DRC-2002-001124 - 0901a06880adec66

Paoe 2 l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
Before Administrative Judges :
Alan S. Rosenthal, Presiding Officer
Richard F. Cole, Special Assistant
In the Matter of
International Uranium (USA) Corporation
(Source Material License Amendment)
Docket No.: 40-868 1-MLA-1 I
ASLBP No. 01-789-01-MLA
Date: May 20,2002
RESPONSE OF TNTERNATTONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATTON
TO WRITTEN PRESENTATIONS OF MR. WILLIAM E. LOVE AND TIIE GLEN
CANYON GROUP OF TIIE SIERRA CLT]B
(DOCKET NO. 40-8681-MLA-1 1)
International Uranium (USA) Corporation ("IUSA") submits this Response to Mr.
William E. Love's ("Mr. Love's") and the Glen Canyon Group of the Sierra Club's (the
"Group's") written presentations requesting the withdrawal of IUSA's license amendment
allowing the receipt and processing of alternate feed material from Molycorp,Inc.'s site in
Mountain Pass, California (the "Molycorp material"). IUSA respectfully requests that the
Presiding Officer find that Mr. Love's and the Group's written presentations are without merit
and deny their request for the revocation, suspension or alteration of IUSA's license amendment.
BACKGROI.]ND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Bill Sinclair - lUCResponse.Mol ur.r Pr r ei
On December 19, 2000,IUSA submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC"
or the "Commission") a request for a license amendment to its source material license to allow
IUSA to receive and process up to 17,750 tons of uranium-bearing material as alternate feed
material, which resulted from the extraction of lanthanides and other rare earth materials at
Molycorp, Inc.'s Mountain Pass, California site. The average uranium content of the Molycorp
material is estimated to be approximately 0.l5%o, with portions containing higher concentrations.
Notice of IUSA's application was published in the Federal Register on January 9,2001. See 66
Fed. Reg. 1702 (January 9,2001). Sometime on or about February 7 ,2001, pursuant to l0
C.F.R. Part2, Subpart L, the Group submitted a letter requesting a hearing on IUSA's license
amendment application (the "Molycorp license amendment"). On March 14, 2001, ruSA
responded in opposition to the Group's hearing request. With leave of the Presiding Officer, on
March 30, 2001, the Group filed a response to IUSA's opposition. The Presiding Officer
conducted a telephone conference with counsel and representatives of IUSA and the Group on
April 1 1 , 2001 . Following a review of the record, on April 24, 2001, the Presiding Officer
entered an order denying the Group's request for a hearing due to a lack of standing.
After being granted a thirty (30) day extension, the Group filed its appeal of the denial of
its hearing request on June 11,200I. IUSA responded in opposition to the Group's appeal on
June 21, 2001, and, in an order dated November 14,200I, the Commission denied the Group's
appeal and affirmed the Presiding Officer's finding that the Group lacked standing to intervene.
NRC issued IUSA's Molycorp license amendment on December 11, 2001 and, on the
same day, NRC published a Federal Register notice describing NRC Staff s Finding of No
Page 4 ,
Significant lmpact ("FONSI") for IUSA's license amendment and noticed a second opportunity
for a hearing on the license amendment.r Two intervenors, Mr. Love and the Group, submitted
hearing requests on December 15, 2001 and January I0,2002, respectively. ruSA submitted
responses in opposition to both these hearing requests on December 3I,2001, and January 25,
2002, respectively.
In an order dated January 30,2002, the Presiding Officer granted Petitioners standing to
intervene in this matter. IUSA appealed the Presiding Officer's decision granting standing to the
Commission on February 11,2002. Then, on February 26,2002, and February 28,2002,
respectively, the Group and Mr. Love filed motions for a stay of IUSA's Molycorp license
amendment and requested a temporary stay without an opportunity for IUSA to respond. In an
order dated March 13,2002, the Presiding Officer denied both Mr. Love's and the Group's
motions for a stay and requests for a temporary stay. Subsequently, on April 3,2002, the
Commission affirmed the Presiding Officer's grant of standing to Petitioners and the denial of
Petitioners' requests for a stay of IUSA's license amendment,2 thereby setting the stage for a
hearing on the merits to proceed.
During a telephone conference on February 21,2002, the Presiding Officer discussed
scheduling for a hearing on the merits. See Memorandum and Order, (February 15,2002). At
the conclusion of the telephone conference, the Presiding Officer ordered Petitioners to submit
their written presentations no later than April l, 2002, and IUSA and NRC Staff to serve their
t 66 Fed. Reg. 64064 (December I 1, 2001).
2 Both the Presiding Officer and the Commission found that Petitioners' requests for a stay were
substantively inadequate, including the failure to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of this
proceeding.
I After issuing the April 1,2002, order, the Presiding Officer, on the same day, directed NRC Staff to
Bill Sinclair - lUCResponse.Molycorp May2002.doc
written presentations by May 1,2002.3
On March 27 ,2002, the Group filed a motion requesting an additional fifteen (15) days to
file a supplemental written presentation based on delays in the delivery of this proceeding's
hearing file and the Group's inability to obtain relevant documents for its initial written
presentation.a By order issued the same day, the Presiding Officer granted the Group's request.
On April 1,2002, both Mr. Love and the Group submitted their initial written
presentations. The Group incorporated by reference Mr. Love's filing and Mr. Love incorporated
by reference the Group's filings, including all supplemental filings.s Then, on April 10, 2002,
the Group submitted itsftrst supplemental written presentation. On April 15,2002, the Group
filed a second supplemental written presentation, and, on April 16, 2002,6 the Group filed a third
supplemental written presentation.
In his March 27 ,2002 order, the Presiding Officer noted that IUSA could seek additional
time to respond to Petitioners' written presentations if, in the opinion of IUSA, there would not
be sufficient time to properly respond to such presentations. IUSA and NRC Staff, on April 19,
2002, each submitted a request for a thirty (30) day extension to respond to both Mr. Love's and
the Group's written presentations. The Group and Mr. Love filed responses opposing IUSA's
and NRC Staff's requests on April lg,2OO2, and April 20,z}O2,respectively. By order dated
Api|22,2002, the Presiding Officer granted IUSA's and NRC Staff s requests for extensions of
become a party to this proceeding.
4 This motion for an extension of time did not apply to Mr. Love.
5 In his written presentation, Mr. Love states, "Petitioner [Mr. Love] incorporates by reference all of
Sierra Club's arguments and supporting materials filed and scheduled for amended filing in this case..."
Love Presentation at 1. The Group similarly states in its initial written presentation, "Petitioner Sierra
Club incorporates by reference Petitioner William E. Love's April 1, 2002, flling in the present
proceeding in this April l,2OO2, filing." Group Initial Presentation at 18.
6 This April 16,2002, third stpplemental filing was technically untimely.
Bill Sinclair -.May2002.doc
time in part, thereby making the due date for this written presentation May 20,2002.
Pursuant to the Presiding Officer's April22,2002, order,IUSA submits this written
presentation and respectfully requests that the Presiding Officer deny Mr. Love's and the Group's
requests for the revocation, suspension or alteration of IUSA's license amendment. As both Mr.
Love and the Group incorporate each other's written presentations, IUSA submits this written
presentation as a unified response to Petitioners' claims and allegations.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioners raise a number of procedural and substantive arguments relating to NRC's
regulatory program and IUSA's White Mesa Mill (the "Mill") operating license. As will be
shown below, each of Petitioners arguments relating to either NRC's regulatory progmm or
aspects of the Mill's curent and pre-existing operating license are not within the proper scope of
this proceeding and are not now subject to challenge. These arguments should not be considered
by the Presiding Officer as the only subject-matter properly before the Licensing Board at this
time is the potential significant, incremental adverse impacts, if any, of IUSA's Molycorp license
amendment.
This proceeding cannot be construed as an opportunity for Petitioners to challenge the
regulatory regime applicable to uranium mill tailings facilities or previously licensed operations
or activities at the Mill. Indeed, it is entirely unreasonable that the licensee should have to go to
the time and expense to respond to an ever-expanding set of allegations which go beyond the
proper scope of this proceeding-namely the proposed Molycorp license amendment's potential
significant, incremental adverse impacts on public health and safety and the environment.
Unfortunately, since the licensee cannot afford to take the chance that these arguments will be
considered by the Presiding Officer witjout an IUSA reply, they must be addressed in this
i Bill Sincl_air I !_U__C!esp91sq .14..o.1]9.9Jgfl9Ullol{vtavzo9z4qc *e Page 7:]
Response. If such argumenLs are considered, they must be
considered in light of the statutory regime created by Congress
and the regulatory program implemented bythe Environmental Protection
Agency ("EPA") and NRC pursuant thereto, the Mill's license and process history, and the facts
and circumstances associated with the Molycorp license amendment. When considered in this
context, Petitioners' arguments are without merit and do not constitute grounds for the
revocation, suspension or alteration of IUSA's license amendment. IUSA will consider each of
Petitioners' allegations regarding the Molycorp license amendment in turn.
In addition, Petitioners in this proceeding have exhibited precious little discipline.
Instead, they have filed and overfilled, constantly adding new issues as they go. They have
sought extensions of time and opposed such requests by the licensee. In light of the above, the
licensee respectfully requests that the Presiding Officer deny the Petitioners any right to reply to
this Response or, at the very least, strictly define the scope of any such replies which, if
exceeded, will result in such exceedances being stricken from the record and Petitioners
disciplined accordingly. 7
7 The preamble to 10 CFR $ 2.1209 entitled Power of Presiding Officer explicitly states that "a presiding
officer has the duty to conduct a fair and impartial hearing according to law, to take appropriate action to
avoid delay, and to maintain order. The presiding officer has all the powers necessary to those ends..."
See l0 CFR $ 2.1209. "Current adjudicatory procedures and policies provide a latitude to the
Commission, its licensing boards and presiding officers to instill discipline in the hearing process and
ensure a prompt yet fair resolution of contested issues in adjudicatory proceedings." See NRC Statement
of Policy on Conduct ofAdjudicatory Proceedings, CLI-98-12 at 3 (emphasis added).
I Bill Sinclair - lUCResponse.Mol en r4ty?9qz,.gqq-
-.f.qg"
q i
STANDARD OF RBVIEW
Before turning to the statutory and regulatory framework applicable to uranium mills,
including the Mill and the Molycorp license amendment, it is necessary to set forth the
appropriate standard of review. The Commission's regulations require NRC Staff to make a
number of findings concerning the applicant and its ability to protect public health and safety
before issuing a materials license. Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units
1 and 2), ALAB-778, 20 N.R.C. 42, 48 (1984); see l0 C.F.R. S 70.23,70.31; cf. South Carolina
Electic and Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit l), ALAB-642,13 N.R.C. 881,
895-96 (1981), affd sub nom.; Fairfield United Action v. NRC,679F.2d,261(D.C. Cir. 1982).
Specifically, 10 C.F.R. $ 40.32 states:
"An application for a specific license will be approved if:
(a) The application is for a purpose authorized by the Act; and
(b) The applicant is qualified by reason of training and experience
to use the source material for the purpose requested in such a manner
as to protect health and minimize danger to life or property; and
(c) The applicant's proposed equipment, facilities and procedures are
adequate to protect health and minimize danger to life or property; and
(d) The issuance of the license will not be inimical to the common defense
and security or to the health and safety of the public and;
(e) In the case of an application...for a license to possess and use source
and byproduct material for uranium milling,. . .the Director of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards or his designee...has concluded, after weighing
the environmental, economic, technical and other benefits against the
environmental costs and considering available alternatives, that the action called for is
the issuance of the proposed license."s
Thus, for the Commission to grant a materials license or license amendment, it must find
that (1) the applicant's proposed equipment and facitities are adequate to protect health and
8 lo c.F.R. $ 40.32.
minimize danger to life or propertli and (2) the applicant is qualified by training and experience
to use the material for the purpose requested in such a manner as to protect public health and
minimize danger to life or property and to comply with the Commission's regulations.e A license
or license amendment is not to be denied simply on the basis of a deficiency or omission in the
application.r0 NRC Staff, in its review of a license application, is not required to make specific
findings of fact or to explain its approval of a license.tr Although such findings and explanations
may be helpful to a Presiding Officer or a pafiy challenging the license in later proceedings, they
are not required under NRC orders, policy statements, and regulations.r2
When a license amendment is challenged, the licensee generally bears the ultimate burden
of proof.r3 Those challenging a license, however, must provide some basis for further inquiry.la
Where one of the parties challenging the license contends that, for a specific reason, the permit or
license should be denied, that party has the burden of going forward with evidence to buttress
that contention. Once the party has introduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case,
the burden then shifts to the applicant, which as part of its overall burden of proof, must provide
a sufficient rebuttal to satisfy the Licensing Board that it should reject the contention as a basis
for denial of the permit or license.r5
In operating license proceedings, a Licensing Board's jurisdiction is defined by the
e See In the Matter of the Curators of the University of Missouri,4l N.R.C. 71,1995 N.R.C. LEXIS 21,
*43 (1995).
to Id.
r'Id. at *106.
tz See In the Matter of the Curators of the University of Missouri, 41 N.R.C. 11,1995 N.R.C. LEXIS 21,xl06 (1995).
t3 l0 C.F.R. g$2.732,2.1237(b); see also Metropolitan Edison Co.,16 N.R.C. 1265,1211 (1982).
ta See Metropolitan Edison Co.,16 N.R.C. 1265,1271 (1982).
ts General Public Utilities Nuclear Corp., l7 N.R.C. 1076, 1093 (1983); Louisiana Power and Light Co.,
17 N.R.C. 1076,lO93 (1983), citing, Consumers Power Co.,6 AEC331,345 (1973).
{elrql4eE99?,Sss- * ".- Pqse-"I9.,tr
Commission's notice of hearing. Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
Unit l), LBP-91-1, 33 N.R.C. L5,20-21(1991). Licensing Board's generally can neither enlarge
nor contract the jurisdiction conferred by the Commission. Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and2), LBP-89-19, 30 N.R.C. 55, 58, 59-60 (1989).
More specifically, in a license amendment proceeding, a Licensing Board has only limited
jurisdiction. The Licensing Board may admit a party's issues for hearing only insofao. as those
issues are within the scope of matters outlined in the Commission's notice of hearing on the
licensing action. Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units I and2),
ALAB-739, 18 N.R.C. 335,339 (1983), citing Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear
Plant), ALAB-534, 9 N.R.C. 287 ,289, n. 6 (1979). A Licensing Board only has juisdiction over
those matters which are within the scope of the amendment application. Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Corp. (Yermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-88-19, 28 N.R.C. 145,
ts2-s3 (1988).
Further, with regard to Petitioners' challenges to NRC's regulatory program in general,
10 C.F.R. $ 2.1239(a) entitled Consideration of Commission rules and regulations in informal
adjudications states:
"Except as provided in paragraph (b) ofthis section, any regulation ofthe
Commission issued in its program for the licensing and regulation of
Production and utilization facilities, source material, special nuclear material,
or byproduct material may not be challenged in any adjudication subject to this
subpart Isubpart L]."
A petitioner may not collaterally attack Commission regulations on the grounds that they fail to
protect public health and safety when such regulations have been subject to full public comment
proceedings . See id.; see also In the Matter of The Curators of the University of Missouri, 4l
irl Bill Sinclair - lUCResponse.MolycorpPre May2002.docto'u,
N . R. C . at * 216 . ; American Nuclear Corp. (Revision of Orders to Modify Source
Materials Licenses), CLI-86 -23, 24 N.R. C. 7 04, 7 08 - l0 ( 1 986).
With respect to matters that are within the proper scope of this proceeding (i.e., the
Molycorp license amendment), Petitioners must "show a harm that [is] distinct and apart from
that caused by the initial licensing and continued operation of the facility." International
Uranium (USA) Corp. (White Mesa Mill), LBP-99-8,49 N.R.C. 131, (February 19, 1999). The
Commission has adopted the maxim that, where a facility's ongoing operations are involved, "a
petitioner's challenge must show that the [proposed license] amendment will cause a 'distinct
new harm or threat apart from the activities already licensed. International Uranium (USA)
Corp. (Receipt of Material from Maywood, New Jersey),2002 N.R.C. LEXIS 9, *11 (January
16,2002), quoting, International Uranium (USA) Corp. (White Mesa Mill) 54 N.R.C. 27 , *7 -8
(July 30, 2001).
A petition to intervene in a materials licensing proceeding, regarding issues such as
approval of the Mill's operating license or approval of the Mill's tailings cell design or
construction would have to have been filed within thirty (30) days after the petitioner received
actual notice ofthe pending application or the agency action granting the application; or one
hundred and eighty (180) days after the agency action granting the application. See 10 C.F.R. $
2.1205(c)(2)(l); see also Umetco Minerals Corp.,LBP-94-7,39 N.R.C. lI2, ll3 (1994). Actual
notice does not require notice ofthe legal right to challenge the application or ofthe period of
time within which a challenge must be fied. See Nuclear Metals Inc.,LBP-91-27,33 N.R.C.
548,549,550 (1991). Any challenge filed outside this time period will be considered untimely.
See generally 10 C.F.R. S 2.1205.
GBNERAL STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
11
ir Bill Sinclair - lUCResponse.tvt olry,gn ii?Ua! o n . M ay2 002. d o c
Statutory Background
To understand the import and underpinning of NRC's Alternate Feed Guidance ("AFG"),
it is necessary to view it in the context of the Atomic Energy Act ("AEA"), as amended by the
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 ("UMTRCA"), Pub. Law No. 95-604
(codified in various sections of Title 42 of the United States Code), and its amendments, pursuant
to which the regulatory program developed by the EPA and NRC was promulgated.
Congress enacted UMTRCA in 1978 to address concerns regarding the potential health
and environmental hazards, both radiological and non-radiological, presented by uranium and
thorium mill tailings. UMTRCA was based upon a finding that mill tailings located at active and
inactive mill sites may pose a potential and significant radiation health hazard to public health.16
In explaining the need for UMTRCA, the House Report accompanying the legislation relied upon
the description of the potential public health hazard of mill tailings in the testimony of then-NRC
Chairman, Dr. Joseph M. Hendrie:
"The NRC believes that long-term release from tailings piles may pose
a radiation health hazard ifthe piles are not effectively stabilized to
minimize radon releases and prevent unauthorized use of the tailings.
There are two basic purposes of UMTRCA: (1) to provide a remedial action program at
inactive mill tailings sites and (2) to provide a program for the regulation of "mill tailings during
uranium or thorium ore processing at active mill operations and after termination of such
operations."tT Title tr of UMTRCA establishes a comprehensive program for EPA and NRC
16 Pub. L. No. 95-604, at2(a),92 Stat. 3021-22.
r7 Title I of UMTRCA provides a specific remedial program for a number of designated inactive and
abandoned tailings sites under the primary direction of the Department of Energy ("DOE"), and is
inapplicable to the White Mesa Mill. Pub. L. No. 95-604, at 2(b)(l), 92 Stat. 3022;Pub. L. No. 95-604,
at 2(b)(2). 92 Srat.3022.
.lc.s!::-
t2
regulation at active (licensed) mill tailings sites, such as the Mill, of a/l wastes including uranium
or thorium mill tailings created by processing ore to recover its source material (i.e., uranium or
thorium) content. UMTRCA defines such wastes as 11e.(2) byproduct material.rs UMTRCA
also added sections 83, 84, and275 and amended sections 161 and 274 of the AEA to provide
EPA and NRC with the broad authority to regulate all aspects of mill tailings sites.re
IIMTRCA directed EPA to promulgate "standards of general application" (or "generally
applicable standards") for both Title I and Title II programs.20 Title Fr charged NRC with
implementing and enforcing UMTRCA regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, including
EPA's generally applicable standards and NRC's own specific regulatory requirements.22
As described in the House Report, the dual EPA and NRC regulatory-setting regime
contemplated that:
"[t]he EPA standards and criteria should be developed to limit the exposure
(or potential exposure) of the public and to protect the general environment
from either radiological or nonradiological substances to acceptable levels
through such means as allowable concentrations in air or water, quantities
of the substances released over a period of time, or by specifying maximum
allowable doses or levels to individuals in the general populatiot."",*
'8 Under the AEA, 11e.(2) byproduct material is defined as, "the tailings or wastes produced by the
extraction or concentration of uranium or thorium from any ore processed primarily for its source
material content." See 42 U.S.C. $ 2014(eX2)(emphasis added).
re Pub. L. No. 95-604, at20l-206,92 Stat. 3033-4.
20 Pub. L. No. 95-604, at206,92 Stat. 3040. Section 206 of UMTRCA, which adds a new section 275 to
the AEA, specifically requires NRC to conform its regulations to EPA's generally applicable standards.
2r It is also worth noting that Title II of UMTRCA specifically requires that the Department of Energy
("DOE') take title to all 11e.(2) byproduct material after license termination, if the host state does not opt
to take title. To the extent that either RCRA listed or characteristic hazardous wastes are .
inappropriately introduced into a tailings impoundment, then potential questions about post-license
termination dual EPA/NRC jurisdiction may arise which could compromise transfer of title to the site to
DOE, a problem which NRC and DOE wish to avoid.
22 Pub. L. No. 95-604, at203,205,92 Stat. 3036, 3039.
23 H.R. Rep. No. 1480, supra note 196, pt. 1, at 16-17 (emphasis added).
2a For purposes of this written presentation, IUSA intends to add emphasis to terms, phrases or sentences
within cited quotations to the extent it becomes necessary. It should be understood that the notation
"emphasis added" shall be implied and will no longer be inserted from this point forward.
13
I Bill Sinclair - lUOResponse
The NRC, on the other hand:
"must set all standards and requirements relating to management concepts,
specific technology, engineering methods, and procedures to be employed
to achieve desired levels of control for limiting public exposure, and for
protecting the general environment. The Commission's standards and
requirements should be of such nature as to specify, for example, exclusion
area restrictions on site boundaries, surveillance requirements, detailed engineering
requirements, including lining of tailings ponds, depth, and
types of tailings covers, population limitations or institutional arrangements
such as financial surety requirements or site security measures."2s
UMTRCA and its legislative history reflect Congress' intent that EPA and NRC regulate
the potential radiological hazards associated with 11e.(2) byproduct material. This is entirely
appropriate since a substantial share ofthe potential hazards associated with 11e.(2) byproduct
material are, in fact, radiological. However, it is also clear that UMTRCA and its legislative
history clearly and unequivocally address EPA's and NRC's authority and responsibility to
regulate potential non-radiologicalhazards associated with 11e.(2) byproduct material.
As a result, Congress added section2T5 to the AEA directing EPA to "promulgate
standards ofgeneral application for the protection ofthe public health, safety, and the
environment from radiological and non-radiological hazards associated with" mill tailings at
active sites. See 42 U.S.C. $ 2022(bX1) (emphasis added). "Such generally applicable
standards. ..for non-radiological hazards," must "provide for the protection of human health and
the environment consistent with standuds required under Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act [SWDA], as amended, which are applicable to such hazards." See 42 U.S.C. g 2022(b)(D.26
The House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, in reporting on the bill that would
25 H.R. Rep. No. 7480, supra note 196, pt. 1, at 16.
26 Subtitle C of the SWDA is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA").
1,4
Bill Sinclair - lUCRgspg,nse,Mol
eventually be enacted as UMTRCA, stated as follows:
"The NRC is also responsible for implementing general standards and criteria
promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency tEPAl.
NRC must assure that the technology, engineering methods, operational controls, surveillance
requirements and institutional anangements employed at the sites provide the necessary
barriers and levels of control to limit public exposure, and protect the environment from
radiological and toxic non- radiological substances associated with uranium mill tailings
materials, as specified by EPA standards and criteria." '
H.R. Rep. No. 95-1480, Part I, at 16.
Section 205 of UMTRCA requires the Commission to regulate lle.(Z) byproduct material
in a manner that:
"the Commission deems appropriate to protect the public health and safety
and the environment from radiological and non-radiological hazards
associated with the processing and with the possession and transfer of
t11e.(2)l material."
42 U.S.C. $ 2114(aX1).
Congress also added section 84 to the AEA directing NRC to insure that "management" of mill
tailings is carried out in such a manner as"
"To protect public health and safety and the environment from radiological
and non-radiological hazards associated with mill tailings...
To conform to 'applicable general standards' promulgated by EPA; and...
To conform to NRC 'general requirments' established 'with the concurrence' of
EPA, 'which are, to the maximum extent practicable, at least comparable to
requirements applicable to...disposal of similar hazardous material regulated'
by EPA under the Solid Waste Disposal Act [SWDA]."
It is for these reasons that section 275 states that:
"[N]o permit issued by the Administrator [of EPA] is required
under this Act or the Solid Waste Disposal Act [SWDA], as amended
lRCRAl...."
To explain the import of these provisions, NRC has also stated:
"Constituents with hazardous characteristics that were in feed materials
processed at a uranium mill would eventually end up in the tailings
impoundment as 11e.(2)byproduct material. As such, they would be
15
' Bill Sinclair - lUCResponse.MolycorpPrggryigi Ugy2002.doc e__,iqseJql
regulated under appendix A of 10 C.F.R. part 40 whichprovides
for monitoring and control of hazardous constituents. Thus, the ultimate fate of
hazardous constituents that might be in uranium mill feed would not escape regulatory
oversight."
57 Fed. Reg. 20525, 20533 (1992).
Thus, the statutory regime established by Congress in UMTRCA, as amended, explicitly
mandates that both EPA and NRC promulgate and NRC implement regulations designed to
address both the potential radiological hazards (primarily fromlong-lived radionuclides such as
uranium and thorium and their decay products) and the potential non-radiologicalhazards (both
naturally occurring heavy metals such as lead and organic process constituents) associated with
uranium or thorium mill tailings.
Regulatory Background
In 1980, NRC promulgated its 10 C.F.R. Part 40, Appendix A Criteria ("Appendix A"),27
based upon the findings in its Generic Environmental Impact Statement ("GEIS") on uranium
milling operations and management of mill tailings set forth in NUREG-0706 entitled Final
Generic Environmental Impact Statement on (Jranium Milling.zs The Criteria established a
performance-oriented program for mill tailings management by setting Criteria for siting and
disposal of mill tailings piles, controlling erosion and stabilizing tailings, limiting radioactive
effluents from uranium and thorium mills and mill tailings, controlling seepage of non-
radiological toxic materials from tailings into groundwater, providing financial assurance for
meeting disposal costs and long-term monitoring, and meeting UMTRCA's long-term
custodianship requirements for tailings disposal sites.
27 45 Fed. Reg. 65,521 (1980).
28 NTIREG-0706, Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on (lranium Milling, (September,
1980).
L6
r Bill Sinclair - lUCRggpg!!_e:!4o
During the development of its Appendix A Criteria, NRC's GEIS used a "model mill" to
provide licensees and the general public with a generic assessment of both the radiological and
non-radiologicalhazards of uranium milling and mill tailings impoundments. NRC's "model
mill"2e analysis included an assessment of radiological and non-radiological constituents in
tailings solutions, their potential for transport through groundwater and surface water, and the
proper construction of a tailings impoundment to contain both types of constituents.30 See GEIS
atL2-23,12-24,12-25. This assessment was designed to address technical problems such as:
"isolating tailings from people for long time periods, control of
persistent airborne emissions. . . and protection of groundwater
quality. . . and I n ] o n r adi o I o g i c al e nv i ro nme nt al imp a c t s and resource
use."
GEIS at 2.
NRC also explicitly stated that "[t]he UMTRCA does, however, require consistency, to the
maximum extent practicable with the requirements of RCRA.." for the protection of the public
health and safety from the non-radiological hazards associated with uranium milling and mill
tailings impoundments Id. at 13-6.
However, NRC made clear that the "model mill" analysis, and the GEIS in general, did
not account for site-specrfc conditions that may potentially play a significant role. Indeed, NRC
has stated, for example, "[t]he need for development of specific methods of tailings disposal on a
site-specific basis is repeatedlymade in the document..." See GEIS at $$ 1.3, 12.3.I,12.3.5, &
12.3.t0.
2e IUSA also notes that the "model mill" analysis conducted by NRC, like the White Mesa Mill, is "based
on an acid leach process which is common to the industry." GEIS at 3.
30 NRC provides a summary of its assessment of non-radiological hazards associated with uranium
milling and mill tailings impoundments in section 3.3 & 4.6 of the GEIS , as well as a more detailed
description in sections 6.2.L & 6.3.1. This generic assessment, which addresses typical mill tailings
constituents such as healy metals, specifically inclludes lead.
17
-f- - *-"flnqPlsi
Recognizing Lhat site-specif ic f actors will dictate precise means of
compliance at any particular site, Appendix A Criteria were created to be performance-oriented
requirements which emphasize flexibility, rather than to be prescriptive prerequisites to licensing,
to account for the unique, site-specific circumstances posed by the natural systems in which this
activity takes place. These performance-oriented requirements were created with the specific
intent of providing protection for the public health and safety and the environment from both the
radiological and non-radiolo gic al hazards associated with mill tailings.
In 1983, EPA issued its general standards for inactive Title I sites,3r and, later that year,
published its generally applicable standards for Title II sites,32 which among other things,
established a radon emission limit for disposal areas of 20 pCilrfilq the so-called 5l15 pClg
radium in soil cleanup standard, primary and secondary groundwater protection standards, and
long-term design requirements for the stability of mill tailings piles or impoundments. Thus, this
package of controls requires that reclaimed mill tailings facilities must assure control of potential
radiological andnon-radiological hazards "for one thousand years, to the extent reasonably
achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years."33
Thus, by the end of 1983, EPA had issued generally applicable standards for active
uranium mill tailings sites (as well as for inactive sites), and Congress had amended the AEA to
provide more flexibility for NRC licensees to achieve the levels of protection required under
EPA and NRC regulations without necessarily being bound to the specific requirements set forth
3' 48 Fed. Reg. 590 (Ig33Xcodified at 40 C.F.R. $$ 192.00-.23).
32 48 Fed. Reg.45,926 (lg83Xcodified at 40 C.F.R. $$ 192.30-.43). EPA's active site standards have
been upheld against numerous challenges by industry and environmental petitioners. See American
Mining Congress v. Thomas,772F.2d 640 (10'h Cir. 1985), cert denied,476 U.S. 1158 (1986).
33 40 c.F.R. $ 192.32(b)(lXi).
l8
tion.May2002.doc Page
in those regulations. In addition, Congress specifically directed NRC and EPA to balance costs
against risks when developing regulations and standards governing the management of uranium
mill tailings and related wastes.
In 1985, the Commission amended its earlier 1980 Criteria to conform them to EPA's
generally applicable standards,3a although many of the Appendix A Criteria remained
unchanged.35 However, NRC's Appendix A Criteria incorporate the RCRA standards for
potential non-radiological hazards in groundwater incorporated by EPA in its generally
applicable standards.36 The provisions of Appendix A, Criterion 5 expressly "incorporate the
basic ground-water protection standards imposed by the EPA in 40 C.F.R. Pafi I92, subparts D
and E37 which apply during operations and prior to the end of closure."38 Criterion 5, for
example, delineates aprimary standard focusing on the type of liner necessary to protect
groundwater during the management of uranium or thorium mill tailings and how that liner
should be constructed. Additionally, a secondary groundwater standard is provided requiring
that hazardous constituents entering groundwater must not exceed concentration limits in the
"uppermost aquifer beyond the point of compliance during the compliance period."3e
Criterion 13 contains EPA's RCRA hazardous constituents list with which the secondary
groundwater standards discussed in Criterion 5 must comply. This list includes various types of
34 50 Fed. Reg. 41,852 (1985).
35 The Criteria that remained essentially identical to the Commission's 1980 regulations were Criteria2,
3, 4,1 ,8A, and portions of each of the others. The 1985 Criteria that the Commission revised to conform
to EPA's generally applicable standards were parts of the Introduction, Criteria 1, 5, 6, and 8.
36 EPA's Final Environmental Impact Statement for Standards for the Control of Byproduct Materials
from Uranium Ore Processing ("FEIS") analyses, like NRC's GEIS analyses, explicitly contemplated the
presence of heavy metals such as lead in uranium mill tailings wastes. See FEIS at 3-8, 3-10, 4-9,4-10.
37 40 C.F.R. Part 192, Subpart D & E incorporate RCRA standards in 40 C.F.R. Part264 et seq.
38 l0 C.F.R. Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5.
3e See Appendix A, Criterion 5.
inorganic constituents, including heavy metalslike lead and their compounds, and demonstrates
that EPA and NRC explicitly anticipated the presence of such constituents in mill tailings
impoundments.4o The list of hazardous constituents shown in Criterion 13 are not considered
exhaustive anA any other prospe ctivehazardous constituents must be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis independent of EPA's listing in 40 C.F.R. Partl92.
In addition to incorporating RCRA requirements, the safeguards offered by NRC's mill
tailings control regime are extremely stringent and provide public health protection that is
equivalent to, if not in some respects more stringent than RCRA. Mill tailings must be designed
to be stabilized through use of "passive" controls (engineered barriers) to contain potential
radiological andnon-radiological hazards without the benefit of "active maintenance" for a
minimum of 200 years and, to the extent reasonably achievable, 1,000 years. By contrast, the
RCRA regulatory horizon is thirty (30) years, and even under NRC's 10 C.F.R. Part 61 low-level
radioactive waste ("LLRW") standards for higher activity wastes, the regulatory horizon is only
300-500 years, with no provisions similar to those in Appendix A for control of non-radiological
(hazardous) constituents. Thus, it is indisputable that the regulatory program developed and
promulgated by EPA and NRC for uranium milling and mill tailings impoundments specifically
contemplates licensees processing ores for their natural uranium content regardless ofthe
presence ofpotential radiological or non-radiological hazards and provides a flexible, site-
a0 This conclusion is further supported in NRC's recent NUREG-1620 entitled Standard Review Plan for
the Review of a Reclamation Plan for Mill Tailings Sites Under Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act (Draft Report for Comment), ("Mill Tailings SRP'). As shown in Table 4.1.3-l
entitled Common Uranium Mill Chemical Constituents, which "is based on a chemical survey performed
by NRC Staff at 17 licensed mill tailings sites," heavy metals such as lead are constituents that are
routinely present in natural uranium ores. Mill Tailings SRP at 4-8,4-9. These constituents are
commonly found in these ores and NRC's protective measures for proper disposal and management of
Lle.(Z) mill tailings were designed to specifically address such constituents.
20
specific framework within which licensees may continue operat,ions
without posing a significant threat to public health and safety or the environment.
Regulatory History of NRC's Alternate Feed Guidance
On August 15,1995, NRC, in response to requests it had received, some of which the
Commission had approved,al to mill feed material at licensed uranium mills that was not natural
uranium ore, andafter public comment, NRC promulgated its AFG entitled Final Position and
Guidance on the Use of Uranium Feed Material Other than Natural Ores.a2 The AFG was
intended to replace ad hoc, case-by-case review of such requests and to address two key concerns
raised by alternate feed processing: ( 1) the possibility of dual regulation of tailings by both NRC
and EPA (or States) which could lead to (2) impediments to the transfer of 11e.(2) byproduct
material tailings piles to the long-term custody of DOE. It is important to note that the AFG was
not and is not primarlly focused on potential health and safety concerns of processing alternate
feed. This is not to suggest that health and safety analyses associated with processing any given
alternate feed are not required. Indeed, the AFG expressly states that a licensee must
demonstrate that any alternate feed can be processed in compliance with NRC's 10 C.F.R. Part
40, Appendix A requirements. However, assuming that such compliance can be demonstrated,
the primary concern is a policy concem-avoidance of the potential impacts of dual jurisdiction.
NRC's AFG imposed three key requirements for processing feed material other than
ar For example, NRC amended the source material license held by Rio Algom's uranium mill in Lisbon,
Utah several times between 1982 and 1987 to enable the mill to receive processing wastes from a
uranium hexafluoride conversion facility, a niobium-tantalum recovery facility, and an yttrium-
lanthanides recovery facility. See 57 Fed. Reg. 20525,20531 (1992). Likewise, in 1987, NRC permitted
the Quivira Mining Company to process sludge from a uranium hexafluoride conversion plant. The
uranium content of these wastes typically was higher than that of the average natural ore.
42 60 Fed. Reg.49296 (September 22,1994).
2T
i Bill Sinclair - lUCResponse.Page 22.,
natural ores to insure that the wastes resulting from such processing would qualify as 1le.(2)
byproduct material and, thus, would be eligible for disposal in uranium mill tailings
impoundments that would ultimately be transferred to the governmental custodian, DOE.
First, a proposed alternate feed material must qualify as ore. Under the AEA, lle.(2)
byproduct material is defined as "the tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or
concentration of uranium or thorium ftom any ore processed primarily for its source material
content." Although UMTRCA, as it amends the AEA, does not specifically define what
constitutes any ore, the Commission has developed the following definition:
"[A] natural or native matter that may be mined and treated for the extraction
of any of its constituents or any other matter from which source material is
extracted in a licensed uranium or thorium mill."43
Indeed, I.{RC Staff concluded that
"The fact that the term"any ore," rather than unrefined and unprocessed ore,
is used in the definition of IIe.(Z) byproduct material implies that a broader
range of feed materials could be processed in a mill, with the wastes still being
considered as 11e.(2) byproduct material.aa
Thus, materials that already have been subject to processing, but which contain recoverable
uranium, can qualify as ore and such materials, when processed, will yield wastes that constitute
1 1e.(2) byproduct material.
Second, the AFG states that feed materials containing listed hazardous waste subject to
EPA's RCRA regulations cannot be processed as an alternate feed. This ban, however, does not
apply to feed materials exhibiting only characteristics of hazardous waste (i.e., toxicity,
ignitability, etc.), since such material is exempt from the RCRA definition of hazardous waste
43 57 Fed. Reg.20531 (1992).
44 57 Fed. Reg. at 20532.
Bi ll Sinclai r - I UCResponse. MolycorpPresgltation. May2002.doc
when reclaimed.as
Third, the licensee must demonstrate that the ore is being processed primarily for its
source material content. This requirement is tied to the definition of l1e.(2) byproduct material
and was made explicit in the AFG to address concerns abott"sham disposal" with respect to
which it had been argued that wastes which normally would have to be disposed of as LLRW or
mixed waste could be milled at a uranium mill primarily to enable its disposal in a mill tailings
impoundment as 11e.(2) byproduct material at less cost.
Subsequently, however, concerns about the potential for " sham disposal" were addressed
by the Commission in In the Matter of International Uranium (USA) Corp.,wherein the State of
Utah disputed alternate feed processing of material from the so-called Ashland 2 site in
Tonawanda, New York. o6 Utah claimed that, because the processing fee IUSA received was
greater than the economic value of the uranium that could be extracted from the Ashland 2
material, IUSA was engaging in"sham processing" and was not processing the Ashland 2
material primarily for its source material content.
IUSA disputed Utah's contention and argued that so long as IUSA operated an NRC-
licensed uranium mill and extracted, or reasonably expected to extract, uranium from the
material, the processing action would be primarily for the material's source material content and,
thus, permissible under NRC's AFG. This litigation resulted in a Commission decision which
determined that a licensee may process an alternate feed material primarily for its source material
content without inquiry into the licensee's economic motives for such processing.aT This
a5 See 40 C.F.R. $ 261.2(c)(3).
46 CLI-00-01,51 N.R.C.9, (February 10,2000)
ai See generally id.
-?ege ?9 i
)4,
Bill Sinclair - lUCResponse
Commission decision, coupled with the regulatory progress achieved in the interim period, has
created an AFG that is significantly more flexible but which remains consistent with the
objectives set forth by Congress in the AEA, as amended by UMTRCA.aS
WHITE MESA MILL HISTORY AND PROCESS
1. History and Process
The Mill commenced operations in 1980, originally to process uranium and vanadium
ores from the historic Colorado Plateau mining district, and later from the high-grade breccia
pipe mines in northern Arizona.
The milling process is based on an acid-leach followed by counter current decantation
("CCD") to wash uranium-bearing solution from the solids. During processing, the Mill's circuit
can operate at leach temperatues up to ninety (90) degrees centigrade and pH levels as low as
0.5, utilizing sulfuric acid. In addition to the sulfuric acid, an oxidant such as sodium chlorate is
added, as needed, to enhance uranium recovery. The Mill has eight high capacity thickeners,
which are capable ofbeing configured into groups or series ofparallel stages. Three separate
solvent extraction (liquid ion-exchange) circuits are capable ofhandling aqueous flows upto 800
gallons per minute, and the mill also has an ion-exchange ("X") circuit. In the solvent extraction
process, an organic comprised primarily of kerosene, an amine collector and isodecanol, is used
to recover the uranium from the solutions. An acidified salt solution is then used to strip the
uranium from the organic.ae
48 SECY-99-0012, Use of ()ranium Mill Tailings Impoundments for the Disposal of Waste Other than
I I e.(2) Byproduct Material and Review of Application to Process Material Other than Natural Uranium
Ores (April 8, 1999).
4e Similar chemicals and reagents are used, as well as further addition of oxidants, to recover vanadium
from Colorado Plateau ores.
24
The uranium is then precipitated from the concentrated solutions using anhydrous
ammonia and ammonium sulfate to produce the final product of the process, U3O8 or
yellowcake.so Final products are dewatered, dried or calcined at temperatures up to 650 degrees
centigrade. The White Mesa Mill is operated by a seasoned professional and operations staff,
some of whom have been at the facility since its startup in the spring of 1980. The metallurgical
staff has the experience and background to evaluate process options for the recovery of a wide
variety of minerals.
Tailings Management System
Waste streams that result from the ore processing are discharged from the CCD circuit in
the form of a30-407o solid/liquid slurry. The slurry is pumped to the Tailings Management
System (the "tailings cells") where the solids are allowed to settle and the liquids are evaporated
or recycled back to the Mill for use as wash water. Liquid tailings or raffinate from the solvent
extraction or IX circuits are also pumped to the tailings cells and evaporated or recycled.
The Mill's tailings cells were designed and constructed in accordance with NRC
standards, and NRC approved boththe design and the construction of the cells. The Mill's
original operating license required that the tailings cells be designed to protect groundwater from
radionuclides and non-radiological (hazardous) wastes. As noted previously, conventional
uranium ores and alternate feed materials contain heavy metals, and organic and inorganic
s0 Yellowcake is defined as the product of the uranium extraction process. The material is a mixture of
uranium oxides that can vary in proportion and in color from yellow to orange to dark green (blackish)
depending at which temperature the material was dried (level of hydration and impurities). Yellowcake is
commonly referred to as U3O8 and is assayed as pounds U3O8 equivalent. This fine powder is packaged
in drums and sent to a conversion plant that produces uranium hexafluoride (UF6) as the next step in the
manufacture of nuclear fuel. See NRC Glossary, www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-
ref/glossary/yellowcake.html.
r Btll stnclatr -lUCResponse. MolycorpPresgtation
chemicals are added in the milling process. As a result, the tailings cells, including tailings
liners, were intentionally designed to be protective as both a radioactive waste containment
system and anon-radioactive hazardous waste disposal system. The constituents present in
conventional ores, including radionuclides and organic and inorganic non-radiological
constituents such as those listed in Appendix A, Criterion 13, was considered in the design
standards for the cells and the liners. Additionally, in accordance with license requirements,
stability and integrity of the tailings cells has been monitored since their construction and
detailed in annual reports certified by Registered Professional Engineers and have been placed on
file with NRC.
Site Hydrogeology
The natural hydrogeologic setting at the Mill is one of the reasons the Mill was sited at its
current location. It begins with a thin, perched groundwater zone of poor quality5r groundwater
which rests on top of 1,000-1,100 feet ofdense clays, sandstones, and shales separating the
regional aquifer from this perched groundwater zone. Groundwater in the proximity of the Mill
has been documented in three geologic strata: (1) the Dakota sandstone, (2) the Burro Canyon
Formation (a low-permeability sandstone), and (3) the Entrada./I.{avajo Sandstones.
The groundwater occurrence in the Dakota sandstone and the Burro Canyon Formation is
in the form of a single perched groundwater zone at depths of approximately 110 to 150 feet
below the Mill site (generally approximately 70 feet below the tailings cells). The saturated
thickness of the perched groundwater zone is, at most, 55 feet thick to the north of the Mill,
5t The perched groundwater at the Mill site is generally of low quality due to the high total dissolved
solids ("TDS") in the range of 1,200 to 5,000 mg/L and is used primarily for stock watering and
irrigation upgradient (north) of the Mill site.
26
Sinctair - I U_CR,eqpo19e.
approximately 20 feet thick beneath the Mill site, and thins to less than five (5) feet to the south.
The Mill's tailings cells are sited within the unsaturated upper part of the Dakota sandstone.
Thus, if cell leakage were to occur from the tailings cells, tailings-related constituents would
have to migrate through approximately 70 feet of unsaturated material before reaching the
perched groundwater zone, which is the zone used by the Mill for groundwater monitoring
purposes.52
The perched zone of groundwater is perched above the Brushy Basin Member of the
Morrison Formation, the first unit in a 1,000-1,100 foot sequence of low-permeability clays and
shales that behave as an aquitard,s3 preventing downward infiltration of the perched
groundwater. The Entrada/Navajo sandstones, below the Brushy Basin formation, form the
regional aquifer, some 1,000-1,100 feet below the perched groundwater zone. The
Entrada/Navajo Aquifer is an artesian aquifer and is used regionally for irrigation and domestic
consumption and is capable of delivering from 150 to 225 gallons per minute.
The Entrada./Navajo Aquifer is naturally protected from potential contamination resulting
from processing activities at the Mill in several ways. First, the Entrada/I.{avajo Aquifer is
separated fromthe perched grotmdwater zone by an aquitard made up of approximately 1,000
feet of unsaturated, low-permeability formations. Second, regional aquifer water is present under
art'esian pressure which will cause this water to rise into the above-mentioned low permeability
52 As will be shown below in greater detail, Mr. Stewart J. Smith, an expert hydrogeologist, performed
an analysis of the natural geologic and hydrogeologic conditions at the White Mesa Mill and states,
"[t]he permanent monitoring wells at the site are placed to monitor perched water conditions
downgradient, upgradient, and cross-gradient of the tailings cells." Affidavit of Stewart J. Smith ("Smith
Affidavit") at 2.
53 An aquitard is defined as, "a geologic formation that may contain groundwater but is not capable of
transmitting significant quantities of groundwater under normal hydraulic gradients. In some situations
aquitards may function as confining beds." See EPA Glossary of Techhical Terms,
www.epa. gov/swerust 1/catltumgloss.htm.
27
formations rather than allow water to move downward from these formations into the regional
aquifer. Third, recharge to the Entrada/Navajo Aquifer occurs many miles from the Mill and
does not occur from infiltration of precipitation falling on the surface of the Mill site. The
combination of a low permeability, thick unsaturated aquitard over the Aquifer, and the artesian
pressure within the Aquifer and lack of recharge from infiltration, provides a positive, natural
physical and hydraulic barrier that protects the Entrada./Navajo Aquifer from being impacted by
potential tailings cell leakage.
Tailings Cell Design and Construction
In addition to the controls offered by the natural geologic and hydrogeologic conditions at
the Mill site, ruSA constructed its tailings cells in accordance with NRC guidance and best
engineering practices to further take advantage of site-specific conditions and maximize control
of radiological and non- radiolo gic al tulings constituents.
The tailings cells were designed to be sub-grade structures so that when full they could be
covered and would blend into the surrounding areas in an environmentally-preferred fashion.
The various components of the tailings cells were designed using prudent engineering practices,
including good quality assurance/quality control ("QA/QC") systems and practice to mitigate the
potential for errors or omissions in the design. As part of the design process, various "what-if'
scenarios for the cells were considered to assure a balanced consideration of risk and engineering
practice that would mitigate any potential adverse impacts.
The Mill's tailings cell liner system was designed taking into consideration the scenario
of liner leakage, including the potential for both massive and small "pinhole" leaks. A synthetic
liner for the tailings cells was selected which could withstand potential degradation from reaction
with tailinqs ffuids to maximize fluid retention.
A porous bedding layer was insLalled beneath the slmthetic
liner to assist in t.ransport of massive leakage to a seepage
collection system at Lhe toe of the cel1 embankments. Thenatural
calcareous materials underlying the bedding were considered to be an effective barrier for the
migration of potentially hazardous constituents such as leadby fixing them in place as a result of
chemical reactions. A drain system on top of the liner was designed to assist in reducing
hydraulic pressure on the liner which is enhanced by the planned transfer of surface fluids in the
tailings cells to evaporation ponds.
Groundwater Monitoring Program
Finally, to further assure control of tailings constituents, ruSA instituted and
implemented a comprehensive groundwater monitoring program. Prior to the implementation of
IUSA's groundwater monitoring program, pre-operational groundwater sampling of surface
water, perched groundwater zone wells, and deep wells began in 1917 and continued until the
Mill began operations on May 8, 1980.s4 This analysis included a 1981 study of natural
background groundwater conditions that reviewed water quality data to insure that no new
impacts to groundwater were introduced as a result of Mill operations.
ln 1994, the Mill began using an NRC-approved Point of Compliancess ("POC")56
54 These analyses were confirmed by the Utah State Division of Environmental Health's laboratory.
55 IUSA's POC groundwater monitoring program was approved by NRC only after studying
approximately sixteen (16) years of data (fourteen (14) years at the time of application and sixteen (16)
years of data at the time of approval) using parameters at up to seventy (17) wells indicated that there
was no impact to the perched groundwater zone from the White Mesa Mill's operations.
56 Under Appendix A, the Point of Compliance is defined as, "the site specific location in the uppermost
aquifer where the ground-water protection standard must be met." See Appendix A, Introduction. The
Mill's POC is at the downgradient edge of the tailings cells in the perched groundwater zone.
Bill Sinclair - lUCResponse.Mo
monitoring program after reviewing groundwater monitoring results at the Mill site since 1977
which indicated:
(l) The White Mesa Mill and its tailings system had produced no
impacts to the perched groundwater zone or the regional aquifer; and
(2) the most dependable indicators of water quality and potential cell
failure would be chloride, nickel, potassium, and natural uranium
As part of the environmental protection program required by the Mill's NRC license, water
quality monitoring is conducted both on and off-site.57
The POC monitoring program mandates quarterly sampling of the perched groundwater
zone for four parameters; chloride, potassium, nickel, and uranium (the "POC parameters"),
which are the key indicators of potential seepage from the tailings cells. The POC parameters
were selected based on the following criteria:
(1) high concentrations in tailings slimes drain water;(2) low concentrations in site groundwater;
(3) conseryativechemicalcharacteristics; and(4) indicative representation of chemical classes; that is, a cation, an anion, a
trace metal, ald a radionuclide
These POC parameters are considered tobe "conseryatiye" constituents.58
"Conservative" constituents travel at or very near the speed of groundwater and are not
significantly retarded by natural attenuation. By showing a high mobility in groundwater, these
"conservative" constituents serve as "early warning" indicators for the potential arrival of other
slower moving potential groundwater contaminants such as lead.se These four POC parameters
57 Data for these reports are published in the Mill's Semi-Annual Effluent Report.
58 The metals that may be contained in alternate feed ores are typically also present in conventionally
mined ores and in the Mill's 1le.(2) byproduct material wastes, but not all are selected as POC
parameters because they do not satisfy the four selection criteria as completely as the current POC
parameters. Unlike most of the metals in the tailings, the POC parameters are chosen because they are
far less affected by the geochemical processes that would attenuate the mobility of other tailings
constituents.
5e As will be shown below b y Dr. Roman Z.Pyrlh,led is subject to natural attenuation, is a slow moving
30
tion.May2002.doc
were determined to be the best indicator parameters for all potential constituents in the tailings
cells.
In addition, as noted above, these POC parameters were selected because they meet the
criteria of occurrence at high concentrations in tailings slimes drain water while occurring at
relatively lower concentrations in natural background groundwater across the Mill site. Thus, the
Mill maintains a groundwater monitoring program that is extremely "conservative" and that will
detect any potential leakage of constituents contained in the Molycorp material from the tailings
cells.
Taken together with the above-mentioned design and construction safeguards, the result
is a consciously designed defense-in-depth groundwater protection plan which, with its multiple
facets, provides more than adequate protection for public health and safety and the environment
from the potential seepage of radiological (i.e., uranium and thorium) and non-radiological
constituents (i.e.,lead and other heavy metals) from the tailings cells.
Twice each year, NRC personnel inspect the Mill to insure that all aspects of the Mill's
activities are in compliance with applicable NRC regulations. In over twenty years of operation
and monitoring of the perched groundwater zone, through the licensee's comprehensive
groundwater monitoring and sampling program, any additional non-routine sampling results, and
the semi-annual inspections conducted by NRC, there have been no indications that Mill's
tailings cells have ever released tailings liquid into the perched groundwater zone, much less the
regional aquifer.
Additional Environmental Safeguards
heavy metal, and is, therefore, not a good parameter for monitoring purposes.
31
i3rii
Bill Sinclair - lUCResponse ,Mgv?Q?.doC Pige sz I
-
@r:::ir!
The Mill has a routine air particulate monitoring program for uranium, thorium-230,
raditm-226, and lead-210 which is conducted continuously at five (5) monitoring stations located
around the perimeter of the Mill and reported quarterly to NRC. The Mill has also collected
thirteen years of background air quality data from an off-site monitoring station. There has not
been one instance of the Mill exceeding the applicable Effluent Release Concentration standard
defined in 10 C.F.R. Part20, Appendix B, and, in fact, the monitoring stations have consistently
indicated air particulate results anywhere from 10 to 100 times lower than the standard.
The Mill collects surface water samples from two nearby streams, Westwater Creek and
Cottonwood Creek. Surface water (or sediment if there is no water) from Westwater Creek is
analyzed annually for total and dissolved uranium, raditm-226, and thorium-230. Surface water
from Cottonwood Creek is analyzed semi-annually for the same parameters. Since the startup of
Mill operations, there has been no detection of radionuclides in surface water or sediment above
natural background for the area.
Soil samples are also collected at each of the five (5) environmental monitoring stations
annually in August. The soils are analyzed for uranium and radium-226. Agun, since the startup
of Mill operations, there have been no statistically signfficanttrends of increasing uranium or
other radionuclide concentrations in area soils.
"New growth" vegetation is collected from areas northeast, northwest, and southwest of
the Mill during early spring, late spring, and late fall and is analyzed for radium-226 and lead-
210. There have been no statistically significanl trends of increasing uranium or other
radionuclide concentrations in area vegetation.
m The Semi-Annual Effluent report is available on the NRC's ADAMS system.
aa
On a semi-annual basis,IUSA publishes a Semi-Annual Effluent Report,@ which
contains all of the recent sampling results and a history of the quarterly POC well sampling. In
addition to the groundwater results, all results of all other environmental sampling programs are
documented.
UDEQ Groundwater Discharge Permit and Split Sampling
Despite the fact that an NRC-approved POC groundwater monitoring program has been
implemented at the Mill, ruSA has voluntarily agreed with the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality's ("UDEQ's") request6r that the Mill obtain a Utah Groundwater
Discharge Permit ("GWDP";02 and implement supplementary groundwater monitoring measures
which include monitoring for additional parameters. The form of the GWDP is currently being
determined by IUSA in conjunction with IIDEQ.
As part of this process, IUSA has agreed to include in the GWDP a requirement that the
Mill will monitor for additional parameters from a list of other potential indicators of chemical
classes such as major ions and/or other constituents. In a report to UDEQ submitted on October
3, 20Ol , while maintaining that the existing POC program provide sufficient protection of public
health and the environment, ruSA provided an evaluation of additional constituents that may
potentially be used as additional parameters for monitoring purposes and a rationale for assigning
compliance limits to monitoring parameters for the GWDP.
Since May of 1999, pending approval and implementation of the GWDP and despite the
m The Semi-Annual Effluent report is available on the NRC's ADAMS system.
6t NRC has sole jurisdiction over radiological and non-radiological impacts at the Mill, but, because the
Mill is located in the State of Utah, IUSA has voluntarily agreed to develop a GWDP. See SECY-99-
0271.
62 The Mill's tailings cells do not discharge any effluents in groundwater. See generally 40 C.F.R. Part
440. The GWDP is simply a standard term for a Utah groundwater protection permit.
11
effectiveness of the POC groundwater monitoring program, IUSA has voluntarily sampled for
additional parameters in cooperation with UDEQ. This split sampling takes place on an annual
basis and involves the sampling of up to seventeen (17) monitoring wells, including the POC
wells and any other wells that are not dry at the time of sample collection.63 Analytical
parameters which were selected by IIDEQ are; (1) major ions, (2) physical properties, (3) total
metals (phosphorous and total uranium), (4) dissolved metals (including lead), nitrogen
(ammonia as nitrogen and nitrate + nitrite as nitrogen), gross alpha, and semi-volatile and volatile
organic compounds ("VOCs").
8. Ore Pad Integrity and Fate and Transport Assumptions
The Molycorp material, along with other ores, will be stockpiled prior to the initiation of
a milling campaign. Prior to processing at the Mill, the Molycorp material will be stockpiled on
a bermed concrete ore pad to contain liquids in case of precipitation events.s While the ores are
stockpiled, precipitation, whether in the form of rainfall or snow, falling on the ore stockpiles
will evaporate, infiltrate the stockpile or, if in sufficient quantity, will be pumped to the process
holding tanks. Evapotranspiration rates at the Mill are high, estimated to be as high as sixty-one
(61) inches per year. Also, some infiltration into conventional altemate feed ore stockpiles is
beneficial in that such moisture helps to maintain the moisture content of the stockpiles, thereby
minimizing the potential for airborne contamination. IUSA, as will be discussed below, will
utilize water sprays to contain any potential airborne constituents and, if necessary, add a
63 These 17 wells do not include the eleven (l l) temporary wells that are currently being sampled to
investigate chloroform contamination at the Mill site.
n As stated in Appendix A. Criterion 5H, "[s]teps must be taken during stockpiling of ore to minimize
penetration of radionuclides into underlying soils; suitable methods include lining and/or compaction of
ore storage areas."See Appendix A, Criterion 5H.
34
surfactant or cover the Molycorp material with reinforced plastic.
While there is no credible mechanism through which the Molycorp material could
migrate from the bermed concrete ore pad,65 to insure that there is no loss of stockpiled ore
materials from the ore pad due to precipitation, the entire Mill site, including the ore pad, is
graded to drain to the tailings system. There is no mechanism for surface run-off from any
precipitation that may have contacted the stockpiles to leave the site. The ore pad is also
underlain with crushed, compacted limestone which further enhances the immobility of any
heavy metals escaping the ore pad. In order for any materials on the ore pad to reach
groundwater, they must be transported from the feed stockpiles, through the surface of the ore
pad, and travel downward through more than approximately 100 feet of underlying vadose zone
materials to the perched groundwater zone.
As stated above, the Mill has several natural (i.e., aquitard) and artificial (i.e., concrete
ore pad with site grading for run-off to tailings and tailings cell design) conditions and systems
that are designed specifically for the purpose of preventing contamination from significantly
impacting groundwater and the environmental quality of the site in general. Using these
conditions and systems, the Mill, in over twenty (20) years of processing both conventional and
alternate feed ore materials, has never detected any defects in its operating systems (e.g., tailings
cells and ore pad) or any signijicant impacts to public health and safety or the environment.
PETITIOI{ER'S ALLEGATIONS REGARDING THE MOLYCORP
AMENDMENT
LICENSE
1. IUSA is Permitted by NRC Regulations to Possess a Source Material License
6s Both the Presiding Officer and the Commission have stated that there is no risk of airborne dust from
the Molycorp material and, as such, there is no risk of inhalation. International Uranium (USA) Coap.
(White Mesa Mill.) 2001 N.R.C. LEXIS 195, x8-10 (November 14,2001).
35
Bill Sinclair - |
Petitioners allege that IUSA should not be permitted to have a source material license
because they assert IUSA is not a domestically owned or controlled corporation. However, while
' citing 10 C.F.R. $ 40.38 as evidence for their contention, Petitioners fail to consider that this
regulation does not apply to ruSA. Section 40.38 states:
"A license may not be issued to the Corporation if the Commission determines that:
(a) The Corporation is owned, controlled, or dominated by an alien, a
foreign corporation, or a foreign government..."
10 C.F.R. $ 40.4 defines Corporation as:
"the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), or its successor, a Corporation
that is authorized by statute to lease the gaseous diffusion
enrichment plants in Paducah, Kentucky, and Piketon, Ohio, from the
Department of Energy, or any person authodzed to operate one or both of the
gaseous diffusion plants, or other facilities, pursuant to a plan for the privatization
of USEC that is approved by the President."
IUSA and the Mill process ores for their natural uranium content and do not engage in any
procedures involving uranium enrichment or gaseous diffusion. Therefore, Petitioners'
allegation is without merit and IUSA is entitled to possess a source material license.
The l*ad Content of the Molycorp Material Does Not Pose A Significant, Incremental
Threat to the Public Health and Safety Above and Beyond That of Previously Licensed
Activities at the Mill
Petitioners raise several different arguments relating to the lead content of the Molycorp
material and its alleged potential impacts on public health and safety and the environment. As
will be shown below, Petitioners' arguments are without merit and do not provide any evidence
of a significant, incremental threatto public health and safety or the environment above and
beyond that of previously licensed activities at the White Mesa Mill.
ThLe Leail Content of the Molycorp Material
Bill Sinclair - lUCResponse.
According to Petitioners, the Molycorp material, which contains oxidized lead (lead
sulfate) and unoxidized lead (lead silfrde), will: (1) form hazardous lead chemical compounds
when being processed at the White Mesa Mill, (2) create hydrogen sulfide gas when exposed to
the tailings cells, (3) cause chemical reactions in the tailings cells resulting in damage to IUSA's
tailings cells and liners, (4) create hazardous airborne contaminants, and (5) threaten wildlife or
humans in surface water or wildlife when present in the tailings cells. These claims are mot
accurate nor do they demonstate a significant, incremental threat to public health and safety or
the environment warranting the revocation, suspension or alteration of IUSA's license
amendment.
The Mill's Tailings Cells Already Contain Significant Quantities of Lead and The Addition
of The Molycorp Material's Lead Content Will Not IncreaseThe l*ad Content
Signiftcantly
Petitioners allege that because the Molycorp material contains an elevated lead contentin
the form of lead sulfide sludge that the material will pose a significant, incremental hazard to the
public health and safety and the environment. However, this claim is without merit because
EPA's and NRC's regulatory progmms for uranium mill tailings specifically contemplate the
presence of heavy metals, including, specifically lead, in uranium mill tailings impoundments
and the Mill's tailings cells were specifically designed to safely contain non-radiological
(hazardous) materials such as lead. Further, the elevated concentration of lead in the Molycorp
material will not increase the lead content in the tailings cells or tailings solutions in any
si gnifi c ant, adv e r s e w ay.
First, EPA's and NRC's regulatory programs specifically contemplated that heavy metals,
)t
including, specif icall-y lead, would be present in conventional natural uranium ores
and that the tailings from processing such ores would be disposed of in uranium mill tailings
impoundments. In its FEIS, EPA reported on tests of average concentrations of constituents
found in uranium tailings impoundments at inactive sites. These tests covered nineteen (19)
sites, including nine (9) sites located in the State of Colorado and four (4) sites located in the
Stateof Utah. EPAfoundthat leadwas acommonconstituent. SeeFEISat3-8,3-10. InNRC's
GEIS, lead was specifically listed in Table 5.3 entitled Chemical and Radiological Properties of
Tailings Wastes Generated by The Model Mill as a component of tailings liquids to be disposed
of in a tailings impoundment. See GEIS at 5-6. In addition, NRC's recent Mill Tailings SRP
explicitly recognizes lead as a corlmon constituent in uranium mill tailings impoundments. Mill
Tailings SRP at 4-9,Table 4.1.3-1. Thus, Petitioners cannot claim that lead is a unique heavy
metal which was not contemplated by EPA or NRC the development of the uranium milling
regulatory program such that adequate protections do not exist to control such circumstances in
uranium mill tailings impoundments such as the Mill's tailings cells.
Second, the elevated concentration of lead in the Molycorp material will not have a
significant, incremental effect on the Mill's tailings cells. Ms. Jo Ann Tischler, an expert
chemical and process engineer, performed an analysis of the Molycorp material's lead content
and the effects of adding such lead content to the Mill's tailings cells. Ms Tischler states:
"The Molycorp pond material has been estimated to contain an average
lead content of 132,000 ppm (13.2 weight percent)....[t]he Molycorp drummed
material has been estimated to contain an average of 52,600 ppm (5.3 weight
percent)...[b]ased on the anticipated likely scenario...processing of the Molycorp
material could introduce from 1,023 to 2,343 tons of additional
leadinto the Mill's tailings system."
Affidavit of Jo Ann Tischler ("Tischler Affidavit") at 4.
According to Ms. Tischler, ores previously processed at the Mill from both the Colorado Plateau
and Arizona Strip containedlead in varying concentrations, as have a number of altemate feed
materials.66 Id. For example, Ms. Tischler states:
"[Arizona Strip] ores have an estimated average lead concentration of 860 ppm
(0.086 weight percent)...Ashland I alternate feed material is known to contain lead
levels...with an overall average of 57lppm (0.057 weight percent). Ashland
2 altemate feed material is known to contain leadlevels...with an overall
average of 100 ppm (0.01 weight percent)."
Id. at 4-5.
Currently, the Mill's tailings cells contain "approximately 1,400 tons of lead," with an "average
concentration of lead lofl 332 ppm (0.033 weight percent)," and "approximately L7 ppm (17
mglL) is in the tailings solutions, based on a sample taken in Apil2002;'Tischler Affidavit at 5.
By adding the Molycorp material to the tailings impoundments, Ms. Tischler states that, "[t]his
would result in an increase in average lead concentration in the tailings mass from 332 ppm
(0.033 weight percent) to either 576 ppm (0.053 weight percent) or 889 ppm (0.089 weight
percent)," depending on the quantity of material processed. Id. This finding led Ms. Tischler to
conclude that, "[i]n either event this [increase] represents a very small percentage ofthe total
tailings mass," and that "[w]hile the average concentration in the entire tailings system
increases...the amount of lead in solution will not increase appreciably above current levels due
to solubility constraints." Id. at 5.
These solubility constraints are defined by the presence of elevated concentrations of iron,
lead, and sulfate in the tailings cells. According to Dr. Roman Z.Pyrih, an expert geochemist,
66 Dr. Douglas B. Chambers, Director of Risk and Radioactivity Studies for SENES Consultants
Limited, whose affidavit will be discussed at greater length below supports Ms. Tischler's statement:
"Colorado Plateau and Arizona strip uranium ores also contain varying concentrations of lead depending
on the source and ore body." Affidavit of Dr. Douglas B. Chambers ("Chambers Affidavit") at 10.
39
tB,lL91911:lyc,l-"_:porye._qo!y9_9re!s3qtrryey?99?.999 -- -Bse€.l
"[b]ased on a recent sample taken in April2002,lead wasmeasuredat 17
mgl[" in the Mill's tailings cells. Affidavit of RomanZ.Pyih ("Pyrih Affidavit") at2. In
addition, "[o]ther recent samples [from the tailings cells] indicated iron and sulfate
measurements of up to 10,000 mgll- and up to 289,000 mglL, respectively." 1d. Based on these
measurements, Dr. Pyrih concludes:
"The levels of these and other constituents limit the amount of lead that
can be in solution to approximately 20 mgfi-, regardless of the total inventory
of lead in the tailings."
Id,
Despite the fact that the Molycorp material contains elevated concentrations of lead, this lead
content will not be a constituent that is not already contained in the Mill's tailings cells nor will
the introduction of the Molycorp material increase the concentration of lead in the tailings cells
or solution in any significant way. As such, the tailings from processing the Molycorp material
can be contained safely in such tailings cells thereby posing no significant incremental threat to
public health and safety and the environment.
The Molycorp Material Does Not Contain Any Constituents Not Already Present in The
Mill's Tailings Cells
Petitioners make claims that the Molycorp material will introduce several new
constituents into the Mill's tailings cells that have not been present in previously processed
natural uranium ores and alternate feed materials. These claims are incorrect. In fact, Ms.
Tischler states:
"With the exception of lanthanum oxide, every one of the components reported
by Molycorp in the radioactive Material Profile record and characterization
data for the pond and drum materials have already been identified in reported
67 Regarding lanthanum and lanthanum oxide, Ms. Tischler states:
40
analltical data for ores processed at the Mill or their resulting tailings."67
This information led Ms. Tischler to conclude that, "processing of Molycorp material would
introduce no new compounds to the Mill process circuit or tailings system." Tischler Affidavit at
-1.
In addition, the Molycorp material will not introduce any new constituents into the Mill's
tailings cells which would require additional parameters to be added to IUSA's groundwater
ryronitoring progmm. As stated by Dr. Pyrih:
"Nickel and uranium are included in NRC's list of key parameters. Nickel
is not affected by the geochemical processes that attenuate the movement
of heavy metals in groundwater and is much more mobile than lead. As such, nickel
serves as an early warning of the approach of seepage that may contain lead."
Pyrih Affidavit at 4.
With regard to uranium as a monitoring parameter, Dr. Pyrih states:
"IJranium is much less affected by the geochemical processes that attenuate
the movement of natural radionuclides and is much more mobile than thorium.
Uranium serves as an early warning of the approach of seepage that may contain
thorium."
Id.
Generally, with respect to the current indicator parameters, Dr. Pyrih concludes:
"These parameters (chloride, potassium, nickel, and uranium) are key indicators
of potential leakage from the tailings cells. . ..Because these constituents travel at
the speed of groundwater, it is my opinion that monitoring these key parameters
serves as an early warning to the arrival of potential groundwater contaminants
such as arsenic, barium, copper, iron, lead, vanadium, and thorium which are
attenuated in their movement."
"[b]ecause lanthanum oxidizes so readily in ambient air, lanthanum in natural ores
in reduced form would have been converted to lanthanum oxides while stored
in open piles, which are exposed to air on the Mill ore pad prior to processing.
That is, it would be in the same form Molycorp reported to be present in their ponds, albeit at
lower levels."
Tischler Affidavit at31' see a/so footnote 4l supra.
41,
l Aitl Sinciair - lUCResponse.
Id,
Thus, the current NRC-approved groundwater monitoring program in use at the Mill is an "early
warning" system that will alert IUSA as to whether any tailings seepage containing constituents
from the Molycorp material might have escaped from the tailings cells. Therefore, as the
Molycorp material will not add any new constituents to the tailings cells, and the existing POC
indicator parameters are sufficient for monitoring existing constituents, the Molycorp material
does not require any other pa.rameters to be added to IUSA's groundwater monitoring program.
Processing the Molycorp Material Will Not Create Any Hazardoas Lead Chemical
Compounds That Are Unsuitable For Disposal in The Mill's Tailings Cells
Processing the Molycorp material at the Mill will not cause the formation of any
hazardous lead compounds during the milling process which will be different from lead
compounds already present in the Mill's tailings cells. Prior to processing, the Molycorp
material will contain both oxidized lead sulfide in the form of lead sulfate and unoxidized lead
sulfide. As the Molycorp material is processed through the Mill, it becomes subject to the acid-
leach process which, with the introduction of an oxidizing agent as necessary, oxidizes any
remaining lead sulfrde and converts such unoxidized lead compounds into lead sulfate.
Additionally, the Mill's tailings cells create an "oxidizing" environment which will also convert
any remainin g lead sulfides placed in the cells to lead sulfate.68 In his affidavit, which will be
68 Further support for this conclusion can be demonstrated by the Molycorp material's exposure to air
while in the Molycorp ponds. Ms. Tischler states:
"Based on my discussions with Molycorp personnel in April 2O02,the
materials in the Molycorp ponds are already undergoing conversion from
the sulfide to sulfate form in-situ....With time, areas within the ponds have
been changing...indicating conversion by reaction with air to lead sulfate."
Id.
i Biil S4g|ar r - t UI 19spg1se. M olvcorR Pr95!tion--ll --- -prs" €loMay2002.doc
discussed at greater length below, Dr. Pyrih states that, "[i]n short time, any residual lead sulfrde
that is discharged to the tailings cells will be oxidized to sulfate." Id. at2.
Further, Ms. Tischler evaluated chemical analytical data and process history information
for the Molycorp pond and drummed material in the eleven (11) month time period prior to the
submission of IUSA's license amendment application to NRC in 2000-2001.6e Regarding the
processing of the Molycorp material, Ms. Tischler stated:
"it is common chemicaVmineral process knowledge that when a metal
sulfide (such as lead sulfrde) is "oxidized" in an aqueous environment
in ambient air, it does not form an "oxide" (that is, it does notform"lead
oxide(s))." It forms sulfates."
Tischler Affidavit at 6.
In fact, contrary to Petitioners' assertions, there are no lead oxide(s) in the Molycorp material:
"In Molycorp's terminology, areas of the ponds that were exposed to
air (such as the top surface material or "crust") are referred to
as "oxidized." The term "oxidized" does not signify that the lead content,
or any other metal or cation, is present as an oxide. It refers simply to the materials in
the pond that were exposed to air....The Molycorp pond material
to be shipped to IUSA has not contained, at any time lead oxides.
The ponds have no lead oxide crust."70
Id. at 5.
Ms. Tischler also studied the conclusions drawn by IUSA in its license amendment application
and data from conversations with Molycorp staff at its Mountain Pass, California site and
concluded that:
"ruSA made appropriate conclusions by discounting the possibility that the
pond material labeled, as "oxidized" would consist of lead oxide(s), and by
assuming the oxidized portion was in the form of lead sulfate. My conversations
6e Ms. Tischler "[a]s an independent consultant, I regularly review alternate feed materials for ... [IUSA]
to determine whether such feeds are appropriate for processing at the White Mesa Mill...." Tischler
Affidavit at 1.
70 Ms. Tischler also notes that "the visible crust is primarily lead sulfate, which is of lower toxicity and
reactivity than the Lead sulfide strata below it." Tischler Affidavit at 6.
with Molycorp site staff throughout, 2001, and again in April
2002, confirmed
Lhat this "oxidized" portion was indeed lead sttlfate..."
Id. at 6.
Based on these statements, the tailings from the Molycorp material will result in the addition of
lead sulfate to IUSA's tailings cells, a constituent already present in such tailings cells, and not
lead oxides as alleged by Petitioners.Tr
IUSA has processed both conventional ores and altemate feed materials that contained
varying concentrations of lead in different chemical forms. In conventional ores, much of the
lead is in the form of lead sulfide. When processed at the Mill, the lead constituents in these
materials were convertedinto lead sulfate and deposited in the Mill's tailings cells. Over a
twenty year period of processing operations and several mill processing campaigns, involving
both conventional ores and alternate feed materials with varying leod concentrations, IUSA has
never encountered an instance where any form of hazardous chemical compound resulted from
the processing of lead-bearing materials that was not safely be disposed of and contained in
IUSA's tailings cells. Thus, because processing the Molycorp material at the Mill wlll yield lead
sulfate, a chemical compound previously deposited and safely contained in IUSA's tailings cells
over a twenty year period, no significant, incremental threat to public health and safety or the
environment will be created by IUSA's license amendment.T2
The Processing of the Molycorp Material Will Not Create Hydrogen Sulfide Gas Which
Would Threaten Pubtic Health and Safety or The Environment
7r As the Molycorp material does not contain lead oxides, it is not necessary for IUSA to evaluate at this
time, what, if any, effect lead oxide may have on the Mill's operations or tailings cells.
72 As noted above, NRC's Mill Tailings SRP and Appendix A's Criterion 13 have already anticipated that
lead and its compounds will be present in uranium mill tailings cells, and, thus, NRC has implemented
protective measures regarding lead and its compounds in its regulations.
44
Petitioners further claim that the milling process will cause the formation of hydrogen
sulfide gas (H2S) which will pose a substantial, hazardous threat to public health and safety.73
This allegation is incorrect. First, as stated by Ms. Tischler, "fl)ead sulfide, when exposed to
sulfuric acid in a non-oxidizing (or reducing) environment can create hydrogen sulfide
gas[H2S]." Tischler Affidavit at 6. However, as Ms. Tischler notes, "[t]he Molycorp materials
will...be processed in an oxidizing environment, that is, oxidants will be added, as required." 1d.
at 7. When treated with sulfuric acid during the milling process, the lead sulfide will be
converted into "non-reactive lead sulfate."l4 Id. Thus, Ms. Tischler concludes that, "[n]o
hyrodgen sulfide of any significance will be created," because "[m]etal sulfates, such as lead
sulfate and iron sulfate, do not react with sulfuric acid and do not form hydrogen sulfide."7s
Tischler Affidavit at 7.
In addition, Ms. Tischler notes that "the materials in the Molycorp ponds are already
undergoing conversion from the sulfide to sulfate form in situ...by reaction with air." 1d. During
April of 2002, in order to confirm its own previous analysis, Molycorp hired an independent
RCRA-certified laboratory to confirm D003 reactivity tests on four samples from both the
oxidized and unoxidized zones in the Molycorp material. Ms. Tischler states:
73 It is important to note that hydrogen sulfide gas (H2S), under such circumstances, would not represent
a threat to the public outside the Mill's fenceline due to the distance from the Mill to that fenceline and
the dilution that would take place.
7a See also Pyrih Affidavit at 2.
?5 Ms. Tischler also addressed Petitioners' claim that the alleged creation of hydrogen sulfide gas from
processing the Molycorp material would create an occupational hazard. Ms. Tischler states that the:
"assertion that the [Molycorp] material poses a worker safety or environmental
hazard because it will release hydrogen sulfide gas under processing conditions is
inaccurate. The material will be sulfuric acid leached under oxidizing (not reducing)
conditions, in which all the lead will be in the sulfate form, which is not reactive in acid
and does not produce hydrogen sulfide."
Tischler Affidavit at 7.
Blll S!qcl3i1 -.!UCRe-spons-e Molyco tation
"All of the samples passed the D003 test for both sulfur reactivity and
cyanide reactivity, that is, the samples did not produce either hydrogen
sulfide or hydrogen cyanide."
Id.
This data led Ms. Tischler to conclude, "it has been confirmed by independent laboratory
analysis that the material to be shipped to the Mill does not generate hydrogen sulfide gas."
Tischler Affidavit at 7.
Processing the Molycorp Material Will Not Cause Ay Adverse Chemical Reactions in The
White Mesa Mill's Tailings Cells
The creation of lead sulfate from processing the Molycorp material also does not create
the possibility, much less the probability, of chemical reactions in the tailings cells as a result of
the Molycorp material's lead content As stated above, IUSA has processed various types of
conventional ores and alternate feed materials containing lead tnder its license during numerous
mill campaigns over the past twenty years. Each of these processing campaigns has yielded
various amounts of lead sulfate which eventually were deposited in IUSA's tailings cells and
have been safely contained to date. At no time has IUSA encountered an instance where the
contribution of lead sulfate to its tailings cells has caused any chemical reactions resulting in
damage to its cell liners or the creation of any other unanticipated, potentially hazardous
conditions in the tailings cells. In fact, as stated by Ms. Tischler in her analysis, lead sulfate "has
an even lower toxicity and reactivity than the original lead sulfide." Id. at6.
Further, Dr. Pyrih also evaluated the Mill's processing and disposal system in light of the
lead content of the Molycorp material to determine what impact, if any, it could have on the
Mill's tailings cells. Dr. Pyrih noted that the Mill process will involve acidifying the Molycorp
46
Bill Sinclair - lUCResponse.
material, including it,s lead content, so that uranium may be removed from the
material. This acidification process will convert the lead sulfide into "lead and sulfate ions
which are water soluble." Pyrih Affidavitat2. Then, Dr. Pyrih states:
"It is my opinion that reprocessing of the uranium material at the Mill
will convert the bulk of the lead-sulfide sludge into ionic constituents that
are water soluble and that are indistinguishable from the constituents (iron,
lead, and sulfate) already present in the tailings solutions."
Id.
Regarding the disposal stage of the Mill processing campaign, Dr. Pyrih states:
"After extracting the uranium, the spent leachate that contains water-
soluble iron, lead, sulfate, and any residual lead sulfide will be discharged
to the tailings cells. In short time, any residual sulfide that is discharged
to the tailings cells will be oxidized to sulfate."
Id,
These factors led Dr. Pyrih to conclude that the spent leachate after processing the Molycorp
material "will be similar to the tailings solutions presently in the cells," and that:
"[o]ther than the oxidization of the residual sulfide to sulfate, no
additional reaction between the spent leachate and the existing tailings
solution is likely to occur: The dissolved constituents...will be discharged
to the tailings cells in a form that is stable in the tailings environment."
Pyrih Affidavit at2.
Thus, Petitioners' claim that processing the Molycorp material will result in a chemical reaction
in IUSA's tailings cells that will create a significant, incremental threat to public health and
safety or the environment is without merit.
Stockpiling and Processing the Molycorp Material WiIl Not Create Any Hazardous
Airborne Contamination Which Threatens Public Health and Safety or The Environment
Petitioners allege, as they have in the past, that the Molycorp material will also create
Page ae'!
hazardous airborne constituents that will pose a significant threat to public health and safety and
the environment. The Molycorp material, as Petitioners themselves have amply pointed out, is in
the form of lead sulfide sludge. This, in tum, causes the Molycorp material to be moist and,
thus, incapable of producing any airborne contaminants while stockpiled at the Mill site.76
Ms. Tischler also analyzed the potential for airborne contamination from both the pond
and "drummed" Molycorp material. In her affidavit, Ms. Tischler states:
"At the Mill site, the drummed material will remain in its containers until
it is introduced directly into the Mill circuit. The pond material will be
stored in bulk piles on a bermed, concrete-lined portion of the Mill's ore pad,
and will have no direct contact with Mill yard soils."
Tischler Affidavit at 2.
While being stored as amoist sludge, the Molycorp pond material will have no exposure to any
mechanism suitable for transporting such material through the air in a way that
threatens the public. In addition, Ms. Tischler notes:
"Prior to processing in the Mill, storage piles will be inspected and, if
necessary, kept moist by water sprays, so the piles will not generate
windborne dust."
td.
Moreover, as stated by Dr. Chambers:
"The dust control and ventilation processes which are in place in the Mill to
control potential exposure to radioactive dusts will also control potential
exposures to any lead that may be present in airborne dust....Since lead was
present in ores such as those from the Arizona Strip which have already been
processed at the Mill, the processing of the Molycorp feed materials...do not
16 International Uranium (USA) Corp. (White Mesa Mill), Docket No. 40-8681-MLA-9; CLI-01-21,
2001 NRC LEXIS 195, x9-10 (November 14,2001).
4B
represent any new or potentially significant incremental hazards to workers."
Chambers Affidavit at 8.77
Further, IUSA has implemented a system of water sprays as part of this routine dust
suppression program that will maintain a level of moisture content sufficient to prevent any
airborne contaminants from being released prior to processing. ruSA has also informed NRC
that, if necessary, a surfactant will be added to contain dust or the Molycorp material will be
covered with reinforced plastic. After the Molycorp material is introduced into the Mill's
leaching circuit, Ms. Tischler states, "an acidic solution will be added and the material will be
processed as an aqueous stream, so there is no opportunity for generation of airborne lead dlust
anywhere in the Mill process." Tischler Affidavit at 2. These protective measures, combined
with the limited time period the Molycorp pond material will be stored prior to processing.i8
demonstrates that there is no significant, incremental threat to public health and safety from
airborne contamination.
Processing the Molycorp Material Does Not Pose A Signfficant,Incremental Threat to
Humans or Wildlife Above And Beyond That of Previously Licensed Activities
Finally, Petitioners allege that the lead content in the Molycorp material will pose a
significant, incremental threat to humans or wildlife in the area that may drink from springs or
seeps downgradient of the Mill or to wildlife that land in or drink from the tailings cells.
77 As part of the Mill's occupational health and safety protection program, the Mill will be performing
additional personnel monitoring for airborne lead particulates during receipt and unloading ofthe
Molycorp pond material.
78 In fact, the Mill will be starting up in mid-June to process Ashland and Linde material. The Mill
campaign will take approximately eight (8) to ten (10) months to complete. The Molycorp material will
be shipped during this mill campaign, therefore enabling the Molycorp material to be processed within a
month of arriving at the site.
