DRC-2001-001123 - 0901a06880adec67

INrrnNerro*orl
UneNruvr (use)
ConponATroN
lndependence Plaza, Suite 950 o 1050 Seventeenth Street . Denver, CO 80265 . 303 628 7798 (main) o 303 389 4125 (fax)
April 16,2001
VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Mr. William J. Sinclair, Director
Division of Radiation Control
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
168 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144850
Salt Lake city, uT 84114-4850
Dear Mr. Sinclair:
Please find enclosed the latest filing, IUSA's Motion for Leave to File a Surreply, in the case
before the NRC regarding Sarah Fields' request for a hearing on IUSA's license amendment
application for the Heritage material.
If you would like any further information, David Frydenlund may be reached at [phone].
Sincerely yours,
Sharon M. Carroll
Legal Assistant
Enclosure
r.,{'*"'o*}/f'- .4 \s: #w t:
\r"Ef ..,fl'\cr'r-9
\
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
BEFORE THE COMMISSION
In the Matter of:
INTERNATI ONAL URANII.JM (USA)
CORPORATION
(Source Material License Amendment)
Docket No. 40-868 l-MLA-8
ASLBP No. 00-782-08-MLA
April 10,2001
IUSAOS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SURREPLY TO SARAH FIELDS'
SUPPLEMENT
International Uranium (USA) Corporation ("IUSA') hereby respectfully requests leave to
file a reply to Sarah Fields' Supplement to Petitioner's March 15, 2001, Appeal of Presiding
Officer's February 28,z}Ol,Memorandum Order (the "supplement"), filed April 4,2001'
ruSA notes that Ms.Fields' neither requested nor received leave to file the Supplement. ln
addition, she raises new issues not addressed in her previously filed papers.
Therefore,IUSA respectfully requests that its Motion for Leave to File a Surreply be
GRANTED, or in the alternative that Sarah Fields' Supplement be disregarded by the
Commission.
Respectfully submined this the 106 day of April
Anthony J. Thompson, Esq.
David C. Lashway, Esq.
Shaw Pittman
2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20037
(202) 4s4-7098
Counsel to International Uranium (USA)
Corporation
t
UMTED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, BEFORE THE COMMISSION
)
)
)
INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) )
CORPORATION )
)
(Source Material License Amendment) )
_)
Docket No. 40-868 I -MLA-8
ASLBP No. 00-782-08-MLA
April 10,2001
IUSA,SSURREPLYToSARAHFIELDS,SUPPLEMENT
On April 4,z11l,Sarah Fields filed a Supplement to Petitioner's March 15,2001, Appeal
of Presiding Offrcer's February zS,zOOL,Memorandum and Order (the "supplement")' Ms'
Fields, neither requested nor received leave to file the Supplement, which questions the
application of the standards for review set out at l0 C.F.R. $ 2.786(b)(a) to her request for
review of the Presiding Officer's Memorandum and Order by the Commission'l
Nonvithstanding any procedural issues raised by Ms. Fields, for the reasons discussed in
our March 26,2OOl Opposition and our papers below, she has failed to demonstrate, in her
I It is unclear whether l0 C.F.R. $ 2.1205(o) creates an automatic right of appeal from a
denial of standing to intervene or whethei a request for app_eal in such a case is governed Td_tr
io C.n.n. $ 2.1253 which explicitly calls for application of the standards for review in l0 C.F.R-
$ 2.7g6 to ietitions for review of initiat decisions under Subpart L. A thorough review of the
relevant regulations, preambles, and relevant case law indicates that there is confusion as to the
application-of these provisions. However, in at least one case it was determined that the
siandaras in l0 c.F.it.$ 2.786 should be applied to a petition for review under l0 c.F.R. $
2:.1205(o). See e.g. t, it e Matter of Atlas Corporation (Moab, Utah),48 N'R'C' 78; 1998 NRC
Lrxts'r'0, *6 (ltgg) (..within trn d.y, after service of this Memorandum and order, a party
;.y il a petition for review wittr ttri commission. l0 c.F.R. g 2.1205(o). The petition shall be
no iorg., ih.n t.n (io) pages in length and shall contain the material specified in $ 2.786OX2)")'
Supplement or otherwise, that she has standing to intervene in this license amendment
proceeding. The Presiding Officer properly concluded in the Memorandum and Order that Ms.
Fields failed to demonstrate ir{ury in fact arising from her interest in the transportation of the
alternate feed material from the Heritage Minerals ("HMI") site. The Presiding Officer also
correctly found that the two other areas of concem asserted by Ms. Fields in her August 9,2001
Hearing Request, namely that lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation ("IUSA') is not
authorized under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 ("AEA") to receive process or dispose of the
HMI material and that there has not been an adequate Environmental Assessment of the
remediation of facilities such as HMI, were not germane to this license amendment proceeding.
In her request for appeal filed March 15, 2001, Ms. Fields failed to show that the
Presiding Offrcer committed errors of fact and/or law, in finding that her concern that IUSA's
receipt, processing and disposal of the HMI material is not authorized by the AEA is not
germane to this licensing proceeding. The Presiding Officer correctly considered the thorium
content of the HMI material and correctly interpreted the Altemate Feed Policy in finding that an
amendment of IUSA's source material license to authorize receipt, processing, and disposal of
the HMI material would be allowable under the AEA and that the resulting tailings would be
I le.(2) byproduct material.
' Ms. Fields has failed to demonstrate standing to intervene in this maffer and the
allegations of error raised in her request for appeal are without merit. For the foregoing reasons,
Ms. Fields request for appeal should be DEMED.
Respectfully submitted, this the 10ft day of April,200l.
2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
[phone]
Counsel to International Uranium (USA)
Corporation
Documcnt#: Il0lt05 v.l
. Thompson, Esq.
David C. Lashway, Esg.
Shaw Pittman
,!I.]NITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS SION
BEFORE THE COMMISSION
CERTIFICATE OF SERVTCE
I hereby certify that true and complete copies of the foregoing IUSA's Motion for Leave to
File a Surreply to Sarah Fields' Supplement and IUSA's Surreply to Sarah Fields' Supplement in the
above-captioned matter to be served, by electronic mail to the individuals indicated by an asterisk,
by first-c-lass, postage prepaid mail on this l0n day of April, 2001 to:
IN THE MATTER OF:
INTERNATIONAL URANruM OSA)
CORPORATION
(Source Material License Amendment)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission *
ATTN: Richard A. Meserve, OCM
Mail Stop O-16 Cl
One White Flint North
I1555 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852 -2738
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission*
ATTN:Nils J. Diaz, OCM
Mail Stop 0-16 Cl
One White Flint North
I1555 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852 -2738
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission*
ATTN:Jeffrey s. Merrifield, OCM
Mail Stop 0-16 Cl
One White Flint North
I1555 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852 -27 38
Docket No. 40-868 I -MLA-8
ASLBP No. 00-782-08-MLA
April 10,2001
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission*
ATTN: Greta Joy Dicus, OCM
Mail Stop 0-16 Cl
One White Flint North
I1555 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852 -2738
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission*
ATTN: Edward McGaffigan, Jr., OCM
Mail Stop 0-16 Cl
One White Flint North
I1555 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852 -27 38
Office of the Secretary *
Atm: Rulemakings and
Adjudication Staff
One White Flint North
I1555 Rockville Pike
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Rockville, Maryland 20852
t
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel
One White Flint North
I1555 Rockville Pike
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Rockville, Maryland 20852
Office of Rulemakings and
Adjudication
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
I1555 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852
Ann Marshall Young *
Administrative Judge
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Mail Stop T-3-F23
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Offrce of the General Counsel
I1555 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852
Sarah M. Fields *
P.O. Box 143
Moab, UT 84532
Dr. Charles N. Kelber
Special Assistant
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Mail Stop T-3 F23
Washington, D.C. 20555-000 I
'd c.
Anthony J. Thompson, Esq.
David C. Lashway, Esq.
Shaw Pittman
2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202) 4s4-7098
Counsel to International Uranium (USA) Corporation
Document#: ll0l3l6v.l
INrunNerro*o"O
UneNtul,t (usn)
ConponerroN
Independence Plaza, Suiie 950 r 1050 Seventeenth Street . Denver, CO 80265 r 303 628 7798 (main) . 303 389 4125 (fex)
April4, 2001
VIA SECOND.DAY EXPRESS
Mr. William J. Sinclair, Director
Division of Radiation Control
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
168 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Dear Mr. Sinclair:
{;,**'u wq'
\.nrc, s'.1
As you had requested, we forwarded to you on March 16, 2001 copies of the filings that had
been served in the case before the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board regarding Sarah
Fields' request for a hearing on IUSA's license amendment application for the Heritage material.
Please find enclosed copies of two more filings that we have recently received.
If you would like any further information, David Frydenlund may be reached at [phone].
Sincerely yours,
Sharon M. Carroll
Legal Assistant
Enclosures
r1
LI-NITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL
Before the Commission
IN THE MATTER OF:)
)
INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) ) Docket No. 40-8681-MLA-8
CORPORATION )) ASLBP NO. 00-782-08-MLA
(Source Material License Amendment, )
License No. SUA-1358)) Aprll4,2001
)
SUPPLEMENT TO PETITIONER'S MARCH 15, 2OOI,APPEAL OF
PRESIDING OFFICER'S FEBRUARY 28.2001. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This timely supplement to petitioner's March l5 appeal of the Presiding Officer's
February 28 Memorandum and Order denying, in its entirety, petitioner's August 9,2000,
request for hearing, as supplemented, is submitted to the collegial United States Nuclear
Regulatory Commission ("NRC"), itself, pursuant 10 C.F.R. 2.1205(o).
This supplement concerns a threshold procedural matter. This supplement is
proper because it is based on new information about such matter contained in
International Uranium (USA) Corporation's ("IUSA's") March 26, 200!, brief ("lUSA's
Brief') served on the Commission in opposition to petitioner's March l5 appeal. See
IUSA's Opposition to Sarah Field[s'] Petition for Review of Presiding Officer's
Memorandum and Order Denying Hearing Request (March 26,2001).
I. INTRODUCTION
On February 28,2001, the Presiding Officer, pursuant authority delegated to that
person by the Commission, itself, issued a Memorandum and Order denying, in its
entirety, petitioner's August 9,2000, request for hearing, as supplemented. See
Designation of Presiding Offrcer (August 31,2000). Also, see Memorandum and Order
(Denying Hearing Request) ("Memorandum and Order") (February 28,2001).
10 C.F.R. 2.1207, entitled "Designation of presiding officer," states, in pertinent
part:
(a) . . . the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel shall issue an order designating a single member of the panel to rule
on the request for a hearing and, if necessary. to serve as the presiding
officer to conduct the hearing. [Emphasis added.]
The August 31 Designation of Presiding Officer, signed by the Chief
Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, NRC, apparently acting
in his capacity as "Chairman," states:
Pursuant to delegation by the Commission, see 37 Fed Reg. 28,710
(Dec.29, 1972). and the Commission's regulations, see l0 C.F.R.
$S 2.1201 ,2.1207, notice is hereby given that (1) a single member of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel is designated as Presiding
Officer to rule on petitions for leave to intervene and/or requests for
hearing; and (2) upon makine the requisite findinss in accordance with 10
C.F.R. I 2.1205ft), the Presiding Officer will conduct an adjudicatory
hearing in the following proceeding . . . . [Emphasis added.]
The hearing will be conducted pursuant to l0 C.F.R. Part2,
Subpart L, of the Commission's Regulations, "Informal Hearing
Procedures for Adjudications in Materials and Operator Licensing
Proceedings."
10 C.F.R. 2.1201, entitled "Scope of subpart [L]," states, in pertinent part:
(a) The general rules ofthis subpart govern procedure in any
adjudication initiated by a request for a hearing in any proceeding for -. . . [a] licensee-initiated amendment of a materials license subject to part
. . .40 of this chapter. . . .
10 C.F.R. 2.2, entitled "Subparts," states, in pertinent part:
Each subpart other than subpart G sets forth special rules
applicable to the type of proceeding described in the first section of that
subpart. Subpart G sets forth general rules applicable to all types of
proceedings except rule making, and should be read in conjunction with
the subpart governing a particular proceeding.
l0 C.F.R. 10 C.F.R.2.3, entitled "Resolution of conflict," states:
In any conflict between a general rule in subpart G of this part and
a special rule in another subpart or other part of this chapter applicable to a
particular type of proceeding, the special rule governs.
10 C.F.R. 2.1205, which is found in "Subpart L" and not in "Subpart G," is
entitled "Request for a hearing . . ," and such "special rule" states, in pertinent part:
(h) In ruling on a request for a hearing . . . the presiding officer
shall determine that the specified areas of concern are germane to the
subject matter of the proceeding and that the petition is timely. The
presiding officer also shall determine that the requestor meets the judicial
standards for standing . . .
The Presiding Officer's February 28 Memorandum and Order (at page 23) states,
in pertinent part:
. . . Petitioner Fields has not demonstrated the requisite injury in
fact needed to establish standing under 10 C.F.R. $ 2.1205 . . . (h) and
relevant case law. Her request for hearing must therefore be denied.
1 0 C.F.R. 2.1205(o) states:
If the presiding officer denies a request for a hearing or a petition
for leave to intervene in its entirety, the action is appealable within ten
( l0) days of service of the order on the question whether the request for a
hearing or the petition for leave to intervene should have been granted in
whole or in part. If a request for a hearing or a petition for leave to
intervene is granted, parties other than the requestor or petitioner may
appeal that action within ten ( 1 0) days of service of the order on the
question whether the request for a hearing or the petition for leave to
intervene would have been denied in its entirety. An appeal may be taken
by filing and serving upon all parties a statement that succinctly sets out,
with supporting argument, the errors alleged. The appeal may be
supported or opposed by any party by filing a counter-statement within
fifteen (15) days of the service of the appeal brief.
The Presiding Officer's February 28 Memorandum and Order (at page 23) also
states,pertinent part:
In accordance with the provisions of 10 C.F.R. $ 2.1205(o), as it rules
upon a hearing request, this Memorandum and Order may be appealed to
the Commission by filing an appeal statement that succinctly sets out, with
supporting arguments, the errors alleged. To be timely, an appeal
statement must be filed within 10 days after this Memorandum and Order
is served (i.e., on or before Thursday, March 15, 2001). [Emphasis
added.l
10 C.F.R. 2.1209. entitled "Power of presiding officer," states, in pertinent part:
A presiding officer has the duty to conduct a fair and impartial
hearing according to law, to take appropriate action to avoid delay, and to
maintain order. The presiding officer has all powers necessary to those
ends, including the power to -(a) Regulate the course of the hearing and the conduct of the
panicipants.
On March 15, 2001, petitioner timely appealed the February 28 Memorandum and
Order.See Appeal of Presiding Officer's February 28,2001, Memorandum and Order
Denying in its Entirety Petitioner's August 9,2000, Hearing Request, as Supplemented
("Appeal") (March 1 5, 2001 ).
Petitioner submitted the March 15 Appeal, as instructed by the February 28
Memorandum and Order, pursuant 10 C.F.R. 2.1205(o).
IUSA's Briel submitted to the Commission on March 26,2001, contains new
procedural information regarding the appropriate Commission rules and regulations that
apply to petitioner's March 15 Appeal.
IUSA's Brief states that "the Commission has jurisdiction over this matter
pursuant to . . . l0 C.F.R. S 2.1253." See IUSA's Brief, page 3.
10 C.F.R. 2.1253. entitled "Petitions for review of initial decisions," states:
Parties and Sec. 2.1211(b) participants may petition for review of
an initial decision under this subpart in accordance with the procedures set
out in Secs. 2.786 and2.763 or the Commission may review the decision
on its own motion. Commission review will be conducted in accordance
with those procedures the Commission deems appropriate. The filing of a
petition for review is mandatory for a party to exhaust its administrative
remedies before seeking judicial review.
IUSA's Brief states that "Ms. Fields fails to meet her burden of showing that
review by the Commission of the Presiding Officer's Order is warranted, pursuant to the
standards set forth at 10 C.F.R.$$ 2.1253 and2.786(b)(4)." See IUSA's Brief, page 3.
1 0 C.F.R. 2.7 86(b)(4) states :
The petition for review may be granted in the discretion of the
Commission, giving due weight to the existence of a substantial question
with respect to the following considerations:(i) A finding of material fact is clearly erroneous or in conflict
with a finding as to the same fact in a different proceeding;
(ii) A necessary legal conclusion is without goveming precedent or
is a departure from or contrary to established law;(iii) A substantial and important question of law, policy or
discretion has been raised;
(iv) The conduct of the proceeding involved a prejudicial error; or
(v) Any other consideration which the Commission may deem to
be in the public interest.
IUSA's March 26Brief states that "pursuant 10 C.F.R. 52.1253, the standards
governing the Commission's exercise of its discretion to grant or deny petitions to review
a presiding officer's decision are set forth in 10 C.F.R. $ 2.786(bx4)(i-v)." See IUSA's
Brief, page 3.
IUSA's Brief states that "in order to justify Commission review, a petitioner must
raise a "substantial question" regarding at least one of the . . . five areas of consideration"
contained in 10 C.F.R.2.786(b)(4). S99 IUSA's Brief, pages 3-4.
Further, the Brief states that "Ms. Fields has failed to raise a 'substantial question'
regarding any of the five areas of consideration detailed at 10 C.F.R.
$ 2.786(bx4)(i-v)." See IUSA's Brief, page 5.
10 C.F.R. 2.1253, quoted above, is preceded by 10 C.F.R. 2.1251, entitled "lnitial
decision and its effect." 10 C.F.R. 2.1251 states. in pertinent part, that "the presiding
officer shall render an initial decision after completion of an informal hearing under . . .
subpart [L]." (Emphasis added.)
DISCUSSION
The new procedural information contained in IUSA's March 26 Brief is not found
elsewhere on the record of the present proceeding.
This new information reveals a conflict between the Presiding Officer's February
28,2001, statements regarding the criteria governing the appeal of the Presiding Officer's
Memorandum and Order (Denying Hearing Request) (i.e., the procedures set out in 10
C.F.R. 2.1205(o)) and IUSA's March 26,2001, statement, ..gu.ding tt. ..itoiu
governing the appeal of the Presiding Officer's Memorandum and Order (Denying
Hearing Request) (i.e., the procedures set out in 10 C.F.R .2.1253 and l0 C.F.R 2.786).
It appears that, rather than submitting a counter-statement addressing petitioner's
March 15 Appeal, pursuant l0 C.F.R. 2.1205(o),IUSA is challenging, in parr, the
Presiding Officer's February 28 Memorandum and Order.
IUSA's Brief challenges the appropriateness of the Presiding Officer's instructions
to the petitioner that the petitioner appeal pursuant 10 C.F.R.2.1205(o). As laid out
above, the Presiding Officer's instructions state that "in accordance with the provisions of
10 C.F.R. 2.1205(o). as it rules upon a hearing request, the Memorandum and Order may
be appealed to the Commission by filing an appeal statement that succinctly sets out, with
supporting arguments, the errors alleged." See IUSA's Brief, pages 3,4,5,6, and 10.
See Memorandum and Order, page23.
As shown above, the August 31,2000, Designation of the Presiding Officer
shows that there are two stages to a Subpart L proceeding: first, the Presiding Officer
rules on a request for hearing; and second, upon making the requisite findings in
accordance with 10 C.F.R. Q 2.1205(h) the Presiding Officer conducts an adjudicatory
hearing.
In the present proceeding, the Presiding officer issued the February 28
Memorandum and Order ruling that "the August 9,2000, hearing request of Petitioner
Sarah M. Fields is denied and this proceeding is terminated." See Memorandum and
Order, page 23.
The Presiding Officer's Feb 28 ruling did not contain the requisite finding, in
accordance with 10 C.F.R. 2.1205(h). Thus an adjudicatory hearing did not ensue.
The Presiding Officer's February 28 Memorandum and Order, denying petitioner's
August 9 request for hearing, states that petitioner may file an appeal of that
Memorandum and Order "in accordance with the provisions of I 0 C.F.R. $ 2.1205(o), as
it rules upon a hearing request." (Emphasis added.) See Memorandum and Order, page
23. The Presiding Officer's Memorandum and Order did not invite IUSA to challenge
her ruling pursuant 2.1205(o).
In setting forth the procedures to be used for the filing of an appeal of the denial,
in its entirety. of a request for hearing submitted to the NRC pursuant 10 C.F.R. Part2,
Subpart L, the Presiding Officer intended to exercise authority granted to the Presiding
Officer pursuant 10 C.F.R. 2.1207 and l0 C.F.R. 2.1209. I've denied your request; this
is what you can do.
10 C.F.R.. 2.1205(o) clearly provides the criteria for the appeal of the denial, in its
entirety, of a request for hearing. l0 C.F.R - 2.1205(o) establishes time frames for
submitting such an appeal and any pertinent counter-statements. 10 C.F.R. 2.1205(o) sets
out criteria that such an appeal should address.
10 C.F.R. 2.1205(o) does not explicitly refer an interested person to either
l0 C.F.R. 2.1253, or 10 C.F.R.2.786, or to any other procedural criteria contained in
l0 C.F.R. Part 2, Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance or
Orders.
Notwithstanding the above, IUSA's March 26 Brief would claim that the
provisions contained in 10 C.F.R . 2.1253, and, further, the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 2.786
(found in Subpart G) govern an appeal of the denial, in its entirety, of the request for a
Subpart L informal hearing.
10 C.F.R. 2.1253 provides procedures for "petitions for review of initial
decisions." 10 C.F.R. 2.1253 does not provide procedures for the appeal of the denial, in
its entirety, of a request for hearing.
10 C.F.R. 2.1251 clearly indicates that a presiding officer renders an initial
decision after the completion of an informal hearing under Subpart L.
l0 C.F.R. 2.1253 refers parties and participants who petition for review of an
initial decision to l0 C.F.R.2.786 for the procedures and criteria to be followed for a
petition for review of an initial decision. after the completion of an informal hearine
under Subpart L. l0 C.F.R. 2.1253 does not refer parties and participants to l0 C.F.R.
2.786 for the procedures and criteria to be followed for an appeal of the denial, in its
entirety, of a request for hearing.
I l0
l0 C.F.R. 2.1253 (found in Subpart L) contemplates "the completion of an
informal hearing" after which the Presiding Officer renders an "initial decision."
10 C.F.R. 2.786 (found in Subpart G) provides criteria for petitions for review of
an "initial decision" rendered "after the completion of an informal hearing." The formal
criteria set forth in l0 C.F.R. 2.786 contemplate the completion of the informal hearing
under Subpart L. 10 C.F.R . 2.786 requires circumstances where a petitioner who seeks
review of an initial decision has access to the complete record of a proceeding, for
example, a 10 C.F.R. 2.1231 hearing file. Presumably, the initial decision would be
based on the actual record ofthe proceeding.
IUSA's March 26 Brief presupposes that the Presiding officer has made the
requisite findings in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 2.1205(h), petitioner has been granted
standing, a hearing has taken place, the Presiding Ofhcer has rendered an initial decision
pursuant 10 C.F.R. 2.1251, and that, pursuant 10 C.F.R. 2.1253, the petitioner sought
review of such an initial decision.
However, this is not the case at all. In the present proceeding, a hearing has not
taken place, due to the fact that petitioner's request for hearing has been denied, in its
entirety. NRC staff has not provided a hearing file in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 2.1231,
participants in the present proceeding have not had the opportunity to argue the merits of
the petitioner's concerns in the context of an informal hearing, the Presiding Officer has
not issued an initial decision pursuant 10 C.F.R. 2.1251, and this petitioner has not sought
review of an initial decision after the completion of an informal hearing.
I
t1
As shown above, on February 28,2001, the Presiding Officer denied petitioner's
August 9 request for hearing, in its entirety. Subsequently, petitioner appealed that
denial, pursuant l0 C.F.R. 2.1205(o), as instructed by the Presiding Officer.
As shown above, l0 C.F.R. 2.1253 is not applicable, given the current
circumstances of the present proceeding,
As shown above, the procedures set out in 10 C.F.R. 2.786 are not applicable to
the appeal of the February 28 denial, in its entirety, of petitioner's August 9 request for
hearing.
Note that, as quoted above, 10 C.F.R. 2.3, provides guidance should any conflict
between a general rule in Subpart G and a special rule in Subpart L, applicable to a
particular proceeding held under Subpart L, occur. 10 C.F.R. 2.3 states that "the special
rule governs."
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, only the procedures set forth in 10 C.F.R.
2.1205(o) govern petitioner's appeal of Presiding Officer's February 28,2007,
Memorandum and Order Denying in its Entirety Petitioner's August 9,2000, Hearing
Request, as Supplemented, as submitted to the collegial United States Nuclear Regulatory
Commission on March 15,2001.
For the reasons stated above, IUSA's March 26Brief erred when it stated that the
procedures and criteria set forth in l0 C.F.R.2.1253 and l0 C.F.R. 2.786 govern
petitioner's March l5 Appeal and consideration thereof.
t2
Statements in IUSA's Brief regarding petitioner's failure to meet the requirements
of 10 C.F.R . 2.786 are elroneous, irelevant, and impertinent.
Petitioner respectfully requests that any statements contained in IUSA's March26
Brief regarding petitioner's failure to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R.2.786be
disregarded by the Commission and stricken from the record of the proceeding.
Sarah M. Fields
Dated at Moab, Utah
April4. 2001
I
LINITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
In the Matter of :
INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA)
CORPORATION
(Source Material License Amendment)
)
)
) Docket No. 40-8681-MLA-8
)) ASLBP NO. 00-782-08-MLA
)) April4,2001
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing SUPPLEMENT TO PETITIONER'S
MARCH 15, 2OOI, APPEAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER'S FEBRUARY 28, 2001,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER have been served upon the following persons by U.S.
mail, first class, this 4th day APRIL 2001. Additional service via electronic mail is
indicated by asterisk.
Administrative Judge* Office of the Secretary*
Ann Marshall Young Attn: Rulemaking and
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Adjudications Staff
Mail Stop T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Administrative Judge Frederick S. Phillips, Esq.*
Dr. Charles N. Kelber Anthony J. Thompson, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel David C. Lashway, Esq.
Mail Stop T-3 F23 SHAW PITTMAN
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.20555-0001 Washington, D.C.20037
Dennis C. Dambly, Esq. Office of Commission Appellate
Office of the General Counsel Adjudication
Mail Stop O-15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington. D.C.20555-0001
Sarah M. Fields
a
UMTED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
BEFORE TrrE COMMTSSTON MAR 2 g REC'I!
)
In the Matter of: )
) DocketNo.40-8681-MLA-8
INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) )CORPORATION ) ASLBP No. 00-782-08-MLA
)
(Source Material License Amendment) ) March26,200l
)
IUSA'S OPPOSITION TO SARAH FIELD'S PETITION FOR REYIEW OF PRBSIDING
OF'FICER'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DEI{YING HEARING REQUEST
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Intemational Uranium (USA) Corporation ("IUSA') operates, in accordance with Source
Material License No. SUA-1358 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC"), a
uranium recovery facility called the White Mesa Mill (the "Mill') near Blanding, Utatr. The Mill
processes uranium-bearing material to extract the uranium therefrom. Residuals, or "tailings,"
from these processes, defined as "l le.(2) byproduct material," are disposed of in an NRC-
licensed lined "cell" or impoundment at the site. IUSA's Mill is regulated by NRC, pursuant to
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 ("AEA"), * amended by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation
Control Act of 1978 (*UMTRCA"), and NRC's implementing regulations set forth at l0 C.F.R.
Part 40, including Appendix A.
B. Procedural History
On July 5, 2000, IUSA applied to NRC for an amendment to its License No. SUA-1358,
to allow IUSA to receive and process at the Mill up to 2,000 cubic yards of altemate feed
material from the Heritage Minerals Site located in Lakehurst, New Jersey ("HMI"). The
altemate feed material is a monaz.ite sand that is to be removed from the HMI site pursuant to the
Decommissioning Plan for the HM site under NRC Source Material License No. SMB-1541.
Notice of IUSA's request was published in the Federal Register on July 17,2OOO.| On August 9,
2000, Sarah Fields filed a hearing request. On August 24,2000,IUSA filed an opposition to the
request. On August 31, 2001, the matter was referred to the Presiding Officer.
In evaluating Ms. Fields' request for hearing, the Presiding Officer allowed her a number
of oppornrnities to state her case for standing: a telephone conference was held2 and Ms. Fields
was allowedto filefour lengthy Supplemental Pleadings in support of standing.3 Following the
telephone conference and a thorough review of this long series of filings, in a Memorandum and
Order dated February 28,2001, the Presiding Officer denied Ms. Field's request and found that
she had articulated only one gernane area of concern, an interest in the transportation of the
material through Moab, but that Petitioner had failed to "demonstrate the requisite irrju.y in fact
needed to establish standing under l0 C.F.R. $ 2.1205(e) and (h) and relevant case law."4 The
Presiding Officer found that the two other areas of concem asserted by Ms. Fields in her August
9,2000 Hearing Request, namely that IUSA is not authorized under the AEA to receive process
or dispose of the HMI materials and that there has not been an adequate Environmental
Assessment of the remediation of facilities such as HMI, were not gennane to this license
amendment proceeding.s
' 65 Fed. Reg. 4407844079.
2 The telephone conference, held September l{,2}O},addressed both procedural and substantive issues ofthe case,
including the issue of standing. See Transcript (Sept. 14, 2000).I First Supplement to Petitioner's August 9, jOOO, Request for Hearing (Oct. 18, 2000); Second Supplement to
Petitioner's August 9,2000 Request for Hearing (Dec. 5, 2000); Third Supplement to Petitioner's August 9, 2000
Request for Hearing (Dec. 2, 2000); Fourth Supplement to Petitioner's August 9, 2000 Request for Hearing
(February 20,2001).
a Internationol IJranium (USA) Corporation (Source Material License Amendmenr, LBP-01-08 at23 (February 28,
2001).
s Id. at 14.
On March 15,2001, Petitioner filed an Appeal of Presiding Officer's February 28,2001,
Memorandum and Order Denying in its Entirety Petitioner's August 9,2000, Hearing Request,
as Supplemented (the "Petition")6 to which IUSA hereby responds. AII of the alleged errors of
fact and law stated in the Petition relate to the Presiding Offrcer's finding that Ms. Fields' area of
concem that IUSA is not authorized by the AEA to receive, process, or dispose of the HMI
materials is not germane to the license amendment proceeding.
The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. $$ 201l, et seq.
and l0 C.F.R. $ 2.1253.
il. ARGUMENT
Ms. Fields fails to meet her burden of showing that review by the Commission of the
Presiding Officer's Order is warzanted, pursuant to the standards set forth at 10 C.F.R. $$ 2.1253
and2.786(bx4). As discussed below, Ms. Fields' claims that the Presiding Offrcer committed
errors of fact and law, in finding that her concern that IUSA's receipt, processing, and disposal
of the HMI materials is not authorized by the AEA is not germane to this licensing proceeding,
are without merit. Accordingly, the Petition should be denied.T
A. Standard of Review
Pursuant to l0 C.F.R. 5 2.1253, the standards governing the Commission's exercise of its
discretion to grant or deny petitions to review a presiding offrcer's decision are set forth in l0
C.F.R. $ 2.786(bx4)(i-v).8 In order to justiff Commission review, a petitioner must raise a
"substantial question" regarding at least one of the following five areas of consideration: (l)
u Note, the Petition exceeds by five (5) pages the ten (10) page limit set out at l0 C.F.R. g 2.7860)(3).7 IUSA notes that Ms. Fields has limited hir petition to the "germaneness" issue and is noi seeking-review of the
Presiding Officer's conclusion that she lacks injury in fact. Ms. Fields' failure to challenge that conclusion is fatal
to her case as injury in fact is required to establish standing.
" See Babcock and llilcox Company (Pennsylvania Nuclear Services Operations), CLI-954, 4l NRC 248,250-5l
(lees).
whether a finding of material fact in the underlying decision is clearly erroneous;e l2l whether a
necessary legal conclusion in that decision departs from or is contary to established law; (3)
whether petitioner identifies any substantial and important policy or legal questions; (4) whether
petitioner identifies any prejudicial error in the proceeding to date; or (5) whether petitioner
identifies any other consideration which the Commission may deem to be in the public interest.lo
Under these standards, a petitioner has the burden "to raise questions that are sufficiently
substantial to justiff Commission review." Babcock and ll/ilcox, supra,4l NRC at25l.
Moreover, there is no right to an administrative appeal on every factual finding. Tennessee
Yalley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plonts, Units lA, 2A, 1B & 28) I NRC 459,461n.5 (1978).
Appeals should focus on significant matters, not every colorable claim of error. Long Island
Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),23 NRC 9, 1l (1986). In addition, a
petitioner is responsible for adequately briefing the issues raised on appeal and for providing
cogent arguments in support thereof. Advanced Medical Systems, Inc. (One Factory Row,
Geneva, Ohio 44041), CLI-94-6, 39 NRC 285 (1994), affd., Advanced Medical Systems, Inc. v.
NnC, 6l F.3d 903 166 Cir. 1995). Where an appellant fails to provide adequate argument in
support of its position, the issue being appealed may be dismissed. See Pennsylvania Power and
Light Co. and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units l
and 2), ALAB-693, 16 NRC 952956 (1982).
e To show that a factual frnding in the decision was "clearly erroneous," Ms. Fields must show that the finding was
"not even 'plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety ."' Kenneth G. Pierce (Shorewood, lllinois), CLI-95-
6,41NRC381,382(1995), citingAndersonv.BessemerCity,470U.S.564,573-76(1985); seealsollisconsing
Electric Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-7l. 5 AEC 319,322 (1972) ( a licensing board's
factual findings may not be set aside simply because the appeal board might have found differently).ro See l0 C.F.R. g 2.7860XaXi-v).
B. Ms. Fields has Failed to Meet the Standard for Review
Ms. Fields points to four alleged errors of fact and law in the Memorandum and Order
Denying Hearing Request in support of her petition for review. All four of the alleged errors
center on one general complaint, that the Presiding Officer did not suffrciently refer to the
thorium-232 content in the monarite sand and incorrectly determined that Ms. Fields' concern
that receipt, processing and disposal of the HMI materials at the Mill would violate the AEA,
was not germane to the license amendment proceeding. The Presiding Officer acknowledged
that while Ms. Fields might have a general interest in IUSA's handling of the HMI materials
under the AEA such a general interest was insufficient to support standing.ll The Presiding
Offrcer went on to state that although Ms. Fields asserted that the materials to be disposed of
after processing should not be characterized as 1l.e(2) byproduct material, that issue has already
been decided by the Commission, and therefore, is not geilnane to this license amendment
proceeding.l2
Ms. Fields has failed to raise a "substantial question" regarding any of the five arec of
consideration detailed at l0 C.F.R. $ 2.786(b)(a)(i-v). Specifically, she has failed to demonstrate
that any of the material facts stated in the Memorandum and Order were clearly erroneous or that
any of the necessary legal conclusions depart from or are contrary to established law.
1. The Memorandum and Order Contains No Errors of Fact
Ms. Fields appears to allege that the Presiding Officer committed errors of fact by not
referring to the HMI alternate feed material as "thoriated monazite sand"l3 and by failing to
rr Memorandum and Order at 14.
t2 Id.
'3 Ms. Fields refers to the phrase "thoriated monazite sand" as though they were "magic words" throughout her
papers.
indicate that the thorium content in the monazite sand was concentrated.la Such allegations of
errors of fact are without merit. Furthermore, even if the Presiding Officer failed to address
these factual issues, that failure would not be "material" as required by l0 C.F.R. $
2.786@)(4)(i), nor would it result in injury in fact to Ms. Fields.
The Memorandum and Order specifically states that the "monazite sand" has been
processed by HMI to remove heavy minerals and that it "still contains uranium and thorium."ls
The issue of the thorium content in the monazite sand was addressed ad nauseum by Ms. Fields
in her numerous pleadings, and was the subject of an information request ordered by the
Presiding Offrcer.16 Furthermore, several pages of the Memorandum and Order discussed in
detail the radiological activity of the HMI material and, a single-spaced, three paragraph footnote
was dedicated to a discussion of the thorium content in the monazite sand. There, the Presiding
Officer states that "the highest figures provided by the petitioner and Dr. Chambers for the
radiological activity of the thorium isotopes contained in the Heritage Minerals material have
been considered in making relevant comparisons."lT It is abundantly clear that the Presiding
Officer was aware of the thorium content in the materials, and took it into consideration in
formulating a decision concerning Ms. Fields' standing.lE In addition, any process that removes
heavy minerals from ore would necessarily increase the percent concentration of the thorium in
the remaining materials as the total volume of thorium in the materials does not change but the
total volume of the ore is reduced by the amount of heavy minerals removed.
ra Petition at 4 and 7.
15 Memorandum and Order at 2.
16 See Order Requesting Information and Permitting Response to Petitioner's October 18, 2000 Filing (October 26,
2000).
17 Memorandum and Order at 5, footnote 10.It Indeed it would be exceedingly rare for a material containing naturally occurring uranium not to contain thorium
as well.
6
Since the Presiding Officer specifically stated and addressed Ms. Fields' factual
allegations regarding the thorium content and its radiological activity, Ms. Fields' petition is
lacking. Further, any failures on the Presiding Officer's part to use the proffered "magic words"
do not constitute errors of "material" fact.
2. The Memorandum and Order Contains No Errors of Law
Petitioner alleges that the Presiding Officer committed elrors of law in determining that
the HMI material will be processed for its source material content, that the resulting tailings are
I 1.e(2) byproduct material, and that receipt, processing and disposal of the monazite sand would
not violate the AEA. Petitioner's allegations are without merit.
The HMI material contains approximately 0.05% source material uranium, contains no
listed hazardous wastes, and will be processed by IUSA for its uranium content. Pursuant to the
Altemate Feed Policy (the "Policy")le such material qualifies as alternate feed and may be
processed, pursuant to a license amendment, at a licensed uranium mill. The Policy was
developed by NRC to establish a set of criteria to be used in evaluating whether feed materials
that are not conventional ores can be processed at uranium mills such that the tailings and wastes
generated from such processing will be considered I le.(2) byproduct material. The Policy
establishes four criteria that must be satisfied before uranium-bearing materials other than
conventional ores may be processed at a licensed uranium mill. First, processing the alternate
feed material (and disposal of the tailings and wastes associated with such processing) must
conform with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 40. Second, the alternate feed material must
not contain any listed hazardous wastes or residues that constitute hazardous waste from any
t'Final Position and Guidance on the Use of Uranium Miil Feed Material Other Than Natural Ores, 60 Fed. Reg.
49,296 (September 22, 1995).
wastewater treatment process. 20 Third, the altemate feed material must qualiff as an "ore."2l
And, finally, the altemate feed material must be processed primarily for its source material
content.
Ms. Fields alleges that since the HMI material will be processed for its uranium content,
and not for its companion thorium content (which is approximately 0.539% with a radiological
activity according to Ms. Fields' highest proffered estimate of 4,000 pCr/g compared to its
uranium activity of 372 pCi/g), it is not being processedprimarily for its source material content.
Ms. Fields is mistaken.
The Commission has clearly stated what constitutes being "processed primarily for
source material content." In the IUSA "Ashland 2" license amendment proceeding, the
Commission held that the only test of whether a material will be processed primarily for its
source content at a licensed uranium mill is whether it will in fact be processed for its uranium
content.22 The Ashland 2 material, which contained both uranium and thorium, was found by the
Commission to be a legitimate alternate feed, despite its thorium content which would not be
extracted.23 Further, the Alternate Feed Guidance does not require that uranium be the most
plentiful metal in order to satisfu the requirement that a feed be "processed primarily for"
uranium. In fact, many conventional ores and alternate feeds contain other metals in higher
weight percentages than uranium. Based on the foregoing, the thorium content of the HMI
'o The HMI materials are not residues from a waste water treatment process, and IUSA has certified that the HMI
materials do not contain listed hazardous wastes. Petitioner has not questioned the certification.2r Consistent with Congress' intent to include a broad range of materials within the scope of the term "ore" (and,
thereby, to encompass a wide range of materials within the regulatory program for I le.(2) byproduct material), NRC
defures "ore" for purposes of the Altemate Feed Policy to mean: "a natural or native matter that may be mined and
treated for the extraction of any of its constituents or any other mailer from which source material is extracted in a
licensed uranium or thorium mill." 60 Fed. Reg. a|49,296 (emphasis added).
