DRC-2005-001221 - 0901a068809be205

NI TJC INTERNATIONAL UMNIUM (USA) CORPOMTION
January 4,2006
YIA FACSIMILE AND US MAIL
Dane L. Finerfrock, Executive Secretary
Utah Radiation Control Board
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
168 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144810
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4810
Re: Request by Sarah Fields for Clarification of Certain Definitions Applicable to
Alternate Feed Materials
Dear Mr. Finerfrock:
We refer to your email of Decemb er 27 , 2005 , with attached request from Ms. Sarah Fields for
clarification of certain definitions of "altemate feed material" in Utah Code Annotated ("UCA")
1 9-3- I 05 and 59-24-102.
In sum, the definition of "alternate feed material" in UCA 59-24-102 was adopted for the limited
purpose of defining what types of materials are subject to taxation in the State of Utah and not
for the broader pu{pose of determining the tlpes of alternate feed materials that may be
processed at a uranium mill or the jurisdiction over such processing. UCA 19-3-105 has never
applied to uranium mills, and the reference to the definition of altemate feed materials in that
section is only for the purposes of clarifying that UCA 19-3-105 does not apply to uranium mills.
The exclusion of NORM from the definition of "alternate feed material" under UCA 59-24-102
was for the purposes of excluding those types of materials from the imposition of the State tax,
and does not in any way impact the types of materials that may be processed at a uranium mill.
Our more detailed analysis is as follows:
1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
1 . I . Prior to the enactment of House Bill 145 in the 2004 Legislative Session, and prior to the
State of Utah becoming an Agreement State for uranium mills in August, 2004, UCA 19-3-105
did not refer to altemate feed materials or uranium mills and did not define the term "radioactive
waste", although it did contain a definition of "low level radioactive waste". It was well
understood that uranium mills process "ores", and do not directly dispose of or treat "wastes,"
and that uranium mills were not subject to the State radioactive waste dispopal facility licensing
Tel"; 303 628 7798
Far 303 3E941Us
1050 Sernteenth 5t" Suite 950
DErnrcf, Colorado, UqA 80265
info0intluranium.rom
rrrmmtlnduraniumrorn
requirements under UCA 19-3-105, but were subject to licensing under the Atomic Energy Act,
as amended, and, at that time, to the regulations under l0 CFR Part 40 and Appendix A thereto.
1.2. In August 2004, the State of Utah became an Agreement State for the regulation of
uranium mills, and, as provided by the Atomic Energy Act, the State became the administrative
agency for the federal program by adopting State statutes and regulations. Under its authority in
UCA 19-3-104 (4) and l9-3-104 (8) the State of Utah Radiation Control Board adopted the rules
in Utah Adminishative Code R3l3-24 and other rules to meet the requirements of federal law
(under the Atomic Energy Act) relating to radiation control to ensure the radiation control
program under UAC l9-3-104 qualified to maintain primacy from the federal government.
These rules implement the radiation protection program required by the Atomic Energy Act and
replaced the rules in 10 CFR Part 40 and other applicable federal regulations (many of which
were incorporated by reference into the State regulations).
1.3. Because Section 83 of the Atomic Energy Act requires that title to uranium mill tailings
be transferred to the United States Department of Energy or to the State as 1le.(2) blproduct
material prior to license termination, it has always been considered paramount that the tailings
created by uranium mill processing activities qualiff as 1le.(2) byproduct material, so that title
to the tailings will ultimately be transferred to this govemmental custodian.
1.4. Section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act defines byproduct material as "the tailings or
wastes produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium or thorium from any ore
processed primarily for its source material content". Hence, any material that is processed at a
uranium mill must be an "ore" in order for the resulting tailings to qualify as l1e.(2) byproduct
material.
1.5. Neither the Atomic Energy Act nor applicable State statutes or regulations contain a
definition of "ore"l. However, for the prrposo of processing alternate feid materials at uranium
mills, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") staff adopted the following
definition of ore inits Interim Position and Guidance on the (Jse of tlranium Mill Feed Material
Other Than Natural Ores (November 30, 2000) (the "Alternate Feed Guidance"):
Ore is a natural or native matter that may be mined and treated for the
extraction of any of its constituents or any other matter from which source
material is extracted in a licensed uranium or thorium mill.
The Alternate Feed Guidance also sets out certain other criteriathatmust be satisfied before an
altemate feed material may be processed at a uranium mill as an ore, the tailings of which are
classified as I le.(2) blproduct material under the Atomic Energy Act.
1.6. Contrary to Ms. Field's assertion, these provisions of the Atomic Energy Act and the
Alternate Feed Guidance provide a definition of "alternate feed material" under the Atomic
Energy Act, as confirmed by administrative decision of the NRC. This is the definition that
I Although l0 CFR 40.13(b) does refer to 'hnrefined or unprocessed ore", which implicitly acknowledges that a
category ofrefined or processed ore also exists.
'lr.JC
governs the types of alternate feed materials that may be processed at a uranium mill in the State
of Utah.
1.7. The key point is that the tlpes of altemate feed materials that may be processed at
uranium mills and the jurisdiction over such processing is well established. The provisions of
the Atomic Energy Act and the Altemate Feed Guidance, as confirmed by the NRC define the
tlpes of altemate feed materials that may be processed at uranium mills. As a result, all alternate
feed materials must be "ores", not wastes, in order to create tailings that are classified as I le.(2)
blproduct material, and, as such, the requirements of UCA 19-3-105, applicable to waste
disposal facilities, do not apply to uranium mills.
2. IMPOSITION OF UTAII RADIOACTIVE WASTE TAX
2.1. tn 2003, the State of Utah imposed a tax on radioactive waste facilities. For the
purposes of the tax, alternate feed materials were included in the definition of "radioactive
waste", and uranium mills were included under the definition of "radioactive waste facility''.
The inclusion of altemate feed materials and uranium mills in these definitions for the purposes
of this tax did not alter the types of alternate feed materials that may be processed by uranium
mills under the Atomic Energy Act, nor give the State jurisdiction over the regulation of altemate
feed material processing at uranium mills under UCA 19-3-105.
2.2. The inclusion of the definition of "alternate feed material" in UCA 59-24-102 and the
inclusion of uranium mills as "radioactive waste facilities" was solely for the purpose of defining
the types of materials and facilities that are subject to this tax, and for no other purpose. The
adoption of these taxation provisions did not alter or affect the types of alternate feed materials
that may be processed by uranium mills under the Atomic Energy Act or the jurisdiction over
regulation of such materials, or the previous interpretation of the application of UCA 19-3.
3. HOUSE BILL 145
3.1. In order to make it clear that uranium mills are not subject to the provisions of UCA 19-
3-105, given that uranium mills were included as'tadioactive waste facilities" under UCA 59-
24-102 for purposes of the tax,paragraph 1 (c) (ii) was added to UCA 19-3-105 to specifically
exclude uranium mills from the jurisdiction of UCA 19-3-105. Because UCA 59-24-102 is the
only place where uranium mills are considered radioactive waste facilities, by virtue of
processing altemate feed materials, the same definition of "altemate feed materials" was used to
"undo" any implication suggested by UCA 59-24-102 that uranium mills may be considered
radioactive waste facilities under UCA 19-3-105.
3.2. As UCA 19-3-105 1(c)(ii) was merely added to clarify that UCA l9-3-105 does not
apply to uranium mills, any deficiency in the definition of "altemate feed materials" in UCA 59-
24-102 does not imply that UCA 19-3-105 should apply to any other processing activities at
uranium mills, and does not impact in any manner the types of materials that may be processed at
a uranium mill under the Atomic Energy Act and Utah Administrative Code R 313-24.
.IUC
4.CONCLUSIONS
From this analysis, the following conclusions may be drawn:
4.1. The types of alternate feed materials that may be processed at a uranium mill are
governed by the Atomic Energy Act and the Alternate Feed Guidance, as approved by the NRC
and by Utah Administrative Code R 313-24, and not by UCA 19-3-105.
4.2. The definition of "altemate feed materials" and the inclusion of uranium mills under the
definition of "radioactive waste facilities" in UCA 59-24-102 is solely for the purposes of the
imposition of a State tax, and does not affect the types of materials that may be processed at a
uranium mill.
4.3. The exclusion of NORM from the definition of "altemate feed material" under UCA 59-
24-102 was for the purposes of excluding those types of materials from the imposition of the
State tax, and does not in any way impact the types of materials that may be processed at a
uranium mill.
4.4. The fact that the State of Utah Legislature has chosen to exclude NORM having greater
than 15 pCi/gRa-226 from the State tax has no bearing on whether or not materials with greater
than l5pCilgRa-226 may be processed at uranium mills as altemate feed materials. In fact, all
conventionally mined ores and most altemate feed materials processed at the White Mesa Mill to
date have had greater than l5 pCilgRa-226.
4.5. Paragraph 1 (c) (ii) of UCA l9-3-105 was added to confirm that the provisions of UCA
19-3-105 do not apply to uranium mills.
If you require any further information or would like to discuss the foregoing, please contact me
at your convenience.
cc:Ron Hochstein
Harold Roberts
David Bird, Parsons, Behle and Latimer
ti bouyff4. Fry$enlund
Viie Presiderit and General Counsel
'lr.JC
t.JON M. HIJNTSMAN, JR.
Govemor
GARY HERBERT
Lieutenant Governor
Dqr
State of Utah
Department of
Environmental Quality
Dianne R. Nielson, Ph.D.
Executive Director
DIVISION OFRADIATION
CONTROL
Dane L. Finerfrock
Director
December 28,2005
Sarah M. Fields
P.O. Box 143
Moab, Utah 84532
Dear Ms. Fields,
Enclosed, please find the Division of Radiation Control's response to part one of your
December 23, 2005 GMMA request. By now, you should have received an email from Dean
Henderson regarding part two of that request. If this is not the case, please call Dean at
[phone] for information.
Sincerely,
Shaun J. Buttars, MPA
Records Manager
Utah Division of Radiation Control
CC: Finefrocl! Dane
Henderson, Dean
168 North 1950 West. PO Box 144850. Salt kke Cily, UT 841 14-4850. phone [phone]. fax [phone]
T.D.D. (801 ) 5364414 . www.deq.utah. gov
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT
REQUEST TO RECEIVE AND PROCESS
ALTERNATE FEED MATERIAL FROM FMRI, INC
LICENSE NO.: UT 1900479
LICENSEE: lnternationalUranium(IUSA)Corporation
FACILITY: White Mesa Uranium Mill
DATE:March 7,2OO5
TECHNICAL APPROVALS: Dane Finerfrock -- Director, Division of Radiation Control
Loren Morton -- Geotechnical Section Manager
John Hultquist, - Low LevelWaste/Uranium Mills Health
Physics Section Manager
TECHNICAL REVIEWERS: Jonathan Cook - Environmental Engineer
Chris M. Hiaring - Environmental Scientist
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
We have reviewed lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation's (IUSA's) Iicense
amendment application dated March 7, 2OO5, supplemented by letter dated April 1 ,
2005, to amend its Utah Material License UT 1900479, to allow its White Mesa Uranium
Mill near Blanding, Utah, to receive and process up to 32,000 dry tons of Uranium
Material. These materials would be used as "alternate feed material". FMRI estimates
that the total volume of Uranium Material is only expected to be approximately 16,000
dry tons (of which approximalely 45% is expected to be from Pond 2 and surrounding
areas and approximately 55% is expected to be from Pond 3 and surrounding areas).
However since preliminary estimates could increase by up to approximately 100% during
the removal process, the approval of up to 32,000 dry tons of Uranium Material is
requested to ensure that all the Uranium Material is covered by this Amendment.
We have reviewed IUSA's request using the requirements as codified in the Radiation
Control Act, Utah Code Title 19 Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rules R313; the Code of
Federal Regulations, NRC guidance documents and the IUSA license application, as
amended.
