https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/04/09/nrc-asked-to-reclassify-uranium-mine-waste/
 

APRIL 9, 2026

NRC Asked to to Reclassify Uranium Mine Waste

LYNDA WILLIAMS

Newly released documents in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) public ADAMS database show that DISATechnologies is seeking federal approval to classify uranium mine waste processed through its HPSA system as “equivalent feed” without a new license application, environmental review or public comment. If approved, that material could be sold to the White Mesa Mill and processed into yellowcake for nuclear fuel, fundamentally changing the scope of the original NRC license granted for cleanup of abandoned uranium mines.

DISA’s High-Pressure Slurry Ablation (HPSA) system uses high-pressure water to break apart contaminated waste rock, separating it into a uranium-rich fraction—”fines”—while the majority of the bulk waste remains on site. An EPA-commissioned study by Tetra Tech was limited, running the system in short-duration cycles—minutes, not continuous operation—and at relatively small scale. The study showed that the remaining coarse material left onsite did not meet Navajo Nation cleanup standards.

Opponents argue that since HPSA cannot meet Navajo Nation cleanup standards, it constitutes uranium extraction — and therefore violates the Diné Natural Resources Protection Act of 2005, which prohibits uranium mining on Navajo land. Nevertheless, Navajo Nation EPA Executive Director Stephen Etsitty, who has been promoting the project, told the Gallup Independent on November 29, 2025: “You just need to scoop it up, you don’t need to mine it. It’s not mining. It’s all remediation.”

Infographic courtesy of Dooda Disa.

The NRC record tells a different story.

In 2025, the NRC published an Environmental Assessment and within weeks issued a Finding of No Significant Impact, allowing the agency to avoid preparing a full Environmental Impact Statement. Shortly afterward, the NRC approved a generic, multi-state license authorizing use of the system as a remediation technology, not for commercial uranium production, with site-specific verification required before operation.

On February 12, 2026, DISA’s Chief Regulatory Affairs Officer Stephen Cohen asked the NRC to classify HPSA fines as “equivalent feed,” which would allow them to be sold to the White Mesa Mill and processed into yellowcake for nuclear fuel. On March 19, NRC project manager Priya Yadav responded in the same NRC correspondence that DISA would need to demonstrate that the material contains no chemical additives and is essentially identical to natural ore.

In its March 23 filing, DISA states that HPSA uses “no chemicals to accomplish the separation,” but then discloses two industrial additives: a surfactant (DUSTREAT DC6109) applied to ore before processing and a polyacrylamide flocculant (Superfloc A-100) added to process water to settle uranium-bearing fines. Both carry safety warnings for hazardous components linked to cancer risk—including formaldehyde and acrylamide—and both safety data sheets explicitly caution against release into the environment. The filing describes the process generating contaminated process water planned to be sprayed back onto the mine site—conditions not evaluated in the original environmental review.

The same NRC filing includes a letter from Buu Nygren, President of the Navajo Nation, urging the NRC to act quickly so that “the verification test at Church Rock can proceed in 2026,” referring to the Old Church Rock Mine. The letter reveals that the Navajo Nation EPA has already entered into a formal agreement with DISA to conduct a Time Critical Removal Action (TCRA) at the site. Nygren describes the equivalent feed classification as “critical to my Safer, Sooner strategy,” warning that without it “our verification study cannot proceed” and recoverable uranium will be “lost to the fuel cycle.” The terms of the agreement between the Navajo Nation EPA and DISA — including who receives revenue from the sale of uranium-rich fines to the White Mesa Mill — have not been made public. If the NRC denies the classification, DISA would not be able to sell the fines for milling and would instead have to dispose of them at a licensed waste facility or leave the material on site and cap it.

On April 1, the NRC responded again in its correspondence, requiring DISA to provide data from operation of the full HPSA process—including the use of additives—to determine whether chemical residues remain in the final material. The NRC stated that DISA must: “demonstrate that the material resulting from the HPSA process is essentially the same as natural uranium ore and does not contain residual chemicals or contaminants that would affect its acceptability as mill feed.”

Letter from Navajo Nation President Dr. Buu Nygren to NRC Chairman Ho K. Nieh, March 18, 2026, included in DISA’s NRC filing.

If approved, uranium concentrated from mine waste under a license issued for remediation would be treated as natural ore and enter commercial nuclear fuel production without public environmental or license review.

Located near Blanding, Utah, adjacent to the White Mesa Ute tribe, the White Mesa Mill is the only operating uranium mill in the United States and is owned by Energy Fuels, a Canadian mining company. Energy Fuels also owns and operates the Pinyon Plains Uranium Mine in Arizona and is currently pursuing permits for the Roca Honda Uranium Mine in New Mexico. If the NRC approves the equivalent feed classification, it would set a precedent that could allow HPSA technology to be deployed at future mine sites, processing waste rock on-site and extracting every last ounce of uranium before leaving the radioactive waste behind.

Lynda Williams is a physicist and environmental activist living in Hawaii. She can be found at scientainment.com and on Bluesky @lyndalovon.bksy.social

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpa5fNFTcNI&authuser=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlIYHju4qRk&authuser=1

The Trump Administration Is Doing Something Horrifying to Workers at Nuclear Facilities

POLICY

NRC to add new items to categorical exclusions list

19h ago Nuclear News

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has identified five categories of action to add to its list of categorical exclusions to reduce its documentation work under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures.

These revisions are included in the final rule, “Categorical exclusions from environmental review,” which was published in the Federal Register on March 30. The final rule will become effective on April 29.

“Revisions to the categorical exclusions will (1) clarify and address inconsistencies in the application of categorical exclusions across licensing and regulatory programs and (2) eliminate the need to prepare EAs [environmental assessments] for NRC regulatory actions that have no significant effect on the human environment,” the final rule’s regulatory analysis states.

