United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Radiation
Office of
Radiation Programs
Washington DC 20460
EPA 520/4-82-013-2
October 1982
Final
Environmental Impact Statement
for Remedial Action
Standards for Inactive
Uranium Processing Sites
(40 CFR 192)
Volume II
-------
EPA 520/4-82-013-2
Final
Environmental Impact Statement
for
Remedial Action Standards
for
Inactive Uranium Processing Sites
(40 CFR 192)
Volume II
October 1982
Office of Radiation Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington D.C. 20460
-------
APPENDIX D: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION D-1
D.I SCOPE OF THE STANDARDS AND THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT D-3
D.I.I Coverage of Standards and DEIS D-3
D.I.2 Form of Standards D-9
D.2 HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT D-12
D.2.1 Radiological Risk Assessment D-12
D.2.1.1 Exposure Pathways D-12
D.2.1.2 Risk Models D-17
D.2.2 Nonradiological Risk Assessment D-27
D.3 RATIONALE FOR STANDARDS D-28
D.3.1 Basis for Standards D-28
D.3.2 Cost Estimates D-30
D.4 DISPOSAL STANDARDS D-33
D.4.1 Radon Standard D-33
D.4.2 Water Standards D-36
D.4.3 Period of Application of Standards (Longevity) D-48
D.5 CLEANUP STANDARDS D-51
D.5.1 Radium-226 in Soil Standard D-51
D.5.2 Indoor Radon Decay Product and
Gamma Radiation Standard D-55
D.5.3 Cumulative Lifetime Dose Equivalent Standard D-60
D.5.4 Exceptions D-60
111
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
D.6 IMPLEMENTATION D-61
D.7 MISCELLANEOUS D-61
REFERENCES D-68
APPENDIX E: COMMENT LETTERS AND TESTIMONY
PRESENTED AT PUBLIC HEARINGS
CONTENTS—COMMENT LETTERS E-l
CONTENTS—TESTIMONY PRESENT AT PUBLIC HEARINGS E-5
INDEX E-226
IV
-------
APPENDIX D: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Introduction
This appendix to the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) addresses all written and oral comments submitted to the
Agency on the proposed disposal and cleanup standards for inactive
uranium processing sites and the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS). Proposed Cleanup Standards for Inactive
Processing Sites were issued on April 22, 1980 (45 FR 27370), and
Proposed Disposal Standards for Inactive Processing Sites were
issued on January 9, 1981 (46 FR 2556). The Draft Environmental
Impact Statement was issued in December 1980. Public hearings on
the proposed standards were held in Salt Lake City, Utah, April
24-25, 1981; in Durango, Colorado, April 27-28, 1981; and in
Washington, D. C., May 14-15, 1981.
The method used in responding to comments was to assign
comments to general subject categories. Within each category,
comments of common concern were grouped, where possible, into
composite comments that could be addressed by a single response.
This procedure avoids duplication of comments and responses and aids
finding a response according to its subject. Each comment is
followed by one or more code numbers identifying the commenter(s)
who raised the issue covered by the comment.
All substantive written comments (letters and written
testimony) are reproduced in this volume (Appendix E) together with
an index that provides a guide to locating the comments by a code
number. Letters providing only editorial comments, notices of
receipt, or with no comment have not been reproduced. Oral comments
presented at the public hearings are not reproduced in Appendix E
because of space limitations, but have been responded to. All
written comments and hearing transcripts are available for review in
Docket No. A-79-25, located in the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., West Tower Lobby, Gallery One,
Washington, D. C. 20460.
Most responses to comments are intentionally brief and make
reference to the FEIS (Volume I) or supporting references when more
D-l
-------
detailed technical information is appropriate. Where an adequate
response required it, however, a more lengthy discussion of the
technical considerations relevant to the comment is presented. We
did not respond to a few comments indicating only general agreement
or disagreement with the DEIS or standards, and which were not
accompanied by any supporting data or arguments.
The Final Standards, referred to as 40 CFR 192, are in Appendix A
in Volume 1 of the FE1S.
D-2
-------
D.I SCOPE OF THE STANDARDS AND THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
D.I.I Coverage of Standards and DEIS
Comment 1: EPA should set soil contamination standards for
nonradioactive toxic substances, such as vanadium, cadmium, and
selenium, which are found at inactive sites and could affect animals
and vegetation. DOE could use these standards as a basis for setting
cleanup priorities. (P-17)
Response: A discussion of soil contamination by nonradioactive
toxic substances has been added to the FEIS in Appendix C. We conclude
that standards for such contaminants would be only marginally useful if
the land is cleaned up according to the radioactivity standards. After
the required cleanup is completed, site-specific decisions for addi-
tional remedial actions can be made by DOE where they might be needed.
We believe that the radioactivity standards, combined with information
regarding the content of tailings and the use of land near the piles,
provide a sufficient basis for DOE to set cleanup priorities.
Comment 2: EPA should set standards for radionuclide
concentrations in vegetation on grazing lands and crop lands.
The contamination of surface soils and vegetation from wind erosion
of mill tailings piles can result in contamination of food products.
(P-2)
Response; An evaluation of radiation doses from eating food
contaminated by airborne material from bare tailings piles shows the
risks to people from these pathways to be quite small (see Section
4.3.4 of the FEIS). Therefore, such detailed standards are unnecessary
if tailings disposal and land cleanup are carried out according to EPA
standards.
Comment 3: EPA should set standards for other radium-bearing
materials, such as iron mill tailings, coal ash, and phosphate slag.
These standards should incorporate a radon emanation coefficient.
(S-19)
Response: EPA is authorized to set standards for such wastes
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. However, Congress
has directed the Agency to study such wastes further; including
phosphate slag and coal ash, before setting disposal standards. We
have developed the remedial action standards for uranium mill tailings
at inactive processing sites under PL 95-604 for the circumstances that
pertain in and around those sites. EPA will first have to study the
circumstances pertaining to other wastes before determining the need
for standards for these wastes.
D-3
-------
Comment 4: Phosphate mining and reclamation processes may result
in an enhancement of the low level tadiation levels that are naturally
associated with phosphate ore. The proposed rules should not be used
as a basis for future regulation of phosphate mining or reclamation
processes because there is a lack of statutory authority for direct
control of reclamation processes involving these low level radioactive
materials, there are technical differences between the phosphate and
uranium industries, and the State of Florida is addresssing the primary
perceived concern, which is indoor radon decay product levels. (1-6)
Response: The subject standards were developed for appropriate
remedial actions for uranium mill tailings at inactive processing
sites. Standards for other wastes need not be same as these standards
because the technical, economic and social considerations pertaining to
those wastes may be quite different (See response to Comment 3, above).
Comment 5: The regulations do not cover radioactivity in water
retention ponds, raffinate pits, etc., located on the premises of
inactive processing sites; guidance should be provided for dealing with
water used in processing uranium. (S-4)
Response: Some of the inactive mill sites have modest-size bodies
of standing water containing radioactive and nonradioactive contami-
nants. We expect that sediments in such ponds are also contaminated.
Site-specific remedial action plans will have to address disposal of
the water in a manner that will minimize undesirable environmental
effects, most particularly effects on surface and underground water.
As discussed in the FEIS, we have chosen not to issue water protection
standards. We are, however, providing guidance (see FEIS, Appendix A)
that applies to the disposal of process water and other disposal
activities that could affect water quality.
Comment 6: There should be radiation protection standards for
workers who perform the remedial actions. (P-17)
Response: DOE and all other Federal agencies comply with general
occupational radiation protection guides originally issued by the
Federal Radiation Council (whose functions are now carried out by
EPA). DOE will perform the remedial actions subject to specific
occupational health and safety procedures that implement the general
guides. We believe this program is adequate. EPA is reconsidering the
general occupational radiation protection guidance, however, and may
issue revisions before all remedial actions are completed. Federal
agencies will then have to review the adequacy of their occupational
radiation protection programs in ligfit of the new guidance.
Comment 7: The FEIS should evaluate the impacts of existing
ground water contamination and of excluding from the standards
D-4
-------
contaminated ground water that is within 1.0 kilometer of a disposal
site. (F-7)
Response: Ground water contamination at inactive tailings sites
is discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 of the FEIS. Available evidence does
not show unambiguously that there is or will be contaminated ground
water. If such contaminated water does exist, its effects would depend
on the characteristics of the specific site and its uses. Under the
Final Standards, water protection requirements will be determined
site-specifically.
Comment 8: The expectation that other Federal agencies will take
practical actions to avoid harm from contaminants that have already
been released to ground water suggests possible overlaps in administra-
tion that might result in delayed solutions to ground water problems.
Impacts of such an eventuality should be included in the assessment.
(F-7)
Response: Whether or not EPA sets standards for existing ground
water contamination, DOE, NRC, and affected States will have direct
responsibilities for determining remedial actions for each site.
Contrary to the comment, we believe EPA's approach (not setting
standards) provides these agencies the flexibility they need to devise
prompt solutions to ground water problems that may be found. Setting
general standards that may be unrealistic for a specific site could
delay that process (Chapter 8, FEIS).
Comment 9: The DEIS fails to provide the data needed to assess
the impacts of the proposed ground water standards. EPA has also not
adequately addressed new studies by Markos that suggest that surface
water contamination may be a greater concern than was previously
recognized. Therefore, as a preliminary step to formulating water
protection standards, EPA should complete the following studies:
(a) identify the problem through testing of water resources for
radiological and nonradiological contaminants, and (b) present,
explain, and apply more fully the recent studies that introduce new
theories regarding movement of soluble contaminants. (P-17)
Response: We have reviewed available information on water
contamination near inactive sites (see Chapters 3 and 4 of the FEIS).
Although available information is incomplete, it suggests that surface
water pollution from inactive sites is not a major problem and may not
be a problem at all. The mechanisms Markos has identified for bringing
soluble salts to the surface of a pile won't necessarily have signifi-
cant consequences. The salts emerge gradually and are periodically
swept away by rainfall. Streams and rivers near inactive uranium
processing sites show little contamination from tailing piles even
before remedial actions; we expect no worse afterwards. Therefore, we
have not identified a need to conduct the studies recommended by the
D-5
-------
commenter before issuing standards, nor do we believe that Congress
intended EPA to conduct such major studies before setting standards.
However, if studies DOE has underway find a significant water pollution
potential at any site, then DOE can apply appropriate site-specific
remediations.
Comment 10; On a general level, the DEIS is very factual and well
referenced. There are, however, technical deficiencies: there is a
general lack of specific, on-site studies; data are incomplete; and the
cost of remedial actions for each tailings site is lacking. (F-ll)
Response: We have reviewed available data and improved the FEIS
in this respect. We believe we used all significant and relevant
information that is available about these sites. As we noted in the
DEIS, such data are limited. However, greatly increasing the data base
would require extensive assessment work in the field, which would
further delay issuance of the standards.
We believe site-specific data are more important in determining
necessary and appropriate remedial actions for each site than in
deciding health and environmental protection standards that apply to
all the sites. Site-specific information will be used by DOE in
selecting remedial actions to meet the standards.
Comment 11: Many sites have been included in the remedial action
program that should not have been. Table 4-1 of the DEIS projects that
approximately one life per year is lost because of the high density of
people living close to the Salt Lake City, Utah tailings site. This is
a very substantial hazard that should be remedied. However, at Mexican
Hat, Utah, only one life in 20,000 years is projected to be lost, with
even smaller risks at Green River, Utah. Therefore, the site at Salt
Lake City should be cleaned up as soon as possible, but remedial action
at Mexican Hat and Green River should be halted until more substantial
health hazards can be associated with them. (F-ll)
Response: Congress established the eligibility conditions for
remedial actions under Title I of PL 95-604 and determined that the
program should cover the inactive processing sites at Mexican Hat and
Green River, Utah. The comment cites our estimate of the lung cancer
rates caused by direct radon emissions from various piles. We believe
these risks may be a useful basis for setting priorities for remedial
actions, but we do not believe they should be used as justification for
postponing disposal indefinitely. We think reasonable actions should
be taken now to avoid unnecessary hazards and potentially more
difficult and expensive remediation in the future. (Also see response
to Comment 2, Sec. D.3.1).
D-6
-------
Comment 12; The only significant problem potentially associated
with low lever radium-226 concentrations in soils arises when buildings
are constructed in such a way as to allow a buildup of indoor radon
decay product concentrations. To impose remedial action requirements
on all open lands is simply unnecessary. (1-6)
Response; While we agree that risk from the buildup of radon
decay products in houses represents the greatest hazard from land
contaminated with uranium mill tailings, we do not agree that this is
the only significant hazard. Risk can also occur from high exposures
to gamma radiation from tailings on the land. However, we have
reconsidered the need to clean up contaminated open land at off-site
properties and have concluded that a limited application of the cleanup
standards for these sites will often be warranted (see Chapters 7 and 8
of the FEIS). The Final Standards require cleanup of contamination on
land at offsite properties only when there is a reasonable potential
for hazards in buildings on the contaminated land or where people are
likely to be exposed to gamma radiation from the contamination for
extended periods.
Comment 13: The disposal standards should provide for
"exceptions" to account for local conditions. Although the proposed
"Criteria for Exceptions" take account of the cost of meeting the
cleanup standards, there is no such allowance for the disposal
standards. There is no reason to treat cleanup and disposal
differently with respect to applicable exceptions. (1-7)
Response; The final cleanup and disposal standards have been
relaxed, compared to the proposed standards, to allow consideration of
the practicality of remedial actions for the broad range of
site-specific circumstances that exist at the various inactive
processing sites. In order to provide for the orderly implementation
of the standards in unusual circumstances, the Final Standards also
allow the use of supplementary standards when certain criteria apply
(see Section 192.21 of the Final Standards). However, the criteria
involving cost relate to circumstances where the hazard can be well
delineated, and the benefits of remedial action are determined to be
unusually low relative to the costs. The potential benefits of
disposal are long-term and cannot be determined nearly as precisely.
In setting the disposal standards, EPA has made a broad judgment of
costs that are warranted based on the current and potential future
hazards of all tailings piles. We do not think it is necessary or
appropriate to reconsider such broad judgments site-specifically.
Comment 14: The standards are proposed to apply "following any
use of subsurface minerals at a disposal or repository site." This
application is not authorized by PL 95-604, and there is no evidence or
reason to justify it. (1-8)
D-7
-------
Response; PL 95-604 requires EPA to "promulgate standards of
general application (including standards applicable to licenses under
Section 104(h) of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of
1978) for the protection of public health, safety and the environment•••
at inactive uranium mill tailings sites and depository sites." Section
104(h) reserves the Government's right to sell or lease subsurface
mineral rights on a tailings disposal site, subject to license
requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and requires that
such sites shall be "restored to a safe and environmentally sound
condition."
Comment 15; EPA has failed to comply with the requirements of
Section 102(2)c of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because
it did not give adequate consideration to the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects associated with implementation of the standards.
In particular, EPA has given little consideration to the environmental
effects associated with stripping land to provide necessary cover
material for tailings piles. (1-10, H-10, H-18)
Response; The environmental effects associated with implementing
alternative disposal standards are considered in Chapter 8 of the FEIS.
Comment 16; EPA has not evaluated the socioeconomic impacts of
the remedial action program on local communities, or given any
consideration to potential impacts on the cultural/archeological
resources of the area. (1-10, H-18)
Response; EPA has not specifically addressed these impacts in
either the DEIS or FEIS because, in our view, such impacts are expected
to be small and can only be properly addressed on a site specific
basis. These impacts will be considered by DOE, as necessary, in
preparing environmental impact statements or environmental assessments
for remedial actions for the various processing sites.
Comment 17: EPA should not regulate according to the origin of
the radionuclides. The standards should be based on health
considerations. (P-6, P-15)
Response; The standards were developed for "residual" radioactive
materials, as required by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control
Act (PL 95-604). Different standards may be appropriate for other
radium-bearing materials, because the factors determining the costs and
benefits of controlling them may be quite different.
D-8
-------
Comment 18; The DEIS does not note that the Federal Government
may recover part or all of the costs of remedial actions, and thereby
lessen their costs. This should be addressed in assessing the economic
impact. (F-12)
Response; The comment refers to the potential liability under
PL 95-604 of owners or operators of now-inactive processing sites for
remedial action costs. Such liability has not been determined and any
cost recovery is speculative. In any case, we do not consider the
issue of who pays for remedial actions pertinent to assessing total
economic costs. (Also see Section D.3.1, Comment 7).
Comment 19; Since major revisions in the environmental impact
statement are necessary, EPA should issue a new DEIS for public
comment. (P-17)
Response; Although we have revised and improved the environmental
impact statement, we do not believe these revisions are of such a
nature that it is necessary to issue a new DEIS. This would only delay
promulgation of the standards and the health protection provided by
them.
D.I.2 Form of Standards
Comment 1; The standards should specify that disposal sites
should not be in a floodplain. (S-14)
Response: The major significance of being in a floodplain is that
floods can disrupt disposal systems and disperse the tailings.
However, disposal systems can be designed to prevent such disruptions.
The effectiveness and longevity of a disposal system depend on the
specific vulnerability of a site and the engineered features of the
system. Therefore, a disposal site may be in a floodplain provided DOE
selects and performs remedial actions that satisfy EPA's standards.
Comment 2: EPA should consider imposing deed restrictions on the
use of a disposal site to avoid future disturbances of the cover. (F-8)
Response; EPA has no authority to impose deed restrictions, but
PL 95-604 provides for Federal ownership of such tailings sites under
licenses issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Commission
has authority to require the custodial agency to take any actions the
Commission deems necessary to comply with EPA's standards and to
protect public health and safety.
Comment 3: The rejection of a dose standard for disposal or a
radon release standard is not well supported and consists of
D-9
-------
conclusionary statements (DEIS, pages 8-4 and 8-5). EPA should give
more consideration to alternative forms of a radon standard, such as
radon concentration, exposure, or dose. (P-17, I-10, F-14)
Response: The basis for the form of the radon standard is more
fully discussed in Chapter 8 of the FEIS.
Comment 4: The language of the proposed standards implies that
"reasonable assurance" and "reasonable expectation" will be provided to
substantiate that the numerical values are nowhere exceeded after
remedial actions. Unqualified numerical values could be interpreted to
be absolute limits. Consequently, the remedial actions might have to
achieve lower values than the standards so that unavoidable inaccuracies
in measurement and sampling will not cause final conditions to exceed
the standards. The problem could be avoided if the numerical values in
the standards would be qualified as "goals" to be achieved within the
accuracy of available measuring instruments used with reasonable survey
and sampling procedures. (F-3)
Response; EPA used the word "reasonable" to discourage such
extreme interpretations. We also stated in the Federal Register (45 FR
27370, April 22, 1980, and 46 FR 2556, January 9, 1981) and the DEIS
that necessary measurements could be "performed within the accuracy of
available field and laboratory instruments used in conjunction with
reasonable survey and sampling procedures." Nevertheless, the Final
Standards (see 40 CFR 192.20) provide general guidance on implementa-
tion so that our intended interpretations of the numerical limits will
be more readily apparent to those who use the standards. (Also see
response to Comment 5, below.)
Comment 5: Flexibility is needed in the cleanup standards to
minimize costs and to avoid frequent use of the exceptions procedure.
This flexibility should be provided in the standards themselves rather
than in the preamble to the standards and the exceptions procedure. An
exceptions procedure will be costly, time consuming, and difficult to
implement. Standards should be expressed as a range of values rather
than a single numerical value. (F-10, F-14)
Response: The Final Standards provide flexibility mainly through
reasonably achievable limits, and we require only "reasonable
assurance" that the numerical limits are satisfied. Guidance for
providing "reasonable assurance" is provided in Subpart C of the
Standards and Chapter 9 of the FEIS. However, there will be conditions
for which a single numerical standard is inadequate and for which
alternative standards or forms of standards are needed. The Final
Standards provide for such conditions *in several ways, including the
D-10
-------
use of a numerical range of values and of supplementary standards when
applicable criteria are met. (Also see Comment 4, above).
Comment 6; In regard to the proposed indoor cleanup standard,
Part 192.12(b), the DEIS states, "If the allowable level is still
exceeded after all apparent tailings have been removed or otherwise
prevented from affecting the interior of the building, then the
standard does not require further remedial measures." This sentence
should be revised because it seems to provide a loophole. Remedial
measures should not end while an occupant's exposure to radon decay
product concentrations from tailings is still considered hazardous to
health. As a last resort, it may be that the exposure has to be
eliminated by moving and compensating the occupants and/or owners.
