Policy Regarding Submittal of Amendments for Processing of Equivalent Feed at Licensed Uranium Recovery Facilities, 60941-60945 [2011-25243]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
with the algebraic summation of three
orthogonal moment vectors.
At the conclusion of the audit, the
staff determined, as described in its
audit report (ADAMS Accession No.
ML110871243), that the license renewal
applicant’s use of this computer
software package demonstrated (1) that
it produced calculations of stresses and
cumulative usage factors that are
consistent with the methodology in
ASME Code, Section III, Subsection NB,
Subarticle NB–3200, (2) that the
analyst’s judgment in manually
modifying peak and valley times/
stresses in these calculations was
reasonable and can be appropriately
justified and documented, though
justification of any user intervention
should be documented, (3) that this
applicant did not use this software to
perform fatigue calculations as
described in ASME Code, Section III,
Subsection NB, Subarticle NB–3600,
and (4) future use of this software
should be accompanied by an
acceptable demonstration that it
performs fatigue calculations in
accordance with ASME Code, Section
III, Subsection NB, Subarticle NB–3600.
This license renewal applicant
performed evaluations on two of its
components: A pressurized water
reactor (PWR) pressurizer surge nozzle
and a PWR safety injection boron
injection tank nozzle. When considering
the effects of the reactor water
environment on fatigue life, these
evaluations indicated a cumulative
usage factor that was less than the
ASME Code design limit of 1.0,
provided that there was sufficient and
clear records of justification for analyst
intervention.
The staff acknowledges that
addressees may have used, or will make
use of, other computer software
packages in performing ASME Code
fatigue calculations. Thus, the NRC
encourages addressees to review the
documents discussed above and to
consider actions, as appropriate, to
ensure compliance with the
requirements for ASME Code fatigue
calculations and QA programs, as
described in 10 CFR 50.55a and
Appendix B to 10 CFR part 50,
respectively.
Backfit Discussion
This RIS informs addressees of
potential concerns with the use of
computer software packages to perform
ASME Code fatigue calculations and
reminds them that they should perform
these calculations in accordance with
ASME Code requirements. The
regulations at 10 CFR 50.55a specify the
ASME Code requirements. Regulatory
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:19 Sep 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
Guide 1.28 describes methods for
establishing and implementing a QA
program for the design and construction
of nuclear power plants. For license
renewal, metal fatigue is evaluated as a
time-limited aging analysis in
accordance with 10 CFR 54.21(c).
Section 4.3, ‘‘Metal Fatigue,’’ of
NUREG–1800 provides the associated
staff review guidance. This RIS does not
impose a new or different regulatory
staff position. It requires no action or
written response and, therefore, is not a
backfit under 10 CFR 50.109,
‘‘Backfitting.’’ Consequently, the NRC
staff did not perform a backfit analysis.
Federal Register Notification
To be done after the public comment
period.
Congressional Review Act
The NRC has determined that this RIS
is not a rule as designated by the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C.
801–808) and, therefore, is not subject to
the Act.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This RIS does not contain any
information collections and, therefore,
is not subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing collection
requirements under 10 CFR Part 54 were
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget, control number 3150–0155.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond
to, a request for information or an
information collection requirement
unless the requesting document
displays a currently valid Office of
Management and Budget control
number.
Contact
Please direct any questions about this
matter to the technical contact listed
below:
Timothy J. McGinty, Director, Division
of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Laura A. Dudes, Director, Division of
Construction Inspection and
Operational Programs, Office of New
Reactors.
Technical Contact: On Yee, NRR,
301–415–1905. E-mail: on.yee@nrc.gov.
Note: NRC generic communications may be
found on the NRC public Web site, https://
www.nrc.gov, under NRC Library/Document
Collections.
PO 00000
Frm 00143
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
60941
END OF DRAFT REGULATORY ISSUE
SUMMARY
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 22nd day
of September 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Melanie A. Galloway,
Acting Director, Division of License Renewal,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011–25242 Filed 9–29–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2011–0217]
Policy Regarding Submittal of
Amendments for Processing of
Equivalent Feed at Licensed Uranium
Recovery Facilities
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Regulatory issue summary;
request for comment.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is proposing to issue
a regulatory issue summary (RIS) to
inform addressees of the NRC’s policy
regarding receipt and processing,
without a license amendment, of
equivalent feed at an NRC and
Agreement State-licensed uranium
recovery site, either conventional, heap
leach, or in situ recovery.
DATES: Submit comments by October 31,
2011. Comments submitted after this
date will be considered if it is practical
to do so, but assurance of consideration
cannot be given except for comments
received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID
NRC–2011–0217 in the subject line of
your comments. For additional
instructions on submitting comments
and instructions on accessing
documents related to this action, see
‘‘Submitting Comments and Accessing
Information’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
You may submit comments by any one
of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for documents filed under Docket ID
NRC–2011–0217. Address questions
about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher,
telephone: 301–492–3668; e-mail:
Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey,
Chief, Rules, Announcements, and
Directives Branch (RADB), Office of
Administration, Mail Stop: TWB–05–
B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30SEN1.SGM
30SEN1
60942
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2011 / Notices
searching on Docket ID NRC–2011–
0217.
The NRC’s generic communications
may be found on the NRC public Web
site at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
doc-collections/gen-comm/.
Submitting Comments and Accessing
Information
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
• Fax comments to: RADB at 301–
492–3446.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Ted Carter, Office of Federal and
State Materials and Environmental
Management Programs, Division of
Waste Management and Environmental
Protection, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, telephone: 301–415–5543 or
e-mail: Ted.Carter@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) licensed uranium recovery
facilities; all holders of NRC operating
licenses for water treatment; all
companies that have submitted
applications to construct all types of
new uranium recovery facilities
(conventional mills, heap leach
facilities, and in situ recovery (ISR)
facilities); and all Radiation Control
Program Directors and State Liaison
Officers.
