ML20153E585
| ML20153E585 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/15/1998 |
| From: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Merges P NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9809280156 | |
| Download: ML20153E585 (19) | |
Text
. --- - - - - -- . --, . -.
. i I
yfe rs:%>,t UNITED STATES 3
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. J0006 4001 l
\w */g September 15, 1998 l
l l
Paul J. Merges, Ph.D. l Director, Bureau of Pesticides & Radiation Division of Solid & Hazardous Materials Department of Erwironmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, NY 12233-7255
Dear Dr. Merges:
I am esponding to your May 4 and July 29,1998 letters in which you requested a clarification of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) position on its jurisdiction over radioactive ;
material at the Tonawanda, New York, Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site. In eerlier correspondence regarding this issue, we responded that neither the l j
NRC nor the State of New York Agreement State program has jurisdiction derived from the )
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, over the materials at the Tonawanda sites. You have asked us to l
explain how thic material is not under the juriodiction of the NRC while it is in Tonawanda, New i York, but comes under NRC jurisdiction upon being possessed and used as an alternate feed I material by the International Uranium Corporation (IUC) at its White Mesa Mill in Utah.
The NRC position on the regulatory jurisdiction for the residual material at the Tonawanda site was stated 'n our July 15,1998 letter to Mr. Charles Hardin. While the material at the Tonawant site remains in the possession of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) or DOE's contractor s, it is subject to DOE jurisdiction under FUSRAP. However, once it is in the l
possessio.1 of al. NRC or Agreement State licensee, like IUC, the material becomes subject to l regulation as ore under the Atom!c Energy Act. While in transit, radioactive material belongs to !
the shipper until it has been received at the destination site, l
~
To address your concerns, I would begin by stating that operation of the White Mesa uranium mill is authorized by an NRC source material license (SUA-1358, Docket No. 40-8681) issued under 10 CFR Part 40. This license allows IUC to process natural uranium cre and certain l materials other than natural uranium ores for thqir uranium content, and to possess tt.e waste l ge.wrated by its milling operations. NRC originally issued IUC's 'icense in 1979. 6.1d renewed this license in 1985 and again in 1997. The staff completed environmental revicws and radiological safety evaluations for each of these licensing actions.
I For this particular case, IUC requested an amendment to its NRC license to receive and p ocess the material from the Tonawenda site for its uranium content. The staff reviewed iUC's request, as it would any request from a cranium milllicensee to receive and process material /
cti er than natural ore, against its guidance entitled, " Final Position and Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Fed Material Other Than Natural Ores," which was published in the Federal Registerin September 1995 (60 FR 49296), and the requirements of 10 CFR Parts 40 and 51.
-. - n r t 9 '
9809280156 980915 PDR CTPRC ESGNY r
- 3 0es PDR M S Wi.E CIS S Y S P M ^' O
. - . - - - - ~ . - _ - . - . - _ - -- . - - - - - . - - - - - . - -
Paul J. Merges, Ph.D. '6EP 1 s 1998 Based on its review, the staff determined that the safety aspects and environmental impacts associated with the receipt and processing of the Tonawanda material at the White Mesa mill were acceptable, and on June 23,1998, the staff amended the IUC, White Mesa license. In late July, the mill began receipt of the material, and processing is expected to start in mid September. The State of Utah and Envirocare have requested a hearing on the staff. :
r.mendment. That matter is currently before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who will I decide if a hearing is justified. Although the State of Utah requested a stay to stop shipment of l the material, the filing was untimely and denied by the ALJ on August 13,1998.
As stated in the staff's guidance, besides reviewing an application to determine compliance with the requirements in 10 CFR Part 40, the staff must also conclude that the material proposed for processing is ore, that it does not contain mixed or hazardous waste, and that it is being processed primarily for its source material content. These three criteria were established to help NRC ensure that uranium mills did not become de facto disposal sites as a result of simply processing material. To satisfy the first and second criteria of this guidance, the staff reviewed the information generated by DOE's remedial investigation of the Tonawanda site, which included a characterization and classification of the material. In addition, DOE's investigations did not find listed hazardous wastes in the material. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), which is currently remediating the site, concurred in DOE's characterization of the Tonawanda material.
Based on DOE's characterization, USACE could have opted to remediate the site by disposing of the material in question directly into a mill tailings impoundment authorized to take material other than that generated as part of milling operations, or at the Envirocare cell licensed by NRC. However, USACE opted to send the material to the White Mesa mill where it could be I processed for its uranium content before dispocal in the White Mesa mill tailings impoundment.
