ML19327B981

Forwards Correspondence Re Processing & Disposal of Nonbyproduct Matls in Tailings Impoundments,Per Telcon

ML19327B981
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/30/1989
From:	Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Denham J TELEDYNE WAH CHANG ALBANY (FORMERLY WAH CHANG CORP.)
References
REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 8911140334
Download: ML19327B981 (1)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _

t, u '

\\4-o l

7

}^^

r i.

- PHL/J.DENHAM/10/27-1

{

v f

.00T 3 e sps:

+

L. j

",/ - Mr? James Denham 9

Teleb ne Wah Chang j

I *. '

. Post Office Box 460

.i 4 Albany, OR 97321 3) i h w,

Dear Mr. Denham:

i

- e 1

e y,i l'have enclosed,' as discussed during our telephone conversation, copies of '

I Jl

~

• 1, E,.

.several letters dealing with the subject of processing and disposa's of

';j non. byproduct materials in tailings impoundments.

.y s

s r

s gg If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 492-3345'or Ramond Hall.

l 4

i at (303) 236-2805.

o j

y "f,'g Sincerely.

l i!

I Paul H. Lohaus, Chief f

i Operations Branch

~

j Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, NMSS

Enclosure:

,As stated Distribution:

e g Gpeepe 4sf 4 W # M C N d*'

NMSS r/f j

e

.RBangart, LLWM JGreeves, LLWM MBell, LLRD JSurmeier, LLTB PLohaus, LLOB JJones, LLOB r/f l

PDR; YES. S 6

PDR NO. C: Category:

Proprietary C7 or CF Only T 7.

j ACNW YES.- @

NO C

.j

. SUBJECT ABSTRACT:

USE OF URANIUM RECOVERY GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT

]

"^

Mh0

'j Urc :LLon gi

LLos

LL0s

LLWM

LLWM

mb)

mdb r

g..............................................................

.........o NAME:PLohdius jj:

J 3.(...q...................................................................

i Date:

1,

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY eti$%Sgh ecc sPDR NM~ b

~

WM'3

//Ll4-I

.c.

.f ~.

-_Ab9,38 i

-[ k unitsostates

'f NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMIS8loN i

\\.....]

[

waamienton.e. c. seems

>,, 1. 1,.

The Honorable Alan K. Stepson l

Subcommittee en Nuclear Reguletten Committee en Environment and Public Works i

United States Senate Washington. 0.C.

20510 4175 l

Dear Senator Stepson:

r In your May 13. 1988 letter, you requested infermatten en the status of the American Nuclear Corporatten (ANC) amendment request to permit ANC to receive third-party radfue.conteeinsted sells and debris for disposal in its Tailings Pond No.

1..

l We have considered this request and the comples regulatory issues l

involved in-authorising disposal of this type of esterial at a aill ta111ngs site.

We have recantly reached the decisten that the major regulatory issues Roted below would have to be favorably resolved before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) could consider approving the disposal of these radive wastes in ANC's l

tailings pond under current statutory authority.

The statutory authority is unlikely to change in the near future.

Therefore, we cannet appeove the ANC request.

This decision is being conveyed to ANC.

1 A primary issue stees free the fact that this waste material contains radive and is classified as naturally ecturring and accelerator produced radioactive esterials (NAAM).

At issue is whether the inclusion of NARM wastes in a mill tailings disposal site is consistent with U.S. Severnment ownersh'

elving the authority question was achieved the arter satisfaction of a11 Resource Conservatten and Recoverg