Comments submitted in writing or in
electronic form will be posted on the
NRC Web site and on the Federal
rulemaking Web site, https://
www.regulations.gov. Because your
comments will not be edited to remove
any identifying or contact information,
the NRC cautions you against including
any information in your submission that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed.
The NRC requests that any party
soliciting or aggregating comments
received from other persons for
submission to the NRC inform those
persons that the NRC will not edit their
comments to remove any identifying or
contact information, and therefore, they
should not include any information in
their comments that they do not want
publicly disclosed.
You can access publicly available
documents related to this document
using the following methods:
• NRC’s Public Document Room
(PDR): The public may examine and
have copied, for a fee, publicly available
documents at the NRC’s PDR, O1–F21,
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): Publicly available documents
created or received at the NRC are
available online in the NRC Library at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. From this page, the public
can gain entry into ADAMS, which
provides text and image files of the
NRC’s public documents. If you do not
have access to ADAMS or if there are
problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s
PDR reference staff at 1–800–397–4209,
301–415–4737, or by e-mail to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov. This Federal
Register notice is available through
ADAMS under Accession Number
ML112290011.
• Federal Rulemaking Web Site:
Public comments and supporting
materials related to this notice can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:19 Sep 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
Draft NRC Regulatory Issue Summary
2011–xxxx: NRC Policy Regarding
Submittal of Amendments for
Processing of Equivalent Feed at
Licensed Uranium Recovery Facilities
Addressees
Intent
In 2000, the NRC developed RIS 00–
23, ‘‘Recent Changes to Uranium
Recovery Policy,’’ (ADAMS Accession
No. MLXXXXXXXX) to address
licensing issues related to processing of
alternate feed at uranium recovery sites.
The NRC is issuing this RIS to clarify
the agency’s policy that receipt and
processing, of ‘‘equivalent feed’’ 1 (resin
media) at an NRC-licensed uranium
recovery facility, whether conventional,
heap leach, or ISR does not require a
license amendment when the resin
being used is chemically and physically
essentially the same and would be
processed using existing equipment at
the facility. It is not the intent of this
RIS to change the policy expressed in
RIS 00–23 or redefine the definition of
alternate feed. Rather, it clarifies that
inclusion of resin media into the
alternate feed category is inconsistent
with the original intent of RIS 00–23
and with technology now in existence
in the uranium recovery industry.
Background
As stated above, the NRC is issuing
this RIS to clarify the NRC’s policy
regarding alternate feed. In SECY–99–
01, ‘‘Use of Uranium Mill Tailings
Impoundments for the Disposal of Other
Than 11e.(2) Byproduct Materials, and
Reviews of Applications to Process
Material Other Than Natural Uranium
Ores,’’ (ADAMS Accession No.
1 For the purposes of this RIS, equivalent feed is:
ion exchange (IX) resin that is loaded with uranium
at a facility other than a licensed uranium recovery
facility, such as water treatment plants or mine
dewatering operations.
PO 00000
Frm 00144
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
MLXXXXXXXX) the staff defines
alternate feed as material other than
natural uranium ores. Alternate feed
can, therefore, be certain wastes,
including sludges or soils, from other
sites that contains recoverable amounts
of uranium. The RIS 00–23 provided
guidance on evaluating requests for a
license amendment for a uranium
recovery facility (i.e., conventional mill)
to accept this material, recover the
uranium, and dispose of the tailings
(i.e., waste material) as byproduct
material in the mill tailings
impoundment. However, the NRC staff
finds the resin from certain source
material operations, such as community
water treatment facilities and mine
dewatering operations, are equivalent to
the resin being used at uranium
recovery facilities (e.g. ISRs or
conventional mills/heap leach facilities
using ion exchange circuits). In the ISR
method, ore is not extracted from the
ground for processing at a mill. Rather,
the ore is processed in-situ with the
resulting uranium-bearing fluids being
passed through IX resins to extract the
uranium. The NRC staff based this
finding on the fact that the resins are
chemically and physically essentially
the same, and would be processed in the
same way, as resins used in normal
uranium recovery operations.
In December 2003, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
enacted a drinking water limit of 30 mg/
L of uranium in drinking water. This
limit applied to Community Water
Systems (CWSs), which the EPA defines
as public water systems that supply
water to the same population yearround. For small CWSs that are required
to remove uranium from drinking water
to meet EPA standards, the transport,
treatment, and disposal of treatment
residuals (e.g., uranium loaded
treatment resin) can be a significant
cost. It has been noted by the EPA that
for small-scale CWSs, handling of
treatment residuals such as uraniumloaded resin may account for 50 percent
of their total operating budget.2 This
financial burden has led some stake
holders to urge the EPA to reconsider its
regulations related to uranium in
drinking water, including the waste
disposal requirements for such
materials.
Related to the issue above, the NRC
staff has been queried by representatives
of the uranium recovery industry and
2 The EPA currently defines uranium-loaded resin
generated by drinking water treatment to remove
the uranium as a Technically-Enhanced NaturallyOccurring Radioactive Material (TENORM) that
requires disposal at a facility permitted under
Subtitle C or D of the Resource Conservation &
Recovery Act (RCRA).