With respect to the third criterion of the NRC guidance, IUC provided a signed affirmation that it would be processing the Tonawanda material primarily for its uranium content and for no other primary purpose. This affirmation was supported by data from IUC that showed that the uranium content of the material was high enough to warrant processing, and by discussion of the financ%l benefits IUC will gain from the processing of the material. This affirmation is consistent with criteria in the staff's guidance and, based on the staff's review, it was found acceptable (see enclosed Safety Evaluation Report). If you would like a copy of the contract between IUC and USACE, then you should contact IUC cr USACE directly since NRC does r,ot have thM information.
In response to your concem that use of the material from the Tonawanda site as alternate feed material is, in reality, sham disposal, please be assured that, in reviewing a licensee's request to process uranium-bearing material, the NRC is committed to ensuring that the licensee certifies, with appropriate supporting justification, that it is processing the material for its uranium content. NRC's reviews of such proposals are, and will continue to be, conducted in accordance with the staff guidance cited earlier which was developed, in part, to ensure that licensees cannot sidestep waste disposal licensing requirements by processing material simply to avoid State regulation.
I 1 Paul J. Merges, Ph.D. -
3 .SEP 15 1998 To guard against any hazardous or mixed waste being sent inadvertently with the material, the USACE contractor charged with excavating and preparing the material for shipment will conduct confirmatory tests of the excavated materials to ensure that hazardous wastes will not be included in shipments to White Mesa.
I trust this letter responds to your questions and concems.
Sincerely, (kdj ( ,
$t di Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs
Enclosure:
As stated cc: W. Sinclair, Utah C. Hardin, CRCPD l
I e
I Paul J. Merges, Ph.D. SEP .151998 To guard against any hazardous or mixed waste being sent inadvertently with the material, the USACE contractor charged with excavating and preparing the material for shipment will conduct confirmatory tests of the excavated materials to ensure that hazardous wastes will not be included in shipments to White Mesa.
I trust this letter responds to your questions and concerns.
Sincerely, 90H L NG RT Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs ,
Enclosure:
As stated cc: _ W. Sinclair, Utah C. Hardin, CRCPD 1
I i
l Distribution:
DIR RF (BS208)@[D/@) DCD (SP 05 ) l
-SDroggitis PDR (YES,f,_ NO )
New York File
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ MERGES 4.DMS
- See Previous concurrence.
Te . c.,i .e en e e. wee.w m m. m.=: c cm wwJ.n.cnm.nv.name. r cop , itn .n. cam.nv.nca,. v wo ew a l OFFICE - OSRg $ l - OSP:4 Jl OGC NMSS- l OSP:D[jd-NAME- DSollenbdr6er:nb PHLohaul ' V' STreby JHolonich RLBangarf yh l DATE 09/// /98 09/l0/98 09/14 /98
- 09/1 ~. /98
- 09//6798 I
OSP FIL5 CODE: SP-AG-20; SP-AG-20-4 ,
1 I
i I
Paul J. Merges, Ph.D. To guard against any hazardous or mixed waste being sent inadvertently with the material, the USACE contractor charged with excavating and prepa 'ing the material for shipment will conduct confirmatory tests of the excavated materials to ensure that hazardous wastes will not be included in shipments to White Mesa.
I trust this letter responds to your questions and concems.
Sincereip, Richard, L. Bangart, Director Office c'f State Programs
Enclosure:
As stated 4
Distribution:
DIR RF (8S208)@[0/b DCD (SP 05 )
SDroggitis PDR (YES f._, NO )
New York File New York DEC File -
l !
f DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ MERGES 4.DMS
,-.n.,- _ c.- a---f e.L--- - .-
OFFICE OSg/)g5 l OSP:INE Q OGC p(j / NMSS l OSP:D l NAME DSollenbdifer:nb PHLohauld' :sTreby ,6d JHolonich RLBangart DATE .__ 09/// /98 09/10/98 i 09//4 /98 09/ /98 09/ /98 1 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-20; SP-AG-20-4
1 Paul J. Merges, Ph.D. l I
i l
To guard againct any hazardous or mixed waste being s t inadvertently with the material, the l USACE contractor charged wiU1 excavating and preparin the material for shipment will conduct confirmatory tests of the excavated materials to ensure t at hazardous wastes will not be included in shipments to White Mesa.
I trust this letter responds to your qu3stions and concer s.
