DRC-2002-001123 - 0901a06880adeb95

INrnnNerro*oro
UneNruu (usn)
ConponerloN
IndependencePlaza, Suite 950. 1050 Seventeenth Street. Denver, CO 80265.303 628 7798 (main) ' 303 389 4125 (fax)
March 15,2002
\rIA FACSIMILE AND EXPRESS COURIER
Mr. MelvynN. Leach, Chief
Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch
Mail Stop T-8A33
Office of Nuclear Ores Safety and Safeguards
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
2 White FlintNorth
11545 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852-27 38
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission letter of January 14,2002
White Mesa Uranium Mill
Source Material License No. SUA-1358
Docket No. 40-8681
Dear Mr. Leach:
International Uranium (USA) Corporation ("IUSA") responded to your letter dated
January 14,2002,to Mr. Ron Hochstein, IUSA President and Chief Executive Offrcer, on
March 11,2002. Attached is an errata sheet detailing corrections IUSA would make to
the March 11,2002 response letter.
For the sake of clarity, IUSA would be pleased to incorporate these revisions into the
March ll,2002letter and transmit a revised letter. Please advise us if NRC would like us
to incorporate these revisions and transmit a revised letter. I can be reached at (303)
389.4131.
l Sincerely,
-
\ ./,/2 -L/,*Z /l*-*-
Michelle R. Rehmann
Environmental Manager
MRR
Attachment
" l:,;j)C\
vo\9\?tt? N,',,.,,ir. ts.N
ry
(arEi
!rhtt
A i.,
u.r!:
,/q\
K,'/soq,F,(9
\%\o.
I
Mr. MelvynN. Leach, U.S. NRC
March 15,2002
Page? of
.2
cc: Richard Bartlett/IUSA
Ronald E. Berg/IUSA
David C. Frydenlund/IUSA
Ron F. HochsteiMUSA
Tom Rice, Ute Mountain Ute Tribeffi
William von Till/}{RC
s:\MRRwRcQrcsfrn{seilE0l)wRch$crcflsru.ry l42m2\G'rdrffialE'dEdo3-l 5-02.doc
ERRATA SHEET
IUSA Letter to NRC dated March ll, 2002
Page2, paragraph 3
Change from: However, at the request of the State of Utah, IUSA has agreed to monitor
for additional parameters, similar to the list it used prior to 1997. And will propose
additional analyses to provide data for firther confirmation that the management of
alternate feed ores will have no cumulative impact on groundwater.
To: However, at the request of the State of Utah, IUSA has agteed to monitor for
additional parameters, similar to the list it used prior to 1997, and will propose additional
analyses to provide data for further confirmation that the management of alternate feed
ores will have no cumulative impact on groundwater.
Page 9, paragraph 4
Change from: In this context it is worth noting that the EPA has found that with respect
to uranium mill tailings piles "the risk from radon emissions diminishes rapidly with
distance from the tailings pile (declining by a factor of three for each doubling of the
distance beyond a few hundred meters)" (see EPA, Final Environmental Impact
Statement for Standards for the Control of Byproduct Materials from Uranium Ore
Processine." Vol. I at 10-12. September 1983).
To: In this context it is worth noting that the EPA has found that with respect to uranium
mill tailings piles "the risk from radon emissions diminishes rapidly with distance from
the tailings pile (declinirg by a factor of three for each doubling of the distance beyond a
few hundred meters)" (see EPA, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for Standards
for the Control of Byproduct Materials from Uranium Ore Processing," Vol. I at 10-12,
September 1983).
Page l l,paragraph2
Change from: It should be noted that U-Nat particulate concentrations at each location
are equal to or less than the background U-Nat particulate concentrations from Station
BHV-I, over both periods 1989-1991 and2000-2002.
To: It should be noted that U-Nat particulate concentrations at each location are equal to
or less than the background U-Nat particulate concentrations from Station BHV-3, over
both periods I 989-1 991 and 2000-2002.
Page l l,paragraph4
Change from: If we assume, as noted above, that the conventional mined ore from the
period of 1989-1991 had an average uranium content of 0.389%, and using the primary
mineral pitchblende, this ore would also contain approximately 0.379yoTh-228, plus Th-
228
To: If we assume, as noted above, that the conventional mined ore from the period of
1989-1991 had an average uranium content of 0.389%, and using the primary mineral
pitchblende, this ore would also contain approximately 0.379%T"h-232 plus Th-228
Change from: The measured mean Th-232 activity of the alternate feed material Ashland
I, Linde, and Heritage ores currently stockpiled at the Mill is 7.2 pCilg of material, which
is approximately two orders of magnitude less than the activity due to thorium in the
mined ores.
To: The measured mean Th-232 activity of the Ashland I, Linde, and Heritage ores
currently stockpiled at the Mill is 7.2 pCrlg of material, which is approximately two
orders of magnitude less than the activity due to thorium in the mined ores.
Page 15, paragraph I
Change from: Work that is planned for additional characterization of the ore pad
includes: (l) modeling of potential infiltration into existing ore stockpiles and potential
for downward percolation into the ore pad, and (2) measurement of the vertical
permeability of a Work that is planned for additional characterization of the ore pad
includes: (1) modeling of potential infiltration into existing ore stockpiles and potential
for downward percolation into the ore pad, and (2) measurement of the vertical
permeability of a representative (and accessible) portion of the ore pad using a ring
infiltrometer. The results of the ring infiltrometer test will be used as input to analytical
and/or numerical models to be used to help quantiff the potential for transport of
dissolved constituents from stockpiled materials to groundwater.
To: Work that is planned for additional characterization of the ore pad includes:
(1) modeling of potential infiltration into existing ore stockpiles and potential for
downward percolation into the ore pad, and (2) measurement of the vertical permeability
of a representative (and accessible) portion of the ore pad using a ring infiltrometer. The
results of the ring infiltrometer test will be used as input to analytical and/or numerical
models to be used to help quantiry the potential for transport of dissolved constituents
from stockpiled materials to groundwater.
IN*nNemo*oO
UneNIurr,t (use)
ConponerloN
Independence plaza Suite 950 o 1050 Seventeenth Street r Denver, Co 80265 ' 303 628 7798 (main) o 3&3 389 4125 (fax)
March 11,2002
VIA FACSIMILE AND EXPRESS COT]RIER
Mr. MelvynN. Leach, Chief
Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch
Mail Stop T-8A33
Office ofNuclear Ores Safety and Safeguards
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
2 White FlintNorth
I1545 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852-2738
Re: u.s. Nuclear Regulatory commission letter of January 14,2002
White Mesa Uranium Mill
Source Material License No. SUA-1358
Docket No. 40-8681
Dear Mr. Leach:
Intemational Uranium (USA) Corporation ("IUSA") hereby responds to yotu letter dated
January l4,2}O2to Mr. Ron Hochstein, IUSA President and Chief Executive Officer. In
this letter, iUSa addresses each of the questions posed in your letter regarding IUSA's
practice oistockpiting alternate feed on the ore pad at ttre White Mesa Uranium Mill (the
iMilr'y. For easi of ieference, the questions are addressed below in the same order as
ppt#"a in your January 14 letter. In addition, IUSA also responds to NRC-'s questiol
iegarding the adequacy of tfr" Mill's surety to cover the cost of disposing of stoct<piled
m":teriallin the hypothetical event that the Mill were to be shut down prior to another
processing run. - Fio"lly, IUSA responds to the questions relating to groundwater
irotectioriand dust mitigation specific to the Maywood Amendment request, mentioned
in NRC's letter to IUSA dated November 30, 2001.
BACKGROI.JND
IUSA manages conventionally mined uranium ores, as well as alternate feed uranium
ores, by stocllgpiling the material on the Mill's ore pad until the next Mill run. In fact, the
practic! of accumulating sufficient stockpiles of ore prior to initiating processing
'activities is quite "om-on in the mining industry because more time is required to mine
ore ttran is nieded to process it. Similarly, more time is needed to complete excavation
*alor delivery of attirnate feed ore than is needed to process it. Neither the Mill's
ii..nr. nor any other applicable regulations prohibit the Milt from stockpiting ore to
maximize the 6enefits oll processing campaign. Rather, both the Mill's initial license
application and subsequent alternate feed license amendment applications have
aniicipated stockpiling c-onventional mined and alternate feed ores pending processing
Mr. MelvYn N. Leach, U'S' NRC
March ll,2}02
Page2 of 2l
campaigns, for reasons of operational and economic efEciency' The Mill has' since its
inception, pro""rrrJo.. o1u campaign basis, the schedules for which have been adjusted
as piocessing economics demand'
Prior to the Mill's very first processing campaign, some 1 million tons of mined ore was
stockpiled on the tr,tiit;s ore pad. e siiitar qr*uty of ore from the then licensee's mines
**-J".npif"a a*i"g 1989-1991. By comparirorr, toor.250,000 tons, or approximately
one-fourth tt " pr"riJosly stockpiled tonnage, are currently stockpiled for the upcoming
alternate feed ore processing campaign'
As a general rule, the management of alternate feed ores, like the management of
conventionally-mined or"r, *rirt be and is performed-in 111 compliance with the Mill's
NRc license and amendments as welr as the Mill's utatr Division of Air Quallty
&;;";J Oiao for the White Mesa Mill ("Air Quatlty Permit" or "AO")' These
activities also are ,"u:"" to the Mill's ALARA program, which seeks to ensure that all
such activities satisff applicable standards, but also satisfr the trlditioi"tSt Low As
Reasonabry ecrrievalute (or,,.ALARA') work practice standard. Indeed, IUSA's data
show that management-of alternate feed oris produces less radon and particulate
emissions than mined ores do, and that radon and particulate emissions from mined ores
areconsistentlywellbelowallapplicablestandards
The NRc monitoring program in place at the Mill is designed to detect potential releases
ir'gr""ra*"t"r frofr irrtiti opetations and the management of mined ores and alternate
feed ores prior to pio""ttiog. aoa, since the management of mined ores has produced no
significant airborne emissi-ons or releases to groundwater at, or even near regulatory
limits, it is even L* fiUV that altemate feed ores will produce s1ch. emissions or
releases to groundwater. For the reasons detailed herein, the same conclusions would be
true in the event that IUSA were to manage Maywood Material prior to processing-
However, at the request of the State of utanlrusa has agreed to monitor for additional
;;;J;;r, simitar to the list it used prior to 1997. And will propose additional analyses
I;;rrrJ"'data for n rtfr", confirmation that the management of alternate feed ores will
have no cumulative impact on groundwater'
In addition to the following responses to NRC',s questions regarding potential air and
*""i q"aity impacts from-alternate feed ore management, ruSA includes a response to
NRC,s question regarding the adequacy of the Mill-'s surety for th9 cost of disposing of
,i".mrfla *ateriaf in th; hypothetical event that the Mill were to be shut down prior to
another Processing run'
NRC QI]ESTION
l. *Potential dust control.of these alternate feed piles and the
consideration of radon airborne contamination, including
cumulative imPacts"'
S:\MRRNRCQucstions(gcneral)NRClcucr of Januaryl42002Vinaldraft03-l l-02'doc
Mr. MelvynN. r*.rr,?s. NRC
March 11,2002
Page3 of 2l
IUSA RESPONSE
IUSA understands this question to ask what, if any, measures are used to control the
potential for dust and radon generation from alternate feed ore stockpiles, and what, if
any, cumulative impacts may result from the potential airbome dust or radon from
alternate feeds that are being temporarily stored in such stockpiles prior to processing at
the Mill.
The approach to control of potential airbome dust from stockpiles at the Mill is multi-
faceted, and addresses the key areas of mitigation, application of ALARA principles, and
monitoring. As detailed in the following subsections, the Mill complies with Federal and
State requirements by having in place a Dust Suppression Program, which is intended to
mitigate the potential for airborne dust to be generated from ores stockpiled at the site, as
well as from the site in general. Additional, specific measures may be applied to
particular alternate feed ores, depending upon physical factors that influence the potential
for such material to generate airborne dust (e.g., moisture or clay content of the material).
The Mill also carries out extensive monitoring to ensure that dust mitigation measures are
effective in protecting the workers, the public, and the environment.
IUSA's program for suppressing dust from the Mill site, as outlined below, will continue
to be performed routinely. In addition, examples of additional measures to be employed
on a feed material-specific basis for ALARA purposes are presented below.
DUST SUPPRESSION PROGRAM
IUSA routinely employs an extensive Dust Suppression Program at the Mill, in
accordance with the following permits and licenses:
l. September ll,l997 Utah AO (noted above)
2. NRC License Renewal Application for theWhite Mesa Mill, Sections 2.0 , and 4.0
The following subsections describe the dust suppression measures IUSA performs in
accordance with the forgoing permit and license requirements.
Utah Air Oualitv Approval Order
The AO specifies the steps the Mill must take for fugitive dust management. The AO
requires that all unpaved roads and operational areas be water or chemically sprayed to
maintain opacity at or below 20 percent. IUSA satisfies this requirement, and in fact uses
an even more protective standard, reQuiring watering every dry day, every windy day,
and any time any dust is visible, even if conditions are below 20 percent opaclty. The
AO also requires the following:
1. That unpaved haul and access roads, and the Mill area itsell have at least
one inch of gravel cover or be watered to meet the 20 percent opaclty
requirement
S:MRRNRCQucstions(gcneral)NRClettcr of lanuaryl42@2Vinaldraff03-l l-02.doc
o
Mr. Melvyn N. Leac[ U.S. NRC
March 11,2002
Page 4 of2l
2. Watering of ore storage piles as conditions warant.
3. Watering of disturbed areas.
4. Limiting the speed of compactors to 3 mph.
5. Minimum moisture content of 4 percent for dumped materials.
6. Limiting the speed of heavy equipment to 3 mph during loading
and 12 mphdumping operations.
7. Minimum dumping equipment height during unloading.
8. Water spraying the tailings retention areas as needed.
9. Spraying, as required, of soil and overburden stockpiles.
Dust mitigation measures undertaken beyond the requirements in the AO have included:
1. Water sprays used during unloading of materials having physical
properties warranting such additional measures, for example the Heritage
Material.
2. Additional gravel placed on routes used to transport altemate feed ores.
l99l Mill NRC License Renewal Aorilication
The August l99l NRC License Renewal, Section 4.1.1 specifies dust and filne control
measures that are used in each area of the Mill circuit, the ore stockpiles, and the
laboratory. In accordance with this section, the ore stockpiles are inspected at least
weekly, watered as necessary, and the water application logged. IUSA records
demonstate that inspections are more frequent than required by the license.
Altemate Feed License Amendment Applications
In general, for all stockpiled ore, including altemate feed ores, the efficiency of airbome
contamination contol measures is determined once the material is in the stockpile. As
with all conventional mined ore or alternate feed ore stockpiles, the Mill radiation staff
inspects the ore stockpile area daily to determine whether or not any additional control
measures are required. As noted above, the Mill license renewal application contains
requirements that the Mill meets for ensuring that the potential for airborne dust
generation from mined ores is mitigated. In addition, in applications for alternate feed
ores, IUSA includes measures that will be taken to ensure that airborne dust generation is
mitigated. For example, in the case of the Molycorp material, Section 4.1 of the
Molycorp Amendment Request, Control of Airborne Contamination, states that:
The effrciency of airborne contamination control measures during the
material handling operations will be assessed after the Uranium Material is
S:\MRRNRCQuestions(general)NRClcficr ofJanuaryl42002\hnaldraft03-l l-02.doc
Mr. Melvyn N. Leach, U.S. NRC
March 11,2002
Page 5 of2l
received at the Mill. Appropriate dust suppression techniques will be
implemented as per the Mill Standard Operating Procedures. Airborne
particulate samples and breathing zone samples will be collected in those
areas during initial material processing activities and analyzed for gross
alpha. The results will establish health and safety guidelines, which will
be implemented throughout the material processing operations.
Personal protective equipment, including respiratory protection as
required, will be provided to those individuals engaged in material
processing. Additional environmental air samples will be taken at nearby
iocations in the vicinity of material processing activities to ensure
adequate contamination control measures are effective and that the spread
of uranium airborne particulates has been prevented.
Similar language is found in other IUSA license amendment applications to the NRC for
the alternale feeds it has applied to process. A recent review shows that this language
appears in Section 4.1 of the applications for the Heritage Material; the Linde Material;
Ashland I and 2; W.R. Grace; and Cameco.
APPLICATION OF ALARA PRINCIPLES TO INTERIM ORE MANAGEMENT
IUSA notes that, while the ore pad airborne control metrsures routinely applied are
sufficient to provide protective interim management of most feed materials, added
measures are available and may be utilized in certain circumstances for low-volurne, high
moisfige content materials that contain elevated components of potential concern, such as
metals. As with all conventional and alternate feed ores, the Mill routinely applies
ALARA measures to interim management of the material prior to processing. Such
ALARA practices include air monitoring appropriate to the feed material.
In addition, consistent with its ALARA program, ruSA evaluates the potential for other
types of particulates that could potentially become airborne, and supplies additional
iniormation to NRC for particular alternate feed ores. A case in point is found in IUSA's
letter of January 5,2OOl, regarding the Molycorp Material, in which IUSA reported the
following:
Based on discussions with Molycorp...air monitoring data for an operation
in which Molycorp handled comparable lead material indicated there were
no results "*l""diog either the OSHA PEL limit (0.05 mg/m3) or the
OSHA Action Levei (0.03 mg/m31 for area and breathing zone samples.
Molycorp has indicated that it believes that there will be no significant
airborne lead exposures 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 druing this operation. As
Molycorp indicates, the air monitoring results showed that the use of
respiratory protection was not necessary to meet worker protection
requirements for lead, because the results were below both action levels
and the PEL for lead.
S:W{RRNRCQucstions(gcncral)NRClctter of Januaryl42002\finaldraff03-l l-02.doc
Mr. Melvyn N. Leach, U.S. NRC
March 11,2002
Page 6 of2l
As an added precaution, during initial offloading of the material, ruSA
will analyze breathing zone and area airborne samples for total lead to
ensure that the values obtained are below the PEL limit and Action Level
for lead listed above. If either of these values are met or exceeded, ruSA
will require use of respiratory protection until and unless monitoring data
indicate that this requirement may be safely reduced. In addition,
depending upon initial lead results,IUSA will detennine the frequency to
be used for any follow-up air lead analysis during offloading of the
material.
Finally, IUSA understands, based on a review of lead sulfide toxicrty
reports and discussions with Molycorp's Industrial Hygienist, that meeting
the OSHA PEL limit and OSHA Action Level listed above is more
protective for a lead compound such as lead sulfide, the form of lead in the
material, than for more bioavailable lead compounds, because the OSHA
and NIOSH standards are typically designed to be conservative, in that
they typically protect against the more bioavailable form of a chemical.
The bioavailabitity of lead sulfide is low relative to certain other more
bioavailable forms of lead. As reported in Impact of Lead-Contaminated
Soil on Public Health (U.S. Depar0nent of Health and Human Services,
Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, Charles Xintaras, ScD., May 1, 1992):
The impact of exposure to lead-contaminated soil on PbB
levels is also influenced by the chemical and physical forrt
of the lead. Data from animal feeding studies suggest 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. 12-13)
In other words, in addition to the airborne dust mitigation measures detailed above that
reduce the potential for public exposure to airborne dust, mitigation meastres may be
applied during early receipt of certain alternate feed ores. In general, during initial
offloading of alternate feed ores, IUSA analyzes breathing zone and area airborne
samples for specific constituents of concern, such as (in the example above) total lead, to
ensure that the values obtained are below the applicable OSHA PEL limits and Action
Levels. If either of these values are met or exceeded, ruSA would require use of
respiratory protection until and unless monitoring data indicate that such protection is no
longer necessary. In addition, depending upon initid results, IUSA will determine the
frequency to be used for any follow-up air analysis during offloading of the particular
altemate feed ore.
Following further with this Molycorp example, in a subsequent letter to the NRC dated
March 20, 2OOl, IUSA committed to performing additional ALARA measures in
S:\MRRNRCQucstions(gcneral)NRCtcscr of Januarytl)OOZVinatdraffO3-l l-02.doc
Mr. Melvyn N. Leach, U.S. NRC
March 11,2002
PageT of2l
managing the Molycorp material [Note that item 1 below is intended to ensrue ALARA
with respect to protection of groundwater and surface water, which is furlher addressed in
response to NRC question 2, below.]:
l. The material will be placed on a concrete pad that will be bermed arotrnd the
edges to contain moisture. The pad near the sample plant will be modified to
handle this material (including removal of the concrete dividers and temporary
berming of the edges). In addition to the foregoing pad, a concrete pad near the
trommel screen will also be used. We believe that the concrete pads will be
sufficient to handle all of the material. However, if the volume is greater than that
which can be accommodated on the concrete pads, comparable methods will be
considered for the excess volume.
2. Due to the high moisture content of the Molycorp material, IUSA anticipates that
the routine dust suppression program detailed above will be adequate to mitigate
any dusting potential. However, should conditions warrant further measures to
prevent potential windborne contamination from the piles one of two methods
will be considered: application of a surfactant; or, covering of the piles with
reinforced plastic. The final configuration of the piles will determine which
application will be used.
3. To minimize the duration between receipt of the material and processing, the
Molycorp material will be processed prior to the processing of either the Linde or
Ashland material.
In any.event, 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A licensed uranium mill operations and waste
management are designed to, and expected to, safely contain and contol all forms of
lead, a routine constituent in uranium mill tailings (see NUREG 1620, Rev.l, atp.4'9).
Consistent with ruSA's ALAR { program, added air sampling appropriate to the alternate
feed ore will be considered on a feed-specific basis.
AIR SAMPLING
The Mill monitors for radon and radon daughters (which includes thoron), as well as
airborne particulates. For the purpose of demonstrating the potential radiological impact
of stockpiling alternate feed ores at the MiIl on workers, the general public, and the
environment, two sets of data are discussed and compared herein. Radiological
monitoring results obtained during two distinct time periods Ne compared: the frst is a
period during which processable quantities of conventional mined ore were stockpiled at
ttre tvtitt (1989-1991); the second time period is the recent two years (2000-2002), during
which alternate feed ores were stockpiled. This comparison involves only ores stored on
the ore pad, and does not consider ores stored in 55-gallon drums, because those ores are
contained, and the potential for radon emanation or uranium particulate generation from
closed containers is negligible.
The data from 1989 represent a time period during which ore was being stored for a two-
year period, and the uranium content of the mined ore was relatively high. This
comparison should represent the most significant difference between conventional mined
S:WRRNRCQucstions(gencral)NRClcttcr of Januaryl42@2\ftnaldraff03-l l-O2'doc
Mr. Melvyn N. Leach, U.S. NRC
March 11,2002
Page 8 of2l
ore and alternate feed ore. During the period from 1989 to 1991, conventional mined ore
was accumulated and stored until approximately 980,000 tons of uranium ore, with an
average uranium content of 0.389o/o, was available to process. This equates to a U-Nat
activity of approximately 2,600 pCr/g.
For an equivalent period of time, from 2000 to 2002, alternate feed ores, which presently
consist of 164,8ll tons of Ashland I material, 69,990 tons of Linde material, and 3,608
tons of Heritage material are in the process of being stockpiled on the ore pad. Thp
weighted average uranium concentation in these three alternate feed ores is 0.036%'.
This equates to a U-Nat activrty of approximately 240 pClg. Therefore, while the
tonnage of alternate feed ore stored on the ore pad from 2000-2002 is approximately
25Yo of the tonnage of mined ore that was stored on the ore pad in 1989-1991, the
uranium activity of the altemate feed ore is only approximately l0% of the uranium
activity of the mined ore, for an equivalent volume of ore. As will be shown below, the
radon and particulate data demonstrate that the mined ores resulted in no emissions
approaching eittrer the Federal limits set for protection of workers, the public, or the
environment, and that the alternate feed ores result in even lower values than the mined
ores.
Radon
Radon Emission Source Term
Uranium ore processing and subsequent tailings disposal presents pathways for release of
radon to the environment. The major pathways for radon release occur from ore storage,
ore crushing and grinding, and the mill tailings disposal site. In response to NRC's
question, this discussion will focus on ore storage prior to processing. Radon release
from the ore storage area depends on (l) radium content of ore; (2) emanating power
(coefficient) of ore or tailings; (3) radon diffrrsion coefficient in ore; (4) physical
characteristics, including configuration of ore storage; and (5) storage time. The quallty
of the ore received varies with respect to ore concentration, grade, and size.
Radon emanating from an ore storage'area may be estimated by calculation of the Radon
Emission Source Term, following methods detailed in NRC Reg. Guide 3.59 "Methods
For Estimating Radioactive and Toxic Airborne Source Terms For Uranium Operations"
March 1987; or by implied concentration of antecedent radon from measured radon
daughter working level concentrations. Estimating the radon emission source term can
be accomplished using the flux factor; in most cases, the NRC staff estimates radon
release by using a conservative radon flux factor of I pCi Rn-2z2/rrf*s per pCrtgof Ra-
226. By using that flux factor, only the area of the ore stockpile and the average radium
content need be known to calculate annual radon releases as follows.
Assuming the uranium was in secular equilibrium with its daughter progeny in the
unprocessed mined ore stockpiled at the Mill drning 1989-1991, the Ra-226 activity
would be2,600 pCr/g. The radon emission source term for the period 1989-1991, during
I fire uranium activities of the three cited altemate feed ores are based on the natural uranium content of
each, as determined by alphaspectroscopy performed on a composite sample taken at the Mill from each of
these ores.
S:\MRRNRCQnrcstions(gcncral)NRClctcr of Januaryl42@2\finaldraft03-l l-02.doc
o
Mr. Melvyn N. Leach, U.S. NRC
March 11,2002
Page9 of?l
management of mined ores, is estimated at approximately 4,250 Ci R1-222 per yeax,
*rrrrriirrg the entire ore pad area of 12.8 acres was covered (see attached calculation
sheet). The actual measured average Ra-226 concentration of the different alternate feeds
storei at the Mill during 2000-2002 is 110 pCrl1. This value was determined by alpha
spectroscopy of the individual alternate feed ores. Conservatively assuming that the
*tir" or" iua area of 12.8 acres was used for management of alternate feed material, the
radon source term for the period 2000-2002 is estimated at 180 Ci/year of Rn-222.
Therefore, the radon source ierm associated with the altemate feed ores being managed in
2OOO-200i would be approximately 23 times less than that of the mined ore material
managed dtring I 989-1 991.
Assuming a linear relationship between the radon emission source term and impact to the
public orlo the environmen! as NRC has in generic assessments, it can be concluded that
ih" -*ugement of alternate feed ores in stockpiles poses significanfly less potential
hazard ttran ttre management of conventional ores associated with normal mining
practice. This also does not factor in the significantly larger volume of lle.(2)
Lyproduct material that must be managed in perpetuity from processing conventional
oies. However, as discussed below, the radon levels from both conventional mined ores
and alternate feed ores are well within regulatory limits.
Radon Daughter Working Levels (WL)
Radon Daughter Working Levels $fL) (note that radon daughters include thoron) were
measured each month throughout the ore stockpiles, at various locations for the periods
of 1989 - lggl and 2000 -2002. These results are illustrated in Graph I (attached). It is
interesting to note that over the period of 2000 -2002,when altemate feed ores are being
managedin stockpiles, there have been very few measured radon daughter concentrations
abovJthe minimum detectable activrty (MDA) of 0.01I WL. Conversely, when mined
ore was stockpiled, over the period of 1989 - 1991, the measured radon daughter levels
were all above the MDA.
As noted above, the tonnage of mined ore stockpiled in the time period 1989 - 1991 was
approximately four times the amount of alternate feed ore stockpiled during 2000 - 2002.
Al-tlrough d*i"g the 1989 - l99l time period, the radon daughter concentrations were
*"**ubl. above the MDA, the maximum concentration measured was still low. At
0.07 WL, the morimum concentration of radon daughters measured during storage of the
mined ore was less than 22o/o ofthe allowable radon concentration contained in l0 CFR
paxt11, Appendix B for occupational exposure. The average radon concentration over
this period ** rno.. than an order of magnitude lower, at0.027 WL. This level of radon
emiJsion, measgred at a point in the center of the Mitl yard, is only 8.0% of the
concentration allowed for worker exposure. In addition, radon is measured on a weekly
basis at the nearest residence, with the result typically being nondetectable.
In this context it is worth noting that the EPA has found that with respect to uranium mill
tailings piles "ttre risk from radon emissions diminishes rapidly with distance from the
tailings iile ldeclining by a factor of three for each doubling of the distance beyond a few
hunfid meters)" (scE EPA, Final Environmental Impact Statement for Standards for ttre
S:\MRRNRCQucsrions(gcncral)NRClcttcr of Januaryl42002\finaldraft03-l l-02.doc
o
Mr. Melvyn N. Leach, U.S. NRC
March 11,2002
Page l0 of21
Contol of Byproduct Materials from Uranium Ore Processing." Vol. I at 10-12.
September 1983).
In other words, even when mined ore was stockpiled at the Mill, the radon levels in the
center of the plant were a small fraction of the occupational exposure level for workers.
Furthermore, atrnospheric dispersion between the center of the ore pad, where these low
levels are measured, and the nearest resident reduces the radon and decay progeny below
detectable limits. We conclude, therefore, that the stockpiling of both conventional
uranium ore and alternate feed ore is not deleterious to workers or to the public, is in
compliance with all applicable standards, and is in keeping with the principles of
AI,ARA.
Airbome Particulates
As part of the environmental protection program required by the Mill's NRC license, the
Mili monitors air quality and collects vegetation samples both on- and offisite. Data
from these programs are published in the Mill's Semi-annual Effluent Report. Air quality
monitoring stations are in place between the Mill and the nearest resident locations.
These include a station located near the closest resident (north of the Mill), the White
Mesa Community (3.3 miles SSE of the Mill), as well as a station near the ore pad. An
additional air monitoring station, which ruSA installed at the request of the Ute
Mountain Ute Tribe to provide added monitoring capability between the Mill and the
White Mesa Ute Community, has been operational for approximately three years. The
Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Environmental Department participates in data gathering at this
station, and has been receiving copies of data collected at the station. Prior to this year,
data from this station only had been sent to the Tribal Environmenthl Director; however,
IUSA is voluntarily adding the data collected at this station into ttre Mill's Semi-annual
Effluent Reports, beginning with the most recent reporting period-
All air particulate monitoring results from every station have remained below State
standards and standards required under the Mill's NRC license. The uranium, thorium,
and lead-210 particulate data presented in the semi-annual reports show no evidence of
increasing air qualrty impacts from management of alternate feed ores, when compared
with air quahty monitoring results from periods during which the Mill has stored
conventionally mined ores. In fact, as detailed in the following section, air quality
monitoring results indicate that management of alternate feed ores produce even lower
levels of constituents at these monitoring stations than storage of conventionally mined
ores, the storage of which has never resulted in an exceedance ofNRC standards.
A review of all the available off-site air quality data indicates that during periods when
there was a significant quantity of conventionally-mined ore stored on site, the on- and
oflsite air quality monitoring results were somewhat higher than during periods of Mill
inactivity. However, it should be noted that even during peak operational periods, the air
qualtty parameters never exceeded the applicable standards specified in the Mill's AO, or
the Mill's NRC license.
Uranium particulate samples for the comparative periods 1989 - 1991 and 2000 - 2002
have been taken each month at various locations throughout the mill stockpile area.
