The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDRC-2020-009502 - 0901a06880c783cfcpv Qí and Rad;auoi)nro • - -pg,-z020 00950z Uranium Watch P.O. Box 1306 Monticello, Utah 84535 435-260-8384 via electronic mail May 5, 2020 Ty Howard Director Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control Utah Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 144880 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4850 dwmrcpublic@utah.gov RE: Questions for May 20, 2020, Public Hearing. Amendment #10 to Radioactive Materials License No. UT1900479 and Modification to Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit No. UGW370004; White Mesa Uranium Mill. Dear Mr. Howard: Attached please find Questions submitted to the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (Division) for the Public Hearing regarding Amendment #10 of the 11 e. (2) Byproduct License No. UT1900479 and Modification to Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit No. UGW370004, Energy Fuels Resources Inc., White Mesa Uranium Mill, San Juan County, Utah. On April 17, 2020, Uranium Watch requested that a hearing be held. According to the Division, the hearing is to be held electronically on Wednesday May 20, 2020, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Thank you for providing this opportunity to submit questions. Sincerely, Sarah Fields cc: As stated Ty Howard/DWMRC May 5, 2020 AMENDMENT # 10 TO RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE NO. UT1900479 and MODIFICATION TO GROUNDWATER QUALITY DISCHARGE PERMIT NO. UGW370004 WHITE MESA MILL, SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH QUESTIONS TO DWMRC FOR MAY 20, 2020, PUBLIC HEARING 1. Simlet Alternative Feed Request 1.1. Did the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (Division) or Energy Fuels Resources Inc. (Energy Fuels) request an official opinion of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regarding whether an NRC import license was needed to import the Simlet Material from Estonia to the White Mesa Mill? 1.2. What would be the Division's regulatory definition of the Simlet Material 1) prior to its shipment to the United States, 2) upon arrival in the U.S., 3) during shipment to the White Mesa Mill, 4) upon arrival at White Mesa, and 5) during storage at the Mill prior to any processing? 1.3. If for some reason, the Mill were unable to process any of the Simlet Material after its arrival at the Mill, how would the material be disposed of and under what regulatory program and definitions? 1.4. The Division's April 2020 "Technical Evaluation and Environmental Analysis for the Silmet Alternate Feed Request," definition of Ore, page 5, states: Ore - In the September 22, 1995, Federal Register Vol. 60 No. 184 pg. 49296 the NRC defined ore as: "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." Was this definition an amendment or addition to any NRC regulation? 1.5. Has the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) incorporated this definition of ore into its regulations? 1.6. Has the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopt this definition of "ore" in its regulations? 1.7. The "Technical Evaluation and Environmental Analysis for the Silmet Alternate Feed Request, " Section 1.1.1. Determination of Whether the Feed Material is "Ore," contains the definition of Ore found in the 1995 Federal Register Notice and states: According to EFRI'S application dated April 18, 2019, Section 2.6.1, the Ty Howard/DWMRC 3 May 5, 2020 Simlet uranium material has a range of 0.17 to 0.41 percent U308. This percentage of uranium is comparable to the native Colorado Plateau ores that the White Mesa Mill processes. For this reason, and because the material will be processed for the recovery of uranium, DWMRC Staff has concluded that the Simlet uranium material meets the NRC definition of "ore." The NRC definition of "ore" says that "ore" can be "any matter from which source material is extracted in a licensed uranium or thorium mill." The Division states that the Simlet material is "ore" because it "will be processed for the recovery of uranium." There is a difference here. The NRC definition states that "ore" is material from which source material "is" extracted. The Division concluded that the material is ore because source material "will be" extracted. There is a timing issue here. Is the Silmet Material "ore" because the uranium will be extracted, or does the Silmet Material become "ore" only when the uranium "is" extracted? This needs to be clarified. 1.8. There are EPA standards and regulations that apply to the operation of uranium mills and to lle.(2) byproduct material, as it is defined in the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and NRC and EPA regulations. These regulations include 40 C.F.R. Part 192, Environmental Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings at Licensed Commercial Processing Sites; 40 C.F.R. Part 61 Subpart W, National Emission Standards for Radon Emissions From Operating Mill Tailings; and 40 C.F.R. Part 440. 