Sincerely, ,
Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs
Enclosure:
As stated l
l l
Distribution:
, DIR RF (8S208)N68h DCD (SP 05 )
! SDroggitis PDR (YES.f_ NO )
! New York File
! New York DEC File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ MERGES 4.DMS Ta receive a cop r of thle document. Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy attachtvWendosure T s Copr wth attachrfy.nt/endoeure "N" = No copy OFFICE OSPA$l OSP:$Afal/ f OGC NM$S l6 OSP:D l NAME DSollenbstfer:nb PHLohaul ' V' / STreby Jtjelp&ch RLBangart
. DATE 09/// /98 09/l0/98 I 09/ /98 "o9/it /98 09/ /98 OSP FILG CODE: SP-AG-20; So-AG-20-4 i ,
s .
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT i REQUEST TO RECEIVE AND PROCESS ASHLAND 2 FUSRAP MATERIAL DOCKET NO. 40-8681 LICENSE NO. SUA-1358 LICENSEE: International Uranium (USA) Corporation FACILITY: White Mesa Uranium Mill PROJECT MANAGER: James Park
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed International Uranium (USA) Corporation's (IUSA's) request dated May 8,1998, to receive and process uranium-bearing material from the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Actions Program (FUSRAP)
Ashland 2 site, in the Town of Tonawanda, New York. IUSA provided additionalinformation by facsimile on May 27,1998, and by letters dated May 29, June 3, and June 11,1998.
The staff has reviewed IUSA's request against the September 1995 guidance pertaining to alternate feed materials and finds the amendment request to be acceptaNs.
DESCRIPTION OF LICENSEE'S AMENDMENT REQUEST:
By its submittal dated May 8,1998, IUSA requested that NRC Source Material License SUA-1358 be amended to allow the receipt and processing of alternate feed material (i.e.,
material other than natural uranium ore) at its White Mesa uranium mill located near Blanding, Utah. The uranium-bearing materialin question, weighing approximately 24,000 to 25,000 dry tons, is located at the Ashland 2 FUSRAP site, in the Town of Tonawanda, New York, which currently is under the managenient of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). IUSA
! provided additional information by facsimile on May 27,1998, and by letters dated May 29, June 3, and June 11,1998.
Site and Material Inforn,ation l
i-I The material consists, cf uranium ore processing residues and contaminated soils associated
! with activities conducted by the Manhattan Engineering District (MED) during the mid-1940s.
Approximately 8000 tons of waste products resulting from the processing of piichblende (UO 2) l and domestic uranium ores at nearby facilities were disposed originally at a site known as the Haist property (now called Ashland 1). In 1960, the Ashland 1 property was transferred to the Ashland Oil Company.
1 Enclosure 1
1 1
In 1974, Ashland Oil constructed a bermed area for two petroleum storage tanks and a drainage d;tch on the Ashland 1 property. Approximately 4600 m (6000 yd2) of soil containing MED-related residues and commingled inorganic constituents were removed from the site, with an indeterminste quantity of these soils transported to the Ashland 2 site for disposal. These residues and commingled inorganic constituents were placed in an area of the Ashland 2 property that adjoined an ,adustrial landfill operated by Ashland Oil. This landfill, which was closed and capped with clay soil in 1982, accepted general refuse and chemical and industrial byproducts from 1957 to 1982.
During remedialinvestigation activities carried out by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the primary " constituents of interest" identified at the Ashland 2 site were uranium, thorium-230, radium-226, and metals present in the ore filter cake (aluminum, calcium, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, phosphorous, and vanadium).
Investigations further indicated that the MED-related radionuclides and associated metals generally were confined to an approximately 20,000 m2 (4.9 acre) area between the two branches of Rattlesnake Creek (DOE,1996a).
Currently, the Ashland 2 property. which is owned by the Ashland Petroleum Company, is vacant and largely overgrown with grass, bushes, and weeds. The property also contains marshy areas that are hydrologically connected to the Rattlesnake and Twomile Creeks and to the Niagara River (USACE,1997).
Transoortation Con;iderations Following excavation of the material at the Ashland 2 site, it will be shipped by train and exclusive-use trucks from the Town of Tonawanda to the White Mesa mill in intermodal containers. After being loaded and sealed at the site, the containers will be transported by truck to a nearby intermodal rail terminal. The containers will be loaded on flatbed railcars and transported cross-country to the final rail destination (expected to be either near Grand Junction, Colorado; Cisco, Utah; or Green River, Utah), where they will be transferred to trucks for the finalleg of the journey to the White Mesa mill. It is expected that approximately 60 trucks per week will be used to transport the material from the faal rail destination to the mill.
Trucks used to transport the material to the mill site will be radiometrically scanned upon arrival to ensure that leakage has not occurred and that radiation bvels are within appropriate linits.
The trucks will be scanned again prior to their release from the mill site restricted area. Ir.
addition, the intermodal containers used to transport the material will be properly closed, cleaned (if necessary), surveyed, and documented before leaving the White Mesa site.
