ML20203G631

Undated Memo Discussing Position & Guidance on Use of Alternate Feed Matl in U Mills

ML20203G631
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/17/1999
From:	Bernero R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
Shared Package
ML20203G628	List: ML20203G623 ML20203G631
References
FOIA-98-296 NUDOCS 9902190392
Download: ML20203G631 (2)

Text

_ _ . __ __ ..

<e.

- \, .

7, e *

• c %,o,, UNITED STATES l

[ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, $ E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 1 k . .l. . . ,

MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert D. Martin, Regional Administrator Region IV FROM: Robert M. Bernero Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

SUBJECT:

POSITION AND GUIDANCE ON THE USE OF ALTERNATE FEED MATERIAL IN URANIUM MILLS Staff reviewing licensee requests to process alternate feed material (material other than natural ore) in uranium mills should follow the guidance presented in this paper. Besides reviewing to determine compliance with appropriate aspects of Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40, the staff should also determine the j following issues: '

i

1. Is the feed material 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 l determining whether the feed material is ore, the follow'ng definition of j l ore must be used:

Ore is a natural or native matter that may be mined and treated for the extraction of any of its constituents or any other matter from which source material is extracted in a licensed uranium or thorium mill. <

1

2. Is the feed material mixed waste?

l If the proposed feed material were hazardous or mixed waste, it would be subject to EPA regulation under RCRA. To avoid the complexities of i NRC/ EPA dual regulation, such feed material will not be approved for processing at a licensed mill. If the license can show that the proposed )

feed material would not be a hazardous or mixed waste, if not proposed i for processing at the mill, this issue is resolved.

l Feed material exhibiting only a characteristic of hazardous waste l l (ignitable, corrosive, reactive, toxic) would not be regulated as

! hazardous waste and could therefore be approved. However, this does not apply to residues from water treatment, so acceptance of such residues as feed material will depend on their not being hazardous or mixed waste.

Additionally, if proposed feed material contained a waste listed under Subpart D (261.30-33) of 40 CFR, it would be a hazardous waste and should not be approved.

99J21 g 2 '990217 -

Enclosure 3 ALKEMA98-296 PDR 2 H&

[G

.\. o

.1 Robert D. Martin 2-

3. Jstheorebeingprocessedprimarilyforitssource-materialcontent?

For the tailings and waste from the proposed processing to qualify as 11e.(2) byproduct material, the ore must be processed primarily for its source-material content. There is concern that wastes that would have to be disposed of as radioactive or mixed waste would be proposed for processing.at a uranium mill-primarily to be able to dispose of it in the tailings pile as 11e.(2) byproduct material. In determining whether the proposed processing was primarily for the source-material content or for the disposal of waste, either of the following tests can be used:

a. Co-disposal test: Determine if the feed material would be approved for disposal in the tailings impoundment under the guidance contained in the July 27, 1998, memorandum to you from Hugh L. Thompson, or subsequentrevisions(e.g.,asproposedinSECY-91-243).- If it would, it can be concluded that if a mill operator proposes to

. process it, the processing is primarily for the source-material content. The material would have to be physically and chemically similar to 11e.(2) byproduct material and not be subject to RCRA or other EPA hazardous-waste regulations, as discussed in SECY-91-243.

b: Licensee certification test: If the licensee certifies under oath or affirmation that the feed material: (1) is being reclaimed or recycled in accord with RCRA, or does not contain RCRA hazardous

- waste; ad (2) is to_be processed primarily for_ the recovery of uranium and for no other primary purpose, it can be accepted.

If it can be determined, using the aforementioned guidance, that the proposed feed material meets the definition of ore, that it will not introduce a hazardous waste not otherwise exempted, and that the primary purpose of its

-processing is for its source-material content, the request can be approved.

Robert M. Bernero, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

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

f ENVIROCAREorvra.wc.

THE SAFE ALTERNATIVE July 31, 1991 mr. Richard L. Rangert Director Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, NMSS United states Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 2055 Subjects USNRC Staff Position Paper Proposing to Dispose of Non-11e[2) Radioactive Wastes in Title II Uranium Mill Tal:.ings Ponds As we discuased per our telephone conversation on July 30, 1991, Envirocare of Utah, Inc. has serious concerns about the subject staff position paper. The NRC staff proposal to allow disposal of non-mill tailings radioactive waste in Title II uranium mill tailings ponds without input or comment from the public or from other federal agencies appears to be in direct conflict with various laws and Congressional mandates. Examples are:

1. Most or all of the Title II uranium mill sites were required to have Environmental Impact statements prepared. These Statements presented various disposal options which were evaluated in public forums by the public and various governmental entities.

