DRC-2002-001129 - 0901a06880adecd6

INrnnNerro*ol
UneNtul,t (usn)
ConponertoN
IndependencePlaza, Suite 950. 1050 Seventeentl Street. Denver, CO 80265.303 628 7798 (main) .303 389 aL25 (fur)
February 15,2002
t':
'ti i\
't$VIA EXPRESS COURIER
Mr. MelvynN. Leach, Chief
Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch
Mail Stop T-8A33
Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
2 White FlintNorth
11545 Rockville Pike
Rockville, \,[D 20852-2738
/cvl*ll i
ll .. I\6i\o\(;
\'(-. .\(r
a
co
(o
+9
.,{.9
Re: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission letter of November 30, 2001
White Mesa Uranium Mill
Source Material License No. SUA-1358; Docket No. 40-8681
Dear Mr. Leach:
International Uranium (USA) Corporation ("IUSA") hereby responds to the question
relating to the Jones Well in your letter dated November 30, 2001. In its letter to the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ('NRC") dated November 19,2001, IUSA provided
concrurence that the Jones Well is located cross gradient, rather than down gradient, of
existing operations and site activities at the White Mesa Uranium Mill (the "Milf'). The
purpose of this letter is provide the NRC further detail that IUSA has been able to obtain.
regarding the Jones Well.
Under separate cover, IUSA will respond to NRC's questions regarding control of
potential dust and protection of groundwater relative to IUSA's practice of stockpiling
alternate feed on the Mill's ore pad. These questions were also mentioned in NRC's
November 30, 2001 letter, and were detailed in NRC's letter to IUSA dated January 14,
2002.
INTRODUCTION
Over time, certain details regarding the Jones Well have been documented in numerous
sections of reports concerning the occurrence of groundwater in the vicinity of the Mill,
Mr. Melvyn N. Leach, il. **a
February 15,2002
Page 2 of5
purposes of watering approximately 30 head of cattle and l0 horses, under Water Right
09-193.
In the following sections, IUSA lists data from three of the submittals previously sent to
NRC that contained information regarding the Jones Well. In addition, IUSA provides a
sunmary of information gleaned from the Utah.gov website, as well as a swnmary of the
current itutor of the well, followed by an assessment of the potential that this well could
be impacted from site activities.
Environmental Report
In the Envirorunental Report - White Mesa Uranium Project. San Juan Countv. Utah
(Dames & Moore, January 30,1978;the "Environmental Report"), Table 2.6-1 lists
details for the Jones Well as follows:
. Well Identification No. (from Table 2.6-l):37. Utah Appropriation No.: 27954. Location: Section 33, Township 37S, Range 22E
. Owner/Operator: Alma U. Jones. Nature of Use: Stockwatering. ProducingFormation: Dakota./Morrison. Depthof Well: 200ft.. Casing Depth: 200 ft.. Size of Casing: 4 %" O.D.. Yield of Well: 0.015 CFS
Plate2.6-3 of the Environmental Report shows the location of the subject well in Section
33. Copies of Plate 2.6-3 and Table 2.6'l ue attached.
The location of the Jones Well is to the south/southeast of the present Mill facilities. It
shoulilbe noted that the Mill property ownership has expanded considerably since 1978,
and now includes the property on which the Jones Well is located.
Hvdroseolosic Evaluation
Table 1.1 of the Hydrogeoloeic Evaluation of White Mesa Uranium Mill (Titan, 1994;
the "Titan Report") lists details for the subject well as follows:
. Water Right: Alma U. Jones. Location: Section 33, Township 37S, Range 22E
. Potential yield (estimated prior to drilling): 0.015 cubic feet per second (CFS)
. Depth: 200 feet. Use: Stockwatering
S:11r,4RR\l.iRCQuestions(general)\NRCletterofNovembe130200l\lettertoNRCrejoneswellfinal02l502
Mr. Melvyn N. r"u.rrl.S. NRC
February 15,2002
Page 3 of5
September 2001 Map
A September 2001 map sent to the State of Utah and to the U.S. NRC entitled White
Mesa Mill Topographic Mao - 2001 Contour Base shows the estimated location of the
subject well, southeast and east of the Mill facilities.
Records from Utah.eov Website
In addition to the above, records on Water Right 09-193 from the Utah.gov website
contain a small amount of additional detail regarding well construction, as follows:
*9114159
The applicant appeared at the hearing held at 4:00 p.m. June 15, 1959, in
the courthouse at Monticello, Utah. At this hearing the applicant stated
that Mr. C.M. Conway drilled this well in March of 1956, to a depth of
200 feet, using 4-inch casing. All aquifers were perforated. The static
level of water being approximately 100 feet below ground surface. Mr.
Conway bailed 97.5 g.p.hour from the well. This well is not used but it is
planned to deepen this well."
The State record contains no information on dates following the above, nor do they
contain any indication that the well was ever deepened.
IUSA notes that the 97.5 g.p.hour yield estimated and reported by the driller when he
bailed the well would be approximately an order of magnitude less than the 0.015 CFS
yield estimated for appropriation purposes.
Current Status
Mill personnel inspected the well in February 2002 and reported that the well, which is
constructed of 4-inch standard steel casing, is capped with a 4-inch threaded steel cap.
The cap is fastened so tightly that it cannot be removed by hand. The well is not being
put to any beneficial use, including stockwatering. The well is located on fee land owned
and controlled by the licensee.
During the week of February 4, 2002, Mill personnel interviewed local ranchers and
farmers who have grazed cattle in the immediate area during the past 40 years. These
individuals reported that, to the best of their knowledge, the Jones Well was last used for
stock watering purposes in the early 1970's. None of these individuals, nor any of the
Mill personnel who live in the area, can recall the water from this well having been put to
any beneficial use since the Mill began to be permiued, which was in 1978.
The last attempt to collect any water from the Jones Well took place during a
groundwater split sampling event performed in 1999, in cooperation between IUSA and
the Utah Department of Environmental Quality. At that time, it was impossible to collect
S:\MRR\NRCQuestions(generalINRCletterolNovembe130200l\lettertoNRCrejoneswellfinal02l502
Mr. MelvynN. Leach, il. *a
February 15,2002
Page 4 of5
any water from the Jones Well, because the well contained only a very small amount of
water mixed with mud.
The Jones Well is depicted in Figure 2.1 of the Titan Report as being east of the Mill
tailings facilities. The hydraulic gradient in the perched groundwater zone at the Mill site
has historically been to the south and southwest, which would not be in the direction of
the Jones Well. Recent water level increases observed in perched zone wells along the
eastem side of the Mill property may indicate a somewhat more westerly hydraulic
gradient, although the data indicate that a southerly gradient still exists near MW-4.
In view of these current data, which still support the site conceptual model of a
southwesterly and southerly hydraulic gradient, it is reasonable to assume that the Jones
Well has little potential for being impacted by Mill site activities. Furthermore, as
reported in numerous reports concerning investigation of chloroform detected at MW-4,
thi data indicate that no monitoring wells show any impacts from site activities. Rather,
the chloroform contamination detected in MW-4, which is the only contamination
detected at the site, resulted from the use of a sanitary leachfield, prior to Mill operations.
Because the Jones Well is located much fhrther away from the locations of site activities
than the wells that are located to monitor near those active areas, and because the
monitoring wells indicate no impact from site activities, the monitoring data support the
conclusion that the Jones Well has little potential for being impacted by Mill site
activities. In addition, the reported low yield of the Jones Well (approximately 1.5 gpm)
is indicative of its being in an area of low hydraulic conductivity, which, combined with
the gradient considerations, further decreases the likelihood that any contaminants would
be transported to this well. Finally, as noted above, the well has not been put to any
beneficial use for approximately 25 or more years, and it presently appears to contain so
much silt and mud as to be unusable.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In response to the NRC's letter of November 30,200l,IUSA has hereby transmitted to
the NRC the above details regarding the Jones well. Data from three reports or submittals
that contained information regarding the Jones well are detailed above, and indicate the
following regarding the Jones well:
. It is a shallow, poorly-producing well, that was drilled in March of 1956, to a
depth of 200 feet, using 4-inch steel casing
. Water was measured at a depth of approximately 100 feet below ground surface at
the time of drilling
. Yield was only about 1.5 gallons per minute at the time of drilling, but the well
currently yields no water
S:\tvlRRNRCQuestions(general)\NRCletterofNovember30200l\leftertoNRcrejoneswellfinal02l502
Mr. MelvynN. Leach,t. **a
February 15,2002
Page 5 of5
With respect to well use, as reported in State records, the applicant stated in 1959 that the
well was not being used, but that the applicant planned to deepen the well prior to using
it. The state records contain no indication that the well was ever deepened. Information
obtained in interviews indicates that the well was last used for stock watering in the early
1970's, and that it has been unused for more than 25 yeurs.
Finally, IUSA concludes that that the Jones well has little potential for being impacted by
Mill activities for the following reasons:
. Hydraulic gradient in the perched groundwater zone is to the south and southwest
. Water quatity data demonstrate that site activities have had no impact on
groundwater quality
. Low likelihood of transport to the well due to poor hydraulic properties
Should the NRC have any questions regarding this submittal,I can be reached at (303)
389.4131.
Sincerely,
h-U,-U
Michelle R. Rehmann
Environmental Manager
MRR
Attachments
cc: Ronald E. Berg/IUSA
Richard E. Bartlett, IUSA
David C. Frydenlund, IUSA
Ron F. Hochstein,IUSA
William von Till/IrlRC
William J. SinclairAJDEQ
Tom Rice, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
Loren Setlow, U.S. EPA Offrce of Radiation and Indoor Air (6608.f)
Paul Giardina, Radiation Program Manager, U.S. EPA, Region 2
S:WRR\NRCQuestions(gcncral)NRCIetterolNovcmber302O0l\lcttertoNRCrejoneswcllfinal02l502
iK'
TR
VIJ
ilttts It UIG IX
-*ili'i
o 't. rJ
'i( j^/,ll
'yo i.(rUMBER ANO LOCATIONa2 l\\l-, 33
WATER WELL
irr#
,^!
v.!
NOTES ALL GROUNDWATER APPROPRIATION
APPLICATIONS WITHIN A 5-MILE RADIUS
OF THE ORE-BUYING STATION AS FILED
WITH THE UTAH STATE ENGINEER OFFICE
ARE SHOWN ON THIS HAP
IItuBeuuuuENN!NNENxN!EE9--r--r I !!o6{aO.Do6{oUaEtj-o€orauauNp09o{6s-eE- lr.lE
E;It
a5NUU ra-!5.aepuraaNarsr,N?aalEa6aa{6 6eqtraE{Gsi-OF€O9€6uOaO9996Fso6€u6i6!E{o€ui56a r{Nr9oooFp.oEo06t-uE 65 ua 5a Fs-,r G-6oe. oo {OuuueNOU EN uLie@at6;t-a6oiriG59C66tNa--o-i??.ou {uNNo
.BN'
.6ohoo 3tlla!FHoC3 i ao t6 n o:!c rd n o
rtln NiartsFtstO 6Doo Its5 i N
th&o n
ta
F
t)n
ot
at,rlt{F
{t{t,Fbt rr;zltOH ItD)-1 Z lFz ltr,6)E I'8 l:"c!q to\
F B I,l"E! Fil
H.oHzHttr<
E E p B E ? I I I I I eE 3 S I I B I g I S I I g B I I E B E S E B I t*-**- a ri-i- jr** ttttriixlEta**l?6 0 0 0 a ts o g a o o o 6 a 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 c o, o o o o o o o 0 0 c t?!- - - - re n r r F t t F t - a ra !!bllt6oDaaialilllrtaaattlr!aata!Dl,t l!PiiiilsiE=iiB)ibiliiliiiiiiiliiliilili li ii i i i i i i x i i i i i ( a i i n ! n n n n n r ! x i !: ! ! ! ! : l=>iiiix iriniii.iiiitiiiiinilnnti!! n!!r i!?
EggEE E!sEgE!!E!!gg!!!!g!!!g!!EE!3!E
N{Ets-F P Y'IU-Egr88r 8B8rrr 8 B 88t8 t8tU3 l_ty - . .. ! i_!Eli6a r r I I I r ar I I I r r ofJt 6t {ilt I r r oE9 I I I I I Ii Fb666atNoNptNNUEENS6eOEOOa-a5U{OUUNT- ir7= = -' -' E E E I E E' B g E E I E -'' t - g -' -' 8 t I I''' t I t E 3 !- c
N Ftststs FEitsFF F tsPHFTE tttt EtttBt-.8-E- 38t8- =ttEiB r-c
6uooror r r rdr I r r r rOarctort | | ruNor I I I l- E.eOa6NON9UUONNUN :N:-r.-A---9$!,! F:''''j8'8958't3tE8t I I tt83 tBBs= i=i
u a ' t sa-.-t ,a.\ \ H \ xi.ni r Ir;@.DuON6AOOO6a6OOuON-a64. OO\OOFGa ..r i. r t. a ,. tE6066 !.-.. t r r i-no o o EotIEEg9
UOAUUUUgUUUUO9UUgUUUUUU99UU99UU99!UU-la{{aaa-- a-{l!r-{{{{{{{{{{!{{!{{!{l66ovio!i oo rt!tD6oo 6o ho oo Qb oh oo6o oo 6 I h o bu
NNENN!NNNN!NNNPNDNNNDN![NNNNUNINSNNDSNNNaaNaaNpNNNNNDNNNNNNNNENNNNNtNNp!iiiE E !iaB! E O Ctr AE6e E E EA EE EE Eu EFEEpEE EE E E E
tsNE9UNNDNN !tsFEF"'FYF>-ir-EU-6 aa a-N DN NU eeeu eu ue o g c go g g o g F- su g
i5r
M I I r r t I t I I I t I I I I I t r I r I I I I I t I , r, r, lf;!III Il.l ! II tI II II II l I tI II II r I r II I r ta iiDl< alett,
tsooooc!0oooooo0o0ooooo0oooo ocooo
oooctsFoooooo0oopoFooooo{uu6uocEooo6o I ats-roC->YF-OFFFEOtsOFTotsNE6O66FFO!ts{F- I Fuuu uuoouuuuu o u6uoEl eu eu -.. l*3t a a, o ! a a t a a t a ! l a a a 6 D a r ! ! a a a r I r lFao a i t t o o a E a a a c.n G a G o a o o a o a o i d o c o n o a a a l-ooooooooonoonooooooon6o 6o66oo6ooo6n I oI I I l r l I I I t I tl I r r r I r I r I I I I r ar I I I r r r r I -iE^-ah,niaianananFFrtnnittinF tnrraFtriiia
IIl1l6
oi
oE
.6
Ea
60tc
2t
o
aI
&
o
0
oI
t
Eca
;9r
t 98
o o<
a=a!ao
5
o
It
o
co
8.
fl
BI
Eriil;
;lislE'1l-ol- lFqt{
D,l o
ill
,t l?ol+ot.o;I:J 1,,olP'lF
l)lf
l5'
lal
lr.
lq
ibls
l#t:
lrl+IGt;
ls
l,_tl-i
6'lP!
ltl
c=ErrEsFBp:rEr rrEsf ?=BFr99gsEsEEF gBF
D oIl i- - 6 r< r L c rr i6 -oE -tstla r'-F>lrE ni a o o;irsiai<=6-Ee< .irci?Fg :??g? ;tsc=!EiEilsIES3!EliiiE-alrii:t: :'Ei!! inr;8,, rBor.hf;;38;:reiIE:.ePi5pr q=r-- re".l':' ii5rqlil*i'5:'?oE!'il=lSIrlE ls.rs.r niiiI9= 13i.El.€5" 8 r€E"gggglFSBS 'EIEE Q,.,.,- r.FEI 'EEg "g 3 6 '95',i E33g !;3!;'"55'
OH EHHxx le Zo, ub.l ot o ti: ob oLE oi " c u !,i "!,i! t ! o u o !i " " i i] Irb-a- o ho o 60 u o6oob Eo lr i
6Zl-Z
Ixrrnxerro*O
UneNtuu (USA)
ConroRertox
6425 S. Hwy. l9l . P.O. Box 809 ' Blanding, UT 8451I o
Mr. William Von Till
Proj ect Manager/Hydrogeo lo gist
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .:
1 1545 Pike
Two White Flint North ', .
Rockville, MD 20852-2738 .,i' ,
Mail Stop T7J8
435-678-2221 (phone; ' 435-678-2224 (fttx)
May 29,2001
ffi,
rioi tni
v
'l'.)'.i .i \tr-, \r\{l
1.
4,,,
i,. ,
,.: /.7
RE:Cell4-A Leak Detection System Follow-up Report
Source Material License No. SUA-1358
Docket No. 40-8681
Dear Mr. Von Till:
This letter transmits to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") the follow-up
investigative report of the recent apparent exceedance of the prescribed infiltration rate into
the leak detection system ("LDS") of Tailings Cell4-A at the Intemational Uranium
(USA) Corporation ("IUSA") White Mesa Uranium Mill (the "Mill").
While Cell4-A has a double liner system and there is no evidence or expectation of any
release to the environment through the bottom clay liner, the Mill is required, under
License Condition 1 1.3.D of its license, to notiff the NRC by telephone within 48 hours of
determination of a flow rate into the LDS greater than 1 gallon per minute (>1 gpm) and
submit a report within thirty days which details the mitigative actions taken and their
results.
Mill staff determined on March 27 ,2OOl that the infiltration rate into the LDS appeared to
exceed the 1 gpm level and subsequently notified IUSA's Corporate Management on that
date. IUSA Corporate Management notified the NRC of the apparent excessive infiltration
rate via telephone on March 28,2007. IUSA submitted a preliminary report to the NRC on
Apil27,200l.
The attached report discusses the results of mitigative actions currently underway,
additional planned mitigative actions, and suggested corrective actions.
As NRC is aware, Cell4-A is not in use and its synthetic liner is in need of repair before it
can be put into use. IUSA is currently in the process of updating the Cell 4-A design, with
the intent of removing the existing crystals in the cell and installing a new synthetic liner
system.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please, do not hesitate to
contact me at [phone].
William N. Deal
Manager, White Mesa Mill
Intemational Uranium (USA)
Corporation.
cc: William J. Sinclair
Ron Hochstein
RonBerg
Michelle Rehmann
David Frydenlund
CELL 4.A LEAK DETECTION FOLLOW.UP REPORT
Submitted by
TNTERNATTONAL URAIIUM (USA) CORPORATION
WHITE MESA MILL
License No. SUA-1358
Docket No. 40-8681
May 29,2001
a
?;:rN:;Sf Detection rort Tn RePort
Page I of5
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The White Mesa Mill (the "Mill") is currently operated by Intemational Uranium (USA)
Corporation ("IUSA") under Source Material License SUA-I358 (the "Mill License"). The
Mill's tailings Cell4-A was originally constructed and permitted by the NRC in January of 1990.
Its liner system consists of two liners: a 40 ml HDPE synthetic top liner and a twelve inch
compacted clay bottom liner. Between the two liners is a leak detection system ("LDS"). In
addition, there is a slimes drain system on the top surface of the synthetic liner. The Cell was
initially used for storage and evaporation of process solutions. Early problems with the synthetic
liner installation limited its use to only solution storage, and no tailings solids have been
discharged to the Cell. During the early years of operation the evaporation of process solutions
resulted in the precipitation of dissolved solids into the bottom of the Cell. No additional process
solutions have been added to the Cell for several years, but the original crystals have remained.
The Cell has not been in use for several years, and, as the NRC is aware, its synthetic liner is in
need of repair before the Cell can be put into use. ruSA is currently in the process of updating
the design of Cell 4-A with the intent of removing the existing crystals and installing a new
synthetic liner system for the Cell.
While Cell 4-A has a double liner system, and any leakage through the top synthetic liner is
designed to be pumped out through the LDS and, in any event prevented by the bottom clay liner
from being released to the environment, an excessive rate of flow from the synthetic liner to the
LDS would indicate that the system is not performing as designed and mitigative actions would
be required by the licensee.
License Condition 11.3.D.3 of the Mill License states the following:
"Upon indication that the LDS fluids originated from the disposal cell, the
licensee shall determine the flow rate through the liner by the calculation method
in paragraph B of this license condition. If the flow rate is equal to or greater than
one gallon per minute, the licensee shall:
1. Evaluate the cause of the liner distress and take appropriate and timely
actions to mitigate the leak and any consequent potential impacts;
2. Continue to measure and record LDS "depth to fluid" measurements
weekly; and
3. Notify NRC by telephone within 48 hours, in accordance with License
Condition 9.2, and submit a written report within 30 days of notifying
NRC by telephone, in accordance with License Condition 9.2. The written
report shall include a description of the mitigative action(s) taken and a
discussion of the mitigative action results."
During a review of pump rates from the LDS for Tailings Cell 4-A by Mill staff on March 27 ,
2OOl, the flow rate was calculated to be in excess of 1.0 gallon per minute (gpm). Subsequently,
on that date Mill staff notified IUSA's Corporate Management via telephone of the apparent
Cell 4-A Report_5-29-01 .doc
2.0
;r:'i ii hTk
Detection Forlun RePort
Page 2 of5
excessive infiltration into the LDS and, after further review of all available information, IUSA
Corporate Management notified the NRC via telephone, on March 28,2001. At that time, IUSA
committed to submit a preliminary report by April 27, 2001 as per License Condition I 1.3.D.3.
In the Apil 27,2001 report, IUSA committed to sending a follow-up report within 30 days of
the date of that report.
License Condition 9.2 states that "All written notices and reports to the NRC required under this
license, with the exception of incident and event notifications under 10 CFR 20.2202 and 10
CFR 40.60 requiring telephone notification, shall be addressed to the Chiel Uranium Recovery
and Low-Level Waste Branch, Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards".
It should be emphasizedthat, while notification has been given to NRC and mitigative actions
are required under License condition 11.3.D, as a result of the increased flow rate to the LDS,
there is no evidence nor expectation that there has been any seepage or release through the
bottom clay liner into the environment. As a result, there has been no incident or event requiring
notification under either 10 CFR 20.2022 or 10 CFR 40.60.
This report will review the results of the mitigative actions taken to date and further analysis of
the cause of the infiltration into the LDS and proposed mitigative actions.
RESULTS OF IVTITIGATIYE ACTIONS TO DATE
Since the submittal of the preliminary investigative report on April 27,2001, the LDS has been
pumped nearly continuously (the pump was shut down for several hours on May 17, 2001 for
maintenance) ata pump rate of approximately 11.0 gpm. The transferpump in Cell 4-Ahas
operated intermittently to pump solution from the interior of Cell 4-A to Cell 3.
The levels in the LDS have dropped 1.55 feet (18.6 inches) since the preliminary report was
written.
Cell 4-A Report_5-29-0 I .doc
Cell4-A Leak Detection Folln Report
May 29,2001
Page 3 of5
3.0 ANALYSIS OF CURRENT INFILTRATION RATE
The potential causes for the infiltration into the LDS are:
a) Initially, Mill staff suspected that the increased amount of infiltration into the LDS could
be attributed to the heavy amounts of precipitation received at the Mill during late fall
and early winter of 2000. Such precipitation events have appeared to impact the LDS in
previous years, although a direct correlation is difficult to show with the data, and in no
previous years has the flow rate to the LDS exceeded 1.0 gpm.
It now appears that this scenario is not the cause of the increased flow rate in the LDS, as
enough time has elapsed to pump out any precipitation that may have accumulated
beneath the HDPE liner from precipitation.
b) Mill staff also suspected that the current excessive infiltration rate into the LDS may be
the result of the aforementioned precipitation infiltrating beneath the liner then freezing,
causing a pooling effect as the weather warmed. It seems possible that this scenario
could in fact affect the infiltration rate into the LDS and subsequent pumping rate from
the system.
As stated above, however, it now seems unlikely that this is the cause of the increased
flow in the LDS as enough time has elapsed to pump out any such pooling of solution.
c) Another potential cause of the infiltration is the mechanical failure of a check valve,
which was located on the discharge of the Cell 4-A sump pump. This sump pump is on
the surface of the crystals in Cell4-A and is used to pump to Cell 3 any liquid that may
have accumulated in Cell4-A. The LDS pump also pumped into the same discharge line
as the sump pump, through a check valve. During one pumping event, when the sump
pump was operating, the check valve failed and the solution from the sump pump was
pumped into the LDS. The volume of fluid pumped is unknown.
This scenario has also been ruled out, as the maximum volume that could have been
injected into the LDS due to equipment failure is far less than what has been pumped
from the system.
d) A potential leak in the HDPE lining under the area in which solution crystals have
formed.
This now seems to be the most likely cause of the increased flow into the LDS.
Cell 4-A Report_5-29-0l .doc
i
4.0
i,liiihTk Detection FoUe RePort
Page 4 of5
ONGOING MITIGATIVE EFFORTS
Since March 28,2001 the pumps in the LDS have been operating nearly continuously. The
piping of the leak detection pump and the Cell 4-A sump pump have been changed such that
each pump has a dedicated discharge line, which discharges solutions to Cell 3.
As stated earlier in this report, the level of solution has dropped approximately 1.55 feet since the
writing of the preliminary report. Operation of this pump will continue until the LDS is pumped
out.
The Mill also purchased a pump for the slimes drain in order to drain that system as well;
however, this pump had to be installed in the LDS when the leak detection pump failed. Another
pump has been ordered for installation into the slimes drain.
Pumping and monitoring of the Cell 4-A LDS, slimes drain and sump pump will continue, until
the infiltration rate into the LDS is stabilized or stops.
5.0 FUTURE MITIGATIVE ACTIONS
As mentioned above and in the preliminary report, ruSA has been investigating the removal of
the crystals from Cell4-A, in connection with the redesign and reconstruction of Cell4-A. Both
mechanical removal and dissolution of the crystals have been considered, with the latter being
the preferred altemative. Preliminary test work at the Mill indicates that a very mild caustic
solution will effectively dissolve the crystals. The process would involve the addition of solution
to the crystals using a sprinkler system followed by a period of time to allow the solution to
dissolve the crystals. Once sufficient solution is generated it will be pumped from Cell 4-A to
Cell 3 and the cycle will be repeated. It is estimated that once the process is started it will take
approximately three to four months to remove all of the crystals from the Cell. Once the crystals
are removed from the cell, the Cell will be empty.
Currently, a work plan, accompanied by a Safety Analysis Plan (SAP), is being developed to
begin the crystal dissolution and removal as discussed in the above paragraph. This plan should
be finalized in the next few days, and will be submitted to the NRC for review prior to
implementation.
The results from the recent quarterly sampling of the Point of Compliance (POC) wells have
been received and reviewed by Mill and IUSA Corporate staff. As expected, the data did not
indicate any impact from the increased flow into the LDS. Mill environmental staff has been
instructed to monitor the depth to water in Monitor Wells adjacent to Cell 4-A on a weekly basis.
The results of these monitoring efforts will be available for review by NRC at the Mill.
Cell 4-A Report_5-29-01 .doc
*
6.0
;,:,liiffif Detection For!'i' ' ,'-^.
Page 5 of5
CONCLUSIONS
At this time, there is still insufficient data available to develop any final conclusions regarding
the cause of the increased infiltration into the Cell 4-A LDS; however, it appears most likely at
this time that a leak may have developed in the HDPE liner below the surface of the crystals.
As stated above, as ongoing mitigative actions, the current pumping program, including the
pumping of solutions from the interior of the cell, and the weekly monitoring of depth to water in
the monitoring wells adjacent to Cell4-A, will continue until the system is dried out.
As a long-term mitigative action, ruSA will, subject to NRC approval, ftnalize and implement a
work plan to remove the crystals using the dissolution process, and remove the contents from the
cell.
As Cell 4-A has a double liner system, there is no evidence or expectation that this increased
flow rate to the Cell4-A LDS has resulted in, or will result in, a release to the environment.
An updated status report of this investigation and mitigative actions will be submitted to NRC
within 30 days after completion of implementation of the removal of the crystals from Cell 4-A,
outlining any new data and the results of the mitigative actions.
Cell 4-A Report_5-29-01 .doc
IrrsRs.rrrot-O
Unlxrur,r (use)
ConponATroN
Independence Plua. Suite 950 o 1050 Seventeenth Street r Denver, CO 80265 . 303 628 7798 (main) o 303 389 "1125 ttrr"r)
November I l, 1999
).
I jili ,-.. .'liuS ji,ii.i
0a1.r:i.,.
'" ,.- .: ,.'
UCrl'1'" )'
\
Re: NRC Cheirmen Dicus' July 29, 1999, Responsc To Your July 12, 1999,
Letter Resardine lle.(2) Bvoroduct Material At F[TSRAP Sites
Dear Congressman Dingell :
I am writing with regard to former Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chairman Greta
Joy Dicus' July 29, 1999 letter (hereinafteE the "Dicus letter") responding to your July 12,
1999 correspondence in which you raised concerns about the NRC's regulation of the disposal
of lle.(2) byproduct material located at various Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program (FUSRAP) sites. Former Chairman Dicus' response to your inquiry requires
clarification.
The Dicus letter's responses to the various questions posed in your letter are apparently based
on a single premise: pursuant to Section 83 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) as amended,
NRC does not have the authority to regulate the cleanup of FUSRAP material if the material
was not generated by an activity licensed by the NRC on the effective date of the Uranium
Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 ([JIVITRCA).' Based on this premise, the Dicus
letter concludes that, since FUSRAP material was not generated pursuant to an activity
licensed by the NRC on the effective date of UMTRCA NRC lacks the authority to regulate
that material.
This conclusion, and the premise upon which it is based, are faulty in several significant
respects. First, as discussed in my August 27, lggg letter to Chairman Dicus (see enclosed)
and contrary to the Dicus letter's premise, a plain reading of the AEA reveals that Section 83
in no way limits NRC's authority to license or otherwise regulate pre-1978 byproduct
material. Section 83 simply provides that a license for I le.(2) blproduct material that is in
t As a convenient slrcrthand we refer to material that fits this description (i.e., materid that othenvise satiffies the
definition of 'byproduct rnaterial" in Section lle.(2) of the AEA but that was not generated by an activity that
nas licensed by NRC as of the efrective darc of UMTRCA) as 'pre-197t" byproduct material. This is
distitrguished from 'poot-197t" blgoduct material, which is marcrial ttnt was generated either after the
efrective date of LTMTRCA or by an activity rhat was licensed as of the efrective date of t MTRCA.
{The Honorable John D. Dingell
United States House of Representatives
2328 Rayburn House Offrce Building
WashingtorL DC 205 15-61 15
The Honorable lohn D. Dingell
November ll, 1999
Page2
effect on or after the effective date of Section 83 must contain certain provisions pertaining to
the transfer of ownership and custody of both the byproduct material produced pursuant to
such license and the land used for disposal of that byproduct material. Contrary to the Dicus
letter's assertiorl Section 83 does not provide that the Commission can only license materials
that have been produced pursrant to an already-existing license. In fact, the statute requires
the very opposite: under Section 8l of the AEA any person who seeks to possess transfer or
receive byproduct material as defined in Section I le.(2) of the AEA must obtain a license to
do so, without regard to the date when the material was created or whether it was created
pursuant to a license.
Next, the Dicus letter ignores the fact that the material present at FUSRAP sites was
generated by NRC's predecessors, which undeniably makes it AEA waste, like materials at
Title I uranium mill tailings sites and Title II sites with so-called "commingled" Atomic
Energy Commission (AEC) and commercial tailings. In light of the fact that the Manhattan
Engineering District (t!GD) and the AEC, the precursors of NRC and the Department of
Energy (DOE), were not required to have licenses for the FUSRAP materials they generated,z
it makes no sense to treat pre-1978 and post-1978 byproduct materials differently and to
assert that NRC is powerless to regulate pre-1978 byproduct material, solely based on the fact
that the material was not generated pursuant to an AEA license. Moreover, as discussed in
detail in the enclosed Addendum to the National Mining Association (NMA) White Paper on
regulation of the uranium recovery industry (August 1999) (the *NMA White Paper
Addendum"), the erroneous and unsupported interpretation of Section 83, which seems to
underlie the Dicus letter, is inconsistent with the position NRC has taken in the past on this
issue and ultimately detracts from public health and safety and inures to the benefit of no one.
If the Commission depalts frcm i,s previous position" thar it ha. authority to regulate pre-1978
byproduct material, and furstead NRC follows tre approach suggested by the Dicus letter, this will
present a seriou threat to the continued protection of public health and the environment as wastes
ftat satisry the definition of I le.(2) blproduct material will be disposed of in a manner that does
not provide the protections that Congress intended for such material wtren it enacted LJMTRCA.
Specifically, turder the approach outlined in the Dicus letter, pre-1978 byproduct material would
not have to be disposed of in licensed I le.(2) disposal facilities, but instead could be disposed of
z Similarly, NRC and DOE are not r€quired to have licenses for AEA rnaterial, since they arc not considered
"personso ruder the AEA ard as such are not srbject !o the Act's licensing requiremens. &e 42 U.S.C. $
20la(s). In fact, DOE only becomes a licensee of NRC in certain stanrtorily defined circumstances (e.9., as the
long-term custodian of uranium/thorium mill ailings disposal facilities pursuant to UMTRCA). Consequently,
the presence of FUSRAP material at a DOE site does not implicate the need for an NRC license.
The Honorable lohn D. Dingell
November ll, 1999
Page 3
in solid or hazardous waste (i.e. RCRA) landfills. Consequently, even though pr+'1978 byproduct
material satisfies the definition and is in all respects the same thing as post-1978 I le.(2)
byproduct material, pre-1978 I le.(2) byproduct material, including FUSRAP material, could be
disposed of in facilities that are not licensed under the AEA and that do not satisfy the long term
stability and other technical criteria set out in NRC's and EPA's regulations under UMTRCA.T
Furdrermore, unlike wastes disposed of in licensed lle.(21 facilities, these pre-1978 byproduc't
material wastes would not be subject to long-term govenrment custody and monitoring and
perpetud licersing following final closure of the sites used for their disposal..
This danger is real. Publicly available information indicates that at least one hazardous waste
disposal facility that is not licensed to accept lle.(2) byproduct material - the Buttonwillow
facility in California- has already accepted pre-1978 byproduct material for disposal. In additiorL
a second hazardous waste facility - the Envirosafe facility in Idaho - has been selected by fte
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to receive pre-1978 byproduct material from variou
FUSRAP sites across tre country, despite the fact that ttre facility is not licensed to dispose of
I le.(2) byproduct material. Similarly, Envirocare has requested permission to utilize its LLRW
facility, uihich as a result of a waiver by the State of Utah has no assured long-term governmental
custodiaru to dispose of pre-1978 byproduct material.
The position set forth in the Dicrs letter also poses a threat to public health and the environment
by jeopardizing the transfer to DOE of NRC licensed I le.(2) disposal facilities that consistent
with prior positions articulated by the Commissioq accepted pr+1978 byproduct material for
disposal in the past. At least one lle.(2) disposal facility has previously accepted pre-1978
byproduct material (pursuurt to an NRC license) that under the Dicus letter may now not be
considered lle.(2) byproduct material. If the interpretation set out in the Dicus letter prevails,
material that under the Dicus letter's approach is deemed to be non-lle.(2) material will have
been cornmingled with I le.(z') byproduct material that was already present at the facility.
r This is precisely the concern rhrt uas raised by Senators tlatch and Bennec and Representatives Cannoq Cook
and tlansen h their recent letter to the U.S. Army, where the Congressmen state tlrat: 'If the [Anny Corps of
Engin€€rsl follo*s thc ill-advisd poeition of NRC's stafr and fails 3o exercise regulatory control, these
radioactivc [Fc-1978 bproductl materials could bc dispced at landfills which arc not designed or operated to
handle thc unique characterisics of radioactive byproduct matetrial." Leuer from Senator Orrin tlatct\ Senator
Robert Benneu, Representative Chris Cannog Represenative Menill Cook and Representative James Hansen to
Mr. Joseph W. Westrtnl, Assistant Secreury of the Army - Civil Worts (June 23, 1999).
r Mor€fler, an unlicensed sirc that disposes of I le.(2) byproduct material could conceivably be required, after
disposing of srch material, to comply with Ure technical criteria and other requirements set out rmder LJMTRCA
(to ttre surprise of the site operator). Even if this rvere th case, however, DOE presunably would still be
reluctant or unwilling to accept title and custody of the site following closure because lle.(2) and non-lle.(2)
material would have been commingled at the site.
The Honorable John D. Dingell
November ll, 1999
Page 4
Through is policies governing I te.(2) disposal facilities, the Commission has consistently sought
to prevent this sort of commingling in order to ensure that lle.(2) disposal facilities would not be
subject to dual regulation and that DOE would be free to accept crstody and title to such sites as
the long-term govemment cutodian following site closurg consistent with AEA Section 83.s If
NRC were to adhere to the position set out in the Dicus letter, it effectively would be sanctioning
precisely the sort of corrrmingiing that the Commission has sruggled so hard to avoid over the
years.
We note that even to the sophisticated readeq the Dicts letter remains somewhat unclear as to
wtrether NRC has reached an ultimate determination regarding the status of FUSRAP materials.
For example, when former Chairman Dicus suggests trat NRC does not have authority to regulate
FUSRAP material, it is unclear whether she is referring to authority over the materials at the
FUSRAP site or material that has left the zuSRAP site and that is to be sent elsewhere for
final disposal. As discussed in the enclosed NMA White Paper Addendum, NRC does indeed
have jurisdiction over FUSRAP material when it leaves the FUSRAP site for disposal and, as
it must, arrives at an NRC licensed lle.(2) facility. In contras! NRC may not license the
materials a, a zuSItAP site because DOE, which has title to and custody of the FUSRAP site
and the \yaste materials located there, is not a "person" under the AEA and therefore is not
required to have a license. See n.2 supra.
Moreover, the Dicus letter appears to be somewhat internally inconsistent. If it is NRC's
position that FUSRAP materials are not regulated by the Commission and that legislation
would be required to regulate it,. rrrry is it that NRC licensed Envirocare, an NRC lle.(2)
licensee, to receive FITSRAP material for disposal in iB I le.(2) impoundment? If it is NRC's
s *e, e-g., Uranium Mill Facilities, Notice of Two Guidane Docttments: Final Rwised Guidance on the
Disposal of Non-Atomic Energ Act of 1954, *ction lle.Q) Byproduct Material in Tailings Impoundnents;
Final Position and Guidorce on the Ue of Uranium Mill Feed Materials Other Than Natural Ores,60 Fed.
Reg. 49,29ti (1995).
c On page 4 of Ctairman Dicus' letter states:
We believe legislation would be required to give NRC authority to regulate
Section I le.(2) byproduct material in the FUSRAP program.
I On page I however, the lerer sates:
Additionally, therc are NRC licensed facilities that have accepted pre-197t lle.(2) blaroduct
mat€rial for direct diryosal or processing and disposal in their mill tailings impoundments. For
oomple, Envirocare of Utah has an NRC license that allows it to accept some forms of this
materid directly for disposal. Pre-1978 lle.(2) byproduct rraterial presented to NRC or
Footnote continued on next page
The Honorable John D. Dingell
November 11, 1999
Page 5
position that FUSRAP material is not subject to regulation as I le.(2) byproduct material (in a
similar manner as po$-1978 I le.(2) byproduct material), and if it is NRC's policy not to allow
non-lle.(2) material to be placed directly into an I le.(2) tailings impoundment without satisfying
its *lYon-l le.(2) Poliry" (which requires satisfaction of nine criteria, including State and Compact
approval), wtry did NRC allow FUSRAP materials to go to these licensed I le.(2) disposal
facilities without ensuring the "Non-l le.(2) Policy" was suisfie4 uihich in fact it was not?e
As indicated above, these issues are analyzed extensively in the following enclosed
documents:
National Mining Association (NMA) White Paper Addendum (August 1999);
Letter from Earl E. Hoelleq President of International Uranium (USA)
Corporation (ruQ to Chairman Dicus (August 27,1999) with attachments; and
r Letter from Earl E. Hoellen to Chairman Dicus (October 6, 1999) with
attachments.
For the reasons stated above, and discussed at length in the attached documents, NRC should
regulate zuSRAP materials as I le.(2) byproduct material and require facilities disposing of
such materials to have an appropriate NRC license. This would not, of course, require NRC
to regulate FUSRAP material at the zuSRAP sites since those sites are regulated by DOE,
which is not a "person" requiring a license under the AEA
Footnote continued from previous page
Agreement State licensed facilities for disposal or processing must comply with all
requirements applicable to those facilities.
@mphasis add€d). Either the material is l le.(2) material or it is not If its is not, it carurot be directly
disposed of in an lle.(2) impoundment without sati$ing NRC's'i[on-lle.(2) Policy." If the material
isl le.(2), it mns be disposd of in a NRC licensed I le.(2) facility.
s Similrly, tbe Dicrs letter is misleading in stating that NRC has not said pre-197t lle.(2) blproduct materid
may be dispos€d of at a RCRA facility but rather that *there arc no NRC rules or regulations that preclude
disposal of the material at a RCRA facility," since, as discussed above at r41e 2, Section 8 t of the AEA ptovides
tlut '[nlo person may trander or receive in interstate ootrrmerce, manufacture, ptoduce, Eansf,er, acquire, own,
po6s€ss, import or export any byproduct material" except as anthorized by NRC pursuant to the AEA 42 U.S.C.
$ 2llr.
nr
The Honorable lohn D. Dingell
November I l, 1999
Page 6
Finally, please accept my apologies for not providing you with this information at an earlier
date, but I only received I copy of your letter to Chairman Dicus a few days ago. If I can
provide you with any further informatioq please have one of your staffcall me at 303-389-
4150.
Cordially,
Enclosures
oc: The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.
Chairman Richard A. Meserve
Commissioner Greta Joy Dicrs (w/o enclosures)
Commissioner Nils l.Diaz (w/o enclosures)
Commissioner Edward McGaffrgarq Jr. (do enclosures)
Commissioner Jeffrey S. Merrifield (w/o enclosures)
Dianne R Nielsoru Executive Director, IJDEQ (w/o enclosures)
William f. Sinclair, Director, UDEQ Division of Radiation Control (w/o enclosures)
Edgar D. Bailey, Chiet California DHS, Radiological Health Branch (w/o enclosures)
David Eisentrager, Idaho Division of Health and Welfare (w/o enclosures)
Kip R Huton, USACE (do enclosures)
The Honorable Carol M. Bro',vner, Administator, Environmental Protection Agency
Karen D. Cyr, C.rcneral Counsel, NRC
William D. Travers, Executive Director for Operations, I{RC (w/o enclosures)
Parrl IL [.olrarrs, Director, NRC Office of State Programs (w/o enclosures)
IohnT. C.reoves, Director,I{RC Division of Waste Management (w/o enclosures)
John I. Surmeier, Chief, NRC Uranium Recovery urd Low Level Waste Branch (w/o enclosures)
Maria E. Sctrwartz, NRC, Office of General Counsel (w/o enclosures)
Fred G. Nelsoru Utah Attorney General's Offrce (w/o enclosures)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (w/o enclosures)
Senator Robert F. Bennett (w/o enclosures)
Representative Christopher B. Cannon (w/o enclosures)
Represenative Menill A. Cook (w/o enclosrues)
Re,presentative James V. Hansen (w/o enclosures)
President and Chief Executive
.i..rffi
t,-ro*'Jdllli;;ffiIo*,*$*
wASHtNGTON, D.C. 20s55-0001
February 2, 2004
Mr. Ron F. Hochstein, President and Chief Executive Officer
lnternational Uranium (IUSA) Corporation
lndependence Plaza, Suite 950
1050 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80265
SUBJECT: LICENSE AMENDMENT 24 - SUA-1358 - FINANCIAL SURETY (REVISION) FOR
THE WH|TE MESA URANIUM M|LL (TAC 1U0030)
Dear Mr. Hochstein:
Per the conversation between the NRC Project Manager, William von Till, and Harold Roberts
on January 21,2004, and follow-up e-mail on January 22,2004, we have amended Source
Material license SUA-1358 to revise the financial surety amount from $10,518,429 to
$10,522,914. We had amended the license by letter dated December 31, 2003, with the
$10,51 8,429 amount based on information received f rom your cover letter of March 4,2003.
The attached amendment reflects the actual revised bond amount, as calculated under the
White Mesa Mill Reclamation Cost Estimate (page 6 of March 4, 2003, plan) and requested in
Harold Robert's January 22,2004, e-mail, of $10,522,914.
An environmental review was not performed for this action since it is categorically excluded per
10 CFR Part 51.22(cX10Xi).
lf you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact Mr. William von Till of my staff
at [phone] or e-mail at [e-mail].
R. Hochstein
ln accordance with 1 0 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter will be
available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the
Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS
is accessible from the NRC Web site at http:/iwww,nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Gary S. Janosko, Chief
Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch
Division of Fuel Cycle Safety
and Safeguards
Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards
Docket No. 40-8681
suA-1358
Enclosure: License Amendment Number 24
cc: Dane Finerfrock, UT
Tom Rice, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
Terry Brown, US EPA Region Vlll
NRC FORM 374A BEGULATORY COMMISSION
License Number
suA-1358
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Amendment No. 24
A. The licensee may, without prior NRC approval, and subject to the conditions specified in Pad B of
this condition:
(1) Make changes in the facility or process, as presented in the application.
(2) Make changes in the procedures presented in the application.
(3) Conduct tests or experiments not presented in the application.
B. The licensee shall file an application:for ah,amendrnent to the license, unless the following
conditions are satisfied.
D. The licensee shall maintain records of any changes made puriuant to this condition until license
termination. These records sh,all inctude written safe.ty:,'and environmental evaluations, made by the
SERP, that provide the basis for determin,ihg thar!,chahges are in compliance with the requirements
referred to in Part B of this condition. :The'licenSee shall furnish, in an annual report to NRC, a
description of such changes, tests, or experiments, including a summary of the safety and
environmental evaluation of each. ln addition, the licensee shall annually submit to the NRC
changed pages to the Operations Plan and Reclamation Plan of the approved license application to
reflect changes made under this condition.
The licensee's SERP shall function in accordance with the standard operating procedures submitted by
letter dated June 10, 1997.
[Applicable Amendments: 3]
9.5 The licensee shall maintain an NRC-approved financial surety arrangement, consistent with 10 CFR 40,
Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10, adequate to cover the estimated costs, if accomplished by a third party,
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
9.4
(1)
(2)
(3)
C.
NRC FOBM 374A REGULATORY COMMISSION
License Number
suA-1358
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SIMET
Amendment No. 24
for decommissioning and decontamination of the mill and mill site, for reclamation of any tailings or
waste disposal areas, ground-water restoration as warranted and for the longterm surveillance fee.
Within three months of NRC approvalof a revised reclamation/decommissioning plan, the licensee shall
submit, for NRC review and approval, a proposed revision to the financial surety arrangement if
estimated costs in the newly approved plan exceed the amount covered in the existing financial surety.
The revised surety shall then be in effect within 3 months of written NRC approval.
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
shall enumerate pertinent,:radiation safety practices to be followed,; Additionally, written procedures
shall be established for non-operational activities to include in-ptaht and environmental monitoring,
bioassay analyses, and instrument::Calibrations, An up-to;'date copy of each written procedure shall be
kept in the mill area to which it applies. ,:,::,l' ,:: ' ,' ,
Allwritten procedures for both operational and non-operational activities shall be reviewed and
approved in writing by the radiation safety officer (RSO) before implementation and whenever a change
in procedure is proposed to ensure that proper radiation protection principles are being applied. ln
addition, the RSO shall perform a documented review of all existing operating procedures at least
annually.
Before engaging in any activity not previously assessed by the NRC, the licensee shall administer a
cultural resource inventory. All disturbances associated with the proposed development will be
completed in compliance with the National Historic Preseruation Act (as amended) and its implementing
regulations (36 CFR 800), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (as amended) and its
implementing regulations (43 CFR 7).
9.6
9.7
NRC FORM 374A REGULATORY COMMISSION
License Number
suA-13s8
MATERIALS LICENSE
SI'PPLEMENTARY SHEET
Amendment No. 24
ln order to ensure that no unapproved disturbance of cultural resources occurs, any work resulting in
the discovery of previously unknown cultural artifacts shall cease. The artifacts shall be inventoried and
evaluated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, and no disturbance shall occur until the licensee has
received authorization from the NRC to proceed.
The licensee shall avoid by pro1ect design, where feasible, the archeological sites designated
"contributing" in the report submitted by letter dated July 28, 1988. When it is not feasible to avoid a
site designated "contributing" in the report, the licensee shall institute a data recovery program for that
site based on the research design submitted by letter from C. E. Baker of Energy Fuels Nuclear to
Mr. Melvin T. Smith, Utah State Historic ,Freservdtion Of{jcer (SHPO), dated April 13, 1981 .
The licensee shall recover 16fqU,gh archeological excavation afi :bontributing" sites listed in the report
which are located in or within,'100 feet of borrow areas, stockpile areas, construction areas, or the
perimeter of the reclairned,tailings impoundment. Data recovery fieldwork at each site meeting these
briteria shall be complet€:d prior to the starl of any project related distOr,bance within 100 feet of the site,
but analysis and report'prepalation need not be complete.
9.9 The licensee is hereby exempted fr.sm the requirements of Section ZO.f 902 (e) of 10 CFR Part 20 for
areas within the mill, provided that'.'afl entirAnces,,to the.mi'llrr::are conspicuously posted in accordance with
Section 20J902 (e) and with the words;"'IAnyr:aiea Within this mill may contain radioactive material."
9.10 Release of equipment or packages from the restricted area shall be in accordance with "Guidelines for
Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted Use or Termination of
Licenses for Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear Material," dated May 1987, or suitable alternative
procedures approved by the NRC prior to any such release.
9.1 1 The final reclamation shall be in accordance with the May 1999, Reclamation Plan Revision 2.0,
Attachment A, submitted on June 22,1999, and Flevision 3.0 submitted on July 7,2000. Prior to the
placement of alternate feed material, ihe licensee shall determine that adequate cell space is available
iorthat additional material. This determination shall be made by a SERP-approved procedure.
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
9.8
NRC FORM 374A REGULATORY COMMISSION
License Number
suA-1358
MATERIALS LICENSE
SI]PPLEMENTARY SHEET
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
Amendment No. 24
SECTION 10: Operational Controls,
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
A.
B.
10.6
10.7 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom Allied Signal, lnc. of Metropolis,
lllinois, in accordance with the amendment request dated September 20, 1996, and amended by letters
dated October 30, and November 11, 1996.
10.8 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material, in accordance with the amendment
request dated March 5, 1997.
NRC FORM 374A REGULATORY COMMISSION
License Number
suA-1358
MATERIALS LICENSE
SI]PPLEMENTARY SIIEET
Amendment No. 24
[Applicable Amendments: 1]
10.9 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material f rom Cabot Performance Materials'
facility near Boyertown, Pennsylvania, in accordance with the amendment request dated April 3, 1997,
as amended by submittals dated May 19, and August 6, 1997.
[Applicable Amendments: 4]
10.10
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
.,:.,::::'
10.11 The licensee is authoiiz€d to receive and process source material from,,Gameco Corporation's Blind
River and Port Hope facilities; Iocated in Ontario, Canada, in accordan.t,..*'*n the amendment request
dated June 4, 1998; ,and by lhe,;$ubmittals dated September:.1:4; S:eptember I6, September 25,OaIeO JUne 4, I YVU.; ,anO^O!. me.1$UDmlllals OaIeO SepIemDeF;,.1,4, .b,€pIeIT]D€f,,,1
October 7, and October 8, 1998:.: : ' . ::, '
10.12
10.13 The licensee is authorized io r:eceive and p..".r source material ,f;rorn tn" St. Louis Formerly Utilized
Sites RemedialAction Program (FUSRAP) site, in accordance with statements, representations, and
commitments contained in the amendment request dated March 2, 1999, and as amended and
supplemented by submittals dated June,,2l, 1999; .Ju,he 29, 1 999 (2); and July 8, 1999. Prior to the
licensee receiving materials from the St. LouiS FUSRAP site, the licensee must make a determination
that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from the processing of this material.
This determination shall be made based on a SERP approved internal procedure.
[Applicable Amendments: 13, 14]
1 0.14 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material f rom the Linde Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, in accordance with statements, representations, and
commitments contained in the amendment request dated March '16, 2000, and as amended and
supplemented by submittals dated April 26, 2000, May 15, 2000, June 16, 2000, June 19, 2000,
June 23, 2000.
NRC FORM 3744 u.s. NU0R REGULAT.RY coMMrssroN
MATERIALS LICENSE
SI'PPLEMENTARY SHEET
Amendment No. 24
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Linde FUSRAP site, the licensee must make a
determination ihat adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced f rom the processing of
this material. This determination shall be made based on a SERP-approved internal procedure. Design
changes to the cells or the reclamation plan require the licensee to submit an amendment request for
NRC review and approval.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Linde FUSRAP site, the licensee must require that the
generator of the material certify that the material does not contain listed hazardous waste as defined
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) per a Radioactive Material Profile Record.
[Applicable Amendment: 1 4]
10.15
10.16
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Heritage Minerals lncorporated site, the licensee must
make a determination that adequate tailin:gS Sp:ace is::available for the tailings produced from the
processing of this material. This determination Shall be made based on the SERP- approved standard
operating procedure for determination of tailings capacity. Design changes to the cells or the
reclamation plan require the licensee to submit an amendment request for NRC review and approval.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Heritage Minerals lncorporated site, the licensee must
require that the generator of the material certify that the material does not contain listed hazardous
waste as defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) per a Radioactive
Material Profile Record.
[Applicable Amendment: 1 8]
10J7 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Molycorp site located in
Mountain Pass, California, in accordance with statements, representations, and commitments contained
License Number
suA-1358
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
u.s. NtaAR BEGULAT.RY coMMrssroNNRC FORM 374A
License Number
suA-1358
MATERIALS LICENSE
ST]PPLEMENTARY SIIEET
Amendment No. 24
in the amendment request dated December 19, 2000, and supplemental information in letters dated
January 29, 2001, February 2,2001, March 20, 2001, August 1 5, 2001 , October 1 7, 2001 , and
November 16, 2001.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials f rom the Molycorp site, the licensee must make a determination
that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from the processing of this material.
This determination shall be made based on a SERP-approved internal procedure. Design changes to
the cells or the reclamation plan require the licensee to submit an amendment request for NRC review
and approval. :: ::
[Applicable Amendment: 20],, :r ':,:,,, ,,. ,,:,, ,: "' : :r ::::
:
10.18: The licensee is authorized tb,,reCeive and process source material,from the Maywood site located in
Maywood, New Jersey, in accordance with statements, representatiohs, and commitments contained in
the amendment requests dated June 15, 2001, June 22,2001, Augus't 3, 2001, and supplemented by
letters dated Novembdi l9, 2001, December 6, 2001 , December 10, 200r1,n March 11,2002, and July 1 ,
SECTION 11:
11.1 The results of sampling, ahatyses, surveys and monitoring, the teSults of calibration of equipment,
repofts on audits and inspections,,a|| meetings and training courSes required by this license and any
subsequent reviews, investigationS;r:and,,conective actions;r::shall be documented. Unless othenntise
specified in the NRC regulations all such'docurnentation shall be maintained for a period of at least five
(5) years.
11.2 The licensee shall implement the effluent and environmental monitoring program specified in
Section 5.5 of the renewal application, as amended by the submittal dated June 8, 1995, and as revised
with the following modifications or additions:
A. Stack sampling shall include a determination of flow rate.
B. Sudace water samples shall also be analyzed semiannually for total and dissolved U-nat, Ra-226,
and Th-230, with the exception of the Westwater Creek, which shall be sampled annually forwater
or sediments and analyzed as above. A sediment sample shall not be taken in place of a water
sample unless a water sample was not available.
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
NRC FORM 374A REGULATORY COMMISSION
License Number
suA-1358
MATERIALS LICENSE
SI]PPLEMENTARY SIIEET
Amendment No. 24
Groundwater sampling shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements in License
Condition 11.3.
The licensee shall utilize lower limits of detection in accordance with Section 5 of Regulatory
Guide 4.14 (Revision 1), for analysis of effluent and environmentalsamples.
[Applicable Amendment: 5],,,,.,,,,
11.3 The licensee shall implement a groundwater detection monitoring prdQram to ensure compliance to
10 CFR Part 40, Appendii A. The detection monitoring program shall'bb in accordan_ce with the report
entitled, "Points of ComBliance, White Mesa Uranium Mill," submitted byo,:letter dated October 5, 1994,
C.
.,.,,:..i,...,.:.:
Upon the initial pumping of fluid from an LDS, the licensee shall collect a fluid sample and analyze
the fluid for pH and the parameters listed in paragraph A of this license condition. The licensee
shall determine whether the LDS fluid originated from the disposal cell by ascertaining if the
collected fluid contains elevated levels of the constituents listed in paragraph A of this license
condition or has a pH level less than 5.0. lf either elevated constituent levels or a pH
less than 5.0 is observed, the licensee shall assume that the disposal cell is the origin of the fluid.
lf the LDS fluid is determined not to have originated from the disposal cell, the licensee shall
continue with weekly measurements of "depth to fluid" in the LDS standpipes. The licensee shall
confirm, on an annual basis, that fluid from the disposal cell has not entered the LDS by collecting
(to the extent possible) and analyzing an LDS fluid sample for the above stated parameters.
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
C.
D.
E.
A.
B.
NRC FORM 374A
11.4
11.5
11.6
REGULATORY COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
SIIPPLEMENTARY SIMET
License Number
suA-1358
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
Amendment No. 24
D. Upon indication that the LDS fluids originated f rom the disposal cell,.the licensee shall determine
the flow rate through the liner by the calculation method in paragraph B of this license condition. lf
the flow rate is equat to or greater than one gallon per minute, the licensee shall:
1. Evaluate the cause of the liner distress and take appropriate and timely actions to mitigate the
leak and any consequent potential impacts;
2. Continue to measure and record LDS "depth to fluid" measurements weekly; and
3. Notify NRC by telephone within 48,hou:rS, ih accordance with License Condition 9.2, and submit
a wriiten report within 30 dayS,bf notifying NRC br'telephone,-in accordance with License
Condition 9.2. The,writfen,.r6port shall include a desoriptlon of the mitigative action(s) taken and
a discussion of the:rnitigative action results. .
lf the calculated flOw"fate is less than one gallon per minute, the liCensee shall continue with weekly
measurem.n,. of'lidbpth to fluid" in the LDS standpipes ,, 'r
.,:":'. ,,,,, '.., '
E. All sampling, ,ahalysis, and,,evaluation of LDS fluids shall,,be documentbd and retained onsite until
license termination tor NRC,',,in,sBection.
..:,::',,,.,.
[Applicable Amendment: 8] ,,';,: ;,,,;,,;, ;,;:1. ,
Calibration of in-plant air and radiation monitoring:equpmeni shall be perfolned as specified in the
license renewal applicatioih,,:r,iinder Section 3.0 otthe "Radiation:,Protection Procedures Manual," with the
exception that in-piant air sampling equipment shall be cafibfated:at least quafierly and air sampling
equipment checks shall be documo.nted,,,..,,'..l,, .,.,...,.;.,,, .,,,..,-..,.
-,,::,.,,,:
,,,:::::,,
The licensee shall perform an annual ALARA'aUdit of the radiation safety program in accordance with
Regulatory Guide 8.31.
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
September 23, 2002
Ms. Michelle Rehmann, Environmenta! Manager
lnternational Uranium (IUSA) Corporation
I ndepende ner- Plaza, S uite 950
1050 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80265
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT 22 TO MATERIALS LICENSE SUA-1358 -- APPROVAL TO
RECEIVE AND PROCESS ALTERNATE FEED MATERIAL FROM THE
MAYWOOD SITE AT THE WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL
Dear Ms. Rehmann:
ln your letters dated June 1 5,2001, June 22,2001, August 3,2001, and supplemented by
letters dated, NOvember 19,2001, December6, 2001, December 10, 2001, March 11,2002,
and July 1, 2002, you asked that we amend your license for the White Mesa uranium mill to
permit the receipt and processing of material from the Maywood site, located in Maywood, New
Jersey. You propose to receive this material at your White Mesa uranium mill in Blanding,
Utah, use this material as alternate feed for the primary purpose of removing the uranium so
that it can be reused, and dispose of the process tailings in the mill's tailings pile. You estimate
the material amount to be up to 600,000 cubic yards (840,000 tons) with an average uranium
content of approximately 0.0018 percent by weight, or greater. However, you have stated in
your request that you will only receive materials that are 0.01 percent uranium content or
higner. You have determined, based on your review of the Maywood site information and use
of your Listed Hazardous Waste Protocol, that this material does not contain listed hazardous
waste.
We have determined that your request to receive and process this material as alternate feed is
acceptabte, and have amended your license accordingly. We have enclosed the amended
license and our Technical Evaluation Report that provides our bases for granting the
amendment. Our principal criteria for evaluating this request are contained in our guidance
entitled, "Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Material Other Than Natural Ores". We
also ensured that this request complies with our requirements for uranium mills in 10 CFR Part
40, Appendix A.
As you requested in your submittal, this material cannot be received by the mill until it has been
determined that adequate cell space is available. ln approving the Maywood request, we have
added the following license condition to your license:
10.18: The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom the Maywood
site located in Maywood, New Jersey, in accordance with statements, representations,
and commitments contained in the amendment requests dated June 15,2001, June22,
2001, August 3, 2001, and supplemented by letters dated November 19, 2001,
December 6, 2001 , December 10, 2001 , March 11 , 2002, and July 1 , 2002.
B t'"r;il l{10 I
M. Rehmann 2
prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Maywood site, the licensee must make
a determination that adequat,e tailings space is available for the tailings producedlrom
the processing of this maierial. Thia determination shall be made based on a SERP
appioved inteinal procedure. lf such determination requires the licensee to make
Olilgn changes to the cells or the reclamation plan, the licensee shall submit an
amendment request for NRC review and approval'
prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Maywood site, the licensee must
require that the generator otlne material certify that the material does not contain listed
hazardous wastJ as defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) per a Radioactive Material Profile Record'
[Applicable Amendment: 22]
An opportunity for a hearing on this amendment was provided in August 2001 (66FR 44384'
August 23,2001).
lf you have any questions regarding this letter or the NRC staff review, please contact the NRC
prqect Manager, William ,oi Till, it (gOt ) 415-6251. ln accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the
NRb's "RuleJof Practice," a copy of this letter will be available electronically for public
inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS)
component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web
site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room)'
Sincerely,
QP* )cd-
DanielGillen, Chief
Fuel CYcle Facilities Branch
Division of Fuel Cycle SafetY
and Safeguards
Office of Nuclear Material SafetY
and Safeguards
Docket No.40-8681
SUA-1358, Amendment No. 22
Enclosure 1: Technical Evaluation Report and Source Material License SUA-1358
Enclosure 2: Source Material License SUA-1358
cc: W. Sinclair, UT
Tom Rice, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
Terry Brown, U.S. EPA Region Vlll
Loren Setlow, u.s. EPA Office of Radiation and lndoor Air (6608J)
Paul Giardina, Radiation Program Manager, U.S. EPA, Region 2
DOCKET NO.:
LICENSE NO.:
LICENSEE:
FACILITY:
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT
REQUEST TO RECEIVE AND PROCESS
MAYWOOD SITE MATERIAL
040-8681
suA-1358
lnternational Uranium (IUSA) Corporation
White Mesa Uranium Mill
DATE: August 22,2002
PROJECT MANAGER: William von Till
TECHNICAL REVIEWERS: William von Till- Project Management and Groundwater
John Lusher - Health Physicist
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
We have reviewed lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation's (IUSA's) license amendment
application dated June 15, 2001, June22,2001, August 3,2001, and supplemented by letters
dated November 19, 2001, December 6,2001, December 10,2001, March 11,2002, and
July 1 ,2002, to amend its U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Source Material License
SUA-1358, to allow its White Mesa Uranium Mill near Blanding, Utah, to receive and process up
to 600,000 cubic yards (840,000 tons) of alternate feed material from the Maywood site located
in Maywood, New Jersey. The Maywood site is being remediated under the Formerly Utilized
Sites ilemedialAction Program (FUSRAP) by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The materials
are by-products from the processing of thorium and lanthanum from monazite sands. These
materials would be used as "alternate feed material". We have reviewed IUSA's request using
our formal guidance, "Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Material Other Than Natural
Ores" provided in the NRC Regulatory lssue Summary 2000-23 that was mailed to uranium
recovery licensees on November 30, 2000. We find the amendment request to be acceptable
and have amended the license so that IUSA may process this material.
DESCRIPTION OF LICENSEE'S AMENDMENT REQUEST
By its submittal dated June 15, 2001, June 22, 2001, and August 3, 2001, and supplemented by
letters dated November 19, 2001 , December 6, 2001 , December '10, 2001 , March 11 , 2002,
and July 1,2OO2,IUSA requested that NRC amend Materials License SUA-1358 to allow the
receipt and processing of material other than natural uranium ore (i.e., alternate feed material)
at its White Mesa uranium mill located near Blanding, Utah. The proposed alternate feed
materialwould come from the Maywood FUSMP site in Maywood, New Jersey.
IUSA proposes to receive materials from the Maywood site for processing at its White Mesa
uranium mill near Blanding, Utah, as alternate feed. IUSA is proposing to allow its millto
receive and process up to 600,000 cubic yards (840,000 tons) of alternate feed material from
the Maywood site. The Maywood site is being remediated under the FUSRAP by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. The materials are by-products from the processing of thorium and
lanthanum from monazite sands.
IUSA is proposing to condition its license to state that the mill shall not accept any of the
Maywood material at the site unless and untilthe mill's Safety and Environmental Review Panel
(SERP) has determined that the mill has sufficient licensed tailings capacity. The tailings
capacity must be sufficient to permanently store:
(1)All 11e.(2) byproduct material, as defined under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended, created by the processing of all of the Maynnrood material;
(2) All other ores and alternate feed materials currently on site; and
(3) All other materials required to be disposed of in the mill's tailings impoundments
pursuant to the mill's reclamation plan.
By letter dated November 16, 2000, IUSA developed a standard operating procedure entitled
"Tailings Capacity Evaluation", which will be used in its evaluation.
