ML20245G306
| ML20245G306 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/21/1984 |
| From: | Brown W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Rich Smith NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245G297 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-89-242 NUDOCS 8908150342 | |
| Download: ML20245G306 (31) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
\\ ~s,.S h2"Cg?.
UNITED STATES
'd NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L
)
I 3!
REGloN IV b
611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SulTL 1000
[
ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011 August 21, 1984 l
MEMORA!!DUM FOR:
R. Dale Smith, Director Uranium Recovery Field Office FROM:
William L. Brown Regional Counsel
SUBJECT:
URAVAN, A REPORT BY A NRC SPECIAL STUDY GROUP Pursuant to your request, I have reviewed the draft of the subject report which you have furnishec' me.
My comments are as follows:
1.
The second paragraph of Part A on page 1 refers to source and byproduct materials as uranium mill tailings.
This is not consistent with the definition of " tailings" as set forth in Sec.101(8) of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978.
" Tailings" is defined there as "the remaining portion of a metal-bearirq ore after some or all of such metal, such as uranium, has been extracted."
2.
The first paragraph of Part B on page 2 should explain why the report does not individually address the many contentions set forth by EDF especially since Mr. Kerr had indicated that the NRC's expanded review would take into account the various points raised by EDF.
3.
The last line on page 3 refers to UMETCO as "a successor company."
Explain to whom UMETCO is a successor company.
Did the successor company start the mill operations and the town? Some of the history is subsequently given at the top of page 6, but the connection between UMETC0 and the U.S. Vanadium Company is not clear.
4.
In order to more accurately reflect the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, the first two full sentences at the top of pege 7 should be rewritten as follows:
"The Act required the Agreement States to adopt standards for the protection of the public health, safety, and the environment from hazards associated with byproduct material which are equivalent, to the extent practicable, or more stringent than, standards adopted and enforced by the Commission. The Act also required the Comission to perform periodic reviews of Agreement State agreements and actions taken by the States under such agreements to insure compliance with the provisions of the Act."
0908150342 890B09 PDR FOIA BOLOTINB9-242 PDR
'R'b'aleSmith August 21, 1984 5.
There are redundant references to Amendments #17 and #20 to.
Union Carbide's license oc pages 16 and 17.
6.
Beginning on line.18 of page-20, a statement is made that "most, if not all, of.the materials in the town site predate the enact-ment of UMTRCA and thus are not subject to regulation under the provisions of that act." '(Emphasis added.) That statement is not accurate as a general statement. There are a number of provisions under UMTRCA which, in my opinion, could be applicable..
7.
On line 23 of page 20, a reference is made to " tailings left behind by the Manhatten Engineering District." Also, the first paragraph of page 6 states that during World War II, as part of the Manhattan project, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "in association with the U.S. Vanadium Company, extracted the uranium from the tails." 'In the penultimate line of the middle _ paragraph on page 20, the term " federally generated waste is used.
It is d
very important that these statements be consistent and legally accurate. 'If, indeed, the Manhattan Engineer District was responsible for a significant part of the problem, the site could be covered by DOE's Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) and the matter should be brought to ~the attention of 00E.-
8.
Earlier in the draft report 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, is referenced.
Yet, no-reference is made to the appendix in Part E of the report beginning on pt.ge 21. This should be explained.
1 9.
The Surgeon General's Guidelines are referenced on page 25 under the heading of " Applicable (Numerical) Radiological Standards for Operational Releases."
It should be made clear that the Grand Junction clean-up pursuant to Sec. 202(a)pplicable to the Surgeon General's Guidelines are only legally a of Title II, P.L.92-314. While this would not preclude their use as guidelines only in other similar situations, they would not be legally applicable.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
/W W William L. Brown Regional Counsel l
cc:
J. Collins l
P. Check R. Fonner, OELD N-_______________
~
n et 'a r.
sn la l grr
. e t,
it aec m' :s8.ys saidc nrt.
t s
t s
i o
seil o Ad o r ri t Jl e erl ns wfo pd l
ot sc
),h H e i n tw i. inevp.u; r
e t
e r ed l
e e dsitf o
cs mldiu uww o ds cu U
t t
r 8
ie et r
d n oh o nh pn s
fl' l
s e a n
s o n = e mt m,5 e
a id a c co otd rr e
ot ee.t
- sde, 8t n srrt n wli nhcnn a u mnere n
nb s
eae ee 9 n a o al l
is rh
=l rl t ee e s i r _m 1 ot il n s acuwrw csst ded t a a i
8
.bi ot sohs y
nt gnmie o
- m. l e e rF ol f
e od a
n sh l
ee pt oe mi s wIebliho l
h 'n. i a U, e t ymt u etu whtdudCr et l
- j. _. R:i,v,.1,,! sit r
a f iml l6t dwt net rn y ml yo o
iil a o e d
a s
e u
oo odlb ait c r
e 50 yrrsgcuh e3e cwa t of sneiti rl 1
tit i
th t. towelecI ail anaa ad odivg b
h 7ee ot d psldT e a
.h tb u o rd ot n
e e et c t
t rpe
- o. f a e 's a n
as n eae t
ci ol ympaenta ema a
stt r r. lu1o hr mmwl c
a s
u t s c
meo u k.i n esoUtmloi ciae ot s a el w l
s er t
.Urio r
-. n U,l el m *V e trwharini s
e e c vl6l e
l rt s
e ei dh l
hmvl ier n
l l
8i ec v l
l o
ka l
e pe 6 e i al e v v wt ne ew m19mhi i
i t e8de re t p g b8hh s
e e ol et e at ns 9 t y
t ob8i e et h
0nllkf f
f enl 9a s r
t gi oit pnh sa w i E gd 1 s
h l
i 8ot p vs ew n u glat n oeov l
v 1
9ist r
l O
oni trto n ee t ei i
t eu3u ehim incol oa ura shsbowe sogs tfi 1
a
~
ihb o
l gb o tahth n
grt om a h
ne l
ed ga i r,f i
nl n
t t at nurnie e
s a s t
r of ei o t C
u i,i d n f n c
hhrlh o pt i
c eie t hh n
niwJFwc v nrhit a eTd r eaDrteo-oI o i
t aiaTe o v o n-o u e o
eh a o hh t mInfom mi eti tdl md ehf v
r e i e g-
. yt rCtt t
h h
I t T o. lie t
l h'de tf i sp e n k s'r-yi n m",l tit
.sobn a e. n d elreeel aa n asi a a. e u
e r
t dse aM
, d. ~ t a vworw b
r aa vit v a s,t l
t pr r a r
c e
s et i
aUnd e, t cf a y a bn w
.egreha hemdhr iu t
e l
s e
eis e
u e l
niod h n U h T, h hn e ebr e e e
dp nh monadch e
t t
u net' e
t h h m u'c y,
t s,
t nl t u cas e n s
t, o, s daat afa tl h
i ne rt a r.ca whr q l
il e nltowo
.nl
,h a
bcf o o rd o
t n gh m h t
ic f
o rdne f
a ea r v n
a a w hcv e h eld c s tsnbo a
s nwhei'
. m h
e un f
.i f
ek e. fot ee rl to l
sl h
v h
y t
ioak er s
eitl t
i o
dwr em si.i c o t
t aib gc uegr c i
ee r w i. l;ei t s nie -,
e e pa sot ha ovt e.
n in i
e nmym l
s t
y aicn u
fbe ne v y:.iaa o gh daa oh yalh. f v
a v e ie eoyp waoc acfh t
lh: dst nt ol ede va p. a gf E t gt e
f u eesms apst. 6
.p t
g l
pob ci m r ri pb l dh e
I n ahd ll r5 un s hv a1". oi e t asr' er.rhe a
l r aeio ehac f
b ct ri t ot a
yt m. lh a Ud ai n fi e od l
c ds vtn o s pl h i c ni h
sn i
awf k e,tei.,a h
e e
W4 e
vne oat s',;
at s i
l t s s yh aa ot c
o w e I.
ehof0yh t eool nk r
i hp gd e as s r ci w 't 'c e y el ec s r s
.u o0g w a e yw e
,t l
n o
t
. d -
rt et ss e
u
,wthd r r
.nt p o Ymrysen, 1,
e armeCojm vemdrn e o a y'g g o e
et 89 ro uto v pu vypr
. e kli t,a unpa d t k agb'e r,t a s a eo ei p.
s, r va e ndc x
el c shmedsh cms 1
ssmhioes e
l a 'n oh ve ol oe et t a r an..
at iuashie et somt aiv v eWhe oAwa asbei t
s h
0 t
t e pd m Y s a T n, t eisl hl e
ocawstbnlthmi o T a "e,d s e, N o o l
t 2
e k'n e
V aTodemt r
e m d H k n. o u da o nno e c
a
'. Doit u.
h d
e rah r
"dnez q
nf g
eer i a a n' t
s e c a o m,
d H h d PK h f rt u h, i
i e.
ierl oa ddancs rvri b
u n y g n s('.
m b y, 7
t g g-r o g.
noa-entoc nee s
e amJ r
biokll ii t
tt eA nS moa.
t ll i
p.
adaUn.
M-a Criet asimt e
l ssc 5l e
a.
~
e 7oNwo m's l t
wi n e t
s wb nwr e.,
9g 2
,e hmp i
e n1 a a. m pf oo
.-$.lE t
s y
n n e
sdg bie m.n u i e o
9 '"* ^
f,'
,s..
c e e we a.ie r
od
$e oo s r
e t
3 y
l is 3
,ori eh af wd.vir rl sg;,
rst di s t.
v s.-
n ai gen ed go d
- m a
r vo
, e t t r
e i
. n,,',*f 3
s av
,D o yei i w, ho u
nsei-n..
e.E h. li a 1
i t
h rnyc pt t
_ g
. ~ s-
, ', h,,g# *J
.i N.
t a
xi n gd tis T
. k pao"ed enl a Fal a ht em mi os s w hi Dy mried ige e
aheh sd o
, t c
nnWtr pd w f
nc-
, 5 s
N [
a o v a r
hc e e
a ee asne oo t
x edan hhne e t w D r d a'k w t g pi esf e
~ k.'^
t o
e ar l
i D, sgsIe w
l g., J a
n,ued e) s oiug hd ob n,
6 s
nl
~
,kw oie mhaahf
_.. e Co3yd t
qn unb
,a me c! e dv
.of l
ii
- NsW r'herslh Yuae f',,-
l a
t o
r
- e!ul.
e s
Fduy if t rf w mbh i
6 a
Hrol b l
g 'D e i
esb..
et e
b o sn 2*
n o
e o
e *-
tuli
(
d nt Bnrp S
s ot sa r,.% t -
Wya e'
erc v
ah
. R D;q i ;
oof h
a n o s
.e ex n1 e
v h#
s6 s o y' b o-
.ddn g
.e e 's n l '1 e t
, d cei2:
i
.$tfl o t
rot e f
n..
J-3 t
6
~
i e,-
d4 C.
t
'" 4% ' g/
r n,hreo a v u 7 e 'c l s
nne ai t elii o,
r T. t t
ndl up t
i w
, n.
aae e
f h
ao'~
1Ca r
J '
t a e:as 1
l 1 l t
_ e bmta gf'owmie hi e
su1 ad 4go6rh3e v
[i vvti s
r
.s s l
G0smpq7t N.j ne f pt e
ad f
a a se e a
e e
l et nl w.
ne 3a sfa eh dn o o e
oyf 0e re>l p i
se n n e Ca d 9hu o w
.i1 e
ubo b
h l
.m.e ta,.u iret, t
- u. m. h e 1dr i v\\
ol si o
t n s e
,i
. h e i. e l t
ai n
eh at i
ob e a t
t r
,h l al.nrt nr t
te s e uh rl
.i a
,v t
f'er' hwd eoe hcr ao n i
i t a
- e iss,h l
t d
o s
l r oo n v t
t v rnf eC ht i
t s n-snreeml c
,a e
aed gb' e a, e vwo nm e
n c *:
l M;il r
hl rl eemvn aa' id1 n
ei s ekh v
i
- hot eUo td uot -
i RW" wmfiyc e re e
rt t
ct s
s n.. liwo hl e e as s eh i
awdn a
e w
re rg f
8t t
M ;
Ef I a nm8 e ya pt nU w
,mte w c T. on r. o 's amdm
+
- m. a k m n, a
i f
r ea l
u ab o sb f'
- n b
n; Zt a
9 e
rei l H. e yt i0i e
y A S*
vi 1s 0
l ew ti s8 cpt s
ani pi t o M.
x me 5l n
-v o i m y9 uoskrwi srw c.
Rw rahedr 6
t s ut t u heo ns ey
- 1. d e e l
o" y Fe Urudthc eemr ece o es o
t R', d -
l ub e pt o pu w f s
f t
.e.t N
e g
cti i
o a
i r
o na Hn ot s e i 's mord wal bs sml p0 o;at ih f
u Ale' el v s n e r ai s iot a
h so s a oed 0
0 t
Rt ndc o w e pps a d ed ( w h ed l p.d 1
t r
eb a vn yge 200iu ao Y, r 56t n
b Ou wloda ho ggD u n rooranol nct 1 n
hg t
bpvot e s
6 uu u ui a
o n
e a
s W. SN. O Dy Bo ts e
n wf a
vld o sy
.e i
e 'n enmh i hd o
nait M~
si pe b nlrdl tW s 1
n E
est ei - r 1
t e
a o rc0 iet hnl e
hoda a
rAwa e v m' a s si U n 5l e
an t
n i e m rd T e v
e enet u9 e et o e k
g c
Tt a
iei w
yo aaegn t
c ew hoMr J1 rka t nlll y
i l
- o. -
t t ll BR nuraa tll;Llrl;[L.-
r l
iet.ar sn a l grr w
ys sai i
c i
- 1 i s
f t
.i t ate de nrt Hns wfo pd t
r ri t e aefl oAdo tdl e e r l
oa sc ahtHgin t
r e e ee edd dsiaf o
cs r
e l
wi U
t sonsa.ine p
u 8
ie et r
d a nf r uww o'ds cu r
nh pn s
oh
~
. nide i
l s
e a aerkmt a. o 5 ot ee
,t
,8 t n pa c c o otd rr nsdee srrt 9n a o n
nh cnn a u e
mnere o:
i s
e st ee e s nb e 3w1 i
i l
ot eli I
n s wcuwrw rhu rl il a a csrt ded t
8 ibi& e e s o l.
ee rF olot e '1 o
fi s
.yl nt gnmie e od o
sh et pt oe cHswi mbliho etu a'.in aU et ymt ul htdudCr h
a i
l e
4.I[,1 f pml6t wdwt net arn
,r y ml yo s
o kt i o e lia r d
t c
!, 5eprrsgc a
s e
u ooodlb' ai g
e e3e cwa t of sneltit r ti l
l uh odiivg b
7eed psldT tht oweleeI ail anaa ad h
a t
t e et n t nt rpe
.h nbrord e
i t
l eae e o e e 's o as ot
.temaci a
n nhtt ae enta
.l f
s c a u
in er1omhr mmwl oi ci pm pa ol r ru t
meo u t s el w l
s c
s o U,t ml v l 6 '1 s r
n U,l ao ot s t e v.Urio e
s el t l
eil rt e ec e a dh mv el memvl l e ren el l
rwharinipe6e ew o
e h
ai8l ec ka i
l 1
i e v v o
ol st ne t pg ig b8h re m1 mhi e8d e 9
t e e ete at ns 9th y
t ob8i e h 0nllkf s
f f enl9a s et r
t gi oit pnhsa w i E gd 1 s
h l
i 8ot p vs ew v
nJ ginti oeov n
1 i st r
rt o l
o 9 t eu3u neem t
t ei oni on 6ra shsbowetsogs tfi 1
ahb ehi nincoll h i gb o tahth
, e Sehf
~
o eiarom no grt i
.edg,fof atnurnienl i
e a s a s r t
t t
un
,i dd C
c i
wa rlh o p r
i nrahitthh n
f n c
niwJFwc v i
i t
t aiaTekepa eTd r e aD r eo-WIo o v on o u e i
e o mInfom mi eti tdl md eh a ohh-t t
h pD yt rCtt h
I tTolie t
r eiee sob *n n k s'r-tf y e
rn as e.adetWde l
sp e-v w g m "w i
it f
l aa u
a a a.e s
t i t rer e aM u.
.t r
a a v ra v t
m dse a s,t or l
pr a
r e
s et c
- e. t c f a aUnd.
n i
e y
a w
e gr eh a
- u t
emdhr ii s
e el s e
u e l
hnniod h m U h T. h mon eh dp nh e e br e e e
t c
ct u
net e eoyp waoc oh ya lh f
v n e v yi a a o gh, a e
t h
L..,
't sh m wasadn h
nl t
swhr t, o, s dh ne rt t
i l
m e
r.
t aat a yk a tI a
il e c
rda owo f
o u
c o nlt t n gh m h mi h
e un rJne wf t
h a
bc o f
f f
a ea v
i t o
-f ek sl l
h y
t eit v oak er ot eerl s
. _ o dwr tl i
s t
a anw hcv e h eld c s - s n b o Esi:onwhei i
em t aib gc i
t t
e c
in uegr c e r w i. lei t s n n e
e pa sot i
a i
e nmym l
h ovt e fbe s
i e y aicn u
t daa u
e
.i t
scfh t
e e e a v lh dst nt g
va p
agiEt.n l b ci m l
r ridh e
I u n s h' v n ahd
.r6c a
l l
r5 a1". oie t asr' er iIf p aeio ehac b
s pi h i c ct ri t ot l
a l
yt m lh aUd ai n fl e od c
d s vt e i k e,t at s ni h
g t "r. a
. n.
9 sn e f u v ne oat
- w. t -
ei e h l
no awf w i
t s s he eool smsl a@
e e o
iaa ot c
nk
.r t
ehof0e se.
c yh hp gd e as s s
sr r ci w o el u n o0ke aeywe
,t 4
rt et ss e
.nt p u
d_
mr 1 os r r armeC io e
et euayggo o uj, Y s e n m e'e r,d rwh vemdrn np 8
e o ei ypr s e
t uto v pu v
eklit.a u x a va e.
s.el t a s a p
ndc dLka sv shetmedshcms c
1 t
ssmhioes l
e oI e t "* W o h n d v e r oeat a r an t
iaa shia omt o aiv asbei t
v eWhe t
s oAwa E.0 e pd m Y s a T n,h oc eisl thmi hl e
T a ~ 'd s ei l
t teNawstbnlaTodemta t
2 t
e W"'dner e
e m d H k n. odo" u#nf r
nno e e rah n c da o a
q*
g ioo eer r
t h
f rt u h, u i
s aa n e*aoma dHhd e
erl oa i
iddancm rvri b
r c
- gns' m
o g.
asimt.
+
- - t nee tg.
s u nl no a entoe o
e u
amu bUoiiknl. Doit t
l tt eA nS moa p
a C ri e e l
ssc a-e 7ohw'wiom t 5Ue d
t a aUn.'.
e ne s
k6wb nwr e
m 9 gT n 1 1
2sl e
eieeeo n u oihm e
aa m pf poo y
t e
s sdg
[nnt e
a f
we
,4 % \\ " '.
. :h a
od mbEt ie p o o s r
.y dJ l
st ss r rl sg rst s.
gen
[ oti ehr af wd.v vo ai i
a r
tstsv r
e 5
oyei iwjho m_
u ns ei i
t n.
e Eh t
pt y
h l
i r n yc t
is iaa s
x i g n gd t T
i r-7 Fal a el n enl a ed god ht pao
- ' '. : 6 *s. '"E~
4 sd H mi os w hi i ge iH knri e
s 5
e cr ed aheh t o
- t s
g_o. -
o~
,,').
a o v a nn r pd w f
nc w_'
,.'t'-
r e a
.M Jc e ee sne oo dhs of x an h hne e
s s oiug hdobn.
m i
esf ct
%nw' '
M a T. g s
'l t ar gw) ew g
i e
rd a k',tued N
n e
s nl oie 'm haahf l
lqn unb
,a t
m w~
",lcdv cC 9W n -
tuli hs ot sa Bn rp i
ehersIM Yuae y-l e ir l
a i e u t, f
o r
t rf i F
r sD s
8 w mbh a
Hrolb.b e esu dul h
J i. q o
g et e
o e
sn o yu* #
v ah I e d
nt r y t,.
p M.
exn1 e
erc e
cei2y
_ hoof ^m anos
.Te
. M D ;.
r tfl r.o t e vn o
i e
L t
t qs goy b o-.ddn g
.eesnl e t.f s-
's. 9 i.S r
ne hreo a~
v u e }_m.. n5 se e a
gol
.nne ai t el s.5 ir i o el up aae t
i c
t
!dl 1
t e f
t a e a s iao.'
1Ca r
h r
l w.
l b mta-f'hi ad
.te s
- p
,owmie or' l
h-w vvtl s
s s v
.G0s r
w."
adf a a ne ame e
. K g
t nl oycf sf a eh l
3 e
dn o o p
0e re l p m
se n n e Ca N\\
r ubo o9hu.o 7t h
t e
b. 'h e I a i 1
i e
,d 1dr t ns iret o
i u. m. h e ol si at i
t ob ea n
eh n
eiu
,., f. r '
hl t
t al.nr t cr re uh
.r1
.i t e s e i
a, h a
hwdieoe h
t a o
t
,v t
t t n o
suHs n oo nv t
vrnf eC s n-snreemlel r m
e c
,a ei w o nm t
t il ea noteUo eei s ekh v aed gb dh n
r hl r v
e i'
u v e
rt ee mvn a a n
l
- m. t M 'f. n l
i o
i RW' w
f st ye e re rtd.
,mI awdn o s nliwo hl e eas s eh i
a e
w re rg 8t t
Ef e ya pt n U, w
,mt w.cT an r. o 's am i
a e
fa nm8
,I n
b n
ef rei dm f
Zt a
9 r
ea A S' viu1 a b o s' b l
i0l
, par. a-t lI e yt e
f 0
l y
s pi t o ew 5l s8 c p
.k ne ti k
s an n
n vo imy 9 u os rwix Rw r aiedrts irw c..
o Fe Ur h eons ey li t t
u 1
e e o es o
u b e p a.do psuwf l t t
a N
udthc eemr ece G.
f t o
a s
r o
na e
g ct i ot.
e Ho ot s e i 's mord wah bs uml p0o;at ih f
s a a oed 0h d t Ata' so v snerai i
t 0
p.d dedv n f. w h t
el ed Rt ndc o w e pps a
l yge 200iu ao n
t r
eb a
r 56t Ou wl b
gD s n roo anol nct 1 n
hg u
r oda n og bpvot e s
a t
6 i
u u u ui
.e o
n e
a
- u. S P
Bo t s e
n wf a
vld o sy estihd o o nai s i p e b 'n r dltWs L
E e 'n anmh 1
M t
l U
r e
a o rc0 t ei ho oaiet hnl s si U n 5 a rAwa e v m" a e
y Dk t
e an enet u9 e et o e l
v e
Ti e m rd T e g
c ew iel i
tt r
J1 rka t nllI y
c lHo hoMa t t yo aaegn a
BR nuraa n
1ii!1ll!,
x
. LD 9L;No?>i. i' g %f$"
?
h.:.4Qe
'. *#,I W
K
~L
,.-a-yl.. AQ E
E E a. ~..
b' M_ -
.f G
,.t.M E
e I
o 3'6 nh.2 r
i D:. :1
- j E
.-?
E a E >.'N h
f c
y
- 9.., y b"' R p ~. L
.N.
3
.s
[
gym
/l P
f,',
pA
- \\
c G
.R s
I
(
g7h
..I t
s sj'M,,.E k; J Nd-I-
< ~ - v' R
h i
'r,
~ f w'
J }, : y f N AT S
5 e &h. O
'f'..
.n-T Q'
v..
I p
, F.
A
(
,,;.,x'&.ML C
[., ;, f'f.
E:
p;
.. y O-o n
. '5 e
.' n fp-R:
A
- ie
$gy
,a i,
s s
.t g
t^
!c
.. L '-
n N T
$".~:
f AC e' Q)
,4' A~ +'.,;,, '7^
$ J
~
g 8
E
/
'jr
- p s s
. {'.
v
- q /i 5O s;
R 3
(
s
&~P
- t
,Q h;;p &.h.,.e #w g5 y
$ ]'a v.
y 1
lf g
s
(
,x
/I s
g d3d b g, p3)[g. $
. yk,Ea&[f$
1 g Q,< %y+
3
~
s-h
.v? j7,%
a' Ai k
3h 9'l $ N
'hy n
a:
r h-
- }..
ll1l1 il
qus 6
..::T v
m :..
.W, "Q,,
g
(
MM,i,,,.,'":.;.dMLA
$~ l. k f$h?
- an, w
<+
31^4y y
'A.$a 4
-Y O
v'
- h.,l n r' O. ' id j >v l'Qit$ ;{
r,.
<e,
,j V~
v j
tW
\\
- 5. -
I.
"\\,
f w.
- a a r,
h lirmu sm18 e
t g
7 f
y;D/_3Edf..NshY$ l z-n.
n;.
~; %
t :
$y s
r
. $0 0
'g g,; jy:
g? f
> cf Q't k
[ @:
- N
~
g s
o
?
t~'
n.
y A j Q i!
- y y
I;,
y w3' t -j.
y Z
gr
- d
. h,,-
O
__.3 0,. y e
s
~
g>
.,s h
n
? !,
n L %${ k,A~
w 4
8 t
O aw,I i
[(~
' h:
1 o
u
.4 J4q a
f' @;)
f p
b, b,
ux<,
q O
.,dk k
i
.. N>Nb h b.h we k
{
AE S T U
C I
L PI WF C
N S
y I
E F A
R I
NE DF PS i
T D N E E T U A L G
E F N
R F T E I
K C
U R
T E
N I.
N O
l E
I P
TG AN I
P v
TI E
E L
R N R R
N A EO U
E V
I T
R T M
MT S
B A U
OI I
MD N W
D^EEO I
I O
E N
A T
E R"RSM M
H A
R S
N R
A W
I 5
F A
2 F
B A
T R
N D
A E
N N
E E
E X X G N O
D F
S EI N
R G
I R R
^ TG O
GN X
MM O
P B AN I
P D
NI U U Tl R
t r
I i
N HE I
I N D P S E
r U
ST A A C A G
O A L R N EW R
R WF U A G
R U
V P&
S E
C G
I R
A R
T T
N E
E E
S N
T T
N U
A A
I A
R A
L W
B C W P
i
,!l1
~
u 6
m 9
mm m
5 u
9 m
uu 0
S m
4 m
28 T
9 u
m 3
u S
m n
5 9
2 O
u lIl
,M I
C 2
R9 A9 T
D 1
S lIl O
N 0
C A
E9 lII 9
L E
Y8 A
\\
T L
8 8
O U
\\
T D
78 E
\\
l H
68 C
l
\\
M 5
S 8
I A
N 3
ER O
a
,S I
2E S
A T
,P D
L A
1OL N
Y A
A SS K
O R
S P
M E
DD E
NS E
P P
O U
T A
I S
P N
S L
S R
H S
A O
ON PO R
D C
C A
E N
C I
SE O
O N
N S
D E
C R
V L
E GV P
O A
E L
C C
L SN R
OR R S
R M
A AO T
N UL NCE E R
N B
B S
I T
I '2 A T I
L E M V
K U
U Y
WNI E
E L 1W T
L L
R O
N M I
A*6 T
D3 R
A C
C C
T AIN I
f
(!l
l!1 2
S L
S L
S L 1
L L L E E W E
S W
D W
GE E
N SO L
3 IT P S O I
I P
X R G
E P E
e@
S L
N I
I G
P N
R N
O O
S I
I L
G S
-o T
N R
o 8,
I s
I E
- 0 I
N L
V 0
4 gAgT D
AO I
o SM I'
F I
E
- 0 F
0 4
A?
