DRC-2020-020544 - 0901a06880dbdf10

1
Aaron M. Paul
Staff Attorney
Grand Canyon Trust
4404 Alcott Street
Denver, Colorado 80211
D: 303-477-1486
July 10, 2020

By Electronic Mail

Ty L. Howard
Director, Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 144880
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4850
[e-mail]

Re: Comments on Proposed Amendment No. 10 to the
Radioactive Materials License for the White Mesa Uranium Mill
Dear Mr. Howard:
Energy Fuels Resources (USA), Inc. has asked the Division of Waste
Management and Radiation Control for permission to process and
dispose of two new, so-called “alternate feed” materials at the White
Mesa uranium mill.1 One of those materials is a waste generated in the
Republic of Estonia whose disposal in Estonia that country’s
government has disallowed for health and safety reasons.
And yet, over the objection of another sovereign nation—the Ute
Mountain Ute Tribe—the Division is proposing to amend Energy
Fuels’ radioactive materials license for the mill to approve the
company’s requests, yet again imposing a deeply unjust burden on the
small tribal community of White Mesa that sits next to the pits at the
mill in which this waste is to be forever buried.2
We recognize that balancing the competing demands facing the

1 See Application for an amendment to Radioactive Materials License No.
1900479 to authorize processing of NPM Silmet OU alternate feed
material, DRC-2019-003761 (Apr. 18, 2019) (“Silmet Application”);
Application for an amendment to Radioactive Materials License No.
1900479 to authorize processing of Moffat Tunnel alternate feed material,
DRC-2019-017284 (Dec. 23, 2019) (“Moffat Tunnel Application”).
2 See Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control, “Statement
of Basis: Radioactive Material License (RML) No. UT 1900479,” DRC-
2020-007011 (Mar. 2020) (“Am. 10 Statement of Basis”).

2
Division as it regulates the White Mesa mill is a tall order and that the Division has
improved upon the work of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in that task. Yet the
Division can do better still, especially on the subject of regulating alternate feeds. That
is what we urge the Division to do in these comments on the proposed license
amendments submitted on behalf of the Grand Canyon Trust, Center for Biological
Diversity, Downwinders Inc., Friends of Cedar Mesa, Great Old Broads for
Wilderness, Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, Multicultural Alliance for a Safe
Environment, New Mexico Environmental Law Center, Sierra Club Utah Chapter,
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, The Wilderness Society, Utah Audubon Council,
Utah Diné Bikéyah, Western Watersheds Project, and WildEarth Guardians.
For ease of review, the principal requests we make in these comments are listed
below. This list isn’t exhaustive and isn’t meant to diminish the importance of other
requests or critiques made elsewhere in these comments. We ask the Division to:
1. Deny Energy Fuels’ requests to allow the company to possess, process, and
dispose of the two new alternate feeds, from Estonia and from Colorado.
2. If the Division nonetheless approves Energy Fuels’ application concerning
the material from Estonia, the Division should make its approval subject to
two conditions: (a) that Energy Fuels acquires a specific import license from
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and (b) that Energy Fuels returns to
Silmet in Estonia all waste resulting from processing the Silmet material at
the mill.
3. The Division should revise its assertions in the licensing documents that
“11(e)(2) byproduct” material is not “waste.”
4. The Division should not approve Energy Fuels’ request to increase the
volume of in-situ leaching waste discarded at the mill, for that license
change is not adequately justified in the proposed licensing documents.
I. The Commenters
A. The Grand Canyon Trust
The Grand Canyon Trust is a membership-based, non-profit advocacy
organization founded in 1985. It’s headquartered in Flagstaff, Arizona, and has offices
in Salt Lake City and Castle Valley, Utah, and Durango and Denver, Colorado. The
mission of the Trust is to safeguard the wonders of the Grand Canyon and the
Colorado Plateau, while supporting the rights of its Native peoples. In service of that
mission, the Trust has worked for years to oppose irresponsible uranium mining and
milling on the Plateau, and to see that the contamination around the Plateau that the
uranium industry has repeatedly left in its wake is cleaned up.
3
B. Center for Biological Diversity
The Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit
environmental organization with over 1.5 million members and online activists. The
Center is headquartered in Tucson, Arizona and has offices in Arizona, New Mexico,
California, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Alaska, Illinois, Minnesota, Vermont, Florida,
Washington, D.C., and Baja California Sur, Mexico. The Center works through
science, law, and policy to secure a future for all species, great or small, hovering on
the brink of extinction. The Center and its members have for more than a decade
engaged federal and state agency decision-making to ensure that uranium mining and
milling in the Four Corners region does not further harm people and the environment.
C. Downwinders, Inc.
Downwinders, Inc. is a nonprofit educational foundation created in the late
1970's to bring a halt to all nuclear weapons testing, development and deployment, and
to seek justice for victims and survivors of radiation exposure from fallout from
atmospheric atomic testing and weapons manufacturing, and from participation in the
uranium industry. Downwinders has been a critic of the operation of the White Mesa
mill and waste disposal operation since the mid-1990's, and more broadly, of a flawed
and failing radioactive waste disposal regime nationally and regionally.
D. Friends of Cedar Mesa
Friends of Cedar Mesa is a non-partisan, non-profit conservation organization
founded in 2010. The Friends work to protect and build respect for the cultural and
natural landscapes of the greater Bears Ears region (e.g. the lands that surround the
White Mesa Mill). Because the lands we work to protect are ancestral lands of many
indigenous peoples, we work closely to support Tribes like the Ute Mountain Ute
nation, which is the community most impacted by the Mill. With our headquarters in
the town of Bluff just 17 miles from the Mill, our staff and board members drink water
that flows from the aquifer underlying the Mill’s tailing ponds.
E. Great Old Broads for Wilderness
Great Old Broads for Wilderness (“Broads”) is a national grassroots
organization, led by women, that engages and inspires activism to preserve and protect
wilderness and wild lands. Founded in 1989 with the national office based in
southwestern Colorado, Broads currently has 40 chapters around the country that
focus on education, advocacy, and stewardship for public lands protection. With three
chapters in Utah and four in western Colorado, the organization has a strong interest in
protecting the lands, water and people of this region. We have witnessed the short- and
long-term impacts of inappropriate industrial development of lands in the Four
Corners region, and find particularly abhorrent the disproportionate impact on
indigenous communities. A former council member of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
serves on our Council of Advisors.
4
F. Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah
The Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah (HEAL) is a non-profit advocacy
organization, headquartered in Salt Lake City with 15,000 members. For over twenty
years, HEAL has worked to prevent the exposure of Utahns to hazardous waste
including the above ground storage of high-level nuclear waste on the Goshute
Reservation, the construction of a nuclear power plant on the Green River, and Energy
Solutions attempts to dispose Class B and C waste, depleted uranium, and Italian waste
at their Clive facility. We continue to inform and support both citizens and state
agencies about the risks of such proposals in order to assure that Utah will be a safe and
healthy place to live for us and future generations.
G. Multicultural Alliance for a Safe Environment
The Multicultural Alliance for a Safe Environment is a network of five groups
based in New Mexico. We work collaboratively to stop new uranium mines and to
address the environmental and health legacy from past uranium mining. We are rooted
in the experiences of uranium-impacted communities, working to restore and protect
the natural and cultural environment through respectfully promoting intercultural
engagement among communities and institutions for the benefits of all life and future
generations.
H. New Mexico Environmental Law Center
Founded in 1987, the Law Center’s mission is to engage in environmental
protection litigation and advocacy with a primary focus on pursuing issues that advance
the interests of environmental justice. The Law Center works with communities to
protect New Mexico’s land, air, and water from challenges posed by local, state,
national and worldwide threats to the environment.
The Law Center works with communities to address disparities in
environmental protection and exposure to pollution that are a result of racist and
classist legal and social frameworks. The Law Center has two goals of equal priority.
The first is to provide legal representation to low-income communities and
communities of color to address the environmental pollution issues those communities
have identified as important. The second is to work with environmental justice
communities to impact environmental laws, regulations and policy.
I. Sierra Club Utah Chapter
Today, the Utah Chapter is a grassroots environmental organization that
harnesses the power of people working together to make change happen. We amplify
the power of its members and supporters to protect and enjoy Utah’s outdoors and
natural landscapes; educate and advocate for the responsible preservation of clean air,
water and habitats; support development of clean energy to benefit present and future
generations; and advance principles of equity, inclusion, and justice throughout our
organization and the broader community.
5
J. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance is a non-profit, membership-based
environmental organization with members in all fifty states and offices in Washington,
D.C. and Utah. It is dedicated to the sensible management of all federal public lands
within the State of Utah, the preservation and protection of plant and animal species,
the protection of clean air and water found on federal public lands, the preservation
and protection of cultural and archaeological resources, and the permanent
preservation of Utah’s remaining wild lands.
K. The Wilderness Society
The Wilderness Society is a non-profit national organization founded in 1935,
with members who reside throughout the nation. TWS works to protect America’s
wilderness lands through public education, scientific analysis, and advocacy. TWS’s
mission is to protect wilderness and inspire Americans to care about our wild places, so
that future generations will enjoy the clean air, water, wildlife, beauty, and
opportunities for recreation and renewal that pristine deserts, mountains, forests, and
rivers provide. Protecting wilderness quality and other sensitive lands managed by
BLM is vital to achieving The Wilderness Society’s mission.
L. Utah Audubon Council
Utah Audubon Council is the public policy arm of the four Audubon societies
in Utah, and consists of the leadership of Great Salt Lake, Wasatch, Bridgerland, and
Red Cliffs Audubon, representing over 1,200 members statewide. Utah Audubon
Council works to protect and preserve birds and wildlife and their habitats, and the
human and natural environment.
M. Utah Diné Bikéyah
Utah Diné Bikéyah (UDB) has an all-Native American Board of Directors
(comprised of Navajo and Ute community leaders) and is based in San Juan County,
Utah. The Board works on public lands conservation by integrating traditional
knowledge and Native leadership into land planning. UDB’s primary goal is assisting
Tribes and federal agencies in engaging Indigenous communities and Indigenous
knowledge keepers in developing truly well-informed policies and plans that protect
communities and indigenous cultures over the long term. These lands are the homes of
Ancestors, Native American sacred spaces, villages areas, traditional cultural
properties, and burial places that exist in and around the White Mesa mill and
throughout Bears Ears National Monument and are the most at-risk when poor
decisions and bad management planning occurs. All of the Native American
communities in San Juan County have been harmed by the toxic impacts and legacy of
uranium mining, processing, testing, and transportation. UDB’s mission is, “to
preserve and protect the cultural and natural resources of ancestral Native American
lands to benefit and bring healing to people and the Earth.”
6
N. Western Watersheds Project
Western Watersheds Project is a non-profit organization with more than 12,000
members and supporters. Our mission is to protect and restore western watersheds and
wildlife through education, public policy initiatives and legal advocacy. Our watersheds
work includes advocating for the protection of the health and well-being of Indigenous
people and environmental justice communities. We work throughout the western
United States, including Utah.
O. WildEarth Guardians
WildEarth Guardians (Guardians) is a membership-based non-profit
organization dedicated to protecting and restoring the wildlife, wild places, wild rivers,
and health of the American West. Guardians envisions a world where wildlife and wild
places are respected and nature has an inherent right to exist and thrive. Guardians has
more than 220,000 members and supporters, including many who use and value
federal public lands on the Colorado Plateau for hiking, observing archeological sites,
bird watching, observing wildlife, spiritual rejuvenation, photography, and other
recreational and professional pursuits.
II. Background
A. The White Mesa Mill
No description of the mill’s operations appears in any of the documents on
which the Division is seeking comment. So that the record is complete, and for the
sake of readers who aren’t already familiar with the White Mesa mill and the
regulatory framework at issue, we’ve set out below a brief factual background about the
mill. The last time the Grand Canyon Trust submitted comments with a background
section along these lines, the Division responded that “[m]uch but not all of this
information is accurate.”3 If the Division continues to believe that any part of the
following account is inaccurate, we would be grateful for an explanation of what
specific points the Division disputes so that we may reevaluate our understanding of
the facts.4
The White Mesa mill is an acid-leaching, uranium-processing mill that turns
uranium ore and other uranium-bearing substances into a product called yellowcake,
which is then enriched for use in nuclear reactors. Black flake, a substance used in
other industrial processes, has also been made at the mill by extracting vanadium from
some feeds. Mostly what comes out of the mill, though, is radioactive waste. This
waste, commonly called tailings, is discarded in big pits spanning about 275 acres next

3 Ex. 1 at 214.
4 We recognize that the Division prefers to use a “regulatory lexicon,” Am. 10 Statement
of Basis at 3, that varies from the ordinary language we often use, and we take as a given
that the Division disputes our word choice. Our request is simply to understand if the
Division believes we’ve misunderstood the facts.
7
to the mill. There are five of these pits, or “impoundments,” at the mill, named Cell 1,
Cell 2, Cell 3, Cell 4A, and Cell 4B. They and the mill are about five miles north of the
centuries-old Ute Mountain Ute community of White Mesa and about six miles south
of downtown Blanding.
A company called Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., began building the mill in the
late 1970s to process low-grade uranium ore from the surrounding region.5 Back then,
the company planned to run the mill for 15 years, then close and reclaim it.6 The
radioactive tailings were to be cleaned up in phases while the mill was operating.7
But that didn’t happen. Instead, Energy Fuels Nuclear, fired up the mill in
1980, made yellowcake for about three years, and pumped the resulting radioactive
tailings into Cells 1, 2, and 3.8 Then, when the price of yellowcake plummeted, the
company laid off most of the mill’s workers and let the mill go mostly, if not
completely, dormant.9 This pattern has continued ever since. An ore-processing
“campaign” is run when enough source material has piled up at the mill and
yellowcake is fetching a good enough price, and then the mill lapses into “standby”
when the price of yellowcake falls.10 Though about 40 years have now passed, not one
of the mill’s big waste pits has been completely reclaimed.
Ownership of the mill has been similarly tumultuous. Over the years, it has
changed hands at least four times.11 In the mid-1990s, after Energy Fuels Nuclear sold
and rebought the mill, the company ran out of money. When it couldn’t pay its

5 Ex. 2 at 1-3 (arguing that the mill has independent utility for the purpose of processing
low-grade, regional ores); id. at 10-21 (observing that small mines with low-grade ore would
not be economically viable without the mill); Ex. 3 at 2-1.
6 Ex. 2 at iii (explaining that production will last for 15 years); id. at 1-1, 3-15 (same); id. at
3-18 (showing projected operating life of 15 years and phased reclamation schedule
extending no more than 5 more years); id. at 4-3 (“Based on the capacity of the tailings
cells, the mill has a potential to operate 15 years.”); Ex. 4 at 1-2 (“The mill is planned to
have a 2,000 tons-per-day capacity and a projected life of 15 years.”); id. at 5-38 (“The
area occupied by the proposed mill and tailing retention system (about 310 acres) would be
committed until the life of the mill ends, about 15 years.”).
7 Ex. 2 at 3-17 (“The tailings ce1ls will be reclaimed sequential1y as each cell is filled,
beginning after about the fourth year of operation and every four years thereafter until
termination of project operations.”).
8 Ex. 5 at 11 (Table 3 showing “tailings placement period” beginning in 1980 for Cell 2,
1981 for Cell 1, and 1982 for Cell 3).
9 Ex. 6 at 2–3; Ex. 7; Ex. 8.
10 Ex. 5 at 5 (showing “standby” periods with no production of U3O8 in 1984, 1991–1994,
2000–2004, with minimal production in 1998 and 2005).
11 Ex. 3 at 2-1.
8
employees, it laid them off.12 Within a month, the asset-holding parts of Energy Fuels
Nuclear declared bankruptcy,13 and the mill was sold for “almost nothing.”14
Today, a company called Energy Fuels, Inc., owns and operates the mill
through subsidiaries. Energy Fuels is careful to claim that it and Energy Fuels Nuclear
are “unrelated entities,” 15 perhaps to distance itself from any environmental liabilities
that Energy Fuels Nuclear could not discharge through bankruptcy. But Energy Fuels,
Inc., was formed in 2005 by a prior owner of Energy Fuels Nuclear16 and touts on its
website that “much of our senior management team began their careers and learned
about the U.S. uranium industry from the earlier successes of Energy Fuels
Nuclear.”17
The mill’s business model has also changed over time, no doubt due to
volatility in the uranium market. Around the early 1990s, Energy Fuels Nuclear began
pursuing a new source of revenue by processing “alternate feeds” and discarding the
resulting waste at the mill. These feeds include uranium-bearing wastes from other
contaminated places around the country. In 1998, for example, Energy Fuels18 was paid
over $4 million to process and dispose of radioactive soil that was contaminated not
only by the Manhattan Project, but also by other industrial and chemical ventures.19
From these sorts of feeds, the waste pits at the mill now contain radioactive and
contaminated wastes from rare-metals mining,20 uranium-conversion plants,21 and
contaminated defense facilities,22 among other sources. The two new “alternate feeds”
that the company is seeking permission to accept—which the Division calls the Silmet
“material” and the Moffat Tunnel “material”—would bring the list of materials that
Energy Fuels has been licensed to process and discard to around twenty.

12 See Ex. 9.
13 Ex. 10 at Addendum to Permit Transfer Request (PDF p. 38).
14 Stephane A. Malin, The Price of Nuclear Power: Uranium Communities and
Environmental Justice, 96 (2015) (“Malin”).
15 Ex. 11 at PDF p. 4.
16 Malin at 95–96.
17 Ex. 11 at PDF p. 4.
18 At the time, the mill was owned by a company called International Uranium (USA)
Corporation. For simplicity’s sake, these comments generally refer to the mill’s prior
owners as Energy Fuels.
19 See Ex. 12 at 1 (observing that Energy Fuels would be paid a fee of $4 million to process
and dispose of the material, an amount that far exceeded the value of the yellowcake to be
produced).
20 See Ex. 13 at 2–3.
21 See Ex. 14 at 1.
22 See, e.g., Ex. 15 at 1–4.
9
Processing alternate-feeds is not the mill’s only waste-disposal business. Wastes
generated at operations that recover uranium by in-situ leaching are also buried in the
mill’s pits. Unlike alternate feed, these wastes aren’t processed at the mill before being
discarded. These wastes include, for example, barium-sulfate sludge from treating
waste solutions at an in-situ uranium leaching operation Wyoming.23 Leaking
shipments of that sludge have arrived at the mill twice since 2015.24 In the past, similar
wastes have been shipped, at a minimum, from Texas, Nebraska, and Wyoming to be
buried at the mill.25
By running its business, Energy Fuels has also fouled the groundwater beneath
the mill. Exactly how some of that contamination got into the groundwater aquifers
beneath the mill is a subject of debate. But it’s undebatable that the groundwater is
contaminated by pollutants like nitrate, nitrite, chlorides, and chloroform.
B. Source-Material and Byproduct Material Licensing
To mill uranium, Energy Fuels is required to get a license from the Utah
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control that authorizes the company to
possess and process “source material”—generally meaning uranium ore—and to
dispose of the waste “byproduct material” that the mill generates.26 The Division is
authorized to issue this license under state law, exercising authority delegated to the
state by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
That delegation was made under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the
fundamental federal law regulating source, byproduct, and other nuclear materials.
That Act authorizes the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue regulations
governing the possession and use of source and byproduct material “to promote the
common defense and security or to protect health or to minimize danger to life or
property….”27
The Commission has issued three main rules regulating uranium milling:
(1) the agency’s general standards setting radiation dose limits for the general public
and mill workers (10 C.F.R. Part 20); (2) the Commission’s rules for domestic
licensing of source material (10 C.F.R. Part 40), which establish health, safety,
financial, and other requirements that uranium-mill operators must meet to get a
license; and (3) Appendix A to those licensing regulations, which establishes standards
for managing and reclaiming mill tailings. The State of Utah has set its own radiation-
dose standards and has adopted wholesale many, but not all, of the latter two

23 See Ex. 16.
24 Id.
25 Ex. 17.
26 Utah Code § 19-3-104.
27 42 U.S.C. § 2201.
10
Commission rules.28
The main requirements for managing and disposing of tailings originate from a
federal law passed in 1978 called the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act.
Congress found in UMTRCA that “uranium mill tailings located at active and inactive
mill operations may pose a potential and significant radiation health hazard to the
public” and sought to regulate tailings in “a safe and environmentally sound manner …
to prevent or minimize radon diffusion into the environment and to prevent or
minimize other environmental hazards from such tailings.”29 It was to comply with
UMTRCA that the Commission issued Appendix A.30
III. The Division should reject Energy Fuels’ requests to process the Silmet and Moffat Tunnel Materials.
A. The Silmet Material
The “Silmet material” is a waste generated by a rare-metals plant in Sillamäe,
Estonia run by NPM Silmet OÜ.31 The plant sits on land that has been an industrial
site for about a century.32 The area first housed a production plant for oil shale,33 but in
the 1940s, it was converted by the Soviet Union into a “top secret,” “large industrial
complex” for producing uranium.34 Modifications in the 1970s allowed the plant to
begin producing niobium, tantalum, and rare earth metals, which the plant continues to
do today.35
Until Estonia joined the European Union in 2004, wastes from the industrial
operations at the Silmet plant site were dumped in a pit about twenty to fifty meters
from the Baltic Sea.36 Owing to the threat this posed to the environment and public
health, the pit was taken out of use in 2004 and cleaned up over the next four years.37

28 Utah Admin. Code R313-24-4 (incorporating much of 10 C.F.R. Part 40 and Appendix A
by reference); Utah Admin. Code R313-15 (establishing standards that apply to the
Division’s licensees for protection against ionizing radiation).
29 42 U.S.C. § 7901.
30 “Uranium Mill Licensing Requirements,” 45 Fed. Reg. 65,521 (Oct. 3, 1980).
31 Silmet Application at 1.
32 Id. at 3.
33 Id.
34 Ex. 18 at 171.
35 Id.
36 Id. Energy Fuels uses a different set of dates in the Silmet Application. See Silmet
Application at 4. It is unclear which dates are accurate, so we’ve elected to use those given
in the article attached as Exhibit 18, which was co-authored by a staff member of the
Estonian Radiation Safety Department.
37 Ex. 18 at 171–72.
11
But that created a new problem for Silmet, for it continued to produce a
radioactive waste stream in its rare-metals operations.38 And by 2004, under Estonia’s
Radiation Act, these wastes could not be discarded in Estonia, for “there is no
radioactive waste management operator for [naturally occurring radioactive materials]
waste in Estonia.”39 As a result, the plant’s operator has been packaging the wastes in
55-gallon drums and storing them at the plant for about the last 15 years while
searching for a foreign, waste-disposal option.40 When operating, the plant generates
about 80 tons per year of this waste.41
Silmet now has about 600 metric tons of this waste stored at its Sillamäe plant
in about 2,000 drums.42 The company’s radiation practice license allows it to
accumulate no more of this waste, and as a consequence, the plant’s niobium and
tantalum operations have ceased, and the Estonian Ministry of Environment has
refused to allow operations to resume until the waste is discarded off site.43 It is this
waste, and any additional waste generated if operations at the plant resume, that
Energy Fuels is seeking permission to process and discard at the White Mesa mill.
B. The Moffat Tunnel Material
The Moffat Tunnel “material” is a waste containing radionuclides that is
generated by a water-treatment plant in Winter Park, Colorado that was built to clean
up discharges from the Moffat Tunnel.44 The Moffat Tunnel was built a century ago to
allow trains to travel under the Continental Divide near Colorado’s Front Range.45
Groundwater and other precipitation seeps into the tunnel and flows out each
end, carrying with it contaminants picked up on the way.46 About five years ago, the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment required the Tunnel’s
operator, the Union Pacific Railroad, to build a water treatment plant at the Tunnel’s
west end to treat the discharge before it flows into the Fraser River.47
Because the outflows from the west end of the tunnel contain radionuclides, the
“centrifuge cake” generated by the water treatment plant has “elevated” levels of

38 Id. at 172.
39 Id. at 173.
40 Silmet Application at 4.
41 Id.
42 Id. at 1.
43 Id. at 1–2.
44 Ex. 19 at 3; Ex. 20 at 1-1, 2-2.
45 Ex. 19 at 2; Ex. 20 at 1-1.
46 Ex. 19 at 3; Ex. 20 at 1-1.
47 Ex. 19 at 3; Ex. 20 at 2-2.
12
radionuclides.48 As a consequence state regulators in Colorado have required the
Union Pacific Railroad to get a radioactive materials license to dispose of this waste
centrifuge cake.49 This is the Moffat Tunnel “material” that Energy Fuels is seeking
permission to process and discard at the White Mesa mill. Energy Fuels anticipates
that it may receive this waste material “indefinitely” in quantities of up to 200 tons per
year on a wet basis.50
C. The Division may deny the alternate-feed applications to protect the environment and public health, and it should exercise that authority.
Licensing alternate feeds for processing and disposal at the mill is a practice
that ought to end outright, absent the consent of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, absent
an act of Congress specifically allowing uranium mills to process alternate feeds, and
absent an open public debate about whether that practice should occur at the White
Mesa mill.
The Division has the discretion under existing law to reject alternate-feed
license applications upon finding that their issuance would be “inimical to the health
and safety of the public.”51 We urge the Division to exercise that discretion to deny the
applications to process the Silmet and Moffat Tunnel materials.
To lawfully make yellowcake and bury the resulting wastes at its mill, Energy
Fuels must process “ore” primarily for its “source material” content.52 Source
material means uranium or thorium, or any ore containing one of those elements at
concentrations established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.53 In the 1990s,
Commission staff released guidance that defined “ore” to mean anything from which
uranium or thorium are extracted in a licensed mill.54 This tautological definition had
the effect of allowing Energy Fuels to run anything from which it could extract
uranium through the White Mesa mill and discard the resulting wastes on site,
provided the feed wasn’t a so-called “listed” hazardous waste.55 And Energy Fuels
took the view that it could even charge fees to process and discard wastes that the

48 Moffat Tunnel Application at 1.
49 Id.
50 Id. at 3.
51 Utah Admin. Code R313-22-33(1)(d).
52 See 42 U.S.C. § 2014(e)(2).
53 42 U.S.C. § 2014(z).
54 “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,” 60 Fed. Reg. 49,296, 49,296 (Sep. 22, 1995).
55 60 Fed. Reg. at 49,296–297.
13
waste generator was willing to pay to get rid of.56
The State of Utah balked at this idea and took the issue to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.57 The Commission ultimately decided against the State.58 As
a result, through a guidance document issued by Commission staff and an
administrative appeal before the Commission, Energy Fuels was given permission to
make money disposing of radioactive waste at the White Mesa mill. That outcome
bypassed any true public debate about how to get rid of a host of uranium-bearing
wastes that have been discarded at the mill since the early 1990s. Indeed, Energy
Fuels’ “alternate-feed” business has never been blessed by an act of Congress, nor a
state law, nor any other publicly debated kind of lawmaking.
The result of this quiet revolution in the law is that the White Mesa mill, as a
practical matter, has been given a license to operate indefinitely, not milling much or
any uranium ore, but instead accepting wastes for “processing” and disposal. The core
problem with that outcome, though there are others, is that the prospect of an
indefinitely operating waste-disposal business was not at all the subject of discussion and
analysis when the federal government and Energy Fuels chose in the late 1970s to build
the mill on White Mesa. What was debated back then was whether to license a uranium
mill to process low-grade uranium ore from the region for 15 years, before closing and
reclaiming the mill.59 Forty years later, the community of White Mesa is burdened by
something else entirely: a landfill for low-level radioactive waste that may forever be
running, fed by massive waste-hauling trucks, polluting the air, killing wildlife, and
making the already-polluted groundwater ever more toxic.
Indeed, for most or all alternate feeds, the additional pollution from running the
mill to process those feeds—the toxins the mill puts into the air, the chemicals it uses
to extract yellowcake, and the like—burdens the environment and the people around
the mill only so that the resulting waste may be deemed “byproduct material” that can
be discarded on site. This pollution would not happen if it was the market for selling
yellowcake, rather than the market for disposing of radioactive waste, that controlled

56 Ex. 12 at 1.
57 Id.
58 Id.
59 Ex. 2 at 1-3 (arguing that the mill has independent utility for the purpose of processing
low-grade, regional ores); id. at 10-21 (observing that small mines with low-grade ore would
not be economically viable without the mill); id. at iii (explaining that production will last
for 15 years); id. at 1-1, 3-15 (same); id. at 3-18 (showing projected operating life of 15 years
and phased reclamation schedule extending no more than 5 more years) id. at 4-3 (“Based
on the capacity of the tailings cells, the mill has a potential to operate 15 years.”); Ex. 4 at
1-2 (“The mill is planned to have a 2,000 tons-per-day capacity and a projected life of 15
years.”); id. at 5-38 (“The area occupied by the proposed mill and tailing retention system
(about 310 acres) would be committed until the life of the mill ends, about 15 years.”).
14
whether these alternate-feed deals occurred. Put another way, the expense of
transporting and processing the feeds so far outweighs the value of the resulting
yellowcake that it is only for waste-disposal that most or all alternate-feeds are ever
brought to the mill.
All of this is happening over the persistent objections of the Ute Mountain Ute
Tribe. And rather than listen to those objections and confront the failure of governance
motivating them, the Division appears to believe that it is bound by federal law to
approve any alternate-feed application if the feed has uranium in it (i.e., is ostensibly
“ore”), does not contain listed waste, and will be processed at the mill.60 But this is
not so, for the Division has discretion to reject alternate-feed license applications on
the grounds that they are “inimical to the health and safety of the public” regardless of
the Commission’s guidance,61 and the Utah Waste Management and Radiation Control
Board has the power—which it could exercise at the Division’s behest—to amend or
abandon the Commission’s guidance altogether.62
The Division contends that, when Utah first obtained agreement-state status, it
agreed to use “best efforts … to assure that the State’s program will continue to be
compatible with the program of the Commission for the regulation of like materials.”63
Yet that commitment does not require the Division to approve any license amendment
that would be “inimical to the health and safety of the public,” including an
amendment to process alternate feeds, for protecting the health and safety of the public
is surely compatible with the Commission’s regulations.64
The Division also observes, without citation, that the State committed in its
2003 agreement-state application to apply the Commission’s guidance for evaluating
whether to license alternate feeds for processing.65 But that description of the
application omits a crucial caveat: The agreement said nothing about the alternate feed
guidance, but made only a general commitment to follow guidance issued by the
Commission writ large “unless doing so will compromise protection of human health

60 Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control, “Technical Evaluation and
Environmental Analysis: Silmet Alternate Feed Request,” DRC-2020-007005, p. 13 (Apr.
2020) (“Silmet Technical Evaluation”) (“The Division concludes that using its “best
efforts” includes following established judicial and administrative precedents, as well as
NRC guidance and regulations.”).
61 See Utah Admin. Code R313-22-33(1)(d).
62 See 42 U.S.C. § 2021(o)(2); Utah Code §§ 19-3-104(7) and 19-3-104(8)(a).
63 See Ex. 21, Article VI.
64 See Utah Admin. Code R313-22-33(1)(d).
65 Silmet Technical Evaluation at 15; Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation
Control, “Technical Evaluation and Environmental Analysis: Moffat Tunnel Alternate
Feed Request,” DRC-2020-007007, p. 16 (Apr. 2020) (“Moffat Tunnel Technical
Evaluation”).
15
and the environment.”66 And the amendment that the Commission and the State of
Utah ultimately signed to expand the State’s agreement-state power, which reflects the
binding commitments each party made, says nothing about following the
Commission’s guidance, concerning alternate feeds or any other subject.67
Added to that, the State of Utah has the authority to depart from the
Commission’s alternate-feed guidance, for the Atomic Energy Act explicitly allows
agreement states to adopt requirements that are more stringent than federal law:
In the licensing and regulation of byproduct material … a State shall
require … compliance with standards which shall be adopted by the
State for the protection of the public health, safety, and the
environment from hazards associated with such material which are
equivalent, to the extent practicable, or more stringent than, standards
adopted and enforced by the Commission for the same purpose….68
It is consequently not true that the Division’s hands are tied by federal law.
We accordingly urge the Division to exercise its authority to find that it is
inimical to the health and safety of the public to allow Energy Fuels to process the
Silmet and Moffat Tunnel wastes at the mill. At the very least, the Division has the
power to find that it is inimical to the health and safety of the public to allow alternate
feeds to be shipped to the White Mesa mill when the feed’s generator is incurring more
expense in the deal than Energy Fuels stands to gain from processing the feed, for in
that circumstance the feed would never be sent to the mill but for the ability to discard
the resulting waste in Utah’s environment, next to Utah’s communities. This financial
arrangement, as explained below, doubtless applies to the Silmet material, and we
suspect it is true of the Moffat Tunnel waste too. And at least on this basis, we urge the
Division to deny the applications to process these alternate feeds.
IV. If the Division approves the request to process the Silmet material, that approval should be contingent on Energy Fuels’ acquisition of a specific import license.
While we urge the Division to deny outright Energy Fuels’ application to
process the Silmet waste, if the Division nonetheless approves that request, that
approval should be conditioned on Energy Fuels’ acquisition of a specific-import
license from the Commission, for the Commission’s general-import license does not
authorize Energy Fuels to import the Silmet material.

66 See Ex. 22 at PDF p. 3.
67 Ex. 23.
68 42 U.S.C. § 2021(o)(2) (emphasis added); see also Utah Code §§ 19-3-104(7) and 19-3-
104(8).
16
A. Energy Fuels cannot import the Silmet material using a general-import license.
Energy Fuels has asserted that it may bring the Silmet material into the United
States from Estonia using a general-import license established by 10 C.F.R. §
110.27(a).69 The Division has concurred with that view.70 Yet the general license in
§ 110.27(a) does not allow for the importation of “radioactive waste,” as that term is
defined by the Commission’s import regulations.71 And because the Silmet material is
a “radioactive waste,” it cannot be imported under a general license.
1. The Silmet material is a “radioactive waste” if Energy Fuels will not import it “solely” for the purpose of recycling.
The Commission’s regulations provide that “a general license is issued to any
person to import … source … material if the U.S. consignee is authorized to receive
and possess the material under the relevant NRC or Agreement State regulations.”72
But that general license is subject to conditions,73 one of which provides that
“radioactive waste” may not be imported under a general license.74
“Radioactive waste” has a unique and complex definition in the Commission’s
export and import rules, which provides in pertinent part:
Radioactive waste … means any material that contains or is
contaminated with source … material that by its possession would
require a specific radioactive material license in accordance with this
Chapter and is imported or exported for the purposes of disposal in …
a disposal area as defined in Appendix A to 10 CFR part 40…; or
recycling, waste treatment or other waste management process that
generates radioactive material for disposal in … a disposal area as
defined in Appendix A to 10 CFR part 40….75
Further complicating the matter, some radioactive materials that would
otherwise be radioactive wastes under this definition are excluded by rule. These
include materials “[i]mported solely for the purposes of recycling and not for waste
management or disposal where there is a market for the recycled material and evidence
of a contract or business agreement can be produced upon request by the NRC.”76 It is

69 See Silmet Application at 12–13.
70 See Silmet Technical Evaluation at 20.
71 10 C.F.R. § 110.27(c); 10 C.F.R. § 110.2 (defining “radioactive waste”).
72 10 C.F.R. § 110.27(a).
73 Id. (granting license “[e]xcept as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section…”).
74 10 C.F.R. § 110.27(c).
75 10 C.F.R. § 110.2.
76 Id.
17
under this exclusion that Energy Fuels asserts that it can import the Silmet material.77
But that assertion is flawed.
For the Silmet material to qualify under this exclusion, it must be imported
solely for the purpose of recycling.78 When adopting this exemption in 2010, the
Commission warned against its misuse:
The Commission is aware that there could be instances in which a
person intends to import what is in fact radioactive waste, but which is
argued to be for recycling purposes (i.e., sham recycling). Any person
who imports materials under a general license for recycling, but with
the purpose of disposing of them in the United States, would be
subject to NRC enforcement action.79
The Commission further recognized that “there may be instances in which
some small value may be obtained from the materials that are imported, but the
primary intention is for disposal.”80 In such cases, to avoid possible enforcement
action, the staff recommends that the Commission be consulted before any such
imports are made.”81
For the reasons explained below, the possible value that Energy Fuels might
obtain from processing the Silmet material is a small fraction of the expense of
transporting it to White Mesa and processing it, not accounting for permitting costs,
overhead, marketing, and the like. At best, this is the precise circumstance that the
Commission envisioned would amount to “sham recycling” and warned licensees not
to attempt.
And it is important to stress that, on the subject of “sham recycling,” the
analysis under the Commission’s import rules is different than the domestic-licensing
rules for alternate feeds. The core question of law for “alternate feeds” originating in
the United States is whether processing them will result in “wastes produced by the
extraction or concentration of uranium … from any ore processed primarily for its

77 See Silmet Application at 12–13.
78 10 C.F.R. § 110.2. There is no question that the remaining elements of the definition of
“radioactive waste” are satisfied. Processing the feeds will generate radioactive material to
be disposed of in a “disposal area”—the tailings cells at the mill—as that term is defined in
Appendix A. See 10 C.F.R. Part 40, App. A (“Disposal area means the area containing
byproduct materials to which the requirements of Criterion 6 apply.”).
79 “Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Material,” 75 Fed. Reg. 44,072, 44,076
(July 28, 2010).
80 Id.
81 Id.
18
source material content.”82 The Commission has interpreted this language to allow a
licensee to process a “source material”—like an alternate feed—even if the licensee’s
primary motive is to receive a disposal fee, so long as the act of processing is completed
primarily to extract the feed’s source-material content and not something else.83 In so
holding, the Commission observed that there is “no reason under UMTRCA why
licensees cannot have several motives for a transaction.”84
But this analysis does not apply when evaluating how a foreign-sourced
“alternate feed” should be treated under the Commission’s import regulations, for
those regulation require that the material be imported “solely” for the purpose of
recycling. It is not enough that “recycling” is one ostensible reason, however trivial,
among other reasons for importing a material: It must be the sole reason.
For similar reasons, the Division’s legal review of the import-license question
should be revisited. In that analysis, the Division reasons that the Commission would
not require an import license today because it did not require one when Energy Fuels
began importing materials from Cameco Corporation’s operations in Ontario, Canada
in 1998.85 But the Commission changed its import rules in 2010 to adopt the definition
of “radioactive waste” discussed above, including the recycling exclusion.86 Thus, the
Commission’s conclusions about the 1998 import license have no bearing on how its
modified import rules apply today.
All told, conceding for the sake of argument that Energy Fuels may process
domestically sourced “alternate feeds” at the mill even if the company’s primary
motivation is to generate waste-disposal fees, that is not true of whether Energy Fuels
may import foreign-sourced “alternate feeds.” On that score, it must import the
material “solely” for the purpose of recycling, a requirement that—as explained
below—is not met here.
2. Energy Fuels is not importing the Silmet material solely for the purposes of recycling.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that one of the purposes for
importing the Silmet material is to “recycle” the tiny fraction of uranium it contains,
there is no denying that another purpose—and indeed, in our view, the only
purpose87—is disposal of the remaining 99.5-plus percent of the Silmet material. This

