www.ccatoxicwaste.org   ‐‐   www.downtheyellowcakeroad.org    C.C.A.T

Excellence In Community Involvement - USEPA 2004 Outstanding Community Service - Sierra Club 2003

           January 4, 2010

Mr. Reid Rosnick

Radiation Protection Division (6608J)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20460

Via email:  Rosnick.Reid@epamail.epa.gov

Dear Mr. Rosnick,

When the citizen stakeholders met with you in our public meeting on June 30, 2009, in Canon City,

Colorado, a number of issues of concern were raised.  In response to my concern that you did not

mention any of the issues during your December 3, 2009, conference call with interested parties, you

sent me an e‐mail asking that I kindly put those public issues from the June 30 meeting in MS Word

format, and send them to you for addition in the draft minutes posted on the EPA website.  You also

assured me that you would pass them along to the workgroup members for individual review.  As part of

the EPA workgroup review we ask and expect that our issues be addressed and that we receive a formal

response from EPA regarding these issues.

This document (see Attachment) is intended to capture and present to you public issues from the June

30, 2009, meeting with you in Canon City.  Our understanding of regulations, and information gathered

since that time, have modified some of those concerns, which are included.  We will also be attaching to

this document the CCAT Power Point presentation from which these issues were lifted so that your

workgroup members can have maximum context from which these issues were derived.

We are also including additional resource documentation which we find relevant to our issues and to

your workgroup gaining further understanding and appreciation for our conviction that our issues are

very much worthy of answers from your workgroup's review efforts based upon relevant science.

We would be more than willing, and would appreciate any opportunities to have further discussion with

you or any of your workgroup subject matter experts regarding this matter of utmost importance to us.  

We want there to be no confusion regarding what our issues are and what we are asking and expecting

EPA to address on our behalf in Subpart W and Method 115 review being undertaken.

Thank you for your willingness and cooperation in accepting and addressing these issues.

       

/S/ Paul D. Carestia

       Director, CCAT Board

Copy To:  Travis E. Stills, EMLC

 Colorado Citizens Against ToxicWaste, Inc. 

PO Box 964, Canon City, CO 81215 
1 

C.C.A.T

Attachment

Public Issues, Concerns, Recommendations from June 30, 2009 EPA Meeting in Canon City, Colorado

Including Additional Comments

       

1. The Current Radon Flux Standard of 20 pCi/m2

‐sec

a. In 1980 the NRC recommended that the standard be 2 pCi/m2

‐sec.   

i. Why was that recommendation not adopted?   

ii. Will its relevance be considered as part of the current Subpart W review?

b. How does this Radon Flux Standard compare with standards in other countries where

uranium mining and milling are prevalent?

2. 1989 Risk Assessment

a. A 1989 risk assessment was the basis for the current radon flux standard.  Over 20 years

have passed and considerably more data, science, understanding, and experience

should be available.

i. Case in point:  Actual data has been collected at the Cotter mill over the last

two decades that contradicts facts about Cotter used in the 1989 Risk

Assessment.  

ii. There are a very limited number of impoundment ponds falling under

regulations for pre‐1989 facilities, eliminating any reason to ignore actual data.

iii. A new risk assessment needs to be undertaken, will it?

iv. If not, why not?

3. Sources of Radon Flux Applicable and Required for Measurement

a. Subpart W defines an operational impoundment as: “being used for the continued

placement of new tailings or is in stand‐by status for such placement.  An impoundment

is in operation from the day that tailings are first placed in the impoundment until the

day that final closure begins.”

i. Case in Point:  Cotter Mill has a Primary and Secondary Impoundment.  

Measurements were not required of Cotter by EPA, until October 2009, for the

Secondary Impoundment, though it has not met the definition of “stand‐by

status,” nor has it been closed or disposed.  Radon flux tests should have been

required annually over the last two decades.  When a test was finally done in

2007, radon flux was above the allowed limit.
2 

C.C.A.T

ii. Case in Point:  Cotter Mill had an unlined “old tailings” pond area from which

tailings were removed around 1984 and placed in the lined Secondary

Impoundment.  In an effort to remediate persistent contaminated groundwater,

another 233,000 cubic yards of material were excavated from this area in 2008.  

The "old tailings" pond area was not restored to background levels of radon, yet

no radon flux measurements are ever taken there as part of measuring the total

radon flux emanating  from the Cotter Mill site.

b. Subpart W and Method 115 should be designed and written to account for and

measure all major sources of radon flux:  Total radon flux and hence radon

concentration coming from a mill site is the sum of all major, known sources (e.g. waste

repositories, ore pads, etc.) and should not just be from one tailings impoundment.  

Doing anything less is not protective of the public health and welfare.  The units for

radon flux are pCi/m2

‐sec.  The total radon from the Cotter Mill site is dependent upon

ALL of the square meters from which above background levels of radon gas are

exhausted.

i. Case in point:  A June 25, 2009, Notice of Violation (see Reference – 1) from the

Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE) to Cotter

underscores the problem of radon emissions from an ore pad.

ii. This issue must be addressed through explicit changes incorporated into

Subpart W and Method 115.

4. Method 115 ‐ Number of Canisters Placed for Radon Flux Measurement, and Exposed Tailings

Acreage

a. Current Regulation states that impoundments constructed after 1989 are to be no

larger than 40 acres and that at any given time there are to be no more than two in

operation.  Current regulations further state that there shall be no more than 10 acres

of tailings “exposed.”  We believe that radon flux from impoundments existing prior to

1989, exempt from the above, have been inadequately evaluated and addressed.

i. Case in Point:  Cotter Mill Primary Impoundment based upon 2008 data:  

1. 107 acres total, NOT 40 acres

2. 56 acres dirt covered

3. 34 acres exposed, NOT 10 acres

4. 17 acres water covered

ii. Case in point:  Method 115 allows existing impoundments to have more than 10

acres of exposed tailings.  Additional Cotter Mill Primary Impoundment data:

1. 2007:  29 acres exposed tailings

2. 2008:  34 acres exposed tailings

3. 2009:  no data until March 2010 even though measurements were

taken in July 2009!
3 

C.C.A.T

b. For “Existing Impoundments” greater than 40 acres:  The number of canisters required

for thorough radon flux measurement must be scaled to the total acreage to account

for  the fact that varying conditions exist at each specific mill site, and to conform with

public protection found in other areas of these regulations.   

c. For “Existing Impoundments” greater than 40 acres:  The amount of exposed tailings

should not be allowed to exceed 10 acres in order to provide equal protection to all

citizens whether living near an existing (pre‐1989) tailings impoundment, or a newer

impoundment.  We believe this to be an environmental justice issue.

5. Calculation of Weighted Average Radon Flux

a. Including water covered acreage in the weighted average formula causes radon flux to

be understated by adding 0 pCi/m2

‐sec of radon flux to the components in the average

calculation, while adding the water covered acreage to the denominator in the average

calculation.

i. The assumption that tailings covered by water do not allow radon transfer into

the atmosphere needs careful, scientific review.  

1. How does climate, particularly our windy Colorado climate, alter the

assumption?  We understand that the current assumption is based upon

perfectly still water coverage of some minimum depth.

2. Churning, agitated water releases radon gas.  We believe this to be a

known fact.

3. Surface water hydrology considerations in predicting radon releases

from water‐covered areas of uranium tailings ponds (Nielson and

Rogers, 1986) accompanying this documentation (see Reference – 2),

provides scientific evidence and should be carefully reviewed and

considered.   Based upon laboratory measurements, its conclusion is

that radon flux coming off of water surfaces is as great as radon flux

from saturated beach areas.  

  

b. Weighted average formula needs critical scientific re‐examination.

i. As currently defined it understates true amount of radon flux.

ii. Either fully account for radon released from water due to climate/winds

(diffusion and advection) or eliminate water covered acreage from equation

completely.  It is neither appropriate, nor accurate, to include acres covered

by water in the weighted average formula and attribute zero radon flux to

water covered tailings.

