DRC-2004-001161 - 0901a06880ab76d9

,ri
,i.
,
tt
o
OLENE S. WALKER
Govemor
GAYLE F. MCKEACHNIE
Lieutenant Governor
'/--.?i'
/ l-lLL :\
lutwtrm$ i\__.<-------i\19-/
\( t':id"4> )v/,/
State of Utah
Department of
Environmental QualitY
Dianne R. Nielson, Ph.D.
Excculivc Direaor
DIVISION OFRADIATION
CONTROL
Dane L. Finerfrock
Director
November 12,2W4
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Attn: Paul H. Lohaus, Director
Office of State and Tribal Programs
Mail Stop O-3-C-10
11555 Rockville Pike
Rockville, Maryland 20852
Dear Mr. Lohaus:
We are writing in response to your directive (RCPD-04-018) of November 4, 2004 requesting that each
Agreement Stlte tat<e action to block public access to, or otherwise remove, information pertaining to
ra"clioactive material Iicensees that could potentially be of use to a terrorist. This letter outlines the actions
that we have taken, and that we are now committing to take, in response to this request.
We c,rrently have permitting information for only one facility - Envirocare of Utah - on our web site. We
have no plans to remove that information, based on previous conversations with NRC, but will do so upon
your request.
lnformation in our files is subject to Utah's public records law, the Utah Government Access and
Munug.-"nt Act, Utah Code Ann. Title 63, Chapter 2. Under that Act, we do have the ability to withhold
docurients that would present a securiry risk. Utah Code Ann. S 63-2-304(10) allows us to withhold
records ,,the disclosure of which would jeopardize the life or safety of an individual." ln response to your
request, we are committing to review any GRAMA request (and any other request for information) for
infbrmation about a specific radioactive material licensee. If that information falls into the following
.ut"gori"r, we will foiward the request to NRC for review and a recommendation about whether release of
the i-nformation would pose a potential security risk and should therefore be withheld:
r lnformation about facilities that use radioactive materials to sterilize products;
r lnformation about facilities that manufacture or distribute radioactive sources;
r Information about facilities that use sealed sources for medical Purposes;. lnformation about indusrial radiographers;
. lnformation about well loggers; and
. lnformation about portable moisture density gauges.
t68 North t950 Wesr . pO Box 1,14850. Salt bke City, lJT 841 l4-4850'phone [phone] 'fax [phone]
T.D.D. (801 ) 536441 4' www.deq.umh. gov
lllah!
Whcrc idcas conncct"
Page2
Dane L. Finerfroc( Director
Enclosure:List of licensees
Historically' the Division of Radiation control has received no or very few requests of this nature eachyear so we do not anticipate that this course of action will be burdensome ro, Jitr,"i DRC or NRC in thisinterim period, while thi NRC develops specific guidelines.
Jsrsvrr'v're r1'r srtlrcr rrrrL orNKu m this
There is one additional kind of record request that should also be considered. several times each year, theDRC receives a request for a list of all radioactive material licensees. A copy of such a list is attached. Asdescribed above' we can withhold information if release of theinformation would jeopardize the life orsafety of an individual' If NRC believes that release or "
j"n.ri. Iist of licenr""sltula pose a securityrisk' and if NRC helps provide justification to allow us tolnvoke our security exemption, we will committo withholding this information in the future with respect to the categories of licensies described above.we should add that' based on the information we hav'e currently, wado not believe we could justifywithholding the information for licensees that are "., ir.r"J"Jin the above list.
Please let us know whether you would like any additional information. we will be contacting you aboutthe two questions we raised in this letter: wheiher you would tit" u. to remove the Envirocare of utahpermitting information from our website, and wheiher NRC believes ,t", i"i"*" Jr-u g"n"ri" list oflicensees would pose a security risk.
Sincerely,
o {l
,T
AGHEEMENT STATE RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM DIRECTORS
ADDITIONAL SECURITY BEVTEW OF PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DOCUMENTS (RCPD'04'018)
on octobe r 25,2OO4,the u.s. Nuclear Regulatory commission (NRC) initiated an additional
;;;,ty ieview'ot publicly available documents to ensure that potentially sensitive information is
i"r"r"o from the'Ag"n"y website. During this review, the following information will not be
,r"if"Of" to tne puUtlc: documents in the Agencyruide Documents Access and Management
svr,"rrinbAHasl, documents on the NRC'a Electronic Hearing Docket, documents requested
from the public Document Room (untilsubjected to a13-dequate screening.review), and NRC
staff documents on the Licensing'support Network (LSN) relative to the high level waste
iepository (documents from othei potential parties to a Yucca Mountain hearing remain available
orltn" r_srril. This action, when complete, is intended to ensure that documents which might
orovide assistance to teriorists will be inaccessible, while maintaining public access to
information regarding NBC activities'
lmmediately after september 11, 2OO'1, the NBC shut down its website and removed more than
;:ggg;ilments that contained sensitive information. Since then, the Agency has
,ir*gtn"ned its poticy regarding sensitive inlormation that may be displayed and additional
oo.ri..,"nt" nave'oeen reirovedl Agency guidelines provide that any information that could be
useful, or could reasonably be expeiteo-to ue useful, to a terrorist in a potential attack (e.9.,
pLnning and executing th6 theft of high-risk sources) should be withheld.
The NRC is conducting this review in a phased manner and expects to restore large portions of
tn" intorr"tion in ADA-MS within the next several weeks, as soon as preliminary screening can
u" "orpr"ted. However, more time and effort will be required to complete the_screening of the
many documents related'to materials and waste licensees. Public access to these documents
witt not be restored untilthis screening is completed'
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
November 4,2004
3"".i# H pf. g.HH$" us gt@ffi rreedom
rn numbers:.!
