If you are seeing this message, you are likely using an older browser to view this site. This website's content is fully accessible to all browsers, however the web site will look much better and your experience will be much more enjoyable if you upgrade your browser to a more current version. Please visit this web site to upgrade your browser.
Proposed: The State of Utah will Ammend its current agreement with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Regulate Utah Uranium Mills and Tailings
All oral comments from five scoping meetings and written comments received during the open public comment period were reviewed and grouped in various categories. The response will address the broad issues identified during the hearing process.
1. Support/Opposition to Agreement State Status
Sixteen commentors indicated either support or opposition to the State pursuing an amendment to the existing Agreement. Among the facilities, there was opposition from Plateau Resources and International Uranium. There was support from Envirocare. There was neutrality from Rio Algom. Among local elected officials, there was opposition from Garfield County and support from Grand County. Although not officially on the record, we would anticipate opposition from San Juan County and support from Tooele County. Employees or contractors of the various facilities aligned themselves with the position of the facility either in support or opposition. Citizens with "no ties" to facilities were in support of Agreement State status. Downwinders, a radiation interest group supported Agreement State status. The Navajo-Utah Commission also voiced their support of Agreement State status.
One commentor stated "We would have to say that the question of cost which you will be hearing about from others. . . needs to be balanced with what are the costs of not regulating, of not being an Agreement State. . ."And we would submit that the Atlas case would be a good example of what sometimes can get left on your doorstep when relying upon outsiders to provide the regulation and control over these matters." Other commentors indicated that pursuing Agreement State status would only benefit Envirocare and there were other motives for the State pursuing Agreement State status such as trying to restrict alternate feed materials into the State. Envirocare indicated their position was based on the long-term policy starting with Governor Bangerter and most recently with Governor Leavitt that environmental regulation in Utah is best done by Utah and not the federal government. Citizens with no apparent ties to any of the facilities aligned mostly with support Agreement State status. One commentor indicated: ". . . a Utah government can say: 'Well, we're here, we can see what we need, we need this!' 'And it might not be what the Federal government feels that Utah needs'"
In general, support of or opposition to Agreement State status aligned closely with the description in the first paragraph.
2. Program funding/duplication
Seven comments centered on the issue of program funding or unnecessary duplication of the current NRC program. In addressing the issue of duplication, if the State opted to pursue an amended Agreement and was successful in completing the NRC/State process, the NRC would then "relinquish" the program to Division of Radiation Control. Therefore, there would be no duplication of effort at that point. The NRC would evaluate the uranium mills and tailings program during regularly scheduled program reviews which occur on a two to four year basis. NRC currently evaluates the radioactive materials and low-level waste programs which have been relinquished previously.
Comments regarding program funding centered on the idea that the state must rely on fees from industry or use general fund monies for a uranium mills and tailings regulatory program. There was also a concern that the current level of fees paid to the NRC could decrease if the state sought more restrictive controls that would decrease or not allow alternate feed materials from being reprocessed. There was also the concern that the State could not give assurances that the costs would decrease such as the annual operating fees now charged by the NRC. One current NRC licensee asked if a current annual no-fee assessment to a closed facility would continue with the State. The same licensee was concerned about the per hour rate charge for inspections and license amendment reviews and whether they would be required to pay training and education costs for the new staff.
DRC Response:
Currently, NRC charges Utah licensees a combination of annual fees, inspection fees, and review fees. Average annual fees range from 0 - $96,400 for any one of the five Utah facilities. Average review fees range from $7,842 -$84,781. Average inspection fees range from $2,687 - $35,219. (SOURCE: NRC data from 1998-1999). The Utah facilities (excluding Atlas) contributed an average of $476,938 (see Table A) to the NRC in fees. There have been no consideration of the use of general fund monies and there will be no request by the Department for a general fund appropriations.
