ML20209F494
| ML20209F494 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/28/1987 |
| From: | Knapp M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Rich Smith NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209F412 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9907160038 | |
| Download: ML20209F494 (3) | |
Text
/gN r:
V'
.. a. x..., 4 LL'a"M S/F NMSS R/F g g 8 $67 LLOB R/F, URF0 GRD-WATER SBilhorn, L;;5 MFliegel, L R 5-
- JGreeves, LW MKnapp, LLW PLohaus LLO3 MEMORANDUM FOR:
R. Dale Smith, Director DMarein. LLOS Uranium Recovery Field Office. Region IV osollenberger.
KDragonette, L' FROM:
Malcolm R. Knapp. Director JStarmer, LLT3 Division of Low-Level Waste Management MYoung. LLR3 and Decommissioning. NMSS RFonner, OGC cKonwinski,'.1 "
SUBJECT:
NRC STAFF POSITIONS ON REGULATION OF GROUNO-WATER CONTAMINANTS AND IN-SITU URANIUM SOLUTION MINING Two proposals were made by the Uranium Recovery Field Office (URFO) regarding the subject policies in.a memorandum from R. Dale $mith to Robert E. Browning, January 7,1987. Responses to these proposals were discussed during a meeting with URF0 staff on March 3,1987 in Silver Spring. The pur memorandum is to provide documentation of those responses. pose of this In sumary. URF0 proposed that:
o based on the propused ameneents to 10 CFR 40. Appendix A hWC regulate only those ground-water contaminants specified therein as hazardous constituents, and cefer to the States for control of properties such as sulfates, nitrates, and TDS ti.at, while not identified as hazardous, may deteriorate ground water; and j
o NRC reconsider its position on in-situ uranium solution mining and license only ur.anium recovery activities on the surface, with the i
State regulating the protection of the ground water underground with respect to both hazardous and non-hazardous constituents.
Your first proposal is based on the current and proposed amend,9ents to 10 CFR 40 Appendix A, which specify hazardous constituents to which ground-water protection standards apply. The Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning (LLim) staff agree that NRC responsibility under the current and proposed amendments to 10 CFR 40 appears to be limited to regulation of those constituents specified in Appendix A.
However, under the National Environmental policy Act (NEPA) tw NRC is ultimately responsible for i
evaluating all environmental impacts from uranium recovery operations.
Therefore, W staff can not universally ignore any significant environmental degradation due to activities conducted by an applicant.
If, on a case-by-case basis, ground-water contaminants other than those specified in Appendix A are identified, NRC must assure that concentrations of those contaminants are adequately controlled to limit their potential impact on the environment.
LLWM intends to clarify this position in the proposed amendment to 10 CFR 40.
ATTACHMENT DPVR E-3 9907160038 990712 i
PDR ORG NOMA*
t su erwvvpo
F,. D,
)
~
URF0 GRD.t%TER Wi 2 0 Y With regard to URFO's second proposal, the issut of NRC's legal authority for protection of ground water from in-situ extraction of source material was addressed in a legal opinion provided by Howard Shapar (OELD) in a memorandum j
to Chairman Ahearne, April 28, 1980.
In conclusion, this legal opinion states that:
" potential contaminants of ground water are clearly within the scope of the NRC's regulatory control under the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, by the UMTRCA... [T]his regulatory authority reinforces the NEPA authorization and directive for the Cornission to exercise its licensing and regulatory authority in a fashion that will minimize to the extent practical the environmental impacts resulting from the activities which it licenses, one of which is in. situ operations."
Thus, for in-situ mining operations, the NRC is responsible for the hazardous constituents listed in Appendix A that may arise from surface operations. NRC also has authority to assure that ground. water contaminants resulting from all aspects of the mining operations are adequately controlled to limit their potential impact.
For both of the above cases, the staff may elect, as a matter of regulatory policy, to discharge it's responsibilities by deferring to a State for regulatory control. To accomplish this, the staff must assure itself on a site-by-site basis that ground-water protection will be. properly discharged by the State.
This assurance should be based primarily on a staff evaluation of the existing State regulatory program (s) concluding that the program (s) will properly protect ground water and thereby preclude the need for NRC to exercise direct regulatory control.
In addition, for each licensing action, the staff should determine that the State program is appropriately applied to the site in question. The evaluation of the State program (s) should be referenced and the site-specific determination stated in the NRC staff environmental review supporting each Itcensing action.
Finally, the staff would need to maintain cognizance of and respond, as appropriate, to unusual occurrences and unanticipated events that may be beyond the States' ability to provide effective control.
Please provide LLIM with several examples of your initial application of this policy.
