ML20207B268
| ML20207B268 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/13/1999 |
| From: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Ratliff R TEXAS, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207B273 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9905280171 | |
| Download: ML20207B268 (22) | |
Text
I Mr. Richird A. R;tliff, P.E., Chi:f <
Bur:au of Ridi: tion Control Tcxas D:partm:nt of Hntth l
1100 West 49th Street i
[. {
I$ E i
- e Austin, Texas 78756-3198
Dear Mr. Ratliff:
We have completed our review of your September 15,1998 and March 31,1999 submittals regarding the proposed termination of the Radioactive Material License No. LO1234, issued to Rio Grande Resources Corporation, an in-situ leach uranium recovery facility located near Benevides, Texas.
Appropriate closure of an in-situ leach uranium recovery site requires a demonstration that the groundwater has been adequately restored, all the wells have been closed and plugged ;
according to the appropriate Texas statute, disposal or transfer of radioactive material is j documented, and radiation surveys and confirmatory soil samples indicate that the site meets unrestricted release requirements.
The information you have submitted indicates that the groundwater has been restored by the licensee to the satisfaction of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC). j All the wells have been plugged and abandoned by the licensee as authorized by TNRCC. i Based on the Texas Department of Health's (TDH) review of the license termination, you l reported that proper disposition of radioactive materials took place at the site and there has been no on-site disposal of radioactive materials; therefore, there is no need to transfer ownership of land to the State or the Federal Government.
1 TDH has reviewed the results of radiation surveys and soil samples submitted by the licensee I and performed confirmatory surveys for the subject site. Post-cleanup surveys conducted by j TDH indicate that the site has been decontaminated to a radiation level that meets the State l criteria. According to the TDH report, the analysis of soil samples indicates that average I radium-226 and uranium concentrations were below release criteria of 5 pCi/g and 30 pCi/g, respectively. The statements made in the September 15,1998 and March 31,1999 submittals indicate that the TDH has adequately determined that all license obligations have been met by the licensee.
The most recent review of the Texas Agreement State Program, conducted under the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) in June 1997, indicates that the Texas program is adequate to protect public health and safety, and compatible with NRC's program. This finding is consistent with the previous Tcxas program evaluations. Based on our review of the above information and in accordance with 10 CFR 150.15a(a), we concur that all applicable standards and requirements for the protection of the public health, safety and the environment have been met for the termination of the Radioactive Material License No. LO1234.
If we can be of f Jrther assistance in this regard, please contact me or Kevin Hsueh at (301) 415-2598. 1 E5 C Sincerely' WemedBr 5%ULH.LOHAUS b ,i Paul H. Lohaus, Director Office of State Programs Distrib.ution: J300fM.
DIR RF DSollenberger MVirgilio DCD (SP08)
SDroggitis JMyers, ASPO Texas File PDR (YESJ_ NO )
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\KPH\RATRGR.WPD *See previous concurrence.
Ta receive e copy of thle document, Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachmerNenclosure "E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE OSP l OSP:D NMSS l OGC NAME KHsueh:kk PHLohaus CPaperiello SATreby DATE -04/23/99* 04/23/99* 04/27//99* 05/11/99* 05/06/99*
9905280171 990513 7 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-27 PDR STPRG ESGTX PDR ,,
i-en urg g k UNITED STATES j
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON D.c. 20666 0001 May 13, 1999
%.....o Mr. Richard A. Ratliff, P.E., Chief Bureau of Radiation Control Texas Department of Health 1100 West 49th Street Austin, Texas 78756-3198
Dear Mr. Ratliff:
We have completed our review of your September 15,1998 and March 31,1999 submittals regarding the proposed termination of the Radioactive Material License No. LO1234, issued to Rio Grande Resources Corporation, an in-situ leach uranium recovery facility located near Benevides, Texas.
Appropriate closure of an in-situ leach uranium recovery site requires a demonstration that the groundwater has been adequately restored, all the wells have been closed and plugged according to the appropriate Texas statute, disposal or transfer of radioactive material is documented, and radiation surveys and confirmatory soil samples indicate that the site meets unrestricted release requirements.
The information you have submitted indicates that the groundwater has been restored by the licensee to the satisfaction of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC).
All the wells have been plugged and abandoned by the licensee as authorized by TNRCC.
Based on the Texas Department of Health's (TDH) review of the license termination, you reported that proper disposition of radioactive materials took place at the site and there has been no on-site disposal of radioactive materials; therefore, there is no need to transfer ownership of land to the State or the Federal Government.
TDH has reviewed the results of radiation surveys and soil samples submitted by the licensee and performed confirmatory surveys for the subject site. Post-cleanup surveys conducted by TDH indicate that the site has been decontaminated to a radiation level that meets the State criteria. According to the TDH report, the analysis of soil samples indicates that average radium 226 and uranium concentrations were below release criteria of 5 pCi/g and 30 pCi/g, respectively. The statements made in the September 15,1998 and March 31,1999 submittals indicate that the TDH has adequately determined that all license obligations have been met by the licensee.