O MH h
3 l<
N T
5 U
BI 3((glf Rf f j'
LUW i
g/
fj g
A
- [C E
_ 4 j&
R 7
A 3'
N J
R}f gc W T
O yn~
~
3 I
gi
)
rT',
A g ;g Y
L 3'
M LA GN AS T^R A
I R
N T
S A
O A XI U
L S
E Y P E C
R S R E
I CDA R
yl q
S S
N G
GN A
~
N A
A A
I I
L O
E L
E E
L I
I T
R A
R R
A S
A T
A S
A T
P L
L3 A
L O
L A
L O
N A
T A
2,A T
E I
IR S
S R
S C
O E3 O
L O
E1,O L
A I
T P
O L
I I
TA2 P
O P
A S S
S P
T S
S S
ME M1 I
I ID DA L
D A A
S D
N I
DS D
S DP OE E
EE E
OE M
I E
TI T
T3 TM TS TM T
L A
A 3 D
A P A
AG N 2 E
N S
N2 S B NN LS B I
M L
L I
U M,I L
IMS M1 A U I
I A
ML A
1 L
A A
A G T
A T L T
I C
A A S C TS L
TN TS SC T T Y NE C
NL Y
NE Y
N I
RN OL E
E OI y
A I
I CT 8
YT A
I E
A L
I R
E 3
C S
A RA 2
A D
Y F
N A
K 1
O R
E S
G P
P E
E N
S S
R L
D H
C I
I N
C A
P T
O N
S N
S P
A E
O S
I R
M S
G X
N N
E R
B B
IL I
E U
U K
I V
L L
T A
R C
C A
T I
y W
hj 0
4W G
~
0 I
~
N 0
R 2
O Jy T
I O
N O
M f+
- 00 2
mC
+
DN
~
mE=e p"n A
7 A
E H
wP7 ?w A
R C
N K
A g
E R
sCh!'p E
R s
j B
p/dyfghfh /
C i
U N
L O
C f
~
/b iJ n
i d
- n.
s,
/
'yQ(\\
g y.
2 r
&Q g-
\\
'/
' i
%g&
Q5.
/(?:>
l
N N S
G OO O
I H
TI N
F AD L E
S AR M L
E T R N A V
m1 R
A EC G
E E
L C
B A
A R
T R
G E
R N
T E
T A
I W
T D
N S
U I
O S
R L
X G
A N
T O
G S
=
E I
T N
YR A
I T
C M
- g/
S R
E I
O X
T E
A F
N A
IF T
F N
A R
E Y
7 ta_
A K
R E
V R
I L
E U
G o_S I
M N
A
4 C
M 1
S Y
U O
I A
V N
W O
H L
L G
I O
H C
1 E
N ON TO I
S T D A N M A R S O F
AD L E
A R M S.
T R l
NA E
EC VA D
R G
E E
L C
M NB A
OA 1
R R
I I T E
T T
AR A
ME AT LA L
CW C
E N
RD
~
O N
I TU T
E A
SO L
M R
L OR I
R PG F
O F
A TN f-E Y
AK REV IR L
EU rG L
I L
M IF N
AS j
l
I T
L V
E E
U U
U L
D G
L E
T I
M S
LB D
A N
N T
A A
R S
S ET O
A J
W A
D V
NU A
R O
N ET R
k G
A W
D EH D
C N
R U
E O
P RG LA N
N O
O I
I T
G A
E M
R R
O F
L E
M RA C
E E
L N
I O
P T
S S
G D
N N
N O
IL A
IT I
S A
AT R
A M
E E
D R
N B
A O
O M
R F
T E
T M
N A
S E
T D
E N
N L
E A
L Y
S I
R-V A
E R
K T
N E
E A
O M-B M
G I
M N
T E-A U
\\H-I M
S W
M R
S O
W-A F
E T-L N
L_
I I
A H
P C
O S_
K N
E O
($.
4, '.
f i
{ s:
o,
+
e
,% y e34 4
,. I d'.
=
~
,!i8 s.'-
,\\_
)
I c'd
.l f
r
,. f?.,'-
o
- a.,
/-
., ::,:g c,
s
- 5.,
,' 4q6 p "qgg,*
3 g * !.
[
f
' Q",aU,,,p n j-
" (s,-A:. go B
. a c
,p
,f g@
j
, ~ -
_~c 4
""g..
e n
o co'" -~g.
I N
n<o
{
e 73 oo mo^.-
u
[
s**
wo s,..
s F*
~
\\
s h
so f
o*
. oo - =r f
uu
,go 7 wo>x
.n
'f~
a\\wt e
D ii'..,
t E
T n
VEN e
. w (g,'**
'ggwQ -
OSA MUC A
E N c
RI V m_.t.
~
/?,.,, p. a _ -
'g SSS
- x.
EEE
..',g' SSS UUU 1n3 D OOO o0
.s N HHH oo E
o.
-,o4
.e G
.a o 0 E
o0 l
AO o,
L E o,...
o o o
[wt
'y ".
s g
a' .-
J
=
l
M SY p
A W
A E
H FL T
S n
E T E
L S
E T A
T A
e A
N Y
o BA L
RE N
U ER T
i C
P "C
TU N
T XS O
V A
I TW I
L E
S A
I N
SE I
F:
T O C E E
S A
ER I
C S R
S "O
D U
D E
ON A
R MU I
R ID Y*
A S
R Y N Y
K O T
Y Y
IV T
O T
E P i
I E T VI V R I
T E
E X NC TA TT I
I RA C T CA OO Y
E
^
AW R E BI z!{
A D
O G O
C R
E A
I I
D V DW IAR A
A L
R N R
GO m'
I NID I
R A S
E S
T A
A G
P R L
N U
O C
S I
D T
A R
R A
L P
EG A
A PE E
I K
E S
T E
T E
I S
R N
C L
E S A T
G G S N
A N O O
I I
R S
L P P E S
S M T D P
I A
I
P Z
O N N h d I h 5I $ $$ N h ky h 5 82 k
- w m m@ g r a e m g o e,d h+r.*$w$w$E'M,h,g3 @ I l'*5h M O
- g A
.w.yz
~ #s,. w :,e/'4,,4 s LU,,,j J-nc g% *c
'4 -
/g %-.,
.i - -Q --
1 3
0
- a.,ci. a
- n h. ?' 4 ' e,..g. y;fp y.m A-g Q h, ca..
.un%' s.,.
,n.w 9 &.' Qta. fy.s !. } Dp.l' % i n' h[ g. f{ y. p M
.$ i N ' #.'. G,j"
- ' 1'. '~.
i
+.
. Q' 1%, W y 3 :. - < y&
.f h.h-j$qu(f h,1.J.$*%h,J "k y _ g.~%
4.;p w v-i$
E LU
,M.. w s. n,. :
a,.
. n v.,
g..
3
. sof
- a
,g t
').
l R,.NT%,c cc. ll]$$ b
$[N !
IkffM E Qgp' 6ED.j 1!g, n 4 g s oE
.YNh.7
~
m._J m w %.r
. g\\ o d.
g. _
f _y ~ 4 # j. ' A 4 7
s.-
.. qq )
hhh,d
$l'lNkh(((hjM o
az % y 1gggpgg,gqdg3 g
N z
'S 1
2 2 2 3 2 t
1 2
2 D G E-E E E E
E E E E E L N 2 9 9 4 3 7
7 8 8 1
1 5 5 U
4 5 7 7 3 0 0 6 9 3 3 3 3 I
2 2
1 7 5 1
2 1
5 H L 1
7 7
l C
E S
S 1
1 1
2 2
2 2 1
2 1
2 1
'D E
+
+
E E E E E E E E-E E E E AO 2 0 6 7
4 2 2 3 5 2
4 0 8 LN 9 7 0 9 0
4 7 2 0 2 9 8
2 O
SD I
4 2 3 4 5
4 1
1 1
2 4 2
1 H B C
E L M A YD SO 2
1 2 3 3
3 4 3 3 3 2 U
'D B E
K E
E E E E E E E E E 3 3 8 4 6 6 3 6 6 2 7 7
3 N
L E
2 3 6 9
4 2 7 7 6 8 1
0 1
E I
8 7 1
3 2
4 2 2 4 3 3
1 HL 1
CO E
H W
R A C09 G1 E
E N
T IS G
I I
RFI N
PC Y
R R
O E
A T
D I
C N
N N
S U
O ED 6
O M
I H
4 B
S R
E E
Y A B C D IA R
1 T
H H T I
E E E E E
D C E
S R
T T TI T
C N
EP S S S S N
I N
T D I
I I
W A IS N O
E R
U G G G G D
N R
R O N
P N N N N I
W K EI G
I I
I I
S E
R R
R R R E
O FI O
T E
S O O O O R
D R R K T
E T T T T Y D I
T A O T C A C I
I I
I A
W N N N N S
H O O O O E
W O S
L A A E G C B C
T M M M M R
E W L R N I
L L O
R A
T R C A R L
IL R R R L
N IR I
I A
N G N N N S M M A
A A I
E A O U E P I
O
'S 1
1 1
1 1
1 2
1 1
1 1
1 2
D G
+
+
+
E E E E E-E E E-E E E E E
LN 4 3 3 7 1
8 1
8 4 9 3 4 8 4
U 6
1 1
9 7 9 3 9 4 6 4
0 0 4
IH L
' 3 1
1 4 5 2 4 1
4 6 2 3 1
1 C
S 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2
'D E
+
+
E E E E
E E E E E E E E
t A LN 5 7 1
7 2
3 3 7 7 5 2 4
5 7
O 1
0 4 2 5
4 8
1 3
1 0
4 0 8
I C
S S H
7 3 3 8 6
2 5 1
2 7 1
2 4 1
1 1
2 2 1
1 1
1 1
'D B E
E-L E E E E E E E E 2 K
+
4 0 2 4 6
9 5 4 4 2
0 0 3 3
L 6 0 2 6 4
7 8 6 7 3 4 9 6 4
H L E A E
I 3 8 4 4 1
2 2 6 6 3 5
1 1
1 H
E CO W
R N C NA GM N
E O
L E
I T
T N A A
IS ID I
G A RT N
I R
PO Y
R R
D O
E N
A T
C U
D ST I
N N
N O
U O
E R
D 6
G O
M B
S H
K I
R E
E C
Y A B C D A
R T
A I
1 T
H H
B I
E E E E E
D C E
L S
R T T T T C
N N T D A
E I
I I
I P S S S S N
W A I
IS N N
O E
R U
O G G G G D
N N
R R O P N N N N W K I
I E R G
S E
I I
I I
O T
R R R R E
O I
E F G E
S O O O O R
D R R K R
I IT E T T T T Y D A O T C A C L
T I
I I
I A
W N N N N S
H O O O O E W O S
L A A
G A E C B R
C T M M M M R E W L R N U
L L I
O R
A T R C A R L L T
O R R R R E
A O U E P I
I A
I I
I I
L N A A A A N G N N N S M M N
lit l l!
1 2
3 Y
Y Y
A E
E E
S N
L L
L E
E L
L L
S I
M S
A A
A E
ESA A
K V
V V
A B
R T
N C
O S
E A
X X
X I
S G E M
R P
O O
O S
E D
D D
N NM B
C G
A A
A L
K m
U U
N R
R R
A I
T L
A O
A A
A A S A @
C S
L P
P P
S O E P M S
)4 I
KD 1
E ES 9,
O
- c, 1
L C
N T GI N
A A
I
^
,4 R
3""^
g0 PE 0
AN K6 R
j~~
o9 E
KC s O
R x
D T
E
~-
o B
L o.
A nag N
A J
I I
)ll ll E
7 LAC N
S O
A RO N
S I
E E
KT S
EX T
EE N
c ;;;
R E
/
CL
/;
A M
-/
1 GC K NI N
P A IRY B
SL A
PT T
S M
S YR J
E C
S G
N IL IAT lll l1l1It
(
J J
J J
Ltj LLI l
0 0
3 n.Ay,%,w,w.,,xm,w_-as-s m
w
--+y
- s. m D
,y ~
,p fgY b ~ ~f Y '
~
f l[
, y; h [ g,kh T$ g$jp C-~
f' g
0
$n[M)g d
g yy jge s v f
'gwye:gg w
~j k~'1
'h
- As%n u a
,x
,;*n
\\,
p' g
,,(
<g
~
i CMLn & m w)
- 4Zg sepp c
m "p m yx9 h
4fy h2
\\E '$g 9
m 6S,9$Q,kb(,
_ y 3
um tu o.
h Yh i
G G
A X
E E
LA N
C O
S IT L
A A
M C
I R
T O
R F
EV LE A
M R
S AC x-E EN M
O TSDN
_ }
A K
S A
E D
AR E
TN E
R C
m m
o T
G v
N u
E A
P D
c N
N E
o R
U C O A R
E S
I F
F R
R B
N U -
1 u
M I
S N
N e
E T
P D
M E
U L
O H
L R S
S F G T
A F G o
R E N
& B x
E W
B T
I,
S A
S X
D M
L GE E
A M
S PL
~
I N
AT S
,[S YH URB
/
S f_
L I
A C
T R
E V
E TN M
N D
UO n_
P MI -
TN E
U N
L O
FF Y
E N
A l -
C SG O
N 4R u
R A
7_
U T
B D
E N
IB A
~
M T
O O
R C
K E
A B
=
D M
E M
N N
O I
I S
T A
R A
B E
M
=-
m Y
B R
H M
O S
E F
U M
L R
E B
H R
M S
E A
B RA W
M C
T E
L M
AS E
E L
N L
O IV T
R S
E D
M N
M A
U S
S A
DAR TN E
T 0 0
0 0
0 R 0 0
0 0
0 O0 0
0 0
0 N 7 6
5 4
3
~ -
yo
?,d T - >
S E
W
~
H T 0 0
0 0
R 0 0
0 0
O0 0
0 0
N6 5
4 3
I h TN O
P E
U l
Bg Aa_
lp T
N E
I L
L N
E E I
FT N
O FN O
C ND A N C
~
E *0 U
S O E *0 S0 GP S0*
- 0 '0 NI M 0 0 1
L I
1 0 S
0 I
S 0
0 S *1 1
A 1
T S *1 O
O : 'l RE*
E 1
4 RL.
CA E L
C E
C L A
CL SA D>T CSA I
C I L C I LC N
N T E GA S S
A GA NM T
ON L TL SED J
ONA GU N LO C A
L OC I
F NL U OZI ZI 4
I T OI T
L O
A P
E RR F
RR I
G HV I
GHV T
t 4
t e
2 3
m Q
r 0
g 8
Y E
g L
L A
p 1
p N
V g
O R
S 3
N E
N8t O V
3 l
O8 S A
N M OI Y
R L
R E
A RO U
CE L
G I
M E
OMR M
I S
R S M
N N
R E E R
B A
N U M M C
A O
B NE ED T
T S
S DS M I
I L N S
A T
N A HI E
L A E
A A B S V A AE WH <
H -
T M
A Y A R DT T T 0 0
0 0
0 T
0 0
0 N
HWE A NA T
U 0 0
0 0
0 U 0 0
0 M R EG R
OS T O 0 0
0 0
0 O 0 0
0 0
7 6
5 4
3 S 6 6
4 3
O K UL MT Y I
A R A U NA S
F DBSS E K WC 1 2 3 4 6 6 F hy6j> g Ug iO ?N
M ETS Y
S
^
I R
%^
EN R
KD IL E
1 N
v EN h
C L
^
EO I
T K
RP I
^%
C E
Y H
A N
T L
&v GO N
C NI Y
T 8
S I
1 f
L
^
A 67 C
IPYT
V R
EN y
IL A
y S D E N M O V
P R
K EN VN EN O
YA A
D C TC L
'N C
YU GE O
N S 8
v F
1 I
Y RL PA SC I
P Y
T l
1(
I l!
ll
A S
E M
N R
KD E
EN N
A
'J
)
EO IL D
RP N
C C
L A
O IT S
E h
GO H
L Ni T
E I
N V
E RC Y
A P
PE I
S R
P G
SS N
IA RD
A V
SE N
M V O T
K I
A E
Y MD E
A N
L R
U O.
C C
F 6
G
-k N
3 Y
I IRPS t
-nw.ys---
4 W
e w
2 M
zw a y
OH
>. W
- 3 </>
- jhW 'N t--
T'* * ( t e m de. c e.ea.@ct$nM h
g' i g O
.d n
9 2, =
g o
o
.n: M y :,4,,,.
e ew y
- j..
eI C F E
, h...'
~~' d ' h., m,$ d,.',7, - Y. -
~
eO a,3.e mecl 3S m
- e. o IEI ham 8
...e m
.3 e
O...: w ' m e e
,0 - --
<. t N.
a g :: q
'k g
Q..jg'-y.O hdA.[Cy,U,jR' " k i. c y r ; v,
g 3*
n o1 W..,v.
u
.-n W<
m e. v.
- o. s.
7 i, S
.( w,r+t[.y,.: 7: *;.~o.,: #, #.,,,
DN, k,(..-7.
w.
. n,>x s.'J"7w.
o o_
t.
l' - a.
1 ~..
- a.3' vm!C
'l'n<Q/
.g Q
,.<1#.
memes v
s, b.'y:.'(.'n.1
.s
.. !g t, O
'f., (O. ',J ;,
' ( 6 % ~,4
~
lif..
ta %-
,[,
m n_-)f';* % ?..,
s.>
.te '*
- k*.'.. -
c A/ t
' * ' JV-<& %
g,. * "$.
'!-' \\, :c,' ; ' ~~ E,1
~,, ' * ) ',;; U,)g i
- a Q'
..R
".,$.Q,,. $,
l.
.? t -
- 1.,
I'& l ' (D
' ' ' *t M ".;f ' ag :.
%.O,o
\\
j k
. n'{
-. g h.
'(
.'^+f'? * 'f
-,r er J w,4.. v. 9 w :) w
.^7%,/
.' h 6e
'., w.g pa 4sm Lij ~
.s.
9, e.
g,..,.,,
p),.b lf ',.,, ' p.'di,.RJ,h;$,u cf,.
. w-
..g, m}.,..h.5*,g /.
y.
..e
-5
'"iE ' b 5,;
- _ l; t c. y p.' g. D y' j [J.; g
...x.+C. :.,.p i:.ht o
.. n... 2m pa wm y n.,
y g'
y
- r.,.',.,i, Q. 4,g,,. -
a,;/,?,
,;f.A'.?. j..p f.i 3 y.,,.? g/
-.T s.
p~ t i h h.< h ki h../.j;.</'
,/4 <..,j%
l1,I f
s, k.s a gJ.
,... ;s.
. ',1,.{ Mg {.4YW ^'~eh.3.p.... $. x c...
,. p:.3.4., a
. w c
c.
a
., n,4,f;,.-.;$3"'
{M..h?)?,;ts;&.,Cg'7 n.
- s.. -
'A ;.
~R
(;
6 WN
$'T&
.&ffik h
am
,g ag penm
,,w.-- p r,pJ ~,,.
.j ja.6 s'. - k.' ' i'o.
O t;
- 5
'f$
- pf
.y ~
\\
fj'* i W $.Y"l,,,'e gt,r R a
-% sty /WGydRD #jh'fh. %~O 7" /
~
QS!
?
9 r
.=
O,
-ew' /(n.c.s$s$e%r;&gp&J
'.W ge 4
Q
.w.
e a
g
,,$1 &p q.e. w :;a:. M : y.;.;.n f;"
W$N.$
b-
~
\\
l i
I l
l
.{
t l
l l
UR AVAN, COLOR ADO RADI ATION AND REGULATION A Report by a Special Study Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
\\
Region IV Uranium Recovery Field Office Denver, Colorado August 1984 i
I
TABLE OF CON TENTS A..
PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT B.
SCOPE OF THE STUDY C.
BACKGROUND 1.
The Mill and the Town Called Uravan 2.
History of Operations at Uravan 3.
History of Licensing of the Uravan Mill D.
SUMMARY
OF FINDINGS C
1.
Radiation Exposures in Uravan 2.
Actions Taken to improve Conditions at Uravan E.
NRC STAFF ANALYSIS OF RADIOLOGICAL HAZARD AT THE URAVAN MILLING FACILITY TO OFFSITE INDIVIDUALS 1.
Introduction 2.
Applicable (Numerical) Radiological Standards for Operational Releases 3.
Cleanup Standards 4.
Adequacy of Computer Modeling Using Joint Relative Frequency Meteorological Data i
s
(
l i
=.
.5.
Factors Affecting the Use of Monitoring Deta
' 6.
Review of Presently Available Monitoring Data 7.
Evaluation of Present Offsite Radiological Conditions at-Uravan 8.
. Recommendations F.
LICENSE CONDITIONS RELATED TO CONTROL OF RADIOACTIVE
- MATERI AL RELEASES AND ENVIRONMENTAL. RADI AITON 1.
Milling Operations-2.
Tailings, Ore, and On-site Contaminants
' (.-
3.
Previously Deposited Materials in the Town Site
- Letter, Environmental Defense Fund to Appendix A
Chairman Palladino, USNRC, dated May 24, 1984.
- Letter, G. Wayne Kerr to Environmental Defense Fund, Appendix B dated June 14, 1984.
Internal Procedure D.13,
" Guidelines for Temporary Appendix.C Suspension of a Section 2746 Agreement."
Appendix D -- Chronology of events.
Letter, Union Carbide to John WeIIes, EPA, dated Appendix E July 23,1984.
Appendix F -- Legal note, Howard K. Shapar, Executive Legal Director, USN'RC, dated March 31, 1980.
Appendix G -- Meetings and interviews conducted for this report.
Appendix H -- Staff members contributing to this report.
Appendix 1 -- Photographs of the Uravan mill and town site.
.f -
e a
S e
n.
PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT By letter dated May 24, 1984, the Environmental Defense Fund, Boulder, Colorado, communicated tc the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission a number of concerns over radiation exposures to the residents of Uravan, Colorado and the regulation of the uranium mill at Uravan by the Colorado Health Department.
A copy of this letter is attached as Appendix A.
One of the conclusions drawn by the Environmental Defense Fund was that an emergency exists with respect to source and byproduct materials (uranium mill tailings) regulated by the State of Colorado, creating a danger to public health that requires immediate action by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to protect the health of persons in Colorado.
(.
EDF requested the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to temporarily suspend that part of its agreement with the state pertaining to uranium mill regulation so that the Commission may immediately respond to this emergency.
In addition, EDF requested that the Commission immediately institute a systematic review of implementation by the state of its radiation protection program.
In response to the contention that the situation was an emergency that merited the NRC suspending part of its agreement with Colorado, G.
Wayne Kerr, Director, Office of State P rog rams, responded in a memo j
dated July 14, 1984 that the NRC does not believe that an emergency currently exists.
(See Appendix B).
The NRC has developed internal guidelines for judging whether or not an emergency exists (see Appendix C).
These gbidelined set criteria for exposures or releases that were not exceeded at Uravan-l
2 Mr. Kerr also indicated that the NRC has initiated their regular review of the Colorado program and plans to expand the review to take into account the various points raised by EDF.
The purpose of this
- report, therefore, is to provide additional information to be used by the NRC in hs review of the Colorade program and to provide a basis. for future actions, including a response to the Environmental Defense Fund.
It is not intended to be a comprehensive review of the State's program for the regulation of uranium milling activities nor is it an exhaustive evaluation of the problems that exist at U ravan.
It is hoped that it will provide an overview of what is viewed as a very complicated picture of radiation exposures and responsibilities.
B.
SCOPE OF THE STUDY l
1 C..,
The basic thrust af the Environmental Defense Fund's concerns is that a serious radiation exposure situation exists at Uravan and that the State of Colorado has not dealt with the problem adequately.
~ ther than a
address individually the many contentions and citatic y forth by EDF, this report will attempt to deal with what are perceived to be the main issues.
In Section E,
this report deals with what current information tells us about the levels of radiation existing in the town of Uravan surrounding l.
the mill and identifies the various sources tt at contribute to these exposures.
The various standards against which these radiation levels can be compared are identified and discussed.
A comparison is then made against the individual standards and an attempt is made to put the sum total of exposure into perspective with regard to standards.
R
3 In Section F, this report identifies what significant actions have been-1 taken, principally. through license conditions, to deal with the various contributions to the radiation exposures in Uravan.
A summary discussion of the results of these two analyses is presented as Section D.
C.
BACKGROUND 1.
The Mill and the Town Called Uravan Uravan is = located about 50 miles south of Grand Junction, Colorado.
The Uravan Mill is divided between the plateau top and the valley floor of the San Miguel River.
The ore storage piles, ore receiving, crushing
(.
y and leaching. operations, and tailings piles are located on the upper ~
benches of Hieroglyphic Canyon.
The product separation circuits (ion exchange and solvent extraction) for ' uranium and vanadium, product drying, and packaging are located in the. canyon bordering the San Miguel River.
The evaporation ponds for a portion of the mill's waste solution (raffinate) are located on the bank of the San Miguel River adjacent to Uravan mill and near the' housing complex (Club Ranch pond) at a distance of about \\ mile from the mill.
The town of Uravan, a housing complex owned and operated by UMETCO, (a successor company that is whol!y owned by Union Carbide) is located mainly on the eastern bank of the San Miguel River and extends in both directions from the mill.
In addition, a number of facilities are located adjacent to the mill ~ that were formerly used for the service of the mill employees.
These facilities, which are now closed, include a mess hall, school, w and supply store, restaurant, drug L.____--____._____.
____m._
l-4 i
store, a boarding house, and a recreation. hall.
The only public facility currently operating in the town of Uravan is the Post Office.
l Occupancy of. dwellings. has declined from - 228 units prior to 1970 to -
67 units at the present time.
Population. of Uravan is cu rrently -
. estimated at 200.
All housing in Block C 'has been removed as well as most in Blocks D, E, and 'F.
In Blocks. A, B, E, and G, vacated houses -
will not be re-occupied.
Figure C.1 depicts the housing areas and other facilities in Uravan.
C 4
I l
.I'Q ~
'ks
\\ li s%
5
,~.,
\\ 'i.
Figure C.1
,<g
\\
j !,
Uravan, Colorado
'g,*.q,
//
ii
,h'
-ia
/$7/
( / B.%
=
,,,. -'- -~~
h.cs./
ji 6 I \\ '.,k, em u.m t
./ s s.,
s y%,
- i. n. c. ' ii s
[*
/ !g.' o T g j
5
\\%h,@#[i i
=="
\\
cG is.Ib
{
c
,y (ffj. u >*
~
-a1 ; t: s t'
=
s
- a. i...
'p
\\ i' :.*,!
i l*C V i.
