ML20209F437
| ML20209F437 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/20/1999 |
| From: | William Ford NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Paperiello C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209F412 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9907160023 | |
| Download: ML20209F437 (18) | |
Text
,,
October 20,1998 c
TO:
Carl J. Paperiello, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEW CONCERNING NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGULATION OF LIQUID EFFLUENTS FROM IN SITU LEACH URANIUM EXTRACTION FACILITIES Please find attached my professional view on Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulation of liquid effluents from in situ leach uranium extraction facilities. Contrary to current and proposed staff practice, I believe that the liquid effluent from in situ leach uranium extraction facilities should be considered as 11e.(2) byproduct material. I am opposed to the current staff practice whereby some liquid effluent releases are regulated by the NRC while some are not. I am also opposed to a proposed staff alternative; whereby the NRC would relinquish all regulatory authority over liquid effluent releases. I am aware that the staff is preparing a Commission Paper on this subject which includes the staff's proposed alternative. Since this professional view also differs with current staff practice, I request that this professional view be considered by the agency, even if the staff withdraws or delays submittal of the Commission Paper.
I am also aware that the staff is preparing a Commission Paper recommending that NRC
)
remove itself from the review of groundwater protection at in situ leach faciiities by relying on the Environmental Protection Agency Underground injection Control Program. My professional view on liquid effluents would be the same wether or not the NRC relied on the Environmental Protection Agency Underground injection Control Program.
Should the agency so desire I hereby grant my permission to place in the public document file J
this differing professional view and to identify me as the author. If you have any questi5ns, I can be reached at (301) 415-6630. As the staff member assigned with the task of preparing the Draft and Final' Standard Review Plans for in Situ Leach Uranium Extraction Facilities",1 would like to thank you for this opportunity to express my viewpoint on this issue.
h hh William H. Ford Hydrogeologist Uranium Recovery Branch
)
cc:
M. Knapp, NMSS J. Greeves, DWM M. Weber, DWM J. Holonich, URB J. Hickey, LLDP J. Park, URB M. Layton, URB r
9907160023 990712 PDR ORG NOMA j
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEW CONCERNING NRC REGULATION OF IN SITU LEACH URANIUM EXTRACTION IMPOUNDMENTS SUBMITTED BY WILLIAM H. FORD HYDROGEOLOGIST, URANIUM RECOVERY BRANCH OCTOBER 20,1998
SUMMARY
OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED STAFF VIEWS AND PROFESSIONAL VIEW Contrary to current and proposed staff practice, I believe that the liquid effluent from in situ leach uranium extraction facilities should be considered as 11e.(2) byproduct material. I am opposed to the current staff practice whereby some liquid effluent releases are regulated by the NRC while some are not. I am also opposed to a proposed staff alternative; whereby the NRC would relinquish all regulatory authority over liquid effluent releases.
Uranium in situ leach facilities produce uranium by using wells to circulate water cc%ining chemicals which mobilize and transport uranium and other chemical constituents through an aquifer. When the water is pumped to the surface the uranium recovery plant removes the uranium prior to returning the water to the aquifer. When uranium extraction activities in a well field are no longer economically viable the groundwater quality in the aquifer is restored. At in situ leach facilities, liquid waste streams originate from (1) the uranium recovery plant, (2) aquifer restoration activities, and (3) the production bleed from the well field. The production bleed consists of groundwater extracted from the aquifer during the uranium recovery
]
operations in excess of injected water and is used to maintain a net groundwater inflow into the l
uranium extraction zone. At in situ leach facilities, management of liquid waste has involved such disposal practices as release to surface waters, evaporation from lined impoundments, land application, and deep well injection.
DESCRIPTION OF PROFESSIONAL VIEW AND DIFFERENCES WITH STAFF VIEWS Historically the NRC has held that all liquid effluents from in situ leach facilities are 11e.(2) byproduct material. The NRC followed this approach until 1995. The historic approach has
~
several advantages:
1a.
It assures that any health, safety, and environmental risks from the disposal of impoundment sludges and contaminated equipment will be at acceptable levels. The disposal of this material in an 11e.(2) disposal site means that, as required by 10 CFR 40, air, water, and solid releases will be kept to acceptable levels.
2a.
It discourages onsite disposal and the creation of many small disposal sites of radioactive material, and encourages site operators to reduce the volume of radioactive waste requiring disposal.
Page 1 of 6 r
.s 3a.