22 See International llranium (USA) Corporation (Requestfor Marerials License Amendment), CLI-00-1, 5l NRC 9
(2000). Of course, the reverse would be true if ttre feed material were processed primarily for its thorium content at
a licensed thorium mill and the uranium was not recovered.
23 Memorandum and Order at 10.
alternate feed material is irrelevant to IUSA's ability to process the material primarily for
uranium pursuant to the AEA, the Alternate Feed Policy, and controlling Commission
decisions.2a
Accordingly, the Presiding Officer was legally correct to rely on the Commission's
Ashland 2 decision in determining that the tailings from the HMI material would be 1le.(2)
byproduct material and that Ms. Fields' concern that IUSA was not authorized under the AEA to
receive, transport, and process the HMI material was not relevant to this license amendment
proceeding.
Finally, even assuming arguendo that the issue Ms. Fields raises in her petition is
somehow germane, the Presiding Officer was correct that Ms. Fields lacks injury in fact. As
pointed out in the affidavit of Douglas Chambers, Ph.D., and acknowledged by the Presiding
Officer, the presence of the thorium in the HMI materials "would result in incremental exposure
that is trivial and a very small fraction of natural background radiation in the area."2s Further,
even in the event of a worst case scenario -- a spill of the HMI material with its thorium content -
'n Furthermore, the presence of thorium in the HMI materials does not lead to a violation of IUSA's license or the
AEA. IUSA possesses a license to receive, possess and dispose of wastes resulting from the processing of source
material. Source material is defined by the AEA as (l) uranium, thorium, or any other material which is determined
by the Commission . . . to be source material; or (2) ores containing one or more of the foregoing materials, in such
concentrations as the Commission may by regulation determine fiom time to time. 42 U.S.C. $ 20la(z). NRC
regulations further define source material as: (l) uranium or thorium, or any combination thereof, in any physical or
chemical form or (2) ores which contain by weight one-twentieth of one percent (0.05%) or more of: (i) uranium, (ii)
thorium or (iii) any combination thereof. Thus, the AEA and NRC's implementing regulations acknowledge that
source material is uranium and/or thorium and that the two often coexist in ores. In fact, certain thorium is a decay
product of uranium; uranium is not a decay product of thorium. Thus, because IUSA is licensed to receive source
material and has been granted a specific license amendment to process the HMI material primarily for its uranium
content, the presence of thorium in the monazite material does not render IUSA's action unlawful. In any event, to
the extent Ms. Fields specifically challenges the decision based on the presence of ttrorium-232 in the HMI
material, she fails to acknowledge that the staffspecifically addressed the presence of thorium-232 and as a result,
required IUSA in the amendment to implement a special operating procedure (*SOP") to ensure adequate protection
of public health and safety in the handling of the materials at the Mill. Moreover, the staffconcluded that no
environmental assessment (*EA") was necessary. Therefore, the specific license amendment, without more, is
sufficient to allow for the processing of the HMI materials in compliance with the AEA.
2s Chambers Affidavit at 6, 8; Memorandum and Order at I l.
9
- "there is no significant acute potential health hazard."26 Based on these facts, the Presiding
Officer correctly concluded that there is a "negligible likelihood of any exposure that would be
significantly above background level" and Ms. Fields failed to show "a new or increased harm,
threat or injury as a result of the proposed amendment" therefore, she failed to demonstrate
injury in fact "traceable to the proposed license amendment and likely to be redressed by a
favorable decision."27
IIL CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Fields' Petition has failed to raise a "substantial question"
regarding whether a finding of material fact in the Memorandum and Order was clearly
erroneous, whether a necessary legal conclusion departs from or is contrary to eskblished law, or
any of the other considerations detailed at l0 C.F.R. $ 2.786(b)(a)fi-v). Accordingly, the
Petition should be DENIED.
Respectfully submitted, this 266 day of March,200
2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202) 4s4-7098
Counsel to International Uranium (USA)
Corporation
Document #: 1 094295 v.l
2u Id. at7; Memorandum and Order at 12-13.
27 Memorandum and Order at 22-23.
Anthony J. Thompson, Esq.
David C. Lashway, Esq.
Shaw Pittman
l0
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certi8/ that true and complete copies of the foregoing IUSA's Opposition To Sarah
Field's Petition For Review Of Presiding Officer's Memorandum And Order Denying Hearing
Request in the above-captioned matter to be served, by electronic mail to the individuals indicated
by an asterisk, by courier to Office of Rulemakings and Adjudication and also by first-class, postage
piepaid mail on this 26th day of March,200l to:
IN THE MATTER OF:
INTERNATIONAL URANruM ruSA)
CORPORATION
(Source Material License Amendment)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
ATTN: Richard A. Meserve, OCM
Mail Stop O-16 Cl
One White Flint North
I1555 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852 -2738
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
ATTN:Nils J. Diaz, OCM
Mail Stop O-16 Cl
One White Flint North
I1555 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852 -2738
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
ATTN: Jeffrey s. Merrifield, OCM
Mail Stop 0-16 Cl
One White Flint North
I1555 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852 -2738
IJNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGI.'LATORY COMMISSION
BEFORE THE COMMISSION
*
*
rt
:I
*
*
rS
*
Docket No. 40-868 I -MLA-8
ASLBP No. 00-782-08-MLA
March 26,2001
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
ATTN: Greta Joy Dicus, OCM
Mail Stop 0-16 Cl
One White Flint North
I1555 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852 -27 38
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
ATTN: Edward McGaffigan, Jr., OCM
Mail Stop O-16 Cl
One White Flint North
I 1555 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852 -2738
Office of the Secretary *
Attn: Rulemakings and
Adjudication Staff
One White Flint North
I 1555 Rockville Pike
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Rockville, Maryland 20852
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel
One White FlintNorth
I1555 Rockville Pike
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Rockville, Maryland 20852
OfIice of Rulemakings and
Adjudication
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
I1555 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852
Ann Marshall Young *
Administrative Judge
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Mail Stop T-3-F23
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of the General Counsel
I1555 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852
Sarah M. Fields *
P.O. Box 143
Moab, UT 84532
Dr. Charles N. Kelber
Special Assistant
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Mail Stop T-3F23
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Anthony J. Thompson, Esq
David C. Lashway, Esg.
Shaw Pittman
2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202) 4s4-7098
Counsel to International Uranium (USA) Corporation
Document #: 1 094900 v.I
INrnnNeuoNerf
UneNruu (usn)
ConponATIoN
Irrtlepenrlence plazrr, Suite g50 . 1050 Seventeenth Street . Denver, CO 80265 ' 303 628 7798 (main) ' 303 389 a125 (fax)
August 25,2000
VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL
Ms. Sarah M. Fields
P.O. Box 143
Moab,I-ff 84532
Re: Hearing Request in Respect of International Uranium (USA) Corporation's ('IUSA's")
Application for a License Amendment to Process Alternate Feed Materials from the
Heritage Minerals Inc. Site Located in Lakehurst, New Jersey
Dear Itds. Fields:
We have received a copy of your August 9, 2000 request for a hearing in connection with the
Heritage Minerals license amendment application.
Unfortunately, as your request was a formal request under l0 C.F.R Pafi2, Subpart L, and as
the amount of time allowed ruSA to respond under those regulations is short, we had no
alternative but to respond formally in opposition to your request. A copy of our response is
enclosed with this letter.
However, we believe that it may 6e possible to address your concerns and answer any questions
you may have on a more informal basis. Subpart L hearings require ruSA to take legal steps
that cannot be taken as anything other than confrontational, which is not the position we would
like to be in. We believe that candid open discussions on an informal basis can go a lot further
to resolving issues and concems than formal proceedings. We are confident that once you have
had a chance to ask us your specific questions and to obtain further information about the
Heritage alternate feed project many of your concerns may be answered to your satisfaction.
We would be happy to meet with you 'at any time, or to address your concerns over the
telephone or through the mail. In fact, we strongly encourage such a dialogue. Please give
me a call at [phone], or send me a letter, at your earliest convenience so we can
commence this process.
Yours ffuly,A-\:=
Ron F. Hochstein
President and Chief Executive Officer
Enclosure t .
cc: William J. Sinclair, Utah Division of Radiation Control
William von Till, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
F-567st>lg B*EE* \
fl "*
=fEEg
$
\,' -='EEt=
-"f,\orrta@
Offrce of Rulemakings and
Adjudications
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
11555 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852
Sarah M. Fields
P.O. Box 143
Moab, UT 84532
Frederick S. Phillips
SHAW PITTMAN
2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037
COUNSEL TO INTERNATIONAL (USA)
URANIUM CORPORATION
A\,rlr-i;-UU l4;d4 trom:lNlEXt\AllUl\At UfiANiUtq 30338941 e0 T-510 P.0elO0 Jcb-211
EG
AUG
ENI.L U
14
WE
2000August 9,2000
Secretary
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Attsntion; Rulemaking snd Adjudicatione Staff
HEARTNG REQUEST
Do&etNo.40-868
In Rcsponsc to a Fedcral Rcgistcr Notice of July 17,2000, vol, 54, No. l l, plgca 44079-
44079.
Pursuant l0 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart L, "lnformal Hearing Proccdurcs for Adjudicatisns in
Materials ald Operator Licensing Proceedings", I would hereby request a heuing in
responseto'Notice of Request from lntemational Uranium f'ruSA-) Corporation to
Amend Source Meterial License SUA-1358 to Receive and Process Alternate Feed
Matcrials, Notir;c of Opportrurity fur Hearing", publishtrl il 0rc Fuderal Register og July
l7; 2000 (65 Fcd. Reg. 4407E ,4107844079).
TheNuclear Regulatory Commission ('NRC") received an application dated Juiy 5,
2000, hom IUSA, requesting an ameodment to their license. The anendment application
("Application") requested that the NRC allow IUSA's White }vtesa Uranium Mill near
Blandlng Utah, ro rccslve and prroccss up 2000 cubio yards of alrcrnats fced marsrlal
from the Heritage Minerals Inc. ("HMI") Site located iu Lakehnrst, New Jersey.
From r I NTERllATiOltAL URAN IUM 30t38941 a0 T-5 I 0 P.03/00J
The Heritage Minerals site is heing decommissioned under NRC Sowce Mqterials
Liccuse Nu. SMB- I 541 , Douket No. 40-E9E0.
In acoordance with 10 C.F.R. 2.1205(e), the requestor will address the following:
The.interest of the requestor in tbg.Dl.oceeding.
This requestor lives in Moab. Utah. 'l he Application proposes to transport the HMI
material along Utatr State Highway l9l from north of Moab, right ttuough dowutown
Moab, where Highway I9l becomes Main SEeet, and beyond Moab south on Highway
I9l through Monticello and Blanding, Utab, to ttre White Mesa Mill. This requestor
livEs one block west of Main Street (downgradient) and works one block east of Main
Strccl This rcqucstor usually w.alks or ridcs a biuyulc, and srrrnctimes drives, on and
across Main Steet every day (of ncccssiq). Thcrc is a Ligh probability that this
requestor u'ould be affected by the trarsport of the material tlrat is proposed to be
tanspofled to, and reseived and processed at, the White Mesa Mill.
Hnw the interesls may be affected hy tlre results of thp grqqeediqc- including thn reseo'ts
why.$.rc rcqucstor should bs permined a hearing. wirh panicqlar reference ro the factors
set out i92.1205(g) of this segtio.-rU
AUlr- I i-0U l4:ag T-510 P.01/A0 Job-?11
Response:
( I ) Thc natur of thc rcquostor! s right urrder tho Act to be made a party to thc
Foceeding: This requestor has a right to reside and sojourn on or near the
transportalion corridor withiu Moab, described above. This requestor has the
righr not to bG unnecessarily affected by rhe traruporr of tbe HMI materlal thar is
proposed to be tancported to and received and processed atthe White Mesa Mill.
(2) The nafur€ snd o)'tent of the reguostor's proporty, financial, or other interest in
the prcceeding: My livelihood requires rtw I reside near and iuteracr with thc
proposed transportation conidor through Moab, Utah, a.s described sbove. There
is no way for me [o avoid this sinr,arion.
(3) The possible effect of any order that may be entered in tbe proceeding upouthe
rcguestor's interest: fury possible adverse eflects to this reguestor by the
transportation of thc HMI matcrials thrcugh Moab could bc mitigarcd as a rcsult
of an order whiclr roight be issued in the contexr of a proceedhg, pusuant t}re
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as ameuded.
the nroece<line.
Rcsponse:
A. K8que$or is concsrned that IUSA is nor authorized by rhe Aromic Energy AcI of
1954, as qmended, to receive, process, or dispose of the HMI maierials.
e0
a
AU0-l I-00 l1;20 From: lNIERllATlOliAL URANIUMo 30338911 20
a('
T-510 P.05/00 Job-?11
The .Iuly 5, 2000, Application did not adequately considff the transportation
corridor through Moab, Utah.
The HRI materials derive from the remediation of one ot'many NRC licensed
SDMP faciiities., To the best of my knowledge, t-here has been no NRC
programmatic Envlronmental Assessment with rcspcct thc rsmcdiation of such
facilities. The NRC decision-makers involved in reviewing the July 5 Application
are required by law to have access to such an assessment. Applicahle law does
not permit such atr incremental isolapd review of a programrnatically irupactcd
Iiceusing astion.
The circumstancres establishing that th.glegtas for a hearing is timelJ in accordance
u{th 2.1205(p).
Rcsponsc:
'lhis requestor is responding to a Federal Register Notice dated July 17, 2000 (65 Fed.
Reg. 44078), noticing the opporttrnity for a beariog. The notice allows ftfny (30) days in
which to request a hearing. Requestor is submitting this hearing request on August 9,
2000. This is weU within the time period aliowed.
This rcqucstor rcscrvcs the right to supplement t}.is pctition upon thc rcccipt of qdditional
hformation, such a.s the July 5 Application.
B.
c.
^U!-I..OU I4;ZE From:INIERIIATI.OIiAL URANIUM
o
303t6941a0 T-510 P.00/00 Jcb-Zl1a
5
Would respecfully request that any NRC licensing acrion reqponsive to the July 5
Applical.iun bc drlrycd peitdirg tlrc rcsolution of the issucs brought forrvqrd qbove.
Requestor is appearing pro se.)- I/-l
Sarah M, Fields
P.O. Box 143
Moeb, Utah 84532
cc: Executive Director of Opermlous, NRC
Intemational Uranium Corporation +/
REC'D
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL
Before Administrative Judges:
AUC 2 Li 2000
IN THE MATTER OF:
INTERNATI ONAL URANIUM (USA)
CORPORATION
(Source Material License Amendment)
Docket No. 40-8681
ASLBP No.
August 24,2000
I.
INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION'S
OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST FOR HEARING OF'SARAH M. FIELDS
INTRODUCTION
On August 9, 2000, Saratr M. Fields, Moab, Utah ("Petitioner"), sent a letter to the
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staffl, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") requesting
a hearing on International Uranium (USA) Corporation's ("IUSA's") pending request for a
license amendment authorizing IUSA to process up to 2,000 cubic yards of alternate feed
material from the Heritage Minerals Site located in Lakehurst, New Jersey ("HMI"). The
alternate feed material is a monazite sand pile that is to be removed from the HMI Site pursuant
to the Decommissioning Plan for the HMI Site under NRC Source Materials License No. SMB-
1541. IUSA has requested a license amendment allowing IUSA to process this material at its
White Mesa Uranium Mill near Blanding, Utah. IUSA proposes to process this material for its
uranium content and dispose of the tailings in its on-site permitted tailings cell. A "cc" of
Petitioner's letter was sent to IUSA by regular mail on a date unknown; no certificate of service
accompanied the letter. ruSA has assumed that the hearing request was served on August 9.
Thus, this Opposition is due on August 24,2000.
II.BACKGROI'ND
ruSA operates, in accordance with Source Material License No. SUA-1358 issued by the
NRC, a uranium recovery facility called the White Mesa Mill (the "Mill") in Blanding, Utah.
The Mill processes uranium-bearing material to extract the uranium therefrom. Residuals, or
"tailings," from this process, defined as "11e.(2) byproduct material," are disposed of in an
NRC-licensed lined "cell" or impoundment at the site. fUSA's Mill is regulated by NRC,
pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act of 1978 ("UMTRCA"), as amended, as effectuated by NRC regulations
set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 40, including Appendix A and applicable NRC guidance documents.
On July 5, 2000, ruSA applied to NRC for an amendment to its License No. SUA-1358,
to allow ruSA to receive and process the HMI monazite sand as "altemate feed material" at the
Mill. Notice of IUSA's request was published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2000.r
III. ARGI]MENT
A. Petitioner Is Not Entitled To The Requested Hearing
petitioner's Request for Hearing, brought pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 2.1205(d), must
satisfy the criteria set forth at subparts (e) and (h), including the requirements that Petitioner's
concems are germane to the subject agency action and that Petitioner is able to establish that she
has standing to participate in the proceedings. As detailed below, Petitioner fails to meet the
-2-
r65 F"d. Reg.44078 -44079.
judicial standards for standing, as she has failed to allege any concrete and particularized
and has failed to raise any concerns gernane to the requested license amendment. Thus,
Petitioner is not entitled to a hearing on fUSA's request for a license amendment. Consequently,
and as set forth below, ruSA respectfully requests that the Petitioner's Request for Hearing be
B. Standards to be applied.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 2.1205(e):
(T)he request for a hearing filed by a person other than an applicant must describe in
The interest of the requestor in the proceeding;
How the interests may be affected by the results of the proceeding, including
the reasons why the requestor should be permitted a hearing, with particular
reference to the factors set out in paragraph (h) ofthis secfion;
The requestor's areas of concern about the licensing activity that is the
subject matter of the proceeding; and
(a) The circumstances establishing that the request for a hearing is timely in
accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.
l0 C.F.R. Section 2.1205(e) (emphasis added). Section 2.1205(h) states:
(h) In ruling on a request for a hearing filed underparagraph (d) of this section, the
presiding officer shall determine that the specified areas of concern are germane to
the subject matter of the proceeding and that the petition is timely. The presiding
officer also shall determine that the requestor meets the judicial standards for
standing and shall consider, among other factors --.
(l) The nature of the requestor's right under the [Atomic Energy]
Act to be made a party to the proceeding;
(2) The nature and extent of the requestor's properry, financial, or
other interest in the proceeding; and
injury
(l)
(2)
(3)
a-J-
(3) The possible effect of any order that may be entered in the
proceeding upon the requestor's interest. I
10 C.F.R. Section 2.1205(h) (emphasis added). As demonstrated below, Petitioner does not meet
the judicial standards for standing, as she has not shown that she has sufflered or is likely to
suffer any particular harm from IUSA's proposed license amendment, alleging, as she does, only
vague and generalized grievances about "possible adverse eflects to this requestor by the
transportation of the HMI materials through Moab...."3 Moreover, Petitioner's stated concerns
that "IUSA is not authorized by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to receive, process,
or dispose of the HMI materials," that IUSA's license amendment application "did not
adequately consider the transportation corridor through Moab, IJtah," and that the NRC has not
conducted a "programmatic Environmental Assessment with respect the (sic) remediation of . . .
SDMP facilities" are not germane to the license amendment at issue.a Where, as here, Petitioner
fails to make a sufficient showing of an injury-in-fact to establish standing and fails to raise
isiues that are gennane to the requested license amendment, a hearing request should be denied.
2 l0 C.F.R. $ 2.1205(h) (emphasis added).
3 Petitioner's Request for Hearing at 3.
a Petitioner's first concern, that IUSA is not authorized "to receive, process, or dispose of the HMI
materials," is, of course, gerrnane in the sense that lhal is lhe reason that IUSA is requesling the
subject license amendment IUSA's present lack of authority to accept the HMI materials is not
disputed and IUSA and NRC are addressing this concern by engaging in the license amendment
process. The fact that IUSA is not presently authorized to accept the HMI materials cannot, by
itself, entitle Petitioner to a hearing. Petitioner's other two stated concerns have no particular
relationship to the requested license amendment. IUSA's license amendment application does
adequately address transportation of materials to the Mill. Issues relating to transportation of
materials to and from the Mill also have been addressed in the 1979 Final Environmental
Statement filed in support of IUSA's original license and in the Amendment Request filed July 5,
2000. Petitioner's concern about NRC's failure to conduct a "programmatic Environmental
Assessment" also bears no relationship to IUSA's requested license amendment.
-4-
C. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate standing entitling her to a hearing
in this matter.
To demonstrate standing entitling Petitioner to a hearing, she must show (1) that she has
suffered, or likely will suffer, injury in fact from the license amendment at issue; (2) that the
alleged injury is arguably within the zone of interests sought to be protected by the statute at
issue; and (3) that the injury is redressable by a favorable decision in the proceeding.5
As this tribunal is well awEre, "[s]tanding is not a mere legal technicality, it is in fact an
essential element in determining whether there is any legitimate role for a court or an agency
adjudicatory body in dealing with a particular grievance."6 To satisff the "irreducible
constitutional minimum" of standing, a potential litigant must demonstrate that there is a
"concrele and particularized injury that is: l) actual or imminent; 2) caused by, or fairly
traceable to, an act that the litigant challenges in the instant litigation; and 3) redressable by the
c_ourt."7 To show the required injury in fact based on an assertion of future harm, NRC has held
that that future harm "rr?r.,.s t be threatened, certainly impending, and real and immediate."s
Petitioner has failed to satisfy the requirements for standing because she has failed
make the fundamental showing of an injury infact that can be attributed to the challenged
i.e., the issuance of IUSA's license amendment permitting IUSA to process alternate feed
material from the HMI site. Petitioner has stated that "(T)here is a high probability that this
s Northern States Power Company,44 NRC 138, 1996 Lexis 46, **5-6 (1996).
6 llestinghouse Electric Corp., CLI-94-07 ,39 NRC 322, 1994 Lexis 3 I , ** 5-6 ( 1994).
1 Florida Audubon Society v. Bentsen, 94 F.3d 658, 663 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (en banc) (citations omitted)
(emphasis added).
' Babcock & ll/ilcox, LBP-93-4, 1993 NRC Lexis 6, **7-8 (1993) (emphasis added).
to
action,
-5-
requestor would be affected by the transport of the material" from the HMI Lakehurst facility. e
Nowhere does Petitioner state why she believes "there is a high probability that (she) would be
affected" nor does she offer any suggestion of frow she might be affected. Petitioner states that
she "has the right not to be unnecessarily affected by the transport of the HMI material that is
proposed to be transported to and received and processed at the White Mesa Mill."lo Again,
Petitioner provides no indication of how or why she might be "unnecessarily affected by the
transport of the HMI material" or of whether or how being so "affected" causes her some injury.
Petitioner has not alleged, much less demonstrated, any "actual or imminent" injury or
t'real and immediate" threatened future harm caused or impending by virtue of IUSA's requested
license amendment. In the absence of any demonstration of harm, realized or reasonably
anticipated, Petitioner lacks standing to challenge the requested license amendment and is not
entitled to a hearing.l I
Petitioner's stated "areas of cohcern" -- "that IUSA is not authorized by the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to receive, process, or dispose of the HMI materials," that there
has been inadequate consideration of "the transportation corridor through Moab, lJtah," and that
n 5", Request for Hearing at 2.
ro ,See Request for Hearing at 3.
It IUSA submits that Petitioner's failure to demonstrate any "concrete and particularized" injury is not
merely a case of inartful pleading by a pro se litigant. Petitioner cites the applicable regulations
(r.e., l0 C.F.R. Section 2.1205 and applicable subparts) and attempts to satisff each of the
prerequisites to a hearing contained therein. See, generaliy, Request for Hearing. IUSA suggests
ihat Petitioner is hard-pressed to articulate an injury-in-fact because she suffers none. As set forth
in IUSA's Amendment Request, transportation of the HMI materials to the White Mesa Mill is
expected to result, on average, in an additionalten trucks per week traveling State Road 191 in
the Moab area for between one and three months. (Amendment Request at 9). According to the
most recent data published by the Utah Department of Transportation, approximately 385 trucks
already travel this route every day. Id. Additionally, the NRC previously has concluded that "the
Footnote continued on next Page
-6-
"there has been no NRC prograrnmatic Environmental Assessment with respect to remediation
of"'SDMP facilities"l2 likewise do not suggest any particularized injury to Petitioner. Petitioner
makes no attempt to explain what her concerns with these issues are or what harm will result
from these concerns. Again, Petitioner's vague and generalized concerns do not entitle her to a
hearing on IUSA's pending license amendment
D. Petitioner suffers no redressable injury as a result of IUSA's license
amendment.
In order to establish standing, a petitioner must show not only injury-in-fact, but "that the
inj".y fairly can be traced to the challenged action; and ( ) that the injury is likely to be redressed
by a favorable decision."l3 Petitioner demonstrates no injury and is unable to show how any
hypothetical injury would be redressed by denying the particular license amendment at issue.
The pending license amendment concems only IUSA's request to process up to 2,000
cubic yards (approximately 3,000 tons) of uranium-containing monazite sands from the HMI
facility.la The material from the HMI facility currently is regulated as sowce material.l5 All
waste associated with processing this material will be 11e.(2) byproduct material.l6 The nature
Footnote continued from previous page
transportation of radioactive materials in accord with NRC and DOT regulations will not have a
significant adverse impact on the environment." See 49 Fed. Reg. 9375 (March 12,1984).
12 Request for Hearing at3-4.
'3 Drilu*, v. NRC,863 F. 2d968,971 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Shoreham-lYading River Central School District
v. NRC,93l F. 2d 102,105 (D.C. Cir. l99l). See Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear
Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-91-1, 33 NRC 15,28-29 (1991); Long Island Lighting Co.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-91-7, 33 NRC 179,192, 194-95 (1991).
la Amendment Request at 2.
l5 Amendment Request at l.
t6 see Id.
-7-
and volume of material to be processed, the nature and volume of tailings to be placed in IUSA's
lined tailings cell, and the amount of yellowcake to be produced, all are within limits established
by IUSA's existing license.tT As discussed above, the truck traffic associated with transporting
the HMI materials is expected to average approximately ten trucks per week.l8 Thus, the
requested amendment specifically allowing the receipt and processing of the HMI material, will
not, as a practical matter, cause any change in the White Mesa Mill's operations currently
permitted by its existing license. Petitioner cannot demonstrate that the requested amendment
may cause any redressable injury. Consequently, Petitioner cannot establish standing and is not
entitled to a hearing.
l7.S"e Amendment Request at6,9.
't Th" 1979 Final Environmental Statement prepared in support of the Mill's original license application
stated that IUSA expected, on average, approximately 85 trucks per day to be associated with
Mill operations. Truck traffic to the Mill, for all Mill activities during the hauling of the HMI
materials, is expected to average fewer than 30 trucks per day.
-8-
IV. CONCLUSION
Petitioner has failed to raise any issue germane to or articulate any injury-in-fact
occasioned by the license amendment here at issue. Accordingly, and for all of the reasons set
forth above, IUSA respectfully submits that Petitioner, Ms. Sarah M. Fields, lacks standing to
participate in a hearing on the subject license amendment and her Request for Hearing should be
denied.
Respectfully submitted this 24h day of August,2000.
Anthony J. Thompson
Frederick S. Phillips
David C. Lashway
2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037
[phone]
COUNSEL TO INTERNATIONAL (USA)
URANIUM CORPORATION
-9-
T'NITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL
IN THE MATTER OF:
*
*
*
INTERNATIONAL URANruM QSA) * Docket No. 40-8681
- CORPORATION * ASLBP No.
*
(Source Material License Amendment) * August24,2000
*
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I caused tme and complete copies of the foregoing
INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION'S OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST
FOR HEARING OF SARAH M. FIELDS in the above-captioned matter to be served, first-class,
postage prepaid mail on this 24th day of August, 2000 to:
The Honorable G. Paul Bollwerk, III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Chief Judge Office of the General Counsel
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I1555 Rockville Pike
Two White Flint North Rockville, MD 20852
I1545 Rockville Pike
Mail Stop T-3 F23
Rockville, MD 20852
Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Attn: Rulemakings and One White Flint North
Adjudications Staff I1555 Rockville Pike
One White Flint North U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Rockville, Maryland 20852
PT]BLIC NOTICE
r\nrentlnrent to Lorv-Level llatlioactive \Vaste Disposal Lice nsc U'l'23002-19 nnd
Nlodification of Ground Water Quality Discharge Pernrit UGW450005
The Divisions of Radiation Control (DRC) and Water Quality (DWQ) of the Utah Depanmenr of
Environmental Quality are requesting public comment regarding initial decisions by the
Executive Secretaries of the Utah Radiation Control Board and Utah Water Quality Board to
amend the Envirocare (Licensee and Permittee) Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Licenie,
and modify the Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit. These actions are being taken under the
authority of the Utah Radiation Control Act in accordance with Utah Administrarive Code R3l3-
25-12 and R3 L3-25-25, and the Utah Water Quality Act, Section l9-5-l l5 and R317-6, Utah
Code Annotated 1953, as amended.
Licensee/Permi ttee Informati on :
N$,ME:
MAILING ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
FACILITY LOCATION:
Envirocare _of Utah, Inc.
46 West Broadway, Suite I l6
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
[phone]
South Clive, Tooele County, Utah
The proposed License amendment and Permit modification are associated with the proposed
Class A Low-Irvel Radioactive Waste Disposal Cell (Class A Cell). Other major Permit
changes include the addition of a new contact water evaporation pond (2000 I.ARW Pond),
revised ground water protection levels for molybdenum and 2-methylnaphthalene, and the
replacement of I le(2) monitoring well GW-38 with well GW-38R. A draft License Amendment
with Statement of Basis describing the License changes, and a draft Permit Modification with
Statement of Basis describing the Permit changes will be available for review and"/or copying
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, at the address listed below
Public comments are invited within 30 days of the publication of this notice; written commenrs
will be accepted if postmarked by the 30th day of the public comment period. Commenrs may be
directed to the DRC, 168 N. 1950 w., P.O. Box 144850, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4850, or by
email to [e-mail]. All comments received within the 3O-day comment period
will be considered in formulation of final determinations to be imposed on the License and
Permit. A public hearing will be held if written requests are received within the first l5 days of
the public comment period that demonstrate significant public interest and substantive issues
exist to warrant holding a hearing.
Additional information regarding the License may be obtained upon request by calling Dane
Finerfrock at [phone], or by writing the DRC at the aforementioned address. Additional
information regarding the Permit may be obtained by contacting Rob Herbert at the same phone
number and address. Related documents are available for review at the DRC. In compliance
with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals with special needs (including auxiliary
communicative aids and services) should contact Charlene Lamph, Office of Human Resources
at 536-4413 (TDD 536-4414) at least t0 working days prior to close of the commenr period.
DBPARTMENT OF EI\N/IRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
168 North 1950 \Vest
P.O. Box 144$50
Salt Lake City. Utah 8Jl l4-4850
(80 r ) 536-4250
(801 ) 533-4097 Fax
(801) 536-,1414 T.D.D.
www.deq.stale,ut.us Web
@ trsi*csrioi
W' L)ij.iI:
H i,tEIER 54S060, -
*l
fir
I
Michrel O. trasittCormor
Dianne R. Nielson. Ph.D.
Executive Dinscror
William J. SinclairDiffirs
&41 14./4&Eri llrl,,l,,l,',llr,,ll,l,'f,l',ll,,l',lJ,ll',,,H'l
(roti
INrBnNeuoNAL )
UneNrul,r (use)
ConpoRATIoN
Irrrleperrtlerrce Plirza, Suite 950 o 1050 Seventeenth Street . Denver, CO 80265 . 303 628 7798 (main) ' 303 389 al25 (fax)
August 25,2000
VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL
Ms. Sarah M. Fields
P.O. Box 143
Moab, UT 84532
Re: Hearing Request in Respect of International Uranium (USA) Corporation's ('IUSA's")
Application for a License Amendment to Process Alternate Feed Materials from the
Heritage Minerals Inc. Site Located in Lakehurst, New Jersey
Dear Ms. Fields:
We have received a copy of your August 9, 2000 request for a hearing in connection with the
Heritage Minerals license amendment application.
Unfortunately, as your request was a formal request under l0 C.F.R Pafi2, Subpart L, and as
the amount of time allowed IUSA to respond under those regulations is short, we had no
alternative but to respond formally in opposition to your request. A copy of our response is
enclosed with this letter.
However, we believe that it may be possible to address your concems and answer any questions
you may have on a more informal basis. Subpart L hearings require ruSA to take legal steps
that cannot be taken as anything other than confrontational, which is not the position we would
like to be in. We believe that candid open discussions on an informal basis can go a lot further
to resolving issues and concerns than formal proceedings. We are confident that once you have
had a chance to ask us your specific questions and to obtain further information about the
Heritage alternate feed project many of your concerns may be answered to your satisfaction.
We would be happy to meet with you at any time, or to address your concerns over the
telephone or through the mail. In fact, we strongly encourage such a dialogue. Please give
me a call at [phone], or send me a letter, at your earliest convenience so we can
commence this process.
Yours truly,e_\:
Ron F. Hochstein
President and Chief Executive Officer
Enclosure r
cc: William J. Sinclair, Utah Division of Radiation Control
William von Till, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
{:;h
waE;EBJ\qo,""@
Office of Rulemakings and
Adjudications
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
I1555 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852
Sarah M. Fields
P.O. Box 143
Moab, UT 84532
Frederick S. Phillips
SHAW PITTMAN
2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037
COTINSEL TO TNTERNATTONAL (USA)
URANIUM CORPORATION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL
Before Administrative Judges:
REC'D
AUG 2 Li 2OOO
TN THE MATTER OF:
INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA)
CORPORATION
(Source Material License Amendment)
Docket No. 40-8681
ASLBP No.
August 24,2000
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION'S
OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST FOR HEARING OF SARAH M. FIELDS
I. INTRODUCTION
On August g,2OOO, Sarah M. Fields, Moab, Utah ("Petitioner"), sent a letter to the
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ('NRC") requesting
a hearing on International Uranium (USA) Corporation's ("IUSA's") pending request for a
license amendment authorizing IUSA to process up to 2,000 cubic yards of alternate feed
material from the Heritage Minerals Site located in Lakehurst, New Jersey ("HMI"). The
alternate feed material is a monazite sand pile that is to be removed from the HMI Site pursuant
to the Decommissioning Plan for the HMI Site under NRC Source Materials License No. SMB-
1541. IUSA has requested a license amendment allowing IUSA to process this material at its
White Mesa Uranium Mill near Blanding, Utah. IUSA proposes to process this material for its
uranium content and dispose of the tailings in its on-site permitted tailings cell. A "cc" of
Petitioner's letter was sent to IUSA by regular mail on a date unknown; no certificate of service
accompanied the letter. ruSA has assumed that the hearing request was served on August 9.
Thus, this Opposition is due on August 24,2000.
u.BACKGROI.]I[D
ruSA operates, in accordance with Source Material License No. SUA-1358 issued by the
NRC, a uranium recovery facility called the White Mesa Mill (the "Mill") in Blanding, Utah.
The Mill processes uranium-bearing material to extract the uranium therefrom. Residuals, or
"tailings," from this process, defined as "l le.(2) byproduct material," are disposed of in an
NRC-licensed lined "cell" or impoundment at the site. IUSA's Mill is regulated by NRC,
pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act of 1978 ("UMTRCA"), as amended, as effectuated by NRC regulations
set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 40, including Appendix A and applicable NRC guidance documents.
On July 5, 2000, ruSA applied to NRC for an amendment to its License No. SUA-1358,
to allow ruSA to receive and process the HMI monazite sand as "altemate feed material" at the
Mill. Notice of IUSA's request was published in the Federal Register on July 17,2000.r
III. ARGUMENT
A. Petitioner Is Not Entitled To The Requested Hearing
Petitioner's Request for Hearing, brought pursuant to l0 C.F.R. Section 2.1205(d), must
satis$ the criteria set forth at subparts (e) and (h), including the requirements that Petitioner's
concems are germane to the subject agency action and that Petitioner is able to establish that she
has standing to participate in the proceedings. As detailed below, Petitioner fails to meet the
-2-
' 65 F"d. Reg.44078 -44079.
judicial standards for standing, as she has failed to allege any concrete and particularized injury
and has failed to raise any concems germane to the requested license amendment. Thus,
Petitioner is not entitled to a hearing on IUSA's request for a license amendment. Consequently,
and as set forth below, IUSA respectfully requests that the Petitioner's Request for Hearing be
denied.
B. Standards to be applied.
Pursuant to l0 C.F.R. Section 2.1205(e):
(T)he request for a hearing filed by a person other than an applicant must describe in
detail -
(l) The interest of the requestor in the proceeding;
(2) How the interests may be affected by the results of the proceeding, including
the reasons why the requestor should be permitted a hearing, with particular
reference to the factors set out in paragraph (h) ofthis section;
(3) The requestor's areas of concern about the licensing activity that is the
subject matter of the proceedinBi and
( ) The circumstances establishing that the request for a hearing is timely in
accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.
l0 C.F.R. Section 2.1205(e) (emphasis added). Section 2.1205(h) states:
(h) In ruling on a request for a hearing filed under paragraph (d) of this section, the
presiding officer shall determine that the specilied areas of concern are germane to
the subject matter of the proceeding and that the petition is timely. The presiding
officer also shall determine that the requestor meets the judicial standards for
standing and shall consider, among other factors --.
(l) The nature of the requestor's right under the [Atomic Energy]
Act to be made a party to the proceeding;
(2) The nature and extent of the requestor's property, financial, or
other interest in the proceeding; and
-3-
(3) The possible effect of any order that ryay be entered in the
proceeding upon the requestor's interest. r
l0 C.F.R. Section 2.1205(h) (emphasis added). As demonstrated below, Petitioner does not meet
the judicial standards for standing, as she has not shown that she has suffered or is likely to
suffer any particular harm from IUSA's proposed license amendment, alleging, as she does, only
vague and generalized grievances about "possible adverse effects to this requestor by the
transportation of the HMI materials through Moab...."3 Moreover, Petitioner's stated concerns
that "IUSA is not authorized by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to receive, process,
or dispose of the HMI materials," that IUSA's license amendment application "did not
adequately consider the transportation corridor through Moab, lJtah," and that the NRC has not
conducted a "programmatic Environmental Assessment with respect the (sic) remediation of . . .
SDMP facilities" are not gennane to the license amendment at issue.a Where, as here, Petitioner
fails to make a sufficient showing of an injury-in-fact to establish standing and fails to raise
issues that are germane to the requested license amendment, a hearing request should be denied.
2 l0 C.F.R. $ 2.1205(h) (emphasis added).
3 Petitioner's Request for Hearing at 3.
a Petitioner's first concern, that IUSA is not authorized "to receive, process, or dispose of the HM
materials," is, of course, gernane in the sense that that is the reason that IUSA is requesting the
subject license amendment IUSA's present lack of authority to accept the HMI materials is not
disputed and IUSA and NRC are addressing this concern by engaging in the license amendment
process. The fact that IUSA is not presently authorized to accept the HMI materials cannot, by
itself, entitle Petitioner to a hearing. Petitioner's other rwo stated concerns have no particular
relationship to the requested license amendment. IUSA's license amendment application does
adequately address transportation of materials to the Mill. Issues relating to transportation of
materials to and from the Mill also have been addressed in the 1979 Final Environmental
Statement filed in support of IUSA's original license and in the Amendment Request filed July 5,
2000. Petitioner's concern about NRC's failure to conduct a "programmatic Environmental
Assessment" also bears no relationship to IUSA's requested license amendment.