S:\MRRNRCQrcstions(gcncral)NRClctcr ofJanuaryl42fi)2\frnaldrafr03-l l-o2.doc
Mr. Melvyn N. r"u.n,t. NRC
March 11,2002
Page I I of2l
Continuous uranium airborne particulate samples also have been taken at five boturdary
environmental monitoring stations (see attached Figure). The results of two
environmental monitoring stations BHV-I and BIIV-5 are compared to the
environmental background monitoring station BHV-3, and are also compared against
each other for the comparative ore management periods. Environmental monitoring
station BHV-5 is located nearest to the center of the ore storage area approximately 400
meters distant from the center of the storage area, in the southeasterly direction. The
environmental monitoring station Bfry-l is located at the mill boundary directly north of
the center of the storage area, approximately 1.6 miles away. Environmental monitoring
station BHV,3 is located approximately 9 miles directly west of the Mill site, and due to
it's remote location, it is the station from which data have been gathered to represent
background radionuclide particulate concentrations in the Mill site area. Samples are
collected continuously at each of the current monitoring stations, and the samples are
atalyzndfor the radioisotopes U-Nat, Ra-226, Th-230, and Pb-210.
Graph II (attached) presents the results for U-Nat only, because it is the parent
radi-oisotope of the uranium decay chain and represents the element the Mill recovers. It
should be noted that U-Nat particulate concentrations at each location are equal to or less
than the background U-Nat particulate concentrations from Station BIfV-1, over both
periods 1989-1991 and2000-2002. The maximum value obtained over the comparative
periods are 9.0 x l0-ra 1firhnl- at BHV-5 for the period 1989 - 1991 and 1.0 x l0-ra
pCi/ml at BHV-5 for 2000 - 2002. It is noteworttry that these values are l0.0oZ and
i.0% r6p"ctively of the permissible effluent limits found in 10 CFR Part 20 Appendix B.
Uranium airbome particulate samples'are collected over the entire ore storage area every
month for personnel exposure assessment. The values average over the Mill yard storage
area for the two periods 1989-l99land 2000-2002 are, respectively, less than 5.0% and
less than 1.0% of the allowable derived air concentration @AC) levels for U-Nat.
A similar comparison can be made of the thorium content (1\-232) forurd in natural
uranigm ores stockpiled on the ore pad from 1989-1991 and the altemate feed ores
presently managed at the Mill. It should be noted that most uraniun ores contain some
Loncentations of natural thorium (1\-232). The uranium ores received at the Mill
between 1989-1991 were mined in the Colorado Plateau and the Aiznna Strip areas. The
uranium mineral in these ores was "Uraninite" which is more commonly called
pitchblende, which frequently contains higher levels of T\-232 than other types of
domestic uranium ore. Uraninite contains approximately 46.5 to 82.2%o uranitrm and as
much as 45.3%Th-232. Based on this information, one can compare the radiation dose
levels due to thorium contained in mined uranium ores and alternate feed ores.
If we assume, as noted above, that the conventional mined ore from the period of 1989-
1991 had an average uranium content of 0.389%, &d using the primary mineral
pitchblende, this ore would also contain approximately 0.379%'I\-228, plus Th-228.
This equates to a specific activity of 853 pCrlg of ore.' The measured mean 1\-232
2 This is based upon the natural thorium content of each material as determined by alphaspectroscopy as
follows: Line,"Ih-232, 0.59 pCilg; and Ashland l,"I\-232,3.6 p0ilg. The thorium activities of the three
cited alternate feed ores are based on the natuial thorium content ofeach, as determined by
alphaspectroscopy performed on a composite samp_letak91 atttre-Mill from each of these ores.
S:Wn*:WnCQucstlons(gcncral)NRClcttcr of luruary142002\frnaldraft03-l l-02.doc
o
U.S.Mr. Melvyn N. Leach,
March 11,2002
Page 12 of2l
NRC
activity of the alternate feed material Ashland I, Linde, and Heritage ores currently
stockpiled at the Mill is 7.2 pCrlg of material, which is approximately two orders of
magnitude less than the activity due to thorium in the mined ores. There is very little
nutirul thorium in the Ashland I and Linde materials, which comprises 98.5% of the
alternate feed ore presently managed at the Mill, while the Heritage material comprises
just 1.5% of the alternate feed ore presently managed at the Mill.
In any event, NRC has found that even when th-232 and its daughter products "are
prrr"rrt in amounts comparable to the natural uranium concentration in the ore". . . "the
impact of these isotopesls relatively inconsequential" (NUREG-0706, Vol. I at 6-21).
Cumulative imPacts
Based on the data detailed in this section, radon or airborne particulate levels associated
with the storage of alternate feed ores are either so low as to be immeasurable, or are a
small fractioriof allowable effluent levels. The levels measured during the storage of
alternate feed ores fall well below allowable effluent levels, as well as the levels
measured during management of mined ores, and the particulate values measured during
management of mined ores are also a fraction of the allowable effluent levels. We
conclide, therefore, that there are no added or cumulative airborne particulate or radon
impacts due to management of alternate feed ores, because the stockpiling of both
coiventional uranium ore and alternate feed ore is not deleterious to the worker nor to the
public, is in compliance with all applicable standards, and is in keeping wittr the
principles of ALARA.
Maywood Material
As detailed in IUSA's Amendment Request (June 2001), although the Maywood Material
originated from uranium and thorium- bearing monazite sands, a good portion of the
thorium was removed in the thorium recovery processes at Maywood Chemical Works,
The Th-232 content for the Maywood Site overall ranges from non-detectable to 3,800
pCrlg with a preliminary estimated overall average of approximately 970 p9ilg. While
furir t-ZfZ content is not as low as'most of the other alternate feed ores the Mill has
received, it is comparable to that of mined ores that the Mill is licensed to receive.
The radiation safety program which exists at the Mill, pursuant to the conditions and
provisions of NRC License Number SUA-1358, and applicable Regulations of the Code
of feaeral Regulations, Tifle 10, is adequate to ensure the ma:<imum protection of the
worker and environment while temporarily managing the Maywood material on the ore
pad prior to processing, and is consistent with the principle of maintaining exposures of
raaiation to individual workers and to the general public to ALARA levels. Radiological
doses to members of the public in the vicinity of the Mill will not be elevated above
levels previously assessed and approved. As described in Section 1.2 of the Maywood
Amendment Request of June 15, 2001, the average T\-232 level in the Maywood
Material is comparable to that of mined ores that the Mill is licensed to receive.
Therefore, IUSA anticipates that there witl be no incremental public health,
environmental, or safety concerns resulting from the management of the Maywood
Material prior to its being processed. However, as stated above, the efficiency of
s:w{RR\}.IRCQuestions(gcncral)NRClcucr of January l 42002vinaldraft03-l l-02.doc
Mr. Melvyn N. Leach, U.S. NRC
March 11,2002
Page 13 of21
airborne contamination contol measures during the material handling operations will be
assessed after the Maywood Material is received at the Mill, in accordance with the
;G;r detailed in ihe previous section of this letter, to ensure that contamination
control measures are effeitive and that the spread of uranium and thorium airborne
particulates is prevented or minimized.
NRC QI'ESTION
Z. *Potential gtoundwater contamination concemsi from the
alternate feed material lying gncovered on an un-lined
surface on the ore pad, including cumulative impacts'"
IUSA RESPONSE
In response to this question regarding concems that groundwater could potentially be
i*puJt"a by alternate feed ore managed on the ore pad prior to processing, the following
J"JoiU"r protective site-specific or material-specific fate and transport considerations,
*a tU" monitoring programs that are intended to confirm that groundwater is not
impacted.
FATE AND TRANSPORT CONSIDERATIONS
precipitation, whether in the form of rainfall or snow, that falls on ore stockpiles
managed prior to processing at the Mill, will evaporate, infilnate the stockpile, or run off
o"to fr. ore pad.
-Evapotranspiration rates at the Mill are high - eslimated to be as high
as 6l incher-p". y"*. Some ffiltation into mined or alternate feed ore stockpiles is
beneficial in mat such moisture helps to maintain the moisture content of the stockpiles,
,h;rrby minimizing the potential for dusting. To ensure that there is no loss of
stockpiled ore maierials from the ore pad due !o plecipitation, th9 e-ntire Mill site,
including the ore pad that is used to store conventional and altemate feed ore stockpiles,
i;g;dto drainio the tailings system. There is no mechanism for surface nrnofffrom
*i pr*ipitation that may have contacted the stockpiles to leave ttre site. As noted
b"ffi, the ore paid is also underlain by crushed limestone, to inhibit water infiltration,
and any potential surface nuroffwould drain to the on-site tailings system'
Altemate feed ores managed on the ore pad may contain radionuclides, heavy metals
ir".t as lead) and low concentrations of organic compounds (such as chlorinated solvents
or fuel hydrocarbons). In order for these constituents to reach groundwater, they would
have to be transported from the feed stockpiles, through the surface of the ore pad, and
jo*,**a through more than approximately 60 feet of underlying vadose zone materials
to the perched water zone.
The primary transport mechanism would be via dissolution into any waters percolating
ttrorigt ttre stoctpiled materials. These waters would originate as precrpitation at the
site, or as pore waters existing within the feed materials when delivered to the site, or
UotU. Votatile organic compo,rnds (VOCs) might also be tansported in the vapor phase
via diffirsion. StroUa organic compounds exist as a separate phase liquid, gravity driven
s:w{RR\NRCQrrcstions(gcncral)NRClcttcr of Januaryl42$2\finaldnft03-l l-02.doc
o
U.S. NRCMr. MetvYn N. Leach,
March 11,2002
Page 14 of2l
migration of this liquid could, * t"ory, also occur. However, ruSA does not accept
alternate feed ores containing organic compognds as separate phase liquids'
Radionuclides and heavy metals (such as lead) tnically have low solubility except under
conditions of Urto* *rtrd pH. Metal speciis iitcety-to exist in some of the mined ores
:-- --.L:^L,h";;;ft-p**ilv u;;;;J"' -ttre ore pud tvpi'u}y ""':i:l :f "tI*,'^'i:1":"YPj:il#""'#""Hilii#';ilbtrtt ;d; n9* """i'a qfr :"ffi :T'.,. 9:-**: "l-*:::
J.iira|r-"-"fri r";; i" mobilization of metal tp""i"t; h3weyer,. the oxidation process
typically witl be ,t*iot most of the metal sulfides, including lead sulfide'
The potential for oxidation should not be significant during the relatively short time
periods the ores *. **ug"d on the 9re pad, uid b."utrs" 9f the dry conditions at the site'
In addition, most metals, such as lead, are strongly adsorbed onto sulfides, organic
material, iroo o*yfryiio*iaes, and clays, which reducgg.their mobility' And' as noted' the
;;;;;,,h" ,it ir,nderlain by compacted, crushed limestone' Should dissolved heaw
metal species be mobilized as aiesutt-of o*iaation and rainfall infiltation, and if they are
not subsequeoUy ,"t rJ"d by adsorplion, the species -*"+9 be expected to precipitate as
either carbonates, such as iead carbonate, or as hydroxides within the limestone layer
upon seepage into that layer. The same process *-"{9 gccur in the subsurface beneath
rli";;;;"din ttre carbonaceous sandstones that underlie the entire site'
Orsanic Constituents
In addition to metals and radionuclides, organic constituents such as petroleum
hydrocarbons or other organics may be preselnt in. some conventionally mined and
altemate feed ores, brt in-r*t "mely low concentrations' Organic compounds such as
petolegm hydrocarbons and ,o*" ,hloritut"d compotrnds may be present in altemate
feed ores temporarity stored on the ore pad. HowJver, these compounds typically are
present in low conoeirtrations whcn measured in situ prior to loading the ore for shipment
to the Mill. When the alternate feed ores arrive at the site, tlrg concentations of many of
the species are usually below -detectable limits, and are also expected to be fi5ther
reduced during storage as a result of volatilization and biodegradation' -
For tlrcse reasons'
the compounds are iot likely to be mobilized at significant dissolved concentrations in
* Oi"rr*"on tf,uitnuy ,o"tu.t and percolate into the alternate feed ore stockpiles'
Furthermore, materials currently managed on the "-* Pf have a high clay content and
low permeability.
-tt"
to* permeabifi, combined *it1.tfte low precipitation and high
annual evaporation at the siti, further r"d,r"r the potential for infiltration to insignificant
levels.
In summary, for the reasons listed below, it is unlikely, that constituents present in
alternate feed ores would result in groundwater contamination at the site because (1) past
;;;;;*onit*iog at the site-has not indicated any impact from mined or alternate
feed tranium ore stored on the ore pld in the past, and (2) a number of conditions and
mechanisms exist to mitigate the potential transport of constituents to groundwater'
These include:
S'lN{RRNRCQucstionsGcrrral)NRClcttcrofJanuaryl42O02\finaldraffO3-ll-o2'doc
o
U.SMr. Melvyn N. Leach,
March 11,2002
Page 15 of21
. NRC
l. Low annual precipitation (< 12 inches) and high annual evapotanspiration
(as high * Ot ioit "s) at the site reduce the amount of water available to
potentially infiltate the stockpiled materials and eventtrally percolate to
groundwater.
2. The slope of the ore pad (designed to contain runoff and drain any runoff
to the tailings cells) and the compaction of the pad surface reduce the
potential for infiltration because :
a. compaction of the surface materials reduces their permeability, and,
b. the ore pad slope increases the ratio of nmoffto infiltration.
3. The low permeability of native sandstone materials underlying the ore pad
would reduce the rate of any downward percolation of any moisture that
actuallY infiltrates the ore Pad.
4. The potential for solute transport is low. Reasons for the low potential for
metals transPort include:
a. the generally low solubility of heavy metals and radionuclides at near
neutal PH;b. the existence of metals as sulfide species having low solubility;
c. the low rate of oxidation of metal sulfides to more soluble species
under the relatively dry site conditions and within the short time
periods that the materials are stockpiled onsite;
d. the strong sorption potential of metals to sulfides, clays, organic
materials, and iron oxides;
e. the presence of crushed limestone underlying the ore pad which would
cagse precipitation of metal species to carbonates or hydroxides; and,
f. the prlsenie of calcareous native materials beneath the ore pad that
would have the same effect as above.
5. Reasons for the low potential for organic constituent transport include:
a. The low concentrations of organic compotrnds present in altemate feed
materials delivered to the site (and no organic compounds as separate
phase liquids);
b. The reduction in concentration of VOCs due to volatilization and the
potential for biodegradation of VOCs and other organic constituents
during temporary storage on the ore pad.
Additional Work to Verifv Fate and TransDort Assumptions
Work ttrat is planned for additional characteizattonof the ore pad includes: (l) modeling
of potential ffiltration into existing ore stockpiles and potential for downward
p"r*tution into the ore pad, and (2) measurement of the vertical permeability of a
S:WRRNRCQucstions(gcneral)NRClcuer of Januaryl42002\finaldraff03-l l-02'doc
o
U.S . NRCMr. Melvyn N. Leach,
March 1L,2002
Page 16 of2l
Work that is planned for additional cl:rractey'rzation of the ore pad includes-. (1) modeling
of potential infiltation into existing ore stockpiles- and potential for downward
p"r*lutioo into the ore pad, and (2) measurement of the vertical permeability of a
representative (and accesiible; portion of the ore pad using a ring infiltometer- The
i"r"tt" of the ring infiltrometer test will be used as input to analytical and/or numerical
models to be *.d to help quantiff the potential for transport of dissolved constituents
from stockpited materials to groundwater.
The scheduling of the ring infilnometer test will depend on the site weather; in panicular,
the tests will be performed when daily low temperatures are above free,i.g, which is
anticipated to ocCur during the month of May. Comfr1t91_codes that are anticipated to be
used in the modeling etro? include I{ELP35, SOLCOVER4, and TRACRNI. HELP3
and SOIL COVER would be used to estimate potential infiltation into stockpiles from
precipitation, and potential seepagg from the base of the ore stockpiles. The potential
,""pug" estimate and the estimate of vertical permeability from the ring infiltometer tests
"* t-r used as input to TRACRN. TRACRN would then be used to simulate the
potential ,oor"m"rri of solutes to groundwater. IIELP3 modeling can be performed prior
io infiltrometer testing. Due to the need for infiltrometer results as for vertical
permeability input to 1RACRI.I, those modeling efforts will commence immediately
iollowing "o*itrtioo of the ring infiltometer test. As soon as weather permits
performincr of th. ring infiltrometer test, anticipated in May, IUSA will submit a
ichedute for completion of the modeling.
Added Protective Measures
In add.ition to the site and material considerations detailed above which minimize the
potential for any transport of constituents from ores to groundwater, IUSA voluntarily
L* propored added miasures, consistent with the ALARA approach, to firtlrer reduce
the potential for contaminant release in particular cases. For example, as detailed above,
IUSA committed to performing the additional ALARA measures in managing the
Molycorp material, which included plrying the material on a concrete pad (or comparable
methods) to contain moisture.
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM
As part of the environmental protection program ryquire{by the Mill's NRC license, the
Mili monitors water quality data both on- and off-site. These data are published in the
Mill,s Semi-annual Effluent Report. Over 20 years of quarterly groundwater quality data
3 paul R. Schroeder, Cheryl M. Lloyd, and Paul AZappi. The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill
peJormance (HELp) Model. User's Guide for Version 3. Environmental Laboratory. U.S.Army Corps
of Engineers. watenrays Experiment station. vicksburg, MI 39 I 80-6 I 99
o Soilcover, 2000. Unsaturatred Soil Group. Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Saskatchewan, Saskatoon' Canada
t Bryr, J. Travis and Kay H. Birdsell, 1988 TRACRN l:0 A Model of Flow and Transport in Porous
Uedia for the Yucca Mountain Project - Model Descripion and User's Manual. Submitted to Yucca
Mountain hoject Miles T421
S:W{RRNRCQucstionsGencral)NRClcttcr of Januaryl4202\finaldraftO3-l l-02'doc
Mr. Melvyn N. Leach, U.S. NRC
March 11,2002
Page 17 of2l
from this program indicate ttrat there has been no on- or off-site impact to gtoundwater
from Milt opeiations.6
in cooperation with Utah DEO
The Mitl currently has a Point of Compliance ("POC") program in place that, after more
than 20 years of monitoring, indicates that there has been no contaminant migration to
groundwlter from Mill operations. NRC has incorporated the existing POC monitoring
program as a condition of IUSA's NRC license, because the program ha^s been
derionstrated to be sufficiently protective of groundwater quality. Neverttreless, at the
request of UDEQ, IUSA has voluntarily agreed with UDEQ to obtain a Utatr
Gioundwater Discharge Perrrit ("GWDP') and to implement groundwater monitoring for
additional parameters.
The pOC progr€m mandates quarterly sampling of the perched groundwater zone for four
parameteri, chloride, potassium, nickel, and uranium (the "POC Pararteters"), ttrat are
ley indicators of potential seepage from the tailings cells. This detection monitoring
progru* was only approved by NRC after more than 16 years of data, using additional
parimeters that were collected at up to 23 wells, demonstrated no impact to the perched
groundwater zone from Mill operations. The POC indicator parameters were selected
based on the following criteria:
o high concentrations in tailings slimes drain water;
o low concentations in site groundwater;
o conseryative chemical characteristics: and,
o indicative representation of chemical classes; that is; a cation, an anion, a tace
metal, and a radionuclide.
The metals, VOCs, and SVOCs that may be contained in altemate feed ores are typically
also present in the Mill's lle.(2) byproduct wasles but not all are either selected or
appropriate as POC indicator parameters, because they do not satisff the selection criteria
[sLd above as well as the POC parameters do. For example, the kerosene entrained in
the l1e.(2) byproduct wastes contains the SVOCs benzene and xylene, and IUSA has
previousiy ."ported the presence of ppb levels of chloroform in tailings slimes. In
uddition, ieveral of the metals listed in Table 3.1 of the Mill's May,1979 Environmental
Assessment were anticipated to be ultimately present in the liquid portion of the Mill
tailings. This is not surprising, since mined uranium ores would contain many of the
6ruSl has detected some chloroform contamination at the Mill site that aPpears to have resulted from the
operation of a temporary lahratory facility that was located at the site prior to and during construction of
the Mill. The source and extent of this contamination are currently under investigation and a corrective
action plan, if necessary, is yet to be devised. Although chloroform is present in perched groundwater
south of the ore storage pad, there are no users of the water from this groundwater zone downgradient of
ttre Mill site; ttrereforg although it is a matter of concern to IUSA that the chloroform is present, there is no
danger to human health or the environment posed by the detected chloroform at this time' The chloroform
wasletected in a shallow perched groundwater zone approximately 100-150 feet below the surface. The
regional aquifer is located approximately 1,200 feet below this perched zone, hydraulically isolated by low
permeability formations.
S:\MRRNRCQucstions(general)NRCletter of Januaryl42@2\finaldraff03-l l-02'doc
o
u.s.NRCMr. Melvyn N. Leach,
March 17,2002
Page 18 of21
same metals found in soils excavated at other locations in the United States. However,
unlike most of the metals that could be present in tailings seepage, c!lo1de, potassium
and nickel are ..conservative", which means that these constituents are far less affected by
tfr" g"o"t "-ical processes that would attenuate the mobility of the other tailings
conslituents. Conservative constituents travel at or very near the speed of groundwater
urra *. not significantly retarded by natural attenuation. Showing high mobiltty in
jround*ater, tli"r" constituents serve as an early waming to the potential arival of other
lroundwater contaminants, such as lead. Also, these four constituents were selected as
the indicator parameter,
'b."uur. they best meet the criteria of occurrence at high
concentations in tailings slimes-drain water, while occurring at relatively lower
concentations in natural lroundwater across the Mill site. For the foregoing reasons, it is
not necessary to change-the Mill's POC program to accommodate alternate feed ore
stored temporarily prior to processing at the Mill site'
As part of the GWDP development process, IUSA has agr^ee{ wilh.uDEQ to consider
*oriiiori"g for additional paramet.rs fro- a potential list of other indicators of chemical
classes, such as major ions and/or other constituents, based upon criteril that would
ensure that the resuliing data could reasonably be used to evaluate potential leakage from
the Mill's tailings celts. In a report submitted to UDEQ on October 3-,200I,IUSA
;;;il"a an evJuation of additional constituents to potentially be used as additional
i*a*"t.rs for groundwater monitoring, and the rationale for assigning compliance limits
io monitoring p-arameters for the GWDP. The parameters that would be used to monitor
G tailings c-eils would also be effective in monitoring gtoundwater that may potentially
be affectJd by storage of mined or altemate feed ores on the ore pad. However, as noted
uUor., the liielihoo-<l of infiltration of water, much less hazardous constituents, through
G or. pad is expected to be minimal. Studies detailed above will provide further data to
ensure that this assumption is correct.
Furthermore, since May of lggg, pending implementation of the GWDP, IUSA and
UDEe have been "rrgujirrg in a program of collecting split samples of groundwater from
ai u*if"Ule monitoring *"ttr "t the Mill, in which essentially all of the parameters
UDEe requests are bein! sampled on.an annual basis, or in the case of SVOCs, each year
that the State has requested this analysis.
Potential cumulative imPacts
potential cumulative impacts from storage of alternate feed ores on water quattty- Te
expected to be no greater than those from the storage of mined ores' Impacts of the
;6r"g, of mined orJr *" expected to be virtually nonexistent, for the following reasons:
l. Low annual precipitation and high annual evapotranspiraliol reduce the
amount of water available to potentially infittate the stockpiled ores and
eventually percolate to groundwater.
2. The slope of the ore pad (designed to contain runoff and drain any runoff
to the tailings cells) *a tfr. compaction of the pad reduce the potential for
infiltation
S:\MRRNRCQuestionsGeneral)NRClctrcr of Januaryl42002\ftnaldra003-l l-o2.doc
o
U.S. NRC
4. The potential for solute transport is low'
5. The potential for organic transport is low'
In addition, even though the existing NRC licensed groundwater monitoring program is
adequate to ensure thlt potential impacts from Mill operations, much less storage of
conventiona and alternate feed ores on the ore pad, are ryonitored, IUSA is voluntarily
sumpti"g for additional parameters in cooperation with Utah DEQ'
Maywood Material
For the reasons detailed above, there is little, if any, chance that radiological or chemical
constituents in the Maywood Material could leach into the subsurface to a degree not
contemplated by, and that would not be fully reclaimed under' the Mill's current
,"Jur""tion plan. The composition of the Maywood Material is very similar to the
compositioo of m. materials'currently present at-the Mill, because the Maywood Material
resulted from the processing of source material ores for the extraction of source material.
ft" *ort frequently "rr"or.ilt.r"d
compounds other than radionuclides in the Maywood
frrfut"ria ure iotyrru"lear aromatic hydrocarbon compounds ('?AHs"), associated with
*prrat paving materials, and the t ut*ut decay of organic matter. Even in the areas of
,1! M"y*"oisit" with the highest pAH levels, PAHs were present at levels comparable
to the levels in previously affived alternate feed ores, such as the Tonawanda Site and
St. Louis Site. They ,r. ulto cbmparable to levels already considered in the
Environmental Assessment for the Mill, which anticipated the management of all the
iliilb fi31111;r asphalt paved areas in the tailings cells during final reclamation'
Although a few VOC compounds were detected in the Maywood Material, in all casies
the concentrations *"." nrgligible, and are substantially lower than those anticipated in
the Environmental Assessrient for the Mill, which anticipated the management of VOC
solvents and exfiactants from the Mill:s on site laboratory in the tailings impoundments.
Therefore, the protective mechanisms detailed above which Prlyen1 infittation of
constitgents ,ont io"d in either mined or alternate feed ores would also apply to the
ftl"y*""a Material, and there would be no incremental concerns resulting from managing
the Maywood Material prior to processing'
NRC QLIESTION
3. ..what would be the cost of disposing of the stockpiled
material should the mill be shut-down prior to another
processing run? Has this cost estimate been factored into in
the curent suretY?"
Mr. MelvYn N. Leach,
March 11,2002
Page 19 of?l
S:\MRR\NRCQttcstions(general)NRClcttcrofJanuaryl4202VinaldraffO3-ll-02.doc
Mr. Melvyn N. Leach, U.S. NRC
March 11,2002
Page20 of?l
IUSA RESPONSE
The White Mesa Mill Reclamation Plan, Revision 3.0, July 2000, has conservatively
assumed the removal of 18 inches of soil from over 60 acres of Mill yard and ore pad
area. The reclamation plan includes analysis of 572 soil samples over the Mill yard, ore
pad and surrounding area as part of the initial Scoping and Characterization Surrey. An
additional 300 soil samples are included in the cost estimate as a part of the Final Status
Survey. Costs are also included for independent quality control during the sampling and
cleanup activities.
The total estimated cost for disposing of the currenfly stored alternate feed material is
approximately $200,000, as detailed in Attachment l. This amount includes a l1Ya
contingency amount as well as a l}Yo profit allowance to account for the work being
conducted by an outside contractor. Overall, this additional amount represents only llYo
of the current total Mill area decommission cost and only 2Yo of the total projected cost
for the decommissioning and reclamation of the White Mesa Mill and tailings area. The
conservatively high 150lo contingency amount included in the Mill's reclarnation budget
is more than sufficient to provide for the cost of disposing of any remaining ores not
processed prior to mill shut down. It should be noted that the cost of moving any
remaining mined ores from the ore pad to the tailings cell has always been considered to
be included in the contingency amount. IUSA would view any remaining stockpiled
alternate feed ores as a variance in quantity of material to be removed from the ore pad,
and as suctr, would properly be covered by the contingency of approximately $1.15M
included in the January 2001 Reclamation Cost Estimate. Therefore, IUSA believes that
it would be reasonable to consider the cost of moving alternate feed ores to the tailings
cell to be similarly included in the contingency amount.
Nevertheless, in its March 1,2002 update to the reclamation estimate, ruSA has added
the estimated cost of disposing of the currently-managed altemate feed ore into the
tailings cells in the updated Mill Deco.mmissioning Cost.
SI.JMMARY A}iD CONCLUSIONS
ruSA manages conventionally mined uranium ores, as well as alternate feed ores, by
stockpiling the material on the Mill's ore pad until the next Mill run, in a manner which is
subject to the Mill's ALARA Program, ensuring that any releases are not only below
applicable standards, but also are further reduced to levels which are ALARA. The data
provided herein provide evidence ttrat storage of alternate feed ores produces even less
impact with respect to radon or airbome particulate emissions than the storage of mined
ores, which also produces emissions well below applicable standards and below the
Mill's ALARA goals. Similarly, management of the Maywood Material would also fall
within these limits. Furthermore, based upon site-specific considerations and monitoring
prograrns detailed herein, it is evident that the storage of alternate feed ores or the
Maywood Material would have no cumulative impact on groundwater. To provide
further confirmatory datq IUSA will perform the additional analyses described above.
S:\MRR\NRCQrcstions(gencral)NRClcuer ofJanuaryl42002Vinaldraff03-l l-02.doc
Mr. Melvyn N. Leach,
March 11,2002
Page2l of2l
With respect to the adequacy of the Mill's surety to provide for the cost of disposing of
stockpited material strould the Mill be shut down prior to another processing run" IUSA
believes that ttre conservatively high contingency amount included in the Mill's
reclamation budget is more than sufficient to provide for the cost of disposing of any
remaining ores not processed prior to mill shut down; however, ruSA has incorporated
the additlonal cost of disposing of the currently-managed altemate feed ore into the
tailings cells in ttre updated Mill Decommissioning Cost'
Should the NRC have any questions regarding these responses, I can be reached at (303)
389.4131.
o
U.S. NRC
Sincerely, ,/
Michelle R. Rehmann
Environmental Manager
MRR
Attachments
Richard Bartlett/IUSA
Ronald E. Berg/IUSA
David C. Frydenlund/IUSA
Ron F. Hochstein/TUSA
Tom Rice, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
William J. SinclairAJDEQ
William von TillA.IRC
s:\tvtRRNRCQucsrions(gcncnl)NRClcEcr of Januaryl42002\Enddran$-l l-o2.doo
ob6oo
ob-loo
obo\o6
Pol,oo
PoN)oo
Iooo
Activity in lVL
ob5o6
Ioooo
oo
E:5
PriooEoFlr
{It
(D
=(!aD
3
ort(!d9:!dIXrEdIt oe
-(!FtlEo
Fg
Et6oe(,Da
D
L(!0
€\ot\o
-e
eIell
I
Il
:I
)r "'x." I
T
I
l.
r" ar1'.:'
I
I
!
l"'-
+----...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
!
?
?
1..""'
').
a
T
I
a.'
j
l'
)
)""-
I
I
.
.(
)
)
)
['
a
a
a
a
F
p
oFto(h
o
€\oI\oo
Hts.i
=o
I
F
p
o
tD
u)o:rtJoooIN)oo
U-naC uCi/ml
bbbbbooooolr, tr, t', rr, rr,':-5545o\o6{o\
bbbbbb660QCaEEEF'IT'F'I-lirrr
O\urE'(rt\)
boIt,{
{---..|!(!
r-o0E2=-.--
ItrDalt
E.El-or.t
Eo
FU
Br.t
.ltl.f)
L-palro
aE--g --
-76AAcLY) . A*:r+DBtiE'E\OEraE
- Er, .'^-E51l-6ul ci
EEBEtoa
F}o
D-Eoa
3Fl
t\)evUIclrD
EEl+(t-t
I)l
TE-rl
I(,
(
a
t
III
a
\?
I
I
I
I
,
I+rl!ltirlrlt1rl!,i
\\
{
i
II
I
I
I{
{
I
I
i
II
i
I
I
!{
{
I
I
I
I
I{
Ii
Ii
I
i
It{
{
I
1
I{
6re-dGD'-f,Hrre
Ittatl
EU TE
ta
oao\otlo\o o
l+E' EE
&.i
o6o\oA$o
+>
5Po2EI:?Ei^\i9oo
!, \0E'O
tr,
I
a
I
Ed
I
ooIo
Attachment 1
MILL DECOIIIMISSIONING
Alternite Feed Dlsoocal
Linde, Ashtand & Herltage Matcrla!