A disposal and closure plan was selected for each EIS. Since NRC is now proposing to convert sites it would seem that a new EIS (complete with public input) is called for under NEPA and UMTRCA.

At the time UMTRCA was passed the Congressional report accompanying the Act stated "The committee does not want to visit this problem again with additional aid. The remedial action must be done right the first time." Proposals to change previously agreed-upon remedial actions may be of some interest to agencies other than NRC. It should also be noted that proposals to put radioactive waste from other sites into Texas mill sites met with sufficient adverse public reaction to scuttle the proposals.

2. Out of approximately 24 Title II uranium mill sites which are operating, inactive, or being dismantled, 18 sites are located in states which have not accepted uranium mill licensing authority so that NRC licenses the mills. If NORM or MARM wastes are placed NRC will be placed in the in these sitse, position then in Wyoming of licensing (9 sites)hese and regulating t commingled NARM and 11e(2) wastes.

215 Sa. XIKIE STREET = SUlili !!nD = SALTl.AKE CITY. U1All R4111

• TICIJil'IloNL (801) 3.U I.00 r ~ w .. . c j

^t;,cDLd g g,

s

• 4 -  ?

} E.VVINOC4RE i Page 2

Mr. Richard Bangert s

Historically, NRC has elected to not lican ,e NARM wastes.

This NARM.

would seem to set a precedent requiring NRC to regulate all other agencyisinput. This a significant federal action requiring public and i

In Utah 4 sites) and New Mexico (5 sites NRC

' would license the tailings a(nd if the states agreed they w)ould l license 11e(2) byproduct the other radioactive material. waste such as source material or non-In Utah and New Mexico this would lead to dual regulation at i each site and could force the states to get involved in regulating  !

! sites which they have previously elected not to regulate. This

]

would also require additional state resources. l i

3. Placing radioactive wastes such as source or byproduct i

materials which re covered under the Low-Level Maste Policy Act in the tailings pile would require a 10 CFR 61 license application and

)

' evaluation in addition to the original 11e(2) evaluation. This woulo require public input. For the Wyoming mills, presumably NRC

would do the Part 61 reviews. For the other states additional

} state resources would probably be needed.

l 4. Placing radioactive wastes covered under the Low-Level l Waste Policy Act into the mill sites would seem to be a direct

, competition with the various Low-Level waste Compacts as well as

leading to an unwarranted proliferation of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes sites. It is difficult to believe that Congress would not consider this to be worthy of a public forum.

. 5. As noted in the Statements of Consideration for 10 Crn j Parts 40 and 150 (Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations e Conforming NRC 4

Requirements to EPA 5tandards), EPA has a responsibility to develop standards for mill tailings disposal while NRC has the j responsibility to inplement and enforce the IPA standards during j the conduct of NRC lhcensing activities. The standards which EPA j has developed and published do not address the commingling of other radioactive wastes during the disposal of uranium mill tailings.

Before such ceasingling is licensed by NRC, it would appear necessary for EPA to develop and publish revised standards which

address the impact of placing radionuclides and other hasardous

wastes not addressed or evaluated in the original standards

! development. These revised standards would require public input

! and may well include such things as limits on concentration for j some of the additional radioisotopes ad hasardous materials.

5

^

-r- e-wv-- = - - , - - - + - - - - - , ----er- <+-r--m. -e - , - - - - - - - - - - ,-r w- - - - - - - - - = -

a.. .. .

l P

E.VVIROC4 RE 1

Page 3 Mr. Richard Bangert This is only a partial list of some of our concerns but should 1 give you some idea of the problems that we foresee. l It is our belief that our request for at least a 30 days Public Comment Period is only in line with NRC existing policy making rules and procedures and clearly due to the nationwide impact of the proposed policy our request should receive your favorable recommendation for consideration to the Cosuaissioners.

Very Tru y Yours, M

Khosrow 3. Seanani President CC: Larry Anderson, Director Utah BRC Kas/kk l

I e

- .-. www .e- 4. .4 e, -

l 4V .