(F-8)
Response: The statement quoted applies to situations where it is
believed that the indoor radon decay product concentration exceeds the
level of the standard because of radioactivity sources other than
tailings (such as normal earth under the building). We don't consider
this a loophole because the remedial action program applies only to
problems caused by tailings.
Comment 7: EPA should consider whether or not restrictions should
be placed on land use options and ground water uses within an
appropriate distance from the tailings piles. (F-6)
Response; EPA has no authority under PL 95-604 to impose land and
water use restrictions. In general, we do not believe that such
restrictions will be needed if the land cleanup and tailings disposal
are carried out according to the standards. However, the implementing
agencies (DOE, NRC, and the affected State) may consider the need for
such restrictions site-specifically.
Comment 8: Since it will take at least several years to perform
remedial actions, EPA should establish interim standards for
controlling airborne particulates, access to the tailings sites, and
erosion. (P-17)
Response; The main purpose of the remedial action program is to
clean up tailings and dispose of them for a long time. We believe that
any harm done during the time period before the remedial actions are
undertaken will be small and interim standards are unnecessary. The
commitment of resources to develop standards for interim controls would
delay our issuance of final standards for remedial actions, and might
delay implementing the standards. Therefore, we have concentrated on
setting standards for the most significant aspect of the problem, the
remedial actions.
D-ll
-------
Comment 9; EPA should set priorities for DOE's cleanup of
contaminated structures. (P-17)
Response; EPA has no authority to set priorities for DOE.
However, in accordance with Sec. 102(b) of PL 95-604, we have advised
DOE on the health basis for setting remedial action priorities among
the various inactive processing sites. We recommended in particular
that "in carrying out remedial actions at a site, the first efforts
should be directed to remediating elevated levels of exposure to
individuals in occupied structures which are caused by the presence of
tailings. This recommendation...may justify carrying out early
remedial action at occupied structures even before remedial action is
begun on the major portion of the residual tailings at an inactive
processing site."
D.2 HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
D.2.1 Radiological Risk Assessment
D.2.1.1 Exposure Pathways
Comment 1: The EPA did not appreciate the potential seriousness
of inhaled airborne particulates from mill tailings having a high
specific activity, i.e., 10^ - 105 pCi/g. (P-2)
Response: There is no evidence of an unusual hazard associated
with the specific activity of inhaled particles. In extensive studies
at the University of Rochester, monkeys and rats were exposed to U02
dust at a concentration of about 5 mg U/M-* for 6 hours a day, 5 days
a week for up to 5 years (Le70, Le73). This high concentration and
long exposure produced little lung pathology and only 2 adenocarcinomas
(in dogs). The animals were breathing 1 micron diameter particles with
a specific activity of about 5.8 x 10-* pCi/g. We believe these
studies indicate that the inhaled uranium dust was not a potent
carcinogen at these high specific activities.
In support of his contention, the commenter refers to tests of
uranium metal dust carcinogenicity (Hu52), but this is not an
appropriate comparison because inhalation was not involved. Rather,
50 mg of uranium metal dust in lanolin was either injected into the
marrow cavity of the right femur or into the right pleural cavity.
Cancers appeared only at the sites of injection. From comparison with
the carcinogenicity shown by other metals used in the same experiments,
it is unlikely that, under these experimental conditions, the effects
were due to the radioactivity of the uranium.
We treated the hazard of inhaled particles on the basis of their
metabolic pathways and organ depositions after inhalation using
accepted ICRP dose models and organ specific risk calculations as
outlined in the NRC Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium
Milling (NRC80).
D-12
-------
Comment 2: EPA did not consider the impact of radioactive and
nonradioactive elements on plants and/or animals foraging on the
plants. (P-2, P-ll)
Response: Protection of animals and vegetation was not explicitly
addressed in the DEIS since we believe that if human health is
adequately protected, the environment is also protected. Covering
piles to prevent further erosion and cleanup of contaminated land in
accordance with the standards will mitigate potentially toxic effects
on plants or foraging animals.
Comment 3: The FEIS should address the possibility that radon
dissolved in ground water will become a source of indoor air pollution
via domestic water supplies. (F-7)
Response: EPA recognizes that geological conditions exist where
water from deep wells can be an intermittent source of indoor radon.
We do not believe this situation would occur due to the presence of an
inactive tailings pile. A large amount of water would have to percolate
through the pile and be transported to the point of use in the few days
before the radon decays. Such an event is extremely unlikely. Wells
for domestic use will not be allowed in the pile, and the very slow
movement of ground water will allow more than enough time for the decay
of dissolved radon. Moreover, piles complying with the Final Standards
will have been covered or treated to substantially inhibit their radon
releases to the air. In the semiarid regions where most inactive sites
are located and soil evaporation rates are high, this should also
prevent rain water from entering the pile and carrying radioactivity
into the ground water.
Comment 4: The DEIS did not discuss the slow migration of piles
as they erode and cover larger areas, potentially exposing people
further away from the site. (P-17)
Response: Spreading of tailings by erosion is a major concern in
the FEIS (see Chapters 3, 5, 7, and 8). An objective of the standards
is to assure disposal of the tailings in a manner that prevents erosion
and other events leading to spreading of tailings, and also to provide
for cleanup of already contaminated areas. Therefore, if disposal and
land cleanup are carried out according to the standards, such migration
would cease for at least many hundreds to thousands of years.
Comment 5: The DEIS did not adequately consider the food exposure
pathway, stating that the model used was "inappropriate for many of the
inactive sites." Analysis of the food pathway should include sites
like Mexican Hat where grazing is important. (P-2, P-17)
D-13
-------
Response: The DEIS considered the radiation dose from eating
vegetables, meats, and milk products contaminated by airborne materials
from a bare tailings pile, i.e., before remedial measures are taken
to prevent erosion. Even under these conditions, the risks associated
with the food pathway are small. The evaluation of the food pathway in
the DEIS was based on a similar evaluation in the NRG Generic Environ-
mental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling (NRC80). As pointed out in
the DEIS, this evaluation probably overestimates the dose in urban
areas. However, it is appropriate for agricultural areas, such as
Mexican Hat, Utah, where the potential risk from the food pathway is
higher. A summary of our calculated health effects for all pathways
(including grazing) from NRG's model mill (NRC80) is given in Table 4-9
of the FEIS.
Comment 6: The DEIS failed to consider potential health hazards
to fish and wildlife. EPA should provide base-line information on
radionuclides in fish, wildlife, and plants. (P-17)
Response: The DEIS did not assess the potential effects of
radiation on members of wildlife communities. There is no scientific
basis for believing that levels of radiation associated with tailings
will have any significant impact on wildlife habitat.
Field studies by the NRG, DOE, and EPA have not identified any
wildlife in jeopardy due to inactive tailings piles, even though only
minimal remedial actions have been taken to reduce their impact on the
environment. Mammals are more sensitive to radiation than birds,
reptiles, fish, or lower types of animals. Even individual mammals
burrowing in a pile are not expected to be affected adversely. Plants
are very radiation resistant and should not be affected.
Comment 7: The possibility of biological uptake of radionuclides
and toxic elements into plants piercing the protective tailings cover
and subsequent transfer to animals and man should be discussed in the
FEIS. (P-ll, F-8)
Response: The uptake of radionuclides and toxic elements from
tailings into plants is discussed in Appendix C of the FEIS. We have
concluded that any such uptake would not represent a significant
problem because the land areas are small, and, even if access to the
tailings is not restricted, these plants would not represent the only
food for animals.
Comment 8: The radon dispersion model appears to be based on a
power function relationship observed by Duncan, et^ al., (Du77) between
a set of measured radon concentrations and the corresponding distances
from a tailings pile. Since some sampling stations in their study were
heavily contaminated, the observations would be inappropriate for this
purpose. (P-19)
D-14
-------
Response: The commenter is not correct in his surmise that we
used a power function dispersion model based on observations by Duncan,
ejt^ _al. Rather, for distances up to 7.5 mi (12 km), we used variations
of the well-known models described in Chapter 3 of "Meteorology and
Atomic Energy, 1968," particularly Equation 3.144 (Gi68). Our
calculations for a sector averaged gaussian plume were corrected for
the area of the source and then averaged over all directions to obtain
circularly symmetric values. At distances between 7.5 and 50 mi, we
adapted regional dispersion estimates made by Machta, et_ a^. (Ma73),
again averaging them over all directions. Further details of the
dispersion models may be found in Section 4.3.2 of the FEIS and in a
report by Swift (Sw81). (Also see Comment 9, below.)
Comment 9; EPA has overestimated the radon exposures resulting
from emissions from inactive tailings piles. The models and
assumptions used in the DEIS to calculate radon dispersion and radon
decay product levels lead to higher levels than have been measured in
the vicinity of inactive piles. More specifically, the dispersion
model overestimates the radon concentration and incorrectly assumes a
50% decay product equilibrium out-of-doors. These factors cause
exposures at close-in distances (Table 4-2 of the DEIS) to be
overestimated by a factor of 10 or more. At 0.5 miles, the equilibrium
is only 9% in outside air. (P-19, S-20, 1-4, 1-8, 1-10, F-14)
Response: We agree that the degree of equilibrium in outside air
near a pile is usually smaller than the value we used. However, this
has little effect on the results since, as stated in the DEIS, we
assumed that persons living near piles are not outside 24 hours per
day, but are inside dwellings or other structures 75% of the time.
Using the commentor's value of 9% outdoor equilibrium at 0.5 miles, the
weighted average of indoor and outdoor equilibrium is about 54%, not
65.5% as we assumed in Table 4-2 of the DEIS. The difference is minor,
but a revised table has been incorporated into the FEIS (Table 4-4).
The circularly symmetric atmospheric dispersion calculations we
used are described in the FEIS and Sw81. We recognize that such a
general approximation may not be appropriate for specific locations.
However, dispersion models using site-specific data have shown
reasonable agreement (a factor of 2) with measured long-term data
in a number of validation studies (Ho78). While we would expect
site-specific estimates of meteorological dispersion to be more precise
at particular locations, we do not believe they are required for a
generic assessment. In any case, the lack of adequate long-term
meteorological data for each site makes such a consideration moot.
We have tested our approximations with site-specific data and
found the deficiences to be relatively small. Haywood, et al. (Ha79)
have published dispersion calculations for the Shiprock pile using
local wind speed and direction data combined with stability data for
D-15
-------
the nearest weather station (in Farmington, New Mexico). At distances
between 0.2 and 6.7 mi, the ratios of their directionally averaged
dispersion factors to our estimates range from a low of 1.5 at 0.33 mi
to a high of 2.3 at 0.83 mi. At 25 miles their estimate is higher by a
factor of 7. The effect of directional asymmetry can be considerable:
at a distance of 0.2 mi their estimates show a 6:1 variation with
direction. This ratio increases to 15:1 at 6.7 mi and to 20:1 at 25
miles. Site-specific data yield dispersion estimates higher than ours
in some directions and lower in others. The location-specific
dispersion factors of Haywood, et _al. are equal to or greater than the
generic factors used by EPA at T06 out of 160 locations. While the EPA
dispersion model is not precise, it does provide estimates that do not
consistently exceed those using site-specific data, and which are
adequate for our purposes.
Discrepancies between calculated concentrations and measured
values of radon and radon decay products in the vicinity of a pile are
caused by several easily understood factors. These include the assumed
vs. actual radon emission rate from a specific pile, the generalized
dispersion model vs. actual dispersion for the specific location of
interest, and the inherent uncertainty of the measurements being
compared with the calculated values. In the DEIS we used a single
general model of a tailings pile. This general model fits some sites
better than others, depending on how well the model assumptions are
fulfilled at a specific locality. We assumed a dry pile without cover,
such as would probably occur over the long term at an unstabilized
inactive pile. Currently, many inactive-mill piles still contain
excess process moisture, which inhibits the emission of radon, and some
have partial or temporary cover materials as well. Our estimates of
ultimate radon emission (i.e., from a dry, uncovered pile) are based on
the average concentration of radium in the pile and are typically about
1.7 times larger than measured values (Table 3-1 of the FEIS). Our
estimates of the average radium concentrations in specific piles are
calculated from the processing records of the mill operations that
created the piles. Actual measurements of radium in the piles indicate
that the radium content varies considerably throughout a pile, so that
measured emissions may not reflect the average value. Even though
limited exhalation rate measurements have been made at most piles
(Table 3-1 of the FEIS), we do not believe they provide a more reliable
long-term estimate than the calculated values we used.
Although we recognize the limitations in our ability to predict
radon concentrations, we have little faith in estimates of long-term
averages based on radon measurements limited to a short span of time or
to a relatively small sample of meteorological conditions. It is well
known that short-term radon concentration at a location can vary by
orders of magnitude with time. Even the long-term averages cited by
the commenter vary by a factor of 3 or more between the sampling
stations used to determine an average background value. Ascertaining
the contribution of a particular source of radon to the measured
concentration at a particular location is difficult at best.
D-16
-------
In any case, our assessment does not rely solely on calculated
radon concentration values. Table 4-5 of the FEIS lists risk estimates
based on measured radon concentrations in outside air.
D.2.1.2 Risk Models
Comment 1: In spite of inhaled radon not being a carcinogen in
animals, the EPA radon risk estimates have not included the effect of
other factors besides radon in the induction of lung cancer in uranium
miners, e.g., smoking and insoluble alpha-emitting particles. (P-2)
Response: Early epidemiological investigations failed to
recognize that radon decay products attached to particulates, rather
than radon gas, are the primary cause of high bronchial exposure. This
has led to much of the speculation on the contribution of factors other
than radon to the induction of lung cancer in miners. This same
failure was repeated in early animal experiments with relatively pure
radon. Hueper reviewed reports showing that microorganisms, silica,
nickel, cobalt, arsenic, fungi, radium, inbreeding, heredity; and colds
did not play a part in the induction of lung cancer in miners exposed
to radon and radon decay products (Hu66, Hu42).
Recent experiments in the United States and France have shown
that radon/radon-decay-product exposure alone can induce lung cancer
in experimental animals, and that smoking in some cases may be protec-
tive (Cr78, La78). Since the lung cancer induction potential of
radon/radon-decay-product exposure has been amply demonstrated and
the special potential of high specific activity particles is
speculative, there should be no need to develop a special risk
assessment procedure for the high specific activity particles.
(See also response to Comment 1, Section D.2.1.1)
Comment 2: Differences between the cumulative dose, dose rates,
and conditions of exposure for underground miners and the general
public are such that the Agency's estimates of the risk due to inhaling
radon decay products are likely to be invalid at exposure levels as low
as 0.015 WL. EPA should limit its basis for the standards to data
obtained from studies at low doses. (1-7, F-2)
Response: As stated in the FEIS (Section 4.4.1), we recognize
that estimates of risk to the general population that are based on
occupational exposures are not exact. Nevertheless, we believe they
are useful for examining the risk potential from inactive tailings
piles and other radon sources. The comment seems to be based on the
thought that low dose rates and low doses are intrinsically less
damaging, per unit dose. Although this is being debated for lightly
ionizing radiations, carcinogenic effects of highly ionizing radiations
are not reduced at low doses and low dose rates (NP80, NASSOa).
D-17
-------
Indeed, for radon, there is evidence that at high exposures, effects
per WLM are less than at low levels. For these reasons, we believe a
linear extrapolation of low-dose occupational data to environmental
levels is not unduly conservative. Moreover, the lifetime cumulative
exposure at 0.015 WL is about 20 WLM, not a great deal less than
cumulative exposures of miners (60 WLM) who have died of radiogenic
lung cancer (He79). The increased number of lung cancers observed
in Ontario uranium miners in the range from 0 to 30 WLM, while not
statistically significant, is fully consistent with the risk observed
in these miners at much higher levels of exposure (He79, Ch81).
Finally, we reviewed other potential causes of lung cancer associated
with hard rock mining in EPA-520/4-78-013 (EPA79), and concluded that
there is no evidence that anything other than radon decay products are
the cause of the excess lung cancer that has been observed in persons
working in a variety of mines having a wide range of suspected
co-factors for carcinogenesis. A recent report by the Ontario
Government arrived at a similar conclusion (Mi76). (Also see response
to Comment 13, below.)
Comment 3; The risk estimates may not be sufficiently
conservative due to EPA's use of a linear extrapolation from high to
low exposure levels. The predominance of uranium miner data shows a
concave downward curve at lower exposure levels. The specific relative
risk coefficient selected may compensate somewhat for this. (F-9)
Response: Although there is evidence that the carcinogenic
response per WLM at exposures greater than a few hundred working level
months is less than at lower levels, there is no conclusive data
indicating a significant departure from linearity at low levels.
Sampling uncertainties in the epidemiological data are so large at low
exposures that a somewhat greater response would not be apparent.
Moreover, given the uncertainty in the miner data and its application
to a general population, any small departure of the response from
linearity is unlikely to change the risk estimates significantly.
Comment 4: The DEIS gives four different values for the lifetime
absolute risk factor, ranging from 3.0 to 11.1 per 10,000 person WLM.
(P-19)
Response: The DEIS contained only one absolute risk estimate.
This estimate of lifetime risk for lifetime exposure was expressed in
two ways: 1) as the lifetime risk to an average individual; and 2) as
the average annual risk to an exposed population. One risk
coefficient, 10 cases per 10° person-ye^ars at risk per WLM, was used
to generate these absolute risks. It provided an input coefficient for
a "life table" calculation that accounts both for the probability that
a person is still alive at a given age and for the person's cumulative
exposure. The life table analysis is discussed in a recent paper by
Bunger, et_ al. (Bu81).
D-18
-------
The four absolute risk estimates attributed to EPA are neither in
the DEIS nor implied in it. Rather, the commenter derived them using
his own assumptions and models. These assumptions and models differ
from those used by EPA and, hence, produce different numerical answers.
The commenter's absolute risk estimates of 3.0 x 10~VwLM and 3.7 x
10~^/WLM for an individual assume everyone dies at age 70, an
assumption not made by EPA. EPA's calculations are based on U. S.
mortality data, and include the risk to that portion of the population
that lives longer than age 70. While EPA's method is better, the
commenter's approximation is not too bad. EPA's absolute risk estimate
in terms of lifetime risk per WLM is 3.5 x 10" .
The commenter's estimate of 7.1 x 10~^/WLM evidently assumes
that EPA's procedure of dividing a life table calculation of total
excess cancer by the average age at death, as outlined on page 4-9 of
DEIS, is the same as multiplying the risk coefficient used in life
table analysis by 71 years. However, the risk coefficient is not the
risk estimate, but only one of several parameters used in a life table
analysis (Bu 81).
The fourth risk estimate cited by the commenter, 1-3 lung cancer
deaths per year of exposure for 100 person-working-levels, is a range
with an absolute risk estimate as a lower limit and the Agency's
largest relative risk estimate, one that includes the possibility that
children are more sensitive to radiation than adults, as an upper limit
(see page 4-9 of the DEIS).
Comment 5: The absolute risk factors used by EPA were derived
from unpublished data, were never given peer review, and relate only to
underground uranium miners. (P-19, H-16)
Response: EPA used a single absolute risk coefficient. This risk
coefficient is given in a report prepared by the National Academy of
Sciences: Health Effects of Alpha-Emitting Particles in the Respiratory
Tract (NAS76). As noted on page ii of the report, it was reviewed
by a Report Review Committee selected by the Academy. We consider this
peer review. The risk coefficient used in the DEIS, 10 cases per 10^
WLM-person-years at risk, is equal to the smallest of the age-dependent
risk coefficients (10-50 cases per 10" WLM-person-years at risk)
given in the 1980 NAS BEIR III Report (NASSOa). The DEIS clearly
stated that estimates of risk in the DEIS were based on studies of
miner health and that risk to the general population could be larger or
smaller. We agree that differences between miners and the general
public could be important (see Section 4.4.1 of the FEIS).
Comment 6; The WLM unit of exposure is the product of the
radioactive concentration (WL) in the inhaled air and the duration of
exposure (M) in units of the nominal 170-hour working month. For one
year of constant exposure, 1 WL-yr = 51.5 WLM. The relationship
1 WL-yr = 27 WLM used in the DEIS on grounds of differences in
D-19
-------
breathing rates is inaccurate, since this difference is just one of
many parameters which enter the estimation of the lung cancer risk
factor for the general population. (P-19)
Response: The commenter is correct in that the unit WLM was
developed for occupational exposure. However, radiation protection is
already overloaded with quantities and units that are poorly understood
by the public. Therefore, rather than invent a new unit for nonoccupa-
tional exposure, cumulative exposures of the general public are
expressed in the EIS and elsewhere (RPC80) in occupational units,
taking into account the larger number of hours exposed per year and the
reduced breathing rate appropriate for members of the general population
as compared to underground miners. This quantifiable procedure is, in
our opinion, preferable to including these factors in an unquantified
and undocumented risk reduction factor for the general population.
