DRC-2020-020529 - 0901a06880dbdf01

STATE OF UTAH
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RADIATION CONTROL
Technical Evaluation and
Environmental Analysis
Silmet Alternate Feed Request
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
White Mesa Uranium Mill

Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
April 2020

An Amendment Request to Radioactive Materials License UT 1900479 and Utah Groundwater
Discharge Permit UGW 370004 to approve the Silmet uranium bearing material as an alternate
feed material
1

Contents
Glossary of Terms ......................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 9
1. Technical Evaluation........................................................................................................................... 15
1.1 Does the Silmet Uranium Material Qualify as an Alternate Feed? ................................................. 15
1.1.1 Determination of Whether the Feed Material is Ore. .................................................................. 15
1.1.2 Determination of Whether the Feed Material Contains Hazardous Waste. ................................ 15
1.1.3 Determination of Whether the Ore is Being Processed Primarily for its Source-Material
Content. 16
1.2 Engineering Review ........................................................................................................................ 17
1.3 Groundwater Review ...................................................................................................................... 18
1.4 Legal Review .................................................................................................................................. 19
1.5 Technical Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 20
2. Environmental Analysis (R313-24-3) ................................................................................................. 21
2.1 Engineering ..................................................................................................................................... 25
2.2 Groundwater and Surface Water Assessment (R313-24-3(1)(b)) ................................................... 26
2.3 Radiological and Non-radiological Assessment (R313-24-3(1)(a)) ............................................... 30
2.3.1 Radiological Analysis ................................................................................................................. 30
2.3.1.1 Transportation ............................................................................................................................. 32
2.3.1.2 Receiving and Storage of the Silmet Uranium Material ............................................................. 33
2.3.1.3 Mill Processing the Silmet Uranium Material ............................................................................ 33
2.3.1.4 Accidents at the Mill while processing the Silmet Uranium Bearing Material .......................... 33
2.3.2 Non-Radiological Analysis ......................................................................................................... 34
2.3.2.1 Transportation ............................................................................................................................. 34
2.3.3 Consideration of Long-term Impacts (R313-24-3(1)(d)) ............................................................ 35
2.3.4 Consideration of Alternates (R313-24-3(1)(c)) .......................................................................... 36
2.4 Environmental Analysis Conclusion ............................................................................................... 37
3. DWMRC Staff Recommendation to the Director ............................................................................... 37
4. Proposed Language for the New Alternate Feed License Conditions ................................................ 37
5. Explanation for the Proposed Language for the New Alternate Feed License Conditions ................. 38
6. References ........................................................................................................................................... 39
2

Glossary of Terms
Below is a list of words, terms, and acronyms used for this licensing action. These words, terms
and acronyms are based on regulatory, technical and industry definitions and are not always the
same definition found in dictionaries and other common reference sources. The definitions that
come from regulatory sources are the required definitions the Utah Division of Waste
Management and Radiation Control Staff (the Division, or Staff) use.
11e.(2) - Refers to the paragraph in the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended which
defines source material and byproduct material.
11e.(2) Byproduct Material - As stated in the AEA “The term "byproduct material" means…(2)
the tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium or thorium from
any ore processed primarily for its source material content.” 11e.(2) byproduct material
generated at in-situ leach recovery (ISL or ISR) uranium recovery facilities is sometimes referred
to as ISL byproduct material, ISL decommissioning debris or ISR decommissioning debris.
NRC does not refer to 11e.(2) material as waste. Therefore, this document will not refer to
11e.(2) byproduct material as waste. Such a reference would be inappropriate since 40 CFR
(EPA regulations) contains a specific definitions of various classes of waste (e.g., solid waste,
hazardous waste, non-hazardous waste) that differ substantially from this definition, and 11e.(2)
byproduct material cannot be disposed as any of these classes of waste. Furthermore, the
definition of radioactive waste reported below specifically excludes 11e.(2) byproduct material.
ALARA - An acronym that stands for As Low As Reasonably Achievable. In the Utah
Administrative Code (UAC) R313-12-3 ALARA is defined as “making every reasonable effort
to maintain exposures to radiation as far below the dose limits as is practical, consistent with the
purpose for which the licensed or registered activity is undertaken, taking into account the state
of technology, the economics of improvements in relation to state of technology, the economics
of improvements in relation to benefits to the public health and safety, and other societal and
socioeconomic considerations, and in relation to utilization of nuclear energy and licensed or
registered sources of radiation in the public interest.”
Agreement State - As defined in UAC R313-12-3 “Any State with which the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission has entered into an effective agreement under subsection 274b. of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.” (Also found in 10 CFR 40.4)
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 - Also known by the acronym AEA. The Act requires that civilian
uses of nuclear materials and facilities be licensed, and it empowers the NRC to establish by rule
or order, and to enforce, such standards to govern these uses as "the Commission may deem
necessary or desirable in order to protect health and safety and minimize danger to life or
property." Under section 274 of the Act, the NRC may enter into an agreement with a State for
3

discontinuance of the NRC's regulatory authority over some materials Licensees within the State.
The State must first show that its regulatory program is compatible with the NRC's and adequate
to protect public health and safety. The NRC retains authority over, among other things, nuclear
power plants within the State and exports from the State. (NRC.gov)
Conventional Impoundment - 40 CFR 61.125 defines a conventional impoundment as a
permanent structure located at any uranium recovery facility which contains mostly solid
uranium byproduct material or tailings from the extraction of uranium from uranium ore. This
feature is distinguished from a non-conventional impoundment, which is defined below.
Director - As defined in UAC R313-12-3 “means the Director of the Division of Waste
Management and Radiation Control.”
Dose - As defined in UAC R313-12-3 “is a generic term that means absorbed dose, dose
equivalent, effective dose equivalent, committed dose equivalent, committed effective dose
equivalent, or total effective dose equivalent.” For purposes of this document, "radiation dose" is
an equivalent term.
DOT - As defined in 49 CFR 171.8, as incorporated by reference in UAC R313-19-100, “means
U.S. Department of Transportation”
ER - Acronym for the Environmental Report for the White Mesa Uranium Project written by
Dames and Moore for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. in January 1978.
FES - Acronym for the Final Environmental Statement for the White Mesa Uranium project
written by the NRC in May 1979. (NUREG-0556)
License - Also known by the acronym RML (Radioactive Materials License). As defined in
UAC R313-12-3 “means a license issued by the Director in accordance with the rules adopted by
the Board.”
Licensee - As defined in UAC R313-12-3 “means a person who is licensed by the Department in
accordance with these rules and the Act.”
Licensed Material - As defined in UAC R313-12-3 “means radioactive material, received,
possessed, used or transferred or disposed of under a general or specific license issued by the
Director.”
Mill - Means the White Mesa Uranium Mill.
Monitoring - As defined in UAC R313-12-3 “means the measurement of radiation, radioactive
material concentrations, surface area activities or quantities of radioactive material, and the use
of the results of these measurements to evaluate potential exposures and doses. For purposes of
these rules, radiation monitoring and radiation protection monitoring are equivalent terms.”
4

Natural Uranium - As defined in 49 CFR 173.403, as incorporated by reference in UAC R313-
19-100, “means uranium (which may be chemically separated) containing the naturally occurring
distribution of uranium isotopes (approximately 99.28% uranium-238 and 0.72% uranium-235
by mass).” From the glossary at nrc.gov: “Uranium containing the relative concentrations of
isotopes found in nature (0.7 percent uranium-235, 99.3 percent uranium-238, and a trace
amount of uranium-234 by mass). In terms of radioactivity, however, the radiation emitted by
natural uranium comes approximately 2.2 percent from uranium-235, 48.6 percent from
uranium-238, and 49.2 percent from uranium-234. Natural uranium can be used as fuel
in nuclear reactors.”
NESHAP - An acronym that stands for National Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40
CFR Part 61). Subpart W sets out the National Emission Standards for Radon Emissions from
Operating Mill Tailings. These standards are part of the Mill’s Air Approval Order issued by the
Utah Division of Air Quality.
Non-conventional impoundment - 40 CFR 61.125 defines a non-conventional impoundment as
an impoundment used for managing liquids from uranium recovery operations and contains
uranium byproduct material or tailings suspended in and/or covered by liquids. These structures
are commonly known as holding ponds or evaporation ponds and can be located at any uranium
recovery facility. They are typically not permanent structures unless they transition to become
used as conventional impoundments. Impoundments constructed for the purpose of managing
liquids from closure or remediation activities (e.g., contaminated groundwater), and which are
used solely for that purpose, are not subject to the requirements of 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart W.
Note that the function of non-conventional impoundments is fluid management, and any tailings
introduced therein, if any, will be of a negligible quantity.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Also known by the acronym NRC. The NRC was
established by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. The NRC is assigned the regulatory and
licensing responsibilities for the civilian uses of nuclear materials and facilities. (NRC.gov)
Occupational Dose - As defined in UAC R313-12-3 “means the dose received by an individual
in the course of employment in which the individual's assigned duties for the Licensee or
registrant involve exposure to sources of radiation, whether or not the sources of radiation are in
the possession of the Licensee.”
Operation - There are two definitions of operation:
1. As defined by 10 CFR 40 Appendix A as is incorporated by reference in UAC
R313-24-4 “means that a uranium or thorium mill tailings pile or impoundment is
being used for the continued placement of byproduct material or is in standby
status for such placement. A pile or impoundment is in operation from the day
that byproduct material is first placed in the pile or impoundment until the day
final closure begins.”
5

2. As defined by 40 CFR 61 subpart W (NESHAP) “means that an impoundment is
being used for the continued placement of uranium byproduct material or
tailings or is in standby status for such placement. An impoundment is in
operation from the day that uranium byproduct material or tailings are first placed
in the impoundment until the day that final closure begins.
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.”
OSL Badges - OSL is an acronym for optically stimulated luminescence. These dosimetry
badges are made by Landauer. The Mill uses these badges to measure exposure to gamma
radiation for occupational dose and environmental/public dose calculations.
Pico - From the glossary at nrc.gov. “A prefix that divides a basic unit by one trillion (10-12). For
example picocurie (pCi). 1.00E-12 = 0.000000000001.
Public Dose - As defined by UAC R313-12-3 “means the dose received by a member of the
public from exposure to radiation or to radioactive materials released by a Licensee, or to any
other source of radiation under the control of a Licensee or registrant. Public dose does not
include occupational dose or doses received from background radiation, from any medical
administration the individual has received, from exposure to individuals administered radioactive
material and released in accordance with Rule R313-32, or from voluntary participation in
medical research programs.” As per R313-15-301 a member of the public may not receive more
than 0.1 rem or 100 mrem per year from a licensed facility.
Rad - As defined in UAC R313-12-3 “means the special unit of absorbed dose. One rad is equal
to an absorbed dose of 100 erg per gram or 0.01 joule per kilogram.”
Radiation - As defined in UAC R313-12-3 “means alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays,
x-rays, neutrons, high speed electrons, high speed protons, and other particles capable of
producing ions. For purposes of these rules, ionizing radiation is an equivalent term. Radiation,
as used in these rules, does not include non-ionizing radiation, like radiowaves or microwaves,
visible, infrared, or ultraviolet light.”
Radiation Area - As defined in UAC R313-12-3 “means an area, accessible to individuals, in
which radiation levels could result in an individual receiving a dose equivalent in excess of 0.005
rem (5 mrem), in one hour at 30 centimeters from the source of radiation or from a surface that
the radiation penetrates.’
Radiation Level - As defined in 49 CFR 173.403, as incorporated by reference in UAC R313-
19-100, “means the radiation dose-equivalent rate expressed in millisieverts per hour or mSv/h
6

