ML20209F458
| ML20209F458 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/19/1998 |
| From: | Fliegel M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Joseph Holonich NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209F412 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9907160026 | |
| Download: ML20209F458 (5) | |
Text
r - ( s, _
j pe cto u
.* *, UNITED STATES j
,j2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2056!H21
\...../ November 19,1998 MEMORANDUM TO: Joseph J. Holonich, Chief Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management, NMSS FROM: Myron Fliegel A Senior Project M Uranium Recov ra Division of Waste Management, NMSS
SUBJECT:
DIFFERING PROFC.SSIONAL VIEW ON COMMISSION PAPER TITLED:
RECOMMENDATIONS ON WAYS TO IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF NRC REGULATION AT IN S/TU LEACH URANIUM RECOVERY FACILITIES Please find attached my Differing Professional View (DPV) on the subject Commission Paper. I request that the DPV be attached to the Commission Paper.
Attachment:
DPV 9907160026 990712 NOMA PDR ORG PDR
1 V //fo 0 0 d l j
I E , ., ? .,
c I
November 19,1998 l
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEW ON COMMISSION PAPER TITLED:
RECOMMENDATIONS ON WAYS TO IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY 1
OF NRC REGULATION AT IN SITU LEACH URANIUM RECOVERY FACILITIES Myron Fliegel Senior Project Manager Uranium Recovery Branch, DWM, NMSS l
I have reviewed the Commission Paper that this Differing Professional View is attached to and l disagree with some of the conclusions and recommendations in that paper. The Commission l J
Paper discusses the classification of waste waters produced at in situ uranium facilities, under the section
- Disposal of Solar Evaporation Pond Sludges" and then presents three options for '
classification. The options section discusses the pros and cons of the classification schemes under consideration with respect to regulatory aspects, but does not address whether the proposals meet the underlying definition. I conclude that the third option presented does not conform with a plain English reading of the definition of 11e.(2) byproduct material and therefore should be rejected.
Discussion As discussed in the Commission Paper, waste waters at in situ uranium facilities can be separated into two categories: those produced during the uranium recovery phase of the operation and those produced during the groundwater restoration phase. The fundamental question is whether or not these waste waters are 11e.(2) byproduct material. The Commission Paper discusses the consequences, with respect NRC regulation, of different answers to that question. However, in addition to looking at the effects of choosing a part.. r option, one must look at the validity of identifying a waste water stream as being or not being I.e.(2) byproduct material. The definition of 11e.(2) byproduct material in Part 40 is "the tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium or thorium from any ore processed primarily for its source material content.. " Clearly the waste water streams are wastes; the question becomes whether they were produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium.
Groundwater restoration waste water This waste water stream is produced after the uranium extraction process is completed and the licensee is restoring groundwater quality to appropriate standards. During the groundwater l
l restoration process, excess water is pumped from the former production zone underground and must be disposed of. This excess water is the groundwater restoration waste water.
Reasonabie arguments can be made for identifying this water as 11e.(2) byproduct material or l
for determining that it is not 11e.(2) byproduct material.
The argument that groundwater restoration waste water is 11e.(2) byproduct material relies on considering the in situ facility as an entity whose sole purpose is to produce uranium from ore.
As such, any waste produced from that facility, at any time in the life cycle of the facility, can be viewed as waste produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium, since there was no other purpose for the facility. Under this argument, groundwater restoration is a necessary step 9
l l -
F ,,
,S.(..
in the process to extract uranium from ore and wastes produced in this step therefore meet the definition of 11e.(2) byproduct material.
The argument that groundwater restoration waste water is not 11e.(2) byproduct material relies on separating the processes in an in situ facility into those that directly lead tu produdion of uranium from ore and those for other purposes. Under this argument, groundwater restoration is a process that is independent of the extraction of uranium and therefore wastes produced during this process are not 11e.(2) byproduct material.
Both of the above arguments are reasonable and, as discussed in the Commission Paper, NRC has taken both positions. In the past, NRC considered groundwater restoration waste water as 11e.(2) byproduct material. In the 1995 staff guidance," Staff Technical Position on Effluent Disposal at Licensed Uranium Recovery Facilities," groundwater restoration waste water is considered not to be 11e.(2) byproduct material.
Waste waters produced during uranium extraction This waste water is also called process bleed water and consists primarily of production bleed.
In order to maintain a net inward pressure in the aquifer that is being worked, more water is extracted than is reinjected back into the aquifer. The excess water that is not reinjected is waste water called production bleed. However, because the all the water that is pumped to the surface from the aquifer contains uranium, it is first processed to remove the uranium. Thus, the production bleed is a waste water stream that is diverted after the uranium is extracted. As such, it clearly meets the definition of 11e.(2) byproduct material. This is the position that NRC has always taken.
Option 3 in the Commission Paper proposes to treat production bleed as mine waste water and not 11e.(2) byproduct material without discussing how that would comport with the definition of 11e.(2) byproduct material. It draws a distinction for wastes resulting from the production of yellowcake but does not explain the basis for that distinction. However, the definition of 11e.(2) byproduct material specifically refers to " extraction" of uranium and the production bleed is diverted after the extraction of the uranium from the water. This can be seen in the figure on page 101 of April 1998 White Paper prepared by the National Mining Association. In that figure, it can be seen that the bleed is diverted after the water from production wells passes through the ion exchange column and the uranium is extracted by the resin.
Alternative An option not considered in the Commission Paper is: 1) to continue to classify waste waters produced during uranium recovery as 11e.(2) byproduct material in conformance with past and current NRC practice, and 2) allow licensees to designate groundwater restoration waste water as either 11e.(2) byproduct material or mine wastes on a case by case basis. This would solve many of the problems identified in the other optiona. Licensees with separate ponds for the two waste water streams can designate the groundwater restoration waste water as mining waste.
Licensees that mix the two waste water streams can designate the groundwater restoration waste water as 11e.(2) byproduct material. This will also remove concems that evaporation pond sludges sent to tailings piles in the past may not have been 11e.(2) byproduct material.
r a
r
%,. **.m Differing Professional View Panel Report ! ,
N.
Concerning Handling of Liquid Effluent Releases from In Situ Leach Operations at Licensed Uranium Recovery Facilities ATTACHMENT C l
MEMORANDA ESTABLISHING THE DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEW PANEL j