Comment 7: The 0.75 occupancy factor for a residence is too
high.Probably an average in the vicinity of 0.5 or less would be easy
to justify. For a work place, the occupancy factor is 0.23. (P-19)
Response: We agree that 0.23 is appropriate for duration of
exposure in a work place, when such activity averages 170 hours per
month. On the other hand, a 0.5 occupancy factor implies only two
hours per day in the home in addition to eating and sleeping. This is
too low. We note that a 75% occupancy was used by the Radiation Policy
Council (RPC80).
Comment 8: For the low-level radon exposure of the general
population, the recently published recommendation of six widely
recognized senior specialists from four countries should be used to
estimate risk. This is a lifetime risk with an upper bound of 1 per
10,000 WLM, and with a lower bound that may include zero. (P-19, 1-4,
1-10, H-13, H-18)
Response: One of the reasons estimates of lifetime risk are
tenuous is that there are no studies of exposed groups that extend over
the survivors lifetime. Therefore, all estimates include (either
explicitly or implicitly) a projection of what the future risk of
exposed groups will be. In real life, it is observed that no excess
cancer occurs for a few years after exposure. This is the so-called
"latent period", but more properly termed the "minimum induction
period." After the latent period, excess radiogenic cancers are
observed in the group for a number of years that varies with cancer
type. A few radiogenic cancers, e. gt, leukemia, appear to have a
relatively short period of increased risk, 25 years or so, after the
latent period. However, lifetime follow-up studies have as yet to
confirm these observations. The period at risk for other cancers
appears to be much longer. For cancers other than leukemia and bone
D-20
-------
cancer, the BEIR III Committee (NASSOa) assumed the excess risk would
be expressed over the balance of a person's lifetime (after the latent
period). Again, this is unconfirmed by lifetime follow-up data, but is
consistent with observations to date. Finally, while the Japanese
survivor data should eventually allow the period of risk to be
estimated rather well for persons of various ages, data on excess lung
cancer among underground miners is less helpful, since exposures
generally occurred over many years and the age at which exposure
started covers almost the entire adult work life. Therefore, in
considering the validity of risk estimates, it is necessary to examine
their underlying assumptions, including the assumed length of time a
person is at risk following exposure.
The upper limit of the range of risks cited by the commenter,
1 x 10~^ per WLM, is apparently based on an analysis by Myers and
Stewart, who are scientists at the Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories
(My79a, My79b). These authors project 0.21-0.54 lung cancers per 10^
WLM, on the basis of U. S. uranium miner experience through 1968, and
about 0.6 to 1.6 lung cancers per 10^ WLM based on the Czechoslovakian
miner data. Although these estimates are presented as lifetime risks,
they actually assume radiogenic lung cancers occur no more than for 15
years, following a ten-year latent period. We believe that assuming
such a short period of increased risk leads to an underestimation of
the total detriment. Although no exposed group has been followed for a
lifetime, there is ample evidence that radiogenic lung cancers occur
more than 25 years after exposure. The best data on this is for the
Japanese survivors, who, unlike underground miners, are known to have
been exposed only once and on a known date in 1945. The excess of lung
cancer in these survivors has been nearly constant from 1959 to 1978
and has shown little or no tendency to decrease with time. Indeed,
Land (Lab78) has shown that for older A-bomb survivors the incidence of
radiogenic lung cancer follows the same age distribution as nonradio-
genic lung cancer (i.e., increasing with age). Both Lundin and Hewitt
(Lua79, He79) have shown independently that Land's findings are
consistent with the pattern of age at death observed in U. S. and
Canadian uranium miners. It should be noted that lung cancer is most
prevalent in persons 70 or more years of age. Therefore, a very long
follow-up time is needed to observe the full extent of radiogenic lung
cancer.
We believe about 60 years at risk, not 15 years, is a more
realistic measure of impact for persons exposed to radon decay products
from birth. The commenter1s lifetime risk estimate of 0.6 to 1.6 lung
cancers per 10^ WLM, based on the Czechoslovakian data, should
therefore be four times higher, i.e., 2-6 lung cancers per 10^ WLM.
The EPA absolute risk estimate is in the middle of this range; the EPA
relative risk model yields estimates somewhat larger than 6 per 10^
WLM; i.e., about 8.6. We do not know why the U. S. mortality studies
reflect less radiogenic lung cancer than the Czechoslovakian data, but
note that the U. S. data used by Myers and Stewart are for excess lung
cancer occurring before October 1, 1968. The number of excess lung
D-21
-------
cancers occurring in this group through September 1974 has nearly
tripled, 159 vis a vi£ 62, (NASSOa, Lua71). Moreover, most U. S.
uranium miners were exposed to very high levels of radon. There is a
trend for fewer excess cancers per WLM with increasing levels of
exposure, as noted in BEIR III (NASSOa).
It is difficult to find any quantitative analysis or scientific
rationale for the lower limit of zero risk attributable to radon decay
products that the commenter recommends based on estimates of Evans,
Harley, Jacobi, McLean, Mills, and Stewart (Ev81). Myers' and Stewart's
analysis, which provided the basis for the commenter's upper bound of
risk, also included consideration of the possibility of a threshold
(My79a). Meyers and Stewart concluded that "the quasi-threshold region
is less than 3 WLM." We note that a 3 WLM exposure would be received
in the first ten years of occupancy in a residence having a radon decay
product concentration at the proposed limit, 0.015 WL. While Myers and
Stewart reported that the miner data did not rule out a quasi-threshold,
they also stated that the "the mathematical analysis using the criterion
of maximum likelihood does not provide any reason to reject the more
conventional linear dose response relationship."
We believe it is prudent not to assume a threshold for radiogenic
cancer unless it is demonstrable. We agree that the risk to the
general population from a given concentration of radon decay products
is less than for working miners who inhale more air, and we have
corrected our estimates of cumulative exposure accordingly (see
response to Comment 6 above). However, we have not identified evidence
for other causes of a reduced risk to the general population as
compared to miners. As stated in the FEIS, risks to the general
population could be greater or less.
Comment 9: The DEIS considered only lung cancer in its discussion
of health effects. The limited view of health effects in the DEIS
resulted in narrowing the types of standards proposed by EPA. (P-17,
H-23)
Response: Tables 4-7 and 4-9 in the DEIS included estimates of
the risk of fatality due to leukemia and all solid cancers. Table 4-10
listed the estimated risks for serious genetic effects. Effects of
nonradioactive toxic substances were considered in Chapter 4 and
Appendix C. Chapter 4 of the FEIS discusses why the risk of lung
cancer is thought to be the predominate radiological risk from
tailings. However, the proposed standards limiting radium-226 in soil
and external gamma radiation reflect the Agency's concern about other
health effects.
Comment 10; The DEIS estimates of risk utilized 1970 population
figures and did not take into account increases since then. (P-17 F-9)
D-22
-------
Response: Increases in population since 1970 are small compared
to the uncertainty in the risk estimates. Moreover; estimates of the
risks to persons residing in the vicinity of a pile depend critically
on the exact location of residences and work places (see Table 4-4 in
the FEIS). New census tract information, not yet available, could show
increased or decreased risks for a larger population, depending on
where they lived. As stated in Section 4.4.1 of the FEIS, the Agency
believes it is sufficiently prudent to use current data.
Comment 11; Did the calculations of lung cancer risk take smoking
into account? If this was ignored, smoking could actually increase the
risk following radiation exposure. (F-8)
Response: Estimates of lung cancer risk are based on
epidemiological studies of underground miners. For the most part,
smoking was more prevelant in these groups than the general
population. Therefore, we do not believe the risks have been
underestimated.
Comment 12: EPA has failed to set forth the rationale for the
various risk projection estimates. EPA risk estimates were evidently
derived from an unpublished paper by V. E. Archer entitled "Factors in
Exposure Response Relationships of Radon Daughters." (1-4, H-18)
Response: The relevant EPA risk estimates and their rationale
were published in February 1979 (EPA79). In this report, which was
cited in the DEIS, there are 25 pages of information on the assumptions
used in the EPA analysis and our reasons for making them. Archer's
paper was published in January 1979 by the Colorado School of Mines
Press (Ar79). Only Fig. 4-2 in the DEIS was taken from Archer's
report. It was used to illustrate the sampling uncertainty in the
epidemiological data. The Agency's health risk estimates were
published in the same conference proceedings as Archer's paper and were
derived independently.
Comment 13: Because cellular repair processes can mitigate
radiation damage, the Agency's total reliance on the linear
nonthreshold model is unduly conservative and overstates the risk posed
by radon exhalation from tailings. (1-4)
Response: The comment fails to differentiate between the effects
of lightly ionizing radiations and highly ionizing radiations like
alpha particles from radon decay products. Repair of cellular injury
from lightly ionizing radiations is usually demonstrated by dividing
the total dose into 2 or more fractions and measuring repair between
succeeding dose increments. However, epidemiological studies of bone
cancer and several animal studies indicate that fractionated doses from
alpha particles and other highly ionizing radiations are likely to
D-23
-------
cause more cancer per unit dose rather than less. Moreover, radiocar-
cinogenicity of highly ionizing radiations is apparently enhanced at
low-dose rates compared to higher dose rates (Sp73, FrbSl). Given this
evidence, we do not believe it is prudent to assume repair of alpha
particle damage of bronchial cells on an ad hoc basis. We note that
the NCRP (NP80), the NAS (NASSOa), and the~ICRP (IP77) are unanimous in
their use of the linear nonthreshold dose-response model for highly
ionizing radiation. Moreover, Myers and Stewart (My79a, My79b) have
demonstrated that response functions other than linear provide poorer
fits to the epidemiological data for radon exposures than a linear
response.
The Agency acknowledges that none of these data and arguments
definitely precludes a nonlinear response at low doses, or even a
threshold at some level of exposure. Nevertheless, the preponderance
of evidence does indicate that use of a linear nonthreshold response is
not overly conservative. Indeed, there is some discussion as to
whether it is conservative enough (see response to Comment 3, above).
Comment 14: EPA's exclusive reliance on a linear nonthreshold
response function is inconsistent with pertinent epidemiological
surveys comparing levels of background radiation to cancer mortality.
(1-9, H-ll)
Response; It should be noted that the surveys cited in the
comment are not epidemiological studies comparing the incidence of
cancer in irradiated and nonirradiated subjects, but rather attempts to
look for a geographical correlation between cancer incidence and changes
in background radiation. While such studies may be suggestive of a
possible cause and effect (and occasionally are useful for identifying
contaminants for further investigation), they are not a good tool for
excluding a particular cause of excess cancer when the influence of
this cause is small compared to other variables. Geographical surveys
are limited to detecting relatively large environmental effects because
of the problems of comparing dissimilar groups. Populations in
different parts of the country differ in many ways, only some of which
have been partially accounted for by regression-type adjustments.
Examples are: ethnic background, diet, occupation, social and economic
factors, and population movement. In view of the unknown etiology of
cancer and the difficulty in capturing all of the potential confounding
factors in the regression model, the credibility of causal inferences
from such data is small.
Such studies have usually aggregated potential radiogenic and
nonradiation related cancers, used obsolete estimates of background
radiation levels, and placed a faith in death certificate data that is
unwarranted. For the Japanese atomic bomb survivors, a population
studied more intensely than any U. S. population, autopsy data show
poor agreement with death certificates. For example, less than 61% of
the death certificates listing lung cancer as the underlying cause of
D-24
-------
death are found to be correct at autopsy (Yaa78). In the United States
only 18.4% of the deaths occurring in 1979 had an autopsy reported, and
most of these were forensic cases (HEW76).
C omment 15: Although more than 20 years has elapsed since
uranium mill tailings were widely used as a source of building
materials in Grand Junction, Colorado, no increase in the incidence of
lung cancer has been found. Indeed the incidence of lung cancer in
Mesa County is no greater than the incidence in five surrounding
counties. (1-8, 1-10)
Response: We present estimates of the health effects of tailings
piles at inactive sites in Chapter 4 of the FEIS. For tailings used in
buildings in the Grand Junction area, we specifically estimated that
150 excess lung cancers would occur over 70 years if remedial action
were not taken. Because of the factors discussed in our response to
Comment 14, above, we expect geographic surveys not to unambiguously
detect such cancers occurring at the rates we have estimated.
Comment 16: None of the regulatory agencies have dealt with the
known reality of a latency period in estimating the risk of radiogenic
cancer. This makes me think that experiments on dose rate effective-
ness factors are simply misinterpreted and poorly designed. (H--24)
Response: Dose rate effectiveness factors were not used in
preparing EPA's risk estimates. Because of the long latency associated
with lung cancer, the excess cancer observed in ongoing epidemiological
studies cannot be used directly for quantitative risk estimates.
Rather, a projection model must be used to apply the rate observed
after the minimum latent period to the total period of time persons
will be at risk following exposure. EPA risk estimates are based on a
ten-year minimum latent period and a period of risk lasting throughout
the remaining lifetime of the exposed individuals. This practice is
the same as that followed by the 1980 NAS BEIR III Committee (NAS80a),
and is compatible with the available data.
Comment 17: It has been demonstrated that, as exposures decrease,
the latent period for cancer induction increases, so that for small
enough exposures the latent period is longer than life expectancy, and
cancer will never develop. This effect will show up as a threshold, in
contrast to the linear nonthreshold model of carcinogenesis utilized by
EPA. (H-5)
Response: The minimum latent period, the length of time between
the insult and the expression of a statistically significant increase
in the expected number of cancers, is a random variable that depends on
experimental design as well as physiological processes. Therefore,
D-25
-------
observed latency is a property of the exposed population as a whole and
includes consideration of fluctuations in the expected cancer rate as
well as the variation over time of induced cancers. If the carcino-
genic insult is large, excess cancer may be observed almost as soon as
physiological processes allow, and a statistically significant excess
is observed shortly afterwards as an increasing number of the subjects
respond to the carcinogen. For low-level exposures the number of
excess cancers over time will be fewer; since the signal-to-noise ratio
is lower, the period of observation required to demonstrate a signifi-
cant increase will be greater, even if the physiological processes
leading to cancer are identical. Indeed, at sufficiently low exposure
levels no statistically significant excess will be observed in a sample
of a practical size. It follows, therefore, that there will be an
apparent shift to longer latency periods as exposures are reduced.
This is not a physiological shift in carcinogenic processes, but rather
an artifact inherent in experimental design.
In addition to this artifact, there may indeed be a real shift to
longer latency at low doses, as is sometimes observed with low-LET
radiation in animal experiments. However, even for these cases, a
practical threshold for carcinogenesis cannot be experimentally
demonstrated. Fractionation of a given dose into small dose increments
would be expected to reduce its carcinogenicity if latency increases as
the dose rate is reduced. For highly ionizing radiations, however,
like alpha particles from radon decay products, fractionation increases
the likelihood of cancer in both humans and in animals (see response to
Comment 13, above). In view of these findings, we believe the
hypothesis of a practical threshold is highly speculative and not a
sound basis for the development of radiation protection standards. We
note also that neither the ICRP nor the NCRP has endorsed the use of a
practical threshold for injuries arising from stochastic processes,
i.e., cancer and radiogenetic effects.
Comment 18: There are significant and verifiable nonmalignant
respiratory effects as well as nonrespiratory malignant effects that
are associated with radon and its decay products. The literature
provides verifiable information on these types of health effects and
they should be factored into a revised DEIS. (H-23)
Response: The commenter cites Table 3 in "Respiratory Disease
Mortality Among Uranium Miners" (Ar76) as support for these
contentions. The same Table 3 indicates that cancer at sites other
than lung cancer was slightly below expectation in U. S. white
underground uranium miners. While there are reports of excess skin
cancers occurring among Czechoslovakian underground miners working with
uranium ores high in arsenic content„ the incidence of these skin
cancers has remained the same over time even as radiation exposures
were decreased. We know of no other published evidence indicating a
cancer risk to organs other than the lung due to radon decay product
inhalation.
D-26
-------
Archer (Ar76) attributes the observed incidence of nonmalignant
respiratory disease to "pulmonary insufficiency resulting from diffused
radiation injury to lung parenchyma." Such nonstochastic injuries are
not unexpected at high doses, but do not occur at low doses (IP77).
Pulmonary injuries are not believed to occur in the general population
at the comparatively low levels of radon decay product concentration
encountered outside of uranium mines.
Comment 19: EPA has failed to issue standards based on
realistically valid health effects (risk) data. (F-15)
Response: Our estimates of health risks from inhalation of radon
decay products are based on epidemiological studies of uranium and
other underground miners and on two reports, "The Effects on Popula-
tions of Exposure to Low Level of Ionizing Radiation" (NAS72a) and
"Health Effects of Alpha Emitting Particles in the Respiratory Tract"
(NAS76). Information in the report of the United Nations Scientific
Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UN77) was also considered.
We recognize that extrapolation of data from underground uranium
miners to the general population leads to uncertain risk estimates in
(see Chapter 4 of the FEIS). We are also aware that there are
differing views on the magnitude of the risk from inhalation of radon
decay products. However, we believe our risk estimates are appropriate
for setting health standards.
Comment 20: The relevant assumptions and calculational
methodologies used in the risk assessment should be included in an
appendix to the FEIS. (F-10)
Response: This material has already been reported in several
publications. EPA 520/4-78-013 (EPA79) is available from the Office of
Radiation Programs, USEPA, Washington, D. C. 20460. The material has
also been published as "Environmental Hazards from Radon Daughter
Radiation" in the 1978 MSHA-sponsored Conference/Workshop on Lung
Cancer Epidemiology and Industrial Applications of Sputum Cytology,
Colorado School of Mines, January 1979.
D.2.2 Nonradiological Risk Assessment
Comment 1: The EPA has not adequately assessed the health effects
due to nonradioactive toxic elements in tailings. The assessment in
the DEIS fails to consider certain elements, pathways, and health
effects, and impacts on fish, animals and plants. (P-ll, P-17, H-23)
Response: The comment is partly correct. However, it is not
possible to address all possible elements, pathways, and effects in the
DEIS. Rather, we addressed what we believed to be the most important
D-27
-------
considerations relative to toxic elements in tailings. We have further
reviewed the available information and have expanded our treatment of
the subject in the FEIS (see Sections 4.3.4, 4.4.3, and Appendix C).
D.3 Rationale for Standards
D.3.1 Basis for Standards
Comment 1: The rationale for selecting the Proposed Standards is
unclear. The DEIS presents an inadequate consideration of alternatives
to the proposed standards. Health risks have not been considered for
any of the standards except the radon release rate. EPA should carry
out a cost-benefit analysis for each of the standards promulgated. The
analysis should present a systematic comparison of the costs and
benefits of alternative standards, which include both more and less
restrictive standards, as justification of the standard selected.
(P-17, 1-4, 1-10, F-9, F-10, F-14, H-9, H-10, H-18)
Response: The FEIS provides extensive analyses of realistic
alternatives to the proposed standards, including detailed evaluations
of their costs and benefits (see Chapters 6 and 7 of the FEIS).
Comment 2: It is inappropriate to set general standards
applicable to remote tailings sites based on estimated collective risks
to people living near tailings piles in urban areas. The proposed
standards make no allowance for tailings disposal at remote inactive
sites. (1-7)
Response: Reducing the risks to the populations living near the
tailings piles from direct radon emissions is only one of the
objectives of the standards. Radon emissions also affect distant
populations. Other objectives include isolating the tailings to
prevent wind and water erosion and public access to them. The greatest
hazard from tailings occurs when they are removed from the pile and
used in and around buildings. Therefore, a major objective of the
standards is to isolate the tailings to discourage such use. The
longer piles are not properly stabilized, the more extensively
weathering and people will spread the tailings and, thereby, increase
the eventual costs for cleanup at remote sites. Furthermore,
populations near the piles can increase in size dramatically over even
a few decades.
Comment 3: The Federal Register notice proposing the cleanup
standards (45 FR 27370, April 22, 1980) states that "it must be
possible to accomplish the requirements (of a standard) in a reasonable
time with the techniques and personnel available." What does
"techniques and personnel available mean?" (P-5)
D-28
-------
Response; We meant that it should be possible to satisfy the
standards using existing techniques and labor pools without extensive
technology development or personnel training programs.