.m~

L (F6) e o UTAM STATE SENATE R. LANc ScATTIC

• er00 c es' ingigg%eg 319 STATE CAptTOL ' esis womTM stoo west

. SALT LANC CITY, UTAN Sehe . WEST WOWNin UL. UTAn 64067 July 17,1998 Joseph J. Holonich, Chief Uranium Recovery Dranch i Division of Waste Management Nuclear Regulatory Coinmission Mail Stop T7J9 Washington. D.C. 20555-0001

Dear Mr. Holonich:

I want to express concems that have been brought to my attention regarding a decision made by the NuclearRegulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC recently issued an amendment to the license of the White Mesa Uranium Mill operated by International Uranium Corportation (IUC) in Blanding, Utah. This amendment would essentially allow White Mesa to become an unlicensed disposal facility for radioactively contaminated soil and debris through the disguise of" sham" recycling or reprocessing.

. I have not seenjustification for allowing IUC to repiocess this material. Based on the price that IUC .

is being paid to " recycle" the Ashland 2 waste material (599/ yard) and considering how insignificant  !

! the value of recovered ore will be even if " recycled" for' free ($5/ yard), it is obvious that IUC is l L merely ' handling" the materials in order to unlawfully dispose. It is simple to see from the figures l L that the m:taial is not being processed primarily for its source material value but for the recycling  !

L .or disposal fee. The value of disposal is almost 20 times the value of any uranium that might be  !

extracted.

Any company wishing to dispose of nuclear waste must obtain a radioactive materials license for

. disposal ofradioactive waste from either the NRC or the Utah Department ofEnvironmental Quality -  ;

J (DEQ) and a GroundwaterDischarge Permit from the Utah DEQ. The process oflicensing was put

. into place for the protection of the public, environmental health and safety and to ensure proper regulation.-

, ' This " sham" recycling was tried before and was found to be unacceptable after the state of Utah l

objected; At that tse, wastes had already been shipped to the White Mesa Mill and had to be f

5 U)O &

w w a e w ,. e n ner w ui - e nr ;,;;c e., e:c;., r.,- --- ~7 ; ;g - --

r. .

• i-i f

l shipped back to the place of origin. A thoroughreview of 10 CFR 2.1205 would be well wonh the

! time and effort to avoid a similar situation.

Therefore, I request that NRC. pursuant to. holding a hearing, reconsider its decision allowing

" sham" recycling of radioactive wastes from New York to be disposed in Utah without the proper licensing and permitting for radioactive waste disposal facilities in our state. This back door approach is unacceptable and leads me to request that the NRC review this matter further and stay the issuance of the license amendment during this review.

Sincerely, de ty ^c. , . . -

Lane / keattie ,

Utah State President cc: Govemor Michael Leavitt Dianne Nielson -

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Senator Roben Bennett 1 Senator Orrin Hatch Congressman James V. Hansen Congre .sman Chris Cannon i Cengr ssman Merrill Cook l

i

. v .,N. . AU... Ai  : n.. ..r...  ! .". r. .'.

• h .'. . .  :. .; : I .

e' s t e

'I *

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

l.WMo. F Ax* This document has been scos flow 2 Inamational

........ .... ... . i Tel. # ( ),.,,,,,_,,,,,,, '

j COMMUNITY '

Agent # * ~ ~ ~~ - ~ ~~'- .

. ... . . N CENTlift ... -.-

lNSTANT MAIL TRANSMISSION FORM

.. .. ... . . .".. -... _ . ..._...._"_ ~ ...--_ .~.  :

DATE WaM TIME _

TO: ' '

'4Q - 2.

Nam d 4tn/~l~AL ~

FAX #: L- So/ -

com an : . ,

PH O N E# .  !

S t ra o r . .. . . . . . ... . .

city : . . .. . .._ . . ..._ _ .

g p , ._ . . - . ._. __. . . . . . .- .. . . .. . .

g y o. . . . . . . . . . . . . . , _ . . . . _ . . . _ ..-._..................

...................._.__...._..._.._.-_ f FROM: TOTAL # OF P GES INCL.

TH IS PAG E: .. . . . ....._ ........ 1 Namo:s'~~s.w%. s- V5=

com an : ..... .-. ..- PHONE #: ___,,,.. _._ _ /

J< ttoot. e.. P.. o...Jer....Y.r C (1y:. 2 4 . H . _.........'... _ ,._ _... _ . . ... ._. . .. . ...

