ML20209F536
| ML20209F536 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/27/1998 |
| From: | Lusher J NRC |
| To: | Joseph Holonich NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209F412 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9907160050 | |
| Download: ML20209F536 (10) | |
Text
~
i
}
TO: J. Holonich From: J. H. Lusher Date: October 27,1998
Subject:
WILLIAM H. FORD'S DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEW CONCERNING NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGULATION OF LIQUID EFFLUENTS FROM /N SITU LEACH URANIUM EXTRACTION FACILITIES I agree with Mr. Ford, that all liquid effluents from in Situ leach uranium extraction facilities should be considered as 11e.(2) byproduct material.
As a radiation safety officer for several years at one of the currently operating in situ leach j uranium extraction facilities, I have the experience and knowledge,of some of the operations. t i
- 1. During operation of the well fields there are other materials mobilized through the /
oxidation and combination into carbonate compounds. Some of these materials are radioactive by product materials of the process such as Radium and Radon. Other materials are also mobilized, such as calcium and possibly some rare earth materials.
A. These materials plate-out on the piping and settle out as sludge in the waste ponds.
B. I have seen Ra 226 concentrations greater than 5,000 pCi/g plated out on the ,
inside surfaces of pipes and tanks, as a material called calcite (calcium carbonate, Radium carbonate) and as sludge in the bottom of waste ponds.
- 2. This material was mobilized as part of the extraction process and remains as part of the f process untilit is cleaned up and the ore zone and aquifer are restored to EPA and NRC l' standards for release for public use.
- 3. Spills of the solution containing uranium and the other byproducts in the well fields contaminate the soils in the well field above the natural background.
In order to perform the duties of the NRC charter to protect the Public Health and Safety, we need to ensure that these materials are properly classified as 11e.(2) material, maintained and disposed of in a proper manner according to requirements.
EQ l
i
- ATTACHMENT DPVR E-17 r
9907160050 990712 NOMA (7
PDR ORQ pp L .- ;
. S .
/J !y 'Cc" PREDECISIONAL J "
\ !
}
EQB: The Commissioners i
EROM: William D. Travers {
Executive Director for Operations j i
SMBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS ON WAYS TO IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF l NRC REGULATION AT IN SITU LEACH URANIUM RECOVERY j FACILITIES PURPOSE:
I To obtain Commission approval of the staff's recommendations to withdraw from active {
regulation of ground water and solar evaporation ponds at in situleach (ISL) uranium recovery facilities,*and to seek Commission direction on the need for rulemaking prior to implementation of the proposed actions.
SUMMARY
l Historically, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has regulated operations at ISL facilities. The uranium recovery industry, however, believes that NRC's regulation of ground water at these facilities is duplicative of the ground-water protection programs administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or EPA primacy States. The industry also has raised concerns about staff guidance documents that it believes precludes the disposal of certain types of wastes generated at ISL f acilities at uranium mill tailings impoundments, as required under Criterion 2 of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. In this paper, the staff discusses the industry's concerns and provides recommendations to the Commission on ways to address the issues raised.
BACKGROUND:
The techniques of ISL uranium recovery were developed in the 1970s as the demand for uranium declined and the resultant need for more cost-efficient mining techniques rose so that i
e CONTACT: N. King Stabtein, NMSS/DWM (301) 415-7293
, r.
ATTACHMENT DPVR E-18. 'le PREDEC IONAL
The Commissioners 2 uranium mining companies could remain profitable in a less certain market. Currently, ISL mining is the predominant method of uranium recovery in the United States. ISL techniques involve the use of wells to circulate water, fortified with oxygen and carbon dioxide, to teach uranium at depth from the. host rock, and the recovery of the liberated uranium in a central processing facility. Details of the ISL process are provided iri Attachment 1.
Over the past several years, the staff has been engaged in discussion with the uranium recovery industry regarding ways to eliminate what the industry has perceived as dual regulation of ground water at ISL facilities. Although the staff has been working to address the industry's concerns, the National Mining Association (NMA), which represents a number of companies involved in uranium recovery, submitted a white paper to the Commission in April 1998, in it, the NMA raised several issues, including: (a) NRC's jurisdiction over ground water protection at ISL facilities; (b) concerns over staff guidance.on the discharge of liquid effluents from ISL facilities; and (c) concerns over staff guidance on the disposal of material other than ,
~
11e.(2) byproduct material in uranium mill tailings impoundments. In the following, the industry's positions are discussed in more detail, and the staff provides recommendations to the Commission on ways to address these concerns.