| Facility | Avg Annual Fee | Avg Licensing Fees | Avg Inspection Fees | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| International Uranium | $96,400 | $84,781 | $19,064 | $200,245 |
| Envirocare | $45,000 | $44,957 | $35,219 | $125,476 |
| Plateau | $96,400 | $38,824 | $5,464 | $140,688 |
| Rio Algom | 0 | $7,842 | $2,687 | $10,529 |
| TOTALS | $238,100 | $176,404 | $62,434 | $476,938 |
Another potential source of revenue would be a disposal or reprocessing fee on incoming uranium and thorium mill tailings. Currently the Utah Radiation Control Act (UCA 19-3) assesses $2.50 per ton for disposal of radioactive waste. Assuming the same statutory authority could be applied to waste that is reprocessed and eventually disposed of, Envirocare in calendar years 1996 and 1997 averaged from 100,000 to 150,000 tons of waste. The Ashland II material received by International Uranium (IUC) constituted approximately 45,000 cubic yards. Averaging the two sources of income (125,000 Envirocare and 45,000 IUC) multiplied by $2.50/ton would equal approximately $425,000 in revenue for a year.
Funds for waste activities are currently deposited into a Department of Environmental Quality restricted account. Funds from fees on solid, hazardous, and radioactive waste are deposited into the account. The Legislature appropriates monies for a series of programs to be funded from this account. A disposal/reprocessing fee with other assessed fees could be deposited into the restricted account and money appropriated for program funding.
In summary, program funding could be based on the following options:
(a) Fee-based
(b) Fee-based supplemented by disposal/reprocessing fees
The Division recommends a fee-based approach to program funding.
3. Staffing
Four comments centered on the staffing issue. There was concern that additional staff would need to be hired as outlined in the DRC scoping document as follows:
"The Division is considering the need for additional staffing with expertise in health physics, groundwater hydrology, and engineering. Additional administrative support will also be needed. The Division is seeking feedback on the value of having an inspector assigned to Southeastern Utah that would handle a variety of functions in the area including enhanced inspection of the uranium mills."
One licensee was concerned because they were in the critical stages of reclamation and if a new State program was implemented and new staff hired, the experience and knowledge level would delay critical issues and decisions. Others viewed hiring of additional staff as a cost burden that should not have to be endured. One commentor asked the State to be consistent and open up a regional office (like in Tooele County) to oversee uranium mill and tailings activities in Southeastern Utah. The commentor recommended that it consider providing a full-time environmental hydrologist, one or two environmental health scientitists, two radiation health physicists, and maybe a chemical engineer.
A staffing plan was prepared by the Division for future consideration of staffing. The plan lists several options for consideration in staffing of the uranium mill and tailings program. The options are presented in Table A.
| Alternative A | Alternative B | Alternative C | Alternative D |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inspection functions RAM Section 1 insp/qtr X op mills = 8 1 insp/qtr X op mills = 8 LLW Section 1 insp/qtr X comm fac = 4 |
NEW - 1 full-time HP located in SE Utah, does all mill and S Utah RAM inspections LLW Section 1 insp/qtr X comm fac = 4 |
Inspection functions assigned internally, coordinated by existing managers | Inspection functions assigned internally, coordinated by existing managers |
| Existing GW hydrologist | Existing GW hydrologist | Existing GW hydrologist | Existing GW hydrologist |
| NEW engineer (for op/closing licensing) |
NEWengineer (for op/closing licensing) |
NEW engineer (for op/closing licensing) |
NEW engineer (for op/closing licensing) |
| NEW section manager | NEW section manager | Staff management assigned to LLW Section Mgr | Staff management assigned to existing Section Mgr |
| NEW clerical OT II | NEW clerical OT II | NEW clerical OT II | NEW clerical OT II |
| 3 NEW FTEs | 4 NEW FTEs | 2 NEW FTEs | 2 NEW FTEs |
| Alternative E | Alternative F | Alternative G |
|---|---|---|
| NEW - 1 full-time HP located in SE Utah, does all mill and S Utah RAM inspections LLW Section 1 insp/qtr X comm fac = 4 |
NEW - 1 full-time HP located in SE Utah, does all mill and S Utah RAM inspections LLW Section 1 insp/qtr X comm fac = 4 |
NEW - 1 full-time HP located in SE Utah, does all mill and S Utah RAM inspections LLW Section 1 insp/qtr X comm fac = 4 |
| NEW GW hydrologist | NEW engineer (for op/closing licensing) | NEW GW hydrologist |
| NEW engineer (for op/closing licensing) | NEW clerical OT II | NEW engineer (for op/closing licensing) |
| NEW section manager | Staff management assigned to LLW Section Mgr | NEW clerical OT II |
| NEW clerical OT II | Staff management assigned to LLW Section Mgr | |
| 5 NEW FTEs | 3 NEW FTEs | 4 NEW FTEs |
The staffing plan in Table B was evaluated and costs assigned to each of the alternatives listed.
