DRC-2015-007792 - 0901a06880594d47

State of Utah
GARY R. HERtsERT
Covernor
SPENCER J. COX
Lieulenant Governor
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
Department of
Environmental Quality
Alan Matheson
Executive Director
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
AND RADIATION CONTROL
Scott T. Anderson
Director
MEMORANDUM
File: / /
Phir Gobre PL( (lf?'/zo t
'Scott Anderson 5t*- r/ elz_a r f,.)
Ryan Johns on{l-- //- 2 -Z-etS"/
November 2,2015
SUBJECT: State of Utah Radioactive Materials License (RML) No. UTl900479Eneryy Fuels
Resources (USA) Inc's (EFRI) Uranerz Nichols Ranch Yellowcake Slurry Project
In a letter dated October 29,2015, Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (EFRI) sent a letter to the Utah
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC), informing the DWMRC of their
intent to transfer yellowcake slurry from the Nichols Ranch In-Situ Recovery (ISR) facility, located in
Wyoming, to the White Mesa Uranium Mill, located just south of Blanding, Utah. EFRI indicated that
the yellowcake slurry could be transferred between the Nichol Ranch ISR and the White Mesa Mill
because both facilities are authorized to receive and transfer the licensed source material (Natural
Uranium). EFRI asserted that this would be a legal transfer of licensed source material in accordance
with l0 CFR a0.51(a)(5) fequivalent to UAC R3l3-19-41(2)(d)]. The purpose of this transfer is so
"final processing" can be done at the White Mesa Mill.
R3l3-19-41(2)(d) states: "Except as otherwise provided in the license and subject to the provisions of
Subsections R3l3-19- 41(3) and (4), licensees may transfer radioactive material: ....
(d) to persons authorized to receive the material under terms of a general license or its equivalent, or a
specific license or equivalent licensing document, issued by the Director, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, an Agreement State or a Licensing State, or to a person otherwise authorized to receive the
material by the federal government or an agency thereof, the Director, an Agreement State or a
Licensing State; or ....".
According to the letter dated October 29,2015, the purpose of this transfer is so that "final processing"
of the yellowcake can be done at the White Mesa Mill. EFRI further explains that the yellowcake slurry
will be introduced into the Mill at the "Precipitation and Thickening" stage of the process circuit.
195 North 1950 We st . Salt Lake City, UT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144880. Salt Lake City, UT 841l4-4880
Telephone [phone]. Fax [phone]. T.D.D. [phone]
tutuo.deq.utnh.goo
Printed on 100% recycled paper
DRC.2O15-007792
Page2
Option 1: Alternate Feed Designation:
To be considered an alternate feed, NRC Guidance documents state that the following items must be
determined:
l. Determination of Whether the Feed Material is Ore.
Federal Register, Volume 60, Page 49296, dated September 22,1995, states the following: 'oFor
the tailings and wastes from the proposed processing to qualify as 11e.(2) byproduct material, the feed
material must qualifu as'ore.' In determining whether the feed material is ore, the following definition of
ore must be used:
"Ore" is a natural or native matter that may be mined and treated for the extraction of any of its
constituents or any other matter from which source material is extracted in a licensed uranium or
thorium mill."
Since the yellowcake slurry has already been chemically separated from the ore body at Nichols
Ranch ISR this yellowcake slurry does not meet the criteria for the definition of 'oore."
2. Determination of Whether the Feed Material Contains Hazardous Waste.
The yellowcake slurry is not an ore, as defined above, so meeting this requirement is not
applicable.
3. Determination of Whether the Ore is Being Processed Primarily for its Source-Material
Content.
The yellowcake slurry is not an ore, as defined above, so meeting this requirement is not
applicable.
