DRC-2014-006565 - 0901a068804b59a5

John Hultquist <[e-mail]>
Notice of Agency Action - LS/14/11 DRC-2014-006565 1 message
Radiation Issues <[e-mail]> Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:15 AM
Reply-To: Issues for the public for division of radiation control <[e-mail]>
To: John Hultquist <[e-mail]>
The Division of Radiation Control is notifying the public that Amendment 7, an amendment that includes approval
for processing alternate feed materials from Dawn Mining, has been issued for the Energy Fuels Resources
(USA) Inc. radioactive materials license number UT 1900479. More information about this action is available at:
http://www.radiationcontrol.utah.gov/Uranium_Mills/IUC/^
Thank you.
*****************************************
Please do not reply to this message. Replies are automatically redirected and discarded.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank e-mail to: [e-mail]
John Hultquist <j [e-mail]>
Fwd: White Mesa
5 messages
Rusty Lundberg <[e-mail]>Thu, Jun 26,2014 at 3:40 PM
To: John Hultquist <[e-mail]>, Phil Goble <[e-mail]>
I haven't looked at this yet, but will probably tomorrow while driving. Maybe our briefing will help provide some
feedback. Thanks.
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Palomares, Art" <[e-mail]>
Date: June 26,2014 al 1226:24 PM PDT
To: " rlundberg@utah. gov" < rl undberg@utah. gov>
Subject: White Mesa
2 aftachments
image001.gif
69K
f \ Questions For Utah (White Mesa).b<tu+x
Phillip Goble <[e-mail]> Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 4:30 PM
To: Palomares.Art@epa. gov
Cc: John Hultquist <[e-mail]>, Rusty Lundberg <[e-mail]>
Mr. Palomares,
The Director of the Utah Division of Radiation Control is out of the office until July 7, 2014 and he asked that I
respond to your request. Attached you will find a briefing document for a future Energy Fuels Resources License
Amendment to receive material from Dawn Mining that should address all your questions. If you require
additional information I will be back in the office on Monday June 30, 2014.
Sincerely,
Phil Goble
LLRW and Uranium Mill Compliance Section Manager
Utah Division of Radiation Control
(801) s36-4044
lQuoted text hiddenl
Energy Fuels Dawn Mining Briefing Document.pdf
222K
John Hultquist <[e-mail]>
To: Phillip Goble <[e-mail]>
Cc: Rusty Lundberg <[e-mail]>, Laura Lockhart <[e-mail]>
Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:44 AM
Phit,
Appreciate you taking care of this. I think I would have given him the final version instead of the draft. lf you
don't have the final version, there's a link on the letter we sent to Celene -see email dated J une 18, 2014. ln
addition, I attached the final PPS to this email for your convenience. lt is also on the U:drive in the Licensee's
dawn mining folder.
The PPS does not address the questions about 40 CFR 2U.221(a)(1)which was asked in questions 3 and 4.
However, this rule 40 CFR 264-221) does not apply because the material in the cells are exempt based on
section 1006 of the Solid Waste Disposal Acl: APPLICATION OF ACT AND INTEGMTION WITH OTHER
ACTS
SEC. 1006. (a) APPLICATION OF ACT.-Nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply to (orto authoize any
Sfafe, interstate, or
local authority to regulate) any activity or substance which ls subT'ecf to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1151 and
following), fhe Safe Dinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f and following), the Maine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaies Act of
1972 (33 U. S. C. 1401 and following), or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U. S. C. 201 1 and following) except to
the extent that such
application (or regulation) is not inconsistent with the requiremenfs of such Acfs.
and....
The material is exempt from 40 CFR 264.221 based on the exclusion provision in 40 CFR 261.4 which sfafes;
Exclusions. (a) Materials which are not solid wastes. The following materials are not solid wastes for the
purpose of this pafi: ....(4) Source, special nuclear or by-product material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended,42 U.S.C.2011et seq.
Don't know if we want to supplement our response to Mr. Palomares or not, I'll let Rusty decide when he gets
back.
Again, thanks for taking care of this.
John
[Quoted text hidden]
Energy Fuels Dawn Mine LA Public Participation Summary 6-17-14.pdf
803K
Pafomares, Art <[e-mail]> Tue, Jul 1,2014 at 10:53 AM
To: Phillip Goble <[e-mail]>
Cc: John Hultquist <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Phil,
Thank you the document you sent me it was very helpful. With respect to the comments received and the
State's response on the alternate feed Amendment request, Are the comments and the responses in the public
domain? Do you post those on your website? I am interested in seeing the actual specific comments.
Thanks and I appreciate your assistance.
