ML20248M226
| ML20248M226 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/08/1998 |
| From: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Thompson A AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248M227 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9806150168 | |
| Download: ML20248M226 (5) | |
Text
.
. i 9UN - 8 1998 Mr. Anthony J. Thompson, P.C.-
Shaw Pittman Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037-1128
Dear Mr. Thompson:
This is in response to your letter dated May 4,1998 (received on May 7,1998) on behalf of
, Everest Exploration, Inc., and your review of the Texas Department of Health's (TDH) request to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to provide general guidance on issues related to the decommissioning of in situ uranium recovery facilities.
On May 5,1998, NRC responded to the TDH request. We are providing you a copy of our letter for your information. Our response characterizes the NRC's position on the issues raised in the TDH request and I hope you will find it informative and useful in advising your client.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-3340 or Jim Myers at (301) 415-2328 orINTERNET: jhm@nrc. gov.
Sincerely, RICH NGA I Richard L. angart, rector Office of State Programs
Enclosure:
As stated cc: Ruth E. McBurney, Director Division of Licensing, Registration and Standards /
Bureau of Radiation Control Texas Department of Health /
Distribution:
DlR RF (8S141) DSollenberger DCD (SP08)
SDroggitis _ KHsueh PDR (YES f._ NO )
Texas File DOCUMENT NAME: G:UHM\SHAWPIT.JHM ..
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE.
Ta receive a cop ' of this document, Indicate in the bor "C" = Copy without attachmenvenclosure "E" a Cop r with attachment /encbsure _"N" = No copy OFFICE - OSP l NMSS:DWM l' OSP:DD OSP:D/(y] l NAME JHMyers:nb:kk JHolonich PHLohaus RLBangart' Lib DATE. -06/03/98* 06/08/98
Mr. Anthony J. Thompson, P.C.
Shaw Pittman Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037-1128
Dear Mr. Thompson:
This is in response to your letter dated May 4,1998 (received on May 7,1998) on behalf of Everest Exploration, Inc., and your review of the Texas Departm,ent of Health's (TDH) request to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to provide general guidance on issues related to the decommissioning of in situ uranium recovery facilities. /
On May 5,1998, NRC responded to the TDH request.
providing you a copy Weofare/
ourleiter for your information. Our response characterizes the NRC's position on the issues raised in the TDH request and I hope you wiil find it informative and useful in advising your client
/
if you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-3340 or Jim Myers at (301) 415-2328 orINTERNET: jhm@nrc. gov.
Sincerely, Richard L./Bangart, Director Office of State Programs
Enclosure:
As stated cc: Ruth E. McBurney, Director Division of Licensing, Registration /
and Standards Bureau of Radiation Control /
Texas Department o' Health Distribution:
DIR RF (8S141) DCD (SP08)
SDroggitis PDR (YES.f _ NO )
Texas File DOCUMENT NAME: G:UHM\SHAWPIT.JHM *SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE.
n,.ew.e cop, ormw oocum.auna.m. ia m. box: c con moot nenmenvencio.um r com e.nenm.nvenemium r wo eopy OFFICE OSP l Nhf$gpWM OSP:DD OSP:D l NAME JHMyers:nb:kk JHolgdichf/ PHLohaus RLBangart DATE 06/03/98* F 06/6 /98 06/04/98* 06/ /98 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-27
/
i
/
i Mr. Anthony J. Thompson, P.C.
Shaw Pittman Potts & Trowbridge i 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1128
Dear Mr. Thompson:
This is in response to your letter dated May 4,1998 (received on Ma 7,1998) on behalf of Everest Exploration, Inc., and your review of the Texas Departme of Health's (TDH) request to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to provide general idance on issues related to the decommissioning of in situ uranium recovery facilities.
l On May 5,1998, NRC responded to the TDH request. We are roviding you a copy of our letter for your information. Our response characterizes the N C's position on the issues raised in the TDH request and I hope you will find it informative and seful in advising your client.
I If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 41 340 or Jim Myers at (301) l 415-2328 or INTERNET: jhm@nrc. gov.
Sincerely, Richard . Bangart, Director Office f State Programs
Enclosure:
As stated cc: Ruth E. McBurney, CHP l
' Distribution:
DIR RF (8S141) DCD (SP08)
SDroggitis PDR (YES.f_ NO )
Texas File
. DOCUMENT NAME: G:\JHM\SHAWPl .JHM *SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE.
