### 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/m 2



### ‐ sec

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



### ‐ 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/m 2



### ‐ 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/m 2



### ‐ 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/m 2



### ‐ 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/m 2



### ‐ 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/m 2



### ‐ 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 D i rector

Dedicated to protecting and i mprov i ng 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 i n G lend ale, 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

T hi s letter is a Notice of Viol a tion of c ert ain require m ents of Title 2 5, Article II

, CRS

, Co l o r ado

Radioactive Materials License Number 369

· 0 1

, and the State of Colorado 

### Rules and Regulations

Pertaining to Radiatioll Control (the Regu l ations). 

### 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 Cond i tion (LC) 8.7 requ i res the licensee's management and radiation safety officer sha ll

take prompt and appropriate action to correct known deficiencies in the fac i l i ty's procedures,

processes, equipment, and site condit i ons

.

Contrary to this requirement, the Emergency Response Plan P r ocedure, ER 010 did not have

updated 

### CDPHE emergency co n tac t infonna t ion. This was fixed at time o f inspection

.

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

Response Procedure

.



### 2

. LC 23 requires tha t the licensee shall conduc t management ofliquids and solids at the facility as

described i n Cotter's 

### Site Liquids and Solids Material Management Plan.

Contrary to this require m ent, the p H i n 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.

Cotte r shall adjust protocols and methods to address this requireme n t and reflect those adjustments

in the 

### Site L iquids 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 we i ghing 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 th i s 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 1 0.2.3 of Part 1 0 of the Radiation Regulations requires that fonn R

- 15 Notice to

Employees be posted 

### by each licensee. Cotter has numerou s 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 submitte d within thirty (30) days of receipt of th is 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 requirement s w hich cannot be remedied within

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

achieve full comp liance 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 in stitute proceedings for susp ension

, 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 part i cular 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 ha ve been completed,

wh i chever is late r.

### Mr. John Hamrick

Page 4 of4

June 24, 2009



### If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact Mr. 

### Phil Egidi of this 

### Divis ion 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

Jam es DeWolfe

### Precise Reference:

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

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

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

Management”, Geotechnical Engineering Pr ogram – Colorado State University &

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

GfI()tt!t; tmi cal & Gevlly d ro logi cal Aspect s of Waft s Matlagl!mefJt I Fort C ollins / 1986



## Surface water hydrology considerations 

## in predicting radon releases

from 

## water-covered areas of uranium 

## tailings ponds

KIRK K

, NIELSON & 

### V ERN C.R UGERS

R oger! d: Associ ate:; Engin e e rlllg Co rp., Salt Lake City, U tah, USA

INT RODUCT I ON

In ass essi ng the r e l ease s of .,-adon ( Rn

- 222) f ro. u "-il n i u1tl lII i1 l sites,

the radon escapin g fro m water-covered 6ur f ac es of the taili ngs pond

h as t radit ionally be e n iqn;r ed"'TNRC 1 ' 9900. ; NR C 19BOb, N RC 1 98 1 l. This

ha s bee n j ustifi

... d by rado n diffusion calcu lations, wh iC h s uggest that

rad on can not penetr a t e !!l o r e than a f e w centim eters of w a t e r beca use o f

i ts**v!.!.LJ- .** 

_ _ <!.iJ: !.us

_ i

.

Q

.!'o CQGffi cien t ( 1 0

- 5

c

. 2 i!1-1). Th

... tailings pond

i s n o t a mot i o nle ss body of water

, ho_ve

.,-. a n d cons i cierabie

- --wa

- te r

-

. o v e

.. e n t 

# ';'; ;:' ur s**'** t i me period s c O!!lpttorabl

..... it h the ha lf

- l ife of

uld on (3

. 8 days ). Th e r e for e, s i gn ifi cant advec tiv e tra ns por t of radon

_ay occu r, I;endering the pon d

- t e ss

- e ff ect i V I!!**h~~** previously tho ught

fo r contai ning ra don ga s

. I n a rec ent study fo r EPA on r adon release s frOlll a ctive uraniUII

mi l l s, we exalnined th e pot ential for advec tive tran epo r t of radon

thr ough tailings pond wa te rs along with othe r radon l ou r ces i n the

m

ill environ.ent (R oge r s e t al., 1 985)

. This pa per S UJn_arizes the

part s of the study th a t de a l t wi t h r ado n '( ele ases fr om the t ailings

po n d a r ea

, an d d i scusses t he na tur e an d mecha n isms o f the rad o n

r elease s from w ate r- cove red areas. A r efe r:e nce taili ng s b., pou n dment

is de s c ribed acc o rd ing t o s everal d ist.i n c t physical. r eg i on.&

, and t h e con<jitionll "f1'",,,1" in<] rad o n tranc port in

.... o h ar e d OQor;'b<!d

. sine",

rad o n transport thr o u g h ponded water h a s not previous ly been modeled

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

th e cha ca c terii!ltic t ransp;. rt para"-eter s '

. The result s of these

... xperimen t a were th en used

.. ith parame t ers des cr ibi ng t h e tailings pond to

a S 3 f1SS the o verall

.. agn i t u de o f rad o n rel ease e xpected fra- th e wate rco ver ed pond regi on

. The s iqni !i c an c

... o f r a d on r e l ease s f r om t h e

wat e r- cove red areas

.. as es ti m a t ed by**cOlllp, is** **on** to ra don flu x e s from

otne r, e xposed tailings surf a<:es.

2 RE F ERENC E TAILIN GS IMPOUNDMENT

A r e f e ren c e tailings impou....aent th at approx i

.. ates a c tual i m po un dments

is f irat de fined to illustrate th £' f!f! c h a ra c teri s ti c r eg i o ns wi t h

disti nc tly d ifferent phyuica J properti es t hat affe c t rado n transpo£'t.

Th

. r e f e ren c e i "pou ll <liu

... , l.

