ML20203G623

Fourth Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents. Documents Listed in App G Already Available in Pdr.Documents Listed in App H Maintained in PDR Under FOIA-98-296

ML20203G623
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/17/1999
From:	Racquel Powell NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Alkema K ENVIROCARE OF UTAH, INC.
Shared Package
ML20203G628	List: ML20203G623 ML20203G631
References
FOIA-98-296 NUDOCS 9902190391
Download: ML20203G623 (3)

Text

NRC FORM 464 Part i r U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1-UIAIVA Response NLCBER a.mm -

p5'"% DDQ'98-296 4 a S RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT(FOIA)/ PRIVACY '

k *.se*[ ACT (PA) REQUEST RESPONSE - - - - -

TYPE _ . . d-REQutSIER DATE Mr. Kenneth Alkema II0 I I IIII PART 1. -INFORMATION RELEASED No additional agency records subject to the request have been located.

Requested records are available through another public distnbution program. See Comments section.

IPPENDICI$~ ~

x Agency records subject to the request that are identified in the listed appendices are already available for G m

, public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room.

APPENDICES Agency records subject to the request that are identified in the listed appendices are being made available for H ] public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room. '

Q' Enclosed is information on how you may obtain access to and the charges for copying records located at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC.

d APPENDICES g Agency records subject to the request are enclosed. '

~ Records sub[ect to the request that contain information originated by or of interest to another Federal agency have been referred to that agency (see comments section) for a disclosure determination and direct response to you.

s We are continuing to process your request.

See Comments.

PART 1.A - FEES m oVNT' ~ - ~ ' You will be billed by NRC for the amount listed.

] None. Minimum fee threshold not met.

I ~

~ You will receive a refund for the amount listed. Fees waived.

7 --- ..

PART l.B -INFORMATION NOT LOCATED OR WITHHELD FROM DISCLOSURE l

{ No agency records subject to the request have been located.

- Certain information in the requested records is being withheld from disclosure pursuant to the exemptions described in and for

- the reasons stated in Part II.

This determination may be appealed within 30 days by writing to the FOIA/PA Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is a "FOIA/PA Appeal."

PART 4.C COMMENTS (Use attached Comments continuation page if required)

[JAl i 9902190391 990217 PDR FOIA ALKEMA98-296 PDR

% NAT RLLDOM OF IN ORMAll I MD 8'RIVACY AGI Of flCE Russ well j , m f \

j  ;

1 NRc FORM 464 Part 1 (6-1998) PRINTED oN RECYCLED PAPER This form was designed using informs

t

't l-E Re: FOIA-98-296 APPENDIX G RECORDS ALREADY AVAILABLE IN THE PDR ACCESSION N_a DATE NUMBER DESCRIPTION #PAGE COUNT)

1. 6/23/98 9806250152 Letter to M. Rehmann from J. Holonich, subject: Amendment 6 to Source Material License SUA-1358, International Uranium Corporation's White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah.

? l 1

t Re: FOIA-98-296 APPENDIX H l

RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE PDR UNDER THE ABOVE REQUEST NUMBER I l

)

NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION /PAGES l

1. Undated Draft Letter to M. Rehmann from J. Holonich, subject: Amendment 6 to Source Material License SUA-1358, international Uranium Corporation's White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah, j w/ enclosures, (11 pgs.).

l 1

2. Undated - Letter to C. Rockwell from J Holonich, subject: Response to Navajo Nation Request for Stay, (1 pg.).

3. Undated ' Memorandum for R. Martin from R. Bernero, subject: Position and l Guidance on the Use of Alternater Feed Materialin Uranium Mills, l (2 pgs.).

4. 7/31/91 Letter to R. Bangart from K. Semnani, (3 pgs.).

5. 7/17/98 Letter to J. Holonich from L. Beattie, (2 pgs.).

6. 7/23/98 Fax transmittal transmitting Letter to J. Holonich from J. Sampson, (3 pgs.).

l l

l

t .

1 R3WWWWEBT emwm um4 ENVIROCAREoruun.mc. ** R** n'w l me at w6 '

i THE SAFE ALTERNATIVE pmggas m  ;  !

l Certified Mail l Return Receipt Requested I July 17,1998 l

Director, Freedom ofInformation and Publications Services l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 RE: Freedom ofInformation Act Request i

Dear Director,

Freedom ofInformation and Publications Ser ices:

l Envirocare of Utah, Inc. ("Envirocare") is requesting that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i Commission ("NRC") provide Envirocare with the information, documents and '

records requested by this letter pursuant to the Freedom ofInformation Act,5 U.S.C.