T. c.sv. . cop > or w. oocum.nt. inee i. in e,. box: - copy mout nenrnenvenchur.ge A ek f 2 auchrn nu.nchur. "N" = No copy OFFICE OSP l f9 MSS:WM l OSP%/1 OSP;D NAME JHMyers:nb JHolonich PHLohads~ RLBangart DATE 06/03/98 * / 06/ /98 06/'/ /98 06/ /98 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-27 l
}
Mr. Anthony J. Thompson, P.C.
Shaw Pittman Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1128
Dear Mr. Thompson:
This is in response to your letter dated May 4,1998 on behalf of Everest Exploration, Inc., and your review of the Texas Department of Health's (TDH) request to'the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to provide general guidance on issues relate'd to the decommissioning of in situ uranium recovery facilities.
On May 5,1998, one day after your letter, NRC responded to the TDH request. We are providing you a copy of our letter for your information.70ur response characterizes the NRC's position on the decommissioning of uranium recoveJy facilites, including those that used the In situ recovery process. I hope you will find it informative and useful in advising your client.
/
If you have any questions, please contact mejst (301) 415-3340 or Jim Myers at (301) 415-2328 or INTERNET: jhm@nrc. gov.
/
Sincerely, Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs
Enclosure:
As stated cc: Ruth E. McBurne , CHP
/
/
/
Distribution:
'DIR RF (BS141) DCD (SP08)
NfD,'y(W1/ N SDroggitis
' Texas File Mbyh PDR (YES.f_ NO )
DOCUMENT NAME: ' G:\JHM\SHAWPIT.JHM T a veceive e cop > of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without a pent / enclosure "E" = Copf with attachment / enclosure "N" a No copy
- l OFFICE OSP p l (SP l' OSP:DD OSP:D l l
, lNAME JHMyers:nb T DSollenBWger PHLohaus RLBangart lDATE 06/1 /98 06/ /R '
06/ /98 06/ /98
i f ua
[ uq\ UNITED STATES le j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 70666 4001 4,g,,4 June 8, 1998 Mr. Anthony J. Thompson, P.C.
Shaw Pittman Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037-1128 l
Dear Mr. Thompson:
This is h response to your letter dated May 4,1998 (received on May 7,1998) on behalf of Everest Exploration, Inc., and your review of the Texas Department of Health's (TDH) request to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to provide general guidance on issues related to ,
the decommissioning of in situ uranium recovery facilities.
On May 5,1998, NRC responded to the TDH request. We are providing you a copy of our letter l for your information. Our response characterizes the NRC's position on the issues raised in the l TDH request and I hope you will find it informative and useful in advising your client.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-3340 or Jim Myers at (301) 415-2328 i orINTERNET: jhm@nrc. gov.
I Sincerely, hit fust Richard L. Bangart, Director [jdt ~
J Office of State Programs 1
Enclosure.
As stated
]
cc: Ruth E. McBurney, Director Division of Licensing, Registration 4 and Standards Bureau of Radiation Control Texas Department of Health l
i
_____________A
- f
- p. ..
I s ae.
UNITED STATES
- [
u NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 3000H001
\**ll*** May 5, 1998 Ms. Ruth E. McBurney, CHP, Director Division of Licensing, Registration, and Standards Bureau of Radiation Control Texas Department of Hea:th 1100 West 49th St.
Austin, TX 78756-319g j
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO MARCH 23,1998 LETTER TO THE OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS Dear Ms. McBumey. j l
I am responding to your March 23,1998, letter to Richard L. Bangart, Director of the Omco of
, State Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In that letter, you requested comments and recommendations from the NRC on whether the attemative procedures i discussed in the letter are permissible under NRC regulations. The questions in your letter deal j 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 l staff practice to discourage compliance with environmental standards by dilution with uncontaminated material. Rather, the NRC staff encourages the cleanup of contamination to applicable standards. As such, in the past, NRC has found that removing soils cor taminated with 11e.(2) byproduct to levels that met the applicable cleanup standards, and then disposing of the 11e.(2) byproduct material at a site licensed to receive such material was an acceptable way of complying ydth NRC regulations. If the NRC staff were presented with a proposal to use mixing as a method of complying with m.oph:;Ns cleanup standards, we would treat it as an attemative to the requirem6nts in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, and would require the applicant to show that the economic beneT:t and equivalent protection requirements specified in the
" Introduction" to 10 CFR Pad 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, crtterion 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 effecWeness 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.