... 1 11 0 p rov1.Cl es a basts to est:1. ma t e the

. ag n it u d e o f radon releas es f ren tailings pon d s

. Th e i.po undaent cont ains

II. C entcal,

.. ater-<: o v e r ed pond are a

, s urr o un.d

... d by a _ter-saturated

bea ch IIrea, and an unaaturated bea <:h

.. rea. Taili nga enter the

215impou ndme nt v i a a s l urr y pipeline fr o m the m i ll, and are depleted in

em a nate d ra d o n fo r t he first f e,.- day s d ue to COlllplete radon r<!leases

during mil l i n g

. The t o ta l RasS 

### o r new d eple te d t aili n g s e nteri ng the**po ~ent**  i s ins ig n ificant c o m p ared t o t he t ot al mas s i n the

i mpo un d men t, howe v er, s O t he to t al rad o n re l e a s e r a te is relatively

c o n stant. S i n ce th e s l u rr y pi p"'L ine delivers bot h coa rs e ( s a n

. :! y) a nd

f ine**(sl i~** **e)** ta i l i ng s

, the san d s tend t o a c c um ula t e n ear t h e p i peline,

wh i le the sli m e s are carried f u rt h 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 al ly m oved t o d i f ferent positions around**e** ed ge

o f the im p o und ment, sO tha t t h e s an dy t a iling s ty p ica lly compr is e mo st

o f t h e saturated a nd unsaturated be ach a reas, an d t he s l imes**~cc um** **u** late i n t he c e n ter pond area. The rad o n s o urce lllaterials an d diffu s ion Characteristics i n t h e pond, sa tu n n :ed, an d u n satura t e d areas

a r e thus dif f ere nt

, an d a re descr i bed i n t erm s o f n o m i n al paralfteter

va: ues t o per mi t esti

... a t es of the ir r e lativ e imp act s o n ra d on

re!.eases.

Th e un sat u r a ted bea c h area s a re c onsidered to be comprised eKclusi**e~ y**  of taili ng s s and s , a n d t o be s u f f icie n t l y abo v e the water .level

t hat t hey a re

....... ll_draine d a n d s il'lilar t o s urr o u n din g s an dy soils i n

m

o i sture content. Rad o n o rigin a tin g i n these re g i o n s is de f i ned in

t er ms of t h e rad i um c o n t e n t f or th e s and s , w h i ch is ty p ic a L L Y m u ch

lo ve r tha n th a t f o r the s 1 i m es. o n ce r", don g as is e m ana t ed**to** the

in t erstitial pore space of th e san d s

, it di ff u s e s a c c o r d i n g t o t:he

c h a ra cte ristics alrea d y known a nd modeled f o r u n saturate d soi l s and

t a i lings (Ro g ers et al.

, 1 984a), a nd i s d om inate d b y diffusive

t rans port mec h a n i sms

. Advective tran spo r t b y air or vapor currents in

unsatur a t e d regio ns such as th e taili n g s beac h e s ha s bee n e xamined a nd

i s cOll"i d«r e d i n " ign ifi ca n l ( Rog " " ' " ,,0;

.. 1., 1 983)

. Accordin g l y, r

.. don

fl u x es are ca. p u ted f o r the un s a tu rated bea C he s as

where .J = 1 0 4 R('E.J>:D (11

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

(pei m

- 2 s

- 1 )

R t ailings ra d i u m c on ten t ( pCi g-1 )**~** b ulk tailin g s d e n sity ( g c m

- 3 )

E**~** ra d on eman a ti on co effic i e n t for tailings

). ra d o n decay c o nstant (2 .1 K 10- 6 s-1) ( d imensi

- : mless)

D**~** diffusio n coefficie n t for ra d o n i n the t a i lings pore

s pace ( cm 2 s -1)**e** s a t u r a ted b e ach are as are considered t o be comprised of approxim

.. t ely 70 per c e n t sands a nd 30 per c ent s Lime s, r e flec t ing the limited

lIIixing of s limes in this part o f the tail ing s ma s s

. Alt:h ouq h t h is

a r e a of the impou ndl1 e n t i s vadable and m o r e d ifficult t o de f ine in

t erM S o f phys i c al ext e n t, i t s diffu s i o n characteristics are lIIOre

distinc t in being saturated b y water. D e s p i t e wa v e a c ti o n o v er t he

s a t urat e d be ach areas, a dVec t ive transpor t i n the i n t e rstiti a l volune

i s pr o b a bly limited to o n l y t h e tDp f e w cen t i met ers, as de f i n e d b y the

wave -pond e levati on d ifferen ce

. The radon source ter m f or the

satura ted beaches i s mode led as a we i qhted average of th e respe c tive

ra d i um con t e n t s of the s ands a nd slimes ( 7 0 / 30 ratio) Multip l ied by

th e ir r es pe c tiv e eman a t io n c oe ff i cients. Transport o f emanated radon

to t h e atl'!lOSphere, n e g le c ting li q uid advection in the top wave-

:a ff Q "tO!'d l :a y

.. r

. i" d .,...ina:t

.. d h y diff' us- i o n throllgh t h

.. "atur,,-ted



### 216int e rsti tial space, with a t ypi c al di f fus i on coefficient on the order

of 1 0

- 5 clII.

- 2

s- 1 (Roge rs et al

., 1984 a)

.