| Staff required | Costs | |
|---|---|---|
| Alternative A | 3 NEW FTEs | $225.000 |
| Alternative B | 4 NEW FTEs | $300,000 |
| Alternative C | 2 NEW FTEs | $125,000 |
| Alternative D | 2 NEW FTEs | $150,000 |
| Alternative E | 5 NEW FTEs | $375,000 |
| Alternative F | 3 NEW FTEs | $200,000 |
| Alternative G | 4 NEW FTEs | $275,000 |
The staffing costs for Table B were calculated as follows:
Engineer - $75,000
Clerical - $50,000
Manager - $100,000
Health physicist - $75,000
GW hydrologist - $75,000
These budgeted amounts include space and space set-up needs and employee benefits.
| Facility | Avg Annual Fee (includes no separate inspection fee) |
Licensing Fees ($75 per hour)1 |
Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| International Uranium | $75,000 | $50,850 | $125,850 |
| Envirocare | $75,000 | $27,000 | $35,219 |
| Plateau | $50,000 | $23,325 | $5,464 |
| Rio Algom | $0 | $4,725 | $4,725 |
| TOTALS | $200,000 | $105,900 | $305,900 |
1 Based on the average hours of work accomplished by the NRC (average fees divided by NRC hourly rate of $140) X $75 hour average State of Utah hourly rate
| Facility | Avg Annual Fee (no separate inspection fee) |
Licensing Fees ($75 per hour) | Inspection Fees | Potential annual savings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| International Uranium | $21,400 | $33,931 | $19.064 | $74,395 |
| Envirocare | $0 (increase of $30,000) | $17,957 | $35,219 | $18,176 |
| Plateau | $46,400 | $15,499 | $5,464 | $42,363 |
| Rio Algom | $0 (no change) | $3,117 | $2,687 | $5,804 |
From Table D, there is the potential of $305,900 in revenue available based on the set annual fees and estimated hours of licensing work at $75 per hour. This funds all alternatives outlined in Tables B and C with the exception of alternative E. Table E refers to potential annual savings from movement from a NRC program to the state program with savings ranging from $5,804 to $74,395 for the four facilities with the ability to pay fees.
4. Retain the status quo- continue with NRC regulation
There were ten comments relating to a continuation of the current regulatory regiment by the NRC. Some commentors questioned the need for state regulation since "there have been no significant environmental violations in over 20 years of operations at the White Mesa Mill." "We have had direct conversation with the NRC and are assured. . .that the White Mesa operations pose no direct threat to the public or the environment." One facility believes ". . . NRC has done a more than adequate job regulating the industry and has a very professional and highly trained staff to conduct that regulation." Another commentor indicated that: "To date there has not been no negative impacts, any significant health issues, safety issues, brought before this body, indicating lack of control or attention to safety matters associated with the NRC's oversight of the facilities."