(millirems per hour or mrem/h). It consists of the sum of the dose-equivalent rates from all types
of ionizing radiation present including alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation.”
Radiation Safety Officer - As defined in UAC R313-12-3 “means an individual who has the
knowledge and responsibility to apply appropriate radiation protection rules and has been
assigned such responsibility by the Licensee.”
Radioactive Material - As defined in UAC R313-12-3 “means a solid, liquid, or gas which
emits radiation spontaneously.” In addition, as defined in 49 CFR 173.403, as incorporated by
reference in UAC R313-19-100, “means any material containing radionuclides where both the
activity concentration and the total activity in the consignment exceed the values specified in the
table in§ 173.436 or values derived according to the instructions in § 173.433.”
Radioactivity - As defined in UAC R313-12-3 “means the transformation of unstable atomic
nuclei by the emission of radiation.”
Rem - As defined in UAC R313-12-3 “means the special unit of any of the quantities expressed
as dose equivalent. The dose equivalent in rem is equal to the absorbed dose in rad multiplied by
the quality factor.”
Restricted Area - As defined in UAC R313-12-3 “means an area, access to which is limited by
the Licensee for the purpose of protecting individuals against undue risks from exposure to
sources of radiation.”
SERP Committee - SERP is an Acronym for Safety and Environmental Review Panel. This
committee is required by License Condition 9.4. At a minimum the committee is comprised by
someone from Mill management, someone from Operations and the Radiation Safety Officer.
This committee is to evaluate any changes to the facility or its processes, changes to procedure
and/or conduct tests or experiments to determine if these changes meet applicable regulations, do
not degrade environmental and safety commitments and are consistent with approved Mill
operations.
Site Boundary - As defined in UAC R313-12-3 “means that line beyond which the land or
property is not owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the Licensee or registrant.”
Source Material Milling - For this Licensing action this is known as Uranium Milling. As
defined in UAC R313-12-3 “means any activity that results in the production of byproduct
material as defined by (b) of "byproduct material".”
Source Material - (1)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. (10 CFR 40.4)
7

Source of Radiation - As Defined in UAC R313-12-3 “means any radioactive material, or a
device or equipment emitting or capable of producing ionizing radiation.”
Surety - The term used in this licensing action to describe the decommissioning funding plan
that is required by UAC R313-22-35 for facilities that possess radioactive materials with half-
lives greater than 120 days such as Uranium Mill facilities. R313-22-35(3)(h) requires
Licensee’s surety to meet the applicable criteria found in the NRC document NUREG-1757,
Volume 3, "Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance: Financial Assurance,
Recordkeeping, and Timeliness" (9/2003). The Licensee is also required to follow the
requirements found in the RML in License Condition 9.5.
Survey - Also known as Radiological Survey. As defined in UAC R313-12-3 “means an
evaluation of the radiological conditions and potential hazards incident to the production, use,
transfer, release, disposal, or presence of sources of radiation. When appropriate, such
evaluation includes, but is not limited to, tests, physical examinations and measurements of
levels of radiation or concentrations of radioactive material present.”
Total Effective Dose Equivalent- Also known by the acronym TEDE. As defined in UAC
R313-12-3 “the sum of the effective dose equivalent for external exposures and the committed
effective dose equivalent for internal exposures.” (TEDE=EDE+CEDE)
UAC - An acronym that stands for Utah Administrative Code. The Utah Administrative Code is
the body of all effective administrative rules as compiled and organized by the State of Utah’s
Office of Administrative Rules. The State of Utah’s Radiation Control Rules are found in Title
R313 and the Ground Water Protection Rules are found in Title R317.
Units of Exposure and Dose - As defined by UAC R313-12-20(2)(b)&(c)(2) As used in these
rules, the units of dose are:
(b) Rad is the special unit of absorbed dose. One rad is equal to an absorbed dose of 100 erg per
gram or 0.01 joule per kilogram. One rad equals 0.01 Gy.
(c) Rem is the special unit of any of the quantities expressed as dose equivalent. The dose
equivalent in rem is equal to the absorbed dose in rad multiplied by the quality factor. One rem
equals 0.01 Sv.
Units of Radioactivity - As defined by UAC R313-12-40. For purposes of these rules, activity
is expressed in the SI unit of becquerel (Bq), or in the special unit of curie (Ci), or their
multiples, or disintegrations or transformations per unit of time.
Unrestricted Area - As defined by UAC R313-12-3 “means an area, to which access is neither
limited nor controlled by the Licensee or registrant. For purposes of these rules, "uncontrolled
area" is an equivalent term.”
8

Waste - As defined in UAC R313-12-3 “means those low-level radioactive wastes containing
radioactive material that are acceptable for disposal in a land disposal facility. For the purposes
of this definition, low-level radioactive waste means radioactive waste not classified as high-
level radioactive waste, transuranic waste, spent nuclear fuel, or byproduct material as defined in
paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of the definition of byproduct material found in Section R313-12-3.”
In addition in the glossary section of nrc.gov, waste, radioactive is defined as “Radioactive
materials at the end of their useful life or in a product that is no longer useful and requires proper
disposal.”
Week - As defined in UAC R313-12-3 “means seven consecutive days starting on Sunday.”
Whole Body - As defined in UAC R313-12-3 “means, for purposes of external exposure, head,
trunk including male gonads, arms above the elbow, or legs above the knees.”
Worker - As defined in UAC R313-12-3 “means an individual engaged in work under a license
issued by the Director and controlled by a Licensee or registrant, but does not include the
Licensee or registrant.”
Year - As defined in UAC R313-12-3 “means the period of time beginning in January used to
determine compliance with the provisions of these rules.”
Yellowcake - From the glossary at nrc.gov. “The solid form of mixed uranium oxide, which is
produced from uranium ore in the uranium recovery (milling) process. The material is a mixture
of uranium oxides, which can vary in proportion and color from yellow to orange to dark green
(blackish) depending on the temperature at which the material is dried (which affects the level of
hydration and impurities), with higher drying temperatures producing a darker and less soluble
material. Yellowcake was commonly referred to as U3O8, because that chemical compound
historically comprised the majority of the yellowcake produced by uranium recovery facilities
utilizing conventional milling methods. Most modern uranium recovery facilities utilize in situ
recovery methods and produce a yellowish compound comprised mostly of uranyl peroxide
dihydrate. This material is then transported to a uranium conversion facility, where it is
transformed into uranium hexafluoride (UF6), in preparation for fabricating fuel for nuclear
reactors.”

9

Introduction
Table 1- A Brief History of Alternate Feed
Year Description
1990 In the Kerr-McGee vs. NRC court decision, which was argued before the United
States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit in 1989, Kerr-Mcgee
challenged the NRC’s definition of byproduct material. In the Background section
the court describes the regulatory framework of this decision and how the AEA and
UMTRCA apply to the decision.

In the Factual Background section the court describes how Kerr-Mcgee owned a
Thorium Mill near West Chicago, Illinois. It also discusses that a portion of the
material processed for its thorium content was first processed for its rare earth
minerals content. At that time, the NRC determined that this material was not
considered byproduct material because it had been previously processed before it
was reprocessed for its thorium content and it would be classified as source material.
The court also discussed that the material that was processed for the rare earth
content as well as the thorium content were identical to the material that was
processed for its thorium content in physical composition and in potential health
hazards.

In the Discussion section the court discusses the definition of ore. It states “The
word "ore" is also subject to more than one meaning. In fact, there is ample basis
within the AEA for applying the term to the stockpiled material remaining after the
rare earth had been extracted from the feedstock ore and before that material had
been processed for its thorium content. For example, section 101 of the UMTRCA
states that "[a] license for the production of any uranium product from residual
radioactive materials shall not be treated as a license for production from ores ... if
such production is in accordance with section 7918(b) of this title." 42 U.S.C. Sec.
7911(6) (1982) (emphasis added). The clear implication is that if such production is
not in accordance with section 7918(b), then production from residual radioactive
materials may be treated as production from ores.

Moreover, the NRC's designation of the offsite tailings as "source material" implies
that they may be properly categorized as "ore" because the NRC defines source
material as "ores which contain by weight ... (0.05%) or more of ... thorium." 10
C.F.R. Sec. 40.4(h) (emphasis added); see also 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2014(z) (statutory
definition of source material). The NRC cannot have it both ways. If the offsite
tailings may be characterized as ore, so must the stockpiled material from which
they were derived.

The NRC's construction is not saved by the happenstance that the tailings in this
case have a sufficiently high thorium content (0.05% or more by weight) to enable
the agency to classify the offsite wastes as "source material" and therefore subject to
its licensing authority under another part of the AEA. In the first place, statutory
definitions are intended to have general applicability. A construction of section
10

11(e)(2) is not acceptable if it will orphan mill tailings having a source material
content of less than the 0.05% threshold, as is usually the case. Second, the NRC's
interpretation would exclude the offsite wastes from coverage by the regulations
promulgated pursuant to Title II that are designed to protect the public health against
the hazards created by mill tailings produced in the course of the nuclear fuel cycle.”

In the Conclusion section the court states “The UMTRCA was intended to bring
previously unregulated radioactive end products of the source material extraction
process within the scope of NRC regulation and to provide a comprehensive
remedial program for the safe stabilization and disposal of uranium and thorium mill
tailings. The NRC's interpretation of section 11(e)(2), however, places a portion of
the thorium tailings from Kerr-McGee's West Chicago facility outside of the
UMTRCA's regulatory regime even though they are in all relevant ways identical to
tailings found by the NRC to be byproduct material and thus subject to the
UMTRCA's remedial program. The NRC's construction thus frustrates the purposes
of the UMTRCA by rendering it inapplicable to waste material that it was clearly
intended to reach and recreating a jurisdictional gap it was intended to close. As we
find that interpretation impermissible, and as we have considered the other
arguments put forth by Illinois and Kerr-McGee and found them without merit, we
grant the petitions for review in Nos. 88-1636 and 88-1726, and deny the petition for
review in No. 87-1254.”