Resource
Operators
Cat 769 HaulTruc* (3)
Cat 988 Loader
Cat 651 Waterwagon
Cat 14G Motorgrader
Equipment Maintenance (Butlefl
Total Linde, Ashland & llerltage ilst8rial
TotalQuantity
Cameco Bandr
Flesource
Flat Bed Traller and Tractof
Foil Uft (2)
Total Camoco Barclr
'lrrcludes operator
SubTotat Altcrnatc Fccd DlsPo*l
Total Altemat Fecd DisPoral
Cost/l.Jnit Task Unlts Task Cost
$125,301
151.274 CubicYads
196 Gublc Yards PerTruck Per hour
772 Truck Holrs
Cost/tJnit Task Unlts Task Cost
$32,767
Contigency
GontractorO&P
Pemits & Bonding
31,586 Banals
40 Banels Per load
0.4 Hours Per load
316 Trud< Hours
150h
10%
*/o
$158,06E
$23,710
$15,807
34'71
kr.rddt l Lrrf.m (US )CorP.
WHi. fr-r ffl
TO
BLANDINGIl''NL2ACNA! LOCAIIOa 6 d{v-2 l\E +7!O fEf -d.E xomH
Lie
d61.d -=ED qt <JA F- 99--F EE?;td19ttIJ2l{
.22
+
PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
EdN0
Gl
td
20
E.6I6t'.U+N t2!L0m
27
\ '5'| tfa ,
o*tfiRESTRICTED
AREA FENCE
UNE
MArN ACCESS ROAp
*34
EXISTING
RESTRICTED;
AREA FENCE
LINE
\L LOCAIIOI c d{v-tls a.7.re,tt tEI
U.,E UEST
E.6
8-tt
LT+N lt5.o@
3
',0 \
\TO
BLUFF
t
f;
GT
ur. +N tt0,0@
I
Ia!+a!8
MAR-r 3-02 09rli From:lUC
io,,,t***io*O
Unrxruu (usa)
Ccnponqrrou
30338e4r25a 14TT P.n2/26 Job-331
lndependence Plaze, Suite 050 r 1050 Seventeenth Street. Denvey, CO 80265 r SO3 628 7798 (mairr) o 303 389 4125 (f&K)
March 11,2002
vIA FACSIMILE ANn nr.PRr'.SS COUBIEB
Mr. lvl;lryn N. Lcach, Chicf
Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch
Mail Stop T-8A33
Office of Nuclear Ores Safety and Safeguards
U.S. Ir uclear Regulatory Commission
2 Whire FlintNorth
11545 Roc,kvi[ePike
Roclcvtlle, MD 20852-2738
Re: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission letter of January t4,2002
Whitc Mcra Uranium Mill
Souce Material License No. SUA-1358
Docket No. 40-8681
Dear hlr. Leach:
lnternr.tronal Uranium (USA) Corporatiori ("IUSA") hereby responds to your leuer dated
Janturf 14,2002 to Mr. Ron Hochstein, IUSA kesident and Chief Executive Officer. In
this le:ter, IUSA addresses each of the questions posed in yoru letter regarding IUSA's
practico of stockpiling alternate feed on the ore pad at the White Mesa Uranium Mill (the
"Mill"). For oaso of rofcrenco, tho quostions ate addrcssod bclow iu tho same ordct as
presenrd in your January 14 letter. In addition, IUSA also reqponds to NRC's question
regard:ng the adequacy of the Mill's,suety to cover the cost of disposing of stockpiled
materi,rl. in the hypothetical event that the Mill were to be shut dowrt prior to another
procesdng run. Finally, IUSA responds to the questions relating to groundwater
protection and dust mitigation specific to the Maywood Amendmont roqucatn montionod
in NR()'s letter to ruSA dated November 30, 2001.
BACKGROI]ND
IUSA manages oonventionally mined uranium ores, ss well as altemote feed ruanium
ores, by stockpiling the material on the Mill's ore pad until the next Mill nrn. In fact, the
practicl of accumulating sufficient stockpiles of ore prior to initiating processing
activities is quite common in the mining industry because more time is required to mine
ore the n is needed to process it. Similarly, more time is needed to complete excavation
arrd/or delivery of alternate feed ote than is neded to process it. Neither the Mill's
license nor any other applicable regulations prohibit the Mill from stockpiling ore to
maxirnize the benetits of a processing campaign. Rather, both the Mill's initial license
appliution and subsequent altemate fead license amendment applications have
anticipiled stockpilmg conventional mined and alternate feed ores pending processing
MAR-I3-02 09:li Frorn:lUC
O
Mr. M,dvyn N. Leach U.S.
30339941 25 T-177 P.03/?6 Job-331
NRC
March L1,2002
Page2 of?l
campa g$; for reasons of opefational and economic efliciency. The Mill has, since its
incepiJn, proccssed ore on a carnpaign basis, the schedules for which have been adjusted
as processing economics demand.
Prior t r ttre Mill's very first processing campaigg some 1 million tons of mined ore was
stockp.led orr thp Mill's ore pad. A similar guanttty of ore from rhe then licensee's miues
was stpckpiled durine 1989-1991. By comparisoq some 250,000 tons, 9r approximately
one-fo gttr the previously stockpiled tonnage, are curently stookpiled for the upcoming
altcrnats food ore prooessing campaign.
As a ;eneral nrle, the management of alternate feod ores, like the management of
con er,tionally-mined ores, must be and is performed in fuU compliance with the Mill's
NRC .icense and amendments as well as the Mill's Utah Division of Air Quality
Appro'ral Order for the White Mesa Mill ('Air Quality Permit" or *AO'). These
activiUes also are subject to the Mill's ATARA Program, which seeks to ensue that all
such activitles sarisff applicable standards, but also satisfr thc traditional As Low As
Reasorrably Achievable (or,"ALARA") work practice standard. Indeed IUSA's data
show that maragement of altemate feed ores produces less radon and particulate
emissi rns theu mined ores do, and that radon and particulate emissions ftom mined ores
are cotrsistetrtly well below all applicable standards.
The NR.C monitoring progam in place at the Mill is designed !o detect potential releases
to gro:mdwater ftom iMilt operations and tho management of mined ores and alternate
feel or.es prior to processing. And, sinoe the management of mined ores has produced no
signifi:ant airborne emissions or releases to grourdwater 8t" or evell neff regulatory
limits, it is even less likety that altcrnatc focd oros will produoc such emissions or
releasrs to grouudwater. For the reasous detailed herein, the same conclusions wottld be
tnre ir. the event that IUSA were to menage Maywood Material prior to processing.
How€ver, at the ,equest of the State of Utah, IUSA has agreed to monitor for additional
p6rsrnr)t6fs, similar to the list it used prior to 1997. fuid will propose additional analyses
io pro.ride data for further confirmation that ttre management of alternate feed ores will
have no cumulative impact on groundwatfr.
In addition to the following rcsponses to NRC's guestions regarding poteutial air and
water pality impacts from altemate feed ore management, IUSA ittcludes a r€sponse to
NRC'rr que$ion rogarding the adcquacy of thc Mill's surcty for thc cost of disposing of
stockpiled matcrial, in the hypothetical event that the Mill were to be shut down prior to
anothe r processing nur.
NRC I)UESTION
1. "Potential dust conBol of these altenrate feed piles and tlre
consideretion of radon airborne conamination" iucluding
cumulative impacts."
S:\IVRR\I lRcQrrtlon{ganqal)NRChE r of Janu!ry l{l0oAtrnrldnf03_l l_o2.doc
2 09:lI From: IUC o
Mr. Melv5m N. Leach, U.S. NRC
Much 11,2002
Page3 of2l
IUSA RESPONSE
1-1TT P.04/?6 Job-331
IUSA understands this quostion to ask what, if any, measures are used to contol the
potent.al for dust and radon generation from alternate feed ore stockpiles, and what, if
any, cumuldive impacts may result from the potential airborne dust or radon &om
altemste feeds that are being temporarily stored in euch stockpiles prior to prooessing at
the Mill.
The approach to oontrol of potential airbome dust from stockpiles at the Milt is multi-
facetetL and addresses the key areas of mitigation, application of ALARA principles, and
monitr,ring. As deailed in the following subsections, the Mll complies with Federal and
State rrquirernents by having in place a Dust Suppression Program, which is intended to
mitiga;e the potentlal for airborne dust to be generated fiom ores stockpiled at the site, as
well as from the site in general. Additional, specific msasures may be applied topartictlar alternate feed ores, depending upon physical factors that influence the potential
for such material to geuemte airborne dust (e.g., moistue or clay content of the material).
The Mitl also canies out extensive monitoring to ensue that dust mitigation measures are
effecti're in protecting the workErs, the public, and the environment,
IUSA'i progranr for suppressing dust from the Mill site, as outlined below, will continue
to be l edormed routinely. In addition, examples of additional measures to be employed
on a fe=d material-specific basis for ALARA purposes are presented below.
DUST SUPPRESSION PROGRAM
IUSA routinely employs an extensive Dust Suppression Program ar the Mill, in
accordmce with the following permits and licenses:
1. Selrtember 11,199'l Utah AO (noted above)
2. NILC License Renewal Application fou theWhite Mesa Mill, Sections 2.0 , and 4.0
Thc following subsootions dcscribc thc dust suppression mea$r€s IUSA performs in
accordiurce with the forgoing permit and license requirements.
I ltah Air Orrelitv AlrDroval Otdpt
The A() specifies the steps the Mill must take for fugitive dust uranagement. The AO
require; that all unpar-td_roa{1 and operational areas be water or chemically sprayed to
maintatn opacity at or below 20 percent. IUSA satisfies this requirement, and in-fact uses
an €ven more protective standard, reQuiring watering every dry day, every windy day,*q *)' time any &rst is visible, even if conditions are below 20 percent opacity. TheAO als,r requires the following:
1. That unpoved haul and access roads, and the Mill area itself, have at least
one inch of gravel cover or tre watered to meet the 20 percerrr opacity
requirement.
S;UI{RRW[CQrstions(cnaral)NRCleGcr of lmuaryl{2lXD\flncldE003_l t-o2.doe
30338s4r25o
IIAR-I3-02 09rlt From:lUC
O
3033894rrUo 1'lTl P.05/26 Job-331
Mr.lvelvynN. Leach, U.S. NRC
Marct 11,2002
Paget. of 2l
2, Wetering of oro storage piles e.s conditions warrant.
3. Warering of disturbed areas.
4, Limiting the speed of compacto$ to 3 mph.
5. Minimum moishre content of 4 perceut for dumped materials.
6. Limitine the speed ofheaW equipment to 3 mph druing loading
and 12 mph dumping operations.
?. Minimum dumping eguipment height during urnloading.
8. Water spraying the ailines retention ileas as needed.
9. Spraying, as required, of soil and overbruden stockSriles.
Dust rritigation mea$ues undertaken beyond the requirements in the AO have included:
1. Water sprays used during unloading of materials having physical
properties warranting such additional moaautee, for exatnplo the Heritage
Material.
2. Additional gravel placed on routes used to transport alternate feed ores.
l99l l{ilL}rIRQ Licenee Renew+l A.Pplication
The August l99l NRC Llcense Renewal, Section 4.1.1 specifi.es dust and fime control
measures that are used in eaoh area of the Mill circuit, the ore stockpiles, and the
laboraory, In accordanoe with this section, the ore stockpiles are inspected at Ieast
weekl;,, watered as necessatry, and the water application logged. IUSA records
demor state that inspections are more frequent than required by the license.
Altera rte Feed License Amendment Applications
In genrral, for all stockpiled ore, including altornato feed ores, the effioiency of eirborne
contanrination contol rnea$ues is detemined once the material is in the stockpile. As
with atJ conventional mined ore or alternate feed ore stockpiles, the Milt rsdiation staff
inspec s the ore stockpile area daily to determine whetber or not any additional con6ol
measu:es are required. As noted above, the Mill license renewal applic$ion contains
requirturents fhat the Mill meets for ensrxing that the po-r.err-tial for airborne dusr
genef,ation from mined ores is mitigated. In addition, in applications for altemate feed
ores, IIJSA includes measrues that will be taken to ensure that airbonre dust generadon ismitigaed. For example, in the case of the Molycorp matErial, Section 4.1 of t}s
Molycrry Amendnent Request, Qgntuol of Airborne conterniB+Jion, states that:
The efficiency of airborne contamination control measues during tle
material handling operations wilt be Essossed after the Uranium Marerial is
s:WRR\l RCqu66ilorrlonoral)NRchror ofJcnu.rll.l2ooa\6nddnfios_t t_02_doc
IIAR-l 3-02 09:1 ! F rom: I UC
Mr. MetvynN. L*.fr.s. NRc
30338941 25a 1-lI7 P.16/26 Job-331
March 11,2002
Page i of21
received at the Mill. Appropriate dust suppresion techniques will be
irnllcmcntcd as pcr ths Mill Standard Operating Prooodures. Airborne
particulato samples aud breathing zone samples wiU be collected in those
areas during initial material prooessing activities and analyzed for gross
alpha. The results will establish health and safety guidelines, which will
be implemented tluoughout thp material processing operations.
Personal protective equipment, includiug respiratory protection as
reguirod, will be provided to those individuals engaged in material
processing. Additional environmental air samples will be taken at nearby
iocations in the vicinity of material processing activities to ensure
adcquatc contamination control mcasurcs arc cffcctivc rrd that thc sprcad
of uranium airbome particulates has beeoprevented.
Similar language is found in other IUSA license amendment applications to the NRC for
the altmate feeds il has applied to process. A recent review shows that this languge
appears in Sestion 4.1 of the applic*ions for the Heriagc Material; the Linde Matedal;
Ashlurd I and 2; W.R. Graco; and Camooo.
APPUCATION OF ALARA PRINCIPLES TO INTERIM ORE IVANAGEMENT
IUSA notes thet, while the oro pad airborne control measunes routinely applied aro
sufficir:nt to provide protective interim management of most feed materials, added
meruu'es are available and may be utilized in certain circumstances for low-volume, high
moisture content materials that contain elevaled components of potential concem. such as
metals As with all conventional and alternate feed ores, thE Mill routinely applies
ALARA moasuros to interirn management of the matcrial prior to pncocssing. Such
ALARA practices include air monitoring appropriate to the feed material.
In add:tion, consistent with its ALARA program, ruSA evalustes the potential for other
types ,lf particulates that could potentially become airborne, and supplies additional
inforrnrtion to NRC for partioulEr alternete feed ores. A oase in point is found in IUSA'g
letter cf Jamrary 5,2001n regarding the Molycorp Material, in which IUSA reported the
followng:
Based on discussions with Molycorp...air monitoring daa for an operation
in which Molycorp handled comparable lead material indicated there were
no results exceeding either the pStIA PEL limit (0.05 mg/m3) or the
osHA Action Level (0.03 mg/m') for area atrd breathing zone samples.
Molycorp has indicated that it believes that there will bc no significant
airborne lead exposures resulting from the handling of the lead sulfide
pond material at IUSA, because it has essentially identical corrrposition
and moisture content as the material handled during this operation. As
Molycorp indicates, the air monitoring results showed ttrat the us€ of
respiratory protection was not necessary to meet worker protectiorr
requirements for lead, because the results were blow both action levels
andthe PEL for lead.
S:V{RRN tCQucstionsccncrrl)NRChtcr of lanuary l42@2\finaldraffi3_r t_o2-doc
tlAR-l 3-02 09 :2( F rom : I UC 30338s4r250 1477 P.0l/?6 Job-331
Mr. Milvyn N. Leach, U.S. NRC
March 11,2002
Pqge 6 of2l
As an added precar.rtion, duing initial offloading of the materid, ruSA
will analyze breathing zone and area airborne samplos for total lead to
ensue that the values obtained are below the PEL limit and Action kvel
for lead listed above. If Either of these values are met or exceede{ IUSA
will require use of respiretory proteotion until and rrnless monitoring deta
indicafe that this requirement may be safcly reduced. In addition,
depending upon initial lead results, ruSA will determine the ftequency to
be used for any follow-up air lead analysis &uine offloading of the
material.
Finally, IUSA understands, based on a review of lead sullide toxicity
reports and discussions with Molycorp's Industrlal Hygienist, that meedng
the OSIIA PEL limit and OSHA Action Level listed above is more
protective for a lead compound suoh as lead sulfide, the form of lead in the
material, than for more bioavailable lead compounds, beceuse the OSHA
and NIOSH standards are typically designed to be conservative, in that
they typically protect against the more bioavailable form of a chemical,
The bioavailability of lead sulfide is low relative to certain other rnore
bioavailable fomrs of lead. As reported in Impact of Lead-Contaminated
$oil on Publie Health (U.S. Department of Health and Human Senices,
Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Conftol, Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Regisuy, Charles Xintaras, ScD., May 1, 1992):
The impact of elEosue to lead-contarninated soil on PbB
levels is also influenced by the chemical and physical form
of the lead, Data froni animd feeding studies suggest fhat
thc oral bioavailability of Icad sulfide and lcad otuomate is
significantly less than the bioavailability of other lead salts
(oxide, aoetate) @arltop and Meek l9?4)." "The reduced
bioavailability of lead from mine tailings may be related to
its chemical form (lead sulfide) and its larger particulare
sizo. (p. 12-13)
In othe r words, in addition to the airborne dust mitigation measures detailed above that
reduce the potential for public exposute to airbome dust, mitigation measrues may be
appliec during early receipt of certain alternate feed ores. In general, during initial
offloading of altemate feed ores, IUSA analyzes breathing zone and area airbome
samples for specific constifuents of concem, such as (in the exanrple above) total lead, to
ensure that the values obAined are below the applicable OSHA PEL limits and Aotion
Levels, If either of these values ate met or exceeded" IUSa would require rrse of
respira ory protection until and unlEss monitoring data indicate that such proiection is no
longcr neccssnry. In addition, dcpcnding upon initial results, IUSA will determine the
frequercy to be used for any foltow-up air analysis druing offloading of the particular
altemare fbed ore.
Followurg fiuther with this Molycorp example, in a subsequent letrer to the NRC dated
March 20, 2001, IUSA committed to performing additional ALARA measures in
S:\lrdntrN lCQucrtlor{Bcnsr.l)NRcI+rkr cf JenurrytdfOOeUUUanO3 I I Ot.doo
llAR-l 3-02 09 :2( F rom: I UC 30338slr25o T-177 P.0g/26 Job-331
Mr. Melv;nrN. Leach, U.S. NRC
March 11,2002
Pwei ot?l
managing the Molycorp material lNote thet item I below is inte,rded to ensurre ALARA
with n:spect to protection of groundwater and swface water, which is finther addressed in
respoxse to NRC question 2, below.]:
1. The material will be placed on a concrete pad that will be bermed around the
edges to oontain moisture. The pad neaf, the sample plant will be modified to
handle this material (including removal of the coocrete dividers and temporary
berming of the edges). Irr addition to the foregoing pad, a concrete pad near the
tommel screen will also be used. We believe that the conuete pads will be
sullicient to handle all of the material. However, if the volume is greater than that
which can be accommodated on the concretc pads, comparable methods will be
considered for the excess volurne.
2, Due to the high moisture content of the Molycorp material, IUSA anticipates that
the routine dust suppression program deailed above will be adequate to mitigate
any dusting poteutial. However, should conditions werrent firrther Eeaarues to
prevent potential windborne contamination from the piles one of nuo methods
will be considered: application of a srufactant; or, covering of the piles with
reinforced plastic. The final configuration of the piles will determine which
application will be used.
3. To minimize the drrrarion between recelpt of the material and processing, ttre
Molycorp matcrial will bc procossed prior to the processing of eirher the Linrh or
Ashland material.
In any evenl, 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A licensed uranium mill operatione and waste
manag:ment are designed to, and expected to, safely contain and control all forms of
lead" a routine constituent in uranlum mtlt tallings (geg NUREG 1620, Rev.l, at p. 4-g).
Consistent with IUSA's 4I ARA program, added air sampling appropriate to the alternate
feed ore will be oonsidered on a feed-specific basis.
AIR S,Itr4PLING
The Mill monitors for radon and ra{on daughters (which includes thoron), as well as
airborne particulates. For the purpose of demonssating the potential radiological impact
of stockpiling alternate feed ores at the Mill on workers, the general public, and the
envirolmeut, two sets of data are discttssed and compared herein. Radiological
monitoring results obtained dwing two distinct time periods are compared: the first is a
period Juring whioh prooessable quantities of conventional mined ore were stockpiled at
the Mill (1989-1991); the second time period is the recent two years (2000-2002), dlring
which rilternate feed ores were stockpiled. This comparison involves only oroe etored on
the ore pad, and does not consider ores stored in S5-gallon druurs, because those ores are
contained, and thc potcntial for radon ernanation or uranium particulare generatlon from
olosed, :ontainers is negligible.
The data from 1989 represent a time period during which ore wari being stored for a tw.o-
year prriod, ilId the uanium content of the mined ore u,as relatively high. This
compatison should represent tlrc most significant difference between conventional mined
S:UIRB\lil tCQo.ctiom{S.n nl)NRClett r of Jgurrylaz002(inaldnnB_l l_0a.doo
llAR-|3-02 09:21 From:lUC
O
30338s4r25o T-1f7 P.09/26 Job-331
Mr. lv elvyn N. Leach, U.S. NRC
Marcl 11,2002
Page Iiof 2l
ore and altornate feed ore, During the period from 1989 to 1991, conventioual minod orc
was a)cumulated and stored until approximately 980,000 tons of uranfirm orc, with an
aYeraf;e uanium content of 0.389e , was available to process. This equEtes to a U.Nat
activity of approximately 2,600 pCilg.
For ar equivalerrt period of time, &om 2000 to 2002, altemate feed oros, whiah preoently
consis[ of 164,811 tons of Ashland I material,69,990 tons of Linde material, asd 3,60E
tons af Herltage marcrlal are in the process of being stockpiled on the ore pad. The
weighnd averEge uranium concentration in these three alternate feed ores is 0.0367or.
This rquates to a U-Nat activity of approximafely 240 pCi/g. Therefore, while the
tonnal;e of alternate feed ore stored on t]re ore pad from 200f2002 is approximatcly
25%o <f the tonnage of mined ore that was stoted on the ore pad h 1989-1991, the
uranlum activtry of the alternate feed ore is only approximate$ fi% of the uranium
activity of the mined ore, for an equivalent volurne of ore. As will be shown below, the
radon and particulate data demonstate that the mined ores resulted irr no emissions
approtching eithet the Federal lirnits set for proteetion of workers, the public, or the
envirooment, and ttrat the alternate feed ores result in even lower values than the mined
ores.
Radon
Radon Emission Sowce Term
Uranitm orc processing and subsequent ailiugs disposal presents pathways for release of
radon':o the environme,nt, The major pathways for radorr releas€ oocllf, from ore storage,
ore cnshing and grinding, and the mill tailings disfosal site- In response to NRC's
question, this disctssion will focus on ore storage prior to processing. Radon release
from trc orc storagc arca dcpcnds oo (l) radium contrut of ore; (2) emanating power
(coeffi:ient) of ore or tailings; (3) radon diffirsion coefficient in ore; (4) physical
charac eristics, including configuruion of ore storage; and (5) storage time. The quality
of the rrre received varies with respect to ore corrcenkation, grade, and size.
Radon cmanating from an oro storage area Eay be estirnated by calcrrluion of ttre Radon
Emissicn Source Term, following mettpds detailed in NRC Reg. Guide 3.59 "Methods
For Esimating Radioactive and Toxic Airborne Souce Terms For Uranium Operations"
March 1987: or by implied concenration of antecederrt rgdon from measured radon
daught,'r working levol concentrations. Estimating the radon emission source term can
be acctmplished using the flux factor; in most cases, the NRC staff estimates radon
release by using a conservative radon flu factor of t pCi Rn-2221m2*s put pCi/g of Ra-
226, Ey using that flux faotor, only the area of the ore stockpile and the average radium
contcil need be known to calculate annual radon releases as follows.
Assurn:ng thc urarrirrm was in sccular cquilibrium wittr its daughter progeny in the
unproc:ssed mined ore stockpiled at the Mill druing 1989.1991, the Ra-226 activity
would rc 2,600 pCile. The radon emission source term for the period 1989-1991, durine
I The unnium ectivities of tho three cited altemate feed ores are based on the netural uranium content of
e0ch, as lotermined by alphaspoctroecopy performod on a composire sample talcen at the Mill from each of
these ort s.
S:WRR\N tQuestion{roncml)Nrchncr of lenuoy 142002\fi ncldEoo3_t l-02.dos
IIAR-I3-02 09:2i Fromr IUC 30338e1125o I4lT P.10/?6 Joh-331
Mr. Melvyn N. Leach, U.S. NRC
March 11,2002
Page 9 of 2l
management of minod ores, is estimated at approximatsly 4250 Ci Rn-222 por yoer,
assumng tbe entire ore pad area of 12.8 acres was covered (see attached calculation
sheot). The actual measured average Va-U6 concentratiotr of the different altemate feeds
stored at tbe MiU duing 20A0-2002 is ll0 pCile.This value was determined by alpha
spectrt,scopy of the individual alternate feed orcs. Conservatively assuming that the
entife ,tre pad srea of 12.8 acres wss ue6d for managomont of altemate feed meterial, the
radon source term for the period 2000-2002 is estimated at lEO Crlyeat of &n-222.
Theref :re, the radon soluce term associated with the altemate feed ores belng managect in
2000.?,002 would be approximately 23 times less thau that of the mined ore material
manag :d during 1989-199L
Assuming a linear relationship between tlrc radon emission sowce tenn and impact to the
public orto the environment, al NRC has in generic assessmen$, it can be conoluded that
the mtnagement of altemate feed ores in stockpiles poses significantly less potential
hazard than the management of conventional ores associated with normal miningpractic=. This also does not factor in the significantly larger volume of 11e.(2)
byproduot material that must be managed in perpetuity from processing conventional
ores. llowever, as discussed below, the radon levels from both conventional mined ores
and alt:rnate feed ores are well within regulatory limits.
Radon Daughter lYorking Levels (WL)
Radon Daughtcr lVorking Levels (U/L) (notc tlrat radon daughters include thoron) were
measured each month throughout the ore stockpiles, at various locations for ttre periods
of l98lr - 1991 and 2000 -2A02. These results are illusfiated in Gmph I (attached). It is
interesring to note that over the period of 2000 -2A02, when altemste feed ores are being
managrd in stockpiles, there have been vuy few measured radon daughter concentrations
above he minimum detectablo activity (MDA) of 0.011 WL. Conversely, when mlned
ore wai stockpiled, over the period of 1989 - 1991, the measured radon daughter levels
were all above the MDA.
As notr:d above, the tonnage of mined ore stockpiM io ttre time period 1989 - 1991 was
approx.matcly fottr tirncs thc amount of alrcmats fecd orc stookpilcd dwing 2000 - 2002,
Althou$ during thE 1989 - l99l time period, the radon daughter concenfrations were
measuable above the MDA, the maximum concentatiotr measured was still low, At
0"07 WL, the maximum concenhation of radon daughtets meesured druing storage of the
mined )re was less thon 22% of the allowable radon concentration contained in 10 CFR
Part 2C, Appendix B for occupational exposwe, The average radon concentration over
this petiod was more thqn an order of magnitude lower, at0,027 WL. This level of radon
emissicn, measured at a point in the center of the Mill yard, is only 8.0% of the
concenration allowed for worker exposure. In addition, radon is measrued on a weekly
basis al the nearest residence, with the result typically being nondetectable.
In this r:ont€xt it is worttr noting that the EPA has found that wi8r respect to rrranium mill
tailings piles "the risk from radon emissions diminishes rapidly with distance from the
tailings pile (declining by a factor of three for each doubling of the distance heyond a few
hundrerlnneters)" (see EPA, Fin4 Environmental ImInct Statement for $tandards for the
S:\MRR\lnEQrgriongGrnrnl)NRClanerof frnuery141001\fnaldrafrt3*l l_O3.doe
IIAR-I 3-02 09 r 2i F rom: I UC 30338s4r25o T-177 P.11/26 Job-331
Mr. Melvyn N. Leach, U.S. I{RC
Marcb Ll,2M2
Page I0of2l
Corrtrrrl of Byprodrrct Materials Som Umnium ,9re Processing." Vol. I at 10-12.
$gpterober 1983).
In oth,rr words, even when mined ore was stockpiled at the Mill, the radou levels in the
center of ttre plant were a small fraction of the occupational exposure level for workers.
Furthe rmoro, atmosphoric disporsion botwoe'n tho oenter of the ore pad, whe,rs theEe low
levels are measured, and the nearest resident reduces the radon and decay progeny below
detectfile limits. We conclude, therefore, ttrat the stockpiling of both oonventional
uranium ore and alternate feed ore is not deleterious to workem or t'o the public. is in
oompliance with all applicable standards, and is in keeping with the principles of
AIANA.
Airborne ParricUlares
As part of ttre environmental protection prc$am required by the Mill's NRC license, the
MilI nronitors air quality and collects vegetation samples both on- and off-eite. Data
from tlrese pro$ams are published in the Mill's Semi-annual Bffluent Report. Air quality
monitt'ring stations are in place between the Mill and the nearest resident locations.
These include a station located near the closest resident (north of the MilD, the White
Mesa,lommunity (3.3 miles SSE of the MilI), as well as a station near the ore pad. An
additir nsl air monitoring station, which IUSA inptalled at tho requost of the Ute
Mounlain Ute Tribe to provide added monitoring capabihty between the Mill and the
White Mesa Ute Comrnunlty, has been operational for approximately rhree years. The
Ute Mlxrtain Ute Tribal Environmental Departrment participates irr data gatlrering at this
station, and has been receiving copies of data collected at the station. Prior to this year,
darq fr:rn this station only had been sent to the Tribal Environmentd Directo4 however,
ruSA is vohurtarily adding the data collected at this station into the Mill's Semi-annual
Effluerrt ReporB, beginning with the most reconr reporting period.
All Eit particulate monitoring results from every station have remained below State
standa'ds and standards tequired under the Mill's NRC license. The uranium, thorium,
and letrd-210 particulate data presented in the semi-annual reports show no evidence of
inoreasing air quality impaots from manageme$ of alternato feed ores, when compared
with air quality monitoring results from pcriods during which the Mill has stored
convertionally mined ores. In fast, as detailed in the following section, air quality
monitcring results indicate that rnanagement of altemate feed ores produce even lower
levels lf constihrents at these monitoring stations than storage of conventionally mined
ores, tte storage of which has never resulted in an exceedance of NRC shndards.
A revirry of all the available off-site air qurality daa indicates that drrring periods when
there v'as a significant quantity of conventionally-mined ore stored on .G the on- snd
off.site air quality monitoring results were somewhat higher than druing periods of Mill
inaotiv:ty. Howcvcr, it should bc noted that even dwurg peak operational periods, the ait
quality parameters never exceeded the applicable standards specified in the Mill's AO, or
the Mill'sNRC license.
Uraniuu particulate samples for the comparative periods 1989 - 1991 and ZOOO - 2O0Z
have brcn taken each month at various locations throughout tlre mill stockpile area.