DISCUSSION: )
Dual Reoulation of Ground Water
- l Historically, NRC has imposed conditions on ISL operations to ensure that ground water quality is maintained during licensed activities and that actions are taken to ensure the restoration of !
ground-water quality before the license is terminated. The specific conditions imposed in an ISL license typically have been the product of NRC's independent review, documented in safety '
evaluation reports and appropriate environmental assessment documents.
Over the past several years, the industry has argued that NRC's regulation of ground water is duplicative of the ground-water protection programs required by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and administered by the EPA or EPA primacy States. EPA and the States seek to protect ground-water quality through the Underground injection Control (UlC) program under the SDWA. The industry believes that NRC's review and licensing activities are another form of regulation covering the same issues. The industry's arguments ars presented in the NMA white paper, which was presented to the Commission in April 1998.
To address the industry's concerns, the staff requested that the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) determine whether NRC could rely on the actual (or expected) existence of a permit, .
I issued by EPA or an EPA primacy State under the UIC program, as a basis for NRC to withdraw from active regulation of the ground water at ISL f acilities. Licensees must obtain a UIC permit from the EPA or the EPA primacy State before uranium recovery operations can begin. OGC concluded that the Commission could exercise its discretion and rely on the UIC permit for the protection of ground water. OGC recommended that the Commission adopt a rulemaking to codify this approach, and consider the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with EPA or the EPA primacy States.
With regard to the timing of the rulemaking, the staff prefers to implement OGC's recomtnendation by: (1) revising the Standard Review Plan for ISL license applications to e-
1 1
The Commissioners 3 eliminate staff ground-water protection reviews; and (2) ending staff reviews of ground-water protection during routine site inspections of ISL facilities. Coincident with the implementation of l these actions, staff would be pursuing codification of these modifications to the current regulatory program as part of a rulemaking for a new 10 CFR Part 41.
OGC believes the better view is to have a rulemaking completed before issuing guidance documents which change the Agency's practice. The guidance documents could be developed i in parallel with the rulemaking and be issued at the completion of the rulemaking. A rulemaking I would provide the technical and legal rationale for the Agency's change in its guidance. The staff will look to the Commission for direction on the timing of the rulemaking as well as on whether to pursue an MOU with EPA on the EPA primacy States.
It should be noted that the staff did receive some comments on this subject during its recent public meetings which were held to gather information to support the staff's evaluation of the uranium recovery program and the need to develop a new Part 41. The Southwest Research information Center (SRIC), an environrnental organization currently intervening in the Hydro Resources, Inc., Crownpoint application, recommended that NRC not eliminate its review of ground-water protection at ISL facilities, because, in SRIC's view, NRC regulation was complementary, and not duplicative, of the UIC program. The State of Wyoming expressed its opinion that NRC's efforts on ISL ground water issues were not needed. Industry representatives advocated that NRC adopt the position in the NMA white paper.
In adopting this approach to regulating ground water at ISLs, the staff estimates that a savings of 1.5 full time equivalent (FTE) could be realized. This savings would come from a reduction in licensing reviews and inspection support in the ISL ground water area.
Disposal of Solar Evaooiation Pond Sludaes in 1995, the staff issued two guidance documents to address issues in the uranium recovery program. The first," Staff Technical Position on Effluent Disposal at Ucensed Uranium Recovery Facilities" (hereinafter, the effluent disposal guidance), was intended to provide uranium recovery licensees with flexibility regarding the disposal of various types of liquid effluents generated during the operation of their facilities.
In issuing this guidance, the staff differentia!&d between the various waste waters generated during ISL operations on the basis of their arigin. Waste waters and the associated solids produced during the uranium extraction p5iase of site operations were defined as 11e.(2) byproduct material and therefore subject'to regulation by NRC. On the other hand, waste waters and th'e resulting solids produced after uranium extraction (i.e., during ground-water restoration activities) are defined as "mine wastewaters," and therefore subject to regulation by individual States under their applicable mining programs. However, because licensees often dispose of waste waters from uranium extraction and post-extraction activities in the same evaporation ponds, the resulting solids are a commingled waste comprised of 11e.(2) byproduct material and mine waste, or naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM).