1. DESCRIPTION OF LICENSEE'S AMENDMENT REOUEST
From 1960 to 1989, Fansteel, lnc. ("Fansteel") processed natural ores for recovery of tantalum and
niobium, at the Muskogee facility. FMRI is a subsidiary of Fansteel.
Before it was shut down in 1989, the Muskogee facility purchased tantalum ore and tin slag from
around the world. This feed material was leached in concentrated hydrofluoric acid and sulfuric
acid, the tantalum and niobium was dissolved in the solution and the insoluble fluoride compounds
such as thorium, radium and uranium remained behind in the solids. These solids were filtered and
collected in Ponds 2 and 3. The leached solids sent to Ponds 2 and 3 were highly variable and
contained on average approximately 0.8% tantalum (Ta) and O.17o/o UsOe. The variability was
related to the leach efficiency of tantalum at that time as seen by the swings in tantalum
concentration throughout the ponds. The digestion step consisted of concentrated hydrofluoric acid
and some sulfuric acid. The solids in ponds 2 and 3 consist mainly of the residual metal impurities in
the fluoride form.
FMRI estimates that the total volume of Uranium Material is expected to be approximately 16,000
dry tons (of which approximalely 45"/" is expected to be from Pond 2 and surrounding areas and
approximately 55% is expected to be from Pond 3 and surrounding areas). According to FMRI
personnel, and based on IUSA's past experience with alternate feed materials in similar situations,
this preliminary estimate could increase by up to approximately 100% during the removal process.
Therefore, this request for Amendment is for approval of up to 32,000 dry tons of Uranium Material,
to ensure that all the Uranium Material is covered by this Amendment.
2. TECHNICAL EVALUATION
The request ahs been reviewed in accordance with UAC R313, NRC staff guidance entitled,
"Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Material Other Than Natural Ores" provided in the NRC
Regulatory lssue Summary 2000-23, and 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A requirements. The NRC
guidance "Alternate Feed Guidance"
The following determinations were evaluated:A) Whether the feed material qualifies as "ore" as defined in the NRC guidance for alternate
feed;B) Whether the feed material contains listed hazardous waste; andC) Whether the feed material is being processed primarily for its source-material content.
A) Determination of whether the feed material is "ore"
Based on IUSA declarations documented in the June 22,2005 submittal, the FMRI Material
will be processed for the recovery of uranium at the Mill. Based on the uranium content of
the Uranium Material, its physical and chemical characteristics, it is reasonable to expect that
uranium can be recovered from the Uranium Material. As a result, the Uranium Material is an
ore that will be processed primarily for the recovery of source material, and the tailings
resulting from processing the Uranium Material will therefore be 11e.(2) byproduct material
under the definition set out in 10CFR40.4.
B)
2
Under the Alternate Feed Guidance, proposed feed materialfor processing at a licensed mill
that contains a listed hazardous waste is not allowed. The purpose of this is to avoid dual
regulation over the material at the Mill site.
The IUSA amendment request addresses several measures that provide assurance that
listed hazardous wastes will not be processed at the White Mesa mill. First, IUSA conducted
its own review of information on potential listed hazardous wastes in existing FMRI
documents. Second, IUSA also hired an independent consultant to review available
information and perform a separate review for classifying FMRI chemical and physical
properties and determining which may contain listed hazardous waste. The consultant's
analysis was included in the license amendment request.
C) Determination of whether the feed material is beino processed primarilv for its source-
materialcontent
On page 12 of the license amendment request states that you may consider recovering tantalum or
other metals in addition to the uranium product in the alternate feed. ln the NRC memorandum
"Redistribution of NRC Regulatory lssue Summary 2000-23 Recent Changes to Uranium Recovery
Policy: dated April 19, 2001 , the NRC includes criteria for determine whether or not or not a non-
natural ore can be process as an alternate feed. Criteria 3 states:
"... the ore must be processed primarily for its source-material content. lf the only product
produced in the processing of the alternate feed is uranium product, this determination is
satisfied. lf in addition to uranium to uranium product, another material is also produced in
the processing of the ore, the licensee must provide documentation showing that the
uranium product is the primary produced."
The DRC sent a letter wherein we requested that the licensee should also be aware that if
another material is produced with any economic value, the Licensee must notify the DRC of
this changed condition. In the June22,2005 response, the licensee acquiesced to this
condition fulfilling this requirement.
3. Transportation Considerations
The Uranium Material will be shipped as Radioactive LSA ll (low specific activity) Hazardous
Material as defined by DOT regulations.
For the following reasons, it is not expected that transportation impacts associated with the
movement of the Uranium Material by train and truck from the Muskogee facility to the Mill will be
significant
From a radiologic standpoint, the Uranium Material is well within the bounds of other ores and
alternate feed materials licensed for processing at the Mill.
It is not expected any impacts associated with the movement of the Uranium Material by train from
the Muskogee facility and trucked to the Mill will be significant. This is due to1) the small volume of material shipped over a length of time2) Use of poly-lined fabric bags with a 5:1 safety factor3) Large Sea/Lander containers providing secondary containment
Because the Uranium Material is an ore that contains greater than 0.05% source material, the
Uranium Material is exempt from RCRA under 40 CFR 261.4(a)(4). ln addition, based on the site
history, the determinations by FMRI, and the analysis of IUSA's independent expert consultant,
3
l
Jt
IUSA has also concluded that, even if not exempted from RCRA under 40 CFR 261.4(a)(4), on the
application of the Listed Hazardous Waste Protocol, Uranium Materialfrom the Muskogee facility
would not be listed hazardous waste subject to RCM.
References
"Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Material Other Than Natural Ores" .
4
f, A-,rnn,
u,"7?ION M. HIJNTSMAN, JR.
Govemor
GARY HERBERT
Lieutenant Governor
State of Utah
Department of
Environmental Quality
Dianne R. Nielson, Ph.D.
Executive Director
DIVISION OFRADI,ATION
CONTROL
Dane L. Frnerfrock
Director
January 6,2006
Ms. Sarah Fields
P.O. Box 143
Moab, utah84532
Dear Ms. Fields:
I have reviewed your comments received as an email on November 2,2005 and December 22,
2005. You are colrect that the definition of "alternative feed material" in the Radiation Control
statue, UCAI9-3-105 is the same as in the Tax Code definition at UCA 59-24-L02. As you
pointed out, the title of Section, UCA 19-3-105, is "Definitions-Legislative and gubernatorial
approval required for radioactive waste license-Applications for new, renewed or amended
license." The International Uranium (USA) Corporation mill is not a radioactive waste disposal
licensee, as that term is defined under that section. Alternative feed materials and conventional
uranium ore is processed through the IUC mill for uranium recovery, whereas a commercial
disposal operation receives and disposes of the waste. The definition of "alternative feed material"
in Utah Code Annotated, l9-3-105(l)(a) is therefore inapplicable to IUC in any way, as the first
line of subsection (1) makes clear.
UTAH RADIATION CONTROL BOARD
ck, Executive Secretary
Cc:Laura Lockhart, Attorney, Utah Assistant Attorney General
David Frydenlund, International Uranium (USA) Corporation (ruC)
168 North 1950 West . PO Box 144850. Salt Lake City, LrT 84114-4850. phone [phone] . fax [phone]
T.D.D. (801) 536-M14. www.deq.umh.gov
Page I of 1
Craig Jones - Notice of Public Co - LS/0s/08
From: [e-mail]
To: Craig Jones <[e-mail]>Date: lll2l2005 3:16 PM
l*i::3J::1"":l*1,::s""s:**l1gllgg _*"_ __ * _* _ * "_
The Utah Department of Environmental Quality is requesting public comment regarding initial decisions by the Executive
Secretary of the Radiation Control Board (also serves as the Co-Executive Secretary of the Water Quality Board) to
approve a request by the International Uranium (USA) Corporation to amend to Radioactive Source Material License No.
11T1900479 and Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit No. UGW3100O4 for the receipt, storage, and processing of
Fansteel (FMRI) alternate feed material for its uranium content at the White Mesa Uranium Mill, San Juan County, Utufr.
Information about this action is posted at the web link: Mp;1lw_urw,radiatiqucantfol_._ulah.&oyMllJ,S_/lU_eampud+d{
Thank you.
*****x*******xi<***x***x*{<***{<**d<*****xx******{<********************xx****
Do not reply to this message. Any replies you send will not be answered because the administrator of this list server may
not be familiar with the issue.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank e-mail to [e-mail].
file:l/C:\Documents%o2}and%o}}Settings\cionesVocal%o20settines\Temp\GW)00002.HTM l1l2l200s
Using a Relative Source Contribution of 0.8 and the PRG of 22,W pgll gives a value
for a ground water standard of 17,600 ltglL[22,N0 x 0.8] which I would round to 17,W 1tglL.
Pifid q, Recycled PaWr
Loren,
Attached is your draft SER for the FMRI Materials, blacklined to indicate our suggested changes.
ln addition to the blacklined changes, we also propose that the following addltional changes be
made to the SER and Table 1 thereto:
1. Table 1 should be amended by adding three columns: one showing the current
estimated concentration of each parameter in the Mill's tailings; one showing the
estimated concentration of each parameter in the Mill's tailings after processing the
FMRI Materials; and one showing the percentage increase or decrease in the
concentration as a result of the processing. These columns can be taken from Jo
Ann Tischler's Table 2 to Attachment 5 to IUSA's March 8, 2005 license amendment
application. We believe it is important to add these columns so that the reader can
obtain a better understanding of the impact of the FMRI materials on the Mill's
tailings. By just showing the changes in mass, the reader is not able to gain this
understanding. For example, the mass of any constituent will always increase
because adding the mass of a constituent in the FMRI materials to the existing mass
in the Mill's tailings will by definition always increase the total mass in the Mill's
tailings, even if the constituent is at a lower concentration in the FMRI materials than
it currently is in the Mill's tailings. Rather than just showing an increase in the mass
of all constituents, as currently set out in Table 1, by adding these three columns, the
reader can see that in many cases the concentrations will actually decrease or stay
relatively constant. ln addition, the references in Table 1 should be references to
lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation and not references to lnternational Uranium
Corporation. Also, NQ should refer to "Not Quantified", rather than "Not Qualified".
2. IUSA proposes an alternate health-based level ol 22,OOO ug/L for tin. This level is
consistent with the risk-based concentrations (RBCs) and preliminary remedial goals
(PRGs) for tap water that have been developed by EPA Flegions 3, 6, and g, and that
have been used for risk screening by EPA Region I and states within Region 8.
These RBCs and PRGs are published at
htto://www. epa. qov/reg3hwmd/risldh um anlrbc/rbc0405. pdf ,
http://www.epa. gov/reg ion09/waste/sfund/prg/f iles/04protable. pdf ,
http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6pd/rcra c/pd-n/screen.htm. These RBCs and PRGs
are updated regularly and calculated in accordance with EPA's Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund
(http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessmenVrisk superfund.htm ). Relative to the
HBC/PRG o122,000 ug/L for tin, the Minnesota health-based limit of 4,000 ug/L
proposed by the State uses the same reference dose of 0.6 mg/kg/day for ingestion
ol tin. However, the Minnesota value includes additionalconservatism and
uncertainty in the form of a fractional exposure factor (called the Relative Source
Contribution Factor) that attempts to estimate the amount of tin risk from groundwater
ingestion relative to other unspecified exposure pathways. This fractionalexposure
factor of 0.2 is a default value (i.e., it is not site-specific) that may not be applicable to
exposure pathways associated with the Mill. ln other words, the Minnesota standard
assumes that an individual receives 8A/" of the permissible amount of tin from
exposure pathways other than ingestion of groundwater, leaving only 20% of the
permissible level (i.e. 4000 ug/L assuming two liters of water ingested per day)
available from ingestion of groundwater. There is no reason to make this assumption
for users of groundwater near the Mill site. We do not believe this approach is
universally accepted or that it is the approach normally taken by the State of Utah.