Those commenting felt that the NRC is doing an adequate job in regulating the existing facility operations in Utah. As such, many commentors were concerned that such regulation by the state would be duplicative, more restrictive to prevent reprocessing of alternate feed, designed to give Envirocare a break from dual regulation, and state regulation would not be handled fairly and in a professional manner by the State ("Utah Radiation Control is still tainted in the minds of the national public by the Envirocare/Anderson scandal")
DRC response:
In response to the national perception of the Utah Division of Radiation Control, we disagree with the idea of being "tainted." There certainly have been some disgusting events of the past, which are now "of the past." During 1998, the Division was subject to a program review by the NRC under the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP). NRC's team of reviewers, which included state participation from the Tennessee radiation program, carefully reviewed all aspects of the program including the low-level waste program. The program was judged "adequate and compatible" in all program areas. There was only one recommendation for program improvement which has been corrected. The program was also judged "adequate and compatible" in 1994 preceding the scandal. So in the mind of the federal agency that has to judge the Utah program, it certainly does not view the program as "tainted." Many others throughout the United States including state regulators, members of the regulated community within and without of the State of Utah, other federal counterparts, and representatives of environmental groups, the public, and the media have a very positive view of the Utah program.
5. Concerns with NRC regulation
There were seven comments expressing concern with how the NRC regulates Utah uranium mills and tailings. One commentor indicated "their track record on both sides, not listening to the public to ensure that fair environmental regulation takes place is not good. And then on the other hand, their actual regulation of facilities has not been very good either, given what's happened at places like Atlas Minerals, and other locations. It really hasn't been very good. Another commentor indicated "We are convinced that lack of testing at the mill site has been a contributing factor in hindering our efforts to gain important information as to the operation of the White Mesa Mill regarding these contaminants." One citizen commented "I have certainly not been happy with the way that the NRC thus far has regulated Atlas."
DRC response:
In considerations for Agreement State status outlined in the Scoping Document it was indicated that concerns have been heightened by the recent bankruptcy and insufficient funds to close the Atlas mill site and that such status provided options regarding alternate feed processing. There was also discussion regarding enhanced inspection and public participation. Currently inspection of the mills is on a semi-annual basis from NRC Region IV's office in Arlington, Texas. Envirocare, a major commercial facility, receives quarterly inspections. In contrast, the State of Utah provides continuous oversight of the Envirocare facility. Licensing of the mills occurs out of the NRC Headquarters offices in Rockville, Maryland.
The ability of the public to comment on any regulatory action is very limited in the NRC regulatory arena. There are prescribed time frames for filing for a hearing, a burden to show standing in terms of threat to human health and the environment, and then a process that can begin at the NRC administrative judge level and end up at the full Commission level. There are means for informal filings (such as 2.206 petitions) in which the agency has no prescribed time to act or in which the agency does not have to even consider such petition. NRC has been striving to make improvements in these areas over the last few years. The bottom line is that a "regular citizen" will have a very difficult time raising an issue, whether valid or not, to a NRC action and most times such requests are rejected outright.
In contrast, Utah Radiation Control rules provide for public comment if the Executive Secretary or the Board finds on the basis of requests that there is a significant degree of public interest in the proposed action. At the time of any final decision, the Executive Secretary of the Utah Radiation Control Board must provide a description and response to all significant comments raised during a public comment period or a hearing. Upon any final decision, any party may request a hearing on a matter as described in the Utah Radiation Control Rules, R313-17. The Utah process allows for a more open dialogue of all issues, whether pertinent or not, and then those issues are looked at, commented on, and a decision rendered. In many cases, anyone may appear at a hearing and voice concerns as has been the case numerous times for the Division and the Utah Radiation Control Board.
There is also concern regarding recent NRC decisions regarding the regulation of materials prior to the November 9, 1978 promulgation of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA). One commentor suggested that the NRC provide Utah with a formally adopted Commission position (not a staff attorney's individual opinion) to the effect that they are or are not delegating to Utah the authority to regulate pre-1978 11e.(2) materials. The State of Utah has previously indicated its concerns with the NRC decision not to regulate pre-1978 materials. This leaves the State with a significant regulatory gap for materials worthy of regulation to protect human health and the environment.