1. We would further argue that weather conditions vary for the

geographic locations where uranium mill impoundments are located  
4 

C.C.A.T

and thus these varying weather conditions affect radon flux emissions

from water covered tailings.  If water‐covered tailings are to be included

as part of any future regulation then those regulations should have

radon flux measurement requirements that include site specific weather

data to determine radon flux from water covered tailings.

a. As a further note, there are only two uranium mills licensed to

operate in the entire United States at this time, and maybe 2 to

3 impoundments that are still not decommissioned.  It is not

likely that such site specific requirements would place a

significant, costly additional responsibility upon the industry.

6. Current Method 115 Measurement Technology

a. Method 115 currently utilizes PVC canisters which are subject to weather conditions,

temperature, etc.  There are other technologies in existence today that overcome these

short‐falls and could provide for more reliable and more frequent radon flux

measurements.  Given the small number of uranium mills in the United States, the cost

to the industry of using the most advanced measurement technology is not high relative

to the public welfare and safety.

b. The best available measurement technology should be required as part of any new

regulations placing priority on public health and welfare over cost to the industry.

7. Subpart W ‐ prescriptive actions lacking when radon flux averages approach regulatory limits

a. EPA July 1991 “Guidance on Implementing the Radionuclide NESHAPS” should be

mandatory, not a guidance:

i. Guidance recommends more frequent tests when a facility is near the standard.

ii. Measurements only accurate to within 10%

b. Case in point:  Cotter 2008 Primary Impoundment average radon flux:   19.7pCi/m2

‐sec

i. Colorado State regulators argue Cotter is within the limit!

ii. This is too close!

iii. More frequent testing was not initiated by EPA or CDPHE, although it was

requested by citizens.   

c. Subpart W must contain specific, required actions when radon flux is close to the limit.  

8. “Radon Flux” versus “Radon Concentration at the Mill Perimeter”

a. Controversy  exists regarding the relationship between radon flux and radon

concentration measured at the mill perimeter

i. Case in Point:  Cotter Mill radon flux measurements for Primary Impoundment

increased 230% from 2006‐2008 to 19.7 pCi/m2

‐sec.  Radon concentration
5 

C.C.A.T

measured at perimeter decreased 30% from 2006‐2008!  Makes absolutely no

sense to logic or reason.

ii. EPA in concert with NRC must review radon concentration at the perimeter

and its relationship to radon flux

1. Review should cover measurement methods, procedures, sample sizes,

calculations, effective effluent limits, and how far one should be from a

radon source in order to reliably measure background radon.

2. Two  independent scientists on two different occasions have questioned

radon measurements at the Cotter mill perimeter.

9. Annual Subpart W radon flux test reporting requirement for March 31st of the year following

the test is extremely problematic

a. Too much time elapses between the actual taking of radon flux measurements and the

reporting of results, and prevents timely control and mitigation of any radon flux results

near or above the 20pCi/m2

‐sec standard.

i. Case in point:  Cotter’s Method 115 annual test, and most tests done at other

impoundments, occurs during the most arid time of the year to avoid

interference by rainfall and to supposedly result in a most conservative

measurement.  Cotter’s test is generally done in June or July, which means the

results are not reviewed by CDPHE or EPA for another 9‐10 months.  

ii. Case in point:  Requiring an annual test at the Cotter impoundments is non‐

representative of yearly radon flux due to changing water coverage and

evaporative conditions during any given year.  CCAT’s PPT presentation (see

Reference – 3) on June 30, 2009, illustrated this problem with photos of the

impoundments over a period of years, and within a year’s time, and showed

significant changes from year to year and within a year of the amount of water

covered acreage for Cotter Mill Primary Impoundment.

b. Subpart W should require radon flux reports to be submitted within 45‐60 days of the

test, and should require testing more than once a year.

10. Subpart W/Method 115 review should require Environmental Fate Analysis.  

a. Where are these radon emissions going?

b. How is the radon plume characterized?
6 

C.C.A.T

11. Cotter Evaporation Ponds

a. While the Cotter Mill is not an ISL facility, they too have evaporation ponds that can vary

significantly in water coverage throughout a year and contribute to radon flux.  Soil

samples MRA1 and MRA2 taken from Cotter’s Evaporation Cell #8 in 2002 show high

concentrations of Alpha emitting material (see Reference – 4).  The test procedures and

collection requirements requested by EPA in the May 5, 2009, letter are certainly more

thorough than any annual testing performed at the Cotter Mill.  An average of two

charcoal canisters per each of Cotter’s evaporation ponds over a 24‐hour period once a

year certainly is not as representative of radon flux emissions as the requested

procedure would be, nor does it measure radon at 1, 2 or 3 meters above the pond (see

Reference – 5).  Results of this sort of radon testing would answer many radon

questions from citizens living near a tailings impoundment with evaporation ponds.

b.   It was extremely disappointing to hear EPA seemingly unconcerned that Cotter objected          

to the measurements they were asked to provide regarding their evaporation ponds on

the grounds that they were not an ISL facility.  It is difficult to understand why an acid or

alkaline leach conventional mill, especially those close to a large population, would be

held to a lesser standard of investigation than an ISL facility.   Cotter should be required

to provide the requested information.

References

1. CDPHE, June 30, 2009, Notice of Violation to Cotter, including concerns over radon flux.

2. Nielson, K. K. and Rogers, V. C. 1986, Surface Water Hydrology Considerations in Predicting

Radon Releases From Water‐covered Areas of Uranium Tailings Ponds.

3. CCAT Power Point Presentation from the June 30, 2009 Meeting in Canon City, Colorado.

4. Cotter Corp. Canon City Mill Main Impoundment As‐Built Drawing of Evaporation Cells and

Dewatering‐Drain System, Soil Samples, 2002.

5. Cotter Corp. Canon City Milling Facility Primary Tailings Impoundment Radon Flux Test

Canister Locations (July, 2008), Map.
STATE OF COLORADO 

Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor 

James B. Martin, Executive Director 

Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people 01 Colorado 

4300 Cherry Creek Or. S. 

Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 

Phone (303) 692-2000 

TOO Line (303) 691·noo 

Located in Glendale, Colorado 

http://www.cdphe.slate.co.us 

Mr. John Hamrick 

Laboratory Services Division 

8100 Lowry Blvd. 

Denver, Colorado 80230-6928 

(303) 692-3090 

Vice President of Milling Operations 

Cotter Canon City Milling Facility 

P.O. Box 1750 

Cailon City, CO 81215-1750 

Subject: Notice of Violation 

This letter is a Notice of Violation of certain requirements of Title 25, Article II , CRS, Colorado 

Radioactive Materials License Number 369·01, and the State of Colorado Rules and Regulations 

Pertaining to Radiatioll Control (the Regulations). It is based on the findings of the annual inspection 

of the radiation management program conducted May 4 through 6, 2009 at the Canon City Milling 

Facility. 

1. License Condition (LC) 8.7 requires the licensee's management and radiation safety officer shall 

take prompt and appropriate action to correct known deficiencies in the facility's procedures, 

processes, equipment, and site conditions. 

Contrary to this requirement, the Emergency Response Plan Procedure, ER 010 did not have 

updated CDPHE emergency contact infonnation. This was fixed at time of inspection. 

Cotter shall ensure that the emergency response contact information is correct in the Emergency 

Response Procedure. 

2. LC 23 requires that the licensee shall conduct management ofliquids and solids at the facility as 

described in Cotter's Site Liquids and Solids Material Management Plan. 

Contrary to this requirement, the pH in the primary impoundment fell below a value of 4.0 

numerous times in 2008 and 2009. Cotter was cited for this issue for excursions that happened in 

2007; therefore this is a repeat violation. 