49
There is no significant, incremental risk of harm to wildlife or humans from lead in water
from springs or seeps that are downgradient of the Mill site. Regarding this issue, Dr. Chambers
states:
"IJpon reading the aff,rdavits of Roman Pyrih, Jo-Ann Tischler, Stewart
Smith and Michael Taylor, I am of the opinion that there is no credible
way in which tailings solutions could...escape the tailings cells...and...
travel, while still un-neutralized almost two miles through calcareous rocks
which themselves have a large neutralization capacity, to a spring that is
down gradient of the tailings cells, in concentrations posing any potentially
significant hazard to public health or the environment."
Chambers Affrdavit at 9.
With respect to the Mill's tailings cells, IUSA has already processed, as NRC-licensed
activities, various conventional ores and alternate feed materials, each of which contained
various levels of lead and other heavy metals (e.g., selenium, magnesium, molybdenum, etc.).
This fact drives to the inevitable conclusion that there are significant concentrations of lead and
other heavy metals already present in IUSA's tailings cells. The presence of lead and other
heavy metals in the Mill's tailings cells (or any other active uranium mill's tailings cells), in
addition to the highly acidic levels of such tailings solutions (i.e., pH levels of < 2.0) create an
environment already unsuitable for any wildlife that could potentially find its way into the
tailings cells or drink from waters already in the cells. Adding the lead content from the
Molycorp material will not provide any significant, incremental toxic effect from lead and other
heavy metals to any wildlife.
Regarding this issue, Dr. Chambers evaluated the incremental threat to wildlife from the
addition of the Molycorp material's lead content to the Mill's tailings cells, which already
contain substantial quantities of lead. Dr. Chambers states:
"[T]he Molycorp alternate feed materials contain lead at an average of
50
Itlfgqg[- fq"I f.p: l. "
.rrlr qlygqp p res
dtation.May2002.doc
:-l:eP:q_l
about 13% by weight. However, Colorado Plateau and Ari-zona
Strip uranium
ores also contain varying concentraLions of lead depending on the
source
and ore body. The NRC's generic environmental report statement...
suggests a lead concentration of about ll mgll, in generic tailings pond liquid,
generally comparable to the 17 mg/L measured in tailings cell solutions at the Mill in
April this year. The level of lead in solution arising from the
processing of the Molycorp feed materials is not expected to exceed
20mg/I-, due to the solubility limits of lead in the tailings solutions."
Id. at 10.
Based on this analysis, Dr. Chambers concludes that, "birds or wildlife living around the Mill
would not be exposed to any new or potentially significant, incremental hazard from lead." Id.
Nevertheless, Dr. Chambers also analyzed the potential impact thatlead in the Mill's
tailings cells may have on birds and wildlife. Dr. Chambers conducted a conservative analysis by
assuming the following factors relating to the habits of ducks and eagles at or near the Mill site:
(1) ducks (assumed to be a mallard for purpose of evaluation) are attracted
to the cells where they are assumed to routinely and repeatedly consume water
from the tailings cells and, subsequently, are in turn consumed by eagles....(2) [t]he site represents about l}Vo ofthe eagle's range(3) [t]hat the eagle is at the site 50Vo of the year
(4) [t]hat the mallard represents l47o of the eagles total diet (EPA 1983
for Arizona)(5) [t]oxicity data from Sample et al 1996
Chambers Affidavit at 10.7e
Dr. Chambers concludes that:
"With these data, and assuming that the concentration of lead estimated to
'e Dr. Chambers also notes that "the effect on eagles of the consumption of mallards is an appropriate
example of similar effects of other raptors and wildlife." Chambers Affidavit at 10.
51
Less 3]
be in the mallard's flesh is from rout.ine and repeat,ed
consumption of cell
water when in reality the mallard might not survive any intake of cell water,
I estimate that the concentration of lead in the tailings cell water would need to
approach 600 mgll-, (well above the level of lead anticipated in the tailings ponds about
20 mg/L), before an eagle would experience toxicity from the intake of lead
arising from the ingestion of mallards which drink from the tailings cells."
Id. at ll.
As stated above, the lead concentration in the Mill's tailings cells, as of last April, has been
measured at only 17 mgll-. Therefore, the lead content of the tailings cells, if it ever reached an
eagle through a mallard duck contaminated with lead, would not affect the eagle in a way that is
significantly or incrementally different from the potential threat posed by the tailings cells prior
to the issuance of the Molycorp license amendment.80
Dr. Chambers notes that the above analysis is conservative because a scenario involving
an eagle consuming a mallard duck that routinely and repeatedly drinks from the tailings cells is
unlikely. Dr. Chambers states:
"It must be recognized however, that such a scenario is highly implausible
since the tailings cell water is already toxic as a consequence of the low pH, and
the presence of other toxic species including metals and organics which are already
in the tailings cell water..."
Id.
Dr. Chambers also notes that "it is likely, in my opinion that waterfowl and other wildlife would
find this source of water unpalatable and therefore tend to avoid it." Chambers Affidavit at 11.
In response to any potential threat to wildlife from the tailings cells, IUSA has
80 IUSA also notes that there have been no significanl effects on wildlife from previous milling activities
or, more specifically, from the tailings cells' lead content. Petitioners have not provided any evidence
demonstrating that the Mill has threatened or affected wildlife in a significant way that has been
unanticipated by NRC in its GEIS or subsequent EAs.
Bill Sinclair - lUCResponse.Mol ycorpPresentation---J-:.May2002.doc
implemented additional mitigation measures to discourage wildlife
from landing in the tailings ce11s and being harmed by the
tailings solutions. These measures include the use of propane
cannons and raptor decoys to scare the waterfowl away and the development of
freshwater ponds which provide a more attractive habitat for wildlife to attract them away from
the tailings cells during migratory seasons. Thus, the Molycorp material does not pose any
significant incremental threat to wildlife in the area above and beyond that of previously licensed
activities, and IUSA already has engaged in proper mitigation measures to further decrease the
exposure of wildlife to the tailings cells.
The Thorium Content of the Molycorp Material
Petitioners have made several claims that the thorium content of the Molycorp material
poses a significant, incremental threat to the public health and safety and the environment. As
will be shown below, the presence of thorium in the Molycorp material does not pose such a
threat, and Petitioners allegations pertaining to thorium are without merit.
IUSA May Process Ores Containing Concentrations of Thorium Under Its NRC License
First, as a regulatory matter, Petitioners allege that IUSA is not permitted to receive any
material, alternate feed or conventional ore, that contains thorium because IUSA's source
material license does not permit its receipt or processing at the White Mesa Mill. Additionally,
Petitioners allege that the presence of thorium in the Molycorp material during processing will
cause a chemical reaction in the tailings cells. These arguments are without merit.
Petitioners go to great length to point out that IUSA possesses a source material license
which permits processing conventional ores and, by license amendment, alternate feed materials
uPill9irylEl - lUCResponser. MolycorpPresentation. May20o2.docOO Page 54 l
for their naLural uranium content. This, according to
Pet.itioners, prohibiLs receipt and,/or' processing materials
containinq thorium, which is source material. petitioners are,
once again. incorrect.
While it is true that IUSA possesses a source material license permitting it to process ores
for their natural uranium content, it defies the natural physics and physical realities of source
material as it occurs in nature to prohibit the possession of these ores if they contain even a trace
of thorium. Uranium and thorium are naturally occurring radionuclides which frequently occur
together in nature. Indeed, thorium-23O is part of the uranium decay chain. Thorium-232, while
not a part of the uranium decay chain, occurs naturally in varying concentrations with uranium,
depending on the ore. Typically, most domestic uranium ores have not contained high
concentrations of thorium-232,bat they often do contain some thorium-Z3Z. But, even if
conventional or alternate feed ores did contain higher concentrations of thorium-232, EPA states
"the radiological impact of the thorium decay products would be negligible due to the short-half
lives ofthe decay products, the absence ofnearby aquifers, and the long transport times involved
in movement through the environment."8r Following the logic of Petitioners would result in
unreasonable restrictions on the ability of licensees to process ores for their natural uranium
content when they contain even a trace of thorium.82 So long as IUSA processes a given ore,
conventional or alternate feed, for its natural uranium content and not for its thorium content,
81FEIS atG-12.
82 Petitioners have claimed that IUSA does not have the authority to dispose of the waste resulting from
processing the Molycorp material at the Mill. However, in addition, to possessing a source material
license to process for natural uranium, IUSA's license permits the receipt, processing, and disposal of
lle.(2) byproduct material resulting from the processing of ores primarily for their natural uranium
content, many of which contain thorium-232.
IUSA is in compliance with its source material license.83
The Presence of Thorium in Conventional Ores and Alternate Feed Materials Has Been
Contemplated and Addressed by EPA and NRC
Petitioners' line of reasoning regarding the above-mentioned argument also suggests that
neither EPA, NRC nor IUSA ever anticipated that thorium would be present in ores
coincidentally with natural uranium. However, the AEA defines source material as (1) uranium,
thorium, or any other material which is determined by the Commission...to be source material;
or (2) ores containing one or more of the foregoing materials..." 42 U.S.C. $ 2014(z); see also
10 C.F.R. $ 40.4. Thus, the AEA itself explicitly recognizes that natural source material is
uranium and/or thorium or both in combination.
EPA also recognizes the presence of thorium in natural uranium ores and alternate feed
materials. In its generally applicable standards relating to management of byproduct material,
EPA has stated that "provisions applicable to the element uranium shall also apply to the element
thorium." See 40 C.F.R. * 192.41. Thus, the application of a virtually identical regulatory
regime to manage thorium byproduct material as compared to uranium byproduct material
demonstrates that Petitioners' argument relating to IUSA's inability to safely possess and process
uranium-bearing materials for their natural uranium content and to dispose of 11e.(2) byproduct
material containing thorium is without merit.
While thoium-Z32 can pose a potential occupational hazard due to increased gamma
83 Petitioners also levy the charge that IUSA has implicitly requested this license amendment so that it
may process the Molycorp material for its thorium content. This claim is incorrect and should be
disregarded. IUSA submitted its license amendment application specifically requesting permission to
process the Molycorp material for its uranium content and NRC has explicitly recognized this fact.
Molycorp Environmental Assessment ("EA') at l. IUSA has no intention of processing the Molycorp
material for its thorium content.
55
radiation, EPA found that direct garnma radiation "depends on how close to the edge of a pile
people live or work and how the tailings from the pile are distributed by the wind."8a Exposure
levels to members of the public will decrease as their distance to the tailings pile increases and
eventually becomes a non-factor, (e.9., EPA conservatively assumed a decrease of a factor of two
(2) from the center to the edge of a waste pile). In addition, EPA has concluded that, with
reference to thoron gas, an exposure product ofthorium-23Z,the dose "for the thoron decay
products is about one-third that of the short-lived radon decay products." Id.
Finally, NRC has directly addressed concerns stemming from the presence of
radionuclides associated with ingestion and inhalation, including inhalation of thorium. NRC
specifically contemplated the presence of thorium in mill tailings impoundments during the
development of its 10 C.F.R. Pafi40 and Appendix A regulatory program stating that "the
radiological parameters associated with the Th-232 [thorium] series are such that the impact of
these isotopesis relatively inconsequential, even when they are present in amounts comparable
to the natural uranium concentrationin ore."85 The Molycorp material contains less than 100
pCi/g thorium-Z32 and approximately 500 pCi/g of uranium-238. As a result, the Molycorp
material poses no significant threat due to its thorium content, which is lower than that of its
uranium content. Thus, the potential hazards associated with processing ores containing
thorium-232 and disposing of the wastes in uranium mill tailings impoundments were
specifically considered by EPA and NRC in developing their uranium mill tailings regulatory
regime.
The Thorium Content of The Molycorp Material Will Not Pose a Significant,Incremental
84 FEIS at 10-12.
85 GEIS at6-21.
s6
Bill Sinclair - lUCResponse.Molycorp May2002.doc
Threat to The Public Health and Safety or the Environment
Dr. Chambers has addressed the potential, incremental radiological effects of thorium-
232 and provides additional support for EPA's conclusion. When comparing the potential
radiological effects of both natural uranium and thorium-232,Dr. Chambers states:
"[W]hile the levels of hazard per unit activity can vary among the radionuclides
and from decay series to decay series, the potential radiological hazards are
not different in nature-in each case the pathways for exposure, and hence
the types ofprecautions required to safely handle natural uranium (and it progeny)
and natural thorium (and its progeny), are the same."
Chambers Affidavit at 5.
Dr. Chambers furthers notes:
"Internal exposure from inhalation will require proximity to a source of
airborne dust or exposure to radon gas decay products...or thoron gas
decay products...which require exposure in a confined space."86
Id.
IUSA has previously processed, under its source material license and subsequent license
amendments, numerous conventional ores and alternate feed materials containing concentrations
of both thorium and uranium in excess of the concentrations of those radionuclides found in the
Molycorp material.8T As stated by Dr. Chambers,
"uranium bearing materials, including ores, which have been processed
at the Mill include among others, uranium ore from the Arizona strip mines
with uranium from0.5Vo to 1.07o (i.e., 1650 to 3300 pCi/g of uranium-238)
and the 'Cotter Concentrate' alternate feed with uranium content of up
to l'7Vo (i.e., 56,000 pCi/g of uranium-238.)"
Id. at 8.
Previously, IUSA was granted NRC-approved license amendments to process alternate
86 Dr. Chambers also notes that EPA has concluded, "people need to be occupying a structure and notjust
standing outdoors" for radon health risks to be relevant. See 48 Fed. Reg. 15,076,15,083 (April 6, 1983).
87 See License Conditions 10.15 & 10.16.
Presentation.-o
feed mat.erials from both the W.R. Grace site in Chattanooga,Tennessee,
and the Heritage Minerals site in Lakehurst, New Jersey. See License Conditions Nos. 10.15 &
10.16. According to Dr. Chambers:
"[t]he thorium-Z32 content of uranium bearing materials which have
been processed or approved for processing at the Mill range from
up to 8,000 pCi/g thorium-23Z for materials from W.R. Grace
and up to 2,000 pCi/g thorium-232 for materials from Heritage."
Chambers Affidavit at 8.
As the Molycorp material contains less than 100 pCi/g thot'lum-Z32 and approximately 500
pCi/g uraniu m-238,it is well below the concentration levels for other licensed activities. Based
on these facts and his analysis, Dr. Chambers concludes, "the radioactivity of the Molycorp
materials is well within the range of pCi/g levels for natural ores and alternate feeds that have
been processed or approved for processing at the Mill." Id. Dr. Chambers further states:
"There is no incremental occupational radiation exposure during processing
of the Molycorp materials or as a result of the disposal of the processed
Molycorp materials in the Mill's tailings cells. As the levels of natural thorium
and natural uranium in the Molycorp materials are less than other previously
licensed alternate feed materials and conventional ores, there are no potentially
significant incremental radiological hazards associated with their processing and
disposal in the [Mill's] tailings cells."
Id,
With respect to potential inhalation exposure from airborne particulates, it must be
remembered that the Molycorp material is a sludge, and IUSA has committed to additional
control procedures (e.g., water sprays and/or surfactants) if the sludge dries out enough to create
a potential airborne particulate problem. After processing, the wastes in the tailings cells are
again moist and subject to additional controls to minimize windblown tailings. Therefore, since
Petitioners do not live within close proximity to IUSA's tailings cells and, in any event, cannot
Bill Sinclair - lUCResponse.
be in close proximity to the cells or a potential spill, there is no significant, incremental threatto
public health and safety and the environment from airborne particulates which contain thorium-
232.88
Therefore, Petitioners cannot viably allege that the thorium content of the Molycorp material
results in a signfficant, incremental tltreat to public health and safety or the environment.8e
Petitioners' Claims Regarding Alleged Leakage From IUSA's Tailings Cells and Potential
I*ad Contaminations
Petitioners make several claims regarding potential groundwater contamination as a result
of the Molycorp license amendment. While some of these claims pertain specifically to the
license amendment itself, many of Petitioners' claims attack the construction of the tailings cells
and IUSA's groundwater monitoring program. Claims relating to the license amendment
include: (l) leadconstituents will move quickly through the perched groundwater zone under the
Mill site and penetrate to the regional aquifer as well as reach springs or seeps downgradient of
the Mill site and (2) wildlife and humans will be threatened by the lead content that may reach
water sources. Claims relating to matters outside the scope of the license amendment include:
(1) IUSA's tailings cells are improperly constructed and (2) IUSA's tailings cells are probably
88 After processing previously licensed uranium-bearing materials, ruSA has deposited tailings
containing various concentrations of thorium in the past and, in twenty years of operation and NRC semi-
annual inspections, neither IUSA nor NRC have found IUSA in violation of its source material license or
incapable of handling thorium during mill processing or after disposal into the tailings cells.
8e In a prior IUSA license amendment proceeding regarding processing of the so-called Heritage
materials, the Licensing Board addressed the legality of processing materials containing thorium for their
uranium content under IUSA's source material license. The Licensing Board held that because IUSA
certified that the Heritage materials were to be processed for their uranium content, as is the case with the
Molycorp material, the contention that ruSA was in violation of its source material license for receiving
materials containing thorium lacked "sufficient specific content to render it germane to the proceeding in
any meaningful way." In the Matter of International Uranium (USA) Corp. (White Mesa Mill) LBP-01-
08, Docket No. 40-868 I -MLA-8, (February 28, 2NI).
59
i aitt Sinctair -,lUCResponse.?lge -69:l
already leaking. IUSA will address each of these claims in turn and maintains that each of
these claims is without merit.
Lead Constituents from the Mill's Tailings Cells Will Not Penetrate to the Regional Aquifer
Petitioners allege that, if lead constituents were to escape IUSA's tailings cells, stch lead
constituents would move quickly through the perched groundwater zone and penetrate the
regional aquifer as well as reach seeps or springs located downgradient of the Mill. This
allegation ignores the defense in-depth protection system at the Mill which is based first on the
hydrogeological conditions of the site, second, on the design and construction of the tailings
cells, and, third, on the NRC POC groundwater monitoring program.
First, the natural hydrogeologic conditions at the Mill site do not promote the free
movement of constituents to the perchedgroundwater zone and , from there, to the regional
aquifer. Mr. Smith performed an analysis of the hydrogeologic conditions at the Mill site.
Regarding the regional aquifer, Mr. Smith states:
"The regional aquifer is located approximately I,200 feet below land
surface at the site. The regional aquifer is separated from the perched
zone by approximately 1,000 to1,100 feet of very low permeability shales and
other fine-grained materials, and sandstones with interbedded, very low
permeability materials. "
Smith Affidavit at 1.
The existence of these conditions above the regional aquifer leads Mr. Smith to conclude:
"Because these interbedded very low permeability materials will
dominate the vertical permeability of these sandstones, the overall
vertical permeability of these intervening materials is low, which
protects the regional aquifer hydraulically from the perched
e0 Mr. Smith also stated, with regard to the actual presence of a perched groundwater zone at the Mill
site, "[i]f the vertical permeability of this intervening zone were not low, then a perchedwater zone could
not exist at the site." Id.
60
egse qr l
rrOAzone. -"
Other natural geologic conditions exist at the Mill site further restricting the access of
any potential tailings constituents into the regional aquifer. Some other natural geologic
conditions, Mr. Smith states, include:
"The regional aquifer is also under artesian pressure at the site such
that water levels in wells completed in this aquifer rise above the top
of the aquifer. As a result, water from the regional aquifer will tend
to rise into these intervening materials rather than move downward from
these materials into the regional aquifer."
Id.
The fact that water under artesian pressure cannot rise up through the aquitard suggests
that, similarly, groundwater leaching from above will not be able to penetrate to the regional
aquifer. With respect to this point, Mr. Smith concludes that, "artesian pressure could not exist
in the regional aquifer without the presence of these low vertical permeability intervening
materials." 1zi. Thus, the presence of low-permeability material between the perched
groundwater zone and the regional aquifer along with the natural artesian pressure applied to
waters at the Mill site demonstrates that the natural geologic conditions are ideal for preventing
the flow of any potential tailings constituents into the regional aquifer.
Tailings Constituents from the White Mesa Mill's Tailings Cells Will Not Reach Springs or
Seeps Downgradient Of The Mill Site Throughthe PerchedGroundwater Zone
Petitioners' claim that the Molycorp material's lead content will escape the Mill's tailings
cells, penetrate into the perched groundwater zone, which is about 70 feet below the tailings
e0 Mr. Smith also stated, with regard to the actual presence of a perched groundwater zone at the Mill
site, "[i]f the vertical permeability of this intervening zone were not low, then a perchedwater zone could
not exist at the site." ft/.
61
i B i I I S inc la i r - I U C Resfolselt{o.]ygrpPresentation. May2OO? Ogqo
ce1ls, and reach springs or seeps some miles downgradient of Lhe
Mi]1 site is without merit.
First, the evidence of a chloroform plume at the MiIl site
presented by Petitioners to suggest that the lead content of the Molycorp material will behave
similarly is incorrect. During his analysis of the travel time for potential constituents under the
Mill site, Mr. Smith specifically addressed the travel time of the chloroform plume toward any
downgradient springs or seeps. Noting that Ruin Spring, a small spring located approximately
two (2) miles southwest of the chloroform plume, might be recharged by the perched
groundwater zone, Mr. Smith states that, because the plume is moving at approximately 90 feet
per year, "if the plume could reach the spring, it would take approximately 117 years." Smith
Affidavit at 3. Mr. Smith further states that, as the chloroform plume slowly moves
downgradient of the Mill's tailings cells, "[n]atural attenuation processes, including
hydrodynamic dispersion, diffusion, and chemical breakdown, will reduce chloroform
concentrations substantially. .." Id. These factors leadMr. Smith to conclude that:
"It is highly unlikely that chloroform concentrations at hazardous or eyen
detectable concentratiores would ever migrate to the spring [Ruin Spring] due
to the large distance and travel time that would be required."
Id. at3-4.
Mr. Smith has also stated that, even if tailings solutions containing "conseryative" constituents
escaped the tailings cells, the ability of these constituents to migrate more quickly than the slow
rate of the chloroform plume is unlikely. If such tailings constituents were to escape and impact
the perched groundwater zone, Mr. Smith states that these constituents "would be expected to be
transported southwesterly once it reached the perched zone." Smith Affidavit at 4. Perched
l_qg_q 9?,
62
i, Bill Sinclair - lUCResponse..May2002.doc
groundwater traveling in this direction will be attenuated by low permeability subsurface
materials because, as Smith states:
"Permeability estimates from hydraulic tests indicate that permeabilities
in the perched [groundwater] zone are generally lower to the south and
southwest (downgradient) of the tailings cells than they are in the vicinity
of the chloroform plume (to the east-northeast of the tailings cells)."
Id.
The fact that perched groundwater flow traveling in a southwesterly direction is subject to
a slower migration rate than that of the chloroform plume leadsMr. Smith to conclude,
"[p]erched [ground]water flow, and therefore contaminant transport downgradient of the tailings
cells, would also be slower." 1d. Based on this additional barrier to the expeditious migration of
potential tailings constituents from IUSA's tailings cells, any potential seepage may be addressed
and remediated prior to any potential off-site impacts on springs and seeps near the Mill site,
much less the regional aquifer.
If any constituents less mobile than chloroform, such as lead, were to escape from
IUSA's tailings cells, it would be even more unlikely that such constituents would reach Ruin
Springs or any other springs or seeps because: (1) its mobility would be extremely limited by the
natural geological conditions at the Mill site, (2) the constituent would be forced to travel great
distances to reach such springs or seeps, (3) there is significanl evidence, through the chloroform
plume at the Mill site, suggesting that these constituents would not reach a spring or seep, and (4)
there would be ample time to remediate any contamination if such constituents were to escape
the Mill's tailings cells. Mr. Smith concludes that "[i]t is even less likely [than chloroform] that
metals such as lead, which are subject to natural attenuation, would ever migrate to the spring."
Id.
Page 63 I
63
I Bill Sinclair
Further evidence exists confirming that the potential mobility of tailings constituents
escaping from IUSA's tailings cells will be extremely low. As noted above, Petitioners offer
evidence of the chloroform plume at the Mill site and claim that its presence is an indication that
there is a significant threat to groundwater from the Molycorp material. On the contrary, the
chloroform plume actually provides evidence that any potential tailings constituents will not
travel quickly through the perched groundwater zone to the regional aquifer.
According to Mr. Smith, the chloroform plume at the Mill site "is moving very slowly"
and has migrated at"arate of approximately 90 feet/year." Smith Affidavit at 3. This fact
causes Mr. Smith to conclude that:
"because of the relatively slow rate of travel and large distance to the
site's downgradient property boundary, there is ample time available
for active mitigation of the chloroform plume using proven methodologies
before there is any possibility of offsite impact."
Id. at 4.
Indeed, a recent letter to Mr. Love from William Sinclair, director of UDEQ's Division of
Radiation Control,er confirms Mr. Smith's conclusion. Mr. Sinclair's letter, which addresses the
investigation into the chloroform plume at the Mill site, notes that the Mill has three (3)
characteristics that allow an extended investigation of the chloroform plume, and potential
remedies as necessary, without concern about the existence of a significant threat to public health
and safety or the environment:
"1. The isolated location of the IUC truSAl facility on White Mesa that
provides long distances between the contaminant plume and the facility
boundaries.
er Letter to William E. Love from William J. Sinclair, Re: Request for tJpdate and Status of State
Groundwater Discharge Permit Application Process and Chloroform Investigation and Remediation
Plan: International Uranium Corporation Uranium Mill Near Blanding, Utah, (February 20,2002)
(emphasis added).
64
2 - The lack of shallow aquifer water well-s in a
downqradient direcLion, both on and off the ruC [ruSA] facility,
that could become possible points of exposure to the public, and
3. Local hydrogeologic conditions that hydraulically isolate and prevent the
shallow aquifer contamination from adversely impacting the deep
confined aquifer that provides drinking water to other groundwater users
in the region."
Thus, Mr. Smith and UDEQ have found that the natural geologic and hydrogeologic
conditions at the Mill site do not present a viable pathway for constituents from tailings cells to
move quicklythrough the perchedgroundwate r zoneand reach springs or seeps downgradient of
the Mill site or the regional aquifer.
Natural Attenuation of Lead in the Underlying Bedrock
Other natural geologic and hydrogeologic conditions serve as barriers to the free flow of
constituents such as lead or chloroform. Natural attenuatione2 is an additional safeguard against
seepage migration. The importance of approximately 70 feet of sandstone, siltstones, and
claystones, which are generally calcareous in nature, was identified by Dr. Pyrih in his affidavit.
Dr. Pyrih states:
"[T]hese formations provide ample material for interacting with chemical
constituents in any seepage that would enter the subsurface. The thickness of
the formations is adequate to prevent the migration of iron, lead, and other
potential contaminants from affecting groundwater quality."
Pyrih Affidavit at 4.
Dr. Pyrih states that, "it is true that under acidic pH conditions that are typical of the
tailings solutions, the constituents are geochemcially mobile." Pyrih Affidavit at 3. However, if
e2 Natural attenuation is defined as the ability of earthen materials to interact with potential groundwater
contaminants and remove such constituents from seepage before the solutions enter groundwater. See
Pyrih Affidavit at 3.
65
Bill Sinclair - lUCResponse.Page 66
tailings soluLions were to penet.rate the Mi11's Lailings ce11s'
slmthetic liners and migrate into the subsurface at the site,
they would encounter geochemical reactions that would prevent any further
migration to the perched groundwater zone, much less the regional aquifer. As Dr. Pyrih states
in his analysis:
"The foundation of the cells consists of soils and bedrock that are
calcareous in composition, that is, the soils and bedrock contain calcium carbonate
minerals similar in composition to limestone. The carbonate
minerals would immediately react with seepage, neutralizing the acidic pH
of the tailings solution."
rd.
Despite Petitioners' assertions that the Mill's tailings cells contain tailings solutions that are
"highly acidic," any penetration to the subsurface by these solutions will cause an immediate
neutralization of their low pH levels and render heavy metals, such as lead, immobile prior to
reaching the perched groundwater zone.e3 Dr. Pyrih concludes that:
"[O]nce the tailings solutions make contact with naturally calcareous sftata,
pH conditions are established that are favorable for natural attenuation
and the mobility of groundwater contaminants is geatly reduced....Similar
reactions would occur with radionuclides like thorium. . ..Most of the chemical
constituents present in soluble form in the tailings solutions would be removed from
solution by these natural mechanisms and would be attenuated in their
migration."
Id. at3-4.e4
e3 According to a National Research Council study, constituents like lead and thorium are immobilized at
pH levels between 3.5 and 8.5. See National Academy Press, Scientific Basis for Risk Assessment and
Management of Uranium Mill Tailings, Uranium Mill Tailings Study Panel, Board on Radioactive Waste
Management, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Resources, at 59 (1986).
ea Dr. Pyrih also notes:
"Natural attenuation of heavy metals and radionuclides is well known to NRC and is well
documented by laboratory and field investigations conducted by numerous institutions
at various uranium tailings sites. The studies have always indicated that potential
groundwater contaminants such as arsenic, barium, copper, iron, lead, vanadium, and
66
In addition, these geochemical reactions described by Dr. Pyrih not only serve to
immobilize constituents such as lead,bil also serve another valuable purpose. By reacting with
the calcium carbonate minerals, any seepage pathways in the subsurface will effectively be
"plugged" at the point of contact with the calcium carbonate. Dr. Pyrih states:
"Neutralization of the tailings solutions in turn, would trigger other
geochemical reactions. Calcium would be released when the calcareous
soils and bedrock react with the tailings solution. This calcium would immediately
react with the abundant sulfate present in the tailings solution
to form insoluble calcium sulfate (gypsum) that has been demonstrated
to plug seepage pathways, thus making these soils and bedrock
self-healing and even more impermeable to seepage."
Pyrih Affidavit at 3.
Added to this, any iron that is present in the tailings solution also will act as a "plug" for
potential pathways to the perched groundwater zone. Dr. Pyrih indicates that:
"[a]s the pH of tailings solution is partially neutralized to above pH 3,
the iron would begin to precipitate as a very insoluble, iron hydrous-oxide
gel that would seal-off seepage pathways."
Id.
Thus, due to these geochemical reactions, any potential seepage will create a"self-healing"
process in the material beneath the cells to plug up groundwater migration pathways, thereby
preventing seepage from reachingthe perched groundwater zone, much less the regional
aquifer.es
thorium, which are often found dissolved in acidic tailings solutions, do not migrate
in the subsurface environment. From a geochemical perspective, the behavior of
radioisotopes Th-230 andTh-232 is indistinguishable; their reactivity and lack of
mobility are identical."
Pyrih Affidavit at 4.
e5 In addition, this "self-healing process" also prevents the creation of "wormhole" leaks below the
tailings cells, which Petitioners assert will occur.
67
Moreover, IUSA's tailings cells were designed to limit potential groundwater
contamination using the natural site-specific conditions at the Mill site. As stated by Mr.
Michael J. Taylor, a Registered Professional Engineer, notes that an important part of the tailings
cell design process was to, "[g]ather the data necessary for the design of the various components
of the project." Taylor Affidavit at 2. Additionally, since a synthetic liner was to be installed, it
was important to "understand the reaction of tailings fluids with the particular subsurface
material at the site to assess the 'what-if scenario of liner leakage." Id.
Despite the highly unlikely scenario of the synthetic liner leaking, the design of the
tailings cells also accounted for the highly calcareous materials beneath the cell liner that would
increase the natural attenuation rate of any highly acidic tailings solution and prevent such
solutions from penetrating to the perched groundwater zone.
IUSA's Groundwater Monitoring Program
Additionally, ruSA has implemented an NRC-approved groundwater monitoring
program designed to prevent any potential contamination from breaching the Mill's POC.e6 This
monitoring program is specifically designed as an "early warning system" so that IUSA may
identify constituents escaping from the tailings cells and quickly engage in corrective action, if
necessary.
Mr. Smith reviewed the adequacy of the groundwater monitoring program at the Mill site
e6 According to IUSA's NRC-approved groundwater monitoring program, the point of compliance for
groundwater monitoring at the Mill is in the perched grotndwater zone at the downgradient edge of the
tailings cells.
68
and concluded that:
"The permanent monitoring wells at the site are placed to monitorperched
water conditions downgradient, upgradient, and cross-gradient of the tailings cells.
Based on a review of tailings cell construction and hydrogeologic
properties at the site, and on numerical flow and ffansport modeling, I consider
the location and spacing of these wells currently adequate to detect any seepage
from the cells that might hypothetically occur and impact perchedwater wder
a range of reasonable flow conditions."
Smith Affidavit at 2.e7
As stated above, Dr. Pyrih has concluded that the current indicator parameters are adequate to
detect any seepage from the tailings from the Molycorp material. Dr Pyrih states:
"These parameters (chloride, potassium, nickel, and uranium) are key indicators of
potential leakage from the tailings cells. Unlike most of the constituents present in the tailings
solution, chloride, potassium, and nickel are "conservative"in their geochemical
behavior, which means that these constituents are less affected by the geochemical
processes that would attenuate the mobility of typical metals in groundwater. Conservative
constituents travel at the speed of the groundwater and are not retarded by natural
attenuation. Because these constituents travel at the speed of groundwater, it is my opinion
that monitoring these key parameters serves as an early warning to the arrival of potential
groundwater contaminants such as arsenic, barium, copper, iron, lead, vanadium, and
thorium which are attenuated in their movement."
Pyrih Affidavit at 4.
To date, after over twenty (20) years of monitoring at the White Mesa Mill and semi-
annual inspections by NRC, no leakage from the tailings cells has ever been detected at the POC,
much less in the regional aquifer.e8 Therefore, no significant, incremental threat to public health
e7 Mr. Smith also notes that, "[t]he adequacy of the existing monitoring wells was also the conclusion of
a previous consultant at the site (Titan, 1994)." Titan. September, 1994. Points of Compliance. White
Mesa Mill. Submitted to Energy Fuels Nuclear.
e8 The closest community to the Mill site that uses the Entrada/Navajo Sandstone aquifer as a potable
water supply is the White Mesa Ute Community. The Ute Environmental department collects quarterly
samples for gross alpha and beta analysis to determine whether uranium or other radionuclides associated
with the White Mesa Mill have impacted the White Mesa Ute water supply. Cindy Crist, Director of the
Ute Environmental Department, advised UDEQ in March of 1999 that, as a result of quarterly sampling
in 1998:
"The gross alpha concentrations of the samples were well below EPA's
69
and safety or the environment will be created due to the placement of tailings from processing the
Molycorp material.
Lead Constituents from the White Mesa Mill's TailingsCells Do Not Pose a Threat to
Petitioners or Wildlife at Springs or Seeps Downgradient of the Mill Site
Petitioners allege that, as a result of the alleged leakage of tailings from the Molycorp
material, wildlife will drink water containing tailings constituents when such water reaches a
spring or seep, stffer lead contamination and be harmed, and that Petitioners will also be harmed
from drinking such water and from eating such contaminated wildlife. As stated above and will
be shown below, since tailings constituents will not reach a spring or seep downgradient from the
Mill site, Petitioners' allegations are without merit.
First and foremost, IUSA's tailings cells are not leaking. Second, it is highly unlikely that
constituents from the Molycorp material will reach a spring or seep near the Mill site, given the
natural (i.e., slow moving perched groundwater flow and low permeability calcareous materials
in the subsurface) and artificial (i.e., tailings liners) barriers that exist to groundwater migtation
at the Mill site. The immobility of tailings constituents such as leadwhen they react with the
calcium carbonate layers in the event of a leak in the cell liner, the unlikelihood that any
migrating constituents would escape detection given the NRC-approved POC monitoring
progmm, the long distances and travel times that constituents must cover to reach a spring or
seep in concentrations of any significance, and the ample opportunity to undertake any necessary
corrective action makes the allegation of potential harm to Petitioners and wildlife from seep or
spring water little more than unsupported speculation.ee Indeed, Dr. Chambers concludes that
maximum concentration level ("MCL") of 15 pCi/g for drinking water and
do not appear to be changing signfficantly over time."
70
"[s]uch a scenario is so unlikely, that in my opinion, it:
it is beneficial for me to further consider this issue whir
nume ro us inc r e dible a sumption s." Im Chambers Affida
threats exist to the public health and safety or the envirr
Molycorp material potentially reaching a downgradient
The Mill's Tailings Cell Design
Petitioners have also argued, through their
that IUSA's tailings cells are improperly construct(
IUSA's tailings cells are not leaking and Petitioner
contention other than the presence of a chloroform
by the tailings cells. More importantly, however, t
cells is not subject to challenge in this proceeding i
tailings cells were defectively constructed is witho
The construction plan for IUSA's tailings c
1979, after review of documentation from the Whi
rigorous peer reviews by NRC and its consultants,
r00 NI{C also found that endangered or threatened r
incremental impact. See Molycorp EA at 3.
101 IUSA notes that Mr. Ivan Weber, an affiant for
experience in designing and building tailings facili
'opinion, it is not credible. Therefore, I do not believe
is issue which would require the compounding of
rbers Affidavit at 9. Thus, no significant, incremental
or the environment as a result of constituents from the
spnng or seep.
;h their pleadings and the submission of affidavits,lol
rnstructed and are probably leaking. As shown above,
:titioners can offer no evidence to support such a
rroform plume which experts have found is not caused
vever, the design and construction of IUSA's tailings
eeding and, in any event, Petitioners' claim that the
s without merit.
Lilings cells was approved by NRC on October 12,
he White Mesa Mill's initial license application and
ultants, public comment, and response from other
red species near the Mill site would not suffer a significant,
t for Petitioners, is not an engineer and has had no
acilities under the UMTRCA program.
E[$;.tr-]@pgrrs-"_r",r-e_@Ea@,4e1!{elroq,
technical and non-technical parties.r02 The affidavit of Mr. Taylor, the Mill's tailings cell
construction consultant who supervised the design of the Mill's tailings cells, provides a detailed
description and analysis of the criteria and practices followed when the tailings cells were
designed and constructed.
First, Mr Taylor states that, in addition to prudent design techniques and criteria, the
design and construction of the tailings cells were based on a "consideration of the natural features
of the site in order to meet all regulatory standards and criteria." Taylor Affidavit at 4. These
natural features included:
"(a) the natural swales in which the cells were located;
(b) the calcareous nature of the underlying soils and bedrock
which would attenuate the transport of radionuclides and
elements that may leak from the cells;
(c) the extensive shallow perched water zone which provides
an ideal early warning system;
(d) the aquitard between the perched groundwater and the
regional aquifer which minimizes the potential of any impact
on the regional aquifer; and
(e) the distance the cells are from the downgradient springs and
the slow moving nature of the perched water, which minimizes
the possibilities of any potential leakage from the cells affecting
surface water."
Id.
These natural features assist in the containment of all constituents, radiological and non-
radiological, present in the Mill's tailings cells for the 1,000 year period as prescribed by
Appendix A Criteria.to3
102 See Letter from Ross A Scarano, Chief, Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch, Division of Waste
Management, to R.W. Adams, Chairman of the Board, Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. (October 12, 1919).
103 It is important to note that uranium mill tailings piles constructed in the 1950s and 1960s were not
subject to the even more stringent mill tailings control concepts that NRC began developing in the 1970s
which, after the passage of UMTRCA, culminated in the Draft GEIS and the Final GEIS and Appendix A
According to Mr. Taylor, several different factors were considered when developing the
construction designs, including the following:
(a) Cell location and layout;(b) Embankments;(c) Cell liners;(d) Fluid control and handling system;(e) Groundwater monitoring wells; and
(0 Reclamation cover
First, with respect to "cell location and layout," Mr. Taylor states:
"[T]he location of the [tailings] cells in the shallow valley or swale at the
site allows the tailings to be deposited and stored in areas that minimize
exposure to the elements and allow reclamation below existing grade at the
site."
rd.
This specific design criterion purposefully reduces the potential exposure that the tailings could
have to the environment (i.e., airborne contamination, surface run-off from precipitation) and
helps to negate any significarcl threats to public health and safety.
Then, the materials for the tailings cell embankments were evaluated for their suitability
prior to construction of the tailings cells. These earthen embankments essentially were located
across the shallow valley or swale to allow the cells to have retaining capabilities. According to
Mr. Taylor:
"Borings and test pits were advanced in the areas of the proposed
embankments and in borrow areas for fill to be used in construction
of the embankments....Foundation preparation was specified to assure
adequate support for the embankments. Highly calcareous (naturally high
Criteria in the 1979-1980 time frame. Although thise Criteria were developed primarily for prospective
application, NRC Staff determined that these objectives should be satisfied "to the maximum extent
practicable at existing sites." GEIS at 12-28. Thus, NRC's approval of the tailings cell design and
construction followed by authorization to operate in May, 1980, can be processed to reflect the
requirements in Appendix A, which was promulgated in the fall of 1980.
73
9l[g!g!a'rj]Utf 9_gponse,Motycorplrgsglttation.May2002doc-o _ _* Pege.74
pH or qeochemically basic) soils
noted in the
foundation areas and removal of
was specified
where necessary."
Taylor AffidaviL at 5.
and weathered rock were
unsuit.able surface materials
The embankments for the tailings cells were also subjected to slope stability analyses
using prudent engineering methods and various "what-if scenarios." According to Mr. Taylor,
one such "what-if scenario" involved the "unlikely possibility of liner leakage and the potential
for buildup of hydrostatic head against the embankment fi1l." Id. Though a small amount of
fluid build-up against the embankment would be harmless, a large fluid build-up could cause
stability problems with the embankment. To remedy this potential problem, Mr. Taylor states:
"a drainage layer to be placed under the liner was designed for placement
against the embankment slope. Any fluids entering this layer would collect
at the bottom of the slope for removal and prevent build-up of the hydrostatic
head."
Id.
In addition to the primary benefit of this drainage layer (i.e., prevention of fluid build-up), the
layer also provides a secondary benefit as a monitoring mechanism. Any excess fluid build-up
detected in this drainage layer would provide IUSA with an "ea.rly warning" as to potential liner
failure in the tailings cells and allow for prompt and effective remediation of any contamination
prior to it reaching the perched groundwater zone, much less the regional aquifer. While it was
not intended to serve as the sole groundwater monitoring mechanism, the drainage layer at the
foot of the embankments serves as a leak detection system for the cell, and is yet another
effective component of IUSA's "early warning system" for groundwater monitoring at the White
Mesa Mill sirc.ro4
74
i:Bill Sinclair - lUCResponse . MolvcoroPresentation. Mioay2002.doc
Cell liner construction was subject to several important considerations at the Mill site as
well. Among these considerations were two crucial factors:
"(1) Select a liner that was appropriate for the fluids to be retained and
appropriate for installation and operations at the Mill site(2) Understand the reaction of tailings fluids with the particular subsurface
material at the site to assess the "what-if' scenario of liner leakage."
Taylor Affidavit at 5.
While considering what type of liner would be appropriate for the White Mesa Mill's
tailings cells, several possible alternatives were reviewed. The use of clay materials from the
local borrow areas were considered but were deemed unacceptable because of "the potential for
the clay to change physical properties when placed in contact with the tailings fluids." Id. at 6.
Hypalon and CPE liners were also considered, but because they "did not stand up as well as PVC
to characteristics of fluids that might exist in the tailings cells," they were not selected. 1d.
After considerable evaluation, Mr. Taylor states that "PVC was considered reliable and
had a long history of successful performance."t05 Id. PVC liners, according to Mr. Taylor, are
"good lining material for industrial applications." Taylor Affidavit at 6. Quoting a recent
brochure from Field Lining Systems, Inc. of Arizona, Mr. Taylor notes:
"Polyvinyl chloride has excellent resistance to inorganic acids and alkalis,
as well as a wide range of corrosive inorganic chemicals. The combination
of chemical resistance and good physical properties has led to usage in numerous
industrial application[s] exposed to corrosive conditions."
104 These leak detection systems are maintained by IUSA on a weekly basrs.
r05 Mr. Taylor notes that the only problem with PVC liners is that they deteriorate when exposed to
sunlight. However, when selecting the PVC liner, Mr. Taylor states:
"This problem could be resolved, however, by providing an earthen cover over
the PVC liner, thereby preventing exposure to sunlight as well as protecting it from
other casual damage." Id.
75
rd.
However, despite the effectiveness of a PVC liner, Mr. Taylor reiterates that
consideration of potential "what-ifl' scenarios was crucial to the proper design and construction
of the tailings cells. The most important "what-if' scenario, as stated above, is the unlikely risk
of liner failure. Regarding this potential scenario, Mr. Taylor states:
"the design for the Tailings Management System assumed that if massive
liner failure occurred in Cell 1, the cell would be emptied and the liner
repaired before reuse. For Cells 2 and 3 that would be filled with solids,
it was assumed that if massive liner failure occurred, the liner would be
repait'ed or the cells would no longer be used, and all fluids would be removed."
Id. at8.
These design considerations led Mr. Taylor to conclude that, "[n]o further design considerations
were required to mitigate the situation of massive liner failure other than to recommend repair
should such an event occur." Taylor Affrdavit at 8.
Another "what-if' scenario identified and considered was the potential for "pinhole
leaks" in the tailings cell liners. Mr. Taylor explains:
"Professionals working on uranium tailings during this time, including myself,
regulatory agency personnel and noted scientists and engineers, had
concluded, based on observation at many sites, that, depending on
site-specific conditions, radionuclides and other toxic elements in tailings
fluids did not move very far from even unlined tailings ponds or cells, where
specific subsurface conditions existed."
Taylor Affidavit at 8.
As stated above, the Mill's subsurface area under the tailings cells contains an additional
safeguard against these potential "pinhole" leaks. Due to the presence of the calcareous materials
in the subsurface, Mr. Taylor finds that:
"any small amount of leakage that potentially came through the liner in the
76
design"what-if scenario," would immediately encounter t.hose
materials, the
pH would rise rapidly and many radionuclides and other potentially toxic metals
would precipitate and remain in the zone immediately under the cell."
Id. at7.
Accordingly Mr. Taylor states that, a properly installed and covered PVC liner, the liner
type that was specified for the Mill, "will prevent loss of uranium tailings fluid from the cells,"
and "the backup mechanism of interaction with the natural earthen materials would prevent
negative impact to the environment." 1d. This design system of barriers, Mr. Taylor concludes,
"is prudent engineering design for the Tailings Management System at the White Mesa Facility
and, in essence, consists of a defense-in-depth protection system." Taylor Affidavit at 7.
The fluid control and handling system is another aspect of the Mill tailings management
system that incorporated a design component specifically intended to minimize threats to public
health and safety and the environment from boththe radioactive andnon-radioactive constituents
in mill tailings. This design component is centered upon the installation of a drain system placed
on top of the tailings cell liner so that a slow downward flow of fluids through the deposited
tailings is created. The intent of this system was to create a situation in which free liquids would
be drained from the cells so that the tailings may be consolidated. After consolidation of the
tailings, Mr. Taylor states:
"As the slimes accumulate and consolidate over the drain, a tight
layer of relatively impermeable materials is created. Fluids in the
cells on top of this layer find it difficult to flow through this layer into
direct contact with the top of the liner."
Id. at7-8.
This consolidation of slimes and solids on and around the drain system constitutes yet another
resentation.
effective barrier to tailings seepage escaping the cells and proceeding to the perched
groundwater zone beneath the Mill site. Additionally, the drains are periodically emptied as part
of the operating system and, when the drain is emptied, "the hydraulic head on the liner just
below the drains is significanrly reduced." Id. at 8. Based on this, Mr. Taylor concludes "[w]ith
little or no hydraulic head on the liner, no tailings fluid is likely to escape. This is another aspect
of the defense-in-depth protective system." Taylor Affidavit at 8.
The reduction of the hydraulic head on the liner is also accomplished by the fluid
handling system, which is designed to remove free liquids from the top of the tailings cells and
ffansport them to the evaporation cells. This process "keeps the hydraulic head low in the solids
retention cells and again limits the fluids that the liner has to retain." Id.
In addition, Mr. Taylor states:
"[i]t also lowers the liquids level at the upper reaches of the cells allowing consolidation
ofthe coarser tailings that have been placed there by the beaching deposition."
rd.
These additional mitigation measures installed as part of the fluid control and handling system at
the Mill further help to contain any potential tailings seepage from escaping the tailings cells.
The design of the groundwater monitoring program provides a final mitigation measure
so that IUSA may have an "early warning" prior to the escape of any tailings seepage to the
perched groundwater zone, much less the regional aquifer. As stated by Mr. Taylor, according to
the Mill's design plan:
"Wells were to be installed in both the shallow and deep groundwater
zones at the site....The original monitoring wells were located along preferred flow
paths that seepage from the [tailings] cells would take were it to occur.
The wells were to be sampled before operation began and then periodically
during operations to assess changes, ifany."
7B
Bill Sinclair - I UCResponse. MolycorpPresentation.May2002.docT l_ss_ql9,
Taylor at 8.
These monitoring wells, as stated by Mr. Taylor. were designed "to detect impacts to the
groundwater and not to detect small amounts of leakage from pinholes in the liner." 1d. The risk
that groundwater would be impacted from these "pinhole" leaks is, according to Mr. Taylor,
"small" and not signfficant according to the intended design and construction plan of the White
Mesa Mill's tailings cells. 106
The White Mesa Mill's Tailings Cell Construction
As stated above, after the design of the tailings cells construction plan was complete,
NRC authorized the first stage of construction on October 12, 1979. In his affidavit, Mr. Taylor
provides a detailed assessment of the construction phase and his observations during such
activities. Using the NRC-approved design plans, on-site personnel then began construction in
accordance with the design specifications in the plans, incorporating modifications if necessary,
and recording all results of progress so that proper QA/QC could be maintained.r0T
During the construction phase, factors similar to those enumerated for the design
specifications were evaluated. Regarding the embankment construction, Mr. Taylor notes:
"The construction of the embankments involved preparation of the
foundations and placement of the earth fill. The foundations for the
embankments were excavated to bedrock, because of geotechnical
variability of material and concern for uniform support of the embankment
loads."
106 Mr. Smith has stated that, in his opinion, "[b]ased on the overall site hydrogeology and the monitoring
controls in place, I consider the tailings cells to be well-situated and designed to be protective ofthe
environment." Smith Affidavit at 3.
r07 Mr. Taylor states regarding this iterative process, "[t]his was done during the construction of the cells
and other elements of the Tailings Management System at the White Mesa Facility." Taylor Affidavit at
9.
Taylor Affidavit at 9.
Through these procedures, on-site personnel were able to create a suitable foundation on which
the embankments could be constructed in order to remain stable for a 1,000 year regulatory
horizon.
Construction of the embankments also required appropriate fill material. While being
observed by a properly authorized engineering representative, this material was removed from
the borrows, spread in lifts, and compacted with a self-propelled roller at the construction site.
Mr. Taylor states:
"Density testing was conducted on every 600 to 1,000 cubic yards placed
to assure that the compaction was achieving required and specified results.
Density test results were compared to the Proctor Tests conducted on the
borrow materials in the laboratory."'ot
After the density tests were performed on the borrow material, Mr. Taylor finds:
"Observation during construction and test results indicated that the
embankments were constructed in accordance with the plans and
specifications."
Id,
Thus, the embankments were constructed in accordance with design specifications approved by
NRC and, therefore, provide sufficient protection of public health and safety and the
environment.
Regarding the construction of the tailings cell liners, PVC liners were installed, tested,
and inspected by the manufacturer's representatives. Prior to installation of the liner itself, a
r08 Mr. Taylor also indicates that QA/QC was performed to insure the tests were conducted properly.
Taylor Affidavit at 9.
, Bill Sinclair - I UC Resoonse. MolvcoroPresentation. Mav2002.doc Page 81 ,l
bedding layer was placed in the liner areas.
materials were:
Bedding layer
"obtained by crushing the weathered rock and soils at the site...to obtain
materials with the grain size distribution of coarse sand. Grain size
distribution tests on the placed material...verified the coarse sand nature
of the material."
Id. at 10.
While a concern associated with the installation of bedding layer materialsroe is the creation of
particles with sharp edges that may penetrate the liner after final construction, Mr. Taylor states:
"Knowing the characteristics of the soft weather rock at the site and the
capabilities of a [Caterpillar 825] compactor to crush such materials, it was
relatively assured that creation of any particles with sharp edges that
would penetrate the liner was virtually impossible."
Taylor Affidavit at 10.
Despite the fact that the installation of bedding layer materials yielded a minute level of risk that
particles could penetrate the liner, an additional safeguard was implemented. According to Mr.
Taylor, "[t]he placed bedding matedal was compacted with a smooth drum vibratory roller." Id.
at 10. This process insured that all potentially sharp-edged particles that may have remained
after installation of the bedding material would be flattened with signfficant force to eliminate the
threat to the liners integrity would be present.rr0 Based on these procedures, Mr. Taylor states,
roe Mr. Taylor also notes that, while some reviewer may state that the bedding layer materials are not low
permeability materials, these materials need not be of such a nature because, "[t]his layer was never
designed to be a low permeability barrier....it was intended to be a more permeable layer zone between
the PVC liner and the underlying much less permeable natural rocks." Taylor Affidavit at 10. This
permeable bedding layer was designed to provide a pathway for any significant leakage to reach the
tailings cells leak detection system.
rr0 As part of the QA/QC for the construction phase, on-site engineering personnel inspected the surface
where the bedding layer material was installed to insure that no sharp particles remained. If any did
remain, they were removed by hand or the same area was recompacted. According to Mr. Taylor, "[t]he
"[t]he likelihood of any particles remaining with sharp edges after these operations is small." Id.
The liner material itself was subject to rigorous testing and QA/QC procedures. Before
reaching the Mill site for installation, the PVC liner material was sampled to determine whether
it would be suitable for placement in the environmental setting at the mill. According to Mr.
Taylor, "[t]he test results verify that the liner met all specifications and requirements." Taylor
Affidavit at 10.
The installation of the liner was observed and inspected by representatives of the
manufacturer, D'Appolonia, and the then-licensee Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. A cover
constructed of prepared coarse sand materials which was "advanced in lifts of sufficient
thickness (I2 to 24 inches) to prevent damage by the small dozer used to spread the cover
material" was installed to protect the liner material from any impacts. Id. After completion of
the liner installation procedures and testing, Mr. Taylor states that "[flrom all indications, they
followed instructions and placed the cover in a proper manner."rtr
Finally, the fluid control and handling systems were constructed of acid-resistant piping
and material as delineated in the design specifications. All construction and installation work
was done with care to avoid disturbing the liner and to prevent any damage to the tailings system.
Based on this, Mr. Taylor concluded, "[t]hese systems were installed to operate as designed for
the life of the facility;' Id. at ll.
Moreover, as stated above, NRC is required to approve the construction design plan for
visual inspection of the surface. . .verified the acceptance of the bedding layer for receipt of the PVC
liner." Id.
trr According to Mr. Taylor, "[t]his activity was closely observed to make sure that no damage to the
liner occurred. Equipment operators performing this work were instructed not to make hard turns or
otherwise dig in the tracks on their equipment to prevent such damage." Taylor Affidavit at l0-l 1.
tailings cell construction and to verify that construction has been completed in accordance with
the design plan. NRC approved the design plan for the cells, and, by authorizing operations,
approved the cell construction as completed in accordance with the approved design. NRC
authorized the initial stages of the embankment and liner system construction on October 12,
1979,1t2 and, after completion of tailings cell construction licensed the commencement of
operations in May, 1980. Since that time, NRC has conducted at least semi-annual inspections of
the Mill's tailings cells and, at no time, has NRC determined that the tailings cells are leaking.rr3
Therefore, the totality of the design specifications for the Mill's tailings cells and the subsequent
construction of the cells pursuant to the NRC-approved design specifications demonstrate that
Petitioners' allegations on this matter are without merit.
The Mill's Tailings Cells Are Not Leaking
Any allegation by Petitioners that IUSA's tailings cells might be leaking is mere
unsupported speculation. Nowhere do Petitioners identify where there is leakage from the
tailings cells, which are leaking, and the concentrations of such constituents. The only evidence
Petitioners offer is the aforementioned chloroform plume at the Mill site. Both Mr. Smith and
tt2 See Letter from Ross A Scarano, Chief, Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch, Division of Waste
Management, to R.W. Adams, Chairman of the Board, Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. (October 12, 1979). lt
should be noted that Mr. Scarano supervised NRC Staff that prepared the Draft GEIS, the Final GEIS,
and Appendix A Criteria based thereon.
tt3 See Letter from Charles L. Cain, Chief, Nuclear Materials Licensing Branch, to David C. Frydenlund,
Vice-President and General Counsel, IUSA, Re; NRC Inspection Report 40-8681/02-01 (April 19,2O02);
Letter from W.C. Seidle, Chief, Engineering Inspection Branch, to R.W. Adams, Chairman of the Board,
Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., Re: License No. SUA-1358 (August 2l,l98l).; see also Letter from G.D.
Brown, Chief, Fuel Facility and Material Safety Branch, to R.W. Adams, Chairman of the Board, Energy
Fuels Nuclear,Inc., Re.' RIV, Docket No.40-8681/Rpt. 80-01(June 11, 1980);
83
Dr. Pyrih analyzed whether the chloroform plume could be comJ-ng
from the Mi11's tailings cells or someothersourceattheMillsite. With
regard to the chloroform plume itself, Mr. Smith states that "the chloroform plume is located
cross-gradient to up-gradient of the tailings cells with respect to perched water flow." Smith
Affidavit at 3. Comparing the location and flow of the chloroform plume to the location of the
tailings cells, Mr. Smith finds'that "[t]he hydraulic location of the tailings cells...indicate that the
tailings cells are not the source of the detected chloroform ..." Id. This conclusion, according to
Mr. Smith and Dr. Pyrih, are supported by several factors.
First, Mr. Smith states that "constituents present in the tailings cells could not follow the
same pathway as the detected chloroform." Id. lf tailings solution were to escape the tailings,
Mr. Smith states that they "would be expected to be detected in monitoring wells downgradient
of the tailings cells should they ever seep from the cells and impact p erched water." Smith
Affidavit at 3. The fact that no tailings constituents were detected in IUSA's monitoring wells is
supported by Dr. Pyrih's conclusions:
"Neither the quarterly NRC compliance monitoring of key parameters
nor diagnostic fingerprinting of water "types" indicated that seepage
from the tailings cells had migrated to the monitoring well."
Pyrih Affidavit at 5.
Tailings solutions. according to Dr. Pyrih:
"have a characteristic and unique major-ion fingerprint in which
magnesium and sodium are the predominant cations, and sulfate and
chloride are the predominant anions."
Id.
If any tailings solution were to escape the tailings cells, there would be some indication of
84
Bi ll S inclar r - I U9 Response. MolycorpPresgttation. Mav2002.docronse. Mo lyco rn P resffauon. M ayzuuz.ooc Page 85 l
elevated concentrations of these constituents in IUSA's monitoring v
states, "[n]one of the monitoring wells at the Mill site...showed the 1
ion fingerprint that would be indicative of tailings solutions."rra 1d.
concludes that "the tailings cells are not leaking and tailings solution
into the monitoring wells." Pyrih Affidavit at 5.
Second, Mr. Smith's and Dr. Pyrih's analyses have led them
of the chloroform contamination. According to both Mr. Smith and
of the chloroform contamination is an abandoned scale house leach I
northeast of the tailings cells and was used prior to operation of the I
cells could not have been leaking since no tailings constituents were
wells, the leach field "received laboratory wastes containing chlorof<
prior to the White Mesa Mill's operation" and was capable of discha
subsurface. Smith Affidavit at 3. The likelihood of the leach field b
chloroform plume is supported by three factors:
"(1) the general distribution of chloroform detected in existing p
monitoring wells;
(2)the location of the abandoned scale house leach field upgradi
detected chloroform; and
(3) the correlation between elevated nitrate concentrations and e
chloroform concentrations in the monitoring wells that have bee
have elevated chloroform concentrations."
Id.
In addition, Mr. Smith notes "I have seen no evidence that a continu
114 Dr. Pyrih also states that:
"[i]f tailings solutions were not flowing into monitoring well MW-
is located cross-gradient ofthe tailings cells), then tailings seepage
be carrying chloroform into the monitoring well." Pyrih Affidavit
85
wells. However, as Dr. Pyrih
groundwater with the major-
On this basis, Dr. Pyrih
ns are not making their way
r to agree on the likely source
I Dr. Pyrih, the likely source
field, which is situated east to
Mill. Whereas the tailings
o detected in monitoring
florm more than 20 years ago,
arging chloroform to the
being the source of the
ng perched
;radient of the
nd elevated
been identified to
ing source of chloroform
L4 (which
;e could not
tat5.
Bill Sinclair - lUCResponse.tation.May2002,doc
exists." 1d. These factors also support Mr. Smith and Dr. Plrih's conclusions that the Mill's
tailings cells are not leaking and pose no significant tlueatto the public health and safety or the
environment.ll5
Further, Petitioners do not offer any credible evidence ofelevated concentrations ofany
other parameters, including the above-mentioned POC parameters, nor can they show that the
constituent of concern here (i.e., lead) has been detected in IUSA's monitoring wells or, for that
matter, anywhere else at the site. Therefore, based on the above-mentioned facts and Petitioners'
inability to present credihle evidence demonstrating that IUSA's tailings cells are leaking,
Petitioners claim that the perched groundwater zone beneath the Mill site is being contaminated
by Mill operations is without merit.r16
Transportation of the Molycorp Material to the White Mesa Mill Does Not Pose a
Significant, Incremental Threat to Public Ilealth or Safety Above and Beyond That of
Previously Licensed Activities
Petitioners allege that transportation of the Molycorp material will pose a significant
threat to themselves and the City of Moab prior to being received at the White Mesa Mill.
Further, Petitioners allege that they will be harmed by the City of Moab's lack of an "emergency
115 The fact that the Mill's tailings cells are not leaking is further evidenced by the fact that the tailings
cell is inspected annually and have been approvedby EPA under its Offsite Rule for receipt of CERCLA
materials.
116 Petitioners also allege that constituents from the Molcyrop material will penetrate to the perched
groundwater zone through the same pathway as the chloroform plume because the source of the plume
has not yet definitively been determined. This allegation is without merit for several reasons. First, as
noted above, the Molycorp material will be placed on a bermed concrete ore pad and will not interact
with soils at the Mill. Second, as demonstrated above, IUSA's tailings cells are not leaking. Third, there
is ample evidence to show that the chloroform plume originated from the abandoned scale house leach
field, which received laboratory wastes containing chloroform over twenty years ago, prior to Mill
operations, which the Molycorp material will not come tinto contact with prior to, during, or after
processing.
response p1an" t.haL may adequately respond to a potential spi11
of the Molycorp maEerial. These allegat,ions are without, merit.
The Transportation of Radioactive Materials Poses No
S ignifi c ant, I n cr e m e ntal Threat
First, as a general proposition, the transportation of materials with various levels of
radioactivity has already been assessed and evaluated by NRC and the Department of
Transportation ("DOT"). The preamble to 10 C.F.R. Part 51 explicitly states that the
transportation of radioactive materials does not pose any significant radiological threat to public
health and safety. DOT found in an EA on the transport of radioactive materials that "the risks of
highway transport are so low that the regulations authorizing such transport will have no
significant environmental impact." The Commission, in NUREG-0170, considered the
environmental impacts of the transportation of all types of radioactive materials. This NUREG
set forth the Commission's conclusion that:
"the environmental impacts, radiological as well as non-radiological,
of both the normal transportation of radioactive materials and of the risk
and consequent environmental impacts attendant an accidents involving radioactive
material shipments were sufficiently small that shipments by
a// modes of transport should be allowed to continue and no immediate
changes to NRC regulations were needed."lrT
These regulations dealt with the transport of high-level radioactive waste or materials while the
Molycorp material consists of low-specific activity ("LSA") material, and the transport of such
material, in and of itself, does not pose a significant, incremental radiological or non-
radiological threat to public health and safety or the environment.
rr7 49 Fed. Reg. 9352, 9374 (March 12,1984).
B7
Bill Sinclair - |
Transportation of the Molycorp Material to the
White Mesa Mill Conforms With All Applicable
DOT Regulations and Poses No Significantr lncremental
Threat
The transportation of alternate feed materials from a generator site to the Mill involves
the use of a transportation contractor. This transportation contractor is responsible for utilizing
appropriate transport containers, in accordance with applicable DOT and state regulatory
requirements and for the safe and effective remediation of any potential spills that may occur as a
result of an accident during transport.
The Molycorp materials will be transported to the Mill in exclusive-zse trucks with lined,
covered aluminum end-dump trailers as "strong, tight packages" as required by DOT regulations.
Each transport trailer will be lined with a pre-fitted, durable, 6-millimeter liner to contain
potential liquid and dust, and all "free liquid" will be decanted from the Molycorp material
before loading at the Molycorp site. See Molycorp EA at 4. The Molycorp material will be
enclosed and sealed within these liners in a"burrito-wrap" configuration fully containing all
materials, and an 18-ounce vinyl tarpaulin will protect the "burrito-wrapped" materials from
precipitation . Id. Preventative maintenance will be performed on each of the transport trailers
and an inspection checklist will be followed, including visual inspection of all transport
equipment in accordance with DOT regulations and a preliminary check for DOT compliance
before any loading takes place. Id. These preventative measures led Dr. Chambers to conclude
that:
"there is no signijicant risk of exposure to the public from inhalation
or ingestion. . ..Therefore, there is virtually no potential for fugitive
dust, and any radon or thoron gas that may escape from the containers
BB
would be insignificant compared to background for the area..."t18
Chambers Affidavit at 6.
By following all applicable DOT regulations, IUSA and NRC Staff have properly
evaluated the requirements for the safe and effective transport of the Molycorp material to the
White Mesa Mill, and such transportation will not pose any significant, incremental threat to
public health and safety or the environment from noise, increased highway danger from collision
or exposure or reduced community aesthetics.rre Dr. Chambers also analyzed the potential for
exposure to the Molycorp material while in transport and states, "[t]he material in the trucks will
be shielded from persons on the street and there will be essentially no duration of exposure to
external radiation..." Id. at 5-6. Thus, Dr. Chambers finds that, "there is no credible opportunity
for significant or acute exposure to the public ." Id. al6.
In addition, both the Molycorp EA and Technical Evaluation Report ("TER")
accompanying the Molycorp EA address the transportation of the Molycorp material through the
City of Moab and to the White Mesa Mill, and these reports indicate that a FONSI was
r18 Regarding the threat from radon or thoron gas during transport, Dr. Chambers also notes that "as
discussed earlier, radon and thoron gas are only a potentially signffican, concern in confined areas."
Chambers Affidavit at 6.
rre Regarding Petitioners' claims that airborne contamination in the form of dust will occur from the
Molycorp material, Ms. Tischler has stated that "[i]t [Molycorp material] contains no particulate fines
and will produce no dusts in transport." Tischler Affidavit at2. lt fact, the Presiding Officer, in the
prior proceeding regarding IUSA's license amendment, addressed any concerns of exposure to dust by
stating that truck traffic causing any ofthese effects were similar to previously licensed activities and no
such transport of the Molycorp material would cause a significant, incremental threat of creating dust
emissions. See In the Matter of International Uranium (USA) Corp. (White Mesa Mill), 53 N.R.C. 344,
*15 (2001). In addition, as stated above, the Molycorp material is a moist sludge and poses less risk of
airborne dust emissions than other previously licensed activities.
r2o See Molycorp EA at 4.
tation.May2002.doc
warranted.r20 This finding signifies that NRC Staff found that the transportation of the Molycorp
material to the White Mesa Mill posed no signfficant, incremental threat to public health and
safety and the environment.
Any Potential Spill of The Molycorp Material Poses No Signiftcant,Incremental Threat
Regarding Petitioners' allegations ofthe potential radiological or non-radiological
impacts that might be caused by an accidental spill of the Molycorp material during transport,
Ms. Tischler performed an analysis of the potential effects from such a potential spill and the
transportation plan implemented by Molycorp and its transportation contractor. Ms. Tischler
states:
"The worst-case spill scenario would involve the overturning and loss of the
contents of one full truckload, or 23 tons, on the highway in or near
Moab."
Tischler Affidavit at 10.
If such an accident were to occur involving the Molycorp material, Ms. Tischler states:
"Because the Molycorp material is a moist solid with no free liquid, in the event of a
truck spill, there would be a) no windborne dust, b) no emitted gases, and c) no free flow of
liquid from the spill site. The worst-case scenario, the cleanup
of 23 tons of soil-like solid, could be accomplished within several hours."
Id.
Based on this, Ms. Tischler concludes:
"The potential spill of Molycorp material would not present any significantly
different potential for closure of the highway than any other licensed alternate
feed material. For that matter, the potential for closure may be less than a spill
of any chemicals or other goods that are transported along the Highway
191 conidor."
Page 90 I
r2o See Molycorp EA at 4.
90
Page 91 I
Id.
In addition, even if a spill were to occur, Dr. Chambers notes that any potential
radiological exposure pathway to Petitioners from the Molycorp material would pose no
significant risks. Dr. Chambers notes that the potential for exposure to gamma radiation from the
Molycorp material "would be largely limited to the immediate area of the spill itself and would
result in insignificanl irradiation of bystanders." Chambers Affidavit at 6. According to Dr.
Chambers, "[t]he gamma dose falls off rapidly with increasing distance from the spill," such that
the "dose to a person standing at the edge of any such spill would be about Vz of that to a person
standing at the center of the spill." Id. Moreover, as NRC has noted, "long and sustained
exposure to radioactivity in the [entire uranium] tailings pile would be required to produce any
significant chance of adverse effect."r2r Thus, Dr. Chambers concludes:
"Overall, the potential hazard to the public arising from the transportation
of the Molycorp feed materials is negligible and in any event no different
in nature or severity than for a spill of uranium-bearing materials
which have been processed, or are approved for processing, and which have
already been transported to the Mill. . . ."t22
Id. at7.
Therefore, based on the relatively simple cleanup proceduresr23 required to remediate a spill of
r2r Chambers Affidavit at 6, quoting GEIS at 1231.
122 In fact, the "drummed" Molycorp material has already been shipped to the Mill without incident.
r23 Dr. Chambers notes that:
"In the case ofa spill or traffic accident, the clean-up procedures and precautions
taken for the Molycorp materials would be virtually identical to the clean-up
procedures for any other uranium-bearing feed ores of alternate feed materials
authorized to be processed at the Mill."
Chambers Affidavit at 6.
91
the Molycorp pond material and the lack of an exposure pathway that would affect Petitioners in
any significant way, no significant, incremental threat to public health and iafety or the
environment will occur as a result of transportation of the Molycorp material, including an
accidental spill.r2a
t2a Further support for this conclusion is demonstrated by the facts and circumstances of the spill of
alternate feed material being transported to the Mill which occurred on September 29, 1999 at the Cisco,
Utah railhead site, approximately sixty (60) miles from Moab. MIIF Logistical Solutions, Inc., the
transportation contractor at the time, and the hazardous materials clean-up specialist, Wastren
Remediation, Inc., cleaned the entire area of all residual material and containerized such material within
eight-and-one-half (8 l/2) hours of the spill. Wastren Remediation, Inc. conducted radiological surveys
after clean-up was completed and IUSA conducted further post-clean-up verification surveys to assure
that no residual material remained. IUSA's surveys yielded results demonstrating that no residual
material remained.
92
lair - lUCRespgnse.
The City of Moab is Properly Equipped to Respond to a Potential Spill of the Molycorp
Material
Petitioner's allegations that the City of Moab is ill-equipped to adequately respond to a
potential spill of the Molycorp material because it lacks an "emergency response plan" is without
merit and incorrect. First, as stated above, the transportation contractor is primarily responsible
for the ultimate remediation of a spill of altemate feed material that occurs during transport.
These transportation contractors are equipped with fully trained emergency response personnel
capable of remediating a spill of radioactive or hazardous material within a short period of time
and without leaving residual radioactive or hazardous material at a spill site.
Second, contrary to the specific assertions of Mr. Love, the City of Moab is well-prepared
to respond to an accidental spill of the Molycorp material or, for that matter, any other alternate
feed material that passes through the city. According to Mr. Doug Squire, Chief Deputy of the
Office of the Grand County Sheriff and the Grand County Emergency Manager, Grand County is
prepared to address a potential spill of the Molycorp material for the following reasons:
"I. The Grand County Emergency Response personnel are familiar with the
characteristics of the Molycorp material and all other alternate feed that
have been sent to the White Mesa Mill;
2. The Grand County Emergency Response personnel are comfortable
with the emergency response plans of the transportation sub-contractors;
in particular the spill response contingency plans;
3. The Grand County Emergency Response personnel are satisfied that
the Emergency Response Plans of the transportation sub-contractors
combined with our own emergency response capabilities are sufficient
to respond to any emergency that may occur that involves a shipment of
alternate feed to the White Mesa Mill;
4. Alternate feed materials are less dangerous than many other materials
shipped along Hwy 191 and through Grand County."
SeeI-etter to Ron Hochstein, President ruSA, from Doug Squire, Grand County Emergency
Manager (May 20, 2002).
Bill Sinclair -. M o I yc o1p Pre_s_-e n !a!!gn .
Thus, the transportation contractor, with assistance of the Office of the Grand County Sheriff if
necessary, is adequately prepared to protect Petitioners from any potential effects from an
accidental spill of the Molycorp material within the City of Moab's or Grand County's
boundaries.r2s
PETITIONBR'S CLAIMS REGARDING THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT AND 10 C.F.R. PART 51
Since Petitioners also raise general claims based on the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969126 ("NEPA" or the "Act"), a brief review of NEPA and NRC's
implementing regulations is necessary to properly analyze these claims, which are without merit.
1. NEPA Overview
The Council on Environmental Quality's ("CEQ's") regulations state, "[NEPA] is our
basic national charter for protection of the environment."t2T Section 101 of NEPA "declares a
broad national commitment to protecting and promoting environmental quality,"r2E and sets forth
the Act's basic "substantive goals for the Nation,"r2e that the federal government should "use all
practicable means and measures" to protect environmental values."r3o Section 101(b) of the Act
r25 Even if Petitioners could show that the City of Moab is ill-equipped to address a potential spill of the
Molycorp material, as noted above, the remediation measures that must be initiated when a spill occurs
are relatively simple, are no different than for other previously licensed feed materials transported
through Moab, and can be initiated and fully completed with a brief period of time.
126 42lJ.s.C. g5 4321et seq.
'27 40 c.F.R. $ 1500.1.
t28 See Robertsonv. Methow Valley Citizens Council,490 U.S.519,558 (1978).
t2e Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC,435 U.S.519,558 (1978).
'30 42 U.S.C. $ 4331(a).
94
provides that "it is the continuing responsibility of the federal government to use all practicable
means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy" to, inter alia, avoid
environmental degradation, "attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment
without degradation...or other undesirable and unintended consequences," and "preserve
important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage."l3l
To meet the goals set forth in section 101, section 102 of the Act includes "action-
forcing" procedures.r32 Section 102 mandates that "to the fullest extent possible" all federal
agencies shall "utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach...in planning and in decision
making which may have an impact on man's environment."r33 Section 102 requires that
environmental considerations are a part of agency decision making by instructing agencies to
"identify and develop methods and procedures...which will ensure that presently unquantified
environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decision-making
along with economic and technical considerations."r34
Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of NEPA and the NRC regulations implementing the Act,
NRC Staff must prepare an environmental impact statement ("EIS") addressing any major action
taken by the Commission that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment.r3s
The Commission's regulations in 10 C.F.R. Part 51 implement NEPA "in connection with the
'3' 42 U.S.C. $ 4331(b).
132 See Calvert Clffi'Coordinating Committeev. AEC,449F.2d 1109, 1113 & n.7 (D.C. Cir. 1971).
'33 42 u.s.c. $ 4332(2XA).
'34 42 U.S.C. $ 4332(2)(8).
'35 42 U.S.C. $ 4332(2XC); l0 C.F.R. Part 51.
95
Commission' s licensing and regulatory activities." 136
The regulations state that the "principal objective of [NEPA] is to build into the agency
decision-making process an appropriate and careful consideration of environmental aspects of
proposed actions."l37 Moreover, the regulations specify "types of actions that require either an
environmental impact statement, a negative declaration supported by an environmental impact
appraisal, or no environmental analysis at all."r38 Neither NEPA nor the NRC regulations require
NRC Staff to prepare an EIS if the federal action's effect on the environment is not
"significant.ttl3e lf, however, the proposed action has a significant effect, then there must be a
"detailed statement by the responsible party on-
(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action,
(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be
implemented,
(iii) alternatives to the proposed action,
(iv) the relationship between local short term uses of man's environment and
the maintenance and enhancement of long term productivity, and
(v) any ineversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would
be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented."r4o
ff a "detailed statement" setting forth this information is required, NRC's regulations provide that
the NRC Staff must prepare and circulate a draft environmental impact statement ("DEIS"),
followed by the publication of a final environmental impact statement ("FEIS").r4r
'36 l0 c.F.R. $ 5l.l(b).
r37 l0 C.F.R. $ 51.1(a).
t38 See In the Matters of Duke Power Co., 12 N.R.C. 459, 1980 N.R.C. LEXIS 24, *21(1980), citing, lO
c.F.R. S 51.s.
t3e Id.
t4o Id. at*23-24.
96
iBiusllglaIj,U9, BglPo!se. MolycorpPresqltati on.Ugy399?,1o9o :--Teq"fz
When issuing a source material license pursuant to the Commission's regulations set
forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 40, Part 51 and NEPA requirements must be satisfied.raz Part5l has been
incorporated into 10 C.F.R. $ 40.32 of the Commission's regulations which states that an
"application for a specific license will be granted if...:
"(e) In the case of an application ...for a license to possess and use source and
byproduct material for uranium milling.. .the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards or his designee, before commencement of construction of the
plant or facility in which the activity will be conducted, on the basis of information
filed and evaluations made pursuant to subpart A of part 51 of this
chapter, has concluded, after weighing the environmental, economic, technical and
other benefits against the environmental costs and considering available alternatives, that the
action called for is the issuance of the proposed license, with any appropriate conditions to
protect environmental values. " ra3-
Thus, in order to issue a source material license, NRC Staff must weigh the environmental,
economic, technical and other benefits of issuing the license against the environmental costs and
consider available alternatives based on information and evaluations made pursuant to subpart A
of Part 5 1. NRC Staff may issue the license "with any appropriate conditions to protect
environmental values."r44 The Staff's determinations with respect to environmental concerns are
based in part upon an environmental report ("ER") which must be prepared by applicants for a
materials license. However, as stated in NRC's NUREG-1748 entitled Environmental Review
Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs, "[i]nformation may also be
submitted as part of the license application or amendment request, without an ER. NUREG-
rar See l0 C.F.R. $$ 51.10-51.13,51.80-51.81 (incorporating5l.T4), & 51.97; see also In the Matter of
Duke Power Co.,1980 N.R.C. LEXIS at*22.
taz See l0 C.F.R. $ 51.21(b)(8).
'43 10 c.F.R. S 40.32.
V Id.
91
ation.May2002.doc Page 98
1748 at 16.
The Influence of NEPA on NRC Regulations
In the NEPA context, it is well-settled that NRC, as an independent regulatory agency, is
not bound by the CEQ's NEPA regulations to the same extent as other federal administrative
agencies. Indeed, the Commission has stated:
"as a matter of law, the NRC as an independent regulatory agency can
be bound by CEQ's [Council on Environmental Quality's] regulations
only so far as those regulations are procedural or ministerial in nature.
NRC ls not bound by those portions of CEQ's regulations which have a substantive
impact on the way in which the Commission performs its
regulatory functions."
49 Fed. Reg. 9352 (March 12, 1984) (emphasis added).
Regarding the NEPA analysis required for NRC licensing activities, "the Commission's
general approach to the consideration of alternatives from the standpoint of NEPA is closely
tailored to the nature and scope of the Commission's licensing and related regulatory
functions. .." See 49 Fed. Reg. at 9356 (March 12,1984). With this in mind, courts have
frequently agreed that "the nature and form ofenvironmental analysis required in any given case
are matters left to the discretion of the agency involved." Id. The given complexities involved in
conducting the types of environmental analysis used by agencies like NRC..., the judgment of
the NRC as the agency with the requisite technical expertise should govern." Id. The
Commission, therefore, has made it clear that NRC will determine the proper approach to NEPA
evaluations for NRC regulatory actions such as granting the Molycorp license amendment.
In the broadest sense, NRC began its NEPA analysis of uranium mills and mill tailings
impoundments in 1980 with the GEIS. As noted above, the GEIS provided a generic assessment
of potential environmental and public health issues involving potential radiological and non-
98
, agtl,slnc,!e[; l!9Egqp3ryg.Uglt"opr9ryltl"!iqll49y,299?.dop
radiologicaL hazards associated with uranium mills during operations, mill
decommissioning, and after site closure. The GEIS, however, specifically indicated that
evaluations for activities at any given mill site could require site-specific analysis.
As a result, NRC Staff has conducted several NEPA analyses for the White Mesa Mill
including the 1979 Environmental Statement, subsequent EAs in 1985 and 1997,t4s and the
current EA specifically addressing the receipt, processing, and disposal of the Molycorp material.
NRC Staff's EA for the Molycorp license amendment yielded a FONSI, thus demonstrating that
no significant impacts to public health and safety and the environment would occur as a result of
the Molycorp license amendment. Therefore, NRC Staff, generally and specifically, has
conducted the required NEPA analysis to support the Molycorp license amendment. Indeed, by
issuing a FONSI, I\iRC Staff has also found that there are no disparate impact issues associated
with the Molycorp license amendment.ra6
NEPA and NRC Materials License Amendment Proceedings
NEPA requirements apply to license application proceedings as well as license
amendment proceedings. In the case of a license amendment to an already-existing source
material license, NEPA imposes procedural rather than substantive constraints upon an agency's
r45 It is important to note that at the time NRC performed its EA in 1997 for renewal of the Mill's
operating license, the Mill had processed and received license amendments for a number of altemate feed
materials. Therefore, when evaluating the Mill's license renewal in 1997, NRC was fully aware of the
Mill's alternate feed program.
ta6 Under most circumstances, no environmental justice review should be conducted where an EA is
prepared. If it is determined that particular action will have no significant environmental impact, then
there is no need to consider whether the action will have disproportionately high and adverse impacts on
certain populations. See NUREG-l'748, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions
Associated with NMSS Programs.
l-egr9g']
, Bill Sinclair - lUCResoonse.MolvcoroPresentation.Mav2002.doc =- - i*se lqal
decision-making process. The statute only requires that an agency
undertake an appropriate assessment of the environmental impacts of its action
without mandating that the agency reach any particular result concerning that action. See, e.g.,
Robertsonv. Methow Valley Citizens Council,490 U.S. 332,350 (1989); Babcock &Wilcox
(Apollo, Pennsylvania Fuel Fabrication Facility), LBP-93-4, 37 N.R.C. 72,93 (1993). NEPA
does not establish minimal environmental standards; the environmental review mandated entails
a balancing of costs and benefits rather than a measuring against absolute environmental
standards. See Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and2), ALAB-
422,6 N.R.C. 33,43 (1977).
In license amendment proceedings, a Licensing Board should not embark broadly upon a
fresh assessment of the environmental issues which have already been thoroughly considered and
which were decided in the initial licensing decision. Rather, the Licensing Board's role, with
respect to EAs for license amendments, is limited to assuring itself that the ultimate NEPA
conclusions reached in the initial licensing decision are not significantly affected by the proposed
new developments. Detroit Edison Ca. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), LBP-78-1 1,
7 N.R.C. 381,393 (1978), citing Georgia Power Co. (Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Units 1 &
2), ALAB-291, 2 N.R.C.404,4t5 (1975).
Regarding the requirement for preparation of an EIS, Federal agencies are required to
prepare an EIS for every major Federal Action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment. See 42 U.S.C. S aTZQ)@) (emphasis added). NRC Staff is not required to
prepa.re an EIS if, after performing an initial environmental assessment, it determines that the
proposed action will have no significanl environmental impact. Virginia Electric and Power Co.
100
Bi|ISinc|air-IUCles;qo19ertvtq]X_ojgplerfltfon.[911!QQ!,{oq
(North Anna Power Station, Units I & 2), ALAB-790, 20 N.R.C.