S:\MPRN lCQuc*tiondgencrel)NRCbrEr ofJerurytrlil002\fin tdmftO3-l l;Oz.doo
IIAR-I3-02 09:2i From: IUC 30338s4r25o T-l7I ?.1?/ZO Job-331
Mr, M elvyn N. Leach, U.S. NRC
Mmct 11,2002
Page 1 I of21
Contirruous uranir.un airborne particulale samples ako have been taken at fivc boundary
environmental monitoring stations (see attached Figure). The rcsults of truo
environmeotal monitoring stations Btry-l and Bfry-s are compared to the
environmental backgrourd monitoring station BHV-3, and are also compared against
each rrther for the comparative orc management periods. Environmental monitoring
ststior, BI{V-S is located nootost to tho oeoter of tho ore storafe area approximately 400
meter! disAnt from the center of the storage area, in the southeasterly direotion. The
environmental monltorlng statlon BHV-I is located at Ure mill bouudary directly north 0f
flre ce:rter of the storage area, approximately 1.6 miles away. Environmental monitoring
statior BIIV-3 is looated approximately 9 miles directly west of the Mill site, and due to
it's renote location, it is the station &om which data have been gathered to represent
backgound radionuclide particulate concenhations in the Mill site area Saurples are
colleored continuously at each of the cunent monitoring statiorrs, and the sarnples are
analyzed for the radioisotopes U-Nat, ?a-226,Th-230, and Pb-210.
Graph U (sJtached) presents the resulte for U-Nat only, because it is ttre parent
radioilotope of the rranirrm de"ay chain and represents the element the Mill recovers. It
shoulc be noted that U-Nat particulate concentrations at each tocation are equal to or less
than tlre background U-Nat particulate concentations from Sation BHV-I, over both
periods l9E9-1991 and 2000-2002. The modmwn value obtained over the comparative
periodr aro 9.0 x 10-la pCi/ml at BHV-5 for tho poriod 1989 * 1991 and 1.Ox l0'la
pCi/ml at Btry-s for 2000 - 2002. It is noteworthy that these values are 10.0% and
1.0% respectively of the permissible effluent limits found in 10 CFR Part 20 Appendix B.
Uranhrn airbome particulate samples,are collected over the entire ore storage area every
month for personnel exposrrre assessurent. The velues avercge over the Mll yard storagc
area ft,r the two periods 1989-l99land 2000-2002 are, respectively, less than 5.0% and
Iess th u 1.0% of the allowable derived air concenration (DAC) levels for U-Nat.
A simrlar comparison can be made of the thorium content (Th-232) found in natural
uraniun ores stockpiled on the ore pad fronn 1989-1991 and the alternate feed ores
presenly managed at the MiU. It should be noted that most uranium ores contain some
concer.trations of natrml thorium (ih-232). The uranium ores received at the Mill
betwec n 1989-1991 were mined in the Colorado Plateur and the fuizona Strip areas. The
urarriun miueral in tbese ores was "Uraninite" which is more commonly called
pirchblende, whioh frequently oontains higher lovels of Th-232 than other typcs of
domes:ic uranium ore. Uraninite contains approximately 45.5 to 82.2o/o uranium and as
much ts 45,1o/oTh-232. Based on this information, one can compare the radiation dose
levels,lue to thorium contained in mined uranium ores and alternate feed ores.
If wo cssumo, as notod abovo, thet the sonventional mined ore fiom the poriod of 1989-
1991 lrad an average uauium content of 0.389%, and using the primary mineral
pitchblende, this ore would also contain approximately 0.379o/o Th-22E, plus Th-228,
This epates to a specific activity of 853 pci/g of ore.' The measured rnean Th-232
2 fhit i" b-ased 1po1 the nonral thorium content of oach muqrial as dsterrrincd by alphaspecuosoopy ag
follows: Line, Th-232,0.59 pCi/g; arrd Ashland l,"Ib-232,3.6 pciig. The Sorium activilies ofthe thrs6
cited alt',rnate feed or€s are based on the natural trorium content ofeach, as detormined by
alphaspt crosoopy porformed on a compositc sample taken at the Mill from each of these Lres.s:udRRU( EcQp*ion(geaanl)NP,Clener of Januaryl4.l!0011\finddrefro3_l t_0l,doc
IIAR-l 3-02 09 :2i F rom: I UC 30338e4r25o T-177 ?.13/?6 Job-331
Mr. Melryn N. Loac,h, U.S. NRC
Marob 11,2002
Psge 12 of21
activity of the alternate feed material Ashlsnd I, Linde, and Heritage otes currerrtly
stockpiled at the Mill is 7.2{lg of material, which is approximately two orders of
magniude [esg rhen the activity due to thorium in the mined ores. There is very little
natura thorium in the Ashland I and Linde materials, which comprises 98,5o/o of the
dtemste feed ore presently managed at the Mill, while the Heritage material comprises
just f . i% of thc altcrnatc feed ore presently managcd at thc Mill.
In an1 event, NRC has found that even when Th-232 and its daughter products "are
present in amourts comparable to the nahral uranium concentation in thp ore". . , 'the
impacr of these isotopes is relatively inoonsequential'(NIJREO-0706, Vol. I at 6-21).
Cumuative imoacts
Based on the data dctailed in this seotion, radon or airborne particulate levels assooiatEd
with tlre storage of alternate feed ores are either so low as to be immeasurable, or are a
small ftaotion of allowable efifluent levels. The levels measured dudng the storage of
alternrte feed ores fall well below allowable efluent levels, as well as the levels
measured during management of mined ores, and the particulate values measured during
matragement of mined ores are also a fraction of the allowable effiuent levels. We
conclude, therefore, that there are no added or cumulative airborne particulate or radon
impaors duo to manegsment of alternete feed ores, because the atockpiling of both
converrtional uranium ore and alternate feed ore is not deleterious to the worker nor to the
public is in compliance with atl applioable standards, and is in keeping with the
prinoi;,les of ALARA.
Ma\ru/rod Material
As detdled in IUSA's Amendment Request (June 2001), although the Maywood Material
originirted from rrranium and thorium- bearing monazite sands, a good portion of the
thoriurn was removed in the thorium recovery processes at Maywood Chemicat Works.
The Tr-232 content for the Mayvood Site overall ranges from non-detectable to 3,t00
pCi/s with a preliminary estimated overall average of approximately 970 pCi/g. While
this TIr-232 content is not as low as most of the other altemate feed ores the Mill has
receivt:d, it is comparable to ttrat of mined ores that the Mill is licensed to receive.
The radiation safoty program which oxists at the Mill, prrsuarrt to the oonditions snd
provisions of NRC License Number SUA-1358, and applicable Regulations of the Code
of Federal Regulations, Title 10, is adequate to ensure the maximurn protection of the
works and environment while temporarily managing the Maywood material on the ore
pad pr or to processing, and is consistent with the principle of mainhining expo$tres of
rsdicti,m to individual workers and to the general public to ALARA levels. Radiologiaal
doses o membors of the public in the vioinity of the Mill will not be elevated above
levels creviously assessed and approved. As described in Section 1.2 of the Maywood
Amenrfrnent Request of June 15, 2001, the average Th-232 level in the Maywood
Materi rl is comparable to ttrat of mined ores trat the Milt is licensed to receive.
Therefrre, ruSA anticipates that there wilt bo no inoromental public health,
envirotunental, or safety concelns resulting from ttre managemeat of the Maywood
Materi.{ prior to its being processed. However, qs stated above, the efficiency of
S;\MRR$ RCQqeatiour(Ssnsnt)NRClocr of JqnrDrl42$2Vlnd&afr)3 t I O2.doc
[lAR-13-02 09:2t From: IUC 30338s4r25o I4TT P.14/26 Job-331
Mr. Melvyn N. Leach, U.S. NRC
March 71,2002
Page l3 of21
airborrro contamirration oontrol nroasures during the material handling operations will be
assess:d after the Maywood Material is rmeived at the Mill, in accordence with the
pmg.ams detailed in the previous section of this letter, to ensure that coilamlnatlon
control measures are effective and that the spread of uranirrm and thorirrm aiftome
particrrlates is prevented or minimized.
NRc,luEsrroN
2. "Potential grounduater contamiratiotr concems from the
altemate feed material tying uncovered on an un-lined
surface on the ore pad, including cumulative impacts."
IUSA RESPONSE
In resronse to this guestion regarding concenrs that groundwater could potentially be
impac':ed by altemate feed ore managed on the ote pad priot to ptocessing, the following
descrilrcs protective site-specific or material-specific fate and Mnsport considerations,
and tlre monitoring programs that are intended to confirrr that goundwatet is not
imPaced,
FATE AND TRANSPORT CONSIDERATTONS
Preoipitation, whertrer in the fonn of rainfall or snow, thu falls on ore stockpiles
mqnaged prior to processing at the Mill, will evaporate, iufiltate the stockpile, or run off
onto the ore pad. Evapotranspiration rates at the Mill are high - estimated to be as high
as 6l inches per year. Some infiltration into mioed or altemate feed ore stockpiles is
benefi:ial in that suoh moistwe helps to mshtain the moisture content of the stockpiles,
rherebT minimizing the potential for dusting. To ensure that there is no loss of
stockpiled ore materials from the ore pad due to precipitation, the eutire Mill site,
includng the ore pad that is used to store conventioual and alternate feed ore stockpiles,
is g;raced to drain to the tailings system. There is no mechanism for surface nrnofffrom
any precipitation that may have contected the stockpiles to leave the site. As noted
bclow, thc orc paid is also undcrlain by cnrshcd limcstonc, to inhibit water infiltation,
and any potential sudace runoffwould drain to the on-site taihngs system.
Altemrte feed ores managed on the ore pad may contain radionuclides, heavy metals
(such rs lead) and low concentrations of organic comporrnds (such as ohlorinated solvents
or fuel hydrocarbons). In order for.these constituents to reach groundwater, they would
have trr be tansported &om the feed stockpiles, tluough the surface of the ore pad, and
downrmrd through more than approxirnately 60 feet of underlying vadose zone materials
to the perched water zone.
The primary transport mcchanism would bc via dissolution into any wators percolating
througr the stockpiled materials. These waters would originate as precipitatior et the
site, o:'as pore warcrs existing within the feed marerials when delivered to ttrc site, or
both. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) might also be tansportad in the vepor phase
via dif fruion. Should orgauic compounds exist as a separate phase liqui{ gavity driven
SrtI.{R[t] ICQnclan{gplr+ml)NRClcrter of Jgrueryt{IxtaVin ldni03 I I 01.doe
ll R-|3-02 09:2! From: IUC 30338s4r25o 1'1ll P.15/26 Job-331
Mr. Mclvyn N. Leach, U.S. NRC
March 11,2002
Pagc 1.1of 2l
miga3on of rhis liquid could, in theory, also occur. However, IUSA does not accopt
alterna:e feed ores containing organic compounds as sepamte phase liguids.
Mobiliry of radionuclides and metals
Radioruclides and heavy motals (such as tead) rypically bave low solubility except under
conditions of below neuftal pH. Metrl species likely to exist in some of the mined ores
that rrury temporarily be stored on the ore pad typically consist of sulfide species, which
have generally low solubility undec near neutral pll eonditions. Oxidation of these
sulfidel could result in mobilization of metal species; however, the oxidation process
typically will be slow for most of the metal sulfides, including lead sulfide.
The potential for oxidation should not be significant during the relatively sho* time
periodr; the ores are managed on the ore pad, and because of the dry conditions at the site.
In addition, most metals, suoh as lead, are strongly adsorbed onto sulfides, otganic
meterfufl, iron oxyhydroxides, and clays, which reduccs thcir mobility. And, as notc4 thc
ore pa(tat the site is underlain by compacted, cnrshed limestone. Should dissolved heavy
mstal rpecies be mobilized as a result of oxidation atrd rainfall infiltration, and if they are
not sulrsequently retarded by adsorptiorg the species would be expected to precipitate as
eit}er larbonat€s, such as lead carbonate, or as hydroxides within tlp limestone layer
upon sgepage into that layer. Thc same proccss would oocur in thc subsurfacc bcncath
the ore pad, in the carbonaceous Sandstones that underlie the entire site.
Organic Colstifuents
In adrlition to mgtals and radionuclidcs, uganic constitucnts such as pobolcum
hydrocarbons or other organics may be preseut in some conventiollally mined and
alternate feed ores, but in exftemely low concentrations. Organic compounds such as
petroleum hy&ocarbons and some chlorinated comporrnds may be present in alternate
feed o:es temporarily stored on the ore pad. However, these compounds typically are
prcsen. in low concentrations wtren measrred in situ prior to loading the ore for shipment
to the lvlill. When the alternate feed ores arrive al the site, tlrc concenhations of many of
the spries are usually below deteotable limits, and are also expected to be fiutlrer
reducel druing storage as a result of volatilization and biodegradation For these reasons,
the cornpounds are not likely to be mobilized at significant dissolved conccntattons in
any pnripitation that may contact and pcroolatc irtto thc altcrrrate fccd orc stockpilcs.
Furthe:more, malerials ourrently managed on the ore pad have a high clay content and
low permeability. The low permeability. oombined with the low precipitation and high
annual evaporation at the site, further reduce the potential for infiltation to insignificant
lcncls.
In sununary, for the rcasons listed below, it is unlikely, that constituents present in
alterna;e feed orps would result in groundwater contamination at the site because (l) past
goundwater monitoring at the site has not indicated any imFaot fiom mined or alternate
fccd uranium orc storcd on thc orc p1d in thc pffit, ond (2) a number of conditions and
mechafsms exist to mitigate the potential tansport of constituents to grou[dwater.
These:nclude:
S:\MRR\I\ RCQuttion6(E$cd)NtrchtBr or Jmuary I 4ilnafi nEldnno3_ I l-oz(hc
ltlAR-I 3-02 09:21 F rom: I UC 30338s4125o T-177 P.16/26 Job-331
Iv{r. MolvynN. Leach, U.S. NRC
March 11,2002
Pagc 1 i of2t
l. Low anrrual precipitation(< 12 inches) and high annual evapoEarlspiration
(as hieh as 6l inches) at the site reduce the anrount of watgr available to
potentially infittrats the stockpiled materials and eventually percolate to
goundwater.
Z. The slope of tbe ore pad (designed to oontain runoff and drain any nrnoff
to the tailings cells) and the compaction of the pad surfac€ reduce the
potential for infiltation because;
a. oompaction of tlre surface materials reduces theirperrreability, and,
b. the ore pad slope increases the ratio of runoff to iofiltation.
3. The low permeability of native sandstone matorials undertying fhe ore pad
would reduce the rate of any downward percolation of any moishre that
actr,rally infilttatcs tho ore pad.
4. The potential for solute transport is low. Reasons for the low potential for
metals transport include :
a, the generally Iow solubility of heavy metals and radionuolidos at near
neutral PH;b. the existence of metals as sulfide species having low solubility;
c. the low rate of oxidation of meUl zulfides to more soluble species
under the relatively dry site conditions and withh the short time
periods thet the mar€rids aro stookpilod onsite;
d. flre strong sorption potential of metals to sulfrdes, clays, organic
rnatcrials, and iron oxides;
e, the presence of crushed limestone underlying the ore pad which would
cause precipitation of metal species to carbonales or hydroxides; an{t. the presence of calcareous native materials beneath the ore pad that
would havethe same effect as above.
5. Reasons for the low potential for organio constituent Eanslort include:
a, The low concentations of organic compounds pteeent in sltemate feed
materials delivered tro the site (and no organic comporurds es separarc
phase liquids);
b. The reduction in concentation of VOCs due to volatilization and the
potential for biodogradation of VOCe aod other orgaoic constihrents
during temponry $orage on the ore pad.
Additi rnal WorkJp Yerifu Fqe, andTfansport Assur.rptions
Work lhat is planned for additionel cbaracterization of tlre ore pad ineludes: (l) modeling
of potential infiltation into existing ore stockpiles and potential for doumward
percoktion into the ore pad, and (2) measurement of the vertical permeability of a
S:WIBR$ RCQsErtions(Sncrel)NRChcr o'f Juruuy I.f 2002\ft ndd@!-l l-02.doc
From: IUC 1-1ll P.ll/26 Job-331
Mr. Mclvyn N. I*ach, U.S. NRC
March 11,2002
Page I,i of 21
Work that is plar:ncd for additional oharaotsrization of the ore pad inoludes: (t) modeliog
of potmtial inliluation into existing ore stockpiles and potential for downward
percoletion into the ore pad, and (2) measurement of the vertical permeability of a
representative (and accessible) portion of the ore pad using a ring infiltrometer. The
results of the ring infiltrometer test will be used as input to analytical arrd/or numerical
models to be uscd to hclp quantifo thc potcntial for bansport of dissolved constihrents
from slockpiled materials to groundwater.
The sclreduling of the ring infiltrouneter tfft will depend on the site weather; in partioular,
the tess will be performed when daily low temperatrues are above freezing, which is
anticiprted to occur druing the month of May. Computer codes that are anticipated to be
used i the modeling etrort include HELP33, SOLCOVER4, and TMCRNS. HELP3
and S(tlL COVER would be used to estimate potential hfi.ltation into stockpiles from
precipintion, and potential seepage from the base of the ore stockpiles. The potential
ieepag: estimate and the estimate of vertical perrreability from the ring infiltometer tests
can bc usod as input to TRACRN. TRACRN would ttren be used to einulate the
potential movement of solutes to grodndwaler. HELP3 modeling can be performed prior
io infitmmeter testing. Due to the need for. infiltometer results as for vertical
permerbility input to TRACRN, those modeling efforts will commence immediately
iollowng oompletion of the ring infiltrometer test. As soon ss weather permits
pcrfionranoe of the ring infiltromotor test, anticipeted in May, IUSA will submit a
schedute for completion of the modeling.
Added Protgctive Measrues
In add tiorr to the site and matedal ooasiderations deailed gbove which minimize the
potential for any fanspott of constituents from ores to grorurdwater, IUSA voluntarily
has proposed adderl measlues, consistent with the ALARA approach, Io furttler reduce
ttre potgntial for contaminant release in particular cases. For example, as detailed above,
ruSA committed to performing the additional ALARA measues in managing the
Molyc,rrp material, which included placing the material on a concrete pad (or comparable
metho<ts) to contain moisftue.
ENVII :ONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAT\4
As par;of tho eovironmental protection progrsm roguired by the Mill's NRC lioense, tho
Mill monitors water quality data both on- and off-site. These data are published in the
I\4i11's Semi-annual Effluent Report. Over 20 years of quarterly groundwatsr quality data
3 Paul E Schroeder, Cheryl M. Lloyd, and Paul A Zappi. Tts Hydrologic Evaluatios of Landfill
Perform rnco (HELP) Model. Uter's Guide for Versiort 3. Environmcntal Laboratory. U.S. Army Corpe
of Engfueer8. Warerways Expeilment Strtlon. vlcksbug, MI39lE0-o199
a Soilcovcr, 2000. Unsaturatred Soil Group. Depa'tnent of Civil Engineering, University of
Saskatol ewan, Saskatoon, Canada
' Bry* r. Travis and Kay H, Birdsell" l98s dBACRN I :0 A Modol of Flow and Transport in Porous
Media fi rr the Yucca Mountain Project - Model Dmcription and Usor's Manual. Submitted to Yucca
Mountain Project Miles T42l
S TWIR R\l\ RcQlcetlonsGcnsEl)NRclcttEr of Jurqffy l42002\nnd&rfiO3-t l-o3doc
IIAR-I 3-02 09:2t F rom: I UC 30338s1r2b T-177 P.1g/?6 Joh-331
Mr. MelvynN. Leaoh, U.S. NRC
March 11,2002
Pagel7 of?l
fiom this program indicete thot there has boen no on- or off-site impaot to groundwater
ftom ldi[tpJrations.6
Existirrg monitodng program is adequate. and IUSA is vohurtarill, sarnpling for full suite
in goo-rcration with UtahDEO
The Mill ourrently has a Point of Comptiance ("POC') program in place that a,fter more
than 20 years of monitoring, indicates that there has been no contamirunt migration to
grounrlwater from Mill operations. NRC has incorporated the existing POC monitoring
program as a condition of IUSA's NRC license, because the prograur has been
demorstrated to be sufficiently protective of groundwater qualtty. Nevertlreless, at the
request of UDEQ, IUSA has voluntarily ageed with UDEQ to obtain a Utatr
Grounlwater Discharge Permit C'GWDP") and to implement grourdwater monitoring for
additi<,nal patameters.
the Pt)C progrem mandates qrrarterly sampling of the perohed grourdweter zone for four
param,:ters, chloride, potassium, nickel, and uranium (the "POC Parameters"), that are
key indicators of potential seepage from the tailings cells. This detection monitoring
program was only approved byNRC aftermore than 16 years of data, using additional
param,)ters that were collected at up to 23 wells, demonsfiated no impact to the perched
groun<lwater zone from Mill operations. The POC indicator parameters were eelected
based rn the following criteria:
o high concenfrations in tailings slimes drain water;r low concentrations in site groundwater;. conscrvativs chc,mical charastcristics: andr indicative representation of chemical classes; that is, a cation, an anion, a trace
metal, and a radionuclide.
The m:tals, VOCs, and SVOCs that may be contained in alternate feed ores are typioally
also p:esent in the Mill's I le.(2) byproduct wastes but not all are either selected or
appropriate as POC indicator parameters, becasse trry do not satisS the selection criteria
listed rrbove as well as the POC parameters do. For example, the kerosene entrained in
the I I :.(2) byproduct wastes contiains the SVOCs benzene and lylene. and IUSA has
previor6ty reported the presence of ppb levels of chloroform in tailings slimes. In
additicn, sovoral of tho metals listcd in Tablc 3.1 of thc Mill's May,1979 Environmcntal
Assessment were anticipated to be ultimately present in the liquid portion of the Mill
tailings, This is not surprising, since mined uraniun ores would contain matry of the
6lUS,q.lras defpcted some chloroform contamination at the Mill site th* appears to have resulted tom tho
oporailon of r remporary lqboratory ftclltry thu was locarcd ar the slte prior to and durlng consmrcilon of
the Mill. lte source and extent of this contamination are curTently under investigation and a conectivc
actlon plen, lf necessary, Is yet to be devlsed. Although chloroform is present in perched groundwqpr
south ol tho ore storrye pad, thoro are no ugor$ of the watcr from this groundwuer zone downgradient of
the Mill site; therefore, although it is a mamer of concorn to IUSA that tre chloroform is prment, there is no
dangor t: human hoalth or tho onvirorrment posed by the detected chloroform at ttris time, The chloroform
was dctr ctcd in a shallow porehod groundwatsr zone apprvx,imdcly l0O- l 50 fcct below the sur&ce. The
regionol eryi{er is located approximatoly 1,200 feet below ttris perched mne, hydraulically isolarod by low
permeat i lify formations.
s;\MRRtl. R0@cione(goncrrfiR,Chnlr of Jciuqryl4r0oz\rrd.l&!,003 I I 02,doo
MAR-I3-02 09:2i FrornrlUC
O
1'117 P.1S/26 Job-331
Mr. Mr:lvyn N. Leach, U,S. IIRC
March tt,2002
Page I 3 of2l
same rletals found in soils excanated at othsr losations in thc Unitcd Statcs. Howwcr,
trnlike most of the metals that could be present in tailings seepage, chloride, potassium
and ni<kel are "conservativs", which means that these constituents are far less affeoted by
the geochemical processes that would attenuate the mobilif of tbe other tailings
constitrents. Conservative constituents tavel at or very near the speed of grorrndwater
and ar: not significarrtly rctarded by natrual attcnuatlon. Showing high mobility in
grouniwater, these constituents serve as an early warning to the potential arrival of other
$ouniwater contaminants, such as lead. Also, these four constihretrts were selectcd as
the in licator parameters because they best meet the critcria of occwrence at high
concerfrations in tailings slimes-drain watet, white occurring at relatively lower
concertrations in natwal groundwater across the Mill site. For the foregoing reasons, it is
not netessary to change the Mill's POC program to acoommodate alternate feed ore
stored bmporarily prior to processing at the Mill site.
As put of the GWDP development process, IUSA has agreed with UDEQ to consider
monitc ring for additional parameters from a potential list of other indicators of chemical
classes, such as major ions and/or other constituents, based upon criteria ttrat would
ensure that the resulting data could reasonably be used to evaluate potential leakage from
the M:ll's tailings cells. In a report submitted to UDEQ on October 3,2001, ruSA
provid:d atr evaluation of additional constituents to potentially be used as additional
poramr;ters for groundwater monitoringr arrd the ratiorrsle for assigning compliance limits
to mor.itoring parameters for the GWDP. The parameters that would be used to monitor
the tailings cells would also be effective in monitoring goundwater that may potefiially
be affe cted by storage of mined or alternate feed ores on the ore pad. However, as mted
above, the likelihood of infiltation of water, much less hazardous constituents, tluough
the ore pad is expected to be minimal. Stu,ilies detailed above will provide further dats to
ensure that this assumption is corred.
Furthemore, since May of 1999, pending implementation of the GWDP, IUSA and
TIDEQ have been engaging in a program of collecting split samples of groundwater from
all avrilable monitoring wells at the Mill, in which essentially all of the parameters
UDEQ requests are being sampled on.an annual basis, or in the case of SVOCs, each year
that thr; Statc has rcqusstcd this analysis.
Potenti al cumulatile. iurpacts
Potential cumulative impasts from storage of alternate feed ores on water quality are
expect:d to be no grea,ter than those from the storage of mined ores. Impacts of tbe
storag( of mined ores are expected to be virfually nonexistent, for the following refflons:
l. Low annual precipitatiou and high amual evapotranspiration reduce tlre
amount of water available to potentially infiltrate the stockpilEd ores and
eventually percolate to groundwater.
2. The slope of the ore pad (designed to contain runoffand drain any runoff
to the ailings cells) and the compaction of the pad reduce the potential for
infiltration.
S :WRR$ RcQueEtiroFcEncrll)Ntrclcttcr oF Jsnueryl 42002vholdnt03_ I l-0?-(b0
ltlAR-I3-02 09:21 Fror't:lUC
O
Mr. M dvyn N. Leactu U.S- NRC
March 11,2002
Pego l)of2l
T-177 P.20/26 Job-331
4. The pofential for solutetransPort is low.
5. The potential for organic hansport is low,
In addidon, even though the existing NRC licenscd grorurdwatcr monitoring program is
adequrte to ensure that potential impaots from Mill operations, muoh less storage _of
convelrtionat and alternale feed ores on tbe ore pad, are monitored, IUSA is voluntarily
campling for additioml parametef,s in cooperation with Utah DEQ.
Mavwpd Material
For th,: rgasols detailed above, there is little, if any, chance that radiological or chemical
constiluents in ttre Mayuood Material could leaoh into the subsurface to a degree not
conterplsted by, and that would not be firlly reclaimed under. the Mill's cwrcnt
reclanation plan. The composition of the Maywood Material is very similar to the
comprcsition of the materials currcntly prcsent at thc Mill, becausc thc Mayn'ood Material
resulted from the processing of source material ores for the extraction of sour@ material.
The nost frequently encountsred cornporxrds other than radionuclides in the Maywood
Material are polynuclear aromatic hydrocatbort compounds ('?AIIs'), assooiated with
asphalt paving materials, and the natural decay of organic matter. Evea in the areas of
thc Mrryrood Sirc with tlro highest PAII levels, PAHs wsre prosent et levele comparable
to the levels in previously approved altemate feed ores, such as the Tonawanda Site and
St. Louis Site. They are also comparable to levels already consldered in the
Envircnmental Assessment for the Mill, wtrich antioipated the managcmert of all the
Mill's former asphalt paved areas in the tailings cells druing firral reclamation.
Althorrgh a few VOC compounds were detected in the Maywood Material, in all cases
the co rcentrations were negligible, and are substantially lower fhan those anticipated in
the Ervironmental Assessment for tlre Mill. which anticipated tho management of VOC
solvents and cxtractants from the Mill:s on site laboratory inthe tailings impoundments.
Therelbre, the protective mechanisms detailed above whioh prevent infiltation of
constiruonts containe.d in either mined or altemate feed ores would also apply to the
Maywrod Material, and there would be no incremental concems resulting from managing
ttre Mrrywood Material prior to processing.
NRC TIUESTION
3. "What would be the cost of disposing of ttre stoclpiled
material strould the mill h shut-down prior to another
procossing run? [Ias this coet estimate been factored into in
the cune,rrt surety?"
30338s4r2L
s :wlKR\I lRcQlffiWEmcrll)NtrclEscr of Jmuury l+20o2\Anddmaor_l l-oz.doc
lllAR-I 3-02 09:2t From: I U(
Mr. Iv[elvynN.
Marclr ll,2002
Page 110 of 2l
P.2l/26 Job-331
ruSA RESPONSE
The \i/hite Mosa Mill Reclamation PIan, Revision 3.0, July 2000, has cousorvatively
assuffed the removal of 18 inches of soil from over 60 acres of Mill yard and ore pad
area. '[he reclamation plan includes analysis of 572 soil sanples over the Mill yard, ore
pad arrd euror.rrding area ao part of the initial Scoping a,nd Chsracterizetion Srrruey. An
additi,mal 300 soil samples are included in the cost estimate as a part of the Final Sanrs
Surye/. Costs are also included for indepmdent quality confiol during ttre saurpling and
cleailp activities.
The tutal estimated cost for disposing of the curently stored alternate feed material is
appro:<imately $200,000, as detailed in Attachment l. This amount includes a 15%
contingertcy arnount as well as a l0% profit allowance to account for the work being
conducted by an outside contaotor. Overall, this additional amount represents only ll%
of the cwrent total Mill area decommission cost and only 2o/o of the toal projected cost
for tho decomrtissioning and reclarnation of the White Mese Mill and tailings area The
oonservatively high 15% contingency amount included in the Mill's reclamatiorr budgot
is mo t than sufficient to provide for the cost of disposing of any remaining ores not
proces sed prior to mill shut down. It should be noted that the cost of moving any
remairring mined ores from the ore pad to tlre tailings celt has always been considered to
be int,luded irr the contingency amount. ruSA would view any remaining stockpiled
alternirte feed ores as a variance in quantity of material to be removed from the ore pad,
and ar such, would properly be covered by the contingency of approximately $l.liM
includd in the January 2001 Reclamation Cost Estimate. Therefore, ruSA believes rhat
it wotld be reasonable to consider the cost of moving altemate feed ores to the tailings
cell to be eirnilaily included in the contingency ilnount.
Noverlreless, ln lts March l,2OoZ update to tle reclamarion esrimate, IUSA has adde<t
the eslimated cost of disposing of the currently-managed altemate feed ore into the
tailings oells in the updated Mill Decommissioning Cost.
SUI\4} 4ARY A}ID CONCLUSIONS
IUSA manages conventionally mined uranium ores, as well as alternate feed ores, by
stockpiling the material on the Mill's ore pad until the next MiU nu, in a manner which is
subjecl to the Mill's ALARA Program, ensuring that any releases are not only below
applicrble standards, but also are fiuther reduced to levels which are ALAJL{. The data
pmvidod herein provide evidence that storage of alternate feed ores produces even less
impact with respect to radon or airbome particulate emissions than the storage of mined
or€s, rvfuieft also produces emissions well below applicable standards and bolow tlre
Mill's ALARA goals. Similarly, maragement of the Maywood Material would also fall
within these limits. Furthermore, based upon site-specific considprations and monitoring
programs detailed herein, it is cvidcut tha thc storage of alternate feed ores or the
Maywmd Material would have no cumulative impact ou grorrndwater. To provide
firtlrer conflrmatory data, IUSA will perform the additional analyses described above.
o
Leach, U
8r\IfRR\! tRDQuortionr(garorrl)NR0loo* of Jcnlnyl4e002\firddrl00g_I t_02.doo
IIAR-I 3-02 09:21 F rom: I UC 30338s412b T-177 P.??/28 Job-331
Mr. Melvyn N. Leach, U.S. NRC
March tl, 2002
Page2l of2l
With re speot to the adequacy of the il[iU's surety to provide for me cosl of disposing of
stoclgi.ed material should the Mill be shut down prior to another processing run, IUSA
believer that the consewatively high contingency amount included in the Mill's
reclamtlion budget is more than sufficient to provide for the cost of disposing of any
rcmaining ores not processed prior to mill shut douar; however, IUSA has incorporated
tfue adcitional cost of disposing of the crurently-managed alternate feed ore into the
taiiings cells inthe updated Mill Decommissioning Cost.