82 42 U.S.C. § 2014(e)(2) (emphasis added).
83 In re Int’l Uranium (USA) Corp., 51 NRC 9, 23 (2000).
84 Id. at 18.
85 Silmet Technical Evaluation at 20.
86 75 Fed. Reg. at 44,076.
87 For this reason, we believe that it is proper to conclude that Energy Fuels is importing
the Silmet waste “for the purposes of disposal in … a disposal area as defined in
Appendix A to 10 CFR part 40…” and that the recycling exclusion does not apply at all,
19
is evident for several reasons.
First, Energy Fuels estimates that the Silmet material averages about 0.27
percent U3O8.88 So, if Energy Fuels receives 2,000 drums of the Silmet material,
Energy Fuels would effectively bury just over 1,994 of those drums in the mill’s waste
pits and produce a bit less than 6 drums’ worth of yellowcake (assuming all the
uranium could be extracted from the Silmet material, which it cannot).89 As a simple
mathematical matter, the outcome of importing the Silmet material will be to discard
nearly all of it permanently at the mill.
Second, it is plain that Silmet treats the “Silmet material” as waste that Silmet
is anxious to dispose of. Energy Fuels’ application to process the material explains that
the Republic of Estonia has refused to renew Silmet’s radiation activity license and has
shut down Silmet’s plant until it gets rid of the “Silmet material.”90 For Silmet, and
for the Republic of Estonia, the only goal is to export the material from the country
because it cannot be lawfully discarded in Estonia due to its radioactive content.91
Silmet’s purpose is decidedly not “recycling,” but rather, waste disposal.
Third, the finances of the transaction reveal that the value in the deal for Silmet
and Energy Fuels is from waste disposal, not “recycling.” Though Energy Fuels has
not disclosed any information about the financial aspects of the Silmet deal, we have no
doubt that the cost of transporting the material to White Mesa and processing it far
exceed the revenues Energy Fuels could generate from selling uranium “recycled”
from that material.
Indeed, the cost of transporting the Silmet material alone surely exceeds the
value of any yellowcake it can yield. The rough estimates we’ve unearthed suggest that
shipping 20' intermodal or similar containers from the Port of Tallinn in Estonia to the
Port of Houston is likely to cost at least $1,700 per container, with a range up to
$2,800, perhaps more.92 At the midpoint of those rates, shipping 50 containers, as

though we direct our comments here to disputing Energy Fuels’ claim that it is importing
the material “solely” for the purposes of recycling.
88 Silmet Application at 6.
89 2,000 * 0.0027 = 5.4 drums of yellowcake.
90 Silmet Application at 1–2.
91 See Ex. 18 at 170–74 (explaining that the Radiation Control Act, as amended after Estonia
joined the European Union, imposes disposal requirements that cannot currently be met,
for “[t]here is no radioactive waste management operator for [naturally occurring
radioactive material] waste in Estonia.”)
92 See Ex. 24 at 1, Ex. 25 at 1. Energy Fuels’ application does not describe the container size
that would be used to ship the materials from Estonia to Houston, but based on the math, it
appears the company intends to use 20' shipping containers, given the volume of materials
(2,000 drums) and the number of containers Energy Fuels expects to ship (50).
20
Silmet plans to do to export the material it currently has on hand, would cost
$112,500.93 And judging by Energy Fuels’ past estimates for transporting similar
shipments by truck to the mill, the cost to deliver the material to White Mesa from
Houston is likely to be on the order of another $160,000.94 These calculations, though
rough, suggest that transporting the materials from Estonia to White Mesa will cost
somewhere around $275,000.
That probable shipping cost will far exceed the value of any uranium produced
from the Silmet material at today’s uranium prices. Assuming that the Silmet material
contains on average 0.27% U3O8 and that the mill has a 100% recovery rate (which it
does not), processing 600 metric tons of Silmet material would yield about 3,500
pounds of yellowcake.95 At a spot-market price of $33/lb, 3,500 pounds of yellowcake
would fetch about $115,500.96 Thus, considering only the transportation costs, the deal
to “recycle” the material at the mill will generate a net financial loss of somewhere
around $150,000.
And the milling cost will only significantly increase the net financial losses
entailed by the Silmet transaction. In 2008, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
estimated that the per-ton milling cost for another alternate feed was about $125, a
figure we suspect does not include overhead, marketing, and other expenses necessary
to sell the resulting yellowcake.97 Using that cost estimate adjusted to today’s dollars,
processing 600 tons of material would set Energy Fuels back by about $91,000.98
Taken together with the transportation cost, the expense to process the Silmet material
will far exceed the value of the yellowcake that can be made from that material. Indeed,
we suspect that Silmet is willing to pay not only the cost to transport the material to
White Mesa but also a tipping fee to compensate Energy Fuels for processing the
material and discarding the waste.
Added to all this, there is no evidence, in the record or otherwise that Silmet
has an alternative option for disposing of the “Silmet material” and is electing instead
to incur additional cost to “recycle” it out of environmental goodwill or for some other
reason. That is, it is not the case that Silmet prefers to spend more to “recycle” the

93 $2,250 * 50 = $112,500.
94 See Ex. 26 at F-11 (estimating, in 2008, average per-ton cost to truck raffinate sludge 975
miles from Gore, Oklahoma to White Mesa of $189.40). We calculated a figure of
$160,000, by adjusting this per-ton trucking cost to account for inflation and the distance
from Houston to White Mesa (1,200 miles), as so: $189/975 mi. = $0.1938 cost per mile *
1,200 = $232.61/per ton * 600 tons = $139,569 (2008). Adjusted for inflation, this figure
comes to $165,186.
95 600 metric tons = 1,322,772 lbs. 1,322,772*0.0027 = 3,500 lbs.
96 See Ex. 27 at 1 (showing average spot price as of late June 2020 of about $33/lb).
97 See Ex. 26 at F-11, F-24 (showing estimated processing cost of $125/ton from “NRC,
1/23/08”). Sillamäe, Ida-Viru County, Estonia
98 $125 (2008) in today’s dollars = $152 * 600 tons = $91,200.
21
material even though it could discard it in Estonia or elsewhere. What matters to
Silmet is securing some way to dispose of the waste that it cannot lawfully discard in
Estonia.
All told, it is overwhelmingly clear that the purpose for sending the Silmet
material to the White Mesa mill is to reclassify it as a “waste[] produced by the
extraction or concentration of uranium … from any ore processed primarily for its
source material content” so that the Division will allow Energy Fuels to discard that
waste at the mill. Put differently, there can be no doubt that if the waste could not be
discarded at the mill, Energy Fuels and Silmet would not contract to transport the
material 5,000 miles to White Mesa for “recycling.”
We recognize that the figures we’ve used to reach this conclusion are estimates,
though those estimates are based on the best information we’ve been able to gather.
And consequently, we fear that the Division may be inclined to contend that our
analysis is imperfect and therefore should be disregarded. If that’s the case, we urge
the Division to check our work by performing and disclosing to the public an
independent analysis of the economics of the Silmet deal and also by requiring Energy
Fuels to submit information about its projections of the costs and revenues for
importing, processing, and marketing the Silmet material. We’re confident the
Division’s analysis will confirm our estimates, and without the Division having
performed that analysis, there is no basis for concluding that Energy Fuels may import
the Silmet material using a general license.
And regardless of whatever forecasts the Division makes about the Silmet deal
and the parties’ intent in undertaking it, we ask the Division to impose a simple test in
the license that will unequivocally reveal whether “recycling” is the sole purpose for
importing the Silmet material: Require Energy Fuels to ship back to Estonia for
disposal all the waste that results from “recycling” the Silmet material at the mill. If
Silmet and Energy Fuels decline to go forward with their deal with that condition, it
will be plain that the purpose of importing the Silmet material is to discard it at the
mill, not to recycle it.
* * *
It is plainly evident to us, as we believe it should be to the Division, that the
Silmet material will not be imported “solely for the purposes of recycling” if Energy
Fuels’ license application is granted. That material is consequently a “radioactive
waste” for the purposes of the Commission’s import rules. And it therefore may not be
imported under a general license. As a result, if the Division approves Energy Fuels’
application to allow for possession and processing of the Silmet material, the Division
should make its approval subject to two conditions: (1) that Energy Fuels acquires a
specific import license from the Commission; and (2) that Energy Fuels returns to
Silmet in Estonia all waste resulting from processing the Silmet material at the mill.
22
V. The Division should revise its assertions that “11(e)(2) byproduct” material is not “waste.”
The Division claims in several of the documents published for public comment
that 11(e)(2) byproduct material is not waste.99 These claims are at odds with the
statutory definition of byproduct material, and they imply incorrectly that radioactive
wastes are not discarded at the mill. The Division should revise these assertions to
accurately portray the waste-disposal business that occurs at the mill.
The Division has proposed to revise the text of Energy Fuels’ radioactive
materials license in several places to replace the word “waste” with the regulatory
term “11(e)(2) byproduct material.”100 While the Division’s proposal to use
“byproduct material” as a term of art in the license for the sake of clarity is
unobjectionable, the Division’s explanation for that change is problematic. In
particular, the Division’s statement of basis for the proposed changes to the license
makes the following assertion: “Byproduct material as defined under 11e.(2) is not the
same thing as waste, a term that has a specific and narrow meaning in the radiological
regulatory lexicon, and proper usage will provide clarity.”101
Yet it is exactly the opposite effect—to sow confusion—that will result from
claiming that byproduct material is not waste. Section 11(e)(2) of the Atomic Energy
Act specifically defines “byproduct material” to be waste: “byproduct material”
means the “tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium
or thorium from any ore processed primarily for its source material content.”102 Thus,
there is no disputing that byproduct material is waste. And indeed there is no question
that Energy Fuels and the Division intend for the mill’s radioactive leavings to buried
next to the mill and remain there forever. To suggest that this amounts to anything
other than waste disposal is misleading.
The Division should accordingly revise the licensing documents to recognize
that “11(e)(2) byproduct material” is by definition waste.
VI. The Division hasn’t adequately explained its proposed approval of Energy Fuels’ request to increase the volume of in-situ leaching waste discarded at the mill.
The Division has not sufficiently justified and should revisit its proposal to
modify the limits in License Condition 10.5 governing the amount of in-situ-leaching

99 See Am. 10 Statement of Basis at PDF p. 3; Silmet Technical Evaluation at 2; Moffat
Tunnel Technical Evaluation at 3.
100 See, e.g., Am. 10 Statement of Basis at PDF pp. 2–3 (describing changes to License
Conditions 9.5 and 9.8).
101 Id. at 3.
102 See 42 U.S.C. § 2014(e)(2) (emphasis added); 10 C.F.R. § 40.4; Utah Code Ann. § 19-3-
102(3); Utah Admin. Code R313-12-3.
23
wastes that Energy Fuels may accept for disposal.
License Condition 10.5 authorizes Energy Fuels to discard byproduct material
from in-situ leaching operations at the mill. That Condition, however, limits the
amount of waste from any one source to 5,000 cubic yards. The Division is proposing
to replace that limit with a three-part standard, which would (1) establish an annual cap
of 10,000 cubic yards on the amount of wastes accepted in the aggregate from out-of-
state sources; (2) eliminate the cap altogether for sources owned by Energy Fuels or its
affiliates; and (3) allow for unlimited disposal at the mill of byproduct material from
sources located in Utah.
Energy Fuels has been authorized to accept in-situ-leaching wastes for disposal
to foster a federal policy that disfavors the “proliferation of small waste disposal
sites….”103 Owing to that policy, the Commission’s uranium-mill licensing regulations
require wastes from in-situ leaching operations to be “disposed of at existing large mill
tailings disposal sites; unless, considering the nature of the wastes, such as their
volume and specific activity, and the costs and environmental impacts of transporting
the wastes to a large disposal site, such offsite disposal is demonstrated to be
impracticable or the advantages of onsite burial clearly outweigh the benefits of
reducing the perpetual surveillance obligations.”104
Replacing the source-specific cap with an annual cap, as proposed, would allow
in-situ-leaching operations to ship wastes to the mill in unlimited amounts, so long as
the shipments from out-of-state operations that Energy Fuels doesn’t own are less than
10,000 cubic yards total each year. This change in the license could allow for the
disposal of in-situ-leaching wastes at the mill in large volumes even if the “advantages
of onsite burial” near the waste generator “clearly outweigh the benefits of reducing
the perpetual surveillance obligations” by shipping the wastes to the mill. And yet, the
Division has not supplied any analysis of whether that standard may be satisfied.
Rather, the Division’s analysis of this proposed license change reasons only
that Energy Fuels is already licensed to receive 11(e)(2) byproduct material and that
“changes in the quantities would not increase the impact to human health and the
environment.”105 But that line of reasoning does not address the relevant standard
under Appendix A, for it does not weigh the advantages of onsite burial against the
benefits that the Division foresees of discarding those wastes at the mill.
Furthermore, it is indefensible for the Division to assert that changing “the
quantities would not increase the impact to human health and the environment” and
that “[a]s long as the material meets the definition of 11e.(2) byproduct material,
changing the requirement to an annual limit does not affect the health and safety at the

103 10 C.F.R. Part 40, App. A, Criterion 2.
104 Id.
105 Am. 10 Statement of Basis at 4.
24
Mill.”106 It is indisputable that some increment of additional harm to the environment
and public health results from discarding additional wastes at the mill, for it
concentrates yet more radioactive material at the mill, intensifies and perhaps prolongs
the mills operations, increases the likelihood of transportation accidents, and
contributes to Energy Fuels’ plans for building yet more waste pits. Indeed, trucks
hauling in-situ-leaching wastes to the mill have spilled their contents in the past on
roadsides stretching from Wyoming to Utah. The risk of yet more accidents will only
increase if the limits on how much in-situ-leaching waste Energy Fuels may accept at
the mill are all but eliminated.
Rather than giving Energy Fuels nearly carte blanche to discard at the mill as
much in-situ-leaching waste as the company likes, the Division should evaluate the
additional incremental risks to the environment and public health from allowing greater
volumes of these wastes to be shipped to and discarded at the mill and should craft
waste-volume limits that strike the balance that Appendix A calls for between
consolidation of these wastes at existing large sites and on-site burial when warranted.
VII. Conclusion

We are grateful for the opportunity to comment on the proposed license
amendments. Please don’t hesitate to reach out with any question about our comments
or to discuss any matters we’ve raised.

Very truly yours,

Aaron M. Paul
Staff Attorney
Grand Canyon Trust

Allison N. Melton
Staff Attorney, Public Lands Program
Center for Biological Diversity

Preston J. Truman
Director
Downwinders, Inc.

Josh Ewing
Executive Director
Friends of Cedar Mesa

106 Id. at 4.
Shelley Silbert
Executive Director
Great Old Broads for Wilderness

Scott Williams, M.D., M.P.H.
Executive Director
Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah

Susan Gordon
Coordinator
Multicultural Alliance for a Safe Environment

25
Eric Jantz
Interim Executive Director
New Mexico Environmental Law Center

Carly Ferro
Director
Utah Sierra Club

Neal Clark
Wildlands Program Director
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

Phil Hanceford
Conservation Director
The Wilderness Society
Steve Erickson
Policy Advocate
Utah Audubon Council

Gavin Noyes
Executive Director
Utah Diné Bikéyah

Kelly Fuller
Energy and Mining Campaign Director
Western Watersheds Project

Chris Krupp
Public Lands Guardian
WildEarth Guardians

Enclosures

EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit 1 Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control, “Public Participation Summary: Radioactive Material License UT1900479 Renewal, Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit UGW370004 Renewal and Sequoyah Fuels Alternate Feed Request,” DRC-2018-000762 (2018).
Exhibit 2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Final Environmental Statement Related
to operation of White Mesa Uranium Project, Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.” (May
1979).
Exhibit 3 Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., “Reclamation Plan: White Mesa Mill,
Blanding, Utah – Radioactive Materials License No. UT1900479, Revision 5.1”
(Aug. 2016).
Exhibit 4 Dames & Moore, “Environmental Report: White Mesa Uranium Project, San
Juan County, Utah for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.” (Jan. 30, 1978).
Exhibit 5 Letter from D. Frydenlund, V.P. Regulatory Affairs & Counsel, to C. Garlow,
Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (June 1, 2009).
Exhibit 6 Letter from C.E. Baker, Manager, Regulatory Compliance, Energy Fuels Nuclear,
Inc. to Utah Dep’t of Natural Resources, Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (Jan.
27, 1983).
Exhibit 7 Letter from H. Roberts, Senior Project Engineer, Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., to T.
Tetting, Utah Dep’t of Natural Resources, Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (Mar.
12, 1984).
Exhibit 8 Energy Fuels goes on standby at Blanding, PAY DIRT, Jan. 1983.
Exhibit 9 Associated Press, “65 Lose Jobs as Ore Mill in Blanding Closes,” Deseret News
(Feb. 27, 1995) available at http://www.deseretnews.com/article/406882/65-lose-
jobs-as-ore-mill-in-blanding-closes.html?pg=all.
Exhibit 10 Letter from H. Roberts, Executive Vice President, International Uranium (USA)
Corporation, to M. Leavitt, Governor, State of Utah (June 18, 1997).
Exhibit 11 Energy Fuels, “Our History,” 3 (July 11, 2017) available at
http://www.energyfuels.com/corporate/history/ (last visited July 10, 2020).
Exhibit 12 Memorandum and Order, In re International Uranium (USA) Corp., CLI-00-01,
Docket No. 40-8681-MLA-4 (Feb. 10, 2000).
Exhibit 13 Letter from M. Rehmann, Environmental Manager, International Uranium (USA)
Corporation, to M. Leach, Director, Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (Oct. 17, 2001).

Exhibit 14 Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., “Request to Amend Source Material License
SUA-1358 White Mesa Mill, Docket No. 40-8681” (Sep. 20, 1996).
Exhibit 15 International Uranium (USA) Corporation, “Request to Amend Source Material
License SUA-1358, White mesa Mill, Docket No 40-8681” (Mar. 16, 2000).
Exhibit 16 Letter from S. Anderson, Director, Division of Waste Management and Radiation
Control, to B. Tharakan, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Apr. 26, 2016).
Exhibit 17 Letter from D. Turk, Manager, Environmental Health and Safety, Energy Fuels
Resources (USA) Inc., to R. Lundberg, Director, Division of Radiation Control
(Nov. 8, 2013).
Exhibit 18 M. Lust and E. Realo, “NORM Related Production of Rare Earth metals in Estonia” in EU-NORM 1st International Symposium: 5–8 June 2012, Tallinn, Estonia (June 2012) (excerpts).
Exhibit 19 Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, “Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) Fact Sheet to Permit Number CO0047554: Union Pacific Railroad, Moffat Tunnel West Portal, Grand County” (Aug. 31, 2018).
Exhibit 20 Union Pacific Railroad, Letter Enclosing 2016 Compliance Report for Moffat Tunnel Permit CO-09947554 (Apr. 22, 2016).
Exhibit 21 Agreement Between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the State of Utah for Discontinuance of Certain Commission Regulatory Authority and Responsibility within the State Pursuant to Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (Mar. 29, 1984).
Exhibit 22 Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Divisions of Radiation Control and
Water Quality, “Elements of a Utah Agreement State Program for Uranium Mills
Regulation” (Aug. 26, 2000).
Exhibit 23 Amendment to Agreement Between the United States Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and the State of Utah for Discontinuance of Certain Commission
Regulatory Authority and Responsibility within the State Pursuant to Section 274
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended (Aug. 16, 2004).
Exhibit 24 Freightos, Freight Calculator: Air and Sea Shipping Costs (July 5, 2020) available at https://www.freightos.com/freight-tools/freight-rate-calculator-free-tool/.
Exhibit 25 World Freight Rates, Freight Calculator (July 5, 2020) available at https://www.worldfreightrates.com/en/freight.
Exhibit 26 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Reclamation of the Sequoyah Fuels Corporation Site in Gore, Oklahoma: Final Report” (May 2008) (excerpts).

Exhibit 27 Cameco, “Uranium Price” (July 5, 2020) available at https://www.cameco.com/invest/markets/uranium-price.

Exhibit 1

Public Participation Summary Radioactive Material License UT1900479 Renewal
Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit UGW370004 Renewal
And Sequoyah Fuels Alternate Feed Request
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (Energy Fuels)
White Mesa Uranium Mill
San Juan County, Utah

1

Ownership of the mill has been similarly tumultuous. Over the years, it has changed hands at
least four times.15 In the mid-1990s, after Energy Fuels Nuclear sold and rebought the mill, the company ran out of money. When it couldn’t pay its employees, it fired them.16 Within a month, the asset-holding parts of Energy Fuels Nuclear declared bankruptcy,17 and the business was
eventually liquidated.18

Division Response: In this section of the Grand Canyon Trust’s comments, a general discussion
of the White Mesa Mill is provided. Detailed response to this comment is not required because it is in the nature of the commenter’s version of background information regarding the Mill. Much
but not all of this information is accurate. The Division incorporates, generally, by reference the
Division General Response #1. In addition, the Division provides the following information in
response to this background information:
The NRC has jurisdiction to determine the status of radioactive materials. A s discussed in detail
in the Division’s Response to Comment No. 1, mill discharges to the tailings management
system are byproduct material, not waste. Further, in his recent order in a related matter
involving the commenting party (referenced in Response to Comment No. 8), Judge Waddoups
determined that this byproduct material has two components and that only the solids are called tailings, with the liquid portion of the slurry and any liquid discharge going by other names. To
call the liquid “tailings” is not warranted by this record. As a result, Cells 1 and 4B do not
receive tailings at this time. The fluids managed in Cells 1 and 4A are not tailings, and tailings
have never been being placed in Cells 1 or 4B. See Memorandum Decision and Order at 35-38.
As with the reference to process fluid as tailings, the statement that the Mill did not operate as
represented is misleading. The Mill has fulfilled its design function, and continues to do so to
this day. Placing the Mill in standby status during periods of low demand is not a violation of
the represented function of the Mill. The Licensee has been performing concurrent reclamation
activities. Grand Canyon Trust v. Energy Fuels Resources (U.S.A.) Inc. (finding that the license had been engaged in decommissioning of Cell 2, contrary to the presentation here that the
Licensee had done nothing toward cell closure).

_______________ 9 Ex. 2 at 1-3 (arguing that the mill has independent utility for the purpose of processing low-grade, regional ores); id. at 10-21 (observing that small mines with low-grade ore would not be
economically viable without the mill); Ex. 1 at 2-1. 10 Ex. 2 at iii (explaining that production will last for 15 years); id. at 1-1, 3-15 (same); id. at 3-
18 (showing projected operating life of 15 years and phased reclamation schedule extending no more than 5 more years) id. at 4-3 (“Based on the capacity of the tailings cells, the mill has a potential to operate 15 years.”); Ex. 3 at 1-2 (“The mill is planned to have a 2,000 tons-per-day
capacity and a projected life of 15 years.”); id. at 5-38 (“The area occupied by the proposed
mill and tailing retention system (about 310 acres) would be committed until the life of the mill
ends, about 15 years.”). 11 Ex. 2 at 3-17 (“The tailings ce1ls will be reclaimed sequential1y as each cell is filled, beginning after about the fourth year of operation and every four years thereafter until
termination of project operations.”).
214

12 Ex. 4 at 11 (Table 3 showing “tailings placement period” beginning in 1980 for Cell 2, 1982
for Cell 1, and 1983 for Cell 3). 13 Ex. 5 at 2–3; Ex. 6; Ex. 7. 14 Ex. 4 at 5 (showing “standby” periods in 1984, 1991–1994, 2000–2004, with minimal production in 1998 and 2005). 15 Ex. 1 at 2-1. 16 See Ex. 8. 17 Ex. 9 at Addendum to Permit Transfer Request (p. 37). 18 Stephane A. Malin, The Price of Nuclear Power: Uranium Communities and Environmental Justice, 96 (2015) (“Malin”).

215

Exhibit 2
I
I .
I .
. 1
I -
I
I .
I :
I ·.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
related to the Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.,
WHITE MESA URANIUM PROJECT
(San Juan County, Utah)
Docket No. 40-8681
M.ay 1979
prepared by the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission
Washington, D.C. 20555
NUREG-0556
---I
d.
e.
f.
g.
Construction and operation of the White Mesa mill will require the commitment of small
amounts of chemicals and fossil fuels, relative to their abundance.
Construction and operation of the White Mesa mill will provide employment and induced
economic benefits for the region, but may also result in some socioeconomic stress.
The area devoted to the milling operations will be reclaimed after operations cease,
but the approximately 135 ha (333 acres) tailings area may be unavailable for further
productive use. However, when reclamation is completed and testing shows that radiation
levels have been reduced to acceptable levels, it may be possible to return the tailings
area to its former use as grazing land.
Historical and archeological surveys have identified archeolo9ical and historic sites
within the proposed project area. Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 63.3, the NRC requested a
determination from the Secretary of the Interior that the area on which the archeolog-
ical sites are locatec is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places (tlational Register) as an Archeological District. The resultin-g detennination
was that the White Mesa Archeological District is eligible for inclusion in the
National Register. Although a similar request was made for detenninations of eligi-
bility for the historic sites, these determinations await supplementary documentation.
It is anticipated that the NRC will enter into a Memorandum of Agreement under
36 CFR Part 800, "Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties,"
to ensure adequate mitigation of impacts to cultural resources.
4. Principal alternatives considered are as follows:
a. alternative sites for the mill,
b. alternative mill processes,
c. alternative of using an existing mill,
d. alternative methods for tailings management,
e. alternative energy sources, and
f. alternative of no licensing action on the mill.
5. The following Federal, State, and local agencies were asked to co11111ent on the Draft
Environmental Statement:
Department of CoJ1U11erce
Department of the Interior
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Department of Energy
Department of Transportation
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Agriculture
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Department of Housing and Urban Development Utah Board of Health
Utah State Pl a·nning Coordinator
Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining
-._~
6. Th)s Final Environmental Statement was made available to the public and to the specified
agencies in May 1979.
7. On the basis of the analysis and evaluation set forth in this Environmental Statement, it is
proposed that any l icens_e issued for the White Mesa mill should be subject to the following
conditions for the protection of the environment.
a. The applicant shall construct the tailings disposal facility to incorporate the features
described in Alternative l of Sect. 10.3 and in Sect. 3.2.4.7 and to meet the safety
triteria specified in NRC Regulatory Guide 3.11.
b. The applicant shall implement an interim stabilization program that minimizes to the
maximum extent reasonably achievable dispersal of blowing tailings. This program shall
include the use of written operating procedures. that specify the use of specific control
methods for all conditions. The effectiveness of the control methods used shall be
evaluated weekly by means of a documented taflings area inspection.
iv
,.

Exhibit 3

Reclamation Plan

White Mesa Mill

Blanding, Utah

Radioactive Materials License No. UT1900479

Revision 5.1

August 2016

Prepared by:
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. 225 Union Blvd., Suite 600 Lakewood, CO 80228

Page i Revision 5.1
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. White Mesa Mill Reclamation Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... I-1 
Summary of Plan ................................................................................................................................... I-1 
Plan Organization .................................................................................................................................. I-1 
1 SITE CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................................................... 1-1 
1.1 Climate and Meteorology ........................................................................................................... 1-5 
1.1.1 Regional .............................................................................................................................. 1-5 
1.1.2 Storms (FES Section 2.1.4, updated) .................................................................................. 1-8 
1.1.3 On Site ................................................................................................................................ 1-8 
1.2 Topography .............................................................................................................................. 1-10 
1.3 Archeological Resources .......................................................................................................... 1-10 
1.3.1 Archeological Sites ........................................................................................................... 1-10 
1.3.2 Current Status of Excavation ............................................................................................ 1-11 
1.4 Surface Water ........................................................................................................................... 1-12 
1.4.1 Surface Water Description (FES Section 2.6.1.1) ............................................................. 1-12 
1.4.2 Surface Water Quality as of the Date of the FES (FES Section 2.6.1.2) .......................... 1-15 
1.4.3 Surface Water Background Quality .................................................................................. 1-18 
1.5 Groundwater ............................................................................................................................ 1-22 
1.5.1 Groundwater Characteristics ............................................................................................. 1-22 
1.5.2 Seep and Spring Occurrence and Hydrogeology .............................................................. 1-33 
1.5.3 Groundwater Quality ........................................................................................................ 1-37 
1.5.4 Background Groundwater Quality in the Perched Aquifer ............................................... 1-42 
1.5.5 Quality of Groundwater at the Compliance Monitoring Point .......................................... 1-46 
1.5.6 Springs and Seeps ............................................................................................................. 1-46 
1.5.7 Groundwater Appropriations Within a Five Mile Radius ................................................. 1-51 
1.6 Geology .................................................................................................................................... 1-51 
1.6.1 Regional Geology ............................................................................................................. 1-80 
1.6.2 Blanding Site Geology ...................................................................................................... 1-88 
1.6.3 Site-Specific Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis ...................................................... 1-100 
1.7 Biota (1978 ER Section 2.9) .................................................................................................. 1-101 
1.7.1 Terrestrial (1978 ER Section 2.9.1) ................................................................................ 1-101 
1.7.2 Aquatic Biota (1978 ER Section 2.9.2) ........................................................................... 1-107 
1.7.3 Background Radiation (2007 ER, Section 3.13.1) .......................................................... 1-108 
Page ii Revision 5.1
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. White Mesa Mill Reclamation Plan
1.7.4 Mill Site Background (1978 ER Section 2.10) ................................................................ 1-109 
1.7.5 Current Monitoring Data ................................................................................................. 1-109 
2 EXISTING FACILITY ................................................................................................................... 2-1 
2.1 Facility Construction History ..................................................................................................... 2-1 
2.1.1 Mill and Mill Tailings System ............................................................................................ 2-1 
2.2 Facility Operations ..................................................................................................................... 2-1 
2.2.1 Operating Periods ................................................................................................................ 2-1 
2.2.2 Mill Circuit .......................................................................................................................... 2-2 
2.2.3 Tailings Management Facilities .......................................................................................... 2-3 
2.3 Monitoring Programs ................................................................................................................. 2-5 
2.3.1 Monitoring and Reporting Under the Mill’s GWDP .......................................................... 2-5 
2.3.2 Monitoring and Inspections Required Under the License ................................................. 2-14 
3 TAILINGS RECLAMATION PLAN ............................................................................................ 3-1 
3.1 Location and Property Description ............................................................................................ 3-1 
3.2 Facilities to be Reclaimed .......................................................................................................... 3-3 
3.2.1 Summary of Facilities to be Reclaimed .............................................................................. 3-3 
3.2.2 Tailings and Evaporative Cells ........................................................................................... 3-3 
3.3 Design Criteria ........................................................................................................................... 3-6 
3.3.1 Regulatory Criteria .............................................................................................................. 3-7 
3.3.2 Radon Flux Attenuation ...................................................................................................... 3-8 
3.3.3 Infiltration Analysis ............................................................................................................ 3-8 
3.3.4 Freeze/Thaw Evaluation ..................................................................................................... 3-8 
3.3.5 Soil Cover Erosion Protection ............................................................................................. 3-9 
3.3.6 Slope Stability Analysis ...................................................................................................... 3-9 
3.3.7 Tailings Dewatering .......................................................................................................... 3-10 
3.3.8 Settlement and Liquefaction Analyses .............................................................................. 3-10 
3.3.9 Vegetation and Biointrusion ............................................................................................. 3-11 
3.3.10 Cover Material/Cover Material Volumes.......................................................................... 3-12 
4 MILL DECOMMISSIONING PLAN ........................................................................................... 4-1 
5 REVERSION TO EXISTING COVER DESIGN ........................................................................ 5-1 
5.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 5-1 
5.2 Reverting to Existing Cover Design .......................................................................................... 5-1 
6 MILESTONES FOR RECLAMATION ....................................................................................... 6-1 
Page iii Revision 5.1
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. White Mesa Mill Reclamation Plan
6.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 6-1 
6.2 Milestones .................................................................................................................................. 6-1 
6.2.1 General ................................................................................................................................ 6-1 
6.2.2 Deadlines and Interim Milestones for Closure of Cell 2 ..................................................... 6-4 
6.2.3 Milestones for Closure of an Individual Tailings Impoundment, other than Cell 2, that Ceases Operation While the Mill Facility as a Whole Remains in Operation .................... 6-4 
6.2.4 Milestones Applicable to Final Mill Closure ...................................................................... 6-6 
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ R-1 

Page iv Revision 5.1
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. White Mesa Mill Reclamation Plan
LIST OF TABLES
Table Description Page
Table I-1 Revisions to Attachments and Appendices in Reclamation Plan ................................................ 3 
Table 1.1-1 Period of Record General Climate Summary – Precipitation ................................................. 1-6 
Table 1.1-2 Period of Record General Climate Summary - Temperature ................................................. 1-7 Table 1.3-1 Distribution of Recorded Sites According to Temporal Position ......................................... 1-11 
Table 1.4-1 Drainage Areas of Project Vicinity and Region ................................................................... 1-15 
Table 1.5-1 Surveyed Locations and Elevations of Seeps and Springs and the Frog Pond (December 2009) ................................................................................................................................... 1-33 
Table 1.5-2 Water Quality of the Navajo Sandstone Aquifer in the Mill Vicinity .................................. 1-39 
Table 1.5-3 Results of Quarterly Sampling Ruin Spring (2003-2004) .................................................... 1-47 Table 1.5-4 Seeps and Springs Sampling ................................................................................................ 1-49 
Table 1.5-5 Wells Located Within a 5-Mile Radius of the White Mesa Uranium Mill (Denison, 2009) ............................................................................................................................................. 1-52 Table 1.6-1 Generalized Stratigraphic Section of Subsurface Rocks Based on Oil-Well Logs (Table
2.6-1 UMETCO) ................................................................................................................. 1-82 Table 1.6-2 Generalized Stratigraphic Section of Exposed Rocks in the Project Vicinity (Table 2.6-2 UMETCO) ....................................................................................................................... 1-83 
Table 1.6-3 Modified Mercalli Scale ...................................................................................................... 1-94 Table 1.7-1 Community Types and Expanse Within the Project site Boundary .................................... 1-102 
Table 1.7-2 Ground Cover For Each Community Within the Project Site Boundary ........................... 1-102 
Table 1.7-3 Birds Observed in the Vicinity of the White Mesa Project ................................................ 1-105 Table 1.7-4 Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Species in the Mill Area ..................................... 1-106 
Table 1.7-5 Species Managed Under Conservation Agreements/Strategies at the Mill Area ............... 1-107 
Table 2.3-1 Groundwater Monitoring Constituents Listed in Table 2 of the GWDP ................................ 2-7 Table 2.3-2 Stack Sampling Requirements .............................................................................................. 2-19 
Table 2.3-3 Operational Phase Surface Water Monitoring Program ....................................................... 2-20 
Table 3.3-1. Reclamation Cover Material Quantity Summary ................................................................ 3-12 
Page v Revision 5.1
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. White Mesa Mill Reclamation Plan
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Description Page
Figure 1-1 White Mesa Mill Regional Location Map ............................................................................ 1-3 
Figure 1-2 White Mesa Mill Location Map ............................................................................................ 1-4 
Figure 1.1-1 Wind Rose - 2015 ................................................................................................................. 1-9 Figure 1.4-1 Drainage Map of the Vicinity of the White Mesa Mill. Adapted from: Dames & Moore
(1978b), Plate 2.6-5 ............................................................................................................. 1-14 
Figure 1.4-2 Streamflow Summary in the Blanding, Utah Vicinity (Adapted from Dames & Moore (1978b), Plate 2.6-6, updated) ............................................................................................. 1-16 
Figure 1.4-3 Surface Water Quality Sampling Stations in the White Mesa Mill Vicinity Prior to Mill
Operations (Adapted from Dames & Moore (1978b), Plate 2.6-10) ................................... 1-17 Figure 1.5-1 Generalized Stratigraphy of White Mesa Mill (Adapted from the 2007 ER, Figure 3.7-
1) ......................................................................................................................................... 1-24 
Figure 1.5-2 Approximate Elevation of Top of Brushy Basin ................................................................. 1-26 Figure 1.5-3 Kriged 1st Quarter, 2016 Water Levels ............................................................................... 1-29 
Figure 1.5-4 1st Quarter, 2016 Depths to Perched Water (from Measuring Point) .................................. 1-31 Figure 1.5-5 1st Quarter, 2016 Perched Zone Saturated Thicknesses ...................................................... 1-32 
Figure 1.5-6 Seeps and Springs on USGS Topographic Base, White Mesa (Adapted from HGC,
2014, Figure E.1) ................................................................................................................ 1-34 Figure 1.5-7 Geologic Map on USGS Topographic Base (HGC, 2014 Figure E.2) .............................. 1-36 
Figure 1.5-8 Groundwater (Well or Spring) Sampling Stations in the White Mesa Vicinity (Adapted
from the 2007 ER, Figure 3.7-8) ......................................................................................... 1-41 Figure 1.5-9 Ground Water Appropriation Applications Within a 5-Mile Radius .................................. 1-79 
Figure 1.6-1 Colorado Plateau Geology Map (Adapted from the 2007 ER, Figure 3.4-1) ..................... 1-81 
Figure 1.6-2 White Mesa Millsite Geology of Surrounding Area ........................................................... 1-89 Figure 1.6-3 Seismicity Within 320km of the White Mesa Mill ............................................................. 1-93 
Figure 1.6-4 Seismicity Within 200km of the White Mesa Mill ............................................................. 1-96 
Figure 1.6-5 Seismicity of the Western United States 1950 to 1976 ....................................................... 1-97 Figure 1.6-6 Colorado Lineament ............................................................................................................ 1-99 
Figure1.7-1 Vegetation Community Types on the White Mesa Mill Site ............................................ 1-103 
Figure 2.3-1 Site Plan Showing Locations of Perched Wells and Piezometers ......................................... 2-6 Figure 2.3-2 Particulate Monitoring Stations........................................................................................... 2-15 
Figure 2.3-3 Soil Monitoring Stations ..................................................................................................... 2-17 Figure 3.1-1 White Mesa Mill Regional Map Showing Land Position ..................................................... 3-2 
Page vi Revision 5.1
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. White Mesa Mill Reclamation Plan
LIST OF DRAWINGS
REC-0 Title Sheet and Project Location Map REC-1 Plan View of Reclamation Features
REC-2 Mill Site and Ore Pad Final Grading Plan
REC-3 Sedimentation Basin Detail TRC-1 Interim Fill Grading Plan
TRC-2 Compacted Cover Grading Plan
TRC-3 Final Cover Surface Layout TRC-4 Reclamation Cover Erosion Protection
TRC-5 Cover Over Cell 4A & 4B Cross Sections
TRC-6 Cover Over Cell 3 Cross Sections TRC-7 Cover Over Cell 2 Cross Sections
TRC-8 Cover Over Cell 2 Cross Section
TRC-9 Reclamation Cover Details (Sheet 1 of 2) TRC-10 Reclamation Cover Details (Sheet 2 of 2)

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment Description
A Technical Specifications for Reclamation of White Mesa Mill Facility, Blanding, Utah.
B Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan for Reclamation of White Mesa Mill
Facility, Blanding, Utah.
C Cost Estimates for Reclamation of White Mesa Mill Facility, Blanding, Utah.
D Radiation Protection Manual for Reclamation Activities
E Existing Cover Design Documents

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Description
A Updated Tailings Cover Design Report, White Mesa Mill, August 2016. MWH, Inc.
B Preliminary Mill Decommissioning Plan, White Mesa Mill, August 2016, MWH, Inc.

Page 2-1 Revision 5.1
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. White Mesa Mill Reclamation Plan
2 EXISTING FACILITY

The following sections describe the construction history of the Mill; the Mill and Mill tailings management
facilities; Mill operations including the Mill circuit and tailings management; and both operational and environmental monitoring.
2.1 Facility Construction History
The Mill is a uranium/vanadium mill that was developed in the late 1970s by Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.
(“EFN”) as an outlet for the many small mines that are located in the Colorado Plateau and for the possibility
of milling Arizona Strip ores. At the time of its construction, it was anticipated that high uranium prices would stimulate ore production. However, prices started to decline about the same time as Mill operations
commenced.
As uranium prices fell, producers in the region were affected and mine output declined. After about two and one-half years, the Mill ceased ore processing operations altogether, began solution recycle, and entered
a total shutdown phase. In 1984, a majority ownership interest was acquired by Union Carbide
Corporation's (“UCC”) Metals Division which later became Umetco Minerals Corporation (“Umetco”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of UCC. This partnership continued until May 26, 1994 when EFN reassumed
complete ownership. In May 1997, Denison (then named International Uranium (USA) Corporation) and
its affiliates purchased the assets of EFN. EFRI purchased Denison in July 2012 and is the current owner of the facility.
2.1.1 Mill and Mill Tailings System
The Source Materials License Application for the Mill was submitted to the NRC on February 8, 1978. Between that date and the date the first ore was fed to the Mill grizzly on May 6, 1980, several actions were
taken including: increasing Mill design capacity, permit issuance from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the State of Utah, archeological clearance for the Mill and tailings system, and an NRC pre-operational inspection on May 5, 1980.
Construction on the Mill tailings system began on August 1, 1978 with the movement of earth from the area of Cell 2. Cell 2 was completed on May 4, 1980, Cell 1 on June 29, 1981, and Cell 3 on September 2,
1982. In January 1990 an additional cell, designated Cell 4A, was completed and initially used solely for
solution storage and evaporation. Cell 4A was only used for a short time and then taken out of service because of concerns about the synthetic lining system. In 2007, Cell 4A was retrofitted with a new State
of Utah approved lining system and was authorized to begin accepting process solutions in September 2008.
Cell 4A was put back into service in October 2008. Cell 4B was constructed in 2010 and authorized to begin accepting process solutions in February 2011.
2.2 Facility Operations
In the following subsections, an overview of Mill operations and operating periods are followed by descriptions of the operations of the Mill circuit and tailings management facilities.
2.2.1 Operating Periods
The Mill was operated by EFN from the initial start-up date of May 6, 1980 until the cessation of operations in 1983. Umetco, as per agreement between the parties, became the operator of record on January 1, 1984.