7450, 1452, n. 5 (1984). No study of alternatives is needed under
NEPA unless the action significantly affects the environment or involves an unresolved conflict
in the use of resources. Where an action will have little environmental effect, an alternative
could not be materially advantageous. Virginia Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Power
Starion, Units I & 2), LBP-85-34,22 N.R.C. 481,491(1985).
In NRC's NUREG-1748 addressing licensing actions, an EA is conducted to provide
sufficient information so that NRC Staff may determine whether to perform an EIS or issue a
FONSI.r47 If NRC Staff determines that the proposed licensing action will not cause any
significant impacts, then a draft or final FONSI is prepared and no EIS is required See l0 C.F.R.
$ 5 1 .32-5 1 .3 5; see also NUREG- 17 48 at 17 , 20. In this proceeding, NRC Staff performed an EA
for IUSA's license amendment and a final FONSI was issued.l48 The issuance of a FONSI
demonstrates that NRC Staff found no need to conduct an EIS to assess the environmental
impacts of the receipt and processing of the Molycorp material at the Mill.
NRC StafPs Decision Not to Perform an EIS Was Proper and a Finding of No Significant
Impact Was Warranted
Petitioners' allege that NRC Staff did not have adequate information to conclude that no
EIS was needed and a FONSI was warranted. This allegation is without merit because IUSA and
NRC Staff correctly followed all regulations applicable to NRC license amendments and
environmental reviews.
14? NUREG- 1148, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS
Programs, Draft Report for Interim Use and Comment, at 17 ,20 (September 2001).
148 66 Fed. Reg. 64064 (December 11, 2001).
Paoe 1Oi 'l
101
i Bill Sinclair - lUCResponse.MolycorpPresentation.May2002.doc
--?_eg-"_l9Io
Prior to submitting its Molycorp license amendment application, IUSA personnel
performed detailed analysis of all parameters necessary to present adequate information to NRC
Staff for evaluation. It is standard practice for IUSA to perform an analysis of the chemical and
radiological components of a proposed alternate feed material and such analyses were performed
for IUSA on the Molycorp material.rae
When IUSA submitted its Molycorp license amendment application to NRC, NRC Staff
became the "action" group responsible for evaluation of IUSA's submission. NRC Staff has
engaged in the practice of evaluating countless materials license and license amendment
applications since NRC's inception and has the necessary expertise to exercise its professional
judgment in this context.rso
Obtaining a license amendment from NRC is an "iterative" process beginning with a
determination by NRC Staff that an application is substantially complete. In order to make this
determination, within 30 days NRC Staff performs an "acceptance review" to satisfy itself that,
given its knowledge about the site and the issues associated with the proposed license
amendment, sufficient information has been provided for NRC Staff to commence its full-scale
review. It is not necessary for a licensee to provide NRC Staff with information which NRC
Staff already possesses and, more specifically, there is no need to provide NRC Staff with all the
information a lay person would require to understand the license amendment application.r5r
rae As noted by Ms. Tischler, "I regularly review alternate feed materials for International Uranium
(USA) Corporation...to determine whether such feeds are appropriate for processing..." Tischler
Affidavit at l.
r50 As discussed above, any NEPA action performed by NRC Staff must be considered as having been
performed in the context of the generic assessments performed by EPA (FEIS) and NRC (GEIS) in the
1980s.
L02
Bill Sinclair - |103
Frequently, NRC Staff will request further information from the licensee. This is
accomplished through a Request for Further Information ("RFI") or a Request for Additional
Information ("RAI") to the extent such additional information from the licensee is necessary.r52
In addition to evaluating the data submitted by the licensee, it is NRC Staff s responsibility to
insure that any alternate feed proposal meets NRC's AFG, which has been the subject of public
comment proceedings, Commission Staff Requirements Memorandum ("SRM"), and a
Commission decision in the IUSA/Utah litigation.rs3 4. detailed in NRC StafFs EA and TER,
IUSA's proposed Molycorp license amendment fulfilled each requirement under the AFG and, as
such, was determined to be an appropriate alternate feed.
Regarding the potential environmental impacts of IUSA's proposed Molycorp license
amendment, NRC Staffperformed the necessary EA and found that no significanl impacts would
be caused by granting the license amendment. Under 10 C.F.R. Part 50, an EA "shall identify the
proposed action and include:
(1) A briefdiscussion of:(i) The need forthe proposed action;(ii) Alternatives as required by section 102(2)(E) of NEPA;(iii) The environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives as
appropriate: and(2) A list ofagencies and persons consulted, and identification ofsources
used.
r5r Under NRC regulations, NRC Staff may incorporate information contained in previous applications by
reference. See l0 C.F.R. S 40.31(a).
r52 The licensee is also free to submit additional material to NRC Staff on its own initiative if it sees fit.
In the case of the Molycorp material, IUSA submitted additional information to NRC Staff regarding the
drummed Molycorp material including chemical analyses. See l0 C.F.R. $ 2.102(a).
r53 Petitioners have levied allegations that NRC's AFG is inconsistent with the provisions of the AEA, as
amended by UMTRCA. As stated in Section III, NRC's Guidance and its subsequent revisions have
been subject to public comment proceedings, published as Commission policy and, implicitly, if not
explicitly, reaffirmed in the Commission's IUSA/Utah decision noted above, including the definition of
ore. As such, Petitioners' challenges are not within the scope of this proceeding.
103
Page 104 i
r0 c.F.R. $ 51.30.
In addition to these requirements, the Commission may issue a FONSI with the EA. When the
Commission issues a FONSI. the notice must:
(t) Identify the proposed action;(2) State that the Commission has determined not to prepare an
environmental impact statement for the proposed action;(3) Briefly present the reasons why the proposed action will not have
a signfficant effect on the quality of the human environment;
(4) Include the environmental assessment or a summary of the
environmental assessment. . .(5) Note any other related environmental documents; and(6) State that the finding and any related environmental documents
are available for public inspection and where the documents may
be inspected.
10 c.F.R. $ 51.32
Each of these requirements were fulfilled by NRC Staff in its EA and TER and, as such, NRC
Staff considered the potential environmental effects of IUSA's proposed Molycorp license
amendment and properly issued a FONSL
NRC Staff provided the public with notice that the EA and TER for IUSA's proposed
Molycorp license amendment had been prepared and would be available for inspection on
December 11, 2001.rs4,r5s The EA itself is composed of several sections of discussion providing
insight into NRC Staff s decision-making process regarding IUSA's license amendment. More
specifically, these discussion sections comply directly with the regulatory provisions of 10 C.F.R.
t5a See 66 Fed. Reg. 64064 (December 11, 2001).
r55 As stated in 10 C.F.R. $ 51.33, "the appropriate NRC Staff director may make a determination to
prepare and issue a draft finding of no significant impact [FONSI] for public review and comment before
making a final determination whether to prepare an environmental impact statement [EIS] or a final
finding of no significant impact [FONSI]." See generally l0 C.F.R. $ 51.33. In the case of the Molycorp
license amendment, NRC Staff chose to issue afnal FONSI and not a draft FONSI.
104
$ 51.30 in the following manner. EA section 1.1 entitled Background and Need for the Proposed
Action directly complies with section 51.30(aX1)(i) of the regulations requiring a brief discussion
of the need for the proposed action. Compare 10 C.F.R. $ 51.30(a)(1)(i). EA section 5.0 entitled
Alternatives directly complies with section 5 1 .30(aX l)(ii) of the regulations requiring a brief
discussion of alternatives to the proposed action as required by NEPA. Compare 10 C.F.R. $
51.30(a)( lXii). Finally, EA sections 4.0 and 7.0 entitled Environmental Effects and State
Consultation respectively directly address the requirement in sections 51.30(a)(1)(iii) & (a)(2) of
the regulations requiring a brief discussion of environmental impacts and a list of agencies that
were consulted during the EA process. Compare 10 C.F.R. $$ 51.30(a)(lxiii) & (a)(2).
When issuing its FONSI for IUSA's license amendment, NRC Staff also complied with
10 C.F.R. $ 51.32. EA section 1.3 entitled Proposed Action complies with section 51.32(aX1)
which requires a statement of the proposed action. Compare 10 C.F.R. $ 51.32(aX1). NRC
Staff s decision not to prepare an EIS is detailed in its decision to issue a FONSI, which, by its
very nature, implies that an EIS is not warranted. Compare 10 C.F.R. $ 51.32(a)(2). Section
51.32(a)(3)'s requirement that a brief discussion of the reasons for the lack of any significant
environmental impacts is met by section 4.0 of the EA entitled Enyironmental Efficts. Finally,
each of these regulatory provisions is fulfilled by the December II, 20Ol Federal Register notice,
including notice to the public of the location of relevant documents for public inspection. See lO
C.F.R. $$ 51.32(a)(4) & (5). Therefore, as shown above, NRC Stafffulfilled each of the
regulatory requirements for performance of an EA and, contrary to Petitioners' assertions, was
not in error when it issued a FONSI and granted IUSA's license amendment.l56
156 In fact, even if NRC Staff did make a procedural mistake in its evaluation of IUSA's license
amendment application, as stated above, a license amendment is not to be denied simply on the basis
105
i aitt Sinctair - lUCRespgnse.Molycorp tseei-9gi
Furthermore, NRC Staff did not require additional information to properly conduct its
review of IUSA's license amendment. For example, regarding Petitioners' claim that more
information on the "drummed" Molycrop material was required, Ms. Tischler states:
"Although Molycorp is a controlled site where the source of every
single drum is known, their sampling program met and exceeded
USEPA's acceptable sample frequency from unknown drum contents.
Sampling and analysis of only four drums would have been acceptable;
Molycorp's sampling and analysis of six drums was more conservative
than standard environmental practice."
Tischler Affidavit at 12.
In addition, with respect to Petitioners' claim that more information on the potential for lead
airborne dust should have been provided, Ms. Tischler states:
"Specifically, the Sierra Club's assertion that IUSA's amendment
application was incomplete...is incorrect. . ..there is no mechanism
for the generation of airborne lead dtst...during material shipping,
ore pad storage, processing, or disposal in the tailings cells."
Id. at2.
Thus, the information presented to NRC Staffby IUSA was sufficient and Petitioners' claim that
the information was inadequate is without merit.
The Drummed Molycorp Material is Similar to the Molycorp Pond Material and Did Not
Require a Separate Environmental Assessment
Petitioners allege that NRC Staff and IUSA did not provide the proper information
necessary for an assessment of the physical, chemical, and radiological properties of the
drummed Molycorp material. In essence, Petitioners claim, conffary to the findings of NRC
Staff, that the drummed Molycorp material is not similar to the Molycorp pond material and,
of a deficiency or omission in the application. See In the Matter of the Curators of the University of
Missouri,4l N.R.C.71,1995 N.R.C. LEXIS 21,*43 (1995).
106
E!!_sjgle,f l!9Bggponse.Molycotppf e_sg*,gtign,ME?_0,_0.?,8,"oq.
I
I
I
I
II therefore, required a separaLe EA. this allegation is without
II merit because NRC Staff's conclusion that the drummed and the
II uolycorp pond material are simj-Iar was correct
I
I Occording to the chemical analysis conducted by Ms.
II Ti schler, prior to the submission of IUSA's license amendment application to NRC:
I
I
I
I
i
| "The Molycorp drummed material originated from the same process
I source as the pond material, and had generally the same levels of thirteen
| -etals as the pond material..."
II Tischler Affidavit at 11.
II goth the pond and the drummed Molycorp material contain the same levels of thirteen metals
I
I and, when describing any differences between the two sets of material, Ms. Tischler states:
I
| "The drummed material is a) lower in radionuclide content, b) is lower
I fn barium and leadcontent, and c) consists of a substantially lower volume
I of material. The drums had somewhat higher levels of ...copper and zinc,
I which are known to be present in uranium ores (at levels greater than in the
I Molycorp drums) and in uranium mill tailings."
II rd.
II fhough there are some differences between the "ponded" and "drummed" Molycorp material,
I
I ,hese differences are insignificant. As Ms. Tischler states, "[flrom the environmental standpoint,
I
I the drummed material characteristics represent a lower potential environmental and/or safety
II impact than the pond contents." Id. Thus, the conclusions by IUSA in its license amendment
II application and NRC Staff in its EA and TER that the "drummed" Molycorp material was
II similar to the "ponded" Molycorp material and, therefore, required no separate environmental
107
assessment, were correct and in the best interests of protecting public health and safety and the
environment.l5T
rs? Ms. Tischler also notes that, "IUSA's letter to NRC of October 17,2001, by treating the drummed
material as "similar" to the pond contents, was, therefore, conservative. Tischler Affidavit at 11.
108
Bill Sinclair -doc 108
CONCLUSION
Petitioners have, by their constant attempts to expand the focus of this proceeding, forced
IUSA into an expensive and time-consuming effort to defend a license amendment to process an
alternate feed material which is unremarkable in all respects except that it contains only elevated
concentrations of lead, which do not pose any significant, incremental hazards. As indicated
above, the generic assessments of uranium and thoium milling prepared by EPA and NRC
explicitly contemplated that uranium mill tailings impoundments would contain, along with
naturally occurring long-lived radionuclides, naturally occurring non-radiological (hazardous)
constituents, primarily in the form of heavy metals such. as lead, as well as potentially toxic and
corrosive chemicals (e.9., sulfuric acid). UMTRCA mandated, and EPA and NRC promulgated,
regulatory programs specifically designed to provide adequate controls to protect public health,
safety and the environment against any potentially significanl hazards associated with processing
such materials and managing the wastes generated thereby.
IUSA's Molycorp license amendment satisfies all of the requirements in NRC's AFG,
including the Criteria set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 40, Appendix A. The Mill has over twenty years
of operating experience and operating history with processing conventional ores and alternate
feeds. During this time-frame, there has never been any indication of any potentially adverse off-
site impacts from Mill operations. Nevertheless, IUSA has been forced to defend NRC's
Appendix A regulatory program, its pre-existing licensed facilities at the Mill and its justification
for the proposed Molycorp amendment in response to allegations which amount to little more
than baseless speculation. Petitioners' assault on the Mill, EPA's and NRC's regulatory program
is improper and unsupported. The overwhelming weight of the evidence in this proceeding
109
mandates a dismissal of Petitioners' challenge of IUSA's Molycorp
license amendment.
For the aforementioned reasons, IUSA respectfully requests that the Presiding Officer
deny Petitioners' request for the suspension, revocation or alteration of IUSA's license
amendment.
Respectfu lly submitted,
Anthony J. Thompson, Esq.
1225lgf" Sfreet, NW
2od Floor
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 496-W80
COUNSEL TO INTERNATIONAL TJRANITJM
(usA) coRPoRATroN
Page 111 l
II.
m.
rv.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
STATEMENT OFTT{E CASE
STANDARD OF REVIEW
GENERAL STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
1. StatutoryBackground
2. RegulatoryBackground
3. Regulatory History of NRC's Alternate Feed Guidance
WHITE MESA MILL HISTORY AND PROCESS
1. History and Process
2. Tailings Management System
3. Site Hydrogeology
4. Tailings Cell Design and Construction
5. GroundwaterMonitoring-.Program
6. AdditionalEnvironmentalSafeguards
7. UDEO Groundwater Discharge Permit and SBlilSalqpling
8. Ore Pad Integritv and Fate and Transport Assumptions
V.
11
1l
15
20
23
23
25
25
27
29
3l
32
34
VI.PETITIONER' S ALLEGATIONS REGARDING T}IE MOLYCORP LICENSE
AMENDMENT 35
l. IUSA is Permitted by NRC Regulations to Possess a Source Material icense 35
2. The Lead Content of the Molycorp Material Does Not Pose A Signfcant lncreruerlral
Threat to the Public Health and Safety Above and Beyond That of Previousl), Licensed
Activities at the Mill
a. The Leal Content of the Molycorp Material 36
b. The Mill's Tailings Cells Alreadv Contain Signff,canr Ouantities of Lead and
The Addition of The Molycom Material's Lead Content Will Not Increase The Lead
Content Significantb, 37
c. The Molycorp Material Does Not Contain Any Constituents Not Already Present in
The Mill's Tailines Cells 40
d. Processing_the Molycom Material Will Not Create Any Hazardous Lead Chemical
Compounds That Are Unsuitable For Disposal in The Mill's Tailings Cells 42
36
111
e. The Processing of the Molycorp Material Will Not Create Hydrosen Sulfide Gas
Which Would Threaten Public Health and Safetv or The
Environment 45
i Processing the Molycorp Material Will Not Cause Ay Adverse Chemical Reactions
in The White Mesa Mill's Tailings Cells 46
& Stockpiling Processing the Molycorp Material Will Not Create Any Hazardous
Airborne Contamination Which Threatens Public Health and Safety_or The Environment
48
h. Processing the Molvcorp Material Does Not Pose A Signifir:arul. lncremerulc/ Threat
to Humans or Wildlife Above And Beyond That of Previouslv Licensed Activities 503. The Thorium Content of the Molycom Material 53a. IUSA May Process Ores Containins Concentrations of Thorium Under Its NRC
License 53
b. The Presence of Thorium in Conventional Ores and Alternate Feed Materials
Has Been Contemplated and Addressed by EPA and NRC 55c. The Thorium Content of The Molycorp Material Will Not Pose a Signry'canr,
lncremsl,ral Threat to The Public Health and Safety or the Environment 57
4. Petitioners' Claims Regardins Alleged Irakage From IUSA's Tailings Cells and
Potential Lead Contaminations 60
a. lecd Constituents from the White Mesa Mill's Tailings Cells Will Not Penetrate to
the Regional Aquifer 60b. Tailings Constituents from the White Mesa Mill's Tailings Cells Will Not Reach
Springs or Seeps Downgradient Of The Mill Site Through the PerchedGroundwater Zone
62
c. Natural Attenuation of lead in the Underlyins Bedrock 65
d. IUSA's Groundwater Monitoring Program 69e. Lecd Constituents from the White Mesa Mill's TailingsCells Do Not Pose a Threat
to Petitioners or Wildlife at a Spring or Seep Downgradient of the Mill Site 70
L The White Mesa Mill's Tailines Cell Desien 72
& The White Mesa Mill's Tailings Cell Constmction 80h. The White Mesa Mill's Tailings Cells Are Not Leaking 845. Transportation of the Molycorp Material to the White Mesa Mill Does Not Pose a
Signr.ffcanf. lncremenldl Tkeat to Public Health or Safety Above and Beyond That of
Previousllz Licensed Activitiesa. The Transportation of Radioactive Materials Poses Nob. Transportation of the Molycom Material to the 88c. Any Potential Spill of The Molycorp Material Poses No Signficanr, /ncrcmerurol
Threat 90d. The Citv of Moab is Properly Equipped to Respond to a Potential Spill of the
Molycom Material
87
87
93
V[. PETITIONER'S CLAIMS REGARDING THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT AND IO C.F.R. PART 51 94
1. NEPA Overview
2. The Influence of NEPA on NRC Regulations
3. NEPA and NRC Materials License Amendment Proceedinss
94
97
99
4. NRC Staff s Decision Not to Perform an EIS Was Proper and a Finding of No
Sienificanl Imoact Was Warranted 101
5. The Drummed Molycorp Material is Similar to the "Ponded"Molycom Material and
Did Not Require a Separate Environmental Assessment
VM. CONCLUSION
105
108
113
May 29,2002
Victoria Woodard
Nuclear Waste Chair
Sierra Club Glen Canyon Group
P.O. Box 622
Moab, W 84532
Dear Ms. Woodard:
pnc,,/nI 1. F^l o,, Slzlfo z_
lfi er""""+.^\t 'uap b'\a)- fu
3,*,na2^A / Z-pp s
We are in receipt of your letter of May 8, 2002 in which a request was made that the Department of
Environmental Quality write a letter to the NRC supporting the Sierra Club's presentation on two
issue relating to the need for a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the mill's
disposal impoundments. The request is specific to a NRC administrative hearing regarding an
amendment request from International Uranium to receive and reprocess alternate feed material from
the MolyCorp facility located at Mountain Pass, California.
Thank you for providing us with a copy of the Sierra Club's four part presentation as part of the
administrative hearing. We have also been working with both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) and International Uranium Corporation to address concerns involving this alternate feed
material. In terms of the Supplemental EIS, NRC, as a matter of procedure, has been providing
Environmental Assessments, for alternate feed requests at the White Mesa Mill. These are made
available for comment and the State of Utah has provided input into this process. The need for a
Supplemental EIS for the question of "alternate feed being processed at mills" is a difficult and
complex issue. NRC's position has been that alternate feed material is being received the same as
"ore" would at a mill and that "ore" contains constituents that would be similar to those that would
be eventually disposed of as tailings in the impoundments. When the original EIS was developed
for the White Mesa and other uranium mills, uranium prices were adequate to support milling
operations and it would have been difficult to predict the eventual processing of alternate feed at
mills. Although this issue has been raised many times in different contexts, this is an appropriate
question for consideration for the hearing.
Draft - for discussion only
May 29,2002
Page 2
In terms of the second issue relating to the adequacy of the impoundments. The Department has
been working for a long period of time with International Uranium to resolve issues relating to the
impoundments including the adequacy of leak detection systems. There is currently a process
underway that will eventually result in a state groundwater discharge permit being issued which will
consider the current state of the impoundments and the groundwater monitoring system needed to
adequately monitor and detect any releases. Many of the issues indicated in your presentation have
been discussed with the NRC and International Uranium in previous administrative pleadings and
work revolving around groundwater issues at the White Mesa Mill. As such, the NRC needs to
decide your pleading on its merits.
We appreciate you keeping us informed as the administrative hearing process proceeds. If we can
be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me or Bill Sinclair of my staff.
Best Regards,
Dianne R. Nielson, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Bill Von Till, NRC Headquarters
Davi d Frydenlund, Intern ation al Uranium C orporati on
Bill Maier, NRC Region tV
'offi%w
Sierra Club Glen Canyon Group
P.O. Box 622
Moab UT 84532
May 8,2002
Dianne R. Nielson, PHD
Executive Director
Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 144810
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4810
Dear Dr. Nielson:
a'-i
The Sierra Club requested a hearing regarding Intemational Uranium Corporation's
(IUSA's) request for a license amendment to import 17,000 tons of radioactive lead sludge from
Molycorp's mine at Mountain Pass, California, to the White Mesa uranium mill south of
Blanding. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) granted the hearing.
We are writing today to send you the Sierra Club's four-part presentation in the hearing
and to ask for your support. We have also enclosed a sunmary of our presentation.
We would like to bring to your attention two issues raised in our presentation that we
believe should also deeply concern the State of Utah Departrnent of Environmental Quality.
First, we are very concerned that the NRC is allowing this uranium mill to import, store, process
and dispose of radioactive waste without ever having done a Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement regarding those activities. Our Second Supplement explores that concern.
Second, we solicited expert opinions with regard to the mill's tailings ponds. As a result
of reading those opinions, we are now extremely concemed that the tailings ponds probably
already leak, but IUSA cannot detect the leaks because of an inadequate leak detection system.
The expert opinions are discussed in and attached to our Third Supplement.
We request that the Department of Environmental Quality write a letter to the NRC
supporting the Sierra Club's presentation on these two issues and on any other issues raised in
our presentation that you believe are important. If you agree to write a support letter, it should
be addressed to Administrative Judge Alan Rosenthal, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, Mail Stop T-3 F23, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001.
Thank you very much. I look forward to your reply. Please don't hesitate to contact me
if you have questions or need more information. My telephone number is 435/826-4778 and my
e-mail address is [e-mail]
ffiffiwML0^MVW)t\dog?!5^s MW 4''-ks-"o)
"A.
H[\ ?t$2 'ttt:tirafi'"" .,ri ^.,..- - ': ' ').-tt"n 1.;"o. l.',u.r
L,Sl "r,'i,
' Dianne R Nielson
May 8,2@2
Sincerely,
q';fillD Lfi^Jrr,-L
Victoria Woodard
NuclerWaste Chair
Sierra Club Glem Canyoll Group
Cc: William Sirclah, Dircctor
Division of Radiation Coneol
P.O. Box 144850
Salt t^ake City, UT 84lI#850
Dennis R. Dov*ns, Director
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
P.O. 144880
SaltLake Ciry, [.rT 84114880
May l5,2OO2Attention: lur ffiH,*#g k "r\i"t ri'i:riaffi#-:{l B. Ei
The attached "sierra Club Contentions in NRC Hearing Regarding IUs$equAffia tyf ;$ 5l
to Amend License SUA-1358 To Receive Molycorp Materials April 2002" shou\{.ha*Er} .-*.' y# ,$f
accompanied the May 8, zWz,letterfrom Victoria Woodard, Nuclear Waste Gu&+, V ,.,:{Sierra Club Glen Canyon Group, regarding International Uranium (USA) CorporatioXS r!.._, ,,.,)r'
proposal to receive and process material from the Molycorp, Inc., facility in Mountain
Pass, California. Sorry for the inconvenience.
l.ru'" '?+\.,v s\
'-.i,j;f,9r{ffii,ff* .U T]
Sierra Club Contentions in NRC Hearing Regarding IUSA Request to
Amend License suA-1358 To Receive Molycorp Materials
April 2002
The Sierra Club's contentions fall into three categories: l) the Amendment Request was
materially defective (discussed in the Sierra Club's April 1,2002Initial Presentation and April
10 First Supplement); 2) the NRC should have prepaned a Supplemental Environmental hpact
Statement instead of an Environmental Assessment (discussed in the Sierra Club's April 15
Second Supplement); and 3) IUSA's tailings ponds probably leak, threatening people, wildlife,
and endangered species (discussed in the Sierra Club's April 15 Third Supplement). All of these
contentions are summarized below. In addition, the Sierra Club incorporated by reference the
contentions of Petitioner William E. Love (summarized separately).
I. IUSA'S AMENDMENT REQUEST WAS MATERIALLY DEFECTIVE IN
FOLLOWING WAYS:
A. General (April l0 First Supplement)
The amendment request does not provide inforrration about the differences
bastnasite ore (from which the Molycorp material was derived) and uranium ore.
The amendmentrequest does not compare the quantity of lead in the Molycorp material
with the quantity of lead in uranium ore and altemate feed materials previously proceised at
White Mesa mill.
The arnendment request contains vague references to the 1979 ES and prior IUSA filings.
Such references af,e permitted by l0 C.F.R. $ 40.31 only if they are clear and specific.
B. IUSA seeks to acquire. process and store thorium at a mill that is licensed only for
uraniurn (April I Initial Presentation)
The Molycorp material contains source material thorium, but IUSA's license does not
permit receipt processing or disposal of thorium-Z32 andprogeny.
l0 C.F.R 40.51 requires that the Molycorp material be tansferred to an appropriately
licensed facility and that IUSA's license must specifically allow the receip of source material
thorium.
ruSA never sought or received an amendment to the license conditions that allow it to
receive, process and dispose of only natural uranium. IUSA never requested an exemption to the
requirements of 10 C.F.R. 40.51, pursuant to l0 C.F.R. a0.la(a) and 40.6, so that theycould
receive, process and dispose of thorium.
2
The 1979 ES never discussed thorium. The ES states: "The proposed action involves the
construction and operation of a mill to produce yellow cake from local tranium ore bodies."
Source material thoritm has never been addressed in any subsequent EA. No SEIS has ever
been prepared.
C. The amendment request and EA do not discuss the material in Molycorp's ponds
completely and accurately (April l0 First Supplement)
The amendment request does not l) state that the material from Molycorp's ponds
contains sotrce material thorium-232 andprogeny, 2) give the percentage of thorium-232 and
progeny, 3) speciff differences between the uranium-238 decay series and the thorium-232
decay series,4) discuss health and safety factors implied by the presence of thorium-232 and
progeny, or 5) completely and accurately discuss the requirements for the receipL acquisitiou
possession, and transfer of sotrce material thorium-232 andprogeny.
The amendment request does not mention that the Molycorp material contains lead
oxides. It does not discuss the potential health effects of lead oxides.
The EA does not discuss the presence of thorium-232 andprogeny or lead oxides in the
ponds.
In order to show that the radiation level of material from Molycorp's Pond 1l is below
the U.S. Departrnent of Transportation limit of 2,000 pci/grU IUSA and Molycorp apparently
sampled only for isotopic uranium in the pond. In previous years, the ponds were sampled for
radium and thorium as well.
The amendment request says that when excavating the ponds for shipment to IUSA,
Molycorp will "attempt" to separate the lead sulfrde sludge from "flotation tailings". The
application does not indicate how proper separation will be achieved, what is in the flotation
tailings, or if the flotation tailings contain hazardous wastes.
The amendment request does not discuss the possibility that contaminated soils
underlying the lead sludge ponds will also be removed and commingled wiilr the ponded lead
sludges.
D. The amendment request does not discuss the drummed material from MolycorB
completely and acctrately (April l0 First Supplernent)
Waste characterization data are missing for 29 of the 35 drums that have already been
shipped from Molycorp to the White Mesa mill.
For the 6 drums that were tested, there is no inforrnation as to how the data was obtained,
what sampling and analysis protocols were used, and for what constituents the drums were
tested. The data sheet lists 'Lead," but gives no information regarding the chemical or physical
form of that "Lead."
3
The arnendment request gives no dataregarding the lead oxide composition of the
drummed material.
E. The amendment request does not discuss exgrsure hazards related to lead completely
and accurately (April l0 First Supplement)
The amendment request says there will be no significant airborne lead exposure from
handling Molycorp's lead sulfide pond material at IUSA, because it is essentially the same as
lead material that Molycorp handled in the past without exceeding OSHA standards. However,
the request gives no specilic data to confirm that ttrese two materials arc comparable.
The amendment request does not discuss the health effects related to inhalation (rather
than oral ingestion) of materials containing lead.
The amendment request indicates that the oral bioavailability of lead sulfide is
significantly less than the bioavailability of lead oxide. Yet the request never discusses the
health hazards of the lead oxide inthe Molycorp material.
The amendment request contains an "Occupational Risk Assessment for Morurtain Pass
Lead Filtercake Residue (Drummed Uranium Material)." However, the Occupational Risk
Assessment addresses only the copper and zinc content of the drummed material, not the various
lead constituents.
F. The amendment request does not discuss exgosure hazards related to thorium (April I
Initial Presentation)
The amendment request does not discuss the hazards related to the exposure (by various
pathways) to thorium-23z and progeny.
On December 18, 2000,IUSA provided the NRC with Standard Operating Procedrues
(SOPs) for'High Thorium Content Ore Management." These SOPs require personnel to don
protective equipment such as full-face respirators, coveralls, and rubber gloves. The amendment
request does not discuss whether these SOPs will be used for the thorium-bearing Molycorp
material.
G. The amendment reouest and EA do not discuss the interaction of Molycorp material
with material already in IUSA's tailings ponds (April l0Initial Presentation)
The amendment request does not present any information comparing the physical,
radiological, and chemical characteristics of the ponded and dnrmmed Molycorp material
(processed or unprocessed) with the physical, radiological, and chemical characteristics of the
materials that are already in IUSA's tailings ponds.
The amendment request does not compare the environmental impact of the proposed
amendment with the environmental impacts evaluated in the 1979 ES; therefore, IUSA did not
4
substantiate their determination that the environmental impacts from the proposed amendment
will not go "beyond those originally evaluated."
The amendment request says tailings from processing the Molycorp materials'\uill not
have an adverse impact on the overall Cell 3 tailings composition." The request does not e>tplain
the extent of cumulativg localized impact. Some structures, qystems, or components of the
tailings impoundment mightbe more susceptible to impactthan others.
The amendment request and EA do not evaluate what will happen when Molycorp
material containing thorium, lead sulfide and lead oxide is processed with various reagents and
mixed together wift all the other constituents in tailings disposal Cell 3. Nor does it elucidate
the irnpact of the processing fluids on the lead and thorium components of the Molycorp
material. Mixing unknown constituents with uncharacterized existing taihngs and processing
fluidscould create additional radiological and chemical hazards previously unexamined in any
environmental reporq EA, or the 1979 ES.
II. TIIE NRC STAFF IMPROPERLY ISSUED AN E}N/IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
INSTEAD OF A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REGARDING TIIE LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST (April 15 Second Supplement)
A. General
The NRC staffhas never set forth the reasons substantiating their decision to prepare an
EA rather than an EIS on the application.
B. Significant new circumstances require preparation of an SEIS
Significant new circumstances accompany IUSA's amendment request to receive and
process the Molycorp material. These significant new circumstances have never been addressed
within the context of anNRC Statrstrpplemental Environmental Impact Statement ("SEIS,).
Criteria in l0 C.F.R $ 51.20 and 40 C.F.R. 1502.9(c)(ii) require that if there are
significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns related to the
issuance of a license to possess and use source material for uranium milling, the agency shall
prepare supplements to either the draft or final environmental impact statements.
\\e 1979 ES only contemplated the environmental effects of the White Mesa mill
receiving and processing uraniuur or uranium/vanadium nores" from the Colorado Plateau
region. New circumstances are associated with the White Mesa mill receiving, stockpiling, and
processing feed materials that are not ores and that are not from the Colorado Plateau (e.g., the
Molycorp lead sludge), and disposing ofthose non-ore materials afterprocessing.
The 1979 ES did not address the environmental effects from the processing of feed
material containing sounce material thorium and the disposal of source rnaterial thorium in the
tailings impoundments without the recovery of any sounce material thorium-232 andprogeny.
)
Most of the information related to groundwater conditions at the White Mesa mill site
was generated after the publication of the 1979 ES. This inforrnation includes seven reports and
studies about groundwater conditions that were generated between 1991 and 1999. The
information also includes the results of groundwater sampling at the mill for over 20 years.
Processing and disposal alternatives for alternate feed stoc-k have never been considered
in any environmental assessment of the White Mesa mill.
The number of endangered species in the area of the White Mesa mill has more than
doubled since the 1979 ES was prepared. There has been no review of the impact of the various
proposed or allowed "alternate feed materials," or non-ore "ores," on any of these endangered
species.
C. Processing of "alternate feed material" or non-ore "ore" is a whole new regulatory
orosram that requires an Environmental Impact Statement
IUSA's website states that they have "successfuly reclassified mixed wastes to
recyclable alternative feed materialu and that "since l994,IUC's mitl has received numerous
license amendments to accept specific uranium-bearing materials, wtrich would otherwise
require disposal as waste . . . ."
This waste-receiving progftrm, including the receip of lead sludge from Molycorp, is not
the same progrcm that was evaluated in the 1979 ES. The NRC has never evaluated the
environmental impacts of this new category of waste processing in either in a generic EIS or a
site-specific supplemental EIS forthe White Mesa mill. Such an oversight violates the
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act as implemented by l0 C.F.R. Part 5l and
40 C.F.R. $$ 1500 to 1508.
The NRC staffitself has concluded that an adequate environmental analysis has not been
completed to address the receipt temporary storage, and processing of multiple "alternate feed
materials" ornon-ore "ore." OnNovembr27,200l,NRC staffwrotetoIUSA: *Staffhas
concluded that an adequate environmental analysis, in confornance with l0 CFR Part 51, has not
been completed to address the receipt temporary storage, and processing of multiple altemate
feed materials."
Since 1987 the NRC staffhas granted approximately l8 license amendments allowing
various kinds of altenrate feed materials to arrive at the White Mesa mill.
The NRC did not conduct an environmental review of any amendment requests prior to
IUSA's amendment request to receive the Molycorp material; instead, the prior arnendment
requests all received categorical exclusions under l0 C.F.R. 51.22(c)(11).
The NRC has never evaluated the cumulative effects of the receipt, storage, processing
and disposal of these various alternate feed stocks, as is required underlO C.F.R. $ 5l and 40
c.F.R. 1508.4.
6
D. The NRC is relying on guidance. rather than NRC regulations and the Atomic Energy
Act. to regulate the processing of "altemate feed materials." or non-ore nore"
The NRC staffreviewed IUSA's application using "Interirn Guidance on the Use of
Uranium Mill Feed Material Other ThanNatural Ores", which was mailed to rnanium recovery
licensees on November 30, 2000.
Prior to the use of the Interim Guidance, the NRC Staffrelied upon the 1995 "Final
Position and Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Materials Other Than Natural Ores."
The Interim Guidance amended the 1995 Final Guidance in several important respects.
For example, it removed previous prohibitions regarding the receipt and processing of materials
subject to regulation under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Yet the public has never had an opportunity to
comment on the Interim Guidance.
The proposed "Position and Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Materials Other
Than Natural Ot€s" was published in the Federal Register for public comment on May 73,lgg2
A notice of the Final Position and Guidance was published in the Federal Register on September
22,1995.
The NRC never published the Interim Guidance in the Federal Register as a proposed
policy guidance for public comment, nor did the NRC publish a notice in the Federat Register
announcing Interim Guidance as a final policy guidance.
Since neither the Interim Guidance nor the accompanying defrnition of "ol€" has been
finalized as an NRC regulatiorq the NRC Staffs use of the Interim Guidance is without any
regulatory foundation.
The law is well settled that an agency such as the NRC cannot rely upon policy
statements and guidance to accomplish rulemaking under the Adminishative Procedure Act. The
NRC Staffs' reliance upon guidance in determining not to conduct a supplemental EIS on
IUSA's Amendment Request for the Molycorp material is contrary to law. The kind of material
that will be qualified, the radiological and nonradiological content of the material, the physical
sta:te of the material (iquid or sludge as opposed to uraniurn ore), and the tendency of the
material to have classified RCRA hazardous waste in it, are substantial enough changes to trigger
the need for a supplemental EIS underNEPA.
E. NRC guidance's definition of 'ore' contemplates a retroactive. vague. inalpropriately
applied- unexplainable. and untested thesis .. i.e.. that anything from which uranium is recovered
is "ore"
According to the Interim Guidance, once a material that would not nonnally be
considered "ote" is processed for its source material content (or, apparently, for only some of its
sounce material content) in a uranium or thorium mill, it then can rehoactively become nore.*
7
However, it would be difficult to identifr an actual point in time and space when any
non-ore "ore" that is processed at the White Mesa mill could actuatly meet the Interim
Guidance's definition of "ore." For example, before it is processed, the Molycorp material is not
"ore" because it is source material has not yet been extracted at a licensed uranium or thoritrm
mil[; after it has been processed, the Molycorp material will not be uoreu because it will have
been processed and the wastes from the processing are considered tailings, or byproduct
material.
The NRC staffis inappropriately using guidance to redefine the drummed Motycorp
material as "ore" when it is licensed as source materiat by the State of California.
F. The Molycorp lead sludge is not "ore": therefore the waste produced from the
processing of that material is not l1e.(2) byproduct material
The Atomic Energy Act of l954,as amended by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation
Control Act of 1978, defines l le.(2), byproduct material as "the tailings or wastes produced by
the extraction or concentration of uranium or thorium from any ore processed prinr-arily for its
source material content." [Emphasis added.]
IUSA and the NRC erred in using an unreasonable, unsupported, ambiguous, and thus,
unworkable definition of the word "ore,u for the sole purpose of allowing the wastes produced
from the processing of the Molycorp material to be disposed of in IUSA's tailings impoundment
as 1le.(2) byproduct material.
III. E)(PERTS SHOW TIIAT WHITE MESA MILL'S TAILINGS PONDS PROBABLY
ALREADY LEAK THREATENING ENDANGERED SPECIES AND GROUNDWATER IN
THE VICINITY (April 15 Third Supplement)
A.
constructed
There is probable cause to believe that tailings water from tailings cells at the White
Mesa mill will discharge to the perched water zone during the operational life of the cells.
A thorough study should be initiated immediately into the exffeme probability that the
tailings cells are already leaking, but such leaks have not been detected due to the inadequate
leak detection system on site.
IUSA's tailings cells were improperly constructed. The PVC liners are only 30 mils
thick (they should be at least 60 mils thicD. The liners should have been underlain with clay and
overlain with clean sand; instead they were underlain and overlain with crushed rock that can
puncture the liners.
PVC becomes less flexible and less stong with age.
8
PVC is susceptible t9 acid degradation, which makes it brittle and prone to lose strength
The tailing cells are extremely acidic, with a pH of 1.8-2.0.
PVC liners ^decompose from exposure to hydrocarbons. Historically, significant amountsof kerosene/diesel fuel and small quantities of chlorinated solvent have been discharged to the
White Mesa tailings cells.
The leak detection "system" for each tailings cell is merely a perforated pipe at the foot
of the dike for that cell. If there were a clay layer under the PVC liner, it might tansport any
leak to the detection prpe. Without a clay layer, any leak will travel down through thl crushedrock and never report to the detection pipe.
B. The extremely acidic solution in IUSA's tailings cells will create preferential
compounds with it
IUSA has concluded that, even if the tailings cells should leak, dissolved metals in thetailings solution will not move through the d.y zone above the perched aquifer and therefore willnot contaminate the aquifer. This conclusion does not take into account the exhemely acidic
nature ofthe tailings solution in the cells.
The low pH- of any tailings liquids leaking from the cells would deshoy surfaces on soilparticles that would normally attenuate lead; thus, the lead would stay mobile and move with theliquid plume.
Furthermore, acid degradation of the underlying strata could lead to changes in the
strata's porosity, resulting in preferential flow pathways toward the underlying groundwater.
In August 1999 the State of Utah issued a Groundwater Corrective Action Order to IUSA
regarding chlorofomr contamination found in the perched aquifer under the White Mesa mill.
Since chloroforrt reached the perched aquifer from the mill within twenty yeami, acidic tailings
solution loaded with toxic lead compounds leaking from Cell 3 could reach the aquifer in the-
same short time frame.
C. Toxic lead compounds in the tailings ponds will contaminate waterfowl
Milling and acidification of the Molycorp material will convert a substantial amount of
the lead sulfides into stable lead oxides and other forms of lead that pose a significantly greater
health risk than the lead sulfides in the original tailings.
If the Molycorp materials are processed at the White Mesa Mill, the open tailings pondswill be an immediate source of lead poisoning to both resident and migrating waterfowi. -
waterfowl seek to rest on large bodies of water such as these tailings ponds.
9
The 1979 Final Environmental Statement (ES) on the White Mesa Mill lists the following
species of waterfowl as observed in the vicinity ofthe mill: mallard, pintail, American coot,
spotted sandpiper.
IUSA refused to install netting over the tailings ponds and installed CO2 cannons and
raptor silhouettes instead. Offrcial inspectors from the State of Utatr and the Ute Mountain Ute
Tribe did not hear the CO2 cannons during visits. A raptor specialist at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service says these mitigation practices do not work anyway, as waterfowl become
accustomed to them.
If tailings containing lead oxide from the Molycorp materials are placed in the White
Mesa mill tailings ponds, resting waterfowl will become contaminated with lead oxide in their
feathers. Waterfowl may also drink and ingest tailings pond water.
Ingestion of lead by waterfowl has long been recognized as an important source of
mortality of waterfowl. Waterfowl death and illness can occur at blood concentrations of > 0.5
or ppm (mdKg) of lead. The Molycorp material contains from 1,553 mg[{g 1o262,410 mg/Kg
of lead oxide.
Raptors and scavengers would be poisoned by eating any waterfowl whose feathers
became contaminated by landing on a tailings pond containing the Molycorp materials. The
1979 ES lists the following species of raptors in the area: red-tailed hawk, golden eagle, marsh
hawk, merlin, American keshel, common nighthawk. It lists the following species of scavengers
in the area: turkey vulture, magpie, raven, crow.
D. Perched groundwater contaminated with lead will surface in springs and seeps. where
it will thleaten the health of hurnans. endangered species. and other wildlife
The perched aquifer surfaces in springs only 2.5 miles from White Mesa mill.
Contamination of these rare springs would be a disaster for all wildlife in the area. Additionally,
people who consume waterfowl, deer, and other game animals or birds in the area of the White
Mesa mill would be poisoned as the lead worked its way up the food chain.
The threatened Bald Eagte and American Peregrine Falcon prey on waterfowl. Either
could get lead poisoning from ingesting waterfowl that were contaminated with lead oxide from
the Molycorp material. Leadpoisoning resulting from lead shot ingestion has long been
recognized as an important source of secondary poisoning of species such as the Bald Eagle.
An endangered California Condor flying in the vicinity of the mill would be atkacted to
eat any lead oxide-contaminated waterfowl that had landed on a tailings pond, managed to
escape, then died. Condors were recently trapped back into captivity because they were dying
from eating lead shotgun pellets in a cattle carcass.
E. IUSA has misrepresented the permeabilitv of the vadose zones under the White Mesa
mill
l0
The Navajo Aquifer is the sole source of drinking water for the White Mesa Ute
Reservation, the city of Bluffand others. IUSA relies upon 1,000 vertical feet of unsaturated
formations to protect the Navajo Aquifer from any contamination that might escape from the
mill.
IUSA's March 30,1999, White Mesa Mill Drinking Water Source Protection Plan states,
"The Entrada/I'{avajo Aquifer is separated from the perched groundwater zorlre by more than
1,100 feet of unsaturated, low permeability formations."
This statement is incorrect. A stratigraphic column in the February 1997 Environmental
Assessment for Renewal of Source Material License SUA-1358 indicates that only 415 feet of
the formations between the perched aquifer and the Navajo Aquifer are low-permeability shale.
645 feet of the formations are high-permeability sandstone.
Therefore, the drinking water is not as safe as IUSA represents.
F. Conclusion
IUSA has not evaluated the integrity of the cell liners using current state of the art
standards for engineering, installation, quality assurance and subsequent monitoring and
protection standards.
IUSA, after two-and-a-half years, has not met the State of Utah's requirements for their
Groundwater Discharge Permit.
IUSA, after two-and-a-half years, has not completely addressed the State of Utah's
Groundwater Corrective Action Order regarding the chloroform plume.
IUSA has not evaluated the movement of pollution into the groundwater in light of the
low pH of the tailing ponds.
For all the reasons stated above, Amendment 20 to License SUA 1358 must be suspended
or revoked until the NRC has complete and accurate data as required in l0 CFR 40.9, until an
SEIS is prepared per l0 C.F.R. $ 51 and 40 C.F.R. $$ 1500 to 1508, and until the NRC has
complete confidence that the health and safety of the general public are protected per l0 CFR
40.41.
9
The 1979 Final Environmental Statement (ES) on the White Mesa Mill lists the following
species of waterfowl as observed in the vicinity of the mill: rnallard, pintail, American coot,
spotted sandpiPer.
IUSA refused to install netting over the tailings ponds and installed CO2 cannons and
raptor silhouettes instead. Offrcial inspectors from the State of Utah and the Ute Mountain Ute
friUe did not hear the CO2 cannons during visits. A raptor specialist at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service says these mitigation practices do not work anyway, as waterfowl become
accustomed to them.
If tailings containing lead oxide from the Molycorp materials are placed in the White
Mesa mill tailings ponds, rJsting waterfowl will become contaminated with lead oxide in their
feathers. Waterfowl may also drink and ingest tailings pond water.
Ingestion of lead by waterfowl has long been recognized as an important sowce of
mortalityif waterfowl. Waterfowl death and illness can occur at blood concentrations of > 0.5
;;fu (-e/Kg) of lead. The Molycorp material contains from 1,553 mgAQ to262,410 mg/Kg
of lead oxide.
Raptors and scavengers wotrld be poisonedby eating any waterfowl whose feathers
becarne contaminated by ta;aing on a tailings pond containing the Molycorp materials. The
lgTg ES lists the following ,p..i.r of raptors in the area: red-tailed hawk, golden eagle, marsh
hawk, merlin, American kisrel, com-on nighthawk. It lists the following species of scavengers
in the area: turkey vulture, magpie, raverl' crow.
The perched aquifer surfaces in springs only 2.5 miles from White Mesa mill.
Contamination of these rare springs *orrid be a disaster for all wildtife in the area. Additionally,
people who consume waterfowl, d-".r, and other game animals or birds in the area of the White
iuf"ru mill would be poisoned as the lead worked its way up the food chain'
The threatened Bald Eagle and American Peregrine Falcon prey on waterfowl. Either
could get lead poisoning from iigesting waterfowl that were contaminated with lead oxide from
tlre Molycorp material. Lead poisoning resulting from lead shot ingestion has long been
r".rg"ir.A as an important sonrce of sicondary poisoning of species such as the Bald Eagle.
An endangered California Condor flying in the vicinity of th9 mill would be attracted to
eat any lead oxide-contaminated waterfowl that had landed on a tailings pond, managed to
.r"up., then died. Condors were recently trapped back into captivity because they were dying
from eating lead shotgun pellets in a cattle carcass.
mill
l0
The Navajo Aquifer is the sole source of drinking water for the White Mesa Ute
Reservation, the .ity oint"rrand others. IUSA relies upon 1,000 vertical feet of unsattrated
formations to protect the Navajo Aquifer from any contamination that might escape from the
mill.
IUSA's March 30, lggg, white Mesa Mill Drinking water Source Protection Plan states,
.{'he Entrada/l{avajo Aquifer is separated from the perched groundwater mne by more than
00 M of unssturated,low permeability formations"'
lf lncansct. A atratigraphic column in the February 1997 Environmental
rld,flers0,Mu$ei t,igc.nrc- lut-t 358.indicaty that "rtf tH}::11{il ir$hd aqulfor and the Navajo Aquifer are low-permeability shale.
rrc high-pcrmcability sandstone.
' 'lherrfore, thc drinking water is not as safe as IUSA represents.
F. Conclusion
IUSA has not evaluated the integrity of the cell liners using current state of the art
standards for engineering, installation, quality assurance and subsequent monitoring and
protection standards.
IUSA, after two-and-a-half years, has not met the State of Utah's requirements for their
Croundwater Discharge Permit.
IUSA, afler two-and-a-half years, has not completely addressed the State of Utatr's
Oroundwater Corrective Action Order regarding the chloroform plume.
IUSA har not cvaluatcd the movement of pollution into the groundwater in.light of the
eorldr.
ffi lbovo. Amsldmcnt 20 to l,iccnsc SUA I358 must be suspended
t-*omplotc and 6ccuratc data as required in l0 CFR 40.9, until an
ia tO C.F.R. $ 5l and 40 C.F'.R. $$ 1500 to 1508, and until the NRC has
3ompldi confldencc that the hcalth and safety of the general public are protected per l0 CFR
40.4 r.
I-INITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL
Before Administrative Judges:
Alan S. Rosenthal, Presiding Officer
Dr. Richard Cole, Special Assistant
IN TIIE MATTER OF:
INTERNATIONAL URAMUM (USA)
CORPORATION
(Source Material License Amendment,
License No. SUA-1358)
)
)) DocketNo.40-8681-MLA-I1
)) ASLBP NO. O2:795-A-MLA
)) April I ,20[t2
)
PETITIONER SIERRA CLUB'S t0 C.F.R. 92.1233 WRITTEN
PRESENTATION REQUESTING SUSPENSION, MODIFICATION, OR
REVOCATION OF AMENDMENT 20 TO LICENSE SUA-I358
This timely written presentation is authorized by a February 21,20fl, ruling from
the bench during a telephone conference (see Official Transcript of hoceeding, page 6,
February 2l,2OOl) and the Presiding Officer's February 25,2002, Memorandum and
Order (Memorializing Determination Announced During Telephone Conference), page 3.
Additional supplements to this written presentation are authorized by the Presiding
Officer's March 27,2002, Memorandum and Order (Granting Motion for lrave to
S upplement Written hesentation).
This authorized filing contemplates new information and will respond to certain
discrepancies contained in International Uranium (USA) Corporation' s
2
("IIJSA's" or "Licensee's') December 19,2000, application and supplernents thereto
("Amendment Request") and the December 11, 20[l, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission ('NRC') stafflicensing action documents. Actual notice of such new
information was ultimately derived from official records contained in the 10 C.F.R.
2.1231Hearing File, which was received by Sierra Club on March 25.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Generally,IUSA's Amendment Request and Subsequent NRC StaffLicensing
Actions Do Not Consider Requirements Found \trithin 10 C.F.R. Part 40. @ages 4
and 5.)
II. IUSA Requested an Amendment to IUSA's License SUA-1358 Permitting the
Receipt of Material at a Licensed Uranium Facility from a Licensed
Thorium/Uranium Facility. 10 C.F.R. S 40.51 Requires that the Molycorp Material
be Transferred to an Appropriately Licensed Facility and that IUSATs License Must
Specifically AIIow the Receipt of Source Material Thorium-232. The White Mesa
Facility is Not an Appropriately Licensed Facility in View of 40.51 in that, as
Presently Constituted, SUA-L358 Does Not Permit IUSA to Receive, Acquire,
Possess (e.g., Dispose of On-Site), or Transfer Source Material lhorium-232 and
Progeny. (Pages 5 through 17.)
Within the issue "II" there is a footnote on page 8 that calls attention to and
substantiates a subsidiary issue.
BACKGROI]ND
On December 19, 2000, and October 17,2(Ju_l, IUSA made an amendment request
to the NRC staff. (Hearing File 14 and 9). IUSA implicitly requested an amendment to
Licensee's Source Material License SUA-1358 to authorize the receipt and disposal of
thorium-232 and progeny and other wastes or byproduct (e.g., uranium-238 progeny)
derived from the extraction and recovery of source material uranium from lead sludges at
IUSA's White Mesa Uranium Mill near Blanding, Utah. The Amendment Request
indicates that such feedstock (inconsistently "alternate feed material") would be
transferred from the Unocal/Molycorp, Inc., Lanthanide Division facility ("Molycorp") in
Mountain Pass, California.
The original December 19 application, as supplemented by the October 17, was
further supplemented in response to various NRC staff requests for additional
information ("RAIs'). (Hearing File 7, 10, l1 ,12,13, and E.) There were, apparently,
various other "informal" licensing interactions between IUSA and NRC staffthat resulted
in such supplements. It is not always clear from the public record (the docket) as to the
precise nature of such interactions.
As a result of such interaction, on December 1 l, 2001, NRC staff issued License
Amendment 20 granting the subject license amendment. (Hearing File 4.) The subject
license amendment (License Condition 10.17) reads:
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
in the amendment request dated December 19,2000, and supplemental
information in letters dated January 29,2OO1, February z,}ml,March 20,
2OO1, August 15,2001, October 17,2001, and November 16,2001.
On December 1 I the NRC staff also published in the Federal Register a notice of
an opportunity for hearing about the December 19, 2000, Amendment Request, as
supplemented, which also provided an opportunity for public comment on that
application (66 Fed. Reg. 64081-ffi). (Hearing File 3.). The December I I Federal
Register Notice (FRN) was amended on December 18, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg.65232).
(Hearing File 2.) Neither the December l l FRN, nor the December l8 correction gave
4
actual notice that the License Amendment would be or had been granted by the NRC
Staff contemporaneously with the December 1l public notice.
In response to the December I I and l8 FRNs, on January 9,2W\ Sierra Club
timely requested a hearing and submitted various comments on the noticed IUSA
application. A hearing was granted by the hesiding Officer's Memorandum and Order of
January 30,2001. Subsequently, on February 25 and March n,2W2, the hesiding
Officer authorized the present filing.
AMENDMENT REQUEST CHRONOLOGY
December 19, 2000, letter from Michelle R. Rehmann, Environmental Manager,
IUSA, to Philip Ting, Branch Chief, Fuel Cycle and Safety and Safeguards Branch,
Division of Fuel Cycle Licensing, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards,
original application. (Hearing File, l4).
January 5, 200l,letter from Michelle R. Rehmann, to Phillip Ting (Hearing File l4).
January 29,2Wl,letter from Michelle R. Rehmann, to Phillip Ting (Hearing Filel3).
February 2,2OOl, letter from Michelle R. Rehmann, to Phillip Ting (Hearing File 12).
March 20,2;0[1, letter from Michelle R. Rehmann to Phillip Ting (Hearing File 1l).
August 15, 2001, Ietter from Anthony J. Thompson, Counsel for IUSA to Melvyn
lrach, Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch, NRC (Hearing File l0). This supplement is a
legal opinion.
October lT,zffi,letterfrom Michelle R. Rehmann, to Melvyn kach (Hearing File
9). This letter requested that additional material from the Molycorp facility, in the
form of drummed material, be included in the license amendment request.
November 76,2ffi,letter from Michelle R. Rehmann to Melvyn l,each (Hearing File
8). This letter supplemented the October 17 application.
5
I. Generally,IUSA's Amendment Request and Subsequent NRC StaffLicensing
Actions Have Not Considered Certain Applicable Requirements Found Within
10 C.F.R. Part 40.
It is important that there is a proper understanding of the scope of the applicability
of lO C.F.R. Part 4O with respect IUSA's Amendment Request and NRC staff licensing
actions in response thereto.
10 C.F.R. Part 4O (Domestic Licensing of Source Material), at g 4O.l(a)
(Purpose), states, in pertinent part:
(a) The regulations in this part establish procedures and criteria for
the issuance oflicenses to receive title to, receive, possess, use, transfer, or
deliver, source and byproduct materials, as defined in this part, and
establish and provide for the terms and conditions upon which the
Commission will issue such license. . . These regulations also provide
for the disposal of byproduct material and for the long-term care and
custody of [such] byproduct material . . . .
Apparently, cloistered in a far corner of l0 C.F.R. Part 4O, Iies a criteria that
appears neglected. l0 C.F.R. $ 4O.51 brings forward the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's thoughts about the acceptability of a proposed transfer off-site of
licensable quantities of "l lz.(2) source material." The Sierra Club has taken the
precaution to lay out l0 C.F.R. q.sl in the discussion below (page l0 at 4.); however,
the piquancy of the applicability of that rule needs to be briefly discussed first in the
context of the issues presented herein.
6
II. IUSA Requested an Amendment to IUSA's License SUA-135E Permitting the
Receipt of Material at a Licensed Uranium Facility from a Licensed
ThoriumAlranium Facility. 10 C.F.R. S 40.51 Requires that the Molycorp Material
Be Transferred to an Appropriately Licensed Facility and that IUSA 's License
Must Specifically Allow the Receipt of Source Material Thori'm-232. The White
Mesa Facility is Not an Appropriately Licensed Facility in Yiew of $ 40.51 in that as
Presently Constituted, SUA-1358 Does Not Permit IUSA to Receive, Acquire,
Possess (e.g.n Dispose of On-site), or Transfer Source Material Thorium-232 and
Progeny
1. IUSA's Amendment Request requested authorization to receive and process
lead sludges, as feedstock, in a uranium extraction and recovery circuit. Those lead
sludges contain source material uranium (uranium-238 and progeny) and source material
thorium (thorium-232 and,progeny). The material, proposed to be received and
processed, consists of drummed material and ponded material from the Molycorp,
Mountain Pass facility. Both IUSA and Molycorp hold source materials licensees.
2. Molycorp holds Radioactive Materials License No. 3229-36, issued by the
Health and Welfare Agency of the State of California (an NRC Agreement State) on
January 19,1995. The Molycorp drummed material, which contains source material
uranium and source material thorium, is contemplated by License No. 3229-36. See
Radioactive Materials License No. 3229-36 (January 19, 1995) (Hearing File 9,
Attachment 2.) Molycorp's November 4, 1994, "Application for Radioactive Material
License," which was directed to State of California Health and Welfare Agency,
eventuated in Amendment l0 to Molycorp's License No. 3229-36.
Molycorp's November 1994 Application (at questions 3. a., b., and c.) proposed
an amendment to License No. 3299, License Conditions 6,1, and 8. Molycorp
November 4 Application states, in pertinent part:
3. a. Nuclide I b. chemical and/or I c. Possession limit
physical form
U source material I In a soil type 4O,000|bs.
material. Material
contains 50Vo water.
Stored in 55 gal
drums.
Th source material I U is as a sulfide and I 1900lbs.
Th is an oxide.
See Application for Radioactive Material License (November 4,19*l) (Hearing File 8,
Attachment l). (Note that Molycorp's Application is incomplete, in that the Attachments
listed on page 2 of the November 4 Application are not found at the Hearing File.)
Molycorp's State of California Radioactive Material License No. 3229-36,
Amendment 10, issued in response to Molycorp's November 4,1991, application (quoted
above), states at License Conditions 6. 7, and 8:
6. Nuclide 7. Form 8. Possession Limit
D. Uranium, nafural
or depleted
D. Soil mixture D. Not to exceed
40,000 pounds of
Uranium (6m
millicuries).
E. Thorium, natural E. Soil mixture E. Not to exceed 1900
pounds of thorium
(10OmCi).
8
See Radioactive Material License No. 3299-36, Amendment 10, (Hearing File 9,
Attachment l).
The ponded material from Molycorp's three "lead sulfidelead oxide" ponds (pond
areas P-8, P-l l, and P-24) also contain licensable amounts of source material uranium
and source material thorium.
A November 13,l99l,letter from William J. Almas, Molycorp, to Curt Shifrer,
California Regional Quality Control Board, with respect the ponded material, states
regarding "Radionuclides. "
. . . Oxidized material in the pond averages 1351 mg/kg [uranium] while
the unoxidized material averages 1333 mg/kg [uraniuml. . . .
Pond P-24 contains lower uranium and thorium values than the other two
processponds....
The concentration of thorium in the unoxidized lead iron residue in the
ponds averages 457 mgkg. The concentration of source material thorium
from the oxidized lead iron residue averages ll52mglkg, with a high
concentration of 5.954 mg/kg. Bmphasis added.l [Hearing Filel4,
Attachment I, page 5.1
Although the Molycorp ponded material is licensable, to the best of Petitioner's
knowledge, the ponded material is not licensed. See Radioactive Material License No.
3229-36 (Hearing File 9, Attachment l), passim.
3. As stated above,IUSA holds Source Material License SUA-I358, issued by the
NRC. IUSA's requested a license amendment to SUA-1358 to receive, process, and
9
dispose of the drummed and ponded source material uranium and source material thorium
from the Molycorp site. (Hearing File 4,8,9, 10, I l, 12, 13,14, and E).
IUSA's License SUA-1358, Amendment 20, issued on December I l, 2001, in
response to IUSA's Amendment Request states at License Conditions 6, 7, and 8:*
6.7.8.
Natural Uranium I Any Unlimited
* NRC StaffMaterially Amended License Conditions 6, 7, and 8 of SUA-1358 on Ilecember
11r 2001, Without Sufticient Noticc or Bases.
The December I l, 2001, NRC staff issuance of Amendment 20, as quoted above, reveals
that License Conditions 6,7,and 8 were amended on December 11. Until the December I I
issuance, License Conditions 6,7,arrd 8 did not read o6. Natural Uranium,' '7. Any,' "8.
Unlimited." The Decernber I I NRC staff issuan@ amended License Conditions 6, 7, and 8.
Before the December I I issuance of Conditions 6,7,and 8, such Conditions read:
Byproduct, Source,
and/or Special Nuclear
Material
7. Chemical and/or
Physical Form
8, Maximum
Amount that
License May
Possess at Any
OneTime Under
This License
UnlimitedNatural Uranium Any
See Amendment 18 to Materials License SuA-I358-Approval to Reoeive and hocess
Alternate Feed Materials from the Heritage Minerals Site at the White Mesa Uranium Mill
(December 29,2000) (ML0101060252) (Attachment l, hereto.)
By eliminating descriptive s in Conditions 6, 7, and 8, the NRC staff, in fact, altered the
substantive authorizations incorporated by such license conditions.
IUSA's Amendment Request at issue herein did not request, or even mention,
amendments to License Conditions 6,7,and8 of IUSA's License No. SUA-1358. The ensuing
Decembcr I I and 18, 2001, FRNs did not announce an amendment to License Conditims 6,7,
and 8. Neither the December I I issuance of Amendment 20 to SUA-1358, the accompanying
NRC staffevaluation, or the Environmental Assessment discusses amendment to Conditions 6,1,
and 8.
10
4. NRC regulation governing the transfer of source or byproduct material from
one licensee to another, at l0 C.F.R. Part 4O, Section 4O.51, states, in pertinent part:
$ 4O.51 Transfer of source or byproduct material:
(a) No licensee shall transfer source or byproduct material except as
authorized pursuant to this section.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in his license and subject to the
provisions of paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, any licensee may
transfer source or byproduct material:
. . . (5) To any person authorized to receive such source or byproduct
material under terms of a specific license or a general license or their
equivalents issued by the Commission or an Agreement State; . . .
(c) Before transferring source or byproduct material to a specific licensee
of the Commission or an Agreement State or to a general licensee who is
reouired to register with the Commission or with an Agreement State Drior
to receipt of the source or byproduct material. the licensee transferring the
material shall verify that the transferee's license authorizes receipt of
the tvoe. form. and ouantitv of source or bvoroduct material to be
transferred. Bmphasis added.I
5. l0 C.F.R. $ 4O.4 defines source material:
"Source material" means: (l) Uranium or thorium, or any
combination thereof, in any physical or chemical form or (2) ores which
contain by weight one-twentieth or one percent(O.O57o) or more of:
(i) Uranium, (ii) thorium or (iii) any combination thereof. Source material
does not include special nuclear material.
6. License Conditions 6,'7, and 8, of materials licenses (issued pursuant l0 C.F.R.
Part 4O) indicate what radioactive materials the licensee is authorized, given the original
license and any pertinent amendments to the that original license condition, to "receive,
acquire, possess, and transfer." Such activities involve the possession and/or use of
l1
Iicensable materials, delineated in conditions 6,7, and 8, at a facility norrnally described
in condition 9 of the materials license. See applicable portions of the Molycorp (Hearing
File 9, Attachmentl) and IUSA Materials License discussed above. Also, see preamble,
at top of page I of 10, of License SUA-I358 (December I l, 2001) (Hearing File 4).
conditions 6,7, and 8 of SUA-1358 indicate the type, form, and quantity of
byproduct, source, and special nuclear material the licensee is permitted to receive,
acquire, possess (e.g., dispose of on-site), and transfer. These conditions appear in both
Molycorp's Agreement State license and IUSA's NRC license.
7. Source material thorium (thorium-232 and progeny) should not be confused
with source material uranium (uranium-238 and progeny). Differences in those elements
and their progeny are presented in the table below. Note that, although the parental
isotope of the thorium-232 decay chain is a longer lived ("cooler") alpha emitter than the
parental isotope of the uranium-238 series, some of the progeny from source material
thorium are especially short lived ("hot"). It should also be noted that uranium-238
progeny (thorium-234 and thorium-230) are quite unrelated to thorium-232 andits hot,
prolific (1.9-year) progeny, thorium-228 (radiothorium). There are obvious health and
safety pathway implications exhibited by such progeny (e.g. thoron vs. radon progeny),
and such implications are different. There are obvious disequilibrium differences.
Interestingly, there are solubility differences. There is a difference. "LJranium -238 and
progeny' is not a synonym for "thorium-Z32 and progeny,n where contained in
'alternative feed material" or "Uranium Material."
Uranium -238 and Progeny (Series)
Isotopic Symbol Conventional Name Half-period Type of decay
u-238 Uranium I 4.5 x 10e y a
Th-234 Uranium X,24d B.
Pam-234 (ol)Uranium X,l.2m B.rt
Pa-234 Uranium Z 6.7 h B.
u-234 Uranium II 2.5xldv a
Th-230 Ionium 8xlffv a
Ra-226 Radium 1600 v a
Rn-222 Radon 3.8 d a
Po-218 Radium A 3.0 m a
Pb-214 Radium B 27m B.
Bi-214 Radium C 2Om a B.
Po-214 Radium C'1.6x l0as a
Tl-2r0 Radium C"1.3 m B.
Pb-210 Radium D 22v B-
Bi-2lo Radium E 5.0 d B.
Po-210 Radium F r38 d a
Po-210 Polonium 138 d a
Pb-z06,Radium G Stable
Thorium-23z and Progeny (Series)
Th-232 Thorium 1.4 x l0'" y a
Ra-228 Mesothorium I 5.8 v B-
Ac-228 Mesothorium II 6.1 h B-
Th-228 Radiothorium 1.9 v a
Rla-224 Thorium X 3.7 d a
Ra-22O Thoron 56s a
Po-216 Thorium A .15 s a
Pb-212 Thorium B 10.6 h B-
Bi-212 Thorium C r.0 h a B.
Po-212 Thorium C'3 x 10's a
Tr-208 Thorium C"3.1 m B.
Pb-208 Thorium D Stable
l3
License Conditions 6,7 ,8 are "threshold" license conditions. They indicate what
NRC "byproduct, source, or special nuclear material" may be received over the threshold,
possessed and processed (i.e., "used"), and subsequently delivered back over the
threshold. See preamble to License No. SUA-1358, page 1 of 10 (Hearing File 4).
8. The issuance of License Amendment20, adding License Condition 10.17 of
IUSA License SUA-1358 (Hearing File 4, page7 of 10) does not meet the requirements
of l0 C.F.R. $ 40.51 because it does not establish that IUSA has been found by license
amendment (supported by and NRC staff safety assessment and/or an environmental
assessment) to be capable of controlling, (e.9., keep on site, account for) thorium-232 and
progeny at their White Mesa Uranium Mill.
Although IUSA's license allows the receipt, acquisition, possession, or transfer of
the type, form, or quantity (amount source, and kind) of source material uranium and
progeny, as it stands, it does not allow such activities with respect source material
thorium-232 and progeny that are proposed to be transferred from the Molycorp site to
the White Mesa facility.
Put another way,IUSA's License Conditions 6,7,8 and 9.1 indicate that IUSA's
White Mesa Mill is a uranium mill-authorized to receive, acquire, possess, and transfer
only "Natural Uranium." (License Conditions 6,7, and 8, do not permit ruSA to receive,
acquire, possess, and transfer source material "Natural Thorium" in any chemical and/or
physical form, or in any amount.
9. It is perhaps of interest to note that if, for one reason or another, ruSA needed
to return the Molycorp material (which contains thorium-232 and progeny) to its source,
t4
notwithstanding the NRC staffs granting of the Amendment 20, l0 C.F.R. $ 40.51 would
not permit such an activity. License Conditions 6,7, and 8 to SUA-1358, as they read at
present, do not even properly authorize IUSA to transfer or use in any manner licensable
quantities of source material thorium-232. (Hearing File 4.)
10. License Condition 10.17 (quoted above) reads, in pertinent part:
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
in [the Amendment Request]. [d.l lEmphasis added.l
The text of License Condition l0.l7 , does not indicate that the issuance of that
Condition contemplated the environmental and health and safety considerations implicit
in a proposal to receive, alter, and dispose of an "alternate feed material" containing
thorium-232. It should be noted that, plainly, the words "dispose," "thorium," "any
source material," or "ore" are not found in License Condition 10.17 of IUSA's License
SUA-1358. The words "source material" are somewhat vague. (Does it mean 'ore" or
not?) See letter from Anthony J. Thompson, Counsel for IUSA, to Melvyn I-each, NRC,
(August 15,2001) (Hearing File 10.)
SUA-1358, even as amended, does not have the force and effect of permitting
ruSA to throw away source material thorium (i.e., dispose of source material thorium-
232 and progeny in Cell 3 in the impoundment at IUSA's White Mesa facility after ersatz
processing, 0.8., the application does not reveal the precise nature of the alteration of the
thorium minerals species contained in the Molycorp sludge). (Hearing File 14.)
I L License Conditions 6,7 ,8 were based upon review by the NRC staff of the
original February 1y18, application (including any licensee environmental reports) for a
l5
specific source material license for the White Mesa Mill. (See l-page letter forwarding
application for source material license covering Energy Fuels proposed White Mesa
Uranium Mill and existing sampling plants near Blanding and Hanksville, Utah (w/o
enclosure) (February 8, 1978) (9411090379).
To the best of Petitioner's knowledge, which is based on a review of NRC records
either in the Hearing File or otherwise reasonably accessible, IUSA has never sought or
received an amendment to the basic license conditions contained in License Conditions 6,
'1, and 8 to allow for the receipt, processing, and disposal of source material thorium-232.
A January 30, 1978 Environmental Report ('ER') was submitted in support of
that 1978 application. See Environmental Report, White Mesa Uranium Projec! San
Juan County, Utah, for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. (January 30, 1978) (Hearing File 20).
The January 30,1978, forwarding letter to the ER states:
The scope of work performed and this report are in accordance
with NRC Regulatory Guide 3.8 (April ln3) keparation of
Environmental Reports for Uranium Mills. [Hearing File 2O at 4.'l
The ER states at 1.0 (Proposed Activities):
Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. proposes to construct and operate an
acid leach uranium mill and associated facilities for producing yellow-
cake uranium concentrate linter alia,ammonium diuranate'1, and when
economically feasible,limited quantities of copper and/or vanadium
concentrates. Ore for the mill feed will be provided by two existing
uranium ore buying stations that Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. operates.
fHearing File2O at4.l
The NRC staff 1979 Environmental Statement for the White Mesa Uranium Mill
responsive to the February 1978 application did not address in any manner a request to
l6
receive, acquire, possess, or transfer or dispose of source material thorium-232. &
Final Environmental Statement: related to operation of White Mesa Uranium Project,
Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., NUREG-0556, U. S. NRC, Office of Nuclear Materials
Safety and Safeguards (May ly79) (Hearing File 19). The lg79 ES states:
The proposed action involves the construction and operation of a
mill to produce yellow cake from local uranium ore bodies.
And:
This Environmental Statement contains an assessment of the
environmental impacts associated with the proposed licensing action and
their severity. [Hearing File 19 at 14.]
To the best of Petitioner's knowledge, there have been no supplements to that
original NRC staff 1979 Environmental Statement that discussed the changes to License
Conditions 6,7, and 8 of SUA-I358 which contemplated the receipt, acquisition,
possession, and transfer of 'Thorium, natural."
12. As shown above, in order to establish 10 C.F.R. $ 40.51 compliance, it is not
sufficient for IUSA's License Condition 10.17 of SUA-I358 as amended on December
ll,zffi, to permit the receipt of the "source material" from Molycorp. What is required
is that, in addition, License Conditions 6,'7, and 8 be amended to authorize IUSA to
receive, acquire, possess, much less dispose of or transfer, source material thorium-232.
License SUA-I358 does not meet that requirement.
The transfer of the drummed source material and the ponded source material that
contains source material thorium from the Molycorp facility is not authorized by either
Molycorp's Agreement State License 3229-36 or IUSA's NRC License SUA-1358. See
t7
License SUA-1358. Scg Radioactive Material License No. 3299-36, Amendment 10,
(Hearing File 9, Attachment l), and Materials License No. SUA-1358 (December 11,
2001) (Hearing File 4).
13. IUSA's Amendment Request did not include a request for an exemption to the
requirements of l0 C.F.R. $ 4O.51, pursuant l0 C.F.R. gg zl0.l4(a) and 4O.6. Exemptions
are normally granted pursuant to l0 C.F.R. $$ 40.14(a) and 4O.6.
There should have been, but there was not, an explicit request, in an appropriate
manner, that specific exemptions, pursuant 10 C.F.R. $$ 4O.t+1a) and 4O.6, be
specifically authorized by the Commission. 10 C.F.R. $ ao.la(a) (Specific exemptions)
states:
(a) The commission may, upon application of any interested person or
upon its own initiative, grant such exemptions from the requirements of
the regulation in this part as it determines are authorized by law and will
not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and are
otherwise in the public interest.
Specific exemptions allowed by l0 C.F.R. g zO.la(a) must be based upon a
written interpretation (i.e., the interpretation that the exemption or waiver is authorized
by law, et cetera) applicable to the regulation sought to be, in essence, waived.
Thus, l0 C.F.R. $ 40.6 (Interpretations) states:
Except as specifically authorized by the Commission in writing, no
interpretation of the meaning of the regulations in this part by any officer
or employee of the Commission other than written interpretation by the
General Counsel will be recognized to be binding upon the Commission.
18
NRC staff December 11, 2IJu_l, issuance of Amendment 20 did not discuss the
granting of such relief. 10 C.F.R. $ 40.51 requires that certain conditions be met in order
to transfer source material thorium from one licensee to another. As has been laid out
above, the conditions in l0 C.F.R. $ 40.51 have not been met. As a resulg the NRC staff
has inappropriately granted a l0 C.F.R. $ a0.14(a) waiver of the requirements of
l0 c.F.R. $ 40.51.
14. l0 C.F.R. $ 40.51 requires that the Molycorp material be transferred to an
appropriately licensed facility. l0 C.F.R. $ 40.51 requires that IUSA's license must
specifically allow the receipt of source material thorium. IUSA's license was not
appropriately amended on December I l, 2001, to meet the requirements of
l0 C.F.R. $ zl0.5l.
For the reasons stated above, Petitioner respectfully requests that License
Amendment 20, as issued, be modified, suspended, stayed, or revoked.
III. Petitioner Sierra Club incorporates by reference Petitioner William E. I-ove's April I,
?f;02,filing in the present proceeding in this April l, 2W2, filing.
Respectfully submitted,
Utah Chapter, Sierra Club
P.O. Box 622
Moab, Utth 8y';532
435-259-1063
[, John Weisheit, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at Moab, Utah
This 1" day of April 2002
Weisheit, Chair,
Glen Canyon Group,
ATTACHMENT I
to
PETITIONER SIERRA CLUB'S l0 C.F.R. $ 2.1233 WRITTEN
PRESENTATION REQUESTING SUSPENSION, MODIFICATION, OR
REVOCATION OF AMENDMENT 20 TO LICENSE SUA-I358
April l,2002
Docket No. 4G8681-MI-AI 1
ASLBP NO. O2-795-O2-MLA
Fz.t/1qifi rrr fi ifi -if/.w-rrrir,-'ft
:: U "" I :*,mU.S. NUCLEAR FEGULATOBY COMMISSION
I\I A'I'I'RIA LS LICENSE
material designarcd 6cl,w: l6 usc such nralerial l'or the purpose(s) and al the place(s) designated bclow: lo tlclir'cl ()I trilnsl'er such material trr
persons auth.rizetl r. rcccivc ir in uccordance with the regulations of the applicable Part(s). This license shall hc rlectttctl lo contain the conditiorrs
specified in Scclron lt{l ol rhe Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and is subject to all applicablc rtrlcs. rcpulutions. and orders ol'thc
Nuclear Regulutgry Comnrission now or hereafter in effect and to any conditions specified below.
tnternationd u?a?ffifm (usA) corporation
[Applicable Amendments: 2]
6425 S. HighwaY 191
P.O. Box 809
Blanding, Utah 84511
[Applicable Amendments: 2]
6. Bvoroduct. Source, and,/or
Sflicial Nuclear Material
Natural Uranium
SECTION 9:Administratlve 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 NRC required under this license, with the exception of
incident and event notilications under 1O CFR 2O.22O2 and 10 CFR 40.60 requiring
i"f"onon" notification, shall be addressed to the Chiel, Uraniurn Recovery and Low-Level
ii;;5i;d;rn, Oiririon of Waste Management, Otfice ol Nuclear Materia! Salety and
Safeguards.
lncident and event notifications that require telephone notification shall be made to the NRC
Operations Center at [phone].
The licensee shal! conduct operations in accordance with statements, representations, and
"onditionr
contained in the libense renewal application submitted !Y letter dated Augylt.23'
iggi, "Ji"rised by submittals dated.tanuaryi-tS, 1lqApril7, 1992, November 22'1994'
irf, ii-f ggS, DecLmber 13, and DecembeiSl , 1996, ind January 30, 1997, which are
neieOy'incorporated by referengg, ald for the Standby Trust Agreement, dated April 29'
iggi, "r""pi where superseded by license conditions below.
Whenever the word'will' is used in the above referenced documents, it shall denote a
requirement.
[ApplicabL Amendment: 2]
A. The licensee may, without prior NRC approval, and subject to the conditions specilied
in Part B of this condition:
7. Chemical and/or Physical
Form
Any
3. License Number SUA-I358, Amendment No. 18
4. Expiration Date March 31,2OO7
5. Docket or
Reference No.40-8681
8. Maximum Amount that Licensee
May Possess at Any One Time
Under This License
Unlimited
9.1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
INTERNATIONAL URAMUM (USA) ) Docket No. 4O-8681-MLA-I I
CoRPORATTON )) ASLBP NO. O2:795-W-MLA
(Source Material License Amendment, )
License No. SUA-1358) ) April1,2002
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing PE-IITIONER SIERRA CLUB'S
l0 c.F.R. g 2.1233 WRITTEN PRESENTATION FOR SUSPENSION AND OR
REVOCATION OF AMENDMENT 20 TO LICENSE SUA-1358 have been served on
the following persons by first class U.S. mail or by hand this l st day of April 2002,
pursuant tolO C.F.R.2.112 and2.l2o3. Additional service via electronic mail is
indicated by asterisk.
Secretary*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications
Staff
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D. C. 20555-0001
Emai I : hearin gdocket@nrc. gov
Administrative Judge *
Alan S. Rosenthal
Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board Panel
Mail Stop T-3 F23
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D. C. 20555-0001
Email: [e-mail]
William E. Love *
2871E,. Bench Road
Moab, utah 84532
Email: [e-mail]
Michelle R. Rehmann *
Independence Plaza, Suite 950
1050 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 8U265
Email : iuc@intlurani um.com
Administrative Judge *
Dr. Richard F. Cole
Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board Panel
Mail Stop T-3 F23
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D. C. 20555-0001
Email: [e-mail]
Office of the General Counsel *
Attn: Dennis C. Dambly, Esq.
Mail Stop O-15 D2l
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D. C. 20555-0001
Email: [e-mail]
Office of Commission Appellate
Adjudication
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D. C. 20555-0001
Anthony J. Thompson, Esq. *
Anthony J. Thompson, P. C.
Washington, D. C. 20036
Email : [e-mail]
International Uranium (USA) Corporation 122519th Street, N. W., Suite 200
Certificate of Service
April1,200f2
Tom Rice, Environmental Director*
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
P.O. Box 448
Towaoc, Colorado 81334
Email: [e-mail]
Lisa Clark*
Email: [e-mail]
Susan Chidakel*
Email: [e-mail]
Sharon Perini*
E-mail: [e-mail]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL
Before Admini strati ve Judges :
Alan S. Rosenthal, Presiding Officer
Dr. Richard Cole, Special Assistant
IN TTIE MATTER OF:
INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) ) Docket No. 4O-8681-MLA-1 I
)
)
CORPORATION
(Source Material License Amendment,
License No. SUA-1358)
)) ASLBP NO. O2-795-O2-MLA
)
) April lO,2O02
)
SUPPLEMENT TO PETITIONER SIERRA CLUB'S 10 C.F.R. g 2.1233 WRITTEN
PRESENTATION REQUESTING SUSPENSION, MODIFICATION, OR
REVOCATION OF AMENDMENT 20 TO LICENSE SUA-I358
hesiding Officer has received Petitioner Sierra Club's l0 C.F.R. g 2.1233 Written
Presentation, dated April I ,2W2, which was authorized by Presiding Officer's February
25,2002, Memorandum and Order (Memorializing Determinations Announced During
Telephone Conference). Sierra Club's April I requested suspension, modification, or
revocation of Amendment 20 to IUSA's License SUA-I358. This timely supplementary
written presentation, as autlorized by the Presiding Officer's March 27, 2W2,
Memorandum and Order (Granting Motion for l-eave to Supplement W'ritten
Presentation), would supplement the April l. -a
This authorized filing contemplates new information and will address the failure
of International Uranium (USA) Corporation's ("IUSA'S" or "Licensee's")
o
Presentation (AprilSupplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's l0 C.F.R. S 2.1233 Written
Docket 4G868 I -ML-A- I I, ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
10,2002)
December 19,2000, application and supplements thereto ("Amendment Request") to
provide complete and accurate information and clear and specific references to the U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC"). Sufficient (and/or actual) notice of such new
information has been ultimately derived from official records contained in the l0 C.F.R.
g 2.1231Hearing File, which was received by Sierra Club on March 25,20[t2.
Sierra Club will show below that the Amendment Request does not provide
complete and accurate material information as required by l0 C.F.R. $ ,1O.9(a) and that
such failure has health and safety implications. Sierra Club will also show that IUSA's
Amendment Request does not provide clear and specific references to material
information either alluded to, or otherwise implicitly incorporated by reference-but not
spelled out-in IUSA's proposal as required by l0 C.F.R. $ 4O.31.
Sierra Club will show that IUSA's December 19,2000, application, as
supplemented, is plainly materially defective and should not have been approved.