The more standard approach adopted by EPA Regions 3, 6 and g would appear to
be more appropriate. As a result, we propose that the GWCLs in Table 2 of the
Groundwater Discharge Permit be based on the 22,OOA ug/L standard for tin and not
the 4,000 ug/L standard.
lf you have any questions or require any further information, please give me a call. I would
suggest that once you have had a chance to review our proposed changes we have a telephone
conference to address any comments or questions you may have on our suggestions. This will
allow us to explain our thinking behind some of our suggestions. Please let me know what works
best for you.
David C. Frydenlund
Vice President and General Counsel
lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation
1050 17th Street, Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.intluranium.com
INrunNnuoNAL OUnnNruu (use)
ConponATroN
Independence Plaza, Suite 950 . 1050 Seventeenth Street . Denver, CO 80265 . 303 628 7798 (main) . 303 38g a125 (fax)
October 4.2005
VIA FAX AND US MAIL
Dane L. Finerfrock, Executive Secretary
Utah Radiation Control Board
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
168 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144810
Salt Lake city, uT 84114-4810
Re: FMRI License Amendment Application, White Mesa Mill
Dear Mr. Finerfiock:
As requested by Dean Henderson, enclosed are originally signed copies of memoranda
dated September 26,2005 from International Uranium (USA) Corporation and Tetra
Tech EM Inc. Unsigned versions of these memoranda were emailed to Loren Morton on
September 27,2005 in connection with the FMRI license amendment application.
Yours t
F-l':h
fl i''"?;; -=
Sla "" ';' .f,
\o.r,$@
d C. Frydenlund
Vice President and General Counsel
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:FMRI Alternate Feed Materials License Amendment - Analvsis of
Parameters
In your email to us of September 21,2005 you proposed that methyl isobutyl
ketone ("MIBK"), antimony, tin and aluminum be added to the White Mesa
Mill's State of utah Groundwater Discharge Permit (the "GWDp"). After further
discussions with you, Dean Henderson and Dane Finerfrock, it was agreed that if
IUSA can demonstrate that there are currently sufficient analog parameters
included in the GWDP that could act as suitable proxies fbr these four parameters,
we would not need to add the four parameters to the GWDP.
We agreed that, in order for a parameter to be a suitable analog for one of the four
parameters mentioned above, the analog parameter would have to satisfy the
following three criteria:
. The analog must already be a groundwater monitoring parameter in the
GWDP. The analog must have a higher concentration in the Mill's tailings, after
processing the FMRI Material, than the parameter for which it will serve
as a proxy; and
o The analog must have a lower Kd value, based on the literature low Kds,
than the parameter for which it will serve as a proxy.
In addressing tl-ris issue, we have based our analysis on data presented by UDEe
in Attachments 7 and 8 of the GWDP Statement of Basis ("SoB") for literature-
low Kd values, and on mass levels presented in Table 2 of Attachment 5 of the
License Amendment Application for the FMRI materials.
Our analysis can be summarized in the following table:
Loren Morton, Utah Department of Environmental
,:;iljffi'"/lh
Septernber 26,2005
Parameter Suggested
Analog
Parameter
Kd Estimated
Current
Mass in Mill
Tailin_gs
(tons)5
Estimated
Mass in
Miil
Tailings
after
Uranium
Material
Processing
(tons)s
Is the
Parameter
Currently a
Groundwater
Monitoring
Parameter in
the GWDP
MIBK 0.123'0.0 23.8 No
MEK 0.015'24.0 24.0 Yes
Antimony 2.0'35.0 354 No
Arsenic 1.0'264.0 268.2 Yes
Tin 4.5',9.0 248.8 No
Zink 0.1 1134.0 1147.4 Yes
Cadn-riurn 1.26 6.0 1894.0 Yes
Aluminum 0.00, g.g*3232.0 5680.0 No
Iron 1 .4'3913.0 4697.0 Yes
l.
2.
4.
5.
Kd value from your email of September 21,2005
DRC estimated Kd value fiom Attachment 8 to the SOB
Lowest Kd value from Attachment 7 to the SOB
Lowest Kd value from literature search performed by Tetratech
(see attached September 26,2005 Tetratech Memo)
Estimated current mass in Mill tailings and estimated mass in Mill
tailings after processing the FMRI Material is from Table 2 of
Attachment 5 to the License Amendment Application
(Memorandum prepared by Jo Ann Tischler)
Kd value from your ernail of Septemb er 27 , 2005, based on
assumption that the Kd for aluminum is the same as the Kd for
thallium. This assumption is not accurate, because thallium
chemistry differs significantly from that of aluminum. A better
literature-low Kd for aluminum is 9.9 L/kg (see attached
September 26, 2005 Tetratech memorandum)
6.
It is evident ll'om the foregoing table that the GWDP currently contains suitable
analog parameters fbr each of the four parameters in question.
There are good geochemical reasons why the analogs proposed above are suitable
proxies for tlre four parameters in question. Please see the attached September 26,
2005 Tetratech memorandum for a short analysis of the geochemical suitability of
each ofthe analogs proposed above.
For these reasons, we submit that there is no need to add any of MIBK, antimony,
tin or aluminum as groundwater monitoring parameters under the GWDP.
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
MEMORANDUM
David C. Frydenlund
Intemational Uranium (USA) Corporation
Mark R. Colsman, P-h.
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
September 26,2005
Geochemical Basis for Analogues of Proposed Additionar Monitoring
Parameters
In response to your request in our meeting on Friday, September 23,2005, this memorandum
presents a brief summary of the geochemical basis for analogues we discussed for new potential
monitoring parameters at the White Mesa Mill. These new parameters were propos"d by the
State of Utah in an email dated September 21,2005, and included methyl isobutyl kitone(MIBK), antimony, tin, and aluminum. Appropriate analogues for each of these parameters are
discussed below.
MIBK
MIBK is a member of the same chemical class (ketones) as a currently monitored chemical,
methyl ethyl ketone (MEK). Neither chemical is used or expected to be produced in significant
quantities by the mill. Any detections of these two compounds would be at similar concentration
levels and ascribed to similar sources (i.e., from trace components of plastics, adhesives, and
resins, or from laboratory contamination). As summarized in the State of Utah's email and in the
Attachments to the Statement of Basis for the mill, literature-derived Kd values for MIBK are
between 5 and l0 times higher than MEK, indicating that it is less mobile (see also TOXNET,
2005). As a representative ketone compound, therefore, MEK would appear to be an appropriate
analogue for MIBK.
Antimony
As a member of the same chemical group in the Periodic Table (Group VA), the chemistry of
antimony is similar to that of arsenic. Both of these elements have similar minimum Kd valuis of
between 1 and 5 ml,/g (Thibault, 1990; Baffelle, 2005), yet antimony has less than one tenth the
abundance of arsenic in rocks and ores (Hem, 1985). Both arsenic and antimony are associated
with deposits of other mined metals such as lead, copper, and silver (TOXNET, 2005). On this
basis, arsenic would appear to be an appropriate analogue for antimony.
Tin
Tin is a member of the same chemical group as lead (Group IVA). Like cadmium and zinc, it
tends to be associated with lead in mineral deposits and ores (TOXNET, 2005). With minimum
reference Kd's of 2.5 to 5 mL/g (Ohio EPA,2005), tin would be expected to have a mobility
similar to cadmium and zinc, and somewhat higher than lead. Whereas all three of these metals
are on the current monitoring list, cadmium and zinc may serve as the best conservative
analogues for tin, because they have similar or slightly lower Kd values.
Aluminum
Aluminum is the third most abundant element in the earth's crust (mean 81,000 mg/kg); it is
ubiquitous in soils and comprises a significant portion of many rock-forming minerals iuch as
clays, micas, and feldspars (Krauskopf, 1979). The State's email of September 2l implied that
thallium could be an analogue for aluminum by assuming a Kd value for aluminum that was the
same as the Kd for thallium. This assumption is not accurate, because as a much larger element
with two stable oxidation states, thallium chemistry differs significantly from that of aluminum.
Thallium compounds tend to be much more soluble in general than the aluminum oxides and
hydroxides anticipated in mill materials. In addition, thallium is a trace metal that is present in
rocks and minerals at much lower concentrations than aluminum.
Aluminum is soluble at neutral pH's of between 5 and 9, but tends to precipitate as hydroxide
species under acid or basic conditions. Few Kd data are available for ah.rminum due to it,s
ubiquitous nature and low human toxicity. However, a generalized Kd of 1500 mllg has been
published by DOE (Baes, 1984), and a more conservative Kd of 9.9 mLlg is published in the
EPA's Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (EPA, 2005). As a similar major component of rocks
and soils, iron has a lower conservative Kd value of 1.4 mLlg(Thibault, 1990; Baes, 1984) and is
expected to be present in mill process streams at concentrations similar to aluminum. Therefore,
iron may serve as a suitable analogue for aluminum, because it is currently on the monitoring list.
If you require any additional information, please call me at 303-312-8883.
References
Baes, c. F., I[, Sharp, R.D., Sjoreen, A. L., and Shor, R. w., 1984. "A Review and Analysis of
Parameters for Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides through
Agriculture." ORNL-5786. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. (Available at
http:/lhomer.ornl.gov/baes/documents. The partition coefficients presented in this reference have
been incorporated in ORNL's Risk Assessment Information System, Chemical Specific Factors,
http ://risk. lsd.ornl. gov/c gi-bin/tox/TOX_select?selecFcsf.)
Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 2005. Multimedia Environmental Pollutant
Assessment system (MEPAS). operated for the U.S. Department of Energy,
http://mepas. pnl. gov/earth/index.html .
Hart, Don, and Don Lush. 2004. "The Chemical Toxicity Potential of CANDU Spent Fuel".
Background Paper 4-4 for the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, Canada. January.
(Available at http://www.nwmo.ca,/Default.aspx?DN:209.199.20.1.-Documents.)
Hem, J.D., 1985. "Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water."Third Edition. U.S. Geological Survey - Water Supply Paper 2254. (Available at
http ://water. us.gs. gov/pubs/wsp/wsp22 5 4/html/pdf.html. )
Krauskopf, 197 9 . "lntr oduction to Geochemistry." McGraw-Hill Company.
Thibault, D. H., M. I. Sheppard, and P. A. Smith. 1990. A Critical Compilation and Review ofDefault Soil Solid/Liquid Partition Coefficients, Kd, for Use in Environmental Assessments.
AECL-I0125, Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited,
Pinawa, Canada.
TOX{ET, 2005. Hazardous Substances Data Bank, Toxicology Data Network, National Library
of Medicine, http://sis.nlm.nih.gov.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2005. Vadose Zone Modeling in RCRA Closure.Department of Hazardous waste Management. January.
hffp://www.epa.state.oh.us/dhwm/pdf/VadoseFinal I 22904.pdf.
U.S. EPA, 2005. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix. http://www..epa.gov/superfund/sites-
/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm.htm.
t
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
PUBLIC NOTICE
OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE 11e.(2) MATERIALS LICENSE UT1900479 AND
GROLJND WATER QUALTTY DISCHARGE PERMTT NO. UGW370004
Purpose of Public Notice
The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is soliciting comments on its
proposal to amend an existing Radioactive Materials License (License) to allow
acceptance and processing of an alternate feedstock material. This proposed License
change is done under the authority of the Utah Radiation Control Act, Section 19-3-108,
Utah Code Annotated and the Uranium Mills and Source Material Mill Tailings Disposal
Facility Rules in the Utah Administrative Code (UAC)R313-24. Concurrently, the DEQ
is proposing to modify an existing Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit (Permit)
under authority of the Utah water Quality Act, Section 19-5-104(1XD, utah code
Annotated 1953, as amended and the utah Administration Code (uAC) R3l7-6.