It provides a clear definition of NRC regulatory responsibility in the clean up of contaminated soil, equipment, impoundment sludge, and in the regulation of emissions from 11e.(2) facilities.
It provides a strong guarantee that there will be a location to dispose of contaminated 4a.
material from the uranium recovery process.
Sa.
It is internally consistent with previous Office of General Council written decisions about NRC regulatory responsibility over 11e.(2) byproduct material facilities.
6a.
It is consistent with commitments made to the public in environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, that contaminated impoundment sludges and material will not be disposed of onsite.
It is one of the recommended approaches identified on page 132 of the National Mining 7a.
Association White Paper titled " Recommendations for a Coordinated Approach to Regulating the Uranium Recovery industry" which was presented before the Commission on June 17,1998 (Attachment A).
l Effluent produced by the uranium recovery plant and by the production bleed is defined as the
" process bleed" Since 1995, the NRC staff have considered the process bleed to be 11e.(2) i byproduct material, while the liquid effluent produced by groundwater restoration activities is not. This effluent is defined as naturally occurring radioactive material or technologically enhanced radioactive material. Therefore, NRC does not license this material.
Current staff practice has several disadvantages.
i The justification for defining groundwater undergoing restoration as non 11e.(2) 1b.
byproduct material is weak. This is because the groundwater was directly contaminated by an 11e.(2) process that was used to extract uranium and because in the early phases of groundwater restoration; uranium is extracted to supplement the production of uranium by the recovery plant.
Defining groundwater undergoing restoration as non 11e.(2) byproduct material has the 2b.
potential to weaken NRC regulatory authority over liquid, air, and solid emissions from 11e.(2) facilities and the decommissioning and cleanup of those facilities. For example, this approach sets the precedent that contamination caused by an 11e.(2) facility does not fall within the regulatory jurisdiction of the NRC (Attachment B). This means that other emissions or areas contaminated by 11e.(2) facilities will be increasingly vulnerable to challenges that such contamination is outside the NRCs authority. For example, the present approach defines groundwater undergoing restoration as non 11e.(2) byproduct material. This is in turn quite naturally calls into question NRCs regulatory authority to require restoration of the groundwater. Alternatively, if groundwater contaminated by 11e.(2) site activities is not considered to be under NRCs regulatory authority, then how can contaminated equipment, soil, and other materials contaminated by 11e.(2) facility activities fall within NRCs jurisdiction?
Page 2 of 6
3b.
Current staff practice is creating disagreements between licensees and the NRC over NRCs regulatory authority at in situ leach facilities. To comply with the current practice an accurate determination (supported by acceptable documentation) of the origin of the waste water placed in an impoundment is important because the origin of the water determines the regulatory responsibility for the impoament and the final disposal of the impoundment material (Attachment B).
Solid waste from impoundments that held only processing water are 11e.(2) byproduct material. However, solid waste from impoundments that held only water from groundwater restoration activities are not under NRCs regulatory authority.
Solid waste from impoundments that held a mixture of procers waste water i J water from groundwater restoration activities is considered 11e.(2) byproduct materisi if process waste water was the predominant source of water in the impoundment.
Whereas, if the predominant source of water in the impoundment was water from groundwater restoration activities, it will not be regulated by the NRC as 11e.(2) byproduct material. If a licensee wants to exercise this option, the current staff practice recuires the NRC staff to consult with the Commission. Since, most of the solid waste sent to impoundments at in situ leach facilities is from groundwater restoration activities, use of this approach will probably classify most of the impoundment solid waste as non 11e.(2) byproduct material.
Impoundments containing only process waste water cr a mixture of process waste water and water from groundwater restoration activities, must be designed, operated, and decommissioned in accordance with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, whereas impoundments containing only water from groundwater restoration activities do not.
The same logic of regulatory authority based on the pedigree of the waste water applies to land application of waste, deep well injection of waste, contaminated plant equipment, and soils contaminated from spills and leaks.
This will create disagreements between licensees, the NRC and the public, over what the NRC regulates. It may also force licensees to be burdened with increased paper work to justify the regulatory pedigree of an area of contaminated soil, a piece of contaminated equipment, or impoundment solid waste. Furthermore it may also encourage licensees to implement inefficient plant and well field designs solely to maintain the regulatory pedigree of plant equipment and processes (i.e. separate pipelines, land application facilities, impoundments, etc.).
4b.
State governments may also be encouraged to regulate 11e.(2) disposal facilities.