Although the material in question may meet the definition of 11e.(2) byproduct material under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), this materialis not subject to NRC regulation untilit is received by IUSA, an NRC licensee, for processing for its source-material content under the 2
NRC license, because the material was produced by an activity not licensed by NRC after November 8,1978. Therefore, in addition, the material is not subject to NRC jurisdiction during l transport.
Handlina and Processina at the Mill Site At the mill site, the Ashland 2 material will be emptied from the intermodsl containers arid stockpiled. It will be processed alone or commingled with conventional ores, and in the same fashion as that used to process such ores. No modifications to the mill circuit will be necessary to process this material.
The efficiency of airborne contamination control measures will be assessed while the materialis in stockpile. Airborne particulate samples and breathing zone samples will be collected in those areas during initial material processing activities and analyzed for gross alpha. Sampling results will be used to establish health and safety guidelines to be implemented throughout the processing operations.
IUSA will provide appropriate personal protective equipment (coveralla, gloves, and respiratory protection (if needed)) to individuals engaged in handling the material. Additional environmental air samples will be collected at nearby locations to the material processing activities and analyzed to ensure that the established contamination control measures are adequate and effective.
TECHNICAL EVALUATION:
The NRC staff has reviewed IUSA's request in accordance with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, requirements and NRC staff guidance " Final Position and Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Material Other Than Natural Ores"(60 FR 49296; September 22,1995). This guidance (referred to hereinafter as the alternate feed guidance) requires that the staff make the following determinations in its reviews of licensee requests to process material other than natural uranium ores:
(a) Whether the feed material meets the definition of " ore;"
(b) Whether the feed material contains hazardous waste; and (c) Whether the ore is being processed primarily for its source-material content.
3
Determination of whether the feed material is " ore" For the tailings and wastes from the proposed processing to qualiF/ as 11e.(2) byproduct material, the feed material must qualify as ' ore." In the alternate feed guidance, ore is defined as i
" . a natural or native matter that may be mined and treated for the extraction of any of its constituents or any other matter from which source material is extracted in a licensed uranium or thorium mill." l The proposed alternate feed material contains varying concentrations of uranium, ranging from no'n-detectable to greater than 1.0 percent by weight, depending on the sample location. IUSA believes that recoverable amounts of uranium are present, and that, on average, the uranium concer.t son for this material will be approximately 0.05 percent or greater by weight. IUSA is proposing to extract this uranium. Therefore, the material mcets the definition of ore, because it is a " matter from which source material is extracted in a licensed uranium or thorium mill."
Determination of whether the feed material contains hazardous waste i
'Under the alternate feed guidance, proposed feed material which contains a listed hazardous waste will not be approved by the NRC staff for processing at a licensed mill. Feed materials i which exhibit only a characteristic of hazardous waste (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or j toxicity) would not be regulated as hazardous waste and could therefore be approved by the l
staff for recycling and extraction of source material. However, this does not apply to residues j from water treatment. Therefore, NRC staff acceptance of such residues as feed material 0 would depend on their not containing any hazardous or characteristic hazardous waste.
Remedialinvestigations arried by the DOE did not find listed hazsrdous wastes on the Ashland 2 property (DOE,1906a). In addition, it is the USACE's belief, tmsed on process knowledge and its own analyses, that the material contains no hazardous wastes (USACE, j 1998). However, to cuard against the potential for material containing such wastes being sent j to White Mesa for processing, ICF Kaiser, the USACE contractor charged with excavating the j materia! and preparing it for shipment offsite, will conduct confirmatory testing of excavated i materials prior to their shipment to ensure that listed hazardous wastes are not present. Any j mateiial that testing indicates contains hazardous wastes will not be included in shipments to White Mesa. Finally, as committed to in as June 11,1998, letter, IUSA will conduct testing of Ashland 2 material arriving at the site on a regular basis to confirm ICF Kaiser's determinations.
i With respect to the possibility that industrial and chemical byproducts disposed at the former j Ashland Oilindustrial landfill have affected materials to be excavated at the Ashland 2 site, j the staff considers that ICF Kaiser's sampling program and IUSA's confirmatory analyses will minimize the likelihood that any impacted materials, if they exist, will be transported to and processed at the White Mesa mill. i i
4
I f
! Therefore, the NRC staff finds that the Ashland 2 material to be processed at the White Mesa mill will not be hazardous waste or contain a listed hazardous waste. The staff has determined I
also that tne Ashland 2 materialis not a residue from water treatment. This material consists of wastes from the initial processing of uranium ores and associated contaminated soils.