Cotter shall adjust protocols and methods to address this requirement and reflect those adjustments 

in the Site Liquids alld Solids Material Management Plan. 
Mr. John Hamrick 

Page2of4 

June 24, 2009 

Items of Concern: 

In addition to the violations cited above, the following Items of Concern were noted: 

1. Written operating procedures shall be maintained for all routine operations and shall incorporate at 

a minimum, responsibilities, operating instructions and safety precautions. These include. at a 

minimum, Cotter's Radiation Protection Program Procedures, Site Safety Manual, Site Security 

Manual, Laboratory Procedures Manual, Site Liquids and Solid Materials Management Plan, and 

the Quality Assurance Program Plan. 

The Integrated Safety Management process was adopted at Cotter through SOPs SPA 12 and 13 and 

approved by the Division in January 2009. Cotter needs to incorporate the provisions of Integrated 

Safety Management into its plans and procedures, as well as complete an update to the Radiation 

Safety Procedures Manual. 

2. LC 22.9 requires Cotter to implement and maintain Department-approved controls for limiting the 

release of radon and radioactive particulates from all waste repositories and ore piles. 

Cotter is using a sprinkler system to mitigate particulate and radon releases from the Primary 

Impoundment. The radon flux report for 2008 came very close to exceeding the release limits. 

Cotter shall ensure that the sprinkler system is adequate as well as adopting other measures (e.g., 

soil cover) to ensure that releases of radon and radioparticulates from the Primary Impoundment are 

ALARA, taking into consideration the desire to reduce water levels in the Primary Impoundment 

per LC 29.4.3. 

3. LC 8.2.2 requires a hazard analysis which includes an ALARA evaluation, for each proposed 

system weighing merits of the proposed system(s) against potential alternative operating systems or 

technologies, as appropriate. 

Numerous items in the hazard analysis were detennined to be ALARA by Cotter through limiting 

access to the area or postponing remediation until BFSU, or before start up. Cotter must address 

those areas now that a detennination has been made to not go into decommissioning. In addition to 

areas that have elevated gamma exposure rates and considerable surface contamination, numerous 

areas of the mill are simply full of excess equipment that needs to be moved out of the buildings. 

4. LC 8.6.1 requires in part that the licensee shall implement engineering controls to maintain all 

releases of radioactive materials into the environment to levels that are As Low As Reasonably 

Achievable (ALARA), and LC 8.7 states the licensee's management and radiation safety officer 

shall take prompt and appropriate action to correct known deficiencies in the facility's procedures, 

processes, equipment, and site conditions. 

Gamma exposure rates at the inactive ore pad adjacent to the guard shack are not ALARA, and 

remain elevated despite not using this pad for more than 2 years. The Division has noted this for 

three consecutive inspection reports. 
Mr. John Hamrick 

Page 3 of4 

June 24, 2009 

Cotter shall either remediate this pad or place an interim cover over the pad to reduce gamma 

exposure rates and radon flux from residual radioactive material left in the base of the pad. Failure 

to address this pad during the next inspection period may result in a violation. 

5. Section 10.2.3 of Part 10 of the Radiation Regulations requires that fonn R-15 Notice to 

Employees be posted by each licensee. Cotter has numerous copies of this posting around the 

facility. All Notice to Workers and Emergency call lists must have the current CDPHE emergency 

contact number. Unfortunately. the current Fonn R-15 has the old emergency contact number for 

CDPHE. In case of an emergency. the correct contact numbers need to he correct on this Conn, 

just as they need to be correct in the Emergency Response Procedure. 

Since our poster does not have the correct number, the licensee must post the correct number in all 

areas where it is required. CDPHE will provide new posters with the proper contact number when 

they are printed. 

In addition, the following recommendations are provided for your consideration: 

1. Birds are nesting and leaving droppings that are not being controlled in the buildings that are 

locked down. This may cause a health hazard when the buildings are accessed. This is not a 

radiation issue, but is of concern to CDPHE. 

2. Since the Emergency Response procedure relies on the PA system, it should be tested on a 

periodic basis and maintained in operable condition. 

3. Care should be taken to ensure that purge water above standards not discharged to ground 

surface. 

Your written response must he submitted within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter and must 

include: (1) a detailed description of the corrective actions which have been taken to achieve 

compliance; (2) plans to achieve compliance with the requirements which cannot be remedied within 

thirty (30) days; and (3) other relevant information. Any proposed compliance schedules or plans to 

achieve full compliance after thirty days must specifically include implementation deadlines for each of 

the key components of the plan. If these deadlines are not met, this will provide the Division a basis, 

without further notice, to institute proceedings for suspension, revocation or modification of your 

license, as provided in RH 3.23 of the Regulations. 

As required by RH 10.2 of the Regulations, this Notice must be posted so as to permit individuals 

engaged in licensed activities to obseIVe it on the way to or from any particular licensed activity location 

to which the document applies. Any acknowledgment to this report by the licensee shall be posted 

within five (5) working days after dispatched by the licensee. Such docwnents shall remain posted for a 

minimum of five (5) working days or until actions correcting the violations have been completed, 

whichever is later. 
Mr. John Hamrick 

Page 4 of4 

June 24, 2009 

If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact Mr. Phil Egidi of this Division at (970) 

248-7162 or phil.egidi@state.co.us .. 

Sincerely. 

c!J/~ Ed Stroud, Compliance Lead 

Radioactive Materials Unit 

Radiation Management Program 

Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division 

ES:pve 

CC: 

Jim Cain (RSO) 

Phil Egidi 

Edgar Ethington 

Mark Dater 

James DeWolfe 
Precise Reference: 

Nielson, K K and Rogers, V C, 1986, Surface water hydrology considerations in 

predicting radon releases from water-covered areas of uranium Tailings ponds. Proc. 

“8th Annual Symposium on Geotechnical & Geohydrological Aspects of Waste 

Management”, Geotechnical Engineering Program – Colorado State University & 

A A Balkema, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA, February 5-7, 1986, pages 215-222. 

GfI()tt!t;tmical & Gevllydro logical Aspects of Wafts Matlagl!mefJt I Fort Collins / 1986 

Surface water hydrology considerations in predicting radon releases 

from water-covered areas of uranium tailings ponds 

KIRK K,NIELSON & VERN C.RUGERS 

Roger! d: Associate:; Engineerlllg Corp., Salt Lake City, Utah, USA 

INTRODUCTION 

In assessi ng the r e l eases of .,-adon ( Rn- 222) f ro. u "-iln i u1tl lIIi1l sites, 

the radon escaping from water-covered 6urf aces of the taili ngs pond 

has t raditionally bee n iqn;red"'TNRC 1'9900. ; NRC 19BOb, NRC 198 1 l. This 

has been j ustifi ... d by radon diffusion calculations, whiCh s uggest that 

radon cannot penetra t e !!lo r e than a f ew centimeters of wa t e r because of 

i ts v!.!.LJ- . __ <!.iJ:!.us_i .Q.!'o CQGffi cient ( 10- 5 c . 2 i!1-1). Th ... tailings pond 

i s not a moti o nless body of water, ho_ve.,-. a nd consi cierabie---wa-ter -

. ove .. e nt ';';;:'urs ' t i me periods c O!!lpttorabl ..... ith the ha lf- l ife of 

uldon (3 . 8 days ). The r e fore, s i gnificant advective trans port of radon 

_ay occu r, I;endering the pond -t e ss - e ffecti VI!! h~~ previously thought 

fo r contai ning radon gas . 

I n a recent study for EPA on r adon releases frOlll active uraniUII 

mi l l s, we exalnined the potential for advec tive tranepor t of radon 

through tailings pond wa ters along with other radon l our ces i n the 

mill environ.ent (Roger s e t al., 1985) . This paper SUJn_arizes the 

parts of the study tha t dea l t wit h r adon '(eleases from the t ailings 

pond a r ea , and d i scusses t he na ture and mechan isms o f the rado n 

r eleases from water-covered areas. A r efer:ence tailings b.,poundment 

is des c ribed accord ing t o s everal d ist.i nc t physical. r eg i on.& , and t he 

con<jitionll "f1'",,,1" in<] radon trancport in .... o h are dOQor;'b<!d . sine", 

radon transport through ponded water ha s not previously been modeled 

i n deta il, simple l aboratory e >lperilRents were conducted t o a ppr;x.-i;;'ate 

the chacac terii!ltic t ransp;.rt para"-eters'. The results of these ... xperiment a were then used .. ith paramet ers des cribi ng t h e tailings pond to 

aS3f1SS the o verall .. agni t ude of radon release e xpected fra- the wate rcovered pond region . The s iqni!icanc ... o f r ad on r e l eases f r om t he 

wate r-covered areas .. as estima t ed by cOlllp, is on to radon fluxe s from 

otner, e xposed tailings surfa<:es. 