Commingled waste generated from or largely from groundwater restoration activities may have already been sent to 11e.(2) disposal sites. This means that States may view those sites to be a mixed waste site containing 11e.(2) byproduct material and naturally occurring radioactive material or technologically enhanced radioactive material and therefore subject to State regulation.
5b.
Health, safety, and environmental risks will be increased by encouraging onsite disposal and the creation of many small disposal sites of racioactive material. Most of the Page 3 of 6
radionuclide contamination (radium, uranium, thorium, and lead-210) will be generated by groundwater restoration liquid waste streams. Onsite disposal has the potential to create many small disposal sites, which could cause future health and safety issues similar to the vicinity properties associated with the Title I program (clean up of former Atomic Energy Commission uranium extraction sites).
6b.
Alternatively, it is also possible that current staff practice will make it very difficult for some licensees to locate disposal sites that will sccept contaminated material. Existing 11e.(2) disposal sites may demand detailed documentation of the regulatory pedigree of the material before they would accept contaminated equipment and material from an in situ leach facility. Alternatively, any sites that take only naturally occurring radioactive material or technologically enhanced radioactive material may demand the same documentation to prevent the introduction of 11e.(2) byproduct material into their operations. Finally, States have awarded permits and licenses on the understanding that in situ leach facilities will not dispose of contaminated equipment and material onsite. If States continue to enforce these commitinents, licensees may not have a place to dispose of their contaminated material.
7b.
The current staff practice was enticized as'being illogical, inconsistent and unpredictable by the National Mining Association in their White Paper titled " Recommendations for a Coordinated Approach to Regulating the Uranium Recovery Industry" (on page 132 of Attachment A, presented before the Commission on June 17,1998).
8b.
It is likely that the original objective of the current staff practice will not be achieved and is unworthy of the manpower and cost that will be required of the NRC and the licensees to implement. It is my understanding that this approach was developed to provide licensees regulatory relief to discharge effluents to surface water (page A-1, and Tables A1 and A2 of the April,1995," Staff Technical Position on Effluent Disposal at Licensed Uranium Recovery Facilities"(Attachment C). However, licensees have reported (Attachment D) that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers all liquid effluents from in situ facilities to surface waters to be process waters and that EPA, in accordance with 40 CFR 440.34 (Attachment E) does not allow new in situ leach facilities to discharge process waste water to navigable waters. This same observation was made by the National Mining Association in their White Paper titled
" Recommendations for a Coordinated Approach to Regulating the Uranium Recovery industry" submitted before the Commission on June 17,1998 (paragraph 1, page 129, Attachment A). To my knowledge no in situ leach operators licensed by the NRC presently discharge liquid effluents to surface waters.
NRC staff are considering another regulatory alternative to the regulation of liquid effluent at in situ leach facilities. At the time this professional view was written, the attemative was going through staff revisions. However, it is my understanding that the basis of this new alternative is that the process bleed would no longer be considered as 11e.(2) byproduct material. This means that the design, construction, and operation of the surface water impoundments would no longer be subject to NRC regulation. Since this alternative would also eliminate the issue of the comixing of process and water from groundwater restoration activities, it also implies that Page 4 of 6
land application and deep well disposal activities should no longer be subject to NRC regulation.
This alternative has several disadvantages.
i c.
The justification for defining the process bleed as non 11e.(2) byproduct material is even weaker. The process bleed at in situ facilities originates from the uranium recovery plant and from the production bleed. The production bleed is groundwater extracted from the aquifer during the uranium recovery operation to maintain a net groundwater inflow into the recovery zone. This bleed is used to control the 11e.(2) byprcduct material process so that groundwater contamination does not leave the area of uranium extraction in the aquifer. Furthermore, before the bleed is pumped to impoundments or some other method of disposal, the uranium contained in the bleed is removed as part of the routine process of uranium extraction. Therefore, both bleeds are a direct result of uranium extraction activities.
It has also been argued among the staff that the production bleed makes up the major portion of the process bleed. However, depending of the facility the percentage of production bleed varies from a small to a significant amount. This difference may simply reflect how the particular facility chooses to classify it's bleeds. For example, in those facilities where the production bleed is reported to be a large, the facility pumps most of
)
its plant discharge into the pipes that retum the water to the well field. It then removes the production bleed from those same pipes so that on paper it appears that only a j
small part of the process bleed is from the plant. In any case, it seems very difficult to argue that both the plant and production bleeds do not originate from an 11e.(2) facility actively engaged in the processing of uranium.