1992 In the May 13, 1992 publication of the Federal Register pgs. 20530 -20533 the NRC
published its first discussion of alternate feeds being used as “ores” for the
extraction of source material such as uranium. This included a discussion the 11e
section of the AEA and examples of NRC licensing actions which allowed the
processing of alternate feed materials. The NRC recognizes that the AEA and
UMTRCA do not have a definition of “ore” and refers to the court decision of Kerr-
McGee vs. NRC and its definition of ore as it applies to the AEA and UMTRCA.
The NRC also discusses the definition of 11e.(2) byproduct material and the
importance of the word “any” in that definition. The NRC then proposed its own
definition 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.” This definition took into
account two major considerations:
1. It is broad enough to include a wide variety of feed materials.
2. The definition continues to be tied into the nuclear fuel cycle.

The remainder of the discussion revolves around the issues with RCRA, low-level
radioactive waste and alternate feeds.

1995 On August 15, 1995 the NRC publishes SECY-95-211 titled FINAL "REVISED
GUIDANCE ON DISPOSAL OF NON-ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, SECTION
11e.(2) BYPRODUCT MATERIAL IN TAILINGS IMPOUNDMENTS," AND FINAL
11

"POSITION AND GUIDANCE ON THE USE OF URANIUM MILL FEED
MATERIALS OTHER THAN NATURAL ORES". In the Background section of this
document the NRC discusses the history of the development of this guidance
document. The document discusses what needs to be reviewed and determined to
approve an alternate feed to be used as an “ore” for the recovery of source material.

1995 In the September 22, 1995 publication of the Federal Register pgs. 49296 and 49297,
The NRC finalizes the Uranium Mill guidance document for the use of Uranium
Mill Feed Material Other than Natural Ores. In the discussion three criteria are
identified to assist Staff for determining if an alternate feed can be processed as an
ore.
1. Determination of whether the feed material is ore. To do this the following
definition is to 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.”
2. Determination of whether the feed material contains hazardous waste. So if
the material contains listed waste under subpart D of RCRA, then the
material would not be accepted to avoid dual regulation of the material by
the NRC/EPA.
3. Determination of whether the ore is being processed primarily for its source
material content. This is to be done by the Co-disposal test and the Licensee
certification and justification test.

1998 The State of Utah filed a Request for Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene in
the Ashland 2 alternate feed license amendment request. The State of Utah argued
that the NRC staff improperly granted the license amendment because the Mill was
not processing the Ashland 2 material "primarily" to recover its relatively minimal
uranium content, but rather to obtain the generous handling and disposal fee. The
State of Utah also emphasized that the Mill's license amendment application failed
to adequately substantiate that the material was to be "processed primarily" for its
uranium content. The State of Utah insisted upon "some objective documentation"
to show that recovery of the uranium, not payment for disposal, was the Mill's
primary interest behind the license amendment.
2000 The NRC issues its decision on the State of Utah’s Petition to Intervene in the
Ashland 2 alternate feed license amendment request. According to this document
the issue in this proceeding is the Atomic Energy Act's definition of 11e.(2) material,
defined by the statute as "the tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or
concentration of uranium or thorium from any ore processed primarily for its source
material content." The NRC’s Presiding Officer explained, "[i]f ... the material were
processed primarily to remove some other substances (vanadium, titanium, coal,
etc.) and the extraction of uranium was incidental, then the processing would not fall
within the statutory test and it would not be byproduct material within the meaning
of the Atomic Energy Act. That is, the adverb 'primarily,' applies to what is
removed from the material by the process and not to the motivation for undertaking
12

the process."

The Presiding Officer went on to conclude that the NRC staff appropriately granted
the license amendment because IUSA "is milling ore" to extract uranium and
therefore is "not involved in a sham." The Presiding Officer also rejected Utah's
claim that the Guidance was intended to prevent material from being categorized as
11e.(2) byproduct material if the Licensee's primary economic motive was to receive
a fee for waste disposal instead of to recover the uranium. "The Alternate Feed
Guidance," the Presiding Officer stated, "is not supportive of the position, taken by
the State of Utah, that material is to be considered byproduct only if the primary
economic motivation is to remove uranium rather than to dispose of waste."

The NRC further described the purposes behind the wording of § 11e.(2)'s definition
served: (1) to expand the types of materials that properly could be classified as
byproduct material; (2) to make clear that even feedstock containing less than 0.05%
source material could qualify as byproduct material; and (3) to assure that the NRC's
jurisdiction did not cross over into activities unrelated to the nuclear fuel cycle. The
Mill’s license amendment was consistent with these statutory intentions, regardless
of whether the Mill's bigger interest was payment for taking the material or payment
for the recovered uranium. Indeed, even accepting the State of Utah's claim that the
four million dollar payment the Mill contracted to receive for processing and
disposing of the Ashland 2 FUSRAP site material was the primary motivator for this
transaction, the tailings generated from the processing can still properly be classified
as § 11e.(2) byproduct material.

2004 State of Utah becomes an Agreement State for Uranium Recovery. In the State of
Utah’s application to become an Agreement State for Uranium Recovery Facilities,
the State of Utah agreed to acknowledge alternate feed as an “ore” and that alternate
feeds could be processed within the State.

Since August 2004 the State of Utah has approved of three alternate feeds to be processed at the
White Mesa Mill:
 Fansteel approved June 13, 2006;
 Dawn Mining approved July 10, 2014; and
 Sequoyah Fuels approved January 19, 2018.
The table above describes relevant history and judicial and administrative determinations
pertaining to alternate feed, which the Division considers to be binding or persuasive legal
authority. Based on these authorities and analysis, the Division previously approved these three
alternate feeds since Utah was granted Agreement State status for uranium recovery. The case
files for the Kerr-McGee case forms the basis of the alternate feed doctrine employed by the
13

NRC and the subsequent work presented in the table provides the reader a clear idea of what the
NRC deems to be ore for the purposes of uranium recovery operations.
A review of the files for the three alternate feed requests the Division has processed since
becoming an Agreement State revealed that there were no issues not already resolved in the NRC
proceedings and the Kerr-McGee court case. Rather, the challenges made by interested parties
have been efforts to re-litigate the NRC’s decision to accept the Kerr-McGee material as feed
stock for milling. The review criteria imposed in the Kerr-McGee case and the tests prescribed
in the Ashland 2 decision discussed in the table provide a robust framework for determining
what constitutes acceptable alternate feed material.
Under the Agreement the State of Utah made with the NRC, the Division has a responsibility to
use its “best efforts” to maintain compatibility with the federal program. The Division concludes
that using its “best efforts” includes following established judicial and administrative precedents,
as well as NRC guidance and regulations. Thus, the decision to accept the three alternate feeds
listed above had effectively already been made with the Kerr-McGee and Ashland 2 decisions.
The technical and legal issues presented in all cases were analogous. The current alternate feed
application is also analogous.
.
Current Alternate Feed Application
With a cover letter dated April 18, 2019, Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (EFRI) submitted
to the Utah Division of Wasted Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC) an application to
amend the White Mesa Uranium Mill’s Radioactive Materials License (RML) UT 1900479 to
receive and process the Silmet uranium bearing material as an “alternate feed”. This amendment
request is considered a major amendment according to State of Utah Administrative Code (UAC)
R313-17-2(1)(a)(i)(J) and this document serves as the Environmental Analysis required by UAC
R313-24-3.
EFRI compares the process that created the Silmet uranium bearing material to the process that
created previously approved Fansteel and Cabot alternate feeds. The uranium bearing materials
being considered in this review are residuals resulting from the purification of columbite and
tantalite mineral ores processed via an acid leach process to recover columbium ("niobium") and
tantalum at the NPM Silmet OU's (Silmet) tantalum and niobium production plant in Sillamae,
Estonia. According to Section 2.2 of the application:
The Uranium Material consists of the residuals from niobium and tantalum recovery
from columbite and tantalite ore concentrates. It does not include residuals from oil shale
production, from uranium production or enrichment, rare earth recovery, or from other
previous operations at the Facility. It does not include materials from the former
radioactive materials pond at the Facility.
14

Columbite and tantalite-containing mineral ore concentrates were processed via acid-
leaching to separate the insoluble impurities, including uranium and some thorium, from
niobium and tantalum. The ores were crushed and milled, then dissolved in hydrofluoric
and sulfuric acid, and removed in solution phase. The insolubles, containing uranium
and thorium, were removed from solution. The precipitate was filtered, and the filter cake
was transferred to the calcining unit, in the same building. The filter cake was calcined
and dried in electric rotary kilns, cooled in rotary coolers and placed into metal drums
lined with triple-walled polyethylene bags.
The process which generated the Uranium Material is isolated from the remainder of site
operations. Columbite and tantalite ores are processed in a separate milling area, for
which the feed, grinding and discharge steps are controlled by hermetically sealed
equipment, primarily for the management of radioactive dusts. Acid leaching, washing,
filtration, electric rotary calcining, rotary cooling and packaging are all conducted in
automated closed systems. Hence, the Uranium Material is isolated from other materials
on site from feed source through drum packaging.
UAC 22-32(5) states: “In the application, the applicant may incorporate by reference information
contained in previous applications, statements, or reports filed with the Director, provided the
references are clear and specific.” EFRI referenced several documents in this application. The
DWMRC will acknowledge these references.

15

1. Technical Evaluation
1.1 Does the Silmet Uranium Material Qualify as an Alternate Feed?

In its application to become an Agreement State for Uranium Recovery [i.e. 11e.(2)] facilities,
the State of Utah committed to using RIS 2000-23 Interim Position and Guidance on the Use of
Uranium Mill Feed Material other than Natural Ores as the guidance document for alternate
feed amendment requests. To be considered an alternate feed and meet the objectives of the
Technical Evaluation, this NRC Guidance document states that the following items must be
determined:
1.1.1 Determination of Whether the Feed Material is Ore.

Federal Register, Volume 60, Page 49296, dated September 22, 1995 and later in the Interim
Position and Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Material other than Natural Ores
found in RIS 2000-23, these documents state the following: “For the tailings and wastes from
the proposed processing to qualify as 11e.(2) byproduct material, the feed material must qualify
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.

According to EFRI’s application dated April 18, 2019, Section 2.6.1, the Silmet uranium bearing
material has a range of 0.17 to 0.41 percent U3O8. This percentage of uranium is comparable to
the native Colorado Plateau ores that the White Mesa Uranium Mill processes. For this reason,
and because the material will be processed for the recovery of uranium, DWMRC Staff has
concluded that the Silmet uranium bearing material meets the NRC definition of “ore”.
1.1.2 Determination of Whether the Feed Material Contains Hazardous Waste.

In the Interim Position and Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Material other than
Natural Ores found in RIS 2000-23 the NRC states:

“If the proposed feed material contains hazardous waste, listed under subpart D Sections
261.30-33 of 40 CFR (or comparable Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
authorized State regulations), it would be subject to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) or State regulation under RCRA. If the licensee can show that the
proposed feed material does not contain a listed hazardous waste, this issue is resolved.”

According to EFRI’s application Section 3.3.3 and the laboratory results found in the appendices
of the alternate feed application, the Silment uranium bearing material does not have:

16

 Volatile or Semi-Volatile Compounds;
 Does not exhibit RCRA Characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity
for any constituents; and
 The generator of the material has provided an affidavit declaring the Uranium Material
does not contain RCRA listed hazardous waste.