552, and 10 CFR Part 9, Subpart A. Envirocare agrees to bear the reasonable costs associated with this request.

This request for documents or records shall mean " Agency Records" as the term has been defined by 10 CFR 9.13, including, but not necessarily limited to, Agency Records that are maintained on paper, microfiche, microfilm, electronic storage media, "e-mail communications," or other storage medium.

Requested information:

1. All documents relating to the regulation of processing of uranium ores and

" alternate feeds" at the Intemational Uranium (USA) Corporation's (IUC's)

White Mesa Mill located near Blanding, San Juan County, Utah.

2. All documents relating to the regulation of disposal of uranium byproduct materials and waste residues resulting from the processing of uranium ores and " alternate feeds" at IUC's White Mesa Mill.

46 LVESTBROADIVA Y

• SUITE 240 = SAI.Tl.4KE CITY UT4H Mint

• IEl.El' HONE (801) 532-1330 N \D Ir5O5 $ Ef/*-

1 e

l ENVIROCARE 1

l Director, Freedom ofInformation and Publications Services July 17,1998 Page 2

3. All documents relating to IUC's license amendment allowing the White Mesa Mill to process certain " alternate feed" materials (the "Ashland Materials") l from the Ashland 2 site in Tonawanda, New York. l

4. All documents relating to the findings and determinations that the Ashland Materials meet the definition of Ile.(2) byproduct material, and that they are l

substantially similar, radiologically and chemically, to the " alternate feeds" licensed to be processed at IUC's White Mesa Mill.

5. All documents relating to the actual process to be employed in the recycling of  ;

the Ashland Material at IUC's White Mesa Mill, including, the technology, the techniques, the number and qualifications of employees, and the costs associated with processing and disposal.

6. All documents relating to any findings and determinations of the quality and quantity of uranium, or other valuable ores or materials, expected to be extracted from the recycling of the Ashland Materials processed at IUC's White Mesa Mill.

7. All documents relating to the findings and determinations of economic feasibility andjustification for recycling of the Ashland Materials by processes at IUC's White Mesa Mill.

8. All documents relating to communications between the NRC, other federal agencies, IUC and other licensee's of NRC, White Mesa Mill and other conventional and nonconventional uranium processing facilities, state regulatory agencies, or interested and affected parties regarding the processing of the Ashland Materials.

9. All documents relating to communications between the NRC, other federal agencies, other licensee's of NRC, other conventional and nonconventional uranium processing facilities, state regulatory agencies or interested and l affected parties regarding license amendments and/or requests for license amendments for recycling and processing of" alternate feeds," similar to the Ashland Materials, from the same, or from other locations.

g ..

'J e

iENVIROCARE l.

i Director, Freedom ofInformation and Publications Services July 17,1998 .

1 Page 3 i 1

l

10. All internal correspondence or documents relating to the recycling and the l processing of the Ashland Materials and other similar " alternate feeds" at the IUC White Mesa Mill, or at other licensed, conventional and nonconventional, uranium processing and recycling facilities.

l

' 10. All internal correspondence or documents relating to the determinations that

. would certify IUC' White Mesa Mill disposal impoundments are in full compliance with CERCLA Off Site Response Actions at 40 CFR 300.440 I1. - All internal correspondence or documents relating to or relied upon by the NRC in findings and determinations of compliance with NRC 's Uranium i Mill Facilities, Guidance Documents, specifically: I

! e Final Revised Guidance on Disposal of Non-Atomic Energy Act of  :

1954, Section 11e.(2) Byproduct Material in Tailmgs l

Impoundments; and,  :

l e Final Position and Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed i Materials Other Than Natural Ores.

All communications regarding this request should be addressed to Kenneth Alkema, i

- Vice President, Corporate Development. i Sincerely, i

l Kenneth Alkema Vice President, Corporate Development L 4

i

! I l

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

• /..

s A.

C* . Intern:tional Uranium (USA) Corporation ATTN: Ms. Michelle Rehmann, .