Ttle ta ilings beneath the pa nd area are assumed to be ccomprised of

a p pro>c imately 50 peccent sa nds an d 50 percent slimes. I n t his region

the radon source**ter~** is si", ilar ly com pu ted as a weighted a ve rage of

the respective rad i um contents o f the s an ds and slimes (SO/ 50 rat i o)

.ultip li ed by their respective e manati o n coe fficien ts

. Move"'ent of

ema n at ed cadon to the atmosphere in cludes a dvec t ive as well as d iffus i ve transpor t

. since cons i de rable w ate r moveme nt occurs w ithin the

pOnd ovec ti me pe r iods crnnpa cable to the ha l f

- life of radon. Th e

movement is partly caused by surface wind c urren ts

, th er m al qra die nts,

..

echan i cal disturba n ce frOIlll the mil l discharge pipe

, and biological

distu rban ces (a nimals, b i r ds

, etc.). In ad dit i on

, radon release frOllll

the ra di um dissolVed i n th e water IllUst now be co nsi dered s e pa rate ly

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

th e solid tai l i n gs l!Iateria1. For anal.yzing the pond area

, radon

rel ease s we r e divide d i nto thre e co.pon ents :



# , . Radon orig i na ting fro

.. so l id tailil'>9s under l ess <han 

# • of

w ater

.



# , . Ra don ori qin at i nq from so1id tai l ings u n der g reater than 

# , • of

wa t er.

3

. Radon 

# , .= the diss o lve d rad ium in t h e pond wa te r.

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

t u r bul a nt DOvement is pronounced and o f ten vis i b le, fr o.. dee per

l ay ers, where advect i on is m inim al

. Al t h o ugh a c tual adve ct i v e

c u rrents probab l y decrea se continuous l y

conve n ien t l y d et'ines a Mra p i d release M

decay

- 1im ited transport zone.

3 LABORATORY MEASUREMENTS AN D RES U LTS wit h d e p th, t h is partitioni nq

zone fo r radon and a de e per

I n o rder t o q ua nt i f y radon re l eases fr om t he above po nd sourc e s

, sever'l l par a meter s were meas ured i n the l abor at o r y

, using i'I sample of

s lim e t a il ings fr om the R ifl e

, Colorado U MTRAP site. The m easur e d

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

... a. n d the

transport coe ff ic i e nt for radon thr ough "undistur b ed" colUJII.ns of water

i n the la bo rat o ry. In o r der to interpret th e r a don transport experi-

",ents

, ra d iu", contents. em a n at ion coe fficients, and rel ated t ai li ngs

parameters were also measured. The key tailings para

... eters are SUIIImar ize d in Table I

.

TABLE I

Characteristics of Tailinqs used as R ado n so ur c es

R 4628 pei /g Ra-226

E = 0

. 25 pei R n-2 22 released per pei Ra- 22 6

P o r os ity

Solubility 0 .6 6 in test co l. umns

35 pCi/liter R

.. -226 in separ

.. ted colulllln w

.. t e r.

'!'he s l.ime tailings sarnp1e was OVen drie d

, a n d 2 00 -qr a

.. aliquots were

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

.. 1 of water were added to ea c h c y1in d er, after whi ch they _re s tirred

and a l lowed to sett l e a n d equil i brate for a t least 22 days. The

217s e ttled t.1. 1i n<',i'a <>ccupi",d the bo ttOlll a

. ') CIII o f' the 5

. ')**~** d!.ame telr

gll'lss cy!tnd"'rs, and the

.. ateJ: lay eJ: co m prised an aveJ:age height of

19.4 cm above the tailings. Rl'Idon flux m easure

.. ents

.. ",r", the n made

fJ:om thfl water surfaces after f irst cirou lat ing fre sh air o Ver the

undisturbfl.:! water

. After the radon flux taea su rements

, the ",atl!!r was

ol'l refull y si phoned f" om th'" colum ns with ou t disturb:in<J the tailings

layers. Additional radon flux aeasuremen ts _re then .ade f ro.. the

ba re, sa tur ated tailings

. The radon fl u x .eilSUJ:ements utiliZed both

the accUM u lat or c an and**han~oal** canister t.e c hnique:ll ( Roger s et I'll.,

1984b). The acclUlulat o r ca. n measurements qave a ten-ai nu te aveJ:age

flux

, and the oharcoal c ani$ter measurl!!"ent s gave a 24-h o ur average

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

standard deviation.

The re llu 1tOl v C u

, .. l aboratory

.. e a"uremen ta a r e preg entcd i n Table

I]

. The re latively high radon fluxes pO!:ne tr at;i ng 19.4 cm o f

- water

indicated clearly that mo le cu l ar diffusion did not account for thl!!

o bserve d radon transpor t through the co lUMns. De spite p r eca uti ons to

avoid agitat;ion a n d vibra tions

, advect i ve transpo rt; ( p" oba bly therlIl a1.1y :indUc"'d) dOMi n at&(! the o bservl!!d r adon flux, whi c h ...auld have

been nearly four orders of magnit u de l o wer wit h only diffusive

t ransport in und :isturbed w a 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 ra do n flux

from t; h e sa turated tail-ing s

, a n d gave evid ence that the adve c t i ve forces actinq in the vater co ver were n o t a c tive in the satu rated

tailings re910n. In s tei!Od, the low diftU:llion coef fi c ients typi ca l of

water- satura t l!!d pore s pace were found to be typie al.

TABLE II



### RADON FL U XES MEASURED FROM BAR E AND WATE R COVERE D TA I LINlj S SVKYACES

(mea n 

### + S.D. )

u ndi s turbed vat er

, ACCUllu1ator Ca. n 

### 7 S + 19

U n d i s turbed w ater, Ch arcoal Canister 

### 66 + 

### 7

Ba.re

, saturated tailings, AecUJluli!O tor Ca.n 64 

### + 2 1

Th l!! res u lts o f the laborat.o ry flux measure me nts _re co«lpa red with

values obtained using the aJ..ECOM coaputer cod e (Rogers fit al., 1 9B4a).

U sing t he radiUII c onten t, e.a nation coefficient, and porosity fro.