Should thc NRC have any questions regErding these reeponses,I oan bo reached at (303)
389.41:ll.
Sincerely, ,/-- );-f 14,(-1L
Mlchelle R, Rehmann
Environmental Manager
MRR
Attaolunents
cc: Richard BartlettIUSA
Ronald E. Berg/IUSA
David C. Frydenlund/IUSA
Ron F. Hochstein/IUSA
Tom Rico, Ute Mountain Ute Tribc
Wlliam J. Sinclair/tJDEQ
William von TillA.lRC
S:trlrlRR\I{ tCQrcsioac(ggncnl)NRClcmr of Jrruory 142m2\fnddnfi03-l l-O2.doc
1-1Tl P.23/?6 Job-331
oo
EEBFl
taoEolirtEIIrbO
EIlf3
?a!AA:t6IHlg !6Ef dc!.{ G
,Etr
EI,oEEtrloUEtta
P
I
CDP\o
F
a6IJ
MAR-I 3-02 09:2t F rom: I UC
Aclivity it WL
Ic6o
aI
?
N
4D
o(to6
€\o
.bo
H
EDG
I
Fts
!l
o
EoaF
N)ooo!56o
T'1ll P.24/26 Job-331tlAR-I3-02 09:3t From: IUC
U-nrT uCi/ml
FFFFFfrFFFffr-,l.rlrlit{{O\u+LJN?-<)rO6SA
{-Yt'.)(t
Itsg
b'E-ar<IED-
E.Ir
EfoI(t
vxt-Jr.?t-D;o
rE
-Fv -IE
-.6- I['s. g.gEG
'BG=Eg
,:r, U
EEExl(!a*o
tsacI!rUFt
t\)A-€D_5L'Eri
TElrt*
FF
EdE
tl'
t
T
4t, Iii iI
"t
1t:
Uti;il tiii
r. IIt Iti I
I tl
I lltrl
trg
#tr
Hs,
firAErtai,
\\
?
I
I
,
t
I
l
+
lta+rlEE t!
aa
OQ?Pr= \lBa
lraalilrtr
tr U,eaO\o5.bsg
.a;r+)'Ilr=tro1trl afr .:^tse
!E16obv
It
I
Eg
I
II(]
MAR-I3-02 09:3( From: IUC
A[gIthEt0PEPs[
Undc, Arhlrnd t H.rnlgP tlslafltr
Cat 700 HaulTrud< (9)
oat EE8 L)e00r
Crt65l Vlaterwegon
Cet t4G ilotoqnder
Equipmer t Malrtenanoe (Btt|lo0
Total Llnrlc, Arhlend I Hcrltagr lftL7hl
TotalQuadry
Ctmaco fil?rla
Fht Bed "ra[er and Tradof
Fod< Utt ( l)
Totrl OilEGo Brm.L
'lltcludo€ oparator
SuFToul Alt rnrtr Ford DlrPorl
Totrl A[rrnro F4.., DhPill
urLL DrcorxrlgroNr;0338s4l
?b T-177 P.25/?6 Job-331
Co*,urtt Taek Unlts Taet Cost
3126801
Contgarrcy
Contractor OEP
Pemlte& Bontllng
151,274 C0loYarrls
196 Cubb YaIdB porTruck per hour
2,2 TruOK HoJrE
Ost/uttit Taak
31,586 Beriob
tO Banelr per load
0.4 hloum por bsd
016 Truok Houre
T8d(co8t
ssz/6?
3160,008
$aE,710
01t,m7
lmm&rdtffirn0Ar|cotD.ll,l*.l5.ln
15%
l07c
2%,,, *fil
ffiI 0108,0801
-
d6.ffi rrre Etr' {tl lh*riFd FdUiIll
li{AR-l 3-02 09 :3( F rom r I UC Job-331
/Y
Asurl L6,No. - "{y-t lt'G +160 t'Er -qtr )lDBlH
l;
2
BE*
td.
.{
u
20 +)r !J0tr00
.22
PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
RESTRICTED
AREA FENCE
LINE
g
il
..1
tn srs.ooo
27
MAIN ACCESS ROA.D
t'54
EXSTING
RESTRICTED;
AREA FENCE
LINE
$ IOaTAI|OI 0F ll{v-tIt a.ro,tt l.EtOI'! TEST
t'x
g
{.
i* r,**
5
Et. I* t**
,o\
\ro
BLUFF
ltlAR-13-02 09:li rJrIK"rCxn"
UnlNluM (USA)
ConponarloN
30338941 2t T-177 P.01/ZO Job-331
IndependencePlaza,suiteg50 /1050seventeenthStre€t /Dehver,CO80255 /30362S7798(main) I 3033S94125(fax)
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL
TO:Mr. $'illiam Sinclair FAXNo: (801) 5334097
Divisirn of Radiation Control PHoNE No: (801) 5364255
FRoMr Miche lle Rehmann DATE: March 13,2002
Intemrrtional Uranium (USA) Corporation PAGE I OF: 26
IF ALL PAGES ARE NOT RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: Monica HuIm
PHoNENo: (303) 3894155
q'^lr*
m
HY:::ti!}Tll1P" or human error. This Communication is intended solely for rhe addressee shown above. please notifo ouroffice
lllf::l:lttY,f gl,:l*'' telephone or Fax numbers.shown above if you are not the addressee or romeone responnibto for dorivering it to theladqrossee' we retain all ights and privilcges as to this communication and prohibit any dissemination, distribuiion or copying by or to anyonelgtherthantheagdressee' rurofq.cewitlariansefor.itsreturn;yihetiiieastatespostalseryiceorbycommercialcaniertousarnocostrovou.
INrrnNeuoNef
UneNruu (use)
ConponATIoN
Irrrleperrtlence Pliua, Suite 950 . 1050 Seventeenth Street . Denver, CO 80265 ' 303 628 7798 (main) ' 303 389 a9.5 (fax)
February 7,2001
vrA TACSTMTLE ANp O\mRNTGHT EXPRTSS
Mr. Philip Ting, Chief
Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Mail Stop T-8A33
2 White Flint North
11545 Rockville Pike
Rockvillg MD 20852
SUBJECT: DETERMINING WHETIIER ALTERNATE FEED UNTBNTAJ- CONTAINS
LISTED HAZARDOUS WASTE
DearMr. Ting:
I. INTRODUCTION
International Uranium (USA) Corporation ('IUSA') has been advised that the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission ('NRC") staffis in the process of evaluating potential approaches which
NRC and licensees may apply in determining whether alternate feed materials contain listed
hazardous waste.
As NRC is aware, ruSA has applied for thirteen and received a total of twelve amendments to its
Source Material License (the thirteenth is currently under review by NRC) to permit the receipt
and processing of some sixteen alternate feed materials at the White Mesa Uranium Mill (the*Milf'). Alternate feed processing is a critical component of IUSA's business activities, and,
therefore, ruSA makes every effort to ensure that the processing is performed safely and
consistently with all applicable regulations, including ensuring that the materials IUSA accepts
as alternate feeds containno listed hazardous waste.
ruSA has already developed procedures with the State of Utah Department of Environmental
Quality (*UDEQ"), the regulatory body with RCRA authority in the State of Utalq where the
Mill is located, that should adequately address NRC's concerns regarding listed hazardous
wastes in alternate feed materials, and it is therefore not necessary for NRC to impose any
additional requirements.
Mr. Philip Ting
February 7,2OOl
Page 2 of5
In any event, as the uranium mill that has been most active in processing alternate feed materials,
and hence has a great deal at stake, IUSA believes that it should be directly involved in any
generic approaches or criteria determinations made by NRC on these matters.
2. BACKGROIJND
NRC's Final Position and Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Material other than
Natural Ores (the "Alternate Feed Guidance", or the "Guidance") states that if a proposed feed
material contains listed waste, as defined under subpart D Section 261.30-33 of 40 CFR (or
comparable RCRA authorized state regulations), it could be subject to EPA (or state) regulation
under RCRA. Therefore, to avoid the complexities of NRC/EPA dual regulatioq feed material
containing listed hazardous waste, as defined under these regulations, must not be approved for
processing at the Mill. The Guidance further notes that if the licensee can show that the proposed
feed material does not consist of a listed hazardous waste, this issue is resolved. The Guidance
also states that feed material exhibiting only a characteristic of hazardous waste (ignitable,
corrosive, reactive, toxic) would not be regulated as hazardous waste because the materials are
being recycled and a valuable product, source material, is being extracted. The Guidance also
provides that NRC staff may consult with EPA (or the state) before making a determination on
whether the feed material contains listed hazardous waste.
ruSA also notes that in a recent decision which upheld the Ashland 2 license amendment (LBP-
99-5,49 NRC 107, 1999), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Presiding Officer suggested
there was a general need for more specific protocols for determining if alternate feed materials
contain listed hazardous wastes. The Commissiorq in aflirming the Presiding Officer's decisiorg
acknowledged the significance of the issue of the presence of listed hazardous waste in alternate
feed material. In a Memorandum and Order of February 14, 2000, the Commission concluded
that this issue warranted further stalf refinement and standardization.
3. LISTED IIAZARDOUS WASTE PROTOCOL
With the cooperation of UDEQ, ruSA has Oxpended considerable resources in developing
procedures that it believes should adequately address NRC's concerns regarding the potential for
listed hazardous wastes in alternate feed materials.
ruS,\ cognizant of the need for specifrc protocols to be used in making determinations as to
whether or not any alternate feeds considered for processing at the Mill contain listed hazardous
wastes, has established a "Protocol for Determining Whether Alternate Feed Materials are Listed
Hazardous Wastes" (November 22, 1999). This Protocol was developed in conjunction with,
and accepted by, UDEQ (Letter ofDecember 7,1999).
This protocol provides a detailed "road map" to systematically evaluate the potential for various
alternate feeds to either be or contain listed hazardous waste, using criteria that are both
acceptable to the State of Utah and consistent with RCRA regulations. Copies of the Protocol
Mr. Philip Ting
February 7,2001
Page 3 of5
and UDEQ letter are provided in Attachment l. The provisions of the protocol can be
summarized as follows:
a) In all cases, the protocol requires that IUSA perform a source investigation to
collect information regarding the composition and history of the material, and any
existing generator or agency determinations regarding its regulatory status;
b) The protocol states that if the material is known - by means of chemical data or
site history - not to be or contain any listed hazardous waste, ruSA and UDEQ
will agree that the material is not a listedhazardous waste;
c) If such a direct confirmation is not available, the protocol describes the additional
chemical process and material handling historical information that IUSA will
collect and evaluate to assess whether the chemical contaminants in the material
resulted from listed or non-listed sources;
d) The protocol specifies the situations in which ongoing confirmation/acceptance
sampling will be used, in addition to the chemical process and handling history, to
make a listed waste evaluation;
e) If the results from any of the decision steps indicate that the material or a
constituent of the material did result from a RCRA listed hazardous waste or
RCRA listed process, the material is (subject to obtaining a contained-
in/contained-out determination from the RCRA authority in the generator's state)
rejected; and
D The protocol also identifies the types of documentation that IUSA will obtain and
maintain on file, to support the assessment for each different decision scenario. It
is important to note that the docurnentation requirements take into consideration
the generator as the primary party responsible for making waste determinations.
The above components and conditions of the Protocol are summarized in a decision tree
diagrarq or logic flow diagram, included in Attachment l.
As this Listed Hazardous Waste Protocol has been developed with the input and concurrence of
UDEQ, the regulatory body with RCRA authority in the State of Utab ruSA believes that the
procedures set out in the Protocol are suffrcient to deal with the determination of whether or not
a particular feed is or contains listed hazardous wastes. ruSA therefore suggests that there is no
need for NRC to expend valuable resources attempting to develop a different decisional protocol
or to require that additional procedures be performed. I{, however, NRC decides that further
analysis of this issue, or additional procedures, are required, then, as the uranium mill that has
been most active in processing alternate feed materials, and hence with a great deal at stake,
ruSA asks that it be given the opportunity to provide input into NRC's determinations.
Mr. Philip Ting
February 7,2001
Page 4 of5
For example, IUSA understands that NRC is considering requiring, for each alternate feed, a
letter from the RCRA authority in the generator's state to the effect that the alternate feed
material is not and does not contain RCRA listed hazardous waste. This issue was considered in
some detail when the Listed Hazardous Waste Protocol was developed. As a review of the
Protocol indicates, while such a letter from the RCRA authority in the generator's state may be
suficient in some cases to determine that an alternate feed material does not contain listed
hazardous wastes, it is not a necessary requirement for any feed material. This conclusion was
reached for the following reasons:
a) Under RCRA' since it is the responsibility of the generator to classi$ its waste, it
was therefore concluded that many regulators would be reluctant to assume any
responsibility in making that determinatioq and at best any such determinations
would likely be non-committal and vague;
b) In most cases, the regulatory authority would not already have made such a
determinatioq and would be required to review the circumstances of each
alternate feed mateial, /e novo. It was concluded that many regulatory
authorities would likely be reluctant to do so, particularly in light of comments a)
above and c) below;
c) To the'extent that a regulatory authority was prepared to make such a
determinatioq this would involve a review process, which could very well be. expected to delay the approval beyond what may be commercially acceptable in
any given set of circumstances;
d) There was a concern that a letter prepared by the RCRA authority in a generating
state, in the context of ihe possible removal of RCRA waste from the generating
state to the state in which the uranium mill is located, may not be carefully
considered by the authority in the generating state, as the material would then
cease to be a problem for the generating state and become a potential problem for
the receiving state. This is in contrast to a pre-existing letter that may already
have been generated by the RCRA authority in the generating state in a different
context;
e) From a commercial point of view, it was recognized that generators of alternate
feed materials are generally reluctant to request the involvement of regulatory
authorities when it is not necessary, and that requiring such involvement could
interfere with a mill's commercial relations, particularly when there is no such
requirement in the case of direct disposal of lle.(2) byproduct material in NRC-
licensed disposal facilities, nor for the direct disposal of low level and other
radioactive wastes in direct disposal facilities; and
Mr. Philip Ting
February 7,2001
Page 5 of5
0 Finally, it was concluded that under the Atomic Energy Act the licensee has the
primary responsibility for licensed activities and, therefore, carries the primary
burden to satis$ itself and NRC that appropriate rules and policies are satisfied
by any proposal to process an alternate feed material.
For these reasons ruSA with UDEQ'S concurrence, has concluded that it is not necessary for
IUSA to obtain a letter from the generating state's RCRA authority. As alluded to in paragraph
e) above, such a requirement is currently not required for the direct disposal of I le.(2) blproduct
material in NRC approved and regulated I le.(2) disposal facilities, nor in other low level waste
disposal facilities. In the case of fUS,t UDEQ is satisfied that if the Listed Hazardous Waste
Protocol is followed, then there has been adequate confirmation that the generator's
determination that an alternate feed material is not and does not contain listed hazardous wastes
has been properly made in accordance with RCRA.
If you have any questions relating to this letter or to our Listed Hazardous Waste Protocol, IUSA
would be pleased to address them. If you believe that NRC guidance is required on this issue,
ruSAwould be pleased to provide input, and we certainly hope that the attached Protocol will be
helpful in this regard. I can be reached at [phone].
Attachment
cc: Michelle R. Rehmann
Ron F. Hochstein
William von TillA.IR
William J. Sinclair/UDEQ
Don Verbica/tJDEQ
Sincerely, /
dfllrhc. frydenlund
Vice President and General Counsel
ATTACHMENT I
Mii,harl O, L:aviBUcw
Dianne R r-iclson, Ph.O.&rcur.r UrEElor
Dcnnis R. f)orrns9itrctor
St#e of Utah
D E p A t{]'N.t EN T OF EN \.'i R() N.V UsrA L Q t I.4t.l1'Y
DIVISION OF SOLIT) AI\..D HAZARDC)US WT\STE
2lt North 1460 Wcst
P.O. Ilox l4tlltO
S.lt Ldrc Ciq'. Utih t4l l4-1t80
(tol) 5lE-51 70
(tol) 53t{715 Flr
(tol) s36411T.D.O.
wrnv. dcq stetc-ut-rs Wc0
1999Dccumber 7,
M. Lindsay Ford
Parsous, Behle arrd Latimer
One Utah Center
201 Soutb Main Street
Suitc lSoo
Post Officc Box 45898
Salt Lake City, Utah 84145{898
I{E: Protocol for Dctcrmining Whethcr Alternate Feed Meterirts erc Listcd Hoeraoo,
lYestcs
Dear Mr. Ford:
On Novemfu ?2,1999,we reccivcd the frnal protocol to bc used by Interaational Uraniunr
Corporation (IUSA) in determining whaher altemate feed matcrials proposcd for processing at
thc Whitc Mcsa Mill are listcd hnzardols wastcs. We appeciarc the cffort that went into
preparing this procedtrre and fcel that it will be a useful guide for IUSA in is alternatc fced
determinatons.
As was discusscd, pleasc be adviscd that it is [USA's rcsponsibility to ensurc that &c alternate
fecd materials used arc not listcd ha-ardous wastes and that the usc of &is plotocol can rot be
rsed as a defensc if listed hazardous waste is somehow proccssed at thc Whirc Mesa Mill.
Thank you again for your corporation. If you havc any questions, plcase contact Don Vcrbica at
538-6170.
Utah Solid and Hazardou Wastc Control Board
Bill Sinclair, Utalr Division of Radiation Control
F. tsHW\Hw8\D\rEiElQtlwhrhilacg.rryd
l, Parsons I
lr gente t ll
lL3""il
A rmr6sl0r.$
Llr Cortorfftol
Novcmbcr ?2,1999
Don Verbica
Utah Division of Solid & Haardous Wastc
288 Norrh 1460 Wcst
Salt Itke CitY, Utah
Re: Protocol for Determining Wbethcr Altcrnttc Fccd Mrtcrialr ere
Listed Eezardous Wastcs
Dear Dotu
I am pleased to prescot &e final protocol to bc uscd by krtaraatioual Uraium
(USA) Corporation C'IUSA) in determining u&etber altecnete feed matcrials proposcd for
proceisfurg at the Whitc Mesa Mill arc listed hazardors wastes. AIso attachcd is a red-lined
versiou oi thr protocol roflocting 6nal chaugcs madc to &c documcnf besed oa our last
discussios witb you as well as sornc miuor editorial chaqgcs from ou fil'l read-thronSlr of
the documcst Wc appreoiato tbe thoughtful input of you aud Scon Andersoq ir
developiqg tbis protocol Wc understand the DMsion concus ttet materids determined
uot to te ustca wsstes putsrrant to this protocol are not tisd trazardous wartcs.
Wc also recomize the protocol does not addrcss the situation ufrE(ie, afrer a matcrial
has bccn dctcrmhcd not to bc a tistcd hazardors wastc undcr the protocot'.nm unrefttable
informatiou comcs to light 6at indicates the matcrial is a listcd hazardous wastc- Should
such an eventuality ariser wr understand an appropriatc rcsponsg if any, would necd to be
worked out on a case-by-case basis.
one lltrh Qtntg
lol Suurlr Mlin SE?cr
Suits lt00
I'ost Ollct Bor attgl
srlr L:Ic City. utilr
3{l{54t9t
Tcl.Phor tOl 5!2':Zl'
Facinilc t0t 5f6.alll
l0l t0?. I
Don Verbicar
Utah Division of Solid & Hazanlous Waste
Novenrber 22,1999
Pagc Two
Tha* you again for you cooperation on this mad.er. Pleasc call mc if you havc
any questioru.
Very uuly yollts,
ParsousBehlc&tatiner
cc: (with copY of final Protocol onlY)
DiaDne Nielson
FrcdNclson
Brcot Bradford
Don Ostler
LorcnMofion
Bill Sinclair
David Frydcmh.rud
David Bird
Tony TbomPson
a@
-0
0.-lE
0o
9.
0
U0-'+o
=)
i.fo
T
.+
0)
0+lo
T'',|o0o
o.+
E
o_
-a'
o
;.
@-+0o
ToNo
d.oCaIo(n+
LO
,B*gESaE
zI
=
=./
EEiaS€gE
q\
3gia{6'
aq
aIII
o
te
I{?
*zo
E
$
g
$:
1adoq€
aI
5*
*?-o0.0
&
s
$o
oc
c
E
e
r&
dg
3d
=g$ea8qS
a=
aO
!It
oz
ooa
ecoJ
Ido
o
e9
eoo
do0
P p;eJ t '.!l
s eE3E9roo<
=AAQ O=ao:g
848cv-
EE=<7
[3eJOO
Ert9ra
!
8o
7oIo
g
oIo
g
=e
o
sI
oo
P
8.oo
o
z_
oo
aoc
9
Eg*
:69e6as?Etr
aI
a q$i
d =€;
E *ai
g Eel*q ioo )'o oIo5
ol
3
-(Do1x6'd€OE6do
oI
r)g
g
9
oeoo
a
=ao
8a.
a
o
E)
EE
-E a'
gE
o
r3€e
a3
d
,8
T
af,
Eg6t
ba =\o
dE9e
oe./
C.
oo
=o
o
d
5
o
soIoo?
I
e
a
EI+
0o
fl
e
ao
B
Ed
I
g
Eoo
o
6oo
a{o
3
5
o
r
sooo?
oo3olo
d
9rrsPBtIa:b o6{Fgrs 6
o
5o
3
o
IgtI
coI
I6
iE'o
1
E€i I 6fI lp
E'g i *rr l=
:gqEEIEA;qHB I3
E g i Hslaf€ fie r
sxESp- d1)
iEe'gg[fr
isgg'$
-g d
3$ q
200
{=f*oseE
reEEg*:f;EoEiq*ex
F }g*gFEi txeEiH
E sEg*EB
sisEaa*
l.
PRorocol FoR D rrnnvrn'Llr c WHETHE R
ALTER\,qTE FEED Marnru,rls ARE LrSrun H.r.Z.tn-oOus WlStrS'
NorryusuR 16, 1999
S OURCE II{YESTIGATION.
perform a good faith investigation (a "Source tnvestigation" or "S[")2 regarding whether
any listed hazardous wasresi are locued at the site from which alteruate feed materialo
(..Ivfateri"l') originates (the "Site";. This investigation will be corrducted in conformance
ii,n fBl guidance' and, the cxtent of informatiou required wi[ vary with the
circumstances of each casc. Following are examples of investigations that would be
considered satisfactory under EPA guidance and this Protopol for some sclcctcd
situations:
o Where the Material is or has becn generated from a koown pFocess under the
coatrol of the gcneraton (a) an aIfidavit, certificate, profile record or similar:
desrrrngsl frrom thc Gcncrator or Sitc Managcr, to that effec! togetherwith (b)
a Material Safety Data Shect ("MSDS') for thc Matcrial, timitcd profile
sampling, or a material composition dctermined by tho generator/opcrator
bascd on a.proccss material balancc-
I Ttris protocol rcflects the procedrres that wilt be foUowcd by Ertcrnational Uranium (USA)
Cofoltioo (..ruSA') for detcrmining whcthcr alternatc fecd matcrids proposcd for proccssing at thc
White Mcsa Mill "r" (o, contain) tistea nazaraous wastes. It is basd on currcnt Utatr md EPA rules and
EpA guidatrce rnder thc RcsourEe CoDscrvation and Recovery Act ('T.CRA"),42 U.S.C. $$ 6901 et s€q'
tUi, ilo*ol will bc changcd as nccessary to rcflcct any pcrtincot changcs to RCRA rulcs or EPA
guidancc.
2 This investigation wilt bc performed by IUSA, by thc cntiU rcsponsible for the site &om which the
Matcrial ongrnatcs (the "Gencrator"), or by a combinatim of thc two-
3 Aftachrncnt I to this Protocol providcs a sunrmary of thc diffcrcnt classifications of RCRA hsted
hazardous wastclt.
4 Alcmatc fccd matcrisls that are prinrary or intcrmcdiatc products of the generator of thc matcrial (e'g',
..Or€r1,, or tlack" sals) are not iCRA ;'sccondaty matcrials" or "solid wastes," as de'fised iB 40 CFR
Z6t, ard are not covercd by this Protocol-
5 f,pa guidancc ideutifies thc followiug sorrccs of sitc- 41{ wastc-specific information that may'
a"p*airig on thc circumstances, be considered in such m invcstigation: hazardous u'aste ruanifests'
vouchczs, bills Of lading, sales end inventory rccords, matcrial safcty data shccts, storege records'
sampling and analysis repotts, accidcnt rcPorB' sitc investiption reportst intervicrys with
",,pioyJ.Vforroo "-ploy.", and former owners/operators, spill rcPo6, inspcction rcports and logs'
;;;i, and enforccmeut ordcrs . See e.g..6l Fcd. Reg. I 8E05 (April 29. 1996)-
zalt?6. I
pRoTocoL FoR DETEtcll.\tNc WHETHER A1TER,vATE l.'f.ED lrlnrnntrls.A,RE LISTED H.\ZARDoLS WASTES
. \Vhere specific information exists about the generation process and
.*"gr-int of thc Material: (a) an affidavit, certificate, profile rccot'd or
similar document from thc Geuerator or Site Manager, to that effect, together
with (b) an MSDS for the Material, limited pro6lc sampling data or a
prcexisting investigation performed at the Sitc pursuant to CERCLA" RCIIA
or other stete or fcdcral environmental laws or prograrns'
o Where poteotially listed processes are howu to have beelr co[ductod at a Site,
an investigation considering the following sources of information: sitc
invcstigation reports prepared under CERCLA, RCRA or other state or fbderal
envirorunental laws or programs (eg., an RUTS, ROD, RFUCMS, hazardous
waste inspection report);. intsniews with persoos possessing howledge about
the Material and/or Site; and revicw of publicly availablc documerrts
concerning process activities or the history of waste geueration and
managerneilrt at the Sirc-
o lf material from the s:une source is bcing or has been acccptcd for direct
disposal as lle.(2) byproduct matcrial in au NRC-rcgulated facility in the
State of Utah with tbe conseut or acquiesccnoe of the Statc of Utah, tbe Source
lnvestigation perfomred by such hcility.
Proceed to SteP 2.
2. SPECIFIC INT'ORJVIATION ORAGREEMENT/DETERMINATIONBY
RCRA REGT'LATORY AUTHORITY TTTAT IUATERIAL IS NOT A
LISTED EAZARDOUS \vASTE?
a- Dctcrmine uAethcr speciEc informarion from the Source Investigation exists about thc
geueration and management of the Material to support a conclusion that the Matcrial is
not (and docs not contain) any listed hazardous waste. For exautplc, if spcciEc
information cxists that thc Material was uot generated by a listal wastc source and that
the Material has aot beeir mixcd with any listed wastes, the Material would uot be a listed
hazardotts waste.
b. Altenratively, determine whether the appropriate state or fcderal authority wift RCRA
jurisdiction o.ro th" Site agrees in writing wi& the generator's dcterrnination that tbe
. -lrrtateriat
is not a listcd bazardous waste, hai madc a "co[taincd+ut'' detcmrinatiou6 with
respect to the Material or bas concluded thc Matcrial or Site is not subject to RCRA.
6 gpn explains thc "conhined+ut" (also referred to as "contained-in") principlc as follows:
In practice, EPA has applicd thc containcd-in prirrciplc to refer to I Proccss whcrc a site'
specific dctcrsrination is madc that concerrations of lrazardotts constitucos io any givrca
(footrotc continued on nexl Prgc)
241t76 I
3.
PROTO(.:OI. F()R DETERMITh-G WIIETIIERALTERY.{TE FEED 'UATERIAIS ARE LTSTED HIZ'C''RDOTS WASTES
II y*s o e.ither questiort, proceed to Stcp 3'
[f no to both questiotts, Proceed to Step 6'
PROVIDE INI.'ORMATION TO NRC AI\D UTAE.
a Lf specific information exists to support a conclusion that the Materid is not, and does
not contaiq any listed hazardous waste, ruSA will provide a description of the Soruce
Investigarion to NRC and/or the State of Utah Departmeot of Environmentat Quality,
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste (the "State'), together with an alfidavit
explaining why the Material is not a listcd hazardots waste'
b. Altemarively, if the rypropriate regulatory authority with RCRA jurisdictiou ovcr the
ii " ,gr"", iu Gting o,itl tU" generator's derermination that thc Matcrial is not a listcd
hazardous wastq -"fo a containcd-out detcmination or dctcrmincs thc Material or Site
is not subjcct to RCRA ruSA will provido docuncutatiou of thc rcgulatory authority's
oetermination to NRC and thc Statc- ruSA may rely ou such dctermination provided
that thc Statc agrecs thc conclusiors of the regUlatory authority were reasonable and madc
ingood faitb"
Proceed to Stq 4.
DOES STATE OF ITTAE AGREE THAT ALL PREYIOUS STEPS HAI{E
BEEN PERFORIV1ED IN ACCORDAIYCE WTIH TEIS PROTOCOL?
Determine whether the State agrees that this Protocot has been properly followed
(including tbat proper decisions were made at cach decision point). The state sball
ievie* the informa[on provided by IUSA in step 3 or 16 with reasonable spccd and
advise ruSA if it beliervis IUSA has not pro'perly followed this Protocal in dstgrEtining
(foouote continued from prcvios prgc)
volume of euvironrncntal media are low cnough to dctcrminc that thc mcdia docs not
"contain" hazardOus wrstc. Typically, thxc sO'callcd 'containcd-in" [or "contaiT cd-
out''] dctcrminatims do Bot Eean that no lrazardow constihreats arc present in
cnviroomcnlal mcdia hrr simpty that thc concaltrations of trazardous constitucnts
prescnt do not warrant p.Drgsgcnt of the ucdia as hazardotS wast6. .'.
EpA has no! to datc, rssrcd dcfiniti\rc guidance to cstablish thc conccntrations at which
contained-in deterrrinations may be made- As notcd abovg decisioru that mcdia do oot
or no Iongcr coutlin hazardoqs w1gtc arc qplcelly ma& on a case-by'cese basis
considcring thc risks poscd by thc contrrninarcd mcdia'
53 Fed. R.cg.28619, 28621-22(!r,tay 26, 1998) (Phase IV LDR.p,reornblc).
4.
2{!t?6. I
5.
PROTOCOI' FOR DETERYITI'I}C IffTIE"TI'IER AL'TT:rL\'{l C FEED .\I'TTERITLS AflE LIS'I'EU IL{ZARDOUS IY'{ST}S
that rhe Material is uot listed hazardous wastc, speciffing the particular areas of
dc.ficiency.
If this Protocol has not been properly followed by IUSA in ruakiug its determination that
the Material is not a listed hazardous waste, then IUSA shall redo its aualysis in
accordancc with this Protocol and, ifjustified, resubmit the information described in Step
3 or t6 explaining why thc Material is not a listed hazardous waste. The Stnte shall
notify IUSA with reasonable specd if the State still believes this Protocot has not been
followed.
Ifyo, proced to Step 5-
If no, proceed to Stqt l.
}\,IATERIAL IS NOT A LISTED EAZARDOUS WASTF-
The Material is not a listed hazs{6ps wastc and no further sampling or evduation is
necessary in thc following circumstanccs:
. Whero the Material is determined uot to be a listcd hazardous waste
based ou speoific informatioa about thc gc,aertion/managcmeot of the
Matcrial Q!, the appropriate RCRA regulatoly authority with
jurisdiction over the Site agrees with the geDerator's deternrination that
the Material is not a listcd HW, makes a contained-out determination,
or concludes thc Material or Site is not nrbject to RCRA (and the Statc
agrecs thc conclusious of the regulatory authority were reasouable and
made in good faith) (Step 2); or
o Where the Material is dctermincd not to be a listed hazqrdous waste (ia
Steps 6 througfu 11, 13 or l5) and Confirmation/Acce,ptance Sampliag
arc detcrmined not to bc neccssary (rmder St€p lA.