2c Defining the process bleed as non 11e.(2) byproduct material has an even greater potential to weaken NRC regulatory authority over liquid, air, and solid emissions from 11e.(2) facilities and the decommissioning and cleanup of those facilities. With one exception, all the arguments apply to this alternative as previously discussed under paragraph "2b". The inclusion of the process bleed as non 11e.(2) byproduct material makes an even stronger case that the NRCs regulatory authority does not apply to discharges from 11e.(2) byproduct facilities.
3c.
This altemative may create disagreements between licensees and the NRC over NRCs regulatory authority at in situ leach facilities. Using this alternative, the regulatory pedigree of the water would still be important in defining NRC regulatory authority over contaminated plant equipment, and soils contaminated from spills and leaks.
4c.
State governments may be encouraged to regulate 11e.(2) disposal facilities. Non 11e.(2) byproduct material has already been sent to 11e.(2) disposal sites. This may mean that States may view the 11e.(2) disposal site as a mixed waste site containing 11e.(2) byproduct material and naturally occurring radioactive material or technologically enhanced radioactive material and therefore subject to State regulation.
Page 5 of 6 1
Sc.
Health, safety, and environmental risks will be increased by onsite disposal and the creation of many small disposal sites of radioactive material (see discussion for paragraph "5b").
6c.
It may be difficult for some licensees to locate disposal sites that will accept contaminated material (see discussion for paragraph "6b").
7c.
The original motivation for this alternative is not worth the man' power and cost to implement that will be required of the NRC and licensees. It is my understanding that this alternative is being developed to eliminate the need to conduct " dam safety" inspections by NRC staff. However, it is also my understanding that there are only two in situ leach facilities with impoundments that require inspection and that these facilities would be inspected once every three years (each inspection is estimated to take one day).
8c.
This alternative contains many of the criticisms made by the National Mining Association in their White Paper titled " Recommendations for a Coordinated Approach to Regulating the Uranium Recovery Industry (on pages 126 to 132, Attachment A, presented to the Commission on June 17,1998). Some of these issues are identified in paragraphs '8b, 4c, and Ec" of this position paper.
Assessnerit of Consequences Should Position Not Be Adopted By Agency Contrary to current and proposed staff practice, I believe that the liquid effluent from in situ leach uranium extraction facilities should be considered as 11e.(2) byproduct material. I am opposed to the current staff practice whereby some liquid effluent releases are regulated by the NRC while some are not. I am also opposed to a proposed staff alternative; whereby the NRC would relinquish all regulatory authority over liquid effluent releases, The curre.nt staff practice j
and the proposed attemative would require licensee's and the NRC to spend increased j
resources caused by disagreements over regulatory authority and locating acceptable waste
)
disposal sites. They also (1) weaken NRC cuthority over the regulation of 11e.(2) byproduct j
material sites in general and (2) en. courage State govemments to extend their regulatory contro!
j to.11e.(2) byproduct disposal sites. Both approaches increase health, safety, and environmental risks by encouraging onsite disposal and the creation of many small disposal sites of radioactive material. In my view, the economic costs to the govemment and industry; j
as well as the long term risks to public health and safety, make the current staff practice and proposed alternative unsuitable.
4 Page 6 of 6 t
F
, -..,j,
i Attachment A Selected pages from National Mining Association White Paper titled
" Recommendations for a Coordinated Approach to Regulating the Uranium Recovery industry" presented before the Commission on June 17,1998 (Relevant Text Marked)
A
__.i,..
i Recommendations for a Coordinated Approach to Regulating the Uranium Recovery industry:
A White Paper Presented By National Mining Association Foundation For America's Future Prepared by
=
Anthony J. Thompson Warren U.Lehrenbaum Katie Sweeney Paul Gormley l
Associate General Counsel David H. Kim National Mining Association Shaw Pittman Potts &Trowbridge t
x j
an ISL facility, EPA's UIC program satisfies "NRC concems about the safety of subsurface injection (i.e., well construction, geology, groundwater, etc.)."E NMA agrees fully with this view, but fails to ee why it is not equally applicable to injection and production wells at ISL wellfields.
D.
NRC's Liouid Effluent Guidance As a practical matter, NRC staffs misapplication and misuse of the AEA jurisdictional definitions has put ISL licensees in an awkward position. This is panicularly troublesome in the context of handling ISL liquid effluents.
1.