Comment 4: The costs of the disposal standards are very high
relative to the health effects that will be averted. (P-23, 1-4, 1-8,
1-10, F-14, H-2, H-18)
Response: We have reevaluated the costs and health benefits of
the disposal standards and have revised the standards based on this
analysis. We believe the Final Standards provide nearly as much
benefit as those we proposed, for substantially less cost. Chapter 6
of the FEIS presents an analysis of alternative disposal standards.
Comment 5; EPA has not adequately considered the risks to workers
and the general public from earthwork and trucking activities (including
transportation of tailings to a new site) performed to meet the
disposal standards. EPA should discuss these risks in the FEIS and
consider them in setting the standards. (P-17, 1-4, 1-10, F-8, F-15,
H-18, H-23)
Response: The risks to remedial action workers and the public for
various tailings disposal options have now been analyzed (see Section
6.4 of the FEIS), and were considered in selecting the Final Standards.
Comment 6; As Congress has determined that proper isolation of
tailings is needed, the standards should be sufficient to insure that
the piles are not left at marginal sites. (S-14)
Response; Congress stipulated that DOE will perform remedial
actions to comply with EPA's standards. The standards require that
account be taken of both site characteristics and engineering
limitations. We believe, for example, that dikes and other erosion
control technologies can provide a significant enhancement of a site's
natural stability characteristics.
Comment 7: EPA should consider it the social responsibility of
the uranium mill owners to clean up their own mess—if possible. (P-21)
Response; EPA's mandate under PL 95-604 is to set standards for
remedial actions, not to assess responsibility. The Department of
Justice, however, is required by Section 115 of PL 95-604 to determine
whether any person who owned, operated, or controlled any of the
inactive processing sites is legally liable for reclamation or remedial
action costs.
D-29
-------
Comment 8: The Proposed Standards are too close to naturally
occurring levels of radium and radon. (F-15, H-2, H-5)
Response; In developing the remedial action standards, EPA took
into consideration naturally-occurring radioactivity levels. A
discussion of these levels are included in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.
Because the Proposed Standards were close to background levels, a
number of potential problems in implementing them were identified
during the comment period. To avoid remedial actions where costs are
high relative to their small potential benefits, and to simplify the
measurement problems, the Final Standards have been set at levels more
readily distinguishable from background than the Proposed Standards.
Comment 9: The Proposed Standards are inadequate because they are
based on the standards for maximum levels recommended by the BEIR
Committee. (P-14)
Response: The comment is incorrect. First, the BEIR Committee
did not recommend standards; rather, at EPA's request they reviewed the
scientific evidence on the risk associated with low levels of radiation.
EPA used these estimates, in part, to assess the risks associated with
tailings. Second, our Proposed Standards were based on an assessment
of the degree to which hazards could reasonably be reduced, taking
account of costs, technical, and social factors.
D.3.2 Cost Estimates
Comment 1; EPA has underestimated the costs to implement the
Proposed Standards. Cost estimates are too low by a factor of two or
more. (1-3, I-10, F-14, H-13, H-18)
Response; Cost estimates used in the DEIS were expressed in 1978
dollars. Costs of some construction activities, especially those that
are sensitive to shifts in energy costs, have increased substantially
between 1978 and 1981. We have revised our cost estimates to reflect
these changes and have also included previously omitted costs for
engineering, field supervision, contingencies, and for reclamation of
borrow pits. Our cost estimates for specific remedial activities now
approximately agree with those provided us by industry commenters.
Details of our cost estimates are given in Appendix B of the FEIS.
Comment 2; The sources used by EPA for computing the costs of
various type of work, e. g., Dodge (Do78) and Means (Mn77), represent
costs for the small commercial and residential market and do not
compare favorably to costs incurred with heavy earthworks or industrial
construction. (1-10)
D-30
-------
Response: The statement is incorrect. The Dodge Guide edition we
used for estimating costs is specifically directed towards public works
and heavy construction. The Means publication includes costs for heavy
construction as well as for commercial and residential construction.
The cost estimates we used were for heavy construction. In many cases,
unit costs for heavy construction projects should be lower than for
light construction because of economies of scale.
Comment 3; EPA assumes a nearby source of suitable clay is
available at no cost. In some locations, a suitable clay is either
nonexistent or very scarce; if clay is available, it is only at a
considerable distance. (1-10, H-18)
Response: In the DEIS we analyzed costs for disposal methods that
use clay as a liner material under a pile and as part of a cover over a
pile. Contrary to the comment, we included purchasing clay in the
analysis (DEIS, Tables B-7 to B-ll). Our present analysis (FEIS,
Chapter 6 and Appendix B) does not use clay for most alternatives,
whether disposal occurs in-place or at a new site. It is sensible to
presume that a selection criterion for a new site would be its inherent
ability to protect against ground water contamination, so a clay liner
would not be needed. We further presume that where in-place disposal
could not satisfy a given set of water protection standards, installing
a clay liner is not likely to be favored over moving the pile to a
better disposal site. We believe our current cost analysis is more
realistic in these respects than the one in the DEIS.
Since the role of clay in our cost analysis is now small (see
FEIS, Tables B-2 and B-3), the cost of obtaining it is not very
significant. Furthermore, special clays are not needed for use as part
of a cover; local clay is adequate. We believe it is reasonable and
appropriate, in our analysis of average costs under alternative
disposal standards, to assume that clay may be bought locally. We
recognize that actual costs for various disposal operations may be
higher or lower at specific locations than the average costs used in
our analysis.
Comment 4: The EPA's cost estimates did not include costs for
engineering, field supervision, or contingencies. (1-3, I-10, H-18)
Response: The costs for engineering, field supervision, and
contingencies were omitted from the EPA cost estimates in the DEIS, but
are included in the FEIS. We increased our remedial action cost
estimates by 50% to account for engineering, overhead, profit, and
contingencies. Since the remedial actions to be performed do not
require the high quality of engineering design and supervision required
in other heavy construction (e.g., earth fill dams), we believe that
this 50% increase is adequate.
D-31
-------
Comment 5; EPA's cost estimates do not include costs of
reclaiming the land from which top soil, cover, or rip rap is
obtained. (1-10, H-18).
Response: Reclamation of the borrow pits for obtaining top soil,
earth cover, clay, and rip rap was not considered in the DEIS, but is
included in the revised cost estimates in the FEIS.
Comment 6; EPA's cost estimates do not include costs for cleanup
around mill sites, remedial action at offsite locations where tailings
were used as fill material, survey and decontamination of used
equipment, burial of contaminated equipment, demolition and disposal of
buildings, or reclamation of the mill sites. (1-3, 1-10, H-18)
Response: The cost analysis in the FEIS covers remedial actions
for contaminated structures, mill yards, and other remnants of mill
operations. We estimated these costs as being independent of the
standards (See FEIS, Table B-4). Costs for cleanup of contaminated
land at the mill site and in the vicinity of the mill are discussed in
Chapter 7 of the FEIS.
Comment 7; EPA did not perform a cost-benefit or regulatory
impact analysis consistent with the requirements of Executive Order
12291. (1-4, 1-10, H-18).
Response; Executive Order 12291 was not in effect when the
cleanup and disposal standards were proposed, on April 22, 1980 and
January 9, 1981, respectively. Under Executive Order 12291, EPA must
judge whether a regulation is "major" and, therefore, subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact Analysis. That order requires such
an analysis if the regulation would result in (1) An annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more; (2) A major increase in costs or
prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local
government agencies or geographic regions; or (3) Significant adverse
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innova-
tion, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete
with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or export markets.
This regulation is not major, because (1) we expect the total
costs of the remedial action program in any calendar year to be less
than $100 million; (2) States bear only 10% of these costs; and (3) we
anticipate no significant adverse affects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, or innovation.
The costs and benefits of these standards are discussed in the
FEIS.
D-32
-------
D.4 Disposal Standards
D.4.1 Radon Standard
Comment 1: Radon emissions to the open air are not a significant
health hazard, therefore no basis exists for a radon standard. Radon
emissions from unstabilized tailings piles do not produce measurable
concentrations even at short distances from the pile. At distances
greater than one-fourth to one-half mile from the tailings pile, the
incremental radon concentrations caused by the pile are only a small
fraction of the fluctuation of the natural radon background in the
area. (P-19, 1-4, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, F-ll, F-14, H-5, H-18)
Response: EPA believes that a limit on radon emissions from
tailings piles is necessary for several reasons. The most important is
that a radon emission standard implies the need for sufficient earthen
cover (or its equivalent) to provide an acceptable assurance of
stabilization and isolation of the tailings over a long period of
time. This is a major goal of the disposal standards because the
greatest hazard from tailings occurs when they are displaced or removed
from the piles and placed under or near buildings. Accordingly, the
radon emission standard serves the purpose of requiring adequate
isolation and stabilization to control both human intrusion and erosion
by natural forces.
The radon emissions standard serves also to limit the risk to
nearby individuals and the impact of radon on large populations. Our
analysis predicts significant harm to people living near tailings
piles, and field measurements confirm elevated levels of radon in air
close to the piles. We estimate that an individual residing
permanently very near an unstablized pile could incur as much as 4
chances in a hundred of a fatal lung cancer. For individuals at
greater distances the risks are much smaller, but the total number of
people exposed is so large and exposure continues for so long that the
collective risk is clearly significant (many thousands of lung cancers
over the duration of emissions from all of the piles). The fact that
increases in radon levels due to the piles have not been measured more
than about 1/2 mile away from a pile does not mean that radon is not
present or that there is no increased risk from this radon—it merely
means that measurement techniques are not capable of detecting such
small increments to a fluctuating background.
Comment 2; The cost-to-benefit ratio has not been adequately
considered in setting the radon emission standard. Proper
consideration would lead to a much higher standard. (S-7, S-ll, S-16,
1-3, 1-4, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, F-14, H-10, H-13, H-18)
Response; We have reevaluated the costs and benefits of
alternative standards and have revised the radon emission standard
ry
upward from 2 to 20 pCi/m s. This revised standard will provide more
D-33
-------
than 96% of benefits expected from the Proposed Standard, but at a
substantial cost reduction (see Chapter 6 of FE1S). Under the revised
emission limit, the risk to the most exposed individual would.be
reduced to a few chances in a thousand.
We conclude from our analysis that a still higher radon emission
standard, such as 100 pCi/m2s, would result in significant risks to
individuals (up to 1 chance in 100 of lung cancer), a significant
impact on populations (20% of the risk from unstabilized piles),
inadequate protection against erosion and intrusion, and yet achieve
only a small additional reduction in cost.
Comment 3: The radon standard for disposal sites should be a
concentration standard, not an emission standard. We recommend
standards of 30 pCi/1 at 3 feet above the surface of the pile and 3
pCi/1 at the boundary of the property. These concentrations would be
consistent with NRC's radiation protection standards (10 CFR 20). Such
standards would be equivalent to a flux of 100 pCi/m^s for a
stabilized pile and result in a significant cost saving over the EPA
proposed standard of 2 pCi/m2s. (p-14)
Response: The commenter's alternative radon standard of 30 pCi/1
is equivalent to the Federal Radiation Protection Guide (RPG) for
exposure of workers. Likewise, the commenter's alternative standard of
3.0 pCi/1 at the property boundary is equivalent to the RPG for
exposure of the general population. These guides are not intended as
acceptable radiation levels; rather, exposure in any given situation
should be kept "as far below (these) guides as practicable." In this
context, the commenter's suggestion implies that it is not generally
practicable to attain lower values, but the commenter does not provide
any basis for such a conclusion.
The Agency agrees that the proposed disposal standard should be
revised to a more cost-effective value and has made appropriate changes
(see response to Comment 2, above). Furthermore, we have provided an
alternative to the emission standard, in the form of a radon
concentration standard at the edge of the tailings pile. Both forms of
the final standard provide approximately equivalent health and
environmental protection.
Comment 4: The naturally-occurring radon emission rates from
soil, with a clearly stated range, should be included in the FE1S. If
as stated in the DEIS, 3.0 pCi/m2s from soil is not unusual, justifi-
cation for a standard below this value may be difficult. (F-7)
Response; The average radon emission rate from North American
soils is probably close to 0.7 pCiVm^s, but extremes as high as
7 pCi/m^s have been observed in some regions. If cost-benefit
considerations support a standard below the upper range of existing
D-34
-------
natural levels, we would consider the standard justified in spite of
the existence of some higher natural emission rates. However, the
radon emission standard has been revised to a more cost-effective value
that is clearly above natural levels (See response to Comment 2, above),
Comment 5: NRC licensees must place at least three meters of
cover over tailings at the end of milling operations. EPA has not
proposed minimum cover requirements for inactive sites. We agree with
EPA's approach. The depth of cover should be a site-specific
determination. (S-20)
Response: EPA's responsibility under PL 95-604 is to set
generally applicable health and environmental protection standards for
the remedial action program. DOE has the responsibility to select
specific remedial methods to satisfy our standards.
Comment 6: EPA states that "After disposal, the radon emission
standard is satisfied if the emission rate is less than or equal to 2
pCi/m2s plus the emission rate expected from the disposal materials."
This wording indicates that radon flux measurements will be required to
determine compliance with the standard following reclamation. Flux
measurements are unreliable and highly variable and would require
lengthy time-averaged measurements. The EPA standard should not
require the use of such flux measurements. (F-13)
Response: The statement has been eliminated. A footnote to
Section 192.02 of the Final Standard states that "(b)ecause the
standard applies to design, monitoring after disposal is not required
to demonstrate compliance." Pre-disposal emission rate estimates will
be needed, however, in order to design a disposal system that will
provide reasonable assurance of satisfying the numerical radon emission
requirement of the standard. We believe it is adequate to base
estimates of pre- and post-remediation long-term emission rates on the
radium content of the tailings and gaseous diffusion theory.
Comment 7: Footnote 7 in the Federal Register Notice (46 FR 2556)
contains an error. If the half-value layer (HVL) of radon diffusion
through soil is 50 cm, then the cover required to reduce radon emission
by 10 percent is 7.6 cm, not 1 cm as the footnote indicates. (P-19)
Response: We agree, and have made the appropriate corrections in
our calculations.
D-35
-------
Comment 8: EPA should clarify that the radon emission standard is
in addition to the radon emissions from cover materials. Furthermore
the reference to "disposal materials" in the note is confusing and
should be changed to "cover materials." (S-20, F-13)
Response: These issues are clarified in the Final Standard (see
footnote to Section 192.02).
Comment 9; The disposal standard is inconsistent with the cleanup
standard For open lands with regard to radon emissions into air. (l-l»
F-ll, H-l)
Response: These standards address different problems. The
cleanup standard for land addresses exposure of people directly to
gamma radiation and release of radon gas into future buildings on the
land. The disposal standard limits radon emissions from tailings piles
to the open air and provides for stabilization and isolation of the
tailings. Therefore, there is no need for comparability between the
radon emission standard (disposal standard) and the estimated radon
emissions from contaminated land under the cleanup standard. We
developed them independently by considering the health benefits and
costs of a range of alternative standards for each class of
circumstances.
D.4.2 Water Standards
Comment 1: Specific ground water standards are not required for
inactive sites because it is unlikely that significant seepage can
occur in the arid climates in which most sites are located. The piles
are unlikely to cause any significant or hazardous contamination of
drinking water supplies. Such problems as do arise may be addressed on
a case-by-case basis by DOE. (1-4)
Response: Adequate assessments have not been performed, but
available information suggests that most inactive sites pose little
threat to ground water, so that numerical standards may not be needed
to provide health protection. Furthermore, inflexible standards could
force large expenditures at a few sites, while providing only marginal
improvement in health and environmental protection. (At least one site
is in a wet climate, however, and tailings at several sites are in
contact with the water table.) In view of this, we agree that any
ground water problems that may become apparent at a few sites as new
assessments are performed should be dealt with in consideration of
pertinent site-specific circumstances. The final standard, therefore
does not have explicit water protection requirements. We believe,
however, that the need to protect ground water for purposes other than
drinking by people should be considered in determining site-specific
water protection requirements.
D-36
-------
Comment 2: EPA should not apply "drinking water standards" to
underground water that may not be used for drinking. Such standards
are too stringent for protection of underground aquifers. Drinking
water standards should be applied only where water is actually used or
may reasonably be expected to be used for drinking. (1-4, 1-10, H-9,
H-18)
Response; The basic requirement of the Proposed Standard for
ground water is that underground water of any quality not be degraded
by releases of specified substances from tailings. We used the
concentration limits of the National ^nterim P_rimary Drinking Water
Regulations (not the NIPDWR themselves) only to define a category of
water that needn't be thus protected: that is, water that was already
within the concentration limits of the NIPDWR could be degraded up to
those limits under the Proposed Standards. Without use of such
concentration limits nondegradation would have applied to all ground
water.
Comment 3; Non-degradation of water quality should be required:
(a) in areas where water is scarce (P-ll); (b) even for water whose
existing quality is below the limits in Table A of the Proposed
Standard (P-22); (c) when natural background levels exceed the limits
in Table A of the Proposed Standard. (S-14)
Non-degradation as proposed is excessive because it ignores the
purpose for which the water will be used. Water should be protected
only to levels consistent with existing and future uses. (1-3, 1-8,
1-10, F-13)
Response; We believe these comments have merit, even when some
may appear contradictory. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages
of various approaches to water protection in Chapter 8 of the FEIS.
Protecting water sufficiently so that its usefulness (according to
current water quality criteria) is not impaired may be considered
adequate if providing more complete protection is very costly. For
this remedial action program, we believe such issues are best resolved
by site-specific evaluation of both the potential hazards and the
technical and economic aspects of providing various degrees of
protection.
Comment 4; Non-degradation or no releases are probably not
practical because: (a) the tailings would have to be completely dried
and sealed forever against water (F-5); (b) of contamination that may
already be present. (F-8)
Response: (a) As we discussed in the FEIS (Chapter 8) it may be
difficult to decide whether a given disposal method satisfies specific
D-37
-------
long-term standards. We don't think the particular techniques referred
to in the comment generally would be needed to satisfy the Proposed
Standards. However, the Proposed Standard might, in some cases, bring
about very expensive disposal methods, even where no definite threat to
water quality had been established, (b) We don't understand how the
practicality of limiting pollution from future contaminant releases
from the tailings is affected by past releases. Existing contamination,
however, certainly would complicate future monitoring efforts to
determine whether any remedial actions taken to control releases had
been effective.
Comment 5: The standards should apply at 0.1 km for either new or
existing sites. This will make it more difficult for a poor site to be
accepted for final disposal. Contamination from a pile could travel
through ground water and enter surface water within 1km of the pile.
(S-14, S-18, H-7)
It is inadvisable to set a single distance for all existing sites
because of variations in conditions among the sites. A single distance
of application seems more justified for new disposal sites. (F-8)
Response: Although adequate studies have not been made, there is
little evidence of ground water contamination near the inactive mill
sites covered by PL 95-604. DOE will continue to study these sites as
it develops disposal plans, but we expect that few sites will be found
to constitute significant long-term pollution sources. Since complete
protection for ground water at those few sites may require moving the
piles, which is a very disruptive and expensive procedure, we believe
adequate levels of protection should be decided taking account of local
conditions. As we may infer from these comments, any fixed distance
for applying water protection standards at existing sites can sometimes
be inappropriate. We had proposed to apply such standards 1.0 km from
existing sites to provide needed flexibility. Because we have now
decided not to set water protection standards, however, the issue of
where to apply standards no longer needs to be addressed.
Comment 6; Applying the standards at arbitrary points is
unreasonable. Underground water can cause harm only at the place it is
used. The proposed standards could cause large expenditures for no
health benefits. (1-8, 1-10)
Response; We have decided not to set water protection standards
in part to avoid the possibility that such standards could bring about
large expenditures for very little benefit. Protecting future water
users, however, is a major benefit of avoiding pollution of potentially
useful ground water resources, even those that are not currently being
used.
D-38
-------
Comment 7: The proposed Language for the surface water standard
is vague, arbitrary, and capricious. One cannot determine what EPA
means by "harmful". Furthermore, the Proposed Standard does not take
account of the character of the receiving water and applies even to
intermittent streams that are not used as significant sources of
drinking water. The standards would also apply to hypothetical future
uses, which are totally speculative. (1-8)
Response: We agree that the term "harmful", used without further
qualification or definition, is too vague. We note, however, that the
proposed surface water standard would protect waters of all quality,
not just those used for human drinking water. Livestock and wildlife
use even intermittent streams in regions where surface water is
scarce. The basic issue of whether the Proposed Standard is too broad,
however, has been made moot by our decision not to address water
protection directly in the final standards.
