### Risk Assessment Revision for 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart W – Radon Emissions from Operating Mill Tailings

Task 4 – Detailed Risk Estimates

Prepared by:

S. Cohen & Associates 1608 Spring Hill Road, Suite 400 Vienna, VA 22182

under

Contract Number EP-D-10-042 Work Assignment No. 1-06, Task 5

Prepared for:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Radiation and Indoor Air 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460

Brian Littleton Work Assignment Manager

November 10, 2011WA 1-04, Task 5 i SC&A – November 10, 2011

In accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan: Risk Assessment Rev ision for 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart W – Radon Emissions from Operating Mill Tailings , this document has been reviewed and approved by the following individuals:

Work Assignment Task Manager:

____________________ Stephen F. Marschke Date:

___________

Work Assignment Task Manager:

____________________ Abe Zeitoun Date:

___________

Corporate Quality Assurance Manager/Work Assignment Quality Assurance Manager:

____________________ Stephen L. Ostrow Date:

___________WA 1-04, Task 5 ii SC&A – November 10, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page Executive Summary .................................

................................................... ................................. viii

1.0 Introduction and Background .......................

................................................... ....................1

1.1 Dose Calculation Methodology ......................

................................................... ......2 1.2 Methodology to Estimate 2010 Population............ ..................................................5

2.0 Detailed Risk Estimates ...........................

................................................... .........................6

2.1 Sweetwater ........................................

................................................... ....................6 2.1.1 Population and Food Production .................... ............................................. 7 2.1.2 Meteorology .......................................

................................................... ...... 8 2.1.3 Radon Release .....................................

................................................... ..... 9 2.1.4 Risk Estimates ....................................

................................................... .... 12 2.2 White Mesa ........................................

................................................... .................12 2.2.1 Population and Food Production .................... ........................................... 13 2.2.2 Meteorology .......................................

................................................... .... 15 2.2.3 Radon Release .....................................

................................................... ... 16 2.2.4 Risk Estimates ....................................

................................................... .... 18 2.3 Cañon City ........................................

................................................... ..................18 2.3.1 Population and Food Production .................... ........................................... 19 2.3.2 Meteorology .......................................

................................................... .... 21 2.3.3 Radon Release .....................................

................................................... ... 22 2.3.4 Risk Estimates ....................................

................................................... .... 23 2.4 Smith Ranch – Highland ............................

................................................... .........24 2.4.1 Population and Food Production .................... ........................................... 25 2.4.2 Meteorology .......................................

................................................... .... 26 2.4.3 Radon Release .....................................

................................................... ... 28 2.4.4 Risk Estimates ....................................

................................................... .... 30 2.5 Crow Butte ........................................

................................................... ..................31 2.5.1 Population and Food Production .................... ........................................... 32 2.5.2 Meteorology .......................................

................................................... .... 33 2.5.3 Radon Release .....................................

................................................... ... 35 2.5.4 Risk Estimates ....................................

................................................... .... 37 2.6 Christensen / Irigaray ............................

................................................... ..............37 2.6.1 Population and Food Production .................... ........................................... 39 2.6.2 Meteorology .......................................

................................................... .... 40 2.6.3 Radon Release .....................................

................................................... ... 42 2.6.4 Risk Estimates ....................................

................................................... .... 42 2.7 Alta Mesa 1,2,3 ...................................

................................................... ................43 2.7.1 Population and Food Production .................... ........................................... 44 2.7.2 Meteorology .......................................

................................................... .... 46 2.7.3 Radon Release .....................................

................................................... ... 47 2.7.4 Risk Estimates ....................................

................................................... .... 48 2.8 Kingsville Dome 1,3 ...............................

................................................... ............49WA 1-04, Task 5 iii SC&A – November 10, 2011 2.8.1 Population and Food Production .................... ........................................... 50 2.8.2 Meteorology .......................................

................................................... .... 51 2.8.3 Radon Release .....................................

................................................... ... 51 2.8.4 Risk Estimates ....................................

................................................... .... 52 2.9 Eastern Generic Site – Virginia ...................

................................................... .......52 2.9.1 Population and Food Production .................... ........................................... 53 2.9.2 Meteorology .......................................

................................................... .... 55 2.9.3 Radon Release .....................................

................................................... ... 56 2.9.4 Risk Estimates ....................................

................................................... .... 56 2.10 Western Generic Site – New Mexico .................

................................................... .57 2.10.1 Population and Food Production .................... ........................................... 57 2.10.2 Meteorology .......................................

................................................... .... 59 2.10.3 Radon Release .....................................

................................................... ... 60 2.10.4 Risk Estimates ....................................

................................................... .... 60

3.0 Summary of Results ................................

................................................... ........................61

4.0 References ........................................

................................................... ...............................65

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page Figure 1: Sweetwater – Aerial View ...............

................................................... ............................ 7 Figure 2: White Mesa – Aerial View ...............

................................................... ......................... 13 Figure 3: Cañon City – Aerial View ...............

................................................... .......................... 19 Figure 4: Cañon City Radon Flux and Annual Release

.................................................. ............. 23 Figure 5: Smith Ranch – Aerial View ..............

................................................... ......................... 25 Figure 6: Smith Ranch – Highland – Estimated Time Table of Mining Related Activities ........ 29 Figure 7: Smith Ranch – Highland – Total Estimated Radon Release by Year .......................... 3 0 Figure 8: Crow Butte – Aerial View ...............

................................................... .......................... 31 Figure 9: Crow Butte Total Estimated Semi-Annual R adon Release (1991-2007) ..................... 36 Figure 10: Irigaray – Aerial View ................

................................................... ............................. 38 Figure 11: Christensen – Aerial View .............

................................................... ......................... 39 Figure 12: Alta Mesa – Aerial View ...............

................................................... .......................... 44 Figure 13: Kingsville Dome – Aerial View .........

................................................... ..................... 49 Figure 14: Potential Uranium in Virginia .........

................................................... ........................ 52 Figure 15: Approximate Location of the Eastern Gen eric Site.......................................... .......... 53

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page Table ES-1: Uranium Sites Analyzed ................

................................................... ....................... viiiWA 1-04, Task 5 iv SC&A – November 10, 2011

Table ES-2: Calculated Total Annual RMEI and Popul ation Dose ........................................ ....... x Table ES-3: Calculated Total Annual RMEI and Popul ation Risk......................................... ....... x Table 1: Uranium Sites Analyzed ..................

................................................... ............................. 1 Table 2: Values for CAP88 Site Independent Paramet ers ............................................... .............. 3 Table 3: 2000 to 2010 Population Adjustment Factor s ................................................. ................ 6 Table 4: Sweetwater Population Data ..............

................................................... ........................... 7 Table 5: Sweetwater Arithmetic Average Wind Speeds (Wind Towards) ................................... . 9 Table 6: Sweetwater Frequencies of Stability Class es (Wind Towards) ................................. ...... 9

Table 7: Sweetwater Radon Release ................

................................................... ......................... 11 Table 8: Sweetwater Radon Flux Testing Results ...

................................................... ................. 11

Table 9: Sweetwater Risk Assessment Results ......

................................................... ................... 12 Table 10: White Mesa Population Data .............

................................................... ....................... 14 Table 11: White Mesa Arithmetic Average Wind Speeds (Wind Towards) ................................ 15 Table 12: White Mesa Frequencies of Stability Class es (Wind Towards) ................................. .. 16

Table 13: White Mesa Radon Release ................

................................................... ....................... 17

Table 14: White Mesa Risk Assessment Results .....

................................................... ................. 18 Table 15: Cañon City Population Data ..............

................................................... ........................ 20 Table 16: Cañon City Arithmetic Average Wind Speed s (Wind Towards) ................................ 2 1 Table 17: Cañon City Frequencies of Stability Class es (Wind Towards) ................................. ... 22 Table 18: Cañon City Annual Radon Release ........

................................................... .................. 22 Table 19: Cañon City Risk Assessment Results .....

................................................... .................. 24 Table 20: Smith Ranch – Highland Population Data ..

................................................... ............... 25 Table 21: Smith Ranch – Highland Arithmetic Averag e Wind Speeds (Wind Towards) ........... 27 Table 22: Smith Ranch – Highland Frequencies of St ability Classes (Wind Towards) .............. 27 Table 23: Smith Ranch – Highland Well Field Annual Radon Release .................................... .. 28 Table 24: Smith Ranch – Highland Risk Assessment R esults ............................................ ......... 30 Table 25: Crow Butte Population Data .............

................................................... ........................ 32 Table 26: Crow Butte Arithmetic Average Wind Speeds (Wind Towards) ................................. 3 4 Table 27: Crow Butte Frequencies of Stability Class es (Wind Towards) ................................. ... 35

Table 28: Crow Butte Radon Release to the Environm ent ............................................... ........... 36

Table 29: Crow Butte Modeled Radon Release .......

................................................... ................. 36

Table 30: Crow Butte Risk Assessment Results .....

................................................... .................. 37 Table 31: Christensen / Irigaray Population Data .

................................................... .................... 39 Table 32: Christensen / Irigaray Arithmetic Averag e Wind Speeds (Wind Towards) ................ 41 Table 33: Christensen / Irigaray Frequencies of St ability Classes (Wind Towards) ................... 41 Table 34: Christensen / Irigaray Environmental Rad on Release Summary ................................ 42 Table 35: Christensen / Irigaray Estimated Radon R elease ............................................ ............. 42 Table 36: Christensen / Irigaray Risk Assessment R esults ............................................ .............. 42WA 1-04, Task 5 v SC&A – November 10, 2011

Table 37: Alta Mesa 1,2,3 Population Data ........

................................................... ...................... 45 Table 38: Alta Mesa / Kingsville Dome Arithmetic A verage Wind Speeds

(Wind Towards) ....................................

................................................... .................... 46 Table 39: Alta Mesa / Kingsville Dome Frequencies of Stability Classes (Wind Towards) ...... 47

Table 40: Alta Mesa Annual Radon Source Term .....

................................................... ............... 48 Table 41: Alta Mesa Radon Release by Uranium Produ ction ............................................. ........ 48

Table 42: Alta Mesa Risk Assessment Results ......

................................................... ................... 48 Table 43: Kingsville Dome 1,3 Population Data .....

................................................... .................. 50 Table 44: Kingsville Dome Radon Release by Uranium Production ....................................... ... 51 Table 45: Kingsville Dome Risk Assessment Results

................................................... .............. 52 Table 46: Eastern Generic Site (Virginia) Populatio n Data ............................................ .............. 54 Table 47: Eastern Generic Site (Virginia) Arithmeti c Average Wind Speeds

(Wind Towards) ....................................

................................................... .................... 55 Table 48: Eastern Generic Site (Virginia) Frequenci es of Stability Classes (Wind Towards) ..... 56

Table 49: Eastern Generic Site Risk Assessment Res ults .............................................. ............. 56 Table 50: Western Generic Site (New Mexico) Populat ion Data .......................................... ....... 58 Table 51: Western Generic Site (New Mexico) Arithme tic Average Wind Speeds

(Wind Towards) ....................................

................................................... .................... 59 Table 52: Western Generic Site (New Mexico) Frequen cies of Stability Classes

(Wind Towards) ....................................

................................................... .................... 60

Table 53: Western Generic Site Risk Assessment Res ults .............................................. ............ 60 Table 54: Cumulative 2000 Population Data ........

................................................... .................... 61 Table 55: Comparison of Current RMEI Location Dose /Risk to WorstCase Location Dose/Risk ...........................

................................................... ............... 62 Table 56: Calculated RMEI and Population Dose and Risk Normalized to the

Radon Release .....................................

................................................... ...................... 62 Table 57: Calculated Maximum Total Annual RMEI, Po pulation Dose and Risk ...................... 63 Table 58: Calculated Average Total Annual RMEI, Po pulation Dose and Risk ......................... 64WA 1-04, Task 5 vi SC&A – November 10, 2011 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CBR Crow Butte Resources, Inc. CFR Code of Federal Regulations Ci Curie CCD Counter-Current Decantation CofA Court of Appeals CPP Central Processing Plant Dir Direction E East EA Environmental Assessment ENE East Northeast ESE East Southeast EPA Environmental Protection Agency FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FGR Federal Guidance Report HRI Hydro Resources, Inc. HUP Highland Uranium Project ICRP International Commission on Radiological Prot ection ISL in-situ leach km kilometer KUC Kennecott Uranium Company LCF Latent Cancer Fatalities lbs pounds

m meter N North NE North East NNE North Northeast NNW North Northwest NW North West NESAPS National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NMELC New Mexico Environmental Law Center NNW North Northwest NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG NUclear REGulatory report NW North West NWS National Weather Service ORIA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory Pb-210 Lead-210 ppm parts per million Ra-226 Radium-226 RAI Request of Additional Information RMEI Reasonably Maximally Exposed IndividualWA 1-04, Task 5 vii SC&A – November 10, 2011 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)

Rn-222 Radon-222 R&D Research and Development s second S South SAG semi-autogenous grinding SE South East SR Smith Ranch SR-HUP Smith Ranch-Highland Uranium Project SSE South Southeast

sq square SSW South Southwest SW Southwest SX Solvent Extraction TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality TDH Texas Department of Health TDSHS Texas Department of State Health Services TEDE Total Effective Dose Equivalent TNRCC Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commissi on TRRC Texas Railroad Commission U-238 Uranium-238 U 3 O 8 Triuranium octoxide (yellow cake) URI Uranium Resources, Inc. V 2 O 5 vanadium pentoxide W West WNW West Northwest WSW West Southwest

yr yearWA 1-04, Task 5 viii SC&A – November 10, 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) promu lgated National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for radon emissi ons from operating uranium mill tailings impoundments (Subpart W) on December 15, 1989 (FR 1 989). In support of Subpart W, as well as other portions of radiolonuclide NESHAPs, ORIA p ublished a three volume Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that provided: 1) a detaile d description of the Agency’s procedures and methods for estimating radiation dose and risk due to radionuclide emissions to the air (EPA 1989a), 2) detailed risk estimates for each source of emissions (EPA 1989b, EPA 1989c), and 3) detailed economic assessments for each source of emissions (EPA 1989d).

The purpose of this Work Assignment is to revise th e risk assessment for the NESHAPs for radionuclides from uranium facilities. The informa tion developed in this Work Assignment will be used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) in the determination of whether the existing standards for Subpart W need r evising, and, if so, what may represent reasonable revisions to the standard.

The uranium facilities that were analyzed are liste d in Table ES-1 and include three existing conventional mines/mills, five in-situ leach mines, and two generic sites assumed to be the location of conventional mines/mills.

Table ES-1: Uranium Sites Analyzed

Mill / Mine Type State Regulator Latitude Longitude deg min sec deg min sec Cañon City Mill Conventional CO State 38 23 46 -105 13 45 Crow Butte In-Situ Leach NE NRC 42 38 41 -103 21 8 Western Generic Conventional NM NRC 35 31 37 -107 52 52 Alta Mesa 1, 2, 3 In-Situ Leach TX State 26 53 59 -98 18 29 Kingsville Dome 1,3 In-Situ Leach TX State 27 24 54 -97 46 51 White Mesa Mill Conventional UT State 37 34 26 -109 28 40 Eastern Generic Conventional VA NRC 38 36 0 -78 1 11 Smith Ranch - Highland In-Situ Leach WY NRC 43 3 12 -105 41 8 Christensen / Irigaray In-Situ Leach WY NRC 43 48 15 -106 2 7 Sweetwater Mill Conventional WY NRC 42 3 7 -107 54 41

In Task 3 of this Work Assignment, an evaluation of existing computer models that could be used to perform this dose/risk assessment was perfo rmed. As a result of that evaluation, it was determined to use the CAP88 computer program, which is based on the AIRDOS and RADRISK computer programs (Trinity 2007) that were used in the original 1989 Subpart W evaluation (EPA 1989a). Discussion on why CAP88 was selected for this assessment can be found in SC&A 2010.

In order to perform the dose/risk analysis, three t ypes of data were necessary: 1) the distribution of the population living within 80 kilometers of ea ch site, 2) the meteorological data at each site, particularly the wind speed, wind direction, and st ability class, and 3) the amount of radon annually released from the site.WA 1-04, Task 5 ix SC&A – November 10, 2011

Normally, the population doses and risks are calcul ated out to a distance of 80 kilometers (50 miles) from the site. Therefore, it was necessary to know the population to a distance of 80 kilometers from each site in each of the 16 compass directions. This information is not normally available from U.S. Census Bureau data. However, i n 1973, the EPA wrote a computer program, SECPOP (Sandia 2003), which would convert census bl ock data into the desired 80-kilometer population estimates for any specific latitude and longitude within the continental United States. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) adopted thi s program to perform citing reviews for license applications, and has updated the program t o use the 2000 census data. The SECPOP program was used to estimate the population distrib ution around each site; that population was then modified to account for changes in the populat ion from 2000 to 2010.

For those sites where site-specific meteorological data were identified, those site-specific data were used. For other sites, CAP88 is provided with a weather library of meteorological data from over 350 National Weather Service (NWS) statio ns. For sites without site-specific meteorological data, data from the NWS station near est the site were used.

Annual radon release estimates were determined for each site based on the available documentation for the site. For example, some site s reported their estimated radon release in their semi-annual release reports, while other site s calculated their radon release as part of their license application or renewal application. Finall y, for some sites, the annual radon release estimates were obtained from the NRC-produced site- specific Environmental Assessment. If multiple documents provided radon release estimates for a particular site, the estimate from the most recent document was used. Likewise, if both t heoretical and actual radon release values were identified for a site, the actual radon releas e value was given preference.

Table ES-2 presents the reasonably maximally expose d individual (RMEI) and population doses and risks due to the maximum radon releases estimat ed for each uranium site. The maximum radon releases were used to calculate the doses in order to be able to compare the results to regulatory criteria. For example, 10CFR § 20.1301 “Dose limits for individual members of the public” restricts the total effective dose equivale nt (TEDE) to individual members of the public from the licensed operation to less than 100 mrem p er year. 10CFR § 20.1301 (e) additionally stipulates a licensee must also comply with the, “p rovisions of EPA's generally applicable environmental radiation standards in 40 CFR part 19 0 shall comply with those standards.” However, discharges of radon and its daughters are specifically excepted from compliance with the dose criteria of 40 CFR § 190.10(a).WA 1-04, Task 5 x SC&A – November 10, 2011

Table ES-2: Calculated Maximum Total Annual RMEI, Population Dose and Risk

Uranium Site Maximum Radon Release (Ci/yr) Annual Dose LCF (a) Risk (yr - 1 )

Population (person-rem) RMEI

(mrem) Population RMEI

Sweetwater 2,075 0.5 1.2 2.9E-06 6.0E-07 White Mesa 1,750 5.2 12.0 3.4E-05 6.4E-06 Cañon City 269 49.2 10.3 3.1E-04 5.4E-06 Smith Ranch - Highlands 36,500 3.7 1.5 2.3E-05 7.7E -07 Crow Butte 8,885 2.7 3.3 1.7E-05 1.7E-06 Christensen / Irigaray 1,600 3.8 1.9 2.4E-05 9.9E-0 7

Alta Mesa 740 21.6 11.5 1.3E-04 6.1E-06 Kingsville Dome 6,958 58.0 11.3 3.8E-04 6.1E-06 Eastern Generic 1,750 200.3 28.2 1.4E-03 1.6E-05 Western Generic 1,750 5.1 6.0 2.7E-04 7.7E-06

(a) Latent Cancer Fatalities

Table ES-3 presents the RMEI and population doses a nd risks due to the average radon releases estimated for each uranium site. The risks were ba sed on average radon releases in order to make it easier to convert these annual risk values into lifetime risk values, by simply multiplying the Table ES-3 values by the number of years that t he facility operates for the population risk or by the length of time that the individual lives nex t to the facility for the RMEI risk.