A draft EA was sent to the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEO) by letter dated
September 21,2001, with a copy sent to the Ute Mountain Utes in White Mesa, Utah. This
document was placed in the NRC's data management system, ADAMs, and made publically
available. Since the time the Draft EnvironmentalAssessment was submitted for comment, staff
issued a request for additional information by letter dated November 30, 2001, and IUSA
responded by letters dated February 15, 2002, March 11,2002, and July 1, 2002. The
February 15, 2OO2,letter from IUSA includes additional information on a well called the "Jones
Well" in which NRC staff needed more information. The March 11, 2002,letter from IUSA
provides additional information regarding the temporary storage of alternate feed materials on
the ore pad regarding dust control, potential groundwater concerns, and surety cost issues.
The NRC staff needed additional information regarding potential seepage of material while
stored on the ore pad and IUSA adequately addressed those issues in their July 1 ,2002,letter.
ln addition IUSA submitted, by letters dated December 6, 2001, and December 10, 2001,
information that was missing from the original submittal relating to Attachment 2 of their
submittal and other background information regarding the Maywood site.
Site and Material lnformation
The Maywood site is being remediated under the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. To find detailed information about the Maywood site clean-up, visit the web-site
http://www.fusrapmaywood.com/index.asp. This site began operations in 1895 and over the
years monazite sands were processed for thorium, lanthanum, and other rare earth elements.
Uranium was not extracted and remains in the process residues. The material is currently
located in three pits and elsewhere on or adjacant to the Maywood site. Material in the three
pits is licensed by the NRC under STC-1333 for the Stepan Chemical Company. This license
covers 19,000 cubic yards of buried tailings. The Maywood material (pits and off-site
materials) has been classified as byproduct material under Section 11.e.(2) of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (attached).
The average uranium content, based on 4000 samples, ranges from non-detectable to 0.06
percent by weight, with an average grade of 0.0018 percent uranium. However, IUSA is
proposing to only receive material that contains higher than 0.01 percent uranium. The thorium
content of tne material ranges from non-detectable to 3,800 pCi/g with an average ol gzq pCi/9.
The thorium content is relaiively tow due to thorium extraction at the Maywood site. IUSA
states that hazardous wastes regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) have not been identified in this material. IUSA also proposes that verification sampling
at the tvtaywood site will be implemented to assure that the material does not contain hazardous
wastes regulated under RCRA.
STAFF TECHNICAL EVALUATION
We have reviewed IUSA's request in accordance with 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 1O CFR Part 40, Appendix A requirements. The staff
guiEance (referred to hereinafter as the "Alternate Feed Guidance") requires that the staff make
i-he following determinations in its reviews of licensee requests to process material other than
natural uranium ores:
(1) Whether the feed material qualifies as "ore" as defined in the NRC guidance for
alternate feed;
(2) Whether the feed material contains listed hazardous waste; and
(3) Whether the feed material is being processed primarily for its source-material
content.
ln this evaluation, we discuss how IUSA has addressed each of these criteria in its application
to amend the license. We also discuss the other considerations that affect the granting of this
amendment.
Determination of whether the feed material is "ore"
For the tailings and wastes from the proposed processing to qualify as 1_1e.(2) byproduct
material, theJeed material must qualify as "ore." ln the Alternate Feed Guidance, we define
"ore" in part as:
"...any other matter from which source material is extracted in a licensed uranium
or thorium mill."
IUSA has proposed to use alternate feed materialfrom the Maywood site that contains varying
concentrations of uranium, a "source material" as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
(AEA). Uranium concentrations are estimated to be 0.0018 percent by weight, however, IUSA
proposes to receive only materials from Maywood that contain 0.01 percent or higher uranium
content. Because IUSA is proposing in this amendment request to extract the uranium from
this material at their White Mesa uranium mill, we find that the proposed feed material qualifies
as "ore" as defined in our guidance.
Determination of whether the feed material contains hazardous waste
Under the Alternate Feed Guidance, we would not approve proposed feed materialfor
processing at a licensed mill that contains a listed hazardous waste. 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 Maywood documents.
Second, IUSA also hired an independent consultant to review available information and perform
a separate review for classifying various Maywood properties and determining which may
contain listed hazardous waste. The consultant's analysis was included in the license
amendment request.
IUSA developed a listed hazardous waste protocol that has been accepted by the Utah
Department of Environmental Quality (UDEO) (letter dated December 7, 1999). This protocol
was used in IUSA's amendment request for the St. Louis, Linde, W.Fl. Grace, and Heritage
Mineral alternate feeds and found acceptable by the NRC.
IUSA used documents completed as part of the characterization and clean-up of the site for
their research on potential hazardous wastes in the material. The U.S. Department of Energy,
which was responsible for clean-up oversight prior to the Army Corps of Engineers ( ACE),
issued a Final Remedial lnvestigation (Rl) for the Maywood site in 1992 (DOE, 1992). The
Stepan Company issued a Final Rl for the chemical contamination areas of the site in 1994
(Stepan Chemical Company, 1994). Comprehensive characterization of the materials was
conducted as a result of these investigations.
ln addition, IUSA states that the Maywood material does not meet the definition of a
characteristic hazardous waste by ignitability, corrosiveness, reactivity, or toxicity.
However, since IUSA's initialamendment request, the NRC has classified the Maywood
material as 1 1e.(2) byproduct material by letter dated September 20,2001, from Martin Virgilio
of NRC to Jonathan Carter, of Envirocare (attached). Under 10 CFR Par|264.4, "byproduct"
material as defined under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is excluded by definition
as a solid or hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Therefore, the material would not be classified as a hazardous waste under RCRA at the mill.
Within the condition allowing the licensee to receive and process Maywood material, we have
placed the following text:
4
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Maywood site, the licensee must
require that the generator of the material certify that the material does not contain listed
hazardous waste as defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) per a Radioactive Material Profile Record.
Determination of whether the feed material is being processed primarily for its source-material
content
Using our Alternate Feed Guidance, a licensee must show that potential alternate feed material
is being processed primarily for its source-material content. ln the Commission Memorandum
and Order of February 10, 2OOO, the Commission stated: the staff does not need to consider
the quantity of uranium in its review, only whether the feed material (ore) is being processed
primarily for its source material content and that radiation safety has been considered. IUSA
has provided a signed certification that the uranium-bearing material is being processed
primarily for the recovery of uranium and for no other primary purpose. This TER addresses
the safety of such processing.
Transportation Considerations
IUSA does not have a contract to receive the Maywood material at this time and therefore, the
exact mode of transporting the materials to the mill has not been determined. Transportation
may be similar to that of other alternate feed materials shipped to the mill. This would consist
of inter-modal containers shipped by railthen by truck. lf the maximum volume requested were
to be shipped to the mill, IUSA estimates that 7500 rail cars over seven years by rail and 46-86
truckloads per week would occur. lt is more likely that 206,000 cubic yards would be shipped
which would consist of 46 truckloads per week. IUSA does not expect there to be an impact
from the transportation of these materials due to exclusive-use containers, the small increase in
truck traffic (4 to 7.4 percent), and the fact that the material will be transported in lined, covered
containers. Based on this information , a very minor increase in truck traffic from this action is
anticipated and therefore, environmental impacts from this increase are expected to be
negligible.
Handling and Processing at the Mill Site
The materialwill be added to the mill circuit in a manner similar to that used for normal
processing of conventional ore, either alone or in combination with other approved alternate
feed materials. The material will either be dumped into the ore receiving hopper and fed to the
SAG mill, or run through an existing trommel, before being pumped to the Pulp Storage. The
leaching process may begin in Pulp Storage with the addition of sulfuric acid.
IUSA has proposed that it will be a condition of the license that the mill shall not accept any of
the Maywwod material at the site unless and until the mill's Safety and Environmental Review
Panel (SERP) has determined that the mill has sufficient licensed tailings capacity. The tailings
capacity must be sufficient to permanently store:
All 1 1e.(2) byproduct material, as defined under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended, that would result from the processing of all of the Maywood
material;
(1)
(2) All other ores and alternate feed materials currently on site; and
(3) All other materials required to be disposed of in the mill's tailings
impoundments pursuant to the mill's reclamation plan.
By letter dated November 16, 2000, IUSA developed a standard operating procedure entitled
"Tailings Capacity Evaluation" which it will use in its evaluation. Staff evaluated the procedure
and finds it acceptable.
IUSA does not anticipate any unusual or extraordinary airborne contamination dispersion when
processing this material. The contamination potential is expected to be comparable to the
processing of conventional ores. Environmental monitoring will continue and has been
evaluated under previous NEPA actions. This includes monitoring of surface and groundwater,
airborne particulates, radon, soils, and vegetation, according to the existing License Conditions.
IUSA will continue to conduct a Dust Suppression program in accordance with the License
Renewal Application for the White Mesa Mill, sections 2.0 and 4.0 (Umetco, 1991), and the
September 11 , 1997, Utah Division of Air Quality Approval Order for White Mesa Mill (Air
Quality Permit Conditions).
The Thorium-232 content for the Maywood material ranges from non-detectable to 3,800 pCi/g
with an estirnated average of 970 pCilg.
Material from Maywood does not contain any additional chemicals that would pose an increase
in threat to the groundwater resources above conventional ore. Tailings from the Maywood
material processing will be disposed in the lined tailings cells along with other process tailings.
A groundwater detection monitoring program is implemented to determine if any leakage from
the tailings cells has occurred. IUSA has determined that processing the additional Maywood
material will not cause the mill's production to exceed 4,380 tons of yellowcake per year, as
outlined in License Condition 10.1 .
Conclusions concerning compliance with alternate feed material criteria
Based on the information provided by IUSA, the NRC staff finds that the Maywood material
meets the criteria in the Alternate Feed Guidance, because (1) it qualifies as an "ore" as
defined by NRC guidance, (2) the materialto be processed will not be or contain listed
hazardous wastes, and (3) it is being processed primarily for its source-material content.
RECOMMENDED LICENSE CHANGE
Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40, Materials License
SUA-1358 will be amended by the addition of License Condition 10.18 as follows:
10.18: The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom the Maywood
site located in Maywood, New Jersey, in accordance with statements, representations,
and commitments contained in the amendment request dated June 15, 2001 , June 22,
2OO1 , August 3, 2001 , and supplemented by letters dated November 19, 2001 ,
December 6, 2001 , December 1 0, 2001 , March 11 , 2002, and July 1 , 2002.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Maywood site, the licensee must make
a determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from
the processing of this material. This determination shall be made based on a SERP
approved internal procedure. lf such determination requires the licensee to make
design changes to the cells or the reclamation plan, the licensee shall submit an
amendment request for NRC review and approval.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Maywood site, the licensee must
require that the generator of the material certify that the material does not contain listed
hazardous waste as defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) per a Radioactive Material Profile Record.
[Applicable Amendment: 22]
ENVIRONMENTAL IM PACT EVALUATION
The Environmental Assessment for this action was issued on August 22,2002. A Finding of No
Significant lmpact was published in the Federal Register on August 29,2002. The EA and
documents related to this proposed action are available electronically for public inspection in
the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component
of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
REFERENCES
Stepan Chemical Company. Remedial lnvestigation Report for the Stepan Chemical Site
(CH2MHill, November, 1 994).
U.S. Department of Energy. Remedial lnvestigation Report for Maywood Site. December,
1 992.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Letter from Henry Maddux, Utah Field Supervisor, to William
von Till, U.S. NRC. August 5,2002.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Commission Memorandum and Order,
lnternational Uranium (USA) Corp., CLI-00-01, 52 NRC 9 (Feb. 10, 2000).
NRC "Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Material Other Than Natural Ores," NRC
Regulatory lssue Summary 2000-23. November 30, 2000.
NRC "Final Environmental Statement" for the White Mesa Uranium Project, Energy Fuels
Nuclear, lnc. May, 1979.
NRC. Letter from Martin Virgilio of NRC to Jonathan Carter, of Envirocare, regarding
classification of material as 11e.(2) byproduct material. September 20,2001.
Utah Department of Transportation. Phone conversation with Ms. Vicki Hanshew of the
Program Development Division with William von Tillof NRC regarding tratfic statistics on
Highway 191 and through Moab, Utah. December 20,2000.
FORM 374 Or.r. NU.LEAR REGULAT.R' co*MrssroN O
MATERIALS LICENSE
to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-
), and the applicable parts of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter l, Parts 19, 20, 30, 31 , 32, 33, 34,
, 36, 39, 40,51, 70, and 71, and in reliance on statements and representations heretofore made by the licensee,
license is hereby issued authorizing the licensee to receive, acquire, possess, and transfer byproduct, source, and
nuclear material designated below; to use such material for the purpose(s) and at the place(s) designated
; to deliver or transfer such materialto persons authorized to receive it in accordance with the regulations of
applicable Part(s). This license shall be deemed to contain the conditions specified in Section 183 of the Atomic
y Act of 1954, as amended, and is subject to all applicable rules, regulations, and orders of the Nuclear
Commission now or hereafter in effect and to any conditions specified below.
Licensee
3. License Number SUA-1358, Amendment 221.
2.
2.
lnternational Uranium (USA)
[Applicable Amendment 2]
6425 Highway 191
P.O. Box 809
,.| ,'.::
Blanding, Utah 8451 1'".,
[Applicable
ion Date March 31,2OOT
40-8681
Maxintiir*r amount that Licensee
May Pffiss at Any One Time
Under ffip License
Unlimiffiqrrs#
9.2
6. Byproduct Sourc4'r*nd/or
Special Nuclear [@ferial
t-,-.,.,.Natural Uranium r
r "i.l
SECTION 9:
9.'1
lncident and event notifications that require telephone notification shall be made to the NRC Operations
Center at [phone].
9.3 The licensee shall conduct operations in accordance with statements, representations, and conditions
contained in the license renewal application submitted by letter dated August 23, 1991, as revised by
submittals dated January 1 3, and April 7, 1992, November 22, 1994, July 27 , 1995, December 1 3, and
December 31, 1996, and January 30, 1997 , which are hereby incorporated by reference, and for the
Standby Trust Agreement, datedApril 29, 1997, except where superseded by license conditions below.
Whenever the word "will" is used in the above referenced documents, it shall denote a requirement.
[Applicable Amendment: 2]
g.4 A. The licensee may, without prior NRC approval, and subject to the conditions specified in Part B of
this condition:
(1) Make changes in the facility or process, as presented in the application.
NRC FORM 374A REGULATORY COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SITEET
License Number
suA-1358
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
Amendment No. 22
(2) Make changes in the procedures presented in the application'
(3) Conduct tests or experiments not presented in the application.
B. The licensee shall file an application for an amendment to the license, unless the following
conditions are satisfied. :...-..,
(1)in this
r, shalt$e made by a "Safety and
of a miiiirrnum of three individuals.
d i s c i pline s. Te m p o rh"fly m 6 m OerS.tiff p"g iifi en ptgl
individu-ats, may be coAsultatltsl,:!i,r. .1,.',..1+jii,6!specified individq.EfS,,may be corllsuftAms. 1] . :.,6f;
The licensee shall maintain records of any ihanges madrD. The licensee shall"rs''6igttain records of any Changes- made pu6s-_1rgnt to this condition until license- termination. These r6dtUs shall include ivritten-safety and,e.qyiionmental evaluations, made.by theIgrIIllIlallo[I. I llE|lttr lti(/*IuD Dlrcilr Irrt/ru\.rE YYllltEll oq1sry qrrv-rP,J!*ar.vrilr,vt,rs. vre,!
Sfip, {njt provide tne U5sis f,,g; determining changeq-*rg in'ebmpliance with.the requirements
rE"rreO to in Part B of this co,,iiilition,,,.TheJiiensejslffi furnish, in an annual repo-rt.to NRC, a
description of such changes, tebts,,iillbxffi;imenb,.indluding.a summary of the safety aft.{_
envirohmental evaluation-of each. tn'aOdition, the licensee ihall annually submit to the NRC
inangeO pages to the Operations Plan and Reclamation Plan of the approved license application to
refleCt changes made under this condition.
c
and shdl#*e responsible for
health
The licensee's SERp shallfunction in accordance with the standard operating procedures submitted by
letter dated June 10, 1997.
[Applicable Amendments: 3]
The licensee shall maintain an NRC-approved financial surety arrangement, consistent with 10 CFR 40'
nopenoix A, Criteria g and 10, adequat6 to cover the estimated costs, if accomplished by a.third party,
idii".oi.'niislioning and decbntamination of the mill and mill site, for reclamation of any tailings-or
*"rt" Oiiposil areai,-ground-water restoration as warranted and for the long-term surveillance fee.
9.5
NRC FORM 374A
Therefore,
REGULATORY COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License Number
suA-1358
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
Amendment No. 22
estimated costs for site
Within three months of NRC approval of a revised reclamation/decommissioning plan, the licen_see shall
submit, for NRC review and approval, a proposed revision to the financial surety arangement if
estimated costs in the newly approved plan exceed the amount covered in the existing financialsurety.
The revised surety shall then be in effect within 3 months of written NRC approval.
Annual updates to the surety amount, required by 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10, shall be
submitted to the NRC at babt S months prior to the anniversary date which is designated as June 4 of
each year. lf the NRC has not approved a.propoped. revision to the surety qoyeragg -30 days prior to the
expirdtion date of the existing surety arrang,jement, thq.lieensee shall extend the existing surety.
ariangement for 1 year. Alori''g ffvithbaih piOpoSed rerlieibtt:gf qnnual update, the licensee shall submit
suppdrting documentation sh6vting a breit<Obwn of the costb Ag.,t*re, basis for the cost estimates with
adjdstmeits for inflation, miintenance of a minimum 15 percenfdOn$gpencY tee, changes-in
engineering plans, activitip'E performed and any other cohditions
cloiure. The basis for,,Ihe bost estimate is the NRC approved recloEure. TFd basis fo.r,,,,,,,,,Ihe c<ist estimate is the-NRC approved reclam4tidr/decommissioning pla.n-or
ltRC approved revisioiis'ip the plan. The previously frbvided guidance e1$tted "Recommended Outline
for Sitd Specific Replomation"arid Stanitizaiion Cos[ Estimates" outlines.tl'iH.qninimum considerations
used by the NRC iri'tltb reviev*--0{.f#tp- closure estimates. Rmna$On/dedmmissioning plans and
annual updates shottld follow tlll$r.dutliae " ."',:i,i,".,:. .:,.:::ii:.
3i l::..: :::: ' . ,l -,....:1. ''-r-
adjissued by National Union Fire lnsurance
iu$t Agreementr"dhted April 29, 1997, shall
Sfi,Z8g,for the p."q6pose of _complying with
' ii authorizeor$;iiine ru nc.
9.6
9.7
Allwritten procedures for both operational and non-op_qrational activities shall be reviewed and
approveO ih writing by the radiation safety officer (RSO) before implementation and whenever a change
iri irocedure is pr|poied to ensure that froper rai]iation-proteclion principles are being applied. ln
iOlitlon, the RSO inatl perform a documented review of all existing operating procedures at least
annually.
Before engaging in any activity not previously assessed. by.the NRC, the licensee shall administer a
iultural reioilrcE inventory. nit oisturoances associated \iith the proposed development will be
iorpf"t"O in compliance ivitn the National Historic Preservatior Act (3s amended) and.its..implementing
iJgrliiitls (36 CFR 800), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (as amended) and its
implementing regulations (43 CFR 7).
NRC FORM 374A REGULATORY COMMISSION
License Number
suA-1358
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
Amendment No. 22
Oasdd on the research iesign sunhitte"d b"y,lettei from C E pgker_of Enerqy-Fuels Nuclear to
Mr. Metvin T. Smith, Utah Siate nisior:idi:Pfe'Servation BSCpr,l9liPO), dated April 13, 1981.
ln order to ensure that no unapproved disturbance of cultural resources occurs, a.ny.work resulting in
the discovery of previously unknown cultural artifacts shall cease. The artifacts shall be inventoried and
evaluated in acc6rdance with 36 CFR Part 800, and no disturbance shall occur untilthe licensee has
received authorization from the NRC to proceed.
The licensee shall avoid by project design, where feasible, the archeological sites_desig.nated " . .
contributing" in the report sdOniitteO by i-etter dated July 28, 1988. When it is not feasible to avoid a site
designated-"contributing" in the report, the licenspg,tha! ilst[ule adgg recovery.prg.gr?m forthat site
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
n. THe Commission will
for,il1pri ncipal investigator set
rigw'ptaOte by the SHPO.
tal in the:ffid of uranium waste tailings
's millinguS'g6rations authorized by this9.8
9.9
The licensee is hereby,.authorized to posqesi byproduct hl in the: -,.4!tl of uranium waste talllngs
and other uranium bviiioOuct waste denerated,Oyttre licefffi's milling*operations authorized by !l1is
tiCense. Mill tailings'shall"not be tran-sferred froni the site wfthout spd"dfic prior app.royal.gf theNRC in
the form of a licenie ambn{ment. The licensbe shall maintain a.p6-i?r*5neht record of all transfers made
,:,.,1=under the provisions of this'bgndition.- "...,:r, :: ,:. ,rti{F,,.
The licensee is hereby exempted fram tnti reqg$pements otiSection 20J902 (e) of 10 CFR Part 20 for
areas within the mill, firovidei that all entranc6s to the mill are conspicuously posted in accordance with
SeAion 20.1gO2 (e)'dnd with the words, "Any area within this mill may contain radioactive material."
g.1O Release of equipment or packages from the restricted area shall be in accordance with "Guidelines for
Decontaminatioh of Faciliiies ari'd Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted Use or Termination of
Licenses for dyproOuit, Source, or Sp6cial Nuclear Material," dated May 1987, or suitable alternative
procedures approved by the NRC prior to any such release'
g.1 1 The final reclamation shall be in accordance with the May 1999, Reclamation Plan Revision 2.0,
Attachment A submitted on June 22,1999, and Revision-3.0 submitted on July 7, 2q90 Prior to the
plicement of alternate feed material, the licensee shall determine that ldequate cell space is available
ior that additional material. This determination shall be made by a SERP approved procedure.
REGULATORY COMMISSION
License Number
suA-1358
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Amendment No. 22
sECTtoN 10: Operational Controls, Limits, and Restrictions
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
10.1
10.2
10.3
The mill production rate shall not exceed
shall be returned to
10.4
10.5
the NRC for
D. All disposal activities shall be documented. The documentation shall include descriptions of the
waste'and the disposal locations, as well as all actions required by this condition. An annual
summary of the ainounts of waste disposed of from off-site generators shall be sent to the NRC.
10.6 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materials from the Allied Signal Corporation's
Metropolis, lllinois, facility in accordance with the amendment request dated June 15, 1993.
10.T The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from Allied Signal, lnc. of Metropolis,
lllinois, in accordance with the amendment request dated September 20, 1996, and amended by letters
dated October 30, and November 1 1, 1996.
A.
B.
NRC FORM 374A REGULATORY COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License Number
suA-1358
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
Amendment No. 22
1O.g The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material, in accordance with the amendment
request dated March 5, 1997.
[Applicable Amendments: 1]
10.g The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom Cabot Performance Materials'
tjcif ity neii goyertown, Pennsylvania, in accordance with the amendment request dated April 3, 1997,
as amended by submittals dated May 19, and,{qgust 6, 1997.
June 11,1998.
10.11
. . | :,.: :ii ri lL ..trr .i i :r :. : , tr ;:::r ;1;
[ApplicableAmendments: 4] ,, '.,, ,,' ' ' n ],-f .^,
10.10 The licensee is authorized to,receive and process source materiaEfrom Jhe Ashland 2 Formerly Utilized.
Sites RemeOiaf Aiiion P. nediam (FUSRAP) site, located near tonavfrnhla, N9* Yqt, ilS.cordance with
the amendment requestdhed Miy 8, 199'8, as amended by the subniffilg dated May 27, June 3, and
:'tl-;iii'However, the liceFeee is no-?:=
anodes identified in these
approved for receiptpr pro$
:1 | ,ita::
these faoilitjes, the crushed carbon
GI'r mixediiilh'with material already
10.12
10.13 The licensee is authorized to receive
"nO
pro."rs source material from the St. Louis Formerly Utilized
Sites RemeOiaf Aiiion program (FUSRAP) site, in accordance with statements, representations, and
commitmenti iontained in-the amendment request dated March 2, 1999, and a-s am^endld.and
supptementeO oV LJorittjti dated June 21 , t Sqs;_J_rnq 29, 1999 (f ); and .tuly-?,_19,99 -
Prior to the
licensee r"."lririg-rnlt"ilaiJ tiom ine st. t-ouis rusMP site, the iicensee must make a determination
ttiit aoequ"t" t"ir]ngilpiie it ariitinte for the tailings produced. from the processing of this material'
This determination Enati ne made based on a SERP approved internal procedure'
[Applicable Amendments: 13, 14]
10.14 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Linde Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial n6tion Fiogi21n tFusnnCl iite,'in accordance with statements, representations, and
NRC FORM 374A REGULATORY COMMISSION
License Number
suA-1358
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
NRC review and approval.
Amendment No. 22
commitments contained in the amendment request dated March 16, 2000, and as amended and
supplemented by submittals dated April 26, 2000, May 15, 2000, June 16, 2000, June 19, 2000,
June 23, 2000.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Linde FUSRAP site, the licensee must make a
determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from the processing of
this material. This determination shall be made based on a SERP approved internal procedure. Design
changes to the cells or the reclamation plan requirq.,fhe licensee to submit an amendment request for
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Linde FUSMP*gtle, the licensee must require that the
generator of the material eeffiff7 that the material does not contaifrSislhd hazardous waste as defined
under the Resource Cc.riqdfva[ion and Recovery Act (RCRA) per a Radioactive Material Profile Record.
' :i'
[Applicable Amendmeni tlS
10.15 Grace site located in
tions, .Am{J commitments contained
I supplpdented by submittals
J, and,@cember 18, 2000.
the licensesmust make a
rgs produced from the processing of
approved standard operating
the cells^or the reclamation plan
and-iip'firoval.
[Applicable Amendment: f 7]
10.16 The licensee is authorized to receiVC.andrp;ocff-Q soufce rfidterialfrom the Heritage Minerals
lncorporated siite, in accordance with statiime'ffifl iepresentations, and commitments contained in the
ameridment request dated July 5, 2OOO, and as iupflemented by submittals November 16, 2000, and
December 18, 2000.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Heritage Minerals lncorporated site, the licensee must
make a determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from the
processing of this material. Thib determination shall be made based on the SERP approved standard
bperating procedure for determination of tailings capacity. Design changes !9 lhe cells or the
rlclamaiion plan require the licensee to submit an amendment request for NRC review and approval.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Heritage Minerals lncorporated sl!e, the licensee must
require that the generator of the material certify that the material does not contain listed hazardous
and
NRC FORM 374A REGULATORY COMMISSION
License Number
suA-1358
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Amendment No. 22
waste as defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) per a Radioactive
Material Profi le Record.
[Applicable Amendment: 18]
10.17 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom the Molycorp site located in
information in letters dated
ffi,2001, October 17,2001, and
[Applicable Ame6dment: 20]
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
1 0.1 8:the M{wood site located in
and-:Ernmitments contained in.lY'ul.YF.ilyi
st 3, 200i[l and supplemented by
QOO1, March 11,2002, and July 1,
[Applicable Amendment: 22]
SECTIoN 11: Monitoring, Recording, and Bookkeeping Requirements
11.1 The results of sampling, analyses, surveys and monitoring, the results of calibration of equipment,
reports on audits and inspections, all meetings and training courses required by this license and any
suibsequent reviews, investigations, and corrective actions, shall be documented. Unless otherwise
specified in the NRC regulations all such documentation shall be maintained for a period of at least five
(5) years.
NRC FORM 374A REGULATORY COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License Number
suA-1358
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
Amendment No. 22
11.2 The licensee shall implement the effluent and environmental monitoring program spe_c_ified in
Section 5.5 of the renewal application, as amended by the submittal dated June 8, 1995, and as revised
with the following modifications or additions:
A. Stack sampling shall include a determination of flow rate.
B. Surface water samples shall also be analyzed semiannually for total and dissolved U-nat, Ra-226,
and Th-230, with the exception of the"We$.vater Creek, which shall be sampled annually for water
or sediment's and analyzed as abole; A sedimenflSample shall not be taken in place of a water
sample unless a water sample was not availabl€. '
t:C. Groundwater samplirq'$hill be conducted in accordance witf$th , requirements in License
Condition 1 1.3. .
:. ,i: I
[Applicable Amendment: 5]',
1 1.3 The licensee shail
and the following:
10 CFR Part 40, Appendix&b.*
entitled, "Points of Compliance;
5 of Regulatory
Roots r,rreler to obtain the required
m t$,,.€nsure compliance to
be in Ctecordance with the report
by felt€r dated October 5, 1994,
D.
E.
A.
ln addition, the licensee shall implement a monitoring program of the leak detection systems for the
disposal cells as follows:
B. The licensee shall measure and record the "depth to fluid" in each of the tailings disposal cell
standpipes on a weekly basis. lf sufficient fluid is present in the leak detection.s.ystem.(LDS).ol any
cJll, tnd licensee shall'pump fluid from the LDS, to the q{enJ reasonably possible, and record the
volume of fluid recover'ed. Any fluid pumped from an LDS shall be returned to a disposal cell.
lf fluid is pumped from an LDS, the licensee shall calculate the flow rate by dividing the recorded
volume oi ttuib recovered by the elapsed time since fluid was last pumped or increases in the LDS
fluid levels were recorded, whichever is the more recent. The licensee shall document the results
of this calculation.
NRC FORM 374A
11.4
11.5
REGULATORY COMMISSION
C. Upon the initial pumping of fluid from an LDS, the licensee shallcollect a fluid,samP!."..1d analyze
th'e fluid for pH inO ine parameters listed in paragraph A of this license condition. The licensee
shall deterniine whethei the LDS fluid originated from the disposal cell by ascertaining.if the
collected fluid contains elevated levels oflhe constituents listed in paragraph A of this license
condition or has a pH level less than 5.0. lf either elevated constituent levels.or a pH
less than 5.0 is obierved, the licensee shall assume that the disposal cell is the origin of the fluid.
lf the LDS fluid is determined not to have O.riginated from the disposal cell, the licensee shall
continue with weekly measure.ments of "depih to ffuld'-;in-the LDS standpipes. The licensee shall
confirm, on an annu'al basis, tEa$UiO from'thd dispogal,cell has not entered the LDS by. collecting
(to the 6*ent posJiOtel andbn'Slyzing an LDS fluid sam*plb folthe above stated parameters.
:, '.:r:!
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License Number
suA-1358
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
Amendment No. 22
and tirynfV actions to mitigate the
".,r'i
, the lice&e shall continue with weekly
and retained onsite until
D.
[Appticable Amendment: 8] '$ ,i{: .;;
:=:i ':'a' j
Annually, the licensee shall collect, during mill oierations, a set of air samples covering eight hours of
slmpiintj, if a hrgh LorreCtion flow iate(i.-e., greiter than o.r equal to 40.liters per minute),.in routinely or
ir6qffit-li, ociupiea arial of the mill. These-samples shall.be ?nalyzed for.gross alph.a. ln.addition,
;itil;;li cnange in milLfeeA materialor atleast inp.uqlty.the licen-see shall analyze|!e^Il!l?:9It
prJOuction prod-uct toi U-nat, Tfi-230, Ra-226, and Pb-2i0 and use the analysis results to assess the
tundamentil constituent composition of air sample particulates.
[Appticable Amendment: 7]
Calibration of in-plant air and radiation monitoring equpment shall be performed as specified in..the
Gni" ,"newir ippritition, ,no"r Section 3.0 of-the "Radiation Proteition Procedures Manual," with the
"ii"ption t6rfin-iiiJni-aii sbmpting equipment shall be calibrated at least quarterly and air sampling
equifment checks shall be documented.
Condition 9.2. The wdtten.report
a discussion of the mitigative acti. ::' , . .; '
lf the calcuiateoffiw ,.t" s t"*"-tn"n od-j,b$ll
measurements of ppth to fluid?, in the" LD-S s1l .,-1' ,-..ttti':.
tffi UNITED STATES
REGULATORY COMMISS
o
loN
$" ",Tlt: F)€ 't.t: ''1 -' | ,
\ \ ''J ';l $/\;;,s
NUCLEAR
wASHTNGTON, D.C. 205ss-0001
September 5, 2002
+**tf
Mr. Ron F. Hochstein, President and Chief Executive Officer
lnternational Uranium (IUSA) Corporation
lndependence Plaza, Suite 950
1 050 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80265
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT 21 TO MATERIALS
REVIEW FOR THE WHITE MESA
Dear Mr. Hochstein:
LICENSE SUA-1358 -. ANNUAL SURETY
URANIUM MILL
The U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has completed its review of lnternational
Uranium (USA) Corporation's (IUSA's) March 1,2OO2, and Augusl S,2OO2,letters requesting
that IUSA's surety be approved as revised for changes in reclamation equipment pricing.
Staff finds IUSA's up-dated surety to be acceptable and the staff's Technical Evaluation Report
is attached (enclosure 1). The license has been revised (License Condition 9.5) and is
attached (enclosure 2). All other conditions of the license remain unchanged.
lf you have any questions regarding this letter or the NRC staff review, please contact the NRC
Project Manager for the IUSA site, William von Till, at [phone].
ln accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter will be
available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the
Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS
is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://wirvr,v.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public
Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,
O._-p H.-/JOZ^
Daniel Gillen, Chief
Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch
Division of Fuel Cycle Safety
and Safeguards
Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards
Docket No. 40-8681
SUA-1358, Amendment No. 21
Enclosure 'l: Technical Evaluation Report
Enclosure 2: Source Material License SUA-1358
cc: W. Sinclair, UT
Tom Rice, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
Terry Brown, US EPA Region Vlll
DATE:
LICENSEE
PROJECT MANAGER:
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT
July 3, 2002
40-8681 License No. SUA-1358
lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation
White Mesa Mill
William von Till
TECHNICAL HEVIEWER: Jill Caverly
EVALUATION:
ln response to letters submitted March 1, 2OO2, and August 5,2002, f rom lnternational Uranium
(USA) Corporation (lUC), staff has reviewed the Licensee's detailed cost estimate for
reclamation of the White Mesa uranium millfacility near Blanding, Utah. IUC submitted an
updated cost estimate for: 1)Mill Decommissioning; 2) Cell 1 ; 3) Cell 2; 4)Cell3; 5) Cell aA; 6)
Miscellaneous items; 7) Rock production; 8)Equipment; 9)Labor; and 10) Long-term costs. ln
addition, IUC submitted information that adequately addressed staff's concerns on specific
rates. Therefore, the cost basis supports a revised bond amount of $10,336,283 which is a
decrease to the prior year's bond amount of $10,365,458. This amount was based on updated
information on labor rates, equipment and material cost from reputable sources. The quantities
were based on takeoffs by IUC and were supported with calculations. Reasonable profit (10%)
and contingency (15"/") are included in the total.
IUC's cost estimates were presented in a logical manner and appeared to be thorough.
However, it was not apparent that the licensee had updated blasting and drilling unit costs.
NRC staff requested that the licensee verify the current cost of blasting. The staff also asked
that the licensee verify that the unit cost of fuel, $0.55/gallon, be secured for the one year and
be transferable to a successor in the event that a third party would complete decommissioning
of the site.
IUC adequately addressed both of these issues in a letter dated August 5,2AO2. IUC stated
that blasting costs for the current surety are based on a contractor quote for similar conditions
and drilling depths and updated to current costs by increasing the quote 20 percent. The staff
finds this an acceptable approach. However, IUC was unable to guarantee a fuel cost of
$o.Ss/gallon for one year and also could not guarantee that this rate was transferable.
Alternately, IUC proposed using a fuel cost that is based on a three-year rolling average of the
Department of Labor, Producer Price lndex - Commodities for #2 Diesel fuel. The fuel cost
calculated using the 36 month average resulted in a cost of $0.785 per gallon. The staff
considered this an acceptable alternative method which more closely represents the cost of
reclamation. IUC updated the proposed costs and surety to reflect the changes associated with
the fuel cost adjustment to $10,336,283.
Enclosure 1
FORM 374 U.S. NUCLEAR BEGULATORY COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
rsuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-438), and the applicable parts
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter l, Parts 19,20,30,31, 32,33,34,35,36,39,40,51,70, and 71, and in reliance on
ts and representations heretofore made by the licensee, a license is hereby issued authorizing the licensee to receive, acquire,
and transfer byproduct, source, and special nuclear material designated below; to use such material for the purpose(s) and at the
s) designated below; to deliver or transfer such material to persons authorized to receive it in accordance with the regulations of the
able part(s). This license shall be deemed to contain the conditions specified in Section 183 of the Atomic Energy Act of 'l 954, as
and is subject to all applicable rules, regulations, and orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission now or hereafter in eflect and
any conditions specified below.
1.
2.
2.
Licensee
lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation
[Applicable Amendment 2]
6425 Highway 191
Box 809
Blanding, Utah 84511
Amendment 2l
3. License Number SUA-1358, Amendment 21
4. Expiration Date March 31,2007
5. Docket No. 40-8681
Reference No.
8. Maiimum amount that Licensee
May Possess at Any One Time
Under This License
Unlimited
6. Byproduct Source, andlor 7.
Special Nuclear Material
Natural Uranium
SECTION 9:
Chemical andl or Physical
Form
Any
Administrative Gonditions
g.'l The authorized place of use shall be the licensee's White Mesa uranium milling facility, located in San
Juan County, Utah.
g.2 All written notices and reports to the NRC required-under this license, with the exception of incident and
event notifications under'10 CFR 2O.22O2 and'10 CFR 40.60 requiring telephone notification, shall be
addressed to the Chief, Uranium Recovery and Low-_LevelWaste Branch, Division of Waste
Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
lncident and event notifications that require telephone notification shall be made to the NRC Operations
Center at [phone].
9.3 The licensee shall conduct operations in accordance with statements, representations, and conditions
contained in the license renewal application submitted by letter dated August 23, 1991, as revised by
submittals dated January 13, and April 7, 1992, November 22, 1994, July 27 , 1995, December 13, and
December 31, 1996, and January 30, 1997, which are hereby incorporated by reference, and for the
Standby Trust Agreement, dated April 29, 1997 , except where superseded by license conditions below.
Whenever the word "will" is used in the above referenced documents, it shall denote a requirement.
[Applicable Amendment: 2]
9.4 A. The licensee may, without prior NRC approval, and subject to the conditions specified in Part B of
this condition:
(1) Make changes in the facility or process, as presented in the application.
(2) Make changes in the procedures presented in the application.
NRC FORM 374A U.S, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
License Number
suA-1358
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Amendment No. 21
(3) Conduct tests or experiments not presented in the application.
B. The licensee shall file an application for an amendment to the license, unless the following
conditions are satisfied.
(1) The change, test, or experiment does not conflict with any requirement specifically stated in this
license, or impair the licensee's ability to meet all applicable NRC regulations.
(2) There is no degradation in the essential safety or environmental commitments in the license
application, or provided by the approved reclamation plan.
(3) The change, test, or experiment is consistent with the conclusions of actions analyzed and
selected in the EA dated February 1997.
C. The licensee's determinations concerning Part B of this condition, shall be made by a "Safety and
Environmental Review Panel (SERP)." The SERP shallconsist of a minimum of three individuals.
One member of the SERP shall have expertise in management and shall be responsible for
managerial and financial approval changes; one member shall have expertise in operations and/or
construction and shall have responsibility for implementing any operational changes; and, one
member shall be the corporate radiation safety officer (CHSO) or equivalent, with the responsibility
of assuring changes conform to radiation safety and environmental requirements. Additional
members may be included in the SEFIP as appropriate, to address technical aspects such as health
physics, grouhdwater hydrology, surface-water hydrology, specific earth sciences, and other
ieihnical-disciplines. Temporary members or permanent members, other than the three above-
specified individuals, may be consultants.
D. The licensee shall maintain records of any changes made pursuant to this condition until license
termination. These records shall include written safe$ and environmental evaluations, made by the
SERP, that provide the basis for determining changes are in compliance with the requirements
referred to in Part B of this condition. The licensee shall furnish, in an annual report to NRC, a
description of such changes, tests, or experiments, including a summary of the safety a!{ _environmental evaluation of each. ln addition, the licensee shall annually submit to the NRC
changed pages to the Operations Plan and Reclamation Plan of the approved license application to
reflect changes made under this condition.
The licensee's SERP shallfunction in accordance with the standard operating procedures submitted by
letter dated June 10, 1997.
[Applicable Amendments: 3]
The licensee shall maintain an NRC-approved financial surety arrangement, consistent with 10 CFR 40,
Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10, adequate to cover the estimated costs, if accomplished by a third party,
for'decommissioning and decontamination of the mill and mill site, for reclamation of any tailings- or
waste disposal areas, ground-water restoration as warranted and for the long-term surveillance fee.
Within thiee months oirunC approval of a revised reclamation/decommissioning plan, the licensee shall
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
9.5
NRC FORM 374A U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License Number
suA-1358
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
9.6
Amendment No. 21
submit, for NRC review and approval, a proposed revision to the financial surety arrangement if
estimaied costs in the newly approved pian exceed the amount covered in the existing financial surety.
The revised surety shall then be in effect within 3 months of written NRC approval.
Annual updates to the surety amount, required by 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10, shall be
submitteil to the NRC at lea-st g months prior to the anniversary date which is designated as June 4 of
each year. lf the NRC has not approved a proposed revision to the surety coverage 30 days prior to the
expiration date of the existing surety arrangement, the licensee shall extend the existing surety.
ariangement for 1 year. Along with each pioposed revision or annual update, the licensee shall submit
suppdrting documentation showing a breakdown of the costs and the basis for the cost estimates with
aOjdstmeits for inflation, maintendnce of a minimum 15 percent contingency fee, changesin
engineering plans, activities pedormed and any other conditions affecting estimated costs for site
clolure. Thd basis for the cost estimate is the NRC approved reclamation/decommissioning plan or
NRC approved revisions to the plan. The previously provided guidance entitled "Recommended Outline
for Site Specific Reclamation and Stabilization Cost Estimates" outlines the minimum considerations
used by the NRC in the review of site closure estimates. Reclamation/decommissioning plans and
annual updates should follow this outline.
The currently approved surety instrument, a Performance Bond issued by National Union Fire lnsurance
Company in-favdr of the NRC, and the associated Standby Trust Agreement, dated April 29, 1997, shall
be c6ntiriuously rnaintained in an amount not less than $10,336,283 for the purpose of complying with
1O CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10, until a replacement is authorized by the NRC.
[Applicable Amendments:2,3,5, 13, 15, 19,21]
Therefore, this office must receive an updated surety in this amount within 9O days of this letter.
Standard operating procedures shall be established and followed for all operational process activities
involving radioactive materials that are handled, processed, or stored. SOPs for operational activities
shall enumerate pertinent radiation safety practices to be followed. Additionally, written procedures
shall be established for non-operational activities to include in-plant and environmental monitoring,
bioassay analyses, and instrument calibrations. An up-to-date copy of each written procedure shall be
kept in the mill area to which it applies.
All written procedures for both operational and non-operational activities shall be reviewed and
approved in writing by the radiation safety officer (RSO) before implementation and whenever a change
in procedure is proposed to ensure that proper radiation protection principles are being applied. ln
addition, the RSO shall perform a documented review of all existing operating procedures at least
annually.
Before engaging in any activity not previously assessed by the NRC, the licensee shall administer a
cultural reiource inventory. All disturbances associated with the proposed development will be
completed in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (as amended) and its implementing
regulations (36 CFR 800), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (as amended) and its
implementing regulations (43 CFR 7).
ln order to ensure that no unapproved disturbance of cultural resources occurs, any work resulting in
the discovery of previously unknown cultural artifacts shall cease. The artifacts shall be inventoried and
9.7
NRC FORM 374A U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License Number
suA-1358
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
Amendment No. 21
evaluated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, and no disturbance shall occur until the licensee has
received authorization from the NRC to proceed.
The licensee shall avoid by project design, where feasible, the archeological sites designated "
contributing" in the report submitted by letter dated July 28,'1988. When it is not feasible to avoid a site
designated "contributing" in the report, the licensee shall institute a data recovery program for that site
based on the research design submitted by letter from C. E. Baker of Energy Fuels Nuclear to
Mr. Melvin T. Smith, Utah State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), dated April 13, 1981 .
The licensee shall recover through archeological excavation all "contributing" sites listed in the report
which are located in or within 100 feet of borrow areas, stockpile areas, construction areas, or the
perimeter of the reclaimed tailings impoundment. Data recovery fieldwork at each site meeting these
briteria shall be completed prior to the start of any project related disturbance within 100 feet of the site,
but analysis and report preparation need not be complete.
Additionally, the licensee shall conduct such testing as is required to enable the Commission to
determine lf those sites designated as "Undetermined" in the report and located within 100 feet of
present or known future construction areas are of such significance to warrant their redesignation ?-si'contributing." ln all cases, such testing shall be completed before any aspect of the undertaking affects
a site.
Archeological contractors shall be approved in writing by the Commission. The Commission will
approve an archeological contractor who meets the minimum standards for a principal investigator set
tortn in 36 CFR Part 66, Appendix C, and whose qualifications are found acceptable by the SHPO.
9.8 The licensee is hereby authorized to possess byproduct materiat in the form of uranium waste tailings
and other uranium byproduct waste generated by the licensee's milling operations authorized by this
license. Mill tailings shall not be transferred from the site without specific prior approval of the NRC in
the form of a licen-se amendment. The licensee shall maintain a permanent record of all transfers made
under the provisions of this condition.
9.9 The licensee is hereby exempted from the requirements of Section20.1902 (e) of '10 CFR Part 20 for
areas within the mill, provided that all entrances to the mill are conspicuously posted in accordance with
Section 20.1902 (e) and with the words, "Any area within this mill may contain radioactive material."
g.1O Release of equipment or packages from the restricted area shall be in accordance with "Guidelines for
Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted Use or Termination of
Licenses for Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear Material," dated May 1987, or suitable alternative
procedures approved by the NRC prior to any such release.
9.11 The final reclamation shall be in accordance with the May 1999, Reclamation Plan Revision 2.0,
Attachment A submitted on June 22, 1999, and Revision 3.0 submitted on July 7,2OOO. Prior to the
placement of alternate feed material, the licensee shall determine that adequate cell space is available
ior that additional material. This determination shall be made by a SERP approved procedure.
NRC FORM 374A U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS]ON
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License Number
suA-1358
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
Amendment No. 21
SECTION 10: Operational Controls, Limits, and Restrictions
10.1 The mill production rate shall not exceed 4380 tons of yellowcake per year.
10.2 All liquid effluents from mill process buildings, with the exception of sanitary wastes, shall be returned to
the mill circuit or discharged to the tailings impoundment.
10.3 Freeboard limits for Cells 1-1,3, and 4A, shall be set periodically in accordance with the.procedures set
out in Section 3.0 to Appendix E of the approved license ap_Plicition, including lhegglolqr 13, 1999
revisions made to the Jhnuary 10, 1990 biainage Report. The freeboard limit for Cell 3 shall be
recalculated annually in accoidance with the pr6cedures set in the October 13, 1999 revision to the
Drainage Report.
[Applicable Amendment: 16J
1O.4 Disposal of material and equipment generated at the mill site shall be conducted as described in the
licensee's submittals dated'Dbcember 12,1994 and May 23,1995, with the following addition:
A. The maximum lift thickness for materials placed over tailings shall be less than 4-feet thick.
Subsequent lifts shall be less than 2-feet inicf . Each lift shall be compacted by tracking of heavy
equipment, such as a Cat D-6, at least 4 times prior to placement of subsequent lifts.
1O.S ln accordance with the licensee's submittal dated May 20, 1993, the licensee is hereby authorized to
Oispose of byproduct material generated at licensed ih situ leach facilities, subject to the following
conditions:
A. Disposal of waste is limited to 5000 cubic yards from a single source.
B. All contaminated equipment shall be dismantled, crushed, or sectioned to minimize void spaces.
Barrels .ontrining wabte other than soil or sludges shall be emptied into the disposal area and the
barrels crushed. -Barrels containing soil or sludges shall be verified to be full prior to disposal.
Barrels not completely full shall be filled with tailings or soil.
C. All waste shall be buried in Cell No. 3 unless prior written approval is obtained from the NRC for
alternate burial locations.
D. All disposal activities shall be documented. The documentation shall include descriptions of the
waste ,nd the disposal locations, as well as all actions required by this condition. An annual
,r.rriy-oi tf,e ,i:nounts of waste disposed of from off-site generators shall be sent to the NRC.
10.6 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materials f rom the Allied Signql Corporation's
Metropolis, lllinois, facility in accordance with the amendment request dated June 15, 1993.
10.7 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom Allied Signal, lnc. of Metropolis,
lllinois, in accordance with the amendmeni request dated September 20, 1996, and amended by letters
dated October 30, and November 1 1 , 1996.
NRC FORM 374A U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License Number
suA-1358
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
Amendment No. 21
10.8 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material, in accordance with the amendment
request dated March 5, 1997.
[Applicable Amendments: 1]
10.9 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from Cabot Performance Materials'
facility near Boyertown, Pennsylvania, in accordance with the amendment request dated April 3, 1997,
as amended by submittals dated May 19, and August 6, 1997.
[Applicable Amendments: 4]
10.10 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom the Ashland 2 Formerly Utilized
Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, located near Tonawanda, New York, in accordance with
the amendment request dated lrlay 8, 1998, as amended by the submittals dated May 27, June 3, and
June 11,1998.
[Applicable Amendment: 6]
10.11 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom Cameco Corporation's Blind
River and Port Hope facilities, located in Ontario, Canada, in accordance with the amendment request
dated June 4, 199.8, and by the submittals dated September 14, September 16, September 25, October
7, and October 8, 1998.
However, the licensee is not authorized to receive or process from these facilities, the crushed carbon
anodes identified in these submittals, either as a separate materialor mixed in with material already
approved for receipt or processing.
10.12 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Ashland 1 and Seaway Area
D Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSHAP) site, located near Tonowanda, New
York, in aCcordance with statements, represenlations, and commitments contained in the amendment
request dated October 15, 1998, as amended by letters dated November 23, 1998, November 24, 1998,
December 23, 1998, January 1 1 , 1999, January 27, 1999, and February 1 , '1999.
[Applicable Amendment: 10]
10.13 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom the St. Louis Formerly Utilized
Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, in accordance with statements, representations, and
commitments contained inlhe amendment request dated March 2, 1999, and as amended and
supplemented by submittals dated June 21 , 1999; June 29, 1999 (2); and July 8, 1999. Prior to the
licensee receiving materials from the St. Louis FUSRAP site, the licensee must make a determination
that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from the processing of this material.
This determination shall be made based on a SERP approved internal procedure.
[Applicable Amendments: 13, 14]
10.14 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Linde Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, in accordance with statements, representations, and
NRC FORM 374A U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License Number
suA-1358
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
Amendment No. 21
commitments contained in the amendment request dated March 16, 2000, and as amen-de-d and
supplemented by submittals dated April 26, 2ObO, May 15, 2000, June 16, 2000, June 19, 2000,
June 23, 2000.
prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Linde FUSRAP site, the licensee must make a
determination iniiiOequateiailings space is available for the tailhgs produced from the processing of
this materiaf . ifris determination inatibe made based on a SERP approved internal procedure. Design
cf,angeJto the cells or the reclamation plan require the licensee to submit an amendment request for
NRC review and aPProval.
prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Linde FUSRAP site, the licensee must require that the
gJnerator of the material cert-ify that the material does not contain listed hazardous waste as defined
Jnder the Fleiource Conseryafion and Recovery Act (RCRA) per a Radioactive Material Profile Record.
[Applicable Amendment: 14]
0.15 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom the W.R. Grace site located in
Chattanooga, Tennessee, in accordance with statements, representations, and commitments contained
in the ameidment request dated April 12,2OOA, and as amended and supplemented by.submittals
dated April24,20OO, April 26, 2000, May 5,2000, November 16,2000, and December 18, 2000.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the W.R. Grace site, the licensee must make a
determination that adequatelailings space is available for the lqllngs produced from the processing of
this material. This determination ifrdibe made based on the SERP approved standard operating
procedure for determination of tailings capacity. Design ch.anges to the cells or the reclamation plan
i.equire the licensee to submit an amendment request for NRC review and approval.
prior to the licensee receiving materials from the W.R. Grace site, the licensee must require that the
generator of the material certlfy that the materialdoes not contain listed hazardous waste as defined
Inder the Resource Conservaiion and Recovery Act (RCRA) per a Radioactive Material Profile Record.
[Applicable Amendment: 17]
0.16: The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material f rom the Heritage Minerals- - lncorporated siite, in accordance with statbments, representations, a.nd.commitments contained in the
ameridment request dated July 5,2OOO, and as supplemented by submittals November 16,2000, and
December 18,2000.
prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Heritage Minerals lncorporated site, the licensee must
make a determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings pro_duced from the
processing of this material. Thib determination shall be made based on the SERP approved standard
bperating -procedure for determination of tailings capacity. Design changes. Ig ln" cells or the
rdclamaiion plan require the licensee to submit an amendment request for NRC review and approval.
prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Heritage Minerals lncorporated s{e, the licensee must
require that the generator of lne material certify that the material does not contain listed hazardous
NRC FORM 374A U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
License Number
suA-1358
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Amendment No. 21
waste as defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) per a Radioactive
Material Profile Record.
[Applicable Amendment: 18]
10.17: The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom the Molycorp site located in
Mountain Pass, California, in accordance with statements, representations, and commitments contained
in the amendment request dated December 19, 2000, and supplemental information in letters dated
January 29,2OO1, February 2,2OO1, March 20,2OO1, August 15,2001, October 17,2OO1,and
November 16, 2001.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Molycorp site, the licensee must make a determination
that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from the processing of this material.
This determination snaliOe made based on a SERP approved internal procedure. Design changes to
the cells or the reclamation plan require the licensee to submit an amendment request for NRC review
and approval.
[Applicable Amendment: 20]
sECTtoN t t: Monitoring, Reeording, and Bookkeeping Requirements
11.1 The results of sampling, analyses, surveys and monitoring, the results of calibration of equipment,
reports on audits ahd inspections, all meetings and training coulqes required by this license.and any
sr.ibsequent reviews, investigations, and corrective actions, shallbe documented. Unless otherwise
specifi6d in the NRC regulations all such documentation shall be maintained for a period of at least five
(5) years.
11.2 The licensee shall implement the effluent and environmental monitoring program specified in
Section 5.5 of the renewal application, as amended by the submittal dated June 8, 1995, and as revised
with the following modifications or additions:
A. Stack sampling shall include a determination of flow rate.
B. Surface water samples shall also be analyzed semiannually for total and dissolved U-nat, Ra-226,
and Th-230, with the exception of the Westwater Creek, which shall be sampled annually for water
or sediments and analyzed as above. A sediment sample shall not be taken in place of a water
sample unless a water sample was not available.
C. Groundwater sampling shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements in License
Condition 11.3.
D. The licensee shall utilize lower limits of detection in accordance with Section 5 of Regulatory
Guide 4.14 (Revision 1), for analysis of effluent and environmental samples.
E. The inspections performed semiannually of the critical orifice assembly committed to in the
submitthl dated March 15, 1986, shall be documented. The critical orif ice assembly shall be
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
NRC FORM 374A
11.3
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
License Number
suA-1358
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
Amendment No. 21
A.
calibrated at least every 2years against a positive displacement Roots meter to obtain the required
calibration curve.
[Applicable Amendment: 5]
The licensee shall implement a groundwater detection monitoring program to ensure compliance to
1O CFR Part 40, Appendix A. The detection monitoring program shall be in accordance with the report
entitled, "Points of Compliance, White Mesa Uranium Mill," submitted by letter dated October 5, 1994,
and the following:
The licensee shall sample monitoring wells WMMW-S, -1 1, -12, -14, -15, and '17, ona quarterly basis.
Samples shall be analyzed for chloride, potassium, nickel, and uranium, and the results of such
samfling shall be inc[ided with the environmental monitoring reports submitted in accordance with
10 cFR 40.65.
ln addition, the licensee shall implement a monitoring program of the leak detection systems for the
disposal cells as follows:
B. The licensee shall measure and record the "depth to fluid" in each of the tailings disposal cell
standpipes on a weekly basis. lf sufficient fluid is present in the leak detection.system (LDS) 91 any
cell, the licensee shalt-pump fluid from the LDS, to the extent reasonably possible, and record the
volume of fluid recoverbd. Any fluid pumped from an LDS shall be returned to a disposal cell.
lf fluid is pumped from an LDS, the licensee shall calculate the flow rate,by dividing the recorded
volume oi ttuib recovered by the elapsed time since fluid was last pumped or increases in the LDS
fluid levels were recorded, rirhichever is the more recent. The licensee shall document the results
of this calculation.
C. Upon the initial pumping of fluid from an LDS, the licensee shallcollect a fluid.sampJ." r.ld analyze
the fluid for pH hnO ine parameters listed in paragraph A of this license condition. The licensee
shall determine whethei the LDS fluid originated from the disposalcell by ascertaining if the
collected fluid contains elevated levels of the constituents listed in paragraph A of this license
condition or has a pH level less than 5.0. lf either elevated constituent levels or a pH
less than 5.0 is obierved, the licensee shall assume that the disposal cell is the origin of the fluid.
lf the LDS fluid is determined not to have originated from the disposal cell, the licensee shall
continue with weekly measurements of "depth to fluid" in the LDS standpipes. The licensee shall
confirm, on an anndal basis, that fluid from the disposal cell has not entered the LDS by collecting
(to the extent possible) and analyzing an LDS fluid sample for the above stated parameters.
D. Upon indication that the LDS fluids originated from the disposal cell, the licensee shall determine
tl're flow rate through the liner by the calculation method in paragraph B of this license condition. lf
the flow rate is equal to or greater than one gallon per minute, the licensee shall:
1. Evaluate the cause of the liner distress and take appropriate and timely actions to mitigate the
leak and any consequent potential impacts;
NRC FORM 3744 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATOHY COMMISSION
License Number
suA-1358
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Amendment No. 21
2. Continue to measure and record LDS "depth to fluid" measurements weekly; and
3. Notify NRC by telephone within 48 hours, in accordance with License Condition 9.2, and submit
a written report within 30 days of notifying NRC by telephone, in accordance with License
Condition 9.2. The written report shall include a description of the mitigative action(s) taken and
a discussion of the mitigative action results.
lf the calculated flow rate is less than one gallon per minute, the licensee shall continue with weekly
measurements of "depth to fluid" in the LDS standpipes.
E. All sampling, analysis, and evaluation of LDS fluids shall be documented and retained onsite until
license termination for NRC inspection.
[Applicable Amendment: 8]
11.4 Annually, the licensee shall collect, during mill operations, a set of air samples covering eight hours of
sampling, at a high collection flow rate (i.e., greater than or equalto 40 liters per minute), in routinely or
frequently occupied areas of the mill. These samples shall be analyzed for gross alpha. ln addition,
with each change in mill feed material or at least annually, the licensee shall analyze the mill feed or
production product for U-nat, Th-230, Ra-226, and Pb-210 and use the analysis results to assess the
fundamental constituent composition of air sample particulates.
[Applicable Amendment: 7]
11.5 Calibration of in-plant air and radiation monitoring equipment shall be performed as specified in the
license renewal application, under Section 3.0 of the 'Radiation Protection Procedures Manual," with the
exception that in-plant air sampling equipment shall be calibrated at least quarterly and air sampling
equipment checks shall be documented.
11.6 The licensee shall perform an annual ALARA audit of the radiation safety program in accordance with
Regulatory Guide 8.31.
SECTIoN 12: Reporting Requirements
12.1 DELETED by Amendment 13.
[Applicable Amendment:'13]
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
NRC FORM 374A REGULATORY COMMISSION
License Number
suA-1358
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
Amendment No. 21
12.2 The licensee shall submit a detailed decommissioning plan to the NRC at least twelve (12) months prior
to planned final shutdown of mill operations that includes a deailed Quality Assurance Plan. The plan
will be in accordance with Regulatory Guide 4.15, "Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring
Programs," and NUREG-1575, "Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site lnvestigation Manual
(MARSSIM), or equivalent most current guidance.
[Applicable Amendment: 13]
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Date: q lol"Q-or,Agp-
Daniel M. Gillen, Chief
Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch
Division of FuelCycle Safety
and Safeguards
Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards
t
NUC
UNITED STATES
LEAR REGULATORY COMMI
wASHtNGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
Apri 1 6,2001 -,;i',,rii-\_r
d{.,\.J 'i\
,!!!,ol, ti
&?:t:'" ,,iJ
- ,;i'..1
: ,. I,; ,,'t;,:;) -'
o
SSION
/,i
1,t"
i,;:I -;if,
l,:\i
\.-:.
ice\'. .offMr. Ron F. Hochstein, President and Chief Executive
lnternational Uranium (IUSA) Corporation
lndependence Plaza, Suite 950
1 050 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80265
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT 19 TO MATERIALS LICENSE SUA-1358 -- ANNUAL SURETY
REVIEW FOR THE WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL
Dear Mr. Hochstein:
The U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has completed its review of lnternational
Uranium (USA) Corporation's (IUSA's) March 1, 2001, letter requesting that IUSA's surety be
approved as revised for the upward adjustment for inflation using the Consumer Price lndex
(CPl), for changes in reclamation equipment pricing, and credit based on completed
reclamation work on a portion of the current tailings cells.
Staff finds IUSA's up-dated surety to be acceptable and the staff's Technical Evaluation Report
is attached (enclosure 1). The license has been revised (License Condition 9.5) and is
attached (enclosure 2). All other conditions of the license remain unchanged.
lf you have any questions regarding this letter or the NRC staff review, please contact the NRC
Project Manager for the IUSA site, William von Till, at [phone] .
ln accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter will be
available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the
Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS
is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.qov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html (the Public
Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,
QIr" -.{Og-
Daniel Gillen, Chief
Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch
Division of Fuel Cycle Safety & Safeguards
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Docket No. 40-8681
SUA-1358, Amendment No. 19
Enclosure 1: Technical Evaluation Report
Enclosure 2: Source Material License SUA-56
cc: W. Sinclair, UT
C.Crist, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe EPA
Terry Brown, US EPA Region Vlll
a(txt
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT
ANNUAL SURETY REVIEW FOR THE WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL
LOCATED IN BLANDING, UTAH
DATE:
DOCKET NO.:
LICENSEE:
FACILITY:
PROJECT MGR:
TECHNICAL
REVIEWER:
March 29,2001
40-8681
lnternational Uranium
White Mesa Mill
W. von Till
Daniel Rom
License No. SUA-'t358
(USA) Corporation
ln response to a January,2001, submittal from lnternational Uranium (USA)
Corporation (IUSA), staff has reviewed the licensee's detailed cost estimates for
reclamation of the White Mesa facilities near Blanding, Utah. IUSA submitted
detailed 2001 cost estimates for 1) Mill Decommissioning; 2) Cell 1; 3) Cell 2; 4)
Cell 3; 5) Cell aA; 6) Miscellaneous items; 7) Rock production; 8) Equipment; 9)
Labor; and 10) Long-term costs. The cost basis supports a revised bond amount
of $10,365 ,457. The licensee's surety figure was based on production estimates,
equipment costs, and labor costs from apparently reputable sources. The
quantities were based on takeoffs by IUSA, and were supported with calculations.
Adjustments to the Long-term Care figure were made to reflect an increase in the
Consumer Price lndex based on a December, 2000, CPI-U factor of 174.O.
Reasonable profit (10%), contingency (15"/"), and licensing/ bonding allowances
(2%) are included in the total.
The IUSA cost estimates were presented in a logical manner, and appeared to be
thorough. On the basis of updated rental, equipment, and fuel costs, the overall
surety bond increased despite the credit taken for completed reclamation work
and installation of ancillary facilities projected to be used during final reclamation
and decommissioning. Plan modifications including Platform Fill in Cell 3,
miscellaneous items related to the decontamination/wash pad, and concrete
demolition operations were also detailed.
The licensee's submittal of March 1, 2001, satisfactorily addresses license
requirements for annual surety reporting. lf you have any questions regarding the
above, please contact Daniel Rom at [phone].
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
PAGE 1 OF 10 PAGE
70, and 71, and in reliance on sratements and repreientations hereiofore made by the licensee, a licensee is hereby issued
authorizing the licensee to receive, acquire, port.rt, and transfer byproduct, source, and special nuclear material designated
below: ro use such marerial for the purpose(i) and at the place(s) dliignated 9."19y, to deliver or transfer such material to
persons autholzed to recei'e it in accordance with the rSulatrons of ihe applicable Part(s)' This license shall be deemed to
conrain the conditions specified in Section I 83 of the Atomic Energy Act of I 9-54' as amended, and is subject to all
pursuanr ro rhe Aromic Energy Act of l9-54, as amended, the Energy R_eorganizatigl,^a.ct of 1974 (Public Law 93-438)' and
the applicabte parts of Title iO, Coa. of Feieral Regulations,.Chapier [, Parts l9' 20'.30, 31,32,33,34' 35' 36' 39' 40' -51'
applicable rules. regulatlons, and orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission now or hereafter in effect and to any
onditions specified below.
, License Number - Amend No. 1g-1' suA-1358
Licensee
lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation
[Applicable Amendments: 2]
6425 S. HighwaY 191
P.O. Box 809
Blanding, Utah 84511
[Applicable Amendments: 2]
4. Expiration Date March 31,2007
5. Docket orReference 40-8681
Natural Uranium
SECTIoNe: Administrative Conditions
g.1 The authorized place of use shall be the licensee's White Mesa uranium milling facility, located in San Juan
County, Utah.
g.2 All written notices and reports to the NRC required unler this license, with the excepti.on of incident and- - event notifications under'10 CFR 20.22o}anb tO CFR 40.60 requiring telephone notification, shall be
addressed to the Chief, Uranium Recovery and Low-Level Waste Branch, Division of Waste Management,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
lncident and event notifications that require telephone notification shall be made to the NRC Operations
Center at (301 ) 816-5100.
g.3 The licensee shall conduct operations in accordance with statements, representations, and conditions
contained in the license renewal application submitted by letter dated Aygust 23, 1991 , as revised by .
submittals dated Januury 13, and A'pril Z, 1992, November 22, 1994, July 27 , 1995, December 13, and
December 31 , 1996, and January Sb, t gbZ, which are hereby incorporate! by reference, and for the
Standby Trust Agreement, dateO nprit 29, 1997, except wheie superseded by license conditions below'
Whenever the word "will" is used in the above referenced documents, it shall denote a requirement'
[Applicable Amendment: 2]
g.4 A. The licensee may, without prior NRC approval, and subject to the conditions specified in Part B of this
condition.