Exhibit 4
' .. ,
.; ·;
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
WHITE MESA URANIUM PROJECT
SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH
FOR
ENERGY FUELS NUCLEAR, INC.
Prepared By
DAMES & MOORE
January 30, 1978
09973-015-14
1-2
be used to process the ore, including grinding, two-stage leaching,
solvent extraction, precipitation and thickening, drying and packaging.
Recovery of u3o8 is expected to be approximately 94 percent of that
contained in the ore. The mill is planned to have a 2,000 tons-per-day
capacity and a projected life of 15 years. Coal will probably be used as
fuel for both process heat and heating of buildings.
The tailing retention system will consist of three partially
excavated 70-acre cells. Each tailing cell will be surrounded by an
embankment and lined with an artificial membrane to prevent seepage.
Each cell is designed to contain a 5-year production of tailing and each
will be constructed and used sequentially. Tailing stabilization and
reclamation will be accomplished as soon as possible after each cell is
filled, beginning about the fifth year of project operation for the first
cell, about five years later for the second cell, and at the end of the
project for the third cell. The tailing retention system will be located
adjacent to the mill site. A slurry pipeline will transport tailing by
pumping from the mill to the tailing cell.s.
Fresh water for the mill and potable needs will be supplied by
wells. The total fresh water requirement is estimated to be 500 gpm. Of
this, an average of 380 gpm will be required for mill make-up water.
A septic tank will be used to treat sanitary wastes and the dis-
charge will go to a leach field. Chemical wastes from the laboratory
will go to the tailing retention system.
Electricity will be supplied by Utah Power & Light Public Utility
by way of an existing electric power line on the site to the mill. The
total electrical capacity requirement for the mill is estimated to be
2800 KVA.
The present schedule anticipates initiation of mill construction
by January 1979 and completion of construction and commencement of

Exhibit 5

Exhibit 6
c -?y
[\
energy fuels nuclear, inc.AC
executive offices . suite 900 . three park central . 1515 arapahoe . denver, colorado 8O202. [phone]
January 27, 1983
Gentlemen:
Attached is a copy of a letter recently forwarded to the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding curtailment of
activities and eventual shutdown of the White Mesa Mill' near
Blanding, Utah.
Because your office was involved in approving surety forthe mill, it was felt you would be interested in receiving a
copy of this notice. In addition, Lf any further action on
oui-part is in order at this timer w€ would appreciate being
so advised.
Sincerely yours,
\(
,tlfiI
F€B 0 8 ,983
Utah Department of Natural ResourcesDivision of OiI, Gas and lt{ining
1588 West North TempleSalt Lake City, Utah 84115
C. E. Baker, ManagerRegulatory Conpliance
CEBIkak
Enclosure
cc: G. W. GrandeyM. D. VinceletteD. K. SparlingD. E. Smith
l
o31
,":ri'''{'!J'I
- J{.-! i1"t:'.i
-i . r.:i.'
' .:,{t't,:
, i,,.i{
' '::?,
.-:-s.s:l
:;. it$
'': -1.3:'.l;: .r'
..- I ,.
- ,:; ,; -:
energy fluels nuclean, inc.
ox€cutlv€ offlcg. euite 9(X). thrpe perk central o 1515 arapahoo.denver, colorado 80202 ' (303) 6"3'8317
January 25, 1983
ui. Dan Gillengt"t iun ttill Licensing Brancb
[f.S,- Nuclear Regulatory Conmlssion :-'. lii i i
7915 Eastern Avenue "' :'- - i''"' itj:: i--:-
, .:,:f 11.y:1 spr,ins ' "i:tt"nd 20910
*if.,ii:rr,r;r,: i'i:: ., ,.'
'':lir 'r' - - - '^" -:''t-'-
-:' ,- i-'.;',1. l. '- Re: .SUa-pS8,.Iiocket No..40-868I ".. ,;'l:';.':,'',,a,* ,', -
.".;.i:t....'.]...:.:',..-...l..''...-.''..j'-,'.'-... .;--to,.-..:i...1 " -, t. .,.-*, . a.\-:.::1,'-'..' ::. ::l:-;ar ui. Gt11en3 : '''- ' .t'l-''l:: :*":-'. ,' 'l ' Thl.s is to advise, you aE a planned curtallment of i
actlvitles and evenCual shitdown at th:e Wttite l{ega MiII
- '.";.: ... ..
On or: about February I, 1983, the feeding of o-re to nill
":: process r. other than "cleanlng !P" arou:rd the ore pads, w111 be
:i;:ia:iru'l"JH:::?;*'"t1";'r""'i"""Jn'"Tif':""":H:li;
:,r Uir."t, solldJ and solutiong w111 be transf erred to the
taillngs area in the normal manner'
ByapproxlmatelyFebruarYs,.allremainingslurrylP|lpand solutiot"---ir -t-h; grind circutt, pre-Ieach, leach tanks'
.na tr"-leach thickenei w111 be processed.
By approxiloately February L2-, all tanks and' vessels in
the grind, PulP storager niJieac-h, -pre-leach thickener' and
i"..f,-rfrioits-will be dralned and cleaned.
' By approximately February 1?, najor.-equltrxnent in the
erin6-lirfiii*rtrr;ush the- ieaci ciicui{ will be prepared for
stand-bY gtatuE.
:, By '-approximately February 22, all solutions will be
t. li.tlfler, riii Ue arained, cleaned, and fllled with water'
'. ' ?'; t;i' approriraatery February -29r- yellowcake slurry In thg
. precipit"ii"n aqa yluor.ake -thickeirers will be dried and
:..-gater.
Mr- Dan .GillenU.S. Nuclear RegulatorY
January 25, 1983
Page -2-
Cormission
will
SincerelY Yourst/%%'-c; E. Baker' llana9€E r RegulatorY Compliance
J

Exhibit 7
energy fuels nuclear, inc.
executive offices. suite 900. three park central . 1515 arapahoe. denver, colorado 80202. [phone]
March 12, 1984
D|VISION OF
i'!-, GAS & MtNMr. Tom TettingState of Utah
Department of Natural ResourcesDivision of OiI, Gas and Mining
424L State Office BuildingSalt Lake Cityr Utah 84114
Re: AnnuaI Operations
Dear Mr. Tetting:
Pursuant to your February 15, 1984 request for a 1983 AnnualOperations and Progress Report for the White Mesa Uranium MiIl,the following information is being submitted in lieu of Form MR-3.
The White Mesa Mi11 processed 50r454 tons of ore in 1983. TheMill was shut down at the end of January and remained down exceptfor some re-processing of tailings solutions through the summer
months.
No additional tailings construction took place during 1983. Sometailings reclamation was done with the placement of J--2 ft of soilcover over six acres of the CelI 2 Tailings pond to prevent theblowing of dried tailings sand.
Enclosed you will find an updated map of the mill and tailingsarear ds well as an aerial photograph of the area taken August 23,1983.
lt& rc/oev/6re
tlr'\fi\tr
,.1
.. tt ., *'i '
l- ' tl
";t'r:.{. tt tr;4't
*lttt',; l't '
.rfi'r,l
tl'''t
As of January I, 1984 a 709 interest in the White Mesa Mill wassold to Union Carbide Corp. UDion Carbide will be the operator ofthe miII pending transfer of the NRC Source Material l-icense. A11future correspondence regarding the mill should be directed to:
Union Carbide Corp.White Mesa Uranium MilIP. O. Box 699Blanding, Utah 84511
Attn: T. N. Washburn
ff you have any questions, please feel free to ca1l.
Very truly yours,4'Z*
H. R. Roberts,Senior Project Engineer
HRR/j f
Enc.
xc: MDV, GWG, DKS, TWashburn w/o enc.
IfirTE MESA I4ILL .i Plpto taken g/23/93

Exhibit 8
Synfuels fundinlg ...
Price tag for the first, nearlyromplete
phase, is put at 9600 million.
Union Oil appears on the verge of success
with its smaller-sized operation, while some
of the bigger projects announced two or three
years ago are just plans gathering dust. .
UNION SETS EXAMPLE
Perhaps taking a lesson from Union and
because some big companies havil becomemore reluctant to come up with the
megabucks necessary for initial development
on a grand scale, many of the proposals the
SFC received in its third round solicitation
were for smaller projects. The trend away
from the massive projects was obvious.
Witness the Cathedral Bluffs Sbale Oil
Company project, mentioned above, and the
once-grand Ashland-Bechtel project in
Breckenridge County, Kentucky.
When Ashland was still a partner, plans
ealled for a plant to produce 50,0$bpd ofliquid fuels from coal. Remaining sporuor
Bechtel is now asking federal funding help fora scaleddown plant which would produce
11,3fi) barrels of oil daily.
The number of applications received in the
third solicitation was higher than anticipated.Karen Hutchinson, director of media
relations for the U.S. Synthetic F\rels Cor-
poration, told PAY DIRT the corporation was
expecting to receive between 30 and 40
proposals.
The higher number, .16, came as a pleasant
surprise, she said.
Not only the number, but the quality of the
applications, were gratifying io the SFC.
"I am impressed by the number and
variety of proposals submitted in the thirdsolicitation," Edward. Nobel, the cor-
poration's board chairman, said when the list
was announced January Uth.
"CIearIy, this response demonstrates the
private sector's continued commitment to
synthetic-fuels development.
"Freliminarily, these projects rellect a
sigrificant growth in maturity from our first
solicitation applications. That improvement
in maturity signals a substantial investment
of pfivate funds in this emerging industry."
Within a few days after the list was an-
nounced, some of the projects had already
been eliminated for further consideration for
federal loan or price guarantees. When the
board met January 20th, it started sifting
throug[ the list. Of the t4 projects it looked at,
nirie were dropped from further coruideration
and five passed the maturity test.
SEPTEMBER TARGET DATE
Hutchinson said the board hopes to be able
to complete its maturity and strength reviews
of all the proposals by the latter part of
March.
"At that time, they can en0er into de'tailed
negotiations," she said. "{e are aiming for a At its January meeting, it completed wortlSeptember award (of funds)." on the first such solicita[ion. It will offer liiWhile the board has yet to make an award, billion in financial heip to build a majo, oiithree projects are in line for funding. They shale project in colorado or utah.were successful in passing board tests during It revealed some of the rules in December.second round solicitation considerations in TheboardsaiditwouldguaranteeanaverageDecember. price of up to $6? a barr-el tor oit proaueea f,jSent letters of intent to provide funds were lhe project. Analysts say a barrei of shale oilSanla Rosa, a bar sands venture north of woulacostbetweenglOand$Z0toproduceatasanta Rosa, New Mexico; First colony, a commercial facility in today's abuars.peat-to'methanol project in creswell, North The project must have a minimumCarolina; and Calsyn, a heavy oil conversion producti-on level of 10,0o0bpd and be com-project in West Pittsburg, California. pleted before 1990.
- The Santa Rosa project is sponsored by The solicitation is now open. ApplicantsSolv-Ex Corporation of Albuquerque and have until March lsth to suumii theirFo1t9r wheeler corporation. The sFC is proposals, Hutchinson said.making 941 million available, of which g20 A second targeted solicitation is planned,million is a loan guarantee to help with this aimed at i coal project. SFC'staff isconstruction and $21 million is in price working up a proposal to submit to the boardguarantees. nd it was diicussed briefly at the JanuaryWhen in operation, the Santa Rosa project 20th meeting.will use a solvent e:draction to generate 4,([0 No determination has yet been made as tobarrels of tar-sand oil a day from the ground. type of coal project, Huichinson said, but aThe SFC can provide_financial help for as decision coUa Ue made in late February ormuch as three-fourths of a projectis cost. The early March.most it can loan any one project is $B billion. What this renewed interest means remainsThe board does not' announce anrounts to be seen. That'industry can produce syn-sought by the various projects. While project thetic fuels is not the question. Whether theysponsgrs may ask a specified amount, the caneventuallyprodueCacompetitiveproduciactualamountofhelpissubject tonegotiation that will not iequire perpetual price iupportin closed session. from the governmenf is the big question.The third rorrnd solicitation may be last Pioneers, like Union Oit, thJlruiondollargeneral solicitation made by the SFC. firat coal-to-natural-gas Great ptair-n project indecision has not yet been made. North Dakota and a few others, will U" *tor"iy
The corporation decided late last year to go watched in tlte coming years. Should theyto "targeted solicitations" in its efforts to provesuccessful,syntheticfuelsmayoneday
attract projects which would meet funding go from a speculative venture to a viable,criCeria. essential part of American industry. J,F l \<, ALl:t {o"t l ei i --
Energy Fuels goes on stondby ot Blonding
By a PAY DIRT Staff Rcponer
EnergSr Fuels " Nuclear Inc. plans to
drastically reduce operations at its Blanding,
Utah uranium mill at the end of January.
The operation will be put on standby and
approximately 1(X) employees laid off, a
company spokesman told PAY DIRT.
Low market prices and reduced demand for
processed yelloweake were blamed for the
decision to curtail operations.
fire Blanding mill opened in May 1980 and is
considered one of the most sophisticated
uranium ore processing plants in the United
States. It processes ore from another Energy
Fuels operation, the Hack Canyon mine near
Fredonia, Arizona and has done a lot of toll
processing for other companies, primarily
Union Carbide Corporation.In recent months, Union Carbide hasgreatly curtailed its uranium operations in
Utah, Colorado and Wyoming. Energy Fuels
has curtailed its Hack Canyon production.
In the coming months, Energy Fuels will
recycle the liquor from the tailings ponds at
Blanding. That is expected to take about eight
months, the spokesman said.
During that period, some 35 to ,10 employees
will remain on the job at Blandings. Afterthat, "we just don't know," the spokesman
said.
The curtailment will have tremendous
impact on Blanding, where Energy Fuels is
the community's largest employer.
Unemployment rate now is about 10 per-
cent. The layoffs at the mill will ap-
proximatcly double that rate.
When the planned closure was announced. a
spokesman said the decision reflected the
"dire straits" of the uranium industry in the
United States, noting that the present market
price for processed uranium is $20.25, but the
cost to produce it is about 930.
The mill will likely remain closed until the
market price comes closer to production cost,
the spokesman said.
^
'il.Page 6 Intermountain PAY DIRT for January 198it

Exhibit 9

65 LOSE JOBS AS ORE MILL IN BLANDING CLOSES
Associated PressPublished: Feb. 27, 1995 12:00 a.m.
Sponsored Utah League of Cities and Towns | Brandview
The 'coop on backyard chickens
The 65 employees at Energy Fuels' White Mesa Mill have been told the company cannot meet its payroll and they no longer have jobs.
Harold Roberts, president of the company that processes uranium into fuel for nuclear reactors, told employees the measures were necessary because of
financial problems with Energy Fuel's parent company, Denver-based Concord Corp. and the finances of its principal owner, Oren Benton.Concord hopes to
restructure without filing for bankruptcy, Roberts said. He did not have a definite time on when the company could be operating again.
"We are working as rapidly as we can to ensure that no one gets hurt any more than, unfortunately, the damage that may have been done already," he said.
Clarence Yellow said he gave up a good job in Albuquerque two weeks ago "to come back home to Blanding to work at the mill. Now I'm looking for work,"
he told a reporter Thursday as he filled out paperwork in the Blanding Job Service office.
Blanding Chamber of Commerce President Rick Shelby, owner of a bicycle shop, described the layoffs as devastating.

Exhibit 10
DOCK(ET NUMBERAl
I \ TF fl FN , -I) \ \ L PROD. & UTIL. FAQ,,
LFRAxIuNl ( L'SA) DOCKETED
CORhPOATION USNRC
Ihd i lidee lct. Plaza. S,,itt e.().T • 10)5(0 Seventeenth Strmt * Dt tVz.,. 0.(-5 '-)2(i5 :30:3 (,I 77 TT1 m~tjji, .12(4 1,9 412.5 tL\
June 18, 1997 OFFICE OF SECRETARY
DOCKETING & ,ERVICE
VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL BRANCH
Honorable Michael 0. Leavitt, Governor
State of Utah
State Capitol Building
201 State Capitol
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Re: Letters from your office to Great AvikanTMHouse and from Great AvikanTMHouse to your
office dated May 23, 1997 and May 24, 1997, respectively, regarding the White Mesa
Uranium Mill
Dear Governor Leavitt:
Effective May 10, 1997, International Uranium (USA) Corporation ("IUC") assumed ownership and
became the licensed operator of the White Mesa Uranium Mill. As your office is aware, the White
Mesa Mill is a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") licensed facility located
approximately six miles south of Blanding, Utah, in San Juan County. As discussed in a previous
letter dated May 8, 1997 (copy attached), the previous owner, Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. ("EFN"),
received an amendment to the NRC license for the Mill, which authorizes the processing of an
alternate feed material known as the "Cotter Concentrate" to recover the uranium it contains. IUC
is implementing the approved amendment; but, we will also continue to offer, as EFN has, to
provide any additional facts that the State of Utah may require to address questions concerning this
processing.
We have copies of the May 23 letter from the Office of the Governor to Mr. Mason of the Great
AvikanTMHouse, and the response from a Mr. Mason, representing the Great AvikanTMHouse. As
your letter points out, in response to public interest in this issue, EFN and United States Department
of Energy ("DOE") representatives attended the May 9, 1997 meeting of the Radiation Control
Board ("RCB") to present information on the reprocessing amendment. Our presentations were
intended to provide the Board and interested parties with facts concerning issues which appeared,
in new articles and letters, to be misunderstood. The presentation materials and fact sheets
addressed the same areas of concern addressed in our May 8 letter to your office.
Based on our review of the May 24 letter from the Great AvikanTMHouse representative to your
office, it again appears that a summary of facts regarding areas of concern raised in the letter may
a:"Ievitt6.1ct h:\uscrs\tay\wpwin6O\filcs\mnrrqcttcr\cavitt6.let
*c~. ~A~ -oo
-Perm t -..rier RC-eCuc --;.--e.•7r--.' -tatus --.e..
rceedings in ,huc,:h u.i ii~ates c7 Ener2 Fueis \uclear. Inc. EFI" ha% e been .n' ct, eJ ,.i'x..he rmpending sale of the mining properties operatL by EFd,. As preiously repered by EFI.
e '.els. Ltd. (-EFL-.') and Enerp% Fueis E.xploraton Company. t"EFE-X) tiled %oluntry",ruuctins :or bankruptc,. in the Lruted Stawes Bankruptc Court for the Disnct of Clorado , the
"3ur"krdc•.• Court") in Febman of' 1995. The bankruptcy filings ,,ere part ofa larger bankrupt,.
case :n1oi1-t n Oren L. Benton. EFNI did not file a bankruptcy petition and has main"rined it*s
,>perat•cns dunng the bankrupccv process. EFL. EFEX and EtFI are colleca~el% referred to
herein as the "Energy Fuels Companies".
In 1996. the mining assets of EFL and EFE.X were offered for sale in the bankruptcy proceedings.
After an extended due diligence and bidding process, a successful bidder was selected and a
purchase aar eement, was entered into between the Energy Fuels Companies and Internauonai
Uranium Holdings Corporation ("lU'-). EFNI is a party to the purchase agsreement since it has
acted as the operator of the mining properties that are being sold to [UK. The terms and conditions
of the purchase agreement have been approved by an Order of the Bankruptcy Court (.the -Sale
Order").
Pursuant to the terms of the purchase agreement and Sale Order, EFNI is obligated to initiate the
transfer of the various permits and licenses it holds to International Uranium (USA) Corporation
("[LC'). IUC is a subsidiary of the purchaser of the assets. [UH. IUC will operate the mining
properties for [L[-H and its subsidiaries and in the course of such operations will be the
permnrteeoicensee. Relevant information concerning IUC is included in the necessary transfer
forms.
Under the terms of the purchase agreement, [UH has committed to offer employment with IUC to
all current employees of EFNI. All the paite3 to the sales trausaction believe that this will read,
facilitate the transition of operations between EFNI and [UC.
As you might expect. the process of "closing" the sales transaction is very complicated given the
requirement that all actions necessary to transfer all properties, permits and other assets from each
entity to EUH and IUC occur simultaneously. Additionally, the bankruptcy estates. Creditors'
committee and a vanetv of creditors must resolve certain claims at the same "closing".
As a part of the closing, permits and licenses for the exploration and mining activities of the Energy
Fuels Companies are to be transferred from EFN to IUC. The timing of the transfer is important
since IUH obviously does =ot want to deliver the purchase price until it has received necessary
approvals from the various regulatory agencies to operate the properties and the sellers do not want
to end up with the permits and no property.
At the closing. [UH is obligated to post substitute or replacement surety bonds for those permits
and licenses now held by EFNI which require financial surety. [UH and IUC are in the process of
finalizing a bonding line with a major North American bonding company. In the event the final
arrangements have not been made with this company by closing. IU-' will cause a major national
bank to issue letteus of credit to support the permitting/reclamation obligations associated with the
,arous permits and licenses it is acquinng.
As the closing is now structured, we are requesting regulatory agencies to approve permit and
license transfers under their normal procedures, but add a condition to the approval of transfer
%vhich states that the transfer shall be effective ga upon the receipt by the agency of replacement
financial assurance in the form previously agreed upon by IUC and the agency. With the addition
."his c:ndiuon. the permits and licenses :an be etfec, ' e!% r-ansferred at the ciosinm b, .e.ih, e,-,
•.I :•e -euisite t-nancial sureties to the appropriate aienc,:es.
We understand ,hat %e must take the actions necessarm. to irutiate the permit and license transters
and Also prokide to the proper diisions of the particular agency the proposed financial ý.uret,
ior-ms. be they ,orporatLe surety bonds or letters of credit. We also understarnd that EFNI and IUC
must comply with all other appropriate requirements of each agency for transfer of the permits and
licenses.
Energy Fuels personnel are involved in a variety of tasks associated with the closing and transition
to 1UC. Harold Roberts is assisting [LH/IUJC in tasks which require Harold to be iraelini
extenszvely over the next three weeks. While Harold is in daily telephonic contact with the Denmer
and field offices, other indiv iduals at the various offices of Energy Fuels are available for questions
or comments.
Contact points at EFNI (Denver):
Rich A. Munson
.Mtichelle R. Rehmann
Terrv V. Wetz
Vicli L Hoffsetz
Corporate Counsel
Environmental Manager
Project Manager
Land Adnuistrator
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
The general phone number at EFNI (Denver) is [phone] and the facmmile number
is [phone].
Contact point at EFNI (Blanding -White Mesa Mill):
William N. Deal MiU Superintendent (801) 678-Z:21
The facsimile number at EFNI (Blanding) is [phone].
Contact point at EFNI (Grand Junction):
Rick A. Van Horn Manager -Mine Operations
Colorado Plateau
[phone].
The facsimile number at Grand Juncton is [phone].
Contact points at EFNI (Fredonia):
Roger B. Smith Manager -Mine Operations
Arizona Strip
[phone]
The facsimile number at Fredonia is (520) 643-73:8.

Exhibit 11
Our History
Energy Fuels primary goal is to become the dominant uraniumproducer in the United States.  We believe we are well on our way ofachieving this goal. Our company is led by a seasoned managementteam dedicated to responsibly producing uranium from world-class,US-based assets. Below is a timeline describing our company’sdynamic growth prole and our quick ascent as a leader in the U.S.uranium sector.
U a
TSE: EFR CDN 2.06 -0.04NYSEMKT: UUUU USD 1.59 -0.01
March:  Energy Fuels to Acquire Mesteña Uranium
March:  Energy Fuels to Increase Its Interest in Roca Honda to 100%
The “Energy Fuels” name is well-respected in the U.S. uranium sector.  Energy Fuels Nuclear was once
the leading producer of uranium in the U.S., discovering and developing some of the projects we
operate today.  In fact, Energy Fuels Nuclear constructed the White Mesa Mill in 1980.  While Energy
Fuels Inc. and Energy Fuels Nuclear are unrelated entities, much of our senior management team
began their careers and learned about the U.S. uranium industry from the earlier successes of Energy
Fuels Nuclear.
2016: Energy Fuels Expands Lower Cost Production
2015: Energy Fuels Becomes an ISR Producer 
2014: Energy Fuels Focuses on Organic Growth 
2013: Energy Fuels Growth Continues 
2012: Energy Fuels Becomes Major U.S. Uranium Supplier 
2011: Energy Fuels Continues Path to Production 
2010: Energy Fuels Names New President & CEO 
2009: Energy Fuels' First Strategic M&A Transaction 
2006: Energy Fuels Founded 
1970 to 1997: Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.
Of
THE HISTORY

Exhibit 12
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
DOCKETED 2/10/00
COMMISSIONERS:
SERVED 2/10/00
Richard A. Meserve, ChairmanGreta Joy Dicus
Nils J. DiazEdward McGaffigan, Jr.
Jeffrey S. Merrifield
_________________________________________
In the Matter of
INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA)
CORPORATION
(Request for Materials License Amendment)
_________________________________________
))
))
))
))
)
Docket No. 40-8681-MLA-4
CLI-00-01
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
I. Introduction
In this decision we review a Presiding Officer's Initial Decision, LBP-99-5, 49 NRC 107 (1999), which upheld a license
amendment issued to the International Uranium (USA) Corporation ("IUSA"). The license amendment authorized IUSA toreceive, process, and dispose of particular alternate feed material from Tonawanda, New York. The state of Utah challenges
the license amendment and now on appeal seeks reversal of the Presiding Officer's decision. Envirocare of Utah, Inc., has filedan amicus curiae brief supporting Utah's challenge of the Presiding Officer's decision. The NRC staff and IUSA support the
Presiding Officer's decision. We affirm the decision for the reasons we give below.
II. Background
IUSA owns and operates a uranium mill located at White Mesa, near Blanding, Utah. On May 8, 1998, IUSA submitted arequest for a license amendment to allow it to receive and process approximately 25,000 dry tons of uranium-bearing
material from the Ashland 2 Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, currently managed by the Army
Corps of Engineers and located near Tonawanda, New York.(1) The NRC granted the IUSA license amendment on June 23,
1998. Utah timely petitioned for leave to intervene in the license amendment proceeding. On September 1, 1998, thePresiding Officer admitted Utah as a party to the proceeding. See International Uranium (USA) Corporation (Receipt of Material
from Tonawanda, New York), LBP-98-21, 48 NRC 137 (1998).
At 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 sourcematerial content." 42 U.S.C. § 2014e (emphasis added). Utah interprets this to mean that the primary purpose for acquiring
the ore must be an interest in processing the material to recover the uranium. Emphasizing that IUSA is being paid over fourmillion dollars to receive the Ashland 2 material from the FUSRAP site, Utah argues that IUSA's interest in obtaining the
material is "primarily for payment of a disposal fee" and not for recovering any uranium the material might contain. Utah'sAppeal Brief (May 24, 1999) at 11.
Utah explains that the fee IUSA will receive for this transaction far exceeds the monetary value of the uranium which might beextracted from the material. Utah accordingly suggests that the "primary" reason IUSA is processing the material is so that it
can be reclassified as 11e.(2) material and then disposed of at the IUSA mill site. See id. at 10.
In short, Utah argues that the NRC staff improperly granted this license amendment because IUSA is not processing the
Ashland 2 material "primarily" to recover its relatively minimal uranium content, but rather to obtain the generous handlingand disposal fee. Utah emphasizes that IUSA's license amendment application failed to adequately substantiate that the
material was to be "processed primarily" for its uranium content. Utah insists upon "some objective documentation" to showthat recovery of the uranium, not payment for disposal, was IUSA's primary interest behind the license amendment. See
Utah's Reply to NRC Staff's and IUSA's Briefs (June 28, 1999)("Utah's Reply Brief") at 10. Given the "wide disparity" betweenthe fee IUSA will receive for taking and processing the material and the probable market value of the uranium that can be
recovered, Utah claims that the "only reasonable conclusion" to be drawn is that the "primary purpose of applying for thelicense amendment was to receive a four million dollar disposal fee." Id. at 9-11.
In interpreting what is meant by § 11e.(2)'s requirement that ore be "processed primarily for its source material content,"
Utah relies heavily upon language in the NRC's "Final Revised Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Material Other Than
Natural Ores," 60 Fed. Reg. 49,296 (Sept. 22, 1995)("Alternate Feed Guidance"). The Alternate Feed Guidance asks licensees
to "certify" that the feed material will be "processed primarily for the recovery of uranium and for no other purpose." Id. at49,297. The Guidance goes on to enumerate three possible ways a licensee can "justify" this certification that feed material is
to be processed for source material. The three possible factors a licensee can cite are "financial considerations, high uraniumfeed content of the feed material, or other grounds." Id. Throughout this proceeding, the parties sharply have disputed the
meaning of these and other statements in the Alternate Feed Guidance.
Utah, for instance, argues that the Guidance included a "Certification and Justification" test expressly to prohibit licensees
from "using a uranium mill to process material for the primary purpose of ... [reclassifying] the material to allow it to bedisposed of in the mill tailings impoundment." See Utah's Appeal Brief at 10,12. Utah claims that processing material merely
for the sake of reclassifying it as 11e.(2) material is "sham processing," and that the wastes or mill tailings generated fromsuch "sham processing" do not meet the definition of 11e.(2) byproduct material. See id. at 10-11. Utah concludes that IUSA
"failed to justify and document under the Alternate Feed Guidance any satisfactory or plausible grounds to show that [IUSA]was not engaged in sham processing." Id. at 11.
In LBP-99-5, the Presiding Officer rejected Utah's arguments. "[O]re is processed primarily for its source material content,"stated the Presiding Officer, "when the extraction of source material is the principal reason for processing the ore," regardless
of any other reason behind the licensee's interest in acquiring the material or seeking the overall transaction. See 49 NRC at109.
On the other hand, the Presiding Officer went on to explain, "[i]f ... the material were processed primarily to remove someother 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, theadverb 'primarily,' applies to what is removed from the material by the process and not to the motivation for undertaking the
process." Id. (emphasis added). In the Presiding Officer's view, "the only 'sham' that stops material from being byproductmaterial is if it is not actually milled. If it is milled, then it is not a sham." Id. at 111 n.6.
The Presiding Officer found this interpretation of § 11e.(2) consistent with the language and legislative history of the UraniumMill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended (UMTRCA). He went on to conclude that the staff appropriately granted
the license amendment because IUSA "is milling ore" to extract uranium and therefore is "not involved in a sham." See id. at113. The Presiding Officer also found that Utah had misunderstood the NRC Alternate Feed Guidance. He rejected Utah's claim
that the Guidance was intended to prevent material from being categorized as 11e.(2) byproduct material if the licensee'sprimary economic motive was to receive a fee for waste disposal instead of to recover the uranium. Id. at 112. "The Alternate
Feed Guidance," the Presiding Officer stated, "is not supportive of the position, taken by the State of Utah, that material is tobe considered byproduct only if the primary economic motivation is to remove uranium rather than to dispose of waste." Id.
Under LBP-99-5, then, the licensee's underlying motive or purpose for acquiring the material in the first place is irrelevant.What matters is that the material actually is processed through the mill to recover source material.
Both the NRC staff and IUSA endorse the Presiding Officer's conclusions. The staff explains that "the Presiding Officer properlyapplied the [alternate feed] guidance by focusing on whether the processing was primarily to extract uranium," regardless of
any economic motivations involved. See NRC Staff Opposition to Utah Appeal of LBP-99-5 ("Staff Brief")(June 14, 1999) at 13(emphasis added). The staff also stresses that "[n]either a high uranium content nor economic profitability is 'required' under
the guidance," which provides three separate and alternative reasons a licensee can describe to support a proposed licenseamendment, including any number of reasons which might fall within the category of "other grounds." See id. Indeed, the staff
argues, the definition of § 11e.(2) byproduct material should be broad enough to encompass those fuel cycle activitiesinvolving the processing of even low grade -- with relatively low concentration of uranium -- feedstock. Id. at 15. "Utah's
attempt to require an economic motive test and to require detailed financial review should be rejected," the staff urges. Id.
Focusing upon UMTRCA's legislative history, IUSA similarly concludes that at issue is simply whether the tailings and wastes
were "produced as part of the nuclear fuel cycle." See IUSA's Reply to Utah's Appeal Brief and Envirocare's Amicus CuriaeBrief ("IUSA Brief")(June 14, 1999) at 9-10. According to IUSA, those tailings and waste from feeds processed to recover
uranium outside of the nuclear fuel cycle, as in a secondary or side-stream process at a phosphate recovery operation, wouldnot be 11e.(2) material because the actual processing was not [intended] primarily for the source material content. Id. But
where there is a licensed uranium mill involved, "the only question to be answered," argues IUSA, "is whether it is reasonableto expect that the ore will, in fact, be processed for the extraction of uranium." Id. at 15.
While not adopting the Presiding Officer's reasoning in its entirety, the Commission affirms LBP-99-5, for the reasons givenbelow.
III. Analysis
To clear away a threshold matter, we must briefly consider the NRC staff's claim that the Ashland 2 material already was §
11e.(2) byproduct material, even before it was sent to IUSA and even before it was processed. See Staff Brief at 8 n.11; 14n.18; 15 n.19. The staff's theory derives from the Department of Energy's certification that the Ashland 2 material was the
residue of a Manhattan Project uranium extraction project, and therefore constituted "tailings or waste produced by theextraction ... of uranium ... from ... ore processed primarily for its source material content" within the meaning of section
11e.(2). We find it unnecessary to reach the staff argument. Historically, the NRC has maintained that it lacks regulatoryauthority over uranium-bearing material, like the Ashland 2 material, generated at facilities not licensed on or after 1978
(when UMTRCA was passed). See United States Army Corps of Engineers, DD-99-7, 49 NRC 299, 307-08 (1999). Nothing inthis opinion addresses the pre-1978 question or should be understood to do so. Instead, our opinion rests solely on section
11e.(2)'s "processed primarily for its source material content" clause.
On appeal, Utah finds the Presiding Officer's "first error" to have been that of having "resort[ed] to interpretation of the AEA
and the legislative history of UMTRCA in searching for the meaning of 'primarily processed for.'" See Utah Appeal Brief at 11-12. Instead, Utah argues, the Presiding Officer should have focused only upon the NRC's Alternate Feed Guidance to discern
how the § 11e.(2) definition is to be applied and met. Id. at 12. The Commission, however, agrees with the Presiding Officerthat the § 11e.(2) definition, with its requirement that material be "primarily processed for its source material content," can
only be properly understood within the context of UMTRCA and its legislative history.
Based on an in-depth review of UMTRCA and its legislative history, and of the Alternate Feed Guidance and its background
documents, the Commission reaches several conclusions. To begin with, the Guidance does appear to contemplate an NRCstaff inquiry into a licensee's motives for a license amendment, just as Utah suggests. The Guidance, for instance, expresses a
"concern that wastes that would have to be disposed of as radioactive or mixed waste would be proposed for processing at auranium mill primarily to be able to dispose of it in the tailings pile as 11e.(2) byproduct material." 60 Fed. Reg. 49,296,
49,297 (Sept. 22, 1995). The Guidance thus outlines possible "justifications" that a licensee may describe in support of thelicense application, and these are intended to assist the staff "[i]n determining whether the proposed processing is primarily
for the source material content or for the disposal of waste." Id. Indeed, the requirement of a licensee "justification"apparently stemmed from a 1993 Presiding Officer decision which questioned, in another proceeding, whether a simple
licensee "certification, without more, would adequately protect against ulterior motives to dispose of waste." See UMETCOMinerals Corp., LBP-93-7, 37 NRC 267, 283 (1993)(emphasis added).
Such statements do not support the NRC staff's current view that under the Guidance all that matters is that processing foruranium was intended, regardless of underlying motive. On the contrary, the statements in both the proposed and final
Guidance take as a given that processing for uranium content will take place, but also indicate that such processing should notbe employed simply as a device to reclassify material to enable it to be disposed of -- as 11e.(2) byproduct material -- at a
uranium mill site.(2) As Utah has maintained, therefore, the Alternate Feed Guidance certainly can be understood -- and isperhaps best understood -- as reflecting an intent to prevent material from being categorized as 11e.(2) byproduct material
when the licensee's overriding economic motive is to receive a fee for waste disposal.
Yet, although the drafters of the Guidance apparently intended to distinguish between those license amendment requests
where the licensee's overriding interest is obtaining uranium and those where payment for disposal is driving the transaction,the NRC staff apparently has not consistently utilized the Guidance in this way. While the language of the Guidance may
suggest that a licensee's motivations are to be scrutinized, parsed, and weighed, the NRC staff typically has not relied uponsuch probing reviews of licensee motives. It has not been the staff's practice, for example, to require licensees essentially to
"prove" quantitatively or otherwise that the value of the uranium to be recovered from a particular licensing action willoutweigh other economic reasons for the transaction. See, e.g., UMETCO, 37 NRC at 274, 281-82; Staff Brief at 15-16. Since
the Guidance was first issued, it seems, there has been little connection between what the Guidance seemingly proposes andwhat the staff in reality has required.
This fact has prompted the Commission on this appeal to take an in-depth look at the Guidance and its policy ramifications.We find that the apparent intent in the Guidance to have the staff scrutinize the motives behind the license amendment
transaction is neither compelled by the statutory language or history of UMTRCA nor reflects sound policy. Our review ofUMTRCA and its legislative history confirms the Presiding Officer's conclusion that the requirement that material be "processed
primarily for its source material content" most logically refers to the actual act of processing for uranium or thorium within thecourse of the nuclear fuel cycle, and does not bear upon any other underlying or "hidden" issues that might be driving the
overall transaction.
As we describe in further detail below, 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 containingless 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 IUSA license amendment is consistent with these statutoryintentions, regardless of whether IUSA's bigger interest was payment for taking the material or payment for the recovered
uranium. Indeed, even accepting Utah's claim that the four million dollar payment IUSA contracted to receive for processingand 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.
UMTRCA's Purposes and History
It may be helpful to outline a little of UMTRCA's legislative history and, in particular, how the § 11e.(2) definition came about.UMTRCA had two general goals: (1) providing a remedial- action program to stabilize and control mill tailings at various
identified inactive mill sites, and (2) assuring the adequate regulation of mill tailings at active mill sites, both duringprocessing and after operations ceased. As then Chairman Hendrie of the NRC explained to Congress, the agency at the time
did not have direct regulatory control over uranium mill tailings. The tailings themselves were not source material and did notfall into any other category of NRC licensable material. The NRC exercised some control over tailings, but only indirectly as
part of the Commission's licensing of ongoing milling operations. Once operations ceased, however, the NRC had no furtherjurisdiction over tailings. This resulted in dozens of abandoned or "orphaned" mill tailings piles.
To prevent future abandoned and unregulated tailings piles, Congress enacted the 11e.(2) definition, which expressly declaredmill tailings to be a form of byproduct material. As Chairman Hendrie explained, tailings are "fairly regarded as waste
materials from the milling operation," but the proposed definition would classify them as byproduct material and thus makethem licensable under the AEA. Under the new § 11e.(2) definition, Chairman Hendrie emphasized, tailings generated during
uranium milling operations would "formally be byproducts rather than waste." Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of1978, Hearings on H.R. 11698, H.R. 12229, H.R. 12938, H.R. 12535, H.R. 13049, and H.R. 13650, (hereinafter "UMTRCA
Hearings I") Subcomm. On Energy & Power, House Comm. On Interstate & Foreign Commerce, 95th Cong. 2nd Sess. at 400(1978)(statement of Joseph M. Hendrie, Chairman, NRC).
At the time Congress drafted UMTRCA, the Environmental Protection Agency had some authority over uranium mill tailingsunder the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), but EPA had no authority over the milling process which
generated the tailings. By defining mill tailings as a byproduct material, the new 11e.(2) definition removed mill tailings fromRCRA's coverage since RCRA excludes all source, byproduct, and special nuclear material. This exclusion from RCRA was
intended to minimize any "dual regulation" of tailings by both EPA and the NRC. Chairman Hendrie suggested that since theNRC already regulated the site-specific details of uranium milling, it seemed logical for the NRC to regulate the treatment and
disposal of tailings "which we permitted to be generated in the first place." Id. at 342-43.
From the legislative history, we can glean a few conclusions about the actual wording of the 11e.(2) definition. As originally
proposed, the definition of 11e.(2) byproduct material was directly linked to the Commission's definition of source material.The original definition referred to "the naturally occurring daughters of uranium and thorium found in the tailings or wastes
produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium or thorium from source material as defined in [then] Section 11z.(2)."But Chairman Hendrie was concerned that a definition of byproduct material that was linked to that of source material would
exclude ores containing 0.05% or less of uranium or thorium.(3) He proposed that the language be revised to "from any oreprocessed primarily for its source material content." His discussion with Congressman Dingell went as follows:
Mr. Hendrie: The Commission is informed that there are a few mills currently using feedstock of less than 0.05
percent uranium. As high grade ores become scarcer, there may be a greater incentive in the future to turn to suchlow grade materials.
Since such operations should be covered by any regulatory regime over mill tailings, the Commission would suggestthat the definition of byproduct material in H.R. 13382 be revised to include tailings produced by extraction of
uranium or thorium from any ore processed primarily for its source material content.
Mr. Dingell: I am curious why you include in that the word "processed" primarily for source material content. Thereare other ores that are being processed that do contain thorium and uranium in amounts and I assume equal in
value to those you are discussing here. Is there any reason why we ought not to give you the same authority withregard to those ores?
Mr. Hendrie: The intent of the language is to keep NRC's regulatory authority primarily in the field of the nuclearfuel cycle. Not to extend this out into such things as phosphate mining and perhaps even limestone mining which are
operations that do disturb the radium-bearing crust of the Earth and produce some exposures but those otheractivities are not connected with the nuclear fuel cycle.
UMTRCA Hearings I at 343-44.
There were, therefore, two principal intentions behind Chairman Hendrie's proposed language, which Congress accepted. First,the 11e.(2) definition was intended to reach even "low grade" feedstock with less than a 0.05% concentration of uranium.
Second, the definition was intended to make sure that the NRC's jurisdiction did not expand into areas not traditionally part ofthe NRC's control over the "nuclear fuel cycle." The definition therefore "focuses upon uranium milling wastes" and not, for
example, upon the wastes from phosphate ore processing which are also contaminated with small quantities of radioactiveelements. Id. at 354 ("Section by Section Analysis of H.R. 13382 As Revised by NRC Recommended Language Changes").
Similarly, 11e.(2) material was not to encompass uranium mining wastes because, as Chairman Hendrie explained, "[w]edon't regulate mines. The mining is regulated by the Department of Labor under other regulations so our definition was drawn
to maintain that and to keep us out of the mine-regulating business." Id. at 401.
We find, then, that the § 11e.(2) definition focused upon whether the process generating the wastes was uranium milling
within the course of the nuclear fuel cycle. As Chairman Hendrie made clear, the concentration of the uranium or thorium inthe feedstock was not a determinative factor in whether the resulting tailings should be considered 11e.(2) material. The focus
was not on the value of the extracted uranium but on the activity involved.
In short, the § 11e.(2) definition focuses upon the process that generated the radioactive wastes -- the removal of uranium or
thorium as part of the nuclear fuel cycle. See Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. v. NRC, 903 F.2d 1, 7 (D.C. Cir. 1990). But UMTRCAdoes not require that the market value of the uranium recovered be the licensee's predominant interest, and thus UMTRCA
does not require the NRC to assure that no other incentives lie behind the licensee's interest in processing material for
uranium. There simply is no reason under UMTRCA why licensees cannot have several motives for a transaction.(4) That
IUSA's primary goal here may have been the four million dollar payment for disposal, instead of potential profit from anyrecoverable uranium, does not in and of itself prevent the tailings generated from the milling process from falling within the §
11e.(2) definition. Moreover, as we touch upon further below, making such purely economic considerations a determinative
part of the staff's review would unnecessarily divert agency resources to issues unrelated to public health and safety.
The Need for Revising the Guidance
In this litigation, Utah and the other parties focused not upon UMTRCA and its legislative history, but upon the NRC'sAlternative Feed Guidance. The Commission, however, is not bound by the Guidance. Like NRC NUREGS and Regulatory
Guides, NRC Guidance documents are routine agency policy pronouncements that do not carry the binding effect ofregulations. See, e.g., Curators of the University of Missouri, CLI-95-1, 41 NRC 71, 149 (1995); International Uranium (USA)
Corp. (White Mesa Uranium Mill), LBP-97-12, 46 NRC 1, 2 (1997)(referring specifically to final Alternate Feed Guidance as"non-binding Staff guidance"). Such guidance documents merely constitute NRC staff advice on one or more possible methods
licensees may use to meet particular regulatory requirements. See, e.g., The Curators of the University of Missouri, CLI-95-1,41 NRC 71, 150 & n.121 (1995); Petition for Emergency and Remedial Action, CLI-78-6, 7 NRC 400, 406-07 (1978);
Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant), ALAB-725, 17 NRC 562, 568 n.10 (1983); Vermont Yankee NuclearPower Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-74-40, 8 AEC 809, 811 (1974). These guides, however, do not
themselves have the force of regulations for they do not impose any additional legal requirements upon licensees. Licenseesremain free to use other means to accomplish the same regulatory objectives. See id. "[A]gency interpretations and policies
are not 'carved in stone' but rather must be subject to re-evaluations of their wisdom on a continuing basis." Kansas Gas &Elec. Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), 49 NRC 441, 460 (1999)(referencing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 863-64).
Accordingly, it has long been an established principle of administrative law that an agency is free to choose among permissible
interpretations of its governing statute, and that at times new interpretations may represent a sharp shift from prior agencyviews or pronouncements. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-43, 862 (1984). This is permissible so long as the agency gives
"adequate reasons for changing course." Envirocare of Utah v. NRC, F.3d , No. 98-1426 (D.C. Cir., Oct. 22, 1999), slip op. at6. Given that: (1) the disputed portions of the Alternate Feed Guidance are not derived directly from UMTRCA or its history;
(2) the Guidance apparently has not been consistently applied in the manner proposed by the State of Utah; (3) the preciseterms of the Guidance are not entirely clear (c.f., e.g., "other grounds"); and (4) the Commission believes that literal
adherence to the apparent intent of the Guidance would lead to unsound policy results, the Commission declines to follow it
here and will require the NRC staff to revise it as soon as practicable.(5)
Several policy reasons support departing from the Guidance. First, the NRC's statutory mission is public health and safety. Ourregulations establish comprehensive criteria for the possession and disposal of 11e.(2) byproduct material under NRC or
Agreement State jurisdiction. See 10 C.F.R. Part 40, Appendix A. The criteria were designed to assure the safe disposal of bulkmaterial whose primary radiological contamination is uranium, thorium, and radium in low concentrations. But whether the
concentration of uranium in the feedstock material is .058% or .008% -- the initial high and low estimates, respectively, ofthe Ashland 2 material based upon samples taken -- has no impact upon the general applicability and adequacy of the
agency's health and safety standards for disposal of § 11e.(2) material. Yet, in Utah's view, whether the actual uraniumconcentration proved to be .058% or .008% could well dictate whether the resulting tailings appropriately could be classified
as § 11e.(2) material and regulated by the NRC.
Utah's interpretation thus divides byproduct material into two different regulatory camps based solely upon market-oriented
factors, i.e., the expected profit from selling recovered uranium versus any other economically advantageous aspects of thelicense amendment. Utah emphasizes, for example, that it "has not objected to several [IUSA] alternate feed license
amendment requests where the waste material contained [greater amounts] of uranium." See Utah's Petition for Review ofLBP-99-5 (Feb. 26, 1999) at 9 n.10. From a health and safety perspective, though, there is no reason to prohibit IUSA from
disposing of tailings material in its disposal cells solely on account of the feedstock having a lower uranium concentration orlower market value. Cf. Kerr-McGee, 903 F.2 at 7-8.
Second, the Guidance, if applied as originally intended, would cast the NRC staff into an inappropriate role, conductingpotentially multi-faceted inquiries into the financial attractiveness of transactions. The staff essentially would need to look
behind and verify every assertion about the economic factors motivating a proposed processing of material -- an unnecessaryand wasteful use of limited agency resources, at a time when the Commission increasingly has moved away from performing
economics-oriented reviews that have no direct bearing on safety and are not specifically required by Congress.(6)
In addition, the NRC seeks to regulate efficiently, imposing the least amount of burdens necessary to carry out our public
health and safety mission. Yet, as this proceeding itself demonstrates, the Alternate Feed Guidance's unwieldy "Certificationand Justification" test lends itself easily to protracted disputes among the NRC staff, intervenors, and the licensee over such
issues as how much the licensee will "really" profit from selling recovered uranium, what the licensee's "bigger" motives maybe, etc. All this effort and attention imposes burdens on the parties while detracting from our central mission -- radiological
safety, i.e., assuring that there are no constituents in the alternate feed material that would prevent the mill from complyingwith all applicable NRC health and safety regulations.
Nor is it inconceivable that eventual potential changes in the marketplace could impact whether particular material might fallwithin the § 11e.(2) definition one year but not the next, merely on account of some new market factor. Purely economic
factors, in short, should not determine how radioactive material is defined. Whether IUSA was paid a "substantial sum," asUtah emphasizes, a nominal sum, or had to pay a sum to acquire the Ashland 2 material has no bearing on health and safety
issues. Therefore, this is not appropriately the Commission's concern and also should have no bearing on whether theresulting tailings meet the statutory definition of byproduct material under § 11e.(2).
While it may be true, as Utah states, that when Congress enacted UMTRCA there was no "thought of using offsite activeuranium mills to process and dispose of industrial cleanup waste from FUSRAP sites," Utah's Reply Brief at 5, several
Congressmen did express an interest in having private corporations take and reprocess materials as a means to offset thefederal government's ultimate disposal costs for cleaning up UMTRCA's designated Title I sites. See, e.g., UMTRCA Hearings on
H.R. 13382, H.R. 12938, H.R. 12535, and H.R. 13049 ("UMTRCA Hearings II") Subcomm. On Energy & the Environment,House Comm. On Interior & Insular Affairs (1978) at 82 (statement of Rep. Weaver)(some "companies might be interested in
sharing the cost of stabilization of tailings in return for access to minerals remaining in the piles").(7) Then Chairman Hendrievoiced no objection, stating that "[i]f they want to reprocess the piling to make a complete recovery of the resource there, I
think that is fine from a conservation standpoint. It also puts them back in the active business of milling." See UMTRCAHearings II at 82.
Here, the Ashland 2 material has been approved for processing and disposal, and the resulting byproduct material will bedisposed of pursuant to the same health and safety standards that apply to any other 11e.(2) material in an NRC-licensed
mill: 10 C.F.R. Part 40, Appendix A. Though Utah may be dissatisfied with those standards, an adjudicatory proceeding is notthe appropriate forum to contest generic NRC requirements or regulations. See, e.g., Duke Energy Corporation (Oconee
Nuclear Station, Units 1, 3, and 3), CLI-99-11, 49 NRC 328, 334 (1999).
We note, additionally, that early in the proceeding Utah expressed concern that the Ashland 2 material, contrary to the NRC
staff's findings, possibly contained listed hazardous waste. But while the accuracy of the license application can appropriatelybe the subject of an adjudication, notwithstanding staff findings, here subsequent events have rendered Utah's hazardous
waste concern moot. Following negotiations with IUSA and, after analyzing investigations and data from the Ashland 2 site,Utah formally withdrew its allegation that the Ashland 2 material may contain listed hazardous waste. See Utah's Appeal Brief
at 3 n.2. Instead, although Utah is upset that the staff's allegedly "scanty" review took only "about six weeks," its own reviewfailed to uncover any errors in the staff's conclusion that the material contains no listed hazardous waste. Utah's remaining
generalized complaint about how the staff reached its conclusion is not a litigable issue, given that Utah now concurs with thestaff's conclusion and no longer alleges the presence of any listed hazardous waste.
Nevertheless, such disputes about the presence of hazardous waste are likely to recur, and the issue is a significant one,implicating three concerns: (1) possible health and safety issues, (2) the potential for an undesirable, complex NRC-EPA "dual
regulation" of the same tailings impoundment, and (3) the potential for jeopardizing the ultimate transfer of the tailings pile tothe U.S. government, for perpetual custody and maintenance. See generally UMTRCA, Title II, § 202 (Section 83 of the AEA).
In view of our decision that the Alternate Feed Guidance requires revision to reflect our decision on the 11e.(2) definition, wewill direct the staff to consider whether the Guidance also should be revised to include more definitive and objective
requirements or tests to assure that listed hazardous or toxic waste is not present in the proposed feed material. We note, forexample, that in a recent license amendment proceeding, the Presiding Officer declared it simply "impossible" for him to
"ascertain the basis for the Staff determination that this material is not hazardous." International Uranium (USA) Corp. (WhiteMesa Uranium Mill), LBP-97-12, 46 NRC 1, 5 (1997). Similarly, in another earlier proceeding, the Presiding Officer found that
the "Staff's new guidance for determining whether feed material is a mixed [or hazardous] waste appears confusing," andaccordingly suggested there be more "specific protocols ... to determine if alternate feed materials contain hazardous
components." UMETCO, 37 NRC at 280-81. The Commission concludes that this issue warrants further staff refinement andstandardization.
In conclusion, applying the Commission's statutory interpretation of § 11e.(2) byproduct material, the Commission finds thatthe IUSA license amendment properly was issued and that the mill tailings at issue do constitute § 11e.(2) byproduct
material. From the information in the record, we believe that it was reasonable for the NRC staff to have concluded that: (1)processing would take place, and (2) uranium would be recovered from the ore. Utah itself has acknowledged that "[i]n three
different estimates, taken from DOE documents, the average uranium content of the material ranged from a high of 0.058%to a low of 0.008%." See Utah's Appeal Brief at 4; see also Utah's Brief in Opposition to IUSA's License Amendment (Dec. 7,
1998)("Utah's Brief in Opposition") at 8, and Attachment at 7-8. Utah's own expert estimated that up to $617,000 worth ofuranium might be recovered from the Ashland 2 material. See Utah's Brief in Opposition at 8, and Attachment at 9. Utah's
primary argument all along has been that the monetary value of the recovered uranium would be much lower than the 4million dollar payment IUSA would receive, not that no source material would be recovered through processing. See, e.g., id.,
Attachment at 9 (where Utah's expert stressed that the value of the uranium-238 that could be extracted from the Ashland 2material "represents a fraction (1.6 to 15 percent) of the $4,050,000 that [IUSA] will receive from Material Handling &
Disposal Services fees"); Utah's Reply Brief at 11 (the "disposal fee received by [IUSA] ... is almost 60 times the value of theuranium recovery").
Not only was it reasonable to conclude that uranium could be recovered from the Ashland 2 material, but it was alsoreasonable to conclude that the processing would indeed take place. IUSA had a contractual commitment to do so; its
contract with the Army Corps of Engineers required IUSA to process the material prior to disposal. See IUSA Brief at 18, 25.In addition, as the Presiding Officer noted, "IUSA has a history of successfully extracting uranium from alternate feed material
and has developed credibility with the NRC ... for fulfilling its proposals to recover uranium from alternate feeds." 49 NRC at112. This was not an instance, then, where there was no reasonable expectation that the mill operator would in fact process
material through the mill to extract recoverable uranium. Moreover, it is also the Commission's understanding that theAshland 2 material has in fact been processed in the IUSA mill and that approximately 8,000 pounds of uranium were
extracted. While that quantity of uranium was on the low end of IUSA's estimates, it nevertheless represents more than a
minute or negligible recovery of uranium.(8)
The Commission concludes, therefore, that the Presiding Officer's interpretation of the § 11e.(2) definition reflects a sensible
reading of the UMTRCA statute and legislative history -- one we hereby embrace -- and that the record overall supports theissuance of the license amendment.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, LBP-99-5 is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
For the Commission
[ original signed by]
________________________
Annette L. Vietti-CookSecretary of the Commission
Dated at Rockville, Maryland,
this 10th day of February, 2000.
1. IUSA made a similar request to receive, process, and dispose of uranium-bearing material from the nearby Ashland 1 andSeaway Area D FUSRAP sites. That license amendment is the subject of a separate NRC adjudicatory proceeding (Docket No.
40-8681-MLA-5) currently held in abeyance pending the outcome of this appeal.
2. In fact, when the Guidance was first proposed, there was a description of how owners of low-level or mixed waste, facing
the high costs of disposal, might find it "very attractive" to "pay a mill operator substantially less to process [the material] forits uranium content and dispose of the resulting 11e.(2) material," rather than to pay for disposal at a low-level or mixed
waste facility. See "Uranium Mill Facilities, Request for Public Comments on Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed
Materials Other Than Natural Ores," 57 Fed. Reg. 20,525, 20,533 (May 13, 1992)("Proposed Guidance"). The Proposed
Guidance labeled such transactions "sham disposals," and implied they "would not meet the definition of 11e.(2) byproductmaterial." Id. at 20,533.
3. "Source material" has been defined by the Commission to exclude ores containing less than 0.05% of uranium or thorium.10 C.F.R. § 40.4.
4. See also, e.g. Kerr-McGee, 903 F.2d at 7 (where the court suggested that the word "primarily" in the § 11e.(2) definition
could be read to mean "substantially," and thus the tailings from the coproduction of source material and rare earths could still
be deemed 11e.(2) byproduct material so long as one of the reasons for processing the ore was for extracting source
material). The court's reasoning in Kerr-McGee is consistent with the UMTRCA history, which reflects that it has long been the
case, for instance, that both vanadium and uranium might be extracted during a processing of material, and indeed that the
amount of recoverable vanadium may very likely be much greater than that of the recoverable uranium. See, e.g., UMTRCA
Hearings I at 155 (where private company reprocessing material was extracting 2 ½ pounds of vanadium for every ½ poundof uranium extracted); see also UMTRCA Hearings III at 136 ("We recover ... about 1,000 pounds a day of uranium, about
4,000 pounds of vanadium"). There was never any suggestion in the legislative history that if the amount or value of thevanadium proved higher than that of the uranium, the tailings could not be categorized as 11e.(2) byproduct material.
5. The Commission has promulgated no regulation implementing the Guidance. Thus, the Commission's rejection of theGuidance does not present a situation where the Commission has altered "suddenly and sub silentio settled interpretations of
its own regulations." Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. NRC, 695 F.2d 623, 625 (D.C. Cir. 1982). See generally
Syncor Int'l Corp. v. Shalala, 127 F.3d 90 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Paralyzed Veterans of America v. D.C. Arena L.P., 117 F.3d 579
(1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1003 (1998); United Technologies Corp. v. EPA, 821 F.2d 714 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
6. See, e.g., Final Rule, Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, 61 Fed. Reg. 28,467,
28,484 (June 5, 1996); Kansas Gas & Elec. Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), CLI-99-19, 49 NRC 441 (1999).
7. See also, e.g., UMTRCA Hearings 1 at 89-90 (written statement of Rep. Johnson); Hearings On S.3008, S.3078, and
S.3253 ("UMTRCA Hearings III") Subcomm. On Energy Prod. & Supply, Senate Comm. On Energy & Natural Resources (1978)at 59 (statement of Sen. Haskell)(if private companies reprocessed some of the tailings, that would be regulated under the
NRC's regulations).
8. Moreover, even if we had adhered to and sought to apply the Guidance's tests for licensee "motives," the record does not
show that IUSA processed the Ashland 2 material as a means to change non-11e.(2) material into § 11e.(2) material. IUSA
was aware that the NRC staff had accepted a DOE certification declaring that the Ashland 2 FUSRAP material met the 11e.(2)
byproduct material definition. Based upon the DOE certification, the staff had concluded that "the material could be disposed ofdirectly in the White Mesa tailings impoundments," without any need of processing at the mill. See Technical Evaluation Report
at 6, attached to Amendment 6 to Source Material License Sua-1358 (June 23, 1998). The staff thus claims that "shamdisposal" was not a concern "since it did not appear that the material was being processed to change its legal definition, and
as such was truly being processed for its uranium content." See Staff Aff. of Joseph Holonich at 7. Whether the Ashland 2
material actually already was § 11e.(2) byproduct material under UMTRCA remains unclear. See supra at 6-7. Nevertheless,
IUSA was aware that DOE, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the NRC staff all had categorized the material as such, and thatthe staff indeed had stated that this was material that could have been disposed of without any further processing. This
suggests that IUSA had a genuine interest in processing the material for the uranium and not simply an interest in"reclassifying" the material by processing it. The subtle and complex nature of this inquiry, however, reinforces our view that
discerning a licensee's motives for a license amendment transaction is a difficult, virtually impossible and, in any event,unnecessary exercise. Accordingly, our approach in this decision rejects ultimate business motivations as irrelevant to the §
11e.(2) definition.