In the second guidance document," Final Revised Guidance on Disposal of Non-Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Section 11e.(2) Byproduct Material in Tailings impoundments" (hereinaf ter, the non 11e.(2) disposal guidance), the staff identified 10 criteria that licensees should meet before o
9
r i
i
)
4 i
The Commissioners NRC could authorize the disposal of Atom lc Energy Act of 16, as amended (AEA) material other than 11e.(2) byproduct materialin tailings impoundments. One of these criteria, which I prohibits the disposal of radioactive material not covered by the AEA, including NORM, was intended to avoid the possibility of dual regulation of the radioactive constituents in the impoundments, as radioactive materials not covered by the AEA would be the responsibility of the individual States.
The industry is concerned that, taken together, these two guidance documents leave no option ]
for the disposal of radioactively contaminated sludges from solar evaporation ponds. The
]
industry contends that, although sludges derived from waste waters produced throughout operations are physically, chemically, and radiologically identical, the staff's distinction between the different origins of the waste water at ISL facilities makes the disposal of such sludges in a mill tailings impoundment, which is required under Criterion 2 of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, !
impossible Lnder the non-11e.(2) disposal guidance. This is because the 11e.(2) byproduct l material is commingled with a NORM waste, and this NORM waste is prohibited from disposal in a tailings impoundment, under the non-11e.(2) disposal guidance.
Ootions:
Given the preceding discussion, the staff has identified three options to address the issues related to the current application of definitions to waste waters and evaporation pond sludges generated at ISL facilities. Each option impacts the extent of NRC regulation of ISL facilities.
- 1. Maintain Current Distinction Between Waste Waters. Under this option, the staff would retain its present distinction between waste waters produced during uranium extraction and those generated after ex;, action. Evaporation pond sludges associated with uranium extraction waste waters would continue to be defined as 11e.(2) byproduct material, whereas those associated with waste waters resulting from post-extraction activities would continue to be defined as a mine waste and subject to State regulation. All sludges derived from ponds '. hat contained predominantly waste waters derived from the uranium extraction phase would continue to be defined as 11e.(2) byproduct material.
The principal advantages of this option are 16t defining post-extraction liquid effluents in this manner is more consistent with the definition of 11e.(2) byproduct material in the AEA, and that this approach also is more consistent with how EPA views such waste under 40 CFR Part 440, which addresses, in part, effluent discharges from uranium mining operations.
However, this option has several disadvantages. First, to avoid sending non-11e.(2) byproduct material to tailings impoundments for disposal, licensees must physically separate contaminated wastes before disposal at uranium mill tailings sites, or construct separate evaporation ponds so as to avoid commingling extraction and post extraction liquid effluents waste waters. Licensees also are required to determine accurately (and support with acceptable documentation) the origins and percentages of liquid effluents waste waters disposed of in evaporation ponds. Such determinat;ons will be essentialin determining the extent of NRC's jurisdiction over the pond sludges o
A
I The Commissioners 5 In addition, radioactively contaminated material not regulated by NRC wih be able to be j disposed onsite at ISL facilities, thus creating numerous small waste disposal sites in the i Western United States. Although the wastes in these disposal sites will pose comparable )
long-term hazards to 11e.(2) byproduct material waste, these sites would not be subject to the long-term care provisions of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended (UMTRCA), because they would not contain 11e.(2) byproduct material. NRC still would need to consider impacts of onsite disposalin licensing the operation and closure of ISL facilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.
Finally, commingled evaporation sludges may have already been disposed of at uranium mill tailings impoundments. Therefore, disposal of these sludges would need to be
" grandfathered" as acceptable to avoid NRC/ State dual regulation of the radioactive constituents in the tailings impoundments, l
- 2. Classifv' All Liauid Effluents as 11e.(2) Bvoroduct Material. Under this option, the staff would take the position that any waste water generated during or after the uranium !
extraction phase of site operations, and all evaporation pond sludges derived from '
such waters, would be defined as 11e.'(2) byproduct material. The staff would make no legal distinction among the waste waters produced at different stages in the facilities' operations.