Therefore, License Amendment 20 to SUA-I358 should be suspended, modified, or
revoked until all material defects in IUSA's Amendment Request are satisfactorily
addressed.
Petitioner will show that IUSA and NRC staff, should have had, but did not have,
a current supplement to the 1979 Environmental Statement (ES) for the White Mesa Mill
to rely upon for basic information and data regarding the White Mesa Uranium Mill. See
Hearing File 19. Therefore, License Amendment 20 should be suspended, modified, or
revoked until such time as a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the White
Uranium Mesa Mill is issued by NRC staff.
o
hesentation (ApriSupplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's I 0 C.F.R. g 2.1233 Written
Docket 4+.868 I -Ml-A- I l, ASLBP No. 02-79-5-02-MLA
I to,20o2) 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. THE PRESIDING OFFICER'S MARCH 7, aOOz,E.MAIL TO IUSA REYEALS
THAT IUSA'S AMENDMENT REQIIEST DOES NOT PROPERLY
CHARACTERIZE THE MOLYCORP MATERIALS AS REQIIIRED BY
10 C.F.R. S$ a0.9(a) AND 40.31, RENDERING TIIE AMENDMENT REeIIEST
MATERIALLY DETIECTIYE; THEREFORE THB LICENSE AMENDMBNT MUST
BE SUSPENDED, MODIFIED, OR REVOKED T]NTIL THE MOLYCORP
MATERIALS ARE WELL CHARACTERIZED. PAGES 5.E.
II. IUSA'S AMENDMENT REQI,EST IS NOT COMPLETE AND ACCURATE AND
DOES NOT PROYIDE CLEAR AND SPECIFIC REFERENCES AS REQUIRED BY
r0 C.F.R. S$ ,10.9(A) AND 40.31; THEREFORE, THE LICENSE AMENDMENT v
MUST BE SUSPENDED BE SUSPENDED, MODIFIED, OR REVOKED T]NTIL THB
AMBNDMENT REQUEST IS MATERIALLY COMPLBTE AND ACCIJRATE AND
SPECIFIC REFERBNCES ARE PROVIDED. PAGFS E.34.
A. THE AMBNDMBNT REQUEST FAILS TO PROYIDE COMPLETE ANI)
ACCIJRATE INFORMATION REGARDING THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE
MOLYCORP LEAD SLUDGE WITH RESPBCT TO THORIIJ}.[,-}}?AND
PROGENY, OR ANY DIRECTION TO FT]RTHER INFORMATION RELIED T'PON
BY SUCH CHARACTERIZATION; TIIE LICENSE AMENDMET{T MUST BB
SUSPENDED BB SUSPBNDED, MODIFIED, OR REVOKED T]NTIL THE
AMENDMENT REQUEST IS COMPLETE AND SPECIFIC REFERENCES ARE
PROVIDED. PAGES 8.10.
B. THE AMENDMENT REQUEST FAIIS TO PROYIDE COMPLETE AND
ACCI.JRATE INFORMATION REGARDING TITE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE
MOLYCORP PONDED LEAD SLUDGE WITH RESPECT TO TOXIC 'OXDIZEI)LEAD IRON RESIDIIE," OR ANY DIRECTION TO FT]RTHER IT\TFORMATION
RELIED UPON BY SUCH CHARACTERIZATION; THE LICENSE AMBNDMENT
MUST BE SUSPENDED, MODIFIED, OR REVOKED T'NTIL INT'ORMATION
REGARDING ALL LEAD SPECIES IN THE MOLYCORP MATERIAL IS
PROYIDED. PAGES 10.12.
C. TI{E AMENDMENT REQTIEST FAILS TO PROYIDE COMPLETE AND
ACCURATE INFORMATION RBGARDING PROPOSED SAMPLING AND
ANALYSIS OF TIIE PONDED MOLYCORP MATBRIAL. PAGES I3.I4.
D. THE AMENDMENT REQTIEST FAILS TO COMPLETBLY AI\ID
ACCI]RATELY ADDRESS THE PROCESS FOR TIIE SEPARATION OF LEA,I)
SLUDGE FROM OTI{ER MATERIALS AT THE MOLYCORP FACILIIY, TIIE
NATT]RE OF THE SEPARATES, OR AI\TY DIRECTION TO FURTIIER
INFORMATION RELIED I.]PON BY SUCH CHARACTERIZATION. PAGES14.16.
o
Presentation (April 4Supplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's l0 C.F.R. S 2.1233 Written
Docket 4O-868 l -MLA- I l, ASLBP No . O2-795-O2-MLA
10,2002)
E. THE AMENDMENT REQUEST FAILS TO PROYIDE COMPLETE AND
ACCURATE IhTFORMATION REGARDING THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE
DRUMMED MOLYCORP MATERIAL. PAGES I7.I8.
F. THE AMENDMENT REQUEST FAILS TO PROYIDE COMPLETE AND
ACCI]RATE INFORMATION \ilITH RESPECT HAZARDS RELATBD TO
EXPOSURE TO LEAD AIRBORNE DUST, OR SOI,]ND REFERBNCES
REGARDING SUCH HAZARDS; TIIE LICENSE AMENDMENT MUST BE
SUSPENDED, MODIFIED, OR REVOKED UT{TIL INFORMATION RBGARDING
HAZARDS RELATED TO ALL LBAD SPBCIES IN THE MOLYCORP MATERIAL
IS PROVIDED. PAGBS I8.?2.
G. THE AMENDMENT REQUEST FAILS TO PROVIDE COMPLETE AND
ACCT.]RATE INFORMATION WITH RESPBCT TO HAZARDS RELATED TO
EXPOSURE TO THORIUM.232 AND PROGEI{Y, MITIGATION OF THOSE
HAZARDS, OR CLEAR AND SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO FURTHBR
INFORMATION RELIED I.]PON BY IUSA. PAGES 22.25.
H. THE AMENDMENT REQUEST FAILS TO PROYIDE COMPLETE AND
ACCURATE DATA TO SUPPORT IUSA'S ASSERTION THAT TI{E MOLYCORP
MATERIAL ARE'SIMILAR PHYSICALLY AND IN CONTENT TO THB MILL'S
EXISTING TAILINGS.' PAGES 25.27.
I. THE AMENDMENT RBQI]EST FAILS TO PROYIDE COMPLETE AND
ACCURATB DATA TO SUPPORT ASSERTIONS REGARDING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, OR CLEAR AND SPECIFIC REIIERENCE TO
MATBRIAL II\TFORMATION REGARDING ENYI RONMENTAL IMPACTS.
PAGES N.29.
J. THE AMENDMENT REQI]EST FAILS TO PROVIDE COMPLETE AND
ACCURATE DATA TO SIJPPORT THE CLAIM THAT TITE MOLYCORP
MATERIALS ARE COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING MATERIALS IN IUSA'S
TAILINGS IMPOI.'NDMENT. PAGES 29.{.
K. THE AMENDMENT REQUEST FAILS TO PROVIDE COMPLETE AND
ACCURATE DATA TO SUPPORT ASSERTIONS OF NO "ADVERSE IMPACT ON
THE OYERALL CELL 3 TAILINGS COMPOSITION.' PAGES 30.32.
L. THE AMEI\IDMENT REQUBST FAILS TO PROYIDE COMPLETB AND
ACCTJRATE DATA TO SUPPORT ASSERTIONS THAT THE MOLYCORP
MATBRIAL "WILL NOT CHANGE CHARACTERISTICS'OF THE TAILINGS
IMPOI]NDMENT. PAGES 32.33.
oSupplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's l0 C.F.R. $ 2.1233 Written
Docket 4O-8681-ML-A- I l, ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
o
hesentation (ApriI ro,2002)
I. THE PRESIDING OFTICER'S MARCH7,2OO2,E.MAIL TO IUSA REYEALSTHAT IUSA'S AMENDMENT REQUEST DOES NOT PROPERLY
CHARACTERIZE THE MOLYCORP MATERIALS AS REQIIIRED BYl0 c,F.R. gS a0.9(a) AND 40.3r, RENDERING TIIE AMENDMENT REeuEsrMATERIALLY DEFECTIVE; THEREFORE THE LICENSE AMENDMENTMUST BE SUSPENDED, MODIFIED, OR REVOKED TJNTIL THE MOLYCORPMATERIALS ARE WELL CHARACTERIZED.
l. The Presiding Officer's March T,2}O2,communication, directed to IUSA, is
entitled "Concerns to be Addressed in Future Hlings." I The hesiding Officer's March 7
contained interrogatories about the characterization of material from the Unocal-
Molycorp, Inc., Lanthanide Division facility ("Molycorp") in Mountain pass, California
that IUSA proposed to receive at the White Mesa Uranium Mill, near Blanding, Utah.
The hesiding Officer's March 7,2}O2,reads, in pertinent part:
' How different is Bastnasite ore/tailings from other ores/tailings
processed for uranium content at the Mill?
' How do the lead concentrations of previously approved alternate feedmaterial and conventional ores processed at the Mill comparequantitatively with the lead concentrations in the Molycorp material?
' Does this high lead sulfide content material require special handling ascompared to other feed materials?
. Have any special precautions been taken as a result of the
characteristics of this Molycorp feed material (i.e., bermed concrete
pad, dust control, etc.)?
I A 1-page, undated, and unsigned communication was served on the parties in thepresent proceeding via e-mail on March 7,2W2. Apparently, the Marcir 7 e-mail has notbeen made an official record of the proceedi_ng pursuant tolb C.F.R. g 2.1203(a), nor hasit been made publicly available on ADAMS2 pursuant tolO c.F.R. $ 2.7902 ADAMS - NRC Agencywide Documents Access and Management System.Information re access to ADAMS is found at http://ww*n.rr..gorTreading--rm.html.
a
Supplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's l0 C.F.R. $ 2.1233 Written Presentation (April lO, 2002)
Docket 4G868 I -MI-A- I 1, A SLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
NRC criteria that apply to information provided to the NRC by a source rnaterial licensee
are found at 10 C.F.R. $ u10.9(a). l0 C.F.R. $ 210.9(a) requires that:
(a) Information provided to the Commission by an applicant for a license
or by a licensee or information required by statute or by the Commission's
regulations, orders, or license conditions to be maintained by the applicant
or the licensee shall be complete and accurate in all material respects.
[Emphasis added.l
The Presiding Officer's March 7 interrogatories reveal that more information than
has been presented by IUSA thus far in the Amendment Request is required. This
information is required in order to compare the health and safety and environmental
effects of the Molycorp material and other materials that have been previously received at
the White Mesa Mill. The information requested by the Presiding Officer would
necessarily be dependent upon a complete and accurate characterization of the Molycorp
material per se. That information should be readily accessible within the Amendment
Request. The above quoted inquiries, which invite a supplement to IUSA's original
application, reveal inaccessibility of the information sought by the Presiding Officer's
March 7.
The hesiding Officer's March 7,2W2, e-mail to IUSA, in and of itself, plainly
substantiates a concern that the Amendment Request fails to properly provide complete
and accurate information regarding the characterization of the material IUSA proposes to
receive from the Molycorp facility, and, therefore, does not meet the requirements of l0
C.F.R. $ 2CI.9(a).
6
Supplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's l0 C.F.R. g 2.1233 Written Presentation (April I O, 2002)
Docket 4O-868 I -Ml-A- I 1 , ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MI-A
2. The introduction to the March 7 interrogatories indicate:
In prior Licensee filings in this proceeding, the Molycorp materials
were described as being similar to conventional ores and alternate feed
materials previously processed at the white Mesa Uranium Mill.
Sierra CIub's review of pertinent "prior Licensee filings" reveals that many of the
prior Licensee filings referred to by the Presiding Officer are listed on pages 3 and 4 of
the forwarding letter to the December 19,2}}O,original application. Hearing File 14,
forwarding letter at 3-4. The 10 C.F.R. S 2.1231Hearing File frequently, either explicitly
or implicitly, refers to prior Licensee filings. Often references are vague and, thus,
unhelpful. For example, the December 19, 2000, and the October lT,zool,supplement
refers to "the original Environmental Assessment." No further information with respect
this document is forthcoming in the Amendment Request. Hearing File 14, forwarding
letter at 2, and Hearing File 9 at 6.
NRC criteria with respect to information in a license amendment request that the
licensee proposes to substantiate or incorporate into the amendment request by reference
thereto are found at l0 C.F.R. $$ 4o.a+ and 4o.31. l0 c.F.R . g 4o.Mstates:
Applications for amendment of a license shall be filed on NRC
Form 313 [no longer availablel in accordance with g 4o.31 and shall
specify the respects in which the licensee desires the license to be
amended and the grounds for such amendment.
lO C.F.R. $ 40.31 (Applications for specific licenses) states, in pertinent part:
(a) A person may file an application fior a license amendment to a
specific license in accordance with the insffuctions in a criterion that
indicates to whom and in what mannerl. Information contained in
previous applications, statements or reports filed with the Commission
maY be incorPorated by reference provided that the reference is clear andl
specific. . . . Bmphasis added.l
Supplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's i2.1233 Written Presentation (April 10, 2002)
Docket 4O-8681 -MI-A- I I , ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MI-A
The Amendment Request does not properly provide clear and specific references
to information that IUSA incorporated or relied upon in the Amendment Request, and
thus, the Amendment does not meet the requirements contained in l0 C.F.R. $ 40.31.
II. IUSA'S AMENDMENT REQUEST IS NOT COMPLETE AND ACCURATE
AND DOES NOT PROVIDE CLEAR AND SPECIFIC REFERENCBS AS
REQUIRED BY 10 C.F.R. S$ 40.9(A) AND 40.31; THEREFORE, TIIE LICENSE
AMENDMENT MUST BE SUSPENDED BE SUSPENDED, MODIFIED, OR
REVOKED I'NTIL TIIE AMENDMENT REQUEST IS MATERIALLY
COMPLETE AND ACCI]RATE AND SPECIFIC REFERENCES ARE
PROVIDED.
A. THB AMENDMENT REQI]EST FAILS TO PROYIDE COMPLETE AND
ACCT]RATE II\TFORMATION REGARDING THB CHARACTERIZATION OF
TIIE MOLYCORP LEAD SLUDGE WITH RESPECT TO THORIIJ|M.a3}AND
PROGENY, OR AI\[Y DIRECTION TO FI]RTIIER INFORMATION RELIED
T,PON BY SUCH CHARACTERIZATION; TIIE LICENSE AMENDMENT
MUST BE SUSPENDED BE SUSPENDED, MODIFIED, OR REVOKED T'NTIL
TIIE AMENDMENT REQTIEST IS COMPLETE AND SPECIFIC REFERENCES
ARE PROVIDED.
IUSA's Amendment Request provided the NRC with information related to the
characterization of the Molycorp material. The December 19,2Cf1, original application
euphemistically describes the Molycorp material as "uranium containing material" or
"Uranium Material":
IUSA is requesting an amendment to Source Material License
SUA-I358 to authorize receipt and processing of certain uranium-
containing materials resulting from the processing of natural ore for the
extraction of lathanides and other rare earth minerals. For ease of
reference, this material is referred to herein as the "Uranium Material."
Hearing File 14, Request to Amend at l.
The December 19 also describes the Molycorp material as "lead sulfide sludges":
From 1965 through 1984 Molycorp constructed and operated three lead
sulfide ponds. . . . This amendment request seeks authorization to process
the lead sulfide sludges, i.e. the Uranium Material.
Supplementto Petitioner Sierra Club's 52.1233 Written Presentation (Aptil 10, 2002)
Docket 4S.8681-ML.A,-l I, ASLBP No. U2-795-O2-MLA
Hearing File 14, Request to Amend at 2.
The December 19 goes on to discuss the analytical data pertaining to the uranium
content of the Molycorp material. Hearing File 14, Request to Amend at 3. The
December 19 also contains letters from Molycorp and analytical tables purporting to
characterize the ponded Molycorp material. Hearing File 14, Attachments 1-4.
A November 13, 1995, letter (regarding Investigation of hocess Ponds P-8, P-l 1,
P-24) from William J. Almas, Molycorp, to Curt Shifrer, California Regional Quality
Control Board, states regarding "Radionuclides. "
. . . Oxidized material in the pond averages 1351 mg/kg [uraniurn] while
the unoxidized material averages 1333 mgftg [uranium]. . . .
Pond P-24 contains lower uranium and thorium values than the other two
processponds....
The concentration of thorium in the unoxidized lead iron residue in the
ponds averages 457 mgkg. The concentration of source material thorium
from the oxidized lead iron residue averages ll52 mglkg, with a high
concentration of 5,954 mg/kg.
Hearing Filel4, Attachment 1 at 5.
IUSA's license application does not discuss the fact that the ponded lead sludges
contain source material thorium-232 and progeny. See Hearing File 14, Request to
Amend at l-13. Only in the attachments to the December l9 application is the fact that
the Molycorp material contains thorium-23? and progeny made apparent Hearing File
14, Attachments l-5.
9
o
1o,2002)l0Supplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's $ 2.1233 Written Presentation (April
Docket 4O-8681 -Ml-A- l I , ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
The requirement of10 C.F.R. $ zl0.9(a) regarding complete and accurate material
information would apply to IUSA's statements and supporting data regarding the
radiological characteristics of the Molycorp lead sludge.
IUSA does not provide any information regarding the percentage of thorium-232
and progeny in the ponded Molycorp material. IUSA does not provide specific
information regarding the differences between uranium-238 decay series and
thorium-232 decay series. As a result, IUSA does not discuss health and safety factors
implied by the presence of thorium-232 and progeny in the Molycorp lead sludge.
As a further result, IUSA does not completely and accurately discuss the
requirements for the receipt, acquisition, possession, and transfer of source material
thorium-232 and progeny. See Sierra CIub's discussion of the applicability of l0 C.F.R.
N.4l in Petitioner Sierra Club's l0 C.F.R. 5 2.1233 Written Presentation Requesting
Suspension, Modification, or Revocation of Amendment 20 to License SUA-I358,
particularly pages 10-18 (April l,20OZ).
Neither the NRC's StafPs November 30, 2001, Environmental Assessment for the
Molycorp Alternate Feed Request, nor the NRC Staffls December 11,2001, Technical
Evaluation Report (TER), discuss or consider the presence of thorium-232 and progeny
in the Molycorp material. Hearing File 6 and Hearing File 5, TER.
B. THE AMENDMENT REQUEST FAILS TO PROYIDE COMPLETE AND
ACCURATE INFORMATION REGARDING THE CHARACTERIZATION OF
TIIE MOLYCORP PONDED LBAD SLT]DGE WITH RESPECT TO TOXIC.0XIDIZED LEAD IRON RESIDUE," OR ANY DIRECTION TO TURTIIER
INFORMATION RELIBD UPON BY SUCH CHARACTERIZATION; THE
LICENSB AMENDMENT MUST BE SUSPENDED, MODIFIED, OR REVOKEI)
I,NTIL INFORMATION REGARDING ALL LEAD SPECTES IN TI{E
MOLYCORP MATERIAL IS PROYIDED.
Supplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's $ 2.1233 Written Presentation (April 10, 2002)
Docket 4O-868 I -MLq,-l l, ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
The December 19, 2000, application includes attachments that document the
presence of "oxidized lead iron residue" in the Molycorp material. Hearing File 14,
Attachment 5. The November 13, 1995, letter from William J. Almas, Molycorp, to Curt
Shifrer, California Regional Quality Control Board, states regarding "Pond Description":
Pond P-8 was found to consist of approximately 445 cubic yards of
lead iron residue. This material is overlain with approximately 1,45
cubic yards of mill tailings an average five feet in thickness. The lead
from residue in pond P-8 appears to be in the reduced state due to the
tailings cover.
Pond P-11 was found to have a cap of oxidized lead iron residue
overlying unoxidized lead iron residue. The oxidized residue is estimated
to have a volume of betr,veen 300 to 755 cubic yards with a maximum
thickness of 4.5 feet near the center of the pond. The reduced lead iron
residue consists of approximately 2,815 cubic yards.
Pond P-24 was found to be very shallow with a depth of
approximately I foot of mixed oxidized and reduced lead iron residue
encountered. The total volume of lead iron residue inP-VL is estimated to
be 285 cubic yards. Bmphasis added.l
Hearing File 14, Attachment 5 at 3.
Further information regarding such lead oxides in the Molycorp material is found
in a table in the December 19,2000, original application. Hearing File 14, Attachment 2,
Table 2. The January 29,20[l, supplement includes cross-section views of the three lead
sludge ponds that document the presence of oxidized lead iron oxide. Hearing File 13,
Attachment 4 at 38,48, and 58.
The requirement of l0 C.F.R. $ O.9(a) regarding complete and accurate material
information would apply to IUSA's statements and supporting data regarding the physical
and chemical characteristics of the Molycorp lead sludge.
The discussion of the characteristics of the Molycorp material in IUSA's
December 19 application is not complete in that it contains ng mention of the fact that the
ll
o
0,2002 t2Supplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's 92.1233 Written Presentation (April I
Docket 4O-8681-MLA-I l, ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
ponded lead sludge consists of lead oxides in addition to lead sulfide. See Hearing File
14, Request to Amend at 1-13.
There is no explication of the words "appears," "estimated," and ''approximately,"
as utilized in the above quote from the December 19,2000, original application.
There is no complete and accurate profile of the physical and chemical nature of
the oxidized lead iron residue. And further, there is no meaningful reference to the bases
for the information in the table in Attachment 2 to the December 19. Hearing File 14.
Absent such data, it follows that there has been a total failure on the part of IUSA
to include any discussion of potential health effects or other derivative harm attributable
to the lead oxides mentioned in the Amendment Request. There are potential adverse
effects from oxidized lead iron residue that should be set forth and discussed. See
Petitioner William [-ove's l0 CFR z.l233Written Presentation for Suspension and or
Revocation of Amendmentz0 to License SUA-1358, Attachments F, G, H, and I (April
l,zWZ} Also see discussion of Hazards Related to Exposure to Lead Airborne Dust
below at F. (pages 18-21) and APPENDIX A hereto.
Neither the NRC StafFs November 30, 2001, Environmental Assessment for the
Molycorp Alternate Feed Request, nor the NRC Staffls December I l,2O0l, Technical
Evaluation Report (tER), consider the presence of oxidized lead iron resides in the
Molycorp material. Hearing File 6 and Hearing File 5, TER.
The license amendment must be suspended, modified, or revoked until the
amendment request is materially complete and accurate and specific references are
provided.
oo
Supplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's g 2.1233 Written Presentation (April 10, 2002) l3
Docket 4O-8681-ML-A-1 1, ASLBP No. O2-795-02-MLA
C. TITE AMENDMBNT REQI]BST FAILS TO PROVIDE COMPLETE AND
ACCURATE INFORMATION RBGARDING PROPOSED SAMPLING AND
ANALYSIS OF TIIE PONDED MOLYCORP MATERIAL.
The January 29,2OO7, supplement to the original application discusses proposed
future sampling and characterization of the ponded Molycorp materials. The January 29,
2OOl, supplement states:
Molycorp will collect and analyze twelve (12) additional samples
from [pondl P-l I to provide further assurance that the material contained
in this, which exhibited higher [radiationl levels based upon previous
characterization results than the other two ponds, will be below the DOT
[U.S. Department of Transportationl limit of 2,000 pCi/gm. Bmphasis
added.l
Hearing File 13 at 2.
The January 29 includes (as an attachment) a January 26,2Ul_1, letter from John
F. Espinoza, Planner/llazardous Material Specialist, Molycorp, to Michelle Rehmann,
NRC, re: hoposal to Collect Additional Samples of [,ead Sulfide Pond-l I and Pond-24.
Hearing File 13, Attachment l. That Molycorp letter states, in pertinent part:
In order to provide data to support conclusions lwith respect
DOT's 2,000 pCi/gm placarding limitl, Molycorp proposes to collect 12
additional samples from P-l1 and P-Vl and analyze for isotopic uranium.
Molycorp will provide IUC with a Sampling and Analysis Plan regarding
the additional samples and their rationale for collection within the next
few days. [Emphasis added.l
Hearing File 13, Attachment 1 at l.
Here, neither IUSA, nor Molycorp, explain how a determination of the pCi/gm of
radioactivity of the ponded material can be assessed solely by an analysis of the nisotopic
uranium." The information regarding the Radiochemistry of P-8, P-1, and P-24, that
resulted from a 1998 analysis of the samples taken in 1995, indicates that those earlier
o
0,20p.2)t4Supplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's $ 2.1233 Written Presentation (April 1
Docket 4G868 I -MI-A- I I, ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
sampl es w ere analy zed for Radi um-228, Radi um- 226, Thorirum-2z&, Thori um-232,
Thorium-232, Uranium234, Uranium-235, and Uranium-238 in order to ascertain the
total activity (i.e., pCiigm) for those ponds. Hearing File 13, Attachment2 at2.
In order to obtain complete data with respect the total activity of P-l I and P-24,
the other isotopes (radium and thorium) must also be examined.
There is no indication on the public record that IUSA has provided either
Molycorp's Sampling and Analysis Plan or the results of these analyses to the NRC. The
Licensee should provide the results on these analyses, along with information regarding
the sampling and analytical protocols (i.e., complete and accurate information).
D. THE AMENDMBNT REQI]EST FAILS TO COMPLETELY AND
ACCI]RATELY ADDRESS THE PROCBSS FOR T}tE SEPARATION OF LEAD
SLUDGE FROM OTHER MATERIALS AT THE MOLYCORP FACILITY, TIIB
NATI.JRE OF THE SBPARATES, OR AT{Y DIRECTION TO FURTHER
INFORMATION RELIED I.]PON BY SUCH CHARACTERIZATION.
The December 19, 2000, at Section l.l, states:
Molycorp has requested that IUSA recycle the Uranium Material,
and has asked that we submit this amendment request. After excavation of
the lead sulfide ponds, Molycorp plans to segregate a portion of the pond
contents - flotation tailings - from the excavated material. Molycorp
estimates that after separation of the flotation tailings, from 7,750 tons to a
conservative estimate of 17,15O tons of lead sulfide sludges, containing
uranium, will remain to be shipped off site. Material that will be shipped
off site comprises the Uranium Material addressed in this request for
amendment. Bmphasis added.l
Hearing File 14, Request to Amend at 2.
A November l,l9D,letter from Molycorp to Michelle Rehmann, IUSA, states:
The estimated volume in the three ponds is 155,00o[cubic feetl
total including approximately 39,000[cubic feetl of flotation tailings that
Molycorp will attempt to separate from the lead sulfide residues while
excavating the pond material. . . . Approximately 39,0o0[cubic feetl of
Supplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's $ 2.1233 Written
Docket 4O-868 1 -MLA- I 1, A SLBP No. 02-795 -02-MLA
material contained in the ponds is mill tailings from the flotation
concentration of bastnasite [Ce-F-CO, type] minerals [of variable
chemical compositionl which become the feedstock that produced the lead
sulfide residues. Molycorp will attempt to separate this material from the
lead sulfide residues while excavating the pond materials. pmphasis
added.l
Hearing Filel4, Attachment 1.
l0 C.F.R. $ ,1O.9(a) requires that information provided to the NRC by a licensee
"shall be complete and accurate in all material respects."
As quoted above, neither IUSA's December l9 application, nor Molycorp's
November 1, indicates what the 39,000 cubic feet of "flotation tailings" consist of with
specificity and particularity or how proper separation of the flotation tailings will be
achieved. A determination of whether the flotation tailings contain hazardous waste,
listed or characteristic, does not appear in the Amendment Request. The flotation tailings
are not properly characterized, which would disallow the proper determination of various
source terms and resultant adverse health and safety or environmental effects.
The material that ruSA proposes to transfer to White Mesa is claimed to be
derived from "concentration of bastnasite minerals" at the Molycorp facility. Elsewhere
IUSA's proposal variously characterizes the so-called "ore" from which the lead sludge
was ultimately derived after beneficiation and further processing. Hearing File 14
Request to Amend at 1-13. In order to fulfill the applicable clarity and accuracy criteria,
more definitive information is needed in order to have an understanding of, for example,
the potential adverse environmental effects of the lead species that are derived from the
historical Molycorp processes. There very well could be some nasties lurking under
Supplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's $ 2.1233 Written Presentation (April 10,2002)
Docket 4G868 I -MI-A- I I, ASLBP No. O2-795-02-MI-A
cover of such ambiguity. A simple summary affidavit saying that there are none is not
necessarily conclusive or sufficiently accurate ("complete and accurate").
The flotation tailings might contain substances that are not contained in the lead-
sulfide and lead-oxide sludges, but might be of significance if they are commingled with
those sludges. Little information was included in the Amendment Request to enable the
NRC staff to properly assess the nature of the flotation tailings and determine whether the
commingling of the lead sludges with the flotation tailings might have health and safety
implications.
If there is a potential for the Molycorp material to be commingled with other
material it is imperative that the complete characteristics of that other material be known.
IUSA needs to explain what specifically is being separated from what, what are
the health and safety and other environmental parameters, how effective that separation
will be, and what the implications of inadequate separation would be.
Additionally,IUSA does not discuss the possibility that contaminated soils that
underlie the lead sludge ponds will also be removed and commingled with the ponded
lead sludges. That possibility also should be addressed.
The December 19, 2OOO, application and the November 1,1999, transmittal
plainly fail to provide complete and accurate material information and, thus, in this
instance, does not meet the 10 C.F.R. 4O.9(a) criteria.
The license amendment must be suspended, modified, or revoked until the
amendment request is materially complete and accurate and specific references are
provided.
l6
o
0,2002)t7Supplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's $ 2.1233 Written Presentation (April I
Docket 40-868 I -MLA- I I , ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
E. THB AMENDMEI{T REQUEST FAILS TO PROVIDE COMPLETE AND
ACCURATE INFORMATION REGARDING THE CHARACTERIZATION OF
TIIE DRUMMED MOLYCORP MATERIAL.
IUSA's October 17,2OOl, supplement to the December 19, 2000, original
application requests permission to receive and process drummed material from the
Molycorp facility. Hearing File 9. IUSA supplemented the October 17 with additional
information on November 16,2001. Hearing File 8. The October 17 request states:
The Drummed Uranium Material is similar to the Pond Uranium
Material in source. chemical composition. radiological composition. and
physical oroperties, and is expected to be indistinguishable from the Pond
Uranium Material during and after processing at the White Mesa Mill (theuMillu), and in its impacts on Mill tailings. This letter provides a detailed
comparison of the Pond Uranium Material with the Drummed Uranium
Material, and demonsfates that the Drummed Material is sufficiently
similar that it can properly be included with the Pond Uranium Material in
the same license amendment. Bmphasis added.l
Hearing File 9 at 1-2.
The October 17 indicates that the drummed Molycorp material consists of lead
sulfide sludges. The October 17 includes an attachment with a table, entitled "Waste
Determination Categorization, Drummed Waste from Closure Activities at Warehouse B
and Reintroduction Area," which lists data from samples of various drums from the
Molycorp site. Hearing File 9, Attachment3 atZ.
l0 C.F.R. $ O.g(a) requires that information provided to the NRC by a licensee
"shall be complete and accurate in all material respects."
Although there are thirty-five (35) drums listed on that data sheet, there is actual
data for only six (6) drums. Data for the other 29 drums is missing. There is no
information as to how the data was obtained, what sampling and analysis protocols were
a
lo,2w2)l8Supplement to Petitioner Siena club's $ 2.1233 written presentation (April
Docket 4O-868 I -ML-A- I I , ASLBP No. 02-795-02-ML-A
used, and what constituents the drums were actually tested for. The data sheet lists
"Lead," but does not include any information regarding the chemical or physical form of
that "Lrad." Hearing File 9, Attachment3 at2.
Although IUSA states (as quoted above) that the drummed Molycorp material
is "similar" "in source, chemical composition, radiological composition, and physical
properties" to the ponded Molycorp material, IUSA provides no data identifying (with
particularity and specificity) the chemical composition, radiological composition, and
physical properties of either the ponded or drummed materials.
Further, there is no information in either the October 17,2}Ol,or the November
16,200l, regarding the lead oxide composition of the drummed material. Hearing File g
and 9.
The October 7'7 and November 16, 2001, supplements fail to provide complete
and accurate material information about the drummed Molycorp material and, therefore
do not meet the 10 c.F.R. ao.9(a) completeness and accuracy requirement.
F. THE AMENDMENT REQUEST FAILS TO PROVIDB COMPLETE ANDACCURATE II\TFORMATION WITH RESPBCT HAZARDS RELATED TO
EXPOSURE TO LEAD AIRBORNE DUST, OR SOI]ND REFERENCFS
RBGARDING SUCH HAZARDS; THE LICENSE AMENDMENT MUST BESUSPENDED' MODIFIED, oR REVOKED UNTIL IIYFORMATION
REGARDING HAZARDS RELATED TO ALL LEAD SPECIES IN TTTE
MOLYCORP MATERIAL IS PROYIDED.
l. The January 5, 2001, supplement to the original December 19, 2000, original
application contains a response by IUSA to a question by the NRC staff regarding the
potential for exposure to lead in airborne dust. Hearing File E atz-3.
In their response IUSA states:
Supplement to
Docket4G868
o
Petitioner
l-ML-A-l
o
ntation (A l9pril 10,2002)
Based on discussions with Molycorp, and as documented in the
attached letter from Molycorp dated January 5,2OOl, air monitoring data
for an operation in which Molycorp handled comparable lead material
indicted that there were no results exceeding either the OSHA PEL limit
(0.O5 mg/m3) or the OSHA Action Level (0.03 mg/m3) for area and
breathing zone samples. Molycorp has indicated that it believes that there
will be no significant airborne lead exposure resulting from the handling
of the lead sulfide pond material at IUSA, because it has essentially
identical composition and moisture content as the material handled during
this operation. . . . fEmphasis added.'l
The bioavailability of lead sulfide is low relative to certain other
more bioavailable forms of lead. As reported in Impact of [.ead-
Contaminated Soil on Public Health (U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control,
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Charles Xintaras,
ScD., Mary I ,l98l2):
"The impact of exposure to lead-contaminated soil
on PbB levels is also influenced by the chemical and
physical form of the lead. Data from animal feeding
studies suggests that the oral bioavailability of lead sulfide
and lead chromate is significantly less than the
bioavailability of other lead salts (oxide, acetate) (Barltrop
and Meek 1974)." "The reduced bioavailability of lead
from mine tailings may be related to its chemical form
(lead sulfide) and its larger particulate size." (p. l2-13)
Bmphasis added.l
Again, l0 C.F.R. $ a0.g(a) requires that information provided to the NRC by a
licensee "shall be complete and accurate in all material respects."
The January 29 provides no data comparing the chemical, radiological, and
physical properties of the lead sludges that will be received at the White Mesa Mill with
chemical, radiological, and physical properties of the comparable lead material that
Molycorp previously handled.
There is no way to ascertain if, in fact, the toxicity of the drummed and ponded
Molycorp material is in any way comparable to the toxicity of the material that Molycorp
Sierra Club's E 2.1233 Written Prese
I, ASLBP No. 02-795-02-ML.A
Supplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's S 2.1233 Written Presentation (April 10, 2002)
Docket 4O-868 t -Ml-A- I 1 , ASLBP No. 02-795-02-Ml-A
20
previously handled. There is no discussion of the respective applicable potential
pathways. For example, IUSA provides no information related to the health effects
related to inhalation (rather than oral ingestion) of materials containing lead. IUSA does
not provide a copy of all of the OSHA regulations that would apply to all the chemical
and physical forms of lead materials that are present in the drummed and ponded
Molycorp material.
The January 5, 2001, supplement (as quoted above) indicates that the oral
bioavailability of lead sulfide is significantly less than the bioavailability of lead oxide. It
would follow that the oral bioavailability of lead oxide would be significantly more than
the bioavailability of lead sulfide. Hearing File E at2-3. However, IUSA discusses
neither the presence of lead oxides in the Molycorp material, nor the hazards related to
exposure to lead oxide dust via all possible ingestion pathways (including the inhalation
pathway). The Amendment Request does not include an Occupational Risk Assessment
for lead oxides or other lead compounds that might be present in the Molycorp material.
The toxicity difference between lead sulfide (PbS) and lead oxides is like night
and day. PbrOo, known as "red lead," is a typical industrial compound and is very toxic
(which is why it's substantially outlawed as a coating for steel). PbO, 'litharge" or "lead
monoxide," is also quite toxic. Lead sulfide, on the other hand, is generally not soluble in
the form of mineral galena unless granulated very finely and attacked by concentrated
sulfuric acid (as would be the case if IUSA processed the Molycorp material for
uranium). Lead sulfite (Pbsor) is listed as very toxic, but lead sulfate (pbSoo) as
relatively stable is less toxic.
oo
S upplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's $ 2. I 233 Written Presentation (April I 0, 2002)
Docket 4O-868 I -Ml-A- I I , ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
It's possible that the very low-pH acidic solution in IUSA's tailings ponds could
lead to the formation of lead-selenium compounds (e.g., PbSeOo lead selenate, or PbSe
lead selenide) or lead vanadate Pb(VOr)" , which is probably toxic. These compounds are
pretty certainly ecologically dangerous if wildlife are exposed to them in aquatic
environments. Lead hydroxide Pb(OH), can also form, which can be another exposure
pathway, forming oxides if dried. Lead arsenates PbHAsOo and other similar
compounds, as well as lead arsenite PbAsrOo are considered to be extrernely dangerous
because of the arsenic radical, as well as the lead. Lead carbonate PbCO, and basic
lead carbonate 2PbCOrPb(OH), ('white lead") are also very toxic. See lrving Sax,
"Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials," 5th Ed., pages 76-773. APPENDIX A,
hereto.
The January 29,2001, supplement fails to provide complete and accurate material
information about the hazards related to exposure to lead airborne dust particulates,
including aerosols via all pathways, from the Molycorp material and does provide a basis
for the conclusions reached. See Petitioner William L-ove's l0 CFR 2.1233 Written
hesentation for Suspension and or Revocation of Amendment 20 to License SUA-1358,
Attachments F, G, H, and I (April 1,2W2).
2. The November 16,2001, supplement, which pertains to IUSA's request to
receive the Molycorp drummed material, contains an "Occupational Risk Assessment for
Mountain Pass kad Eltercake Residue (Drummed Uranium Material)." Hearing File 8,
Attachment 3. However, the Occupational Risk Assessment addresses only the copper
and zinc content of the drummed material.
2l
Supplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's S 2.1233 Written Presentation (April lO, 2002)
Docket 40-8681 -Ml-A- I I . ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
22
l0 C.F.R. $ O.g(a) requires that a licensee must provide information to the NRC
that is "complete and accurate in all material respects.fr
This information is incomplete in a material aspect because there is no
Occupational Risk Assessment addressing the various lead constituents (in all of their
chemical and physical forms) found in the drummed Molycorp material. As discussed
above lead is a material with potential health and safety risks. The requirements of
l0 C.F.R. $ O.g(a) have not been met.
Neither the NRC's Staffs November 30, 2001, Environmental Assessment for the
Molycorp Alternate Feed Request, nor the NRC Staffs December I l, 2001, Technical
Evaluation Report C[ER), address the health and safety hazards related to exposure to
lead oxides that are present in the Molycorp material. Hearing File 6 and Hearing File 5,
TER. The license amendment must be suspended, modified, or revoked until the
amendment request is materially complete and accurate and specific references are
provided and addressed by NRC staff.
G. THE AMENDMENT REQUEST FAILS TO PROVIDB COMPLETE AND
ACCURATE IIYFORMATION \ilITH RESPBCT TO HAZARDS RELATED TO
EXPOSURE TO THORIUM-232 AND pROGEIvy, MITIGATION OF THOSE
HAZARDS, OR CLEAR AND SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO FTTRTHER
INFORMATION RELIED I.JPON BY IUSA.
l. As discussed above at A. (pages 7-9), the Molycorp material contains source
material thorium-232 and progeny.
On December 18,2000, ruSA provided the NRC with Standard Operating
hocedures (SOPs) for the 'High Thorium Content Ore Management." See letter from
Michelle R. Rehmann, IUSA, to Philip Ting, NRC, re: Supplemental Information
Supplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's g 2.1233 Written Prcsentation (April 10, 2002) 23
Docket zm-868 I -Ml-A- I I , ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
Regarding April 12,2000 Amendment Request to Process an Alternate Feed Material
from w.R. Grace at the white Mesa Mill (December 18, 2000) (ML003779983).
The SOPs for High Thorium Content Ore Management, Section 1.0 (Purpose),
page l, state:
The following procedure applies to acceptance of alternate feed
materials which International Uranium (USA) Corporation (IUSA)
determines to potentially contain levels of thorium that require that special
procedure be followed, which are over and above those required for
conventional ores or other alternated feed materials.
The December l8 SOPs for High Thorium Content Ore Management were
incorporated into License SUA-1358 by Amendments l7 and 18. See 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 (December 27,
2000) (ML-011800084) and Amendment l8 to Materials License SUA-1358 - Approval
to Receive and Process Alternate Feed Material from the Heritage Minerals Site at the
White Mesa Urani um Mil I (Dece mber 29, 2000) (ML0 I 0 I 60252).
The SOPs were implemented for the handling of the Heritage Minerals, Inc.,
materials. (Apparently,IUSA will not receive the material from the W.R. Grace Site.)
This implementation is documented by the October 16,2001, NRC INSPECTIQN
REPORT 40-8681/01-02, forwarded by letter from Charles L. Cain, Chief Nuclear
Materials Licensing Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, to David C.
Frydenland, Vice-President and General Counsel,IUSA (Mt012890491). The October
I 6 Inspection Report states:
c. The Heritage Ore Radiation Work Permit
o
Presentation (A 24Supplement to Petitioner Sierra CIub's i2.1233 Written
Docket 4G868 1 -MI-A- I l, ASLBP No. O2-795-02-MLA
pril 10, 2002)
The inspector reviewed activities, since the previous inspection, that
required the licensee to issue a radiation work perrnit (RWP) due to a
significant potential for workers to be exposed to radioactive material.
The only licensed activity that required the issuance of an RWP was the
handling of the Heritage ore during the period July 3l - August 4,2W1.
RWP-370 was issued by the RSO to work in conjunction with the SOP,
"Heritage Alternate Feed Management." The inspector reviewed the RWP
and the SOP for the Heritage activity. The RSO explained that personnel
conducting the Heritage operation received training on the RWP and the
SOP. The inspector reviewed the training records of the workers who
signed onto RWP-370 and determined that they were adequately trained.
RWP-370 required personnel to don protective equipment such as full-
face respirators, coveralls, and rubber gloves. [Page 7.]
As quoted above at page 6, l0 C.F.R. $ zl0.g(a) requires that information provided
to the NRC by a licensee "shall be complete and accurate in all material respects."
As discussed at A above (pages 8-10), the Amendment Request fails to discuss
the presence of source material thorium-232 and progeny in the Molycorp material.
Further, the Amendment Request fails to discuss whether or not the SOPS for High
Thorium Content Ore Management will be used for the thorium-bearing Molycorp
material and the reasons that the SOPs will or will not be used.
The Amendment Request does not discuss with particularity and specificity the
hazards related to the exposure (by various pathways) to thorium-232 and progeny at the
White Mesa Uranium Mill by individuals off-site during the stockpiling of the Molycorp
material and after the Molycorp material has been disposed of in the tailings
impoundment, or the mitigation of such hazards. See Petitioner Sierra Club's l0 C.F.R.
Written Presentation Requesting Suspension, Modification, or Revocation of Amendment
20 to License SUA-1358 (April 1,2N2).
a
0,2002)25supplement to Petitioner Sierra club's $ 2.1233 written presentation (April I
Docket 4O-868 I -MLA- I l, ASLBP No . O2-795-02-MLA
The December 19,2000, application as supplemented, fails to provide complete
and accurate information regarding the health and safety hazards of thorium -232 and
progeny and how those hazards will be addressed at the White Mesa Uranium Mill and
therefore the requirements for completeness and accuracy have not been met.
The license amendment must be suspended, modified, or revoked until the
amendment request is materially complete and accurate and specific references are
provided.
H. THE AMENDMENT REQUEST FAILS TO PROYIDE COMPLETB ANI)
ACCT]RATE DATA TO SUPPORT IUSA'S ASSERTION THAT THE
MOLYCORP MATERIAL ARE'SIMILAR PITYSICALLY AND IN CONTENT
TO THE MILL'S EXISTING TAILINGS."
IUSA makes a comparison of the Molycorp material with the White Mesa Mill's
existing tailings by stating that they are "similar physically and in content.,,
The December 19 original application, addressing the processing of the ponded
material, states:
Because production will remain within the limits assessed in the original
Environmental Assessment; the process will be essentially unchanged; and
the Uranium Material is similar physically and in content to the Mill's
existing tailings, this amendment will result in no significant
environmental impacts beyond those originally evaluated. Bmphasis
added.l
Hearing File 14, forwarding leffer atZ.
This same assertion is also made for the drummed material in the October 17,
2OOl , supplement to the original application. Hearing File 9 at 6. The October l7 states,
in pertinent part:
Because production will remain within the limits assessed in the original
Environmental Assessment, the process will be essentially unchanged.
o
Supplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's $ 2.1233 Writlen
Docket 40-8681-MLA-l l, ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
10,2m/2\
Because the Drummed Material is similar physically and in content to the
Mill's existing tailings, processing of the Drummed material will result in
no significant environmental impacts beyond those originally evaluated.
rbid.
A licensee is required by l0 C.F.R. $ z!0.9(a) to provide complete and accurate
information within an application submitted to the NRC in all material respects.
In the December 19 original application (Sections 1.2 to 1.4) there is a discussion
of the Molycorp "Material Composition and Volume. Hearing File l4 at 3 - 7. However,
there does not seem to be a discussion in Sections 1.2 - 1.4 or elsewhere in the December
19 application that compares the Molycorp material (processed or unprocessed) with the
content of the White Mesa Mill's "existing tailings."
Further, IUSA's use of the term "similar" is not explained. If things are "sirnilar,"
it means that they are not "the same as," which means that there are differences, perhaps
significant differences. Those differences can have important health and safety
implications. IUSA fails to present a complete and accurate comparison standard to be
used in determining whether materials are "similar.' IUSA does not present any standard
to be used in assessing whether any such differences in the Molycorp material and the
materials in the existing tailings have health and safety implications. IUSA does not
present any information comparing the physical, radiological, and chemical
characteristics of the ponded and drummed Molycorp material with the physical,
radiological, and chemical characteristics of the existing Mill's tailings. Without such a
comparison, any statement that the various materials are "similar" (whatever "similar"
means) is vacuous and without basis.
o
Presentation (April 26
a
10,2002)27Supplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's $ 2.1233 Written Presentation (April
Docket 4O-8681-Ml-A-l I, ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MI-A
Clearly, IUSA, in this respect, has not complied with the requirernents of
10 C.F.R. $ ao.g(a). The license amendment must be suspended, modified, or revoked
until there is a complete and accurate comparison of the Molycorp material and the Mill's
existing tailings and specific references are provided regarding that comparison.
I. THE AMENDMENT REQUEST FAILS TO PROVIDE COMPLETE AND
ACCURATE DATA TO SUPPORT ASSERTIONS REGARDING
EI\-VIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, OR CLEAR AND SPBCIFIC REFERENCE TO
MATERIAL II\TFORMATION REGARDING ENYIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
l. IUSA's December l9 and October 17 (quoted above) reference an original
Environmental Assessment, production limits assessed therein, and environmental
impacts originally evaluated. Hearing File 14, forwarding letter at 2, and Hearing File 9
at6.
NRC regulation with respect amendment requests and information that the
licensee incorporates by reference into an amendment nequest are found at
10 C.F.R. $$ 40.44 and 4O.31 (quoted above at page 7). l0 C.F.R. S 4O.31 plainly
requires the reference to information incorporated by reference are clear and specific.
IUSA's December l9 and October l7 reference an original Environmental
Assessment, production limits assessed therein, and environmental impacts originally
evaluated give no indication as to what Environmental Assessment the Licensee is
referring to, where the production limits were originally assessed, or what environmental
impacts were originally evaluated and where and when they were evaluated.
The reference to an original Environmental Assessment and an original
environmental evaluation is plainly incomplete, unclear, and unspecific and does not
meet the criteria set forth in l0 C.F.R. $ 40.31.
Supplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's $ 2.1233 Written Presentation (April 10, 2002)
Docket 4G.868 I -MI-A- I I , ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MI-A
2. The December 19, 2000, and the October 17,z00l, supplement (both quoted
above) conclude that, because the Molycorp material (drummed and ponded) "is similar
physically and in content to the Mill's existing tailings," it follows that the receipt,
processing, and disposal of the Molycorp material "will result in no significant
environmental impacts beyond those originally evaluated." Hearing File 14, forwarding
letter at2, and Hearing File 9 at 6.
lO C.F.R. $ zl0.g(a) requires that the Amendment Request "be complete and
accurate in all material respects." That criterion plainly would require that the
information presented in support of a claim is readily traceable to a supportive
characterization aryLthe data utilized in arriving at such a characterization.
IUSA does not compare the environmental impact of the proposed amendment
with the environmental impacts originally evaluated, therefore, they do not substantiate
their determination that the environmental impacts from the proposed amendment will
not go "beyond those originally evaluated." IUSA does not substantiate the inference
that because the Molycorp material "is similar physically and in content to the Mill's
existing tailings,n the disposal of the Molycorp material after processing will not cause
"si gnifi cant environmental impacts. "
Moreover, the word "significant," like the word "similar," is not explicated. The
standard used to determine whether any of the environmental impacts of the disposal of
the Molycorp material into the tailings impoundment will be "significant" is not
discussed.
28
supplement to Petitioner Sierra club's g 2.1233 writlen presentation (April 10, 2002)
Docket 4G8681-Ml-A-l I, ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
29
The data contained in the Amendment Request do not support the assumptions
and conclusions of IUSA concerning the similarity between the Molycorp material and
other materials that have been processed at the mill. Neither do the data support the
assumption and conclusion that, based on such an assumption of similarity, the storage,
processing, and disposal of the waste do not present "significant environmental impacts
beyond those originally evaluated." The requirements of l0 C.F.R. g zl0-g(a) have not
been met.
J. THE AMENDMENT REQUEST FAILS TO PROVIDE COMPLETE ANI)
ACCURATE DATA TO SUPPORT TTTE CLAIM THAT TI{E MOLYCORP
MATERIALS ARE COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING MATERIALS IN IUSA'STAILINGS IMPOT]NDMENT.
The December 19, 2offi,license amendment application, sectionl.3.4 states:
The Uranium Material contains metals and other constituents that are
already present in the Mill tailings disposed of in the Cell 3 impoundment.
Generally, the composition of the Uranium Material is similar to the
composition of the materials currently present in the Mill's tailings
impoundments, because the uranium Material resulted from the
processing of uranium-bearing ores, and will not have an adverse impact
on the overall Cell 3 tailings composition. Although the Uranium Material
is known to contain elevated concentrations of lead, the lead is present at
levels compatible with all other inorganic and organic components of the
tailings system. Bmphasis added.l
Hearing File, Request to Amen d at7 .
Here IUSA concludes, going a step further, that because the Molycorp material
resulted from the processing of uranium-bearing ores, it therefore follows that it is
"generally" similar to the composition of the materials derived from uranium-bearing ores
currently present in the tailings impoundments. IUSA also states that the elevated
O
10,2002)30Supplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's $ 2.1233 Written Presentation (April
Docket 4O-868 1 -MI-A- I l, ASLBP No. O2-795-02-MLA
concentrations of lead from the Molycorp material are present at levels "compatible with
all other inorganic and organic components of the tailings system."
IUSA does not explicate what it means by " Generally, the composition of the
Uranium Material is similar to the composition of the materials currently present in the
Mill' s tailings impoundments. "
Here again, IUSA does not elucidate the use of the word "compatible." IUSA
does not explain what criteria are used to determine whether or not materials are
"compatible." And, again, IUSA does not provide a standard for assessing compatibility
and a standard for assessing the implications of any incompatibilities.
The Amendment Request does not provide any data comparing the metals and
other constituents of the Molycorp Material with those that already exist in disposal
Cell 3.
IUSA did not, but should have provided the complete and accurate information
with respect the use of the descriptives "generally similar," "compatibility," or
substantiate the claims made based on such vague conceptualization. The criteria laid out
in the Commission's regulations for complete and accurate information have not been
complied with.
K. THE AMENDMENT REQI.]EST FAILS TO PROVIDE COMPLETE AND
ACCIJRATE DATA TO SUPPORT ASSERTIONS OF NO "ADYERSE IMPACT
ON TTIB OVERALL CELL 3 TAILINGS COMPOSITION."
As quoted,IUSA concludes that, because the Molycorp material is ngenerally"
similar to that already in the tailings impoundments, the disposal of that material after
o
10,2002)3lSupplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's 52.1233 Written Presentation (April
Docket 4O-868 I -MLq,- I 1, ASLBP No. 02-795-U2-MLA
processing in the Mill "will not have an adverse impact on the overall Cell 3 tailings
composition." Hearing File 14, Request to Amend at 7.
The requirement oflO C.F.R. $ O.9(a) regarding complete and accurate material
information would apply to IUSA's statements regarding the adverse impacts of the
Molycorp material.
In the December l9 (as quoted above), the use of the words "overall" and
"adverse impact" is not explained. IUSA does not provide a standard upon which a
determination would be made as to whether or not there would be any "adverse impact"
to the tailings impoundment.
IUSA does not explain, absent a review of overall impact, the extent of
cumulative, localized impact. Some structures, systems, or components of the tailings
impoundment might be more susceptible to impact than others.
IUSA makes no evaluation of what will happen when the Molycorp material (a
material that contains source material thorium and lead sulfide and lead oxide) is
processed (with various reagents) and mixed together with all the other constituents in the
tailings disposal Cell 3. The impact of the processing fluids on the lead and thorium
components of the feedstock is not elucidated.
A good time to characterize, for similarity purposes, is before the material
is placed in the tailings impoundment, not after. Mixing unknown constituents with
uncharacterized existing tailings and processing fluids could create additional
radiological and chemical hazards previously unexamined in any environmental report,
o
0,2002 32Supplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's 92.1233 Wrimen Presentation (April I
Docket 4G868 I -MI-A-I I, ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
environmental assessment, or the 1979 Environmental Statement for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill.
L. THE AMENDMENT REQUEST FAILS TO PROYIDE COMPLETE ANI)
ACCURATE DATA TO SUPPORT ASSERTIONS THAT TTTE MOLYCORP
MATERIAL "\ryILL NOT CHANGE CHARACTERISTICS'' OF TIIE TAILINGS
IMPOT]NDMENT.
The December 19,2000, original application states:
The disposal of the lle.(2) byproduct material resulting from
processing the Uranium Material will not change the characteristics of the
Mill tailings from the characteristics associated with normal milling
oPerations.
Hearing File, forwarding letter at 2.
The requirement of10 C.F.R. $ O.9(a) regarding complete and accurate material
information would apply to IUSA's statements and supporting data regarding changes to
the characteristics of the tailings impoundmenl
As previously discussed,IUSA does not provide any data in the Amendment
Request regarding the physical, chemical, and radiological characteristics of the
byproduct material resulting from the processing of the Molycorp material as compared
with the characteristics of the tailings already in the tailings impoundments.
Without knowledge of the characteristics of the material to be added and the
knowledge of the material already in the tailings in the impoundment, the claim that the
"Uranium Material will not change the characteristics of the Mill tailings" is without
basis and cannot be relied upon as a foundation for further determinations regarding
impacts on health and safety of members of the Sierra Club and on the environment.
o
0.2w2 33Supplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's $ 2.1233 Written hesentation (April 1
Docket 4O-8681 -MI-A- l I , ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
The Amendment Request fails to provide data to substantiate their claims with
respect the characteristics of the Molycorp material and the tailings impoundment
material. Therefore, the Amendment Request fails, in a material way, to meet the
requirement for complete and accurate information found at l0 C.F.R. $ ao.g(a).
CONCLUSION
As shown above, the Amendment Request contains many significant examples of
failure to address with particularity and specificity the criteria contained in
l0 C.F.R.4O.9(a), i.e., the Amendment Request fails to provide complete and accurate
information about facts and claims that are material to the proposed licensing action
under review in the instant proceeding. Plainly, the examples brought forward above
show that l0 C.F.R. O.9(a) has not been complied with and that such noncompliance has
health and safety significance.
It is quite apparent the IUSA did not have, but should have had, access to data or
analysis normally found in documents required by l0 C.F.R. Part 51 and 4O C.F.R. Parts
1500-1508. Seg Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with
NMSS hograms, NUREG-1748, NRC (September 2000). Hearing File D.
l0 C.F.R. Part 51 requires that such documentation be available to management
persons or regulators, where those persons where making informed decisions such as
decisions about the overall acceptability of the Molycorp material as a feed stock at the
White Mesa facility. There is no site-specific NRC Environmental Impact Statement that
addresses the receipt, stockpiling, processing, and disposal of materials other than ore
(i.e., "alternate feed material") at the White Mesa uranium processing facility. See Final
o
o,2ao2 34Supplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's $ 2.1233 Written hesentation (April I
Docket 4O-868t-ML-A-I l, ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
Environmental Statement White Mesa Uranium Project, NUREG-0556, NRC, May
ln9. Hearing File 19.
There is no generic NRC Environmental Impact Statement that addresses the
receipt, stockpiling, processing, and disposal of materials other than ore (i.e., "altemate
feed material") at any uranium processing facility. See Final Ceneric Environmental
Impact Statement on Uranium Milling, Volumel, NUREG-0706, NRC (September 1980)
(8010170154).
Absent such resources, it is hard to see how IUSA management or the NRC Staff
can assess the environmental and health and safety risks resulting from the receipt,
stockpiling, processing, and disposal of the Molycorp material at the White Mesa
Uranium Mill.
As indicated above, Sierra Club feels that the NRC licensing staff should have
requested, but did not request, additional information about IUSA's proposal. By way of
example, such NRC staff inaction has been laid out above (at II. A, B, and F). Such
examples are hardly exhaustive, and such NRC staff inaction with respect other issues
brought forward is exhibited and implied by the fact that Amendment 20 to IUSA's
license only contains one specific preemptive condition (i.e., the tailings impoundment
capacity stricture), which requires that an open item be closed before implementation of
the amendment. Hearing File 4.
The NRC staff erred in issuing License Amendment 20 without announcing
further open items and, most importantly, before preparing a Supplement to the 1979
Environmental Statement that would have discussed many of the discrepancies outlined
Supplement to Petitioner Sierra Club's $2.1233 \ilritten Presentation (April 10,2002)
Docket 4G.8681-ML-A-I l, ASLBP No. 02-795-(D-MLA
above. Petitioner respectfully requests that License Amendment 20 be suspended,
modified, or revoked until all missing relevant data regarding the Molycorp material and
the White Mesa Mill (as discussed above) has been provided and evaluated and a
supplement to the 1979 Environmental Statement has been prepared.
Moreover, as shown above,IUSA's December 19,2000, application, as
supplemented, is plainly materially defective and should not have been approved.
Therefore, Petitioner respectfully requests that License Amendment 20 be suspended,
modified, or revoked.
35
Enclosure: Appendix I
I, John Weisheit, declare under penalty
Dated at Moab, Utah
This lfth day of Apnl20O2
Respectfully -W
Glen Canyon Group,
Utah Chapter, Sierra Club
P.O. Box 622
Moab, Utah M532
435-259-106.3
of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS SION
INTERNATIONAL I.JRANIUM (USA)
CORPORATION
(Source Material License Amendment,
License No. SUA-I358)
Secretary*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications
Staff
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D. C. 20555-0001
Emai I : hearin gdocket@nrc. gov
Administrative Judge *
Alan S. Rosenthal
Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board Panel
Mail Stop T-3 F23
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D. C. 20555-0001
Email: [e-mail]
William E. [.ove *
2811E. Bench Road
Moab, utah84532
Email : [e-mail]
Michelle R. Rehmann *
International Urani um (USA) Corporation
Independence Plaza, Suite 950
I 050 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 8U265
Email : [e-mail]
Docket No. 4O-8681-MLA-I I
ASLBP NO. 02.795-02-MLA
April 10,2002
Administrative Judge *
Dr. Richard F. Cole
Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board Panel
Mail Stop T-3 F23
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D. C. 20555-(n0l
Email: [e-mail]
Office of the General Counsel *
Attn: Dennis C. Dambly, Esq.
Mail Stop o-15 D2l
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D. C. 20555-0001
Email: [e-mail]
Office of Commission Appellate
Adjudication
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D. C. 20555-0001
Anthony J. Thompson, Esq. *
Anthony J. Thompson, P. C.
1225 l%:h Street, N. W., Suite 200
Washington, D. C. 20[36
Email : [e-mail]
)
)
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing SUPPLEMENT TO PETIIIONER SIERRA
CLUB'S l0 C.F.R. g 2.1233 WRITTEN PRESENTATTON REQUESTTNG
SUSPENSION, MODIFICATION, OR REVOCATION OF AMENDMENT 20 TO
LICENSE SUA-I358 have been served on the following persons by first class U.S. mail
or by hand this lO'h day of Apil20ff{ pursuant to l0 C.F.R .2312 and2.l2O3.
Additional service via electronic mail or facsimile transmission is indicated by asterisk.
Certificate of Service
April 10,2002
Tom Rice, Environmental Director*
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
P.g.36v {.d$
Towaoc, Colorado 81334
Email: [e-mail]
Lisa Clark*
Email: [e-mail]
Susan Chidakel*
Email: [e-mail]
Sharon Perini*
E-mail: [e-mail]
2
APPENDIX A
to
suppLEMENT TO PEITTIONER SIERRA CLUB'S l0 C.F.R. g 2.1233
WRTTTEN PRESENTATION REQUESTING SUSPENSION, MODIFICATION,
OR REVOCATION OF AMENDMENT 20 TO LICENSE SUA-I358
April 10,2002
iesof
N.IHiVINGSAX
Assisled bY:
MarllynC.Bracken/RobertD.Bruce/WilllamF.Durhlm/BeniaminFeiner/
Edruard G. Fitzgerald/Joseph J. Fltzgerald/Barbara J. GoBsmlth/John H' Harley/
Bobert Herrick/Richard J. Levtris/James R Mahoney/John F' Schmutz/
E. June Thompson/Ellzebeth K' Wetsburger/David Gordon Wilson
VAN NOSTRAND REINHOLD COMPANY
NEw yoltK CTNCINN^TI r()E()NT() t()No()N pltl$QullNt
lndust ial Materials
Fifth Edition
vl/ lv/ va lv ' Ju rAA
!rr-f*Sr:ZliXf :;iiilr;.ilIi!'5i?-Ess6ffi '
Copyridrt O 1979 by van NoEtrrBd Rcia[dd Conpaoy Btc'
Libpty of Conlrot, Cdrto8 Crrd Numtcr: 78'200t2
ISBN: G.L2-27!?!3
iiffi rH;Iir?r::ti*ff 31 iJ'iTrxo,'-o nanhord comprnv rnc'
X6 ern of thin uort colErtlt Dy tlE coPydthn Dcrcon
oy Ue nproOucd or urd ia rny foru- or.by-
roy mrni-gnpticr cbctronii er rnedrcicrl
UAndinr phoroco4b;; ccordi4r rrPro3 G- -inforrui6n rongs :ad tluicut rprcu-rithour
rrinca pcnnirdor of thE Dublirhr'
MenulscuttGa in tltc Unitad Srtrer ol Amoricr
Publirhcd bv Yrn Nortrod Reir0rold Conpaly tnc'
iii vcst S&tr sEr.t. Ncu Yur, N.Y. 10020
Von ilortnnd Rcinlrold Lhrltcd
lll0 Birdrmognr toed
ScarbootUlr. Ontrrio, MIP 2E7' Crnrde
Vur Noetrrnd Roirrholit Arrrrrlbnv' Lrd'
l? Qucre SEuct
Uirctu-, Wtorir 31 32, Auilsdb
Vur Nortrnd Rclnlrold Conpuy Linitcd
}loltv ilinrrr Lroc
TJo*ingbnn, EqlAn., Eqb'd
15141312It10987654
Ub.rr, dcortra clltlo&t ir Drtilqd'or Drt
Srx, Nqrton lrrioa
Olagcro- propcrtia ol iDdruitit! mrurielr.
Fint Duulbhd b l95l uo.t t rirta: Hrodbool of
d.!6arar E.rr.ilb.
Inclurla tibliornphicrl rsfcrqrccr-
f. iirrtta"- iuuirle. '1. Bns, RoDGn D'
II. Tiilc.T!!.!.H3S! 1979 W.7 78'mEl2
ISEIT I}{?.27l73{
COUNTERMEASURES AND ABBBEVIATIONS
Countermeasures DlreclorY
For a tisting and discussion of ACGIII TLYs for chemical substances and physical ageDts
in rhc workroom cnvironment with intendcd changes for l9?9 sec Scction l.
For industriel air contaminant control, Le., ventilation, Proccss change, substitution" fil-
tration, isolation in rime or spaoe, personncl segregation, local supprcssion of contaminants,
hortsckeeping, rcspiratOty Ptotcction, personncl protectioo, hOOdS, glovc bOXeS, carCinOSen
controt systems, tabular derr, diagrams and eamplc calculations scc Scctioo 2.
For industriat nqige-cffccs and controls, definitions, ille human auditory sy-stem, how
noisc effccts people, hcaring damaga specch interfercncc, rask interfcrcnce, sleep inter-
fercncc, annoysncer reprcscnrariw noisc lcvels in industry, case historics of noise control
lrertmenrs, muffler, elclosurcs, lagging barricn, vibration isolation, sourcc rcdesign, costs
of nOise control, oaintenancc and Operations, and bibliog:raphy see S:ctlon 3.
For air pollution control rcquircmcnts for industriol, commercial and public facilitics via
lcgislarion for Class I arcas, incremcnt limiradons, cxccptions, visibility, non-attainEent,
dara, morleting and monitoring, tabular dats on permit irsuancc time, EPA rule-making
activitics for siationary so*ccs, SO: incremcnt ligrits in a Ctass A region, major cmining
" facilhics subjecr to PSD rcvicn,. PSD permittcd increments, and attainment status designa'
tions by slete see Sccllon {.
For radiation souroes, hazards, coatrols, i.e., regulations, nature of radiatioq decay schcmcs,
cnvironmEntal radiation, radiation units, natural and mcdical dosagc, cffects, permissiblc
lcvels, ta'bular prorcction guidcs, monitoring, bioassay, rcsponsibility, conlrols, storagct
handling and shipping of radioisotopLs, and radioisotope wastc problcms, and controls scc
Sction 5A.
For environmcnml inpact of industriel radiation, i.c-, major sourccs, mcdical applications,
space exploration ugcg, terrsstrial uscs, indumrial proccssing uscs, Poxrcr Production uses'
prOblems Of wAstc, transponation, protcction end control sec Soc{ion 58.
For hcalth hazards of solid rxasrc rreatment-initially hazardous, airborne pethogcns, mbm'
tos, analysis, saaitetion workers, fungat direeses, secondary hazards (flics, mosquitos, to'
clentr, Iircs and explosions, spontaneous combustion, gas produclion, laachatcs), dangcr
points in sotid-waste handling, poteutial hazards and sce disposal scc Scction 6.
For indgstriel firc protection-classification of fircs, Iire protcction, loss limitatioo, firc
tliscoverl, and alsrm, extingrrishmcut, intcngiblt fuc losscs, storag? and handling of hazard-
ous rnaterials, cxplosivcs, storagt aind handling, flammable liquid utorage in tanks cnd in-
dustrial disaster control scc Scction 7.
For industrial and cnvironmental cancer risks-ncw carcinogens lcgislation, tesdnS, pro'
ceduree. toxicity tcating, human canctr, animel carcinogau, canccr in thc genaral popula-
tion, chcmo prevention of canccr, bibliography, Table of NIOSH criteria doanmcrrts'
schedulc of NiOSX documcnts, and cornparison of death ratcs irr chcmists rce Scction t.
For toxicology-toxicity ratings, fypes of toxicity. dosage, clagecs of toxic rrstcrial6, routcs
of absorptior,, storage ana cicretion, individual susceptibility, acule and chronic cffccts,
ritcs of acrion of p-i"orr, absorption and poisoning, prcvenrion (first aitl), alhrgy and
hypcrsensitiviry see Scctlos 9.
For Chemical substances rcgulation inclu<ting legislation prior to 1970, i.c., thc Fcdcral
Food, Drug and Cosmeric Alt. mc Delancy Chus., Early Pe.rticide Legblation, Thc Fed'
g2l
utt/tv/uz lu:{u raa
I
cz| 9ECTION 12
eraltlgzlrdoussubstancesAcr(includingTheFederalHazardoUSSubstancesLabeling
Act), Thc caustic Poisons Act and chemiial Substanccs Legislation in the t9?os such as
osHA (inctuding NtosH); Tb" P;;;; i;*cndon Packaeing .tcr of l9?0; thc consumcr
product safcry Acr of 1973; Th. ;;;;;;ental ProtectiJn agtnty l:ti; Ilt Clean Air
Ad (as amcnded in 1977): m, Cfli"-wii"r la; The Federal-Insccticide' Fungicide and
Rodanticide Acl (FIFRA); The Resourcc conscrvation and RecovEry Act of 1976 (RCRA);
The safe Drinking warer Act, J;;;;;; Tbe Toxic -substanccs control Act (TSCA);
The Fcderal Rcgrlatory Agency r-Jrrr"-,"',i"clrrde a MATRIX for fagt rBfcrc[ct to the
rcgulations-wf,i"fi .o*iror. ZS al",";t's1i"mit"lq plus a lisring of Fe<leral Legislation'
Agenci* ;;;F.d and jurisdicril;;fi; . ig i ., list of references s3c Scction l0A'
For industrial response to chronic health hazards-live facts abour chronic health hazT ds'
need ro define issues, setting ", ;;;;;;i of risk, discovering a hazard, rcgulation
of chronic health hazards sec Scetion l0B'
For labeling nnd ccrtification of hezardous matcrials in rerms of originator' legal $atrs'
extcnr of coverilge, format ooa upffiotion, fcdcral rcgulatory agcncies, hrzardous materials
transporation guides. rgil transport' air rransPort' wolet transport' highway lvanspOrt'
radioacrives, FDA, EpA, TSCA: Olffe, labciing systelns of ANSI, UN, DOT' ganeral
labeling guidelincs, NFPA IATA scc Scction ll'
ACGIH
Acrrtc lox data
anh
ASA
ASTM
etm
8t wt
autoign tcmP
BcV
bp
carc
(cc)
cc
c[m
CG
CNS(coc)
conG
contg
CTD
d
dccomp
dcrmal
DOT
hr(s)
IATA
IARC
ic
id
inhalin
irnp
in
ip
ipl
ir
irr
it
iv
ivgqK
KcV
Kg (ke)
Km (krn)
Kur (kut)
Kwh (kwh)
LC
Amcrican Conference of Govctnmcn-
tal lndustrial HYgicniss
Acute toxicitY data
anhydrous
American Standards Association
Americtn Socicry for Tcsring Materials
atmospbercs
atomic wcight
aurcignition tsmpcralurB
billions of clcctron volts
boiling poinr
carcinogen
closed cuP
cubic cartimetcrs
cubic feet pcr minutc
Coast Guard
central ncrvorts system
Clcvelend oP?n cup
conclntrarion(s)
congaininE
chronic toxicitY dera
dcgrccs Cetsiue
dcnsity
dccomporer or decomPoeition
skin absorption modc of cxPosurt
Dcpanmcnt of TransPortation
erpcrimental
cxplosive, exPlodes
dcgrccs Fahrenhcit
flammable
flash point
foot caodle
freczing point
fcer pcr minute
ABBREVIAT!ONS
gPm
HC
IIIGH
ft
oE
GI
feet
grams
BEstrointcstind
gallons gcr rninurc
hydrocarbon(s)
capablc of causing dcrth or pcrmanent
injury duc to thc erPosutcs of normal
uie; incapacitaring rnd poisonous' Rc-
quires spccirl handling.
.hour(s)
lntcrnarional Air Transport Associs-
tion
InErnatiooal Agcncy fot Rcseerch on
Cancer
intracerebral
intraduodenal
inhalation mode of exPosure
inramuscular
implantation
intredcrmal
intraperironcal
intraplcurel
intrerenal
irritarn, irritation
intratracbecl
intravenous
intravaginal
degrec Kclvin
thousands of eledron volts
kilograms
kilomercrl
kilowan(s)
kilowett hours
lethal concentration
cxpcr
expl
oF
flam
flash p
fc
fp
fPm
LCrc
LCr-o
LD
LDso
Iel
LOW
rnP
mppcf
mu In€m
Pg
a-
nco
lPm
m-
M,, r,
MCA
ng
ml
MLD
mm
MOD
NO,
o-
(oc)
oral
F
pa
Po,
pPb
pphrn
pPm
nBc
recog
(s)
sec-
SO,
sc
sPoot
spont htg
susp, (S)
sym
syn
(Tcc)
TCto
TD
tztl-
THR
TLV
(TOC)
tox
Uoruk
Mev
MT
MTU
Mtr,
pG
nLr
Pci
s
trl
v
lethsl conccntretion o SAVo of a spc-
cilred population
lowesi published le thol concentration
lcthal dqsc
lcthal dosc to 5070 of a spccificd popu-
lation
lower cxPlosivc limit
causes rcadily rcvcrsible tissue changes
which disappear aficr cxposurc stoPs'
Causes somc discomfort
litcrs per minutc
mcta
cubic mctcrs
Manufacturing Chemists Associarion
milligrams
milliliten
minimum lcthal dosc
millimctcrr of mercurY
may cause reversiblc or incvcrsibh
changcs to cxposcd tbsue, not Pcrmo-
nent injury or death- Cerr causc con-
sidcrablc discomfon
melting Point
millions of particles per cubic foot
mucous mearbranc(s)
micrograms
normal
caus.cs forrnation of neoplasm(s) i-e.,
Dgn-mCtaStSSiZing abnormal or re\r
grorvth(s).
no lrarm via cxPosurca ofnormal usc;
harmful only due to ovcrwhclrning
dosc or unu3ual conditions
oxides of N
ortho
open cuP
ingesrion modc of cxPosurc
ParS
parearcral modc of cxPosure
oxidcs of P
parts per billion
p8rt3 Per huadred million
parrs pcr million
rectal modc of cxPosure
uns-
vap d
vaP Prcss;
A
to
RADIOLOGIC ABBREVIATIONS
GENERAL CHEMICALS 329
recognized
upon rcview IARC classifies it as a
susP carc
secondary
oxides of S
subcrrtlncous
spontancous(lY)
spontanqous hcating
suspected
symmcrrical
synonym
Teg closed cup
lowest published toxic conccntration
toxic dosc
tcrtiary
summtty tox statement; acute unl€ss
otherwisc indicated
threshold limir values
Tag open cup
toxic(ity)
unknown, insuffrcicnt data or experi-
ence rccordsd or avoilable to pcrrnit a
statcment
upper explosivc limit
Underwriters' Laboretory Clessifica'
tion
unsymmctrical
vapor density
vaPof Pressurc
ErcaBr than
less then
via heat or heating
primary
alpha
bcta
gamma
upoo rcvicw IARC classi{ics it e car'
cinogen
upon review IARC cleggifies it not t
carcinogen
uPon revieil' IARC statcs insufficient
data to classify
yiclds or caus€s
millions of etectron vohs
mctric tons
metric tons of Uranium
megatlatts
micro curics
nano cur'rcs
pico curics
seconds
thcrmal
half-tife
years
ucl
ulc
c
p
'v
(+)
(-)
(r)
cPm
d
dpm
C
cc
ev
fci
h
m
rnCi
ci
cbun6 per minutc
day3
disintcgrations pcr minute
elcarical
clc':tron caplure
elelron volts
fcmto curics
hours
minutes
millicurics
curies
Val LWI 9a aV. tl r nA
I
I330 sEcTroN 12
TOXICITY SCALE
NONE - No harm via exposurca of normal use; harmful only due to ovcrwhelrning dme or
unusual conditions.
LOW = Causcs reodily rcversible tissuc changes which disappear after exposurc stoPs; causcs
somc discornfon.
I{OD = May ceuse reversiblc or irrevcrsible chanEc$ to exposed tissuc, not Pcrmanent injury
or deeth; ctn cause considercble discomfon.
HIGH = Capable of causing death or permancnt injury due to thc exposurcs of normal usc;
incapacitating and poisonous; reguircs spccial handling.
UNKNOWN (uk) (u) = Insullicient dare or expcricnce recorded or avrilablc to permit a
sletemqtt.
v9/ LV/ Va lV; {l rAA+{4.' uvo
380 ARSENATE OF IBON, FERRIC
phenylarsine acid. white, crrsta]!ry powder'
'HiirLrri^.o(oH)2, mw: 217'0, mpt z3zo ' .;;1;;;; aara: oict Lp5s (rat) = 216 me/ke'[Jl
iiin =-nrcH vie oral routc' Sce also.arsenic' A"Sii*t oPp"r baiq a food additivc permilrcd in rhc
i"ia .r,i'atinking watcr of animals and/or for the
treatnrent of food-producing aniroals' ['091 Se-e
arrenic compounds ind.aniline' A recog carc' [/d]
riie fazara: Mod- Decomp by hear ro yicld llem
voPots.
oii"lttr Hazard: Dangcrous; shcn heatcd to decomp- ;;;; contact wirh icid or acid fumes' cmits highly
toxic fumcs of anilinc ald arsenic'
ARSENATE OF IRON, FERRIC' Scc ferric arsenatc'
ARSENATE OF IRON, FERROUS' See ferrous ar'
senrte.
.ARSENIC (scc also arsenic vapor)' Silvcry- to btack'--;;i,L,
crystatline and amorphous mctalloi9:-'f:
m*, Z'SC.6a' mp: 814" @ 36 aim, bp: subl @ 615o' d:
blacf cryst"ts- 5.724 @ 14"; black amor 4'7' vap'
oress: I mm @ 372o (sublimcs)'
Iiri, |.- daia: im Lbuo (rat) = 25 mclk5 5,c LD'-o
(rabbit) - 36P rrslkg. [3]
frin = iilcH via im and sc routes' A poison' An-
"i* (t) carc. [J' 4l Somc- humsn carc implica-
tioo "s ",u.u- l6'ii: ril uscd as i food additive in
food for humnn cottsirmption ' It09l See arrcnic
comPounds.
Radiation Hrzard: For permissible levels see Tablc
5A.J, Scction 5. Artifiial irotope 7'As, Tf = 18d'-
O"*yt to stable "Ge via cc and via Posiuons of
O.gr ivtcV (26V0), l.SlMeV (4/e)' Also decavs to
,out. "Su vin t's ol O.t2 McY (t4%), l'35 McV
(1S96)- Emits 7's of 0'60 and 0'63 McY'
Fiie Hazard: Mod in rbc form of dust when cxPoscd
to heat or flame or by chemical rcaaion with pow-
crful oxidizcrs sucb as btomatcs, chloratGs, iodetcs'
peroxides, Li, NClr, KNOr, KMnO, RbzCr' A8i'[Or'
ilocr' IFr, Cror' CIFr, ClO, BrFr, BrFr' BrNr'
RbC = CTI, CSC- CH. U9]
E:rplosion Hazard: Slight in ihe forrn of dust when
exposed to flamc-
Disastcr Hazard: Dangerous; whcn hcatcd ot on con-
taa with acid or icid fumcs, cmits highly toxic
furncsl can react vigorously on contact *ith oxidiz-
ing matcrials
Ir-ARSENIC ACID. White crystals' HAsOr' mw:
123.9, mP: decomP'
THR. = Scc arscnic comPounds'
o'ABSENIC ACID. Syn: lrure arseaic acld' Whitc'
rranstucent crystals- HrAsOr lHrO' mw: 150'9'
-o,-ls.s., upi-HrO @ 160"' d: 2.0-2'5'
ii|r.i;,'#r, oth L-D,o Guq = 4E ms/k8i iv LDo
,,!'ittj";3,fflIt"t:l and iv routcs' Sce arscnic
compounds'
ARsENic ACID, LIQUID. Sec arsenic acid'
ARSENIC ACID, SOLID. Sec arscnic acid'
ARSENICAL BABBITT' A bearing mctal' Composi-
tion: Up to 39o As.
THR = See arscnic comPounds'
ABSENICAL COMPOUNDS OR, MIXTURES'
N.O.S. LIQUID-
THR = Sce arsenic comPounds'
ARSENICAL DIP' LIQUID' Syn: shcep dip'
THR = See argcnic comPounds'
Disastcr Hazard: Sce arsenic compounds'
ARSENICAL DUSI. Sec orsenic'
ARSENICAL FLUE DUST' See arsenic'
ARSENTCAL MIXTURE OR COMPOI'jNDS' N'o's'
SOLID. Scc arsenic comPounds'
ARSENIC BISULFTDE Syn: arscaic sulfide' realgu'
Rcd-brown crystals. AsrS2! Inrr: 2l'l' bp: 5650' rnp:
b = 302",d: a = 3.506@ 19". g - 3.254- @ l9o-
?nR - See arsenic compouads and sulfidcs'
iir" Ha.rta, Mod, in tlte form of dust whcn exposcd
to hcat or flarnc.
Explosion Hazard;Whcn intimately mixcd with pow-
irful oxiaizcrs such as C!, KNOr chlor&tes.
Disasler Hazard: pangcrous, scc SO' and arscnic
compounds, it will react with wat€r or sleam lo
prod'uo toxic and flem vapors; can react vi3orously
with oxidizing marcrials.
AISENIC DROMIDE. Syns: arsanic tribromide' orsn-
ous bromide' Ycllowish-whitc crTstals' AsBrr' mv:
314.1 , mp: 32.80 , bp : 220'0" , d: 3' 54 @ 25o ' vap' press:
I mm @ 4l-8o.
THR =-Sec arsenic compounds and bromides'
ARSENIC CHLORIDE, Scc arseuic pentachloride'
ARSf,NIC GOMPOUNDS' Syn: orsenicals' Uscd as
lnscaicides, herbicidcs, silvicides, defoliants' dcsie'
cants aad ioacnticidcs. Poboning from arscnic com-
pounds may be acutc ot chronic' Acute poisoning
lsuatty ,"rult, frorn swallowing ers:nic. cornPounds;
chronic poisoning from cither swallowing or in!a.l'
eanc alicrgic rea-crions to srscnic compounds uscd in
mcdical tnlapy havc been fairly comrnon' The type
ana severity of r.action dcpending upon the com-
pornJ of arscnic. Inorganic irscnicats atc nore toxic
ih"n org"nio- Trivalcit is morc toxic tban Ptfitavd-
cnr. [E9J
Fo, Coloil.rtlorur. ln o.il.tlto trld alDrwitdot' rcc tht Dkoctory 't 6G EqiEdDB ot rhL Sct"tl
vrl Lvl va
jt
It
l
,l
i
.I
,t
:.!'I
t
I
it
'i
I
I
I
I,I
,l
tt
,I
I
J
t
I
t
,I
I
o
ARSENIC
Acute arscnic poisoning (from ingestion) resulrs in
msrked irriration of the stomach and intestines with
nausca, vorniting and diarrhea. ln scvcrc cascs the
vomitus and stools are bloody and the Paticnt gocs
inro collapse and sbock with weak, rapid pulse, cold
sweats, coma and dpath,
Chronic arscoic poisoning, whether througb ingcs-
tion or inhalation, may manifcst irsclf in many diffcrent
ways. Therc may bc disturbanccs of the digesdve sys-
tern such as loss of appetitc, cramps, nausca, con'
stipation or diarrhea. Liver damage may occur, result-
ing in jaundi<r. Disturbanccs of the blood, kidncys
eid nenous system trc not infrequent. Arsenic cen
carne a varicty of skin abnormalitics including itch-
ing, pigmentation and even cancerous changcs. A
characteristic of arsenic poisoning is thc grcat varicty
of symptoms thrrt can bc produced. A rccog carc of
the skin, lungs, Iiver. An exper carc of the rnouth,
eoophagusn laryr,x, bladder and para nasal sinus. [/d
3, 23,95, Egl t
ln trearing, acutc poisoning froa ingcstion BAL
(dimercaptol) is of questionrblc cffeaiveness forecutc
snd chronic poisoning with trivalcnl orscnicab, such
ss As trioxidc, arsine and arsenites. It is of no value
for pcntavalent arsenicals, suc[ os cacodylic acid,
methanearsonic acid, sodium, cacodylatc, MSMA,
DSMA, arsanilic acid, arscnic acid, and arscnatcs,
Vomiting and gastric lavage are the preferrcd emcr-
gency trcrtmcnt$ for acute. arscnical poisoning. Mod-
crn mcdical treatmcnt of crsenical poisoning usGS cx.
changc transfusion and dialysis (A. E. De Pelmr,
f . Occup. M cd., Y ol. I l, 582-587 ( I 969). Notc Ancnic
compounds ire common air contaninants-
Disaster lfazard: Daagerour; whcn hcatcd to dccourp,
or for mctallic arscnic on contaG with asid6 or
acid fumcs, or rvhco watcr solutions of arsenicals
arc in contact with astive maals such as Fe, Al,
Zn, eroits highly toxb fumcs of arsenic-
ARSENIC COPPER. Scc coppcr arsenidc.