2 REFERENCE TAILINGS IMPOUNDMENT 

A re f e renc e tailings impou....aent that approx i .. ates a c tual i mpoundments 

is f irat defined to illustrate th £'f!f! cha rac teris ti c r eg i ons wi t h 

distinctly d ifferent phyuicaJ properties t hat affec t radon transpo£'t. 

Th. r e f e rence i "poull<liu ... , l. ... 1 11 0 prov1.Cles a basts to est:1.ma t e the . agnit ude o f radon releas es f ren tailings pond s . The i.poundaent contains 

II. Centcal, .. ater-<:ov e r ed pond area , s urroun.d ... d by a _ter-saturated 

beach IIrea, and an unaaturated bea <:h .. rea. Tailinga enter the 

215 
impoundme nt v i a a s l urr y pipeline fro m the mi ll, and are depleted in 

ema nated rad o n for t he first f e,.- days d ue to COlllplete radon r<!leases 

during mill i ng . The t o tal RasS or new d epleted t aili n g s e nteri ng the 

po ~ent i s insign ificant c omp ared t o t he t otal mass i n the 

i mpoundment, howev er, s O t he tot al rado n rel e a s e r a te is relatively 

c o nstant. Si n ce the s l u rr y pi p"'L ine delivers both coars e (s a n.:!y) a nd 

f ine (sl i~ e) tai l i ngs , the sand s tend t o a c c umulat e n ear t h e p i peline, 

whi le the slime s are carried f u rth er i n t o t h e center o f t he po~ . The 

s l u rry p ipe i s t y p i c ally moved t o d i f ferent positions around e edge 

o f the imp o undment, sO that t h e s andy t a ilings typ ically comprise most 

o f t h e saturated a nd unsaturated beach a reas, and t he s l imes ~cc um ulate i n t he c e n ter pond area. The rado n s o urce lllaterials and diffus ion Characteristics i n t h e pond, sa tu n n :ed, and u n satura t e d areas 

a r e thus diff erent , and a re descri bed i n t erms o f n o mi n al paralfteter 

va:ues t o permi t esti ... a t es of their r e lative impacts o n rad on 

re!.eases. 

The unsatu r a ted beac h areas a re c onsidered to be comprised eKclusie~ y of taili ng s s ands , a n d t o be s u f f icien t l y abov e the water .level 

t hat t hey a re ....... ll_drained a n d s il'lilar t o s urro u nding s andy soils i n 

mo i sture content. Rado n o rigina ting i n these reg i o n s is def i ned in 

t erms of t h e radi um c o n t e n t f or the s ands , wh i ch is typ ica LLY mu ch 

lover than tha t f o r the s 1 i mes. o n ce r",don g as is emanat ed to the 

int erstitial pore space of the sand s , it diff u s e s a c c o r d i n g t o t:he 

c h a racteristics alread y known a nd modeled f o r u n saturated soil s and 

t a i lings (Rog ers et al. , 1 984a), a nd i s d ominated b y diffusive 

t rans port mech a n i sms . Advective transpor t b y air or vapor currents in 

unsatura t e d regions such as the taili n g s beach e s has been e xamined a nd 

i s cOll"i d«re d i n " ignifican l ( Rog"" ' " ,,0; .. 1., 1 983) . According l y, r .. don 

fl u xes are ca.p u ted f o r the uns a turated beaChes as 

where 

.J = 10 4 R('E.J>:D (11 

.J = radon flux f r o m the ex posed tailings surf a ce 

(pei m- 2s - 1 ) 

R t ailings rad i um c ontent ( pCi g-1 ) 

~ b ulk tailing s d e n sity ( g c m- 3 ) 

E ~ rad on emana tion coeffici e n t for tailings 

). rad o n decay c o nstant (2 .1 K 10-6 s-1) 

( d imensi-:mless) 

D ~ diffusion coefficien t for rad o n i n the t a i lings pore 

s pace ( cm2 s -1) 

e s a t u r a ted be ach areas are considered t o be comprised of approxim .. t ely 70 perc e n t sands a nd 30 perc ent s Limes, r e flect ing the limited 

lIIixing of s limes in this part o f the tailing s mas s . Alt:houqh t h is 

a r e a of the impoundl1e n t i s vadable and mo r e d ifficult t o de f ine in 

t erMS o f physi c al exte n t, i t s diffus i o n characteristics are lIIOre 

distinc t in being saturated by water. De s p i t e wav e a c tio n o v er t he 

s a t urate d beach areas, a dVec t ive transport i n the i n t e rstitia l volune 

i s pro b a bly limited to o n l y t h e tDp f e w cent i meters, as def i n e d b y the 

wave-pond e levation d ifference . The radon source term f or the 

saturated beaches i s modeled as a we i qhted average of the respec tive 

rad i um cont e n t s of the s ands a nd slimes ( 7 0 / 30 ratio) Multipl ied by 

the ir r es pec tive emana t ion c oe ffi cients. Transport o f emanated radon 

to t h e atl'!lOSphere, n e g lec ting liq uid advection in the top wave-

:a ffQ"tO!'d l :a y .. r . i" d .,...ina:t .. d h y diff' us- i o n throllgh t h .. "atur,,-ted 

216 
inte rstitial space, with a t ypi c al dif fus i on coefficient on the order 

of 10 - 5 clII.- 2s- 1 (Rogers et al ., 1984a) . 

Ttle tailings beneath the pand area are assumed to be ccomprised of 

a p pro>cimately 50 peccent sands and 50 percent slimes. I n t his region 

the radon source ter~ is si",ilarly computed as a weighted a verage of 

the respective radi um contents o f the s ands and slimes (SO/50 rati o) 

.ultiplied by their respective e manatio n coefficients. Move"'ent of 

ema n ated cadon to the atmosphere includes a dvect ive as well as d iffus i ve transport . since consi derable wate r movement occurs within the 

pOnd ovec time per iods crnnpacable to the ha l f - life of radon. The 

movement is partly caused by surface wind c urrents, thermal qradients, 

.. echani cal disturban ce frOIlll the mill discharge pipe , and biological 

disturbances (animals, b i r ds, etc.). In additi on , radon release frOllll 

the radium dissolVed i n th e water IllUst now be considered s e parately, 

since the water i s physica11y separated b y significant distances from 

the solid tail i n gs l!Iateria1. For anal.yzing the pond area , radon 

releases wer e divided i nto three co.ponents: 

, . Radon origi na ting fro .. sol id tailil'>9s under l ess <han • of 

water . 

,. Radon oriqinati nq from so1id tai l ings u n der g reater than , • of 

wat er. 

3 . Radon ,.= the diss o lved radium in t h e pond wa ter. 

The one meter depth is c h osen to parti tion the surface water. where 

t u r bula nt DOvement is pronounced and o f ten visi b le, fro.. deeper 

l ayers, where advecti on is minimal . Al t h o ugh a c tual advecti v e 

c u rrents probabl y decrease continuousl y 

conven ient l y d et'ines a Mra p i d releaseM 

decay- 1imited transport zone. 

3 LABORATORY MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS 

with d e p th, t h is partitioni nq 

zone for radon and a dee per 

I n o rder t o q ua nti f y radon rel eases from t he above pond source s , 

sever'll para meters were meas ured i n the l aborato r y , using i'I sample of 

s lime t a ilings fr om the Rifle , Colorado UMTRAP site. The measure d 

parameters i ncl u ded the sol.ubility of the tailings radiu ... a.n d the 

transport coe ffici e nt for radon through "undisturb ed" colUJII.ns of water 

i n the laborato ry. In o r der to interpret the r a don transport experi-

",ents , rad iu", contents. ema n ation coe fficients, and related t ai lings 

parameters were also measured. The key tailings para ... eters are SUIIImar ized in Table I . 