Begulatory Commission review required belore
and organization ol person making determinalion:
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
I
l,RCPD-04_018 OFFICIAL USE ONLY
/RA/
Paul H. Lohaus, Director
,r$::r:rr:rion request has been approved bv oMR q, a^ ^n^^I:ffilTL:1;:l:,ilhl',.:e,l,.-fi;:,H,lf['"3li"X;Ti1""Irl':,'_"f o^6/so/07 rhe estimared{;Jf,*li:ffiii";ri:ll[ffi li3tri]]tih[['di]:ni?p.']'{#^}ii:'l*::,:'i#:En,*r?$xr##*#-I:r,i,,*Tif, tri::Sf##[iliti:"?i""rsfi";fl?ffi ]n#[lt#i,ff '#T#l,i$]tr;i,:&it'rltli*ffI;f if flffi fr i#ls[f ;,:;flTfi ,,,;ffi,,:,,F..sj:Fr##i*Trr[i{"';i{,l;h#,[rffi ffi jfi i:if":[f#rcontrol number. theevrrrrur numDer, the NBC may not ""nou"t'ii "'Pvos
arr rnrormation colrection oo"a ,oi E,tpill'r
otru ErUolf€I,collection. I rvr vvr ruu(;r or sponsor, and a person is not requirei iil;i'#l i":illl]rilrH:fl;
Pending the develop'9nJ
9f screening.criteria, we request that each Agreement state take
'"JTj5,:::,"i:l;.ry;1[:?i j"3"I:l3,["T,T,ff f,:mi"tir#tri: jrmgffi
[x,i;#;:Tffi H:t#ti:T:;i:al*pi;:;i",rj:,,,ii;;.;6st".[T#t;;:"t?iyg,,]:,,,
effi il::,[[:it#:m:*:,:;1[i#;T*s,.ffi ,ff
#,,,1n!:*=:ffiT':q'o",0'rtf,"=,=\and Agreement S
[,tr#ig#?s'Jiry;[x#,ilif ii'Ti"tffi xr*Jr"Jr,'ffi IiH[ti{i'##'r:,ff
$:Hi:'ilifu ':t":lJi:ti,;llh1*H',it,,h::""t"#il#{i,'#[r"d,-:.lih;:J#:
potentia'y sensiiive,-nrorrrtion ;ii# rs not submitted. oihe;e;;;ii;;il"ortnema-te*i'"Iroo"rirrJiii$H:il"*m:1ffi
;:g;df*T3,
iii.3i,,,i",,#i*":i:|..;FJ?ffiT:"!*t:Jtrffi :tffi :ffi:fl#f lrn,::,o,se,o,hsappreciate your response within t*o'*""*. ir,,_-r';;il'ot *ris retter. possibre, *" *oriJ"
ill1?,:I3TJffiil,ilff j"J#JJiXi"T:::,il:":l;lH?,f
:;l,Tf ;.ff :::,,llJ;: jil?#,
l9lII OF CONTACT: Andrew N. MauerTELEPHoNE: fsorf+t's'-i5ia jNTEBNET: [e-mail]: fsOl) 41s-s5o2
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
INrrnNerro*oo
UnnNrul,t (usn)
ConponATIoN
lndependence Plaza, Suite 950 . 1050 Seventeenth street . Denver, CO 80265 ' 303 628 7798 (main) ' 303 389 4125 (fax)
April 1,2005
VIA FACSIMILE AND US MAIL
Mr. Dane L. Finerfrock, Executive
Utah Radiation Control Board
Utah Department of Environmental
168 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144810
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4810
Ron F. Hochstein
Harold R. Roberts
David C. F
Secretary
Quality
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")
alternate feed material
Dear Mr. Finerfrock:
In our letter to you of March 8, 2005, we asked that you review the referenced application
on an expedited basis, if possible. You have asked us for a more specific timeframe by
which we would request that this application be reviewed by you.
We understand and appreciate that you must take whatever time is necessary to fully
review our application and all public comments that you may receive, and that it is very
difficult for you to estimate how long this process will take for any particular application.
However, in response to your question and as discussed with you last Friday, a target date
of May 16,2005, or as soon thereafter as possible, for completion of the public comment
period for this license amendment application, and completion of your review of public
comments within a few weeks thereafter, if possible, would best suit the commercial and
FMRI site regulatory timetables for this project.
If you have any questions or require any further information, please contact me.
Yours t;uly,lll
i/u I ./-
Vice President and General Counsel
IrrrRr.ruor rt|
UnaNrul,r (use)-
ConponATroN
Independence Plaza, Suite 950 . 1050 Seventeenth Street r Denver, CO 80265 . 303 628 7798 (main) . 303 389 al25 (fax)
Jlune 22,2005
VIA FACSIMILE AND US MAIL
Mr. Dane L. Finerfrock
Executive Secretary
Utah Radiation Control Board
Department of Environmental Quality
168 North 1950 West
PO Box 144810
Salt Lake city, Utah 841 l4-4810
Re: FMRI Alternate Feed License Amendment Application, Department of
Environmental Quality Request for Additional Information, dated May 16,
2005
Dear Mr. Finerfrock:
We are responding to the May 16, 2005 letter from Mr. John Hultquist, Division of
Radiation Control ("DRC") requesting additional information on the March 7 ,2005
License Amendment Application to receive alternate feed materials from FMRI, Inc.