6. Alternatives to Agreement State status
One concept that has surfaced as a result of the scoping discussions is what would be some alternatives to Agreement State status that could be considered? A cornerstone of such an alternative would be a groundwater discharge permit for standby or operating facilities. Building on that cornerstone would be to ensure that uranium mills do not accept materials that are not currently allowed. An example is the establishment of a hazardous waste protocol by one uranium mill that is to ensure that no listed hazardous waste are contained in alternate feed. Certainly, a ruling by the NRC Commission on Utah's appeal regarding alternate feed materials could lead to an alternate regulatory regime. Better communication with the public is another building block to the cornerstone.
DRC response:
The DRC is open to recommendations for uranium mill regulation by the State other than Agreement State status. As previously mentioned one option is to ensure that operating and standby mills have groundwater discharge permits. The closing mills of Rio Algom and Atlas would continue on with the NRC until closure, and Envirocare would continue to operate with a state groundwater discharge permit for the uranium and thorium mill tailings disposal area. There could be variations to this alternate approach. This approach would not resolve the subject of dual regulation regarding groundwater. International Uranium, Plateau Resources, and Envirocare would be subject to NRC regulation of groundwater (which includes radiologics) as well as a state groundwater discharge permit for regulation of non-radiologics.
7. Atlas/Atlas liability issue
Eight commentors indicated concerns regarding the State assuming liability for the Atlas tailings by becoming an Agreement State. International Uranium provided a letter from Anthony Thompson of the Washington D.C. law firm of Shaw, Pittman regarding potential liability issues associated with Atlas and Agreement State status. One commentor indicated "I believe that the Atlas tailings will become an orphan site under DEQ responsibility if the funds aren't allocated by the federal government. That means that the State of Utah will have to pay for that cleanup whatever monies are needed to finish the cleanup."
DRC response:
Letters from Shaw Pittman of October 28, 1999, the Utah Attorney General's response of November 23, 1999, and the Shaw Pittman follow-up letter of December 6, 1999 are included in Attached K of the public participation document. Fred G. Nelson of the Utah Attorney General's Office indicated in his November 23rd letter that "In sum, nothing in the AEA (Atomic Energy Act) would require Utah, as an Agreement State, to take custody of the Atlas site or to undertake remediation costs at the site." "If Utah were the primary regulator, Utah may be in a position to be more effective in its effort to cause, if necessary, DOE and Congress to address this situation and to achieve closure of the site. Anthony Thompson of Shaw Pittman in his letter of December 6, 1999 indicates: "I agree with the conclusion, stated on page two of your letter, that Utah would not be responsible for any remediation costs for the closing of the Atlas site if Utah were an Agreement State."
One of the early issues in the scoping process centered on whether Atlas should be included as part of an Agreement. Discussions with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have indicated that it is not possible to exclude a licensee from Agreement State status. There was recognition that Atlas was a unique circumstance being in bankruptcy which responsibility would eventually be transferred to a Trustee. However, the NRC has an "all or none" policy relating to assuming Agreement State status. Any Agreement State decision would include Atlas (now the Atlas Trustee) as part of the Agreement State package submitted to the NRC. Practically, however, the Agreement State process is some months away once initiated and we would know better where we are "in the process" at the times when Agreement State status becomes effective. One possible scenario could be the remaining trust monies could be expended and Atlas could be a federal responsibility when the State assumes Agreement State status.
8. Closure of mills/economic issues
Thirteen commentors were concerned about closure of operating uranium mills or potential for operation of standby mills. The White Mesa Mill is currently a large employer in the Blanding area and the Plateau Ticaboo Mill has the potential to employ several persons in the Garfield County area. Some commentors were concerned that there was a mission by state government to "shut down" mill operations because of the controversy of reprocessing of alternate feed materials. Others were convinced that there was direction, fueled by the opposition of competitors such as Envirocare, to close the mills by the Department of Environmental Quality.