Exhibit 13
INTERNATIONAL
•5 URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION
Independence Plaza, Suite 950 ° 1050 Seventeenth Street ° Denver, CO 80265 * 303 628 7798 (main) * 303 389 4125 (fax)
October 17, 2001
VIA EXPRESS COURIER
Mr. Melvyn Leach, Director
Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch
Mail Stop T-8A33
Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
2 White Flint North
11545 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852-2738
Re: Information on Drummed Uranium Material
Amendment Request to Process an Alternate Feed Material from Molycorp at
White Mesa Uranium Mill
Source Material License No. SUA-1358
Dear Mr. Leach:
International Uranium (USA) Corporation ("IUSA") submitted on December 13, 2000 a request
to amend Source Material License No. SUA-1358 to authorize receipt and processing of a
uranium-bearing material from the Molycorp, Inc. ("Molycorp") facility located in Mountain
Pass, California (the "Mountain Pass Facility"). This material resulted from the mineral
recovery of natural ore for the production of lanthanides. IUSA also submitted supplemental
information to NRC on January 2, 2001 relating to this amendment request. The material
addressed in IUSA's amendment request and supplemental information letter will be removed by
Molycorp's Lanthanide Division from three former impoundments at their mine and mill site at
the Mountain Pass facility. The amendment request and January 2, 2001 letter referred to the
material to be removed from the three Molycorp impoundments as the "Uranium Material."
That Uranium Material is referred to herein as the "Pond Uranium Material." This letter
addresses a small quantity of additional material from the Mountain Pass facility, currently
stored in approximately 36 drums at that facility, which IUSA requests be included in the
foregoing requested license amendment. This additional material is referred to herein as the
"Drummed Uranium Material."
The Drummed Uranium Material is similar to the Pond Uranium Material in source, chemical
composition, radiological composition, and physical properties, and is expected to be
indistinguishable from the Pond Uranium Material during and after processing at the White Mesa
Mill (the "Mill"), and in its impacts on Mill tailings. This letter provides a detailed comparison
of the Pond Uranium Material with the Drummed Uranium Material, and demonstrates that the
S:\MRR\Molycorpdrums\Molydrumsltrl 01701 .doc
Mr. Melvyn Leach
Drummed Uranium Material is sufficiently similar that it can properly be included with the Pond
Uranium Material in the same license amendment.
Historical Summary of Sources
As described in the January 2, 2001 letter, Molycorp has operated a surface mining and milling
operation for the mineral recovery and chemical separation of lanthanides and other rare earths
from bastnasite ores since the 1950's. From 1965 through 1984 Molycorp constructed and
operated three lead sulfide ponds for the evaporation of lead sulfide sludges from the
clarifier/thickener operation. The lead sulfide sludges contain uranium, which is also
precipitated in the thickener. All three of the lead sulfide ponds were taken out of service prior
to 1985. All of the Pond Uranium Material comes from these ponds and is associated with these
pre-1985 activities.
From 1985 onward, the same uranium-bearing lead sulfide stream that had previously been
transferred to the ponds, was managed as follows. From 1986 through 1995, this material was
filtered and accumulated in drums. In 1995, Molycorp treated the drum contents with
stabilization cement and sodium silicate to stabilize the lead content. For the period from 1995
to 1998, the stabilized material was returned to the Molycorp mineral recovery circuit for further
recovery of lanthanides. During the same period, a portion was also shipped off site to recovery
facilities and/or land disposal facilities. A Molycorp flow sheet and text, which describe the
operations that generated the Drummed Uranium Material, are provided in Attachment 1.
The stabilized material that was returned to the Molycorp mineral recovery circuit was
reintroduced just prior to the hydrochloric acid leaching step, and continued through the
remainder of the circuit with the roasted bastnasite ores. These activities ceased in March 1998.
The reintroduction area, containing only the equipment where the stabilized material was
repulped and slurried, was decommissioned under the oversight of the State of California
environmental authority after March 1998. The residuals from these decommissioning activities,
containing the original stabilized drum contents treated with leach acid, were returned to drums.
The approximately 36 drums (approximately 11 tons) from this area constitute the "Drummed
Uranium Material."
The portion of the stabilized drummed material that Molycorp had previously shipped off site to
other facilities was estimated to contain less than 0.05 percent total uranium and thorium. That
material exhibited the RCRA TCLP characteristic for lead, and was shipped as RCRA
characteristic waste D008. None of this previously shipped material will be included in the
Drummed Uranium Material to be shipped to the Mill.
The Drummed Uranium Material to be shipped to the Mill is estimated to contain greater than
0.05 percent total uranium and thorium. Amendment 10 to Molycorp's Radioactive Material
License, issued by the State of California, indicates that all the drummed stabilized lead sulfide
sludges at the Mountain Pass facility have been classified as uranium and thorium source
material. A copy of Molycorp's License Amendment 10 is provided in Attachment 2. Molycorp
personnel have conducted ongoing telephone communications with the State of California
environmental authorities, throughout 2001, regarding modifications to Molycorp's
S:\MRR\MolycorpDrums\Molydrumsltrl 01701 .doc
-2-October 17, 2001
*Mr. Melvyn Leach -3- October 17, 2001
decommissioning work plans. According to Molycorp personnel, based on those
communications, the Drummed Uranium Material will be classified as uranium and thorium
source material.
The December 13, 2000 amendment request sought authorization to process approximately
21,300 tons (16,400 CY) of Pond Uranium Material at the Mill as an alternate feed/ore. This
letter requests that up to approximately 50 additional drums (approximately 16 tons) of
Drummed Uranium Material be included in the same license amendment as the Pond Uranium
Material for processing as an alternate feed/ore at the Mill, to ensure that all of the Drummed
Uranium Material is also included in the requested amendment.
Radiochemical Data
Molycorp estimates that the Drummed Uranium Material has an approximate uranium content
ranging from 0.10 percent to approximately 0.14 weight percent (0.12 to 0.18 percent U30 8), or
greater, with an estimated overall average grade of 0.12 percent uranium (0.14 percent U308) for
the entire volume of Drummed Uranium Material. This average uranium content is very similar
to the Pond Uranium Material, which was estimated to have a uranium content ranging from
0.002 to 0.49 weight percent (0.0024 to 0.59 percent U30 8) and an approximate average of 0.15
weight percent uranium (0.18 percent U308). Data provided by Molycorp on the radiochemical
content of the Drummed Uranium Material is included in Attachment 3.
According to data provided by Molycorp, the Drummed Uranium Material may have an
approximate total thorium content ranging from 11 to 288 mg/kg (ppm). According to data
provided by Molycorp, the Pond Uranium Material may have an approximate total thorium
content ranging from 62 to 5954 mg/kg (ppm).
Consequently, as demonstrated by the Molycorp data, the Drummed Uranium Material is
expected to be comparable in uranium content, but may be significantly lower in thorium
content, than the Pond Uranium Material.
Hazardous Constituent Data
The December 13, 2000 amendment request demonstrated that the Pond Uranium Material was
not and did not contain RCRA listed hazardous waste as defined in 40 CFR 261 et. seq. As will
be described under the Chemical Composition and Hazardous Waste Protocol Sections, below,
the Drummed Uranium Material also is not, and does not contain, RCRA listed hazardous waste.
S:\MRR\MolycorpDrums\Molydrumsltrl 01701 .doc

Exhibit 14
FBR""IBbTRc
Request to Amend
Source Material License SUA-1358
White Mesa Mill
Docket No. 40-8681
September 20, 1996
Prepared by:
Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.
1515 Arapahoe Street, Suite 900
Denver, CO 80202
Contact: Michelle R. Rehmann, Environmental Manager
Phone: [phone]
Submitted to:
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
2 White Flint North, Mail Stop T-7J9
11545 Rockville Pike
Rockville. MD 20852
ts?83FBF'
Amendment Request
License SUA-1358
September 20,1996
Page I
INTRODUCTION
Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. ("EFN") operates an NRC-licensed uranium mill located
approximately six miles south of Blanding, Utah. The mill processes natural (native, raw)
uranium ores and feed materials other than natural ores. These alternate feed materials are
generally processing products from other extraction procedures, which EFN will process primarily
for the source material content. All waste associated with this processing is, therefore, 11e.(2)
byproduct material; or, as stated in the alternate feed analysis noticed in Federal Register Volume
57, No. 93:
"The fact that the term 'any ore' rather than 'uffefined and unprocessed ore' is
used in the definition of 11e.(2) byproduct material implies that a broader range
of feed materials could be processed in a mill, with the wastes still being
considered as 11e.(2) byproduct material".
This application to amend NRC Source Material License SUA-1358 requests an amendment to
allow EFN to process a specific alternate feed primarily for its source material content, and to
dispose of the associated lle.(2) byproduct material.
1.0 MATERIAL COMPOSITION AIID VOLUME
Allied Signal, Inc. of Metropolis, Illinois, ("Allied") will repackage (as necessary), prepare, and
load for shipping material described as uranium-bearing potassium diurinate (KrUrOr) in a
solution of potassium hydroxide/potassium fluoride ("KOFVKF") in water ("Material"). This
Material is currently contained in approximately 11,000 drums. Approximately 110 loads, or
4,000 to 5,000 of 55-gallon drums (900 tons), of dry material will be shipped in drums, and
approximately 98 loads will be shipped in slurry form (in tanker trucks) to the White Mesa Mill
("the Mill"). Specific gravity of the slurry is approximately 1.5 to 1.6. Approximately 5,000 cu.
ft. of compacted drums, resulting from the repackaging of the Material, having been washed,
pelletized, and wrapped, will also be sent to the Mill. It has been standard practice to dispose
of drums in which alternate feed material is contained as IIe.(2) byproduct material as they are
emptied for processing of the Material; however, in this case, environmental and waste
minimization considerations demand that some of the Material be emptied from drums and
shipped in tankers as slurry. The drums, however, remain an element of this recycling process.
Further, as discussed below in subsection 1.3, these drums are considered to have become I 1e.(2)
byproduct when UrO, (yellowcake) was placed in the drums for shipment to Allied.

Exhibit 15
Request to Amend
Source Material License SUA- 1358
White Mesa Mill
Docket No. 40-8681
March 16, 2000
Prepared by:
International Uranium (USA) Corporation
1050 17th Street, Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
Contact: Michelle R. Rehmann, Environmental Manager
Phone: [phone]
Submitted to:
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
2 White Flint North, Mail Stop T-7J9
11545 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852
S:\MRR\Linde\LindeAR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Material Composition and Volume
1.1 General
1.2 Radiochemical Data
1.3 Hazardous Constituent Data
1.4 Regulatory Considerations
2.0 Transportation Considerations
3.0 Process
4.0 Safety Measures
4.1 Radiation Safety
4.2 Control of Airborne Contamination
4.3 Vehicle Scan
5.0 Other Information
5.1 Added Advantage of Recycling
5.2 Classification of Uranium Material as 1 le.(2) Byproduct Material
CERTIFICATION
S:\MRR\Linde\LindeAR
List of Attachments
Attachment I
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
Attachment 7
Attachment 8
Linde Site Location Maps, Volume Estimates and Process History
Uranium Content Estimates, Material Description, Analytical Data, and
Preliminary Material Characterization Report for the Linde Site
IUSA/UDEQ Hazardous Waste Protocol
Review of Constituents in Linde Site Uranium Materials to Determine
Potential Presence of Listed Hazardous Waste
New York State Technical Administrative Guidance Memorandum on
"Contained-In" Criteria for Environmental Media
White Mesa Mill Equipment Release/Radiological Survey Procedure
USACE Value Engineering Proposal for Ashland 1 and Ashland 2.
Classification of Uranium Material as 11 e.(2) Byproduct Material
S:\MRR\Linde\LindeAR
Amendment Request
Linde
License SUA-1358
March 16, 2000
Page I
INTRODUCTION
International Uranium (USA) Corporation ("IUSA") operates the NRC-licensed White Mesa
uranium mill (the "Mill") located approximately six miles south of Blanding, Utah. The mill
processes natural (native, raw) uranium ores and feed materials other than natural ores. These
alternate feed materials are generally processing byproducts from other extraction procedures,
which IUSA processes at IUSA's licensed uranium mill, primarily for their source material
content. All waste associated with IUSA's processing is therefore 1 le.(2) byproduct material.
This application to amend NRC Source Material License SUA-1358 requests an amendment to
allow IUSA to process a specific alternate feed, and to dispose of the resulting 1 le.(2) byproduct
material in accordance with the Mill operating procedures.
Yellowcake produced from the processing of this material will not cause the currently-approved
yellowcake production limit of 4,380 tons per year ("TPY") to be exceeded. In addition, and as a
result, radiological doses to members of the public in the vicinity of the Mill will not be elevated
above levels previously assessed and approved.
1.0 MATERIAL COMPOSITION AND VOLUME
IUSA is requesting an amendment to Source Material License SUA-1358 to authorize receipt and
processing of certain uranium-bearing byproducts, which byproducts originally resulted from the
processing of natural ore for the extraction of uranium. For ease of reference, this byproduct
material is referred to herein as the "Uranium Material". The Uranium Material is located at a
property being managed under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ("FUSRAP")
in Tonawanda, New York, known as the Linde property. The Linde property is one of four
properties that comprise the Tonawanda Site. NRC has already granted license amendments to
IUSA to process material from two of the other properties within the Tonawanda site, Ashland 1
and Ashland 2 which contained uranium byproduct material originally generated at the Linde
property. The Uranium Material is not a residue from a water treatment process.
The Uranium Material will be transported by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE", or the"Corps") contractor, as part of the FUSRAP Program, from the Linde property to the Mill. A
historic summary of the sources of the Uranium Material is provided below. This history was
derived from the documents listed on page 4 of this Amendment Request.
1.1 Historical Summary of Sources
As described above, the Linde property is one of several properties within the Tonawanda, New
York FUSRAP site, which includes Linde, Ashland 1, Ashland 2, and Seaway. The regional
setting of Linde, Ashland 1, Ashland 2, and Seaway is shown in Figure 1-2 of Attachment I.
Figure 1-3 shows the specific locations of the Linde, Ashland 1, Ashland 2, and Seaway properties.
S:\MRR\Linde\LindeAR
Amendment Request
Linde
License SUA- 1358
March 16. 2000
Page 2
Union Carbide Corporation's former Linde Air Products Division purchased the Linde property
and constructed a ceramics plant at the location in 1942. One of the ceramics processes conducted
by Union Carbide Linde Division at this location consisted of extraction of uranium from ores to
produce uranium salts, for coloration of product glasses. Based on their experience, Union
Carbide was placed under contract with the Manhattan Engineering District ("MED") from 1942 to
1946 to extract uranium from seven different ore sources: four African pitchblende ores and three
domestic ores. Laboratory and pilot plant studies were conducted from 1942 to 1943. From 1943
to 1946, Linde conducted full scale processing of 28,300 tons of ore. The Linde Division contract
with the MED ended in the early 1950's.
The domestic ores processed at Linde were in fact residuals from commercial processing at other
facilities which removed vanadium. The vanadium removal process also removed radium and
other daughter products in the decay chain. As a result, the domestic uranium ores supplied to
Linde had reduced concentrations of radium relative to the uranium and thorium levels. The
African ores contained uranium in equilibrium with all the daughter products in its decay chain.
Figures D- 1 through D-4, of the United States Department of Energy ("USDOE") Preliminary Site
Assessment in Attachment 1, show the three-phase processes used for domestic and foreign ores.
Triuranium octoxide ("U 30 8 ") was separated from the feedstock by acid digestion, precipitation,
and filtration. The solid, gelatinous filter cake from this step was discarded as solid waste in a
temporary tailings pile on the Linde site. Insoluble precipitates from the solution steps were
combined with the filter cake for disposal on site. Approximately 8,000 tons of filter cake and
precipitates were later relocated to Ashland 1. U30 8 was converted to uranium dioxide and
uranium tetrafluoride at the Linde site. Residuals from these two steps were reprocessed. A more
detailed discussion of the ore composition, recovery processes, and waste disposal practices is
provided in Attachment 1.
Five buildings at the site were involved in MED activities. Building 14 had been constructed by
Union Carbide in the mid-1930's. Buildings 30, 31, 37, and 38 were constructed at the location by
MED, and their ownership was transferred to Linde when the MED contract ended.
Residues from uranium ore processing at the Linde facility were disposed of and/or stored at the
Ashland 1, Ashland 2 and Seaway properties. The majority of Linde facility residues were
disposed of on the Ashland 1 property between 1944 and 1946. No material was transferred from
Linde to Ashland I after this period. In 1974, the subsequent owner of the Ashland I property
excavated a portion of the Linde residues and soils from the Ashland I site, and relocated them to
the Ashland 2 property. NRC has already approved amendments to IUSA's license for processing
of the portion of the Linde residues and soil moved to Ashland 1 and Ashland 2.
After transfer of residues to Ashland 1 was completed, Linde added manufacturing operations at
the Linde facility that very likely contributed additional contaminants to materials remaining on
the Linde site, but would not have affected materials already transferred to Ashland 1 and/or
Ashland 2.
S:\MRR\Linde\LindeAR
Amendment Request
Linde
License SUA-1358
March 16. 2000
Page 3
From 1955 to 1991, the Linde Division operated a gas equipment design and manufacturing
facility on the property. The operation included design, manufacture, testing, and repair of gas
compressors, chillers, filters and other equipment for installation at customer sites. The Linde
Division was divested from Union Carbide in 1991, and changed its name to Praxair. Praxair
discontinued manufacturing operations in 1991 but maintained engineering design offices on the
property. There is no record of any processing activities other than uranium processing, occurring
on the property, either before or after the MED activities.
Renovation of the facility over the years has resulted in consolidation of the MED wastes and
radioactively contaminated soils remaining at the property. In 1977, MED contaminated soil was
removed from the construction area for the new building 90, and placed in two windrows along the
northern property line. The windrows were consolidated into one pile between 1979 and 1982, and
covered in 1992.
The USDOE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") negotiated a Federal
Facilities Agreement ("FFA") governing remediation of the Linde property. In 1997, Congress
transferred management responsibility for the sites in the FUSRAP program, including the Linde
Site, to the USACE. All actions by the USACE at the Linde Site are being conducted subject to
the administrative, procedural and regulatory provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA") and the existing FFA.
USACE issued a Proposed Plan for the Linde Property in 1999 (USACE, March 1999) and a Final
Record of Decision ("ROD") in 2000 (USACE, March 2000). As a result, sufficient
characterization information on the nature and extent of contamination is already available to
assess the composition and sources of Uranium Material to be excavated.
Over the years, erosion and weathering have spread contamination from the residuals handled and
disposed of at Linde to adjacent soils, increasing the volume of Uranium Materials to be removed
during the remedial excavation. Physically, the Uranium Material is a moist material consisting of
byproducts from uranium processing operations (i.e., "tailings"), mixed with site soils (Remedial
Investigation ("RI") Report USDOE, 1992). According to the USACE Buffalo District, the
USACE estimates the volume of soil to be excavated from the entire Linde property to range from
approximately 35,000 to 70,000 cubic yards ("CY") or somewhat more, depending on conditions
encountered during excavation. These volumes are estimates only. It is difficult to estimate the
extent to which surrounding soils have been contaminated by the tailings, and hence the potential
volumes, with precision. Pre-excavation estimates at other FUSRAP sites in Tonawanda have
been as low as one-half the actual excavated volume. Therefore, to ensure that IUSA will not have
to reapply for an increased volume from this site in the future, this request is for up to 100,000 CY
of Uranium Material.
As described in detail below, 100,000 CY would not come near the Mill's currently approved
yellowcake production limit of 4,380 TPY, and as, even without reprocessing, the composition of
the Uranium Materials is very similar to the Mill's existing tailings, added volumes of Uranium
Material will have no adverse effect on public health, safety, and the environment.
S:\MRR\Linde\LindeAR
Amendment RequestLinde
License SUA-1358
March 16. 2000
Page 4
USACE expects to excavate and deliver the Linde Site materials over a period of ten to fourteen
months or longer. IUSA has previously received NRC approval for a license amendment to process
Uranium Material from the St, Louis FUSRAP site. As described in the IUSA Request for
Amendment for the St. Louis material, the USACE may be expected to excavate and ship
approximately 20,000 to 80,000 CY per year of Uranium Material from the St. Louis Site, and
IUSA would expect to process this material over several years. If the entire volume of Linde
material were received during a period that overlapped with shipments of the St. Louis material,
the processing of the total estimated volume of 180,000 CY in one year would not come near the
Mill's currently approved yellowcake production limit of 4,380 TPY.
Additional information on the Linde property is contained in Attachments 1 and 2. Attachment 1
includes the following items describing the Uranium Materials and the Linde property operational
history:
1. A detailed site history of the Tonawanda Site, including the Linde property, is provided in
Chapter 1 of the Remedial Investigation Report for the Tonawanda Site (USDOE,
December 1992) (the "RI").
2. Additional detail on the uranium extraction process is provided in Section 7.0 of the
Preliminary Assessment and Site Investigation for Linde Air Products Division of Union
Carbide (USDOE, September 1987).
Attachment 2 includes the following items describing the composition of the Uranium Materials:
1. Chapters 3 and 4 of the Remedial Investigation Report for the Tonawanda Site (USDOE,
December, 1992) describe uranium concentrations and metals and organic contaminant
concentrations in surface and subsurface samples at the Linde property.
2. Portions of the Radiological Survey of the Ashland Oil Company (Former Haist Property),
Tonawanda, New York (U.S. Department of Energy, May 1978) describe uranium
concentrations in core samples and approximate distributions of tailings stored on the
Linde property.
3. A summary of the concentrations of chemical contaminants is provided in the Linde Site
Preliminary Material Characterization Report (USACE/IT, February 2000).
4. Portions of the Preliminary Plan for the Linde Site (USACE, March 1999) describe site
history and radiological contamination.
5. Portions of the Record of Decision for the Linde Site (USACE, March 2000) describe the
regulatory framework and remediation goals relative to the radiological and chemical
contamination at the site.
S:\MRR\Linde\LindeAR

Exhibit 16
2. 49 CFR 173.443-Contamination control
3. 10 CFR 71.43(±)-General standards for all packages
4. 10 CFR 71.71 -Normal conditions of transport
Contrary to 49 CFR 173.427(c)(1), 10 CFR 71.43(±) and 10 CFR 71.71, the Cameco-Smith Ranch
Facility sent an 11e.(2) shipment to the White Mesa Mill in a roll-off container that did not contain the
material under routine (normal) conditions of transport.
Contrary to 49 CFR 173.443, leakage from that container resulted in removable contamination on the
outside of the container that exceeded DOT contamination limits for Alpha and an exterior dose rate
greater than 0.5 mrem per hour.
This is the second incident of this type that has been reported to the Division with the first being
reported on August 21, 2015. The Division requests that NRC take appropriate regulatory action with
Cameco-Smith Ranch to prevent recurrence. Please find enclosed the EFRI report of the incident,
photographs and shipping papers.
If you have any questions, please call Ryan Johnson at [phone].
Sincerely, Lc:x:--c:2
Scott T. Anderson, Director
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
STAJRMJ/ka
Enclosures: Documentation Letter, dated April4, 2016 (DRC-2016-006042)
Cameco Smith Ranch Shipping Paperwork (DRC-2016-006041)
Photographs (DRC-2016-006044)
Email from Ryan Johnson, dated March 29,2016 (DRC-2016-006045)
c: Worthy Glover, Jr., MMHRM, CPM, Health Office San Juan Public Health Department
Rick Meyer, Environmental Health Director, San Juan Public Health Department
David Ariotti, P.E., DEQ District Engineer
Ms. Linda Gersey, U.S. NRC Region IV, Division ofNuclear Materials Safety
RyanS. Schierman, State of Wyoming, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality,
Natural Resources Program Manager
Jennifer Opila, Colorado Department ofPublic Health &the Environment, Hazardous Materials
& Waste Management Division, Radiation Program, Program Manager