The DRC questions are repeated below in italics with International Uranium (USA)
Corporation's ("lUSA's") responses following each question.
1. The FMRI waste pro.files indicated that the waste stream included several
contaminants that have not been adequately assessed as to the cumulative ffict they
may pose to the inlegrity of the pond liner, especially where the liner sections are
joined. These contaminants include :
4 methyl 2-pentanone [a.k.a. methyl isobutyl ketone ("MIBK"), Bis (2-
ethyl hexyl), D i - n-butyl phthal at e, c erium, hffiium, lanthanum, niob ium,
ne o dymium, P r a s e o dymium, Sc andium, Sulfi de, Tantalum, Tungs ten, Yttrium,
and Jluoride.
Please evaluate the chemical compatibilitt o.f contaminants with the pond liner. seam
int e gr it.y and qr oundw a t e r qual i t.v.
Letter to Dane r. ein.Jr.
|une22,2005
Page 2
iUSA has retained Jo Ann Tischler, an independent chemical engineer, to evaluate the
chemical compatibility of these constituents with the Mill's tailings cell liners and liner
seam integrity. A copy of Ms. Tischler's memorandum is attached to this letter.
Ms. Tischler concludes generally that all of these constituents are compatible with the
Mill's tailings liners and liner joints in much higher concentrations than found in the
FMRI material. Accordingly, the impact of these constituents on the Mill's tailings
system will be insignificant.
With respect to the specific categories of constituents, Ms. Tischler reaches the following
conclusions:
Phthalates (e.g., bis 2-ethylhexyl and Di-n-butyl phthalate) can have a
positive effect (as a plasticizer) if in high enough concentrations
(approximately 30 percent). At low concentrations (part per million
levels), they are de minimus and will have no impact on the liner
system. The concentration of di-n-butyl phthalate, in the FMzu
Material (approximately 1 ppm) is therefore de minimus and will have
no impact, positive or negative on the Mill's tailings system. Bis 2-
ethylhexyl phthalate is not present in the FMzu Material.
There are no sulfides in the FMzu Material. Reference to sulfides in
the Radioactive Material Profile Record submitted with the license
amendment application was a mistake, and should have been a
reference to sulfates. Sulfates at all concentrations are compatible
with the aqueous sulfates already in the tailings system. As a result,
the impact on the Mill's tailings system of any sulfates in the FMRI
Material will be insignificant.
Although there will be an increase in the overall concentration of
fluoride salts in the tailings cells after tailings from processing the
FMRI Material are added to existing tailings, the resulting
concentration of approximately 7,200 ppm (0.7 percent) will be well
below the manufacturer's ratings for compatibility with PVC of 48
percent for inorganic hydrofluoric acid and an unlimited concentration
for metal fluoride salts. Accordingly, the impact of the fluorides in the
FMRI Material on the Mill's tailings system will be insignificant.
As the Mill's tailings cell liners are compatible with high level
metallic salts, and in fact, the majority of the Mill's tailings volume is
comprised of such metallic salts, no compatibility or integrity issues
are expected regardless of incremental changes in the various metallic
salt levels (e.g., cerium, hafnium, lanthanum, niobium, neodymium,
praseodymium, scandium, tantalum, tungsten and yttrium) anticipated
from processing the FMRI Material.
a)
b)
c)
d)
Letter to Dane f-. P'i,r.Of.
|une22,2005
Page 3
e) Under even worst-case assumptions, i.e., assumingzero values at half
their detection limit and assuming no reduction in the concentration of
ketones due to volatilization, the concentration of all ketones in the
tailings system after processing the FMRI Material is not expected to
exceed 13 ppm. This level is more than 7,000 times lower then the
U.S. EPA test level for compatibility of ketones with PVC seams and
is de minimus.
With respect to compatibility of the referenced constituents with groundwater quality, the
constituents will not have an adverse impact on the Mill's tailings system, as discussed
above. Therefore, there is no reason to expect that any of the constituents will ever come
into contact with groundwater. Nevertheless, in the hypothetical situation where the
tailings cells are assumed to be leaking, all of the referenced constituents have either been
measured to be or can reasonably be assumed to be in the existing tailings contained in
the tailings cells. The concentrations of these constituents in the FMRI Material are
relatively low, and, taking into consideration that the total quantity of FMRI Materials is
estimated to be approxirnately 32,000 tons, compared to total existing tailings in Cell 3 of
approximately one million tons, the impact of these constituents on the makeup of the
tailings will be insignificant. There would therefore be no significant incremental impact
on groundwater quality in the event of a hypothetical leak in the Mill's tailings cells over
and above any impacts from the existing Mill tailings.
2. The waste is described as arriving in 'fabric bags". The request also describes the
"dewatered sludge" as having an average moisture content of 30%. The previously
submitted report titled, "Evaluation of Potential for Seepage of Constituents Present in
Alternate Feed Materials into the Ore Storage Pad", dated June 28, 2002, does not
evaluate material with a moisture content as high as 30o% being stored on the ore pad"
Please evaluate the.fabric bags.for possible leaknge.
FMRI is designing the drying process to achieve an optimal moisture content of
approximately 20o/o. The 30%o moisture content was used in the license amendment
application to be conservative. Based on the physical nature of the FMRI Material, it is
not expected that there would be any free liquid at the higher moisture content. Even if
there were some fiee liquid generated during transport or storage of the material it would
be very small and totally contained by the "fabric bags". The bags are constructed of
polypropylene fabric treated for ultraviolet resistance. Each bag will also have a 3 mil
polyethylene internal liner for additional containment of lrigher moisture content
materials. A copy of the bag specification is attached.