TabJ.e I, th'" RAECO H cod", g ave a co.<pu ted radon flux o f 83 pCi

m

-2s-1 u8in 9 its default (co rrelation) value for the diffusion coef

ficient in the :!Saturated ta ilings. This compa res well with the ae an

mea,.ur<>d flux va l u

.. ,,1' A4 pCi f11- 2 s- 1 and also supports the s election

o f' 4 x 1 0

- S e. 2 s

- 1 for the. radon diffusion <;oefficient in the sub-

.erged tai linglil. Further RAECOH analys es of the 17 percent attenuation prov ided by the un dist urbed water indleated that the**e~fect:ive** transport co efficient for t;he water layer wa s on the order of 0

. 003

cm 2s-1. The d:illsolved radium co nt;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 APP LIC ATIONS AN D DISCUSS I ON

I n app l ying th e Labora tor y data to e st imate rad o n rel ea !iles fro. sub-

. e rqed tailin qs, the hi gh u n c er t a i :l ties and l aclt o f la b / fi e ld ex pe rilIe nt co r respo n dence pre c J. ud.e q

· ;an tita t ive e cc ur a c: y froc being

e s soci ated with the conc l u sio n s

. H o w eve r

, t he Lab data co n c l u si ve l y

s how that n o n- diff u si ve t ran s po rt Ca n**d~ inate**  radon move ment

, eve n in

visua11y " un dis tu r bed

- w at e r co lUllll s

. S inc e s ur:face turbu l ence i s

i nva r iably visi b le i n tai lin gs ponds, 

### we i n fer tha t gre a ter adve c ti ve

t ran spo r t occu rs i n t he po nd su rf a<:e l aye rs. In the ab sence o f t u r

-

bule nce da ta :for e ither the d eep or shal l ow pond water, 

### we qll <l l itllti vel y associa t e the .easure d laborat o ry trans por t coe ffec ien t w it h

possi b l e tra ns po r t c ha r acteristics of the deep 1"'1", ) i"poundment

wate r

. For**~h _~** **~!.o.. !_** **)**

_ _**!!'P.9 'y** **}'~_n~**



### _ _**!l r;,**  eltt rapolati ons o f visual

dy e !!IOve

... n t test a indi c a te advective vf! l ocit i e s m ay e xcf!ed 1- 2

" m/m inu t e

,**~"' l.!-** **j. ti'l!** **A- !l** **--'yirt \Ul.** **...!1.:L.. !!E...,,!** **!,- on**  co n tainMe n t b y the**sUI.:~ 8!f'**  water. If s ha l lo w water .avemen t i s su f:fici ent to r f!. o ve ra don f rOll

- t

-

he ta i lil')<l"s -w atf!r .intf!rfa ce an d "tran s po rt it t o t he a tmosph ere i n "-

short ti Me (se v e r el hou r s)

, the ra:l on fl ux t:r O/ll th e shall o w taili ngs

i s**ne arlr~9r** **~!9 _** **th ~'?:!.** **si J.** **!:~s _a.** **~r; a!,.ed** **~.il~ og_~,**  hence

n o s i gnif i ca nt r ado n at t f!nuation i s co n s ide r ed.

For tai Ung s at**d~ .e** **!- !!c** **......2=.!!'~~** t !l-!l'1 •.**~r-_~**

_ !'.'O'ter, t h e radon t ran spo rt

pr ope r t ies o f th e pond w ater are conside red to fo lJ. o w th e Labo r at o ry

valu e o t: 0

. 0 0 3 c:- 2 8

- 1

### _**~.!I ,"-etf!r**  d e p t h

,

### o!~**v~ wh!** **l:l ~!"** **tlle:r**

a tte n ua tio n occ u .J" s

. F o r disso l ved ra di u m

, the s a

... wat er _ot i on that

t-

acili**ta:t~s** - - ["a pid r .!

,,- d o n

_**rei" a~e**  

# - f: ["Q.i

- the ' sha ll o w watar also a llows

rele a s e 

### o t all r a d o n gener a t e d in t h e to p mete r of the pon d

. Th u s,

t he applica ble flux equatio n fo r rado n frOll t h e t op Me te r o f wa te r

ov er the de e p fractio n of th e poDd aM :f o r th e avarage half-me t e r o f

wate r ove r the sha l low fra ct i o n is

where



# '.



# '

. ' 21

ratio o f**radi~** in sol u tio n to c adi

... in tailing s s o lids

('1 clll

- 3

, .

:f ra c t ion o f pon d area w i t h les 8 than 1 met er depth.

Radon qe nerated f r Ofll diss o J. ved ra d i

... be l ow o n e mete r i s tr a ns por ted

a cco rdinq t o the 0

. 00 3 cm 2 s

- 1

co e ffi c i en t u p to the o n e m et er de pt h

, W

here i t is rapidly rele a s ed t o the a tll os p h er e

. The thr ee ra d o n so ur

-

### _. s h al !. o '!'

_ tet lill'J lI.

### !!**~ep** tap i n .9 !! •

.

### d

_ d!B.a

. '?A'!. e?

### ~.i.l.!ffi**' .!** **· ~dded**  to o btain a simp l ifie d esti ma t e f o r th e av era ge flux fr om the tai l l n q s

pon d,

131

where

A

- a t tf!'nuat.ion fa cto r f o r deep water.

The attenuat i o n fa c tor

, A t. i a de t er.ine d fr om RAECO M ca l culatio ns

, or

it ca n a18 0 be approximated b y



### •

219whe r e

• effe ctive s tagn ant w a t e r tra nspo rt coeffic i e nt**(c~2 s-11** 

• average pon d depth for are as greater than 1 .e t er deep



### (ea)

In order t o esti_t e radon re l eases [ t Oft a tai l ingll**i.po un~** **ent,**

nume rous s ite

- specific pa ramet ers must be def ined. Soae

, such a s o re

grade, are a of t h e i_poundment su rfa ces, eto:

. are r eadily kno wn or

aeasurab l e

, while o th ers

, such as**iff~ion** coeffieients, are usually

u nkn own wi thou t 8p6 o: iftc l'Iea su relllents. T ab l e 111 presents nomina l

values fo r 8 0m e of t.h e requi r ed par..aet.ers fo r the pr ese n t esti_t.es

. Ot her v al ues

, such a s e.an ati on coe fficient., moistures and ditfus ion

coeffic ient s fo r th e U n9 atu r ated ta i l ings

, were based on site

- spec ific

data ( Roq"rl et al., 1 9851

.