esorah sive tavtronmenta! Responsa. Ceepensatten. and Lia i

I CERCLA as asended, requirements usu14 es essential. Appropriate dinanct I arrangement would have to he provided se that the Department weeld bear ne attitional cost associated with the acquisttleg of this esterial. Your letter indicated that there are three pending asetteattens before the Comissten for the dispetal of non.bsreduct esterial at 11eensed uranta sill taillags sitesI ue 1 unfersund there may be different esterials in questions sees ( NANI' early outside of RRC Jurtsdiction and same I?seseadary"his as within NRC Jurisdistten. We would be v1111ag in discuss t de it if peu desire, with respect to spectfit ester 141 at apostfle e tes. stecerely. Yd, EE.'laublita f Acting Director Office of Remedial Action and Weste fechnelegy Office of Reclear Energy f nog'W njy 3 h 0 l V .o O l I 3 I l c Mr. John E. Baublitz, Acting Director l Office of Remedial Action and Weste Technology j Office of Nuclear Energy' U. S. Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20545 7 tU

Dear Mr. Baublitz:

1 am writing to you because of a number of requests made to-NRC regarding the f

disposal of select wastes in uranium mill tailings piles. The requests vary I

in. terms of quantity, radioactivity, and presence of other nonradiological j

l constituents.

Aside from technical, environmental and engineering considerations, one of the most significant cor.siderations in whether to permLt such disposal is the eventual transfer of the title and custody from the commercial licensee / owner

'to the State or Federal government.

It has been suggested that the disposal of l

such wastes in a uranium or thorium tailings pile may compromise the authority 3

L.

for transfer of title and custody to the United States under Section 83 of the

. Atomic Energy Act ( AEA) of 1954, as amended.

t Presently, the Department of Energy (DOE) is identified as the Federal agency i

to accept, on behalf of the Federal government, title and to conduct long-term 5

monitoring and surveillance in perpetuity. This role is similar to DOE's

.i l

responsibility in the UMTRA Project under Title I of the '.;ranium Mill Tailings l

RadiationControlAct(UMTRCA),specificallySection104(f).

l In our A il 14 1988 letter to y

, the NR(, requested a determination on l

whether Ewouldacceptcusto(yo tailings sites, if Naturally Occurring aad I

Accelerator Produced Radioactive Material (NARM) had been disposed therein.-

l Vour June 10,'1988 response raised doubts alwt 00E's authority to accept title to.and custo% of such sites.

i In order to taprove the currently inefficient approach of reviewing each request for tailines pile disposal of nonbyproduct material on a case-by. case basis. additiona100E clarification is needed to remove the uncertainty that now exists. A more definitive DOE position would allow NRC to provide clarifying guidance to licensees, eliminate requests for disposal that would I

result in 00E being prohibited from accepting title and custody, and allow NRC to more expeditiously review requests that are consistent with 00E criteria for eventual title and custody acceptance. Your timely response to this request will significantly assist all parties involved.

I request clarification regarding the following:

$ 7lC&be w L.

o r

I GG/89/g/2g/8AUBLITZ OCT 5O i

i 1.

Are there Jn quantities or concentrations of NARM that could be a

disposed of in the tailings piles without compromising DOE's ability j

to eventually accept title to and custody of the reclaimed tailings site?

If so, please identify these quantity or concentration limits.

I 2.

Likewise, are there any such quantity or concentration limits on accepting title and custody transfer of sites wherein matter with a source material content may be disposed off Specifically, if such l

source material were to be placed in tailings piles without having processed it for the source material content, would DOE have reservations depending on quantities or concentrations? For example, the Tele (yne Wah Chang zirconius tailings or filtercake residue from 1

eine water cleanup are two examples where such material has been i

suggested for direct disposal into existing, licensed uranium mill i

tailings piles.

l 3.

Fomerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) material has been proposed for disposal into uranium mill tallings piles, without any processing.

In some cases, this material qualifies as 11.e(2) byproduct material, but in others there are quantities of this material containing constituents specifically covered under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 1 RCRA) or the Toxic Substances i

control Act (TSCA). Can such material, or limited quantities or concentrations of this material, be placed directly into a uranium mill tailings pile without compromising the transferability of the j

title and custody to 00E upon reclamatson?

i 4.

Mine wastes and sina water which cannot be released into waterways or on open ground, is usually treated to remove those contaminants in order to comply with National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) limits for such releases. As a result, the residues from the l

treatment process must be disposed of properly.