3. Page l2 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. In
the NRC memorandum "Redistribution of NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2000-23
Recent Changes to Uranium Recovery Policy: dated April 19, 2001 ", the NRC
Letter to Dane r. Pin.lt
June22,2005
Page 4
includes criteriafor determining whether or not a non-natural ore can be processed as
an alternatefeed. Criteria 3 states:
". . . the ore must be processedprimarilyfor its source mtaterial content. If 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."
Should the Licensee choose to recover uranium only, no documentation is required.
Should the Licensee choose to recover any material in addition to uranium, the Licensee
must notify the DRC and provide documentation that the uranium product will be the
primary product pro duce d.
At this time IUSA is planning on processing the FMRI Material for the recovery of
uranium only. Should IUSA choose to recover any other material in addition to uranium,
IUSA will notify the DRC and provide further submissions at that time.
4. The financial surety for IUSA requires that the current cost estimate be evaluated in
regards to disposal process with each alternate feed and associated costs being
itemized. The MarchT, 2005 report didnot address any surety costs associatedwith
FMRI material, in the unlikely event that IUSA close prior to processing the material.
Please provide a suret.v increase estimate.
In the past, the Mill has not increased or decreased its surety amount during the year as a
result of receiving or processing alternate feed materials or ores throughout the year.
IUSA proposes that, consistent with past practice, the additional surety dollars to account
for the disposal of the FMRI Material will be included in the revised cost estimate that
will be presented to the DRC in March 2006. This makes sense for a number of reasons.
Had the projected 32,000 tons of FMRI Material been at the White Mesa Mill at the time
of the February 2005 surety update, the reclamation expense for the material would have
added approximately $43,000 to the current estimate. However, since the material will
not begin ariving at the Mill until later this year, and it is expected to take 12 to 24
months to complete delivery of the material, it would be more timely to evaluate the
added reclamation liability resulting from receipt of this material in the February 2006
surety update. In the interim, IUSA is processing the Cameco alternate feed materials,
which is expected to be complete by early 2006. The processing of this material will
result in a reduction of the reclamation liability by approximately $73,000. IUSA does
not propose that the reclamation surety be reduced in the interim to reflect this reduction
in reclamation liability. Rather, it would be more appropriate to evaluate both of these
activities, receipt of the FMRI Material and processing of the Cameco material, in the
February 2006 surety update.
Letter to Dane L. Fin0ck
Jwte22,2005
Page 5
I hope this information answers your questions, and if you need additional information
please feel free to contact Harold Roberts or me.
John Hultquist, DRC
Jon Jackson, FMRI
Ron F. Hochstein, IUSA
Harold R. Roberts, IUSA
T. Kenneth Miyoshi, IUSA
MEMORANDUM
International Uranium (USA)
Corporation
Attn: David C. Frydenlund
Jo Ann S. Tischler
June22,2005
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT: Response to UDEQ Comment Letter of 05/16/05 on FMRI Amendment
Request
I am supplying the following information in response to the Utah Department of Environmental
Quality ("UDEQ") comment letter of May 16, 2005 regarding International Uranium (USA)
Corporation's ("IUSA's") March 17,2005 application for license amendment for Uranium
Material (the "FMRI Uranium Material") from Fansteel Metals Recovery, Inc. ("FMR["). This
addresses the chemical compatibility of various contaminants in the FMRI Uranium Material
with the Mill's tailings system, in response to UDEQ Comment #1.
Comment #1
The FMRI waste profiles indicated that the waste stream included several contaminants that
have not been adequately assessed as to the cumulative effect they may pose to the integrity of
the pond liner, especially where the liner sections are joined. These contaminates [sicJ include:- 4 methyl 2-pentanone [a.k.a. methyl isobutyl ketone ("MIBK")J, Bis (2-ethylhexyl),
Di-n-butyl phthal ate, cerium, hafnium, I anthanum, niobium, ne o dymium,
P r as e o dymiu m, S c andium, Suffi de, Tant alum, Tungs ten, Yttrium, and /luoride.
Please evaluate the chemical compatibili\) qf contaminants with the pond liner, seam integrit.y
and gr o undw at er int e gr i fii.
1. RESPONSE
1.1.Summary
The contaminants identified by UDEQ for further assessment can be categorized by chemical
type as follows:
(i) Phthalates - Bis 2 ethylhexyl phthalate and Di-n-butyl phthalate;(ii) Non-metal inorganic anions - sulfide and fluoride;
Memo re: Response to UQ Comments
Jtne22,2005
Page2 of7
(iii)
(iv)
As will be discussed in detail below, all of these constituents are compatible with the Mill's
tailings liners and liner joints in much higher concentrations than found in the FMRI material.
Accordingly, the impact of these constituents on the Mill's tailings system will be insignificant.
1.2. Tailings Liner Construction
Currently, only tailings cells i and 3 are in active service. Tailings cell 4,A. is out of service and
the Mill does not intend to place any additional materials in this cell unless or until it undergoes
repairs and modification of its liner system.
a)Cell Liners
The cells were constructed with technology current for the late 1970's and 1980's. Both cells
were constructed of flexible 30 mil polyvinyl chloride ("PVC"). Due to its tight polymeric
structure and the intrinsic electro-negativity and chemical resistance of chlorinated super-
polymers, PVC is generally selected for applications requiring impermeability to a wide range of
free liquids and aqueous solutes including mineral acids, animal fats, petroleum hydrocarbons,
and natural microorganisms (fungi, etc.). It was selected for use at the Mill, in part, because of
its resistance both to strong sulfuric acid, and to kerosene, which are recycled through the tailings
system as part of the Mill's leaching and extraction processes, respectively.
b) Liner Joint Technoloey
Historic information regarding the construction of cells 1 and 3 indicates that two different liner-
sealing systems were used in their construction.