Option 2: License to License Transfer
Altematively, processing the yellowcake slurry may be considered a continuation of the "milling
process" and therefore, the material would not be an alternate feed requiring a license amendment for
approval. EFRI proposed this option based on information provided in the NRC document SECY-02-
0095 Applicability of Section I Ie.(2) of the Atomic Energt Act to Material at the Seqoyah Fuels
Corporation Uranium Conversion Facility which was attached to a separate EFRI letter dated July 26,
2013 and referenced in the October 29,2015letter. In their letter dated October 29,2015, EFRI states in
the section titled "Receipt" that "The first paragraph and [License] Conditions 6, 7, and 8 of the Mill
License allow EFRI to "transfer, receive, possess and use" "Natural Uranium" in "Any" form with an
"Unlimited" quantity at any one time. Receipt of yellowcake slurry would be a licensee-to-licensee
transfer of source material to the Mill under l0 CFR 40.51(5) because the Mill is "authorized to receive
such source or byproduct material" under terms of the Mill License, which is "a specific license or a
general license or their equivalents issued by the Commission or an Agreement State;" as required by
that regulation." EFRI further states that the yellowcake slurry will be further concentrated and purified
at the White Mesa mill as a step in the uranium milling process in order to produce yellowcake that
meets commercial specifications. EFRI finally states "The NRC has concluded that source material may
Page 3
be transferred from one licensee to another as part of the uranium milling process and that the wastes
generated at each licensed facility qualify as 1le.(2) byproduct material."
EFRI based their conclusion on information contained in the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
(NRC) SECY-02-0095, Applicability of Section I1e.(2) of the Atomic Energt Act to Material at the
Sequoyah Fuels Corporation Uranium Conversion Facility (Sequoyah Fuels). In SECY-02-0095, NRC
staff analyzed Sequoyah Fuels request to have waste material from the front end of their process
designated as 1le.(2) byproduct materials for the purpose of decommissioning. Sequoyah Fuels argued
that the front end of their process was a continuation of the milling process since they were taking
material and further concentrating and purifying U3O8 to meet a specific criterion so that it could be
converted to a different form without causing equipment issues during the next part of the process,
known as the conversion process. Sequoyah Fuels argued that until the material began the conversion
process the material is still in the "milling process." As an example, Sequoyah Fuels used examples of
situations where a uranium milling process began in one location and the material was transferred to
another location where the uranium milling process was continued. The argument stated that the milling
process and therefore, l1e.(2) byproduct materials should not be defined by location (ie: a uranium mill
vs. a conversion facility), but should be defined by the actual process (ie: concentration and purification
vs. conversion).
During the NRC's analysis, NRC staff analyzed two options. The first option would result in NRC's
determination that waste from concentration and purification activities at Sequoyah Fuels could not be
considered to be I le.(2) material and the site would be required to proceed with decommissioning under
the license termination rule (LTR). The second option would result in NRC's determination that waste
produced prior to the conversion process (during concentration and purification) could be considered as
1le.(2) byproduct material and Sequoyah Fuels could use the criteria in Appendix A to l0 CFR 40 for
decommissioning even though it was considered to be a conversion facility and not a uranium mill.
After the analysis, the NRC Commission approved the second option for Sequoyah Fuels.
SECY-02-0095, Attachment 5, Uranium Milling Activities at the Sequoyah Feuls Corporation Uranium
Conversion Facility, provides a discussion regarding the justification for designating the front-end
activity (concentration and purification) at Sequoyah Fuels as I le.(2) by product materials. By
designating a portion of the Sequoyah Fuels waste as 11e.(2) byproduct material, the NRC staff and
NRC found that the uranium milling process could occur at more than one location and until conversion
of the materials began, the uranium milling process was not completed.
As discussed in Attachment 5, l0 CFR 40.4 contains the following definitions:
Uranium milling means any activity that results in the production of byproduct material, as defined in l0
cFR 40.4.
Byproduct material means the tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium
or thorium from any ore primarily for its source material content, including discrete surface wastes
resulting from uranium solution extraction processes. Underground ore bodies depleted by such solution
extraction operations do not constitute "byproduct material," within this definition.