The most recent review of the Texas Agreement State Program, conducted under the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) in June 1997, indicates that the Texas program is adequate to protect public health and safety, and compatible with NRC's program. This finding is consistent with the previous Texas program evaluations. Based on our review of the above information and in accordance with 10 CFR 150.15a(a), we concur that all applicable standards and requirements for the protection of the public health, safety and the environment have been met for the termination of the Radioactive Material License No. LO1234.
If we can be of further assistance in this regard, please contact me or Kevin Hsueh at (301) 415-2598.
$"cegrely
\ (L $ (W Paul H. Lohaus, irector Office of State Programs
Mr. Rich:rd A. Ritliff, P.E., Chi;f f
' ' Burtiu of Ridittion Control !
Texts D:ptrtmtnt of H alth 1100 W:st 49th Strut
.: Austin, Texas 78756-3198
Dear Mr. Ratliff:
We have completed our review of your September 15,19' 8 and March 31,1999 submittals regarding the proposed termination of the Radioactive Ma terial License No. LO1234, issued to Rio Grande Resources Corporation, an in-situ leach urarl um recovery facility located near Benevides, Texas.
Appropriate closure of an in-situ leach uranium recove site requires a demonstration that the groundwater has been adequately restored, all the wells have been closed and plugged according to the appropriate Texas statute, disposal or :ransfer of radioactive materialis documented, and radiation surveys and confirmatory il samples indicate that the site meets -
unrestricted release requirements..
The information you have submitted indicates that the groundwater has been restored by the licensee to the satisfaction of the Texas Natural Re rce Conservation Commission (TNRCC).
All the wells have been plugged and abandoned by t e licensee as authorized by TNRCC.
Based on the Texas Department of Health's (TDH) r view of the license termination, you reported that proper disposition of radioactive materi is took place at the site and there has been no on site disposal of radioactive materials; th refore, there is no need to transfer ownership of land to the State or the Federal Gover ment.
TDH has reviewed the results of radiation surveys nd soil samples submitted by the licensee and performed confirmatory surveys for the subje site. Post-cleanup surveys conducted by TDH indicate that the site has been decontaminat to a radiation level that meets the State criteria. According to the TDH report, the analysi of soil samples indicates that average radium-226 and uranium concentrations were bei w release criteria of 5 pCl/g and 30 pCl/g, respectively. The statements made in the Septe ber 15,1998 and March 31,1999 submittals indicate that the TDH has adequately determine that all license obligations have been met by the licensee.
The most recent review of the Texas Agreemen< State Program, conducted under the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation P agram (IMPEP) in June 1997, indicates that the j Texas program is adequate to protect public h lth and safety, and compatible with NRC's !
program. This finding is consistent with the pr ious Texas program' evaluations. Based on our l review of the above information and in accord ce with 10 CFR 150.15a(a), we concur that all applicable standards and requirements for the rotection of the public health, safety and the environment have been met for the terminatioi of the Radioactive Material License No. LO1234. !
'If we can be of further assistance in this rega d, please contact me or Kevin Hsueh at (301) 415-2598.
Sincerely, 1
Paul H. Lohaus, Director l Office of State Programs Distribution:
DlR RF DSollenberger MVirg io DCD (SP08)
SDroggitis_ JMyers, ASPO Texa File. PDR (YESJ_. NO )
. DOCUMENT NAME: G:\KPH\RATRGR.WPD . *See previous concurrence.
m m. . , .e e,i. e um.ni. ine.i. m ine b : c - copy witnout . enm.nv.newur. a,- Copy with att. chm.nt/ enclosure "N = No copy OFFICE OSP l OSP:D l / NMSS f l OGC l NAME KHsuch:kk PHLohaus $Paperiell& f SATreby DATE- '04/23/99*- 04/23/99* / 04/27//99* 05/O /99 05/06/99*
I /
Mr. RichIrd A. R tliff, P.E., Chiif j Bur:cu of R;di; tion Control /
Tcxas D:pirtm:nt of Hnith
, , 1100 West 49th Street Austin, Texas 78756-3198
Dear Mr. Ratliff:
We have completed our review of your September 15,199 and March 31,1999 submittals regarding the proposed termination of the Radioactive Ma rial License No. LO1234, issued to Rio Grande Resources Corporation, an in-situ leach urani m recovery facility located near .
Benevides, Texas.
]
i Appropriate closure of an in-situ leach uranium recovery ite requires a demonstration that the groundwater has been adequately restored, all the well have been closed and plugged according to the appropriate Texas statute, disposal or ransfer of radioactive materialis documented, and radiation survey and confirmatory soi samples indicate that the site meets j unrestricted release requirements.
{
The information you have submitted indicates that the groundwater has been restored by the licensee to the satisfaction of the Texas Natural Res rce Conservation Commission (TNRCC). l All the wells have been plugged and abandoned by t e licensee as authorized by TNRCC. It is (
reported that proper disposition of radioactive materi is took place at the site. There has been I no on-site disposal of radioactive materials; therefor , there is no need to transfer ownership of )
land to the State or the Federal Government.