.i 2 !..
j :m')i. g g, *i::
.=
i it tQ ;'!:
4
- i. :M ;! " !
i.
1 : <:
a(g)*. i
.- i !
p.
, r.,
e s.
I I.
Q*)
- \\.
f egl I i s', '6.\\
! il y/ \\ \\\\.
1!
i iUi !
l
/
E
- /';;lDi!
/
j.!
{
i'!
Z6 R,i ! ;'
<C s :l:.
t :
a e
I**! f!,I l
<[
h i!
E8
.. u ja,!
_p 3z
!i
=E lF
'O
!i
$ ?
1
!i a
I 0
6 E-,
2.
History of Operations at Uravan in 1915, Standard Chemical Company began operating Uravan. Mill,. then called Joe Junior, for radium extraction.
In 1928, the United States Vanadium Company (owned by Union Carbide since 1927) purchased the Joe Junior Mill from the Standard Chemical Company in anticipation of the growing market for vanadium.
In 1935 a new vanadium mill and a town named Uravan were constructed at the present site.
At that time, uranium was discarded with the tailings because of its low marbt value.
However, during World War 11, as a part of the Manhattan prcject, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, in association with the U.S.
Vanadium Company, extracted the uranium from the tails.
After 1945 the mill was closed again because of a small uranium market but was revitalized in 1948 when the U.S. market for uranium expanded and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission began to purchase yellowcake.
3.
History of Licensing of the Uravan Mill Licensing of the mill began in 1948 with the issuance of a Radioactive Materials License by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
On February 1,
1968, jurisdiction over this license was transferred to the State of Colorado pursuant to the Agreement with AEC.
The license was scheduled to expire on July 31, 1975.
In accordance with Colorado Radiation Rules, Union Carbide applied for renewal of the license more than 30 days prior to its expiration, with the result that the fict:nse has remained in effect pending Colorado's finding on the renewal request.
During this period of " timely renewal" there have been a number of l
amendments to the license.
l During the period following 1975, a number pf statutory nd regulatory 3
changes occured which impacted the licensing of uranium mills such as Uravan.
In 1978, the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act was passed and for the first time uranium mill tailings were materials subject a
)
r i
L 7
to regulatory control by the NRC and its Agreement States.
The Act also required the Agreement States to modify its regulations to conform to Federal standards (which at the time were not formally codified as regulations).
The Act also required an assessment of the state program for radiation control to determine its conformance to federal standards and also required the Agreement between the state and the NRC be amended to reflect the new provisions of UMTRCA.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, meanwhile, promulgated Appendix A to Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40, setting forth standards and criteria for the regulation of uranium mills.
These regulations have traveled a troubled path of legal actions, Congressional prohibitions against their use, temporary suspension of portions, and finally, in 1984, they became fully effective, albeit in partial conflict with the Environmental Protection Agency's recently issued standards for active uranium mills (40 CFR 192).
Rulemaking action is being contemplated to C-conform these NRC cuies to the een steneerd.
T n is w iii necessitate i
reevaluation of the state reg ulation s,
it is clear, therefore, that the legal and regulatory basis for licensing uranium mills has been unsettled during this period.
By letter dated March 31, 1982, Union Carbide submitted, at the request of the Colorado Health Department, an updated application for renewal of a radioactive materials license to possess and use source materials at the Uravan Mill.-
The State of Colorado has recently issued a Preliminary Executive Licensing Review Summary (PELRS) for the Uravan Uranium Mill which is an evidentiary document prepared by the R&diation Control Division to be used in public hearings scheduled for August 21-23, 1984, and as the basis for reaching a decision on the renewal of the license for the Uravan mill.
A chronology of selected significant events in the licensing process is included as Appendix D.
s r
8' D;
SUMMARY
OF FINDINGS g
1 1.
Radiation Exposures in Uravan, 1.
l
.iadiation exposures.in.Uravan can be l attributed to at least 'four sources.
They are:
Natural Background.
Uravan lies in an area of natural mineralization that includes uranium and its daughter products.
Along with these sources, ' natural sources such as cosmic radiation contribute to radiation exposures.
Operation of the Uranium Mill.
When the uranium mill is in operation, there are releases of r.-don and particulate from the
{'F crushing and grinding of ore and the production.and drying of the
.yellowcake product.
Ore'-Stockpiles and Tailings Associated with Mill Operations.
and particulate are released to the atmosphere _from ore awaiting processing and the tallings that have been created from the operation of the mill.
Radioactive Materials not Associated with Current Mill Operations.
There are a number of known activities that have resulted in the placement of tallings in the community outside the mill boundaries.
The processing of vanadium tailings by the Manhattan Engineering District is an example.
Use of tailings for construction and other purposes is another.
In attempting to depict the exposures to which a resident of Uravan is subjected, it is necessary to consider the contribution from all sources.
In viewing the problem as a whole, it is quickly obvious that specific
t 9
regulatory limits and jurisdictional responsibilities may apply only to a portion of the sources.
One should not look at the problem from the scovincial view of a federal or a state regulator, but rather the problem should be viewed as a whole and later attempts can be made to unravel the tangle of appropriate standards apd responsibilities.
.The data presented in this comparison are based on information submitted by UMETCO that summarizes measurements made during the period 1980-1983 (ref. 00-831130-03).
UMETCO has also reported that they are conducting other studies, including an epidemiological study of all persons with one year or more redisence in Uravan between 1935 and 1984 and a radon daughter sampling study in conjunction with the epidemiological study.
The first increment of exposure to be examined is the contribution due
{
to inhalation dose commitments to the lungs from sources other than radon.
This is depicted graphically in Figure D.1.
As noted above, there are a number of sources that contribute to this dose commitment.
If one subtracts the natural background as a factor over which we have no control, th.s doses that are subject to control' are shown as bar graphs and are compared to two radiation standards.
The bars depict a portion labeled as "Y"
that represents an inference as to the contribution to this dose commitment from the operation of the milling process.
It is based on data derived during operating and shut-down periods of the mill.
The portion of the bar labeled "E" represents the contribution that results from the other two sources--ore stockpiles and tailings ' associated with the mill, and the contributions from other sources in the community.
At the present time, it is not possible to assign portions of the dose to each of these two sources.
Perhaps, only when one or the other of the sources has been removed will this be l
possible.
F i
I-(
I 1-10 The dose commitments are compared to 25 mrem per year as a standard.
A portion of this dose (that due to milling operations) is subject to the regulatory requirements of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 190, which sets limits of 25 mrem per year for individuals near a uranium mill.
Since it is not possible to separate the contributions from operations subject to the 25 mrem per year dose limit of 40 CFR 190 fro-otner sources for which a limit of 170 mrem per year would be appropria;te, the more conservative value of 25 mrem has been used as a basis for comparison.
International anC national standards set on a risk basis limit exposures for population groups to 170 mrem per year.
The 25 mrem value is generally viewed as a goal for reduction of radiation exposures to as low as reasonably achievable ( ALARA).
+8 e
l l
l l
I
11 Figure D.1 (Frcrn Table E.8)
DOSE COMf.dlTMENTS TO THE LUNG FROM SOURCEG OTHER THo.N R.oDON*
20.-
1M-1 so -
1 70 -- _ _ _ _ _ -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.PART 20 (POPULATION) 1(V -
160 -
140 -
13:c -
t 1_v -
g
~
g \\'\\
.f*
'(, w g
l os -
w.
e w-,.,<,,/,,..
-/////
,g.s ',
b 9.) -
>////,
x t, y, N '.
-s f / / /
.8
~
,e' (1 -
1 /,/,,
.. /,/, '.'
',, N 'x' xyyy
/,/
,' / f,/,o/j
> /,o,< /
(
(D -
/
!// /.'/
/s'//,1 /
//////
/
,,%%., y,.,%,x q~., _
i
/ / / /,
/,!/il/,
~.;.:,
?
// /,/ /.
///
4Q - / / / / s',
/ / /,1.i,
"/
/////
/ />/,/ /
>//at//
,\\\\%\\\\
/,,/ // /
, j,i / / /
/ /,r /
s /,i f,./,.
/,.,,s,i--
3,) -
.s-
?. 40 CFR 190
~!7
? ? sy ;~~.
,*7 7,~,!7 r/,s,/,r /
~
,,s -<,/ /
- v*,.,,,.,
,..v-
,7
> / / / /,s
', /,j',i s ;* /,
,,1 l/
,i / /
/,',s /,,,
?
//
/ / / /l/
>/////
/ /s ')/ <,
/ //
g (, _.' / / / / /
a
.,/,
f./ / /,/,_,
,1,/ /,,1,'
s
,/,/,/,/,/,
/,
O e
i i
i C - a_OCK GEWo.GE CLo.RFIER SW1MMifD POOL F-BLOCK tc_/J E ore crustung, stockpiling, M
Main milling process railings emissions, plus u nssions, primarily
{
all extraneotts sources in yello, cake processing i
the comunity 1
i l
5
- Background subtracted l
l
12 in Figure D.2, measurements of Radon-222 in outdoor concentrations are depicted in terms of mean values that were measured ano the range of high and low values.
In the case of Radon, the standard used for comparison is the limit specified in 10 CFR Part 20 reduced by a factor of three for exposure to a " suitable" population, i.e.,
1 picocurie per liter.
A further reduction for ALARA has not been included.'
in Figure D.3, a third dose treasurement is depicted, this being due to external gamma radiation.
The values are shown in terms of the mean values measured and for some locations a maximum value is shown.
The standard of comparison used is 170 mrem per year.
This value is based on a number of requirements and conforms to the 20 microrem/hr limit set for cleanup by Colorado and the limits set by EPA for cleanup under Title I of the Uranium Mil!- Tailings Radiation Control Act.
(
l i
l
l co o
oa N
N 10 13 L
u5 u
u a.
tc f5 O
-kk (I)
I l
7 I
I d
L TootPS 4
i I:
(q l
l C
ape 23 g
v z.
I I
=
l 1
xxts ii
-<l i
c
,l o
3 k
l I
n snootg O
7m c
n-r
-O l
I bN l
n
(_ O)b I
l.s Tood C
.O l
('
.SuTennTMS
-7 hb I
E l
l 4
('5 o
) U MooIE kJ t'
<- c C i l
10 3
2 d
2
- 8. _.e, 3 i
i O
'g I
l o
.mo
( :; e Q'=gy,
- V l
I, c
_ssaulsng o
I I
-E$
3 s}r O 4
o to i
i wa Nm i,i '
I l
sueld s% 0 C
gl
- )
- a8enas Q C0 1
1 I
d I
O l
l
- IO C
l.
0 I
g MooIE d 6>
d l
I I. ) "
-a e
e 1
I a
ou l
l 32ed 2
D
(;.)
C l
0
- saITell E
g 4
(N.]
I I
l xxts ii r..j i
1 y
c I
I I_-
1 I
O I
f I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I O
o g>
to r-
'O to
+
0 N
n 1/!")d
II s.
I 1
l loohcS g
I i
edarG g
kcolB CJ H
l l
l-trC rirT i
01 wen I
I I I loop I
l
~gnimmiwS O
. ) '(.
I g
v v
][g C
~
kcolB b
l 3
=
l I
"o "a
l I
kcolB
'd e
8
>:[
,0 C
y r-
~
l i
, ~
-u
-__ 7s g
g tnalP li 4
7 0
lt I
l
_ egaweS 7.'c
'h l
I u
D 3
C i
kcolB e',El 4
c mm
)ajf o, l
I kcolB m
o:.
I 0
l C
oo n
/~ n o X
l i
3-O I
kcolB C
l E
u F
>j-l l
~
,y P.
trC rirT 7
/
o I
I dlo 1-O 1.P I
l
.g T' ' /.c.
4 lC I
tcirtsiD,
c h
bb ssenisuB.
I m
l lC l
kcolB B
\\/
/\\
reif 0
l i
_ -iralC I
i l
C I
l kcolB A
m I
I E
kcolB WO i
1 D
i l
l i
I f
I I
I O
O O.
O O
O O
O O
O O
tf(
p Q
J*I l
l l
ram) /merirT
15 in order to provide a means for summing these three different types of radiation doses, they were normalized to a percentage of the standard used for each as shown in the following table:
Table D.1 Dosss from Various Sources 1980-1983 (Background Subtraced)
Data from 00-831130-03 Inhalation Other Than Radon Mean Values (mrem /yr)
Standard Used
% of Standard 39 - 111 25 160 450
(
Radon-222 Outside Concentrations Mean Values (pCi/l)
Standard Used
% of Standard 0.8 - 6.6 1
80 660 External Gamma Dose Mean Values (mrem /yr)
Standard Used
% of Standard Bgd - 893 170 0
525 SUM 240 1635 From this type of comparison, one can conclude that the radiation exposures to persons in Uravan outside the mill boundaries could be from two to 16 times the standards used.
Because of uncertainties in occupancy I
L___-______________-_-
j i
I i
16 1
times, these exposure values do not necessarily translate into equivalent doses to individuals.
At the low end of this range, one finds that the locations are generally at the farthest distance from the mill, i.e., housing blocks F, H, and J.
The highest values were determined at locations closest to the mill, i.e.,
housing blocks A, C, and D.
The standards chosen for comparison do not represent the maximum levels allowed under the reguistions (e.g.,
10 CFR Part 20 limit of 500 mrem per year) and it could be argued that many of the values reported are indeed below these maximum levels and are not in violation of the standards.
While this may be true in absolute terms, the maximum levels at the site should be ameliorated by measures to approach the ALARA levels.
On this basis, one must conclude that the
(_
radiation exposure potential in Uravan should be reduced.
2.
Actions Taken to improve Conditions at Uravan in examining the actions that the State of Colorado Health Department has ta ken over the years to deal with the situation at Uravan, the record indicates that little seems to have been accomplished in the period after the license was scheduled to expire in 1975 until about 1980 or 1981 when environmental information was compiled by the licensee and submitted to CDH for review.
In December 1980, Amendment #16 first established requirements for the licensee to meet 40 CFR 190 and to submit a monitoring program plan.
This amendment was appealed by tha
\\
licensee.
In 1981, several noteworthy actions were taken, in particular the issuance of Amendment #17 which imposed. a number of license conditions aimed at improving conditions at Uravan.
Since then, there is evidence of a fairly aggresive approach to dealing with many of the significant problems, including the recent issuance of Amendment #20 and the Preliminary Executive Licensing Review Summary, both of which
17 l
l propose extensive measures to deal with emissions from the mill operations and clean up of the town of Uravan.
As pointed out earlier, the years 1975-1980 found the regulation of uranium milling to be in. a highly volatile state of flux, both at the Federal and State level.
Legislative, regulatory, and procedural changes occuring during this period must have contributed in some p' art to the apparent dearth of IIcensing and regulatory actions by Colorado during these years.
There have been two significant licensing actions taken by Colorado to deal with the conditions at Uravan.
The first of these appeared as Amendment #17 to Union Carbide's license.
This amendment essentially established a new basis for regulating the. mill and consisted of some 41 pages of license conditions, many of which represented new requirements for the operation of the Uravan mill.
This amendment. was issued September 22, 1981.
,L in accordance with the Colorado Administrative Procedure Act, the licensee is permitted to submit written data, views and arguments to object to the imposition of the license requirements.
A number of the provisions of Amendmert #17 were protested and as a result, some changes were made and these were reflected in Amendment #18 which was issued January-25, 1983 and in Amendment #19 which was issued March 22, 1983.
The second sig nificant licensing action was taken March 29,1984 when Amendment i:20 was issued.
In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, some of these provisions have been contested.
The Preliminary Executive Licensing Review Summary (PELRS) issued by the state May 22, 1984, contains a araft license which reiterstes most of the existing requirements and proposes a number of new requirements.
These new requirements, of course, are not effective until the license is 9
. _ - _ _ _ =
1.
18 issued after appropriate hearings are held and agreement is' reached on the final version of the license.
A detailed listing of the pertinent license conditions in effect and proposed is presented in Section F.
These license ' conditions are grouped according to their applicability to the three contributors to the off-site dose:
Radioactive Material Releases Resulting from Milling Operations Radioactive Releases from Tailings, Ore, and On-Site Contaminants Previously Deposited Materials in the Town Site There are some two dozen license requirements currently in effect that h
are aimed at controlling releases during milling operations.
These have the effect of controlling this portion of the dose and contributing to meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 190, in addition, the state has proposed another dozen requirements aimed at improving the plant performance through process modifications and expanding the environmental monitoring program.
Perhaps the most significant condition is one that would require the shutdown of operations if compliance with 40 CFR 190 is not achieved by January 1,1988.
License conditions in place for management of tailings and ore stockpiles require that the licensee must cease discharge of tailings to the existing tailings ponds by July 1,
1985 and, after mill operations cease the licensee must reclaim the tailings areas in accordance with state and federal regulations.
A surety is required to ensure the availability of funds for this purpose.
Before the mill can operate after July 1,1985, it will be necessary to develop a new facility for the disposal of tailings.
The PELRS discusses alternatives for tailings disposal, but CDH has recently taken a position that the preferred alternative does not meet
19 standards for licensing.
Thus, the future operation of the mill is tied to tailings disposal.
Proposed conditions relate to interim measures to suppress dust and provide temporary stabilization of tallings.
In dealing with materials previously deposited in the town site, there is only one license condition currently in effect that is pertinent.
The state has prohibited growing of garden vegetables in Uravan for human consumption.
The license conditions that have been proposed, however, would call for fairly significant actions to be taken over the next few years to prevent the reoccupation of vacant buildings, remove discrete sources of radiation promptly, and, within four years decontaminate the town areas.
The proposed conditions would also require committment to a schedule calling for removal of the existing ponds that lie along the edge of the San Miguel River, removal of other process facilities (evaporation ponds, etc. ) within the town, and final reclamation of the
(
tailings piles.
The schedule calls for final decontamination and reclamation of all facilities by the end of 1992.
This schedule is shown in Appendix E.
The conclusions drawn from reviewing these current and proposed actions are that the state and the licensee have taken and will take a number of actions that, if effective, will bring the mill operations into l
compliance with 40 CFR 190 requirements and if not effective will cause l
1 the cessation of operations.
Further, measures are in effect that will 1
prevent the further use of the existing tailings ponds and will prevent future operations of the mill unless new disposal methods are found that will meet state and federal requirements.
Reclamation and stabilization of the existing tailings piles are tied to state and federal requirements that l
have been established for this purpose.
One can not conclude that the.e is now an effective program in place for dealing with the contributions to radiation exposure resulting from l
1 materials that are present in the town site.
The state has proposed a
]
1 I
l i
20 number of license conditions aimed at cleaning up the town site, but these still have to stand the test of public hearings, licensee objections, and final resolution of differences.
There appears to be a basis of l
agreement between UMETCO and the Colorado Department of Health, however.
In a recent letter to the Environmental Protection Agency, UMETCO, in arguing against adding Oravan to EP A's Sup'erfund list, stated that they have submitted a compliance schedule to CDH and have received verbal approval of the plan.
The final compliance schedule submitted to EPA is the same as that in the proposed license presented in the Preliminary Executive Licensing Review Summary prepared by Colorado.
A copy of this letter is enclosed as Appendix E.
If radiation levels in the town of Uravan are ever to be returned to acceptable levM s,
it should be obvious that this will never be accomplished without decontaminating the town of residual radioactive C
materials.
All one has to do is to look at the levels of gamma radiation depicted in Figure D.3.
A portion of this dose does not depend on the presence or absence of the mill and associated facilities.
Thus, even after mill operations cease and decontamination and reclamation have taken place, significant ambient gamma radiation levels will still be present at some locations.
This is best explained by the presence of mill tailings in the community that were placed there before regulations prohibited their misuse.
The first action which shculd be taken is to characterize the waste' areas in the community to determine where tailings have been buried or misused.
Information gathered by UMETCO in its housc-to-house survey of radon concentrations should be supplemented by an updated soil contamination survey.
it is reasonable to believe that most, if not all, of the materials in the town site predate the enactment of UMTRCA and have always been subject to regulation by the state uncer its police power.
( A legal note explaining N R C's views on federal jurisdiction over tailings pre-dating UMTRCA is
21 enclosed as Appendix F.)
There is evidence of misuse of tailings as backfill material, construction material, etc.
The tailings left behind by the Manhattan Engineering District are adjacent to housing areas.
The town site has not been designated fer cleanup by any of the federal programs such as UMTRAP or FUSRAP.
The responsibilities for cleanup are clouded by the presence of federally generated wastes with those i
created by other early operations.
I L
If this significant contributor to radiation exposures is ever to be eliminated, it will require an imaginative and cooperative approach by all parties concerned.
There does not appear to be any disagreement over the need for cleanup, but there are many difficult and unanswereo questions as to who has what responsibility for execution and payment.
It is not clear how this can be resolved through the regulatory process, considering the statutory and regulatory tools which the State has at its
(
disposal.
E.
NRC STAFF AN ALYSIS OF R ADIO LOGIC A L HAZARD AT THE URAVAN URANIUM MILLING FACILITY TO OFFSITE INDIVIDUALS 1.
Introduction There are Federal and State standards governing maximum concentrations of radionuclides and radiological impacts resulting from the operation of uranium milling facilities.
The purpose of this analysis is ta discuss the radiological hazard to the extent that it is known, and assess the degree of this hazard in light of these standards.
Furthermore, complicating factors which exist at this site will be discussed briefly to highlight the impracticability of the normal radiological compliance analysis methodologies.
22 2.
Applicable (Numerical) Radiological Standards for Operational Releases The Federal and State agencies support non-quantitative standards, such as ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable).
However, by their very nature these standards are subject to a great deal of interpretation, which is beyond the scope and purpose of this analysis.
There are numerical standards adopted by Federal and State agencies which apply directly to the Uravan site.
These are:
a.
Maximum Permissible Concentrations (MPCs)
Table E.1.
MPCs for Airborne Radionuclides in Unrestricted Areas Radionuclides MPC (pCi/m3 above background)
{
Soluble insoluble U-234 20.0 4.0 U-238 3.0 5.0 U-Nat 5.0 5.0 Th-230 0.08 0.3 Ra-226 3.0 2.0 Pb-210 4.0 8.0 Po-210 20.0 7.0 Rn-222(pCi/1)2 3.0 1 10 CFR Part 20.106(e) indicates that average annual exposure to a suitable sample of an exposed population group must not exceed one-third of the limits in the above table.
2This concentration value may be replaced by one-thirtieth (1/30) of a working level (WL).
L 1-23 l
b.
- Moreover, 10 CFR Part 20 sstricts radiation levels to unrestricted areas resulting from r;
'ag operations as follows:
No individual may receive a dose to the whole body in any period of one calendar year is excess of 500 mrem; moreover, if an individual were continuously present in this area, his resulting dose cannot be in excess of
- 1) 2 mr m in any one hour; nor 2) 100 mrem in any consecutive seven days.
As far as the airborne MPC's and the whole body (WB) dose limit of 10 C F R Part 20, the State and the Federal standards coincide for the most part.
However, the State has, interpreted 10 CFR Part 20.156(e) to restrict doses to one-third of the h
500 mrem (170 mrem) for suitabl.e population groups, as well.
c.
Environmental Radiation Protection Standards 40 CFR Part 190 (EPA)
These standards were established by the EPA December 1,1980, for nuclear fuel cycle operations, which include uranium recovery facilities, such as the Uravan operation. These standards stipulate that such operations have operational releases which do not expose members of the general public tc radi tion levels exceeding:
s 25 mrem whole body 75 mrem thyroid 25 mrem any other organ (excludes dermis, epidermis and cornea) in annual dose equivalent.
These standards have been incorporated by reference into 10 CFR Part 20, and the NRC enforces these stands -ds at facilities for which it has direct licensing authority.
24 r-Although the State has not incorporated 40 CFR Part 190 into its regulations, Colorado has imposed these regulations at the Uravan operations by license conditions (PELRS p.5-24).
It should be noted that 40 CFR Part 190 excludes contributions to dose by radon and its daughters: Po-218, Pb-214, Bi-214, Po-214, Pb-210, Bi-210 and Po-210.
These short-and long-lived daughters are a co!!ection of alpha, beta-and gamma-emitters which can significantly contribute to the total radiological impact from milling releases.
It should also be noted that the 10 CFR Part 20 standard of 500 mrem is an abs: lute limit, whereas the 40 CFR Part 1c0 25 mrem is an ALARA-based limit, which does not include radon nor its daughters.
Section 190.11 of 40 CFR 190 provides for a variance to these
(
limits.
Such a variance has not been requested or granted at Uravan.
d.
Surgeon General's Guidelines The following recommendations of action for radiation exposure levels in dwellings constructed on or with uranium mill tailings have been suggested by the Surgeon General:
25 Table E.2.
Surgeon General's Recommendations External gamma radiation (mR/hr)
Recommendations Greater than 0.1 Remedial action indicated From 0.05 to 0.1 Remedial action may be suggested Less than 0.05 No action indicated Indoor radon daughter products (WL)
Greater than 0.05 Remedial action
(
indicated From 0.01 to 0.05 Remedial action may be suggested Less than 0.01 No action indicated These values constitute levels in addition to the natural background values found in dwellings in the areas not constructed on or with uranium mill tailings.
-m-_____m_.____m.o._-__
26 3.
Cleanup Standards The radiation standards discussed in the proceeding paragraphs are the applicable quantative radiation standards for offsite individuals.
However, since the measured levels of gamma exposure an'd radon do appear to be elevated offsite, the State and the cperator will need to meet cleanup guidelines in order to perform an acceptable reclamation of the offsite areas when operations cease.
At present the State Regulations do not specify numerical cleanup ievels, but the State appears to establish these levels by license conditions.
Moreover, the NRC is on concurrence for any license, termination by the State of Colorado and will be able to confirm the adequacy cf the performance of cleanup operations.
C' Present plans utilize values of 20 and 30 micro R/hr as action levels for cleanup (PELRS Section 9.5).
Prior to release for unrestricted use, the contaminated materials in the Town of Uravan, River Ponds, and other disposal areas will be removed to Tailings Ponds 1, 2 or 3 for disposal.
To the extent that is practicable, the 20 to 30 micro R/hr level will be used as a criteria for the cleanup.
At present, NRC standards will be revised to conform with the EPA 40 CFR Part 192 standards issued in September 1983.
These standards tie cleanup to meeting Ra-226 soil concentration standards of:
5 pCi/gm averaged over the top 15 cm of soil and 15 pCi/gm averaged over 15 cm layers below the top layer (these concentrations would be averaged over 100 m areas).
l 1
1 27 i
l Where such limits cannot be me*., then reclamation measures need to meet a reasonable assurance of limiting the rsdon frux to 20 pCi/m -see averaged over the entire affected area on an annual average.
4.
Adequacy of Computer Modeling using Joint Relative Frequency Meteorological Data.
Studies done at the Uravan site indicate that modeling transport of operational releases offsite using the Gaussian plume transport model would be inadequate because of the complex topography and wind current behavior at the site (NUREG/CR-2286 and December 18, 1980 meeting between NRC and ANL staffs).
In addition, correspondence from M. Momeni of San Diego State University to P.C. Rekemeyer of Union Carbide Corporation indicates that any such modeling attempt would result in erroneous concentration predictions.