TABLE I 

Characteristics of Tailinqs used as Radon sourc es 

R 4628 pei/g Ra-226 

E = 0 . 25 pei Rn-222 released per pei Ra- 226 

Po r osity 

Solubility 

0 .66 in test col.umns 

35 pCi/liter R .. -226 in separ .. ted colulllln w .. t e r. 

'!'he s l.ime tailings sarnp1e was OVen dried , a n d 2 00-qra .. aliquots were 

weighed i nto each of f o ur Boyoucos soil test oylinders. seven h undred 

.. 1 of water were added to eac h c y1ind er, after whi ch they _re s tirred 

and a l lowed to settl e a n d equili brate for a t least 22 days. The 

217 
s e ttled t.1. 1i n<',i'a <>ccupi",d the bottOlll a . ') CIII o f' the 5 . ') ~ d!.ametelr 

gll'lss cy!tnd"'rs, and the .. ateJ: layeJ: comprised an aveJ:age height of 

19.4 cm above the tailings. Rl'Idon flux measure .. ents .. ",r", then made 

fJ:om thfl water surfaces after f irst ciroulating fresh air o Ver the 

undisturbfl.:! water . After the radon flux taeasurements , the ",atl!!r was 

ol'lrefully si phoned f"om th'" columns without disturb:in<J the tailings 

layers. Additional radon flux aeasurements _re then .ade f ro.. the 

bare, saturated tailings. The radon flu x .eilSUJ:ements utiliZed both 

the accUMu lator c an and han~oal canister t.ec hnique:ll ( Rogers et I'll., 

1984b). The acclUlulator ca.n measurements qave a ten-ainute aveJ:age 

flux , and the oharcoal c ani$ter measurl!!"ents gave a 24-ho ur average 

f lux. The rosu1ts wl!!re averaged and report"'.:! in teras of 1'1 mean and 

standard deviation. 

The rellu 1tOl v C u , .. l aboratory .. e a"urementa a r e pregentcd i n Table 

I] . The re latively high radon fluxes pO!:netrat;i ng 19.4 cm o f -water 

indicated clearly that molecu l ar diffusion did not account for thl!! 

o bserved radon transpor t through the colUMns. Despite p r ecautions to 

avoid agitat;ion a nd vibrations , advecti ve transport; ( p"obably therlIl a1.1y :indUc"'d) dOMin at&(! the o bservl!!d r adon flux, whi c h ...auld have 

been nearly four orders of magnitude l o wer with only diffusive 

t ransport in und:isturbed wa ter. The removal of th e water (not 

disturbi ng t h e tai l ings I a1lowed Inea!>urelfl",n t of the b are radon flux 

from t;h e sa turated tail-ings , a n d gave evidence that the advec t i ve forces actinq in the vater cover were no t a c tive in the saturated 

tailings re910n. Ins tei!Od, the low diftU:llion coeffi c ients typica l of 

water-saturat l!!d pore s pace were found to be typieal. 

TABLE II 

RADON FLUXES MEASURED FROM BARE AND WATER COVERED TAI LINljS SVKYACES 

(mean + S.D. ) 

u ndi s turbed vater, ACCUllu1ator Ca.n 7 S + 19 

Und i s turbed water, Ch arcoal Canister 66 + 7 

Ba.re , saturated tailings, AecUJluli!O tor Ca.n 64 + 2 1 

Thl!! res u lts o f the laborat.ory flux measurements _re co«lpared with 

values obtained using the aJ..ECOM coaputer code (Rogers fit al., 19B4a). 

Using t he radiUII c ontent, e.anation coefficient, and porosity fro. 

TabJ.e I, th'" RAECOH cod", g ave a co.<puted radon flux o f 83 pCi 

m-2s-1 u8in9 its default (correlation) value for the diffusion coefficient in the :!Saturated tailings. This compares well with the aean 

mea,.ur<>d flux val u .. ,,1' A4 pCi f11- 2s-1 and also supports the s election 

o f' 4 x 10 - S e.2s - 1 for the. radon diffusion <;oefficient in the sub-

.erged tai linglil. Further RAECOH analyses of the 17 percent attenuation prov ided by the undisturbed water indleated that the e~fect:ive 

transport coefficient for t;he water layer was on the order of 0 . 003 

cm2s-1. The d:illsolved radium cont;ent l1aalilured fra. thf!. water layers 

and shown In Tabll!! I, gives neqJ.iqible <;ontribution to th'" measured 

fluxes, but givell a n<*:inal solubility parallleter for evaluating the 

reference t;a llings i .. pounct.ent. 

2'. 
4 APPLICATIONS AND DISCUSSI ON 

I n appl ying the Laboratory data to estimate rado n relea !iles fro. sub-

. e rqed tailinqs, the hi gh unc ert a i :lties and l aclt o f lab/ fi e ld expe rilIent cor respondence prec J.ud.e q ·;antitat ive e ccura c:y froc being 

e s soci ated with the concl usions . However , t he Lab data conc l usivel y 

s how that non-diffu sive t rans port Ca n d~inate radon movement , even in 

visua11y " undistur bed- wate r colUlllls . Since s ur:face turbul ence i s 

i nvar iably visib le i n tailings ponds, we i nfer that grea ter advec tive 

t ranspor t occurs i n t he pond surfa<:e l aye rs. In the absence o f t u r -

bulence data :for e ither the d eep or shall ow pond water, we qll<l l itlltivel y associat e the .easured laboratory transport coe ffecient with 

possi b l e trans por t c har acteristics of the deep 1"'1",) i"poundment 

water . 

For ~h_~~!.o.. !_ ) __ !!'P.9'y}'~_n~ __ !l r;, elttrapolations o f visual 

dye !!IOve ... nt testa indic a te advective vf! l ociti e s may e xcf!ed 1-2 

" m/m inut e , ~"' l.!-j. ti'l! A- !l--'yirt \Ul....!1.:L..!!E...,,! !,- on con tainMent by the sUI.:~8!f' 

water. If s hal low water .avement i s suf:fici ent to r f!. ove radon f rOll 

-t-he ta i lil')<l"s-watf!r .intf!rface and "trans port it t o t he a tmosphere i n "-

short tiMe (seve r el hour s) , the ra:lon fl ux t:rO/ll the shall ow taili ngs 

i s nearlr~9r ~!9_ th~'?:!. si J. !:~s_a. ~r;a!,.ed ~.il~ og_~, hence 

no s i gnifi cant r adon att f!nuation i s cons ider ed. 

For tai Ung s at d~.e!-!!c ......2=.!!'~~ t!l-!l'1 •. ~r-_~ _!'.'O'ter, t he radon t ransport 

prope r t ies o f the pond water are conside red to folJ.ow the Labor ato ry 

value o t: 0 . 00 3 c:-28- 1 _ ~.!I ,"-etf!r d e p t h , o!~v~ wh! l:l ~!"tlle:r 

a ttenua tion occ u.J" s . Fo r dissol ved radi um, the s a ... water _oti on that 

t-acili ta:t~s --["apid r.!,,-d on _ rei" a~e -f:["Q.i - the' sha llow watar also a llows 

relea s e ot all r a d on genera t e d in t h e top mete r of the pond . Thu s, 

t he applicable flux equation fo r radon frOll t he t op Me ter of wa te r 

over the dee p fraction of the poDd aM :fo r the avarage half-me t e r o f 

water ove r the sha l low fracti o n is 

where 

'. 

'. 

' 21 

ratio o f radi~ in solu tion to cadi ... in tailings s olids 

('1 clll- 3 , . 

:frac t ion o f pond area wi t h les8 than 1 meter depth. 