If such water or residues are then processed for their source material content, either l

at the uranium mill or off site, can the resultant material be disposed of in the tailings piles without compromising DOE's authority or willingness to take title to and custo(y of the L

reclaimed tailings pile?

which have been processed for extraction of certain i

Some materials,luable minerals, have been additionally processed for 5.

economically va l

1 source material as well. These " secondary wastes" have been referred l

l to as NARM, source material, select wastes and so on. Frequently, these wastes are almost indistinguishable from uranium mill tailings.

They are not byproduct material simply because some mineral, such as vanadium or copper, has been extracted prior to being processed for uranium or thorium, usually in another facility other than a uranium i

eve.

,,---.--w.----+w,-

-...e..

. - ~. - -

.w..

-. _ -.,....i,-..--..-,.-..-,-,--,,.,----.--.,,-.-,_-,-,,

.,--.,m.m.--

d GG/89/9/29/SAUBLITZ mill.

FU$ RAP, NARM and the phosphate ta111pg6 in Florida and Louisiana may fall under this category. Are there any conditions, under which such material could be disposed of into tailings, which would not compromise DOE's ability to take title and custody upon reclamation?

our staff have any questions regarding this letter, contacts are Paul Should y(FTS Lohaus 492-0553) or Giorgio Gnugno 1 (FT5 492-0578),

Sincerely, j,

(SIGAD) RCHARD L BANGART l

Richard L. Bangert. Director Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decosmissioning, 19455 cc: 5. Mann, DOE /NE-22 M. Matthews, D0E/AL l

l l

l i

l l

--.-~,---+,-==ev-mawm-e-me-mw

M. t 71988 MARTIN 05 6/16 1

MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert D. Martin, Regional A ministrator Region IV l

i Hugh L. Tho son, Jr., Director FRON:

Office of h@uclear Material Safety and Safeguares

$UBJECT:

DISPOSAL OF NON. BYPRODUCT MATERIALS IN TAILINGS J

IMPOUNDMENTS l

\\

In your February 23,1988 memorandum, you requested a policy decision on the i

disposal of non-byproduct waste materials (MARM and other wastes) in mill r

tailings impoundments. To facilitate our review, we used the two categories J

of wastes discussed in your memorandum. Thesecategoriesaret(1)NARM wastes, those generated by operations not regulated under the Atomic Energy l

l Act (the Act) and (2) other wastes, those generated by operations regulated i

under the Act.

Neither of these waste categories is included in the legislative definition of byproduct material.

l The major regulatory issues discussed in your memorande and noted below would L

l have to be favorab)y resolved before the NRC could consider approving the.

l l

disposal of the NARM category of waste in aill tailings impoundments under I

current statutory authority. The statutory authority is unlikely to change in Therefore we agree with your reconuendation that hkC not j

the near futura.

I approve a policy of disposal uf material in the MARM category of waste in mill t

tailings impoundments.

The primary issue is whether the inclusion of NARM wastes in a mill tailings disposal site is consistent with U.S. Government ownership (or State ownership) and other authorities under Section 83 of the Act. Since the Department of Energy (D0E) is currently designated to take title to the mill tailings sites, NRL requested DOE's view on this question. 00E's response stated that DOE has

' doubts about its asthority to take title to the mill tailings disposal sites if NRC has allowed the cosmingling of NARM (non-byproduct) materials in the impoundments-(a copy of the DOE response is attached).

As noted in your request, NRC does not have authority to regulate MARM.

Therefore, disposal of NARM in tailings impoundsents would result in a commingling of regulated and unregulated materials in the same disposal unit.

{

This could create duplicative jur'sdiction between NRC and other Federal or i

State agencies with respect to the commingled radioactive materials. Moreover, if NARM waste coastituents were to violata the current standards (e.g. migrate

)

i intogroundwater),theCommission'sauthorityunderSection84coftheActto approve alternatives to requirements for disposal or reclamation would be 4

seriously impaired.