Although NRC and the NUS Corporation (at the request of Union Carbide Corporation) have performed this type of analysis, the resulting dose estimates needed to be interpreted with great care, since a static meteorological wind profile was assumed for the 80-kilometer radius centered at the site.
Information available (N U R EG/C R-2286 and PELRS) indicate that the meteorology of the area varied drastically due to the topography of the site.
5.
Factors Affecting the Use of Monitoring Data I
in the past the NRC has used a simple strategy to identify the sources of offsite radioactive concentrations resulting from uranium milling operations:
1 i
1.
Obtain offsite concentration 2.
Identify reliable background data concentration values 1
'l
'28 l
l l
3.
Subtract the background ' value from the offsite concentration candidate value to result in the contribution from a' milling facility.
If multiple. sources were suspected, then downwind concentrations from the multiple source were used where the downwind samplers were at a sufficient distance from each other so that reasonably distinct values could be obtained.
(See 40 CFR Part 190 Compliance Assessment for
.NRC Licensed Uranium Facilities, February 1981.)
However, NUREG/CR-2286 and the PELRS both document the existence of spoils from previous extensive mining operations.
Although it has not been documented, there is some speculation that tailings were used as backfill for the installation of the sewage system in the Town of Uravan.
There are various areas in the unrestricted area of the mill where
(
tailings generated from the Manhattan Project had been previously disposed.
Contamination levels resulting from such extraneous act!vities in combination with the wind creep of ore and tailings offsite result in an extremely difficult separation problem.
In effect, when a gamma exposure reading or a radon concentration level (or WL) reading is measured, it is not sufficient to subtract a reasonable background value to obtain the contribution' from the milling operation.
Any such value, with background contributions removed, would still -
include contributions from mining spoils and misused tailings, which cannot bc attributed to the present Uravan operation from a regulatory standpoint.
6.
Review of presently. Available Monitoring Data.
The following tables present an inventory of present conditions at various areas around the Uravan site which can be considered unrestricted areas:
l 4
29 l
Table E.3a.
Air Particulate Cracenh1tions for Operating Period (5/31/81 - 10/31/83) Levels - Mean Concentrations' l
Location 2 i
pCi/m3 U-Nat Th-230 Ra-226 Pb-210 Clarifier 0.0066 0.007 0.007 0.021 Sewage Plant 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.025 Swimming Pool 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.019 C-Block 3 0.0099 0.009 0.012 0.024 F-Block 0.004 0.004 0.0037 0.016 l
{
Values taken from Uravan's 1983 Annual Environmental Data Assessment Appendix One.
June 25, 1984 These data were averaged over a period from 5/31/83-10/31/83 and correspond to the full operational period.
2 Values include background 3
No longer used for housing
30 Table E.36.
Air particulate Concentrations for Partial Down Period -
Mean Concentr. Jons (1/31/83-5/31/83 & 10/31/83-1/4/84)'
Location pCi/m3 U-Nat Th-230 Ra-226 Pb-210 Clarifier 0.0027 0.008 0.005 0.025 Sewage Plant 0.0014 0.006 0.008 0.C31 Swimming Pool 0.0010 0.0027 0.005 0.023 C-Block 2 0.0031 0.007 0.011 0.035 F-Block 0.00168 0.005 0.0021 0.023
(.
Partial operations include ore stock piling, ore crushing and the tailings piles, as well as extraneous sources and natural background.
These values are taken from the same source as in Table 3a.
No longer used for housing.
l' l.
31 (1980-1983)2 Table E.4.
Radon-222 Mean Outdoor Concentrations Location pCi/l A3 Low M
WL Grade School 1.30 0.83 1.98 G-Block 2.08 1.30 4.05
.022 Business Area 2.35 1.38 4.30 B-Block 4.28 2.95 6.45
.024 F-Block 1.35 0.83 2.55
.012 Sewage Plant 3.20 1.S3 6.20 J-H Blocks 1.95 1.13 3.65
.013 A-Block 7.13 5.83 10.95
.034 Swimming Pool 2.08 1.38 3.65 Trailer Park 5.80 4.05 10.28
.017 (Riverside)
Data corrected by 2.5 factor due to countir.g error.
Background is included (Data from 00-831130-03 p. 27).
3PELRS p. 5-49.
I
..g :
r lA<
32 e
Table E.b.
External Gamma Dose (mrem / year)
Location Mean Exposure '
Maximum Expasure
. Clarifier Area 312 Sewage Plant 159 Swimming. Pool 133 C-Block 209 1
F-Block 112 A-Block 378 473 B-Block 255 368
. Business District 253 408 Grade School 71 90 D-Block 990 1945 E-Block 242 385
(,
F-Block '
152 201 G-Block 202
.350 H-Block 131 201 J-Block 151 262 Old Trailer Court 247 324 New Trailer Court '
133 I Background included (Data from 00-831130-03 p.42).
1 e
u
53 Upon reviewing. UMETCO data submittals from November 30, 1983, the j
CDH assessed the reported background values, and based upon the submitted data provided the following recommendations:
Table E.6.
Background Values for the Uravan Offsite Areas (Ambient Air)
Radionuclides (pCi/m3)
Value U-Nat 0.0005 Th-230 0.0003 Ra-226 0.0001 Pb-210 0.0150 Rn-222 500
{
Gamma Exposure 97 mrem / year Values taken from PELRS pp. 5-35, 5-40.
l 34 i
Soil concentration data has been presented by UMETCO in 00-831130-03 Tables 3-2.7 and 3-2.8 for surface and one-foot depth layers of soil.
The following summary table lists some locations and their corresponding radium concentrations:
l I
Table E.7.
Ra-226 Soil Concentrations' Location Concentration (pCl/gm)
Dates of Data Sur face One-Foot Depth Clarifier 42.3 14.0 1979 Sewage Plant 33.8 8.3 1979 Swimming Pool 2.9 4.4 1983 F-Block 4.3 3.8 1983
(,
F-Block 5.9 2.8 1979 A-Block 42.3 (1979) 14.0 (1983)
A-Block 117.1 30.4 1979 A-Block 33.0 42.0 1979 A-Block 9.5 7.4 1979 C-Block 42.0 107.0 1983 C-Block 14.9 33.6 1979 C-Block 7.7 8.0 1979 Values include background which is estimated by UMETCO to be 3 pCl/gm and by CDH to be 1-2 pCi/gm (PELRS p. 5-40).
1
35
-i
.7.
Evaluation of Present Offsite Radiological Conditions at Uravan As discussed above, it is difficult to distinguish contributions to ambient concentr'lons from the various sources, whether attributable to UMETCO operations r
otherwise.
- However, by comparing full operation monitoring to u ose data corresponding to operational down periods, some concentrations can be associated with specific sources.
Table 8 presents 40 CFR Part 190 tung inhalation dose raten broken down by varicus source contributions.
The contributors are identified as follows:
B-Natural background contributions to dose rates (corresponding to Table 6 values)
E-Ore crushing, stockpiling, tailings emissions, as well as from extraneous sources such as the mining spoils, tailings misused,
(
the Atkinson Creek disposal area, the Club Mesa spray area, in short, all area sources excluding background.
Y-Main milling process emissions, primarily the yellowcake processing area, excluding background.
I-36 i
Table E.8. 40 CFR Part 190 inhalation Dose Commitments to the Lung from Various Source Groups in Uravan (mrem / year)
Location Dose Commitment Relative Dose (Percent)
Clarifier B
1.71 2.3%
E 57.5 78.4%
Y 14.1 19.2%
Total 73.3 Sewage Plant B
1.71 2.0%
E 70.7 83.7%
Y 12.1 14.3%
Total 84.5 Swimming Pool B 1.71 3.0%
E 40.2 71.2%
Y 14.5 25.7%
{
Total 56.4 C-Block B
1.71 1.5%
E 94.1 83.3%
Y 17.?
15.2%
Total 113.
F-Bloc k B
1.71 4.2%
E 28.6 70.3%
Y 10.4 25.6%
Total 40.7 4
' Doses based on environmental monitoring data from Tables 3a, 3b and 6.
2Does not include contributions from Radon-222 or any Radon Progeny.
3No longer occupied.
l l
i l
l i
l
l 37 To determine what portion of the E contribution belongs to the present operation is speculative at best.
However, inspection of the Ra-226 soil concentrations in Table 7 provides some enlightenment.
Where C-and A-Block areas indicate higher concentrations above and below the
- surface, the F-Block and Swimming Pool areas hidicate low values commensurate with those cited in the EPA 40 CFR Part 192 standards (refer to Section C of this report).
The external gamma dose values (excluding background) for the F-Block and Swimming Pool areas are 35 mrem /yr (mean) and 36 mrem /yr, respectively.
Adding these values, which include contributions from Radon Progeny and are therefore conservative, to the B and Y contributions in Table 8, the doses result in 74 mrem /yr and 91 mrem /yr' to the F-Block and Swimming Pool areas.
Again, it should be noted that contributions from the extraneous sources are included to some degree.
These figures indicate that the facility does. in all likelihood not meet the 40 CFR Part 190 standard.
Although Pb-210 and other Radon Progenv are not considered in Table 8
- doses, Tables 3 and 6 indicate that Pb-210 is only slightly above background.
Thus, 10 CFR Part 20 standards do not appear to be exceeded for particulate contributions.
However, the 10 CFR Part 20 standards for radon concentrations may be exceeded.
Using Tables 4 and 6, the above background average concentrations of radon at the l
Swimming Pool and F-Block areas are 1.58 pCi/l and 0.85 pC1/l, j
respectively.
Utilizing the one-third factor for suitable populations, one may conclude that operations at the mill could be exposing inhabitants in the town to concentration levels higher than those implied in 10 CFR Part 20.106(e).
Again, due to the conditions at Uravan, there can be no absolute certainty that the mill operation is the sole source for the concentration values.
I
1 i
38 The difficulty of separating source contributions appears to compromise the use of all present guidelines and standards, except the Surgeon General's guidelines (Table 2).
Although the soil cleanup criteria discussed in C. are relatively free of this. problem, they appear appropriate only at time of decommissioning.
Using Part A of Table 2 and Tables 5 and 6, (assuming mRimrem) the Swimming Pool and F-Block areas correspond to approximately.004 mR/hr.
These areas would indicate no need to cleanup using the Surgeon General's guidelines.
However, external gamma values associated with A, B, E-and perhaps G-Block indicate that these locations fall into the suggested remedial action consideration category.
Only D-Block gamma doses exceed the remedial action indicated category recommendations; however, D-Block is no longer occupied.
Part B of the Surgeon General's standards relates to indoor working
(
levels (WL) of radon.
In this case Tables 4 and 6 are used to determine recommendations.
Using the 0.5 pCi/l background radon concentration
-2 and the assumption of 10 WL er pCi/l of radon, the background WL contribution is approximately 0.005 WL.
Background corrected working levels in Table 4, indicate, as did the gamma exposures, that remedial action may be suggested.
39 8.
Recommendations The first action which should be taken is to characterize the waste areas in the unrestricted areas to determine where burial or misused tailings are located.
UMETCO should then research its own files (and those of Union Carbide Corporation), in order to determine the history of these disposal and misuse actions.
Those portions of the affected areas which cannot be attributed to operational releases from the mill should be classified as extraneous sources.
UMETCO should also be encouraged to proceed with emission reduction plans as described in the cover letter to the UMETCO November 30, 1983 submittal (00-831130-03).
At present it appears that UMETCO has completed a house-by-house
(,
survey of radon concentrations.
This in addition to a soil survey could corroborate whether indoor radon levels are a result of radon release from the mill or from misused tailings in the structures and related construction.
An updated soil survey at surface and one-foot depths similar to the one presented in Table 7 (most of information is from 1979), would be valuable.
F.
LICENSE CONDITIONS RELATED TO CONTROL OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL RELEASES AND ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION The information presented in this section summarizes the corrective actions that are presently required or are contemplated, as they appear in license conditions.
At the end of each is a parenthetical notation that refers to the source of the requirement and the date it became effective or was proposed, and the license condition number.
For example, (16.5.1, #17, 9/22/84) refers to License Condition 16.5.1 as issued in Amendment #17 to the license, effective September 22, 1981.
i U--___~__._____
- _ _ _ - - _ = - _ _
r
,~
40 1.
Milling Operations a.
License Conditions Currently in Effect An annual ALARA report is required, evaluating effluent release data and environmental data to determine (1) trends in exposures or releases, (2) whether exposures and effluents are as low as reasonably achievable, and '(3) whether equipment is properly used and maintained.
(16.5.1,
- 17, 9/22/81) (revised #18,1/31/83).
An annual off-site radiation dose report is required, evaluating doses to off-site individuals and populations and indicating if standards are exceeded.
Assessment is to refer to details of past and present operations contributing to dose commitments.
All non-licensed sources of radiation within 5 miles of the controlled area are to be considered.
(.
(16.5.2, #17, 9/22/81) (revised #18,1/31/83).
A semi-annual report of effluent and monitoring data is required, particularly for off-site radon and particulate, presented to show random and systematic statistical errors.
(16.5.3, #17, 9/22/81).
A semi-annual report of stack effluent data is requi ed, showing average concentrations and release rates of uranium, radium, lead and thorium.
(16.5.4, #17, 9/22/81) (revised to 16.5.2.2, #18, 1/31/83).
An annual report of land and water use within S miles of the controlled area-boundary is required.
(16.5.5,
- 17, 9/22/81) (revised #18, 1/31/83).
The licensee's program to keep effluents as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) shall conform to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guld, 8.10.
(18.2.1, #17,'9/22/81).
41 Operations shall be conducted to provide reasonable assurance that annual' dose to any member of the' public does not exceed 25 mrem to the
~
whole. body, 75 mrem to the thyroid, and 25 mrem to any other organ.
The licensee shall also comply-with 40 CFR190 to the extent that it is rriore stringent.
Performance is based on the annual report required by.
16.5.2.
(18.2.2, #17, 9/22/81).
'The licensee must notify CDH 30 days before any proposed change in facility or process that might have an environmental impact.
The licensee is to provide a assessment of the impacts.
If CDH determines an amendment is required, the licensee must submit an application for approval.
(18.3.1, #17, 9/22/81) (revised, #18,1/31/83) (revised and renumbered 16.7, #20, 3/31/83).
Air emissions from crushing, milling, yellowcake drying and laboratory
(
operations shall be controlled in accordance with referenced licensee submittals and applicable permits.
(18.3.4.2, #17, 9/22/81).
Operations shall cease in any area affected by yellowcake emission control equipment failure to operate within approved limits.
Operations are net to resume until equipment f ailure is corrected.
CDH is to be notified.
(18.3.4.3, #17, 9/22/81) (revised, #18,1/31/83).
Liquid discharges shall be limited to those approved by permit and surface water runoff shall be contained.
(18.3.4.4, #17, 9/22/81).
Quarterly analyses are required for uranium particulate from exhaust from drying / packaging equipment during its operation.
- Also, ore i
preparation stacks are to be sampled and analyzed quarterly.
All other stacks are to be sampled semi-annually.
(19.2.8,
- 17, 9/22/81)
(revised, #18,1/31/83).
i
g 42 The environmental monitoring and analysis program shall be sufficient to enable CDH to estimate doses and demonstrate compliance with condition 18.2.2 (the 40 CFR 190 limits).
The program is to be conducted in accordance witn approved procedures at specified frequencies.
(19.3,
- 17, 9/22/81).
Air particulate are collected with weekly changes, composited monthly, and analyzed for U-nat, Th-230, Ra-226, and Pb-210.
(19.3.3, #17, I
9/22/81).
Ambient radon is to be sampled continuously, or at least once a month.
(19.3.4, #17, 9/22/81).
Radon flux is to be sampled in accordance with approved procedures.
(19.3.5, #17, 9/22/81).
b Ground water is to be sampled at least quarterly and analyzed for U-nat, Th-230, Ra-226, and Pb-210.
(19.3.6, #17, 9/22/81).
Surface water is to be analyzed for U-nat, Th-230, Ra-226, and Pb-210.
(19.3.7, #17, 9/22/81).
Surface soils are to be collected annually to a 5 cm depth and analyzed for U-nat, Th-230, Ra-226, and Pb-210.
(19.3.8, #17, 9/22/81).
A beta-gamma survey is to be conducted annually, as approved by CDH.
(19.3.9, #17, 9/22/81).
Vegetation, forage, and crops shall be sampled three times each growing season at three or more locations.
(19.3.9.1, #17, 9/22/81).
Fauna are to be sampled oni) as permitted by the Colorado Division of Wildlife and as approved by CDH.
(19.3.10, #17, 9/22/81).
l' i
e:
43 1
I On-site meterological data are to include precipitation, temperature, l
barometric pressure, wind speed and direction, all to be collected at one-hour intervals.
(19.3.11, #17, 9/22/81),
b.
. License Conditions Proposed But Not Yet in Effect Club Mesa. wells shall be redrilled to a minimum 4" casing inside diameter by July 1,
1984, ' with initial sample results by September 30, 1984.
(19.3.6.1, #20, 3/31/84).
All important systems shall be maintained to preclude or minimize unscheduled. releases of radioactive materials.
(18.3, PELRS, 5/22/84).
The licensee shall specify-action levels for effluent discharge monitoring
(
that-require administrative action if MPC-based or ALARA-based concentration values are exceeded.
(27.9. PELRS, 5/22/84).
The licensee shall provide an evaluation of emissions from all vents, including potential control improvements prior to restart after June 30, 1985.
Any vent system which produces greater than 5% of emissions will have additional ' controls installed.
The licensee shall provide a detailed engineering evaluation of wet grinding and other design alternatives to CDH prior to restart after June 30,1985.
(21.5. i, PELRS, 5/22/84).
The licensee shall mo dify ore processing designs to limit emissions.
(21.5.2, PELRS, 5/22/8 4).
Surface water shall t.e analyzed for additional properties--trace heavy metals and priority pollutants.
(28.7.3, PELRS, 5/22/84).
(
l
(*
44 River sediments shall be sampled annually within 50 meters below the 001 discharge and at locations where surface water samples are ta ken.
(28.8, PELRS, 5/22/84).
Livestock samples shall be taken at the time of slaughter and analyzed for Ra-226 and Pb-210.
(28.11, PELRS, 5/22/84)
Fish samples shall be taken semi-annually from the San Miguel River to be analyzed for Ra-226 and Pb-210.
(28.12, PELRS, 5/22/84).
If compliance with 40 CFR 190 is not achieved by January 1, 1988, the licensee shall cease ope ations and not resume until modifications are proposed, approved and constructed that indicate that future compliance can be demonstrated.
(18.6.2, PELRS, 5/22/84).
(,
if compliance with 40 CFR 190 is not demonstrated, the licensee shall modify operations and/or relocate nearby population groups.
(18.6.5, PELRS, 5/22/84).
2.
TAILINGS, ORE, AND ON-SITE CONTAMINANTS a.
License Conditions Currently in Effect The tailings confinement area is to be constructed in accordance with plans approved by CDH and the State Engineer and the licensee is to submit construction reports and as-built drawings.
Differences between plans and as-built construction are to be explained.
(17.2, #17, 9/22/81).
Tailings beaches are to be treated to minimize, to the maximum extent reasonably achievable, dispersion of airborne particulate.
Effectiveness is to be evaluated daily through inspections.
(18.3.4.1, #17, 9/22/81).
]
L j
45
{
The tailings confinement system is to be operated by trained personnel under professional supervision, in accordance with approved quality assurance prog rams,
particularly with respect to minimum reservo
- capacity, freeboard, and beach width.
Integrity of the tailings confinntrent system is to be verified once per shift by inspections.
Auxiliary. components are to be maintained functional.
(18.3.5, #17, 9/22/81).
Tallings, other than lab samples, shall not be transferred ' from the site without CDH approval.
(18.3.7.1, #17, 9/22/81).
After operations cease, the mill site and tailings transport route shall be decontar.iinated to background levels in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations and returned to unrestricted use, based on statistically defensible tests.
(20.1,
- 17, 9/22/81) (revised, #18,
(.
1/31/83).
. After operations cease, the tailings confinement system shall be reclaimed in accordance with approved plans and appropriate state and federal regulations.
Tailings water shall be removed, treated or disposed of in a manner. approved by the CDH.
(20.2, #17, 9/22/81).
The license remains in force until final reclamation meets applicable state and federal regulations and the property is transferred to the state or federal government as required by PL 95-604.
(20.2.3, #17, 9/22/81).
The licensee shall maintain a
surety for decontamination and decommissioning of the mill, ore storage and tallings transport areas, and for reclamation of the tailings confinement are.:.
The amount shall be sufficient to comply with the rules and regulatic,.ss.
The surety will be reviewed annually by CDH.
(20.3, #17, 9/22/81).
46 r
l l
Unless the licensee requests post-reclamation ownership of the mill tailings confinement area, it will be transferred to the state or federal government.
If. the licensee retains ownership, the license remains in effect with requirements for monitoring, maintenance, and access control.
(20.4, #17, 9/22/81).
l The licensee shall cease discharge of slurried tailings to Ponds 1, 2, and 3 no later than July 1,1985.
(18.3.5.6, #20, 3/31/84),
b.
License Conditions That are Proposed But Not Yet Effective The side slopes of Ponds 2 and 3 shall be stabilized for an interim period through June 30, 1985 by quarterly application of dust suppressant.
(18.3.4.6, #20, 3/31/84).
Ore stockpiles and storage areas shall be sprayed with chemical dust suppressant quarterly.
(18.3.4.7, #20, 3/31/84).
Dust control on ore storage piles shall incorporate wind breaks.
(22.1, PELRS, 5/22/84).
All tailings slopes shall be covered with at least one foot of soil or random fill and revegetated prior to placement of final cover materials.
(22.3, PELRS, 5/22/84).
3.
PREVIOUSLY DEPOSITED MATERIALS IN THE TOWN SITE a.
License Condition in Effect
{
o
l 47 l
After May 31, 1984, no garden vegetables are to be grown for human consumption on licensee-controlled property at U ravan.
(18.2.3, #20, 3/31/84).
b.
License Conditions Proposed But Not Yet in Effect The licensee shall not permit vacant residences in the " A", "B","C",
"E",
and "G" blocks to be reoccupied after May 31, 1984.
(18.2.4, #20, 3/31/84).
The licensee shall provide by June 30, 1984 a detailed plan for unrestricted use of all company-controlled property on or adjacent to the mill site.
(18.2.5, #20, 3/31/84).
Beginning January 1,1935, the licensee shall conduct a one year study to differentiate the Radon-222 and/or air particulate contributed by each discrete, identifiable source of Rn-222 or particulate within 2 miles of the Uravan facility.
(28.14, PELRS, 5/22/84).
The licensee shall ensure that livestock grazing near Uravan do not contribute more than 10% to the annual dose commitment of any resident of Uravan-(18.6.3.2, PELRS, 5/22/84).
The licensee shall not permit vacant buildings on licensee-controlled property at Uravan to be reoccupied until criteria approved by CDH are developed by the licensee and met for the building.
(18.6.3.3, PELRS,
5/22/84).
By December 31, 1984, the licensee is to provide a. list of all residences, radon and beta / gamma radiation data for each and an annual dose estimate for each building.
(18.6.4.4, PELRS, 5/22/84).
l
\\
48 By June 30, 1985, the licensee is to identify, excavate, and deposit in tailings piles all discrete, identified deposits, whether from past or current operations, of tailings or other radioactive material presently l
located in the town of Uravan outside the present controlled area.
(23.6.1, PELRS, S/22/84).
All contaminated materials on licensee-controlled property at Uravan shall be disposed of in accordance with the detailed requirements, including the schedule, of Annex E of the license (Chapter 9 of the PELRS).
This requires the town to be cleaned up by the end of 1988; the river
. ponds by the end of 1989; the Club Ranch ponds by the end of 1991; Atkinson Creek, Club Mesa spray, and Crystal Disposal Area by the end of 1992; and Tailings Ponds 1, 2, and 3 by the end of 1996.
(23.6.2, PELRS, 5/22/84).
(
By June 30, 1985, the licensee is to provide a feasibility study for relocation or closure of all non-milling related activities from the A-Plant side of the San Miguel River.
(19.9, PELRS, 5/22/84).
l l
/
4 e
9 c.
E 9
L
fi t
1 n -
h-4 "V g6 D
. r...
E N V I R'O N M E N T-A L' DEFEN$E FUND T
May 24, 1904 Mr. Nunzio J.
PaliadLaq Chainoen Nuclear Regulatory Casput.ssion 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
2t0SSS
Dear Mr. Palladino s' J W:
,h.'
TheAtomicEnerghAbt of 1954 pt vides a method'by which the states may assume-7,egulatory and licensing authori ty over cer tain classes of nuclear material.
42 U.S.C. 2021(b).
The State of Colorado has execu ted such an agreemen t wi th the Nuclear Reguia-tory Commission (NRC).
The state's regulatory authority there-fore derives f rom and. is subject to the Cummi ssion's statu tory mandate.
The Act imposes on NRC the duty to c.ssure that a state's radiation control program is (a) adequate to protect public health and saf ety arid (b) consistent with the Corrvni ssion's regulatory program.
& section 2021(d).
And the Commission has declared that i ts principal task in discharging i ts duties under the Atomic Energy Act is to protect human health and. safety.
Union El ec t r i c Como anv, LB-70-31, 8 N.R.C.
366, 372 (1978).
("
The Environmen tal Defense Fund has examined and evaluated a number of documents in the public record concerning radioactive emi ssi on s from the Urevan mill in western Colorado.. and r adiation exposures to nearby residents.
Those' documents reveal that con-
/
centrations of redon-222 in the town of Uravan far exceed state and federal regulatory limi ts land that radiation exposure to the town's residen ts f rom a number of radi onuclides signi fican tly exceed the limi ts set by the Environmental Pro tection Agency.
Radon concen tration's are of par ticular concern because of the well-documented link between exposure and increased risk of fatal lun5 cancer.
As part of i ts rulemakings pursuan t to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, the Envi ronmental Protection Agency developed a methodology to relate increased risk of lung cancer to redon exposure.
Using that risk assessment, the excess risk to the people living in Uraven from the ambient radon levels measured by Ihe licensee is one fatal cancer per 30 people,wxposed.
The state has calculated the risk at one-in-eighteen.
And several years ago a Nuclear Regulatory Corwnission repor t concluded that radiation dose commitments to N.
the bones and lungs of persons living at the residences nearest the Uravan mill are 22 and 25 times the allowable doses set by EPA for those organs.
A serious putslic -heelth hazerd exi ets in Uravan.
So far as we are able to determine, there has never been such high public 14o5 Arapahoe Annue annaEder. Odorada 8o302 (303) 4404aot omCES len Nr.W YORK. NY (Nananal Headquarters WASHDdGTON, DCs BrJmEWr. CA; 80CHMOND. VA BOULDER. CO
x--
- -.~.:
r %
- 8 N.J. Palladino r
March 24, 1984 Page 2 exposure to radiation anywhere in the world as that which has been reported at Uravan..
Yet the state has taken no meaningful measures to ei ther reduce tediation exposures to residents of the
.own and region or to ensure the licensee's compliance wi th regulations and liceKsir%ondi tions designed to protect public health.
The fact that these hazards exist, that they apparently have been allowed to.e.xist for,many years, and that the state has not taken ef f ective,ac tion to protect the public from these hazards raf f es very serious questions wi th respect to the ade-quacy and consistency (of thr Colorado State program.