Public commenters in the past for similar licensing actions have called alternate feed material as
“waste”. However, the NRC in the 1995 Policy (SECY-95-211) (pgs. 24 and 25 of the Final
Guidance Document) on alternate feed addressed this issue with the following statement;

“Use of the term "waste": We agree that the term "waste" should not be used to describe
alternate feed materials. If material can be used in accordance with the proposed guidance
to recover source material, it is not waste. However, some material, from which source
material could be recovered, would nevertheless meet the definition of hazardous or
mixed waste, under EPA regulations. The proposed guidance would not allow such
material to be processed in a licensed mill.”

Therefore, the term “waste” is not applicable to the Silmet uranium bearing material because the
material does not contain material that could be regulated under EPA regulation and is in
accordance with the NRC alternate feed guidance.

DWMRC Staff has concluded that the Silmet uranium bearing material does not contain
hazardous waste.
1.1.3 Determination of Whether the Ore is Being Processed Primarily for its Source-
Material Content.

In the Interim Position and Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Material other than
Natural Ores found in RIS 2000-23 the NRC states:

“For the tailings and waste from the proposed processing to qualify as 11e.(2) byproduct
material, the ore must be processed primarily for its source-material content. If the only
product produced in the processing of the alternate feed is uranium product, this
determination is satisfied.”

In addition, In its Memorandum and Order, February 14, 2000, In the Matter of International
Uranium (USA) Corp. (Request for Materials License Amendment), Docket No. 40-8681-MLA-
4, the NRC concluded that an alternate feed material will be considered to be processed primarily
for its source material content if it is reasonable to conclude that uranium can be recovered from
the Uranium Material and that the processing will indeed occur.

According to EFRI’s application Section 3.4 the Silmet uranium bearing material will be
processed for its source material. Also in Section 2.2, the Silmet uranium bearing material is
similar to the Cabot and Fansteel alternate feed materials that the Mill has processed and
recovered uranium. As discussed above, the Silmet uranium bearing material meets the
17

definition of ore. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that uranium (source material) can be
recovered from the Silmet uranium bearing material.
1.2 Engineering Review

10 CFR 40 Appendix A (as incorporated by reference in UAC R313-24-4) requires a reclamation
and decommissioning plan for uranium recovery facilities. The White Mesa Mill currently
operates under Amendment 8 to its Radioactive Material License Number UT 1900479, which
recognizes Reclamation Plan Revision 5.1B. The current surety is based upon that reclamation
plan, and includes provisions for handling and disposal of all feed material currently on site and
anticipated to be brought to the site during the year. The surety is adjusted annually to account
for changes in many quantities, including the amount of feedstock to be stockpiled onsite during
the year. The proposed licensing action would affect the Mill’s reclamation plan by limiting the
quantity of material the Mill may possess in stockpile prior to processing. Inasmuch as the
material is similar to the Fansteel Alternate Feed, all provisions specific to the type and chemical
makeup of the material have already been implemented, and only the quantity would be affected.
The adjustment to the surety would occur following approval of the product as an alternate feed
for the site, and prior to receiving the first shipment.

UAC R313-22-35 requires financial assurance (Surety) for certain types of facilities. The Mill is
one of these facilities. The proposed licensing action would affect the Surety by placing a
requirement on EFRI to provide sufficient surety funding to transport and dispose of the
maximum quantity of unprocessed Silmet alternate feed material that may be present onsite
awaiting processing at any time. This requirement will also set the maximum quantity of material
the Mill may stockpile prior to processing mentioned above (e.g. available volume in the tailings
impoundments). As stated above, the adjustment to the surety would occur following approval
of the product as an alternate feed for the site, and prior to receiving the first shipment.

RML License Condition 10.1 paragraph D requires provision of surety funding for the maximum
amount of feed material stored onsite. This requirement is addressed in the preceding two
paragraphs.

RML License Condition 10.1 paragraph E requires EFRI to provide sufficient tailings capacity
for all materials to be processed and for decommissioning of the mill. This licensing action
affects this requirement by requiring that provision for the tailings to be produced from the
Silmet material be included in the tailings capacity analysis, and that no more material be
transported to the site than can be processed and the tailings therefrom disposed in the provided
disposal volume.

The material is calcined, so it will arrive at the site dry and will be stored on site in sealed
containers. No danger of dust or fluid leaks from the transport containers is possible. Being in a
dry state, dust production is a possibility as the material is introduced into process. Dry materials
have been processed in the Alternate Feed Circuit in the past, so no change in written procedures
will be necessary; however, the provisions in those procedures for dust control as the material is
introduced into process will need to be implemented.
18

1.3 Groundwater Review

10 CFR 40 Appendix A Criterion 7A states: “The licensee shall establish a detection monitoring
program needed for the Commission to set the site-specific groundwater protection standards in
paragraph 5B(1) of this appendix. For all monitoring under this paragraph the licensee or
applicant will propose for Commission approval as license conditions which constituents are to
be monitored on a site specific basis. A detection monitoring program has two purposes. The
initial purpose of the program is to detect leakage of hazardous constituents from the disposal
area so that the need to set groundwater protection standards is monitored. If leakage is
detected, the second purpose of the program is to generate data and information needed for the
Commission to establish the standards under Criterion 5B…”
When the State of Utah became an Agreement State for Uranium Recovery Facilities it was
agreed that the State would use its groundwater protection rules and issue a State of Utah
Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit for the White Mesa Uranium Mill which was determined
compatible with the groundwater requirements found in 10 CFR 40 Appendix A. These
agreements were formalized and issued for public comment in the Federal Register (See
Applicable Federal Register Publication Date August 27, 2003). Additionally, the current
license for the White Mesa Mill recognizes the groundwater permit as functionally equivalent,
the State Radioactive Material License No. UT1900479 (License), Amendment # 8, Condition
9.12 states: “The Licensee shall at all times have a valid groundwater discharge permit issued by
the Co-Director. No transfer of this License will be approved unless the Ground Water Quality
Discharge Permit is also transferred.”
On August 15, 2004, the NRC delegated the Utah uranium mill regulatory program to the State
of Utah by approving Agreement State status. The Division became the primary regulatory
authority for the Mill, and subsequently issued the License and a separate State of Utah Ground
Water Quality Discharge Permit No. UGW370004 (Permit), which includes requirements to
detect potential leakage from the White Mesa Uranium Mill in the groundwater and requirements
for corrective action in the event that such contamination is detected.
The groundwater monitoring well network at the White Mesa Uranium Mill includes 104
monitoring wells and piezometers. These are actively monitored for multiple purposes,
including; 1. Characterizing groundwater flow directions and velocities; 2. Groundwater sample
collection and analysis to determine compliance with the Permit requirements; 3. Meet
conditions of current Groundwater Corrective Action Plans (CAPs) for nitrate and chloroform,
and; 4. Other study and characterization objectives. Monitoring requirements and quality control
are specified in the Permit and the required Groundwater Monitoring Quality Assurance Plan.
The Permit requires that EFR submit quarterly groundwater monitoring reports to the Division
for review and approval. The Division ensures that all collected data meet the prescribed data
quality objectives and that all collected data is in compliance with Permit requirements through
19

review of the groundwater monitoring reports and through onsite inspection of groundwater
activities (e.g. groundwater monitoring, groundwater monitoring well installation, etc.).
The Permit includes a distinct groundwater monitoring well network to gather compliance based
groundwater samples for detection of potential pollutants from the White Mesa Mill operations,
including nonconventional impoundments (evaporation impoundments and conventional
impoundments (tailings impoundments). Compliance wells are sampled on a routine frequency
and tested for 38 constituents of concern. The constituents are based on measurements and
evaluations of potential sources of groundwater contamination from the White Mesa Uranium
Mill. Monitoring wells have also been installed to monitor and pump groundwater contaminant
plumes (chloroform and nitrate) for compliance with CAPs, as well as other upgradient and
downgradient areas. Additionally, annual samples are collected from seeps and springs on the
margins of White Mesa. All data results are reviewed by the Division in the Permit-required
EFR monitoring reports. In addition, the Division performs onsite split sampling inspections
during EFR monitoring activities, including split samples for compliance monitoring wells,
nitrate and chloroform monitoring wells, seeps and springs, and tailings wastewater.
An important element of the Silmet Uranium Material review is to determine if the incoming
material will change the potential contaminant source in the conventional impoundments and
create need to provide additional new monitoring locations and/or monitoring constituents in the
Permit. Section 2.2 below provides a summary of the Division review regarding the EFRI
License Amendment Request, final Silmet Uranium Material disposition, and material (waste)
characterization.
Based on the information provided and Division review (See section 2.2 below), Division Staff
have determined that no additional/new monitoring wells, constituent sampling or other new
requirements will be required or incorporated into the Permit for the Silmet Alternate Feed
Material. Current Permit requirements and Division data review and inspections are
comprehensive and will provide for early detection in the event of a discharge from the Mill
processing areas and/or impoundments to groundwater.
1.4 Legal Review

Ore vs. Waste
Based on previous alternate feed requests, the Division anticipates that it may receive public
comments claiming that the Silmet Alternate Feed Material is not “ore” within the meaning of
the AEA and that the material is waste (e.g., sham disposal). Similar comments were addressed
in detail in connection with the EFR renewal (Amendment 8). The Division refers to the
discussion on pages 28 to 35 in the Division’s Public Participation Summary in the Amendment
8 matter, available online at: https://documents.deq.utah.gov/waste-management-and-radiation-
control/facilities/energy-fuels-white-mesa/DRC-2018-000762.pdf

20

For the reasons discussed in the Public Participation Summary, the Division is bound to follow
federal law on these questions, which have long been resolved beyond legal dispute. The NRC
discussed its determination in the NRC document, SECY-02-0095, “Applicability of Section
11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act to Material at the Sequoyah Fuels Corporation Uranium
Conversion Facility.” Moreover, the full five member NRC Commission ruled, in a “sham
disposal” case previously brought by the State of Utah prior to the time that it was an agreement
state, relating to the White Mesa Mill, that so long as more than a minute or negligible recovery
of uranium were possible from the material, there was no issue of sham disposal of byproduct
material at the White Mesa Mill. In the matter of International Uranium (USA) Corporation
(Receipt of Material from Tonawanda, New York), Docket No. 40-8681-MLA-4 (February 10,
2000), at 21. The Division is now legally bound to follow these federal requirements as applied
to the Silmet Alternate Feed Materials.

Import License
In addition to the other legal issues relating to alternate feed requests, this request includes the
issue that the Silmet Alternate Feed originates in a foreign nation, specifically Estonia. In its
application, EFRI contends that because the import of the Silmet Alternate Feed into the United
States is covered by the general license in 10 CFR Part 110.27(a), a specific import license is not
required.