TABLE III

Tailing s Parameters us ed i n Radon Tra nspo rt Calcula tio ns

Sub!lM!! rq ed Sat.urated Un sat urated

Tailinqs Tailin gs Tailings

Sand/slime ra t.io 50/ 5 0 70/30 1 00/0

Bulk d e nsity (9 c

.. - 3 1 1. 55 1. 57 

### 1.60

po r osi ty .4 0-

. 4 2

. 39-

. 4 1

. 38 -.40

,", o ist.ure Satura 'ti on

, . 0 1.0

. 33

-

. 57

Su rface Ar ea (m 2 ) 4

. 0ES 2

. 0E5 9

. 0 E4

Fo r calculaUnq r ad on ealssi ons f ro. the**~a tur** **at sM.1** **dy .** **~i.~ ings** **~~ _**  . .**th ~**  . .**~~** ..**!,9 9~**  

### . R {**~~** 

### . .**~."'£'C?u~..E.! !**  equat ion 

### 1 wa s used t;O Obtai n

the**normali~ed** ra don flux es in Table IV

. Th e rad o n release i s n o rmalized t o acco unt for the ty pical 4 :1 r at.io of r adium ac t i vity in th e

s limes compa r ed t.o that i n the sands

, and a lso t.o a cco unt f o r thei r

bu lk d ens ity difference as defi n ed in Table 

### t

. The r esu lti ng data i n

T able 

### rv a r e th u s nor_alized to the ave r age radi uz i n the origina l o re

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

use of spo!Ieific fl uxes p res upposes a :fix e<! diff u si o n coe ffi cient in

the sou r ce .aterial. aoo t hus does n ot have general ap pl ieation to

a[l,!a5 in wh i e h mois tures o r d iffusi o n coefficient.s are greatly di ff erent

.

TA B L E IV

Specific Rad on Fluxes Compute d for Six S t at e M i l li ng Reg ions

for Three Part.s of a Uranium Ta ilin gs**I.pou~e t**  ( pCi .-2 

### e - I / pCi g

_ l)

S tat e

Tailinqs CO 

## N ' TX In WA 

# ,.., H ea n

U

nsat u ratl!td 0 .4 2 0

. 76 0 .2J 0

. 29 

### 0.29 0 .4 3 

### 0 .4 0

Sa turated Bea c h 0

. 036 0

. 06 2 0

. 03 1 0

. 027 0

. 031 0

. 03 5 0

. 037

Po nd 0

. 020 0

. 03 3 0

. 019 0

. 017 0

. 019 0

. 021 0.022



### 220For til e m.ixed Ul ilin gs i n tile sa t.ur at.ed bea ch are a s

, Ta bl e t V g ive s

the co rres pond in g spe c i fi c fl ux e s IiIssum ing a 70/30 mASs rati o o f

sa n ds/ s l i m ea

, and assume s a OOIIb i n ed ", ea n densit.y o f 1

. 5 7 q c ",- l

. T h e

t: e s ulting ave t: ag8 s pecifi c f lu xes a r e ag ain no r malized to t.h e av er age

radium con te nt. o f the or igi n a l o r e

. F'o r t he pon ded areas of the tai l in gs, i s was as s\JI!Ie d t hat. o n e

- f ou rth

of t. h e po n d area was less than one !Dete r d eep, a nd that. th e t ai lings

are 5 0 / 5 0 sand s/sl i m e s

. The v al ue 

### o f "8 ( NRC 1 9BO J i s 8

. 9 2E

- 4 g / _!.

The d iff usion coe ffi ci e n t f o r t.ai 1 i n 9s .eas ure d in to e labor a t o ry ""a s

si ll dla r t o t he pred i cted va l ue fro m ea rli e r co rr elatio ns, a nd so t he

co rr ela ti o n v alue of 4

. 0£

- 5 c m 2

s- 1 wa s u s e d

. A l o w",r-bound es ti m ate



### a t the di ffu sion coef f ici e n t f o r dee p wa t er w all o btaine d fr o a t he

l abO r a t o r y me as u remen t

, 0tr '" 0

. 003 cm 2 $ -1

. Th is vaL ue 'Was use d i n



### RAECO M c al cula t ion s (Roqer s e t a 1

. , i96 4a ) t o ob t a i n an aver age atte nti on f a c t or o f At 0 .1 7

, whic h w as us ed in t he an a lysis

. The

r esu l ti n g n o r ma lized rad o n f luxes f r om th e 'W ater -eo vere d t

. lI ; 1 i n<Js.

u s ing eq ua ti o n 

### Il l, and divid in9 

### b y R

, a r e shown 

### by s t a t e in T a ble IV

. In o rder t o assess t. he relative im porta n c e of total r ad on releases

fo r the th r ee tai1in9s regi o ns

, a re fe r e n ce u raniwn lII i 11 is de fined to

p r ocess one wi th an ave r l\ge 'i r ade of 0

. 1 percent UJOe

. It. s ui 1ings

i.!o. pound lll e n t 

### i s also de f ine d t o hav", t he su rfa c ", a r e as sh own i n Tab l e

[ [ l. The re sult ing t o tal ra do n r elea ses

, exp re ssed in Ci/day f o r eac h

t a il i n gs re'Jl o n in the s ix s ta tes a r e s u mm ari zed in T a b l e V

. The

t 01:al r adon releases Va r y froon 0.9 to 

### 2.3 Ci j da y

. a nd are docn i n ated

(69%) by the u n sa tura t ed s a n dy ta i l in gs

, a s

. ight be e xpec t ed

.