Comment 8: EPA's definition of an "underground source of drinking
water" is contrary to common sense. The definition includes sources
with up to 10,000 mg/1 of total dissolved solids (TDS) whereas water
containing even 1,000 mg/1 TDS is considered brackish. Moreover, EPA
has not provided for exempting certain aquifers as it does in its
regulations for underground injection controls. (1-3, 1-4, 1-8)
Response: The Proposed Standards would protect underground water
sources whose use is not currently economic because extensive treatment
would be needed. We stated in the DEIS our belief that EPA's general
policy to protect such sources reflected Congressional intentions. The
commenters are correct in noting that the Agency has found exemptions
to this policy justified under certain circumstances. However, the
issue of whether to allow these same or other exemptions for tailings
disposal is now moot, because the final standards do not specify water
protection requirements.
Comment 9: The definitions of "underground source of drinking
water" is too broad and unreasonable because it does not consider
whether the water is actually used by a significant population, or
whether it might be cheaper to provide the users with alternative water
supplies. EPA has also not considered State laws that may restrict use
of a water source. (1-8)
Response: The Proposed Standards would apply over at least 1000
years. Current use of a given water source is not a good indicator of
the extent it might be used over such a lengthy period in the future.
It is prudent to assume water sources might be used over such a period
and to provide alternative water sources to current users, but it is
not reasonable to expect that the needs of users over the next 1000
years could be adequately satisfied in that manner. Considering the
D-39
-------
time over which the Proposed Standard would apply, therefore, it was
appropriate not to consider the factors addressed in the comment.
Under the Final Standards, however, the implementing agencies will
determine water protection requirements site-specifically, taking
account of any factors they determine to be pertinent.
Comment 10: Normal background levels of some substances already
exceed the concentration levels given in the Proposed Standards. This
could require extensive exemptions. (S-18, H-7)
Response: As we indicated above (see Comment 2), the Proposed
Standard would require that water exceeding specified concentration
levels not be degraded by substances released from tailings. With high
background concentrations, this requirement should be relatively easy
to satisfy. The final standards allow the implementers the flexibility
to decide water protection requirements site-specifically, taking
account of all pertinent local factors.
Comment 11: An extensive sampling program could be required to
establish background levels and to determine concentrations present
after disposal. (F-14)
Response: We believe that pre-disposal analysis is needed to
establish whether water pollution has already occurred and the
potential for future pollution. Such information is needed for
designing adequate disposal systems. Available information suggests
that few inactive sites may pose serious long-term threats to water
quality, but more definitive studies are needed. After proper
disposal, however, the need to monitor water should be minimal.
Comment 12: The available means for minimizing the contamination
that reaches the environment are woefully inadequate. (P-8)
Response: We believe that favorable site conditions combined, if
necessary, with simple engineered barriers can control health and
environmental effects from tailings for long periods of time (see
Chapter 5 of the FEIS). Under very unfavorable site conditions,
however, such as wet climate or susceptability to severe floods, more
sophisticated barriers may be needed, or the pile may have to be moved
to a more favorable disposal site.
Comment 13: EPA should set remedial action standards for water
that has been contaminated by releases from tailings piles before
disposal. (P-20) The DEIS does not substantiate the impracticality of
cleanup standards for existing ground water contamination. (P-17)
Existing pollution should be cleaned up to the maximum extent
practicable. (P-22)
D-40
-------
Response; Our decision not to propose such standards is
consistent with our overall approach in the Final Standards of allowing
the implementers to determine water protection requirements for each
site where protective measures may be needed. As discussed in the FEIS
(Chapter 8), we expect the implementers to consider the need for and
practicality of controlling contaminants that have already been
released, and to apply remedies that are found justified. Little, if
any, such pollution has been found, to date, but the searches for it
have not been completed.
Chapter 5 of the FEIS refers to case studies and analyses of
ground water pollution from uranium mills and other pollution sources.
Each case presents its own unique circumstances. Various remedial
actions for ground water pollution from these sites have been
discussed, and, in a few cases, applied. Such remedial actions may
vary considerably in cost and effectiveness. We believe setting
uniform remedial action requirements for inactive uranium mill sites is
not feasible, because we don't know whether such standards could be
satisfied, nor what the cost might be. We have concluded that such
remedial action decisions should be made by the implementers on a
case-by-case basis. This is equivalent to a "standard" that requries
remedial actions to attain residual contamination levels that are "as
low as reasonably achievable", because the implementers will determine
a practical end-result. We would not agree with the last comment
above, however, if the suggestion is to clean up existing pollution to
the maximum extent that can be accomplished, regardless of the cost.
Comment 14; EPA's review (DEIS, Appendix C) of the toxicities of
nonradioactive substances found in tailings is deficient. Higher
concentration values than those in Table A of the Proposed Standard
would adequately protect people. (1-4, 1-5, 1-8, 1-10, H-19)
Response; We have reconsidered available data on the toxicity of
these substances, including information provided by commenters.
Appendix C of the FEIS reflects this reconsideration; additional
responses to the scientific content of the comments are given below.
For reasons we describe elsewhere (FEIS, Chapter 8 and Appendix A),
however, the Final Standards do not contain explicit water protection
requirements. The implementing agencies will instead determine any
necessary water protection requirements site-specifically. Therefore,
the issues raised by commenters regarding our judgements in proposing
specific values for Table A are now moot.
We note, however, that the methods by which long-term water
protection requirements for tailings disposal are implemented are only
semi-quantitative. They involve long-term projections based on
hydrogeochemical models and are inevitably imprecise. Therefore, the
exact contents of protection requirements for this remedial action
D-41
-------
program are not critical; the values in Table A could have been several
times higher or lower without a significant change in projected health
protection. The values would be much more critical, however, for
standards determining the quality of public water supplies. Public
drinking water supplies serve millions of people, and the quality of
their water may readily be precisely measured.
Comment 15: Ground water protection standards are needed for
uranium and thorium, because their high expected mobility in ground
water can make them hazardous (P-2), and for thorium-230, lead-210, and
vanadium, because their high mobility makes them good indicators of
pollution. (S-14)
Response: Table A of the Proposed Standards covered uranium
explicitly and addressed thorium implicitly by stating a concentration
level for alpha radioactivity. We selected the substances listed in
Table A based on their abundance in tailings, toxicity, and mobility
under most conditions. The proposed list would also protect against
many other substances whose environmental chemistry is similar to that
of listed substances. We believe any benefits of extending the list
would be marginal. Under the Final Standards, however, the imple-
menting agencies will determine water protection requirements
site-specifically. We would have no objection if they addressed
substances we had not listed in the Proposed Standard, especially
if local circumstances indicated a need to do so.
Comment 16; Based on long-term epidemological studies and on
recent recommendations by the International Commission on Radiation
Protection (ICRP), raising the EPA drinking water standard for
radium-226 and radium-228 to at least 30pCi/l can be shown to have a
safety factor of at least 1,000 to 10,000 with respect to the
internationally accepted maximum permissible body burden standard for
radium of 0.1 microcuries. (P-19)
Response: The basic issues raised by the commenter were
considered when EPA established the National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations (NIPDWR) (EPA76). We note, however, that the maximum
permissible body burden referred to above is an upper limit for healthy
adult radiation workers. The risk associated with that limit is higher
for some people than for others, and smaller body burdens are clearly
desirable. We believe radioactivity standards for drinking water
supplied to the general public should be determined by independent
consideration of the costs and benefits of improving supplies and not
by applying an arbitrary safety factor to the upper limits established
for occupational radiation protection. With respect to the Proposed
Standards for disposal of uranium mill tailings, however, the issue
raised by the commenter is moot, because the Final Standards do not
specify concentrations of radioactivity in water.
D-42
-------
Comment 17: The Proposed Standard for uranium in water is
arbitrary and has no sound scientific basis. Other standard-setting or
advisory bodies, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the
International Commission on Radiological Protection, and the States of
New Mexico and Wyoming, have much higher limits. (1-4, 1-5, 1-10,
S-20, H-16)
Response: We review the toxicity of uranium in Appendix C of the
EIS. Uranium is chemically toxic to the kidneys and radiotoxic to the
bones. The radiation effect of uranium ingestion, which is primarily
bone cancer, may pose a greater health hazard than the chemical effects,
but existing standards for uranium in water are based on its chemical
toxicity. (The considerations discussed in the first paragraph of the
response to Comment 3 in Section D.4.1 apply here as well, however.)
Our proposed disposal standards used numerical values taken from
standards for drinking water (but in a different context—see response
to Comment 2, above). Ingested radium also irradiates bone, and a
limit for radium in drinking water has been established. Therefore,
we proposed a disposal standard for uranium in water that would give an
estimated dose to bone comparable to the dose from ingesting radium at
the drinking water concentration limit. We recognize that this is not
a fully satisfactory method for setting disposal standards.
For reasons we present in Chapter 8 and Appendix A of the FEIS, we
have decided that the disadvantages of setting numerical water
protection requirements for disposal of tailings from inactive mills
outweigh the advantages. The final standards, therefore, allow the
implementing agencies to determine water protection requirements
site-specifically, guided by State and Federal Water Quality Criteria
for anticipated or existing uses of water (see 40 CFR 192.20(a)).
Comment 18; Short-term variations in uranium concentrations in
ground water occur naturally. It would be unreasonable to assume that
small concentration increases were necessarily caused by a nearby
tailings pile. If EPA issues a ground water standard for uranium, it
should take account of natural ground water variability. (1-5)
Response: EPA's proposed and final standards apply only to
residual radioactive materials (i.e., tailings), not to substances that
are present naturally. EPA has emphasized the need for reasonable
implementation of these standards. Under the final standards, the
implementing agencies will determine water protection requirements
site-specifically. We agree that natural concentration variations
should be considered in assessing whether tailings piles are affecting
neighboring ground water.
Comment 19; The National Academy of Sciences (NAS), in EPA
publication R3-73-033, March 1973, recommends 0.10 mg/liter as the
D-43
-------
maximum contaminant level (MCL) of arsenic in drinking water. The DEIS
recommendation of 0.05 mg/liter is too restrictive, and pentavalent
arsenic is harmless and should be excluded from the calculation. (1-8)
Response: The first part of the comment is correct—for 1973. In
the review of arsenic toxicity in the National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations (EPA76), EPA concluded that the MCL for arsenic in
drinking water should be 0.05 mg/liter, but did not comment on trivalent
vs. pentavalent forms. The 1977 NAS review (NAS77) concluded that "if
the time factors for the development of (skin) cancer are shown to be
reasonable, then the current interim standard (for arsenic) of 50
ug/liter may not provide an adequate margin of safety." The NAS stated
that pentavalent forms are more readily absorbed than trivalent forms,
but trivalent forms are more toxic than pentavalent—perhaps 8 to 10
times more toxic. However, in comparable studies in rats, sodium
arsenite (trivalent) was only twice as toxic as sodium arsenate
(pentavalent) (Ve78).
Given the uncertainty in the valence and chemical form of arsenic
in water and in concentrations at which human health effects can be
observed, a maximum contaminant level of 0.05 mg/liter for arsenic in
drinking water does not appear too restrictive. With reference to
disposal standards for uranium mill tailings, however, the issue is
moot, because our Final Standards do not specify concentrations of
toxic substances in water.
Comment 20; Since fatal toxicity occurs after consumption of 550
to 600 milligrams of barium chloride, even consumption of 100 liters a
day of water containing 1 mg/liter of barium would be less than the
minimum toxic amount. Even if people consumed two liters of water
containing 5 mg of barium per liter, there would be a very large safety
factor. (1-8)
Response; The comment is correct as far as it goes. While a
single oral dose of 550 to 600 milligrams of barium as barium choride
would rapidly cause death, consumption of 1 mg of barium per liter in
drinking water would not. Rapid death is not the only condition health
protection standards should address, however. Consumption of barium at
low concentrations may cause chronic toxicity disease.
Death rates from cardiovascular disease in communities whose
drinking water contains 2.0 to 10.0 mg of barium per liter have been
compared with those whose drinking water contains 0 to 0.2 mg of barium
per liter (Br79). Communities with the higher barium concentrations in
drinking water had significantly higher death rates for arteriosclerosis
and for all causes of death. The authors point out that confounding
factors exist and any inferences on Che health effect of barium should
be drawn with caution. If the observations can be confirmed, a
concentration of 1.0 mg/liter in drinking water may be too high. With
D-44
-------
reference to disposal standards for uranium mill tailings, however, the
issue is moot, because our Final Standards do not specify concentra-
tions of toxic substances in water.
Comment 21; The Proposed Standard for chromium, 0.05 mg per
liter, is too restrictive. The DEIS acknowledges that lifetime
exposure of laboratory animals to less than 5 mg/1 in drinking water
caused no reported effects. There is a case in which a family on Long
Island used ground water containing 20 times the Proposed Standard for
several years without apparent ill effects. (1-8)
Response; The commenter's source for the last statement is an
anecdotal report by Dr. Victor Zalma (NM76). Dr. Zalma also stated:
"However, the family refused to submit to physical examination and
laboratory workup." Therefore, we do not consider this report an
adequate basis for setting health protection standards. Our Final
Standards for disposal of tailings piles do not specify concentrations
of toxic substances in water, however, so the issue is moot in this
context.
Comment 22; The Proposed Standards set maximum concentrations for
only six of the ten toxic substances. Maximum concentrations are not
set for nickel, beryllium, vanadium and zinc even though the Council on
Environmental Quality has identified nickel, beryllium, zinc oxide and
zinc chloride as possible carcinogens and vanadium as an acute
respiratory irritant. (P-17)
Response: Appendix C of the EIS has been expanded and now
discusses the toxicity of nickel and vanadium. No attempt is made in
the FEIS to discuss possible carcinogenesis for nonradioactive
elements, particularly for elements or compounds identified as
hazardous in occupational inhalation exposure or by atmospheric
exposure pathways (see discussion of hazardous compounds from coal
technology, p. 208-209 in Environmental Quality (CEQ76)). Data on
elements causing cancer following ingestion is sparse and there are not
enough data to develop dose-response curves.
Comment 23: The proposed molybdenum concentration of 0.05
mg/liter is arbitrary and unsupported. The apparent toxicity of
molybdenum is low. (1-4) There is no scientific data to show that 0.05
mg/liter of molybdenum is injurious to humans. (1-5, 1-8, 1-10) The
proposed molybdenum level is lower than necessary, misinterpreting the
reference used. It is unnecessary to specify a level for molybdenum.
If a level is set, both toxicity and deficiency conditions should be
considered. (H-17, H-18)
D-45
-------
Response; We consider the basic policy issue raised by these
comments-—that the Proposed Standard for molybdenum was too low—to be
moot, because the Final Standard does not specify concentrations of
toxic substances in water. Nevertheless, we agree that the DEIS gave
insufficient attention to molybdenum deficiency, and have corrected
this in Appendix C of the FEIS. However, there are data that strongly
suggest that ingestion of excess molybdenum is toxic.
In regard to deficiency: The National Academy of Sciences
estimated that the "Adequate and Safe Intake" of molybdenum ranges from
0.03 to 0.06 mg/day in infants to 0.15 to 0.50 mg/day in adults
(NASSOc). The estimated daily intake of molybdenum in adults in the
U.S. is 0.335 mg/day (range 0.21 to 0.46 mg/day) (Sc70). Children
might have a daily intake one half as great as adults (NASSOb). It
appears unlikely that molybdenum deficiency would occur in persons
eating a regular diet even if there were no molybdenum in their
drinking water.
The National Academy did not review recent reports associating
molybdenum deficiency with increased incidence of esophageal cancer
(LubSOa, LubSOb), although the association had been noted earlier
Bub66). Perhaps resolution of the molybdenum esophageal cancer
relationship will allow more accurate description of the range of
required intake of molybdenum.
In regard to toxicity: Although a definite cause-effect
relationship has not been established, a bone-crippling disease has
been observed in India in areas where sorghum contains high concentra-
tions of molybdenum (FDA75). Arthralgia has been reported in
copper-molybdenum plant workers in Russia (Fra75).
Reports of similar clinical complaints from an area of Armenia
where soil concentrations of molybdenum and copper are high have
provided some quantitative data. Symptoms of a gout-like condition
with arthralgia and joint deformities were reported in villages where
10-15 mg of molybdenum was consumed per day. Symptoms occurred among
31% of adults in one village, and 18% in another. In a control area
where molybdenum intake was 1 to 2 mg/day the incidence of symptoms
was 1% to 4% (K061, Yab64). There is a known nutritional interaction
between molybdenum and copper, and the molybdenum-copper ratio was 2
to 1 in the high molybdenum area and 1 to 7 in the control area.
Therefore, the findings of these studies are not definitive. Perhaps
the incidence of symptoms would be lower in the high molybdenum area if
the copper in the diet were higher, or the incidence higher in the
"control" area if there were less copper in the diet.
Comment 24: The Proposed Standard for selenium is too low is
arbitrary and capricious and not based on health considerations! There
is no evidence that selenium is harmful at levels much higher than
0.01 mg/1. (1-8) The genesis of the proposed concentration level
D-46
-------
evidently had its basis in fears that selenium was carcinogenic, but it
is really anti-carcinogenic and is essential to human and animal
nutrition. The daily intake at the proposed limit is 1/35 of the
amount EPA claims is toxic. One U. S. case report and some Chinese
studies indicate cardiomyopathy (Keshan disease) is associated with
selenium deficiency at an intake of 0.01 mg of selenium per day.
Chinese researchers reported no harmful side-effects after supplemental
selenium was given to a large group for three to four years. (1-4)
Response: We consider the basic policy issue raised by these
comments—that the Proposed Standard for selenium is too low—to be
moot, because the Final Standard does not specify concentrations of
toxic substances in water. However, we believe the specific toxicity
issues the commenters cited have not been resolved by the scientific
community as conclusively as they suggested.
Consideration of carcinogenesis may have been important in setting
maximum contaminant levels for selenium in drinking water in 1962, as
referenced by Comment 1-8. If so, there has been no continued associa-
tion of the limit with carcinogenesis, and the essential contribution
of selenium to nutrition has been recognized in connection with water
quality standards (NAS72b, EPA76, NASSOb).
The minimum dietary requirement for selenium may be only 0.02
mg/day (St78). The estimated daily intake of selenium in food is from
0.132 mg/day to 0.216 mg/day (NASSOb). If the minimum level of
selenium causing chronic toxicity is 0.7 mg/day (EPA76), the minimum
safety factor relative to food alone is about 3.5. If one accepts the
National Academy of Science's rationale that a safety factor of 10 is
needed to allow for variations in human response (NAS77), then the
level of selenium provided in food alone may be toxic to some indivi-
duals. The concentration of selenium in water should then be as low as
practicable.
Excessive supplementation of the diet with selenium may not be
safe. A recent report noted two infants with cystic fibrosis whose
clinical condition deteriorated (one died) after they were put on a
relatively low intake of selenium-yeast supplement (Sn81). While
selenium is not shown to be the only cause of the deterioration, the
authors suggest careful consideration of selenium supplementation.
Furthermore, two clusters of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis have been
reported in a high-selenium region in the United States (Ki77, Da78).
While these case reports suffer many of the same deficiencies as the
human epidemiology studies noted below, they and other data strongly
suggest that relatively high intakes of selenium are not hazard free.
One comment suggested that higher intakes of selenium are
advantageous because of its anti-carcinogenic properties. Lo and Sandi
(Lo80) reviewed the reference on animal studies cited by the comment,
plus about 18 more. They concluded that earlier reports of selenium
D-47
-------
induction of cancer in animals are apparently unfounded, and that while
there is some evidence selenium may have anti-carcinogenic properties
in rats, further confirmation and statistical evaluation are needed.
Lo and Sandi also reviewed the references on human epidemiology
cited by the comment, plus 8 more. They point out that there is an
inverse correlation in 27 countries between selenium intake and
mortality rates for leukemia and cancers of the breast, large
intestine, rectum, gastrointestinal tract, prostate, ovary, and lung.
However, there are similar inverse correlations of pancreatic and lung
cancer mortality with manganese and arsenic intake, and direct
correlation for a number of common cancers with intake of selenium
antagonists such as zinc, cadmium, and copper. In a recent report,
Burton, et^ jiJL. studied cancer and drinking water in 100 U. S. cities
and concluded that the mortality rates for a variety of cancers
decrease by up to 10% as the silica concentration in water increases
from 0 to 15 ppm (Buc80). The major deficiencies of such geographic
epidemiology studies are that they often combine outdated and new
survey data, and they seldom have data on all elements, particularly
those known to interact nutritionally with selenium (Sh80). Based on
all the evidence, selenium is probably important in carcinogenesis,
either directly or indirectly, but not enough is known to justify
selenium supplementation of U. S. diets at this time.