There is every reason to believe that the NRC would agree with this position if this licensing
matter were before the NRC. The NRC’s November 1998 approval of Amendment 9 to the
Mill's Source Material License SUA-1358, White Mesa Uranium Mill - Approval to Process
Materials involved materials originating from Cameco Corporation’s Facilities in Ontario,
Canada. In that matter, the NRC concluded that an import license was not required, based on the
following rationale:

Finally, import of radioactive materials from Canada required a license from
NRC. As discussed above, the staff has determined that these uranium-bearing
materials from Cameco’s Blind River and Port Hope facilities will be processed
for their source-material content. Therefore, with the staff’s approval of IUC's
request to process these materials, IUC also is authorized to import them under
the general license at 10 CFR 110.27.

Based on the foregoing, the Assistant Attorney General with responsibility for this licensing
action has concluded that there is adequate legal basis to support the requested licensing action
as to an NRC import license not being required under 10 CFR 110.27(a).
1.5 Technical Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Silmet uranium bearing material meets the three criteria that the
NRC set forth in the Interim Position and Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed
Material other than Natural Ores found in RIS 2000-23 of:
1. Is the feed ore;
2. Is it, or does it contain, RCRA listed hazardous waste or characteristic hazardous waste
from water treatment residues; and
21

3. Will it be processed for its source material?

Per review, several previously accepted and Licensed uranium mill feed materials (considered
Ores) were from the same process of previous niobium and tantalite mineral extraction, but were
noted to contain much higher concentrations of the same chemical constituents (potential
contaminants) than were measured in the Silmet uranium material. These other alternate feeds as
described in the review above as well as in the EFRI License Amendment Request were
approved at much higher volumes than the current EFRI License Amendment Request for the
Silmet uranium material. The previous EFRI amendment requests were similarly reviewed by
the NRC/Division to ensure compatibility with the White Mesa Uranium Mill process and
tailings disposal and underwent rigorous public notice and public hearing protocols.

The EFRI License Amendment Request adequately identifies and evaluates potential chemical
hazards regarding processing and disposal locations of the Silmet uranium material. This review
consisted of a comprehensive evaluation of the chemical compatibility of the Silmet uranium
material with the existing process and tailings impoundment design. The EFRI review found
that the material was fully compatible with the existing process and tailings impoundments
materials.

No new disposal locations or process structures will be required to process the Silmet uranium
material, and per DWMRC evaluation, the current impoundments and monitoring networks at
the White Mesa Uranium Mill (Groundwater, Surface Water, Engineering and Air) are adequate
to provide for environmental protection and protection of public health for disposal of the Silmet
uranium material. Additionally, the current Division inspections at the facility and reporting
requirements are currently adequate to address the Silmet uranium material.

In addition, the DWMRC staff evaluated the material with respect to compliance to:
1. The White Mesa Uranium Mill’s Radioactive Material License. Specifically License
Conditions 10.1 D. & E.;
2. The White Mesa Uranium Mill’s Groundwater Discharge Permit; and
3. A Legal analysis from the Utah Attorney General’s office to determine if the Silmet
uranium bearing material can be legally imported to the United States.

The DWMRC Staff has concluded that the Silmet uranium bearing material meets the technical
requirements to be an alternate feed material. No new monitoring equipment, monitoring, or
construction permits will be required for acceptance of the Silmet uranium material. Therefore,
it is consistent to amend the License to allow acceptance of the Silmet uranium material with
conditions of acceptance outlined therein.
2. Environmental Analysis (R313-24-3)

UAC R313-24-3 Environmental analysis: states:
“(1) Each new license application, renewal, or major amendment shall contain an
environmental report describing the proposed action, a statement of its purposes, and the
environment affected. The environmental report shall present a discussion of the following:
22

(a) An assessment of the radiological and nonradiological impacts to the public health from the
activities to be conducted pursuant to the license or amendment;
(b) An assessment of any impact on waterways and groundwater resulting from the activities
conducted pursuant to the license or amendment;
(c) Consideration of alternatives, including alternative sites and engineering methods, to the
activities to be conducted pursuant to the license or amendment; and
(d) Consideration of the long-term impacts including decommissioning, decontamination, and
reclamation impacts, associated with activities to be conducted pursuant to the license or
amendment.
(2) Commencement of construction prior to issuance of the license or amendment shall be
grounds for denial of the license or amendment.
(3) The Director shall provide a written analysis of the environmental report which shall be
available for public notice and comment pursuant to R313-17-2.”

EFRI stated in Section 4.1 “Processing of the Uranium Material involves no new construction,
no additional use of land, no modification of the Mill, main circuit, alternate feed circuit, or
tailings management system of any significance. The Uranium Material contains no new
chemical or radiological constituents beyond those already processed in ores and approved
alternate feed materials, or already known or expected to be present in the tailings management
system. As a result, there are no anticipated impacts to the environment via any of the above
pathways, above those already anticipated in the existing environmental statements and
environmental assessments associated with the Mill's approved license”.

DWMRC Staff concurs that processing the Silmet Uranium Material will not involve any
changes to the Mill. Therefore in the table below the DWMRC references the following from
other reviews.
Table 2-Referenced Topics for the Environmental Analysis
Topic Reference DWMRC Response
Site Location and Layout White Mesa Reclamation
Plan Section 3.1
Maps and description fulfill the
requirement
Use of Adjacent Lands
and Waters
2018 White Mesa Mill’s
Land Use Survey
(DRC-2018-006354)
Maps and description fulfill the
requirement
Population Distribution Tailing Impoundment
5A/5B Application,
Attachment B:
Environmental Report,
Table 2.3-1
This table uses the most current 2010
U.S. Census data.
Historic, Scenic,
Archeological and
Cultural Resources
White Mesa Reclamation
Plan Section 1.3
The description and the data provided
in this section fulfill the requirement.
Meteorology and
Climatology
White Mesa Reclamation
Plan Section 1.1
The description and the data provided
in this section fulfill the requirement.
Geology and Seismology White Mesa Reclamation
Plan Section 1.6
The description, data and maps
provided in this section fulfill the
23

requirement.
Hydrology and
Hydrogeology
White Mesa Reclamation
Plan Section 1.5
The description, data and maps
provided in this section fulfill the
requirement.
Surface Water White Mesa Reclamation
Plan Section 1.4
The description, data and maps
provided in this section fulfill the
requirement.
Ecology (Including
Endangered Species)
White Mesa Reclamation
Plan Section 1.7
The description, data and maps
provided in this section fulfill the
requirement.
Background of
Radiological and Non-
radiological
characteristics
White Mesa Reclamation
Plan Section 1.7.3 and
1.7.4;
The description and the data provided
in this section fulfill the requirement.
Mill Circuit White Mesa Reclamation
Plan Section 2.1 and 2.2.2
The description provided in these
sections fulfills the requirement.
Tailing Management
Facilities
White Mesa Reclamation
Plan Section 2.2.3
The description provided in these
sections fulfills the requirement.
Embankment Design,
Construction and
Performance
White Mesa Reclamation
Plan Section 2.2.3
The description provided in this section
fulfills the requirement.
Corporate Organization
and Administrative
Procedures
2007 White Mesa
Uranium Mill.
Radioactive Material
License Renewal
Application Volume 1,
Section 6.3
The description provided in this section
fulfills the requirement.
Management Control
Program
See ALARA Program The description provided in this section
fulfills the requirement.
Management Audit,
Inspection and
Recordkeeping Program
See ALARA Program The description provided in this section
fulfills the requirement.
Qualifications for
Personnel
See ALARA Program The description provided in this section
fulfills the requirement.
Radiation Safety Training 2007 White Mesa
Uranium Mill.
Radioactive Material
License Renewal
Application Volume 3/or
most current version
The description provided in this section
fulfills the requirement.
Security Program
(Administrative
Procedures and Physical
Barriers)
2007 White Mesa
Uranium Mill.
Radioactive Material
License Renewal
Application Volume 3/or
most current version
The description provided in this section
fulfills the requirement.
24

Radiation Safety Controls
and Monitoring
See Radiation Protection
Program
The description provided in this section
fulfills the requirement.
ALARA Program 2007 White Mesa
Uranium Mill.
Radioactive Material
License Renewal
Application Volume 2/or
most current version
This program discusses the policies
used to reduce exposure to radiation for
both occupational workers and
members of the public. The DWMRC
conducts annual inspections of this
program and have found the Mill
compliant.
Radiation Protection
Program
2007 White Mesa
Uranium Mill.
Radioactive Material
License Renewal
Application Volume 2/or
most current version
This program discusses the procedures
used to reduce exposure to radiation for
both occupational workers and
members of the public. The DWMRC
conducts annual inspections of this
program and have found the Mill
compliant.
Respiratory Protection
Program
2007 White Mesa
Uranium Mill.
Radioactive Material
License Renewal
Application, Response to
Round 2 Health Physics
Interrogatories/or most
current version
This program discusses the procedures
used to reduce exposure to radiation for
occupational workers through using
respiratory protection (i.e. respirators).
The DWMRC conducts an annual
inspection of this program and have
found the Mill compliant.
Dosimetry See Radiation Protection
Program
The description provided in this section
fulfills the requirement.
Surface and Groundwater
Monitoring
White Mesa Reclamation
Plan Section 2.3.1
The description, data and maps
provided in this section fulfill the
requirement.
Environmental
Monitoring
White Mesa Reclamation
Plan Section 2.3.2
The description, data and maps
provided in this section fulfill the
requirement.
Exposure Calculations See Radiation Protection
Program
The description provided in this section
fulfills the requirement.
Dose to an
Embroyo/Fetus
See Radiation Protection
Program
The description provided in this section
fulfills the requirement.
Dose Limits to the
Individual of the Public
See Radiation Protection
Program
The description provided in this section
fulfills the requirement.
Compliance to dose
limits to Individual of the
Public
See Radiation Protection
Program
The description provided in this section
fulfills the requirement.
Bioassay Program (i.e
Urinalysis, Body Counts
and etc.
See Radiation Protection
Program
The description provided in this section
fulfills the requirement.
Contamination Control
Program
See Radiation Protection
Program
The description provided in this section
fulfills the requirement.
25

Reclamation and
Decommissioning Plan
White Mesa Reclamation
Plan Section 3 and 4
The description provided in this section
fulfills the requirement.