More impor tant 7 tMF f' acts ou tlined in this letter demon-strate that an emergency exi s ts wi th respect to source and by-product materials (uranium mill tailings) regulated by the 0 tate of Colorado, creating. A danger. to public health that requirwu immediate action by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to prot 9ct the health of persons.in Colorado.
The state has failed to take meaningful steps to' eliminate that danger wi thin a reasonable time.
EDF therefore, requests the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to temporarily suspend that part of its agreemen t wi th the state, pursuant t o 42 U. S.C.
sec t i o n 2012( j ), so that the Commission may immediately respond to.'this angersency.
In addition, EDF requests that the Corr <ni ssion immediately institute a systematic review t>- (
of implementation by the' state of its radiation protection i
program.
42 U. S.C. Secdoes 2021(j )(1).
I.
p Mineral recoverk N er'ations have taken place at the Ur avan si te in Mon trose County since 1915.
A subsidiary of Union Car-bide Corporation acqui' red the" site in 1928 and began the extrac-J tion of vanadium from locally mined cre.
Union Carbide has been processing uranium at' UNyan since World Her II.
The Uravan mill Initially was licensev by the Atomic Energy Commission in 1958.
The state assumed regulatory and licensing authority over by-product, source, and small qu an t i t l es of special nuclear material en February 1, 1960.
,qti GG Fed. Rw.;s. 2400 (Jan. Si, 1568).
1981).
In 1981 the agreaseen t was amended to permit the state to regulate by-product material as defined by section 11(e)(2) of the Atomic Energy Act.
46' Fed. Reg. 54027 (Nov.
4, 1981).
See 42 U.S.C. section 2014(e)(2) (as amended by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Pub. L. No.95-604, 92 Stat. 3021, 3033 (197.9)).
II.
~
Union Carbida Corporation's source material license for its Uravan mill exp i red on July 31, 1975.
While several amendments to the license have.been issued since that time, the state has only recently initiated the process for reviewing Union Carbide's
l l
N.J.
Pall adi n o l
May 24, 1904 j
Page 3 i
? ?
l renewed license applic~ation by publi shing a draft Preliminary l
Execu t ive License Revi ew Summary (May 3, 1984).
However, scien-tific and technical repor'ts issued over the last ten years have rai sed substan tia1' Questions abou t both the anbient concen-i tretions of radionuclides in the town of Uravan and the conse-quent radiation exposure to the town's residents:
1.
In 1970, Dames and Moore reported that radon-222 con-cen t rations averaged 1-2 pCi/1 at three sampling sites.
Dames and Moore, Environmental Recort. Ur_ avan Uranium Project (1978);
2.
In 1971 an EPA contractor repor ted 135 locations in the town of Uravan where tallings were found under or within ten feet of habi tabl e structures.
The gamma measuremen te on ground con-1 tact significantly exce eded tho ' shine' measurements.
Gamme measu r enen t s to 325 micro R/1
- shine," 525 micro R/1 outside, and 600 micro R/1 inside the structures were recorded.
Lucius Pitkin, Inc., Mobile Radiation Surve_g of Uravan (July 1971)g I
3.
In 1980, NOS Corpo~ ration reported that radiation doses calculated to assess compliance with 40 C.F.R.
190 exceeded the regulatory standards' at two locati)ns.
NUS calculated bone doses f
of 64-92 mr em/pr, and lung doses of 31-37 n..em/yr.
NUS Corpora-tion, 6 Preliminary Evel'uation of 40 C.F.R.
12q Rel at ed Radi ole-cical Doseu Due to the Uravga _ Uranium MiAl at 2 -1, 2-5, 7-3 (Jan.
1980).
4.
In 1981, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission conducted a redf ological assessmen t of the impacts from the Uravan milling operation.
NRC's. modeling ef f or t estimated that do se commi tmen ts were *well in excess
- of the 40 C.F.R. 190 standards.
"[T]he estimated radi ation dose commitments to the bones and lungs of individuals living at the nearest residence are respectively 21.9 and 25.4 times the EPA limi ts.*
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Radi oloni cal _ Assessmen t for lhe Union Carbide Uravan Uranium Mill at 10 (Dec. 1981)3 am4 5.
In a second, more ex tensive analysis, the NUS Corpora-tion concluded that the 40 C.F.R.190 dose limi ts were exceeded at four of five locations.
NUS Corporation, en Updated Evalue-tion gf 40 C.F.R.
Apq Related Radi ologi eel D3ses Due to the Uravan Uranium Mill at.2-4 (March 1902).
One of the i mp or t an t wi emen t s o f a st ate progr am is its review of moni toring date, exposure records, and other similar reenrds at existing mills.
46 Fed. Reg. 7540, 7545 (Jan. 23, 1981) (Ci r t er i a f or Gu i den ce o f States and NRC in Discontinuance of NRC Regulatory Authority).
Federal regulations unambiguously
~
H.J.
P.11.dinu l
fian 24, 1984*
j Page 4 l
I require uranium mill licensees to submit semi-annual reports
'specif ying the quan t,i ty of each of the principal radionuclides released to uncontrolled areas
- during the reporting period.
Th9 purpose of such reports is to enable the regulatorp as m y to v.4,ime tr r edi a t i un exposure to the public, JA, and NRC requires that states implement equivalent reporting requirements.
40 Fedi R,eg. */54 6.
Each of the reportin 'ci~ted above suggests that regulatory violations have beert occuring at the Uravan mill for some time.
However, when EDF began an independen t review of radiological conditions at the Uravan'stte in August 1983, we discovered that the r. tate had neither revi'ewed nor requested the radon moni toring data compiled by the licensee.
Finally, at EDF's urging, the state requested inf ormation f rom the company on a number of items dealing with radioactive emissions, and radiation exposures at the Uravan site.
(That lottar i s at tached as Appendix A.)
The company privNded a partial response on Sep tember 27, 1983.
That correspondence tisal t primarfly with monitoring of r adon-222 concen trati.ons in the community.
At that time the company reported thof background annual mean radon concentrations ranged f rom 0.12 to 6.66 pCi.il, wi th a mean of 0.25 pC1/1.
Based i
- \\
those calculations, the company stated that r aif on concentra-on tions et four locations in the town exceeded the limit of 1 pCi/1 limit applicable to exposed population groups.
Comoare 10 C.F.R. 20.106(e) WLth Colorado Radi ation Regulation 4.7,5 (CCR 1007-1).
j Late in 1983 the comany provided to the state a complete response to its August inquiry, and that report r t:si ses a number of serious questions.
First, the company stated that its earlier data on ambient levels of radon-222 were low by a f actor of 2.5 to 3 due t o 'mi shandling" 'of the monitoring devices.
Union Carbide Corporatf oin, Radi ati on pose Assessmen t/ Town p_f, Uravan.
f Colorado at 8 (Nov. 30i 1983).
As a result, the company conceded that the i pCi/1 limit ~was being exceeded at virtually al' sam-pling locations in Uravan, which include most of the r esi den ti al neighborhoods in the town.
The 3 pCi/1 concentration ilmit applicable at the si te t>oundary, 10 C.F.R. 20.106(d); Colorado Radi ati on Regul a t ions" 4.7.4, was being exceeded at many moni-toring locations wi thin the town of Uravan.
(The company has never explained the " misuse
- that led to failure of the moni-toring devices, why the devices had not been calibrated over the period 1980-1983, or why the comoany chose a correction factor of 2.5 rather than 3.0.
h letter from Robert Yuhnke to A. Hazle, attached as Appendix 8.)
Second. Union Carbide's report conceded that curront mill operations do not meet the standards set out in 40 C.F.R 190 *at any location within Uravan."
,R ad i a t i o n Dose
N.J. Palladino May 24, 1984 1
Page 5 j
Commi tmen t Assessme'n t at 79.
And third, the company suggested that raden diffusion from tailings improperly disposed of within the community accounts f,or, a substantial portion of the ambient radon levels.
However; the company neither identified the loca-l tion of those wastes nor proposed measures to remove them.
(
Af ter revi ewing-~thi s Inf ormat i on. EDF concluded that a seri-ous radiation health hazard exists in the town of Uravan.
At most residential moni tors, annual average redon concentrations exceed 4 pC1/1.
Durins seven months in 1380 when the mill was in full operation, an everage.r& don concentration of 10 pC1/1 was observed at the A-Bloca in the housing area, and the 1980-1983 mean concentration was 7.13 pC1/1.
The 2 380 measur emen ts at the trailer park were negrly as high, and the 1980-1983 mean concen-t r a t i on was 5. 8 pCL/4; When the alphalkmit.t.ing isotopes of the U-238 decay series
- enter the body and come directly into contact wi th li ving ti s-sue, their alpha r.adi a_t:1on will deliver substantial dose equiva-lents compared to that impar ted by eq"al concen t r ations of bet a/
gamma emitters."
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Bener_1c Environmental I m o m e t. Statement on Uranium Milling at 6-27 (Sept.
1980).
Radon-222 and i ts dscay products are of particular con-g cern because of the po ten ti ally hi gh exposures to persons living near uranium mills hnd tailings disposal sites, 48 Fed. Reg. 45926, 45929 (Oct. 7, 1983) (Final Standards for Hill Tailings at Licensed Commercial Processing Sites), and because of the docu-mented link between redin exposure to uranium miners and signifi-cantly increased risks of f atal lung cancer.
ids at 45928.
EPA has developed a risk assessment model to quantitatively estimate radiation risks based on those epidemiological studies of uranium miners, and on the scientific literature.
Id.
Using that metho-dology, and taking the average residential radon concentration of 4 pCi/1 recently calculated by the state, the estimated excess risk of f atal lung cancer due to redon is 0.032 (relative risk model).
That corres' ponds to an excess fatal cancer risk of approximately one-in-tnirty.
The state has calculated a 0.56 excess lung cancer risk'for the residents exposed to the avermee ou tdoor redon concen tr ation in Uravan.
That equates to an excess fatal lung cancer F1'sk of one-in-eighteen.
Colorado Depar tmen t of Health, Draf_t Preliminary Executive License Review In the draft Pre.I'iminary Executive License Review Summary prepared in conjunct' ion with the Uravan mill license renewal application, the state calculated dose commi tmen t s to the lungs (at four sites in town) at 106, 116, 76, and 41 mren/yr.
The bono dose at these cites was calculated at 284, 71, 73, 29, and 10 mrem /yr.
J_6. et. 5 ',5 -30.
-__--__-_____m__
9
.._r..
N.J.
Palladino
.e May 24, 1904 Page 6
~
~
Summary at' 5. 5-38 may 1, 1904).
See EPA, Final g.n.y,1 r o nmen t al Impect Statement f or Remedi al Act i on St and&rds for_ Inactive Urs.nium Erecessing Si tes 'at 59-68 (October 1902); CPA, Final Environmental Imp act gla_t emen t for Standards for the C_ontrol gf.
4 Bv-oroduct Ma t er i ais 1,r,em., Ur an i um Or_ e Processing at 5-8 to 5-9 (Sept. 1983).
EDF repeatedly has; urged the state to take steps to reduce the radiation hazard ' that exists at Uravan.
EDF recommended that (1) reoccupancy of presen tly unoccupied dwellings be prohibited; (2) that the state identif y and prohibi t occupancy of dwellings where high radon levels _ (i n pCi/1 and WL) are observed; and (3) that it establish a timetable and plan for identification and r emedi a t i on o f di scr e't e sour ces o f rodon emanation within the community.
Notwithstanding t
' exceptional levels of radon-222 observed in the community, the ' stat e has done vi r tually no thi ng to reduce the consequent radia'tiin hazard or to enforce compliance by the mill wi th applicable reg.:lations and liconce condi tionc.
Whilo the state attempted to prohibit r eoccup an cy of omoant dwellings in areas of high radiation exposure through a license amen dnen t,
e
\\
the company has b glined to implement that modest provision.
(Letter f rom R. Beverly~"to A. Hazle, attached as Appendix C.)
The state has ini tiated A.o civil, acininistrative, or criminal enf orce 'compli ance wi th r egul a t o r y requirements i
proceedings to and license condi tion.s designed to protect public health.
/
The primary function of a regulatory program must be to protect public health and saf ety.
See 46 Fed. Reg. 59341, S9344 (Dec.
4, 1981) (Evaluation of Agreemen t State Radiation Control Programs).
The Uravan case isoplicates serious questions of whether the s ute ca'n' or will ensure that " licensees fulfill the commitments mace in their applications and that they observe the requirements set f or th in regulations. "
Id. at 59343.
Vitally important data on public radiation exposure Were not reviewed by the stato until this organization provoked such a review.
The to continuing regulatory results of repor ts long available point violations at the Uravan mill.
The licensee's recent radiation dose assessrent and the state's independent assessment establish a strong likelihood that significant, ongoing violations of 10 C.F.R. 20 and 40 C.F.R.
190 are occuring at the Uravan site.
Those violations are suf ficiently serious in nature and duration to qualify as Severity I. II, and III violations within NRC's enforcement policy.
Egg,47 Fed. Res. 9927, 9994 (March 9,1982)
(codified at 10 C. F.R. P ar t 2, Appendix C).
The Atomic Energy' Act requires that in licensins uranium mills and uranium mill tailings the agreement states "shall
N.J. Palladino F
May 24, 1984 Page 7 reapire' compliance by the licensee wi th standards f or protection of public health and safety equivalent to or more stringent than those adopted and enf orced by clic Cvnani s mi us fut Llw w muw pur-pose.
See also 42 U.S.C.
section 2021(o)(2).
The record of the state's inaction in monitoring and investigating radiation expo-sure at Uravan, and'in failing to enf orce compli ance wi th radi a-tion pro tection resw1htions, 'mani f es ts a failure to require com-pliance by the licensee with health pro tection regulations and license conditions.,
III.
)
i Safety regulations--such as those codified at 10 C.F.R. 20 and 40 C.F.R.
190- *' represent the Commi ssion's jud men t of the 9
precautions necessary, to" pro tect employees and the public f rom
~
hazards inherent i n ' th* i n du s t r i al use of radioactive (materi-als).*
Radi ati on Technologv. I n c,, ALAB-367, 10 N.R.C. 533, 553 (1979).
The data and reports submitted by the licensee as well as by i ndependen t con tractors show tha t concentrations of radon-222 in the town of Url avan significan tly exceed the maximum per-j missible levels set by' state and f ederal regulations.
Dose
{
calculations by the state, independent enntractors, and the l
licensee demonstrate' that dose commi tmen t s to the public from the e
Uravan uranium mill. f ar exceed the limi ts set by EPA and enforced by the NRC and the state.
The Commissions p'incipal task in regulating uranium fuel r
cycle f acilities is to assure public health and safety.
Union Electric Commpany, LSP-70-31, 8 N.R.C.
366, 372 (1978).
The Commission's responsibili ty does no t cease when it issues a J
license, Potition f or Emeroenev agg Remedi al_ Act i on, (CLI-78-6, 7
]
N.R.C. 400, 404 (1979), or when it delegates limi ted regulatory 4
authority to a state,.42 U.S.C. section 2021(j).
It i s NRC's policy to deal promptly with violations of regulations, Atlantie
)
Research Coro._, AIJ-77-25, 6 N.R.C.
702 (1977), and that same fundamental responsibility devolves upon an agreement state.
The record in this instance is replete wi th reliable and probative evidence of serious violations of regulations and 11-conse conditions.
Public health and screcy are endangered es those violations.
The state has take' no meaningful action to
~
oither enforce the 11censee's complia ee with regulations and license condi tions, or to eliminate the cause of the danger to the town's residents.
It is therefnre incumbent upon the Nuclear Regulatory Comminnion to exercise its residual authority, in what is clearly an "ex traordinary si tuati on," to temporarily suspend that part of i ts agreemen t with the State of Colorado to enable the Commi ssion to immediately take all available measures to eliminate the cause of the danger at Uravan.
.~
N.J. Palledino 7'
May 24, 1994 Page 0 IV.
Section 274(d) imposes'two requirements for assumption by a state of regulatory av.thority over materials o therwise regulated by the Commission.
The; materials set out above call into serious question the adequacy'.gf; Col'orl ado State's radi ation control pro-gr am f or protection ; ef ~ human health and saf ety--the first element of section 274(d),
The Atomic. Energy Act also requires that, in licensing and regulating [ uranium mills and mill tailings, the state must assure compli,ance wi th standards f or protection of public health, saf ety, and the environmen t that are equivalent to or more stringent than those adop ted by the Commission for the-same purpose.
42 U.S.C.' section 2021(c)(2).
Among other things, that provision of the Act ' requi res preparati on of an environ-mental review statement to. ex ami n e the radiological impacts of licensing actions, and miternatives thereto.
The Uravan license expired in 1975 and the state oni/ recently initiated the reviss process required by, state and f ederal law.
More importbnt, EDF's review of the environmental statement (denoted as a Preliminary Executive Licensee Review Summary, or PELRS) prepared by the state identified seri,ous deficiencies in the state's licensing process.
As a result, substantial evidence exists that the state program is not comp'atible wi th the Commission's regulatory and licensing program--the second strand of section 274(d).
The Commission demands strict compli ance wi th saf ety regula-tions and license condiff ons, and uses civil penalties -to stimu-f late the taking of prompt corrective measures.
Radi ati on Tech-noloav. Ing2, ALAW-567, 10 N. R. C. 533, 553 (1979).
Egg 10 C.F.R.
- 40. 41( a).
It is axiomatic, then, that a license applicant must demonstrate, wi th specifici ty, the means by which it will assure compli ance wi th saf ety regulations and license conditions.
Egg 10'C.F.R. 40.31(h); Colorade Radiation Regulations 3.10.G.5.
However, EDF is unable'to find in the license application, pro-posed license, or draf-t environmen tal statemen t the measures that l
the company proposes er the state will impose to bring the Uravan L
mill i n to emnpli ance'.
The PELRS obviously also lacks a quantita-tive assessment of such measures' predicted ef f ectiveness, or an analysis of alternatives.
I Calculation of dose commi'tmen ts and radiation emi ssi ons f rom the mill complex wf11'be ser rhumly impeded bp the applicant'c failure to provide vital information to the state.
As is ex-plained more fully in'the eppended comments by EDF on the draft PELRS, (a) the cmwpany has failed to provide sampling results and analyses of San Hiquel River water and sediments (the river runs through Uravan>g (b) the company failed to provide vegetation and soil samples for an en' tire year p (c) the company has never moni-tored emissions f rom mill vents, making assessmen t of emissions and emission rates impossible) and (d) the company failed to
N.J. Palladino Hay 24, 1904 Page 9 provide sufficient mII'1 process specifications, or proposed pro-
' cess changes, or both, for the ore sampling plant, ore crushing circuit, and fine ore bi'ns.
'$32 10 C.F.R. 40.31(h), 40.43, and Appendix Ag Colorado',Radietianf" Regulation 3.10.G.5 and Part !II Notwithstanding these omisuions in the company's schedule E.
t proposal, in only one instance has the state ordered the company to proulde the necessary information prior to the public hearing sc heduled for late August 1984.
Instead, the proposed license issued by the state with the draft PELRS appears to contemplate that the specific measures needed to assure compliance by the Uravan mill will be developed after i ssu ance o f a rus/ -1.ican'se.
Such a course of action would preclude bo th reasoned 'esency review and meaningful public com-ment on the adequecp of'such measures.
See 42 U.S.C. section 2021(o)(3)(C) igg Abo.,4G Fed. Reg. 7540, 7544, 7545 (Jan. 23, 1981) (licensing functf 3n to be covered by state progrun).
It is also clearly at odds with the' Commission's policy that iteensing decisions "canno t be mede on the strength of (1) a naked promise that any unresolved safety questions will be dealt wi th at a later timeg or (2) the st at enwn t, without more, that work on the question is in progresMS Gulf States Utilities Companv_, ALAB-ir.(..
444, 6 N.R.C. 760, 722 41.977).
- .l '
In light of thebe facts, EDF has concluded real questions exists with respect to whether.the state's program is compatible j
with that of the Commi ssion s the state's program does not, in practice, require cotapHence wi th health and saf ety standards J
equivalent to or enore stringent than those enforced by the Com-mission for the same purpose.
EDF therefore requests that the Commission immediately~ institute a review of the compatibility of the state's program witti that of the Commission.
Such a review should focus on the adequacy af the state's implementation and enforcement of i ts radiation protection program in light of the serious licensing delays, inspection backlogs, and regulatory violations known to ehtein.*-
v-7 The public record contains compelling evidence that a serious public hemith hazard exists at Uravan, Colorado.
Residents of the comouni ty and region are exposed to extraordinary redon concentrations and dose commi tments from a 1
The Environmental Defense Fund is not, at
.his time, requesting the Commission to institute formal proceedings to terminate or suspend i ts agreemen t wi th the State of Colorado, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.,section 2121(j)(1).
.,,. ~ *
~ '
N.J. Palladino
.-.'y, Hay 24, 1984 Page 10 i
wide range of r adiohu'c1 des.
The state has failed to respond to this err,er gen cy.
The Environmental Defense Fund therefore urges the Nuclear Regulato promptly to contain and elimi'nate these hazin'ry,tpmmi ssi on to actds' tai human health and saf ety.
9
';: ;*l i
- a..
Respectfully, a
..s.. ;
f
\\
~
Robert E. Yuhnk i
~
Regianal Counsel Environmental Defense Fund 1405 Arapahoe Avenue Boulder, Colorado 80302
- e..
%R&
- i.. J er*E. iinfTin taff Attorney
"("
Environmental Defense Fund 1405 Arapahoe Avenue Boulder, Colorado 80302
/
REY &JBMaob Enclosures
~
- ~f,..
cc:
Commi ssi oner s.. f, -
Executive Directe( far Operations Director, Of fice-tf State Programs Director, Of fice of Wcle'er Materi al Safety and Safeguards Director, Division ef Safeguards e
9-e 4
-S e
9 eo
i w-c,c. ~
=s COLORADO-DEPAR s tv: caw Fr n hayl r FA D b
o n,cnuo o umm -
cov.mor August 31, 1983
(
.R. G. Beverly _
Director of Environmental Affairs Union Carbide Corporation Metals Division '
P.O. Box 1029 Grand 'Junetion, CO 81502 t'
OFF-SITE RADIATION DOSE TO URAVAN RESIDENTS Colorado Radioactive Materials License No. SUA-673 After considerable review of present and proposed Uravan operations in a licensing context, the Department finds insufficient data and process or design change proposals to verify that the Uravan facility, operating at full throughput, can meet the requirement that dose to any member of the public be less than 25 millirem per year or that releases from mill operations of radon and perhaps other radionuclides will not exceed the limits specified by Part IV of the Radiation Regulations.
For license renewal to prcceed, Union Carbide needs to provide:
l.
The joint frequency distribution which was to be submitted August 15,.1983; 2.
A systems analysis, for licensing evaluation purposes, of total and 40 CFR 190 individual and population-at-risk radiation doses for each major stage of operation and reclamation through closure, using a systems modelling approach, or if an alternative is used, providing acceptable justification for not using such a systems model; 3.
A detailed analysis which demonstrates compliance with the Radiation F.egulations (6 CCR 1007-1), Part IV, Appendix A, Table II which limits radon-222 to annual average site boundary concentrations of 3 pCi/L above background or, per 6 CCR 1007-1-4.7.4 for Uravan townspeople, to 1 pCi/L above background; 4
The full set of process and design changes upon which Union Carbide could and will rely to meet the 25 millirems per year limit and to keep emissions as low as reasonably achievable; and 5.
A computer tape of air, water, vegetation and soil monitoring data since Jar.uary 1,1980, if at all possible, with formatting documentation suf ficient for the Department to readily ente'r the data into computer files for statistical and trend analysis.
4210 EAST 11Til AVENUE DENVER, COLORADO 80220 PHONE (303) 320-8333 APPENDIX A L__-_-____-___
L R. G. Beverly, August 31, 1983 Page 2 Finally, because of increased concern by Department staf f, with close attention from staff of other agencies and third parties tracking the license renewal, please provide:
6.
Any recent data or calculations which are now or will become available on radiological conditions in the Town of Uravan; and 7
A sumary of progress for Union Carbide's retrospective analysis of public health consequences to past and present mill workers and townspeople, items 1-5 are to be provided no later than mbe 30; 14R b is is consistent with prior agreements with your staff, which anticipated formal discussion of future operations in relation to the 25 millirem per year limit in late August or early September.
Items 6 and 7 are to be provided as soon as possible, no later than October 31, 1983, so that the Department's draft Preliminary Executive Lincensing Review Summary may reflect the most current assessment of impacts to the townspeople of Uravan from past and present milling operations.
These are the major items relative to off-site radiation dose evaluation which require attention at this time; as Department staf f continue to review documents previously submitted by Union Carbide, additional technical
(
questions will be directed to your radiation safety staff and consultants.
You should plan on a meeting on or about October 20, 1983 to discuss proposed license conditions concerning present and future Uravan operations.
The Department has been and continues to consider amending License No. SUA-673 in j
the near term to further control tailings dusting and ore dust emissions in
{
accord with the A1. ARA principle.
Please take cognizance of this in your j
response to Item 4 j
[
Thank you for your cooperation in addressing the dif ficult and of ten confusing issues surrounding chronic, long-term, low level radiation effects from uranium mill
.issions.
[ 71 Mb I
l Ken L. K. Weaver Senior Health Physicist j
l Uranium Recovery Unit Leader Radiation Control Division l
KLKW/cbd e
E N V I R. O N M E N T A L DEFENSE FUNI April 4, 1984 Al Hazel, Director Radiation Control Division Colorado Department of Health 4210 East lith Avenua Denver, CO 80220
Dear Mr. Hazel:
EDF has received and reviewed the data supplied to the Division by Union Carbide showing community exposure to radiation High ambient concentrations of Radon -222 in Uravan, C61orado.
in the town of Uravan constitute an especially serious hazard to health which should be given high priority by the Division.
The recent data submissions by UCC confirm that the 3 pCi/L maximum has been violated in offsite housing areas over the The entire four-year period for which data are available.
1 pCi/L standard is also being exceeded in all offsite locations for the period of record.
UCC's recent submission argues that
(
these high ambient measurements of radon are not attributable to operation of the mill, but UCC fails to include any credible argument or proof that other sources are responsible for the high Given the degree of hazard presented by radon measurements.
UCC's data and their lack of action to remedy the condition, EDF is particularly disturbed by the Division's failure to take action requiring that abatement measures be taken by UCC..
As a necessary first step, EDF believes it is neces.sary to These are identified in resolve ambiguities in UCC's submission.
the attached document " Requested Clarifications in UCC's November 30, 19 8 3 Data Report. "
Pursuant to the agreement at our meeting on April 2, the Division will review EDF's request for clarification of UCC's submission and be prepared to discuss with us on April l6 the At that time, the follow-up action the Division intends to take.
Division will also have prepared for discussion a draft of an amendment to the Dravan license prohibiting the reoccupancy of dwelling units in areas where the NRC raden guidelines are exceeded.