(1) Make changes in the facility or process, as presented in the application'
(2) Make changes in the procedures presented in the application.
(3) Conduct tests or experiments not presented in the application.
PAGE 2 OF r0 PAGEr
NRC FORM 374A AR HEGULATORY COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Docket or Reference 40-868 I
Number
Amendment No. l9
C
B.onforanamendmenttothelicense,UnleSSthefollowingconditionS
are satisfied.
(1) The change, test, or experiment does not conflict with any requirement specifically stated in this
license, or implir'the liiensee's ability to meet all applicable NRC regulations'
(2) There is no degradation in the essential safety or environmental commitments in the license
application, or[rovided by the approved reclamation plan'
(3) The change, test, or experiment is consistent with the conclusions of actions analyzed and
selected in the EA dated February 1997.
The licensee's determinations concerning Part B of this condition, shall be made by a "Safety ald
Environmental Review piner (SERP)." ihe srRp shall consist of a minimum of three individuals.
One memOer of the SERP shall have expertise in management and shall be responsible for
,r.rg"iirlinO tinunfil approval changes; one membe-r shall have expertise in operations and/or
construction and sfrafi nive'responsibilitly tor implementing any operational changes; .?n9' ole member
shall be the corporate radiation safety ofiicer (CRSO) or e-quivalent, with the responsibility of assuring
it.'rng"r conform to iadiation safety ind enviionmenial requirements. Additional members may be
included in the SERP as appropriate, to address technical aspects such as health physics,
gr"r"J*uter hydrology, *-4.; water hydrolog.y, specific earth sciences, and other technical
disciptines. rempoffi members or permunen"t'members, other than the three above-specified
individuals, maY be consultants.
The licensee shall maintain records of any changes made pursuant to this condition until license
termination. These records shall include writteniafety anci environmental evaluations, made by the
5inf, inrt provide the basis for determining change: ql9 in compliance with,the require.ments
,"t"rr"O to in part g of tnis condition. The liiensed shall f urnish, in an annual report to NRC, a
Oescrrpiion of such changes, tests, or exp-eriments,.including.a summary of the safety aU ^
environmental evaluation"of each. ln adijition, the iicensee shall annually submit to the NRC changed
prg"i to the operations plan and Reclamation Plan of the approved license application to reflect
changes made under this condition.
The licensee,s SERp shall f unction in accordance with the standard operating procedures submitted
by letter dated June 10, 1997.
[Applicable Amendments: 3]
The licensee shall maintain an NRC-approved financial surety arrang.ement, consistent with
f O Cf n 40, Appendii A, Criteria 9 and iO, adeqrute to covei the estimated costs, if accomplished by
u tniro party, fb'r de;;m;rsiioning and decontamination of the mill and mill site, for reclamation of any
Liii^g.'"i riraste disposal areas, Iround-water restoration as warranted and for the long-term
,rrdirrrn.e fee. wjtnin three months of NRC approval of a revised reclamation/decommissioning
plan, the licensee snatt sJumit, for NRC review ind approval, a proposed revision to the financial
surety arrangement if estimated costs in the newly approved plan exceed the amount covered in the
"ii.1ii,g finaiciat ,rr.ty- The revised surety shall'thdn be in effect within 3 months of written NRC
approval.
D.
9.5
NBC FOF[,'l 374 (3-2000)ON RECYCLE
PAGE 3 OF 10 PAGESNRC FORM 374A U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License Number SUA- l3-58
Docket or Reference 40-868 I
Number
Amendment No. l9
Ar.rrl updates to the surety amount, required by 1O CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10, shall be
submitteil to the NRC at tea'st g months prior to the anniversary date which is designated as June 4 of
rr.6 y"rr. lf the NRC has not approved a proposed re.vision to the surety coverage 30 days prior to the
expiration date of the existing sui'ety arrangem'ent, the.licensee shall extend the existing surety.
iri"ngerent for 1 year. Alorig with'each pioposed.revision or annual update, the licensee shall submit
JJppdrting documentation sh6wing a Oreifdown of the costs and the basis for the cost estimates with
iOiristmeits for inflation, maintenince of a minimum 15 percent contingency f9e, changes in engineering
pfini, ictirities performed and any other conditions affecting estimated costs for site closure. The basis
for the cost estimate is the NRC ailproved reclamation/decommissioning_plan or NRC approv-ed revisions
to tne plan. The previously providbb guidance entitled "Recommended Outline for Site Specific
Reclamation and'stabilizaiidn Cost EStimates" outlines the minimum considerations used by the NRC in
the review of site closure estimates. Reclamation/decommissioning plans and annual updates should
follow this outline.
The currently approved surety instrument, a Performance Bond issued by National Union Fire lnsurance
Company iniavcjr of the NRi, and the associated Standby Jrqst.lgr.eement, dated April 29, 1997, shall
be cdntir1uously maintained in an amount not less than $10,365,452 for the purpose of complying with 10
CFR 40, RppenOix A, Criteria 9 and '10, until a replacement is authorized by the NRC.
[Applicable Amendments: 2, 3, 5, 13, 15, 19]
Therefore, this office must receive an updated surety in this amount within 90 days of this letter.
g.6 Standard operating procedures shall be established and followed for all operational process activities
invotving raOioactiie materials that are handled, processed, or stored. SOPs for operational activities
shall en-umerate pertinent radiation safety practiies to be followed. Additionally, written procedures
shall be establislied for non-operational 6itivities to include in-plant and environmental monitoring,..
.
bioassay analyses, and instruhent calibrations. An up-to-date copy of each written procedure shall be
kept in the mill area to which it applies.
All written procedures for both operational and non-operationalactivities shall be reviewed and approved
in writing by the radiation safety'officer (RSO) before implementation and whenever a change in pro_cedure
ls propole<l to ensure that profer radiaiion piotection piinciples are being ]PRlieO ln addition, the RSo
sfrltt ileform a documenteb rdview of all existing operating procedures at least annually.
g.7 Before engaging in any activity not previously assessed by the NRC, the licensee shall administer a
cultural ,esoirc6 inveniory. Rlt OisturOances associated with the proposed development will be
iompleted in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (as amended) and its .
implbmenting regulations (36 CFH 800), and the_Archaeological Resources Protection Act (as
amended) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR 7).
ln order to ensure that no unapproved disturbance of cultural resources occurs, a1Y work resulting in the
Oirlou"ry of previously unknowh cultural artifacts shall cease. The artifacts shall be inventoried and
evaluatei in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, and no disturbance shall occur until the licensee has
received authorization from the NRC to proceed.
The licensee shall avoid by project design, where feasible, the archeological sites designated
,;.ontribrting" in the report'suOmitted by-letter dated July 28, 1988. When it is not feasible to avoid a site
designatedYcontributing" in the report,'the licensee shail institute a data recov€ry program for that site
baseid on the research lesign submitted by letter f rom C. E. Baker of Energy.Fuels_Nuclear to
Mr. trtrtuinT. Smith, Utah SIate Historic Preservation Officer(SHPO), datedApril 13, 1981.
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPERNFC FOBM 374 (3-2000)
PAGE 4 OF 10 PAGESU.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License Number SUA- 1358
Docket or Reference 40-868 I
Number
Amendment No. l9
The licensee shall recover through archeological excavation all "contributing" sites listed in the report
which are located in or within t06 feet of boirow areas, stockpile areas, construction areas, or the
p*i*"].r of tn" reclaimed tailings impoundment. Data recovery.fieldwork at each site meeting these
criteria shall be completed priorio th6 start of any project related disturbance within 100 feet of the site,
but analysis and report preparation need not be complete.
Additionally, the licensee shall conduct such testing as is required to ena.b.le the Commission to determine
if those sit6s designated as "Undetermined" in the-report and located within 100 feet of present or known
future constructioi areas are of such significance to warrant their redesignation as "contributing." ln all
cases, such testing shall be completed -before any aspect of the undertaking affects a site.
Archeological contractors shall be approved in writing by the Commission. The Commission will approve
an arcfredtogical contractor who meeis the minimumltdndards for a principal investigator set forth in
36 CFR Pari66, Appendix C, and whose qualifications are found acceptable by the SHPO.
g.B The licensee is hereby authorized to possess byproduct material in the form of uranium waste.tailings
and other uranium byfiroduct waste gjenerated by the licensee's milling.operations authorized Qy]!.
license. Mill tailings shatl not be tranlferred from the site without specific prior approval,,of the NRC in
the form of a licenie amendment. The licensee shall maintain a permanent record of all transfers
made under the provisions of this condition.
g.9 The licensee is hereby exempted from the requirements of Section20.1902 (e) of 10 CFR Parl20lor
areas within the mill, frovided that all entranc6s to the mill are conspicuously pos.ted in. acc.ordance
with Section 20.1902'(e) and with the words, "Any area within this mill may contain radioactive
material."
g.1 Release of equipment or packages from the restricted area shall be in accordance with "Guidelines for
Decontaminaiioh of Faciliiies an? Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted Use or Termination of
Licenses for Byproduct, Source, or Sp6cial Nuclear Material," dated May 1987, or suitable alternative
procedures approved by the NRC prior to any such release.
g.1 The final reclamation shall be in accordance with the May't999, Reclamation Plan Revision 2.0,
Attachment A submitted on June 22,1999, and Revision 3.0 submitted on July 7,2000. Prior to the
placement of alternate feed material, the licensee shall determine that adequate cell space is
available for that additional material. This determination shall be made by a SERP approved
procedure.
g.11 The final reclamation shall be in accordance with the May 1999, Reclamation Plan Revision 2.0,
Attachment A submitted on June 22,1999, and Revision 3.0 submitted on July 7 ,2000. Prior to the
placement of alternate feed material, the licensee shall determine that adequate cell space is
available for that additional material. This determination shall be made by a SERP approved
procedure.
Operational Controls, Limits, and Restrictions
The mill production rate shall not exceed 4380 tons of yellowcake per year.
All liquid effluents from mill process buildings, with the exception of sanitary wastes, shall be
returned to the mill circuit or discharged to the tailings impoundment.
SECTION 1O:
10.1
10.2
NRC FORM 374 (3-2000)PRINTED ON REC
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License Number SUA- 1358
Docket or Reference 40-8681
Number
Amendment No. l9
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
Freeboard limits for Cells 1-1, 3, and 44, shall be set periodically in accordance with the
procedures set out in Section 3.0 to Appendix E of the approved licenselPPlication, including
the October 13, 1999 revisions made to the January 10, 1990 Drainage Report. The freeboard
limit for Cell 3 shall be recalculated annually in accordance with the procedures set in the
October 13, 1999 revision to the Drainage Report.
fApplicable Amendment: 16]
Disposal of material and equipment generated at the mill site shall be conducted as described
in the licensee's submittals dated December 12,1994 and May 23, 1995, with the following
addition:
A. The maximum lift thickness for materials placed over tailings shall be less than 4-feet thick.
Subsequent lifts shall be less than 2-feet thick. Each lift shall be compacted by tracking of
heavy equipment, such as a Cat D-6, at least 4 times prior to placement of subsequent lifts.
ln accordance with the licensee's submittal dated May 20,1993, the licensee is hereby
authorized to dispose of byproduct material generated at licensed in situ leach facilities, subject
to the following conditions:
A. Disposal of waste is limited to 5000 cubic yards f rom a single source.
B. All contaminated equipment shall be dismantled, crushed, or sectioned to minimize void
spaces. Barrels containing waste other than soil or sludges shall be emptied-into the disposal
area and the barrels crush-ed. Barrels containing soil or sludges shall be verified to be full prior
to disposal. Barrels not completely full shall be filled with tailings or soil.
C. All waste shall be buried in Cell No. 3 unless prior written approval is obtained from the NRC for
alternate burial locations.
D. All disposal activities shall be documented. The documentation shall include descriptions of the
waste and the disposal locations, as well as all actions required by this condition. An annual
summary of the amounts of waste disposed of from off-site generators shall be sent to the
NRC.
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materials from the Allied Signal
Corporation's Metropolis, lllinois, facility in accordance with the amendment request dated June
15,1993.
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom Allied Signal, lnc. of
Metropolis, lllinois, in accordance with the amendment request dated September 20, 1996, and
amended by letters dated October 30, and November 1 1 , 1996.
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material, in accordance with the
amendment request dated March 5, 1997.
[Applicable Amendments: 1]
PqINTED ON RECYCLED PAPERNRC FORM 374 (3-2ooo)
PAGE 6 OF ,10 PAGESNRC FORM 374A U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License Number SUA- l3-58
Docket or Reference 40-8681
Number
Amendment No. l9
10.g The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from Cabot Performance Materials'
facility near Boyertown, Pennsylvania, in accordance with the amendment request dated April 3, 1997,
as amended by submittals dated May 19, and August 6, 1997.
[Applicable Amendments: 4]
'lO.1O The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Ashland 2 Formerly Utilized
Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, located near Tonawanda, New York, inaccordance
with the amendment request dated May B, 1998, as amended by the submittals dated May 27, June 3,
and June 1 1, 1998.
[Applicable Amendment: 6]
10.1 1 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material f rom Cameco Corporation's Blind
River and Port Hope facilities, located in Ontario, Canada, in accordance with the amendment request
dated June 4, 1998, and by the submittals dated September 14, September 16, September 25,
October 7, and October B, 1998.
However, the licensee is not authorized to receive or process from these facilities, the crushed carbon
anodes identified in these submittals, either as a separate material or mixed in with material already
approved for receipt or processing.
10.12 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Ashland 1 and Seaway
Area D Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, located near Tonowanda,
New York, in accordance with statements, representations, and commitments contained in the
amendment request dated October 15, 1998, as amended by letters dated November 23, 1 998,
November 24, i998, December 23, 1998, January 1 1, 1999, January 27, 1999, and February 1, 1999.
[Applicable Amendment: 10]
10.13 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material f rom the St. Louis Formerly Utilized
Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, in accordance with statements, representations, and
commitments contained in the amendment request dated March 2, 1999, and as amended and
supplementedbysubmittalsdatedJune2l,lggg; June29, 1999(2); andJulyS, 19.99. Priortothe
licensee receiving materials from the St. Louis FUSRAP site, the licensee must make a determination
that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from the processing of this material.
This determination shalt be made based on a SERP approved internal procedure.
[Applicable Amendments: '13, 14]
10.14 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom the Linde Formerly Utilized
Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, in accordance with statements, representattons, and
commitments contained inlhe amendment request dated March 16, 2000, and as amended and
supplemented by submittals dated April 26,2000, May 15,2000, June 16,2000, June 19,2000, June
23,2000.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials f rom the Linde FUSRAP site, the licensee must make a
determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from the processing of
this material. This deteimination shall be made based on a SERP approved internal procedure.
Design changes to the cells or the reclamation plan require the licensee to submit an amendment
request for NRC review and approval.
374 (3-2000)ED ON RECYCLED PAPEF
PAGE 7 OF 10 PAGESU.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License Number SUA- 1358
Docket or Reference 40-8681
Number
Amendment No. l9
10.15 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the W.R. Grace site located in
Chattanooga, Tennessee, in accordance with statements, representations, and commitments
contained in the amendment request dated April '12,2000, and as amended and supplemented by
submittals dated April 24,2000, April 26, 2000, May 5, 2000, November 1 6, 2000, and December 18,
2000.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the W.R. Grace site, the licensee must make a determination
that adequate tailings spaceis available for the tailings produced from the processing of this material.
This determination snali Oe made based on the SERP approved standard operating procedure for
determination of tailings capacity. Design changes to the cells or the reclamation plan require the licensee
to submit an amendment request for NRC review and approval.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials f rom the W.R. Grace site, the licensee must require that the
generator of the material ceriify that the material does not contain listed hazardous waste as defined under
Ihe Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) per a Radioactive Materral Profile Record.
[Applicable Amendment: 17]
10.16: The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material f rom the Heritage Minerals
lncorporated siite, in accordance with statements, representations, and commitments contained in the
amendment request dated July 5, 2000, and as supplemented by submittals November 16, 2000, and
December 18,2000.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Heritage Minerals lncorporated site, the licensee must
make a determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from the
processing of this material. This determination shall be made based on the SERP approved standard
bperating procedure for determination of tailings capacity. Design changes to the cells or the reclamation
pian requiie the licensee to submit an amendment request for NRC review and approval.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Heritage Minerals lncorporated site, the licensee must
require that the generator of ihe material certify that the material does not contain listed hazardous waste
as defined undei the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) per a Radioactive Material Profile
Record.
[Applicable Amendment: 18]
Prior to the licensee receiving materials f rom the Linde FUSRAP site, the licensee must require that
the generator of the materialtertify that the material does not contain listed hazardous waste as
defiied under the Resource Cons6rvation and Recovery Act (RCRA) per a Radioactive Material Profile
Record.
[Applicable Amendment: 14]
Monitoring, Recording, and Bookkeeping Requirements
The results of sampling, analyses, surveys and monitoring, the results of calibration of
equipment, reports on audits and inspections, all meetings and training courses required by this
license and any subsequent reviews, investigations, and corrective actions, shall be
documented. Unless otherwise specified in the NRC regulations all such documentation shall
be maintained for a period of at least five (5) years.
SECTION 11:
11.1
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPEBNBC FORM 374 (3-2000)
PAGE 8 OF ,10 PAGESNRC FORM 374A U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License Number SUA- 1358
Docket or Reference 40-868 I
Number
Amendment No. l9
11.2 The licensee shall implement the effluent and environmental monitoring program specified in
Section 5.5 of the renewal application, as amended by the submittal dated June 8, 1995, and as
revised with the following modifications or additions:
A. Stack sampling shall include a determination of flow rate.
B. Surface water samples shall also be analyzed semiannually for total and dissolved U-nat, Ra-226, and
Th-230, with the exception of the Westwater Creek, which shall be sampled annually for water or
sediments and analyzed as above. A sediment sample shall not be taken in place of a water sample
unless a water sample was not available.
C. Groundwater sampling shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements in License Condition
1 1.3.
D. The licensee shall utilize lower limits of detection in accordance with Section 5 of Regulatory
Guide 4.14 (Revision 1), for analysis of effluent and environmental samples.
E. The inspections performed semiannually of the critical orifice assembly committed to in the submittal
dated March 15, 1986, shall be documented. The critical orifice assembly shall be calibrated at least
every 2 years against a positive displacement Roots meter to obtain the required calibration curve.
[Applicable Amendment: 5]
11.3 The licensee shall implement a groundwater detection monitoring program to ensure compliance to
10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. The detection monitoring program shall be in accordance with the report
entitled, "Points of Compliance, White Mesa Uranium Mill," submitted by letter dated October 5, 1994,
and the following:
A. The licensee shall sample monitoring wells WMMW-S, -1 1, -12, -14, -15, and -17, on a quarterly basis.
Samples shall be analyzed for chloride, potassium, nickel, and uranium, and the results of such
sampling shall be included with the environmental monitoring reports submitted in accordance with
10 cFR 40.65.
ln addition, the licensee shall implement a monitoring program of the leak detection systems for the
disposal cells as follows:
B. The licensee shall measure and record the "depth to fluid" in each of the tailings disposal cell
standpipes on a weekly basis. lf sufficient fluid is present in the leak detection system (LDS) of any
cell, the licensee shall pump fluid from the LDS, to the extent reasonably possible, and record the
volume of fluid recovered. Any fluid pumped from an LDS shall be returned to a disposal cell.
lf fluid is pumped from an LDS, the licensee shall calculate the flow rate by dividing the recorded
volume of fluid recovered by the elapsed time since fluid was last pumped or increases in the LDS fluid
levels were recorded, whichever is the more recent. The licensee shall document the results of this
calculation.C. Upon the initial pumping of fluid from an LDS, the licensee shall collect a fluid sample and analyze the
fluid for pH and the parameters listed in paragraph A of this license condition. The licensee shall
determine whether the LDS fluid originated from the disposal cell by ascertaining if the collected fluid
contains elevated levels of the constituents listed in paragraph A of this license condition or has a pH
level less than 5.0. lf either elevated constituent levels or a pH
NRC FORM 374 (3'2000)PRINTED ON R
PAGE 9 OF ,10 PAGESU.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License Number SUA- I 3-58
Docket or Reference 40-868 I
Number
Amendment No. l9
less than 5.0 is observed, the licensee shall assume that the disposal cell is the origin of the fluid.
lf the LDS fluid is determined not to have originated from the disposal cell, the licensee shall continue
with weekly measurements of "depth to fluid" in the LDS standpipel.-The licensee shall confirm, on an
annual badis, that fluid from the disposal cell has not entered the LDS by collecting (to the extent
possible) and analyzing an LDS fluid sample for the above stated parameters.
D. Upon indication that the LDS fluids originated from the disposal 9e]!, tlre licensee shall determine the
flow rate through the liner by the calculation method in paragraph B of this license condition. lf the
flow rate is equal to or greater than one gallon per minute, the licensee shall:
1. Evaluate the cause of the liner distress and take appropriate and timely actions to mitigate the
leak and any consequent potential impacts;
2. Continue to measure and record LDS "depth to fluid" measurements weekly; and
3. Notify NRC by telephone within 48 hours, in accordance with License Condition 9.2, and submit
a wriiten report within 30 days of notifying NRC by telephone, in accordance with License
Condition 9.2. The written report shall include a description of the mitigative action(s) taken
and a discussion of the mitigative action results.
lf the calculated flow rate is less than one gallon per minute, the licensee shall continue with weekly
measurements of "depth to fluid" in the LDS standpipes'
E. All sampling, analysis, and evaluation of LDS fluids shall be documented and retained onsite until
license termination for NRC inspection.
11.4
11.5
1 1.6
[Applicable Amendment: 8]
Annually, the licensee shall collect, during mill operations, a set of air samples covering eight
hours oi sampling, at a high collection flow rate (i.e., greater than or equal to 40 liters per
minute), in routinety or f requently occupied areas of the mill. These samples shall be analyzed
for gross alpha. ln addition, with each change in mill feed material or at least ann_u_ally, the
licensee shall analyze the mill feed or production product for U-nat, Th-230, Ra-226, and Pb-
210 and use the analysis results to assess the fundamental constituent composition of air
sample particulates.
[Applicable Amendment: 7]
Calibration of in-plant air and radiation monitoring equipment shall be performed as specified in
the license renewal application, under Section 3.0 of the "Radiation Protection Procedures
Manual," with the exception that in-plant air sampling equipment shall be calibrated at least
quarterly and air sampling equipment checks shall be documented.
The licensee shall perform an annual ALARA audit of the radiation safety program in
accordance with Regulatory Guide 8.31.
NRC FORM 374 (ED PAPER
PAGE 10 OF 10 PAGES
NRC FORM 374A I.J,S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License Number SI.JA- I 358
Docket or Reference '10-8681
Number
Amendment No. l9
SECTIoN 12: Reporting Requirements
12.1 DELETED by Amendment '13.
[Applicable Amendment: 1 3]
12.2 The licensee shall submit a detailed decommissioning plan to the NR.C at least twelve (12) months
prior to planned final shutdown of mitt opbrations that"includes a deailed Quality Assurance Plan. The
plan will be in acCordance wlth Regula!,iry cuioe 4.15, "Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring
F.grur.,;' ,nd NUREG-1575, "Mirti-ngelcy Radiation Survey and Site lnvestigation Manual
(MA-RSSIM), or equivalent most current guidance'
[Applicable Amendment: 13]
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Q-grn Aep.^
Date r\u \o'
-
Daniel Gillen, Acting Branch Chief
Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch
Divisioh of Fuel CYcle SafetY
and Safeguards
Office of Nuclear Material SafetY
and Safeguards
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHtNGTON. D.C. 20555-0001
January 22, 2001
Ms. Michelle Rehmann, Environmental Manager
lnternational Uranium (IUSA) Corporation
lndependence Plaza, Suite 950
1050 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80265
AMENDMENT 19 TO MATERIALS LICENSE SUA.1358 -. ACCEPTANCE
REVIEW REGARDING THE REQUEST TO RECEIVE AND PROCESS
ALTEHNATE FEED MATERIAL FROM THE MOLYCORP SITE AT THE WHITE
MESA URANIUM MILL
Dear Ms. Rehmann:
We have completed the initial processing, which is an administrative review, of your application
for the White Mesa uranium mill to receive and process material from the Molycorp site, located
in Mountain Pass, California, submitted by letter dated December 19, 2000. During our
acceptance review we discussed several preliminary questions with you that you addressed by
letter dated January 5, 2001. During the initial processing, we identified no significant
omissions or deficiencies in the provided information and we consider your submittals
acceptable for the purpose of conducting a detailed technical review to further evaluate the
proposed licensing action. Please note that the detailed technical review may identify a need
for additional information or analyses for completing the requested licensing action.
We will proceed with the detailed review of your application and provide any requests for
additional information within 60 days from the receipt of this letter.
lf you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact William von Till, the NRC Project
Manager for the White Mesa mill, at [phone] or by e-mail to [e-mail]. ln
accordance with 1OCFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter will be
available electronically for public inspection in the NRC PUBLIC Document Room or from the
Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS
is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html (the Public
Electron Reading Room).
S-incerely,
Philip Ting, Chief
Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch
Division of Fuel Cycle Safety
and Safeguards
Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards
Docket No.40-8681
suA-13s8
W. Sinclair, UT
C.Crist, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe EPA
Terry Brown, US EPA Region Vlll
a(flrt
uNtrED srArEs oAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
December 29, 2000
Ms. Michelle Rehmann, Environmental Manager
lnternational Uranium (IUSA) Corporation
lndependence Plaza, Suite 950
1 050 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80265
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT 18 TO MATERIALS LICENSE SUA-1358 -- APPROVAL TO
RECEIVE AND PROCESS ALTERNATE FEED MATERIAL FROM THE
HERITAGE MINERALS SITE AT THE WHITE MESA UR/\NIUM MILL
Dear Ms. Rehmann.
ln your letter dated July 5, 2OOO, you asked that we amend your license for the White Mesa
uranium mill to permit the receipt and processing of material from the Heritage Minerals
lncorporated (HMl) site, located in Lakehurst, New Jersey. The material at the Heritage site is
currently being regulated under NRC Source Materials License No. SMB 1541 and is in storage
for decommissioning. You propose to receive this material at your White Mesa uranium mill in
Blanding, Utah, use this material as alternate feed for the primary purpose of removing the
uranium so that it can be reused, and dispose of the process tailings in the mill's tailings pile.
You estimate the material amount to be up to 2000 cubic yards with a uranium content of
approximately 0.05 percent by weight, or greater. You have determined, based on your review
of the HMI information and use of your Listed Hazardous Waste Protocol, that this material does
not contain listed hazardous waste.
We have determined that your request to receive and process this material as alternate feed is
acceptable, and have amended your license accordingly. We have enclosed the amended
license and our Technical Evaluation Report that provides our bases for granting the
amendment. Our principal criteria for evaluating this request are contained in our guidance
entitled, "lnterim Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Material Other Than Natural Ores"
provided in the NRC Regulatory lssue Summary 2000-23 that was mailed to uranium recovery
licensees on November 30, 2000. We also ensured that this request complies with our
requirements for uranium mills in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A.
As you requested in your submittal, this material can not be received by the mill until it has been
determined that adequate cell space is available. ln approving the Heritage Minerals request,
we have added the following license condition to your license:
10.16: The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Heritage
Minerals lncorporated siite, in accordance with statements, representations, and
commitments contained in the amendment request dated July 5, 2000, and as
supplemented by submittals November 16, 2000, and December 18, 2000.
o
NUCLE
F,':"%ii-\; Jii}i 2001 sE JAfl ZUU EI ...""r 3
December 29, 2000
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Heritage Minerals lncorporated site, the
licensee must make a determination that adequate tailings space is available for the
tailings produced from the processing of this material. This determination shall be made
based on the SERP approved standard operating procedure for determination of tailings
capacity. Design changes to the cells or the reclamation plan require the licensee to
submit an amendment request for NRC review and approval.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Heritage Minerals lncorporated site, the
licensee must require that the generator of the material certify that the material does not
contain listed hazardous waste as defined under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) per a Radioactive Material Profile Record.
[Applicable Amendment: 1 8J
lf you have any questions regarding this letter or the enclosures, please contact William von Till,
the NRC Project Manager for the White Mesa mill, at [phone] or by e-mail to
[e-mail].
A,t,
Philip Ting, Chief
Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch
Division of Fuel Cycle Safety
and Safeguards
Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards
Docket No. 40-8681
SUA-1358, Amendment No. 18
Enclosures: Technical Evaluation Report and Source Material License SUA-1358
cc: W. Sinclair, UT
C.Crist, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe EPA
Terry Brown, US EPA Region Vlll
NRC FORM 374
17-e4)O u.s. NU.LEAR REGULAToR' coMMrssroNO PAGE 1 or 11
'noes
MATERIALS LICENSE
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-438), and Title 10, Code of
Federal Regulations, Chapter l, Parts 30,31,32,33,34,35,36,39,40, and 70, and in reliance on statements and representations heretofore made
by the licensee, a license is hereby issued authorizing the licensee to receive, acquire, possess, and transfer byproduct, source, and special nuclear
material desi,enated belowi to use such material for the purpose(s) and at the place(s) designated below; to deliver or transfer such material to
persons authorized to receive it in accordance with the regulations of the applicable Part(s). This license shall be deemed to contain the conditions
specified in Section I 83 ol the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and is subject to all applicable rules, regulations, and orders of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission now or hereafter in effect and to any conditions specified below.
International t ?A'rffifm (uSA) Corporation
[Applicable Amendments: 2]
6425 S. Highway 191
P.O. Box 809
Blanding, Utah 84511
[Applicable Amendments: 2]
3. License Number SUA-13S8, Amendment No. 18
4. Expiration Date March 31,2007
5. Docket or
Reference No.40-8681
Natural Uranium
8. Maximum Amount that Licensee
May Possess at Any One Time
Under This License
Unlimited
SECTIoN e: Administrative Conditions
9.1 The authorized place of use shall be the licensee's White Mesa uranium milling facility,
located in San Juan County, Utah.
9.2 All written notices and reports to the NRC required under this license, with the exception of
incident and event notifications under 10 CFR 2O.22OZ and 10 CFR 40.60 requiring
telephone notification, shall be addressed to the Chief, Uranium Recovery and Low-Level
Waste Branch, Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards.
lncident and event notifications that require telephone notification shall be made to the NRC
Operations Center at [phone].
9.3 The licensee shall conduct operations in accordance with statements, representations, and
conditions contained in the license renewal application submitted by letter dated August 23,
1991, as revised by submittals dated January 13, and April 7, 1992, November 22,1994,
July 27, 1995, December 13, and December 31 , 1996, and January 30, 1997, which are
hereby incorporated by reference, and for the Standby Trust Agreement, dated April 29,
1997, except where superseded by license conditions below.
Whenever the word "will" is used in the above referenced documents, it shall denote a
requirement.
[Applicable Amendment: 2]
9.4 A. The licensee may, without prior NRC approval, and subject to the conditions specified
in Part B of this condition:
6. Byproduct, Source, and/or
Special Nuclear Material
7. Chemical and/or Physical
Form
Any
Printed on rec;-cled puper
NRC FORM 374A
(7-94)
U.S.REGULATORY COMMISSION
License Numbet
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Docket oi
(1) Make changes in the facility or process, as presented in the application.
(2) Make changes in the procedures presented in the application'
(3) Conduct tests or experiments not presented in the application.
B. The licensee shall file an application for an amendment to the license, unless the
following conditions are satisfied.
(1) The change, test, or experiment does not conflict with any requirement
specifically stated in this license, or impair the licensee's ability to meet all
applicable NRC regulations.
(2) There is no degradation in the essential safety or environmental commitments in
the license application, or provided by the approved reclamation plan.
(3) The change, test, or experiment is consistent with the conclusions of actions
analyzed and selected in the EA dated February 1997.
C. The licensee's determinations concerning Part B of this condition, shall be made by a
"safety and Environmental Review Panel (SERP).' The SERP shall consist of a
minimum of three individuals. One member of the SERP shall have expertise in
management and shall be responsible for managerial and financial approval changes;
one member shall have expertise in operations and/or construction and shall have
responsibility for implementing any operational changes; and, one member shall be the
corporate radiation safety officer (CRSO) or equivalent, with the responsibility of
assuring changes conform to radiation safety and environmental requirements.
Additional members may be included in the SERP as appropriate, to address technical
aspects such as health physics, groundwater hydrology, surface-water hydrology,
specific earth sciences, and other technical disciplines. Temporary members or
permanent members, other than the three above-specified individuals, may be
consultants.
D. The licensee shall maintain records of any changes made pursuant to this condition
until license termination. These records shall include written safety and environmental
evaluations, made by the SERP, that provide the basis for determining changes are in
compliance with the requirements referred to in Part B of this condition. The licensee
shall furnish, in an annual report to NRC, a description of such changes, tests, or
experiments, including a summary of the safety and environmental evaluation of each.
ln addition, the licensee shall annually submit to the NRC changed pages to the
Operations Plan and Reclamation Plan of the approved license application to reflect
changes made under this condition.
The licensee's SERP shallfunction in accordance with the standard operating procedures
submitted by letter dated June 10, 1997.
[Applicable Amendments: 3]
OF
NRC FORM 374A
(7-94)
REGULATORY COMMISSION
License Number
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
9.5 The licensee shall maintain an NRO-approved financial surety arrangement, consistent with
10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10, adequate to cover the estimated costs, if
accomplished by a third party, for decommissioning and decontamination of the mill and mill
site, for reclamation of any tailings or waste disposal areas, ground-water restoration as
warranted and for the long-term surveillance fee. Within three months of NRC approval of a
revised reclamation/decommissioning plan, the licensee shall submit, for NRC review and
approval, a proposed revision to the financial surety arrangement if estimated costs in the
newly approved plan exceed the amount covered in the existing financial surety. The revised
surety shall then be in effect within 3 months of written NRC approval.
Annual updates to the surety amount, required by 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10,
shall be submitted to the NRC at least 3 months prior to the anniversary date which is
designated as June 4 of each year. !f the NRC has not approved a proposed revision to the
surety coverage 30 days prior to the expiration date of the existing surety arrangement, the
licensee shall extend the existing surety arrangement for 1 year. Along with each proposed
revision or annual update, the licensee shall submit supporting documentation showing a
breakdown of the costs and the basis for the cost estimates with adjustments for inflation,
maintenance of a minimum 15 percent contingency fee, changes in engineering plans,
activities performed and any other conditions affecting estimated costs for site closure. The
basis for the cost estimate is the NRC approved reclamation/decommissioning plan or NRC
approved revisions to the plan. The previously provided guidance entitled "Recommended
Outline for Site Specific Reclamation and Stabilization Cost Estimates" outlines the minimum
considerations used by the NRC in the review of site closure estimates.
Reclamation/decommissioning plans and annual updates should follow this outline.
The currently approved surety instrument, a Performance Bond issued by National Union
Fire lnsurance Company in favor of the NRC, and the associated Standby Trust Agreement,
dated April 29, 1997, shall be continuously maintained in an amount not less than
$10,064,794 for the purpose of complying with 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10,
until a replacement is authorized by the NRC.
[Applicable Amendments: 2, 3, 5, 13, 15]
Therefore, this office must receive an updated surety in this amount within 90 days of this letter.
9.6 Standard operating procedures shall be established and followed for all operational process
activities involving radioactive materials that are handled, processed, or stored. SOPs for
operational activities shall enumerate pertinent radiation safety practices to be followed.
Additionally, written procedures shall be established for non-operational activities to include
in-plant and environmental monitoring, bioassay analyses, and instrument calibrations. An
up-to-date copy of each written procedure shall be kept in the mill area to which it applies.
All written procedures for both operational and non-operational activities shall be reviewed
and approved in writing by the radiation safety officer (RSO) before implementation and
whenever a change in procedure is proposed to ensure that proper radiation protection
principles are being applied. ln addition, the RSO shall perform a documented review of all
existing operating procedures at least annually.
NRC FORM 374A
(7-94\
9.10
9.7
AR REGU LATORY COMMISSION PAGE OF PAGES
License Number
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Docket or
Before engaging in any activity not previously assessed by the NRC, the licensee shall
administer a cultural resource inventory. All disturbances associated with the proposed
development will be completed in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (as
amended) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800), and the Archaeological Resources
Protection Act (as amended) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR 7).
ln order to ensure that no unapproved disturbance of cultural resources occurs, any work
resulting in the discovery of previously unknown cultural artifacts shall cease. The artifacts
shall be inventoried and evaluated in accordance with 36 CFH Part 800, and no disturbance
shall occur untilthe licensee has received authorization from the NRC to proceed.
The licensee shall avoid by project design, where feasible, the archeological sites designated
"contributing" in the report submitted by letter dated July 28, 1988. When it is not feasible to
avoid a site designated "contributing" in the report, the licensee shall institute a data recovery
program for that site based on the research design submitted by letter from C. E. Baker of
Energy Fuels Nuclear to Mr. Melvin T. Smith, Utah State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO), dated April 13, 1981.
The licensee shall recover through archeological excavation all "contributing" sites listed in
the report which are located in or within 100 feet of borrow areas, stockpile areas,
construction areas, or the perimeter of the reclaimed tailings impoundment. Data recovery
fieldwork at each site meeting these criteria shall be completed prior to the start of any
project related disturbance within 100 feet of the site, but analysis and report preparation
need not be complete.
Additionally, the licensee shall conduct such testing as is required to enable the Commission
to determine if those sites designated as "Undetermined" in the report and located within
100 feet of present or known future construction areas are of such significance to warrant
their redesignation as "contributing.' ln all cases, such testing shall be completed before any
aspect of the undertaking affects a site.
Archeological contractors shall be approved in writing by the Commission. The Commission
will approve an archeological contractor who meets the minimum standards for a principal
investigator set forth in 36 CFR Part 66, Appendix C, and whose qualifications are found
acceptable by the SHPO.
The licensee is hereby authorized to possess byproduct material in the form ol uranium
waste tailings and other uranium byproduct waste generated by the licensee's milling
operations authorized by this license. Mill tailings shall not be transferred from the site
without specific prior approval of the NRC in the form of a license amendment. The licensee
shall maintain a permanent record of alltransfers made under the provisions of this condition.
The licensee is hereby exempted from the requirements of Section20.1902 (e) of 10 CFR
Part20 for areas within the mill, provided that all entrances to the mill are conspicuously
posted in accordance with Section 20J902 (e) and with the words, "Any area within this mill
may contain radioactive material."
Release of equipment or packages from the restricted area shall be in accordance with
"Guidelines for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted
9.8
9*9
NBC FORM 374A
(7-94)
9.11
SECTION
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
U.S.REGULATORY COMMISSION PAGE
License Number
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Docket or
Use or Termination of Licenses for Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear Material," dated
May 1 987, or suitable alternative procedures approved by the NRC prior to any such release.
The final reclamation shallbe in accordance with the May 1999, Reclamation Plan Revision
2.0, Attachment A submitted on June 22, 1999, and Revision 3.0 submitted on July 7,2OOO.
Prior to the placement of alternate feed material, the licensee shall determine that adequate
cell space is available for that additional material. This determination shall be made by a
SERP approved procedure.
10: Operational Controls, Limits, and Restrictions
The mill production rate shall not exceed 4380 tons of yellowcake per year.
All liquid effluents from mill process buildings, with the exception of sanitary wastes, shall be
returned to the millcircuit or discharged to the tailings impoundment.
Freeboard limits for Cells 1-1, 3, and 44, shall be set periodically in accordance with the
procedures set out in Section 3.0 to Appendix E of the approved license application, including
the October 13, 1999 revisions made to the January 10, 1990 Drainage Report. The
freeboard limit for Cell 3 shall be recalculated annually in accordance with the procedures set
in the October 13, 1999 revision to the Drainage Report.
[Applicable Amendment: 1 6]
Disposal of material and equipment generated at the mill site shall be conducted as
described in the licensee's submittals dated December 12,1994 and May 23, 1995, with the
following addition:
A. The maximum lift thickness for materials placed over tailings shall be less than 4-feet
thick. Subsequent lifts shall be less than 2-feet thick. Each lift shall be compacted by
tracking of heavy equipment, such as a Cat D-6, at least 4 times prior to placement of
subsequent lifts.
ln accordance with the licensee's submittal dated May 20, 1993, the licensee is hereby
authorized to dispose of byproduct material generated at licensed in situ leach facilities,
subject to the following conditions:
A. Disposal of waste is limited to 5000 cubic yards from a single source.
B. All contaminated equipment shall be dismantled, crushed, or sectioned to minimize
void spaces. Barrels containing waste other than soil or sludges shall be emptied into
the disposal area and the barrels crushed. Barrels containing soil or sludges shall be
verified to be full prior to disposal. Barrels not completely full shall be filled with tailings
or soil.
C. All waste shall be buried in Cell No. 3 unless prior written approval is obtained from the
NRC for alternate burial locations.
NRC FORM 374A
(7-94)
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
10.10
10.11
10.12
REGULATORY COMMISSION
License Number
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Docket or Reference Number
D. All disposal activities shall be documented. The documentation shall include
descriptions of the waste and the disposal locations, as well as all actions required by
this condition. An annual summary of the amounts of waste disposed of from off-site
generators shall be sent to the NRC.
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materials from the Allied Signal
Corporation's Metropolis, !llinois, facility in accordance with the amendment request dated
June 15, 1993.
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom Allied Signal, lnc. of
Metropolis, lllinois, in accordance with the amendment request dated September 20, 1996,
and amended by letters dated October 30, and November 11, 1996.
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material, in accordance with the
amendment request dated March 5, 1997.
[Applicable Amendments: 1 ]
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom Cabot Performance
Materials'facility near Boyertown, Pennsylvania, in accordance with the amendment request
dated April 3, 1997, as amended'by submittals dated May 19, and August 6, 1997.
[Applicable Amendments: 4]
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom the Ashland 2
Formerly Utilized Sites RemedialAction Program (FUSRAP) site, located near Tonawanda,
New York, in accordance with the amendment request dated May 8, 1998, as amended by
the submittals dated May 27, June 3, and June 1 1, 1998.
[Applicable Amendment: 6]
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom Cameco
Corporation's Blind River and Port Hope facilities, located in Ontario, Canada, in accordance
with the amendment request dated June 4, 1998, and by the submittals dated September 14,
September 16, September 25, October 7, and October 8, 1998.
However, the licensee is not authorized to receive or process from these facilities, the
crushed carbon anodes identified in these submittals, either as a separate material or mixed
in with material already approved for receipt or processing.
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom the Ashland 1 and
Seaway Area D Formerly Utitized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, located
near Tonowanda, New York, in accordance with statements, representations, and
commitments contained in the amendment request dated October 15, 1998, as amended by
letters dated November 23, 1998, November 24, 1998, December 23, 1998, January 1 1 ,
1999, January 27,1999, and February 1, 1999.
[Applicable Amendment: 1 0]
NRC FORM 374A
(7-94)
10.13
10.14
10.15
EAR REGU LATORY COMMISSION
License Number
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Docket or Reference Nurhber
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom the St. Louis
Formerly Utilized Sites RemedialAction Program (FUSRAP) site, in accordance with
statements, representations, and commitments contained in the amendment request dated
March 2, 1999, and as amended and supplemented by submittals dated June 21, 1999; June
29, 1999 (2); and July 8, 1999. Prior to the licensee receiving materials f rom the St. Louis
FUSRAP site, the licensee must make a determination that adequate tailings space is
available for the tailings produced from the processing of this material. This determination
shall be made based on a SERP approved internal procedure.
[Applicable Amendments: 13, 14]
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom the Linde Formerly
Utilized Sites RemedialAction Program (FUSRAP) site, in accordance with statements,
representations, and commitments contained in the amendment request dated March 16,
2000, and as amended and supplemented by submittals dated April 26, 2000, May 15, 2000,
June 16,2000, June 19,2000, June 23,2000.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Linde FUSRAP site, the licensee must
make a determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from
the processing of this material. This determination shallbe made based on a SERP
approved internal procedure. Design changes to the cells or the reclamation plan require the
licensee to submit an amendment request for NRC review and approval.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Linde FUSRAP site, the licensee must
require that the generator of the material certify that the material does not contain listed
hazardous waste as defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) per
a Radioactive Material Profile Record.
[Applicable Amendment: 1 4]
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom the W.R. Grace site
located in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in accordance with statements, representations, and
commitments contained in the amendment request dated April 12, 2000, and as amended
and supplemented by submittals dated April24,20OO, April 26, 2000, May 5, 2000,
November 16,2000, and December 18,2000.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the W.R. Grace site, the licensee must make a
determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from the
processing of this material. This determination shall be made based on the SERP approved
standard operating procedure for determination of tailings capacity. Design changes to the
cells or the reclamation plan require the licensee to submit an amendment request for NRC
review and approval.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the W.R. Grace site, the licensee must require
that the generator of the material certify that the material does not contain listed hazardous
waste as defined under the Resource Conseruation and Recovery Act (RCRA) per a
Radioactive Material Profile Record.
[Applicable Amendment: 1 7]
NRC FORM 374A
(7-94r.
REGULATORY COMMISSION 8oF
License Number
SUA-1358, Amendment No. 18
Docket or Reference Number40-8681
10.16: The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Heritage Minerals
lncorporated siite, in accordance with statements, representations, and commitments
contained in the amendment request dated July 5, 2000, and as supplemented by submittals
November 16, 2000, and December 18, 2000.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Heritage Minerals lncorporated site, the
licensee must make a determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings
produced from the processing of this material. This determination shall be made based on
the SERP approved standard operating procedure for determination of tailings capacity.
Design changes to the cells or the reclamation plan require the licensee to submit an
amendment request for NRC review and approval.
Prior to the licensee receiving materiats from the Heritage Minerals lncorporated site, the
licensee must require that the generator of the material certify that the material does not
contain listed hazardous waste as defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) per a Radioactive Material Profile Record.
[Applicable Amendment: 1 8J
sECTloN 11: Monitoring, Recording, and Bookkeeping Requirements
1 1.1 The results of sampling, analyses, surveys and monitoring, the results of calibration of
equipment, reports on audits and inspections, all meetings and training courses required by
this license and any subsequent reviews, investigations, and corrective actions, shall be
documented. Unless otherwise specified in the NRC regulations allsuch documentation
shall be maintained for a period of at least five (5) years.
The licensee shall implement the effluent and environmental monitoring program specified in
Section 5.5 of the renewal application, as amended by the submittal dated June 8, 1995, and
as revised with the following modifications or additions:
A. Stack sampling shall include a determination of flow rate.
B. Surface water samples shall also be analyzed semiannually for total and dissolved
U-nat, Ra-226, and Th-230, with the exception of the Westwater Creek, which shallbe
sampled annually for water or sediments and analyzed as above. A sediment sample
shall not be taken in place of a water sample unless a water sample was not available.
C. Groundwater sampling shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements in
License Condition 1 1.3.
D. The licensee shall utilize lower limits of detection in accordance with Section 5 of
Regulatory Guide 4.14 (Revision 1), for analysis of effluent and environmental
samples.
E. The inspections performed semiannually of the critical orifice assembly committed to in
the submittal dated March 15, 1986, shall be documented. The critical orifice assembly
shall be calibrated at least every 2years against a positive displacement Roots meter
to obtain the required calibration curve.
11.2
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
NRC FORM 374A
(7-94)
REGULATORY COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE lDocket oiReference Nurhber
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
[Applicable Amendment: 5]
11.3 The licensee shall implement a groundwater detection monitoring program to ensure
compliance to 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. The detection monitoring program shall be in
accordance with the report entitled, "Points of Compliance, White Mesa Uranium Mill,"
submitted by letter dated October 5, 1994, and the following:
A. The licensee shaltsample monitoring wells WMMW-S, -11, -12, -14, -15, and -17, on
a quarterly basis. Samples shall be analyzed for chloride, potassium, nickel, and uranium,
ani the results of such sampling shall be included with the environmental monitoring reports
submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 40.65.
ln addition, the licensee shall implernent a monitoring program of the leak detection systems for the
disposal cells as follows:
B. The licensee shall measure and record the "depth to fluid" in each of the tailings disposal cell
standpipes on a weekly basis. lf sufficient fluid is present in the leak detection system (LDS)
of any cell, the license6 shall pump fluid from the LDS, to the extent_reasonably possible, and
recor-d the volume of fluid recovered. Any fluid pumped from an LDS shall be returned to a
disposal cell.
lf fluid is pumped from an LDS, the licensee shall calculate the flow rate by dividing.the
recorded'volume of fluid recovered by the elapsed time since fluid was last pumped or
increases in the LDS fluid levels were recorded, whichever is the more recent. The licensee
shall document the results of this calculation.
C. Upon the initial pumping of fluid from an LDS, the licensee shall collect a fluid sample and
aialyze the fluid for pH and the parameters listed in paragraph A of this license condition.
The jicensee shall determine whether the LDS fluid originated from the disposal cell by
ascertaining if the collected fluid contains elevated levels of the constituents listed in
paragraph A of this license condition or has a pH level less than 5.0. lf either elevated
bonstitubnt levels or a pH less than 5.0 is obserued, the licensee shall assume that the
disposal cell is the origin of the fluid.
lf the LDS fluid is determined not to have originated from the disposal cell, the licensee shall
continue with weekly measurements of "depth to fluid" in the LDS standpipes. The licensee
shall confirm, on an annual basis, that fluid from the disposal cell has not entered the LDS by
collecting (to the extent possible) and analyzing an LDS fluid sample for the above stated
parameters.
D. Upon indication that the LDS fluids originated from the disposal cell, the licensee shall
determine the flow rate through the liner by the calculation method in paragraph B of this
. license condition. lf the flow rate is equal to or greater than one gallon per minute, the
licensee shall:
1. Evaluate the cause of the liner distress and take appropriate and timely actions to
mitigate the leak and any consequent potential impacts;
Z. Continue to measure and record LDS "depth to fluid" measurements weekly; and
u.slr-enn REGU LAToRY coMMrssroN
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
E.
3. Notify NRC by telephone within 48 hours, in accordance with License Condition 9.2,
and submit a written report within 30 days of notifying NRC by telephone,
in accordance with License Condition 9.2. The written report shall include a description
of the mitigative action(s) taken and a discussion of the mitigative action results.
lf the calculated flow rate is less than one gallon per minute, the licensee shall continue with
weekly measurements of "depth to fluid" in the LDS standpipes.
All sampling, analysis, and evaluation of LDS fluids shall be documented and retained onsite
until license termination for NRC inspection.
[Applicable Amendment: 8]
Annually, the licensee shall collect, during mill operations, a set of air samples covering eight
hours of sampling, at a high collection flow rate (i.e., greater than or equal to 40 liters per
minute), in routinely or frequently occupied areas of the mill. These samples shall be
analyzed for gross alpha. ln addition, with each change in millfeed material or at least
annually, the licensee shall analyze the millfeed or production product for U-nat, Th-230,
Ra-226, and Pb-210 and use the analysis results to assess the fundamental constituent
composition of air sample particulates.
[Applicable Amendment: 7]
Calibration of in-plant air and radiation monitoring equipment shall be performed as specified
in the license renewal application, under Section 3.0 of the 'Radiation Protection Procedures
Manual," with the exception that in-plant air sampling equipment shall be calibrated at least
quarterly and air sampling equipment checks shall be documented.
The licensee shall perform an annualALARA audit of the radiation safety program in
accordance with Regulatory Guide 8.31.
12: Reporting Requirements
DELETED by Amendment 13.
[Applicable Amendment: 13]
The licensee shall submit a detailed decommissioning plan to the NRC at least twelve (12)
months prior to planned final shutdown of mill operations that includes a deailed Quality
Assurance Plan. The plan will be in accordance with Regulatory Guide 4.15, "Quality
Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs," and NUREG-1575, "Multi-Agency
Radiation Survey and Site lnvestigation Manual (MARSSIM), or equivalent most current
guidance.
[Applicable Amendment: 1 3]
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
11.4
11.5
11.6
SECTION
12.1
12.2
Printed on recvcled paper
NRC FORM 374A
(7-94)
R REGU LATORY COMMISSION
License Number
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Docket or Reference Number
-,JdL
Philip Ting, Chief €.-
Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch
Division of Fuel Cycle Safety
and Safeguards
Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT
REQUEST TO RECEIVE AND PROCESS
HERITAGE MINERALS SITE MATERIAL
DOCKET NO.: 040-8681
LICENSE NO.: SUA-1358
LICENSEE: lnternational Uranium (IUSA) Corporation
FAGILITY: White Mesa Uranium Mill
DATE: December21,2000
PROJECT MANAGER: William von Till
TECHNICAL REVIEWERS: William von Till - RCRA and Groundwater
John Lusher - Health Physicist
Dan Rom, Geotechnical Engineer
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS:
We have reviewed lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation's (IUSA's) license amendment
application dated July 5, 2000, and supplemental information in letters dated November 16,
2000, and December 18, 2000, to receive and process uranium-bearing materials from the
Heritage Minerals lncorporated (HMl) site, located in Lakehurst, New Jersey. These materials
would be used as "alterrrate feed material". We have reviewed IUSA's request using our formal
guidance, "lnterim Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Material Other Than Natural Ores"
provided in the NRC Regulatory lssue Summary 2000-23 that was mailed to uranium recovery
licensees on November 30, 2000. A concern was raised regarding the need for special handling
procedures due to the high thorium content of the material. This was addressed by the licensee,
by letter dated December 18, 2000, by adding a standard operating procedure entitled "High
thorium content ore management". During the review process, available cell space was an
issue. This was addressed under a separate TER and license amendment by NRC letter dated
July 21, 2000. We find the amendment request to be acceptable and have amended the license
so that IUSA may process this material.
DESCRIPTION OF LICENSEE'S AMENDMENT REQUEST
By its submittal dated July 5, 2000, IUSA requested that NRC amend Materials License
SUA-1358 to allow the receipt and processing of material other than natural uranium ore (i.e.,
alternate feed material) at its White Mesa uranium mill located near Blanding, Utah. The
proposed alternate feed material would come from the Heritage Minerals site in Lakehurst, New
Jersey. This material is currently licensed by the NRC under Source Materials License No. SMB
1541.
IUSA proposes to receive contaminated materials from the Heritage Minerals site for processing
at its uranium mill as alternate feed. The material is a dry sand, consisting of dense, finely
divided solids containing uranium. Uranium, thorium, and radium are its primary radiological
constituents. Based on HMI documents, IUSA estimates the amount of material that it would
receive under this amendment request to be 1000 to 2000 yds3.
IUSA has determined that the material does not contain listed hazardous waste as defined in
the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 6901-6991.
IUSA has proposed that lt will be a condition of the license that the mill shall not accept any of
the Heritage material at the site unless and until the mill's Safety and Environmental Review
Panel (SERP) has determined that the mill has sufficient licensed tailings capacity. The tailings
capacity must be sufficient to permanently store:
(1) All 11e.(2) byproduct material, as defined under the Atomic Energy act,
that would result from the processing of all of the material;
(2) All other ores and alternate feed materials on site; and
(3) All other materials required to be disposed of in the mill's tailings
impoundments pursuant to the mill's reclamation plan.
By letter dated November 16, 2000, IUSA developed a standard operating procedure entitled
"Tailings Capacity Evaluation". Staff evaluated the procedure and finds it acceptable.
a. Site and Materia! lnformation
The HMI site is located in Lakehurst, New Jersey. Material is being stored at the site for
decommissioning under the Final Status Survey Plan (FSSP) for License Termination submitted
by HMI in 1997. This material consists of monazite sands which were processed for heavy
minerals (primarily titanium mineral ilmenite) by mechanical methods with no chemical treatment
or extraction. IUSA estimates the amount of material for this amendment request to be up to
2000 yds3. HMI has estimated that the material has a uranium content of approximately 0.05
weight percent, or greater.
From 1973 to 1982 ASARCO, lnc. dredged and processed natural monazite sands for recovery
of heavy minerals using mechanical and magnetic separation processing. The primary
byproduct was a lighter tailings fraction stored on site. ASARCO ceased operations in '1982.
HMI purchased the property in 1986 and resumed operations until 1990, when all production
stopped. During HMI's operation, the facility reprocessed the lighter tailings fraction remaining
for further recovery of heavy minerals, and produced an additional product stored as waste in a
monazite sand pile. This monazite pile was licensed by the NRC as source material in
December 1990. The FSSP provides for transport of the material to an off-site facility for
disposal. The actual amount is estimated to be approximately 1000 CY. To account for
potential expansion, IUSA has requested to receive and process up to 2000 CY.
b. Transportation Considerations
The materialwill be shipped by rail and truck in intermodal containers. The covered containers
will be loaded onto railcars and transported to an intermediate transfer point where the
intermodal containers will then be loaded onto trucks for the final leg of the trip to the mill. The
transfer point is expected to be either near Grand Junction, Colorado; Cisco, Utah, Green River,
Utah; or East Carbon, Utah. The materialwill be shipped in exclusive containers as "low specific
activity" (LSA) Hazard Class 7 Hazardous Material as defined by Department of Transportation
regulations.
According to the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT, 2000), on an average day 6,675
motor vehicles (467 trucks total) traveled the stretch of State Road 191 on the south limit of
Blanding, Utah. Based on this information, an average of '1.4 additional trucks per day
represents an increased truck traffic load of 0.3 percent for approximately 3 months. Total
motor vehicle traffic through Moab, Utah on a daily basis is 17,075 (683 trucks total). Additional
trucks transporting the inter-modal containers for Heritage Minerals material would be
approximately 1.4 on the average per day, which is approximately 0.2o/o of the total truck traffic
or 0.008% of the total traffic. Based on this information, a very minor increase in truck traffic
from this action is anticipated.
c. Handlinq and Processinq at the Mill Site
IUSA proposes to process the material in a similar manner to normal processing of conventional
ore, either alone or in combination with other approved alternate feed materials. Tailings
produced by the processing of this material will be disposed of on-site in an existing lined tailings
impoundment (Cell 3). Depending upon the amount of material processed and the length of
time that material is shipped to the site, IUSA may have to build additional tailings
impoundments or utilize cell 4a, which is presently not being used. lf this is the case, a license
amendment will be necessary to revise the reclamation plan and surety amount. As we note
later in this report, IUSA must comply with its existing license requirements that limit the amount
of tailings in Cell 3, and obtain whatever approvals are necessary for additional impoundments,
if they are needed.
IUSA will ensure safety of workers and the environment using already established procedures
and equipment in the radiation safety program for processing natural ores. The potential for
employee exposures from the handling and processing of this material is not expected to be any
more significant than that normally encountered with the milling of conventional uranium ores.
Mill employees involved in handling the material will be provided with personal protective
equipment (e.9., coveralls, rubber gloves), including respiratory protection, if necessary.
Airborne particulate and breathing zone sampling will be conducted in accordance with the
environmental monitoring program established by the licensee.
During the review of the submittals, a concern was raised regarding the need for special
handling procedures for high thorium content ore material. IUSA addressed this concern, by
letter dated December 18, 2000, by the addition of a Standard Operating Procedure entitled
"High Thorium Content Ore Management". Staff evaluated this procedure and deemed it
adequate to address the original concerns.
J
STAFF TECH NICAL EVALUATION
We have reviewed IUSA's request in accordance with NRC staff guidance "lnterim Guidance
on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Material Other Than Natural Ores" provided in the NRC
Regulatory lssue Summary 2000-23 that was mailed to uranium recovery licensees on
November 30, 2000 and 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A requirements. The staff guidance
(referred to hereinafter as the "Alternate Feed Guidance") requires that we make the following
determinations in our reviews of licensee requests to process material other than natural
uranium ores:
Whether the feed material qualifies as "ore" as defined in the NRC guidance;
Whether the feed material contains listed hazardous waste; and
(c) Whether the feed material is being processed primarily for its source-material
content.
ln this evaluation, we discuss how IUSA has addressed each of these criteria in its application to
amend the license. We also discuss the other considerations that affect the granting of this
amendment.
a. Determination of whether the feed material is "ore"
For the tailings and wastes from the proposed processing to qualify as 11e.(2) byproduct
material, the feed material must qualify as "ore." ln the Alternate Feed Guidance, we define
"ore" in part as:
"...any other matter from which source material is extracted in a licensed uranium
or thorium mill."
IUSA has proposed to use alternate feed material from the Heritage Minerals site that contains
varying concentrations of uranium, a "source material" as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (AEA). Uranium concentrations are estimated to be 0.05 percent by weight. Because
IUSA is proposing in this amendment request to extract the uranium from this material at their
White Mesa uranium mill, we find that the proposed feed material qualifies as "ore" as defined in
our guidance.
b. Determination of whether the feed material contains hazardous waste
Under the Alternate Feed Guidance, we would not approve proposed feed material for
processing at a licensed mill that contains a listed hazardous waste.
The IUSA amendment request addresses several measures that will 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 HMI and NRC
documents. Second, IUSA also hired an independent consultant to review available information
and perform a separate review for classifying various Heritage Minerals properties and
(a)
(b)
determining which may contain listed hazardous waste. The consultant's analysis was included
in the license amendment request.
IUSA developed a listed hazardous waste protocol that has been accepted by the Utah
Department of Environmental Quality (UDEO) (letter dated December 7, 1999). This protocol
was used in IUSA's amendment request for the St. Louis, Linde, and W.R. Grace alternate
feeds and found acceptable by the NRC.
Thirdly, IUSA has provided an affidavit from the manager of the HMI facility certifying that the
material in question does not contain a listed hazardous waste. IUSA will require that the
generator certify that the incoming material is not a listed hazardous waste as defined in EPA's
regulation in 40 CFR 261 andlor that the material is exempt from RCRA regulation under 40
CFR 261 .4(a)(4).
Within the condition allowing the licensee to receive and process Heritage Minerals material, we
have placed the following text:
Prior to the shipment of Heritage Minerals material to the mill, the licensee must require
that the generator of the material certify that the material does not contain listed
hazardous waste as defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) per a Radioactive Material Profile Record.
All components of the HMI materials are byproducts from the physical processing of sands for
the recovery of heavy minerals, which is not a RCRA listed process. HMI has also certified that
no other waste material was mixed in with the byproduct. No chemicals were used in the
process.
c. petermination of whether the feed materia! is beinq processed primarily for
its source-material content
Using our Alternate Feed Guidance, a licensee must show that potential alternate feed material
is being processed primarily for its source-material content. ln the Commission Memorandum
and Order of February 10, 2000, the Commission stated. the staff does not need to consider the
quantity of uranium in its review, only whether the feed material (ore) is being processed
primarily for its source content and that radiation safety is considered. IUSA has provided a
signed certification that the uranium-bearing material is being processed primarily for the
recovery of uranium and for no other primary purpose.
d. Gonclusions concerninq compliance with alternate feed material criteria
Based on the information provided by IUSA, the NRC staff finds that the Heritage Minerals Site
material meets the criteria in the Alternate Feed Guidance, because (1) it qualifies as an "ore" as
defined by NRC guidance, (2) the material to be processed will not be or contain listed
hazardous wastes, and (3) it is being processed primarily for its source-material content.
e. Other Considerations
We have also considered other factors related to the granting of this amendment request. We
have concluded that the processing of this material will not result in (1) a significant change or
increase in the types or amounts of effluents that may be released offsite; (2) a significant
increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure; (3) a significant
construction impact; or (4) a significant increase in the potential for or consequences from
radiological accidents. We base this conclusion on the following.
Yellowcake produced from the processing of this material will not cause the
currently-approved yellowcake production limit of 4380 tons per year to be
exceeded. Yellowcake is the useful product of the mill and contains elevated
concentrations of uranium that are further refined in other plants and processes
to produce fuel for nuclear reactors, for example. ln addition, and as a result,
radiological doses to members of the public in the vicinity of the mill will not be
elevated above levels previously assessed and approved.
The licensee will dispose of the tailings produced by the processing of this
material on-site in an existing lined tailings impoundment (Cell 3), and if
processing of large amounts continues for an extended period of time, in
additional NRC approved tailings impoundments. The volume of tailings that
would be generated by processing the alternate feed material is comparable to
the volume that would be generated from processing an equivalent amount of ore
authorized under the license. The design of the existing impoundment, which
includes a leak detection system, has been previously approved by NRC,
and IUSA is required by its NRC license to conduct regular monitoring of the
impoundment liners and of the groundwater around the impoundments to detect
leakage if it should occur. By license condition under this amendment, IUSA
must first determine if cell space exists prior to receiving Heritage Minerals
material. lf any additional tailings cells are needed, they will be first approved by
NRC under a license amendment and will have similar monitoring. The licensee
originally proposed to build a six cell impoundment system which was addressed
in the Final Environmental Statement for the license application (NRC, 1979).
ln general, the Heritage Minerals site material will be similar in composition to the
mill tailings currently disposed of in the Cell 3 impoundment, because it will
contain metals and other chemicals which are present already in the tailings.
Furthermore, IUSA is required to conduct regular monitoring of the
impoundments to detect leakage if it should occur. Therefore, any environmental
impacts that could be associated with the disposal of the additional quantity of
Heritage Minerals Site material from processing in the mill will not be larger than
impacts previously evaluated and determined to be acceptable for this mill.
1.
2
3)
4.
RECOMMENDED LICENSE CHANGE:
Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40, Materials License
SUA-1358 will be amended by the addition of License Condition 10.16 as follows:
10.16 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom the Heritage
Minerals lncorporated siite, in accordance with statements, representations, and
commitments contained in the amendment request dated July 5, 2000, and as
supplemented by submittals November 16, 2000, and December 18, 2000.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Heritage Minerals lncorporated site, the
licensee must make a determination that adequate tailings space is available for the
tailings produced from the processing of this material. This determination shall be made
based on a SERP approved internal procedure. Design changes to the cells or the
reclamation plan require the licensee to submit an amendment request for NRC review
and approval.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Heritage Minerals site, the licensee
must require that the generator of the material certify that the material does not contain
listed hazardous waste as defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) per a Radioactive Material Profile Record.