Susan 811 horn is the cognizant LLW staff member for these staff positions.
Original Signed By haarA di Cameurvenea, manial unCOUA R.10!?eP b* M/SW h itlecam b Malcolm R. Knapp, Director K Sch W 4r += b. h % Tjin/rt.
Division of Low. Level Waste Management and Decosuiissioning, NMSS
..P OFC: LLOB
- LLO l' " :LLO
, :LLE g<.,
L.......
NAME:58 rn :MF1 egel :Ptohaus :RFo
- MKnapp
...................r.......................................................
DATE:5/w/87
- 5/6/87 : 5/3/87: 5/2 /87 : 512/87 :
OrrlGIAL REGURD C0i'T r
.., ry injection limiting and production limiting Injection limited patterns are patterns that have production wells that can produce more fluid than the associated injectors can inject, and therefore the pattern's flow rate is limited by the individual injector's flow rates. This situation usually arises due to plugging of the injection well. The well plugging is due to chemical precipitation in the well screen and physical plugging of the gravel pack. The second situation is production limited patterns, which occurs when the injection wells can inject more fluid than the production well can pump, and therefore the pattern's flow rate is limited by the maximum flow rate of the submersible pump at the pressure of the system. This condition usually occurs in newer wellfields where the injection wells are newer and have not yet displayed reduced flow rates.
The relationship between injector flow rates and producer flow rates is determined based on whether the pattern is production or injection limited. In the injection limited scenario, the maximum injection flowrate achievable for a given injection well is divided by the number of production wells that the injection well is assigned to.
The production well's flowrate is determined by summing the prorated flowrates of the individual injectors which are assigned to that production well.
In the production limited scenario, the production well is set to the maximum sustainable flowrate, and this rate is divided by the number ofinjectors assi aed to 6
that production well to obtain a prorated flowrate. The individual injection well rates are determined by sumrmng the prorated flowrates of the individual production wells which are assigned to that injection well.
3.4.2.4 Wellfield Bleed l
The ISL process is operated as a closed system, with the total injection rate to the wellfield maintained below the total production rate from the wellfield. The water which is removed is referred to as bleed or purge. The bleed performs two functions in the wellfield operation:
1.
Prevents an unwanted build-up of anions which compete with uranium for ion exchange sites and must be removed during ground water restoration, and 2.
Creates a hydrologic cone of depression within the mined zone which prevents the unwanted migration oflixiviant away from the mining I
area.
The bleed will be removed from the closed system after the lixiviant passes through the ion exchange system for uranium removal Power Resources. Inc. Gas Hills Project US NRC Amendment Application Chapter 3 June 1998 Page 3-50 l~
ATTACHMENT DPVR E-19 h'
L
.,I h
I Sh g %.4 1
9f li:
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
3 f[
e j
W AsHINGTON. D C. mWo001 e....",,='
73 02 1554 1
. i.
Anthony J. Thompson, Esq.
Shaw. Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W.
j s.
D Washington, D.C. 20037 i
Dear Mr. nompson:
.y
~
SUBJECT:
SUGGESTED RECONSIDERATION OF REGULATORY IN-SITU LEACH FACILITY WELL IELDS 10, 1994. In that letter you suggested that the I am responding to your ! citer to me of March Nuc! car Regulatory Commission reconsider its regulatory authority over in-situ Ica 28, 1980, facility wellSc!ds, ne basis for your position was that contrary to the April memorandum from the Executive Legal Director (ELD) to the then Chairman Ahcam, you believed NRC lacks jurisdiction over below ground activities related to licensed IS operations. You also argued that NRC reguladon of IS wd! Gelds is unnece and potenda]!y inconsistent with standards for groundwater protection establis Your !ctter further suggested that if NTC Environmental Protection Ager.:y (EPA).
concluded its regulatory rute over wc! Melds could not be reduced, that the staff consid deferring its authority to States.
Based on its review of your letter, the staff concluded that the legal arguments you pre Your let'er states that do not alter the conclusions reached in the 1980 ELD memorandum.
NRC is in error in regulating IS wellfields for four reasons. In consultation with our Ic counsel, we conclude that the four premises you offered either do not properly convey concepts promulgated in the regulations with respect to conventional uranium m mi!!ing, or serve unrelated regulatory purposes. Your four arguments can be bric0y addressed as followst The underground aspect is mining, which NRC does not remdate.
1.
De underground aspect is not soley mining. Running lixiviant through an underground ore body is also processing. De Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, gives the NRC authority over sourte material after its removal from its place of deposit in nature. The dissolution of uranium in the ore body uranium from its place of deposit in nature and is also a form of processing equiv to the acid or base teach in a conventional mill.