The Texas Department of Health (TDH) has revie d the results of radiation survey and soil I samples submitted by the licensee and performed onfirmatory surveys for the subject site. 1 According to the TDH report, the background rad' tion exists at the site and analysis of soil l samples indicater that average radium 226 and u anium concentrations were below release i criteria of 5 pCi/g and 30 pCi/g, respectively. Th statements made in the September 15,1998 and March 31,1999 submittals indicate that the DH has adequately determined that all licence obligations have been met by the licensee.
The most recent review of the Texas Agreeme State Program, conducted under the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation P ogram (IMPEP) in June,1997, indicates that the Texas program is adequate to protect public h alth and safety, and compatible with NRC's program. This finding is consistent with the pr vious Texas program evaluations. Based on our review of the above information and in accord nee with 10 CFR 150.15a(a), we concur that all applicable standards and requirements ave een met for the termination of the Radioactive Material License No. LO1234.
l If we can be of further assistance in t is reg rd, please contact me or Kevin Hsueh at (301) 415 2598. g Sincerely, poc ppd Paul H. Lohaus, Director g Office of State Programs Distribution:
i DIR RF DSollenberger DCD (SP08)
SDroggitis - JMyers, ASPO PDR (YES_f_ NO Texas File
)
M .g77 l
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\KPH\RATRGR.W yo #j j S T r.e.sv. . eopy or ini. o eum.nt, indie.t. in in. box: -c p.A ut eit.cnmente.ncio.ur. ft gf pA g g ,jf--q I OFFICE OSF?. , , l
. OM/ NMSS r . copy l
wiin attaenm.
OGC erri
- n NAME KHsueh:klFNN PHLoh'aus_ ' / CPaperiello SATrcLy #"
DATE 04/>3 /99 04R1'/98 04/ /99 04/[f/99 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-27
/ f
Mr. Richird A. R;tliff, P.E., Chiaf Bur u of Radi tion Control '
Tm.s D:pirtm:nt of H cith 1100 West 49th Str::t ,
, Austin, Texas 78756-3198
Dear Mr. Ratliff:
l 1
We have completed our review of your September 15, 1998 and March 31,1999 submittals regarding the proposed termination of the Radioactive N aterial License No. LO1234, issued to Rio Grande Resources Corporation, an in-situ leach uralium recovery facility located near Benevides, Texas.
Appropriate closure of an in-situ leach uranium recover) site requires a demonstration that the groundwater has been adequately restored, all the wells have been closed and plugged according to the appropriate Texas statute, disposal or ransfer of radioactive materialis documented, and radiation survey and confirmatory soil samples indicate that the site meets unrestricted release requirements.
The information you have submitted indicates that the ( roundwater has been restored by the licensee to the satisfaction of the Texas Natural Resoui ce Conservation Commission (TNRCC). !
All the wells have been plugged and abandoned by the licensee as authorized by TNRCC. It is reported that proper disposition of radioactive materials took place at the site. There has been no on-site disposal of radioactive materials; therefore, I bere is no need to transfer ownership of land to the State or the Federal Government.
The Texas Department of Health (TDH) has reviewed 1he results of radiation survey and soil samples submitted by the licensee and performed con 1irmatory surveys for the subject site.
According to the TDH report, the background radiation exists at the site and analysis of soil i samples indicates that average radium-226 and uranium concentrations were below release l criteria of 5 pCi/g and 30 pCi/g, respectively. The statements made in the September 15,1998 and March 31,1999 submittals indicate that the TDH Las adequately determined that all license obligations have been met by the licensee.
The most recent review of the Texas Agreement State Program, conducted under the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Prograrr (IMPEP) in June,1997, indicates that the Texas program is adequate to protect public health ar d safety, and compatible with NRC's program. This finding is consistent with the previous "exas program evaluations. Based on our review of the above information and in accordance wiih 10 CFR 150.15a(a), we concur that all applicable standards and requirements have been me t for the termination of the Radioactive Material License No. LO1234.
If we can be of further assistance in this regard, pleas e contact me or Kevin Hsueh at (301) 415-2598.
Sncerely, Paul H. Lohaus, Director C 'ffice of State Programs Distribution:
DIR RF DSollenberger DCD (SP08)
SDroggitis JMyers, ASPO PDR (YESJ_ NO )
Texas File MVirgilio, NMSS DOCUMENT NAME: G:\KPH\RATRGR.W "See previous concurrence.
T* receive a copf of this document, Indicate in the box: "C" g' iute attachment /encloi "E" = Copy with attachment ur
/ enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE OSFh a , O$$ l NMSS l OGC NAME KHsueh:kFNN PHLoh'aus_ # CPaperiello SATreby DATE 04/23/99 04W/99 04/27/99* 04/ /99 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-27 1
Mr. Rich 1rd A. R tliff, P.E., Chl:f Buratu of Ridittion Control Texis DepIrtmInt of Hralth 1100 West 49th Street i Austin, Texas 78756-3198 l
Dear Mr. Ratliff:
We have completed our review of your September 15,19 8 and March 31,1999 submittals regarding the proposed termination of the Radioactive M erial License No. LO1234, issued to Rio Grande Resources Corpotation, an in situ leach ura um recovery facility located near Benevides, Texas.