The liner sections of one cell were j oined by the "solvent-weld" method, and those of the other
by a liner-seam adhesive-bond method. The differences between the two methods are explained
below.
Polymer welding is used extensively to ensure joint or seam impermeability in both rigid and
flexible thermoplastics, including chloro-polymers (vinyls). In polymer welding, the polymer
chains at the edge or surf'ace of one segment or component are brought into contact with those at
the edge of a second component and are made soft or mobile enough to entangle with chain ends
from the second component. In polymer heat welding, mobility is accomplished by heating the
material just above its melting temperature (for crystalline polymers) or its glass transition
temperature (for amorphous polymers). When the material cools, the entangled solid mass of
chains constitutes a weld. Solvent welding exposes the polyrner chains to polar organic solvents,
Tlansition and rare earth metals - cerium, hafnium, lanthanum,
niobium, neodymium, praseodymium, scandium, tantalum, tungsten,
yttrium; and
Ketones - MIBK
Memo re: Responr",o ut Comments
Jtne22,2005
Page 3 of7
instead of heat, to soften and entangle the strands. When the solvent evaporates, the remaining
entangled solid mass of chains constitutes a weld.
The liner sections of the other cell were joined by a liner seam adhesive system. This method
involves applying a mixture containing strands of one or more polymers dissolved in a volatile
solvent to a pair of PVC (straight, rolled or folded edge) surfaces to be joined. The solvents for
both the weld method and adhesive method are ketones such as MEK, methyl isobutyl ketone
("MIBK") or blends of these and other polar compounds. Historic information for the Mill's
tailings cells indicates that the ketone used both in the solvent welding method and the searn
adhesive method was 2 butanone (also called "methyl ethyl ketone" or "MEK").
U.S. EPA's Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory (Morrison and Parkhill, 1987)
tested 30 mil PVC seams of various widths joined by solvent adhesive and weld methods (in this
case heat weld). The tests included simulated weathering and exposure to a wide range of
reactive chemicals, including 10 percent methyl ethyl ketone. EPA found that both the weld and
solvent adhesive joints performed satisfactorily under chemical exposure conditions.
1.3. Analysis of Categories of Constituents Found in FMRI Uranium Material
a)Phthalates
According to the U.S. Arrny Waterways Experiment Station (see reference 6 below), when PVC
liners are exposed to multiple contaminant mixtures, the key factor in liner life and effectiveness
is not chemical compatibility, but installation technique and preservation of initial plasticizer
content for liner flexibility. According to the Textbook of Polymer Science (Billmeyer, l97l)
two of the most common types of plasticizers and stabilizers for chlorinated polymers such as
PVC since the 1960's have been di-n-butyl phthalate and multi-substituted phthalates. Polymer
producers BF Goodrich, BASF Corporation, and EI du Pont recommend integration of these
compounds at levels as high as 30 percent by mass into rigid PVC castings and PVC liner
sheeting to improve the lifelong properties of the material. That is, exposure of the cell 1 and
cell 3 linings to phthalates will not embrittle, dissolve, or degrade the liners. In fact, if present at
high enough concentrations, these types of compounds would actually help maintain liner
integrity by improving its plasticity, flexibility and toughness. However, at low concentrations,
(part per million levels or lower) they are de minimus and will have no impact on the liner
system.
Bis 2 ethylhexyl phthalate is not present in the FMRI Uranium Material. FMRI characterization
studies identified bis 2 ethylhexyl phthalate only in samples from Pond 5. Material from Pond 5
is not included in the material to be shipped to the Mill. Bis 2 ethylhexyl phthalate was
mentioned in both the Jo Ann Tischler RCRA memorandum dated March 7,2005 and the Jo Ann
Tischler chemical compatibilty memorandum (the "Tischler Technical Memorandum") also
dated March7,2005, both of which accompanied the license amendment application for the
FMzu Uranium Materials, as an additional example of the types of phthalates that, like di-n-butyl
phthalate, can contarninate samples due to their presence in sampling equipment, containers and
Memo re: Response to UII Comments
June22,2005
Page 4 of7
personnel protective equipment. FMRI's NRC Site Decommissioning Plan stated that neither
bis 2 ethylhexyl phthalate nor di-n-butyl phthalate were actually present in the FMRI ponds, but
were reported due to their presence in plastic sampling equipment. In any case, as mentioned
above, bis 2 ethylhexyl phthalate was only reported in material from Pond 5, which will not be
shipped to the Mill.
As the concentration of di-n-butyl phthalate in the FMRI Material, if it is actually present, is very
low (approximately I ppm), it rs de minimus and will have no impact, positive or negative, on
the Mill's tailings systenl.
b) Non-rnetal inorganic anions
(,Suffides
The Radioactive Material Profile Record ("RMPR") submitted with the March 7,2005 License
amendment application included a checked box indicating that sulfide was a constituent of the
FMRI Uranium Material. As described in the Tischler Technical Memorandum, despite the
checked box on the RMPR, there is no data in any of the laboratory results indicating the
presence of any sulfides in the FMRI Uranium Material. The laboratory reports do indicate the
presence of sulfates, which are entirely compatible with the aqueous sulfates already in the
tailings system, as addressed in the memorandum. IUSA has confirmed via a June 10, 2005
telephone contact with FMRI that the sulfide box in the RMPR was checked off in error. IUSA
is in the process of obtaining an updated RMPR, corrected to indicate sulfate, not sulfide,
content, and will submit that document to the UDEQ separately from this response.