E:\FR\FM\30SEN1.SGM
30SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
uranium water treatment suppliers/
operators about the potential for
uranium recovery facilities to accept
and process uranium-loaded resin (ULR)
generated by drinking water treatment
because the ULR can be processed in an
ISR operator’s ion exchange recovery
circuit. However, in the absence of this
clarification provided by this RIS, the
ISR uranium recovery facility would be
required to submit, and have the NRC
approve, an amendment to its NRC
license prior to receiving and processing
such resins. An amendment would be
required because without this
clarification these resins would be
considered an alternate feed, despite the
fact that such resins are essentially the
same as those resins currently used at
ISR facilities during uranium recovery
operations.
Summary of Issue
Currently, the only options for the
disposition of resins generated from
operations other than uranium recovery
operations (i.e., treating drinking water
sources and mine dewatering) are
processing as alternate feed at a mill or
disposal in landfills permitted under the
RCRA or licensed by the NRC or an
Agreement State. Under past
interpretations of RIS 00–23, a license
amendment would be required for an
NRC-licensed uranium recovery facility
to accept uranium-bearing resins
resulting from treatment of community
water supplies. The staff has determined
that this interpretation does not reflect
present day operating practices in the
uranium recovery industry and is not
consistent with the Commission’s intent
in issuing RIS 00–23. In particular, the
NRC staff has determined that NRC and
Agreement State-licensed uranium
recovery facilities should be permitted
to accept these resins as equivalent feed
without the need for a license
amendment so long as the receiving
facility can demonstrate that processing
the equivalent feed stays within the
facilities’ existing safety and
environmental review envelope.
The basis for the staff’s position
relates to the original intent of RIS 00–
23. The RIS 00–23, and the underlying
Commission decision, was intended to
address a concern that without
restrictions on the processing of
material other than natural ore, a
conventional uranium recovery mill
could process any material containing
uranium and dispose the waste in the
‘‘tailings pile’’ (see Page A2 of SECY–
99–011, [INSERT TITLE AND ADAMS
ML]) resulting in what was then-termed
‘‘sham-disposal’’ (see SECY–09–012,
[INSERT TITLE AND ADAMS ML]) (i.e.
waste material that would otherwise
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:19 Sep 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
have to be disposed of as radioactive or
mixed waste would be proposed for
processing at a uranium mill primarily
to be able to dispose that material in the
tailings pile as 11e.(2) byproduct
material). Thus, material very dissimilar
to the material normally processed at a
conventional mill, would be processed
largely to allow disposal as 11e.(2)
byproduct material. In the case of ULR,
the concern addressed in RIS 00–23 is
not at issue. The ULRs are essentially
the same as resins used to extract
uranium at an in-situ recovery facility
and the resulting processing and waste
products would be the same as those
associated with normal in-situ uranium
recovery operations. Also similar to ISR
resin, ULR is designed to only capture
uranium and not other hazardous
constituents.
Consequently, in this guidance, the
staff is defining the term ‘‘equivalent
feed’’ to apply to those circumstances
where the feed material is essentially
the same in physical form and
radiological content as the source
material that is normally processed at a
uranium recovery facility. For the
purpose of this RIS, equivalent feed is
IX resin that is loaded with uranium at
a facility other than a licensed uranium
recovery facility, such as water
treatment plants or mine dewatering
operations. However, it should be noted
that processing of these resins for source
material would need to occur before any
waste would be considered as 11e.(2)
byproduct material.
To constitute equivalent feed, resin
must be chemically and physically
essentially the same to that which is
currently used at licensed uranium
recovery facilities and must not result in
additional waste streams or risks not
assessed during the process of licensing
the receiving uranium recovery facility.
For example, a typical uranium
treatment resin for drinking water (Z–
92®) is produced by Lanxess (also
known as Sybron Chemicals). The Z–
92® resin is essentially the same in
composition and function to the Dow
21K resin, the typical ion exchange
resin used at most uranium recovery
facilities. A comparison of the product
information of Z–92® resin to that of
Dow 21K resin indicates the following:
—Both are a strong-base, Type I anion
exchange resin;
—The composition of both is
divynylbenzene (dvb) styrene;
—The functional group of both is a
quarternary amine;
—The physical form of both is resin
beads with essentially the same bulk
weight, color, and amine odor;
PO 00000
Frm 00145
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
60943
—The Z–92® resin is available in a
similar bead-size range to that of Dow
21K;
—Water Remediation Technologies, Inc.
identifies the Z–92® resin as selective
for uranium; the Dow 21K resin is
also selective for uranium.
The primary difference between the
Z–92® and the typical uranium
recovery IX resin is that the water
treatment resin is marked and packaged
specifically for use in potable water
systems and, therefore, undergoes an
additional step of the Water Quality
Association testing for certification to
ANSI/NSF Standard 61.
Given that ULRs are essentially the
same as those resins processed at an insitu recovery central processing plant;
the staff sees no basis for requiring that
an in-situ mill operator obtain a license
amendment to process this essentially
same material. The same process is also
used for eluting or recovering uranium
from water treatment and ISR resins.
Therefore, the NRC staff believes that
water treatment resins should be
defined as equivalent feed. Thus, the
processing of equivalent feed at a
licensed in-situ recovery facility will
not require an amendment to an existing
license so long as the existing limits on
production of uranium in the license are
not exceeded and that the processing is
within the existing safety and
environmental review envelope.
Mine dewatering operations involve
the extraction of water from surface or
underground mines and, when
necessary, the treatment of extracted
water to remove pollutants prior to
discharge. Mine dewatering is often
necessary to allow miners to safely
extract ore. In the case of uranium mine
dewatering, extracted water is often
treated by ion exchange to remove
uranium prior to discharge. These ion
exchange resins must either be disposed
in a landfill or could be eluted at a
uranium recovery facility. It should be
noted that in the past, mine dewatering
resins have been treated as alternate
feed at conventional mills (57 FR
20532). These license amendments were
required because at that time, the staff
considered the mine dewatering resins
to be processed or refined ore distinct
from natural ore normally processed at
a conventional mill. However, if a
conventional mill has an existing IX
processing circuit, either as part of its
conventional milling process or a
separate process line, it may accept
equivalent feed without a license
amendment.