[Applicable Amendment: 18]
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION
An environmental report covering the information identified in 10 CFR 51.45 was not required
from the licensee. Because IUSA's receipt and processing of the material will not result in
(1) a significant change or increase in the types or amounts of effluents that may be released
offsite; (2) a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure; (3)
a significant construction impact; or (4) a significant increase in the potential for or
consequences from radiological accidents, an environmental review was not performed since
actions meeting these criteria are categorically excluded under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11).
ln consultation with the State of Utah, the issue of cell space came up as a general concern in
the mill receiving these alternate feed materials. This issue was addressed under a previous
licensing action by NRC letter dated July 21, 2000, and the licensee now has an operation
procedure in place for making that determination. lf the licensee needs to expand cells or
refurbish cell44, a separate amendment and evaluation would be necessary. The licensee
originally proposed to build a six cell impoundment system which was addressed in the Final
Environmental Statement for the license application (NRC, 1979). The mill has only utilized four
cells, one of which (Cell 4a), is not currently in use. IUSA's current proposal includes expansion
into an existing cellfootprint.
Transport trucks driving through Moab, Utah was a concern from a member of the public.
According to the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT, 2000), total motor vehicle traffic
through Moab, Utah on a daily basis is 17 ,075 (683 trucks total). Additional trucks transporting
the inter-modal containers for Heritage Minerals material would be approximately 1.4 on the
average per day, which is approxim ately 0.2o/o of the total truck traffic or 0.008% of the total
traffic. Based on this information, a very minor increase in truck traffic from this action is
anticipated. ln addition, transportation impacts for various remediation alternatives have already
been examined by the NRC in the Environmental Assessment, Finding of No Significant lmpact,
and Notice of Opportunity for a Hearing for Remediation of the Lakehurst, New Jersey Site"
dated September 1, 1999 (Federal Register Volume 64, Number 169) for the decommissioning
of the site and by the Final Environmental Statement for the White Mesa mill (NRC, 1979).
REFERENGES:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Commission Memorandum and Order,
lnternational Uranium (USA) Corp., CLI-00-01, 52 NRC 9 (Feb. 10, 2000).
NRC "EnvironmentalAssessment, Finding of No Significant lmpact, and Notice of Opportunity
for a Hearing for Remediation of the Lakehurst, New Jersey Site", September 1, '1999 (Federal
Register Volume 64, Number 169).
NRC "Final Position and Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Material Other Than Natural
Ores" FederalRegister, Volume 60, No. 184, Pages 49296-49297. September 22,1995.
NRC "Final Environmental Statement" for the White Mesa Uranium Project, Energy Fuels
Nuclear, lnc. May, 1979.
Utah Department of Transportation. Phone conversation with Ms. Vicki Hanshew of the
Program Development Division with William von Till of NRC regarding traffic statistics on
Highway 191 and through Moab, Utah. December 20,2000.
oNUCLEAR
UNITED STATES
REGULATORY COMMISSION
wASHTNGTON, D.C. 20sss-000'l
December 27, 2000a((rt
Ms. Michelle Rehmann, Environmental Manager
lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation
lndependence Plaza, Suite 950
1 050 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80265
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT 17 TO MATERIALS LICENSE SUA-1358 -- APPROVAL TO
RECEIVE AND PROCESS ALTERNATE FEED MATERIAL FROM THE W.R.
GRACE SITE AT THE WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL
Dear Ms. Rehmann:
ln your letter dated April12,2OOO, you asked that we amend your license for the White Mesa
uranium mill to permit the receipt and processing of material removed from the W.R. Grace site
located in Chattanooga, Tennessee. This site is being remediated under the authority of the
State of Tennessee and is licensed by the Division of Radiological Health under source material
license S-3306-E9. You propose to receive this material at your White Mesa uranium mill in
Blanding, Utah, remove the uranium so that it can be reused, and dispose of the process
tailings in the mill's tailings pile. You have requested to receive and process for its uranium
content 140,000 cubic yards (CY) of materialfrom the W.R. Grace Site. You have determined
that this material does not contain listed hazardous wastes as defined by subpart D of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). As indicated in the license condition below,
this material can not be received by the mill until adequate cell space is available in accordance
with your standard operating procedure for determination of available tailings capacity as
indicated in your November 16, 2000 letter. !n approving the W.R. Grace request, we have
added the following license condition to your license:
10.15 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom the W.R. Grace
site located in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in accordance with statements,
representations, and commitments contained in the amendment request dated April 12,
2000, and as amended and supplemented by submittals dated Apri!24,2000, April 26,
2000, May 5, 2000, November 16, 2000, and December 18, 2000.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the W.R. Grace site, the licensee must
make a determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced
from the processing of this material. This determination shall be made based on the
SERP approved standard operating procedure for determination of tailings capacity.
Design changes to the cells or the reclamation plan require the licensee to submit an
amendment request for NRC review and approval.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the W.R. Grace site, the licensee must
require that the generator of the material certify that the material does not contain listed
hazardous waste as defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) per a Radioactive Material Profile Record.
[Applicable Amendment: 1 7]
.<23456h
ff ;is
E -. ir '.)'lu$u t@ "'-- rt 'fflor:
AglrtdlF\- ,j,.: :q.i;ui ..5fU# ,t)
Qoo*eP
lf you have any questions regarding this letter or the enclosures, please contact William von Till,
the NRC Project Manager for the White Mesa mill, at [phone] or by electronic mail at
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
,/)/,
*/'-/'0 l-)" ,f
Philip fing, Chief-
Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch
Division of Fuel Cycle Safety
and Safeguards
Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards
Docket No.40-8681
SUA-1358, Amendment No. 17
Enclosures: Technical Evaluation Report and Source Material License SUA-1358
cc: Bill Sinclair, State of Utah
J. Graves, State of Tennessee
C.Crist, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe EPA
Terry Brown, US EPA Region Vlll
NRC FORM 374
(7-94\U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
PAGE 1 or 10 pa6sg
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Ener-ey Reorganizarion Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-438), and Title 10, Code of
Federal Regulations, Chapter I, Parts 30, 3 I , 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, and 70, and in reliance on sratements and representations heretofore made
by the licensee, a license is hereby issued authorizing the licensee to receive, acquire, possess, and transfer byproduct, source, and special nuclear
material designated below; to use such material for the purpose(s) and at the place(s) designated below; to deliver or transfer such material to
persons authorized to receive it in accordance with the regulations of the applicable Part(s). This license shall be deemed to contain the conditions
specified in Section I 83 of the Atomic Energy Act of I 954, as amended, and is subject to all applicable rules, regulations, and orders of theNuclear Re-eulatory Commission now or hereafter in effect and to any conditions specified below.
Licensee
lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation
[Applicable Amendments: 2]
6425 S. Highway 191
P.O. Box 809
Blanding, Utah 84511
le Amendments: 2I
3. License Number
SUA-1358, Amendment No. 17
4. Expiration Date March 31,2007
5. Docket or
Reference No.40-8681
6. Byproduct. Source, and/or
Special Nuclear Material
SECTION
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
7. Chemical and/or Physical
Form
8. Maximum Amount that Licensee
May Possess at Any One Time
Under This License
UnlimitedNatural Uranium
e: Administrative Conditions
The authorized place of use shall be the licensee's White Mesa uranium milling facility,
located in San Juan County, Utah.
All written notices and reports to the NFIC required under this license, with the exception of
incident and event notifications under 10 CFR 20.2202 and 10 CFR 40.60 requiring
telephone notification, shall be addressed to the Chief, Uranium Recovery and Low-Level
Waste Branch, Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards.
lncident and event notifications that require telephone notification shall be made to the NRC
Operations Center at [phone].
The licensee shall conduct operations in accordance with statements, representations, and
conditions contained in the license renewal application submitted by letter dated August 23,
1991 , as revised by submittals dated January 13, and April 7, 1992, November 22, 1994,
July 27,1995, December 13, and December 31, 1996, and January 30, 1997, which are
hereby incorporated by reference, and for the Standby Trust Agreement, dated April 29,
1997, except where superseded by license conditions below.
Whenever the word "will" is used in the above referenced documents, it shall denote a
requirement.
[Applicable Amendment: 2]
A. The licensee may, without prior NRC approval, and subject to the conditions specified
in Part B of this condition:
Any
NRC FORM 374A
(7-54)
U.S. I-EAR REGU LATORY COMMISSION PAGE 2 OF
License Number
SUA-1358, Amendment No.
1 o ,oces
17
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
(1) Make changes in the facility or process, as presented in the application.
(2) Make changes in the procedures presented in the application.
(3) Conduct tests or experiments not presented in the application.
B. The licensee shallfile an application for an amendment to the license, unless the
following conditions are satisfied.
(1) The change, test, or experiment does not conflict with any requirement
specifically stated in this license, or impair the licensee's ability to meet all
applicable NRC regulations.
(2) There is no degradation in the essential safety or environmental commitments in
the license application, or provided by the approved reclamation plan.
(3) The change, test, or experiment is consistent with the conclusions of actions
analyzed and selected in the EA dated February 1997.
C. The licensee's determinations concerning Part B of this condition, shall be made by a
"Safety and Environmental Review Panel (SERP).' The SERP shall consist of a
minimum of three individuals. One member of the SERP shall have expertise in
management and shall be responsible for managerial and financial approval changes;
one member shall have expertise in operations and/or construction and shall have
responsibility for implementing any operational changes; and, one member shall be the
corporate radiation safety otficer (CRSO) or equivalent, with the responsibility of
assuring changes conform to radiation safety and environmental requirements.
Additional members may be included in the SERP as appropriate, to address technical
aspects such as health physics, groundwater hydrology, surface-water hydrology,
specific earth sciences, and other technicaldisciplines. Temporary members or
permanent members, other than the three above-specified individuals, may be
consultants.
D. The licensee shall maintain records of any changes made pursuant to this condition
until license termination. These records shall include written safety and environmental
evaluations, made by the SERP, that provide the basis for determining changes are in
compliance with the requirements referred to in Part B of this condition. The licensee
shall furnish, in an annual report to NRC, a description of such changes, tests, or
experiments, including a summary of the safety and environmental evaluation of each.
ln addition, the licensee shall annually submit to the NRC changed pages to the
Operations Plan and Reclamation Plan of the approved license application to reflect
changes made under this condition.
The licensee's SERP shallfunction in accordance with the standard operating procedures
submitted by letter dated June 10, 1997.
[Applicable Amendments: 3]
NRC FORM 374A
(7-94)
U,S.REGULATORY COMMISSION PAGE 3 oF 1oron..
License Number
SUA-1358, Amendment No. 17
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
9.5 The licensee shall maintain an NRC-approved financial surety arrangement, consistent with
10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10, adequate to cover the estimated costs, if
accomplished by a third party, for decommissioning and decontamination of the mill and mill
site, for reclamation of any tailings or waste disposal areas, ground-water restoration as
warranted and for the long-term surveillance fee. Within three months of NRC approval of a
revised reclamation/decommissioning plan, the licensee shall submit, for NRC review and
approval, a proposed revision to the financial surety arrangement if estimated costs in the
newly approved plan exceed the amount covered in the existing financial surety. The revised
surety shall then be in effect within 3 months of written NRC approval.
Annual updates to the surety amount, required by 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10,
shall be submitted to the NRC at least 3 months prior to the anniversary date which is
designated as June 4 of each year. lf the NRC has not approved a proposed revision to the
surety coverage 30 days prior to the expiration date of the existing surety arrangement, the
licensee shall extend the existing surety arrangement for 1 year. Along with each proposed
revision or annual update, the licensee shall submit supporting documentation showing a
breakdown of the costs and the basis for the cost estimates with adjustments for inflation,
maintenance of a minimum 15 percent contingency fee, changes in engineering plans,
activities performed and any other conditions affecting estimated costs for site closure. The
basis for the cost estimate is the NRC approved reclamation/decommissioning plan or NRC
approved revisions to the plan. The previously provided guidance entitled "Recommended
Outline for Site Specific Reclamation and Stabilization Cost Estimates" outlines the minimum
considerations used by the NRC in the review of site closure estimates.
Reclamation/decommissioning plans and annual updates should follow this outline.
The currently approved surety instrument, a Performance Bond issued by National Union
Fire lnsurance Company in favor of the NRC, and the associated Standby Trust Agreement,
dated April29, 1997, shall be continuously maintained in an amount not less than
$10,064,794 for the purpose of complying with 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10,
until a replacement is authorized by the NRC.
[Applicable Amendments: 2, 3, 5, 13, 15]
Therefore, this office must receive an updated surety in this amount within 90 days of this letter.
9.6 Standard operating procedures shall be established and followed for all operational process
activities involving radioactive materials that are handled, processed, or stored. SOPs for
operational activities shall enumerate pertinent radiation safety practices to be followed.
Additionally, written procedures shall be established for non-operational activities to include
in-plant and environmental monitoring, bioassay analyses, and instrument calibrations. An
up-to-date copy of each written procedure shall be kept in the mill area to which it applies.
All written procedures for both operational and non-operational activities shall be reviewed
and approved in writing by the radiation safety officer (RSO) before implementation and
whenever a change in procedure is proposed to ensure that proper radiation protection
principles are being applied. ln addition, the RSO shall perform a documented review of all
existing operating procedures at least annually.
NRC FORM 374A
(7-94)
9.10
U.S. ILEAR REGU LATORY COMMISSION APAGE , OF
I-icense Number
SUA-1 358, Amendment No.
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
Before engaging in any activity not previously assessed by the NRC, the licensee shall
administer a cultural resource inventory. All disturbances associated with the proposed
development will be completed in compliance with the National Historic Preseruation Act (as
amended) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800), and the Archaeological Resources
Protection Act (as amended) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR 7).
ln order to ensure that no unapproved disturbance of cultural resources occurs, any work
resulting in the discovery of previously unknown cultural artifacts shall cease. The artifacts
shall be inventoried and evaluated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, and no disturbance
shall occur untilthe licensee has received authorization from the NRC to proceed.
The licensee shall avoid by project design, where feasible, the archeological sites designated
"contributing" in the report submitted by letter dated July 28, 1988. When it is not feasible to
avoid a site designated'contributing" in the report, the licensee shall institute a data recovery
program for that site based on the research design submitted by letter from C. E. Baker of
Energy Fuels Nuclear to Mr. Melvin T. Smith, Utah State Historic Preseruation Officer
(SHPO), dated April 13, 1981.
The licensee shall recover through archeological excavation all "contributing" sites listed in
the report which are located in or within 100 feet of borrow areas, stockpile areas,
construction areas, or the perimeter of the reclaimed tailings impoundment. Data recovery
fieldwork at each site meeting these criteria shall be completed prior to the start of any
project related disturbance within 100 feet of the site, but analysis and report preparation
need not be complete.
Additionally, the licensee shallconduct such testing as is required to enable the Commission
to determine if those sites designated as "Undetermined" in the report and located within
100 feet of present or known future construction areas are of such significance to warrant
their redesignation as "contributing." !n all cases, such testing shallbe completed before any
aspect of the undertaking affects a site.
Archeological contractors shall be approved in writing by the Commission. The Commission
will approve an archeological contractor who meets the minimum standards for a principal
investigator set forth in 36 CFR Part 66, Appendix C, and whose qualifications are found
acceptable by the SHPO.
The licensee is hereby authorized to possess byproduct material in the form of uranium
waste tailings and other uranium byproduct waste generated by the licensee's milling
operations authorized by this license. Mill tailings shall not be transferred from the site
without specific prior approval of the NRC in the form of a license amendment. The licensee
shall maintain a permanent record of all transfers made under the provisions of this condition.
The licensee is hereby exempted from the requirements of Section 2O.19O2 (e) of 10 CFR
Part 20 for areas within the mill, provided that all entrances to the mill are conspicuously
posted in accordance with Section 2O.19O2 (e) and with the words, "Any area within this mill
may contain radioactive material."
Release of equipment or packages from the restricted area shall be in accordance with
"Guidelines for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted
1 o ,on.,
17
9.7
9.8
9.9
NRC FORM 374A
(7-94].
9.11
SECTION
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 pecEs
License Number
SUA-1358, Amendment No. 17
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
Use or Termination of Licenses for Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear Material," dated
May 1987, or suitable alternative procedures approved by the NRC prior to any such release.
The final reclamation shall be in accordance with the May 1999, Reclamation Plan Revision
2.0, Attachment A submitted on June 22,1999, and Revision 3.0 submitted on July 7,2OOO.
Prior to the placement of alternate feed material, the licensee shall determine that adequate
cell space is available for that additional material. This determination shall be made by a
SERP approved procedure.
10: Operational Controls, Limits, and Restrictions
The mill production rate shall not exceed 4380 tons of yellowcake per year.
All liquid effluents from mill process buildings, with the exception of sanitary wastes, shall be
returned to the mill circuit or discharged to the tailings impoundment.
Freeboard limits for Cells 1-1, 3, and 44, shall be set periodically in accordance with the
procedures set out in Section 3.0 to Appendix E of the approved license application, including
the October 13, 1999 revisions made to the January 10, 1990 Drainage Report. The
freeboard limit for Cell 3 shall be recalculated annually in accordance with the procedures set
in the October 13, 1999 revision to the Drainage Report.
[Applicable Amendment: 1 6]
Disposal of material and equipment generated at the mill site shall be conducted as
described in the licensee's submittals dated December 12,1994 and May 23, 1995, with the
following addition:
A. The maximum lift thickness for materials placed over tailings shall be less than 4-feet
thick. Subsequent lifts shall be less than 2-feet thick. Each lift shall be compacted by
tracking of heavy equipment, such as a Cat D-6, at least 4 times prior to placement of
subsequent lifts.
ln accordance with the licensee's submittal dated May 20,1993, the licensee is hereby
authorized to dispose of byproduct material generated at licensed in situ leach facilities,
subject to the following conditions:
A. Disposal of waste is limited to 5000 cubic yards from a single source.
B. All contaminated equipment shall be dismantled, crushed, or sectioned to minimize
void spaces. Barrels containing waste other than soil or sludges shall be emptied into
the disposal area and the barrels crushed. Barrels containing soil or sludges shall be
verified to be full prior to disposal. Barrels not completely full shall be filled with tailings
or soil.
C. All waste shall be buried in Cell No. 3 unless prior written approval is obtained from the
NRC for alternate burial locations.
NRC FORM 374A
(7-94)
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
10.10
10.11
10.12
R REGU LATORY COMMISSION
License NumberSUA-1358, Amendment No. 17
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Docket or Reference Number40-8681
D. All disposal activities shall be documented. The documentation shall include
descriptions of the waste and the disposal locations, as well as all actions required by
this condition. An annual summary of the amounts of waste disposed of from off-site
generators shall be sent to the NRC.
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materials from the Allied Signal
Corporation's Metropolis, lllinois, facility in accordance with the amendment request dated
June 15, 1993.
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom Allied Signal, lnc. of
Metropolis, lllinois, in accordance with the amendment request dated September 20, 1996,
and amended by letters dated October 30, and November 1 1, 1996.
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material, in accordance with the
amendment request dated March 5, 1997.
[Applicable Amendments: 1 ]
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom Cabot Performance
Materials'facility near Boyertown, Pennsylvania, in accordance with the amendment request
dated April 3, 1997, as amended by submittals dated May 19, and August 6, 1997.
[Applicable Amendments: 4]
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Ashland 2
Formerly Utilized Sites RemedialAction Program (FUSRAP) site, located near Tonawanda,
New York, in accordance with the amendment request dated May 8, 1998, as amended by
the submittals dated May 27, June 3, and June 1 1 , 1998.
[Applicable Amendment: 6]
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom Cameco
Corporation's Blind River and Port Hope facilities, located in Ontario, Canada, in accordance
with the amendment request dated June 4, 1998, and by the submittals dated September 14,
September 16, September 25, October 7, and October 8, 1998.
However, the licensee is not authorized to receive or process from these facilities, the
crushed carbon anodes identified in these submittals, either as a separate material or mixed
in with material already approved for receipt or processing.
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom the Ashland 1 and
Seaway Area D Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, located
near Tonowanda, New York, in accordance with statements, representations, and
commitments contained in the amendment request dated October 15, 1998, as amended by
letters dated November 23, 1998, November 24, 1998, December 23, 1998, January 1 1,
1999, January 27,1999, and February 1, 1999.
[Applicable Amendment: 1 0]
NRC FORM 374A
(7-94)
10.13
10.14
10.15
EAR REGU LATORY COMMISSION 10 PAGES
t''",''tfJff-l3sg, Amendment No. 17
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Docket or Reference YCISOAf
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom the St. Louis
Formerly Utilized Sites RemedialAction Program (FUSRAP) site, in accordance with
statements, representations, and commitments contained in the amendment request dated
March 2, 1999, and as amended and supplemented by submittals dated June 21 , 1999; June
29, 1999 (2); and July 8, 1999. Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the St. Louis
FUSRAP site, the licensee must make a determination that adequate tailings space is
available for the tailings produced from the processing of this material. This determination
shall be made based on a SERP approved internal procedure.
[Applicable Amendments: 13, 14]
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Linde Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, in accordance with statements,
representations, and commitments contained in the amendment request dated March 16,
2000, and as amended and supplemented by submittals dated April26, 2000, May 15, 2000,
June 16,2000, June 19,2000, June 23,2000.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Linde FUSRAP site, the licensee must
make a determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from
the processing of this material. This determination shall be made based on a SERP
approved internal procedure. Design changes to the cells or the reclamation plan require the
licensee to submit an amendment request for NRC review and approval.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Linde FUSRAP site, the licensee must
require that the generator of the material certify that the material does not contain listed
hazardous waste as defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) per
a Radioactive Material Profile Record.
[Applicable Amendment 1 4]
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom the W.R. Grace site
located in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in accordance with statements, representations, and
commitments contained in the amendment request dated April 12,2OOO, and as amended
and supplemented by submittals dated Apri!24,2000, April 26, 2000, May 5, 2000,
November 16,2000, and December 18,2000.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the W.R. Grace site, the licensee must make a
determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from the
processing of this material. This determination shall be made based on the SERP approved
standard operating procedure for determination of tailings capacity. Design changes to the
cells or the reclamation plan require the licensee to submit an amendment request for NRC
review and approval.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the W.R. Grace site, the licensee must require
that the generator of the material certify that the material does not contain listed hazardous
waste as defined under the Resource Conseruation and Recovery Act (RCRA) per a
Radioactive Material Profile Record.
[Applicable Amendment: 17]
NRC FORM 374A
(7-94\
EAR REGU LATORY COMMISSION
License Number
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
SUA-1358, Amendment No. 17
Docker or Rererence yfilEiOgf
sECTloN 11: Monitoring, Recording, and Bookkeeping Requirements
1 1.1 The results of sampling, analyses, surveys and monitoring, the results of calibration of
equipment, reports on audits and inspections, all meetings and training courses required by
this license and any subsequent reviews, investigations, and corrective actions, shall be
documented. Unless otherwise specified in the NRC regulations all such documentation
shall be maintained for a period of at least five (5) years.
The licensee shall implement the effluent and environmental monitoring program specified in
Section 5.5 of the renewal application, as amended by the submittal dated June 8, 1995, and
as revised with the following modifications or additions:
A. Stack sampling shall include a determination of flow rate.
B. Surface water samples shall also be analyzed semiannually for total and dissolved
U-nat, Ra-226, and Th-230, with the exception of the Westwater Creek, which shall be
sampled annually for water or sediments and analyzed as above. A sediment sample
shall not be taken in place of a water sample unless a water sample was not available.
C. Groundwater sampling shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements in
License Condition 1 1.3.
D. The licensee shall utilize lower limits of detection in accordance with Section 5 of
Regulatory Guide 4.14 (Revision 1), for analysis of effluent and environmental
samples.
E. The inspections performed semiannually of the critical orifice assembly committed to in
the submittaldated March 15, 1986, shall be documented. The criticalorifice assembly
shall be calibrated at least every 2 years against a positive displacement Roots meter
to obtain the required calibration curve.
[Applicable Amendment: 5]
The licensee shall implement a groundwater detection monitoring program to ensure
compliance to 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. The detection monitoring program shall be in
accordance with the report entitled, "Points of Compliance, White Mesa Uranium Mill,"
submitted by letter dated October 5, 1994, and the following:
A. The licensee shall sample monitoring wells WMMW-S, -1'1, -12, -14, -15, and -17, on
a quarterly basis. Samples shall be analyzed for chloride, potassium, nickel, and uranium,
and the results of such sampling shall be included with the environmental monitoring reports
submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 40.65.
ln addition, the licensee shall implement a monitoring program of the leak detection systems for the
disposal cells as follows:
B. The licensee shall measure and record the "depth to fluid" in each of the tailings disposal cell
standpipes on a weekly basis. !f sufficient fluid is present in the leak detection system (LDS)
of any cell, the licensee shall pump fluid from the LDS, to the extent reasonably possible, and
11.2
11.3
NRC FORM 374A
(7-941
11.4
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
REGULATORY COMMISSION 9PAGE OF
License NumberSUA-1358, Amendment No. 17
c.
D.
E.
Docket or Reference Y6BOAf
record the volume of fluid recovered. Any fluid pumped from an LDS shall be returned to a
disposalcell.
lf fluid is pumped from an LDS, the licensee shall calculate the flow rate by dividing the
recorded volume of fluid recovered by the elapsed time since fluid was last pumped or
increases in the LDS fluid levels were recorded, whichever is the more recent. The licensee
shall document the results of this calculation.
Upon the initial pumping of fluid from an LDS, the licensee shall collect a fluid sample and
analyze the fluid for pH and the parameters listed in paragraph A of this license condition.
The licensee shall determine whether the LDS fluid originated from the disposal cell by
ascertaining if the collected fluid contains elevated levels of the constituents listed in
paragraph A of this license condition or has a pH level less than 5.0. lf either elevated
constituent levels or a pH less than 5.0 is obserued, the licensee shall assume that the
disposal cell is the origin of the fluid.
lf the LDS fluid is determined not to have originated from the disposal cell, the licensee shall
continue with weekly measurements of "depth to fluid" in the LDS standpipes. The licensee
shall confirm, on an annual basis, that fluid from the disposal cell has not entered the LDS by
collecting (to the extent possible) and analyzing an LDS fluid sample for the above stated
parameters.
Upon indication that the LDS fluids originated from the disposal cell, the licensee shall
determine the flow rate through the liner by the calculation method in paragraph B of this
license condition. !f the flow rate is equal to or greater than one gallon per minute, the
licensee shall:
1. Evaluate the cause of the liner distress and take appropriate and timely actions to
mitigate the leak and any consequent potential impacts;
2. Continue to measure and record LDS "depth to fluid" measurements weekly; and
3. Notify NRC by telephone within 48 hours, in accordance with License Condition 9.2,
and submit a written report within 30 days of notifying NRC by telephone,
in accordance with License Condition 9.2. The written report shall include a description
of the mitigative action(s) taken and a discussion of the mitigative action results.
lf the calculated flow rate is less than one gallon per minute, the licensee shall continue with
weekly measurements of "depth to fluid" in the LDS standpipes.
All sampling, analysis, and evaluation of LDS fluids shall be documented and retained onsite
until license termination for NRC inspection.
[Applicable Amendment: 8]
Annually, the licensee shall collect, during mill operations, a set of air samples covering eight
hours of sampling, at a high collection flow rate (i.e., greater than or equalto 40 liters per
minute), in routinely or frequently occupied areas ol the mill. These samples shall be
analyzed for gross alpha. ln addition, with each change in millfeed material or at least
annually, the licensee shall analyze the mill feed or production product for U-nat, Th-230,
NRC FORM 374A
(7-94r.
11.5
1 1.6
12.1
12.2
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
REGULATORY COMMISSION
Division of Fuel Cycle Safety
and Safeguards
Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards
10 OF
License NumberSUA-I358, Amendment No. 17
Docket or Reference Y6SOAf
1 o ,oo..
Ra-226, and Pb-210 and use the analysis results to assess the fundamental constituent
composition of air sample particulates.
[Applicable Amendment: 7]
Calibration of in-plant air and radiation monitoring equipment shall be performed as specified
in the license renewal application, under Section 3.0 of the "Radiation Protection Procedures
Manual," with the exception that in-plant air sampling equipment shall be calibrated at least
quarterly and air sampling equipment checks shall be documented.
The licensee shall perform an annual ALARA audit of the radiation safety program in
accordance with Regulatory Guide 8.31.
SECTION 12: Reporting Requirements
DELETED by Amendment 13.
[Applicable Amendment: 1 3]
The licensee shall submit a detailed decommissioning plan to the NRC at least twelve (12)
months prior to planned final shutdown of mill operations that includes a deailed Quality
Assurance Plan. The plan will be in accordance with Regulatory Guide 4.15, "Quality
Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs," and NUREG-1575, "Multi-Agency
Radiation Survey and Site !nvestigation Manual (MARSSIM), or equivalent most current
guidance.
[Applicable Amendment: 13]
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
oate?o.c , >7, >, a o
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT
REQUEST TO REGEIVE AND PROGESS
DOCKET NO.:
LIGENSE NO.:
LICENSEE:
FACILITY:
DATE:
PROJECT
MANAGER:
W.R. GRACE SITE MATERIAL
40-8681
suA-1358
lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation
White Mesa Uranium Mill
December 20,2OOO
William von Till
TECHNICAL REVIEWERS:
William von Till - RCRA and Groundwater
John Lusher - Health Physicist
Dan Rom - Geotechnical Engineer
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS:
We have reviewed lnternational Uranium Corporation's (IUSA's) license amendment application
dated April 1 2, 2000, with supplemental information dated April 24,2000, April 26, 2000, and
May 5, 2000, November 16, 2000, and December 18, 2000 to receive and process uranium-
bearing materials from the W.R. Grace site located in Chattanooga, Tennessee. This site is
being remediated under the authority of the State of Tennessee and is licensed by the Division
of Radiological Health under source material license S-3306-E9. These materials would be used
as "alternate feed material". We have reviewed IUSA's request using our formal guidance,
"Final Position and Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Material Other Than Natural
Ores" and the Commission's Memorandum and Order, lnternational Uranium (USA) Corp., CLI-
00-01 , 52 NRC 9 (Feb. 10, 2000). During the review of the submittals, a concern was raised
regarding the need for special handling procedures for high thorium content ore material. IUSA
in response to this concern, by letter dated December 18, 2000, developed a Standard
Operating Procedure, consequently, this issue was adequately addressed. During the review
process, available cell space was an issue. This was addressed under a separate TER and
license amendment by NRC letter dated July 21, 2000. Therefore, we find the amendment
request to be acceptable and have amended the license so that IUSA may receive and process
this material. We have conditioned the license such that this material can not be received by
the mill until it has been determined that adequate space is available in the tailings cells.
1. DESCRIPTION OF LICENSEE'S AMENDMENT REQUEST
By its submittal dated April 12, 2000, IUSA requested that NRC amend Materials License
SUA-1358 to allow the receipt and processing of material other than natural uranium ore (i.e.,
alternate feed material) at its White Mesa uranium mill located near Blanding, Utah. These sites
currently are being remediated by the by W.R. Grace under the regulatory authority of the State
of Tennessee.
IUSA proposes to receive materials from the W.R. Grace site for processing at its uranium mill.
This material consists of uranium-bearing material resulting from the processing of monazite
sands for the extraction of thorium and rare earth materials. Uranium, thorium, and radium are
its primary radiological constituents. Based on W.R. Grace information, IUSA estimates the
amount of material for this amendment request to be up to 140,000 yds3.
ln addition to its April 12,2000,letter requesting that the license be amended, IUSA provided
additional information in the following letters to NRC:
. Aprl24,2OOO,letter with revision of IUSA's Radioactive Material Profile Record
(RMPR) form to clarify the history of the material.
. April26,2OOO,letter addressing NRC concerns over placement of processed
W.R. Grace materials in tailing cell 3. NRC had a concern that due to the high
thorium content, if the material was placed too close to the radon cap, it could
change the radon barrier thickness design. To address this concern, IUSA
committed to place the material in the deepest areas of the cell with additional
processed cover material on top of the W.R. Grace material.
. May 5, 2000, and November 16, 2000 letters addressing NRC's concern over
available space in tailings cell 3. IUSA conducted a survey at the NRC's request
to determine space available and developed a Standard Operating Procedure
entitled "Tailings Capacity Evaluation".
. December 18, 2000 letter addressing NRC's concern over high thorium content
and the need for special handling procedures. IUSA developed a Standard
Operating Procedure entitled "High Thorium Content Ore Management.
a. Site and Material lnformation
A consortium of four companies; Heavy Minerals Company, Crane Company, Vitro Corporation
and Pichney Company, began operations at this facility in 1957. The facility received monazite
sands and extracted thorium and other rare earth elements. W.R. Grace purchased the facility
in 1965 and continued operations until 1983. Tailings from the monazite operation, which
contain uranium, were collected in six areas, two filled sedimenUsettling ponds, one partially
filled sedimenVsettling pond, and a sand blast area.
The ponds have been removed from service and have been under remedial action since 1999.
A portion of these materials have been shipped to the Envirocare of Utah waste disposal facility
as Low Level Radioactive Waste. The primary radioactive contaminants in the soils are
Uranium-238 (U-238), Radium-226 (Ra-226), Radium-228 (Ra-228), Thorium-230 (Th-230),
Thorium 232 (Th-232), Potassium-40 (K-40) and their respective decay products. IUSA, based
on a review of material, states that the weighted average grade of uranium for the W.R. Grace
site is estimated to range from 0.5 to approximately 1 .1 weight percent, or greater, with an
overall average grade ol0.74 percent uranium (0.87 percent U.O.).
W.R. Grace and IUSA have determined that no listed hazardous wastes are contained within
this material.
a. Transportation Gonsiderations
NRC does not regulate the transportation of this material to the White Mesa Mill. These
shipments are regulated under the U.S. Department of Transportation, and associated state
regulations.
The material will be shipped by rail in intermodal containers and then transferred to truck for the
part of the trip to the mill. Material would be loaded onto railcars and transported cross-country
to the final rail destination, where they will be transferred to truck for the final leg of the trip to the
mill (expected to be either near Grand Junction, Colorado; Cisco, Utah; Green River, Utah; or
East Carbon, Utah). lt is expected that W.R. Grace may ship an average of 20-25 trucks per
day over the life of the project, for a period of approximately 1 2 to 18 months. The material will
be shipped as radioactive low specific activity (LSA) Hazard Class 7 Hazardous Material as
defined by Department of Transportation regulations. On an average during 1998 (latest report),
385 trucks per day traveled the stretch of State Road 191 between Monticello, Utah and
Blanding, Utah. Based on this information, an average of 100 additional trucks per week (W.R.
Grace material transport) represents an increased traffic load of 5 percent for approximately 12
to 18 months. According to the Utah Department of Transportation, total traffic through Moab,
Utah on a daily basis is 17,075 of which trucks make up approximately 4o/o or 683. Trucks
transporting the inter-modal containers for W.R. Grace material would be approximately 14 on
the average, which is approximately 2o/o of the total truck traffic or 0.08% of the total traffic.
c. Handlinq and Processinq at the Mill Site
The Uranium Material will be added to the mill circuit in a manner similar to conventional natural
ores that are processed. The material will either be dumped into the ore receiving hopper and
fed to the SAG mill, run through an existing trommel before being pumped to the Pulp Storage,
or may be fed directly to Pulp storage. The leaching process may begin in Pulp storage with the
addition of sulfuric acid.
Tailings produced by the processing of this material will be disposed of on-site in an existing
lined tailings impoundment (Cell 3). Depending upon the amount of material processed and the
length of time that material is shipped to the site, IUSA may have to build additional tailings
impoundments or utilize cell 4a, which is presently not being used. lf this is the case, a license
amendment will be necessary revise the reclamation plan and surety amount. As we note later
in this report, IUSA must comply with its existing license requirements that limit the amount of
tailings in Cell 3, and obtain whatever approvals are necessary for additional impoundments, if
they are needed.
IUSA will ensure safety of workers and the environment using already established procedures
and equipment in the radiation safety program for processing natural ores. The potential for
employee exposures from the handling and processing of this material is not expected to be any
more significant than that normally encountered with the milling of conventional uranium ores.
Mill employees involved in handling the materialwill be provided with personal protective
equipment (e.9., coveralls, rubber gloves), including respiratory protection, if necessary.
Airborne particulate and breathing zone sampling will be conducted in accordance with the
environmental monitoring program established by the licensee.
During the review of the submittals, a concern was raised regarding the need for special
handling procedures for high thorium content ore material. IUSA addressed this concern, by
letter dated December 18, 2000, by the addition of a Standard Operating Procedure entitled
"High Thorium Content Ore Management". Staff evaluated this procedure and deemed it
adequate to address the original concerns.
2. STAFF TECHNICAL EVALUATION
We have reviewed IUSA's request in accordance with NRC staff guidance "Final Position and
Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Material Other Than Natural Ores" (60 FR 49296;
September 22, 1995 and lnterim Guidance November 30, 2000), the Commission's
Memorandum and Order, lnternational Uranium (USA) Corp., CLI-00-01, 52 NRC 9 (Feb. 10,
2000), and 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A requirements. The staff guidance (referred to
hereinafter as the "Alternate Feed Guidance") requires that we make the following
determinations in our reviews of licensee requests to process material other than natural
uranium ores:
(a) Whether the feed material qualifies as "ore" as defined in the NRC guidance;
(b) Whether the feed material contains listed hazardous waste; and
(c) Whether the feed material is being processed primarily for its source-material
content. Note: This part has been eliminated in the interim guidance dated
November 30, 2000).
ln this evaluation, we discuss how IUSA has addressed each of these criteria in its application to
amend the license. We also discuss the other considerations that affect the granting of this
amendment.
ln the Commission Memorandum and Order of February 10, 2000, several decisions were made
which changed some aspects of the NRC staff Alternate Feed Guidance (NRC, 1996). The
following summarizes these changes:
1) The staff does not need to consider the quantity of uranium in its review, only that the
feed material (ore) is processed primarily for its source content and that radiation safety
is considered.
2) The staff does not need to consider financial motives involved in the receipt or
processing of alternate feed material, only health and safety issues. The "Certification
and Justification" test is not necessary.
3) The presence of listed hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) is necessary due to.
. Possible health and safety issues.
. The potential for undesirable, complex NRC-EPA "dual regulation" of the same
tailings impoundment.
. The potential for jeopardizing the ultimate transfer of the tailings pile to the U.S.
government, for perpetual care and maintenance.
Therefore, the staff has incorporated these changes into this review.
a. Determination of whether the feed material is "ore"
For the tailings and wastes from the proposed processing to qualify as 11e.(2) byproduct
material, the feed material must qualify as "ore." ln the Alternate Feed Guidance, we define
"ore" in part as:
"...any other matter from which source material is extracted in a licensed uranium
or thorium mill."
IUSA has proposed to use alternate feed materialfrom the W.R. Grace site that contains varying
concentrations of uranium, a "source material" as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
(AEA). IUSA, based on a review of material, states that the weighted average grade of uranium
for the W.R. Grace site is estimated to range from 0.5 to approximately 1.1 weight percent, or
greater, with an overall average grade of A.74 percent uranium (0.87 percent U.Ou). Because
IUSA is proposing in this amendment request to primarily extract uranium from this material at
their White Mesa uranium mill, we find that the proposed feed material qualifies as "ore" as
defined in our guidance.
b. Determination of whether the feed material contains hazardous waste
Under the Alternate Feed Guidance, we would not approve proposed feed material for
processing at a licensed mill that contains a listed hazardous waste as defined by subpart D of
RCRA.
IUSA has developed a hazardous waste protocol that has been accepted by the Utah
Department of Environmental Quality (UDEO) (letter dated December 7, 1999). This protocol
was used in IUSA's amendment request for the W.R. Grace alternate feed and found acceptable
by the NRC. Within the source investigation of this protocol, the following is one type of
information that would be considered satisfactory:
"Where the material is or has been generated from a known process under the control of
the generator. (a) an affidavit, certiflcate, profile record or similar document from the
Generator or Site Manager, to the effect, together with (b) a Material Safety Data Sheet
('MSDS') for the material, limited profile sampling, or a material composition determined
by the generator/operator based on a process material balance."
IUSA has provided an affidavit from the Operations and Technical Manager for W.R. Grace
Corporation at the company's Chattanooga facility, dated April 11, 2000, which states that "the
proposed alternate feed materials do not contain any of the listed wastes numerated in the U.S.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40 261, Subpart D, as amended by the U.S. Federal Register
August 6, 1998".
Envirocare of Utah has been receiving some of this material for disposal as Low Level
Radioactive Waste not containing hazardous waste. ln the IUSA submittal of April 12,2000, is a
Radioactive Waste Profile Record prepared by W.R. Grace for Envirocare of Utah which states
that there is no listed or characteristic hazardous waste. ln a phone conversation with State of
Tennessee Division of Radiological Health, they indicated that they were not aware of any
hazardous waste issues with this material. The NRC also contacted the UDEQ about this
material and they stated that they did not see a listed hazardous waste issue with this material.
IUSA had submitted a copy of this request to the UDEQ. Due to the material being shipped to
the White Mesa Mill for processing rather than direct disposal, NRC guidance does not require
approvalfrom the Low-LevelWaste Compacts. This material is not classified as Low-Level
Waste by the NRC for the purposes of processing at the mill.
Based on the above, we find that the material proposed in IUSA's April 12, 2000, license
amendment request and supplemental submittals, for processing W.R. Grace Site material at
the White Mesa mill will not contain a listed hazardous waste. Because this material is source
material, under a license from the State of Tennessee, as a result of processing of thorium and
rare earth minerals uranium ores, we also find that it meets the Alternate Feed Guidance
provision that it not be a residue from water treatment.
c. Determination of whether the feed material is being processed primarilv for
its source-materia! content
Using our Alternate Feed Guidance, a license must show that potential alternate feed material is
being processed primarily for its source-material content. ln the Commission Memorandum and
Order of February 10, 2000, the Commission stated. the staff does not need to consider the
quantity of uranium in its review, only whether the feed material (ore) is being processed
primarily for its source content and that radiation safety is considered.
The material has been classified as source material under a source material license by the State
of Tennessee Division of Radiological Health. Uranium content averages 0.74 percent by
weight. IUSA has provided a signed certification that the uranium-bearing material is being
processed primarily for the recovery of uranium and for no other primary purpose. The fact that
a licensee plans to process the proposed feed material is further evidence that the licensee is
primarily processing the feed material for its source material content, since processing the
material would not be necessary to dispose of the material in the impoundment.
d. Conclusions concerninq compliance with alternate feed material criteria
Based on the information provided by IUSA, the NRC staff finds that the W.R. Grace Site
material meets the criteria in the Alternate Feed Guidance, because (1) it qualifies as an "ore" as
defined by NRC guidance, (2) the material to be processed will not be or contain listed
hazardous wastes, and (3) it is being processed primarily for its source-material content.
e. Other Considerations
We have also considered other factors related to the granting of this amendment request. We
have concluded that the processing of this material will not result in (1) a significant change or
increase in the types or amounts of effluents that may be released offsite; (2) a significant
increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure; (3) a significant
construction impact; or (4) a significant increase in the potential for or consequences from
radiological accidents. We base this conclusion on the following:
Yellowcake produced from the processing of this material will not cause the
currently-approved yellowcake production limit of 4380 tons per year to be
exceeded. Yellowcake is the useful product of the mill and contains elevated
concentrations of uranium that are further refined in other plants and processes
to produce fuel for nuclear reactors, for example. ln addition, and as a result,
radiological doses to members of the public in the vicinity of the mill will not be
elevated above levels previously assessed and approved.
No modifications to the mill circuit design are necessary to process the W.R.
Grace Site material.
The licensee will dispose of the tailings produced by the processing of this
material on-site in an existing lined tailings impoundment (Cell 3), and if
processing of large amounts continues for an extended period of time, in
additional NRC approved tailings impoundments. The volume of tailings that
would be generated by processing the Uranium Material is comparable to the
volume that would be generated from processing an equivalent amount of ore
authorized under the license. The design of the existing impoundment, which
includes a leak detection system, has been previously approved by NRC, and
IUSA is required by its NRC license to conduct regular monitoring of the
impoundment liners and of the groundwater around the impoundments to detect
leakage if it should occur.
lf any additional tailings cells are needed, they will be approved by NRC and will
have similar monitoring. By license condition under this amendment, IUSA must
first determine if cell space exists prior to receiving W.R. Grace material. lf any
additional tailings cells are needed, they will be first approved by NRC under a
license amendment and will have similar monitoring. The licensee originally
proposed to build a six cell impoundment system which was addressed in the
Final Environmental Statement for the license application (NRC, 1979).
ln general, the W.R. Grace Site materialwill be similar in composition to the mill
tailings currently disposed of in the Cell 3 impoundment, because it will contain
metals and other chemicals which are present already in the tailings.
Furthermore, IUSA is required to conduct regular monitoring of the
impoundments to detect leakage if it should occur. Therefore, any environmental
impacts that could be associated with the disposal of the additional quantity of
W.R. Grace Site material from processing in the mill will not be larger than
impacts previously evaluated and determined to be acceptable for this mill.
NRC discussed with IUSA, on April 21,2000, a concern that due to the high
thorium content of the material, if the material was placed too close to the radon
cap, it could alter the design of the cap. The area of most concern in processing
the W.R. Grace material is the high concentration of Thorium-230. Thorium-23O
decays to radium-226, which decays lo radon-222, and would increase the radon
flux to the barrier if it is not placed in the lower part of the tailings pile, e.9., grater
1)
2)
3)
4)
than 3meters (10 feet) from the radon barrier. ln a letter dated April26, 2000, the
license indicated that the W.R. Grace materialwould be placed in the deepest
areas of Cell 3 and then covered with tailings materialwith less radioactivity.
Additionally, the licensee stated "Because the radon cap is required to meet
specific performance criteria, adjustments may be necessary, and can be made,
during the final design phase to ensure that adverse effects from areas in the Cell
are adequately addressed." The NRC staff concludes that if the W.R. Grace
material is placed at 3 meters (10 feet) or greater from the radon barrier the
licensee should be able to meet the 1000 year requirements for the radon flux in
10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria-6(4), of less then 20 picocuries per meter
square per second.
3. RECOMMENDED LICENSE CHANGE:
Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40, Materials License
SUA-1358 will be amended by the addition of License Condition No. 10.15 as follows:
10.15 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom the W.R. Grace
site located in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in accordance with statements, representations,
and commitments contained in the amendment request dated April 12, 2OOO, and as
amended and supplemented by submittals dated Apr\|24,2000, April 26,2000, May 5,
2000, November 16, 2000, and December 18, 2000.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the W.R. Grace site, the licensee must
make a determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced
from the processing of this material. This determination shall be made based on the
SERP approved standard operating procedure for determination of tailings capacity.
Design changes to the cells or the reclamation plan require the licensee to submit an
amendment request for NRC review and approval.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the W.R. Grace site, the licensee must
require that the generator of the material certify that the material does not contain listed
hazardous waste as defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) per a Radioactive Material Profile Record.
[Applicable Amendment: 17]
4. ENVTRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION
An environmental report covering the information identified in 10 CFR 51.45 was not required
from the licensee.
Because IUSA's receipt and processing of the materialwill not result in (1) a significant change
or increase in the types or amounts of effluents that may be released offsite; (2) a significant
increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure; (3) a significant
construction impact; or (4) a significant increase in the potential for or consequences from
radiological accidents, an environmental review was not performed since actions meeting these
criteria are categorically excluded under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11).
The issue of cell space availability was addressed under a previous licensing action by NRC
letter dated July 21, 2000, and the licensee now has an operation procedure in place for making
that determination. Environmental impacts associated with that action will be evaluated at that
time. However, the licensee originally proposed to build a six cell impoundment system which
was addressed in the Final Environmental Statement for the license application (NRC, 1979).
The mill has only utilized four cells, one of which (Cell 4a), is not currently in use. IUSA's current
proposal includes expansion into an existing cellfootprint.
Truck traffic through Moab, Utah was a concern on another alternate feed request (Heritage
Minerals). According to the Utah Department of Transportation, total traffic through Moab, Utah
on a daily basis is 17,075 of which trucks make up approximately 4o/o or 683 (UDOT, 2000).
Trucks transporting the inter-modal containers for W.R. Grace material would be approximately
14 on the average per day, which is approxim ately 2o/o of the total truck traffic or 0.08% of the
total traffic.
5.0 STATE CONSULTATION AND ENVIROCARE OF UTAH COMMENTS
The UDEQ was consulted on several occasions. Verbal comments from the UDEQ consisted of
issues with cell space and classification of the material. Staff addressed the cell space issue by
placing text in the license that requires IUSA to determine that adequate cell space exists prior
to this material being received at the mill. Secondly, IUSA has an operating procedure in place
for determination of tailings space availability per their November 16, 2000 letter. This issue
was addressed in a separate licensing action by NRC letter dated July 21, 2000. With regard to
the classification of the material, the NRC and the state of Tennessee classify this material as
source material since the material will be processed primarily for its uranium content at the
White Mesa mill. Since the materialwill be processed, and will not be directly disposed in the
tailings cells, approvalfrom the Low-LevelWaste Compact is not necessary.
The State of Tennessee was contacted on several occasions. The Project Manager for the site
indicated that he was not aware of any RCRA listed wastes in the material and confirmed that
the site was licensed under Source Material License S-3306-E9 by the state under an NRC
Agreement State license. No concerns were voiced by Tennessee in shipping this material to
the White Mesa mill for uranium processing. Tennessee stated that they need to have this
material shipped to a licensed facility such as the White Mesa mill and that this helps to achieve
their goal of remediating the site.
Envirocare of Utah submitted comments to the NRC by letter dated June 2, 2000. The
comments focused on the cell space issue. The staff addressed this issue as discussed above.
6.0 REFERENCES:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) "Final Position and Guidance on the Use of
Uranium Mill Feed Material Other Than Natural Ores" Federal Register, Volume 60, No. 184,
Pages 49296-49297. September 22, 1 995.
NRC. Commission Memorandum and Order, lnternational Uranium (USA) Corp., CLI-00-01, 52
NRC 9 (Feb. 10, 2000).
NRC "Final Environmental Statement" for the White Mesa Uranium Project, Energy Fuels
Nuclear, lnc. May, 1979.
Utah Department of Transportation. Phone conversation with Ms. Vicki Hanshew of the
Program Development Division with William von Till of NRC regarding traffic statistics on
Highway 191 and through Moab, Utah. December 20,2000.
. UNITED STATES
CLEAR REGULATORY COM
wASHtNGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
September 15, 2000
Ms. Michelle Rehmann, Environmental Manager
lnternational Uranium (IUSA) Corporation
lndependence Plaza, Suite 950
1 050 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80265
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT 16 TO MATER]ALS LICENSE SUA-I358 .. APPROVAL OF
FREEBOARD CALCULATION METHOD FOR CELL 3 AT THE WHITE MESA
URANIUM MILL
Dear Ms, Rehmann:
ln your letter dated October 13,1999, lnternational (IUSA) Uranium Corporation requested an
amendment to its Source Material License SUA-1358 to revise the freeboard computation
procedure for Cell 3 at the White Mesa Mill. Based on its review, the NRC staff has determined
that the proposed revision to the procedure is adequate. Enclosed is Source Material License
SUA-1358 and the Technical Evaluation Report. License Condition 10.3 previously read as
indicated below:
10.3 Freeboard limits for Cells 1-1, 3, and 44, and tonnage limits for Cell 3, shall be as
stated in Section 3.0 to Appendix E of the approved license application.
The amended license now reads as follows:
10.3 Freeboard limits for Cells 1-1, 3 and 4A, shall be set periodically in accordance
with the procedures set out in Section 3.0 to Appendix E of the approved license
application, including the October 13, 1999 revisions made to the January 10,
1990 Drainage Report. The freeboard limit for Cell 3 shall be recalculated
annually in accordance with the procedures set in the October 13, 1999 revision
to the Drainage Report.
o
NU
o
MISSION
SepLember 15, 2000 O
lf you have any questions regarding this letter or the enclosures, please contact William von
Till, the NRC Project Manager for the White Mesa mill, at [phone] . He can be reached
by e-mailat [e-mail]. ln accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice,"
a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the
NRC Public Document Floom or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of
NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,
a-r'..-&-8p\
Philip Ting, Chief k
Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch
Division of FuelCycle Safety
and.Safeguards
Otfice of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards
Docket No. 40-8681
SUA-I358, Amendment No. 16
Enclosure 1: Source Material License SUA-1358
Enclosure 2: Technical Evaluation Report
cc: W. Sinclair, UT
C.Crist, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe EPA
Terry Brown, US EPA Region Vlll
NRC FORM 374
(7-e4)O ,.r.NU.LEAR REGULAT.R' "orr,".,o* ! pnoe 1 or 10 paoEs
MATERIALS LICENSE
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-438), and Title 10, Code of
Federal Regulations, ChapterI, Parts 30,31,32,33,34,35,36,39,40, and 70, and in reliance on statements andrepresentations heretofore made
by the licensee, a license is hereby issued authorizing the licensee to receive, acquire, possess, and transfer byproduct, source, and special nuclear
material designated below; to use such material for the purpose(s) and at the place(s) designated below; to deliver or transfer such material to
persons authorized to receive it in accordance with the regulations of the applicable Part(s). This license shall be deemed to contain the conditions
specified in Section 183 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and is subject to all applicable rules, regulations, and orders of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission now or hereafter in effect and to any conditions specified below.
Licensee
lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation
[Applicable Amendments: 2]
6425 S. Highway 191
P.O. Box 809
Blanding, Utah 84511
[Applicable Amendments: 2]
3. License Number
SUA-1358, Amendment No. 16
4. Expiration Date March 31,2007
5. Docket or
Reference No.40-8681
6. Byproduct, Source, and/or
Special Nuclear Material
Natural Uranium
7. Chemical and/or Physical
Form
Any
8. Maximum Amount that Licensee
May Possess at Any One Time
.,,. Uld€r This License
:
Unlimited
SECT1oN9:AdministrativeConditiotrS....:9.1 The authorized place of use shall be the licensee's White Mesa uranium milling facility,
located in San Juan',County, Utah-. : , :
9.2 All written notices and reports to the NRC required under this ticense, with the exception of
incident and event notifications under 10 CFR 202202 and 10 CFR 40.60 requiring
telephone notification, shall be addiessed to the Chief, Uranium Recovery and Low-Level
Waste Branch, Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards.
lncident and event notifications that require telephone notification shall be made to the NRC
Operations Center at [phone].
9.3 The licensee shall conduct operations in accordance with statements, representations, and
conditions contained in the license renewal appliction submitted by letter dated August 23,
1991, as revised by submittals dated January 13, and April 7, 1992, November 22,1994,
July 27 , 1995, December 13, and December 31, 1996, and January 30, 1997, which are
hereby incorporated by reference, and for the Standby Trust Agreement, dated April 29,
1997, except where superseded by license conditions below.
Whenever the word "will" is used in the above referenced documents, it shall denote a
requirement.
[Applicable Amendment: 2]
9.4 A. The licensee may, without prior NRC approval, and subject to the conditions specified
in Part B of this condition:
Printed on recvcled oaoer
'NRC FORM 374A
(7-94)
SUA-1358, Amendment No.16
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
B.
(2)
(3)
c.
u.ucLEAR REGULATORY COMMTSSTON i
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
(1) Make changes in the facility or process, as presented in the application.
(2) Make changes in the procedures presented in the application.
(3) Conduct tests or experiments not presented in the application.
The licensee shall file an application for an amendment to the license, unless the
following conditions are satisfied.
(1)
D. The licensee shall maintain records of any changes made pursuant to this condition
until license termination. These recordg shall include written safety and environmental
evatuations, made by the SERP, that irovide the basis for determining changes are in
compliance with the requirements referred to in Part B of this condition. The licensee
shall furnish, in an annual report to NRC, a description of such changes, tests, or
experiments, including a summary of the safety and environmental evaluation of each.
ln addition, the licensee shall annually submit to the NRC changed pages to the
Operations Plan and Reclamation Plan of the approved license application to reflect
changes made under this condition.
The licensee's SERP shallfunction in accordance with the standard operating procedures
submitted by letter dated June 10, 1997.
[Applicable Amendments: 3]
10 pnces
.NRC FORM 3744
(7-94)U.U,CLEAR REGULATORY COMMTSSTON
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
9.5 The licensee shall maintain an NRC-approved financial surety arrangement, consistent with
10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10, adequate to cover the estimated costs, if
accomplished by a third party, for decommissioning and decontamination of the mill and mill
site, for reclamation of any tailings or waste disposal areas, ground-water restoration as
waranted and for the long-term surveillance fee. Within three months of NRC approval of a
revised reclamation/decommissioning plan, the licensee shall submit, for NRC review and
approval, a proposed revision to the financial surety arangement if estimated costs in the
newly approved plan exceed the amount covered in the existing financial surety. The
revised surety shall then be in effect within 3 months of written NRC approval.
. Annual updates to the surety amount required by 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and
10, shall be submitted to the NRe at'leaSt'3,i7ronths prior to the anniversary date which is
designated as June 4 ef each year. lf the NRC'haS,,not'approved a proposed revision to the
surety coverage 30 days prior to the expiration date of the existing surety arrangement, the
licensee shall extend the existing surety arrangement for 1 ye'br. Along with each proposed
revision or annual update, the licensee shall submit supporting documentation showing a
breakdown of the'costs and the basis for the cost estimates with.a$ustments for inflation,
maintenance ,of a minimum 15 percent contingency fee, changes, inpngineering plans,
activities performed and-any other conditions affectingestimated costs for site closure. The
basis for the cost estimate is th"e NRC approved r-eclambtibn/decommissioning plan or NRC
approved revisions to the'plan, The previously provi{gd guidance entitled "Recommended
Outline for Site Specific Reclamation and Stabilization Cost Estimates'l outlines the minimum
considerations used by the NRC in the revjew of 'siteiclosure estimates.
Reclamation/decommissioning'plans and annllal.updates should follow this outline.
The currently approved surety instrument, a Performance Bond issued by National Union
Fire lnsuranie Company in fivor 6f the NRC, and the associated Standby Trust Agreement,
dated April 29, 1997, shall be continuously maintained in an amount not less than
$10,064,794 for the purpose of complying with 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria g and 10,
until a replacement is authorized by the NRC.
[Applicable Amendments: 2, 3, 5, 13, 15]
Therefore, this office must receive an updated surety in this amount within 90 days of this letter.
9.6 Standard operating procedures shall be established and followed for all operational process
activities involving radioactive materials that are handled, processed, or stored. SOPs for
operational activities shall enumerate pertinent radiation safety practices to be followed.
Additionally, written procedures shall be established for non-operational activities to include
in-plant and environmental monitoring, bioassay analyses, and instrument calibrations. An
up-to-date copy of each written procedure shall be kept in the mill area to which it applies.
Allwritten procedures for both operational and non-operational activities shall be reviewed
and approved in writing by the radiation safety officer (RSO) before implementation and
whenever a change in procedure is proposed to ensure that proper radiation protection
principles are being applied. ln addition, the RSO shall perform a documented review of all
existing operating procedures at least annually.
lo rooEs
SUA-1358, Amendment No. 16
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
'NRC FORM 374A
(7-94)
9.7
U.UCLEAR REGULAToRY coMMrssroN
N4ATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Before engaging in any activity not previously assessed by the NRC, the licensee shall
administer a cultural resource inventory. All disturbances associated with the proposed
development will be completed in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (as
amended) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800), and the Archaeological
Resources Protection Act (as amended) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR 7).
ln order to ensure that no unapproved disturbance of cultural resources occurs, any work
resulting in the discovery of previously unknown cultural artifacts shall cease. The artifacts
shall be inventoried and evaluated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, and no disturbance
shall occur untilthe licensee has receiver9,eylf,oriation from the NRC to proceed.
The licensee shall avoid by projeit design, where feasible, the archeological sites
designated "contributing'lin the report submitted by letter dated July 28,1988. When it is
not feasible to avoid a:site designated "contributing" in ih'e report, the licensee shall institute
a data recovery program for that site based on the research design submitted by letter from
C. E. Baker of Energy Fuels Nuclear to Mr. Melvin T. Smith, Utah State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO), dated April 13, 1981.o:;l- :
License Nu
Docket or Reference Number
The licensee shall recover through archeological excavation all "contributing" sites listed in
the report which are located in orwithin 100 ieet of bonow areas, stockpileireas,
construction'areas, or the perimeter of the reclaimed tailings impoundment. Data recovery
9.8
Archeological contractors shall be approved in writing Uy tne tommission. The Commission
will approve an archeological contractor who meets the minimum standards for a principal
investigator set forth in 36 CFR Part 66, Appendix,C, and whose qualifications are found
acceptable by the SHPO.
The licensee is hereby authorized to possess byproduct material in the form of uranium
waste tailings and other uranium byproduct waste generated by the licensee's milling
operations authorized by this license. Mill tailings shall not be transferred from the site
without specific prior approval of the NRC in the form of a license amendment. The licensee
shall maintain a permanent record of all transfers made under the provisions of this
condition.
The licensee is hereby exempted from the requirements of Section 20.1902 (e) of 10 CFR
Parl20 for areas within the mill, provided that all entrances to the mill are conspicuously
posted in accordance with Section 20J902 (e) and with the words, "Any area within this mill
may contain radioactive material."
9.9
.NRC FORM 374A
(7-94)
9.10
SECTION
10.1
10.2
10.3
u.lcLEAR REGULAToRY coMMlsstoN
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
9.11
Release of equipment or packages from the restricted area shall be in accordance with
"Guidelines for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for
Unrestricted Use or Termination of Licenses for Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear
Material," dated May 1987, or suitable alternative procedures approved by the NRC prior to
any such release.
The final reclamation shall be in accordance with the May 1999, Reclamation Plan Revision
2.0, Attachment A submitted on June 22, 1999, and Revision 3.0 submitted on July 7 ,2OOO.
Prior to the placement of altemate feed material, the licensee shall determine that adequate
cell space is available for that additional material. This determination shall be made by a
sERp approved procedure. . , , i,.,, ;;..- ,, ,,
10: Operationa.l Controls, Limits, and Rbstrictions
,"i
The mill production'Aie shall not exceed 4380 tons of yeltowcakg per year.
All liquid efflue,lrts from mill process buildings, with the exception of sanitary wastes, shall be
returned to the mill circuit or discharged to the tailings impoundment.
Freeboard limits for Cells 1-t;"3, and 4A, shall be set periodically in accordance with the
procedures,set out in Section 3.0 to Appendix E of the approved license application,
including the October 13, 1999 revisions.made to the January 10, 1990 Drainage Report.
The freeboard limit for Cell 3 shall be recalculated annually iri accordance with the
procedures set in the October,13, 1!€9 revision to the Drainage Report.
[ApplicableAmendmenti,l6J ,,,,i,] ,l
1O.4 Disposal of material and equipment generated at the mill site shall be conducted as
described in the licensee's submittali dated December 12,1994 and May 23, 1995, with the
following addition: ,, ,' ,
)t:A. The maximum lift thickness for materials placed over tailings shall be less than 4-feet
thick. Subsequent lifts shall be less than 2-feet thick. Each lift shall be compacted by
tracking of heavy equipment, suc!'r. as a Cat D6, at least 4 times prior to placement ol
subsequent lifts.
10.5 ln accordance with the licensee's submittal dated May 20, 1993, the licensee is hereby
authorized to dispose of byproduct material generated at licensed in situ leach facilities,
subject to the following conditions:
A. Disposal of waste is limited to 5000 cubic yards from a single source.
B. All contaminated equipment shall be dismantled, crushed, or sectioned to minimize
void spaces. Barrels containing waste other than soil or sludges shall be emptied into
the disposal area and the barrels crushed. Banels containing soil or sludges shall be
verified to be full prior to disposal. Barrels not completely full shall be filled with
tailings or soil.
SUA-1358, Amendment No. 16
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
.NRC FORM 374A
(7-94)
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
10.10
10.11
1412
,''iL'1ili.and process source material; in accordance with the
1997.
" j :i-r:
',li
u.slucLEAR REGULATORy COMMtSStoN
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
C. Allwaste shall be buried in Cell No. 3 unless prior written approval is obtained from
the NRC for altemate burial locations.
D. All disposal activities shall be documented. The documentation shall include
descriptions of the waste and the disposal locations, as well as all actions required by
this condition. An annual summary of the amounts of waste disposed of from off-site
generators shall be sent to the NRC.
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materials from the Allied Signal
Corporation's Metropolis, lllinois, facility in aqcordpnce with the amendment request dated
June 15, 1993. i:*.r. ;. - i."r',j ui -a
The licensee is authoriieOto receive and process source materialfrom Allied Signal, lnc. of
Metropolis, lllinois,'in accordance with the amendment req0eSt'dated September 20, 1996,
and amended bylletters dated October 30, and November 11, 1996.'1'
The licensee is'authorized to receive
amendment request dated March 5,
t',. ' 1: li 'j'
[Applicable Amendments; 1] ,. ,
The licensee is authorized to'receive and process source materialfrom Cabot Performance
Materials'facility near Boyertown, Pennsyivania, in accordan." *itn tne amenOment request
dated April 3,,1997, as amended by submittals dated May. 19, and August 6, 1997.
[Appticable Amendments: 4]
The licensee is authori2ed to receive'and process source material from the Ashland 2
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, located near Tonawanda,
New York, in accordance with the amendment request dated May 8, 1998, as amended by
the submittals dated May 27 , June 3, and June 1 1 , 199p.. . .
[Applicable Amendment: 6] ' ,
':l i .,-
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from Cameco
Corporation's Blind River and Port Hope facilities, located in Ontario, Canada, in accordance
with the amendment request dated June 4, 1998, and by the submittals dated September
14, September 16, September 25, October 7, and October 8, 1998.
However, the licensee is not authorized to receive or process from these facilities, the
crushed carbon anodes identified in these submittals, either as a separate material or mixed
in with material already approved for receipt or processing.
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Ashland 1 and
Seaway Area D Formerly Utilized Sites RemedialAction Program (FUSRAP) site, located
near Tonowanda, New York, in accordance with statements, representations, and
commitments contained in the amendment request dated October 15, 1998, as amended by
Amendment No. 16
Docket or Reference Number
Drintcrl nn rerwclarl namr
'NRC FORM 374A
(7-941
10.14
SECTION
11.1
11.2
SUA-1358, Amendment No. 16
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
':.
The licensee is huthorized to receive and process source material from the Linde Formerly
Utilized Sites,Repedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, in ac,corqance with statements,
representations, and iomfnitments contained in the amendm''ent reqUest dated March 16,
2000, and as amended end supplemented by submittali."dated Apri| 26, 2000, May 15,
per a Radioactive Material Profile Record.