! l Environmental Manager independence Plaza, Suite 950 -

1050 Seventeenth Street :

Denver, Colorado 80265

SUBJECT:

AMENDMENT 6 TO SOURCE MATERIAL LICENSE SUA-1358, .

l INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORPORATION'S WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL, L BLANDING, UTAH 1'

l

Dear Ms. Rehmann:

1 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has completed its review of International

! Uranium (USA) Corporation's (IUSA's) request to amend NRC Source Material License

, SUA 1358, submitted by letter dated May 8,1998. Additionalinformation was provided by facsimile on May 27,1998, and by letters dated May 29, June 3, and June 11,1998. By these submittals, IUSA requested that SUA 1358 be amended to allow the receipt and processing of

)

uranium-bearing material from the Ashland 2 Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, near Tonawanda, New York.-

l The details of the amendment request are discussed in the NRC staff's Technical Evaluation Report (TER) (Enclosure 1). In the TER, the staff documents the basis for its evaluation of IUSA's amendment request, which the staff has reviewed in accordance with 10 CFR Part40,

~ 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). j Based on its review, the NRC staff has found the proposed amendment to be acceptable.

Therefore, pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40, Source Material License SUA-1358 is hereby amended by adding, License Condition No.10.10. All other 1 conditions of this license shall remain the same. The enclosed license is being reissued to _!

incorporate the above modification (Enclosure 2). An environmental review was not performed since this licensing action is categorically excluded under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11).

of IL: * ' . ~huolw it is important to note that the material in question & defined as 11e.(2) byproduct material p=-M to ** daMtbn ,in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. lic..e.eT, this  ;

Aj . material is not subject to NRC regulation until it is received by IUSA, an NRC licensee, because  ;

d*.

.. s the material was produced by an activity not licensed by NRC until November 8,1978.

.n v 6

2g/ p

(  :

[

& w'mnuy . - . . .. H/ >

q .

,C If you have any questions regarding this letter or the enclosures, please contact Mr. James Park, the NRC Project Manager for the White Mesa mill, at (301) 415 6699.

Sincerely, 1

l Joseph J. Holonich, Chief i Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management

, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

. i Docket No. 40-8681 SUA-1358, Amendment No. 6  ;

I

Enclosures:

As stated (2) l j

cc: W. Sinclair, UT I 4

I j

I l

l l

l . . . . . ..

?-

if you hava etny questions regarding this lettst or the enclosures, pisase contact Mr. James Park, the NRC Project Manager for the White Mesa mill, at (301) 415-6699.

Sincerely, Joseph J. Holonich, Chief Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Docket No. 40-8681 SUA 1358, Amendment No. 6 Case Closed: L51656

Enclosures:

As stated (2) cc: W. Sinclair, UT.

DISTRIBUTION (w/ Encl.): PUBLIC Fife Center NMSS r/l URB r/f ARamirezMRogers BSpitzberg, RIV PMackin, CNWRA ACNW (w/o Encl.): DGillen CAbrams MLayton DOCUMENT NAME: S:DWM\ URB \JRP\ AMEND-6.MS OFC URB l OGC l URB l l NAME JPark MSchwartz* JHolonich

• NLO by email DATE 6/ /98 l 6/ /98 l 6/ /98 l l OFFICIAL RECORD COPY e a ee .-

• E. l 1

- TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT

REQUEST TO RECEIVE AND PROCESS ASHLAND 2 FUSRAP MATERIAL i l

DOCKET NO. 40-8681 LICENSE NO. SUA-1358 LICENSEE: International Uranium (USA) Corporation FACILITY: White Mesa Uranium Mill l

PROJECT MANAGER: James Park i I

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSION'S:  !

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed International Uranium l

(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 additional information by facsimile on May 27,1998, and by letters dated May 29, June 3, and June 11, 1998, i

The staff has reviewed IUSA's request against the September 1995 guidance pertaining to l alternate feed materials and finds the amendment request to be acceptable. l 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 rnaterial(i.e., i material other than natural uranium ore) at its White Mesa uranium mill located near Blanding, Utah. The uranium-bearing material in 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 management 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 Information The material consists of 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 pitchblende (UC2) 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 wastransferred to the l Ashland Oil Company.

In 1974, Ashland Oil constructed a bermed area for two petroleum storage tanks and e drainage ditch on the Ashland 1 property. Approximately 4600 m3 (6000 yd3) of soil containbg MED-related residues and commingled inorganic constituents were removed from the site, witn an indeterminate 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 1

l l

4 L.

I property that adjoined cn industriallandfill operated by Ashland Oil. This lindfill, which was l closed and capped with clay soil in 1982, accepted general refuse and chemical and industrial byproducts from 1957 to 1982.

l During remedialinvestigation activities carried out by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) l 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 rn2 (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 Considerations 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 l 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 joumey to the White Mesa mill. It is expected that approximately 60 trucks per week will be used to transport the material from the final rail destination to the mill.

l l 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 levels are within appropriate limits.