Appropriate closure of an in-si'.u leach uranium recove site requires a demonstration that the groundwater has been adequately restored, all the well have been closed and plugged according to the appropriate Texas statute, disposal or transfer of radioactive material is documented, and radiation survey and confirmatory soil samples indicate that the site meets unrestricted release requirements.
The information you have submitted indicates that th groundwater has been restored by the licensee to the satisfaction of the Texas Natural Resburce Conservation Commission (TNRCC).
ihe licensee as authorized by TNRCC. It is All reportedthethat wells properhave been disposition plugged of radioactive mate ead abandoned by/ials took place at the s no on-site disposal of radioactive materials; therefore, there is no need to transfer ownership of land to the State or the Federal Government.
The Texas Department of Health (TDH) has reviewed the results of radiation survey and soil samples submitted by the licensee and performep confirmatory surveys for the subject site.
According to the TDH report, the background radiation exists at the site and analysis of soil samples indicates that average radium 226 and 'uranium concentrations were below release e statements made in the September 15,1998 criteria and March of 5 pCi/g 31,1999 andindicate submittals 30 pCl/g, that therespectively. Th[TDH has adequately deter obligations have been met by the licensee.
The most recent review of the Texas Agreem nt State Program, conducted under the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluationj rogram (IMPEP) in June,1997, indicates that the Texas program is adequate to protect publicpealth and safety, and compatible with NRC's program. This finding is consistent with the previous Texas program evaluations. Based on our review of the above information and in accofdance with 10 CFR 150.15a(a), we concur that all applicable standards and requirements hav been met for the termination of the Radioactive Material License No. LO1234.
If we can be of further assistance in this regard, please contact me or Kevin Hsueh at (301) 415-2598.
Sincerely, Paul H. Lohaus, Director Office of State Programs Distribution:
DIR RF DSollenberger DCD (SP08)
SDroggitis JMyers, ASPO PDR (YES_f_ NO )
Texas File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\KPH\RATRGR.
Tm receive e cop r of thle document. Indicate in the bor *C" attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure *N* = No copy OFFICE OSl?.,, ,l OFM l NMSS / OGC NAME KHsueh:kFNN PHLoh'auf ' CPaperiello f SATreby DATE 04/>3 /99 04Rf'/99 04h /99 04/ /99 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-27
/
I
f ,
l 1 Termination of Uranium Licenses in Agreement States Reviewer Guidance Licensee: Rio Grande Resources Corporation (RGR)
Licensee No.: LO1234 Location: Benevides, Texas Area: approximately 6,270 acres Tyy of License: Non-conventional (in-situ leach) uranlurr mill license Full i partial License Termination: Full license termination 1
l The following items were reviewed based on the OSP procedure SA-900 ' Termination of Uranium Mill Licenses in Agreement States."
1
- 1. A brief description of licensee's activities associated with license termination.
l l l Comment: This information is provided in the TDH letter dated September 15,1998.
- 2. Groundwater information which demonstrates that the groundwater has been adequately !
restored to meet the State restoration criteria. l 1
- Comment
- This information is provided in the TNRCC letter dated July 21,1995.
- 3. Documentation that the production, injection, and monitoring wells have been closed and ;
plugged in accordance with the State criteria. Such documentation could be a copy of '
correspondence from the State to the licensee which confirms that all wells have been '
closed and plugged in accordance with the State criteria or a statement from the appropriate State regulatory agency to that effect.
Comment: This information is provided in the TNRCC inspection report dated February 25,1998.
- 4. Decommissioning information which documents that all contaminated materials have been removed from site.
Comment: This information is provided in the TDH letter dated September 15,1998, I and also in the licensee reports "Palangana Uranium Operations" and
" Procedures for Conducting Decontamination, Decommissioning, Radiological Surveys and Soil Sampling in Support of License Termination."
l
- 5. Discussion of results of radiation survey and confirmatory soil samples which indicates that the subject site meets unrestricted release requirements.
Comment: This information is provided in the TDH letter dated September 15,1998 and in a fax dated April 20,1999 from Eugene Forrer.
I 1
l
- 6. Discussion of results of the State's site closure inspection.
Comment: This information is provided in the TDH inspection report dated June 4, 1998.
Comment: Based on 1997 IMPEP review, the Texas uranium recovery regulatory program was found satisfactory with recommendations for improvement.
After reviewing the above information, the reviewer recommends that we concur in the State's determination and in accordance with 10 CFR 150.15a(a) have determined that all applicable standards have been met.
i I
l Reviewer: . tTk Kevin Hsueli Date: 42/!fk i
l 1
l
3 acMspos) ABS, f
chm TDH A
3 <
z Texas Department of Health William R. Archer m, M.D. 1100 West 49th Street Patti J. Patterson. M.D., M.P.H.