" lt h ou 9 h th e Sub _rged tai l in gs ac coun t f o r on l y 17 ' of th e t o t al

, they are IllU ch !!l o re iapor tan t than pr ev i ous ly es t i matftd

. "l t ho u 9h to

be r ft9 arded qua l itatively

, t his st u dy sugg ests th at r a d o mitigati on by

!lu tM= e rQi n q tai 1i n "," ; n " h

.,. pon d w

..**.., ~**  lIl.ay b

.. mu",h 1 """, e ff e c t. i ve tho.n

n. llil bfle n pr e v i ou s ly assu:lled. Fr om t h e s pecifi c fl u xes i n T ab l e IV

, it is se e n t h a t sa tura t in q o r sut..er9in 9 t h e tai l ings is st i l l effe ct iv e in s ign if i ca ntly re du c ing rad on f l uxll s b y an orde r o f .agnit ude.

bu t that. th e advant ag e o f**ad di** **~on al**  w ate r ove r t h e s at u r ate d tailings



### i s pr o po r t i ona t e ly red uced

.

TAB L E V

SUlllma ry o f Tota l Rad o n Emissi o n s fro m t hll R e fer e nce

Ta i lin gs Impound.e n t 

### in Si x S t a t es

( C i / da y)

S u te

T /l. i1ings CO 

### NH TX U T W. WY

Un s at u ra ted 0.9 2 1. 66 0

. 50 0

. 63 0

. 63 0

. 94

Satu -r at:ed Bea c h 0 .16 0

. 30 0 .1 5 0

. 13 0.1 50 0 .17

PO nd 0 .1 9 0.32 0 .1 9 0 .17 0

. 19 0

. 20

TO t a l 1. 29 2

. 2 8 0

. 84 0

. 93 0

. 97 1

. 3 1 .... n

0

. 68

0

. ' 8

0

. 2 1

1 .2 7



### 22 '

### REF'ElU::NCES

u

. s

. N uc l ea r R eg ula to ry C ompissi o n. NF ina l G e n e ri c E n vir o nment Y m

pa ct

Sta tem ent 

### on U rani u. 

### Mi l li ng ." N CRE G /CR-0706

. 19 80a

.

0

. 5

. 

### Nu e l e llr Regub _to ry CO

..... iss l o n.

Sta te ment Re l a ted 

### t o t he o per at i o n

NU R EG-0702

. 1 98Gb

. 

### "Fi n

.. 

### l



### of the**~nv n~** **enta l**  

### Y m

paet



### · :;a s H i l l a pr oje ct,"

u

. s

. Nuc l ea r 

### R eg ul a t ory CO..rllis si o n

. "En v ir o Dlll e n t 

### As sess m8nt Rela ted t o

the 

### O pe rations o f K llns en Ura ni um Hil l P r o je ct ." NU E R G

- 01 4 9

. 1 98 1.

V. C

. 

### R oqe rs

,

o n Ra d on



### Re qu l a to r y !C. K

. 

### Ni el s o n a n d G. B

. Merr e ll. '"The**E~ fec** **ts** 

### o f Adv ec ti on

Tra n spo rt Thr o u g h ga rth e n 

### M ate ria ls ,"

cam- t s s ion R e po rt NURE G!CR -J4 0 9. 1 9 83. u

. S

. 

### N ucl ear

v. c

. 

### R og e r s an d K.K. Ni e ls o n. " Radon A tt emua tion Ha nd boo k 

### fo r Ur a ni um

M

il l 

### T ail i n g s Cove r De s i gn ," O

. S

. 

### N uc lear R egu l a t o r y C a.3 iss i o n

Re?Q rt N UREG /CR -3 5 J 3

. 19 8411

.

V

. C

. 

### R ogers, et al.

, "R adon**Flu ~**  

### Me as ur eme n t

M

et hod oLog i es ," U

. S

. oepa. r tJlte nt o f 'En er gy 

### Re port

U

H

TRA

- DO E / AL- 2 1 00

- 20 1

. 

### 1984b.

V

. C

. 

### R og e r s

,**.~.** 

### N ie l son

, F

. K

. £lnis s i n f ro m O per at i ng**niu",** 

### Roq ftr s G A ssoc

. E nqi n ee r in q



### TIH- 8 4 69/ 4-1, Fe bruar y

. 1 985

. An cle r 8 0 n a.no:1 R

. !I

. 

### Klein, " Ra do n

M

i ll**Fa ciliti~s."**  Sa lt 

### Lak e C ity,

Co r p

. Te ch

. 