IS MATERIAL A PROCESS WASTE I$IO\ilN TO BE A LISTEI)
HAZARDOUS WASTE OR TO BE MIXED WITH A LISTED
EAZARDOUS WASTE?
Based oa the Source Investigation, determinc whcther thc Matcrial is a pnocess waste
known to be a tisted hazardous waste or to be mixed with a listed hazardous wastc. If the
Mat8rial is a process wastc. aud is from a listed hazadous waste sourcc, it is a listed
hazardors wastc. Similarly, if the Material is a proccss waste and has been mixed with a
listed hazardous wastc, it is a listcd hazardous waltte under the RCRA "mixturc nde-" [f
6.
2{3t76.1
l.
pRoTOCOL FoR DETERMTNL\*C \t'HETHER ALTE&\ATE FEED lvlr\TERIAI-S ARE LISTED ll"rZ',rnoous we-srss
the Material is au Euvironncutal Mediun:.' it cannot be a listed hazardous was-te by direct
Iisting or under the RCRA "mixture rute."s If the Material is a process waste but is not
knowu to be from a listed source or to be mixed with a listed waste, or if the Materid is
an Environmenral Mediu-rr, proceed to Steps 7 through tL to dctermine whcther it is a
Iisted hazardous waste.
If yn, proceed to SteP 12- ,
If no, proced to Stq 7-
I
:
DOES MATERIAL CONTAIN AFTY POTENTIALLY LISTED
HAZARDOUS CONSTITTJENTS?
:
i
Based ou thc Source Investigatiou (and, if applicable, Confirmation and Acccptauce
Sarnpting), determine whether the Matcrial contains any hazardous coostituents listcd in
the theu most recent version of a0 CFR 261, Appendix VII (which identifies hazardous
constituents for which F- and K-listed wastes were listed) or 40 CFR 261.33(e) or ($ (the
p an4 U listed wastes) (collectively "Potentially Listed Hazardous Constitucnts')- If thc
Material contafurs such constitu€ats, a source evaluation is ncccssary (purstrant to Stcps 8
through ll). If the Malerial docs gq! :contain any Potcntially Listcd Hazardous
Consinrents, it is not a tisted hazardous lwaste. Thc Matcrial also is not a listcd
hazardous waste i{, where applicablc, Confirmation and Acccptancc Sampling rcsults do
not reveal thc presence of any "neur" Potcntially Listed Hazardous Constitucots (i.e',
constitucnts othcr than thosc that havc atready bccn identificd by thc Source Invcstigation
(or previous Confirmation/Acccptance Sarnpling) aud determined not to originatc from a
listcd souroe).
If yes. proceed to SteP 8.
IDENTF"T POTENTHLLY LISTED WASTES.
Identify potcntially listed hazardors wastcs ("Potentially Listed Wastcs") based ou
potentially Listcd Hazardous Constitucuts ditectcd in thc Material, i.e., wastcs which are
listcd for any of the Potcntially Listed Hazardous Constihrents dctccted in the Materral, as
7 Thc tcrrn 'Environmattal Mcdia" mcans soils, ground or surface watcr and scdimcns.
8 Thc ..mixture rulc" ap,plics only to mixturcs of listcd hazardors q.astcs urd other "solid wastcs-" 'lee
40 CFR g 2613(aXZXi"). 'thc mixU.re rulc doeslnot apply to mixturc.s of listcd wasrs and
Environmcntal Media, Li""rs. Enviro,runenal Media arc not "solid wastes' rurder RCRA. See 63 Fcd'
Rce. 28556,28621(MaY 26, t998).
E.
z{t676.1
PRoTOCOL FOR I)ETERMI.\-llic \vr{ETttER ALTE&\,\TE ['EED ]'Lrrn,nte'ts ARE LNTED }IAZARDoUS $'.tsrFS
idenrified in tire then most cunent version of 40 CFR 261 Appendix VII or 40 CFR
261.33(c) or (0.', With respect to Poterrtially Listed Hazardous Constituents identiEed
through Confirmatron and/or Acceptance Sampling, a sourcc cvaluation (pursuant to
Steps 8 through I t) is uecessary only for "new" Potentially Listed Hazardous
Constinreu6 (j.;., constituents other than those that have alrcady been identiEed by thc
Sogrce lnvesiigation (or previous Confimration/Acceptance Sanpling) and daermined
not to originate &om a listed source).
Procdto SteP 9-
9. WERE ATTY OF THE POTENTI"ALLY LISTED WASTES KNOWN TO BE
GEI\IERATED OR IT{ANAGED AT SITE?
Based on inforoation from the Sowce lnvestigation, determine whctier any of the
potentially Listed Wastes identified in Step t are knoum to have beeu gcuerated or
managed at thc Site. This determharion involves ideatifying whettrer any of thc specrfic
o, ooi-rp""i6c sourccs idcutiEed in the K- or F-lists has wer bcen conductcd or locatcd
at the Site, wbether any wastc from srrch proc€ssc has been managcd at thc Site, aud
whcthcr auy of the P- or U-listed commercial chcmical products has ever becn used'
spilled or maragcd therc. In particular, this detemiDatiou sbould be based ou the
following EPA critcrie
Solveut Listines (F001 -F0051
Undcr EPA guidauce, "to determine if solvent constituents coutaminating a waste
are RCRA stent solvent FOO1-F005 wastcs, the [site maoagcrr] must lnow if
r The solvents are spent trrd cannot be rased witllriud reclanution ot
g[saning.
.1 The solvents were zsed es.clusivelyfor their solvent propenies.
o The solvents arc speut mixtures and b:lads that rcntained, before use,
a total of I0 percent or more (by volume) of the solvents listed in
F001, F002, F004, and F005.
If the solvents coataincd in thc [wastes] are RCRA listed wastes, ttre
[wastes] are RC?A hazardous wastc. When the [site manager] does not
have guidancc inforuration oD the use of thc solvcnB and thcir
characteristics before use, the [wastes] carnot be classified as contaidtrg a
9 For .xamplq if thc Motcrial conains teuzchlorocthylenc, thc following would bc Potcotially Listed
Wastes: Fobl, F002. F024, K019, K020, K150. Kl5l or UZl0. ,Iee 40 CFR 261 Ap. VII
241N76 r
pRorocoL FoR DETERr,tT\r:-c WHF.THER ALTER\ATF. f,'EED M.,rrr.nl.eus ARE LNTED HA7-{RDOI'S W^srEs
listed spent solvent."ro The pcrson perfonnfulg tlte Source [.:nvestigation
will make a good faith effort to obtain infomration on any solvcttt usc at
the Site. If .soivents rvere used at the Site, general indusry shndards for
solvent use in effect at the time of use will be considered in deterurining
. whether those solvents contained l0 percent or mor€ of the solvents listcd
in F001, F002, F004 or F005.
K-Listed Wastes and F-Listed Wastes Otber Tban F001-Ffi)5
Under EPA guidance, to determine whether K wastes and F wastes other than
F001-F005 arc RCRA listcd wastcs, the gcncrator "must koow the generatiorr
process information (about cach waste containcd in thc RCRA wastc) dcscribed in
the listing. For example, for [wastes] to be idsutificd as conaining K([I wastes
that ayc described as 'bottom scdiment sludge &om the tcabent of wastewatgrs
ftom wood presc,ffing processes that use crcosotc aud/or peutaoblorophcnol,' the
[site managcr] must lsrow thc manufacturing proccss that geueratcd thc wastes
(treabrcnt of wastewaters from wood prcscrving proccss), fecdstocks used in thc
proccss (creosotc and pentachlorophcnol), and tbc procss ideutification of tte
wastes (bottom scdimcnt sludge)."r r
P- snd U-ListcdW$tes
EPA guidance provides that "P and U wastes @vcr only uuused and uumixed
comnercid chernicd prodrrcts, paticularly spilled or oFspsc products. Not
every waste containing a P or U chemical is a hazardous rvaste. To determine
whethcr a [waste] contains a P or U wastc, the [sitc managcrj must have direct
evidence of pmduct use. In particular, the [sitc managcr] should ascetaiq if
possible, whether the chemicds are:
. Discardod (as dcsoribcd in 40 CFR 261.2(aX2)).
o Eithcr off-spec commercial products or a commcrcially soH gade.
. Not used (soil contaminucd with spilled unused wasts is a P or U
waste).
l0 Managpmcnt of lnvcstigation-Dcrived Wastcs Druing Site Inspcctions, EPA/54UG-91/009, Mey 1991
(cmphasis addcd).
I I Managcmerrt of Invcstigation-Dcrivcd Wastcs During Sitc Inspcctions, EPA/54,UG-91/009, May l99t
(emphuis addcd).
26l37G. I
I'ROTOCOL T'OK DETERMINIITG WHETTTEK AT'TERNATF' F'F'F'D M^TERIAIS ARE LISTED }I^7AIRIJIOL|S WASTES
a The sole active ingredient in a tbrmulation"'rz
If potentially Listed Wastes were known to be generated or managed at the Site, further
evaluation is nccessafy to determine whetber these wilttcs were disposerl of or
comminglcd with the Materiat (Steps l0 aud possibly tl). If Potentially Listed w'astcs
were not kuown to bc generated, or managed at the Site, rhen information conceming the
source of potentially Listcd Hazardous Constitue,uts in the Material will be considered
.\rnavailable or inconclusive" and, under EPA gUidalrce,t' the Materid will be assumed
not to bc a listea hazqrdous waste-
12Ivlanagemeotoflnvestigation-DerivcdWasrcsDuriugSitelnspectioru,EPA/540/G-91/009'May
1991.
13 fBe guidance consiste,ntly provides thar, whcrc informatiou conceming the origin of a wastc is
nnavailablc or inconclusivg thc wastc may be assumcd aot to bc a listcd hazardous wastc- See e'g',
Memorandum from Timothy Ficlds (Acting Assistant Admiaistratot fm Solid IVastc & Eurcrgcncy
nesponsc) o RCRA/CERCIA Seoior Policy Mznagers regarding 'Managcrnent of Rcmediation waste
Under RCRA,, dated Oaobcr 14, 1998 1'wherc a iacility owacrlopcrator makff a good faith effort to
determiDe if a matcrial is r listcd hazardous waste but cannot makc such a detcrminatioa because
documsntation rcgarding a solrce of conEm'inatiorq contaminaOt, Or waste is wtauilable or
inconclusive, EpA has itatcd that one nuy assume thc sourcc, contartrinerrt, or wasE is not listed
hazardous waste'); NCP Prcamblc, 55 fla. Rcg. 8?58 (March 8, 1990) (Noting that 'it is -ofrcn
necessary 1o 1o,ow thc origin of the wastc to detercrine whethcr it is a listcd waste and that. if sa,ch
documentation is lackingihc tead agenq, mdy assume it is nol a listed wasle)i Eeamble to proposcd
Hazardous waste ldcotjlcation nuri or Fed- Reg. 1E805 (April 29, l99O ('Facility onrner/opcrators
should make e good f8ith efrort to dctcrmisc whethir media wcrc contarlinatcd by hazardou wastes and
ascertain the dates of placcmcnt Thc Agcncy believes that by using availablc sitc-. and wastc-specific
informatiou ... facilityowncr/op€rators wouldtlpically be ablc to makc tbcse determinations' However'
"" iiri ,r".a carlicr io ,1" pro-ule of today's proposal, d infornution is not available t inconclusive'
facility own*loperatorc ,lrly genoolly osiume that the material contaminating thc media were not
hazardous urasrcs-"); n "rirUic to t6R Phase lV Rulc, 63 Fed- Rcg- 286t9 (May 26, 1998) ("As
discusscd in &c April 29, 1996 proposal, thc Agency contintrcs to bclicvc that, f inlontation is not
*oitott" or inonilusive, it b gineiatly reasonsble to osntsne that contanhated soils do Ntl contan
untedtcd hazardots 1,a5rcr ...1; and Memorandum from John [I- Skinncr (Director. EPA Ofiicc of
Solid Wastc) !o David Wagoaer (Dircctor, EPA Air and Wastc Maoagcurcnt Divisicl Region vII)
il;dt"g 'joils from Missolri Dioxin Sitcs," datcd Jauuary 6, 1984 CThe arelyscs indicatc thc
prlr*J"f a numbcr of toxic compounds in many of tho soil saurplcs takcn frEor nariors sites'
However, the prcsence of thcsc toxicants in thc soii dbcs Eot autometically nrake Ore soil a RCRA
hazardous waste. Thc origin of the toxicanB mu-st bc larown in ordcr to dctcrrninc that thcy are dcnvcd
from a listed hazardous wastds). If the uact origin of thc AicarB is ]tot known' tlra soilr unnot be
(footnote continucd on ncxt Pagc)
10.
PROTOCOL FOR I)ETERMIIiINC WH}:THER ALTEIL\ATE FEED }T{TERI'ALS AR'E' LISTED H^Z^I{DOUS WT:-TES
If y"-s.proceed to Step 10.
If no, proceed to Step l6-
WERE LISTED WASTES KNOWN TO BE DISPOSED OF OR
CONtrIIINGLED WITE MATERIAL?
If listed wastes identified in Step 9 were kuou'n to be generated at th'e Site, determine
whether they were koown to be disposed of or commingled with the Material?
If yu, proceed to Step 12.
If no, proceed to Step I t. :
ARE THERE ONE OR II{ORE POTENTIAL NON-LISTED SOURCES O[.
LISTED HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITUEJYTS?
I1 a. situation whcre Potcntially Listed Wastcs wers koowu to bavc beetl
generated/managed at the Site, but the wastes were uot loown to havc been diqposed of
or commingled with thc Material, dotermine wbether there are potential uonJisted
sources of Potentially Listed Hazardous ConstitueuB in thc Material. If not, unless the
State agrees otherwisq tbc constituents witl be assumed to bc from listed sources
(proceed to Step l2). If so, the Materid will be assuned not to bc a listed hazardous
wastc (proceed to Stcp 15). Notwithstanding the existence of potential non-listed sourc€s
at a Site, the Potentially Listed Hazardous Constitucas in the Matcrial will bc cousidered
to be from rhe listed soruc{s) i4, bascd on thc relative proxirnity of thc Matcrial to tbe
listed and non-listed sourcds) and/or information mncerning wastl mauagemeot at the
Sitc, the evidence is compelling that tbe listed sourcds) is the sourse of Potcntially Listed
Hazardous ConstiUreos iu tbc Material.
If yes, proceed to Step 16.
If no, proceed, to Sup IZ
:
MATERIAL IS A LISTED I{AZARDOUS WASIE.
The Matcrial is a tisted bazardous waste under the following circumstances:
(footnotc continucd &ou prwios pagu)
i
considerd, RCful haardous rrg.ttes gnlcss they cxhibit onc or morc of the chafiactcristics of lrazardous
wastc...").
11.
12.
2.lt?6. r
13.
pRoroCoL FoR DETERMrNtric \vHETHER AL'I'ER\A'l.r: Ft:ED IIIA1'ERIALS .ARE LtsTED HAZARDous Wesres
. [tthe Material is a process wa-ste and is knowu to be a listcd hazardous
waste or to be nrixed with a listed hazardous wastc (Step 6),
. If Potentialty Listcd Wastes wcre hrown to be generated/nranaged at
the Sire ancl to be disposed oflcommiugled with tbe Material (Step l0)
(subject to a "contained-out" determination in Step l3), or
r If poteutially Listed r|y'astes were lnoum to be gerrerated/rn-1ged.at
the Site, were not knowu to be disposed oflcommingled with the
Material but there are not aoy porential non-listed soultes of'the
poteutially Listed Hazardous ConstituenB detected in the Material
(Step t l) (subject !o a "coBtained-out" determination in step l3).
Proceed to SteP i,3.
EAS STATE OF I,]"TAII IV1ADE A CONTAINED-OI.TT DETERMINATION'
I
If the Matcrial is an Eavironmcntal Medinsr, and:l
. the level of any listed waste constinrenb inthe Material is "de minimis"; or
r all of the listed waste constituents or classcs thcrcof arc alrcady prescnt in the
White Mesa Mill's taitings ponds as a rcsult of processing convcutional ores
or other altemate feed materials in concentations at lcast as hi$ as found rn
the Materials
the State of Utah will consider whether it isiappropriats to mako a containod-out
determination with rcspect to thc Material'
If ile snrc malces a containdout determination, proced to step 16.
If the Sute does not malu a contained'out detetmination, proed to Step l4'
IS IT POSSIBLE TO SEGREGATE LISTED HAZARDOUS WASTES
FROM OTHER MATERIALS?
Detemrine whcthcr thcrc is a reasonablc way to segregale material that is a listed
hazardous waste from alternatc fced materials that are not listcd hazadous wastcs that
will bc seilrt to IUSA's Whitc Mcsa Mitt. For example, it uray be possible to isolate
matcrial from a certain area of a renrediation site and exclude that matcrial &om Materials
that will be sent to the Whitc Mcsa Mill. Altenrativetn it may be possible to increase
14.
i
:
I
I
I
2{J676.:t0
pROTOCOT, FoR DErERl}il\r\G IVHErHER ALTERI\'ATE FEED MATERI^I.S ARE Lls',rED HA.T.ARr,OUS WASTES
:
sampling frequency and exclude materials *i*r respect to which thc increased sampting
identifies'constitucnts which havc been attritiuted to listed hazardous waste.
[f yes, proceed to Step 15.
:
If no, proceed to Step t2.
i;
I
15. 5BPAP.,A.TE LISTED IIAZARDOUS WAbTES FROM MATERIALS.
Bascd on the method of segregarion determinsd under St€p 14, matcrials that are listed
hazardous wastes are s€,parated from Materials that will be sent to the White Mesa Mill-
For mateials tlnt are listed hazardous wastes, proceed to Step 12.
. For Materials to be sent to the White Mesa M-ill, proceed to Step 16.
16. PRO\.IDE I TFORMATION TO I\IRC A}TD UTEH.
::If the Material docs not contain auy Potcntially Lised Hazardous Constihrcots (as
determiued in Step 7), where inforuation conc€iring thc source of Potentially Listed
Haeardous Constituents in the Material is *unavailable or inconclusivc" (as dctem,ined in
Steps 8 through 1l), or whse tbe State of Utah has made a contained-out determination
with respect to the Material (Step l3), the Material will be assumcd not to be (or contain)
a listed bazardous rvaste. In such circumstanccs, IUSA will submit the followiDg
documentation to NRC and the State:
,J
r A descriptiou of the Source Investigation;
i An explanation of why tbcMatsrial is not a Listed hazardous wastc.
o Wherc applicablc, au ocplanatiou of why Conlirmatior/Acceptance
Sampling hrs bccu dctermined uot to be recessary in Step 17.
. If Confirmatiory'Acceptance Sampling has becn determincd necessary
in Step l7 , a copy of IUSA's, aud the Generator's Sampling and
Analysis PlaCIs. I ,. A copy of Confirmation and Accc?tancc Sampting rcsults, if
appticablc. ruSA will submit these results only if tbcy idcnti& thc
presence of "new" Porcntially Listed Hazardous Constiruerrts (as
defincd in Strps 7 aDd 8).
17. ARE SAITIPLING RESULTS OR DATA REPRE,SENTATryE?
I
Dctcrminc whether the sampling results or dari fronr the Sorxce lovcstigation (or, where
applioablc, Confirmation/Acccptancc Sarnpling rcsults) arc rcpresentatine. The purposc
of this step ) is to determinc wbether Confirmation and Acceptarcc Sanrpling (or
t'i:241176.r tl
i,i
PRoTocoL foR DETER\{]NING WHE.r}IER AT,TER|YATI, FEED n/I{TERIALS .{N,E LI.sTED IiAZARDOUS W.{.S,TI:5
conrinued Confirmatiou and Acceptaucc Sampling) are necessary. If the sampling resulls
or data are representative of all Material destincd for the White Mesa Mill, based on the
exteot of saurpling conducted, the nanre of the Material and/or the nature of the Site
(e.g., whether ctremical operations or waste disposal were lnown to be conducted at the
Site), future Confi.rmation/Acceptance Sampling;wiil not be necessary. If the sampling
results are not representative of dl Material.destined for the White Mesa Mill, then
additional Confirmation/Acceptance sarnpling 4ay be appropriate. Confirmation and
Acceptance Sampling wi[ be rcquired only rvhere it is reasonable to exPect that
additional sampling wilt dctect additionat contanrinanls not already detected- For
exanrp[e:'
Whcrc the Materiat is scgregatcd 'from Euvironmental Mediq e.8:., the
Matcrial is conteinerrzc4 thcrc is a high probability the sampling results or
data from thc Souce Investigation arc roprcscntativc of the Material and
Confi rmatiory'Acceptance Sarnpling, wgutd uot be roquircd.
Where ruSA will be accePting Material from a discrete portioa of a Sitc, e.g-,
a storage pilc or othcr defiued areai aud adequate sanpting characterized the
area of concem for radioactive and cherricat contaDxirnnts, thc sampling for
that area would be considered represeutative and Confirmatiotr/Acceptance
sampling would trot bc required : I
Where Material will bc roceived frirm a wide area of a Site and the Site has
besn cerefully charactcrized for railioactive contaminanB, but not chemical
contarnina[ts, Confirmation/Acceptance sampling would be required.
Where the Sits was not used for irrioitA activity or disposat bcfore or a.fier
r:ranium matcrial disposal, and the Site bas bccn adequatcly ctraractcrized for
radioactivc and chemical contaminants, the existing samplin8 would be
considcrcd s,'fficicnt and Confirmatibryacccptancc sartpling would not be
requircd. : Io Where listed wastcs were knorm to beidisposed of on thc Site and thc limits of
thc area where listed wastes I lverc mnnagcd is not ltrtown,
ConErmation/Acceptansg se'nplfuig: uiould be required to eosure that listed
wastes are Dot shipped to IUSA (scc Step l4).
If yx, proceed to Step 1-
I
If no, proceed to Scep 18-
;
I
DOES STATE OF TITA.TI AGREE THAT ALL PREVIOUS STEPS IIAVE
BEEN PERFORIVIED IN ACCORDANCE v,|rllfH THIS PROTOCOL?
l;
Dstcrminc whcthcr tbc Stat€ ags€s that thislProtocol has bccn propcrly followcd
(including thar propcr dccisions were made at ieaoh decision pofutt). Thc Statc shall
18.
t2243876.1
i
i
PT(OTOCOL FOR OETER}'Ih-ING WHETHE'R ALTEIT\ATE FEED }L{'TERL[S ARE LISTED T{AZ{RDOUS WASTES
I
r9.
i
review the information provid"a tiy IUSA in Step 16 with reasonable speed and advise
ruSA if it bclieves IUSA has not properly followed this Protocol in determining tbat the
Material is not listed hazardous waite, speciffing theparticular arcas of deficicncy'
If this prorocot has not bccn propeity followed bylruSe in making its deterroination that
the Matcrial is not a listed haz{rdous waste, ,then IUSA shall redo its analysis iu
accordancc with tSis hotocol an4lifSustific4 res'dbmit the informatiou described in Ste-paccordancc with this hotocol anO,lifjustificq restibmit the informatiou described in Step
t6 ercplaining why the Material i{ not a lisled hir2ardous waste. The State sball notif
ruSA with reasonable speed if the State still belieycs this Protocol has not been followed-
If yes, proceed to SteP t9- I i ;lit
If no, proceed to SteP l. i i i
IVTATERHL IS NOT A tISTEq ITAZARDO1s wAsTE, BUT
CoNFIRIUATION AND ACCEPTAIT{CE SAY]PLING ARE REQUIRED.
-l ,. ll.l. r a----^----
The Material is not a listed irazara[us wastq but bonfimruion and Acceptance Sampling
are rcquire4 as dete,rrrined necessary under Step !7'
Proeed to Step 20-
CO NDUCT ON G OING C O NFTRMAT I ON A$TD ACCEPTADICEll'
that restrlts from processing alternite feed matenalb'
Procdto Step 7.
SATVIPLING. i . i,
Confirmation and Acccptance Slmpfing will icontinue until dctermincd no longer
necessary under Step 17. Such sahnpting witl be gouductcd pursuaut to a Sampling and
enalysis plan ("SA!1 that specihes the frequqncy and $,pc of samplir_oS required. If
suchiarrpling does not reveal aali "neu/'Potend.ially Listcd Hazardous Constihrents (as
defined in Ste,ps 7 and 8), further ,irvaluation is n9t nccessary (as indicated b !t"p 7). lf
such sanrpling rcrreals thc prcscncg of 'bew'l constirucnts, Potentially Listed wastes must
Ue identiied (St.p a) and evaluated (Steps 9 tubugh I l) to det€,rrniue whether the new
constitucnt is hom "-ti"t a hazard{us waste bourcci Gcnerally, in each case, the SAP wiU
spccify sampling comparable a *i. lovcl and frc[uency of sampling performed by other
facilitics in the Statc olutah that di"por" of tle.(2) byproduct material, either directly or
t3243i76. l
Attachment I
Summary of R(:fu| t'isted Hazardous Wastes
:
There are tluee different catcgories of listed hazardor:s waste under RCRA:
listcd wastes werc listed-
lrli
i!tlillr
0 26t.33(0.
z co CER $ 261.33(d) norc (1917).
o F-listed wastes from non-spccific souries Gq CFR $ 261.31(a)): Tbese wastes
include ,p"o, ,oir"nts (F00i-F601, specified wastes &om electroplating operations
(F006-FOb9), specified wastcs ;from metal hbat treating op€rations (F01GF012)'
specified wastes from chemical conversigl *"ti"g of aluminum (F019), wastes from
th" production/manufacturing :of spccified_ich)orophenols' chlorobenzerres, and
chlorinated alipbatio hydroJarboru (F019-F028), speci6ed *astes from wood
preserving processes GOiZ-fOfS), specif ed Yastes from petrolanm refinery primary
and secoudary oiVwater/solids separatiori studge G037-F038), urd leachate rcsrlting
from the disposal ofmore than one liSedhazardous waste (F039).
. K-lbted lyasres from spectfic sources (49 CF,R $ 261'32): These includg spccified
wastes from wloa prutet "tion, inorganic pigmcnt production, organic chcurical
productiou, cblorinc productioni, pesticide production' pctroteum refiTle iron and
,,*t production, .opp* production, p"i"".yld lecondaV lead smelting, primary
zitc productiou pri-r{r aluminum riductioa, ferroalloy production' vetcrinary
pharmaczutical production' ink formulatioa an$ cnking
o p- and (JJisted commercial chLmiat ei,9a"i! Go- CFR $ 261-33)z frT" iuclu$e
commercial chemical products, ior ma"uf,""tu5in3 obsmicat intersrcdiatcs baving thc
geucric namc listed in the "P" 4' "['f' liJt of ri'astcs' containorr residueq aod rcsidues
in soit or debris resultiug &om a spilt od thes!'materials.t "The phraso 'commcrcial
chemica1 p-A* * .ri"f""*n"L cheinical; iutemediate ...' refers to a chemical
zubstancc whicb is manufactured oi formulatdd fo: commercial or manufacturing use
which consists of ,f" commercially prue g"a-dP of thl chemical, any tcchrical grades
of tbe chernical that ar.c produbi o, ,""ttg"( urd all formulatious in which the
chcrnical is thc solo active ingredicnt. i tt Oos. not refer to a materiat srch as a
rnanufacntring;';";'-;,"'dlrcon:ainsTli"t*"-t::-::-'"lj:i:::ff:r"_
CFR pan 26I identifies thc hazardons constinrents for which thc F- and K-
r. ^ i-----^--------r:-0-r I I li
1 p-listcd wastcs are idmtificd as "acutely trrjrraous o,a.to'lod ar. subjcct to additioor'l managcment
controls undcr RCRA. 40 cFR g 261-33(e) (1997). uJisted llastcs arc idcntificd as'toxic wastcs"' !!'
2art76. I
-tllli+ta1.I UNITED STATES
CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
wASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
January 14, 2002
Mr. Ron Hochstein
President and Chief Executive Officer
lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation
lndependence Plaza, Suite 950
1 050 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80265
SUBJECT: MATERIALS LICENSE SUA.1358.- WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL
QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS REGARDING ALTERNATE FEED MATERIAL
STORAGE
Dear Mr. Hochstein:
As discussed with you and David Frydenlund on December 13, 2OO1, we have several
questions and concerns regarding your current practice of stockpiling alternate feed on the ore
pad. lt is our understanding that material has not been run through the mill since the summer
of 2000 and, Since that time, a large volume of alternate feed material has been received and is
currenly being stockpiled on the ore pad. We have the following concerns and questions
relative to this situation:
1. Potential dust control of these alternate feed piles and the consideration of radon and
airborne contamination, including cumulative impacts.
Z. Potential groundwater contamination concerns from the alternate feed material lying
uncovered on an un-lined surface on the ore pad, including cumulative impacts.
3. What would be the cost of disposing of the stockpiled material should the mill be shut-
down prior to another processing run? Has this cost estimate been factored into in the
current suretY?
please address these concerns and questions within 30 days from the receipt of this letter' lf
you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact the NRC Project Manager, William
von Till, at [phone] .
ln accordance with 1O CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter will be
available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the
publicly Available Records'(PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS
is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html (the Public
Electronic Reading Room).
,
NU
) ar
,t'rffi
R. Hochstein
Docket No. 40-8681
fur
Tom Rice, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
Terry Brown, U.S. EPA Region Vlll
Loren Setlow, U.S. EPA Otfice of
Radiation and lndoor Air (6608J)
Sincerely,
'1>*L/ 't')a
Melvyn N. Leach, Chief
Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch
Division of FuelCycle Safety
and Safeguards
Office of Nuclear MaterialSafety
and Safeguards
UNITED STATES
N UCLEAR REGULATORY COM MISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055H)m1
April 19, 2001
TO:ALL URAN]UM RECOVERY PROGRAM LICENSEES AND STAKEHOLDERS ON
THE ATTACHED LIST
SUBJECT: REDISTRIBUTION OF NRC REGULATORY ISSUE SUMMARY 2000-23,
RECENT CHANGES TO URANIUM RECOVERY POLICY
On November 30, 2000, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued NRC
Regulatory lssue Summary (RlS) 2OOO-23, Recent Changes to Uranium Recovery Policy, to
inform all holders of materials licenses for uranium and thorium recovery facilities of the
Commission's decisions on the four Commission Papers prepared by the NRC staff in 1999 to
address various uranium recovery issues. ln this regard, the staff has recently learned that
some Uranium Recovery Program licensees and stakeholders did not receive RIS 2000-23 at
all or, in some cases, in a timely manner. This error was due to the use of an outdated
distribution tist for the RIS mailing, and we apologize for the unintended deficiency in the timely
issuance of information of interest to our licensees and stakeholders. Accordingly, the purpose
of this letter is to redistribute RIS 2000-23 (Attachment) to all Uranium Recovery Program
licensees and stakeholders to ensure that all interested parties are provided a copy of the RlS.
lf you have any questions about this letter or RIS 2000-23, please contact me at
[phone] or by e-mailto [e-mail].
ln accordance with 1O CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter will be
available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the
publicly Available Records'(PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS)' ADAMS
is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.oov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html (the Public
Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,
C,-i,.... .-'XAz^-
Daniel M. Gillen, Acting Chief
Fuel Cycle Licenslng Branch
Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards
Attachment: NRC RIS 2000-23'
Recent Changes to Uranium
Recovery PolicY
oo
ATTACHMENT
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF NUCLEAFI MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555.0001
November 30, 2000
NRC REGULATORY ISSUE SUMMARY 2OOO.23
RECENT CHANGES TO URANIUM RECOVERY POLICY
ADDRESSEES
All holders of materials licenses for uranium and thorium recovery facilities.