The following is a specific to the Silmet Uranium Material request.
2.1 Engineering

10 CFR 40 Appendix A Criterion 5A(1) states “surface impoundments must have a liner that is
designed, constructed, and installed to prevent any migration of wastes out of the impoundment
to the adjacent subsurface soil, groundwater, or surface water at any time during the active life
(including the closure period) of the impoundment.”
Prior to constructing impoundments, the proposed liner system is reviewed for compatibility
with the chemical environment to which it will be subjected. On June 17, 2010 the Division
issued License Amendment 4 authorizing construction of Impoundments 4A and 4B. Liner
compatibility was assessed at that time, and the materials proposed were found to be satisfactory.
Similar processes were undertaken at the time of design approval for each of the other
impoundments. To date, no chemical-related failures have been noted, and the chemical makeup
of the proposed feed does not differ materially from materials already approved. The existing
liners appear to be functioning as expected.
The proposed feed is mostly quartz (SiO2), feldspars (aluminosilicates with the general formula
AT4O8 in which A = potassium, sodium, or calcium (Ca); and T = silicon (Si) and aluminum
(Al)), and plagioclase (a group of feldspar minerals that form a solid solution series ranging from
pure albite, Na(AlSi3O8), to pure anorthite, Ca(Al2Si2O8)) with trace amounts of other minerals,
including uranium. More data on the chemical makeup of the proposed feed material is provided
in the documentation supplied by Energy Fuels. The material is calcined (dried at high
temperature), so organic and volatile chemicals Silmet used in its extraction process have been
removed (burned off). Additional discussion of the chemical makeup of the material is presented
in the next section of this document.
Impoundments 1 through 3 use a 30-mil PVC liner system. Impoundments 4A and 4B use a 60-
mil HDPE liner system. Published data for chemical compatibility of PVC and HDPE liner
materials was consulted and compared to the feedstock chemistry. Both materials perform
favorably in the presence of the proposed feedstock. In reviewing the documentation provided
during the review of Impoundments 4A and 4B, the driving considerations toward material
selection were the chemicals added to the feedstock to extract the uranium (sulfuric acid and
kerosene, primarily) and resistance to ultraviolet light.
The above findings agree with the work EFRI presented on liner compatibility in Attachment 5
of its License Amendment Request to consider the Silmet material as feedstock for the mill.
26

This Licensing Action will not result in significant change to the chemical makeup of the
tailings. Since the chemical makeup of the tailings will not change, the liner performance will
not be affected by the proposed action.
For a description of the tailing impoundments see the White Mesa Uranium Mill Reclamation
Plan Rev. 5.1B, Section 2.2.3 as referenced in Table 2 above.
2.2 Groundwater and Surface Water Assessment (R313-24-3(1)(b))

Under the Permit, the Permittee (EFRI) is required to conduct and report on environmental
monitoring at the Mill, including compliance with the Permit. Current groundwater and surface
sampling at the Mill includes; tailings wastewater sampling to evaluate constituents and
concentrations in a potential tailings wastewater source, groundwater monitoring well sampling,
spring and seeps sampling, groundwater elevation data, chloroform monitoring, and nitrate
monitoring. The groundwater monitoring network at the Mill includes 104 monitoring wells for
compliance purposes. Wells installed to monitor the tailings cells (MW Wells) include 21
monitoring wells which are required to be sampled and analyzed for 38 different constituents
with associated groundwater compliance limits (GWCL’s). The Permit GWCL’s are based on
measured constituents in the tailings wastewater and discussed in the Permit 2005 Statement of
Basis. The monitoring wells are designed and located for timely detection of tailings wastewater
discharge to the groundwater as determined by well spacing analysis and detection monitoring
efficiency.
Per the EFRI License Amendment Request which includes a Safety and Compatibility Technical
Memorandum (Attachment 5) it was noted that “all of the constituents found in the Uranium
Material have previously been processed in the Mill’s circuits and managed in the Mill’s tailings
management system.” (p. 22 and Attachment 5). Therefore the constituents in the tailings
wastewater will not change based on discharge of the Silmet Uranium Material to an active
tailings cell. EFRI monitors the tailings wastewater in all tailings cells (and Evaporation Cell 1)
annually to evaluate the concentrations of all constituents. Any changes in constituent
concentrations due to the Silmet Uranium Material would be timely detected. EFRI submits the
monitoring information to the Division, and the Division conducts a split sampling evaluation of
the tailings wastewater annually.
Per the EFRI License Amendment Request it was noted that after milling and processing, the
Silmet Uranium Material will be disposed of in the tailings management system, either active
Cell 3 or Cell 4A and will most likely be disposed in Cell 4A since Cell 3 is nearing completion.
Fifteen composited samples of the Silmet Uranium Material were collected by Sillamae Estonia
during April 2018 and analyzed by ALS Laboratory Fort Collins Co. (samples received by ALS
on 6/4/2018) for ignitibility, inorganics (ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, pH, chloride, fluoride, and
27

sulfate) isotopic thorium, isotopic uranium, lead-210 and metals. The data results are included
with the EFRI License Amendment Request as attachment C.1. The results of this data were
used by EFRI during review to evaluate whether the Silmet Uranium Material is a hazardous
waste (Attachment 4 of the EFRI License Amendment Request) and for evaluation of the effects
of storage in the tailings cells, including increases in detected constituents and volumes
(Attachment 5 of the EFRI License Amendment Request). Although not evaluated as part of the
groundwater/surface water review, Attachment 5 also includes an evaluation of chemical
compatibility of the Silment Uranium Material in the White Mesa Mill Processing (potential for
chemical reactions) and compatibility of the Silmet Uranium Material with the tailings cell liner
material.
Overall, per Attachment 4 of the EFRI License Amendment Request it was noted that the Silmet
Uranium Material is considered a uranium ore and not a hazardous waste since the uranium
content of the material is greater than 0.05 weight percent and is therefore exempt from
regulation under RCRA as a hazardous waste. Attachment 4 notes that even without the uranium
ore criteria the Silmet Uranium Material would not be a hazardous waste since; 1. The material
does not contain RCRA listed hazardous waste under affidavit of the waste generator: 2. Does
not exhibit RCRA characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity: 3. Does not
contain volatile organic or semi-volatile organic compounds, and: 4. Does not contain metals
from RCRA listed hazardous waste sources. Constituents in the material are consistent with
previously accepted alternate feeds and no new constituents were noted by the Division which
have not previously been accepted to be discharged into the Mill tailings cells.
Per review of the constituents in the Silmet Uranium Material it was noted that:
Organic Constituents:
The Silmet Uranium Material will not contain organic constituents (Volatile or Semi-Volatile
Organic Constituents) as discussed in Attachment 5 of the EFRI License Amendment Request,
this is because the Material “consists of acid digestion residuals from inorganic mineral ores,
which have subsequently been oxidized in a calcining rotary kiln at temperatures above 1000ºF.
The only constituents remaining in the material following calcining are metals and inorganic
ionic species in their highest oxidation states. No semi-volatile organic constituents can
reasonably be expected to be present in the Uranium Material.” The absence of organic
constituents is also noted per the material information safety sheet (Attachment B.6 of the EFR
Application).
Inorganic Constituents:
Ammonia as N, Nitrate/Nitrite as N, Chloride, Fluoride and Phosphorous will be present at low
concentrations in the Silmet Uranium Material especially in relation other currently approved
alternate feeds for the White Mesa Mill. The Permit currently requires routine groundwater
28

monitoring for all of these inorganic constituents since the White Mesa Tailings Cells contain
significant amounts of these constituents.
Metals Constituents:
Table 2 of Attachment 5 of the EFRI License Amendment Request provides a summary of all
metal classes and specific metals expected to be present in the Silmet Uranium Material. It is
noted that these are natural constituents in tantalum and niobium ores. The mineral forms of the
metals were analyzed inhouse by Silmet and the EFRI License Amendment Request provides a
review to ensure that excessive chemical reactivity should not occur during the acid leach
process or create other incompatibility hazards during the process.
Per the EFR Application, Attachment 5, Section 9.1.1 (p. 14) “every metal and non-metal cation
and anion component in the Uranium Material already exists in the Mill’s tailings management
system and/or is analyzed under the GW monitoring program.
Attachment 5 of the EFRI License Amendment Request includes tables indicating expected
percent increases in constituents in mill tailings due to the disposal of the Silmet Uranium
Material after Mill processing (Tables 4-1 and 4-2). Most constituents show minimal increases
(or decreases), however, per the EFRI Attachment 5 calculations it was noted that the Material
contains a relatively high concentrations of Lead and Barium, and that Tin and Zirconium will
increase significantly after processing. However, it is noted that these increases appear
significantly high due to low current concentrations in Cell 4A. The table below summarizes the
EFRI calculated increases in cells 3 and 4A after processing.
Constituent Concentration in
Silmet Material
(ppm)
% Increase in Cell 3 after
Processing
% Increase in Cell 4A after
Processing
Barium 435 761.5 1588.8
Lead 4,093 35.7 127.4
Tin 89 1.4 466.8
Zirconium 1,885 12.9 271.8

Additional discussion regarding these four parameters is below:
Lead – DWMRC notes that the groundwater monitoring network for Cells 3 and 4A
include specific GWCL’s for lead and that the increase in lead concentrations will not
create a need to include additional monitoring parameters or compliance limits. The
EFRI License Amendment Request also notes that previously approved alternate feed
materials have had significantly higher concentration of lead than the Silmet Uranium
Material. The EFRI License Amendment Request specifically cites the Cabot, Fansteel,
and Molycorp material, all derived from tantalum, niobium and rare earth recovery
operations similar to the Silmet material, which have been approved to be received at the
29

White Mesa Mill, and which have lead concentrations ranging up to 236,000 mg/kg. The
Silmet material is reported to have maximum concentrations of lead of 4,100 mg/kg. It is
also noted that the volume of Silmet material that will be received by the White Mesa
Mill is “far lower than the quantities of” those other alternate feeds (p 21).
Barium – Regarding barium, the EFRI License Amendment Request summarizes that the
solubility of barium would be limited in the tailings cell due to an abundance of sulfate in
the cell. Per the EFRI License Amendment Request Attachment 5 (p. 14) “the
insolubility of barium in the presence of sulfate is generally consistent regardless of the
liquid medium. That is, the solubility of barium sulfate in cold water is 0.022 mg/L and
in concentrated sulfuric acid is 0.025 mg/L (Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 68th
Edition). At the listed concentrations of sulfate in the tailings solutions (67,600 mg/L to
87,100 mg/L in Cell 4A), a change in the ambient barium concentration in the tailings
solutions 0.4 mg/L, or even 1.6 mg/L would be negligible.” The Division finds that the
addition of barium as a monitoring constituent in the Permit is not warranted based on the
insolubility in the tailings wastewater and low mobility and high retardation in the event
of a release of tailings wastewater. Per the 2005 Statement of Basis for the Permit,
Barium was not included in the Permit based on a high Partition Coefficient (Kd) of 530
indicating low mobility in ground water. The low mobility of barium would not provide
a reliable indicator of tailings wastewater discharge.
Tin – The groundwater monitoring network for Cell 4A includes specific GWCL’s for tin
and the increase in tin concentrations from the Silmet Uranium Material will not create a
need to include additional monitoring parameters or compliance limits in the Permit. It is
noted that Tin was added as part of the groundwater review for the Fansteel alternate feed
material in 2005. The tin concentration in the Silmet Uranium Material is low when
compared to previous alternate feed material. Maximum values of tin in the Silmet
Uranium Material were measured at values of 89 ppm. Per the table above, if the Silmet
uranium material were added to Cell 3 the increase in inventory of tin would be minimal,
but since current inventory concentration of tin in Cell 4A are low, a large increase will
occur, but the concentrations in Cell 4A will still remain low compared to other disposal
cells.
Zirconium – The partition coefficient (Kd) for zirconium is 600 per the 2005 Statement of
Basis for the Permit (Attachment 7). Therefore, zirconium is not mobile in groundwater
at the White Mesa Mill. Additionally, zirconium was reviewed by the Division during
the Fan Steel Alternate Feed Application review, and per the 2005 Safety Evaluation
Report zirconium was eliminated from inclusion in the Permit due to high Kd. Based on
past precedence and the high Kd of zirconium, it will not be added as a parameter in the
Permit to address the inclusion of Silmet uranium material.
30

The addition of the Silmet uranium material to the License as an alternate feed will not require
additional monitoring wells, monitoring constituents, or other new Permit conditions for the
protection of groundwater. Analytical results from sampling the Silmet uranium material
indicate that the current Permit monitoring network and monitoring constituent list is appropriate
to identify releases of Silmet uranium material to groundwater. The Permit additionally requires
appropriate follow up actions in the event that Permit listed GWCL’s are exceeded at any
monitoring well.
For a description of the surface water and groundwater conditions at the Mill site and the
monitoring program for surface and groundwater see the White Mesa Uranium Mill Reclamation
Plan Rev. 5.1B, Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 2.3 as referenced in Table 2 above.
2.3 Radiological and Non-radiological Assessment (R313-24-3(1)(a))
2.3.1 Radiological Analysis

In the Final Environmental Statement for the White Mesa Uranium Project (NUREG-0556) that
the NRC prepared in 1979, the NRC prepared a Summary of Conclusion section that it based its
decision on. All these conclusions still apply except for the Mill operating for 15 years.