Therefore, the NRC staff considers the uranium-bearing material acceptable for the extraction of source material, j l
Determination of whether the feed material is being processed primarily for its source-material content To show that potential alternate feed material is being processed primarily for its source-material content, a licensee must either (1) demonstrate that the material would be approved for disposal in the tailings impoundment under the " Final Revised Guidance on Disposal of Non- l Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Section 11e.(2) Byproduct Material in Tailings impoundments;" or (2) certify, under oath or affirmation, that the material is being processed primarily for the recovery of uranium and for no other primary purpose. Any such certification must be supported by an appropriate justification and accompanying documentation.
The licensee has provided a signed affirmation that the uranium-bearing materialis being processed primarily for the recovery of uranium and for no other primary purpose. IUSA states that the uranium content of the material, in conjunction with the financial considerations discussed below, makes processing the Ashland 2 material economically attractive to IUSA.
It is IUSA's intent to process the Ashland 2 material either alone or commingled with conventionally-mined uranium ores during the same mill run. The licensee believes that this arrangement will result in several benefits which directly influence the cost of processing:
The financial costs of stockpiling ore on the mill site will be reduced since ores will be processed through the mill at a higher rate:
IUSA will be able to respond more quickly to changing market prices for uranium and vandadium by reducing the time between mining of the ore and producing and selling the product (i.e., U3 0, and V 2O3);
In processing the Ashland 2 material with the conventional ores, IUSA will be better able to smooth out the variability in conventional ore production and delivery to the mill, and thus run the mill for longer periods of time; and l -
IUSA will be able to retain trained mill workers for longer periods of time, resulting in a more efficient workforce and a reduced fear of losing trained employees.
5
< l l
l l
The combination of these benefits, IUSA believes, will reduce the costs of processing the Ashland 2 material, thus making the overall costs of running the mill economical to recover the relatively low concentrations of uranium and other recoverable elements in the material. l l
In addition, the DOE, which managed the FUSRAP sites prior to the USACE, determined previously that the Ashland 2 material meets the definition of 11e.(2) byproduct material under the AEA (DOE, 1995; 1996b) Therefore, the material could be disposed of directly in the White l Mesa tailings impoundments. As such, the matenal meets the co-disposal test in the staffs guidance, and because it does, it can be concluded that IUSA will be processing the Ashland 2 material primarily for its source-material content.
It is importent to note, however, that, although the material in question may meet the definition of 11e.(2) byproduct material under the AEA, this material is not subject to NRC regulation until it is received by IUSA, an NRC licensee, for processing for its source-material content under the NRC license. because the material was produced by an activity not licensed by NRC after November 8,1978. Therefore, in addition, the materialis not subject to NRC jurisdiction during transport Conclusions concernino alternate feed material desianation 4
Based on the information provided by the licensee, the NRC staff finds *. hat the Ashland 2 material is alternate feed material because: (1) it meets the definition of " ore," (2) the material to be processed at the White Mesa mill will not be or contain listed hazardous wastes, and (3) it is being processed primarily for its source-material content.
Other considerations The NRC staff also has concluded that the processing of this material will not result in (1) a significant change or increase in the types or amounts of effluents that may be released offsite; (2) a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation expcsure; (3) a significant construction impact; or (4) a significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. This conclusion is based on the following information:
- a. Yellowcake produced from the processing of this material will not cause the currently-approved yellowcake production limit of 4380 tons per year to be exceeded. In addition, and as a result, radiological doses to members of the public in the vicinity of the mm will not be elevated above levels previously assessed and approved.
- b. No modifications to the mill circuit design are necessary to process the Ashland 2 material.
- c. Tailings produced by the processing of this material will be disposed of on-site in an existing lined taliings impoundment (Cell 3). The addition of these tailings (a maximum 6
of 25,000 tons) to Cell 3 willincrease the total amount of tailings in the cell by one percent, to a total of approximately 70 percent of cell capacity; therefore, no new i impoundments are necessary. The design of the existing impoundment, which includes l a leak detection system, previously has been approved by NRC, and IUSA is required by its NRC license to conduct regular monitoring of the impoundment liners and of the groundwater around the impoundments to detect leakage if it should occur. I
- d. In general, the Ashland.2 matenal is similar in composition to the mill tailings currently disposed of in the Cell 3 impoundment, because it contains metals and other !
parameters which are present already in the tailings. In addition, the amount of tailings (a maximum of 25,000 tons) produced by processing the Ashland 2 material is not significant in comparison to the total amount of tailings currently in the cell (approximately 1.35 million tons). Finally, as stated previously, IUSA is required to '
conduct regular monitoring of the impoundment leak detection systems and of the ,
groundwater in the vicinity of the impoundments to detect leakage if it should occur.