For example, upon staff inquiry,
Kennecott Uranium Company stated
that its mine dewatering resin is the
E:\FR\FM\30SEN1.SGM
30SEN1
60944
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2011 / Notices
Dow 21K resin that is discussed above,
which is the same resin used at ISR
facilities. Therefore, the staff
determined that mine dewatering resins,
like loaded resins from CWSs, can be
more appropriately classified as
equivalent feed when they are sent for
processing at a uranium recovery
facility.
After processing the equivalent feed,
the spent resin can be disposed as
byproduct material in the same manner
as the resin used in the primary
uranium recovery activity. Disposal
sites could either be existing mill
tailings impoundments or other disposal
facilities licensed by the NRC or
Agreement States. No additional
disposal requirements are necessary.
This approach benefits our national
interest by recovering a valuable
resource and the environment by
providing additional options instead of
disposal for this material. Alternately,
the unloaded resin may be returned to
the water treatment facility, a mine
dewatering facility, or a licensed
uranium recovery facility for reuse. This
is an economic benefit to the treatment
facility (particularly CWSs) since
operating costs are reduced and also
results in less overall disposal of resin.
Enclosure 1 to this RIS offers
additional information, which
addressees may find useful, about
uranium recovery processing of
equivalent feed. Enclosure 2 contains
procedures which the NRC finds
satisfactory for accepting equivalent
feed.
Voluntary Response
All addresses and the public may
voluntarily submit comments on the
policy regarding submittal of
amendments for processing of
equivalent feed at licensed uranium
recovery facilities presented in this RIS.
To be of use to the NRC, responses
should be submitted by October 31,
2011.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Backfit Discussion
This RIS requires no action or written
response. Any action that addressees
take to implement changes or
procedures in accordance with the
information contained in this RIS
ensures compliance with current
regulations, is strictly voluntary, and,
therefore, is not a backfit under any of
the backfitting provisions contained in
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) 50.109, 70.76,
72.62, 76.76, or the issue finality
provision of 10 CFR part 52.
Consequently, the staff did not perform
a backfit analysis.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:19 Sep 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
Federal Register Notice
To be done after the public comment
period.
Congressional Review Act
This RIS is a rule as designated in the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C.
801–886) and, therefore, is subject to the
Act.
Related Generic Communications
RIS 00–23, ‘‘Recent Changes to
Uranium Recovery Policy.’’
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This RIS references information
collection requirements that are subject
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These
information collection requirements
were approved by the Office of
Management and Budget, approval
numbers 3150–0020.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond
to, a request for information or an
information collection requirement
unless the requesting document
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
Enclosures
1. Uranium Recovery Processing of
Equivalent Feed: Additional
Information.
2. Procedure for Accepting Equivalent
Feed.
Uranium Recovery Processing of
Equivalent Feed: Additional
Information
Processing of equivalent feed from
water treatment plants and mine
dewatering operations at uranium
recovery facilities (e.g. in-situ recovery
(ISR) or conventional mills/heap leach
facilities with ion exchange circuits)
results in a lower overall environmental
impact and is the preferred option when
compared to disposal of these resins in
a Resource Conservation & Recovery Act
(RCRA)-permitted landfill or NRC and
Agreement State licensed landfill.
Transportation impacts are similar since
in either option, the resin is trucked to
an isolated location away from
population centers (RCRA-permitted or
NRC/Agreement State licensed landfill
or a uranium recovery facility).
Although disposal of equivalent feed in
a lined RCRA-permitted landfill or
NRC/Agreement State licensed landfill
provides short term isolation, the long
term environmental and financial
liability associated with potential
landfill failure coupled with the societal
benefit of putting the uranium into the
PO 00000
Frm 00146
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
nuclear fuel cycle results in uranium
recovery facility processing of
equivalent feed, such as uranium-loaded
water treatment and mine dewatering
resin, as the preferred environmental
option.
Processing water treatment resins as
equivalent feed provides a significant
cost benefit to small Community Water
Systems. For these small water
treatment operators, disposal at RCRApermitted or NRC/Agreement State
licensed landfills is cost prohibitive.
Although, at this time, it is not possible
to know the exact financial
arrangements between the water
treatment and uranium recovery
facilities with respect to the processing
of equivalent feed, it is reasonable to
assume that the financial arrangements
would be significantly more beneficial
to the small water treatment operators
than landfill disposal.
Procedures for Accepting Equivalent
Feed
In situ recovery facilities (ISRs) or
conventional mills with ion exchange
circuits may accept equivalent feed, as
defined in this regulatory issue
summary, without a license
amendment. The licensee should
document that the received resins meet
the equivalent feed criteria by being: (1)
Chemically and physically essentially
the same as the resins processed at the
facility; (2) processed the same way as
resins processed at the facility; and (3)
processing the equivalent feed material
stays within the existing safety and
environmental review envelope for the
facility. The NRC inspectors will review
this documentation during the
inspection process to verify that the
received resins meet the equivalent feed
criteria such that the licensee’s
processing of the material can be
considered consistent with their license.