INTENT
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this regulatory issue summary (RlS)
to inform materials licensees of the Commission's decisions on four Commission Papers
prepared by the Uranium Recovery staff and the Office of the General Counsel (OGC). Allthe
policy decisions will be codified in the 1O CFR Paft 41 rulemaking that has been initiated. No
specific action nor written response is required.
BACKGROUND
NRC staff prepared four Commission Papers in 1999 to address various uranium recovery
issues. One Commission Paper (SECY-99-011, "Draft Rulemaking Plan; Domestic Licensing of
Uranium and Thorium Recovery facilities - Proposed New 10 CFR Part 41") addressed the
need to revise and update uranium recovery regulations, particularly with respect to rn srtu leach
(lSL) facilities and recommended the initiation of rulemaking to create a new Part 41 specific to
uranium recovery. The other three Commission Papers addressed issues raised by the
National Mining Association (NMA) in its April 1998 paper, "Recommendations for a
Coordinated Approach to Regulating the Uranium Recovery lndustry." The first of those papers
(SECY-gg-O12, "Use of Uranium Mill Tailings lmpoundments for the Disposal of Other Than
i f e1Z; Byproduct Materials, and Reviews of Applications to Process Material Other Than
Natural 6ie") discussed the disposal of radioactive waste, other than byproduct material,
defined in section 1 1e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended, in mill tailings
impoundments, and the processing of material, other than natural ore, for source material at
licensed uranium mills. The second of those papers (SECY-99-013, "Recommendations on
ways to lmprove the Efficiency of NRC Regulation at ln Situ Leach Uranium Recovery
Faiilities"; discussed the regulation of ground water at ISL sites and the issue of which waste
streams at ISL facilities come under NRC regulatory jurisdiction as 1 1e.(2) byproduct material.
The last paper (SECY-99-277,"Qoncurrent Jurisdiction of Non-Radiological Hazards of
Uranium Mill Tailings"l addressed the issue of concurrent jurisdiction (with States that do not
have Agreement Slate regulatory authority for 1 1e.(2) material under section 274 ol the AEA)
over the non-radiological hazards of uranium milltailings.
ML003773008
Rls 2000-23
Page 2 of 7
On July 13,2000, the Commission issued a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) on
SECY-99-01 1 . On July 26, 2OOO, the Commission issued SRMs on SECY-99-012 and
SECY-99-013, and on August 1 1 , 2OOO, the SRM on SECY-99-277 was issued.
The decisions and directions in these SRMs and the staff actions in response are discussed in
sections that follow.
PART 41 RULEMAKING (SECY-99-011)
SECY-99-011 approved the staff's recommendation to provide a draft Rulemaking Plan (RP) for
comment to the Agreement States, with the preferred option being the creation of a new Parl41
dedicated to uranium recovery regulation. The Commission directed the staff to revise the draft
RP to reflect the Commission'S guidance in the other uranium recovery SRMs.
On September 11, 2OOO, the staff transmitted the draft RP to all States for comment. The staff
sent the draft RP to all States rather than just Agreement States because the issue of
concurrent jurisdiction regarding non-radiological hazards primarily affects non-Agreement
States, and the staff wanted to give those States an opportunity to comment on the draft RP.
Comments have been received from several States. ln addition, the NMA and two licensees
provided comments on the draft RP. The staff will consider allthe comments received in
preparing its final RP, which it expects to issue in early 2OO1.
OTSPOSAL OF NON-11e.(2) BYPRODUCT MATERTAL lN TAILINGS IMPOUNDMENTS
(sEcY-99-012)
ln 1995, the staff published guidance, in the Federal Register (60 FR 49296), forthe disposal,
in uranium milltailings impoundments, of radioactive materialthat is not byproduct material, as
defined in section 1ie.(2) of the AEA. The guidance consisted of 10 criteria to determine
whether to approve a proposed disposal of non-1 1e.(2) byproduct material in a uranium mill
tailings impoundment. ln its 1998 white paper, the NMA emphasized that the criteria were too
restriitive,'pointing out that no requests for such disposals have been made since the guidance
was issued. The Commission, in the SRM for SECY-99-012, approved an option that would
allow more flexibility in permitting non-1 1e.(2) material to be disposed of in tailings
impoundments. The NRC intends to incorporate the criteria into the new Part 41. ln the
interim, the Commission directed the staff to implement the SRM.
To comply with the direction in the SRM, the statf is revising the 1995 guidance in the
following manner:
* The staff will remove the prohibitions, found in items 2,4, and 5, regarding non-AEA
radioactive material and material subject to regulation under other legislative authorities,
such as the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) or the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
. The staff will add a criterion regarding approvalfrom the appropriate regulators of
TSCA, RCRA, and non-AEA radioactive materialfor disposal of such material in the
tailings impoundment.
Rls 2000-23
Page 3 of 7
. The staff will revise the criterion, in item 8, regarding approval by Low-Level Waste
Compacts, to allow for the situation in which material proposed for disposal does not fall
under the jurisdiction of Low-Level Waste Compacts (e.9., radioactive material not
regulated under the AEA).
. The Commission directed the staff to pursue a generic exemption to NRC's disposal
requirements for low-level radioactive waste in 10 CFR Part 61, rather than having to
grant an exemption, under 1O CFR 61 .6, as identif ied in item 10. A generic exemption
to regulations must be issued through a rulemaking process. Therefore, the statf will
pursue incorporating the generic exemption in the new Part 4't. ln the interim, the
requirement for a specific exemption will remain in the guidance, with addition of a
caveat for material not regulated under Part 61.
The staff therefore is revising its 1995 guidance. The complete revised guidance, is in
Attachment 1.
PROCESSING OF MATERIAL OTHER THAN NATURAL URANIUM ORES (SECY-99-012)
ln 1995, the staff published its position and guidance, in the Federal Register (60 FR 49296),
on the use of uranium feed material other than natural ores (alternate feed material), in uranium
mills. The guidance identified three determinations that the staff had to make in order to
approve an alternate feed request. The third determination -- whether the ore is being
piocessed primarily for its source material content -- generated considerable controversy. This
determination was required to address the concern that wastes that would otherwise have to be
disposed of as radioactive or mixed waste would be proposed for processing at a uranium mill
primarily to be able to dispose of them in the tailings pile as 1 1e.(2) byproduct material. This
determination was essentially a determination of the motives of the mill operator in requesting
approval of a specific stream of alternate feed material. ln many cases it involved questioning
the financial aspects of acquiring and processing the alternate feed material, and selling the
resultant uranium product.
ln its 1g98 white paper, the NMA emphasized that NRC should not be looking to a licensee's
motives in processing alternate feed material. After careful consideration of stakeholder
comments and the staff's analysis, the Commission, in the SRM for
SECY-gg-g12, directed the staff to allow processing of alternate feed materialwithout inquiry
into a licencee's economic motives, and referred to a Commission decision (CL1-00-
01 51 NRC 9) on a specific instance of proposed processing of alternate feed, that was brought
before the Atomic Safety Licensing Board and then appealed to the Commission. The
Commission also addressed the second determination in the 1995 guidance ( i.e., whether the
feed material contains hazardous waste). lt directed the staff to allow more flexibility with
regard to this issue consistent with its direction to the staff on the disposal of non-11e.(2)
byproduct material in tailings piles.
The Commission directed the staff to revise, issue, and implement final guidance on the
processing of alternate feed as soon as possible and to codify the guidance in the new Part 41.
To comply with the SRM, the staff is revising the 1995 position and guidance in the
following manner:
Rls 2000-23
Page 4 of 7
. The staff will modify the prohibition in item 2 on feed material containing hazardous
waste, to allow such feed material provided that the licensee obtains approval of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the State, and a commitment from the
long-term custodian to accept the tailings after site closure'
. The staff will revise the manner in which it determines whether the ore is being
processed primarily for its source material content, to focus on the product of the
processing, and eliminate any inquiry into the licensee's economic motives for the
processing.
The staff therefore is revising its 1995 guidance. The complete revised guidance, is in
Attachment 2.
CLASSIFICATION OF LIQUID WASTES AT ISL FACILITIES (SECY.99.O13)
Before 1995, the staff practice for addressing the disposal of evaporation pond sludges at ISL
facilities relied on a broad reading of the definition of 1 1e.(2) byproduct material. This broad
reading only addressed discrete surface wastes capable of controlled disposal and did not
distinguish between wastes generated at various phases of an ISL operation. Allwaste
materials generated during ISL operations and ground-water restoration activities were
designated 1 1e.(2) byproduct material and disposed of at licensed uranium mill tailings
impoundments, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 2.
The staff issued two guidance documents in 1995 to address issues raised by the industry in
the uranium recovery program. The first, "Statf Technical Position on Effluent Disposal at
Licensed Uranium Recovery Facilities" (hereinafter, the effluent guidance), was intended to
ensure protection of the environment and public, while providing uranium recovery licensees
with flexibility regarding the disposal of various types of liquid effluents generated during the
operation of their facili[ies. ln issuing this guidance, the staff took a more narrow view of the
definition of 1 1e.(2) byproduct material. lt differentiated between the various waste waters
generated during ISL operations on the basis of their origin and whether uranium was extracted
ior its source material content during that phase of the operation. Waste waters and the
associated solids produced during the uranium extraction phase of site operations, called
"production bleedJ' were classified as AEA Section 1 1e.(2) byproduct material and therefore
subject to regulation by NRC. Conversely, waste waters and the resulting solids produced after
uranium extraction (i.e., during ground-water restoration activities) were classified as "mine
waste waters," and therefore were subject to regulation by individual States under their
applicable mining programs. These wastes were considered naturally occurring radioactive
material (NOBM|. However, because licensees often dispose of waste waters from uranium
extraction and post-extraction activities in the same evaporation ponds, the resulting solids are
a commingled waste consisting of 1 1e.(2) byproduct material and sludges derived from mine
waste water.
ln the second guidance document, "Final Revised Guidance on Disposal of Non-Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, Section 1 1e.(2) Byproduct Material in Tailings lmpoundments" (hereinafter, the
disposal guidancel, the staff idlntified 10 criteria that licensees should meet before NRC could
auihorizelhe disposal of AEA material other than 1 1e.(2) byproduct material in tailings
impoundments. bne of these criteria prohibited the disposal of radioactive material not covered
by the AEA, including NORM (see earlier discussion for policy revisions). This criterion was
Rls 2000-23
Page 5 of 7
intended to avoid the possibility of dual regulation of the radioactive constituents in the
impoundments, since individual States are responsible for radioactive materials not covered by
the AEA.
The industry expressed concerns, in NMA's white paper, that, taken together, these two
guidance documents leave no option for the disposal of radioactively contaminated sludges
irom tSL evaporation ponds. The reason for this concern is that the 1 1e.(2) byproduct material
was commingled with'a NORM waste, which the disposal guidance prohibits from disposal in a
tailings impoindment. The industry emphasized that the staff's waste classification, based on
the o-rigin of the waste water (i.e., fiom the extraction or restoration phase) at an ISL facility,
makes-the disposal of such siudges in a mill tailings impoundment, as required under Criterion
2 of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, impossible - even though the sludges derived from waste
waters produced throughout a facility's life cycle are physically, chemically, and radiologically
identical.
The staff analyzed several options in SECY-99-013 for addressing the industry's concerns. ln
the SRM tor SeCy-g9-013, ihe Commission determined that all liquid effluents at ISL uranium
recovery facilities are 1 1e.(2) byproduct material. NRC takes the position that any waste water
generated during or after the uianium extraction phase of site operations, and all evaporation
[ond sludges de-rived f rom such waste waters, are classified as 1 1e.(2\ byproduct material.
The staff will make no legal distinction among the waste waters produced at different stages in
a facility's life cycle.
This revised policy is effective immediately. The staff intends to codify this policy in the new
rulemaking for Part 41 and associated regulatory guidance.
GROUND-WATER ISSUES AT ISL FACILITIES (SECY.99.O13)
Over the past several years, the industry has expressed concern that NRC's regulation of
ground water at lSLs is duplicative of the ground-water protection programs required by the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as admlnistered by EPA or EPA-authorized States. EPA and
the States protect ground-water quality through the Underground lnjection Control (UlC)
program, under the SDWA. The States often require additional measures in the UIC program
ih"t-are more stringent than the Federal program. As presented in NMA's white paper, the
industry contended that NRC's review and licensing activities are a duplicative form of
regulatlon covering the same issues. Additionally, NMA also expressed the view that NRC did
not have authority to regulate ground water at lSLs.
Historically, NRC has imposed conditions on ISL operations to ensure that ground-water quality
is maintained during licensed activities and that actions are taken to ensure the restoration of
ground-water qudit! before the license is terminated. The specific conditions imposed in an
iSL license have tyfically been the result of NRC's independent review, as documented in
safety evaluation repoils and appropriate environmental evaluations.
ln addition to NRC's review, licensees must also obtain a UIC permit from EPA or the EPA-
authorized State before uranium recovery operations can begin. EPA or the authorized State
conducts many of the same types of reviews as NRC. This is evidenced by NRC incorporating
ground-water protection limits from a State's permitting program into specific license
Rls 2000-23
Page 6 of 7
requirements, after conducting its own review of the licensee's groundwater protection program'
inciuding the use of State-impbsed standards -- and staff routinely accepting specific
method6logies and guidance developed by EPA or States for ground-water monitoring
programs and well construction.
ln the SRM for SECY-99-013, the Commission approved the staff continuing discussions with
EpA and appropriate States to determine the extent to which NRC can rely on the EPA UIC
program for'ground-water protection issues, thereby potentially minimizing duplicative review of
grolnd-watei protection at ISL facilities. Part of the discussions with EPA and appropriate
lt"tes should include appropriate methods to implement any agreements, including
Memoranda of Understanding (if necessary) and potential requirements that cot9 b"
incorporated in the new Part Zf . tn the interim, it is recognized that some NRC/EPA dual
regulation of the ground-water at tSL facilities will continue until such time that NRC can defer
to EPA's UIC program.
NRC has initiated a new round of discussions with the EPA since the Commission decision in
July 2000, and discussions with the appropriate States should begin in early to mid 2001.
ln February 1998, staff documented its review process for lSLs, including a detailed evaluation
of ground-water activities, in a draft Standard Review Plan (draft SRP) for ISL facility license
apf,lications (NUREG-1569), that was published for public comment. Following the comment
p"riod, staff held a public workshop on the SRP to discuss the issues raised. The staff intends
io use the draft SRP in licensing reviews until the rulemaking for new Part 41 (SECY 99-01 1)
has been completed and NUREG-1569 is finalized.
TAI LI NGS (SECY-99-277)
ln 1gg0, the staff considered the issue of whether the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control
Act (UMTRCA) preempts a non-Agreement State's authority to regulate the non-radiological
hazards associated wiin t 1e.(2) blproduct material and concluded that it did not. The NRC
concluded that NRC and the State both exercised this authority. As a result, the staff has
followed the practice of sharing jurisdiction of the non-radiological hazard.lt! States. ln its
1998 white paper, the NMA quLstioned the 1980 staff interpretation of UMTRCA. The
commission, in the sRM for sEcy-gg-o277 determined that NRC has exclusive jurisdiction
over both the radiological and non-radiological hazards of 1 1e.(2) byproduct material.
As a result of this decision, the staff will implement its exclusive authority over the non-
radiological hazards of 11e.(2) byproduct material and not recognize State authority in this area.
SUMMARY OF ]SSUES
The Commission has evaluated a range of uranium recovery issues and the staff evaluation
and has directed, through SRMs, tne itatt to take various actions that will ultimately be
incorporated into the nJw Part 41 rulemaking and existing uranium recovery SRPs.
Rls 2000-23
Page7 ot 7
ln the interim, this RIS informs the licensees of the Commission's decisions. These are: 1) to
allow more flexibility in the disposal of non-1 1e.(2) material in tailings impoundments, subject to
certain considerations; 2)to ailow alternate feed materialto be processed for uranium (or
thorium) without any inquiry into a licensee's economic motives; 3) to classify all waste water
and sludges generated Ouring or after the uranium (or thorium) extraction phase of in situ leach
operatiois "j t te.1Z; byprod-uct material; 4) to continue discussions with EPA and appropriate
Siates to determine ihe'extent that NRC can rely on the EPA UIC program for ground-water
protection at ISL facilities; and 5) to note that NRC has exclusive jurisdiction over both the
radiological and non-radiological hazards of 11e.(2) byproduct material.
This regulatory issue summary requires no specific action nor written response. lf you have
any qulstions about this summary, please contact the technical contact listed below.
IRN
Michael F. Weber, Director
Division of Fuel Cycle Safety & Safeguards
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards
TechnicalContact: Kenneth R. Hooks, NMSS
':-H,iT{ienrc sov
Attachments:
1 . lnterim Guidance Non-1 1e.(2)
2. lnterim Position Alternate Feed
3. List of Recently lssued NRC Regulatory lssue Summaries
Attachment 1
Rls 2000-23
Page 1 of 2
lnterim Guidance on Disposal of Non-Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Section 11e.(2)
Byproduct Materia! in Tailings lmpoundments
'1. ln reviewing licensee requests for the disposal of wastes that have radiological
characteristics comparable to those of Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Section '1 1e.(2)
byproduct material [hereafter designated as "1 1e.(2) byproduct material"] in tailings
impoundments, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will follow the guidance set
forth below. Since milltailings impoundments are already regulated under
1O CFR Part 40, licensing of the receipt and disposal of such material [hereafter
designated as "non-11e.(2) byproduct material"lshould also be done under
10 CFR Part 40.
2. Special nuclear material and Section 11e.(1) byproduct materialwaste should not be
considered as candidates for disposal in a tailings impoundment, without compelling
reasons to the contrary. lf staff believes that such material should be disposed of in a
tailings impoundment in a specific instance, a request for Commission approval should
be prepared.
3. The 1 1e.(2) licensee must provide documentation showing necessary approvals of
other affected regulators (e.g., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or State) for
material containing listed hazardous wastes or any other material regulated by another
Federal agency or State because of environmental or
saf ety considerations.
4. The 1 1e.(2) licensee must demonstrate that there will be no significant environmental
impact from disposing of this material.
S. The 1 1e.(2) licensee must demonstrate that the proposed disposal will not
compromise the reclamation of the tailings impoundment by demonstrating compliance
with the reclamation and closure criteria of Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40.
6. The 1 1e.(2) licensee must provide documentation showing approval by the Regional
Low-LevelWaste Compact in whose jurisdiction the waste originates as well as approval
by the Compact in whose jurisdiction the disposal site is located, for materialwhich
otherwise would fall under Compact jurisdiction'
7. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the State in which the tailings
impoundment is located, should be informed of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission findings and proposed action, with a request to concur within 120 days. A
concurrence and commitment from either DOE or the State to take title to the tailings
impoundment after closure must be received before granting the license amendment to
the 11e.(2) licensee.
Attachment 1
Rls 2000-23
Page 2 of 2
8. The mechanism to authorize the disposal of non-1 1e.(2) byproduct material in a
tailings impoundment is an amendment to the mill license under 10 CFR Part 40,
authorizing the receipt of the material and its disposal. Additionally, an exemption to the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 61 , under the authority of 10 CFR 61 .6, must be granted, if
the material would otherwise be regulated under Part 61. (lf the tailings impoundment is
located in an Agreement State with low-levelwaste licensing authority, the State must
take appropriate action to exempt the non-11e.(2) byproduct material from regulation as
low-level waste.) The license amendment and the 10 CFR 61.6 exemption should be
supported with a staff analysis addressing the issues discussed in this guidance.
lnterim Position and Guidance on the Use of
Than Natural Ores
Attachment 2
Rls 2000-23
Page 1 of 2
Uranium Mitt Feed Material Other
ln reviewing licensee requests to process alternate feed material (material other than
natural orel in uranium mills, the Nuclear Reguatory Commission staff willfollow the
guidance presented below. Besides reviewing to determine compliance with appropriate
ispects of Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40, the staff should also address the following
issues:
1. Determination of whether the feed material is ore.
For the tailings and wastes from the proposed processing to qualify as 11e.(2)
byproduct miterial, the feed material must qualify as "ore." ln determining whether the
feed material is ore, the following definition of ore will be used:
Ore is a natural or native matter that may be mined and treated for the extraction of any
of its constituents or any other matter from which source material is extracted in a
licensed uranium or thorium mill.
2. Determination of whether the feed material contains hazardous waste.
lf the proposed feed material contains hazardous waste, listed under subpart D Sections
261.30-33 of 40 CFR (or comparable Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
authorized State regulations), it would be subject to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) or State regulation under RCRA. lf the licensee can show that the
proposed feed material does not contain a listed hazardous waste, this issue is
resolved.
Feed material exhibiting only a characteristic of hazardous waste (ignitable, corrosive,
reactive, toxic) would not be regulated as hazardous waste and could therefore be
approved for recycling and extraction of source material. However, this does not apply
to iesidues from water treatment, so determination that such residues are not subject to
regulation under RCRA will depend on their not containing any characteristic hazardous
walte. Staff may consult with EPA (or the State) before making a determination of
whether the feed material contains hazardous waste.
lf the feed material contains hazardous waste, the licensee can process it only if it
obtains EPA (or State) approval and provides the necessary documentation to that
effect. Additionally, for feed material containing hazardous waste, the staff will review
documentation from the licensee that provides a commitment from the U.S. Department
of Energy or the State to take title to the tailings impoundment after closure.
Attachment 2
Rls 2000-23
Page 2 of 2
g. Determination of whether the ore is beino processed primarilv for its source-
material content.
For the tailings and waste f rom the proposed processing to qualify as 1 1e.(2) byproduct
material, thebre must be processed primarily for its source-material content. lf the only
product produced in the processing of the alternate feed is uranium product, this
determination is satisfied. lf , in addition to uranium product, another material is also
produced in the processing of the ore, the licensee must provide documentation
showing that the uranium product is the primary product produced'
lf it can be determined, using the aforementioned guidance, that the proposed feed
material meets the definition of ore, that it will not introduce a hazardous waste not
otherwise exempted, or if it has been approved by the EPA (or State) and the longterm
custodian, and that the primary purpose of its processing is for its source-material
content, the request can be approved.
Attachment 3
Rts 2000-23
Page 1 of 1
LIST OF BECENTLY ISSUED
NRC REGULATORY ISSUE SUMMARIES
Regulatory lssue
Summary No.Subject
Date of
lssuance lssued to
2000-22
2000-21
2000-20
2000-1 I
lssues Stemming from NRC Staff
Review of Recent Difficulties
Experienced in Maintaining Steam
Generator Tube lntegrity
Changes to the Unplanned Scram
and Unplanned Scram With Loss
of Normal Heat Removal
Perf ormance l ndicators
Advance Notice of lntent to Pursue
License Renewal
Partial Release of Reactor Site for
Unrestricted Use Before NRC
Approval of the License
Termination Plan
All holders of Ols for pressurized-
water reactors (PWRs), excePt
those who have permanentlY
ceased operations and have
certified that fuel have been
permanently removed from the
reactor vessel
All holders of OLs for nuclear
power reactors, except those who
have permanently ceased
operations and have certified that
fuel has been permanently
removed from the reactor vessel
11/03/00
10/31/00
11l1412OOO All holders of OLs for nuclear
power reactors, excePt those
licensees who have PermanentlY
ceased operations and have
certified that fuel has been
permanentlY removed from the
reactor vessel
1Ol24l0O All holders of OLs for nuclear
power reactors, including those
licensees who have PermanentlY
ceased operations and have
certified that fuel has been
permanently removed from the
reactor vessel
OL = Operating License
CP = Construction Permit
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555401
April 19,2001
TO: ALL URANIUM RECOVERY PROGRAM LICENSEES AND STAKEHOLDERS ON
THE ATTACHED LIST
SUBJECT: REDISTRIBUTION OF NRC REGULATORY ISSUE SUMMARY 2000-23,
RECENT CHANGES TO URANIUM RECOVERY POLICY
On November 30, 2000, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued NRC
Regulatory lssue Summary (RlS) 2000-23, Recent Changes to Uranium Recovery Policy, to
inform all holders of materials licenses for uranium and thorium recovery facilities of the
Commission's decisions on the four Commission Papers prepared by the NRC staff in 1999 to
address various uranium recovery issues. ln this regard, the staff has recently learned that
some Uranium Recovery Program licensees and stakeholders did not receive RIS 2000-23 at
all or, in some cases, in a timely manner. This error was due to the use of an outdated
distribution list for the RIS mailing, and we apologize for the unintended deficiency in the timely
issuance of information of interest to our licensees and stakeholders. Accordingly, the purpose
of this letter is to redistribute RIS 2000-23 (Attachment) to all Uranium Recovery Program
licensees and stakeholders to ensure that all interested parties are provided a copy of the RlS.
lf you have any questions about this letter or RIS 200Q-23, please contact me at
[phone] or by e-mailto [e-mail].
ln accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter will be
available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the
Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS
is accessible from the NRC Web site at htto://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html (the Public
Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,
Q--e".. .-/U.e-
Daniel M. Gillen, Acting Chief
Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch
Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards
Attachment: NRC RIS 2000-23,
Recent Changes to Uranium
Recovery Policy
-
,:'.,
t -t .- ,- .. . : ' ', r
oo
ATTACHMENT
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
November 30, 2000
NRC REGULATORY ISSUE SUMMARY 2OOO.23
RECENT CHANGES TO URANIUM RECOVERY POLICY
ADDRESSEES
All holders of materials licenses for uranium and thorium recovery facilities.
INTENT
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this regulatory issue summary (RlS)
to inform materials liclnsees of the Commission's decisions on four Commission Papers
prepared by the Uranium Recovery staff and the Office of the General Counsel (OGC). All the
policy decisions will be codified in the 10 CFR Part 41 rulemaking that has been initiated. No
specific action nor written response is required.
BACKGROUND
NRC staff prepared four Commission Papers in 1999 to address various uranium recovery
issues. One Commission Paper (SECY-99-011, "Draft Rulemaking Plan; Domestic Licensing of
Uranium and Thorium Recovery facilities - Proposed New 10 CFR Part 41") addressed the
need to revise and update uranium recovery regulations, padicularly with respect to in sftu leach
(lSL) facilities and recommended the initiation of rulemaking to create a new Paft 41 specific to
uranium recovery. The other three Commission Papers addressed issues raised by the
National Mining Association (NMA) in its April 1998 paper, "Recommendations for a
Coordinated Approach to Regulating the Uranium Recovery lndustry." The first o_f those papers
(SECy-99-0I2, i'Use of Uranium Mill Tailings lmpoundments for the Disposal of Other Than
i te(Z) Byproduct Materials, and Reviews of Applications to Process Material Other Than
Natural (iie") discussed the disposal of radioactive waste, other than byproduct material,
def ined in section 1 1e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended, in mill tailings
impoundments, and the processing of material, other than natural ore, for source material at
licensed uranium mills. The second of those papers (SECY-99-013, "Recommendations on
ways to lmprove the Efficiency of NRC Regulation at ln Situ Leach Uranium Recovery
Facilities"; discussed the regulation of ground water at lSL sites and the issue of which waste
streams at ISL facilities come under NRC regulatory jurisdiction as 1 1e.(2) byproduct material.
The last paper (SECY-99-277, "Concurrent Jurisdiction of Non-Radiological Hazards of
Uranium Mill Tailings"; addressed the issue of concurrent jurisdiction (with States that do not
have Agreement Slate regulatory authority for 1 1e.(2) material under section 274 of the AEA)
over the non-radiological hazards of uranium mill tailings.
ML003773008
Rls 2000-23
Page 2 of 7
On July 13, 2OOO, the Commission issued a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) on
SECY-'99-011. On July 26, 2OOO, the Commission issued SRMs on SECY-99-012 and
SECY-99-013, and on August 1 1, 2OOO, the SRM on SECY-99-277 was issued.
The decisions and directions in these SRMs and the staff actions in response are discussed in
sections that follow.
PART 41 RULEMAKING (SECY-99-011)
SECy-gg-g11 approved the staff's recommendation to provide a draft Rulemaking Plan (RP) for
comment to the Agreement States, with the preferred option being the creati-on of a new Part 41
dedicated to uranium recovery regulation. The Commission directed the staff to revise the draft
RP to reflect the Commission;s guidance in the other uranium recovery SRMs'
On September 11, 2OOO, the staff transmitted the draft BP to all States for comment. The staff
sent the draft RP to all States rather than just Agreement States because the issue of
concurrent jurisdiction regarding non-radiological hazards primarily affects non-Agreement
States, andthe staff wanied to give those States an opportunity to comment on the draft RP'
Comments have been received from several States. ln addition, the NMA and two licensees
provided comments on the draft RP. The staff will consider allthe comments received in
preparing its final RP, which it expects to issue in early 2001'
(sEcY-99-012)
ln 1995, the staff published guidance, in the Federal Register(60 FR 49296), forthe disposal,
in uranium milltaiiings impoundments, of radioactive materialthat is not byproduct material, as
defined in section 11e.(2) of the AEA. The guidance consisted of 10 criteria to determine
whether to approve a proposed disposal of non-1 1e.(2) byproduct material in a uranium mill
tailings impoundment. ln its 19g8 white paper, the NMA emphasized that the criteria were too
restriitive,'pointing out that no requests for such disposals have been made since the guidance
was issued. The Commission, in ihe SRM for SECY-99-012, approved an option that would
allow more ftexibility in permitting non-11e.(2) materialto be disposed of in tailings
impoundments. The NRC intends to incorporate the criteria into the new Pad 41. ln the
interim, the Commission directed the staff to implement the SRM'
To comply with the direction in the SRM, the staff is revising the 1995 guidance in the
following manner:
* The staff will remove the prohibitions, found in items 2,4, and 5, regarding non-AEA
radioactive material and material subject to regulation under other legislative authorities,
such as the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) or the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
. The staff will add a criterion regarding approvalfrom the appropriate regulators of
TSCA, RCRA, and non-AEA radioactive materialfor disposal of such material in the
tailings impoundment.
Rls 2000-23
Page 3 of 7
. The staff will revise the criterion, in item 8, regarding approval by Low-Level Waste
Compacts, to allow for the situation in which material proposed for disposal does not fall
under the jurisdiction of Low-Level Waste Compacts (e.g., radioactive material not
regulated under the AEA).
. The Commission directed the staff to pursue a generic exemption to NRC's disposal
requirements for low-level radioactive waste in 10 CFR Parl 61, rather than having to
grant an exemption, under 1O CFR 61.6, as identified in item 10. A generic exemption
to regulations must be issued through a rulemaking process. Therefore, the staff will
pursue incorporating the generic exemption in the new Part 41. ln the interim, the
requirement for a specific exemption will remain in the guidance, with addition of a
caveat for material not regulated under Part 61.
The staff therefore is revising its 1995 guidance. The complete revised guidance, is in
Attachment 1.