Therefore, the staff considers that any environmental impacts that could be associated with the disposal of the Ashland 2 tailings will be minimal.
- e. For the following reasons, it is not expected that transportation impacts associated with the movement of the Ashland 2 material by train and truck from the Town of Tonawanda, New York to the Wnite Mesa mill will be significant:
. The material will be shipped as " low specific activity" material in exclusive-use containers (i.e., no other materials will be in the containers with the uranium-bearing material). The containers will be appropriately labeled, placarded, and manifested, and shipments will be tracked by the shipping company from the Ashland 2 site until they reach the White Mesa mill.
. On average during 1996,370 trucks per day traveled the stretch of State Road 191 between Monticello, UT and Blanding, UT (personal communication with the State of Utah Department of Transportation). IUSA anticipates an additional 60 trucks per week (or approximately 8.6 trucks per day) traveling this route to the mill, representing an increased traffic load of only two percent. Shipments are expected to take place over the course of a limited time period (three to four months).
The containers and trucks involved in transporting the material to the mill site will be surveyed and decontaminated, as necessary, prior to leaving the Ashland 2 site for White Mesa and again prior to leaving the mill site for the return trip.
- f. The potential for employee exposures from the handling and processing of this material is not expected to be any more significant than that normally encountered with the milling of conventional uranium ores. Mill employees involved in handling the material 7
l l i
1 l
will be provided with personal protective equipment (e.g., coveralls, rubber gloves),
including respiratory protection,if necessary. Airborne particulate and breathing zone 4 sampling results will be used to establish health and safety guidelines to be ,
implemented throughout the processing operations.
REFERENCES:
l U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),1998, " Record of Decision for the Ashland 1 (including Seaway Area D) and Ashland 2 Sites, Tonawanda, New York," April 1998. )
USACE,1997, " Proposed Plan for the Ashland 1 and Ashland 2 Sites, Tonawanda, New York,"
USACE/OR/21950-1029, November 1997.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),1996a, "1996 BEMR: Ashland 2," available on the Internet at <http://cagle.emweb.icx. net /bemr96/asho.htmb.
1 DOE,1996b," Introduction to Fo nerly Utilized Sites REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM (FUSRAP)," available on the internet at <http://www.em. doe. gov /bemr96/fusrap.html>.
l l DOE,1995, "Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP): Building Stakeholder l Partnerships to Achiave Effective Cleanup," Office of Environmental Restoration, DOE /EM-0233, April 1995.
RECOMMENDED LICENSE CHANGE:
Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40, Source Material License SUA-1358 will be amended by the addition of License Condition No.10.10 as follows:
10.10 The licensee is authorized to rseeive and process source material from the Ashland 2 l Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Actinn Program (FUSRAP) site, located near l Tonawanda, New York, in accordance with the amendment request dated May 8,1998, l as amended by the submittals dated May 27, June 3, and June 11,1998.
, [ Applicable Amendment: 6) 1
! ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION:
An environmental report covering the information identified in 10 CFR 51.45 was not required from the licensee. The environmentalimpacts associated with the excavation of this material and associated site cleanup activities were addressed previously by the USACE and found to be not significant (USACE,1998).
8
-. .. _. - _. _ _ . . _ . . _ . _ . _ . . . . . . - . - . . _ . . . . _ _ . _ . . _ __ _.. _ .____ _ ... _ ...__ _ ~. _ .-
, s.
l-i 1
- l. . Because IUSA's receipt and processing of the material will not result in (1) a significant change or increase in the types or amounts of effluents that may be released offsite; (2) a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure; (3) a significant
- construction impact; or (4) a significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents, an environmental review was not performed since actions meeting these l criteria are categorically excluded under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11). j 1
I
, . 1 pe l -l o
i:
i y
{ e f .' -
.l I
i t
! 9 r
4
, n .. ~ ,y . . ,y, . - . , - ._,, ,=ya
,- 9., m ,y y , . , , ,w--- ,,- -. - - - - - .y,-, , ,.,, ,r- c- we-
'K; .