Table ES-3: Calculated Average Total Annual RMEI, Population Dose and Risk

Uranium Site Average Radon

Release (Ci/yr) Annual Dose LCF (a) Risk (yr - 1 )

Population (person-mrem) RMEI

(rem) Population RMEI

Sweetwater 1,204 0.3 0.7 1.7E-06 3.5E-07 White Mesa 1,388 3.0 7.0 2.0E-05 3.7E-06 Cañon City 146 28.6 6.0 1.8E-04 3.1E-06 Smith Ranch - Highlands 21,100 2.2 0.9 1.3E-05 4.5E-07 Crow Butte 4,467 1.6 1.9 1.0E-05 1.0E-06 Christensen / Irigaray 1,040 2.2 1.1 1.4E-05 5.7E-0 7

Alta Mesa 472 12.5 6.7 7.6E-05 3.6E-06 Kingsville Dome 1,291 33.6 6.6 2.2E-04 3.5E-06 Eastern Generic 1,388 116.3 16.4 7.9E-04 9.2E-06 Western Generic 1,388 3.0 3.5 1.6E-04 4.4E-06

(a) Latent Cancer FatalitiesWA 1-04, Task 5 1 SC&A – November 10, 2011

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air P ollutants (NESHAPs) includes radon emissions for uranium mill tailings (40 CFR Part 61 Subpart W – National Emission Standards for Radon Emissions from Operating Mill Tailings – December 15, 1989). At the time of the standard’s promulgation, the overwhelming numbers o f uranium processing facilities were conventional acid or alkaline leach mills. Radon e missions from these facilities were primarily from the dried out portions of large (greater than 100-acre) tailings ponds. With the promulgation of Subpart W, this large area source w as reduced by the requirements to limit the size of new tailings areas to either 40 acres for p hased disposal or 10 acres for continuous disposal (40 CFR 61 Subpart W). Additionally, and more importantly, economic and other considerations have led commercial uranium recovery companies to submit license applications/ amendments to develop, upgrade or restart a signifi cant number of in-situ leach (ISL) facilities (NRC 2009).

Table 1: Uranium Sites Analyzed

Mill / Mine Type State Regulator Latitude Longitude deg min sec deg min sec Cañon City Mill Conventional CO State 38 23 46 -105 13 45 Crow Butte In-Situ Leach NE NRC 42 38 41 -103 21 8 Churchrock In-Situ Leach NM NRC 35 31 41 -108 44 33 Crownpoint In-Situ Leach NM NRC 35 40 41 -108 9 4 Western Generic Conventional NM NRC 35 31 37 -107 52 52 Alta Mesa 1, 2, 3 In-Situ Leach TX State 26 53 59 -98 18 29 Kingsville Dome 1,3 In-Situ Leach TX State 27 24 54 -97 46 51 Vasquez In-Situ Leach TX State 31 58 6 -99 54 6 White Mesa Mill Conventional UT State 37 34 26 -109 28 40 Eastern Generic Conventional VA NRC 38 36 0 -78 1 11 Smith Ranch - Highland In-Situ Leach WY NRC 43 3 12 -105 41 8 Christensen / Irigaray In-Situ Leach WY NRC 43 48 15 -106 2 7 Sweetwater Mill Conventional WY NRC 42 3 7 -107 54 41

In Section 2.0, detailed risk assessments were perf ormed for all but three of the uranium sites listed in Table 1. The reasons for not analyzing t hree sites (Churchrock, Crownpoint, and Vasquez) are described below.

The Crownpoint and Churchrock uranium deposits, San Juan Basin, New Mexico, are currently being developed by Uranium Resources, Inc. (URI) an d its subsidiary Hydro Resources, Inc. (HRI). Both deposits will be developed using advan ced ISL mining techniques. URI/HRI currently has about 37.834 million pounds of U 3 O 8 (14,583 tonnes U) of estimated recoverable reserves at Crownpoint/Churchrock. In March, 1997, a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Crownpoint/Churchrock sites was comp leted by the NRC (NRC 1997), which recommends the issuance of an operating license. I n January 1998, HRI was granted Source Material License SUA-1580 by the NRC for uranium pr oduction at the Crownpoint/Churchrock Uranium Project. Although the license was granted, the project has been delayed due to depressed uranium prices and litigation. In Decemb er 2002, the NRC found that, since the renewal application had been timely filed by HRI, t he Crownpoint/Churchrock license would notWA 1-04, Task 5 2 SC&A – November 10, 2011

expire until final action had been taken by the NRC on the SUA-1580 renewal application. Regarding the litigation, in March 2010, the United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit denied the intervener’s petition for review and uph eld the NRC’s licensing decision in all respects (CofA 2010). In September 2010, the New M exico Environmental Law Center (NMELC) filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court ( Docket No. 10-368). On November 15, 2010, the United States Supreme Court denied NMELC’ s petition to review the Appeal Court’s ruling, after which URI indicated that construction of the Crownpoint/Churchrock facilities should begin in 2012, with production in 2013. Sin ce, to date, there have been no radon releases from the Crownpoint/Churchrock Uranium Project, it was determined that a detailed radon risk assessment for this licensed site should not be per formed.

The Vasquez uranium site is an ISL mine owned by UR I and located in southwestern Duval County in South Texas. For the site, URI holds the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission’s Underground Injection Control Permit: UR03050. The site is also covered by the Texas Department of Health’s radioactive materials license: L06353. The Vasquez ISL mine was commissioned in October 2004, and reached peak production output in 2005. In 2006 and 2007, production at Vasquez declined, with 78,600 p ounds of uranium in 2007 and 36,600 pounds in 2008. The last well field at Vasquez was fully depleted of its economically recoverable reserves in October 2008, and the proje ct is now undergoing restoration. Vasquez did not have a processing plant; rather the uranium loaded resin from Vasquez was delivered to the Kingsville Dome central plant for processing. Since the Vasquez ISL mine is no longer active, it was determined that a detailed radon ris k assessment for this site should not be performed. (URI 2010a, URI 2010b)

1.1 Dose Calculation Methodology

As part of this Work Assignment, the various comput er models that could be used to calculate the doses and risks due to the operation of convent ional and ISL uranium mines were evaluated. Seven computer programs were considered to be used for this risk assessment: CAP88, RESRAD-OFFISTE, MILDOS, GENII, MEPAS, AIRDOS, and A ERMOD. A detailed selection process was used to select the program fr om the first five programs listed. AIRDOS was not included in the detailed selection process, since it is no longer an independent program, but has been incorporated into CAP88. Because it o nly calculates atmospheric dispersion, but not radiological doses or risks, AERMOD was also no t included in the detailed selection. Each of the five programs were given a score of between 0 and 5 for each of the 12 following criteria: 1) Exposure Pathways Modeled, 2) Population Dose/Ri sk Capability, 3) Dose Factors Used, 4) Risk Factors Used, 5) Meteorological Data Proces sing, 6) Source Term Calculations, 7) Verification and Validation, 8) Ease of Use/User Friendly, 9) Documentation, 10) Sensitivity Analysis Capability, and 12)Probabilistic Analysis Capability. Also, each criterion had a weighting factor of between 1 and 2. The total wei ghted score was calculated for each code, and CAP88 was selected for use in this evaluation. SC& A 2010 presents the details of this program selection process. CAP88 was developed in 1988 fro m the AIRDOS, RADRISK, and DARTAB computer programs, which had been developed for the EPA at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) (Trinity 2007).WA 1-04, Task 5 3 SC&A – November 10, 2011

CAP88, which stands for “Clean Air Act Assessment P ackage-1988,” is used to demonstrate compliance with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) applicable to radionuclides. CAP88 calculates the doses and risk to the reasonably maximally exposed individual (RMEI) and as well as the surrou nding population. Exposure pathways evaluated by CAP88 are: inhalation, air immersion, ingestion of vegetables, meat, and milk, and ground surface exposure. CAP88 uses a modified Gau ssian plume equation to estimate the average dispersion of radionuclides released from u p to six emitting sources. The sources may be either elevated stacks, such as a smokestack, or uniform area sources, such as a pile of uranium mill tailings. Plume rise can be calculate d assuming either a momentum or buoyantdriven plume. Assessments are done for a circular grid of distances and directions for a radius of up to 80 kilometers (50 miles) around the facility. The Gaussian plume model produces results that agree with experimental data as well as any mo del, is fairly easy to work with, and is consistent with the random nature of turbulence. C AP88 incorporates dose and risk factors from Federal Guidance Report 13 (FGR 13, EPA 1999) in pl ace of the RADRISK data that were used in previous versions. The FGR 13 factors are based on the methods in Publication 72 of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP 1972). A description of the mathematical models used by CAP88 is provided in th e CAP88 Users Manual (Trinity 2007).

CAP88 requires the distribution of the population s urrounding the site and the characteristics of the local meteorology. The methodology used to est imate the population distributions is described in the following section, Section 1.2, wh ile the estimated distributions are presented in the Section 2.0 site-specific subsections. For tho se sites where site-specific meteorological data were identified, site-specific data were used. For other sites, CAP88 is provided with a weather library of meteorological data from over 350 Nation al Weather Service (NWS) stations. For sites without site-specific meteorological data, the data from the NWS station nearest the site were used, as described in the Section 2.0 site-specific subsections.

Additionally, CAP88 requires much data that is radi onuclide-independent and usually independent of the site being analyzed. Table 2 is a listing of the radionuclide- and siteindependent parameters, along with the default valu es that are provided with CAP88 and that were used for these uranium site dose and risk anal yses.

Table 2: Values for CAP88 Site Independent Paramet ers

Parameter (Units) Value Human Inhalation Rate Cubic centimeters/hr 9.17E+05 Soil Parameters Effective surface density (kg/sq m, dry weight) (Assumes 15 cm plow layer) 2.15E+02

Buildup Times For activity in soil (years) 1.00E+02 For radionuclides deposited on ground/water (days) 3.65E+02WA 1-04, Task 5 4 SC&A – November 10, 2011 Table 2: Values for CAP88 Site Independent Paramet ers

Parameter (Units) Value Delay Times Ingestion of pasture grass by animals (hr) 0.00E+00 Ingestion of stored feed by animals (hr) 2.16E+03 Ingestion of leafy vegetables by man (hr) 3.36E+02 Ingestion of produce by man (hr) 3.36E+02 Transport time from animal feed-milk-man (day) 2.0 0E+00 Time from slaughter to consumption (day) 2.00E+01 Weathering Removal rate constant for physical loss (per hr) 2 .90E-03 Crop Exposure Duration Pasture grass (hr) 7.20E+02 Crops/leafy vegetables (hr) 1.44E+03 Agricultural Productivity Grass-cow-milk-man pathway (kg/sq m) 2.80E-01 Produce/leafy vegetables for human consumption (kg /sq m) 7.16E-01 Fallout Interception Fractions Vegetables 2.00E-01 Pasture 5.70E-01 Grazing Parameters Fraction of year animals graze on pasture 4.00E-01 Fraction of daily feed that is pasture grass when animal grazes on pasture 4.30E-01 Animal Feed Consumption Factors Contaminated feed/forage (kg/day, dry weight) 1.56 E+01 Dairy Productivity Milk production of cow (L/day) 1.10E+01 Meat Animal Slaughter Parameters Muscle mass of animal at slaughter (kg) 2.00E+02 Fraction of herd slaughtered (per day) 3.81E-03 Decontamination Fraction of radioactivity retained after washing f or leafy vegetables and produce 5.00E-01

Fractions Grown In Garden Of Interest Produce ingested 1.00E+00 Leafy vegetables ingested 1.00E+00 Ingestion Ratios: Immediate Surrounding Area/Total Within Area Vegetables 7.00E-01 Meat 4.40E-01 Milk 4.00E-01 Minimum Ingestion Fractions From Outside Area (Actual fractions of food types from outside area c an be greater than the minimum fractions listed below.) Vegetables 0.00E+00 Meat 0.00E+00 Milk 0.00E+00WA 1-04, Task 5 5 SC&A – November 10, 2011 Table 2: Values for CAP88 Site Independent Paramet ers

Parameter (Units) Value Human Food Utilization Factors Produce ingestion (kg/y) 1.76E+02 Milk ingestion (L/y) 1.12E+02 Meat ingestion (kg/y) 8.50E+01 Leafy vegetable ingestion (kg/y) 1.80E+01

1.2 Methodology to Estimate 2010 Population

In order to calculate the dose and risk to the popu lation surrounding the uranium site, it is necessary to know the distribution of the surroundi ng population at each site. Normally, the population doses and risks are calculated out to a distance of 80-kilometers (50-miles) from the site. Therefore, it is necessary to know the popul ation to a distance of 80-kilometers from each site in each of the 16 compass directions. This in formation is not normally available from census data to the degree of specificity needed in this as sessment. However, in 1973, the EPA wrote a computer program, SECPOP, that would convert census block data into the desired 80-kilometer population estimates for any specific latitude and longitude within the continental United States (Sandia 2003). The NRC adopted this program to per form siting reviews for license applications, and has updated the program to use th e 2000 census data.

The latitude and longitude for each uranium site li sted in Table 1 was entered into SECPOP, which calculated the 80-kilometer, 16-sector 2000 p opulation distribution for each site. The SECPOP-calculated population distributions are prov ided in the site-specific subsections of Section 2.0.

It was desired to use 2010 population data rather t han the 2000 census data available in SECPOP. The U.S. Census Bureau has estimates of th e population in every county for each year from 2001 though 2009 ( http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/files/CO-EST2 009- ALLDATA.csv ). For each uranium site, the 2000 census data and 2009 estimate were used to calculate an annual population adjustment factor sp ecific for the county in which the site is located. That annual adjustment factor was then us ed to calculate an adjustment factor to bring the SECPOP population distribution from 2000 to 201 0.WA 1-04, Task 5 6 SC&A – November 10, 2011 Table 3: 2000 to 2010 Population Adjustment Factor s

Site State County Population Factor 2000 2009 Annual 2010 Cañon City Mill CO Fremont 46145 47815 0.0040 1.04 Crow Butte NE Dawes 9060 8735 -0.0041 0.96 Western Generic NM McKinley 74798 70513 -0.0065 0.94 Alta Mesa 1, 2, 3 TX Brooks 7976 7377 -0.0086 0.92 Kingsville Dome 1,3 TX Kleberg 31549 30647 -0.0032 0.97 White Mesa Mill UT San Juan 14413 15049 0.0048 1.05 Eastern Generic VA Culpeper 34262 46502 0.0345 1.40 Smith Ranch – Highland WY Converse 12052 13578 0.0133 1.14 Christensen / Irigaray WY Campbell 33698 43967 0.0300 1.34 Sweetwater Mill WY Sweetwater 37613 41226 0.0102 1.11

2.0 DETAILED RISK ESTIMATES

For each uranium site that is analyzed, this sectio n presents a brief description, including an aerial view of the site, followed by the population distribution surrounding the site and the assumptions made concerning food production. The m eteorological data used to analyze each site are presented next. Lastly, the methodology u sed to estimate the annual radon released from each site is discussed and the radon release presen ted.

2.1 Sweetwater 1

The Sweetwater Uranium Project, the only convention al mill remaining in Wyoming, consists of a mill and ancillary structures and is located some 65 km northwest of the Town of Rawlins, in south-central Wyoming’s Great Divide Basin. The mi ll was constructed in 1979 and 1980 and NRC source materials license SUA-1350 (Docket Numbe r: 40-8584) was obtained in February 1979 to permit processing of uranium ore. The mill operated between 1981 and 1983 and has been on standby status since mid-1983. During its three years of operation, the Sweetwater facility produced a total of 1,292,000 lbs of U 3 O 8 from a total of 2,340,535 tons of ore (sourced from an adjacent, now depleted ore body which has s ince been reclaimed), at a reported recovery rate of 90%. Operations at Sweetwater are currentl y suspended; however, the license has been renewed, and is currently set to expire on November 10, 2014. The Kennecott Uranium Company (KUC) operates and manages the Sweetwater U ranium Project for the Green Mountain Mining Venture. With the continued increase in the price of uranium, KUC may either sell or restart the Sweetwater mill, shown in Figure 1.

1 The description of the Sweetwater site was abstrac ted from various sources, including KUC 1994, KUC 2 004, and Uranium One 2006, while the aerial view of the Sweetwater site was obtained from Google Maps.WA 1-04, Task 5 7 SC&A – November 10, 2011 Figure 1: Sweetwater – Aerial View

2.1.1 Population and Food Production

The 80-kilometer population distribution in each of the 16 principal compass directions, which was calculated for the Sweetwater site by SECPOP an d used in CAP88 for population dose calculations, is shown in Table 4. To adjust the 2 000 population data to 2010, the CAP88 Sweetwater population dose was multiplied by 1.11, see Section 1.2 and Table 3.

Table 4: Sweetwater Population Data

Dir Distance (km)

0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 20 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NW 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 WNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ENE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NNE 0 0 0 0 0 0 3WA 1-04, Task 5 8 SC&A – November 10, 2011 Table 4: Sweetwater Population Data

Dir Distance (km) 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 N 0 3 75 26 0 0 NNW 0 0 2 37 0 7 NW 0 0 0 0 0 19 WNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 2 0 2 0 0 WSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0 0 0 2 102 1 SSW 2 47 0 3 0 0 S 0 0 256 0 2 0 SSE 0 2 2 0 12 0 SE 0 3 43 0 0 0 ESE 0 5 7 137 9097 430 E 3 11 18 5 0 3 ENE 3 0 19 16 0 5 NE 10 97 3 6 7 13 NNE 3 0 0 29 21 0

The agricultural productivity factors for Wyoming w ere taken from Appendix C of the CAP88 User’s Manual, as shown below, and used in the Swee twater site population dose calculation.

Beef Cattle Density (cattle/km 2 ): 5.12 Milk Cattle Density (cow/km 2 ): 0.0579 Land Cultivated for Vegetable Crops: 0.159%

The distance and direction to the RMEI were identif ied in the Revised Environmental Report (KUC 1994) as:

The nearest resident is approximately 17 air miles northeast of the Site and the nearest town is Bairoil, located approximately 22 air miles northeast of the Site. [KUC 1994, page 1-1]

Notice, that the Table 4 SECPOP estimate places the nearest individual at a distance of 5 km to 10 km in the NW direction. To calculate the RMEI d ose and risk for this study, the Table 4 RMEI distance and direction were used.

