ML20248F326
| ML20248F326 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/23/1988 |
| From: | Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Thompson H NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245D264 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 8910060338 | |
| Download: ML20248F326 (4) | |
Text
- _ _ - - _ - - _
p p rsoy uNITO STATES i
t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.7 o
3 j
REGloN IV
\\
URANIUM RECoV FIELD OFFICE DENVER, ColoRAoo utt25 D 2 # IS66 URFO:HJP MEMORANDUM FOR:
Hugh Thompson, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards FROM:
Robert D. Martin, Regional Administrator Region IV
SUBJECT:
LEGAL AND POLICY DECISION ON AUTHORIZATION TO DISPOSE OF NON-BYPRODUCT WASTES IN URANIUM TAILINGS PONOS The Uranium Recovery Field Office (URFO) has received numerous inquiries and has three pending applications (copies attached) seeking NRC authorization to dispose of "non-byproduct materials" in uranium mill tailings impoundments. These pending applications include wastes generated by activities regulated either by NRC or Agreement States under authorities created by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as~ amended (Act) as well as wastes generated by operations not controlled under the Act.
These non-Act type wastes are classified as Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) or the more encompassing terminology of Naturally Occurring and Accelerator Produced Radioactive Materials (NARM).
The first application, by American Nuclear Corporation (ANC),
requests authorization to dispose of radium contaminated soils from both Denver, Colorado and Montclair, West Orange, and Glenridge, New Jersey sites into its uranium tailings pond.
The second application, by Umetco-Nuclear Assurance Corporation (Umetco, NAC), proposes to process and dispose of the same New Jersey radium soil wastes in the Umetto tailings pond.
Umetco's proposal to process the wastes through the mill circuit is more to facilitate disposal, although Umetco contends it will recover uranium values from those wastes.
Both the New Jersey and Colorado wastes are NARM wastes.
It is our understanding that the Colorado radium wastes are also designated wastes under EPA's Superfund clean up program. What impact the Superfund designation would have on disposal options for that waste is not known at this time. A third I
application also by Umetco, involves wastes generated at a " secondary" uranium reco,very facility (i.e. a facility which is designed to recover g910o6o33s 891005 PDR WA5E WM-3
+
p :..
N
-2 M 23 E uranium from a waste stream of another mineral recovery facility). The secondary recovery facility (Bingham Canyon) is licensed by the State of Utah, and is regulated pursuant to an Agreement State status as provided by.Section 274 of the Act.
These waste materials tend to have a number of things in common. They all contain nuclides of the. natural decay chain that are in activity concentrations which are approximate to or less than that of uranium byproduct material tailings.
Physically, the waste forms are also similar to uranium byproduct material wastes.
The vast majority of these wastes are contaminated soils. As such, some of these wastes constitute appreciable volumes that would create a significant financial burden if producers and/or owners were required to utilize existing. commercial low-level waste disposal sites.
That reason, I expect, creates the current interest in disposals at uranium tailings ponds.
It is noteworthy that some Agreement States (Utah, Colorado, and Texas) currently have the capability to license and regulate NARM disposal sites which could provide the needed disposal capacity for what appears to be a potentially large volume of contaminated soil at a reasonable cost when compared to disposal cost at commercial low-level waste sites.
The State
,e of Utah has recently licensed such a disposal site.
These wastes also have another unique attribute in that they do not meet the regulatory definition of " byproduct material".
Up to this time, URF0 has authorized only on a very limited basis the disposal of offsite wastes in uranium tailings ponds.
In nearly all cases those authorizations were for wastes from other licensed " primary" uranium recovery facilities (licensed by the NRC or by an Agreement State under the special Agreement previsions of Section 275 of the Act) and the wastes met the " byproduct material" definition as given in Section 11(e)(2) of the Act.
However, Umetco's request to dispose of wastes from a " secondary" uranium recovery facility at its mill in Utah can not be considered as uranium byproduct wastes.
Secondary recovery facilities are licensed as source materials facilities and since these facilities' wastes do not evolve from the primary processing of natural ores the resulting wastes are not classified as uranium byproduct materials. This consideration is unlike the situation where the staff approved the processing of raffinate sludges (refined ore) for the primary purpose of uranium recovery at the Kerr McGee Mill.
' *1 We have completed our technical review (enclosed) and have concluded that I
.7
" secondary wastes", because they are:
- 1) coincidental to a regulated uranium recovery activity under the Act; 2) are limited in quantity;
pW g.
w q
)
l l
7 M d W ?xd '
q o
l
'3) and'do not adversely impact-the tailings reclamation, should be approved for, disposal. :I request your concurrence in this proposed course of action as it does represent a policy decision on our part since l
wastes from " secondary" recovery facilities are not included in the-definition of " byproduct material" as given in the Act. ' At the same -
time, the Act does not preclude acceptance of such wastes.