Licensee and Permittee Information:
NAME: International Uranium (USA) Corporation
MAILING ADDRESS: Independence PlazaSuite 950, 1050 17th Street, Denver,
co 80265
TELEPHONE NUMBER: 303-628-7798
FACILITY LOCATION: Blanding, Utah
LICENSE NO.: W1900479
PERMIT NO.: UGW370004
In August, 2004 the Division of Radiation Control (DRC) became an Agreement State of
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for uranium mills. The DRC has issued
a State Radioactive Materials License (License), and a Ground Water Discharge Permit
(Permit), for the International Uranium (USA) Corporation [IUSA] uranium mill at White
Mesa-
The IUSA submitted a License amendment application by letter dated March 8, 2005 to
amend its State License to receive and process alternate feed material from Fansteel's
FMRI facility located near Muskogee, okalahoma (the "Muskogee Facility"). The
proposed amendment would allow IUSA to receive and process up to 32,000 tons of
alternate feed material from the Muskogee Facility for its uranium content. The FMRI
alternate feed materials are residues resulting from ore processing for the extraction of
tantalum and niobium, i.e. byproducts of FMRI processing operations. The materials
consist of finely graded, dewatered slurry solids with no free liquid. The materials
contain radiological and non-radiological constituents that have a potential to impact
public health and environment. All of these constituents have been evaluated in the
existing License and Permit and appropriate monitoring requirements established. The
Co-Executive Secretary is now requiring additional ground water quality monitoring for
tin, which is known to exist in the FMRI alternate feed material.
A Safety Evaluation Report (SER) has been prepared by DRC staff to explain the details
behind the proposed changes to the existing License and Permit.
Changes to the License include authorization to process the FMRI altemate feed material,
and a limit on the maximum quantity of alternate feed onsite to ensure consistency with
the approved facility surety.
Public comments are invited any time prior to 5:00 pm, Friday, December 2,2005.
Written comments may be directed to the Division of Radiation Control, P.O. 144850,
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850. All comments received will be considered in the
formulation of final determinations to be imposed on the License and Permit. A public
hearing may be held if written requests are received with the first 15 days of this public
comment period that demonstrates significant public interest and substantive issues exist
to warrant holding a hearing.
Further Information
Additional information may be obtained upon request by calling Loren Morton at (801)
536-4262 or via email at [e-mail] or Dean Henderson at [phone] or via
email at [e-mail]. Written requests for information can also be directed to
the aforementioned address. Related documents are available for review during normal
business hours at the Division of Radiation Control, 168 N. 1950 W. Salt Lake City,
Utah. The draft Safety Evaluation Report is also available by contacting the above
mentioned staff.
For those individuals needing special assistance in accordance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act, please contact charlene Lamph at the utah Department of
Environmental Quality, Office of Human Resources at (801) 536-44013, TDD (801) 536-
4414.
Dean Henderson - KD analvsis of FMRI
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Loren,
"David Frydenlund" <davef @ intluranium.com>
"'Loren Morton"' <lmorton @ utah.gov>
9191200511:23:36 AM
KD analysis of FMRItrace metals
Attached is a memorandum prepared by Tetratech, with accompanying Table 1,
which provides a Kd analysis of the trace metals in the FMRI materialsthat
are not included in the Mill's groundwater discharge permit.
Please let me know if you have any questions or require any further
information.
Thanks,
Dave
David C. Frydenlund
Vice President and General Counsel
lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation
1050 17th Street, Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.intluranium.com
CC:<hroberts @ intluranium.com>, <rhochstein @ iniluranium.com>
Dean Henderson -Kd 09 references final.doc
To:
From:
MEMORANDT]M
Harold Roberts
International Uranium (USA) Corporation
Mark R. Colsman, Ph.D.
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
Date: September 9,2005
Subject: Survey of Reference Partition Coefficient Values for Trace Heavy
Metals in Fansteel Metal,Inc. ("FMRI") Uranium Materials
This memorandum describes a review of literature partition coefficient values ("Kd's")
for a group of heavy metals that have been identified in materials from the Fansteel
Metals Muskogee, Oklahoma facility (FMRI) that may be processed at the International
Uranium (USA) Corporation ("ruSA") White Mesa Mill (the "Mill") near Blanding,
Utah. Previous characterization studies identified 38 non-radioactive metals in the FMRI
material. Twenty eight of these metals have:
1. already been identified as present in the Mill's existing tailings, and/or
2. already been identified as required analytical parameters in the Mill's Utah
Department of Environmental Quality ("UDEQ") groundwater permit monitoring
list.
The remaining group of 10 metals includes cerium, hafuium, lanthanum, neodymium,
niobium, praseodymium, scandium, tantalum, tungsten, and yttrium. These metals have
historically been of minimal concern as environmental contaminants that pose significant
risks to human or ecological receptors. However, in response to IUSA's license
amendment request for processing of FMRI material (dated March 7, 2005), the Utah
Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) has required that IUSA consider the
potential groundwater mobility of these metals because they are not currently addressed in
the Mill's groundwater permit. IUSA requested the assistance of Tetra Tech in assessing
the potential mobility of these metals by reviewing available Kd values and
recommending whether or not they should be added as groundwater monitoring
parameters under the Mill's permit.
Tetra Tech's survey of literature Kd values focused on on-line reference materials and
databases of chemical property and environmental fate data, such as those available from
EPA and DOE. Other web-based resources were consulted from the NIH, ATSDR,
Atomic Energy of Canada, and various academic sources (such as the chemical property
databases from CalTech, University of Wisconsin, University of Minnesota, and the
Syracuse Research Corporation). A list of the major resources that were surveyed has
been provided at the end of this memo. These resources served as the starting point for
further investigations of the scientific literature, as possible within the timeframe of the
David C. Frydenlund, ruSA
Jo Ann Tischler, Tetra Tech
REFERENCES
References for Kd's Listed in Table I
Baes, C. F., III, Sharp, R. D., Sjoreen, A. L., and Shor, R. W., 1984. "A Review and
Analysis of Parameters for Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released
Radionuclides through Agriculture." ORNL-5786. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee. (Available at http://homer.ornl.gov/baes/documents. The partition
coefficients presented in this reference have been incorporated in ORNL's Risk
Assessment Information System, Chemical Specific Factors, http://risk.lsd.ornl.gov/cgi-
bin/tox/TOX select?select=csf.)
Hart, Don, and Don Lush. 2002t. "The Chemical Toxicity Potential of CANDU Spent
Fuel". Background Papr 4-4 for the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, Canada.
January.(Available
http://www.nwmo.calDefault.asox ?DN=209, I 99.20, l.Documents.)
Thibault, D. H., M. I. Sheppard, and P. A. Smith. 1990. A Critical Compilation and
Review of Default Soil Solid/Liquid Partition Coefficients, Kd, for Use in Environmental
Assessments. AECL- 1 01 25, Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment, Atomic Energy
of Canada Limited, Pinawa, Canada.
TOXNET Toxicology Data Network, Hazardous Substances Data Bank, 2005. National
Library of Medicine, http://sis.nlm.nih.eov.
Other References with no Kd Information for the Metals of Interest
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2005. Toxicological Profiles, Public
Health Statements, and HazDat Substance Database.
http://atsdr l.arsdr.cdc. gov : 808O/atsdrhome.html .
calrech Library system, chemistry, 2005. Physical Properties Databases and
References. http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm.
Krupka K.M., R.J. Serne, and D.I. Kaplan, 2004. Geochemical Data Package for the
2005 Hanford Integrated Disposal Facility Performance Assessment. PNNL-I3037 Rev.2, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA.
http://www.pnl.eov/main/publications/extemal/+echnical reports/PNNl-13037Rev2.pdf
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2005. Vadose Zone Modeling in RCRAClosure. Department of Hazardous Waste Management. January.
http://www.eoa. state.oh.us/dhwm/-pdf/VadoseFin al I 22904.pdf.
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 2005. Multimedia Environmental Pollutant
Table 'l: Literature Kd Values for FMR|-Related Metals
)omDonenl
Range in FMRI
Uranium Material
lmall ar nnmll
Estimated Average
)onc. in FMRI Uranium
ilaterial amd/L or Dom!
Soil-Water Partition
Coefiicient, ORNL
Iml /aP
Soil-Water Partition
Coefficient, NWMO
/ml /atl
ioil-Water Partitior
Coefticient, Other(mUol
)erium {Cel 1 080-31 600 12.745 850 2r) ()00 q4
lafnium (Hf)672-5.720 3.69s 1.500 2.NO
.anthanum (La)535-9.980 5 557 650 880
{eodvmium (Nd)474-10.000 4.351 650
rliobium (Nb)<1 0-1 0.000 7.270 350 3.300
'raseodvmium (Pr)150-2.O40 937 650 550
lcandium (Sc)287-4.170 2.409 1.orx)
Tantalum (Ta)2.200-51.000 9.1 16 650 1.200
Tunosten (W)A?7-.1' an 3,706 t50 't50 100 s
/ttrium {Y)0.1 9-5.720 3.646 500 1.000
Notes to Table 1:
1. The range in the Uranium Material is based on the RMPR and additional characterization data that has been reviewed.
The estimated average concentration was calculated by using the mean values reported by FMRI for
Ponds 2 and 3.
2. Values from Baes, C.F., lll, Sharp, R.D., Sjoreen, A.L. and Shor, R.W., 1984. 'A Review and Analysis of Parameters
for Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides through Agriculture."
ORNL-5786. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
(Also available at http://risk.lsd.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/to/TOX_select?select=csf .)
3. Values from Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), Canada, 2004. "The Chemical Toxicity Potential
of CANDU Spent Fuel", NWMO Background Paper 4-4. Ref. 631-22904.101 .
http://www.nwmo.calDefault.aspx?DN=209, 1 99,20, l,Documents.
4. Minimum value from Thibault, D. H., M. l. Sheppard, and P. A. Smith. 1990. "A Critical Compilation and Review of
Default Soil Solid/Liquid Partition Coefficients, Kd, for Use in Environmental Assessments." AECL-10125,
Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Pinawa, Canada.
5. Minimum value from TOXNET Database, 2005, National Library of Medicine, http://sis.nlm.nih.gov/ .
From:
To:
Date:
Subiect:
Dave,
Dean Henderson
Frydenlund, David
9121l2OO5 2:26:33 PM
Addional Monitoring Parameters
Attached are the addionalgroundwater monitoring parameters DRC is consklering. Look these
parameters over and in a few days we can talk about them in a conference call.
Thanks,
Dean Henderson
Roberts, Harold
Dean new oarameters.xls
Addional Groundwater Monitoring Parameters
IUC White Mesa Facility Near Blanding, Utah
1' Compared with the Kd lor lead. (Attachment 7 in the Statement of Basis For Uranium Milling Facility At White Mesa, South ol Blanding, Utah)
2. Compared with the Kd ,or thallium. (Attachment 7 in the Statement of Basis n For Uranium Milling Facility At White Mesa, South ol Blanding, Utah)
3. EPA Region 3 Risk Based Concentrations Tap Water.
4. EPA Drinking Water MCL
5. State of Florida Drinking Water Guidelines. (Hazardous Waste Data Base)
6. State of Minnesota Drinking Water Guidelines. (Hazardous Waste Data Base)
7. State ol Califomia Drinking Water MCL. Concentrations of aluminum elfects the neurological system.
8. MIBK = Koc (123) x foc (0.001) = 0.123
9. Assumed concentration based on MEK concentrations. (lnventory from the Request to Amend Radioactive Material
License White Mesa Mill And Environmental Report, Attachment 5, Table 2, March g, 2005.)