Radon qenerated f r Ofll dissoJ.ved rad i ... bel ow o ne meter i s tra nsported 

a ccordinq t o the 0 . 003 cm2s- 1 coe ffi c i ent up to the o ne meter depth , 

Where i t is rapidly relea s ed t o the a tllosphere . The three rado n sour-

_. s hal!.o'!' _ tetlill'JlI. !! ~ep tapi n.9!! • . d _d!B.a.'?A'!.e? ~.i.l.!ffi ' .! · ~dded 

to obtain a simpl ified esti ma t e f or the average flux from the tai l l nq s 

pond, 

131 

where 

A - a t tf!'nuat.ion fa ctor f or deep water. 

The attenuati on fa c tor, At. i a det er.ined fr om RAECOM ca l culations, or 

it can a180 be approximated b y 

• 

219 
whe r e 

• effective s tagnant wa t e r transport coeffici e nt (c~2 s-11 

• average pond depth for areas greater than 1 .et er deep 

(ea) 

In order t o esti_te radon re l eases [ t Oft a tai l ingll i.poun~ent, 

numerous site- specific pa rameters must be defined. Soae , such a s o re 

grade, area of t h e i_poundment surfaces, eto:. are r eadily known or 

aeasurabl e , while others, such as iff~ion coeffieients, are usually 

unknown without 8p6o:iftc l'Ieasurelllents. Tabl e 111 presents nominal 

values for 80me of t.he requir ed par..aet.ers fo r the present esti_t.es. 

Other val ues , such as e.anation coefficient., moistures and ditfusion 

coefficients for the Un9atur ated tai l ings, were based on site- specific 

data (Roq"rl et al., 19851 . 

TABLE III 

Tailings Parameters used i n Radon Transport Calcula tions 

Sub!lM!!rqed Sat.urated Unsaturated 

Tailinqs Tailings Tailings 

Sand/slime rat.io 50/50 70/30 100/0 

Bulk de nsity (9 c .. - 3 1 1. 55 1. 57 1.60 

por osity .40- . 4 2 . 39-. 4 1 . 38-.40 

,",oist.ure Satura'tion , . 0 1.0 . 33 - . 57 

Su rface Area (m2 ) 4 . 0ES 2 . 0E5 9 . 0E4 

For calculaUnq r adon ealssions f ro. the ~aturat sM.1dy . ~i.~ ings 

~~_ .. th~ .. ~~ .. !,99~ .R{ ~~ . . ~."'£'C?u~..E.! ! equation 1 was used t;O Obtain 

the normali~ed radon fluxes in Table IV . The rado n release i s no rmalized t o account for the typical 4 :1 r at.io of r adium act i vity in the 

s limes compar ed t.o that i n the sands, and a lso t.o a ccount f o r their 

bu lk density difference as defi ned in Table t . The r esu lting data i n 

Table rv a r e thus nor_alized to the aver age radiuz i n the original o re 

not just for the sands a lone. It should also ~ e.phasi",ed that the 

use of spo!Ieific fluxes pres upposes a :fixe<! diffusio n coefficient in 

the sour ce .aterial. aoo t hus does not have general applieation to 

a[l,!a5 in whi e h moistures or d iffusi on coefficient.s are greatly diff erent . 

TABLE IV 

Specific Radon Fluxes Computed for Six St ate Mi l ling Regions 

for Three Part.s of a Uranium Tailings I.pou~e t 

( pCi .-2e- I / pCi g _ l) 

State 

Tailinqs CO N' TX In WA ,.., Hean 

Unsaturatl!td 0 .42 0 . 76 0 .2J 0 . 29 0.29 0 .43 0 .40 

Saturated Bea c h 0 . 036 0 . 06 2 0 . 03 1 0 . 027 0 . 031 0 . 035 0 . 037 

Pond 0 . 020 0 . 03 3 0 . 019 0 . 017 0 . 019 0 . 021 0.022 

220 
For tile m.ixed Ul ilings i n tile sat.urat.ed beach area s , Table t V g ives 

the corres ponding spec i fi c fl uxe s IiIssuming a 70/30 mASs ratio o f 

sands/s l i mea , and assumes a OOIIbi ned ",ean densit.y o f 1 . 5 7 q c ",-l . Th e 

t: es ulting ave t:ag8 s pecifi c f luxes a r e again nor malized to t.he average 

radium content. of the origin a l or e . 

F'o r t he ponded areas of the tail ings, i s was ass\JI!Ied t hat. o ne - f ourth 

of t.h e pond area was less than one !Deter d eep, a nd that. the t ai lings 

are 50 / 5 0 sands/sli me s . The value o f "8 ( NRC 1 9BO J i s 8 . 9 2E- 4 g / _!. 

The d iffusion coe ffi ci e n t f o r t.ai 1 i n9s .easured in toe labora t o ry ""as 

silldlar t o t he predi cted va l ue from earlie r correlations, a nd so t he 

correlatio n value of 4 . 0£- 5 c m2 s- 1 wa s us e d . A l ow",r-bound estimate 

at the diffusion coeff icie n t f or dee p wa t er wall o btained fr oa t he 

l abOr a t o r y meas u rement , 0tr '" 0 . 003 cm2$ -1 . Th is vaLue 'Was used i n 

RAECOM c al cula t ions (Roqers e t a 1 . , i96 4a ) t o obt a i n an average attention f a c t or o f At 0 .1 7 , which was used in t he ana lysis. The 

r esul ti ng n o r malized rado n f luxes f r om the 'Water-eovered t .lI ; 1 i n<Js. 

us ing equatio n Il l, and dividin9 by R, a r e shown by s t a t e in Ta ble IV . 

In o rder t o assess t.he relative importan c e of total r adon releases 

for the thr ee tai1in9s regio ns , a refe r e nce u raniwn lII i 11 is de fined to 

p r ocess one wi th an aver l\ge 'ir ade of 0 . 1 percent UJOe . It.s ui1ings 

i.!o.poundllle nt i s also def ined t o hav", t he surfac ", a r e as shown i n Tabl e 

[ [ l. The resulting t o tal radon r eleases , expressed in Ci/day f o r each 

t a ili ngs re'Jl on in the s ix s tates a r e s ummari zed in Ta b l e V . The 

t 01:al r adon releases Var y froon 0.9 to 2.3 Cij da y . a nd are docn i n ated 

(69%) by the u nsatura t ed s a ndy tai l ings, a s . ight be e xpect ed . 

" lthou9 h the Sub_rged tai l ings account f or onl y 17' of the t o t al , 

they are IllUch !!lo re iaportant than previ ously est i matftd . "lt hou9h to 

be r ft9 arded qua l itatively, t his study suggests that r a d o mitigation by 

!lutM=e rQinq tai 1in"," ; n " h.,. pond w .. .., ~ lIl.ay b .. mu",h 1""", e ff e c t. i ve tho.n 

n.llil bfle n pre v i ous ly assu:lled. From t he s pecific fl uxes i n Tabl e IV , 

it is see n t h a t satura t inq or sut..er9in9 t he tai l ings is sti l l effect ive in s ignifi cantly reduc ing radon f l uxlls by an order o f .agnitude. 

but that. the advantage o f addi ~onal wate r over t h e s atu r ated tailings 

i s pro por t i onat e ly reduced . 

TABL E V 

SUlllma ry o f Tota l Rado n Emissi o ns from t hll Re fer e nce 

Tai lings Impound.en t in Six St a t es 

(Ci / day) 

S u te 

T/l. i1ings CO NH TX UT W. WY 

Uns atu rated 0.92 1. 66 0 . 50 0 . 63 0 . 63 0 . 94 

Satu-rat:ed Beac h 0 .16 0 . 30 0 .1 5 0 . 13 0.1 50 0 .17 

POnd 0 .1 9 0.32 0 .1 9 0 .17 0 . 19 0 . 20 

TOt a l 1. 29 2 . 28 0 . 84 0 . 93 0 . 97 1 . 3 1 

.... n 

0 . 68 

0 . ' 8 

0 . 2 1 

1 .27 

22' 
REF'ElU::NCES 

u . s . Nuc l ear Regulatory Compissio n. NFinal Ge ne ric Enviro nment Ympact 

Statement on Uraniu. Mi l li ng ." NCREG/CR-0706 . 1980a . 