In Attachment 5, NRC staff developed a plain language definition of uranium milling from the above
stated definitions. The constructed definition for uranium milling is as follows:
Page 4
(Jranium milling is an activity or series of processes that extracts or concentrates uranium or thorium
from any ore primarily for its source material content, and the resulting tailings or wastes are I le.(2)
byproduct material.
Attachment 5 to SECY-02-0095 also states,
"[t]he regulatory and working definitions of uranium milling and byproduct material are definitions
based on a process rather than the location of an activity or the characteristics of a material. The
regulations do not address when milling is completed. Once the fuel cycle is beyond natural uranium
oxide, and conversion processes is initiated, the milling process is clearly completed."
NUREG-0706, Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling,looks at uranium
milling as an activity or set of processes. Both conventional and non-conventional uranium milling
processes are evaluated in NUREG-0706. Conventional wanium milling processes from the beginning
to waste disposal, occur at one location, a mill. However, NUREG-0706 also evaluated non-
conventional uranium milling processes. Non-conventional uranium milling processes such as in-situ
extraction, heap leaching, etc. usually involved one or more of the processing stages normally performed
at a conventional mill, but the non-conventional processing stages were conducted at a location other
than a conventional uranium mill. This clearly indicates that uranium milling processes are not required
to be performed at one location and also are not required to be performed only at a conventional mill.
In Part 3 of Attachment 5 to SECY-02-0095, NRC staffreinforces the information provided in NUREG-
0706 by stating, "Uranium milling entails many processing steps, ..., ffe not required to occur at a
single location, but often do." Additionally, NRC staff gave examples of uranium milling processes
conducted at several locations other than uranium mills.
EFRI has proposed that since uranium milling processes may be conducted at locations other than
uranium mills and that the fixed hardened yellowcake from Honeywell had not begun a conversion
process, the fixed hardened yellowcake has not completed the uranium milling process. Therefore,
EFRI may receive the fixed hardened yellowcake from Honeywell under the provisions of l0 CFR 40.51
and continue the milling process by concentrating and purifying the material. EFRI states that if
transferred in this manner, the fixed hardened yellowcake would not require approval as alternate feed
and no amendment to the radioactive materials license would be required.
Conclusion
After reviewing both options the DWMRC concludes that:o The yellowcake sluny cannot be treated as an Altemate Feed because it does not meet the
definition of an "ore"; ando Based on the information contained in SECY-02-0095 which indicates that the milling process is
not completed until conversion of the material begins and that milling processes need not occur
at the same location. Therefore, a License to License transfer of source material is appropriate.
DWMRC staff has determined that:
Page 5
I . Although DWMRC has not adopted the requirements of 10 CFR 40.5 l, an equivalent
requirement is located in R313-19-41(2)(d) which allows the transfer of licensed source materials
between two licensees authorized to possess the materials.
2. EFRI is authorized to receive the yellowcake slurry which is primarily composed of U3O8 (a
form of uranium found in natural uranium).
3. EFRI is authorized to concentrate and purify natural uranium into yellowcake to be transferred to
other licensees for conversion.
It is therefore the recommendation of the DWMRC Staff to allow EFRI to accept the transfer of
yellowcake slurry from the Nichols Ranch ISR facility under the provisions of R3l3-19-41(2Xd) for the
purposes of concentrating and purifying the material into a usable form of yellowcake. The approval is
limited to the yellowcake slurry from the Nichols Ranch ISR. It is not the intent of the DWMRC staff
for this approval to be used for the receipt of any other materials.
The DWMRC will verify in future inspections that:o Health, Safety and ALARA concerns are addressed;r Existing and/or new facilities/equipment to be used is within the footprint of the existing Mill
and time table for construction of new facilities/equipment;o The Mill appropriately followed the SERP process;o Existing EFRI SOPs (approved by DWMRC) are applicable to the processing proposed for the
source material,. Appropriate monitoring, radiological surveys and health physics coverage will be performed.