Effluent at ISL Facilities As described above, typically there are several types ofliquid effluent produced at an ISL wellfield facility, For example, production bleed is the groundwater removed from the aquifer in excess of water injected to ensure that there is a " pressure sink" in the ore body, to prevent excursions outside of the mining zone, and to inhibit the build up of contaminants in the ore body
]
and mining fluids. Additionally, elution and yellowcake precipitation activities generate wastewater, as do restoration activities once the wellfield ceases operation. For most of these effluents, licensees have a variety of disposal options available, including land application, solar evaporation, deep well disposal in appropriate cases or discharge to surface water. As a practical matter. cenain of the liquid wastes including particularly the bleed and discarded restoration fluids often are commingled prior to treatment in radium / barium senlement ponds and, thus, any resulting sludges are commingled as well.
Slides provided at NRC meeting to discuss public comment on the Draft ISL Standard Review Plan (February E
23.1998) [ hereinafter ISL SRP Slides].
126 y
2.
NRC's Reauirements for Effluent Disposal In 1995, NRC staff drafted a guidance document that was intended 'to assist licensees with their liquid waste disposal. This document, the " Staff Technical Position on Effluent Disposal at Licensed Uranium Recovery Facilities" (Effluent Disposal STP),2 provides that licensed UR facilities must submit to NRC a site-specific proposal for effluent disposal. This proposal will be approved by NRC ifit complies with NRC and EPA requirements. For example, the Effluent Disposal STP provides that any release ofliquid waste to surface water must comply with EPA NPDES regulations. However, because NRC staff misunderstands the EPA requirements, and because the Commission staff has applied its definitions inconsistently, the Effluent Disposal STP presents some difficulties for UR licensees. As described more fully in this section, these problems are most obvious in the context of an ISL UR facility. NRC staff recently has sought to address some of these concems for ISL operators in its response to comments on its Draft ISL Standard Review Plan, however, this panicular effort further shows the impracticality and unworkability of NRC's approach to regulating ISL facilities.
As a threshold matter, NRC acknowledges the distinction in EPA's NPDES regulations betweenprocessiproduction wastewaters and mine (restoration) wastewaters.& As explained in the Effluent Disposal STP, NRC defines as process / production wastewater any effluents that are created during actual UR operations, such as production bleed (groundwater extracd from the aquifer during recovery operators) and liquid waste from the mill. On the other hand, mine (restoration) wastewater includes any water from post operational groundwater sweep and E Directive DWM 95-01 (Apr.1995)[ hereinafter Effluent Disposal STP]
E Effluent Disposal STP at 5.
127
i groundwater extracted to restore water quality after production operations have ceased (i.e.,
restoration wastewaters).
As the Commission recos,nizes, NRC does not license mine restoration wastewater.E Rather,if they are to be discharged these mine restoration wastewaters must comply with EPA NPDES regulations. On the other hand, the Effluent Disposal STP provides that the disposal of byproduct material in effluents (e.g., process / production wastewaters) must comply with NRC regulations.E Recogmzmg that process /productic:
uers and mine restoration wastewaters frequently are commingled in the same ponds, NRC's Effluent Disposal STP provided licensees I
with two options for the release of these liquids to surface waters. First, a licensee may categorize its wastewater streams flowing into the pond as either mine wastewater or process / production wastewater. In this situation, if both input streams are within applicable NRC and EPA NPDES limits, then the resulting mixture of wastewaters may be released to surface waters.E -Altematively, if a licensee decides not to categorize and monitor its commingled effluents by incoming wastewater stream, the licensee must show that the mixture in the ponds complies with the NRC standards in 10 C.F.R. Part 20 before releasing the effluents to surface water.E C
ISL SRP. Slides. However, the Commission still suggests that it can impose specific license conditions to remediate anticipated impacts from these mine wastes. /d. Presumably. NRC is relying on the " supplemental jurisdiction" provided by NEPA. As explained above, however, NEPA does not provide any such supplemental jurisdiction.
M*-
Effluent Disposal STP at 2. The Effluent Disposal STP specifically referred to 10 C.F.R. Part 20. Subpart K.
C Effluent Disposal STP at 6.