10. Low concentrations in historic IUC data ( waste water) suggest Ground Water Quality Standards not exceeded. This data
reinlorces Kd intormation. (Statement ol Basis For Uranium Milling Facility At White Mesa, South of Blancling, Utah)
Kd values from tables in 7 for the Statement of Basis for IUC Groundwater Discharge Permit.
a
SAFETY EVALUATION RE,PORT
FOR THE
TNTERNATTONAL URANrr.lM (USA) CORPORATTON
WHITE MESA URANIIJM MILL
SAN JUAN COIJNTY, UTAH
IN CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO
RADIOACTIVE SOIJRCE MATERIAL LICENSE NO. UTI9OO479 AND
GROIIND WATER QUALITY DTSCHARGE PERMTT NO. UGW370004 FOR
THE
RECEIPT, STORAGE, AND PROCESSING OF FANSTEAL FMRI ALTERNATE
FEED MATERIAL
PREPARED BY:
THE UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ETIVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
November 212005
SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT
FOR THE
FANSTEEL FMRI ALTERNATE FEED MATERIAL
INTERNATIONAL I.]RANII.JM (USA) CORPORATION
WHITE MESA
URANII.]M MILL,
SAN JUAN COI.]NTY, UTAH
Table of Contents Page
1.0 Introduction I
1.1 Backsround and Need for Proposed Action I
1.2 Previous Alternate Feed Proposals 2
1.3 FMRI Materials aJ
1.4 Review Scope 4
2.0 Site Characteristics of the White Mesa Mill Area 5
3.0 Onerations 6
4.0 Environmental Effects 7
4.1 Radioloeical and Non-Radiological Impacts 7
4.2 Surface Water and Groundwater Im 9
4.3 Evaluation of Additional Groundwater Monitoring Compliance
Parameters
10
4.4 Alternatives t4
4.5 Long-Term Impacts t4
_ 4.6 Report Findings r5
5.0 License and Permit 16
5.1 License Amendments t6
5.2 Permit Modifications Proposed t7
6.0 References 18
7.0 Table 20
Attachment 2l
1.0
SAFETY BVALUATION REPORT
FOR THE
FAN STEEL FMRI ALTERNATE FEED MATERIAL
TNTERNATTONAL URANrr.lM (USA) CORPORATION
WHITE MESA
URANIT]M MILL,
sAN JUAN COLINTY, UTAH
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and Need for Proposed Action
'Ihis draft Safety Evaluation Report (SER) is being performed to evaluate the
environmental impacts of the proposal for the White Mesa Uranium Mill to receive and
process alternate feed material from the Fansteel Inc. (Fansteel) FMRI facility located near
Muskogee, Okalahoma (the "Muskogee Facility"). The White Mesa mill site is located in
San Juan County, approximately 5 miles south of Blanding. International Uranium (USA)
Corporation (IUSA) submitted a license amendment application by letter dated March 8,
2005 and supplemented by letters dated April 1 , 2005, June 22, 2005, and July 19, 2005, to
amend its State of Utah Radioactive Radioactive Source Materials License No.
1JT't900479. The proposed amendment would allow IUSA to receive and process up to
32,000 tons of alternate feed material from the Muskogee Facility.
The Muskogee Facility is being remediated and decommissioned under its Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) License. The FMRI materials are residues resulting from
processing ores for the extraction of tantalum and niobium.
The FMRI materials are the byproducts of the FMRI processing operations. The materials
consist of finely graded dewatered slurry solids with no free liquid. The materials contain
residual amounts of tantalum, niobium, and uranium
IUSA is requesting that the material be received and processed for its source material
content. Byproducts from the extraction of source material will be disposed in the mill's
lined tailings cells with a groundwater detection monitoring program. Before the State of
Utah's Agreement State status was formalized, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
approved similar amendment requests in the past for separate alternate feed materials under
this license.
The mill site is licensed by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of
Radiation Control (DRC) under State of Utah Radioactive Materials License No
tIT1900479 to receive and process natural uranium-baring ores including certain specified
alternate feed materials, and to possess byproduct material in the form of uranium waste
tailings and other uranium byproduct waste generated by the licensee's milling operations.
Groundwater quality at the IUSA facility is also regulated by State Groundwater Permit
Number UGW370004 (hereafter Permit). After review of the proposal, the Executive
Secretary has determined it necessary to also modify the Permit in order to better monitor
and protect local ground water quality from possible effects of disposal of the proposed
alternate feed material.
1.2 Previous Alternate Feed Proposals
In the Final Application for Uranium Mills and Mill Tailings made by the State of Utah to
the NRC Office of State and Tribal Affairs, the following commitment was made by the
State of Utah:
"The State of Utah recognizes the importance of and supports the uranium
mining and milling industry. The State recognizes that to remain viable at
this time, uranium mills must be able to engage in activities other than
milling conventional mined uranium such as processing alternate feed
materials for the recovery of uranium alone or together with other minerals."
The State of Utah also agreed to use the current NRC guidance (NRC Regulatory
Issues Summary 20OO-23) for review and decision of receipt of alternate feed
materials and that each amendment would be considered a major amendment for the
purposes of licensing. These three criteria for decision making regarding the
acceptance of alternate feed material are:
l. Determination of whether the feed material is an ore.
For the tailings and wastes from the proposed processing to qualify as l1e.(2)
byproduct material, the feed material must qualifi as "ore." In determining
whether the feed material is ore, the following definition of ore will be used: Ore is
a natural or native matter that may be mined and treated for the extraction of any
of its constituents or any other matter from which source material is extracted in a
licensed uranium or thorium mill.
The DRC has determined that the FMRI material does meet this criteria.
2. Determination of whether the feed material contains hazardous waste.
If the proposed feed material contains hazardous wastes, listed under subpart D
Sections 261.30-33 of 40 CFR (or comparable Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCP;1.) authorized State regulations), it would be subject to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or State regulation under RCP/^. If the
licensee can show that the proposed feed mateial does not contain a listed
hazardous waste, this issue is resolved.
Feed material exhibiting only a characteristic of hazardous waste (ignitable,
corrosive, reactive, toxic) would not be regulated as hazardous waste and could
therefore be approved for recycling and extraction of source material. However,
this does not apply to residues .from water treatment, so determination that such
residues are not subject to regulation under RCRA will depend on their not
containing any characteristic hazardous waste. Staffmay consult with EPA (or the
State) before making a determination of whether the feed material contains
hazardous waste.
If the .feed material contains hazardous waste, the licensee can process it onty if it
obtains EPA (or State) approval and provides the necessary documentation to that
effect. Additionally, for feed material containing hazardous waste, the staff will
review documentation from the licensee that provides a commitment from the U.S.
Department of Energy or the State to take title to the tailings impoundment after
closure.
The FMRI material is tailings from the processing of ore. Under 40 CFR
261.4(b)(7), solid wastes from the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores
and minerals are not hazardous wastes. Even if this were not the case, in the
application for license amendment made by IUSA on March 8, 2005, ruSA made
the determination that the FMRI material contained no known listed wastes under
subpart D Sections 26L.30-33 of 40 CFR. Therefore, this condition is satisfied.
3. Determination of whether the ore is being processed primarily for its source-
material content.
For the tailings and waste from the proposed processing to qualifi as 11e.(2)
byproduct material, the ore must be processed primarily for its ,;ource-material
content. trf the only product produced in the processing of the alternate feed is
uranium product, this determination is satisfied. If, in addition to uranium product,
another material is also produced in the processing of the ore, the licensee must
provide documentation showing that the uranium product is the primary product
produced.
Originally in its March 8, 2005 submittal, ruSA stated that it might consider milling
the FMRI material for tantalum and other metals as well as for uranium. However,
in IUSA's June 22,2005 letter, IUSA stated that the FMRI material would only be
milled for its uranium content. This condition is satisfied.
Currently, IUSA has 13 license amendments authorizing the mill to receive and process
alternate feed materials from various sites, contained in License Conditions 10.6 through
10.18.
1.3 FMRI Materials
In IUSA's March 8,2005 submittal they state that from 1960 to 1989, Fansteel processed
natural ores for recovery of tantalum and niobium at the Muskogee Facility. Tantalum ore
and tin slag were purchased from around the world. This feed material was leached in
concentrated hydrofluoric acid and sulfuric acid. This process dissolved the tantalum and
niobium into solution and the insoluble fluoride compounds, such as thorium, radium, and
uranium, remained behind in the solids. These solids were then filtered and collected in
Ponds 2 and 3. The leached solids sent to Ponds 2 and 3 were highly variable and
contained on average approximately 0.87o tantalum (Ta) and O.l77o UgOa. The solids in
Ponds 2 and 3 contain residual metal impurities in the fluoride form.
The FMRI materials are comprised of the materials stored in on-site Ponds 2 and 3,
ancillary drummed material, pond cover soils, pond surrounding soils, and debris that have
been impacted by the proposed altemate feed material. The FMRI material has a uranium
content of approximately 0. I 5 1 Vo (0.17 $Vo UrOs) and 0.357 Vo thoitm-232.
'1.4 Review Scope: Environmental Analvsis
In accordance with UAC R313-22-38 and R313-24-3, this SER serves to:
(1) Assess the radiological and non-radiological impacts to the public health.
(2) Assess any impact on waterways and groundwater.
(3) Consider alternatives, including alternative sites and engineering methods
(4) Consider long-term impacts including decommissioning, decontamination, and
reclamation impacts.
(5) Present information and analysis for determining DRC findings and conclusions
which support the proposed license amendment.
2.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WHITE MESA MILL AREA
The area surrounding the White Mesa facility is in an arid climate with an approximate
annual precipitation of l2-inches and a mean temperature of 50o F. Runoff in the project
area is directed by the general surface topography either westward into Westwater Canyon,
eastward into Corral Creek, or to the south into an unnamed branch of Cottonwood Wash.
The San Juan River, a major tributary to the Colorado River, is located approximately 18
miles south of the site.
The population density of San Juan County is approximately 1.7 persons per square mile.
The Town of Blanding is the largest population center near the facility with a population of
3,600. Approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the site is the White Mesa Reservation, a
community of approximately 350 Ute Mountain Ute Indians. The nearest resident to the
mill is located approximately 1.4 miles to the northeast of the mill, which is in the
prevailing wind direction.
Approximately 6O%o of San Juan County is federally-owned land administered by the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. National Park Service (NPS), and the U.S.
Forest Service. Primary land uses include livestock grazing, wildlife range, recreation, and
exploration for minerals, oil, and gas. A quarter of the county is Native American land
owned by either the Navajo Nation or the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. The land within 5
miles of the site is predominantly owned by residents of Blanding. IUSA owns or has
claims or leases on approximately 5,500 contiguous acres, of which the White Mesa mill
site encompasses approximately 500 acres.
Groundwater beneath the site mainly occurs in two aquifers: a shallow unconfined aquifer
hosted by the Dakota Sandstone and the Burro Canyon formations; and the deep confined
aquifer in the Entrada./Navajo Sandstone. Near the tailings cells the shallow aquifer is
found at a depth of about 80 to 100 feet below ground surface and consists of groundwater
perched over the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison formation. The deep
Entrada./Navajo Sandstones form one of the most permeable aquifers in the region. It is
found at a depth of over 1,000 feet below ground and is separated from the shallow aquifer
by hundreds of feet of low permeability shales and mudstones (e.g. Brushy Basin and
Recapture Members of the Morrison Formation, the Summerville Formation, etc.).
Recharge to the aquifers occurs by infiltration along the flanks of the Abajo, Henry, and La
Sal Mountains, and along the flanks of the structural folds. Groundwater in the shallow
perched aquifer (Dakota Sandstone and Burro Canyon Formation) is monitored by the mill
in the groundwater detection monitoring program. Water in this zone flows south to
southwest.
Ninety-five groundwater applications, within a 5 mile radius of the site are on file with the
Utah State Engineer's Office. The majority of applications are by private individuals and
for wells drawing small, intermittent quantities of water, less than 8 gpm from the Burro
Canyon formation. For the most part, these wells are located upgradient (north) of the
facility. Stockwatering and irrigation are listed as the primary uses. Two deep water
supply wells are completed in the Entrada./Navajo Sandstone located approximately 4.5
miles southeast of the site on the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation. These deep water supply
wells are completed approximately 1200-feet below the ground surface.
3.0 OPERATIONS
The White Mesa uranium mill was built in the late 1970's by Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.
