NDEP Letter to DOE/Nevada

Peter G. MORROS, Director
L.H. DODGION, Administrator
(702)687-4670
TDD 687-4678

Administration
Mining Regulations and Reclamation
Water Pollution Control
Facismile 687-5856

STATE OF NEVADA
BOB MILLER
Governor

Waste Management
Corrective Actions
Federal Facilities
Facismile 885-0868

Air Quality
Water Quality Planning
Facismile 687-6396

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Protection

333 W. Nye Lane, Room 138
Carson City, Nevada 89706-0866

June 2, 1998

Michelle R. Rehmann
Environmental Manager
International Uranium (USA) Corporation
Independence Plaza, Suite 950
1050 Seventeenth Street
Denver, CO 80265

Dear Ms Rehmann:

Thank you for keeping me appraised about International Uranium Corporation's (IUC) proposal to assess the potential for recycling U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Silo 3 material stored at DOE's Fernald site in Ohio. The State of Nevada clearly supports IUC's ongoing effort to assess the potential economic benefits of recycling as opposed to DOE's onsite treatment and off-site disposal option. After reviewing IUC's detailed correspondence on the matter ⁽¹⁾, Nevada officials question why DOE/Ohio has not complied with your request to conduct treatability testing of the referenced material.

If the material stored in Silo 3 can be recycled, as opposed to the current plan for onsite treatment and offsite disposal at Nevada Test Site (NTS), the DOE should consider the recycling option. This is particularity important given IUC's successful recycling program for the "Cotter Concentrates." Like the Cotter Concentrates, if recycling of Silo 3 materials can produce significant dollar savings, Nevada officials believe DOE is obligated ⁽²⁾ to at least let IUC conduct the requested treatability testing.

In terms of regulatory compliance, we believe DOE has classified the contents of Silo 3 as 11e(2) byproduct material, which means the material meets the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's recent guidance allowing licensees, like IUC, to initiate recycling to produce "alternate feed material." And like the Cotter Concentrates, the waste materials or "tailings" leftover from recycling would be disposed in UCI's licensed on-site tailings disposal facility at the White Mesa mill. Obviously, treatability testing must be conducted to assess the level of recoverable source material and thus the "economic benefits" needed to justify the recycling and mill site disposal option. Again, Nevada Officials believe DOE\Ohio is obligated to consider the recycling and mill tailings disposal option.

In a related matter, and regardless of existing legal decisions involving the NTS, it would appear that compliance with CERCLA's Off-Site Policy⁽³⁾ would not be questioned if DOE were to select a recycling and mill tailings disposal facility which has demonstrate regulatory compliance. This is not the case for the NTS, where compliance for CERCLA's Off-Site Policy has yet to be determined.

Sincerely,

Paul Liebendorfer

Paul J. Liebendorfer, P.E.
Bureau of Federal Facilities

PL/jbw
cc:

ENDNOTE

(1) IUSA December 3, 1997 letter to Donald C. Castle, Contract Administrator, Flur Daniel Fernald (DE-AC24-920R21972).

IUSA Juanuary 9, 1998 letter to Donald C. Castle, Contract Administrator, Flur Daniel Fernald (DE-AC24-920R21972).

(2) DOE's Waste Management Order required the Department to manage low-level waste in a manor which maximizes cost effectiveness (See DOE Waste Management Order 5820.A Chapter III, Section (2) b). Since it appears that DOE will manage the Silo 3 waste as "low- level" (see Waste Management Order and Chapter IV, Section 2), then the department is "obligated" to consider "maximize cost effectiveness."

(3) The CERCLA Off-Site Policy, found in CERCLA Section 121(3), requires that waste from a remedial action that is shipped off-site from treatment and/or disposal be transferred only to those units at a facility that are operating in compliance with RCRA and with all other applicable federal and state requirements, and that do not have any uncontrolled releases of hazardous waste or constituents. The policy applies to any remedial action involving the transfer of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminates as defined under CERCLA sections 101(14) and (33) ("CERCLA waste") pursuant to and CERCLA authority, including cleanups at Federal Facilities [40 CFR 300.440(a) (1)].