2.1.2 Meteorology

The CAP88 computer program is provided with a weath er library of meteorological data from over 350 NWS stations. For the Sweetwater site, th e CAP88-provided meteorological data for the period 1983 through 1987 was obtained from the site’s Revised Environmental Report (KUC 1994) and the associated MILDOS analysis (EnecoTech 1994). Table 5 shows the directionaldependent average wind speed for each stability cla ss, while Table 6 gives the stability class frequency.WA 1-04, Task 5 9 SC&A – November 10, 2011 Table 5: Sweetwater Arithmetic Average Wind Speeds (Wind Towards)

Dir Pasquill Stability Class (m/s)

A B C D E F G N 0.000 1.812 2.477 7.722 5.786 2.497 0.000 NNW 0.000 1.423 2.153 7.706 5.898 2.328 0.000 NW 0.000 1.696 1.780 6.684 6.140 2.475 0.000 WNW 0.000 1.501 1.740 6.256 5.517 2.432 0.000 W 0.000 1.365 1.667 6.705 5.685 2.294 0.000 WSW 0.000 1.918 1.897 7.114 5.984 2.410 0.000 SW 0.000 2.045 2.380 6.838 5.788 2.797 0.000 SSW 0.000 1.825 1.982 7.633 5.820 2.955 0.000 S 0.000 1.042 1.177 7.021 6.227 2.171 0.000 SSE 0.000 1.042 1.026 8.634 7.032 1.384 0.000 SE 0.000 1.822 2.446 8.762 5.876 2.981 0.000 ESE 0.000 1.984 2.553 9.262 6.150 3.028 0.000 E 0.000 1.708 2.681 8.078 5.647 2.606 0.000 ENE 0.000 1.851 2.583 8.400 6.069 2.666 0.000 NE 0.000 1.507 2.422 8.611 6.027 2.714 0.000 NNE 0.000 1.549 2.438 8.144 5.963 2.709 0.000

Table 6: Sweetwater Frequencies of Stability Class es (Wind Towards)

Dir Pasquill Stability Class (frequency)

A B C D E F G N 0.0000 0.0203 0.1677 0.5699 0.0624 0.1797 0.0000 NNW 0.0000 0.0266 0.1551 0.5723 0.0650 0.1811 0.000 0 NW 0.0000 0.0197 0.2033 0.4704 0.0827 0.2240 0.0000 WNW 0.0000 0.0275 0.1880 0.3991 0.0753 0.3100 0.000 0 W 0.0000 0.0248 0.1914 0.4613 0.0794 0.2430 0.0000 WSW 0.0000 0.0217 0.1591 0.5108 0.0690 0.2394 0.000 0 SW 0.0000 0.0177 0.1398 0.4836 0.0945 0.2644 0.0000 SSW 0.0000 0.0234 0.1128 0.4580 0.1166 0.2893 0.000 0 S 0.0000 0.0096 0.1540 0.3018 0.0882 0.4464 0.0000 SSE 0.0000 0.0222 0.0630 0.7737 0.0670 0.0741 0.000 0 SE 0.0000 0.0080 0.0269 0.7848 0.0716 0.1087 0.0000 ESE 0.0000 0.0021 0.0542 0.7959 0.0542 0.0935 0.000 0 E 0.0000 0.0103 0.0913 0.7018 0.0569 0.1397 0.0000 ENE 0.0000 0.0114 0.0960 0.6874 0.0683 0.1370 0.000 0 NE 0.0000 0.0102 0.0859 0.7059 0.0680 0.1301 0.0000 NNE 0.0000 0.0089 0.1197 0.6475 0.0712 0.1527 0.000 0 TOTAL 0.0000 0.0156 0.1269 0.6039 0.0713 0.1821 0.0 000

2.1.3 Radon Release

Even though KUC provides the NRC with semi-annual e ffluent reports for the Sweetwater site, as required by 10CFR §40.65, radon releases are not included. Rather, KUC provides the upwind and downwind radon concentrations. Thus, in order to perform the risk assessment, itWA 1-04, Task 5 10 SC&A – November 10, 2011

was necessary to refer to the Revised Environmental Report (KUC 1994) for a Sweetwater sitespecific radon source term. The following informat ion on radon releases was taken from Section 3.4 of the Sweetwater Revised Environmental Report (KUC 1994).

Ore Stockpiles, Crushing and Grinding

A total of 604.6 Ci/year of radon is estimated to b e released by ore handling, including both radon release from the mill exhaust stack and the ore loading area at the grizzly. [KUC 1994, page 3-9]

Leaching

The leach tanks are covered and are also equipped w ith a vent system. The air in the tanks will have small concentrations of radon-222 a nd sulfuric acid mist. This air will be vented through a wet scrubber (...). Exhaust from th e scrubber will contain traces of radon-222. [KUC 1994, page 3-9]

Counter-Current Decantation (CCD) Thickening

Some water vapor, acid mist, and minor amounts of r adon-222 will escape into the atmosphere from the open thickeners. [KUC 1994, pag e 3-11]

In accordance with 40 CFR 61, the tailings impoundm ents will be 40 acres in area at capacity and no more than two impoundments will be operated at any one time. Radon222 emissions will be minimized from the tailings i mpoundment, by keeping the tailings in the operating cell wet. When operations are com plete, the final surface area of the six reclaimed impoundments and the original impoundment , to be used as an evaporation pond, is estimated to be approximately 280 acres. Assuming the maximum allowable emission of 20.0 pCi/m 2 /sec after reclamation, annual radon-222 emissions can be no more than 714 Ci/year for the six proposed impoundm ents and the existing impoundment, combined. [KUC 1994, page 3-11]

Solvent Extraction

Section 3.4 of the Revised Environmental Report doe s not provide any radon source term for the solvent extraction phase.

Precipitation

Air from the yellowcake precipitators, and thickene r area will be passed through a wet scrubber and vented to the atmosphere from stack S- 6 (...). The exhaust gases will contain approximately 80 - 120 ppm ammonia and trac es of radon-222. [KUC 1994, page 3-12]

In addition to the source term discussion provided in Section 3.4, the Revised Environmental Report provides estimated annual radon releases for the facility during operation at specific release points in Table 5.2-1, which has been repro duced in this report as Table 7. Unlike Section 3.4, which is specific to the mill area, Ta ble 5.2-1 includes the radon releases from “theWA 1-04, Task 5 11 SC&A – November 10, 2011

six proposed [in 1994] 40-acre tailings cells, and the existing [in 1994] tailings cell.” From Table 7, it can be seen that including the radon co ntribution from the tailing cells results in a time-dependent annual radon release.

Table 7: Sweetwater Radon Release

Source Radon

Release (Ci/yr) Dryer

― Ore Receiving 604.6 Leaching

― Ore Handling and Storage

― Ore Dust

―

Tailings Yr. 1-3 1001

Yr. 4-6 2861 Yr. 7-9 2963 Yr. 10-12 3065 Yr. 13-15 3167 Yr. 16-18 3269 Yr. 19-21 2370 Yr. 22-24 714 Source: KUC 1994, Table 5.2-1

It should also be noted that the tailing cell radon releases shown in Table 7 were based on an assumed radon flux of 20 pCi/m 2 -s from each of the covered cells or impoundments. To demonstrate compliance with 40CFR Part 61, Subpart W, KUC has annually conducted testing on the facility’s tailings impoundment for radon em issions (KUC 2004). The results of that testing are shown in Table 8. In addition to showi ng the measured radon flux, Table 8 also shows what the largest annual radon tailing release would be, based on the measured flux, as opposed to using the 40CFR §61.252 standard of 20 p Ci/m 2 -s.

Table 8: Sweetwater Radon Flux Testing Results

Test Date Radon Flux

(pCi/m 2 -s) Yr. 16-18 Tailings

Release (Ci/yr) 7-Aug-90 9.00 1471 13-Aug-91 5.10 834 5-Aug-92 5.60 915 24-Aug-93 5.00 817 23-Aug-94 5.00 817 15-Aug-95 3.59 587 13-Aug-96 5.47 894 26-Aug-97 4.23 691 11-Aug-98 2.66 435 10-Aug-99 1.27 208WA 1-04, Task 5 12 SC&A – November 10, 2011 Table 8: Sweetwater Radon Flux Testing Results

Test Date Radon Flux

(pCi/m 2 -s) Yr. 16-18 Tailings

Release (Ci/yr) 8-Aug-00 4.05 662 15-Aug-01 6.98 1141 14-Aug-02 4.10 670 13-Aug-03 7.11 1162 Source: KUC 2004, Appendix 6, Page 1

Based on the radon release data provided in Table 7 and Table 8, several annual radon releases may be calculated:

§61.252 Standard, Maximum 3,874 Ci/yr

§61.252 Standard, Average 3,031 Ci/yr Measured, Maximum 2,075 Ci/yr Measured, Average 1,204 Ci/yr

2.1.4 Risk Estimates

The RMEI and population doses and risks calculated by CAP88 for the Sweetwater site are shown in Table 9.

Table 9: Sweetwater Risk Assessment Results

Receptor / Impact Radon Release (Ci/yr) Unitized Maximum Average

1 2075 1204

RMEI (7500m NW) Dose (mrem/yr) 5.6E-04 1.2E+00 6.7E-01

LCF Risk (yr -1 ) 2.9E-10 6.0E-07 3.5E-07 Population Dose (person-rem/yr) 2.3E-04 4.9E-01 2.8E-01

LCF Risk (yr -1 ) 1.4E-09 2.9E-06 1.7E-06

2.2 White Mesa 2

The White Mesa mill is a fully licensed, convention al uranium processing mill with a vanadium co-product recovery circuit, shown in Figure 2. Lo cated six miles south of Blanding, Utah, in the southeastern part of the state, White Mesa is t he only conventional uranium mill currently operating in the United States. The White Mesa mil l is licensed by the state of Utah (Radioactive Materials License: UT1900479), and is owned and operated by Denison Mines (USA). Construction of the White Mesa mill started in 1979, and conventionally mined

2 The description of the White Mesa site was abstrac ted from various sources, including Denison 2007 an d Melbye 2008, while the aerial view of the White Mes a site was obtained from Google Maps.WA 1-04, Task 5 13 SC&A – November 10, 2011

uranium/vanadium ore was first processed in May 198 0. To date, White Mesa has produced over 30 million pounds of U 3 O 8 and 33 million pounds of V 2 O 5

.

Figure 2: White Mesa – Aerial View

Operations at White Mesa begin with weighting, rece iving, sampling, and stockpiling of conventional ore and other feed materials from vari ous offsite sources. Mine ore, as well as stockpiled crushed ore, is fed into the semi-autoge nous grinding (SAG) mill. The ground feed material, stored as a wet slurry in one of two agit ated tanks, is then fed to the first stage of leach

. The two-stage acid leach is followed by the recover y of uranium bearing pregnant solution in a CCD system. Once the pregnant solution is clarifie d, it is pumped to the solvent extraction (SX) circuit. Vanadium, when recovered, is stripped fro m the barren uranium raffinate, also using a solvent extraction circuit. Both uranium and vanad ium are precipitated in their respective circuits, followed by drying and packaging.

2.2.1 Population and Food Production

The 80-kilometer population distribution in each of the 16 principal compass directions, which was calculated for the White Mesa site by SECPOP an d used in CAP88 for population dose calculations, is shown in Table 10. To adjust the 2000 population data to 2010, the CAP88 White Mesa population dose was multiplied by 1.05, see Section 1.2 and Table 3.WA 1-04, Task 5 14 SC&A – November 10, 2011 Table 10: White Mesa Population Data

Dir Distance (km)

0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 20 N 0 0 3 69 567 2813 73 NNW 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 NW 0 0 52 0 0 0 0 WNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WSW 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 7 247 SSE 0 5 0 0 0 0 40 SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ENE 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 NE 0 0 0 0 180 0 1 NNE 0 0 0 79 0 25 16

Dir Distance (km) 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 N 0 0 6 4 0 28 NNW 0 0 0 0 16 0 NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 WNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 8 8 2 0 2 WSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0 2 0 88 352 195 SSW 0 195 163 19 175 367 S 1 307 105 264 488 617 SSE 62 710 431 116 159 539 SE 83 232 860 340 14 5 ESE 3 8 22 140 231 3045 E 0 2 135 130 463 1361 ENE 7 26 88 1046 168 6 NE 10 100 91 165 66 6 NNE 61 2035 51 9 8 1

The agricultural productivity factors for Utah were taken from Appendix C of the CAP88 User’s Manual, as shown below, and used in the White Mesa site population dose calculation.

Beef Cattle Density (cattle/km 2 ): 2.84 Milk Cattle Density (cow/km 2 ): 0.446 Land Cultivated for Vegetable Crops: 0.183%

The distance and direction to the RMEI were identif ied in the Cell 4B dose assessment (SENES 2008) as:WA 1-04, Task 5 15 SC&A – November 10, 2011

... the nearest “potential” resident is approximately 1.2 miles (1.9 km) north of the Mill, near the location of air monitoring station BHV-I. The nearest actual resident is located approximately 1.6 miles (2.5 km) north of the mill. [SENES 2008, page 5-3]

Notice that the Table 10 SECPOP estimate places the nearest individuals to White Mesa at a distance of 1 to 2 km in the SSE and ENE directions . To calculate the RMEI dose and risk for this study, the Table 10 RMEI distances and directi ons were used, since they are closer than the nearest actual resident.

2.2.2 Meteorology

The White Mesa mill has an onsite meteorological mo nitoring station that records wind speed, wind direction, and stability class. This onsite m eteorological data were used by Denison to formulate a joint frequency distribution for the do se calculations performed as part of their White Mesa license renewal application. For this risk as sessment, the meteorological data from the license renewal application was reformatted so that it could be processed by the CAP88 auxiliary program, WINDGET (Trinity 2007), which generated a meteorological data file in the format required by CAP88 (i.e., a .WND file). Table 11 sh ows the directional-dependent average wind speed for each stability class that was used in thi s risk assessment, while Table 12 gives the stability class frequency.

Table 11: White Mesa Arithmetic Average Wind Speeds (Wind Towards)

Dir Pasquill Stability Class (m/s)

A B C D E F G N 2.727 4.293 5.984 7.051 3.651 1.924 0.000 NNW 2.670 4.234 5.430 5.673 3.186 1.857 0.000 NW 2.495 4.375 5.509 6.080 2.818 1.793 0.000 WNW 2.341 3.914 4.958 5.741 3.011 1.650 0.000 W 2.065 3.635 5.898 5.238 2.980 1.684 0.000 WSW 2.086 3.598 5.089 5.043 2.779 1.745 0.000 SW 1.833 3.217 4.058 4.495 3.280 1.956 0.000 SSW 2.130 3.399 3.697 4.366 4.326 2.229 0.000 S 1.993 3.388 4.827 5.115 4.516 2.343 0.000 SSE 2.245 4.794 6.375 7.140 4.766 2.429 0.000 SE 2.384 4.103 6.302 7.199 4.302 2.289 0.000 ESE 2.378 4.104 5.912 5.791 3.457 2.178 0.000 E 2.381 4.290 6.150 7.401 3.951 2.222 0.000 ENE 2.571 4.617 6.414 7.725 4.031 1.915 0.000 NE 2.773 4.565 6.196 7.945 4.018 1.957 0.000 NNE 2.910 4.580 6.102 8.225 4.523 2.077 0.000WA 1-04, Task 5 16 SC&A – November 10, 2011 Table 12: White Mesa Frequencies of Stability Class es (Wind Towards)

Dir Pasquill Stability Class (m/s)

A B C D E F G N 0.2581 0.2125 0.1837 0.2509 0.0372 0.0576 0.0000 NNW 0.3351 0.2376 0.1578 0.1507 0.0319 0.0869 0.000 0 NW 0.3286 0.1690 0.1314 0.2253 0.0282 0.1174 0.0000 WNW 0.3637 0.1318 0.0727 0.1545 0.0500 0.2273 0.000 0 W 0.3938 0.0933 0.0622 0.1088 0.0778 0.2642 0.0000 WSW 0.3098 0.1059 0.0784 0.1726 0.0588 0.2745 0.000 0 SW 0.1223 0.0526 0.0782 0.3912 0.1579 0.1977 0.0000 SSW 0.0334 0.0193 0.0405 0.4585 0.3331 0.1151 0.000 0 S 0.0473 0.0164 0.0327 0.4064 0.3273 0.1700 0.0000 SSE 0.0595 0.0280 0.0653 0.5449 0.1272 0.1750 0.000 0 SE 0.0794 0.0451 0.1155 0.4567 0.1119 0.1913 0.0000 ESE 0.1575 0.0822 0.1575 0.3390 0.0788 0.1849 0.000 0 E 0.1749 0.0933 0.1399 0.3907 0.0787 0.1224 0.0000 ENE 0.1885 0.1195 0.1747 0.3839 0.0529 0.0805 0.000 0 NE 0.1781 0.1557 0.2380 0.3383 0.0359 0.0539 0.0000 NNE 0.1888 0.1958 0.2118 0.3247 0.0380 0.0410 0.000 0 TOTAL 0.1560 0.0999 0.1161 0.3595 0.1397 0.1287 0.0 000

2.2.3 Radon Release

SENES 2008 presents the results of a dose assessmen t that was performed to quantify the dose impact from the proposed development of new tailing s Cell 4B. Two sources of uranium ore are considered for processing by the White Mesa mill: Colorado Plateau (0.25% U 3 O 8 and 1.5% V 2 O 5 ) and Arizona Strip (0.637% U 3 O 8 and no V 2 O 5 ). For both ores, Section 4 of SENES 2008 documents the source term, including radon, from ea ch area of the White Mesa mill, and is summarized below.

Grinder

The Rn-222 concentration in the ore was assumed to be equal to the U-238 concentration. The Rn-222 released during wet grinding is 92.7 and 236 Ci/yr for Colorado Plateau and Arizona Strip ore, respectively. [SENES 2008, page 4-3]

Ore Dump to Grizzly

SENES 2008 does not indicate any radon release from the grizzly (i.e., screener).

Yellowcake Stacks

Since the ore processing steps reject nearly all th e radium to the tailings, very little radon is released during the production of yellowcake. N o significant radon releases occur during yellowcake drying and packaging, since only about 0.1% of the original Ra-226 in the ore is found in yellowcake. Therefore, the amo unt of Rn-222 emitted from the yellowcake stack was assumed to be negligible. [SEN ES 2008, page 4-4]WA 1-04, Task 5 17 SC&A – November 10, 2011

Vanadium Stack

..., the emissions from the remaining radionuclides [ including radon] were assumed to be negligible and in any event would likely be dischar ged to the tailings cells. [SENES 2008, page 4-4]

Ore Pads

Rn-222 will be produced in the ore pads from the de cay of Ra-226. The estimated annual radon release rate from the ore pads is 375 and 956 Ci/yr for Colorado Plateau and Arizona Strip ore, respectively. [SENES 2008, page 4-5]

Active Tailings Cells

..., the total annual radon release rates for active tailings cell 3 and 4A and 4B were estimated to be 179 Ci/yr for tailings cell 3 and 1 02 Ci/yr for each of tailings cells 4A and 4B. These estimates are extremely conservative bec ause it was assumed that the radon release rate of 20 pCi/m 2 s (...) occurred over the entire area of each cell. [ SENES 2008, page 4-7]

Inactive Tailings Cells

..., the total annual radon release from the tailings cells 2 and 3 with interim soil covers were 85.3 and 89.4 Ci/yr, respectively. [SENES 2008 , page 4-7]

Table 13 summarizes the SENES 2008 annual radon rel ease from the White Mesa uranium mill.

Table 13: White Mesa Radon Release

Source Radon Release (Ci/yr) Colorado Plateau Arizona

Strip Grinding 92.7 236 Ore Dump to Grizzly

― Ore Pads 375 956 North Yellowcake Stack

― South Yellowcake Stack

― Tailing Cell 2: Interim Soil Cover 85.3 Tailing Cell 3: Interim Soil Cover 89.4 Tailing Cell 3: Active 179 Tailing Cell 4A: Active 102 Tailing Cell 4B: Active 102 Vanadium Stack

― N/A

Total 1,025 1,750 Source: SENES 2008, Tables 4.5-1 and 4.5-2WA 1-04, Task 5 18 SC&A – November 10, 2011

2.2.4 Risk Estimates

The RMEI and population doses and risks calculated by CAP88 for the White Mesa site are shown in Table 14.

Table 14: White Mesa Risk Assessment Results

Receptor / Impact Radon Release (Ci/yr) Unitized Maximum Average

1 1750 1388

RMEI (1500m SSE) Dose (mrem/yr) 5.8E-03 1.2E+01 7.0E+00

LCF Risk (yr -1 ) 3.1E-09 6.4E-06 3.7E-06 Population Dose (person-rem/yr) 2.5E-03 5.2E+00 3.0E+00

LCF Risk (yr -1 ) 1.6E-08 3.4E-05 2.0E-05

2.3 Cañon City 3

The Cañon City mill, shown in Figure 3, is located approximately two miles south of downtown Cañon City in Fremont County, Colorado. The commun ity of Lincoln Park borders the site to the north and the housing developments of Dawson Ra nch, Wolf Park, and Eagle Heights are located along the mill’s western boundary. The 2,5 00-acre site includes two inactive mills, ore stockpile areas, a partially reclaimed tailings pon d disposal area (i.e., the old ponds area), and a current tailings pond disposal area (i.e., the line d “main impoundment area”). A large portion of the site is used to store waste products in the imp oundment area.