The answer to your questions conceming the disposal oi Ra 226-contaminated soils under holding ponds is dependent on the oQin of the water placed in the ponds during their operation. This is also related to your quettion about what criteria is appropriate for def.ormining the classification of mining waste and 11e.(2) byproduct material. Essentially, any waste generated primarily as a result of the extractiLn of uranium from ore is defined as 11a.(2)
- \
R.McBumey' byproduct material, and subject to NRC regulatiort This dshitix chas not confer regulatory jurisdicten over waste generated from other ISL activities not bang ermducted primarily for the extraction of uranium. .
At ISLs, waste streams originate from either the processes associated primarily 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 definitinn 11e.(2) byproduct material, and thus sut: ject 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, and is considered a mine waste subject to state mining regulations at
' NRC-licensed sites. It la important to note that at the beginning of ground-water restoration,
, ISLs will still extract some uranium from the restoration water. However, the process itself is
- being done primarily to restore ground water, otA extract uranium. Therefore, it does not meet the definition of 11e.(2) byproduct material.
For the particular issue concoming the cleanup of Ra-226-contaminated soil below holding ponds, the source of the emuent placed in the pond determines the regulatory responsibility. At
~
ISL operations, Equid wastes can be generated from the uranium recovery plant, from the production bleed, pd 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 not ground-water inflow into the recovery zone. Emuent produced by the uranium recovery plant and by production bleed is process wastewater, and because it is a wasta stream generated as part of the uranium extraction activities it is defined as 11e.(2) byproduct material. Ground-water emuent is produced at the end of a uranium recovery operation, during restoration of ground-water quality in the recovery zone. Emuent produced l during ground-water restoration activities is considered to be 'mine wastewater," and is not considered to be 11e.(2) byproduct meterial. This emuent may be defined as naturally l occurring radioactive material or as technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material.
Any residual pond material or contaminated soils below a pond that contained all or some l
process wastewater would contain 11e.(2) byproduct material. For the case where the holding i
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 a for licensees to depose 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 altamatives provisions of economic benefit and equivalent ge.ct;en 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, concoming 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
k
'f R.McBumey -3 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 definition solely 11e.(2) byproduct !
material, and needs to be reclaimed by cleanup and disposal in a mill licensed to take the material or an 11a.(2) disposal cell.
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. l Therefore, ISL licensees must comply with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, criterion (2) which l requires the disposal of this material at a mill licensed to dispose of the material or an 11o.(2) j' disposal site. Altematively, the licenses 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 Guide 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 11s.(2) byproduct material, and would be subject to the cleanup requirements of Part 40, Appendix A, at NRC-licensed sites. Soll 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 solis are most likely to become contaminated from processing fluids as opposed to mine wastewater. i Similarly, contaminated plant equipment that was only used in the restoration of the well fields is not considered to be subject to NRC regulation. Plant equipment that was used as part of uranium extraction operations, or for both uranium extraction and ground-water restoration, is considered to be subject to NRC regulation because it is 11s.(2) byproduct material. These distinctions again flow from the definition of 11a.(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 11a.(2) byproduct material.
1 l
It is important to note that the National Mining Associaten recently submitted a white paper requesting a review by the Commission of these issues. The results of this rev*ew has the potential to change the information presented here.
- * . . l,
, r.
i R.McBumey 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) 4154919, or Elaine Brummett at (301) 415-6606.
Sincerely, l AJ
, -Josep'h J7Holonich, Chief Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
~,
.s y/ 2
+e i
N I l
)
l l i EXECUTIVE TASK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ll
<<< PRINT SCREEN UPDATE FORM >>> !
[ASK # - 8S141
. . , , DATE- 05/07/98 55 -- -----------
MAIL CTRL. - 1998 TASK
-~~~~~-~~~~~
STARTED - 05/07/98 TASK DUE - 06/07/98
~~~~ -~~
TASK COMPLETED -
~~~~ .--~~~~ -
/ /
TASK DESCRIPTION - LTR. TO R. BANGART FROM ANTHONY THOMPSON OF SHAW PITTMA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
POTTS&TROWBRIDGE REQUESTING
-~~~~~--~~~~--
OFF. - LAWYER REQUESTER
-~~~~~~~~~
- THOMPSON WITS - 0 FYP - N PROG.- i y\b PERSON - STAFF LEAD - KPH PROG. AREA - ;
--~~~~ ~~~~~~---- --~~ --~~~
PROJECT
. -~~~~~~~ .
STATUS - HAVE SUPPORT FROM DENNIS.
PLANNED ACC. -N LEVEL CODE - 1 l
lpAflanpha-l l