ARSENIC DIETIIYL. Syns: erlryl cacodyl, tetruethyl-
diarine. Uquid or oil. [As(CrHr)r]r, mw: ?-66.2, bp:
t85o-19(P, d: ebour l.
THR = Sec arscnic compoundr.
Firc Hazsrd: Dangcrous, by spont chemical reaction.
' A spoat flam liquid.
Disastcr Hazarrl: Dangerous; see ancnig catr rcsct
vigororrsly rrith oxidizing materials. '
ARSENIC DDODIDE. Syn: orsenic iodide. Rcd crys'
tals. A!lr, mw: 12t.6, mp; dccomp @ 136o.
THR = Scc arsenic compounds and iodides.
ARSENIC DIMEIHYL. Sya: rctomerhyl diorsyl. Col-
orless to yellow oily liquid. [edCllr]lr, nw: 210.4
mp: -60r bp: 186, d: 1.15.
PHOSPHIOE 3E9
THR - HIGH via inhal and oral routes. See also
arsenic-
Fire Hazard: Mod flam lieuid.
Disaster Hazard: Dangerous; see amenic.
ARSENIC DISULFIDE. See arsenic bisulfidc.
ARSENIC FLUORIDE. See arsenic pentafluoridc or
ersenic trifluoride.
ARSENIC HEMISELf,NIDE. Black crystals with me-
tallic lustcr. As2Sc, mw: 228.7E.
THR = See arsenic and selenium compounds.
Disester }lazerd: Dengerous; see arsenic compounds
and sclcnium compounds; can rcact vigorously with
oridizing matcrials.
ARSENIC HYDRIDB. See arsine.
ARSENIC IODIDE, See arsenic diiodidc.
ARSENIC OXIDES. Sce arsenic trioxide or arscnic
pcntoxidc.
ARSENIC OXYCHLORIDE. Brown crystals. AsOCl,
mw: 125.4, bp: decomp.
THR - See arsenic compounds and chlorides.
ARSENIC PB,NTACHLORIDE. Colorless liquid.
AsClr, mw: 252.2, mp: -40P (approx).
THR - See arsenic compounds and HCl.
ARSENIC PENTAFLUORIDE. Syn:. arsenic tluoride,
Colorless ges. AsF5, mw: 159.9, mp: -80o, bp: -53o,
d:7.?l g/litcr.
THR = See arsenic compounds and fluorides.
ARSEMC PENTASELENIDE. Blacf, britdc solid
with a roctallic lustcr. AgtScr, mw: 5{,E,,62.
THR = See ercenic and sclcnium compounds.
ARSENIC PENTASULFIDE. Brownish.yellow, glasry,
amorphous, highly rcfraaivc mass. Aszsr, mw: 310.2,
mp: 500c (subl).
THR = Sec arsenic compounds and sulfidcs.
Fire Hazerd: A lle.m nrteriel-
Explosion Hazard: Sce arscnic bisullidc.
Disertcr Hazard: Dangerous; sse SO, and arscnic
compounds; will reast with stcam or $rltcr to pro-
ducc toxic and corrosive fume$ can rcactvigorou.rly
witb oxidizing materiels.
ARSENIC PENTAOXIDE. Syn: or se nic oxde.'$y'hile,
aacorphous solid, Dcliqucccnt. AsrOs, mw: 229.8,
op: 3l5o (decomp), d:4.3L
Acute tox data: Oral LD:o (ret) = E mglkg oral LDro
(mouse) = 55 mg/kg; iv LDuo (rabbit) = 6 mg/kg.
T'ITHR : HIGH via oral and iv routcs- An cxpcr (*)
carc [3, 6] Reacrs vigorously uith RbrCr. [r9l
Disaster Hazard: Sec arsenic compounds.
ARSDNIC PHOSPHIDE. Brosn to red powdcr. AsP,
mw: 105-9, mp: subl with decornp-
Fc Colrrrcrrcrflrc hfo'rrdcr o{ t}DrartrlolE *c tb t}lrcocy l tDr t4bda3 o[ 6i S6tior.
lIil
,,i
,ti
l'
,Ir '1.:l'
.t,1
l:I d'.
:i
ii,
i,'llli.i''i,i
x'
.\ l.I r,li
J,.li
,t i,
r iill
.'i I
I ri'.l;,.
. ilr
:,lll
ril,
lr:l '
i{i
: rii.,th.
i:ilr
|t-rli .
l'll,.:ii
l,'ltr
lrfu'..i t't.,.
l_ ,1.
rti
I :r: rl,
t,,:'' ,il;i!l
r'l',
I "t',i
',J
i
390 ABSENIC, SOLID
THR = Sec arsenic compounds and phosphine-
Firc Hazard: Mod by spont chemical rcaction' Phos'
phinc is liberared uPon contact with moisture'
Explosion Hazard: U'
Diiaster Hazard: Dangerous, see phosphorus and ar-
senic compounds; will react with water or steam to
produce toxic and flam vapors; can r"nct vigorously
sith oxidizing rsatcrials'
ARSENIC, SOLID. Sec arsenic'
ARSENIC SULFIDE, (POWDER)' Sec arsenic tri-
sulfide, argcnic bisulfide and arsenic pentasulfide'
ARSDNIC TRIBROMIDE- See arscuic bromide'
ARSENIC TRICHLORIDE. Clear, almost colorkrs lo
palc yellov corrosivt oily liquid, or necdl+like crys'
irfr- ntCtr, mu,: lEl.3. mp: -E.5o, bp: 130.2c, d: (liq)
2.t63 @ 14" l4o,vaP. Pres: l0 mm @I'5o, vap' d:
6.25.
Acutc tox dea: Inhal LCuo (mousc) = ?500 mg/mt'
l0 min; inhal LCr.o (cat) - l{D mg/m', I hr' F]
THR = HIOI{ via inhal and oral rourcs. Can producl
srong explosions upon impact whcn nixed uith Na,
tq AL [r9J
ARSENIC IRIEIITIL. Sce triethyl arsenic.
A RSENI C TRI FLUORIDE- Syn : arsmic fl uo r ith' Oily
liquirl. AsFr, mw: 131.9, op: -8'5o, bp: 63c @ 7Sz
mm, d: (liq) 2.666. vaP. Prcss: 100 mm @ l3-2o' 400
mo @ 41.5a.
THF. = Sec arsenic compoundr and fluoridee. Reacts
violcntly with PrOr. [I9J
ARSEMC TRIMETIIYL. See trimcthyl erseuic'
ARSENIC TffiODIDE. Orange-red crystah' AsIr,
ms:455.6, mp: 140.90, bp:4(X)", d: 4-688 @ 25o1lo'
THR = HICH. Scc arscnic cornpoundt end iodidca'
Can forra a shock sensitivc cxptosive with Na, K- [I9]
ARSENIC Tnl OXIDE. Syrr: wh i rc a rseatlc. White, odor-
hss, tastclcss, amorphous powdcr- AsrOr, mw: 197'8,
mp: 3l5o (subl), d: (ancnalitc) 3,865 @ 25"; (ctaude-
ditc) a.15; (amqrphous) 4.09.
Acute tox data: OraI LDlo (man) = 1.43 mg/k$ oral
LDo (rar) = 20 rng/kg; sc.LDto (rat; = 15 ms,/kg;
inhal TCr-o (man) = 0'7 mg/n'+ carc' [3]
THR - HIGH via oral and lc roul6. A rodenticidc.
Scc arse.ic compounds. An cxpcr human carc. [J,
fl Reacts vigsroutly with RbrCr, ClF1, F2, Hg,
OFr, NaClOr. [/9]
Dsastcr Hazard: Scc arscnic compounds.
ARSENTC TRIPHENYL. Sec triphcnyl arsenia
ARSENIC TRISELENIDE. Syn: arsmious sehnide,
Bro*n crystals. .{szSer, rw: 386'7, mp:36(F, d:4-75-
THR = See arsenic and sclcnium compounds.
ARSENIC TRISULFIDE. Syns: arsenic sulfide, orpi'
manr. Yellow or red crystals. AszSr, mw: 246.0' mp:
300P, bp: 707', d: 3.43.
THR = HIGH. Sce arsenic compounds and sulfidcs'
Scc arsenic bisulfide. Rcacts violently wirh HrOz,
(KNO, + S). t/eJ
Disaster Hazard: Dangcrous; when hcatcd to decomp
or on contact with acid or acid fumes, cmits highly
toxic fumes of sulfur and arseniq wiU rcacr with
watcr or stcam to produce toxic and 0am vapors;
can react vigorously on contact with oridizing
materials.
ARSENIC TRISILYL. Sce trisilyt arsine.
ARSEI\IC VAPOB. As, atwt: ?5.
THR = Scc argenic compbunds.
Fire llazard: Mod by chemical rcaction with oxidizcrs.
Disaster Hazard: Scc erscnic compounds.
ARSENIOUS SELENIDE. SGe arsenic trisetenide.
ARSENIURETTED HYDROGEN. Sec arsinc'
ARSENOACf,TIC ACID. Yellow. crystalc, insol in
varer- (AgCIIzCOOH):, mw: 267.9, mp: )26f .
THR = Sec ancnic comPoundr-
ARSENOBENZENE. White crvstdr, insol in water,
sol in bcnzene. QHsAsrClHr, ffiul 3fi.O mp:212".
THR = Sec arscnic compounds'
ARSENOUS ACID, SOLID. See arsenic trioxidc.
ARSENOUS BROMIDD. Sec arscnic bromide.
ARSENOUS AND IYTERCURIC IODIDE SOLU.
TION, LIQT'ID.
THR = See atscnic aad meranry compoundo.
Disaster llazard: See arsenio end mcrcrrry compounds'
ARSINE. Syns: arrcnr:c hydride, arszniurctled hydrt
gen- Colorless gas, mild gadic odor. AsHr' nw: 78'
mp: -ll6o, bp: -55o, d: 3.'lE4 g/liter, vap. d:266.
Acute tox data; Inhst fQLe (humsn) = 3 ppm; inhat
TCr,o (human) - 3ppar; inhal TCr.o (human) = 25
ppm, 30 min; inhal LCto (human)- 500 mg/kg. FJ
THR = HIGII vie inhal routc.
The roxicity of aninc ig due to itr hcmolytic adion.
Ou cntcring thc blood strcem il combincg with tht
hcmoglobin of the red blood ccll$ grsduelly thc arscnic
in this hemogtobin-arsenic complex is oxidized and
rhc oxidation Proccss is accompanicd by hcmolysis
of thc cell The resulting enemia is respomible for
the production of mrny of thc cymptoms ac.cornpany-
ing arsinc poisoning; other symptoros rcsult from
rhe hemolysir itsclf, and occur during the cxcretion
of the hemoglobin. llemogtobin and its degradation
products atc commonly found in the urine. Lcss com'
monty whole blood may bc passcd. Occasionally,
the ienal tubulcs may be pluggcd by debris' with
Por Couricrocrnrr frblaatioa -d AbbtrNiilloB r" rhG D'ltctot, 't ri' Ecabdal otlxl 6calioo'
vt/ Lv/ va J.v. {6 rIaA
resulrant suppression of urine. Jaundice, which may
bc sevcre, is a comrnon rcsuh of rhe hemolysis. Fre-
quently thcre is ederna of thc lungF, which may be
accompanied by cyanosis. Kidney damage is common
in patients surviving acute effects ofthc gas. A recog-
nizcd carc. [I{]
Signs of poisoning usually dcvclop within several
hours of cxposure, Headache, dizrincss, nausea and
vomiring, epigastric pain and weakness occur early,
followed try tca-colorcd urine, or bloody urine in the
morc severe cases. Somc time later, albumen, and
casts mey appear in the urine, or, in serious sases,
therc may bc suppression of urine. Jaundicc end ten-
derness over thc liver may appcar about the samq timc.
Blood examination shows an anernie which may be
markctl. In fatal cascs, thc patient may dcvclop de
lirium, followed by coma and death. During thc acule
ilage of poisoning and for sorne weeks after, arsenic
may bc dcmonstrated in thc urinc. See also arsenic
and arscnic compounds.
Firc Hazard: Modcrate, whcn exposed to flame.
Explosion Hazard: MOD, when cxposed to CL,
HNOr, G + NH, or opcn flamc. U9l
Disaster Hazard: Dangelgus, extremcly toxic More
toxic than irs crxidation producr; when heatcd to
dccomp, emits highly toxic frrmes; can react vigor-
ously with oxidizing matcrials-
ARSONOACETIC ACID. Sec aricyl acid.
ARSPHENAMINE" Syn,: 3-diamino-4-dihydroxy-l-
a$ cnob cnzene hy drochloride, Htrlich 606, s alvor san.
Light ycllow hygroscopic powdcr. QrrHlzAs2N7Oz
2HCl'2HrO, mwr 475.0.
Acute tox data: iv LDuo (rat) = lfi) urglkg. pl
THR = HIGH via iv routc. lmplicated in rtre develop-
menr of eplastic encmie. Sce elso arsenic.
ARSYSODTLA. Sce sodium cacodylatc.
ARTHRYTIN. Scc amiodoxyl benzoatc.
ABTIFICIAL ALMOND OIL. See benzaldehydc.
ARTIFICIAL GUIU. $cc dcxtrin.
ASBESTOS PARIICT,ES. Syns: asbestos dust, amo-
sirc, anvfubole.
THR = MOD via inhal routc. A rccog (*) carc. [J, d
l02lThe essential lesion produced by asbestos dusr
is a diffuse fibrosis which probably begins as a'col-
lar' about the rerminal bronchioles. Usually, atlca$
4 to 7 ycars of cxposurc arc rpquircd before a lcriour
dcgrcc of fibrosis results- There is apparently less
predisposition to tuberculosis than is rhe casc with
silicosir. Prolonged inhal can causc canccr of thc
lung, pleura and pcritoncum, and has exper pro-
duccd canccrs of tha peritoncum. inrcsrine, bron-
chus and oropharynx- lt2, 3, 6, 231 Clinically,
ASCOREYL PALTIIITATE 391
rhe most striking sign is shortness of brcath of Srad'
ually increasing intensity, often associated with a
dry cough. In rhc cady srages physical signs arc
absent or slight; in thc later stages ralcs may be
hcrrd, and in long standing cases there is lrcqucntly
clubbing of the fingers. In carly stages ofthc discase
thc chest x-rays reveal a groundglass or granular
changc. chicfty in thc lower lung ficlds; ss tlrc con'
dition progrctscs thc heart outlinc bccomes
'shaggy," and irregular patchcs of mottlcd shadow-
ing mey be seen. "Asbestos bodics" may be found
in the sputum. At auropsy, the plcurac art thick-
ened and adherent and'thick subpleural fibrous
plaqucs are oftcn prcscnt. Wherc thc disease is far
advanccd thcrc ere usuntly targe arcas of fibrosis,
with emphyscmatous changcs in thc apices and
bases. The alveolar walls arc thickened, and thc
charactcristic "asbestos bodics" arc found. A com-
mon air conteminant. [45]
ASBESTOS, BLUE. See asbestos particlcs.
ASBESTOS, BROWN (AMOSITD). Scc asbestos par-
ticlcs.
ASBESTOS, WHITE. Scc asbestos particles.
ASCARIDOLE. Syn: ascarisin. Unstable liquid.
CroHreO, mw: 168.2, mp: 3.3o, bp: 4(F @ 2 mm;
l15" @ 15 mm, d: l.0ll @ l3oll5o.
THR = HIGH oral systemic. An expcr nco. [J] See
oil of chcnopodium end peroxides, orgrnic.
Firc Hazard: Mod, by spont chcmical rcaction. An
oxidizcr.
Expltision Hazard: Explodes whcn heated rbovc I3(F
or when exposed ro organic rcids.
Disastcr llezard: Dengerous; rrhcn hcetcd, emits
toric fumas and may cxplode; rcacts with reducing
matcrials.
ASCA,RISIN. Sce ascaridole.
ASCORBIC ACID. Syns: l-ascorbic acid vircmin C.
White crystals, sol in warcr, slightly sol ia alcohol,
insol ia ethcr, chloroform, bcnzeoe, petrolcum cthcr,
oils and fau. OCOCOIIICOHCHCHOHCH,OII, mw:
176, mp: 192o.
Asutc tox data: iv LDyl (mouse) = 5lt mg/LS-FI
THR : MOD via iv route, A chcnical prescwadvc
food additive end a dietary rupptement food ad-
ditivc. [r09]
ASCORBYL PALMITATf,. A white orycllowirhwhirc
powder, citrus-likc odor, sol ia alcohol, animal and
vcgetable oils, slightly sol in qatcr, CuHrrOr, mw:
414, mp: ll60-117".
THR: No data. Probrbly LOW to MOD. A chemical
prcseryative food additive. tl 091
q4tulv
Frr Csnt rRr.urc blomnion rnd Atrtrcrirll*o n lir Dh3clol, 11fu lqirriri oI oA frcrleo.
va/Lv/va .Lu;{{ r,1.{l
are dcstroyed more rapidly in thc body than normally,
producing an ancmia which is rarely sevcrc. The loss
bf circulating rcd cclls srimulates the production of
new youDg cclls wlrich, on entering rhc bloocl sueam,
are acted upon by thc circulating lead' with resulrant
coagulation of thcir basophilic matcrial- These cclls
aftcr suitable staining, are rccognized as *stippled
cetls.' As regards the effeo of lcad on thc white blood
cells, thcre is no uniformity of opinion' In addition to
its cffcct on the red cells of thc blood, lcad produces
a damaging effect on the orSans or iissucs urith urhich
it comcs in contact. No specific or charactcristic
lesion is produced- Autopsics of deaths attributed to
lced poisoning and expcrimcntal work on animals,
have shown pathologicat lesions of the kidnerys, liver,
male gonads, nerY.)us syst?m, blood vcssels and other
tissucs. Nonc of these changps, howcvcr, havc becn
found consistently.
In cases of lcad poisoning the amount of leod
found in the blooet is frequently in cxccss of 0.07 mg
per lfi) cc of wholc blood. The urinary lcad excrclion
gcnerelly excecds 0-l mg pcr litcr of urine.
Tbc roxicity of the various lcad compounds appears
to dcpcnd upon sevcral factorr: (l) thc sol ofthe com'
pound in the body tluids; (2) thc fincness ofthe particlcs
of thc compound; sol is grcater, cif courrc, in propor-
tion'to lhe fineocss of the particlcs; (3) conditions
undcr which the compound is bcing uscd; where a leed
compound is uscd as a powdcr, contamination of the
altlospherc will tr much less whcrc thc powder is
kcpt damp. Of the variout lcad compounds, thc car-
bonare, tlre monoxidc and sulfate ere considcred to
be more toxic than mctsllic lcsd or other lead com'
pounds. Lead arccnatc is vcry toxic, due to thc prcs'
cncc of the arsenic radiel,
Signs end Symptt,ms: Industrial lcad poisoaing com-
monly ocors folloving prolongcd cxposurc to lcad
or iu conpounds. The qomulon dinical typcs of
lcad poisoniag nay bc classified according to their
clinical picrwc as (a) alimentarf (b) ncuronotor;,
and (c) cnccphalh. Sosrc cases may show a cottr-
bination of clinical t!?ca- The alimcotary t)?c
occunt mox frcqucntly, and is charaaerixcd by ab'
dominal discomfon or pain, Severe casgs 'ney pre-
sent aciual colic. Otber complaints arc constiPaF
tion and/or dierrbca, Ioes of appetite, mcldlic
tarte, narrea nnd voniting, llssrtude, insornnia'
wcat<nc$s, joinr and musclc Pains, irritability, hcad-
schc snd dizziuess. Pallor, lead linc on the gum'
pyorrhca, loss of weight abdomioal tcnderness,
brsophilic stippling, ancmia, rlight atbuminuria, in'
creascd unnary excrction, and an increase in the
lcad content of the whotc blood, orc siSns which
may accor'ptnY thc abovc symPtoms.
LEAD COMPOUNDS 707
In tlre neuromuscular tyPe, rhe chief complaint
is wcakness, flcquently of the cxtcnsor musclcs of
the wrigt end lrand, unileteral or bilareral' Othcr
muscle groups wlrich arc subjcct to constant usc
may be affccted. Gastrocntcric symptoxns are usu'
ally prcsent, but are not as sevcrc as in the alimen-
t"iy lype of poisoning. Joint and muscle pains are
likcly to be more scYcre. Headachc, dizziness and
insomnia are frequcnlly prorninent. Truc paraly-
sis is uncommon, and usually is the result of pro-
longed Exposurc.
[,ca<t encephalopathy is the most severe but the
rarest manifc$ation of lcad poisoning. In tlre in-
dustrial workcr it follows rapid and hcavy lead
absorption. Otganic lead compounds, such as tetra-
ethyl lead, are absorbed rapidly rhrough thc skin
as wetl as through th€ lungs, and are selcctively
absorH by thc CNS. The clinical picture in thcsc
cases is usually an cncephalopathy. With inorganic
lcad cornpounds. comparablc conc in rhe CNS are
rcached onty when the workplace is heavily con-
taminatcd with vapor, fumc and dust. Encephalo-
pathy bcgins abruprly, and is characterizcd by signs
of ccrebral and meningesl irrvolvement. Thcre is
usually stupor, progrcssing to come, with or with'
out convulsion, and olten terminating in dcath'
ExcitariorL confusion and maaia arc lcss coslmon'
Il milder cases of short duration, lhere may bc
symptoms of hcadachc, dizziness, somnobncc and
insomnia- Thc c'crcbrospinal prcssurc may bc in-
creased. Scc also specific compound.
Diagrrosis: A diagnosis of lcad poisoning should not
bi medc on th. basis of eny siagle clinical or labora-
tory frnding. There must be a history of significant
exposurc, sigos, and symPtoms (as describcd abovc)
compatiblc with thc diagnosis, and confirmatory
laboratory tcsts. Increasc of stipplcd rcd blood
cclts, mild anemie, and eleveted lead in blood and
urinc, i.c., more than 0-07 mg/ 100 ml blood and
similar values per liter of urinc. An increase of co-
proporphyrins and ctrtain amino gcids in urine may
L" pr.r"or. Diagnostic mobilization of tcad with
calciuro EDTA may be urcful in questionable cascs-
Trcatment of Lcad Poisoning: It has becn found that
the chelating agent, calcirt'n ethylcncdiamineta-
racctatq and rctatcd compounds erc higbly effica'
cious in removiag abcorbcd lcad from thc tissues of
ttre body. (Thc thcrepeutic agcnts of this group are
also knovn as vcrscnc' verscnatcr edathamil and Ca
EDTA. Ca EDTA is effcaive only whcn adminis-
tcred iDinvenously. Various dosage schcdules havc
bocD proPoscd. An cffccrive regimc is 3-6 g of NaCa
EDTA in fOO cc-500 cc oI 590 glucose by inua-
venous drip ovur a perlod of 34 hrs. Trcatmcnt may
Fol Gootsuex ltto.trorlol rra Abbrairtbr r.r ltrr Dbocrory 'l SB trLriEi'l o( fiL Srlri'L
wat aWtvt 4vrru aAl\
Firc Hazard: Slighr, whcn cxposed to heet or flame.
Disaster Hazard: Mod dangcrous; when heated to
dtcomp, emits roxic fumcs; can react with oxidiz'
ing materials.
To Fight Fire: Forrn, COz, dr)'chcmical.
LAURYL QTIINALDINIUM BNOMIDE.
THR = U. Scc rlso brourides.
Firc Hazerd: U.
Disarter Hazard; Dangerous. Sce bromides,
LAURyL QT INOTIMUM CHLORIDE. U. A fungi-
cidc.
Fire Hazard: U.
Disaster Hazard: Dangerou. Scc ctlorides.
LAURYL THI(rcYANATE. CHr(CHz)roCHrSCN,
mw:277.1.
Acuts tox dau: oral LDr (rat) = l25A me/ke" [J]THR: MOD via oral routc- An insecticide.
LAWRENCITE. Sce ferrous chloride.
Il\WRENCtt I}l. A syntheric transuranium clcncnr of
atomic numbcr 103 and atomic mass 257. Lw.
TIIR = Redioectivc.
Radiatiou Hazard: Iutca3cly redioactive end lhere-
forc higNy radiotoxic.
LD-t13. A mixturc of aromatic amines. (approx 4090
MOCA).
THR = An expcr carc to rats via oral route- [3]
LEACIIATE PRODUCTION FROM SOLD
WASTE. ScG Section 6.
LEAD. Sya:. plumbwn Bluieh-gray, soft metal. Pb,
atwt: 207.2t, mp:327,430, bp: 1620o, d: ll.2EE @
20o 1200. vrp. prcss: I mm @ 973".
TIIR = Scc lcad compounds. A common air con-
taninant. It is a (S) carc of thc luugs and kidncy
aud an erpcr tffBtogcn. [3, ,3]
Redietion Hazard: For pcrmissiblc lcvcls, see Sec-
tion 5, Tablc 5A- 5. Natural i$otopc 2 r0 Pb (radium-D,
uranium serics), Tl = 2ly. Dccays to radioactivczPPb ,ia p'r of 0.fi)t5 (19%) Mcv. Emits 7'e of
0.O06 McV- 2PPb usually axists in cquilibrium
witb its daugtrter!, zroBi and 2t0Po. Neturcl isotope
'uPb lThorium-B, thorium Scries), Tl = 10.6 h.
Dccays ro radioaaivc 2rzBivia I's of 0-16(Sa/d.A.Y
111901.0.58 (14%) McY- Emits 7ns of 0.2'1,0.34 McV
and r-rays.
Firc Haz.ard; Mod, ia the form of dust whcn cxposcd
to heat or flamc. See dso pourdertd metals.
Explosioo Hazard: Mod, iD tbc form of dust whqn
expored to heat or Ilamc. Violent rcaaions with
NHrNOr, CIF:, HrOr, NaNl NarCr, 7r-Ugl
Dsartcr Hazard: Daagcrous; when hcstcd' emils
hi3hly toxic fumcs; csn rcect vigorously with oxi-
dizing matcriab.
I
LEAD AZIDE ?65
LEAD ACETATE. Syn; sugar of lead. White crystals'
sol in watcr. Commercial gradcs arc frequcntly brown
or Sray lumps. Pb(C:HrOz):'3[I:O, mw: 379'35' mp:
75", rnhydrous mP: 280o. d: 2-55.
Acute tox data: ip LDr-o (rat) = 204 mglkg; iv LDso
(rat) - 120 mg/kg. FJ
THR = HIGH via ip end iv routes' Scc also lcad
compounds. A poison. An expcr (*) carc and tera-
togen. [3, 9] Yiolcnt rcaction rzith KBrOr' [t9] An
insecticide.
LBAD ACETATE, BASIC. White porvder'
Pb:OH(GhQ)b, mw: 60E.6-
THR - An exper (+) csrc. [3, 9] Sce also lead acetste'
A poison.
LEAD ACETATE (III) TR.IHYDRATE.
THR: An cxpcr (*) carc. [J, 9J Sce alsb lcad scetate.
Lf,AD ANTIMONATE. Syns: naples yellow, andmony
yellow. Orange yellou powder. Pbr(SbO):' mw:
99t.2.
TIIR = Sct lead and antimony compounds.
LEAD ARSENATDS. Syn: leod'o4Benatc. Whitc
crystalt. PbHAsOr, mw: 327.1.
Acute tox data: Oral LDro (human) : 1.4 mg/kC;
oral LDr (rot) = 100 mg/kg- Fl
THR = HIGH vio oral routc. Scc also lcad and ar-
seuic compounds. A poison. An expcr carc. [3, 9]
Disastcr Hazard: DanSerous; on heatin6, cmiu highly
toxic fumes.
LEN)-n-ARSENATE. ArHrO. - (Pb)x.
Acute tox data: Oral LDr (rat) = 100 mg/k8; oral
LDr (mousc) = I0O0 mC/k8; oral LDlo (raUbit; -
125 me/ks. [J]
THR - IIIGH via orel to MOD vie oral routca dc-
pcnding upon specier. Soe abo,lesd arsenrtc- A
pobon.
LEAII"o-ARSENATE. Sec lcad srscnates.
LEAD A,RSENIIE. Syns: Icad-o-arscnitc, lead-m<r-
scnirc. White powdeq PbAstO6, mw:421.
THR = HIGH- Sc9 lcad compounds, and arseoic
compoundr.
Disaster Hazard: Dengerous; on heating, cmits highly
toxic fumcs.
LEAD-aI-ARSDNIE. Sec leed arscnitc-
LEAD-o-.IRSENITE. Sec lead arscuitc.
LEAD AZIDE. Colodcss necdles. Pb(Nr):, m*:291.26-
THR = Sec leed compounds and azidcs.
Fire Hrrard: U.
Explosion Hazard: Swcrc, when chocked or exposed
to heet or flame. Explodes at 250o. Violcnt reac-
tion uith brass, calcium stearatc. CSr, Ctt Zn. [r9J
Disager Hazard: Highly dangcrous; shock and heat
fd C.rnlcr*rilta lrrorD|itcr rlla Ablrcrblien rt. .l. Dit Glot, 'r tl' l.timin! Dr nilr S'don'
V.l/ LVlVA .lU;{l!, rArl q4l ur.)
I
t'
I
;
766 LEAD BENZOATT
willexplodeiqwhcnheated,cmitshighlytoxicLDADCHRoMATE.Syns:crocoile,chlomeyellow.
fumes of lead. 'hcn heated, crilirs hrgr"v '-^'- - ii,o*'..y-r"rr. ?bcro., mw: 323.22, mp: E44o,
LEAD BDNzoArE. whire crystals, Pb(crrlso,h r"J:ilfl;*,lirDo (suinea pig) = 400 os/ks [J]""H;,;.;,-46 .5, mp: -HzO @ 100" . THR -;Io, ,ii ip .ouic..An.exper (i) nco and carc'
THR = See rcad "orp*oa, and tcad- rJ, 6l'i:;;r ,iri*irv *Ltr feriic fettocvanidc' U9l
mw: 310.E7, d: 5.5gE (anhydrous). . ^ --:-^- LEADCHROMATE,BASIG'-Red'amorphousorcrys-
THR = Sce lead # urrJi""rpounds. A poison' t"tr. P;;ibil,.lcP.,PI: 5^61'n5'mp:920"'
LEAD EROMATE. Monoclinic crysrals. Pb(BrOr):' THR l'i.. -r""4 and chromium compounds' An
Hro, mrc: 481.06,;;i#'i;*o-p)' a' s'sr' crpcr nco' [J]
tHR = Sic lead'compounds end bromatcs' A
LEAD CITB,ATE. Whitc crystallinc porlder.
poison- pb:(aHrG),2'3HzO, mw: 1053'88'
"?ll#IHftr *":*3;l,l; H;,'i'l"i' l::; scc uaa comporrads'
LEAD CAPRATE. Pb(CrotL0ilr, mw: 549'?l' mP: LE4P-COMPOUNDS'
t03o_t04".
Pb(crotLoil:,. *:' ,'- TI{R:;;;i.. t-caa poisoning is one of thc com-
THR = Sc= teart compounds and lcad' *o# "i *""p"{qu"f a'ittoLt' The presemce 'of
LEAD cApnoArE. cryrtals. Pb(crH,or)r' mw: mj*;liru;*r":::'ryHt;l:l'x
43?.5t,rnp:73o-74o. s;;ii.et"of th.e rrorLgnn'Ih:tid:Ij'-T
itifi:-ilSlod*.po*dsaodlesd' io'.*U form, and so distributcd' as to s"ln cn-
LD,AD CAI.RyLATE. White leaf. Pb(GH,rOr)r. mur: ,*""""it* ift'" Uoay ot-rittues of thc vorkman in
493.6t, mp:83.5o-84.50.. ;;tqu"nriti' otherwisenocxposilrccenbc
. THR = See lead ."*p",i"a, and lead' s"iO-io "*i't' Some ar-e exPcr (+) cerc of the lungs
LEAD CARBONATE Syn: ccnrs-sitc' Whitc pow' and kidneys' U1'23'9'95J
dery crvstars. Pbdo,' ivz z6t':r.z' -'' :';#b ,. Yf;t:"l:?lfl,I;":?1il.' mists orvapors'(cor
315', d: 6.61' ^:--- rr:^r-ar rnorinir contaminants.)i,i*i"*m';l[?,H:,.'ii:]f,'J::l;"Ti:T ]"i,;;'';,1 l:1-.:'po*ndr rrapqed in
'lhc
LEAD .ARB'NATE, BAsIc. Syns: whita tcad hv Xt'X*l"f:.'n':::';:fmH:::::-t
drocentssire.whitc powdcr, araorphous' fiilt;J*l[iu-tttit routc is of spccid impor-
2pbCOspb(OfU, ,rI*-, ZZj.OZ, .i, deconp @ 4000, i"n;n il; casc of orsanic compounds of lcrd, as
d:6.14-
r*!' rrJ'vr, -''-
-
-
- ^ ,:___ r""i-t"o"atyr. lo t1a casc of thc-inorganicforms of
, TIIR - Sec lead compounds_end tead. A poison' ;;,ilir rourc b of no prectical imponence'
violcrrr r"actio' with'Fr. U9l iffiiili; ir,g.r."a,Lr.rt of it passcs thtough thc
LEAD CERoTATD. white crystels. pb(crHiloz)r, uodl;;;;;b.d, errd-is eliminetcd in thc fecer' Thc
mw: 99t.55, mp: tl3.5o. ot?t;';;;;;; tr'" r*a thet is ebsorbed is couEht
T,R = Scc tcad compounds end lcad- by'l"" f#;;;;;' i" Pcrt' in thc bile' Forthis
LEAD OTLORATE. Monoclinic whire crystals. r;;;J"tt*-tt"ourts of lead src occcssnt]'to cause
Pb(clor)2, to" 3z+'12' op:-aqyP'dlii;: po'it"ii"g ii eb'sorption is bv this routc' and a longcr
rHR = scc rcad compounds. chror.ates and lead- A '*f"*'$iili*.rtX'X;:m:r."9$,X
poison. neactl rii-rilrry *trr S. Uc] *il'J"* "*;;irr; rhe respiratory tractandsvmp-
LEADCHLoRIDE'Syn:co:un'"i:'yhittcrysttb""t-i-atodcvtlop'o"qui"}'ly'Fromthepointofprrclz, mrr: 278.1. mj: 501o, bp: 954e , d: 5.85, vep' ;#;';r;-fiar poisoniru, inhtt of lead is nuch
prcss: I aE @ 54?o. ore importetrt thaD is ingestion'
THR = See tead corupounds. A poison- An cxpcr ;;J-it ;;-u-lativr. poison' Incrcrsing' amounts
renrogen. [3] u,rii "p',nir,.-u"av
and lvennraltr a noinrilrcschcd
LEAD cHLoRrrE. Monocrinic ycr.ow grt"t_f. $;" ;;;ior-n=. "na disability occur' lrad producoe
p{clo:)2, .*i Joz tz, mp: cxplodes. @ tzo" . " i-.i,rrJ*J, oi trre ,ea blood iells so that thcy hcmo'
rHR = scc t* compounds *d "ot:'[:"*'""" ;:J:ki]tfi*X*'1ffis'o::il*"ij[
violentlY with S' U91
For Gourrailerrtr lrbrurtion ud Abhdr'lorr r't l,lo D"tctsr, 'r dE t€iroeli 'liB StsLr"
768 LEAO GYANATE
begivendailyfor5.l0dayswirhanintervelofoneLEAP-DI.o.PHoSPHATD.Colorlesscrystals.
week berwecncourscs. Anorherpr"nirrori".tr.at- Pbl{io;;;t 301'20' mp:decomp' d:5'661 @ l5o'
menr at int"*"il'oi-l-i a.v, irntil o.reiJing L"r THR = Sce lead compoundr'
been accornplished. LEAD DITHIoNATE' Crystals' Pbsroe '4Hro' mw:
Disaster Hazard: Sec lcad' 43g'!g' mp: decomp' dz 3'22'
LEA,D CYANATE' whira necdrcs' Pb(ocNh' mur: ;1il;T:l#,8*1"J3f:i sce read snd So''
l"lft:T;"t"r*Bec bad compounds and cvanatcs 1:i: DUsr' See lead'
- LEAD ENANTHATE' Whitc leaflikc crystals'
LEAD CIANIDE. \lftrite powder. Pb(CN)z' mw: - it(Crff,rq)r, rnw:465.56,rnp: ?9o-80o-
259.25.
firf:"fi ,tf '#f;1,llt;iq"T!!I5l?i:H'H?d1frlfl#Hi,:13;":':-""']',::*''
"l.t*,fm:H:':Hlli#ffi
;"$'S;:'?i,J*-.t;itfi-?:J.";'#'andrcrricvanidesLEAD FERR'ITE Hcxagonal crystals' PbFcrO" mw:
agents-
DisastcrHazard:Dangerous;seelcad;canreactvig-118%mp:15300(dccomp)'
orourly wirh rcducing matcrials' - THR = Scc lcad compounds'
LEAD Dr-o.ABsENArE. See rerd arscnatcs tHu.[tff.3f,lS,T3hl.1IHT:X':S pl$f:
LEAD DICHR0MAIE. Rsd crystals' PbCrrOr' mw: rHi = Sce faa compounds end ferrocyenidcs'
423'73' LEAD FLuoBoRATE' !utB'nl'l11t1"9- .'''rlr[ = S"c lead end chrorlium compounds. Acutc tox dau: oral LDr-o (rat) = 5o mg/ k& UJ
Firc Huard: pr"a,iy'"iitl*i '*tiri with reduc' iir-n --nrcll via orat routc' A poison' Sce lcad and
ing ag.cnts- fluoridcs'.. Disastcr llazrrd: Dangerous; sce lcad; cs! rcsct vig' LEAD FLUORIDE. Colo,ess solid. PbFl, rnw: 245'2'- oioortv witb.reducing moteriah' -p, esi;, bp: 1293", vaP. ptcss: l0 mm @ 9040, d:
LEAD DICYANOGUANIDINE. Crysuls' 8'21'
pb[NHTCN(NCN)CMI, mrr: 423..4, rnp: ] 3000. ncrrie tox data: Oral tDuo Guinca pig) - 4000 mg/ kg;
THR = ruit r"ilriJli.v u. quiretoiic by skin ab- " r-p", GuinT pig).= 2800 mg/kg' [31
sorpdon- s.";lso teadiompormds. TIiR = rtlo=o ,ia orel and sc routcs' See also lced
Disasrcr Hezard: Dangerous; sce lead and cyanidea ;;;p";i and fluorides' violent reaaion sith
LEAD DIIODIDE. Goldcn-ycllov cry-stah or Poq- CaCa Fa' U4
der.PbL,mw:461.05,mp:4020,up's5a",a:e't6'LEIDtrLUOSILICATE'Monoclinic'colorlcssPow'
THR = Scc lead compounds and iodidcs. ' der' PbSiFr'2H:O' mw: 385-3O mp: decorop'
LEAD DIMETHYL DrrHrocAnDxvrrrn, sll, . '13ir[-"fin;B;;r.H!]:*iiri. Pbsr(cHrhCillr, mw: 447'5' mp: 258o' d: Lffi;l6.t3l - -
Ls, TIiR ; -Iii6d iia oral end sc routes. A poison' Scc
fgn = Sec lead compounds and digulfiraD. A pot- lcad compounds and flrtosilicatcs.
;#I#,::H,l::Ja;:,:JiJ.i',1'# :r*," "'**mffi ,H:T:':JIli;llilH lilil:i;
Direster llazard: Daogcrour: sS lcrd and Sor', i.Ol-
LEAD DloxtDE syns: p/attneritc' had pcrofide' THR=scelcadcompounds'
Brown trcxagoDsi.tytr"s' PbOr, mw: 219'21'mp: dc- LEAD HYD3ATE. Se lcad hydroxidc'
comP @ 2900, d: 9'375'
Acutctoxdata:ipLDm(SuiDBPig)=zoomg/ke.[3I LEAD HyDRoxlD& Svns: tcod hydrcrc, hydruted
rHR= HrGH via ip rouic..s., "r,:r"i1x-*"".1 'ffiri*, #Ht&'Hr"Hi:;;rlonh' '*'
Fire Hazard: Violent reactions siih Alrc,r,--Bas,-E' iii; *r raO compounds.
ff"1',"?ol$;il*; ,i:h'iii;lL'S:'Jtfl'13: LEi\p-HY?olHgs.PIlIE' Pb(PHzo:):' mw: 337'2'
s(ocrh, w, Zr. U{t -""' " '
:^ :=: -THR = An impacr-sqrsitivc exprosivc. Forms a pow'
Disantcr Hazsrd: Dangcrous; sec lead; can react with ' iJtr tiproti'" with Pb(NOr>' ['I9] A poison' Sec
rcducing matcrial. also lcad compounds'
trd Goilrtrr6t* l'Sedtlio'l d AlDfr,l{'{h"'c ,r? fxrctlcrv 'l t}'Lthdc! ot Oil S0'lb!'
O1/lO/OZ 10: {5 }'aI'
LEAD HYPOSULFITE' See lead rhiosulfatc'
LEAD IMIDE. PbNH' mw:222'2'- iin - Explodes when heated with watcr or dilute
..1a. trgf A poison. See also lcad compounds'
LEAD IODATD,. Whitc solid' Pb(lOrh, mu: 557'05'
mP: decomP @ 30(lo'
titR = Sec lcec compounds and iodates'
LEAD ISOBUTYRATE. White Prisr"s' Pb(C'HrQ)'
mw: 3t1.40, rnP: ( l00o'
THR = Sct lcad cornPounds'
LEAD LA.CTATE. CrH.OcPb' mw: 343'3'
Acutc tox data: Orel LDuo Guinca pig) = 1000
me/ke. [3]
TH fr =
"Mbb via oral route' Scc also had conpounds'
LEAD LAURATE. Chalky whitc po*dcr'
Pb(CrzHzrOr):, rflw: 505'8' mP: ll?"'
THR = Sec lcad c'rmPounds'
LEAD LIGNOCER/ITE. WhitC POWdCT.
Pb(Cr.[l.rQ)r, mw: 942'?Z mP: llTo'
THR - Scc had comPounds'
LEAD LINOLEATE- Ycllowish-white paste'
Pb(CnHrQh, mw: 7fi'01'
THR = Sec lced comPounds.
LEAD MELISSATE- lVhitc powder' Pb(CrrIIrrQ)r'
mw:, I l3E-El' mP: I 15"-l16o'
THR = See lead comPounds'
LEAD MERCAPTIDD-
THR - Sct lcad compounds and mercaptans'
LEAD METAL. Sce tcad'
LEAD MOLYBDATE. Syn: wulloirc' Yellow pouder'
PbMoO, nrv:36?.16, mP: 1070"'
THR = Scc lced compounds
LEAD MONGa'ARSENATE' See lcrd arsenatcs'
LEAD MONOIODIDE' Palc lcllow' PbI' mw: 334.'13'
mp: decomP @ 3lno'
tirn = ScG h;d compounds and iodidcs'
LEAD MONONITRORESORCINATE' Sec erplo-
. sivcs, h[h.
LEAD MONO-o'PHggpHAfE' Nccdlcs' Pb(ILPO'h'
mw:401-28.ittR = Sce lead cornporrnds and phosphatcs'
LEAD MONOXIDE. See lithargP'
LEAD MYRISTATE. Whitc powdcr' Pb(CrrHzzQh'
mw:661.92' mP: 107"
THR - Scc lcad cooPoun&'
LEAD.p-NAPHTHALENE SULFONATE \Vhire
crystalline powdcr. Pb(CrollrSOr)rr Etw: 621'64,'
THR = Siec lead comPounds'
Dhester Haza:rd!; Dangerous; sec lcnd and SOr'
LEAD NAPI{THEN ATE. 24% lc:ad.
Acute tox data: Oral LD:u (rat) = 5100 mg/ kg; dermal
LDso (rat) = 520 mg/ks' [J]
THR = MOD via oral and dcrrnal routes. Sce also
Iead comPounds.
LEAD NITRATE White crystEls' Pb(NOrh' mw:
331.23, mp: dccomP @470", d: 4.53 @ 20''
Acutc tordau: ip LDlq (ret)= 432 ms/kg; orel LDr-o
(suinca Pig) = l33O mg/k'' [']ffin = ttiCX ,ia ip and MOD via oral routes' An
erPcr tcratogen. [J] Rcacts violcotty.with ammo-
nium thioryenate, carbon, lcad hypophosphite' [19]
Scc tead comPounds 1nd nitrat'es'
LEAD OLEATE. White, ointmcnr-like grenulcs or
s1a33- Pb(CrrhrO:h' mw: 770' lO'
Acute tordats: Oral LDuo Guinea pig)= t000mg/kg'
t3lfttn = LOW via oral route. Sec lcad compounds.
LEAD ORE.
THR = A recog carc. [I{ See arsenic conpounds-
LEAD OXALATE. Hcavy whitepowdcr. PbCrOr,mw:
295.23, mP: decomP @ 300", d: 5'2t'
TIIR = Scc lcad compounds and oxelatcs.
LEAD OXIDE. Syns; red leod,minivm'lead rcnoxidc'
Brigbt rea potldcr. Pbror' mw: 685'6' mp: 890c (de
coip), bp: t472", d: 8.32-9.16 vap. Prcss: I mm @
943".
Acrlte tox daia: ip LDso Guince PiO = 220 mgks't'I
TIIR = HIGH via ip rowc, Scc also lead compounds'
Firc Hazard: Slight, by chcmical reaction with reduc-
ing agcnls' An oxidizint agcnt',-Rcrcm viokntly
*trr nt, CsHCr, (Fr + gtycerol)' HiSr, (glyccrinc-*
Hclo.), RbHa;, (si + Al), Na, sor' Tr, 7r-Llgl
Disesta Hazard: Scc lcad.
LEAD OXYCHLORIDES. Syns : rzendp ite, cosxl yel'
low, lanrionirc, mailockite' YeUow ot whitc solid'
Composition: Plfh * varying rmounts of PbO end
possittY some ILO.
THR - Scc lead compouads and chloridcr. Violenr
rcacrion rrith K. [r9l
LEAD PALMITATE. Chalky whitc powder'
Pb(CrtHrrOr)rr arw: 7lt'03, mp: ll2'3o'
THR - Scc lead compounds.
LEAD PERCHLORATE. Crystals. Pb(ClOr)z' 3HrO'
mw:450.17, mP: decomP @ ld)o' d: 2'6'
Acutc tox data: ip LDro (mousc\-- 275 D8/k& [4
TIIR : HIGH via ip routc. Soe lead compounds and
perchlorates. Carexplode wirb methsnol' [19] Sec
bad comPounds.
LEADT-PERIOD.ATE. Cqnuls. PbHIG, m?: 41 5' 14'
mp: dccoruP @ 1300.
Tiln = nIOn- Scc lesd compoundo auil iodatcs'
o
LEAD-p-PERIODATE
Fl Ccnarorrssrhfrrnrlior ud Ablrpirriors rro rtc Dincrory rr It' Ectit$liEt o'lrti Scdill'
vct tu/ va au; {o rn^
7?O LEAD PEBOXIDE
LEAD PEROXIDE Sce lead dioxidc'
LEAD PHf,NATE. Ycllowish to gmyish-whitc powder'
Pb(OHOGH5, rnrvi 317'28'
tHn : Scc lead comPounds and Phcnol'
LEAD-o-PHOSPHATE. Heregonal, colorlcss or whitc
-Jo,raer. Pbr(PO)r, mnt 8l l'59, mp: l0l4' d: 6'9-
7.t.
THR = A poison. See also lerd cornpounds'
LEAD-Iz-PHOSPIIATE Colorless erystals' Pb(PCI)z'
mw:365.I?, mP: 8fi)o'
iiR - See'lead compounds. An exPer (9 carc' [-l' 9]
' LEAD-o-PHOSPHIIE. White powder' PbHPOT' mI':
787-20, mP: decomP.
fHn = Scc lead compounds and phorphites. A libr
dnrm. of it self isnited' U9l
LEAD PICRATB. Yellow crvstals' Pb(QHrO)z' HrO'
mw: 681.43, mp: -HrO @ 130o, bp: cxplodcs' d:
2.831 @ 2r)o'
THR; Sec leed compounds and picric acid-
LEAD PROTOXIDE' ScG lithargc'
LIAD PYROARSENATE. SeG lcad ancnstes'
LEAD PYROPHOSPHATE' Whire crystals' PhPrO'
mw: 588.3t, mP: t24", d: 5'E'
THR = Scc lesd compounds and phosphaler'
LEAD RED- Sec lcad oiidc-
LEAD RESINATE. Ycllowish-vhirc Paste'
Pb(Cil HrcOrT' mw: 8 10'07
THR = See lcad comPouuds'
Firc Hazard: Mod, whcn exposcd ro heat or flamc'
, Disastct Huard: Scc lcad.
LEAD SELENATE. Whitc crystalr' PbScO' mw:
350.17, mP: decomP' d: 6-37'
frr n = $r lead compounds and sclcniurn compounds'
LEAD SEI rNlDE. Syn: cloust&olile. Cubic crystrls'
PbSc, mw: 2t6.17, mP: 10650, d: 8'10 @ 15"'' 'l'HR: See lcEd and rclcnium compounds'
Fire Hazrrrd: Mod, in the forul of dust whcn exposcd
ro flamc or by chemical rcaction with moigture to
cvolve thc hydridcs. Scc also hydrogcn sclenide'
Explosion tlazard: Slight, by che-mi.c$ reaction with
mobturc. Sce ateo hydrogcn selsnidc'
Disaster Hazard: SGe bad and selenium'
LEAD STLICATE Scc lcad-ra-silicete'
LEAD-a{TILICATE. Syn: alarzosile' Whitc cryrtal-
lin" powler. PbSiOr. mw: 283.27. mp: 766o, d:6'49'
TIIR: Scc lead comPounds'
LDAD STEARATE' whitc powdcr' Pb(crrHror)r'
nrw: 774.1, rnP: ll5.7o.
THR = See lcad comPounds.
Lf,AD STYPHNATE' See lead trinitroresorcinate'
LEAD SULFATD- Syn: ongluire' White rhombic crys'-1rU. fUSOr, rrw: 303.2?, mp: decornp @ 1000p' d:
6.2.A*. ,o* data: ip LDo Guinea Pig) = 300 mg/ kg' [3]
THR = HIGH via ip routc- A strong irr to skirL cyes
and mu mem. Sce lead compounds. Yiolcnt reac-
lien with K. [r9]
LEAD SULfIDE- Syns: galena, plumbous sulfde' Sil'- rrry, maallic crysials or black powder' PbS' mw:
Zli.7t, mp: lll4b, bp: l28lo (sublimcs)' d: 7'5' vap'
prcss:lmm@8520-
Lute tox detar ip LDlo (rat): 1847 mg/ke' [3J
fHn = MOD vii ip route. 5ee ds6sulfidesand lead
compounas' Yioicnt rcacrion with lCI, HrQ'['9]
LEAD SULFITE. White powder' PbSO, mw: 2t?'28'
THR = See lcad compounds and sulfites-
LEAD SULFOCYANATE Syn: lead rhiocyanarc'--fti*".ilrL white qvstals. Pb(SCN)r' mw: 323'37' d:
3.E2.
TIIR = See lcad compounds end thiocyanates'
LEAD TARTRATE. While crysnllinc powdar'
PbCHrOc, mw: 355'2E, d: 2'54 @ 19"'
l"u. toia"u: ip LDto (nt) = t200 mg/kg' [fl
THR = MOD vii ip route- See lead compounds'
LEAD TELLURIDE. Syn: allaitc' Whitc cubic crvsuls'
PbTc, mw: 334.E2 mP: 9170, d: t'16'
iHR'= See lcad compounds and tellurium com-
pounds.
LEAD TETRAACETAIE' Colorless to faintlli pink
monoclinic crysuls. Pb(CHICOO)', mrr: 443'39' mp:
175o, d: 2.228 @ 17" '-fHR = Sce lcad cornPounds'
LEAD TETRAAZTDE Pb(Nrlr' mv: 35-5-'3'
THR - very uiltablc- [I9] Probably HIGH toxiciry'
See also tead compounds and azidcs'
LEAD TETRACHLORIDF- Yctlow, oilv lxlyd' PF!'
mw: 349.M, mp: -15o. bp: cxplodes @ l05o' d:
3.t8 @ 0".
THR: Sce leed and hydrochloric acid'
LEAD TETRAETHYL' Syn: IEL' Colorlcss' oily liq-- uia, pt"*anr charactcristic odor' Pb(CrHl)r' mu:
fZa.S, mp; l25o-150o, bp: l9E"-202o rvith decomp'
Oi f.iSp @ l8o, vep. Press: I rnm @38'4" flash p:
200"F-i"u,. to* data: Oral LDr.o (rat) - l7 mg/kg; inhal
LCr (rat) = 6 ppm; pa LDro (raO = 15 mg/kg; der-
-.i Lb,.o (dog) = 500 rng/ kS: dumal LDr-o Guinca
pig) = 990 rnc/ kg. tJlffi{-= I{IGH via ora\ inhal' pa and dermal routes'
This material is a powerful poison end a solvcnt
for fatry materials' lt har somc solvent action
on rubber as well. Thc fact that it is a lipoid rol-
,,, i.:;
,., :,.:
,.,il
t'ri\
'..-"1:
J' .ii
-,.j:{r,.
'.;:.-l; '','... r -!'.'i; ia, ,*.;:.
' r,.ii
l,j.:
,.,4 i
. t'.,
"i !'
.':11'1
. .'. .'l:
Jrl
..iiilir:t
...i.,
i r,l,
..i :.i
'.. :i- r, |:|..:
i't
:(
...r.t
. I .i,:i
' i,.
Frr touotcrae$orr lt{omrilon ric abLrtvi'liod 'oc
$€ Ditcdot' tl &' !'Bittiol o' $tu s'ctlcn'
04/70/42
as a synrhetic flavoring substance and adjuvant'
Ltqel
LINALYL OLEATf,,.
THR = An exper carc. [2J]
LINDANE. Sce I,2, J,4,S,Ghexachlorocyclchcxane'
LINOLEIC ACID. Syn: /inolic acrd' Colorkis oil, eas-
ily oxidizud by air, sol in cther and cthanol'
ittr(cxr.cH=cHCHrcH-cH(cHzlrcooH' mw:
280-i, d: b.qo:g @ lE"/4o, mp: -I2o, bp:23ff @ 16
Elm.
THR = tl. Ingestion can causc oausca and vomiting'
A nutricnt-and/or dietary supplcmcnt food addi-
rivc. [I09]
LINOLTC ACID. See linolcic acid'
LINSEED OIL. bp: 3430, mp: -19" d: 0'93, flash p:
(raw oil): 432oF (CC), flash p (boiled): 403'F (CC)'
autoign. temP.:650"F.
THRt An allcrgpn and e MILD irr'
Firs Hazord: Slight, whcn cxposcd to heat or fleme;
ctn rcact with oridizing matetials.
Spont Hcating: ter.
Explosion Hazar,t: Violcnt reaction *ith Cl'1' [19]
To F.ight Firr,: C&, drY chcmical'
LINTOX' See 1,2, 3, 4, S,Ghcxachlorocyclohexane'
IJQUEFIED CARBON DIOXIDE Svrr liquid iar-
iontc g^. Heavy gas or liquid undcr prcs-sure' COl,
m*, 4i.0, mp: -56.6" @ 3952 mm, bp: -7&1' (1tF
limes), d: 1.977 gllitcr @ 0", d (lhuid): I ' l0l @ -37''
THR = This matcrial is very cold end cau dama8p
tissue cxpoecd to it. Solid CO2 Soca directly to
geseous iOr (suUtimcs) which is mainly an asphyxi'
ant. Sec also carbon dioxide.
Disaster Hazerd: Mod dangerous.
LIQUEFIED HYDROCARf,ON GAS' Syns: LP gas'
bonle gus, LPO-
THR = Olcfinic impuritics may lend r narcotic effect
or it mry act'Js E simptc asphyriant'
Fire Hazard: Dangprous, whcn exposcd to hcat or
Ilamc.
Explorion Hazard: U.
Diiastcr Hezerd: Mod dangerous; can react s'ith
oxidizing matcriah.
fo Fight Fire COr, dry chcmical, water 3prsy'
LIQUEFIED NONFLAMMAf,LE GASES
lLx.r.nceo wITH NITRoGEN' cARBoN DIox'
br on AIR). see\spccifrc componcnt'
LIQUID CAMPIIOR' Scc carrphor oil (ligtn')
LIQUID CARIONIC GAS.
Scc liquefied carbon dioxitte.
UQUID ROSIN. See tdl oil.
LITIIARGE. Syrrs: lead oxlde, yellow plumbous ox-
LITHIUU ALUMINUM DEUTERIDE 77X
ide, lpad proroxide, lead monoxide- Tetragonal yel-
low crystals. PbO, mw: 223.21. mp: 8EE", d: 9'53'
Acute tox data: ip LDr.o (rar) = a30 mg/ks- F]
THR - HlGl{ via ip route. Sec lcad compounds. Rc-
1615 with [IzO:, LirCr. U9J
LITHIC ACID- See uric acid.
LITHIUM. Silver-colored light mctal, rRixturc of iso'
topes Li6 and Li'. Li, atwt:6.94, mp: I?90, bp: 13l7o'
d: 0.534 @ 25", vaP. Prcss: 1 66 @ 7230.
THR = Scc lithium compounds for a discussion of
rhe toxicity of thc lithiurn ion- See sodium for a
discussion which applics to the toxicity of memllic
lilliium. An cxper teratogcn. [3]
Firc llazard: Dangerous, whcn exposed lo hcat or
flane. It also can rsact violently wkh air, As, Be,
Br1, ClIBrr, mdeic anhyelride, carbides, COl,
(CO + HrO), CBr., CCle, Clr, CHCI), CrOr, Cr,
CrClr, cobatt elloys, FeS' <liboranc, Mn alloys,
CHzClz, CHrlr, MorOr' Ni dloys' NbrOr, CFCI1,
HNO!, N2, orfanic mattcr' Or, P, Pt' rubber, sili-
catcs, NaCl, NaNG, S, Ta2Or, TiOz' trichloro'
cthylene, tetracbloroethylenc, trichlorotrifluoroeth-
ane, WOr, V, V2P1, [IrO, ZrCl., Fe alloys' CHI1,
I, Hr- U9l
Disaster tlazrrd: Dangcrous; when burned, cmitstoric
fumes of lithium oxidc aod hydroxidg will rerct
with water or steern to produce hcat and hydrogcn;
can rcact vigorously with oxidizing, materills. Rc-
acts witlr nitrogcn at high tcmP-
To Fight Fire Special mixturcs of dqy chemical'
soda ash, graphitc.
LIT}NUM ACETYLENE CARBIDE DIAMMINO'
UC=GHNHr):' mw:66'l'
inR = Ii will-'bum on contast rrirh COr' Clz, Sor'
HrO. U9l
LITHIUM ACETYL SALICYLATE. Slightly hvgro-
scopic powder, decomP in raoist eir' LiCbHrO'
mw: 186.09.
THR = An irr marerial. See also lithium and acetol'
Firt Hazard: Slight.
LtilIIUM ACID OXALATE' Colorless crvsuls'
LiHCzO.'HrO, mwl ll3-9E, mP: dccomP'
THR = Scc oxalrtcs end litbium compounds'
LIIHTUM ALUMINATE. Syn: lithiumqn-aluminote'
White powder. LiAlOz, mw: 65.91, mp: ) 1625c, d:
2.s5 @ 25o.
THR: Scc tithium and aluminum compounds'
LITHIUM ALUMINUM DEUTERIDE Whitc to
gray-whitc microcrystalline lumps or powder' LiAlDr'
it* +Z-0, mp: t5tio with dccomp (ignires in air), d:
1.02 @250.
Fc cdrlcEattrt tirotilalior di Abbrabrioae rcc rl. Uroeot' d tL Llitol4 of r!.' Sldlon"
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMI SSION
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL
Before Admini strati ve Judges:
Alan S. Rosenthal, hesiding Officer
Dr. Richard Cole, Special Assistant
IN THE MATTER OF: )
)
INTERNATIONAL URAMUM (USA) ) Docket No. aO-gOSr-MLA-l ICoRPoRATTON )) ASLBP NO. O2-795-O2-MLA
(Source Material License Amendment, )
License No. SUA-1358) ) April 14,2002
SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO PETITIONER SIERRA CLUB'S l0 C.F.R. S 2.t233
WRITTEN PRESENTATION REQUESTING SUSPENSION, MODIFICATION, OR
REVOCATION OF AMENDMENT 20 TO LICENSE SUA-I358
hesiding Officer has Petitioner Sierra Club's April I ,2W2,lO C.F.R. g 2.1233
Written Presentation, which was authorized by Presiding Officer's February 25,2W2,
Memorandum and Order (Memorializing Determinations Announced During Telephone
Conference). Presiding Officer also has Sierra Club's April 10, zWz,which
supplemented the April 1 initial written presentation. The April l0 was authorized by the
hesiding Officer's March 2'7,2OO2, Memorandum and Order (Granting Motion for I-eave
to Supplement Written Presentation).
This timely written presentation, also authorized by the Presiding Officer's March27,
would also supplement Sierra's Club's April 1 ,2W2, initial written presentation.
Second Supplement to Sierra Club's Written Presentation (Apnl 14,2002)
Docket 40-868 I -MI-A- I I, ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
Sierra Club's 10 C.F.R. g 2.1233 written presentation, as supplemented, requests
suspension, modification, or revocation of Amendment 20 to IUSA's License SUA-I358.
Sierra Club will show, and has shown, that the NRC staff erred in issuing License
Amendment 20 because IUSA's December 19, 2000, original application, as
supplemented ("Amendment Request') was materially defective. Hearing File E and 8 to
14. In addition, Sierra Club will show, and has shown, that those defects were not
addressed or corrected by the NRC Staff as of December I 1, 2001. Hearing File 4. As a
result, that NRC Staff issuance of License Amendment 20 was materially defective.
IUSA's Amendment Request and the resultant licensing action are deeply flawed.
A materially incomplete and inaccurate factual or legal bases, derived from IUSA's
Amendment Request, fatally impacted the NRC Staff December I I issuance. That
December issuance contemplated very little complete and accurate data. Such data as
was available to the NRC Staff was not necessarily presented in a manner convenient for
'use. As a result, the NRC Staff or any decision-maker often had no recourse but to wing
it. A competent environmental assessment or a supplement to the 1979 Final
Environmental Statement would have provided a more proper recourse. The NRC Staff
finally determined in December 2001 that a supplement was not necessary. A NRC Staff
licensing action ensued. Sierra Club is here taking exception to such a turn of events.
And, utilizing new information as ultimately revealed by the delayed NRC Staff
l0 C.F.R. g 2.l23l Hearing File, Sierra Club herein intends to further buttress the request
that Amendment 20 be suspended, modified, or revoked until a useful supplemental
environmental analysis is issued by NRC staff.
2
Second Supplement to Sierra Club's Written Presentation (April 14,20{I2)
Docket 4O-868 I -ML-A- I l, ASLBP No. O2'795-02-MLA
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR ROMAN ONE
I. IUSA REQUESTED AN AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD ALLOW TITE
PROCESSING OF LEAD SLUDGE AT TIIE WI{ITE MESA MILL; 40 C.F.R.
1502.9(c)(ii) AND 10 C.F.R. PART 51 REQIIIRE, WTIERE THERE ARE
SIGNIFICANT I{]EW CIRCI.,MSTANCES OR INFORMATION RELEVANT TO
BNIVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, BEARING ON THE PROPOSED ACTION
AND ITS IMPACTS, NOT REYIEWED BY A I{ISTORICAL
ENYIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, THAT AI\TY SIJBSBQUENT NRC STAFF
ISSUANCE GRANTING OF AN AMENDMENT BE ACCOMPANIED BY A
SITE.SPECIFIC, LICENSING ACTION-SPECIFIC REANALYSIS.
THE 1979 ASSESSMENT DID NOT CONSIDER PERTINENT
SIGNIFICANT NEW CIRCI.JMSTANCBS, OR COMPLETE AND ACCI]RATE
INFORMATION, RBLEVANT THERBTO; NO BFFECTIVE
SUPPLEMENTARY ANALYSIS HAS BEEN FORTH COMING; THERE TIIE
NRC STAFF ERRED; THAT ERROR SHOULD BE PROMPTLY CORRECTEI)
AS RBQLIESTED BELOW. Pages 6-11.
A. Significant new circumstances accompany the proposal to process lead sludge;
for example, non-ore "ores" and new contested hydrogeologic information;40
C.F.R. 1502.9(cXii) and L0 C.F.R. Part 51 require that signilicant new
circumstances are required to be addressed in a supplement to the 1979
environmental statement; This did not happen; Therefore, the issuance of
Amendment 20 is defective and must be suspended, modified, or revoked until a
useful supplemental environmental analysis is issued by NRC staff. Pages 11-13.
1. The 1979 ES did not contemplate the processing of the feed materials that are
being processed as "alternate feed materialr" or any other non-ore "ore;" 40 C.F.R.
1502.9(cXii) would require that, if the 1979 ES did not contemplate the processing of
such feed material, a supplemental ES must do so; This did not happen; An EA
issued that did not effectively address "alternative feed material" or any non-ore
"ore;" As a direct resul! the IIIRC Staff issuance was materially deficient;
Therefore, the issuance of Amendment20 is defective and must be suspended,
modified, or revoked until a supplemental EIS is issued by NRC staff. Page 13-16.
2. Neither the 1979 ES predicted, nor the NRC Statr November 30, 2001, EA
considered, new information related to the hydrogeologic circumstances at the
White Mesa Mill; IUSA's Amendment Request did not provoke such to occur, in
that it is materially deficient with respect certain new information related to
hydrogeologic data;40 C.F.R. 1502.9(cXii) would require thaf if the 1979 ES did
not predict the new hydrogeologic information, then the November EA should have;
This did not happenl An EA issued that did not effectively address the newly
Second Supplement to Sierra CIub's Written Presentation (April 14,2002)
Docket 4G8681-MI-A-I I , ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
discovered hydrogeologic conditions at the White Mesa site; As a direct result, the
NRC Staff issuance was materially deficient in that respect; Therefore, the issuance
of Amendment 20 is defective and must be suspended, modifie{ or revoked until a
supplemental EIS is issued by IIIRC staff. Page 16.
3. The milling and disposal alternatives discussed in the 1979 ES, the Amendment
Request, and the resultant NRC Staff issuance cannot be usefully applied to the
receip! processing, and disposal of the lead sludge or any so-called "alternatiYe feed
materialr" or non-ore "oreo" at the White Mesa facility. Pages l6-L7.
4. There is significant new information with respect the number of listed
endangered species in the vicinity of the lVhite Mesa Mitl; The number of
endangered species has more than doubled since the 1979 ES was prepared; There
has been no review of the impact of the various proposed or allowed "alternative
feed materialsr" or non-ore "oresrt' on any of the endangered species found within
the vicinity of the White Mesa facility; NRC Stafffailure to seek or address such
information resulted in a materially defective issuance of Amendment 20; a
Supplemental EIS is required to evaluate the impact of the proposed action on the
additional listed species. Pages 17'18.
5. The Molycorp lead sludge cannot meet NRC guidance's definition of orel NRC
guidance's definition of the word uore' is unreasonable, uIFuPpo$eq, and
imbiguous, and thus, unworkable; That delinition of ore flies in the face of the
statulory definition (1-la(2)) of "source material ore"; To the extent that IUSA's
Amendirent Request and the resultant NRC StaffDecember 11 issuance rely on -such a delinitiorfwhich has not been tested by a rulemaking or any environmental
review supporting a rulemaking, that definition cannot_be^utitiTg-by qe NRC Statr
to support-the isslance of Amendment -20; Tlrgs, that NRC Statrlicensing action is
fatally defective and must be suspended, modified, or revoked.'
B. Summation: Considering Issue I. and Sub-Issues A.1,2r3r 4, and 5. Page 19.
Footnote I IUSA's December 19, 2001, original application (Section 1.4) states that the
Molycorp material 'qualifies as ore," as defined in NRC guidance (which IUSA does not
identify). Hearing File 14 at 7. Apparently, IUSA is referring to the Interim Position and
Guidance on the use of Uranium Mill Feed Material Other Than Natural Ores (Footnote I
continues on next Page.)
4
Second Supplement to Sierra Club's Written Presentation (April 14,20U2)
Docket 40-8681-MLA-I l, ASLBP No. 02-795-02-Ml-A
(Footnote l, continued from page 4.)
(November 30,2000) ("Interim Guidance'). Hearing File 10, Attachment D at 8.
IUSA states that the NRC has established the following definition of "ore":
Ore is a natural or native matter that may be mined and treated for the extraction
of any of its constituents er any other matter from which source material is
extracted in a licensed uranium or thorium mill. [Emphasis added.l
Hearing File 14, Request to Amend at 7. Hearing HIe 10, Attachment D at 8.
There are the two pafls to the new definition of 'ore." The first part of the definition is
"Ore is a natural or native matter that may be mined and treated for the extraction of any of its
constituents."
The second part is that ore is "any other matter from which source material is extracted in
a licensed uranium or thorium mill."
The Molycorp lead sludge does not meet the first part of the Interim Guidance's
definition of ore because the Molycorp lead sludge is no longer a "natural or native matter."
Sierra Club would offer that there is no way that industrial heavy metal waste bound for recycle
and the generation offurther waste can be characterized as "natural or native.n
Ore that meets the first definition of ore (i.e., real ore, not ersatz ore), is 'ore" during the
time the material is in the ground, after it has been removed from the ground, while it is being
transported, while it is stored on an ore pad., and up until it is otherwise processed. Such is not
the case with the second definition of "ore.n
The Interim Guidance's second definition of uore' is a retroactive definition, i.e.,
changing the definition of numerous types feedstock or processing wastes that meet other legal
and regulatory definitions or characterizations (e.g., source material, RCRA material, lle.(2)
byproduct material, tailings, lead sludge, FUSRAP material, SDMP material) in a retroactive
manner after the materials have been run through a uranium or thorium mill for the extraction of
their source material content.
Clearly, the lead sludge cannot meet the second definition of the word nore" until its
source material content is extracted at the White Mesa Mill. Prior to the extraction of its source
material content, the lead sludge could not meet the NRC Interim Guidance's definition of the
word'ore.t'
This second definition of the word "ore" does not say "ore" is a matter from which source
material might be extracted, would be extracted, could be extracted, or someone intends to extract
in a licensed uranium mill. Id.
The lead sludge cannot meet the second part of the NRC guidance definition, which
requires that "oreo be a matter from which source material is extracted in a licensed uranium or
thorium mill. Hearing File 10, Attachment D at 8 of 9.
5
(End of footnote l.)
Second Supplement to Sierra CIub's Written Presentation (April 14,20ff2)
Docket 4O-8681-MI-A-l I, ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MI-A
I. IUSA REQUESTED AN AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD ALLOW TIIE
PROCESSING OF LEAD SLUDGE AT THE WHITE MESA MILL;40 C.F.R.
1502.9(c)(ii) AND 10 C.F.R. PART 51 REQUIRE, WHERB THERE ARE
SIGNIFICANT NEIry CIRCUMSTANCES OR INFORMATION RELEVANT TO
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, BEARING ON THE PROPOSED ACTION
AND ITS IMPACTS, NOT REVIEWED BY A HISTORICAL
ENYIRONMEI{TAL ANALYSIS, THAT AT{Y SUBSEQUENT NRC STAFF
ISSUANCE GRANTING OF AN AMBNDMENT BE ACCOMPANIED BY A
SITE.SPECIFIC, LICENSING ACTION.SPECIFIC REANALYSIS.
T}IE 1979 ASSESSMENT DID NOT CONSIDER PERTINENT
SIGNIFICANT I{EW CIRCUMSTANCES, OR COMPLBTE AND ACCURATE
INFORMATION, RELEVANT THERETO; NO EFFECTIYE
SUPPLEMENTARY ANALYSIS HAS BEEN FORTH COMING; THERE TTTE
NRC STAFF ERRED; THAT ERROR SHOULD BE PROMPTLY CORRECTED
AS REQUESTED BELOW.
On December 1 9, 2000, International Urani um (USA) Corporation ("IUSA ")
requested an amendment to their Source Material License SUA-I358 to allow the receipt
and processing of lead sludges from the UnocaliMolycorp, Inc., Lanthanide Division
facility ("Molycorp") in Mountain Pass, California. Hearing File 14. That initial
application was subsequently supplemented by submittals dated January 5, January 29,
February 2, March 20, August 14, October 17, and November l6,2(J:_l. Hearing File E
and 8 to 13.
The Amendment Request led to an NRC Staff environmental review.
Subsequently, after the environmental review the NRC Staff, issued an Environmental
Assessment ('EA') on November 30,2001. Hearing File 6.
On March 15, 2001, under cover of an internal memorandum, the NRC Staff
forwarded a draft Environmental Assessment. This NRC record did not become publicly
6
Second Supplement to Sierra Club's Wriften Presentation (April 14,2UJ.2)
Docket 4G8681-MIA-l l, ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MI-A
available until July 10,2001, almost four months later. See Memo from Philip Ting,
Chief, Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), NRC, forwarded to Thomas
H. Essig, Chief, Environmental and Performance Assessment Branch, Division of Waste
Management, NMSS (March I 5, 2001 ) (ML020730556).
On April 12,z(x|l, the NRC Staff sent a letter to the State of Utah requesting
consultation on the draft Environmental Assessment. This NRC record did not become
publicly available until March ls,z}Oz,just about a year later. See letter from Lidia
Roche', Acting Chief, Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch, NRC, to William J. Sinclair,
Director, Division of Radiation Control, Department of Environmental Quality, State Of
Utah (Apri I 12, z{J0_l) (MLOZW730556).
The April 12 determined that an EA review would adequately fulfill 40 C.F.R.
I 502.9(c)(ii) and 10 C.F.R. Part 5 I :The NRC Staff determined that an environmental
assessment (EA) was necessary to document potential environmental impacts to this
proposed action.
The criteria found in l0 C.F.R. Part 5l and 40 C.F.R. $ 1500-1508, require that
the NRC Staff make a sound, justifiable determination regarding the type of
environmental review the NRC would need to conduct in response to IUSA's
Amendment Request. Such NRC regulations pertaining to the evaluation of
environmental effects of a proposed action are set forth below.
l0 C.F.R. $ 51.1, entitled "Scope." states
This part contains environmental protection regulations applicable
to NRC's domestic licensing and related regulatory functions. These
7
Second Supplement to Sierra Club's Written Presentation (April 14,2002)
Docket 4G.868 I -ML-A-I I , ASLBP No. O2-795-O2-M[-A
regulations do not apply to export licensing matters within the scope of
part 110 of this chapter or to any environmental effects which NRC's
domestic licensing and related regulatory functions may have upon the
environment of foreign nations. Subject to these limitations, the
regulations in this part implement:
(a) Section lO2(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
as amended.
l0 C.F.R. $ 51.10, entitled "Purpose and scope of subpart; application of
regulations of Council on Environmental Quality," states:
(a) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended
(NEPA) directs that, to the fullest extent possible: (1) The policies,
regulations, and public laws of the United States shall be interpreted and
administered in accordance with the policies set forth in NEPA, and (2) all
agencies of the Federal Government shall comply with the procedures in
section lO2(2) of NEPA except where compliance would be inconsistent
with other statutory requirements. The regulations in this subpart
implement section lO2(2) of NEPA in a manner which is consistent with
the NRC's domestic licensing and related regulatory authority under the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act
of l974,as amended, and the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control
Act of 1978, and which reflects the Commission's announced policy to
take account of the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality
published November 29,1n8 (43 FR 55978 - 56007) voluntarily, subject
to certain conditions. . . .
l0 C.F.R. g5l .21 sets forth "criteria for and identification of licensing and
regul atory acti ons requiring en vironmental assessments " :
All licensing and regulatory actions subject to this subpart require:
an environmental assessment except those identified in Sec. 51.20(b) as
requiring an environmental impact statement, those identified in
Sec. 5l .22(c) as categorical exclusions, and those identified in
Sec. 51 .22(d) as other actions not requiring environmental review. As
provided in Sec. 51.2}(b),the Commission may, in special circumstances, prepare
an environmental assessment on an action covered by a categorical
exclusion.
9
lO C.F.R. 551.22 sets forth "criterion for categorical exclusion; identification of
licensing and regulatory actions eligible for categorical exclusion or otherwise not
requiring environmental review" and states, in pertinent part:
(a) Licensing and regulatory actions eligible for categorical exclusion shall
meet the following criterion: The proposed action belongs to a category of
actions which the Commission, by rule or regulation, has declared to be a
categorical exclusion, after first finding that the category of actions does
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment.
(b) Except in special circumstances, as determined by the Commission
upon its own initiative or upon request of any interested person, an
environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement is not
required for any action within a category of actions included in the list of
categorical exclusions set out in paragraph (c) of this section. Special
circumstances include the circumstance where the proposed action
involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available
resources within the meaning of section lO2(2)(E) of NEPA.
(c) The following categories of actions are categorical exclusions:
( I I ) Issuance of amendments to licenses for fuel cycle plants and
radioactive waste disposal sites and amendments to materials licenses
identified in $51.60(bXl) which are administrative, organizational, or
procedural in nature, or which result in a change in process operations or
equipment, provided that (i) there is no significant change in the types or
significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released
offsite, (ii) there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative
occupational radiation exposure, (iii) there is no significant construction
impact, and (iv) there is no significant increase in the potential for or
consequences from radiological accidents.
l0 C.F.R. $ 51.20 lays out "criteria for and identification of licensing and
regulatory actions requiring environmental impact statements," and states, in pertinent
part:
(a) Licensing and regulatory actions requiring an environmental
impact statement shall meet at least one of the following criteria:
(1) The proposed action is a major Federal action significantly
Second Supplement to Sierra Club's Written Presentation (April 14,2002)
Docket 4O-868I-Ml-A-l l, ASLBP No. 02-79-5-02-MLA
affecting the quality of the human environment.
(2) The proposed action involves a matter which the commission, in
the exercise of its discretion, has determined should be covered by an
environmental imPact statement.
(b) The following types of actions require an environmental irnpact
statement or a supplement to an environmental impact statement:
(8) Issuance of a license to possess and use source material for
uraniummilling....
(14) Any other action which the Commission determines is a major
Commission action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment. As provided in Sec. 51.zz(b),the Commission may, in
special circumstances, prepare an environmental impact statement on an
action covered by a categorical exclusion.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements at40 C.F.R. 1502.9,
entitled 'Draft, final, and supplemental statements," state, in pertinent part:
(c) Agencies:
(l) Shall prepare supplements to either draft or final environmental
impact statements if:
(i) The agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that
are relevant to environmental concerns; or
1ii) There are significant new circumstances or information relevant
to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its
imoacts.
(2) May also prepare supplements when the agency determines that the
purposes of the Act will be furthered by doing so.
(3) Shall adopt procedures for introducing a supplement into its
formal administrative record, if such a record exists.
(4) Shall prepare, circulate, and file a supplement to a statement
in the same fashion (exclusive of scoping) as a draft and final
statement unless alternative procedures are approved by the Council.
[Emphasis added.]
Neitherthe March 15,2001, NRC Staff memo, northe April 12,2001 (quoted
above at page 7), request for consultation, reveal the reasoning that led to the NRC Staff's
determination that an EA was appropriately responsive to IUSA's Amendment Request.
l0
Second Supplement to Sierra Club's Written Presentation (April 14,20()/2)
Docket 4G868 I -Ml-A- I l, ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
Various NRC criteria Iaid out above plainly call for a more through evaluation by
NRC decision-makers of the raison d'0tre (usefulness) and availability of agency
environmental analyses. Sierra Club feels that the December I I NRC Staff licensing
action suffered from environmental analysis that did not even approach the usefulness
criteria contained in 4O C.F.R. 1502.9(c)(ii) and l0 C.F.R. Part 51.
As will be shown below, the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 51 and
l0 C.F.R. $$ 1500-1508, (and, particularly,40 C.F.R. 1502.9(c)(ii)), have not been met.
Amendment 20 to License SUA-I358 must be suspended, modified, or revoked pending
the issuance of a supplement to the ES issued by NRC Staff in199. Hearing File 19.
A. Significant new circumstances accompany the proposal to process lead sludge;
for example, non-ore "ores" and new contested hydrogeologic information; 40
C.F.R. 1502.9(c)(ii) and 10 C.F.R. Part 51 require that significant new
circumstances are required to be addressed in a supplement to the 1979
enyironmental statement; This did not happen; Therefore, the issuance of
Amendment?0 is defective and must be suspended, modified, or revoked until a
useful supplemental environmental analysis is issued by IttRC staff.
On August'7, 1y79, the NRC Staff issued Source Materials License SUA-I358,
authorizing the Energy Fuels Nuclear,Inc. ("EFN"), to "receive, acquire, possess, and
transfer byproduct, source, and special nuclear material,r' designated in License
Conditions 6,7, and8, as "Natural Uranium," in "Any" chemical and/or physical form, in
an "Unlimited" amount. See letter from Ross A. Scarano, Chief Uranium Recovery
Licensing Branch, NRC, to R.W. Adams, Energy Fuels Nuclear,Inc., (August7,ly79)
(7e09r00s54).
Heretofore, the May 1979 Final Environmental Statement for the White Mesa
Uranium Project ('ES') has been extensively relied upon by the Irffi SSff where the
lt
Second Supplement to Sierra CIub's Written Presentation (April 14,20U2)
Docket 40-8681-MLA-I l, ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
NRC permitted the licensee to "receive, acquire, possess, and transfer byproduct, source,
and special nuclear material," designated in License Conditions 6,7, and 8, as "Natural
tlranium," in "Any" chemical and/or physical form, in an "Unlimited" arnount, at the
White Mesa Uranium Mill. Hearing File 19. See also Sierra Club's April 7,2N2,
S 2J233 Written Presentation, particularly at 13, paragraph l.
The Sierra Club would note that criteria contained in 10 C.F.R. $ 5l .2O and4O
C.F.R. 1502.9(cXii), quoted above, require that if there are significant new circumstances
or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action
related to the issuance of a license to possess and use source material for uranium milling,
the agency shall prepare supplements to either the draft or final environmental impact
statements.
Sierra Club will show below that there are "significant new circumstances or
information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its
impacts." These significant new circumstances and information are relevant to
environmental concerns Sierra Club has brought forward in the instant proceeding
regarding activities taking place (or proposed to take place) at the White Mesa Mill,
which are directly related to the proposed action and its impacts on the human and natural
environment.
These significant new circumstances, required to be addressed pursuant to
40 C.F.R. 1502.9(cXii), to the best of Sierra Club's knowledge, have never been
significantly addressed within the context of an NRC Staff supplemental Enyironmental
t2
Second Supplement to Sierra Club's Written Presentation (April 14,2OOZ)
Docket 4O-8681-MI-A-l l. ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
Impact Statement ('EIS') pursuant tol0 C.F.R. Part 5l and 40 C.F.R. $$ 1500-1508. The
NRC Staff has erred in not calling for additional information required to effectively bring
forward a supplement to the 1979 ES, which would address the environrnental impacts
related to such new circumstances.