(EFN) as an outlet for the many small mines that are located in the Colorado Plateau. After
about two and one-half years, the mill ceased ore processing and entered a total shutdown
phase. In 1984, a majority ownership interest was acquired by Union Carbide
Corporation's (UCC) Metals Division, which later became Umetco Minerals Corporation
(UMETCO), a wholly-owned subsidiary of UCC. The partnership between UMETCO and
EFN continued until May 26, 1994, when EFN reassumed complete ownership of the mill.
In May of 1997 , ruSA purchased the assets of EFN and is the current owner and operator
of the facility. The mill has gone through several operation and shut down periods from
1980 to date.
The current license, License Condition 10.1, specifies a maximum production rate of 4380
tons of yellowcake per year. The maximum mill throughput is limited in part by the annual
freeboard calculations submitted to the UDRC annually, in accordance to License
Condition 10.3.
6
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
4.1 RadiolosicalandNon-Radiolosicallmpacts
Radiological Impacts
According to the March 8,2005 submittal, the following radionuclides are known to exist
in the FMRI altemate feed materials: Ra-226,Ra-228,Th-228,Th-230,Th-232,U-234,IJ-
235, andU-238. Concentrations of these radionuclides in FMRI's Tailings Ponds 7 and,2
are shown below. These radionuclides are commonly associated with the uranium decay
series and natural thorium decay series. The FMRI material is radiologically consistent
with other ores and alternate feeds that have been processed at the White Mesa Mill.
In the June 22,2005 letter, ruSA stated that during storage on the ore pad, the FMRI
materials will be sealed inside a neoprene liner inside a fabric bag. The exposure and dose
rates from the estimated 32,000 tons of FMRI material was found to be approximately the
same as that of an equivalent amount of low-grade Colorado Plateau ore.
The March 8, 2005 submittal has the following comparisons between the FMRI material
and previously licensed natural ores and alternate feed materials.
Material Vo UtOa Th-232
Concentration
FMRI
Material
0.187o 0.3587o
Colorado
Plateau Ore
0.L57o
to 0.307o
W.R. Grace 7.27Vo
Heritaee 1.087o
Maywood 0.887o
Non-Radiological Impacts
According to the March 8, 2005 submittal, the Radioactive Material Profile Record
attached in Appendix 2 to the March 8, 2005, submittal lists the following known and
possible chemical components or hazardous waste characteristics:
Pond
1
Gross
Alpha
Gross
Beta
u-234
(pCi/e)
u-235
(pCi/e)
u-238
(pCi/g)
Th-228
(pCi/e)
Th-230
(pCi/e)
Th-232
(pCi/e)
Ra-228
(pcile)
Ra-226
(pCi/e)
Min 2300 920 170 5.3 170 r60 420 160 r60 138
Max 6700 3100 550 29 580 560 860 560 560 329
Avs.4478 2091 344 t5.2 357 360 697 360 360 233
Pond
2
Gross
Alpha
Gross
Beta
u-234
(pCi/g)
u-235
(pCi/e)
u-238
(pci/e)
Th-228
(pCi/e)
Th-230
(pCi/e)
Th-232
(pCi/e)
Ra-228
(pCi/e)
Ra-226
(pcilg)
Min 840 610 1770 t2 180 94 2to 94 94 t42
Max 7600 3800 1000 46 110 680 1200 680 680 400
Avg.5263 2674 598 30.2 635 437 766 437 437 144
(Y)N)ry)N)ff)N)
a.Listed HW x b.Derived-
From IfW
x c.Toxic x
d.Cyanides x e.Sulfates x f.Dioxins x
s.Pesticides x h.Herbicides x t.PCBs x
j.Explosives x k.Pyrophorics x l.Solvents x
m.Organics x n.Phenolics x o.Infectious X
D.Isnitable x q.Corrosive x r.Reactive x
s.Antimonv x t.Bervllium x u.Copper x
v.Nickel x w.Thallium x x.Vanadium x
v.Alcohols x z.Arsenic x aa.Barium x
bb.Cadmium x cc.Chromium x dd.Lead x
ee.Mercurv x tT.Selenium x oo Silver x
hh.Benzene x ll.Nitrate x I t.Nitrite x
kk.Fluoride x tt.oil x mm.Fuel x
nn.Chelating
Asents
x oo.Residue from Water Treatment x
DD.Other Known o Possitrle Materials or Chemicals x
For a detailed list of all the non-radiological chemical and their concentrations that are in
the FMRI material, refer to Table 5 and Table 6 of Appendix 2 of the March 8, 2005
submittal.
RCRA Listed Materials Analysis
As stated in Section 1.3, the FMRI material is
therefore no listed RCRA material is presented
26r.4(b)(7)
RCRA Characteristic Materials Analysis
The following metals and inorganic chemicals
(ruSA, March 20O5,Appendix 5).
the result of natural ore processing,
because it is exempt under 40 CFR
can be found in the FMRI material
Class Component of FMRI Materials*
Alkali Metals
Alkaline Earths
Transition and Rare
Earth Metals
Other Metals
Metalloids
Non-Metal Ions
Volatile Organic
Compounds
Semi-Volatile Organics
Compounds
*Bold Type = elements or compounds in the FMRI material, that have not been quantified in the
mill's tailings cells to date. Some of these elements, such as tantalum, niobium and scandium are
Sodium, potassium
Barium, beryllium, calcium, magnesium
Antimony, cadmium, cerium, chromium, cobalt, hafnium,
Iron, lanthanum, manganese, mercury, molybdenum,
neodymium, nickel, niobium, praseodymium, scandium,
silver, tantalum, thallium, thorium, tin, titanium,
tungsten, vanadium, yttrium, zinc, zirconium
Aluminum,lead
Arsenic, selenium, silicon
Ammonia, chloride, cyanide, fluoride, nitrate, phosphate
sulfate
Acetone, Methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK)
Di-n-butyl phthalate
known to exist in the mill's tailings, from other alternate feed materials, but have never been
quantified. Others, such as cerium, hafnium, lanthanum, praseodymium, tungsten and yttrium are
expected by IUSA to also currently exist in the mill's tailings cells, due to their natural abundance
with other elements found in the tailings cells, but have never been quantified.
There may be some residual methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK) in the FMRI material.
MIBK was used to remove impurities (iron, zirconium, and uranium) from the
original tantalum processing stream.
In a May 16,2005,letter to ruSA, DRC asked IUSA to specifically evaluate the
chemical compatibility of elements and compounds in the FMRI material that have
not been quantified to date in the tailings ponds. These compounds include:
MIBK, Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate, Di-n-butyl Phthalate, Cerium, Hafnium,
Lanthanum, Niobium, Neodymium, Praseodymium, Scandium, Sulfides, Tantalum,
Tungsten, Yttrium, and Fluoride.
In a June 22,2005,Ietter, IUSA made the following statements:
l) Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate, Di-n-butyl Phthalate and MIBK are in low enough
concentrations to be considered "de minimus," having no impact.
o Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate while reported in the March 8, 2005 submittal,
only exists in FMRI's Tailings Pond 5, which is not part of the proposed
alternate feed material.
o Di-n-butyl Phthalate in high enough concentrations would actually increase
liner and liner joint plasticity, flexibility, and toughness.
. MIBK and other keytones are compatable with PVC liners and joints to
concentrations up to L07o. The addition of the FMRI material to the tailings
solution will increase the total concentration of keytones to 13 ppm
(o.ooL37o).
2) Sulfides were incorrectly indicated on the list of constituents in the FMRI
material. The presence of sulfates should have been indicated. Sulfates in any
concentration are compatible with the PVC liner and joints.
3) Fluorides have been introduced into the Mill's uranium circuit with natural ores
and alternate feeds at levels as high as 460,000 m/kg. The FMRI material has
a concentration of 309,000 mglkg. The addition of fluoride to the tailings
system will increase the overall concentration of fluoride salts in the tailings
cells to approximately 0.17o The manufacturer's rating for inorganic
hydrofluoric acid compatibility with PVC liners and joints for hydrofluoric acid
is 48Vo. According to the manufacturer's data, metal fluoric salts in any
concentration are compatible with PVC liners and joints.
4) The mill tailings system currently contains high levels of metallic salts.
Incremental increases in metallic salt concentrations will not have any effect on
the PVC liners and joints.
Surface Water and Groundwater Effects
Surface Water Effects
As stated above, during storage on the ore pad, the FMRI material will be sealed in fabric
bags with a 3 mil polyethylene liner. The FMRI material is expected to have a moisture
content of 2O7o to 307o. There will be no free liquid inside the polyethylene liner.
4.2
Therefore it is unlikely that material or liquids will penetrate the bag and become exposed
to stormwater. In the event that the FMRI material became exposed to stormwater, IUSA
has an approved spill management plan and stormwater management plan. All storm water
runoff from the ore pad is routed to Cell 1.
Groundwater Effects
As stated above, during storage on the ore pad, the FMRI material will be sealed in fabric
bags with a 3 mil polyethylene liner. The FMRI material is expected to have a moisture
content of 207o to 30Vo. There will be no free liquid inside the polyethylene liner. In
addition, the highly compacted ore pad surface and the limited duration of storage will
further reduce the potential for seepage to occur while the FMRI material is on the ore paid.
Therefore, seepage of the material into the groundwater at the ore pad site is not
anticipated. The FMRI material has similar chemical and radiological properties to natural
uranium ore and materials currently stored in the tailings cells. Therefore, it is not
anticipated that ore pad storage of the FMRI material would pose any additional risk to the
groundwater than conventional ores.
Tailings from the FMRI material processing will be disposed in the lined tailings cells
along with other process tailings. A groundwater detection monitoring program is already
in place, in accordance with the State issued groundwater permit, to determine if any
leakage from the tailings cells has occurred. Additionally, if groundwater contamination
were to occur, the DRC would require that IUSA conduct a colrective action to restore
groundwater to the groundwater standards detailed in the state groundwater permit.
4.3 Evaluation of Additional Groundwater Monitorins Compliance Parameters
With the introduction of the FMRI material into the mill process, each contaminant found
in these materials needs to be considered in order to determine if additional groundwater
monitoring compliance parameters should be added to the Permit.
In Attachment 5, of IUSA's March 8, 2005 submittal Table 2, "Comparison of Uranium
Materials and Alternate Feeds", a surnmary is found of 48 contaminants in the FMRI
material. In determining if additional groundwater compliance monitoring parameters were
needed for the Permit the following criteria were considered for the 48 contaminants:
l) Is the contaminant already included as a groundwater monitoring compliance
parameter in the Permit?
2) Will there be a significant increase in concentration in the tailings inventory?
3) Is the contaminant mobile in the groundwater environment (i.e., low soil-water
partitioning coefficient (Kd)X
4) Does the contaminant represent a known human toxicity hazard?
5) Is there an available and reputable groundwater quality compliance standard?
6) Are there EPA approved analyical methods?
In its review process, DRC observed that many of the 48 contaminants identified in the
FMRI material have never been quantified in the mills tailings cells and, as a result, have
not been considered to date for inclusion in the Permit. Several of these were also of
concern because of proportionately large increases in the projected tailing cell inventory
after the feed stock is processed, although in most cases the overall concentration of these
10
constituents will not be affected significantly by processing the FMRI material at the Mill
(see Table 1 Summary of Components in Fansteel Altemate Feed). A total of 26 of the 48
contaminants considered were already required as groundwater monitoring parameters in
the Permit.
Based on the above criteria tin will be added as a groundwater monitoring compliance
parameter to the Permit. Reasons for the selection of tin and omission of the remaining2I
contaminants are found below. Details are also found in Table I in section 7.0 below.