Exhibit 17
ENERGYFUELS
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
6425 South Highway 191, PO Box 809
Blanding, UT. US, 84511
435 678 2221, fax [phone]
www.energyfuels.com
November 8, 2013
VIA UPS GROUND
II DRC-2013-003465 n
Mr. Rusty Lundberg
Division of Radiation Control
State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4850
Re: Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah License Number UT1900479;
Annual Summary of Disposal of 1 le.(2) Byproduct Waste Material
Dear Mr. Lundberg:
Please find attached the annual summary of 1 le.(2) Byproduct Waste Material which was disposed of at
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc's White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah for the year 2012.
This information is provided in accordance with License Condition 10.5 F. of Radioactive Materials License
Number UT 1900479. Should you have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to
call me at the mill at 435.678.2221.
David Turk
Manager Environmental Health and Safety
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
cc: David C. Frydenlund
Harold R. Roberts
Jo Ann Tischler
Sincerely,
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. lle.(2) Receipts for 2012
Generator
Received
Cubic
Received Yards
Tons 2012 2012
Cubic
Tons Yards
Received Received
from from
Inception Inception Comments
Crow Butte
Resources 44.40 180.00 425.99 1100.00 Active
IEC 0.00 0.00 4826.37 4920.00 Closed
Mestena Uranium,
L.L.C - Alta Mesa
ISL Project 329.80 412.80 2950.71 2892.65 Active
Cameco - Highland 645.90 1663.54 1260.65 2876.57 Active
Cameco - North Butte 0.00 0.00 94.24 211.10 Active
Cameco - Smith
Ranch Property 645.90 1663.54 940.64 1853.48 Active
UEC - South Texas
Mining 1109.10 871.50 4920.80 3938.50 Active
UEC - Goliad 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Active
UEC - La Palangana 74.30 95.50 167.90 171.50 Active
URI, Inc. - Rosita 0.00 0.00 489.27 588.79 Active
URI, Inc. - Kingsville
Dome ISR Project 202.60 177.60 651.56 888.26 Active
URI, Inc. - Vasquez
ISR Project 0.00 0.00 34.13 45.70 Active
USX - Texas
Uranium operations 0.00 0.00 5099.99 4636.35 Closed

Exhibit 18
2
EU-NORM 1st International Symposium 5-8 June 2012, Tallinn, Estonia
Editors note: The material in this book has been supplied by the authors and has not been edited. The
views expressed remain the responsibility of the named authors. The Environmental Board cannot be
held responsible for any material reproduced in this book.
Published by
Environmental Board
Graphic design and layout:
Villem Tõnisberg / www.sugar.ee
ISBN 978-9949-9201-5-0 (pdf)
Electronic publication, June 2012
www.eunorm1.ee
www.keskkonnaamet.ee
EU-NORM
1st International Symposium
5-8 June 2012
Tallinn, Estonia
PROCEEDINGS
169
EU-NORM 1st International Symposium 5-8 June 2012, Tallinn, Estonia
Miscellaneous
NORM Related Production of Rare Earth Metals in Estonia
NORM Related Production of Rare Earth Metals in Estonia
M. Lust1, E. Realo1,2
1Institute of Physics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
2Radiation Safety Department, Environmental Board, Estonia
Abstract
Since 1970’s rare earth, Nb and Ta metals and their compounds are produced in the plant, located at
Sillamäe, Estonia. In imported mineral ores, which are used as commercial feedstock materials, NORM
concentrations (both 238U and 232Th decay chain radionuclides) vary greatly, however they are usually
high enough to cause exposure to workers and even sometimes concerns to the public. During processing
operations radionuclides become mobilized, migrate to dusts, scales and process residues, leading to the
enrichment in these materials. This means that the materials used and NORM waste produced as the
by-product of processing, require proper management taking account the safety concerns. At workplaces
doses to workers from external exposure, from radon/thoron and dusts in the air are or might be
significantly higher than the dose limit for a member of the public. For this reason, these production
activities are regulated as a radiation practice.
The paper gives an overview of performed studies and assessments on the impact of NORM, including
material and waste streams, radiation exposures during pre-processing, chemical processing, generation
of NORM waste, waste management and disposal, their environmental impact, etc. A comprehensive
discussion on the establishment of the Estonian regulatory framework for NORM and the arising practical
problems is also presented.
1. Introduction
In last decades multiple studies have identified the radiological concerns requiring regulatory control
in specific NORM industries. EU has introduced the regulation of ‘work activities’ within its Directive
96/29/EURATOM (EC, 1996) and issued the recommendations for the implementation (EC, 1997).
Production of niobium and tantalum, as well as of rare earths, belongs to work activities involving both
potentially significant exposure of workers at the work-place (EC, 1999) and potential significance with
regard to public exposure as a result of wastes and discharges (EC, 2003). The minerals in niobium (Nb)
ores, various concentrates, oxides, etc., raw materials contain enhanced levels of NORM, mostly of 238U,
232Th and their decay products. Tantalum (Ta) occurs usually in combination with niobium and rare earths.
A major production facility of Nb, Ta and rare earths, Molycorp Silmet AS, is located at Sillamäe, North
East Estonia. The large industrial complex produces the above materials (Nb, Ta metals and light rare
earth metals as well as their compounds) from various imported ores and by-products.
The present paper discusses the establishment of the Estonian regulatory framework for NORM, the
brief history of the facility at Sillamäe, performed studies and assessments on the impact of NORM at
the Silmet facility, problems related to the generation of NORM waste, waste management and disposal,
their environmental impact.
170
EU-NORM 1st International Symposium 5-8 June 2012, Tallinn, Estonia
2. Radiation Act and related legislation
Estonia is a member state of the European Union since 1st May 2004. Thus, the regulations of the
Union are in force in Estonia. When necessary, the Estonian regulations have been modified to take
into account the EU regulations. The Radiation Act as the principal legal instrument of the radiation
protection infrastructure was brought into force in 1997, while a new upgraded version was enforced
in 2004 (Radiation Act, 2004). The Act bases on the concepts, principles, terms, and limits laid down
in the International Basic Safety Standards (IAEA, 1995) and Directive 96/29/EURATOM (EC, 1996).
The basic internationally approved principles, e.g., justification of practices, optimization of protection
and safety, limitation of individual doses, adoption of justified and optimized interventions, the primary
responsibility of the licensee, and authorization of practices, are explicitly formulated as provisions of the
Act. The EU criteria for the exemption of practices from the requirements of the Act are adopted.
The Act sets requirements for identification and regulation of the work activities relevant to NORM. The
general radiation safety principles apply also to the management of radioactive waste, including NORM
waste, as well as those arising from decommissioning of a nuclear facility. According to the definitions
given in the article 3 of the Radiation Act, radioactive waste is any material or object which contains or
is contaminated by radionuclides, the activity or activity concentration of which exceeds the established
clearance levels and for which no future use is foreseen.
The licensee in radiation practice is required to take any measures to render harmless radioactive wastes
arising from its operation. The Regulation of the Minister of Environment No 10 (2005) issued under
the Radiation Act specifies the requirements for radioactive waste management. Radioactive waste will
be categorized by activity or specific activity, by half-life, by type of radiation and by heat generation as
a result of radioactive decay. In conditioning and storing of radioactive waste their producer has to take
into account, beside their type, also physical, chemical and biological properties of radioactive waste.
Radioactive waste categorization includes NORM waste, which are defined as radioactive waste arising
from processing of natural radionuclides, the activity concentration of which is higher than the exemption
levels.
Article 59 of the Radiation Act sets that the dispersion, clearance and management of NORM waste,
including the way of their storage, interim storage and disposal shall be determined by the license
conditions. The Government Regulation No 163 (2004) enforces exemption levels for radionuclide activity
and activity concentration in accordance with the terms and levels equal to those stipulated in the BSS
(IAEA, 1995) and the EU Directive (EC,1999, 2003). Exemption levels are considered as basic criteria for
decisions on licensing radiation practices. No license is needed for operations with activities or activity
concentrations of radionuclides below the exemption levels. Examples of the exemption levels relevant to
the raw material and waste containing NORM are given in Table 1.
Table 1. Exemption levels for NORM radionuclides
Radionuclide Activity
(Bq)
Activity concentration
(kBq/kg)
210Pb, 226Ra, 235U, 238U 104 10
228Th, 230Th 104 1
232Th nat, 238Unat 103 1
For multiple radionuclides or mixtures in the materials, the sum of their activity or specific activity ratios
to the corresponding exemption levels should be less than 1.
Miscellaneous
NORM Related Production of Rare Earth Metals in Estonia
171
EU-NORM 1st International Symposium 5-8 June 2012, Tallinn, Estonia
Environmental impact assessment procedure is required for radioactive waste management facilities, as
they are considered in the legislation as activities with a significant environmental impact (EIA, 2005).
In 2009 in the course of reorganization, the Estonian Radiation Protection Centre, the former authority
since 1996, was merged as a department with the Environmental Board. It is empowered to authorize
practices by licensing, to assess practices and sources, to maintain the dose and source registers, to
monitor and to assess radiation levels, to implement international conventions and agreements, to notify
about the radiation accidents, etc. The other body, the Environmental Inspectorate, is provided to carry
out regular inspections of the licensed radiation practices.
3. History of the Silmet facility
The large industrial complex at Sillamäe, about 190 km East from Tallinn, was launched as a top secret
facility in 1948 for mining and milling of local alum shale (dictyonema argillite) containing ~ 0.03 % of
U. Before Estonia regained independence, the facility under different names, including the Sillamäe
Metallurgy Plant, was managed by the former USSR Ministry of Medium-Scale Engineering and it produced
uranium for military and civil use. Later the mines were closed and much richer uranium ore of up to 1
% of U was imported from the Eastern European countries. Waste arising from uranium production was
stored in a depository located near the Sillamäe plant, 20 - 50 m from the waterline of the Baltic Sea. After
processing as a total of about 4 million tons of uranium ore, the uranium production was closed in 1977.
In the beginning of the 1970s the facility was modified for production of niobium, tantalum and rare earth
metals, using loparite as a NORM-containing raw mineral from the Kola Peninsula. Later (till now) rare
earths were produced from rare earth chloride mix. Composition of raw materials varies depending on
the deposit, as niobium/tantalum are usually combined with iron, tin, titanium, manganese, radioactive
elements (uranium, thorium) and their decay products. The composition and amount of technological
waste from the processing depends on the share of each raw material type in its total amount. As the
waste contained small amounts of thorium and uranium as well as their decay products, which were not
recovered, the arising NORM waste were dumped together with other waste to the pond on top of uranium
tailings depository near the plant. Since 1990 the main activity of the plant has been the continuation of
the production of Nb and Ta metals and light rare earth metals as well as their compounds from various
imported ores, e.g., columbite and chloride melts. In 1992 the facility becomes the state joint-stock
company RAS Silmet, later AS Silmet and now Molycorp Silmet AS, which continues the production of
Nb, Ta and rare earths.
With the establishment of the radiation protection infrastructure in Estonia, the NORM related working
activities at the Silmet facility were considered of radiological concern, which required regulation as a
licensed radiation practice. The performed studies, showed that at workplaces doses to workers from
external exposure, from radon/thoron and dusts in the air were or might be higher than the established
dose limits for a member of the public (see, e.g., Mustonen, R., et al., 2000). In addition, an analysis
showed that the use of the former uranium tailings depository for dumping of the NORM waste might
cause some radiological concerns to the members of the public (Realo, 2000).
4. Need for new NORM-waste management system
Until 2004 all radioactive waste from the rare earth and the rare metal production was dumped in the
tailings pond. The first environmental impact assessment for the tailing pond was done in 1994 (Ehdwall
et al, 1994, Nordlinder. S, et al. 1995). Mostly because of the impacts caused by releases and discharges
of chemical pollutants from the depository and from the pond on its top, an international PHARE
remediation project was initiated and the use of depository was terminated. The remediation project was
Miscellaneous
NORM Related Production of Rare Earth Metals in Estonia
172
EU-NORM 1st International Symposium 5-8 June 2012, Tallinn, Estonia
successfully finished in 2008. As a result, the need arouse to work out a new waste management option
for the produced NORM waste. For creation of the new waste management system according to the
Radiation Act and waste laws, international agreements and other legal acts, a number of assessments
and studies there have been carried out.
It became clear that future radioactive waste arising would be caused exclusively by the production
process of the Silmet facility (CASSIOPEE, 2002). The volume and activity of radioactive waste to store or
respectively to dispose of would depend on from the following:
• content of NORM radionuclides in the raw materials,
• amount of processed raw materials,
• waste management system.
In the period 2001-2003 the developed radioactive waste management system included radioactive waste
separation at an early stage of the technological process. The volume of future radioactive waste arising
was estimated to be maximum 2000 t/y before vitrification. The specific α-activity of about 7000 Bq/g
was estimated for non-vitrified radioactive waste. It was considered that all radioactive waste should be
treated and conditioned together and after packaging in the special containers, it would be stored in an
interim storage facility of a modular type. After 50-100 years of the interim storage period the waste
could be used as feedstock for further processing or disposed of in a final repository (Behre Dolbear &
Company, 2002). In case of the final disposal, the waste vitrification option was considered. The vitrified
radioactive waste would be dumped into the existing oil-shale ash storage of the local power plant located
at the Western side of the former tailings pond dam. This solution represented practically a final near-
surface disposal of vitrified long-lived radioactive waste.
5. Environmental impact assessment for NORM waste management
The EIA process for all waste management systems of the facility (including also other forms of waste
produced at the plant) was initiated in 2001 (E-Konsult, 2003). As the EIA report provided limited
information about the proposed management system for the NORM waste and about the proposed
guarantees or assessments for financing of the management options, a special EIA process of the NORM
waste management was started in 2003 (E-Konsult, 2004). To meet the public concerns, the EIA program
was amended and points covering the possibilities for the future waste management were included. This
EIA process was finished in June 2004 and the proposed NORM waste management system was approved.
As the starting point of the EIA process it was taken into account that annually up to 2000 t of NORM waste
with activity concentrations of 3000-4000 Bq/g were produced. The estimated amounts and activities of
waste are given in Table 2. It was planned that this waste in the drums should be stored temporarily
outdoors before the interim storage facility would be finished. In the same time it was expected that after
50 year storage period there would be enough material collected to be of interest to the reprocessing
companies, e.g., in Russia or elsewhere.
Table 2. Estimate of NORM-waste in 2003
Production line Average amount
of waste per 1 t of
processed raw material
(kg)
Average activity
concentrations of
waste
(Bq/g)
Estimated annual
amounts of waste
(t)
Rare earth metals 300-350 4300 1400Rare metals 170-200 2300 600
Miscellaneous
NORM Related Production of Rare Earth Metals in Estonia
173
EU-NORM 1st International Symposium 5-8 June 2012, Tallinn, Estonia
Three different storage packages were investigated:
1. concrete containers with the dimensions of 1.63x1.63x1.35 m, which could contain up to 2.1 tons
of the solidified NORM-waste. Putting these containers in 4 layers, would allocate up to 3.15 t of
waste on 1 m2 of the storage,
2. containers used in sea transportation, where the waste would be put in the plastic bags,
3. metal drums with the plastic inside cover of the volume of 0.43 m3 for or 0.38 t of waste.
As the waste contains 235U and 232Th with their decay products, including radon, after several assessments
and practical experiments the preference was givent to the last option. Radon was estimated as the major
factor in causing doses for the radiation workers. The studies resulted in the conclusion that the best
solution was the use of double package, which should avoid the leakage of radon for at least 10 y.
The first stage of the EIA process resulted in rather high dose estimates to the radiation workers, e.g.,
with annual doses over 20 mSv at some operations. A significant overestimation of doses, as it appeared
later, was mostly due to the fact that at the start only few real data were available and that many default
values and extremely conservative assumptions were used in the assessments. After data corrections and
considering realistic protective measures, more realistic dose assessments were performed. As a result of
these additional improvements the estimated average annual doses to the radiation workers remained
under 4 mSv. The maximum annual doses of about 15 mSv/y, requiring limited working hours in that area
were identified for the workers at the packaging facility.
In the safety assessment a number of accident scenarios were also considered:
1. falling and breaking of the drum containing the solid NORM waste in the packaging area or during
the transportation;
2. falling and breaking of the drum containing the solid NORM waste in the interim storage;
3. fire in the storage of raw material or in the interim storage of NORM waste;
4. release of the material in the production process.
Based on the assessments and changes on the market, the Silmet plant started to import raw materials
with significantly lower NORM radionuclide concentrations, which had resulted in the decrease of
produced annually waste volumes by more than 10 times. E.g., they managed to find raw material for
the rare earth metal production, which contained NORM below the exemption levels. Nevertheless, the
production of Nb and Ta still uses radioactive raw material and the NORM waste generation continues.
6. Radiation practice license
Based on the radiation practice licence No 08/004, the Silmet plant is allowed to generate annually no
more than 48 t of radioactive NORM containing waste with the activity concentration lower than 300
kBq/kg. At the facility, the generation of NORM waste is not constant in time and it depends to a great
extent on the specific production line and the ore used. There is more than 31 t of NORM waste with
the average 238U and 232Th activity concentrations of 98.8 kBq/kg and 36 kBq/kg, respectively, in the
temporary storage. The composition and amount of the processing waste depends on the fraction of each
raw material type in the total amount and on their Th, U and their progeny composition.
Under the Radiation Act, the producer of radioactive waste should transfer the arising waste to the
radioactive waste management operator in at least 5 years. Unfortunately, there is no radioactive waste
management operator for NORM waste in Estonia. At the moment, the NORM waste produced by the
Silmet plant is temporarily stored and the company is continuing the search for possible management
Miscellaneous
NORM Related Production of Rare Earth Metals in Estonia
174
EU-NORM 1st International Symposium 5-8 June 2012, Tallinn, Estonia
solutions in the future. Unfortunately, so far without any success, as the amount of produced NORM
waste is too small for further processing, while their activity concentrations significantly vary. One of
the most realistic proposed management options might be the clearance of NORM waste under specified
conditions.
7. Possible clearance option
The Silmet facility has a functioning power plant, which uses local oil-shale for producing of energy. The
estimated annual production of oil-shale ash is around 100 000 t. The Estonian Environmental Board
has allowed the use of oil-shale ash in the construction of the Sillamäe harbour, which is built close to
the remediated waste depository. In the Environmental Impact Assessment of the Sillamäe Harbour it is
estimated that the harbour building needs about 8.45 million m3 of filling material, including about 2-3
million m3 of oil-shale ash. Taking account the activity concentrations of NORM in oil-shale ash in Table
3 (Realo et al, 1996) and similarity of physical properties of oil-shale ash and the NORM waste produced
in Sillamäe, a clearance option for possible management of the latter has been proposed. The clearance
option bases on the assumption that the NORM waste and oil-shale mix (110000 tons of oil-shale ash
together with 48 tons of NORM-waste) could be used (instead of oil-shale ash only) in the construction
of the harbour.
Table 3. Activity concentrations of radionuclides in the Estonian oil-shale ash
Radionuclide Activity concentrations (Bq/kg)
226Ra 48 ... 78
238U 48 ... 64
235U 2.2 ... 3.0
232Th 23 ... 30
40K 530 ... 1100
The clearance levels of 1 kBq/kg for both 235U and 232Th based on the Radiation Act. The legislation also
states that clearance of radioactive waste is possible if:
• the caused annual dose to the public is lower than 0.01 mSv;
• the caused collective annual dose is lower than 1 manSv;
• in the case of the NORM-containing material and waste, the public to the public is lower than 0,3
mSv/y.

The assessment of the annual public and collective doses caused by using the oil-shale and NORM waste mix
in the construction of the Sillamäe harbour was performed (Lust, 2009). For the assessment of clearance
options of NORM waste an assumption that future radioactive waste arising is caused exclusively by the
production of the AS Silmet plant was taken into account. The doses were assessed for both workers and
the public considering the following scenarios:
1) transportation of NORM waste;
2) inhalation in the process of NORM waste management;
3) ingestion in the process of NORM waste management;
4) fire in the waste management facilities;
5) doses to the harbour workers;
6) dose to the farmer, who lives and farms on the harbour area.
Miscellaneous
NORM Related Production of Rare Earth Metals in Estonia
175
EU-NORM 1st International Symposium 5-8 June 2012, Tallinn, Estonia
The main results of the assessment are the following. For the workers the highest doses arise via inhalation
pathway. The highest doses for the public are characteristic of the farmer, who lives and produces in the
area filled using the above mix. However, even in the case of the farmer the clearance requirement of
NORM, i.e., annual doses lower than 0.3 mSv, is fulfilled with the probability of 95%. Taking into account
that the harbour is been built next to the remediated radioactive waste tailings depository, it is hard to
believe that farming is a very realistic scenario.
8. Conclusions
The outcome of active discussions and dialog between the operator and the regulator was the development
of the waste management system for NORM waste, which, however, currently covers only the short range
activities. Based on the performed assessments it was proved that in case using the NORM waste and oil-
shale ash mix in the construction of the Sillamäe harbour, the clearance requirements would be fulfilled.
Additionally, it can be easily proved that of the proposed management option is the optimal solution
considering the type, radionuclide composition and amount of the radioactive waste. The final solution
for the NORM-waste management is still under discussion.
REFERENCES
Behre Dolbear & Company, Inc. Feasibility Evaluation For Conceptual Determination of Waste
Management Alternatives at AS Silmet, 2002.
CASSIOPEE. Report of project: Drawing up and evaluating management strategies for radioactive waste
in Estonia, DG Environment Contract B7-032/2000/287052/MAR/C2, 2002.
Ehdwall, H., et al. The content and environmental impact from the waste depository in Sillamäe. SSI-
rapport 94-08. Statens Stralskyddinstitutt, Stockholm 1994.
E-Konsult. Environmental impact assessment of the waste management concept of AS Silmet. No E810,
Tallinn, 2003 (in Estonian).
E-Konsult. Environmental impact assessment of the NORM waste management system of AS Silmet. No
E907, Tallinn, 2004 (in Estonian).
Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Management System Act, 2005, www.legaltext.ee
European Commission. Council Directive 96/29/EURATOM of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety
standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising
from ionizing radiation, Official Journal of the European Communities, OJ L159 1996.
European Commission. Recommendations for the implementation of Title VII of the European Basic
Safety Standards Directive (BSS) concerning significant increase in exposure due to natural radiation
sources, Radiation Protection No 88, 1997.
European Commission. Reference levels for workplaces processing materials with enhanced levels of
naturally occurring radionuclides, Radiation Protection No 95, 1999.
European Commission. Effluent and dose control from European Union NORM Industries: Assessment
of current situation and proposal for a harmonized Community approach, Radiation Protection 135, Vol
1-2, 2003.
Miscellaneous
NORM Related Production of Rare Earth Metals in Estonia
176
EU-NORM 1st International Symposium 5-8 June 2012, Tallinn, Estonia
Government Regulation No. 163 (2004). The Bases for Calculation of Exemption Values, and the
Exemption Values for Radionuclides, 2004.
International Atomic Energy Agency. International Basic Safety Standards for Protection against Ionizing
Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources (BSS). Safety Series No 115-1, IAEA, Vienna, 1995
Lust, M. Assessment for clearance option of NORM-waste of Silmet, Qualified Radiation Protection
Expert opinion, 2009.
Mustonen, R., et al. Indoor occupational exposure to radiation at the Silmet plant in Estonia. In Ch. Rofer
and T. Kaasik (Eds.). Turning a Problem into a Resource: Remediation and Waste Management at the
Sillamäe Site, Estonia. NATO Science Series 1: Disarmament Technologies. Vol. 28, Kluwer AP, Dordrecht,
2000, 63-68.
Nordlinder. S, et al. Environmental Risk Assessment for the Sillamäe Repository. In Environmental
Impact of Radioactive Releases, Proc. of the Symposium, 1995, 221-228.
Radiation Act, 2004, www.legaltext.ee
Realo, E., Realo, K. & Jõgi, J. Releases of natural radionuclides from oil-shale-fired power plants in Estonia.
J. Environ. Radioactivity (1996) 33, 77-89.
Realo, E.. Estonian Radiation Protection Requirements and the Sillamäe Site. In Ch. Rofer and T. Kaasik
(Eds.). Turning a Problem into a Resource: Remediation and Waste Management at the Sillamäe Site,
Estonia. NATO Science Series 1: Disarmament Technologies Vol. 28, Kluwer AP, Dordrecht, 2000, 153-
163.
Regulation of the Minister of the Environment No. 8 (2005). The Classification of Radioactive Waste, the
Requirements for Registration, 2005.
Miscellaneous
NORM Related Production of Rare Earth Metals in Estonia
177
EU-NORM 1st International Symposium 5-8 June 2012, Tallinn, Estonia
Miscellaneous
Radioactive impact on estuarine sediments affected by Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) and effluents from NORM phosphate fertilizer industries
Radioactive impact on estuarine sediments affected by Acid
Mine Drainage (AMD) and effluents from NORM phosphate
fertilizer industries
A. Hierro1, J.P. Bolivar1, F. Vaca1 and J. Borrego1
1 Department of Applied Physics, University of Huelva, Campus de El Carmen, 21071 Huelva, Spain
2 Department of Geology, University of Huelva, Campus de El Carmen, 21071 Huelva, Spain
Abstract
In this paper is studied the estuary of Huelva formed by the Tinto and Odiel rivers, which are seriously
affected by acid mine drainage (AMD) due to the long-term mining activities done in Iberian Pyrite Belt,
and, as a consequence, their waters present an very low pH (< 3), and for that they contain very high
heavy metals concentrations. Additionally, a large industrial complex is located in the surroundings of this
estuary, which includes five phosphate rock processing plants that produce a waste called phosphogypsum
(PG) containing high U-series radionuclides concentrations.
This estuary is governed by two mixing processes: 1) salt-induced mixture process, typical of the majority
of estuaries, and 2) pH-induced mixture process, consisting in an acid neutralization as result of the
mixture of acidy fluvial water coming from the drainage basins when reach the estuary. These mixture
processes affect to the behavior of both heavy metals and natural radionuclides that reach the estuarine
waters. The analysis of the radionuclides concentrations have allowed us to demonstrate that the behavior
of these elements are very affected by these mixing processes, and to affirm that U-, Ra- and Th-isotopes
levels in the current sediments are very dependent of the hydrochemical properties of the waters (mainly
pH and chlorinity). This study has global significance for other polluted environmental systems that are
impacted by AMD and PG.
1. Introduction
Estuaries are zones of complex interaction between fluvial and marine processes, where there are large
mass exchanges, and big changes in the salinity, nutrients, sedimentary conditions and living organisms.
The use of radioactive tracers is a valuable tool to analyze the transfer mechanisms between the different
involved system phases (Zöllmer and Irion 1993).
The estuary formed by the Tinto and Odiel rivers presents a great interest due to it is very conditioned by
two hydrochemical facts. The first one comes from fact that both rivers are seriously affected by acid mine
drainage (AMD) from long-term mining activities developed in the Iberian Pyrite Belt, which produce
in these rivers the transport of high amounts of heavy metals and radionuclides due to their extremely
low pH (2.5-3.5) (Grande et al 2003). Secondly, in their mouths there is a large industrial complex which
includes several phosphate rock processing plants that produce annually about 2.5 million tons of a by-
product, called phosphogypsum (PG), containing enhanced U-series radionuclides levels (about 200 Bq
kg-1 of 238U, 650 Bq kg-1 of 226Ra, and 450 Bq kg-1 of 230Th). Until 1998, about 20 % of the generated PG
was discharged directly into the estuarine waters, while the remaining 80 % was pumped in suspension
with sea water (20 % PG plus 80 % seawater) to be disposed in large piles located on the Tinto river salt-
marshes (Bolivar et al 2002). Since 31st December 2010, all P2O5 production plants were closed and for
that the phosphogypsum production was stopped. Currently there is an environment al plan under study
178
EU-NORM 1st International Symposium 5-8 June 2012, Tallinn, Estonia
to restore the PG piles, and it is estimated to take 10 years to complete this plan.These facts explain that
estuary of Huelva is one of the most polluted estuarine systems in the world.
Figure 1. Map of the estuary of the Tinto and Odiel
rivers with sampling points
It has been demonstrated that hydrochemical characteristics of the water in this estuary suffer two
mixture processes, the salt-induced mixture process, and the pH- induced mixed. A strong tidal influence
controls the salt-induced process, and it has been extensively studied by measuring the changes in the
salinity of the mixing water. Specifically the process follows the mixture between seawater (pH over 8
and chlorinity above 21 g L-1) and estuarine water (with pH around 6.0 - 7.0 and chlorinity average over
10 - 15 g L-1). This is located in Padre Santo and Punta Umbría Channels, but can reach the upper sectors
of the estuary during high tides (Fig. 1). The pH-induced mixture process is the neutralization resulting
from the mixing of estuarine water (pH = 6.0 - 7.0) with the fluvial water (pH < 3), containing very high
concentrations of dissolved materials, including metals and radionuclides. This neutralization process by
dilution of water is restricted to estuarine areas of both rivers, and produces a positive gradient in the pH
with a strong directionality outwards from the system (Carro et al 2006).
Taking in consideration previous facts, main aim of this work has been to report the behavior of different
natural radionuclides in the surface sediments from an estuarine system very affected by both salt-
induced and pH-induced water mixing processes.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Sampling
Fifteen sampling stations were selected to study this system along Tinto River estuary (sampling points
with code “T”), Odiel River Estuary (code “O”), where is clearly produced both the pH-induced and salt-
induced mixing processes. Moreover, sampling points in Padre Santo Channel (code C1) connecting Punta
Umbría Channel (code P) with the Odiel Channel have been selected since they are estuary sectors with
Miscellaneous
Radioactive impact on estuarine sediments affected by Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) and effluents from NORM phosphate fertilizer industries
179
EU-NORM 1st International Symposium 5-8 June 2012, Tallinn, Estonia
mainly marine influence, and for that in principle very low influenced by the AMD of the mining rivers and
the PG piles (Fig.1). In selected sampling stations surface sediments were collected using sediment traps
during each season (4 times a year). Samples were collected at the end of May 2007 (spring), December
2007 (autumn), March 2008 (winter) and September 2009 (summer). In addition to the sediment samples,
superficial water samples were collected and the pH and conductivity were measured in situ.
2.2 Radionuclide determinations
Alpha-emitting radionuclides of U-isotopes were determined by alpha-particle spectrometry using ion-
implanted silicon detectors in geometry with 25 % absolute efficiency. To the isolating of the radioelements
(U, Th and Po), a sequential well-established radiochemical method based on extraction chromatography
(UTEVA resins) was applied (Oliveira and Carvalho 2006).
226Ra and 228Ra were determined by gamma-ray spectrometry using a coaxial ultra pure germanium
detector (HPGe ORTEC) with ~20 % relative efficiency and FWHM of 1.10 keV at 122 keV and 1.90 keV
at 1333 keV. The photopeaks used in the radionuclides determination were: 226Ra (352 keV - 214Pb), 228Ra
(911 keV - 228Ac). The efficiency calibration used in the gamma measurements is described in detail in our
earlier papers (Pérez-Moreno et al., 2002).
3. Results and discussion
3.1 Physical-chemical parameters
In Figure 2 the pH and conductivity in water samples of Odiel-Tinto rivers estuary, Padre Santo and Punta
Umbría channels are shown. In relation to the bulk densities of sediments for each season varied with a
wide range, from 0.36 to 1.49 g cm-3. For each season, the densities are similar for both Odiel and Tinto
estuaries, with the highest values in summer and lowest in autumn.
Figure 2. Relationship pH vs. conductivy (mS cm-1) in
water samples.
A progressive increase in pH towards the mouth of both rivers is observed in the estuary due to pH-
induced and salt-induced mixture processes. The pH values ranged from 1.9 (Tinto River, T6-summer) up
to 8.1 (sample C1-spring), showing high and similar gradients in the estuary for both rivers (pH varied
between acid values lower than 3 and neutral conditions, higher than 7). On the contrary, the pH in both
Miscellaneous
Radioactive impact on estuarine sediments affected by Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) and effluents from NORM phosphate fertilizer industries
180
EU-NORM 1st International Symposium 5-8 June 2012, Tallinn, Estonia
Padre Santo and Punta Umbría channels showed few variations, oscillating between 7.0 and 8.1, fact
coming from the proportion of seawater is very high.
As it is expected, the lowest pH is observed during autumn when the fluvial inputs are greater being
more intensive the AMD, observing that location 3 (T3 and O3) reaches pH around 3-4, whereas during
summer (lowest or null flows), the pH of the estuary is more uniform, with values higher than 5.4 in most
of the stations (Fig. 2). This fact can be justify by the low fluvial contribution in summer allowed fast
neutralizations of the acid water in the upper sector of the mixing zone.
On the other hand, as it is expected in figure 2 is observed that conductivity presents an similar pattern
that pH, which is ratified by the good linear regression fit obtained between both parameters, σ (mS cm-1)
= - (18±4) + (8.3± 0.7)·pH, and observing that conductivity and pH increase towards the mouth of both
rivers reaching typical values of seawater in the sample situated out of estuary (sample P1). One of the
main features of the rivers that end in this estuary is their high dissolved sulphate concentrations due to
the severe acid drainage mine they are receiving (Carro et al., 2006). This peculiarity is consistent with
the high conductivity values measured in the fluvial zone of both estuaries (O5, T6 and T5), with values
between 1-5 mS cm−1, which is one order of magnitude higher than the typical surface waters (< 0.1 mS
cm−1) (Carro et al., 2006) (Fig. 2). As we move towards the Padre Santo and Punta Umbria channels, an
increase in the marine component of the water occurs reaching values around 50 mS cm-1 (samples P1)
which are typical of seawaters.
3.2 Uranium-isotopes
The annual average 238U activity concentration at every sampling point is shown in figure 3. The 238U
and 234U activity concentrations spatially vary over a wide range, from 6.6 to 2580 Bq kg-1 throughout
the study period. Some differences can be seen between both the Odiel and Tinto channels. So, Tinto
River estuary supports a greater burden of uranium, because it carries a higher concentration of uranium
that will precipitate when both the river water and leached PG stacks water mixes with the estuarine
water. In both estuaries the lowest values of activity concentrations of uranium are found in summer,
when the rivers and PG piles have the smallest discharges. However, the highest values in both Tinto and
Odiel estuaries are found in winter (followed by autumn), which correspond with the seasons of highest
rainfall. This effect is more significant in the Tinto Channel. Due to the AMD received for both rivers,
the activity concentrations for both 238U and 232Th nuclides in their surface waters generally range in the
interval 0.1 - 1 Bq L-1, which are 1 - 3 or 3 - 5 orders of magnitude, respectively, higher than worldwide
typical rivers (Ketterer et al., 2011).
The highest activity concentrations are found in the Tinto Channel due to additional contribution of
acid waters coming from PG piles due to the rain, which contain very high concentrations of U-series
radionuclides as 238U (50-200 Bq L-1), 226Ra (0.5-2.0 Bq L-1 ), 210Pb-210Po (1-20 Bq L-1), or 230Th (1-5 Bq L-1)
(unpublished data). Rainwater that fall on the surface of the un-restored PG stack (more than 400 ha)
dissolves a fraction of pollutant contained in PG, and so they are released into the estuary with high
acidity (pH < 2), and contain high levels of radionuclides (especially U to be the most soluble at this
low pH, although its concentration in PG is lower than other radionuclides, and other pollutants.By
considering an average rainfall of 550 L m-2 and that 50% of this amount reaches the estuary, it can be
estimated that annually about 0.3 million tons of these acid polluted waters are released into the Tinto
Channel containing radionuclides concentrations of about 102 Bq L-1 for 238U and 100 - 101 Bq L-1 for the
rest of radionuclides from U-series (226Ra, 230Th, 210Pb) (Bolívar et al., 2009). The effect of this PG-laden
water releases are shown in the peak of 238U concentration in the sediments found in points located near
the PG stacks (points T2 and T3).
Miscellaneous
Radioactive impact on estuarine sediments affected by Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) and effluents from NORM phosphate fertilizer industries
181
EU-NORM 1st International Symposium 5-8 June 2012, Tallinn, Estonia
With regard to the sampling sites in the fluvial zone (O5, T6 and T5; Fig. 3), the values of uranium
concentration in sediments are typical of unperturbed rivers (UNSCEAR, 1988), with about two orders of
magnitude lower U than the estuarine sediments affected by the pH-induced processes. In these locations
both rivers have highly acidic waters with a high loading of radionuclides, but they will not precipitate
until these waters are mixed with the estuarine waters and pH increases to > 4.
Towards the sampling stations O4 and T4 the pH-induced process begins and the pH increases from
1.9 (fluvial zone) to 4.4 (O4 or T4), and finding similar changes found for all seasons. Higher values
of uranium in these sampling points, T4 (421 Bq kg-1 for 238U) and O4 (115 Bq kg-1 for 238U) were found
compared to unperturbed sediments of the fluvial zone (Fig. 3). UO2
2+ uranyl ion the is the most soluble
specie in the Tinto and Odiel rivers (pH ~ 2-3), but an abrupt change of pH in this zone will produce the
co-precipitation of uranium as metallic hydroxides, or sulphate salts, which will scavenge a very significant
fraction of the dissolved metals (including the U one) carried out by the acid water of the rivers.
Figure 3. Average values of activity concentration (Bq kg-1) of
238U, 230Th and 226Ra in the sampling points.
In the sampling stations O3 and O2; T3 and T2 the pH-induced process continues. In this zone an abrupt
change of pH (from 4.5 to 7) occurs in all seasons. Such a marked change in pH is expected to result in
significant precipitation of U and, therefore, in a significant enhancement of its concentration in the
sediments. The 238U concentration was found to be the highest in T3 among all the sampling sites in the
Tinto River, with an average concentration of 1342 Bq kg-1, but for its equivalent point (O3) in Odiel River,
the average concentration is much smaller (150 Bq kg-1) (Fig. 3). This could be due to; a) the differences in
the dissolved U concentrations in these waters (Tinto U concentration is twice than the Odiel one), and/
or b) presence of acidic water releases from PG piles. Moreover while we move to offshore and the pH
values are going up, the removal of uranium may also take place associated with adsorption of U6+ onto
organic matter and Fe/Mn compounds (McKee et al., 1987), or phosphate complexes which compete with
carbonate to complex U in the range 4-7.5 and the partial reduction of uranium VI to IV, a more insoluble
form (Toole et al., 1987).
In locations T1 and O1, sited at the end of both estuaries (Tinto and Odiel, respectively), the values of pH,
for the four samplings campaigns, range from 7.1 to 7.8 (average 7.4), and 238U activity concentrations
(215 Bq kg-1 238U for T1, and 144 Bq kg-1 238U for O1) are similar at both points. The salt-induced coagulation
and precipitation is expected to be minimal at this zone. The exchange of sediment from this zone to
the shelf is likely a significant mechanism of sediment transport to the shelf regions. In addition, 238U
182
EU-NORM 1st International Symposium 5-8 June 2012, Tallinn, Estonia
concentrations in the Punta Umbria Channel, which has a very low water exchange with the Odiel Channel,
the radionuclide activity concentrations found were similar than in unperturbed sediments (Bolivar et
al., 1995). Opposite of, the samples from P3 (El Burro Channel) were found to have slightly higher U
concentration (171 Bq kg-1 of 238U), which is expected because this channel exchanges water between the
Odiel Channel (polluted) and the Punta Umbria Channel (un-polluted) (Fig. 3).
The impact of the new waste management policy resulting in no PG releases into Odiel Channel can be
evaluated by the temporal analysis of the radionuclide concentrations evolution in sediments. Firstly,
in the Tinto estuary the average 238U activity concentration for the whole estuary in the sediments was
constant in the years 1999 (policy changed in 1998), 2001 (Absi, 2004) and 2008, with 238U concentrations
of 219 ± 97 Bq kg-1, 252 ± 112 Bq kg-1 and 380 ± 123 Bq kg-1, respectively, while in the Odiel estuary these
average concentrations decreased continuously from 343 ± 96 Bq kg-1 (1999 year) till 113 ± 11 Bq kg-1
(2008 year). The value found in 2000 is very similar to the average activity concentration found in our
study, indicating that the sources of U in the Odiel estuary have been significantly reduced, but in the
Tinto estuary the U sources have remained constant over time, and the new policy waste management
has not resulted in a significant decrease in U concentration due to the release of radionuclides from 450
ha of un-restored PG piles.
3.3 Thorium-isotopes
In for the case of thorium isotopes, we observed that their concentrations throughout the study area
are similar to uncontaminated estuarine sediments, except at certain points where 230Th concentrations
increase significantly (Fig. 3).
The 232Th concentrations are relatively uniform along the study area and similar to the typical values
obtained in unperturbed sediments (30 - 60 Bq kg-1) (Martín et al., 1978). This is because of relatively
less amount of leaching of 232Th and PG does not contain high concentrations of 232Th. On the contrary,
230Th presents higher levels (from 5.9 to 232 Bq kg-1), increasing from the fluvial zone towards the end
of the estuary, and reaching the maximum values for all seasons at point 1 for both rivers (zone of salt
induced processes, with averages of 175 Bq kg-1 for T1 and 153 Bq kg-1 in O1), which is the estuarine area
where there are high and uniform values of pH (around 7.0). This is due to scavenging of Th by suspended
particulate matter when the pH is ~7.
3.4 Radium-isotopes
In figure 3 and 4 is observed that the distribution pattern of both 226Ra and 228Ra is very similar throughout
study area. The activity concentration of 226Ra increases from the fluvial zone up to the end of the estuary,
with a maximum at T1 and O1 in all seasons (average of 45 Bq kg-1 in T1 and 41 Bq kg-1 in O1), locations
that represent only salt-induced processes (pH = 6.5 - 7). This 226Ra behavior is similar to the 238U and 230Th
ones discussed earlier, but 228Ra does not present a clear pattern along both Tinto and Odiel channels,
showing similar concentrations than unperturbed sediments (30 - 60 Bq kg-1), the amount of radionuclides
derived from the 232Th-series both in AMD and PG piles are not significant. This very low impact found
for Ra-isotopes comes from two facts; firstly, the very low solubility of Ra in aqueous solutions containing
high concentrations of sulphates (as it is our case), and secondly, it is very established that radium tends
to remain in dissolution for the majority of estuaries (Somayajulu and Goldberg, 1966; Martín et al.,
1978).
Several studies in global estuarine systems have documented that radium is non-conservative in estuaries,
with the release of Ra when Ra-laden suspended particulate matter in rivers are delivered into the river
mouth and thus, higher dissolved 226Ra concentrations were found. For example, studies in several
Miscellaneous
Radioactive impact on estuarine sediments affected by Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) and effluents from NORM phosphate fertilizer industries
183
EU-NORM 1st International Symposium 5-8 June 2012, Tallinn, Estonia
natural estuaries like Hudson estuary (Li et al., 1977), or Amazon estuary (Key et al., 1985) showed
similar results. In figure 3 the average of 226Ra concentration in sediments increases with pH towards
the mouth of the estuary. This fact could be due to one or more of these two reasons: i) sediments with
higher concentrations of 226Ra are trapped near the confluence of both channels, as was seen for 238U and
other 238U-series members; and ii) release of 226Ra from suspended particulate matter which subsequently
undergo pH-induced coagulation and eventual precipitation to the sediments (Aguado, 2003).
Reduction in the 226Ra in sediments along the estuary since 1998 has been documented, primarily due to
the elimination of the direct phosphogypsum releases into the estuarine system. The activity concentration
of 226Ra significantly decreased in the sediments from both Odiel and Tinto channels, falling from an
average of around 700 Bq kg-1 in both channels before 1998 up to ~ 70 Bq kg-1 in 2005 (Villa et al.,
2009), and finally reaching 28 ± 3 Bq kg-1 in 2008 year (our study). Therefore, the enhanced 226Ra levels
in the points 1 are likely due to resuspension of older polluted sediments. From the distribution of Ra
in sediments, two observations can be made: first, the effect of the new waste management policy from
2008 year can be discerned in the current concentration of 226Ra attaining typical values of background
levels in sediments (20 - 50 Bq kg-1, UNSCEAR, 1988). Second, it is noticeable from the concentrations
found along the sampling points (Fig. 3), there is a fairly homogenization of the little remaining pollution
in the sediments that still exist in the estuary.
3.5 Activity ratios
Figure 4. Average values of ratio 234U/238U, 230Th/232Th and
226Ra/228Ra in the sampling points.
Some of the discussions presented earlier can be validated by using activity ratios as 234U/238U, 230Th/232Th,
226Ra/228Ra ratios (Fig. 4). The 234U/238U activity ratios in our samples ranged from 0.89 to 1.58 in the Tinto
River estuary and 1.01 to 1.39 in the Odiel River estuary. This result is in agreement with the activity ratios
reported for different worldwide rivers (Scott, 1982). Overall, the 234U/238U activity ratios are slightly
higher in Odiel River estuary compared to that in Tinto. Higher values are found in the fluvial zone and
the values in the estuary are influenced by the U precipitation and the values in seawater (seawater AR is
1.14). Precise measurements with ICP-MS will aid in tracing the pathways and transport of U in the river/
estuarine system.
The 230Th/232Th activity ratio varied between 0.6 and 5.0, with the highest values in Odiel River estuary in
Spring. Although the amount of 232Th derived from PG piles and the AMD discharge are likely negligible,
Miscellaneous
Radioactive impact on estuarine sediments affected by Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) and effluents from NORM phosphate fertilizer industries
184
EU-NORM 1st International Symposium 5-8 June 2012, Tallinn, Estonia
high variations appear to be due to variations in 230Th derived from both PG and AMD. The average
activity ratios of 230Th/232Th increase uniformly up to point 1 where it reaches a value of around 5, a value
significantly higher than the one found in uncontaminated estuarine sediments from Huelva (Bolivar
et al., 1995) and worldwide (Somayajulu and Goldberg, 1966). The surface sediment contamination of
230Th samples from points 1, can proceed from two routes; either by direct transport from PG and AMD,
or by resuspension of contaminated sediments, or by the adsorption of dissolved 230Th on to suspended
particulate matter before the implementation of policy (Bolívar et al., 2002). If we consider that the main
pathway of contamination is through direct deposition of particulate phosphogypsum, resulting in high
238U and its daughter products a high fraction of the sediments must be contaminated by this by-product.
Since we are finding high concentrations in selected areas, the resuspended material could be a source of
contamination in this estuary. The contamination by radionuclides from U-series of the sediments is also
supported from the observed values of 226Ra/228Ra in figure 4, where a slow increase of this ratio can be
seen in samples T1 and O1, demonstrating that radium is not removed from sediments.
Figure 5. Average values of concentration of Sr
(ppm) and Ca (%) in the sediments samples in the
sense of the waterflow from T3 to O4.
To finish this extended abstract, to comment that in Figure 5 are observed significant peaks for both Sr
and Ca in the points T2 and T1 (the points closest to the PG stacks), which could come from the PG piles
leaching released generated by the rainy waters, and not from inputs from the acid rivers. To ratify this
hypothesis, it is known (data unpublished) that average concentration of Sr and Ba in PG are very high
and around 4×104 and 9×104 ppm, respectively, producing in its leaching waters that go into Tinto River
estuary high levels of these elements (2×101 and 5×102 ppm, respectively), and being them very much
higher that the found ones in the another source of pollution, the Tinto River waters (0.280 and 76.6 ppm
for Sr and Ca, respectively). Taking into account the previous data, and the similar chemical behavior of
these three elements (Ra, Sr, Ca), the same pattern found suggests that they share with the same source
for their origin.
4. Conclusions
The hydrogeochemical characteristics of the water in both Tinto and Odiel rivers estuaries where analyzed,
founding that acid fluvial water and marine water are mixed allows us to define the intervention of two
geochemical processes: a typical process of salt-induced mixture bound to a neutralization process of acid
water.
Miscellaneous
Radioactive impact on estuarine sediments affected by Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) and effluents from NORM phosphate fertilizer industries
185
EU-NORM 1st International Symposium 5-8 June 2012, Tallinn, Estonia
The temporal and spatial variations of indicators as pH and chlorinity regulate the behavior of U-, Th- and
Ra-isotopes. This fact is produced by the adsorption (or co-precipitation) of the dissolved uranium onto
the particulate matter in zones where is produced pH values between 4.0 - 5.0. In fact, the highest values
of 238U concentration are reached in these zones (values up 2520 Bq kg -1), which are about fifty times
higher than ones un-perturbed sediments. The maximum concentrations for 230Th and 226Ra are produced
for higher values of pH (about 6.0 - 7.0) and the concentrations are much lower than those of uranium. So
a non-conservative behavior of uranium has been verified in this estuary, and consequently the estuary
of Huelva acts as a sink for U and other natural radionuclides. This effect is less important for Th- and
Ra-isotopes.
And, as final remark, the enhanced levels from U-series in recent sediments from the estuary of Huelva,
and very specially for U-isotopes, are mainly three sources: (1) leaching of phosphogypsum stacks located
nearby, (2) the flows incoming from the Odiel and Tinto rivers that contain very high levels coming from
the acid mine drainage existing along the Iberian Pyrite Belt, and (3), the waters from the Atlantic ocean
entering into the estuary containing a significant concentration of U-isotopes (40 mBq L-1) which could
precipitate during the mixing pH processes.
REFERENCES
Absi A. Evolución del Impacto Radiactivo Ambiental en la Ría de Huelva tras el Cambio en la Gestión de
los residuos de las Industrias de Producción de Ácido Fosfórico. Doctoral thesis, University of Sevilla,
Spain 2004.
Aguado J.L. Aplicaciones de la espectrometría alfa en la caracterización de isótopos de Ra y U en residuos
industriales. Doctoral thesis, University of Sevilla, Spain 2003.
Bolivar J.P., García-Tenorio R., García-León M.,. Enhancement of natural radioactivity in soils and salt-
marshes surrounding a non-nuclear industrial complex. Sci Total Environ 1995; 173/174: 125-136.
Bolivar J.P., García-Tenorio R., Mas J.L., Vaca F. Radioactive impact in sediments from an estuarine system
affected by industrial wastes releases. Environ Int 2002; 27: 639-645.
Carro B., Borrego J., López-González N., Lozano-Soria O. Procesos de mezcla de un estaurio afectado por
drenaje de aguas ácidas (Ría de Huelva, España). Geogaceta 2006; 39: 115-118.
Grande J.A., Borrego J., Morales J.A., De la Torre M.L. A description of how metal pollution occurs in the
Tinto-Odiel ria (Huelva-Spain) through the application of cluster analysis. Mar Pollut Bull 2003; 46: 475-
480.
Ketterer M., Hierro A., Barbero L., Olías M., Bolívar J.P., Casas-Ruiz M., Baskaran, M., 2011. 230Th-
234U-238U disequilibria along the river catchments from the Iberian Belt (Spain) affected by acid mine
drainage (AMD). Goldschmidt 2011, Earth, Life and Fire, Prague Czech Republic 2011: (http://www.
goldschmidt2011.org/abstracts/finalPDFs/1176.pdf)
Key R., Stallard R.F., Moore W.S., Sarmiento J.L. Distribution and flux of 226Ra and 228Ra in the Amazon
River estuary. J Geophys Res 1985; 90: 6995-7004.
Li Y.H., Mathieu G., Biscaye P., Simpson H.J. The flux of 226Ra from estuarine and continental shelf
sediments. Earth Planet Sc Lett 1977; 37: 237-241.
Miscellaneous
Radioactive impact on estuarine sediments affected by Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) and effluents from NORM phosphate fertilizer industries
186
EU-NORM 1st International Symposium 5-8 June 2012, Tallinn, Estonia
Martin J.M., Nijampurkar V.N., Salvadori F. Uranium and thorium isotopes behavior in estuarine systems.
In: Goldberg ED, editor. Proc. Biogeochemistry of estuarine sediments: UNESCO, Paris 1978: 111-127.
McKee B.A., Demaster D. J., Nittrouer C.A. Uranium geochemistry on the Amazon shelf: Evidence for
uranium release from bottom sediments. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 1987; 51: 2779-2786.
Oliveira J.M., Carvalho F.P. Sequential extraction procedure for determination of uranium, thorium,
radium, lead and polonium radionuclides by alpha spectrometry in environmental samples. Czech J Phy
2006; 56: D545-D555.
Pérez-Moreno J.P., San Miguel E.G., Bolívar J.P., Aguado J.L. A comprehensive calibration method of Ge
detectors for low-level gamma-spectrometry measurements. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 2002; 491: 152-162.
Scott M.R. The chemistry of U- and Th-series nuclides in rivers. In: Uranium Series Disequilibrium 1982:
181-201.
Somayajulu B.L., Goldberg E.D. Thorium and uranium isotopes in sea water and sediments. Earth Planet.
Sc Lett 1966; 1: 102-106.
Toole J., Baxter M.S., Thomson J. The behaviour of uranium isotopes with salinity change in three UK
estuaries. Estuar. Coast Shelf S 1987; 25: 283-297.
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) 1988, United
Nations, New York. Sources, effects and risks of ionizing radiation (UNSCEAR No. E88.IX.7).
Villa M., Mosqueda F., Hurtado S., Mantero J., Manjón G., Periañez R., Vaca F., García-Tenorio R.
Contamination and restoration of an estuary affected by phosphogypsum releases. Sci Total Environ
2009; 408: 69-77.
Zöllmer V., Irion G. Clay mineral and heavy metal distributions in the north-eastern North Sea. Mar Geol
1993; 111: 223-230.