R olu m FA X # ..._. ......_.

Siat0:/,JZ'....7.ip:...f.W2'L_. ... usM S I) L' 01 AL 1 N ST RU CTIO N S: __ . _.._ _.

ee==* g c ura.uaywe..ev._

.m.

^ ~ ""*~"

' ^ .

l -,

I

.g ..r.ab.y. . ._ ,C , -

~~~~~~'***~~~~

a._.~ .

+. ,..

\ *

-~ n *

--~..s.4.M.*,8..'8O'"OO O~"O

,g ."' ---g..

• 9 Y .we l

\

t f

I e 4 Q ^ *m *1A 2v tJ

- a w v- en L Nd'

7. . _ _ _ _ - - . . - _ ._ . . . . . , . . ..

,, s i

l l

l l

l James Sampson P.O. Box 35 Bluff, Utah 84512 July 23,1998 Mr. Joseph J. Holonich U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC Fax: (301)415-5397

Dear Mr. Holonich:

Attached is a copy of a petition which we, the Native American Uranium Mill workers gave to the San Juan County Commissioners on July 20,1998. This petition was signed by many of our co-workers and Native Americans in support ofInternational Uranium and the White Mesa Mill.

Sincerely,

--J James Sampson l

l

~- ,r- v-~ o.- ., . . . . . -  : 7, .s . . . = ; . .

. a i

July 17,1998 URANIUM WORKFRS FIGHT FOR FREEDOM TO BE HEARD:

The Constitution states uvit very citizen in the United States has the nght to speak! Upon receiving the We 1 article written by Ken Sleight entitled The}Dkine of A Nuclear Waste Dumo at the White Mesa Mill the Native American Uranium Mill workers would tike for you to hear what we have to say. l l

First off being workers as we are of!ntemational Uranium Corp Located at the Wlute Mesa Mitt we wot,ld all like to know why we haven't had the oppurnity to speak our emotions to all that is being said.

Many of us have been here for more than ten years and plan to work until we know when it is time for us to retire. In the artic!c it states that in past the Navajo and Ute tribes have been concemed with health hazards and Aboriginalland issues. The reason it is not relevant now is that we know as employees that Radiation is not a Idgh risk factor as long as we take the right precautions. We also know what type of material we are I being exposed to. As far as the public goes dicy would not be at high risk, urJess they were to eat the I waste. Instead of supplying the public with information about the hazards of the material, why not supply them with the snaterial of how non- hazardous it can be?

Why is it also that the County Ccmmissioner's do not take a step forward on to helping the Mill to assure that they receive the proper license for the Material. San Juan County has a background of Radioactivity.  ;

There were Uraniurn Plants all over San Juan Cotmry. To this day every person all over the world dwell l on this planet we call Earth which is covered with Hazardous materials, and we would !!ke to know now '

what the big dealis? Helping the Mill to receive the proper license would surely make it a lot easier, the  !

reason being is that we already know how to handle the material! A!! of our lives we cat what grows from the ground, Druk water which also comes from the ground, even our livestock feast from the ground in return we feast off our livestock. It is a life eyele no snatter how you see it.

It was submitted on Mayg1998, exactly 20 days before The date for NRC's approval was June 23,1998.

the article was written. Also the last ! cad of Wastren Ore or New York waste came through our gates on March 27,1998 oMeh is 108 days and approximately three months and fourteen days.

The International Uranium Corporation has supplied jobs to 40 --45% minorities in the past four years Out of those four years 95-98% were Native American. So as you can see there has been a good arnount of Native American's who have worked here and many of them still do today.

Ihanks, k b LAB.

i l

t .' 4. ..s : .~.r.:.s. rr+ . . . = ... . .,

f,. ]D[~13-t e l :.

1 e

==

i Top F6ve Reptr.acntsdm:

1. Wilson Bennett "

2. Roy Atciety M,r

~- 3 f;LeMJ-L 3, James 5arnpson "

4. John 5tash

1. - DX #

5. Dan Nakai a Nd ' ~

s WN W -

w_h ' J MU4m . f -

, f ,l./u, 2 -

.L uh 2-ns >

'N W

., W -

l wT%

_s2-f z7 -

~

T ,

~

/

w

~

i d

_ Nod:c; We have three ddferent shifts so many of us rnay not l

l l