1) -Advanced treatment alternatives are unwarranted since they offer uncertain incremental benefits yet involve costs which may be as much as an order of magnitude greater than costs associated with acceptable alternatives. In addition, the advanced treatment