2 Id.
9 128
One problem with NRC's Effluent Disposal STP is that it conflicts with EPA regulations expresslyprohibiting the release of process / production wastewaters from any ISL facility at which construction began after December 3,1982.E Accordingly, a discharge to surface water of a mixture of mine/ restoration and proce.-
1 i
i i
Attachment B May 5,1998 Letter to Ms. Ruthe E. McBurney, CHPiDirector Division of Licensing, Registration, and Standards Buureau of Radiation Control Texas Department of Health l
(Relevant Text Marked) 1 I
i
-I
.p mog
[e b4 UNITED STATES yj j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
's WASHINGTON, D.C. 205W0001 o
'+9*****
,o May 5, 1998 Ms. Ruth E. McBu ney, CHP, Director Division of Licensing, Registration, and Standards j
Bureau of Radiation Control Texas Department of Health 1100 West 49th St.
Austin, TX 78756-3199
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO MARCH 23,1998, LETTER TO THE OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS
Dear Ms. McBumey:
I am responding to your March 23,1998, letter to Ricnard L. Bangart, Director of the Office of State Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In that letter, you requested comments and recommendations from the NRC on whether the alternative procedures discussed in the letter are permissible under NRC regulations. The questions in your letter deal with either the mixing of soil contaminated with 11e.(2) byproduct material, or the disposal and release of materials generated by the operation of in situ leach facilities (ISLs).
In general, there is no statute or NRC rule that forbids mixing of contaminated and clean soils to comply with decommissioning cleanup standards. However,it has been a long-standing NRC staff practice to discourage compliance with environmental standards by dilution with uncontaminated matenal Rather, the NRC staff encourages the cleanup of contamination to applicable standards. As such, in the past, NRC has found that removing soils contaminated with 11e.(2) byproduct to levels that met the applicable cleanup standards, and then disposing of the 11e.(2) byprodud material at a site licensed to receive such material was an acceptable way of complying with NaC regulations. If the NRC staff were presented with a proposal to use mixing as a method of complying with applicable cleanup standards, we would treat it as an alternative to the requirements in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, and would require the applicant to show that the economic benefit and equivalent protection requirements specified in the
" Introduction" to 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, have been met.
Several years ago, the NRC received a proposal to use disking of windblown contamination at the Wyoming American Nuclear Corporation mill tailings site to meet the radium standard in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, criterion 6(6). Prior to completing its review of the proposal, the NRC requested that the licensee apply the method to a test plot to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach at the site. Because the applicant was unable to comply with the radium standard using this approach, the method was never used.
9 The answer to your questions conceming the disposal of Ra-226-contaminated soils under holding ponds is dependent on the origin of the water placed in the ponds during their operation. This is also related to your question about what enteria is appropriate for determining the classification of mining waste and 11e.(2) byproduct material. Essentially, any waste generated primerily as a result of the extraction of uranium from ore is defined as 11e.(2)
I 4 9OS2L M I
%pp
R. McBumey byproduct material, and subject to NRC regulation. This definition does not confer regulatory jurisdiction over waste generated from other ISL activities not being conducted primanly for the extraction of uranium.
At ISLs, waste streams onginate from either the processes associated primanly with the extraction of uranium, or processes associated with other aspects of facility operation such as ground-water restoration or normal operational support not related to uranium extraction. For that waste generated primarily from the extraction of uranium from the ore, under the Atomic Energy Act, it is by definition 11e.(2) byproduct material, and thus subject to the requirements of Part 40, Appendix A, at NRC-licensed sites. Examples of processes that would fall within this definition include the equipment used in the operation of a well field or processing facility.
On the other hand, wastes from ground-water restoration is not generated primarily from the extraction of uranium, cnd is considered a mine waste subject to state mining regulations at NRC-licensed sites. It is important to note that at the beginning of ground-water restoration, ISLs will still extract some tiranium from the restoration water. However, the process itself is being done primarily to restore ground water, not extract uranium. Therefore, it does not meet the definition of 11e.(2) byproduct material.
For the particular issue concerning the cleanup of Ra 226-contaminated soil below holding j
ponds, the source of the effluent placed in the pond determines the regulatory responsibility. At ISL operations, liquid wastes can be generated from the uranium recovery plant, from the production bleed, and from ground-water restoration activities. Production bleed is ground water extracted from the aquifer during the uranium recovery operation in excess of injected water to maintain a net ground-water inflow into the recovery zone. Effluent produced by the I
uranium recovery plant and by production bleed is process wastewater, and because it is a waste stream generated as part of the uranium extraction activities it is defined as 11e.(2) byproduct material. Ground-water effluent is produced at the end of a uranium recovery operation, during restoration of ground-water quality in the recovery zone. Effluent produced during ground-water restoration activities is considered to be "mine wastewater," and is not considered to be 11e.(2) byproduct material. This effluent may be defined as naturally occurring radioactive material or as technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive rraterial.