PROCESSING OF MATERIAL OTHER THAN NATURAL URANIUM ORES (SECY.99.O12)
ln 1995, the staff published its position and guidance, in the Federal Register (60 FR 49296),
on the use of uranium feed material other than natural ores (alternate feed material), in uranium
mills. The guidance identified three determinations that the staff had to make in order to
approve an alternate feed request. The third determination -- whether the ore is being
piocessed primarily for its source material content -- generated considerable controversy' This
determination was required to address the concern that wastes that would otherwise have to be
disposed of as radioactive or mixed waste would be proposed for processing at a uranium mill
primarily to be able to dispose of them in the tailings pile as 1 1e.(2) byproduct material' This
determination was essentially a determination of the motives of the mill operator in requesting
approval of a specific stream of alternate feed material. ln many cases it involved questioning
the financial aspects of acquiring and processing the alternate feed material, and selling the
resultant uranium product.
ln its 1998 white paper, the NMA emphasized that NRC should not be looking to a licensee's
motives in processing alternate feed material. After careful consideration of stakeholder
comments and the staff's analysis, the Commission, in the SRM for
SECY-gg-g12, directed the staff to allow processing of alternate feed materialwithout inquiry
into a licencee's economic motives, and referred to a Commission decision (CLl-00-
01 51 NRC 9) on a specific instance of proposed processing of alternate feed, that was brought
before the Atomic Safety Licensing Board and then appealed to the Commission. The
Commission also addressed the second determination in the 1995 guidance ( i.e., whether the
feed material contains hazardous waste). lt directed the staff to allow more flexibility with
regard to this issue consistent with its direction to the staff on the disposal of non-11e.(2)
byproduct material in tailings piles.
The Commission directed the staff to revise, issue, and implement final guidance on the
processing of alternate feed as soon as possible and to codify the guidance in the new Part 41.
To comply with the SRM, the staff is revising the 1995 position and guidance in the
following manner:
Rrs 2000-23
Page 4 of 7
. The staff will modify the prohibition in item 2 on feed material containing hazardous
waste, to allow suc'h feed material provided that the licensee obtains approval of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the State, and a commitment from the
longterm custodian to accept the tailings after site closure.
. The staff will revise the manner in which it determines whether the ore is being
processed primarily for its source material content, to focus on the product of the
processing, and eliminate any inquiry into the licensee's economic motives for the
processing.
The staff therefore is revising its 1995 guidance. The complete revised guidance, is in
Attachment 2.
CLASSIFICATION OF LIOUID WASTES AT ISL FACILITIES (SECY-99-013)
Before 1995, the staff practice for addressing the disposal of evaporation pond sludges at ISL
facilities relied on a broad reading of the definition of 11e.(2) byproduct material. This broad
reading only addressed discrete iurface wastes capable of controlled disposal and did not
disting-uish
-between wastes generated at various phases of an ISL operation. Allwaste
mater'ials generated during ISL operations and ground-water restoration activities were
designatel 1 1e.(2) byproduct material and disposed of at licensed uranium mill tailings
impoundments, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 2.
The staff issued two guidance documents in 1995 to address issues raised by the industry in
the uranium recovery program. The first, "Staff Technical Position on Effluent Disposal at
Licensed Uranium n'ecovery Facilities" (hereinafter, the effluent guidance), was intended to
ensure protection of the environment and public, while providing uranium recovery licensees
with flexibility regarding the disposal of various types of liquid effluents generated during the
operation of'thei-r facilities. ln issuing this guidance, the staff took a more narrow view of the
definition of 1 1e.(2) byproduct material. lt differentiated between the various waste waters
generated during lSL operations on the basis of their origin and whether uranium was extracted
f-or its source material content during that phase of the operation. Waste waters and the
associated solids produced during the uranium extraction phase of site operations, called
,,production bleed,!' were classified as AEA Section 1 1e.(2) byproduct material and therefore
subject to regulation by NRC. Conversely, waste waters and the resulting solids produced after
,runi6 extrlction (i.e., during ground-water restoration activities) were classified as "mine
waste waters," and iherefore were subject to regulation by individual States under their
applicable mining programs. These wastes were considered naturally occurring radioactive
material (NORM|.'Ho-wever, because licensees often dispose of waste waters from uranium
extraction and post-extraction activities in the same evaporation ponds, the resulting solids are
a commingled waste consisting of 1 1e.(2) byproduct material and sludges derived from mine
waste water.
ln the second guidance document, "Final Revised Guidance on Disposal of Non-Atomic Energy
Act of 19S4, Section 1 1e.(2) Byproduct Material in Tailings lmpoundments" (hereinafter, the
disposal guidance;, the staff id-entified 10 criteria that licensees should meet before NRC could
auinorize-tne disposal of AEA material other than 1 1e.(2) byproduct material in tailings
impoundments. bne of these criteria prohibited the disposal of radioactive material not covered
by the AEA, including NORM (see earlier discussion for policy revisions). This criterion was
Rls 2000-23
Page 5 of 7
intended to avoid the possibility of dual regulation of the radioactive constituents in the
impoundments, since individual States are responsible for radioactive materials not covered by
the AEA.
The industry expressed concerns, in NMA's white paper, that, taken together, these two
guidance documents leave no option for the disposal of radioactively contaminated sludges
from ISL evaporation ponds. The reason for this concern is that the 1 1e.(2) byproduct material
was commingled with a NORM waste, which the disposal guidance prohibits from disposal in a
tailings impoundment. The industry emphasized that the staff's waste classification, based on
the origin of the waste water (i.e., from the extraction or restoration phase) at an ISL facility,
makes the disposal of such sludges in a milltailings impoundment, as required under Criterion
2 of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, impossible -- even though the sludges derived from waste
waters produced throughout a facility's life cycle are physically, chemically, and radiologically
identical.
The staff analyzed several options in SECY-99-013 for addressing the industry's concerns. ln
the SRM for SECY-99-013, the Commission determined that all liquid effluents at ISL uranium
recovery facilities are 1 1e.(2) byproduct material. NRC takes the position that any waste water
generated during or after the uranium extraction phase of site operations, and all evaporation
[ond sludges de]ived from such waste waters, are classified as 1 1e.(2) byproduct material.
The staff witt mat<e no legal distinction among the waste waters produced at different stages in
a facility's life cycle.
This revised policy is effective immediately. The staff intends to codify this policy in the new
rulemaking for Part 41 and associated regulatory guidance'
GROUND.WATER ISSUES AT ISL FACILITIES (SECY-99-013)
Over the past several years, the industry has expressed concern that NRC's regulation of
ground water at lSLs is duplicative of the ground-water protection programs required by the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as administered by EPA or EPA-authorized States. EPA and
the States protect ground-water quality through the Underground lnjection Control (UtC)
program, under the SDWA. The States often require additional measures in the UIC program
thatare more stringent than the Federal program. As presented in NMA's white paper, the
industry contended that NRC's review and licensing activities are a duplicative form of
regulation covering the same issues. Additionally, NMA also expressed the view that NRC did
not have authority to regulate ground water at lSLs.
Historically, NRC has imposed conditions on ISL operations to ensure that ground-water quality
is maintained during licensed activities and that actions are taken to ensure the restoration of
ground-water quality before the license is terminated. The specific conditions imposed in an
iSL license have typically been the result of NRC's independent review, as documented in
safety evaluation reports and appropriate environmental evaluations.
ln addition to NRC's review, licensees must also obtain a UIC permit from EPA or the EPA-
authorized State before uranium recovery operations can begin. EPA or the authorized State
conducts many of the same types of reviews as NRC. This is evidenced by NRC incorporating
ground-water protection limits from a State's permitting program into specific license
RlS 2000-23
Page 6 of 7
requirements, after conducting its own review of the licensee's groundwater protection program,
including the use of State-imposed standards -- and staff routinely accepting specific
methodologies and guidance developed by EPA or States for ground-water monitoring
programs and well construction.
ln the SRM for SECY-99-013, the Commission approved the staff continuing discussions with
EPA and appropriate States to determine the extent to which NRC can rely on the EPA UIC
program for ground-water protection issues, thereby potentially minimizing duplicative review of
ground-water protection at ISL facilities. Part of the discussions with EPA and appropriate
States should include appropriate methods to implement any agreements, including
Memoranda of Understanding (if necessary) and potential requirements that could be
incorporated in the new Part 41. ln the interim, it is recognized that some NRC/EPA dual
regulation of the ground-water at ISL facilities will continue until such time that NRC can defer
to EPA's UIC program.
NRC has initiated a new round of discussions with the EPA since the Commission decision in
July 2000, and discussions with the appropriate States should begin in early to mid 2001.
ln February 1998, staff documented its review process for lSLs, including a detailed evaluation
of ground-water activities, in a draft Standard Review Plan (draft SRP) for ISL facility license
applications (NUREG-1569), that was published for public comment. Following the comment
period, staff held a public workshop on the SRP to discuss the issues raised. The staff intends
to use the draft SRP in licensing reviews until the rulemaking for new Part 41 (SECY 99-01 1)
has been completed and NUREG-1569 is finalized.
CONCUBRENT JURISDICTION OF NON.RADIOLOGICAL HAZARDS OF URANIUM MILL
TAILI NGS (SECY-99-277)
ln 1980, the staff considered the issue of whether the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control
Act (UMTRCA) preempts a non-Agreement State's authority to regulate the non-radiological
hazards associated with 1 1e.(2) byproduct material and concluded that it did not. The NRC
concluded that NRC and the State both exercised this authority. As a result, the staff has
followed the practice of sharing jurisdiction of the non-radiological hazards with States. ln its
1998 white paper, the NMA questioned the 1980 staff interpretation of UMTRCA. The
Commission, in the SRM for SECY-99-0277 delermined that NRC has exclusive jurisdiction
over both the radiological and non-radiological hazards of 11e.(2) byproduct material.
As a result of this decision, the staff will implement its exclusive authority over the non-
radiological hazards of 1 1e.(2) byproduct material and not recognize State authority in this area.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
The Commission has evaluated a range of uranium recovery issues and the staff evaluation
and has directed, through SRMs, the staff to take various actions that will ultimately be
incorporated into the new Part 41 rulemaking and existing uranium recovery SRPs.
Rts 2000-23
PageT of 7
ln the interim, this RIS informs the licensees of the Commission's decisions. These are: 1) to
allow more flexibility in the disposal of non-11e.(2) material in tailings impoundments, subject to
certain considerations; 2)to allow alternate feed materialto be processed for uranium (or
thorium) without any inquiry into a licensee's economic motives; 3) to classify allwaste water
and sludges generated during or after the uranium (or thorium) extraction phase of in situ leach
operations as 1 1e.(2) byproduct material; 4) to continue discussions with EPA and appropriate
States to determine the extent that NBC can rely on the EPA UIC program for ground-water
protection at ISL facilities; and 5) to note that NRC has exclusive jurisdiction over both the
radiological and non-radiological hazards of 11e.(2) byproduct material.
This regulatory issue summary requires no specific action nor written response. lf you have
any questions about this summary, please contact the technical contact listed below.
IRN
Michael F. Weber, Director
Division of Fuel Cycle Safety & Safeguards
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards
Technical Contact: Kenneth R. Hooks, NMSS
301-41 5-7777
E-mail: krhl @nrc.gov
Attachments:1. lnterim Guidance Non-11e.(2)2. lnterim Position Alternate Feed3. List of Recently lssued NRC Regulatory lssue Summaries
Attachment 1
Rls 2000-23
Page 1 of 2
lnterim Guidance on Disposal of Non-Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Section 11e.(2)
Byproduct Material in Taitings lmpoundments
1. ln reviewing licensee requests for the disposal of wastes that have radiological
characteristics comparable to those of Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Section 1 1e.(2)
byproduct material [hereafter designated as "1 1e.(2) byproduct material"] in tailings
impoundments, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will follow the guidance set
fofih below. Since milltailings impoundments are already regulated under
10 CFR Part 40, licensing of the receipt and disposal of such material [hereafter
designated as "non-1 1e.(2) byproduct material"l should also be done under
10 CFR Part 40.
2. Special nuclear material and Section 1 1e.(1) byproduct material waste should not be
considered as candidates for disposal in a tailings impoundment, without compelling
reasons to the contrary. lf staff believes that such materialshould be disposed of in a
tailings impoundment in a specific instance, a request for Commission approval should
be prepared.
3. The 1 1e.(2) licensee must provide documentation showing necessary approvals of
other affected regulators (e.9., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or State) for
material containing listed hazardous wastes or any other material regulated by another
Federal agency or State because of environmental or
saf ety considerations.
4. The 1 1e.(2) licensee must demonstrate that there will be no significant environmental
impact from disposing of this material.
5. The 1 1e.(2) licensee must demonstrate that the proposed disposal will not
compromise the reclamation of the tailings impoundment by demonstrating compliance
with the reclamation and closure criteria of Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40.
6. The 1 1e.(2) licensee must provide documentation showing approval by the Regional
Low-Level Waste Compact in whose jurisdiction the waste originates as well as approval
by the Compact in whose jurisdiction the disposal site is located, for material which
otherwise would fall under Compact jurisdiction.
7. The U.S. Depaftment of Energy (DOE) and the State in which the tailings
impoundment is located, should be informed of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission findings and proposed action, with a request to concur within 120 days. A
concurrence and commitment from either DOE or the State to take title to the tailings
impoundment after closure must be received before granting the license amendment to
the 11e.(2) licensee.
Attachment 1
Rls 2000-23
Page 2 ot 2
8. The mechanism to authorize the disposal of non-1 1e.(2) byproduct material in a
tailings impoundment is an amendment to the mill license under 10 CFR Part 40,
authorizing the receipt of the material and its disposal. Additionally, an exemption to the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 61, under the authority of 10 CFR 61.6, must be granted, if
the material would otherwise be regulated under Part 61. (lf the tailings impoundment is
located in an Agreement State with low-level waste licensing authority, the State must
take appropriate action to exempt the non-11e.(2) byproduct materialfrom regulation as
low-level waste.) The license amendment and the 10 CFR 61.6 exemption should be
supported with a staff analysis addressing the issues discussed in this guidance.
Attachment 2
Rls 2000-23
Page 1 of 2
tnterim Position and Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Material Other
Than Natura! Ores
ln reviewing licensee requests to process alternate feed material (material other than
natural orel in uranium mills, the Nuclear Reguatory Commission staff will follow the
guidance presented below. Besides reviewing to determine compliance with appropriate
ispects oi Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40, the staff should also address the following
issues:
1. Determination of whether the feed material is ore.
For the tailings and wastes from the proposed processing to qualify as 1 1e.(2)
byproduct miterial, the feed material must qualify as "ore." ln determining whether the
feed material is ore, the following definition of ore will be used:
Ore is a natural or native matter that may be mined and treated for the extraction of any
of its constituents or any other matter from which source material is extracted in a
licensed uranium or thorium mill.
2. Determination of whether the feed material contains hazardous waste'
lf the proposed feed material contains hazardous waste, listed under subpaft D Sections
261.30-33 of 40 CFR (or comparable Resource Conseruation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
authorized State regulations), it would be subject to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) or State regulation under RCRA. lf the licensee can show that the
proposed feed material does not contain a listed hazardous waste, this issue is
resolved.
Feed material exhibiting only a characteristic of hazardous waste (ignitable, corrosive,
reactive, toxic) would not be regulated as hazardous waste and could therefore be
approved for recycling and extraction of source material. However, this does not apply
to iesidues from water treatment, so determination that such residues are not subject to
regulation under RCRA will depend on their not containing any characteristic hazardous
wiste. Staff may consult with EPA (or the State) before making a determination of
whether the feed material contains hazardous waste.
lf the feed material contains hazardous waste, the licensee can process it only if it
obtains EPA (or State) approval and provides the necessary documentation to that
effect. Additionally, for feed material containing hazardous waste, the staff will review
documentation from the licensee that provides a commitment from the U.S. Department
of Energy or the State to take title to the tailings impoundment after closure.
Attachment 2
Rts 2000-23
Page 2 ot 2
3. Determination of whether the ore is being processed primarily for its source-
material content.
For the tailings and waste from the proposed processing to qualify as 1 1e.(2) byproduct
material, the ore must be processed primarily for its source-material content. lf the only
product produced in the processing of the alternate feed is uranium product, this
determination is satisfied. lf, in addition to uranium product, another material is also
produced in the processing of the ore, the licensee must provide documentation
showing that the uranium product is the primary product produced.
lf it can be determined, using the aforementioned guidance, that the proposed feed
material meets the definition of ore, that it will not introduce a hazardous waste not
otherwise exempted, or if it has been approved by the EPA (or State) and the longterm
custodian, and that the primary purpose of its processing is for its source-material
content, the request can be approved.
Attachment 3
Rls 2000-23
Page 1 of 1
LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED
NRC REGULATORY ISSUE SUMMARIES
Regulatory lssue
Summary No.Subject
Date of
lssuance lssued to
2OOO-22 lssues Stemming from NRC Staff 11/03/OO All holders of Ols for pressurized-
Review of Recent Difficulties water reactors (PWRs), except
certified that fuel have been
permanently removed from the
reactor vessel
2OOO-21 Changes to the Unplanned Scram 10/31/00 All holders of OLs for nuclear
Experienced in Maintaining Steam
Generator Tube lntegrity
and Unplanned Scram With Loss
of Normal Heat Removal
Perf ormance I ndicators
Unrestricted Use Before NRC
Approvalof the License
Termination Plan
those who have PermanentlY
ceased operations and have
power reactors, excePt those who
have permanently ceased
operations and have certified that
power reactors, including those
licensees who have PermanentlY
ceased operations and have
ceilified that fuel has been
permanently removed from the
reactor vessel
fuel has been PermanentlY
removed from the reactor vessel
2OOO-2O Advance Notice of lntent to Pursue 11/1412000 All holders of OLs for nuclear
License Renewal power reactors, excePt those
licensees who have PermanentlY
ceased operations and have
certified that fuel has been
permanently removed from the
reactor vessel
2OOO-19 Partial Release of Reactor Site for 1O/241O0 All holders of OLs for nuclear
OL = Operating License
CP = Construction Permit
a
L]CENSALL UR
119406160883 001 11c
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO
GE CORP ENVIRONMENTAL PROG
REMEDIAL PROJECT MGR
ROY S BLIC}OVEDEL
640 FREEDOM BUSINESS CTR
KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406
120037160913 001 11c
SHAW PITTMAN POTTS TROWBRIDGE
ANTHONY THOMPSON
23OO N STREET t.IW
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
120814140047 001 11c
COGEMA INC
ROBERT POYSER
7401 WISCONSIN AVENUE
BETHESDA, MD 20814
122037160928 001 11c
EXXONMOBILE CORP
PROJECT MANAGER
MARK E HOFFMAN PE
3225 GALLOWS ROAD
FAIRFM, VA22O37
162704160915 001 11c
IL DEPT OF NUCLEAR SAFETY
JOE KLINGER
1035 OUTER PARK DRIVE
SPRINGFIELD, IL62704
169339160886 001 11c
CROW BUTTE RESOURCES INC
MGR OF ENVIR & REGUL AFFAIRS
Mr. MichaelGriffin
86 Crow Butte Road
P.O. Box 169
Crawford, Nebraska 69339-0169
EES AND STAKEHOLDERS LIST:
120036160914 001 11c
MTIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION
KATIE SWEENEY
1130 17TH STREETNW
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
12M60160934 001 11c
US ENVIR PROTECTION AGENCY
BYRON BUNGER
401 M STREET SW M/C 6602J
WASHINGTON. DC 20460
120874160933 001 11c
US OEPT OF ENERGY
CLOVERLEAF BUILDING
DAVID MATHES
11901 GERMANTOWN ROAD EM.34
GERMANTOWN, MD 20874
157501160910 001 11c
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
DIV OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGUL
SCIENTIST DEPT ENV & NATL RES
MIKE POCHOP
523 E CAPITOL JOE FOSS BLDG
PIERRE, SD 57501
1685091 60903 001 1 ',l c
STATE OF NEBRASKA
RAD MATLS PROG PUBL HEALTH
CHERYL K ROGERS
301 CENTENNIAL MALL SOUTH
LINCOLN, NE 68509
1731 18160889 001 1 1c
RIO ALGOM MINING CORP
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
MARVIN FREEMAN
6305 WATERFORD BLVD STE 325
OKLAHOMACITY, OK73118
1731 18144906 001 1 1c
RIO ALGOM MINING CORP
MGR RAD SFTY, REG COMP & LICEN
WILLIAM GORANSON PE
6305 WATERFORD BLVD STE 325
oKLAHOMACITY, oK73118
175202160921 001 1 lc
US ENVIR PROTECTION AGENCY
GREG J LYSSY
1,145 ROSS AVE (6EN-HX REG 6)
DAL|-AS, TX75202
177002160892 001 11c
MOAB MILL RECLAMATION TRUST
PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS
PROJECT DIRECTOR
KEITH E EASTIN
1201 LOUISIANA STREET
HOUSTON, TX77002
180202160916 001 11c
US ENVIR PROTECTION AGENCY
TOXICS PROGRAM
LON HESLA
999 18TH ST (BP2-TX REGION 8)
DENVER, CO8O2O2
180202160929 001 1 1c
COLORADO MI NING ASSOCIATION
216 16TH STREET STE 1250
DENVER. CO8O2O2
180230160908 001 1 1c
STATE OF COLORADO
DEPT OF HEALTH
MGR SERVICES PROGRAM
JAKE JACOBIE
81OO LOWRY BLVD
DENVER. CO 80230
175202160922 001 11c
US ENVIR PROTECTION AGENCY
PETRA SANCHEZ
1445 ROSS AVE (6EN-HX REG 6)
DALLAS, TX752O2
175251160884 001 11c
HYDRO RESOURCES INC
MARK PELIZZA
Hydro Resources, lnc
650 S. Edmonds Lane
Lewisville, Texas 75067
178756160909 001 11c
TEXAS DEPT OF HEALTH
BUREAU OF RAD CONTROL
CHIEF
RICHARD RATTLIFF
1 1OO WEST 49TH STREET
AUST|N, TX 78756
180202160926 001 1 ',lc
POWER RESOURCES INC
CORPORATE OFFICE
FLETCHER T NEWTON
1670 BROADWAY STE 3450
DENVER, CO 80202
180202'160390 001 11c
CROW BUTTE RESOURCES INC
STEPHEN COLLINGS
1670 BROADWAY STE 3450
DENVER, CO8O2O2
180265160904 001 1 1c
INTERNATIONAL URANIUM CORP
PRESIDENT
RON HOCHSTEIN
1 O5O SEVENTEENTH ST STE 950
DENVER, CO 80265
180401160898 001 11c
WESTERN NUCLEAR INC
LARRY CORTE
,17222 S GOLDEN ROAD STE A
GOLDEN, CO 80401
181501160931 001 11c
US DEPT OF ENERGY
ARTHUR KLEINRATH
2597 B 3/4 ROAD
GRAND JUNCTION. CO 81501
182002160906 001 11c
STATE OF WYOMING
STATE PLANNING COORDINATORS OF
LEGAL & NATUML RESOURCES SPEC
ROGER FMNSEN
HERSCHLER BLDG 4TH FL EAST
CHEYENNE, WY 82002
182301 160880 001 1 1c
KENNECOTT ENERGY CO
OSCAR PAULSON
PO BOX 1500
RAWL|NS, VU/ 82301
182520160907 001 1 1c
WYOMING DEPT OF ENV OUALITY
MARK MOXLEY
250 LINCOLN STREET
LANDER, WY 82520
18261 5160897 001 ',l 1 c
PETROTOMICS CO
SUPERVISOR
RON JUDAY
PO BOX 8509
SHIRLEY BASIN, \^l/ 82615
181501160932 001 11c
US DEPT OF ENERGY
GRAND JUNCTION PROJECT OFFICE
MANAGER
DONNA BERGMAN-TABBER
2597 B 3/4 ROAD
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501
181502160924 001 11c
UMETCO MINERALS CORP
MANAGER
CURT SEALY
PO BOX 1209
GRAND JUNCTION. CO 81502
182003160899 001 11c
WYOMING MINING ASSOCIATION
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
MARION LOOMIS
PO BOX 866
CHEYENNE, WY 82003
182501160893 001 11c
PIATEAU RESOURCES LTD
FRED CRAFT
877 NORTH 8TH WEST
RIVERTON, VVY 82501
182602'160925 001 1 1c
WILLIAM C SALISBURY
PO BOX 2713
CASPER, \^lY 82602
182637160890 001 11c
RIO ALGOM MINING CORP
SMITH RANCH PROJECT
GENERAL MANAGER
BILL FERDINAND
PO BOX 1390
GLENROCK, WY 82637
I 82637'1 6089'1 001 1 1c
RIO ALGOM MINING CORP
SUPV ENV & REG AFFAIRS RES INC
JOHN CASH
PO BOX 1390
GLENROCK, WY 82637
182644160894 001 1 Ic
COGEMA INC
GENERAL MANAGER
DONNA WCHERS
PO BOX 730
MILLS, yur 82644
182717160879 001 11c
KENNECOTT ENERGY CO
JOHN TRUMMEL
505 SOUTH GILLETTE AVE
GILLETTE. VtlY 82717
182901160923 001 11c
UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES
BEAR CREEK URANIUM CO
ERNIE SCOTT
2515 FOOTHILL BLVD STE 3OO
ROCK SPRINGS, V\rY 82901
184101150930 001 11c
UTAH MINING ASSOCIATION
PRESIDENT
ALEXANDER JORDON
136 SOUTH MAIN STE 825
SALT I.AKE CITY, UT 84101
185326150039 001 11c
US NRC
PALO VERDE NPS
RESIDENT INSPECTOR
PO BOX 40
BUCKEYE, Az 85326
182637155002 001 11c
POWER RESOURCES INC
HIGHI.AND URANIUM PROJECT
ENVIR SUPERINTENDENT/RSO
WLLIAM F KEARNEY
PO BOX 1210
GLENROCK, WY 82637
1826,14160895 001 11c
PATHFINDER MINES CORP
OPERATIONS MANAGER
TOM HARDGROVE
935 PENDELL BLVD
MILLS, WY 82644
182717160881 001 11c
KENNECOTT ENERGY CO
RICH ATKINSON
505 SOUTH GILLETTE AVE
GILLETTE, W( 82717
184101'160900 001 11c
ENVIROCARE OF UTAH INC
ACTING CORP RAD SFTY OFFICER
TYE ROGERS
46 W BROADWAY STE 1 16
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101
'1 841 1 4146048 001 1 1 c
STATE OF UTAH
DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIRECTOR DIV OF RAD CONTROL
WLLIAM J SINCI.AIR
168 NORTH 1950 WEST
SALT I.AKE CITY, UT 84114
'187020160885 001 1 'lc
HOMESTAKE MINING CO
ROY R CELIAN
PO BOX 98
GRANTS. NM 87020
187502160917 OOj 1 1c 187502160920 001 l1c
NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPT NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPT
GROUNDWATER PROT & REMEDIATIOP GROUNDWATER QUALITY BUREAU
BUREAU CHIEF MARY H NOBLE
MARCy LEAVTTT II9oSTFMNC|SDRIVE
1190 ST FRANCIS DRIVE SANTA FE, NM 87502
SANTA FE. NM 87502
187305160882 001 11c
UNITED NUCLEAR CORP
I-ARRY BUSH
PO BOX 3077
GALLUP, NM 87305
187502160919 001 11c
NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPT
GROUNDWATER QUALITY BUREAU
BEILING LIU
1190 ST FRANCIS DRIVE
SANTA FE, NM 87502
1 87505'160912 001 1 1c
NEW MEXICO MINING ASSOCIATION
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ROBERT L RIVEM
1470 ST FRANCIS DRIVE
SANTA FE, NM 87505
198922160902 001 11c
STATE OF NEBRASKA
NE DEPT OF ENV QUALITY
UNDERGROUND INJ CNTL PROG COOR
DAVE MIESBACH
12OO N STREET STE 4OO
LINCOLN. NE 68509
187501 16091I 001 11c
NORDHAUS LAW FIRM
SUSAN G JORDAN
2OO W DEVARGAS ST STE 9
SANTAFE, NM 87501
187502148748 001 11c
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
HAZARDOUS WASTE BUREAU
CHIEF
JAMES P BEARZI
PO BOX 26110
SANTA FE, NM 87502
198504111124 001 11c
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPT OF HEALTH
DIRECTOR DIV OF RAD PROTECTION
JOHN ERICKSON
PO BOX 47827
OLYMPIA, WA 98504
o+sEo
sh5
9a?u-rYj
GENAECEIVEDg{prlto,
Division of Sotid & Hazardous Waste
Utah Department of Environmental 0uality
APR *5
?ilr}t
OFFICE OF
AIR AND MDIATION
Mr. William von Till
Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch
Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Mail Stop T-8A33
Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. von Till:
This is a follow-up to our previous letter to you of February 12,2OOl. That letter
expressed our concerns with the application of International Uranium Corporation (IUSA) to
amend its source material license SUA-1358 to receive and process alternate feed materials.
ruSA applied to have its license amended to allow for the processing of alternate feed material
consisting of lead (Pb) slurries containing uranium isotopes and decay products of the Uts5 and
U23t series from MolyCorp's Mountain Pass facility in California.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Headquarters and Regional personnel
discussed the key legal and factual issues raised by IUSA's proposed processing of the MolyCorp
slurries. Determining whether the MolyCorp slurries are hazardous waste requires resolution of a
threshold issue which involves a number of site-specific factors, one being whether the materials
are regulated "solid wastes." From the facts available to us, it appears likely that, under the
federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) recycling regulations, the slurries
would be classified as either by-products or sludges which exhibit one of the RCRA hazardous
waste characteristics. Such by-products and sludges are not classified as solid wastes when they
are legitimately reclaimed. Materials which are not solid wastes are not regulated as hazardous
wastes under Subtitle C of RCRA.
Under the federal rules, the entities handling recycled materials are responsible for
determining whether legitimate recycling is occurring and whether the material is a solid waste,
with oversight by the responsible regulatory agency. EPA has authorized the States of California
and Utah to implement state RCRA programs in lieu of the federal RCRA program, making them
primarily responsible for this oversight within their state. In addition, authorized state RCRA
programs are sometimes broader in scope or more stringent than the federal progrtrm and may
B,tL S;*cJo;.o
ROTECTION AUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL P
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
.r'}'.Y .V ..jo
$,;,'eI,!.'
Recycled/Becyclable .Printed with Vegelable Oil Based lnks on lOO% Recycled paper (20% poslconsumer)
regulate materials not regulated under the federal regulations. Thus, we recommend that NRC,
obtain the States' views by contacting the following individuals:
Mr. Watson Gn
Deputy Director, Hazardous Waste
Management Program
Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, C A 95812-0806
cc:
Mr. Don Verbica
Division of Solid &Hazardous Waste
P.O. Box 144880
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880
As a procedural matter, the NRC "Interim Guidance on Disposal of Non-Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, Section I le.(2) Byproduct Material in Tailings Impoundments" and "Interim
Position and Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Material Other Than Natural Ores,', both
dated November 30, 2000, provide for the applicant to demonstrate that the material to be
processed andior disposed in the mill tailings impoundment not be a listed hazardous waste. We
suggest that the NRC guidance be amended to recommend that the applicant obtain the views, as
described above, of authorized States where the material is originally found and where the
material is to be processed. We also suggest that applicants consult with States through which
the materials may travel on their way to the licensed facility. (For this case, we would recommend
that NRC consult with California, Nevada and Utah.) If the material is a characteristic or listed
hazardous waste in the state of origin or in any "transit" state, RCRA regulations would apply to
storage and transportation. It is our hope that this may help to expedite future such applicatiorrr.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Please contact Ms. Teena
Wooten of EPA's Office of Solid Waste at 703-308- 8751, or Loren Setlow of my office at202-
564-9445 if you have any further question on this matter.
Since)rlv, f.
--fu.,/El-:[,
rfant Marcifro$ski, A;fi; Director
Radiation Protection Division
D. Verbica/VT, Division of Solid &Hazardous Waste
W. Gn/CA Dept. Toxic Substances Control
M. Lammering/EPA/Region 8
T. Brown/EPA/Region 8
R. Graham/EPA/Region 8
M. Bandrowski/EPA/Region 9
C. Nelson/EPA/Region 9
B. Cofer/EPAlRegion 9