Additionally,thewastesmaybesubjecttopresentlyapplicableResource Conservation and kocovery Act (RCRAs regulations or other U.S. Environmental j

protection Agency (EPA) rules for hazardous constituents or MARM, as well as to applicable State requirementt.

If the waste results from a Comprehensive I

Environtental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) clean-up

$$$NQl././- -

l MARTIN 05 6/16 action, the EFA requiresents roteired to be met would also need to be considered by the licensee to ensura that there is no issue regarding suitability of the site for disposal of the CERCLA wastes. The appropriate reov14tcry authorities would have to address these requirements.

l Finally, since there is currently a NARM disposal site licensed by the State of Utah and a license application under revi;v in the State of Colorado, there l

appears to be no compelling need at this ties to eispose of NARM material in uranium mill tailings impoundments, i

The other waste category includes webte materials generated from several different types of I consee activities regulated under the Act. Although these wastes do not meet the legislati*e definition of ' byproduct material,' we 5

I agree from a policy and technical standpoint with your proposal that their d sposal in tailings impoundments should be considered on a case-by-case basis, l

provided the geh,me of material is not large when compared to the estating

(

tailings in the impoundsent. With respect to the land transfer issue, the DOE in its letter of June 10, 1988 stated that it would be'wilitne to discuss this e

in more detail on a site-specific basis. Addittenally for the other waste l

category, the other issues appose to be wre aseenable,to resolution on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, if NRC can make a finding that (1) there is ns significant environmental ispect (2) the reclamation of the 1emntent will i

I not be impacted. (3) there are no RCRA or CERCLA problems, and '4) the DOE j

agrees to take title to the site upon cer91etion of the reclamation, then NRC could authorite such a disposal.

l In our view, it is the applicant's Msponsibility to demonstrate that these i

four points have been met. This demonstration should include reaching the l

appropriate agreements with epa, DOE, and the State. The NRC should not take l

on this responsibility for the applicant.

l r

@ gas 4 Asbut 1 terners 1'

Hush L. Thompson, Jr., Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety

,I and Safeguards l

Enclosure 00E letter dated June 10, 1988 l

I' 5

I

. ~

Department of armfey wasmapen, oc sesas i

JUN 10 988 l

l Mr. Richard L. lansert Acting Director i

Olvision of Low-Level Weste Management j

and Deco missioning U.S. belear Regulatory Comission Washington. 0.C.

20665 l

\\

Dear Mr. Sangert:

This is in response to N. R. Knapp' Department's acceptance of, transfer o s letter of April 14,1940 to the i

Department of Energy regarding tao l

ownership of lisonsed uranica sill ta111mes impsenements if non-byproduct i

etterials were a'se disposed there.

While the Department suppprts the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's efforts

'e to f1M permanent dfsmsel sites for these materials, it is not steer that 1 t

the Department would have the authority under Section 48 of the Ateste thergy Ast to accept custody of non byproduct materials. Congr9ssional.

action may be needed to provide en unambiguous resolution en this issue.

)

AssumingsomemeansofNsbIvingtheauthorityquestionwasashievedfheRCl rior satisfaction of a sive Environmental Response CampensattenIa1our j',appreh and tability i

fCERCLA as amended, requirements would be essent mpriate dinanci I arraneament wov14 have to be provided so that t Department would bear no odditional cost assettated with the acquisttleg of this material.

j Yevr letter ( Micated that there are three peMing applications before the I

Comissfon for the dfsessel of non.baroduct asterial at Itsensed uranium stil ta111mst sites. We 1 undersh M there any be different materials in questient some NAfDP early outside of NkC jurisdiction end some

('seteWarf recove('ry ass within NRC jurisdiction. We wov14 he willing I

' to dissess this le more de 11, if you desire, with respect to specific asterial at apostfit sites.

j Stacerely.