0 . 5 . Nue l e llr Regub_tory CO ..... issl o n. 

Statement Re l a ted t o t he o perati o n 

NUREG-0702 . 1 98Gb . 

"Fi n .. l 

of the 

~nv n~enta l Ympaet 

·:;as Hi l l a project," 

u . s . Nucl ear Regula t ory CO..rllissio n . "Enviro Dllle n t Assessm8nt Related t o 

the Operations o f Kllnsen Urani um Hill Pr o ject." NUERG- 01 49 . 1 981. 

V. C. Roqers, 

o n Rad on 

Requl a tor y 

!C. K. Ni els o n a nd G. B. Merr e ll. '"The E~ fec ts o f Advec tion 

Tran sport Thro ug h ga rthe n Materials," 

cam-t s sion Re port NUREG!CR-J409. 19 83. 

u . S . Nuclear 

v. c . Roge r s and K.K. Nie lso n. " Radon Attemuation Handbook for Ura ni um 

Mill Taili ng s Cove r Des i gn ," O. S . Nuc lear Regu l a t o r y Ca.3issi o n 

Re?Qrt NUREG/CR-35 J 3 . 198411 . 

V. C. Rogers, et al. , "Radon Flu ~ Me asurement 

MethodoLog i es ," U. S . oepa.r tJltent o f 'Energy Re port 

UHTRA- DOE/ AL- 21 00- 201 . 1984b. 

V. C. Roge rs , .~. Niel son, F. K. 

£lniss i n f rom Operati ng niu", 

Roqftrs G Assoc. Enqin eer inq 

TIH-8 4 69/4-1, Fe bruar y . 1985 . 

Ancler 8 0 n a.no:1 R. !I. Klein, "Radon 

Mi ll Fa ciliti~s." Salt Lake City, 

Cor p . Tech. I n f o r. HemOr ilndua 

222 
Citizen Stakeholder Input to EPA Revie

Rulemaking of NESHAP Subpart – 

June 30, 2009

Canon City, Colorado
Who We Are

 Members Colorado Citizens Against ToxicWaste Inc (CCAT Shary g , y gy, g y n Cunningham, B.S. Psychology, Regis University

 Co-Chair-Person: CCAT Lincoln Park Resident

 Paul Carestia, M.S.E.E. Northwestern University, MBA Univ

Chicago

 Board of Directors CCAT Board of Directors CCAT Lincoln Park Resident Lincoln Park Business Owner
CCAT Presentation Overview 

 Cotter Uranium Mill & Lincoln Park

 Historical Perspective Lessons learned

 Issues to address and rules to draft

 EPA review 

process

 Method 115 Radon Flux

 Closing Remarks
History and Lessons Learned

 1958 – Cotter Uranium Mill Built – Unlined Impoundments  1960’s – Cattle with Molybdenum Toxicity – Well Contami 1965 –

Tailin

g p s Im

poundments Flood into Lincoln Park

 1972 – Soil Conservation Dam built 1978 to 1979 1978 to 1979 – New Impoundments Built New Impoundments Built

 Against advice of EPA and NRC due to close proximity to a p Excavation Encountered Nineteen Springs CDPHE requested tracer test 1979 CDPHE requested tracer test 1979 – Not performed Not performed

 1984 – National Priorities List Superfund Site 2007 – First EPA Five Year Review – Lincoln Park 4,000 P
History and Lessons Learned

WATER

Protect the Community

Subpart W and associated regulations ne

additional requirements for monitoring ra

uranium, molybdenum and radon in groundwater at uranium recovery sites, aproperties adjacent to these sites properties adjacent to these sites.
History and Lessons Learned

WATE

R

 Radon travels in water

 Radon from Radium – High concentrations at Impoundments  Dissolves in water and can travel up to 5 Km

 Released throu

gh turbulence – S

p, , , rinklers, Showers, Faucets, 

 Lincoln Park and off-site wells are not tested for radon

 Only a handful of wells on and offsite are tested for Radium

 Permeable Reactive Treatment Wall (PRTW)

 1.5 to 3.0 gpm – from mill site into Lincoln Park PRTW built in 2000 – Failure announced in 2003 Cut Off Wall or Barrier High concentrations of Uranium in wells below the PRTW CCAT requested tracer test at impoundment and then PRTW CCAT requested tracer test at impoundment, and then PRTW
History and Lessons Learned

WATE

R

 Lincoln Park Well Water Use Surveys Lincoln Park Well Water Use Surveys

 1989 – First Survey 2008 – Second Survey

 7 Families used wells for Personal Consumption – One above 

 2008 – many properties transferred in the Lincoln Park Water 

many properties transferred in the Lincoln Park Water 

 Institutional Controls – Only new well applicants are informed EPA decision – Next Five Year Review adequate for checking 

 Off-Site Well Monitoring

 1990s – 10 Wells tested 2003 - 10 wells were added again N ti it f l i t No continuity 

for analysis or assessmen

ts

 On and off-site wells are still above radioactive limit of 30 ug/

 Case in point: 2008 - Golf Course well 2.7 mg/L = 2,700 ug/
History and Lessons Learned

WATE

R

 Impoundment Ponds

 Liner constructed over 19 Springs CDPHE confirmed leakage in 2007 Well #379 – High Concentrations of Uranium and Molybde

Not tested for Radium or Radon

 CDPHE required Cotter to dry the impoundments No Win Situation – Water causes leakage – Drying increas

emission rate

History and Lessons Learned

WATE

R

 Subpart W – Maximum Concentrations for Groundw

to Part 192.32, to 264.92, to264.93, to 264.94, to AEA Sec 84, UMTRCA S

500 Meters from disposal area and/or outside the site boundary

 Subpart D of Part 192 –

Title II Uranium Mills (Operating)

Ra-226 – Maximum Concentration Limit 5 pCi/LUranium and Molybdenum – Listed Hazardous ConstituentsNo limit or maximum concentration for Uranium or Molybdenum 

No limit or maximum concentration for Uranium or Molybdenum 

groundwater

 Subpart A of Part 192 – Title I Uranium Mills (Inac

Uranium – Maximum Concentration Limit 30 pCi/LMolybdenum – Maximum Concentration Limit 0.10 mg/L

 Subpart W must set Maximum Concentrations Subpart

W must set Maximum Concentrations for U

for U

and Molybdenum in Groundwater at Title II, Operating UrMills, and be included directly in Subpart W for easy refer
History and Lessons Learned

AIR

Protect the Community

Subpart W and associated regulations ne

additional requirements, and updated 

requirements, for monitorin

g radon at ura

recovery sites, and properties adjacent to 

sites.
History and Lessons Learned

AI

R

 Radon travels through air Radon travels through air

 Radon is produced from uranium in soils or mill/mine tailings. Within 3 8 days radon Within

3.8 days, radon

-222 decays to form very small solid ra

222 decays to form very small solid ra

particles that can attach to dust particles which can remain settle onto surfaces.



Wh hld h l d h l d l kd hen in

h

ale

d, t

he particles irra

diate t

he lung an

d are lin

k

e

d t

increase in the risk of respiratory tract cancers.