-4-
C. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate standing entitling her to a hearing
in this matter.
To demonstrate standing entitling Petitioner to a hearing, she must show (l) that she has
suffered, or likely will suffer, injury infact from the license amendment at issue; (2) that the
alleged inju.y is arguably within the zone of interests sought to be protected by the statute at
issue; and (3) that the injury is redressable by a favorable decision in the proceeding.5
As this tribunal is well aware, "[s]tanding is not a mere legal technicality, it is in fact an
essential element in determining whether there is any legitimate role for a court or an agency
adjudicatory body in dealing with a particular grievance."6 To satisff the "irreducible
constitutional minimum" of standing, a potential litigant must demonstrate that there is a
"concrete ond particularized injury that is: l) actual or imminent; 2) caused by, or fairly
traceable to, an act that the litigant challenges in the instant litigation; and 3) redressable by the
court."7 To show the required injury in fact based on an assertion of future harm, NRC has held
that that future harm"must be threatened, certainly impending, and real and immediate."s
Petitioner has failed to satisfr the requirements for standing because she has failed to
make the fundamental showing of an injury infact that can be attributed to the challenged action,
i.e., the issuance of IUSA's license amendment permitting IUSA to process alternate feed
material from the HMI site. Petitioner has stated that "(T)here is a high probability that this
s Northern States Power Company,44 NRC 138, 1996 Lexis 46, **5-6 (1996).
6 Westinghouse Electric Corp., CLI-94-07,39 NRC 322,1994 Lexis 31, 't* 5-6 (1994).
1 Florida Audubon Society v. Bentsen,g4 F.3d 658,663 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (en banc) (citations omitted)
(emphasis added).
' Babcock & Wilcox, LBP-93-4, 1993 NRC Lexis 6, *+7-8 (1993) (emphasis added).
-5-
requestor would be affected by the transport of the material" from the HMI Lakehurst facility. e
Nowhere does petitioner state why shebelieves "there is a high probability that (she) would be
affected,, nor does she offer any suggestion of ftow she might be affected. Petitioner states that
she.,has the right not to be unnecessarily affected by the transport of the HMI material that is
proposed to be transported to and received and processed at the White Mesa Mill."lo Again,
petitioner provides no indication of how or why she might be "unnecessarily affected by the
transport of the HMI material" or of whether or how being so "affected" causes her some injury.
petitioner has not alleged, much less demonstrated, any "actual or imminent" injury or
..real and immediate" threatened future harm caused or impending by virtue of IUSA's requested
license amendment. In the absence of any demonstration of harm,realizr;d or reasonably
anticipated, Petitioner lacks standing to challenge the requested license amendment and is not
entitled to a hearing.ll
Petitioner's stated "areas of concern" -- "that IUSA is not authorized by the Atomic
Energy Act of lgs4,as amended, to receive, process, or dispose of the HMI materials," that there
has been inadequate consideration of "the transportation corridor through Moab, Utah," and that
e See Request for Hearing at 2.
lo ,See Request for Hearing at 3.
I I IUSA submits that Petitioner's failure to demonstrate any "concrete and particularized" injury is not
merely a case of inartful pleading by a pro se litigant. Petitioner cites the applicable regulations
(t.e., i0 C.F.R. Section 2'.1205 anO appiicable subparts) and aftempts to satisfr each of the
irerequisites to a hearing contained therein. See, general/H Request for Hearing' IUSA sugge_sts.
that Petitioner is hard-prlssed to articulate an injury-in-fact because she suffers none. As set forth
in IUSA's Amendmeni Request, transportation of the HMI materials to the White Mesa Mill is
expected to result, on average, in an additional ten trucks per week traveling^State Road l9l in
the Moab area for between one and three months. (Amendment Request at 9). According to the
most recent data published by the Utah Department of Transportation, approximately 385 truck:
already travel this route every day. Id. Additionally, the NRC previously has concluded that "the
Footnote continued on next Page
-6-
"there has been no NRC programmatic Environmental Assessment with respect to remediation
of"'SDMP facilities"l2 likewise do not suggest any particularized injury to Petitioner. Petitioner
makes no attempt to explain what her concerns with these issues are or what harm will result
from these concerns. Again, Petitioner's vague and generalized concerns do not entitle her to a
hearing on IUSA's pending license amendment
D. Petitioner suffers no redressable injury as a result of IUSA's license
amendment.
In order to establish standing, a petitioner must show not only injury-in-fact, but "that the
injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action; and ( ) that the irjr.y is likely to be redressed
by a favorable decision."l3 Petitioner demonstrates no injury and is unable to show how any
hypothetical injury would be redressed by denying the particular license amendment at issue.
The pending license amendment concerns only IUSA's request to process up to 2,000
cubic yards (approximately 3,000 tons) of uranium-containing mona"ite sands from the HMI
facility.la The material from the HMI facility currently is regulated as source material.ls All
waste associated with processing this material will be I le.(2) byproduct material.l6 The nature
Footnote continued from previous page
transportation of radioactive materials in accord with NRC and DOT regulations will not have a
significant adverse impact on the environment." See 49 Fed. Reg. 9375 (March 12,1984).
12 Request for Hearing at3-4.
t3 Drllr*" v. NfiC 863 F. 2d968,971 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Shoreham-Wading River Central School District
v. NRC,93 I F. 2d 102, I 05 (D.C. Cir. I 99 I ). See Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear
Power Station, Unit l), LBP-91-1, 33 NRC 15,28-29 (1991); Long Island Lighting Co.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit l), LBP-91-7, 33 NRC 179, 192, 194-95 (1991).
14 Amendment Request at 2.
15 Amendment Request at l.
16 See Id.
-7-
and volume of material to be processed, the nature and volume of tailings to be placed in IUSA's
lined tailings cell, and the amount of yellowcake to be produced, all are within limits established
by IUSA's existing license.tT As discussed above, the truck traffrc associated with transporting
the HMI materials is expected to average approximately ten trucks per week.ls Thus, the
requested amendment specifically allowing the receipt and processing of the HMI material, will
not, as a practical matter, cause any change in the White Mesa Mill's operations currently
permifted by its existing license. Petitioner cannot demonstrate that the requested amendment
may cause any redressable injury. Consequently, Petitioner cannot establish standing and is not
entitled to a hearing.
17,See Amendment Request at6,9.
l8 Th. 1979 Final Environmental Statement prepared in support of the Mill's original license application
stated that IUSA expected, on average, approximately 85 trucks per day to be associated with
Mill operations. Truck traffic to the Mill, for all Mill activities during the hauling of the HMI
materials, is expected to average fewer than 30 trucks per day.
-8-
Iv. CONCLUSION
Petitioner has failed to raise any issue gernane to or articulate any injury-in-fact
occasioned by the license amendment here at issue. Accordingly, and for all of the reasons set
forth above,IUSA respectfully submits that Petitioner, Ms. Sarah M. Fields,lacks standing to
participate in a hearing on the subject license amendment and her Request for Hearing should be
denied.
Respectfully submitted this 24h day of August,2000.
Anthony J. Thompson
Frederick S. Phillips
David C. Lashway
2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037
(202) 663-8ooo
COUNSEL TO INTERNATIONAL (USA)
URANIUM CORPORATION
SHAW PITTMANZb
-9-
TJNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL
IN THE MATTER OF:
INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA)
CORPORATION
(Source Material License Amendment)
Docket No. 40-8681
ASLBP No.
August 24,2000
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I caused true and complete copies of the foregoing
INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION'S OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST
FOR HEARING OF SARAH M. FIELDS in the above-captioned matter to be served, first-class,
postage prepaid mail on this 24th day of August, 2000 to:
The Honorable G. Paul Bollwerk, III
Chief Judge
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Two White Flint North
11545 Rockville Pike
Mail Stop T-3 F23
Rockville, MD 20852
Office of the Secretary
Attn: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff
One White Flint North
I1555 Rockville Pike
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Rockville, Maryland 20852
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of the General Counsel
I1555 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
One White FlintNorth
I1555 Rockville Pike
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Rockville, Maryland 20852
AU0-l 7-00 14t24 F rom: I NTER['|AI | ONAL URAll| I Util 3033894r 2E
FA}{NO;
PHONENO:
(801) s33.40e7To: tffilliann $inolair, Diroctor
UDEQ Divirion ofRodiuion Control
FRoM: D*vid C. FrYdenlund DATE: Auguot 17,2000
Internationel Uranium Corporation PAGE I OF: 6
IF ALLPAAES AREHOTRECEI\IED,PLEA,SE CALL: ShETON CNTTOII
PHoIIE No: [phone]
(801) s35-42ss
If.1TEB;'TATIaAL
In6gp6rdtrE Plsza" Suita 950 , 1050 Bcventeeilth $troct , Dtflver, CO 80265 , 303 628 ?798 (moin) , 303 389 4125 (fov)
FACSIMN,E TAANSMITTAL
T-Sl fi P.0l /06 Job-Z1 I
As discuss€d.
)nU
.'o v
' '*f
\,,$ fl' "
Y T ,\_^
ffi FN( mesoogea ars sffietirn€s received by pcruorrs othe,r thsn to he pcrrsort lo w}sm t}rey sc ad&esEEd ffs a
of equipment failure or humsn Enor. Thir Communication is intended solely for the addressee strown rbove. Plesse notiS our ofrice immei
at finy "[the iolcphonc or F*t urrbare shown rbove if you ano not tho sddteel€e or someone reqpoilcible for delivdri$g it to ths addre$g]$. Weat qn! "[the iolcphcnc or F*t urrbare shown rbove if you ano not tho sddteel€e or someone reqpoilcible for delivdri$g it to ths address]$. We
dl rights urd privileges ffi to this communication rrnd prohibit any dissenrination, dktribution or copying by or to nnyonc otlter thun ttre oddr
Our offlce wili anrnce for it"t rcturn by tlre United States Postal Scrvice or W eommer.cial cinier to us Et no cost to Volt, ,,
AU0-li-00 l1;24 From;INTERl'lATIOltIAL URANIUlr{3033t94r a0 T-510 P.08/08 Job-Z11
(B EilUE
t 4 2000AUGAugust 9, ?00f1
hiecretary
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D.C. 20555{00i
Attontiou; Rulemakhg and AdjudicEtione Staff
HEARINO REQUEST
Docket No. 40-868
In Rcsponsc to a Fcdoral RcBistcr Notice of July 17, 2000, vol, 64, No. I l, pages 44078-
44479.
Pursuant l0 C.F.R. Part 2, Subput L, "lnformal Hearing Proccdwes for Adjudications in
Materials and Operator Licensing Proceedings", I would hereby requ€st a hearing in
respotrtsc to 'Notice of Request from lntemational Uranium (*ruSA*) Coqporation to
Amend Sotrrce Msterigl License SUA-I358 to Reseive and Process Alternate Feod
Mutcriulu, NuLirx of Oppurtrurity for Hearing", publishctl fur tJrc Futte'al Rrgirter,og July
17, 2000 (65 Fed. Reg.4407E, 4{078-44079).
The Nuclem Regulatory Commission ('TI-RC") recsived an application dnted July 5,
2000, thom IUSA, requesting an amendment to their liceuse. The amendnjsnt spplication
("Application") requested that the NRC aliow IUSA's White Mesa Uranium Mill near
Blandlng {.}tahn to rocslvp and pnocess up 2000 cubic yards of altcrnats focd marcrlal
from the Heritage Minerals [nc. ["HMI") site ]ocated in Lakehurst, New Jersey.
AU0-17-00 l1'25 From:INTERl.lATI URAN I UM 30338S41 e0 T-51 0 P.03/00 Jcb-21 1
The Heritage Minerals site is heing decomrnissioned under NRC Soruce Mqterials
Liceuse No. SMB-I541, Duuket No. 40-E980.
In acoordance with t0 C.F.R. 2.1205(o), tho roquestor witl address the followingr
J[g interest of the requestor in thg.p.roceedins.
Response:
This reguestor lives in fuIoab, Utah" 'lhe Application proposes to transport the HMI
mnterinl along Utah State Highway l9l frorn north of Moab, right through downtown
Moab, where Highway l9l becomcs Main Steet, and beyond Moab south on Highway
191 tlnough Monticello and Blanding, UtEh, to the White Mesa Mill. This requestor
lives one bloek west of Main Strtet (downgradient) and works one block east of Main
Stroet. This rcqucntor usually walks or ridcr a biuyulc, und surnetimes drives, on and
flcross Main Street svery day (of ncccssity). Thcrc is a high probability that this
requs$tor u'ould be affected by the transport ofthe material ttrat is propos€d to be
transpofied to, and reseived and processed at, the White Mesa Mill.
Hnw the interegts may be e,ffected hy the rezults of the proqegdirrc- ircluding tha reasonc
wlty-*E:cqusstor should bF permiued a hear{ng. with pfiticElar reference to thellaclotg
set ouj is,2.1205(g) of his secjiqJt
OIIALo
b
AU0-17-00 l4;25 From;lNTERl,lATl URAN I UM 3033094r e0 T-510 P.04/00 Job-2'11
3
Renponse:
(l) Thc naftrc of thc rcquestor's right underthe Act to be mads apffi to thc
proceeding: This requestor has a right to reside and sojourn on 0r near the
transportation corridor withiu Moab, described sbove. This requestor has the
right not to be unnecessflrily affected by rhe transporr of the I{MI material that is
proposed to be transported to and received and processed at the U4rite Mesa Mill.
(2) The nsfire qnd oxtent of ttrre requeetor's property, financi*ln or other interest in
the prcceoding: My livelihood requires rhat I reside near and interacr with the
proposed transportation conidor through Moab, Utah, rc described sbove. There
is no way for rne [o avoid this sinution.
(3) The possible effect of any order that may be sntercd in ttre proceeding uponthe
reguesmr's interest: fury possible adverse effects to this requestor by the
transportation of thc I{MI rnatcrials thrcugh }r{oab could bc mitigatcd as a rosult
of an order which might be issued in the contextr of a pro+eeding, pursuant the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Bs amended.
the nrnceerline,
Rcsponse:
A. l(sgue$or is conssrned that tUsA is nor authorized by ure Aromic Energy Act of
1954, as emended, to receive, process, or diepose of ttre HMI materials.
Ol\lALo
AU6-i:-00 14;20 Frsm;lNTERi'IATlONAL URANIU}rlo 30318911 e0 T-510 P.05/0E Job-Z14
The July 5, 2000, Application did not adequately consider the transportation
oorridor ttrough Moab, Utah.
The HRI materiels derive from the remediation of one of many NRC licensed
SDMP facilities., To the best of my knowledge, there has been no NRC
progrAmmatic Envlronmental Assessment with rospcct thc remcdiation of such
facilities. The NRC decision-makers involved in reviewing ttre July 5 Application
are required hy law to have aceess to such Bn assessment. Applic.nhle law rloe*
not permit such an lncrcmental isolated review of a prugranrnatir:ally irupactcd
Ilcensing aotion,
The circumstances estsblishins lhatjhglgquest for a hearing is tiqqlJ iI accordance
uilh2.1205(.c).
Rcsponsc:
'lhis requestor is responding to a Eede_ral-B.egiEt€r Notice dated July 17, 2000 (65 F6d.
Reg, 44078), noticing the opportunity for a hearing. The nodce allows tltltty (30) days in
which to request a hearing. Requeutor ie submitting this hearing reguest on August 9,
2000. This is well within the tirne period aliowed.
This rcqucstor rcscrvis the right to supploment this pctition upon thc roceipt of qdditional
information, such as the July 5 Application.
C.
AU0-17-00 14;2t From;lNTERI{ATI0NAL URANTUM 9033891120 T-510 P.00/00 Job-Zl1
Would respectrully request that any NRC licensing acrion ,esponsive to the July 5
Appliual.iou bu tluluyed pending tlre rcsolutioil of tho issues brought fonuard ebove.
Reguestor is appeering FrCI se.t- I/-l
SarahM, Fields
P.O. Box 143
Mo*b, Utsh 84532
cc: Executive Direstor of Operatlons, NRC
lnternational Uranium Corporation y'
h@:i/f'rwebgate.access.gpo.govlcg...2000_register&docid:00- 1803 I -filed
IFederal Register: JuIy
INotices ]
IPage 44018-44019)
o
7f,2000 (Volume 65, Number 137) l
Erom the Federal Register On.Iine via GPO Access Iwais.access.gpo.gov]
IDOC]D:fr711y0O-961
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
I Docket No. 4 0-8 68 1 ]
Internationa.I Uranium (USA) Corporation
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commissj-on.
ACTION: Notice of Receipt of Request from International- Uran.ium (IUSA)
Corporatlon to Amend Source Material License SUA-1358 to Recej-ve and
Process Alternate Eeed Materials Notice of Opportunity for Hearing.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nucfear Regulatory
Commission has received, by J-etter dated July 5, 2000, a request fromInternational- Uranj-um (IUSA) Corporation to amend lts NRC SourceMaterj-a1 License SUA-1358, to a1]ow its White Mesa Uranium Mill rrearBlanding, Utah, to receive and pr.ocess up to 2000 cubic yards ofalternate feed material from the Heritage Minerals Site located inLakehurst, New Jersey. The Heritage site 1s in decommissioning i:nder
NRC Source Materiafs License No. SMB-1541. The Fina-I Status Survey PJ-an("Decommissionirrg Plan" ) incl-udes the removal of a monazite sand pilefor shipment off-site. IUSA proposes to process the material for it'suranium content and dispose of the tailings j-n their tailings cells.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Wilfiam von 'Iill-, EueI CycleLicensing Branch, Di-vj-sion of EueI CycIe Safety and Safeguarcis, Officeof Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nucl-ear Regulatory
Commission, Marl Stop T7-J8, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone (301) 4L5-6251. 2
SUPPLEMENTARY INEORMATION: By its submittal dated July 5, 2000, IUSArequested that the NRC amend Material-s License SUA-1358 to aflow thereceipt and processing of material other than natural uranium ore(i.e., afternate feed materj-al-) at its White Mesa uranium miII locateclnear B-Ianding, Utah, These materials would be used as an "alternate
feed material" (i.e., matter that is processed in the mill to removethe uranium but which is different from natural uranium ores, thenorma.I feed material) .
IUSA proposes to receive and process, for it's uranium content,monazite sands that are being stored at the Heritage Mlnerafs, Inc.(HMI) site in Lakehurst, New Jersey. Thrs site is regulated by the NRCunder Source Material Llcense SMB-1541 and is in decommj-ssioning. This
mater-i-al consists of monazite sands which were processed for heavyminerals (prj-marily titanium mineral ifm.enite) by mechanical methodswith no chemical leaching or extraction. IUSA estimates the amount ofmaterlal for this amendment request to be up to 2000 yds\3\. HMI hasestimated that the material has a uranium content of approximately 0.05wei-ght percent, or greater. IUSA has determined that the mater:ial- doesnot contain listed hazardous waste as defined in the Resource Recoveryand Conservation Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 6901-6991. IUSAproposes to process the material- in a simifar manner to normalprocessing of conventj-onal ore, either alone or in combination withother approved alternate feed materials.
l of 3 711712000 4:41 PM
http://fiwebgate.access.gpo.govlcg...2000_register&docid:00- 18031-tlledo
IUSA has proposed that It will be a condition of the license thatthe mi]l shall not accept any of the Heritage material- at the siteunless and until the mill's Safety and Environmenta-l- Review Panel
(SERP) has determined that the mi11 has suffi-cient licensed tailingscapacity. The tarlings capacity must be sufficient to permanentlystore:(1) Af1 11e. (2) byproduct material, as deflned under the AtomicEnergy act, that would resuft from the processing of all of themateriaf;(2) AII other ores and alternate feed materials on site; and(3) AlI other materiafs required to be disposed of in the mill'stailings impoundments pursuant to the mil-I's reclamatlon plan.
The materlaf will be shipped by rail and truck ln intermodalcontainers. The covered containers wi-11- be foaded onto railcars andtransported cross-country to a transfer point where the intermodafconta.iners will then be foaded onto trucks for the final 1eg of thetrip to the mill. The transfer pornt is expected to be either near
Grand Junction, Colorado; Cisco, Utah; Green River, Utah; or EastCarbon, Utah. The materiaf wiff be shipped in excluslve containers as"1ow specifi-c activity" (LSA) Hazard Class 7 Hazardous Materiaf as
defj-ned by Department of Transportation regul-atj-ons.This application will- be reviewed using NRC formal guidance,"Fina1 Position and Guidance on t-he Use of Uranium Mil-l- Eeed MateriafOther Than Natural Ores' and the guidance contained in the Nuclear
ReguJ-atory Commission's Memorandum and Order, International Uranium(IUSA) Corp., CLI-00-01, (February 10, 2000) . The NRC has approvedsimifar amendment requests in the past for separate afternate feedmaterial under this Iicense.
The amendment application is avallable for publrc inspection andcopying at the NRC Publj-c Document
[ | Page 4401 9) )
Room, ln the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street NW., Washington DC 20555.
Not-ice of Opportunity for Hearj-ng
The NRC hereby provides not-ice of an opportunj-ty for a hearlng onthe license amendment under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart L,"Informal Hearing Procedures for Adjudications i-n Materlals andOperator Llcensing Proceedings." Pursuant to Sec. 2.L205(a), dnyperson whose lnterest may be affected by this proceeding may file arequest for a hearing. In accordance with Sec.2.7205(d), a request for
hearing must be filed withln 30 days of the publication of this notj-ce
in the l"ederal Register. The request for a hearing must be filed with
the Offlce of the Secretary, either:(1) By delivery to the Docketing and Service Branch of the Officeof the Secretary at One Whlte Flrnt North, 11555 Rockvllle Pike,Rockvil]e, MD 20852; or(2) By mar!- or telegram addressed to the Secretary, U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attentlon: Docketing andService Branch.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.1205(f), each request for a hearingmust also be served, by deJ-iverlng lt personally or by mai1, to:(1) The applicant, fnternational Uranj-um (USA) Corporation,
Independence Plaza, Sulte 950, 1050 Seventeenth Street, Denver,
Coloracl.o 80265; Attention: Michelle Rehrnann; anC(2) The NRC staff, by delivery to t-he Executlve Dlrector for
Operations, One White FIint North, 11555 Rockvilfe Pike, Rockvllle, MD24852, cr by maif addressed to the Execur-ive Director for Operatj-ons,U.S. Nucl-ear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
In addition to meeting other applicable requirements of 10 CER Part2 of the NRCrs regulations, a request for a hearj-ng filed by a person
other than an applicant must describe in detarl:
2of3 711712000 4:41 PM
O
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.govlcg...2000_register&docid:00- 18031-filed
(1) The lnterest of the requestor in the proceeding;(2) How that interest may be affected by the resul-ts of theproceedinq, including the reasons why the requestor shoul-d be permitteda hearing, with particular reference to the factors set out inSec. 2.).205(h);(3) The requestor's areas of concern about the licensing activitythat is the subject matter of the proceeding,' and(4) The circumstances estabfishing that the request for a hearingls timely in accordance with Sec. 2.1205(d).
The reguest must also set forth the specifi-c aspect or aspects ofthe subject matter of the proceeding as to which petj-tioner wishes a
hearing.In addition, members of the public may provide comments on thesubject application within 30 days of the publication of this notice inthe Federal Register. The comments may be provided to David L. Meyer,Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch, Division of AdministrationServices, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear ReguJ-atory Commission,Washington DC 20555.
Dated at Rockvil-le, Maryland, this 11 day of July 2000.
For the U.S. Nucl-ear ReguJ-atory Commission.
Ph11ip Ting,Chief, Euel Cycle Licensing Branch, Division of EueI Cycle Safety andSafeguards, Office of NucJ-ear Material Safety and Safeguards.
IFR Doc. 00-18031 Filed 1-74-00; 8:45 am]
BlLLING CODE 7590-01-P
3 of 3 711712000 4:41 PM
INrnnNnrroNnr,f
UneNruu,(use)
ConponATIoN
trrtlepentlence lrlaza, Suite 950 . 1050 Seventeenth Street . Denver, CO 80265 ' 303 628 7798 (rnain) ' 303 389 t25 (fax)
July 5,2000
VIA OYERNIGHT MAIL
Mr. Phillip Ting, Branch Chief
Fuel Cycle and Safety and Safeguards Branch
Division of Fuel Cycle Licensing i
OfIice ofNuclear Material Safety and Safeguards i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
2 White Flint Norttr, Mail Stop T-7J9 ',
I1545 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852
Re: Amendment Request to Process an Alternate Feed Material
at White Mesa Uranium Mill
Source Material License No. SUA-1358
from Heritage Minerals, Inc.
DearMr. Ting:
International Uranium (USA) Corporation ("IUSA") hereby submits the enclosed request to
amend Source Material License No. SUA-1358 to authorize receipt and processing of a uranium-
bearing monazite sand material resulting from the processing of natural sands for the recovery of
the heavy mineral, ilmenite. For ease of reference, this material is referred to herein as the
"Uranium Material". The Uranium Material is currently stored at the Heritage Minerals, Inc.
("HMI") site in Lakehurst, New Jersey (the "Lakehurst facility"). The Uranium Material,
referred to by HMI as "monazite sand" is currently regulated as Source Material under Source
Material License No. SMB l54l issued by the U.S. NRC.
From 1973 to 1982 ASARCO, Inc. ("ASARCO") dredged and processed natural sands for
recovery of heavy minerals, primarily the titanium mineral ilmenite, at the Lakehurst facility.
The process utilized gravimetric, magnetic, electrostatic, and heating steps, with no chemical
leaching or extraction. The primary byproduct was a lighter tailings fraction stored on site.
ASARCO ceased operations in 1982. HMI purchased the property in 1986 and resumed
operations until 1990, when all production stopped. During HMI'S operation, the facility
reprocessed the lighter tailings fraction remaining from ASARCO's operation for further
recovery of heavy minerals, and produced an additional product, stored on site as "monazite
sand". This monazite sand was licensed by NRC as source material in December of 1990. HMI
has prepared a Final Status Survey Plan ("Decommissioning Plan") for termination of the site's
NRC license. The Plan includes removal of the monazite sand pile and shipment for oFsite
management. This amendment request seeks authorization to process the monazite sand,
S :\MRR\Ileritage\Ileritagelr. doc
Mr. Phillip Ting
July 5, 2000
Page 2 of5
referred to herein as the Uranium Material, at IUSA's White Mesa Mill ("the Mill") as an
alternate feed/ore.
Based on information available, HMI estimates that the total volume of the Uranium Material is
expected to be approximately 1,000 cubic yards (*CY'). According to HMI personnel, this
preliminary estimate could increase by as much as 20 percent during removal and shipment.
However, due to the relatively small quantity of this material, this license amendment request is
for up to 2,000 CY, to ensure that all of the Uranium Material is covered by this amendment.
HMI estimates that the Uranium Material has a uranium content of approximately 0.05 percent
by weight (0.06 percent UrOe), or greater, for the entire volume of Uranium Material.
The processing of the Uranium Material will not increase the Mill's production to exceed the
License Condition No. l0.l limit of 4,380 tons of UrOa per calendar year. Because production
will remain within the limits assessed in the original Environmental Assessment, the process will
be essentially unchanged, and the Uranium Material is similar physically and in content to the
Mill's existing tailings, this amendment will result in no significant environmental impacts
beyond those originally evaluated.
The disposal of the lle.(2) byproduct material resulting from processing the Uranium Material
will not change the characteristics of the Mill tailings from the characteristics associated with
normal milling operations.
It will be a condition of the license amendment that the Mill shall not accept any Uranium
Material at the site unless and until the Mill's Safety and Environmental Review Panel ("SEIU"';
has determined that the Mill has suffrcient licensed tailings capacity. The tailings capacity must
be suflicient to permanently store:
(a).
(b)
(c).
all lle.(2) byproduct material that would result from the processing of all the Uranium
Material;
all other ores and alternate feed materials on site; and
all other materials required to be disposed of in the Mill's tailings impoundments
pursuant to the Mill's reclamation plan.
1.0
Complete details are provided in the attached Request to Amend, which includes the following
sections:
INTRODUCTION
Material Composition and Volumel.l Historical Summary of Sources1.2 Radiochemical Datal.3 Hazardous Constituent Data and Reviews
1.4 RegulatoryConsiderations
S : \MRR\[I eritage\H eritageltr. doc
Mr. Phillip Ting
July 5, 2000
Page 3 of5
2.0 TransportationConsiderations
3.0 Process
4.0 Safety Measures4.1 Control of Airborne Contamination4.2 Radiation Safety4.3 Vehicle Scan
5.0 Other Information5.1 Added Advantage ofRecycling
CERTIFICATION
Attachment I HMI Site Location Maps, Volume Estimates, and Process History
Attachment 2 Uranium Content Estimates, Material Description, and Analytical Data for
Uranium Material
Attachment 3 ruSA/UDEQ Protocol for Determining Whether Alternate Feed Materials
are RCRA Listed Hazardous Wastes
Attachment 4 HMI Aflidavit Confirming No RCRA Listed Hazardous Waste in
Uranium Material
Attachment 5 Radioactive Material Profile Record
Attachment 6 Memorandum from Independent Consultant Regarding No RCRA Listed
Hazardous Waste in Uranium Material
Attachment 7 White Mesa Mill Equipment Release/Radiological Survey Procedure
To ensure that all pertinent information is included in this and anticipated supplemental
submittals, the following guidelines were used in preparing this Request to Amend:
o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") Final Position and Guidonce on the Use o/
Uranium Mill Feed Material Other Than Natural Ores (Federal Register Volume 60, No.
184, September 22, 1995).
. Energy Fuels Nuclear ("EFN') request to the NRC for the amendment to process uranium-
bearing potassium diuranate (KzUzOz) in a solution of potassium hydroxide/potassium
fluoride in water ("KOH Amendment").
S :\MRR\II eritage\ll eritagellr. doc
Mr. PhillipTing
July 5, 2000
Page 4 of5
o NRC and State of Utah comments and requests for information relative to the KOH
Amendment.
o EFN request to NRC for the Mone-Poulenc alternate feed amendment.
o NRC and State of Utah comments and requests for information relative to the EFN request
for the Rhone-Poulenc alternate feed amendment.
o EFN request to the NRC for the amendment to process uranium-bearing material owned by
the Cabot Corporation.
o EFN request to the NRC for the amendment to process uranium-bearing material owned by
the U.S. Department of Energy.
o IUSA request to the NRC for the amendment to process uranium-bearing material from U.S.
Army Corps ofEngineers Ashland 2 Site.
o NRC and State of Utah comments and requests for information relative to the ruSA request
for the Ashland 2 Site alternate feed amendment, and procedures for determining whether or
not the materials contain listed hazardous wastes.
o IUSA request to the NRC for the amendment to process uranium-bearing material owned by
Cameco Corporation.
o IUSA request to the NRC for license amendment to process uranium-bearing material from
US Army Corps ofEngineers Ashland I Site.
o IUSA request to the NRC for license amendment to process uranium-bearing material from
US Army Corps ofEngineers St. Louis Site.
. ruSA request to the NRC for license amendment to process uranium-bearing material from
US Army Corps ofEngineers Linde Site.
o IUSA request to the NRC for license amendment to process uranium-bearing material owned
by W.R. Grace Corporation.
o NRC and UDEQ comments and requests for information relative to the ruSA request for the
W.R. Grace alternate feed amendment and dust control for the W.R. Grace Uranium
Material.
o Protocol for Determining Whether Alternate Feed Materials Are Listed Hazardous Wastes,
developed by IUSA with the concurrence of Utah DEQ, November 1999.
S :WIRR\I{ eritage\}l eritageltr. doc
Mr. PhillipTing
July 5, 2000
Page 5 of5
o NRC Initial Decision, February 9, 1999, in the Matter of IUSA Receipt of Material from
Tonawandq New York.
o NRC Memorandum and Order, February 14, 2000, in the Matter of IUSA Receipt of Material
from Tonawanda, New York, Affrrming the Presiding Oflicer's Initial Decision to Uphold
the Ashland 2 License Amendment.
We believe that use of these guidance materials, supported by our discussions with the NRC
concerning these amendment requests, has allowed us to prepare a complete, concise submittal.
Therefore, ruSA requests that the NRC please review the enclosed information, and then attempt
to reply to this request within 30 days of submittal. I can be reached at [phone].
Sincerely,
2.LJJ4*fu
Michelle R. Rehmann
Environmental Manager
MRR
Attachments
cc: Ron E. Berg
William N. Deal
David C. Frydenlund
Ron F. Hochstein
John F. Lord
Anthony I. Thompson
Bill von Tilm{RC
William J. SinclairAJDEQ
Don Verbica/tIDEQ
S :\lvlRRWeritage\lleritageltr. doc
Request to Amend
Source Material License No. SUA-I358
White Mesa Mill
Docket No. 40-8681
July 5,2000
Prepared by:
International Uranium (USA) Corporation
1050 lTth Street, Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
Contact: Michelle R. Rehmann, Environmental Manager
Phone: [phone]
Submitted to:
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
2 White Flint North, Mail Stop T-7J9
11545 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852
S :\M RR\Heritage\HeritageAR.doc
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Material Composition and Volume
5.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
CERTIFICATION
Attachment I
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
Attachment 7
1.1 Historical Summary of Sources
1.2 Radiochemical Data
1.3 Hazardous Constituent Data and Reviews
1.4 RegulatoryConsiderations
Transportation Considerations
Process
Safety Measures4.1 Control of Airborne Contamination
4.2 Radiation Safety
4.3 Vehicle Scan
Other Information
5.1 Added Advantage of Recycling
HMI Site Location Maps, Volume Estimates, and Process History
Uranium Content Estimates, Material Description, and Analytical Data for
Uranium Material
IUSAruDEQ Protocol for Determining Whether Alternate Feed Materials
are RCRA Listed Hazardous Wastes
HMI Affidavit Confirming No RCRA Listed Hazardous Waste in
Uranium Material
Radioactive Material Profile Record
Memorandum from Independent Consultant Regarding No RCRA Listed
Hazardous Waste in Uranium Material
White Mesa Mill Equipment ReleaselRadiological Survey Procedure
S :\M RR\Heritage\HeritageAR.doc
Amendment Request
HMI
License SUA-1358
July 5,2000
Page I
INTRODUCTION
International Uranium (USA) Corporation ("IUSA") operates the NRC-licensed White Mesa
Uranium Mill (the "Mill") located approximately six miles south of Blanding, Utah. The Mill
processes natural (native, raw) uranium ores and feed materials other than natural ores. These
alternate feed materials are generally processing products from other extraction procedures,
which IUSA processes as "ore" at the Mill primarily for the source material content. All waste
associated with this processing is, therefore, 1le.(2) byproduct material; or, as stated in the
alternate feed analysis noticed in Federal Register Volume 57, No. 93:
"The fact that the term 'any ore' rather than 'unrefined and unprocessed ore' is
used in the definition of lle.(2) byproduct material implies that a broader range of
feed materials could be processed in a mill, with the wastes still being considered
as 1le.(2) byproduct material".
This application requests an amendment to NRC Source Material License No. SUA-I358 to
allow IUSA to process a specific alternate feed, and to dispose of the associated 1le.(2)
byproduct material in accordance with the Mill operating procedures.
1.0 MATERIAL COMPOSITION AND VOLUME
IUSA is requesting an amendment to Source Material License No. SUA-1358 to authorize
receipt and processing of certain uranium-containing materials resulting from the processing of
natural sands for the extraction of heavy minerals, primarily the titanium-bearing mineral,
ilmenite. For ease of reference, the monazite sand resulting from this process, and described
further below in Section 1.1, is referred to herein as the "Uranium Material". The Uranium
Material is located at Heritage Mineral Corporation's ("HMI's") facility in Lakehurst, New
Jersey (the "Lakehurst facility").
The Uranium Material will be transported by HMI or its transportation contractor from the
Lakehurst facility to the Mill. The Uranium Material is currently stored in a tailings pile at this
facility. The Site Location Map in Attachment I shows the specific location of HMI's Lakehurst
facility. The Uranium Material is currently regulated as Source Material by the U.S. NRC.
l.l Historical Summary of Sources
From 1973 to 1982, ASARCO, Inc. ("ASARCO") dredged and processed natural sands for
recovery of heavy minerals, primarily the titanium mineral ilmenite, at the Lakehurst facility.
The process utilized gravimetric, magnetic, electrostatic, and heating steps, with no chemical
separation involved in the extraction or concentration processes. The sands and heavy minerals
were pumped to a wet mill, where the heavy minerals were separated from the slurry and
stockpiled for dewatering. The primary byproduct from this separation was a lighter tailings
fraction, which was stored on site. The heavy mineral concentrate was heated in a dry mill and
S :\MRR\Heritage\HeritageAR.doc
screened to remove coarse material. Titanium oxide bearing minerals,
conductivity, were electrically separated from other heavy minerals.
further refined magnetically to produce the ilmenite product.
Amendment Requ€st
r-i."ns. sue-ir#J
July 5,2000
Page2
having a relatively high
The titanium oxide was
ASARCO ceased operations in 1982. From 1982 through 1986, various private companies
evaluated the lighter tailings remaining on site for potential recovery of additional heavy
minerals, resulting in HMI's purchase of the property in 1986. Mineral Recovery, Inc. ("MRI")
leased the property from HMI from 1986 to 1987 and performed tests for recovery of zircon, and
additional recovery of titanium minerals. HMI resumed operation of the ilmenite recovery
process (similar to ASARCO's process utilizing only physical extraction processes with no
chemical leaching or chemical extraction) from 1987 until 1990, when all production stopped.
During HMI's operation, the facility reprocessed the lighter tailings fraction remaining from
ASARCO's operation for further recover of heavy minerals, and produced an additional product,
stored on site, and known as "monazite sand", which subsequently was licensed by NRC as
Source Material in December of 1990. HMI has prepared a Final Status Survey Plan
("Decommissioning Plan") for termination of the site's NRC license. The Plan includes removal
of the monazite sand pile and shipment for off-site management.
HMI has requested that IUSA recycle the monazite sand, and has asked that we submit this
amendment request. HMI estimates that the total volume of Uranium Material is expected to be
approximately 1,000 cubic yards ("CY") or 1,500 tons. According to HMI personnel, this
preliminary estimate could increase by as much as 20 percent during removal and shipment.
However, given the relatively small quantity of Uranium Material, this request for amendment is
for approval of up to 2,000 CY (approximately 3,000 tons) of Uranium Material, to ensure that
all the Uranium Material is covered by this amendment.
Attachment 1 includes the following items describing HMI's process history and NRC
Decommissioning Plan:
1.Process schematic of the HMI operation.
Location map of the HMI Lakehurst facility and the monazite sand pile.
Site history as described in the NRC Environmental Assessment from the Federal
Register (September 1, 1999)
Physically, the Uranium Material is a dry sand, consisting of dense, finely divided solids
containing uranium. Attachment 2 contains HMI's radiological data summaries ("Solids
Analysis") for the Uranium Material.
Radiochemical Data
As noted, process history demonstrates that the Uranium Material results from processing natural
sands by purely physical extraction processes for the recovery of heavy titanium-bearing
minerals, primarily ilmenite.
2.
aJ.
1.2
S :\MRR\Heritage\HeritageAR.doc
1.3
Amendment Request
HMI
License SUA-1358
July 5,2000
Page 3
HMI has estimated that the Uranium Material has a uranium content of approximately 0.05
weight percent (0.06 percent U3Os), or greater.
Hazardous Constituent Data and Reviews
NRC guidance suggests that if a proposed feed material consists of hazardous waste, listed under
Section 261.30-33, Subpart D, of 40 CFR (or comparable RCRA authorized State regulations), it
would be subject to EPA (or State) regulation under RCRA. To avoid the complexities of
NRC/EPA dual regulation, such feed material may not be approved for processing at a licensedmill. If the licensee can show that the proposed feed material does not consist of a listed
hazardous waste, this issue is resolved. NRC guidance further states that feed material exhibiting
only a characteristic of hazardous waste (ignitable, corrosive, reactive, toxic) that is being
recycled, would not be regulated as hazardous waste and could therefore be approved for
extraction of source material. The NRC Alternate Feed Guidance also states that NRC staff may
consult with EPA (or the State) before making a determination on whether the feed material
contains listed hazardous waste.