Following elution of the uraniumloaded equivalent feed (i.e., removal of
the uranium from the treatment resin),
the resulting unloaded resin can take
two paths. Since the NRC is allowing
equivalent feed to be processed at
uranium recovery facilities, the wastes
associated with processing equivalent
feed (i.e., unloaded resin) are
considered byproduct material, as
defined in Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations part 40. Therefore,
these wastes may be disposed of at an
NRC-licensed facility without further
documentation. Alternately, the
unloaded resin may be returned to a
water treatment facility, a mine
dewatering facility or a licensed
uranium recovery facility for reuse.
E:\FR\FM\30SEN1.SGM
30SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2011 / Notices
Contact
If you have any questions about this
summary, please contact Mr. Ted Carter,
Office of Federal and State Materials
and Environmental Management
Programs, Division of Waste
Management and Environmental
Protection, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, telephone: 301–415–5543 or email: Ted.Carter@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd
day of September 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Larry W. Camper,
Director, Division of Waste Management and
Environmental Protection, Office of Federal
and State Materials and Environmental
Management Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011–25243 Filed 9–29–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
PEACE CORPS
Information Collection Request;
Submission for OMB Review
Peace Corps.
60-Day notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Peace Corps will submit
the following information collection
request to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for approval. The
purpose of this notice is to allow 60
days for public comment in the Federal
Register preceding submission to OMB.
We are conducting this process in
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
chapter 35).
DATES: Submit comments on or before
November 29, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
addressed to Denora Miller, Freedom of
Information Act Officer. Denora Miller
can be contacted by telephone at 202–
692–1236 or e-mail at
pcfr@peacecorps.gov. E-mail comments
must be made in text and not in
attachments.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Denora Miller at Peace Corps address
above.
It has been
the Peace Corps’ longstanding policy to
exclude from Peace Corps Volunteer
service and Peace Corps employment
any persons who have engaged in
intelligence activity or related work or
who have been employed by or
connected with an intelligence Agency.
It is crucial to the Peace Corps in
carrying out its mission that there is a
complete and total separation of Peace
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:19 Sep 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
Corps from the intelligence activities of
the United States government, both in
reality and appearance. Any semblance
of a connection between Peace Corps
and the intelligence community would
seriously compromise the ability of the
Peace Corps to develop and maintain
the trust and confidence of the people
of the host countries. It could also put
Volunteers at risk in the countries in
which they serve.
Method: E-mailing the Intelligence
Background Questionnaire to applicants
or their relatives with an intelligence
connection. The respondent returns the
Intelligence Background Questionnaire
by E-mail or fax.
Title: Intelligence Background
Questionnaire.
OMB Control Number: 0420-pending.
Type of information collection: New
information collection.
Affected public: Individuals or
households.
Respondents’ obligation to reply:
Required to obtain or retain benefits.
Burden to the public:
(a) Estimated number of respondents:
100.
(b) Frequency of response: One time.
(c) Estimated average burden per
response: 10 minutes.
(d) Estimated total reporting burden:
16.67 hours.
(e) Estimated annual cost to
respondents: $0.00.
General description of collection:
Peace Corps’ Office of the General
Counsel uses the form to determine
what kind of intelligence connection an
applicant or an applicant’s relative
might have and how close an applicant
and a relative with an intelligence
connection are. The Office of the
General Counsel uses the information to
determine whether the intelligence
connection is substantial enough to
prevent the person from being employed
at the Peace Corps or being a Volunteer
for the Peace Corps permanently or for
a set period of time from the last
intelligence connection. If an applicant
disagrees with the General Counsel’s
determination, he or she may appeal the
determination to the Director of the
Peace Corps.
Request for Comment: Peace Corps
invites comments on whether the
proposed collection of information is
necessary for proper performance of the
functions of the Peace Corps Response,
including whether the information will
have practical use; the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the information
to be collected; and, ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to
PO 00000
Frm 00147
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
60945
respond, including through the use of
automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of
information technology.
This notice issued in Washington, DC, on
September 23, 2011.
Earl W. Yates,
Associate Director, Management.
[FR Doc. 2011–25200 Filed 9–29–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6051–01–P
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. A2011–82; Order No. 872]
Post Office Closing
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
This document informs the
public that an appeal of the closing of
the Belk, Alabama post office has been
filed. It identifies preliminary steps and
provides a procedural schedule.
Publication of this document will allow
the Postal Service, petitioners, and
others to take appropriate action.
DATES: Administrative record due (from
Postal Service): October 7, 2011;
deadline for notices to intervene:
October 21, 2011. See the Procedural
Schedule in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for other dates of
interest.
SUMMARY:
Submit comments
electronically by accessing the ‘‘Filing
Online’’ link in the banner at the top of
the Commission’s Web site (https://
www.prc.gov) or by directly accessing
the Commission’s Filing Online system
at https://www.prc.gov/prc-pages/filingonline/login.aspx. Commenters who
cannot submit their views electronically
should contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section as the source for case-related
information for advice on alternatives to
electronic filing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel,
at 202–789–6820 (case-related
information) or DocketAdmins@prc.gov
(electronic filing assistance).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C.
404(d), on September 22, 2011, the
Commission received a petition for
review of the Postal Service’s
determination to close the Belk post
office in Belk, Alabama. The petition
was filed by Ronald Waldrop, Mayor on
behalf of the Town of Belk (Petitioner)
and is postmarked September 13, 2011.
The Commission hereby institutes a
proceeding under 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(5)
and establishes Docket No. A2011–82 to
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\30SEN1.SGM
30SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 190 (Friday, September 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60941-60945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25243]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2011-0217]
Policy Regarding Submittal of Amendments for Processing of
Equivalent Feed at Licensed Uranium Recovery Facilities
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Regulatory issue summary; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to
issue a regulatory issue summary (RIS) to inform addressees of the
NRC's policy regarding receipt and processing, without a license
amendment, of equivalent feed at an NRC and Agreement State-licensed
uranium recovery site, either conventional, heap leach, or in situ
recovery.