Commissioner Austin. Texas 78756 3189 Executive Deputy Commissioner
($12) 458-7111
, Radiation Control (512) 834-6688 sn Q
g September 15,1998 r3 1
3 9
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission o' ATfN: Richard Bangart, Director Office of State Programs Mail Stop 03H2O Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Bangart:
kk l has received a request to terminate Radioactive The Texas Material Department License No. L01234,ofissued Health to (TDH)Rio Grande Resources Corporation, located nea Benevides, Texas.
This site was operated from 1968 to 1986 when production operations were ceased. The license authorized in siin leach mining and processmg.
From 1986 until 1995 groundwater restoration was performed along with limited surface reclamation. The TexasTVater Commission authorized ceasing groundwater restoration and final plugging of all wells in the Fall of 199,5 (Enclosure 1). Folro' wing plugging of all wells, i full scale surTace reclamation and decommisslomng began.
all material 6 o4 1y uent was surveyed for During surface reclamation and decommissioninfor equi radioactive contamination. Any material and disposed of by utilizing one of the following methods: pment whi2El was transfer to another decontaraination licensed and release mine site; icted use; or for unrestr *so
! disposal at a licensed byproduct disposal facility. 3 i Proper disposal of all material and/or equipment was documented by the_ icensee.
! Surveys to confirm the effectiveness of reclamation and decom ubng activities were 3erformed by direct and/or swipe surveys of equipment and structures to be turned over to the
- andowner, direct survey of land by talang readings at 10 meter intervals across the wellfield aattern. Soil samples
- icensee subsequently weretermination requested taken from three of their 10 meter by(Enclosure 2).10 meter areas pe license I Reclamation and decommissioning activities were completed in 1997.
l ,
6P-M- 27 490 h
- Richard tember Bangart 1,1998 gg up plw( h I'Xu W NsyJou$ W (msyQ)
In August 1993, TDH personnel performed confinnatory surveys of the facility. The surveys /(, $ d, were performed using one-by-one sodium iodide probes and Ludlum 14C survey meters. Two s i times background was used as an allowable limit (Regulatory Guide 5.10, Guidelines for T*//f I Conducting Close Out Surveys of Open Lands and Requesting Release for Unrestricted Use).
l The survey was perforined by walkmg 10 meters apart movmg across the wellfield pattern.
Background readings were approximately 3000 cpm on all meters. Four areas exceeded two times the background levels. These areas were cleaned up by the licensee and resurveyed. 4 Post clean up surveys indicated no levels above background. Soil samples were taken from l a 100 square meter area around the four areas that exceeded two times background. Analysis of all sampics indicated that average radium and uranium concentrations were below the i release criteria of 5 pCi/g and 30 pCi/g, respectively.
On-site disposal of solid radioactive material or byproduct material was not authorized at this I facility, thus there is no land to be transferred to the State of Texas or the Federal Government.
Enclosure 3). All i As dataasupporting result ofour these findings, proposal is kept onwefile,are andproposing available, at to TDHterminate should this license (it be necessai reference at a future date. Please advise if the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission wishes i
additional material or information in order to make a determination regarding concurrence with ou_rproposal to terminate this license. If additional information is required, please contact Mr. Eugene Forrer of my staff.
l As maintaining this site places an undu'e economic burden and hardship on the licensee we request expeditious processing of this request.
Sincerely, ,j Richard A. Ratliff, P ., C ief Bureau of Radiation ntrol .
Enclosures 1
FAX TRANSMISSION DIVISION OF LICENSINc, REGISTRATION, AND STANDARDS l BUREAU OF RADI ATION CONTROL l
i 100 West 497w AusTim, TDrAS 78755 (512 834-6660 FM; (51 El 834-0690 To: Kevin Hsuch Date: April 20,1999 Fax #: (301)415-3502 Pages: 2, including this cover sheet.
From: Eugene Foner
Subject:
Palanga Letter (LO1234)
COMMENTS:
Let me know if you need anything else.
r7 AP) cO-GJ 10 23 ~ MJGM s TDH-CADI ATI ON CONTROL IDe812 334 ESCS PAGE 2/2 h l l
lM l! lien 8 t
In January 1998, TDH personnel performed confirmatory surveys of the facility. The surveys were performed using one-by-one sodium iodide probes and Ludlum 14C survey meters. Two times background was used as an allowable limit (Regulatory Guide 5.10 I
Guidelines for Conducting Close Out Surveys of Open Lands and Requesting Release for Unrestricted Use). The survey was performed by walking 10 meters apart moving across the well field pattern. Background readings were approximately 3000 cpm on all meters.
Thirteen areas exceeded two times the background levels. These areas were cleaned up by the licensee and resurveyed. Post clean up surveys indicated Five acres still exceeded two times background. Soil samples were taken from a 100 square meter area around the five areas that exceeded two times background after cleanup. Analysis of all samples indicated ;
that average radium and uranium concentrations were below the release criteria of 5 pCi/g i and 30 pCi/g, respectively except for one area sampled. In April,1998, TDH personnel i
- retumed to the site to resurvey the area. Direct surveys of the area indicated no levels above l background. Soil samples were taken from a 100 square meter area around the area.