DRC response:
There are many factors out of the control of state government which seem to take the blame for all woes of an impacted industry. The price of uranium cannot be controlled, and it is acknowledged that the current price will not support conventional ore mining and milling or a combination of mining/milling and alternate feed processing. The State cannot control the competition for "wastes" and in the case of mills, alternate feeds. Recent regulatory decisions by the NRC have allowed such alternate feeds which were previously disposed of at low-level waste facilities or reprocessed at uranium mills (both in Utah) to go to solid or hazardous waste facilities throughout the United States. The State cannot control the market for alternate feeds (there is a limited amount) nor the competition among uranium mills for the material. Besides the White Mesa Mill which to date has processed all the alternate feeds, there is interest in entering the alternate feed market from Plateau Resources Ticaboo Utah mill and the Cotter Colorado Mill. This could mean that the competition between mills for alternate feed could mean "less" for some or "more" for others and could be a factor in whether a mill can continue to operate.
To restate the point emphatically: the State of Utah, the Department of Environmental Quality and the Division of Radiation Control are not interested in taking any action that will cause shutdown or closure of any mill or disposal facility. The Department/Division have supported all but the Ashland alternative feed requests by International Uranium and its predecessor, Energy Fuels. As an example, the Cotter concentrate material from the Nevada Test Site was a very controversial alternate feed that was supported for reprocessing by the Department/Division. The Department/Division have successfully worked out a hazardous waste protocol for the White Mesa Mill to follow to prevent acceptance of listed hazardous waste.
The Division of Water Quality recently took "appropriate" action in the case of the recently discovered chloroform contamination in lieu of insisting on the "cease and desist" of activities including reprocessing until the source of the contamination could be discovered. Even the alternate feed rulemaking, which has been touted by some as an example of where the State overstepped its bounds, went through a full regulatory process including public hearings and a decision by the Utah Radiation Control Board to await the outcome of the state's appeal before the Commission. This scoping for Agreement State status is another example of the State gathering the facts and making a decision with full input from "all impacted parties and citizens" instead of arbitrarily deciding to move forward with an amended Agreement. The public record has been open on uranium mill issues for several years which is a credit to the Department and the Division but used by some as a forum to criticize and insight fear. In the end, the information will be considered and the best decision made for all of Utah.
9. Alternate feed issues
Several commentors expressed concern over perceived movement by the State to further restrict alternate feeds. To date, only one Utah uranium mill, the International Uranium White Mesa Mill, has received and reprocessed alternate feed materials. One comment indicated "The Scoping Document suggests that Agreement State status will give the State greater control over alternate feeds. While this intent is the cause for our concern, we are not convinced that this will give the State the control it seeks. The definition of alternate feed is a federal issue and Utah cannot change AEC definitions. The full NRC is currently reviewing Utah's appeal of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Judge's decision upholding White Mesa's position. Appeal to the Circuit Court is possible by either party. This final decision will establish the standard both the State and mills processing alternate feed follow. Make no mistake, this is a make or break item for Utah mills. With uranium commodity prices where they are currently, the mills must process alternate feeds to open (Shootaring Canyon) or continue operating (White Mesa). If the State were to attempt to use Agreement State status to stop or limit the recycling of federally allowed alternate feeds, the mills would have no alternative but to litigate. If the proposal is to allow DEQ to impose conditions on the use of alternate feeds which are more restrictive than the ultimate federal standard, then the costs of litigation should also be calculated into pursuing Agreement State status."
DRC response:
Two actions by the State to date have involved alternate feed materials. One action alluded to by the above commentor has involved challenge of a NRC decision to grant a license amendment request for the White Mesa Mill to receive materials from the Ashland I and II Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) sites in Tonawanda, New York being cleaned up by the Army Corps of Engineers. The basis for the state challenge was that these materials did not meet one of the three criteria that NRC evaluates to allow mills to process alternate feed. This criteria was that such materials have to be "primarily" processed to recover uranium. The State in arguments in the NRC administrative process suggested that Ashland materials had very low uranium content which, on its own would not be feasible to process economically. However, a recycling or disposal fee accompanies such material and makes reprocessing very attractive. A NRC administrative judge initially ruled that as long as "any amount" of uranium is being processed., it is appropriate. The State of Utah has appealed this decision to the full Commission.