Exhibit 19

Page 1 of 30

4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe/wqcd
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor | Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer

Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS)
Fact Sheet To Permit Number CO0047554
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, MOFFAT TUNNEL WEST PORTAL, GRAND County

Andrea Stucky
8/31/2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. TYPE OF PERMIT .................................................................................................................................................................. 1
II. FACILITY INFORMATION ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
III. RECEIVING STREAM .............................................................................................................................................................. 2
IV. FACILITY DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 2
V. PERFORMANCE HISTORY ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
VI. DISCUSSION OF EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 5
VII. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 13
VIII. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................... 15
IX. ATTACHMENTS .................................................................................................................................................................. 16
X. PUBLIC NOTICE COMMENTS ................................................................................................................................................ 17

I. TYPE OF PERMIT

A. Permit Type: Renewal
B. Discharge To: Surface Water
II. FACILITY INFORMATION
A. SIC Code: 4011 Railroads, line haul operating
B. Facility Location: Union Pacific Railroad Moffat Tunnel West Portal,
Latitude: 39.88750°N, Longitude: 105.76222°W
C. Permitted Feature: 001A, after treatment and prior to entering the Fraser River
39.88750° N, 105.76222° W
The location(s) provided above will serve as the point(s) of compliance for this
permit and are appropriate as they are located after all treatment and prior to
discharge to the receiving water.
D. Facility Flows: 0.5 MGD
E. Major Changes From Last Renewal:
 This permit renewal only contains the West Portal. The East Portal is permitted under individual permit
CO0048986.
 Continuous Effluent Temperature monitoring has been added.
 EC and SAR requirements are added.
 The TSS variance is no longer in place for this facility.

Water Quality Control Division Fact Sheet, Permit No. CO0047554

Page 2 of 30
4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe/wqcd
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor | Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer
 Continuous influent turbidity monitoring and a contingent TSS requirement has been added to the
permit. See the text for additional information.
 Diesel range organics and total petroleum hydrocarbons have been added to the permit with a report
requirement.
 Submission of a best management practices plan has been added to the permit to describe normal
operations, tunnel cleaning operations and maintenance activities.

Since the division has no record that the facility received notice of their permit being available for the first public
comment period, the permit went to public notice as a second draft. The first public comment period was from May
13, 2016 through June 24, 2016. Comments were received by Grand County and East Grand Water Quality Board in
response to the first public comment period.

The second public notice period for the second draft was from August 12 to September 12, 2016. Comments were
received from Union Pacific, Grand County, and East Grand Water Quality Board. These comment were incorporated
into the third draft. After the second public notice period, the tunnel had additional cleaning and repair operations in
September 2016 resulting in additional releases of discolored water into the Fraser River. As a result, the division will
implement an influent turbidity limitation of 175 NTU. If the facility exceeds the influent turbidity limit, a contingent
TSS sampling and monitoring event (in addition to the Reg. 62 monthly requirement) will be required. TSS monitoring
must continue at two-hour intervals until the influent turbidity decreases below the limitation. Additionally,
monitoring for diesel range organics (DRO) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) have been added to Limit Set A.
These were added after the division learned about the maintenance and cleaning activities. Based on the changes in
monitoring requirements to the permit after the second public notice period, the division has developed this third draft
permit.
III. RECEIVING STREAM

A. Waterbody Identification: COUCUC10a, the Fraser River

B. Water Quality Assessment:

An assessment of the stream standards, low flow data, and ambient stream data has been performed to
determine the assimilative capacities for the Fraser River for potential pollutants of concern. This
information, which is contained in the Water Quality Assessment (WQA) for this receiving stream(s), also
includes an antidegradation review, where appropriate. The Division’s Permits Section has reviewed the
assimilative capacities to determine the appropriate water quality-based effluent limitations as well as
potential limits based on the antidegradation evaluation, where applicable. The limitations based on the
assessment and other evaluations conducted as part of this fact sheet can be found in Part I.A of the permit.

Permitted Feature 001A will be the authorized discharge point to the receiving stream.
IV. FACILITY DESCRIPTION

A. Industry Description

This facility is a railroad tunnel owned by the Moffat Tunnel Improvement District which is administrated by
the Colorado Department of Local Affairs in accordance with C.R.S. 32-8-101. The right of way for the tunnel
and approaches were permitted by the federal government to the District in the 1920’s. Union Pacific Railroad
(UPRR) conducts railroad operation through the tunnel under a 1926 lease from the District, which is currently
scheduled to expire in 2025. This lease includes conditions where the operator “agrees to assume and pay all
claims, damages, demands, and liabilities which may arise or be incurred…resulting from or connected with the
operation, maintenance or repair of said railroad tunnel.” UPRR does not agree or concede that this “operation
and maintenance” clause of the lease obligates UPRR to be responsible for groundwater drainage from the
tunnel during the term of the lease, but UPRR has agreed to assume such responsibility solely for purposes of
and during the term of this permit.

Water Quality Control Division Fact Sheet, Permit No. CO0047554

Page 3 of 30
4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe/wqcd
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor | Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer

The building of the Moffat Tunnel by the District has resulted in an alteration to the natural groundwater flow
in this area, by creating a void through the rock that altered the natural hydrogeologic system. The result of
this is groundwater seepage into the tunnel that must be discharged as a point source to state waters. This
discharge contains natural concentrations of metals, suspended solids that were created as a result of building
processes, suspended solids from coal fines from the railroad operations, and any metals that are attached to
those coal fines. No train or vehicle fueling, maintenance, or equipment cleaning is conducted at the tunnel.
Groundwater seepage into the tunnel runs down the sides of the tunnel to the track ballast, and is collected in
a buried drainage system. This system drains to both the West and East Portals. The East Portal is permitted
under a different individual permit. Note that the discharge from the tunnel has been ongoing since its
creation in 1927.

B. Sources to the Treatment Plant

Sources include groundwater seepage into the tunnel which is collected through a drainage system and
discharged to surface water at either the West or East Portal. UPRR conducts periodic tunnel maintenance and
cleaning operations that has resulted in slugs of discolored water.

C. Chemical Usage

The permittee stated in the 2015 Compliance Schedule Progress Report that the new wastewater treatment
plant will utilize four chemicals in their treatment process. The MSDS sheets have been reviewed and the
following chemicals have been approved for use and are summarized in the following table.

Table IV-1 – Chemical Additives
Chemical Name Purpose Constituents of
Concern
Aluminum chloro-hydrate Coagulant Aluminum
Sodium hypochlorite Membrane cleaning Chlorine
Citric acid Membrane cleaning pH
Caustic soda Membrane cleaning Sodium hydroxide

Chemicals deemed acceptable for use in waters that will or may be discharged to waters of the State are
acceptable only when used in accordance with all state and federal regulations, and in strict accordance with
the manufacturer’s site-specific instructions.

D. Wastewater Treatment Description

UPRR constructed a wastewater treatment facility on the West Portal Outfall, which was completed in April 2017.
The constructed treatment plant consists of a coagulation process and membrane microfiltration followed by an ion
exchange process. For solids, a sludge thickening process and a centrifuge will be used for final dewatering. The
dewatered sludge will be transported to an approved landfill approximately once per month.

Pursuant to Section 100.5.2 of the Water and Wastewater Facility Operator Certification Requirements, this facility
will require a certified operator. If the facility has a question on the level of the certified operator it needs then
the facility will need to contact the Facility Operator Certification Program of the Division.

Exhibit 20
Scanned 88:12:85 on 86/38/2816
m BUILDING AMERICA"
April 22, 2016
Aeceill6d
APR 2 9 t016 Water Quality Control
Eric Oppelt
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
WQCD-WQP-B2
4300 Cherry Creek Dr S
Denver CO 80246-1530
Subject:2016 Compliance Report for Moffat Tunnel Permit CO-0047554
Dear Mr. Oppelt:
Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) would like to submit this memorandum to satisfy the
requirements of the compliance schedule under permit CO-0047554 which covers discharges
from Moffat Tunnel to South Boulder Creek and the Fraser River. The current permit includes
the following compliance schedule in part A.3. Through a permit modification in 2011, the
compliance schedule was extended through 2017 to accommodate further studies and
evaluations in order to find the most appropriate solution(s) for the conditions at Moffat Tunnel.
The modified compliance schedule has been summarized below with status information
included for reference:
. Facility Evaluation Plan - UPRR submitted this document to meet the initial requirement of
a report that provided details on the progress UPRR had made toward determining the
feasibility and potential percent reductions associated with a number of control measures
(April 30, 2012)
. Facility Evaluation Plan - UPRR submitted this memorandum that further detailed the
feasibility and potential percent reductions that UPRR had associated with control measures
that were investigated to date (April 30, 2013)
. Implementation Schedule - UPRR submitted this initial report that outlines the chosen
option(s) to meet the final effluent limitations (April 30, 2014)
. Status/Progress Report - UPRR submitted a report showing the progress made toward
implementing the chosen option(s) (April 30, 2015)
. Status/Progress Report - UPRR is submitting this report showing the progress made
toward compliance with the final effluent limitations (April 30, 2016)
’~\.~(:\:=~.~:t ~~J \../ Omaha. NebraSkl\atIIINY"
v ./""""
...’..,"’....,"~"..."... .... ’.’0....,:-" "’--"’" .~ -’,,""-’ ",-’ . -. - ,_... ._- ......- .....,o.t..-.....y....._._-_. .....
Section 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
The Moffat Tunnel was built in the 1920s through a public-private
funding partnership with the Moffat Tunnel Improvement
Commission to connect traffic east and west of the Continental
Divide, under James Peak, and allow for a more direct avenue for
interstate commerce. The train tunnel is owned by the State of
Colorado and through the years has been operated by the Denver Rio
Grande Railroad (1920s-1980s), Southern Pacific Railroad (1980s-
1990s), and is currently operated by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR).
UPRR uses the tunnel solely for mixed freight train traffic with
approximately 10 trains passing through the tunnel daily as of 2016
(including UPRR, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, and
Amtrak). No other industrial activity occurs at the site. UPRR
operates the tunnel under a lease from the Colorado Division of
Local Affairs (DOLA). The lease is set to expire in 2025.
West Portal
Figure 1-1 shows the location of the Moffat Tunnel. The
East Portal of the tunnel is located 50 miles west of Denver
and approximately 10 miles west of the town of
Rollinsville. The East Portal is located at an elevation of
approximately 9,200 feet and conditions at the East Portal
are those associated with high mountain terrain and access
is often difficult during winter months. UPRR staffwor~ing
at Moffat Tunnel (typically one to two people) are located
on the east side of the tunnel; there are currently no
occupied facilities located at the West Portal.
.:;; -.~’:~
The Moffat Tunnel runs under the Continental Divide for
East Portal 6.2 miles. Water enters the tunnel through several
mechanisms, including groundwater seepage along the floor and walls of the tunnel and precipitation
(rain/snow melt) through weephoJes near the East Portal. The water that enters the tunnel drains via
gravity to channels that run parallel to, or directly underneath, the track structure. The drains were
incorporated into the original tunnel construction to move water away from the track structure.
Because the tunnel has an apex, water drains to both the East and West Portals. At the East Portal,
water is discharged from the tunnel through a sedimentation pond and into South Boulder Creek. At
the West Portal, water is discharged from the tunnel to the Fraser River.
Water has been draining from the tunnel at relatively consistent natural rates since the time it was
built in the 1920s. Flows from the West Portal are higher than those from the East Portal and are also
more consistent over the course of the year due to significantly less infiltration from precipitation
events and snowmelt at the West Portal.
T:lth 1-1
Section 2 . Compliance Status Report
In October of 2014, UPRR submitted a request to CDPHE for calculation of preliminary effluent limits
(PELs) for the future East Portal CDPS permit. The request included information and relevant data
regarding updated regulatory low flow calculations for South Boulder Creek as well as additional
ambient and effluent water quality data. CDPHE agreed that the regulatory low flow calculations
should be updated to more accurately reflect the flow regime in the receiving water and subsequently
include updated regulatory low flows in the PEL calculations they provided in a letter to UPRR dated
February 23, 2015. Updated flow analyses reflecting the perennial nature of South Boulder Creek
were also included in the 2016 WQA and subsequently, the Draft Permit for the East Portal was
published in March 11,2016 (CO-0048986).
Due to the seasonal influence of snowmelt and stormwater runoff on the flow rates in the East Portal
discharge, UPRR submitted a request for seasonal effluent limits be included in the forthcoming East
Portal permit using seasonal high and low flow design flow discharge rates that more accurately
represent the discharge scenarios in the East Portal. The PEL and WQA calculations performed by
CDPHE leading up to the issuance of Draft Permit CO-0048986 incorporated the suggested seasonal
flow values for the East Portal and resulted in seasonal effluent limits.
The revised data inputs in the PEL and WQA calculations result in the draft effluent limits set forth in
the draft East Portal discharge permit (CO-0048986) differing considerably from the effluent limits for
the East Portal outfall in the current CDPS permit. Changes in applicable water quality standards and
procedural guidelines also impacted the effluent limit calculations and resulted in inclusion of effluent
limits or reporting requirements for several parameters not included in the current CDPS permit
(aluminum, uranium, molybdenum). UPRR and CDPHE are continuing to review data in an attempt to
establish appropriate and scientifically-sound limits for the East Portal.
As a result of the addition of seasonal effluent limits and the overall differences in effluent limits for
the East Portal from the current permit to the draft permit CO-0048986, a variety of additional
potential treatment options may now be available. While the draft permit CO-0048986 included the
same compliance schedule included in the current 2013 permit, UPRR provided comment to the draft
permit requesting issuance of a compliance schedule that allows adequate time to develop treatment
options that, similar to the treatment options already being implemented for the West Portal outfall,
allow for the most effective and efficient means of meeting the effluent limitations provided in the
draft permit. A five year timeline for development of future treatment options more typical of a newly
issued CDPS permit was suggested in the comment letter provided by UPRR.
2.2 West Portal Water Treatment
As described in the 2015 Annual Compliance Report (CDM Smith 2015), UPRR is proceeding with the
installation of a water treatment system at the West Portal to attain compliance with the final effluent
limitations by April 30, 2017. The treatment process is based on filtering/precipitating the total and
dissolved metal ions present in the drainage water that exceed the discharge limits to the Fraser River.
The precipitates are then removed using an ultrafiltration (UF) process that removes suspended
solids in the drainage water.
Micro and ultra-membrane filters are able to capture particles that are approximately 0.1 micron and
0.01 micron or greater in size, respectively, and reduce the need to add excess coagulants to remove
the precipitated metals. A microfiltration system was tested at the East Portal in October of 2010 and
an ultrafiltration system was recently tested at the West Portal in 2016 to verify that the dissolved
2-2 CDMth Sm.
Scanned 88:12:16 on 86/38/2816
,,’
Section 2 . Compliance Status Report
metals could be precipitated and removed from the drainage water along with the turbidity associated
with coal dust and sediment flushed from the ballast by the drainage water.
Turbidity levels in the water from the West Portal’s drainage channel can exceed 500 NTU, and are
comprised of fine suspended solids originating from historical build-up of fine solids associated with
train traffic, as well as silt, sand, and products of ballast erosion. The drainage water also contains
Table 2-1. Treatment Design Criteria
metals such as lead, cadmium, zinc, copper,
iron, manganese, mercury, and uranium. The
flow rates and total suspended solids (TSS) of
the drainage waters are given in Table 2-1.
I West Portal
Parameter Value
Average Daily Maximum Flow Rate (gpm)210
Maximum Flow Rate (gpm)300
Average TSS (mg/L)45
Maximum TSS (mg/L)1402.2.1 Treatment Plant Design
Based on the results ofthe pilot testing, a treatment system using coagulation and membrane
filtration was selected for treatment of the drainage water at the West Portal. The pilot study
confirmed that a coagulation process followed by microfiltration was more effective than conventional
media filtration for reducing the dissolved metals included in the discharge permit to near the
detection limits. This approach was able to reduce all contaminants of interest to below permit limits.
The design of the treatment facility includes an optional ion exchange process (IX) as a future
polishing step to further remove the naturally occurring uranium, if necessary. The design also
includes a solid waste dewatering process using sludge thickening via a dissolved air flotation (DAF)
system and a centrifuge for final dewatering. Clarified liquids generated by the solids dewatering
processes are recycled to the raw water or backwash equalization tank in the treatment process.
Figures for the design layout of the water treatment facility as well as a process flow diagram are
included in Appendix A.
The treatment facility has been designed to be fully automated but operator oversight is
recommended for safety and routine checks and adjustments of equipment. An operator would be
required to be on-call, and able to reach the facility within 24 hours in the event of equipment failure
or process upset. The sludge dewatering system is a centrifuge batch process that will be automated
but because of the batch nature of the process and mechanical components, this system is expected to
require at least weekly operator attention. The system is designed to send an alarm signal if operator
intervention is required. A sludge storage tank located at the West Portal will provide 2 to 4 days of
sludge storage (approximately 2,300gallons) to give the on-call operator time to put the centrifuge
back in service. The overall treatment system will be equipped with a supervisory control and data
acquisition (SCADA) system to allow for remote monitoring and control of the plant.
The dewatered solids from the treatment process will be transported to an approved landfill
approximately once per month via a 10-15 yard roll-off dumpster. Chemicals will be delivered
approximately once per month. The proposed coagulation chemical is aluminum chloro-hydrate
(ACH). Other potential chemicals include sodium hypochlorite (commercial strength bleach), sodium
bisulfite, and citric acid, and caustic soda which will be used for scheduled periodic membrane
cleaning events and an anionic polymer to assist with sludge thickening and dewatering
characteristics. Water quality sampling and analysis is expected to be conducted once per month
during chemical restocking and sludge haul-off. IX resin will be replaced (by the IX system supplier) at
an approximate frequency of once to twice per year, if necessary. There will be a maintenance contract
with the IX system supplier to dispose of the spent resin, which would contain high levels of uranium.
Cf.:lth 2-3

Exhibit 21
AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

AND THE

STATE OF UTAH

FOR

DISCONTINUANCE OF CERTAIN COMMISSION REGULATORY

AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY WITHIN THE STATE PURSUANT TO

SECTION 274 OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED

WHEREAS, The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (hereinafter
referred to as the Commission) is authorized under section 274 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to enter into
agreements with the Governor of any State providing for discontinuance of the
regulatory authority of the Commission within the State under Chapters 6, 7, and 8,
and section 161 of the Act with respect to byproduct materials as defined in sections
lle.(1) and (2) of the Act, source materials, and special nuclear materials in
quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass; and
WHEREAS, The Governor of the State of Utah is authorized under Utah
Code Annotated 26-1-29 to enter into this Agreement with the Commission; and
WHEREAS, The Governor of the State of Utah certified on November 14,
1983, that the State of Utah (hereinafter referred to as the State) has a program for
the control of radiation hazards adequate to protect the public health and safety with
respect to the materials within the State covered by this Agreement, and that the
State desires to assume regulatory responsibility for such materials; and
WHEREAS, The Commission found on March 12, 1984, that the program of
the State for the regulation of the materials covered by this Agreement is compatible
-1­

with the Commission's program for the regulation of such materials and is adequate
to protect the public health and safety; and
WHEREAS, The State and the Commission recognize the desirability and
importance of cooperation between the commission and the State in the formulation
of standards for protection against hazards of radiation and in assuring that State and
Commission programs for protection against hazards of radiation will be
coordinated and compatible; and
WHEREAS, The Commission and the State recognize the desirability of
reciprocal recognition of licenses and exemptions from licensing of those materials
subject to this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the provisions of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;
NOW, THEREFORE, It is hereby agreed between the Commission and the
Governor of the State, acting in behalf of the State, as follows:
ARTICLE I
Subject to the exceptions provided in Articles II, IV, and V, the Commission
shall discontinue, as of the effective date of this Agreement, the regulatory authority
of the Commission in the State under Chapters 6, 7, and 8, and Section 161 of the
Act with respect to the following materials:
A. Byproduct materials as defined in section lle.(1) of the Act;
B. Source materials; and
C. Special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form a critical
mass.
-2­

ARTICLE II
This Agreement does not provide for discontinuance of any authority and the
Commission shall retain authority and responsibility with respect to regulation of:
A. The construction and operation of any production or utilization facility;
B. The export from or import into the United States of byproduct, source,
or special nuclear material, of any production or utilization facility;
C. The disposal into the ocean or sea of byproduct, source, or special
nuclear waste materials as defined in regulations or orders of the
Commission;
D. The disposal of such other byproduct, source, or special nuclear
material as the Commission from time to time determines by regulation
or order should, because of the hazards or potential hazards thereof,
not be so disposed of without a license from the Commission;
E. The land disposal of source, byproduct and special nuclear material
received from other persons; and
F. The extraction or concentration of source material from source material
ore and the management and disposal of the resulting byproduct
material.
-3­

ARTICLE III
This Agreement may be amended, upon application by the State and approval
by the Commission, to include the additional area(s) specified in Article II,
paragraph E or F, whereby the State can exert regulatory control over the materials
stated therein.
ARTICLE IV
Notwithstanding this Agreement, the Commission may from time to time by
rule, regulation, or order, require that the manufacturer, processor, or producer of
any equipment, device, commodity, or other product containing source, byproduct,
or special nuclear material shall not transfer possession or control of such product
except pursuant to a license or an exemption from licensing issued by the
Commission.
ARTICLE V
This Agreement shall not affect the authority of the Commission under
subsection 161 b. or i. of the Act to issue rules, regulations, or orders to protect the
common defense and security, to protect restricted data or to guard against the loss
or diversion of special nuclear material.
ARTICLE VI
The Commission will use its best efforts to cooperate with the State and other
agreement States in the formulation of standards and regulatory programs of the
State and the Commission for protection against hazards of radiation and to assure
that State and Commission programs for protection against hazards of radiation will
-4­

be coordinated and compatible. The State will use its best efforts to cooperate with
the Commission and other agreement States in the formulation of standards and
regulatory program of the State and the Commission for protection against hazards
of radiation and to assure that the State’s program will continue to be compatible
with the program of the Commission for the regulation of like materials. The State
and the Commission will use their best efforts to keep each other informed of
proposed changes in their respective rules and regulations and licensing, inspection
and enforcement policies and criteria, and to obtain the comments and assistance of
the other party thereon.
ARTICLE VII
The Commission and the State agree that it is desirable to provide for
reciprocal recognition of licenses for the materials listed in Article I licensed by the
other party or by any Agreement State. Accordingly, the Commission and the State
agree to use their best effort to develop appropriate rules, regulations, and
procedures by which such reciprocity will be accorded.
ARTICLE VIII
The Commission, upon its own initiative after reasonable notice and
opportunity for hearing to the State, or upon request of the Governor of the State,
may terminate or suspend all or part of this Agreement and reassert the licensing
and regulatory authority vested in it under the Act if the Commission finds that (1)
such termination or suspension is required to protect the public health and safety, or
(2) the State has not complied with one or more of the requirements of section 274
of the Act. The Commission may also, pursuant to section 274j of the Act,
-5­

temporarily suspend all or part of this agreement if, in the judgement of the
Commission, an emergency situation exists requiring immediate action to protect
public health and safety and the State has failed to take necessary steps. The
Commission shall periodically review this Agreement and actions taken by the State
under this Agreement to ensure compliance with section 274 of the Act.
ARTICLE IX
This Agreement shall become effective on April 1, 1984, and shall remain in
effect unless, and until such time as it is terminated pursuant to Article VIII.
Done at Salt Lake City, in triplicate, this 29th day of March, 1984.
-6­

Exhibit 22
r~i "Elements of a Utah Agreement State Progran: for Uraniumi Mills Regulation", ) Divisions of Radiation Control and Water Quality
S BUtah Department of Environmental Quality
August 26, 2000
Policy Statement
The State of Utah recognizes the importance of and supports the uranium mining and milling
industry. The State recognizes that to remain viable at this time, uranium mills must be able to
engage in activities other than milling conventional mined uranium ores, such as processing
alternate feed materials for the recovery of uranium alone or together with other minerals. The
State also recognizes its responsibility to ensure that all such activities are accomplished in a
manner that is protective of human health and the environment. It has been a long-standing
policy for the State to seek primacy for environmental programs. In this regard, the State believes
that a cooperative uranium mills and tailings regulatory program will be of benefit to both the
regulated community and Utah citizens. The advantages that the State can offer over the current
Nuclear Regulatory Commission program include better communication with and participation
of the public in uranium recovery issues, elimination of duplicative regulatory responsibilities,
providing a more cost effective program for the regulated community, and establishing control of
materials not currently being regulated (e.g. Pre-1978 uranium mill tailings), while maintaining a
regulatory program that is adequate and compatible with existing and future NRC regulations
and policy. The elements within this discussion paper provide the framework for how the State of
Utah would regulate uranium mills and tailings as an Agreement State.
Statutory Changes
The Radiation Control Act would be amended to allow the Radiation Control Board to establish
rules for the licensing, operation, decontamination, decommissioning, and reclamation of sites,
structures, and equipment used in conjunction with possession, use, transfer, or delivery of
source and byproduct material and the disposal of byproduct material(uranium or thorium mill
tailings and related wastes).
The Radiation Control Act would be amended to add a representative of the uranium milling
industry to the Radiation Control Board.
Rulemaking
The Division of Radiation Control (DRC) will adopt 10 CFR Part 40 and new Part 41, if and
when promulgated, by reference with necessary changes to reflect primacy of the Utah program
(e.g., recognition of the Executive Secretary, etc.). With the adoption by reference of the NRC
regulatory program, it is recognized that guidance has been published that is intended to provide
clarification to the various regulatory elements. The Division will follow the published NRC
guidance unless doing so will compromise protection of human health and the environment.
DRC recognizes that it cannot make a fundamental change to an Atomic Energy Act provision
(e.g., the definition of byproduct material). DRC further recognizes that pursuant to provisions of
the Radiation Control Act (19-3-104 (6) and (7)), it can adopt rules more stringent than federal
law only after a public hearing and a written finding based on evidence in the record that the
federal regulations are not adequate to protect public health and the environment.
DRC will reach agreement with impacted mills, outside of rulemaking, desiring to process
alternate feed on an acceptable uranium content level. Productive discussions in this regard are
underway. Any agreement would be "approved" by the Utah Radiation Control Board, enforced
by incorporation into a license condition.
The State of Utah will clarify during rulemaking that there is no distinction between pre and
post-1978 uranium and thorium tailings and wastes that would otherwise
satisfy the definition of 11 e.(2) byproduct material.
Funding
DRC will use a combination of annual operating fees and review fees. There will be no
"inspection fees" as part of the review fees. The Division or Department will not seek a change to
"radioactive waste disposal fees" either in the Radiation Control Act or in the Department of
Environmental Quality fees schedule to fund the program. The costs of developing the State
piograms and developing guidance and regulations from time to time will not be passed on to the
licensees as part of the annual operating fees or review fees or otherwise.
Staffing
Staffing will consist of the establishment of four new positions within the Division. Staffing
utilized for the licensing and oversight of the Envirocare site will be drawn from existing
oversight staff for that facility. A health physicist position will be established with the
responsibility for radiation safety inspections of the mills and inspection of all radioactive
material licensees in Southern Utah (some 28 licensees). An engineer position will be established
to assist in the inspection and licensing of new facilities, upgrade of existing facilities, and
closing facilities. A groundwater hydrologist position will be established to provide for
inspection and licensing review relating to groundwater monitoring and corrective actions for the
mills. Administrative support to the section will be provided by an Office Technician III.
Management of the mill team will be under the responsibility of the Environmental Monitoring
and Low-Level Waste Section. The Section name will be changed to Environmental Monitoring,
Uranium Recovery, and Waste Management Section.
Inspection program
<_ There will be at least four facilities that will require inspection: Lisbon (Rio Algom), White
Mesa (International Uranium), Shootaring Canyon (Plateau Resources), and Clive (Envirocare of
Utah). There will also be the possibility of inspection responsibilities for the Moab Mill
Reclamation Site if cleanup responsibility has not yet been transferred to the Department of
Energy. Currently, Envirocare of Utah in Tooele County is subject to quarterly inspections by the
NRC using staff from offices in Arlington, Texas sometimes supplemented by NRC
Headquarters staff from Rockville, Maryland. Envirocare inspections would be assigned to the
"Envirocare team" and incorporated into the overall oversight and inspection schedule now in use
for low-level radioactive waste.
A health physicist will be hired to inspect each of the mills at least on a quarterly basis. The mill
inspection frequency schedule will be reviewed regularly and adjusted as needed for different
circumstances (e.g., good compliance, standby not operating, etc.) The health physicist will be
housed in the DRC offices in Salt Lake City but will travel to Southern Utah at least one week
per month to accomplish both regular (quarterly) and oversight inspections. This health physicist
will also be responsible for the inspection of 28 other radioactive material licensees in Southeast
and Southwest Utah. The engineer and groundwater hydrologist will provide inspection support
as needed to the health physicist in such areas as groundwater sampling evaluations, split
groundwater sampling, oversight of new engineering construction, or oversight of closing
facilities.
The State inspection program would incorporate all the elements of the current radioactive
materials inspection program relevant to Part 40 uranium recovery facilities which is subject to
periodic program review by the NRC. Enforcement actions will be in accordance with the Utah
Radiation Control Rules and existing enforcement guidance (used for the radioactive materials
and low-level waste program). All enforcement actions can be appealed to the Utah Radiation
Control Board and thereafter to the appropriate court.
Licensing program
The licensing process would follow the elements of the current radioactive materials program
which is subject to periodic program review by the NRC. License renewal, amendments,
reclamation plans or revisions to reclamation plans or new licenses may be subject to public
comment and/or public hearing. Criteria of R313-17-1 through 4 would apply. DRC would
follow current policy as to the differentiation between minor and major amendments and the
need for public comment. I
Existing NRC licenses will be transferred to the State upon program relinquishment by the NRC
and they will be converted into a "state license" which will include appropriate Utah regulatory
citations in lieu of "Part 40" language and will incorporate the Utah administrative process (e.g.,
Executive Secretary) where necessary. The license conditions will remain unchanged except for
the above until a license amendment request or license renewal. The current expiration date of
the license will remain the same. The license transfer will not give rise to a requirement to make
any changes to existing facilities.
<> The State will recognize already established performance-based license conditions for uranium
mills and tailings. The State is willing to consider future performance-based license conditions
on a case by case basis with each licensee. An issue that will need to be addressed is the
appropriate method for substantive involvement of the public while still achieving the
operational objectives of performance based licensing.
Groundwater Authority
The Division of Radiation Control should continue to administer both groundwater permitting
and radioactive materials licensing for disposal facilities and uranium mills. This process can be
streamlined and made more effective by utilizing existing provisions of the Utah Water Quality
Act which we believe would allow the Water Quality Board and Executive Director to designate
the Director of the Division of Radiation Control as an Executive Secretary to administer
provisions of this Act for the identified facilities (see UCA 19-5-106 and 19-5-104 (1),(k). This
option offers several advantages including no statutory changes to the Radiation Control Act
would be required, the DRC Director would be designated as an Executive Secretary of the
Water Quality Board and given legal authority to issue, administer and enforce specific
groundwater permits under the Utah Water Quality Act, and no separate involvement of the
Division of Water Quality staff would be required although they would remain available to
consult with the DRC Director regarding interpretation of rules and any other technical or
procedural matters.
Additional advantages include that it would be more clear to the regulatory community regarding
which agency and individuals they must deal with, thus eliminating dual involvement, permits
would be issued under the current groundwater rules and policies adopted by the Water Quality
Board to insure consistency with other entities regulated for the protection of groundwater by the
Board, and the Division of Radiation Control would not need to undertake a separate rule making
to define a groundwater protection program for these specific facilities.
Finally, appeals of permit or enforcement decisions will be conducted in accordance with the
Water Quality Act through the Water Quality Board or the Executive Director of DEQ as
specified in the Statute. This will insure consistency with other facilities and groundwater
protection actions. Mining representation and expertise is already established in statute for the
Board. This approach insures consistency with the radioactive materials licensing because the
same staff will be doing both. The DRC Director will need to be careful to insure that the proper
signature authority is used for the various actions that might be taken. This approach prevents
fragmentation of the state groundwater protection program and maintains consistency.
Task Force Recommendation to the Department of Environmental Quality
"The following motion, proposed by Bill Sinclair, was moved for a vote by David Bird, seconded
by George Hellstrom.
We, the members of the Department of Environmental Quality Groundwater Authority
Agreement State task force support the State of Utah in pursuing Agreement State status for
uranium recovery regulation on the terms established in the revised "Elements of a Utah
Agreement State Program for Uranium Mills Regulation, Divisions of Radiation Control and
Water Quality, agreed to at the July 26, 2000 meeting of the task force.
Unanimously supported by task force members:
Paul Goranson, Rio Algom
Fred Craft, Plateau Resources
George Hellstrom, Envirocare of Utah, Inc.
David Bird, Utah Mining Association
David Frydenlund, International Uranium
Harvey Merrell, Grand County Council
Teryl Hunsaker, Tooele County Commission
Stephen Nelson, Utah Radiation Control Board
William J. Sinclair, Division of Radiation Control, UDEQ
Don Ostler, Division of Water Quality, UDEQ