Any residual pond material or contaminated soils below a pond that contained all or some process wastewater would contain 11e.(2) byproduct material. For the case where the holding pond commingled process wastewater and mine wastewater, the NRC staff has taken the position that it will view all residual material as 11e.(2) byproduct material if the pond held predominantly process wastewater. By doing this, the NRC is working to eliminate a situation where there'is a commingled waste with no option for disposal. A second option is for licensees to dispose of all commingled wastes on site under state mining regulations. This option would apply to any pond that held commingled wastewater regardless of how much was process wastewater. It would require ISL licensees to show that the attematives provisions of economic benefit and equivalent protection found in Part 40, Appendix A, would be met, and the 11e.(2) byproduct material need not meet the requirements for long-term stabilization in Appendix A. Licensees would also have to address the cost-benefit provision in Criterion 2 of Part 40, Appendix A, conceming the proliferation of small 11e.(2) disposal cells. Finally, the NRC staff would have to consult with the Commission on the need for an exemption of this a
R. McBurney material from other licensing requirements in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended that become applicable when such an option is proposed. For a holding pond that held solely process wastewater, the residual and soil contamination is by aefinition solely 11e.(2) byproduct material, and needs to be reclaimed by cleanup and disposal in a milllicensed to take the material or an 11e.(2) disposal cell.
5 A third area of questioning from your letter raised the issue of disposal of contaminated materials from ISLs, such as concrete, piping, and pumps. As noted above, if this material was used in the uranium extraction process, it is by definition 11e.(2) byproduct material.
Therefore, ISL licensees must comply with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, criterion (2) which requires the disposal of this material at a mill licensed to dispose of the material or an 11e.(2) disposal site. Alternatively, the licensee could decontaminate the material to meet the NRC cleanup criteria for unrestricted release. In making the decision for unrestricted release, the NRC staff notes that the 15 pCi/g Ra-226 and 30 pCi/g natural uranium standard referenced in the question does not apply to this type of material. Those standards relate to the contamination of soil. Rather, the standards contained in Table 1 of NRC Regulatory Guide 8.30, titled " Health Physics Surveys in Uranium Mills " for uranium and associated decay products contamination and the standards contained in Table i of NRC Regulatory Gu:de 1.86, titled " Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors," for radium, thorium, or other radionuclides are applicable.
Finally, I want to address your question about the reclamation of contaminated well field soils.
Soils contaminated from spills and leaks of process wastewater or a mixture of process and mine wastewater are by definition 11e.(2) byproduct material, and would be subject to the cleanup requirements of Part 40, Appendix A, at NRC-licensed sites. Soil contaminated by spills and leaks of only mine wastewater do not have to meet the requirements of Part 40, Appendix A, because this waste is viewed as a mine waste by NRC, and subject to state mining
, ~ regulation. However, it is the opinion of NRC staff that well field soils are most likely to become J
contaminated from processing fluids as opposed to mine wastewater.
F Simit fly, contaminated plant equipment that was only used in the restoration of the well fields is rat considered to be subject to NRC regulation. Plant equipment that was used as part of uraniur-wraction operations, or for both uranium extraction and ground-water restoration, is consic' Jes to be subject to NRC regulation because it is i1e.(2) byproduct material. These distinew.,4 again flow from the definition of 11e.(2) byproduct material given in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the fact that the Act excludes mining from regulation by NRC. As noted above, ground-water restoration is not being conducted primarily for the extraction of uranium, and, therefore, any wastes generated solely from that process is not defined as 11e.(2) byproduct material.
it is important to note that the National Mining Association recently submitted a white paper requesting a review by the Commission of these issues. The results of this review has the potential to change the information presented here.
o
R. McBurney 4 Should you have any questions. on this letter, please contact William Ford at (301) 415-6630, or for specific health physics and decommissioning questions, please contact Duane Schmidt at (301) 415-6919, or Elaine Brummett at (301) 415-6606.
Sincerely, o/_
WI e
Joseph J. Holonich, Chief Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguarcs i
l 0
R. McBurney -
Should you have any questions on this letter, please contact William Ford at (301) 415-6630 or for specific health physics and decommissioning questions. please contact Duane Schmidt at (301) 415-6919. or Elaine Brummett at (301) 415-6606.