The trucks will be scanned again prior to their release from the mi!! site restricted area. In l addition, the intermodal containers used to transport the material will be properly closed, l l cleaned (if necessary), surveyed, and documented before leaving the White Mesa site.

Although the material in question meets the definition of 11e.(2) byproduct material under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), this materialis not subject to NRC regulation untilit is received by IUSA, an NRC licensee, because the material was produced by an activity not licensed by NRC until November 8,1978. ThereforaJtutddition,-attnrtime during the-transport of the material would it fall under NRC iurisdiction th C Handiina and Processino at the Mill Site l At the mill site, the Ashland 2 material will be emptied from the intermodal containers and 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 altborne contamination control measures will be assessed while the materialis in stockpile. Airborne particulate samples and breathing zone samples will be collected in those 4

q. . j i

• • i creas 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. i IUSA will provide appropriate personal protective equipment (coveralls, 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 req'uest in accordance with 10 CFR Part40, 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.

Determination of whether the feed material is " ore" For the tailings and wastes from the proposed processing to qualify as 11e.(2) byproduct material, the feed material must qualify as " ore.' in the alternate feed guidance, ore is defined I as-

... 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."

The proposed alternate feed material contains varying concentrations of uranium, ranging from l non-detectable to greater than 1.0 percent by weight, depending on the sample location. IUSA l believes that recoverable amounts of uranium are present, and that, on average, the uranium concentration for this material will be approximately 0.05 percent or greater by weight. IUSA is proposing to extract this uranium. Therefore, the material meets the definition of ore, because it is a ' matter from which source material is extracted in a licensed uranium or thorium mill."

l Determination of whether the feed material contains hazardous waste 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 F which exhibit only a characteristic of hazardous waste (i.e., ignitab!!ity, corrosivity, reactivity, or j toxicity) would not be regulated as hazardous waste and could therefore be approved by the

~ staff for recycling and extraction of source material. However, this does not apply to residues E

b l

l l

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

l.- ,

~

,. from water treatmsnt. Thtrsfore, NRC staff acctptance of such residues as feed mat:: rill would depend on their not containing any hazardous or characteristic hazardous waste.

Remedial investigations carried by the DOE did not find listed hazardous wastes or the Ashland 2 property (DOE,1996a). In addition, it is the USACE's belief, based on peacess knowledge and its own analyses, that the material contains no hazardous wastes (USACE,

.1998). However, to guard against the potential for material containing such wastes being sent to White Mesa for processing, ICF Kaiser, the USACE contractor charged with excavating the material and preparing it for shipment offsite, will conduct confirmatory testing of excavated materials prior to their shipment to ensure that listed hazardous wastes are not present. Any material that testing indicates contains hazardous wastes will not be included in shipments to White Mesa. Finally, as committed to in its 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.

With respect to the possibility that industrial and chemical byproducts disposed at the former Ashland Oil industrial landfill have affected materiais to be excavated at the Ashland 2 site, j the staff considers that ICF Kaiser's sampling program and IUSA's confirmatory analyses will j minimize the likelihood that any impacted materials, if they exist, will be transported to and i processed at the White Mesa mill. ,

i 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 also that the 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.

Determination of whether the feed materialis being processed l 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 Ato'mic Energy Act of 1954, Section 11e.(2) Byproduct Materialin Tailings impoundments;" or (2) certify, under oath or affirmation, that ths 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 f

. 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 p 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 cres will be

( L E

. I p . . . . ...... .. -.... . .

w , ,

.; d i

~

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 l

! product (i.e.; U308 and V205),

1 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 I run the mill for longer periods of time; and l

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.

)

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.