As sulfates in any concentrations are compatible with the aqueous sulfates already in the tailings
system, the impact of any sulfates in the FMRI Material will be insignificant.
(i, Fluorides
Information from FMRI indicated that fluoride was present in the FMRI Uranium Material only
in inorganic forms. As described in the Tischler memorandum, the FMRI Uranium Material
consists mainly of residual metal impurities in the fluoride form, that is, metal fluoride salts.
Fluorides have been introduced into the Mill's uranium circuit with natural ores and alternate
feeds at levels as high as 460,000 mg/kg. The FMRI Uranium Material was estimated to have an
order-of-magnitude average concentration of 309,000 mg/kg fluoride salts.
Various manufacturel's literature rate flexible PVC as resistant to inorganic hydrofluoric acid at
concentrations as high as 48 percent by weight, and resistant to metal fluoride salts in all
proportions.
Although there will be an increase in the overall concentration of fluoride salts in the tailings
cells after FMRI tailings are added to existing tailings, the resulting concentration of
Memo re: Response to U] Comments
June 22,2005
Page 5 of7
approximat ely 7,200 ppm (0.7 percent) will be well below the manufacturer's ratings of 48
percent for inorganic hydrofluoric acid and unlimited concentrations for metal fluoride salts.
Accordingly, the impact of the fluorides in the FMRI Material on the Mill's tailings system will
be insignificant.
c) Transition and Rare Earth Metals
Various manufacturer's literature rate flexible PVC as resistant to metallic salts, metallic soaps,
metallic cyanides and metallic acetates in nearly all proportions. This resistance includes
compounds of the alkali metals, the alkaline earths, the rare earth metals, the transition metals,
and the metalloids. For this reason, PVC has been used extensively for piping, tubing, bulk
containers and flexible system liners for aqueous solutions of these compounds for nearly three
quarters ofa century.
As the Mill's tailings cell liners are compatible with high level metallic salts, and in fact, the
majority of the Mill's tailings volume is comprised of such metallic salts, no compatibility or
integrity issues are expected regardless of incremental changes in metallic salt levels anticipated
from processing the FMRI Uranium Material.
d) Ketones
Methyl isobutyl ketone could be expected to be present in the FMRI Uranium Material as a
residual from FMRI processing steps. Ketones are already present in the current tailings
composition due both to their use in small quantities in the Mill's on-site laboratory and their
presence at low levels in some previously processed alternate feeds.
Manufacturer's guides indicate that ketones may be incompatible with PVC liner systems under
some conditions. These conditions include:
. high concentration solutions of ketones,
. non-aqueous solutions of ketones (such as mineral oil or plant oil based solutions),
and
. direct contact of dry liner surfaces with free product ketone.
As described earlier, U.S. EPA obtained satisfactory results from liner and joint testing of PVC
with ketone solutions at concentrations up to 10 percent.
Calculations in Table 2 of the Tischler Technical Memorandum indicate that based on the most
conservative assumptions, the overall average MIBK concentration in the FMRI Uranium
Material might be estimated to be 4.1 ppm, and the total ketone concentration in the Mill tailings
after processing FMRI Uranium Material might be estimated to be 13 ppm. The estimates are
overly conservative for two reasons. First, they assigned a quantity of half the detection limit to
every reported zero value in the FMRI data for any ketone. Second, they assumed that the
concentrations of these highly volatile compounds would not be reduced by evaporation during
Memo re: Responr",o uO Comments
June 22,2005
Page 6 of7
FMRI handling, shipping to the Mill, storage, Mill processing or at any time from the tailings
evaporation cells.
In addition, for conservatism, the Mill takes additional measures to minimize the exposure of the
cell liners to potentially degradative conditions. Tailings from alternate feeds and Mill laboratory
wastes containing trace ketones have only been pumped to cells actively in use and already
containing large volumes of aqueous solutions. No oil-based mixfures of ketones have ever been
disposed in the cells. Ketones have no opportunity for direct contact with a dry cell liner or liner
joint surface.
Under even worst-case assumptions, i.e., assumi ngzerovalues at half their detection limit and
assuming no reduction in the concentration of ketones due to volatilization, the concentration of
all ketones in the tailings system is not expected to exceed 13 ppm. This level is more than 7,000
times lower then the U.S. EPA test level for ketones and is de minimus.
2, SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
2.1. Phthalates can have a positive effect if in high enough concentrations (approximately 30
percent). At low concentrations, (part per million levels) they are de minimus and will have no
impact on the liner system. The concentration of di-n-butyl phthalate in the FMRI Material
(approximately 1 ppm) is de minimus and will have no impact, positive or negative on the Mill's
tailings system. Bis 2-ethylhexyl phthalate is not present in the FMRI Uranium Material.
2.2. There are no sulfides in the FMzu Uranium Material. Reference to sulfides in the RMPR
was a mistake, and should have been a reference to sulfates. Sulfates at all concentrations are
compatible with the aqueous sulfates already in the tailings system. As a result, the impact on
the Mill's tailings system of any sulfates in the FMRI Uranium Material will be insignificant.