3 The description of the Cañon City site was abstrac ted from various sources, including CDPHE 2007, Cot ter 2010, and ATSDR 2010, while the aerial view of the Cañon City site was obtained from Google Maps.WA 1-04, Task 5 19 SC&A – November 10, 2011 Figure 3: Cañon City – Aerial View

The Cañon City mill, which is owned by the Cotter C orporation, began operations in 1958, extracting uranium ore using an alkaline leach proc ess. At that time, the mill was licensed by the U.S. Atomic Energy Agency; currently it is licensed by the state of Colorado (Radioactive Materials License: Colo. 369-01). In 1979, the fac ility switched to an acid leach process for extracting uranium. Cotter suspended primary opera tions in 1987, and only limited and intermittent processing occurred until the facility resumed operations in 1999 with a modified alkaline-leaching capability until 2001. Cotter re fabricated the mill circuits between 2002 and 2005 to operate using an acid process, since March 2006 the mill has been in storage. Current accelerated efforts to close down contaminated faci lities at the Cañon City site may be aimed at clearing a path for possible uranium processing in the future and do not indicate that Cotter plans to leave the 2,600-acre site. There is indication that Cotter is planning a $200-million rebuild of the mill by 2014, when it expects to treat ore from the Mount Taylor mine in New Mexico.

2.3.1 Population and Food Production

The 80-kilometer population distribution in each of the 16 principal compass directions, which was calculated for the Cañon City site by SECPOP an d used in CAP88 for population doseWA 1-04, Task 5 20 SC&A – November 10, 2011

calculations, is shown in Table 15. To adjust the 2000 population data to 2010, the CAP88 Cañon City population dose was multiplied by 1.04, see Section 1.2 and Table 3.

Table 15: Cañon City Population Data

Dir Distance (km)

0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 10 N 0 18 37 915 1198 9911 NNW 0 0 20 114 1699 1663 NW 0 0 105 0 20 0 WNW 0 16 38 0 0 0 W 0 71 27 0 0 0 WSW 0 0 0 0 30 0 SW 0 0 0 0 0 7 SSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSE 0 0 0 9 0 8 SE 0 0 0 0 0 32 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 1484 E 0 0 0 0 0 2040 ENE 0 0 0 106 52 2961 NE 0 0 31 679 295 1939 NNE 0 0 138 942 1046 4365

Dir Distance (km) 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 N 4 1310 1083 2224 5576 450 NNW 4 46 369 347 251 132 NW 93 61 43 102 55 117 WNW 0 39 41 41 6061 1261 W 196 225 315 996 290 901 WSW 637 136 169 32 249 152 SW 205 812 106 13 726 134 SSW 341 737 261 0 98 15 S 145 5 253 145 180 155 SSE 295 56 699 1683 754 160 SE 107 236 506 513 1104 36 ESE 16 1688 8507 90006 10649 1976 E 1350 1081 6010 14530 20 84 ENE 733 12 43 3498 203 578 NE 7 215 1369 111270 191995 52423 NNE 38 627 99 15816 66131 34794

The agricultural productivity factors for Colorado were taken from Appendix C of the CAP88 User’s Manual, as shown below, and used in the Caño n City site population dose calculation.

Beef Cattle Density (cattle/km 2 ): 1.13 Milk Cattle Density (cow/km 2 ): 0.35 Land Cultivated for Vegetable Crops: 1.39%WA 1-04, Task 5 21 SC&A – November 10, 2011

The distance and direction to the RMEI were identif ied in the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s public health assessment (ATSDR 2010) as:

The nearest residence is about 0.25 miles from the mill [ATSDR 2010, page 1].

Notice that the Table 15 SECPOP estimate places the nearest individuals to Cañon City at a distance of 1 to 2 km in the North, West, and WNW d irections. Through analysis using CAP88 the RMEI was found to be located 1 to 2 km North. To calculate the RMEI dose and risk for this study, the Table 15 RMEI distances and directions w ere used, since the public health assessment did not specify the direction to the nearest reside nt.

2.3.2 Meteorology

The CAP88 computer program is provided with a weath er library of meteorological data from over 350 NWS stations. For the Cañon City site, th e CAP88-provided weather data for Colorado Springs, CO (CAP88 File: 93037.WND) were used. The period of record for this data included the years 1988 through 1992. Table 16 shows the dir ectional dependent average wind speed for each stability class, while Table 17 gives the stab ility class frequency, used in the Cañon City analysis.

Table 16: Cañon City Arithmetic Average Wind Speed s (Wind Towards)

Dir Pasquill Stability Class (m/s)

A B C D E F G N 1.900 2.710 4.450 5.320 3.570 1.950 0.000 NNW 1.830 2.880 4.610 5.480 3.760 2.030 0.000 NW 1.950 2.980 4.310 5.200 3.760 2.070 0.000 WNW 1.850 2.820 3.760 4.690 3.700 2.020 0.000 W 1.880 2.360 3.450 4.390 3.650 2.030 0.000 WSW 1.640 2.190 3.490 4.660 3.550 2.020 0.000 SW 1.880 2.440 3.220 4.960 3.740 2.230 0.000 SSW 1.850 2.120 3.970 5.170 3.960 2.300 0.000 S 2.030 2.030 4.200 6.540 4.010 2.250 0.000 SSE 1.480 2.340 3.790 7.000 3.940 2.150 0.000 SE 2.030 2.120 3.590 6.710 3.740 2.080 0.000 ESE 2.020 2.200 3.320 6.500 3.570 1.930 0.000 E 1.880 1.870 3.750 6.120 3.470 1.840 0.000 ENE 1.880 2.330 3.730 6.030 3.470 1.860 0.000 NE 2.030 2.400 3.480 6.020 3.450 1.840 0.000 NNE 1.780 2.720 4.200 5.960 3.410 1.860 0.000WA 1-04, Task 5 22 SC&A – November 10, 2011 Table 17: Cañon City Frequencies of Stability Class es (Wind Towards)

Dir Pasquill Stability Class (m/s)

A B C D E F G N 0.0116 0.1188 0.2367 0.4935 0.0654 0.0741 0.0000 NNW 0.0071 0.0907 0.2116 0.5325 0.0851 0.0730 0.000 0 NW 0.0123 0.0988 0.2017 0.4892 0.1146 0.0833 0.0000 WNW 0.0164 0.1108 0.1983 0.3762 0.1622 0.1362 0.000 0 W 0.0154 0.1102 0.1597 0.3290 0.1767 0.2090 0.0000 WSW 0.0085 0.0823 0.1231 0.3181 0.1974 0.2706 0.000 0 SW 0.0044 0.0474 0.0783 0.2728 0.2647 0.3324 0.0000 SSW 0.0021 0.0220 0.0577 0.2310 0.3668 0.3204 0.000 0 S 0.0021 0.0190 0.0658 0.4320 0.2807 0.2004 0.0000 SSE 0.0023 0.0226 0.0603 0.6097 0.1893 0.1159 0.000 0 SE 0.0017 0.0307 0.0855 0.5660 0.1750 0.1410 0.0000 ESE 0.0045 0.0585 0.1043 0.5250 0.1552 0.1525 0.000 0 E 0.0108 0.0861 0.1416 0.4909 0.1250 0.1457 0.0000 ENE 0.0204 0.1346 0.1629 0.4512 0.0858 0.1451 0.000 0 NE 0.0180 0.1876 0.1914 0.4188 0.0725 0.1118 0.0000 NNE 0.0149 0.1415 0.2149 0.4723 0.0712 0.0852 0.000 0 TOTAL 0.0074 0.0678 0.1321 0.4401 0.1863 0.1664 0.0 000

2.3.3 Radon Release

Cotter Corporation does not include the site’s rado n release in its semi-annual effluent reports that are prepared for the Colorado Department of Pu blic Health and Environment. However, until recently, the reports did include the results of radon flux measurements for the Primary and Secondary Impoundments in their semi-annual effluen t reports. The radon flux measurements can be used to calculate an annual radon release fo llowing the guidance provided in Quinn 2010. This was done, and the resulting annual radon relea ses from 1999 through 2009 are tabulated in Table 18 and shown graphically in Figure 4.

Table 18: Cañon City Annual Radon Release

Year Radon Flux

(pCi/m 2 -s) Radon Release

(Ci/y) 1999 13.2 180 2000 7.7 105 2001 7.9 108 2002 15.9 217 2003 5.8 79 2004 6.2 85 2005 7.6 104 2006 6.1 83 2007 14 191 2008 19.7 269 2009 13.4 183 Sources: Cotter 2007, Figure 4-19; Cain 2008, page 47; Cain 2010, page 50WA 1-04, Task 5 23 SC&A – November 10, 2011 Figure 4: Cañon City Radon Flux and Annual Release

Although the radon releases given in Table 18 and F igure 4 are only from the impoundments, it is assumed that other onsite sources of radon would be small by comparison. The basis for this assumption is that no milling operations have occur red at Cañon City since 2005, and there is not likely much uranium onsite to act as a source of ra don. This is supported by the monthly release rates for uranium, thorium, and radium, which are v ery low. Finally, Cotter 2010 points out that the offsite radon daughter (i.e., 210 Pb) concentrations (which are measured and reported in the semiannual effluent reports) are consistent with wh at would be expected from non-Cañon City Milling Facility radon:

Results for 210 Pb at all monitoring locations are controlled by re gional 222 Rn concentrations and do not exhibit discernible effec ts from milling facility activities. [Cotter 2010, page 5-4]

2.3.4 Risk Estimates

The RMEI and population doses and risks calculated by CAP88 for the Cañon City site are shown in Table 19.WA 1-04, Task 5 24 SC&A – November 10, 2011 Table 19: Cañon City Risk Assessment Results

Receptor / Impact Radon Release (Ci/yr) Unitized Maximum Average

1 269 146 RMEI (1500m N) Dose (mrem/yr) 5.0E-03 1.0E+01 6.0E+00

LCF Risk (yr -1 ) 2.6E-09 5.4E-06 3.1E-06 Population Dose (person-rem/yr) 2.4E-02 4.9E+01 2.9E+01

LCF Risk (yr -1 ) 1.5E-07 3.1E-04 1.8E-04

2.4 Smith Ranch – Highland 4

Power Resources Incorporated (PRI), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Cameco Corporation, operates the Highland and Smith Ranch ISL uranium m ines located in eastern Wyoming, approximately 16 miles north of Glenrock in Convers e County. In 1987, ISL facilities were constructed at the Highland mine, and commercial pr oduction began a year later. Cameco acquired PRI in 1997. The first ISL pilot operatio n began in 1981 at the Smith Ranch; the second operation began in 1984. Commercial ISL fac ilities were constructed in 1996 and began producing a year later. Cameco then acquired the S mith Ranch from Rio Algom Mining Corporation in 2002 and consolidated the Highland a nd Smith Ranch operations (the Highland license, SUA-1511, was integrated into the license: SUA-1548). The Highland and Smith Ranch mines are currently the largest operated uranium pr oduction facilities in the United States, with lifetime production capacities of two million pound s of uranium from each facility. Proven and probable reserves total 5.9 million pounds of U 3 O 8 , and in 2009, production was 1.8 million pounds of U 3 O 8

. The permit area for the combined Smith Ranch – High land properties contains 30,760 acres. The main facilities at the Smith Ranch – Highland U ranium Project (SR-HUP), besides the well fields, include the two yellowcake processing plant sites and related facilities that are located within the former Bill Smith Mine site (Smith Ranch Main Office Central Processing Plant [CPP] Complex) and the former Exxon Highland Mine s ite (HUP Central Plant/Office Complex). Since 2002, the HUP facilities have been on stand-by status, although in the future it may be used as a resin stripping, elution, and prec ipitation facility. All yellowcake processing, office, and related activities currently are occurr ing at Smith Ranch, shown in Figure 5. In association with the Smith Ranch CPP is a lined, tw o-celled evaporation pond to assist with wastewater disposal. Additional lined evaporation ponds consisting of 5- to 15-acre cells may be constructed as needed. Waste water is also dispose d at two deep disposal wells at Smith Ranch and one deep disposal well at Highland.

4 The description of the Smith Ranch – Highland site was abstracted from various sources, including RAM C 1999, Trihydro 2005, Melbye 2008, Cameco 2009, and Cameco 2010b, while the aerial view of the Smith Ranch – Highland site was obtained from Google Maps

.WA 1-04, Task 5 25 SC&A – November 10, 2011 Figure 5: Smith Ranch – Aerial View

2.4.1 Population and Food Production

The 80-kilometer population distribution in each of the 16 principal compass directions, which was calculated for the Smith Ranch – Highland site by SECPOP and used in CAP88 for population dose calculations, is shown in Table 20. To adjust the 2000 population data to 2010, the CAP88 Smith Ranch – Highland population dose wa s multiplied by 1.14, see Section 1.2 and Table 3.

Table 20: Smith Ranch – Highland Population Data

Dir Distance (km)

0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 20 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 NNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 SSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 133 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 SSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 ENE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NE 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 NNE 0 0 0 0 0 0 6WA 1-04, Task 5 26 SC&A – November 10, 2011 Table 20: Smith Ranch – Highland Population Data

Dir Distance (km) 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 N 7 5 13 30 4 172 NNW 2 3 14 10 10 11 NW 0 0 0 17 590 31 WNW 0 0 13 3 6 2 W 0 0 2 304 24 123 WSW 37 216 926 42155 20374 756 SW 2418 137 179 63 66 32 SSW 893 25 27 5 0 0 S 80 37 33 6 5 4 SSE 77 388 586 88 35 63 SE 19 1234 5161 78 106 54 ESE 16 5 21 29 22 44 E 5 8 5 16 20 13 ENE 0 21 30 3 21 12 NE 9 0 14 14 4 19 NNE 4 14 9 3 33 1299

The agricultural productivity factors for Wyoming w ere taken from Appendix C of the CAP88 User’s Manual, as shown below, and used in the Smit h Ranch – Highland site population dose calculation.

Beef Cattle Density (cattle/km 2 ): 5.12

Milk Cattle Density (cow/km 2 ): 0.0579 Land Cultivated for Vegetable Crops: 0.159%

The distance and direction to the RMEI were identif ied in the Smith Ranch – Highland license application (PRI 2003) as:

... the Sundquist (Smith) Ranch located approximately 2.6 miles southwest of the Smith Ranch Main Office/CPP site, the Vollman Ranch well located approximately 1.5 miles east of Satellite No. 3 and the Fowler Ranch well l ocated just north of the permit area approximately 2.5 miles north of the Highland Centr al Plant. [PRI 2003, page 2-3]

Notice, that the Table 20 SECPOP estimate places th e nearest individual to Smith Ranch – Highland at a distance of 5 to 10 km in the East di rection. This location was found through analysis using CAP88 to be the location of the RMEI . To calculate the RMEI dose and risk for this study, the Table 20 RMEI distance and directio n were used.

2.4.2 Meteorology

The CAP88 computer program is provided with a weath er library of meteorological data from over 350 NWS stations. For the Smith Ranch – Highl and site, the CAP88-provided weather data for Casper, WY (CAP88 File: CPR0335.WND) were used. The period of record for this data included the years 1967 through 1971. Table 21 sho ws the directional dependent average windWA 1-04, Task 5 27 SC&A – November 10, 2011

speed for each stability class, while Table 22 give s the stability class frequency used in the Smith Ranch – Highland analysis.

Table 21: Smith Ranch – Highland Arithmetic Averag e Wind Speeds (Wind Towards)

Dir Pasquill Stability Class (m/s)

A B C D E F G N 1.372 2.360 3.774 5.971 3.088 1.804 0.000 NNW 1.855 2.243 3.408 4.058 3.145 1.862 0.000 NW 1.972 2.493 3.522 4.613 3.354 2.059 0.000 WNW 1.991 2.361 3.922 5.109 3.762 1.924 0.000 W 1.585 2.354 3.613 5.489 3.668 2.019 0.000 WSW 1.178 2.558 3.731 4.958 3.653 2.147 0.000 SW 1.991 2.901 3.740 5.331 3.461 2.056 0.000 SSW 1.725 2.656 3.756 5.648 3.423 2.160 0.000 S 1.972 2.687 3.938 5.565 3.384 1.943 0.000 SSE 1.991 2.699 4.561 4.794 3.367 2.064 0.000 SE 0.772 3.216 3.909 6.086 3.344 2.104 0.000 ESE 1.972 2.827 4.075 6.414 3.521 2.041 0.000 E 1.837 2.846 4.651 6.724 3.865 2.010 0.000 ENE 1.725 2.973 4.670 7.288 4.105 2.073 0.000 NE 1.178 2.691 5.089 8.261 4.040 1.959 0.000 NNE 1.672 2.809 4.477 8.494 3.971 1.924 0.000

Table 22: Smith Ranch – Highland Frequencies of St ability Classes (Wind Towards)

Dir Pasquill Stability Class (frequency)

A B C D E F G N 0.0093 0.1614 0.1547 0.4633 0.0849 0.1264 0.0000 NNW 0.0904 0.1825 0.1474 0.3184 0.1325 0.1289 0.000 0 NW 0.0115 0.1378 0.1499 0.4327 0.1466 0.1214 0.0000 WNW 0.0109 0.0631 0.1201 0.5322 0.1641 0.1095 0.000 0 W 0.0067 0.0608 0.1044 0.5708 0.1438 0.1135 0.0000 WSW 0.0092 0.0366 0.0886 0.5864 0.1417 0.1376 0.000 0 SW 0.0072 0.0404 0.0644 0.6413 0.1314 0.1152 0.0000 SSW 0.0084 0.0388 0.0585 0.6700 0.1046 0.1197 0.000 0 S 0.0037 0.0385 0.0691 0.5697 0.1331 0.1860 0.0000 SSE 0.0084 0.0694 0.0792 0.4323 0.1598 0.2509 0.000 0 SE 0.0061 0.0442 0.0914 0.4621 0.1687 0.2275 0.0000 ESE 0.0109 0.0439 0.0937 0.4982 0.1641 0.1892 0.000 0 E 0.0081 0.0372 0.0843 0.4802 0.2302 0.1600 0.0000 ENE 0.0031 0.0175 0.0636 0.6527 0.1984 0.0647 0.000 0 NE 0.0017 0.0165 0.0400 0.8454 0.0730 0.0233 0.0000 NNE 0.0044 0.0224 0.0438 0.8422 0.0546 0.0327 0.000 0 TOTAL 0.0066 0.0389 0.0717 0.6385 0.1394 0.1049 0.0 000WA 1-04, Task 5 28 SC&A – November 10, 2011

2.4.3 Radon Release

Tables 3 and 4 of Savignac 2007 provide the data ne cessary to use NUREG-1569 (NRC 2003), Appendix D to calculate the radon released from the various Smith Ranch – Highland well fields during both production and restoration, respectivel y. Using the Savignac 2007 data, Table 23 presents the calculated well field annual radon rel eases during both production and restoration. The reason that the annual restoration radon releas e is greater than the production release for all the well fields, except well field SW, is because t he restoration purge rate is greater. Thus, there is less time for radiological decay to reduce the a mount of radon prior to its release.