In addition, the DOE, which managed the FUSRAP sites prior to the USACE, determined previously that the Ashland 2 material meets the definition of 11o.(2) byproduct material under the AEA (DOE,1995; 1996b). Therefore, the material could be disposed of directly in the White

. Mesa tailings impoundments. As such, the material meets the co disposal test in the staff's 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 important to note, however, tha't, although the material in question meets 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, because the material was produced by an acit vity not licensed by NRC until November 8,1978. Therefore, in addition. et = t% during Ee' transport.

af ** m !:t! ;;=t fall under NRC Jurisdiction. M w d wnd M

.Q --

J  ;

Conclusions concernina alternate feed material desionation Based on the information provided by the licensee, the NRC staff finds that 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 cumulativ'e occupational radiation exposure; (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 l- 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.

i

?-

l l

. N

(. -

l' b. No modifications to the mill circuit design are necessary to process the Ashland 2 material.

l c. Tailings produced by the processing of this material will be disposed of on site in an existing lined tailings impoundment (Cell 3). The addition of these tailings (a maximum of 25,000 tons) to Cell 3 will increase the total amount of tailings in the cell by one percent, to a total of approximately 70 percent of cell capacity; therefore, no new impoundments are necessary. The design of the existing impoundment, which includes 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. l

d. In general, the Ashland 2 m'aterialis similar in composition to the mi!! 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 materialis 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 environmentalimpacts that could be associated with the disposal of the Ashland 2 tailings will be minimal.

e. For the fo!!owing 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 White Mesa mill will be significant:

• The material will be shipped as

• low specific activity" materialin 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 approyimately 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).

.Th9 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 g 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 materialis 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 will be provided l

with personal protective equipment (e.g., coveralls, rubber gloves), including respiratory i l protection, if nececsary. Airborne particulate and breathing zone sampling results will be l used to establish health and safety guidelines to be implemented throughout the processing

- .-- . - . - ~. . . _ . . . - . - . . - .-- .. . - - -

L~u 1

1

?. Op6Tations.

t r

l i

l 1 1 i

I i

(

I 1

i I

1 1

I I

i 1

i l

l l

l

(

t I

i l i 1

l.

I i

l l

1 I

i l

1 1 1 l

I 4

1  !

i I

1 i

l l

I s

4 I

)

J l-

i lt:- '

p: ,

• ?

REFERENCES:

! U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),1998,* Record of Decision for the Ashland 1 (including i 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.

l. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),1996a,"1996 BEMR: Ashland 2," available on the intemet at  !

<http:// eagle.emweb.icx. net /bemr96/asho.html>.

DOE,1996b," Introduction to Formerly Utilized Sites REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM '

(FUSRAP)," available on the Intemet at <http://www.em. doe. gov /bemr96/fusrap.html>.

DOE,1995,"Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP): Building Stakeholder l

Partnerships to Achieve Effective Cleanup," Office of Environmental Restoration, i DOE /EM-0233, April 1995. '

RECOMMENDED LICENSE CHANGE: J 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 receive and process source material from the Ashland 2 Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, located in the Town of j Tonawanda, New York, in accordance with the amendment request dated May 8,1998, as  !

amended by the submittals dated May 27, June 3, and June 11,1998.

L

[ Applicable Amendment: 6) i 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 i and associated site cleanup activities were addressed previously by the USACE and found to be

not significant (USACE,1998).

- 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 1 radiological accidents, an environmental review was not performed since actions meeting these ,

criteria are categorically excluded under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11).

• i I

J I

Mr. Clarence Rockwell Navajo Utah Commission Post Office Box 663 j

Window Rock, Navajo Nation (Arizona) 86515  ;

l

SUBJECT:

RESPONSE TO NAVAJO NATION REQUEST FOR STAY l Dear Mr. Rockwell; I

'I am responding to your July 22,1998, facsimile (FAX) to me. In that FAX, you provided a copy j of the Navajo Nation Commission resolution regarding the proposed shipment and processing l of radioactive waste material by Intemational Uranium Corporation (IUC) at its White Mesa mill.

The resolution requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issue an 3

immediate stay of the license until public hearings are held on the recently issued amendment.

l The NRC's rules of practice for informal public hearings are found in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart L.

In order for the NRC to hold an informal hearing under that subpart the Navajo Nation would need to initiate the process by filing a petition for leave to intervene consistent with 10 CFR  !

2.1205(e) and (f). In addition,10 CFR 2.1263 provides that any stay request of an NRC staff licensing be filed at the same time as a request for hearing. The time limits in which a petition for leave to intervene must be filed are given in 10 CFR 2.1205(d).

Because the NRC rules of practice specify what steps must be taken to initiate a request for a stay, I am unable to take the action you request in your letter. However, I hope that the above information provides you with details needed to properly initiate a request for a stay. I am sorry that I cannot be of further assistance. I trust you find this information useful. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Jim Park, the White Mesa Project Manager. Mr. Park can be reached at (301) 415-7238.

Sincerely, Joseph J. Holonich, Chief Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards DO~)gjO3$ \f'