1.3.1 IUSAAIDEQ Listed Hazardous Waste Protocol
In a February, 1999 decision regarding the Mill, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Presiding Officer suggested there was a general need for more specific protocols for determiningif alternate feed materials contain hazardous components. In a Memorandum and Order of
February 14, 2000, the Commission also concluded that this issue warranted further staff
refinement and standardization.
IUSA has been cognizant of the need for specific 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, and has taken a proactive role in the development of such a protocol. IUSA
has established a "Protocol for Determining Whether Alternate Feed Materials are Listed
Hazardous Wastes" (l.lovember 22, 1999). This Protocol was developed in conjunction with,
and accepted by, the State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality ("UDEQ") (Letter of
December 7, 1999). Copies of the Protocol and UDEQ letter are provided in Attachment 3. The
provisions of the protocol can be summarized as follows:
o 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.
o The protocol states that if the material is known -- by means of chemical data or site history -
- to contain no listed hazardous waste, IUSA and UDEQ will agree that the material is not a
listed hazardous waste.
. If such a direct confirmation is not available, the protocol describes the additional chemical
process and material handling history information that IUSA will collect and evaluate to
S :\M RR\Heritage\HeritageAR.doc
assess whether the chemical contaminants
sources.
in the material resulted from
Amendment Request
HMI
License SUA-1358
July 5,2000
Page 4
listed or non-listed
The protocol also 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.
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
will be rejected.
. The protocol identifies the types of documentation that IUSA will obtain and maintain on
file, to support the assessment for each different decision scenario.
The above components and conditions of the Protocol are summarized in a decision tree
diagram, or logic flow diagram, included in Attachment 3, and hereinafter referred to as the
"Protocol Diagram".
1.3.2 Application of the Listed Hazardous Waste Protocol
This section describes the relevant portions of the Protocol as they were applied to the Uranium
Material.
The IUSAAJDEQ Protocol Diagram states in Decision Step l, that IUSA will perform a source
investigation regarding whether any listed hazardous wastes are located at the site from which
the alternate feed material originates. The explanatory text for Protocol Step 1 (on page 1, Item
1, bullet 1) states that the following is one type of information that would be considered
satisfactory for decision making purposes in the subsequent Protocol Diagram steps:
"'Where the material is or has been generated from a known process under the
control of the generator: (a) an affidavit, certificate, profile record or similar
document from the Generator or Site Manager, to that effect, together with (b) a
Material Safety Data Sheet ("MSDS") for the material, limited profile sampling,
or a material composition determined by the generator/operator based on a
process material balance."
The Protocol Diagram states in Decision Diamond 2, that if a material "is known not to be
contain any listed hazardous waste", then IUSA and UDEQ will consider the material not to
listed hazardous waste. ltem 2 of the Protocol text states that to make the determination
Decision Diamond 2,IUSA may
"Determine whether specific information from the Source Investigation exists
about the generation and management of the material to support a conclusion that
the Material is not (and does not contain) any listed hazardous waste. For
example, if specific information exists that the Material was not generated by a
S :\M RR\Heritage\HeritageAR.doc
or
be
in
Amendment Request
HMI
License SUA-1358
July 5,2000
Page 5
listed source and that the Material has not been mixed with any listed wastes, the
Material would not be a listed hazardous waste."
In the Affidavit included as Attachment 4 (the "Affidavit"), HMI confirms that the Uranium
Material was generated from a known process (purely physical extraction involving no
chemicals) under the control of the generator. HMI, based on site history, and generator's
knowledge of their process, has also certified in the Radioactive Material Profile record
("RMPR") included as Attachment 5, that the Uranium Material contains no RCI{A listed
hazardous wastes.
Historic Process Review
The monazite sand resulted from the physical processing of natural sands. The processing was
limited to gravimetric, magnetic, electrostatic, and heating steps, and involved no chemical
leaching or solvent extraction. Hence the feed material, and the monazite sand fraction, were
never in contact with any organic chemicals at any time during processing. The monazite sand
was stored in a separate tailings pile, placed directly on natural soils on site, that was not used for
disposal or management of any other material or waste. Although the monazite pile was placed
directly on natural soils, no industrial chemicals were used in the process or disposed of on site.
Hence, the monazite sand has had no contact with industrial chemicals via the on-site soils.
All components of the Uranium Material are byproducts from the physical processing of sands
for the recovery of heavy minerals, which is not a RCRA listed process. HMI has further
confirmed that during the site decommissioning activities, the Uranium Material will be
segregated, containerized, and shipped separately from any other wastes or materials that may be
at the site.
Affidavit
IUSA has required, as a condition of contract with HMI, that HMI provide an Affidavit with a
declaration that the Uranium Material is not and does not contain listed hazardous waste. The
Affidavit is provided in Attachment 4.
Because the Uranium Material was generated from a known process under the control of the
generator, the Affidavit meets the requirement for specific Source Investigation information in
the Protocol Diagram Diamond I and Step l. Also, the Affidavit contains specific information
about the generation and management of the Uranium Material to support a conclusion that the
Uranium Material is not and does not contain any RCRA listed waste as required by Protocol
Diagram Diamond 2 and Step 2.
Hence, based on the HMI information and the Protocol, IUSA concurs that the Uranium Material
is not a listed hazardous waste.
Radioactive Material Profi le Record
S :\MRR\Heritage\HeritageAR.doc
Amendment Requesl
HMIt'**:,:yf:ff8
Page 6
In order for IUSA to characterize the Uranium Material, HMI has completed IUSA's RMPR
form, stating that the material is not RCRA listed waste. The certification section of the RMPR
includes the following text:
"l certify that the material described in this profile has been fully characterized and that
hazardous constituents listed in 10 CFR 40 Appendix A Criterion 13 which are applicable
to this material have been indicated on this form. I fuither certify and warrant to IUC that
the material represented on this form is not a hazardous waste as identified by 40 CFR
261 and/or that this material is exempt from RCRA regulation under 40 CFR
261.4(a)(4);'
A copy of the RMPR prepared by HMI for IUSA is provided in Attachment 5.
1.3.3 Review By IUSA Independent Consultant
IUSA has also engaged an independent consultant, experienced in RCRA matters and chemical
processing, who has reviewed the site history, analyical data, correspondence, IUSAruDEQ
Protocol, the Affidavit, the RMPR, and license termination planning documents available from
HMI to date. The consultant has confirmed that the Uranium Material is not and does not
contain RCRA listed hazardous waste. A copy of the consultant's review is provided in
Attachment 6.
1.3.4 Compatibility with IUSA Mill Tailings
The Uranium Material contains metals and other constituents that already are present in the Mill
tailings disposed of in the Cell 3 impoundment. Generally, the composition of the Uranium
Material is very similar to the composition of the materials currently in the Mill's tailings
impoundments, because the Uranium Material resulted from the processing of natural ores in
which no chemical leaching or solvent extraction occurred, and will not have an adverse impact
on the overall Cell 3 tailings composition.
Furthermore, the amount of tailings that would potentially be generated is comparable to the
volume that would be generated from processing an equivalent volume of conventional ore.
HMI, as described above, may be expected to remove and ship up to 2,000 CY (approximately
3,000 tons) of Uranium Material from the Lakehurst facility over a period of one to three months
during the third or fourth quarter of 2000. This volume is well within the maximum annual
throughput rate and tailings generation rate for the Mill of 680,000 tons per year. Additionally,
the design of the existing impoundments has previously been approved by the NRC, and IUSA is
required to conduct regular monitoring of the impoundment leak detection systems and of the
groundwater in the vicinity of the impoundments to detect leakage if it should occur.
It will be a condition of the license amendment that the Mill shall not accept any Uranium
Material at the site unless and until the Mill's Safety and Environmental Review Panel ("SERP";
has determined that the Mill has sufficient licensed tailings capacity to permanently store:
S :\M RR\Heritage\HeritageA R.doc
(a).
(b).
(c).
all 1le.(2) byproduct material that would result from the
Materials,
all other ores and alternate feed materials on site; and
all other materials required to be disposed of in the
pursuant to the Mill's reclamation plan.
Regulatory Considerations
Amendment Request
t-i".rr. sua-l1YJ
July 5,2000
Paee 7
processing of all the Uranium
Mill's tailings impoundments
1.4
Uranium Material Oualifies as "Ore"
According to NRC guidance, for the tailings and wastes from the proposed processing to qualify
as 11e.(2) byproduct material, the feed material must qualifr as "ore". NRC has established the
following definition of ore:
"Ore is a natural or native matter that may be mined and treated for the extraction
of any of its constituents or any other matter from which source material is
extracted in a licensed uranium or thorium mill."
The Uranium Material is a "other matter" which will be processedprimarily for its source
material content in a licensed uranium mill, and therefore qualifies as "ore" under this definition.
Uranium Material Not Subject to RCRA
As described under Section 1.3 above, the Uranium Material to be processed at the Mill will not
be subject to regulation as a listed hazardous waste as defined in the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 6901-6991 and its implementing regulations, or
comparable State laws or regulations governing the regulation of listed hazardous wastes.
Based on the site history, the determinations by HMI, and the analysis of IUSA's independent
expert consultant, IUSA has concluded that Uranium Material from the Lakehurst facility is not
listed hazardous waste subject to RCRA.
Justification of Certification Under Certification Test
In the Licensee Certification and Justification test set out in the NRC's Final Position and
Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Material Other Than Natural Ores, the licensee
must certiff under oath or affirmation that the feed material is to be processed primarily for the
recovery of uranium and for no other primary purpose. IUSA makes this certification below.
Under this Guidance, the licensee must also justifu, with reasonable documentation, the
certification. The justification can be based on financial considerations, the high uranium
content of the feed material, or other grounds.
S :\M RR\Heritage\HeritageAR.doc
Amendment Request
HMI
License SUA-1358
July 5,2000
Page 8
Uranium Content
As stated above, site history and available data indicate that recoverable uranium is present in the
monazite sand pile. HMI has estimated that uranium content is approximately 0.047 weight
percent uranium (0.056 percent UrOs), or greater. This value was derived by HMI from a
weighted average of composite sample data.
The Mill has successfully extracted uranium from ores and alternate feed materials containing
similar levels of uranium.
Fi nanc i al C ons i de r at io ns
In addition to other financial considerations, IUSA will commit contractually to process the
Uranium Material at the Mill for recycling of uranium in consideration of receiving a recycling
fee.
Other Considerations
There are several other grounds to support the certification test, including the fact that IUSA has
a history of successfully extracting uranium from alternate feed materials, and should be
considered to have developed credibility with the NRC, not only for being technically
competent, but also for fulfilling its proposals to recover uranium from alternate feeds.
Conclusion
As a result of the above factors, and based on the Commission's reasoning in the NRC
Memorondum and Order, February 14, 2000, In the Matter of International Uranium (USA)
Corporation (Request for Materials License Amendment), Docket No. 40-8681-MLA-4, it is
reasonable for the NRC staff to conclude that uranium can be recovered from the Uranium
Material and that the processing will indeed occur. As a result, this license amendment satisfies
the Certification Test, and the tailings resulting from the processing of the Uranium Material will
be l le.(2) byproduct material.
TRANSPORTATI ON CONSIDERATIONS
The Uranium Material will be shipped by rail in intermodal containers. The Uranium Material
will be loaded into covered, exclusive-use containers at the Lakehurst facility. The covered
containers will be loaded onto railcars and transported cross-country to the final rail destination
(expected to be either near Grand Junction, Colorado; Cisco, Utah; Green River, Utah; or East
Carbon, Utah), where they will be transferred to trucks for the final leg of the journey to the Mill.
It is expected that four containers will be shipped per rail car. The Uranium Material will be
shipped as Radioactive LSA (low specific activity) Hazard Class 7 Hazardous Material as
defined by DOT regulations. HMI will arrange with a materials handling contractor for the
proper labeling, placarding, manifesting and transport of each shipment of the Uranium Material.
Each shipment will be "exclusive use" (i.e., the only material on each vehicle will be the
2.0
S :\MRR\Heritage\HeritageAR.doc
Amendment Request
HMI
''**i,iYf,li33
Page 9
Uranium Material). HMI may ship a total of approximately 40 to 100 truckloads over the entire
project. Shipments are expected to be completed over a period of approximately one to three
months.
For the following reasons, it is not expected that transportation impacts associated with the
movement of the Uranium Material by train and truck from Lakehurst to the Mill will be
significant:
The material will be shipped as "low specific activity" (LSA) material in exclusive-use
containers (i.e., no other material will be on the vehicle with the Uranium Material). The
containers will be appropriately labeled, placarded, and manifested, and shipments will be
tracked by the shipping company from the Lakehurst facility until they reach the Mill.
On average during 1998,385 trucks per day traveled the stretch of State Road 191 between
Monticello, UT and Blanding, UT (November 3, 1998 White Mesa Mill communication with
the State of Utah Department of Transportation ("UDOT")). The 1998 number of 385 trucks
per day was published by UDOT in August of 1999. The next traffic data update, reflecting
1999 trafftc rates, will be available from UDOT in August or September of 2000.
Based on the 1998 UDOT truck traffic information, an average of 10 additional trucks per
week traveling this route to the Mill represents an increased traffic load of only 1 percent.
Shipments are expected to take place over the course of a limited time period (one to three
months).
. The containers and trucks involved in transporting the material to the Mill site will be
surveyed and decontaminated, as necessary, prior to leaving the Lakehurst facility for the
Mill and again prior to leaving the Mill site for the return trip.
PROCESS
The Uranium Material will be added to the Mill circuit in a manner similar to that used for the
normal processing of conventional ore, either alone or in combination with other approved
alternate feed materials. The Uranium Material will either be dumped into the ore receiving
hopper and fed to the SAG mill, run through an existing trommel before being pumped to Pulp
Storage, or may be fed directly to Pulp Storage. The leaching process will begin in Pulp Storage
with the addition of sulfuric acid.
The solution will be advanced through the remainder of the Mill circuitry with no significant
modifications to either the circuit or recovery process anticipated. Since no significant physical
changes to the Mill circuit will be necessary to process this Material, no significant construction
impacts beyond those previously assessed will be involved.
Yellowcake produced from the processing of this material will not cause the currently-approved
yellowcake production limit of 4,380 tons per year to be exceeded.
3.0
S :\M RR\Heritage\HeritageAR.doc
Amendment Request
HMI
License SUA-1358
July 5,2000
Page l0
4.0 SAFETY MEASURES
Mill employees involved in handling the Uranium Material will be provided with personal
protective equipment, including respiratory protection, as required. Airborne particulate and
breathing zone sampling results will be used to establish health and safety guidelines to be
implemented throughout the processing operations.
The Uranium Material will be delivered to the Mill in intermodal containers via truck and
dumped on the Mill ore pad where it will be temporarily stored pending processing. The
Uranium Material will be introduced into the Mill circuit, and will proceed through the leach
circuit, CCD circuit, and into the ion exchange circuit in normal process fashion as detailed in
Section 3.0 above. Since there are no major process changes to the Mill circuit, and since the
extraction process sequence is very similar to processing conventional uranium solutions, it is
anticipated that no extraordinary safety hazards will be encountered.
Employee exposure potential during initial material handling operations is expected to be no
more significant than what is normally encountered during conventional milling operations.
Employees will be provided with personal protective equipment including full-face respirators, if
required. Airborne particulate samples will be collected and analyzed for gross alpha
concentrations. If uranium airborne concentrations exceed 25 percent of the Derived Air
Concentration ("DAC"), full-face respiratory protection will be implemented during the entire
sequence of material dumping operations. Spills and splashed material that may be encountered
during this initial material processing will be wetted and collected during routine work activity.
Samples of the Uranium Material indicates it is a neutral material. Therefore, it is anticipated
that no unusual PPE apparel will be required other than coveralls and rubber gloves during
material handling activities. Respiratory protection will be implemented as determined.
4.1 Control of Airborne Contamination
IUSA does not anticipate unusual or extraordinary airborne contamination dispersion when
handling and processing the Uranium Material. IUSA also does not anticipate unusual radon gas
accumulation or radon exposure from storing or processing the Uranium Material. The
contamination potential is expected to be comparable to what is normally encountered when
handling or processing conventional uranium ore. The successive extraction process circuitry
including leaching, CCD, ion exchange, and precipitation are all liquid processes, and the
potential for airborne contamination dispersion is minimal. The material will be in slurry form
once it has been introduced into the trommel screen.
The Uranium Material is a dry sand with particle sizes ranging from 20 to 270 mesh. The
efficiency of airborne contamination control measures during the material handling operations
will be assessed while the Uranium Material is in stockpile. 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.
S :\M RR\Heritage\HeritageAR.doc
4.2
Amendment Request
HMI
License SUA-1358
July 5,2000
Page I I
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 locations in the vicinity of material processing activities to ensure adequate
contamination control measures are effective and that the spread of uranium airbome particulates
has been prevented.
Radiation Safety
The radiation safety program which exists at the Mill, pursuant to the conditions and provisions
of NRC License No. SUA-I358, and applicable Regulations of the Code of Federal Regulations,
Title 10, is adequate to ensure the maximum protection of the worker and environment, and is
consistent with the principle of maintaining exposures of radiation to individual workers and to
the general public to levels As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA).
Radiological doses to members of the public in the vicinity of the Mill will not be elevated above
levels previously assessed and approved.
4.3 Vehicle Scan
After the cargo has been offloaded at the Mill site, a radiation survey of the vehicle and
intermodal container will be performed consistent with standard Mill procedures (Attachment 7).
As stated in Section 2.0 above, the shipments of Uranium Material to and from the Mill will be
dedicated, exclusive loads. Radiation surveys and radiation levels consistent with DOT General
Requirements for Shipping and Pockaging, Subpart l-Class 7 (Radioactive) Materials, U.S.
DOT,49 CFR 173, October 1, 1998, will be applied to restricted use vehicles and intermodal
containers. For unrestricted use, radiation levels will be in accordance with applicable values
contained in the NRC Gzidelines for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to
Release for Unrestricted Use or Termination of Licenses for Byproduct, Source, or Special
Nuclear Material, U.S. NRC, May, 1987. If radiation levels indicate values in excess of the
above limits, appropriate decontamination procedures will be implemented.
5.0 OTHER INFORMATION
5.1 Added Advantage of Recycling
HMI has expressed its preference for use of recycling and mineral recovery technologies for the
Uranium Material for three reasons: l) for the environmental benefit of reclaiming valuable
minerals; 2) for the added benefit of reducing radioactive material disposal costs; and 3) for the
added benefit of minimizing or eliminating any long term contingent liability for the waste
materials generated during processing.
HMI has noted that the NRC licensed Mill has the technology necessary to recycle materials for
the extraction of uranium, vanadium, rare earth minerals, and other metals, and to provide for
disposal of the l1e.(2) byproduct material, resulting from processing primarily for the uranium,
S :\M RR\Heritage\HeritageAR.doc
Amendment Request
HMI
License SUA-1358
July 5,2000
Page 12
in the Mill's fully lined existing tailings impoundments. As a result, HMI will contractually
require IUSA to recycle the Uranium Material at the Mill primarily for the recovery of uranium.
S :\M RR\Heritage\HeritageAR.doc
Amendment Request
HMI
License SUA-1358
July 5,2000
Page 13
Certification of International Uranium (USA) Corporation
(the "Licensee'r)
I, David C. Frydenlund, the undersigned, for and on behalf of the Licensee, do hereby
certify as follows:
1. The Licensee is in the process of entering into a contract with HMI (the "Material
Supplier") under which the Licensee will process certain alternate feed material (the "Material")
at the White Mesa Uranium Mill for the recovery of uranium. As demonstrated in the foregoing
amendment application, based on the uranium content, financial considerations, and other
considerations surrounding the Material and the processing transaction, the Licensee hereby
certifies and affirms that the Material is being processed primarily for the recovery of uranium
and for no other primary purpose.
2. The Licensee further certifies and affirms that the Material, as alternate feed to a
licensed uranium mill, is not subject to regulation as a listed hazardous waste as defined in the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 6901-6991 and its
implementing regulations, or comparable State laws or regulations governing the regulation of
listed hazardous wastes. The Licensee is obtaining the Material as an alternate feed, consistent
, for the uranium recovery process being conducted at the White Mesa Mill.
Julv 5- 2000
Date
David C. Frydenlund
Vice President and General Counsel
International Uranium (USA) Corporation
S lM RR\Heritage\HeritageA R.doc
ATTACHMENT T
HMI Site Location Maps, Volume Estimates,
Process History, and Source Material License
A:\HeritageAR.doc
4
3,
$
.t
:r
!l
ErtL i1!:tr;:
iaii:'l
il
ll:r
i lll
)atll iJq,I !,rItrItrl6IElz,?rli
:i:
iEi
tl
7ffi
ijt,
'b'
rrl
'ol
I
ga
lt-
a.aalat
l.o
go
-l.l
a
(,*.2:aaLC
€o
r,r,
C-aCot'u
p t"*
GO:il 9Q/tlr2fAa.l -rraa. Ai
Ssp-l€-39
178i2
l-adE I
Federal Regiscr/V"-1' 6a' N-169 / WednesdaY. SePrember l. 1999/Nouces
and male tt tmmedtately effecrrrc'
lor*untr""a-g the reouesr for a
it.-"* Inv t'e"anng nild would rat<c
;;;;fi.t ,ttuor,tt -of the amendmenr
If the final derermrnauon ts rhat the
amendlnenr requesr mvolves a
srenifica nt hazards conslderaEion' any-n.I."i rura wouid take place before
rhe rs;ianca of anY uuendrnent
A requcsr for o hearing or a P€trtron .
for lea"e lo lnErvent rnust be filed wlfh
J. S".trntY of rhe Cornmrssron' U'S'
Nuclear Regul,arorY CotnmssPn'
Washtngton. DC 20555-0001' Acention'
R;;rnairntt and ed1udicanons Staff' or
mav Ue dehlvered ro rhe Comrnrssion's
e"6ti. Docurnent Room. rhe Gelman
Butldtng, 2l2OL Sueer,lrl\il '
washiniron. DC' bY the above dar A
coov of-rhe pelttlon should alrc be senr
;;i[. om.; of the General Coursel'
U S Nuclear Regutatory Comrnrsston' .w*trr,grrn. PdzoSSs-mol' and to M'
Srcntbri Blanron. Esg" Balch and
Binlham. Poot OfFce Box 306' l7t0
Sirih avenuc Nonh. Birmtngham'
Alabama. afiorney for the llcersee
NonttmelY NrnP of Peunons for
teave to litEtwene' anrended periuons
s.rpplernenral Petiuons and/or reguesur
foi rrearlng will nor be enterolned
aDsent a direrminauon bY the
Commis>ion. rhe presidlng oficer or the
presiding Atorntc Safery and Liensing
iloard rfrur lhe Perinon and/or reguest
shorrld De granred based uPon a . .^
Dalancing of the facors sPecttleo rn lu
cFR 2.7i{(a)(l)(i)-(v) and 2 7l{(d)'
For funher derails wilh resP€cl to this
acrion, see lhe aPPlrcation for
amendmenr dated FeoruarY ??. 1999'
i.roolemented by lenen dated March l9
.r,h']*. 30. 1999' wluclr are avatleble
for oublrc insPecrion at the
Commrssion'i PuUlrc Document Room'
rhe Gelman Burldrng' 2l2O L Suscr'
NW . W-n-grorr, dC. and at Orc local
putrlic documln! room locatld at rhl .
i'lo,-.,sron.Lo"e Memonal Ltorary' 2 L?-Y
L'urdesh,aw Sgeer. Post Officc Bor 1369'
DorhEn. Atabama.
Dacd at Rocrvrllc' Marf rarrt rhts 26or day
of lugrrsr lS)9.
For rlra Nrrclear Rsgubrory Conrrn8sron'
L MatL Padgtnrl
Prt:pcr Marygcr. Prol*r Du*tcrarc lI'
Dti troa of L te rcilng Pmle<t Managemen'
OtDce of Nucle,ar Reacror Rag ulaoon
IFR Doc 99-22756 Fued 8-31-99: E:{5 anrl
gtl.tr!6 CoDE 759o{r't
Sum.aarY and Conclusions
The envuontnenpJ asse>snrent (EA)
revrews the envuonrnenal tmpacts o(.
rhe decomrnisslonint acuon:s ProPos'o
bv Henrage Minerals, IncorPorard
(HMD of rhcir Lakehurt, Ncw Jcr>ey
i;,]irY Based uPon rhe NRC stafi
unauiuot of thi HMI Frnal Srarus
Survev Plan (FSSP). darcd November 3'
r9iZ.ir was derermined rhat rhe
omoosed decomrnisslontnS, can bc
lccimplished ln compliatrce wtrh rhc
NRC oirbhc and occuPauonal dosc
L",iri. etfluent release ltmirs' and
reSfdUal radloasps [tatErial lrmrs. ln
;eiiit"r. tti approval of rhe proposcd
acuon, i.e.. decomrnLssionlng ol tlMl s
lafen"r$, Ncw JerscY facrlirY in
accordance wtrh the cofiunlrmenrr ur
rliCrr**. sMf t:ot and rhc FSSP'tJ"."*^ioronrng plan)' wrU nor-resulr
i., srgrin"anr advlrsc tnPact on rlrc
envroruDCIlL
,.0 Inroducaon
I I Bacl€round
Heiluge Mrnerals' Inc' is the currcnt
holder of NRC radroacdve source
*",.iiutt bcense SMB-15{ I (NRC
ix.r.il-uoe980) for rhe possession of
radloacdve material resulttng from.
t""o"o* at thelr faciliry located in
t-'afcirurst. Nery Jersey. Thc ltcense
authortzes HMI to Possss al any one
rlme a maxrmum of 300 kg of uranium
rn the form of natural uraruulr as
*onuo,. and 15 0OO hg of thonunt ln.
in. fot- of natural rhorium as motraziu'
ito""orrg of bcensed materl3J ts nol
ilrh;tt-e elceP( rrrtdenr ro factllgr
A..otnmrttfondt acltvtues and
TIAUS#'f iBil'?l,i!'.i['#*""
NRC statl'rhal rt inrended to
a..ommGion the Latehurst' New
i;il;u,t,
.
The lrcensee submincd
br.-fi*t Srarus Sun'eY Plan GSSP or
il;;*t"-g Ph;t ro the NRC for
r.-"-r** o" No"eriSer 3' 1997 The
il.;; *as rene-ed on MaY 26' l99E
io arooru. Possesston' PackagrnS'
Lfn"*-lf m$fr"*3'Jq'",
;;-;;A and wasrc ro authorrz€d
[J"i.-n-oletor ro tJre renewirl' a safery
."JGifo" rePort (SER)' whlch
;;;;;; ..ifotmtntt of ttre ProPoscd
:;;;;;h NRC regularions and
i"i"r"-"y S"tdance- was prepsred and
urrlatt4*Ill.lul5P' '
HhAJ'
kE
;r'#Idr;; -i':-iE lornrnenls -Prov roed
"" ia&".i" tnformanon base for ,;;;iit p"enrial env lronrnenla I
irnpacrsTrbm rhe ProPosed actton
2.O Facihty Dexttpaon/Operartttg
l/:srotT
NUCLEAR BEGUT"ATORY
COMMTSSION
[Doctel No.40-o89801
rhe oooorrunttY for a heartng was
oublrciv nortced tn the March 12 i99E
hea.oi Regisrcr Noqce (53 Federsl
Recrsrcr l2I I 4) In resPonse to NRC
r.o'.,.srs. in 1998-99. HM provtded
addxronal rnformanon lo cianfy cerlalo
glann€d remedrauon activrges' The
itRC is constdertng a hcense
amendment which include addtrtonal
HMI cornmrnnenrs dunng tacrltry
<tecornrnissioninS'
l.Z hurPose and Need tbr ProPose<t
AcIron
NRC is constdertng aPProval of rhe
FSSP ro allow Heriragc Mtnerais Inc' to
i*or" radioacdve rnarenal alu rDupbie
ro licenscd o9eratiorut ar the stte' to
levels rlrat pdrmit release of rhe property
for unrestnctcd use and termtnarton ol
radloacrlve sourca marerlalr hcenie
sMB-t541
1.3 Descrrption of Proposed Action
Thc oblecrive of lltr{I ts ro
de.onraminarc and decommlsstoo the
I-akehurst. Nl facillry to Pertrut releast-
for untesricred usc and rermmatJon ot
NRC license SMB-I5{l'
Decomrnissionrtg, w iU lnvolv e
i.m.dtauon of bJrldrng.s and othcr
above-trade st uctules. dr<'ontamtnatiort
of proclss equlProens and sumPs'
exiavauon of sorl conurlnrog monazlle
sands, ard restoratlon of ercavared
areas. Soil und other radtoactively
conBrnrnaled rnarertals will be
ransponed lo erther a ltcensed duposal
facili'ry or re<iPlent aurhonzed ro
recetv€ such maErial.
NRC sraIl reviewed the tnformatton
provided by ttMl in rhe FSSP descrtbttrg
ih. oroosed decommissronln8 aclrorl5
"na]U"'t.rr.r dared March t5' I999
reouesied addkional rnformatton
i"i"toi"e specific areas that needed
.iinft."6"ir. NRC sratf concl'rded that
(FSSP) irnd
?.1 Stre Locale and PhYsrcal
Descrrprion The Henrage M-tnerals'
Inc. sire is locared on Roure 7o tn
r-"Lit"nr' Manch€,€r To"vnshtP
I5..i" C"""r9. New JerseY in the
Rdanrlc Coosrat Plarn lt encomPses€s -
rn iuea of approxrmately 70OO acres of
which IOOG'I2OO acres wcre lrseo lor
;;;g oPetaoons involvrng monazrle
Sap-08-3 9
,*; Rcsisrcr
{7t73
renTurrallon of NRC Source N{arerirl
orher areas,'l.-aT:l nlfHft5;l" :"?H*'ffffi1.T]ff.T**ii','['"'* [#t sta-".'
olanr and Producoon a' -rr -.,:-^o rar,z,n,.o! monazrle oi'd:'it''t/';''ir;;iliiq{:-"-.* "*mJ**til'iyigiiolanr ano Pro<luruvrt -.mir railirgs corrrarnrnj-monazll-e - p-F*t' The drv mtll ntltngs,r.,onazrre o.liru"a rr ,i'r. r.s:l:*l^?: perfor,ed
ffi,:#iJ.LEJ fl;i.;l1;t,* ;,".Xlil:"f;';6'Xt'.'o;';;o-""'n ""'ii""'; ;"h NUREc/cR-s8{e
aires The mor,uz*i p,i.is rocar.o *;;Gd ,,irh warer ""i'ii',n'fr to m,'r"m*lr'itfii'Lt 'lH::':.
;,j**#.f?i;H;T*.T3'F.",
*:'ftH ::*".'##:i"ffi;', Urim:tlr*f,i,o"',i.",
ffi.:if; *:t:ru*T:llfl1b illr"."*'lr;:"# ffif.,Y*" +*:,#,:*Uffif{"rJ'
ffiHfr?#:1il?tffi*;l*:: ;"fir":xu*r,fgi'+ ffis:r:l?'rs:, i,?3,ffi:'.o
;Hirrffii+3l41ffi:ijk' Xl*am,*##*:r* i,!;,49:'ggm':':rrat
i::,ffiiP*ix$li*:::m:16
-"ro isei '='i""'i?;:"1;:'fi."1?1fiff'ti11"*,
con rit of uoderlying iirrnenrs of assumed ProPeny consol' wtthu
rra*rred.ray. srrr sa#p!'iii; "n l:ffi'Hioll;-m;**,*t'"]ff. f:ffi:ffi'*e"H;,"u',ffin' ^'
;.li:;-d*;ila bedrock. The roposraphv ::
sreranverytrar,,.conour.aoi,l,ti.i :i.frffiTffi1itr#fffitl"rf f:roltm;;rffn*::'!"*,ii"-J"r ift.nrra sufrce oepisirs' - :il;;tX't*,.""f Ct itrU"e' or-a't<rca areas itli bc req'rlred bv
iilffi&_i.r1n rrr" arir"ae;t "qla.ent 3;;*- wirh warcr p'-p.a .-,rr. r.IRc J.r residual marerial is removed
ffi;U,l*';;;;;,rd- ;i-;ifi"; ,,,G'rt secir"uJn ung geioniamrnarion is cornplete
il::ix""ss:I -"'*".*'iffi ,#:-H+fiffift : mi:gl*$*m'*f:'
"PEBtiF*"..r
'ow
occur: &om areas uit.l"r, Et*i"t6'^iti"na-ha "t t's"iR'''tttt' rhc NRC vatTfinds
locarcd norrh and *;;ffi;;i;.ioi-, rJiifr.'"^i *..r. t.i,i,}i-iio.ra. .nl#-t.'r-.ion *ttr3,"#.'111. *.
il:r;3ifJJ5#:1it:*gl: I ntm';*'ff"-[*:::x*- ffi8 il*;;; ;' q" issp ars' rrno:
*x'Fiffiffiffi-t#ffi'c;oundwater ai'.nu'e'Iil-'r'*"rns ana. Y1""fffi:f;Hl'l|?f."ilffiil" ;;;;;;nv'onmenal,trnPacrs wllr
fjffijjtr r#1ts:u.,Txri. Hlrs.x:!'fr!ItfJT;lr'I[* l:hffi ;ii""..a *l{i;'lion of r]r
d,rbuch-underlvrng sands rhe Green :;;&il'l$4l *"-'fiJi_" -
"5'"i'H':'^f'oES{[.!Tn' 'u"
Branc-h. Michaets gran.h. -a ;;;dons rn Augux ,?r?or*r",=
", uiri-sluaing, process equrpment used
i$.B,:.ff:.x#H:l',r* *llf"ffil''ilJ'T*hu:H.i- ;ffiiTi""""H:ilil:H:j;lT*
if:*i?,t*:#xlt't';:s:g' Y'oo,rr,"",r,u*, or,"e Faciltrv rffi;ifi1*.'il:ff.Ii:t';:"o "t
"r*'-X'i#ffil;::'#S$"J ..nxir"lE*:lgTt#ll.o'rrot ;Xi*"U';';:ll:',"#,,'"nder
or
:Ht*:J'f ffi""H;lgi"I*#:""mffi'#l'g',fr 'ff [;;;,I,ffi il:Efdt'[ffi
"?IL'u'*'heavy mrnerarr. rr,I i-ol"rum .r,ror"l. ffiilffi;;;ili'"^ F;;b- - ,r'.'rs'i L affecred areas Frnar
,menrre. wasrhcpffi'niu5rc'r :ffi?,i:*'ui:*"$flitffi["** fif]*kXX""J"J[i:::i'"*"'i'
i."or*.a uy "an6rrsghfsrcal - Ealns viirhrn.a.tr u,ruirn;i;; for oarural rhorium' rlre primarv
tip,rrarton tieorodr tlrcrr was no
chemlca! ,.pu-.,J ,nGt".r rr, rir. :ff;;;;; according tJrhcu to""i*' of concern' Pnor ro relea>e
*oii*on ui,a 'o"'"nr'"rion
process*' ;;a; conltnr ono t"pi"o'fii ll'lo') {ffi*ffi-q$Sir-t-{i:'
il.i-,-..r. +,:;.1f"dffi. ", f,f*',"3f]u;le"til:ifii?:'**: :l
were pumpcd * ri-rri-ffi tiiii t,t.L-et }:S:'ffe",';"il- Sr.rveys rn ,urt*. cohomlnatton.and rnarrmum
[#'s[$l?,ffintr ::' iqffi?iffi'tffi"ffi.'*'tr',Y";:,,T,::'*
cm2 w*':
sr;crprled ror a.wa-r'irig. 1t,t".,r'. *:T:##."I$r"fftl}f,jffi['
* i:;.2 Dtv Mttt Dultdtns Equrptnenr
rilH, F*tffii:tffi!ffi* #,tffi**-*'*mi **:##:ii#*!,i,:; ;1';"
ir,.?no'o.* *"r nL'r".1'#l'lrlliuul FSSp. The *m. m.o'of-.,-rlil;;d ,',rru pr5..= r*J.:.:Tl:l'"' wrth wer
rhen screned to rernove coarse;;;:,i,trh;n,oJi-''li"*rtvorrhe io-'-J"on"-rnatronlffil"#ffi Xli*$t'****:,$i['h"ffiH.ffilffid#'H";- 3':H:fi:i""lI,*;'oo,'-ro''ln
area, of rhe DrY Ylll,ll;"IljrioT,:1o"" ::f#:?:i:ffiilf"H 4,0 Evduaion of ProPosd Methods
::trtr5?:i:ffi li#"['ir"";':m:m,':,?il?",,sEu,id:nss
p1;:H [Hf+#iE:=!i;L.^ ;5'ffi5'fi*:;'3;H1,x;' "'
uurti*uic^"n'
$nl:"s:?::BffiHt#':Hs- #$iH!ffiiI#E;; il*ff:;r:fttl':juif;;*ainss
ffi*t*,ru'"rfi;j ;;;"' ffi:r5#rru*'g"* ::H:'fi##J,f,*T'tprtr
32 SurraceandSubsurraceso,s "iH}ffis'lt#lgr#*., iffI;I$&"ffii:x"'ii..",Radionucrrd. s"":.?fffff.Tf,,o ,, !!o,a,r*.,. _ ^^- lffB$;;; u,1ssr p,o..oolrect radntron levels
H:#I'1;,,H",1,*"-lffi5iTt"'!T" 3 s surface warer and Groundwater dfi,H:l*::'*,fy#iJ buildtngs
I*. *u".rot,. ,,'r"te;i;;'iL;,rPtlt' -'*rr",
for radroacnnry of surfacc Uffif* rrnirs wtrh oPcrattnS'
and ar vanorrs outdmi locanons' #H:[T::i[S3?n,"'.ffiff :qpffi,*'Hffi:fl:'lT.% ""oDirecr radiatton levels instde 'parcr simoles coltected from cusunE' ."di&
#,*i;nlts* r# ;ru" - Uig+ry'i:;*m*id; li-lruff,*LTffit:
stnce l99O Direcr gar
*i:+##*#*t6r1$ffiffilffi:*H''ffi*ffi"ffi;Smry*'
l#lg[3lt:ffi:*ffi-'l#ffi;g ,buildln8s w€rc at or nea' baclground-- t
[irj'Ti'" hrehesrg',XAX"' *f;ffi;,$Ii1ffff;;;"* - r:ffi:Ercrnovdortonazttemcasured on sorage
,nside thc se*,rrv ""'lli'itil-aitt l}'.t:,t[ f"::'ffiX iiH;;; i"g
the oilc. ar revers rrp ro 3000 r,n,\ [r,-nr,.non,a.r',rn.i'liillffiL "" fi"my;;HgTE H"::: ilJ':il*
i-Jti u-orrrro of rbsrdr:ai maler-1al concem'*as found t"garding or, *,ripm*t surfaces. Affccted sur\'ey
iunlrceosed) exlsE_from recycleo dEsolullon of radroocuwry tnro unitrmly requue funher
.GInCil rlulq d"p"',I'I:*::-t ;il&;;;-and,urra.e warcr- il;;rfrftiron prior ro perrormrns rht
;;;;;;""""t1& ptoperry locarions' ' ,ora*r* saff rcvtew of the ti-l it.r,,' suwej' Areas that con(3rn
ih.t" ur.ut showeo duecr gamma . ^ffia; ;".'s"":'"ffJ ;"rryir mffi.ffitt'ffi*t*i".'##rl,mi':"*.d;:.150 uFUhr and wrll I
,h. ['ilfi;n' Normal oachground
:1Hr:,t#3:1?'sdlfjlP :"ffir.#"r"uF*i""; - +fitrsmm*#:#.'