Since we did not specify a time for the meeting on the 16th, please contact Jim Hartin at our office when you determine the T(303) 440 4903 Boulder. Colordo 80302 1405 Arapahoe Avenue omCES IN. NEW YoRX. NY (Nauonal Hesdquarten); WASH!ficMN. DQ BERKELEY. CA; RICHMOND. VA: Do l
(.
g L.
l
,s.
~
A1 Hazel / Director
' ~
page-two time of the meeting.. Any' time af ter 9:30 is acceptable to us.-
L Thank you for your cooperation.
l :-
ncere.ly yours,
[O $ YLAc'
/
w i
Robert'2. Yuhnke Regional Counsel e
REY /bjb attachment
.[
W e
m 9
e e
4
. - - - _ _. - -. - -. _ _ _ -. _ ~. - _ _ _. _ _ _ _ __
" Requested Clarifications in UCC's j-November 30, 19 83 Data Report" 1)-
Although UCC admits that Radon -222 thresholds are currently being exceeded in three housing areas, they continue to claim that "past localized construction activities" account for most of the ambient Radon -222 concentration.
Yet UCC pr"vides no supporting documents detailing either the scope or dura-tion of these activities.
Moreover, the Company neglects to mention whether any of these construction projects were in any way associated with their current operation, or who may have i
supplied these past construction materials.
In short, UCC has simply repeated their previous statements without providing any.
additional documents to support their contentions.
The Company i
(
must provide clear scientific evidence that the current opera-tions contribute less than the threshold concentration of Radon -
222 in order to demonstrate with a sufficient level of certainty that CDH regulations are not being violated by licensed operations.
2)
UCC concludes that current tailings operations contribute "approximately 0.6 to 1.2 pCi/L," which amounts to f
less than one-tenth to one-third of the total concentration in many areas.
Yet UCC provides neither references nor scientific l
t analysis to substantiate this conclusion.
Such an estimate is rather meanlagless without scientific grounds on which to base the assessment of UCC's contribution.
By no means does this statement prove that the Uravan f acility complies with state health regulations.
UCC should be requested to present any
EL*
..?.
{
l
-analysis it has conducted to support its contention.
?
h sults obtained 3)
.UCC concludes in their report that t e re by their monitoring devices were "a factor of 2.5 to 3.0 low" They state that although the devices were functioning (page 8).
properly in 1980, the TLD chips seem.to have deteriorated throu
" handling misuse," and now do not produce ' readings that correlate.
Accordingly, all previous Radon with Eberline RGM-1 samples.
this
-222. concentration readings have been multiplied by 2.5; These new dermlopments "new" data is compiled in Table 3-2.5.
raise neveral questions:
why did UCC scientists muliply the 1980 readings a)
"co-monitoring...estab-by 2.5, when they claim that,in 1980, that the results were within the error term of the
\\-
lished analysis?" (page 8.)
if these "misu, es" were so serious as to cause the s
b).
the it stands to reason that other or devices to deteriorate, same misuses may have caused further inaccuracies in the data.
UCC should specify the exact cause of the mishap and the possible.
effects of these misuses on the overall accuracy of the data, why did UCC choose to apply the lowest end of the c) 2.5) to the Radon ~222 data?
corre.ction factor range (i.e.
How are the figures presented in Table 3-2.5 derived 4)
Do these from the monitoring data included in Appendix B?
figures represent averages which are compiled over the entire year?
UCC states that background levels should be 5)
On page 8, which "is consistent with the levels around.60+.30 pCi/L,
l.
-determined as background around LaSal, Utah by the author."
How and when did the author measure background at LaSal, where l
background sites in relation to the mine, and what were the relevance.does that assessment have to the background levels at Uravan?
Even UCC adnits that its operations are causing Radon 6) i.e. up to
-222 concentrations which exceed the 1 pci/L standard, UCC should be asked to identify these sources and take 1.2 pCi/L.
immediate action to reduce releases to the maximum extent feas The effect o'f these tetions on radon measurements should be monitored to help assess the relative contribution of these sources compared to other sources which UCC may claim account fdr significant portions of the ambient radon concentrations.
UCC should be asked _to supply all information regarding 7)
.(,
radon other than the licensed operations, potential sources of including sources, source strengths, ownership of the property and how the where each known or suspected source is located, source came to be where it is.
3
.g UNION ' CAABIDE COAPOAATION po sox so29, GRANO JUNCTON, cot.ORAOo 81502 TELEPHONE: (303) 2453700 METALS ONISON.-
d May 7,1984 Certified Mail #P201462-512 Return Receipt Requested Mr. A. ' J. Hazle,. Director Radiation Control Division Colorado Department of Health 4210 East lith Avenue Denver, CO 80220
Subject:
. Amendment 20
Dear Mr. Hazle:
Attached are coments on Amendment No. 20 to License No. SUA-673 whic we received _on April 2,1984.
As per your approval.on April 19, the coment period was extended to today.
If the Department does not agree with the coments presented herein, please -consider this as a request for a hearing on the subject amendment pursuant to the Colorado Administrative Procedures Act.
Very truly yours, bb Robert G. Beverly Director-Environmental Affairs RGB/1rs e
e e
APPENDIX C 0
p-g i.
COMMENTS TO AMENDMENT 20
~
of LICENSE SUA-673 P
' Sealed Source (Ohmart model A-3202) 7.2
7.4 Comment
Change 7.2 through 7.4 to:
Sealed Source (Ohmart Model 7.3-CP-6-E-8).
There are ten of these sources, all the same model.
No single source to exceed 100 millicuries 8.2 8.3 Licensee needs to confirm the activities listed in these 8.4 Coment :
conditions for clarification.
To be used in an Ohmart model m-8 density gauge source holder to 9.2 measure fluid density in pipelines To be used in en Ohmart model SHRM density gauge source holder to 9.3 measure fluid density in pipelines.
To be used in an Ohmart 4100 model series density gauge source 9.4 holder to measure fluid der.sity in pipelines.
Comment:
Ohmart model numbers in these sections should all read the same as LC 7.2; Ohmart Model CP-6-2-8 For " Surface Contamination Levels" described in Table I and II of the LC 11.17, the section entitled "Ra-226 and other isotopes which 13.0
~
decay by alpha emission or by spontaneous fission" shall be used.
is not aware of LC 11.17 and requires Licensee Comment:
clarification prior to comenting on this condition.
14.0 In section 2.2 of the licensee's
" Decontaminate ion Guidelines" submitted with LC 11.17, the significant amount of fixed alpha shall be 1000 dpm/100 cm2 If 1000 dpm/100 cm2 contamination is exceeded for fixed alpha, a wipe test shall be made.
Comment : Licensee is not aware of LC 11.17 and it needs to be clarified.
The significant amount of fixed alpha contamination shall be as per the limits of alpha emission from U natural and associated decay products as shown on Table I.
18.2.2.3 Performance in relation to with LCs 18.2.2.1 and Determination of performance 18.2.2.2 shall be based upon the semi-annual report required by LC 16.5.2.
Change semi-annual to annual.
LC 16.5.2 references LC Comment:
16.5.1 which is " Reports to the Department" section and
e.)
9 '
states ' "the' Licensee shall, for. the previous calendar 7
year..;" which is an annual report.
~
insure af ter May 31, 1984-that lno garden The : licensee-shall vegetables are grown f orshuman consumption' on licensee-controlled 18.2.3' property at Uravan.
in the. past have' shown
' Vegetable data presented to. CDH Comment:
little -difference in radionuclides content of vegetables We.
grown.. in Uravan and comercial' vegetables availab4.
recognize 25 mrem dose calculations. incorporate-a portion vegetables.
The fact of. the - dose - f rom. locally grownresidents. have been consuming remains that many.Uravan To cease at.
locally grown vegetables for over 50 years.
'this time when auch action. imposes a hardship on many residents appears to be anLoverreaction.
However, Umetco agrees to carry out the provisions required ~ under 18.2.3.
The licensee shall not permit vacant residences in the "A",
"B",
"C",
"E",
and "G" blocks to be reoccupied af ter May 31, 1984.
18.'2.4 The licensee has implemented the ' general. intent of this
-Comment:
However, before entire blocks be included in condition.
this restriction, Umetcc would like to discuss this further with the Department.
As mentioned under comments on 18.2.3, this will cause a hardship in many cases if the.present mode of periodic Considering the-mining and milling operations continues.
long-term occupancy of
- Uravan, we.
believe-some consideration to the socio-economic impacts must..also into the evaluation.
The epidemiological study enter results, which should be available later this year, may-also shed light on this matter.
The licensee shall provide to the Department by June 30, 1984, a 18.2.5 detailed plan for decontamination for unrestricted use of all company-controlled property on or adjacent' to the mill
- site, including a
benefit-cost evaluation 'of the economics of decommissioning, decontamination, and reclamation of the full mill site and environs.
L We request deletion of this condition.
The Uravan mill Comment:
'It has a potential operating period of seventeen years.
is not. practical to develr' "a
detailed plan for r
for unrestricted use" without a rather decontamination detailed radioactivity survey of the entire property and environs.
Such a survey should preceed shut down by a year or two.
Then a
cost-benefit evaluation can realistically be made.
Considering the long periods of various operations of the Uravan site, such an evaluation may very well demonstrate the impracticality of returning
t l
all or part of the site to unrestricted use.
If this section of Amendment 20 be retained, we suggest rather than setting a certain date, the Department use "one-year prior to contemplated permanent closure of the facility."
13.3.3 Work Pemits_
The ifcensee's Radiation Safety Officer or RSO's designee shall prepare a special work permit, describing specific radiological controls, prior to start of any work or maintenance, at any location of the licensed f acility or site, having radiation safety A copy of implications and for which no written procedure exists.(5) years for be retained no less than five these permits shall inspection by the Department.
Comments: Change "having radiation safety implications and for which no written procedure exists," to read "that may have a
potential for the airborne natural uranium concentration to exceed fifty percent of the maximum permissible concentration and for which no written
. procedure exists."
The reason for the change is to better define the action
/'
point.
The side. slopes of Ponds 2 and 3 shall be stabilized for an interim period through June 30,.1985 by a chemical dust suppressant, 18.3.4.6 applied by May 31, 1984 'and reapplied at least every three (3) months, or at an alternate frequency specifically approved by the Department.
The provisions of this, condition and LC 11.40 should be Comment:
modified to make them consistent.
The following wording is proposed for LC 18.3.4.6:
"The side slopes of Ponds 2 and 3 shall be stabilized by a chemical dust suppressant, applied by June 30, 1984 and reapplied as inspections indicate the need for When the six inch earth stabilization cover thereaf ter.
addressed in LC 11.40 is applied, chemical stabilization shall no longer be required."
The ore stockpiles and all ore storage areas shal1 be sprayed with applied by May 31, 1984 and reapplied 18.3.4.7 a chemical dust suppressant, least every three (3) months, or sprayed by alternate wetting atagents and methods specifically approved by the Department.
l Comment: The ore stockpiles are being removed in the current Oust control is being achieved by the operating period.It would be desirable to permit the use I
use of water.
1i---__-______________________________________
4 during periods of operation when chemical of watering dust suppression materials would be disturbed by ongoing j'
stockpile activities.
LC 18.3.4.7 should be modified to i
read:
"The ore stockpiles and all ore storage areas shall be treated with a chemical-dust ~ suppressant applied within 30 days of the start of any period when the pil" will be At other times, the use of water or che.3 cal inactive.
suppressants will be at the option of the licensee."
18.3.6.2 Fencing The licensee shall fence and post the controlled area boundary.
Fencing will be installed as shown on the attached map.
Comment:
The indicated gates will be installed by December 31, 1984.
Fencing will be installed by June 30, 1985.
19.3.6.1 Ground Water _ shall be:
in LC 11.2, revision 2 dated Sampled at the locations specified 2/1/84, for the Club Mesa and Club Ranch Systems, except that all included Club Mesa wells shall be redrilled to minimum 4" casing inside diameter by July 1,
1984 with initial sample results by September 30, 1984;
{.
Comment:
Change July 1, 1984 to March. 31, 1985 and September 30, 1984 to June 30, 1985.
The licensee requests the latter dates to coincide with the current operating phase and 4
the availability' of personnel.
Postponement of the drilling and sampling would assure the availability of personnel and the licensee does not the Department's preferred dates are critical believe over the duration of the post. operational sampling period.
e j
)
E ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUN May 15,1984 Albert J. Harle. Director Radiation Con trol Division Colorado Department of Health 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, CO 80220 Re Draf t PELRS f or Renewal _ pf_ the Uravan Uranium M Radi oact ive Mat eri als Li cense _
Dear Mr. Hazle:
The Environmental Derense Fund has reviewed the draft s
Preliminary Executive License Review Summary (PELRS) prepared by the Department of Health in the matter of Union Carbide Corporation's application for renewal of the Uravan uranium mill's radioactive materials license.
The Environmental Defense.
the
{
Fund (EDF) has, for some time,,been gravely concerned at ambient levels of radionuclides observed in Uravan and the radiation exposure to the gene.ral public in and around Uravan.
Notwithstanding that record of involvement, EDF has no t yet received a copy of the draf t PELRS from the Department of Health and only learned of that document's existence late last Tuesday.
That delay made timely review of the draft PELRS difficult.
Nevertheless, in the short time available for review EDF has identified several serious deficiencies in the draf t PELRS's treatment of radiation exposure to the public, and your agency's plan for addressing those public health issues.
In particular, the draft PELRS con tains nei ther a proposal for bringing the Uravan mill complex into compliance wi th applicable regulations setting limits on releases of radioactivity in effluent or public
\\
l N(303) 440 4901 '
Boulder. Colorado 80302 1405 Arapahoe Avenue Of71Cc5 IN: NEW YOR.K. NY (Nauonal Hemdquartersh WASHINGTON, DC; UERKELEY. CA: RICHMOND. VA: Bou1DF,R CO
s..
g exposure to radiation, nor does it contain a proposal for abating the human health hazard that currently exists and that will A
continue to exist pending implementation of license conditions to into compli ance wi th the _ applicable regulations.
bring the mill the Environmental Defense Fund is fully in accord In addition, with the comments and recommendations provided by the National Hildlife Federation on the draft PELRS.
I.
of Health prohibit Regulations promulgated by the Department the release of radioactivity in effluents in excess of the concentrations specified in Appendix A, Table II of Part IV of 6 Colo. Admin. Code 1007-the Radiation Control Regulations.
4.71 10 C.F.R. Par t 20.
For radon-222, the maximum permissible radon concentration at the site boundary is 3 pCi/1.
The maximum permissible radon concentration for an exposed population group is Code idO7-4.7.4, 4.7.5; 10 C.F.R.
pCi/1.
6 Colo. Admi n.
also requires compliance wi th 40 20.106(a), (e).
The Depar tmen t C.F.R. 190, which sets maximum individual dose commitments to critical organs.
EDF's review of Uni on Carbide Corporation's ambient radon measurements reveal that the i pCf/1 limit is being exceeded at virtually all of f si te moni toring locations, and that the 3 p/Ci/1 limit is being exceeded at most of those sites.
The draft PELRS observed radon concentration levels apparently accep ts the mean 1/
(We are A-sble to determine f rom the provided by the company.
PELRS states, at page 5.5-11, that it was necessary 1/The draft to multiply the radon moni toring data by a f actor of 3.0 to (Footno te con tinued on nex t page.)
l I;
l
/
draft PELRS how -the company and the Depar tment accoun te d, in these calculations, for the substantial periods in 1980-1983 when the mill was shut down.)
Those figures demonstrate that radon levels in Uravan far exceed applicable state and federal regulatory limits for the period of record.
The Department calculates that an of f si te ambient outdoor radc concentration of 4 pCi/1 in the Uravan communi ty results in a lif etime excess risk of lung cancer on the order of 56-in-1000.
DPELRS at p. 5.5-38.
The draft PELRS equates the elevated radon concentrations ~ observed in Uravan to annual doses due to inhalation of radon-222 and its daughters of 470-1900. mrem /yr when the mill is operational, and 360-1200 mrem /yr when the mill is shut down.
Id. p. 5.5-40.
In addition, the Department's radiation dose assessment (prepared to assess compliance wi th '40
(
C.F.R.190, which excludes radon and i ts progeny, found that dose commitments to the lung ranged from 41 to 116 mrem /yr.and that bone doses ranged from 10 to 284 mrem /yr.
(The Ifmit for both o r gans i s 25 mr em/y. )
DPELRS at p. 5.5-30.
These data convincingly demonstrate the existence of an imminent and substantial health risk in and around the Ur, avan community.
Yet we find the draf t PELRS starkly inadequate in i ts treatment of this problem.
While the draft PELRS no tes that (Footno te continued f rom proceeding page.)
correct for f ailure of the monitoring devices.
The company stated that a correction f actor of 2.5 to 3.0 was appropriate, and selected 2.5.
It has not, to EDF's knowledge, provided an explanation of why it chose the lower end of the range.
In any event, the data used in the draft PELRS reflect use of the 2.5
(
correction factor, not the 3.0 as statec therein.
3
y
.reoccupancy of residences in certain blocks has previously been prohibited by' license amendment, and while thg proposed license requires removal of discrete radon sources, the draft PELRS contain any comprehensive proposal designed to abate the does not health hazard that exists at Uravan.
Nor is there an assessment to which the department's pr,oposed actions will of the extent reduce public exposure to either radon concentrations or other 2/
radiation sources.
The draft PELRS must contain an adequate, comprehensive depar tmen tal proposal set ting out specific measures to the public to acceptable designed to reduce radiation exposure levels.
II.
Beyond assessing steps to reduce radiation exposure to the the draft PELRS must discuss and
(
public in the short-term, evaluate strategies, if any exist, to bring the Uravan mill into compliance with applicable regulations for protection of human The state and federal regulations health and the environment.
minimum standards for protection of human health and the set from radioactive emissiens and radiation exposure.
environment The Nuclear Regulatory Commission' expects a "high standard of and treats compliance" wi th these regulations by the licensee, 2/The depar tmen t's dc se assessment, measuring compliance with 40 current radiation 190, makes abundaa tly clear that C.F.R.
It solely attributable to radon concentra'tfons.
exposure is not things, bone doses due to inhalation of among other identified, and ingestion of radium-226 and lead-210 contaminated thorium-230 vegetables, and lung doses due to inhalation of radium-226, thorium-230, and uranium, Draft PELRS at 5.5-30.
He note that elimination of vegetable production and livestock grazing in and in reducing dose to around Uravan will have li ttle or no ef fect since the cri tical pathway there is inhalation.
the long, 4
t violations of the hesith physics regulations as a very serious matter.
47 Fed. Reg. 9987, 9989, 9994 (Mar. 9, 1982) (Statement
('
Policy and Procecare f or Enf orcement Actions, codified at of appendix C to 10 C.F.R. Part 2).
Compliance with these regulatory standards and requirements is a condition to continued operation of any uranium mill.
A fundamental question in your Department's review of the applica-tion for license renewal must be whether the company can (a) compliance wi th applicable statutory and regu-demonstrate prompt latory minima, and (b) whether it can reduce radiation risks to the public to an accep table level, consi stent with the ALARA principle.
A predicate to reasoned decisionmaking is an under-standing of current emission levels and radiation sources, iden-(_
tification of available means to reduce those emissions, and a range of strategies for achieving compliance with the statutory JUnless Union Carbide Corporation and regulatory requirements.
can convincingly demonstrate an abili ty to meet those require-ments, its license application must be denied.
Yet we are unable to find in the license application, the draft PELRS, or the proposed licenso those measures the Depart-renewal neces-is considering as the minimum conditions for ment sary to protect hurnan healt h and the environment.
Instead, in has abdicated its responsibility by most instances the Depar tmen t suggesting, wi thou t detail or explanation of any kind, that the company must (a) comply wi th emissions and exposure If mi ts in pr ef ace of the f ace apparen t long-term violations of those regu-lations; (b) provide a proposal f or reducing ani ssi ons f ron. the l
5 l
E- _
E ore grinding and crtshing f acili ty by March 31, 1985; (c) imple-and ment an ore storage dust control plan by an unspecified date; (d) develop a progra. for controlling emission of particulate f rom the tallings piles.
In none of these cases has the Depart-identified the design or perf ormance standards these mea-sn t assessed their likely effectiveness for reduc-ot.es are to meet, or evaluated the licensee's abili ty to achieve ing exposure, compliance with regulatory standards and requirements if such conditions are met.
That simply is not adequate.
The Atomic Energy Act prosides that each agreement state shall
- require for each license which has a significant impact on the human environment a written analvsis," which t ell _ include the following elements:
h
('
the proposed action's radiological _ and (i) an assessment of
{
.lonradi ologi cal impacts; I
(ii) an assessment of the proposed action's impact on surf ace and groundwater g (iii) co n si der a ti o n of alternatives; and (iv) consideration of the proposal's long-term impacts.
42 U.S.C. 2021(o)(3)(C) (as amended by the Uranium Mill Tailings l
l Radi ation Control Act of 1978, Pub. L. No.95-604, 92 Stat. 3021, f
3037-3038 (1978)).
Those requirements are repeated, in equally mandatory terms, by NRC regulations. 10 C.F.R. 150.31(b)(3)(C)(iii)(A)-(C) (1983).
The Act's legislative history explains that the purpose of this provision is to require the preparation of the f unctional equivalent of an environmental impact statement (EIS) by agreement states in cases shere an EIS 6
= _ - ____-__ - _ _ _ -
state.
H.R. Rep. No. 95-would be required in a non-agreement 1480 (Part II), 95th Cong. 2d Sess. 45 (1978) as r3 printed in 1978 U.S. Code ' Cong. & Ad. News. 7472.
At a minimum, an envircomenta) review consistent with the 42 U.S.C.
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act,
4332(2)(C), requires an evaluation of the proposed action and alternatives thereto It is absolutely essential to the NEPA process that the be prpvided with a detailed and. careful decisionmaker analysis of the relative environmental meri ts and demerits of the proposed action and.possible alternatives, a requirement that we have characterized as "the linchpin of the entire impact statement."
Natural _ Resources _ Defense Council _fnc._ v Ca11saav_, 524 F.2d 79, s
92 (2d Cir. 1975), citing Monroe County Conservation Soefety.
-(
Inc. v,Volpe, 472 F.2d 693, 697-98 (2d.Cir. 1972).
a
~
In this case the Department has stated, without more, that But the licensee must comply with,. applicable health regulations.
the Department has not made any findings that the licensed
- Instead, facility vill comply with those regulations, or when.*
the Draft PELRS defers the cruical decisions (to the extent it identifies them) to a later date.
Such'an approach provides the public wi th a basis for informed neither the decisionmaker nor l
L decisionmaking or comment.
As a first step, the Depar tmen t must either prepore on its own, or request from Union Cardide Corporation, a detailed plan to bring the Uravan mici into com-pliance with all applicable public health regulations and to reduce public radiation exposure to acceptable levels, in company l
7
l
\\
l with an assessment o' the proposal's radiological and nooradiolo-
)
i gicel impacts, i
)
Based on the available data, Union Carbide Corporation's i
set standards i
has, for some time, been violating regulations that for protection of human health and the environment.
This is a proverbial *old, dirty plant."
Moreover,"the draft PELRS sus-f gests a disturbing pattern of noof easance by the company in providing to the Department the basic information needed to review the company's application for license renewaled:
1.
There is no information in the Department's files documenting recent sampling and analysis of San Miguel River water for radionuclides.
The earlier data indicate that water
-( ~
quality is deteriorating, Draft PELRS at p. 4-31, and the draft is replete with references of seepage, leakage, and spills into TheI epartment should require the D
surface and groundwater.
to sample and analyze San Miguel River water upstream and company downstream of the Uravan mill.
Without such an analysis it is impossible to ascertain the level of water pollution caused b'y the Uravan mill, and whether discharges from the mill violate the guidelines issued by the Water Quality Control Department for uranium concentrations in surf ace waters; 2.
There is no mention in the supporting documentation submi tted by Union Carbide Corporation of collection and analysis o-l from the San Miguel.
No recent sediment monitoring has been undertaken.
Draft PELRS at p. 4-56.
Discharge of radioactive ma teri als f rom the mill contribu te to pollution of the San Miguel I
L i
. River. Id.
The conc'entration of - those materials in river sediment will : af f ect water quality long after the plant is closed.
Nithout sar.: ling and analysi s i t is impossible to determine ei ther the curren t level of contamination or the need f or restrictions on discharges f rom the mill.
(The Draft PELRS states, at page 4-32, that-the future status of the 001 discharge-l remains uncertain.)
The company should be required to provide samples and analyses of San Miguel sediments f rom si tes both upstream and downstream of the mill; 3.
Seepage into the ground from the River Ponds into underlying strata is estimated at 10 to 40 gallons per minute by Dames and Hoore, DPELRS at p. 5-15, and ultimately discharses into the 3an Miguel River.
However, the Depar tment does no t know-(
the chemical composition of this seepage since no monitoring wells have been established to monitor it.
The closest monitor-ing well is located 1600 feet;downgradient of the ponds and i t shows elevated comtaminan t levels.
Union Carbide Corporation should be directed to establish a well monitoring progras at appropriate locations to determine the chemical composition, tr an spo r t, and f ate of the River Ponds contamination.
The re-suits of this sampling program will enable the Depar tment to determine the need f or a remedial program; 4.
In 1982, UCC f ailed to collect (a) soil samples, and
~
(b) vegetation samples.
Draft PELRS at p. 4-56.
Union Carbide Corporation's data on natural radioactivity in vegetation is of marginal.value.
Draft PELRS a p. S.5-19.
Data on radf ecetivi ty in soil, natural vegetation, and locally produced meat and 9
vegetables is needed to accurately determine to tal dose p
commitment by ingest:on.
Theref ore,' the Dep ar tmen t should require Union Carbide Corporation to collect and analyze soil, natural vegetation, and vegetable samples at representative si tes in and around 8)ravan.
The results of that sampling program should then be used to calculate past and current dose commitments attributable to the ingestion'pathday; 5.
(a) the information supplied by the company for use in evaluating emissions f rom the ore sampling plant is not adequate to meet the Depar tmen t's requiremen ts.
A detai1~ed description of the existing system or proposed changes was not provided.
Draft PELRS at p.
4-19; (b) the conpany's description of the ore crushing cir-
}(;
cuit does not include all information relevant to a thorough evaluation of emissions.
Draft TELRS at p. 4-22; (c) the specificati6ns, diagrams, and similar material for the fine ore bins do no t meet depar tmen tal requi r emen ts 'f or evaluation of emissions.
Draft PELRS at p. 4-22; (d) while numerous vents exist in the mill, they are not monitored and emissions are not controlled.
The material submitted by Union Car bi de does not permit an adequate evaluation of the vent syutem at Uravan and therefore precludes an i
assessment of the impor tance of these vents as sources of
]
radiation emitted by the mill.
In the absence of informatico on quantities of radioacti;ity released in a'specified period of time for each class of emissions f rom each process in the Uravan mill, the Department 10
p will be unable to model transport, distribution, and r.
concentration of radionuclides.
Similarly, the Depar tmen t will 1
be unable to prepare either a credible radiological impact assessment or an emissions control strategy without this vital information.
Accordingly, the Dirpartment should require Union Carbide to provide full and complete information on emissions
.f rom each Uravan mill process along wi th detailed specifications i
of the existing processes and proposed changes to reduce emissions; 6.