40 C.F.R. § 192.31(b) defines uranium byproduct material: "Uranium byproduct material or tailings means the waste produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium from any ore processed primarily for its source material content." 40 C.F. R. § 61.251 defines uranium byproduct material or tailings: "Uranium byproduct material or tailings means the waste produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium from any ore processed primarily for its source material content." Is the Division aware of any statement by the EPA that the term "ore," as it appears in EPA regulation applicable to uranium mills and in the AEA and EPA regulatory definition of 1le.(2) byproduct material, includes any "matter from which source material is extracted in a licensed uranium or thorium mill." 1.9. Is the Division aware of any EPA regulation or statement that would lead one to believe that the EPA regulation and standards in 10 C.F.R. Part 192 and 40 C.F.R. Part 61 Subpart W apply to the disposal of tailings and wastes from the processing of any matter, such as the Simlet Material, for its uranium or thorium content? 1.10. Do NRC guidance documents have legal force and effect? 1.11. Were NRC and EPA regulations applicable to uranium mills and the disposal and long term care of lle.(2) byproduct material promulgated contemplating the processing Ty Howard/DWMRC 4 May 5, 2020 and disposal of materials other than natural uranium or thorium at licensed uranium mills. Were they promulgted contemplating the disposal of materials with the radiological and non-radiological chemical characteristics of the Simlet and other "Alternate Feed Material"? 2. Moffat Tunnel Alternative Feed Request 2.1. What would be the Division's regulatory definition of the Moffat Tunnel Material 1) prior to its shipment to the United States, 2) upon arrival in the U.S., 3) during shipment to the White Mesa Mill, 4) upon arrival at White Mesa, and 5) during storage at the Mill prior to any processing? 2.2. If for some reason, the Mill were unable to process any of the Moffat Tunnel Material after its arrival at the Mill, how would the material be disposed of and under what regulatory program and definitions? 2.3. The Division's April 2020 "Technical Evaluation and Environmental Analysis for the Silmet Alternate Feed Request," Section 1.1.2 Determination of Whether the Feed Material Contains Hazardous Waste, page 16 - 17, the Division makes a determination that the Moffat Tunnel Material does not contain Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste. The Division references Energy Fuels' claims regarding RCRA exemption and provides quotes from EPA and Utah regulations, but the Division is not entirely clear regarding why the Material would be exempt from RCRA because it is not a solid waste. The TE/EA states, page 17: In the application EFRI claims that the Moffat Tunnel uranium bearing material is excluded from RCRA based on 40 CFR 261.4(a)(4). 40 CFR 261.4(a)(4) is as follows: 40 CFR § 261.4 Exclusions. (a) Materials which are not solid wastes. The following materials are not solid wastes for the purpose of this part: (4) Source, special nuclear or by-product material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of _1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq. UAC R313-12-3 Definitions (See also 10 CFR 40.4) "Source material" means: (a) uranium or thorium, or any combination thereof, in any physical or chemical form, or (b) ores that contain by weight one-twentieth of one percent (0.05 percent), or more of, uranium, thorium, or any combination of uranium and thorium. Source material does not include special nuclear material. The Division does not make clear whether the Moffat Tunnel Material is "source Ty Howard/DWMRC 5 May 5, 2020 material" under source material definition (a) or definition (b). If it were definition (a) source material, then only the uranium and/or thorium would be exempt from RCRA. If the material contained hazardous waste, the material would be considered mixed radioactive and hazardous waste. If the Material met the definition (b), as Energy Fuels appears to think, then all of the material would be exempt. What does the Division think regarding the source material definition applicable to the Moffat Tunnel Material? 2.4. Under the Atomic Energy Act and EPA and NRC regulations applicable to "source material," is there any indication that the definition of "source material" related to ores that contain uranium and/or thorium by weight of 0.05%, or more, applies to materials other than a natural or native matter that may be mined and treated for the extraction of any of its constituent and applies to any matter from which source material is extracted in a licensed uranium or thorium mill?