Art Palomares, Director
Water Technical Enforcement Program
Office of Enforcement, Compliance
And Environmental Justice
From: Phillip Goble Imailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, June 26,2014 4:31. PM
To: Palomares, Art
Cc: John Hultquist; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: White Mesa
[Quoted text hidden]
Phillip Goble <[e-mail]>Tue, Jul 1,2014 at 12:31 PM
To: "Palomares, Art" <[e-mail]>
Cc: John Hultquist <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Laura Lockhart
<[e-mail]>
Mr. Palomares,
The responses to the public commenE are technically not in the public domain right now as the License
Amendment is not yet signed; therefore, they aren't on the DRC website. It is expected that the amendment will
be signed sometime in July. However, I am providing a copy of the Public Participation Summary (PPS) that
includes all the comments received for the licensing action and responses to those comments. This same
document was provided to the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe on June 18, 2014.
In your first email you had two questions (3 & 4) regarding CFR 264.221(a)(1). The PPS does not address CFR
264.22L because it doesn't apply as the material found in the cells are exempt based on Section 1006 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act:
APPLICATION OF ACT AND INTEGMTION WITH OTHER ACTS SEC. 1006. (a) APPLICATION OF AcT,-Nothing
in this Act shall be consUued to apply to (or to authorize any State, interstate, or local authority to regulate) any
activity or substance which is subject to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1151 and following),
the Safe Drinking Water Ac-(42 U.S.C, 300f and following), the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
of t972 (33 U.S.C. 1401 and following), or the Atomic Energy Act of I;g5H- (42 U,S.C. 2011and following)
except to the extent that such application (or regulation) is not inconsistent with the requiremenE of such Acts.
The material is exempt from 40 CFR264.221 based on the exclusion provision in 40 CFR 261,4 which states:
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 t;g5/., as amended,42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.
If you have any questions about the PPS or the Dawn Mining licensing action I suggest you contact the DRC
Licensing Manager, John Hultquist, as it was his team that put the PPS together.
Sincerely,
Phil Goble
LLRW and Uranium Mill Compliance Section Manager
Utah Division of Radiation Control
(801) s36-4044
lQuoted text hiddenl
Energy Fuels Dawn Mine LA Public Participation Summary 6'17'14.pdf
803K
John Hultquist <i hultquist@utah. gov>
lnformation on EPA order which drives Dawn Mlning schedule
3 messages
JoAnn Tischler <[e-mail]>Tue, Feb 11. 2014 at 9:34 AM
To: jhultquist@utah. gov
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
John,
Dawn Mlning sent the following information on their timing issue. Lou Mlller, Dawn's prime cntractor thinks the
web link to a large administrative record is:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/cleanup. nsf/7d19cd587dff 1eee8825685f007d56b71
25f296'f 57 9940d8b882567 44000327a5! Open Doc u m ent
Altematively, searching under Midnite Mlne EPA, will get a link to the same web pages.
For simplicity, Lou has summarized the issues that appear in multiple documents throughout the adminstrative
record/public information, as listed below:
- Dawn is required to operate the Water Treatment Plant (WTP) beginning in April and operate the plant until
roughly October (until the water levels reach a predetermined level). The plant is then off line until the following
spring.
- The WTP produces the Uranium Material that Dawn plans to ship to White Mesa Mill. Dawn is under an EPA
order to start the WTP in April and is not allowed to store sludge on site, so they need to be able to ship sludge
as soon as the WTP comes on line and produces a truckload of sludge which is estimated to be mid April.
- Dawn cunently has only two options for sludge, one is at the Mill, the other is at the US Ecology Facility in
Hanford Washington. The facility at Hanford is a disposal facility that has specific requirements for packaging.
- lf Dawn has to package and ship material to Hanford they would need to construct facilities to place and
compact the sludge into containers that would be acceptable to Hanford. Dawn is not sure exactly what that
infrastructure would look like but it is estimated that this would take a 6 weeks to two months to get in place.
Therefore, if Dawn does not have final approval to send the sludge to the Mill in the next week, they will need to
begin the process of designing and constructing the infrastructure for packaging io the material for disposal at
Hanford as that is the only available option.
I hope this is useful to you. Thank you for your help in advising Rusty and the AG's office about the timing
isssue.
My updated contact information is below.
JoAnn Tischler, Senior Engineer
SENES Consultants
8310 South Valley Highway, Suite 135
Englewood, CO 80112
direct line: 7 20-961 -0957
Email Address: [e-mail]
Web Site: http://www.senesusa.com
This transmission is intended only for the addressee and may contain PRIVILEGED or CONFIDENTIAL
information. Any unauthorized disclosure, use or retention is strictly prohibited. SENES does not accept liability
for any etrors, omissions, comrption or virus in contents or attachments. lnformation is provided for use "as is"
by the addressee. Revised documents must not be represented as SENES work product, without express,
written permission of a SENES Director.