40 C.F.R. 1502.9(c)(ii) new circumstances and/or information issues include, but
are not limited to:
1. The 1979 ES did not contemplate the processing of the feed materials that are
being processed as rf alternate feed materialrt' or any other non-one I'orelrf 40 C.F.R.
1502.9(cXii) would require that if the 1979 ES did not contemplate the processing of
such feed material, a supplemental ES must do so; This did not happen; An EA
issued that did not effectively address "alternative feed material" or any non-ore
"ore;" As a direct result the NRC Staff issuance was materially deficient;
Thereforrc, the issuance of Amendment 20 is defective and must be suspended,
modified, or revoked until a supplemental EIS is issued by NRC staff.
The 1979 ES only contemplated the environmental effects from the receipt and
processing of uranium or uranium/vanadium "ores" from the Colorado Plateau region at
the White Mesa Mill. Hearing File 19. Materials License SUA-1358 permits the
Licensee to receive, acquire, possess, and transfer (use) natural uranium as a source
material or byproduct material at the White Mesa Mill. Hearing File 4, Materials License
at 1.
The 1Tl9 ES states, regarding the proposed action:
Pursuant to Title 10, code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part
4o.3l and to l0 CFR Part 51, Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc; (the applicant),
on February 6,1978, applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) for an NRC Source Material License to consruct and operate a
uranium processing mill. This mill, hereafter referred to as the White
Mesa Uranium Project, will process ores from independent and company-
owned mines. Bmphasis added.l
l3
Second Supplement to Sierra Club's Written Presentation (April 14,2W2) l4
Docket 4O-868 I -MI-A-l I , ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
Hearing File 19 at 1-1. And, further, the ES states:
Mines within 160 km (100) miles of Energy Fuels ore buying stations (in
Blanding or Hanksville) are expected to supply virtually all of the ore
processed by the facility.
Hearing File l9 at 3-1. S@ also Sierra Club's April t ,2N\ $ 2.1233ll/ritten
Presentation at l5 tol6.
The criteria at l0 C.F.R. $ 51.20 and 40 C.F.R. 1502.9(c)(ii), quoted above,
require that if there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to
environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action related to the issuance of a
license to use source material, the agency shall prepare supplements to the final
envi ronmental impact statement.
There are significant new circumstances at the White Mesa Mill that were not
previously addressed by the 1979 ES. 40 C.F.R. 1502.9(c)(ii) applies. These new
circumstances are associated with the receipt, stockpiling, and processing of various
types of uranium-bearing feed materials that are not ores from independent and company
owned mines on the Colorado Plateau (e.g., the Molycorp lead sludge), and disposing of
those non-ore materials after processing. These significant new circumstances
contemplate the receipt and possession of source material other than natural uranium, i.e.,
source material thorium (thorium-232 and progeny).
The processing of these materials constitute significant new circumstances
because the new materials are wastes and contaminated soils from various other private
and U.S. Government mineral recovery operations in the United States and Canada, some
distance from the Colorado Plateau, including the Molycorp site.
Second Supplement to Sierra Club's Written hesentation (April 14,2002)
Docket 40-8681-MLA-I l, ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
Plainly, the 1979 ES did not contemplate or discuss the environrnental impacts to
the human and natural environment of the use of these types of feed materials at the
White Mesa Uranium Mill. Hearing File 19. The ES did not contemplate or discuss the
environmental impacts of the use of lead sludge feedstock coming from the Molycorp
facility, the Colorado Plateau, or anywhere else. Hearing File 19 at l-1.
The 1979 ES did not address the environmental effects from the processing of
feed material containing source material thorium and the disposal, after partial
processing, of source material thorium in the tailings impoundments without the recovery
of any source material thorium-232 and progeny.
If the Licensee had contemplated the use of source material thorium-23Z atthe
White Mesa Mill, and received permission from the NRC to do so, that permission would
be reflected in the type of specific source material license that the Mill received. The
type of specific source and byproduct material license for the White Mesa Uranium Mill
is documented in License Conditions 6,7, and 8. License SUA-1358 only permits the
receipt and possession of natural uranium as a source material or byproduct material. See
an extensive discussion of License Conditions 6, 7, and 8 Sierra Club's April l,2OO2,
S 2.1233 Written Presentation.
The 1979 ES does not provide a basis for determining that the partial processing
and subsequent throwing away of thorium-232 and lead bearing sludges from outside the
Colorado Plateau Region will have no significant environmental impacts beyond those
evaluated in 1979-over 20 years ago. See Sierra Club's April 10, 2W\ Supplemental
5 2.1233 Written Presentation at& tolz.
l5
Second Supplement to Sierra Club's Written Presentation (April l4,2OU2)
Docket 4O-8681-MLA- I I , ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
This deficiency was not corrected by the issuance of the November 30, 2001,
NRC Staff EA. Hearing File 7. As a direct result, the NRC Staff issuance was materially
deficient. Hearing File 4. Therefore, the issuance of Amendment 20 is defective and
must be suspended, modified, or revoked until a supplemental EIS is issued by NRC
Staff.
2. Neither the1979 ES predicted, nor the NRC StatrNovember 30,2001, EA
considered, new information related to the hydrogeologic circumstances at the
White Mesa Mitt; IUSA's Amendment Request did not provoke such to occnr, in
that it is materially deficient with respect certain new information related to
hydrogeologic data; 40 C.F.R. 1502.9(cXii) would require that, if the 1979 ES did
not predict the new hydrogeologic information, then the November EA should havel
This did not happen; An EA issued that did not effectively address the newly
discovered hydrogeologic conditions at the White Mesa site; As a direct result the
NRC Staffissuance was materially delicient in that respect; Therefore, the issuance
of Amendment 20 is defective and must be suspended, modified, or revoked until a
supplemental EIS is issued by NRC staff.
Most of the information related to groundwater conditions at the Mill site was
generated after the publication of the ES. This information includes seven reports and
studies about groundwater conditions that were generated between l99l and 1999. That
information also includes the results of groundwater sampling at the Mill for over 20
years. A list of documents that have been provided to the State of Utah as part of IUSA's
application for a State of Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit (.GWDP') are attached
as APPENDIX 2. None of these documents were available at the time of the ES and such
information has not been considered in any supplemental EIS.
As a direct resulg the NRC Staff issuance was materially deficient. Therefore, the
issuance of Amendment 20 is defective and must be suspended, modified, or revoked
until NRC staff issues a supplemental EIS.
l6
Second Supplement to Sierra Club's Written Presentation (April 14,2W2)
Docket 4O-8681-Ml-A-l I, ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
3. The milling and disposal alternatives discussed in the 1979 ES, the Amendment
Request and the resultant NRC Staffissuance cannot be usefully applied to the
receipt, processing, and disposal of the lead sludge or any so-called "alternative feed
materialr'r or non-ore "orer" at the White Mesa facility.
The 1979 ES discussed various milling and disposal alternatives related to the
processing of native uranium ore that would be delivered to the applicant's Hanksville
and Blanding ore-buying station from small mines in the vicinity of Hanksville and
Blanding (within 100 miles) and thence to the White Mesa Mill. Hearing File 19 at l0-1
to 10-6.
The discussion in the ly79 ES of alternative mill and tailings disposal sites for the
processing of uranium ore from the Colorado Plateau is not applicable to the accessibility
of alternative disposal sites for the disposal of the Molycorp lead sludge, or any other
alternate feed material that has been received or might be received at the White Mesa
Mill. There is no discussion in the 1979 ES of possible alternatives applicable to disposal
of the Molycorp material (including on-site disposal at the Molycorp facility). Hearing
File 19 at l0-l to 10-6.
To the best of Petitioner's knowledge various processing and/or disposal
alternatives for alternate feed stock have never been considered in any environmental
assessment of the White Mesa Uranium Mill. This has resulted in a materially defective
NRC Staff issuance, and this should be remedied as Sierra Club has suggested.
4. There is significant new information with respect the number of tisted
endangered species in the vicinity of the White Mesa Milt; The number of
endangered species has more than doubled since the 1979 ES was prepared; Ihere
has been no review of the impact of the various prolrcsed or allowed "alternative
feed materialsr" or non-ore "oresr'r on any of the endangered species found within
the vicinity of the Vt/hite Mesa facility; NRC Stafffailure to seek or address such
information resulted in a materially defective issuance of Amendment 20; a
l7
Second Supplement to Sierra Club's Written Presentation (April 14,2O0Z)
Docket 4O-868 I -MLA- I l, ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
Supplemental EIS is required to evaluate the impact of the proposed action on the
additional listed species.
The 1979 ES states that no endangered species of plants occur on or near the
project site. Hearing File 19 at2-4D. The ES states that three endangered species of
animals may occur in the vicinity of the project site: the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), the American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinis anatum), and the Black-
Footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes). Hearing Ele 19 at2-42.
The December 2001 EA states that, in addition to these three species, four more
species have become endangered or threatened and may occur in the vicinity of the
project site: the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), the
California Condor (Gymnogyps californianus), the Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix
occidentalis lucida), and the Navajo Sedge (Carex specuicola) (a plant species). Hearing
File 6 at 3.
The lead oxide in the Molycorp materials would cause specific new harm to Bald
Eagles, American Peregrine Falcons, and California Condors using the area of the WhitA--
Mesa Mill. See April 15, z0Dz,Third Supplement to Sierra Club Written Presentation,
Appendix 4.
It is very likely that Mexican Spotted Owls nest in Cottonwood Canyon adjacent
to the mill. A Supplemental EIS is required to evaluate the impacts of receiving,
processing and disposing of the new and different Molycorp material on these species,
two of which have been listed since the 1979 ES was prepared.
l8
Second Supplement to Sierra Club's Written Presentation (April l4,2OO2)
Docket 40-8681-MI-A-l I , ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MI-A
B. Summation: Considering Issue I. and Sub-Issues A. 1' 21314rand 5.
The Sierra Club has laid out for the Presiding Officer's consideration a subset of
critical issues which the Sierra Club feels need to be properly ventilated within the instant
proceeding about IUSA's Amendment Request. As in Sierra Club's April I and April l0'
2OO2, written presentations, the intent of such a presentation has been to emphasize, using
examples, the unfortunate interplay between IUSA's December 19,2000, original
application (as variously supplemented), NRC Staff licensing actions (including Staff
requests directed to the applicant for additional information-RAIs), and the ultimate
issuance by the NRC Staff, and any justification thereof, of the license amendment
sought. It should be noted that the Sierra Club has repeatedly expressed concern that a
key decision-maker's document (a competent environmental analysis) was not available
to mitigate regulatory problems and explain health and safety or environmental dangers
touched upon or exposed by the licensing process considered herein.
Below, the Sierra Club will present further issues that, in a more far ranging
manner, discuss an issue and, by way of example, aspects that would aggravate that issue.
The boffom line, however, is that, as reflected by any discussion of these issues, it is hard
to go to IUSA's amendment request and find coherent, accessible bases for the claims
made in pursuit of Amendment 20, as issued by the NRC Staff on Decernber I I ,2001.
Sierra Club is herein, as in the April I and April l0 C.F.R. E z.l233,attempting to
go to the more egregious holes reflected by the l0 C.F.R. $ 2.1231 Hearing File, as it
finally arrived on March 25,2W2.
l9
Second Supplement to Sierra Club's Written Presentation (April 14,2402)
Docket 4S8681 -MLA- I I , ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MI-/a\
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR ROMAN TWO
II. THE PROCESSING OF 'ALTERNATE FEED MATERIAL,U OR NON.ORE
"oRE,u IS A WHOLB NEIry MTLLING PROGRAM AND, THUS, A WHOLE
NEW NRC REGULATORY PROGRAM; 40 C.F.R. 1502.9 AND 10 C.F.R. PART
51 REQUIRES THAT TIIE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CONCOMITANT
WITH THOSE NEW CIRCUMSTANCES MUST BE BVALUATED IN AN BIS
FOR THE WHITE MESA MILL; AMENDMENT 20 MUST BE SUSPENDED,
MODIFIED, OR REVOKED UNTIL A SUPPLEMENTAL EIS IS ISSUED BY
NRC STAFF ADDRESSING THE NEW PROGRAM. Pages 2l-22.
A. NRC Staffhas concluded that an adequate environmental analysis, in
conformance with 10 C.F.R. Part 51, has not been completed to address the receipt,
temporary storage, and processing of multiple "alternate feed materials." or
non-ore ttore.tt Pages 22-4.
B. NRC is relying on guidance, rather than NRC regulations and the Atomic
Energ5r Act, to regulate the processing of "alternate feed materialsr' or non-ore
"ore.t' Pages 24-Xi.
C. I{RC guidance's definition of ore is not useful; f{RC guidancers definition of the
word "orett contemplates a retroactive, vague, and, more often than nof
inappropriately applied, unexplainable, and untested thesis; That untested thesis:
anything from which uranium is recovered is "orer" as explained above at A. 5.,
disregards the 112.(2) statutory usefulness of the word "ore;" To the extent that
IUSA's Amendment Request and the resultant NRC StaffDecember 11 issuance
rely on such a definition which has not been tested by a rulemaking or ary
environmental review supporting a rulemaking, that definition cannot be utilized by
the NRC Staffto support the issuance of Amendment 20; thus, that NRC Stafr
licensing action is fatally defective and must be suspende{ modified, or revoked.
Pages n-29.
D. The Molycorp lead sludge is not "ore"l Therefore the wastes produced from the
processing of that material is not lle.(Z) byproduct material. Pages 29-il.
E. Summation: Considering Issue II. and Sub-Issues A.,8., C., and D. Pages 30,-32.
20
Second Supplement to Sierra Club's Written hesentation (Apdl 14,2ffi2)
Docket 4G868 I -MI-A-l I , ASLBP No. O2-795-02-MI"A
II. TI{E PROCESSING OF "ALTERNATE FEED MATERIAL,' ORIYON.ORE'oRE," IS A WHOLE NEW MILLING PROGRAM AND, THUS, A WHOLENEw NRC REGIILATORY PROGRAM;40 c.F-R. 1s02.9 AIYD tocF-R- PART
51 RBQIIIRES THAT THE EI{WRONMENTAL IMPACTS CONCOMITANT
WITH THOSE IYEW CIRCUMSTANCES MUST BE EVALUATEI' IN AN EIS
FOR THB VTHITE MESA MILL; AMENDMENT 20 MUST BE SIISPE}IDEE,
MODIFIED, OR REVOKED UNTIL A SUPPLEMENTAL EIS IS ISSUED BY
NRC STAFF ADDRESSING TIIE I{E\il PROGRAM.
IUSA is not currently processing uranium ore per se from companyand non-
company mines in the Colorado Plateau region or elsewhere. IUSA actively seeks
private and U.S. Government contracts to receive, process, and dispose of a wide variety
of uranium and/or thorium-232 bearing processing wastes from other facilitio in othcr
areas in both the United States and Canada. IUSA touts the fact ttrat they tave
"successfully reclassified mixed wastes to recyclable alternative feed material.u See
Petitioner William Love's lO CFR 2.1233 Written Presentation for Suspenskrr.r and or
Revocation of Amendment20 to License SUA-1358 and License SUA-1358 (April l,
20[/2), Attachment A at l. IUSA alsostates that 'Since lgYl,IUC's mill has received
numerous license amendrnents to accept specific uranium-bearing materials, which would
otherwise require disposal as waste . . . .n ld. at2.
This waste-receiving program, including the receipt of lead sludge from the
Molycorp site at the White Mesa Uranium Mill, is not the same program that was
originally evaluated in the 1979 ES. Waste receiving, processing and disposal are nottre
activities for which the White Mesa Mill was originally designed. Hearing FiIe 19.
The environmental impacts of that new cat€gory of waste processing have never
been evaluated by the Commission in either in a generic EIS or a site-specific
2t
Second Supplement to Sierra CluUs Written Presentation (April 14'2OOZ)
Docket 4G868 I -MI-A- I l, ASLBP No. O2-795{2-MLA
supplemental EIS for the White Mesa Uranium Mill. Such an oversightby the
Commission violates the provisions of the National Environmenal Policy Act, as
implemented by 10 C.F.R. Part 5l and 40 C.F.R. S$ 1500 to 15O8. Therefore,
Amendment 20 must be suspende( modifie{ or revoked until the environmental impacs
of the new regulatory program have been evaluated by the NRC Staff in a suprplernental
EIS and put forward for public review.
Given the above, there are subsidiary concerns, which the Sierra Club would be
pleased to address, bearing in mind the requirements of l0 C.F.R. $ 51.2O and 4t) C.FR.
1502.9(cXii).
A. NRC Staff has concluded that an adequate environmental anabsis, in
conformance with 10 C.F,R.. Part 51, has not been completed to address the receipt'
temporary storage, and processing of multiple "alternatc feed materials-" or
non-ore ttore.tt
Recent statements by the NRC show that the NRC has come to the conclusion that
a supplement to thelg?9 Environmental Statement would be required for the processing
and disposal of materials that are not uranium ores (e.g., the Molycorp rnaterial).
On March 3, 1998, IUSA requested a license amendment for a'?erformance
Based License Condition for Acceptance of Alternate Feed-" IUSA p'roposed thatthey be
allowed "without prior NRC approval" and subjectto certain conditions, to accept and
process alternate feed materials. l-etter from Earl E. Hoellen, IUSA, to Joseph J.
Holonich, NRC (March 3, 1998) (98O3tlOl3A
On NovemberTl,200l, the NRC sent a letter to IUSA requesting that IUSA
inform the NRC as to whether it wished to pursue or withdraw the 1998 application.
22
Second Supplement to Siera CluUs Written Presentation (April l4,zUx})
Docket 4O-868 1 -MLA- I l, ASLBP No. 02-795S2-MI-FI
NRC informed ruSA that, if they wished to pursue the 1998 application, additional
information would need to be provided. Hearing fil€ 7.
In the November 27, NRC staff made the following request:
Information regarding potential environmental impact, as required
under the National Environmental Policy Act and l0 C.F.R. Part 51, must
be presented with this request. Staff has concluded ttrat an adequate
environmental analysis. in conformance with 10 CFR krt 51. has not
been completed to address the receipt. temporarJ storage. and processing
of multiple alternate feed materials. Certain aspects to focus on, but not
be limited to, are: potential dust and groundwater contamination while the
material is stored on the ore pad pnor to pnocessing; analysis of the
groundwater detection rnonitoring program in light of additional potential
chemicals in the feed materials; transportation effecs; and material
handling procedures. Upon receipt of this information, the staff will
prepare an environmental assessment or supBlement to the original Final
Environmental Statement of 1979 to address the receipfi- temglrarJ
storage. and processing of alternate feed materials." Bn'lphasis added.l
Since 1987 the White Mesa Uranium mill has been receiving storing processing,
and disposing of multiple feed materials. There have been approximately 18 license
amendments allowing various kinds of alternate feed materials to arrive at the White
Mesa Uranium Mill. See APPENDIX l. Up until the request for the receipt of ttte
Molycorp material, there was no environmental review of these amendrnent r€quests
because those amendments received a categorical exclusion under 10 C.F.R.
51.22(c)(ll ). There was never any consideration of the cumulative effects of the receipt
and processing of those alternate feed stocks as is required underl0 C.F.R. S 5l and 40
c.F.R. 1508.4.
Since the NRC recognizes that "an adequate environmental analysis, in
conformance with 10 CFR Part 51, has not been completed to address the recei$,
temporary storage, and processing of multiple alternate feed materials", and since the
23
Second Supplement to Siema Club's Written Presentation (April 14,2([2)
Docket 4G8681-Ml-A-l 1, ASLBP No. 02-79SO2'NIL,o.
Molycorp materials would be at least the eighteenth of multiple altemate feed rnaterials
received, stored, and proc€ssed at the White Mesa Mill, the NRC Staffmust pr€pare a
supplemental environmental analysis on the receipt, storage and processing d various
multiple alternate feed materials before the Molycolp alternate feed material is
transported to White Mesa Uranium Mill,
B, NRC is relying on guidance, rather than NRC regulations and the Atomic
Enerry Act to regulate the processing of "alternate feed material\' or lm-ore
ttore.tt
The Technical Evaluation Report (TER) accompanying the issuance of
Amendment 20 states:
We have reviewed IUSA's request using ourformal guidance,
"Interim Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Material OtherThan
Natural Ores" provided in the NRC Regulatory Summary r00G23:that
was mailed to uraniurn recovery licensees on November 30, 2000.
Hearing File 4, TER, and Hearing File 10, Attachment D.
Prior to the use of the Interim Guidance, the NRC Staffrelied upon the 1995
"Final Position and Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Materials OttrerThan
Natural Ores' ("Final Position and Guidance"). Hearing File 14, Attachment C. The
proposed nPosition and Cuidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Materials OtherThan
Natural Ores" was published in the Federal Registerfor public commerfi on May 13,
lW2 (57 Fed. Reg. 2O525-2f633). Hearing File 10, Attachment A notice of the Final
Position and Guidance was published in the Federal Register on September 22, 1995. (@
Fed. Reg. 4y2964yZn). Hearing Frle lO, Attachment C.
24
Second Supplement to Sierra Club's Written hesentation (April 14,20{x2)
Docket 210-868 I -MI-A- 1 l, A SLBP N o. 02-79 5 -02-MI-A
The November 30, 2000, "Interim Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed
Material Other Than Natural Ores" ("Interim Guidance") amended the 1995 Final
Guidance in several important respects. For example, it removed previous prohibitions
regarding the receipt and processing of materiali subject to regulation under the Toxic
Substance Control Act (|SCA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA).
The NRC did not publish the Interim Guidance in the Egdptdlcgisler as a
proposed policy guidance for public comment, nor did the NRC publish a notice in the
Federal Register announcing Interim Guidance as a final policy guidance. The public has
not had an opportunity to comment on the Interim Guidance. Since the Interim
Guidance, and the accompanying definition of "ore," has not been finalized as an NRC
regulation, the NRC StafPs use of the Interim Guidance is without any regulatory
foundation.
Although the NRC has considered amending some of their regulations in
consideration of the new regulatory program that was established by the 1995 Final
Position and Guidance, conrary to the statements in the November 2000 Interim
Guidance, there is no indication from the Commission that this will happen in the near
future.
The NRC has not developed any documents under NEPA that address the
environmental impacts of the use of the policy guidances pertaining to the receipt and
processing of "alternative feed material," or non-ore "ore," at uranium mills, and the
25
Second Supplement to Sierra Club's Written Presentation (April 14,2UJl2) 26
Docket 40-868 I -MLA- I l, ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
resultant development of a new regulatory program under the umbrella of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
The law is well settled that an agency such as the NRC cannot rely upon policy
statements and guidance to accomplish rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure
Act. Significantly, for some of the issues in this case, the agency cannot avoid doing the
in-depth environmental analyses that the National Environmental Policy Act mandates.
Limerick Ecology Action v. NRC, 869 F.2d 719,733-736 (3d Cir. 1989). The NRC
Staffs' reliance upon NRC guidance or policy documents regarding alternative feed
material in determining not to conduct a supplemental EIS on IUSA's Amendment
Request for the Molycorp material is contrary to law. The kind of material that will be
qualified, the radiological and nonradiological content of the material, the physical state
of the material (liquid or sludge as opposed to uranium ore), and the tendency of the
material to have classified RCRA hazardous waste in it, are substantial enough changes
to trigger the need for a supplemental EIS under NEPA.
An agency cannot rely on the application of policy statements to create binding
precedents. Amrep Corp. v. FTC,768 F.2d ll7l, I 178 (lfth Cir. 1985), cert. denied 475
U.S. 1034 (1986); see also Texaco, Inc. v. Federal Power Commission,4l2F.2d74,
74 (3d. Cir. 1969), Pactfic Gas and El. Co. v. FPC,506 F.2d 33, 38-39 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
The staff cannot defer to such guidance in choosing to avoid conducting a supplemental
EIS where the other tests for conducting an EIS are met. Limerick Ecology Action, Inc. v.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission,869F.2d7l9,736 (3d Cir. 1989).
Second Supplement to Sierra Club's Written Presentation (April 14,2W2)
Docket zt0-868 I -Ml-A- I l, ASLBP N o. O2-795-02-MI-A
C. NRC guidance's definition of ore is not useful; NRC gui4ancers definition of the
word "ore" contemplates a retroactive, vague, and' more often than not
inappropriately applied, unexplainable, and untested thesis_; ThaJ qntested thesis:
anything from whiih uranium is recovered is "orer" as explained lbove at A.5.,
dislegarrds the lla(2) statutory usefulness of the word "gle;" Tothe extent that
IUSA-rs Amendment Request and the resultant IIIRC StaffDecember 11 issuance
rely on such a definition which has not been tested by a rulemaking or any
environmental review supporting a rulemaking, that definition cannot be utilized by
the NRC Staffto support the issuance of Amendment 20; thus, that NRC Staff
licensing action is fatally defective and must be suspended, modified, or revoked.
IUSA intends to stockpile the Molycorp lead sludge prior to processing. Hearing
File 14, Request to Amend at 10. During that time, prior to processing, tltat material
would not meet the Interim Guidance's definition of "ore." There is certainly no absolute
guarantee that the Molycorp material, after receipt at the White Mesa Mill, will actually
be processed for some of its source material content. There is no guarantee that it won't
be returned to the sender or otherwise disposed of off-site.
But, even if the Molycorp material is processed at the White Mesa facility for
some of its source material content, according to the Interim Guidance, it would then
considered to be tailings or byproduct material, not "ore." Hearing Hle 1O, Attachment
D.
Before it is processed, the Molycorp material is not "ore" because it is source
material has not yet been exffacted at a licensed uranium or thorium mill; after it has been
processed Molycorp material is not "ore" because it has been processed and the wastes
from the processing are considered tailings, or byproduct material.
It would be difficult to identify an actual point in time and space when any "other
matter" that is processed at the White Mesa Uranium Mill could actually meet the Interim
n
Second Supplement to sierra Club's written Presentation (April 14,2w2)
Docket zlO-8681-MLA-I l, ASLBP No. 02-795-02-MLA
Guidance's definition of "ore." The Interim Guidance's definition of nore" defies logic
and, therefore, is unreasonable, unsupported, and ambiguous, and thus, unworkable'
According to the Interim Guidance, once a material (that would not normally be
considered ',ore") is processed for its source material content (or, apparently, for only
some of its source material content) in a uranium or thorium mill, it then can retroactively
become ,,ore." How far this definition of a particular material as "ore" reaches back into
the past is unclear and, thus unmanageable.
Aside from the retroactive aspect, the Interim Guidance's definition of the word
"ore" is dubious in and of itself and has no basis in history, fact, or law. Hearing File 10,
Attachment D. This may be why, although a 1992 advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR) mentions it only as a possibility, the Commission has assiduously
avoided incorporating the new definition of the word "ore" into NRC regulation. &a 57
Fed. Reg. 48749,48750.
Of significance is the fact that this retroactive definition of the word "ore" is an
NRC policy-not a law-not a regulation, and it thus challengable in the context of any
proceeding about a application or licensing action that depends upon such a definition.
It is inappropriate for the NRC staff to use this policy definition to retroactively
define a material as "ore" in a manner that overrides another definition or characterization
that is based on a law or regulation of the NRC or other regulatory agency.
The NRC staff is inappropriately using guidance to redefine the drummed
Molycorp material as nore" when it is licensed as source material by the State of
California, pursuant the Atomic Energy Act, l0 C.F.R. Part 4O, and applicable State of
28
Second Supplement to Sierra Club's Written Presentation (April 14,2OAZ)
Docket 4G868 I -ML-A- 1 l , ASLBP No. 02-795-02-ML-A
29
California laws and regulations. Hearing File 9, Attachment 2. The drummed Molycorp
material is not licensed by the State of California as "source material ore." Source
material ore (and uranium-bearing and/or thorium-bearing ore that is not source material)
is exempt from regulation under 10 C.F.R.4O.l3(b). It would be difficult to determine
when and how the drummed Molycorp material could be considered "source material
ore" because there is no legal or regulatory basis for such a determination. The same
would apply to the ponded Molycorp material, which is licensable (and should be
licensed) under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, for its source material
uranium and thorium content, but not as "ore."
D. The Molycorp lead sludge is not "ore" I Therefore the wastes produced from the
processing of that material is not 11e.(2) b5product material.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by the Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act of 1y78, defines I le.(2), byproduct material:
The term byproduct material means . . . (2) the tailings or wastes
produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium or thorium from
any ore processed primarily for its source material content. [Emphasis
added.l
42 U.S.C. $ 201&.(2). Hearing File 10, Attachment I.
As shown above, the Molycorp material cannot be construed as meeting any
reasonable, supportive, and unambiguous, and thus, workable definition of the word
ttore.tt
The tailings or wastes produced from the extraction of uranium from the
Molycorp lead sludge are not I l.e.(2) byproduct material, because the lead sludge is not
"ore." IUSA and the NRC err in using an unreasonable, unsupported, and ambiguous,
Second Supplement to Sierra Club's written Prcsentation (April 14,2w2)
Docket 4O-868 I -MLA-I l, ASLBP No . O2-795-02-MLA
and thus, unworkable definition of the word "ore," for the sole purpose of allowing the
wastes produced from the processing of the Molycorp material to be disposed of in
IUSA's tailings impoundment as I le.(2) byproduct material.
IUSA and the NRC are substantively reinterpreting the definition of l le.(2)
byproduct material that was established by Congress with the passage of the Uranium
Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) as an amendment of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954. The definition of l1e.(2) byproduct material in the UMTRCA is not
a vague definition. The use of the word "ore" in that definition is not vague. It did not
require reinterpretation by the NRC and the Licensee.
Amendment 20 must be suspended, modified, or revoked because definition of
"ore" relied upon by the NRC is unreasonable, unsupported, and ambiguous, and thus,
unworkable.
E. Summation: Considering Issue II. and Sub-Issues A.,8., C., and D'
Above, Sierra Club, by way of further example, has laid out issues that approach
from significantly different directions the significant differences, or new circumstances,
created by the processing of non-ore "ore" at IUSA's White Mesa uranium extraction and
recovery facility. As in I. above, the Sierra Club has expressed concern that the NRC
Staff did not apparently have access to a basic reference tool of nuclear regulation, i.e.,
l0 C.F.R. g 5l and 40 C.F.R. 1502.9 environmental analysis. The NRC Staff, for the
most part, relies on various informal licensing guidance or branch technical positions as a
substitute for the substantive environmental analyses demanded by the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. However, see, Environmental Review
30
Second Supplement to Sierra Club's Written Presentation (Aptil 14,20(f2)
Docket 4O-868 I -MI-A- I l, ASLBP No . O2-795-O2-MLA
Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs: Draft Report for
Interim Use and Comment (September 2001). Hearing File D.
This regulatory methodology has resulted in an incomplete licensing review, as
reflected in the 10 C.F.R. 5 2.1231 Hearing File. The NRC Staff is improperly relying
upon definition driven policy and guidance, rather than NRC regulations promulgated
after a thorough environmental evaluation of all the impacts on the human and natural
environment of the licensing activities allowed. See Interim Position and Guidance on
the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Material Other Than Natural Ores (RIS 2o0O-23)
(November 30,200O), Hearing File 10, Attachment D at 8.
As shown above, there are significant new circumstances that should trigger a
complete and through environmental evaluation of the licensing activities contemplated
by the granting of Amendment 20. There are abundant reasons to support that
conclusion.
Sierra CIub respectfully requests that all the environmental, policy, and regulatory
issues set forth above be properly considered and resolved.
Sierra Club respecfully requests that the Presiding Officer strongly consider the
suspension, modification, or revocation of Amendment 20 to Material License
suA-1358.
3l
6hn Weisheit" Chair
Glen Canyon Group,
Utah Chapter, Sierra Club
P.O. Box 622
Moab, Ut^h 84532
435-259-rc63
Enclosures: As stated
I, John Weisheit, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at Moab, Utah
This l5th day of April 2002
LINITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
INTERNATIONAL URANITIM (USA) ) Docket No. 4O-8681-MLA-I I
CORPORATION )) ASLBP NO. 02-795-W-MLA
(Source Material License Amendment, )
License No. SUA-1358) ) April l5,2OO2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO
PETITIONER SIERRA CLUB',S l0 C.F.R. g 2.1233 WRITTEN PRESENTATION
REQUESTING SUSPENSION, MODIFICATION, OR REVOCATION OF
AMENDMENT 20 TO LICENSE SUA- 1358 have been served on the following persons
by first class U.S. mail, by hand, or expedited mail service this l5'h day of April 2002,
pursuant to l0 C.F.R . 2.712 and 2.12O3. Additional service via electronic mail or
facsimile transmission is indicated by asterisk.
Secretary*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications
Staff
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D. C. 20555-0001
Email : hearingdocket@nrc. gov
Administrative Judge *
Alan S. Rosenthal
Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board Panel
Mail Stop T-3 F23
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D. C. 20555-0001
Email: [e-mail]
William E. Love *
2871E. Bench Road
Moab, utah84532
Email: [e-mail]
Administrative Judge *
Dr. Richard F. Cole
Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board Panel
Mail Stop T-3 V23
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D. C. 20555-0001
Email: [e-mail]
Office of the General Counsel *
Attn: Dennis C. Dambly, Esq.
Mail Stop O-15 D2l
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D. C. 20555-0001
Email: [e-mail]
Office of Commission Appellate
Adjudication
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D. C. 20555-000 I
Anthony J. Thompson, Esq. *
Anthony J. Thompson, P. C.
1225 lgth Street, N. W., Suite 200
Washington, D. C. 20036
Email: [e-mail]
o
Docket 2Certificate of Service.
April l5,2Wz
No.4G868l-MLA-I I
Michelle R. Rehmann *
International Urani um (USA) Corporation
Independence Plaza, Suite 950
I 050 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80265
Tom Rice, Environmental Director*
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
P.O. Box 448
Towaoc, Colorado 81334
Email: [e-mail]
Angela Coggins*
Email: ABCI @nrc.gov
Lisa Clark*
Email: [e-mail]
Susan Chidakel*
Email: [e-mail]
Sharon Perini*
E-mail: [e-mail]
APPENDIX I
LICENSEE AMENDMENTS TO RECEIVE MATERIALS OTHER
THAN ORE AT THE INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION'S
WHME MESA URANIUM MILL
DOCKE'I NO 40-868I _ LICENSE NO. SUA-I358
o
I 4, 2W} Second S upplementAPPENDIX I - April
l.
LICENSEE AMENDMENTS TO RECEIVE MATERIALS OTHER
THAN ORE AT TFIE INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION'S
WHME MESA URANII.]M MILL
DOCKET NO 40-8681 _ LICENSE NO. SUA-1358
Materiat Source: Mobile Oil, Crownpoint, New Mexico'
Material: In situ leach (ISL) evaporation pond material, defined as 10 C.F.R.
40.a(a- I ) byproduct material.
Amendment: Amendment 7. Issued July 9, 1987 (8701250198)
Environmental Impact Evaluation: None
Material Source: Mobile Oil, Crownpoint, New Mexico
Material: Contaminated solid waste from ISL facility, defined aslO C.F.R.
ao.a(a- I ) byproduct material. Direct disposal.
Amendment: Amendment l3,Issued May 25,1988 (8807180167)
Environmental Impact Evaluation: None
Material Source: Bingham Canyon, Utah
Material: Organic solvent (kerosene)
Amendmenfi No amendment to license, Issued by NRC January 8, 1993
(93031tu72)
Environmental Impact Evaluation: None
Material Source: Any NRC or Agreement State off-site generator of ISL wastes.
Material: ISL wastes, defined as I le.(2) byproduct material. Direct disposal.
Amendment: Issued by NRC August 2,1993 (9309030020)
Environmental Impact Bvaluation: No environmental review. Categorically
excluded under l0 C.F.R. 51.22(c)(ll).
Material Source: All ied Si gnal, Metropol is, Ill inoi s
Material: Filtercake from processing of UrO. to uranium hexafloride
Amendment: Amendment 34, Issued October 1,1993 (9311170091)
Environmental Impact Evaluation: No environmental review. Categorically
excluded under 10 C.F.R. 51.22(c)(ll).
Material Source : Rh6ne-Poul enc Chemi cal s, Texas
Materia} uranium from uranyl nitrate solutions
Amendment: Amendment 41, Issued September 28,1995, (9510170199)
Environmental Impact Evaluation: No environmental review. Categorically
excluded under l0 C.F.R. 51.22(c)(ll).
I Data compiled from Docket No. 40-8681 and Technical Evaluation Reports CIERs)
accompanying applicable license issuances.
3.
4.
APPENDIX I - April
o
t4,2OO2, Second Supplement
Material Source: Allied S i gnal, Metropol is, Illinois
Material: Uranium-bearing potassium diurinate (KrUrOr) in a solution of
potassi um hydroxi de/potassi um fl uori de (KOH/KD
Amendment: Amendment 43, Issued November 20,1996 (n$f 4Ol37)
Impact Bvaluation: No environmental review. Categorically
excluded under l0 C.F.R. 51.22(c)(l l).
Material Source: DOE Nevada Operations Office, Cotter Concenffate, Nevada
Test Site, Las Vegas, Nevada
Material: Source material
Amendment: Amendment l,Issued by NRC April 2, lW7 (97M80(X0)
Environmental Impact Evaluation: No environmental review. Categorically
excluded under l0 C.F.R. 51.22(c)(11).
Material Source : Cabot Performance Materi al s, B oy ertow n, Penn syl vani a
Material: Uran i um, tantal i um, ni obi um contai nin g material.
Amendment: Amendment 4, Issued August 15,lW7 (9708210222)
Environmental Impact Evaluation: No environmental review. Categorically
excluded under l0 C.F.R.51.22(c)(l l).
Material Source: Performance-based license condition for acceptance of
alternate feed materials
Material: Any uranium-bearing non-ore material.
Amendment: Pending since March 3, 1998 (9803110137)
Environmental Impact Evaluation: EA or supplemental EIS.
Material Source: Cameco, Ontario, Canada
Material: floride product, UF4 scrap/ UF6 filter ash, calcined product,
regeneration product (uranium, dibutyl phosphate, butyric acid, propionic
acid, etc.)
Amendment: Amendment 9, Issued November 2,1998(981l09ol 17)
Environmental Impact Evaluation: No environmental review. Categorically
excluded under l0 C.F.R. 51.22(c)(ll).
Material Source: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ashland 2 Formerly Utilized
Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, Tonawanda, New York
Material: Uranium ore processing residues and contaminated soils from
Manhattan En gi neer Di strict (lvtED) acti vities.
Amendment: Amendment 6, Issued June 23, 1998 (9806250152), and
Amendment I 1, Issued February 24, 1999 (99030401 84)
Environmental Impact Evaluation: No environmental review. Categorically
excluded under l0 C.F.R. 51.22(c)(l l).
Material Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ashland 1 and Seaway Area D
FUSRAP site, Tonawanda, New York
2
7.
8.
9.
10.
I l.
12.
13.
o
14,2002,
14.
APPENDIX I - APril Second Supplement
Material: Uranium ore processing residues and contaminated soils from
Manhattan En gi neer Di strict (tvtED) acti vities.
Amendment: Amendment 10, Issued February 3, 1999 (D02090O27).
Environmental Impact Evaluation: No environmental review. Categorically
excluded under l0 C.F.R. 51.?2(c)(l 1).
Material Source: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis FUSRAP site, St.
[,ouis, Missouri
Material: Contaminated soils from uranium processing.
Amendment: Amendment 13, issued luly 23,1999 (9908030032), and
Amendmentl4. Licensee has not received this material.
Environmental Impact Evaluation: No environmental review. Categorically
excluded under l0 C.F.R. 51.22(c)(ll).
Material Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Linde FUSRAP site,
Tonawanda, New York
Material: Uranium ore processing residues and contaminated soils from
Manhattan En gi neer Di strict GvfED) acti v iti es.
Amendment: Amendment 14,Issued July 7, 2000 (ML010330077)
Environmental Impact Evaluation: No environmental review. Categorically
excluded under l0 C.F.R. 51.22(c)(ll).
Material Source: W. R. Grace, Chattanooga, Tennessee
Material: Wastes from processing of monazite sands licensed as source material
Amendment: Amendment 17, issued December 27,2AOO (MLOI 1800084)
Licensee has not received this material.
Environmental Impact Evaluation: No environmental review. Categorically
excluded under l0 C.F.R. 51.22(c)(ll).
Material Source: Heritage Minerals, Inc.,l-akehurst, New Jersey
Material: Monazite sand,licensed as source material.
Amendmenfi Amendment 18, issued December 29,2OO0 (ML010160252)
Environmental Impact Evaluation: No environmental review. Categorically
excluded under l0 C.F.R. 51.22(c)(ll).
Material Source: Molycorp, Mountain Pass, California
Materiat: I-ead sludges from the processing of basnasite one, source material
Amendment: Amendment 20, issued December 11,2001 (MLO13620455).
Environmental Impact Evaluation: Environmental Assessment
Material Source: Stepan Co. and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Maywood
FUSRAP site, Maywood, New JerseY
Material: Thorium processing wastes and contaminated soils, material defined by
NRC as l1e.(2) byproduct material, some licensed as source material.
Amendmenfi Pending
Environmental Impact Evaluation: Draft Environmental Asse ssment
15.
16.
t7.
18.
19.
APPENDTX2
LIST OF REPORTS PROVIDED AS PART OF THE
STATE OF UTAH
GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT
1??
=- !r- J6 ==
ra:;o><l-o
Eoo
oCgL
a,c.L(Dltt
o
.D
dqg>g&oztoo
ootoot -'
EflEEfigti
o trf'E i
v6.nts.dt,)<o-(L=
o-
3oZTo
=
='
o€tIo
E1ot1
?co6cIt
8.
!tNet\,IN
o€!*o8=u,!o
Eoocg
^oo.
Co )Co
m|.
>=3b
mr
toc)
T!i)
ItL
F
Eo Ioo
1'
=
Co !
=
Ec)Eo D
5o
7oIt
ctt
tro
o
7o
E:r!
o
o.oo.
Do!D
o
:i6
U,
Ioo
oE
=.I{oo
EIoo=Dlll.DtoI
DEP
f)t3o
=
D\)
$
aD
,t.i **
troo
IoI
=
cL5
!e{
(o(o(o
(
t\o
\)
zo
5
{
EtsI
-l
o,NI
o
Nac
NI
o)No,NI
7IID
I
trvo
fiHE
r8E*= r
1f,8
sg3
igE
EE Es.df$
=3toil'
=o
itfD:I
Ea
P.
of,oooqE
mJ64
=o-a-cgB
oo
Eel
Fa6tn3
o;
lat<t8
tnls- ;tr:a! =aQot3
c. !L!i'o6is.Ee9
=.,n-d><BOe-s*3t!.=trrDqgo
o3
ssSa
+eeH-_66 d6's€1=+o-!a6 in-'m€ail='odq?<=E6 VOah aolpiil drr.qd'
5 sa
otllGr
o<(DlDoilrO-=.o(g
{a=-e, s,
=6-(DcEg
=3-o -Tt
c.x{-oc((I
=:,
!'o!! 6'iB==>d8q
=<2. -s
oal
€a
=JtrQ
Fq6^}E
=(Dtr6o=o
EIo
=qoh'
==.DYoo
L-ot<:o.cot3tr,:{aE'oO
SB
3. et
F=Frt
!oasgE
ag<rD5rF3
FEO+oosaEA
i3=6
<vo(Dtn"ot^
=5=EL€o
(D
0i5'o=ol6o.o
o
1
o
€
=o
*gE
r 33<qa
E€
€*qt
B4se8dq{
o
so.oog
9.
o-(otN
D
=ILoI(ot(,
=ilqd
+H E $
sE4s
PE =<ov
EE E
3g Eie3i$E
=.Oro
v.DI
=:
.D-
ocEEf
fiEd9€[
b_tr
Ta6'5
=J.Di!eE
oE-
=}oo3g
f6
3G)EA6=E*aiirLd1od3oo3
o
=to
=oE33oe
iE3oiE
-Lr5ilc
5. ('BEPo3E
s3EtGI
fiEeoe8FLnr Ei
5a
=. (,r8E90.,,>Eo=Ngb3qE
B6*tn
octto
D
5
;I
=to
=o
=o-
ts
=o
Ba
=g
(D=)aat
dB=
)
=!ooj
3
8.o=6
o8:
o
Eo
ll
oo3tro5
9.D
=o
o
=9.oNo3ooo
oacfo_fo
oo
oao
=o
d
E
oEC5CL
=qt
o
oo
=o*ozo
d
E=
-8"8
q
nl O-E,-ao o0 6'e
€E39cL',
a5oOov3o
E+E'>
oac
=CL{oo
ooaoco
=a,
d
E=
o3trAI
=
s.cl.Do
o!t.D
oo3oo
=
e
g
a
E
o0vov.l|
trooo
o
6'
=
E t\){tt uc NA o &d (r)o @ Ot No
!DIb
E'Eclx
N {o0
ad OJ A(n N (o {T5
C 6 G'arl(c
Doo
(,l or o
I
D
ID6
GIo
ql (r,AN 19 5
=Do:t
c c o
T
aoo
Ia
-tL)El
CLo5oa)
o=Iooo
q5'Ioo6
aoat!
CLIo
CLo)o
B,gao
ELoJo
clab
=g
=a
o.o
=o
CLo3o
u
Eca In
o
=o
o
a-n v-Tt n.Tt 11
fs
3o
osrb
E
(.)tsots8to
o<5aEIt3g
Eei
Fs#EdAYTF*Fgq;'q'EcH
EB355 g-_>r
B*e"
.L
Beg$itE 633
EsEI$uBfEI
E3e*A
8S 5E E
EcL=o9I tsi
E$BIi
EEIiH
E g ilst3:a
lSqs
HAEgb6 6;AfiP-ca.
o-
HEg$*aEi;qH
EgBHE
?aB+i
gflH3
asee
*HgE
=*s3oo6:pe F5iuedd
Et33
laisa
l$il*Bl(o-_ -$ il'EEt -o+mdoE
BBHEEB
EsEe$E
HEgBH*
I EEiASEilga*eil*.'n-idqr;
959q's q- o=cr gclcl IPal5eB
8aEz6 9P d;EBsgro Doa,BgBb6o*aaP q88.- e.
I=IDo-E.os!tp
ts
GItsNts(.I
IgetE
E#fi8$
E€6u
sHEEj 't (^)(r3
N(C,
toto
!
==vlD
E
rtN1'!,:
OJ,F
N
OO-8E B
E:: Eo i-
BF 8
iHgs-_ !
d sFEix
o€'oA.,E:oko
acooc,gJ
&
!otcloo,
!{N'oN'IN)
\oE9rg
=f=eo=
F3EpriFga
Eil3
=
=s,=*E &,=Gl
r$BEe e.
?FHiTE
=99.38.o
6s5
EteEQ'
o-tt
=.Do
G!o6:!
e8ir
:r
E
o€!*Eaok
?cooc
5atoCI
!o
R5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL
Before Admi ni strati ve Judges:
Alan S. Rosenthal, Presiding Officer
Dr. Richard Cole, Special Assistant
IN THE MATTER OF:)
)
INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) )
CORPORATION )
)
(Source Material License Amendment, )
License No. SUA-I358))
)
THrRD SUPPLEMENT TO PETITIONER SIERRA CLUB',S l0 C.F.R. 92.1233
WRITTEN PRESENTATION REQUESTING SUSPENSION, MODIFICATION OR
REVOCATION OF AMENDMENT 20 TO LICENSE SUA-I358
INTRODUCTION
This timely written presentation was authorized by the Presiding Oflicet's March
27,2002, Memorandum and Order (Granting Motion for Leave to Supplement Written
Presentation). In it, the Sierra Club will show that:
l) the tailings cells at the White Mesa Mill were improperly constructed and are
probably already leaking;,
2) the exfiemely Iow acidic solution in the tailings cells will dissolve the lead
compounds in the Molycorp materials;
3) if the tailings solution leaks from the tailings cells, it will eat its way through
the strata underlying the cells until it reaches groundwater, carrying toxic lead
compounds with it;
Docket No. 40-8681 -MLA-I I
ASLBP NO. O2-795.02.MLA
April 15,2002
4)toxic lead compounds from the Molycorp materials will contaminate
waterfowl in the tailings ponds, sickening and/or killing them;
the mitigation measures used by Intemational Uranium (USA) Corporation
(IUSA) to prevent waterfowl from landing on the ponds don't work;
raptors and scavengers including the endangered California Condor, the
threatened Bald Eagle, and the threatened American Peregrine Falcon could
die from eating waterfowl contaminated with lead oxide from the tailings
ponds;
perched groundwater contaminated with lead from the Molycorp materials
will surface in springs and seeps, where it will threaten the health of humans
and wildlife;
drinking water in the Navajo Sandstone Aquifer will be threatened by the
addition of toxic lead compounds to the acidic solution in IUSA's tailings
cells;
9) Amendment 20 to License SUA 1358 must be suspended until the NRC has
complete and accurate data as required in l0 CFR 40.9 and must be suspended
until the NRC has complete confidence that the health and safety of the people
whom the Petitioner represents, as well as the general public, are protected per
10 cFR 40.41.
s)
6)
7)
8)
aJ
A. THE WHITI MESA MILL TAILING CELLS WERE IMPROPERLY
CONSTRUCTED AND ARE PROBABLY ALREADY LEAKING; ACIDIC
SOLUTION IN THE CELLS THREATENS GROUNDWATER; THEREFORE
AMENDMENT 20 MUST BE SUSPENDED OR REVOKED UNTIL A
SUPPLEMENTAL EIS IS PREPARED A}IALYZING INDEPEI\DENT STUDIES
OF THE TAILINGS CELL CONSTRUCTION, MIGRATION PATITWAYS OF
ACIDIC TAILINGS CELL WATERS THROUGH THE I.]NDERLYING ROCK,
AI\D THE ITYDROGEOLOGY OF THE AREA.
1. The Perched Groundwater Table Under White Mesa MilI Is FuW Protected by
Atl Regulations in 10 CFR 40.
The perched groundwater table occurs at shallow depths in the Dakota Sandstone
and Burro Canyon Formation at the mill site. Hearing File E at A-22.
This perched groundwater table is an aquifer per l0 CFR 40, Appendix A, and is
fully protected by all regulations in l0 CFR 40. An aquifer is defrned in l0 CFR 40,
Appendix A:
"Aquifer means a geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation
capable of yielding a signiflrcant amount of ground water to wells or springs. Any
saturated zone created by uranium or thorium recovery operations would not be
considered an aquifer unless the zone is or potentially is (l) hydraulically
interconnected to a natural aquifer, (2) capable of discharge to surface water, or
(3) reasonably accessible because of migration beyond the vertical projection of
the boundary of the land transferred for long-term government ownership and
care in accordance with Criterion l l of this appendix."
The perched groundwater table below the IUSA mill delivers signifrcant water to
springs located approximately 2.5 miles south of the mill. Ruin Spring is designated on
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute topographic map of the Black Mesa Butte
Quadrangle, Utah (1985). Appendix 1. This spring is accessible to people, cattle and
wildlife. The groundwater is also accessible through springs and seeps in the canyons of
Westwater, Cottonwood and Corral Creeks. Hearing File E at A-23. Ttrere are several
small ephemeral springs adjacent to the project site. See id.
4
The perched groundwater table extends outside the boundaries of IUSA property
tSat will be transferred for long-term government ownership. The Corral Creek drainage
area is completely outside the White Mesa project area (Hearing File G at2-6), and the
majority of both Westwater Creek and Cottonwood Creek are outside ttre White Mesa
project area. Id. In summary, the perched water table below the IUSA mill meets all the
criteria under l0 CFR Part 40 Appendix A and is fully protected by all other applicable
l0 CFR 40 regulations.
2. The Tailings Cells at White Mesa MilI Were Improperly Constructed and
Probably Already Leak
IUSA's May 1999 Groundwater Information Report states, "There is no probable
cause to believe that discharge of tailings water to the underlying perched water zone in
the Btgro Canyon Sandstone will occur dtring the operational life of the cell [Cell3,
extrapolated to Cells 1 and 2]." Hearing File F at B-17.
l0 CFR a0.9 (a) states:
Information provided to the Commission by an applicant for a license or
by a licensee or information required by statute or by the Commission's
regulations, orders, or license conditions to be maintained by the applicant
or the licensee shall be complete and accurate in all material respects.
l0 CFR $40.41 states, in pertinent part:
(e) The Commission may incorporate in any license at the time of
issuance, or thereafter, by appropriate rule, regulation or order, such
additional requirements and conditions with respect to the licensee's
receipt, possession, use, and transfer of source or byproduct material as it
deems appropriate or necessary in order to . . . (2) Protect health or to
minimize danger of life or property;
IUSA's statement that there is no probable cause to believe tailings waterwill
discharge to the perched aquifer does not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 40.9 for
completeness and accuracy of information. There l's probable cause to believe that
5
tailings water will discharge to the perched water zone during the operational life of the
cell. The probable cause is based on two factors:
a. The tailings cells were improperly constructed, may be leaking now, and will
certainly leak in the future.
b. Once the acidic solution in the tailings cells escapes, it will eat its way
through the underlying strata to the groundwater.
IUSA's Tailings Cell3 has significant defects in its construction, as documented
by the State of Utah Departrnent of Environmental Quality (DEQ). November 28,2001,
letter from DEQ, Division of Radiation Control, to IUSA (Attachment K to Petitioner
William E. Love' s April l, 2002, Presentation).
Ivan Weber, an environmental consultant with nine years of experience managing
the construction of repositories for mining/smelting-contaminated soils at Kennecott Utatl
Copper Corporation, has found significant flaws in the construction oi and monitoring of
leaks from, Cells 1,2 and 3. Appendix 2. Mr. Weber concluded that License
Amendment 20 to SUA 1358 should be withdrawn until a complete study of the tailing
cells liner system is completed. Moreover, a thorough study should be initiated
immediately into the extreme probability that the tailings cells are already leaking, but
such leaks have not been detected due to the inadequate leak detection system on site. /d.
at2 of ll.
A properly constructed tailings cell would have a thick liner underlain by clay and
overlain by sand. Instead, IUSA's Cells 1, 2 and 3 have a relatively thin liner that is
underlain and overlain by crushed native rock. Crushed rock does not provide the low
permeability barrier under the liner that clay would provide. The absence of a clay layer
means the liner is the only mechanism for preventing leakage of fluids from Cells l, 2
and3. Id. at4 ofll.
The crushed rock was not sifted, so sharp rock edges will penetrate the liners of
Cells l, 2 and 3 from both above and below. The crushed rock was spread onto the liner
by small bulldozers. The weight and turning forces of the bulldozers undoubtedly
damaged the liner. The February ll,l9S2 "Construction Report: Initial Phase - Tailings
Management System" says "areas damaged by the cover placement operation were
immediately repaired." Id. at 8 of I l. However, as Mr. Weber points out, "If any
attention whatsoever was paid to detection of liner punctures and tears below the soil
coyer, where inspectors/observers could not possibly see, such attention is not
communicated in any of the reports reviewed." Bmphasis in original.] .Id.
The type of liner used in IUSA's tailings Cells l, 2 and 3 was a 30-mil PVC
membrane. Id. at 5 of 11. PVC liners have a long history of problems, and only recently
have many of the problems been corrected. IUSA's tailings cells were prepared in the
early 1980's with materials that were inadequate then and are even more inadequate now.
Id. at4 of I 1. PVC continues to age throughout its life. PVC was and is particularly
susceptible to loss of plasticizer compounds and, consequently, loss of elasticity,
elongation capacrty, flexibility, seam strength and mechanical shength. Id. at 5 of 1 l.
PVC has been vulnerable to attack by bacteria. Id. T\e reaction of the PVC industry to
these problems has been to use PVC of double or greater thickness than that used in
IUSA's tailings cells (i.e., 60-mi1 or more). Id. at 6 of 11.
7
pVC is susceptible to acid degradation. Id. at7 of 11. Acid degradation catrses
plasticizer loss, which renders PVC brittle and prone to physical loss of strength ld. The
tailing cells are extremely acidic, with a pH of 1.8-2.0. Hearing File F at A-9.
pVC membranes decompose from exposure to hydrocarbons. Historically,
significant amounts of kerosene/diesel fuel and small quantities of chlorinated solvent
have been discharged to the White Mesa tailings cells. November 28,200l,letter from
DEQ to IUSA at 7 (Attachment K to Petitioner William E. Love's April 1,2002,
Presentation).
Mr. Weber concluded that the liner used in Cells 1,2 and 3 "was not stable, was
weak, and was too soft to resist rocky soils below and above." Appendix2 at 4 of 11.
Mr. Weber also expressed concern that the leak detection system below Cells l, 2,
and 3 is completely inadequate. It consists of no more than a perforated plpe at the toe of
the retaining dike. There is no barrier under the cells to move any leakage to the pipe for
detection. Due to the use of highly permeable crushed rock for bedding material under
the cells, leakage will move down vertically and never contact the detection plpe. Id. at7
of I l. Thus, if the middle of a 70-acre cell is leaking 1,000 feet from the perforated pipe,
or even 100 feet from the prpe, the leak cannot be detected
Based on his review of eleven documents and fifteen construction drawings, Mr.
Weber concluded that IUSA's tailings cells may have been leaking since the White Mesa
Mill started operations. He stated, "I would be remiss if I fail to express my shock that
this condition has been allowed to go on for as long as it has." Id at I I of I 1.
The Sierra Club, in turn, was shocked to receive Mr. Weber's report. IUSA's
statement that there is no probable cause to believe that the storage cells will discharge
8
pollutants to the groundwater is based on outdated information. Their assumption that
there is no probable cause for Cells 1,2 and 3 to leak needs to be re-evaluated using
relevant and new information that is available to the PVC industry. Their studies do not
take into account the extremely probable degradation of their PVC liners by high acid
solutions.
In order to protect health and minimize danger of life, the NRC must suspend
Amendment 20 under 10 CFR $40.41 (e) (2) until IUSA's tailings cell liners are
evaluated using the current levels of knowledge available; a proper leak detection system
is installed under Tailings Cells 1, 2 arrd 3; and a Supplemental EIS is prepared.
3. The Extremely Low Acidic Solution in IUSA's Tailings Cells Will Dissolve the
Lead Compounds in the Motycorp Materials and Eat Through the Strata
Underlying the Cells Until It Reaches the Groundwater, Carrying the Lead
Compounds with It.
IUSA's May 1999 Groundwater Information Report states,
Dissolved metals in tailings water are unlikely to be transported through
the I l0-ft vadose zone due to significant attenuation from a number of
potential processes, [including] microfiltration through the PVC liner,
adsorption to soil particles, cation exchange, horizontal and vertical
dispersion due to heterogeneities of rock, and oxidation-reduction
processes. Hearing File F at B-13.
10 CFR a0.9 (a) states:
Information provided to the Commission by an applicant for a license or
by a licensee or information required by statute or by the Commission's
regulations, orders, or license conditions to be maintained by the applicant
or the licensee shall be complete and accurate in all material respects.
l0 CFR $40.41 states, in pertinentpart:
(e) The Cornmission may incorporate in any license at the time of
issuance, or thereafter, by appropriate rule, regulation or order, such
additional requirements and conditions with respect to the licensee's
receipt, possession, use, and transfer of source or byproduct material as it
9
deems appropriate or necessary in order to . . . (2) Protect health or to
minimize danger of life or property;
IUSA's conclusion that dissolved metals will not move throughthe dry zone
above the perched aquifer is based on incomplete data. Mr. Paul R. Grossl, Associate
Professor of Biogeochemistry in the Department of Plants, Soils and Biometeorology at
Utah State University, found that IUSA did not consider the mobility of lead through
soils when the lead is in a low pH solution. Appendix 3 at2.
Professor Grossl states that the low pH of any tailing liquids leaking from Cell 3
would destroy surfaces that normally attenuate lead, and the lead would stay mobile and
move with the liquid plume:
In my opinion, natural attenuation of dissolved metals, specifically lead,
through the vadose zone below the liner in Cell 3 witl not occur, since
subsoil particle surfaces (i.e., iron oxide coatings and calcium carbonate)
that act as adsorption sites for metals dissolve under low pH conditions
oH<4.0). /d
IUSA's May 1999 Groundwater Information Report also states, "A total of 1,300
years would be required before any potential volumetric flux from a reclaimed cell could
reach the perched water zone below ttre site." Hearing File F at B-13.
Professor Grossl fotrnd that this hydrogeologic model utilized by IUSA does not
take into account the exfiemely acidic nature of the tailings solution in Cells 1,2 and 3.
Appendix 3 atZ.
As stated, the tailing cells have a pH of 1.8-2.0. Professor Grossl opined, "At this
low pH, lead is soluble. Thus, given the likelihood that the liner in Cell 3 would leak as
indicated in Ivan Weber's declaration, lead will freely permeate and move with the liquid
front into the underlying subsurface environment." Id.
10
Professor Grossl believes possible acid degradation of the underlying strata could
lead to changes in the strata's porosity, resulting in preferential flow pathways. Id. ln
other words, if any extremely acidic tailings solution escapes the tailings cell, it will eat
'kormholes" through the underlying rock.
In August 1999 the State of Utah issued a Groundwater Corrective Action Order
to IUSA regarding chloroform contamination found in the perched aquifer under the
White Mesa Mill. The source(s) of the plume have not yet been established. February
20,2002letter from Department of Environmental Quality to Bill Love (Attachment L to
Petitioner William E. Love's April 1,2002, Presentation). IUSA believes the chloroform
escaped from a leach field used by an on-site laboratory from 1979-80. April 9,2002,
Response of IUSA to Ute Mountain Ute Tribe's Written Presentation at 11.
Since chloroform reached the perched aquifer from a leach field within twenty
years, acidic tailings solution loaded with toxic lead compounds leaking from Cell 3
could reach the aquifer in the same short time frame. The hydrostatic head created by the
weight of the water in the tailings cell will push the tailings solution downward,
augmenting the natual pull of gravity.
Professor Grossl states:
If there is any evidence that any organic or inorganic contaminants moved
from surface layers to ground water during operation of the White Mesa
Mill, it is my opinion that lead present in the acidic tailings liquid would
move within the same amount of time from a leak in Cell 3 to ground
water, since lead under low pH conditions is mobile. Appendix 3 at2.
Professor Grossl concludes that Amendment 20 to License SUA 1358 should be
withdrawn until a complete study of the lowpH of the tailing cells and the potential
interaction of these acidic materials with the subsurface environment is addressed. /d.
l1
In order to protect health and minimize danger of life, the NRC must suspend
Amendment 20 under l0 CFR $40.41 (e) (2) until the movement of lead oxide in a low
pH solution through the rock structure below the IUSA mill is analyzed in a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
B. ADDING HIGHLY TOXIC LEAD COMPOUNDS TO THE TAILINGS CELLS
WILL CAUSE DEATH AI\D/OR ILLNESS TO EI\IDAIIGERED SPECIES,
wrLDLrFE, AND AlrY HUMAI\IS UTILIZING THE WTLDLTFE, SPRTNGS, OR
GROI.]NDWATER; THE PERCHED AQUIFER I]NDER THE WHITE MESA
MILL SURFACES IN SPRINGS UTILIZEI BY PETITIOI\"E& THE PUBLIC,
AND WILDLIFE; THEREFORE AMENDMENT 20 MUST BE SUSPENDED OR
REVOKED I.JNTIL A SUPPLEMENTAL EIS IS PREPARED ANALYZING
THESE CONCERNS.
l. Toxic Lead Compounds In the Tailings Ponds Will Contaminate Waterfowl.
The toxicity of lead poisoning to humans and wildlife has been well documented.
Appendix 4, Attachments C-I. See also Irving Sa><, "Dangerous Properties of Industrial
Materials," in Appendix A to Petitioner Sierra Club's April 10,2002, Presentation, as
well as the Material Safety Data Sheets in Attachments E-I to Petitioner William E.
Love's April l, 2002, Presentation.
The toxicity of lead compounds is significantly increased when mixed with a low
pH solution. As stated, the pH of the tailing slurry to the ponds is 1.8 -2.0.
Roger A. Coulombe, Jr, Professor of Toxicology at Utatr State University since
1984, states that IUSA never analyzed the inevitable changes in chemical and physical
properties that will result from milling and acidification of the Molycorp material.
Appendix 5 at2. He firttrer states that:
"A substantial amount of the lead sulfides will be converted into stable
lead oxides and other forms of lead which pose a significantly greater
health risk than the lead sulfides in the original tailings. Compared to
insoluble sulfides, soluble forms of lead and other inorganic compounds
t2
are more easity absorbed (by various routes) by animals and people and
are substantially more toxic." Id.
l0 CFR $40.41 states, in pertinent part:
(e) The Commission may incorporate in any license at the time of
issuance, or thereafter, by appropriate rule, regulation or order, such
additional requirements and conditions with respect to the licensee's
receipt, possession, use, and tansfer of source or byproduct material as it
deems appropriate or necessary in order to . . . (2) Protect health or to
minimize danger of life or properly;
If the Molycorp materials are processed at the White Mesa Mill, the opentailings
ponds will be an immediate source of lead poisoning to both resident and migrating
waterfowl. Waterfowl seek to rest on large bodies of water such as these tailings ponds.
See aeial photograph of IUSA's tailings ponds, Appendix 6.
Ttrc 1979 Final Environmental Statement (ES) on the White Mesa Mill lists the
following species of waterfowl as observed in the vicinity of the mill: mallard, pintail,
American coo! spotted sandpiper. Hearing File 19 at243.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) asked IUSA's predecessor to place
nets over the tailings ponds in order to prevent waterfowl from landing on them. April 1,
2002, telephone conversation with Laura Roman, USFWS. Petitioner understands that
instead of installing netting, IUSA installed COz carmons and raptor silhouettes.
However, Petitioner has learned that the COz cannons were not operating when Utah
Department of Environmental Quality and Ute Mountain Ute personnel visited the site on
different occasions. Telephone conversations.
Even if IUSA were to operate the COz cannons as requested for mitigation
purposes, there is a danger that waterfowl will land on the tailings ponds because the
13
birds become accustomed to cannons and raptor silhouettes. April l,z00z,telephone
conversation with Ms. Roman, USFWS.
Mr. Timothy Chervick, a professional wildlife biologist specializing in raptors,
reviewed IUSA's proposal to intoduce lead oxide to the tailings ponds. He found that
the proposal could have adverse effects on wildlife in the area, specifically waterfowl that
may land on the lead-contaminated tailings ponds and endangered species that may prey
on the contaminated waterfowl, as well as all species that drink from the springs and
seeps that are fed by the perched aquifer under the White Mesa Mill. Appendix 4.
If tailings containing lead oxide from the Molycorp materials are placed in the
White Mesa mill tailings ponds, resting waterfowl will become contaminated with lead
oxide in their feathers. Waterfowl may also drink and ingest tailings pond water. Id. at
3.
Ingestion of lead by waterfowl has long been recognized as an important source
of mortality of waterfowl. Id. at 2. Waterfowl death and illness can occur at blood
concentrations of > 0.5 or ppm (mgAQ) of lead. Id. at 2. The Molycorp material
contains from 1,553 mglQ to262,410 mg/I(g of lead oxide (Hearing File 14,
Attachment I at P.005).
The 1979 ES lists the following species of raptors in the area: red-tailed hawk,
golden eagle, marsh hawh merlin, American kestrel, common nighthawk. It lists the
following species of scavengers in the area: turkey vulture, magpie, raven, crow.
Hearing File 19 at243. Raptors and scavengers would be poisoned by eating any
waterfowl whose feathers became contaminated by landing on a tailings pond containing
the Molycorp materials.
t4
2. Perched Groundwater Contaminated with Lead Will Surface in Springs and
Seeps, Where It \ilill Threaten the Health of Humans and Wildlife.
If lead-contarninated water from IUSA's tailings cells escapes from IUSA's faulty
tailings cells (as predicted by Mr. Weber) and reaches the perched aquifer within twenty
years (as the chloroform did), and from thence migrates to Ruin Spring only 2.5 miles
away, the contamination of this rare spring would be a disaster for all wildlife in the area.
Additionally, people who consume waterfowl, deer, and other game animals or birds in
the area of the White Mesa Mill would be poisoned as the lead worked its way up the
food chain. These people include Sierra Club members, Native Americans living in the
vicinity of the mill, and other members of the general public. The 1979 ES says winter
deer use of the project vicinity is among the heaviest in southeastern Utah. Id. at242.
Steven Rouzer, M.D., would warn his patient John Weisheit not to drink from any
springs or seeps that are fed by the perched aquifer under the White Mesa mitl if
contamination from the tailings cells should migrate into the springs and seeps.
Appendix 7. lvlr. Weisheit recreates personally and professionally in the area of the mill.
As one of the Sierra Club's affiants in this informal hearing, he represents all Sierra Club
members.
In order to protect health and minimize danger of life, the NRC must suspend
Amendment 20 under l0 CFR $40.41 (e) (2) until the likely movement of lead oxides in
a low pH solution through the rock structure below the IUSA mill is analyzed in a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
3. Perched Groundwater Contaminated with Toxic Lead Compounds lilill Surface
in Springs and Seeps, Where It Witt Threaten Endangered Species.
15
Waterfowl are prey species for the threatened Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus). Leadpoisoning resulting from lead shot ingestion has long been
recognized as an important source of secondary poisoning of species such as the Bald
Eagle. Appendix 4. Bald Eagles living or migrating in the vicinity of the White Mesa
mill could get lead poisoning from ingesting waterfowl that were contaminated with lead
oxide from the Molycorp material.
The California Condor (Gymnogtpes californiczs) was recently trapped back into
captivity due to its high death rate in the wild. Investigators found that the Condors were
dying from eating lead shotgun pellets in a cattle carcass. Id. at3. Condors have been
sighted 50 miles south of the mill site and 75 miles north of the mill site. Hearing File 6
at3.
The California Condor could be found migrating through the area of the mill as
part of the Experimental release population of birds from the Vermillion Cliffs area.
Appendix 4 at3. A Condor flying in the vicinity of the mill would be attracted to eat any
waterfowl that had landed on a tailings pond, managed to escape, then died. Any lead
that the waterfowl had ingested would be passed up the food chain to the Condor.
The Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) migrates through the project area during
the spring and fall times of the year. This falcon regularly takes waterfowl and other wild
birds as its prey. Waterfowl contaminated with lead sulfide or lead oxide could cause a
secondary poisoning to this falcon. Id.
The Bald Eagle is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Eagle
Protection Act. The Califomia Condor is protected under the Endangered Species Act
and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
16
Mr. Chervick warns that the risk of lead poisoning "should not be taken with any
wildlife species, but cannot be permitted where endangered species are involved." Id.
The NRC staff have ignored their responsibility under these Acts to protect the
endangered birds living in the vicinity of the White Mesa mill. Therefore, Amendment
20 should be withdrawn until IUSA's tailings ponds have been netted, a complete study
of the chemisty and toxicology of the proposed acidified lead tailings mixture has been
made, and the results of such a study have been evaluated with regard to these
endangered birds in a Supplemental EIS.
4. Drinking Water in the Navajo Sandstone Aquifer Will Be Threatened By the
Addition of Toxic Lead Compounds to the Acidic Solution in IUSA's Tailings Cells.
IUSA's March 30,1999, White Mesa Mill Drinking Water Source Protection Plan
states, "The Entrada/I.travajo Aquifer is separated from the perched groundwater zone by
more than 1,100 feet of unsaturated,low permeability formations." Hearing File F,
Drinking Water Source Protection Plan at 13.
This statement is incorrect. A stratigraphic column in the February 1997
Environmental Assessment forRenewal of Source Material License SUA-1358 indicates
tt tt 645 feet of the formations between the perched aquifer and the Navajo Aquifer are
high-permeability sandstone. Only 415 feet ofthe formations are low-permeability shale.
Hearing File F, February 1997 EA at7.
IUSA's self-serving misrepresentation of the permeability of the formations that
the company is relying upon to protect the Navajo Sandstone Aquifer from contamination
leaking from the tailings cells, coupled with our discovery that the tailings cells very
likely already leak and the fact that IUSA's hydrogeologic model ignores the likelihood
that the extemely acidic tailings solution will create preferential pathways for
t7
contaminated water to travel through these formations, all lead us to suspect that the
drinking water for the White Mesa Ute Reservation and others utilizing the Navajo
Sandstone aquifer (including the Town of Bluff) is at risk of contamination if the
Molycorp materials are introduced to IUSA's tailings cells.
IUSA must not be permitted to add to the tailings cells lead compounds that are
highly toxic to humans until a firll and independent hydrogeologic study is done and the
safety of the Navajo Sandstone drinking water aquifer is clear beyond a doubt.
Therefore, Amendment 20 must be revoked or suspended until a Supplemental EIS
evaluating such a hydrogeologic study is prepared.
C. THE NRC MUST SUSPEND OR REVOKE AMENDMENT 20 I]NTIL
INDEPENDENT STUDIES ARE COMPLETED ON THE IMPROPER TAILINGS
CELL CONSTRUCTION AT WHITE MESA MILL, PROBABLE EXISTING
LEAKS,INABILITY OF THE T'NDERLYING STRATA TO ATTENUATE LEADcoMpouNDs DrssoLvED IN ACID, AND ACrD FORMATION OF
PREFERENTIAL PATHWAYS THROUGH I]}IDERLYING STRATA TO
GROTINDWATER - A}tD T]NTIL SUCH STUDIES ARE EVALUATED IN A
SUPPLEMENTAL EIS.
The NRC cannot morally or legally endanger the entire ecosystem around White
Mesa Mill with lead poisoning. The perched water table under the mill has been polluted
with chloroform by an unknown pathway and from unknown sources. The chloroform
has moved quickly from the surface to the groundwater, has moved over 600 meters
toward Ruin spring, and is of unknown width and unknown total length.
IUSA has not evaluated the integrity of the cell liners using curent state of the art
standards for engineering, installation, quality assurance and subsequent monitoring and
protection standards.
IUSA, after two-and-a-half years, has not met the State of Utah's requirements for
their Groundwater Discharge Permit.
t8
IUSA, after two-and-a-half years, has not completely addressed the State of
Utah's Notice of Violation of Groundwater Correction Action Order, Utah Docket UGW-
20-01.
IUSA has not evaluated the movement of pollution into the groundwater in light
of the low pH of the tailing ponds.
IUSA needs to accomplish all ofthe above items, and all of the tests and
evaluations mentioned above and in the attached declarations need to be completed,
before IUSA is allowed to intoduce soluble lead poisoning into the mill's processing
storage ponds.
CONCLUSION
Amendment 20 to License SUA 1358 must be suspended or revoked until the
NRC has complete and accurate data as required in l0 CFR 40.9 and until the NRC has
complete confidence that the health and safety of the people whom the Petitioner
represents, as well as the general public, are protected per l0 CFR 40.41.
W.'W
John Weisheit, Chair
Glen Canyon Group,
Utah Chapter, Sierra Club
P.O. Box 622
Moab, Utah 84532
435-259-1063
Enclosures: Appendices 1-7
19
I, John Weisheit, declare under penalty of perjuy that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at Moab, Utatr /) f)rhislsthdaYofAPrit2ooz
,W M("1\-/
John Weisheit
20
LIST OF APPENDICES
THrRD SUPPLEMENT TO PETTTTONER SIERRA'CLUB'S l0 C.F.R $ 2.1233
WRITTEN PRESENTATION REQUESTING SUSPEN SION, MODIFICATI ON OR
REVOCATION OF AMENDMENT 20 TO LICENSE SUA.I358
Appendix I - USGS topographic map of the area of White Mesa Mill, showing Ruin
Spring
Appendix 2 - Declaration of Ivan Weber
Appendix 3 - Declaration of Paul Grossl
Appendix 4 - Declaration of Tim Chervick
Appendix 5 - Declaration of Roger Coulombe
Appendix 6 -Aerial photograph of IUSA tailings pond, from the April-May 2002
Canyon Country kphyr, page 23
Appendix 7 - Declaration of Steven Rouzer, M.D.
APPENDIX 1
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OFTHE AREA
OF WHITE MESA MILL_SHOWING RI.JIN SPRINC
*f
?\-\r\J/al
Xt\
f-_)
r___l
QUADRAIIIGLE T.oCA
lcaL auRv:Y. i-aToNr Vtaotxta- tie!
ROAD LEGEND
Olnteratatc Routc [r.t. Rout.,,, OStatc Route
BLACK MESA BUTTE, UTAH
PROVISIONAL EDITION 1985
37l09E TF{24
:
-.--ut
EIJ\
-r^
E-+
-u"t-.^
-l\
E^
Elal
-A-@
-l-o.
ru
I(rul,14
1r,
Ir\
Cf
--o
Io
z(Dt4H
t
I ,3 I cr.o nr2 UE IE B.c3 B&a!a N..6a B..d En*5 ratsa6 r{frs,7 f$,ya r-.J
E ta D.."[
4 5
6 ?I
AD]OINING ?.9 QUADRA}.IGLD NAMES
APPENDIX 2
DECLARATION OF IVAN WEBER
LNITED STATES OF Ah{ERIC,q,
Before the
NUCLEAR RE GIILATORY COMMISSION
ATOMIC SAFETY AJ\D LICENSING BOARD
Administrative LawJudge Alan S. Rosenthal, Chair
Administrative LawJudge Dr. Richard F. Cole
Inthe lrnfrer {
International Uranium ([ISO C-oqp.
\{hite Mesa Uranium Mill
(Source Material License Amendment)
)
)
)
)
Doclrct No.
40-868I-MLA- 11
DE CLARATION OF IVAN \XIEBER
ON BEFIALF OF PETITIONER SIERRA CLLIB GLEN CANIYON GROTJP
l. Myname is Ivan'Weber.
2. I reside at9531" Avenue, Sdt Ialre Gry l-kah.
3. I am an environmental construction and sustainabilityconsultant doing business in the State
of l-hah. I have been practici"g in that capacity for 1 year, after 9 years as environmenal planner
and contracts nxmager for Kennecott Lhah Copper Environmental Engineering Projects Group,
and.lrenty pry"io* years as large-scale construction manager, building inspector, technology
specifier, and design manager. A resume of my professional qualifications is anached hereto as
Exhibit'A'.
4. In orrder to form a professional opinion about the issues in this case, I have reviewed the
following related docunrents:
?. . . ._F*"gyjggls Ngdear / D'Appolonia C-onsuking Engineers, Inc., "C-onstruction Report:
Initial Phase - Tailings lvlanagement Sptem" (1" Phase fu-Built, Glls 1 & 2), Feb. 11, L982.
! E.t.,rEi1 Fuels Nuclear, Inc., "C,onstruction Report: Second Phase Tailings lvlanagenrent
Sptem" (2'd Phase fu-Built Crll3), N4arch 1983.c. Intemational Uranium G{p., "C-onstruction Report Tailings Cill4Ao" August 2OOO.d. Drawings: "C.onstruction Drawings Tailings lvlanagement Sptem \fhiG lvlesa Uranium
Project, Blanding Lhah" D'Appolonia Engineering, Inc., prepared for Energy Fueb Nuclear, Inc.,
lvlarch 30,1979:o EFN/D'Appolonia Dwg. No. Rlv78- 682-Tt Tide Sheet (1 of 15)o EFN/DAppolonia Dwg. No. Rtv78-682-El5 General Arrangement Tailings lvlanagement
System Q of 15). EEN/D'Appolonia Dwg. No. Rlv78- 682-85 Approximate Top of Bedrock (3 of 15)
o . EFN/D'Appolonia Dwg. No. RIW8- 682-84 Tailings Cell Sections A-A B-B, and GC (a of
1s)
t, a- . Declarationof Ivan Weberonbehfr**-ora GlenC-aryonGroupIntlxrmnzr{hwmaiaral Urani'rn(UsA) Cnp. lVhite Maa tqanianMill (Soae LioxeA"u*"rx),
Docket no. 4G858I-MLA-11
Page2 of Ll
o EFN/D'Appolonia Dwg. No. RNfl8-582-E3 Tailings Gll sections D-D and E-E (5 of tS). EFN/D'Appolonia Dwg. No. RIv78-682-E14 Gll Area - CapaciryG:rves (e of tS)o- EEN/D'Appolonia Dwg. No. RIv78-682-E15 System Schedule and I\daterial Quantities (Z
of ts)
o . EFN/D'Appolonia Dwg. No. RIV78-582-E6 Initial C,onstruction Phase Detailed Plan (8 of
1s)
: EFyg'APp,q1""ia DvB. No. Rlv78-682-89 C-onceptual Iayout Sptem Expansion Cells
3,4,aurrd 5 (9 of 15)
' ryryP &4:4 Dwg. No. RhDS-682-EZ C.onceprud Iayout Cell 1 - Enlargement Crll
5 SafetyDike (tO of tS). EFN/D'Appolonia Dwg. No. RIW8-682-E8 Tailings Disposal Operations (11 of 15)o EFN/D'Appolonia Dwg. No. Rtv78-5S2-E10 Sump and Drain Access Deails (12 ort L5)o EFN/D'Appolonia Dwg. No. RIv78-682-E12 Gll Lirire Installation Details (13 of 15)o EFN/D'Appolonia Dwg. No. RIvtr8-682-E11 Geotechnical Analpis (1+ of t5)o EFN/D'Appolonia.Dwg. No. RIv78-682-El3 Miscellaneous Details (rS of tS)e. kaer, Mlliam J. Sinclair, Dir. I-hah State Div. of Radiation C-ontrol, to John. J. Surmeier,
IJS NRC, Nov. 29, 1999, rc: State comments on EA for\White Mesa Mill Reclamation PIan.f. Irtter, Flarold R Roberts, Exec. VP ru ruSO G{p., to T.H Essig, US NRC, Dec.7,1999,
re: Response to State co[unents Nov.29,99.g. Environmental fusessment for Amendment to \IThite Mesa IUC Uranium Mll Site SUA-
1358, for lne-"*1 of Proposed Reclamation Plan, prepared by IIS NRC, Dec. 23,1999 (with
transmittal memos).
_h, Q:.fd:n Inspection_Report for NRC for Aug. 18, 1998 - J"ly 25,2OOO,ruGJSA)C \7hite
Mesa Mill, T. Yamashita,Inspector, O7/25/OO.i. ktter and Report, \0riliam N. Deal, lvlanager IU(LS$C \{hite }vGsa Mll, to \U0illiam Von
T:ilI, US NRC, 4-27-01, re: Cell 4-A Leak Detection Report.j. _- ktter and Report, \ffrlliam N. Deal, lvlanager IU(IJSA)C \7hite Inlesa Mill, to rffilliam VonTill, IJS NRC, 5-29-0L, re: Gll 4-A I€ak Detection s;rtem Follow-up Report.k kfter, kolI._Yg*ol, Project Hldrogeologist, thah State biv.-Radiation C-ontrol, to
Flarold Roberts, q IVGISA)C, 11-28-01,g' {ewe:i {or Additional Information regarrding 12-
31-_98 Knight Piesold Repon on Seepage Flux from Tailings Celt 3 Liner, '\Ttrite tvLJ, Uoii"-Mll.l. Environmental Assessment and transmittal lemers, Source lvlaterial License Amendment for
Receipt and Processing of MolyCoqp Alternate Feed, prepared by IJS NRC, 1 1-3G01.
5. After review of the materials listed above, I have formed the following opinions, based on
my best professional judgment: The license amendment at issue in this .as" Jhojd not iave been
granted and should be withdrawn until a complete study of the tailings cells liner $6rem has been
completed and assessed. Moreover, a thorough srudy should be initiaied imrnediateiy to investigate
:*tryrylyProbable grorrnd water contamination at the site, along with its implications. The re"slns
for this opinion are as follows:
o
nafrer{
Declaration of Ilan $feber on U.Ulf Sierra Oub Glen Gnlon GroupIrtmatiorutUranian(USA)ctrp.\vhiaMaa-*K!*!re;dffi
;
Page 3 of 11
Intlx
a. C-ells 1, 2 and3:
The lining s)6tem of cells l, 2 and 3 is substandard in design, materials and corstruction for the
puryose of permanent containrnent of "source material" tailings, constituents of which are likely to
be hazardous as a conse-quenc€ of acid-leach processing. Deficiencies rendering the lining sptem of
these cells include the following observations, drawn from the Construction Reporu for iells 1, 2
and 3 (documents a and b, listed above), and from cornrnents and questions exchanged in lemers and
reports listed above:
1) Soil beddinq deficiencies:
: !"il bedding under the liner was prepared with collapse prevention objectives under dilres,
but no documented attention to qualirycontrol of bedding under synthetic liner on the floor of cellst,2 ard 3 for creation of a barier to permeability.