The new additions: According to the FR notice, the NRC’s categorical exclusions include “administrative, organizational, and procedural amendments to certain types of NRC regulations, licenses, and certificates; minor changes related to application filing procedures; certain personnel and procurement activities; and activities for which environmental review by the NRC is excluded by statute.”

Below are the five new categorical exclusions:

• Actions that are administrative, procedural, or solely financial in nature, including exemptions and orders pertaining to these actions.
• Amendments to 10 CFR 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks,” for new, amended, revised, or renewed certificates of compliance for cask designs used for spent fuel storage.
• Approvals provided for under the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a, “Codes and standards.”
• Certain changes to requirements for fire protection, emergency planning, physical security, cybersecurity, and quality assurance.
• Changes to extend implementation dates of certain new NRC requirements that were previously found to not result in an environmental impact.

Background: NEPA requires federal agencies to assess the environmental impact of some of their actions prior to deciding whether to move forward. Each action falls under one of three categories: categorical exclusion (for actions with no significant environmental impact), environmental assessment (EA), and environmental impact statement (EIS). If the agency believes an action is not likely to cause a significant impact on the environment, the submission of an EA is required. If the agency believes the environmental impact of an action is significant, the more comprehensive EIS must be submitted.

If it is determined that something in a given category has no significant effect on the environment, then the agency can establish a categorical exclusion for that item.

The NRC published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on May 7, 2021, after an NRC review of its environmental programs and organization identified potential opportunities to add, remove, or enhance its list of exclusions. A public comment opportunity elicited more than 2,300 comments, most of them duplicates. According to the FR notice, the NRC evaluated and considered 20 comments during the drafting of the proposed rule that was ultimately published on July 2, 2024.

Other revisions: Along with the new additions, NRC staff will eliminate two existing categorical exclusions that are no longer necessary because they are obsolete. It will also reorganize the list of categorical exclusions to “eliminate redundancy, add clarity, and improve consistency and efficiency.” This reorganization would eliminate some overlapping actions and consolidate others.

By reducing the number of required environmental assessments and requests for additional information, the final rule could save about 1,030 staff hours per year over the next 10 years, according to the NRC’s regulatory analysis.

GAO: Clarification of HLW definition could save DOE billions

Tue, Mar 31, 2026, 10:29AM Nuclear News

A photo from inside the AX-101 underground waste tank at the DOE’s Hanford Site in Washington. (Photo: DOE)

A clearer definition of what constitutes high-level radioactive waste could save the Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental Management “tens of billions of dollars” in waste management costs and accelerate its cleanup schedule by decades, according to a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

DOE-EM’s efforts to manage waste resulting from legacy spent nuclear fuel reprocessing have been hindered for decades by the ambiguity of the statutory definition of HLW as laid out in the Atomic Energy Act and Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the report states. While admitting that the DOE has taken steps to overcome this ambiguity, the GAO says that the department has not fully evaluated all available opportunities to treat and dispose of waste more economically as either transuranic or low-level radioactive waste.

“By systematically evaluating these opportunities and pursuing them to the maximum extent possible, [DOE-EM] could accelerate its cleanup mission and save at least tens of billions of dollars,” the GAO report says.

The report, Nuclear Waste Cleanup: Clarifying Definition of High-Level Radioactive Waste Could Help DOE Save Tens of Billions of Dollars (GAO-26-108018), was published on March 25.

Recommendations: Acknowledging the complexity of the issue and the implications that revising the statutory definition of HLW could have, the GAO suggests that Congress consider convening a panel of experts to recommend specific revisions to the HLW definition to address any ambiguities.

The GAO is also recommending a Blue Ribbon Commission comprising a group of relevant experts from, for example, key agencies, industry, and academia who could develop and recommend specific revisions to the definition of HLW in the AEA and NWPA and report these recommendations to Congress within 12 months.

The GAO also recommends that DOE-EM “systematically evaluate opportunities to treat and dispose of certain waste associated with reprocessing as something other than HLW and communicate to Congress regarding its efforts to implement these opportunities as well as actions Congress can take to minimize or eliminate any barriers impeding [DOE-EM’s] ability to pursue them.”

In response to the report, the DOE agreed with the GAO’s recommendations.

The tools at hand: The GAO report notes that DOE-EM has three main classification tools it can use to determine that certain waste associated with reprocessing is not HLW:

• The Waste Incidental to Reprocessing evaluation, as outlined in DOE Manual 435.1-1.
• Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005.
• The DOE’s 2019 HLW interpretation, which was incorporated into DOE Manual 435.1-1.

“While the tools provide [DOE-EM] with formal requirements and a process for clarifying which waste is not HLW and may be safely treated and disposed of as non-HLW, the three tools have shortcomings that impede [DOE-EM’s] ability to progress with its cleanup of certain waste streams,” the report states.

Specifically, the GAO finds that the three classification tools do not provide a consistent radioactive threshold at which waste is considered HLW; do not fully apply at the DOE sites involved in cleaning up reprocessing waste (the Hanford and Savannah River Sites, Idaho National Laboratory, and the West Valley Demonstration Project); and can be an expensive and extensive process to use, leading to delays.

In addition, the GAO report states that the lack of clarity in the definition of HLW has left DOE-EM vulnerable to lawsuits when applying the classification tools. This includes risks posed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling overturning the Chevron doctrine. That decision may put the department in greater litigation risk, as courts may no longer defer to the DOE’s interpretation of the AEA and NWPA regarding what constitutes HLW, simply because the law is ambiguous.

Do We Need Nuclear Power to Create Medical Isotopes?