I The principal advantages of this option are that NRC's regulatory authority over various 1 aspects and phases of the ISL mining process would be unambiguous, in that all l radioactively contaminated materials generated at ISL facilities would be considered as 11e.(2) byproduct material and therefore under NRC jurisdiction. In addition, all radioactively contaminated materials would be transported offsite for disposal. This would include evaporation pond sludges, wellfield piping, and central facility storage and processing tanks. Therefore, prior NRC commitments in environmental assessments and ;
impact statements concerning the disposal of radioactive materials would be met.
However, with this option, staffing resources in uranium recovery would increase slightly (less than 0.5 FTE per year) to accommodate (1) the need to review the designs for l evaporation ponds currently used solely to impound post production waste waters against Criterion SA of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, and (2) the possible inclusion of such ponds '
under NRC's Dam Safety Program (DSP). Additionalincreases in staffing resources may be necessary if additional ISL facilities commence operation in response to some future <
rise in the demand for uranium. I
- 3. Classifv Only Post-lon Exchanae Wastes as 11e.(2) Bvoroduct Material. Under this option, NRC would regulate only discrete surface wastes and effluents resulting from the production of yellowcake as a result of the ion-exchange (IX) portion of the uranium extraction process at the resin elution column. All other waste waters generated throughout the life of ISL operations would be defined as "mine wastewaters" and therefore would not be subject to NRC regulation. These other waste waters would be i l
l l
r J
.w ;
f1 -
The Commissioners ~6-those generated to protect ground water during uranium extraction (see " Production Bleed" in Figure 7 of Attachment 1) and those produced during ground-water restoration activities
' after uranium extraction.
This option is a change in how NRC has classified the waste waters produced during uranium extraction. As discussed in Option 1, under the current distinction tietween waste waters, the staff has classified all waste waters produced during uranium extraction as R '11e.(2) byproduct material and those produced during ground-water restoration activities ,
as mine wastewaters. Under this option, NRC would no longer classify " production bleed" I as 11e.(2) byproduct material since it is a waste that is generated as part of ensuring the protection of ground water and not as a result of extracting uranium. Production bleed, instead,'would be reclassified as a "mine wastewater."
As for the waste waters generated from the IX portion of the uranium recovery process, these are 11e.(2) byproduct material. Tne material would have to be disposed of in uranium mill tailings impoundments or an 11e.(2) disposal facility consistent with Criterion 2 of Part 40, Appendix A.
The principal advantages of this option are that NRC's regulatory program over various aspects and phases of the ISL mining process would be limited to radiation protection
~ issues in the central processing plant. This results in a savings of less than 0.5 FTE per year for the licensing of new ISL facilities and NRC's DSP. Designs for all evaporation ponds would not need to be reviewed against Criterion SA of Part 40, Appendix A, because the ponds would not contain materials subject to NRC jurisdiction. In addition, ISL ponds would no longer be covered under NRC's DSP, since such ponds would not be regulated by NRC nor related to NRC's health and safety mission.
' An additional advantage is the unambiguous regulatory landscape for radioactively contaminated evaporation pond sludges as the appropriate State agencies wo'uld be the j sole regulators for these materials. j However, as with Option 1, ractioactively conta'minated material no longer subject to NRC regulation would be able to be disposed of onsite at ISL facilities.- This would create numerous small waste disposal sites in the westem United States not subject to the !
long-term care provisions of UMTRCA, even though the waste contained in these disposal ,
sites will pose the same long term risks as 11e.(2) byproduct material. )
Additionally, the pmv disposal of commingled _ evaporation sludges in tailings - i impoundments w; ,, need to be " grandfathered" as acceptable to avoid NRC/ State dual !
. regulation of the raJioactive constituents in the impoundments. Any future disposal of these sludges in tailings impoundments also would need to be precluded to avoid similar potential for dual regulation, j
- The staff's preferred option is Option 3. The bases are that this approach would clarify the ;
regulatory landscape for evaporation pond s!udges and reduce the extent of NRC regulation of 4
, ISL facilities without significantly increasing the risk to the public or the environment. Option 3 {
e l )
. s The Commissioners 7 also would result in a small reduction of FTE to be allocated to NRC's uranium recovery program. Option 1 would not simplify the regulation of these sludges, whereas Option 2 would not allow a reallocation of staff resources to other high-priority programs and could lead to an increase in the need for such resources, if the demand for uranium increases.