Union Carbide has not provided the radon-222 value, in pCi/1,and NL, for each residence in Uravan.
Neither has Union Carbide provided direct gamma / beta radiation levels obtained ~
within each residence, and what value in mrem is most representative of each building.
This information is
(
indispensable to f ormulation of a remedial action program for Uravan residence.
Such a program must be implemented prior to
. resumption of operations'at the Uravan mill.
In only one of the case cited above has the Department taken steps (visibile in the document) to require Union Carbide Corporation to provide the missing information early enough in the review process to be useful in making a licensing de' cision.
the aiency to direct As an initial matter, it i s i ncumben t upon 3
Union Carbide Corporation to provide to the Department the infor-mation outli ned above prior to the public hearings scheduled for August 1984.
In the absence of credible data and analyses that are sufficient to support a finding that the mill can and will be operated in compliance wi th public expcsure limi ts, the Department 11
to Union Carbide.
Union propose to deny a license renewal must g
the burden of demonstrating that the mill can and Carbide has If Union Carhide f ails to meet will be operated in compliance.
that burden by the hearing, the Departmen t may no t issue the license.
In order to meet that burden, a comprehensive analysis of the sources of radiation must be made.
Such an analysis must include an assessment of the amount of radiation contributed by Source emissions should be each source of public exposure.
modeled for the tailings pile, mill operations, yellowcake drying, packing, storage and transport, secondary tailings dis-posal sites and other sources which the company believes contri-The contr ol strategies bute to community radiation exposure.
(
proposed for inclusion in the license should he_pvaluated for their ef festiveness in reducing the radiation contributed by each the control strategies can be expected to, achieve r,o u r c e,
If they should be required to be completed prior to compliance, then the mill.
If they cannot, the kny resumption of operation at license should be denied and the company required to' commence closure activities that will achieve the maximum degree of ex-posure reduction f easible.
IV.
of The Environmental Def ense Fund believes the Department Health has available to it, within the department and in other the expertise and tesources necessary to evaluate state agencies, i
the j
emissions f rom the Uravan mill and waste disposal arces, radiation exposure to the public, the nature and extent of 12 i
n---__-___
..g radioactive emissions and their sources, and control strategies-l C
to achieve compliance wi th applicable regulations.
If not, the A
Department should ' seek assistance from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in ' evalue:ing the application for renewal of the Uravan. mill's radioactive materials license.
It is vitally, impor tan t to the pubilc. interest that-this application receive a '
full and thorough analysis,. as is required by the law. '
If'we can be of any further assistance in this matteri
~
please do not hesi tate to call upon us.
Respectfully submitted:
k o
P.obert E..Yuh e
Regional Counsel es B.
n
/
ff Attorney May 15, 1984 4
e e
e 13
1:
r Appendix B
/
4 e
i i
i 1
JUN 141984 Ref:
SA/ DAN Mr. Robert E. Yuhnke Regional Counsel Environmental Defense Fund 1405 Arapahoe Avenue Boulder, Colorado 80302
Dear Mr. Yuhnke:
This refers to your letter of May 24, 1984 to Chairman Palladino regarding the regulation of uranium milling and mill tailings by Colorado pursuant to their Agreement with the fiRC under Section 274b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended. The areas of concern expressed in ycur. letter relate principally to the Uravan mill in Colorado.
We had already initiated our regular review of the Colorado program when your letter arrived. We plan to expand the review to take into account
.([
the various points raised in your letter concerning the regulation of the Uravan mill. However, based on information obtained recently, it appears the Colorado Department of Health has already addressed some of the concerns you raise.
We do not believe that an emergency currently exists, as indicated on page 2 o'f your letter, which warrants a suspension of Colorado's Agreement with NRC.
Based on the resul'.s of the review, we will determine what, i f any,
~
action NRC should take.
We expect to have this review completed by early August and will inform you of our findings.
Sincerely, c
C.
G. Wayne Kerr, Director Office of State Programs cc:
Al Harle, Colorado
%__m-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _. _. _ _ _ - -
f' y
Appendix C 9
0 e
9
<g;,.:.
gy State Agreements Program Standard Approval The Attached Internal Procedure D.13. " Guidelines for Temporary Suspension
' of a Section 274b. Agreement" is submitted for final approval to become effective January 1,1982.
m
& /k/ ^ *
~
1 0. Lubenau
'Date
- y f3/[1 4L
/2
~ DfnaldA.NussbaumerJAssistant-Date r/ Dire +nr for State Agreements Program
.f s
4 l
l
/
4 f
a
_x-m_.___.__.._._____._.__.m.
I
+l-STATE AGREEMENTS PROGRAM DIVISION I Internal Procedure D.
Post Agreement Activities D.13 Guidelines for Temporary Suspension of a Section 274b Agreement I.
Introduction This procedure Provides the guidelines that will be followed A.
by State Agreements staff when considering whether or not to exercise-the authority contain in Section 274j(2) of the Atomic Energy Act.
This Section provides NRC authority to temporarily suspend all B.
or part of its agreement with a Section 274b Agreement State when an emergency creates a danger to the public health and safety and the Agreement State has not acted to protect the
~'
public health and safetyi II.
General The NRC will minimize intrusion into the regulatory affairs of any Agreement State with respect to the authority contained in section 274j(2), of the Atomic Energy Act of l?54, as amended.
The NRC will invoke this authority to temporarie suspend all or part of its agreement with an Agreement State only as a last resort, where an emergency creates a danger to the public health or safety, and th? Agreement State has failed to take, or is prevented from taking, the necessary steps to protect the public health and safety. This action will occur only after the Agreement State has been advised of the desired action by the NRC and has been given an opportunity to comply with this Federal guidance.
The Commission will exercise this authority only to the extent necessary to contain or eliminate Prior to the danger, and only'.during the period of the emergency.
any temporary suspension of all or part of the NRC's agreement with The NRC a State, the NRC will notify the Governor of the State.
will consider invoking this authority with respect to a single facility or location if the emergency-situation and the criteria of l
Part V of the guidelines so warrant after considering the factors j
stated in Part VI.
1/1/82 j
\\
)
I j
)
I-
~.
I*
l l
' III.
Unusual Emeroency The NRC recognizes that a severe thrcst to public health and safety would have to exist before a temporary suspension of all or part of its agreement with an Agreement State would be invoked.
Under existing practices, an Agreement State would, if necessary, request technical assistance from NRC for a specific emergency situation.
NRC continues to encourage State requests for technical assistance.
The exercising of NRC authority to temporarily suspend an agreement would occur for those highly unusual events which would require prompt remedial action to protect the public health and safety.
IV.
Initiation of Emergency Suspension Action Under section 274j(2), a State requesting that the NRC temporarily suspend part of its agreement with the State shall make the request by telephone call to the Director. Office of State Programs (301) 492-8170 or, in off hours, to the NRC Emergency Operation Center, tel ephone (301) 492-8111.. Such a request should be made by the Governor and include the specific nature of the emergency and its
(_
possible impacts as related to the criteria and factors in parts V and VI below.
This request may be made only by the Agreement State that has regulatory authority under which the licensee is operating when the emergency occurs.
When the NRC learns of an event which may warrant temporary suspension of an agreement and the NRC has verified as described in Part II above that the State has failed to take the necessary steps to correct the situation, it will follow the guidelines and criteria stated in Parts V and VI below.
The Governor and the radiation control program director of the affected State will be consulted and kept fully informed of the actions taken by the NRC.
For events 4
~
which may warrant consideration of temporary suspension but for i
which there is a reasonable basis for presumption that a State can satisfactorily resolve the emergency situation, the NRC will inform the State of necessa'ry actions that the State should take to avert further consideration of temporary suspe,1sion authority under section 274j(2) and will provide appropriate technical assistance within the limits of its resources.
V.
Minimum Criteria The NRC will not consider temporary suspension of an agreement pursuant to section 274j(2) in the case of an emergency involving f
byproduct, source, or special nuclear material unless the emergency r-g has caused or th'reates to cause one of more of the following:
1/1/82
y
- - (1)
Exposure of the whole body of any individual to 25 rems or more of radiation; exposure of the skin of the whole body of any individual to 150 rems or more of radiation; or exposure of the feet, ankles, hands, or forearms of any individual to 375 rems or more of radiation; or equivalent exposures from internal sources; or (2) The release of radioactive material to an unrestricted area in concentrations which, if averaged over a period of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, would exceed 5000 times the limits s'pecified for such materials in Appendix B, Table II of 10 CFR Part 20.
VI. Additional Factors of Consideration If any emergency in an Agreement state meets the minimum criteria of Part V, the NRC will consider the following factors before making a determination to invoke the authority of section 274j(2):
(1) The adequacy of the actions taken by the State in response to the emergency; (2) The urgency of temporarily supplementing the State's capability; (3) The timeliness of the State's response to the emergency.
VII. Withdrawal of Temporary Suspe'nsion
~
When the emergency situation is contained or eliminated, the NRC 1
will notify the Governor of the State that the temporary suspension is no longer in effect.
Such a decision will be made by the NRC when it is determined that the conditions which initiated the temporary suspension no longer exist.
In order to limit the period of the temporary suspension to the shortest possible time, the NRC will inform the State of continuing actions which the State must carry out in order to prevent another emergency.
l I
I 1/1/82 l
i
c-- ; - - _ __
l
,~~
Appendix D
(
i i
i
I D-1 CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS 1.
Mineral recovery operations began at Uravan
,te in 1915 by Standard Chemical Company.
2.
In 1928, U.S.
Vanadium, a Union Carbide Corporation subsidiary, purchased the site.
Uranium and radium discarded with the i
tailings.
3.
In 1940s, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers undertook efforts to l
recover uranium from the tallings and continued to 1945.
4.
In 1948 resumed activity in response to U.S. AEC buying prograra.
(
S.
License of mill began in 1948 by the AEC 6.
License was turned over to the State on February 1,
1968 as SU A-673.
7.
Since 1968, amendments 8 through 20 were issued to UCC.
I 8.
UCC applied for renewal June 20,1975 (more than 30 days prior to expiration, timely renewal provision of Colorado Rules).
9.
License SUA-673 original expiration date of July 31, 1975, extended pending finding by Colorado on renewal request.
10.
Licensee submittal of Environmental Report August 31,
- 1978, Baseline data and analysis.
I l
s j
1
4 D-2
- (~L 11.
Compliance inspection November 16-20, 1979.
12.
Licensee's consultant, NUS Corporation provided' a more c'omplete evaluation of radiological doses in January 1980, facility emissions.
13.
Licensee's consultant, NUS Corporation provided a more complete evaluation of radiological doses in May 1980, facility emissions 14.
Facilities stack audit, Uravan Uranium Mill (NUS) May 23, 1980.
15.
New yellowcake calciner UCC letter to Department July 11, 1980.
16.
Compliance inspection August 18, 1980.
17.
Compliance: Inspection October 26,.1980.
{
18.
25. mrem /y limit imposed by amendment 16, December 1,
- 1980, licensee appealed.
19.
Application by licensee submitted June 24, 1981 including an
' attachment for " Experimental Heap Leach Program at the Urat an Mill" dated June 12, 1981.
- 20. - Letter dated June 25, 1981, Kagetser to Hazie on Phase.ll berm as built drawings.
21.
September 22, 1981 amendment 17 issued and appealed.
l-22.
Licensee submittal of Surety Agreement September 22, 1981.
23.
Inspection November 16-20, 1981..
D-3 g
L
's 24.
NRC 40 CFR 190 Evaluation, December,1981.
25.
Licensee's consultant, NUS Corporation provided an updated evaluation of-radiological doses in March 1982, facility emission.
26.
March 31,1982 UCC submitted at the request of the Department, an updated application for renewal.
- 27. - Licensee submittal of procedures manual for plant operation and
. environmental monitoring March 31, 1982.
28.
Licensee submittal of Uravan Reclamation Plan, March 31, 1982.
29.
Long-term monitoring and care agreement, March 31, 1982.
30.
Updated Environmental Report dated March 31, 1982.
31.
Radioactive Materials License Application updated March 31, 1982.
32.
Compliance inspection, October,1982.
33.
Amendment 18, January 31, 1983 put in place which ' provided a viable enforcement mechanism for the 25 mR/y standard.
34.
Compliance inspection April 12-14, 1983.
l 35.
Licensee provided a full radiation dose commitment assessment for town of Uravan in November,1983.
l 36.
Letter dated November 30, 1983 from Jones to CDH, compliance l
action concernirig 25 millirem per year off-site dose limit.
D-4 i
D-4
(*
37.
Licensee submittal of revised procedures manual for plant operation and environmental monitoring, February 2,1984.
38.
Letter dated March 9,1984, Frost to Hazie for 15 foot additional lift for Ponds 2 and 3.
39.
Apr!' 2,1984 Umetco Minerals Corporation took over from UCC and amendment 20 issued to effect transfer.
40.
Compliance inspection, May 9,1984.
41.
Letter dated May 18, 1984 Frost to Hazie on compliance schedule to meet 25 millirem per year limits.
(<
l
'g L
, ~
I Appendix E i
l i
___m. _ _ _ _. _ _____.__ _
b l
Aw j'
/
s; M-
[am :
1 q.
MW UNION CAA8 TOE CORPORATION po uox 1U29. GAANC JUNC10N. COLOAADO 01502 METALS OtVISION T ELEPHONE (303) 245 ~:s7DO July 23,.1984 Mr. John We
- s, Director Environment, Protection Agency Region 8 1860 Lincoln St.
Denver, CO 80295
Dear Mr. Welles:
On June 4, Jack Frost and I, of Umetco Minerals Corporation '(formerly
^
Metals Division, Union Carbide Corporation), with counsel Edward Benton and
(-
Henry Ipsen, of Holme, Roberts, and Owen met with you and Mr. Robert Duprey to discuss the reasons why EPA was considering proposing Umetco Minerals' Uravan, Colorado mill and/or townsite as an addition to the superfund National Priority List (NPL).
Following our discussion, you suggested we write you explaining our position and the reasons we believed placing Uravan on the NPL would serve no useful purpose.
Herein we are presenting a brief history _of the Uravan operations; the reasons that it does not appear legally and technically appropriate to include Uravan on the NPL; and a' description of the licensing action now nearing completion with the. Colorado. Department of Health (CDH), which commits Umetco -
to specific reclamation, decommissioning and cleanup of the mill, tailings and townsite.
The latter commitment, backed by a surety arrangement and the enforcement authority of the CDH, we believe, fulfills the same objective as any CERCLA action would purport to do.
HISTORY Various milling operations were ronducted at Uravan from the early 1900's up until about' 1922 for the recovery of radium.
During the latter part of this period and then during the 20's and 30's, vanadium was recovered from carnotite ores mined in the area. ' During World War !!, the U.S. Corps of Engineers initiated and directed a program for the recovery of uranium f rom vanadium tailings as a part of the Manhattan Project.
The U. S. Government efforts under the Manhattan Project were directed to military programs and were shrouded in complete secrecy.
I
Mr. John Welles
' July 23, 1984 Page 2 Af ter World. War II, a second purpose of the Government's program under the direction of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy in Congress and the Atomic Energy Comission (AEC) vas to develop a viable commercial atomic energy industry.
A critical part of this program included the exploration, mining and milling of carnotite cres to produce uranium oxide (yellow cake).
The AEC developed many incentives to entice private industry and capital into the uranium raw materials program and encouraged, through purchase contracts with private companies, the building of uranium mills.
U.S. Vanadium Corporaton, a subsidiary of Union Carbide, was one of the first companies to participate in this program.
The U.S. Government in 1949, negotiated a.
contract with USV for the_ production of uranium.
The Uravan mill was remodelled in 1950 for the recovery of uranium.
A new processing plant was put into operation in 1958, again, through a contract with the AEC, for enlarging the mill and increasing production.
From 1949 to 1971 all uranium produced at Uravan and a portion of the vanadium were sold to the Government under AEC contracts which expired in 1971.
The AEC contracts, during a good share of the uranium purchasing program, were on a cost-plus basis, but usually with a maximum sales price.
There were no provisions in the contracts for specifying the party's respective responsibilities with regard to the reclamation and decommissioning of the mill, and the cleanup of the townsite or environs of the mill.
. a, Since 1971, all uranium produced at Uravan has been sold to private nuclear power producers.
Thus, for more than three decades of operation, the
(
, Uravan plant was operated under the direction of, or under contract with, the U.S.-Government.
LEGAL ISSUES As you are aware, certain legal issues involving the listing of mining and milling sites on the NPL are being litigated in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.
et al. v. Ruckelshaus et al., Case No.83-259 and Consolidated Cases.
The issues includei _
1.
The statutory exclusion of mining and milling wastes from j
regulation under CERCLA; 2.
The propriety of EPA's inclusion on the NPL of sites which are
.already comprehensively regulated by states pursuant to agreement with the Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn (NRC) unde
- the Atomic Energy Act of 1954; and
- 3.
The propriety of the application of the Hazard Ranking System to mining and milling sites.
These issues have been briefed by the joint industry petitioners, and probably will be argued in late 1984.
If the petitioners are successful, the l
I L
Mr. John Welles July 23, 1984 Pace 3 listing of the Uravan site would be nullified, a great deal of time and effort of the agency, Union Carbide and others will have been wasted, and Union Carbide will have suffered unnecessary damage.
More importantly, as described below, during the pendency of the Eagle-Pictjer petition, there will be no significant risk presented to the public by the Uravan mill site, LICENSING ACTION The Uravan mill operated up to 1968 under AEC Source Material License No. SUA-673. After Coloado became an Agreement State in 1967 and assumed licensing functions from the AEC (now the NRC), the mill has operated under CDH Radioactive Material License No. SUA-673.
The license is currently under renewal process which should be concluded later this year.
During the past five years EPA has established new standards, and the NRC has promulgated new regulations pertaining to the reclamation of mill tailings, the decommissioning of the mills and millsites, and the cleanup of envir.ons.
CDH has adopted essentially identical regulations and includes performance standards in the mill license to assure compliance with these regulations.
Umetco Minerals has provided CDH with reclamation and decommissioning plans since 1972, and CDH has accepted surety satisf actory to assure a performance. The current licensing action has expanded the requirements'and
' (_
increased the financial. surety.
Attachment A lists the items to be covered by the~ renewal license and the estimated cost of each.
Total commitment for this program is approximately $27 million.
Following completion of reclamation and decommissioning, title to all property must be transferred to the State or Federal Government as required by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act.
As CDH has indicated that Colorado was not interested in retaining the property (at least at this time),
and because it would then be deeded to the Federal Government, CDH has requested NRC approval of all reclamation and decommissioning plans.
In addition to NRC approval CDH has requested review' of all actio~n at Uravan required under the renewal license by all interested State and Federal agencies, including EPA.
This review process has been ongoing for over a year and culminates next month in a hearing on the license renewal and a major amendment including new tailings and liquid disposal facilities.
Umetco has proposed that the existing tailings and liquid effluent disposal facilities be phased out by June 30, 1985.
New state-of-the-art faciliti,es are planned for installation at a new disposal site some three miles from Uravan.
A reclamation and decommissioning schedule (see Attachment B) for the existing tailings and liquid disposal facilities, is included among the license requirements proposed by CDH.
g
Mr. John Welles July 23,1984 Page 4 MITRE MODEL You suggested that our_ evaluation of Uravan using EPA's Hazard Rating System (the Mitre Model) might be helpful. Our rat.ing gives a score of 19.22 for Uravan.
The relatively low score results primarily from a low target score for the Ground Water Route and a zero target score for the Surface Water Route.
The Ground Water Use scores 1 as the ground water in the affected aquifer is not used, but usable. Also, there are no wells within four miles of the facility.
Several wells which are listed by the Colorado State Engineer were converted to monitoring wells some time ago.
Surf ace Water Targets score zero because there are no uses or populations served within three miles of the f acility.
The Air Route scores relatively high because of our choosing to evaluate exposure to radon.
Worksheets are included as Attachment C.
TOWNSITE
'The recently promulgated 25 mrem regulation (40 CFR 190) pertaining to exposure of the public to radionuclides, other than radon and radon daughters,
~
has been evaluated at Uravan.
These standards were performance-basedi rather than health-based standards, and are difficult to measure above natural
, (_
background.
However, it appears from extensive sampling in the area and dose modeling programs, that off-site exposures exceed this 25 mrem per year standard.
Umetco has submitted a compliance schedule to CDH and has received verbal approval of the plan.
The same schedule applies to the State's radon concentration limit at the property boundary.
Final compliance schedules will be included in the renewal license.
Umetco informed CDH in early 1983 that if remedial actions were not effectiTe in meeting the 25 mrem standard, or the mpre recently imposed radon standard, Umetco would discontinue use of the townsite.
Many structures have already been removed; others will no longer be re-occupied; and remedial action has been taken on others in order to assure that all houses meet the Surgeon General's guidelines established in 1972 for the Grand Junction i
remedial action program.
Also, the recently proposed renewal _ license for Uravan prohibits the re-occupancy of certain other houses once they are empty.
The corrective action already taken, combined with the compliance schedule described above, address compliance with the applicable exposure standards for persons living in Uravan.
CONCLUSIONS In summary, Umetco does not believe the EPA's proposed listing of the Uravan mill or town site on the NPL, nor EPA's taking any action under CERCLA, will serve any useful purpose.
We reach this conclusion based upon the following:
h.
~
r.
l[
p
- Mr. John Welles c-July 23, 1984
- Page 5 4
- The legality of applying Superfund to mining sites
- The reasoning behind applying Superfund listing of uranium mills in NRC Agreement States when they are exempt-in non-agreement States The Federal Government's involvement with operation of. the Uravan facility over a three-decade period.
- in-place surety arrangements with CDH for reclamation, decommissioning and cleanup of mill and townsite.
- Agreements with CDH regarding proposed programs for assuring compliance-with radiation standards for the Uravan town site.
- The lack of justification of the Mitre Model' scoring.-
We request you drop any consideration of listing Uravan on the NPL.
If-you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, we would be pleased to meet with you or your staff again.
/
Ver 1
r
/
i c/
/
- o..
a.
e y
Director-Environment affairs
-RGB/lrs
,. J xc: Mr. A. J. Hazle/CDH 1/*
e
- es a
e mn t
i l
O 0099C/34-39
ATTACHMENT A RECLAMATION AND DECOMMISSIONING OF URAVAN MILL I
UCC 1983 Proposal item Cost 1983 5 _
Atkinson Creek Area 1,460,000 Club Ranch Ponds 4,880,000 River Ponds 2,130,000 Club Mesa Spray Area 3,010,000 Tailings Pile 2 7,290,000
]
Tailings Pile 3 4,050,000 Mill Decommissioning 4,250,000 TOTAL DIRECT COST 27,070,000 l
from CDH Preliminary Executive Licensing Review Sumary, May 22, 1984, p. 5-75 i
5 9
4 9
L 3
9 2
9 1
9 0
9 98 E
L 8
U 8
D C
E l
l B
S 7
8
?
T E
N H
l 2
T 6
%,I N
8 O
T T
T A
A M 5
A 8
L C
E R
R A
E
)
Y es K
) a R
pB O
l o(
W l
T i
( s F
l l e n
en o
nn d
na n
ah a ph C RaC
/r n
m s
r ypno s
m i g l
g g
l g
l a se aioig eev l Rit n a n a
an ans n
i siid rd o C
sci ii si sl i S
AiC d rer c r l c l cr l crn r
K s
S hnel o e o ae aeo a e oo A
o S
3d e n
t avl t R t i R iR t i R tP E
t r
i R
i oi s
i r
r i
A i meo T
2 uiiis w pD C n d 'd n ed ed n ed ny A
n i i
- ql l t e o
o nno t n t no t noa o
1i$P ad pT t t M oaM aa S aaM a aMr L
M S
ret ST euul
- P M
DM YM p
A L
ri o cc
- el K
e N
el A
el S S
l D eedl d rrl edl E ed O edl R edl O
l P e N vt airratt a v a a E va P va a P va aa P ra Urn Ooa rb eers st 5 ort R or ort S o rtl S et mgs mgs a I
vs N s t
Pmwga v vgnns D mgs C mg i een A eenr D on Al ee et ooeoon H e en ee C
SRDRSCCRCCI 0RRI NRR NRRI SRRI D CI EO G
P O
A E
L L
5 R
M A
C N
I R...
H..
T..
p.".
L1234567890 E1 23 l l 2 B123 B1 234 S1 2 N1 I
1 V
K U
U Y
W
~
I I
L L
R O
A T
R A
C C
C T
m e,
.h' a
4
.jj;; b
-ATTACHMENT C r-A N
.'f; -
MITRE MODEL WORK 5nEET FOR URAVAN, COLORADO lf s.
e a,
n e-f.. '
S 52 Groundwater Route Score IS
)
g gg
$wrface Water Route Score (Sj,L
=
' Air Route Score (Sal 3 ~2,. "[ '
l C fo 9. 2.$
i l
s,, + $$ + S$
1 l O fo. 7 4 -
/S,+if,*
/j 33.2.6 g
g,5,7sf/i33
/s#
2 su-l q, 21 s
FIGURE to io WORKSHEF7 FOR COMPUTING Sra j
teditsi Kryist:r / Vol. 47. No.137 / Friday July 10.1982 / Rules and Regulations 31225 Ground Water Route Work Sheet Rateng Fgtor Assigned Va.vc Mutil.
Mas.
'R e f.
3 f-(Cercle Onel plier Score
'(Section) b Observed Release h
1 4-5 a5 3.5 0
f-If observed telease is Oiven a score of 45, proceed to fine @.
if observed release is given a score of O. proceed to line @
@ Aoute Characteristics 3.2 Depth to Aouifer of 0 1 2 3 2
6 Concern Het Precipitation 0 1 2 3
. 1
.3 Permeability of the 0 1 2 3 1
3 Unsaturated Zone Physical State 0 1 2' 3 1
3 Total Route Characteristics Score 15 b Containtnent 0 1 2 3 1
3 3.3 b Waste Characteristics 34 TonicityIPersistence 0 3 6 9 12 15 h.
1 18 7h1 Hazardous Waste 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 8
Q
_ uantity_
-n Total Waste Characteristics Score 2,
26
@ Targets 3.5
'@C2 Ground Water Use O
3 3
9 Distance to Nearest d
G 8 10 1
40 Wel'/ Dopulation 12 16 19 20 Serm i 24 30 32 35 #0 Total Targets Score
]~
49 If Ime @ is 45 multiply @ a @a @
is 0. multipty @ a @n @s @
35to 57.330 if line t Divide line @ by 57.330 and multipty by 100 S,.
6, a L g
FIGURE 2 GROUND WATER ROUTE WORK SHEET 4
C*. ' y 5
e 1
\\
..a
...,... w.s v 1
psey so. mn: / Hules and Regulations Surface Water Aovte Work Sheet
, Rating Factor Assagned Valve
. Multe-Ma n.