John Huttquist <[e-mail]> Thu, Mar 6,2014 at 8:16 AM
To: Kimberlee Mcewan <[e-mail]>, Laura Lockhart <[e-mail]>
Here is the web link.
lQuoted text hiddenl
Ki m berlee Mcewan <kmcewan@utah. gov>
To: John Hultquist <[e-mail]>
Thanks for the link.
[Quoted text hidden]
Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 10:58 AM
Questions For utah (white uesa).txt
l-. subpart w prohibits uranium m'ills from havingmore than two tailingq impoundments in operation. explain why rai'lings cells 1, 2,and 3 are not requir6d to'be closed at the white luesh Mill? -
2. oo tailing ce11s 1, 2, and 3 meet the requirements of 40 c.F.R. L92.32(a),considering that the liners'in ra'ilings ce11s 1, 2, and 3 were designed for a15-year life
and were installed between May 1980 and september L982? contamination of the shallowgroundwater underlying railings Cells 1, 2, and3 has been documented-and is the subject of investigat'ion and correctiveaction to address elevated chloroform, nitrate and ihlorides. rhere iss]gnificant evidence that the liners on tailings ce11s 1, 2, and 3 have alreadyalTowed migration of waste out of the 'impoundmEnts into ihe'adjacentgroundwater.
3. Do the sing'le, 30-mil pvc liners in railings Cells 1, 2, and 3 have theappropriate_chemical properties and sufficient strength and thickness toprevent fa'ilure due to conditions outl'ined in 40 c.F:R. 5 264.22t(a)(1) ?
4. rs the single, 30-mi1 evg liners in railings Ce11s 1, 2, and 3 compat'iblewith alternate feed materials contained in the impoundments?
5. please clarify whether tailings ce11s 1, 2, and 3 at the white Mesa Mill meet therequirements of 40 c.F.R. S 264.22L(c).
6._?lease exp'lain how risks to groundwater from legacy impoundments like railingsce11s 1, 2, and 3, is being addFessed.
7' Please exp'lain how specific analysis of the white Mesa Mill facility addressedthe
fo1 1 owi ng:
cell 2'is currently licensed to receive L1-(e)(2) byproduct material (liquids
sol i ds) .
Method LL5 monitoring on cell 2 detected a Subpart w NESHAps violation in20L2/20L3 over the 20 pci /m?-s limit
cell 3 is currently licensed to rece'ive 1,1-(e)(2) byproduct material (liquids
and
and solids).
cell 3is-currently the only tailings cell at the white Mesa Mill thatreceives certain forms of11(e)(2) byproduct material (materials trucked in, including rsL waste).
The wMM faci I i ty has not hi stori ca'l 1y operated its "conventi onal " and"nonconventi onaltailings impoundments separately. railings ce'll 4R was operatedas a "non-conventional" impoundment, which resulted in sLrface andgroundwater
contamination until the cell was retrofitted start'ing'in 2008. railings Ce1148 is currently operated as a "non-conventional" impoundment, but the wh'ite lvtesaui I I ownersindicate that'it will be used as a "conventional" impoundment in the future.
under currently approved anQ proposed 4eclamat'ion plans for the wMM, thepermanent radon barriers will not be p'laced on any tailings impoundmentsunti I
eage 1
/
Questions For utah (white Mesa).txtfi na'l recl amati on at the faci I'i ty.
8. The white Mesa Mill is currently authorized to temporari'ly place liqu'id l-l-(e)(2)byproductmaterial in "Roberts Pond" (before pumping the liquid into railings cells 1 and 4s).
please explain how the Radon-222 emissionsfrom Roberts pond and from the regular transfer of process water from Roberts pond
torailings cells 1 and 48 has been assessed?
9. The rribe'is concerned that, although rai'lings ce11 2 had a recent v'iolation ofthe 20pCi/n2-s emiss'ions limit that applies to exist'ing impoundments (and although thatviolation was detected during monitoring conducted under Method l-15). Please explain
how it will be ensured that em'iss'ions f romrailings cell 2 do not exceed 20 pci/m?-s between now and when the final radonbarri eris placed during final reclamation of the entire facility
10. rhe rribe'is concerned that the rribal community in white luesa will be exposedtoelevated levels of nadon-222 when the white MFsa Mill facil'ity undertakesde-watering or otherclosure activities or allows railings cells 2 and 3 to rema'in open under an "interim
cover." Please explain how'it will be ensured that rribal members, tribal lands andother tndian Trust Assets are not exposed to
nadon-222 emissions in excess of 20 pci/m2-s during the closure period.
eage 2