The issue of Keshan disease (congestive cardiomyopathy) and
selenium deficiency may not be germane. Chinese investigators have
reported that daily selenium intake in areas not affected by Keshan
disease was "only about 30 micrograms"—well below average U. S.
intakes. They also concluded that, because of seasonal, urban-rural,
and other discrepancies, "while selenium deficiency plays an important
role in Keshan disease it does not explain all the epidemiologic
characteristics of this disease" (KD79a), and "in our opinion, Se
deficiency is not the only cause of Keshan disease" (KD79b). The
treatment the Chinese used to prevent Keshan disease brings average
daily intake into or slightly above the normal average intake range in
the United States.
D.4.3 Period of Application of Standards (Longevity)
Comment 1: The requirement that the disposal standard be met for
at least 1000 years is unreasonable. Experience shows it is difficult
to predict the future for more than a hundred years. A period of
100-200 years is more than an adequate time period. (P-19 1-3 1-4
1-8, 1-10, H-13, H-18)
Response: We consider effect!^ long-term stabilization and
isolation of tailings piles an important goal of disposal because the
tailings will remain hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years. It
is difficult to predict the future, but more so for human societies and
D-48
-------
their institutions than for the physical effects of geological
processes. Uncertainties about the future do not preclude designing
disposal systems, based on analysis of the potential effects of natural
processes over time, that we are reasonably certain will remain
effective for long periods. For tailings in this remedial action
program, we believe it is practical in most cases to provide such
protection for 1,000 years, but at least for 200 years.
Comment 2: The concept of "reasonable assurance" for at least
1,000 years included in the proposed standard is not clearly defined.
Predictive methodology and expert opinions are inadequate substitutes
for experience. Disposal site technologies are being developed and
evaluated and cost-effective systems may not be available for some
years with a confidence level of centuries. We suggest as an alterna-
tive that the sites be carefully monitored and evaluated annually for
10 or 20 years to confirm the efficacy of the stabilization, and to
make any necessary repairs or additions to the stabilization. This
takes advantage of the fact that the sites are to be Government-owned
and fenced, and licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the
indefinite future. (F-9, F-14)
Response: It is not possible to prove that a given disposal
system satisfies disposal standards that apply over a long future time
interval. Rather, one can provide a degree of assurance that depends
on the thoroughness of predisposal site characterization studies and
the ability of the disposal system to resist the disruptive and
dispersive processes that such studies determine could occur. More
exhaustive studies and more secure disposal systems provide greater
assurance of satisfying the standards, but at increased cost. A very
high degree of assurance may be attainable for reasonable costs for
some inactive sites, but providing a comparable degree of assurance for
others may be impractical.
We reviewed the processes that could disrupt tailings over long
time periods and the methods of containing them. We recognize that
experience is limited, and that there remain scientific and engineering
uncertainties about tailings disposal. We have concluded, however,
that implementing the Final Standards is practical. A key element of
this conclusion is the requirement to provide "reasonable assurance"
that the disposal system satisfies the standards. We believe the
implementing agencies, using their detailed knowledge of all the
circumstances for each inactive processing site, should decide
site-specifically the studies and disposal systems that are required to
provide reasonable assurance. We are confident that the implementation
process Congress established, wherein DOE selects and performs remedial
actions with NRC's concurrence and the full participation of the
affected State, is adequate and appropriate for making the required
determinations.
D-49
-------
Post-disposal monitoring and evaluations are no substitute for
standards that state the objectives of disposal systems. As we
indicated above, disposal system designs should be based on analyses
of the physical properties of disposal sites and the effects of natural
processes over time. Monitoring and evaluations are useful for deter-
mining post-disposal performance of the disposal systems, but are not
required to demonstrate compliance with the standards. We believe
Congress provided for Federal ownership and licensing for added
protection, not as replacements for adequate long-term disposal
standards.
Comment 3; EPA required a thousand years as the period of
application of the disposal standard so that the disposal of tailings
could not be accomplished by reliance on maintenance and institutional
control. Such a requirement is impractical. The assumption that
institutional controls will fail in about 100 years is false. Reliance
on some active maintenance and institutional controls is a reasonable
approach in view of the relatively low-levels of risk involved and the
isolation of most sites. (1-4, 1-7, 1-8, 1-10)
Response: We have not assumed that institutions will fail in 100
years. Rather, we have concluded that it is neither reasonable nor
necessary to rely on institutions for long-term care of radioactive
waste. Passive control methods are preferable because their perform-
ance can be more accurately projected. Furthermore, based on our
analysis (FEIS Chapter 6), we expect passive disposal methods, though
somewhat costlier than active ones, will provide greater benefits in
the long run. We believe that maintenance and other institutional
controls are useful adjuncts to otherwise adequate disposal methods,
but, to the degree that is practical, they should not be relied on for
basic long-term protec- tion. As we describe elsewhere (see FEIS,
Appendix A), the legislative history of PL 95-604 shows that this
judgment is consistent with the role Congress intended for permanent
Federal custodianship of tailings disposal sites.
Comment 4; Controls should be specified for periods greater than
1,000 years. Ten thousand years control is practical and can be
economically achieved. Justification for limiting control to 1,000
years is based on the uncertainty of computational models, theories,
and expert judgment; however, most of these are equally good at 10 000
years. (S-18, F-6, F-7, F-13, H-7, H-8)
Response: We selected 1,000 years as the upper range of the time
period for which there is reasonable assurance that controls will
remain effective. In our view, the uncertainties in the effectiveness
of control increase significantly in fhe 1,000- to 10,000-year period.
This uncertainty can be illustrated with a simple assessment of
average erosion rates. Erosion rates for the Colorado River Basin are
D-50
-------
reported to be between 9 and 25 centimeters per 1,000 years based on
measurements of the amount of material carried by the river (Fo71,
Haa75, Yo75). These erosion rates would not impair the effectiveness
of a 3-meter earthen cover in a 1,000-year period. However, in 10,000
years, 2.5 meters of the cover would be eroded away if the high end of
the range is attained. In contrast, if only the low end of the range
is reached, 0.9 meters in 10,000 years, such a cover could remain
reasonably effective. While these values lack refinement and do not
reflect the particular site characteristics of any given tailings pile,
they do serve to illustrate the range of uncertainties inherent in such
long periods. Several similar considerations are discussed in Section
5.2 of the FEIS.
We believe that a 10,000 year standard for general application at
all inactive sites would be too stringent for reasonable implementation.
In view of the generally large uncertainties, remedial actions for many
sites would be extreme, requiring relocation of many piles, very thick
covers heavily reinforced with rock, and/or burial of tailings below
grade in specially-dug pits. As shown in Chapter 6 and Appendix B of
the FEIS, disposal by these methods is very costly, and also tends to
be socially and environmentally disruptive. Moreover, we believe that
a 10,000 year standard would present greater technical challenges and
higher risks of substantial unplanned costs than is wise in a program
to provide remedies for an undesirable existing situation.
D.5 Cleanup Standards
D.5.1 Radium-226 in Soil Standard
Comment 1; EPA should raise the proposed open lands cleanup
standard for radium-226 to 10-15 pCi/g or increase the surface soil
thickness specification to the top 15 cm of soil. This change will
substantially reduce the amount of land that will need to be cleaned up
without any significant loss of public health protection. (F-ll, F-14,
H-l, H-2)
Response; We have examined the costs and benefits of alternative
standards ranging from 5 to 30 pCi/g and for different surface
thicknesses. Costs for cleanup of land surfaces are sensitive to the
selected limit; costs for removal of most buried tailings are not. In
addition, we considered the difficulty of measuring various levels of
surface contamination, and of identifying and measuring buried
tailings. Detecting low concentrations of buried tailings could be
difficult and nonproductive. As opposed to surface contamination,
which is often windblown and mixed with surface soil, buried tailings
are not expected to occur often in low concentrations, and are less
hazardous when they do. Based on this analysis, we have revised the
standard for surface contamination of soil from 5 pCi/g in the top 5 cm
of soil to 5 pCi/g averaged over the top 15 cm of soil; and the
D-51
-------
standard for subsurface contamination from 5 pCi/g to 15 pCi/g averaged
over 15 cm layers of soil. We believe these standards will result in
essentially the same health protection, but will be much simpler to
implement.
Comment 2; EPA should raise the proposed open lands cleanup
standard of 5 pCi/gm of radium-226 in any 5 cm thickness of soil within
a foot of the surface or in any 15 cm thickness below 1 foot to a more
readily detectable level, or reconsider the practicability of adopting
a radium in soil standard. Measuring radium-226 at the levels (and in
the layer specifications) of the proposed standard and distinguishing
residual radioactive material at these levels from natural background
will be difficult and costly. Many samples will have to be collected
and analyzed to show compliance with the standards. (S-l, S-5, S-15,
1-4, 1-10, F-l, F-14, H-13, H-18)
Response; The standard for cleanup of land has been changed in a
number of ways that will simplify determination of compliance (see the
response to Comment 1, above). We were aware that detecting radium-226
in soil at the proposed level might present some measurement difficul-
ties. However, we believed that the standard could be implemented
reasonably by requiring only "reasonable assurance" that the numerical
limit has been met within the accuracy of available field and
laboratory instruments, when used with reasonable survey and sampling
procedures. We have reevaluated this problem and conclude that the
standard can be further relaxed to simplify the measurement problems
without any sacrifice of health protection. The Final Standard also
makes clearer our intent to avoid unnecessarily stringent verification
of conformance to the standards (Subpart C, Section 192.20).
Comment 3; EPA should clarify the meaning of "any 5 or 15 cm"
thickness of soil as used in the proposed open land cleanup standard.
Interpreting the term "any" literally would lead to the conclusion that
an infinite number of samples would need to be analyzed to demonstrate
compliance with the standard. (P-3, F-10, F-14, H-l)
Response; The Proposed Standard would require only "reasonable
assurance" that its numerical limits were satisfied. Such a literal
interpretation of "any" would be unwarranted, because it would lead to
impractical and, therefore, unreasonable implementation. The word
"any" no longer appears in the standard, however, and we have provided
additional implementation guidance. Nevertheless, the implementing
agencies will still need to develop and apply detailed procedures that
provide "reasonable assurance" that the numerical standards are
satisfied.
Comment 4; EPA should clarify the fact that the proposed open
lands cleanup standard of 5 pCi/g of radium-226 is a concentration
above background. (F-10, H-l)
D-52
-------
Response: The standard for cleanup of land applies to residual
radioactive material from a uranium processing site. The Final
Standard makes clear that its numerical requirements refer to an excess
above the background level.
Comment 5: EPA should define the term "average" as used in the
proposed open land cleanup standard of 5 pCi/g of radium-226 and also
define the area over which the average applies. (P-4, P-5)
Response: The Final Standard for land cleanup (40 CFR 192.12(a))
is clear in applying to averages over specified thicknesses of soil.
However, 40 CFR 192.20(b) (Guidance for Implementation) says, in
effect, that compliance with the standard should be demonstrated by
radiation surveys involving additional averaging over limited areas.
Therefore, area averages may be taken in providing reasonable assurance
that the standard for the average radium-226 concentration in specified
thicknesses is satisfied. However, we believe the implementing
agencies should determine the detailed procedures that provide
reasonable assurance for the diverse conditions that occur in this
remedial action program.
Comment 6: EPA should define how deep below the surface the open
land cleanup standard of 5 pCi/gm of radium-226 applies (i.e., 5, 20,
100 ft.). (P-19)
Response: We do not believe it is necessary or wise to define the
depth below the surface to which the land cleanup standard applies.
The standard permits the implementing agencies to make decisions on a
site-by-site basis. Most subsurface residual radioactive materials
will usually be in the top few feet of soil. For exceptional cases
where residual radioactive materials are present at greater depths, the
need for removal of these materials can be determined on a case by case
basis using the criteria for applying supplemental standards.
Comment 7: EPA should make the open land cleanup standard more
flexible to allow for decisions based on site-specific considera-
tions, including options for land reclamation rather than soil
removal. (P-9, S-5, H-9, H-15, H-18)
Response: The standard for cleanup of land has been revised in a
number of ways that provide additional flexibility in implementation.
In particular, the land cleanup standard (40 CFR 192.12(a)) need not be
applied when its application would "notwithstanding reasonable measures
to limit damage, directly produce environmental harm that is clearly
excessive compared to the health benefits to persons living on or near
the site, now or in the future" (40 CFR 192.21(b), or when "the
estimated cost (would be) unreasonably high relative to the long-term
benefits, and the (tailings) do not pose a clear present or future
hazard" (40 CFR 192.21(c)). Where either of these criteria is
D-53
-------
satisfied, remedial actions need only come as close to meeting the
standard for land cleanup as is reasonable under the specific
circumstances (40 CFR 192.22). Reclamation may sometimes be
justifiable under these criteria as an alternative to fully satisfying
the land cleanup standards.
Comment 8; EPA should establish less stringent standards for
cleanup of open lands for difficult-to-clean areas, such as steep
hills, river banks, bluffs, etc. The proposed standards are not cost
effective when the risk to workers attempting to cleanup these
difficult areas are considered in relation to the reduction in future
potential risks to the public. (F-10)
Response: See response to Comment 7, above. In addition,
according to 40 CFR 192.21(a), supplemental standards (40 CFR 192.22)
may be applied whenever public health or safety would be unavoidably
endangered by attempting to satisfy any of the provisions of Subparts A
and B of 40 CFR 192.
Comment 9: EPA should consider a gamma dose-rate standard as an
alternative to the proposed open land cleanup standards of 5 pCi/g of
radium-226. (H-18)
Response: We considered limiting the surface gamma radiation
level, but concluded that this type of standard would be harder to
apply to subsurface material (see Chapter 8 of the FE1S). However, the
Agency expects gamma radiation survey instruments to be used in
demonstrating compliance with the standards (see 40 CFR 192.20(b)).
Comment 10: EPA has not justified or demonstrated a need for the
open land cleanup standard of 5 pCi/g of radium-226. EPA based this
standard on the consideration that soil concentrations in excess of
5 pCi/g of radium-226 will result in radon decay product concentration
in houses in excess of 0.01 WL. Because of the uncertainty between
radium-226 in soil concentrations and indoor radon decay product concen-
trations, this is not an adequate basis on which to set a standard.
Our calculations show that a radium-226 concentration of 30 pCi/g would
result in an indoor radon decay product concentration of 0.02 WL.
Therefore, the EPA standard of 5 pCi/g is too low and if a radium-226
in soil standard is to be used it should be no less than 30 pCi/g.
(1-3, 1-10, H-13, H-18)
Response; The purpose of the land cleanup standards is to limit
the risk from inhalation of radon decay products in houses built on
land contaminated with tailings, and to limit gamma radiation exposure
of people using contaminated land. *We estimate that each increase of
0.01 WL inside a house increases the risk of lung cancer to each of its
inhabitants by something like^ 0.5 to 1%, for an assumed lifetime of
D-54
-------
residency. The infiltration of radon in soil gas directly into a house
is by far the largest contributor to indoor radon. Because the health
risks from soils contaminated with radium-226 are potentially so great,
we want to set the land cleanup standard as close to background as is
reasonable, taking into consideration the difficulties in measuring the
residues and distinguishing them from natural background.
We agree with the commenters that the relationship between indoor
radon decay product concentrations and radium-226 concentrations in
soil is highly variable and dependent on many factors. We also agree
that houses built on land containing 5 pCi/g of radium-226 will show a
wide range of indoor radon decay product concentrations. However, for
average conditions, we estimate that 5 pCi/g of radium-226 in soil can
readily lead to an indoor radon decay product concentration of 0.02 WL.
This estimate is supported by field data for houses on uncontaminated
land. Table 3.7 of the FEIS shows that normal indoor radon decay
product concentrations occur over a broad range, with medians from
0.004 WL to 0.009 WL in studies for several areas of the United
States. Since radium-226 concentrations in normal soils average less
than 1 pCi/g, we expect soils containing 5 pCi/g to readily produce
indoor radon decay product levels above 0.02 WL, unless the higher
concentration material is present in only a thin layer.
The commenters presented calculations, not data, to show that 30
pCi/g of radium-226 is required to cause an indoor radon decay product
concentration of 0.02 WL. These calculations are based on the use of a
flux reduction factor of 0.2 for radon entering the structure, and an
air exchange rate of 1.5 changes per hour. We believe, for most cases,
that the use of these factors significantly underestimates the indoor
radon decay product concentration. The normal air exchange rate in
residences is about 1.0 change per hour. Furthermore, the use of a
radon flux reduction factor is incorrect, based on actual field
experience. While concrete slabs are theoretically effective barriers
for radon, numerous field observations have revealed that most radon
enters structures through cracks and other openings in a slab or
floor. Also, recent data by Nazaroff (NA81) indicates that the amount
of radon entering a house is greater than the radon flux at the
soil-air interface. That is, the presence of a house increases the
radon flux from the soil. The use of a flux reduction factor,
therefore, results in an incorrect estimate of the amount of radon
entering a house.
D.5.2 Indoor Radon Decay Product and Gamma Radiation Standards
Comment 1: The proposed indoor radon decay product standard of
0.015 WL is not cost-effective. EPA should set a higher standard,
supported by a cost-benefit analysis, which can be practically
implemented. (P-19, S-18, 1-4, F-10, H-18)
D-55
-------
Response; We have reevaluated the costs and benefits of
alternative indoor radon decay product standards (see Chapter 7, FEIS),
and changed the standard to facilitate implementation and more closely
conform to other related standards. Under the Final Standard, the
objective of remedial actions is to achieve an indoor radon decay
product concentration of 0.02 WL. For circumstances where remedial
action has been performed and it would be unreasonably difficult and
costly to reduce the level below 0.03 WL, the remedial action may be
terminated at this level without a specific finding of the need for an
exception. Furthermore, we have provided additional flexibility to
avoid excessive costs by encouraging the use of inexpensive remedial
measures (not involving costly removal of tailings) when the 0.02 WL
criterion is only slightly exceeded.
Comment 2: The proposed indoor radon decay product standard of
0.015 WL is inconsistent with the implementation guides for Grand
Junction, EPA's guidance for Florida phosphate lands and standards
proposed under RCRA. (1-1, 1-4, 1-6, 1-10, F-2, F-7, H-18)
Response: EPA's guidance for Florida phosphate lands and
standards proposed under RCRA were developed to address specific sets
of circumstances. Since we know of no threshold below which radiation
is harmless, these standards have all been set with the ALARA (as low
as reasonably achievable) principle in mind, as applied to those
circumstances. In this sense, the standards cited are consistent, even
though the numerical criteria may differ slightly. Based on further
evaluation of costs and risks, however, we have revised the indoor
radon decay product standard (see response to Comment 1, above). This
revision will make the standard easier and less costly to implement,
and more consistent with previous guidance.
Comment 3; The DEIS states that perhaps 10 percent of all U.S.
homes may have radon decay product concentrations in excess of 0.015
WL. The proposed indoor cleanup standard is too low and should be
raised to a level which does not commonly occur as a result of
naturally-occurring radon sources. (S-l, S-2, S-ll, 1-4, I-10, F-7,
F-ll, H-l, H-2, H-13)
Response: The Final Standard has been set at levels that do
not commonly occur as a result of naturally occurring radon sources
(see Table 3.7, FEIS). However, because background levels exhibit such
a wide range of values, there are undoubtedly houses without tailings
that exceed even the upper limit of the standard. Nevertheless, we
believe our standard is justified because it is practical, cost
effective, and provides the necessary flexibility to deal with
complications of elevated background levels (see response to Comment 1,
above).
D-56
-------
Comment 4: It is premature to set standards without a better
knowledge of indoor background. A survey of indoor radon levels should
be done (national in scope, or at least including all the relevant mill
areas) before a standard is issued. (1-2, 1-4, F-2, F-10, H-18)
Response; We disagree. Extensive experience shows that uranium
mill tailings used in or near buildings often substantially elevate
indoor radon decay product levels (see Section 3.4 of the FEIS), and
that reducing such elevated levels is practical (FEIS, Sections 5.3 and
7.1). The purpose of the PL 95-604 program is to remedy such health
hazards of tailings. It would be impractical to obtain significant
data on background level distributions in the many communities covered
by this program (see Table 3-6, FEIS). We believe available data are
adequate for setting these remedial action standards and that the Final
Standard is sufficiently flexible to allow for varying background
levels. We do not believe it is reasonable or necessary to delay the
public health protection afforded by this standard until a large scale
survey of indoor radon levels is completed.