Sincerely.
hl Joseph J. Holonich. Chief Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards s
Y J
TICKET: N9800162
. W
- See Previous Concurrence DOCUMENT NAME: S:\\DWM\\URBWViF 09 a.whf OFC URB Q[
b h
UR NAME WFork JHhchf DATE 4/ > /98 h/bl98 5/hI OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Letter to Ms. Ruth'E. McBurney dated Apnl
,1998.
DOCUMENT NAME: S:\\DWM\\ URB \\WHF\\t043098a.whf TICKET: N9800162 DISTRIBUTION (w/encil:
File Center NMSS r/f URB r/f PUBLIC RBangart\\OSP ARamirez -
CNWRA CAbrams MLayton JGreeves MFederline CPoland CPaperiello o
S R. McBurnty '
determination hinges on the definition of processing and mine water At in situ leach f acilities.
liquid waste streams onginate from the uranium recovery plant, from the production bleed. and from ground water restoration activities. Production bleed is ground water extracted from the aquifer during the uranium recovery operation in excess of injected water to maintain a net ground water inflow into the recovery zone Effluent produced by the uraniv recovery plant and by production bleed is defined as process waste water' and is considered to be 11e.(2) byproduct matenal. Ground water effluent is produced at n end of a uranium recevery operation, dunng restoration of ground water quality in the recovery zone. Effluent produced dunng ground water restoration activities is considered to be "mine wastewater. and as defined in 40 CFR Part 440, is not considered to be 11e.(2) byproduct matenal. This effluent is defined as na' Oy occurring radioactive material or technologically enhanced naturally occurnng radioactiv., material. Therefore, while the NRC may evaluate the environmentalimpact associated mine waste water effluent disposal, it does not license this matenal.
Specific cnteria applicable to effluent d.isposal of process waste water, mine waste water, and a mixture of the two waters is contained in, Appendix D of the Draft Standard Review Plan for Uranium Extraction License Applications, NUREG-1569. A final version of Appendix D will be sent to you when the final review plan is pubkshed this spring or early summer. However, Appendix D does not directly address the issues raised in your letter of well-field soil and equipment disposal For contaminated well-field soils it is the opinion of NRC staff that this material is subject to NRC regulation. because while it is possible that the contamination could have occurred from mine (restoration) water, it is more likely to have occurred from processing water or a mixture of process m 1 mine waters. Soils contaminated by the processing plant or by spills and leaks from ponds tr. held process water or a mixture of process and mine water i
are subject to NRC regulation. However. soil contaminated by spills and leaks from ponds that held only mine water are not subject to NRC regulation. Contaminated plant equipment that was only used in the restoration of the well fields is not considered to be subject to NRC s
regulation, but plant equipment that was used as part to the processing circuit, or for both processing and ground water, restoration is considered to be subject to NRC regulation.
Should you have any questions on this letter, please contact William Ford at (301) 415-6630, or for specific health physics and decommissioning questions, please contact Duane Schmidt at (301) 415-6919 or Elaine Brummett at (301) 415-6606.
Sincerely, Joseph J. Holonich, Chief Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards i
TICKET: N9800162 DOCUMENT NAME: S:\\DWM\\ URB \\WHf\\ t041398buhi k
URB OFC URB d#
NAME WFord D RF JHolonich DATE 4/.27/98 4/ffl98 4/
/98 j
j OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
i R. McBurney Should you have any questions on this letter, please contact William Ford at (301) 415-6630, or
~
for specific health physics and decommissioning questions, please contact Duane Schmidt at (301) 415-6919, or Elaine Brummett at (301) 415-6606.
Sincerely.
Joseph J. Holonich, Ch]ef
[0riginalsignedby i
Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety j
and Safeguards TICKET: N9800162 ilSTRIBUTION File Center NMSS r/f URB r/f PUBLIC RBangart\\OSP
.sRamirez CNWRA CAbrams MLayton JGreeves MFederline CPoland CPaperiello DOCUMENT NAME: S:\\DWM\\ URB \\WHF\\ t043098a.whf -
- See Previous Concurrence OFC URB OGC URS\\)
NAME WFord*
RFonner ich vj DATE 4/30/98 5/4/98 5/gy98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY i
k
Attachment C April,1995
)
" Staff Technical Position on Effluent Disposal' t Licensed Uranium Recovery Facilities" a
(Relevant Text Marked)-
4 9
k Y
e