Contaminant Selected for Groundwater Monitoring Parameter
Tin is currently not a required groundwater monitoring parameter in the Permit, and was
omitted from the original Permit due to non-detectable concentrations reported by IUC in
three tailings leachate samples (see 12lll04 DRC Statement of Basis, Table 5). Based on
the proposal in question, tin will experience an estimated increase in the tailing inventory
from 9 to 248 tons (IUSA, March 2005, Attachment 5). With an estimated Kd of 2.5 to 5
(Ohio EPA, 2005) tin is not as mobile in the groundwater environment as other metals;
however, with the high acid conditions in the tailings wastewater, tin could stay in solution
and not partition on aquifer materials. In a memorandum from Mark R. Colsman (Tetra
Tech EM, Inc.) to David C. Frydenlund (IUSA) dated September 26, 2005 (Colsman,
September 26,2005), it was proposed that cadmium and zinc may serve as analogues for
tin because they are associated with lead in mineral deposits and ores. However, the
coincident occuffence of these mineral deposits may be a product of their high temperature
geochemical environment of deposition. In contrast, shallow ground water at the Mill site
is a low temperature geochemical environment. Consequently cadmium and zinc were not
accepted as ground water monitoring analogues for tin.
Toxic levels of tin can pose a human health risk to the kidney and liver (Minnesota
Department of Health, 2005). With the help of EPA Region 8 toxicology staff DRC will
adopt an ad hoc groundwater quality standard for tin of 17,000 ug/L (See lol27lo5 E,PA
memorandum).
Contaminants Omitted from Groundwater Monitoring Consideration
The following 26 contaminants were not added because they are already required as
groundwater monitoring compliance parameters in the Permit:
Besides tin, the remaining 2l contaminants of concern that are not groundwater monitoring
parameters include the following four groups with their corresponding DRC findings:
1l
Nutrients (2)Ammonia and nitrates
Inorganics and Metals (23)Arsenic, beryllium, calcium, cadmium, chloride,
chromium, cobalt, fluoride, iron, lead, magnesium,
manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, potassium,
selenium, silver, sodium, sulfate, thallium, vanadium, and
zinc
Organics (1)Acetone
Inorganics: cyanide and phosphate
Although there is an expected increase in the concentration in the tailings inventory,
cyanide was omitted because it will off-gas in the high acid environment of the
White Mesa Mill process. Should cyanide be found in future tailings wastewater
sampling under Part 1.H.5, DRC may consider whether it should be added as a
compliance monitoring parameter at a future date.
Phosphate was not a required groundwater monitoring parameters in the Permit,
although, there is a small increase in the inventory of phosphate, because there was
insufficient information to conclude that they pose a human health risk (TOXNET,
200s).
Metals: aluminum, antimony, barium, cerium, hafnium, lanthanum,
neodymium, niobium, praseodymium, scandium, silicon, tantalum, thorium,
titanium, tungsten, yttrium, and zirconium.
Barium, cerium, hafnium, lanthanum, neodymium, niobium, praseodymium,
scandium, tantalum, thorium, tungsten, yttrium, and zirconium were not required as
groundwater monitoring parameter in the Permit. Although, some of these metals
will have only a slight increase in concentration in the tailings inventory, most of
these constituents have not been quantified in the mill's tailings cells to date. All
were eliminated for monitoring consideration because of high Kds ranging from 40
to 1500 Ukg (Colsman September 9, 2005). Other metals are already used as
compliance monitoring parameters that have much lower Kd values, and should be
detected well before the arrival of the above eliminated metals.
Aluminum was also omitted as a groundwater monitoring parameter in the Permit;
although, there is a slight increase in its tailings inventory concentration. This
omission is due to the fact that: l) Aluminum and iron have similar geochemical
behavior in groundwater environmentsl, 2) the increase in concentration of
aluminum in the tailings will be small (approximately 0.13 7o),3) iron is already a
required groundwater monitoring parameter in the Permit, 4) it is estimated that
there will be similar concentrations of aluminum and iron in the mill's tailings
inventory after processing the FMRI material (IUSA, March 2005), and 5) iron has
an estimated lower Kd than aluminum (iron estimated Kd of 1.4 and aluminum
estimated Kd of 9.9 (Tetra Tech, 2005)). Consequently, iron should be detected at
I In sulfate solution concentrations greater than 10,000 mg/L, as in the wastewater in the tailings cells, iron
and aluminum values greater than 1000 are common. The mobility of these constituents away from the
source of acidity is primarily a function of the total acidity of the solution and the acid-neutralizing capacity
of the material the solution contacts. The acidity of the solution is partly due to the activity of hydrogen;
however, a much greater component is generally due to dissolved iron and aluminum. As the pH of the
solution is raised by reactions with the solid phase iron and aluminum minerals become less soluble and
precipitate producing hydrogen. This reaction produces a much greater acidity provided by the solution
concentration of hydrogen. As a consequence the pH plume and its dissolved constituents will be more
mobile in an acidic solution with high concentrations of iron and aluminum than a plume without these metals
(Deutsch 1997).
t2
the compliance monitoring wells before the arrival of aluminum and therefore an
acceptable analog.
Antimony is also not a required groundwater monitoring parameter in the Permit, in
part because there is no significant increase in the tailings inventory. Further,
antimony and arsenic have similar geochemistry, and arsenic is already a required
groundwater monitoring parameter in the Permit. The estimated mass of antimony
in the mill's tailings after processing the FMRI material will be less than the
estimated mass of arsenic in the mill's tailings (IUSA, March 2005). Antimony has
an estimated Kd of 2.0 (ruSA Permit 2004) and arsenic has a estimated Kd of 1.0
(Tetra Tech, 2005). Consequently, arsenic should be detected at the compliance
monitoring wells before the arrival of antimony.
Titanium is not a required groundwater monitoring parameter in the Permit,
although there is a significant increase in the tailings inventory, and a slight
increase in the concentration in the tailings as a result of processing the FMRI
material, there was no information found in the Hazardous Substance Data Bank
(HSDB) regarding human health risk. Further, no Kd information was found in
available technical literature. Since this information was not available titanium was
eliminated from consideration as a groundwater monitoring parameter. If in the
future, such information should become available, the Executive Secretary may
consider at that time whether titanium should be added as a monitoring parameter,
pursuant to Part IV.N of the Permit.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC): methyl isobutyl ketone.
Methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK) is not a required groundwater monitoring
parameter in the Permit, in part because there is not a significant increase in the
tailings inventory. Also MIBK and Methyl ethyl ketone (IUEK) are members of the
same chemical class (ketones). MEK is already a required groundwater monitoring
parameter in the Permit and can serve as an analog for MIBK, in that: 1) The
estimated MEK mass in the tailings will be greater than MIBK (after alternate feed
processing) (ruSA, March 2005), and 2) MEK has a lower estimated Kd than
MIBK G\mK estimated Kd of 0.015 (IUSA Permit, 2004) and MIBK has an
estimated Kd of 0.123 (TOXNET, 2005)) consequently, MEK should be detected at
the compliance monitoring well before the arrival of MIBK and therefore an
acceptable analog.
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOC): di-n-butyl phthalate.
Di-n-butyl phthalate is not currently a required groundwater monitoring parameter
in the Permit. However, it was considered for monitoring in the Permit (see
l2lll04, DRC Statement of Basis, p. l9). In order to streamline groundwater
monitoring efforts and for reasons addressed in the Permit all SVOC compounds,
including di-n-butyl phthalate were omitted as groundwater monitoring parameters.
13
Conclusions
The inventory for the FMRI material included 49 contaminants for groundwater monitoring
compliance consideration. Of these 49 contaminants, 26 were already required as
groundwater monitoring compliance parameters in the Permit. Of the remaining 23
contaminants, the Executive Secretary determined that tin should be added as a new
groundwater monitoring compliance parameter in the Permit.
4.4 Alternatives
The action that the DRC is considering is approval of an amendment request to Radioactive
Source Materials License issued pursuant to UAC R3l3-24 Uranium Mills and Source
Material Mill Tailings Disposal Facility Requirements. Subparagraph UAC R313-24-
3(l)(c) requires that alternate sites and engineering methods be considered in the analysis
of the license amendment request.
Based on its review, the DRC staff has concluded that the environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action do not warrant either limiting IUSA's future operations
or denying the license amendment. The DRC staff has concluded that there are no
significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Other alternatives
need not be evaluated.
4.5 Long-Term Impacts
DRC does not anticipate any significant impacts on the reclamation, decommissioning, and
decontamination of the White Mesa facility, if the FMRI material is processed as an
alternate feed. In general, the FMRI material has similar radiological and non-radiological
properties to other alternate feeds and natural ores that have already been processed by
ruSA. One additional ground water monitoring parameter has been required to ensure
added protection of local ground water resources.
In order to evaluate surety issues in the unlikely event that IUSA were to close prior to
processing the FMRI material, DRC sent a letter to IUSA on May 16, 2005, requesting
information as to how much IUSA's financial surety needs to be adjusted. If this scenario
were to happen, the fabric-bagged FMRI material would likely be hauled to the disposal
cell and disposed of directly into Tailings Cell 3. In a letter dated July 19, 2005, ruSA
included an analysis stating that the financial surety would not need to be increased for the
acceptance of the FMRI material, because the mill has already processed other alternate
feeds, which has caused a decrease in the surety greater than that of the surety increase for
the receipt of the FMRI material. Therefore the financial surety amount approved in
License Addendum #l will be sufficient. This amount is $10,950,180.00. To ensure that
the surety amount is always sufficient to cover the amount of alternate feed material stored
at the Mill, changes have been proposed to License Condition 10.1. Refer to Section 5.0
for these proposed changes.
t4
4.6 Report Findings
Based on the foregoing evaluation of the environmental impacts of the IUSA amendment
request, the DRC has determined that there will not be a significant adverse effect on
public health on the environment resulting from the ruSA proposal. The following
statements support and summarize this conclusion:
1.An acceptable environmental and effluent monitoring program is in place to
monitor effluent releases and to detect whether applicable regulatory limits are
exceeded. Radiological and non-radiological effluents from site operations have
been and are expected to continue to remain below the regulatory limits. A
groundwater monitoring program for the shallow perched aquifer is in place to
detect potential seepage of contaminants from the tailings cells. The deep, confined
Entrada./Navajo Sandstone Aquifer is separated by low permeability formations
from the tailings cells further decreasing a potential impact to deep groundwater
resources. The potential for seepage to occur while the material is temporarily
stored on the ore pad is minimal due to triple layer packaging, dry climate and
highly compacted ore pad surface, and the limited duration of storage. Further,
decommissioning and reclamation aetivities at the storage pad can remove any such
contamination, should it occur, to the tailings cells for long-term control. An
existing dust suppression program will be implemented at the mill to reduce the
potential for airborne contamination.
An approved radiation safety program is in place at the mill. Site perimeter
postings required by License Condition 9.9 are in place at entrances to the mill. In
the past, all worker Total Effective Dose Equivalents (TEDEs) have been found to
be well below the 0.05 Sv (5 rem) annual limit specified in UAC R313-15-201 (10
CFR 20.1201). The licensee has also implemented a bioassay program as
consistent with NRC Regulatory Guide 8.22,"Bioassay at Uranium Mills."
Present and potential environmental impacts from the receipt and processing of the
FMRI material were assessed. No significant impacts have been identified as a
result of this action. Therefore, the staff has determined that any increased risk to
public health and environmental hazards is insignificant.
2.
3.
15
5.0
5.1
PROPOSED LICENSE AMEI\DMENTS AI\D PERMIT MODIFICATIONS
License Amendments Proposed
The following license condition changes would result from this license amendment. The
changes are presented in redline-and-strikeout format.
10.1 A.The mill production rate shall not exceed 4380 tons of yellowcake per year.
B. Maximum cluantities gf-feed inaterial stored on the miil_site. inciuding the
ore pad, in accordance with the submittal to the Executive Secrctary rlated
July 19.2005:
(l) Any combin.aJipn of alternate feed rnaterial stockpiled in bulk torm
shall not to exceed 78.000 tons, without prior approval of the
Executi ve Secretary. and
(2) Any cr:mhination of alternatg t"eed matqrial stored in hanels is not to
exceed 33,500 balreis. rvithout prior approval of the Hxecutive
Secretar.r,. Barrel volume shall not exceed 55 gallons.