Exhibit 23
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR
REGULATORY COMMISSION AND THE STATE OF UTAH FOR DISCONTINUANCE OF
CERTAIN COMMISSION REGULATORY AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY WITHIN THE
STATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 274 OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS
AMENDED
WHEREAS, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to
as the Commission) entered into an Agreement on March 29, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as
the Agreement of March 29, 1984) with the State of Utah under Section 274 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (hereafter referred to as the Act) which became effective on
April 1, 1984, providing for discontinuance of the regulatory authority of the Commission within
the State under Chapters 6, 7, and 8 and Section 161 of the Act with respect to byproduct
materials as defined in Section 11e.(1) of the Act, source materials, and special nuclear
materials in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission entered into an amendment to the Agreement of
March 29, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement of March 29, 1984, as amended)
pursuant to the Act providing for discontinuance of regulatory authority of the Commission with
respect to the land disposal of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material received from
other persons which became effective on May 9, 1990; and,
WHEREAS, the Governor of the State of Utah requested, and the Commission agreed,
that the Commission reassert Commission authority for the evaluation of radiation safety
information for sealed sources or devices containing byproduct, source or special nuclear
materials and the registration of the sealed sources or devices for distribution, as provided for in
regulations or orders of the Commission; and,
4

WHEREAS, the Governor of the State of Utah is authorized under Utah Code Annotated
19-3-113 to enter into this amendment to the Agreement of March 29, 1984, as amended,
between the Commission and the State of Utah; and,
WHEREAS, the Governor of the State of Utah has requested this amendment in
accordance with Section 274 of the Act by certifying on January 2, 2003 that the State of Utah
(hereinafter referred to as the State) has a program for the control of radiological and non-
radiological hazards adequate to protect the public health and safety and the environment with
respect to byproduct material as defined in Section 11e.(2) of the Act and facilities that
generate this material and that the State desires to assume regulatory responsibility for such
material; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission found on August 4, 2004, that the program of the State for
the regulation of materials covered by this Amendment is in accordance with the requirements
of the Act and in all other respects compatible with the Commission’s program for the regulation
of byproduct material as defined in Section 11e.(2) of the Act and is adequate to protect public
health and safety; and,
WHEREAS, the State and the Commission recognize the desirability and importance of
cooperation between the Commission and the State in the formulation of standards for
protection against hazards of radiation and in assuring that the State and the Commission
programs for protection against hazards of radiation will be coordinated and compatible; and,
WHEREAS, this Amendment to the Agreement of March 29, 1984, as amended, is
entered into pursuant to the provisions of the Act.
5

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed between the Commission and the Governor of
the State, acting on behalf of the State, as follows:
Section 1. Article I of the Agreement of March 29, 1984, as amended, is amended by
adding a new paragraph B and renumbering paragraphs B through D as paragraphs C through
E. Paragraph B will read as follows:
“B. Byproduct materials as defined in Section 11e.(2) of the Act;”
Section 2. Article II of the Agreement of March 29, 1984, as amended, is amended by
deleting paragraph E and inserting a new paragraph E to implement the reassertion of
Commission authority over sealed sources and devices to read:
“E. The evaluation of radiation safety information on sealed sources or devices containing
byproduct, source, or special nuclear materials and the registration of the sealed
sources or devices for distribution, as provided for in regulations or orders of the
Commission.”
Section 3. Article II of the Agreement of March 29, 1984, as amended, is amended by
numbering the current Article as “A” by placing an A in front of the current Article language.
The subsequent paragraphs A through E are renumbered as paragraphs 1 through 5. After the
current amended language, the following new Paragraph B is added to read:
“B. Notwithstanding this Agreement, the Commission retains the following authorities
pertaining to byproduct material as defined in Section 11e.(2) of the Act:
6

1. Prior to the termination of a State license for such byproduct material, or for any
activity that resulted in the production of such material, the Commission shall
have made a determination that all applicable standards and requirements
pertaining to such material have been met;
2. The Commission reserves the authority to establish minimum standards
governing reclamation, long-term surveillance or maintenance, and ownership of
such byproduct material and of land used as a disposal site for such material.
Such reserved authority includes:
a. The authority to establish terms and conditions as the Commission
determines necessary to assure that, prior to termination of any license
for such byproduct material, or for any activity that results in the
production of such material, the licensee shall comply with
decontamination, decommissioning, and reclamation standards
prescribed by the Commission; and with ownership requirements for such
materials and its disposal site;
b. The authority to require that prior to termination of any license for such
byproduct material or for any activity that results in the production of such
material, title to such byproduct material and its disposal site be
transferred to the United States or the State of Utah at the option of the
State (provided such option is exercised prior to termination of the
license);
7

c. The authority to permit use of the surface or subsurface estates, or both,
of the land transferred to the United States or the State pursuant to 2.b.
in this Section in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Uranium
Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended, provided that
the Commission determines that such use would not endanger public
health, safety, welfare, or the environment;
d. The authority to require, in the case of a license for any activity that
produces such byproduct material (which license was in effect on
November 8, 1981), transfer of land and material pursuant to paragraph
2.b. in this Section taking into consideration the status of such material
and land and interests therein, and the ability of the licensee to transfer
title and custody thereof to the United States or the State;
e. The authority to require the Secretary of the Department of Energy, other
Federal agency, or State, whichever has custody of such byproduct
material and its disposal site, to undertake such monitoring, maintenance,
and emergency measures as are necessary to protect public health and
safety, and other actions as the Commission deems necessary; and
f. The authority to enter into arrangements as may be appropriate to assure
Federal long-term surveillance or maintenance of such byproduct
material and its disposal site on land held in trust by the United States for
any Indian Tribe or land owned by an Indian Tribe and subject to a
restriction against alienation imposed by the United States.”
8

Section 4. Article IX of the 1984 Agreement, as amended, is renumbered as Article X
and a new Article IX is inserted to read:
“ARTICLE IX
In the licensing and regulation of byproduct material as defined in Section 11e.(2) of the
Act, or of any activity which results in the production of such byproduct material, the State shall
comply with the provisions of Section 274o of the Act. If in such licensing and regulation, the
State requires financial surety arrangements for reclamation or long-term surveillance and
maintenance of such byproduct material:
A. The total amount of funds the State collects for such purposes shall be
transferred to the United States if custody of such byproduct material and its
disposal site is transferred to the United States upon termination of the State
license for such byproduct material or any activity that results in the production of
such byproduct material. Such funds include, but are not limited to, sums
collected for long-term surveillance or maintenance. Such funds do not,
however, include monies held as surety where no default has occurred and the
reclamation or other bonded activity has been performed; and
B. Such surety or other financial requirements must be sufficient to ensure
compliance with those standards established by the Commission pertaining to
bonds, sureties, and financial arrangements to ensure adequate reclamation and
long-term management of such byproduct material and its disposal site.”
9

This amendment shall become effective on August 15, 2004, and shall remain in effect
unless and until such time as it is terminated pursuant to Article VIII of the Agreement of
March 29, 1984, as amended.
Done at Rockville, Maryland, in triplicate, this 10th day of August 2004.
FOR THE UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Nils J. Diaz, Chairman
Done at Salt Lake City, Utah, in triplicate, this 16th day of August 2004.

FOR THE STATE OF UTAH

Olene S. Walker, Governor
10

Exhibit 24
7/5/2020 Freight Rate Calculator: Estimate Shipping Costs via Air, Ocean, Sea | Freightos
https://www.freightos.com/freight-tools/freight-rate-calculator-free-tool/1/5
Get an estimate from the world’s largest database of freight rates with
our freight calculator and then join Freightos to compare, book, and manage your upcoming shipments.
Instantly compare air, ocean & sea cargo, and trucking freight quotes from 75+ providers with the perfect balance of price and transit
time.
Why Ship With Freightos?Resources
7/5/2020 Freight Rate Calculator: Estimate Shipping Costs via Air, Ocean, Sea | Freightos
https://www.freightos.com/freight-tools/freight-rate-calculator-free-tool/2/5
Freightos’ international freight calculator uses the world’s largest freight rate database, enabling accurate, freight forwarding cost
estimates.
Why Ship With Freightos?Resources
7/5/2020 Freight Rate Calculator: Estimate Shipping Costs via Air, Ocean, Sea | Freightos
https://www.freightos.com/freight-tools/freight-rate-calculator-free-tool/3/5
Powered by the Freightos Baltic Index and backed by the Singapore Exchange.
Based on live freight rates from hundreds of international freight forwarders and carriers.
Providing instant freight quotes, that include all costs and surcharges.
Why Ship With Freightos?Resources
7/5/2020 Freight Rate Calculator: Estimate Shipping Costs via Air, Ocean, Sea | Freightos
https://www.freightos.com/freight-tools/freight-rate-calculator-free-tool/4/5
Follow these step-by-step instructions to calculate your shipping cost estimate using the freight rate calculator.
1. Select whether you are shipping full containers or boxes/pallets.
2. Enter your load dimensions, weight, quantities, origin, and destination.
3. Search!
4. Want to book? Select the “Get live quotes” button.
Get started selecting a freight forwarder or just learn what a freight forwarder does.
Shipping to Amazon? Check out The Complete Amazon FBA Shipment Strategy Guide.
Compare Freight Quotes
Logistics Provider Technology
[phone]
[phone]
♥
Us too. Drop your email to get our logistics tech update
list. We'll never spam you and you can always easily
unsubscribe.
Why Ship With Freightos?Resources
7/5/2020 Freight Rate Calculator: Estimate Shipping Costs via Air, Ocean, Sea | Freightos
https://www.freightos.com/freight-tools/freight-rate-calculator-free-tool/5/5
Contact Us
Freight Rate Calculator
Global Freight Index
Import Duty Calculator
[phone]
[e-mail]

ICP 沪ICP备18012359号-1
Email
Copyright 2011-2020 Freightos (Tradeos, Ltd) |Privacy Policy | Master Services Agreement | Copyright & IP Policy
YES, PLEASE!
Why Ship With Freightos?Resources

Exhibit 25
7/5/2020 World Freight Rates 2020
https://www.worldfreightrates.com/en/freight 1/2
Tallinn, Estonia
Houston, United States
$1,000
p]] 1MlurfM ?aur_p Ģ -@fyr_pAds by
Report this ad Why this ad?


Minerals & MetallurgyMinerals & Metallurgy
20 FT20 FT
7/5/2020 World Freight Rates 2020
https://www.worldfreightrates.com/en/freight 2/2
.

p]] 1MlurfM ?aur_p Ģ -@fyr_pAds by
Report this ad Why this ad?
Ads by
Report this ad Why this ad?

Exhibit 26

NUREG-1888

Environmental Impact
Statement for the
Reclamation of the
Sequoyah Fuels
Corporation Site in
Gore, Oklahoma

Final Report

Office of Federal and State Materials and
Environmental Management Programs

F-1
APPENDIX F
COST ANALYSIS

F-3
Table F-1 No Action Alternative
Activity/Cost Element
Direct Cost ($000s) Notes/Assumptions/Parameters
1. Long term site
control fund1
$18,420
Derivation of Long-term Annual Maintenance Costs
Staff No. 20072
Manager/Engineer 0.25 FTE $31,276
Technicians 2 FTE $72,978
Security Guards 2 FTE $83,404
Administration 0.25 FTE $10,425
O&M
Utilities $10,425
Analytical Cost $52,127
Materials, supplies $52,127
NRC fees $52,127
Mowing
6 mowings (96 h @ $36.5) 96 $36.49 $3,503
Total: $368,394
2. Long-term
Groundwater Recovery and Treatment
$1,355 13 yrs. @ $104,250/yr.
(undiscounted)

Total Cost $19,775
Standard construction work units of measurement used in all tables Notes: 1 The long-term site control fund represents the capitalized value of the annual long-term maintenance cost of
$368,394. The value of the fund size was calculated by dividing the annual amount by a 2% discount rate ($368,394 / 0.02 =$18,419,700). The annual long-term maintenance costs include annual sampling of 25 monitoring wells and analysis for uranium, nitrate and arsenic, preparation of an annual report, and mowing six
times per year. 2 2007$ updated using November 2007 Consumer Price Index, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

F-4

Table F-2 Alternative 1: On-Site Disposal of Contaminated Materials (the
Licensee's Proposed Action)
Estimated Costs for On-Site Disposal
Activity/Cost Element 2007 $ (000s) Note/Comment
1. Complete Reclamation Plan and Supporting
Documents
$457 See note (1)
2. NRC Charges for Reclamation Plan
Review, EIS Preparation
$900 See note (2)
3. Contractor Mobilization and demobilization $694 5% of lines, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11.
4. Monitoring Well Removal and
Replacement
$– Task Complete
5. Disposal Cell Construction / Closure $3,073 See note (3)
6. Cost for Placing Super Sacks in Disposal
Cell
$50
7. Other Sludge, Removal, Treatment and On-
Site Disposal
$3,122 See note (4)
8. Soil Remediation $1,716 See Table F-2b
9. Building and Equipment Demolition $3,994 See note (5)
10. Termination Survey $391 See note (6)
11. Site Restoration $1,931 See note (7)
12. Groundwater Remediation $1,199 See note (8)
13. Engineering Construction Management $2,246 15% of lines 3 through 11.
14. Post-Closure Monitoring Program $84 See note (9)
15. SFC Staff $7,612 See note (10)
16. Long-Term Site Control Fund $798 Per 10 CFR 40, Appendix A,
Criterion 10 ($250K, 1978 escalated to 2007 $).
17. Long-term Groundwater Recovery and
Treatment
$1,355 13 years @ $104,250/year
Subtotal: $29,623
Contingency (@ 10% of direct costs) $2,962
Grand Total: $32,585
Standard construction work units of measurement used in all tables Notes: (1) Includes responses to RAIs and revisions to the Reclamation Plan, groundwater Corrective Action Plan and preparation of an Alternate Concentration Limit Application.
(2) Includes review and approval of Reclamation Plan and groundwater Corrective Action Plan and completion of EIS. (3) Cell design included in 2006 Reclamation Plan. (4) Excavation, treatment and placement of other sludges in the cell (1,433,015 cu-ft @ $2.179/cu-ft.). Sum of non-raffinate sludge and sediments from Material Characteristics Table F-2a. (5) Source: SFC Environmental Report 2006, includes demolition and placement in cell. (6) 2000 soil samples @ $100 each, plus gamma walkover survey 500 hours @ $50/hr, plus $150K assessment / NRC confirmation. (7) Cost to grade, place topsoil and re-vegetate excavations and other affected areas. Based on dozing approximately 17,500,000 cu-ft of dike material into impoundments at $0.074 per cu-ft, grading 83 acres @ $3128/acre, applying 6 inches of topsoil to 124 acres (2,701,000 cu-ft at $0.115/cu-ft) and seeding 124 acres at $534/acre. (8) $100,000 per year for 7 years plus $100,000 for recovery systems installation plus $350,000 for intercept trench expansion. Includes treatment of storm water and wastewater, as necessary. (9) Post-closure monitoring includes the cost of purging, sampling and analysis for 25 wells for an additional sampling event for the first 3 to 5 years after cell closure, cell settlement monitoring, radon emission measurement and cell cover inspection and repair. (10) SFC at current level of six employees plus management augmentation during decommissioning.

F-5

Table F-2a Material Characteristics Sheet
Description
Volume (cubic
feet)
In Cell Volume
(cubic feet)
Density
g/cm3
Total Weight
(lbs)
Total Weight
(tons)
Sludges and Sediments
Raffinate sludge 1,064,000 247,009 1.360 2.10E+07 10,478
Pond 2 residual materials 635,000 762,000 1.710 8.13E+07 40,640
Emergency basin sediment 14,600 14,600 1.511 1.38E+06 688
North ditch sediment 20,770 20,770 1.511 1.96E+06 979
Sanitary lagoon sediment 10,365 10,365 1.511 9.77E+05 488
Fluoride holding basin #1 171,400 171,400 1.540 1.65E+07 8,233
Fluoride holding basin #2 186,000 186,000 1.540 1.79E+07 8,934
Fluoride settling basins and
clarifier
114,300 114,300 1.540 1.10E+07 5,490
Buried calcium fluoride 96,380 96,380 1.540 9.26E+06 4,629
Buried fluoride holding
basin #1
57,200 57,200 1.540 5.49E+06 2,747
subtotal: 2,370,015 1,680,024 15 166,613,236 83,307
Liner Soils and Subsoils
Clarifier liners 332,400 332,400 1.760 3.65E+07 18,247
Calcium fluoride basin liner 95,285 95,285 1.760 1.05E+07 5,231
Emergency basin soils 162,500 162,500 1.760 1.78E+07 8,920
North Ditch soils 87,500 87,500 1.760 9.61E+06 4,803
Sanitary Lagoon liner 56,356 56,356 1.760 6.19E+06 3,094
subtotal: 734,041 734,041 9 80,588,001 40,294
Buried Material/Drums
Pond 1 spoils pile 437,400 437,400 1.760 4.80E+07 24,010
Interim storage cell 154,887 154,887 1.760 1.70E+07 8,502
Solid waste burials (No. 1) 43,000 43,000 1.760 4.72E+06 2,360
Solid waste burials (No. 2) 8,100 8,100 1.760 8.89E+05 445
DUF4 drummed container
trash
2,200 2,200 0.545 7.48E+04 37
Other drummed container
trash
5000 5000 0.545 1.70E+05 85
Empty contam. Drum 2,000 2,000 0.883 1.10E+05 55
subtotal: 652,587 652,587 9 70,990,325 35,495
Structural Materials1
Main process building 2,178,000 436,600 3.204 8.73E+07 43,630
Solvent extraction building 180,000 36,000 3.204 7.20E+06 3,598
DUF4 building 281,000 56,200 3.204 1.12E+07 5,616
ADU/Misc digestion
building
75,000 2,500 3.204 5.00E+05 250
Laundry building 12,500 3,000 3.204 6.00E+05 300
Centrifuge building 15,000 6,000 3.204 1.20E+06 600

F-6
Table F-2a Material Characteristics Sheet
Description
Volume (cubic feet)
In Cell Volume (cubic feet) Density g/cm3 Total Weight (lbs)
Total Weight (tons)
Bechtel building 27,000 5,400 3.204 1.08E+06 540
Solid waste building 18,000 3,600 3.204 7.20E+05 360
Cooling tower 30,000 6,000 3.204 1.20E+06 600
RCC evaporator 18,750 3,750 3.204 7.49E+05 375
Incinerator 7,500 1,500 3.204 3.00E+05 150
Concrete and asphalt 511,795 511,795 3.204 1.02E+08 51,144
Scrap metal 100,000 50,000 0.883 2.75E+06 1,377
Chippel Pallets 3,000 3,000 0.300 5.61E+04 28
subtotal: 3,457,545 1,125,345 40 217,131,023 108,566
Subsoils and Bedrock
Contaminated materials 811,685 811,685 1.760 89,112,285.89 44,556
TOTAL 8,025,873 5,003,682 624,434,871.35 312,217.44
Standard construction work units of measurement used in all tables
Notes; 1 Existing volume values are for existing building volumes. In-cell volumes are estimated at 20% of built structure.

F-7

Table F-2b Soil Remediation and Consolidated Debris Cost
(Alternatives 1 and 3)
Derivation of Soil Remediation and Consolidated Debris Costs
Waste Element
Cubic Feet of
Material
Unit Cost per cubic foot
2007 $ Total Cost
Contaminated Subsoils & Bedrock 811,685 $0.782 $634,663
DUF4 Trash Drums 2,200 $12.511 $27,523
CaF2 Basin Clay Liners 95,290 $0.688 $65,567
Solid Waste Burials 51,100 $1.522 $77,780
Pond 1 Spoils Pile 437,000 $0.688 $300,691
Interim Soils Storage Cell 154,887 $0.688 $106,575
Clarifier Clay Liners 332,400 $0.688 $228,718
Drummed LLW 5,000 $12.511 $62,553
Sanitary Lagoon Soil 56,400 $0.688 $38,808
Emergency Basin Soil 162,500 $0.688 $111,813
North Ditch Soil 87,500 $0.688 $60,207
Crushed Drums 2,000 $0.688 $1,376
Total 2,197,962 $1,716,273

F-8

Table F-3 Alternative 2, Option 1: Off-Site Disposal of All Contaminated Materials
Transport of all materials by rail to EnergySolutions (Clive, Utah)
Estimated Direct Costs for Off-Site Disposal to EnergySolutions (Alternative 2-1)
Activity/Cost Element 2007 $ (000s) Note/Comment
1. Complete Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents $457 See note (1)
2. NRC Charges for Reclamation Plan Review, EIS Preparation $900 See note (2)
3. Contractor mobilization and demobilization $569 5% of lines, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11. 4. Monitoring Well Removal and Replacement Task Complete 5. Disposal Cell Construction / Closure Not required for the off-site disposal option
6. Dewater Raffinate Sludge Task Complete
7. Other Sludge, Removal & Treatment & Loading for Transport $3,122 See note (3)
8. Soil Remediation $3,877 See Table F-3a 9. Building and Equipment Demolition $3,994 See note (4) 10. Shipping and Off-Site Disposal $177,191 See note (5) 11. Termination Survey $391 See note (6) 12. Site Restoration $1,931 See note (7) 13. Groundwater Remediation $1,199 See note (8) 14. Engineering Construction Management $28,661 15% of lines 3 through 12. 15. SFC Staff $7,612 See note (9) 16. Long-term Groundwater Recovery and Treatment $1,355 13 years @ $104,250/year Total Direct Cost: $231,258 Contingency (@ 10% of direct costs) $23,126 Grand Total: $254,384
Standard construction work units of measurement used in all tables Notes: (1) Includes responses to RAIs and revisions to the Reclamation Plan, groundwater Corrective Action Plan and preparation of an Alternate Concentration Limit Application. (2) Includes review and approval of Reclamation Plan and groundwater Corrective Action Plan and completion of EIS.
(3) Volume 1,433,015 cu-ft @ $2.179/cu-ft (sum of non-raffinate sludge and sediments from Material Characteristics Table F-2a). (4) From SFC Environmental Report. (5) Calculated by multiplying 463,850 tons times $382/ton (cost quote EnergySolutions 2007). (6) 2000 soil samples @ $100 each, plus gamma walkover survey 500 hours @ $50/hr, plus $150K assessment / NRC confirmation. (7) Cost to grade, place topsoil and re-vegetate excavations and other affected areas. Based on dozing approximately 17,500,000 cu-ft of
dike material into impoundments at $0.074 per cu-ft, grading 83 acres @ $3128/acre, applying 6 inches of topsoil to 124 acres (2,701,000 cu-ft at $0.115/cu-ft) and seeding 124 acres at $534/acre. (8) $100,000 per year for 7 years plus $100,000 for recovery systems installation plus $350,000 for intercept trench expansion. Includes treatment of storm water and wastewater, as necessary. (9) SFC at current level of six employees plus management augmentation during decommissioning.

F-9

Table F-3a Soil Remediation and Consolidated Debris Costs
(Alternative 2)
Derivation of Soil Remediation and Consolidated Debris Costs
Waste Element
Cubic Feet of
Material
Unit Cost/ cubic foot
2007 $ Total Cost
DUF4 Trash Drums 2,200 $12.563 $27,638
Subsoils and Bedrock 3,574,000 $0.782 $2,794,541
CaF2 Basin Clay Liners 95,290 $0.688 $65,567
Solid Waste Burials 51,100 $1.522 $77,780
Pond 1 Spoils Pile 437,000 $0.688 $300,691
Interim Soils Storage Cell 154,887 $0.688 $106,575
Clarifier Clay Liners 332,400 $0.688 $228,718
Drummed LLW 5,000 $12.563 $62,813
Sanitary Lagoon Soil 56,400 $0.688 $38,808
Emergency Basin Soil 162,500 $0.688 $111,813
North Ditch Soil 87,500 $0.688 $60,207
Crushed Drums 2,000 $0.688 $1,376
Total 4,960,277 3,876,526

F-10

Table F-4 Alternative 2, Option 2: Off-Site Disposal of All Contaminated Materials
Transport of all materials by rail to WCS (Andrews, Texas)
Estimated Direct Costs for the Off-Site Disposal to WCS (Alternative 2-2)
Activity/Cost Element 2007 $ (000s) Note/Comment
1. Complete Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents $457 See note (1)
2. NRC Charges for Reclamation Plan Review, EIS Preparation $900 See note (2)
3. Contractor mobilization and demobilization $569 5% of lines, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11. 4. Monitoring Well Removal and Replacement Task Complete 5. Disposal Cell Construction / Closure Not required for the off-site disposal option
6. Dewater Raffinate Sludge Task Complete
7. Other Sludge, Removal & Treatment & Loading for Transport $3,122 See note (3)
8. Soil Remediation $3,877 See Table F-3a 9. Building and Equipment Demolition $3,994 See note (4) 10. Shipping and Off-Site Disposal $89,253 See note (5) 11. Termination Survey $391 See note (6) 12. Site Restoration $1,931 See note (7) 13. Groundwater Remediation $1,199 See note (8) 14. Engineering Construction Management $15,471 15% of lines 3 through 12. 15. SFC Staff $7,612 See note (9) 16. Long-term Groundwater Recovery and Treatment $1,355 13 years @ $104,250/year Total Direct Cost: $130,130 Contingency (@ 10% of direct costs) $13,013 Grand Total: $143,143
Standard construction work units of measurement used in all tables Notes: (1) Includes responses to RAIs and revisions to the Reclamation Plan, groundwater Corrective Action Plan and preparation of an Alternate Concentration Limit Application. (2) Includes review and approval of Reclamation Plan and groundwater Corrective Action Plan and completion of EIS
(3) Volume 1,433,015 cu-ft @ $2.179/cu-ft (sum of non-raffinate sludge and sediments from Material Characteristics Table F-2a). (4) From SFC Environmental Report. (5) Calculated based on scaling the EnergySolutions price quote by the relative rail distances between WCS and EnergySolutions, Inc. Calculated using the ratio of the WCS rail distance (km) to the EnergySolutions rail distance (km); equal to: (1221 km / 2424 km) x (382/ton) x (463,850 tons).
(6) 2000 soil samples @ $100 each, plus gamma walkover survey 500 hours @ $50/hr, plus $150K assessment / NRC confirmation. (7) Cost to grade, place topsoil and re-vegetate excavations and other affected areas. Based on dozing approximately 17,500,000 cu-ft of dike material into impoundments at $0.074 per cu-ft, grading 83 acres @ $3128/acre, applying 6 inches of topsoil to 124 acres (2,701,000 cu-ft at $0.115/cu-ft) and seeding 124 acres at $534/acre. (8) $100,000 per year for 7 years plus $100,000 for recovery systems installation plus $350,000 for intercept trench expansion. Includes
treatment of storm water and wastewater, as necessary. (9) SFC at current level of six employees plus management augmentation during decommissioning.

F-11
Table F-5 Alternative 3, Option 1-1: Partial Off-site Disposal of Contaminated Materials
Raffinate sludge transported by truck to White Mesa (Blanding, Utah) and other sludges and
sediments transported by truck to Pathfinder Mines Corp. (PMC, Mills, Wyoming).
Estimated Direct Costs for the Partial Off-Site Disposal Alternative (Alternative 3-1-1) Activity/Cost Element 2007 $ (000s) Note/Comment
1. Complete Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents $457 See note (1)
2. NRC Charges for Reclamation Plan Review, EIS Preparation $900 See note (2)
3. Contractor mobilization and demobilization $687 5% of lines, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12.
4. Monitoring Well Removal and Replacement Task Complete
5. Disposal Cell Construction / Closure $3,073 See note (3)
6. Other Sludge, Removal, Treatment and On-Site Disposal $3,023 See note (4) 7. Dewater raffinate sludge Task Complete
8a. Transport of raffinate sludge to White Mesa $1,985 See note (5)
8b. Raffinate sludge processing cost at White Mesa $1,310 = [10,478 tons x $125/ton processing cost]. 8c. Transport of other sludges and sediments to PMC $407 See note (6)
8d. Disposal of other sludges and sediments at PMC $455 = [2155 tons x $210.9/ton PMC disposal cost] 8e. Recovered Materials Rebate ( - ) Raffinate Sludge $(738) See note (7)
9. Soil Remediation and On-Site Disposal $1,716 See Table F-2b
10. Building and Equipment Demolition $3,994 See note (8)
11. Termination Survey $391 See note (9)
12. Site Restoration $1,931 See note (10)
13. Groundwater Remediation $1,199 See note (11) 14. Engineering Construction Management $2,222 15% of lines 3 through 12 (less 8). 15. Post-Closure Monitoring Program $84 See note (12)
16. SFC Staff $7,612 See note (13)
17. Long-Term Site Control Fund $798 Per 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criterion 10 ($250K, 1978 escalated to 2007 $).
18. Long-term Groundwater Recovery and Treatment $1,355 13 years @ $104,250/year
19. White Mesa license amendment $100
Total Direct Cost: $32,961
Contingency (@ 10% of direct costs) $3,296
Grand Total: $36,257
Standard construction work units of measurement used in all tables Notes: (1) Includes responses to RAIs and revisions to the Reclamation Plan, groundwater Corrective Action Plan and preparation of an Alternate Concentration Limit Application. (2) Includes review and approval of Reclamation Plan and groundwater Corrective Action Plan and completion of EIS.
(3) Cell design included in 2006 Reclamation Plan. (4) Excavation, treatment and placement in the cell of sludges not being shipped off-site (1,387,280 cu-ft @ $2.179/cu-ft, see Materials Characteristics Table F-2a). (5) See Appendix F Table F-17 for mean carrier transport price quotes in $/ton by final destination. Table value = [10,478 tons of raffinate sludge x mean transport price quote of $189.4/ton]. Mean transport price reflects quotes received from seven carriers.
(6) See Appendix F Table F-17 for mean carrier transport price quote in $/ton by final destination. Table value = 2,155 tons of sediment (includes Emergency Basin + North Ditch + Sanitary Lagoon) going 1675 km using $189/ton. Mean transport price reflects quotes received from seven carriers. (7) Reflects potential rebate provided by mill for market value of recovered uranium constituents using March 2008 price for uranium. See Table F-18.
(8) Source: SFC Environmental Report 2006, includes demolition and placement in cell. (9) 2000 soil samples @ $100 each, plus gamma walkover survey 500 hours @ $50/hr, plus $150K assessment / NRC confirmation. (10) Cost to grade, place topsoil and re-vegetate excavations and other affected areas. Based on dozing approximately 17,500,000 cu-ft of dike material into impoundments at $0.074 per cu-ft, grading 83 acres @ $3128/acre, applying 6 inches of topsoil to 124 acres (2,701,000 cu-ft at $0.115/cu-ft) and seeding 124 acres at $534/acre.
(11) $100,000 per year for 7 years plus $100,000 for recovery systems installation plus $350,000 for intercept trench expansion. Includes treatment of storm water and wastewater, as necessary. (12) Post-closure monitoring includes the cost of purging, sampling and analysis for 25 wells for an additional sampling event for the first 3 to 5 years after cell closure, cell settlement monitoring, radon emission measurement and cell cover inspection and repair. (13) SFC at current level of six employees plus management augmentation during decommissioning.

F-12
Table F-6 Alternative 3, Option 1-2: Partial Off-site Disposal of Contaminated Materials Raffinate sludge transported by truck to White Mesa (Blanding, Utah) and other sludges and
sediments transported by truck to EnergySolutions (Clive, Utah).
Estimated Direct Costs for the Partial Off-Site Disposal Alternative (Alternative 3-1-2)
Activity/Cost Element 2007 $ (000s) Note/Comment
1. Complete Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents $457 See note (1) 2. NRC Charges for Reclamation Plan Review, EIS Preparation $900 See note (2)
3. Contractor mobilization and demobilization $687 5% of lines, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12.
4. Monitoring Well Removal and Replacement Task Complete
5. Disposal Cell Construction / Closure $3,073 See note (3)
6. Other Sludge, Removal, Treatment and On-Site Disposal $3,023 See note (4)
7. Dewater raffinate sludge Task Complete 8a. Transport raffinate sludge to White Mesa $1,985 See note (5) 8b. Raffinate sludge processing cost at White Mesa $1,310 Value = [10,478 tons of raffinate sludge x
$125/ton processing cost].
8c. Transport other sludges and sediments to EnergySolutions $517 See note (6) 8d. Disposal of other sludges and sediments at EnergySolutions $493 = $228.9/ton disposal cost x 2155 tons
8e. Recovered Materials Rebate ( - ) Raffinate Sludge $(738) See note (7)
9. Soil Remediation and On-Site Disposal $1,716 See Table F-2b
10. Building and Equipment Demolition $3,994 See note (8)
11. Termination Survey $391 See note (9)
12. Site Restoration $1,931 See note (10) 13. Groundwater Remediation $1,199 See note (11) 14. Engineering Construction Management $2,222 15% of lines 3 through 12.(less 8)
15. Post-Closure Monitoring Program $84 See note (12)
16. SFC Staff $7,612 See note (13)
17. Long-Term Site Control Fund $798 Per 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criterion 10 ($250K, 1978 escalated to 2007 $).
18. Long-term Groundwater Recovery and Treatment $1,355 13 years @ $104,250/year
19. White Mesa license amendment $100
Total Direct Cost: $33,109
Contingency (@ 10% of direct costs) $3,311 Grand Total: $36,420 Standard construction work units of measurement used in all tables
Notes: (1) Includes responses to RAIs and revisions to the Reclamation Plan, groundwater Corrective Action Plan and preparation of an Alternate Concentration Limit Application. (2) Includes review and approval of Reclamation Plan and groundwater Corrective Action Plan and completion of EIS. (3) Cell design included in 2006 Reclamation Plan.
(4) Excavation, treatment and placement in the cell of sludges not being shipped off-site (1,387,280 cu-ft @ $2.179/cu-ft, see Materials Characteristics Table F-2a).
(5) See Appendix F Table F-17 for mean carrier transport price quote in $/ton by final destination. Table value = [10,478 tons of raffinate sludge x mean price quote of $189.4/ton]. Mean transport price reflects quotes received from seven carriers.
(6) See Appendix F Table F-17 for mean carrier transport price quote in $/ton by final destination. Table value = 2,155 tons of sediment (includes Emergency Basin + North Ditch + Sanitary Lagoon) going 2190 km multiplied times $239.9/ton. Mean transport price reflects quotes received from seven carriers. (7) Reflects potential rebate provided by mill for market value of recovered uranium constituents using March 2008 price for uranium. See
Table F-18 (8) Source: SFC Environmental Report 2006, includes demolition and placement in cell. (9) 2000 soil samples @ $100 each, plus gamma walkover survey 500 hours @ $50/hr, plus $150K assessment / NRC confirmation. (10) Cost to grade, place topsoil and re-vegetate excavations and other affected areas. Based on dozing approximately 17,500,000 cu-ft of dike material into impoundments at $0.074 per cu-ft, grading 83 acres @ $3128/acre, applying 6 inches of topsoil to 124 acres
(2,701,000 cu-ft at $0.115/cu-ft) and seeding 124 acres at $534/acre. (11) $100,000 per year for 7 years plus $100,000 for recovery systems installation plus $350,000 for intercept trench expansion. Includes treatment of storm water and wastewater, as necessary. (12) Post-closure monitoring includes the cost of purging, sampling and analysis for 25 wells for an additional sampling event for the first 3 to 5 years after cell closure, cell settlement monitoring, radon emission measurement and cell cover inspection and repair. (13) SFC at current level of six employees plus management augmentation during decommissioning.

