Utah Division of Radiation Control

Alternate Feed

UTAH RADIATION CONTROL BOARD POSITION STATEMENT-April 9, 1999

Processing and Disposal of Alternate Feed Materials by Utah Uranium Mills

The issue of alternate feed materials and whether the material were being legitimately processed for recovery of uranium was first raised in 1993 involving material received from Teledyne Wah Chang in Oregon by UMETCO Minerals. The State of Utah gained standing in the NRC administrative hearing process and challenged the basis of the approval including whether the waste contained RCRA waste and whether the material was being processed primarily for the source material content. The material was eventually returned to Oregon without being processed although the NRC upheld the amendment request. As a result of this incident, the NRC drafted the “Guidance on Alternate Feed Materials” in 1995 which established the regulatory and policy framework for uranium mills to accept alternate feed materials. The criteria established included that materials (1) meets the definition of ore, (2) could not contain listed hazardous waste, and (3) had to be processed primarily for source material content.

In 1996, Energy Fuels and its successor, International Uranium Corporation (IUSA), the new operators of the mill, initiated license amendments to the NRC for alternate feed materials. Materials to date that have been received include Allied Signal, Cotter Concentrate, Cabot Corporation, Cameco, and Ashland II. Recently, another license amendment was approved by the NRC that would allow the White Mesa Mill to receive, process, and dispose of Ashland I materials. International Uranium has also submitted an amendment request to the NRC to receive, process, and dispose of over 1,000.000 cubic yards of waste from the St. Louis FUSRAP site The last three amendment requests submitted by International Uranium Corporation to the NRC have resulted in increased waste volumes with minimal uranium content.

Although the State worked with and raised concerns with Energy Fuels and International Uranium concerning certain of these alternate feed materials, the State filed formal administrative action upon receipt of information regarding Ashland II. Once again, the State found a concern regarding whether the Ashland II waste contained RCRA waste which was eventually resolved to the satisfaction of the State. A concern was also expressed as to whether the material was being processed primarily for the source material content. The State has also raised concerns regarding the appropriateness of the current tailings impoundment liner system and the groundwater monitoring program in light of the receipt of these materials that may contain other hazardous constituents that are not normally encountered by processing natural ore.

As a result of these concerns raised by the Department of Environmental Quality and other affected parties, the Utah Radiation Control Board strongly encourages the Department and Division of Radiation Control to aggressively pursue the following actions:

The State of Utah, through the Attorney General’s Office, should continue to actively pursue resolution of issues through the NRC administrative process relating to alternate feed currently being mandated by the NRC. The recent ruling by NRC Administrative Law Judge Bloch failed to recognize or define criteria for establishing when processing of alternate feed material constitutes “sham disposal.” Judge Bloch established that “the only sham that stops material from being by-product material if it is not actually milled. If it is milled, then it is not a sham.” The State of Utah continues to believe that processing of materials with minimal uranium content while the facility receives a large “recycling” fee qualifies as a “sham disposal.” The State of Utah has appealed Judge Bloch’s ruling to the Commission. The Board is supportive of this effort to have the NRC recognize the need for a resolution policy clarification or rulemaking that supports the idea of the Division’s involvement in persuading the NRC in establishing easily enforceable criteria for determining what constitutes “sham disposal.” This will also provide assurance that uranium mills receiving alternate feed materials are not becoming “de facto” radioactive waste facilities. The Department will examine other courses of action as deemed necessary to reach a satisfactory settlement of the alternate feed issue from a state policy and environmental protection perspective for the citizens of Utah.
The Division of Radiation Control and International Uranium Corporation should continue in their efforts to work together on several fronts including verification sampling at the White Mesa Mill and the White Mesa Ute reservation, establishment of a policy for determining whether alternate feed may contain listed RCRA hazardous waste, notification of amendment requests, periodic appearances before the Radiation Control Board to report on mill activities, meeting with impacted parties in the vicinity of the Mill including the White Mesa Ute Tribal Council, and or establishment of a site advisory board comprised of all interests.
The Board believes that International Uranium Corporation should voluntarily submit to a State of Utah Groundwater Discharge Permit. On August 4, 1998, the Division of Water Quality requested a permit from IUSA and to date, IUSA has given the following reasons for its refusal to submit the Groundwater Discharge Permit application: (1) IUSA believes there is no probable cause that pollutants will affect waters of the State (2) IUSA has concerns that the State is preempted from federal law, and (3) IUSA is concerned that a Groundwater Discharge Permit will interfere with the future land transfer following decommissioning of the Mill site to the Department of Energy. It is recognized that IUSA has been negotiating with the Department of Environmental Quality in an effort to address the State’s concerns without applying for a Groundwater Discharge Permit.
The Board encourages the Division of Water Quality to pursue immediate legal action to obtain and process a state groundwater discharge permit for the White Mesa Mill if negotiations fail and an acceptable agreement cannot be reached that will provide confidence as to the groundwater monitoring program. The Board believes that obtaining a State Groundwater Discharge Permit is necessary to protect the State’s groundwater resources and could be a positive step demonstrating IUSA’s commitment to protecting the state’s groundwater resources. The current NRC groundwater protection program, for several reasons, does not provide the State with the necessary assurance that groundwater will not eventually be impacted.

You are here: Home >