### I n f o r. He mOr ilndua



### 222Citizen Stakeholder Input to EPA Review andRulemaking of NESHAP Subpart – WJune 30, 2009Canon City, ColoradoWho We AreMembers Colorado Citizens Against ToxicWaste Inc (CCAT)Sharyn Cunningham,B.S. Psychology,Regis Universityg , y gy, g yCo-Chair-Person: CCATLincoln Park ResidentPaul Carestia, M.S.E.E. Northwestern University, MBA University ofChicagoBoard of Directors CCATBoardofDirectorsCCATLincoln Park ResidentLincoln Park Business OwnerCCAT Presentation OverviewCotter Uranium Mill & Lincoln ParkHistorical PerspectiveLessons learnedIssues to address and rules to draftEPA reviewprocessMethod 115Radon FluxClosing RemarksHistory and Lessons Learned1958 – Cotter Uranium Mill Built – Unlined Impoundments1960’s – Cattle with Molybdenum Toxicity – Well Contamination1965 –Tailings Impoundments Flood into Lincoln Parkp1972 – Soil Conservation Dam built1978 to 1979New Impoundments Built1978to1979–NewImpoundmentsBuiltAgainst advice of EPA and NRC dueto close proximity to a populationExcavation Encountered Nineteen SpringsCDPHE requested tracer test 1979Not performedCDPHErequestedtracertest1979–Notperformed1984 – National Priorities List Superfund Site2007 – First EPA Five Year Review – Lincoln Park 4,000 Pop.History and Lessons LearnedWATERProtect the CommunitySubpart W and associated regulations needadditional requirements for monitoring radium,uranium, molybdenum and radon ingroundwater at uranium recovery sites, andproperties adjacent to these sitespropertiesadjacenttothesesites.History and Lessons LearnedWATERRadon travels in waterRadon from Radium – High concentrations at Impoundments and Mill SiteDissolves in water and can travel up to 5 KmReleased through turbulence – Sprinklers,Showers,Faucets,Wind, , ,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-DeniedCCATrequestedtracertestatimpoundment,andthenPRTWHistory and Lessons LearnedWATERLincoln Park Well Water Use SurveysLincolnParkWellWaterUseSurveys1989– First Survey 2008– Second Survey7 Families used wells for Personal Consumption– One above Moly MCL2008many properties transferred in the Lincoln Park Water Use Area–manypropertiestransferredintheLincolnParkWaterUseAreaInstitutional Controls – Only new well applicants are informedEPA decision – Next Five Year Review adequate for checking well useOff-Site Well Monitoring1990s– 10 Wells tested 2003- 10 wells were added againN ti it f l i tNo continuityfor analysis or assessmentsOn and off-site wells are still above radioactive limit of 30 ug/LUraniumCase in point: 2008 - Golf Course well 2.7 mg/L = 2,700 ug/LUraniumHistory and Lessons LearnedWATERImpoundment PondsLiner constructed over 19 SpringsCDPHE confirmed leakage in 2007Well #379 – High Concentrations of Uranium and MolybdenumNot tested for Radium or RadonCDPHE required Cotter to dry the impoundmentsNo Win Situation – Water causes leakage – Drying increases radonemission rateHistory and Lessons LearnedWATERSubpart W – Maximum Concentrations for Groundwaterto Part 192.32, to 264.92, to264.93, to 264.94, to AEA Sec 84, UMTRCA Sec 108500 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 inNolimitormaximumconcentrationforUraniumorMolybdenumingroundwaterSubpart A of Part 192 – Title I Uranium Mills (Inactive)Uranium – Maximum Concentration Limit 30 pCi/LMolybdenum – Maximum Concentration Limit 0.10 mg/LSubpart W must set Maximum Concentrationsfor UraniumSubpartWmustsetMaximumConcentrationsforUraniumand Molybdenum in Groundwater at Title II, Operating UraniumMills, and be included directly in Subpart W for easy reference.History and Lessons LearnedAIRProtect the CommunitySubpart W and associated regulations needadditional requirements, and updatedrequirements, for monitoringradon at uraniumrecovery sites, and properties adjacent to thesesites.History and Lessons LearnedAIRRadon travels through airRadontravelsthroughairRadon is produced from uranium in soils or mill/mine tailings.Within 3 8 days radon222 decays to form very small solid radioactiveWithin3.8days,radon-222decaystoformverysmallsolidradioactiveparticles that can attach to dust particles which can remain suspended orsettle onto surfaces.h hld h l d h l d l kdWhen inhaled, the particles irradiate thelung andarelinkedto anincrease in the risk of respiratory tract cancers.Impoundments and Radon MonitoringImpoundmentsandRadonMonitoringWater coverage varies dramatically over the yearsRegulations apply to an ideal millwith only 10 acres exposed tailingsRegulationsapplytoanidealmill–withonly10acresexposedtailingsC tt I d t D b 2002CotterImpoundmentsDecember200History and Lessons LearnedAIR1989–Subpart W & EPA Authority Over NESHAPS RegulationSubpartW&EPAAuthorityOverNESHAPSRegulationEmail 11-26-07: CDPHE asks EPA who has authority over NESHAPS.Email 11-26-07: EPA response from Robert Duraski“We do ha e a tho it fo some eason e e e telling“Wedohaveauthority,forsomereasonweweretellingpeople that it was delegated to Colorado. I was told thatwe only receive the cover letters from the flux test atCotter.... I believe all we needto do to correct this inColorado is to obtain copies of the past test...,” Robert Duraski, EPA Region 8.History and Lessons LearnedRISKASSESSMENTProtect the CommunityThe new Risk Assessment for review ofSubpart W,Method 115,and associated, ,regulations, must consider lessons learnedfrom Lincoln Park and the Cotter UraniumMill.History and Lessons LearnedRISK ASSESSMENTRisk Assessments – Use Industry Generated DataRisk is determined by Industry dataIndustry hires consultants at Uranium Mills, not EPA or CDPHE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 identified with the procedures...determining radioactive material content in effluents, environmental monitoring and dose assessment for members of the

environmental monitoring , and dose assessment for ... members of the public. The cumulative effect of the laboratory deficiencies renders the

laboratory results unacceptable,”.2007–Order liftedOrderliftedNo community faith in Cotter data or assessments prior to 2004History and Lessons LearnedRISK ASSESSMENTCancer SurveysWhen inhaled radon particles irradiate the lung and are linked to anWheninhaled,radonparticlesirradiatethelungandarelinkedtoanincrease in the risk of respiratory tract cancers.Lincoln Park 1995: 2 more cases of lung cancer – results would havebeen statistically significantbeenstatisticallysignificant.8 more cases of lung cancer than expected – based on Metro DenverResidents are not tracked – newcomers are included.No cancer survey since 1995 (14 years)Nocancersurveysince1995(14years).While drying impoundments and exposed tailings increase radonemission rates.Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease RegistryPublic Health Assessment pending (20 years late).1965 tailings flood – should bepart of the equation of exposure.q pATSDR would not ask for NRC/AEC records.History and Lessons LearnedRISK ASSESSMENTEnvironmental Impact Statements1979:National Wildlife Federationrequested an EIS for the Cotter Milllicense per the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) from NRC.1979:NRC responds– they will perform an EIS per NEPA.The EIS was never performed.Ken Weaver, CDPHE, 2002: “Cotter has previously done a 1984 and 1996 Environmental Report but not a formal Environmental Assessment... ( e ised stat te) ses the te m en i onmental assessment itho t t ing it