Table 23: Smith Ranch – Highland Well Field Annual Radon Release

Well Field Radon Release (Ci/yr)

Production Restoration Purge Vent IX Total Purge Vent Total

C 19 1,544 2.3 1,565 157 1,537 1,694

D 6 257 2.3 266 26 256 282

Dext 4 772 2.3 779 79 768 848

E 2 1,011 2.3 1,016 103 1,006 1,109

F 8 4,230 2.3 4,241 455 4,207 4,662

H 1 2,207 2.3 2,210 225 2,195 2,420

I 28 2,206 2.3 2,236 225 2,195 2,420

1 185 983 8.7 1,177 794 952 1,745

2 126 674 3.4 803 217 669 886

3 237 1,275 6.9 1,518 806 1,245 2,051

4/4A 185 1,001 8.2 1,195 334 994 1,328 (SR)15 62 2,572 2.3 2,636 239 2,562 2,801 (SR)15A 58 2,388 2.2 2,448 206 2,380 2,586 (HUP)J 40 2,389 2.2 2,431 245 2,378 2,624 (HUP)K 41 844 2.4 887 94 841 935 SW 4,727 3,615 1.1 8,343 311 3,846 4,157

Cameco 2009 presents a revised estimated schedule f or Smith Ranch – Highland well field activities, which has been reproduced below as Figu re 6.WA 1-04, Task 5 29 SC&A – November 10, 2011

Figure 6: Smith Ranch – Highland – Estimated Time Table of Mining Related Activities

Figure 6 is used in conjunction with Table 23 to ca lculate the site-wide annual radon release over the Smith Ranch – Highlands estimated operating lif e. Figure 7 shows these calculated Smith Ranch – Highland radon releases.WA 1-04, Task 5 30 SC&A – November 10, 2011

Figure 7: Smith Ranch – Highland – Total Estimated Radon Release by Year

The calculated maximum Smith Ranch – Highland annua l radon release from all well fields either in production or restoration occurs in 2009 and is 36,500 Ci, while the average annual radon release from 2009 to 2029 is 21,100 Ci.

2.4.4 Risk Estimates

The RMEI and population doses and risks calculated by CAP88 for the Smith Ranch – Highland site are shown in Table 24.

Table 24: Smith Ranch – Highland Risk Assessment R esults

Receptor / Impact Radon Release (Ci/yr) Unitized Maximum Average 1 36,500 21,100

RMEI (7500m E) Dose (mrem/yr) 7.2E-04 1.5E+00 8.6E-01

LCF Risk (yr -1 ) 3.7E-10 7.7E-07 4.5E-07 Population Dose (person-rem/yr) 1.8E-03 3.7E+00 2.2E+00

LCF Risk (yr -1 ) 1.1E-08 2.3E-05 1.3E-05WA 1-04, Task 5 31 SC&A – November 10, 2011

2.5 Crow Butte 5

The Crow Butte Project site is located in west cent ral Dawes County, Nebraska, just north and west of the Pine Ridge Area. The Crow Butte Projec t site, shown in Figure 8, is about 4.0 miles southeast of the City of Crawford via Squaw Creek R oad. What is now the Crow Butte Project was originally developed by Wyoming Fuel Corporatio n, which constructed a R&D facility at the site in 1986; commercial operations began in 19 91. The project was subsequently acquired and is now owned and operated by Crow Butte Resourc es, Inc. (CBR), known as the Ferret Exploration Company of Nebraska until May 1994. It is the first uranium mine in Nebraska and has reserves of 5.9 million pounds of U 3 O 8 (2,270 tonnes U), resources of 8.5 million pounds of U 3 O 8 (3,270 tonnes U), and an annual capacity of 2 mill ion pounds of U 3 O 8

.

Figure 8: Crow Butte – Aerial View

Most of the following description of the Crow Butte ISL process was taken from the license renewal application (CBR 2007). Uranium is recover ed by ISL from the Chadron Sandstone at a depth that varies from 400 feet to 900 feet. The o verall width of the mineralized area varies from 1000 feet to 5000 feet. The ore body ranges from l ess than 0.05 percent to greater than 0.5 percent U 3 O 8 , with an average grade estimated at 0.26 percent e quivalent U 3 O 8 . The ISL process at Crow Butte uses gaseous oxygen or hydrogen perox ide to oxidize the uranium, and bicarbonate for dissolution. The uranium-bearing s olution that results from the leaching of uranium underground is recovered from the well fiel d and the uranium is extracted in the process plant. The plant process consists of the following steps:

• Loading of uranium complexes onto ion exchange re sin; • Reconstitution of the solution by the addition of carbonate and an oxidizer;

5 The description of the Crow Butte site was abstrac ted from various sources, including CBR 2007, Melby e 2008, CBR 2009, and Cameco 2010a, while the aerial view o f the Crow Butte site was obtained from Google Maps

.WA 1-04, Task 5 32 SC&A – November 10, 2011

• Elution of the uranium complexes from the resin; and • Drying and packaging of the uranium.

The radon-222 is contained in the pregnant lixivian t that comes from the well field to the process plant. The majority of this radon is released in t he ion exchange columns and process tanks. These vessels are covered and vented to a manifold, which are in turn exhausted to atmosphere outside the building through stacks.

2.5.1 Population and Food Production

The 80-kilometer population distribution in each of the 16 principal compass directions, which was calculated for the Crow Butte site by SECPOP an d used in CAP88 for population dose calculations, is shown in Table 25. To adjust the 2000 population data to 2010, the CAP88 Crow Butte population dose was multiplied by 0.96, see S ection 1.2 and Table 3.

Table 25: Crow Butte Population Data

Dir Distance (km)

0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 20 N 0 0 0 0 0 19 20 NNW 0 0 0 1 0 34 39 NW 0 0 0 1 0 1140 33 WNW 0 0 4 0 0 20 12 W 0 3 0 0 0 24 20 WSW 0 2 0 5 0 7 21 SW 0 0 0 6 0 0 25 SSW 0 0 0 0 1 10 18 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 SSE 0 0 0 0 12 0 22 SE 0 0 0 0 0 10 12 ESE 0 1 0 0 0 0 43 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 ENE 0 0 0 15 0 9 32 NE 0 0 0 0 0 7 42 NNE 0 0 0 0 0 5 147WA 1-04, Task 5 33 SC&A – November 10, 2011 Table 25: Crow Butte Population Data

Dir Distance (km) 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 N 0 3 22 88 187 232 NNW 3 7 13 22 37 80 NW 26 24 4 23 0 51 WNW 25 35 22 22 28 37 W 27 26 295 35 72 25 WSW 22 8 9 29 35 34 SW 13 7 46 14 14 26 SSW 17 14 22 12 88 355 S 29 42 40 34 8 239 SSE 37 80 1148 209 268 5496 SE 14 94 134 182 495 3841 ESE 43 60 35 178 131 70 E 70 263 101 889 162 1193 ENE 203 598 101 86 109 3858 NE 59 5588 55 29 166 1904 NNE 1 17 11 17 81 103

The agricultural productivity factors for Nebraska were taken from Appendix C of the CAP88 User’s Manual, as shown below, and used in the Crow Butte site population dose calculation.

Beef Cattle Density (cattle/km 2 ): 35. Milk Cattle Density (cow/km 2 ): 0.878 Land Cultivated for Vegetable Crops: 2.39%

The distance and direction to the RMEI were identif ied in the CBR’s response to NRC’s request for additional information (RAI) (CBR 2009) regardi ng the Crow Butte license renewal application as:

Two dwelling units are within 0.62 mile [ENE and ES E], and another five dwelling units are within 1.24 miles of the center point of the Li cense Area. [CBR 2009, Section 2.2.3.4]

Notice that the Table 25 SECPOP estimate places the nearest individuals to Crow Butte at a distance of 1 to 2 km in the West, WSW, and ESE dir ections. Through analysis using CAP88 the RMEI was found to be located 1 to 2 km in the WSW d irection. To calculate the RMEI dose and risk for this study, the Table 25 RMEI distances an d directions were used, since they are consistent with the RAI response information (i.e., 0.62 mile is equal to 1 km in the ESE direction, and 1.24 miles is about 2 km).

2.5.2 Meteorology

The Crow Butte ISL site has a meteorological monito ring station that records wind speed, wind direction, and stability class. This onsite meteor ological data were used by CBR to formulate a joint frequency distribution for the dose calculati ons performed as part of the Crow Butte licenseWA 1-04, Task 5 34 SC&A – November 10, 2011

renewal application. For this risk assessment, the meteorological data from the license renewal application were reformatted so that it could be pr ocessed by the CAP88 auxiliary program, WINDGET (Trinity 2007), which generated a meteorolo gical data file in the format required by CAP88 (i.e., a .WND file). Table 26 shows the dire ctional-dependent average wind speed for each stability class that was used in this risk ass essment for the Crow Butte site, while Table 27 gives the stability class frequency.

Table 26: Crow Butte Arithmetic Average Wind Speeds (Wind Towards)

Dir Pasquill Stability Class (m/s)

A B C D E F G N 3.702 5.309 5.269 8.323 3.824 2.504 0.000 NNW 4.259 5.031 7.395 7.497 3.340 2.364 0.000 NW 3.890 5.313 6.946 6.680 3.971 2.243 0.000 WNW 3.251 4.099 6.033 5.610 3.801 1.897 0.000 W 3.208 4.558 6.026 6.968 3.559 1.643 0.000 WSW 3.400 4.658 6.596 6.267 3.786 1.869 0.000 SW 3.381 4.672 6.051 6.886 3.936 2.446 0.000 SSW 3.594 4.399 5.726 7.469 3.882 2.095 0.000 S 3.844 5.053 5.848 6.572 3.401 1.826 0.000 SSE 3.898 5.988 5.852 8.053 3.356 1.682 0.000 SE 4.106 5.996 5.821 9.384 4.293 2.160 0.000 ESE 4.322 4.833 5.447 8.553 4.029 2.311 0.000 E 4.296 5.217 5.643 8.225 3.246 2.105 0.000 ENE 4.024 5.198 4.985 7.496 4.094 2.192 0.000 NE 3.804 4.493 5.118 6.580 4.179 2.347 0.000 NNE 4.550 4.719 4.820 7.136 3.594 2.568 0.000WA 1-04, Task 5 35 SC&A – November 10, 2011 Table 27: Crow Butte Frequencies of Stability Class es (Wind Towards)

Dir Pasquill Stability Class (frequency)

A B C D E F G N 0.0229 0.0336 0.0608 0.5833 0.1758 0.1236 0.0000 NNW 0.0349 0.0462 0.0908 0.5105 0.2089 0.1087 0.000 0 NW 0.0885 0.1017 0.1610 0.3487 0.1788 0.1213 0.0000 WNW 0.0605 0.1256 0.1596 0.2897 0.1589 0.2058 0.000 0 W 0.1169 0.0716 0.4700 0.1658 0.0878 0.0879 0.0000 WSW 0.1062 0.1419 0.2329 0.3233 0.1250 0.0708 0.000 0 SW 0.0833 0.1149 0.1570 0.4925 0.1229 0.0294 0.0000 SSW 0.1098 0.0898 0.1157 0.5296 0.1157 0.0395 0.000 0 S 0.1463 0.1528 0.1463 0.3110 0.1425 0.1010 0.0000 SSE 0.0825 0.1194 0.1369 0.5582 0.0695 0.0335 0.000 0 SE 0.0332 0.0615 0.0780 0.7436 0.0521 0.0315 0.0000 ESE 0.0677 0.1026 0.0720 0.5913 0.1089 0.0574 0.000 0 E 0.0823 0.1161 0.1263 0.4623 0.1055 0.1075 0.0000 ENE 0.0372 0.0696 0.1450 0.5163 0.1518 0.0801 0.000 0 NE 0.0281 0.0439 0.0930 0.5189 0.1994 0.1166 0.0000 NNE 0.0244 0.0400 0.0874 0.4574 0.2123 0.1785 0.000 0 TOTAL 0.0559 0.0730 0.1152 0.5100 0.1510 0.0948 0.0 000

2.5.3 Radon Release

Regarding radon release from the Crow Butte site, t he application for license renewal (CBR 2007) stated:

The only radioactive airborne effluent at the Crow Butte Project is radon-222 gas. As yellowcake drying and packaging is carried out usin g a vacuum dryer, there are no airborne effluents from that system.

The radon-222 is contained in the pregnant lixivian t that comes from the wellfield to the process plant. The majority of this radon is relea sed in the ion exchange columns and process tanks. These vessels are covered and vente d to a manifold, which are in turn exhausted to atmosphere outside the building throug h stacks. The manifolds are equipped with an exhausting fan. [CBR 2007, Section 1.8.1]

As required by 10 CFR § 40.65 and License SUA-1534 Condition Number 12.1, the estimated release of radon from process operations is reporte d in the semi-annual reports. Table 28 contains annual calculated radon releases from the Crow Butte Project Facility since 1994, as does Figure 9.WA 1-04, Task 5 36 SC&A – November 10, 2011

Table 28: Crow Butte Radon Release to the Environment

Year Release

(Ci/yr) Year Release

(Ci/yr) 1995 3,537 2001 4,633 1996 3,997 2002 4,675 1997 4,175 2003 4,615 1998 4,740 2004 4,671 1999 4,674 2005 4,517 2000 4,760 2006 4,607 Source: CBR 2009, Table 5.8-8 Table 29: Crow Butte Modeled Radon Release

Source Release

(Ci/yr) Plant Vent 4,603 Satellite Plant Vent 342 MU-2-4 (restoration) 350 MU-5 454 MU-6&8 908 MU 7&9 908 North Trend Well Field 1,320 Total 8,885 Source: CBR 2007, Table 7.12-5

CBR 2007 used MILDOS-Area to model the emission rat e of radon from the Crow Butte Project, including the North Trend Well Field. Those modele d radon emission rates are shown in Table 29, which consists of a flow of 5000 gpm in the up- flow ion exchange columns in the existing plant, along with the proposed 4000 gpm of flow tre ated in the pressurized down-flow ion exchange columns. Notice that the modeled radon re lease rate is about twice as that reported as the estimated radon release rate.

Figure 9: Crow Butte Total Estimated Semi-Annual R adon Release (1991-2007)

For the Crow Butte Project, the maximum annual rado n release rate was assumed to be 8,885 Ci, while the average annual release rate is 4,467 Ci.WA 1-04, Task 5 37 SC&A – November 10, 2011

2.5.4 Risk Estimates

The RMEI and population doses and risks calculated by CAP88 for the Crow Butte site are shown in Table 30.

Table 30: Crow Butte Risk Assessment Results

Receptor / Impact Radon Release (Ci/yr) Unitized Maximum Average 1 8,885 4,467

RMEI (1500m WSW) Dose (mrem/yr) 1.6E-03 3.3E+00 1.9E+00

LCF Risk (yr -1 ) 8.4E-10 1.7E-06 1.0E-06 Population Dose (person-rem/yr) 1.3E-03 2.7E+00 1.6E+00

LCF Risk (yr -1 ) 8.4E-09 1.7E-05 1.0E-05

2.6 Christensen / Irigaray 6

The Christensen / Irigaray Ranch project is an ISL uranium mining operation located approximately 55 miles southeast of Buffalo, Wyomin g, and 51 miles northeast of Midwest, Wyoming. The project is actually composed of two I SL sites (7 miles apart) containing well fields or facilities within approximately 687 acres . The first area, generally referred to as the Irigaray site or the Irigaray CPP, is located in so utheast Johnson County, Wyoming (see Figure 10). The uranium deposit is one of many located in the Powder River Basin in northeast Wyoming. The property consists of approximately tw enty-eight square miles. The second area is the Christensen Ranch well field and satellite o peration (ion exchange plant), shown in Figure 11, which is located approximately 13 miles southea st of the Irigaray site. The Christensen Ranch operations consist of approximately 14,000 ac res in Johnson and Campbell Counties, Wyoming.

In August 1978, the NRC issued one license, SUA-134 1, which covers both areas of the Christensen / Irigaray Ranch project. The site ope rated intermittently until June 2000, when all mining activities were suspended due to low uranium prices. In April 2007, the mine owner, Cogema Mining, Inc., requested an amendment to the license to return the facility to an operating status. The NRC subsequently approved the licensee ’s request by a license amendment dated September 30, 2008. In December 2009, Cogema Minin g was sold to Uranium One, Inc.

In anticipation of plant startup, the licensee bega n implementing operations-related environmental monitoring during October 2008. When the plant resumes operation, the first mine unit that will be placed into service will be Christensen Ranch mine unit 7. At the time of the inspection, the well field data package for thi s mine unit was being reviewed by the State of Wyoming. The construction of the mine unit was app roximately half complete. The monitor

6 The description of the Christensen / Irigaray site was abstracted from various sources, including Mel bye 2008, NRC 2008, and NRC 2010, while the aerial views of t he Christensen / Irigaray site were obtained from G oogle Maps.WA 1-04, Task 5 38 SC&A – November 10, 2011

well ring and some of the main trunk lines had been installed. In the near future, the licensee plans to develop Christensen Ranch mine units 8-9. Future well fields may include Christensen Ranch mine units 10-12.

Since the site was returned to operational status S eptember 30, 2008, with the intent of returning to uranium production, plans to decommission the CP P at Irigaray were stopped, and, instead, the plant will be refurbished for a return to opera tion. Surface reclamation of the well fields at Irigaray will continue, as there is no intent to re open them for production. The satellite processing plant at Christensen Ranch will be used for operations, as uranium production has not occurred at several permitted well fields at Christ ensen Ranch. The Irigaray CPP may also be used for final processing of uranium from the Moore Ranch and Uranium One’s other uranium projects in the Powder River Basin.

Figure 10: Irigaray – Aerial ViewWA 1-04, Task 5 39 SC&A – November 10, 2011 Figure 11: Christensen – Aerial View

2.6.1 Population and Food Production

The 80-kilometer population distribution in each of the 16 principal compass directions, which was calculated for the Christensen / Irigaray site by SECPOP and used in CAP88 for population dose calculations, is shown in Table 31. To adjust the 2000 population data to 2010, the CAP88 Christensen / Irigaray population dose was multipli ed by 1.34, see Section 1.2 and Table 3.

Table 31: Christensen / Irigaray Population Data

Dir Distance (km)

0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 20 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 WNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSE 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 SE 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ENE 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 NE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NNE 0 0 0 0 0 0 7WA 1-04, Task 5 40 SC&A – November 10, 2011 Table 31: Christensen / Irigaray Population Data

Dir Distance (km) 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 N 0 0 12 18 17 8 NNW 0 0 3 5 24 16 NW 0 0 0 26 151 2135 WNW 0 0 0 16 36 34 W 0 24 109 39 23 27 WSW 54 24 277 55 19 13 SW 4 0 11 0 21 8 SSW 34 3 600 2 13 0 S 14 4 0 3 8 0 SSE 2 0 20 5 4 25 SE 0 8 29 9 17 14 ESE 13 7 77 7 5 49 E 3 0 1417 91 20 8 ENE 31 2 39 52 16 28 NE 38 11 150 459 23517 5049 NNE 0 8 66 407 403 118

The agricultural productivity factors for Wyoming w ere taken from Appendix C of the CAP88 User’s Manual, as shown below, and used in the Chri stensen / Irigaray site population dose calculation.

Beef Cattle Density (cattle/km 2 ): 5.12

Milk Cattle Density (cow/km 2 ): 0.0579 Land Cultivated for Vegetable Crops: 0.159%

The distance and direction to the RMEI were identif ied in Cogema’s response to NRC’s RAI (Cogema 2010) regarding the Christensen / Irigaray license renewal application as:

The nearest residence to the IR site is 4 miles to the north (the Brubaker ranch) and the nearest residence to CR is the John Christensen ran ch located 3 miles southeast of the CR plant site. Both are ranch housing with a populatio n of 5 or less. [Cogema 2010, Section 5.2]

Notice that the Table 31 SECPOP estimate places the nearest individual to Christensen / Irigaray at a distance of 3 to 4 km in the SE direction. Th is location was found to be the location of the RMEI through analysis using CAP88. Since it is slig htly closer, the Table 31 RMEI distance and direction were used to calculate the RMEI dose and risk for this study.