[Applicable Amendment: 14]
11: Monitoring, Recording, and Bookkeeping Requirements
The results of sampling, analyses, surveys and monitoring, the results of calibration of
equipment, reports on audits and inspections, all meetings and training courses required by
this license and any subsequent reviews, investigations, and corrective actions, shall be
documented. Unless othenryise specified in the NRC regulations all such documentation
shall be maintained for a period of at least five (5) years.
The licensee shall implement the effluent and environmental monitoring program specified in
Section 5.5 of the renewal application, as amended by the submittal dated June 8, 1995,
and as revised with the following modifications or additions:
A. Stack sampling shall include a determination of flow rate.
u.uCLEAR REGU LATORY COMMTSSTON
MATERIALS LICENSB
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
[Applicable Amendments: 13, 14]
letters dated November23, 1998, November24, 1998, December23, 1998, January 11,
1999, January 27,1999, and February 1, 1999.
[Applicable Amendment: 10]
10.13 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom the St. Louis
Formerly Utilized Sites RemedialAction Program (FUSRAP) site, in accordance with
statements, representations, and commitments contained in the amendment request dated
March 2, 1999, and as amended and supplemented by submittals dated June 21, 1999;
June 29, 1999 (2); and July 8, 1999. Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the St.
Louis FUSRAP site, the licensee mqst make a determination that adequate tailings space is
available for the tailings produced from the processing of this material. This determination
shall be made based fI e,SEne approved intemalprogedure.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the,,Linde'FUSRAP sitb, the licensee must
make a delermination that adeguate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from
the processin-g of this materiaf.'This determination shall be made based on a SERP
approved ihtemal procedure. Design changeslo the cells or the reclamation plan require
the licensee to submit an.amendment
1eOue.st1,9r
NRC. Fview and approval.
Prior to the license" ,"..*,nn mateiials from the Linde FUSRAP,site, the licensee must
require that the.generator of the material certify that the materialdoes not contain listed
hazardous waste as defined under the Resource eonservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
.NRC FORM 374A
(7-e4)
11.3
sl
A.
u.uCLEAR REGULATORY COMMTSSTON
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
B. Surface water samples shall also be analyzed semiannually for total and dissolved
U-nat, Ra-226, and Th-230, with the exception of the Westwater Creek, which shall be
sampled annually for water or sediments and analyzed as above. A sediment sample
shall not be taken in place of a water sample unless a water sample was not available.
C. Groundwater sampling shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements in
License Condition 1 1.3.
D. The licensee shall utilize lower limits of detection in accordance with Section 5 of
Regulatory Guide 4.14 (Revision 1), for analysis of effluent and environmentalsamples. .. .. ,,, i ,,,,,;..,,
E. The inspections performed semiannually of the critical orifice assembly committed to
in the submittal dated March 15, 1986, shall be documented. The critical orifice
assembly shall'be calibrated at least every 2 years against a positive displacement
Roots mefqr,!o obtain the required calibration curye. ,-,ii
.
[Applicable Amendment:
The licensee shall sample monitoring welF WMMW:S; -1 1,'-12, -14:;' -15, and -17, on
a quarterly basis. Samples shallbe,analyied forchloride, potassium;'nickel, and uranium,
and the results of such sampling shall be included with the environmental monitoring reports
submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 40.65.
ln addition, the licensee shall implement a monitoring ptogram of the leak detection systems for
the disposal cells as follows:
B. The licensee shall measure and record the "depth to fluid" in each of the tailings disposal
cell standpipes on a weekly basis. lf sufficient fluid is present in the leak detection system
(LDS) of any cell, the licensee shall pump fluid from the LDS, to the extent reasonably
possible, and record the volume of fluid recovered. Any fluid pumped from an LDS shall be
retumed to a disposal cell.
lf fluid is pumped from an LDS, the licensee shall calculate the flow rate by dividing the
recorded volume of fluid recovered by the elapsed time since fluid was last pumped or
increases in the LDS fluid levels were recorded, whichever is the more recent. The licensee
shall document the results of this calculation.
C. Upon the initial pumping of fluid from an LDS, the licensee shall collect a fluid sample and
analyze the fluid for pH and the parameters listed in paragraph A of this license condition.
The licensee shall determine whether the LDS fluid originated from the disposal cell by
ascertaining if the collected fluid contains elevated levels of the constituents listed in
paragraph A of this license condition or has a pH level less than 5.0. lf either elevated
10 pecEs
SUA-1358, Amendment No. 16
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
.NRC FORM 374A
(7-94)
11.4
11.5
D.
E.
u.uCLEAR REGULATORY COMMTSSTON
MMERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
constituent levels or a pH less than 5.0 is observed, the licensee shall assume that the
disposal cell is the origin of the fluid.
lf the LDS fluid is determined not to have originated from the disposal cell, the licensee shall
continue with weekly measurements of "depth to fluid" in the LDS standpipes. The licensee
shall confirm, on an annual basis, that fluid from the disposal cell has not entered the LDS
by collecting (to the extent possible) and analyzing an LDS fluid sample for the above stated
parameters.
Upon indication that the LDS fluids originated from the disposal cell, the licensee shall
determine the flow rate through the liner by the calculation method in paragraph B of this
license condition. lf the flow rate is equal to.or greater than one gallon per minute, the
licensee shall:
.. i -l ' .,:. .'1. Evaluate the cause of the liner distress and take appropriate and timely actions to
mitigate the.!gak and any consequent potential impacts;.r.'..
.2. Continue to measure and record LDS "depth to fluidl ,"".1i.rents weekly; and
3. Notify NRC by telephone'within 48 hours, in accordance with License Condition 9.2,
and submit a written report within 30 days of notitying NRC by telephone,
in accordance with License Condition 9.2i |he'written report shall include a
description of the mitigative action(s) taken an! a discussion of the mitigative action
results.
lf the calculated flow rate is less than one gallon per minute, the licensee shall continue with
weekly measurements of "depth to fluid'inthe LDS standpipes.
'' ... a
All sampling, analysis, and evaluation of LDS fluids shall be documented and retained onsite
until license termination for NRC inspection.
[Applicable Amendment 8]
Annually, the licensee shall collect, during mill operations, a set of air samples covering
eight hours of sampling, at a high collection flow rate (i.e., greater than or equal to 40 liters
per minute), in routinely or frequently occupied areas of the mill. These samples shall be
analyzed for gross alpha. ln addition, with each change in mill feed material or at least
annually, the licensee shall analyze the mill feed or production product for U-nat, Th-230,
Ra-226, and Pb-210 and use the analysis results to assess the fundamental constituent
composition of air sample particulates.
[Applicable Amendment: 7]
Calibration of in-plant air and radiation monitoring equipment shall be performed as
specified in the license renewal application, under Section 3.0 of the "Radiation Protection
Procedures Manual," with the exception that in-plant air sampling equipment shall be
calibrated at least quarterly and air sampling equipment checks shall be documented.
1o ,oc.s
SUA-1358, Amendment No. 16
Docket or Reference Number
40-8681
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT
AMENDMENT 16 TO SOURCE MATERIAL LICENSE SUA.1358
TO REVISE FREEBOARD CALCULATION PROCEDURE AT THE WHITE MESA MILL
DATE: August 13,2000
DOCKET NO.: 40-8681
SOURCE MATERIAL LICENSE NO.: SUA-1358
LICENSEE: lnternational Uranium (IUSA) Corporation
PROJECT MANAGER: William von Till
TECHNICAL REVIEWER: Jill S. Caverly
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS:
lnternational Uranium (IUSA) Corporation, by letter dated October 13,1999, requested an
amendment to its Source Material License to revise the freeboard computation procedure for
Cell 3 at the White Mesa Mill. Based on its review, the NRC staff has determined that theproposed revision to the procedure is adequate. The new procedure does not create additional
risk to the public health and safety or to the environment. Therefore, the staff recommends
Sources Material License SUA-1358 be amended to include the revised freeboard calculation.
DESCRIPTION OF LICENSEES REQUEST:
IUSA, by letter dated October 13,1999, requested an amendment to its source material license
to revise the freeboard limit calculation procedure and to adjust the freeboard amount at the
White Mesa Uranium Mill located in Blanding, Utah. The request describes the current method
of calculation and provides an explanation and example of the new procedure. The licensee
states that the revision to the procedure includes the next 12 months of mill throughput, plus a
factor of safety, in lieu of the existing assumption of maximum tonnage for the following 12
months. The licensee further describes the high degree of conservativism that is included in
the revised procedure.
TECHNICAL EVALUATION:
The proposed method for determining the freeboard for Cell 3 uses several assumptions to
determine a value of freeboard. A detailed discussion of the revised procedure and the
assumptions upon which it is based, are presented below. The staff, based on its review of
IUSA's request, concludes that the amendment request is sufficiently conservative.
Accordingly, IUSA's amendment request is approved.
Endosure
The original design of the tailings impoundment at the White Mesa Mill includes four cells
working in conjunction to contain the water volume produced by the Probable Maximum
Precipitation (PMP), as well as the tailings discharge from the mill. The dual function of the
cells subsequently effects the available storage volume for the Probable Maximum Flood
(PMF).
Presently, not all cells have extra capacity to accommodate the PMF. Cell 2 is essentially full
and has no available storage, due to the placement of tailings. Cell 1-l is assumed to be
operated at maximum capacity and has no available storage capacity for the PMF. Therefore,
Cell 3 is required to store the entire volume of runoff resulting from the PMP. License
Condition 10.3 requires that when the volume of tailings placed after Octob er 23, 1989 reaches
600,000 tons, Cell 3 freeboard will be re-evaluated.
The procedure for evaluating the freeboard limits was presented in a January 1990 submittal
and was approved by the NRC staff. This submittal presented the basis and calculation for the
PMP storm event and the wind wave run-up factor used to calculate the freeboard limit. The
proposed license change will modify the current procedure, except for the PMF volume and the
wave run-up height, since the values were previously approved.
The previous procedure for determining the freeboard for Cell 3 is based on the assumption
that the volume of additional tailings in the cell is directly proportional to the surface area
reduction. The basis for this assumption was determined during a period of time in 1988 when
a known quantity of dry tailings was added to the cell. The surface area reduction after the
addition of the tailings was used to determine the tons of tailings required to reduce pool size by
one acre, or 39,146 dry tons per acre. Using this relationship and the maximum amount of
tailings that could be discharged in a one-year time period, with the mill running al93o/"
availability, is 678,900 dry tons. The maximum tonnage divided by the number of tons required
to reduce pool size by one acre, yields the maximum expected pool area reduction, or 17.3
acres. ln simple terms, if the mill is working to capacity, it can be anticipated that the surface
area of the pool will be reduced by 17.3 acres per year.
Once determined, the expected pool surface area can then be divided by the required volume
for PMF storage, or 123.4 acre-ft, yielding the minimum freeboard, or height, required for flood
storage. ln addition to the flood freeboard, the wave run-up is included for the final freeboard.
The totalfreeboard requirement is the sum of the PMF freeboard requirement and the wave
run-up value. The final available storage elevation will be the top of embankment elevation
minus the total required freeboard.
This amendment request proposes that the initial calculation to determine the surface area
reduction (i.e. 17.3 acres per year) due to the addition of the tailings be re-calculated so that the
freeboard is dependent on a more realistic value of the volume reduction from the tailings for
the upcoming year. ln other words, the revised procedure presented in the amendment
request, revises the estimate of the mill throughput using an estimate based on the current
production of the mill and a factor of safety of 50 percent in lieu of the existing assumption of
maximum tonnage for the upcoming year.
Due to the conservative nature of the revised procedure, the staff has no objections to the
revision of freeboard based on a more realistic estimate of mill production. The amendment
request states that the procedure will be used yearly to recalculate the Cell 3 freeboard unless
-3-
the actual mill production approaches 2/3 of the Maximum Annual Mill Production. After mill
production reaches this value, the procedure for determining freeboard will be re-evaluated.
RECOMMENDED LICENSE CHANGE:
License Condition 10.3 previously read as follows:
10.3 Freeboard limits for Cells 1-1, 3, and 4A, and tonnage limits for Cell 3, shall be as
stated in Section 3.0 to Appendix E of the approved license application.
With this approval, License Condition 10.3 now reads as follows:
10.3 Freeboard limits for Cells 1-1, 3 and 44, shall be set periodically in accordance
with the procedures set out in Section 3.0 to Appendix E of the approved license
application, including the October 13, 1 999 revisions made to the January 10,
1990 Drainage Report. The freeboard limit for Cell 3 shall be recalculated
annually in accordance with the procedures set in the October 13, 1999 revision
to the Drainage Report.
ENVIRONM ENTAL IM PACT EVALUATION:
An environmental assessment for this action is not required, since this action is categorically
excluded under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3)(i), and an environmental report from the licensee is not
required under 10 CFR 51.60(bX2).
REFERENGES:
lnternational (IUSA) Uranium Corporation, 1999: Letter from Michelle Rehmann (IUSA) to John
Surmeier (NRC), dated October 13, 1999, Request for Amendment of SUA-1358; Revised
Freeboard Limit Calculation Procedure and Adjustment of Freeboard Amount - White Mesa
Uranium Mill.
UNITED STATES
CLEAR REGULATORY COMM
WASHTNGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
July 21, 2000
Ms. Michelle Rehmann, Environmental Manager
lnternational Uranium (IUSA) Corporation
lndependence Plaza, Suite 950
1 050 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80265
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT 15 TO MATERIALS LICENSE SUA-1358 -- APPROVAL OF
REVISION TO RECLAMATION PLAN AT THE WH]TE MESA URANIUM MILL
Dear Ms. Rehmann:
ln IUSA's letter dated May 5, 2OOO, IUSA requested that the NRC approve a modification to th6
reclamation plan in order to allow for additional cell space. Subsequently, IUSA and NRC staff
helcl several telephone conference calls to discuss the need for IUSA to submit additional detail.
IUSA provided this detail by letter dated July 7,2000. Based on IUSA's Tailings Capacity Study
conducted in May 2000, IUSA identified a 200,000 cubic yards (CY) shortfall in existing storage
capacity in the Tailings Management System, assuming that reclamation materials and
processed materials were disposed in Cell 2 or Cell 3. IUSA has proposed to handle additional
volume by the addition of space within the Cell 1-l impoundment area. This alternative would
allow for the placement of approximately 280,000 CY of material from the mill site cleanup
along the north slope of the Cell 2 dike, within a portion of the current Cell 1 -1. Cell 1 -l Tailings
Area will be lined with a minimum of 12 inches and up to 18 inches of compacted clay. IUSA
has determined that the placement of these materials in the Cell 1-l Tailings Area will effectively
create an extension of the Cell2 disposal area. There would be no greater radiological content,
and thus the radon cap design would remain the same. With this revision to the reclamation
plan, IUSA has estimated the surety amount at $10,064,794, which is an increase from the
current surety amount of $9,682,467.
The staff has determined that your proposal is acceptable, and has amended your license
accordingly. We have enclosed the amended license (enclosure 1) and our Technical
Evaluation Report (enclosure 2) that provides our bases for granting the amendment. The staff
evaluation used the "Standard Review Plan for the Reclamation for Mitl Tailings Sites Under
Title ll of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation ControlAct" (NUREG-1620, NRC June 2000) and
requirements under 10 CFR Part 40 to review your proposal. Further, the staff determined that
this expansion meets the requirements for a categorical exclusion under 10 CFR 51 .22 (cX1 1)
and, therefore, no environmental assessment has been prepared. ln addition, the staff has
approved your proposed revision to the financial surety arrangement, increasing the current
amount to $10,064,794. Therefore, we have revised License Condition 9.11 as follows:
9.1 1 : The final reclamation shall be in accordance with the May 1999, Reclamation Plan
Revision 2.0, Attachment A submitted on June 22,1999, and Revision 3.0 submitted on
July 7,2000, and July 17,2O0O. Prior to the placement of alternate feed material, the
licensee shall determine that adequate cell space is available for that additional material.
This determination shall be made by a SERP approved procedure.
o
NU
o
ISSION
[Applicable Amendments 13, 15]
July 21, 2000
2
We have revised License Condition 9.5 as follows:
9.5 The licensee shall maintain an NRC-approved financial surety arrangement,
consistent with 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10, adequate to cover the
estimated costs, if accomplished by a third party, for decommissioning and
decontamination of the mill and mill site, for reclamation of any tailings or waste
disposal areas, ground-water restoration as warranted and for the long-term
surveillance fee. Within three months of NRC approval of a revised
reclamation/decommissioning plan, the licensee shall submit, for NRC review
and approval, a proposed revision to the financial surety arrangement if
estimated costs in the newly approved plan exceed the amount covered in the
existing financial surety. The revised surety shall then be in effect within
3 months of written NRC approval.
Annual updates to the surety amount, required by 10 CFR 40, Appendix A,
Criteria 9 and 10, shall be submitted to the NRC at least 3 months prior to the
anniversary date which is designated as June 4 of each year. lf the NRC has not
approved a proposed revision to the surety coverage 30 days prior to the
expiration date of the existing surety arrangement, the licensee shall extend the
existing surety arrangement for 1 year. Along with each proposed revision or
annual update, the licensee shall submit supporting documentation showing a
breakdown of the costs and the basis for the cost estimates with adjustments for
inflation, maintenance of a minimum 15 percent contingency fee, changes in
engineering plans, activities performed and any other conditions affecting
estimated costs for site closure. The basis for the cost estimate is the NRC
approved reclamation/decommissioning plan or NRC approved revisions to the
plan. The previously provided guidance entitled "Recommended Outline for Site
Specific Reclamation and Stabilization Cost Estimates" outlines the minimum
considerations used by the NRC in the review of site closure estimates.
Reclamation/decommissioning plans and annual updates should follow this
outline.
The currently approved surety instrument, a Performance Bond issued by
National Union Fire lnsurance Company in favor of the NRC, and the associated
Standby Trust Agreement, dated April 29, 1997, shall be continuously
maintained in an amount not less than $10,064,794 for the purpose of complying
with 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10, until a replacement is authorized
by the NRc.
[Applicable Amendments: 2, 3, 5, 13, 15]
Therefore, this office must receive an updated surety in this amount within 90 days of this letter.
July 21, 2000
3
lf you have any questions regarding this letter or the enclosures, please contact William von
Ti[], the NRC Project Manager for the White Mesa mill, at [phone] . He can be reached
by e-mail to [e-mail].
Sincerely, -"-> iq^ffi-,"),",{
Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch
Division of FuelCycle SafetY
and Safeguards
Office of Nuclear Material SafetY
and Safeguards
Docket No. 40-8681
SUA-1358, Amendment No. 15
Enclosure 1: Source Material License SUA-1358
Enclosure 2: Technical Evaluation Report
cc: W. Sinclair, UT
C.Crist, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe EPA
Terry Brown, US EPA Region Vlll
PAGElOF9PAGESNRC FORM 374
(7-94\U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 195,1. as amended, the Fnergy Reorganization Act of 197;l (Public Law 93-438). and Title 10, Code of
Federal Regulations, Chapter I, Parts 30, 31, 32, 33,34. 35. 36. 39.40, and 70, ancl in reliance on statements and representations heretofore made
by the licensee, a Iicense is hereby issued authorizing the licensee to receive, accluire. possess. and transf'er byproduct. source. and special nuclear
material designated below; to use such material for the purpose(s) and at the place(s) designated below: to deliver or transfer such material to
persons authorized to receive it in accordance with the regulations ofthe applicable Part(s). This license shall be deemed to contain the conditions
specifiedinSection lS3oftheAtonricEnergyActofl954,asamended.andissubjecttoallapplicablerules.regulations,andordersofthe
Nuclear Regulatory Commission now or hereatier in etfect and to any conditions specified below.
SUA-1358, Amendment No. 15
4. Expiration Date March 31,2OOT
Natural Uranium Any
8. Maximum Amount that Licensee
May Possess at Any One Time
Under This License
Unlimited
SECTIoN e: Administrative Conditions
9.1 The authorized place of use shall be the licensee's White Mesa uranium milling facility,
located in San Juan County, Utah.
9.2 All written notices and reports to the NRC required under this license, with the exception of
incident and event notifications under 10 CFR 2O.22O2 and 10 CFR 40.60 requiring
telephone notification, shall be addressed to the Chief, Uranium Recovery and Low-Level
Waste Branch, Division of Waste Management, Otfice of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards.
lncident and event notifications that require telephone notification shall be made to the NRC
Operations Center at [phone].
9.3 The licensee shall conduct operations in accordance with statements, representations, and
conditions contained in the license renewal application submitted by letter dated August 23,
1991, as revised by submittals dated January 13, and April 7, 1992, November 22,1994,
July 27,1995, December 13, and December 31, 1996, and January 30, 1997, which are
hereby incorporated by reference, and for the Standby Trust Agreement, dated April 29,
1997, except where superseded by license conditions below.
Whenever the word "will" is used in the above referenced documents, it shall denote a
requirement.
[Applicable Amendment: 2]
9.4 A. The licensee may, without prior NRC approval, and subject to the conditions specified
in Part B of this condition:
Licensee
lntemational Uranium (USA) Corporation
[Applicable Amendments: 2]
6425 S. Highway 191
P.O. Box 809
Blanding, Utah 84511
[Applicable Amendments: 2]
3. License Number
5. Docket or
Reference No.40-8681
6. Byproduct, Source, and/or
Special Nuclear Material
7. Chemical and/or Physical
Form
NRC FORM 374A
(7-94)
REGULATORY COMMISSION
License Number
SUA-1358. Amendment No. 1
Docket or Reference NumberMATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
(1) Make changes in the facility or process, as presented in the application.
(2) Make changes in the procedures presented in the application.
(3) Conduct tests or experiments not presented in the application.
B. The licensee shallfile an application for an amendment to the license, unless the
following conditions are satisfied.
(1) The change, test, or experiment does not conflict with any requirement
specifically stated in thie licens* orimpair the licensee's ability to meet all
applicable NRC regrddions.
(2) There is no, Oegradation in the essential safety or environmental commitments in
the license app-lication, or provided by the apiroved reclamation plan.
(3) The change, test, or experiment is consistent with the conclusions of actions
analyzed and selected in the EA dated February 1997.
C. The licensee's determlnations concerning Part B of this condition, shall be made by a
"Safety and EnvironmentalReview Panel (SERP).' The SERP shall consist of a
minimum of three individuals. One member,rof the SERP shall have expertise in
maRagement and shall be responsible for managerial and financial approval changes;
one member shall have expertise in opemtion$ and/or construction and shall have
responsibility for implementing any operational changes; and, one member shall be
the corporate radiation safaty,officer (CRSO) or equivalent, with the responsibility of
assuring changes conform to radiatbn safety and environmental requirements.
Additional members may be included in the SERP as appropriate, to address technical
aspects such as health physics, groundwater hydrology, sudace-water hydrology,
specific earth sciences, and other technical disciplines. Temporary members or
permanent members, other than the three above-specified individuals, may be
consultants.
D. The licensee shall maintain records of any changes made pursuant to this condition
until license termination. These records shall include written safety and environmental
evaluations, made by the SERP, that provide the basis for determining changes are in
compliance with the requirements referred to in Part B of this condition. The licensee
shal! fumish, in an annual report to NRC, a description of such changes, tests, or
experiments, including a summary of the safety and environmental evaluation of each.
ln addition, the licensee shal! annually submit to the NRC changed pages to the
Operations Plan and Reclamation Plan of the approved license application to reflect
changes made under this condition.
The licensee's SERP shall function in accordance with the standard operating procedures
submitted by letter dated June 10, 1997.
[Applicable Amendments: 3]
NRC FORM 374A
(7-94)
U.S. I{T,EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PAGE 3 OF 9 PAGES
15
License Number
SUA-1358, Amendment No.
Docket or Refurcnce NumberMATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
9.5 The licensee shall maintain an NRC-approved financial surety arangement, consistent with
10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10, adequate to cover the estimated costs, if
accomplished by a third party, for decommissioning and decontamination of the mill and mill
site, for reclamation of any tailings or waste disposal areas, ground-water restoration as
warranted and for the long-term surveillance fee. Within three months of NRC approval of a
revised reclamatiorVdecommissioning plan, the licensee shall submit, for NRC review and
approval, a proposed revision to the financial surety arangement if estimated costs in the
newly approved plan exceed the amount covered in the existing financial surety. The
revised surety shall then be in effect within 3 months of written NRC approval.
Annual updates to the surety amount, r$Srqgq.by 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and
10, shall be submitted to the NRC at basi3 rnonths prior to the anniversary date which is
designated as June 4 of eaefr year. tf the NRC has,not approved a proposed revision to the
surety coverage 3O,days prior to the expiration date of the:existing surety anangement, the
licensee shall extend the existing surety arangement for 1 year. Along with each proposed
revision or annuat,update, the licensee shall submit supporting documentation showing a
breakdown of the costs and the basis for the cost estimates with adjustments for inflation,
maintenance of a minimum 15 percent contingency fee, changes in-engineering plans,
activities perf.ormed and any other conditions affecting'estimated costs for site closure. The
basis for the cost estimatE is the NRC approved redamation/decommissioning plan or NRC
approved revisions to the plan. The prcviously provided guidance entitled "Recommended
Outline for Site Specific Reclamation and Stabilization Cost Estimates" outlines the minimum
considerations used by the NRC in the review of site closure estimates.
Reclamation/decommissioning plans and annualupdates should follow this outline.
The cunently approved surety instrument, a Performance Bond issued by National Union
Fire lnsurance Company in favor of the NRC, and the associated Standby Trust Agreement,
dated April 29, 1997, shall be continuously maintained in an amount not less than
$10,064,794 for the purpose of complying with 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10,
until a replacement is authorized by the NRC.
[Applicable Amendments: 2, 3, 5, 13, 151
Therefore, this office must receive an updated surety in this amount within 90 days of this letter.
9.6 Standard operating procedures shatt be established and followed for all operationat process
activities involving radioactive materials that are handled, processed, or stored. SOPs for
operational activities shall enumerate pertinent radiation safety practices to be followed.
Additionally, written procedures shall be established for non-operational activities to include
in-plant and environmental monitoring, bioassay analyses, and instrument calibrations. An
up-to-date copy of each written procedure shall be kept in the mitl area to which it applies.
Allwritten procedures for both operational and non-operational activities shall be reviewed
and approved in writing by the radiation safety otficer (RSO) before implementation and
whenever a change in procedure is proposed to ensure that proper radiation protection
principles are being applied. ln addition, the RSO shall perform a documented review of all
existing operating procedures at least annually.
NRC FORM 374A
(7-94)
REGULATORY COMMISSlON
License Number
Docket or Reference NumberMATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
9.7 Before engaging in any activity not previously assessed by the NRC, the licensee shall
administer a cultural resource inventory. Al! disturbances associated with the proposed
development will be completed in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (as
amended) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800), and the Archaeological
Resources Protection Act (as amended) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR 7).
ln order to ensure that no unapproved disturbance of cultural resources occurs, any work
resulting in the discovery of previously unknown cultural artifacts shatl cease. The artifacts
shall be inventoried and evaluated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, and no disturbance
shall occur untilthe licensee has received authorization from the NRC to proceed.
The licensee shall avoid by,proiect design, wherc hasible, the archeologicat sites
designated "contributing" in the report submitted by letter dated July 28, 1988. When it is
not feasible to avoid a site designated "contributing" in the report, the licensee shall institute
a data recovery program for that site based on the research design submitted by letter from
C. E. Baker of Energy Fuels Nuclear to Mr. Melvin T. Smith, Utah State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO), dated April 13, 1981.
The licensre,,shatt recover through archeological excavation alt "contributing" sites listed in
the report which are located in or within 100 feet of bonow areas, stockpile areas,
construction areas, or the perimeter of the reclaimed tailings impoundment. Data recovery
fieldwork at,each site meeting these criteria shall be completed prior to the start of any
project related disturbance within 100 feet of the site, but analysis and report preparation
need not be complete.
Additionally, the licensee shall conduct such testing as is required to enable the Commission
to determine if those sites designated as oUndetermined* in the report and located within
100 feet of present or known future mnstruction areas are of such significance to warrant
their redesignation as "contributing." ln all cases, such testing shall be completed before any
aspect of the undertaking affects a site.
Archeological contractors shall be approved in writing by the Commission. The Commission
will approve an archeological contractor who meets the minimum standards for a principal
investigator set forth in 36 CFR Part 66, Appendix C, and whose quatifications are found
acceptable by the SHPO.
The licensee is hereby authorized to possess byproduct material in the form of uranium
waste tailings and other uranium byproduct waste generated by the licensee's milling
operations authorized by this license. Mill tailings shall not be transfened from the site
without specific prior approval of the NRC in the form of a license amendment. The licensee
shall maintain a permanent record of all transfers made under the provisions of this
condition.
The licensee is hereby exempted from the requirements of Section 20.1902 (e) of 10 CFR
Part 20 for areas within the mil!, provided that all entrances to the mill are conspicuously
posted in accordance with Section 20.1902 (e) and with the words, "Any area within this mill
may contain radioactive material."
9.8
9.9
NRC FORM 374A
(7-941
9.10
9.11
SECTION
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
U.S.-LEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PAGE5OFqPAGES
1358. Amendment No. 15
License Number
Docket or Reference Number
Release of equipnnent or packages from the restricted area shall be in accordance with
"Guidelines for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for
Unrestricted Use or Termination of Licenses for Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear
Material," dated May 1987, or suitable altemative procedures approved by the NRC prior to
any such release.
The final reclamation shall be in accordance with the May 1999, Reclamation Plan Revision
2.0, Attachment A submitted on June 22, 1999, and Revision 3.0 submitted on July 7, 2O0O
and July 17,2000. Prior to the placement of altemate feed material, the licensee shall
determine that adequate ce!! space is available for that additional material. This
determination shall be made by ? SRP apprgved procedure.
[Applicabte Amendments 1.3,'1'51
10: Operational. Controls, Limits, and Restrictions
The mill production rate shal! not exceed 4380 tons of yellowcake per year.
All liquid effluents from mill process buildings, with the exception of sanitary wastes, shall be
returned to the mill circuit or discharged to the tailings impoundment.
Freeboard limits for Cells 1-1, 3, and 4A, and tortnage limits for Cell 3, shall be as stated in
Section 3.0 to Appendix E of the approved license application.
Disposal of material and equipment generated at the mill site shall be con(ucted as
described in the licensee's submittali dated December 12,1994 and May 23, 1995, with the
following addition:
A. The maximum lift thickness for materials placed over tailings shall be less than 4-feet
thick. Subsequent lifts shall be less than 2-feet thick. Each lift shall be compacted by
tracking of heavy equipment, such as a Cat D-6, at least 4 times prior to placement of
subsequent lifts.
ln accordance with the licensee's submittal dated May 20, 1993, the licensee is hereby
authorized to dispose of byproduct material generated at licensed in situ leach facilities,
subject to the following conditions:
A. Disposal of waste is limited to 5000 cubic yards from a single source.
B. All contaminated equipment shall be dismantled, crushed, or sectioned to minimize
void spaces. Banels containing waste other than soil or sludges shall be emptied into
the disposal area and the barels crushed. Barrels containing soil or sludges shall be
verifled to be full prior to disposa!. Barrels not completely full shall be filled with
tailings or soil.
C. All waste shall be buried in Cell No. 3 unless prior written approval is obtained from
the NRC for altemate burial locations.
NRC FORM 374A
(7-94)
u.s.REGULATORY COMMISSION OF
License Number
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Docket or Refe?enc€ Number
106
this condition. An annual summary of the amounts of waste disposed of from off-site
generators shall be sent to the NRC.
The licensee is authorized to receive and prooess source materials from the Allied Signal
Corporation's Metropolis, lllinois, facility in accordance with the amendment request dated
June 15, 1993.
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom Allied Signal, lnc. of
Metropolis, lllinois, in accordance with the amendment request dated September 20, 1996,
and amended by letters dated Oct1ber30, a1l November 11, 1996.
The licensee is authorized b.rg6ei9diand procds gource material, in accordance with the
amendment request &ted Ntarch 5, 1997.
ri
[Applicable Amendments: 1]'--' 'J
l
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materiatfrom Cabot Performance
Materials'facitip near Boyertown, Pennsylvania, in accordance with the amendment request
dated April S, 1997, as amended by submittals dated illay 19, and August 6, 1997.
[Applicable Amendments: 4l ,'
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom the Ashland 2
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Prograrn (FUSRAP) site, located near Tonawanda,
New York, in accordance with the amendment rcquest dated May 8, 1998, as amended by
the submittals dated May 27 , June 3, and June 1 1 , 1998.
[Applicable Amendment: 6]
The ticensee is authorized to receive and process source material from Cameco
Corporation's Blind River and Port Hope facilities, Iocated in Ontario, Canada, in accordance
with the amendment request dated June 4, 1998, and by the submittals dated September
14, September 16, September 25, October 7, andOctober 8, 1998.
However, the licensee is not authorized to receive or process from these facilities, the
crushed carbon anodes identified in these submittals, either as a separate material or mixed
in with material already approved for receipt or processing.
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Ashland 1 and
Seaway Area D Formerly Utilized Sites RemedialAction Program (FUSRAP) site, located
near Tonowanda, New York, in accordance with statements, representations, and
commitments contained in the amendment request dated October 15, 1998, as amended by
letters dated November23, 1998, November24, 1998, December23, 1998, January 11,
1999, January 27, 1999, and February 1, 1999.
[Applicable Amendment 10]
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom the St. Louis
Formerly Utilized Sites RemedialAction Program (FUSRAP) site, in accordance with
14.7
10.8
10.9
10.10
10.11
10 12
10.13
NRC FORM 374A
(7-94)
SECTION
11.1
11.2
REGULATORY COMMISSION
License Number
Docket or Reference NumberMATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
statements, representations, and commitments contained in the amendment request dated
March 2, 1999, and as amended and supplemented by submittals dated June 21, 1999;
June 29, 1999 (2); and July 8, 1999. Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the St.
Louis FUSMP site, the licensee must make a determination that adequate tailings space is
available for the tailings produced from the processing of this material. This determination
shall be made based on a SERP approved intemalprocedure.
[Applicable Amendments: 13, 14]
10.14 The licensee is authorized to reoeive and process source materialfrom the Linde Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedia! Action Prog*am:
representations, and commitnontgthntt
Utilized Sites RemedialAction Prognam {EI}SRAP) site, in accordance with statements,
representations, and commitnontgeontaihed in$e amendment request dated March 16,
2000, and as amended and,supplemented by subrnittals dated April26, 2000, May 15,
2000, June 16, 2000;June 19, 2000, June 23, 2000. ,.t
Prior to the ticen$ee'receiving materials from the Linde FUSRAF site, the licensee must
make a determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from
the processingof this material. This determination shall be made based on a SERP
approved intemal procedure. Design changes to the,cefis;or the reclamation plan require
the licensee to submit an amendment request for l.lRC review and approval.
Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Unde FUSRAP site, the licensee must
require that the generator of the material certify that the material does not contain listed
hazardous waste as defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
per a Radioactive Material Profile Record.
[Applicable Amendment 14]
11 Monitoring, Recording, and Bookkeeping Requirements
The results of sampling, analyses, surveys and monitoring, the results of calibration of
equipment, reports on audits and inspections, all meetings and training courses required by
this license and any subsequent reviews, investigations, and conective actions, shall be
documented. Unless otherwise specified in the NRC regulations all such documentation
shall be maintained for a period of at least five (5) years.
The licensee shall implement the etfluent and environmental monitoring program specified in
Section 5.5 of the renewal application, as amended by the submittal dated June 8, 1995,
and as revised with the following modifications or additions:
A. Stack sampling shal! include a determination of flow rate.
B. Surface water samples shall also be analyzed semiannually for total and dissolved
U-nat, Ra-226, and Th-230, with the exception of the Westwater Creek, which shall be
sampled annually for water or sediments and analyzed as above. A sediment sample
shall not be taken in place of a water sample unless a water sample was not available.
NRC FORM 3744
(7-94)
113
REGULATORY COMMISSION
License Number
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Docket or Referenee
C. Groundwater sampling shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements in
License Condition 1 1.3.
D. The licensee shall utilize lower limits of detection in accordance with Section 5 of
Regulatory Guide 4.14 (Revision 1), for analysis of effluent and environmental
samples.
E. The inspections performed semiannually of the critical orifice assembly committed to
in the submittaldated March 15, 1986, shall be documented. The criticalorifice
assembly shall be calibrated at least every 2 years against a positive displacement
Roots meter to obtain th_?1lelll{reC ca$brdion curye.
[Applicable Amendment:'51 .,I
The ticensee shall'implement a groundwater detection monitoripg program to ensure
compliance to 1O CFR Part 40, Appendix A. The detection mo-nltoring program shall be in
accordance with the report entitled, "Points of Compliance, White Mesa Uranium Mill,"
submitted by'letter dated October 5, 1994, and the following:
A. The licensee shall sample monitoring wells WM[vfuV.5; -71, -12, -14, -15, and -17, on
a quarterly basis. Samples shall be analyzed for cfilonide, potassiurn, nickel, and uranium,
and the results of such sampling shall be included with the environmental monitoring reports
submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 40.65.
ln addition, the Iiensee shall implement a monitoring program of the leak detection systems for
the disposal cells as follows:
B. The licensee shall measure and record the .depth to fluid" in each of the tailings disposal
cell standpipes on a weekly basis. lf sufficient fluid is present in the leak detection system
(LDS) of any cell, the licensee shall pump fluid from the LDS, to the extent reasonably
possible, and record the volume of fluid recovered. Any fluid pumped from an LDS shall be
retumed to a disposalcell.
lf fluid is pumped from an LDS, the licensee shall calculate the flow rate by dividing the
recorded volume of fluid recovered by the elapsed time since fluid was last pumped or
increases in the LDS fluid levels were recorded, whichever is the more recent. The licensee
shall document the results of this calculation.
C. Upon the initia! pumping of fluid from an LDS, the Iicensee shall cotlect a fluid sample and
analyze the fluid for pH and the parameters listed in paragraph A of this license condition.
The licensee shall determine whether the LDS fluid originated from the disposal cell by
ascertaining if the collected fluid contains elevated levels of the constituents listed in. paragraph A of this license condition or has a pH level less than 5.0. lf either elevated
constituent levels or a pH less than 5.0 is obseryed, the licensee shall assume that the
disposal cell is the origin of the fluid.
lf the LDS fluid is determined not to have originated from the disposal cell, the licensee shall
continue with weekly measurements of "depth to fluid" in the LDS standpipes. The licensee
shall confirm, on an annual basis, that fluid from the disposal cell has not entered the LDS
NRC FORM 374A
(7-94)
U.S. IJLEAR REGULATORY COMM]SS]ON PAGEctOFrrPAGES
License Number
Docket or ReferenceMATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
by collecting (to the extent possible) and analyzing an LDS fluid sample for the above stated
parameters.
D. Upon indication that the LDS fluids originated from the disposal cell, the licensee shall
determine the flow rate through the liner by the calculation method in paragraph B of this
license condition. lf the flow rate is equa! to or greater than one gallon per minute, the
licensee sha!!:
1. Evatuate the cause of the liner distress and take appropriate and timely actions to
mitigate the leak and any consequent potential impacts;
Continue to measureiand r-etiord LD$,fd€pth to fluid' measurements weekly; and
3. Notify NRC by tenpnone within 48 hours, in accordance with License Condition 9.2,
and submit a written report within 30 days of notifying NRC by telephone,
in accor&nce with License Condition 9.2. The written refiort shall include a
description of the mitigative action(s) taken and a discussion of the mitigative action
results.
lf the catcutated flow rate is tess than one gatton per minute, the liconsee shalt continue with
weekly measurements of 'depth to fluid' in the LDS standpipes.
E. All sampling, analysis, and evaluation of LDS fluids shall be documented and retained onsite
until license termination for NRC inspection.
[Applicable Amendment 8]
11.4 Annually, the licensee shall collecf, during mill operations, a set of air samples covering
eight hours of sampling, at a high collection flow rate (i.e., greater than or equal to 40 liters
per minute), in routinely or frequently ocanpied areas of the miff. These samples shall be
analyzed for gross alpha. In addition, with each change in milfrfeed material or at least
annually, the licensee shall analyze the mill feed or production producl for U-nat, Th-230,
Ra-226, and Pb-210 and use the analysis results to assess the fundamental constituent
composition of air sample particulates.
[Applicable Amendment: 7]
11.5 Calibration of in-plant air and radiation monitoring equipment shall be performed as
specified in the license renewal application, under Section 3.0 of the "Radiation Protection
Procedures Manual," with the exception that in-plant air sampling equipment shall be
calibrated at least quarterly and air sampling equipment checks shall be documented.
11.6 The licensee shall perform an annual ALARA audit of the radiation safety program in
accordance with Regulatory Guide 8.31.
SECTTON 12: Reporting Requirements
12.1 DELETED by Amendment 13.
2.
NRC FORM 374A
(7-94)
REGULATORY COMMISSION
License Number
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Docket or Refercnce Number
122
[Applicable Amendment 13]
The Iicensee shal! submit a detailed decommissioning plan to the NRC at least twelve (12)
months prior to planned final shutdown of mill operations that includes a deailed Quality
Assurance Plan. The plan will be in accordance with Regulatory Guide 4.15, "Quality
Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs,'and NUREG-1575, "Multi-Agency
Radiation Survey and Site lnvestigation Manual (MARSSIM), or equivalent most current
guidance.
[Applicable Amendment 13]
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION
/t//_f h- r\ -
Philip Tirig, Chief '
Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch
Division of Fuel Cycle Safety
and Safeguards
Office of Nudecr Material Safety
and Safeguards
DOCKET NO.:
LICENSE NO.:
LICENSEE:
FACILITY:
DATE:
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT
REOUEST TO RECEIVE AND PROCESS
HERITAGE MINERALS SITE MATERIAL
040-8681
suA-1358
lnternational Uranium (IUSA) Corporation
White Mesa Uranium Mill
July 13, 2000
PROJECT MANAGER: William von Till
TECHNICAL REVIEWERS: Ted Johnson - Surface Water Hydrology and Erosion Protection
John Lusher - Health PhYsicist
Dan Rom - Geotechnical and SuretY
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS:
We have reviewed lnternational Uranium Corporation's (IUSA's) Reclamation Plan Revision 3.0
(Cell expansion) dated May 5, 2OOO, with supplements dated July 7, 2000, and July 17, 2OOO.
This revision was reviewed using the "standard Review Plan for the Reclamation for Mill
Tailings Sites Under Title ll of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act" (NUBEG-1620,
NRC June 2OOO) and requirements under 1O CFR Part 40. We find the proposal to be
acceptable and i"rave amended the license to tie in these revisions to the Reclamation Plan. The
"ur.ty amount increased with this revision and the licensee shall update the amount accordingly
to cover these additional costs.
1. DESCRIPTION OF LICENSEE'S PROPOSAL
By its submittal dated May 5, 2ooo, IUSA requested that the NRC approve a modification to the
reclamation plan in orderio allow for additional cell space. Subsequently, IUSA and NRC staff
held several telephone conference calls to discuss the issue in which IUSA agreed to submit
additional detail. IUSA provided this detail by letter dated July 7, 2000, and July 17,2000.
Based on IUSA's Tailings Capacity Study conducted in May 2000, a shortfall in existing storage
capacity was identified in the Tailings Management System of approximately 200,000 cubic
y"iOr 1Cy;, assuming that reclamaiion materials and processed materials were disposed in Cell
2 or Cell 3. IUSA has proposed to handle additional volume by the addition of space within the
Cell 1-l impoundment area. This alternative would allow for the placement of approximately
2BO,0OO CY of materialfrom the mill site cleanup along the north slope of the Cell2 dike, within
a portion of the current Cell 1-1. Cell 1-l Tailings Area will be lined with a minimum of 12 inches
and up to 18 inches of compacted clay. IUSA has determined that the placement of these
materials in the Cell 1-l Tailings Area will effectively create an extension of the Cell 2 disposal
area with no greater radiological content with the radon cap design remaining the same.
2.O BACKGROUND
IUSA, by letter dated March 16, 2OOO, requested that the NRC amend its license to allow it to
receive and process up to l OO,OOO cubic yards of alternate feed/ore material from the Linde
Formerly Utiiized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site in Tonawanda, New York. As
part of tiris review, the NRC staff held discussions with IUSA regarding potential cell storage
space shortages. ln IUSA's letter dated April 12,2O0O, which requested that the NRC allow it
to receive and process alternate feed/ore material from the W.R. Grace site in Chattanooga,
Tennessee, IUSA stated that there was not adequate storage space available for these
additional alternate feed materials (W.R. Grace and Linde) and the previously approved St.
Louis Alternate Feed/ore material (140,000 CY).
ln IUSA's letter dated May 5, 2000 (letter addressing NRC's comments), IUSA stated that a
tailings cell space shortfall of 230,000 tons existed. To address this concern, IUSA proposed to
expand Cell 2 into the area of Cell 1-1. Staff and IUSA held several phone calls and the NRC
stated that additional detailwas necessary to conduct a full review. IUSA then submitted a
revision to the Reclamation Plan by letter dated July 7,2000.
3.0 STAFF TECHNICAL EVALUATION
The submittal was reviewed using the "standard Review Plan for the Reclamation for Mill
Tailings Sites Under Title ll of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act" (NUREG-1620,
NRC June 2000) and requirements under 10 CFR Part 40.
Health Phvsics evaluation:
The licensee stated that the cell 2 design for the radon-222 barrier and frost cover will be
extended into cell 1-1, and that the material placed in the tailings cell 2 extension into cell 1-l will
consist of windblown tailings, cleanup material, and mill debris that contains low level activity.
The staff concludes that the radon-222 barrier design is sufficient to accomodate disposal of
these additional materials.
Surface Water Hvdrology and Erosion Protection
Staff considers the design change proposed by IUC to be a minor revision to their existing
reclamation plan. IUC intends to place a relatively small amount of additional tailings upstream
of the existing tailings cells and to slope the cover away from the existing tailings. This design
results in very short top slopes and side slopes, which is beneficial to stability. IUC intends to
place rock of similar size and gradation on the new portion and to meet the same criteria that
was already approved by the staff for much longer slope lengths.
Staff review of the proposalfinds that the revision is acceptable. IUC's design provides a high
level of conservatism because the sizes of erosion protection are identical to the original
design which had much longer slope lengths. ln addition, the change insignificantly reduces the
storige area upstream of the existing tailings cells and will have little or no effect on flood
calculations that staff previously approved.
Geotechnical Enqineeri ng/Construction :
Staff considers the design change proposed by IUC to be a minor revision to the existing
reclamation plan. IUC intends to place a relatively small amount of additional tailings upstream
of the existing tailings cells and to slope the cover away from the existing tailings. The revised
design does not substantially affect sideslopes or thicknesses of material, thus design of the
embankments is acceptable. IUC must build a clay liner; however, substantial clay borrow of
satisfactory quality is available near the site. The surety has been revised to account for the
modif ications proposed.
Staff review of the proposal indicates that the revision is acceptable. IUC's design provides a
satisfactory level of conservatism because the slopes are relatively flat and the embankments
are low. As discussed on July 12, 2000, a minimum clay liner thickness of twelve inches should
be satisfactory.
4.0 RECOMMENDED LTCENSE CHANGE:
Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40, Materials License
SUA-I358 will be amended by the modification of License Condition No. 9.5 and License
Condition No. 9.11 as follows:
9.5 The licensee shall maintain an NRC-approved financial surety arrangement,
consistent with 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10, adequate to cover the
estimated costs, if accomplished by a third party, for decommissioning and
decontamination of the mill and mill site, for reclamation of any tailings or waste
disposal areas, ground-water restoration as warranted and for the long-term
surveillance fee. Within three months of NRC approval of a revised
reclamation/decommissioning plan, the licensee shall submit, for NRC review
and approval, a proposed revision to the financial surety arrangement if
estimated costs in the newly approved plan exceed the amount covered in the
existing financial surety. The revised surety shall then be in effect within
3 months of written NRC approval.
Annual updates to the surety amount, required by 10 CFR 40, Appendix A,
Criteria 9 and 10, shall be submitted to the NRC at least 3 months prior to the
anniversary date which is designated as June 4 of each year. lf the NRC has not
approved a proposed revision to the surety coverage 30 days prior to the
expiration date of the existing surety arrangement, the licensee shall extend the
existing surety arrangement for 1 year. Along with each proposed revision or
annual update, the licensee shall submit supporting documentation showing a
breakdown of the costs and the basis for the cost estimates with adjustments for
inflation, maintenance of a minimum 15 percent contingency fee, changes in
engineering plans, activities performed and any other conditions affecting
estimated costs for site closure. The basis for the cost estimate is the NRC
approved reclamation/decommissioning plan or NRC approved revisions to the
plan. The previously provided guidance entitled "Recommended Outline for Site
Specific Reclamation and Stabilization Cost Estimates" outlines the minimum
considerations used by the NRC in the review of site closure estimates.
Reclamation/decommissioning plans and annual updates should follow this
outline.
9.11:
The currently approved surety instrument, a Performance Bond issued by
National Union Fire lnsurance Company in favor of the NRC, and the associated
Standby Trust Agreement, dated April 29, 1997, shall be continuously
maintained in an amount not less than $10,064,794 for the purpose of complying
with 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10, until a replacement is authorized
by the NRC.
[Applicable Amendments: 2, 3, 5, 13, 15]
The final reclamation shall be in accordance with the May 1999, Reclamation
Plan Revision 2.0, Attachment A submitted on June 22,1999, and Revision 3.0
submitted on July 7,2OOO, and July 17,2OOO. Prior to placement of alternate
feed material, the licensee shall determine that adequate cell space is available
for that additional material. This determination shall be made by a SERP
approved procedure. 1 0.1 3
[Applicable Amendments: 13, 15]
6.0 ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTEVALUATION
An environmental report covering the information identified in 10 CFR 51 .45 was not required
from the licensee. An EnvironmentalAssessment (EA) was completed on February 10, 2000,
for the approved Reclamation Plan. ln this EA construction impacts were considered. Since
the expansion will be within the original cell area "footprint" and no additional environmental
impacts beyond those already evaluated in the February 10,2000, EA, this action will not result
in (1) a significant change or increase in the types or amounts of effluents that may be released
offsite; (2) a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure; (3)
a significant construction impact; or (4) a significant increase in the potential for or
consequences from radiological accidents. An environmental review was not performed since
actions meeting these criteria are categorically excluded under 10 CFR 51 .22(c)(1 1).
The licensee originally proposed to build a six cell impoundment system which was addressed
in the Final Environmental Statement for the license application (NRC, 1979). The mill has
only utilized four cells, one of which (Cell 4a), is not currently in use. IUSA's current proposal
includes expansion into an existing cell 'Tootprint".
REFERENCES:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). "Standard Review Plan for the Reclamation for
Mill Tailings Sites Under Title ll of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act" (NUREG-
1620, NRC June 2000).
AUC-00-99 l5;22 Frsm;
' . s-pn AeCg,
..r* '-9t
W
a;
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR HEGUIATORY COMMISSION
wAEHlH6t6ll, D.c. 4O55E{OOi
T-124 P 0?,/Zt Job-300
A[JE 0 s tggs
July 28. 1999
Ms. Michelle Rehmann, Environmental Manager
lnternational Uranium (IUSA) Corporation
lndependence Plaza, Suite 950
1 050 $everrteenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80265
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT 12 TO MATERIALS LICENSE SUA-1358 -- APPROVAL TO
RECEIVE AND PROCESS ALTERNATE FEED MATEBIAL FROM THE ST.
LOUIS FUSRAP SITE AT THE WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL
Dear Me. Rehmann:
ln your lcttcr datsd March 2, 1999, you asked that we amend your lioense for the White Meaa
uranium mill to perrnii the receipt and processing of materigl ("Uranium Material") removed from
various St. Louis, Mlssourl, sltes. The U.S. Army Gol'ps ol Englneers (USACE) is remediating
properties in the St. Louie, Miesouri, area thet have been contaminated with radioactive
materiale from the ManhettEn Projeet. Theee citee, collec'tively known as the "St. LouiE 8it6," are
heing managed by the LJSACE under the Forrnerly Utilized Sites RemedialAction Program
(FUSRAP), ln consultatlon wl'th the U.S. Environmental Protestion Agency (EPA). You propose
to reoeive thie material at your White Mepq urqnium mill in Blanding, Utah, remove the uranium
so that it can be re{Jsed, and dirpoae of the proc€Bs tailings in he mill's lailings pile. You
estirnate that the USACE and ito contractors will renrove approximately 686,000 to 1,029,000
cubic yards (CY) of Uranium Material from the St. Louis Site, and that some or allof this material
could be sent to your mill ior processing,
Wu havc dotcrmined that your requeut to receive and process thie material ie acceptable, and
have amended your license accordingly. We have enclosed the amended license and our
Technical Evaluation Report that provides our bates for granting the amendment" Our principal
oriteria for evaluating thie requeet sre qontained in our guidance entitled, "FinEl Poeition and
Guidance on th6 Use of Ursnium Mill Feed MaterialOther Than Natural OreE" (60 FR 49296:
September 2e, 19EE). We alEo eneured that thls reguEet compll€E wlth our requlremente tor
uranium millE in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. ln approving this request, we have added the
followlng llcense condltlon to your license:
10.13 The licensee is authorized to recaive and process source material from lhe St. Louis
Formerly tJtilized Sites RemedielAction Program (FUSRAP) site, in accordance with
statements, reprasentations, end commitments contained in the amendrnent request
dated Merch 2, IOOO, end ee emondod rnd eupplemented by cubmittal+ dcted June 21,
1999 June 29, lggg (2); and July 8, 1999.
AU0-00-99 P.03/23 Job-300
M, Rehnnen6 '2-
lf you have eny queetiong regarding this letter or the enclosures, pleass contact William von Till,
tha NRC Project Munager for the White Mesa rnill, at (301) 4{5-S251'
$lncerely,";Jfu
/ffi surrneier, Chief
Eranium Recovery ancl I ow-l-evel
Waste Branch
Division of WaEte Managomcnt
Office of Nuclear MaterialSafety
and Safeguards
Docket No. 40-8681
SUA-I356, Amendment No. 1?
Enclowree: AE etated (2)
cc: W. Sinclair, UT
C.Crirt, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe EPA
Terry Brown, US EPA Region Vlll
AU6-00-Eg l5:4I Frsm;
DOGKET NO.:
LICEHSE NO.:
LICENSEE:
FACILITY:
T-l 25 P.11/Zl Job-300
TECH N ICAL EVALUATIOH REPORT
REOUEST TO RECEIVE ANO PROCE$S
ST. LOUIS FUSRAP SITE ifiATERIAL
040-8681
suA-1358
I nternationsl Uranium ( IUSA) Corporation
White Mesa Uranium Mill
PROJE9T HANAGER; William von"Till
SUMHARY AT'ID CONCLUSION$:
We hava reviewed lntemational Uranium Corporation's (lU$A's) license amendme,tt application
dated March 2, 1989, to receive and proceea uranium-hearing materiale from tlte Formerly
Utilieed $itee RemedirlAction Prograrn (FUSRAP) sites in St I ouis, Missouri" Theee materiels
would be usec! a8 an "alternate feed materlal" (1.8., metter that is procesaed in the mill to rcmoyc
the uranium but which ic diffarent from natural uranium orce). We have reviewed IUSA'E
request usirrg our formal guidance, .Firral Poaition and Guidanoe on the Uee of l,.lranium Mill
Feed Mateflal Other Than Natural Ores."r We find the arrerdlnent requeat to tre acceptable
and have amended the license s0 that IUSA may process this material.
1. OESCRIPTION OF LICENSEE'g AIUEHDiIIEHT REOUEST
Ey it* submittal dated Mereh 2, 1909, lU.9A reqrrested that NRC emend Materiels License
SUA-1358 to allow the receipt and processirg of material other than natural uranium ore (i,e",
alternate fecd material) at its White Meea uranium mill located near Blanding, Utah. Theoe eitEE
currently are being remEdiated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineera (USACE) under FUSMP.
($6e the USACE tt/eh BitB at http:/,4#rff,r,mvs.usace-armv.mil/Engr/fusrapiindex.htm for localiorrs,
documants, and photographs of the sites being remediated).
lu.SA proposse to receive contaminated rnaterials from the St, Louis site for processing at its
uranium mill. IUSA calls this alternate feed material "Uranium Material." .Uranium Material"
coneiete prirnarily of moist materialE containing byproducts frorn uranium processing operations
(i,e,, 'tailings"), mixed with gite soils. Uranium, thoriurn, and radium are its primary radiological
conEtituents. Baa;d on USACE dooumonts, lUsA, ealimatee the amount of rnatorialfor triE
amendment request to be 656,000 to 975,000 ydss, but the amourrt could be up to double this
qLlantlty, $incE n ls dlfflCult t0 esumatc me ExtEnt of lBafiing of raqlonrrclldos lnto adJacant coils.
Adual amounts removed would be determined besed on sampling at the time of excavation.
The total firnount could also be less than this range becauue the USACE has selected other
r:nnfrnrrfnrs tn dispnne af lhis material.
1 See Fodera, E6getdr, Volume 60, No, 184, Pagss +9e96.+9297.
AUfi-00-99 15:40 From:T-l 2$ P.1 5/eO jsb-360
2
ln addltlon to ltE Mafch 2, 1999, letter requesting that the liocnao be amended, lUgA provided
additional information in the following letters to NRC:
. June 21, 1999, letter that includeE a more legible copy of a gBngrator'$
certification form in Attachmant 7 of the original submittal.
' June 29, 1990, letter that providcs additional IUSA rEvieur rnateriale fsr listed
hazardoua waste and EPA rugulations and guidanoe ofl hazardoua waete.
. June 29, 1090, letter that provid€s an IUSA generator csrtlficatlon form,
. JulV 8, 190s, letter that contains a revised IUSA generator certification form and
information on Applicehle or Relevani and Appropriate Requirements used by the
U8ACE.
& Slte and iiateriallflfo{matlon
The St. Louis FUSRAP eite compn$es mulilple propertieg located ln two dlstlnct arEaE.
downtown Sl. Louis and lend close to Lambert-St. Louis lntemationalAirport, From 1$42 to
1957, Mallinokrodt lno. in downtown St. Louis separated uranium from ores. These proceasing
activities, conducted under Manhatten Engineer Diatrict (MED, also known as tha Mqnhattan
Project) and U.S, Atomic Energy Commission qontracls, oontaminatcd portions of the property
and buildings with radium, thorium, snd uranium. Uranium-beerirrg proces$ reeidues from
Mallinckrodt procesoing oparations wtsre subo€quently stored at the 8t, Louis Airport Site
(SIAPS) and the nearby Latty Avenua pruperties. Relocation and storage of theae procasrad
waetes at SLAP$ and the Latty Avenue Properties resulted in the subEequent contamination of
the SI-I\PS "vicinity propeftieo." The USACE (and hefore 1e07, the U.B. Departnnent of Energy)
has been evaluating the extent of contamination, determining cleanup criteria, and seleeting
methode tor cleaning up thes€ propertles,
IUSA stated in its lieenEe amendment application that it would not accept alternatE f€Bd rnaterial
from a property known ss Coldwater Creek hecauee of the a large number of organic chemical
contarninant clasEes that are present. IUSA haE also stated that if some areas are found to
cantain ligted hazardous waetee ln future eempling of other proprrties, IUSA would ncrt accept
them fcr processing at the aite.
ljranium, thorium and radium and their progeny are the primary radiological constituents in the
surfacr and subeurface soil contamination at these propertiee. IUSA estimatee that the average
uranium content for the cntim St. Louis Sile to be approrimately 0.0904 hy weight.
tr frsnsportation GoEgiideffitionr
Follovring excavatlon ot tne fflaterlal aI tne St. Louls slte, lt would be shipped by train in
intermodal containers or by truck to the White Mesa mill. lf intermodal containers are used, the
Uranium Materialwould be loaded into covered exdusiv+use container$ et the tite, The
covered eontainere would be loaded orrto railcars and transporled cross-oountry to tre final rail
AUc-0E-Eg 15;50 Frsm:T-l l5 P. I $/23 ioh-300
3
destinathn (expected to be Bither near Grand Junction, Colorado; Cicco, Utah; Grccn River,
Utah; or East Carbon, Utah), where they would be traneferred to trucl<s lor the final leg of the
jolrmey to the White Mesa mill. According to the IUSA application, the company Bxpects that
iour "ontainer6
would be placed on each rail car. IUSA expects that up to 70 to E0 truckloads
parweek fortwelve montha of tho year oould be lped io transport Uranium Meterialfrom the rail
transfer site to the mill.
lf truck transport wer6 used, as many as 70 to 60 trucks per week could DB loacled at the 8t'
Louis eite and the Uranium MateriElwould be transported by a predetermined surfaca roUte
directly to the mill for twelve monthE of the year. This rate could continue for 7 to 18 years,
depending upon th€ level of the FUSRAP program's annual funding.
The matarial is not rubjact to our juri*diotion durirE transportation, however. Although the St,
Louis $ite matorial rneetg the definition of i {e.(2} byproduct material in the AE.A, this material is
not subject to NRC regulation until lt ls receivect by lU$A undtsr their NRC license. The $t. Louis
$ile materialwae produc€d hy adtlvltles not licenEed by NRC, either before or after the
enactmenl of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 197E, which Euthorizes NRC to
regulate such material.
S Handllng and Procptoinq,rttho Hill $ita
The Uranium Materialwill he added to the mill circuit ln a manner slmllarto conventlonal natural
r.xes ttrat are procassed, lU$A expactr to procese solutione after leaching without ony
significant modifications to either the circuit or the recovery proce$s. No physical changes or
aEsociated construction Impact$ are €xpectecl, Tailings produced by the processing of this
material will be disposed sf on-site in an exieting lined tailings irnpoundment (Cell 3). Depending
upon the amount of material proccooed and the length of time that maiErialia shipptd to the site,
ItJSA may have to build additienaltailings impoundments. As we note later in this report, IUSA
must comply with its existing lioense rBqlllrements that llmlt the arnount of lalllngs ln Gell 3, and
obtain whatever approvals ers n€c€Baary for additional impoundments, if they are neetlec{
lU$A will €nourti safety of workere and the environmcnt using alroady eEtablighed procedures
and equipment in the radiation safety program for processing naturalores. The potentialfor
employee cxpoturco from the handling and proccaaing ot thrs material ie not Expeetsd to be any
more significant than that normally encountered with the milling of conventional uraniuril ores,
Mill employ€eE irtvolvBd in handling the rnaterlalwlll be provlded with personal protectlve
equipment (e.9., coveralls, rrrbber gloves), including respiratory protection, if necessary.
Airborne particulate and breathing zone sarnpling will be conducted in accordance with the
snvironmenlal rnonitoring progrEm eetablished by the liceneee.
?. ETAFF TECFINIOAL EVALUATION
We have reviewed lU$A's request in accordance with NRC star guEance "Frnel Poslllon and
Guidance on the UEe of Uranium Mill Feed Materialother Than Natural Ores" (60 FR 49296;
September 22, 1995) and 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A requirements. The staff guidanca
(refened to hereinafter ae the *Aiternate Feecl Grridanne") requiree that we make the following
AU6-00-EE 15;13 Frsm:T-l eE P .lflli ioh-3E0
4
daterminations in our revlews of llcensee requests to process material other than natural
uranium ore$:
(a) Whether the tbed rnaterial qualifies aB "ore" as defined in the NRC guidance;
(b) Whother the feed nraterial containe lieted hazardous waste; end
(c) Whether the feed material ir being proccsscd prinrarily for itr aource-material
content.
ln this Bvaluation, we diacus$ how IUSA has eddressd each of these criteria in its application to
amend the license. We also diserrsr the other considerations that affect the grantlng of this
arnondment,
& Eat€ffiinstio[of whFther "
For the tailings and wastes frorn the propoeed processing to qualify as 11e,(2) byproduct
material, the feed materiai must qualify as "ore." ln the Altemate Feed Gulctan0e, we cleflne
uoren in part ag:
",..eny other matter from which snurce material is extracted in a licensed uranium
or thoflum mlll."
IUSA has propoaed to use alternate feed meterialfrom the St. Louis Site that contains varying
concentratlons of uranlum, s "$ource material" as defilred by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
(AEA) Uranium concentrations range up to 12 percent by weight in emall hot epots, with an
egtimatad avcrags corrteni of uranium of epproximately 0,09 percerrt by weight in allof the
various propertiee from which material mav be shipfred. Becauae IUSA is proposing in thig
emenctment reguast to extrast the uranlum from this materialat their White MesE uranlum miil,
we find that the propoeed feecl meterial qualifie* es "ore' es defined in our guidance,
tr Detcrminatietr of whsrtherthe fee-d matarial pgntsine ha*ardoue waEtg
Under thc Altcmata Peerl Guidanoe, we would not epprovo propoeed feed meterialfor
processirrg at a llcensed rnillthat contains a listed hazardous waste, We could approve feed
rnateraals whlcn exhlblt only a characterEtlc of hazardoua waste (i.e., ignitability, oonosivity,
reactivity, or toxicity) because they are not regulated as hazardous waste for recycling and
exlraction of sourca rnaterial (according to our guidance, this exception does not apply to
reoiduee from wEtEr treatment).
The IUSA anisndnrprrt request eddrceeeE Eeveral mcasurc€ that will provido eceurance that
listed hazardous wastes will not be processed at the White MesE mill. First, IUSA condueted its
own revieu/ of infonnation on potenfld llgted nazardou$ wastes ln exlstlng pgE ancl usAcE
documEnts remediating the $t. Louls eite properties. They found that the deta and historic
information were suffrcient to conclude that the Uranium Materialin the amendment request
does not contain Resource Conservetion and Recovery Act listed hazardous waste. Second,
Ati6-00-t9 15.95 Frqm,T-l eB P fi/23 iob-300
5
lU$A also nlred an independant consultant to review availabls information and pcrform a
separate review for classifying variou$ $t. Louis properties and d€termrning which may cofltaln
listed hazardous $,aste. ln addition to reviewing documents, the consultant visitad the slte, ancl
interviewed USACE, itE contractor who performed the initial review of the site history, and
Mallinckodt prooeas pcrsonnel, Ths coneultant'a analyeis was included in the license
amendment roquest. Basod an this work, IUSA elirninEted one property, the Coldweter Creek
Vicinily property, fronn lts amendment raqueut, because of the large number of chemical
corrtaminants and muitiple potentialeontamlnant sources. IUSA alao determined that the other
properties evaluated were acceptable for processing at the mrll because thBy did not contaln
liEted hazardous wa6te. IUSA noted that USACE is further characterizing warte sources for
sevaral properties, and stated that if these supplementalinvestigatiorrs change the RCRA
evaluatiorrs to date, IUSA will notify tha NFIC immediately. These materials would not be
thippcd ts IUSA for procarsirrg.