Analysis of all samples indicated that average radium and uranium concentrations were below the release criteria of 5 pCi/g and 30 pCi/g, respectively. ,
1 l
i i
i J
I l =
e i
l l
Enclosure 1 l
l I
i
/
l
~ I John HaB. Gelrme.1 13, M s
Paa Reed. Commissioner R. B.* Ralph" Marques. Commissioner
- i' h )
Dan Pearson Krocut/w A,sesor -
TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION hetecting Taras by Reducing and hewnting nellutten July 21, 1995 -
Mr. Kevin L. Raabe, coordinator i Environmental / Safety j Che/ron Resources Company j P.O. Box 1000 ~
Hobson, TX 78117-1000 l
Re:
Restoration Palangana Mine Determination Site, Permit No. of UR02051-011.
Production Area No. 1 of the
Dear Mr. Raabe:
- -~
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission has received the restoration data for Production Area 1 of the Palangana Site. A review of the data indicate that the production area has been i f restored in accordance with.the specifications contained in permit r UR02051-011 and as required by 30 TAC 5 331.107. You are hereby j authorized to cease any restoration monitoring, at this production area.
activities, including / '
p -
Within 120 days of receipt of this letthr, closure of the wellfield shall be accomplished in accordance with the approved plugging and abandonment plans for this site. Allowances on the amount of time necessary to plug the wells may be granted provided that the commission is notified ahead of time. Any changes to the plugging ,
procedures or the plugging schedule must be approved by the Commission.
Please notify the Commission prior to commencing plugging activities to provide the opportunity for TNRCC personnel to be present. If you have any questions, please contact me at 512/239-6636 or Johnny Williamson of the Uranium Team at 512/239-6631.
Sincerely,
! O Dale P. Kohler Uranium Team Leader TDH UIC, Uranium, and Radioactive Waste Section MAy 1 g jggg Industrial and Hazardous Wasta Division DPX/dpk BUREAU OF RADIATION CONTROL cc: Johnny Williamson, UURW Section '
P.O. Box 13087 .
Austin. Texas 787113087 .
512/2391000 i n, v . . m . , . , .
e e
e Enclosure 2 9
1 PALANGANA URANIUM OPERATIONS Introduction De Palangana Project is an in situ leach (ISL) uranium mine started in the 1950's as one of the original ISL test mines in the United States. The project has passed through the various stages of feasibility, pilot testing, development, operation (under multiple testing -
scenarios), standby, and reclamation. Along the way, valuable contributions have been made to the utanium mining industry. Much of the technology currently used in the ISL uranium mining industry in the U.S., was originally tested and developed at Palangana. Today, the mine and plant have been fully decommissioned. Groundwater restoration was achieved by.
July 1994 and declared complete in July 1995 by the TNRCC, after its approval of the j Restoration Table Amendment.
j Location and Desedption The Palangana site is located 6 miles north of the city of Benavides, on Farm to Market (FM) highway 3196, in Duval County, Texas. Palangana's uranium leases cover approximately 6,270 contiguous acres ofland.
l De site facilities included a main building (housing offices, a warehouse, a lab, and maintenance facilities), a processing plant, five PVC lined water storage ponds (ranging from 80,000 to 1,200,000 gallons in capacity), a production well-field, an irrigation area, and a deep disposal well.
Eady history The Palangana Project was originally evaluated as a potential undergroun'd uranium mine site in the late 1950's. Following the sinking of a pilot mine shaft to study the geology, it was determined that the instability of the mineralized zone as well as the presence of hydrogen sulfide gas created conditions undesirable for underground mining.
In the early 1960's an investigation into the possibility of mining the uranium via solution mining method (later termed ISL) was launched. In 1969-70, a two year pilot program was conducted at Palangana to demonstrate the feasibility of this emerging technology. After completing the pilot program, the equipment was dismantled and the project abandoned until 1975.
During this period, several other companies in the U.S. were in the early stages of testing solution mining technology. Early test results demonstrated that this technology had the potential to allow economic access to uranium reserves that were smaller, deeper, and lower grade than reserves fitting the classic open pit mining technology reserve requirement.
Huroricalinformation 1 December 1997 e
l s
Paduction history In 1975, additional drilling and development of the ore body at Palangana was conducted, and in 1976, the project was expanded to full-scale production. Some 1,800 wells were installed in a 30.7 acre area that has become known as Production Area Authorization (PAA) No.1. An additbnal 1,150 wells were installed around the PAA, in a 161.7 acre permit area.
De expansion program of 1976 provided the equipment to drill, case, and place into .
production, an estimated 250 production wells per year. In addition, an ion exchange (IX) plant was installed, with a production capacity of 220,000 pounds of U3 0, per year.
Well completion techniques Three different well completion methods were developed and put into operation at Palangana during the 1970's drilling program. They were (1) four inch integral screens, (2) under reaming, and (3) water jet perforation.
De four inch integral screened wells were the first wells used on a production basis.