2.6.2 Meteorology

The CAP88 computer program is provided with a weath er library of meteorological data from over 350 NWS stations. For the Christensen / Iriga ray site, the CAP88-provided weather data for Casper, WY (CAP88 File: 24089.WND) were used. T he period of record for this dataWA 1-04, Task 5 41 SC&A – November 10, 2011

included the years 1988 through 1992. Table 32 sho ws the directional-dependent average wind speed for each stability class, while Table 33 give s the stability class frequency, used in the Christensen / Irigaray analysis.

Table 32: Christensen / Irigaray Arithmetic Averag e Wind Speeds (Wind Towards)

Dir Pasquill Stability Class (m/s)

A B C D E F G N 2.070 2.820 4.040 5.620 3.160 1.960 0.000 NNW 2.080 2.760 3.260 4.620 3.160 1.920 0.000 NW 1.990 2.920 3.340 4.670 3.160 1.820 0.000 WNW 2.210 2.650 4.080 5.340 3.580 2.150 0.000 W 1.940 2.680 4.100 5.730 3.780 2.080 0.000 WSW 2.070 3.020 4.050 5.110 3.520 2.120 0.000 SW 1.930 2.990 3.830 5.190 3.410 2.170 0.000 SSW 2.060 2.870 3.750 5.830 3.520 2.180 0.000 S 1.770 2.900 3.970 5.510 3.450 2.150 0.000 SSE 2.190 2.520 3.530 5.120 3.270 2.150 0.000 SE 2.270 3.030 4.100 5.560 3.470 2.200 0.000 ESE 2.070 3.110 4.560 6.220 3.450 2.190 0.000 E 2.020 2.890 4.720 6.500 3.820 2.150 0.000 ENE 1.970 3.100 5.200 7.080 4.100 2.200 0.000 NE 2.170 2.980 5.500 8.420 4.010 2.210 0.000 NNE 1.970 2.990 5.000 8.290 3.740 2.110 0.000

Table 33: Christensen / Irigaray Frequencies of St ability Classes (Wind Towards)

Dir Pasquill Stability Class (frequency)

A B C D E F G N 0.0135 0.2097 0.1742 0.3958 0.0973 0.1095 0.0000 NNW 0.0276 0.2452 0.2063 0.2690 0.1188 0.1331 0.000 0 NW 0.0302 0.1927 0.2094 0.3469 0.1073 0.1134 0.0000 WNW 0.0083 0.1102 0.1352 0.4937 0.1515 0.1010 0.000 0 W 0.0036 0.0671 0.1110 0.5846 0.1395 0.0943 0.0000 WSW 0.0088 0.0549 0.0995 0.5699 0.1414 0.1254 0.000 0 SW 0.0061 0.0557 0.0861 0.5939 0.1350 0.1232 0.0000 SSW 0.0056 0.0431 0.0616 0.6628 0.1138 0.1130 0.000 0 S 0.0061 0.0469 0.0886 0.5403 0.1474 0.1707 0.0000 SSE 0.0046 0.0541 0.0913 0.3999 0.2038 0.2462 0.000 0 SE 0.0015 0.0535 0.0963 0.4190 0.1955 0.2343 0.0000 ESE 0.0063 0.0391 0.1045 0.4612 0.1511 0.2379 0.000 0 E 0.0028 0.0336 0.0921 0.4964 0.2166 0.1586 0.0000 ENE 0.0013 0.0178 0.0720 0.6031 0.2275 0.0783 0.000 0 NE 0.0008 0.0099 0.0444 0.8381 0.0813 0.0254 0.0000 NNE 0.0028 0.0318 0.0732 0.7946 0.0614 0.0361 0.000 0 TOTAL 0.0041 0.0424 0.0820 0.6227 0.1437 0.1051 0.0 000WA 1-04, Task 5 42 SC&A – November 10, 2011

2.6.3 Radon Release

Table 34 presents annual calculated radon release e stimates for the Christensen / Irigaray site for the period 1995 to 2000, the last production run pr ior to entering exclusively into restoration. Table 34 summarizes the information presented in th e semi-annual effluent reports over that time period. Calculation of the semi-annual radon relea se was suspended after year 2000 (Cogema 2008).

The source terms used to estimate radon-222 release s from the facility include two well fields in production, two restoration well fields, one new we ll field, and the satellite processing facility. The radon-222 releases from these source terms are calculated using methods similar to those described in NUREG-1569, Appendix D. For the Chris tensen Ranch area, mine units 10-12 and 7 were chosen based on their proximity to site boun daries and predominant wind directions. A summary of estimated radon-222 releases from the Fa cility is presented in Table 35.

Table 34: Christensen / Irigaray Environmental Radon Release Summary

Year Radon Release (Ci/yr)

Irigaray Christensen Ranch 1995 58.5 739.8 1996 63.9 1125.1 1997 71.0 1231.7 1998 69.6 1384.4 1999 132.8 711.4 2000 214.5 434.0 Source: Cogema 2008, Table 5.13 Table 35: Christensen / Irigaray Estimated Radon Release

Source Release (Ci/yr) Production 281 Restoration 257 Drilling 0.04 Resin Transfer 0.42 Total 538.46 Source: Cogema 2008, Table 7.3-2

For the Christensen / Irigaray site, the maximum an nual radon release rate was assumed to be 1,600 Ci, while the average annual release rate is 1,040 Ci.

2.6.4 Risk Estimates

The RMEI and population doses and risks calculated by CAP88 for the Christensen / Irigaray site are shown in Table 36.

Table 36: Christensen / Irigaray Risk Assessment R esults

Receptor / Impact Radon Release (Ci/yr) Unitized Maximum Average 1 1,600 1,040

RMEI (3500m SE) Dose (mrem/yr) 9.1E-04 1.9E+00 1.1E+00

LCF Risk (yr -1 ) 4.8E-10 9.9E-07 5.7E-07 Population Dose (person-rem/yr) 1.8E-03 3.8E+00 2.2E+00

LCF Risk (yr -1 ) 1.2E-08 2.4E-05 1.4E-05WA 1-04, Task 5 43 SC&A – November 10, 2011

2.7 Alta Mesa 1,2,3 7

The Alta Mesa Project uranium deposits, located in southern Brooks County, Texas, were discovered in the mid-1970s, and some exploration d rilling and monitor well installation were started in the 80s and early 90s. However, due to low uranium prices, the project was not developed. When Uranium Resources Inc. began licen sing the Alta Mesa Project, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) wa s the regulatory agency. In 1998, Uranium Resources Inc. received permit number UR030 60 from the TNRCC. Due to the depressed uranium market, URI abandoned the project in 1999, which was then continued by Mesteña Uranium LLC. Licensing and permitting effo rt proceeded to 2002. In 2002, the Texas Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Control i ssued material license number L05360 for the operation of the Alta Mesa in situ uranium mine to Mesteña Uranium. Development activities began in late 2004, and construction of the production facilities began in January 2005. Despite challenges due to three hurricanes, and sho rt supplies of materials, equipment, and trained personnel, the Alta Mesa Project started, a s planned, in October 2005. The Alta Mesa Project produced 480,000 lbs of U 3 O 8 in 2009, and plans to produce about 650,000 lbs of U 3 O 8 in 2010.

In 2007, the responsibility for source material rec overy (i.e., uranium surface mining activities) licensing was transferred to the Texas Department o f State Health Services (TDSHS) to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). The Texas Railroad Commission (TRRC) retains responsibility for permitting for ex ploration wells for uranium mining.

The uranium mineralization occurs at depths from 15 0 to 500+ feet deep in different sandstone units of the Pliocene Goliad Formation, with an ave rage thickness of 14.3 feet. The majority of the mineable reserves as of 1994 had been found in a sandstone unit designated the Middle C Sand Unit, with ore quality mineralization ranging from 420 to 480 feet deep. The uranium occurs along multiple, relatively continuous oxidat ion-reduction fronts that range in width from 50 to 200+ feet wide. The Alta Mesa uranium deposi t has an average ore grade of 0.096% U 3 O 8

. The Alta Mesa Project, shown in Figure 12, uses con ventional ion exchange precipitation processes and a low-temperature, zero-emission rota ry vacuum dryer. The facility and well fields are designed for flexibility of operations.

7 The description of the Alta Mesa site was abstract ed from various sources, including Tanner and Goran son 2007, Melbye 2008, and McNeill 2010, while the aeri al view of the Alta Mesa site was obtained from Goo gle Maps.WA 1-04, Task 5 44 SC&A – November 10, 2011 Figure 12: Alta Mesa – Aerial View

2.7.1 Population and Food Production

The 80-kilometer population distribution in each of the 16 principal compass directions, which was calculated for the Alta Mesa site by SECPOP and used in CAP88 for population dose calculations, is shown in Table 37. To adjust the 2000 population data to 2010, the CAP88 Alta Mesa population dose was multiplied by 0.92, see Se ction 1.2 and Table 3.WA 1-04, Task 5 45 SC&A – November 10, 2011 Table 37: Alta Mesa 1,2,3 Population Data

Dir Distance (km)

0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 20 N 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 NNW 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 WSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 S 0 0 0 0 0 10 38 SSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SE 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 E 0 0 69 0 0 79 198 ENE 0 0 0 0 0 6 112 NE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NNE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dir Distance (km) 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 N 11 17 197 577 184 2454 NNW 6 0 73 106 309 41 NW 7 13 0 4748 339 482 WNW 0 14 5 25 28 30 W 22 3 0 26 16 84 WSW 0 114 21 44 78 19 SW 239 149 155 47 502 20610 SSW 462 13 38 33 2458 17761 S 81 56 103 2305 65220 201974 SSE 3 56 1058 6732 41029 66913 SE 25 60 34 69 7733 9454 ESE 6 0 0 65 26 404 E 18 0 8 48 0 0 ENE 18 4 3 8 8 24 NE 3 42 201 36 1542 5971 NNE 5 4518 2862 3377 48 3089

The agricultural productivity factors for Texas wer e taken from Appendix C of the CAP88 User’s Manual, as shown below, and used in the Alta Mesa site population dose calculation.

Beef Cattle Density (cattle/km 2 ): 19 Milk Cattle Density (cow/km 2 ): 0.53 Land Cultivated for Vegetable Crops: 0.577%

According to Mestena 2000, Table 3.2, the nearest r esident to the Alta Mesa site is located about 2.5 km in the WSW direction. Table 37 also shows t he nearest resident as being 2 to 3 km fromWA 1-04, Task 5 46 SC&A – November 10, 2011

the site, but in the NNW, West, and East directions . Through analysis using CAP88, the RMEI was identified to be located 2 to 3 km in the NNW d irection.

2.7.2 Meteorology

The U.S. Naval Air Base in Kingsville, which is muc h closer to the site than any of the NWS stations (45miles northeast), collects meteorologic al data, including wind speed, wind direction, and stability class. Meteorological data from the Kingsville Naval Air Base were used by Mestena Uranium to formulate a joint frequency dist ribution for the dose calculations performed as part of the Alta Mesa license application. For this risk assessment, the meteorological data from the Alta Mesa license application were reforma tted so that they could be processed by the CAP88 auxiliary program, WINDGET (Trinity 2007), wh ich generated a meteorological data file in the format required by CAP88 (i.e., a .WND file). Table 38 shows the directionaldependent average wind speed for each stability cla ss that was used in this risk assessment for the Alta Mesa site, while Table 39 gives the stabil ity class frequency.

Table 38: Alta Mesa / Kingsville Dome Arithmetic A verage Wind Speeds (Wind Towards)

Dir Pasquill Stability Class (m/s)

A B C D E F G N 2.012 3.266 5.985 7.300 4.983 2.017 0.000 NNW 1.743 3.518 5.521 7.872 5.115 2.003 0.000 NW 2.000 3.566 6.077 7.482 5.107 1.975 0.000 WNW 1.823 3.648 5.834 7.200 4.799 1.659 0.000 W 1.680 2.995 5.338 5.648 4.244 1.533 0.000 WSW 1.488 2.699 4.844 5.468 3.866 1.341 0.000 SW 1.439 2.713 4.849 5.512 4.025 1.601 0.000 SSW 1.300 2.720 4.888 6.149 4.340 1.624 0.000 S 2.208 2.618 4.761 6.445 4.705 1.633 0.000 SSE 1.826 2.395 5.180 6.390 4.763 1.659 0.000 SE 2.556 2.373 5.205 6.202 4.782 1.642 0.000 ESE 2.556 2.924 4.545 6.220 4.388 1.695 0.000 E 1.027 1.982 4.278 4.734 4.203 1.542 0.000 ENE 1.029 1.762 3.991 3.652 6.112 1.462 0.000 NE 1.826 3.573 4.278 5.487 3.962 1.344 0.000 NNE 1.814 2.600 5.346 6.672 4.431 1.945 0.000WA 1-04, Task 5 47 SC&A – November 10, 2011 Table 39: Alta Mesa / Kingsville Dome Frequencies of Stability Classes (Wind Towards)

Dir Pasquill Stability Class (frequency)

A B C D E F G N 0.0162 0.0700 0.1047 0.4226 0.1090 0.2775 0.0000 NNW 0.0146 0.0529 0.0762 0.4792 0.1186 0.2585 0.000 0 NW 0.0091 0.0354 0.0771 0.4761 0.1313 0.2710 0.0000 WNW 0.0060 0.0474 0.1093 0.4900 0.0947 0.2526 0.000 0 W 0.0201 0.0745 0.1079 0.3680 0.0769 0.3526 0.0000 WSW 0.0176 0.0876 0.1120 0.4117 0.0694 0.3017 0.000 0 SW 0.0092 0.0676 0.1025 0.5021 0.0816 0.2370 0.0000 SSW 0.0085 0.0756 0.1033 0.5325 0.0657 0.2144 0.000 0 S 0.0084 0.0471 0.0879 0.5084 0.0913 0.2568 0.0000 SSE 0.0040 0.0493 0.0830 0.4447 0.0741 0.3448 0.000 0 SE 0.0045 0.0523 0.0751 0.3448 0.0726 0.4507 0.0000 ESE 0.0081 0.0724 0.1158 0.2966 0.0553 0.4517 0.000 0 E 0.0242 0.1773 0.0492 0.1892 0.0375 0.5226 0.0000 ENE 0.0244 0.1323 0.0997 0.1670 0.0082 0.5683 0.000 0 NE 0.0189 0.1679 0.1463 0.3258 0.0619 0.2792 0.0000 NNE 0.0389 0.1298 0.1531 0.3888 0.0518 0.2377 0.000 0 TOTAL 0.0121 0.0617 0.0949 0.4520 0.0945 0.2848 0.0 000

2.7.3 Radon Release

The only information identified regarding radon rel ease from the Alta Mesa Project was contained within the June 2000 radiological assessm ent performed for the project (Mestena 2000). The following is the radiological assessmen t’s description of the Alta Mesa radon release.

Radon gas will be emitted at the central facility w hen the circulating fluids are brought into equilibrium with the ambient atmosphere. The emission points will be all open tankage, resin columns and processing equipment.

Two centralized discharge areas of radon gas were m odeled, one centered on the production area of the process pad (Production Pad) and one centered on the restoration area of the process pad (Restoration Pad). An addi tional point source for radon was modeled based on the center of the pond receiving p urge water (Purge Pond).

Additional radon gas will be emitted at the wellfie lds because of well field venting and other small releases. These sites were modeled as small area sources centered on points within each wellfield which represented a one year production element. [ Mestena 2000, Appendix 1 ]

The Alta Mesa annual radon release, as presented in the radiological assessment (Mestena 2000), is shown in Table 40.WA 1-04, Task 5 48 SC&A – November 10, 2011 Table 40: Alta Mesa Annual Radon Source Term

Source Release (Ci/yr) Well field 1a 5.2 Well field 1b 6.05 Well field 2a 4.81 Well field 2b 5.09 Well field 3a 1.67 Well field 3b 2.5 Well field 4 2.09 Process Pad 617.5 Restoration Pad 88.35 Purge Pond 6.5 Total 739.8 Source: Mestena 2000, Attachment 1

The radon releases given in Table 40 are design bas is values; and, as such, are based on the Alta Mesa uranium production capacity of 1,500,000 lbs p er year. As stated above, the amount of uranium produced at Alta Mesa has been somewhat les s than its production capacity. Table 41 gives the Alta Mesa annual radon release as a funct ion of the amount of uranium produced.

Table 41: Alta Mesa Radon Release by Uranium Production

Year Uranium

Production (lbs/yr) Radon Release

(Ci/yr)

2007 956,000 471 2009 480,000 237 2010 650,000 321 Capacity 1,500,000 740

2.7.4 Risk Estimates

The RMEI and population doses and risks calculated by CAP88 for the Alta Mesa site are shown in Table 42.

Table 42: Alta Mesa Risk Assessment Results

Receptor / Impact Radon Release (Ci/yr) Unitized Maximum Average

1 740 472

RMEI (2500m NNW) Dose (mrem/yr) 5.6E-03 1.2E+01 6.7E+00

LCF Risk (yr -1 ) 3.0E-09 6.1E-06 3.6E-06 Population Dose (person-rem/yr) 1.0E-02 2.2E+01 1.3E+01

LCF Risk (yr -1 ) 6.3E-08 1.3E-04 7.6E-05WA 1-04, Task 5 49 SC&A – November 10, 2011

2.8 Kingsville Dome 1,3 8

Uranium Resources, Inc.’s (URI’s) Kingsville Dome p roperty consists of mineral leases from private landowners on about 2,354 acres located in central Kleberg County, Texas. An aerial view of the Kingsville Dome site is shown in Figure 13. For the Kingsville Dome site, URI holds the TNRCC’s Underground Injection Control Per mit: UR02827; the site is also covered by the Texas Department of Health’s radioactive materi als license: L06353. At Kingsville Dome, multiple satellites feed a central processing plant at a rate of 400,000 pounds of U 3 O 8 (154 tonnes U) per year (targeting between 1 and 2 milli on pounds of U 3 O 8 (385-770 tonnes U) annually). Initial production commenced in May 198 8 and continued until July 1999, when depressed uranium prices led to the suspension of p roduction. URI resumed production at Kingsville Dome in April 2006 and produced 94,100 p ounds of uranium in 2006, 338,100 pounds in 2007, 254,000 pounds in 2008, and 56,000 pounds in 2009. In the second quarter of 2009, due to depressed pricing, production at Kings ville Dome was shut-down to conserve the in-place reserve base until higher prices could be realized.

Figure 13: Kingsville Dome – Aerial View

8 The description of the Kingsville Dome site was ab stracted from various sources, including Melbye 200 8, URI 2010a, and URI 2010b while the aerial view of the K ingsville Dome site was obtained from Google Maps.WA 1-04, Task 5 50 SC&A – November 10, 2011

2.8.1 Population and Food Production

The 80-kilometer population distribution in each of the 16 principal compass directions, which was calculated for the Kingsville Dome site by SECP OP and used in CAP88 for population dose calculations, is shown in Table 43. To adjust the 2000 population data to 2010, the CAP88 Kingsville Dome population dose was multiplied by 0 .97, see Section 1.2 and Table 3.