Processing the Silmet uranium bearing material falls within the envelope of the original purpose
of the White Mesa Uranium Mill. This purpose is processing materials for its uranium content.
This includes the NRC’s conclusions of processing alternate feed material as documented in
guidance documents and in addition through subsequent environmental assessments done by the
NRC and the DWMRC throughout the years for License renewal and alternate feed amendment
requests.
As stated in the Technical Review section, this uranium bearing material has similar uranium and
thorium (including progeny) content as the Colorado Plateau ores that the Mill already processes.
Therefore, the radiological impacts from processing this uranium bearing material would also be
the same as current radiological conditions found at the Mill.
Compliance with the public dose requirement is measured using the White Mesa Mill’s effluent
monitoring program. EFRI submits the results from effluent monitoring twice a year and the
Division staff reviews the results. The Division review of these monitoring results indicates that
the Mill is compliant with the 100 mrem public limit found in UAC R313-15-301.
In addition, computer modeling is typically used at license renewal to confirm the Division staff
reviews. For uranium milling, the computer model that is used is called MILDOS-AREA. The
MILDOS-AREA computer model was created and has been revised by Argonne National
31

Laboratory. Modeling can be done by EFRI, the Division or a contractor to either EFRI or the
Division to show compliance. A contractor ran a MILDOS-AREA model for EFRI which was
submitted as part of the 2007 RML renewal application. The Division did a separate
MILDOSAREA model after the 2011 public comment period. Both models indicate that the
Mill is compliant with the 100 mrem public limit. A detailed description of the Division’s
MILDOS-AREA modeling can be found in Attachment A of the 2017 Technical Evaluation and
Environmental Assessment (TEEA) for the White Mesa Uranium Mill renewal application.
In previous licensing actions, there have been several comments and concerns from the public
about radon emanating from the White Mesa Uranium Mill. In a recent NRC guidance
document, DIVISION OF DECOMMISSIONING, URANIUM RECOVERY, AND WASTE
PROGRAMS INTERIM STAFF GUIDANCE DUWP-ISG-01 EVALUATIONS OF URANIUM
RECOVERY FACILITY SURVEYS OF RADON AND RADON PROGENY IN AIR AND
DEMONSTRATIONS OF COMPLIANCE WITH 10 CFR 20.130,1 published in June of 2019 the
NRC references a study that indicates that radon emissions from a uranium recovery facility
would be statistically no different, or indistinguishable, from natural background radon levels at
a distance of one mile from the source of the radon. This is due to air dispersion. The closest
residences to the White Mesa Uranium Mill in any direction are more than one mile away. This
means radon emission from the White Mesa Uranium Mill is not a significant contributor to
Public dose outside the mill fence line. Radon measurements collected from the Mill’s
environmental monitoring stations and reported to the Division in the semi-annual environmental
reports confirm this study’s conclusions. Therefore, processing the Silmet uranium bearing
material will not increase the public dose from radon.
The Division also performs onsite inspections every year at the Mill. Division staff has been
able to confirm in those inspections that EFRI personnel working at the Mill receive
occupational doses less than the 5,000 mrem limit found in R313-15-201.
The Silmet uranium bearing material will not increase the public and occupational dose because:
1. The uranium content of the Silmet uranium bearing material has an equivalent
uranium content as the Colorado Plateau ores which are currently processed at the
Mill. The Colorado Plateau ores were an analyzed feed in the two MILDOS-AREA
models that were done as part of the RML renewal; and
2. The total tonnage of Silmet uranium bearing material is very small (660 tons initially
and 80 tons per year after the first year) compared to the amount of ore and alternate
feeds processed that was analyzed in the Division’s MILDOS-AREA modeling. (See
Table 2 of Attachment A of the TEEA for the total amount of ores processed.)
No changes are required to the Mill’s Environmental and Occupational monitoring programs to
process the Silmet uranium bearing material. For example:
32

 The Mill’s Meteorological Data Monitoring plan found in Section 1.1 of the White Mesa
Uranium Mill Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.1B documents all of the meteorological data
collected at the Mill. This data indicates that the primary wind rose direction is to the
North-northeast, meaning that the wind blows from the South-southwest towards the
North-northeast. This also means that all of the environmental monitoring stations and
soil and vegetation sampling locations around the White Mesa Uranium Mill are
appropriately placed;
 Collection and monitoring methods described in the Mill’s White Mesa Uranium Mill
Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.1B Section 1.7.5 and 2.3 follow NRC guidance documents;
 Radiological detection instruments used at the Mill as described in the Mill’s Radiation
Protection Program are appropriate to the types of radiation found at the Mill;
 Based on the analytical results found in the appendices of the alternate feed application,
no additional radionuclides will need to be added to the Mill’s air particulate monitoring.
The air particulate monitoring already accounts for the Uranium and Thorium decay
chains;
 The current soil monitoring plan that is found in Section 4.1 and vegetation sampling
found in Section 4.2 of the Environmental Protection Manual are adequate and follow
NRC guidance document NRC Regulatory Guide 4.14;
 The gamma radiation monitoring using OSL badges and using the Radonova Rapidos
High Sensitivity Outdoor Environmental detectors for radon monitoring are adequate for
occupational and environmental monitoring; and
 The current occupational and environmental monitoring locations throughout and around
the Mill are appropriately placed.
2.3.1.1 Transportation

All transport packages shall meet U.S. DOT criteria for transporting Radioactive 7 material to
the White Mesa Uranium Mill. As per 49 CFR 173.411 Industrial Packages (IP), the drums
being used to transport the Silmet uranium bearing material shall be IP-1 and IP-2 type packages.
According to the application, the inside of each drum is tripled lined with plastic liners, and shall
be transported to the Mill inside another shipping containers such as an intermodal or sea land
container that will act as a secondary containment for each shipment.
Upon arrival at the Mill, the Mill’s Radiation Safety Technicians shall perform a radiological
survey of the interior and exterior of the shipping containers to verify that the containers met the
U.S. DOT criteria for Exclusive Use Shipments for Radioactive 7 material found in 49 CFR
173.441.
After the drums containing the Silmet uranium bearing material are unloaded, all transport
containers and trucks shall be decontaminated and Radiation Safety Technicians shall perform
33

radiological surveys to verify unrestricted release criteria prior to being released from the White
Mesa Uranium Mill as per Table 2 in NRC Regulatory Guide 8.30 Health Physics Surveys in
Uranium Recovery Facilities.
Transportation accidents shall follow U.S DOT requirements found in 49 CFR 171.15 for
notification of incidents and the Mill’s Emergency Response Plan. U.S. DOT regulations are
incorporated by reference in UAC R313-19-100.
2.3.1.2 Receiving and Storage of the Silmet Uranium Material

The Silmet uranium material will be stored in drums that are triple lined with plastic liners. As
per License Condition 9.6 of the Mill’s RML, receiving and storage of the Silmet uranium
bearing material shall follow existing and previously reviewed SOP’s. These procedures include
but not limited to the following:
 PBL-2 Rev.8- Intermodal Container Acceptance, Handling & Release;
 PBL-9 Rev. 4- End Dump Trailer Acceptance, Handling & Release; and
 PBL-19 Rev. 3-Containerized Alternate Feedstock Material Storage Procedure.
The use of Radiation Work Permits (RWPs) and Safe Work Permits (SWPs) for receiving and
storage activities shall be evaluated by the Mill’s RSO and Safety Manager as per Section 5 of
the Mill’s Radiation Protection Manual. That evaluation shall be documented. Documentation
of these activities shall be made available to DWMRC Staff upon request during onsite
inspections.
2.3.1.3 Mill Processing the Silmet Uranium Material

As per License Condition 9.6 of the Mill’s RML, processing the Silmet uranium material shall
also follow existing and previously reviewed SOP’s, unless a specific SOP for the Silmet
Uranium Material is developed. If a specific SOP is developed it shall be approved by the Mill’s
SERP process and be available for onsite inspection by DWMRC. The use of RWPs and SWPs
for processing activities shall be evaluated by the Mill’s RSO and Safety Manager. That
evaluation shall be documented. Documentation of these activities shall be made available to
DWMRC Staff upon request during onsite inspections.
2.3.1.4 Accidents at the Mill while processing the Silmet Uranium Bearing Material

UAC R313-22-32(8)(a) requires an Emergency Response Plan for certain types of facilities. A
uranium recovery facility is one type of facility that requires one. The current White Mesa Mill
34

Emergency Response Plan states that it follows the format and content outlined in NRC
Regulatory Guide 3.67 and NUREG-1140.
The plan includes the following:
 evaluation of the potential risks for accidents, including fire, explosions, gas releases,
chemical spills and floods (including tailings dam failure), that could occur at the Mill;
 specific emergency programs for each potential event;
 administrative response actions; and
 emergency response contacts - both internal and external.
If an emergency were to happen while processing the Silmet uranium bearing material, then
EFRI and its employees shall follow the most current version of the White Mesa Mill Emergency
Response Plan. Processing the Silmet uranium bearing material will not require changes to the
White Mesa Mill Emergency Response Plan.
2.3.2 Non-Radiological Analysis
As discussed in the Technical Assessment of this document, the Silmet uranium bearing material
does not contain any EPA regulated constituents. Therefore, there are no additional non-
radiological concerns than what has already been evaluated in previous environmental
assessments.
2.3.2.1 Transportation
The transportation of the Silmet uranium material will not significantly increase the truck
volume to the White Mesa Uranium Mill. The largest impact will occur the first year when
approximately 50 intermodal containers will be shipped to the Mill. After that it is expected that
six intermodal containers per year will be shipped to the Mill. According to the alternate feed
application, Utah Department of Transportation 2017 data recorded 319 truck shipments per day
along the U.S. Highway 191 segment that the Silmet uranium material would be transported on.
Assuming one intermodal container per truck shipment would increase the truck traffic 8 to 16%
for one to two days the first year and 2% for one day per year after that.
2.3.2.2 Receiving and Storage of the Silmet Uranium Material
See Section 2.3.1.2 above.
2.3.2.3 Mill Processing the Silmet Uranium Material
Processing the Silmet uranium bearing material will use the same process as described in the
White Mesa Mill Reclamation Plan Rev. Section 2.2 Facility Operations which is referenced in
Table 2 above. Therefore, the same mechanical and chemical processes will be used to extract
the uranium that are currently being used to extract uranium from native and alternate feed ores.
35