The underground are body is unrefined and unprocessed are and exemptedfrom 2.
licensing.
After teaching with lixiviant the underground ore body is processed ore. '
/
Tob55$" 2 f3 ATTACHMENT DPVR E-6 em.,. (P wn-a
9
\\
C e
2 Mr. Anthony J. Dompson The ground wa::r involved contains less than 0.05 weight percent of uranium and is 3.
e.remptfrom NRC regulation.
The.05 weight percent unimportant quantity rule in 10 CFR 40.1.Na) does not apply to licensed persons. Disposal of waste water by licensees is subject to 10 CFR Part 20, specific license condition, and/or National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits.
4 The underground aspect does not inmive byproduct material.
Only the depleted underground ore body is excluded from the deGnition of byproduct material. All other waste is byproduct material and must be disposed of either as an authorized efGuent release, or in conventional mill tailings ponds (or the Envirocare licensed facility) pursuant to criterion 2 of 10 CFR Part 40. Appendix A.
Derefore, the staff does not believe there is any basis to alter the staff's understanding of its regulatory jurisdiction over IS wel! Gelds.
With respect to your second suggestion, if the staff Gnds that a State is implementing a program that is comparable to one the NRC would undertake, the staff could rely on the State's progera to also meet NRC's regulatory requirements. Bis approach would allow the staff to ensure that the necessary oversight was being achieved but still eliminate duplicate J
regulation. He staff plans to investigate other regulatory programs, administered by the EPA and States, to determine whether these programs accomplish the same objectives as the NRC 15 wellfield regulation program, and if so, how they can be used by the staff to fulfill its regulatory obligation. As an initial step, on April 19, 1994, the staff discussed with Wyoming officials that State's program for IS wellfield regulation.
I trust this responds to your concern. If you have further questions, please contact Mike Fliegel at (301) 415-6629.
Sincerely.
fd f Malcolm R. Knapp, Director Division of Waste Management fi.
Office of Nuclear Material Safety y
and Safeguards k
3 1
cc:
States (see attached list)
In Situ Licensees (see attached list)
Wyoming Mining Association i
American Mining Congress
t i ;
- gmygggw
~
'EN Q 2 ' g~N
{
I cc: List for Letter Dated:
1 I
,{
R
' ?y. 4 j.Q.
IN SITU UCENSEES AND APPLICANTS
. 'f, STATES Qs-
'u R2o Algom Minmg Company Nehruka Depanment of Environmcotal 1
Attn: Bill Ferdinand, Manager l
Quality, Ground Water Satiert Radiation Safety. Licensing &
Suite 400, The Atrium, ::;0 N Street Regulatory Affairs P.O. Box 989 2 6305 Waterford Blvd., Suite 325 Lincoln, NE 68509 8%2 Oklahoma City OK 73118 Department of Environmental Quality flydro Resourtes, Inc.
Atta: Dennis Hemmer Attn: Mark Pelit.za Iferschler Building Uranium Resources, Inc.
1:2 West 25th Street 12750 Merit Onve. Suite 1210 LB 1:
Cheyenne, WY 8:00:
Ds!!as, TX 75251 New Mexico E!D Ferret Exp!orstion Company of nebreis, Inc.
Attn: Benito Garcia i
Attn: Steve Collings 1100 St. Francis Drive 216 Sixteenth St. Ma!!, Suite 810 Santa Fe, NM 87503 Denver, CO 80:02 State of Texas Power Resources. Inc.
3 Attn: Susan S. Ferruwn. Director Stese Morzenti, Vice President Attn:
If aurdous Waste Division 1560 BrnaJ4 y. Suite 1470 Texas Natural Resource Denser. CO 80:02 Conservation Commission P.O. Bos 13087 COGEM A Mining, Inc.
Austin, TX 78711 3807 Attn: Chuck FolJensuer P.O. Box 730 Robert Quittin Mi!!s, WY 82644 l
Radiation Control Division Dersrtenent of Health Pathfmder Minds Corporation 4300 Cherry Creek Drive, South North Butte ISL Operations Denver, CO 80222 1530 Attn: Donna L. Wichers 1
935 Pendell Boulevard Gary Robert. son Mills, WY 82644 Division of Radiation Protection Department of Health. LE 13 Energy Fuels Nuclear. Inc.
Airdustrial Center Building 5 Attn: Wilitam J. Almos P.O. Box 47827 One Tabor Center Olympia, WA 98504 7827 Suite 2500 120017th Sirrei Denver. CO 80202 N
t 5*
- ly.
f
.l '
..s w
s,
_g.
i