Table 43: Kingsville Dome 1,3 Population Data

Dir Distance (km)

0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 20 N 0 0 0 0 0 54 3796 NNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WSW 0 0 82 0 0 0 0 SW 0 0 3 0 0 87 393 SSW 0 0 0 0 0 37 189 S 0 0 0 0 0 41 248 SSE 0 0 0 0 0 240 512 SE 0 0 0 0 138 0 0 ESE 0 0 66 0 0 461 288 E 0 0 0 39 27 677 409 ENE 0 0 0 91 30 369 265 NE 0 0 0 0 0 537 18252 NNE 0 0 7 0 0 74 7920

Dir Distance (km) 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 N 1134 1242 2185 3921 2450 8983 NNW 330 1026 19092 24698 4509 14441 NW 276 296 60486 159467 14418 15036 WNW 0 77 2009 29018 305 181 W 0 0 6 0 0 0 WSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSW 30 0 0 0 0 0 S 148 5 0 51 5 30 SSE 80 6 4 0 172 8 SE 25 613 68 8 160 235 ESE 0 1724 6133 99 26 22 E 0 2495 503 189 301 276 ENE 0 26 469 259 2036 125 NE 0 649 23849 6994 1116 52 NNE 126 302 1209 1430 3988 750WA 1-04, Task 5 51 SC&A – November 10, 2011

The agricultural productivity factors for Texas wer e taken from Appendix C of the CAP88 User’s Manual, as shown below, and used in the King sville Dome site population dose calculation.

Beef Cattle Density (cattle/km 2 ): 19

Milk Cattle Density (cow/km 2 ): 0.53 Land Cultivated for Vegetable Crops: 0.577%

According to TBRC 1988, Table S6.9-2, the nearest d ownwind resident to the Kingsville Dome site is located about 1.35 km in the West direction , and the nearest resident is located 0.44 km in the East direction. Table 43 also shows the neares t residents to the Kingsville Dome site as being about 2 to 3 km from the site, but in the WSW , ESE, and NNE directions. Through analysis using CAP88, the RMEI was found to be loca ted 2 to 3 km in the NNW direction.

2.8.2 Meteorology

Because of the close proximity of the Kingsville Do me site to the Alta Mesa site (less than 50 miles) and because Kingsville Naval Air Base is the closest meteorological station to both, the meteorological data used for the Kingsville Dome si te are the same as that used for the Alta Mesa site. Table 38 shows the directional-dependen t average wind speed for each stability class that was used in this risk assessment for the Kings ville Dome site, while Table 39 gives the stability class frequency.

2.8.3 Radon Release

The only information identified regarding radon rel ease from the Kingsville Dome site was in the Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared by the Texas Department of Health (TDH 1988). In the Kingsville Dome EA, the TDH estimated the annua l radon release to be 6,958 Ci. If this radon release rate is assumed to correspond to the Kingsville Dome uranium production capacity, then the reported uranium production rates may be u sed to estimate the radon released for other years. This has been done, with the results shown in Table 44.

Table 44: Kingsville Dome Radon Release by

Uranium Production

Year Uranium

Production (lbs/yr) Radon Release

(Ci/yr)

2006 94,100 655 2007 338,100 2,352 2008 254,000 1,767 2009 56,000 390 Capacity 1,000,000 6,958

The maximum annual radon release from the Kingsvill e Dome site is assumed to be 6,958 Ci, while the average annual release is 1,291 Ci.WA 1-04, Task 5 52 SC&A – November 10, 2011

2.8.4 Risk Estimates

The RMEI and population doses and risks calculated by CAP88 for the Kingsville Dome site are shown in Table 45.

Table 45: Kingsville Dome Risk Assessment Results

Receptor / Impact Radon Release (Ci/yr) Unitized Maximum Average

1 6958 1291

RMEI (2500 NNW) Dose (mrem/yr) 5.5E-03 1.1E+01 6.6E+00

LCF Risk (yr -1 ) 2.9E-09 6.1E-06 3.5E-06 Population Dose (person-rem/yr) 2.8E-02 5.8E+01 3.4E+01

LCF Risk (yr -1 ) 1.8E-07 3.8E-04 2.2E-04

2.9 Eastern Generic Site – Virginia

Due to its many uranium deposits, as shown in Figur e 14, the state of Virginia was selected for the location of the Eastern Generic site. In the e arly 1980s, uranium mining leases were obtained for 40,000 uranium-rich acres in Pittsylvania Count y and 16,000 acres in Fauquier, Madison, Culpeper, and Orange counties. Additionally, urani um deposits were discovered in Nelson County (UFV 2010). Because of its high population density and its past experience as a uranium mine lease site, Culpeper County was selected as th e Eastern Generic site location within Virginia.

Figure 14: Potential Uranium in VirginiaWA 1-04, Task 5 53 SC&A – November 10, 2011

The actual Eastern Generic site location within Cul peper County was selected so that there would be no population located within 1 km of the s ite. Figure 15 shows the approximate location of the Eastern Generic site, located in th e northern portion of Virginia’s Culpeper County.

Figure 15: Approximate Location of the Eastern Gen eric Site

As shown in Figure 15, the Eastern Generic site is located north of the city of Culpeper and southwest of the city of Warrenton in an uninhabite d area. Also, the areas in red on Figure 15 denote areas that have had uranium mine leases in t he past.

2.9.1 Population and Food Production

The 80-kilometer population distribution in each of the 16 principal compass directions, which was calculated for the Eastern Generic site by SECP OP and used in CAP88 for population dose calculations, is shown in Table 46. To adjust the 2000 population data to 2010, the CAP88 Eastern Generic population dose was multiplied by 1 .40, see Section 1.2 and Table 3.WA 1-04, Task 5 54 SC&A – November 10, 2011 Table 46: Eastern Generic Site (Virginia) Populatio n Data

Dir Distance (km)

0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 20 N 0 0 0 5 160 442 588 NNW 0 11 154 0 2 816 1072 NW 0 0 0 125 76 741 2358 WNW 0 0 0 0 38 457 2105 W 0 0 0 38 0 367 2077 WSW 0 0 8 28 2 159 1608 SW 0 0 10 0 0 730 953 SSW 0 0 0 332 55 623 4037 S 0 0 0 0 0 841 10192 SSE 0 0 0 0 0 542 2474 SE 0 0 213 0 0 545 1393 ESE 0 0 143 0 130 187 598 E 0 0 197 38 35 135 349 ENE 0 0 147 1 31 176 711 NE 0 0 0 0 30 175 938 NNE 0 0 9 16 63 91 523

Dir Distance (km) 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 N 931 3140 2718 5208 36454 23280 NNW 1714 3578 3065 5089 16570 12798 NW 8464 4721 9451 11662 114035 115934 WNW 7907 8202 55966 135173 247760 367208 W 5161 2433 4498 69279 132991 40611 WSW 2868 4336 17263 58995 13734 5773 SW 1204 6574 9500 66863 23680 4796 SSW 651 3098 2808 4588 5366 7093 S 1947 3289 2997 2925 6611 4356 SSE 2407 4923 3356 6393 6092 41432 SE 2420 2990 5214 11763 17293 45571 ESE 1026 176 1095 10894 6452 50227 E 287 5893 7017 4870 11750 10706 ENE 446 3733 1566 8154 4049 1475 NE 542 2114 1487 13550 1098 1816 NNE 1160 17008 8288 19156 18827 6533

The agricultural productivity factors for Virginia were taken from Appendix C of the CAP88 User’s Manual, as shown below, and used in the East ern Generic site population dose calculation.

Beef Cattle Density (cattle/km 2 ): 13.1

Milk Cattle Density (cow/km 2 ): 1.84 Land Cultivated for Vegetable Crops: 0.87%WA 1-04, Task 5 55 SC&A – November 10, 2011

The Eastern Generic site was selected so that there would be no population within 1 km of the site. Thus, the RMEI at the Eastern Generic site i s located 1 to 2 km from the site in the NNW direction, as shown in Table 46.

2.9.2 Meteorology

The CAP88 computer program is provided with a weath er library of meteorological data from over 350 NWS stations. For the Eastern Generic sit e, the CAP88-provided weather data for Gordonsville, VA (CAP88 File: GVE0824.WND) were use d. The period of record for this data includes the years 1956 through 1960. Table 47 show s the directional-dependent average wind speed for each stability class, while Table 48 give s the stability class frequency, used in the Eastern Generic analysis.

Table 47: Eastern Generic Site (Virginia) Arithmeti c Average Wind Speeds (Wind Towards)

Dir Pasquill Stability Class (m/s)

A B C D E F G N 1.184 1.737 2.755 2.990 2.955 1.102 0.000 NNW 1.132 1.852 2.758 2.860 2.878 1.108 0.000 NW 1.170 1.542 2.067 2.420 2.704 1.070 0.000 WNW 1.172 1.433 2.263 2.400 3.093 1.049 0.000 W 1.141 1.473 2.120 2.163 2.678 1.028 0.000 WSW 1.177 1.876 2.622 2.463 2.935 1.086 0.000 SW 1.076 1.740 2.839 2.819 2.949 1.089 0.000 SSW 1.177 1.975 3.334 3.646 3.384 1.138 0.000 S 1.174 1.912 2.781 3.343 3.210 1.098 0.000 SSE 1.278 2.144 3.260 3.730 3.479 1.116 0.000 SE 1.204 1.990 3.147 4.179 3.569 1.133 0.000 ESE 1.238 2.327 3.518 5.455 4.076 1.164 0.000 E 1.197 1.917 3.220 4.912 3.887 1.140 0.000 ENE 1.201 2.030 3.276 4.479 3.784 1.131 0.000 NE 1.196 1.871 3.054 3.468 3.330 1.099 0.000 NNE 1.197 2.102 3.273 3.985 3.333 1.114 0.000WA 1-04, Task 5 56 SC&A – November 10, 2011

Table 48: Eastern Generic Site (Virginia) Frequenci es of Stability Classes (Wind Towards)

Dir Pasquill Stability Class (frequency)

A B C D E F G N 0.0224 0.0863 0.1225 0.3226 0.0791 0.3672 0.0000 NNW 0.0238 0.0788 0.1438 0.3242 0.0874 0.3421 0.000 0 NW 0.0424 0.1049 0.1395 0.3309 0.0502 0.3321 0.0000 WNW 0.1047 0.1644 0.1440 0.3753 0.0276 0.1840 0.000 0 W 0.0709 0.1887 0.1336 0.3718 0.0215 0.2134 0.0000 WSW 0.0528 0.1127 0.1576 0.4373 0.0502 0.1893 0.000 0 SW 0.0206 0.0857 0.1223 0.4187 0.0629 0.2898 0.0000 SSW 0.0132 0.0509 0.0951 0.5464 0.0594 0.2350 0.000 0 S 0.0108 0.0397 0.0722 0.4681 0.0522 0.3570 0.0000 SSE 0.0091 0.0519 0.0728 0.2914 0.0626 0.5122 0.000 0 SE 0.0179 0.0404 0.0862 0.2618 0.0774 0.5163 0.0000 ESE 0.0159 0.0619 0.1244 0.4009 0.1222 0.2748 0.000 0 E 0.0292 0.0641 0.1222 0.3285 0.1067 0.3492 0.0000 ENE 0.0290 0.1081 0.1642 0.3326 0.0826 0.2835 0.000 0 NE 0.0288 0.0982 0.1551 0.3305 0.0670 0.3203 0.0000 NNE 0.0198 0.0820 0.1513 0.4027 0.0777 0.2664 0.000 0 TOTAL 0.0231 0.0767 0.1219 0.3784 0.0716 0.3282 0.0 000

2.9.3 Radon Release

It is assumed that a conventional uranium mine and mill would be located at the Eastern Generic site, and that the annual radon release from the Ea stern Generic site would be similar to the radon released from the conventional mill located at Whit e Mesa (see Section 2.2.3). Thus, the Eastern Generic site annual radon release was estimated to range from 1,025 to 1,750 Ci.

2.9.4 Risk Estimates

The RMEI and population doses and risks calculated by CAP88 for the Eastern Generic site are shown in Table 49.

Table 49: Eastern Generic Site Risk Assessment Res ults

Receptor / Impact Radon Release (Ci/yr) Unitized Maximum Average

1 1750 1388

RMEI (500m SSE) Dose (mrem/yr) 1.4E-02 2.8E+01 1.6E+01

LCF Risk (yr -1 ) 7.6E-09 1.6E-05 9.2E-06 Population Dose (person-rem/yr) 9.7E-02 2.0E+02 1.2E+02

LCF Risk (yr -1 ) 6.6E-07 1.4E-03 7.9E-04WA 1-04, Task 5 57 SC&A – November 10, 2011

2.10 Western Generic Site – New Mexico 9

The Grants Uranium Region in New Mexico is a world premier uranium mining district, having produced over 350 million pounds of uranium. Durin g the 1970s, a conventional uranium mine and mill were developed by a joint venture between Long Island Lighting Company, a New York utility, and Bokum Resources Corporation. In addit ion to deposit development drilling, a shaft was sunk to a depth of 1,842 feet, a 2,200 ton-per- day uranium processing mill was constructed on site, and a tailings disposal site was excavated , all fully permitted. Due to the collapse in the uranium market in the early 1980s, development was halted, the deposit remains un-mined, and the mill was dismantled in 2001. According to Nucl ear Regulatory Commission records, the source material license was terminated in 1988 foll owing multiple inspections, which confirmed that no ore was ever produced or processed at the s ite. Although the mill has been removed, much of the infrastructure remains in place, includ ing electric power, 1,800+ acre-feet of industrial-use water rights, the 1,842 shaft, and t he previously permitted and partially completed tailings disposal site. The site is currently bein g considered for redevelopment as a conventional uranium mine and mill.

The Bokum mill was designed to accommodate 2,200 to ns of ore feed per day. Metallurgical studies and yearly production were based on an aver age mill feed of 0.12% U 3 O 8 . Grinding was to be accomplished by a semi-autogenous mill and a rod mill. A two-stage sulfuric acid leach circuit was to be utilized. Liquid-solid separatio n was to use six stages of counter-current decantation, with clarification of overflows from i nter-stage thickening. Solvent extraction and stripping for solubilization and removal of uranium was to be employed, and ammonia was to be used to precipitate the U 3 O 8 as yellowcake.

The site of the former Bokum mine and mill was sele cted as the Western Generic site. It was assumed that a conventional mine and mill similar t o the mine and mill previously proposed and partially constructed, but updated to reflect curre nt 2010 technology, would be constructed.

2.10.1 Population and Food Production

The 80-kilometer population distribution in each of the 16 principal compass directions, which was calculated for the Western Generic site by SECP OP and used in CAP88 for population dose calculations, is shown in Table 50. To adjust the 2000 population data to 2010, the CAP88 Western Generic population dose was multiplied by 0 .94, see Section 1.2 and Table 3.

9 The description of the Western Generic site was ab stracted from various sources, including Alief 2010 , NE 2008a, and NE 2008b.WA 1-04, Task 5 58 SC&A – November 10, 2011 Table 50: Western Generic Site (New Mexico) Populat ion Data

Dir Distance (km)

0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 20 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 SSE 0 0 0 0 0 2 341 SE 0 0 0 0 0 8 45 ESE 0 0 0 0 0 2 298 E 0 0 0 0 2 12 259 ENE 0 0 0 0 0 49 163 NE 0 0 0 7 1 43 365 NNE 0 0 0 4 4 14 36

Dir Distance (km) 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 N 0 4 0 1 65 206 NNW 38 294 108 468 177 693 NW 77 0 18 228 555 588 WNW 4 0 95 254 1311 308 W 0 0 0 0 7 7 WSW 0 0 0 5 3 74 SW 169 0 0 724 1951 1215 SSW 28 618 23 2285 1226 44 S 116 2674 10176 449 17 1 SSE 274 617 18 29 125 126 SE 1126 643 1 0 489 815 ESE 534 2110 269 77 15 756 E 700 511 982 2009 2928 19973 ENE 177 162 550 836 314 1318 NE 1302 1683 425 230 22 35 NNE 96 0 32 19 377 254

The agricultural productivity factors for New Mexic o were taken from Appendix C of the CAP88 User’s Manual, as shown below, and used in th e Western Generic site population dose calculation.

Beef Cattle Density (cattle/km 2 ): 4.13

Milk Cattle Density (cow/km 2 ): 0.114 Land Cultivated for Vegetable Crops: 0.138%WA 1-04, Task 5 59 SC&A – November 10, 2011

As indicated in Table 50, for the Western Generic s ite, the nearest individual is located between 3 and 4 km in the NE and NNE directions, which is c onsistent with NEI 2008, which states that the nearest downwind resident is at about 2.5 miles . Through analysis with CAP88, the RMEI was identified to be located 2 to 3 km in the NNW d irection.

2.10.2 Meteorology

The CAP88 computer program is provided with a weath er library of meteorological data from over 350 NWS stations. For the Western Generic sit e, the CAP88-provided weather data for Grants, NM (CAP88 File: GNT1246.WND) were used. The period of record for this data is limited to the year 1954. Table 51 shows the direc tional-dependent average wind speed for each stability class, while Table 52 gives the stability class frequency, used in the Western Generic analysis.

Table 51: Western Generic Site (New Mexico) Arithme tic Average Wind Speeds (Wind Towards)

Dir Pasquill Stability Class (m/s)

A B C D E F G N 1.324 2.175 3.366 4.871 3.773 1.202 0.000 NNW 0.772 1.518 3.561 5.734 3.664 1.368 0.000 NW 1.271 1.951 3.733 5.719 3.751 1.278 0.000 WNW 1.183 2.088 4.141 5.835 3.697 1.337 0.000 W 0.772 1.792 2.944 3.982 3.155 0.888 0.000 WSW 0.772 4.373 4.373 4.008 4.373 1.372 0.000 SW 0.772 1.410 1.610 2.594 3.299 1.149 0.000 SSW 0.772 2.347 3.163 4.907 3.933 1.176 0.000 S 1.088 1.772 3.251 5.126 4.035 1.286 0.000 SSE 1.104 1.537 3.505 5.737 4.217 1.497 0.000 SE 1.099 1.526 3.142 5.306 4.213 1.393 0.000 ESE 1.246 1.954 3.378 6.231 4.191 1.515 0.000 E 1.324 1.732 3.819 6.684 4.040 1.419 0.000 ENE 1.183 2.174 5.214 7.451 4.189 1.496 0.000 NE 0.993 1.938 3.978 6.664 3.800 1.294 0.000 NNE 1.141 2.658 4.743 6.129 3.630 1.255 0.000WA 1-04, Task 5 60 SC&A – November 10, 2011

Table 52: Western Generic Site (New Mexico) Frequen cies of Stability Classes (Wind Towards)

Dir Pasquill Stability Class (frequency)

A B C D E F G N 0.0277 0.0653 0.1118 0.2731 0.1517 0.3705 0.0000 NNW 0.0169 0.0555 0.0852 0.3901 0.1569 0.2954 0.000 0 NW 0.0367 0.1338 0.1667 0.3783 0.0887 0.1959 0.0000 WNW 0.0179 0.1259 0.1877 0.4097 0.0661 0.1926 0.000 0 W 0.0650 0.2801 0.1804 0.2975 0.0295 0.1474 0.0000 WSW 0.1381 0.0410 0.2127 0.1866 0.0410 0.3806 0.000 0 SW 0.0875 0.2602 0.0852 0.1832 0.0665 0.3174 0.0000 SSW 0.0754 0.1447 0.1156 0.3106 0.0452 0.3085 0.000 0 S 0.0464 0.1383 0.1320 0.2285 0.1295 0.3254 0.0000 SSE 0.0290 0.1021 0.1406 0.2746 0.1637 0.2899 0.000 0 SE 0.0103 0.0722 0.1104 0.1905 0.2485 0.3682 0.0000 ESE 0.0188 0.0387 0.0695 0.2171 0.3169 0.3391 0.000 0 E 0.0111 0.0827 0.0998 0.3827 0.1368 0.2869 0.0000 ENE 0.0238 0.0680 0.1257 0.4770 0.1423 0.1633 0.000 0 NE 0.0486 0.1099 0.1260 0.4649 0.0564 0.1943 0.0000 NNE 0.0437 0.1148 0.1547 0.4117 0.0758 0.1992 0.000 0 TOTAL 0.0258 0.0932 0.1243 0.3070 0.1679 0.2817 0.0 000

2.10.3 Radon Release

It was assumed that a conventional uranium mill wou ld be located at the Western Generic site, as that was the type of mill that was licensed to oper ate there in the 1990s. As such, it was decided to use the annual radon release from the White Mesa site for the Western Generic site (see Section 2.2.3). Thus, the Western Generic site ann ual radon release was estimated to range from 1,025 to 1,750 Ci.