However..it may increase.the NRC's regulatory burden to a slight degree and, as noted below, raises a question as to-the acceptability of such wastes insofar -
as future transfers under Section 83 of the Act are concerned.
If you agree that the. secondary wastes can be. accepted, we will authorize this
. disposal and. subsequent. similar-disposals from other secondary recovery.
facilities or other closely related fuel facilities.which are regulated
- under provisions of the Act.
This action would enable the disposal of waste materials that presently can not be accepted for dispocal at State-permitted NARM sites.. Approval would be granted, however, only after satisfactory resolution of the ownership question associated with Section 83 of the Act is. achieved.
Although this'propo n d a' tion makes sense from an origin standpoint, in c
that.the wastes result from uranium extraction operations and-these operations are regulated under provisions of the Act, it leaves unanswered the issue of accepting other non-byproduct wastes such as the-NARM wastes. We believe that definitive guidance is needed on the acceptability of disposal of NARM wastes.
I am aware of your staff's recent draft Commission paper (John Austin, Dec. 31,1987) on NRC's role in regulating NARM wastes.
In our opinion, if the NRC were to expand the scope of its regulatory control by authorizing disposal of NARM wastes, it would set a precedent which could lead to NRC consideration of direct
' regulatory control over other NARM wastes. As pointed out in Mr.
Austin's paper, the potential resource implications and interagency co-jurisdictional circumstances are troublesome at least.
In the case of either secondary recovery wastel, or NARM wastes, I am also concerned that the provisions in Sec. 83 of the Act on ownership and transfer of. ownership of byproduct material as required under UMTRCA may create a situation whereby the NRC would never be able to terminate a mill license if we allow the co-mingling of these wastes, because the States or the Department of Energy may simply refuse to accept transfers of such co-mingled wastes as-not being consistent with Section 83 and UMTRCA. This issue warrants definitive guidance and involves legal issues which warrant coordination with DOE and various states.
I
w
(
! f.
- N ' 3 %d We urge a policy decision that rules out'the disposal of NARM wastes in uranium tailings ponds. Conversely, we believe that, everything else being equal, the disposal of those wastes in tailings piles that I
originate from " secondary" uranium recovery facilities or other related fuel facilities has some merit. After the resolution of the Section 83 ownership issues and our recommended approach is adopted, we believe that approvals should be limited to those cases where the uranium mill operators would ifmit disposals to volumes of materials which would be minimal when compared to the volume of existing byproduct material wastes resulting from processing natural cres at the site and where there is no demonstrated impact on the reclamation plan for the site. With such guidance in hand, URF0 can respond to the requesting licensees.
Consideration should perhaps be given to recent actions or similar proposals in Agreement States such as Texas (i.e. Conquista) and Washington (i.e. Dawn).
f,l obert D. Martin Regional Administrator Region IV
Enclosures:
As Stated cc:
S. Treby, OGC D. Nussbaumer, OSP
C j
4-Department of Energy Washhston, DC 20545 JUN 10 988 Mr. Richard L. Bangart. Acting Director Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. 0.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Bangart:
This is in response to M. R. $napp's letter of April 14. 1988, to the Department of Enery regarding tse Department's acceptance of transfer of ownership of Itcensed urantun mill tallings impoundments if non byproduct q
materials were also disposed there.
While the Department supports the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's efforts te find permanent dis posal sites for these materials. It is not clear that the Department would save the authority under Section 83 of the Atomic Energy Act to accept custody of non-byproduct materials. Congressional action may be needed to provide an unambigu6us resolution on this issue.
Assuming some means of resolving the authority question was achieved, the prior satisfaction of all Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Com>rehensive Environmental Response, Com>ensation, and Liability Act (CE.tCLA) as amended, requirements would be essential. Appropriate financiaI arrangement would have to be provided so that tto Department would bear no additional cost associated with the acquisition of this material.
Your letter indicated that there are three pending applications before the Comission for the disposal of non byproduct material at licensed urainium mill tailings sites. We also understand there may be different materials in questionI some ('NARM*) clearly outside of MRC jurisdiction and some
(' secondary recovery waste) within NRC jurisdiction. We would be willing
~
to discuss this in more detail, if you desire, with respect to specific material at specific sites.
Sincerely.
(
John E. Baublita Acting Director Office of Remedial Action and Waste Technology Office of Nuctaar Energy hhb ff L