A third measure ]USA will u$B to anoure tnf,t n0 llsted hazarclour waste is shipped for
proceasing et the mlll ls eampllng and chernical analysis. The approaoh will be similar to that
used for a pravious IUSA alternate fped emendment regueet (.Ashland ?') that wa$ approved by
NRC in 1998. The USACE contractorwill collect end anatyze samples aeeordlng to a Sampling
and Analysis Plan. Any rnatorialthat is found to contain listed hazardous waetes during any of
the three tampling set.s defined in thc Plan will not be inoludod in the material ehipped to the mill
fon proceesing. Finally, es committed to in its amendment applieation, IIJSA will conduct testing
of materialfron fie St. Louis Site arrlvlng at the mlllon s regular basls to confirm the U$ACE
contractor'e conglusiona.
IUSA wtll alao require that the generator certify the incoming materiul is not a hazardous waste
as defined in EPA's regulation in '10 CFR 261 and/or that the material is exernpt frorn Resource
Conseryatisn and Reoovery Aot regulation under 40 CFR 261..a(a)(a), Thie eestion exemptc
"Srlurce, special nuclear, or byproduct malerial as defined by the AEA, as amended . . ." from
rEgulation as a solid or hazsrclou$ waste. uranlum Material that was classlfled as 11e,(2)
byproduct mEterialunder the AEA would be included in these eremptec{ nraterials.
Firrally, the Altornate Feed Guidance rtatas that we may oon$ult with EPA (or the $tete) before
making a determination of whether the feed rnatailei contains hazardous waste, We contactedt
EPA Rogion Vll staff (the St" Louis ilte i$ in their Region) and d€Eorlhed thB above mflnsuras
het IUSA haE used and will uEe to Bnsurc that no listed hazardoua waste is stripped to the mill.
EPA stated the tollowing:
'. . . fom a conceptualstandpoint, the deEcribed strategy ffor en*uring hat no listed
hezardouE waata ia shippod to White Meeal66etrns reaeonable and complete.
We would agrec that tlpre is suffident data urd triutorical information eveilable to draw
relevent conclusions about the nature of the St. Louis FUSRAP waate , and we would
agree thet the uuaste Qualillee e$ 118,(z) hypro0uct matenar eno B nor dtr0cuy
associated with any RCRA limted wastes. There is no evidence and little reason to
' J,iy 21, 1999, etsctronic mail from Jarnes Kennedy, NRC, to Daniel Wali, EPA Region Vll.
AU6-00-98 15;57 Frsm:T-l ?5 P. I E/23 Job-380
6
sutsp€ct tnat RCRA llsted wastes ara co-losatad with St, Louia wsstes. The groataet
potential for such an occurrsnee is prsbably 1t tlq Malltnckrodt plant, raferTed to ln sltB
documents aB the St. Louis Downtown Site (SLD$), where thB FUSRAP wastee are in
doee proximity to current and former chEmical manufastuilng proffissas.
Available chemical dete on thE $t. Loqie FUSR.AF waates show few contaminsnts that
cannot reasonably bo associated with uranium ore proceeeing. PAHs and a fa* other
organlc compounds commonly fsund in induatriat eettingt havo boen deteoted
eporadrcally and in low concentratlons. Limited TCLP tauting does nst indioate the
widespread preEence of RCRA characterietic waste,"
EPA affrrms that the likelihood forthe feed material containing listed haaerdouE waste ia small.
IUSA'c imposition of a sempling and analyeis plan on the contrector at the St. LouiE site, and its
own independent testing of ehipmerrte will provide the neceseary additionel asstirence that listari
h8zardous waEtss are not prooegsed at the rnill,
Based on the above, $,6 find that the rnaterial proposed in IUSA's March 2, 1999, licenee
amendrnent request for proeessrng St, Louis $ite FLISRAP materlal atthe \ /hite Me.sa millwill
not contain a listed hazardouE waste. Because thie material is from the procee*ing of uraniurn
ores and contaminated soile, ws eleo find that it meEts the Altemate Feed Guidtnce provision
thet it not be a residue from water treetrnent.
c. Oetomlrtation of whcthar tho feed mnterirl i* bgil!0 proce0eed primartlv fpr
its so u f$e--rnete rleLconbnt
Using ourAlternate Feed Guidance, a licensee muet show that potential alternata feed material
is being proceseed prlmarily for its sourcs-mttenal contsnt, To do thi$, a licen*ee must either
(1) demonskate that the material would be approved for disposal in ihe tailings impoundment
unclerthe'Flnal Revlsed Guidance on Disposal of Non-Atomic EnergyAst of 1954, Seotion
11e,(2) Byproduct Material in Tailings lmpoundmentg;" or (2) certify, under oath or afiirmation,
that the material is being processed prirnarily for the recovery of uraniurn end for no other
primary purpoae. Any suoh oertifioation must be supported by an appropriate justification end
sccompanying documentation.
IUSA hae provided a signed cefiification that the uranium-bearing material ls being proceased
primarlly for the recovery 0f uranlum and for no other prirnary purpose, lU$A staics that this
primary purpose (the recovery of uranium) ie based ofl the uranium content of the material,
fl nancial considerations, and other considerations
With reapect to uranium 60ntent, IUBA estirilates, based on USACE information, thet the
uraniurn content of the rnatsrial will ba nn 3v6rtg6 of 0.0S% by weight for the entire eite, or
approximately 1.2 million pounds of uranium. Because the original material gensreted at the 8t,
Louis DOwntown Slte na8 Eeen Wdely olspersed, tns aGualvalues wlllvary mignif,tcantly from
one location to another. IUSA noteE that material containing nondetectable levels of uranium is
not likely to be included in shipmente to the mill, since lt would likely not be excavated. Our
Altemsle Feed Guidanca does not specify a minimum larel of uraniurn for processing, sinca a
AU8-00-Eg lE;00 From;T-leE P 2,0/?? jsb-900
7
combination of factors afrBfi our decl$lon cn whethEr rnaterial iu being prooqtsed'primarily for
itr source matgriat content." Nevertheles$, IUSA notsd that thia gracle of ore {0.09 wt.7o) has
been mined in the pest and that tower grad€c of natural ore$ then this request are belng mlned
and stockpiled,at the millfor processing.
Wth respcct to financial considerationa, IUSA intende to procaee the St. Louie $ite material
either abne or corflmingled with corrventionatly-mined uranium ores during the eEme mill run.
The licansee states tnai uris arrangement wlll result ln several benefits which directly influenoc
the cost of processing thas materialfol its urantum content, includlng the followang:
. LeEE ore will have to be stockpiled on site while waiting for enough ore to juEtify a mill
run. IUSA statee thet generally nt least eight months of oontinuou$ operation6 i6 nBeded
for thia iustifioation, The rate that IUSA can prooees ore at White Mesa is about ten
timcs highcr than its production from its minae, and ie significantly higher than the
historic daity production of conventlonelores avallable for processing at the Millfrom all
sourc6s. stocl$lllng ore costs money-
, IUSA statgs that cornmodity price risks are reduced by having smaller ors lnventorles.
TheEe riEks alEo have a cost associaled with them'
. IUSA willbe able to rEtain trsined millworkers for longer periods of time, resulting in a
more efficlent worlcforce and e reduced probablllty of losing trainad employees. Now
operatorc would not have to be trsined if the experienced oneE can be reteined. Both of
these factore lower costs.
. Also due to the longer nnill run poriod, IUSA Etates that uranium recovery percentages
will increase, while start-up inefficienoiea willdecreaee, thereby alloYrling for a mora
productive mill run.
. IUSA may ba able to recover $ome vanadium from the uranfurn-bearing material.
Althoughihe amounie of varradium that could potentially be recovered are not known,
there is the potentialfor racovery of soma, thus gcncrating additional, unplenned
revenue. At this tima, however, there is insufficier'tt ore grade data to estimate the
amount ot vanadium, if any, that mlght be reoovered. The r€cov€ry of venirdiurtt, if arry,
is not the primary purpose of processing he alternate feod materialfrom the St. Louis
site.
The combination of these benefits, IUSA atfirms, will reduce the costs of processing the $t.
Louis Site material, thue maldng the overall coets of running the mill economically attractive to
lUgA. We have reviewad IUSA'g certification, and find that it addreeEas our eriteria in a
rqAgoneble mann6r and consistent with praviouu upprovalo for altemate fead matcriala thet we
nave Hranted. We conclude that the economic benefits attributed to the Processing of the
proposed feed material, aE certifted by IUSA, suppon e determlnailOn lhalfie Proposed leed
material is being procesaed primariiy for its $ource material (i.e. uranium) content.
AU0-00-98 18r02 From:T-le5 P.21/23 Job-300
g
ln addltlgn, the DOE, which managed the FUSMP aitee prior to the U6ACE, deterrnined that St
Louis Site matgrisl meet$ the definition of 11e.(2) byproduct materlal undsrthe AEA. Au u
general matter, NRC has determined that, provicling a llcensee lE autnoflzed to receive 11e.(2)
byproduct mrtsrielforn another site, the material could be disposed of in that llcensee's rnill
tiiiings irnpoundment. Therefore, the fact that a lir.ensee plans to procees the proposed feed
mateiialiefurther evidence that the lieensee ie primarily processing iho feed materialfor its
uource nrEterial contont, cince prooeaoing the materialwould not be nee€ssery to diepose of the
rnaterlal ln a mllltailings irnpoundment.
ln addition to using the Alternate Feed Guidance for determining whether thls matBrial is belng
procossed "primarily" for its source materiel content, irye have also conaiderEd a recBnt decision
by an NFIC edmlnistrative law jr.ldge in a heering 6n albrnate feed materiale. On February 9,
tbgg, an HRC Preeiding fficcr in the hearing issued a decision denying the relief requested by
the State of Utah on a Eimilar Alternrte Feed amendment requeat from IUSA for the White Mesa
rnpl. The State had argued that thE proressing ef FUSMP rnatcrial from another gite ("Aohland
2") at Wtrite Mesa was not justificd, since it waE being processod primarily to dispoee of the
rnaterial, i.e., as a usham' disposal, not primarily for its source-meterial content, a criterion ln ilre
staff's Alternate heed Guidance. The Presldhg Offlser rejected the $tate's position, atating that
"primarily" referE to wfrat is removed from the material during processing (i"e., uranium, and not
some other subEtenoee Euoh as titlnium, coel, vanadium, etc.), and not to the rnotivation for
undertaking the procass. IUSA proposss to process the Uranium Material pilmarilv for its
source nnaterial content, not for some other constituents. Thut, IUSA also fulfills the third
criterion of the staffs guidanoe when the FreEiding Officer's declsion ig ueed. The State of Utah
has appealed the decision to the Commission. in any case, the lU$A proposal BatisfieE the
original guidance"
il- Cqneluelone concerEino compliance wlth. ?lternate-fia*l- hffa
Based on the information provided by IUSA, the NRC ctaff finds that the St. Louie Bite mqtEriill
meets the criteria in the Alternate Feed Guidance, beceuse (1) it qualifies es an "ore' as defined
by NRc guidanoe, (2)the ffiaterialto be proces$ed will not he or contaln llsted hazardou$
wastes, and (3) ii is being processed primurily for its Eource-material eontent.
g othar conEiderirtlonE
We have alao considered other factors related to the granting sf this arnendmant request, W€
have concluded that the proceeEing of this material will not result in (1) a significant change or
increase in il'le types or amountE of effluents that may be releEsed offsite; (2) a significant
increase in individuelor cumulative occupational radiation exposure: (3) a signilicant
construction impect; or (4) a significant increase in the potentiel for or consequences frorn
rediological acoidents. We baae this conelueian on tha fallowing:
r YellowcaKB pfoclucecl from the processing rf this mEtsrial will nqt cpuss ths
currently-approved yellowcake production limit of 4380 tons per year to be
axceeded. Yellowcake is the useful product of the mill and containe elevetsd
concentrations of uranium hat are further refined in other plants and processes
AU[-0[-Eg l0:C4 From;T-125 P.ZZ/ZS Job-900
9
to produce fuelfor nuclear reactorg, for exarnpE, ln addition, and as a rcillt,
radiological doees to members of the public in the vicinity of the mill wrll not bE
elevated ahnve levels previously assessed and approved.
' No nrodifications to the mill cirouh deeign erg nacessary to proce$e the St I nrtis
Site rneterial'
" The liceneee will dispoae of tne talllng$ produced by the procorsing of thit
material on-site in an existing lined tailings rmpoundmant (Cell 3), and if additional
impoundments are required, IUSA will obtain whatever approvals are necess:Iry
before construoting such impoundments, The volurne of tailings that would be
generated by processing the Uranium Meterialis connperable to the volume that
urould be gcnerated from procesuing an equivalent an'lount of oro authorized
urder the lioonrc. The design of thE oxieting impourrdment, whieh includeE a
leak ddection systern, has baen prevlously approved by NBc, and IUBA is
req!.lired by its NRC licsnse to conduct rogular monitorirrg of the inrpoundrnent
liners and of the groundwater around tlre impoundmentE to detect leakaga if it
should occur. lf any additional tailings cells are needed, they will be approved by
NRC and will have similar monitoring,
. ln ganer6l, the St. Louis Site msterialwill be similar in composition to the mill
tailings currently disposetl of m mB e*ll 3 impoundment, beffiuse it will contairt
ntetals and othcr chsmicals whioh ars prccent already in the tailinge.
Fudhermore, IUSA ia required to conduc{ regular monitoring of the
impoundments to detect hakage if it should osuuI. TheteforE, any environnEntal
impacts that could be associated with the disposal of the additional quantity of St,
Lsuis Site matorial from prooeaoing irr the mill will not be larger than impacte
previously avaluated and deterrnined to be acceptable for this mill.
With respect to tranaportetion impaote, q6 we noted in Sec'tion ?.c, NRC dnee not regulata the
fansportation of tnie materielto the Wh[e Mesa Mill. ln addition, transportation impacts for
varlouE remecliation alternqtives lrave already been exarninad by the EPA and USACE undar
the OERCLA proces$ uBBd et the $t. Louis $ite. Regarding FUSMP, actions proposed for a
site are evaluated in light of NEPA guidclines to dete!'mine potenUalenvlronrnental effects errd
the level of NEPA rlocumentiation required. lt is the position of the USACE that the CERCTA
process is functionally equivalenl to the requlrernents olthe National Environmental Policy Aot.t
E. RECOTTET{DED LICENEE CHAHGE:
Pur$uant to Tlue 10 of thE cqde of Fedaral Regulations, Pnrt 40, Muterials Licenre
SUA-1358 wilt he amended by the addition of Licenee Condition No. 10.13 as follotltrs:
3 U,S, Arrny Corpe of Engineers, Faasibility $,furJy lorttra Sl. lprirs Downtown Sile, April 1998, p 5.
AUi-00-Eg lt;C? Frrm;T-l15 P.Zt/21 JoL-300
l0
10.13 The licansee is authorized to recclvs and Fretrca$ Eourc€ mstBraalfrom the St. Louis
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Aclion Program (FUSRAP) site, in accordance wth
Etatements, representationa, and commatments eontained in the amendment request
dated Merch 2, 1999, and as amendsd and supplernented by submittals dated June 21,
1899; June 2s, lsgg (2); and July B, 1998
[Applicable Arnendnncnt: 1 ?l
4, ENVIRON]SENTALIiiFAGTAIALUATIOH
An environmantel report covering the information identified in 10 CFR 51,45 was not required
from the licensee, The environrnental impacts associated with the excavation of thie matarial
and associaied site cleanup activities end for transportation were addressed previsusly by the
USACE.
Eeceuse IUSA's reoeipt and procoeoing of the material will nst result in (1) a significant changa
or increase in the types or amounts of effluants that may bo released offgite; (2) a signifioant
increase in indivicual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure; (3) a signiffcant
construction impesq or (4) a slgnlflcant lncreaae h the potentlelfor or consequences from
radiological accidents, an environmental reviewwas not performed since actions meeting these
criteria are categorically ercluded under 10 CFR 51,22(cX11),
AU0-00-E9 15:23 Ft'om:1-124 P.01/23 Jsb-360
NRC FORM 374
(7.,4)
iVIATIIBIALS LICENSE
iyx,cirie,.i in secriorr Ig3 of thcAtomiu Energy Acr 0f ig54, a$ am(rndcd,0n(l is suhjecr to all ryplii:nblc rtrlcs' ftgulatiolltl, ar^d ordcrs ol'tht'
Nr,,rtear"l?eprrlatory Cnmrrission rrrtw or lrereafter in effcet and to nrty conditions specifir:d bclorv,
Er-+'','Ir''lsx' r ''IrU'';.; ;J;;il;r;;;jfl!)=*
-' = '=;':s:**'1 =
Licenree
I' lntemqtonslUrBnium (UsA)
lApplicablB Amondmefits: 2l
r. 8425 s. Haghwsy 181
P.O. Bor 809
Blgnding, utah 84511
[APPlicable Amendmentsl {
ti. Bvoroduct. Source, audior
Siircirrl lrJriclenr Mnr*rin
Corporatlon 3. Liccnso Numhor
NaturElUranium
7. Chemical and/or Physicnl
Ftirm
Any
8, Miuimurn Amount thnt Licsnscc
May Possess at Any One Time
Under This License
unlimited
SECT|oN 9: Admini*tltuvB conditiona
g,1 The authoriz6d pleaa of usa Ehail fs tne trcsn$ea'E white Mesa ufranlum mllllrq facility,
locatod in $an Juan CountY, Utah'
g.2 Ail writen noticos and tEpo{ts ro thB llfi_cp_Eipd underthis licenser$I s€ ex€e-Ption of
incidcni;di-irlit,totilEiLins undar 1Q cFR zo.anaz end 10 cFR 40'60 requlrlng .
telaphon6 notiiiiitiln,'iniU 6[EOOres$sd to the Chief, Ura.nium Recovery and Low-Lavel
W6ste HiaiiEnl'nii,iisiitiiiWi"te Monagament, Offioe of Nuclear MatErial Saloty and
Safeguerds.
tncident and event notifica1ons that rsquire telephone notification shallbs mad€ to tlre NRC
operations cEntsr d (301) 815'5100'
g.g Tha license€ shall conduct operEtions in acffird4ncs wlth statBrnents., reprqsentatlonE, and
conaitnniEnirined in ini riEinie rgnEwat application submitted_by lefier dated August 23,
isdifilfrffiA"{, s|'binittiEriiteO Januad-i.s, qlq Apr'|7, 1esz, November 2e' 1aB4'
. Juty ?7, 1985, Decembsr 13,;nJ necemngi3l, 1996, dnd January 30,.1997, plttch PIE
nereoy'inJo-rib-dtEo"iv ret'eltncs,?no toi the standby Trugt Agreement, dated April29'
igg7, axc.pl tr*rere superseded by license conditiOns belOw.
Whcneverthe word'\rill* is usad in the above referenced documentg, it Shall denotE A
r€quirement' [ApplicablaArnendment2l
g.4 A, The liconsee may, wlthout prior NRC approval, and subiect to the Eonditions spssified
ln Part B of thir condition:
(i) Make changff in the Iecility 6r FroeBs$. eE presEnted in the application-
SUA-1358, AmEndment No" t2
Pnnled on roclcled pnpca
T-1 t1 P.05/tg Jsir-300
HEGULAToHY COiltt lSsloti. NFC FORM 3?44
(7.94)
MAIERIALS LICENSE
$UPPLEMENTABY SHEET
Dockat or Bcfercnce Numhtr
(2) Make changes in the Proc6durEs prosEnled in the aPPlication'
(3) Cortducf t6Ets or sxperirnEnts not presentEd in tha apilication'
B. The llccn*ec strEll lile an applicetion for an gmcndmBnt to the llcanse, unlBss $6
following conditionE ara satisfied'
(1) The change, tqst, gI :':Ps,.riment does not conflictwith anY raquirement
spacincail"vl;Ge in thii liconil, or impair the licanu€e s abilw to meet all
aPPicaUte NRC regulatione'
(2) There is no degre-dation in thE eg*91ti1! safcty or environmentel commitmants in'-' ne rrcaniii'rpf,ioatibn' or pruvidad uitfre rPiroved reolametion plan'
(3) Tns cnangs' lesl, or experimant is conoiatant with S'9-corrcluaions of edionsr-/ enelyroJlnd ""fLctea in thc EA dated February 1917
C. Ths ticcncce,e detErminations concerning EnB*oJ ti.* "gqqlton,
shall be mede by a
,,safety anct En;irdtmanti nEvrew Fana]1geFf).' The SERF shall congict of a
minimum.f 1.;,;;ltfi;iduar. Onu rr-"mUirof Urb SSRP ehall have expertisa in
;ffi;drn*i hi ;heif be rospoiiiuie ror mf,nng$pl and fl nenclal apProvsl shanses;
one memb6r'ir,l1-riJrl *pcriiso iiioperg.tiong rinull conetrrrction rnd shall have
;fiilifithilityfiiiin[[illiilg a.li "pqt$4al
changes; snd, ong msmper shall b€
rhe uorporatgiiriulio^ i*itvirii"iicnsol or equivalont, with the reeponsibilitv of
fll$Snn#ti:f *lilxji,nltgi'1"il:gEll"*'I3iffi [hL',i!1fJI"?""*",*,
&-;iii+,d;;;-#E'il[Fhv}icdi;r?*X'ffilT,Hlt'JHI'r1,ffi H;TI*'oEEH''rPionc asrth sciancEs, and othe
i'"r#n.nt -il;11f,ffi ;tniii*rin rie lnril abovi-specified indivitluals, mav be
bonrutuntt'
D'Thglicsnggoshallmalntainrecqrdgofanychgng.es.m4:Puls-I?llll".fiucondition
untillicenss termination. These rdordiinatl indude urittdn safety and environmantal
ovatuationc,;;ilEi the gERp, thet Frovtor the basir fsr cetermining changct ara in
complianca iiilh tfi?rqultimentsrJteneo to in Part B of this condition. Tha licansae
iniii-ii,mirf,,-ill,rinnnil rsportto NRc, a desorlfllcn of sush Grtrngci' ttrtr' tlr
erperimants, including , summrry-jiUil i.te"U# snvimnmentsl €valuation of each'
ln addlilon, thb'ffinniEe shatl ann'uatty suhrnit io tna NRO changed p.ages to the
Gparations iiin aia neAimation}iin of the epproved licanse application to reflect
clianges madE under fiis condition'
The licenseo'E sERp gnail functon ln accorognBE with thE standard opcratlng PrEEdurss
suumitteo by lstt€r dated June 10, 1997'
tApplicable Amandments: 3l
AUG-00-EE 15r25 Frsm:
lla [l l.ll tll lI( rlr
AH HEGULATOHY COMMBEIOH
T-l 14 P.00/ag Job-300
rl+.{!a-s-gi:ti-...-...-..- il
PAse 3 oF '10 FAcEe
1358, Amsndmmt NgJ?
NRC FOBBI 3744
(7.S4)
MAI'ERIALS LTCENSE
IUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
or Rgfwsncc
9.5 The licensee shallrnaintsin an NRc"approvBd finandalrursty.arangsmen( conBistBntwih
iij-Cli'i6, App*!il'1, Criterl, e ind 10, rd.regate tocovei tha estimated cosB, if
icconiplii-rred hy " tiiiid'esrtv, roroceonmisrioning and decontsmination of the mill and mill
*ni, i#ii"rl*ation of iny tiitinge or weste dispo+l?Fas, ground*rate1.r3-sloration as
;l;iind;;d iortrrs'ron6-iermiurr.illcnce tel. wittrin hree rnonths of NRC apprwal of a
;il6.d ,tsctim*onjoecofirmieebning plrn, the licafisoi shell eubmit, for NRC review and
aonnrval, a o.poord revision to theiinenoial rurety snrngcmsnt if cctimeted costB in tha
iltr'#,7o'"'Et plun *ceed the smoumt covered in tne eiietinglinencial eurety. The
revis'ed'aurEty Etiall then be in effect within 3 monthe of wfitten NRG aPproval.
Annuel updatos to the sunrty Emount roquyd hv. 10 QFt agl -APL".L!'IlCriteria 0 rnd
ro, ir,ri'u" submmld to tri NRo at ieasi g rnenhs p1rcr to thc arurriverrary dete wtlich is
iiirgnateOai.tunC * of each yssr. lf ttre NRC har iol.approy?d a propomd revlsion to the
surety coy€ragi B0 dair prior io the expiration dEte of the cxisting.eurety.errengemmt the
iliii'dei irtatt=eklnO ffiibxisting Eureri arrnng€ffnnt ror 1 year. Alons with Eacrt propo*d
revisim or annualuidite, thE li&ncec-shall gupnrflt syPPcrting leo-tlmgntation shauring I
liiifOuwn oini cristr and ttra basis rorthe cost eetimatss wi0t ediustmonq!?r inflEtion'
miintanance of a rninirnum 15 percant contingency-foo, changes in cng-ineo.fng Plont' -.illiliffiF'drmed iriii iny othry.corrdiUons-af.fedipg ettimated oosts for slte dosufe. The
iilil[1,*,tri;;t'L"i;-.r"*E?,:ir#Ifi iHy,EHfi [xigl{li;#1'fi g#lhg"Ix."
digrnu ror Siti speciric Riiternation'and Sta6iliaatlon Cost Estimatesi ouUinee the minirnum
considerations useO Uy the NRG in tha reviEw of site chsure estimataE'
nE6amaUonlOecommissioning plano and annual updatcr should folhw thie outlinE.
Thr cunentty approved surety lnetrumant, a Peformanea tspnd iequed hV [ational Unioniil ffiurilie b'ompsny in fivor of fire NRC, end thE associated Standby TruttAEreemont,
iit"i ep,it Zg, ige7, sfrit ne contlnuoursly malntaill{in en amount not lEts than
iii,isiiie fbiiie'purpose or complying-wirh 10 QFR {,Appendix A, crireria I and 10,
untila raplacenront ii autnorized by tho NFIC.
lApplieeble Amondmsnt$: z, 3, 5l
standard operating pmcadurus rha[ D6 esrablishBd errd tollow€d for nll opnrationalproccts
iitiuiti6s inlotving-nidioaaive matefials hgt a1a handled, processsd, or stored, sOPs for
oiaffiilo]rat iotvilai ihall enurnorau pertinent radiauon safoty prtguoas to be.followed'
ftdiffi;1y, *iittin proceOuree shall 6e established for non-operationali^{y!!i6s to include
il:ff;i a;iii a-rivironinentat monnoflng, Dloassay.analy$gs,.and instrum€nt Galibrttionr. Afl
irp:to-oltJ *pi oi eicn written procelure Ehali be kdpt in the rnill srea to which it epplies.
Ail wriften orocpduros for bofr operational ard non-operqtional astivities shallbe revieuled
ffid i'pE;GA-in u/ritlng btfre rirOiation Eafaty ofticei (RSO) b€tore lmpFm€ntatpn and
utreniver s changi in-pniceOure is.proposedto enaurs thal prlqqtrlEEg!^qrotedion
;rilffilei are ixiififi;ppi'rea; h iocftion, the RSo shafl perrcirm'a documenteo revlew or alr
bxistinq oparatins procedures 8t lesst annually'
Befora engaging ln any adivity not previously..essessed by the NRCr tfr.e.licensse shall
sd-rninistoii-cutiura ielsourceinvEniory, All disturbansEe associated ni[ the propoeed .do;;i;il".t *irr u" "orplatiO in comiliEnce with the Netional Histofic Preservat'pn Acrt (as
9.6
9.7
AUG-00-gg l5;2I From;T-1t4 F.07lZA Job-300
OFAR REGIILITONY ;OI{IMIEflON ItilHC FQFI, 3744
(7. 4)
MATERIALS I,ICENSE
$UPPLEMETTTARY SHEET
9E
g.s
amandsd) and its implernenting rtsgqetlons (38 cFR 800)'.and theArdraoologicEl
Rercsrcs* proteriio['lii t"u "]*iioEa] and its implementing rsEulationg (43 CrR 7).
ln order to lnsure that no unepproved disturbancs of cultufel fBsouroE8 occurB, Eny wotk.
il.,irti"g in me circov;,y.f pievio.usty unknown cultural arfifads ahallcsasE. The artifaG:ts
ehalt be inventoried gnt"r"fu"tEd in accordance with 36 BFR Part 800, gnd no disfurbnnce
iniff oco,rr untilthE f*n.ec hqs rcceivnd c$thorizafion from the NRC to procead'
The llcancee shallavoid by proiest design, whers feasibla,.the *cheolggpflFft
daeionated ,oontrihutihs' ii ine report si,lioitteA by lettsr dated July 28, 1988- When it is
;;iiffiribl" t" ;;;id; fiu coaignitcd 'conributni" in the .r.po{, the licenrcr.shall inetitute
a data reooy6ry program for the-t aite brscd on thdres_earch desigl eubmitted.by lsfter from
c. E,-psfi orEirer[v]uolE Nuctsar to Mr. Mctvin T. Smith, UtglaBtate Hirprie Freseruation
Officer (SHPO), datod APril 13, 1981.
Ths lioonsoe shsll rgcover firough archeologlcal cxcevation alluqontrilrling- sites listed in
ttilr;fi,tGich ara located in oiwihin 100 faet of bonor 0f60t; tp:l?i! ar€_as,
construction a1res, or he perimeter of thE reclaimed tailinge impounCment. DstE r0covoly
tiii*io* at oldr ehe meeting th€$e crlterla shallD€ colnPlsted prlorto ths startof any
prolsst relatad Oisturbancc ufttrin 100 leet of the aite, but analysis arrd reput prcparation
heed not be comPleie.
Addltionally, he licans8e shall conduct such tgsting es i6 reguired to enaile tne Commlsslon
is d;termini ir frosi ritas dqsignatod qs "undeteffinedn'ifl the rgpqrt and bcated witlin
lggifii of preaant orknown fu-ture conatruction ereas are of su$. aignificaq€?_to wanant
tirarrl-oelitinition Ji;cpntribuling." Jr't Ell calos, sueh testng shall be completed before Eny
sspBd of the undsrtaking sffscts a Eite.
Archeologicsl contradort $hsll be approved h writing by the Comrniesiofl. The Convnission
wrllapprovc gn ercheotoglcrlcontra'cior who meets ihehirrimum ttandardc for a Pltncinal-i,rj.ii6-rtor eeitorttl in * crn Part 66, Appendix c, snd whosa qualificauons arE found
EcsEpEDl€ by tn6 $HPO.
Thc licpncoo ir hcrgby authoriEg(l to pos8€E5 byproduc* mstcrirl in lhe form of uranium
ititiit*li.gr;ird ot#iuranium byprqd.qct w_eitb g.eqgratg! by the-licenses's milling-
d;Emtion; iutiidriscg Ey thiiliocnii. .Milltalllngr ehsllnot.be trnnsforrcd from the $tr
"inout
*p.iitii eri6 ap[rovat of fre_NRC in thdform of a lissn*e arnEndment. ThE liceneee
ihiiidalhtaln a permaln-Ent retrord of atl tran#6rg madc under the provisions of this
condition.
Tha licensee is hereby erempted frorn the requirements of Section 20.1902 (a) of 10 CFR
illt iu 6iirBEE wit[iir rrc niill, povtded thar'all enrrancB8 to me mill are conEPicrroudy ..
ooEteO in accordanCt wnn Secti6n 20,1902 (s) ard with tha u,ords, 'Any area wifiin $is mill
inay contein radioactive material''
ReleaEe of aquiprnent or packageq [om the restriG*od ar€a Enell Do ln accor0sncs wlth
iguiOifinas fdr pecontaminatio[ of Facilitiss and EguiPmsnt Prior to Release for
U-nEIfiiilO-G;;t6rmiii*ion ot Licenses for Byprocluct, source, or SP€ciat Nudear
9.10
rIIa4E Cl
BEEULATOHY CoililI$SIOH
T-l 24 P.0Blel Joh-300
FAqE 5 OF 10 PAGFS
NFG FORM S7.A
0-e4)
.l0.1
10,2
10.s
10.4
10.5
10.6
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEIIETTARY SHEET
Material,,, dated Mey 1g87, or suitable elternative procEdures aPproved by he NRc prior to
anY sudt ralease'
$EcTloN 10: operrtlonnl confiols, Llmitr' a|rd Reetrictlons
Thc mill produc*ion ratc shrll not exceed 4380 tons ol yellowcake per ye8r.
All liqr|ict effluentE frcrn mill procsss buildings, with the exceptbn of sanitary wa$tgt' Ehall be
;ilil;a 16 the m11; .ir.rit oioiectr"rg"d to rne tailings impoundment.
Frerboard limits for celle 1-1, 3, gnd 4A, and bnnrqe lflili,for cell 3, shall be as ststsd in
becUon O.O to Rpp*ndix E of the approvcd licenso appElauon'
Disposal ol metertal and equipm8lt.genEralE-d at the mill-titc rhqll bG-condudcd 8s
deacribsd in tho 1;j#;8";;6tnittiri oaieJblcember 13, 1eS4 rnd Msv 23, 1995' with tha
follodng addtion:
A. Tha mrximum lift hiel$6$3 for materlals plac€d gY-a.l'tal!lng5.:.h{l f.lls than *foot
thick. subseil;iiiilinri."rr'& ia*iri"n'C-teeirtiot* Eafi m rhsll be compasted bv
tracking of hehry equipment, suchli;'Cat.Ct'6, Et East 4 drner prlot to placement of
Eubsecuent lifts'
ln accordance with lhe licensea's rubmittaldatod lV!nV.2!t.1993, the llaensee.ir hsfeby
aurhodzed to oisposilifiiirrA"rt;addat genersieb at ticensed in situ leach facilities'
subject to the lollowlng conditions:
A. Disposelotwasta ls llmited to 5ff10 cubic yerda frpm a single iouroB'
B. All oon1qmineted cqulpment rhdl ba ditrnentlod, cruthed, or soctioned to mininize
voirt spaces."BirrE]i conHining wiit" otnii t#h soilor sludgat shall be Emptied hto
the rtisposal aiei'iio ne nineje cnrltted. garrels oontahing soilqr rludgce ghall be
verifiEd to n.l"u eri; filispilat - ilnets noi comptetely tull shall be filled with
tailinga or soil.
G. Allwagtg shall bE buried irr Cclt No. s unEs! Priorwrttton approvalia obtsinsd from
the NRC for altEmate burial locations'
D. Alldisposalac'tivitiet shall be.documEnted' The documantation shall ineludeY' a;*i[[il; oi-tffiiiiii Enot-he ilisposat rocauons, es rvellac allactlons requred Ev
thig corrdition. An ennual *u*riri'*irt"-am*nts if waste disposed of from off'aite
!6neretors shall bE gent to titE NRC'
Tffi licangee ia authorizad to recsive anct process BoulEe.rtlalonaE from tnE AlllBd slgnel
corooration,s uetr;illi;11ffiil fatriiv i-n?idoroance witn the amendmant requast dated
June 15, 1993.
SUA-1358, Amendmont No;Q
Dock+t * Refetencc Numhrx
AU6-06-99 15r30 From:
ilHe FOFIM t74A
(7"94t
FAH EE6U LATC}HY COMMIEEIO}I
MATERIALS LICENSE
8U FFLE]UIEIIITABY SHEET
10.7
,10,6
10,e
10.10
10.11
10.12
10.13.
The licsnsee is authorized b rocaive and procets souf,cs matorial frorn A[ied Sigl{, lUJr
il;H;A[;l5in"ir, ilE;rd""* *u, tr"
"msndment
pqu.ept d-Etrd $Eptambsr 20, 1996'
I]iil"liin-ireA nv ht ii aeea Oc*ober 30, and November 11' 1986.
Thc licsnsee is authodzed to rcceivc rqd-pqcesi. Bqqrq meterlal' in accordanca with the
amlnamunt requeet d*eA UarUr 5, 1997. lApplicable Amendments: 1l
Tha licenEee ie authorized to receive and process BourcB meterialfrom cebot Per{ormance
i6ffi;['6.i'iity il;i tsryrirto*'t pennryivanis, in aEcordanca witr the amondm€nt requEst
ii-t"i'Iiriig,'i6ez,i;;,fr;iGd'ry suuriiittili drtcd Mav te' and Ausuet 6, 1Bs7'
lAppllca-ble Amondments: dl
The lic6n8e€ l8 euthiltred tp recaive and procccl q9!{IF- mnterialfrom tle Aehland 2
Foiffi;iititfid siit| RcmeoialAction Piogrem (FUSRAFl"site, located near Tonawanda,
Nsw York, in accoroince wlth the amendrna-nt rqe'ug1t-{at?l M3y 8, 1998, as amcnded by
6rp supmiitarc Oatoiiiiay ii,.rr"u g,
"tta .lrne 1i, tgga. tApp1csble Amendment 6J
The llcEnsse ic cuthorized ts recoivg and,procesE soutqs.materialfrem cameco
i,#;Effil',E[il Hili; sria'Fort n-opilicritiex hcqrqd.n ontsflo; Frlage, tn accordance
udfh me amrnctmCIni i"quitt Oated Jdnq4, 1999; fnC'Of tF submittale dated Sepembl 14'
StdteinOdiielseptem[ir2g, October 7, arnd OGtobEr 8, 19e8.
Howover, the liceneeo is not authorized to recsive T Floceas ffom these facilitl€s, tlB
cruBh€d carbsfl aniliiii"ntiiloln troac cunmitElr, elther 6E a FePtltilts metrricl ar rnixed
i-,i *dt *"tJiitaireaOy approved for rrceipt or processing.
Ths lic€nsee ir authorized to raceive end procalt€ourcs_rnaterialfrom theAghlend 1 and
$ilstAre. D Formcrt, utrlizeo En"s R+irnedial Actlon pryqifl-q!_S^Illl tit"' located
ilJainiiou,inUa, rle*'Vorh in accorOance with staternEnts,le.gresgnqlgl'15' snd
corrnritments conuriiio'in ini amenomcnt r.gr1e*!{1ta_d Octobar 15, 1998, rs amcnded bv
letterc dated lltr.m'b;ift;ibgii, Nov"mueri4, 1998, DecembergS, tggS' January 11'
1ggg, January2T, 1899, and FaEruary 1' 1999'
lAppliceblc Amendmant: lOJ
Tha llcansee is authorized to rccciva and procosr.gource rflqterlalfrorn rhc $t. Louit
r;mil,illltitiiec ditainCmedial Adion Piosram (fqsnAll site, ilt t9g$19 with
luii,im6nfi, iCprcs'enfafuves and commitmerits ccrrtainao in'tho amendmsnt rcquest-dated
March 2, 1ggg, snO as imended g1d supplemented by submittals datEd June 21' 1009;
Juns 29, 1999 (?); and JulY 8, lggg
lAppl[cable Arnendments 11' 121
T-1 25 P.0S/eg Job-300
OF
SECTTON 11: Itionitorlng, Recording, and Eoo[kBepmg Requlrements
The results Of sarnpling, gnAlyses, survoys and rnonitofing, nB r€Eult$ of calDra$on of
iiJipm-.nr iipo#iii?uOGlnc inspec[ionr, all m.eetingi a1d trairy.ng colflEes rsgu.ir€d bv
[rjI'l-idffi aird anvtubu;idni reriEwi, invietigations,hnd conedive actione, thafl be
Drxher or RefErcnec NurttbEt
1 1.1
AIJG-06-98 15r30 Ftcm;T-t?5 P.l0/2S.Job-9E0
BE{IULATOHVCo}rtllssl0ill I F1GFftlRc FOFIM 57aA
{7+41
MATERIALS LICENSE
SU PPLETIEITTAHY STIEET
documanted, Unless oth6ni/i$B spscifled in ttre NRC regulations all such documBntation
inatt UE msintiined for a period of at least five (5) yeers'
11.a The lioEneee ehall irnplcment the effluent and environmsntal rnonibring progxgmlpocifi€d in
Eection i.S oittti reri51rrelrpplication, at Emanded by the subtnittel datEd June 8, 1S95,
and pg revi*ed with the follarin0 modificatioffi or edditions:
A, stsok sampling ehall include a determinethn of flmr rate.
B. Surfcce watEr eamples ehall qlso be anelyzed semien_nually for totel and diseolved
dnEi, na+gA,-ind fn-ago, sdth thr lxeeption of the Wertwcter Creek, whidr rhallbe
rorpiuo unnue1y forwater or eedime'ntr ind rnalped as above A sediment ramplc
sriiilnoi ue 6id' h placo of a water samplc unleis q water sample was not aveilable'
G, Gfoundwflt€f sampllng shall be conduc*od in ascordsnsc with iho requiremente in
Liccrtss Condition 1 1.3,
D, The llganile ghallutilirc lower limits of detestion in aocardencr with Sec'tion 5 of
Regulatofy Guida il.14 (Revision 1), foranalysls OJ eltluent affil'BnvironmEntal
samplEs.
E. The lnrpsctionu performed remipnnlally. of the critioal orifice etenn!!.V llmmitted to
inihi riinnrittaldated March 15, 1986, shallhe documanted. Ttio criticalorifice#;;E ;-t'irt'U" *iitiiateo "t icart irery_2 years against a poeitive displacemcnt
RooB mbtEr to obhin the required calibration curvs.
[Applicable Amondment SJ
11.g The licanseg shall imflemant E groundwater dEtec{ion monitoring P.rogram to ensure .
comifiance to 10 CFR prrt 40, f,ppqldixA I_t" tlsttstion monitoring Pgg_a.m*qtsil be in
accdrdance udth tr€ report Entitled, 'Poirtts of Complianq, \A/hite Mese Uranium Milln"
iu5mitted by lstt6r &tid Odgb€r 5, 199{, and tho following:
A. The licsns€e ghall rampie monitoring wglli WMMW-6' -11, -12, -1.4' -1S, snd'17, on
"
quirt.rlttalis, Sam'ptes shall beinafized for drlg1idg, Pots.tsium, nickel, end uranium,
anit ne i{sult6 of such'sampling snatt bC inclu0cd with the anvlronmental monitoring rcportr
submitted in accordanco wiilt 10 CFR 40.65'
ln addiUon, the licEnsee shall implement a monitoring program of the leak detec'tion syEtEmS for
the diaPocalcslls as follows:
B. The licsnsEe $hall mEasurs and rBcord me "oapm to fluid" in eaclr of ffic Eltlngl disporal
cefst ndpipes on I wg€l{y basie. lf sufficienthuitl is present in the leak detecton systEm
[U0S) of 6ny csll, the lienniee shallpump fluid from me LDS, t0 ms Bxl€nt raasonably
i[ssi'Otl.iriO redorO the volume of fiuld iecovsred. Any fluid pumPsd from an LDS shallbe
rotunred to a disPoaalcBll'
ll fluid is oumoed from an LD$, the licensee shallE€lculate fiE flour rat6 by clividing th8
racorUeC'votdme of fluid recovered by the elaps€d time slnce fluid was last pumped or
Dockct or Rsfo(strce Numb€r
hintd ot rccyclcil prpcr
AU6-00-gg I 5 ;39
BEGU LATOnY r.ouutislotl P^GE IHHo ronM 0744
{7.94)
11,4
MA]IERIALS LICENSE
EUPPLEMET{TAHY SHEET
incraareg in tho LDS fluld levele wsre recorded, whidte\rBr i5 he morE reoent. The liceneee
shall dooument the retultr of thic calculation.
Upon the initial pumping of fluid from an LD$, the licarrsee shall collsct a fluid ggmplo.and
iia-lrr.u the fluii for'pH-rnd thc pernmeters listed ilt Fr.egrap_qA of.this licsnte.condition.
iniiiceneee shallditermine wlr'eflrer tre LD$ fluid originated from the disposal cell by
araattining if the oollec,ted fluid conieins elevebd lrvels of the canstituents listed in
p.r"graph i of thie lieenae corrdition or hes a pH leval lags than 5.0- lf eilhor elevstsd
coniEtu}* bvels ora pi,l lesg than 5,0 is onsirvod, hs licensee ahell asgume that the
diryoulcdl ic the origin of the fluid'
lf tlre LD$ fluld is dctrrminod not.b have originated lrern the disposalcEll, the licsn*ee shall
continue wlth wEehly mossurernsnts of "depth to fluld'in tho LD$ rtcndpipes' The licengss
rhall confinn, on an lnnual basiE, that flqid'from the dispoarl cell he* not entered the LDS
by collecting (to thB extent posstbE) and analyzhg an LDS fluld pamplu fpr the abovc rtrtcd
plremotart
Upon indbatisn that thc LDS fluida originatad from the diaPoeal esll, the liccrrsee shall
ditermine lhc flow rats through the lingr by th€ calculttlon method ln'paragraph E sf thir
licenso cundition. lf tho flow nte is equal to or greatli0ran one gallon pcr minute, the
1' Evaluata he cause of he liner distrusE and ta[e appropriata qnd timsly actions t0
mltigate thp loah and eny eonaogu€nt potantiil impads;
2. Contnue to rflEesure ancl record LDS "depth tu fluid" mea$urements weckly; and
3. Notify NRC by lclsphone wlthln 46 hours, in accordarree with Lican*e Condition 9.3,
and iubmit e written report within 30 days of notifyhg NRC by telephone,
in Bccordenoo with Licdnse ConCltlon 9.2. The writterr report ahall includa a
desaiption of the mltigative action(B) teken and a discuesion of the mitigative adion
rEEults.
lf hc cabulatatt llorv fAt€ iB leEa than one gallon pir mlnut€, the licen*tr shall contirrue with
waekly m€aEur6m6nE of "depth to fluid'in tha LDS stsndPipes.
All semplim, analyeic, and evaluation of LD$ tluids shallbe documented and ratained oneite
until liceneE termlnatlon for NRC lnspecthn.
[Applicable Amendment E]
Annually, the licensee shall colled, during mill operstions, a eet of ?f samPles Pvelln.g
eioht hdiirs of sampling. at a high collec[ion flow rate (i.e., greaErthen or egualto 40 llters
pel minute), in roufineft or freqlantly occupied areqs of q€ mm, Tness samplss EhEll DE
bnaryzed fii gross alpha. ln addition, with each change in mill faed mstefial or at lEaat
anrutelly, freIiEEnsEe shall analyre the mill faBd or proouc0on ProquGI for u-nal Tr}eso,
Ra-226;'and Ph210 snd us6 thi enslysis results to sssess the fundemenhl conatituent
composition of air sample partioulatee,
D.
E.
Do+kot or Rsforonce Nurnber
AU0-00-E9 l5r1? Fron;T-l 25 ?.12/2,3 Job-300
HRC F(IRM 37IIA
{7'94'
REGU LATOHY CO}IIi|i$SIOH OF
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEI{EHTARY SIIEET
[Applicable Amendment 7l
Calibfifron of in.plent sir and redietion monitorin0 s-guipment-shfl.ba.-perf.9fined ar
spocified in thc ticcnie rrnewalapplicetion, unddtSbction 3.0 of the'Rgdiqtim Protection
d.ced;d ijanual,"with thc cxception that in-planteir 6amplin0 equipment shall be
"elibraiiA at lEset qirartrrti snd airsEmptlng equipment cheiks shEll be documented.
The liconeeo Bfiallperfcrm rn annuelALARA audit of the radiation sgfeU program in
EccordEncs with Ragulatsry Suide 8.31.
11.5
11.8
12.1
gECTloNlE: ReportingRequlremgnt3
The licensee shall submit to NHC for revicw, by June 3[i, 1'897, a detailed raclemetion plan
forthe Sumorfiod tailllngs disposal arsa which inoludoc the folhring:
A.
c,
D.
F.
G
A post-operatbns intsrim etabilizstion plan whlch dateils mdhoda to preventwind End
water onirkln and rcohargs oithe taiiings area-
A plan lo dotEnnine fir bost mcthodology to dewnter and/or qoneolidEta lhe tailinge
Plan gnd sross"gectionslvieh,E of a finel mclamation co\r€rwhicft detrils ths locgthn
ard alevEtiorr of tailingo. The plan shal!indude detaile on eo\orthicknoet, Plyeic*
&eract6tistice of cover matEriale, proposed tasting of eovsr materiale. (gpecifications
and quglity assursnqe), the cstim*cd volumes of c,ovor matefigle and their availabtity
gnd location.
D€tgipd plans for plscsment of rock or vegetativo cov€r 0n tho final reclaimEq tailings
pile snd mlll rlte eree.
A propOSed implementgtion schedule tor ltems A firough D above whictt defines the
B€quencs of ovents qnd oxpected Ume ranges.
An analysis to shonr thet the proposed Upe and thickness of soil covgq 1s adoquats t0
orovlde-attenuation of radon and rs aoeQirato to at'utt loilg-term ttablllty, es well as
ln analyEio and proposal on methodology and tirna required to rEetora ground water in
conforrtanc€ to rBgulEtory rBquirsmGnE.
The licanseB shall include I detailsd co8t anElysi8 of 6ach pilaEo of the rodamatisn
plan to includs contractor costs, projected costt of inflation baeedupon fie sdledule
ifopOSed in itann E, e pfoposed oonflngency cost, ano n€ costs of long'186,
maintenance and monitoring.
Liccnse Number
AU6-00-Ei l5;1$ From;T-ll5 P.1E/2? Jsb-300
ftiRc FOFM 374A
(z-B{OF
MATEBIALS LICEHSE
sUPPLEMETITARV s}TEET
tZ.Z Tho lhcncoc shsll subrnit s detailed decomrnietioning plan to the NRC at least hrdve (12)
montht prior to Plannsd final chutdown of mill operatlons'
FOR THE fiIJCLEAB/BEGULATORY COMMISSIONAfun::orw .,7:_A9'..I7 n Surmeier,
Unrnium Reoovery and Lowlsvel
WBrtr Erqdr
Diviaion of Wa$c Management
Office of Nuggdr irlateilat Selety
and $aEguardr i
fuT-c;
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555r(XDl
September 25, 1998
Mr. Ear! E. Hoellen, President
lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation
lndependence Plaza, Suite 950
1 050 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80265
--.1 .__
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT I TO SOURCE MATERIAL LICENSE SUA-1358, WHITE MESA
URANIUM MILL - MODIFICATIONS TO TAILINGS IMPOUNDMENT LEAK
DETECTION MONITORING PROGRAM
Dear Mr. Hoellen:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has completed its review of an
amendment request submitted by lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation (lUC) for the \Mite
Mesa uranium mill. By letter dated January 9, 1998, lUC requested approval of a change in its
tailings impoundment leak detection monitoring program, as currently required under License
Condition No. 11.3 of NRC Source Material License SUA-1358. IUC amended its application by
letters dated February 26 and September 14, 1998, in response to comments from, and
discussion with, the staff. Based on its review, the NRC staff finds this request acceptable with
slight modifications. These modifications were agreed to by IUC by telephone on July 16 and
September 2, 1998.
The details of IUC's amendment request are discussed in the staffs Technical Evaluation
Report (TER). The TER documents the basis for the staffs approval of this request and is
provided as Enclosure 1.
Therefore, pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40, NRC Source
Material License SUA-1358 is hereby amended by revising License Condition No. 1 1.3.
A!! other conditions of this license shall remain the same. The license is being reissued to
incorporate the above modification (Enclosure 2). An environmental review was not performed
since this action is categorically excluded under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11).
-/.
./,., " qj,'.'b''t'/ r'lt
.. a\
-J
' 9'e''"' '
lj1'
Ir
E. Hoellen
lf you have any questions regarding this letter or the enclosures, please contact Mr. James
Park, the NRC Project Manager for the White Mesa site, at [phone].
Sincerely,
-2-
;J
Uranium Recovery Branch
Division of Waste Management
Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards
Docket No.40-8681
SUA-1358, Amendment No. 8
Enclosures: As stated (2)
cc: hlSindair, UT
M.Rehmann, IUC
C.Crist, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe EPA
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT
DOCKET NO. 40-8681
LICENSEE: lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation
FACILIW: \Mite Mesa Uranium Mill
PROJECT MANAGER: James Park
L]CENSE NO. SUA.1358
TECHNICAL REVIEWERS: Michael Layton
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS:
As part of the corrective actions taken in response to a Notice of Violation issued by NRC on
August 12, l99T,lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation (lUC) requested an amendment to
Source Material License No, SUA-1358 for the White Mesa uranium mill. By letter dated
January 9, 1998, IUC requested approval of a change in its tailings impoundment leak detection
monitoring program, as currently required under License Condition No. 11.3 of SUA-1358. IUC
amended its application by letters dated February 26 and September 14, 1998, in response to
comments from, and discussion with, the staff.
The staff has reviewed IUC's proposal and finds it acceptable with slight modifications. These
modifications were discussed with IUC and agreed to in telephone calls on July 16 and
September 2, 1998.
DESCRIPTION OF LICENSEE'S AMENDMENT REQUEST:
By letter dated January 9, 1998, lUC requested an amendment to SUA-1358 to modify the
tailings impoundment leak detection monitoring program as currently required under License
Condition No. 1 1.3.
By this submittal, IUC proposed the following monitoring program:
1. Weekly measurements of the depth to fluid in the leak detection standpipes would be
taken for each disposal cell. lf sufficient fluid is present to pump, then IUC would pump
the fluid out, record the volume of fluid recovered, and return the fluid to the same or
another disposal cell.
2. The estimated flow rate through the disposal liner would be calculated by dividing the
vol,rme of fluid recovered by the elapsed time since the standpipe was pumped last.
An estimated flow rate of one gallon or more per minute would be an indication of
potential liner distress.
3. lf potential liner distress is identified, then IUC would evaluate and report contributing
causes and, if appropriate, increase the sampling frequency of the point-of-compliance
Enclosure 1
(POC) wells on the down-gradient edge of the disposal area in a manner and duration
as warranted by the report.
Following discussions with the NRC staff by telephone, IUC modified its proposal, by letters
dated February 26 and September 14, 1998, in response to the staffs comments. IUC
proposed that, following pumping from the standpipe, the fluid would be analyzed for the POC
parameters (chloride, potassium, nickel, and uranium) and pH, if this was the first time that fluid
ever had been recovered from the standpipe.
lf these analyses indicated that the likely source of the fluid was the disposal cell, either by
elevated levels of the POC constituents or by a pH level below 5.0, then IUC would calculate
the estimated flow rate and analyze for potential liner distress as described in ltem 2 above.
lf the analyses did not point to the cell as the likely source, then IUC proposed to analyze any
recovered fluid from that cell on an annual basis for the POC parameters and pH, as positive
confirmation that the fluid was not originating from that cell.
TECHNICAL EVALUATION:
ln general, the staff finds IUC's proposed approach acceptable. The staff recognizes that
monitoring of the liner leak detection system serves as an early warning of potential liner failure
and does not constitute a monitoring program for initiating ground-water corrective action.
The staff also agrees that the primary method of confirming liner distress or failure should be
the determination of a flow rate through the liner after the origin of the fluid in the leak detection
system is determined. The licensee's proposed monitoring program was evaluated by
constructing a decision flow chart (Figure 1), based on information supplied by the licensee.
The licensee's approach appears to address current site conditions and potentialfuture events.
However, the staff recommended minor modifications to the licensee's proposal to address
reporting requirements of 10 CFR 40.60(b), and additional measures to mitigate the potential
impact from a confirmed liner failure. These included: (1) specifying the time frames for
reporting leaks from an impoundment to NRC (the initial telephone report within 48 hours and
a written report within 30 days); and (2) retaining the analysis results and flow-rate calculations
on-site for NRC inspection. Figure 1 includes these recommended changes.
IUC agreed to these modifications by telephone on July 16 and September 2, 1998.
IUC's proposed modifications to its leak detection system monitoring program for its tailings
impoundments will not impact the approved ground-water detection monitoring program for the
site. IUC will continue to be required to sample the POC wells on a quarterly basis and to
analyze those samples for the indicator parameters identified above. IUC has indicated that it
may increase the sampling frequency of the POC wells as part of its response to an identified
leak from a disposal cell. The staff will address any modification to the ground-water detection
monitoring program at that time.
2
RECOMMENDED LICENSE CHANGE:
Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40, Source Material License
SUA-1358 will be amended by modifying License Condition No. 1 1.3 as follows:
11.3 The licensee shall implement a ground-water detection monitoring program to ensure
compliance to 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. The detection monitoring program shall be
in accordance with the report entitled, "Points of Compliance, White Mesa Uranium Mill,"
submitted by letter dated October 5, 1994, and the following:
A. The licensee shall sample monitoring wells WMMW-S, -1 1, -12, -14, -15, and -17,
on a quarterly basis. Samples shall be analyzed for chloride, potassium, nickel,
and uranium, and the results of such sampling shall be included with the
environmental monitoring reports submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 40.65.
ln addition, the licensee shall implement a monitoring program of the leak detection
systems for the disposal cells as follows:
B. The licensee shall measure and record the "depth to fluid" in each of the tailings
disposal cell standpipes on a weekly basis. lf sufficient fluid is present in the leak
detection system (LDS) of any cell, the licensee shall pump fluid from the LDS, to
the extent reasonably possible, and record the volume of fluid recovered. Any fluid
pumped from an LDS shall be returned to a disposal cell.
lf fluid is pumped from an LDS, the licensee shall calculate the flow rate by dividing
the recorded volume of fluid recovered by the elapsed time since fluid was last
pumped or increases in the LDS fluid levels were recorded, whichever is the more
recent. The licensee shall document the results of this calculation.
C. Upon the initial pumping of fluid from an LDS, the licensee shall collect a fluid
sample and analyze the fluid for pH and the parameters listed in paragraph A of
this license condition. The licensee shall determine whether the LDS fluid
originated from the disposal cell by ascertaining if the collected fluid contains
elevated levels of the constituents listed in paragraph A of this license condition or
has a pH level less than 5.0. lf either elevated constituent levels or a pH less than
5.0 is observed, the licensee shall assume that the disposal cel! is the origin of
the fluid.
lf the LDS fluid is determined not to have originated from the disposal cell, the
licensee shall continue with weekly measurements of "depth to fluid" in the LDS
standpipes. The licensee shall confirm, on an annual basis, that fluid from the
disp'osal cell has not entered the LDS b1, collecting (to the extent possible) and
analyzing an LDS fluid sample for the above stated parameters.
D. Upon indication that the LDS fluids originated from the disposal cell, the licensee
shall determine the flow rate through the liner by the calculation method in
paragraph B of this license condition. lf the flow rate is equal to, or greater than,
one gallon per minute, the licensee shall:
1. Evaluate the cause of the liner distress and take appropriate and timely
actions to mitigate the leak and any consequent potential impacts;
2. Continue to measure and record LDS "depth to fluid" measurements
weekly; and
3. Notify NRC by telephone within 48 hours, in accordance with License
Condition 9.2, and submit a written report within 30 days of notifying NRC
by telephone, in accordance with License Condition 9.2. The written
report shall include a description of the mitigative action(s) taken and a
discussion of the mitigative action results.
lf the calculated flow rate is less than one gallon per minute, the licensee shall
continue with weekly measurements of "depth to fluid" in the LDS standpipes.
E. All sampling, analysis, and evaluation of LDS fluids shall be documented and
retained onsite until license termination for NRC inspection.
[Applicable Amendment: 8]
ENVI RONMENTAL ]MPACT EVALUATION:
The change in IUC's tailings impoundment leak detection program will not result in
(1) a significant change or increase in the types or amounts of effiuents that may be released
offsite; (2) a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure;
(3) a significant construction impact; or (4) a significant increase in the potential for or
consequences from radiological accidents. An environmental review was not performed, since
actions meeting these criteria are categorically excluded under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11).
Measure "depth to fluid" in LDS
weekly. Record measurement.
Fluid
detected?
Flow rate equal to
or greater than one
gallon per minute?
ls fluid from the
impoundment?
Collect fluid sample. Analyze for
POC parameters and pH.
Record information.
Compare analysis
results to
impoundment
constituent levels and
pH equalto 5.0
Can fluid be
pumped?
ls fluid from the
impoundment?
Collect and
analyze fluid
sample annually.
Record
informalion.
Pump fluid. Estimate volume
recovered. Calculate flow rate.
Record information.
Was
LDS pumped
previously?
1. Evaluate cause of liner
distress and take mitigative
actions.
2. Gontinue with weekly LDS
fluid level measurements.
3. Record information and
retain for NRC inspection.
4. Report leak to NRC.
Figure 1. Flowchart of Final Revised Tailings lmpoundment Leak Detection Monitoring Program
NRC FORM 374
(7-e4)U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
PAGEIOFqPAGES
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-438), and Title 10, Code of
Federal Regulations, Chapter I, Parts 30,31, 32, 33,34,35,36,39,40, and 70, and in reliance on statements and representations heretofore made
by the licensee, a license is hereby issued authorizing the licensee to receive, acquire, possess, and transfer byproduct, source, and special nuclear
material designated below; to use such material for the purpose(s) and at the place(s) designated below; to deliver or transfer such material to
persons authorized to receive it in accordance with the regulations of the applicable Part(s). This license shall be deemed to contain the conditions
specified in Section 183 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and is subject to all applicable rules, regulations, and orders of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission now or hereafter in effect and to any conditions specified below.
Licensee
lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation
[Applicable Amendments: 2]
6425 S. Highway 191
P.O. Box 809
Blanding, Utah 84511
[Applicable Amendments: 2]
3. License Number
SUA-1358, Amendment No. 8
4. Expiration Date March 31,2OOT
5. Docket or
Reference No.40-8681
6. Byproduct, Source, and/or
Special Nuclear Material
SECTION 9:
9.1
9.2
9.3
7. Chemical and/or Physical
Form
8. Maximum Amount that Licensee
May Possess at Any One Time
Under This License
UnlimitedNatural Uranium Any
Adm i n istrative Cond itions
The authorized place of use shall be the licensee's White Mesa uranium milling facility,
located in San Juan County, Utah.
All written notices and reports to the NRC required under this license, with the exception of
incident and event notifications under 10 CFR 20.2202 and 10 CFR 40.60 requiring
telephone notification, shall be addressed to the Chief, Uranium Recovery Branch, Division of
Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
lncident and event notifications that require telephone notification shall be made to the NRC
Operations Center at [phone].
The licensee shall conduct operations in accordance with statements, representations, and
conditions contained in the license renewal application submitted by letter dated August 23,
1991, as revised by submittals dated January 13, and April 7, 1992, November 22, 1994,
July 27, 1995, December 13, and December 31, 1996, and January 30, 1997, which are
hereby incorporated by reference, and for the Standby Trust Agreement, dated April 29,
1997, except where superseded by license conditions below.
Whenever the word "will" is used in the above referenced documents, it shall denote a
requirement. [ApplicableAmendment:2]
A. The licensee may, without prior NRC approval, and subject to the conditions specified
in Part B of this condition:
9.4
(1) Make changes in the facility or process, as presented in the application.
REGULATORY COMMISSION
License Number
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Docket or Reference Number
(2) Make changes in the procedures presented in the aPplication.
(3) Conduct tests or experiments not presented in the application.
B. The licensee shall file an application for an amendment to the license, unless the
following conditions are satisfied.
(1) The change, test, or experiment does not conflict with any requirement
specifically stated in this license, or impair the licensee's ability to meet all
applicable NRC regulations.
(2) There is no degradation in the essential safety or environmental commitments in
the license application, or provided by the approved reclamation plan.
(3) The change, test, or experiment is consistent with the conclusions of actions
analyzed and selected in the EA dated February 1997.
C. The licensee's determinations concerning Part B of this condition, shall be made by a
"Safety and Environmental Review Panel (SERP)." The SERP shall consist of a
minimum of three individuals. One member of the SERP shall have expertise in
management and shall be responsible for managerial and financial approval changes;
one member shall have expertise in operations and/or construction and shall have
responsibility for implementing any operational changes; and, one member shall be the
corporate radiation safety officer (CRSO) or equivalent, with the responsibility of
assuring changes conform to radiation safety and environmental requirements.
Additional members may be included in the SERP as appropriate, to address technical
aspects such as health physics, groundwater hydrology, surface-water hydrology,
specific earth sciences, and other technical disciplines. Temporary members or
permanent members, other than the three above-specified individuals, may be
consultants.
D. The licensee shall maintain records of any changes made pursuant to this condition
until license termination. These records shall include written safety and environmental
evaluations, made by the SERP, that provide the basis for determining changes are in
compliance with the requirements refened to in Part B of this condition. The licensee
shallfumish, in an annual report to NRC, a description of such changes, tests, or
experiments, including a summary of the safety and environmental evaluation of each.
ln addition, the licensee shall annually submit to the NRC changed pages to the
Operations Plan and Reclamation Plan of the approved license application to reflect
changes made under this condition.
The licensee's SERP shall function in accordance with the standard operating procedures
submitted by letter dated June 10, 1997.
[Applicable Amendments: 3]
NfiC FORM 374A
(7-94)
9.7
9.5
u.s.REGULATORY COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Docket oaR-eferenct
The licensee shall maintain an NRC-approved financial surety arrangement, consistent with
10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10, adequate to cover the estimated costs, if
accomplished by a third party, for decommissioning and decontamination of the mill and mill
site, for reclamation of any tailings or waste disposal areas, ground-water restoration as
warranted and for the long-term surveillance fee. Within three months of NRC approval of a
revised reclamation/decommissioning plan, the licensee shall submit, for NRC review and
approval, a proposed revision to the financial surety arrangement if estimated costs in the
newly approved plan exceed the amount covered in the existing financial surety. The revised
surety shall then be in effect within 3 months of written NRC approval.
Annual updates to the surety amount, required by 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10,
shall be submitted to the NRC at least 3 months prior to the anniversary date which is
designated as June 4 of each year. lf the NRC has not approved a proposed revision to the
surety coverage 30 days prior to the expiration date of the existing surety arrangement, the
licensee shall extend the existing surety arrangement for 1 year. Along with each proposed
revision or annual update, the licensee shall submit supporting documentation showing a
breakdown of the costs and the basis for the cost estimates with adjustments for inflation,
maintenance of a minimum 15 percent contingency fee, changes in engineering plans,
activities performed and any other conditions affecting estimated costs for site closure. The
basis for the cost estimate is the NRC approved reclamation/decommissioning plan or NRC
approved revisions to the plan. The previously provided guidance entitled "Recommended
Outline for Site Specific Reclamation and Stabilization Cost Estimates" outlines the minimum
considerations used by the NRC in the review of site closure estimates.