IflCi'grxiti:"#"";:.*'ilT:r".H ;l*l*xx,.*"ffi*3 lffiigff#il"'! {':t''*"'
iiiiii"*['r"if"al soil sairples. ar a j r A, char canmr be econorntcallv
deprh of sr.- incnet'ioli ""JiI-*tE1, t't Au
envrrorunenr. represenraci',,e of narrrral HMI reponed rt*l* frolf-sjo a' #im'ml,*X,:nXt"''"f;#xrmtii"r,r'tffiffiiu Xml;*5ro* x.,xi,r* [Umrxf:m,*;;i#i .:
soectral analYsis fo
"'n iz -rnptit. Mean vzlues rEPorGd lor ,ii. ."ay..d foi gross alpha acuvtry radroacrive waste. -;;'G;;d- *'*H# $t f'1& ffiffif5;'lt**:l*: ;"Yfll,i'f;ixl[qF!:il::o''n'for U-238 coDcenr
iF ",1-1?.oniJnmrion'
avciass t:iit. wirh reporrod concenrrarions t'::iiflg:ll'frfU:;:,:"'H.:I
Eo,. or"',:-*:#:f.flt1fr", HJf*!;'i;,'.'*l'SffiI"T - f[ffif,g***#H:_where samPles we
hr' - 'r---r- -B^m ;;;;;-ttlimitsallowedinlo-cFR acr'-Sa,npte
Tnlr'so of soils s*en-from i* zo. APqelidu a, -a are rhereforc "*Hft*:'ffifil l?'i l,'.,,*,*t..v.i&t Biltnss. an unused t"-ttq'e rff":"o;fifi i-o. u"r"* lerrcb drar :T3'l*$1ty.'ii#;i".3 usrnt "ncFHffireit$i]friffis hlH$lj*ffi!:ifir"fl ffi.:*F;toral uranlum and rno-num ll^1::i-- ;;'"";t orovtde conJtdence lhal arr ::::::t;iiJ"r"l abovo gradc to
c abo.re bactground) for unreslncLo, -
LFf trF$;.i*flH$:lH:Hi#'iilr'ir##$}tffi,Hm$ix,''mlrlnnf
marenal quanririe
concenlrarions ol
uP ro 1375 PCi/gt
Sap-08-39 "'ttttr.o'.,t]o
' ,"rO'' uo' *o 'u"*t.""*"'' """**o '""''ot
t" *"'u
ffi "ke,,auv,"
i'nd i:l?:":"" *t economlc porenrral of the
Marernl from demolirion of gqund' 2'u*ff"tt"rs:e'&"5 Iocal area'
Ievel floors "rra ,rroorilriiis *rit ue yf'" Tne NRc determrnes the ProPo>€6
su*eyed for conramrririoir and 5.1 No Acrion acrion to u. more favorabre rhun elther
renrcdiated-Nodecornmtsslontnglcuonbvit[il;;;;Jitmutit'"trorheproposed
Surface and subsurface sorls *,F 11. *;i,iiffi;,ir.-i 'ioiu'.on of l0 CFR acuon'ffi*ffffi ::
il ;;;"*d **f**.ffi' Hi,*F-ls,#ffi.,'m$3.*ffi41**.*.w,,-*rfiTsj1:TE9T;#;";; i"v:: :i g.[ ffi ,9 ]"1 o ffi#f ffffi#il$*' [;lffirffi?r,Ef rtf ,flr'sirnilar manner' A l€t
near the exisllng PUerorsragrns.rrn,ppir,f}r,[rlHfri-- Sff;.;;;;,urri...]lr1- ;jmi*t *tX'n:iJ;H'*o
conurnlnare{ equrPmenr nr'et w
#f#=ffirffi-"$*ffiiffxffi-"
[rifif"*ty.m'il1;,H"* p;x-uyrsqp+'i"iE -:,,1' ;il;"i;tu*T':J:'"dges) ano
conurmyErron uo"rr. uort ;;;:ffi,ri.rco &.ot oi {lo-*9 ltta p"ts"nit Protcctrvc equrPment
ffifi**r***
uraruuro contamlnation meet rhe NRC ffi;ffi'a'ffi"otr.g radiolopcal ;p*;d from'\xaslc nranagenrenl .
uruesrcted releas. crtreria. Sorl and con,minarlon rcaulung from fust ;fi;t[;t".".f.r of rhe matertal
il;ffi;;ttt wrll-bc ranse.olll.fom oPerarions' offsirs
H,ffi:}'$il;i{{}il*ffitr':i_:5r*:Jffr#ff" Sil}ET}sand
Envuonrnen'lar
*ru.*x'iiififfi:l* ffi,H'ffi ffiiffi'ffiim,-,
i;#ff.{'63'm:Bti;:*"il' iliirii'";-r*n:-:f"H?ffii}5' [H:'F]:itq*t]:f]:.ilh'c"
NRc so*d o,, *"ffiilii"w or ltr'gtJ: f*li[:Ufffi;:-t;;*" R
L"uote and equtpmcnt ;"-;"'se Jrtn'-pr"fg",*#;,H.0 i&itii"tt iolo*"nranrinarion of
li**m:$S*#'.F*1H:' J'"'nuii" invorvcs'Hfi';r";- :11*titlgl?Hl'J?:J"
uqlHiii'ffitffi*-'#-H'H*#fgiffi:3'i#[;-tff#fr*'*ii+buildurgs. aDd oul
iriJNn-d Sutaelmcs for urucsrtcrcd usc assocrred wlth dispo
and no advere en;lronrn nal imPacE E;i;:l;t;;;-:q';1;",f;g.[ifl , ?;
will resuh fom pianntO acuvitrGs' producuve usa' re6rllr
SOIu REL TSE CRITEFI^L I
Rsdi)nlf,loa
Relolerrc
Sap-08-39 ll:55ao Frca-
{7Ei6 Federal
r-OOO f iJrlU0 i-(UU
*,.r1", u, *" '"'**"""tr'
*i*^.tln*tlo1..' a conrra(ror, aJrr.. ilrc, ",..*;;-#; 6_2.5 Sccwity. le<urtry.lf
#hgiltrit,:xirl+t!$, i:iffiffifi'lT*""*
r"_.-_l _ raoroacriJJ,i,.ii.r ",.n" rnu racih,v
sufficientroadrnrnixer-d.rod,octo,.a..*iii"-i"'.;;dosimGler(TLD)torismainEinedDyafencewirhalocked
ffiHrdlfiffi "Hffffi:f ' ;8.,#H?i!ftitliH- r.T;1gr;,:';T"{.1JiE'H;',#ii.'
.'
',#ffi##."mq*. :*rmffi i*;I;$ffi,:'61ti5ff
-
ffiffi'*ffii:*lmlffi:t?$"1l.." r:flffi*ffm1ffi'fi*- :rm|3*f,Hffi'"'Jffi"'t+""f:ffi::H:m. Lffil:rffii##m*: mr*,r#rlnrrtffi:r"yffiHffiJlll.H-::i: r*"Wfi{"imrum*-' reu:r,m'' *,,=,0,0**
'"',f,trf1,:ljg'"ffi#?iii:*' Hl*ffi:::-H':il,1i1i.a. * *:l:r scc.rirv to cn:'ure radbrdercar
b*.i*, acdvtscs. The suc managcr's needed' safcty wrll bc malnlsuled durlng
fi'!ndi.n rs to crcrornarc scheduling and Rc'suspenston and autorne ransPon olohmrssionht acrivities ar the :ite
:H#j;; *Ii,-,rr. ."n-cror Piojecr
"r cinffi"ii.o sorl durtng excava$onr 6.3 Rldiol%lc3l Accrdenl enallss
li.i-eriFl'{t .nd HMI tcgal-advisor scrvcs as thc prinrary p"oFI 1".:_?r porcndal accrdenr scenanc
firi ffu will rnainratn overaU stre releases fr-om dccornrnis"ry'q -.- J;;;r.d nxlude buildiry firc and
*nmly,litHrffii'';: Br"lx [HtEJY,il"Hffif,f;':il".11 l*j"{u:*mrffi?:'fl """'nJa...-*r.trorun8 aclvlues are ihrough rhc usc of a N3h-volum€ atf '":;";i-6; iri ot .r.ptotrot ,n
comprered. Ths pM and samoter workcr: """'"ili'lo *..r. Ii**tr":HHn:it :i'is"TJa*'o,.*,''ro"lLs Y"$'frffi r.gar ffiH:L'fr[l*ifl,hrur"r- ffir., operirnons. accidenrar r.i."sesduectlY lo rhe HMI rr
]ffJ;:**':f$!:5Illli,ii.""' ffiU:l#g#:ih,$ :#::fri*.:;";il1:ili5:H"
:Sff.",H,fffi f Fffi., "0.: ::* :$.:",?,:jl}J;il:'.T"*;ffifi:',X":' . - fll'tT; liff ll ;: 3:HH fi tr::'""
['l*TlffiSu$:i:fi:'iifl* ffii:'tri:I'H':".'#'f,tr11?6 S;;of.;"*{':?l:t5' 6s ev€nt
h.di"rton Safery ofiicer (!r>u-l YA-..- tFR pan 20. Previous resulu or *f,$i'.::f,1t :r?X ffi|nO
remn ro rhe sire'*TrTlr?irff#ii' groundr^"arcr *o'*1iqlJloofi
tHtE:r"".o.oJ,Hs:n'porenrrar
ror
:ii:1ffi.i';Sgll",rhroushourrhe **U*ti::Jf;l;
decommtssronht prpject. - - ^_) radionucbdcs duflry Jrte opcrauons. 7.0 Envtonmenral knpcrsFromrevrew'**Hf$i#h ffiI '"" l;t'ftfil3grcarrrnpactstothe
Pubrrc
resPonslbilifies Invc
safery dunng decomvnrssronrnt' NFu warer sarnplrng is not nrd.,;r-;;ih"r rfre Ciig,arcO ' *r,, ropl dosc *"r*i.-r f* a ^ Porenrial rources of worker exPosure
funcoons ar. "c..prabli-ro
implerncnt worlccr based on auecr frliil"ipotur. from drornmisslonrn8, acntltres
'';
r;G;r "*ffirn frr{iffi is##lrtri:rffi':r#1,,.n .roroposed decomm{' d.z.q RadioJogicn u- Lnlii,d*"ir*3[Tf"'i"i-.il;;;;"r 6% ;i h; -,,*r,r't}i:ffi"'Go ur,o srcrtrd wrll ba gosred ro ii-i,-.Ll-r. teLO r*iir. dunnon of r"rl
conuol exPosures to worlcrs ano
r-*-m *i*#*fr* $-'S$$r*ritf ffi*ffi *i
a"n"r"S oi antt-tot'aminadon cl'othtng'
ffixffLffi;B',,:li'J""&.i*,i"" ffi'ft *L#:#"m* ilffiU.lt"l""'*f:. p..
[:U:Wt 5g,*Sg,'+" l1ffii1Fi6'6"fli;a ;;;':'*".;' NRc ao" carcrrlauon
F*.a as s'arctrc iIffi'Ii#"iii 'r'"' H'#X"'gfi^Hf*l*St,- p*W6--;'X''X""I-T"f1-1f "t
'#;;;iffi; fiilil"' rr'i ..".,o
=1iH:?H* ]1;ff5gt3;':- l'' i;-;;i concenlrdltoo ot?5 dvsi;;il,yi.".*ffirff:"*H'il llffi[l"ffi#;?fi'* "' ilffi;;ilil;riob'"-'o dl'urs
and vlsrlors rn radt
Sss-08-33 F rom-
Federal
I ^' ''. 169/wedn€sdav' Sepre*ot' f,l'99/NoucesRrglser.'Ft or. No' logrwednesaay' 5
T-5S6 ?ll/l,r t-l!lll
47877
NRC rnspecrlon) ProFct an occuParional
;;;;;-.!cP"i.,ri Lniu' I o mRern'
g'"ffiYs,""'"f":::",x3,ffi:H:*
fl{11'lit-r*aa;Ym;,'-,I}il;; limtr of 5ooo mRcm' and..
;;i; "d"tt=.. imPacrs to *s116rs wrll
result."?I,rno"t soutces of radtologtcal
;r;A * rhe Publrc from
i["rn-Gtionint acu\'irt"s ar tht HMI
Ini "il't,-ittt rJrhose o€narnine' Io
;;il Jrpo*,tt (decohurmtnarron and
""-ii"i.ro,i dusjs), DrJt reqrrire tntlsPon
il.i o*i "t dlsances ro reach ofr'slrc
;;;"';;. As a result' lower
:;'I#;;;* and doses arc oiPected
;;; ;:;;;;or rr.e Puuu*ha' for
*"tf"n' hevious NRC usPt<ttons
lr,.-J tirii worker exPosurei durhB
oasl acriwtnes were undeteclaDle' -fii,iiiii;' th. Publtc doses frorn rhese
#;ffiJ',il"tJ b' ttt'dt"trab-lo' The
ilRC;"f;-determlned rhar HMI has
.io-a.a adequare plans ro ensure ttrar
;bdal radi6logtcal TPacts to
'members of rhe Publlc rom tnc
orooos€d 36gen wul not gceedNRC
i*I*---aar" unbkelY- rc resulr in
;a; ;t=. env ironrnenral imPacls
7 ? Nonradtological lmPacts
There are no Planned drrecr uses of
.h;;i;;lt rn tri ProPo*o "t*i:9lll,ir" er,cauarion ofsoil, and remedrauon
;;!ffi;"r and buildtns:' Naolh:r--
it.t-*bnt have a potential ro affect rhe
.I"".t r.", Pr:ling scoPmg and
characreriZaflgn surveys, an ass€Ss[ncnt
of eacrr buildrng will be Perlotmed to
io.n,rtv,t. pr6ence of hazardous qr-
;;.J;;t." Thc surveY wrll idennfY
iterns requiring managenrent of
hazardoris subsrances' rt lounq'-
' -fr.-XnC.rati hat deret-incd thar
Hr"ri niia... prably addre ssed- the
conrrol of PoGnnal releases ot
iitraJrotJsical hazardous marerials'
8.0 .{gencies and Indtvlduals
ConsuJted
NRC trarsrnrned the FSSP tP the New
I.;;;D.;";,;nr of Environmental .F;;+il NJTEP). uS Envuonmenral
;;;;; iis';.v- Rcaion 2' s'd
io**t,rp of-Manchester bY lcuers
oared Feiruary 13, l9g8' for revlew anq
I"t"-i"r. Thj resPorse lcner of M$ch
ri"is'g5 from the NJDEP tncluded
:;#:il ;Aaroing cha'acterizarion of
.i"",'prO rh6rium levels below
ii["s"Uf. quantities and extent of sod
*-#""f. 'rii forr.arded ro HMI for
evaluarlon. HMI addressed the Srare's
.or"rnintt tn rheu lecer of Novembe r
i6.1fr ii ;t N RC Prowrdlng accePtoble
resDonses ro the NIDEP quesuons No;Effi;;;';;;'d frtm rhe EPA or'l,r"lin rr.t TowrshiP' HMI has
ii"*iioJ," coordlnac wirh rhe
inirtP .rrd comPlY wtrh aPPllcable
sii[ and locat regtiations dunng
de<ommissionlns, acuvrnes'
g-A FhAry of No Signifrcant lmpa
The Cornrrrissrcn has prcparcd an E r
related ro rhe proposed unreslrlcteo --;:i:;'il;Jn &at rrom ltcensc SMB-
rliGflm rnr of monaeire'nch sori
fr;;'rhe Hertegc Mrnerals' Inc"
i;i;hG. NeiPrseY slre' on the basit
Jinc E.q, the Comrrussion has
Ii.ii"lta rhar thts ltcensing acdon
*""fJ Jor stgnrficantly alfect rhe
envuonmenfand dots nor \*''uranl Inc
"r"i"ntro" of an envuonmental mpacr
L-rI*.". accordrngly. it has- been
derermlrrd rhat a Flndlnt ot No
''fi lli,?i *Hfi I,Xifi lll3[;. *,
(his ts a Procecdln3 on a licensc
I*.norn!n-. r.lini*rttrn rhe scopc of
Subpart L' "lntormal Hcartng
Prodedures for R(tudicauons rn
irf"..tiuts and Operator lrce ru-ing
;;;dG." lo cFR Pan 2' hysuant
;; S_.. i-r7oSt"l. any p€FrJ tho*
lnterest rBY o€ afreced DY lhls
;;;;ai"d,""v file a reorrest for
heanns in accor@nce n'irh Sttc' 2'l?01
iif;'i;uJ for treanns mr'sr be frltd
,"-iti,r" tirrry t30) days of rhe date ot
publlcauon-of ths Federal Bcgrsrcr
oarocular refcrence ro the factors set out
i" S*. 2.1205(h).
3. The regucjtor's area of concern
abour rhe irienstng actlYtry rhar is rhe
iuul*i-un.r of rne procer*dtng; and
{ The cir(ulnsences estaDUshinB thal
rhe re,Juest for a hearing s amely in
aicorO'ance with k- 2- t205(cl)
In accordance with Sec' ?'1205(0
*"t t"or*t for hcaring musr also De
t""r.O by deli'erlng ir per;onally or bv
marl. lo:
l. Henrage Minerals. lnc Atlennon
Anrhonv I.-f homPrcn. Esquue'
ShawPi-nrnan. 23OO N Sneet' NW'
WotnmEott. DC 2003?- I 128' ond
2. The NRC statr' bY deliverY to lhe
E t"ii". Dlrector for OPe:arions' One
Whtre Flinr Nonh I1555 RockvtUe
iiii.-n .f"Ule' t'tD 20852-273t or bv
t*ii. "Oat.oscd
ro rhe Execunve
iL*ror for Operartors' U'S' Nuclear
iJgJo.*y Co'tnrBitiron' Wrshn6'ron'
DC 20555.
The documens related ro rhis
otop*.a adion arrc avarlable {o.lqublici;;;td;d coPYtns ar rhe NRC
n oUc Documcnt Room' 2lZo L )utet
i{ilW-hits,"n. DC 20555 or at rhc'Nci:;Ra;"-i officcs locattd ar {?5
eii.ta.tJn".a' King of Prussra' Pa
l9:105,
t0O Refotenca
Berscr. J D.. Manual tor Condsct-tng
r.H** :ffir'ff J.tiltt".t
o r r-r c c rs e
W"tnrt a.on. DC' Nvclear Regr'latory
Corrunls-rton 1992'
Nouce."-iiiJi*u.sr for a heaflnB musr fr
filJ wlrh rhe Office of rhe SrrerarY
elther-'i Sv deliverY ro rhe Doclerlng and
Serwrce Branch of the Secrerary ar- L.,ne
il';-Fl*i Nonh I1555 Rockvrlle
iri*. n*i"rtle . MD 2085?-?738:or' ? g" rnart or relegrarn addrt+scd ro
H#:ffi.#SH."TJflffiI
e"."uon, Dockotng and Service
Branch.-'t-"oauton ro meeonBothercFR par
i'JJl?trf-Et'fff;:lonr' a r:suesr ror
a heartnr Elcd uY a P€6on other rnan;IE*:.'' 4:ff il :S,3.*.' ?l ; n
"?i#ltli.r Inrerctr rnaY F afiecrcd
uv ihe resuhs of rhc Proceedlng'
ii.i"arng rhe reasons why the rcquestor
iiili.E PcrmraeO a hearrnt' wtth
N gclzar BeeularorY C ommEsron'i.tJ-.t fii D..onromtnauon ol FaclLq?>
and Eo-pm.t r Prror ro Releast f-or
ui"--&"o Usc for Termrnauon of
Sroa"d*.t Source. and Spectal-Nucte'r-rtid"tLi t-r".nser"' Pol icy and G': toincc
Duectrt. FC Ell-23. l9t3'--l.i;; i6uhtory conurusslon" Fural
c.rani E rtt-ott*oral tmEact Slatemenr rn
Suopon of Rulemaxng on Fadlologc-'r
d'J;f"; -Gi"* t.-t"""*on of -NRC - -#il; N;car Facutue:"' NURBG- I rs5
Volurne 2. 1997.'-;;J; o- .t u'' "NMss 114q5qok for
f r.:#i:ffi ttExlil,f,$;tr#
Dc:ili};*' R.S"tarory Cornrausron l 987
DaEo at l(urg of Prus:n' Perrnsylvanu ftrs
zqn thy of errgust l9!X)'
For drc Nrj<tcrr Rsgula@ry Cornmrrston
Crcorjc Paaghra"-Orr:rJr* Dirspa ofNtlcleu I'lacrtars Saluty
if" o* ss-2??67 Fttea 8-31-99: 8 +5 aml
!8r.m Go9c ?lD{r{
Final Status Suruey Plan f2 5,L
for
License Termination of
Heritage Minerals
NRC License # SMB-1541
Cr.-,P C R.td
Table of Contents
Background Soil Activity Detennination
Wet Milt and DrY MilI SuryeY Units
Process History
page #
1l.0Introduction
2.0 Existing Data Review
3.0 Decommissioning Activities
4.0 Release Limits
4.1 Surface Activity
4.2 Soil Activity
tL3 Exposure rate
5.0 Affected flJnaffected suryey Unite
6.0 Suruey protocol
6.1 Affected Areas ------- 7
6.2 Unaffected Areas ---------7
7.0 Decontamination Plan
7.1 Buildings and Equipment -.-...
T.2Monazite pile
8.0 Data Reduction
9.0 Statistical Treatment ..
10.0 Quality Assurance ....
References.---.72
1
,
2
3
3
3
4
7
7
7
7
8
9
9
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Decommissioning Plan for Heritage Minerals
l.0Introduction
This decommissioning Plan addresses the NRC licensed area and
buildings on the Heritage Minerals fiMD Site in Lakehurst, New Jersey.
Beghning in1987, on sands stockpiled from a previous comPany's operations,
HMI processed several types of commercial minerals through gravimetric,
conductive and magnetic separation. No chemicals were used in the process.
Operations ceased in 1990. A detailed description of the operations and site
history is provided in APPendix C.
One of the commercial minerals produced by HML monazite, contains
thorium and uranium. Possession of this material, when greater than 0.05% by
weighL is a licensed activity regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC). This document presents a plan for proper removal of licensed mabrial
and survey of the site to demonsbate that the property ar,d equipment is suitable
for license brmination and release for unresbicbd use-
A decommissioning cost estimate is included as Attachment L
20 Existing Data Review
The available data on post decontamination surveys consists of fixed and
removable measunements obtained by HMI personnel at bn locations, five each
in the wet mill and dry mill. The removable alpha and beta results are below any
release limits discussed in NRC guidance documents, however the
documentation and quality control procedures are not sufficient to satisfy the
current requirements for decourmissioning as put forth in NUREG-5849.
Therefore, the available data on post decontamination measurements will not be
suitable for inclusion in Bre final status survey report
Another source of existing data is a radon flux mapping procedure
developed by SENES Consultants Limited (SENES 95). However, the purpose of
that study was "to provide a mapping procedure which calculates radon flux
rates for the proposed residential site". The information does not pertain to
decommissioning the buildings or affected outdoor areas, and will not be
utilized in this Plan.
A survey of the natural background levels of uranium and thorium, and
the background exposune rate onsite was conducted in 1996by Radiation Science
lnc. Those value wene established using sampting and statistical guidance from
NUREG- 5849. The information from that study will be used to correct final
survey soil samples and exposure rate measurements for the contribution due to
background.
Decommissioning Plan for Heritage Minerals
Samples of the monazite pile analyzed by Teledyne Isotopes in April of
lgg1,indicite Ra-226,Pb-21.4, and Bi-214, all daughters in the uranium series, to
be in equilibrium. Likewise, three daughter nuclides in the thorium series, Ac-
Z2B,pb'-212, and Tl-208 were found to be in equilibrium. This data is used to
support the assumption that all natural series decay chains are in equilibrium.
3.0 Decommi ssioning Activities
The following list of activities is proscribed in NUREG-5849 as
requirements leadirig to the Ermination of an NRC license, and serve as a rough
work plan for this Project.
. Terminate the possession and storage of radioactive material-
o Remove radioactive material from the facility.
o Properly dispose of any radioactive material removed.
. Submit an NRC-314 "Disposition of Radioactive Materials" form.
. Conduct Final Site Survey.
o Submit report to the NRC-
4.0 Release limits
All limits discussed here are selected to allow gnrrestricted release of the
site. HMI,s license states "for measurement purposes all contamination may be
assumed to be natural thorium in equilibrium with its daughrers'Therefore,
surface activity limits are based on alpha emissions from nattual thorium. SoiI
concentration-limits are based on total uranium (U-238 + U'23a) and total
thorium (Th-2g2+ Th-228) in equilibrium with progeny in their respective decay
chains. Release limits stated heie are above background. and are summarized in
Table 2.
The background area in terms of dose rate and uranium and thorium soil
concentrations is tt " unmined iueas of the site. During May 7996 an extensive
background determination was conducted following the guidance in NUREG-
5349."(RSI Z /g6)Those values will be used for "background" corrections of soil
samples, and as the "baseline" dose rate. They are reproduced in Table 1' The
report is included in its entirety in Appendix A.
To date there has been no background values established for equipment
and buildings. The background area for surface activity measurements will be
the unaffe.tea UoilaingJonsite, (refer to Figure 2). A separate backgrg"rd value
will be established forioncrete surfaces and metal surfaces, as part of the final
site survey.
Decommissioning Plan for Heritage Minerals
Parameter Level
Total uranium Concenkation
Total thorium Concentration
0.62 pCi/ g
0.a8 pCi/g
Exposure Rate 2.84 PRlhr
Table 1 - Background concentrations and exposure rate
4.1 Surface activitY
The activity limits specified in HMI's materials license are based on
thorium in equilibrium with its daughters. Those values are 1,000 dpm/100 cm2
average fixed, 3,000 dpm/100 cm2 maximum fixed and 200 dpm/100 cm2
maximum removable-These release limits will be used for this decommissioning
proiect
4.2 Soil concentration
condition 15 of Heritage Minerals' NRC license specifies "4lI Teat ..' on
a map of the licensee's site attached to the letbr dated September 27,1990 shall
be decontaminated to meet the criteria for release for uruestricted use described
in Option I of the Branch Technical Position "Disposal or Onsite Storage of
Thorium or uranium Wastes from Past Operations". The limit for total thorium
is 10 pCi/& and the limit for total Uranium is also 10 pci/g. As discussed in the
next iectioo these soil activity limits will also demonstrate compliance with the
exposur€ raE limiL
4.3 Exposure Rate
There are two methods for demonstrating compliance with the dose rate
timits. The first method would involve direct measurements with a microRmebr
or press.rizd ion chamber. The "shine" from the nearby, unlicensed-tailings
*oUa make this dfficult without shielding the meter' However, to obtain
readings at waist level would require un "xtremely large lead cone, which would
be unianageable in the field. ThL second method is to obtain post-remediation
soil samptJ for laboratory analysis, and base the exposure rate "-1.ttl activity
once background activity has been subtracted. This is the method that will be
employedior this decorrrmissioning. The NRCs Branch Technical Position Paper
"*pti"iuy staEs n ..the concentrauons are sufficiently low so orat no individual
-iy t*"ive an external dose in excess of 10 micro-roentgens per hour above
ba&groundn The concentrations referred to (Option 1, stated in section 4.2
aUovIl are those selected here for the soil cleanup criteria. ln the spirit of
ALAI{A, HMI assumes final soil concentrations will be well below the 10 {i/ g
(therefore 10 pr/hr) Iimits. A limited number of soil concentration- to- exPosure
calculations using compuer software such as Microshield, will be conducEd'
Decommissioning Plan for Heritage Minerals
Parameter Release Limit
Toal thorium in soil 10 pci/g
Total uranium in soil 10 pci/g
Surface activity - max. fixed 3,000 dpm/100 cur2
Surface activity - avS.fixed 1,000 dpm/100 crr2
Surface activity - removable 200 dpm/100 crr2
Exposure rate 10 lrR/hr
Table 2 - Release limits above background
5.0 Affected / Unaffected Suney Unitg
The basic rationale for d.ividing dre site into affrted and unaffected areas
is provided in dds section Appgndix-€ provides a detailed description of the
operating history used to ide-niify the affeced process trains. The site at Heritage
t ti""rab] while no longer processing sands for the conccntration of various
natually occurrint miierals, remains in a shutdown condition some support-_
U"ifai"gs are still;*d for equipment sbrage- and repair' The-wet Tg dty "tilI
equipm-ent is nonoperational gilUdr buildings contain milliors of dollars
,"br&, of heavy equipment including tanks, elevators, high Ctuion separabrs,
piping, and h,ndids of bru of heavy equipment and stmchual supports. The
loo,pi"*ity of the interior of both Uuiiaings-pose-a $attenggP-q: application of
a tr,n-o dimlnsional grid sysem survey as proscribed in NUREG 5849-
Both the wet and dry mills have distinct Process
otrains" or rouEs the
incoming material traveled. These routes were not linear, so at some points the
deplecistream was diverEd, while at others concentration of uraniun 4nS
thorium occurred. Each mill will be divided into suryey units based on the
potential for concentration of uranium/thorium and common hismrical use with
iegards to mabrial contacL as suggesd in NUREG 1505' The process flow
dilgram (fig,,e ijidmtifies theilovemen! separatiorL and enrichment of the
,"rlo* pioiuct s6eams through the mills. The diagrasr follows the raw
maEriat'(ASARCO sands) b tte finished p_roduct streasrs (zitcon,leucoxene,
rutile, and monaziE) and mill tailings. Each Process sEp represents a further
enrichment in Thorium and Uraniuir since t ese elements follow the product
stream and are removed with the monazite in the final process separation'
Each process sEp is represenEd by a physical set of equipment coruisting
of tanks, piphg, con*'eyots, and/ot heavy "qTPT:"t Each pr&essstep
includes i,ipUlae equipment sysrcms. The individual sysems handle dte sane
feed ma6rial in f"rJU"iso as to ito.""" tfuough-put Since eadr step enriches
the process strearm in the produc! thoriusr and uranium are typically more
4Decommissioning Plan for Heritage Minerals
I
atEEt
I mlj':,^ C-
< b:q!,,, La .-
< r ''E=
g >-
i=
r{Ii
I
r'
i#-r'
a
h-t
60 t
concentrated at the end, than at the begiruring of each Process step' Once the
product leaves the process equipment in transit to the next step, such as in a
pipi"g or conveyoisystem, th" ior,c"ntration of these isotopes remains the same.
Individual process steps (e.g. zircon magnetic separation) and related
equipment (e.8. magnetic coils and conveyors) represent logical survey units
which can be examined according to the rules of NUREG 5849. This allows
application of the NUREG-5849 survey recommendations (affected or
,r,'uff".t a, number of sampling points, and averaging rules) in a meaningful
fashion to obtain a report representative of the final plant status. The process
trains with the pot"nti"l to be contaminated based on Procry knowledge are
highlighted on figure 1. Outdoor areas are shown on Figure 2.These survey units
ari iaentified and located as described below:
Outd oor ProPerties- Unaffected
Except for the monazite pile and the area immediaEly surrounding the
pile, all outdoor properties are unaffected. For PruPoses of the final status
,*"y, the area of op"r, space extending beyond the wet mill building to the
north, sou*r, and east by ipproximately 10 meters will be included in the
survey. The area of open rpi.e extending approxim^ately 10 meters around the
dry mill is also included in the survey. See Figures2,3,4,and 5'
Office Building - Unaffected
The Office Building was used to support administrative personnel. No
process material was used in this building. See Figure 2'
Warehouse Building - Unaffected
The Warehouse Building was used for storage of new mechanical
equipment and parts.No process material was used in this building. See Figure
2.
Service Building - Unaffected
The Service Building was used for repair of mechanical equipment from
plant operations. No proceis material was used in this building. See Figure 2.
Chanse House - Unaffected
The Change House was used for site persormel only. It includ-ed showers
and lockers for liorkers at the site. No process material was used in this
building. See Figure 2.
Decommissioning Plan for Heritage Minerals
3i
ii,
I).lJ)v;
-1
\r
E."Ei: ,cr! iit : .rL i... c -:s::gi ; i
:H !ti: ii6{iit i-
:
c,Fl
F{
o,rJr.{
N$tr
C)
i':t]
>9;-E;I
EEt
zZzQ:FF<U06(,cuS =: = ruE!ei:
J
s-''ali--
\ui-r\'\li-\ \ I
),)i
(( /.'
!r))l.dsr , .'
-*77-/
Itt i(t'l\II
\\ ':ilt
\\ \-=\L-:,-..--
l---o
fv
il
r-\./'!r-)!l ,/\-l /
(JOrc3aZA
oFJ6Zo,lr ..(!@
G€q)Ot{E6oTJH16O
rJoooOF{lrFlc)<
,
aa
U
N
I:]*
(J
f&
^. I
-\ i..,1fl
!irl [l\ll '\l\l -l\l :l\l sl :lil sl ii**l il Bl*,-l dl u"i :
il3*,!l il ?i
\ vli <r
z<-
A
15
F
U
(a1
L\
12Ag tr)2iAS;llJruIaui'l:-irq.
NUtr
\\
.\t{ \- \\J S S\\y\ \-I\ " (--\(
.tt\\ Ja r^
\l'+\d3 \
{ -! -s\ i\J\{r\i-!J !)\i+ i\ x's$
-,-t
.:
5
cs
vl
trI)(
C
b
JIs
\N
\r
\-q\
\l ,v\\\) rl\ui\JS\\i<\
\d\t\G \-/
t
N
\
Lour Gror*.nol
t o- vuez-' - d I ou* t'
clr +o vlJ^r'.{
6 our-^.ab., u
(=*" , j,,1J,r- A (t; cr.,/)
/ , / /'- /
\., .'-_, -
Fer-r ce
\
A -ff< ct.a/ ,er- + rl oA^ z;L P; h-
Laboratory - Unaffected
The Laboratory was used to analyze product samples from both mills. No
process material was used in this building except as analytical samples- See
Figure 2.
Wet Mill - see Appendix B
The Wet Mill Building contains
process equipment used to extract the
product materials from the raw feed.
The equipment contained in the Wet
Mill is divided into survey units as
described in Appendix B. Some of these
units are affected while the majority are
unaffected. The floor and lower walls of
the Wet Mill will be surveyed as an
unaffecEd.ueas.
Dry Mill - see Appendix B
The Dry Mill Building contains
process equipment used to extract the
product materials from the process feed
from the Wet Mill. The equiPment
contained in the Dry MiX is divided into
survey units as described in appendix B.
Some of these units are unaffected- The
floor, ceiling and lower walls of the Dry
Mill will be surveyed as affected areas.
Monazite Pile - Affected
Ten meter square grids
will be established around the
existing Monazite PiIe,
including the Monazite PiIe
and extending 10 meErs
beyond its current boundaries
or to the fust nahrral barrier
where monazite would likelY
accumulate in higher
concentrations as a result of
wind or rain wash-out since the pile was not always covered. (e.g. the natural
sand berms to the east and west and the low ground spot to the north of the
Decommissioning Plan for Heritage Minerals
,.r ::r.-i>1r.:i\.--.- -i:.1._ i .a i.. i. . : "i!'-'
:r :..i:::.,,4-'. :,,: " ':l
pile). The area encompassed by the grids will be considered as an affected
outdoor area.
6.0 Survey protocol
6.1 Affected SurveY Units
lndoor
Affected equipment will be surveyed by dismantling as necessary and
scanning with an approprlate survey meter 100% of the surface area of a single
equipment train within a multiple unit syste-. ITrry, fixed location, one to two
minute integrated measurements will be obtained in each survey unit A wipe
sample will be obtained at the location of each fixed measurement
Outdoor
Following the packagrng of the monazite for shipmen! out{oor affected
survey units *ill b" scanned over 100% of the surface area with a 2"x2" sodium
iodide crystal. SoiI samples will be collected at a rate of one Per 100 square meter
glid.
6.2 Unaffected SuneY Units
Indoor
Unaffected units will be surveyed by scanning 1'0% of the surface area
with an appropriate survey meter. As with the affected survey units, thirty fi1ed
location measgrements *fu be obained in each survey unit, with corresponding
wipe samples. If any measurement within a particul.u survey unit is greater than
ZS%of the value foi unrestricted release provided in section 4.0, then the entire
survey unit will be deemed to be affected and resurveyed according to the
protocol for survey of affected units as provided in section 6.1.
Outdoor
Outdoor unaffected areas will be scanned over 10% of their surface area,
in the same manner as the affected areas. Thirty soil samples will be collected
from the unaffected area surrounding both mills. lf any soil sample
measurement within a particular survey unit is greater than 75%of the value for
unrestricted release provided in section 4.0, then the entire survey unit will be
deemed to be affected and resurveyed according to the more stringent protocol
for survey of affected units as provided in section 6.1. While there is no reason to
expect any of the unaffected areas to contain concentrations of monazite ore, the
Decommissioning PIan for Heritage Minerals
requirement to upglade the survey on the basjs- of a conservative guideline
approach offers .ttrrurl." that the survey unit will be adequately characterized'
7.0 Decontamination PIan
7.1 Buildings and equiPment
Building surfaces or equipment which may have been -impacted by
operations.or,sists primarily of metal. No chemicals were used in the process, so
ii is Ut<ety monazite residue will be confined to the surface layer in the form of
dusl Since decontamination was performed by Heritge Minerals in 1990 and it is
unlikely that any recontamination has occurred, additional decontamination
efforts may not be necessary. However, if decontamination becomes necessary,
these surfices would be brushed and vacuumed, using appropriate engineering
controls and personnel protective' equipment
T.ZMonazite pile
The monazite pile (approximately 530 m3) will be packaged in DOT
approved containers and prepared for shipment This will be accomplished
"ri"g a small front end loader to transfer the material. A stagrng area will be set
,rp iirmediately outside the existing fence to serve as a buffer zone between the
controlled area and the clean area. Dust control measures may include a
temporary enclosure for transfer of material, or a water sPray system in the area
surrounding operations. Any residual monazite sands on surface soils in the
affected areas will be removed in a similar manner'
8.0 Data Reduction
Raw data collected during the final site survey will be validated, and
reported in units identical to those of the release limits. For surface activity
measurements, the average background from the reference area will be
subtracted from the raw counts, "ria *r. results adjusted for the meters (a pi)
efficiency and probe area. Results will be reported in dpm/100 cm2.
Soil samples will be analyzed by Samma-sPectloscoPy tt9 U-238 activity
will be inferred from the 609 klv pho-topeak of its daughter Bi-214. The Th-232
activity will be estimated from tfre-ZgA kev photopeak of its daughter W212. All
samples will be dried, sieved, and sealed for twenty eigh! days prior to counting
to remove any concerns about secular equilibrium with the parent nuclides.
Results will be reported in picocuries per gram (pci/g) 9d- -1di"sted Jor
background. The U-ZS8 results will be doubled to account for the U-zY activity,
and rlported as total uranium. The Th-238 results will be doubled to account for
tne fh-ZZ8 activity and reported as total thorium'
Decommissioning Plan for Heritage Minerals
APPendix C
Process and Decommissioning History
Past Efforts:
Shortly after the final plant shutdown in Augus, 1990, both mills were subjected
to a tlorough cleaning and decommissioning as follows:
1. Wet Mill Building:
All e4uipment in the wet miil building which was in use in the project (whether
affected or unaffected) was washed down with high-pressure water hoses andnozz)es until
no sand was visible on or around the equipment. The collection launders, which are the
trougbs underneath the spirals used to collect and convey the products were washed nent
using the high pressure water until all the sand was sluiced down to the surnPpumps on
the [ound Ooor. Since the shaking tables were the only'affected" equiprnent, i.e., they
*"r. th" only processrng equipmenl to have corre in contact with source material' they
*"r. pr..rro. washed . **ria dme with the loose edges of tbe rubber lining lifted so that
any sand that might have been entrap@ under &s lining may !g washed off' The same
treatment *., upp["a to the launders attached to the rable frames for product coUection'
The sand and water collecred in the sumps and pumps were drained on the concrete floor,
the surnp tanks cleaned with the pr.rt*i hoses and the pump sasings opened and washed
with the high pressure water. The sand collected was transported to the monazite pile
using shovels and wheelbarrows.