His type of completion consisted of four inch PVC slotted screen sections separated by rubber shale traps between ore horizons, Some 750 production wells were completed by the fall of 1976 using this technique. Operating experience on patterns of these type wells quickly indicated problems with the shale traps. Lixiviant was leaking through the traps into the barren sandstone between the ore horizons, significantly reducing overall recovery. In addition, the use of four inch PVC casing with four inch submersible pumps resulted in many pumps being lodged in the casings due to calcium precipitates or formation sands filling the small gaps between the pumps and the casing wall.
In 1977, under teaming was used to counteract some of the problems associated with integral screens. All new well completions were also constructed of five inch, schedule 40, PVC casing. This larger casing size reduced the problem oflodged pumps, as with the four inch casings.
In the under reaming method of well completion, a set of blades was lowered down.
the well on drill pipe to the location of the ore horizon. High pressure water was used to extend the blades outward, and by rotation of the drill stem, the blades would cut through the PVC casing and cement, and into the ore horizon. De maximum diameter of the cut was approximately 11. inches. After the well was under reamed, a removable well screen scaled
)
f to the casing by a packer assembly was in' stalled just above the ore horizon.
{
l Through operating experience with these type wells, several disadvantages to the !
under reaming technique were observed: (1) No satisfactory system ofisolating an under teamed horizon was available, so that another ore horizon in the same well could be under reamed and leached; (2) Under reaming operations required the use of a drilling rig, with
]
xworicanofonurwn 2 Decoder W
m some formations requiring lengthy cuts, thus affecting drill rig utilization; and (3) Under reaming blades would wear out rapidly, and were expensive to refurbish or replace. '
Approximately 250 wells were completed using this technique.
He water jet perforation technique was developed by the Bureau of Mines by 1978.
This operation consisted of lowering a :;pecial high pressure, low volume water nozzle on a l stainless steel tubing, into the PVC casing, to the bottom of the ore horizon, then pumping i
! water at 10,000 psig through the nozzle. He nozzle was then rotated 180 degrees over a l five minute interval. Water flow was then stopped and the nozzle raised one halfinch.
Water flow was again started, and the nozzle was again rotated 180 degrees in the same i direction, thereby perforating the opposite side of the pipe. These staggered perforations l would be repeated until the desired amount of horizon would be perforated.
l Water jet perforation, along with proper well development, offered the most accurate
)
and reliable method of providing access to an ore horizon. Approximately 450 wells were !
completed using this technique. i Well-fieldpatterns andpumping schemes i
l In addition to the various well completion techniques used at Palangana, various well i patterns and pumping schemes were also used. Among these were the push-pull technique
! and modified versions of the classic five spot pattem.
In the pilot stages and the majority of full-scale production, the push-pull technique of L
in-situ leaching was used. This technique involved individual wells completed in the heart of an ore horizon. The wells were fitted with submersible pumps with the capability to perform !
as either an injection or extraction well.
l A well would be started as an injection well with lixiviant added for a predetermined length _of time, then the well would be switched over to an extraction well to recover the '
! injected lixiviant as leach liquor. His technique worked fairly well from the standpoint of l uranium recovery, however, control of grade and overall recovery was very difficult.
i The modified version of the five spot pattern was utilized late in the production phase.
l A simple modification of simply pairing extraction and injection wells to sweep lixiviant
- across a predetermined ore horizon, was used in areas oflower permeability. This technique ;
allowed greater control of grade and recovery, however, due to the presence of clay lensing within the ore bearing zone, communication between selected wells was often distorted.
l l Another modification of the five spot pattern was the alternating line drive technique.
Here a pattern of alternating,. parallel lines of wells was set-up. Each line being either equally spaced injection wells, or equally spaced extraction wells. A line of extraction wells would be operated with an adjacent line. ofinjection wells. Extraction and injection flow rates were controlled to provide the greatest area of coverage by the lixiviant sweeping Mssoricalinfonemation 3 December IN7
- n. l across the ore horizon between the wells. When the area between the wells was deemed depleted of uranium, the line ofinjection wells would be converted to extraction wells, and a i new line of injection wells would be started. He lines of wells would alternate from injection to extraction, and the entire pattern would advance down the field. Like the well pairing technique, the complicated geology of the ore horizon distorted flow paths and affected grade control and recovery.
Reserves l
Extensive delineation drilling was performed in and around the Palangana Dome deposits during the various exploration and development programs. From this data, ore reserves were calculated.
i Ore reserves included in-situ mining reserves of 5.6MM pounds U3 0. within the I Palangana Dome boundary. An additional 2.4MM pounds U3 0, in mineral trends outside the l Dome were projected. j Umnium extmetion ne solution mining process consisted of pumping an ammonium bicarbonate lixiviant, supplemented with an oxidant (hydrogen peroxide and later oxygen), into the ore !
bearing horizon, 250 to 350 feet below surface, via a number ofinjection wells. De l
. uranium minerals were thereby oxidized and dissolved into the ammonium bicarbonate {
. solution. The uranium impregnated bicarbonate solution was then pumped from the formation to the surface via submersible pumps in a series of extraction wells. At the surface, the solution was processed through the IX plant to remove the dissolved uranium.