Reclamation/decommissioning plans and annual updates should follow this outline.
The currently approved surety instrument, a Performance Bond issued by National Union
Fire lnsurance Company in favor of the NRC, and the associated Standby Trust Agreement,
dated April 29, 1997, shall be continuously maintained in an amount not less than
$11,469,859 for the purpose of complying with 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10,
until a replacemeni is authorized by the NRC.
[Applicable Amendments: 2, 3, 5]
Standard operating procedures shall be established and followed for all operational process
activities involving radioactive materials that are handled, processed, or stored. SOPs for
operational activities shall enumerate pertinent radiation safety practices to be followed.
Additionally, written procedures shall be established for non-operational activities to include
in-plant and environmental monitoring, bioassay analyses, and instrument calibrations. An
up-to-date copy of each written procedure shall be kept in the mill area to which it applies.
All written procedures for both operational and non-operational activities shall be reviewed
and approved in writing by the radiation safety officer (RSO) before implementation and
whenever a change in procedure is proposed to ensure that proper radiation protection
principles are being applied. ln addition, the RSO shall perform a documented review of all
existing operating procedures at least annually.
Before engaging in any activity not previously assessed by the NRC, the licensee shall
administer a cultural resource inventory. All disturbances associated with the proposed
development will be completed in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (as
9.6
9.8
9.9
9.10
REGULATORY COMMISSION
License Number
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Docket or Reference Number
amended) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800), and the Archaeological Resources
Protection Act (as amended) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR 7).
ln order to ensure that no unapproved disturbance of cultural resources occurs, any work
resulting in the discovery of previously unknown cultural artifacts shall cease. The artifacts
shall be inventoried and evaluated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, and no disturbance
shall occur until the licensee has received authorization from the NRC to proceed.
The licensee shall avoid by project design, where feasible, the archeological sites designated
"contributing" in the report submitted by letter dated July 28, 1988. When it is not feasible to
avoid a site designated "contributing" in the reporl, the licensee shall institute a data recovery
program for that site based on the research design submitted by letter from C. E. Baker of
Energy Fuels Nuclear to Mr. Melvin T. Smith, Utah State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO), dated April '13, 1981.
The licensee shall recover through archeological excavation all "contributing" sites listed in
the report which are located in or within 100 feet of borrow areas, stockpile areas,
construction areas, or the perimeter of the reclaimed tailings impoundment. Data recovery
fieldwork at each site meeting these criteria shall be completed prior to the start of any
project related disturbancewithin 100 feet of the site, but analysis and report preparation
need not be complete.
Additionally, the licensee shall conduct such testing as is required to enable the Commission
to determine if those sites designated as "Undetermined" in the report and located within
100 feet of present or known future construction areas are of such significance to warrant
their redesignation as "contributing." ln all cases, such testing shall be completed before any
aspect of the undertaking affects a site.
Archeological contractors shall be approved in writing by the Commission. The Commission
will approve an archeological contractor who meets the minimum standards for a principal
investigator set forth in 36 CFR Part 66, Appendix C, and whose qualifications are found
acceptable by the SHPO.
The licensee is hereby authorized to possess byproduct material in the form of uranium
waste tailings and other uranium byproduct waste generated by the licensee's milling
operations authorized by this license. Mill tailings shall not be transferred from the site
without specific prior approval of the NRC in the form of a license amendment. The licensee
shall maintain a permanent record of all transfers made under the provisions of this condition.
The licensee is hereby exempted from the requirements of Section 20.1902 (e) of 10 CFR
Parl20 for areas within the mill, provided that all entrances to the mill are conspicuously
posted in accordance with Section 20.1902 (e) and with the words, "Any area within this mill
may contain radioactive material."
Release of equipment or packages from the restricted area shall be in accordance with
"Guidelines for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted
Use or Termination of Licenses for Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear Material," dated
May 1987, or suitable altemative procedures approved by the NRC prior to any such release.
NRC FORM 374A
(7-94)
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
u.sQr-een REGuLAToRY coMMrssroN
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
sECTloN 10: Operational Controls, Limits, and Restrictions
The mill production rate shall not exceed 4380 tons of yellowcake per year.
All liquid effluents from mill process buildings, with the exception of sanitary wastes, shall be
retumed to the mill circuit or discharged to the tailings impoundment.
Freeboard limits for Cells 1-1, 3, and 4,A, and tonnage limits for Cell 3, shall be as stated in
Section 3.0 to Appendix E of the approved license application.
Disposal of material and equipment generated at the mill site shall be conducted as
described in the licensee's submittals dated December 12, 1994 and May 23, 1995, with the
following addition:
A. The maximum lift thickness for materials placed over tailings shall be less than 4-feet
thick. Subsequent lifts shall be less than 2-feet thick. Each lift shall be compacted by
tracking of heavy equipment, such as a Cat D-6, at least 4 times prior to placement of
subsequent lifts.
ln accordance with the licensee's submittal dated May 20, 1993, the licensee is hereby
authorized to dispose of byproduct material generated at licensed in situ leach facilities,
subject to the following conditions:
A. Disposal of waste is llmited to 5000 cubic yards from a single source.
B. All contaminated equipment shall be dismantled, crushed, or sectioned to minimize
void spaces. Barrels containing waste other than soil or sludges shall be emptied into
the disposal area and the barrels crushed. Barrels containing soil or sludges shall be
verified to be full prior to disposal. Barrels not completely full shall be filled with tailings
or soil.
C. All waste shall be buried in Cell No. 3 unless prior written approval is obtained from the
NRC for altemate burial locations.
D. All disposal activities shall be documented. The documentation shall include
descriptions of the waste and the disposal locations, as well as all actions required by
this condition. An annual summary of the amounts of waste disposed of from off-site
generators shall be sent to the NRC.
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materials from the Allied Signal
Coiporation's Metropolis, lllinois, facility in accordance with the amendment request dated
June 15, 1993.
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from Allied Signal, lnc. of
Metropolis, lllinois, in accordance with the amendment request dated September 20, 1996,
and amended by letters dated October 30, and November 11, 1996.
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material, in accordance with the
amendment request dated March 5, 1997. [Applicable Amendments: 1]
License NumbEr
Docket oi
R REGULATORY COMMISSION
License Number
Docket or Reference NumberMATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
10.9 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materialfrom Cabot Performance
Materials'facility near Boyertown, Pennsylvania, in accordance with the amendment request
dated April 3, 1997, as amended by submittals dated May 19, and August 6, 1997.
[Applicable Amendments: 4]
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Ashland 2
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, located near Tonawanda,
New York, in accordance with the amendment request dated May 8, 1998, as amended by
the submittals dated May 27 , June 3, and June 1 1 , 1998.
[Applicable Amendment: 6]
10.10
sECTtoN 11: Monitoring, Recording, and Bookkeeping Requirements
11.1 The results of sampling, analyses, surveys and monitoring, the results of calibration of
equipment, reports on audits and inspections, all meetings and training courses required by
this license and any subsequent reviews, investigations, and corrective actions, shall be
documented. Unless otherwise specified in the NRC regulations all such documentation
shall be maintained for a period of at least five (5) years.
The licensee shall implement the effluent and environmental monitoring program specified in
Section 5.5 of the renewal application, as amended by the submittal dated June 8, 1995, and
as revised with the following modifications or additions:
A. Stack sampling shall include a determination of flow rate.
B. Surface water samples shall also be analyzed semiannually for total and dissolved
U-nat, Ra-226, and Th-230, with the exception of the Westwater Creek, which shall be
sampled annually for water or sediments and analyzed as above. A sediment sample
shall not be taken in place of a water sample unless a water sample was not available.
C. Groundwater sampling shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements in
License Condition 1 1.3.
D. The licensee shall utilize lower limits of detection in accordance with Section 5 of
Regulatory Guide 4.14 (Revision 1), for analysis of effluent and environmental
samples.
E. The inspections performed semiannualry of the critical oriflce assembly committed to in
the submittal dated March 15, 1986, shall be documented. The criticalorifice
assembly shall be calibrated at least every 2 years against a positive displacement
Roots meter to obtain the required calibration curve.
[Applicable Amendment: 5]
The licensee shall implement a groundwater detection monitoring program to ensure
compliance to 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. The detection monitoring program shall be in
11.2
11.3
NRC FORM 374A
(7-94)
REGULATORY COMMISSION
License Number
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Docket or Reference Number
accordance with the report entitled, "Points of Compliance, White Mesa Uranium Mill,"
submitted by letter dated October 5, 1994, and the following:
A. The licensee shall sample monitoring wells WMMW-S, -11, -12, -14, -15, and -17, on
a quarterly basis. Samples shall be analyzed for chloride, potassium, nickel, and uranium,
and the results of such sampling shall be included with the environmental monitoring reports
submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 40.65.
ln addition, the licensee shall implement a monitoring program of the leak detection systems for the
disposal cells as follows:
B. The licensee shall measure and record the "depth to fluid" in each of the tailings disposal cell
standpipes on a weekly basis. lf sufficient fluid is present in the leak detection system (LDS)
of any cell, the licensee shall pump fluid from the LDS, to the extent reasonably possible, and
record the volume of fluid recovered. Any fluid pumped from an LDS shall be returned to a
disposal cell.
lf fluid is pumped from an LDS, the licensee shall calculate the flow rate by dividing the
recorded volume of fluid recovered by the elapsed time since fluid was last pumped or
increases in the LDS fluid levels were recorded, whichever is the more recent. The licensee
shall document the results of this calculation.
C. Upon the initial pumping of fluid from an LDS, the licensee shall collect a fluid sample and
analyze the fluid for pH and the parameters listed in paragraph A of this license condition.
The licensee shall determine whether the LDS fluid originated from the disposal cell by
ascertaining if the collected fluid contains elevated levels of the constituents listed in
paragraph A of this license condition or has a pH level less than 5.0. lf either elevated
constituent levels or a pH less than 5.0 is observed, the licensee shall assume that the
disposal cell is the origin of the fluid.
lf the LDS fluid is determined not to have originated from the disposal cell, the licensee shall
continue with weekly measurements of "depth to fluid" in the LDS standpipes. The licensee
shall confirm, on an annual basis, that fluid from the disposal cell has not entered the LDS by
collecting (to the extent possible) and analyzing an LDS fluid sample for the above stated
parameters.
D. Upon indication that the LDS fluids originated from the disposal cell, the licensee shall
determine the flow rate through the liner by the calculation method in paragraph B of this
license condition. lf the flow rate is equal to or greater than one gallon per minute, the
licensee shall:
1. Evaluate the cause of the liner distress and take appropriate and timely actions to
mitigate the leak and any consequent potential impacts;
2. Continue to measure and record LDS "depth to fluid" measurements weekly; and
3. Notify NRC by telephone within 48 hours, in accordance with License Condition 9.2,
and submit a written report within 30 days of notifying NRC by telephone,
OFU.S.
E.
REGULATORY COMMISSION
License Number
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Docket or Reference Number
in accordance with License Condition 9.2. The written report shall include a description
of the mitigative action(s) taken and a discussion of the mitigative action results.
lf the calculated flow rate is less than one gallon per minute, the licensee shall continue with
weekly measurements of "depth to fluid" in the LDS standpipes.
All sampling, analysis, and evaluation of LDS fluids shall be documented and retained onsite
until license termination for NRC inspection.
[Applicable Amendment: 8]
Annually, the licensee shall collect, during mill operations, a set of air samples covering eight
hours of sampling, at a high collection flow rate (i.e., greater than or equal to 40 liters per
minute), in routinely or frequently occupied areas of the mill. These samples shall be
analyzed for gross alpha. ln addition, with each change in mill feed material or at least
annually, the licensee shall analyze the mill feed or production product for U-nat, Th-230,
Ra-226, and Pb-210 and use the analysis results to assess the fundamental constituent
composition of air sample particulates.
[Applicable Amendment: 7]
Calibration of in-plant air and radiation monitoring equipment shall be performed as specified
in the license renewal application, under Section 3.0 of the "Radiation Protection Procedures
Manual," with the exception that in-plant air sampling equipment shal! be calibrated at least
quarterly and air sampling equipment checks shall be documented.
The licensee shall perform an annual ALARA audit of the radiation safety program in
accordance with Regulatory Guide 8.31.
12: Reporting Requirements
The licensee shall submit to NRC for review, by June 30, 1997, a detailed reclamation plan
for the authorized tailings disposal area which includes the following:
A. A post-operations interim stabilization plan which details methods to prevent wind and
water erosion and recharge of the tailings area.
B. A plan to determine the best methodology to dewater and/or consolidate the tailings
cells prior to placement of the final reclamation cover.
C. Plan and cross-sectional views of a final reclamation cover which details the location
and elevation of tailings. The plan shall include details on cover thickness, physical
characteristics of cover materials, proposed testing of cover materials (specifications
and quality assurance), the estimated volumes of cover materials and their availability
and location.
D. Detailed plans for placement of rock or vegetative cover on the final reclaimed tailings
pile and mill site area.
11.4
1 1.5
11.6
SECTION
12.1
Nnc ronu ozcn
(7-94)
U.S.REGULATORY COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Docket or Reference Number
E. A proposed implementation schedule for items A through D above which defines the
sequence of events and expected time ranges.
F. An analysis to show that the proposed type and thickness of soil cover is adequate to
provide attenuation of radon and is adequate to assure long-term stability, as well as
an analysis and proposal on methodology and time required to restore ground water in
conformance to regulatory requirements.
G. The licensee shall include a detailed cost analysis of each phase of the reclamation
plan to include contractor costs, projected costs of inflation based upon the schedule
proposed in item E, a proposed contingency cost, and the costs of long-term
maintenance and monitoring.
12.2 The licensee shall submit a detailed decommissioning plan to the NRC at least twelve (12)
months prior to planned final shutdown of mill operations.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
o.*W
Division of Waste Management
Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGU]ATORY COMMISSION
wASHtNGTON, D.C. 20555-OOOi
August 28, 1998
Mr. Earl E. Hoellen, President
lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation
lndependence Plaza, Suite 950
1 050 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80265
AMENDMENT 7 TO SOURCE MATERIAL LICENSE SUA-1358, WHITE MESA
URANIUM MILL - MODIFICATIONS TO IN-PLANT MONITORING PROGRAM
Dear Mr. Hoellen:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has completed its review of an
amendment request submitted by lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation (lUC) for the VUhite
Mesa uranium mill. By letter dated December 3, 1997, and subsequently revised by letter
dated March 23, 1998, IUC requested approvalfor a change in the in-plant radiological
monitoring program at the mill. Based on its review, the NRC staff finds this request acceptable
with slight modifications. These modifications were agreed to by IUC by telephone on
July 20, 1998.
The details of IUC's amendment request are discussed in the staffs Technical Evaluation
Report (TER). The TER documents the basis for the staffs approval of this request and is
provided as Enclosure 1.
Therefore, pursuant to Title 't0 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40, NRC Source
Material License SUA-1358 is hereby amended by revising License Condition No. 1 1.4.
All other conditions of this license shall remain the same. The license is being reissued to
incorporate the above modification (Enclosure 2). An environmental review was not performed
since this action is categorically excluded under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11\.
,'\
tr\()"
-;\
rjjc.,ii:'1i,1
(:,.,
, l';' ,'-,.7
'/': ^'''
frP', a
/s Eff 1sl3
\U, Jffil,it'\''o. nadistion\cl Gontrol
\4\\e'\Qr,q.,
E. Hoellen
lf you have any questions regarding this letter or the enclosures, please contact Mr. James
Park, the NRC Project Manager for the \A/hite Mesa site, at [phone].
Sincerely,
+"m"d,4
Uranium Recovery Branch
Division of Waste Management
Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards
Docket No. 40-8681
SUA-1358, Amendment No. 7
Enclosures: As stated (2)
cc: W.Sinclair, UT
M.Rehmann, IUC
-2-
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT
DOCKET NO. 40-8681
DATE: August21,1998
LICENSEE: lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation
FACILITY: White Mesa Uranium Mill
LICENSE NO. SUA.1358
PROJECT MANAGER: James Park
TECHNICAL REVIEWER: Duane Schmidt
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS:
As part of its corrective actions taken in response to a Notice of Violation (NOV) issued by NRC
on August 12, l99T,lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation (lUC) requested an amendment
to Source Material License No. SUA-1358 for the White Mesa uranium mill. By letter dated
December 3, 1997, IUC requested approval of a proposed modification to the in-plant air
monitoring program committed to in its approved license application. IUC provided additional
information by letter dated March 23, 1998, in response to comments received from the NRC
staff.
The staff has reviewed IUC's proposal and found it acceptable with slight modifications. These
modifications were discussed with IUC and agreed to in a telephone call on July 20, 1998.
DESCRIPTION OF LICENSEE'S AMENDMENT REQUEST:
By letter dated December 3, 1997, IUC requested an amendment to SUA-1358 to modify
in-plant air monitoring commitments made in its approved license application. tUC's request
was part of its corrective actions taken in response to an NOV issued by the NRC on August
12, 1997, as.a result of the staffs routine inspection of the White Mesa mill on July 15-17, 1997.
By letter dated March 23, 1998, IUC provided additional information in response to a
February 13, 1998, written request from the NRC staff.
By its submittals, lUC proposed that License Condition 11.4 of SUA-1358 be revised, in part, to
require that (1) annual air samples be taken, during operational periods, in routinely or
frequently occupied areas and analyzed for gross alpha radioactivity, and (2) isotopic analyses
of operational mill feed or production product be performed for natura! uranium, thorium-23O,
radium-226, and lead-210 to assess the composition of air particulates.
Depending on the results of the isotopic analyses, derived air concentration (DAC) values would
be determined for different mixtures of radionuclides, with the result that various areas in the
mill would have a DAC value applied that is most appropriate for the radionuclide mixture likely
to be present in air samples in that area. IUC considers that the mill site can be separated into
Enclosure 1
four areas for this purpose: (1) the ore handling and storage area, where uranium and its
progeny is expected to be in equilibrium; (2) the uranium precipitation circuit, where only soluble
uranium is expected to be present; (3) the uranium drying, packaging, and calciner area, where
only uranium in a moderately insoluble form would be present; and (4) the tailings area, where
uranium and its progeny would be present in disequilibrium, as separation has been attained.
IUC stated that approval of its proposed modifications will result in the collection of more
meaningful isotopic data than that currently collected, and at a reduced expense to the
company.
TECHNICAL EVALUATION:
Curently, in its approved license application, IUC has committed to taking an annual
eight-hour, in-plant airborne radioactivity sample and analyzing the sample for natural uranium,
thorium-230, radium-226,lead-210, and polonium-210. ln accordance with License Condition
No. 1 1.4, IUC is authorized to eliminate this annual sample, during extended periods of mill
standby, if routine airborne sampling show levels below ten percent of the appropriate 10 CFR
Parl20limits.
At issue in the licensee's proposal is an appropriate method for performing measurements to
determine the isotopic composition of the airborne radioactive particulates in plant areas to
which workers are, or may be, exposed. As a result of the uranium extraction process in the
mill, the concentrations of the airborne radioactive particulates are expected to vary around the
mill. Appropriate area-specific DACs (based on the mixture of radionuclides present) can be
used (1) to determine whether measured air particulate concentrations (often gross alpha
measurements) are acceptable, and (2) in the determination of worker radiation exposures.
These determinations are necessary primarily for the licensee to ensure compliance with the
worker dose limits of 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart C.
IUC believes that the ability to sample much larger quantities of the mill feed or product
materials would provide at least as accurate information regarding the radionuclide composition
of potential airborne contaminants as does the current air sampling method. The NRC staff
agrees that the larger sample sizes possible with the proposed method should improve the
validity of the results on radionuclide composition.
The staff also considers that the sampling of the mill feed materials should allow for the early
identification of materials that are significantly different, in terms of radionuclide composition,
from natural ores processed at the mill, an issue of some importance considering the
processing of alternate feedstock materials. As a result, IUC would be able to evaluate the
need for changes to DAC values for various areas of the plant commensurate with the material
being processed. Thus, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed approach should be valid
for the purpose of determining DAC values for the different areas of the mill. The staff cautions
that the use of this approach depends on accurate determinations, in advance, of how the
isotopic composition of the mill feed and product may impact the isotopic composition of air
particulates in the different mill areas.
2
A second issue with the proposed license amendment is the appropriateness of the proposed
approach for extended periods of mill standby. IUC did not specifically address this issue in its
submittals. However, during mill standby, there would be no millfeed or product to sample.
Thus, it appears to the NRC staff that, if isotopic results are needed for DAC or dose
calculations during periods of standby, the licensee can make use of previously determined
values, or base calculations on other knowledge of the likely airborne contaminants during
standby conditions. Such an approach would generally be acceptable.
Finally, approval of this request will not impact the regular weekly and monthly in-plant radiation
monitoring conducted by lUC.
Therefore, the staff finds IUC's proposed approach to be acceptable. However, the staff
considers that an annual analysis of mill feed or product materials may not be frequent enough,
in light of IUC's past and anticipated future processing of various alternate feed materials in
addition to natural uranium ore. Therefore, the staff will require that IUC perform an isotopic
analysis of mill feed or product materials any time a new feed material is introduced into the mill
process. IUC agreed to this modification by telephone on July 20, 1998.
RECOMMENDED LICENSE CHANGE:
License Condition 11.4 of SUA-1358 will be modified, in part, as follows:
Annually, the licensee shall collect, during mill operations, a set of air samples covering
eight hours of sampling, at a high collection flow rate (i.e., greater than or equal to 40
liters per minute), in routinely or frequently occupied areas of the mill. These samples
shall be analyzed for gross alpha. ln addition, with each change in mill feed material or
at least annually, the licensee shall analyze either the mill feed or production product for
U-nat, Th-230, Ra-226, and Pb-210 and use the analysis results to assess the
fundamental constituent composition of air sample particulates.
[Applicable Amendment: 7]
ENVIRONMENTAL IM PACT EVALUATION :
Because this change in IUC's in-plant radiation monitoring program will not result in
(1) a significant change or increase in the types or amounts of effluents that may be released
offsite; (2) a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure;
(3) a significant construction impact; or (4) a significant increase in the potential for or
consequences from radiological accidents, an environmental review was not performed since
actions meeting these criteria are categorically excluded under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11).
NRC FORM 374(7-94\ '.REGULATORY COMMISSION 1 or B pncrs
MATERIALS LICENSE
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-438), and Title 10. Cocle of
Federal Regulations, Chapter I, Parts 30,31,32,33,34,35,36,39,40, and 70, and in reliance on statements and representations heretotbre made
by the Iicensee, a license is hereby issued authorizing the licensee to receive, acquire, possess, and transfer byproduct, source, and special nuclear
material designated below; to use such material for the purpose(s) and at the place(s) designated below; to <Jeliver or transfer such material to
persons authorized to receive it in accordance with the regulations ofthe applicable Part(s). This license shall be deemed to contain the conditions
specified in Section I 83 of the Atomic Energy Act of I 954, as amended, and is subject to all applicable rules, regulations, ancl orders of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission now or hereafter in eff'ect and to any conditions specified below.
Licensee
lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation
[Applicable Amendments: 2]
6425 S. Highway 191
P.O. Box 809
Blanding, Utah 84511
3. License Number
4. Expiration Date
5. Docket or
Reference No. 40-8681
6. Byproduct, Source, and/or
Special Nuclear Material
Natural Uranium
7. Chemical and/or Physical
Form
Any
8. Maximum Amount that Licensee
May Possess at Any One Time
Under This License
Unlimited
SECTION 9:Adm inistrative Gonditions
9.1 The authorized place of use shall be the licensee's White Mesa uranium milling facility,
located in San Juan County, Utah.
9.2 All written notices and reports to the NRC required under this license, with the exception of
incident and event notifications under 10 CFR 2O.22A2 and 10 CFR 40.60 requiring
telephone notification, shall be addressed to the Chief, Uranium Recovery Branch, Division of
Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
lncident and event notifications that require telephone notification shall be made to the NRC
Operations Center at [phone].
9.3 The licensee shall conduct operations in accordance with statements, representations, and
conditions contained in the license renewal application submitted by letter dated August 23,
1991, as revised by submittals dated January 13, and April 7, 1992, November 22, 1994,
July 27 , 1995, December 13, and December 31 , 1996, and January 30, 1997, which are
hereby incorporated by reference, and for the Standby Trust Agreement, dated April 29,
1997, except where superseded by license conditions below.
\ly'henever the word "will" is used in the above referenced documents, it shall denote a
requirement. [Applicable Amendment: 2]
9.4 A. The licensee may, without prior NRC approval, and subject to the conditions specified
in Part B of this condition:
(1) Make changes in the facility or process, as presented in the application.
NRC FORM 374A
(7-941
u.s.COMMISSION OF C PAGES
License Number
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Docket or Reference Number
(2) Make changes in the procedures presented in the application.
(3) Conduct tests or experiments not presented in the application.
B. The licensee shall file an application for an amendment to the license, unless the
following conditions are satisfied.
(1) The change, test, or experiment does not conflict with any requirement
specifically stated in this license, or impair the licensee's ability to meet all
applicable NRC regulations.
(2) There is no degradation in the essential safety or environmental commitments in
the license application, or provided by the approved reclamation plan.
(3) The change, test, or experiment is consistent with the conclusions of actions
analyzed and selected in the EA dated February 1997.
C. The licensee's determinations concerning Part B of this condition, shall be made by a
"Safety and Environmental Review Panel (SERP)." The SERP shall consist of a
minimum of three individuals. One member of the SERP shall have expertise in
management and shall be responsible for managerial and financial approval changes;
one member shall have expertise in operations and/or construction and shall have
responsibility for implementing any operational changes; and, one member shall be the
corporate radiation safety officer (CRSO) or equivalent, with the responsibility of
assuring changes conform to radiation safety and environmental requirements.
Additional members may be included in the SERP as appropriate, to address technical
aspects such as health physics, groundwater hydrology, surface-water hydrology,
specific earth sciences, and other technical disciplines. Temporary members or
permanent members, other than the three above-specified individuals, may be
consultants.
D. The licensee shall maintain records of any changes made pursuant to this condition
until license termination. These records shall include written safety and environmental
evaluations, made by the SERP, that provide the basis for determining changes are in
compliance with the requirements refened to in Part B of this condition. The licensee
shall furnish, in an annual report to NRC, a description of such changes, tests, or
experiments, including a summary of the safety and environmental evaluation of each.
ln addition, the licensee shall annually submit to the NRC changed pages to the
Operations Plan and Reclamation Plan of the approved license application to reflect
changes made under this condition.
The licensee's SERP shall function in accordance with the standard operating procedures
submitted by letter dated June 10, 1997.
[Applicable Amendments: 3]
NRC FORM 374A
(7-94)
u.s.COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
The licensee shall maintain an NRC-approved financial surety arrangement, consistent with
10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10, adequate to cover the estimated costs, if
accomplished by a third party, for decommissioning and decontamination of the mill and mill
site, for reclamation of any tailings or waste disposal areas, ground-water restoration as
warranted and for the long-term surveillance fee. Within three months of NRC approval of a
revised reclamation/decommissioning plan, the licensee shall submit, for NRC review and
approval, a proposed revision to the financial surety arrangement if estimated costs in the
newly approved plan exceed the amount covered in the existing financial surety. The revised
surety shall then be in effect within 3 months of written NRC approval.
Annual updates to the surety amount, required by 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10,
shall be submitted to the NRC at least 3 months prior lo the anniversary date which is
designated as June 4 of each year. lf the NRC has not approved a proposed revision to the
surety coverage 30 days prior to the expiration date of the existing surety arrangement, the
licensee shall extend the existing surety arrangement for 1 year. Along with each proposed
revision or annual update, the licensee shall submit supporting documentation showing a
breakdown of the costs and the basis for the cost estimates with adjustments for inflation,
maintenance of a minimum 15 percent contingency fee, changes in engineering plans,
activities performed and any other conditions affecting estimated costs for site closure. The
basis for the cost estimate is the NRC approved reclamation/decommissioning plan or NRC
approved revisions to the plan. The previously provided guidance entitled "Recommended
Outline for Site Specific Reclamation and Stabilization Cost Estimates" outlines the minimum
considerations used by the NRC in the review of site closure estimates.
Reclamation/decommissioning plans and annual updates should follow this outline.
The currently approved surety instrument, a Performance Bond issued by National Union
Fire lnsurance Company in favor of the NRC, and the associated Standby Trust Agreement,
dated April 29, 1997, shall be continuously maintained in an amount not less than
$1 1 ,469,859 for the purpose of complying with 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10,
until a replacement is authorized by the NRC.
[Applicable Amendments: 2, 3, 5]
Standard operating procedures shall be established and followed for all operational process
activities involving radioactive materials that are handled, processed, or stored. SOPs for
operational activities shall enumerate pertinent radiation safety practices to be followed.
Additionally, written procedures shall be established for non-operational activities to include
in-plant and environmental monitoring, bioassay analyses, and instrument calibrations. An
up-to-date copy of each written procedure shall be kept in the mill area to which it applies.
All .vritten procedures for both operation:l and non-operational activities shall be reviewed
and approved in writing by the radiation safety officer (RSO) before implementation and
whenever a change in procedure is proposed to ensure that proper radiation protection
principles are being applied. ln addition, the RSO shall perform a documented review of all
existing operating procedures at least annually.
Before engaging in any activity not previously assessed by the NRC, the licensee shall
administer a cultural resource inventory. All disturbances associated with the proposed
development will be completed in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (as
9.5
9.6
9.7
Docket or Reference Number
NRC FORM 374A' (7-94)
U.S. NUCLE
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
amended) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800), and the Archaeological Resources
Protection Act (as amended) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR 7).
ln order to ensure that no unapproved disturbance of cultural resources occurs, any work
resulting in the discovery of previously unknown cultural artifacts shall cease. The artifacts
shall be inventoried and evaluated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, and no disturbance
shall occur until the licensee has received authorization from the NRC to proceed.
The licensee shall avoid by project design, where feasible, the archeological sites designated
"contributing" in the report submitted by letter dated July 28, 1988. When it is not feasible to
avoid a site designated "contributing" in the report, the licensee shall institute a data recovery
program for that site based on the research design submitted by letter from C. E. Baker of
Energy Fuels Nuclear to Mr. Melvin T. Smith, Utah State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO), dated April 13, 1981.
The licensee shall recover through archeological excavation all "contributing" sites listed in
the report which are located in or within 100 feet of borrow areas, stockpile areas,
construction areas, or the perimeter of the reclaimed tailings impoundment. Data recovery
fieldwork at each site meeting these criteria shall be completed prior to the start of any
project related disturbance within 100 feet of the site, but analysis and report preparation
need not be complete.
Additionally, the licensee shall conduct such testing as is required to enable the Commission
to determine if those sites designated as "Undetermined" in the report and located within
100 feet of present or known future construc{ion areas are of such significance to warrant
their redesignation as "contributing." ln all cases, such testing shall be completed before any
aspect of the undertaking affects a site.
Archeological contractors shall be approved in writing by the Commission. The Commission
will approve an archeological contractor who meets the minimum standards for a principal
investigator set forth in 36 CFR Part 66, Appendix C, and whose qualifications are found
acceptable by the SHPO.
9.8 The licensee is hereby authorized to possess byproduct material in the form of uranium
waste tailings and other uranium byproduct waste generated by the licensee's milling
operations authorized by this license. Mill tailings shall not be transferred from the site
without specific prior approval of the NRC in the form of a license amendment. The licensee
shall maintain a permanent record of all transfers made under the provisions of this condition.
9.9 The licensee is hereby exempted from the requirements of Section 20.1902 (e) of '10 CFR
Pat+.20 for areas within the mill, provided that all entrances to the mill are conspicuously
posted in accordance with Section 20.1902 (e) and with the words, "Any area within this mill
may contain radioactive material."
9.10 Release of equipment or packages from the restricted area shall be in accordance with
"Guidelines for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted
Use or Termination of Licenses for Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear Material," dated
May 1987, orsuitable alternative procedures approved by the NRC priorto any such release.
coMMrssroN
II&AAXETA
NRC FORM 374A. (7-94)
u.s.ATORY COMMISSION OF a PAGES
l-icense Number
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
OUA- IJJU. A
Docket or Reference Number
sECTtoN 10: Operational Controls, Limits, and Restrictions
10.1 The mill production rate shall not exceed 4380 tons of yellowcake per year.
10.2 All liquid effluents from mill process buildings, with the exception of sanitary wastes, shall be
returned to the mill circuit or discharged to the tailings impoundment.
10.3 Freeboard limits for Cells 1-1, 3, and 4A, and tonnage limits for Cell 3, shall be as stated in
Section 3.0 to Appendix E of the approved license application.
10.4 Disposal of material and equipment generated at the mill site shall be conducted as
described in the licensee's submittals dated December 12, 1994 and May 23, 1995, with the
following addition:
A. The maximum lift thickness for materials placed over tailings shall be less than 4-feet
thick. Subsequent lifts shall be less than 2-feet thick. Each lift shall be compacted by
tracking of heavy equipment, such as a Cat D-6, at least 4 times prior to placement of
subsequent lifts.
10.5 ln accordance with the licensee's submittal dated May 20, 1993, the licensee is hereby
authorized to dispose of byproduct material generated at licensed in situ leach facilities,
subject to the following conditions:
A. Disposal of waste is limited to 5000 cubic yards from a single source.
B. All contaminated equipment shall be dismantled, crushed, or sectioned to minimize
void spaces. Barrels containing waste other than soil or sludges shall be emptied into
the disposal area and the barrels crushed. Banels containing soil or sludges shall be
verified to be full prior to disposal. Barrels not completely full shall be filled with tailings
or soil.
C. All waste shall be buried in Cell No. 3 unless prior written approval is obtained from the
NRC for alternate burial locations.
D. All disposal activities shall be documented. The documentation shall include
descriptions of the waste and the disposal locations, as well as all actions required by
this condition. An annual summary of the amounts of waste disposed of from off-site
generators shall be sent to the NRC.
10.6 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materials from the Allied Signal
Corporat on's Metropolis, lllinois, facility in acr;ordance with the amendment request dated
June 15, 1993.
1O.7 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from Allied Signal, lnc. of
Metropolis, lllinois, in accordance with the amendment request dated September 20, 1996,
and amended by letters dated October 30, and November 1 1, 1996.
10.8 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material, in accordance with the
amendment request dated March 5, 1997. [Applicable Amendments: 1]
NRC FORM 3744. (7-94)
11.1
coMMtssroN
License Number
Docket or Reference NumberMATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
10.9 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from Cabot Performance
Materials' facility near Boyertown, Pennsylvania, in accordance with the amendment request
dated April 3, 1997, as amended by submittals dated May 19, and August 6, 1997.
[Applicable Amendments: 4]
The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Ashland 2
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, located near Tonawanda,
New York, in accordance with the amendment request dated May 8, 1998, as amended by
the submittals dated May 27 , June 3, and June 1 1 , 1998.
[Applicable Amendment: 6]
10.10
sECTtoN 11: Monitoring, Recording, and Bookkeeping Requirements
11.2
The results of sampling, analyses, surveys and monitoring, the results of calibration of
equipment, reports on audits and inspections, all meetings and training courses required by
this license and any subsequent reviews, investigations, and corrective actions, shall be
documented. Unless othenrise specified in the NRC regulations all such documentation
shall be maintained for a period of at least five (5) years.
The licensee shall implement the effluent and environmental monitoring program specified in
Section 5.5 of the renewal application, as amended by the submittal dated June 8, 1995, and
as revised with the following modifications or additions:
A. Stack sampling shall include a determination of flow rate.
B. Surface water samples shall also be analyzed semiannually for total and dissolved
U-nat, Ra-226, and Th-230, with the exception of the Westwater Creek, which shall be
sampled annually for water or sediments and analyzed as above. A sediment sample
shall not be taken in place of a water sample unless a water sample was not available.
C. Groundwater sampling shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements in
License Condition 1 1.3.
D. The licensee shall utilize lower limits of detection in accordance with Section 5 of
Regulatory Guide 4.14 (Revision 1), for analysis of effluent and environmental
samples.
E. The inspections performed semiannually of the critical orifice assembly committed to in
the submittal dated March 15, 1986, shall be documented. The critical orifice
assembly shall be calibrated at least every 2 years against a positive displacement
Roots meter to obtain the required calibration curve.
[Applicable Amendment: 5]
The licensee shall implement a groundwater detection monitoring program to ensure
compliance to 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. The detection monitoring program shall be in
11.3
r(zK)I(
NRC FORM 374A
'(7-94)
U.S. NUCL COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
accordance with the report entitled, "Points of Compliance, White Mesa Uranium Mill,"
submitted by letter dated October 5, 1994, as modified by the following:
A. The leak detection system for all ponds will be checked weekly. lf liquid is present,
it shall be analyzed for chloride, sulfate, selenium, and pH. The samples will be
statistically analyzed to determine if significant linear trends exist, and the results will
be submitted to NRC for review.
B. lf a significant linear trend is indicated, the licensee will submit a proposed corrective
action for review and approval to NRC. The corrective action shall include a discussion
on delineation of the areal extent and concentration of hazardous constituents.
C. The licensee shall sample monitoring wells \A/lVlMW-s, -1 1 , -12, -14, -15, and -17 , on a
quarterly basis. Samples shall be analyzed for chloride, potassium, nickel, and
uranium, and the results of such sampling shall be included with the environmental
monitoring reports submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 40.65.
11.4 Annually, the licensee shall collect, during mill operations, a set of airsamples covering eight
hours of sampling, at a high collection flow rate (i.e., greater than or equal to 40 liters per
minute), in routinely or frequently occupied areas of the mill. These samples shall be
analyzed for gross alpha. ln addition, with each change in_mill feed material or at least
annually, the licensee shall analyze the mill feed or production product for U-nat, Th-230,
Ra-226, and Pb-210 and use the analysis results to assess the fundamental constituent
composition of air sample particulates.
[Applicable Amendment: 7]
11.5 Calibration of in-plant air and radiation monitoring equipment shall be performed as specified
in the license renewal application, under Section 3.0 of the "Radiation Protection Procedures
Manual," with the exception that in-plant air sampling equipment shall be calibrated at least
quarterly and air sampling equipment checks shall be documented.
11.6 The licensee shall perform an annual ALARA audit of the radiation safety program in
accordance with Regulatory Guide 8.31.
SECTIoN 12: Reporting Requirements
12.1 The licensee shall submit to NRC for review, by June 30, 1997, a detailed reclamation plan
for the authorized tailings disposal area which includes the following:
A. A post-operations interim stabilization plan which details methods to prevent wind and
water erosion and recharge of the tailings area.
B. A plan to determine the best methodology to dewater and/or consolidate the tailings
cells prior to placement of the final reclamation cover.
C. Plan and cross-sectional views of a final reclamation cover which details the location
and elevation of tailings. The plan shall include details on cover thickness, physical
Docket or Reference Number
NRC FORM 374A
(7-94',, .U.S. NUCLEtrEGULATORY COMMISSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
characteristics of cover materials, proposed testing of cover materials (specifications
and quality assurance), the estimated volumes of cover materials and their availability
and location.
D. Detailed plans for placement of rock or vegetative cover on the final reclaimed tailings
pile and mill site area.
E. A proposed implementation schedule for items A through D above which defines the
sequence of events and expected time ranges.
F. An analysis to show that the proposed type and thickness of soil cover is adequate to
provide attenuation of radon and is adequate to assure long-term stability, as well as
an analysis and proposal on methodology and time required to restore ground water in
conformance to regulatory requirements.
G. The licensee shall include a detailed cost analysis of each phase of the reclamation
plan to include contractor costs, projected costs of inflation based upon the schedule
proposed in item E, a proposed contingency cost, and the costs of long-term
maintenance and monitoring.
12.2 The licensee shall submit a detailed decommissioning plan to the NRC at least twelve (12)
months prior to planned final shutdown of mill operations.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
4*"#,M,,a
Uranium Recovery Branch
Division of Waste Management
Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards
EIxE'raE.E(A INK ETEIZII
Fromr afames Park <ilRpGnrc.grov>
lro : EQDoI,IAIN . EQRAD ( LMORToN ) , EQDoMATN . Eewe (MNOVAK )Dat.: l/3/97 1:06pmSubJect: consultation on renewal of EFN/white Mesa's ricense
Loren/Mark,
Attached is the draft final EA on the renewal of EFN/White Mesa,s NRc source materiallicense. If you look under Section 9, you'll notice a blank spot. thit,s for you andr to fill in.Please look over the EA, and I'd like to set up a call for next week (1/G - 1/10) todiscuss anyconcerns the DRC and DWQ have.
Before I realized f could just email the document to you both, I tried to fax it,.Loren, your fax
number didnt' pick up, so you won't have a hard copy, but Mark, I did get it throught,o you.
The strikeouts in Section 11 are of condit.ions we,re considering taking outs.
I look forward to talking with you.
,Jim
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR RENEWAL OF
SOURCE MATERIAL LICENSE NO. SUA.1358
ENERGY FUELS NUCLEAR, INC.
WHITE MESA URANIT]M MILL
SAN JUAN COIJNTY, UTAH
DECBMBER 1996
DOCKET NO.40-8681
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards
Division of Waste Management
DRAFT January 3, 1997
DRAFT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
January 3, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.0
1.3.1 Federal and State Authorities1.3.2 Basis of NRC Review
SITE DESCRIPTION
Location
Climate and Weather
Geology
2.3.1 Regional Geology
2.3.2 Local Geology
2.3.3 Seismicity2.4 Water Resources
2.4.1 Surface Water
2.4.2 Groundwater
Topography
Demography
Land Use
3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Mill Circuit
MillWaste Disposal
4.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1.1
1.2
1.3
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
Background lnformation
Proposed Action
Review Scope
lntroduction
Air Quality lmpacts
Historical and Cultural Resources
lmpacts to Water Resources
4.4.1 Surface Water lmpacts
4.4.2 Groundwater lmpacts
lmpacts on Ecological Systems
4.5.1 Endangered Species
4.5.2 Wetlands
Radiological lmpacts4.6.1 Operating Data4.6.2 RadiologicalAssessment
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.5
2.6
2.7
3.1
3.2
ln-Plant Safety
DRAFT January 3, 1997
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS
5.1 Failure of Chemical Storage Tanks
5.2 Fires and Explosions
5.3 Pipeline Failure
5.4 Minor Pipe or Tank Leakage . .
5.5 Tailings lmpoundment System Accidents . . . .
6.0 RECLAMATION AND DECOMMISSIONING . .
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
8.0 FINANCIAL SURETY
9.0 CONSULTATION WITH THE STATE OF UTAH
1O.O FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
11.0 CONCLUSION INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL LICENSE CONDIT]ONS . .
REFERENCES .
January 3, 1997
Page
LIST OF TABLES
2.1 Population Centers within 80 Kilometers of the
White Mesa Mill Site
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1.1
2.1
2.2
3.1
5.1
iii
DRAFT January3,1997
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated August 23, 1991 , and supplements and revisions transmitted by letters dated
December 13 and 17, 1991 , January 13 and April 7, 1992, Umetco Minerals Corporation
(Umetco) requested renewal of Source Material License SUA-1358, for continued authorization of
milling activities at the White Mesa Uranium Mill, which is located in San Juan County, Utah. By
letter dated March 29,1994, Umetco requested transfer of the license and a change in ownership
of the mill to Energy Fuels Nuclear, lnc. (EFN). On May 25,1994, the license was amended to
change designation of the licensee to EFN. ln the acquisition agreement between EFN and
Umetco, EFN agreed to abide by all commitments and representations made to the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission by Umetco.
With this license renewal, NRC will be authorizing continued mill operations under the
Performance-Based License Condition (PBLC) format. Under Performance-Based Licensing, the
licensee has the burden of ensuring the proper implementation of the PBLC. The licensee may:
. Make changes in the facility or process, as presented in the application,
. Make changes in the procedures presented in the application, or
. Conduct tests or experiments not presented in the application, without prior NRC
approval, if the licensee ensures that the following conditions are met:
(1) The change, test, or experiment does not conflict with any requirement
specifically stated in the license (excluding material referenced in the
Performance-Based License Condition), or impair the licensee's ability to
meet all applicable NRC regulations.
(2) There is no degradation in the essential safety or environmental
commitments in the license application, or provided by the approved
reclamation plan.
(3) The change, test, or experiment is consistent with NRC's conclusions
regarding actions analyzed and selected in the EA.
Othenarise, the licensee is required to submit an application for a license amendment from
NRC. The licensee's determinations whether the above conditions are satisfied will by
made by a Safety and Environmental Review Panel (SERP).
The SERP shall consist of a minimum of three individuals. One member of the SERP
shall have expertise in management and shall be responsible for managerial and financial
approval changes; one member shall have expertise in operations and/or construction and
shall have expertise in implementation of any changes; and one member shall be the
corporate radiation safety officer or equivalent. Additional members may be included in
the SERP as appropriate, to address technical aspects in several areas, such as health
DRAFT January 3, 1997
physics, surface water hydrology, specific earth sciences, and others. Temporary
member, or permanent member other than the three identified above, may be consultants.
The licensee shall maintain records until license termination of any changes made
pursuant to the PBLC. These records shall include written safety and environmental
evaluations, made by the SERP, that provide the basis for determining that the change
complies with the requirements referred to in the above conditions. The shall furnish an
annual report to NRC that describes such changes, tests, or experiments, including a
summary of the safety and environmental evaluation of each. ln addition, the licensee
shall annually submit any pages of its license application that have been revised to reflect
changes made under this condition.
EFN has not yet submitted, for NRC review and approval, its standard operating procedure (SOP)
for operation of the SERP. Therefore, NRC will require, by license condition, that EFN submit the
SOP by March 31 , 1997, and until such time as NRC approves the SOP, EFN will not be
authorized to implement the PBLC. EFN agreed to this license condition by telephone
conversations on December 31 , 1996.
NRC's inspection function remains unchanged with the administration of Performance-Based
Licensing. Operational changes, regulatory commitments, and recordkeeping requirements
implemented by EFN through the PBLC are subject to NRC inspection and possible enforcement
actions.
1.1 Backoroundlnformation
By letter dated February 6, 1978, Energy Fuels Nuclear, lnc. (EFN) applied to the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission for a source and byproduct material license to construct and operate the
White Mesa uranium milling facility located approximately 9.5 kilometers (km) (6 miles) south of
Blanding, Utah (see Figure 1.1). As a result of studies conducted for the Final Environmental
Statement (FES) (NUREG-0556; NRC, 1979), NRC concluded that mitigative measures proposed
and implemented by the applicant would reduce any adverse environmental impacts associated
with the White Mesa project to acceptable levels. Following issuance of the FES in May 1979 and
the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) in August 1979, NRC issued Source Material License
SUA-1358 on August 7,1979.
SUA-1358 was renewed in 1985, and was due to expire on September 23, 1991. As stated
above, Umetco submitted a license renewal application by letter dated August 23, 1991, and NRC
notified Umetco that the license was in timely renewal by letter dated November 7, 1991 .
Source Material License SUA-1358 and ownership of the White Mesa mill were transferred from
Umetco to EFN in May 1994. The mill was operated on a continual basis f rom May 1980 until
February 1983, and then intermittently from October 1985 to the present time.
1.2 Proposed Action
DRAFT January 3, 1997
The proposed action is to renew SUA-1358 for operation of the White Mesa mill at a maximum
production rate of 4380 tons of yellowcake per year. Additionally, EFN will be authorized, by
license condition, to possess byproduct material in the form of uranium waste tailings and other
uranium byproduct waste generated by its milling operations authorized by the renewal license.
1.3 Review Scope
1.3.1 Federal and State Authorities
NRC source material licenses are issued under Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40 (10
CFR Part 40). As stated in 10 CFR 40.3, 'A person subject to the regulations in this part may not
receive title to, own, receive, possess, use, transfer, provide for long-term care, deliver or dispose
of byproduct material or residual radioactive material as defined in this part or any source material
after removal from its place of deposit in nature, unless authorized in a specific or general license
issued by the Commission ..." Source material is defined under 10 CFR 40.4 as (1) uranium or
thorium, or any combination thereof , in any physical or chemical form, or (2) ores which contain by
weight 0.05 percent or more of uranium, thorium, or any combination thereof.
ln addition, the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended (UMTRCA),
requires persons who conduct uranium source material operations to obtain a byproduct material
license to own, use, or possess tailings and wastes generated by the operations (including above-
ground wastes from in situ operations). This EA has been prepared under 10 CFR Part 51 ,
"Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures for Environmental Protection," which
implements NRC's environmental protection program under the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (NEPA). ln accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 , an EA serves to (a) briefly provide sufficient
evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement
(ElS) or a finding of no significant impact (FONSI), (b) facilitate preparation of an EIS when one is
necessary, and (c) aid the NRC's compliance with NEPA when an EIS is not necessary.
lmpacts from the commercial scale operation of the site were previously evaluated in the FES
(NRC, 1979). The EA and SER for the previous renewal of SUA-1358 were issued by the NRC
staff on September 26, 1985.
A new SER will accompany this EA. ln preparing these two documents, the staff will evaluate the
potential impacts associated with the continued commercial operation of the White Mesa mill.
Should the NRC issue a FONSI, based on the licensee's application materials, previous
operational data, and information in the FES and previous EA, a renewed commercial source
material license would be issued to EFN.
The State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEO) administers and implements the
State's rules and regulations.
1.3.2 Basis of NRC Review
DRAFT January 3, 1997
The NRC, Division of Waste Management, staff has assessed the environmental and safety
impacts associated with the renewal of EFN's commercial license for the White Mesa mill, and
documented the results of the assessment in this report. The staff performed this appraisal in
accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51 .
ln conducting its assessment, the staff considered the following:
lnformation contained in the previous environmental evaluations of the White Mesa project
(i.e., the 1979 FES and the 1985 EA);
lnformation contained in EFN's August 23, 1991 , renewal application, and supplementary
information submitted by letters dated December 13, 1991 ; July 28, October 5, and
November 22,1994, and December 13, 1996;
lnformation contained in EFN amendment requests, NRC approvals of such requests, and
land use and environmental monitoring reports transmitted subsequent to August 23,
1991;
Personal communications with EFN and the UDEQ; and
lnformation derived from NRC staff site visits and inspections of the White Mesa mill site.
SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 Location
The project site is located in central {ian Juan County, Utah, approximately 9.5 km (6 miles) south
of the city of Blanding. The mill can be reached by taking a private road for approximately 0.5
miles west of Utah State Highway 191 .
All operations to be authorized by the renewed license will be conducted within the confines of the
existing site boundary. The project site consists of 1971 hectares (ha) (4871 acres) of private
land together with mill site claims. Surface area owned by EFN is shown in Figure 2.1 and
includes most of Section 28 and portions of Sections 21,22,27,32 and 33 of Township 37S,
Range 22E, and Section 16 of Township 38S, Range 22E. The mill site occupies 20 ha
(50 acres) and the tailings disposal cells another 182 ha (a50 acres).
2.2 Climate and Weather
Southeastern Utah's climate is classified as arid, with an average annual precipitation of
30 centimeters (cm) (12 inches), 75 percent of which falls as rain. Two separate rainfall seasons
can be distinguished in the area, with the first occurring during late summer and early fall, and the
second between the months of December and March. Temperatures in summer normally range
f rom 4'C (40'F) to 32'C (90'F), while winter temperatures range between -9"C (15'F) and 13"C
(55'F). The yearly normal mean temperature is 9'C (50'F).
2.O
DRAFT January 3, 1997
The mean annual relative humidity is 44 percent and is normally highest in January and lowest in
July. The average evaporation rate for the period from May through October is 118.8 cm
(46.8 inches), with the greatest evaporation occurring normally during the month of July. The
dominant wind directions are from the north-northeast (approximately 13.5 percent of the time)
and from the south-southwest (approximately 10 percent of the time). Wind speeds are generally
less than 15 miles per hour (mph), with winds faster than 25 mph occurring less than one percent
of the time.
2.3 Geologv
2.3.1 Regional Geology
The project site lies within a region designated as the Canyon Lands section of the Colorado
Plateau physiographic province. Elevations in the region range from approximately 923 meters
(3000 feet) in the bottom of canyons to over 3385 m (11,000 ft) among the peaks of the Henry,
Abajo and La Sal Mountains to the northeast. The average elevation for the area, excluding
deeper canyons and isolated mountain peaks, is about 1524 m (5000 ft).
The sedimentary rocks exposed in southeastern Utah have a total thickness of approximately
1828 to 2133 m (6000 to 7000 ft). These sedimentary units range in age f rom Pennsylvanian to
Late Cretaceous; older rock units which underlie those of Pennsylvanian age are not exposed in
the project area.
Structural features in the project area have been divided into three main categories on the basis
of origin or mechanism of the stress that created the structure. These categories are: (1)
structures related to large-scale regional uplifting or downwarping directly related to movements in
the basement complex (the Monument Uplift and the Blanding Basin); (2) structures due to
diapiric deformation of thick sequences of evaporite deposits, salt plugs and salt anticlines (the
Paradox Fold and Fault Belt); and (3) structures formed due to magmatic intrusions (the Abajo
Mountains).
A generalized stratigraphic column for the region is provided as Figure 2.2. The Summerville
Formation, Entrada Sandstone, and Navajo Sandstone are the deepest units of concern
encountered at the site.
2.3.2 Local Geology
The White Mesa mill site is located on the western edge of the Blanding Basin, sometimes
referred to as the Great Sage Plain, lying east of the north/south-trending Monument Uplift, south
of the Abajo Mountains and adjacent to the northwest-trending Paradox Fold and Fault Belt. The
Abajo Mountains are the most prominent topographic feature in the region, rising over 121 9 m
(4000 ft) above the surface of the plain. The lithology of the immediate area is composed of
thousands of feet of multi-colored pre-Tertiary age marine and non-marine sedimentary rocks.
Erosion on the regionally-uplifted sedimentary strata has produced an array of spectacularly
eroded canyons and mesas for which the area is famous.
5
DRAFT January 3, 1997
The mill rests on alluvialwindblown silt and sand which covers sandstones and shales of Jurassic
and Cretaceous age. The surface of the mesa is nearly flat, with a surface relief of 30 m (98 ft).
The maximum relief between White Mesa and the adjacent Cottonwood Canyon is about 230 m
(750 ft).
2.3.3 Seismicity
The historical record of seismicity for the region is about 150 years old. Since 1853,
approximately 1200 seismic events have been recorded within 322km (200 miles) of the project
area. The nearest of these events occurred in the Glen Canyon Recreation Area, 63 km (38
miles) away, and at a location approximately 88 km (53 miles) to the northeast of the site. An
intensity V (Modified Mercalli Scale) event occurred on August 29,1941, just east of Durango,
Colorado, 153 km (99 miles) away. Based on the region's seismic history, the probability of a
major damaging earthquake occurring at or near the site is remote.
2.4 Water Resources
2.4.1 Surface Water
Runoff in the project area is directed by the general surface topography either westward into
Westwater Creek, eastward into Corral Creek, or to the south into an unnamed branch of
Cottonwood Wash. Low average annual rainfall, local soil characteristics, and the porous nature
of local stream channels cause these streams to flow intermittently in response to local snowmelt
and rainstorms. These same conditions, in concert with the gentle slope of White Mesa, also
contribute to the lack of perennial surface waters on or in the vicinity of the site.
North of the site, a small drainage area of approximately 25 ha (62 acres) provides limited surface
runoff to the site. Total runoff from the site is estimated to be less than 1.3 cm (0.5 inches)
annually.
The San Juan River, a major tributary to the upper Colorado River, is located approximately 29
km (18 miles) south of the mill site.
2.4.2 Groundwater
The Dakota Sandstone is the rock unit that underlies the mill and the tailings disposal cells. At the
mill site, this formation extends to depths of 13 to 20 m (43 to 66 feet) below the surface, and it is
typically composed of sandstones with random discontinuous shale and siltstone layers. Beneath
the site, the Dakota Sandstone is very dry to dry, with an average volumetric water content of
3 percent. lts porosity is predominately intergranular, ranging from 13.4 to 26.0 percent, with an
average value of 19.0 percent. Measured saturated hydraulic conductivities from packer tests
range from 9.1E-04 to 2.71-EOO centimeters per second (cm/sec), with a geometric mean of
3.89E-05 cm/sec. (Titan, 1994b)
DRAFT January 3, 1997
The underlying Burro Canyon Formation is similar to the Dakota Sandstone. Composed of very
fine- to coarse-grained sandstones, with discontinuous random shales, the Burro Canyon
becomes argillaceous near its lower contact with the bentonitic mudstones and claystones of the
Brushy Basin Member (Morrison Formation). Beneath the site, groundwater is first encountered
at this contact as a zone of perched water. This zone occurs at depths of 22lo 33 m (73 to 1 09
feet) below the surface, and its thickness varies across the project area, from 17 m (55 feet) in the
northern section to less than 1.5 m (5 feet) in the southern area. Potentiometric maps suggest
that the predominant direction of groundwater flow in the saturated portion of the Burro Canyon
Formation beneath the site is to the south-southwest (Titan, 1994b).
The Burro Canyon outcrops along the walls of Westwater Creek Canyon and Corral Canyon, and
groundwater from the perched zone discharges into these canyons, as evidenced by the
occurrence of springs and productive vegetation patterns. Based on the results of 12
pumping/recovery tests and 30 packer tests, the hydraulic conductivity of the saturated portion of
the Burro Canyon Formation ranges from 1.4E-06 to 1.2E-03 cm/sec, with a geometric mean of
1 .0E-05 cm/sec (Titan, 1994b). Water yields at the test wells were very low, typically less than
0.5 gallons per minute (gpm), although slightly higher yields (on the order of 2 gpm) may be
possible in localized zones of higher permeability, resulting from lenses of coarser material or
localized fracturing.
The quality of the Burro Canyon perched water beneath and downgradient from the site is poor
and extremely variable. The concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS) measured in water
sampled from upgradient and downgradient wells range between approximately 1000 and 5000
milligrams per liter (mg/l). Sulfate concentrations measured in three upgradient wells varied
between 670 and 1740 mgll.
As stated above, the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation is composed of bentonitic
mudstones and claystones. ln the region, the thickness of this unit ranges from 60 to 135 m (200
to 450 feet). A total of approximately 365 m (1200 feet) of unsaturated, low permeability shales
and poorly sorted sands of the Morrison and Summerville Formations separate the Brushy Basin
from the underlying Entrada and Navajo Sandstones.
The Entrada and Navajo Sandstones are prolific aquifers beneath and in the vicinity of the site.
Water wells at the site are screened in both of these units, and therefore, for the purposes of this
discussion, they will be treated as a single aquifer. Water in the Entrada/Navajo Aquifer is under
artesian pressure, rising 245 lo 275 m (800 to 900 feet) above the top of the Entrada's contact
with the overlying Summerville Formation; static water levels are 120 to 150 m (400 to 500 feet)
below ground surface. Within the region, the aquifer is capable of yielding domestic quality water
at rates of '150 lo 225 gpm, and for that reason, it serves as the source of water for the mill.
Additionally, two domestic water supply wells drawing from the Entrada/Navajo Aquifer are
located 4.5 miles southeast of the mill site on the Ute lndian Reservation.
2.5 Topography
The mill site is located on a slightly tilted platform that, from the air, appears similar to a peninsula,
as it is surrounded by steep canyons and washes and is connected to the Abajo Mountains to the
a
DRAFT January 3, 1997
north by a narrow neck of land. On the mesa, the topography is relatively flat, sloping at less than
one percent to the south and nearly horizontal from east to west.
2.6 Demography
According to the 1990 census, the population density of San Juan County, in which the mill is
located, is 0.6 persons per square kilometer (1.6 individuals per square mile); by comparison, the
statewide density is greater than 8 individuals per square kilometer (20 persons per square mile).
The town of Blanding, Utah, approximately 9.5 km (6 miles) north of the mill, is the largest
population center near the project with 3162 persons. Approximately 5.6 km (3.5 miles) southeast
of the project site is the White Mesa Reservation, a community of approximately 320 Ute
Mountain lndians, although only an estimated 60 to 75 individuals live within 8 km (5 miles) of the
site. The nearest resident is located approximately 5 km (3 miles) to the northeast of the mill,
which is in the prevailing wind direction. Table 2.1 provides the population centers within 80 km
(49 miles) of the mill site.
2.7 Land Use
Approximately 60% of San Juan County is Federally-owned land administered by the U.S. Bureau
of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Forest Service. Primary land uses
includes livestock grazing, wildlife range, recreation, and exploration for minerals, oil, and gas. A
quarter of the county is lndian land owned either by the Navajo Nation or the Ute Tribe. The area
within 8 km (5 miles) of the project site is predominantly range land owned by residents of
Blanding. The White Mesa mill site itself encompasses approximately 202 ha (500 acres).
A more detailed discussion of land use at the White Mesa site, in surrounding areas, and in
southeastern Utah, is presented in the FES prepared for the project (NRC, 1979). Results of
archeological studies conducted at the site and in the surrounding areas as part of the original
environmental report are also documented in the FES.
Table 2.1
Population Centers within 80 Kilometers of the White Mesa Mill Site
(modified from Umetco, 1991)
Distance from Distance fromTown 1990 Population Site (km)' Site (miles)
White Mesa, UT
(unincorporated)
320t 6.4 4
Blandinq, UT 3162 9.5 6
Bluff, UT 847 25 15
Montezuma Creek. UT 1223 32 20
[Vlnntinolln llT 1 806 43 27
I
DRAFT January 3, 1997
Aneth. UT 991 43 27
Mexican Hat. UT 495 48 30
Eastland/Ucolo, UT 249 51 32
Dove Creek, CO 623 59 37
t Approximate distance from mill site by air
Aooroximate oooulation
3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
A simplified flow diagram of the White Mesa mill circuit is provided as Figure 3.1.
3.1 Mill Circuit
Ore and other feed material is delivered to the site by truck. Once at the site, following weighing
of the truck, an ore load is dumped at a specific location on the ore pad. Preliminary analyses are
then conducted, and the moisture content of the ore determined. Loaders or trucks then haul
stockpiled ore to the ore grizzly.
A semi-autogenous grinding (SAG) mill is used to grind the ore, and the resultant slurry is pumped
to two mechanically-agitated storage tanks. Material from these tanks is pumped to a two-stage
acid leach process, in which sulfuric acid, an oxidant, and steam are used to leach the ore slurry.
Next, a multi-staged counter-current decantation (CCD) washing circuit is employed to separate
the strong acid liquor and wash the leached residue. During each CCD stage, solid particles
settle to the bottom of the thickener tank, leaving a clarified uranium-bearing solution at the top.
This solution is transferred "up-stage," where the same process of decantation takes place.
Overflow from the top (i.e., the first) CCD thickener tank is sent to the two-stage leach process
mentioned above, the overflow of which is clarified prior to solvent extraction. The slurry at the
bottom of the tank is progressively transferred "down" the circuit. From the final thickener tank, it
is sampled and then pumped to the tailings retention area.
Meanwhile, the uranium-bearing liquid is transferred to a solvent extraction process which is
carried out in a series of mixing and settling vessels. Aminetype compounds and kerosene are
added to dissolve the uranyl ions from the leach solution. The solution is then stripped of uranium
by acidification and pumped to a precipitation tank.
Within the precipitation tank, the pregnant solution is neutralized and yellowcake is settled. The
yellowcake is next transferred to a centrifuge where it is further concentrated. The thickened
yellowcake slurry is transferred to either of two propane gas/diesel-fired multiple-hearth dryers.
Both dryers feed to a common packaging hopper and drum filling station, where the dried
yellowcake is powdered and packaged in S5-gallon drums.
DRAFT January 3, 1997
These drying, powdering, and packaging operations are performed within an enclosure under
negative pressure, with wet scrubbers used to collect airborne particulates. During the entire
route of production, concrete curbing and sumps are designed to intercept any spillage and return
it to the appropriate process circuit.
3.2 MillWaste Disposal
Mill tailings are deposited within tailings cells located at the facility. The tailings, along with liquid
waste, are slurried by pipeline to the impoundment system, which consists of a series of cells that
are designed for phased construction and reclamation. Each cell is lined with a synthetic
membrane liner covered with a couple of feet of soilfor protection. Cells are presently designated
1-1,2,3, and 44 (the higher the number refers to the more recently constructed cell).
The four tailings cells are designed to accept the quantity of waste to be produced during a 15-
year operating period, at a ore processing rate of 2000 tons per day. The tailings and evaporation
cells are designed and constructed as partially below-grade disposal facilities, and maximum
operational freeboard and tonnage limits for the cells are specified in the renewal application.
Each cell has a leak detection system designed to provide an early warning of catastrophic liner
failure. Each tailings cell embankment is also regularly monitored for stability and the results
reported to NRC. Tailings Cell 4A was designed, constructed, and placed into operation in 1990,
according to an NRC-approved plan and in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) regulations.
As stated above, all production spillage or wastes, such as tailings and process water, are either
returned to the mill circuit or sent by pipeline to the appropriate tailings impoundment, while
sanitary wastes are disposed of separately in a State-approved seepage system. This is currently
required by license condition and will continue to be so required. All other uncontaminated
wastes are trucked offsite.
EFN will continue to be required to dispose of all other mill-generated waste considered as
1 1e.(2) byproduct material (e.9., contaminated equipment and parts) within Tailings Cell 2, in
accordance with its procedure, "Radioactive Contaminated Waste Disposal," amended as noted
in NRC's approval letter of August 1 , 1995.
EFN is authorized currently to accept byproduct material from licensed in-situ leach facilities for
disposal in Tailings Cell 3. Conditions of this authorization will continue to be specified by license
condition. Environmental impacts associated with this disposal were assessed as part of the NRC
licensing action approving EFN's amendment request.
4,O EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
4.1 lntroduction
'10
DRAFT January 3, 1997
Operation of the mill will directly use about 2O2ha (500 acres) of land for mill buildings and
tailings cells. During operation, effluent releases (e.9., fugitive dust, hydrocarbons, radionuclides)
will be maintained at levels as low as is reasonably achievable. Tailings, which are produced in
large quantities and contained in lined disposal cells, will be reclaimed at the end of the project, in
accordance with an NRC-approved reclamation plan. Mill operations should not, under proper
operating conditions, have a significant impact on air and water quality. Environmental impacts
associated with the original construction of the facility were assessed in the FES (NRC, 1979).