2.Dry Mill Building:
No water was used in the dryer or the dry min building because of the elecuical
equipment present. InSea4 high presstue air hoses were used to blow down the sand and
dust fiom the equipmeot, ,fr,rrir"l stee! walls and other surfaces. Personnel involved in
this activity r*d drrt masks and film-badge monitors. The sand and dus collected on
the ground floor were collected using vacuum cleaners and transported to the monazite
pile.
Clean up of the mi[ buildings was performed by planr operalors who were familiar
with the equipment, the process and the buildings. The work was supervised by Tony
Cuculic, then plant Chief Engineer and Radiation Safety Officer.
Following the clean up of the planr buildings, Tony Cuculic, as Radiation Safety
Officer, perforrned a gamma r,r*"y olth" plant buildings and selected pieces of equipment
which were known to-be ,affectedi' due to the monazite concentration in the products
which were in contacl with the equipment. The gamma survey was conducted with a
CIDecommissioning PIan for Heritage Minerals
DREDGE
Screenlng Barge
wet Hlll
Rotary Dryer
Dry Hlll
oversl ze(Discard)
l'f et Hi 11Return to
Pond for
tal l.l ngs
DredgeBack Fl11
Dry Mi11 Tallings
To StockPlIe
( Zi rcon+Monazl te )
( 20 TPH)(I80 ppm Th+U)
Rav Ore (1,200 TPH) (Est. 3 ppm Th+U)
Screened Feed
( 1,000 TPH)
Excess Water+ClaY
To Settllng Ponds
Heavy Mlneral Concentrate
( 50 TPH)
flnenlte ProductTo Shlpplng(30 rPH)
PIGIIBB 6
ASABCOIA OPEBATTON SCHE{ATTC
Ludlum Model 1g micro R meter. rn additiou "Fixed contamination" measurements w'ere
made on representalive pieces of affected equipment (wet tables. dryer and dry rnagnets)
using an Eberline E120 t/w IIP260 "Pancake irobe"' Th9 same equipment was also
subjected to smeara.oing for "Removable contamination". standard filter paper discs
were used in the smears and were sent to Teledyne Isotopes for counting.
The above-mentioned surveys and smear lests were performed onJantrary 28'
1991 to veriff that the decommissioning work was complete and to reveal any aleas that
mighr require additional work. rrri. prr* of the work was not intended for submission
to the NRC as a Final Status Survey, which was never done because, due to the presence
of the monazite pile, the site was not ready for final release'
Unaffected Buildines:
Inadditiontothetwoplantbuildingstherearefiveotherbuildingsonthesile.
Namely, the laboratory, the change house, the rnaintenance building' the warehouse and
the main office. All five buildinS are considered "unaffected" because of the fact that
monazire-rich products (source material) were neverlaDdled or present in any of these
buildings. so**-r*t.ria o"a" sand was not samPled or aoalyzed in the laboratory' The
nraintenance building was not used to t.puit anyof'the affected process equipment' Such
equiprnent was mainltained and repaired bn bcation in the plant buildings'
Following is a detailed hisorical description of the entire process' startlng from the
beginning of the "rigi*l -i"i"8 carried out by Asarco prior to the inception of HM'
ASARCO Operation
The site was operated by ASARCO,Inc' between 1973 and 1982' The operation
consisted of hydraulic mining tdr"ag*giJm sand-deposits and processing those sands
to extract the ritanium miner-a'menite.'The mineral composition of the sand deposirs at
the site were ascertained by earlier geological and mineralogical studies conducted by
ASARCO. The deposits ctntained upprJ*i.u, ely 95% silica (common sand) afr 5%
heavyminerals.ThereareuEnymineralconstifuentsinthedepositsthatareheavierthan
silicq which is why they are called hearry minerals' Ibnenite is the predominant heavy
mineral, followed by;;; f.r-i., ,ili.-ir", rutile, staurotte, to,rmaline and
moruzite. Monazitl is the mineral that conrains thorium and wanium which cause the
radioactivity in the dePosits.
The following is a description of ASARco's process, which is arso illustrated in Figure 6:
l) At the very beginning, since there was no pond for the dredge, one was creald by
removing the top soil and suffcient sa,,J,it'g a dragline' The material so removed
*.. ,,oJ.piled in a location west of the railroad tracks'
Decommissioning Plan for Heritage Minerals C2
Z) The dredged sand was pumped to a screening barge where large roots. clav balls and
gravel were removed from the sand. The dredging rate was about 1,200 tons per
hour.
3) The screened sand was pumped. still in slurry forn-r- to a land-based concentrating
planr consisting of a wet mill and a dry mill. The slurry went first to the wet mill
wherein the heavy minerals were concentrated using spiral separators known as
Humphreys spiral. The wet mill tailings, consisting primarily of silica sand and water
were'pumped Uact< to the dredge pond as back-fill of the mined-out areas. At the start
of dredging, there was no place to back fill in the newly created dredge pond'
Therefoie,-the we1 miil tailings were stored west of the railroad tracks in the same
location as the top soil removed by the dragline. This practice created a pile of
roughly one milion rons of material consisting of top soil and wet mill tailings. This
pil; Lirg referred to as Asarco wet mill tailings or old tailings. Based on its history,
ihe radionuclide concentration of this pile is below the natural background
concentration of the area The heavy minerals followed a different path down the
spiral and were dewatered and sockpiled ourside the wet mill. Approximately 50
tons per hour of heavy-mineral concentrate were produced.
4) A grear deal of wash water was used to assist the separation on the spirals and to wash' u*"V the fine clay which coated the mineral particles. The excess wash waler and
suspended clay were decanted offusing large holding tar*s (sumJrs) before purnping
the sand.
5) The clay-laden water was pumped to a series of large-area settling ponds (about l0
acres) on the north side of the wet mill. The clay was allowed to settle out and the
clarified warer was recycled to the wet mill. This is the area which is now known as
the "Blue Area". The referenoe came from the color-coded map which was presented
ro rhe us NRC by Heritage Minerals during licensure in 1990.
6) It should be noted that the monazire concentration was increased by the ratio of 24:l
as a result of going tbrrough the wet mill and concentrating the heavy minerals from
1,200 tons to 50 tons.
7) The heavy mineral concentrate was allowed to drain for several days then transferred
to a 200-ton storage silo-
g) Using a disc feeder at the bonom of the storage silo and a coDveyor belt, the heavy
mineral conce111.ate was fed to an oil-fired rotary dryer wherein the heavy mineral
sands were completely dried and heated to about 300 degrees F.
9) The heated sand was conveyed to the dry mill which contained high-tension
electrostatic separators and higb-intensity magretic separators.
l0) The ilmenite \ilas s€parated from the other heavy minerals using the high-tension
separators which take advantage of the difference in electrical conductivity among
minerals. Ilmenite, which *ru th. desired titanium mineral, is electrically conductive'
Atl the other heavy minerals in the concentrate are non-conductors'
Decommissioning Plan for Heritage Minerals C3
l l) The conductor product was then fed to the high-intensity magnetic separators for final
cleaning of the ilmenite which was then placed in storage bins pending shipping to
.*ro*Lm by rail or truck. About 30 tons per hour were produced.
l2) The non-conductor rejects from the high tension separators were referred to as the
Dry Mill Tailings. TheY were mixed with water and pumped to a storage area east of
the mill. This is the area now referred to as the "Gray Area"'
13) The Dry Mill Tailings, ar about 20 tons per hou, contained virnrally all the monazite
-
tlrat was contained in 50 tons of heavy minerals concentrate. Therefore the
concentration of monazite was increased by the ratio of 2.5:l relative to the hearY
mineral concentrate. Since this is also the rnonazite that was contained in 1,200 tons
of dredge output, it can be concluded that the monazite and its conlained thorium and
wanium were concentrated by a facror of 7,200:20, or 60:l above original deposits- A
sample ofthe Dry Mill Tailings was analyzed by the US NRC during an inspection of
the ileriuge opeiation in January, 1988. It was found thal the ASARCO Dry Mill
Tailings (later ieferred to as the New Feed by Heritage) contained 180 ppm (parts per
mittion) thorium plus uranium (Th+tI). Approximately one million tons of Dry Mill
faitings were accumulared in the Gray Area during the ASARCO operationBased on
the above, it is estimated that the unprocessed sand deposis contained about 3 Ppm
Th+U (180/6F3).
l4)ASARCO had planned ro process the Dry Mill Tailings at a later date for the
extraction and sale of zircon and monazite. Extensive laboratory and pilot-plant
testing was performed by ASARCO on the recovery of zircon and rnonazite-
How&er, deteriorating market conditions caused ASARCO to discontinue all
operarions at the site in 1982 and sold the property to Heritage Minerals, Inc- in 1986'
Herilaee Minerals OPeration
Afler the properry was purchased by Heritage in 1986, the plant frcilities were leased to
Mineral Recovery,lnc. MRI ran additional laboratory and pilot-plant tests for the
recovery of zircon and additional titanium minerals lefl behind bD'ASARCO, but not
monaziie which was to remain apafl of the Dry Mill Tailings' The test work was
conducted al Haz*n Research of Goldeu Colorado'
Based on the results ofthe test work and Hazen's recommendations the plant was
rnodified and additional equiprnent was purcbased. The plant started operation in
October, 1986. ln August, iggZ ml'sl"use was terminated and Heritage Minerals took
over rhe operation *ti eugr"t of 1990 when all production stopped. Tbe operatlng
period between October, tggO ana August l9S7 (MRI's operation) was mostly a plant
break-in and tune-up period during which actual production was minimal. As a resuh, the
bulk of the zircon and titanium values in the New Feed rernained in the tailings during this
period.
The folowing is a description of the Heritage planr operatioru which is also illustrated in
Figure 7:
Decommissioning Plan for Heritage Minerals C4
overs i ze(Discard)
ASARCO's Dry
( Nev Feed. .
Water
Spi ral(10
MiIl Tailings50 TPH)
I80 ppm Th+U)
aillngsMi11 Tailings
TOBlue Area(I20 PPm 1'5+U)eoncentrate
TPH)
Magnet i cs(o.s rPH)
(5.850 PPn Th+U )
ucoxeneTo Shipping
(Z TPH)
(140 PPm Th+U)
Non-Conductors(8 TPH)
TabIe Concentrate(4 rPH)
Ztrcon Product
To Shipplng(3.s rPH)
(350 PPm Th+U)FIGUBE 7Herltage oPeratlon (Phase I)
Vibrat,ing Screen
tlet Mlll
( Splrals )(ao tpu)
fableTal I tn
Rotary Dryer *l
Dry Hill(tf Clrcuit)
l{et Mi 1l
( Tables )(A TPH)
RotarY DrYer *2
Dry MillZircon Clrcult
The ASARCO Dry Mill Tailings locared in the Gray Area which will now be referred
to as the New Feed for the zirion plant, were mixed with water and pumped to the
wet mill at the rate of 50 tons per hour'
r The slurry was processed over Humphreys spirals to remove any remaining silica sand
and some of the aluminum minerals. Although the aluminum minerals are considered
hearry minerals. they are considerably lighter than zircon, monazite and titanium
mineiats. As such it *r. possible to reject some of those aluminum minerals on the
Humph,reys spirals. Littd or no zircon or monazite were lost in the spiral tailings.
Some titanium losses were incurred, however, due to the presence of low-density,
weathered ilmenire. The spiral tailings were collected in a large holding tank (sunp)
and pumped to the area north of the wet mill which was occupied by the clay settling
ponds during ASARCO's operation (the Blue Area)'
) The spiral concentrate was dewatered using a vacuum fiher then dried and heated to
300 dlgrees F in an oil-fired rotary dryer, 5imilar to the one used by ASARCO but
much smaller.
) The dry, heated sand was fed to the firs section of tbe dry mill (the Ti circuit) where
the titanium minerals were separated using high tension machines. The primary
titanium mineral recovered was leucoxene, which is a transition mineral between
ilrnenite and rutile. Leucoxene is a conductor as are ilmenite and rutile, and hence
could be separated using high-tension machines'
) The conductor product fiom the high-tension s€parators was cleaned using high-
intensity."gr"ii" separalors to produce market-grade leucoxene. Because there is a
certainiegree of imperfection i'any separation process, sorne zircon and monazite
remained with the leucoxene. As a result. the leucoxene product, when anallzed b)'
NRC, was found to contain 140 ppm Th+U. This was well below any regulatory or
safety concerDs and was acceptable to the customers'
i) The non-conductor product from the high-tension separators contained the zircon,
monazire and the remaining aluminum minerals. It was reslurried with water and
pumped back to the wet mill.
I) In the wet mill, the non-conductors were fed to a hydraulic classifier and then shaking
tables, which were used to reject the remaining aluminum minerals. The table tailings
were combined with the spiral tailings in the same holding tankv and were pumped
together to the Blue Area
B) The table concentrate was dewatered on a vacuum filter tben dried and heated in a
second oil-fired rotary dryer.
D The dry, healed table concentrate was conveyed to another section of the dry min (the'
ztrc,on-cttcuit) where it was treated on high-tension machines to relrove any remaining
traces of titanium minerals. Those *"r. "oloted as conduclors and returned to the Ti
circuit.
l0) The non-conductor product from the higb-tension machines contained the zircon and
monazite plus traces of aluminum minerals. The non-conductors were then fed to
Decommissioning Plan for Heritage Minerals C5
high-inrensity magnets 10 remove magnetic minerals (monazire. staurolite and
toorrrrulio.) and thus produce market-grade zircon for sale to customers. Once agai4
because of the nature of the separation processes. some monazite remained in the
zircon product. A sample of zircon was also taken and analyzed by NRC and found to
conrain 350 ppm TII+U. This was again below the regulatory threshold of 500 ppm
set by NRC for "Source Material" requiring licensing. The Th+U content of the zircon
was also below the specifications set by customers.
I l) The rnagnetic product, which contained the monazite. was mixed with water and
pumped back to the wer mill where it was combined with the spiral tailings and the
iaUte taitings in the holding tank to make up the plant tailings that were pumped to the
blue Area. When analyzrud by NRC along with the other rnaterials, the combined
plant taitings were found to contain 120 ppm Th+U, which is less than the 180 ppm
ih"t *.r found in ASARCO's dry ffi lailings (Heritage's New Feed). The decrease in
Th+U concentration is explained by the loss of rnonazite to both the zircon and
leucoxene product. ths nnalyses show that the Heritage operation resulted in a net
improvement in the radiological condilion of the site when compared with what il was
at the end of ASARCO's operation and before the property was purchased by
Heritage. While these numbers are one-time analyses of single samples, they represent
the correlation amongst the various products, since all the samples were taken at the
same time.
12)The ASARCO Dry Mill Tailings in the Gray Area (the New Feed) were exhausted at
the end of February, 1990. At that time, Heritage decided 1561 sufficient zircon and
leucoxene had remained in the plant taitings in the Blue Area, especially during MR['s
initial operation period, to warrant the recycle of those tailings tbrough the plant for a
second round of processing to extract additional zircon and leucoxene products- This
was started in March, 1990 and became known as Phase II of the operation
l3) Some minor variations on the above-described process were tested and incorporated in
the plant operations in the eflorts to inprove product quality and yield. For
example,additional srages of spirals were added to irnprove silica and alumina
rejectlon. Another variatiorU which was incorporated to reduce fuel consumptio-n
was eliminating the second rotary dryer and processing the spiral concenmte directly
on the shaking-tables prior to processing in the dry mill. A third variation' which was
dictated UyUnC durfuE the licensing process, involved isolating the monazite-rich
magnetic product in a separate holding area rather than combining it with the other
t"ifiog.. Wh", tbat practice started, the mill tailings were no longer pumped to the
Blue Area but were sent 1o a separate area east of the wet mill. Tbe monazite-rich
meg.r.retics were stored separately in an area southeaS of the dry mi[. This is the area
known as "the Monazite Pile".
l4) The above-mentioned variations were incorporaled at the start of reprocessing of the
plant tailings (phas€ tr) in Marcb 1990. ln Augus, 1990, afler about 200,000 tons of
iuitingr were reprocessed thrrough the plant, Heritage decided to terminate all
op"r"-tio* due io the economic downturn which resulted in reduced demand and
prices for the plant Products.
Decommissioning Plan for Heritage Minerals C6
l5) During the final 30 days of operarion the monazite-rich sand was stored in 55-gallon
sreel drums instead ofbeing pumped to the monazite pile. This was in anticipation of
shipping the monazite of site to another processing facility.
The reprocessing of the 200,000 tons of Blue Area tailings during which the
monazite was isolated in the Monazite Pile resulted in further improvemenl in the
condition of the site through producing about 150,000 tons of tailings that were virnrally
monazite free . These tailings were stored separately in an area eas of the Blue Area and
north of the Gray Area As a consequence of this practice, approximarely 695 cubic yards
(1,400 tons) of monazite-rich product were generated and are stored in the Monazite Pile.
The Monazire Pile, as well as the planr buildings, are under the control ofthe NRC
according to the rerms oflicense No. SMB-1541. Figrre 8 is a schematic of phase II of
the plant operation.
Decommissioning Plan for Heritage Minerals C7
Overslze(Dlscard )
Clean
Ht,.l Taltlngs[;;;" Blue lrea)
(5O TPB)
BearrY Mlneral(5 TPB)
l.till Talllngs(45 TPII)
Hacmetics '*io-uonazlte Plle(o.s rPE)
Conc.
ZlrcooTo ShlPPlng
( 3 TPIT)
IreUCOXene I
To ShlPplng(1.s rDs)
FIGUBB 8
Eeritage oPer-ation (Pbase' rI)
Ylbratlng Screen
t{et Hlll(splrala & Tables)
RotarY DrYer
ShawPiftmaf
A tAw Pah6^iP ncldiry Pnlaloul Cot?onnou
With all best wishcs.
Mr. Craig Gordon
U.S. Nucloar Regulatory Commission
Regiou I
475 Allenddc Road
King of Pnrssia, PA 19406
Dear Craig:
Eacloscd is a levised Stmdby Trust fulecmeot aad e reviscd &aft hojcct Plaofor
UeAtage tvfinerals lnc.'s (Hlv{D decommissioo]"g and deconu*ination @&D) progralD'
HMI coutiaues to activcly pursue D&D cptions but oatually is aoxious o hsl'c'is-
progrr-;gr-df"rbocd'before eug,rtt 20, 1999: Should you bavc ay grcstioos please do
not hesitare to call as ti-e is of tbc esscnoe"
ln closing, I notc 6d HMI bas done somc sl,olyscs of the potenlial iryact of thc
HMVASARCO mio;; *aygiffi"e activities on local groundwatcr. Thosc analyses' ufrich
*iu u" provided to wic with rhc iorlts of the Final Sutrs Sruvey Plan (FSSP) for liceose
rcrminarion, demonstate that tbere have been no adverse ir'P"ry on-erormjyater ar the HM
sire. It would also note thatde propecd clcan up of the mmazitcpilc urd decontanination
of thc mill will pose no rlucar toloel wildlifc and similarly, thcre is no potential risk to
aquatic lifc froo such activities, particularly compued with thc eAivc miniat 3a{ rnillinrg
actiwities of the past
Ar.THoraY J. Trouasol
202.653.91 9E
:nthortrr,rhompron @rhtt?ittn..t1.(otn
July 13, 1999
Sinccrely,
Antbony J.
JtL t t lsg
ntl'.r.hcwginaoa.cota
Y;ljrrngron. D(
itcw rorL
tondon2r@ N Slrccr. t{W Wr:hingtoh. DC 2oo37-ll2!2O2.6'6r.rqD Frr: 2O2.863.86?
Eeritege Minerrls Inc-,s (EMI'l) Plan for the Dccommissioning end Dccouteminrtion
(D&D) oitb" Sitc Sub;ect to NRC Liccnse #SMBlS4l
Projcct Manrgeoent
The contraaor scleaed to perform the decommi5si6ning will be licensed to utilize any.licensable
eguipment by the u.s. Nuclear Regularory commisson 6r{nc) aod gndified by experieoce to
manage a projea oi,lii scopc. Th-e following list of aaivitics as prescrib€d in NI'JREG5849
will be uscd as a Phnning Eudc-
o Terminate the possession and storage of radioactive marcrial
. Remove radioactive materid fiom the facility'
o Properly disposc of aoy radioaaive material'
. Submit an NRC Form 313 "Disposition of Radioaaivc Materials."
. Coaduct Final Sitc Survey.
. Submit rePort to the I{RC.
o NRC Licensc Tcrmination.
Site Mobilizetion
. A.a unaffested buildiag will be used to esabtish alph" background aailiU for concrete and
mctal srbstratcs whicfi'comprisc tbe corutructiou of thc affccted bruildings on sitc.
. Environmcntal dosi:oetcrs will be placcd at locations arouod thc sitc prior ro any !&D work,
partiorlarly ncar rhe sleaazils pilc, worh arcas aad b_ackgrorurd localions- Sq{.Y, prior to
any D&D *oa,, dosimeters *ill b" evaluued and, if occessary, calibrarcd, asd at.the -- -
complctioo ordap aaivities collccted and cvaluatcd agein An air samphng ""it Fl be set
up 11ear and doumwind ofthe ooaazitc pilc. A basclinc air sample wiU bc obtaincd prior to
any D&D work- Thc cnvironmeatal mooitoriog isintcndcd to cvaluate potential doscs to
workers and mcmbers of tbe public due to the D&D Process.
. prior to aoy DAD work on sitc, both of the mill buildings will be closed to thc msxi'ulu.E.
e,.re't p,""ti."t to pr*"oiin,r,rder ienetruions and/or inadvcrtent contamination bywind or
water forccs.
. A scsure, fenccd-in exclusion ares Desr the existiog pile will be set up for the stagiag of
Sipping containers fillcd with monazitc ore and any eguipoest that catrlot be rcleased and
has becn removed from tbe site buildings. The enclosue will have a Ssle scccss thit will be
locked when the area is unsneade{ maint.;t'i"g tbc seqrity of liccnscd material per l0 CFR
Pan 20.
o I site specific Health urd Safety Ptaa (}IASP) will be prepared prior to commeDc€oent of
any D&D work.
(l) Rcuovel of thc Monrzitc Pilc
. Mooazitc ore will b€ placed into a hopp"r via a froot end loadcr which will tre$fer it into a
shipping containcr. Since thc mooazite pile was dcpositcd on natrral rcils, the deptb of the
"first cut" will be dctermined by the color differential betweeo the dark monazitc ore aod
lightty colored undcrlying sands. TLc cquipmcul,used to rctrrove the pilc will be dircacd to
kecp the u/tccls oD "clc8.E'groud d[ing tle cxcevatiou Mooazitc ore will be recovcrcd
from aay mctal dnrms aad packagcd as abovc. Empty drums will be sunreyed for rclcasc
usl4g the critcria that have beaa csteblished in the Final Starus Survey PleD (FSSP). Oncc
the pile has bcea cleared and package{ furthcr clean-up will be guided by sernning the area
with a shielded NaI crystal to achicve oo morc rhra twicc-backgrorrnd lords. Workers in this
phase of the project will have the requircd DOT'haznat" shipper tmining.
. Twice each day as required by eavironmeoal conditioos and prior to excavatioa wort tbe
pile will bc sprayed with watcr to rcducc the poteutial for airbornc partiarlates, Egtflpment
operalors and workers in tle immediate area will wcar respiratory protection until tlfo site
supervisor bas determined that the occupatiood limits on airboroc activity in l0 CFR 2O are
not cxceeded. Provided thcsc limi15 arc uot cxcccdd dust mesks will be used for the
duration of the work
. All personncl on sitc will bc badged for evrluetion of crrmulativc cxpozurc during thc
. At thc end of cach day, eguipmcol uscd to traasfcr tbe monazite will be locatcd within the
qclusion area. A thorough survcy 9f the aquipmcot used to transfer tbe moaazitc will be
made at thc cod of tbc packaging process aad will be cleancd Es Dec€ssEry and retcared after
tlre proccss hrs becn complaed.
(2) Suney and Sample Outdoor AlTectcd ead Uneficcted Arces
o l, IOm by lom grid will be establishcd aad refereoccd to a pcrnsocnt landrrrark. A.J
described in the FSSP eac,h grid will be srnreyed aad soil samples obtained rs roquired by
the plan Samples will bc sealed with complered cbain of amody forms and sent to En NRC
licensed laboraory for aoalysis. Sasrples will be processed and scaled ia couating Poq:.
for at lean 3 weeks prior to couDting L a[ow sestrlar eguilibrium to be achieved. No gadrng
or back-filling will be conduaed unril after NRC confrmatioa of the sarnpling results.
:
(3) Finel Strtus Suncy )
,. With survey instnrnegu under propcr quslity control (scc FSSP), tbc fnal rclease nrney
will be initiated ar the highest devation of eguipment and procccd dosmward to grqund
level. Completcd srn "y unia aud itrdividuat sa^roplc locations will be clearly marlled for
easy replicartioo. Tte wipe sanples for removablc radioaaivity will bc obtained fitst. TheD
tlc arca will be wiped clcan with a damp cloth and allowed to dry to reaovc aay d$st or film
that would shield a alpha emittiqg isotope 6xed to the zurfacc of the equipment. Tbe fixed
comFoDentofaoyresidualradioaaMtywiuthenbemeasured.
!. If e+ripocnt is discovered ufricb eao not bc reteased, aB ancropt will bc mrdc to c{caa it in
placc using a HEPA filtered vacuun unit. Suiuble PPE aod dust Easks will be wotD during
any vEcuuEling operations. Any irem with fixcd ac,tivity will bc dismantlcd aDd eacb piecc
brought to an arcE designated for furthcr cleaning on the grouud lcvel Inside E tcqporary
enclosue with HEPA filtcrcd ventilation, various clcauing techniques will be aneqPted.
Equipmcnt which caanot be cleased to below the release linits in the FSSP afler severd
attlmpu will be packaged in B-25 boxes and plarcd in the fenced cxclusion arca. *-$I such
. Oncc all designatcd equipment suniey units have been surveyed and ury iteos wUilh can
not be released removed, thc buildioi survey will be conducicd. Watls up to two {etcrs ard
then floors will be survcycd arcording to thc FSSP. At the completion of thc nlrvey, the
buildiag will bc closcd and sccurcd to thc crrrenl possible. The temporary ligbtilt will bc
lefi. in placc for any confirmatory slrvcys.
(a) F'inal Report
. Atl field logs, QC charu, and raw daa will be rcviewed as part of thc data validarioi process
The QA prmnctcrs as discussed in the FSSP will be evaluated. Approrcd datr willtbe used
ia the statistical data reduaion proccss specified in the FSSP. Survey diagrans willibc
reviewcd urd thc sa.oplc location verified. The fioal report will provide a discussioo of the
mcthods uscd onsitc, 8 summation of the data, and a statcmcnt on tbe sritability of tbc site
for uruestrictcd relcasc. Appeadicc will includc raw data, personncUenvironmcntal ,
moniroring data, shippiag manifeq QCTficld logs, and aay ottrcr information necesslry for a
thorough review. t
TOTfl- P.O5
ATTACHMENT 2
Uranium Content Estimates, Material Description, and Analytical Data
for HMI Monazite Sand
A:\He ritageAR.doc
riii
r,l
iilill
lriill
iil ..^-u- s^--+ar-_rn
-
lil
rk
o.oY t
r.c01
o ,Ol3
o.J31
6;il?
r.tl!
o.ooS J
e.olto
r.ct7o
/ o,cc1o
o.ool e
< a...lo
6.6c1L
o.or3
c..rt
o.oo 3
c,oY1
o.oll
o.ol{
c. c ol1
o.O!3?
o.tt1 I
T"tJ
r.o'7 {
..q I l
o.olL
o'S t{
6.o3{
o.rr lY
o.tc7S
o,02 t 7
O.o3<l I
(, o.o o ue
t.ool3
1t'oo tc
o'ocrL
tit
lrl
Itr
ltl
lll
til
l:l
lll
ill
Rlr. lq t t
(ty ttc)
t
J
Tl-trtr Cr.r.c .
UrJ Crr-l<
C5.^t. PlaJ (;tt,
l\o,rr z:Ii d.r0\
Z-irc;,. Qn &or'
Lt. c.o t.,- ?'r cL*
?.Sclrlf;t;7 (u,.r)
L1U-nrT (nor.J
kTUf;e;ror.5r.)
Jc:l S.-1-lr,r 4+--
r,trarr<rl s+*tr? n-.,
Stml(u...f+U5,8-)
i t-7
C
I
to
tt/tf / ?1
3/ ?/?o
l roolo
1o'oolo
<o.oolc
lo.oo I b
l\l 5oU;r
It-h. - s-r{r
%5U(*:G7(u.1
LlU-*^T('t.l
QauG*7(4g,L)
s cd.l1rrl T::t7 Arrr
8.t1.-,( ll.lrltT Pr*,l
F.r\^^ r-r:, AtG -' I
S t l Bt,*6 n-l S.-llt
Alarcr t trirfilt f.r-j-/-,
Cl<r- T-rUy (a*r*)
,Vtr/81
ri J
:
il
I'lt /tt / to
J
:
;
3 'f tr.y
.li3 t o. j.
ttlttc
l'Ylr.t
o.ll 2 oa l
tll. t tL,
q.?
,,.,
fa,
oJl -
1o.) i
@
1r/t3/7o
I
z t-t o.t ?.1*c-q 31
<..a - o7l
( r.3
Y-t t o.l
tlg't
37 t7
ttl,
t,te
o./l-oS7
1c-ol
l'? t o't
f,/tt / 1o
G /"'t / l"
,z /f /10
:
r/S/lo
I
T^LL Cbu*T=Cy
Nca? / CAgot-l f-t?)
Ztaea.
-.e-.f-t- C.G-?.
[fr*rXrr.* Cr-p.
Lc-c.a,rr-+ -T-r-tJ<
rata 3?
tYt t ?t
/-tl o.t t Y.f
sr * f 3 7
L.lt r 3Ylot I
a.C I t,'?a ,.?' s l;."--,1.3 t o.t Y. 1-
ATTACHMENT 3
IUSA/UDEQ Protocol
for Determining Whether Alternate feed Materials
are Listed Hazardous Wastes
A:\He ritageAR.doc
Stat oe of Utah
vi;ha'l (l L''avr(1(Jcv6ol
Dianne R. \ir)son, ]'h D'[:rrut.va (,uigo:
Dcnnis R. f)cs'ns:)rr.it1r
t) EP A iL'l'\l EN -t oF E\ \'' iR(.)N M li\':A L t-l i' ;'41';^'-y
DIVJSION ()F SOLI1.) AND HAZAIT.LX.)I.,S \\'ASTE
2t8 Ne6L l460 Wcst
P.O. Uox laatt()
Srlt Lnic Ciq . utih t4 t l.l.4t80
(;01) 5lE-51 i0
(t0l) ilt.67l5 F:q
(t0l) j16-4414 T D.t)
wanr dcq.5tatc-ut-us Wcb
Deccmber 7, 1999
M. Lindsay Ford
Parsons, Behle and Latimer
One Utah Center
201 Soutb Main Street
Suite 1800
Post Office Box 45898
Salt Lake City, Utah 84145-089
RE: Protocol for Determiniog Whethcr Alternatc Feed Mererials are Listed Hazsrdous
Wastcs
Dear Mr. Ford:
On Nove6ber 22,1999, we received the final protocol to be used by International Uraniun:
Corporation (IUSA) in determining whcther alternate feed marerials proposed for processrng at
the White Mesa MilI are lisred hazardous wastes. We appreciate the effort that went into
preparing this procedure and feel that it will be a useful gurde for IUSA in its a.lternate fced
detenninarions.
As was discussd please be advised that it is IUSA's responsibility to cnsure that the altemate
feed materials used are nol listed hazardous wastcs and &at the use of this protocol camot bc
used as a defense if listed hazrrdous waste is somehow processed at the White Mcsa Mill.
Thank you again for your corporation. If you havc any questions, please contact Don Verbrca at
s38-61 70.
Sittccreiy,
{ --4/&#;{;k,/v{;;t;;;K,.,^o
Utah Soiid and Hazardous Waste Control Board
c: Bill Sinclair. Utah Division of Radiation Control
F. \SHWIHW0\DYERBtCJ\\wP\nhrrt,r6r. !r?d
Cji! l,:Lir CcnE
Itl SuuLt l{5in Street
Snitc l60c
lic.\l O(fict [ror c5898
srlr'.:lr ciry. utrh
tt r.lJ{r69t
Tclrphont 501 5l?.:2!.
Frsimilc tOl !16.61ll
i l'rot tssio,r.lL
L^r 0otfol$tol'
November 22,1999
Don Verbica
Utatr Divisiou of Solid & Hazardous Waste
288 Norttr 1460 West
Salt Lake City, Utah
Re:Protocol for Determining Whetber Alternate Feed Msterials are
Listed Eazardous Wastcs
Dear Don:
I am pleased to present the final protocol to be used by Intcrnational Uraium
(USA) Corporarion ("IUSA') in determining whetber alternate feed materials proposed for
processing at the White Mesa Mill are Listed hazardous wastes. Also attached is a red-lined
versiou of the protocol re0ecting final chauges ntade to the docurnent based otr our last
discussiou witb you as weII as some minor editorial s[an8es from our final read-througb of
the document We appreciate the thougbtfrrl input of you and Scott Aaderson in
developing this protocol. We understand the Division concurs that materials determined
uot to be listed wastes pursuant to this protocol are not lised hazardous wastes.
We also rccomize tbc protocol does not address thc siruation where, after a malerial
fuas bccn determined not to be a listed hazardors waste undcr lhe Protocol, new unrefutable
infomratiou comes to light tbat indicatcs the matcrial is a listcd hazardous waste. Should
such an evenruality arisc, wc understand an appropriate rcsponse, if any, would need to be
worked out on a case-by-case basis.
l0l r0?.1
Don Vcr'i'it'.a
L,tair Division of Soiid & liazardotts \L'aste
\ovenrber 22, l99L)
Page T*'o
Thank you again for yoru cooperatloll
any questiotrs.
cc: (with copy of final protocol only)
Dianne Nielson
Fred Nclson
Breut Bradford
Don Ostlcr
Loren Morlon
BiLl Sinclair
David Frydenluod
David Bird
Tony Thompson
on this matler. Please call me if you havc
Very ruly yours,
Parsons Behle & latimerd,,uh,I
M. Lindsav FYrd
e
- olJ
.UEEs=€ttabp:^
3UE-9
+coz
o>g''-E*
> L5E-^kodi
G)+ao
=U)
=op
oNo-'if
CI
.9_)
o
o
G)+o
r3
a)
a)LL
G)+oC
0)
O)
.E
.g
E
0)+
0)o
o
6
Oo
ao-
ip: C EHEE ,
iEEgf,iEt'
qp
I E>E a-€!-: 6e;!-t $Eif8 6EE!z^ 67'^E
n. >J o-9P :PP6.6 >EQE'
:-€E;E E
@U
i.ErfEEErl9.gE)9=-d-o=I .!z A ts O = t oi-oco;Cv.;
I :qsEiEsr
E, ;aJe€€i
:E *E
=5EigEEEou &
E
t
3
cof
os
-c
8-9
Ggt
oE
od)ooLo
=
l!;
gEH
OOard ErOoC
i
0)
E'
E
E
o
o
?a
8
b
oo
I
5oc
0)n
3
6o
?
o
o
C)I
*
E
cc
Ec0)-8
Io
E
o
8p
B!gE
si9,Eooco
E
C
E
-c
b
0)oI
c
5!
Zq-nO
cc9}o-a6
o lref)
c.99
ktOE-U
EaI;
.ac
cd
c
cE
5(.)
8D
;Eg8
99Eb
iT
0)
3
o
o
b\
-a --:'.
s;!:!o
Tt
.0o!
E!p
E
n,!
iI
T!
69
oIpt
:
E
-?
-0 -abLEjss.E6i)-a
E5
[!p5vE
;+
!o6i
Eo!e
Eoe
€;z
F
6
.0o
E';o..
-oeo:
olr k oC Iv z 6! i-^qs EoHS iI >.O-3 Ib €8S* I
E EB€E Ile E=.E s,
lq-EgE E " iiE . . . .,v 3 i
9. f;;s!E t;EH r
EE €E.g;;? E
!agEiEtiEq: EgEEqi r
Ei,I:iE!EEI
iE:eiE:::EiE $i
=
9e
2!:!cEr5Y
!L-iu,
E;E E EllcL l( IE>a :stq.s-.. e:ut " I i: e,
,EE?i.iE'!ssEsflEf;!
6l sf sgf EtEs
=l 55. E !EgE! ,d.E i r,F8i t"s s !3!
o.
I
l.
PRorocol- FoR Drmn-rvtrrn{G WnrrHrn'
*\LTER\.qTE FEED \t.crrru,{Ls ARI LrSrro Hezrp6us wlstes'
NowMsuR 16, 1999
SOURCE INVESTIGATION.
perform a good faith investigation (a "source lnvestigation" or "S["1: regarding whether
any listed hazardous wasresi are locued at the site from whicb altemate feed materialo
(.Matenal") originates (the "Sirc"1. This invcstigation witl be cottducted in conformance
with EpA guidancet and the extent of informatiou required will va5y with the
circumstances of eacb case. Following are examples of investigations thal wottld be
considered satisfactory under EPA guidance and this Protocol for some sclccted
siruarions:
r Where the Material is or has becn generated from a kuown process under the
coutrol of the generator: (a) an affidavit, certificate, profile record or simila-
document from thc Gencrator or Site Manager, to that effect, together with (b)
a Marerial Safety Data Shect (.'MSDS') for thc Material, limit€d profile
5arnpling, or a material composition dctermincd by the gcncrator/operator
based on a process material balancc-
I This prorocol reflects rhe procedues rhar will be followcd by Intcrnational Uranium (USA)
Coqporatiou ("ruSA") for detcrmining *'trcthcr alternate feed materials proposed for proccssing at thc
Wlute Mcsa Mill "r. (o, contain) listea hazardous wastes. It is based on curert Utah and EPA rules and
EpA gui.rance under thC Rcsourca 66psgnBtlon and R-ecovery Act ("lRcRa"), 42 U.S.C. $$ 6901 et scq.
This protocol rvill be changcd irs nec€ssary to rcflcct any perlincot changcs to RCRA nrles or EPA
guidancc.
2 This ,vestigation will bc performed by IUSA, by the cntity responsible for the site frou wtrich the
Matcnal ongrnstes (the "Gencrator"), or by a cOmbinatiOn Of the twO-
3 Attachr'cnt I to this protocol provirtes a sunurary of thc diffcrcnt classifications of RCRA lrsted
hazardous wasttx.
4 Alrcruatc fced marcrials that are priruary or inrermcdialc products of the generator of the nraterial (e'g ,
..geen,, or ..black" sals) are not RCRA "sccondary materials" or "solid wastes," as def-racd iD 40 CFR
261, and are not covcrcd by this Protocol.
