Technical Assistance Request, Heritage Minerals, Inc., Possession and Transfer of Monazite-Rich Product
HPPOS-301 PDR-9306220344
Title: Technical Assistance Request, Heritage Minerals,
Inc., Possession and Transfer of Monazite-Rich Product
See the memorandum from R. L. Fonner to J. D. Kinneman
dated November 30, 1990, and the memorandum from J. E.
Glenn to R. R. Bellamy dated April 29, 1992. The memos
response to a TAR from Region I regarding the Heritage
Minerals, Inc. ("Heritage"), request which proposed onsite
disposal of monazite-rich sands by returning this monazite
material to the host material from which it was derived.
The disposal of the monazite sands involves complicated
issues because the radiation hazard is caused mostly by
naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) not
covered by the Atomic Energy Act (AEA).
Heritage discontinued operations in July 1990, and they
have decontaminated their building and equipment in
accordance with their license (enclosures). They estimate,
however, that 695 cubic yards of monazite sand remain on
the site. The monazite-rich sand contains about 2,000
picocuries of thorium-232 per gram based on analysis for
actinium-228 and a dry density for the monazite-rich sand
of approximately 2.7 grams per cubic centimeter. This sand
resulted from separation of the monazite- rich sands from
previously processed subsurface deposits. The licensee has
been unable to sell the monazite-rich sand and proposes
onsite disposal by mixing it with an estimated 102,500
cubic yards of processed sand located in the salvage
storage, recycled tailings, and original new feed areas
(also known as the blue and gray areas, after the coloring
of maps submitted by the licensee). The licensee intends
to also submit a proposal to the State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to place a
deed restriction on the property, cover the sand with a
layer of soil, and use the area as a golf course. This
approach will dispose of both the NRC licensed sand and the
other sand of much lower concentration about which NJDEP is
concerned.
Senior personnel of OGC have met to considered the question
of NRC regulation of source material under NRC rules and
AEA as applied to the areas referred to in License
Condition 15 as the "original new feed area", "recycled
tailings area", and "salvage storage area". The areas
referred to as the gray and blue areas. The problem arises
from the fact that the source material content of the
materials in these areas is less that 0.05% source material
by weight, and therefore represents a preexisting
unimportant quantity under 10 CFR 40.13 (a) exempt from
regulation. It should be noted that the AEA required the
Commission to establish unimportant quantities (AEA Section
62). The first consensus reached was that regulation could
not be based upon a characterization of the areas as having
directly licensable material. That is, the contamination
is an unimportant quantity (the contamination is clearly
not byproduct material).
The second issue was whether the activities in the plant
(in the red area) that resulted in separating out a
monazite-rich product with source material in excess of
.05% by weight provided a basis for jurisdiction over the
blue and gray areas. The Commission has asserted
jurisdiction over activities of licensees that were
ancillary to the primary licensed activity. In the 1970s,
the NRC staff relied upon the NEPA theory to condition
uranium milling licenses for remediation of mill tailings
disposal areas prior to the enactment of the Uranium Mill
Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) of 1978. All of
these cases and practices, however, are marked by a feature
that distinguishes them from Heritage Minerals. That is,
the fact that the ancillary matters regulated under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) theory would not
occur or be present but for the primary licensed activity,
i.e., the nuclear power plant or the uranium mill.
Initially, the separation of the monazite-rich product was
ephemeral. It was considered a waste and put back into the
waste stream. Indeed, during this period the process was
not considered a licensable operation. The dry mill
tailings were not stored (in the gray area) for
reprocessing because of their source material value, but
for other minerals such as ilmenite and rutile. Any source
material in this feedstock was an unimportant quantity.
The gray and blue areas would exist even if no
monazite-rich materials were ever separated in the process;
thus, the contamination is not the necessary consequence of
a licensed (in the Heritage situation-licensable) activity,
and which would not occur but for the licensed activity.
The consensus is that the NEPA theory provides no basis to
regulate the gray and blue areas. This result is
consistent with the analogous licensing of side stream
extraction of uranium at mineral processing facilities in
the western states. The NRC has licensed the side stream
extraction of uranium from the effluent of processing of
nonsource material ores. In so doing, it has not attempted
to regulated the process before the uranium extraction
step, nor after, particularly with respect to waste streams.
Although OGC is mindful of the staff's concern about the
radiation levels in the blue and gray areas, the OGC
conclusion is that it is doubtful that NRC should undertake
to regulate in the blue and gray areas. Accordingly, we
suggest that License Condition 15 be revised. We see two
options, although more may exist. First, remove reference
to the areas of questionable regulation altogether, which
would leave the question of regulation totally in the State
of New Jersey. This option would recognize that the
radiation hazard is caused mostly by naturally occurring
radioactive material not covered by the AEA (actinium-228
and lead-212 predominate), presenting a legal situation
identical to the radium in uranium mill tailings prior to
the enactment of UMTRCA, but lacking the NEPA link as
discussed above. Second, cover these areas in the license
on a basis of acceptance by Heritage, as a voluntary
commitment, to adhere to an NRC position (for example, to
Option 3 in the Branch Technical Position, 46 FR
52061-52063). In any case the State of New Jersey
authorities should be informed and included in any further
discussions of this matter. Based upon the conclusions
noted above, i.e., that the radiation hazard results
predominantly from NORM, we would not consider regulation
of the radiation hazards in the blue and gray areas to be
preempted.
Regulatory references: Atomic Energy Act
Subject codes: 9.0, 12.9, 12.19
Applicability: Source Material