(

r e v ised stat u te)

u ses the te r m en v i r onmental assessment w itho u t t y ing it

directly to other definitions, either in Colorado rules or federal NEPA EA

procedures,”(Maywood Hearing Transcript Notes, 2002).Cotter’Environmental Assessment of 2003–“alternate feed stock”sEnvironmentalAssessmentof2003alternatefeedstock2002:EPA Marcinowski letter to NRCstates that allowing “alternate feed”processing at uranium mills should require an EIS or full NEPA review.O i i k i lfdi lOur communityis skepticalofRiskandEnvronmentalAssessments.Opening RemarksPaul CarestiaNot against uranium mining or millingAgainst anystepin the chain close topeole and their communitiesyppNo regulation will prevent process failures, mistakes, violationsNo or small fines of no consequenceNoorsmallfinesofnoconsequencePublic takes the direct, everlastingimpact - not the industry, not theregulatorsLincoln Park living proof as are at least1300other Superfund SitesOpening RemarksQuestion sanity, legality, sensibility of allowing uranium facility tocontinue operation on a Superfund SiteInsult to public and communityShows lack of regulatory integrity and disregard for damage inflictedNo license renewals, no refurbish,no rebuild, no reopen withoutfirst restoring the environment and the surrounding communityIf the companies don’t clean uptheir contaminationpshut them down!Stop threats in close proximity to people from imperfect processes,regulations, and enforcementOpening 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 have beenaddressed25years ago when Lincoln Park became a SuperfundyearsagowhenLincolnParkbecameaSuperfundSite!Method 115Radon Flux Limit - 20 pCi/m2-sec1980 NRC recommendation: 2 pCi/m2-sec. What happened torecommendation?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 ?HowdoesUScomparetoother countries?Method 115Subpart W defines an operational impoundment as:“beingused for the continued placement of new tailings or is in stand-bystatus for such placement. An impoundment is in operation fromth d th t t ili fi t l d i th i d t til ththedaythattailings arefirstplacedintheimpoundmentuntiltheday that final closure begins”.Case in Point:Cotter Mill has Primary and Secondary Impoundment.CaseinPoint:CotterMillhasPrimaryandSecondaryImpoundment.Measurements not required for the Secondary ImpoundmentCase in Point:Cotter Mill “old tailings” area not restored tobackground. No radon flux measurements ever takenAmend Method 115to account for and measure all majorsources!Method 115Number of canisters placed for radon flux measurementRegulation: 40 acre impoundment, maximum of 2 in operation, 10acres“exposed” -require 100 canisters per region/arearequire100canistersperregion/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 exposed100canistersplacedondirtcoveredandexposedless than 1/2 the required coverage based upon regulationImpoundmentsgreater than 40 acres: canisters must be scaledgto acreage. For Cotter Mill: 268 canisters per region/area (107/40)Method 115Stop “grand-fathering” and exempting operatorsForce compliance to regulationsPublic health and environment at risk!Publichealthandenvironmentatrisk!Case in point: why is Cotter Mill allowed more than 10 acres ofexposed tailings on Primary Impoundment?exposedtailingsonPrimaryImpoundment?2007: 29 acres2008: 34 acres2009: no data until 3/2010!Regulationsmeaninglessif not enforced!Method 115Calculation of Weighted Average Radon FluxIncluding water covered acreage in formulacauses radon flux tobe understatedbeunderstatedAssumption: tailings covered by water do not allow radon transferinto the atmosphereHow does climate, particularly our windy Colorado climate alter assumption?Fact: churning, agitated water releases radon gasWeighted average formulaneeds careful scientific re-examinationCurrently understates true amount of radon fluxEither fully account for radon released from water due to climate/winds oreliminate water covered acreage from equationeliminatewatercoveredacreagefromequationMethod 115Prescriptive actions lacking when measurements approachregulatory limitEPA July 1991 “Guidance on Implementing the Radionuclide NESHAPS”h ld b d t t idshouldbe mandatory, notguidanceGuidance statesmore frequent testsMeasurements only accurate to within 10%Measurementsonlyaccuratetowithin10%Case in point: 2008 Primary Impoundment: 19.7pCi/m2-sec.Colorado State regulators argue Cotter is within the limit!gWe say too close!Subpart W must contain specific actionswhen radon flux isl t th li itclosetothelimitMethod 115“Radon Flux” versus “Radon Concentration at the Mill Perimeter”Controversyabout relationship between radon flux and radonconcentration measured at the mill perimeterCase in Point: Cotter Mill radon flux measurements for PrimaryImpoundmentincreased230% 2006-2008 to 19.7 pCi/m2-sec. Radonconcentration measured at perimeterdecreased30% 2006-2008!Mk b ltl t l iMakes absolutely no sensetologic or reason.EPA must review radon concentration at the perimeteras wellmethods,procedures,sample sizes,calculations,effective effluent limitsp , p ,something is wrong!2 independent scientists questioned measurements at mill perimeterSubpart W/Method 115 review should requireEnvironmental FateSubpartW/Method115reviewshouldrequireEnvironmentalFateAnalysis. 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 lobbyistsPublicmustbeheardmoreloudlythantheindustryorlobbyistsWe expect nothing lessIn the end people and community most impacted , especially byfailures