5 Epa guidance identi-fics thc following sources of sitc- and westc-specific information tbat c-'ay'
depcndirig oD thc circumstances, be considered in such an invcstigatlon: hazirdous waste ruanifests'
,ou"h.rs, bills of lading, salcs and inventory rccords. matcrial safcty data shccts' storage records'
sampling and analysrs reporG, accidcnt rcporls, sitc inrrestigation reports, intervievs wrth
"-pioy..Vformcr eroploy.es and formcr ow'nerVoperators, spill rcPorts, inspectiou rcports end logs'
permr;, and enforcement ordcrs. See e.g..61 Fed. Reg. lEE05 (April29. 1996)-
241t76. r
pRoToCr)L F()R f)ETER.\1.\tNG WnErnt.n AL.rtR{ATE l"tEr, iU^TERIALS -{Rf LISTED H.\Z^R-ooLS wASTfS
. Where specific inforniatton exists about lhe Seneration Process and
**"g..Lnt of thc Matenai: (a) an afficiavit, certificate, profiie rexord or
similar document from tbe Geuerator or site Manager, to that effect, toSether
wirh (b) an MSDS for tire Material, hmited profile sampling data or a
prcexisting investigatiou perfom:ed at the Sitc pursuant to CERCLA" RCRA
or olher state or fcderal euvironmental laws or PrograrDs'
r Where potentially listed processes are lnown to have been couducted at a Site,
an investigation considenng the following sources of information: site
investigarion reports prepared under CERCLA, RCRA or other state or federal
environmental laws or programs (e.8., an RL/FS, ROD, RFVCMS, hazardous
waste inspection report); interviews with persons possessing.Lmowlcdge about
the Material arrd/or Site; and review of publicly available documeats
concernrng proccss activities or the history of waste geueration and
manage-meDt at the site-
o U naterial &om the samE soluce is bcing or has been accepted for direct
disposal as lle.(2) bl,product matcrial in au NRC-regulued facility in the
Staie of Utah with the consetrl or acquiesceuce of the Statc of Utah, tbe Source
Investigarion performed by such facility'
Proceed to SteP 2.
2. SPECIFIC INT'ORMATION OR AGREEMENT/DETERMINATION BY
RCRA REGULATORY AUTHORITY TTI.AT MATERIAL IS NOT A
LTSTED HAZARDOUS \vASTE?
a Determine whether specific information from the Source lnvestigation exjsts about the
generation and management of the Material to support a conclusion that the Matcrial is
not (and docs not contain) any lisred bazardous waste' For example, if specific
infornration cxists that the Material was not generated by a listed waste sourcre and that
the Material has nor been nrixed with any listed wastes, the Malerial would uot be a listed
hazardous wasle.
b. A1tematively, determine whether the appropriate state or federal authority with RCRA
jurisdiction over the Site agrees in wnting wrth the geoeralor's deterrnination tbat tbe
Material is not a listed hezardons wastc, has madc a "contained+ut''detcrminatignr6 with
rcspect to the Matcrial or has concluded the Material or Sitc is not subject to RCRA
6 Epn explains thc..contained+ul" (also referred to as "containcd-in") principlc as follows:
ln practice, EPA has applicd the containcd-rn pntrciplc to refer to a prrocess wherc a sitc-
specific dctcrmination is madc that concenratrons of hazardous constinrtmB is any givea
(foorrotc conttnued on next Pagc)
241876 I
3.
PROTO(,()t. F()R DETERIiI\h-G wtltTttER ALTER-\,{TE Fr,t',D }lATt'RI'At's ARf LISTED HAZ'AR-DOLS WASTL\
II r-u to tlither quesriott, proceecl to Stcp j
If no to both qucsnons, Proceed to Step 6
PROVIDE INI"ORMATION TO I\T'C AND UTA.H.
a. lf speciEc infomration exists to supPort a conclusiou that the Material is not, and does
not contain, any listed hazardous waste, ruSA will provide a description of the Sowce
lnvestigarion to NRC and/or rhe Srate of Utah Deparrment of Enviroruncntal Quality'
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste (the "State"), together with an affidavit
explaining why tbe Material is not a listed hazardous waste.
b. Alternatively, if the rypropriate regularory aufhority with RCRA jurisdiction ovcr the
Site agrees in writing with the geDeralor's determination that thc Material is not a listed
hazardous waste, -"to a contained-out determilatiou or determincs thc Material or Site
is not subject to RCRA ruSA will provide documeutaboD of the regulatory authority's
determination to NRC and tbe Statc- ruSA may reiy ou such determination provided
that thc statc agrocs the conclusiors of the regulatory authority werie reasonable and madc
in good faith.
Proceed to Stq 4.
DOES STATE OF UTAS AGREE THAT ALL PREYIOUS STEPS BAVE
BEEN PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WTIE TEIS PROTOCOL?
Determine rvhether the Stae agrees that this hotocol has been properly followed
(ilcluding tbat proper decisions were made at each decision point)' The State sball
review the informaion provided by IUSA in Srep 3 or 16 with reasonable spced and
advise ruSA if it believes IUSA has not properly followed this Protocol in determining
(foomote continued Eom prcvious pagc)
volurme of envirorunenbl media are low cnough to dctcrminc that thc mcdia does not
"contain" hazardor.rs wastc' TypicaUy, thesc io'called 'containcd-in" [or "contarned-
out"] dctcrminatioos do uot Eean
-tbat no hazardous constituents are present in
environrnental mcdia but simply that thc conce,tratlons of hazardous constinrenls
present do not warrant meDagsE€nt of thc mcdia as hazardous wastc. . ..
EpA has not, to datc, rssucd dcfinirrvc gurdance lo cstablish tbe conccntrarions at which
contained-in dcrerminations may be nrsde- As noted above, decisions that media do not
or no longcr coutain hazardOtrs wastc 3rc tlprcally ma& on a case-by'case basis
considcnng thc risks poscd by thc contamrnarcd mcdia'
63 Fed. R.eg.28619,28621-22(May 25, 1998) CIhase IV LDRpreamblc).
4.
?438?6.:
5.
pRol-o(:ot. FoR DE.rERVI.\I).C \\'ilf'rllf R AL'rl:R\.{, 1 f FttD }1.lrrnt.+t-s Axf Lrs'l'EU H.rzenpous W.{S rLS
that rhe Material is not ltsted i:azarcious waste, speci , Lng the particular areas ol-
dcficiency.
If rhis Protocol lras not been properly followed by IUSA in makiug its detcrmination that
the Material is not a listed hazardous wsst€, then IUSA shall redo its analysis in
accordarrcc with this Protocol and, if justified, resubmlt the information described in Step
3 or 16 explaining why the Matcrial is not a listcd hazardous waste. The State shall
notifu IUSA with reasonable speed if tbe State stjll belevcs ttris Protocol has nol been
followed.
If yet,proceed to Step 5.
If no, proceed to Step I.
MATERIAL IS NOT A LISTED HAZARDOUS WASTE.
The Material is not a listed hazardous waslc and no hrrther sampling or evdualron is
necessary in the following circu:nstances:
o Where tbe Material is determiaed uot to be a tisted hazardous wastc
based on specific information about the generatiou/managcment of the
Material OR the appropriate RCRA rcgulatory authority with
jurisdiction over thc Site agrees with the geoerator's detennination that
the Material is not a listcd HW, makes a contained-out deteruinatiort
or concludcs the Material or Site is not subject to RCRA (enrl the State
agre6 the conclusious of the regulatory authority were reasonable and
made in good faith) (Step 2); or
r Where the Material is deicnnincd nol to be a listed heza'fl6ps waste (in
Steps 5 through ll, l3 or l5) and Confirmation/Acceptance Sampling
are determincd not to be necessa:y (under SteP l7).
IS MATERI,AL A PROCESS WASTE KNOWN TO BE A LISTED
HAZARDOUS WASTE ORTO BE MIXED WITH A LISTED
EAZARDOUS WASTE?
Based on the Source lnvestigation, determine whether the Marerial is a process waste
known to be a tistcd hazardous waste or to be mixed with a Iisted haz:rdous waste. If the
Material is a process wsste and is from a lised hazardous waste source, it is a listed
hazardous waste. Sivnilsty, if the Material is a proccss waste and has been mixcd with a
listed haz.ardous wastc, it is a listed hazardous waste under the RCRA "mixturc ru]e." II
6.
2alE76. I
pRuTOCOL roR DETERIItNISG \ /HETHER ALTER\ATE lrf ED iU.\TERt,\t-s ARr. Ltsrro H,rz,tnoOus \l'^srEs
the Marerial is ut Euviromrcntal Mediun:.' it curnot be a lrsted haz-ardous waste by direcl
listing or under tire RCRA "mixrure rule,"s If the Material is a process waste but is not
knowu to be trom a iisted source or to be mixed with a listed waste, or if the Material is
an Errvrrorunental Med:urrr, proceed to Steps 7 tbrough I I 1o dcterminc whether it is a
Iisted hazardous waste.
If yes, proceerl to Step 12.
If no, proceed to Step 7.
DOES MATERIAL CONTA]N AI{Y POTENTIALLY LISTED
HAZARDOUS CONSTITTJENTS?
Based on the Source Investigatiou (and, if applicable, Confrrrnation and Acceptance
Sampling), determine whether the Material contains auy hazardous constituents listed in
the then most recent version of 0 CFR 261, Appendix VII (which identifies hazardous
constituents for which F- and K-listed wastes were listed) or 4O CFR 261.33(e) or (0 (the
P and U listed wastes) (collectively "Potentially Listed Hazardous Coustinrcnts'). If thb
Material coDtains such constitu€nts, a sou,rcc evaluatiou is ncccssary (pursuant fo Stcps 8
through I l). If the Malcrial docs not contain any Potenrially Listcd Hazardous
Constiruents, it is nol a listed hazardous ,waslc. Thc Matcrial also is Dot a lised
hazardous waste it whcre applicablc, Confinution and Acceptancc Sampling rcsults do
not reveal the presence of ary "new" Potcntially Lised Hazardous Constitueats (i.e.,
constituents othcr than thosc that have already becn idenrificd by thc Souce Invcstigation
(or previous Confrmation/Acceptance Sarnpling) atrd determincd oot to originate from a
listcd sourcc).
If yes, proceed to Step 8.
If no, proced to Step l6-
IDENTTF"Y POTENTIALLY LISTED WASTES.
Identifu potcntially listcd frezsr6isus wastcs ("Potentially Lised Wastes") based on
PorentiaUy Listcd Hazardous Constirucrrts detected in thc Marerial, i.e., wastes which are
listcd fior any of the Potentia-lly Listed Hazandous Constituents dctected in thc Matenal, as
7 T},c tcr* "Environmcntal Media" mcans soils, ground or sruface watcr and scdimcns.
8 Thc "mixturc rule" applics only to mixturcs of listcdthazardous wastcs and other "solid wastcs-" .See
40 CI-'R S 261.3(aX2)(iv). Thc mrxu.re rule docs,not apply to mixttrcs of listcd wasrcs and
Environmental Media, becausc Environmenal Media ale not "solid wast6" rurder RCRA. Sce 63 Fcd.
Ree. 28556,2867,1(May 26, 1998).
E.
243E76.r
pROTOcot, FOR I)ETr-RMl)-tlc \\il{fTltElr AITE&\,\re ['[ED ]l,rrr.Rtlts .ARf LN'l'f'D HAZAR-DOLS \\"r-5TF-S
irientil-red in rire tben most current versiott of 40 CFR 261 Appendix VII or 40 CFR
26i.3i(c) or (f)., With respecr ro Porentially Lisred Hazardous Constrtucnts identifieo
tlrrough Confirmation and/or Accepralce Sampiing, a sourcc cvalttation (pursuant to
Steps 8 througir l l) is Decessar-v only [or "new" Potenlially Listed Hazardous
Constirueub (j.e., constituents other than those that have already been identified by the
Source lnresiigation (or previous Confimration/AcceptaDce Sampting) and determ.ined
not to originate from a listed source)-
Proced to Step 9
9. WERE AI{Y OF THE POTENTI.ALLY LISTED WASTES KNOWN TO BE
GENERATED OR IUANAGED AT SITE?
Based on information from the Source Investigation, determine whcther any of the
potentially Listed Wastcs identified in Step 8 are knowu to have been geuerated or
slrnaled at the Site. This derernrinarion involves identi$ing whether any of the specr-fic
or Don-spe,ci6c sources ideiliEed in the K- or F-liss has ever been conducted or located
at tbe Site, wbether any wasle from such proc€ssos bas been managed at the Site, and
wbether auy of the P- or U-Iisted co--ercial chemical products has ever becn used'
spilled or manaBcd tbere- ln particular, this detsmiDatiou sbould be based on the
foUowing EPA criterie
Solveut Listiugs (F001-F005)
Under EPA guidance, '1o determine if solvent consituents contaminating a waste
are RCRA spent solvent F00l-F005 wastes, the [site mauager] must know if:
o The solveuts arc speilt and cannot be rased without reclantstion ot
cl6aning.
O The solveots were used esclusively for their solvent propenies.
o The solvents arc speut mixtures and blends that contained. belore use,
a roml of l0 percent or more (by valume) of the solvents listed in
F00I, F002, F004, and F005.
If the solvents coileinccl in thc [wastes] are RCRA listed wastes, t]e
[wastcs] are RCfu0r fiazardous wastc. When the [site mrnager] does not
have guidance inforuration oD the use of thc solvcnts aud thcir
charactcristics before use, the [wastes] cannot be classified 35 g6ntaining a
9 For "xamplc, if rhc Matcrial contains terachloroethylene, tbe following would bc Potcutially Ltsted
Wastcs: F001, F002 ,F024, K019, K020, K150. Ki5l or UZl0. .Iee 40 Cm 261 App. VII.
241t70 I
pRoroc:OL FOR Dtrr.R-\rt)l\(; WnT.THER ALr-f R\.lTr. FEF.D M,r-rtRl.eus Anr Llsrro He-z-rnoot s W^srr.s
irsteci spent solvent.":c The person perfonrung tlte Source Investigation
will malie a good faith effort to obtain infom'ratjon on any solvettt use at
the Site. If soivens rvere used at the Site, general industry standards for
solvent use in effect at the hrne o[ use will be considered in determining
w,hether those solvents contained l0 percent or more of the solvents listed
in F001, F002, F004 or F005.
K-Listed Wastes and F-Lisred Wastes Otber Tbau F001-F005
Under EPA guidance, to deteruine rvhether K wastes and F wastes other than
F0O1-F005 arc RCRA listed wastcs, the gcneralor "must know lhe generatiort
proccss idormation (abour eacb waste contained in tbe RCRA wastc) dcscribed il
tbe listing. For example, for [wastes] to be identificd as conaining K00l wastes
that are described as 'bottorn sediment sludge from tbe teatment of wastewaters
from wood preserving processes that use creosote and/or pentacblorophenol,' the
[site mauagcr] must lsrow thc manufacturing process that gcucrated thc wastes
(treahrent of wastewaters from wood preserviag process), fecdstocks uscd in the
process (creosotc and pentachloropbenol), and thc proccss identification of the
wastes (bonom sediment sludge)-"rr
P- end U-Listcd'Wasres
EPA guidance provides tbat "P and IJ wxtes cover only uuused aod unmjxed
corunercial chernical products, parricularly spilled or oFspec products- Not
every waste containing a P or U chemical is a hazardous wasle. To determine
whether a [waste] contains a P or U waste, the [sitc planagcr] must have direct
evidence of product use. I-u particular, the [sirc manager] should 35set1ein, if
possible, whether the chemicals are:
o Drscarded (as dcscribcd in 40 CFR 261.2(a)(2)).
o Either off-spec commelcial products or a commercially sold grade.
o Not used (soil contami:rated with spilled unused wast6 is a P or U
waste).
l0 Managcmcnt of lnvcstigation-Derived Wastes During Site Inspecbons, EPA,/54O|G-9[(OO9, May I99l
(cmphasrs a<idcd).
I I M"neg.-ent of Invcstigation-Dcrivcd Wastes During Site Inspcctions, EPA/54OG-91/009, May l99l
(emphuis addcd).
241 376. r
. Tile sole active itlgredient in a tormulalron""2
If potentially Listetl wasres were knowr to be generated or managed at the site, further
evaluation is nccessalJ to determrne whethEr these wa"stes were disposed of or
ssnrnringled with the Material (Steps l0 and possibly lt). If Potentially Listed Wastcs
were not loown to be geoerated or managed at the Sile, then information conceming the
soluce of porentially Listed Hazardous Constiruenrc in the Material will be considered
'tnavailable or tnconclusive" aud, trnder EPe guidance,tr the Materid will be assumed
not to bc a listcd hazardous waste-
12Managementoflnvestigation-DerivcdWastesDuringSiretospections,EPA'/540/G-9I/009'May
1991.
13 fpe guidance consisently provides that, wherc information conceming the origin of a wastc is
nnavailable or inconchuivc, thc waslc may bc assumed not to be a lised hazardous wastc- See e'g'.
Memorandurn from Timotby Ficlds (Acting Assistant firlminicu?tor for Solid wastc & Emergency
Responsc) to RCRA/CERCIA Senior Policy Managers regarding 'Mauagcmeut of Rcmediation waste
Under RCRA" dated Oaobcr 14, 1998 ("\tlherc a facility owocr/opcrator makes a good faith effort to
determine if a material is a Ustcd bazardous waste but carrnot malcc such a dercrmination because
documsntation regarding a source sf c6nlarnination, conUminaO! Or \vaste is tmavailoble or
inConClusive, EPA has ifated that onc may assume thC SOIUCC, contami[ant, or waste is not hsred
haz:rf,ss5 wastc"); NC? Prcamble, 55 Fcd. Rcg. 8758 (March 8, l99o) (Notrng tbat 'it rs oflcn
necessarJ rc lqrow thc origin of the waslc to determine whelhcr it is a listcd wastc and that' if such
doctnnen@ion is lacking, rte btd agenq ma)) assume it b not a listed wosre); Eeamble 1o proposed
Hazardous waste ldentification Rule, 6l Fed- Rcg. 18805 (April 29, l99O ("Facility owner/opcrators
should nral<e a good faith cffort to dctcrmisc whethlr media wcre contaminared by hazardous wastes and
ascertarn the datcs of placo:rc,nl Thc Agency believes thar by using availablc site- and waste-specific
inforrnanon ... facilityowner/operators wouldtypically bc ablc 19 makc tbcse detersrinations' However'
as discussed earlier io ,h. p.oroble of today's propoSal, d infornation is not m'ailable or inconclusive'
faciliry own*/operators ,nay genoally *ir^" rlrrrt the malerial coilaminoting ilte medio v'ere not
hazardous wasres."); n amUlc to tbR Phase IV Rulc. 63 Fed. Rcg- 28619 (May 26, 1998) ("As
discusscd in ftc April 29, 1996 proposal, thc Agency continucs to belicvc ttrat' y' inlormation u not
ovailable or inconclusive il is gineratly reasonsble to ctsstsne thnl contarninated soils do nol contatn
untreatcd hozardous **res...-); and Memorandutn from John H- Skinnrr (Director, EPA Offrcc of
Solid Wastc) to David lrly'agouer (Dircctor, EPA Air and \trastc Managcmcnt Divisiort Region VI[)
rcgardir,g'.Soils from Misso,ri Dioxtn Sitcs," datcd Jauuary 6, 1984 ("The a,alyscs indicste thc
prescnse of a numbcr of toxic cOmpOundS iO many Of thc soil saurplcs taken frO'rtr variOus sites'
However, the presencc of rr.sc toxicants in rhc soil docs trot autonatically ruake thc soil a RCRA
hazardous waste. The origin of the toxicanE mrlst be Lcnown in order to &termine 6at thcy arc dcnvcd
from a tisred hazardous u/Easc( s)- If the cxrlct origin of thc toxiunts it not lopwn, thc soils unnot be
(footnote continucd on ncxt Pegc)
I'ROTOCOL [.oR DETTRtrllNltrG wHEl'ilf.tr Ar.TERi\eTr. f r.r.n M'rrf lt'rts ARE LISTED H'l.ZARrrOtrS wASTfS
241t76. I
10.
pR()T()COL tOR I)ETEHMT\lNC \\'ltr:Tl.rfR -A,L-]-ER\.ATE FEED f,lLATf RrAI,s ARf LISTED H^ZAX-DOL:S l*'A-STL\
If yu. proceed ro Step 10.
I,f no, procced to Step 16.
WERE LISTED WASTES KN'OWN TO BE DISPOSED OF OR
COIvLIIINGL ED wtTH MATERIAL?
If listed wasres identified in Step ! were koown to be generated at the Site, determine
wliether they were koown to be disposed of or commingled with the Material?
I/yes, proceed to Step 12.
If no, proceed to Step I l -
Ax.E THERE ONE OR MOFJ POTENTIAL NON-LISTED SOI.JRCES OF
LISTED HAZARDOUS }VASTE CONSTTTUENTS?
In a siruarion whcre Poenrially Listed Wastcs were Isoua to bavc been
generated/managed at the Sire, but the wastes r*,ere Dot lsrown to have been disposed of
or commingled with the Material, determine wbether there are potential non-listed
sources of Potentially Listed Hazardous Constituents in the Material. If not unless the
State agrees otherwise, tbe coustituents will be assumed to be from listed sources
(proceed ro Srep l2). lf so, the Materiai will be assumed not to be a listed hazardous
wasrc (proceed to Step l6). Notwithstanding the existence of potential non-listed sowc€s
ar a Sire, the Potentially Lisred Hazardous Constinreas in the Marcrial will be cousidered
to be from the Listed sourc(s) i4 based on the relative proximiry of the Material to tbe
tisred and non-tisted soruce{s) and/or information concerning wastc maDagemeot at the
Site, rhe evidence is compelling that the listed sourc(s) is the sourc€ of PotcntiaUy Listed
Hazardous Coustitueuts b tbe Material.
If 1tes, proceed to Step 16.
If no. proceed to Step 12-
MATERIAL IS A LISTED I{AZARDOUS WASTT.
The Material is a listed bazardous waste under the following circumstances:
(footnote continucd from prcvious pac'*)
considered RCRA hunrdous woriles un-less thcy cxhibit onc or morc of the charactcristics of hazardous
Yya^stc . ..").
11.
t2.
9?43t?6. t
t3-
pRoroCOL FoR I)ETE,RMtNT\c; WHETHER ALTER\.\ l t: Ft.f D lvl.rl ERlALs .{RE LISTED l{AZ^RD()us WAsrf-\
o If the Materiai is a process w'.r-ste and is known to be a listcd hazardous
\r'asle or to be nuxed with a iisted irazardous wastc (Step 6),
o If Potentiallv Listcd Wastes wcre lorown to be generated/managed at
the Sire anri ro be disposed of/commiugled with the Material (Step l0)
(subject to a "conLained-out" determinatton in Step 13), or
r If Porendally Listed Wastes were }rrowu to be generated/managcd at
the Site, were not knorvn to be disposed oflcommingled with tbe
Material but there fie not a-ny potential non-listed sotuces of the
Potentially Listed Hazardous Constin:ents detectcd in the Material
(Srep t t) (subjecr to a "contatned-out" determinatiou in Step l3).
Proceed to Step 13.
IIAS STATE OF UTAII MADE A CONTAINED-OUT DETERMINATION.
If the Matcriat is an Environmental Med.ium, and:i
. the level of any listed r,vaste constituents in the Material is "de minimis" ; or
r all of the listed wasle constirucnts or classes thcreof arc alrcady present in the
White Mesa Mill's tailings ponds as a result of proccssing convcntioud ores
or other alterpate feed materials in concentations at least as }righ as found rn
the Material
the State of Utah rvill consider whether it is appropriatE to make a contained+ut
determination with respect to the Material.
If the Smrc makc-s a containefuW determination, proceel to Step 16.
If the State does nol ma*c a contained-out determination, proced to Stq l4-
IS IT POSSIBLE TO SEGREGATE LISTED HAZARDOUS WASTES
F"RO M OTHER IT/IATERHLS?
Dererminc whether there is a reasonable way to segregate malerial that is a listed
hazardous waste fiom alternate feed rnalerials that arc uot listed hazardou,s wastes that
witt be sent to IIJSA's Whitc Mcsa Miil. For exarnple, it nray be possible to isolue
material from a certain area of a renrediation site and exclude that matcrial from Marerials
that will be sent to fhe Whitc Mcsa Mill. Altematively, it may be possible to increase
t4.
2{J876.:t0
PROTOCOT. FOR DrTf RJtrr\r\C WHT.THER AITTR^'ATE Fftp Mef tnf.{Ls A-RE Lls-rED HAi'-.^Rr)Ol-;S WASTF-s
sampling frequency and erclude matenals with respect to which thc increased samciing
identifies constirucnts wbich have been attributed to listed hazardous waste.
tf yes, proceed to SteP 15.
15. SEPARATE LISTED IIAZARDOUS WASTES FROM MATERIALS.
Bascd on thc method of segregation determined under Step 14, materids that are listcd
hazardous wastes are separated from Materials that will be sent to the White Mesa Mill-
For materials tlnt are listed hazordous wastes, proced to Step 12.
For Mateials to be sent to the White Mesa Mill, proceed to Step 16.
16. PRO\TIDE INFORMATION TO NRC AIYD UTAH.
If the Material does not contair any Poteatially Listed Hazardotx Constihrents (as
determined rn Step ?), where information conce,l::ring thc source of Potentially Listed
Hazardor:s Consrituents in the Marerial is'trnavailable or inconclusive" (as detemined in
Steps 8 through 1l), or where the State of Utah has made a containedout deterneination
with respect lo the Material (Step l3), the Material will be assumed not to bc (or conlain)
a lisred hazardous waste. [n such circumstances, IIJSA will submit the followi:rg
o A descripuon of the Source Iuvestigation;
o Ar explanarion of why tbe Material is not a listcd hazardous wastc.
'H;h?,,[?J?;:"*Tff l""l;y*'#r3,";'$cceP'iance
' I: ::f?iYffirrilifr'rf ff LTi:::HT#,ffi'ffi
Analysis Plens.
o A c6py of Confirmation and Acccptancc Sampling results, if
applicablc. ruSA will submrt these results only if tbcy ide,ntify thc
presence of "new" PotentiaUy Listed Hazardorx Constiruerrts (as
defined in Stcps 7 and 8).
Proceed to Step 17.
T7. ARE SAMPLING RESULTS OR DATA REPRESENTATryE?
Dctcrminc whether the sarnpling resulrs or data from the Source Invcstigatiou (or, where
applicable, Confi.rmation/Acccptance Sampling results) arc rq)resentative- The purposc
of this srcp ) is to detcrmine wbether Confirmation and Acceptancc SaDpling (ot
2rlE76. I u
PRoTocUL [oR DETERITINr.\G WItf,.rr|ER AI.Tf RN,\T[, Ff EU I\,I{TERIAl-S .{RE LISTED HAZAR.OOUS \vASI.LS
conrinued ConfirmatioD and Accepta:rcc Sampling) are necessary. If the sampiing resulLs
or dara are representative of all Material destj.ned for the White Mesa Mill, baseri on the
exlenr of sampling conducted the narure of tJre Matenal andor the nafurc o[ the Site
(e.g., wbether chemical operation5 ey x,aste disposai were known to be conducted al tire
Site), tuture Confirnration/Acceptance Sampling will Dol be oecessary. If the sampling
results are not representative of all Material destined for the White Mesa Mill, then
additional Confirnratiou/Acceptance sampling rnay be appropriatc. Con6rmation and
Acceptance Sampling wi[ be rcquired only rvhere it is reasonable to exPect that
additional sampling will dctect additional contanrirral'Ils not already detected- For
exaruple:
o Where the Material is segrcgated from Environmental Media, €.9., the
Material is containenzed" thcre is a hiBh probabiiity the sarnpling resuls or
data from the Source lnvesngatron are reprcsentativc of the Material and
Confirmatiory'Acceptance Sa-fling would uot be requircd.
r Where ruSA witl be accepting Material from a discrete ponion of a Site, e.g-.
a storage pile or other dcfiucd areq aud adequate sampling charactaized the
area of coBcern for radioactive and cbemjcat contaminants, thc sampling for
that area would be cousidcred representative and Confirmation/Acceptance
sampling would uot bc required l
. Where Malerial wrll be received from a wide area of a Site and the Site l:as
been carefully characterized for radioactive contaminants, but not chemical
c onlaminants, Confirmation/Ac c eptance samp ling would b e required.
r Where the Site was not used for industnal activity or disposal bcfore or after
uranjum material disposal, and the Site bas becn adequately characterized for
radioactive and chemical conlaminants, thc cxisting sampling would be
considered sr'fficicnt and Confirmatlory'Acceptancc samPling wouJd not be
required.
e Where listed wastes were lsrorm to be,disposed of on the Site and the limirs of
tbe areA wbere listed wastes were mnnaged iS not }nown,
Confirmation/Acceptanss srnpling would be required to cff;urc that listed
wastes are Dot shipped to IUSA (scc Step l4).
If yes. proceed to Step 4.
If no, proceed to Step l8-
DOES STATE OF I.]"TA.H AGREE THAT ALL PREVIOUS STEPS HAVE
BEEN PERFORIT{ED IN ACCORDANCE WIf,H THIS PROTOCOL?
Dctcrminc whsthcr tbc State agess tbar this iProtocol has becn propcrly followcd
(includ.ing thar propcr dccisions were made at each decision point). Thc State shall
18.
24.t876.1 t2
pkOTOCOL l:OR DETf,R\4r\rNC WH[-THER ALTt:R\A'rt: FEF-D ll-{If.Rr.{S ,tRE LTSTED l{/\7 {RDOtiS WASTES
i
i
review the infiomrationprovided by IUSA in Step l6 witlr reasonable speed and advise
IUSA rf ir bclieves IUSA has not properly follorved this Protocol in cieterminr:rg tirat the
Materiai is not listed hazardous waste, specifoing the particuiar arcas of deficicncy.
Ayes, proceed to Step 19.
If no, proceed to Step l.
19. MATERIAL IS NOT A LISTEq HAZARDOUS wAsTE' BUT
CON}'IRMATION AND ACCEPTA}iCE SAMPLING ARE REQUIRED.
I
The Material is not a listed hazardous waste, but Confirmation and Acceptance Sarnptiag
are require{ as determined necessjry under Step 17.
Proceed to Step 20.
C O ND UCT ON G O IN G C O N FTjUVIA T I O N ENTO E C CNPTAI\I CE
SAMPLING.
I
If this Pro(ocol has not bccn propeily followed by IUSA in making its determination that
the Matcrial is not a iisted hazirdous waste, tben IUSA 5hall lsds its analysis in
accordancc with tfuis hotocoi andlif.iustrfied, resubmit the information described in Step
16 explaining rvhy tbe Material iC not a listed hazardous w&ste. The State shall notifo
IUSA with reasonable speed if the State still believcs this Protocol has not been followed
Confirmation and Acccptance Shmplng 'will icontinue until determined no longer
necessary under Stcp 17. Such sar,nplJng will be conducted pursuant to a Sampling and
Analysis Plan ("SAP') that specifies the frequmcy and ryrpe of sampling required. If
such sampling does nol reveal anli "neu/' Potentially Listed Hazardous Constituents (as
defined in Sreps 7 and 8), fur'ther ivaluation is not necessary (as indicated in Step 7)- If
such sampling revcal.s the prcsence of 'hew" constituens, Potentially Listod Wastes must
be identified (Srep 8) and evalualed (Steps 9 througb I l) to determine whether the new
constiflrent is from a listed hazardcius waste source'- Generally, in each case, the SAP will
speciff sampling comparable to tU-e levei and frequency of sampling performed by other
facilities in the Stare of Utah that dispose ofi I le.(2) byproduct materid, either directly or
that res'ults from processing altemite feed matenais.
Proceed to Step 7.I,I
i
243R7(r. I l3
Attachment I
Summarry of R(:RA I'isted Hazardous Wastes
There are tiuee different categories of listed hazardous waste under RCRA:
F-listed lrosres from non-spectfic sources (40 CFR { 261.31(a)): These wastes
include ,p.ot ,olr.nts CF00l-fOOS), specified waStes &om electroplating operatious
(F006-F009), specified wastcs from rnetal heat treating operations (F010-F012)'
specified wasles from chemical conversion coatrng of alun:inum (F019), wastes from
,t " production/nranufacturing of specified , chlorophenols' chlorobenzenes, and
chloinated aliphatic hydrocarboru (F019-F028), specified wasles from wood
preservitrg processes GOfZ-fOlS), specified wastes from petroleum rcfinay primar-v
and secondary oiVwater/solids separation sludge (F037-F038), "nd leashate rcsulting
from the d,isposal of more than one lisred hazardous waste (F039).
K-lisrcd lvarres from spectfic sources (40 CFR $ 261.32): These includc specified
wastes frsm wood preseruatioo, inorga',ic pigmcnt producuoo, organic chsmical
productioq chlorinc production, pesticide production, petroleum refining' iron and
steel production, coppq production, primary'and secondary lead smelting primary
zinc production, pri*ar-y alrrminurn rcduction" ferroalloy production' vetcriaary
pharmaceutical production, ink formuldtiou and coking'
P- and lJ-tistd commercial chenzical products (40 CFR $ 261'33): These include
co'lrnerclal chemical products, or manufacturing cbsmical interrrediates baving the
gencric name listed in the "P" or "Ll' list of wastes, containgr residueg and residues
in soil or debris resulting from a spitl of these materials'r "The phlasc 'commercial
chemical product or miufacturing chemical: iutermediate "'' refers to a chemical
zubstance whicb is marrufactured or fomrulated for commercia] or manufacn[ing use
which consists of the commercially pure grade of the cheurical, any tcchnical grades
of tbc chernical thal are produced or rnarketed' and all formulations in which the
chernical is the solc active ingred.ient. i It does not refer to a mal€riat such as a
manufacruring process waste, rhar contains anyisf tbt [P- or U-listed substancesl'"l
Appendix VII to 40 CFR part 261 identifies thc hazardous constinrcuts for which thc F- and K-
Uitlo wasles were listed
I p-listcd wastes are idcntificd as "aculely irazardous wastes" and are sub.;ect to additional managemcnt
conrrols undcr RCRA. 40 cFR g 261.33(e) (1997). uJrsred wasres arc irlcntrfied as "toric wastcs"' Id'
s 261.33(0.
2 ao cFR $ 261.33(d) norc (t997).lr
2.3t76. r
ATTACHMENT 4
HMI Affidavit
Confirming No RCRA Listed Hazardous Waste in Uranium Material
A:\HeritageAR.doc
1
AFFIDAVIT OF IOHN F. LORD
I, JOHN F. LORD, being duly sworn according to law, depose and state as follows:
1. I am presently under contract as the Manager of Heritage Minerals Inc.'s
("HMI's") Lakehurst, New Jersey faciliry ("the Facility"). In that capacity I am responsible for
decontamination and decommissioning, and NRC license termination at the Facility. ASARCO
conducted operations at the Facility from 1973 to 1982. HMI purchased the Facility in 1985.
My experience with the Facility dates back to 1957 and includes knowledge of both the
ASARCO and HMI operations. During my years at the Faciliry I have been responsible for site
development, plant construction, start up, operations management, decontamination,
decommissioning and license termination. I have personal knowledge of the raw materials used,
the production processes employed, and the waste handling procedures followed at the Faciliry.
2. HMI proposes to ship to IUSA's \Uhite Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah, the following
materials: monazite sand, for processing as alternate feed material. The monazite sand is a
secondary product from the extraction of ilmenite minerals at the Faciliry, and contains no
materials or wastes from any other source.
3. The monazite sand resulted from the recovery of heavy minerals from natural sand
deposits. All constituents of the monazite sand come from the heavy mineral recovery process.
The heavy mineral recovery process involved only gravimetric, electrical, magnetic and heating
steps. No chemical processes were used in either the extraction or concentration of the product
minerals. No material from any other source has been or will be added to the monazite sand.
C:\)r4y D<ruments\rf209V*gal\ProperriesWerirage MineralsWisc\Affidavit of John F. Lord.dm
4. After having consulted with HMI's independent environmental consultants
familiar with the hazardous waste
4026L, Subpart D, as amended by
regulations set out in U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title
the U.S. Federal Register August 6, 1998, ro rhe best of my
knowledge, information and beliel the following processing steps are employed in the recovery of
heavy minerals:
i.)the proposed alternate feed material does not contain any of the
listed wastes enumerated in U.S. Code of Federal Regulations,
Title 40 261, Subpart D as amended by the U.S. Federal Register
August 6,1998
the proposed alternate feed material has not been mixed with
wastes from any other source, which may have been defined as or
which may have contained listed wastes enumerared in U.S. Code
of Federal Regulations, Title 40 Section 261, Subpart D as
amended by the U.S. Federal Register August 6, 1998;
the proposed alternate feed materials do not contain hazardous
wastes from non-specific sources (U.S. RCRA F type wastes)
because (a) HMI does not operate any processes at the Facility
which produce the rypes of wastes listed in Section 261.31of Title
40 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, and (b) HMI has never
accepted at the Facility, nor has the proposed alternate feed
material ever been combined with, wastes from any other source
which contain U.S. RCRA F qpe wastes as defined therein;
the proposed alternate feed material does not contain hazardous
wastes from specific sources (U.S. RCRA K rype wastes) because
HMI does not operate any of the processes which produce the
types of wastes listed in Section 262.31of Title 40 of the U.S. Code
of Federal Regulations, and (b) HMI has never accepted at the
Facility, nor have the proposed alternate feed materials ever been
combined with, wastes from any other source which contain U.S.
RCRA K qp" wastes as defined therein;
the proposed altemate feed materials are not U.S. RCRA P or U
type wasres as defined in Section 261.33 of Title 40 of the U.S.
Code of Federal Regulations because they (a) are not
ii.)
iii. )
iv.)
v.)
C:\lr4y D<ruments\t0O9V-gal\PropertiesVleritage MineralsWisc\Affidavit of.John F. lnrd.da
I
manufactured or formulated commercially pure grade chemicals,
off spec commercial chemical products or manufacturing chemical
intermediates, residues from containers that held commercial
chemical products or manufacturing chemical intermediates, or any
residue or contaminated soil, water or other debris resulting from a
spill cleanup, and (b) HMI has never accepted, nor have the
proposed altemate feed materials ever been combined with, wastes
from any other source with contains U.S. RCRA P or U type
wastes as defined therein.
Sworn to and subscribed before me
rhis 28'h day of June, 2000
My Commission Expires:
unfiguns
lilobry hrbftdtlotrrqry
My C,ommision lqirrc ll2l ov
C:Wy Dcuments\f209V*gal\Properties\Fleritage MineralsWisc\Affidavit ofJohn F. Lod.dm
ATTACHMENT 5
Radioactive Material Profile Record
A:\HeritageAR.doc
Exhibit A
RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL PROFILE RECORD
Generato Name: Heritage Minerals Inc. Generator/Waste Stream #: Not Applicahtc Volume of Wa$e Material: 1,00O yds3
Contraclo'r Name: Radiation Science Inc. Wa$e Stream Name: monazite sands, Delivery Dale:
Check appropriate boxes: Licarsed Y f, N _ NoRMA{ARM _: LLRW _; MW _; MW Trealed _; MW Needing Trtmt _:
DOE _: I le.(2) _; Source Material
Original Submission; Y I N _; Revisim # _: Dale of Revisim:
Name and Tille of Person Conplaing Form: Scott Dermerlein, Sr. Health Physicist Phone: 6(D 3951996
A. CUSTOMERINFORMATION:
GENERAL: Please read carefully and complete this form for one waste stream. This information will be used to determine
how to propa'ly manage the material. Should there be any questions while completing this form, contact IUC at
303.389.413I. MATERTALS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AT ruC WHITE MESA MILL UNLESS THIS FORM IS
COMPLETED. If a category does not apply, please indicate. This forrn must be updated annually.
1. GENERATORINFORMATION
EPA ID# NotApplicable EPA Hazardous Waste Number(s) (if applicable) NotApplicable
Plant Address: Heritage Minerals Inc., Route 70, Mile marker 41, Lakehurst, NJ 08733
Phone:[phone]lW Fax:[phone]
Location of Material (City, ST): Lakehurst, NJ
Generator Contact: John Lord Title:
Mailing Address (if diflerent from above): : Heritage Minerals Inc, 4000 Route 66, Tinton Falls, NJ 07753
Phone:[phone] Fax:[phone]
B. MATERLAL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES (Should you have any questions while completing this section, contact IUC
Environmental Management at (303) 3894131.