DATES: Submit comments by October 31, 2011. Comments submitted after
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance
of consideration cannot be given except for comments received on or
before this date.
ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0217 in the subject line
of your comments. For additional instructions on submitting comments
and instructions on accessing documents related to this action, see
``Submitting Comments and Accessing Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. You may submit comments by any
one of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-
2011-0217. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher,
telephone: 301-492-3668; e-mail: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules,
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
[[Page 60942]]
Fax comments to: RADB at 301-492-3446.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ted Carter, Office of Federal and
State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, Division of
Waste Management and Environmental Protection, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001, telephone: 301-415-5543 or e-
mail: Ted.Carter@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Submitting Comments and Accessing Information
Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be posted
on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web site, https://www.regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be edited to remove
any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against
including any information in your submission that you do not want to be
publicly disclosed.
The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments
received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those
persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any
identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not
include any information in their comments that they do not want
publicly disclosed.
You can access publicly available documents related to this
document using the following methods:
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine
and have copied, for a fee, publicly available documents at the NRC's
PDR, O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC
are available online in the NRC Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain entry into ADAMS,
which provides text and image files of the NRC's public documents. If
you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing
the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's PDR reference staff
at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
This Federal Register notice is available through ADAMS under Accession
Number ML112290011.
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Public comments and
supporting materials related to this notice can be found at https://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID NRC-2011-0217.
The NRC's generic communications may be found on the NRC public Web
site at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/.
Draft NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2011-xxxx: NRC Policy Regarding
Submittal of Amendments for Processing of Equivalent Feed at Licensed
Uranium Recovery Facilities
Addressees
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensed uranium recovery
facilities; all holders of NRC operating licenses for water treatment;
all companies that have submitted applications to construct all types
of new uranium recovery facilities (conventional mills, heap leach
facilities, and in situ recovery (ISR) facilities); and all Radiation
Control Program Directors and State Liaison Officers.
Intent
In 2000, the NRC developed RIS 00-23, ``Recent Changes to Uranium
Recovery Policy,'' (ADAMS Accession No. MLXXXXXXXX) to address
licensing issues related to processing of alternate feed at uranium
recovery sites. The NRC is issuing this RIS to clarify the agency's
policy that receipt and processing, of ``equivalent feed'' \1\ (resin
media) at an NRC-licensed uranium recovery facility, whether
conventional, heap leach, or ISR does not require a license amendment
when the resin being used is chemically and physically essentially the
same and would be processed using existing equipment at the facility.
It is not the intent of this RIS to change the policy expressed in RIS
00-23 or redefine the definition of alternate feed. Rather, it
clarifies that inclusion of resin media into the alternate feed
category is inconsistent with the original intent of RIS 00-23 and with
technology now in existence in the uranium recovery industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the purposes of this RIS, equivalent feed is: ion
exchange (IX) resin that is loaded with uranium at a facility other
than a licensed uranium recovery facility, such as water treatment
plants or mine dewatering operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
As stated above, the NRC is issuing this RIS to clarify the NRC's
policy regarding alternate feed. In SECY-99-01, ``Use of Uranium Mill
Tailings Impoundments for the Disposal of Other Than 11e.(2) Byproduct
Materials, and Reviews of Applications to Process Material Other Than
Natural Uranium Ores,'' (ADAMS Accession No. MLXXXXXXXX) the staff
defines alternate feed as material other than natural uranium ores.
Alternate feed can, therefore, be certain wastes, including sludges or
soils, from other sites that contains recoverable amounts of uranium.
The RIS 00-23 provided guidance on evaluating requests for a license
amendment for a uranium recovery facility (i.e., conventional mill) to
accept this material, recover the uranium, and dispose of the tailings
(i.e., waste material) as byproduct material in the mill tailings
impoundment. However, the NRC staff finds the resin from certain source
material operations, such as community water treatment facilities and
mine dewatering operations, are equivalent to the resin being used at
uranium recovery facilities (e.g. ISRs or conventional mills/heap leach
facilities using ion exchange circuits). In the ISR method, ore is not
extracted from the ground for processing at a mill. Rather, the ore is
processed in-situ with the resulting uranium-bearing fluids being
passed through IX resins to extract the uranium. The NRC staff based
this finding on the fact that the resins are chemically and physically
essentially the same, and would be processed in the same way, as resins
used in normal uranium recovery operations.
In December 2003, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
enacted a drinking water limit of 30 [mu]g/L of uranium in drinking
water. This limit applied to Community Water Systems (CWSs), which the
EPA defines as public water systems that supply water to the same
population year-round. For small CWSs that are required to remove
uranium from drinking water to meet EPA standards, the transport,
treatment, and disposal of treatment residuals (e.g., uranium loaded
treatment resin) can be a significant cost. It has been noted by the
EPA that for small-scale CWSs, handling of treatment residuals such as
uranium-loaded resin may account for 50 percent of their total
operating budget.\2\ This financial burden has led some stake holders
to urge the EPA to reconsider its regulations related to uranium in
drinking water, including the waste disposal requirements for such
materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The EPA currently defines uranium-loaded resin generated by
drinking water treatment to remove the uranium as a Technically-
Enhanced Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Material (TENORM) that
requires disposal at a facility permitted under Subtitle C or D of
the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related to the issue above, the NRC staff has been queried by
representatives of the uranium recovery industry and
[[Page 60943]]
uranium water treatment suppliers/operators about the potential for
uranium recovery facilities to accept and process uranium-loaded resin
(ULR) generated by drinking water treatment because the ULR can be
processed in an ISR operator's ion exchange recovery circuit. However,
in the absence of this clarification provided by this RIS, the ISR
uranium recovery facility would be required to submit, and have the NRC
approve, an amendment to its NRC license prior to receiving and
processing such resins. An amendment would be required because without
this clarification these resins would be considered an alternate feed,
despite the fact that such resins are essentially the same as those
resins currently used at ISR facilities during uranium recovery
operations.