2.10.4 Risk Estimates

The RMEI and population doses and risks calculated by CAP88 for the Western Generic site are shown in Table 53.

Table 53: Western Generic Site Risk Assessment Res ults

Receptor / Impact Radon Release (Ci/yr) Unitized Maximum Average 1 1,750 1,388

RMEI (3500m NNW) Dose (mrem/yr) 2.9E-03 6.0E+00 3.5E+00

LCF Risk (yr -1 ) 3.7E-09 7.7E-06 4.4E-06 Population Dose (person-rem/yr) 2.5E-03 5.1E+00 3.0E+00

LCF Risk (yr -1 ) 1.3E-07 2.7E-04 1.6E-04WA 1-04, Task 5 61 SC&A – November 10, 2011

3.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Table 54 shows the cumulative population within 80 kilometers of each site. Table 54 reveals a difference between the least populated site, Sweetw ater, and the most populated site, the Eastern Generic site, of more than a factor of 200. If al l other factors were equal (e.g., meteorology, radon release), this population difference would be directly reflected in the CAP88-calculated population doses. It is also interesting to note t hat while the Cañon City site has only about a third of the 80-km population of the Eastern Generi c site, the Cañon City site has the largest population living within 10 km.

Table 54: Cumulative 2000 Population Data

Uranium Site Distance (km)

0 to 1 0 to 5 0 to 10 0 to 20 0 to 40 0 to 60 0 to 80 Sweetwater 0 0 3 6 197 885 10,604 White Mesa 0 969 3,839 4,228 8,080 12,363 20,675 Crow Butte 0 51 1,336 1,869 9,324 13,251 32,676 Christensen / Irigaray 0 1 5 78 362 4,366 36,192 Western Generic 0 18 148 1,681 15,638 35,949 71,944 Smith Ranch – Highlands 0 0 2 222 5,882 55,739 79,6 94 Kingsville Dome 0 483 3,060 35,353 45,963 388,110 4 57,735 Alta Mesa 0 81 233 641 6,606 29,610 478,440 Cañon City 0 7,606 32,016 41,028 52,485 313,574 691 ,284 Eastern Generic 0 2,097 9,124 41,100 156,443 727,29 4 2,129,665

Table 54 also shows that for all of the sites analy zed, there are no people living within one kilometer of any site, and for the Sweetwater and S mith Ranch – Highland sites, the closest resident (i.e., the RMEI) is located about 7.5 km a way. Table 55 compares the current actual location of the nearest resident (as determined by SECPOP) to the hypothetical worst case location (i.e., the nearest location in the most pr evalent wind direction). As expected, if the distant RMEI’s were to be relocated nearer the site (e.g., Sweetwater and Smith Ranch – Highland), their doses would increase significantly . In addition, changing the direction of the RMEI can have a significant effect on the dose. Fo r example, moving the Sweetwater RMEI to the worst-case location means changing both his/her distance and direction and results in an increase of about a factor of 250, but moving the S mith Ranch – Hignland RMEI to the worstcase location means only changing his/her distance, and the dose increase is much less at only a factor of about 80.WA 1-04, Task 5 62 SC&A – November 10, 2011 Table 55: Comparison of Current RMEI Location Dose/Risk to WorstCase Location Dose/Risk

Uranium Site Current RMEI Location Worst Case Location Increase

Distance (km) Direction Dispersion

(sec/m 3 ) Direction Dispersion (sec/m 3 )

Sweetwater 7.5 NW 6.63E-08 ENE 1.65E-05 248.9

White Mesa 1.5 SSE 1.19E-06 SSW 1.73E-05 14.5 Cañon City 1.5 N 9.29E-07 S 1.63E-05 17.6 Smith Ranch - Highlands 7.5 E 1.46E-07 E 1.18E-05 81.2

Crow Butte 1.5 WSW 3.08E-07 N 1.34E-05 43.4 Christensen / Irigaray 3.5 SE 1.80E-07 ENE 1.02E-05 57.0

Alta Mesa 2.5 NNW 1.28E-06 NW 2.38E-05 18.5 Kingsville Dome 2.5 NNW 1.28E-06 NW 2.38E-05 18.5

Eastern Generic 1.5 NNE 3.76E-06 NE 3.35E-05 8.9

Western Generic 3.5 NW 2.11E-07 SE 4.52E-05 70.5

For each of the 10 uranium sites analyzed in this r eport, Table 56 presents the CAP88-calculated RMEI and population dose and risk, normalized to th e radon release. To estimate the annual dose or risk for a site, simply multiply the normal ized dose or risk from Table 56 by the site’s annual radon release. For example, if the radon re lease at the Sweetwater site was 2,075 Ci/yr, then the annual RMEI dose at Sweetwater would be 2, 075 Ci/yr × 5.6E-04 mrem/Ci = 1.16 mrem/yr.

Table 56: Calculated RMEI and Population Dose and Risk Normalized to the Radon Release

Uranium Site Dose (Ci - 1 ) LCF Risk (Ci - 1 )

Population (person-rem) RMEI

(mrem) Population RMEI

Sweetwater 2.3E-04 5.6E-04 1.4E-09 2.9E-10

White Mesa 2.5E-03 5.8E-03 1.6E-08 3.1E-09 Cañon City 2.4E-02 5.0E-03 1.5E-07 2.6E-09 Smith Ranch - Highlands 1.8E-03 7.2E-04 1.1E-08 3.7E-10

Crow Butte 1.3E-03 1.6E-03 8.4E-09 8.4E-10 Christensen / Irigaray 1.8E-03 9.1E-04 1.2E-08 4.8E -10

Alta Mesa 1.0E-02 5.6E-03 6.3E-08 3.0E-09 Kingsville Dome 2.8E-02 5.5E-03 1.8E-07 2.9E-09

Eastern Generic 9.7E-02 1.4E-02 6.6E-07 7.6E-09

Western Generic 2.5E-03 2.9E-03 1.3E-07 3.7E-09

Presenting the normalized doses and risks allows an alysis of the effect that siting has on dose and risk without the complications posed by the differe nt mining and/or milling operations. From Table 56, it can be seen that the RMEI dose/risk ca n vary by up to about a factor of 50,WA 1-04, Task 5 63 SC&A – November 10, 2011

depending on the site where the radon release occur s, while the population dose/risk can vary by up to a factor of 450, depending on the site. This population factor is consistent with the factor of 200 difference in the 80 km cumulative populatio n difference identified in Table 54, plus another factor to account for meteorological differ ences between the sites and the actual location of the population (e.g., if a large fraction of the population is located in a predominant wind direction at one site, that site will have a larger population dose/risk than a similar population located in a minor wind direction at another site).

Table 57 presents the RMEI and population doses and risks due to the maximum radon releases estimated in Section 2.0, for each uranium site. T he maximum radon releases were used to calculate the doses in order to be able to compare the results to regulatory criteria. For example, 10CFR § 20.1301 “Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public” restricts the total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) to individual memb ers of the public from the licensed operation to less than 100 mrem per year.

Table 57: Calculated Maximum Total Annual RMEI, Po pulation Dose and Risk

Uranium Site Maximum Radon Release (Ci/yr) Annual Dose LCF Risk (a) (yr - 1 )

Population (person-rem) RMEI

(mrem) Population RMEI

Sweetwater 2,075 0.5 1.2 2.9E-06 6.0E-07 White Mesa 1,750 5.2 12.0 3.4E-05 6.4E-06 Cañon City 269 49.2 10.3 3.1E-04 5.4E-06 Smith Ranch - Highlands 36,500 3.7 1.5 2.3E-05 7.7E -07 Crow Butte 8,885 2.7 3.3 1.7E-05 1.7E-06 Christensen / Irigaray 1,600 3.8 1.9 2.4E-05 9.9E-0 7

Alta Mesa 740 21.6 11.5 1.3E-04 6.1E-06 Kingsville Dome 6,958 58.0 11.3 3.8E-04 6.1E-06 Eastern Generic 1,750 200.3 28.2 1.4E-03 1.6E-05 Western Generic 1,750 5.1 6.0 2.7E-04 7.7E-06

(a) Latent Cancer Fatalities

Table 58 presents the RMEI and population doses and risks due to the average radon releases estimated in Section 2.0 for each uranium site. Th e risks were based on average radon releases in order to make it easier to convert these annual risk values into lifetime risk values, by simply multiplying the Table 58 values by the number of ye ars that the facility operates for the population risk or by the length of time that the i ndividual lives next to the facility for the RMEI risk.WA 1-04, Task 5 64 SC&A – November 10, 2011

Table 58: Calculated Average Total Annual RMEI, Po pulation Dose and Risk

Uranium Site Average Radon

Release (Ci/yr) Annual Dose LCF (a) Risk (yr - 1 )

Population (person-mrem) RMEI

(rem) Population RMEI

Sweetwater 1,204 0.3 0.7 1.7E-06 3.5E-07 White Mesa 1,388 3.0 7.0 2.0E-05 3.7E-06 Cañon City 146 28.6 6.0 1.8E-04 3.1E-06 Smith Ranch - Highlands 21,100 2.2 0.9 1.3E-05 4.5E-07 Crow Butte 4,467 1.6 1.9 1.0E-05 1.0E-06 Christensen / Irigaray 1,040 2.2 1.1 1.4E-05 5.7E-0 7

Alta Mesa 472 12.5 6.7 7.6E-05 3.6E-06 Kingsville Dome 1,291 33.6 6.6 2.2E-04 3.5E-06 Eastern Generic 1,388 116.3 16.4 7.9E-04 9.2E-06 Western Generic 1,388 3.0 3.5 1.6E-04 4.4E-06

(a) Latent Cancer FatalitiesWA 1-04, Task 5 65 SC&A – November 10, 2011

4.0 REFERENCES

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (A TSDR), 2010, “Public Health Assessment, Lincoln Park/Cotter Uranium Mill, Cañon City, Fremo nt County, Colorado, EPA Facility ID: COD042167585,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Comment Release, September 9.

Alief, M. Hassan, 2010, “Marquez Uranium Property, McKinley and Sandoval Counties, New Mexico, National Instrument 43-101, Mineral Resourc e Report,” prepared for Strathmore Minerals Corp., June 10.

Cain, J., 2008, “Semiannual Effluent Report,” Cotte r Corporation, Letter to Steve Tarlton, Program Manager, Radiation Control Program, Hazardo us Materials and Waste Management Division, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, February 27.

Cain, J., 2010a, “Semiannual Effluent Report,” Cott er Corporation, Letter to Steve Tarlton, Program Manager, Radiation Control Program, Hazardo us Materials and Waste Management Division, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, February 28.

Cain, J., 2010b, “Semiannual Effluent Report,” Cott er Corporation, Letter to Steve Tarlton, Program Manager, Radiation Control Program, Hazardo us Materials and Waste Management Division, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, August 27.

Cameco, 2010a, http://www.cameco.com/mining/crow_butte/ , accessed 11/16/2010.

Cameco, 2010b, http://www.cameco.com/mining/highland_smith/ , accessed 11/16/2010.

Cameco Resources, 2009, “Minor Revision to Source M aterial License SUA-1548, Docket No. 40-8964,” Letter from Krista Wenzel, Manager, Envir onment, Health and Safety, to Douglas Mandeville, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Jul y 31.

Cogema Mining, Inc., 2008, “Irigaray and Christense n Ranch Projects, U.S. NRC License Renewal Application, Source Material License SUA-13 41,” May.

Cogema Mining Inc., 2010, “Irigaray and Christensen Ranch Projects, 2009 Annual Effluent and Monitoring Report, January 1 through December 31, 2 009, NRC Source Material License No. SUA-1341, Docket No. 40-8502 and Semi-Annual Monito ring Report, July 1 through December 31, 2009, WDEQ Permit To Mine No. 478,” February.

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environmen t (CDPHE) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 2007, “Community In volvement Plan, Lincoln Park Superfund Site and Associated Activities at the Cotter Corpor ation Uranium Mill,” March.

Cotter Corporation, 2007, “Environmental and Occupa tional Performance Report, ALARA Review, and Annual Report on Remedial Action Plan A ctivities for Calendar Year 2006, Radioactive Materials License No. 369-01,” June 29.WA 1-04, Task 5 66 SC&A – November 10, 2011

Cotter Corporation, 2010, “Environmental and Occupa tional Performance Report, ALARA Review, and Annual Report on Remedial Action Plan A ctivities for Calendar Year 2009, Radioactive Materials License No. 369-01,” June 22.

U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit (CofA), 2010, “Appeal from the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (No. 40-8968-ML),” Elisabeth A. Shumaker, Clerk of Court, No. 07- 9505, March 8.

Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (CBR), 2009, “Responses to NRC Request for Additional Information, Technical Review, License Renewal Amen dment Request, Source Material License SUA-1534,” May.

Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (CBR) and ARCADIS U.S., Inc., 2007, “Application for 2007 License Renewal, USNRC Source Materials License SUA -1534, Crow Butte License Area,” ML073480267, November.

Denison Mines (USA) Corp, 2007, “White Mesa Uranium Mill License Renewal Application, State of Utah Radioactive Materials License No. UT1 900479, Volume 4 - Environmental Report,” February 28.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1989a, “Risk Assessment Methodology, Environmental Impact Statement, NESHAPS for Radionu clides, Background Information Document, Volume 1,” EPA 520/1-89-005, Office of Ra diation Programs, Washington DC. September.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1989b, “Risk Assessments, Environmental Impact Statement, NESHAPS for Radionuclides, Backgr ound Information Document, Volume 2,” EPA 520/1-89-006-1, Office of Radiation Programs, Washington DC. September.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1989c, “Risk Assessments Appendixes, Environmental Impact Statement, NESHAPS for Radionu clides, Background Information Document, Volume 2 Appendixes,” EPA 520/1-89-006-2, Office of Radiation Programs, Washington DC. September.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1989d, “Economic Assessment, Environmental Impact Statement, NESHAPS for Radionuclides, Backgr ound Information Document, Volume 3,” EPA 520/1-89-007, Office of Radiation Pr ograms, Washington DC. September.

Federal Register (FR), 1989, “Final rulemaking pack age for Subpart W,” Volume 54, page 51679, December 15.

Kennecott Uranium Company (KUC), 1994, “Revised Env ironmental Report for the Sweetwater Uranium Project, Sweetwater County, Wyoming, Source Material License: SUA-1350,” August.WA 1-04, Task 5 67 SC&A – November 10, 2011

Kennecott Uranium Company (KUC), 2004, “Sweetwater Uranium Project - Docket Number: 40-8584, Source Material License #: SUA-1350, Reque st for a Ten (10) Year License Renewal,” May 25.

McNeill, A., 2010, Alta Mesa Uranium Project, http://armcn.blogspot.com/2010/03/sucessfulexploration-program-alta-mesa.html , accessed 11/16/2010.

Melbye, Scott, 2008, “The American Uranium Renaissa nce - Back from the Brink,” President, Cameco Inc., presented at 33 rd World Nuclear Association Annual Symposium.

Neutron Energy, Inc. (NE), 2008a, “Subpart 4 Explor ation Permit Application, Section 4.A” filed with State of New Mexico, Energy, Minerals, a nd Natural Resources Department, January 15.

Neutron Energy, Inc. (NE), 2008b, “Slides of Neutro n Energy’s Presentation to Discuss Proposed Juan Tafoya Conventional Uranium Mill,” pr esentation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ML083170498, November 6.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 1997, “Fi nal Environmental Impact to Construct and Operate the Crownpoint Uranium Solution Crownpo int, New Mexico,” Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NUREG- 1508, in Coo peration With U.S. Bureau of Land Management, BLM NM-010-93-02, and U.S. Bureau of In dian Affairs, BIA EIS-92-001, February.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 2003, “St andard Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License Applications, Final Repo rt,” Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NUREG-1569, June.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 2008, “En vironmental Assessment Regarding the License Amendment Request to Return to Operating St atus From Decommissioning Status, Cogema Mining, Inc., Irigaray and Christensen Ranch Projects, Wyoming,” Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Pr ograms, September.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 2009, “Ge neric Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities,” NURE G-1910, May.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 2010, http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/ decommissioning/uranium/cogema-mining-inc.html , accessed December 5.

Piedmont Environmental Council, 2010, http://www.pecva.org/anx/index.cfm/ 1,557,2134,0,html/Properties-with-Former-1980s-Uran ium-Mining-Leases-and-DownstreamWater-Supplies-Piedmont-region , accessed November 26.

Power Resources, Inc. (PRI), 2003, “Smith Ranch -Hi ghland Uranium Project, Source Material License Application,” March 12.WA 1-04, Task 5 68 SC&A – November 10, 2011

EnecoTech Inc., 1994, “MILDOS Modeling Analysis, Ke nnecott Sweetwater Uranium Facility,” prepared for Radiant Energy Management, February.

Rio Algom Mining Corp. (RAMC), 1999, “Smith Ranch F acility, Source Material License Application, NRC License No.: SUA-1548, Docket No: 40-8964,” October 26.

Sandia National Laboratories, 2003, “SECPOP2000: Se ctor Population, Land Fraction, and Economic Estimation Program,” prepared for U.S. Nuc lear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Division of Risk Analy sis and Applications, NUREG/CR-6525, Rev. 1, SAND2003-1684P, August.

Sanford Cohen & Associates (SC&A), 2010, “Risk Asse ssment Revision for 40 CPR Part 61 Subpart W – Radon Emissions from Operating Mill Tai lings, Task 3 – Risk Assessment Model,” prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 31.

Savignac, Noel, 2007, “MILDOS Determination of Radi ation Doses from Power Resources Inc. Smith Ranch-Highlands Uranium In-Situ Leaching Oper ation,” Revised May 3.

SENES Consultants Limited (SENES), 2008, “Proposed Development of New Tailings Cell 4B for the White Mesa Uranium Mill,” Prepared for: Den ison Mines (USA) Corp. (DUSA), April.

Tanner, George E., and Paul Goranson, 2007, “Newest In Situ Uranium Mine in South Texas,” Bulletin of the Corpus Christi Geological Society a nd Coastal Bend Geophysical Society, ISSN 0739-5620, February.

Texas Department of Health (TDH), 1988, “Environmen tal Assessment Related to Expansion of the URI, Inc. Kingsville Dome Project, Kleberg Coun ty, Texas, License No. L03653,” Bureau of Radiation Control, TBRC EA-14-1S, December 30.

Trihydro Corporation, 2005, “Platte River Basin Wat er Plan, Section 2.3 – Water Use for Industrial Purposes,” Technical Memorandum 2.3, Jun e 14.

Trinity Engineering Associates, Inc., 2007, “CAP88- PC Version 3.0 User Guide,” prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Rad iation and Indoor Air, December 9.

UraniumFree Virginia (UFV), 2010, http://uraniumfreeva.org/intro-to-uranium-mining-in -va/

, accessed 12/5/2010.

Uranium One, 2006, “sxr Uranium One Enters into an Exclusivity Agreement with Rio Tinto to Acquire the Sweetwater Uranium Mill and Green Mount ain Uranium Properties,” News Release, July 10.

Uranium Resources, Inc. (URI), 2010a, “Annual Repor t Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(D) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, For the Fiscal Yea r Ended December 31, 2009,” Form 10-K, March 16.WA 1-04, Task 5 69 SC&A – November 10, 2011

Uranium Resources, Inc. (URI), 2010b, http://www.uraniumresources.com/projects/texas.html

, accessed 11/16/2010.