C" _ The licenseq shall notify the ExecutivL Secretarli prior to receiving natural
lApplicable Q&C Amendment: 2l
10.19 'l'he licensee is authorizec{ to receive and process source materiai l'rom FMRI's
Mr"rskogee Facility located in Mr"rskogee- Oklahoma, in accordance rvith statements"
representations, and commitments qontained in the amendment leqr.re$ls ancl
subrnittals to the Executive Secretary dated March 7. 2005 and June 22" 2005.
lApplicable DRC Arnendment: 2l
Additionally, the following administrative license amendment will be made. This former
reference to the NRC was not corrected as part of the initial license conversion.
12.2 The licensee shall submit a detailed decommissioning plan to the I*RG-ErcgUUve
Secretary at least twelve (12) months prior to planned final shutdown of mill
operations that includes a detailed Quality Assurance Plan. The plan will be in
accordance with NRC Regulatory Guide 4.15, "Quality Assurance for Radiological
Monitoring Programs" and NUREG-1575, "Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and
Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)" or equivalent most current guidance.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: l3]
IApplicable DRC Arnendme"nt: 2l
l6
5.2 Permit Modifications hoposed
Tin is proposed to be added as an additional required groundwater monitoring parameter to
the Permit. Changes that will be added to Table 2 of the Permit, in redline-and-strikeout,
format presented in Attachment 1 below.
t7
6.0 REFERENCES
Colsman Mark R., September 9, 2005, memorandum, Subject: Survey of Reference
Partition Coefficient Values for Trace Heavy Metals in Fransteel Metal, Inc. Uranium
Materials, from Mark R. Colsman, Ph.D. to David C. Frydenlund. Memorandum,
September 9,2005, sent by e-mail to the Utah Division of Radiation Control from David C.
Frydenlund to Loren Morton.
Colsman Mark R., September 26, 2005, memorandum, Subject: Geochemical Basis for
Analogues of Proposed Additional Monitoring Parameters, from Mark R. Colsman, Ph.D.
to David C. Frydenlund. Memorandum, September 27,2005, sent by e-mail to the Utah
Division of Radiation Control from David C. Frydenlund to Loren Morton.
International Uranium (USA) Corporation, "Revised Cost Estimate for Reclamation of the
White Mesa Mill and Tailings Management System, Blanding, IJtah," February 2005.
IUSA, "RE: FMRI Alternate Feed License Amendment Application, Department of
Environmental Quality Request for Additional Information, dated May 16, 2005," June 22,
2005
IUSA, "FMRI Alternate Feed License Amendment Application, Revision to Surety
Calculation, White Mesa Mill," July 19,2005
IUSA, "RE: Application by International Uranium (USA) Corporation for an amendment
to State of Utah Radioactive Materials License No. 1900479 for the White Mesa Uranium
Mill to authorize processing of FMRI, Inc. ("FMRI") altemate feed material," April 1,
2005
IUSA, "RE: Application by International Uranium (USA) Corporation ("IUSA") for an
amendment to State of Utah Radioactive Materials License No. 1900479 for the White
Mesa Uranium Mill to authorize processing of FMRI, Inc. ("FMRI") alternate feed material
(the "Uranium Material")," March 8, 2005
ruSA, "Request to Amend Radioactive Material License White Mesa Mill and
Environmental Report," March 7, 2OO5
Minnesota Department of Health, Groundwater Health Risk Limits, 2005.
http ://www.health. state.mn.us/divs/eh/groundwater/hrltable.html
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2005. Vadose Zone Modeling in RCRA Closure.
Department of Hazardous Waste Management. January 7 ,2005
http://www.epa.state.oh. usidhwm/pdf/VadoseFinal I 22904.pdf
TOXNET, 2005. Hazardous Substances Data Bank,
http ://toxnet.nlm.nih. sov
18
United States Environmental Protection Agency, October 27, 20[i5, "Relative Source
Contribution for Tin", unpublished agency memorandum from Robert Benson, Ph.D. to
Dean Henderson, Utah Division of Radiation Control
Utah Division of Radiation Control, December 1,2004, Statement of Basis
Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Radiation Control, March 8,20M,
Ground Water Discharge Permit, Permit No. UGW370004.
Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Radiation Control, "Request for
Additional Information Regarding License Amendment Application Radioactive
Materials License UT 1900479," May I6,2W5
t9
7.0 Table 1, Summary of Components in Fansteel Alternate Feed
c
o!taEE
=I3oo
oz oz cz cz cz Cz C2 Cz cz oz C c2 c2 (2 oz oz €z C cz oz C oz C2 oz cz
oo-EEEtFv8E-o
z 0 oo,
R 0(o
^6
cF
1 3
uc o F
i 2
cCu
!
!
cict c I
F
c9
o6 ,cqt Bs3
o
C
9
o c4$c3'
cg cC?Es!
BE"
tr e*€
<o5 =
o c c c C c c e c 2 e o Ez ,=z c q C Ez c =z
EnEsi9 ct:flg"i
EEoNt
(
Ec
E
ccc
E(E
=t
(uz
o !c
F
o
oo uz
cfooa q E(
t
uz
:ccq
o
!
o
c
I
uz oz az U,z
(
c
oz uz
(Ir
tEtd
t-
U,z U'z !
E
u,2 (oz
,
=(
cF
o 0 a o (!z C z 2 q z 2 z 0 0 cs 0 G ao c C 2 Cs
oeo
E
Eo
6EooEboGooE
b=E d4ooho\gEEi
6e-o:EE8
=EEE.!5"
oo
ccc c Eo
€c Ec
c c
c
F
c o2 cc 6cd c c oz ccc c cc
cca cc c cz s c2 oz c
c o c2
ccc co
::,::::,
a$
:ti.'l
Eod cz ccc oz cc ccc
EbET
sEEE
=oo-a 05 EEEEfQ6=Cog= !5=EtOEfa-
Nc-6
o
o o E c gc
FE
c
oz €
q c cz
qcG c (co
o(z oF oz oz
N6@ci@
cz E IE"6jtg
n
to>
F c d oz F(6
EEEEE*Es=e
c ts
6 o o o (q(c c oc
ooq I
oz Nts (
e.oz I6 oz c2 o
@
oz o c2 (c
.:>8!GEb:o q q c q c2 q a ao cz c2 q o 0 oz o c2 cz o cz Ic o2 c2 o
=! oEEEEE,
gEsgB!
=E o-
0-D
q(!q
Ft
oq cz uc
FFodo
oz qq
oqN
I
N(c2
etso c cz
a@oo-o
q
ts0
,!di
c
oi
E
cz (ts cz
Eo
G
.E
6U =
9l
:-o:F
c o c2 =li .l-l
I
cz b66 cz c 0q lD c2
FEEeEEi
@ o2 oz o oz C2 (oz oz
E
GEcc
Ect
_lrlzt
EI
e
.E
E
=
'tl
>JEI6lEI
EI4l
6l6I
el
=l'=l6l
I
lEIOI
Hdl
El'
ol-FI
I
^lzlcrl
olEIElGI
elrl'=l
6lII
;1
olcl
dEldlrl
il
=).el.ll6lol
"l)l!lio l'cl!tr l-:alr
3ti
-lct
elrl
EI!EIoldl6l6l
I
Elolol
G
ts
E
E
E6L EI
:
o
ol
dEIEI EI
6ooc(Ell
.E
E
o
-9oG
g
E
=e
.soo
=CgU$fr
HadiEH E E HEgEE E 3 9#;E O x -iaE H t E E EF='E E* e E FqAP ?; $ E ;tEE = E = d 6=9s :t E € zEHE E 3 € € E,:e
sP!E E & H FsEE;ioPE.=!gbra E E E E E EPtg fE : E{eet
= E=E s EE8,8*EE i8n 3 il I6 EPE P ; 5E *si fitr :€EEfEg8a ;E=
HE EE* Efi gE*EEHsgE =E€" ff q EggE q,6=
EiEE$EEEEEEStEE
EHIE*qin3sEEiglE6gt rEEat t,;e;I tEiE.lEfr:# e=6HEE sEidE= E98E:ai?
eE EEe;gg f;EB*Eg EEgEi€BE
EE
sl FE E
gE ggE
rgE E
g
*
g
E EriE EiZZZZ IFNC)\t|r)(oI.-OO-- --r-N
oc
o.E
oE
o(,3t,cfIo
oooo-goo
@
o
oo
E
o
=b o
=EEEE
ft EE E s=P o-
5E5;fi;i
o
Attachment 1
Changes to Table 2 in the Permit
JU
Bo
U)
JoO
oU
Lrq)jj
B
I(,
c.i
q)
-o(sF
4
q)\
R
\
q
U\
\)E
*\
qU
o
!
!
q
N
oU
o
v
I
U
x
F-ca
Bo
ciz9
tr lidc)Orfu
JO
B
cn
"l0)()
d
lio
B
oko
o)
oO
N
C)
-o
F
a
o
=o
J
o
oo
q)
r*
=
\
4
U
S
q()
o\q
\i
U
o
\)
S
\Q
s
r-co
O
c,z
!t<dc)0rA
q
U
Q
b,
\,)
!
U
,
!*
!
rI',
4
\)r.
k
\o(
q
!
q)
4(J
C(
q
F
i-Yf'-cl
iz
.l
=
F
i:
Y
-frt
5
o
o56
a
s
o
o
vrI]
o
o
N
P
)
JU
Fo
CA
Joo
U
t<()
B
)
tro
-.:o)
oU
c.Io
-oF
$
F-co
B
.iz
L l-r(goO. O.
.+
OI-rc.)
B
z
-trli ti(gC)0r0.l
JU
rn
tr
Joo
OiF
U>'
cBr-l
*ro!
B!
otro
dC)
tr
UNo
-o
F
x
?\)
o
S
Sa<
t
U
Q
\J
U
i-:
q)
r-
k
a)
v
\)
E
E8 eE€a6 tal-- H ='Eca E r*E
o t k"3F-\'aEO O\C*rr6CJ ] EEZ fr EE
-!eEE : EE -..cd o " k8. E0.0r F .a .E6 chn HE g: rO zrJo v(J i: L= ro oY
^-e '1.E E^i dE Q..] i.r >8 =8 i9 ;P Y.E Er -ei gE dgBgiz E,F B#\) 6 0.2 al/ '9 ?4 a'= > 5 L P d-:';: lsE o Q .= o)ab. F-- ==>HE; Oi T5€=Ei =i ;'ro 6 o ll au =t> o a& 6 = oe<E - a d Oie5.E 06 ;"5;.E 8.6 h q .F'E5,EtE q5 E&
5EE€ i99 Ei
ie"6s E;E _tEdI.= > qN -;.E# i^ Eci b H I'; €'E.g 3 tr 3 s,.iU<:* E''l,i EiEo.<.= ,;(J L .!2EE:ft: E== 6E.!6e6 !-a =c'^tc1f:iz'€tEIEU HgE E?3.8 EE. Ei E E ii2 o - - I H E 3 9=.:EgE
7EflEEEg: Ei
EEEEEESI ?Ea5 d-. e H: L= 5<<o;9p=H€; €E. CA 2 d- '= trls!*?;€gt5 ; E iEE",$HrEE 5;+
9;'E.ocosL a=':*t€g6: H: F sjTs!4E:E: :EIY>€d:Ef: =;E; - e-ZYZE#E€= Ets;
EEEEItEIsTEEE.=89o?ES s! -3 =.. L=:NE""g9beEUH'!
gEEq{?{i€EE;
:EEEEExEE;:i=ji!:3;iEEEiE7\9 e!.=.= a2x-
t;gEE€55qsE=gE:ESg8!QEEI:.EirE:E:ttg;uI;I;5FEr3,E.=H€€€iaa,n;E?,EEEir
E77ggEiEEEsiE(,ooo6sB;Ee?
,,,: -E.E E ! ; E g€ g A:SISXE:::5EE,iP:clol-cl ^^^ ^^€ILI -No+n€r @O\F