Therefore, no expansion of the Mill facilities to process the Silmet uranium bearing material is
necessary.
2.3.2.4 Accidents at the Mill while processing the Silmet Uranium Bearing Material
See Section 2.3.1.4 above.
2.3.3 Consideration of Long-term Impacts (R313-24-3(1)(d))

In the May 1979 NRC’s Final Environmental Statement related to operation of the White Mesa
Uranium Project (NUREG-0556) Section 8, Relationship Between Short-Term uses of the
Environment and Long-Term Productivity, the NRC stated the following
8.1.1 Air quality
The short-term increases in suspended particulates during plant construction and the
increases in suspended particulates and chemical emissions associated with mill operation
are expected to have no impact on the long-term quality of the atmosphere in the region.
8.1.2 Land use
The land on which the mill is located could be returned to its present state and capacity
by reclamation activities. The tailings area, however, under present regulations may be
unavailable for further productive use. While uranium milling is a short-term activity, a
mill tailings disposal site will constitute a permanent disturbance of the land surface,
rendering it unsuitable for future archaeological investigation. Therefore, any such
investigation must be conducted prior to the initial surface disturbance.
8.1.3. Water
Because water for milling operations will be drawn from a deep and lightly used aquifer,
no changes in the water-use patterns of the area are expected to occur as a result of mill
operation.
8.1.4 Mineral resources
No mineral resources are known to exist on the site. Reworking of tailings for extraction
of other minerals could occur if economics warrant.
8.1.5 Soils
The applicant's reclamation program is designed to return the soils to a condition of
productivity that is consistent with their present and historic usage -that is, the production
of forage and habitat for livestock and wildlife. The program will begin as soon as
36

practicable and will continue throughout the life of the project. As a result, about half the
disturbed soils should be back in production by the time mill operation ceases.
8.1.6 Biota
8.1.6.1 Vegetation
Revegetation of disturbed areas will begin as soon as practicable and will continue
throughout the life of the project. A satisfactory vegetative cover is expected to be
established in two or three years. About half the disturbed area will be revegetated by the
time mill operations cease, and the remainder will be revegetated shortly thereafter.
8.1.6.2 Wildlife
Terrestrial vertebrates now inhabiting the project site will either perish or will escape to
undisturbed areas surrounding the mill, where populations will be controlled by natural
means. After reclamation, the more adaptable individuals and species will repopulate the
area as favorable stages in the vegetative succession are reached.
8.1.7 Radiological
The tailings will be impounded in lined cells. Such enclosures would be overlain with
cover material to meet radon release standards, and then reclaimed. The reclaimed
tailings area will constitute a source of radon emission of about twice the natural
background flux.
DWMRC Staff conclude that the NRC’s findings from a 1979 Final Environmental Statement
are still valid, and; the addition of processing the Silmet uranium bearing material as an alternate
feed does not change the long term impacts of the Mill. This conclusion is based on the
similarity of the percent of uranium being recovered in the Silmet uranium material with
Colorado Plateau grade ore that was originally considered and approved by the NRC. Also
because there are no EPA listed constituents in the Silmet uranium material there are no
additional chemical impacts for processing the Silmet uranium bearing material.
2.3.4 Consideration of Alternates (R313-24-3(1)(c))

There are only two alternates for DWMRC staff to consider for this licensing request. They are,
to approve the request or to deny the request. There are no other options for this request.
Both the Technical Evaluation and the Environmental Analysis above demonstrate that:
 Processing the Silmet uranium bearing material does not change the Mill process for
alternate feeds and ores;
37

 Processing the Silmet uranium bearing material will not require expansion of the White
Mesa Uranium Mill facility;
 Addition of the Silmet uranium bearing material will not require changes to the Mill’s
Environmental Monitoring or Surface/Groundwater Monitoring;
 Processing the Silmet uranium bearing material will not cause any exceedances of
occupational or public dose; and
 Addition of the Silmet uranium bearing material will not change the long term impacts
of the Mill.
The radiological and non-radiological impacts are the same for both alternatives.
2.4 Environmental Analysis Conclusion

The Environmental Analysis for the Silmet uranium bearing material demonstrated compliance
with UAC R313-24-3:
1. Radiological and non-radiological impacts to the public health will not be increased
(R313-24-3(1)(a));
2. The impacts on waterway and groundwater will not increase (R313-24-3(1)(b));
3. There is no difference in environmental impacts associated with the alternatives (R313-
24-3(1)(c)) ; and
4. Long term impacts will not change (R313-24-3(1)(d)).
Therefore, DWMRC Staff have concluded that the Silmet uranium bearing material will not
increase the environmental impacts from the Mill. Additionally, similar material has previously
been assessed and approved
3. DWMRC Staff Recommendation to the Director

After consideration of the technical and environmental review, the DWMRC Staff recommends
that the Director approve adding the Silmet uranium bearing material to the list of approved
alternate feed materials in the License.
4. Proposed Language for the New Alternate Feed License Conditions

License Condition 10.10:
The Licensee is authorized to receive source material (the Silmet uranium bearing material) from
the NPM Silmet OÜ Facility located near Sillamae, Estonia, in accordance with statements,
38

representations, and commitments contained in the License Amendment Request submitted to
the Director dated April 18, 2019.
5. Explanation for the Proposed Language for the New Alternate Feed License Conditions

License Condition 10.10 indicates that EFRI’s application provided all of the required
information for the amendment application to be approved.
.
39

6. References

Dames & Moore (1978) Environmental Report White Mesa Uranium Project San Juan County,
Utah for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (2007) White Mesa Uranium Mill License Renewal Application
State of Utah Radioactive Materials License No. UT1900479, Volumes 1 through 5, Denver, CO.
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (2008 through 2010), Responses to DRC Health Physics and
Engineering Interrogatories, Denver, Co.
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (2010a) White Mesa Uranium Mill Groundwater Monitoring
Report 1st Quarter 2010. (DRC-2010-003272)
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (2010b) White Mesa Uranium Mill Nitrate Monitoring Report 2nd
Quarter 2010. (DRC-2010-004829)
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (2011) White Mesa Uranium Mill Chloroform Monitoring Report
4th Quarter 2010. (DRC-2011-003369)
Utah Division of Radiation Control (DRC) (2003) State of Utah's Final application to amend
Agreement for Uranium Mills and Mill Tailings
Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC) (2017) Technical
Evaluation and Environmental Assessment, Attachment A MILDOS Assessment, White Mesa
Uranium Mill License Renewal. (DRC-2017-002763)
Energy Fuels Resources Inc. (EFRI) (2001) “Assessment of the Effectiveness of Using Existing
Monitoring Wells for GWDP Detection Monitoring at the White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding,
Utah.” September 25, 2001. Resubmitted to DWMRC under separate cover letter dated June 8,
2018. (DRC-2018-013571)

EFRI (2018) Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah, Radioactive Materials
License No. UT1900479, Rev. 5.1B (DRC-2018-001449)

EFRI (2018) “White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah, Radioactive Materials License No.
UT1900479, Groundwater Discharge Permit No. UGW370004, Cells 5A and 5B License and
GWDP Amendment Request.” (DRC-2018-006864)

EFRI (2018) Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., White Mesa Mill, Radioactive Materials
License # UT1900479, Amendment 8, Condition 12.3, Bi-annual Land Use Survey Report,
(DRC-2018-006354)
EFRI (2018) Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill Blanding, Utah Radioactive Materials License
No. UT1900479, Revision 5.1B, (DRC-2018-001449)
40

EFRI (2018) White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah Radioactive Materials License No.
UT100479, Groundwater Discharge Permit No. UGW370004, Cells 5A and 5B License and
GWDP Amendment Request, Attachment B-Environmental Report in Support of Construction,
Cells 5A and 5B. (DRC-2018-006864)
EFRI (2019), Application by Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. ("EFRI") for an amendment to
State of Utah Radioactive Materials License No. 1900479 for the White Mesa Uranium Mill
(the "Mill") to authorize processing of NPM Silmet OU ("Silmet") alternate feed material
(the "Uranium Material")

Federal Register (1995) Vol. 60, No. 184, Friday, September 22, 1995: Uranium Mill Facilities,
Notice of Two Guidance Documents: Final Revised Guidance on Disposal of Non-Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, Section 11e.(2) Byproduct Material in Tailings Impoundments; Final
Position and Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Materials Other Than Natural Ores
Federal Register (2003) Vol. 68, No. 166, Wednesday, August 27, 2003: State of Utah: NRC
Staff Assessment of Utah's Proposed Alternative Standard To Use Utah's Existing Groundwater
Regulation in Lieu of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulations
MWH Americas, Inc. Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. White Mesa Mill, Tailings Data
Analysis Report. October, 2014. (DRC-2014-006294)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (1979) Final Environmental Statement related to
operation of White Mesa Uranium Project San Juan County, Utah, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards, NUREG-0556
NRC (1995) FINAL "REVISED GUIDANCE ON DISPOSAL OF NON-ATOMIC ENERGY
ACT OF 1954, SECTION 11e.(2) BYPRODUCT MATERIAL IN TAILINGS
IMPOUNDMENTS," AND FINAL POSITION AND GUIDANCE ON THE USE OF
URANIUM MILL FEED MATERIALS OTHER THAN NATURAL ORES
NRC (2000) NRC REGULATORY ISSUE SUMMARY 2000-23 RECENT CHANGES TO
URANIUM RECOVERY POLICY, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
NRC (2000) Memorandum and Order: International Uranium (USA) Corporation, Regarding
Alternate Feed Material from Tonawanda, New York, Docket No. 40-8681-MLA-4, February
10, 2000
NRC (2002) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 8.30: Health Physics
Surveys in Uranium Recovery Facilities, Rev. 1, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
41

NRC (2019) DIVISION OF DECOMMISSIONING, URANIUM RECOVERY, AND WASTE
PROGRAMS INTERIM STAFF GUIDANCE DUWP-ISG-01 EVALUATIONS OF URANIUM
RECOVERY FACILITY SURVEYS OF RADON AND RADON PROGENY IN AIR AND
DEMONSTRATIONS OF COMPLIANCE WITH 10 CFR 20.130,1