Summary of Issue
Currently, the only options for the disposition of resins generated
from operations other than uranium recovery operations (i.e., treating
drinking water sources and mine dewatering) are processing as alternate
feed at a mill or disposal in landfills permitted under the RCRA or
licensed by the NRC or an Agreement State. Under past interpretations
of RIS 00-23, a license amendment would be required for an NRC-licensed
uranium recovery facility to accept uranium-bearing resins resulting
from treatment of community water supplies. The staff has determined
that this interpretation does not reflect present day operating
practices in the uranium recovery industry and is not consistent with
the Commission's intent in issuing RIS 00-23. In particular, the NRC
staff has determined that NRC and Agreement State-licensed uranium
recovery facilities should be permitted to accept these resins as
equivalent feed without the need for a license amendment so long as the
receiving facility can demonstrate that processing the equivalent feed
stays within the facilities' existing safety and environmental review
envelope.
The basis for the staff's position relates to the original intent
of RIS 00-23. The RIS 00-23, and the underlying Commission decision,
was intended to address a concern that without restrictions on the
processing of material other than natural ore, a conventional uranium
recovery mill could process any material containing uranium and dispose
the waste in the ``tailings pile'' (see Page A2 of SECY-99-011, [INSERT
TITLE AND ADAMS ML]) resulting in what was then-termed ``sham-
disposal'' (see SECY-09-012, [INSERT TITLE AND ADAMS ML]) (i.e. waste
material that would otherwise have to be disposed of as radioactive or
mixed waste would be proposed for processing at a uranium mill
primarily to be able to dispose that material in the tailings pile as
11e.(2) byproduct material). Thus, material very dissimilar to the
material normally processed at a conventional mill, would be processed
largely to allow disposal as 11e.(2) byproduct material. In the case of
ULR, the concern addressed in RIS 00-23 is not at issue. The ULRs are
essentially the same as resins used to extract uranium at an in-situ
recovery facility and the resulting processing and waste products would
be the same as those associated with normal in-situ uranium recovery
operations. Also similar to ISR resin, ULR is designed to only capture
uranium and not other hazardous constituents.
Consequently, in this guidance, the staff is defining the term
``equivalent feed'' to apply to those circumstances where the feed
material is essentially the same in physical form and radiological
content as the source material that is normally processed at a uranium
recovery facility. For the purpose of this RIS, equivalent feed is IX
resin that is loaded with uranium at a facility other than a licensed
uranium recovery facility, such as water treatment plants or mine
dewatering operations. However, it should be noted that processing of
these resins for source material would need to occur before any waste
would be considered as 11e.(2) byproduct material.
To constitute equivalent feed, resin must be chemically and
physically essentially the same to that which is currently used at
licensed uranium recovery facilities and must not result in additional
waste streams or risks not assessed during the process of licensing the
receiving uranium recovery facility. For example, a typical uranium
treatment resin for drinking water (Z-92[reg]) is produced by Lanxess
(also known as Sybron Chemicals). The Z-92[reg] resin is essentially
the same in composition and function to the Dow 21K resin, the typical
ion exchange resin used at most uranium recovery facilities. A
comparison of the product information of Z-92[reg] resin to that of Dow
21K resin indicates the following:
--Both are a strong-base, Type I anion exchange resin;
--The composition of both is divynylbenzene (dvb) styrene;
--The functional group of both is a quarternary amine;
--The physical form of both is resin beads with essentially the same
bulk weight, color, and amine odor;
--The Z-92[reg] resin is available in a similar bead-size range to that
of Dow 21K;
--Water Remediation Technologies, Inc. identifies the Z-92[reg] resin
as selective for uranium; the Dow 21K resin is also selective for
uranium.
The primary difference between the Z-92[reg] and the typical
uranium recovery IX resin is that the water treatment resin is marked
and packaged specifically for use in potable water systems and,
therefore, undergoes an additional step of the Water Quality
Association testing for certification to ANSI/NSF Standard 61.
Given that ULRs are essentially the same as those resins processed
at an in-situ recovery central processing plant; the staff sees no
basis for requiring that an in-situ mill operator obtain a license
amendment to process this essentially same material. The same process
is also used for eluting or recovering uranium from water treatment and
ISR resins. Therefore, the NRC staff believes that water treatment
resins should be defined as equivalent feed. Thus, the processing of
equivalent feed at a licensed in-situ recovery facility will not
require an amendment to an existing license so long as the existing
limits on production of uranium in the license are not exceeded and
that the processing is within the existing safety and environmental
review envelope.
Mine dewatering operations involve the extraction of water from
surface or underground mines and, when necessary, the treatment of
extracted water to remove pollutants prior to discharge. Mine
dewatering is often necessary to allow miners to safely extract ore. In
the case of uranium mine dewatering, extracted water is often treated
by ion exchange to remove uranium prior to discharge. These ion
exchange resins must either be disposed in a landfill or could be
eluted at a uranium recovery facility. It should be noted that in the
past, mine dewatering resins have been treated as alternate feed at
conventional mills (57 FR 20532). These license amendments were
required because at that time, the staff considered the mine dewatering
resins to be processed or refined ore distinct from natural ore
normally processed at a conventional mill. However, if a conventional
mill has an existing IX processing circuit, either as part of its
conventional milling process or a separate process line, it may accept
equivalent feed without a license amendment.