 Impoundments and Radon Monitoring Impoundments and Radon Monitoring

 Water coverage varies dramatically over the years Regulations apply to an ideal mill Regulations apply to an ideal mill – with only 10 acres expose

with only 10 acres expose
C tt I d t D b 200 C

otter Impoun

dments 

Decem

ber 200

2






History and Lessons Learned

AI

R

 1989

– Subpart W & EPA Authority Over NESHAPS R

Subpart

W

& EPA Authority Over NESHAPS R

 Email 11-26-07: CDPHE asks EPA who has authority over NE Email 11-26-07: EPA response from Robert Duraski

“We do ha e a tho it fo some eason e e e “We do ha

v

e

a

utho

rity, for some reason we we

re 

people that it was delegated to Colorado. I was we only receive the cover letters from the flux tes

Cotter.... I believe all we need to do to correct thColorado is to obtain copies of the past test...,”

Robert Duraski, EPA Re
History and Lessons Learned

RIS

K ASSESSMENT

Protect the Community

The new Risk Assessment for review of

Sub

p, , art W, Method 115, and associated

regulations, must consider lessons learnfrom Lincoln Park and the Cotter UraniuMill.
History and Lessons Learned

RISK ASSESSMENT

 Risk Assessments – Use Industry Generated Data

 Risk is determined by Industry data Industry hires consultants at Uranium Mills, not EPA or CDPH Industry determines dose to the public Epidemiological Studies are rarely, if ever, used

 Cotter Uranium Mill Laboratory

 2005: Cotter ordered to employ an outside laboratory

 (CDPHE NOV 4-12-05) “...numerous deficiencies have been identif

procedures...determining radioactive material content in efflue

environmental monitoring and dose assessment for membeenvironmental monitoring, and dose assessment for...membe

public. The cumulative effect of the laboratory deficiencies re

laboratory results unacceptable,”.

 2007

– Order lifted Order lifted

 No community faith in Cotter data or assessments prior to 20
History and Lessons Learned

RISK ASSESSMENT

 Cancer Surveys

 When inhaled radon particles irradiate the lung and are linke

When inhaled, radon particles irradiate the lung and are linke

increase in the risk of respiratory tract cancers.

 Lincoln Park 1995: 2 more cases of lung cancer – results wou

been statistically significant been statistically significant.

 8 more cases of lung cancer than expected – based on Metro  Residents are not tracked – newcomers are included.

 No cancer survey since 1995 (14 years) No cancer survey since 1995 (14 years).

 While drying impoundments and exposed tailings increase rad

emission rates.

 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

 Public Health Assessment pending (20 years late). 1965 tailin

gs flood – should be 

pq p art of the e

quation of ex

posu

 ATSDR would not ask for NRC/AEC records.
History and Lessons Learned

RISK ASSESSMENT

 Environmental Impact Statements

 1979: National Wildlife Federation requested an EIS for the 

license per the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) 

 1979: NRC responds – they will perform an EIS per NEPA.

 The EIS was never performed. Ken Weaver, CDPHE, 2002: “Cotter has previously done a 

1996 Environmental Report but not a formal Environmental A

( e ised stat te) ses the te m en i onmental assessment it(revised statute) uses the term environmental assessment wit

directly to other definitions, either in Colorado rules or federa

procedures,” (Maywood Hearing Transcript Notes, 2002).

 Cotter s’ Environmental Assessment of 2003 Environmental Assessment of 2003

– “alternate feed 

alternate feed 

 2002: EPA Marcinowski letter to NRC states that allowing “a

processing at uranium mills should require an EIS or full NEPA 

 O i i k i lf Our community is s

keptical o

f Ri

s

k d an

d

Ei l nv ronmental

Assessments.
Opening Remarks

Paul Carestia

 Not against uranium mining or milling Ag yp ainst any step in the chain close to p p eo le and their co No regulation will prevent process failures, mistakes, viola

 No or small fines of no consequence No or small fines of no consequence Public takes the direct, everlasting impact - not the industry

regulators

 Lincoln Park living proof as are at least 1300 other Superf
Opening Remarks

 Question sanity, legality, sensibility of allowing uranium fa

continue operation on a Superfund Site

 Insult to public and community Shows lack of regulatory integrity and disregard for damage 

 No license renewals, no refurbish, no rebuild, no reopen w

first restoring the environment and the surrounding comm

 If the comp p anies don’t clean up their contamination

 shut them down! Stop threats in close proximity to people from imperfect pro

regulations, and enforcement
Opening Remarks

 Uranium industry does not belong in people’s backyards! Please take this message to Lisa Jackson  Continuing to license Cotter Mill prolongs what should hav

addressed 25 years ago when Lincoln Park became a Sup

years ago when Lincoln Park became a Sup

Site!
Method 115

 Radon Flux Limit - 20 pCi/m2-sec

 1980 NRC recommendation: 2 pCi/m2-sec. What happened 

recommendation?

 1989 EPA risk assessment set today’s standard

Please place risk assessment on EPA website?20 years have passed - undertake new risk assessment

 Ho doe US omp e to othe o nt ie ? How does US compare to other countries?
Method 115

 Subpart W defines an operational impoundment as

used for the continued placement of new tailings or is in sstatus for such placement. An impoundment is in operati

th d th t t ili fi t l d i th i d t the day that tailings are first placed in the impoundment u

day that final closure begins”.

 Case in Point: Case in Point: Cotter Mill has Primary and Secondary Imp

Cotter Mill has Primary and Secondary Imp

Measurements not required for the Secondary Impoundmen

 Case in Point: Cotter Mill “old tailings” area not restored t

background. No radon flux measurements ever taken

 Amend Method 115 to account for and measure all maj

sources!
Method 115

 Number of canisters placed for radon flux measure

 Regulation: 40 acre impoundment, maximum of 2 in oper

acres “exposed” - require 100 canisters per region/area require 100 canisters per region/area.

 Case in Point: 2008 Cotter Mill Primary Impoundment:

107 acres total56 dirt covered34 exposed17 water covered100 canisters placed on dirt covered and exposed 100 canisters placed on dirt covered and exposedless than 1/2 the required coverage based upon regulation

 Imp g oundments greater than 40 acres: canisters must 

to acreage. For Cotter Mill: 268 canisters per region/area (

Method 115

 Stop “grand-fathering” and exempting operators

 Force compliance to regulations Public health and environment at risk! Public health and environment at risk! Case in point: why is Cotter Mill allowed more than 10 ac

exposed tailings on Primary Impoundment? exposed tailings on Primary Impoundment?

2007: 29 acres2008: 34 acres2009: no data until 3/2010!

 Regulations meaningless if not enforced!
Method 115

 Calculation of Weighted Average Radon Flux

 Including water covered acreage in formula causes ra

be understated be understated

 Assumption: tailings covered by water do not allow radon 

into the atmosphere

How does climate, particularly our windy Colorado climate alter Fact: churning, agitated water releases radon gas

 Weighted average formula needs careful scientific re-exa

Currently understates true amount of radon fluxEither fully account for radon released from water due to clima

eliminate water covered acreage from equation eliminate water covered acreage from equation
Method 115

 Prescriptive actions lacking when measurements a

regulatory limit

 EPA July 1991 “Guidance on Implementing the Radionuclide 

sh ld b d t t id hould be mandatory, not guidance

 Guidance states more frequent tests

 Measurements only accurate to within 10% Measurements only accurate to within 10% Case in point: 2008 Primary Impoundment: 19.7pCi/m2

 Colorado State reg g ulators argue Cotter is within the limit! We say too close!

 Subpart W must contain specific actions when radon 

cl t th li it lose to the limit
Method 115

 “Radon Flux” versus “Radon Concentration at the Mill Pe

 Controversy about relationship between radon flux and ra

concentration measured at the mill perimeter

 Case in Point: Cotter Mill radon flux measurements for Pr

Impoundment increased 230% 2006-2008 to 19.7 pCi/m2-

concentration measured at perimeter decreased 30% 2006

Mk b ltl t l i Makes absolutely no sense to logic or reason.

 EPA must review radon concentration at the perimet

methods,p , p , procedures, sample sizes, calculations, effective efflusomething is wrong!2 independent scientists questioned measurements at mill perim

 Subpart W/Method 115 review should require Subpart W/Method 115 review should require Environmen

Environmen

Analysis. Where are radon emissions going?
Closing Remarks

 You came to hear, to make it “REAL” Thank you for your valuable time Public must be heard more loudly than the industry or lob

Public must be heard more loudly than the industry or lob

 We expect nothing less

 In the end people and community most impacted , especi

failures