DRC-2013-003206 - 0901a068803c2cc3

OF ENERGYFUELS "DRC-2013-003206"
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Blvd. Suite 600
Lakewood, CO, US, 80228
303 974 2140
www.energyfuels com
September 23,2013
VIA EMAIL AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Mr. Rusty Lundberg
Director
Division of Radiation Control
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144850
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820
to.
Re: Follow-up to Utah Division of Radiation Control ('DRC") and Energy Fuels Resources (USA)
Inc. ("EFRI") Discussion Regarding Disposal of lle.(2) Byproduct from In-Situ Recovery
Facilities, and Status of lle.(2) Byproduct Receipts from Cameco Resources
Dear Mr. Lundberg:
This letter is a follow-up to discussions during EFRI's meeting with John Hultquist of DRC on October 17,
2012 and subsequent phone discussions with DRC staff regarding disposal in the White Mesa Mill's (the
"Mill's") tailings cells of lle.(2) Byproduct Material from In-Situ Recovery Facilities ("Byproduct Material" or
"Byproduct").
As we discussed at our meeting and in our phone calls, the Mill is licensed to receive Byproduct Material from
in-situ uranium recovery ("ISR") facilities (also known as in-situ leach ("ISL") facilities), for disposal in the
Mill's tailings cells, per Condition 10.5 of the Mill's Radioactive Materials License ("License"). License
Condition 10.5 states, in part,
"10.5 In accordance with the licensee's submittal to the NRC dated May 20, 1993, the licensee
is hereby authorized to dispose of byproduct material generated at licensed in-situ leach (ISL)
facilities, subject to the following conditions:
A. Disposal of ISL waste is limited to 5000 cubic yards from a single source."
As we have discussed with DRC, neither Utah regulation nor NRC regulation and guidance require a limit on
Byproduct Material disposal, nor do they define a "source" with respect to acceptance of ISL Byproduct
Materials in a licensed tailings facility. As we discussed with you, the imposition of the 5,000 cubic yard limit
in the above license condition was arbitrary and had no basis in health and safety or environmental
considerations. Nonetheless, EFRI developed a framework and Standard Operating Procedures governing
acceptance and disposal of ISR Byproduct Material at the Mill from the license condition, as described below.
At our meeting and phone call, we also described the current situation regarding historic and ongoing receipts
N:\WMM\ISL 1 le2 disposal reports\Cameco 1 le2 letter to DROLtr to R Lundberg CameCO 1 le2 9 23 13.d0CX
Letter to R. Lundberg
September 23, 2013
Page 2 of 4
of Byproduct Material from Cameco Resources. This letter describes how EFRI interprets and intends to apply
License Condition 10.5 to shipments of Cameco Byproduct material.
Determination of Sources of ISL Byproduct Material
As mentioned above, neither Utah nor NRC regulations define a "source" of ISL Byproduct Material. EFRI
applies the following criteria to determine what is a source, with respect to License Condition 10.5. EFRI
considers Byproduct Material from multiple project locations operated by the same customer to be from
different sources if any one of the following conditions applies:
• The projects are or were originally licensed and operated by different companies;
• The projects are operated under a different state Mining Permit (e.g. Wyoming Land Quality Division
Permit to Mine);
• The project locations manage other wastes (other than those shipped to the Mill) by different disposal
permits (e.g., EPA UIC deep well injection permit);
• The projects have been evaluated as different proposed actions under the NEPA process performed by
the US NRC, US Bureau of Land Management, or other agency; or
• The project locations generate, manage, and ship Byproduct Material separately.
Current Status of Cameco lle.(2) Byproduct Receipts
Through 2012, the Mill has combined Byproduct Material shipments received from all areas of the Cameco
Smith Ranch Highlands ("SRH") operation together and, correspondingly, summed the volume of all shipments
as volume from one source for purposes of tracking compliance with License Condition 10.5. Although
combined together as one source for tracking purposes, all Cameco Byproduct Material received at the Mill
from SRH was in fact placed over time into three Designated Disposal Areas ("DDAs") at the Mill in Cell 3;
namely, the "Cameco Historic", "Cameco New" and "PRI-Highlands" DDAs, as summarized in Table 1, below.
Additionally, EFRI disposed in the "Cameco Historic DDA" 179.81 CY of Byproduct from Cameco for which
the specific Cameco Project Area/Source cannot be determined. Like other Byproduct Material disposed in the
Historic DDA, the material originated from SRH.