1. PIrySICAL DATA (Indicate percentage of material that will pass through the following GRADATION OF
MATERIAL:
grid sizes, e,g-\2" 700o/o,4" 96Vo"7"'74yo,114^ 50yo,1140.30%o,11200' .5o/o)
Mesb +2O .25o/o, *30 .78o/o, +40 1.74o/o, +50 2.387", *7O 7.360/o, +l2O 44.75yo,
+200 40.19"/", +27O 2.32o/o, PAI\[ j2%
2. DESCRIPTION: Color _ Brown/Ivlulti X Odor- Odorless f,,
Liquid Solid ! Sludge_ PowderlDust-
3. DENSITYRANGE:(Indicatedimensions) 3,000 S.G. lb./ft3 @4. GENERAL CITARACTERISICS (% OF EACH)
Soil_ Building Deb,ris_ Rubble_ Pipe Scale_ Tailings_ Process Waste_ Concrete.
Plastic/Resin_
Other constituents and approximate o/o contribution of each: l(X)o/o natural sands
5. MOISTURE CONTENT: (For soil or soil-like materials).
(Use Std Procto,r Method ASTM D-698)Optimum Moisture Content: _%
Average Moisture Content: _%
Moisture Content Range: _ 7o
6. DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL (Please attach a description of the material with respect to its physical compositionand chamcteristics. This description can be attached separately or included with the attachment for Item
D.l.)
Generator or Contractor Initials:
C. RADIOLOGICALEVALUATION
l. MATERIAL INFORMATION. For each radioactive isotope associated with the material, please list the following
information. IUC's license assumes daughter products to be present in equilibriuq these are nol required to be listed
below and do not require manifesting. (Use additional copies of this form if necessary).
Weighted
Average
(pCi/e)
1,190 b.
(pci/e)
a. Th-232
c. U-238
Weighted
Average
(pCi/e)
186
1,190
Isotopes Concentration Range Isotopes Concentration Range
(pci/e)Ra-226 to
Ra-228 to
to
208 d.
f.to
ND - Analyte not detected.
3ON
D.
2. Y 6) It the radioactivity contained in the waste material Low-l.evel Radioactive Waste as defined in the lnw-
Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 or in DOE Order 5820.24. Chapter III? (Please
Circle) If yes, check *LLRW" block on line 3 of page l.
LICENSED MATERLAL: Is the waste material listed or included on an active Nuclear Regulatory
Commission or Agreement State license? (Please Circle)(If Yes) TYPE oF LICENSE: Source f; special Nuclear Material _; By-producr _; Norm _;
NARM
-;LICENSINGAGENCY:US NRC #SMB154I
C}IEMCAL AND }IAZARDOUS CHARACTERISTICS
I. DESCRIPTIONANDHISTORY OFMATERTAL
Please attach a description of the material to this profile. lnclude the following as applicable: The process by which the
material was generated. Available process knowledge of the material. The basis of hazardous material or waste
determinations. A list of the chemicals, materials or wastes used in or commingled with the material; a list of any andall applicable EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers, current or former; and a list of any and all applicable landdisposal
prohibition orhazardous-waste exclusions, exensions, exemptions, effective dates, variances ordelistings. Attachthe
most recent or applicable analytical results of the material's hazardous-waste characteristics or constituents, if
available. Attach any applicable analytical results involving the composition of the material. Attach any product
information or Material Safety Data Sheets associated with the material. If a category on this Material Profile Record
does not apply, describe why it does not.
Please describe the history, and include the following:
Y @Was ttris material mixed, treated, neutralized, solidified, commingled, dried, or otherwise processed at any time
after eeneration?
V @ Has ihis material been transported or otherwise removed from the location or site where it was originally
generated?
Was this material derived from (or is the material a residue of) the treatmenl, storage, and/or disposal of
,- hazardous waste defined by 40 CFR 261 ?
Y $J Has this material been treated at any time to meet any applicable treatment standards?
2, LIST ALL KNOWN AND POSSIBLE C}IEMCAL COMPONENTS OR }IAZARDOUS WASTE
C}IARACTERISTICS
(Y) (N)(Y) (N)
a. Listed IIW _ X b. "Derived-From" IIW
-
Xd. Cyanides _ X e. Sulfides
-
Xg. Pesticides _ X h. Herbicides
-
Xj. Explosives _ X k. Pyrophorics
-
X
m. Organics _ X n. Phenolics
-
Xp. lgritable _ X q. Corrosive _ X
s. Antimony _ X t. Beryllium _ Xv. Nickel _ X w. Thallium
-
Xy. Alcohols _ X z. Arsenic
-
X
bb. Cadmium _ X cc. Chromium
-
X
ee. Mercury _ X _ff.Selenium _ X
hh. Benzene
-
X ii. Nitrate
-
X
kk. Fluoride _ X 11. Oil
-
X
rm. Chelating Agents_ X oo. Residue from water treatment NO
pp. Other Known or Possible Materials or Chemicals None
Released
Released
(Y) CN)c. Toxic _ Xf. Dioxins _ Xi. PCBs _ X
l. Solvents _ Xo. Infectious _ Xr. Reactive _ Xu. Copper _ Xx. Vanadium _ X
aa. Barium _ X
dd. Lead _ Xgg. Silver _ Xjj. Nitrite _ Xmm.Fuel _ X
Generator or Contractor Initials:
3. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR TOXCITY CIIARACTERISTICS. (Please transcribe results, if available, on the
blaik spaces provided. Attach additional sheets ifneeded, indicate range or worst-case results).
NOT APPLICABLE/TEST NOT PERFORMED
Metals (circle one): Total (mg/kg) or TCLP (mg/l)Organics (circle one):Total (mg/kg) or TCLP (mgA)
Lead
Barium
Mercury
Cadmium
Znc
Chromium
Copper
ND - Analyte not detected
4. ANALYTICAL RESIILTS FOR REQIIIRED PARAMETERS: (Please transcribe results if available, on the blank
spaces provided. Attached additional sheets ifneeded).
NOT APPLICABLE/TBST NOT PERT'ORMED
Soil pH
Paint Filter Test (Pass/Iail)Liquids No Free Liquid _
mg/ke
mC/kg
Cyanide _ Not detected
Sulfide Not detected
5. IGMIABILITY (40 CFR 261.211a1121.[4].) NOT APPLICABLE/TEST NoT PERFORMED
Flash Point oF oc
6. CIIEMCAL COMPOSHON @ist all known chemical
dimensions. Use atlachments to complete, if necessary.)
components and circle the applicable concentration
Concentration Chemical
Component
PrsOrr
Yzor
Others
IsthewasteaRCRAoxidizer? Y @
Concentration
REQUIRED CIIEMCAL LABORATORY ANALYSIS. Generator must submit results of analyses of samples of the
material. Results are required from a qualified laboratory for the following analytical parameters unless nonapplicability of
the analysis for the material can be stated and justified in attached statements. Attach all analytical results and QA/QC
Chemical
Component
La203
NduOr
Concentration
lY3 "/"
Chemical
Component
Co02 44.56 0h
2.76 Vo
l.o5 0h
4.93 Y"
6.22 o/o
l.7O o/o
17.63 "/o Sn2O3
Gd2O3 1.85 o/o DyzOr
documentation available. (CAUTION: PRIOR TO ARRANGING FOR LABORATORY ANALYSN, CIIECK WIIH ruC
AND I-ABORATORY REGARDING IITAH I"ABORATORY CERTIFICAIONS.)
FOR ALL MATERTAL TYPES: CffiMCAL ANALYSIS: Soil pH (9045), Paint Filter Liquids Test (9095): Reactivity
(cyanide and sulfide).
1. MINIMUM ADDMONAL ANALYTICAL REQUIRED FOR: NOT APPLICABLE
a. Non-RCRA Waste (Non Mixed Waste e.g., LLRW, NORM): TCLP including the 32 organics, 8 metals, and
copper (Cu) andznc (Zn).
2. REQUIRED RADIOLOGICAL ANALYSES. Please obtain suflicient samples to adequately determine a range and
weighted average of activity in the material. Have a sufficient number of samples analyzed by gamma spectral analysis
for all natural isotopes such that they support lhe range and weighted average information for the material that will be
recorded in item D.l. If Uranium, Thorium, or other non-gamma emitting nuclides are present in the material, have at
least ( I ) sample evaluated by radiochemistry to determine the concentration of these additional contaminants in the
material.
Generator or Contractor Initials:
3. PRE-SHIPMENT SAMPLES OF MATERI.AL TO ruC
Once permission has been obtained from IUC, and rurless amenability samples have previously been sent to IUC,
please send 5 representative samples of the material to IUC. A completed chain of custody form must be included with
the sampling containers. These samples will be used to establish the material's incoming shipment acceptance
parameter tolerances and may be analyzed for additional parameters. Send about two pounds (one liter) for each
sample in an airtight clean glass container via United Parcel Post (LIPS) or Federal Express to:
International Uranium (USA) Corporation, Attn: Sample Control, 6425 S. Highway 191, P.O. Box 809, Blanding, UT
8451 r
Phone: [phone]
4. I-ABORATORY CERTIFICATION INFORMATION. Please indicate below uirich of the following categories
applies to your laboratory data.
a. A1l radiologic data used to support the data in itern C.l. must be from a certified laboratory.
#E-2801 @CEii;Dre laboratory holds a current certification for the applicable chemical or radiologicalparameter*dff,@aflment of Health insofar as such official certifications are given.
-GENERATOR'S
STATE CERTIFICATION. The laboratory holds a current certification for the applicable
chemical parameters from the generalor's State insofar as such official certifications are given, or
-GENERATOR'S
STATE LABORATORY REQUIREMENTS. The laboratory meets the requirements of the
generator's State or cognizant agency for chemical laboratories, or:
Ifusing a non-Utah certified laboratory, briefly describe the generator state's requirements for chernical analytical
laboratories to defend the determination that the laboratory used meets those requirements, especially in terms of
whether the requirements are parameter specific, method specific, or involve CLP or other QA data packages.
Note: When Process or project knowledge of this waste is applied, additional analytical results may not be
necessary to complete Section B. D.2. D.5. or D.6. of this form.
b. For analytical work done by Utah-certified laboratories, please provide a copy of the laboratory's current
certification letter for each parameter analyzed and each method used for analyses required by this form.
c. For analytical work done by laboratories utrich are not Utah-Certified, please provide the following information:
State or Other Agency Contact Person Generator's State Telephone Number
l,ab Contact Person Laboratory's State Telephone Number
F. CERTIFICATION
GENERATOR'S CERTIFICATION: I also certi$ that where ne@ssary those representative samples were or shall be
provided to IUC and to qualified laboratories for the analytical results reported herein. I also certi$ that the information
provided on this form is complete, true and correct and is accurately supported and documented by any laboratory testing as
required by IUC. I certifo that the results of any said testing have been submitted to IUC. I certi$ that the material
described in this prolile has been fully characterized and that hazardous constituents listed in l0 CFR 40 Appendix A
Criterion 13 which are applicable to this material have been indicated on this form. I frrther certi! and warrant to IUC that
the material represented on this form is not a hazardous waste as defured by 40 CFR 261 and/or that this material is exernpt
from RCRA regulation under 40 CFR 261.4(a[4).
The Generator's responsibilities with respect to the material described in this form are for policy, programmatic, funding
and scheduling decisions, as well as general oversight. The Contractor's responsibilities with respect to this material are for
the day-to-day operations (in accordance with general directions givea by the Generator as part of its general oversight
responsibility), including but not limited to the following responsibilities: waste characterization, analysis and handling;
sampling; monitoring; record keeping; reporting and contingency plarming. Accordhgly, the Contractor has the requisite
knowledge and authority to sigr this certification on behalf of itself, and as agent for the Generator, on behalf of the
Generator. By signing this certification, the Contractgr is sitrT its oTbehalf and on behalf of the Generator.
l.-H \ Title Sr.HealthPhysicistGenerator's "6G) signature
Date \--
lSigrr for ttre aUore certincations).
Dl. Description and History of Material
Process History and Origin of the Monazite Pile:
Following is a detailed historical description of the entire process, starting from the
beginning of the original mining carried out by Asarco prior to the inception of HMI.
ASARCO Operation
The site was operated by ASARCO, Inc. between 1973 and 1982. The operation
consisted of hydraulic mining (dredging) of the sand deposits and processing those sands to
extract the titanium mineral ilmenite. The mineral composition of the sand deposits at the site
were ascertained by earlier geological and mineralogical studies conducted by ASARCO. The
deposits contained approximately 95%o silica (common sand) and 5Yo heavy minerals. There are
many mineral constituents in the deposits that are heavier than silica, which is why they are
called heavy minerals. Ilmenite is the predominant heavy mineral, followed by zircon, kyanite,
sillimanite, rutile, staurolite, tourmaline and monazite. Monazite is the mineral that contains
thorium and uranium which cause the radioactivity in the deposits.
The following is a description of ASARCO's process, which is also illustrated in Figure l:
At the very beginning, since there was no pond for the dredge, one was created by removing
the top soil and sufficient sand using a dragline. The material so removed was stockpiled
in a location west of the railroad tracks.
The dredged sand was pumped to a screening barge where large roots, clay balls and gravel
were removed from the sand. The dredging rate was about 7,200 tons per hour.
The screened sand was pumped, still in slurry form, to a land-based concentrating plant
consisting of a wet mill and a dry mill. The slurry went first to the wet mill wherein the
heavy minerals were concentrated using spiral separators known as Humphreys spirals. The
wet mill tailings, consisting primarily of silica sand and water were pumped back to the
dredge pond as back-fill of the mined-out areas. At the start of dredging, there was no place
to back fill in the newly created dredge pond. Therefore, the wet mill tailings were stored
west of the railroad tracks in the same location as the top soil removed by the dragline. This
practice created a pile of roughly one million tons of material consisting oftop soil and wet
mill tailings This pile is being referred to as Asarco wet mill tailings or old tailings. Based
on its history, the radionuclide concentration of this pile is below the natural background
concentration ofthe area. The heavy minerals followed a different path down the spiral and
were dewatered and stockpiled outside the wet mill. Approximately 50 tons per hour of
heavy-mineral concentrate were produced.
A great deal of wash water was used to assist the separation on the spirals and to wash away
the fine clay which coated the mineral particles. The excess wash water and suspended clay
were decanted offusinglarge holding tanks (sumps) before pumping the sand.
The clay-laden water was pumped to a series of large-area settling ponds (about l0 acres) on
the north side of the wet mill. The clay was allowed to settle out and the clarified water was
1)
2)
3)
4)
s)
recycled to the wet mill. This is the area which is now known as the "Blue Area". The
reference came from the color-coded map which was presented to the US NRC by Heritage
Minerals during licensure in 1990.
6) It should be noted that the monazite concentration was increased by the ratio of 24.1 as a
result of going through the wet mill and concentrating the heavy minerals from 1,200 tons to
50 tons.
7) The heavy mineral concentrate was allowed to drain for several days then transferred to a
200-ton storage silo.
8) Using a disc feeder at the bottom of the storage silo and a conveyor belt, the heavy mineral
concentrate was fed to an oil-fired rotary dryer wherein the heavy mineral sands were
completely dried and heated to about 300 degrees F.
9) The heated sand was conveyed to the dry mill which contained high-tension electrostatic
separators and high-intensity magnetic separators.
10) The ilmenite was separated from the other heavy minerals using the high-tension separators
which take advantage of the difference in electrical conductivity among minerals. Ilmenite,
which was the desired titanium mineral, is electrically conductive. All the other heavy
minerals in the concentrate are non-conductors.
11)The conductor product was then fed to the high-intensity magnetic separators for final
cleaning of the ilmenite which was then placed in storage bins pending shipping to customers
by rail or truck. About 30 tons per hour were produced.
12) The non-conductor rejects from the high tension separators were referred to as the Dry Mill
Tailings They were mixed with water and pumped to a storage area east of the mill. This is
the area now referred to as the "Gray Area".
13) The Dry Mill Tailings, at about 20 tons per hour, contained virtually all the monazite that
was contained in 50 tons of heavy minerals concentrate. Therefore the concentration of
monazite was increased by the ratio of 2.5.1 relative to the heavy mineral concentrate. Since
this is also the monazite that was contained in 1,200 tons of dredge output, it can be
concluded that the monazite and its contained thorium and uranium were concentrated by a
factor of 1,200.20, or 60:1 above original deposits. A sample of the Dry Mill Tailings was
analyzed by the US NRC during an inspection of the Heritage operation in January, 1988. It
was found that the ASARCO Dry Mill Tailings (later referred to as the New Feed by
Heritage) contained 180 ppm (parts per million) thorium plus uranium (Th+U;.
Approximately one million tons of Dry Mill Tailings were accumulated in the Gray Area
during the ASARCO operation.Based on the above, it is estimated that the unprocessed sand
deposits contained about 3 ppm Th+U (180160:3).
14) ASARCO had planned to process the Dry Mill Tailings at a later date for the extraction and
sale of zircon and monazite. Exensive laboratory and pilot-plant testing was performed by
ASARCO on the recovery of zircon and monazite. However, deteriorating market conditions
caused ASARCO to discontinue all operations at the site in 1982 and sold the property to
Heritage Minerals, Inc. in 1986.
Heritage Minerals Operation
After the property was purchased by Heritage in 1986, the plant facilities were leased to Mineral
Recovery, Inc. MRI ran additional laboratory and pilot-plant tests for the recovery of zircon and
additional titanium minerals left behind by ASARCO, but not monazite which was to remain a
part of the Dry Mll Tailings. The test work was conducted atHazen Research of Golderq
Colorado.
Based on the results of the test work andHazen's recommendations the plant was modified and
additional equipment was purchased. The plant started operation in October, 1986. In August,
1987 MR['s lease was terminated and Heritage Minerals took over the operation until August of
1990 when all production stopped. The operating period between October, 1986 and August
1987 O{RI's operation) was mostly a plant break-in and tune-up period during which actual
production was minimal. As a result, the bulk of the zircon and titanium values in the New Feed
remained in the tailings during this period.
The following is a description of the Heritage plant operation, which is also illustrated in Figure
2.
l) The ASARCO Dry Mill Tailings located in the Gray Area, which will now be referred to as
the New Feed for the zircon plant, were mixed with water and pumped to the wet mill at the
rate of50 tons per hour.
2) The slurry was processed over Humphreys spirals to remove any remaining silica sand and
some of the aluminum minerals. Although the aluminum minerals are considered heavy
minerals, they are considerably lighter than zircon, monazite and titanium minerals. As such
it was possible to reject some of those aluminum minerals on the Humphreys spirals. Little
or no zircon or monazite were lost in the spiral tailings. Some titanium losses were incurred,
however, due to the presence of low-density, weathered ilmenite. The spiral tailings were
collected in a large holding tank (sump) and pumped to the area north of the wet mill which
was occupied by the clay settling ponds during ASARCO's operation (the Blue Area).
3) The spiral concentrate was dewatered using a vacuum filter then dried and heated to 300
degrees F in an oil-fired rotary dryer, similar to the one used by ASARCO but much smaller.
4) The dry, heated sand was fed to the first section of the dry mill (the Ti circuit) where the
titanium minerals were separated using high tension machines. The primary titanium mineral
recovered was leucoxene, which is a transition mineral between ilmenite and rutile.
Leucoxene is a conductor as are ilmenite and rutile, and hence could be separated using high-
tension machines.
5) The conductor product from the high-tension separators was cleaned using high-intensity
magnetic separators to produce market-grade leucoxene. Because there is a certain degree of
imperfection in any separation process, some zircon and monazite remained with the
Ieucoxene. As a result, the leucoxene product, when analyzed by NRC, was found to contain
140 ppm Th+g This was well below any regulatory or safety concerns and was acceptable
to the customers.
6) The non-conductor product from the high-tension separators contained the zircon, monazite
and the remaining aluminum minerals. It was reslurried with water and pumped back to the
wet mill.
7) In the wet mill, the non-conductors were fed to a hydraulic classifier and then shaking tables,
which were used to reject the remaining aluminum minerals. The table tailings were
combined with the spiral tailings in the same holding tan! and were pumped together to the
Blue Area.
8) The table concentrate was dewatered on a vacuum filter then dried and heated in a second
oil-fired rotary dryer.
9) The dry, heated table concentrate was conveyed to another section of the dry mill (the zircon
circuit) where it was treated on high-tension machines to remove any remaining traces of
titanium minerals. Those were collected as conductors and returned to the Ti circuit.
10) The non-conductor product from the high-tension machines contained the zircon and
monazite plus traces of aluminum minerals. The non-conductors were then fed to high-
intensity magnets to remove magnetic minerals (monazite, staurolite and tourmaline) and
thus produce market-grade zircon for sale to customers. Once again, because of the nature of
the separation processes, some monazite remained in the zircon product. A sample of zircon
was also taken and analyzed by NRC and found to contain 350 ppm TH+U. This was again
below the regulatory threshold of 500 ppm set by NRC for "Source Material' requiring
licensing. The Th+U content of the zircon was also below the specifications set by
customers.
I l) The magnetic product, which contained the monazite, was mixed with water and pumped
back to the wet mill where it was combined with the spiral tailings and the table tailings in
the holding tank to make up the plant tailings that were pumped to the blue Area. When
analyzed by NRC along with the other materials, the combined plant tailings were found
to contain 120 ppm Th+U, which is less than the 180 ppm that was found in ASARCO's
dry mill tailings (Heritage's New Feed). The decrease in Th+U concentration is explained by
the loss of monazite to both the zircon and leucoxene product. The analyses show that the
Heritage operation resulted in a net improvement in the radiological condition of the site
when compared with what it was at the end of ASARCO's operation and before the property
was purchased by Heritage. While these numbers are one-time analyses of single samples,
they represent the correlation amongst the various products, since all the samples were taken
at the same time.
12) The ASARCO Dry Mill Tailings in the Gray Area (the New Feed) were exhausted at the end
of February,7990. At that time, Heritage decided that sufficient zircon and leucoxene had
remained in the plant tailings in the Blue Area, especially during MRI's initial operation
period, to warrant the recycle of those tailings through the plant for a second round of
processing to extract additional zircon and leucoxene products. This was started in March,
1990 and became known as Phase II of the operation.
13) Some minor variations on the above-described process were tested and incorporated in the
plant operations in the efforts to improve product quality and yield. For example,additional
stages of spirals were added to improve silica and alumina rejection. Another variation,
which was incorporated to reduce fuel consumption, was eliminating the second rotary dryer
and processing the spiral concentrate directly on the shaking tables prior to processing in the
dry mill. A third variatiorq which was dictated by NRC during the licensing process,
involved isolating the monazite-rich magnetic product in a separate holding area rather than
combining it with the other tailings. When that practice started, the mill tailings were no
longer pumped to the Blue Area but were sent to a separate area east of the wet mill. The
monazite-rich magnetics were stored separately in an area southeast of the dry mill. This
is the area known as "the Monazite Pile".
14) The above-mentioned variations were incorporated at the start of reprocessing of the plant
tailings (phase II) in March, 1990. In August, 1990, after about 200,000 tons of tailings were
reprocessed through the plant, Heritage decided to terminate all operations due to the
economic downturn which resulted in reduced demand and prices for the plant products.
15)During the final 30 days of operation, the monazite-ich sand was stored in 55-gallon steel
drums instead of being pumped to the monazite pile. This was in anticipation of shipping the
monazite offsite to another processing facility.
The reprocessing of the 200,000 tons of Blue Area tailings during which the monazite
was isolated in the Monazite Pile resulted in further improvement in the condition of the site
through producing about 150,000 tons of tailings that were virtually monazite free . These
tailings were stored separately in an area east of the Blue Area and north of the Gray Area. As a
consequence ofthis practice, approximately 695 cubic yards (1,400 tons) of monazite-rich
product were generated and are stored in the Monazite Pile. The Monazite Pile, as well as the
plant buildings, are under the control of the NRC according to the terms of License No. SMB-
1541. Figure 3 is a schematic of phase II of the plant operation.
DREDGE
Screening Barge
I{et Ulll
Rotary Dryer
Oversize
( Discard )
Wet Mi11Return toPond for
Tallingrs
Dredge
Back Fi11
Dry MilI TailingsTo Stockpile
( Zircon+I.{onazite )(20 rPH)(I80 ppm Th+U)
Rav Ore (1,2OO TPH) (Est. 3 ppn Th+U)
Screened Peed
( 1,O00 TPH)
Excess Water+elay
To Setbling Ponds
Ileavy ilineral Coneentrate(so rPH)
Ilmenite ProductTo Shipping(30 rPH)
FTGTIAE I
ASAREOIS OPERATTOI SCBEHATTC
MagneUics(0.s rPH)
(5.850 PPm
FIGIIRE 2
Eerltage operatl.on (PUase I)
ASARCO's Dry Mi11 Tail.ings(Nev Feed.- 50 TPH)'
(180 ppn Th+U)
Spiral Concentrate
( IO TPH}
coxeneTo Shipping
(2 TPH)
. (140 PPm Th+U)Non-Conductors8 TPH)
TabIe Concentrate(4 TPE)
Zircon Product
To Shipping(3.s rPH)
( 350 ppm fh+U)
Overs i ze
( ui scard )
Mi11 Tailings
Blue Area
(120 pPrn Th+U)
i I ings
Vibrating Screen
tlet Mi 11
( Spirals )
fabl.e
Rotary Dryer *l
Dry Mirl(Ti Circutt)
wet Mi11
( Tables )
Rotary Dryer #2
Dry M111Zircon Circuit
:l:;:J
U111 llal!.ings(r;;, Blue Area)
(5O TPB)
Oversize(Discard)
C].ean
Mi1J. Tailings(45 rPrI)
Hagnetics <l1
To Mouaztte PtIe(o.5 TPB)
HeavY Mineral(5 TPE)
Conc.
ZLrconTo ShipPlng(3 rPrr)
Leucoxene
To ShipPing(1.s rPB)
FTGURE 3
Eeritage oPeration (Pbase II)
Vibratlng Screen
Wet HllI(spirals & Tables)
RotarY DrYer
Dry.Ml!.l
ATTACHMENT 6
Memorandum from Independent Consultant
Regarding
No RCRA Listed Hazardous Waste in Uranium Material
A:\HeritageAR.doc
REVIEW OF HERITAGE MINERALS, INC. INFORMATION
TO ASSESS THE POTENTIAL PRESENCE OF
RCRA LISTED HAZARDOUS WASTE
I have performed an independent evaluation of the information available to date on
Uranium Material from Heritage Minerals Inc. ("HMI") to assess whether any RCRA
Listed Hazardous Waste is present.
IUSA has developed a "Protocol for Determining Whether Alternate Feed Materials are
Listed Hazardous Wastes" (the "Protocol") fNovember 22, 1999). This Protocol has
been developed in conjunction with. and accepted by, the State of Utah Department of
Environmental Quality ("UDEQ") (Letter of December 7, 7999). The evaluation and
recommendations in this Attachment were developed in accordance with this Protocol.
1.0 Source Investigation/Basis of This Evaluation
Sufficient site history and background information was available to perfonn the Source
Investigation required in Step I of the Protocol Decision Logic Diagram (the "Protocol
Diagram"). To perform my independent evaluation, I have reviewed the following
documents:
l. IUSAruDEQ Protocol for Determining Whether Alternate Feeds Are Listed
Hazardous Wastes (IUSA, November, 1999).
2. Site history and process information from HMI's Final Status Survey Plan ("FSSP")
3. Process information, and analytical data from HMI's Response to NRC's and
NJDEP's Comments on HMI's FSSP
4.
5.
Site History and Process Information
No. 169 (September 1, 7999)
Affidavit Regarding No RCRA Listed
as reported in The Federal Resister: Vol. 64.
Waste, provided by HMI to IUSA. June 2000
6. Radioactive Material Profile Record ("RMPR") prepared by HMI for IUSA, June
2000
The information is sufficient to conclude that the Uranium Material was generated from a
known process under the control of the generator.
2.0 Determination That Material is Known Not to Contain Listed Hazardous
Waste
The Protocol Diagram states in Decision Diamond 2, that if a material "is known not to
be or contain any listed hazardous waste", then IUSA and UDEQ will consider the
material not to be listed hazardous waste. ltem 2 of the Protocol text states that to make
the determination in Decision Diamond 2, IUSA may,
"Determine whether specific information from the Source Investigation
exists about the generation and management of the material to support a
conclusion that the Material is not (and does not contain) any listed
hazardous waste. For example, if specific information exists that the
Material was not generated by a listed source and that the Material has not
been mixed with any listed wastes, the Material would not be a listed
hazardous waste."
Sufficient information does exist to support such a conclusion. HMI, based on site
history, analytical data, and generator's knowledge of their process, has indicated that the
Uranium Material contains no RCRA listed hazardous wastes. I have reviewed copies of
HMI's FSSP, the September 1, 1999 Federal Register, and the attachments to the RMPR-
which describe the origin of the monazite sand pile. The monazite sand was generated
from the physical processing of natural sands for the removal of heavy minerals. No
chemicals were used in the processing of the natural sands. No chemicals or industrial
wastes were combined with or stored with the monazite sand after generation.
This information meets the requirement for specific Source Investigation information in
the Protocol Decision Diamond 2 and Step 2, and demonstrates that the Material neither
was generated by a listed hazardous waste source nor has been mixed with a listed
hazardous waste.
The conclusion that the monazite sand is a natural material is supported by the
description and data in the Radioactive Material Profile Record ("RMPR"), which
indicate that the monazite sand has the composition and physical properties of natural
mineral sands.
Documentation to Support Determination of No RCRA Listed Hazardous
Waste
IUSA has obtained the following documentation to support the determination in Box 2
that the material is "known not to contain any listed hazardous waste".
An affidavit from HMI confirming that the pond material is not and does not
contain RCRA listed hazardous waste associated with any of the four lists: F, P,
U, or K.
3.0
. A copy of the IUSA RMPR which contains a declaration that the pond material is
not and contains no RCRA listed hazardous waste.
I have reviewed both of these documents. These documents are consistent with the
document requirements in Protocol Diagram Box 3, for a determination based on site
history.
4.0 Conclusions
It is my professional judgement that:
1. The HMI Uranium Material was generated by a known process under the control of
the generator.
2. The HMI Uranium Material is not and does not contain RCRA listed hazardous
waste.
3. The information made available to me is consistent with the information requirements
set forth in the Protocol.
4. This determination of no RCRA listed hazardous waste is consistent with the decision
logic of the Protocol.
Jo Ann Tischler
Chemical Engineer
ATTACHMENT 7
Intemational Uranium (USA) Corporation
White Mesa Mill
Equipment Release/Radiological Survey Procedure
A:\HeritageAR.doc
I
2.1
1.
2.
lnternational Uranium (USA) Corporation's White Mesa Mill is authorized to process
alternate feed materials other than natural uranium ore under Source Material
License SUA-1358. Pursuant to the conditions of the above license and
amendments, this written procedure describes the evaluations and protocol for the
receipt and dumping of materials which will insure the safety of operating personnel
and minimize radiological exposures to individuals and the environment to levels As
Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA).
Final Decontamination and Release for Unrestricted Use:
Open the tailgate and decontaminate each intermodal bin with a high-
pressure water wash. Make sure to wash the inside and outside of each
container.
Afler the container is decontaminated, use the yard tractor to move the
intermodal bin to the secondary decontamination area.
Contact a Radiation Technician to perform a radiological survey of the
container and either the Mill Radiation Safety Officer, Mill Maintenance
Foreman or the Mill Manager to perform a visual inspection for
contamination.
lf the container does not meet the radiological release survey requirements
or visual survey requirements the container will either be returned to the
decontamination pad for further decontamination or will be rinsed at the
secondary decontamination atea.
lf the container does meet the radiological release survey requirements, the
Radiation Technician will place a red sticker on the container that says'THIS
CONTAINER HAS BEEN FULLY DECONTAMINATED & SURVEYED FOR
'UNRESTRICTED USE' BY:' The RSO or Radiation Technician that
performed the release survey will then sign the red sticker and date it.
The Radiation Technician will fill out a Decontamination Final Release form
to document that the container has been authorized for final release.
4.
5.
6.
Page 2 ot 4
7.
8.
After the container has been surveyed and has passed all release criteria,
the tailgate will be securely fastened.
After an intermodal container has been released, the container will be
delivered to the designated staging area for empty containers. Containers
being released from the White Mesa Mill for "Unrestricted Use'will leave the
Mill untarped. These containers may be re-tarped at the transloading facility.
Decontamination and Release for Restricted Use:
Decontaminate each intermodal bin with a high-pressure water wash. Make
sure to wash the outside of each container thoroughly.
After the container is decontaminated, use the yard tractor to move the
intermodal bin to the secondary decontamination area.
Contact a Radiation Technician to perform a radiological survey of the
container and either the Mill RSO, Mill Maintenance Foreman or the Mill
Manager to perform a visual inspection for contamination.
tf the container does not meet the radiological release survey requirements or
visual survey requirements the container will either be returned to the
decontamination pad for further decontamination or will be rinsed at the
secondary decontamination area.
The Radiation Technician will fill out a Decontamination Release form to
document that the container has been authorized for release.
Afler an intermodal container has been released, the container will be
delivered to the designated staging area for empty containers
Required Personnel Protective Equipment (PPE):
Minimum requirements for PPE are established and enforced to protect
employees who must perform tasks involving industrial, chemical andlor
radiological hazards. lf properly identified and managed, the potentia!
consequences resulting from exposure to these workplace hazards can be
reduced significantly. PPE is provided for the safety and well being of every
employee but only is effective if properly used.
2.2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Page 3 of 4
ln all areas of the Mill covered by this procedure, hard hats, safety glasses
and steel-toed shoes are required as a minimum. These must be worn in all
areas of the Mill with the exception of the Administration Building.
3.2 lndustrial Hazards and Safetv:
1. Be aware of other vehicular traffic.
2. Be aware of slippery and icy handrails and walkways.
3. Do not place any part of your body inside the container when the tailgate is opened.
Only work under the tailgate after it has been properly blocked open.
4. Be aware of high-pressure wash water.
Page 4 ot 4
D
GUIDELINES FOR DECOMTATVIINATION OF FACIUTIES AI'ID EQUIPMENT
PRIORTO RELEASE FOR IJNRESTruCTED USE
OR TERMINATION OF LICENSES FOR BY?RODUCT, SOI,JRCE
OR SPECIAI NUCLEAR I,IATERIAL
U. S. Nuclcar Rcgulaory Commirsioo
Divisioa of Fucl Cycle Mdica\ Acadciltic
tuid Commcrcid Usc SafoY
WashinSo* DC 20555
Mey l9t7
t Thc rrsm:cr:orur rn thrs gurcic. rn conruncusp urrh Tabie i, specrfi'the rarjjonuciides and mdtar:cn 3:(pcsut: 3!i
[mis "tricir sbouid bc uscd rn dcconurnlnalon aad sun'ry of suriaccs or premtscs aad cqurpmcnt pnoilo
J-aoo,,,.nt or relcasc for unrcstnoed usc. Thc limrs rn Tablc I do not apply to Premtset, equtPmcal or scra|
*n-*-og rnduced radioacovrw for whicb thc ndiologca,l corsrdcragoos pcruncns lo tbcu usc ruly bc drfercat.
n. ,.f ."i. of sucb facrliucs or itcms from regriarory control is corsidcred on a casc*y<asc basu.
l. Thc liccrsc shail rnatc a reasooable effort to eliminarc rcsiduai conamrnarion.
2. Radioactivrty on cquipmcar or suficcs shrll not bc covcred by pein, plaring or odcr covering marcnal
ga.lcss codrtniD.Doa lcvcls, ar dacrmincd by r lurvsy aad danrmcntcd
3. Thc redio.6jvity oo rhc inrcrior nrrficcr of pipct,, dnia liaa, or drcrwort shell bc dacrmincd by rnaking
mc.surcmcgtr et all trapr, ard dbcr appropn.E asccsr poim. Prsvidcd thr contrsrinrrioo at tbcac laanoos
is likcly o bc represeorrivc of cosruinaooo on tbc imcric of thc pipcr, drein lioct' or drcrworl. Sunac€s
of preraisct, cqurpmcnr, ot lcszp \r/hicb erc lilcly o bc conteminarcd bur art of nrcb sizc, coostrucooo, ot
locatioa as ro rnric thc surfacc inacccssiblc for purposcr of mcasurenrcar sh.ll bc presurncd o bc
coaregrin rcd in cxccss of thc limia.
4. Upoa reqgc+ tbc Commissioa rnay urthorizc a liccrucc to relinquish posessioo or cmol of premu6.
.{uipn1dr, or scrap; having lufica conraminarcd wirh nrarcridr in cx,ccsr of thc lirnis spccified- This rnay
irfuac hl wqrld'na Uc timirca o, spccial circrrmsterEa nrch er razing of buildingl tr.Bftr o Premtscs o
amrbcr orgaaraon coutimring worl wirh radioartivc metcriall or coovctsatioa of hcilitict to a long<erm
storep or saadby $rats. Sucb requcsts musa
a prsvidc da.ilcd speific infornntion dcscribing thc premisct, cquipmcat or lctzP, ndioacavc
contarniDegg, aad thc naarq aad dcgrcc of rcsidual surfrcc comrrarDdioo.
b. prwi& a dcreilcd hceldr aDd s.ftr.v analysis whicb re0cca thrt 6c residrd amantrtll of mucnals ou
zurhcc altar, rogexf,cr wirh abcr coosidcratiom nrch el procParc ut of 6c prcauscs' egurPmcnr' or
scrap, an unlikcly to re$lt ia ao unrcasonablc risk o rbc hcaltb and safcry of tbc public.
j. prior 19 relcase of premiscr for unregicrcd use' rhc liccnrcc sll rylc a comptchcosive radiation sutl'gv'
which csablishcr ifa -mrr,i-tioo is wirhin the limits spcctficd in Tablc l. A cogy of thc $rv!i IAon
shall bc filcd wirh rhc Divilioa of Fud Cycle Mcdical, Acadcnic aad Commercid Urc Sefu-v, U- S. Nuclcar
n"grrf"rr., Commission, Weshinffa, DC 20555, aDd abo rhc Ad.ministntor of thc NRC Rcglonel Ofhce
b";;aJr*Ao66. narpqt drtd bG filcd u lcasr 30 &ys pnor o thc plaancd dac of abandoumcol Thc
sutvGy rsPort lhlt
.. IdenriS tbc Prtatscl-
b. Sbow rhr raroeblc cfon her bcca nradc to climinarc rcsidrnl contaminarior
c. Dcscribc thc scqc of 6c JuwGy aad gcnerd Ptcedurc! followcd-
d Surc rhc furdiogr of thc survey in unig spccified in tbc instnrction.
Following rwicw of rbe rcporr, rhc NRC wrll corsidcr visiting thc faciliticr o confira tbc nrvcy'
a
=
=|.
l,{
=c,s
E
E?a
EaIIaII
a,eatI-IIa.!t
.gi,l!'i
I
TIa
IE
Et
E
E$aaI
TIa
f,.aa
1
a
TI.E
-
E,trII
I$
_lEI:lEI I\l
IDIEIE!l€tal
I
I
IEIrJl8lI\lItrlEIEll€tEl3l
I
I_lEIrJl8l l\l
lDlslal..,l
r.l
!f E= I
€l iE;l
ei E; il
EtEE€l
lJ
-
ea
t(\I
o8^s
tiasE
9-E€U
6a
5:
= = .": :a u == :X : i= ii ==; 8 =s i
=>j
= 5 t5 :
tigE!
i i EliI5 I Ei; aE E i:g E.
iriiE:iggiiE$Egi
ffi Eils;g
jlitjliiji
I
I
lrI.
l=lrEl<l>IA
I=le:t4
E(J
E
cl.E
xEtr'
Bt-EEg
=o?EsU6'E
Eot
EA!exJ
EFEErt1;!aE.E6
-' -.ol-F.:! i= -.*fE {it 3i
ig ?El 3i-ii Egi Ei=
D
ul-H
H
-1-o-F
zI-
-FHZdU
FU
bI
-ta
HJ
TB
EHUU