RE: NORM vs. Source material

[Montgom_N@msa01.brooks.af.mil]

>Date: Thu, 05 Jan 1995 11:04:33 -0700 (MST)
>From: "Jim F. Herrold" <HERROLD@UWYO.EDU>
>Subject: NORM vs. Source material

>Howdy.

>I have a quick, perhaps rather dumb question. But maybe someone else is as
>confused as I am.

>Looking through the definitions in 10 CFR, I am trying to decide how to
>classify some uranium ore we want to get rid of. It is pretty hot stuff, 
but it
>is definitely straight out of the ground. We are renewing our disposal 
permit
>with the state of Washington, and we would have to file a separate one if 
we
>have to send this stuff to Hanford.

Any uranium is definitely source material under 10 CFR Part 40.  It is 
regulated by the NRC (and probably the state).  A better question may be 
what disposal restrictions are there on the type of material?  

>In English, what is NORM, and what is Source material? Is ore "source" but
>Uranium compounds (like uranyl acetate) "NORM"? I'm, as you can see, 
confused.

Uranium, of any type according to the definitions in Part 40, is a special 
class of naturally occuring material (source material) that is regulated by 
the NRC.

>Maybe this is really another dumb question... How do we get rid of 600 
pounds
>of uranium rocks? If there were still some mines operating in Wyoming I'd 
call
>them. I have not called US Ecology on this yet, so I don't know what their
>answer is.

The best bet is to transfer it to someone else that can reuse it.  If it 
were subject to Part 40.22 then it would be exempt from the requirements of 
Part 20 and therefore disposal requirements.  

>Jim Herrold
>U of Wyoming

All of my comments are from the standpoint of an NRC licensee.  I don't 
have any knowledge of state requirements.

Capt Noel Montgomery
USAF Radioisotope Committee Secretariat.