Act ICscle Onel Ot;er Score 15ectioni b Observed.Re(ease h
1'
+5 45 4.1 0
^f observed release is Olwen a value of 45. Proceed to line @,
1 if observed release is given a value of O proceed to line @
b Route Characteristics
~ ~ ~ '
~ ~
82 Facility Slope and Intervening 0 1 2-3 1
3 Terraan 1.yr. 24 ht. R4infall 0 1 2 3 1
3 Distance to Nearest Surface 0 1 2 '3 2
6 Water Physical State 0 1 2S 1
3 Total Route Characteris2s Score 15 g
@ Containment 0 1 2 3 1
3 4.3
@ Waste Characteristics 4.4 Tonicity / Persistence 0 3 6 91215 @
1 18 Hazardous Waste 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7@ 1 8
Quantaty se Total waste Characterist.cs Score "2, 6 26
- #e lb T6rgets 4.5 Surface' Water Use CO-1 2 3 3
9 Distance to a sensitive
@) 1 2 3 2.
6 Environment Poputation ServedfDistance 4
6 8 to 1
40 to Water intake 1
1G 18 20 Downstream
, 2a 30 32 35 40 Total Targets Score Q
55
@ illine @ is 45. multipty @ a @ s @
If line @ is 0. multiply @ s
@s@
64.350 3 a
@ Davide line @ by 64,350 and multiply by 100 Ssw "
Q FIGURE 7 SURFACE WATER ROUTE WORK SHEET is c-3
reoer.as nes:tster / Vol. 4'/. fNo.137 / I'ridav. July 16.1982 / Rules and Regulations 3123 1
1 -
Air Route Work Sheet i
g,y Assigned Value Muttb Ma n.
Ref.
gg,
ICircle Onel psier Score (Section) r.
b Observed Fielease 0
1 46 a5 5.1 l
I Date and Location:
h Sampling Protocol:
Abo 4 3
If line @ is 0. the S. - 0. Enter on line @.
liline @ is 45, then 4 toceed to line @.
b Waste Characteristics 5.2 fleactivity and h1 2 3 1
3 lxompatibility 2h Yosicity 0 1 3
9 Ha2arcous Waste 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7@
1 8
Osantity Total Waste Characteristics Score I]
20
$ Targets 5.3 Popv!ation Within
} u 912 h18 1
30 4-Mile Radius 1212a 27. 30 Distance to Sensithe
@1 2 3 2
c f.
Environment
'([
h1 t.and Use 2 3 1
3 Total Targets Score 15 3'
, Multiply @ x @ x @
ll g{
35.100
$ Divide fine @ by 35.100 and inuitiply by 100
$a-31 7 FIGURE 9 AIR ROUTE WORK SHEET 98 LUNG cod 4 4160-544 i
t.
e.+.t g
t' Apper, dix F -
1.
1 i
4
_____________m_
9 g1 4.) v-m. 7.
- v.isecl os, o. c. :osss "* "-~ -"
- '----~-
"--v"~"*
ggr 2,;.c.x; p
Ma rch - 31, 1980 MEXOPJJiDUM FOR:
William J. Dircks, Director.
~
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards FROM:
Howard K. Shepar Executive Legal Director SUSJECT:
NRC.- AUTHORITY TO ORDER.CLEMI UP 0F 0FFSITE TAILItiGS CONTAMINATION-
. Attached is a legal note responding. to the questions asked in your m_=orandum to me of. February 27, 1980.
You may use the legal note as an attachment to yotrr proposed Cc: mission paper.
A-
?
~
(
Howard K. Shepar
.. i
. Executive Legal Director
Enclosure:
As stathd O
9
- e 0
9 s
G 9
0 e
,e O
g 9
e G
.g1 6
0 e
EUCLOSURE
... a..
OELD LEGAL NOTE
- several other places in the western states in the vicinity of licensed uranium mills, radioactik>e. contamination. has been found off-site.1/
In many ir_ stances the offsite contamination ~ has been found to"be due to tailings The mode of r tarf air generated in the mill processing of branium ore-transport of the tailings offsite is not always known, but could have resulted from either natural phenomena, such as wind. and water erosion, or -
fran human transportation' activity.
Against this background the licensing The staff (0f0455) has asked two questions and requested a legal op. inion.
t o questions are:
in offsite
- ' hat is the role of the 'NRC in the control of tailing:
(1) n
~
locations, e.g., could the NRC staff. conduct monitoring and measurement
(
programp utilizing NRC owned equipmen,t, and Does HRC have abthority to order either present or past licensees to (2) clean up 'offsite' tailings contamination from uranium milling, (a) with respect to tailings that were moved offsite prior to the enactment of the Uranium Mill Tsilings.iadiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA),
and (b) with respect to tailings that were moved,offsite af ter the "Of f-site".means outside of 'the boundaries of the land area unde 1/
ppssession and control, of. the licersee, l
.-z p
1.g L
q enactment: u i - UMT RC A'.
Or, in other words, what is the rela tionship that should exist between the conduct of a past or present licensee and the presence. of offsite tailings contamination that would support an brder to the licensee to conduct an offsite cleanup program.
~
The. answer to the first question.is clear.
Pursuant to the Uranium Mill.
Tailines Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTCRA), tailings from c-conventional uranium _ milling' are byproduct material and subject to regul'ation and licensing by the NRC.M Because tailings are now covered by. the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), all of the authority available under the AEA may be used by the NRC to resolve problems with respect to possession and use of'
' tailings by' persons subject to NRC jurisdiction.
Section 81 of the AEA authorizes the issuance of licenses for byproduct material.- Sec tion 161.b.. ____
(.:
of the AEA authorizes ' the it suance of orders and regula tions with respect to.
c-byproduct material to protect health and to minimize danger to life or' prope rty.
Section 161c. authorizes such studies and investigations as are necessary to assist the NRC in exercising any authority provided in the AEA.
Section 84b.(2) authorizes studies, inspections, and monitoring with snecific reference to tailings.
Accordingly, the NRC m'ay conduct monitoring and r.easurement programs to assess the health hazard of offsite tailings in order to develop a program of regulation (including crders, licenses, and
- regulations) as necessary and appropriate to alleviate the discerned public 2/
See Section 11e(2) of the AEA of 1954, as amended by Pub. L.95-604 (U:4TCRA).
~
b
___._.._____._.____-__-__.m_m
g q
.3
.q.
heal tli and safety hazards.
The orders and rules may be applied to any person in possession of tailings.3/
i The second question is more complex.
As noted in the question, there are des time periods to consider, pre-and post ' enactment of.UMTRCA (November 8, 1978).
Af te.rXDactmattMMiTECAEt he re_xis mnu,e s tivrt: pfhu t he ritn Qvf r.
z Ja$T5MLTsLT.CLT2p tppt.HilSW2GEtXWXE19y.Ld.iDe mi1dMQiM insth o yde5 ggtTEMag Q5rfsitereleanuan71ThiegK;PJ.f:M W sWt% T a m a m h h rims w fy d 4 9 5 S i E @ @ u rfJ M i t M it? @ (n #.5 5 5 5 B 5 2 1 9 1 Y stre* mannscierMTIE19J2E w.r.LjguR9dinnshuonsvArnr4gg i
. hingAbemwirementsetsguusgthegeg3gggtnsr+hissumttr#.
a C9ndMi9ttsdcr st fes tg gggaogiyyy_sthmfgtgi.+ings.,
~
(
Under the current general license in 10 CFR 40.26 only a person with a r_
specific sotrrce material license for production of uranium from uranium ore
- .ay possess tailings, and no authority is giyen in the general license to Thu s, a-- leH be ra temans fe rnrffsiist tivarmthrrnam transfer tailings.
g
< ehterdydhe: dicen de er ortcou n te Allc ed sy iniswo.u i a d1 HAM ol a Muus ofrthe
.,rggtfonsmLfbattrjgg;a7.3mIQttRRt}partipJrgtEcu}d-4 gudMMpegtg 3
. sta rritP50EiriflTEtT4HEi3E"e~siPoTsEsNF.
i I
Section 84b. of the AEA authorizes the iss~uance of regulations and orders
~
3/
applicable to ' persons exempted from licensing.
~~
While other sanctions are also available under the AEA, they would not If necessarily lead to clean up.
See e.o., Sections 223, 232, 234 of the AEA.
l
_4, 2,
1 c.;
1' Sihjkms tmi n ttimrrdummwratutIrmdancmtA.M57fifd2 EWa fese ro cTa n an m.a:Coreersoredj.e.,ggrn_pxahmendingaumdirwpeuAmi19 g,
- cs Aa.t44jmregtric1%nseddhesicqwsdsee Uwcijua.vfiad4% v4cainu_jfyy g ig g yl.
Current regulations, h'owever, do not contain provisions imposing.
l~
,, e cuty to protect tailings from dispersion by natural phe'nor.ena, although -
proposed regulation: would establish this as a licensing requirement (Cri-terion 2 in proposef Appendix A to 10.CFR Part 40, 44 FR 50015).
Failure of an engineered structure, such as a tailings pond dam, may also prc/ide a basis for an order to clean up resulting offsite contamination, on
~
th's ground that the continuing safety, of engineered structures is a comit-cent of the licensee, and a condition of issuing the license.
The, order to
'**)""*'""*"'d"""'"'----
C " "" " ' ' ** ("" ** " ' "
cor. sequence of violation of a license condition.
An accident that led to a
.public health' hazarb could also warrant a clean up order under Section 161b.
cf th'e AEA.
@r m-of:fsitentzikinbsiT'00DutBIiqrtiba uu e<hE&c-io3Roy eabenBt e
REC'iirrjherer yyars-to; BET).0~1T93Eh3.1.1XHGrdAGYLill?paETAluedRCNF.
a eqdalipn JD. MioOdod.hpt-da-tMaRinomxrmagt meteriahsubite_tatr ea
.ur.c.4pMe:yEAdsmen'dhli.
Accordingly, the position was taken early by the
)
- EC th2.t there was no jurisdiction over the transfer of tailings to others for purposes unrelated to milling activity, and no jurisdiction over the 4
_---__-__..--__.-_-____--_n_-_____
p
~
.,. ;;;.r.
.5-L tai. lings.after the milling: activity shut down and 'the reed for a source L
~
raterial licens ceased.E/
The. consequence of this position'i.s clear;' if transfer of tailings.offsite for. uses unrelated to source mate ~ rial processing was not' subject to regula -
tion ander the AEA,/there is no basis to order either 'a present.or past L
1
~
. licensee to clean up offsite.
l
- Hor does UMTRCA provide new authority to NRC to remedy pre-November 8,1978 offsite contamination resulting from unregulated tailings uses.
It is a settled principle. of law that statute.s will not be applied retroactively to the detriment of persons who r: lied in good faith upon prior law, absent a clear legislative expression that retroactive application was intend'ed.
v (See Sutherland, Statutory Construction, 541.04).
There is nothing in LMTRCA to support the view that it should be applied retroactively.
5/
See (1) memorandum of Acting General Counsel, AEC, dated December 7, 1960, stating that AEC had no authority over mill tailings use by others for construction purposes, (2) mernorandum of April 15, 1960, '
by L. K. Olson, General Counsel of AEC, stating that the discharge of tailings, when an integral part of milling, is under AEC control, '.
but AEC has no jurisdiction over the transfer of tailings to others and uses unrelated to the milling of o're, and (3) memorandum of fSe ptembe r ' 22, 19 66, by Howard K. Shapar, Assistant General Counsel, Licensing and Regulation, concluding that jurisdiction over tailings at the mill site, based on mill operations, was highly questionable af ter the mill. shut down.
In the same ve.in see Section 201, Public Law 92-314 (86 Stat.
222),in which the Congress assumed the compassionate responsibility for remedial action at Grand Junction; Colorado, where tailings were extensively used in building construction.
The United States did not accept legal responsibility for offsite use of tailings generated by its contractors.
Title,s I and II of UMTRCA are bnth germane to this ques tion.
Title I deals with,a DDE administered remedial action program covering former uranium mill tzilings disposal sites unlicensed as of January 1,1978, including nearby artes contaminated' witfi tailings.
Section 115(b) of Title I requires the
~
Depart ent of Justice to study the potential legal responsibilities of past operators of mill sites included within the scope of Title 7 'or reclamation or remedial action at the site.
The Attorney General is a' Iso authorized to take appropriate legal action, based upon his study, under any orovision of law in effect when t~ e uranium was produced at the site, to require reim-n bursemant to the United States of costs incurred in the remedial action for which the operator is liable.
It is clear that past law, not present law, will guide legal ' responsibility for p'ast conduct under Title I.
(._ Titie II of UMTRCk expands HRC and EPA authority to cover mill tailings dis-prsal sites.
It contains nothing indicating that a retroactive application of authority was contemplated.
The land ownership requirements (6202), the Agree:asnt State procedures requirements (6204), the new NRC authorities
(!!203, 205), the new EPA authority (5206):all apply to future regulation of ta il'ings.
Further, it would be unconstitutional to apply retroactively the
- p. crtisi:ns of 'UMTRCA that are incorporated into the AEA if that applicatio'n led to the imposition of a crirainal penalty under 5223 of the AEA (Const.
art. I,19, cl._ 3)..
Thus.while present possession of tailings may be * ' #:-
licensed under UMTRCA, that act does not give auth'ority to go back in time an'd retroactively make illegai what was previously legal conduct.6_/
1/
,;c are not, in this. memorandum, expressing any opinion as to whether 'other re.acies lead _ing to offsite clean up may be available under State law or ethar Federal law.
We are concerned orly with the single question of whett S ?.: can order such a clean up under the various circumstances described her j
en,-.-__
>s l
{'.
h l
t i
.I 1
l l-Appendix G
(-
m L
^
- .[.(;.
ly
.m e
' ) { _
i f
'?
i fj!
r MEETINGS AND INTERVIEWS L.:
l:[
' -c
' July '.17,.1'984 - Site visit to Uravan R. D. Smith,. USNRC
~G. Gnugnoli,: USNRC J. Kendig,. USNRC,
. H. c Ipsen, UMETCO R. Jones, UMETCO R'. Beverly,' UMETCO D.L Sparling,. UMETCO E. Shortridge,..' UMETCO '
K.. Weaver, CDH July,18, ' 1984 Colorado Department of Health, Denver, Colorado
-(
.R. D.. Smith, USN R C -
G.-- Gnugnoli, USNRC..
J. Kendig, USNRC A. Hazle, CDH K'.. Weaver, CDH
' T. Vernon,' MD, CDH.
'R.
Arnott
,CDH July 19, 1984 Environmental Defense Fund, Boulder, Colorado R. D. Smith, USNRC G. - Gnugnoli, USNRC R. E. Yuhnke, EDF J. B. Martin, EDF
r.
i I
Appendix H
NRC STUDY STAFF R. Dale Smith, URFO/RIV, Chairman
- Robert L. Fonner, OELD Giorgio Gnugnoli, NMSS John F. Kendig, OSP CONTRIBUTORS Robert J. Doda, RIV Pete J. Garcia, Jr., URFO/RIV Dennis M. Sollenberger, NMSS
' k_
l
L
(
Appendix 1
(.
9 4
we
- ~ --- -----. --.
I-1
.. s,7
~
.g.
s
.a s
< ~
s S
.. ~
M
. it 5 -) A p
+, W 1; <
c t ;...
p o w., -.
' y L,.
'_ __,~<g.
.2
~
.. ib.
~.
y'
., f.s. 3....
~
7 L..
. r.;. M#yi
~~.y ' s.,
/
-, fyY'.7:-.;.el.!!
~
1.1 The Uravan Mill Complex The "B"
plant is located at the top of the mesa.
Ore is stockpiled, crushed, and teached in this plant.
Visible on the skyline to the right is tallings pond #2.
Solutions are transferred down the. pipeline to the "A"
plant where uranium and vanadium is extracted.
The San Miguel River lies between the viewer and the mill.
5
\\
i l-2 IF"'
]
w 1
i
)
l 1
-l sK M*r,.
f,,
.y
,4
~3pg m
.~
n
..)7
~~- -rr %.
%#3. W u,,
~~
Sr
~
~.e 2J N
M~r,., -
c
-=w., m. -.. % n.%
f
.~
l.2 The "B" Plant Ore stockpiles are to the right.
Crushing and grinding occurs in the buildings.
Tailings are separated from waste water in the large wooden
. tanks until the proper consistency to be pumped to the tailings pond.
l
I-3
~
~ ~ "
~:~
'q.
s'~7 i
1 d.. --
/
p :.a
--g...J-
]
1 1.3 Tailings Pond #3 1
1 h,
~
p,R&
W.*%. ':,
- 'Y.".,
.?v i'
3' :.
...a'r: '
.-n;_-
. n
, y_,
>4 W I
e._.
. ~i
- g. f ',....
N
.lu. _ q,,
,c y
p.-
p -.
e
~
l.4 Tailings Pond #3 This pond is currently in use until July 1,1985, when all discharges t'o this pond will cease.
LE If
,7 i
I-4 y
?ngy :fy H
- a. ~ x..r:.
+ ;>e flI E..,
- jl,
- 3 qu ~. ~;
l j
j a
yp,~Crs=ce fb]
, Ik l
~
.,:t ;
q I:
1 l.5 Tailings Pond #2 This pond is currently inactive.
J.
1 I
v, i
n 4
i p-
1 l-5 4
.Wh w
..,, ? Y l
lidM*p.t*&
p r.
i
~5 2
' ;*Ch 0'
n I
l
~T*
1.6 Uranium Mine Uranium ore feeding the mii! is obtained from a number of mines suc'h as this.
Note the proximity of the mine to the housing area in the grove of trees at the foot of the mesa.
Mines contribute to background radiation, particularly radon.
l l
I 1
i I
c.....
> Qg. y(
'^
I-6....
~ -- - --' -
I f';
, Q;gg.
j?~~ * '
t i
- 1. "
i l
'E.
L' e'
f.,.--
E a'.
5..v.
s 1.7
B" Plant
- .s....
1
...&..~
2..
,gg,;;1-*
f;f ~ _
pg;S"
" "y
?
d
~. - an I-_,
[.,
l
{' N. _
~-5 I
- r.*a :r v. r y ~.a -
1.8
" A" Plant Large concrete foundations are from earlier vanadium mill.
i I
~
l-7.
p.>- -
.~
-~
.<~
1 y
'.g.
[Vd.{.
',1l,Ak
- ?"
w 7,,
- n ha 1.9 South End of Uravan The business district and schools- (all ina'ctive) ore at right.
The San Miguel ' River' bisects the area, ' generally separating the housing areas from the mill., The five ponds on the near bank are the." River Ponds."
~The larger pond.across the river to the right is a settling pond usdd to
~'
treat wastes before discharge to the river.
g L
r It '
'r
".a;T4..,-
i
.i.
4
. g ac, s $.
,~
- e ;
..q 4
({ ' $
9N
.T.
_C -
7 1.10 "A" Plant and South End of Uravan
I v'
1-8:
]'
s
~ m y~,.%... ;%.;
1 W
?-
9 I't/cg.g J
j
.~
i I
'i )
go 6 m ~,-;,,.-.
- ~.,
i l
S'
.., - :.w. ~e
. r y g _ n,-
i
.g p #5 ',,.., ".
,,,l,g.M N#b-
...s mI L gg.
1.11 Club Ranch Pond
. Holding ponds for raffinate wastes.
i N
"y T:,0.. p gh
'i.,1l Q 7.,..] a '.>m
.Q f.l R;_.? !.: $.
f
,S
<3.~c s
?8-; k ? h *'Q l
. :;. \\ :.: A. ': Q*s j ' ' *;. + ; A,,, g.':. p.'
.. r,.,.
9
.('g,,...
b :' 5,' 4 )- 4. = } *f;
' 3 ;; f. l s
- [ ; '.[.
's 9
. yg* ;r -;
- u., y _._ y y.
u.~
~.. _
- ~ -;
a p
ap..
. sf
,L. } '
. -l- "'
v.
4 m..4l%
A.::. :
e 4
. f
- 3..
. 7.
s.
's 4
a e
s.
w. s,?-: =
j
-.a.n
- r v.
+... -..
wy W[z,k. hM=~fC.-@f 4'
.y. % y % Y ag+ 3 5 M O~ % W,,= 7 f '
w s0
- 3..
.e.r, c u 1.12 Club Ranch Pond Note deep red color from dissolved materials.
+
. g _g.
n.
n -..
4" 7.,
wn e-
- jgi,
-. __ x4's
-~
a,%w;. :.: ;_;-~:y;
,.:.c.
=
e-
~,,
l.13 Club Ranch Ponds Note. residues left by evaporation.
Atkinson Creek disposal area is in the distance at right.
i Ay....:
4 l
I l.14 Club Ranch Ponds Town of Uravan in distance (trees) at left.
6
......J
i 9-3 10
.- l i
a l.15 Club Ranch Ponds Note proximity to San Miguel River by bridge at right.
i
.-i 1.
I Qfys
~
]
l
/W 6?y :. f i
.,.., Ja'T -N s
- % 'W'
,% IN.),-
N
., 7
.q
~ g 9 -;~
..s y
'N,'
~
~
'a-1 W
.i 3
.i.
Q 4.. -
3A4f
- . ~...
S
...,f ( '.
?, % ~'=~
1.16 Uravan Housing Areas Two groves of trees at left center are Blocks"H" (on right) 'and "J",,(on left).. White patch beyond is one of the Club Ranch ponds.
To right of Blocks "H" and "J" is the Park View Flat " fops area.
n l
1 e
4 'L W S r?.
gg@M6@hYSb a,:.0,a6.<.1.*@ hot 7.4f,.f.x&. f.9..^...
-,m.
g
+ p:.f*.
2:
r.
4 N
.4 m,
s 1.17 Uravan Housing Areas Line of trees in far center is Block "G".
The nearer trees define Block "B".
Block "C" (which has been removed) is at bottom on near side of river.
l-12 S
3 1
yy 9, g
. W.
~' {p W-4WV-
,y g
.g 5:
- ht.
-l-.
(
. M c:h.,. ~, f.. y..l
....;, @ i.
.a.,,
. l.
k
, p';.'
l.18 Uravan Housing Area Directly across river is the Old Trailer Court (open area).
Between the
?
Old Trailer Court and the river is Block "A".
t kte foot br' age connecting housing area and mill at lower right.
_~
4 ra
^d mn
~.. p
=. ~
If2 I
A
.(
f L._
, Y*
\\...
y
'~
kt 3D[
- "~
Am ff?
5.'-
3 f
e
% l.hb.k' t
m u 1.19 Uravan Housing Area South end of Uravan.
Grove of trees at far right identifies Block "F".
Grove at center is B loc k" E" -
Large white building in Block "E" is a school whic. is now closed.
Between the mill structures and the curved-roof structure at right (school gymnasium) is where Block "D" was before its removal.
i w
1-13
's - g_
- 4....
N.
l ' ' f' J
R s.
- 1..w,,..
.j...
9
~
~
' g.: h.
g qks,/[,
....:; ~. 3,.
, N. Q.,"..,
. :n
, f'
.., e,;.u.
r 9
s.-
n 4
3
.a
,,, x
.,,s.<-
-, &,tf b
..?, f.- p tr.
.. '..x
. ;fy ;.,.'.a
- ~,.
,t,
_ u,-.
. <',.,&,.m, a 2 -
y,-
- ;. ;r, L.....
r.
.,,r:.
-.,$'"n
,,} '... ' dj N:[.
g'
.s-
... ~ -
A
.:I[4.e:
D:;"
r,
.p.g 3
v._,-
./
' d ';'.
.a 1.20 Uravan Housing Area View of "B"
Plant from point between Block
A" on left and Block "B" on right.
,kk
- M $.,
g 'h,3 f**'7,",'
[ f>.,g f
l
. y
.,1, Y
,'} N h,> ?g,
.y'
'- )s.
1..
1,a y,.
,(
j '
g6 e
y,.= 4..
% y' s.-
o,.;*
., f
. Y. F Z.. <
' w,.
.- jA;_
e
~
f...
,,1
.4...'...
P u.:3..
h g r-3 v
- .u,
.i;
_F )";.
5,.,.j !'% )' ' y Q+.'-,.
g./
f_'
. N:. ~.3 '~
m
'*4.~.'
p.
.. s :
v..
~.
n ;.
f.
~,.. -w[i.,.t.
y
.... sm...
1
+
f
-e-
- i w j..
_ ]
I
^
t, S..
gn e..p-y -.
- L
..[ k
..,', k '
'x I ?1 Uravan Housing Area
- .'.tr eet scene, Block "B".
n.. ;
3..'.^
1 ' '5 Y'
..: *,h, %
~
' 3_
i:
i
>, n.
.:7
. ~ ^.
J
'f f~
.,L a ? -
y,,,..e
.",.z.,
.n v'
r.
^
M.
p,'
f, ' '
f
.A g...'
g.
a-k
. ' d. r 3 c ' ' 3. p -
... fj.
, Y '..
~
y,
v -
q
. *W s_.- c;y L-
-n
- - _n;u,,,cu.. ' o+y-n-
=
' ---- e - *
($.',' [.; f ~ p~.",-,+'.;
.{'_'."
, t@%;Y.. g'%.'.Tj.,,)l@
- _ * [, - 's t,? f4
. ~ -
- p.,., 5.
.~[.",,+.
L. j,
r".p,,,,
.a-
~
n -.. t
.O7i
.. $',. r,,...
_.,-s 1 x:",,,:sar*.~. W *' 5:'.652 %
.a.
~
l.22 Uravan Housing Area q
l Housing in Block "F".
Note foundation of dwelling that has bctn
" ~,, L removed to conform with guidelines for radon in dwellings.
Et i
i
)
i i
i 1
1 1
i d?
?
i, i
i i
3 7 3 ------- - ---- - - ---
1 9
m
)
3 15' 4;
p*. -' t..
, c'Y.
k JPDS. 0; g~~.- *7.,3:jQ n
c_
ta ins D'*-
..,gg.
- b g
mm-g.
i,Jkyg,1; l.23 Uravan Business District Post Office (open).
- " *, - + -
. ~. *,
..-.4-l l
-;g -
i
- r
- g;[_y-ir ~[.fa=
.czg.- --
G
..a = ~? =: =~ -
,' G - l. -,,
ff 5-[*5d555
~'
~ $5Q n..
- - ~
1 l.24 Uravan Business District North view.
Large brown building in foreground on right is the Recreation Hall (closed).
Beyond is the Post Office.
Mill laboratory is next building.
l lLL_______-________
L:
W g
i,:
l-16
. g 7:;.
~ -
s 3
- ..N 1
(
w,..
fi
~
l m
b j~
- m.
g..:._ - & '
ALS..&- :[
- T%. '
M.in...., rs. :. :..b.,
.,...n-w" c
h**g".
L.~r;i.+.+ ' 4" _". :.:.2. L_.
. _ w a:.h.:.; 4~MXm.,iM: 'm. ' - ' '" -
s s
P 1.25 Uravan Business District Boarding House (closed).
W 5$,
f_
e E5W )
=-
== _:.
. ~g :
b-
.lli.
- _ _ ~
a
..Q:. s.
g 2-
~
p., >
f g,. :..
1,.
-e
+
i.26 Uravan Business District South view.
Recreation Hall, Drug Store, General Store (all closed).
4
..i_......................
{
T I-17
?-
2.
ea e, c.
J i
~
j i
-)
c._
y ~...; -~*;
- v s - -.~-.._,....B_,,,,_,,_.
l w
..;.,, ]
WW/,$,'[__l.
~ ~---..
.r,.
f I.27 Uravan Business District Drug Store (cfosed).
\\
e n.
m e
e