Comment 5; Because the proposed indoor radon decay product
standard of 0.015 WL is within the range of commonly-occurring indoor
background levels, it will be difficult to determine when and if the
standard has been met. Also, it will often be necessary to certify
that mill tailings are not present when the radon decay product
concentration exceeds 0.015 WL. This will cause problems because it
will not (always) be possible to determine if the radon decay product
concentration exceeds the limit because of the presence of mill
tailings or because of natural background. Therefore, the lack of
flexibility in the proposed standard will make the implementation of
the standard difficult, costly, and time consuming. It will result in
the unnecessary removal of material from around and under structures or
the frequent use of the exceptions procedure.
To avoid these difficulties we suggest that the standard be
expressed as a range of values similar to the Surgeon General's
guidelines for Grand Junction (i.e., 0.01 to 0.05 WL above
background). (P-5, 1-3, F-l, F-2, F-13, F-14)
Response; The Agency has revised the indoor radon decay product
standard after considering comments and reevaluating the costs and
benefits of alternative standards (see response to Comment 1, above).
The Final Standard is expressed as a range of values and supplemental
standards may be used where meeting the standard would be unreasonably
difficult and costly. Additional flexibility to avoid excessive costs
can also be attained by using active control devices (such as electro-
static precipitators) when further removal of tailings is impractical
to meet the objective of 0.02 WL. The data in Table 3-7 of the FEIS
indicate that background radon decay product concentrations should
seldom reach this level. However, we believe the Final Standard has
D-57
-------
the necessary flexibility to deal with any complications from high
concentrations of naturally-occurring radionuclides and to avoid
unnecessary and costly remedial actions that may produce only marginal
improvements.
The Surgeon General's guidelines, which the commenter recommends
we use, were established at a time when risks from radon decay product
exposure were thought to be about one-half of our current estimate. We
have analyzed the cost data from the Grand Junction remedial action
program and concluded that the cost to meet the Final Standard would
not be significantly different from the costs incurred under the
Surgeon General's guidelines, as they are implemented in Grand
Junction, provided that less costly active control measures were used
where appropriate and supplemental standards are applied where
necessary. Therefore, we believe the additional health protection
afforded by our Final Standards as compared to the Surgeon General's
guidelines is justified.
Comment 6; Setting standards for remedial action at levels
commonly existing in houses where there are no tailings present may
have an adverse effect on the public. Many people will be worried that
their homes are unsafe. EPA should discuss the impact of the standard
on homes with naturally-occurring levels above the standard and should
also discuss the feasibility for remedial action for such homes. (F-9,
H-2, H-5)
Response: The Final Standard for indoor radon decay products
involves levels that do not commonly occur in houses. However, there
undoubtedly are a few houses that exceed these levels where tailings
are not the cause. EPA is concerned about the existence of elevated
levels of naturally occurring radon decay products in houses and has
devoted sizeable resources over the last several years in studying this
problem. However, additional studies are needed to better define the
scope of this problem and to identify practical remedial actions for
application on a national scale.
Comment 7; The 0.02 mR/hr gamma standard is too low because it is
close to background and leaves no options for remedial work, except
removal. (S-l, S-15, H-2)
Response; The 0.02 mR/hr gamma standard intentionally favors the
removal method because removal is the only practical solution for
limiting indoor gamma radiation. However, we believe the indoor gamma
radiation standard, which permits a value considerably above background
is appropriate and can be readily implemented.
•
Comment 8: EPA should set a radon standard of 1.5 pCi/1 as an
alternative to the radon decay product (WL) standard. This would
provide greater flexibility in monitoring buildings. (P-3)
D-58
-------
Response: We prefer a standard expressed as a radon decay product
concentration because of its more direct relation to the major health
hazard, which is lung cancer. However, expressing the cleanup standard
for buildings in terms of an indoor radon decay product concentration
does not preclude using radon measurements to determine compliance with
the standard (i.e., as a surrogate measurement). We purposely avoided
including specific details on measurement procedures in our rulemaking
to give the implementers the flexibility to select the most practical
and cost effective methods.
Comment 9: The proposed indoor cleanup standards for buildings
are too high and do not offer sufficient health protection. The indoor
gamma radiation standard of 0.02 mR/hr would exceed the average annual
outdoor background dose by 100 percent. (P-l, P-ll)
Response: Lowering the indoor gamma radiation standard could
virtually eliminate flexibility in remedial methods for satisfying the
more significant (in terms of risk) standard for radon decay products.
We believe preserving this flexibility outweighs the small additional
health benefit a lower gamma radiation standard would provide for the
few individuals that may be affected by it.
Comment 10: The discussion in the DEIS of background levels of
radon decay products should refer to data compiled by the U. S.
Radiation Policy Council (45 FR 43510, June 27, 1980) These data
indicate a mean indoor radon decay product background of 0.01 WL, over
twice the 0.004 WL mean stated in the DEIS. (F-10)
Response: The data reported by the Radiation Policy Council were
assembled by EPA staff some time after the DEIS was prepared. These
and other data that better document the indoor background in western
U. S. homes are included in the FEIS. The implication of a 0.01 WL
mean background level is misleading, however. A disproportionate
number of the surveys cited in 45 FR 43510 were in areas with enhanced
natural sources of radon, so that any national mean implied from these
data would be biased high.
Comment 11: Standards for indoor radon decay products for the
general public are still being studied by EPA and other Federal
Agencies. Because these standards and the remedial action standards
for uranium mill tailings are closely related, they should not be
promulgated separately. (F-15)
Response: EPA has no present plans to set indoor radon decay
product standards for the general public. In any case, however, such
standards need not be set at the same time or be identical to the
remedial action standards for uranium mill tailings because the social,
technical, and economic considerations may be quite different.
D-59
-------
D.5.3 Cumulative Lifetime Dose Equivalent Standard
Comment 1; Section 192.12(c) of the proposed standards dealing
with the cumulative lifetime radiation dose equivalent is complicated
and difficult to implement. This part of the standards should be
eliminated or expressed as a numerical value. (S-2, S-18, H-7)
Response: We agree with the thrust of the comment. We don't know
of any" circumstances in this remedial action program where our cleanup
standards for radium-226 and its decay products will not adequately
deal with the radiation hazard. The need for cleanup standards
addressing other radionuclides appears minimal, and the proposed
Section 192.12(c) would indeed be cumbersome to apply if there were a
need. Therefore, we have deleted this provision and replaced it with a
simpler formulation as part of the Supplemental Standard [see 40 CFR
192.21(f) and 192.22(b)].
D.5.4 Exceptions
Comment 1: As proposed, the standards will require extensive
exceptions. More flexibility is needed to avoid exceptions. The
levels of bureaucracy needed to handle exceptions are burdensome.
(S-5, S-18, F-14, H-7, H-ll, H-13)
Response: We agree that flexibility is needed. The numerical
limits of the standards have been raised to more easily achievable
levels that are more readily distinguishable from background levels.
In addition, we have changed the procedures for situations in which it
would be unreasonable to satisfy the standards from an "exceptions"
process to one in which the implementing agencies apply "Supplemental
Standards" (see Chapter 8 of the FE1S and 40 CFR 192, Subpart C). We
believe the revised standards minimize the need, for exceptions and
provide very simple procedures when there is a need.
Comment 2: Section 192.20(c) of the proposed exceptions to the
standards should be eliminated since the language "slightly exceeded"
is too vague to be enforceable and seriously weakens the standards of
Table B. (P-22)
Response: We have replaced the "exceptions" process with
"Supplementary Standards" (see response to Comment 1, above). The
expression "slightly exceeded" referred to in the comment is no longer
used. We have retained the essence of the proposed criterion, however
because we believe it is needed to avoid expenditures that are clearly
unreasonably high relative to the obtainable benefits (see Section
192.21(d) of the Final Standard).
D-60
-------
D.6 Imp1erne n t a t i on
Comment 1: EPA should establish requirements for or provide
guidance on the methods, procedures and conditions to be used in
monitoring compliance with the proposed standards. (P-3, P-ll, P-17,
S-5, S-18, F-2, F-8, F-9, F-10, H-7 , H-23)
Response: The Agency considers the procedures and methods used in
determining compliance to be an important part of making the standards
effective. We considered including details on these procedures as part
of our rulemaking. However, we chose to allow the implementing
agencies to establish suitable procedures for the widely varying and
incompletely known conditions of each processing site. The Agency is,
however, providing general guidance on how the standards should be
implemented (Subpart C of the Final Standards). The Agency is
confident that DOE and NRC, in consultation with EPA and the States,
will adopt implementation procedures consistent with the intent of the
standards.
Comment 2: EPA should consider the need to specify confidence
limits for the measurements to be used in determining compliance with
the proposed standards. (P-4, 1-1)
Response: The Agency does not believe it is appropriate or useful
to specify confidence levels for the measurements to be used in
determining compliance with the standard. Such limits are an integral
part of a compliance monitoring program and we expect DOE to consider
such limits in designing and implementing the remedial action program.
Comment 3: Gamma survey techniques should be used to determine
compliance with the radium-226 open lands cleanup standard. These
techniques are more practical than soil sampling procedures during
actual cleanup operations. (S-18, F-10)
Response: We agree and expect that gamma survey techniques
will be widely used as a surrogate measurement for radium-226 in
determining compliance with the land cleanup standard (see Section
192.20(b) of the Final Standard).
D.7 Miscellaneous
Comment 1: The attenuation of tailings gamma radiation by soil
overburden is not given correctly by Figure 5-2 in the DEIS. The
attenuation of gamma radiation from tailings by overburden does not
follow an exponential law, as would be the case for a point source.
The concept of half-value-layer is not applicable to extended sources.
Instead the attenuation can be shown to follow a second-degree
exponential integral. (P-19)
D-61
-------
Response; We agree that the gamma attenuation from an earthen
cover is underestimated in the DEIS. The discussion in the FEIS has
been modified accordingly. This further supports our conclusion that
using an earthen cover to control radon will greatly reduce the direct
gamma radiation from the tailings.
Comment 2: The Federal Government is considering disposing of
wastes from the inactive uranium processing site at Canonsburg, Pa., at
the Ash and Dimsmore sites in Hanover Township, Pa. We object to this
disposal plan because we are concerned that these wastes will have an
adverse health impact on our community. We recommend that any plans to
transfer these wastes to our area be dropped and other alternatives
considered. (P-7, P-10, P-12, P-13, P-16)
Response; Public Law 95-604 requires the Department of Energy to
select and perform remedial actions for inactive processing sites .in
accordance with the EPA standards and in cooperation with the States
where the sites are located. Selection and performance of remedial
actions will be subject to the concurrence of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. It is our understanding that DOE will prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement covering alternative remedial actions
for the Canonsburg site and will provide several opportunities for
public comment prior to selecting a final remedial action plan.
Comment 3; Canonsburg Industrial Park in Canonsburg, Washington
County, Pennsylvania, has been designated as one of the sites for
remedial action under Public Law 95-604. There is great public
interest and concern about how and where the wastes from the site will
be disposed. EPA should hold public hearings on the Remedial Action
Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites in or near Canonsburg
and extend the comment period for these standards to provide additional
time for citizens to voice their concerns. (H-21, H-22)
Response: EPA held public hearings on the Proposed Standards for
Inactive Uranium Processing Sites in Salt Lake City, Utah; Durango,
Colorado; and Washington, D.C. Time and resources did not allow the
Agency to conduct public hearings in all communities where inactive
uranium processing sites are located. Within these limitations, EPA
believes the chosen locations provided the greatest opportunity for
public participation. EPA did extend the comment period for these
standards for an additional 2 months.
Comment 4; What are the hazards from uranium mill tailings?
(H-3, H-10)
D-62
-------
Response; Uranium mill tailings can affect people's health
through four basic pathways. These are: (1) diffusion of radon-222
gas from the tailings into air and into houses; (2) dispersion of small
particles of tailings materials into air; (3) external gamma radiation
from tailings; and (4) contamination of ground water or surface water.
Chapter 4 of the FEIS discusses the health risks from uranium mill
tailings in detail.
Comment 5: How much more tailings material will be generated
between now and the year 2000, and what provisions have been made to
address future problems? (H-3)
Response: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has estimated that an
additional 4.7 x 10° metric tons of tailings will be generated by the
year 2000 to fulfill future energy requirements (NRC80). Public
health, safety, and the environment will be protected from these
materials by standards promulgated by EPA under Public Law 95-604.
These standards will be implemented and enforced by NRC or its
Agreement States, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act, as amended by
PL 95-604.
Comment 6: EPA states that tailings at 5 pCi/g of radium-226 will
have less than 5 times the radon emanation of ordinary soil, which
presumably has about 1 pCi/g of radium-226. This implies that the
emanating power of soil and tailings are the same, which, in general,
is not a valid assumption. (P-5)
Response; The emanating power of both soil and tailings show
rather large variations. Emanating power measurements of different
soils range from a few percent to over 20%. Measurements of tailings
range from 6% to over 40%. Because of these variations, the emanating
powers of soils and tailings cannot be precisely specified. Neverthe-
less, since the emanating power of both varies through a similar range,
it is reasonable for general comparison purposes to assume no signifi-
cant difference between the emanating power of soil and tailings.
Comment 7: The DEIS in Chapter 4 provides estimates of the number
of fatal lung cancers that may result from exposure to radon decay
products from the tailings piles, (a) What would be the expected
number of lung cancer fatalities in the same population group due to
all causes? (b) How many of these fatalities are estimated to be due
to smoking? (H-4)
D-63
-------
Response; (a) The estimated number of lung cancer fatalities for
a 100-year period for causes other than radon decay product exposure
are shown below; the population groups listed in the table are the same
as in Table 4-3 of the FEIS:
Site Name & Population
Salt Lake City, Utah
Local Population (361,000)
Regional Population (494,000)
Mexican Hat, Utah
Regional Population (14,100)
Grand Junction, Colorado
Local Population (39,800)
Regional Population (30,600)
Gunnison, Colorado
Local Population (5,060)
Regional Population (17,060)
Rifle, Colorado
Local Population (2,700)
Regional Population (35,900)
Shiprock, New Mexico
Local Population (7,200)
Regional Population (63,600)
Cancers Expected in 100 yrs
5,100
7,000
200
820
630
100
350
55
740
140
1,200
The lung cancer fatality rates used for these estimates were based
on 100 times the number of 1970 lung cancer deaths for the State
divided by the 1970 State population. The 1970 values are summarized
below. Several assumptions are apparent, the prime one being that the
1970 rate represents the 100-year period.
1970 Lung Cancer
State Fatalities
1970 Crude Lung Cancer
r, , J?70 «-5 Mortality Rate per 10"5
Population x 10 persons
Utah
Colorado
New Mexico
150
468
195
10.66
22.81
10.23
14.07
20.52
19.06
D-64
-------
(b) It is impossible to say how much of the expected lung cancer
from causes other than radiation exposure are due to smoking because
smoking may have a large promotional role as well as a possible
initiation role in the development of lung cancer. We are also unable
to predict smoking patterns for the next 100 years. If smoking declines
markedly, however, we would expect a large reduction in the number of
lung cancers. The data on uranium miners indicates that exposure to
radon and cigarette smoke increases their lung cancer death rate. This
may be due to the earlier appearance of lung cancer among exposed miners
who smoke. The risk from smoking and radon exposure combined as
compared to the risk from radon exposure in nonsmoking miners now
appears less than was indicated in the early studies of uranium miners.
The data are insufficient for making quantitative risk estimates,
however.
Comment 8: Chapter 4 of the DEIS assumes a linear risk associated
with radiation health effects with no damage threshold, but assumes a
threshold for non-radioactive toxic materials. What would be the effect
on the conclusions reached if a damage threshold were assumed for
radiation health effects? (H-4)
Response: The scientific concensus today is that there is no
threshold for a carcinogen. Radioactive materials were treated as
carcinogens and, therefore, no threshold was postulated in the
dose-response calculations. Even if a threshold were postulated for
radiation-related health effects estimates it would be unlikely to
affect the final conclusions appreciably. The majority of the health
effects are related to radon decay product exposure and the only
estimate of a "quasi-threshold" for such exposure, derived from a
mathematical analysis of miner studies, is "less than 3 WLM" (MY79a).
A 3 WLM exposure is well within the exposure range expected over several
years for members of the general population. In addition, how much
lower a threshold may be than 3 WLM is not known, but the data agree
very well, both above and below 3 WLM, with results of a linear risk
estimation model.
Comment 9: What is the estimated number of construction and
traffic fatalities (associated with the remedial actions) as compared
with the number of cancer deaths avoided? (H-4)
Response: The number of accidental deaths that may result from
remedial actions at any specific inactive site would be highly dependent
on the labor intensiveness of the particular action. The most severe
such case is moving a large tailings pile. The risks of such an
activity can not be estimated without specific information on the locale
and the details of the work to be performed. However, we have estimated
these risks on a generic basis for average tailings piles. Estimates of
the number of accidental deaths that could be associated with different
D-65
-------
tailings disposal options are shown in Table 6-5 of the FEIS. Estimates
of the number of cancer deaths avoided for the various disposal options
are shown in Table 6-6 of the FEIS.
Comment 10: The mill tailings standards have not been critically
reviewed in total because the amount of current and future (active)
tailings are at least 22 times more than the amount of the inactive
tailings. Economic impact of these standards on the mining, energy, and
defense sector have not been addressed. (F-15)
Response: We are currently developing standards for tailings at
active uranium mills. The economic impact of alternative standards will
be fully addressed during the standards development process.
Comment 11: No effective methods are known for disposal of uranium
mill tailings piles and cleanup of contaminated land. Until guaranteed
remedial action technology is invented, we could halt the mining of
uranium except for medical and research purposes. (P-14)
Response: We have reviewed the capabilities of established
remedial actions and those under development (see the FEIS, Chapter 5).
Remedial methods need not be totally effective to be useful. Our Final
Standards take account of practical limitations of remedial methods.
They require hazards to be reduced to levels that we believe are
generally as low as reasonably achievable considering the pertinent
technical, economic, and social circumstances. We believe this carries
out Congress' objectives for the remedial action program. Halting
uranium mining, on the other hand, would reduce the generation of new
tailings, but not the potential hazards of existing tailings.
Comment 12: EPA must make a finding that there is a significant
risk before promulgating these standards. (1-10, H-18)
Response: Without commenting on the need for EPA to make such a
finding under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA),
it is clear that tailings pose a significant risk. Our estimates of the
risk of inhaling radon decay products from tailings are based on
observed risks for underground miners exposed to such products in mine
atmospheres. We estimate that members of the general public who live
their lifetimes in houses built on or with tailings often have greater
than 1 chance on 100 of dying from lung cancer related to radon from the
tailings (see FEIS, Chapters 3 and 4). There may be several hundred
such houses (FEIS, Chapters 3 and 7) that are eligible for remedial
actions under our Final Standards. Furthermore, people living very near
tailings piles are subject to risks of comparable magnitude. Table 4-5
of the FEIS contains examples, based on radioactivity levels measured at
the specific locations. We believe risks at these levels are
significant by any reasonable test.
D-66
-------
We note that a U. S. Court of Appeals has recently ruled that the
NRG needn't reach a finding of significant risk before issuing
regulations under UMTRCA for tailings at active mills (Kerr-McGee
Nuclear Corp., et_ al., vs. NRC, et_ a^., 10th Circuit, 80-2043, March
17, 1982). Notwithstanding this, the Court also concluded that NRC's
evaluations of the hazards of uncontrolled tailings from active mills
established the significance of the associated risks.
D-67
-------
REFERENCES
Ar76 Archer V.E., Gillam J.D., and Wagoner J.K., "Respiratory
Disease Mortality Among Uranium Miners," Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci.
271:280-293, 1976.
Ar79 Archer V.E., "Factors in Exposure Response Relationships of
Radon Daughter Injury," Proceedings of the Mine Safety and
Health Administration, Workshop on Lung Cancer Epidemiology
and industrial Applications of Sputum Cytology, November 14-16,
1978, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, Colorado, 1979.
Br79 Brenniman G.R., et al., "Cardiovascular Disease Rates in
Communities with Elevated Levels of Barium in Drinking
Water," Env. Res. 20:318-324, 1979.
BuaSl Bunger B.M., Cook J.R. and Barrick M.K., "Life Table
Methodology for Evaluating Radiation Risk: An Application
Based on Occupational Exposures," Hlth. Phys. 40.-439-455,
1981.