The solution was then refortified with ammonium bicarbonate and oxidant and re-injected into the formation.
In the processing plant, after the uranium was loaded into the ion exchange resin from the mining solutions, a portion of the resin would be stripped of the uranium by a solution of ammonium chloride. From this stage the ammonium chloride was acidified with hydrochloric acid, then the uranium was precipitated using anhydrous ammonia. De uranium precipitate was filtered into a final product, wet filter cake (called yellowcake) which was then shipped to another facility for further purification, drying, and final p:.ekaging.
Production battles at Palangana were hard fought, however rarely won. From this, came a growing understanding of the importance of selection of an ore horizon based on desirable geological and hydrological characteristics, in addition to mineralization.
Palangana had few of these desirable characteristics, given its' low permeability and numerous inter-bedded clay lenses. As a result, the total production of U 3 0, from Palangana, at the end of 1979, was reported at only 314,000 pounds.
Missoricalinfamansion 4 December 2M7 O
1 In 1978, a task force was formed to evaluate the technology and economics of the project. In October,1979 the recommendation was made to terminate production and put the project on standby. In 19,81, the project was re-evaluated nad the recommendation was made to keep it on standby due to declining market conditions. Due to continued depressed market conditions, in February,1986, the decision was made to place the project in a full reclamation mode.
Reclamation Restoration of Production Area Authorization No. I at the Palangana Site in Duval County, was initiated in September,1986. The restoration method used at that time was groundwater sweep starting on the southern boundary and progressing in a northern direction. Water was extracted from the well-field (no re-injection) and either used for irrigation or disposed ofin a deep disposal well. Using the groundwater sweep method without re injection created a hydraulic sink which resulted in native groundwater being drawn into the area.
The groundwater sweep restoration efforts continued until July,1992. At this time it was discontinued to pilot test a different restoration technology aimed at accelerating groundwater restoration. This technology used calcium as a mechanism to accelente the slow release rate of ammonia from the clay sites, thus accelerating the overall groundwater restoration process. This would be followed by reverse osmosis (RO) to reduce the final total dissolved solids.
Pilot testing was completed in February,1993. Results indicated the addition of calcium to flush ammonia from the aquifer was unsuccessful. On the other hand, the use of reverse osmosis to rapidly improve the water quality was clearly demonstrated. Based on these findings, the decision was made to proceed into an Accelerated Restoration Program (ARP) using reverse osmosis only.
Following the completion of the pilot program in February,1993, the 50 gpm leased RO unit (used in the pilot program) continued to operate on well field waters. As during the pilot testing, RO concentrate solution was disposed of via deep well injection, with RO permeate water being re injected into the mined aquifer. At this time, it was decided to add a 250 gpm RO unit.
In April,1993, the 50 gpm leased RO unit was purchased and added to the circuit.
' Itis marked the beginning of the ARP. In May,1993, the 50 gpm unit was retrofitted with additional rnembranes to increase its capacity to 100 gpm, bringing the total RO processing capacity to 350 gpm. In August,1993, the program was given a boost when a second 250 gpm RO unit was purchased and installed, bringing the total RO processing capacity to a maximum 600 gpm.
Historicalhfomanon 5 December M
t
~
C Also in August,1993, a higher pressure, higher capacity injection pump was purchased and installed on the Deep Disposal Well'to increase the injection rate. De new pump, along with frequent acid stimulations of the well, increased the disposal rate to a maximum of 120 gpm. -
All restoration fluids extracted from, and re-injected into, the mined aquifer were through existing class III wells. No new wells were installed.
During the last half of 1993, a total of approximately 85 million gallons (1.8 pore volumes) of restoration fluid from the mined aquifer was processed through the RO circuit.
Approximately 80% of this volume was recycled and re-injected back into the aquifer as low conductivity RO permeate. De balance was disposed ofin the deep disposal well.
Restoration of the mined aquifer using groundwater sweep was conducted from 1986 through mid-1992, for a total of approximately seven pore volumes of water extracted from the aquifer. Accelerated restoration of the aquifer using reverse osmosis was conducted from April 1993 through July 1994, for a total of approximately five additional pore volumes
("PV") of water treated. The grand total of water volume treated since 1986 was approximately 12.5 PV, which is equivalent to approximately 585 million gallons.
j The deep disposal well ("WDW-134") was plugged and its surface site reclaimed in September 1995. All of the Class III w' ells, over 3,000 wells including the PAA wells, were successfully plugged in,the fall of 1995.
[Ilem A Surface decommissioning and decontamination of the plant site and the FAA area has now been accomplished. All byproduct materials (including piping, concrete, process equipment, contaminated soil, etc.) have been disposed ofin the Panna Maria tailings pond facility (RW 2402).
Pending the state regulatory agency's final radiological verification survey, any areas where soils were removed will be regraded, top soiled and re-vegetated. Once adequate decontamination has been demonstrated and the operating license has been terminated, the propeny will be released for unrestricted use.
Missorka!Information 6 Dewder M7
.