T.he gtlbglade material was not clay, but rather was characterized in the constnrction report
as pulverized, in-situ roclq compacted in place:
"The. graveVsand mixture from the rock excavation operation was used in the preparation of
the liner bedding. .Cateqpillar 825 -sheeplfoot compactors were used to .-rh the bedding
material down to the consistancy [sic] of a coarse sand... . Final compaction of beddin[
material was performed with a smooth drum vibratory roller... . This method was used foi
both'the cell botom and the excavated and fill slopes of the cell interior. Inspection of the
bedding-was performed by D'Appolonia, Energy Fuels and BF Goodrich representatives.
Areas of protruding rock fragments were noted and rccompacted or removed by hand.
Approval of excavated areas were [sic] given prior to liner placement.' (Source: Document
a., C.onstruction Repon: Initial Phase, As-Built Cells 1 Et2,page 3-3)
Liner bedding soil. materials, according to documentation provided, may have been made up of a
lignificant proportion of angular and shalp rock fragments, which present great potential ro rrrove as
further loading occurred during and after construction, possibly puncturing or iearing the synthetic
liner sheet.
o The bedding soil materid certainly was not clay, nor was it tested in place, apparentln for
penr_reability by use of a single-ring or double-ring infiltrometer. C-ompaction was t rt"d by use of a
Troxler nuclear d.ryrry gauge (dSTM D2922) cdibrated periodically by \Washington-(balloon)
Densometer (ASTM D2167). Nuclear densrty gauges, while useful in conventional soils, are
commonly regarded zN questionable for roclrymaterials. This method may approximate compaction
for load-bearing properties, but in no way v/ill it adequately rrcasure permeability. In constluction
documentation, (see document b, cited above), bedding preparation in cell 3 was described as a
continuation of that used for cells 1 and2,as follows:
"After the cell was excavated to the final contours, a gravel-sand mixture from the rcck
excavation operation was used in the preparation of the cell bottom for liner installation.A.. self-propelled sheept foot compactor was used to cnrsh the loose sandstone material
down to the consistency of coane sand." (document b, p. 3-4).
Inth
onancr{
Declaration of Ivan web., o., b.h.lsierra (xub Glen Gqon GroupIrcrn*ioralUraninn(USA)Cop.\VbiaMaa-*KfX!rc;AM;
Page 4 of 11
lb tol t.-*9"Tg seerns to have been done, so we must conclude that fragmented rock was left
immediately bgloy tfe syrfac.e. Appendix E of the construction report @o..r-.rrt b) contains
photographt :!_qry th9y"g sizelble rocks,.especially exposed in erosion lines on the diLe f"ce (see
photo labeled "Underdrain installation and bottom preparation"). 'Where the prepared surface mayhave settled or been differentially compacted by subsequeni operatio* (irr.r and soil .or.,
installation, as well as significant fluid "head" in operational cells), rock fragments may have been
given unimpeded oppornrniryro penetrate the FML.o In no sense is this- s)6tem either a "compos-ite liner," as it has been charactcizrd byruGls,\) Co{p., "state of the att" or eyen lemgtely adequate ro create initial contairurrent $^r;
Pgrf-ormance, much less decades of continued adequate leak-prevention. 'We concur with the r'i*it"t
challenge by lpRcs IvIr. Morton (document k). Due to the complete lack of documentation that
an adequate thiclnes.s of_nreg{ified clay-was placed to Blurftmtee low permeabiliry (not greater than
1.0E-4) a1 verifiqd by Qe/QC appropriate for p.rm.rbility determinations in'suitabie soils, westrenuously question previous contentions that the-liner is functional. 1.OE-4 is not considered to be
an adequate standar'd for impermeabiliry. Typically, claybarriers must be at least rwo to three osders
of magnitude more stringent than 1.OE-4 (i.e-., 100 to io,ooo times more resistant ro water flow), inthe 1.0E-6 to 1.0E-8 range, as noted bylvlr.Morton . For example, the minimum required t"i ^tlsptems.-placed at Kennecott in the past :evel pars is L.OE-7 in-place permeabfity oi l"bo"tory-
prequalified-clap of .lngwn plasticiry and optimum moisture r.qrrir.*.rr*, in lalren not less than
12", vertied at specified intervals by stringent, single-ring infiltrbmercr tesrs. Funhermore, these
clayunderliners have been.placed-with rydundant, 80-mil and loo-mil HDPE liner sptems *iitr teat<
detection s)Eterns fuuwndouble liner sheets, each more than double the thicknes tf thor. wed in
cells 1, 2 and 3 at \Ttrite Mela ---, comparatively rigorous fluid banier systems. The soil base of the
\7hite Mesa "liner sptem" is a flawed design,-executed in a flawed manner, and documented in a
flawed way.t Quality control was not done by an impartial, objective inspector. All inspection was
ryported- to iave been done_by owner or contractor personnel. Document a, cited above, sates that
P'App:lg"ia was o{y invglved =in Gll 2 inspection, "rhich is.not the crucial matrer of this review,
since Crll2 is now {ilh{*+ tailings (though it may prove to have been a major source of gro.rni
water contamination). -Crll 1, as a consequence, -ay hrlre only been inspected byEFN andTor BF
Goodrich eF manufacturer) personne[either would be against standard practi.es of eA for sofuplacement. There is no impartial, objective, critical review-and document"ltion of instafttion, ", ;
consequence.t The flexible membrane liner (FML) is left, as a further consequence, to be the sole
mechanism preventing leakage of fluids from.cells L,Z and3.
2) Flexible membrane liner deficiencies:
The qualiry of membrane material for this particular installation renders it not only far short of best-
graglice level atthe tirne of construction, but also completelyunacceptable for such use compared to
tlre liner technologies and rcgulatory requirerne"T o_f the pr.r.rrt. In other wonds, it was irr"?.q*,.
then, and it is even more indequate now. This is the case because the panicular'liner materij*asnot stable, was weal and was too soft to resist roclry soils below an-d above the FML. It wasidentified in cells 1 and 2 tobe a BF Goodrich 3O-mil PVC sheet,factory seamed to specifieJ
widths, and then field-seamed into a continuous sheet (Document a, Appen&ces C and D); and in
Intlx
o
rmter{
Declaration of Ivan Veber o., U.fr* Sie*a Oub Glen Canpn Group
Irwnatiarul uraniwn(usA) carp. vhite Maa wanhanMill (Saae Liarxe Anv&rufi,
Docket no. 4G8681-MLA-11
Page 5 of 11
Crll 3, a Dpamit Nobel Flarte,Inc., 30-mil PVC membrane, also factoryand field searned to form a
continuot,s thget pgcuSent .b,-4pp.nai* B) (Inexplicably, Ap-pendix C of the Gll 3 report
presented BF Goodrich, instead of Dynamit Nobel Flarte, repofts for aBinB, but simulating onlyrqro
)€ars)
PVC has had a number of problems in its history. Only recently have some of those problems been
overcorrc. For the most part, PVC continues in widespread use by virnre of the construction
industqy's !ffig leamed how, where and under what precautions to use it (e.g., under ceramic tile
mbrtar setting beds). Specific problems of PVC technology have included the following:. PVC contin-ues to age throughout its "li[e." PVC flexible membrane pond liners, landfill
liners and roofing sheets produced up to the late 1980s-early 1990s werc notorious for
breaking d9* quicklyunder nanycircumstances. Only complete encapsulation seen6 to
prev-ent plasticizer (solvent) loss. In architectural and engineering applications, PVC
pro{ucts had to be shown to have overcome disastrous performance proLlemt in onder to
regain market acceptance approaching EPDIvI, Hypalon, polymer-modified PVC and other
flexible sheet membranes. One manufacturer of a high-qualiry reinforced PVC membrane
maintained a high-priced, specialized market niche thioughout this period, and continues to
do so-today. It is perhaps no sulprise that the PVC roofing market dominator was Dynamit
Nobel (sr*g as FML manufacturer for C-ells 1,2 and 3 at \X/hite Mesa), the company that
had to v/eather tle greatest turbulence of product failure and replacernent.o PVC was, and- is, panicularlysusc-eptible to loss of plasticizer cornpounds, consequent
loss of elasticiry-el9ngatio.1 capaciry, flexibiliry (becoming brinle), loss oT seam srreng,l, *d
loss of mechanical (tensile) strength. Review of PVC manufacrr,rring process options
remin& us of the great variery of plasticizen that have been used in PVC; over the^yrears.
One extensive reference sa)6, "Plasticizers, in general, reduce the modulus of a
-PVC
cor.nPgyni, decrease hardness, decrease mechanical strength, but increase elongation, creepand friction...It ls .extremgly important that the PVC compounder recognizc rh;
environment in which the final product will function... ". (Source: "Rubber-Related
Polymen - Part 1: Poly(vinly chloride)" by CA Daniels and K.L. Gardner, BF Goodrich
Cr., in lvlaurice Morton, Rufur fM@ 3d Ed., pp.57l-572)o PVC has been vulnerable to attack by bacteria (which destropd millions of square feet
of roofs in the 1980s, notablyin the Denver arca).o Decomposition of PVC membranes by exposure to hydrocarbons has been conlmon
amgng roof and environmental liner applications. Oils and solvents associated with
equipment on roofs have been a persistent problerq necessitating double and even rriple
membrane lapn around mechanical equipment on roofs, where oils may fall on roofing, or
around exhaust venr from commercial kitchens. Another approach szas to place proteitive
!">"t "1ofu-resistant hypalon over the PVC. Oil compounds and oil solvents dumped or
leaked into landfills and ponds have been problematic for environmental linen and
containment basins. It[r. Morton refers, in document h to past waste oil disposal in the
V/hite Mesa cells, pt another cause for concern.. Ptrncturing, due to relative softness compared to other liner materials, is also a corlmon
problern Protection boards of various types are used over, and even under, most sheet
membranes on roofs that are "ballasted" with rock to lreep them in place.
a Declaration of Ivan Weber on U.nr0sierra Cub Glen Gryon GroupIntlx rmar {Irwratioal uranitnt(t}sA) cap. wi* Maa *.r*"K!ffi:tr;*Ml
Page 6 of 11
fued PVC_h"l of the ".TIag: installed, in the thickness installed, have almost no chance of being
c.omPetent barrien l" q"jq leakage, even if installed perfectly. There is no information presented ii
the reports reviewed which can lead us to assunre that the liner sheets in cells !,2 or'3 may have
been exempt, somehow, from these industry-wide problems. Even in the late l97Os and earlyig8gs,
a Precautionary design *9"q. have specified a PVC liner thickness ro be much thicker, possibly
double or greater_(i.9.,60-mil or more), than used in Glls 1-3 to begin to compensate^for the
shortcomings o_f PVC materials. C-nrrently, unmodified PVC is seldom used in simple, unprotected
applications: _\Vllel it is, stringent protective measures must be taken ro assure that bedding and
fifli"S materials and procedures are followed.
3) FML QA/QCdeficiencies:
As was done for the. soil .bedding, quality assurance and qualiry control (aA/aq functions for the
flexible membrane liner installation were performed by th. installing .oito.ior, acconCing to the
rePorts.(Page 3-2,.D.99yryent.b). Visual observation and'air-lancing of-field seams were ttre Jnty qe
+:tlrg* reported. "Air-lancing" is described.as follows bythe applicable ASTM standarrd: "Inrpit
all field seams for unbonded.aryls using an at nozzle directed on the upper seam edge and surtace
to detect loose edges, riffles indicating unbonded areas within tle searrS
-or other unJesirable seamconditions. Check all bonded searns using a minimum 50 psi (3a5 kPa) (S"g.) air supply directed
thrg1gh a 3/ 1'6 * (+.t mm) (Oei9 al) nozzle, held not more than 2 n. (it -rD'fro* th. r."* .dg.
and directed at the seam edge.'l .(Sorrcet ASTM D 4437, "Standarrd Practice for Determining tf,e
Integrity of Field Seams Used in Joining Flexible Polymeric Sheet Geornembranes" 'n A"57fu[
Stdrda?ds ard Als Srylfirat;ox ard Tat MdMs on tlx Adity Assuratre { Ldrffilt Lirut Sytun,
American Society for I.trqg 1nd lvlaterials, 1994) Orher methods are also desiribed by asfftf,
both destructive ("peel" and "sheat'') and non-destructive ('air lance," "vacuum boxr" "ukrasonic
$-riglr freguency) pulse echo," and "mechanical point" testing). The ASTM standand requires that a
field quality assurance program produce a reporr:
"The report shall include the following:
8.1.1 Complete identification of geomembrale s)6terr\ including q,pe of polymer,
source, thickness, reinforced or nonreinforced sheeting,
8.1.2 C.omplete identification of field seaming s)6tem ,sed, ir,cLrding material,
method, temperatures, seam width, cure time, and date of fabrication of fied
searns,
8.1.3 Qualirycontrol test or rests used as outlined in rhis practice,
8.1.4 C.omplete description of field sampling procedure, number of test specimens,
and size of test specimens,
8.1.5 Conditioning procedure prior to destructive seam resring,
8.1.6 Type of tensile machine used, grip separation, crosshead speed, grip surface
texhre, grip dimensions, and grip pressure,8.t.7 lt[ethod of recording loading and determining average load for destructive
test methods,
8.1.8 Average, ar_r4 minimum peel and shear load values in pounds per
inch (kilograrns per millirnetrc) of width for individual specimens,-
Inth
o
lralttr
Declaration of Ivan veb.-, o., u.tf Sierra-Gub Gren c-anpn Group{trtznutiaruturaniwn(usA)cnp.\vbi*Maa-*K[rX*re;Affij;
P"9.7 of.ll
8.1.9 Type of {ailure in the peel and shear tests, that is, wirhin the adhesive s)6rern,wfuhin the sheet material, clamp edge, or seam edge, fo, .".h i"#"iJra
specimen, and
8.1.10 For nondestructive testing, th" typ. of nondestructive test and number ofapparenr failures and repairs per 1OO ft (30.5 *D of searrr.,
Air lancing aPPears, in the \Ttrite Mesa cells, to have been the only method used to determinecomPetent seaming,.and no comprehensive QA report was referenced. It is our contention that9n: g P-res1ur9 might ryveal "fish-mouths" in field seams whosg edgeg ,r. rroi frlly"dilJ'ilthe.fluid glue/solvent-and-pres:ure lgar.rung used on PVC sheets, it *o"rld routinely f"il ,o identifyinadequate adhesion immediately behind an edge th4 is glued oiy at the margin, ,ira *."fJl"ifl;find a variety of seaming fla1p that "o r;r-ptJr* of "a[,ing work conditi"* f*i"J, 6td;;k;evaporation, precipitation, cold, blown dust -or dirt, etc) anJseaming techniques 6"" ,r-:*f, ;; ;;litde solvent, inadequate primer or cleaner use, etc). No indeperri.rrt aA/aC * ,"p"*.a oiotherwise documented, so we can only assrune that none *as don.. Corntir.tio-., docrm.int fJedto communicate vzhat the actual condition and competence of installed membranes wirs oncompletion, much less what it is now.
4) Susceptibilityto aciddegradation:
lVC, along with other FML materials, are generally rated to be resistant to weak acids. It isimponant to note that PVC is not exempt from {gqradation by srong, aggressively o"idirirrg ";idr.'We.suspectthat conditiols.fifting the-latter condition -or. th* ttJ'fJior "o'oft.i pr.i;;;Cells 1,2 and 3. Lilse plasticizer loss, acid attack would render the sheet brittle, i""l*d; ;j p;; ;phpical loss of strength.
5) kak-detection system (I-DS) deficiencies:
The "leak detection sptem" in cells 7,2 and 3 consists of no more than a perforated p,oe at the toeof the retaining.dike. fn areas.^t l"S:.* these huge cells, rhis is byno'*""* * rd.q** I-Dinetwork Considering. th9 .granr+r, highly-permeable nature of the roil b.ddirrg (crusheJ;;( ;";and.some clay mixed with sand, with gyeryially n9. potential for permeabilifi'sufficilJy 6;;;qualify-as a"claf layer.in a"composite linef Tsemblage). Anyfluii haking.hfu"gh.f.filf--.".i
" {g* feet away from the prpe will E ,.ry unlikely to Lpon to th. pipe, Tiere is"no barrie;J;
cells 1, 2 or 3 to downward escape _o{ anyleaked fluid, so the LDS cannoi h"rr. functioned;;;;,1t,nor will it do so in the future. This assemblage. would be substandand under any envinc""*;;icontainment system imaginable, either at the Urr" lt was built or at the present.
6) Soil cover deficiencies:
The soil cover, which.appears to have been intended both as gemlrane protection and as a high-permeabiliry-dT-1g.-t")ner to conduct "slimes' to collection pipes for r.rom ro process, seems rohave been of phpical nature similar to that,pl.aced.beneath the^flexible memb"ane fi"*'1U"irt.*designated a "barrier'). Documeat a h. 3-6idescribes the soil cover, stating that cell l-I'was used
as the borrow source for the cell 2 cover. It then describes the construction irocess as follows:
'The cover material.was fpread_ onto the_liner byrmall bulldozen with a progressing pad ofsoil to protect the liner fiom damage. Energ;.Fuels provided p"rroorr"l ,o" r*[E';;
Intlx
placement and to identify any damage to the liner. Areas damaged by th. cover placement
operation were immediately repaired. Upon completion of the cover, selected "reas were
checked for proper depth. Depths varying f.rom12 inches were obseryed."
'We could find no separate descriptive statement of the nature of these cover soils, but we know
from descriptions of the method of soils bedding preparation below the liner that theywere lilelyto
contain crushed rock In document b Appendix E, photograpts of cell 3, one shows "Liner
Installation and C-over Operations." Rocls are plainlyvisible in the cover material. This choice of
materials and method of application was almost certain to cause perforations, or even tears, in the
alreldy_ inadequate and vulnerable flexible membrane liner. tleavy, motorized equipnrent, vilrether
tracked bulldozen or large, rubber-tired vehicles, exert shear and turning forces as equiprnent moves
up, -qo"F and across slopes, especially in tums. It is considered minimal in industry "6est practice"
applications to apply two feet of clean sand over EMIs, even those of much greater thickness and
strength in today's applications.
By companso-n, a leignt application in a repository cap assemblage ar Kennecon (Anhur Stepback
Repository), for which I prepared technical specifications and contract documents, devotedgreat
attention to choice of application machines, direction of travel, minimum thickness of sandfand
contractor and owner observation to assure avoidance of shear forces. This was on a 6Gmil HDPE
composite liner with an HDPE "drainage net" factory-bonded to the liner to minimize slippage and
to Protect the membrane. It was, furthermore, a cap s)6terrL not a basin liner. Two pars before,
the Anlnrr Rgpository botom_liner was constructed with r,wo 8O-mil HDPE lapn separared by a
layer of.HDnE drainlge net, placed over one foot minimum o{ field-verified 1.OE -7 clay,rigorously
tested T place. The d-rainage net created a continuous leak-detection la1rer wirh bdraulitconnection to the leak-detection sumps. The upper membrane was manufachred with an
gl.ectrically-conductive underla)ar to assist in location of any perforations or near-microscopic
"holidala" during installation. Three feet of sand was carefully applied over this lower lineias
protective cover, prior to placement of contaminated soil materials.
The soil cover in Vhite Mesa cells !, 2 and 3 appears to have been put there not for membrane
protection, but rather to filter chemical compounds precipitation would have clogged the return
plppg wi$9ut the soil lalrer. If any attention whatsoever was paid to detection of-liner punctures
and tears Houtlx soil urn, where inspectors/observers could not possibly see, such "tterrtion is not
communicated in anyof the repora reviewed. Observation and anyQA/@ performed, moreover,
seerns to have been done stricdy by EFN personnel, without independent coroboration --- a
situation we could consider to be a conflict of interest, seriously compromising the assurance and
control of installation qualiry.
b. Cell4A
The cell4A sptem is acknowledged byIU(uSA) Cory. and the State DRC to have failed as a fluid
barrier. As a consequence, the cell is presendy not a candidate for use in processing the proposed
"ahernate feed." It is useful, however, to review Gll 4A for differences frorn, and similaritieJ*ith,
the earlier cells. The 4A systern, installed ir lvl"y thrcugh November, Lggg, is described in
document c (IUC "C.onstruction Report: Tailings C-ell 4r\ Aug. 2OOO --- rsith no e4planation for the
Declaration of Ivan'!ileber on U.Ul Sierra Oub Glen C-anpn Group
I nunutiorut uranhnn ( u s A ) cap. tyhite M a a ** K!ffiJ tr{Affi i
Page 8 of 11
o
nntril{
a - Declaration of Ivan'Weber or, U.Ot Siera Cub Glen C-anyon GroupIntlx nanzr ( Iftenatioral Uranban(USA) Cap. Vhia Maa wani.*nMitt (Soae Lierre Ar-arr-tl
Docket ".. +o sl8l-L,tr; ii
Page 9 of 11
11 pars required tofl. +" t p9t). The cell basin was shaped and covered wfuh ala1,er of "nariveclat'' t2" thick Unlilre the piping under the liner in cells i,2 urd 3, a more .rt rrrir. network ofcollection pipi"S was installed to conduct lealsage to a detection sump or sumps, though *" *.onot able to ascertain collection pipe spacing. No sand, gravel or drainage layei was *Id b.r*".r,LDS-pipes, so it is unclear how water leaking_ through * int..m.diatetpening was supposed totravel to the fp9.prl.L Tfr.I than downward through the clay. The LDb pipJs *er. installed in
trenches lined with_FML (unclear wtrat material, presumably fbnf; .orr"..i with gravel, and the
PnrrTry FDIF FML was irutalled di*.1ly orr.r the gravel. From ,[ irrdi."tions, the"clay Lpr **put down unifory{f first, then the trenches were excavated tbtad, tlx day lalw; a stnp of'Iin.r sheet
was plac-ed; the LDS collection or transmission pipe was placeJ and corered wfuh gravel; and the
primary,- liner.was installed. The liner below the gravel apparentlywas not seamed orittached to the
uPPer. I""t T .such a wal as to prevent leakage, in- ihe "rr"rrt that a given LDS pipe/gravel
assemblage might becorrre clogged.
The primaqa 40-mil HDPE liner vras installed over the claylatler and LDS, and a soil cover la1rer
was placed oyel tle t]T".: drag, up t9 some operarional pond fill elevation, leaving the HDirf
sheet e4posed in.the "{ree!o1{" marBT area. .Despire this change of liner rtot gy"by IU(IJSA)
C.orp. and its engineers- in the 8-9 pan since design and constru.tioi, of the fint thre"e ..i6, th. C"ll
4A sptem is no less {lawed. Evidence of this is presented in reports and correspondence, whichsPe* 9f known leals_-(documents i and j). It is our understanding that the l-hah State Di(C has
notified IUC that -*ll 41{ may not _be used until it is satisfactorily repaired. Except for our
conunents on PVCs i"J.i"* susceptibili_ty to chemical and phpical instabfity and deg;dation inCrlls 1-3, and except for th9 earlier cells' lack of a clay undirliner, all our prerio.ri conunenrs
conceming subgrade.preparation applyalso to the Gll 4A HDPE sptern \tr7e srlmmarize those that
are applicable, and address the vulnerabilities of the IDPE FML, as follows:
Soil subgrade,. despite documented use of a clay material, is still substantially unknown inproperties and.in gyqry of installation. Laboratory analpis showing least attainable permeabiliry
(hydraulic conductiviq) were not presented in any documents we co.rl"d obtain for review, therefo[
the appropriate minimum clayinstallation standards are not known. Document c does not mention
any laboratory clay analysis, nor does it mention any penneabfiry testing by single-ring infiltron'ter.
lompaction testin_g, we emphasize., does not accomplish gh9 same thing, however *.i.rl it maybe in
finc, rock-free sofu for construction coordination-and field verificrti-orr. The FMl-lined, [ravel-filled trenches for leak-detectiol eining.apgear to have been u,uutd. tlnad) the clay lapa cieatingflow connections between the leak colleition piping and underlying sofuI Since the irench line?
sheet is not seamed t9 the- pryry liner, there is liftle ro prevenr *rjor lealsage to ground water in
circumstances where liner leaks maycommunicate bythe jimplest route into tE gro"uod. There also
seerns to be no evidence that the installed .l"y layrer was-not allowed to dry out before liner
installatioa, thereby potgntially losing vrhatever reiistance to perneabiliry that may have been
created. Document c refers to Iandmark Reclamation's "certification" that each given area of clay
was_ready f9r liryr installation, but we are not told according to what criteria, or"how quickly the
IW.:ry placed gyer pfqared clay. Y"it*ry and pemeabilitytesa are not presented. V. rirqpty
have litde, rt any,idea of vzhat standands were followed.
' The high-densiry polyethylene (HDPE) liner was 40 mils in thickness. Conventional
linen today may be purchased that thin, but liners usually are much thicken 60, 80 or even 1oO mils,
o
rn the matter of rnternationat u,*,,*"1?frliiLilo:"tr^x"ff;,:ix-:';r?;"&::)2tr?x:T#ktr:;,
Docket no. 4O-8681-MLA- I I
Page l0of ll
to Qfe advantage of HDPE's dramatically increased ltrength with greater thickness. Despite
tensile strength superior to PVC, the greatest vulnerability of HDPE sheet rnaterials lies in threeproperties: Very high coefficient of expansion-contraction,_laqk of elasticity, and a tendency totear oncejr i_erforation is started or a seam starts to fail. Unlike solvent-welded (glued) pVC
seams, HDPE is a.*thermosetting plastic," which must be heat-welded. HDPE pos--sesses verylittle elasticity-, unlike other rubber sheets, and is much less elastic than PVC. Because of great
dimensional change, a consequence of the high expansion-contraction coefficient, careful Hbpg
sheet installation must allow adequate extra material in the form of wrinkles to permit relatively
drapati_c shrinkage as the liner cools seasonally, as well as in daily cycles. Sharp folds must beavoided, however, since they create lines of possible FML weaknbss. If insuffic:ient material isplaced, tension -stresses result, tearing HDPE membranes apart. Rapid changes from cloudinessto sun on a cold, ULteaBy can cause po-werful, differential dimi:nsionalltresses to developcyclically in an HDPE FML, as a part of the liner under cover remains warrner or colder thanlBt p"f exposed. W-ind can magnify stress catastrophically, as exposed membranes may'Tlutter" at several cycles per second and rip apart. Heat, especially on lilack HDPE membranei
exposed to sun, also generates great differences between freeboard membrane areas and the FMLthat is below cover or inundated. Again, stresses have a tendency to tear the membrane apaft,especially at seams, at fixed penetrations for monitoring pipes, etc., at corners, and at anttroi
trenches.o Qover soils in cell 4A are stated in the construction report to have consisted ofdewatered sand from the mill process for a portion of the cell, but there is also reference to a
change back- to the cover soils used in previous cells when sand was depleted. As statedpreviously., the cover soils used in earlier cells were unacceptable, due to the rockiness and the
heavy equipment activity on the liner used in cover soils placiment.
6. These concerns with Iiner system.inade-quacy are rendered urgent, not only by the proposed"alternate feed" processing implications, gu! also by the extreme low-pH-(high aciaityy ofprocess waters routinely. stored in, circulated through ahd evaporated from fhe tailiigs cells. Thewater's severe contamination_ loading make-s complete, assured containment notfr-ing short ofimperative. According.to3l{yses reported by Titan, Umetco and D'Appolonia, pH-has beenmeasured as low as 0.7 in Cell l, 1.1 in Cetl2,0.82 in Cell 3, and 1.8 in taiiings tlquia. This is tobe expected fr91 a.process that leaches metals from granulated rock and-tailiigs to extracturanium. I-eaching-is commonplace. Kennecott has used acid leaching for decadls to exEactcopper, ang -q small operation adjacent to Kennecott's precipitation-plant applied a slightvariation- of tU! process to retrieve uranium during the 1980s. The Lisbdn Valley copper miie,proposed on BLM land near [,aSal, Utah, would operate by sulfuric acid leaching.':'solvent-
extraction" Tay us-e organic solvents such as diethyl ether, tributyl phosphate to seplrate metals,such as uranium, from aqueous solution (e.g., sulfuric acid). We-have not yet ascertained the
exact nature of uranium solvent recovery in the White Mesa process. In all piocesses using acidleaching or any other fluid industrial process, liner systems must function impeccably in-orderfor "zero emissions" standards to be met.
The result of uncertainties about the liner system is grave concern. The water in White Mesa's
tailings and evaporation impoundmenls is characterized by extremely low pH, and consequent,formidable concentrations of dissolved aluminum, arseniC, copper, mercury, molyMenuni,lead,
vanadium, thorium, uranium and radioisotopes of lead and polonium ane, literally, multiple
9rdery of magnitude in excess of State ground water quality standards (i.e., worsL by a ringe
from hundreds to
t
rEdter
Declaration ol- I1a1V.!.I "" O.'t , Siera.Club Glen Gn1,on Group{IrttnutiorutUraniwn(uSA)Ctrp.WiteMaa-*K{*Jre;iM;
page 11 of 11
thousands of times). All of these metals are outright toxins, serious threats to human healh, and are
of -severe ecological effects, if, when and vzhere ground water emerges to surface or is drawn intowells. Several other constituents of inorganic, organic and radiologi.-rrrrrro exceed those standards
veryseriously. To convey the contamination severity of this *rtir, we would like to call attentionto the following quantities, from t}e water qualiry information obtained from the State
s ampling,/ analp is information:
dissolve lead, based on the logarithmic pH scale.. Sulfate (SOa) was 18O,O0O pp* in Gll 3, 19o,OoO in Gll 4,l8o/o and L9o/o,respectively.o Total dissolved solids ffDS) was found to be 67,770 in the slimes drain, 148,510 in the
tailings liquid, and to avemge 91,440 among the samples.. Conductivitywas found to be 87,000 umhos in Gll2, when measured in the early'80s.. Radiation levels were thousan& of times allowable levels.
To speak pl"i"ly, these are among the most contaminated of waters we have ever encountered, or of
vzhich we have ever heard, considering its blend of inorganic and radioactive constiruents and the
ldg{y elevated contamination levels. Documentation, furthermore, ir :o :pT. that the resulting
level of uncertainty a{gues heavily in favor of an administrative approach that s precauuon^ry
^ndprotective of human and ecological health. \When faced with the possibiliry that ihis warer, or any
variation on it, may have been escaping into ground water for the decades of Vh.ite Mesa Mil
operation, I can only urge that thoroughgoing ground water investigations be comrrrenced at once in
onder to assure p-revention of e4posurc of down-gradient wells, springs, strearns, peoples and wildlife
to these aggressively_ polluted waters. I would be remiss if I fail io express my-shock that this
condition has been allowed to go on for as long as it has.
7. In summary it is myprofessional opinion that no license should be issued, or insofar as one
has been issued, it should be suspended, until this site has been properly evaluated in light of these
conunents on the liner slntem's profound inadequacy and extreme t".k of state-of-practice, not to
mention state-of-tle-art, standarrds of engineering, installation, quality assurance/qrafirycontrol, and
subsequent monitoring and protection.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 9th day of
Intlx
April,2002.!.-*-)U--
Ivan'Weber, PrincipaTOwner
'We ber Sustainability Consuldng
953 First Avenue
Salt Lake Gry,I-hah 84103
Phone: [phone]
Attachment: Aaachment Ao CV
O Declaration or Iu"n wrug laif of Siena Club Glen Canyon GroupIn the matter ollnternational [Jranium (USA) corp. Ithite Mesa uranium ,rr, ,y;ffir:::;;it{r:#l{-l;
ATTACHMENT A - Declaration of Ivan Weber
CURRICULAM VITAE
2002
Ivan Weber
953 I't Avenue
Salt Lake City, Utah 84103
[phone] home / [phone] celt
Experience Summarv__
Current work: Principal/Consultant, Weber Sustainability Consulting. Specializing in building and
engineering technology evaluation and documentation; specifications, bid and constuction documents preparation
and administration; construction quality assurance; sustainability planning of the built environment; certified
"green" design and construction under USGBC 'LEED' and other, custom evaluation systerns; environmental
remediation strategies, wetlands restoration and construction; historic building restoration; facilities feasibility
analysis and plaruring; and other constuction planning/management services in support of environmentally
responsible design and construction. Presently beginning work on water resource planning and green
design/construction standards in large eco-indushial park in major city in northeastern China, with multi-disciplinary,
integrated plaruring team based in Oakland, CA. Continuing environmental planning and sustainability consuliing
for Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation.
Most recent position: Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. (contract employee) Environrnental planner /
Contracts Manager, KUCC Strategic Resources Group and Environmental Engineering projects Group and
predecessor Plant Projects Group (shared, 1992-2002).
Environmental planning and contracts management tasks have included:o Technical specifications, bid and contract documents preparation and administration for a series of
large environmental remediation, soils repository, groundwater cleanup and surface-water storage
facilities, and industrial projects (cost > $200 million). State-of+he-art liner systerns in 1,700 acre-feet,
three-chamber reservoir; and liner, cap and vegetated cover systems in two large RCRA repositories
for mining/smelting-contaminated soils (cost >$ 2 0 million).o Urban planning concept development, with a team led by Calthorpe-Fregonese Associates, of entire
100,000-acre KUCC properties in and around the Oquinh Mountains.o Urban planning for entitlements in South Jordan municipality, with team led by Glatting-Jackson, of
4,500-acre initial "Sunrise" development project, integrating New Urbanist principles into South
Jordan, as well as conceptually into lower slope areas of unicorporated Salt Lake County, areas whichwill receive an ongoing series of "new town" deyelopments over three to four decades.o Sustainability studies, encompassing holistic vision of future land use, post-mining economic. development based on "eco-indushial" models, large-scale recreational development of extensive trails
and open space nefworks, and ecological restoration of KUCC properties.o Reforestation plan, proposing development of large, on-site, native plant ilrrsery to supply millions of
specimens over several decades of open space/tails planting and montane-area replanting in a wide
variety of microclimates and soils conditions.o Renewable energy development analyses, integrating wind generation, hydropower and several types of
solar generation into mine/process pre- and post-closure development plans, generating a growing
revenue steam from "green" energy,o Wetlands (redox manipulation in aquatic systems) for removal of metals and sulfates from mining-
impacted waste waters, constructing approximately l0 acres of experimental ponds.o Feasibility studies of phyoremediahon of metals-contaminated soils.
CY_2002.doc April 2002
a
the matter
Declaration or Ir"n w"t0Uehalf of Sierra Club Glen Canyon Groupof International uranium (usA) corp. white Mesa uranium Miil (source License Amendment),
Docket no. 40-8681 -ML-A,-I Icontracts management tasks have included originating many contracts for:
' Preparation and management of consulting services conhacts to conduct scientific investigations into
ground and surface water and soils contamination, process problems, water treatrnent technologies,
ecological risks, human health risks, mine closure and major land use change potentials, to analyze
alternative remediation and action pathways, and to prepare various stages of plans for both internal
and regulatory purposes;o Procurement of contractor services for remediation of contaminated soils, surface waters and ground
water impacted by mining in the Oquirrh Mountains;o Facility feasibility analyses, including comparative cost studies, for mine-support shops relocation,
canyon dunping altematives, warehousing altematives and rail system phaseout and reuse post-mining.. DesiSin coordination, specifications preparation and contact preparation for construction offacilities,
including new railroad locomotive maintenance facility and numerous smaller projects.o Staffing contracts administation, including insurance, health coverage and ERISA issues.
Environmental Reporting tasks included preparation and submittal to EPA and State agencies the major
reports on approximately $200 million of soil remediation, reclamation and source contol systems reqr.ired
for Kennecott South Facilities court-administered remediation agreements (AOCs, UAOs and others).-
Supervised environmental documents archive, 1992-present, and integration into electonically acceised
database system.
Previous highlights, 1973-1992: Architectural design technical planner and specifier (CSI Certified CCS) for
more than $600 million of construction from coast to coast, including:o Delta Center, Salt Lake City, $65 million, as specifier, design process coordinator and building
inspector, FFKR Architects.o Joseph Smith Building (former Hotel Utah), $45 million conversion to offices, as specifier, value
engineering coordinator. Project ended $5 million under budget and ahead of schedule, FFKR.o Moran Eye Center, U. of U. Medical Center, $12 million medical facility, as specifier, FFKR.o American Stores Properties grocery and drug store chain and distribution centers across the US, more
than 200 in number and $400 million in value (>6 million sq.ft.) as specifier, design nranager,
architectural construction manager, FFKR.. Randall Jones Theatre for Utah Shakespearean Festival, Cedar City, Utah, $6.5 million Shakespeare
theater, as construction manager and state building inspector, FFKR.o University of Utah Student Services Building, $12 million ductile/moment-resisting concrete-frame
structure, as UBC Special Concrete Inspector and architectural on-site coordinator, Astle-Eric}son
Associates/State of Utah.. Deer Valley Ski Lodges, Park City, Utah, $10.5 million, early-delivery constuction of two major
lodges, as project rnanager, Cannon Constuction (then ENR top 400).o Park City Ski Resort Expansion, $l million lodge addition, as project rnanager, Cannon Constnrction.o University of Utah Medical Center Expansion, $65 million construction and remodeling project
including five buildings, extensive infrastructure, site landscaping and Medical Center Master plan
building evaluation and planning, as project manager and chief building inspector, for State of Utah via
Gustavson Associates Architects.o General contractor (self-employed for seven years) projects including:tr Abravanel Symphony Hall and Capitol Theate, $17 million new construction and renovation
(respectively), as specialty contractor performing layout, rough carpentry, door/hardware
installation and specialties installation.o Residential, commercial and institutional projects, generally small size and specialized.o Journeyman Carpenter (7 years) and Laborer (2 years): Member of trnion locals in Colorado,
Wyoming and Utah. Projects included Bridger Power Plant Unit 2 for Bechtel Construction, Rock
Springs, Wyoming; two schools in Vail, Colorado; variety of commercial, industrial, apartnent and
condominium projects in of Colorado, Wyoming and Utah.
CV_2002.doc April 2002
rnt**,o,rnternation.t r,,r,f;,,i"rl]'rl)';:;W,,yti:::';,?;tr::yri:trr:1y::rW
Education:Docket no. 40-8681 -MLA-t I
> 300 credit hours at three universities, including:o B'A' degree, University of Kansas,4 majors (Earth Sciences, History Anthropology, Asian Studies).Language study: Chinese Mandarin (5 years), Japanese, Korean, spanish, French ftach one-twr r"*rlo Graduate study, u. of Kansas, Atl* History/Geography (three years, intemrpted by military service1967-69 US Army, Korea); and U. of Utah, Archiiecture (one and one-half years).o Honors: Several National Science Foundation undergraduate assistantships in geology, paleontology,paleobotany, archeology, anthropology, U. of Kansas. Teaching Assistant, Eajern Civilizations, U. ofKansas, 1969-197 1.
Professional and Community Involvement: Numerous task forces, commissions, committees and non-profitorganizations, including:
Professional Memberships and Societies:o construction Specifications Institute (certified construction specifier (ccs) l 996-2000). US Green Building Council (.LEED' system certified, 2OO2-)o US-China Business Councilo ' Former member, International Congress of Building Officials, ASTM, Construction ManagementAssociation.
Current Boards, organizations and task forces:o Board, construction specifications Institute (csD, utah chapterr Chair, Utah Chapter Siena Clubo FutureMoves Coalition (balanced tansportation advocacy coalition), active membero United Nations Association/Utah, active member
' Salt Lake City High Performance Building Initiative: Chair, Sustainable Sites groupo Salt Lake City Green Map working group
Previous voluntary activities :o Friends of Great Salt Lake, Board. Utah Society for Environmental Education, Board, Secretaryo Western Wildlife Conservancy, Boardo Utahns for an Energy Efficient Economy ("uE3"), founding Boardo Utah Water Conservation Forurq Boardo Rocky Mountain working Group, Forest Stewardship councilo Governor's Task Force on Economic Development and Environment (Bangerter administation)o Salt Lake County Environmental Quality Advisory Commission (six years L tggor)o Salt Lake olympic organizing Committee Environmental Advisory Committee (founded SustainableDesign/Construction Subcommittee)o Utah Chapter Sierra Club, holder of several offrces and committee chairmanships, including viceChair, Chair of Energy, Environmental Health Committees and National Councit i.ep.o ASSIST, Inc. Board (urban plaruring and affordable housing non-profit group; volunteered draftingplans and cost studies on affordable housing renovations, and partlcipat"a irl-S1.C downtownrevitalization and alternative tansportation initiatives)o RepertoU Dance Theatre Facilities committee (analyzed >130 buildings for conversion to theater useover 15 years,resulting in founding of Performing Arts Coalition and constuction of Rose Wagnercenter for the Performing Arts, recently opened on west Broadway, SLC)o Performing Arts Coalition, Board. Utah Media Center, Boardo (JN Association / Sierra Club Working Group on Global Environment, Co-Chairo American Institute for Architects initiatives on environmentally responsible design and construction.
CY 2002.tloc April 2002
,nt*,",oyrnternationat u,n,i,Tl):#)';:;ti;;I";ti:::';:;T:,::yr?:::,:X#:rw
Docket no. 40-8681-MLA-I ISpecial Skills:
"Green" architectural design and construction practices: working on a guide for activists to
sustainable built environment; assist in university level sustainable planning/design classes; assistingwith early conceptualization of "green" natural history musuem at Univ. of Utah and "green" sciencebuilding at Westrninister College; USGBC {LEED" certified
Historical building renovation and design: including most crafts (stonework, rnasonry, plaster,
concrete, carpenEy, carving, cabinetwork, art glass, metalwork, plumbing, wiring, etc.)
Performing arts facility planning and design: worked for 17 years to assist community in creation
of new Wagner Center for the Performing Arts, West Broadway in Salt Lake City, surveying and
analyzrng>l30 buildings and sites for suitability and feasibility of adaptation
Pro-active approaches to environmental change: including "green entrepreneurship," industial
ecology and community-centered involvement.
Personal Information: Age 59, health generally excellent, married to Linda C. Smith (Executive Director,
Repertory Dance Theatre), one son (by maniage) and tvro grandchildren. Own home and Avenues-area
rental properties.
CY_2002.doc April 2002
APPENDIX 3
DECI-ARATION OF PAI.JL GROSSL
APR-15-02 08:20 frornrPLAI{T,S0lLLl Sl0Uo 135I91337E
Dockct No.
4G8681-MLA-11
T-e34 ? V/$ Job-315
UNTTED STATES OF AIVIERICA
Beforc the
NI,}CX.EAR RE GIN-ATORY @MMISSION
ATOMIC SAFETY A}ID LICE}.ISI}-IG BOARD
Mminisrative Law Judge Alan S- Rosenrhal, Chair
Mminismriv" la*Judge Dr' Richrrd F' C-ole
Inberuns
Intemedonni Urrttirm ([JSA) CorP'
Vlhitc Mcsa Uraniurn Mll
(Source lvLrerial Licersc Amendment)
l. lvty narrc is Paul & Grossl.
I resi& * !67 I.:umlin Drirrc, Loguq Lhah'
)
)
)
)
,. I am a1 Associare Prcfessor of Biogeochemistry l" r|r9 Depanrrrcnr of. Plens, Sgils' and
iilor*r*-ttgy ar urah Sate Universiry. _fhave bccn'p.rzcticing iD thal capa*ry.for ergk pa1s,
s,trcrc I rcach " *r^. I in"i.n rnol soil chemistryana conduci research on the hte of inorganic
;;;;;; L ,oiL end sedirnenrs. A resurrr of. rnyprofessional gualifications is aaached hego
as Exhibir'A'.
q. In order to form r professional opinion about the isstres in this case, I hrve rcvieured dre
following related docurncns:
Groundwatcrlnforcution Repon, White lv{ese UnniumMll, Blanding I'hh' Subniued
;a;.ilJr"h, D"p.*"rtf r,n irorn*ntd Qeliry,lv{ey 1999. Doc.rnaot pepercd
by Internationat llnni"m Corporarion
[[il-ii,ii;; rtaitt, p,i*G vircr source Protecdon Phn, ]vlarch 30, leee' Revlsion 1'0
Conracc Rondd Berg, Inrrnadond Uranium OorporrtioL . -.D.;G;i"" ;ii; $r;ber on behalf of Petidonei siern club Ghn carryon G*11p. .E;;i-;rral fusessnrnt for Inremational Unnium (LJSA) Coporationt lJnnium
Uitt Sir. Whirc lvlcsa, San Juur County, Ltrh in corsideration of an Annndrrent to
i"t *; ]rhr.;a U"."se Stn-ttS foi thc reccipt a'd prcccssing o{ drc Molporp
Nremarc Feed. Prepared byIJS NRC' (witl transminal rrcrnos)'
5. After revbw of fie meteriab listed above. ir is my professional opini,on.tlrat thc liccnsc
"r*"ar*"i at isstr i" ,t i, .ase r[odd not have been g;n;cd end should be withdnwn turtil a
;;il;rrd, of *.i.* pH of *rc nilings rnarerid *l *. potcryal inrcragqon of drcsc acidic
;;-ri^lr ;rh'rh. r"br,rrf..l environnrnt is-addressed. Tte reaions for myopinion are as folloun:
c.
d.
APR-15-02 08:20 FroorPLAI{T,S0l 8ro,LSro
Dcclaradon of Paul Grossl on bchd of Sicrra oub Glsr anloo Gtot+
I n tb mwr flaatuioal uuvisrr, (us A ) cop. lwa M aa ruuimn M lu (s uu Linxe a dat),
Doclrct no. tO868 l'Ml.f,- I I?4ezo{z
6. The estirnated pH of the liquid in the nilings slurry in Cell 3 ranges from 1.8 to ?.0 (f+-h
i-Z on ,"o A,-g of thi Crot ndvanr Inforrnation Repon by IUC, & this b. ptl hed is soLrbb.
i*.ifL'"Ui. rrosr solid forms conraining lead will disslke (Iindsay, \V.L 1979. Chcmic{ pquilibrie
iri Sritr. Eirn tlUiley Er Sons, New Yor[). Thus, given rhe lilrelihood rhat the liner in Gll 3 vould
tJ; iidi"*d ii L,"rr vioUot dechration, teil wiU freely perrneate and nmve with the liquid
front into the underlying subsurface environnrnt.
Z . Page B. 13 of rhe Groundwatcr Information Repo.nty IIJC section D ,of. thet "Dissolvod
Eerals ia i1;linB-s warer arc unlikely ro be trensponed rhough the l1Gft vadosc zorrc drrc to
,isrrif**, ,n ulrrtion from a number of potentid processes .,. ". I.n rny -oPlnlo& naarnl
.i.n*rion of dissolved nntals, spccilically leid, through the vadose zone below *re lincr in Ccll l
*itl ,ro, occur, rince subsoil panicic surfrcis (i.e,, iron o-*ide coadngs end cdciun crrbonete)-rhet ect
as adrorprion sites for metals dissolve turder low pH condfuionJ(pH<.0). Tt l"y gH of any
tailings liquid leeking frorn Cell I would desroy surfaces that nornully attenuate rretals lrencc lcad
would suyrnobile (solubh) and rnove wirl the liqgil plunE.
B. In crse of e leek {rom Gll 3, fu L not lsnown what will h"pp"t ro t$e un&rlying subsrufece
wlren ir is ergosed to the tughly acidh ailings liquid. Possible-acid degradation of subsuface
rnaterial can lead to changes in irs porosiry resuhing in preferenrial flow parhvays, nirich mry
accommodare dowrvard [rovertent of conraminard liquid plunes rc grounduatersouces.
g. If rherc is *y evidence rhat any organic or irrorganic contrminanr movcd fipm sruface
lalars to ground *arci d.rring operation of thi Whire lvlesrlvfill, ry it ryy oprqrol tlrat h:d present in
rh" acidicLilings liqfi ".,.Id morrc "rirhin thc sanrc :urorurt of tirrr from a leakin GIl3 to gpund
watcr, sirrce had undcrlowpHconditions is mobile.
l. In summary, ir is my professiond opinion that no licerue should be issued, or irsofar as one
has been issued, ir ihouH be iupcnded, unril rhe issucs regardiog the lowpH ailings liquid F G[-l
are eddressed. In case of a leak in C*U ), the higlrly acidic narrrre of rhe tailings meterial would
enhence the robiliryof lead to ground water.
T-23{ P.03/03 Job-3154 3579 73375
I declare rurder penalry of periurythat the foregoing it *t ryd correct. Executed on *ris l0ttr day
of April,zmz. ,"_/' - ,a C a
Paul&Associatc Profcssor
IJtah State Universiry
367 burdin Drivc
logrn, Lhrh 84321
Phocc: ({}5) 750-oo{8
furachn:ene Attachnnnt A CV
PAT]L R. GROSSL
BUSINESS ADDRESSi
Department of Plants, Soils, and Biometeorology, Utah State University, Logan, Utah
843224820. Tel: [phone]. Fa"r: 435-797-2117. e-mail:[e-mail]
EDUCATION:
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY, Bozeman, Montana
Ph. D. in CropSrld Soil Science @nvironmental SoiI Chemistry) - 1991
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, St. Paul, Minnesota
M.S. in Soil Science (Soil Chemistry) - 1985
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, Champaign-Urbana, Illinois
B.S. in Agricultural Sciences/Agronomy - 1981
E)PERIEhICts:
Associate Professor of Bioseochemistry / Soil Chemistry and member of Toxicolory
graduate program (7lOO - present). Utah State Univ., LogarU Utah.
Assistant Professor of Biogeochemistry / Soil Chemistryand member of Toxicologr
graduate program (3194 -7100). Utatr State Univ., Logan, Utah.
Research Emphasis
' Sorption chemistry of inorganic and organic tace elements on soils and soil
constituents. Phytoremediation of metal contaminated soils and sediments. Redox chemisty of soils and sediments in wetlandsr Humus chemistry
Postdoctoral Fellow (8/91- 3llr4). university of Delaware, Newarlg DE
& Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs, Richland, WA.
Research Emphasis
' AdsorPtion behavior of heavy metal contaminants in soil systems using advanced
kinetic and spectroscopic techniques
Research Assistant and fnstructor (9/87 - 7191). Montana State University.
PROFESSIONAL AXTILIATIONS :. Soil Science SocietyofAmerica. American Society of Agronomyo lnternational Humic Substances Society. American Association for the Advancement of Science
' Regional Project W-l84 - Chemistry and Engineering to Minimize Irrigated
Agriculture's Effect on Water Quality
SELECTED PTIBLICATIONS
Grafe, M., M.J. Eick, P.R Grossl, and A. M. Saunders.2OO2. Adsorption of Arsenate and Arsenite on
Ferrihydrite in the Presence and Absence of Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC). J. Environ. Qual.ln Press.
Doner, H.E., and P.R Grossl. 2002. Carbonates and Evaporites. 1n J. Dixon and D. Schultze (eds.)
payfuenmental Soil Mineralogy. SSSA. Madison, Wisconsin. In Press.
Grafe, M. M.J. Eick, and P.R. Grossl. 2001. Adsorption of Arsenate (V) and Arsenite Qtr) on goethite in
the presence and absence of dissolved organic carbon. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.65:168G1687.
Mackowiak, C.L., P.R. Grossl, and B. Bugbee. 2001. Beneficial effects of humic acid on micronutrient
availability to wheat. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 65:1744-1750.
Brady, W., P. Brady, M. Eick, P. Grossl, and M. Desteffano. 2001. Radionuclies. In Natural
Attenuation Manual. Rao Surampalli (ed.) Published by American Society of Civil Engineers.,In
Press.
Klassen, S.P., J.E. Mclean, P.R Grossl, and R.C. Sims. 2000. Effects of metal tolerant plants (Betula
occidentalis and Carex microptera) on the fate and behavior of lead in contaminated soils. J.
Environ. Qual. 29: 1826-l 834.
Mackowiah C.L, and P.R Grossl. 1999. Comparisons of iodate and iodide additions on iodine uptake,
growth, and partitioning in rice. Plant and Soil. 212:135-143
Petrie, R.A., P.R. Crossl, and R. C. Sims. 1998. A controllcd environment potentiostat to study
solid/aqueous systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J .62:379-382.
Fendo{ S., M.J. Eick, P. R Grossl, and D.L. Sparks. 1997. Arsenate and chromate retention on
goethite: I. surface structure. Environ. Sci. & Tech.3l:315-320.
Grossl, P.R, M.J. Eiclq D.L. Sparks, S. Goldberg, and C.C. Ainsworth, 1997. Arsenate and chromate
retention on goethite: ll. Kinetic evaluation using a pressure-jump relaxation technique. Enyiron.
Sci. & Tecb" 3l:321-326.
Eick, M.J., P.R. Grossl, D.C. Golden, D.L. Sparks, and Doug W. Ming. 1996. Dissolution kinetics of
a lunar glass simulant at 25oC: The effect of pH and organic acids. Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta 60: 157-170.
Grossl, P.R., and W.P. Inskeep. 1996. Characterization of fulvic acid isolated from a water soluble
extract of wheat straw. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60:158-162.
Grossl, P.R., and D.L. Sparks. 1995. Evaluation of contaminant ion adsorption/dcsorption on goetrite
using pressure-jump rela:ration kinetics. Geoderma 67 :87 -1 01 .
Grossl, P.R, D.L. Sparks, and C. Ainsworth. 1994. Pressune-jump kinetic study of Cu(II)
adsorption/desorption on Goethite. Environ. Sci. & Tech. 28:1422-1429.
Kercn, R., P.R. Grossl, and D.L. Sparks. 1994. Equilibrium and kinetics of borate
adsorption/desorption on pyrophyllite in aqueous suspensions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58: I I 16-
1122.
Grossl, P.R, and W.P. Inskeep . 1992- Kinetics of octacalcium phosphate crystal growth in the presence of
organic acids. Geochimica et Cosmochim. Acta. 56:1955-1961.
APPENDIX 4
DECLARATION OF TIM CHERVICK
UNI]ED STATES OF AT{E
Before the
NUCLEAR RE GULATORY COMMISSION
ATOMC SAFETY AI{D LICE}{SING BOARD
Administrative LawJudge Alan S. Rosenthal, Chair
Administrative LawJudge Dr. Richard F. Cole
Intlx rmner {
International Uranium (IJSA) Corp.
Vhite }rlesa Uranium Mll
(Source lvlaterial Licerse AmendmenQ
DECLARATION OF TIMOTFIY M CHERVICK
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER SIERRA CLUB GLEN CAI\IYCIN GROUP
1. Myname is TimothyM Chervick
2. I reside at 70 East 100 South, Vemd l-hah 84078.
3. I am a wildlife biotogist wor{cing for Swift Creek C-orsulting. I have been wor*ing in
this capaciryfor 7 pars. A resume of myprofessional qualifications is attached hereto
as Exhibit'A.
4. I have reviewed the following documents in the above referenced matten
a Groundwater Information Report IIJSA Vhite l\rIesa Uranium Mll -Ivlay, t999.
b. State of l-hah, Dept. of Environmental Qualiry, Division of
Radiation C-ontricl I-etrer "Request for Update and Stans of State Groundwater
Discharge Permit Application Process and C[rloroform Investigation and
Remed-ition Plan: Iniemationat Uranium Coqporation near Blanding; Ilah ' -Lefter
Dated Febnnry20,2@2.
b. IIJSAs Response to the Glen Gryon Group of the Sierra Club's App.rl of LBP-
O2-W (Docket No. 4G8681-MLA11).
c. Vrhite }desa Uranium Mll Environmental fusessment Document.
d. Declaration of Ivan'Weber ttailings cell constnrction, leaks]
i. In myprofessiond opinion the license at issue in this case should not have been granted
and should be withdrawn until a complete hyclrogeologic studyo{ the site has been
completed and assessed. The reasons fogthis opinion are as follows: The bio-accumulative
effects of avian species, such as waterfowl populations, both resident and migratoryshould
be examined to dletermine concenu?tions of liad in the waterfowl species that utilize the
open taitings ponds which will contain veryhigh levels of both dissolved lead and lead
a
RICA.
Doclret No.
4G868I-MLA11)
)
)
)
o
nafrer
Declaration of
-
on b| of Sierra Oub Glen Canpn Group
{tranatiomluraniwn(UsA)Cap.tYbiaMaa**r#ff*!ffi Affi ;
Pae lof !
Intlx
oxides if the Molpory material is place inside of thern
The ctrloroform plume fotrnd in the groundwater at Vfhite Mesa Mill has traveled 1/3 mile
toward the natural springs in Cononwood Caryon. The cause of the chloroform plunre has
nor )€t been identified. This suggests that contaminanr from the lead sulfide f\dg., vhich
will be placed in the tailings pits, could followthe same route.Indigenou wildlife, such as
Mule Deer (fui1a6 lmim6) utilize these springs as an important water source within this
canlDn.
kad poisoning resulting from lead shot ingestion has long been recognized as an important
so,rrci of monalityin waterfowl (Samuel2000 6rAndenon 1975), and also the carse of
secondarypoisoning of other species such as threatened Bald Eagle (Halid@$ to@atu)
and the Peregrine Falcon (Fdlapqrlna)(Samuel8cBowen 2000). lalggL,lead shot was
banned for all waterfowl htrnting in the United States becarse it is toxic wlrcn ingested by
birrds and otherwildlife ( Ringleman Lgg3).Resting waterfowl maydrinkand ingest the
Vrhfue Mesa M[ Tailingp Pond water, which contains concentr?tions of lead in the tailings
materid up to 1,553 *g/Kg of material. I-ead, a known biological poison and
environmintal contaminang causes the mortalityof manythorxands of waterfowl in Nonh
America annually. Virnrallyall waterfowl contract lead poisoning byingestion of lead
shotgun pellets that have been deposited into waterfowl habitat as a result of lpo{ htrrting.
Birda in idvanced stages of lead poisoning exhibit symptoms of lowered food inta}e,
impaired locomotion, drooped wings and green diarrhea- Gross lesions include emaciation,
impaaed provenuiculu, and enlarrged gall bladder.I-ess obviots biochemical lesions, which
almost d*lalo occur following the ingestion of a single pellet, include anemia, increase in
proropo{phfin in blood and inhibition of deha-aminolevulinirc acid dehdratase enzyme in
Lloodliver, and brain. The latter results in brain damage, and accounts for some of the
symptoms of lead poisoning (Andenon &Flavera, 1985). \flaterfowl can beconre lead
pois-oned from sediments containing lead shot from sport hunting, which deposits large-quantities of pellets into the lake boaom sediments. kad shot in bottomsediments from
Ivlerrymeeting Bay,Ivlaine, averaged 99,932 shot / hectare (Longcore, Corr, &Spencer
1982).'Waterfowl death and illness can occur at blood concentmtions of >0.5 t g or ppnl"
Bird wirh liver lead concentftrtions )8.0 ppm (wet wt) accompanied bylesions corsistent
with lead toxicosis vrcre considered lead poisoned Birds with liver concentfiltiors )2.0
ppp (1pt wt), but 4.0.pp1u are considere{ to be exposed to lea* in these cases, lead
porsorung was suspected to have contributed to mortidiryor rnonalityonlyif lesioru
ionsistent with lead toxicosis werc present (Rocke L997). Steel shot zones have redrrced
lead exposure in the Eastern PrairiePopulation Gnada geese (DeStefano l99l).- Other Endangered Species that could be found in this area include, the
Itrlexican Spotted Gil (Srnr mifuulis ldfu), possiblynesting in adjacent Cononwood
Canpn. Gttorrrood Gnpn could be potential lvlexican Spoued Oqd habitat and should
be formallysurvepd for its presence or absence within the canyon area. The Vhite lvlesa
Uranium Mll EA Document states that the ltrlexican Sponed Ouil is found in nrountainous
Declaration of
-
on behalf of Sierra Club Glen Canyon Group
In the matter of International Uraniwn (USA) Corp. White Mesa uranium Mill (Source Licewe Amendrunt),
Docket no. 4G8681 -MI-F\-I I
Paee Zof /
6.
areas of Utah, which conflicts with the l995,US Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Plan
which states that Mexican Spotted Owl habitat within Utah is found in dry canyons,-
unlike New Mexico and Ariiona habitats. The Mexican Spotted Owl in Arizona and
New Mexico is found in mixed - conifer /deciduous forests in mountainous regions of
the states.
The California condor (Gymnogypes californicus) was recently trapped back into
captivity due to ingesting lead from shotgun pellets found on a cattle carcass. This bird,
lik'e moit raptors, can receive secondary poisoning from P91son9d or-dead birds found in
the wild that have ingested lead or were contaminated with lead oxide on their feathers.
This bird could be found migrating through this area as part of the Experimental release
population of birds from Vermillion Cliffs area. The California condor and Mexican
Spbuea owl are protected under the Endangered Sp_ecies Act and Migratory Blt{ ["utyAct. The Migrat6ry Bird Treaty Act and the Eagle Protection Act protect the Bald Pagle.It was recently de-listed from endangered to threatened under the Endangered Species
Act. The Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)
migrates through this area during the spring and fall times_of the year. This falcon
reg-ularly takes waterfowl and other wild birds as its prey.-Waterf-gw! contaminated with
lead sulfide or lead oxide could cause a secondary poisoning to this falcon.
My examination of the materials listed above has convinced me that the lead
suifide and lead oxide materials to be refined under the license amendment at issue
pose serious threats to local wildlife, including endangered spe-qi-es. This is
feeding and life habitat for the following endangered species: California Condor
(Gymnogypes californicus), Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucoceplulus), Mexican
Spbtted - Owl (Stri"x occidentalis lucida) and the Peregrine Falcon (Falco
peregrinus). If these animals are exposed to lead oxide it could harm them directly
or thiough secondary poisoning from ingestion of lead-contaminated prey. This is
a risk that should not be taken with any wildlife species--but cannot be permitted
where endangered species are involved.
Before any additional material is placed on this site, especially when such material
is a highly hazardous material like lead oxide, there must be adequate assurances
that the niaterial will not expose local wildlife, particularly endangered species of
wildlife, to harm. There must be adequate assurances that this material cannot
escape into the aquifer and surface in springs where it could be consurned by
wildiife, particularly endangered species, which would be harmed as a result.
7.
o
ilrnnns
Declaration of
-
t" e)t of Sierra Oub Glen C:npn Groupqilfts"atioalu?uinn(usA)cap.vlhiaM**KffiireAffi
;
Pae fof /
I dedare rurder penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct Executed on
this // t?ay of Afir^9 ,2@2. -/ A A A4n.Chh,A
8. It is my professional opinion that no license should be issued, or if one has been
issued, it should be srspended until this site has been propedy e:<amine as
recommended above.
V/ildlife Biologist/ Owner
Swift C.reekConsuhing
70 East 100 Soud:, P.O. Box 111
Vernal, UT 84078
(43s) 7 89 -4004 C.ell - (Sa\652-7212
swiftcrl@easilinkcom
ATIACHMENT A
TIMOTIIY M. CHERYICK B.S.
EDUCATION
. B.S. Wildlife Management and Conservation, University of Wyoming, Laramie,1973
PROFESSI ONAL REGISTRATIONS / CERTIFICATIONS
o utah DEQ Certifrcation as a water Quality specialist tr obtained 1995.
o Utah DEe Div. of Environ. Response & Remediation Certification as a Groundwater and Soil Sampler for
Underground Storage Tank Sites- Obtained 1996.
o colorado Health Dept. Radiation safety officer certification l9E7-1995.
o Colorado Dept. of Agriculture - Restricted Use Pesticide Qualified Supervisor- Obtained 1987- Present.
o MSHA Qualified Instnrctor- Surface and Underground Mining - 1988-Presenf
o Ute Indian Tribe Business License - Swift Creek Consulting.
o Uintah County Utatr Business License- Swift Creek Consulting.
o Certified Wildlife Biologist for Black-footed Ferret Suweys- Obtained from US Fish & Wildlife Service. 1987-
Present.o Master Falconry Permit - us Fish & wildlife service. 1975- Present.
o Certified Hazardous Materials Incident Command System - 40 Hour Hazardous Waste Operator Course.
Emergency Response Training Course. Rangely, CO.1990.
o Certificate of Training for "Armual Hazardous Materials Symposium" University of Colorado at Boulder, CO-
1994.
TECHNICAL SPECIALITIES
o Wildlife Biologistt Raptor Export
o Water Quality Specialist/ Water Pollution Control and Hazardous Materials Experience
o Environmental Coordinator and Technician at 2 different underground and surface coal mining facilities.
. Mitigation and Biological Surveys for Raptor Electrocution and Avian Collisions with Power Lines
. T & E Species Surveys and Mitigation for the Oil and Gas and Coal Mining Industry.
PRESENTATIONS AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS
1986 Colorado Mining Association/ Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Award.
l98Z Colorado Mining Association/ Colorado Mined Land Reclanation Honorable Mention.
1987 US Dept. of Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Award for Excellence in
Surface Mining Reclamation Oustanding Achievement Award. Signed by President Ronald Reagan-
1988 Colorado Mining Assoc. / Colorado Mined I-and Reclamatiotr Award.
lgSg colorado Mining Assoc./ colorado Mined I-and Reclamation Award
Comrnittee Member for award wirming "Raptors at Risk * 2O0l video produced by Federal and State Wildlife
Agencies, Audubon Society, Norttr American Falconer's Association, Swift Creek Consulting, EPRI, and
epllC. Mr. Chervick participated in raptor electrocution prevention video, u&ich was widely distributed to
utilities, government agencies and conservation groups across the US'
a
a
a
EXPERIENCE
Regulatory Environmental Scientist / Water Quality Specialist
Mr. Chervick has over 28 yean regulatory experience in within Federal, State, and Private Industry for agencies and
companiss located in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. He has had 7 years ofprogressively increasing responsibilities
within the State of Wyoming, Departnent of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division and 15 years of
experience in the environmental regulatory compliance within the Wyoming and Colorado rnining industry. Water
quality chemistry and analysis experience for over 23 years including municipal water and sewage treament
facilities, industrial, mining, state and federal facilities inspections for water qualityNDPES effluent discharge
compliance monitoring. 15 years of experience with short and ultimate analysis of coal which included sampling
preparation and analysis at 2 different coal-mining facilities in Wyoming and Colorado.
Wildlife Biologist
Mr. Chervick has22 years experience as a wildlife biologist conducting wildlife surveys to identiff and locate sage
grouse leks and nesting habitat, mountain plover breeding areas, and black -footed ferret searches for disturbance by
coal mining development. Mr. Chervick has conducted prairie dog colony surveys, mapping all colonies to within
0.5 miles of proposed disnrbance areas. Mr. Chervick has conducted raptor surveys in Wyoming, Utah and
Colorado for the Femrginous Hawh Red-tailed Hawlg Golden Eagle, Bald Eagle, Burrowing Owl, Mexican Spotted
Owl, Great Homed Owl, Coopers Hawk, Goshawh and Saw Whet Owl. Over the last 6 years, Mr. Chervickhas
worked on raptor elechocution and avian collisions with power lines in the Western USA.
Avian Electrocution Management Pan for US Army, Dugway Proving Goundpugpay, UT - May 2001.
Mr. Chervick worked with the US Army as a civilian contractor at Du$vay Proving Ground, Duguray, I-ff. Mr.
Chervick was a D.O.D. contractor hired to survey power lines on base and mitigate any problan power poles that
were causing outages due to raptor and avian electrocutions. Mr. Chervick installed raptor protection
counterrreasures such as PVC triangles, bushing covers and arrestor cover in order to prevent birds from accidental
contact with energized wires and conductors. A total of 861 power poles were inspected and management
recommendations were made to address un-safe poles.
Final Environmental Assessment of Coastal's Proposed Development of the Ouray Field Uintah, County, UT -
January 2000.
Mr. Chervick conducted raptor nest surve)rs from the ground during 1998 and 1999. During this surven 14 active
nests were identified within the project area. GPS and digital photographs were taken at each location for GIS data
integration for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Ute Indian Tribe. Mr. Chervick's data was incorporated into the
final EA document.
Jurisdictional Wetland Evaluation Report for the Ouray Field 2000 /2001 Floodplain Drilling Program-
September 2000.
Mr. Chervick conducted jurisdictional wetland evaluations in late August 2000 as a sub-contractor to Buys &
Associated Inc. consulting Iirm of Englewood Colorado. As part of the environmental assessment proc6s,
jurisdictional wetland evaluations were performed on 16 proposed natural gas well sites within the Ouray Field,
Uintah County, Utah. Wetland evaluations described in this report were restricted to areas proposed for development
within the 100-year floodplain of the White River. Three-parameter sampling was conducted using routine onsite
inspection techniques described nthe 1987 Corps of Engineer ll/'etlands Delineation Manual.
Raptor Nesting Activity Monument Butte - Myton Bench, Duchesne and Uintah County, UT - May 1997.
2000.
Mr. Chervick conducted raptor nest surveys from the ground during 1996 and 1997. Mr. Chervick was a wildlife
consultant hired by Inland Resources Inc. of Roosevelt, IJT. This information was compiled for inclusion into the
Bureau of Land Management, Vernal Field Office database known as the Raptor Registry for the Diamond Mountain
Resource Area. During this 2-year survey, active nests were identified within the project area. GPS and digital
photographs were taken at each location for GIS data integration into Inland Production Corrpany and BLM's GIS
system.
Mountain plover and Burrowing Owl Surveys for Nesting Activity Monument Butte - Myton Bench,
Duchesne and Uintah County, UT - 199G199t Field Seasons Inland Production Company.
Mr. Chervick conducted numerolut plover and burrowing owl surveys within active white-tailed prairie dog tovms
during the 1996 through 1998 field seasolur. Mr. Chervick was a wildlife consultant hired by lnland Resoultes Inc.
of Ro-osevelt, t..1rf. This infonnation was compiled for inclusion into the Bureau of Land Management Vemal Field
Office database for the Diamond Mountain Resource Area. During this 3-year suryey, active nests were identified
wittrin the project area. GpS and digital photographs were taken at each location for GIS data integration into Inland
Production Company and BLM's GIS sptem.
WORI( IIISTORY
Swift Creek Consulting
Owner
Venral, UT
1995- Present
Western Fuels- Utah Inc.
Environmental Coordinator
Deserado Mine
Rangely, CO
1983-199s
Energy DeveloPment ComPanY
Environmental Technician Ailildlife Biologist
Subsidiary of Iowa Public Service Company
Vangard #2Mlllre Hanna" WY
198 l-1983
State of WYoming
Environmental Specialist / Water Quality Analy$t
Dept. of Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
Cheyenne, WY
1974-1981
Owner / Manager'
Swift Creek Consulting
Vernal, Utah 1995 - 2001
Mr. Chervick started a Utah -based environmental consulting firm offering practical and economic solutions to
clienB in order to protect their business interests while contributing to enhanced environmental Suatity and public
health and safety. Services included Environmental Planning, Project Siting / Linear Facility Routing, Site
Oppornrnity / Clnstraint Studies, Permitting Strategy, Implementation, Public lnvolvement, and Mitigation /
nemediation plans. Environmental Impact Assessm€nts - which includes Pre-analysis Planning, Impact Analysis,
Documentation, and Decision-Making. Field investigations and Ecological Services are also utilized. Sub-'
contracting with several larger environmental firms in the Rocky Mountain region. This cornpany utilized its
AT'IACHMENT A
TIMOTHY M. CITERVICK B.S.
EDUCATION
. B.S. Wildlife Management and Conservation, University of Wyoming, Laramie, 1973
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS / CERTIFICATIONS
o Utah DEQ Certification as a Water Quality Specialist II Obtained 1995.
o Utah DEQ Div. of Environ. Response & Remediation Certification as a Groundwater and Soil Sampler for
Underground Storage Tank Sites- Obtained 1996.
o Colorado Health Dept. Radiation Safety Officer Certification 1987-1995.
o Colorado Dept. of Agriculture - Reshicted Use Pesticide Qualified Supervisor- Obtained 1987- Present.
o MSIIA Qualified Instructor- Surface and Underground Mining - 1988-Present.
o Ute Indian Tribe Business License - Swift Creek Consulting.
o Uintah County Utah Business License- Swift Creek Consulting.
. Certified Wildlife Biologist for Black-footed Ferret Surveys- Obtained from US Fish & Wildlife Service. 1987-
Present.o Master Falconry Permit - US Fish & Wildlife Service. 1975- Present.
o Certified Hazardous Materials Incident Corrrrand System - 40 Hour Hazardous Waste Operator Course.
Emergency Response Training Course. Rangely, CO.1990.
o Certificate of Training for "Annual Hazardous Materials Synposium" University of Colorado at Boulder, CO.
1994.
TECHNICAL SPECIALITIES
o Wildlife Biologist/ Raptor Expert
o Water Quality Specialist/ Water Pollution Control and Hazardous Materials Experience
o Environmental Coordinator and Technicianat2 different underground and surface coal mining facilities.
. Mitigation and Biological Surveys for Raptor Electrocution and Avian Collisions with Power Lines
. T & E Species Surveys and Mitigation for the Oil and Gas and Coal Mining Industry.
PRESENTATIONS AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS
1986 Colorado Mining Association/ Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Award.
1987 Colorado ]vtining Association/ Colorado Mined t and Reclamation Honorable Mention.
1987 US Dept. of Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Award for Excellence in
Surface Mining Reclamation Outstanding Achievement Award. Sigrred by President Ronald Reagan.
1988 Colorado Mining Assoc. / Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Award.
1989 Colorado Mining Assoc./ Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Award
Committee Member for award winning "Raptors at Risk * 2001 video produced by Federal and State Wildlife
Agencies, Audubon Society, North American Falconer's Association, Swift Creek Consulting, EPRI, and
apllC. Mr. Chervick participated in raptor electrocution prevention video, which was widely disnibuted to
utilities, government agencies and conservation groups across the US.
a
a
a
ATTACHMENT B
Literature Cited
Anderson, W.L., Lead Poisoning in Waterfowl at Rice Lake, Illinois. 1975. Lead
poisoning in waterfowl at Rice Lake, Illinois. Journal of Wildlife Management.
39(2):264-270.
Anderson, W.L., AND S.P. Havera. Blood lead, protoporphyrin, and ingested shot for
detecting lead poisoning in waterfowl. 1985. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:26-31.
DeStefano, S., Brand C.J., Rusch D.H., Finley D.L.,.tlo M.M.Gillespie. l99l
Lead exposure in Canada Geese of the Eastern Prairie Population.
Wildlife Society Bulletin. 19 :23-32.
Longcore, J.R., Corr, P.O. axo H.E.Spencer, Jr. Lead shot incidence in sediments, and
waterfowl gszzards from Merrymeeting Bay, Maine.1982. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 10:3-10
Rocke T.E., Brand , C.J., AI.ID J.G.Mensik. Site-specific lead exposure from lead pellet
ingestion in Sentinel Mallards. 1997. J. of Wildlife Manage. 61(l): 228-234.
Ringleman, J.K., Miller, M.W., AND W.F. Andelt. 1993
Effects of Ingested Tungsten-Bismuth-Tin Shot on Captive Mallards.
Journal of Wildlife Management . 57 @): 7 25 -7 32.
Samuel, M.D., AND E.F. Bowers.2000. Lead exposure in American Black Ducks after
implernentation of non-toxic shot. Journal of Wildlife Management64(4):947-
952.
APPENDIX 5
DECLARATION OF ROGER COI.JLOMBE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMSSION
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
Administrative Law Judge Alan S. Rosenthal, Chair
Administrative Law Judge Dr. Richard F. Cole
In the matter of )
International Uranium (USA) Corp. )
White Mesa Uranium Mill )
(Source Material License Amendment) )
Docket No.
40-8681-MLA-11
1. My name is Roger A. Coulombe,Jt.,
2. I reside at1377 N. 1560 E., Logan, UT 84341
3. I am a professor of Toxicology at Utah State University (USU), a position I have
held sinc e 19g4. I am the Directoi of the Center for Environmental Toxicology and
Director of the Graduate program in Toxicology at usu. My position also involves
teaching courses in Environmental Toxicology, and have a research Progrcm
specialiiing in the health effects of environmental toxicants. A resurne of my
piofessional qualifications is attached hereto as Exhibit'A'.
4. In ord.er to form a professional opinion about the issges in this case, I have
reviewed the following related documents:
a. International Uranium Corp., "Amendment Request to Process an Alternate Feed
Material from Molycorp it White Mesa Uranium Mill, December 19, 2000.
Associated attachments.
b. International Uranium Corp., "Groundwater Information ReportT" White Y"t"
Uranium Mill, submitted to State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality,
May 1999. Associated attachments.
c. Letier to Harold Roberts, V.P. International Uranium Corp., from Loren Morton,
State of Utah Bepartrnent of Environmental Quality. "Request for Additional
Information." March 2002-
O ,".*uoon of prof. Roger A. coulombe Jr. *,0* r*rra club Glen canyon Group
tn the mattcr of lntenntional lJraniwn (us A) corp. lNhib Me s uranium Mill (sour e
x;;jffil
Page2ot2
5. AJter review of the materials listed above, it is my Professional opinion that the
license arnendment at issue in this case should not have been granted and should be
withdrawn until a complete study of the chemistry and toxicology of the acidified
tailings mixture has been made.
6. The reasons for this oPinion are as follows:
a. The uranium recovery process as proposed by International Uranium Corp involves
rniling and acidification of liquid effluents. The analysis provided by IUC did not
consider the inevitable in chemical and physical changes that will take place under such
a process. Such changes. will, in my opinion, have a significant effect on the
toxicological characteristics'of the effluents. The estimated pH of the liquid in the
tailings -slurry in Cell 3 ranges from 1.8 to 2.0 (Table A-2 on- Page A-9 of the
Grouidwaterlnformation Report by IUC). At this tow pH, much of the insoluble lead
sulfide (an important constituent of the tailings), as well as other inorganics, are
converted to soiuble lead species (Lindsay,W.L.1979. Chemical Equilibria in Soils. Iotur
Wiley & Sons, New York). A substantial amount of the lead sulfides will be converted
to stabte lead oxides and other forms of lead which pose a significantly greater health
risk than the lead sulfides in the original tailings. Compared to insoluble sulfides,
soluble forms of lead and other inorganic compounds are more easily absorbed (by
various routes) by animals and people, and are substantially more toxic. Furthermore,
the milting process will reduce particle size, further increasing the ability of the
products to enter animals and people.
b. The effluents contain a substantial amount of lead. Lead is an accumulative toxic
heavy metal, ranked 2nd (out of.275) by the EPA on their Comprehensive Environmental
Resptnse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Priority List of Hazardous
Sufitances Grttp://www.atsdr.cdc. . Lead affects nearly every olgan
and syste* i" tf," Uoan fiporrrr" io inorganic lead causes a multitude of toxic effects
in animals and people, including blood system disorders, learning disabilities, birth
defects, and nervous system problems, and cancer.
c. In addition to lead, the tailings mixture contains high concentrations of other toxic
metals. No analysis was presented on the various forms (e.g, oxides) of lead and other
metals that would occur under acid conditions that will be used. There are considerable
differences in the potential health impacts between various forms of these metals.
T. Insummary, it is my professional opinion that no license should be issued, or insofar
as one has been issued, it should be suspended, until the issues raised in this
declaration have been addressed.
O Declaration of prof. Roger A. coulombe Jr. of* r r,*t" club Glen carryon Group
InthenatteroflnternationalUraniui(USl) C'orP'White Me*uraniunMil'ffi:rffim:;
Page 3 of2
this 10th daY of APril, 2002.
RS.
Roger A. Coulombe,lt-, Ph'D'
Professor of ToxicologY
I declare und.er penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct' Executed on
132 N. 1560 E.
Logan, UT &1341
435.753.4178
nogur|o.rlombe, Jr., PhD, Utah State University
Roger A. Coulombe,lr., Ph.D.
Professor of ToxicologY,
Director, Center f or Environmental Toxicology
Department of Animal, Dairy, and Veterit a.y Sciences
Utah State University, Logan, IJT
Institution Degree Date Field of Study
University of Idaho, Moscow BS 1977 Microbiology
UniversiW of Idaho, Moscow MS 1979 Microbiolosy
Oreqon State University PhD t982 Food Science/ ToxicologY
University of California, Davis Postdoc 1982-1984 Biochemistry / Toxicolo gY
Professional experience:
1996-present Director, Graduate Program in Toxicology, Utah State University
1gg4-1gg5 Visiting Professor, Murdoch University School of Veterinary
Medicine, Perth, Western Australia (sabbatical).
1993-present Professor, Utah State University, Logan, UT
7988-19% Associate Professor, Utah State University, Logan,IJT
1984-1988 Assistant Professor Utah State University, Logan, UT
lg12-1g84 NIH NRSA Postdoctoral Awardee in Toxicology and Biochemistry,
Department of Internal Medicine, university of California,
Davis, CA.
Regular reviewer, USDA-NRI and SBIR proposals 1995-present
Mo"lecular Biology/Toxicology Grant Review Committee, NCI, National Institutes of
Health, 1993,7996.
Special Study Sectiory Toxicology Grant Review Committee, NIEHS. National Institutes
of Health.1991'.
Special Study Sectior; Pharmacology Grant Review Committee, NIAID, National
Institutes of Health. 1991'.
Peer-reviewed publications since L997 (fuoma total of over 85):
Van Meet, T & MacE, K and R. A. Coulomb e, lr. (2002). Comparative Aflatoxin Br
Activation and Cytotoxicity in Hurnan Bronchial Cells Expressing Human CYPs
1A2 and 3A4. Cancer Research62,705'772.
VanVleet, T.R., Klein, P.]. and R. A. Coulombe,Jr. (2002). Metabolism and Cytotoxicity of
aflatoxin Br in cytochrome P-450-expressing human cells. I. Toxicology and
Erut ir o nmental He alth (n press) .
Klern, p.]., Van Meet, T.R., Halt, J.O. and R. A. Coulombe, Jr. (2002). Biochemical factors
underlying the age-related sensitivity of turkeys to aflatoxin Br. C-omparathte
B io clemis try and Phy siolo gy (in press).
26
orn Coulombe, Jr., PhD utah state University
Kleiru P.]., Hall, ].o. and R. A. Coulombe, Jr. (2002). Dietary butulated hydroxytgluene
protects against aflatoxicosis in turkeys, in T. Acamovic, C.S. Stewart, and T'W'
pennycott (eds.) poisonous Plants andRelatedToxins, CAB International, London (in
press).
Coulombe, R.A. (2001) Antioxidants protect turkeys against toxigiry of aflatoxin' NRI
Research Highltgh*, National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program,
United States Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Researctu Education
and Extension Service. No' 6'
Coulombe, R.A., and w. K. Rieben (200L). Lack of Apparent Basg Seqrrence Preference of
Activated Pyrrolizidine Alkaloid cross-Links with DNA, in T. Acamovic, c's'
Stewart, urd t.W. Pennycott (eds.) Poisonous Plants and Related Toxins, CAB
International, London (in Press)'
Van Vleet, T.R., Bombick, D.W., and R.A. Coulombe, Ir.(2001) Inhibtition of Human
Cytochrome p450 2E1 Activity by Nicotine, Cotinine, and Aqueous Cigarette Tar
Extract in vitro. Toxicological Sciences 64,785'797'
Van Vleet, T.R., Klein, P.J., anJ R.A. Coulombe, lr. (2001). Metabolism of Aflatoxin Br by
Normal Human Bronchial Epithelial Cells. l. Toxicology and Enrtironmental Health ,
Part A,63:101-116.
Coulombe, R.A. (2001) pyrrolizidine alkaloids in foods, in Adttances in Food and Nutrition
Research(S. Taylor, Ed.) Academic Press, San Diego. (in pre-ss).