If approved, the staff would prefer to implement Option 3 by: (1) revising the Standard Review Plan for ISL license applications to eliminate future staff review of evaporation pond designs; (2) ending ongoing staff reviews of evaporation ponds; and (3) removing evaporation ponds from NRC's DSP and notifying the respective State Dam Safety Officers that these ponds would no longer be reviewed under NRC's DSP. Coincident with the implementation of these actions, the staff would be pursuing the codification of these modifications to the current regulatory program as part of a rulemaking for a new 10 CFR Part 41.
OGC believes the better view is to have a rulemaking completed before issuing guidance documents which change the Agency's practice. The guidance documents could be developed in parallel with the rulemaking and be issued at completion of the rulemaking. A rulemaking would provide the technical and legal rationale for the Agency's change in its guidance.
Attachments 3 and 4 are differing professional views ((DPVs); as allowed under Management Directive (MD) 10.159)) on this recommendation, submitted by staff members on October 20, and Novembur 19,1998. The staff is reviewing The DPVs in accordance with the procedures in MD 10.159.
RESOURCES:
If the dual regulation of ground water is eliminated and Option 3 recommended above is implemented, the staff would be able to reallocate 2.0 FIE per year from the uranium recovery program to other high-priority work in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Commission:
- 1. Approve the staff's recommendation for NRC to rely on the EPA UIC program, including a.
generic ervironmental impact analysis prepared by the staff, thus removing NRC from the review of ground-water protection issues at ISL facilities;
- 2. Approve Option 3 regarding the regulatory disposition of evaporation pond sludges, and thus eliminate the need for staff review of evaporation pond designs at ISL f acilities, and for inclusion of these impoundments in NRC's DSP;
- 3. Provide direction on whether staff should proceed first with a rulemaking to accomplish these changes in practice, or whether staff may begin implementing these recommendations in its current licensing reviews, as well as by removing current conditions from licenses (if requested by licensees), coincident with proceeding with rulemaking; 0
9 L
.The Commissioners 8
- 4. Agree to the staff's publication of the final Standard Review Plan for ISL facility license
. applications consistent with the approaches outlined above, either coincident with or following rulemaking, depending on Commission direction as requested above;
- 4. Note that if the Commission approves a rulemaking plan for a new Part 41, .the changes could be codified as part of that rulemaking; and
- 5. . Provide direction on whether staff should pursue development of an MOU with EPA or the EPA primacy States to formalize the basis on which NRC will withdraw from active regulation of the ground water at ISL facilities.
COORDINATION:
The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this Commission Paper and has no legal objections. [The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and has no objection.]
William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations Attachments:
- 1. Outline of ISL Mining Process .
- 2. DPV dated October 20,1998
- 3. DPV dated November 19,1998 t
L-
The Commissioners 8 j
- 4. Agree to the staff's publication of the final Standard Review Plan for ISL facility license applications consistent with the approaches outlined above, either coincident with or following rulemaking, depending on Commission direction as requested above;
- 5. N'ote that if the Commission approves a rulemaking plan for a new Part 41, the changes could be codified as part of that rulemaking; and i
- 6. Provide direction on whether staff should pursue development of an MOU with EPA or the EPA primacy States to formalize the basis un which NRC will withdraw from active regulation of the ground water at ISL facilities.
COORDINATION:
The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this Commission Paper and has no legal objections. [The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and has no objection.]
i l
William D. Travers i
Executive Director for Operations Attachments: ,
- 1. Outline of ISL Mining Process l
- 2. DPV dated October 20,1998 !
- 3. DPV dated November 19,1998 DOC NAME: S:\DWM\ URB \MCL\lSL_ REG.wpd *See previous concurrence OFC URB Tech Ed* CFO O'GC* URB NAME CAbrams/bg EKraus Streby NLO NKStablein DATE 12/ /98. 11/16/98 12/ /98 12/11 /98 12/ /98 J
=== - meam ====== sun .
ummmmmmeunmausummenssassram ===== mameusammensmesumesmuse OFC DWM NMSS DEDR EDO NAME JGreeves CPaperiello FMiraglia WTravers DATE 12/ /98 12/ /98 12/ /98 12/ /98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY r
9
.