4.2 Air Quality lmpacts
During operation of the mill, hydrocarbon release from the boiler, gaseous emissions from
process chemicals, and fugitive dust and radon emissions from the ore pads will occur. Dust and
radon levels will be controlled through spraying, while the other gaseous emissions should not
exceed regulatory standards. Other emissions will be discussed in Section 4.6, "Radiological
lmpacts."
4.3 Historical and Cultural Resources
A historical survey was conducted in the project vicinity as part of the initial license application,
and six historical sites were identified. However, none of these sites is in an area which will be
affected by operations at the mill.
Archaeological surveys of the project site conducted in 1977 and 1979, identified 121 prehistoric
sites which are affiliated with the San Juan Anasazi lndians who occupied this area of Utah from
about 0 A.D. to 1300 A.D. As a result of the archaeological findings, a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between NRC, the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation was established to specify requirements necessary to minimize
adverse impacts to the previously identified archaeological sites.
The requirements were incorporated into SUA-1358 when initially issued. The requirements have
been modified following subsequent amendments to the MOA. The most recent modifications
were incorporated into SUA-1358 through the issuance of a license amendment on May 1 1 , 1983.
These requirements will be included in the renewed license.
The licensee will also be required to conduct, as a minimum, an archaeological and historical
artifact survey of areas not previously surveyed prior to their disturbance.
4.4 lmpacts to Water Resources
4.4.1 Surface Water lmpacts
Continued operation of the mill should have negligible impacts on surface waters on and in the
vicinity of the project site, because (1) mill effluents are not discharged to local surface waters; (2)
sanitary wastes are discharged to State-approved leach fields; and (3) tailings from mill
11
DRAFT January 3, 1997
operations are discharged by pipeline to partially below-grade, lined impoundments. ln addition,
as noted above, EFN has committed to regular inspections of the tailings cell embankments.
4.4.2 Groundwater lmpacts
For the following reasons, the NRC staff does not believe that groundwater beneath or in the
vicinity of the site will be adversely impacted by continued operation of the mill:
1. Four tailings cell have been constructed to accept tailings slurry and solutions and other
approved wastes. Each of the cells has been designed and constructed to minimize
seepage of tailings fluids into the subsurface. Cells 1-1,2, and 3 have a 6-inch compacted
sandstone bedding layer, an overlying synthetic liner, and a leak detection system
consisting of : (1) a 12-inch thick compacted sand layer on the upstream face of the
downstream retention dike, (2) a 3-inch diameter perforated pipe installed at the toe of the
sand layer, and connecting to (3) a 12-inch diameter access riser pipe.
Cell 4A is constructed with a 12-inch thick clay base layer overlain by a synthetic liner
covering both the bottom and side slopes of the cell. A leak detection system is located
beneath the synthetic liner. This system is composed of 4-inch perforated pipes
embedded in granular materials in synthetically-lined trenches excavated into the clay
base. These pipes are connected in turn to a 12-inch diameter access pipe.
As part of EFN's inspection procedures for the tailings management system, daily
measurements are taken of liquid levels in the leak detection system for each cell. lf
specific changes in these levels are recorded, site management is notified immediately.
Quarterly sampling of a number of monitor wells completed in the Burro Canyon perched
water zone and located around and among the tailings cells, is also required by EFN's
inspection procedures. Further discussion of the licensee's groundwater detection
monitoring program is provided in Section 4.6.1.
2. Based on estimates of net infiltration and volumetric moisture content of the vadose zone
(i.e., the unsaturated portions of the Dakota and Burro Canyon Sandstones) and an
average thickness of the vadose zone, EFN estimates that it would take 50 to 150 years
for moisture to travelfrom the bottom of a tailings disposal cell to the perched water zone,
depending on the extent of failure of the tailings disposal cell liner (Titan, 1994). Tailings
disposal cell seepage traveling along joints or fractures in the Dakota Sandstone could
potentially reduce this travel time to a few days or months. Jointing is common in the
Dakota along the mesa's rim; however, coring studies to date have revealed no evidence
of continuous fractures or joints with depth. Once in the saturated portion of the Burro
Canyon, the travel time for seepage from a tailings impoundment to the downgradient
edge of the mesa has been estimated at 8900 to 13,400 years (Titan, 1994b).
3. The Morrison and Summerville Formations form an approximately 1200{oot thick low-
permeability barrier to ground water flow separating the Entrada/Navajo Aquifer from the
12
DRAFT January 3, 1997
Burro Canyon perched zone. This barrier makes it unlikely that constituents from the
tailings disposal cells would ever impact water quality of this aquifer.
4.5 lmpacts on Ecological Systems
4.5.1 Endangered Species
ln the vicinity of the site, four animal species classified as either endangered or threatened (i.e.,
the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), the American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus
anatum), the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), and the Southwestern willow flycatcher
(Empidonax traillii extimus)) could occur. While the ranges of the bald eagle, peregrine falcon,
and willow flycatcher encompass the project area, their likelihood of utilizing the site is extremely
low. The black-footed ferret has not been seen in Utah since 1952 and is not expected to occur
any longer in the area.
No populations of fish are present on the project site, nor are any known to exist in the immediate
area of the site. Four species of fish designated as endangered or threatened occur in the San
Juan River 29 km (18 miles) south of the site. There are no discharges of mill effluents to surface
waters, and therefore, no impacts are expected for the San Juan River due to operations of the
White Mesa mill.
Currently, no designated endangered plant species occur on or near the plant site.
4.5.2 Wetlands
No true wetlands exist on the project site. Two small catch basins approximately 18 m (60 feet) in
diameter, fill for brief times in the fall or spring if heavy rainfall occurs. These catch basins are the
only "aquatlc" habitat found on the project site, and they more properly represent terrestrial
environments. No wetland plants have been found in these basins.
4.6 Radiological lmpacts
4.6.1 Operating Data
Sampling results discussed in this section were provided by the licensee in accordance with the
requirements of 10 CFR 40.65, as modified by license conditions currently in SUA-1358. The
renewal license will retain these same license conditions, which address: (1) stack sampling, (2)
surface water sampling, (3) groundwater sampling, (4) lower limits of detection, and
(5) inspections and calibrations of the critical orifice assembly.
a. Air Particulate Sampling
EFN's air particulate monitoring program consists of continuous environmental sampling
stations at four locations, three of which are located at the site boundary, and one at the
13
DRAFT January 3, 1997
nearest residence, which is 5 km (3 miles) northeast of the site. Samples are collected
quarterly and analyzed for U-nat, Th-230, Ra-226, and Pb-210.
Data collected during continuous mill operations in 1989-90. and again in 1995-96,
indicated that measured concentrations of U-nat, Th-230, Ra-226, and Pb-210 were small
f ractions (i.e., less than ten percent) of the appropriate 10 CFR Part 20 limits for
unrestricted areas. Concentrations of these radionuclides measured at the BHV-S
sampling station tended to be elevated during mill operations due to increased dust from
the ore stockpile and the increased traffic around the ore stockpile and mill areas.
Stack Effluent Sampling
During operations, stack sampling is performed quarterly on the yellowcake stacks (i.e.,
the dryer and baghouse stacks) and semi-annually on the grizzly and demister stacks.
Stack samples are analyzed for U-nat, Th-230, Ra-226, and Pb-210. Measurements
performed in 1989 and 1995-96 indicate that emissions of these radionuclides have been
consistently low. ln addition, measurements of product loss through the yellowcake stacks
have been well below levels originally predicted in the FES for the facility (NRC, 1979).
Radon Gas Monitoring
Environmental monitoring for radon gas using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) was
discontinued with NRC approval in September 1995. The licensee will demonstrate
compliance with the 10 CFR Parl20 annualdose limit of 100 mrem through MILDOS-
AREA modeling calculations.
The licensee will still be required to keep radon-222 emissions from an existing mill tailings
pile from exceeding 20 pCilmz-s of radon-222,in accordance with the requirements of 40
cFR 61.252.
Direct Gamma Exposure
Direct radiation exposure measurements are made quarterly at the four air particulate
monitoring stations. The greatest differential between measured exposure rate and
background for the same time period since 1989 was 8.6 mH/qtr. However, measured
exposure rates are normally at or slightly above or below background rates.
Surface Water Sampling
Surface water monitoring is conducted at two sampling locations, known as Westwater
Canyon and Cottonwood Creek, adjacent to the mill. Grab samples are collected annually
from Westwater Canyon and quarterly from Cottonwood Creek. The samples are
analyzed for total and dissolved U-nat, Ra-226, and Th-230, as well as for pH, specific
conductivity, temperature, total dissolved and suspended solids, gross alpha
concentrations. Measured values for these consituents and parameters over the period of
mill operations since 1980 have been consistently low.
b.
c.
d.
e.
14
DRAFT January 3, 1997
f. Ground Water Sampling
Groundwater monitoring samples have been collected quarterly from seven monitoring
wells and the culinary water well. These samples were analyzed for pH, specific
conductance, chlorides, sulfates, TDS, and U-nat, and water level measurements were
also taken. Groundwater samples were analyzed semiannually for arsenic, selenium,
sodium, Ra-226, Th-230, and Pb-210. No trends are apparent from measurements taken
since 1985.
With this license renewal, EFN proposed that groundwater detection monitoring be
conducted in accordance with the program described in the document entitled, "Points of
Compliance, White Mesa Uranium Mill," submitted by letter dated October 5, 1994. Under
this program, samples will be collected quarterly from five "point of compliance" (POC)
wells, completed in the Burro Canyon Formation (wells WMMW-S, -11, -12, -14, and -15)
(see Figure 5.1). These samples will be analyzed for chloride, potassium, and nickel, and
water level measurements also will be taken. EFN selected these indicator parameters,
because the concentrations of these species are significantly higher in the tailings pond
fluid that in the perched water of the Burro Canyon, and they are representative of both
anionic and cationic species.
The data will be analyzed using the Shewhart-Cusum control chart technique. These
charts have been developed on a well-by-well basis, with a separate control chart for each
of the four indicator parameters. lf limits on the control charts are exceeded for a
parameter at a well, a program of confirmatory sampling will commence. This will involve
monthly sampling for six months; a separate analysis-of-variance technique will be
employed to determine whether there is a significant difference between these samples
and those collected prior to the confirmatory sampling program. lf the data are
significantly different, then a corrective action plan will be developed.
The NRC staff found the proposed groundwater detection monitoring program to be
acceptable, with modifications as follows: (1) that well WMMW-17 be included in the
sampling program; and (2) that uranium be added as an indicator parameter to be
analyzed for. EFN agreed to these modifications in a telephone conversation on
December 11, 1996. EFN will be required, by license condition, to conduct its
groundwater detection monitoring in accordance with the proposed program, as modified.
Finally, the licensee will continue to be required to (1) analyze liquid found in the
leak detection system during weekly inspections for specified constituents; (2) conduct
statistical analyses to determine if significant linear trends exist, and (3) propose corrective
action for NRC review and approval if such trends do exist.
4.6.2 Radiological Assessment
a. Offsite lmpacts
15
DRAFT January 3, 1997
The radiological impacts from milling operations at the White Mesa site have been
assessed previously and documented in the FES (NRC, 1979) and the 1985 EA (NRC,
1985a). ln the previous EA, the staff analyzed impacts associated with milling at a
nominal rate of 2000 tons of ore per day, and an average ore grade of 0.60 percent, for a
yellowcake production rate of 4380 tons per year, and determined that both site boundary
radionuclide concentrations and individual dose commitments were small fractions of the
applicable standards.
As part of its November 22,1994, amendment request for authorization to install a second
dryer, EFN provided updated MILDOS-AREA calculations and results. ln approving EFN's
request, the NRC staff determined, based on its review of the MILDOS-AREA results, that
releases from the mill would not result in a member of the public receiving a radiation dose
in excess of the 10 CFR Parl2Q limit (i.e., 1 00 mrem per year).
It should be noted that actual radiation doses to the public will likely be less than modeled,
because EFN normally processes lower grade ores, at a rate less than 2000 tons of ore
per day.
b. Radiological lmpact on Biota Other than Humans
Although no guidelines concerning acceptable limits of radiation exposure have been
established for the protection of species other than man, it is generally agreed that the
limits for humans are also conservative for other species. Doses from gaseous effluents to
terrestrial biota (such as birds and mammals) are quite similar to those calculated for man
and arise from the same dispersion pathways and considerations. Because the effluents
of the facility will be monitored and maintained within safe radiological protection limits for
man, no adverse radiological impact is expected for resident animals.
4.7 ln-Plant Safetv
The licensee has established and conducts an in-plant safety and radiation safety program. EFN
stated that the in-plant safety program meets the requirements of the Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA), as well as those pertinent requirements of the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA). The licensee's operation is based on good safety practices and
procedures. During mill operations, EFN has a fulltime safety official on staff to meet all safety
requirements established by Federal regulations. During routine radiation safety inspections,
NRC, to the best of its ability, observes
in-plant industrial safety for deficiencies and brings any identified deficiencies to the attention of
plant management.
NRC, through 10 CFR Part 20 and license conditions, requires a radiological safety program that
contains the basic elements needed to assure that exposures are kept low or, in any event, as low
as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). Therefore, an in-plant radiation safety program including
the following is required:
16
DRAFT January 3, 1997
. Qualified management of the radiation safety program and appropriate training of
personnel;
. Written radiation procedures;
. Airborne and surface contamination sampling and monitoring;
. lnternal and external radiation monitoring programs;
. An approved respiratory protection program; and
. An annual ALARA audit and frequent in-house inspections.
NRC considers the program of in-plant safety, as required by Federal regulations, and the
radiation safety program as defined by 10 CFR Part 20 to be sufficient to protect the worker
during normal operations. The NRC evaluation of the licensee's radiation safety program is
discussed more fully in the SER.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS
5.1 Failure of Chemical Storage Tanks
At the mill, tanks are used to store a variety of industrial chemicals, process fluids, and slurries, as
well as flammable liquids. Various systems have been implemented to contain or direct routine or
unplanned spillage. Tanks which are most likely to overflow are equipped with high-level alarms
to reduce the possibility of spillage due to tank overflow. Spills resulting from the failure of any
chemical holding tank would first be contained by engineered dikes or curbs. lf the volume was
too great, such as that from a rupture in one or more of the large production tanks, flow would be
captured by a lined catchment basin west of the mill, with a capacity of 1.5 million gallons. As a
final containment, if all liquids within the mill process storage area escaped, Cell No. 1-l is
engineered to capture this kind of catastrophic flow.
5.2 Fires and Explosions
The most likely place for a fire to occur would be in the solvent extraction building or in the
yellowcake or vanadium dryers. The possibility of a fire as a result of an explosion in the
yellowcake dryer and solvent extraction building is remote since lndustrial Safety Codes will be
strictly enforced. The solvent extraction circuit is located in a separate building due to the large
quantities of kerosene present.
Additionally, the warehouse, offices, and solvent extraction building are equipped with sensor-
operated fire suppression systems, and hose stations are located in the millyard. The main water
supply tank has a 250,000-gallon reserve for fire fighting, which is connected to an automatically-
starting, diesel-fired pump if electricalservice is interrupted. Allfire suppression systems are
routinely checked.
17
DRAFT January 3, 1997
ln the event of a line rupture, an explosive ammonia-air mixture could be formed inside the mill
and solvent extraction buildings. Constant operator presence, facility emergency procedures,
emergency vent fans, and piping sized to reduce potential ammonia release amounts all serve to
minimize the potential for such an accident.
5.3 Pipeline Failure
The rupture of a pipeline between the mill and the tailings impoundments would be caught by
automatic alarms or by routine daily inspection. lf a leak did occur, no long-term damage would
result. The pipelines are situated so that the leaking fluids would be directed into other tailings
impoundments. ln the event that tailings would leak into an unwanted area, that material could be
retrieved by heavy equipment accompanied by appropriate radiological safety and radiological
surveys.
5.4 Minor Pipe or Tank Leakage
Minor leaks resulting from, for example, loose connections in piping or tanks overflowing, will be
collected in sumps designed for this type of spill. Sump pumps will be used to return the material
to the circuit, and the reason for the spill will be determined and corrected.
5.5 Tailings lmpoundment Svstem Accidents
The tailings cells at the White Mesa facility were designed and constructed as partially
below-grade impoundments, and in accordance with Regulatory Guide 3.11 and Staff Technical
Position WM-8201. Therefore, the potential failure of the cells is considered to be unlikely. ln
addition, each tailings cell embankment is monitored regularly for stability as part of the licensee's
site inspection program, and the results of these inspections are reported to NRC.
6.0 RECLAMATIONANDDECOMMISSIONING
The licensee is expected to submit a revised detailed site reclamation plan in early 1997 for NRC
review and approval. NRC will review the plan in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR
Part 40, Appendix A, and applicable staff guidance documents. Because NRC has yet to receive
the reclamation plan, EFN will be required by license condition to provide the plan to NRC by
June 30, 1997, for its review and approval in the form of a license amendment.
Site decommissioning will be conducted under a plan approved by NRC. EFN will be required by
license condition to submit a detailed decommissioning plan to NRC for approval at least
12 months prior to the planned final shutdown of mill operations.
7.O ALTERNATIVES
The action under consideration is the renewal of Source Material License SUA-I358, for
continued operation of the White Mesa mill, as requested by EFN. The alternatives available to
NRC are to:
18
DRAFT January 3, 1997
(1) Renew the license with such conditions as are considered necessary or
appropriate to protect public health and safety and the environment; or
(2) Deny renewal of the license.
Based on its review of the information identified in Section 1.3.2, the NRC staff has concluded that
the environmental impacts associated with the proposed action do not warrant denial of the
license renewal. lt is the staff's conclusion that the impacts associated with the license renewal
are within the realm of impacts anticipated in the FES (NRC, 1979) and the previous EA (NRC,
1985). Additionally, in the SER prepared for this action, the staff has reviewed the licensee's
proposed action with respect to the criteria for license issuance specified in 10 CFR Part 40,
Section 40.32, and has no basis for denialof the proposed action.
8.0 FINANCIAL SUREry
Under 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion g, licensees are required to establish a financial
surety adequate to cover the estimated costs for (1) decommissioning and decontamination of the
mill and mill site, (2) reclamation of any tailings or waste disposal areas, (3) ground water
restoration, as warranted, and (4) the long-term surveillance fee. The surety is based on an
estimate which must account for the total costs that would be incurred if an independent
contractor were contracted to perform the work. The surety estimate must be approved by NRC
and be based on an NRC-approved decommissioning and reclamation plan. The licensee must
also provide the surety arrangenemt through a financial instrument acceptable to NRC. The
licensee's surety mechanism will be reviewed by NRC annually to assure that sufficent funds are
available to complete reclamation Additionally, the amount of the surety should be adjusted to
recognize any increases or decreases in liability resulting from inflation, changes in engineering
plans, or other conditions affecting cost.
The surety for the White Mesa mill is carried by Umetco, under an agreement between EFN and
Umetco. The current surety amount of $10,9'1 5,647 was reviewed and approved by NRC in
August 1996. EFN will be required by license condition to maintain a financial surety arrangement
in accordance with the requirements of Criterion 9. The surety requirements will be reviewed at
least annually by NRC to assure that the funds and the surety arrangement are acceptable.
9.0 CONSULTATION WITH THE STATE OF UTAH
1O.O FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
EFN has applied to NRC to renew Source Material License SUA-1358 to authorize continued
operations at the White Mesa uranium mill, located in San Juan County, Utah. NRC has
reexamined actual and potential environmental impacts associated with yellowcake production at
the mill site, and has determined that renewal of the source material license (1) will be consistent
19
DRAFT January 3, 1997
with requirements of 10 CFR Part 40, (2) will not be inimical to the public health and safety, and
(3) will not have long-term detrimental impacts on the environment.
Therefore, based on an evaluation of EFN's renewal request, the NRC staff has determined that
the proper action is to issue a Finding of No Significant lmpact (FONSI) in the Federal Register.
The following statements support the FONSI and summarize the conclusions resulting from the
staff 's envi ron mental assessment:
An acceptable environmental sampling program is in place to monitor effluent releases
and to detect exceedances of appropriate limits;
The licensee has implemented an intensive, routine inspection program of the mill process
building, associated facilities, and tailings retention impoundments, and conducts an
annual ALARA audit program;
Standard operating procedures (SOPs) are in place for all operational process activities
involving radioactive materials that are handled, processed, or stored;
Mill tailings and process liquid effluents from the mill circuit are discharged to partially
below-grade, lined tailings impoundments, with leak detection systems;
The licensee will implement an acceptable groundwater detection monitoring program to
ensure compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A;
The licensee will conduct site decommissioning and reclamation activities in accordance
with NRC-approved plans; and
Because the staff has determined that there will be no significant impacts associated with
approval of the license renewal, there are no disproportionately high and adverse effects
or impacts on minority and low-income populations. Consequently, further evaluation of'EnvironmentalJustice'concerns, as outlined in Executive Order 12898 and NRC's Office
of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Policy and Procedures Letter 1-50, Rev.1, is
not warranted.
Based on these findings, the NRC staff recommends that EFN's license for yellowcake production
at the White Mesa uranium mill be renewed. The source material license shall be based upon the
licensee's renewal application, this Environmental Assessment, the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation
Report, and the license conditions which address environmental issues (see Section 10). License
conditions addressing radiation safety concerns can be found in the SER.
11.0 CONCLUSION INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL LICENSE CONDITIONS
Upon completion of the environmental review of EFN's application for renewal of Source Material
License SUA-1358, the NRC staff has concluded that the operation of the White Mesa uranium
mill, in accordance with the following conditions to be included in the renewed source material
20
DRAFT January 3, 1997
license, is protective of health, safety, and the environment, and f ulfills the requirements of 10
CFR Part 51. Therefore, the NRC staff recommends renewal of SUA-1358, subject, in part, to the
following conditions:
1. The mill production rate shall not exceed 4380 tons of yellowcake per year.
2. A. The licensee may, without prior NRC approval, and subject to the conditions
specified in Part B of this condition:
(1) Make changes in the facility or process, as presented in the application.
(2) Make changes in the procedures presented in the application.
(3) Conduct tests or experiments not presented in the application.
B. The licensee shall file an application for an amendment to the license, unless the
following conditions are satisfied.
(1) The change, test, or experiment does not conflict with any requirement
specifically stated in this license (excluding material referenced in the
Performance-Based License Condition), or impair the licensee's ability to
meet all applicable NRC regulations.
(2) There is no degradation in the essential safety or environmental
commitments in the license application, or provided by the approved
reclamation plan.
(3) The change, test, or experiment are consistent with the conclusions of
actions analyzed and selected in this EA.
C. The licensee's determinations concerning Part B of this condition, shall be made
by a "Safety and Environmental Review Panel (SERP).' The SERP shall consist
of a minimum of three individuals. One member of the SERP shall have expertise
in management and shall be responsible for managerial and financial approval
changes; one member shall have expertise in operations and/or construction and
shall have responsibility for implementing any operational changes; and, one
member shall be the corporate radiation safety officer (CRSO) or equivalent, with
the responsibility of assuring changes conform to radiation safety and
environmental requirements. Additional members may be included in the SERP as
appropriate, to address technical aspects such as health physics, groundwater
hydrology, surface-water hydrology, specific earth sciences, and other technical
disciplines. Temporary members or permanent members, other than the three
above-specified individuals, may be consultants.
D. The licensee shall maintain records of any changes made pursuant to this
condition until license termination. These records shall include written safety and
21
DRAFT January 3, 1997
environmental evaluations, made by the SERP, that provide the basis for
determining changes are in compliance with the requirements referred to in Part B
of this condition. The licensee shall furnish, in an annual report to NRC, a
description of such changes, tests, or experiments, including a summary of the
safety and environmental evaluation of each. ln addition, the licensee shall
annually submit to the NRC changed pages to the Operations Plan and
Reclamation Plan of the approved license application to reflect changes made
under this condition.
The licensee shall submit to NRC by March 31 , 1997, for review and approval in the form
of a license amendment, a standard operating procedure (SOP) for the SERP. The
licensee shall not implement any provision of the Performance-Based License Condition
until it receives NRC written approval of the SOP for the SERP.
Standard operating procedures (SOPs) shall be established and followed for all
operational process activities involving radioactive materials that are handled, processed,
or stored. Standard operating procedures for operational activities shall enumerate
pertinent radiation safety practices to be followed. Additionally, written procedures shall
be established for non-operational activities to include in-plant and environmental
monitoring, bioassay analyses, and instrument calibrations. An up-to-date copy of each
written procedure shall be kept in the mill area to which it applies.
All written procedures for both operational and non-operational activities shall be reviewed
and approved in writing by the RSO before implementation and whenever a change in
procedure is proposed to ensure that proper radiation protection principles are being
applied. ln addition, the RSO shall perform a documented review of all existing operating
procedures at least annually.
Archeological contractors shall be approved in writing by the Commission. The
Commission will approve an archeological contractor who meets the minimum standards
for a principal investigator set forth in 36 CFR Part 66, Appendix C, and whose
qualifications are found acceptable by the SHPO.
Before engaging in any activity not previously assessed by the NRC, the licensee shall
administer a cultural resource inventory. All disturbances associated with the proposed
development will be completed in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act
(as amended) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800), and the Archaeological
Resources Protection Act (as amended) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR 7).
ln order to ensure that no unapproved disturbance of cultural resources occurs, any work
resulting in the discovery of previously unknown cultural artifacts shall cease. The
artifacts shall be inventoried and evaluated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, and no
disturbance shall occur untilthe licensee has received authorization from the NRC to
proceed.
3.
4.
22
DRAFT January 3, 1997
The licensee shall avoid by project design, where feasible, the archeological sites
designated "contributing" in the attachment to this license entitled, "Archeological Sites
Related to the White Mesa Project," submitted by letter dated July 28, 1988. When it is
not feasible to avoid a site designated "contributing" in the attachment, the licensee shall
institute a data recovery program for that site based on the research design submitted by
letter from C. E. Baker of Energy Fuels Nuclear to Mr. Melvin T. Smith, Utah State Historic
Preservation Officer, dated April 13, 1981.
The licensee shall recover through archeological excavation all "contributing" sites listed in
the attachment which are located in or within 100 feet of borrow areas, stockpile areas,
construction areas, or the perimeter of the reclaimed tailings impoundment. Data recovery
fieldwork at each site meeting these criteria shall be completed prior to the start of any
project related disturbance within 100 feet of the site, but analysis and report preparation
need not be complete.
Additionally, the licensee shall conduct such testing as is required to enable the
Commission to determine if those sites designated as "Undetermined" in the attachment
and located within 100 feet of present or known future construction areas are of such
significance to warrant their redesignation as "contributing." ln all cases, such testing shall
be completed before any aspect of the undertaking affects a site.
The licensee is hereby authorized to possess byproduct material in the form of uranium
waste tailings and other uranium byproduct waste generated by the licensee's milling
operations authorized by this license.
All liquid effluents lrom mill process buildings, with the exception of sanitary wastes, shall
be returned to the mill circuit or discharged to the tailings impoundment.
Mill tailings shall not be transferred from the site without specific prior approval of NRC in
the form of a license amendment. The licensee shall maintain a permanent record of all
transfers made under the provisions of this condition.
The licensee shall maintain an NRC-approved financial surety arrangement, consistent
with 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10, adequate to cover the estimated costs, if
accomplished by a third party, for decommissioning and decontamination of the mill and
mill site, for reclamation of any tailings or waste disposal areas, ground-water restoration
as warranted and for the long-term surveillance fee. Within three months of NRC approval
of a revised reclamation/decommissioning plan, the licensee shall submit, for NRC review
and approval, a proposed revision to the financial surety arrangement if estimated costs in
the newly approved plan exceed the amount covered in the existing financial surety. The
revised surety shall then be in effect within 3 months of written NRC approval.
Annual updates to the surety amount, required by 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and
10, shall be submitted to NRC at least 3 months prior to the anniversary date which is
designated as June 4 of each year. lf NRC has not approved a proposed revision to the
surety coverage 30 days prior to the expiration date of the existing surety arrangement,
5.
b.
8.
9.
23
DRAFT January 3, 1997
the licensee shall extend the existing surety arrangement for 1 year. Along with each
proposed revision or annual update, the licensee shall submit supporting documentation
showing a breakdown of the costs and the basis for the cost estimates with adjustments
for inflation, maintenance of a minimum 15 percent contingency fee, changes in
engineering plans, activities performed and any other conditions affecting estimated costs
for site closure. The basis for the cost estimate is the NRC-approved
reclamation/decommissioning plan or NRC- approved revisions to the plan. The
previously provided guidance entitled "Recommended Outline for Site Specific
Reclamation and Stabilization Cost Estimates" outlines the minimum considerations used
by NRC in the review of site closure estimates. Reclamation/decommissioning plans and
annual updates should follow this outline.
The currently approved surety instrument, lrrevocable Letter of Credit No. 500017012,
issued by The Bank of New York in favor of NRC, as amended, May 10, 1994, to include a
Standby Trust Agreement, shall be continuously maintained by UMETCO in an amount
not less than $10,915,467 for the purpose of complying with 10 CFR 40, Appendix A,
Criteria 9 and 10, until a replacement is authorized by NRC.
Contaminated material and equipment generated at the mill site shall be disposed of as
described in the licensee's submittals dated December 12,1994 and May 23, 1995, with
the following addition:
A. The maximum lift thickness for materials placed over tailings shall be less than 4-
feet thick. Subsequent lifts shall be less than 2{eet thick. Each lift shall be
compacted by tracking of heavy equipment, such as a Cat D-6, at least 4 times
prior to placement of subsequent lifts.
The licensee shall submit a detailed decommissioning plan to the NRC at least twelve (12)
months prior to planned final shutdown of mill operations.
The licensee shall submit to NRC by June 30, 1997, for review and approval in the form of
a license amendment, a detailed reclamation plan for the authorized tailings disposal area
which includes the following:
A. A post-operations interim stabilization plan which details methods to prevent wind
and water erosion and recharge of the tailings area.
B. A plan to determine the best methodology to dewater and/or consolidate the
tailings cells prior to placement of the final reclamation cover.
C. Plan and cross-sectional views of a final reclamation cover which details the
location and elevation of tailings. The plan shall include details on cover thickness,
physical characteristics of cover materials, proposed testing of cover materials
(specifications and QA), the estimated volumes of cover materials and their
availability and location.
10.
11.
12.
24
DRAFT January 3, 1997
D. Detailed plans for placement of rock or vegetative cover on the final reclaimed
tailings pile and mill site area.
E. A proposed implementation schedule for items A through D above which defines
the sequence of events and expected time ranges.
F. An analysis to show that the proposed type and thickness of soil cover is adequate
to provide attenuation of radon and is adequate to assure long-term stability, as
well as an analysis and proposal on methodology and time required to restore
ground water in conformance to regulatory requirements.
G. The licensee shall include a detailed cost analysis of each phase of the
reclamation plan to include contractor costs, projected costs of inflation based
upon the schedule proposed in item E, a proposed contingency cost, and the costs
of long-term maintenance and monitoring.
@
Monitoring data submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 40.65 shall be reported in the
format shown in the NRC guidance document entitled, "Sample Format for Reporting
Monitoring Data."
ing
tn
The licensee shall implement the effluent and environmental monitoring program specified
in Section 5.5 of the renewal application as revised with the following modifications or
additions:
A. Stack sampling shall include a determination of flow rate.
B. Surface water samples shall also be analyzed semiannually for total and dissolved
U-nat, Ra-226, and Th-230, with the exception of the Westwater Creek, which
shall be sampled annually for water sediments and analyzed as above. A
sediment sample shall not be taken in place of a water sample unless a water
sample was not available.
C. The licensee shall utilize lower limits of detection in accordance with Sectlon 5 of
Regulatory Guide 4.14 (Revision 1 ), for analysis of effluent and environmental
samples.
13.
14.
15.
16.
25
17.
DRAFT January 3, 1997
D. The inspections performed semiannually of the critical orifice assembly committed
to in the submittal dated March 15, 1986, shall be documented. The critical orifice
assembly shall be calibrated at least every 2 years against a positive displacement
Roots meter to obtain the required calibration curve.
The licensee shall implement a groundwater detection monitoring program to ensure
compliance to 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. The detection monitoring program shall be in
accordance with the report entitled, "Points of Compliance, White Mesa Uranium Mill,"
submitted by letter dated October 5, 1994, as modified by the following:
A. The leak detection system for all ponds will be checked weekly. lf liquid is present,
it shall be analyzed for chloride, sulfate, selenium, and pH. The samples will be
statistically analyzed to determine if significant linear trends exist, and the results
will be submitted to NRC for review.
B. lf a significant trend is indicated, the licensee will submit a proposed corrective
action for review and approval to NRC. The corrective action shall include a
discussion on delineation of the areal extent and concentration of hazardous
constituents.
C.The licensee shall sample monitoring wells WMMW-S, -11, -12, -14, -15, and -17,
on a quarterly basis. Samples shall be analyzed for chloride, potassium, nickel,
and uranium.
Data for the quarterly groundwater parameters shall be maintained in graphical
form, and copies of the graphs included with the environmental monitoring reports
submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 40.65.
REFERENCES
Titan Environmental Corporation [Titan], 1994a, "Points of Compliance, White Mesa Uranium
Mill," prepared for Energy Fuels Nuclear, lnc., September 1994.
Titan, 1994b, "Hydrogeologic Evaluation of White Mesa Uranium Mill," prepared for Energy Fuels
Nuclear, lnc., July 1994.
Umetco Minerals Corporation, 1991 , "1991 White Mesa Mill License Renewal," 4 vols., August
1991.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC], 1988, "Bioassays at Uranium Mills," NRC
Regulatory Guide 8.22, Rev.1, August 1988.
NRC, 1985a, "United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Assessment
Prepared by the Uranium Recovery Field Office in Consideration of the Renewal of Source
D.
26
DRAFT January 3, 1997
Material License SUA-1358 for the Umetco Minerals Corporation White Mesa Uranium Mill,"
issued September 26, 1985.
NRC, 1985b, "Safety Evaluation Report for Umetco Minerals Corporation White Mesa Uranium
Mill, License SUA-1358, Docket No. 40-8681," issued September 26, 1985.
NRC, 1983, "Hydrologic Design Criteria For Tailings Retention System," NRC Staff Technical
Position WM-8201, January 1983.
NRC, 1980a, "Operational lnspection and Surveillance of Embankment Retention Systems for
Uranium Mill Tailings," NRC Regulatory Guide 3.1 1.1, October 1980.
NRC, 1980b, "Radiological Effluent and Environmental Monitoring at Uranium Mills," NRC
Regulatory Guide 4.14, April1980.
NRC, 1979a, "Final Environmental Statement: Related to Operation of White Mesa Uranium
Project, Energy Fuels Nuclear, lnc.," NUREG-0556, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, May 1979.
NRC, 1979b, "Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations) -
Effluent Streams and the Environment," NRC Regulatory Guide 4.15, February 1979.
NRC, 1977, "Design, Construction and lnspection of Embankment Retention Systems for
Uranium Mills," NRC Regulatory Guide 3.1 '1, December 1977.
27
,
t
llRC FOFM 374
(10-Eo)U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY PAGE 1
-or 12 ,-races
MATERIALS LICENSE
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-438). and Title 10.
Code ofFederal Regulations, Chapter I, Parts 30,31,32,33,34,35,39,40 and 70, and in reliance on statements and representations heretofore
made by the licensee, a license is hereby issued authorizing the licensee to receive, acquire, possess, and transfer byproduct, source, and special
nuclear material designated below; to use such material for the purpose(s) and at the place(s) designated below; to deliver or transfer such material
to persons authorized to receive it in accordance with the regulations ofthe applicable Part(s). This license shall be deemed to contain the conditions
specified in Section 183 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and is subject to all applicable rules, regulations and orders of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission now or hereafter in effect and to any conditions specified below.
Ucensee
l. Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.3. Ucense number
SUA-1358, Amendment No. 4l
6425 S. Highway l9l
P.0. Box 7&9
Blanding, Utah 84511
[Appl i cabl e Amendments :l0A, 351 | 5. Docket or 40-8681
Reference No
6. Byproduct, source, and/or
special nuclear material
Natural Uranium
)
4. Expintiono.,, SePtember 23' l99l
7. Chemical and/or physical
form
8. Maximum amount that licensee
may possess at any one time
under this license
UnI i mi tedAny
10.
11.
9. Authorized place of use: The Iicensee's uranium milling facilities located in
San Juan County, Utah.
The licensee is hereby authorized to possess byproduct material in the form of
uranium waste tail'ings and other uranium byproduct waste generated by the
licensee's milllng operations authorized by this license.
For use in accordance with statements, representations, and conditions contained
in Sections 3.6.6, 5.1, 5.3, 5.4,6.?, and 5.3, and Appendix E, Section 5, of the
license renewal application dated January 1985, as revised May 1985, September 2,
1992, for the standby organizational structure, and l,lay 10, 1994, for the Standby
Trlust Agreement. The l'icensee shall conduct operations, and statements
reFerenied above, except where superseded by license conditions below.
I'lhenever the l{ord "will'is used in the above referenced sections, 'it shall
denote a requirement. [Applicable Amendments: 28, 31, 35]
12. The mill production per calendar year shall not exceed 4,380 tons of U.Or.
13. Any changes in the mill circuit as illustrated and described in Plate 3.1-l of
thE Auguit l99l reneyral application, and revised by amendment request.of November
?2, 1904, for the addition of a second dryer, shall require approval by the U.S.
NRC. [Applicable Amendments: 38]
NRC FORM 3744o+.)ftucLEAR
REGU LATORY COMilTSSION
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
PAGE
Liccnsc
JUr-t- IJJO, }rlllE
Docket or Referenc: Numbcr
PAGES
14.
15.
15.
t7.
18.
Release of equipment or packages from the restricted area shall be'in accordance
with the NRC document, "Guidelines for Decontamination of Facilities and
Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted Use or Termination of Licenses for
Byproduct or Source l'{ateri al s , " dated September, 1984 .
[Appl icable Amendments: 38]
The licensee shall avoid by project design, where feasible, the archeo'logical
sites designated "contributing" in the report, "Archeological Sites Related to
the Hhite I'lesa Project," submitted by letter dated JuIy 28, 1988. hlhen'it is not
feasible to avoid a site designated 'contributing' in the above report, the
I icensee shall inst.itute a data rg€o.ve-qy;i,prpgram for that archeolog'icaI site
based on the research design stibnitteif'U!. Ietqer from C. E. Baker of Energy Fue'ls
Nuclear to Mr. I'lelvin T. Smith, Utah State HiStbfic Preservation Officer (SHP0),
dated April 13, 1981". , r .,
The Iicensee shall l'e8over through archeological excavatlon all "contribut'ing"
sites listed in the July 1988 report which are located in or. within 100 feet of
borrow areas, stockpile areas, construction areas, or the perimeter of the
reclaimed tailings impoundment. Data recovery fieldwork at each archeologicalsite meeting these criteria shall be completed prior to the start of any proiect
related disturbance within 100 feet of the site, but analysis and report
preparation need not be complete.
Additionally, the Iicensee shall conduct such testing as'is required to enable
the Commission to determine if those sites des'ignated as "Undetermined" in the
July 1988 report and located w'ithin 100 feet of present or known future
construction areas are of such significance to warrant their redesignation as
"contributing.n In''all cases, such testing shal"L.,be compli$ed before any aspect
of the undertaking-.affects a site. tApplicab"l#;AmendmeQis: 15, 381
Archeological contractors shalI be approved in writing, by the Commission. The
Commission will consult with the SHPO regarding the'qualifications of all
archeological contractors and the quality of tfre laboratory fac'ilities they will
use. The Commission will appiove an trchoolo$tcal contractor who meets the
minimum standards for a principal invEstigitor set forth 'in 36 CFR Part 66,
Appendix C, and whose qualifications are found acceptab'le by the SHP0.
The licensee shall conduct an annual survey of land use (private residences,
grazing areas, private and public potable water and agricultural we11s, and
non-residential structures and uses) in the area within five miles (8 km) of any
portion of the restricted area boundary and submit a report of this survey to the
NRC. This report shall indicate any differences in land use from that described
in the last report. [Applicab]e Amendments: 381
The results of all effluent and environmental monitoring required by this license
shall be reported in accordance with l0 CFR 40, Section 40.55 with copies of the
report sent to the NRC. I'lonitoring data shall be reported in the format shown in
NRC Regulatory Guide 4.148, "sample Format for Reporting Monitoring Data."
[Appl icable Amendments: 38]
Printed m recycled papet
NRC FORM 3744o{,)PAGE OF PAGES
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Before engaging in any act'ivity not previously assessed by the NRC, the licensee
shall prepare and record an environmental evaluation of such act'ivity. When the
evaluation indicates that such activity may result'in a significant adverse
environmental impact that was not previously assessed or that is greater than
that previously assessed, the licensee shall provide a written evaluation of such
activities and obtain prior approval of the NRC in the form of a llcense
amendment.
The licensee shall maintain an NRC-approved financial surety amangement,
cons.i,stent with l0 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10, adequate to cover the
estimated costs, if accomplishe.fl bl a tlrif(..Darty' for decommissioning and
decontami nati on of the mi I I and mll I si te, fon necl amati on of any ta'i 'l i ngs or
waste disposal areas, groundrater restoration Es {rarranted and the long-term
surveillahce fee. t{ithin'three months of NRC approval -of a revised
reclamation/decommisSioning plan, the licensee shall subm'it, for NRC revjew and
approval, a proposeil revisibn to the financial surety arrangement jf estimated
costs in the newly apprroved plan exceed the amount covered in the existing
financial surety. The revised surety shall then be in effect withjn 3 months of
written NRC approva'l .
Annual updates to the surety amount, required by t0 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria
9 and 10, shall be submjtted to the NRC at least 3 months prior to the
anniversary date which is designated as June 4,'of each year., If the NRC has not
approved a proposed revision to the surety coverage 30 days prior to the
expiration date of the existing surety amangement, the licensee shall extend the
existing surety arrangement for one year. Along with each proposed revis'ion or
annual update, the licensee shall submit supporting documentat'ion showing a
breakdowh of the costs and: the basis for the cost estimatss with adjustments for'inflation, maintenance of a minimum 15 percent3.*ontingency fee, changes in
eng'ineering plans,'activities performed-and any other conditions affecting
estimated costs for si^te closure. The basis for the cost estimate is the NRC
approved reclamation/decorrnissioning plan or NRC approved revisions to the p1an.
The NRC guidance document, nRecommended Outline for Site Specific Reclamation and
Stabilization Cost Estimates','' outlines the minimum considerations used by the
NRC in the review of site closure estlmateS. Reclamation /decommissioning plans
and annual updates should follow this outline.
The cumently approved surety instrument, Irrevocable Letter of Credit No.
500017012, issued by The Bank of New York in favor of the NRC, as amended, I'lay
10, 1994, to include a Standby Trust Agreement, shall be cont'inuously maintained
by UtlETC0 in an amount not'less than $10,645,247 for the purpose of complying
wlttr tO CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10, until a replacement'is authorized
by the NRC. [Applicable Amendments: 12,21,26,29,32,35,36,38, 39]
Prior to termination of this ljcense, the licensee shall provide for transfer oftitle to byproduct materia'l and land, 'including any interests therein (other than
land owned by the Un'ited States or the State of Utah), wh'ich is used for the
disposal of such byproduct material oris essential to ensure the long term
stability of such disposal site to the United States or the State of Utah, at the
State's option.
TUCLEAR
FEGULATORY COttlSSlOil
19.
20.
?t.
Printed o{ ccycled papq(
llrucLEAR
REGULATOFV cottlssloll
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLETENTARY SHEET
NRC FORM E7'IA(74,1 PAGE OF PAGES
22. The'licensee shall not make any
without specific prior aPProval
[Appl icable Amendments: 38]
the present tailings retention system
in the form of a l'icense amendment.
23. The licensee shall implement the interim stabi'lization program submitted to the
liC Uy Ietter dated Dbcember 18, 1985, for all tailings not covere4 by standing
water-. This program shall include written operating procedures and shall
minimize dispLrsit of blowing tailings. The-effectivilness of the control method
used shall bb evaluated weekly by meins of a documented ta'i'lings area inspection.
, , [Appl i cabl e Amendment,s: l, 3] :i r
',il. The licensee shall implement tn! !#ffuttnt'.na Bpvironmental monitoling program
specified in Section b.5of"the ienewal applidatfon as revised w'ith the following
modi f i cati ons or addi tions: :i ..
A. Stack sampling'sliall include a determination of flor rate.
B. DELETED by Amendment No. 4l [Applicable Amendment: 41]
C. Surface water samp'les shall also be analyzed semiannually for total lnddissolved U-nat, ha-225, and Th-230 with the exception of the I'lestwater
Creek, which snitt be sampled annually for water or sediments and analyzed
as above. A sediment samble shall not be taken jn place of a water sample
unless a water sample was not available.
D. Ground-water samples from Monitoring wells l, ?,3,4,-5, 11, 12,14,.15,
and the culinary'water well, shall be analyzed quarterly for pH, specific
conductancg r,ehi orides, suliatesn TDs;, a[d:,i]-nat. QuartellV. water_ I evel
measurementi-.shall als6 be made':'Groundrsiter sampTes shall be analyzed
semiannually for arsenic, selenium, sodiunl; Ra-226, Th-230, and Pb-210.
E. Data for the quarterly groundwater parameters shall be maintained in- graphical forni and colies of the gr-aphs included with the environmental
ilonitoring reports submitted in accordance'with 10 CFR 40.65.
F. The licensee shall utilize lower'limits of detection in accordance with
Section 5 of Regulatory Guide 4.14, Revisio! l, dated April 1980' for
analysis of effluent and environmental samples.
G. The inspections performed semiannually of the critical orifice
assemblycomittei to in the submittal dated March 15' _ 1985, thal I _ be
documenied. The critical orifice assemb'ly shalI be calibrated at least
every 2 years against a positive displacLment Roots meter to obtain the
required cal ibration curve.
H. The licensee is authorized to discontinue high volume air
particulate radionuclide samp'ling at station BHV-3 and to use the
quarterly average background'readings specified in the licensee's
letter of JulY 27, 1995.
[Applicable Amendments: 2, 15, 28, 31, 41]
ZS. The licensee shall submit to the NRC by March 15, 1985, for review and approval
changes toof the NRC
----! jf6:f-J jaflr-6lllE
Dockct or Refercncc Numbct
Printed m rccycled Paper
ilRC FORM 3744(7{4}
!I-S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMUISSIONo
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
Docket or RefercncC Number
in the form of a license amendment a detailed reclamation plan for the authorized
tailings disposal area which includes the fol'lowing:
A. A post operations interim stabilization plan which details methods to
prevent wind and water erosion and recharge of the tail'ings area.
B. A plan to determine the best methodology to dewater and/or consolidate the
tailings cells prior to placement of the final reclamatjon cover.
B,.ir,, .q.,'Plan and cross-secti.onal, uiews of a final reclamation covef ,whichrdetails,
cover thickness, rphysical thdiacterfitic's1qf cover materi'al s, proposed
testing of cover materiaJs (specifications''afid QA), the estimated volumes of
cover materjals,and the'ir availabil ity and locatio,Jt.
D. Detailed plans'fdr placement of rock or vegetative cover on the final
reclaimed tai)ings pile and mil'l site area.
E. A proposed implementation schedule for items A through D above which defines
the sequence of events and expected time ranges.
F. An analysis to show that the proposed type and thickness of soil cover is
adequate to provide attenuation of radon and is adequate to assure long term
stability as well as an analysis and proposal on methodo:logy and time
required to restore ground water in conformance to regulatory requirements.
G. The Iicensee shall include a detailed cost analysis of each phase of the
reclamation plan to include contractor cos-t$,; projectEd costs of inflatjon
based upon the schedule proposed in item'Si a propoied contingency cost, and
the costs of long term maintenance and monitoring,
[Applicable Amendments: 38]
The Iicensee shall conduct a,tailings retention system and liner inspection
program in accordance with Section 5.5.7 ad Appendix D, Section 3.0, of the
i.enewal application. Notwithstanding any'statements to the contrary, changes in
inspectioh-frequency shal'l requ'ire the approval of the NRC in the form of a
licbnse amendment. Further, copies of the report documenting the annual
technical evaluation shall be submitted to the NRC within I month of the
completion of the report.
During standby operations, when no effluent is being produced, appropriatgly
trained shift foremen are authorized to conduct the daily tailings retention
system and liner inspections. Training shall be properly documented. However,
the Environmental Coordinator shall continue to conduct weekly, monthly and
quarterly routine inspections during standby periods.
[Applicable Amendments: 28, 38]
The licensee is hereby exempted from the requirements of Section 20.203(e){?) of
lO CFR 20 for areas wittrin the mill, provided that all entrances to the mill are
conspicuously posted in accordance with Section 20.203(e)(?)..anA with the words,
"Any'area within this milI may contain radioactive material."
26.
?7.
m rccycled papdt
t{RC FORM 3744o4.l PAGES
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
The results of sampling, analyses, surveys and monitoring, the results of
calibration of equipment, reports on audits and inspections, all meetings and
training courses required by this l'icense and any subsequent reviews,
investigations, and corrective actions, shall be documented. UnIess otherwise
specified in the NRC regulations all such documentation shall be maintained for a
period of at least five (5) years.
Standard operating procedures (S0Ps) shall be established for all operational.
process activitiei involving radioactive materials that are handled, processed,
b,r stored. Standard operating procedures for operational activities shall.iruili.il.'p.iiin.nt raiiation,-sifety plpqtices Lo be followed. Additional'ly,-
wri tten prbcedures shal I be establ lihbd' ftf nbn-operati onal acti vi ti es to 'incl ude
in-p'lant and environmental monitoring, bioassaynanalyses, and instrument
calibrations. An up-to-date copy of each written procedure shall be kept in the
miII area to which il applies. :'ii
All written procedures for both operational and non-op..ition.l activities shall
be reviewed ind approved in writing by the Rad'iation Protect'ion 0fficer (RP0)
before implementation and whenever a change in procedure is proposed to ensure
that proper radiation protection principles are being app'lied. In addition, the
RPO shali perform a documented review of all existing operating procedures at
least annually.
During extended periods of miII standby, eight-hour annual sampling for U-nat,
Ra-226, Th-230 and Pb-210 may be eliminated if routine airborne sampling show
levels below l0 percent of the maximum permissible concentration (t'lPC). Further,
during periods of standby, sampling frequencies for area airborne uran'ium
sampling within the mill may be reduced to quarqer.JV, proui.ded measured levels
remiin Selow l0 pe[cent of the MPC. If these,]pvels exceed l0 percent of the
l.lPC, the sampling frequency should follow Regulatory Guide 8.30 recommendations.
[Applicable Amendments: 28, 38]
The RPO shall have the following education, trlining and experience:
A. Education: A bachelor's degree fn thd physical sciences, industrial
hygiene, or engineering from an accredited college or university or an
eq[ivalent combination-of training and relevant experience in uranium mill
radiation protection. Two (2) years of relevant experience are generally
considered equivalent to one (l) year of academic study.
B. Health physics experience: At least I year of work experience relevant to
uranium mill operation in appl'ied health physics, radiation protection,
industrial hygiene, or similar work. This experience should involve
actually working with radiation detection and measurement equipment, notstrictly administrative or "desk" work.
C. Specialized training: At least 4 weeks of specialized classroom training lnhlalth physics specifically applicable to uranium milling. In addition, the
RPO should attend refresher training on uranium mill health physics every
two (2) years.
SNUCLEAR
REGULATORY COIUTSSTON i
JUn- IJJC, r fllllEl
Dockct or Refercnce Numbcr
28.
29.
30.
NRC FORM 374A
(-/-9{)
NUCN"EAR REGULATORY COTTISSION PAGES
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEIIIENTARY SHEET
, 31,
D. Specialized knowledge: A thorough knowledge of the proper application and
use of all health physics equipment used in the mjll, the chemical and
analytical procedures used for radiological sampling and monitoring,
methodologies used to calculate personnel exposure to uranium and its
daughters, and a thorough understanding of the uranium milling process and
equipment used in the mill and how the hazards are generated and controlled
during the milling process.
[Applicable Amendments: 38]
The license shall be required to use a Radiation t{ork Permit, (Rt{P) for all work
or non-routine maintenance jobs where tlre pqtential for significant exposure to
radioact'ive material exists and:.fb? whTcff rib'sgandard written operating procedure
already exists. The Rl{P shdl}ibe issued by th'e'RPO or his designate, qualified
by way of specialized radiation protection trainirg, and shall at Ieast describe
the fol I owi ng:' r , .,
A. The scope of the work to be performed.
B. Any precautions necessary to reduce exposure to uranium and its daughters.
C. The supplemental radiological monitoring and sampling necessary prior to,
during, and following completion of the work.
In addition, the RPO's review of all non-routlne activities, committed to in
Section 5.3.1 of the renewal appl'lcation, shall be documented.
The RPO and mill foreman, or qualified designees, shall perform weekly
i nspecti ons of a"'l I mi I I areas to obsenve general.:- rildi ati of control pract'ices.
However, the RPO shall conduct a minimum.of onq weekly inspection per month
during mill standby and two weekly inspections per month during production. A
member of the radiatioR protect'ion staff'shall perform a daily walkthrough
inspection during weekdays, with qualified supervisory personnel performing the
'inspection on weekends. In addition, the RPO shall prepare a monthly report
which includes a review of ditly and weekly inspections, and a summary of all
monitoring and exposure data for the fionthj' A copy of the monthly report shall
be submitted to the 0perations Hanager. [Applicable Amendments: ?81
33. A copy of the annual ALARA report described in Section 5.3.2.2, of the renewal
app'lication as modified by Ietter dated January 20, 1987, shall be submitted to
the NRC by April I, 1987, and every year thereafter.
[Applicable Amendments: 5, 38]
34. The licensee shall maintain effluent control systems as spec'ified in Table 4.1-l
of the licensee's renewal application with the following additions:
A. 0perations shall be jnmediately suspended in the affected area of the mjll'if any of the emission control equipment for the yellowcake drying or
packaging areas is not operating within spec'ifications for design
performance.
32.
Docket or Reference Number
Printed on recyclcd puper:
NRC FORM 3744
c7.s{,
Ir' ,} rt;
35.
36.
37.
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
UCLEAR REGULATC'RY @MMls$ON PAGES
Licensc
B. The Iicensee shall, during all period of yellowcake drying operations,
assure that the scrubber is operat'ing within the manufacturer's recommended
ranges for water flow and air pressure differential necessary to achieve
design performance. This shall be accomplished by either (l) perform'ing and
documenting checks of water flow and air pressure differential approximately
every four hours during operation or (2) 'installing instrumentation whichwill signal an audible alarm if either water flow or air pressure
differential fall below the manufacturer's recommended levels. If any
audible alarm is used, its operation shall be checked and documented daily.
'emi ssi on .'b#trbl' equi pment tnat r
;Ppr shift during oPerations.
Sample volume and analysis for all in-plant air monitoring shall be adequate to
ach'ieve an LLD of 1.0fl,,0f the MPC listed in Table l, Appendix B of l0 CFR 20.
The licensee shall utiltize the results of Iapel sampling in calculating employee
exposures when the lapel samplers are used.
0ccupational exposure calculations shall be performed and documented with'in one
week of the end of each regulatory compliance period as specified inl0 CFR 20.103(a)(2) and l0 CFR 20.103(b)(2). Routine airborne ore dust and
yellowcake samples shall be analyzed in a timely manner to allow exposure
calculations to be performed in accordance ulth. this conditlsn. Non-routine ore
dust and yelloucake samples shall be analyzed and the results reviewed by the RPO
within two working days after sample collection. [Applicab]e Amendments: 381
38. The licensee sha.Il conduct a bioassay prograts inaccordange with Section 5.4.?.4of the renewal appl,ication with the following,g{dition:.
A. A urinalysis program shall be conducted for mill personnel as specified in
Section 1.4.1 of the "Radiation Protection Procedures Hanual" as revised
June, 1985.
,riB. Laboratory surfaces used for bioassay analyses shall be decontaminated to
less than 25 dpm alpha-(removable)/100 cm2 prior to analysis of samp'les.
C. Anytime an action Ievel of 15 ug/l uranium for urinalysis or 9 nCi of
natural uranium for in vivo measurement is reached or exceeded, the l'icensee
shall document the corrective actions which have been performed in
accordance with Revision I of Regulatory Guide 8.?2, dated January 1987.
This documentation shall be submitted to the NRC as part of the semiannual
report required by l0 CFR 40.55.
D. Anytime an action level of 35 ug/l for two consecutive specimens or 130 ug/l
uranium for one specimen for urinalysis or 16 nCi uranium for an in vivo
measurement is reached or exceeded, the Iicensee shall document the
corrective actions which have been performed in accordance with Revision I
of Regulatory Guide 8.22. This documentation shall be submitted to the NRC
within thirty (30) days of exceeding the action level.
c. Ai r piletsurb ai rrerentiil
be rbad and the readirigs
Docket or Refercncc Number
Printed on rccycled papel
I
NRC FORM 374A
(7€.1)
uaf UGLEAR REGU LAToRY corrMlssloN
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
E. The licensee is released from the commitment in its license appl'ication
dated January 29, 1985, for performing routine in vivo measurements of mill
personnel. These measurements shall be performed in accordance wjth the
recorunendations contained in Revision I of Regu'latory Guide 8.22.
[Applicab]e Amendments: 9, l0A, 38I
39. Surveys for fixed and removable alpha contamination shall be conducted in
accoriance with Section 2,3.2.2 of the 'Radiation Protection Procedures Manual"
as revised June, 1985. Action levels shall be as specified in Section 2.3.4 of
the procedures manual
40. Calibration of in-plant air" .ni radiatioii:rionitqring equipment shall be as
specified in Sectibn 3.0 of the "Radiation Protectjon Procedures Manual" as
rbvised June, 1985, with the exception that in-plant air sampling equi.pment shall
be calibratei at l6asfi'quarter'ly and the Kurz meter will be calibrated at least
annually. Air sampl'ing'equipment shall be checked prior to each use, and the
checks documented. [Applicable Amendments: 28)
41. The Iicensee shall submit a detailed decommissioning plan to the NRC at least
twelve (12) months prior to planned final shutdown of mill operations.
42. Disposal of material and equipment generated at the mil'l site, shall be_conducted
accbrd'ing to the Licensee'i pi'oceduie, "Radioactive Contaminated I'laste Disposa'l , "
and the iescription provided'in the Licensee's letters of December 12, 1994, and
May 23, 1995, to the'NRC. [Applicable Amendments: 1, 3, l0A' 38, 40]
43. Mill tailings other than samples for research shalI not_be transferred from the
site withou[ specific prior approval o"f the l{RC'"{'n the form of a license
amendment. Tha licensbe shali'maintain a pemafient record of all transfers made
under the provisions of this condition.
44. All liquid effluents from mill process buildings, uith the.excepliol gf.sanitary
wastes, shall be returned to thl mill circuit or discharged to the tailings
i mpoundment .
45. A decontamination and survey program for barrels containing yellowcake th1ll be
conducted in accordance with Section 1.8 of Regulatory Guide 8.30, "HeaIth
Physics Programs in Uranium l'liIls, " prior to shipment.
The licensee sha'll implement the program to minimize dispersal of dust from the
ore stockpile area(s)'as described in its letter dated December 18, 1985. This
program shall incluO6 written operating procedures. The effectiveness of the
tonlrol method used shall be eviluated-weekly by means of a documented
inspection. [Applicable Amendments: l, 4, 38]
The licensee shall implement, by December 31, 1985, the program proposed in-its
Ietter dated 0ctober 31, 1986, ior the prevention of the release of material due
to an S-X line rupture. Thirty days prior to the final p'lacement of the interim
soil cover on Celi 2, the licensee shall propose a rupture detection program
specific for CeIl 3. [Applicable Amendments: l, 3' 38]
46.
47.
Printed on recycled
NBC FOFM 37IA
(7+{)
NUCLEAR REGULATOFT COTMISSION PAGES
MATER,IALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
48. The licensee shall implement a groundwater detectjon monitoring program to ensure
compliance to l0 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. The detectjon monitoring program shall
be in accordance with the Iicensee's August l, 1989, submittal and jnclude the
fol I owi ng:
The leak detection system for all ponds wil'l be checked weekly. If liquidis present, it shall be analyzed for chloride, sulfate, selenium and pH.
The samples will be statistically analyzed to determine if significantlinear trends exist and the results will be submitted to the NRC for rev'iew.
!. iIf a significant trend is .infli.catpdr-.tbe licensee will submit a proposed
comective action for revi'en'ind:ilpilirivlu to the NRC. The corrective action
shall include a discussion on delineation of the areal extent and
concentration of hqardous constituents
To determine dte{her increases in the Pond 2 leak detection system are fromtailings seepage or from sedimentation pond seepage, the licensee shall byApriI l, 1991, implement the changes proposed in their submittal of April 3,
1990. In addition, the licensee shall collect a minimum of six samples
characterizing the sedimentation pond material prior to construction and
analyze for U-nat and Ra-226. A copy of the analyses shall be submitted by
February 15, 1991.
D. The licensee sha'll sample monitoring rells 5, ll, 12, I{, and 15 forpotential hazardous constituents and subrnit this data to the NRC so that
background can be established and groundwater protection standards set.
[Appljcable Amendments: 6, 8, 10, 16, 22,387
DELETED by Amendment No. 38. [Applicable 38].
DELETED by Amendment lio. 38. [Applicable Amendments: 14, 38]
The licensee is authorized to construct CeIl 4A in accordance with the plans and
specifications contained in the licensee's,Fetjiuary 8, 1989, subm'ittal as revised
by the January 10, 1990, submittal. Additionally, the following cond'itions wil I
al so apply
A. Effective with issuance of Amendment No. 20 and until April 30, 1990, the
maximum operating elevation in CelI No. l-I shall not exceed 5616.1 feet.
Beginning on l,lay l, 1990, the maximum operating elevation in Cell No. l-I
shall not exceed 5615.4 feet, which will provide 2.8 feet of freeboard.
B. Effective with issuance of Amendment No. 20 and until April 30, 1990, the
maximum operating elevation in CeIl No. 3 shall not exceed 5605.4 feet.
Begi nni ng on tlay I , 1990, the maximum operati ng el evati on 'in Cel I No. 3
shall not exceed 5603.0 feet which will provide 5.0 feet of freeboard. When
the volume of tailings approaches 600,000 tons, considering all tailings
placed since 0ctober 23, 1989, the l'icensee shall revise the maximum
operating elevation for Cell No. 3 in accordance with the procedures
specif ied in their January 10, 1990, subm'ittal . The revised elevat'ion shal I
A.
c.
49.
50.
51.
hintcd m rccycled pt+di
NRC FORM 3744(74.)PAGE I r OF r.r PAGES
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
be submitted for NRC review and approval jn the form of a l'icense amendmentrequest. The amendment request shall be submitted to NRC by the time thetotal tonnage of dry tailings reaches the 600,000 ton Iimit.
C. The maximum operating elevation for Ce'll 4A shall not exceed 5596.4 feet,
which will provide 1.6 feet of freeboard.
D. DELETED by Amendment No. 24.
;,r,,. j . E. DELETED by Amendment No. ?4. , i
F.' DELETED by Amendment No.: ?8.t"';: ;*f *"J l-,' I " u
[Applicable Amendments:". 17;, 18, 19, 20, 24, 257 ..
52. The I'icensee is authorized to construct a spillway between Cell 2 and Cell 3 in
accordance with the pl.ans contained in the licensee's October 9, 1990, submitta'|.
0nce the spillway has been constructed, storage of liquids and tai'lings wi'll bepermitted in Cell No. 2. [Applicab]e Amendments: 251
53. The licensee is authorized to place interim cover over exposed tailings jn the
disposal cells. If the placement of material will impact flood routing for the
disposal area, a request to modify the freeboard requirements must be submittedin the form of a license amendment. [Appltcable Amendments:' 27]
54. DELETED by Amendment No. 38. [Applicable Amendments: 38]
55. In accordance with,the licenseels suffittat dated I'lay 20," 1993, the licensee is
hereby authorized to dispose of byproduct matep,tal generated at licensed in sjtu
leach facilities, subject to the following condftions:
A. Disposal of waste is limited to 5,000 cubic yqrds from a single source.
B. All contaminated equipmtint shall.be dismarrtled, crushed, or sect'ioned to
minimize void spaces. Barrels ecintalhing waste other than soil or sludgesshall be emptied into the disposal area and the barre'ls crushed. Barrels
containing soil or sludges shall be verified to be full prior to disposal.
Barrels not completely full shall be filled with tailings or soil.
C. All waste shall be buried in Cell No. 3 unless prior written approval is
obtained from the NRC for alternate burial Iocations.
D. AIt disposal activities shall be documented. The documentation shall
include descriptions of the waste and the disposal locations, as wel'l as all
actions required by this condition. An annual surTmary of the amounts of
waste disposed of from off-site generators shall be sent to the NRC.
[Applicable Amendments: 33, 37]
55. The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materials from theAllied Signal Corporation's l.letropolis, Illinois, facility in accordance with the
amendment request dated June 15, 1993. [App'licable Amendments: 34]
uuGLEAn
REGULATORY COltrlSSlON
Dockct or Refercnce Numbcr
Printed m Ecycled paper
NRC FORM 374A
17.€.1 TUCLEAB
REGULATORY COutlSSpN
MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
57. Notification to NRC under l0 CFR 20.2202, l0 CFR 40.50, and specific licenseconditions should be made as follows:
Required written notice to NRC under this license should be sent to: Chief,
High-Level Uaste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch, Division of l{aste
l.lanagement, Office of Nuclear l,laterial Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear
Regul atory Corrni ssi on, l,lashi ngton, DC 20555.
Required telephone notification to NRC should be made to the 0perations
Center at [phone].
[Applicable Amendments: 38] . +
58. The Licensee is authorized to receive and process'source material from
Phone-PouIenc Chemicalsi Freeport, Texas, in accordance with the amendmentrequest dated January 12, 1995, and supplemented by informatjon provided bytIetters of March 23,'1995, and July 21, 1995. AII Phone-Poulenc materialshall be processed or removed from the site prior to finishing the mill runthat began in August 1995.
[Appticable Amendments: 41J
FOR THE I{UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Date
High-Level Uaste and Uranium
Recovery Projects SectionDivision of Uaste Management0ffice.of t{iiclear Hateiial Safety
and Safeguards
SUA-1358. Amendment No. 4l
Printed on recyclcd paper