Klein, p.K., retty, i.N., Buckner, R., and R.A' Coulombe, Jr' (2000)' Biochemical
mechanisnrs underlying the extreme sensitivity of poultry to aflatoxin Br'
T oxicolo gy and Applie d Pharmaalo gy' 765:45 -52'
Coulombe, R.A., ]r. (ZOOOI Natural fo*ins and Chemopreventives in Plants, In B'
Helferich ur,a C. Winter (eds.) FoodToxicology. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Fl'pp'
137-761.
Coulombe, R.A. Jr., Drew, G.L., and. F.R. Stermitz (7999). Pyrrolizidine alkaloids cross-
link DNA with actin . Toxicology and Applied Plurmacology 754:798'202'
Stegelmeier, B.L., Edgar, J.A., Coleg"," ?,Y] Gardner, D.L., SchoctU T'K', Coulombe'
R.A., Jr. and foolyneux, R.J: G999). Pyrrolizidine alkaloids plants, metabolism
and toxici ty . I ournal of N afiral Toxins 8 :95-116'
Kim, H.y., stermitz, F.R., Li;J.K. and R.A. Coulombe, ft. (1999)' Comparative DNA-cross-' Iinking by activated pyrrolizidine alkaloids. Food and Clemical Toxicobgy. 372 679'
625.
Coulombe, R.A., lr. (1999). Natural Toxins,
Food Science and TechnologY,2"d
NY.PP. 2236- 2352.
Drew, G.L., Stermita F.R. and R.A. Coulombe, lr. (1998) Y.l".s* Interactioru of' pyrcolizidine Alkaloids with critical cellular targets, ItI. Garland and A. C' Barr
1eas.1 Toxic plants and other Natural Toxicants, CAB International Press, New
York. PP.537-5a2.
Kelly, ].D., Guengerictr, F.P., Eaton, D.L. and R'A' Coulombe, !t' O99n Activation of
aflatoxin niUy human lung. Toxicol. AWl.PlurmacoL ltt4:88-95'
in I.I. Francis, (ed) The Wiley Encyclopedia of
Edition. Wiley Interscience, Wiley & Sons,
27
APPENDIX 6
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OFIUSA TAILINGS POND, FROM THE
APRIL-MAY 2W2 CANYON COUNTRY ZEPHYR, PAGE 23
:€o!o
ct
la
6UEI
z
U
u
a
F
Ug
.9
u
APPENDIX 7
DECLARATION OF STEPHEN ROUZER, M.D.
Steven V. Rouzer, M.D.
Melinda (Jollyl Stanford, F.N.P.
blproducts.
Steven V. Rouzer, MD
SVRjsl
Kenneth L. Williams, M.D. .
I(atherine K. Willams, M.D.
MOAB MEDICAL CENTER
38 W. 300 s.
MOAB, UTAH 84532
April 12,2002
To Whomlt May Concern:
RE: Contamination of groundwater by lead
I am pleased to have the opportunity to write you with regard to the iszue of the safety, or
shal i say lack of safety, of teaA in ground water. As I'm sure you knorr, tlre
Environnrental protection Agency has published readily available standards with regard
to acceptable levels of lead in groundwater. I must agree that it would be detrirnental to
Mr. John weistreit, and anyoni else who enjoys hiking in the il'sa sf this proposaf to
drink from a spring contarninated by lead. I cannot, of course, make a determination as to
whether the lead win Ue drawn intothe groundwater or not, but I can say with complete
confidence that no one should risk drinking water contaminated with lead.
I ilili rl; l;ir rl r li li$: ,il i
'
;' l
}l
I am sure that measures to protect the potential contamination ofthis groundwater are
b"t g evaluated in determining the suitability of this site to be a repository for lead
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
INTERNATIONAL URAMUM (USA) ) Docket No. 4O-8681-MLA-11
CORPoRATION )) ASLBP NO. W:795-O2-MLA
(Source Material License Amendment, )
License No. SUA-1358) ) April l5,2OO2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing THIRD SUPPLEMENT TO
PETITIONER SIERRA CLUB'S 10 C.F.R. 52.1233 WRITTEN PRESENTATION
REQUESTING SUSPENSION, MODIFICATION, OR REVOCATION OF
AMENDMENT 20TO LICENSE SUA-1358 have been served on the following persons
by first class U.S. mail, by hand, or expedited mail service this 15e day of April 2002,
pursuant to 10 C.F.R . 2.712 and 2.1203. Additional service via electronic mail or
facsimile transmission is indicated by asterisk.
Secretary* Administrative Judge *
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Richard F. Cole
Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Atomic Safety and Licensing
Staff Board Panel
U. S. NuclearRegulatory Commission Mail StopT-3F2,3
Washington, D. C. 20555-0001 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Email: [e-mail] Washington, D. C. 20555-0001
Email: [e-mail]
Administrative Judge *
Alan S. Rosenthal Office of the General Counsel *
Atomic Safety and Licensing Attn: Dennis C. Dambly, Esq.
Board Panel Mail Stop O-15 D21
Mail Stop T-3n3 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555-0001
rMashington, D. C.20555-0001 Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Office of Commission Appellate
Mlliam E. [.ove {' Adjudication
2871F,. Bench Road U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Moab, Utah84532 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Email : [e-mail]
Anthony J. Thompson, Esq. *
Anthony J. Thompson, P. C.
1225 l%h Street, N.W., Suite 200
Washington, D. C. 20036
Email : ajthompson @ athompsonlaw.com
o
ce. DocketCertificate of Servi
April l5,2AO2
No. 4O-8681-MLA-I I
Michelle R. Rehmann *
International Urani um (USA) Corporation
Independence Plaza, Suite 950
I 050 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80265
Tom Rice, Environmental Director*
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
P.O. Box 448
Towaoc, Colorado 81334
Email: [e-mail]
Angela Coggins*
Email: [e-mail]
Lisa Clark*
Email: [e-mail]
Susan Chidakel*
Email: [e-mail]
Sharon Perini*
E-mail: [e-mail]
John Weisheit
Volume 17, Number 2 March/April 2002
National Academies of Science
National Research Council Releases Report re Disposition
of Slightly Radioactive Material (Clearance Rule)
On March 27, the National Academies of Sciences'
National Research Council publicly released its re-
port regarding the disposition of slighdy radioactive
solid material. The report, which is tided "The
Disposition Dilemma: Conuolling the Release of
Solid Materials from Nuclear Regulatory
Commission-Licensed Facilities," is the result of a
year-long study performed by a committee of
experts put together by the National Research
Council at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
request. (See I | .lY Notes,January/February 2001,
P.20.)
In particular, the Commission asked the Research
Council to recommend changes to the decision-
making process for the disposition of slighdy radio-
active solid material and to determine whether
sufficient technical information exists to establish a
consistent system nationdly. The Research Council
committee's report finds that NRC's decision-
making process is "workable" and protective of the
public health and safety. Howevet, the report states
that NRC's process "could benefit from a new
framework that uses broad input from
stakeholders-including the general public-to
develop and evaluate options for disposal, reuse,
and recycling." The committee proposed a
framework, which is intended as a policy-making
tool only, that incoqporates the need to assess
LLW Forum, lnc. o 2227 20h Street N.W., Unit 301 o Washington D.C. 20009
[phone] o FAX [phone] o E-MAIL [e-mail] o INTERNETwww.llwforum.orE
health, economic, and environmental impacts,
among others.
The committee also reviewed NUREG-1640, a
draft NRC report that provides technical guidance
on future policy revisions. The committee found
the methodology used in the draft guidance to
assess potential health effects associated with
salvage or disposal to be "state of the art," but
recommended the consideration of additional
scenarios for disposition, alternative exposure
pathways, and the impact of human eror. The
committee's report suggests using 1 millirem per
year as a starting point for determining an
appropriate dose-based standard for the disposition
of material.
The committeers report looked at three generd
categories fot the disposal of slighdy radioactive
(Continued on page 20)
ln This lssue
Legislaiton lntroduced in Califomia re Disposal Facility Licensing
page 12
Maine Drafls Legilation to Withdraw fiom Texas Compac{
page '13
Transportation: DOT Study Expected Shor0y, While NRC Continues
Revisbns
Page 20
LLtfllVofes
Volume 17, Number 2 March/Aprn2002
Editor and Writer: Todd D. Lovinger
Layout and Design: Rita Houskie, Central lnterstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact
LllYNotes is published several tirrres a year and is
distributed to the Board of Directors of the I-orv-
kvel Radioactive \Waste Forurn,Inc. - an
independeng non-profit colporation Anyone
induding compacts, states, federal 4gencies,
pdvate associations, comlvanies, and others - rnay
support and participate in the LL!flForurq Inc.
bypurchasing s and/orby
contributing grants or gfu. For information on
becoming a member or supporter, please go to our
web site at www.llu.forumorg or contact Todd D.
I-ovinger - the LLWForurq Inc.'s management
contractor - at Q02) 265-79n.
'I\eI-I-lVNotes is owned by the LLWForurq Inc.
and therefore mrry not be disuibuted ot
reproduced without the express vnitten approval
of the organization's Board of Directots.
Directors that serve on the Board of the Iovr-
Ievel Radioactive \Waste Forurn, Inc. are
appointed by govemors and corrpact
commissions. The LLWForurq Inc. was
established to facilitate sate and compact
implerrrentation of the I-ow-kvel Radioaaive
Waste PolicyAmendnrnts Act of 1985 and to
promote the objectives of low-level radioactive
waste regional compacts. The Lll7Forurrl Inc.
provides an opporn:nity for state and corrpact
officials to shate inforrnationwith one another
and to exchange vievzs with officiais of federal
agencies ard other interested parties.
TableofConbrils
FederalAgencies and Committees (Cover Story)
National Research Council Releases Report ra Disposition of Slightly
Radioactive Material (Clearance Rule)..................... ..................... 1
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum, lnc ..............,...... 3
States and Compacts.
S.C. House Votes to Use Bamwell Funds to Balance Budget....................................5
Radioactive Waste Disposal Referendum lnitiative Filed in Utah re New Taxes
and Policies (lncluding Class B and C Waste Disposal Prohibition)...........................5
Envirocare Response to Radioactive Waste Disposal Referendum lnitialivs ............7
Utah Radiation Conlrol Board Grants Summary Judgement to Envirocare
re I of9 lssues on Appeal................. ..............8
Potentially Radiologically Contaminated Tools Removed from Envkocare;
May Have Been Sold to the Public..... ........... 10
New Jersey Waste Shipments to Colorado Delayed .................. 11
New Oflicers Elected to Southeast Compact Commission ....................................... 11
Legislation lnkoduced in Califomia re Disposal Facility 1icensing........................... 12
Maine Drafls Legislation to Withdraw fiom Texas Compact ..................................... 13
Courts ,..,,.,..,,--.. .......,,...14
lntervention Denied in USE's Promissory Estoppel Action Against Califomia ......... 14
Court Throws Out New Califomia Waste Regulations...... .......... 15
Romano Appointed CEO of American Eco1oey................. .......... 15
DOE Sues Nevada re Yucca Water Permits ......... ...................... 16
GAO/Congressional Leaders Sue Over White House Energy P0|icy....................... '16
Russian Supreme Court Prohibits Hungary lmports .. ................. 17
Russia's Cleanup Work to be Funded by Processing Foreign Waste...................... 17Con9ress....,..,..... ..,..,...,.. tB
NRC's FY 2003 Budget Now Avai|able.,.........,............ ............... 18
Whistleblower Bill lntroduced in Congress......... ......................... 18
NCRP Says Consistent Scrap Metal Standards Needed.......................................... 14
GAO Report Fundmenlal Reassessment of DOE Needed..........................,.......... 15
GAo lssues Report re Adequacy of Decommissioning Funds................................. 15
FederalAgenciesandCommiftees(continued).......... ..,...,....19
Sources Lost in Foreign Countries ................ 19
DOE Proposes Rule to Protect Classified |nfo............... .............19
Transportation: DOT Study Expected Shortly, While NRC Continues Revisions.....20
Hearings Set re Skull Valley Proposed Spent Fuel Faci|ity................... ............,.......21
NRC Opens New Security Office........ ...........22
Revision 2 of Draft Yucca Review Plan Now Available............................................. 22
NRC Orders lncreased Reactor Security... ..................................23
NRC lo Exempt Umetm from Groundwater Cleanup Requiremenls ....................... 23
Annual Reporl lssued by NRC Ofrice of Enforcement...... ..........24
ASLB Orders Goshutes to Delail Payment lnformalion; NRC Blocks Ruling ...........24
NRC lssues Annual Assessment Letters to Nudear Power Plants. ......................... 25
NRC Proposes to Amend Fee Sdredule.....-......-............ ....,.....25
Bush Recommends Yucca Mountain; Nevada Govemor Exercises Vet0................ 26
Mayors Write Bush re Rad Waste Transport.. .............................26
Obtaining Publications....... .......................... 27
Key to Abbreviations
U.S. Departrnent of Engetgy,.... ............DOE
U.S. Department of Transportation.................................DOT
U.S. Environmentd Protection Agency......,.........,.......... EPA
U.S. General Accounting O{Iice...................................... GAO
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission............................. NRC
Naturally-occuring and accelerator-ptoduced
radioactive materia1............. ................. NARM
Naturally-occuring radioactive materid.......................NORM
Code of Federal Regulations .... .............. CFR
LLW
FORI,]lv[INC
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum, Inc,
2227 zls. Street N.W., Unit 301
Washington, DC 20009
[phone]
FAX [phone]
E.MAIL [e-mail]
INTERNET www.llwforum.org
2 LLW Notes March/Aptt2llz
LLW Forum Holds Meeting ln
Gharleston, South Carolina
The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum,Inc.
met in Chadeston, South Carolina on March 11
and 72,2002. The LL!7 Forum Executive
Committee met on March 10. Sixteen LL$7
Forum Directors, Alternate Directors, and
meeting designees representing fifteen diffetent
compacts, host states, and unaffiliated states
participated in the meeting. In addition, three
As s ociate Members repres enting t'wo different
federal agencies participated, as well as fourteen
other state and compact representatives. Other
individuals representing five different federal
agencies attended, as did representatives from
facility operators, industry orgarizaions, and the
private sectof.
Topics Discussed
During the course of the nvo day meeting,
attendees heard presentations on the following
topics, among others:
0 new developments in states and compacts;
an Illinois Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Management Report which contains economic
modeling of disposal facility development, as
well as infotmation on the relationship
between the timing of waste receipts and
disposal fees;
industry and NRC perspectives on the
entombment option for the decommissioning
of nuclear utilities;
updates regarding the Barnwell, South
Carolina and Envirocare of Utah low-level
radioactive waste disposal faclities;
an update on NRC activities, including agency
action on Big Rock Point Plant's proposal to
dispose of demolition debris with tace
quantities of licensed material, the issuance of
a draft supplement to the final environmental
impact statement on the decommissioning of
nuclear facilities, and the status of license
renewal fequests;
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
final rule on the storage, ffeatment,
transportation and disposal of mixed waste;
privatization of the Low-Track System;
security at nuclear power plants;
a proposal regarding the creation of a
centralized agency to regulate radioactive
materials;
a draft agfeement between states and
compacts and the U.S. Department of
Defense regarding the department's waste
management practices;
the U.S. General Accounting Office's recent
report on the adequacy of NRC's assufances
of decommissioning funding duting utility
restructuring; and
o the disposal of waste ftom the Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
(FUSRAP) by the Army Corps of Engineets.
In addition, at the Executive Committee meeting
on March 10, Kevin Crowley g ve a presentation
on plans by the National Academies of Sciences
to conduct a study on improving practices for the
regulation and management of "low activity"
radioactive waste in the United States. The study
will be conducted by a 15-member National
Research Council committee that has not yet been
selected. (See LI lV Notes, January /February
2002,pp.1, 9-10.)
Other Items of Interest
During the course of the meeting, it was
announced that the Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Forum has been awarded a one-year grant ofup
LLW Notes March/Apil2ll2 3
to $150,000 from the U.S. Department of Energy,
commencing March 2002. LLW Forum members
discussed ways in which the additional monies
should be used to assist members and the
organtzaion in its operations and expressed their
sincere appreciation to DOE for the requested
financial assistance.
Actions Taken
Election of Executive Committee and Officers
During the course of the meeting, the following
persons were elected to serve on the Executive
Committee andf or as officers of the LLW Forum,
lnc. in2002:
Max Batavia of the Atlantic Compact,
I(athryn Haynes of the Southeast Compact
(Chait),
William Sinclair of the State of Utah,
Leonard Slosky of the Rocky Mountain
Compact (Vice Chair),
Thor Strong of the State of Michigan,
Terrence Tehan of the State of Rhode Island,
and
o Stanley York of the Midwest Compact
(Secretary/Treasurer).
Resolutions During the course of the meeting,
various resolutions were passed by the Board of
Directors, including:
o approval of 2002 budget adjustments and
authorization to officers to make any further
adjustments that they deem necessary;
0 authorization to the officers to take the
administrative and management steps
necessary to implement the DOE grant; and
r expressions of appreciation to Governors who
supported the LL!7 Forum's grant request and
to the U.S. Department of Energy for the
requested financial assistance.
U.S. Army Becomes
Associate Member
The U.S. Army recendy became the second
federal agency to purchase an Associate
Membership in the Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Forum. Other federal agencies-
including the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Q66pis5i611-are reported to also be
considering memberihip, while still others-
such as the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency-have purchased specific services
from the orgatizaion.
For additional information about buoming a member,
please go to tbe I I .IY Forum's web site at
way.llu{orum.orgor contact Mr. Todd D. L.ouirger
Ituinger-tbe | .I lV Fontm's Management
Contrartor-- at (20 2 ) 2 6 5 -7 9 9 0.
4 LLW Notes March/Aptilz}}Z
The South Carolina House voted on April 17 to
take $61 million from the cleanup fund for the
Barnwell lowlevel radioactive waste disposal
facility and use it to balance this year's budget,
which has an estimated $74 million shortfali.
Budget work is stalled in the Senate, however,
where members continue to debate a proposed
cigarette tax.
Under the House plan, 40 perceflt of the monies
taken from the Barnwell fund will go to local
school districts, with the remainder going into the
general fund to help make up for a 1.5 percent,
across-the-board budget reduction. This will leave
the fund with a balance of approximately
$300,000. Last year, legislatures took more than
$38 million out of the Barnwell cleanup fund to
protect colleges from budget cuts.
In addition to voting to take mofley out of the
fund, however, the House also passed a provision
that will require the General Assembly to repay
the fund. The General Assembly will be
responsible for cleaning up the site, should the
need arise.
Atlantic Comp act/ South Carolina N o rthwe s t C omp act / U tah
S.C. House Votes to Use Radioactive Waste Disposal
Bamwell Funds to Balance Referendum lnitiative Filed in
Budget Utah re New Taxes and
Policies (lncluding Class B and
C Waste Disposal Prohibition)
On April 3, a statewide ballot initiative was filed in
Utah that seeks, among other things, to impose
substantial taxes on the disposal of out-of-state
low-level radioactive waste and to prohibit the
disposal of Class B and C mdioactive waste within
the state. The initiative, which promotes draft
legislation tided the "Radioactive Waste
Restrictions Act," is being sponsored by Utahns
for Radioactive Waste Control. AIso supporting
the initiative are the Utah Education Association
(JEA), the Utah Crusade for the Homeless,
former state Govemor Calvin Rampton, and
Mickey Gallivan-the son of Salt Lake Tribune
publisher emeritus John Gallivan. In order to get
the initiative on the ballot for the November
elections, pfoponents must pfocure in 20 of
Utah's 29 counties the signatures of registered
voters equal to at least 10 percent ofthe votes cast
in the last gubernatorial eiection-approximately
77,000 signatures-by the May 31 deadline.
Tax on the Disposal of Out-of-State Low-
Level Radioactive Waste
The Proposed Tax Proponents of the
referendum initiative claim that it could generate
as much as $200 million annually-which monies
would be earmarked for education, environmental
regulation, economic development, and assistance
to the impoverished and homeless. Specifically,
the initiative calls for the imposition of a time-of-
disposal l2x-1hg amounr of which tax would
depend on the kind of low-level radioacrive waste
being disposed of in Utah-as well as a gross
receipts tax of 15 percent on radioactive waste
disposal facilities operating in the state.
LLWNofes March/Apil21lz 5
In explaining the need for such taxes at a news
conference on Wednesday, initiative proponents
noted that the State of Washington imposes a
minimum tax of $20 per cubic foot on waste
disposed of at the Richland facility and the State
of South Carolna imposes a fi235 tax on waste
disposed of at the Barnwell facility. Utah, they
claim, charges only 10 cents per sulis f6e1-2 1il(
that only covers the cost of regulation. The
proposed initiative would raise the tax in Utah to
between $4 and $150 per cubic foot, depending
on the specific type of waste being disposed.
A press release distributed by initiative proponents
further described the tax as follows:
"The Radioactive Waste Restrictions Act would
impose ^ tax ofl each cubic foot of radioactive
waste disposed of in Utah. That rate would vary
depending on the type of waste. This tax-passed
through to the generator of the w251s-\y6uld !s
less than that charged by the other sites that
accept such waste, but substantially more than the
10-cent pet cubic foot Utah currendy charges."
The act proposes the following specific surcharges
ofl the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in
Utah:
Class A LLRW - Containerized
$150/ft3
Class A LLRIU7 - Bulk Disposal
$20/ft3
Mixed Waste - Containerized
$1s0/ft3
Mixed Waste * Bulk Disposal
fi30/tt3
PCB Radioactive rilTaste - Containerized
9150/ft3
PCB Radioactive Waste - Bulk Disposal
$30/tt3
PCB Mixed Waste - Containerized
$1solft3
PCB Mixed Waste - Bulk Disposal
$30/fr3
11e.2 Waste - Bulk Disposal
ga/ft3
NORM Waste - Containerized
$150/ft3
NORM lVaste - Bulk Disposal
$20/ftj
Envirocare's Immediate Reaction Envfuocare
President Kenneth Alkema was quoted in the
local papers as calling the ptoposed tax "unfair,
exorbitant, arbitrary and capricious" and as
arguing that the initiative is based on incorrect
data about Envirocare's business and the
radioactive waste disposal market. Alkema
disputes that such a tax could raise $200 million
annually and suggests it could put Envirocare out
of business.
Another Envirocare representative points out that
one of the initiatives key proponents, Doug
Foxley, failed in a previous attempt to site his own
competing radioactive waste facility in Tooele
County in1997.
Prior Attempt re Tax In 2001, legislation was
introduced in the Utah legislature which would
have imposed substantial taxes on the disposal of
lowJevel radioactive waste in Utah. Key portions
of the bill, however, were defeated dudng debate
and the final version passed imposed much lower
fees and taxes than orlgir,"Uy sought. (See I .l IV
Notes,March/April2001, pp. 7 -9.)
Class B and C Disposal Prohibition
The initiative also seeks to prohibit Utah from
licensing ot siting a facility for the disposal of
high-level radioactive waste, greater than Class C
radioactive waste, or Class B or C low-level
radioactive waste within the state. Envirocare of
Utah previously filed an application to dispose of
containerized Class B and C waste at its Tooele
County faciltty, which application was approved-
subject to specified limitations and conditions-
by the Executive Secretary of the Utah Radiation
ControlBoard onJuly 9,2007. (Seel .f .lYNoteq
July/Augustz}}7, pp. 6 - 9.) Under Utah law,
however, the Governor and legislature must
approve any new waste disposal licenses.
Envirocare has announced that, at this time, it will
not seek the requisite legislative or gubernatorial
approval.
6 LLW Notes March/Aptil2}l2
Various entities appealed the Executive Secreary's
July 9 decision. On March 1, the Utah Radiation
Conuol Board granted summary judgment in
favor of Envirocare of Utah on eight of the nine
issues raised on appeal. The remaining issue is
currendy pending before the Board. (See LLW
Forum News Flash tided, "Utah Radiation
Control Board Grants SummaryJudgment to
Envirocare re 8 of 9 Issues on Apped:
Intervention Denied re Containedzed Class A
License Amendment," March 19, 2002.)
Other Aspects of the Proposed Initiative
In addition to imposing new and additional taxes
on the disposal of radioactive waste in Utah and
prohibiting the disposal of certain types of waste,
the proposed initiative also seeks to "[a]dequately
capitalize I the Perpetu d. Care and Maintenance
Fund to finance perpetual care of the pnvirocare]
facility and for its eventual closure." The proposal
also seeks to increase the quality of monitoring of
deposited radioactive waste, clari$r the definitions
of all radioactive waste, and prohibit the futthet
licensing of radioactive waste disposal facilities in
the state.
The Radioactive Waste Restrictions Act promoted
by the proposed initiative also contains ethical
protections that further regulate the relationships
between Utah Department of Environmental
Q"rtity employees, Radiation Control Board
members and disposal operatofs.
DEQ Review
The Utah Department of Environmental Q"rlity
is currendy evaluating the proposal and has noted
that the initiative raises some important technical,
policy, adminisuative, and constitutional issues
that will impact the future regulation of
radioactive waste in Utah. The initiative makes
numerous changes to the cuffent Radiation
Control Act, which would become effective as
written if enough signatures are gamered to get it
on the fall ballot and the initiative passes.
Envirocare Response to Radioao
Waste Disposal Referendum
lnitiative
In response to the proposed initiative, Envirocare
put out a press release stating that it must be a
"cruel hoax" and asserting that "[t]he proposed
$200,000,000 tax would exceed Envirocare's total
revenues and would essentially'kill the golden
goose."' Envirocare President Ken Alkema fur-
ther stated that the proposed initiative "has noth-
ing to do with helping education or the homeless
and would effectively put 400 people out of
work."
In its press release, Envirocare afgues that the
proposed initiative targets one compafly and pun-
ishes them for being successfirl. "Our company
ides jobs, revenues, taxes and fees to Tooele
unty, the state of Utah, and the nation. It im-
the environment by helping to provide a
safe, appropriate place to permanendy dispose of
low-level radioactive waste," commented Alkema.
"This tax is patendy unfair and unconstitutional."
Envirocare argues that the numbers presented in
the proposed initiative are inaccurate and mislead-
ing because
o they are based on Envirocare's volume of
wastes and not on the radioactive content of
the wastes,
Envirocare takes in more volume, but far less
radioactivity than its competitors,
it is improper, given the above, to compare
the Envirocare facility to those at Barnwell
and Richland, and
it is significant that the Barnwell and Richland
facilities are owned by the states and take class
B and C wastes, which can support much
highet taxes.
LLW Notes March/Apil20l2 7
Utah Radiation Control Board
Grants Summary Judgment to
Envirocare re 8 of 9 lssues on
Appeal
lntervention Denied re Gontainerized
Class A License Amendment
On March 1, the Utah Radiation Control Board
granted summary iudgment in favor of Envirocare
of Utah on eight of nine issues raised in appeals of
the Executive Secretary'r Joly 9 decision to
approve-subiect to specified limitations and
conditions-the company's application to receive
and dispose of containerized Class A, B, and C
low-level radioactive'n/aste at its facility in Tooele
County, Utah. (See LLIV Notes,July/August
2001,pp.6-9).
On the same date, the Board denied Families
Against Incinerator Risk (FAIR) standing to
intervene in the issuance of a license amendment
to allow Envitocare to dispose of containerized
Class A waste in an existing cell.
Containerized Class A, B and C Application
(New Cell)
Approval of the License Request TheJuly 9
technical decision to approve Envirocare's license
request is based on a review by the Utah Division
of Radiation Conttol and its conftactor, URS
Corporation, of Envirocare's application,
supporting technical documents and public
comments. It contains the foliowing conditions:
o the legislature and Governor must both
approve the facility;
o the legislature must determine ownership of
the site after 100 years of closure of the
facility; and
o the legislature must authorize sufficient
resources to the Division of Radiation Control
to oversee transportation and disposal
activities associated with the [cense. A
tentative decision to approve Envirocare's
license request was originally issued on
January 2, 2007. (See I .I .W Note:, Jantary /
February 2001, pp. 1, 6.)
Envirocare's Decision Not to Seek Legislative
or Gubematorial Approval Shotly aftet the
license request was approved, Envirocare issued a
statement that "[a]fter careful considemtion,
Envirocare has determined it will not seek
legislative or gubernatorial approval for its Class B
and C low-level radioactive waste proposal."
Under Utah law, the Governot and legislature
must approve any new waste disposal [censes.
Envirocare's decision was attdbuted to public
confusion between the companies proposal and
that of the Goshute Tribe and Private Fuel
Storage (PFS) to accept highJevel spent fuel rods
from nuclear power plants.
The legislative session concluded on Match 6,
2002 with no action being taken. A final agency
action must occur pdor to any legislative or
gubetnatorial action.
SummaryJudgment In late 2001, five groups
filed appeals to the Executive Secrctary's decision.
Three of them were granted intervenor status: (1)
Families Against Incinerator Risk fAIR), (2)
Utah Legislative Watch, and (3) Citizens Against
Radioactive lfaste. A fourth, Sierra Club,
withdrew its petition to intervene at a hearing on
January 4, 2002. A decision regarding intervenor
status of the last appellant, the U.S. Ait Force, was
delayed pending potential resolution of the issues
that the Air Force brought before the board. AII
parties agreed that the Air Force issues could be
decided separately on an issue and timing basis.
The March 1 grant of summary iudgment goes to
the following eight issues:
o whethet issuance of the license application
poses an unreasonable risk to the health and
safety of the public;
8 LLW Notes March/Apttz}l2
)
o whether proper procedures were followed in
granting an exemption to land ownership
requirements;
o whether the land ownership exemption
previously granted for Class A waste can be
propedy applied to Class B and C waste
disposal;
o whether it was improper to issue a license
without the site access program being in place;
o whether issues regarding assumption of
ownership were ptopedy dealt with prior to
issuance of the license;
o whether the license contains improper
conditions and was impropedy issued;
o whether the licensing decision violates
comPact law; and
o whether there was improper bias and
prejudice on the part of the Board.
One issue - whether Envirocare's emefgency
response and contingency plans afe adequate -
was denied summary judgment. The Board gave
FAIR until March 15 to raise any other issues that
"may have been missed." Envirocare will then
have until March 25 to respond to any such filing
by FAIR. A hearing on any others that are raised
by FAIR prior to March 15, will be held at the
Board's April5 meeting. Parties will present a
schedule for hearing at the April 5 meeting for the
outstanding issue.
Containerized Class A Amendment (Existing
Cell)
Background On November 19, the Utah
Radiation Control Board received from Families
Against Incinerator Risk a Request for Agency
Action and Review and Petition to Intervene in
the matter of the issuance of license amendment
#12 to Envirocare of Utah. The license
amendment, which was issued by the Board's
Executive Secretary on October 19, amends
Envirocare's existing license to allow the company
to receive and dispose of containerized Class A
low-level radioactive waste in the existing cell at
Envirocare's facility in Tooele County, Utah. (See
LLIV N o tes, September/October 2007, p. 7 .)
FAIR contests the issuance of the license
amendment and requests, among other things,
that it be invalidated.
For an explanation of tbe irsaes raised @ FAIR in its
appeal, see LLIV Notes. Nouenberf December 200/,
Pp.7-8.
Denial of Standing The March 1 decision
denied FAIR standing to intervene in the issuance
of the license amendment by a 10 to 0 vote.
Administratively, for the Utah DMsion of
Radiation Control, the denial constitutes a "final
agency action." Howevef, FAIR may appeal the
Board's decision to deny standing to the Utah
Court of Appeals.
Docaments related to Enuirocare's applicationfor the
diEosal of containeiryd Class A, B and C radioactiae
waste-inclading a copl of Enuirocare's licerse applicatiott,
tbe draft Safeq Eyahation kpon, tbe draftRadioactiue
Materials Ucense, and tbe draft Grourdwater Discharge
Perrzit--as well as to tbe comparyt's @plication to dirpose
of containeiT,ed Class A waste in the existing cell an
auailable for reaiew and doynloading on tbe Diuision of
Radiation Coxtrol's aebsite at
wuw.deq.state.at us/ egrad/ drc hn?g.btru.
Forfartber information aboat tbe application or tbe
appeals, please contact Bill Sinckir of tbe Utab Diuision of
Radiation Contml at (801) 5364250.
LLWNotes March/Apil 2002 I
Potentially Radiologically
Contaminated Tools Removed
from Envirocare; May Have
Been Sold to the Public
The Department of Environmental Q"rlity(DEQ of the State of Utah recendy sent out an
information notice stating that a formet employee
of Broken Arow, ln6.-2 contractor for
Envirocare of Utah-allegedly removed
contaminated tools intended for disposal as waste
at the Envirocare facility and sold them to
Oquirrh Trading Company, a Tooele County
pawn shop. DEQ was notified of the problem by
Envirocare after the compafly discovered the
alleged theft. The trading company's records
indicate that a number of tools may have been
sold to members of the public from January to
December 2001. The lsels-whigh may include
large ratchet and socket sets, large crescent
wrenches, and other hand tools-may or may not
be marked U.S., U.S. CCC, US EC and may be
painted red. DEQ's Division of Radiation
Control recendy recovered some of the
contaminated tools at the trading company. The
Tooele County Health Department assessed
potentially contaminated tools brought in by the
public at named locations and times from
February 27 toMztch 4. Local and state
environmental health officials will arrange for the
proper disposal of tools which are determined to
be contaminated.
"V4-rile we do not believe these contaminated
tools present any significant health threat to
members of the public, it is prudent to make sure
that these tools are rounded up and propedy
disposed," said Bill Sinclair, Director of the
Division of Radiation Control. Myron Bateman
of the Tooele County Health Department stated,
'lWe are h^ppy to provide facilities and cooperate
with the Department of Environmental euality in
assuring that ouf Tooele citizens can have the
opportunity to assess if there is a problem with
tools that may have been purchased at the Trading
Company."
Further investigation revealed that the employee
had more contaminated tools at his house and had
sold a number of tools to the local pawn shop.
Some of the tools sold by the pawn shop had
been sold to members of the public. Not all the
tools were contaminated and a dose assessment
conducted confirmed that handling of the tools
did not pose a significant health risk. However,
the Division of Radiation Conrol believed it to be
prudent to tfy to recover any contaminated tools
for rerurn to Envirocare for proper disposal.
All of the pawn shops in Tooele County have
been visited by inspectors of the Division of
Radiation Control and DEQ is satisfied that the
problem is confined to the one business. This
matter is still under investigation by the Division
of Radiation Control. An Order to Modi$r
License Procedures and License was issued by the
Division to facilitate new prevefltarive measures.
Envirocare has and will implement rhe new
preventative measufes.
Foryour irformation, copies of press botb tbe
Utab Diuitiln ofRadiatior Coxlrol ard Enuirocare of
Utab are attacbed. For additional irforruation, please
contact Bill Sinckir, Dirutor of the Diaision of Radiation
lntrol, at (801) 5i64255, or Kenretlt Alkena, Acting
Pruidert of Enuirocare of Utab, at (801) 5 j2-1j30.
(Continued from page 11)
the state and private sectors. He served as the
Director of the Division of Radiological Health in
Tennessee for neady 18 years until his retirement
in 2000. He currently works as a consultant to
government entities and private industry on
matters of radiation safery.
For additional information, contact Katbrln Halnes,
Executiue Dirutor of tbe Soatbeast Co@act Commission
for l-^ow-Inel Radioactiue l%aste Management, at (919)
821-0500.
10 LLW Notes March/Apil21l2
Ro c[<y M ount ain Comp a ct / C olorado Southeast Compact
New Jersey Waste Shipments New fficers Elected to
to Colorado Delayed Southeast Gompact
The Colorado Health Department recendy
delayed the issuance of a petmit to the Cotter
Corporation which would allow the shipment of
slighdy radioactive soil from NewJersey for
disposal at the comPany's utanium mill near
Canon City. The decision to delay the permit
issuance was made after Colorado Governor Bill
Owens raised questions about the plan, saying that
the "health department should thoroughly review
whether the proposed shipments ftom NewJersey
are covered by the Cotter Corporation's cuffent
permit." In particular, Health Department offi-
cials are inquiring as to how the materials would
be unloaded from railroad cars, how they would
be stofed, and how they would be tested to ensure
that they meet the facility's permit limitations.
The waste in question consists of over 450,000
tons of pre-UMTRCA mill tailings from a
May;vood, NewJersey Formedy Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program GUSRAP) site. (See
IJ-IY Notes, September/October 2001, pp. 15-16.)
The site is being cleaned up by the U.S. Army
Coqps of Engineers.
Over 100 local residents attended a meeting
hosted by the Cotter Corpotation in eady Match,
with many of them expressing opposition to the
company's plan. Shordy thereaftet, Fremont
County Commissioners requested a six-month
moratorium on the disposal proiect in letters sent
to the Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Enviton-
mental Protection Agency Administtator Christine
Whitman, and members of Colorado's
congtessional delegation.
In addition, House Majority Leader Lola Spradley
S.-Beulah) recendy introduced legislation to make
it more difficult for Cottet and other such
companies to accePt out-of-state waste in the
future. Under Colorado law, the General
Commission
At its April 12 meeting, the Southeast Compact
Commission for Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Management elected a new slate of officers-
including a Chak,Vice-Chair and Secretary/
Treasuter.
James Setser, who has served as one of the nvo
Georgia Commissioners since the creation of the
Commission in 1983, was elected Chair. He has
over thitty-eight years of professional experience
in managing environmental programs in the
federal, state and private sectors and has served as
Vice-Chair of the Commission since 1992. He
currendy serves as Chief of Program Cootdination
in the Georgia Environmental Ptotection
Division, the state liaison officer to the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Governot's
representative to the U.S. Department of Energy's
State and Tribal Governments l7orking Group,
and as a technical resoufce to the Govemor's
office on nuclear matters. Setser replaces Dr.
Richard Hodes of Florida who recendy passed
away. (See LLIV Notes,January/February 2002,
P.7.)
Richard Hunter was elected Vice-Chair of the
Commission. Huntef, who has served as one of
t'wo Florida Commissioners since 1990, curendy
serves as President and CEO of Food Technology
Service, Inc. He previously worked as Florida's
Deputy State Health Officer whete he oversaw,
among other offices, the state Bureau of Radiation
Control.
Michael Mobley was elected as Secretary/
Treasurer-a position he has held since 1999.
Mobley, who has served as one of t'wo Tennessee
Commissioners since 1984, has over thirry-eight
years of environmental management experience in
(Continued on Page 10)
LLtVNotes March/Apil 2002 11
(Continued on page 12)
S outhwe st e m C o mp act / C alifomia
Legislation lntroduced in
California re Disposal Facility
Licensing
On February 20, 2002, California Assembly
Member Fred Keeley @) introduced a bill in the
state legislature that would, among other things,
prohibit the proposed Ward Valley low-level
radioactive waste disposal site from serving as the
state's facility for purposes of the Southwestern
Low-Level Radioactive rJTaste Disposal Compact
and that would prohibit the state from accepting
ownership or other property rights to the site of
that facility. In addition, the bill would repeal the
authority of the State Director of Health Services
to lease specified property to construct, operate
and close a low-level radioactive waste disposal
facility.
As introduced, the bill would define terms and
would prohibit the California Department of
Health Services from issuing or renewing a low-
Ievel radioactive waste disposal facility license
unless a specific determination wefe made that the
design and operation of the facility meets certain
cdteria and requirements. Those criteria and
requirements afe as follows:
0 ensure that no radioactive material will be
introduced into the environment;
r provide continuous monitoring and repackag-
ing of materials to prevent any release into the
environment;
o store the waste in containers that will not leak
into the environment and that are labeled with
the name of the generatof, shipper, date and
contents by amount, type, and half-life;
r design the facility to prevent the escape of
waste from a container;
o design the facility to include multiple,
engineered barriers, including-but not
limited to-redundant, impermeable floors,
walls, ceilings, and effluent collection systems,
designed to contain any spilled or leaked waste
and prevent exposure to rain or other
environmen tal haz at ds;
a store each container in a manner provding
visual inspection and ready access;
o repackage any detedorating containers; and
o collect and place into new containers any
spilled or leaked radioactive materials and any
resulting contaminated materials.
The bili, A.8.221,4, passed 6 to 2 out of Assembly
Environmental Safety and Toxic Matedals
Committee on April 9. It was heard on Apil24
in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
(Continued from page 11)
Assembly and the Governor have the authority to
control where highJevel radioactive waste is stored
in the state. Spradely's bill, HB 1408, would extend
this authority to low-level radioactive u/aste-
although the terms of the bill do not extend to sites
farther than five miles from incorporated cities and
towns. In particular, the bill would require at least
two public hearings, an environmental assessment,
and approval from the Colorado Health Depart-
ment befofe lowlevel radioactive material can be
brought into the state.
A Cotter Corporation official was quoted in local
papers as saying that the company has no intention
of entering the radioactive waste disposal business,
but rather needs the income from the Maywood
contract to carry it through a down time in the
uranium business. The same official was quoted as
noting that soil from the Maywood site is five to 10
times less radioactive than the tailings aheady on the
company's site. Cotter Corporation has acknowl-
edged, nonetheless, that it is interested in accepting
radioactive waste similar to that which can be found
at the Ma)-urood site from a site on Long Island, New
York.
12 LLW Notes March/April2002
Texas Compactr/Maine
Maine Drafts Legislation to
Withdrawfiom Texas
Compact
Recendy, the State of Maine drafted legislation to
withdraw from the Texas Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Disposal Compact. The bill, tided "An Act
to Repeal Provisions Imposing Financial
Obligations on Electric Consumers Resulting
from the Texas Iow-Level Radioactive !7aste
Disposal Compact," was introduced into the
Maine legislature and presented at hearing on
March 20. ln its current form, the bill states, in
part, as follows:
"Pursuant to Sections 7.03,7.04 and 7.05 of the
Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal
Compact, the State of Maine hereby unilaterally
and irrevocably withdraws from and terminates its
agreements under the Compact. The State of
Maine takes this step due to the closure of the
State's largest generator of low-level radioactive
waste in 7997, obviating the need for Maine's
membership in the Compact, and due to the
failure of the host state to cause a facility to be
built in a timely manner pursuant to Section 4.04
of the Compact agfeement."
The legislation is sponsored by Representative
W. Savage p) of Buxton. It has been refered to
the Committee on Utilities and Energy. To date,
there has been no opposition voiced to the
legislative committee. Initial work sessions on the
bill, which was introduced as emergency
legislation, began in April
The votefs of Maine approved the state's entry
into the Texas Compact in 1993 and the compact
was ratified by Congress in 1998. Under the
terms of the compact, the State of Texas has sole
responsibility for building, operating and
decommissioning a low-level radioactive waste
disposal facility and the states of Maine and
Vermont are each required to pay Texas $25
million to offset construction costs. Under a letter
agreement between the Govemors of the three
states, payments by Maine and Vermont were
suspended indefinitely-despite a compact
paragaph calling for a972.5 million paymenr
from each state within 90 days of Congressional
ratification.
At the time of entry into the compact, Maine
Yankee-the state's sole nuclear power plant-
v/as expected to begin decommissioning at the
termination of its operating license in 2008. In
7997 , the owner of Maine Yankee decided to
terminate operations and undertake immediate
decommissioning of the unit. Currently, more
than 50% of the decommissioning process has
been completed and substantial amounts of waste
have been shipped for disposal at the Barnwell,
South Carolna and Envirocare of Utah facilities.
According to Public Advocate, "[g]enerators of
radioactive waste in Maine, other than Maine
Yankee, account for less than 2000 cubic feet of
radioactive waste shipments annually, chiefly from
laboratories and medical facilities. AII of this
waste is classified as eligible for disposal at the
Envirocare facility in Utah."
Under the provisions of the Texas Compact,
either non-host state may enact legislation
withdrawing itself from the compact provided that
the withdrawal does not take effect for two years.
During that two year period, the withdrawing state
remains liable for operating costs of the Texas
Compact Commission and for any payments that
are due and payable to the host county. Currently,
no compact commission has been formed and a
host county has not been designated.
Under Maine's legislative procedures, a bill does
not take effect after passage until 90 days after
adjoumment of the legislarure. The bilt
withdrawing the state from the Texas Compact
was introduced as emergency legislation, however,
which raises the visibility of the issue and allows
the bill to take effect upon signature by the
Govemor.
LltilNotes March/Apil 2002 13
US Ecology v. State of Califomia
lnteruention Denied in US
Ecology's Promissory
Estoppel Action Against
Galifomia
On March 29,Judge E. Mac Amos of the Superior
Court of the State of California denied petitions
by Committee to Bridge the Gap, the Los Angeles
Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility,
and the Southern California Federation of
Scientists to intervene in the remaining cause of
action in a lawsuit filed by US Ecology concerning
the development of the proposed low-level
radioactive waste disposal facility in !7ard Valley,
California. In so doing, Mac Amos held that "the
Proposed Interveners, otgtrizaions concerned
with the medical and environmental implications
of nuclear technolory, do not have a direct and
immediate interest in the remaining cause of
action for promissory estoppel."
Jh6 s25s-v/hich names as defendants the State
of California, the Governor, and the Department
of Health Services and its !i1gs1e1-2llsg65
breach of contract and promissory estoppel causes
of action on the part of the defendants and seeks
a writ of mandate directing the state to take the
necessary steps to acquire the Ward Valley site.
The suit, as originally fi.led, seeks in excess of $762
million in damages. (See I I 1y Ttrotes,May f Jute
2000, pp. 20-22.)
Ptocedural History
In September 2007, a three-judge panel of the
State of California Court of Appeal for the Fourth
Appellate District reversed in part and affirmed in
part a lower court's decision in the action. The
ruling affirmed the lower court's findings that US
Ecology "cannot state a breach ofan express or
implied contract cause of action based on the . . .
[Memotandum of Understanding], and that
Ecology has failed to state a contract cause of
action based on any other alleged oral or written
agreement." The appellate court also affirmed the
lower court's holding that US Ecology could not
sustain a claim to force the State of California to
take action necessary to cause estab]ishment of the
Ward Valley site.
However, the appellate court reversed the lower
court's findings in regard to US Ecology's claim
for promissory estoppel, holding as follows:
"1il7e conclude the complaint stated a cause of
action for promissory estoppel. We emphasize,
however, that this conclusion means only that
Ecology has plead sufficient facts to ovefcome a
demurrer. Ecology will still be required to prove
its claims, and we offer no opinion as to the
likelihood that Ecology will be able to do so. We
note further that although Ecology seeks all of its
preparation costs and alleged lost profits, the full
scope of contract-based damages are not
necessarily recoverable undet the equitable
promissory estoppel doctrine."
Both US Ecology and the State of Califomia
petitioned the California Supreme Court to review
the Court of Appeals'September 5 decision.
However, in December2D}7 the California
Supreme Court denied the petitions for review.
(See I .l IV No/er, November/December 2001,
pp.1,12-13.)
The case is now awaiting remand for trial in the
Superior Court of the State of California, San
Diego. Trial has been set forJanuary 2003.
Denial of Intervention
In denying the petitions to intervene, the court
found as follows:
"Plaintiff US Ecology's Fifth Cause of Action for
Promissory Estoppel is based upon assurances
made by defendants starting in December 1985
that they would remain committed to completing
(Continued on page 17)
14 LLW Nofes March/Aptt2}lz
Committee to Bidge the Gap v.
California Department of llealth
Serrrrces
Court Throws Out New
Califomia Waste Regulations
A Sacramento County Superior Court judge
recendy nullified new waste disposal regulations
adopted by the California Department of Health
Services (DHS) in November 2001. The DHS
regulations mirror federal Nuclear Regulatory
Commission regulations that allow, within
specified limitations, the disposal of slighdy
contaminated radioactive materials in regular
landfills. The regulations, according to DHS,
follow fedetal guidelines for decommissioning
nuclear facitties and pose no threat to the public.
In fact, DHS notes that the new regulations
actually tighten cleanup standards for
contaminated sites. The court, however, found
that the regulations "will have a significant adverse
environmental effect." Moreover, the court ded
that, contrary to claims of state officials, California
has the authority to pursue more protective
standards for radioactive waste disposal, but failed
to consider that option in violation of state law.
The court's ding was made in response to a
lawsuit filed by Committee to Bridge the Gap, the
California Federation of Scientists, and Physicians
for Social Responsibility. The plaintiffs argue that
landfills are not designed to safely accommodate
nuclear waste.
Prior regulations required the elimination of
radioactivity when sites are cleaned up. The
new regulations, however, allow the release of
sites for another use (and the disposal of debris
from the site in an ordinary landfill) if the sites
produce less than 25 millrem of radioactivity per
year. Such low levels of radiation are not a risk,
according to DHS, which notes that the average
Amedcan receives 360 miilirems of radiation each
year-300 millirems ftom natural sources and
about 60 millirems from man-made activities.
Opponents of the rules complain, however, that it
is not sufficiendy protective of public safety and
the environment. As a result, state Senator Gloria
Romero (D), Chair of the Senate Select
Committee on Urban Landfills, has introduced
legislation that would prohibit the disposal of
radioactive materials in regular landfills and that
would increase monitodng at landfills to prevent
radioactive waste fiom being sent there. The bill,
SB 1,623,would expand the scope of radioactive
materials that must be disposed of in a licensed
facility. The bill was heard in the Senate
Environmental Quality Committee on Apil22.
According to news accounts, DHS currendy
licenses and monitors approximately 2,100 users
of radioactive materials. Since 1962,
approximately 4,000 sites in California have been
released from state licensing. Since the new DHS
regulation has taken effect, no soil or other
radioactive waste has been disposed of at an
ordinary landfill because no new sites have been
decommissioned.
Romano Appointed CEO of
American Ecology
Company Receives $5 million
BNFL Cleanup Contract
Eadier this week, the Board of Directors of
American Ecology Corporation announced rhe
appointment of Stephen Romano as Chief
Executive Officer of the company, effective
immediately. Romano, who has worked fot
American Ecology and its subsidiades for more
than 72 years, has served as President and Chief
Operating Officer of the company since October
2001 and retains those tides.
In announcing the appointment, the Board stated:
"U7e are very pleased to appoint Steve Romano to
lead American Ecology as Chief Executive
(Continued on page 24)
LLWNofes March/Apfl 2002 15
U.S. Department of Energy v. State of
Nevada Walker v. Cheney
DOE Sues Nevada re Yucca GAO/Con gressional Leaders
Water Permits Sue Over White House Energy
PolicyThe U.S. Departmeflt of Energy recendy filed a
petition in the U.S. District Court in Las Vegas to
contest a state official's refusal to extend
temporary water permits at the site of the
proposed Yucca Mountain highJevel radioactive
waste repository. The state official refused to
extend the temporary permits in February, after
President George W. Bush approved the
department's decision to build a permaneflt
repository at the Yucca Mountain site, on the
basis that the site characteization process was
complete and the temporary permits were no
longer necessary.
DOE added the petition to a prior complaint
challenging the state's denial of a permanent water
supply at Yucca Mountain. The department
contends that the refusal decision contradicts state
law and that, without water, DOE wofl't be able
to complete scientific studies needed to provide "a
reasonable assurance that the pubiic and the
environment will be adequately protected from
the hazards posed by high-level radioactive waste
and spent nuclear fueI."
The state filed its answer to both complaints in
late March. As part of its response, the state is
seeking dismissal of the federal request for the
temporary water permit. In papers filed before
the court, Nevada attomeys argue that the project
is legally dead and water is not needed at the site
until Congess acts to override Nevada Governor
Kenny Guinn's veto of the proposed repository.
"Ody if Congress passes new legislation
overriding the Notice of Disapproval and if the
President signs this new legislation, the Yucca
Mountain Project may be revived. Until this
eventually happens, a matter of considerable
speculation at this point, the project is legally
dead."
David Walker, Compuoller General of the
General Accounting Office, filed a lawsuit in late
February against the White House seeking
information about the Bush administration's
energy policy. Specifically, *ls 26ti6n-$/hich was
filed at the request of Democrads l2wm2ks1s-
seeks records of a task force led by Vice President
Dick Cheney. It alleges that environmentalists
were excluded from the closed-door task Soup
meetings, while members of industry were not.
One of the controversial issues in Bush's energy
policy challenged by supporters of the Iitigation is
a revival of nuclear power and, more specifically,
the decision to support the proposed Yucca
Mountain highJevel radioactive waste repository.
The action seeks, among other things, to
determine whether the task force impacted the
Bush decision to support repository development.
The White House argues that releasing records
from the enetgy task force would erode lWhite
House authority and blur the constitutional lines
between the legislative and executive branches of
govemment.
16 LLW Notes March/April2}l?
Russian Supreme Court
Prohibits Hungary lmpofts
Environmentalists were handed a victory recendy
by the Russian Supreme Court when it struck
down a govefnment decision to allow the import
of nuclear waste from Hungary for storage. The
court found that a 1,9921aw which allows Russia
to import spent fuel rods from the Ukraine,
Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Hungary for reprocessing
specifically requires the return of such waste to
the countries of origin for permanent storage.
The lawsuit was initially filed by Greenpeace and
other environmental organizations last year when
they became aware of a 7998 government decision
to allow nuclear waste from Hungary to be sent to
Russia for storage.
Envitonmentalists are also objecting to a law
signed last year that allows the import of spent
nuclear fuel from foreign countries for
teprocessing and storage. (See IJ,IV Notes, J,,iy /
August 2001, p. 16.) Under the plan, spent fuel
from foreign countries will be seflt to Russia via
armored ttain for reprocessing. Russia is expected
to earn $20 billion over the next decade under the
plan, importing neady 22,000 tons of spent
nuclear fuel. Part of the revenues are slated for
use to clean up existing nuclear pollution in
Russia. Environmentalists, howevef , fezt that
Russia's crumbling infrastructure and weak
government make a dangerous environment for
importing radioactive materials.
(Continued from page 14)
the ptocess necessary to develop a low-level
radioactive v/aste disposal facility at !7ard Valley.
US Ecology alleges that defendants promised they
would make US Ecology the sole and exclusive
low level tadioactive waste disposal licensee in []
California for 30 yean. It appears to the court
that the Proposed Interveners'interests are not
founded upon these alleged promises, but are
founded upon environmental and safety concerns
related to the Ward Valley site. In this promissory
estoppel claim, the court does not address the
propriety of these alleged promises; rather, it must
inteqpret the legal effect if such promises were
made. Proposed interveners have not shown how
they would direcdy gain or lose by the legal
operation and effect of a iudgment awarding
damages for promises made by the State."
(citations omitted)
In response to the court's ruling, US Ecology
issued a media advisory stating, in part, as follows:
"US Ecology believes its case against the State is
strong, and expects to recovef substantial damages
at tial. Alternately, US Ecology is fully willing to
work with the State of California to expeditiously
complete the Ward Valley land tansfer, allowing
burial trench construction and subsequent
radioactive waste disposal to proceed in
accordance with the State's contractual obligations
to the Company and member states of the
Southwestem Compact."
Russia's Cleanup Work to be
Funded by Processing Foreign
Waste
Officials in Russia's Atomic Energy Ministry
have announced that they believe that the
processing of imported foreign waste is an
acceptable means of financing the processing of
Russia's own waste. Estimates indicate that
Russia has accumulated neady 14,000 metric tons
radioactive waste from the production of
, and additional amounts from the
of nuclear weapons. Russia has been
ing for the funds to process this waste in
to improve the ecologicd situation at
tion facilities. The Atomic Energy
Ministry has concluded that the processing of
foreign waste is a good way of collecting the
needed funds.
LLW Notes March/April21l2 17
U.S. Congtess
NRC's FY 2003 Budget Now Whistleblower Bill lntroduced
Available in Congress
A bipartisan group of congressional members
recendy introduced legislation that seeks to
protect whisdeblowers who expose wrongdoings
in either the federal government or the private
sector. The bill, known as the Paul Revere
Freedom to lVarn Act, would allow employees
and contractors who expose wrongdoings to file
civil actions in federal courts using jury trials if
they feel that they have been retaliated against.
The laws, as currendy written, do not provide for
penalties if the federal government or private
fitms are accused of retaliation.
The legislation was announced at aFebruary 27
news conference sponsored by Accuracy in Media,
American Federation of Government Employees,
Common Cause, Fund for Constitutional
Government, Govetnment Accountability Project,
National Taxpayers Union, National
Whisdeblower Center, Patrick Henry Center, and
Project on Government Ovetsight. The bill was
sponsoted by Senator Chatles Grassley GJO)
and Representatives Steve Israel @-Nl), Edward
Markey p-MA), and Constance Morella B-MD).
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has an-
nounced the availability of its budget to Congress
for FY 2003. The budget requests $605.6 million
"for regulation of the nation's nuclear power
plants and nuclear materials to protect public
health and safety, to promote the common de-
fense and security, and to protect the environ-
ment."
The FY 2003 budget request reflects a 4.7 percent
($27.1million) increase over the current budget.
Approximately half of the increase is for new re-
actor licensing activities, whereas the remaindet of
the increase is for federal pay raises and increases
in benefits and tetirement costs; reactor license
renewal; key safety research; keeping pace with the
U.S. Department of Energy's high-level waste
program; and additional investments in the
agency's information technology, human capital,
and facilities.
Two challenges highlighted by NRC in its budget
request arr- an increased focus on homeland secu-
rity and a renewed intetest in building nuclear
powef plants. For instance, the budget request
includes $29.3 million for homeland activities and
$24.8 million for new reactor initiatives such as
application reviews, regulatory improvements, and
new technology research. The budget request also
includes $16.9 million to review five license re-
newal applications expected in FY 2002 and
FY 2003.
Detailed information on NRC's budget request is
available at http: / /www.nrc. gov /who-we-are /
olans.htrnl
-
18 LLW Notes March/April 2002
U.S. Depattfitent of Energy
Sources Lost in Foreign
Countries
The U.S. Department of Energy has lost track of
hundreds of sealed sources sent to foreign
countries over the yeats, including soufces
containing plutonium, according to a fecent
Iflspectof General report. The sources, many of
which were loaned or given to foreign counffies
under the Atoms for Peace Program, were used to
calibrate radiation measuring and monitoring
instruments and for nuclear research and
development.
According to the IG, the problem arose because
pfopef enforcement fequifements for reporting
sealed source information to DOE's Nuclear
Materials Management Safeguards System wefe
not followed and efforts to maintain a separate
Sealed Source Registry were discontinued. The
report further found inconsistent information as
to whether the United States still owns many of
the loaned sources and who is responsible fot the
sources ultimate disposal. Accordingly, it
encouraged DOE to make determinations
prompdy as to ownership, location, condition, and
dispo sal responsibility.
The report attributed the lack of information
about loaned sealed sources to three main factors:
o DOE and its predecessors failed to effectively
monitor government-owned sources exported
to foreign countries,
r international agreements Iimit reporting by
foreign countdes on loaned nuclear matedals,
and
o international safeguard controls applying to
other forms of nuclear materials do not fully
apply to sealed sources, depending on the
amount and type of material that they contain.
The report calls on DOE to work with the
Intetnational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) "to
ensure that the sealed sources are properly
contolled and that existing record systems are
updated and reconciled." This is especially
important, according to the IG report, in light of
recent wodd events.
"Recent wodd events have undetscored the need
to strengthen the control over all nuclear
materials, including sealed sources. Individually
and collectively, sealed sources represent a health,
safety and material security concem."
The IG fepoft, "Accounting for Sealed Sources of
Nuclear Material Provided to Foreign Countries,"
@OEIIG-0546), is available athtp:/ /
www.ig.doe.gov.
DOE Proposes Rule to Protect
Classified lnfo
The U.S. Depattment of Enetgy is proposing a
new rule that would allow it to impose penalties
on contractors and subcontractors who unlawfully
and improperly divulge classifi ed information.
The proposed rule--which was published in the
April1 issue of the FederalRryister(pp. 15,3339)--is
a fesPonse to a contfoversial congressional re-
quirement attached to the FY 2000 Defense
Authorization Act which provides civil penalties
of up to $100,000 for specific securityviolations.
Under the proposed rule, DOE would assess civil
penalties for violations of
o regulations related to classified information,
o any department rule, regulation or order relat-
ed to the protection of restricted data, and
o compliance orders.
DOE held public meetings on the proposed rule
on May 22 and29 inLas Vegas and lJ7ashington,
D.C., tespectively. Comments on the proposed
rule are due byJuly 1 to Geralyn Praskievicz,
Office of Securiry, SO-1, Docket No. SO-RM-0O-
01, DOE, 1000Independence Avenue, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20585.
LLWNofes March/April 2002 19
U.S. Depattment of Transportation
Transportation: DOT Study
Expected Shortly, While NRC
Continues Revisions
The U.S. Department of Transportation is ex-
pected to complete a study shordy on the risks to
the public health, safety, environment and econ-
omy from the transportation of radioactive waste
from nuclear power plants and U.S. DePaftment
of Energy sites to the proposed Yucca Mountain
highJevel radioactive waste repository. The study
was commissioned by Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)
who, along with environmentalists and other op-
ponents, is highlightirlg transportation risks as a
major factor in the bid to shut down the Yucca
Mountain proiect.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cgmmission is ex-
pected to publish for public comment shordy pro-
posed regulations to make its radioactive materials
packaging and transportation standards compati-
ble with the latest International Atomic Energy
Agency (II\EA) transportation standards. NRC,
which coordinates its transportation regulations
with DOT, discusses 19 issues in the proposed
regulations-11of which are designed to ensure
consistency with IAEA standards and eight of
which are initiated by NRC.
Some of the issues included in the rule are:
o whether to adopt the IAEA's uniform, dose-
based radionuclide exemption standard or use
the current concentration-based standatd,
r whether Part77 certificate holders can safely
make limited changes to the design of a trans-
portation package, as permitted for reactor
and spent fuel storage facility licensees,
r whether single or double containment should
be tequired for plutonium packages, and
r whether a standard should be developed for
review of large-object packages, or whether
each request should be reviewed through ex-
emptions on a case by case basis.
A series of public meetings will be held on the
proposed regulations. They have not been sched-
uled as ofyet.
A copy of the proposed rule can be obtained from
NRC's web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
(Continued from page 1)
solid material cleatance, conditional clearance,
and no release.
Clearance
The term "clearance" means that the material
meets Iicensing criteria to be reused without
restriction, tecycled into a consumef product, or
disposed of at a landfill. Many participants at the
committee's information-gathering meetings --
including environmental groups, steel industry
officials, and licensee representatives -- expressed
concem about this category. The concerns in-
cluded potential health risks, ptoduct stigma-
tization,liability and economic costs. The
committee did not make a specific fecommen-
dation on how to deal with this category, but
mther oudined how the NRC can evaluate the
potential impacts of various options.
Conditional Clearance
The term "conditional clearance" means that
material must be used in a specified application
(such as being melted into shielding blocks for use
at nuclear facilities) or disposed of at municipal
solid waste landfills, construction and demolition
waste landfills, and industrial nonhazatdous
landfills. Such matedal would not be used in
general commefce.
No Release
The term ttno feleasettmeans that t'matedals
remain under the conuol of the Nuclear
20 LLW Nofes March/April2002
(Contlnued on page 21)
U.S. lVuc/e at Regulatory Commission
Hearings Set re Skull Valley
Proposed Spent Fuel Facility
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
established a schedule for a series of headngs, to
be held in April and May 2002, on a request to
license a spent nuclear fuel storage facility on the
Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians
Reservation. The proposd is being sponsored by
Private Fuel Storage,L.L.C.-a coalition of
nuclear utilities seeking to site the proposed
facility on the Goshutes reservation. To date, a
great deal of opposition to the proposed facility-
which would be located about 60 miles sourhwest
of Salt Lake City-has been raised, including
opposition by the State of Utah and its Governor.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB)
will preside over the hearings, taking testimony
and cross-examinations. The hearings will be
open to the public, but participation will be
limited to interested panies previously admitted to
the proceedings, including:
o Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C.,
o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff,
o the State of Utah,
o the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians,
o Ohngo Gaudadeh Devia,
r the Confederated Tribes of the Goshute
Reservation, and
r the Southern Utah Wildemess Alliance.
Four issues will be covered in the hearing:
a a contention that adequate consideration has
not been given to hazards from military
urcraft and other operations near the area,
o inquiries as to the ability of the facility to
withstand possible earthquakes,
potential groundwater contamination from
non-tadiological waste, and
issues regarding whether the environmental
impact statement adequately addresses
alternatives to the placement of the proposed
connection railway to the facility.
Information about the hearing locations and
schedule can be found at http://www.nrc.gov/puUtlc-meetingsZmee .
For additional inforzzation, contact tbe Atomic Safegt and
Licensing Board Ofice at (i01) 41 5-5036.
(Continued from page 20)
Regulatory Commission or an agreement state that
has assumed the commission's authority to
regulate certain [censees." Such materials today
would need to be sent to Envirocare of Uah,
Chem-Nuclear's Barnwell facility, or US Ecology's
Richland site. According to the committee's
estimates, the total cost to dispose of all slighdy
radioactive metal and concrete from U.S. powef
reactors would be $4.5 billion - $11.7 billion. In
comparison, material that qualifies as "conditional
clearance" can be sent to a landfill with estimated
disposal costs ranging from 9300 million to g1
billion.
The National Research Council committee's
feport cautioned that its "fecommendations apply
only to slighdy radioactive solid material licensed
by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and
agree-meflt states, and not to the disposition of
materials from the closing of government nuclear
weapons facilities."
Copies of tbe National Rcsearcb Comcil nport can be
found on tbe internet at http:/ /utww.nap.edu. Copies can
also be purcbandfrun tbe National Acaderyy Pns fot
calling [phone].
LLWNofes March/April 2002 21
NRC Opens New Security ffice Revision2ol DraftYucca
On April T, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
sion opened its new Office of Nuclear Security
and Incident Response. \ffhereas, in the past,
NRC had assigned security responsibilities based
on the type of faciJity requiring protection, the
new office allows for centralization and consolida-
tion of security activities which NRC hopes will
lead to improved communication and coordina-
tion-both within the agency and with external
entities. The creation of the new office was, at
leastin part,^ response to the September 11 ter-
forist acts.
The new office has a variety of responsibilities,
including:
o managing the NRC operations center, devel-
oping and directing the NRC program for re-
sponse to incidents, and interacting with the
Fedetal Emetgency Management Agency and
othet federal agencies,
o developing and implementing safeguards, se-
curity policy and oversight for a variety of
rypes of facilities and for transportation activi-
ties,
o accounting and conuolling materials and ap-
plytng international safeguard activities of
NMSS,
o providing technical support and coordination
for safeguards, licensing and rulemaking activ-
ities implemented by NMSS and NRX"
o developing contingency planning and emer-
gency fesponse activities for safety and safe-
guards events,
o coordinating with intelligence and law en-
forcement communities,
o assessing threats, and
o administeringNRC counterintelligence,secure
telecommunications, and classification/declas-
sification programs.
Review Plan Now Available
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
released Draft Revision 2 of its plan to review an
application to build a proposed high-level
radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada should the U.S. Department of Energy
submit such an application. The plan's principal
pu{pose is "to ensure the quality and uniformity
of the NRC staffs licensing reviews."
The original draft plan was made public last year.
It was revised, however, because it is out-of-date
and inconsistent with NRC's final regulations-
issued in November 2007.
The draft review plan has separate sections for
potential reviews of safety of the repository prior
to permanent closure, safety after permanent
closure, the performance confirmation program,
and administrative and programmatic
requirements. Each section defines NRC's review
of DOE's compliance with NRC regulations.
The NRC plans to accept pubtc comments, and
to hold public meetings, on the draft.
A toPJ of tbe 'Yucca Mountain Reaiew Pkr, Drafi
Reyision 2" is aaailabh on tbe NRC's web site dt btt?:/ /
,,nvw. n rc go a / a a s te / h lw - di s? o s a I / dra{t! u c c a -? la n I d!.
22 LLW Notes March/April2002
NRC Orderc lncreased Reactor NRC to Exempt Umetco from
Security Groundwater Cleanup
RequirementsIn late February, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission ordered the implementation of
interim compensatory security measures at a11,704
commercial nuclear power plants in light of the
generalized "high-level threat environment." The
order was, in part, a f.orma\zatton of security
measures implemented by NRC licensees
following the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Additional security measures are, however,
included which emerged from a comprehensive
security review undertaken by NRC following the
attacks. According to the otder, the requirements
remain in effect until the commission either
"determines that the level of threat has
diminished, or that other security changes are
needed following a comprehensive re-evaluation
of current safeguards and security programs."
Licensees had 20 days from issuance of the ordet
in which to provide NRC with a compliance
schedule. They also were required to notifi, NRC
within 20 days and provide written justification of
any inability to comply with specific requirements,
of the inapplicability of requirements to their
specific site, or of violations to operating license
provisions or decreases in plant safety that would
result from implementation of specific
tequitements.
Many of the new security measures were not
released, for safety pulposes. However, they are
said to include things such as augmented security
forces and capabilities, increased patrols, new
security posts, installation of new physical barriers,
vehicle checks at grc ter distances from the plants,
greater coordination with Iaw enforcement and
military authorities and greater site access conffols.
The teleasable portions of NRC's order have been
posted to NRC's web site at http://www.nrc.gov
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is
proposing to gfant an amendmeflt to soufce
materials license of the Umetco uranium mill in
Wyoming that would, in effect, alleviate the
company of meeting certain groundwater cleanup
requirements that it maintains are ovetly
burdensome and financially impractical. The
Umetco site, which involved the operation of a
utanium mill site in \Tyoming ftom 1960 to 7979,
is now licensed to possess byproduct matedal in
the form of uranium waste, such as mill tailings,
generated by past uranium ptocessing operations.
Specifically, the amendment would allour Umetco
to apply alternate concentration limits to licensed
constituents of groundwater. An environmental
assessment determined that granting the
amendment would not impact the likelihood or
consequences of previously analyzed accidents,
nor would it impact facility radiation levels or
radiological effluents.
In addition to citing the high costs of compliance
as a basis for the requested amendment, lJmetco
notes that the presence of contaminated water
from other nearby mines would impact its ability
to meet the standards.
Detaib of the proporcd amendmert can befoud on
NRC' s ADAMS Pablic Elecntnic Reading Room at
bttp: / / www.nrcgoa f reading-m. htnl.
LLW Notes March/April2\l2 23
Annual Report lssued by NRC
ffice of Enforcement
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
Office of Enforcement has issued its FY 2001
Annual Repot which describes enfotcement
activities which occurred during the year, as well
as addresses significant policy changes, new
initiatives, staff guidance and implementation
issues for the agency's enforcement program.
Also included in the report are summaries of
enforcement cases and actions which the
commission took against facility owners and
materials users. Included in the report were two
policy revisions, 89 escalated Notices of Violation
without civil penalties, 20 proposed civil penalties,
and 18 orders, five of which imposed civil
penalties.
In issuing the report, NRC stated that its
"enforcement program continues to emphasize
the importance of compliance with regulatory
requirements, and to encourage prompt
identification and comprehensive correction of
violations."
A cW of the enforcenentpmgrarn's anrual report is
aaailable at NRC'r Electronic RtadingRoom at
uww.ilrcgzu as well as an Agetrywide Doowent Access
and Management Slsten (ADAMS) donrrrent (accusion
nsruber ML020250035).
ASLB Orders Goshutes to Detail Pay.
ment lnformation; NRC Blocks Ruling
e U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
tomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) in
February directed leaders of the Skull Valley Band
of Goshute Indians to disclose how much money
it has received from Private Fuel Storage,
L.L.C.-the consortium of nuclear utilties seek-
ing to site a spent fuel storage facility on the
oshute's 1s5grv2ti6n-and to detail how pay-
have been spent to date, as well as what
payments are expected to be made in the future.
e order was made in response to a request from
dissident members of the Goshute tribe. Finan-
cial details were to be due onMarchZ2.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, how-
ever, subsequendy blocked the ASLB's decision-
temporarily holding that tribal leaders need not
isclose the requested financial information. In
ruling, the NRC commissioners noted that they
rarely review ASLB procedures. However, in the
at hand, the commission found that "the
decision creates an exceptional situation
at warrants immediate commission attention
under this standard." The commissioners noted
that nobody would suffer significant harm from
the delay and that, following an NRC review, the
ASLB's decision could be reinstated.
(Continued from page 15)
Officer. The Board has full confidence in Steve's
ability to manage rhe organtzation, deliver
excellent services to our customers, and generate
improved earnings for our investors.rl
In an unrelated action, American Ecology also
announced this week that the company's Field
Services Division has been awarded a g5 million
contract to decommission a nuclear equipment
recycling facility owned by a British Nuclear Fuels,
Ltd. @NFL) subsidiary in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
The contract includes large nuclear component
removal, decontamination, and decommissioning
of the Manufacturing Sciences Corporation
Recycle Facility, which previously processed
radioactively contaminated matedals and
equipment from nuclear power plants.
In announcing the avrard, Romano stated as
follows:
"This latge, competitively bid award highlights the
continued expansion of American Ecology's
remediation services business. The same highly
(Continued on page 25)
24 LLW Nofes March/Apnl2}l2
NRC lssues Annual Assessment NRC Proposes to Amend Fee
Letterc to Nuclear Power Plants Schedule
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission recendy
issued annual assessment letters for all 103 operat-
ing nuclear power plants. In so doing, NRC
stated as follows:
"Every six months each plant receives either a
mid-cycle review letter or an annual assessment
letter along with an NRC inspection plan. Up-
dated information on plant performance is posted
to the NRC web site every quarrer. The next mid-
cycle assessment letters will be issued in Septem-
ber."
Public meetings at eachplant are planned, to be
announced as scheduled.
The assessment letters have been posted on
NRC's web site at http://www.nrc.govlNRR/
O\IERSIGHT /ASSESS /index.htrnl and are avail-
able on the Agencprride Documents Access and
Management System.
(Continued from page 24)
trained team that successfully decommissioned a
closed nuclear facility in Oak Ridge under cofltract
to the State of Tennessee is now hard at work at
the new job site."
For additional infomatiott, contact Cbad Hlslop of
American Enbg Corporation at [phone].
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is
proposing to amend it annud fees and fees
charged for licensing and inspections in order to
comply with federal laws that require the commis-
sion to recover approximately 96 percent of its
budget authority-excluding amounts appropri-
ated from the Nuclear Waste Fund and the Gen-
eral Fund.
The proposed inctease is g6/hout in the labor rate
for NRC services in the reactor program and
$8/hour for services in the nucleat materiais pro-
gtam. This would bring the proposed hourly rates
to $156 and $152, respecrively. In addition, the
proposal seeks to increase annual fees for the fol-
lowing licenses and activities: operating power
reactors, high-enriched uranium fuel cycle facili-
ties,low-enriched uranium fuel cycle facilities, ura-
nium recovery, radiographers, broad-scope medi-
cal, and distribution of mdiopharmaceuitcals.
Other changes affecting fees are proposed also,
including adjusunents to or clarifications of fee
waiver and exemption provisions.
NRC's total budget authority for FY 2002is
$559.1 million. Approximately $Sq.Z million of
that will come from the Nuclear Waste Fund and
from the General Fund for homeland security ac-
tivities. That means NRC must collect approxi-
mately $479.5 million in FY 2002 through licens-
ing, inspection, annual and other fees.
The proposed rule for the new fee schedule was
published by NRC in the March 27 Federal
Register G. 14,818). Comments on the proposed
changes were due Apnl27.
LLW Notes March/Apil2llz 25
White House
Bush Recommends Yucca
Mountain; Nevada Govemor
Exercises Veto
On February 15, President George W. Bush
formally recommended the proposed Yucca
Mountain site to the U.S. Congress for the
development of a high-level radioactive waste
repository. The recommendation follows U.S.
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham'sJanuary 10
announcement of his selection of the site. (See
LLIV N otes, J anuary / F eb*^ry 2002, pp. 1 6-17 .)
The recommendation, made in a formalletter to
Congress, noted the need fot centahzing spent
nuclear fuel storage and disposal and stressed issues
of national security and Americ an energy needs.
Immediately following Bush's recommendation,
Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn (R) announced his
intention to veto the President's fecommendation,
saying:
"I am outraged, as are the citizens of Nevada, that
this decision would go forward with so many
unansweted questions. I be[eve that we deserve a
scientific response to the neady 300 critical
questions the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
stated must be resolved before going forward with
Yucca Mountain."
Guinn formally vetoed Bush's recommendation on
April 8. In so doing, Guinfl argued that Yucca
Mountain is not suitable for a high-level waste
repository and that there is no emergency that
requires use of the site.
Under federal law, the issue now goes to Congress
for a vote. In order for the project to go forward,
Congress must oveffide the state's veto by a
majority vote of both houses. Accordingly, Senate
Joint Resolution 34 was inffoduced by SenatorJeff
Bingaman on April9 which approves Yucca
Mountain as the site for a high-level waste
repository. The bill has been referred to the Energy
and Natural Resources Committee.
Mayors Write Bush rc Rad Wasb
Transport
In a February letter to President George 1il7. Bush,
18 mayots express concerns about the
transportation of high-level radioactive waste and
spent nuclear fuel rods through American cities to
the proposed Yucca Mountain waste repository.
Ietter, which emerged from the U.S.
rence of Mayors' February 22Iradership
Meeting, calls on Bush to include a transportation
analysis and an environmental impact study in the
U.S. Department of Energy's final report on the
proposed site. The Conference has not taken an
I position on the proposed Yucca site. The
was initiated by Reno MayorJeff Griffin.
letter states, in part, as follows:
'{We are concemed the DOE has not yet fully
researched the methods for the transportation of
nuclear waste. Regardless of the final repository
Iocation, we have serious concerns about the
transportation of spent nuclear fuel from feactors
over the country to Yucca Mountain of any
ther repository. These shipments will ravel
through America's cities past our schools, homes
and places of business."
U.S. Conference of Mayors had adopted a
transportation policy h 7996 that calls for the
federal govenrment to fund (1) training and
ipment needed by local emergency response
personnel along transportation routes, (2)
upgrades to medical facilities that could
potentidly treat accident victims, and (3) upgmdes
to highways 2nd lailtsads to ensure safe
transportation corridors. The policy also calls on
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
ift shipping transportation conrainers after a
blic process that includes both physical testing
computer modeling to ensure that such
ntainers are capable of withstanding severe
accidents.
A copy of the letter can be obtained at
.usmayofs.org.
26 LLW Notes March/April2002
To Obtain Federal Government Information
by telephone
o DoE Public Affairs/Press office ..........e02) 586_5g06o DoE Disuibution center ..eoz) sg6-g642o DOE's National Low-Level Waste Management Program Document Center . ................e08) 526-6927o EPA Information Resources Center ......e02) 260-sg22o GAo Document Room ......e02) 512-6000o Government Printing Office (to order entire Federal Register notices) .........e02) 512-1g00o NRC Public Document Room ...............(202) 63+3273o Legrslative Resource Center (to order U.S. House of Representatives documents) ...........e02) 226-5200o U.S. Senate Document Room .................e02) 224_7g60
by internet
o NRC Reference Library OJRC regulations, technical reports, information digests,
and regulatory guides). ..................www.nrc.gov/NRC /reference
o EPA Listserve Network o Contact Lockheed Martin EPA Technical Support
at [phone] or e-mail (eave subject blank and type help in body
of message) [e-mail]
o EPA o (for program information, publications,laws and regulations) ............ ..http:/ lwww.epa.gov/
o U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) (for the Congressional Record, Federal Regirter,
congressional bills and other documents, and access to more than 70 goveffrment
o GAo homepage (access ro reports and testimony) .............. ........www.gao.gov
Io access a variety of documents through numerous links, visit the web site for
the LLW Forum, lnc. at www.llwforum.oro
Accessing LLW Forum, lnc. Documents on the web
LLIV Notes, LLItr7 Forum Meeting Reports and the Snmmary Report: I-,ow-I-^eaelRtdioactiae lvaste M
Actiaities in the States and Compacts are distributed to the Board of Directors of the LL$7 Forum, Inc. -As ofMarch 1998,t T IY Notes and LLST Forum Meeting Reports are also available on the LL!7 Forum web site
at www"llrYforqm.org. The Snmmary Repot and accompanying Development Chart, as well as LLIW ForumNews Flashes, have been available on the Llril7 Forum web site sinceJanuary 1997.
As of March 1'996,backissues of these publications are available from the National Technical Information
Service at U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, yA 2216l,or by calling
003) 60s-6000.
LLW Notes March/Apil2\l2 2t
!
r rdlrr 44
t"f
Appalachian Compact
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania *
WestVtginia
Atlantic Compact
Connecticut
NewJersey
South Carolina o
Cenral Compact
Arkansas
Kansas
Louisiana
Nebraska *
Oklahoma
Central Midwest Compact
Illinois *
Kennrcky
Northwest Compact
Alaska
Hawaii
Idaho
Montana
Oregon
Utah
Washington *
Wyoming
Midwest Compact
Indiana
Iowa
Minnesota
Missouri
Ohio
Wisconsin
Rocky Mountain Compact
Colorado
Nevada
New Mexico
Notbuut accEts Bockl
Moutaitt uaste as agned
belwun nmpactt
Southeast Compact
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Mississippi
Tennessee
Virginia
Southwestern Compact
Aizona,
California *
North Dakota
South Dakota
Texas Compact
Maine
Texas *
Vermont
[Jn3ffilia16d g121gg
District of Co.umbia
Massachusetts
Michigan
New Hampshire
NewYork
North Carolina
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
28 LLW Notes March/April2002
05/22/2442 68:51 rc4132Y6 UTAH PRESS PAGE 82
Dqww Ni<,0sM
Efforts undenlo,y to
stop sludge fro*
coming to White Mesa
Tbree chaptora ofthe Si-
erra Club joined forcee to eu-
courage goyef:ror€ atteudingl
the Westem Govemors A.seo-
ciation Environmentsl Sirm-
mit to worktogether to proteet
rregtern. states from out-of-
state ehipmeatE of nuclear
wagte.
Utah Governor Michael
Learritt has taken a strong
stand agaiart storing high-level nuclear waste on thp
Goshute Iudian Resen ationwest of . Salt Lake City.
Nevo,da'g gov6rnor, Kenny
Guinn is leading.ttie aatiouel
campaiga to' prevfnt high-
lovel nude:r waste fron b€ingghipped to Yucca Mouutaia--
Colorado's govaruor, Bill
orreas recently etayed ehip-
ments of radioactive waste
from Maywoo4 NJ, to the Coh
ter Corporatioa utanirrm millin Caflon City until public
hearings could be held.
"The Sierra CIub deaply
appreciates the poeitioni '
ttrese governors haye tahdn toprotect resideuts in their
atates. Ibday we urge tbe gov-
ornorE to support oD.e
ing state," a spokeeman
Aa example of this
waete deetinedfor Caion Cily
ended up at Euvirocareh facil-
ity in Clive, Utsh. the White
Mesa uranium mill south of
Blauding, Utah, had aleo ap-
plied for the cr."'e Maywood
waste.
The Sielra Club ig crir-. rently workiug to atop a ehip-
ment of radioactivo lesd sul-
6de sludSp.to the Whits Mesa
?ill from Molyccirp'8 minb
near I-15 and, the. Nevada/
rCslifomia border. nV'e ast altthree govorrors to oppoee
ahippiag any uuclear waste
through their statee to theWhite Meaa iriLl," the club.Eaid.. : ' ..:. i.,.
fhe Sierra Club is urgiug'Govirnor Leavitt and Gover-
nor Oweus to opposs traDs-porting high-Ievel, nuclear
.waet€ to Yucca Mo"it"io. at-
mo'st all of that wq'ct€ souldtravel through tltah aqd
much ofit through Colorado. '.r
., ' ':.-
The extremely-deug"roo, /waste ie proposed to be traary'
fened from rail to tnrcke gt
Milford., rl* /
another's efforte ao that ,4Fnuclear waets ahipments rv /yjected by one of our statec/jfron't end, up in the aeighbor--]r
ins steta 'l rrroltasrnen eeid ii
pened recently trben, aftarf.-
Governor Owena, interveu- \o7
Bi\\ watr^
l..fl.t/l I(^nn*urt
/
Siema Club urges gorrernors \
to protect West from orrt-of-
state nuclear waste shippents
. :f'r..,"',. :| ;
iovernor OwetrE, interveu- \Oz- .-$ion, the first shipment of \QrErzrr.tor.. '
$#t{t
tdJ
1"#.",, -1,