CL[E.

John t. Saublita Acting Director Office of Remedial Action 4W Weste fechnoley i

Office of Nuclear Enery i

h

1. M 9.c m ()

I l

3

\\

i in.. c.

Docket File 40 890b LFM4/POR/DCS i

40 8905/PJG/87/07/16/0 D, '

• l'*

MShopenn i

M6rown, RCPD, NM l

Ju 3 01987 yo

{

t URFO:PJG Docket No. 40 8005 r,

SUA 1473, Amendment No. 3 04008906180E i

MEMORANDUM FOR:

Docket File No. 40 8905 i

i FROM:

Pete J. Garcia ProjectManager Licensing Branc,h 2 Uranium Recovery Field Of fice, Region IV i

j

$UBJECT:

AMENDMENT N0. 3 TO $00RCE MATERIAL LICENSE SUA 1 FOR THE AMBR0$lA LAKE MILL I

htroduction I

i By letter dated March 31, 1987, Quivira Mining Company (Quivira) l take Mill to authorize processing of alternate feed material. requ l

This material which averages 0.61 percent uranium, is a residue generated during a,yellowcake purification proce),s at Sequoyah Fuels Corporation l

UFe Conversion Plant s' Gore, Oklahoma.

utvira provided additional l

l Information by letters dated July 15 190 to NRC and June 9, 1987, to theNewMexicoEnvironmentalImprovem,entDIvisionw,ithacopytoNRC.

The proposed action is to authorize Quivira to process the alternate feed meterial from the Gore facility, A mere complete description of the l

licensee's proposal and a summary of the staff's review is provided i

below.

t ticensee Proposal t

i The licensee states that the alternate feed material in slurry form will f

L be transported to the mill in 00T approved tanker trucks.

The slurry will be unloaded at a covered receiving station which will be constructed near the thickener circuit.

trucks into thickener tanks. The slurry will be pumped from the tanker i

The location of the receiving station and 1

~

1 I

dnn !! O h s n V 0 I v o k) Vc/y f'~_ -.--

= -- - -- -~~ ~ - --~~~ ~-~~ ~ ~~ ' ~

40 8905/PJG/87/07/15/0 M 30 W

~2-i the thickener tanks is shown on Figure 1 of the licensee's March 31

\\

submittel.

A flow diagram of the process to be utilized to recover the uranium is shown on Figure 2 of the July 15 submittal.

The slurry will be washed in the thickeners.

for addition of sulfuric acid.The thickened slurry will then be fed into leech tan This step will be identical to the normal i

mill process step with the exception that an oxidant will not be required l

due to the ferric iron content of the slurry.

The remaining ma process steps consist of solvent extraction and precipitation. jor be kept in slurry form or dried.of the licensee submittal indicates that The text t

However Figure 2 of the July 15 j

submittal indicates that the yellowcake wIll be left in slurry form.

i wash solution The along with barren raffinate solution from the solvent extraction pro, cess step, w111 be pumped directly to evaporation ponds.

Tailings will be discharged into nthetically lined i

impoundment 2.

gs Quivira estimates that approximately 16,000 tons of residue will be i

shipped to the Ambrosia Lake Mill for processing.

The results of l

wash water are shown on Tables 1, 2, and 3 of the lice i

submittal.

the solution in the evaporation ponds is provided in the June submittal.

i Quffashate the r existing in. plant radiation e

pr g tt P

to evaluate radiolo ital impacts and s,tatf f

lmsaeadequate hr[,dureswillbe ellowed for all aspec s o the diafio j

la Staf f Evaluation I

The staff reviewed the licensee's proposal to deterwine whether it would result in a significant impact to the environment or the current tailings 1

management, environmental monitoring, and radiation safety programs.

As stated previously, Quivira estimates that approximately 16,000 tons of residue will be processed at the mill.

This amount constitutes only Further, the tal'ings impoundment system at the Ambrosia currently contains more than 33 alliton tons of tailings.