Table 1
Designated Disposal Area (DDA)
Project Area at
SRH
Volume in Cameco
Historic DDA (CY)
Volume in
Cameco New
DDA (CY)
Volume in PRI-
Highlands DDA
(CY)
Total from Each
Project Area in
Each DDA (CY)
Highlands
Uranium Project 392.96 2391.4 0 2784.36
Smith Ranch 828.71 1194.77 2023.48
PRI-Highlands 0 0 211.1 211.1
Project Area Not
Specified 179.81 179.81
Total All Project
Areas 1401.48 3586.17 211.11 5198.75
2
Letter to R. Lundberg
September 23, 2013
Page 3 of 4
However, upon further examination and evaluation of the sources of Cameco Byproduct material, the Mill has
determined that the Project Areas in Table 1 from which the Mill has received Cameco Byproduct Material,
should be considered as being from two distinct sources - specifically, the Smith Ranch operations (containing
well-fields, Central Processing Plant and associated satellite facilities), and the former Highlands Uranium
Project ("HUP") being upgraded and renamed as the Highlands Recovery Facility ("HRF"). The HUP/HRF
source includes Byproduct Material from the Highlands Uranium Project area and PRI-Highlands area referred
to in Table 1. The Smith Ranch source includes Byproduct Material from the Smith Ranch project area referred
to in Table 1. The Byproduct Material identified as "Project Area Not Specified" is likely from Smith Ranch
and should be included in accounting for totals from Smith Ranch.
Historically, Smith Ranch operations and HUP/HRF were two separate facilities licensed to two different
corporate entities under two different source material licenses. HUP/HRF was originally licensed to Exxon
Minerals Company, and Smith Ranch to a series of owner/operators, specifically Rio Algom BHP Billiton, and
Kerr-McGee/Sequoyah Fuels Corp. Over time, both of these facilities, as well as other current or planned
Cameco uranium ISR activities in Wyoming have been, or will be, integrated under NRC License SUA-1387.
Current and Future Cameco ISR Projects
Just as the Smith Ranch and the HUP/HRF are physically different sites which were formerly licensed as
different projects by different operators, additional Cameco projects which are currently coming on-line or
anticipated for the near to mid-future are also physically different sites that were once licensed by different
owner-operators.
Table 2, attached, summarizes the known current and future Cameco uranium ISR projects in Wyoming and
identifies their locations, historic origins, and regulatory distinctions. EFRI considers each of the projects listed
in Table 2 to meet the criteria as distinct sources.
Handling of Current and Future Cameco Receipts
EFRI plans to segregate future shipments of the Cameco Byproduct Material into separate DDAs, and track
receipts by different sources, as listed in Table 2, specifically:
• Smith Ranch,
• HUP/HRF (referred to in Table 2 as "Highlands Uranium Project"),
• North Butte,
• Gas Hills,
• Reynolds Ranch, and
• Ruth Remote Satellite.
Please advise us whether you concur with EFRI's determination as described in this letter. If you should have
any questions, please contact me.
3
Letter to R. Lundberg
September 23,2013
Page 4 of 4
Yours very truly,
"ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES (USA) INC.
Jo Ann Tischler
Director, Compliance
CC: David C. Frydenlund
Dan Hillsten
John Hultquist (DRC)
Harold R. Roberts
David E. Turk
Katherine A. Weinel
Central Files
Attached Table 2
4
Table 2
Cameco lle.(2) Byproduct Source Areas
Source Status lle.(2) shipments Location County Individual Project
Licensed by
Previous
Owner(s)
Has/Will
Have
Individual
WYLQD
Permit to
Mine #?
Individual
EPA UIC for
Deep
Disposal
Weil at This
Source?
Has/Will Have
Separate NRC
EA/EIA or BLM
EA/EIS for This
Source?
lle.(2) Is/Will Be
Shipped
Separately from
This Location?
Smith Ranch Operating 2010 to present
45 mi NE of
Glenrock, WY Converse
Rio Algom Mining,
LLC/BHP Billiton;
Kerr-Mcgee/
Sequoyah Fuels
Corp. #633 Y NRC, BLM
Highlands
Uranium Project Operating 2001 to present
8 miles E of Smith
Ranch Central
Processing Plant Converse Exxon Minerals #603 Y NRC, BLM
North Butte Operating
Expected later
2013 SW of Gilette, WY Campbell
Pathfinder Mines
Corp. #632 Y NRC
Gas Hills Future
Expected 2016 or
17
50 miles E of
Riverton, 84 miles
W of Casper, WY
Fremont
and
Natrona
Power Resources
Inc. #687 Y BLM
Reynolds Ranch Future Expected 2015
30 miles NW of
Douglas Converse
Power Resources
Inc. #633 Y NRC
Ruth Remote
Satellite Future
2017 or later if
developed Johnson
Pathfinder Mines
Corp. #631 Y NRC
Per Highland Resin Transfer System Phase 1 Plan September 15,2011:
"Originally, SR-HUP was two separate facilities (Smith Ranch and Highland) licensed to two different corporate entities under different
source materials licenses. The NRC first authorized Kerr-McGee Corporation (KM) to conduct research and development (R&D) ISL operations
in June 1981 under source materials license SUA-1387. A corresponding Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was issued for the R&D
operation (46 FR 30924). In February 1984, SUA-1387 was amended to reflect that Sequoyah Fuels Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of
KM, was the licensee for the Smith Ranch operations (NRC 1984)."
All other information supplied by Ken Garoutte and/or Brent Berg, Cameco Resources
Table 2
Cameco lle.(2) Byproduct Source Areas
ACRONYMS
BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management
EA Envirnmental Assessment
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
LQD Wyoming Land Quality Division
NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
UIC Underground Injecton Control