pg )
BbV' l
l
=. - l s '
i T_= EXECUTIVE T
~~~~~~~~- ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
<<< PRINT S,IEEN UPDATE FORM >>> '
l l l B TASK # - 8S208 DATE- 07/31/98 -
, ==' -
MAIL CTRL. - 1998 TASK STARTED - 07/31/98
-~~~~----
TASK DUE - 08/31/98 TASK
-~~~~~
COMPLETED ----
- / /
TASK DESCRIPTION - 7/29/98 LTR TO R. BANGART - REGARDING lie (2) MATERIAL
~~~~~ --~~~ -~~~
AND TONAWANDA, i." ISSUE REQUESTING
~~-~~~~~~~~
OFF. - NYDEC REQUESTER
---~~~~~~~
P.J. MERGES WITS -
~~~~
0 FYP - N
~~~
PROG.-
DMS PERSON - STAFF LEAD - DMS PROG. AREA - I PROJECT
~~~---~~~~
STATUS - OSP DUE DATE: 9/1/98 PLANNED ACC. -N LEVEL CODE - 1 1
I I
1 I
1 I
l; 1
( , ,,JLL-29-1998 15:37 FPOH t US DEC--FWD I AT I O l TO llPC GFF STATE P.01
~
R' ~
VJ Sp fl$l, l New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 800 Division of Solid & Hazardous Materials yg Bureau of Pesticides & Radiation '
J 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233 7255 518 485 8981 FAX S18 485-0390 {gg/ggg /
1 ma pm I
, commlulomt (w ;f /M^p.
/
- p p
FAX c)rggs u .
) ce (sk'4 9
TO: k b 0wh Y ",;, .
WQ @ '
/
pe# (c FROM: a~/kIIhA9o gfu kg l BUREAU df PESTidlDES & RADIATION gg 1
DATE: 7- 8 T 'Y l l
NUMBER OF PAGES: COVER, PLUS 3 r
FOR VERIFICATION / PROBLEMS CALL JILL AT (518)485-8981 Original Being Mailed O Original Not Being Mailed C:\ WORK \FMiTELEXF.FM l
g
. l,
.7 N- -
July 29,1998 Mr. Richard L. Bangart Director, Office of State Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20666-0001
Dear Mr. Bangart:
Thank you for your letter to Charles M. Hardin, Executive Director (Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, CRCPD) dated July 15,1998, which responds to my resolution on I le.(2) material submitted and unanimously approved at the Annual CRCPD meeting in May 1998. Your letter responds to ajurisdiction issue about the radioactive 11(c).2 material at Farmerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site.s. You conclude I "Therefore, MRC does not havejurisdiction over uranium mill tailings generated by activities not licensed by the NRC on or after 1978".
In the case of the Ashland 1 and 2 sites in Tonawanda, New York, the Nuclear Regulatory l Commission (NRC) on June 23,1998, amended the license of the Intemational Uranium i Corporation (IUC) for its White Mesa uranium mill located in Blanding. Utah, to allow the l receipt and processing of alternate feed materials from Tonawanda. Either this feed material l contains sufticient source materials to warrant its use as an altemate feed material for a uranium mill,in which case it should be licensed as source material in Tonawanda by NRC, or the license amendment was issued to cover a sham radioactive waste disposal for this matedal.' If the Tonawanda material is not radioactive material, why was the Intemational Uranium Corporation required to obtain an amendment to its radioactive materials license before IUC could take possession of the material? Under what authority did the NRC require IUC to amend its license to possess unregulated radioactive material?
In order for the NRC to determine that the use of this attemate feed m'aterial for the IUC mill was not in reality sham disposal the NRC must have done an economic analysis of the proposal. Please provide me a copy of this economic analysis, and any contracts the Corps of Engineers had with the IUC for this material. Please indicate whether the contracts were reviewed by the NRC. Did the contracts cover the cost ofjust transporting the Tonawanda l
material to Utah, or did they subsidize the processing of this material? At what point in subsidizing the processing of this material would NRC consider the proposed processing a ruse for disposal of this material?
l In order to clarify the position of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission please advise me how this material is not under the judsdiction of the Nucinar Regulatory Commission while it is in Tonawanda, New York, but comes under the NRC jurisdiction upon being used as a feed gG5d (W
j% , . ~ JUL-29-tc 9:3 15:'S FF01 r tr(S [EC--FhDidTIOtt TO IFkOFFSTTE P.02 j Mr. Richard L. Bangart Page 2 l
material at the Utah mill site? If an exemption from licensing exists for previously processed materials, such as that in Part 40.13 for unrefined and unprocessed ore containing source material, please provide the legal cite. At what point in the transport of this material does it come under NRCjurisdiction?
Please provide me a prompt response to this request for clarification, since the material in Tonawanda, New York, is currently being shipped to Utah by the U.S. Corps of Engineers, as noted in the euclosed Corps News Release.
Sincerely, h e-1 f Paul J. Merges, Ph.D.