For example, upon staff inquiry, Kennecott Uranium Company stated
that its mine dewatering resin is the
[[Page 60944]]
Dow 21K resin that is discussed above, which is the same resin used at
ISR facilities. Therefore, the staff determined that mine dewatering
resins, like loaded resins from CWSs, can be more appropriately
classified as equivalent feed when they are sent for processing at a
uranium recovery facility.
After processing the equivalent feed, the spent resin can be
disposed as byproduct material in the same manner as the resin used in
the primary uranium recovery activity. Disposal sites could either be
existing mill tailings impoundments or other disposal facilities
licensed by the NRC or Agreement States. No additional disposal
requirements are necessary. This approach benefits our national
interest by recovering a valuable resource and the environment by
providing additional options instead of disposal for this material.
Alternately, the unloaded resin may be returned to the water treatment
facility, a mine dewatering facility, or a licensed uranium recovery
facility for reuse. This is an economic benefit to the treatment
facility (particularly CWSs) since operating costs are reduced and also
results in less overall disposal of resin.
Enclosure 1 to this RIS offers additional information, which
addressees may find useful, about uranium recovery processing of
equivalent feed. Enclosure 2 contains procedures which the NRC finds
satisfactory for accepting equivalent feed.
Voluntary Response
All addresses and the public may voluntarily submit comments on the
policy regarding submittal of amendments for processing of equivalent
feed at licensed uranium recovery facilities presented in this RIS. To
be of use to the NRC, responses should be submitted by October 31,
2011.
Backfit Discussion
This RIS requires no action or written response. Any action that
addressees take to implement changes or procedures in accordance with
the information contained in this RIS ensures compliance with current
regulations, is strictly voluntary, and, therefore, is not a backfit
under any of the backfitting provisions contained in Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.109, 70.76, 72.62, 76.76, or
the issue finality provision of 10 CFR part 52. Consequently, the staff
did not perform a backfit analysis.
Federal Register Notice
To be done after the public comment period.
Congressional Review Act
This RIS is a rule as designated in the Congressional Review Act (5
U.S.C. 801-886) and, therefore, is subject to the Act.
Related Generic Communications
RIS 00-23, ``Recent Changes to Uranium Recovery Policy.''
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This RIS references information collection requirements that are
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). These information collection requirements were approved by the
Office of Management and Budget, approval numbers 3150-0020.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a request for information or an information collection
requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid
OMB control number.
Enclosures
1. Uranium Recovery Processing of Equivalent Feed: Additional
Information.
2. Procedure for Accepting Equivalent Feed.
Uranium Recovery Processing of Equivalent Feed: Additional Information
Processing of equivalent feed from water treatment plants and mine
dewatering operations at uranium recovery facilities (e.g. in-situ
recovery (ISR) or conventional mills/heap leach facilities with ion
exchange circuits) results in a lower overall environmental impact and
is the preferred option when compared to disposal of these resins in a
Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA)-permitted landfill or NRC
and Agreement State licensed landfill. Transportation impacts are
similar since in either option, the resin is trucked to an isolated
location away from population centers (RCRA-permitted or NRC/Agreement
State licensed landfill or a uranium recovery facility). Although
disposal of equivalent feed in a lined RCRA-permitted landfill or NRC/
Agreement State licensed landfill provides short term isolation, the
long term environmental and financial liability associated with
potential landfill failure coupled with the societal benefit of putting
the uranium into the nuclear fuel cycle results in uranium recovery
facility processing of equivalent feed, such as uranium-loaded water
treatment and mine dewatering resin, as the preferred environmental
option.
Processing water treatment resins as equivalent feed provides a
significant cost benefit to small Community Water Systems. For these
small water treatment operators, disposal at RCRA-permitted or NRC/
Agreement State licensed landfills is cost prohibitive. Although, at
this time, it is not possible to know the exact financial arrangements
between the water treatment and uranium recovery facilities with
respect to the processing of equivalent feed, it is reasonable to
assume that the financial arrangements would be significantly more
beneficial to the small water treatment operators than landfill
disposal.
Procedures for Accepting Equivalent Feed
In situ recovery facilities (ISRs) or conventional mills with ion
exchange circuits may accept equivalent feed, as defined in this
regulatory issue summary, without a license amendment. The licensee
should document that the received resins meet the equivalent feed
criteria by being: (1) Chemically and physically essentially the same
as the resins processed at the facility; (2) processed the same way as
resins processed at the facility; and (3) processing the equivalent
feed material stays within the existing safety and environmental review
envelope for the facility. The NRC inspectors will review this
documentation during the inspection process to verify that the received
resins meet the equivalent feed criteria such that the licensee's
processing of the material can be considered consistent with their
license.
Following elution of the uranium-loaded equivalent feed (i.e.,
removal of the uranium from the treatment resin), the resulting
unloaded resin can take two paths. Since the NRC is allowing equivalent
feed to be processed at uranium recovery facilities, the wastes
associated with processing equivalent feed (i.e., unloaded resin) are
considered byproduct material, as defined in Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations part 40. Therefore, these wastes may be disposed of
at an NRC-licensed facility without further documentation. Alternately,
the unloaded resin may be returned to a water treatment facility, a
mine dewatering facility or a licensed uranium recovery facility for
reuse.
[[Page 60945]]
Contact
If you have any questions about this summary, please contact Mr.
Ted Carter, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental
Management Programs, Division of Waste Management and Environmental
Protection, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, telephone: 301-415-5543 or e-mail: Ted.Carter@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of September 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Larry W. Camper,
Director, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection,
Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-25243 Filed 9-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