2.3. Although there will be an increase in the overall concentration of fluoride salts in the
tailings cells after tailings from processing the FMRI Uranium Material are added to existing
tailings, the concentrations of approximately 7 ,200 ppm (0.7 percent) will be well below the
manufacturer's ratings of 48 percent for inorganic hydrofluoric acid and an unlimited
concentration for metal f'luoride salts. Accordingly, the impact of the fluorides in the FMRI
Material on the MilI's tailings system will be insignificant.
2.4. As the Mill's tailings cell liners are compatible with high level metallic salts, and in fact,
the majority of the Mill's tailings volume is comprised of such metallic salts, no compatibility or
integrity issues are expected regardless of incremental changes in metallic salt (e.g., cerium,
hafnium, lanthanum, niobium, neodymium, praseodymium, scandium, tantalum, tungsten and
yttrium) levels anticipated from processing the FMRI Uranium Material.
2.5. Under even worst-case assumptions, i.e., assumingzero values at half their detection
limit and assuming no reduction in the concentration of ketones due to volatilization, the
Memo re: Respons" to uO Comments
June 22,2005
PageT of7
concentration of all ketones in the tailings system is not expected to exceed l3 ppm. This level is
more than 7,000 times lower then the U.S. EPA test level for ketones and is de minimus.
3. REFERENCES
1. Billmeyer, Fred. W. Textbook of Polymer Science, Second Edition. New York. John Wiley
& Sons. 1971.
2. Cole-Parmer USA. Chemical Compatibility Database. 2005
3. Copely Products. Chemical Resistance Tables. 2005
4. Morrison, William R. and Parkhill, Linda D. Evaluation of Flexible Membrane Liner Seams
after Chemical Exposure and Simulated Weathering. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
April 1987.
5. Sax, N. Irving, and Lewis, Richard J. Sr. Editors. Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionar.y.
Eleventh Edition. New York. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. 1987
6. Shafer, R.A. Technical Report: New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project. Acushnet River
Estuary. Eneineering Feasibility of Dredging and Dredges Material Disposal Alternatives. U.S.
Army Waterways Experiment Station. May 13,2001
7. Wise, Roger. Solvent Welding of Thermoplastics. TWI, Ltd. 2001
8. Wittliners. Exceline PVC Chemical Resistance Chart http://wittliners.com/chemchart2.html
Jun I ti U5 U+: OOp
Agil4/2AA5 14:13
Fenstee I
o8476A58886
p.2
?AGi Z2/A2
I 186876 r.
o
USA, INC.
u.s.A.
QUCTAT ICN
1515 WoouneLD RoAo,.Sulrg 340, Scsrut*suno, IL 60173
IRANSPAC
[phone]
(847),605-16r6
Fa.x: [phone]
DATE:
CUSI.OMERI
6-14-0s
A & M.ENGINEERING
10010 E. 16n,l STREET
TUISA, OK; 74128
ATTN: DAN BAKER
918{65-5575
918-655.5576
Wessna: TRatsplcuse, covt
REFERENCE;
PHONE:
FAX:
QUOTE#:
BAG STYLE:
BAG SIZE:
END USE:
MATERIAL:
TYPE:
CI'IARGE SPOUT:
DISCHARGE SPOUT:
FEATURES:
MAX, WEIGHT:
SAFETY FACTOR:
BB 847-1
TPA
42X42X37..
8O2 WPP
UV-UNI.AMINATED
14X18
FljT ( C.LoSED )
4-10" UFT LOOPS; 3 MIL PE UNER LOOSE RTIING; HEAVry DUrY BELTS
4500 LBS
5:1
4*sdb,aASUBMITTED BY:
GREG HANDRAHAN, SR. VICE pRESTDEf{f
nr tJd ,rrrt,o*ol u^oNtuM (usA) coRPoRArtoN
April28, 2006
VIA FACSIMILE AI\D 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 841l4-4810
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 (the *Mill") to authorize processing of FMRI, Inc. alternate feed
material (the "Uranium Material")
Dear Mr. Finerfrock:
In Section 2.2 of olur license amendment application for the Uranium Material we state that the
Uranium Material will be comprised of the materials stored in on-site Ponds 2 and 3, together
with ancillary drummed material. We have been advised by FMRI, that in fact the Uranium
Material will not contain any ancillary drummed material. Please be advised that the Mill will
not receive any drummed Uranium Material under this license amendment.
If you require any further information or would like to discuss the foregoing, please contact me
at your convenience.
Vice President and General Counsel
cc:Laura Lockhart
Ron Hochstein
Harold Roberts
(_('.(:-i P('t ;l::C.t')\-:
a
Tel.;303 628 7798
Far 303 3894125
1050 Seventeenft St. Suite 950
Dehv€r, Colorado, USA 80265 I info0intturanium.com
I ururur.lnduranlum.conr
.LENEr.l*"*
Governor
GAYLE F. McKEACHNIE
Lieutenant Governor
State of Utah
Deparhent of
Environmental Quality
Danne R. Nielson, Ph.D.
Executive Director
DTVISION OFRADIATION
CONTROL
Dane L. Finerfrock
Director
September 13,2004
DavidFrydenlund
International Uranium (USA) Corp.
1050 17th Street
Denver, CO 80265
Subject: State of Utah Rules for l1e.(2) Licensed Facilities
DearMr. Frydenlund,
For your convenience have provided copies of the State of Utah rules that are applicable to l1e.(2)
license facilities. These rules include R313-12, R313-14, R313-15, R313-17, R313-18, R313-19,
R3 t3-21, R3l3-22,R313-24, R313-70, 2004 Approved Rates and Fees, and R3l7-6"
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at [phone].