The additional t

t L

m.

,,m.m.~...,,_~r.,.._,,-.,,m_,..,,._,m,..

.._,,y_._,..,.._,_,_.-,-,_.,w_,

m i

i 40-8905/PJG/87/07/15/0 m 3 y }ggy material will therefore constitute a miniscule percentage of the final volume of tailings resulting from operations at the Ambrosia Lake sites and will not have a significant impact on the capacity or final reclamation of the tailings disposal system.

Quivira states that the residue wash water ahd the barren raffinate solution will be pumped to lined evaporation ponds.

The solid residue resulting from the uranium extraction process, which will be repulped tsing mine water or solutions resulting from processing regular ores for pumping to the unlined tailings pond,ino the residue.will contain only the insoluble component of the constituents compris The effa:t on l

seepage from tailings pond 2 should therafore be minimal.

A comparison i

of the eveooration pond solution with the wash and rafft

'a solutions f

shows that' the solutions are very similar.

The only constituent which is I

present in significantly higher concentrations in the alternate feed process solutions is nitrete (N0 ).

A review of the ground water monitoring program currently in effect for the evaporation ponds j

3 Indicates that N0 is included in the list of parameters for sample 3

analysis.

In addition, no avidence of seepage has been detected to date f rom any of the litied ponds to be used for evaporation.. The staf f concludes that the processing of the alternate feed materis) will not i-i impact the ground water programs currently in effect for the Ambrosia i

Lake Mill.

The. licensee has not proposed changes to the radiation safety program already in effect at the Ambrosia Lake Mill.

Since the feed material i

will be handled exclusively in a wet form, no increase in airborne racioactivity is expected.

The staff concludes that the mill's existing I

radiological monitoring program and operating procedures will be adequate i

to determine and minimize worker exposures resulting from the proposed i

activity.

i Conclusions Section 40.4(a 1) defines byproduct materials as "the tailings or w;stes produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium or thorium from i

any ore processed primarily for its source material content."

Section 40.4 does not provide a definition for the singular term " ore."

Itdoes,however,grovideadefinitionfor"unrefinedandunprocessed ore," which means are in its natural form prior to any processing." The

" feed material" (itself source material) that Quivira proposes to reprocess is very similar to conventional ore.

However, it does not constitute an " unrefined and unprocessed ore." Thus, it is logical and l

L r

-~v.

.,...-..,--.w-,..-

-..-,,,,-.-~,...m--,_-

...,-e..-m-.....----.4+,,

o 40-8905/PJG/87/07/15/0 Jyt3o g7 i

consistent with the public health, safety and welfare purposes of the Uranium Mill tailings Radiation Control Act of 1974, as well as the i

Commission's implementing regulations, to conversely treat such material as refined and processed ore.

Such ore will be reprocessed for its more refined source material content and the resulting tallings or wastes will therefore be byproduct material which is subject to Commission regulation.

To hold differently would be to hold to an interpretation that would leave the resultant tailings from the reprocessed fetd material as unregulated material.

Such an interpretation would be contrary to the clear intent of the M111 Tailings Act.

The staff therefore recomer,nds that Source Material License SUA-1473 be amended to authorize processing of the alternate feed material from the Gore facility by adding License Condition No. 31 to read as follows:

31.

The licensee is authorized to process alternate feed material from Sequoyah Fuels Corporation's Gore, Oklahoma factitty in accordance with the submittels dated March 31 and July 15, 1987.

/5/

Pete J. Garcia, Project Manager j

Licensi Branch 2 j

Uranium ecovery Field Office Region IV i

5 t

Approved by'

(

Harry J. Pettengfll, CMvI L

Licensing Branch 2 j

Uranium Recovery Fleid Office, Region IV t

L Case Closed:

04008905180E I

1

_r I

i J

t i

i e

-n w

.,.n~

... + - -, - _, -, _ -,,,, -,., -.. ~... -,,, - - - -,... -

-