Director, Bureau of Pesticides & Radiation Division of Solid & Hazardous Materials Enclosure cc: w/ encl. - W. Sinclair, Utah DEQ C. Hartlin, CRCPD te A ,op,)eS (yh .
I
b ,. . .JLL-29-1998 19 -'+3 FPCN1 iris [EC--PADIATIOti TO tFC OFF STATE P.03 NAterial $eing Shipped from FUSRAP Ashland 2 Site httpg/www. neb.usace. army. mil /pr/ news /747-98.htm l
Ver US Amay Corps News Release 1 FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM et Engtraeers Release #9838 Arleen K. Kreusch mm July 27,1998 716 879-4438 l
Material Being Shipped from FUSRAP Ashland 2 Site TONAWANDA - The first flatbed railcar carrying four intermodal containers loaded with soil contaming low levels of radioactive material left the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program Ashland 2 Site on Friday, July 24.
The intermodals each holding approximately 20 tons of material are headed for Intemational Uranium l Corporatico's White Mesa Mill near Blanding, Utah,282 miles southeast of Salt Lake City. The material l will be transported in accordance with Department of Transportation regulations and will take upproximately 10 days to reach its destination. Excavation and shipment of material will continue through September 1998 with three or four flatbed railcars leaving the site each weekday.
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers-Buffalo District will hold an Informal Information Session l Wednesday, August 5 from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Phillip Sheridan Building, Room 122,3200 Elmwood Avenue, Kenmore, to provide information and answer questions in regard to the remedial action at this site. I l
l Retum to_EUSRAP News Release P_ age I cf1 7/28/98 10:05 AM TOTAL P.03
o b
0 l
l
, c. . ..... . , ,
l l :
ll EXECUTIVE TASK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM l!
- ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ::
j! <<< PRINT SCREEN UPDATE FORM >>> , !
l ; l l TASK # - 8S146
, DATE- 05/11/98 MAIL CTRL. - 1998 TASK
~~~~~~~~~~~~
STARTED - 05/11/98 TASK
~~~~~~~~
DUE - 06/05/98 TASK COMPLETED -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
//
TASK DESCRIPTION - JURISDICTION ISSUE ABOUT THE RADIOACTIVE 11E (2) MATERIAL
...-~~~~~~~~~~~~
AT THE TONAWANDA, NY (FUSRAP) SITES REQUESTING
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OFF. - NYDEC REQUESTER
~~~~~~~-~~
- MERGES WITS - 0 FYP - N
~~~~ ~~~
PROG.-
~~~~
DMS PERSON - STAFF LEAD - DMS PROG. AREA -
~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
PROJECT
__~~~-~~~~~_~~
STATUS - OSP DUE DATE: 6/5/98 PLANNED ACC. - N LEVEL CODE - 1 l
4 l
l l
l
c hw YcrkSt:ta D:p:rtm:nt cf Environm:nt:1 Cons:rvati:n $ O (6905) yx 1 Divisien of S: lid & Hazcrdous MIt ri:Is "
Bureru of P;sticides & R:di:ti:n 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233 7255 Md 518-485 8991 FAX 518-485-8390 ,
- 4. fan l
John P. Cahill comm n.
Ma'y 4,1998 Mr. Richard L. Bangart l Director, Office of State Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20666-0001 1
Dear Mr. Bangart:
1 Thank you for your letter to me dated February 6,1998, which responds to my letter to I you of March 12,1997 and my original request to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) i Region 1 of February 29,1996. Your letter responds to ajurisdiction issue about the radioactive 11(c)2 material at the Tonawanda, New York, Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) sites. You conclude "Therefore, neither the NRC nor the State of New York Agreement State program has jurisdiction derived from the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, over the material at the Tonawanda sites." Your letter also states that Department of Energy (DOE) representatives clarified the classification of the material 11(e)2 byproduct material that was generated prior to 1978.
In order to clarify the position of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission you discussed in -
your letter, please advise me how this material is not under the istisdiction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission while it is in Tonawanda, New Yor: - " comes under the NRC jurisdiction upon being disposed of at the Envirocare of Utah Te)2 disposal site? At what point in the transport of this 11(e)2 material does it come under NRL jurisdiction?
Please provide me a prompt response to this request for clarification, since 11(e)2 material of similar status as that in Tonawanda, New Ycrk, is being disposed of on a regu'ar basis at the Envirocare site, and the U.S. Corps of Engineers has plans to do so in the near future for the Tonawanda sites.
Sincerely, 4:2w.. .
g Paul J. Me es, I>h.D. g Director, Bureau of Pesticides & Radiation -<
~
Division of Solid & Hazardous Materials
]