Section Manager
M,,ffi
Section Manager
JPC: jc
F:\FACILITIESUUM - WHITE MESAU004-09-13 lrtter - I le2 rules.doc
File: White Mesa - 20(M Conespondence
168 Norft 1950 West. PO Box 144850. Salt Lake City, UT 841 14-4850. phone [phone]. fax [phone]
T.D.D. (801) 5364414. www.deq.umh. gov
lltah!
Where ideas connect-
oru*uJr**
Governor
GAYLE F. McKEACHNIE
Lieutenant Governor
State of Utah
Department of
Environmental Quality
Dianne R. Nielson, Ph.D.
Executive Director
DTVISION OFRADIATION
CONTROL
Dane L. Finerfrock
Director
September 9,2004
David Frydenlund
International Uranium Corporation (USA)
Independen ce Plaza Ste 950
1050 lTth Street
Denver, CO 80265
RE:Monthly Fee and Hourly Charges for I le(2) Licensee;
New Utah Radioactive Material Licensees;
N.R.C. RML # SUA 1358
Dear Mr. Frydenlund:
The purpose of this letter is to notify you of the current fee schedule for source material licensees.
Pages 217 and 220 of the State of Utah "Appropriation Act", Senate Bill No. 1, relating to fees to
be charged to source material licensees, are provided as a references. This bill was effective July
r.2004.
The fee schedule takes into account three states of licenses: l) an active facility licensee, 2) a
licensee whose facility has been deemed to be in "standby" condition and 3) a licensee undergoing
reclamation and decommissioning. As an active license, the "S.B.1" fee schedule authorizes a fee
of $6,667.00 per month and a "review fee" of $70.00 per hour. Our approach is to apply the
$70.00 per hour assessment only to permitting /licensing activities. All staff compliance activities
such as inspections and follow-up, Division managerial, secretarial, rule making, and budget
support costs associated with lle(2) licenses will not incur the $70.00 per hour fee.
As a matter of business practice, the Division will send a statement to you on the 15th day of each
month for the payment due by the l5th day of the next month. According, please accept this letter
as notice of your payment due for the month of October and remit payment by October 15,2004-
168 North 1950 West . PO Box 1,14850 . Salt Lake City, UT 841 l4-4850 . phone [phone]. fax [phone]
T.D.D. (801 ) 5364414 . www.deq.utah. gov
lltnh!
Where ideas connect*
Page2
September 9,2004
David Frydenlund
International Uranium Corporation (USA)
Subsequent statements will include the monthly fee and may include appropriate hourly fees
incurred during the period of the 15fr day of the preceding month to the l5th day of the current
month. Fees are payable to the Division of Radiation Control.
If you have questions or problems with fee payment, please contact Mina Larson, Support
Services Coordinator, Division of Radiation Control or, if you need to discuss the fee schedule,
please contact me. We appreciate your cooperation and look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
oru*rJr**
Govemor
GAYLE F. MCKEACHNIE
Lieutenanl Govemor
State of Utah
Department of
Environmental Quality
Dianne R. Nielson, Ph.D.
Executive Director
DTVISION OFRADI,ATION
CONTROL
Dane L. Finerfrock
Director
September 3,2004
International Uranium (USA) Corporation
Attn: Mr. David Frydenlund
Independen ce Plaza, Suite 950
1050 17th Street
Denver, CO 80265
SUBJECT: TRANSFER REGULATORY AUTHORITY FOR tte.(Z) BYPRODUCT
MATERIAL TO UTAH RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM - NRC LICENSE SUA-1358
Dear Mr. Frydenlund:
I am pleased to inform you that the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and
the Governor for the State of Utah, Olene S. Walker, have signed an Agreement regarding
certain radioactive materials. The Agreement transfers NRC's regulatory authority with respect
to the possession, use and disposal of 11e.(2) byproduct material las defined in Section 11e.(2) of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amendedl and the facilities that generate such material, to the
State of Utah for licensing, inspection, and rulemaking activities.
The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Division of Radiation Control (DRC), is
now responsible for implementing the lle.(2) byproduct material disposal and uranium milling
program for the State of Utah. ln order to ensure that the program developed by the State of
Utah meets the requirements and is compatible with the NRC's program in all other respects of
the Atomic Energy Act to protect public health, safety and the environment, the Utah Radiation
Control Act and Utah Radiation Control Rules have been modified to incorporate requirements
for uranium milling and 11e.(2) byproduct material management.
Also, you should be aware that the Radiation Control Board (Board), a Statutory Board, was
created to guide the development of State radiation control policy and regulations implementing
the Radiation Control Act. Although the Board is responsible for issuance of all radioactive
material licenses, they have delegated to the Executive Secretary the authority to issue licenses,
issue orders, conduct inspections, and to enforce compliance with regulations, license conditions,
and orders.
168 North 1950 West . PO Box 1,14850. Salt [:ke City, UT 84114-4850 . phone [phone]. fax [phone]
T.D.D. [phone]. www.deq.utah.gov
lltah!
Wlrcre ideas connect*
Page 2
All correspondence should now be transmitted to the Executive Secretary, who is also the
director of the Division of Radiation Control in the Department of Environmental Quality:
Dane L. Finerfrock, Executive Secretary
Utah Radiation Control Board
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
168 North 1950 West
s dt L"l"?',;:i,+-ii 1 ?o-4il o
The DRC recognizes the desirability and importance of cooperation and open communication
between your facility and the Division with respect to accomplishing our mutual goals of
assuring employee health and safety, preserving the environment and quality of life. Please
contact me at [phone] if you have any questions.
Utah Radiation Control Board
Dane L. Finerfrock,
Executive Secretary