F-13

Table F-7 Alternative 3, Option 1-3: Partial Off-site Disposal of Contaminated
Materials
Raffinate sludge transported by truck to White Mesa (Blanding, Utah) and other sludges and
sediments transported by truck to WCS (Andrews, Texas).
Estimated Direct Costs for the Partial Off-Site Disposal Alternative (Alternative 3-1-3)
Activity/Cost Element 2007 $ (000s) Note/Comment 1. Complete Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents $457 See note (1)
2. NRC Charges for Reclamation Plan Review, EIS Preparation $900 See note (2)
3. Contractor mobilization and demobilization $687 5% of lines, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12.
4. Monitoring Well Removal and Replacement Task Complete 5. Disposal Cell Construction / Closure $3,073 See note (3) 6. Other Sludge, Removal, Treatment and On-Site Disposal $3,023 See note (4)
7. Dewater raffinate sludge Task Complete
8a. Transport raffinate sludge to White Mesa $1,985 See note (5)
8b. Raffinate sludge processing cost at White Mesa $1,310 = [10,478 tons x $125/ton processing cost]
8c. Transport other sludges and sediments to WCS $284 See note (6)
8d. Disposal of other sludges and sediments at WCS $231 = $107/ton disposal cost x 2155 tons. 8e. Recovered Materials Rebate ( - ) Raffinate Sludge $(738) See note (7) 9. Soil Remediation and On-Site Disposal $1,716 See Table F-2b
10. Building and Equipment Demolition $3,994 See note (8)
11. Termination Survey $391 See note (9)
12. Site Restoration $1,931 See note (10)
13. Groundwater Remediation $1,199 See note (11)
14. Engineering Construction Management $2,222 15% of lines 3 through 12 (less 8) 15. Post-Closure Monitoring Program $84 See note (12)
16. SFC Staff $7,612 See note (13)
17. Long-Term Site Control Fund $798 Per 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criterion 10 ($250K, 1978 escalated to 2007 $). 18. Long-term Groundwater Recovery and Treatment $1,355 13 years @ $104,250/year
19. White Mesa license amendment $100
Total Direct Cost: $32,613
Contingency (@ 10% of direct costs) $3,261
Grand Total: $35,875
Standard construction work units of measurement used in all tables Notes: (1) Includes responses to RAIs and revisions to the Reclamation Plan, groundwater Corrective Action Plan and preparation of an Alternate Concentration Limit Application. (2) Includes review and approval of Reclamation Plan and groundwater Corrective Action Plan and completion of EIS.
(3) Cell design included in 2006 Reclamation Plan. (4) Excavation, treatment and placement in the cell of sludges not being shipped off-site (1,387,280 cu-ft @ $2.179/cu-ft, see Materials Characteristics Table F-2a). (5) See Appendix F Table F-17 for mean carrier price quote in $/ton by final destination. Table value = [10,478 tons of raffinate sludge x mean transport price quote of $189.4/ton]. Mean transport price reflects quotes received from seven carriers. (6) See Appendix F Table F-17 for mean carrier price quote in $/ton by final destination. Table value = [2155 tons of raffinate sludge x mean transport price quote of $131.6/ton]. Mean transport price reflects quotes received from seven carriers. (7) Reflects potential rebate provided by mill for market value of recovered uranium constituents using March 2008 price for uranium. See Table F-18 (8) Source: SFC Environmental Report 2006, includes demolition and placement in cell.
(9) 2000 soil samples @ $100 each, plus gamma walkover survey 500 hours @ $50/hr, plus $150K assessment / NRC confirmation. (10) Cost to grade, place topsoil and re-vegetate excavations and other affected areas. Based on dozing approximately 17,500,000 cu-ft of dike material into impoundments at $0.074 per cu-ft, grading 83 acres @ $3128/acre, applying 6 inches of topsoil to 124 acres (2,701,000 cu-ft at $0.115/cu-ft) and seeding 124 acres at $534/acre. (11) $100,000 per year for 7 years plus $100,000 for recovery systems installation plus $350,000 for intercept trench expansion. Includes
treatment of storm water and wastewater as necessary. (12) Post-closure monitoring includes the cost of purging, sampling and analysis for 25 wells for an additional sampling event for the first 3 to 5 years after cell closure, cell settlement monitoring, radon emission measurement and cell cover inspection and repair. (13) SFC at current level of six employees plus management augmentation during decommissioning.

F-14

Table F-8 Alternative 3, Option 2-1: Partial Off-Site Disposal of Contaminated
Materials
Raffinate sludge transported by truck to Rio Algom (Grants, New Mexico) and other
sludges and sediments transported by truck to Pathfinder Mines Corp. (Mills, Wyoming).
Estimated Direct Costs for the Partial Off-Site Disposal Alternative (Alternative 3-2-1)
Activity/Cost Element 2007 $ (000s) Note/Comment 1. Complete Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents $457 See note (1)
2. NRC Charges for Reclamation Plan Review, EIS Preparation $900 See note (2)
3. Contractor mobilization and demobilization $687 5% of lines, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12.
4. Monitoring Well Removal and Replacement Task Complete
5. Disposal Cell Construction / Closure $3,073 See note (3)
6. Other Sludge, Removal, Treatment and On-Site Disposal $3,023 See note (4)
7. Dewater raffinate sludge Task Complete 8a. Transport of raffinate sludge to Rio Algom $1,638 See note (5)
8b. Disposal of raffinate sludge at Rio Algom $2,096 = [10,478 x $200/ton disposal cost]
8c. Transport of other sludges and sediments to PMC $407 See note (6)
8d. Disposal of other sludges and sediments at PMC $455 = $210.9/ton disposal cost x 2155 tons
9. Soil Remediation and On-Site Disposal $1,716 See Table F-2b
10. Building and Equipment Demolition $3,994 See note (7) 11. Termination Survey $391 See note (8) 12. Site Restoration $1,931 See note (9)
13. Groundwater Remediation $1,199 See note (10)
14. Engineering Construction Management $2,222 15% of lines 3 through 12 (less 8).
15. Post-Closure Monitoring Program $84 See note (11)
16. SFC Staff $7,612 See note (12)
17. Long-Term Site Control Fund $798 Per 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criterion 10 ($250K, 1978 escalated to 2007 $).
18. Long-term Groundwater Recovery and Treatment $1,355 13 years @ $104,250/year
Total Direct Cost: $34,038 Contingency (@ 10% of direct costs) $3,404 Grand Total: $37,441
Standard construction work units of measurement used in all tables
Notes: (1) Includes responses to RAIs and revisions to the Reclamation Plan, groundwater Corrective Action Plan and preparation of an Alternate Concentration Limit Application. (2) Includes review and approval of Reclamation Plan and groundwater Corrective Action Plan and completion of EIS. (3) Cell design included in 2006 Reclamation Plan.
(4) Excavation, treatment and placement in the cell of sludges not being shipped off-site (1,387,280 cu-ft @ $2.179/cu-ft, see Materials Characteristics Table F-2a). (5) See Appendix F Table F-17 for mean carrier price quote in $/ton by final destination. Table value = [10,478 tons of raffinate sludge x mean price quote of $156.3/ton]. Mean transport price reflects quotes received from seven carriers. (6) See Appendix F Table F-17 for mean carrier price quote in $/ton by final destination. Value = 2,155 tons of sediment (includes
Emergency Basin + North Ditch + Sanitary Lagoon) going 1675 km using $189/ton. Mean transport price reflects quotes received from seven carriers. (7) Source: SFC Environmental Report 2006, includes demolition and placement in cell. (8) 2000 soil samples @ $100 each, plus gamma walkover survey 500 hours @ $50/hr, plus $150K assessment / NRC confirmation. (9) Cost to grade, place topsoil and re-vegetate excavations and other affected areas. Based on dozing approximately 17,500,000 cu-ft
of dike material into impoundments at $0.074 per cu-ft, grading 83 acres @ $3128/acre, applying 6 inches of topsoil to 124 acres (2,701,000 cu-ft at $0.115/cu-ft) and seeding 124 acres at $534/acre. (10) $100,000 per year for 7 years plus $100,000 for recovery systems installation plus $350,000 for intercept trench expansion. Includes treatment of storm water and wastewater as necessary. (11) Post-closure monitoring includes the cost of purging, sampling and analysis for 25 wells for an additional sampling event for the first 3 to 5 years after cell closure, cell settlement monitoring, radon emission measurement and cell cover inspection and repair.
(12) SFC at current level of six employees plus management augmentation during decommissioning.

F-15

Table F-9 Alternative 3, Option 2-2: Partial Off-Site Disposal of Contaminated
Materials
Raffinate sludge transported by truck to Rio Algom (Grants, New Mexico) and other
sludges and sediments transported by truck to EnergySolutions (Clive, Utah).
Estimated Direct Costs for the Partial Off-Site Disposal Alternative (Alternative 3-2-2)
Activity/Cost Element 2007 $ (000s) Note/Comment 1. Complete Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents $457 See note (1)
2. NRC Charges for Reclamation Plan Review, EIS Preparation $900 See note (2)
3. Contractor mobilization and demobilization $687 5% of lines, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12.
4. Monitoring Well Removal and Replacement Task Complete 5. Disposal Cell Construction / Closure $3,073 See note (3) 6. Other Sludge, Removal, Treatment and On-Site Disposal $3,023 See note (4)
7. Dewater raffinate sludge Task Complete
8a. Transport raffinate sludge to Rio Algom $1,638 See note (5)
8b. Disposal of raffinate sludge at Rio Algom $2,096 = [10,478 x $200/ton disposal cost]
8c. Transport other sludges and sediments to EnergySolutions $517 See note (6)
8d. Disposal of other sludges and sediments at EnergySolutions $493 = $228.9/ton disposal cost x 2155 tons. 9. Soil Remediation and On-Site Disposal $1,716 See Table F-2b 10. Building and Equipment Demolition $3,994 See note (7)
11. Termination Survey $391 See note (8)
12. Site Restoration $1,931 See note (9)
13. Groundwater Remediation $1,199 See note (10)
14. Engineering Construction Management $2,222 15% of lines 3 through 12 (less 8).
15. Post-Closure Monitoring Program $84 See note (11) 16. SFC Staff $7,612 See note (12)
17. Long-Term Site Control Fund $798 Per 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criterion
10 ($250K, 1978 escalated to 2007 $). 18. Long-term Groundwater Recovery and Treatment $1,355 13 years @ $104,250/year Total Direct Cost: $34,186
Contingency (@ 10% of direct costs) $3,419
Grand Total: $37,605
Standard construction work units of measurement used in all tables Notes: details may not add exactly to grand total due to independent rounding. (1) Includes responses to RAIs and revisions to the Reclamation Plan, groundwater Corrective Action Plan and preparation of an
Alternate Concentration Limit Application. (2) Includes review and approval of Reclamation Plan and groundwater Corrective Action Plan and completion of EIS. (3) Cell design included in 2006 Reclamation Plan. (4) Excavation, treatment and placement in the cell of sludges not being shipped off-site (1,387,280 cu-ft @ $2.179/cu-ft, see Materials Characteristics Table F-2a).
(5) See Appendix F Table F-17 for mean carrier price quote in $/ton by final destination. Table value = [10,478 tons of raffinate sludge x mean price quote of $156.3/ton]. Mean transport price reflects quotes received from seven carriers. (6) See Appendix F Table F-17 for mean carrier price quote in $/ton by final destination. Table value = 2,155 tons of sediment (includes Emergency Basin + North Ditch + Sanitary Lagoon) going 2190 km using $239.9/ton. Mean transport price reflects quotes received from seven carriers.
(7) Source: SFC Environmental Report 2006, includes demolition and placement in cell. (8) 2000 soil samples @ $100 each, plus gamma walkover survey 500 hours @ $50/hr, plus $150K assessment / NRC confirmation. (9) Cost to grade, place topsoil and re-vegetate excavations and other affected areas. Based on dozing approximately 17,500,000 cu-ft of dike material into impoundments at $0.074 per cu-ft, grading 83 acres @ $3128/acre, applying 6 inches of topsoil to 124 acres (2,701,000 cu-ft at $0.115/cu-ft) and seeding 124 acres at $534/acre.
(10) $100,000 per year for 7 years plus $100,000 for recovery systems installation plus $350,000 for intercept trench expansion. Includes treatment of storm water and wastewater, as necessary. (11) Post-closure monitoring includes the cost of purging, sampling and analysis for 25 wells for an additional sampling event for the first 3 to 5 years after cell closure, cell settlement monitoring, radon emission measurement and cell cover inspection and repair. (12) SFC at current level of six employees plus management augmentation during decommissioning.

F-16

Table F-10 Alternative 3, Option 2-3: Partial Off-Site Disposal of Contaminated
Materials
Raffinate sludge transported by truck to Rio Algom (Grants, New Mexico) and other sludges
and sediments transported by truck to WCS (Andrews, Texas).
Estimated Direct Costs for the Partial Off-Site Disposal Alternative (Alternative 3-2-3)
Activity/Cost Element
2007 $
(000s) Note/Comment
1. Complete Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents $457 See note (1) 2. NRC Charges for Reclamation Plan Review, EIS Preparation $900 See note (2)
3. Contractor mobilization and demobilization $687 5% of lines, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12.
4. Monitoring Well Removal and Replacement Task Complete
5. Disposal Cell Construction / Closure $3,073 See note (3)
6. Other Sludge, Removal, Treatment and On-Site Disposal $3,023 See note (4)
7. Dewater raffinate sludge Task Complete 8a. Transport raffinate sludge to Rio Algom $1,638 See note (5) 8b. Disposal of raffinate sludge at Rio Algom $2,096 = [10,478 x $200/ton disposal cost]
8c. Transport other sludges and sediments to WCS $284 See note (6)
8d. Disposal of other sludges and sediments at WCS $231 = $107/ton disposal cost x 2155 tons.
9. Soil Remediation and On-Site Disposal $1,716 See Table F-2b
10. Building and Equipment Demolition $3,994 See note (7)
11. Termination Survey $391 See note (8) 12. Site Restoration $1,931 See note (9) 13. Groundwater Remediation $1,199 See note (10)
14. Engineering Construction Management $2,222 15% of lines 3 through 12 (less 8).
15. Post-Closure Monitoring Program $84 See note (11)
16. SFC Staff $7,612 See note (12)
17. Long-Term Site Control Fund $798 Per 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criterion 10 ($250K, 1978 escalated to 2007 $).
18. Long-term Groundwater Recovery and Treatment $1,355 13 years @ $104,250/year
Total Direct Cost: $33,690
Contingency (@ 10% of direct costs) $3,369 Grand Total: $37,059 Standard construction work units of measurement used in all tables
Notes: (1) Includes responses to RAIs and revisions to the Reclamation Plan, groundwater Corrective Action Plan and preparation of an Alternate Concentration Limit Application. (2) Includes review and approval of Reclamation Plan and groundwater Corrective Action Plan and completion of EIS. (3) Cell design included in 2006 Reclamation Plan.
(4) Excavation, treatment and placement in the cell of sludges not being shipped off-site (1,387,280 cu-ft @ $2.179/cu-ft, see Materials Characteristics Table F-2a). (5) See Appendix F Table F-17 for mean carrier price quote in $/ton by final destination. Table value = [10,478 tons of raffinate sludge x mean price quote of $156.3/ton]. Mean transport price reflects quotes received from seven carriers. (6) See Appendix F Table F-17 for mean carrier price quote in $/ton by final destination. Table value = 2,155 tons of sediment (includes
Emergency Basin + North Ditch + Sanitary Lagoon) going 1038 km using $131.6/ton. Mean reflects quotes received from seven carriers. (7) Source: SFC Environmental Report 2006, includes demolition and placement in cell. (8) 2000 soil samples @ $100 each, plus gamma walkover survey 500 hours @ $50/hr, plus $150K assessment / NRC confirmation. (9) Cost to grade, place topsoil and re-vegetate excavations and other affected areas. Based on dozing approximately 17,500,000 cu-ft of
dike material into impoundments at $0.074 per cu-ft, grading 83 acres @ $3128/acre, applying 6 inches of topsoil to 124 acres (2,701,000 cu-ft at $0.115/cu-ft) and seeding 124 acres at $534/acre. (10) $100,000 per year for 7 years plus $100,000 for recovery systems installation plus $350,000 for intercept trench expansion. Includes treatment of storm water and wastewater, as necessary. (11) Post-closure monitoring includes the cost of purging, sampling and analysis for 25 wells for an additional sampling event for the first 3
to 5 years after cell closure, cell settlement monitoring, radon emission measurement and cell cover inspection and repair. (12) SFC at current level of six employees plus management augmentation during decommissioning.

F-17

Table F-11 Alternative 3, Option 3-1: Partial Off-Site Disposal of Contaminated
Materials
Transport raffinate sludge and other sludges and sediments via truck to EnergySolutions
(Clive, Utah)
Estimated Direct Costs for the Partial Off-Site Disposal Alternative (Alternative 3-3-1)
Activity/Cost Element 2007 $ (000s) Note/Comment 1. Complete Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents $457 See note (1)
2. NRC Charges for Reclamation Plan Review, EIS Preparation $900 See note (2)
3. Contractor mobilization and demobilization $687 5% of lines, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12.
4. Monitoring Well Removal and Replacement Task Complete
5. Disposal Cell Construction / Closure $3,073 See note (3) 6. Other Sludge, Removal, Treatment and On-Site Disposal $3,023 See note (4) 7. Dewater raffinate sludge Task Complete
8a. Transport of raffinate sludge and other sludges and
sediments to EnergySolutions
$3,030 See note (5)
8b. Disposal of raffinate sludge and other sludges and sediments
at EnergySolutions
$2,891 = [10,478+2155] x $228.9/ton disposal cost
9. Soil Remediation and On-Site Disposal $1,716 See Table F-2b 10. Building and Equipment Demolition $3,994 See note (6)
11. Termination Survey $391 See note (7)
12. Site Restoration $1,931 See note (8)
13. Groundwater Remediation $1,199 See note (9)
14. Engineering Construction Management $2,222 15% of lines 3 through 12 (less 8).
15. Post-Closure Monitoring Program $84 See note (10)
16. SFC Staff $7,612 See note (11) 17. Long-Term Site Control Fund $798 Per 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criterion 10
($250K, 1978 escalated to 2007 $).
18. Long-term Groundwater Recovery and Treatment $1,355 13 years @ $104,250/year Total Direct Cost: $35,364
Contingency (@ 10% of direct costs) $3,536
Grand Total: $38,900
Standard construction work units of measurement used in all tables Notes: (1) Includes responses to RAIs and revisions to the Reclamation Plan, groundwater Corrective Action Plan and preparation of an Alternate Concentration Limit Application. (2) Includes review and approval of Reclamation Plan and groundwater Corrective Action Plan and completion of EIS. (3) Cell design included in 2006 Reclamation Plan. (4) Excavation, treatment and placement in the cell of sludges not being shipped off-site (1,387,280 cu-ft @ $2.179/cu-ft, see Materials
Characteristics Table F-2a). (5) See Appendix F Table F-17 for mean carrier price quote in $/ton by final destination. Table value = [10,478 tons of raffinate sludge + 2155 tons of sediment] x mean price quote of $239.9/ton]. Mean transport price reflects quotes received from seven carriers. (6) Source: SFC Environmental Report 2006, includes demolition and placement in cell. (7) 2000 soil samples @ $100 each, plus gamma walkover survey 500 hours @ $50/hr, plus $150K assessment / NRC confirmation.
(8) Cost to grade, place topsoil and re-vegetate excavations and other affected areas. Based on dozing approximately 17,500,000 cu-ft of dike material into impoundments at $0.074 per cu-ft, grading 83 acres @ $3128/acre, applying 6 inches of topsoil to 124 acres (2,701,000 cu-ft at $0.115/cu-ft) and seeding 124 acres at $534/acre. (9) $100,000 per year for 7 years plus $100,000 for recovery systems installation plus $350,000 for intercept trench expansion. Includes treatment of storm water and wastewater, as necessary. (10) Post-closure monitoring includes the cost of purging, sampling and analysis for 25 wells for an additional sampling event for the first 3 to 5 years after cell closure, cell settlement monitoring, radon emission measurement and cell cover inspection and repair. (11) SFC at current level of six employees plus management augmentation during decommissioning.

F-18

Table F-12 Alternative 3, Option 3-2: Partial Off-Site Disposal of Contaminated
Materials
Transport raffinate sludge and other sludges and sediments via truck to WCS (Andrews,
Texas)
Estimated Direct Costs for the Partial Off-Site Disposal Alternative (Alternative 3-3-2)
Activity/Cost Element 2007 $ (000s) Note/Comment 1. Complete Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents $457 See note (1)
2. NRC Charges for Reclamation Plan Review, EIS Preparation $900 See note (2)
3. Contractor mobilization and demobilization $687 5% of lines, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12.
4. Monitoring Well Removal and Replacement Task Complete
5. Disposal Cell Construction / Closure $3,073 See note (3) 6. Other Sludge, Removal, Treatment and On-Site Disposal $3,023 See note (4) 7. Dewater raffinate sludge Task Complete
8a. Transport of raffinate sludge and other sludges and sediments
to WCS
$1,662 See note (5)
8b. Disposal of raffinate sludge and other sludges and sediments at
WCS
$1,351 = [10,478+2155] x $107/ton disposal cost
9. Soil Remediation and On-Site Disposal $1,716 See Table F-2b 10. Building and Equipment Demolition $3,994 See note (6)
11. Termination Survey $391 See note (7)
12. Site Restoration $1,931 See note (8)
13. Groundwater Remediation $1,199 See note (9)
14. Engineering Construction Management $2,222 15% of lines 3 through 12 (less 8).
15. Post-Closure Monitoring Program $84 See note (10)
16. SFC Staff $7,612 See note (11) 17. Long-Term Site Control Fund $798 Per 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criterion 10 (
$250K, 1978 escalated to 2007 $).
18. Long-term Groundwater Recovery and Treatment $1,355 13 years @$104,250/year Total Direct Cost: $32,456
Contingency (@ 10% of direct costs) $3,246
Grand Total: $35,701
Standard construction work units of measurement used in all tables Notes: (1) Includes responses to RAIs and revisions to the Reclamation Plan, groundwater Corrective Action Plan and preparation of an Alternate Concentration Limit Application. (2) Includes review and approval of Reclamation Plan and groundwater Corrective Action Plan and completion of EIS. (3) Cell design included in 2006 Reclamation Plan. (4) Excavation, treatment and placement in the cell of sludges not being shipped off-site (1,387,280 cu-ft @ $2.179/cu-ft, see Materials
Characteristics Table F-2a). (5) See Appendix F Table F-17 for mean carrier price quote in $/ton by final destination. Table value = [10,478 tons of raffinate sludge + 2155 tons of sediment] x mean price quote of $131.6/ton]. Mean transport price reflects quotes received from seven carriers. (6) Source: SFC Environmental Report 2006, includes demolition and placement in cell. (7) 2000 soil samples @ $100 each, plus gamma walkover survey 500 hours @ $50/hr, plus $150K assessment / NRC confirmation.
(8) Cost to grade, place topsoil and re-vegetate excavations and other affected areas. Based on dozing approximately 17,500,000 cu-ft of dike material into impoundments at $0.074 per cu-ft, grading 83 acres @ $3128/acre, applying 6 inches of topsoil to 124 acres (2,701,000 cu-ft at $0.115/cu-ft) and seeding 124 acres at $534/acre. (9) $100,000 per year for 7 years plus $100,000 for recovery systems installation plus $350,000 for intercept trench expansion. Includes treatment of storm water and wastewater, as necessary. (10) Post-closure monitoring includes the cost of purging, sampling and analysis for 25 wells for an additional sampling event for the first 3 to 5 years after cell closure, cell settlement monitoring, radon emission measurement and cell cover inspection and repair. (11) SFC at current level of six employees plus management augmentation during decommissioning.

F-19

Table F-13 Alternative 3, Option 3-3: Partial Off-Site Disposal of Contaminated
Materials
Transport raffinate sludge and other sludges and sediments via truck to Pathfinder Mines
Corp. (PMC, Mills, Wyoming)
Estimated Direct Costs for the Partial Off-Site Disposal Alternative (Alternative 3-3-3)
Activity/Cost Element 2007 $ (000s) Note/Comment 1. Complete Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents $457 See note (1)
2. NRC Charges for Reclamation Plan Review, EIS Preparation $900 See note (2)
3. Contractor mobilization and demobilization $687 5% of lines, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12.
4. Monitoring Well Removal and Replacement Task Complete
5. Disposal Cell Construction / Closure $3,073 See note (3) 6. Other Sludge Removal, Treatment and On-Site Disposal $3,023 See note (4) 7. Dewater raffinate sludge Task Complete
8a. Transport of raffinate sludge and other sludges and
sediments to PMC
$2,388 See note (5)
8b. Disposal of raffinate sludge and other sludges and sediments
at PMC
$2,665 = [10,478+2155] x $210.9/ton disposal cost
9. Soil Remediation and On-Site Disposal $1,716 See Table F-2b 10. Building and Equipment Demolition $3,994 See note (6)
11. Termination Survey $391 See note (7)
12. Site Restoration $1,931 See note (8)
13. Groundwater Remediation $1,199 See note (9)
14. Engineering Construction Management $2,222 15% of lines 3 through 12 (less 8).
15. Post-Closure Monitoring Program $84 See note (10)
16. SFC Staff $7,612 See note (11) 17. Long-Term Site Control Fund $798 Per 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criterion 10
($250K, 1978 escalated to 2007 $).
18. Long-term Groundwater Recovery and Treatment $1,355 13 years @ $104,250/year Total Direct Cost: $34,495
Contingency (@ 10% of direct costs) $3,449
Grand Total: $37,944
Notes: (1) Includes responses to RAIs and revisions to the Reclamation Plan, groundwater Corrective Action Plan and preparation of an Alternate Concentration Limit Application. (2) Includes review and approval of Reclamation Plan and groundwater Corrective Action Plan and completion of EIS. (3) Cell design included in 2006 Reclamation Plan. (4) Excavation, treatment and placement in the cell of sludges not being shipped off-site (1,387,280 cu-ft @ $2.179/cu-ft, see Materials Characteristics Table F-2a).
(5) See Appendix F Table F-17 for mean carrier price quote in $/ton by final destination. Table value = [10,478 tons of raffinate sludge + 2155 tons of sediment] x mean price quote of $189/ton]. Mean transport price reflects quotes received from seven carriers. (6) Source: SFC Environmental Report 2006, includes demolition and placement in cell. (7) 2000 soil samples @ $100 each, plus gamma walkover survey 500 hours @ $50/hr, plus $150K assessment/NRC confirmation. (8) Cost to grade, place topsoil and re-vegetate excavations and other affected areas. Based on dozing approximately 17,500,000 cu-ft of
dike material into impoundments at $0.074 per cu-ft, grading 83 acres @ $3128/acre, applying 6 inches of topsoil to 124 acres (2,701,000 cu-ft at $0.115/cu-ft) and seeding 124 acres at $534/acre. (9) $100,000 per year for 7 years plus $100,000 for recovery systems installation plus $350,000 for intercept trench expansion. Includes treatment of storm water and wastewater, as necessary. (10) Post-closure monitoring includes the cost of purging, sampling and analysis for 25 wells for an additional sampling event for the first 3 to 5 years after cell closure, cell settlement monitoring, radon emission measurement and cell cover inspection and repair. (11) SFC at current level of six employees plus management augmentation during decommissioning.

F-20

Table F-14 Alternative 3, Option 4: Partial Off-Site Disposal of Contaminated Materials
Transport both raffinate sludge and other sludges and sediments via truck to White Mesa
(Blanding, Utah)
Estimated Direct Costs for the Partial Off-Site Disposal Alternative (Alternative 3-4)
Activity/Cost Element
2007 $ (000s) Note/Comment 1. Complete Reclamation Plan and Supporting Documents $457 See note (1)
2. NRC Charges for Reclamation Plan Review, EIS Preparation $900 See note (2)
3. Contractor mobilization and demobilization $687 5% of lines, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12.
4. Monitoring Well Removal and Replacement Task Complete
5. Disposal Cell Construction / Closure $3,073 See note (3)
6. Other Sludge, Removal, Treatment and On-Site Disposal $3,023 See note (4) 7. Dewater raffinate sludge Task Complete
8a. Transport raffinate sludge and other sludges and sediments to White
Mesa
$2,393 See note (5)
8b. Raffinate sludge and other sludges and sediments processing cost at White Mesa $1,579 = [10,478 + 2155] x $125/ton processing cost
8c. Recovered Materials Rebate (-) Raffinate Sludge + Other $(773) See note (6) 9. Soil Remediation and On-Site Disposal $1,716 See Table F-2b 10. Building and Equipment Demolition $3,994 See note (7)
11. Termination Survey $391 See note (8)
12. Site Restoration $1,931 See note (9)
13. Groundwater Remediation $1,199 See note (10)
14. Engineering Construction Management 2,222 15% of lines 3 through 12 (less 8).
15. Post-Closure Monitoring Program $84 See note (11) 16. SFC Staff $7,612 See note (12) 17. Long-Term Site Control Fund $798 Per 10 CFR 40, Appendix A,
Criterion 10 ($250K, 1978 escalated to 2007 $).
18. Long-term Groundwater Recovery and Treatment $1,355 13 years @ $104,250/year
19. White Mesa License Amendment $100
Total Direct Cost: $32,741 Contingency (@ 10% of direct costs) $3,274
Grand Total: $36,015
Standard construction work units of measurement used in all tables Notes:
(1) Includes responses to RAIs and revisions to the Reclamation Plan, groundwater Corrective Action Plan and preparation of an Alternate Concentration Limit Application. (2) Includes review and approval of Reclamation Plan and groundwater Corrective Action Plan and completion of EIS. (3) Cell design included in 2006 Reclamation Plan. (4) Excavation, treatment and placement in the cell of sludges not being shipped off-site (1,387,280 cu-ft @ $2.179/cu-ft, see Materials
Characteristics Table F-2a). (5) See Appendix F Table F-17 for mean carrier price quote in $/ton by final destination. Table value = [10,478 tons of raffinate sludge + 2155 tons of sediment] x mean price quote of $189.4/ton]. Mean transport price reflects quotes received from seven carriers. (6) Reflects potential rebate provided by mill for market value of recovered uranium constituents using current price for uranium. See Table F-19. Includes uranium recovered from both raffinate sludge and other sediments and sludge
(7) Source: SFC Environmental Report 2006, includes demolition and placement in cell. (8) 2000 soil samples @ $100 each, plus gamma walkover survey 500 hours @ $50/hr, plus $150K assessment / NRC confirmation. (9) Cost to grade, place topsoil and re-vegetate excavations and other affected areas. Based on dozing approximately 17,500,000 cu-ft of dike material into impoundments at $0.074 per cu-ft, grading 83 acres @ $3128/acre, applying 6 inches of topsoil to 124 acres (2,701,000 cu-ft at $0.115/cu-ft) and seeding 124 acres at $534/acre.
(10) $100,000 per year for 7 years plus $100,000 for recovery systems installation plus $350,000 for intercept trench expansion. Includes treatment of storm water and wastewater, as necessary. (11) Post-closure monitoring includes the cost of purging, sampling and analysis for 25 wells for an additional sampling event for the first 3 to 5 years after cell closure, cell settlement monitoring, radon emission measurement and cell cover inspection and repair. (12) SFC at current level of six employees plus management augmentation during decommissioning.

F-21

Table F-15 Alternative 3, Comparison of Total Transport Costs per Load
Total Cost Per Load 1
Carrier White Mesa
Blanding, UT
Energy Solutions
Clive, UT
WCS
Andrews, TX
PMC, Mills,
WY
Rio Algom,
Grants, NM
Carrier 1 $4,942 $6,055 $4,505 $4,610 $4,572
Carrier 2 $2,889 $3,864 $1,679 $2,943 $2,153
Carrier 3 $3,473 $4,569 $2,187 $3,775 $2,552
Carrier 4 $4,783 $6,246 $2,930 $4,796 $3,589
Carrier 5 $2,800 $3,000 $2,150 $2,800 $2,600
Carrier 6 $3,360 $4,464 $2,799 $3,404 $3,307
Carrier 7 $5,289 $6,612 $2,910 $5,122 $3,945

Minimum $2,800 $3,000 $1,679 $2,800 $2,153
Mean $3,934 $4,973 $2,737 $3,921 $3,245
Maximum $5,289 $6,612 $4,505 $5,122 $4,572
Standard Deviation $1,040 $1,355 $910 $930 $862
Notes: 1 Price quotes reflect actual quotes received from licensed carriers based on material specifications for the transport of a combined 12,633 tons of raffinate sludge and other sludges and sediments. Rates include base rate and fuel charges.

Figure F-1 Alternative 3, Comparison of Total Transport Costs per Load to Final Destinations
[ Min, Mean and Max ]
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
$4,500
$5,000
$5,500
$6,000
$6,500
$7,000
White Mesa, Blanding
UT (1607 km)
EnergySolutions, Clive
UT (2190 km)
WCS, Andrews, TX
(1038 km)
Pathfinder, Mills, WY
(1675 km)
Rio Algom, Grants, NM
(1215 km)
Cost/Load
Min:
Max:
Mean:

F-22
Table F-16 Alternative 3, Total Estimated Transport Costs by Final Destination – Based on One Final Destination – Does Not Reflect Blended Costs of Shipping to Multiple
Destinations
Total Costs
Ca
r
r
i
e
r

Ma
x
i
m
u
m

We
i
g
h
t
/

Pa
y
l
o
a
d
1
(l
b
s
)

To
n
s

o
f

W
a
s
t
e
/

Pa
y
l
o
a
d
2
(t
o
n
s
)

Es
t
i
m
.

N
o
.

Tr
u
c
k

L
o
a
d
s
3
Wh
i
t
e

M
e
s
a

Bl
a
n
d
i
n
g
,

U
T

En
e
r
g
y

So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

C
l
i
v
e
,

UT

WC
S

An
d
r
e
w
s
,

T
X

PM
C
,

M
i
l
l
s
,

W
Y

Ri
o

A
l
g
o
m

Gr
a
n
t
s
,

N
M

1 46,000 22 574 $2,837,889 $3,477,085 $2,587,154 $2,647,189 $2,625,294
2 45,000 22 588 $1,697,215 $2,270,426 $986,306 $1,729,238 $1,264,906
3 43,500 21 609 $2,114,675 $2,781,501 $1,331,613 $2,298,168 $1,553,888
4 42,500 20 624 $2,983,859 $3,896,547 $1,827,871 $2,991,969 $2,238,986
5 45,500 22 581 $1,626,304 $1,742,469 $1,248,769 $1,626,304 $1,510,140
6 40,000 19 665 $2,233,948 $2,967,800 $1,861,225 $2,263,363 $2,198,842
7 43,000 21 616 $3,259,130 $4,074,384 $1,793,198 $3,156,435 $2,431,255
Min: $1,626,304 $1,742,469 $986,306 $1,626,304 $1,264,906
Mean: $2,393,289 $3,030,030 $1,662,305 $2,387,524 $1,974,759
Max: $3,259,130 $4,074,384 $2,587,154 $3,156,435 $2,625,294
Std Dev: $669,524 $906,496 $368,483 $629,529 $480,579
Notes and Assumptions: Assumed Tonnages:
Raffinate sludge 10,478 tons and other sludges and sediments 2,155 tons: Total 12,633 tons 1 Includes industry estimate of 2,000 lbs for ancillary equipment/pallets, etc. 2 Tons of Waste = maximum weight per payload less 2,000 lbs for ancillary equipment/pallets, etc. divided by 2,000 lbs per ton. 3 Total tons of waste (12,633 tons) divided by tons of waste per payload.

Figure F-2 Alternative 3, Total Truck Transport Costs to Final Destinations
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
White Mesa, Blanding UT
(1607 km) EnergySolutions, Clive
UT (2190 km)
WCS, Andrews, TX
(1038 km)
Pathfinder, Mills, WY
(1675 km)
Rio Algom, Grants, NM
(1215 km)
Reflects price quotes from 7 carriers
Total Cost
Min:
Mean:
Max:

F-23
Table F-17 Alternative 3, Comparison of Total Transport Costs per Ton of Waste
Total Cost per Ton of Waste
Carrier White Mesa
Blanding, UT
Energy Solutions
Clive, UT
WCS Andrews,
TX
PMC, Mills,
WY
Rio Algom
Grants, NM
Carrier 1 $225 $275 $205 $210 $208
Carrier 2 $134 $180 $78 $137 $100
Carrier 3 $167 $220 $105 $182 $123
Carrier 4 $236 $308 $145 $237 $177
Carrier 5 $129 $138 $99 $129 $120
Carrier 6 $177 $235 $147 $179 $174
Carrier 7 $258 $323 $142 $250 $192

Minimum: $129 $138 $78 $129 $100
Mean: $189 $240 $132 $189 $156
Maximum: $258 $323 $205 $250 $208
Standard Deviation: $51 $67 $42 $46 $41

Figure F-3 Alternative 3, Transport Costs per Ton for Truck Shipment
to Final Destinations
$-
$25
$50
$75
$100
$125
$150
$175
$200
$225
$250
$275
$300
$325
$350
White Mesa, Blanding
UT, (1607 km)
EnergySolutions, Clive
UT, (2190 km)
WCS, Andrews, TX,
(1038 km)
Pathfinder, Mills, WY,
(1675 km)
Rio Algom, Grants, NM
(1215 km)
Reflects price quotes from 7 carriers
$/ton
Min:
Mean:
Max:

F-24
Table F-18 Estimated Potential Rebate for Uranium Recovery from Raffinate Sludge
Rebate Calculation Elements: Value Unit Source/notes:
A Estimated Uranium Content of Sludge
1 Estimated tons of raffinate sludge 10,478 tons Materials volumes and radionuclides 4-11-2007.xls.
2 Uranium content of dewatered raffinate sludge 95,232 lbs [SFC RAI Response 01_08.pdf], 12/26/07, RE:0752-A, "Raffinate Uranium Content Based on Composite Sample from Each Storage Cell"
3 Estimated Recovery Percentage 75% % NRC, 1/23/08, record of Telcon, 9/24/07
4 Recovered uranium from raffinate sludge 71,424 lbs = row 2 x row 3
5 Recovery rate (in lbs per ton of total feed stock) 6.82 lbs/ton = row 4 / row 1
B Price Assumptions 1 See Note 1
6 Weekly Spot Ux U3O8 Price as of March 18, 2008 $70.00 $/lb http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_Prices.aspx
7 Estimated lower boundary price $50.00 $/lb " ", The Ux Consulting Company, LLC
C Revenue Estimate
8 Total estimated recoverable uranium x Weekly Spot Price (3/18/08) $4,999,655 $ = row 4 x row 6
9 Total estimated recoverable uranium x estimated lower boundary price $3,571,182 $ = row 4 x row 7
D Cost Estimate
10 Unit processing cost per ton of feed stock $125 $/ton NRC, 1/23/08
11 Estimated processing cost $1,309,750 $ = row 1 x row 10
D Estimated Rebate @ 20% of Net Revenue (Net Revenue=Revenue less Processing Costs)
12 Estimated rebate using current spot price $737,981 $ = [row 8 – row 11] x .20. The 20% rebate assumption is based on an industry standard, see Record of Telcon, 9/24/07
13 Estimated rebate using lower boundary price $452,286 $ = [row 9 – row 11] x .20. The 20% rebate assumption is based on an industry standard,
see Record of Telcon, 9/24/07 Notes: 1 The Ux U3O8 Price is one of only two weekly uranium price indicators that are accepted by the uranium industry, as witnessed by
their inclusion in most “market price” sales contracts, i.e., sales contracts with pricing provisions that call for the future uranium delivery price to be equal to the market price at or around the time of delivery.

F-25
Table F-19 Estimated Potential Rebate for Uranium Recovery from Raffinate Sludge and Other Sludges and Sediments
Rebate Calculation Elements: Value Unit Source/notes:
A Estimated Uranium Content of Raffinate Sludge
1 Estimated tons of raffinate sludge 10,478 tons Materials volumes and radionuclides 4-11-2007.xls.
2 Uranium content of dewatered raffinate sludge 95,232 lbs [SFC RAI Response 01_08.pdf], 12/26/07, RE:0752-A, "Raffinate Uranium Content Based on Composite Sample from Each Storage Cell"
3 Estimated Recovery Percentage 75% % NRC, 1/23/08, record of Telcon, 9/24/07
4 Recovered uranium from raffinate sludge 71,424 lbs = row 2 x row 3
5 Recovery rate (in lbs per ton of total feed
stock)
6.82 lbs/ton = row 4 / row 1
Uranium content of Other Sludges and Sediments
6 Emergency Basin Sediment + North
Ditch Sediment + Sanitary Lagoon sludges and sediments
3,862 U-kg Materials volumes and radionuclides 4-11-2007.xls.
7 Emergency Basin Sediment + North Ditch Sediment + Sanitary Lagoon
sludges and sediments
8,514 lbs Converted to pounds using 2.2046 lbs/kg.
8 Estimated recovered uranium from sludges and sediments (75% of total) 6,386 lbs 75% of row 7
9 Raw tons of other sludges and sediments 2155 tons Tons to be processed to extract estimated U-kg
B Price Assumptions 1 See Note 1
10 Weekly Spot Ux U3O8 Price as of March 18, 2008 $70.00 $/lb http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_Prices.aspx
11 Estimated lower boundary price $50.00 $/lb " ", The Ux Consulting Company, LLC
C Revenue Estimate
12 Total estimated recoverable Uranium x Weekly Spot Price (3/18/08) $5,446,653 $ = [row 4 + row 8] x row 10
13 Total estimated recoverable Uranium x Est. lower boundary price $3,890,466 $ = [row 4 + row 8] x row 11
D Cost Estimate
14 Unit processing cost per ton of feed stock $125 $/ton NRC, 1/23/08
15 Estimated total processing cost $1,579,170 $ = [row 1 + row 9] x row 14
D Estimated Rebate @ 20% of Net Revenue (Net Revenue=Revenue less Processing Costs)
16 Estimated rebate using current spot price $773,497 $ = [row 12 – row 15] x .20. The 20% rebate assumption is based on an industry standard, see Record of Telcon, 9/24/07
17 Estimated rebate using lower boundary price $462,259 $ = [row 13 – row 15] x .20. The 20% rebate assumption is based on an industry standard, see Record of Telcon, 9/24/07
Notes: 1 The Ux U3O8 Price is one of only two weekly uranium price indicators that are accepted by the uranium industry, as witnessed by their inclusion in most “market price” sales contracts, i.e., sales contracts with pricing provisions that call for the future uranium delivery price
to be equal to the market price at or around the time of delivery.

Exhibit 27
/
Zoom From Jul 2, 2015 To Jun 30, 2020
Ur
a
n
i
u
m
Uranium Spot Price Long-term Uranium Price
Jan '16 Jul '16 Jan '17 Jul '17 Jan '18 Jul '18 Jan '19 Jul '19 Jan '20
1990 2000 2010 2020
20
30
40
10
5y All
22
/