In a separate action, the State of Utah proposed an alternate feed rulemaking which set a minimum uranium content of .05% in such alternate feed materials. This rulemaking was subject to public comment and hearings in Salt Lake City and Blanding which were well attended. There were supporters and opponents to the rulemaking. In the end, the Utah Radiation Control Board decided to table the rulemaking (which allowed it to expire) until the full Commission had the opportunity to review the arguments and present their position on this issue. To date, the Commission has not ruled on the alternate feed proposal. It was indicated that once the Commission decision had been rendered that the Board would re-visit the issue to see if further action was necessary.
There has been no determination by the Division on how to proceed on this issue. The various commentaries that try to promote the idea of a "sinister plot" to close down uranium mills is not based on fact. Alternate feed has changed the focus of Utah uranium mills from a business processing ore and some alternate feed to a business processing alternate feed. This can be interpreted by some as a change in venue from a milling operation to a waste processing facility. Alternate feed advocates have also been silent on the issue of mills being allowed to accept a wide variety of materials such as special nuclear material, low-level radioactive waste, and mixed waste for disposal that is being pushed at the NRC level. As part of the consideration of Agreement State status, this becomes an important waste policy issue and part of the consideration on any final determination on how to proceed on the alternate feed issue.
10. FUSRAP
Two commentors offered views on FUSRAP material coming into the State to be reprocessed and disposed. One commentor offered: "We would like to see, at some point in time, along this scoping process and this process with the NRC in becoming an Agreement State, a full accounting of potential FUSRAP wastes, which could be shipped to a mill." Another commentor indicated that ". . .the NRC staff and the industry wants to change the Atomic Energy Act so that these, the mill site and the tailings disposal area, can receive just about anything that contains uranium."
DRC response:
The concerns with FUSRAP waste have drawn national attention. One of the most recent incidents involved FUSRAP waste being disposed of at a California hazardous waste facility. There was question as to the classification of the material, that is, it being a low-level radioactive waste or not. The Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for the FUSRAP cleanups and has instituted changes to ensure that FUSRAP material is being appropriately disposed. For Utah, this impacts both the Envirocare facility and the White Mesa Mill, and potentially the Plateau Ticaboo mill. DRC wants to ensure that appropriate rules and guidance are applied to these materials prior to decisions regarding waste management. For example, the Ashland I and II sites are FUSRAP sites in which the State has disagreed with the appropriateness of reprocessing of these materials at a uranium mill. The Army Corps of Engineers has recently instituted several process improvements that will require "state approval" prior to them sending materials to a facility. In fact, the State has given one such approval to date.
In terms of future FUSRAP wastes, a recent Army Corps FUSRAP contract was awarded to three successful bidders: Envirosafe of Idaho, Envirocare of Utah, and Waste Control Specialists of Texas. A majority of this contract involved the St. Louis FUSRAP site which has over seven million cubic yards of material that will need eventual disposal. It is not certain how much of the FUSRAP contract waste will come to Envirocare. International Uranium continues to receive material from the Ashland I site in New York. Future FUSRAP contracting is unknown for International Uranium.
11. Miscellaneous Issues
Many commentors raised thoughtful issues outside the context of the ten major identified issues. This issues ranged from concerns regarding continued operation of the White Mesa Mill and impact to the local Native American community of White Mesa to the status of tailings at Fry Canyon and underneath Lake Powell near the Hite Marina to the impact of the NRC's decision not to regulate pre-1978 uranium mill tailings to transportation issues.
DRC response:
As the final recommendations are formulated for Agreement State status, these miscellaneous comments will be considered.
You are here: Home >