Bub66 Burrell R.J.W., et al., "Esophageal Cancer in the Bantu of
the Transkei, Associated with Mineral Deficiency in Garden
Plants," J. uatl. Can. Inst. 36:201-209, 1966.
BucSO Burton A.C., Cornhill J.F. and Canham P.B., "Protection
from Cancer by 'Silica' in the Water Supply of U.S.
Cities," J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. 4:31-40, 1980.
CEQ76 Council on Environmental Quality, The Seventh Annual
Report of the Council on Environmental Quality, CEQ,
Washington, D.C., 1976.
Ch81 Chovil A., "The Epidemiology of a Primary Lung Cancer in
Uranium Miners in Ontario," J. Occup. Med. 23:421, 1981.
Cr78 Cross F.T., et al., Study of the Combined Effects of
Uranium Ore Dust, Radon Daughters and Diesel Oil Exhaust
Fumes in Hamsters and Dogs, Final Report, PNL-2744,
Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland,
Washington, 1978.
Da78 Daneshmend T.K., "Selenium and Motor Neuron Disease "
Brit. Med. J. 2:829-830, 1978.
DG78 "Dodge Building Cost Services", 1978 Dodge Guide for
Estimating Public Work Construction costs, McGraw-Hill
New York, 1978.
D-68
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
Du77 Duncan D.L., Boyson G.A., Grossman L., Franz G.A. Ill,
Outdoor Radon Study (1974-1975): An Evaluation of Ambient
Radon-222 concentrations in Grand Junction, Colorado,
Technical Note ORP/LV 77-1, Office of Radiation Programs,
USEPA, Washington, B.C., 1977.
EPA76 Environmental Protection Agency, National Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations, EPA 570/9-76-003, Office of
Water Supply, USEPA, Washington, D.C., 1976.
EPA79 Environmental Protection Agency, Indoor Radiation Exposure
Due to Radium-226 in Florida phosphate Lands, EPA
520/4-78-013, Office of Radiation Programs, USEPA,
Washington, B.C., July 1979.
Ev81 Evans R.D., et al., "Estimates of Risk from Environmental
Exposure to Radon-222 and Its Decay Products," Nature
290:98, 1981.
FDA75 Food and Drug Administration, Toxicity of Essential
Minerals, USFDA, Washington, D.C., 1975.
Fo71 Foster R.J., Physical Geology, 2nd Edition, Merril,
Columbus, 1971.
Fra75 Friberg L., et al., Molybdenum - A Toxicological
Appraisal, EPA 600/1-75-004, USEPA, Research Triangle
Park, N.C., 1975.
FrbSl Fry R.J.M., "Experimental Radiation Carcinogenesis: What
Have We Learned," Radiation Research 87:224, 1981.
Gi68 Gifford F.A. Jr., Meteorology and Atomic Energy, 1968,
Chapter 3, D.H. Slade, Editor, Division of Reactor
Development and Technology, United States Atomic Energy
Commission, Washington, D.C., 1968.
Haa75 Hamblin W.K., The Earth's Dynamic Systems, Burgess,
Minneapolis, 1975.
Hab79 Haywood F.F., et al., Assessment of the Radiological
Impact of inactive Uranium Mill Tailings at Shiprock, New
Mexico, ORNL-5447, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee, 1979.
D-69
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
He79 Hewitt D., "Biostatistical Studies on Canadian Uranium
Miners," Proceedings of the Mine Safety and Health
Administration Workshop on Lung cancer Epidemiology and
Industrial Applications on Sputum Cytology, Colorado
School of Mines Press, Golden, Colorado, 1979.
HEW76 Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Monthly
Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 24, No. 11, Supplement, page
3, National Center for Health Statistics, DHEW, Rockville,
Md., February 1976.
Ho78 Hoffman F.O., et al., Proceedings of a Workshop on the
Evaluation of Models Used for the Environmntal Assessment
of Radionuclides Release, CONF-77901, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., 1978.
Hu42 Hueper W.C., Occupational Tumors and Allied Diseases,
C.C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois, 1942.
Hu52 Hueper W.C., et al., "Experimental Studies in Metal
Carcinogenesis II. Experimental Uranium Cancers in Rats,"
j. Natl. Can. Inst., 23:291-305, 1952.
Hu66 Hueper W.C., Occupational and Environmental Cancers of the
Respiratory System, Springer-Verlaz, New York, 1966.
IP77 Recommendations of the International Commission on
Radiological Protection, ICRP Publication 26, Pergamon
Press, 1977.
KD79a Keshan Disease Research Group, "Epidemiclogic Studies on
the Etrologic Relationship of Selenium and Keshan Disease,"
Chin. Wed. J., 92:477-482/1979.
KD79b Keshan Disease Research Group, "Observations of Effect of
Sodium Selenite in Prevention of Keshan Disease," Chin.
Med. J., 92:471-476, 1979.
Ki77 Kilness A.W. and Hochberg F.H., "Amyotrophic Lateral
Sclerosis in a High Selenium Environment," J.A.M.A.,
237:2843-2844, 1977.
Ko61 Kovalsky V.V., et al., "Changes in Purine Metabolism in
Humans and Animals Living in Biogeochemical Areas with High
Molybdenum Concentrations," Zh. Obshch. Biol.,
22:179-181, 1961.
D-70
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
Laa78 Lafuma J. , "Cancers Pulmonaries Induits par Differents
Emetteurs Alpha Inhales: Evaluation de 1'influence de
divers parpmetres et comparaison avec les donnees obtenues
chez les mineurs d1uranium", pp. 531-541 in: Late
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, Vol. II,
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1978.
Lab78 Land C.E. and Norman J.E., The Latent Periods of
Radiogenic Cancers Occuring Among Japanese A-Bomb
Survivors, IAEA-SM- 224/602, IAEA, Vienna, 1978.
Le70 Leach L.J., et al., "A Five-Year Inhalation Study with
Natural Uranium Dioxide (UC^) Dust-I. Retention and
Biological Effect in the Monkey, Dog and Rat", Hlth.
Phys., 18 -.599-612, 1970.
Le73 Leach L.J., et al., "A Five-year Inhalation Study with
Natural Uranium Dioxides (UC^) Dust-II. Postexposure
Retention and Biologic Effects in the Monkey, Dog and Rat",
Hlth. Phys., 25:239-258, 1973.
Lo80 Lo M.T. and Sandi E., "Selenium Occurrence in Foods and its
Toxicological Significance - A Review," J. Environ.
Pathol. Toxicol., 4:193-218, 1980.
Lua71 Lundin F.E., Wagoner J.K. and Archer V.E., Radon Daughter
Exposure and Respiratory Cancer, Quantitative and Temporal
Aspects, NIOSH-NIEHS Joint Monograph No. 1, USPHS, USDHEW,
Washington, D.C., 1971.
Lua79 Lundin F.E., Archer V.E. and Wagoner J.K., "An
Exposure-Time Response Model for Lung Cancer Mortality in
Uranium Miners: Effects of Radiation Exposure, Age, and
Cigarette Smoking," Proceedings of Conference of the
Society for industrial and Applied Mathematics, Ed. by
N.E. Breslow and A.S. Whittemore, SIAM, Philadelphia, 1979.
LubSOa Luo X.M., et al., "Molybdenum and Esophageal Cancer in
China," Southeast-Southwest Regional American Chemical
Society Annual Meeting, Abstract 40, 1980.
LubSOb Luo X.M., et al., "Preliminary Analyses of the Distribution
of the Esophageal Cancer Mortality Rates, Geographical
Environment and Chemical Elements in Food and Drinking
Water in Anyang Administrative Region, Honan Province,"
Chinese j. Oncol., 2:74-80, 1980.
D-71
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
Ma73 Machta L., Ferber C.J. and Hefter J.L., Local and
Worldwide pollutant Concentrations and Population Exposures
from a continous Point Source, U.S. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Air Resources Laboratory,
Silver Spring, Maryland, 1973.
Me77 Means R.S., Building Construction Cost Data, 1977, Robert
Snow Means Co., Inc., Duxbury, Mass., 1977.
Mi76 Report of the Royal Commission on the Health and Safety of
Workers in Mines, Ministry of the Attorney General,
Province of Ontario, 1976.
My79a Myers D.K. and Stewart C.G., "Some Health Aspects of
Canadian Uranium Mining," Proceedings of the Mine Safety
and Health Administration Workshop on Lung cancer
Epidemiology and industrial Applications in Sputum
Cytology, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden,
Colorado, 1979.
My79b Myers D.K. and Stewart C.G., AECL 5970, Chalk River
Laboratories, Chalk River, Ontario, Canada, 1979.
Na81 Nazaroff W.W., "Measuring Radon Magnitude in Residential
Buildings," Proceedings of International Meeting on
Radon-Radon Progeny Measurement, Montgomery, Alabama,
August 1981.
NAS72a National Academy of Sciences, The Effects on Populations
of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, BEIR
Report, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.,
1972.
NAS72b National Academy of Sciences, Water Quality Criteria,
1972, EPA-R-3-003, USEPA, Washington, D.C., 1972.
NAS76 National Academy of Sciences, Health Effects of Alpha-
Emitting Particles in the Respiratory Tract, Report of the
Ad Hoc Committee on "Hot Particles" of the Advisory
Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation,
EPA 520/4-76-013, USEPA, Washington, B.C., 1976.
NAS77 National Academy of Sciences, Drinking Water and Health,
Part 1, Chapters 1-5, NAS, Washington, D.C., 1977.
NASSOa National Academy of Sciences, The Effects on Populations
of Exposure to Low Levels of ionizing Radiation: 1980,
BEIR III Report, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
1980.
D-72
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
NASSOb National Academy of Sciences, Drinking Water and Health,
Vol. 3, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1980.
NASSOc National Academy of Sciences, Recommended Dietary
Allowances, 9th rev. ed., National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C., 1980.
NM76 New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency, Transcript of
Proceedings of June 16, 1976, In the Matter of Additions
and Amendments to the Water Quality Control Commission
Standards and Regulations, p. 240, New Mexico Environ-
mental Improvement Agency, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 1976.
NP80 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements,
Influence of Dose and Its Distribution in Time on
Dose-Response Relationships for Low-LET Radiations, NCRP
Report No 64, NCRP, Washington, D.C., 1980.
NRC80 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Generic Environmental
impact Statement on Uranium Milling, Volume I, NUREG-0511,
USNRC, Washington, D.C., 1980.
RPC80 Radiation Policy Council, Report of the Task Force on
Radon in Structures, RPC-80-002, U.S. Radiation Policy
Council, Washington, D.C., August 1980.
Sc70 Schroeder H.A., et al., "Essential Trace Metals in Man:
Molybdenum," J. Chronic Diseases, 23:481-499, 1970.
Se76 Sevc J. , Kunz E. and Placek V., "Lung Cancer in Uranium
Miners and Long-term Exposure to Radon Daughter Products,"
Hlth. Phys. 30:433, 1976.
Sh80 Shamberger R.J., "Selenium in Drinking Water and
Cardiovascular Disease," J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol.,
4:305-311, 1980.
Sn81 Snodgrass W., et al., "Selenium Childhood Poisoning and
Cystic Fibrosis," din. Toxicol., 18:211-220, 1981.
Sp73 Spiess H. and Mays C.W. "Protraction Effect on Bone Sarcoma
Induction of ^24^a £n children and Adults," in Radio-
nuclide Carcinogenesis, CONF-720505, AEC Symposium Series
29, USAEC, Oak Ridge, Tenn., 1973.
St78 Stewart R.D.H., et al., "Quantitative Selenium Metabolism
in Normal New Zealand Women," But. J. Nutr., 40:45-54,
1978.
D-73
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
Sw81 Swift J.J., Health Risks to Distant Populations from
Uranium Mill Tailings Radon, Technical Note ORP/TAD 80-1,
Office of Radiation Programs, USEPA, May 1981.
UN77 United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of
Atomic Radiation, Source and Effects on Ionizing
Radiation, 1977 Report to the General Assembly, UNSCEAR,
United Nations, New York, 1977.
Ve78 Venugopal B. and Luckey T.D., Metal Toxicity in Mammals,
Vol. 2, Plenum Press, New York, 1978.
Yaa78 Yamamoto T., et al., "The Autopsy Program and the Life Span
Study, Jan. 1961-Dec. 1975," Report 4, RERF TR. 18-78.
Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Hiroshima, 1978.
Yab64 Yarovaya G.A., "Effect of High Molybdenum in Purine
Metabolism of Humans," Int. Congr. Biochem., 6:440, 1964.
Yo75 Young K., Geology: The Paradox of Earth and Man, Houghton
Mifflin, Boston, 1975.
D-74
-------
APPENDIX E
LETTERS OF COMMENT AND TESTIMONY
SUBMITTED AT PUBLIC HEARINGS
-------
APPENDIX E
CONTENTS
COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS, AND THE
SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
ID No. Page
P-l Wells Eddleman
Durham, North Carolina E-7
P-2 Edward A. Martell, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, Colorado E-7
P-3 William G. Yates, Monsanto-Mound Facility
Miamisburg, Ohio E-9
P-4 Dale H. Denham, Battelle-Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Richland, Washington E-10
P-5 Thomas F. Gesell, University of Texas
Houston, Texas E-ll
P-6 Henry Hurwitz, Jr.
Schenectady, New York E-12
P-7 J. William Hemphill and Carole G. Hemphill
Burgettstown, Pennsylvania E-13
P-8 Marie Pnazek
Johnson City, Tennessee E-13
P-9 Charles R. Butler
Durango, Colorado E-14
P-10 Robert J. Kuchena
Cuddy, Pennsylvania E-15
P-ll Donald Pay, Technical Information Project
Mandan, North Dakota E-17
P-12 J. William Hemphill and Carole G. Hemphill
Burgettstown, Pennsylvania E-19
P-13 Joyce Hemphill Miller
Burgettstown, Pennsylvania • E-20
P-14 Edward B. Burns
Las Cruces, New Mexico E-20
P-15 William G. Tope
Murrysville, Pennsylvania E-22
E-l
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
ID No. Page
P-16 Eloina Gonzalez
Langiloth, Pennsylvania E-22
P-17 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and Southwest
Research & Information Center
San Francisco, California E-23
P-18 Phaedra Greenwood
El Prado, New Mexico E-38
P-19 Robley D. Evans
Scottsdale, Arizona E-38
P-20 Lawrence Perry, Black Hills Energy Coalition
Rapid City, South Dakota E-51
P-21 Helene Larson
Taos, New Mexico E-51
P-22 Environmental Defense Fund
Denver, Colorado E-52
P-23 Darrell R. Fisher, Ph.D.
Kennewick, Washington E-53
COMMENTS FROM INDUSTRY
1-1 Rocky Mountain Energy Co.
Denver Colorado E-54
1-2 Terradex Corporation
Walnut Creek, California E-57
1-3 Anaconda Copper Company
Denver, Colorado E-58
1-4 Kerr-McGee Corporation and Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma E-60
1-5 Rocky Mountain Energy
Broomfield, Colorado E-75
1-6 Florida Phosphate Council, Inc.
Lakeland, Florida E-77
•
1-7 United Nuclear Corporation
Santa Fe, New Mexico E-79
1-8 Homestake Mining Company
Santa Fe, New Mexico E-84
E-2
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
ID No. Page
1-9 Kerr-McGee Corporation and Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma E-93
1-10 American Mining Congress
Washington, D.C E-100
COMMENTS FROM STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
S-l Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
Boise, Idaho E-124
S-2 Utah Office of the State Planning Coordinator
Salt Lake City, Utah E-124
S-3 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
Cheyenne, Wyoming E-124
S-4 Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Jefferson City, Missouri E-126
S-5 Colorado Department of Health
(Radiation and Hazardous Wastes Control Division)
Denver, Colorado E-126
S-6 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania E-127
S-7 State of Nevada Executive Chamber
Carson City, Nevada E-128
S-8 Salt Lake City-County Health Department
Salt Lake City, Utah E-128
S-9 Kansas Department of Administration
Topeka, Kansas E-129
S-10 Ohio State Clearinghouse
Columbus, Ohio E-130
S-ll Nevada Governor's Office of Planning Coordination
Carson City, Nevada E-130
S-12 Oklahoma State Grant-In-Aid-Clearinghouse
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma E-131
S-13 Oregon Executive Department
Salem, Oregon E-132
S-14 Colorado Department of Health (Water Quality Control Division)
Denver, Colorado E-132
E-3
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
ID No. -Page
S-15 Idaho Office of the Governor
Boise, Idaho E-133
S-16 New Mexico State Planning Division
Santa Fe, New Mexico E-134
S-17 Georgia Office of Planning and Budget
Atlanta, Georgia E-137
S-18 Colorado Department of Health
(Radiation & Hazardous Wastes Control Division)
Denver, Colorado E-138
S-19 New York State Energy Office
Albany, New York E-144
S-20 New Mexico Governor's Cabinet
Santa Fe, New Mexico E-146
COMMENTS FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES
F-l Department of Energy
Washington, D.C E-147
F-2 Tennessee Valley Authority
Norris Tennessee E-150
F-3 Department of Energy
Washington, D.C E-151
F-4 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Washington, D.C E-152
F-5 USDA Soil Conservation Service
Washington, D.C E-152
F-6 Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C E-153
F-7 Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C E-154
F-8 Department of Health & Human Services
(Center for Environmental Health)
Atlanta, Georgia ' E-155
F-9 Department of Health & Human Services
(Bureau of Radiological Health)
Rockville, Maryland E-156
F-10 Tennessee Valley Authority
Norris, Tennessee E-159
E-4
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
ID No. Page
F-ll James V. Hansen, U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C E-162
F-12 Department of Justice (Land & Natural Resources Division)
Washington, D.C E-163
F-13 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D.C E-164
F-14 Department of Energy
Washington, D.C E-166
F-15 Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C E-174
TESTIMONY PRESENTED AT PUBLIC HEARINGS
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH (April 24 and 25, 1981)
H-l Robert Baird, Ford, Bacon & Davis Utah, Inc.
Salt Lake City, Utah E-186
H-2 A. E. Rickers, Utah Department of Health
Salt Lake City, Utah E-189
H-3 S. T. Holmes III
Salt Lake City, Utah E-191
H-4 W. D. Kittinger, Rockwell International
Canoga Park, California E-194
(Comments also included in hearings records for Durango,
Colorado, and Washington, D.C., as requested.)
H-5 Elaine N. Howard
Salt Lake City, Utah *
H-6 Robert Immitt, Tooele County Chamber of Commerce
Tooele, Utah
DURANGO, COLORADO (April 27 and 28, 1981)
H-7 Albert J. Hazle, Colorado Department of Health
Denver, Colorado E-194
H-8 D. Monte Pasco, Colorado Department of Natural Resources
Denver, Colorado (Presented by Rahe Junge at the Hearings) ... E-195
H-9 R. T. Scott, Chairman, La Plata County Commissioners
La Plata County, Colorado E-196
E-5
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
ID No.
TESTIMONY PRESENTED AT PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
H-10 J. K. Deuel, Deuel and Associates
Albuquerque , New Mexico ....................................... E-198
H-ll Roy Craig, Durango Chamber of Commerce
Durango, Colorado ............................................. *
H-12 Bob Hatfield, Durango City Council
Durango , Colorado ............................................. *
H-13 Robert G. Beverly, Union Carbide
Grand Junction, Colorado ...................................... *
H-14 Robert Buckskin, American Indian Movement
Ignacio, Colorado ............................................. *
H-15 Charles Butler
Durango, Colorado ............................................. *
H-16 Preston Ellsworth
Durango, Colorado ............................................. *
H-17 Don Michael, La Plata County Commissioner
La Plata County , Colorado ..................................... *
WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 14 and 15, 1981)
H-18 Robert G. Beverly, American Mining Congress
Washington, D.C ............................................... E-205
H-19& J. C. Gilliland, Molybdenum Division of AMAX, Inc ............. E-215 &
H-20 Golden, Colorado .............................................. E-217
H-21 Victor Lescovitz
State Representative, 46th Legislative District
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania .................................. E-223
H-22 James E. Ross, State Senator
47th Legislative District, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Beaver, Pennsylvania .......................................... E-224
H-23 Paul Robinson, Southwest Research and Information Center
Albuquerque , New Mexico ....................................... *
H-24 Chauncey Kepford, Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power
State College , Pennsylvania ...............................
*0ral testimony. Available for review in Docket A-79-25
Environmental Protection Agency, Gallery One, West Tower Lobby,
401 M St., S.W., Washington, D.C.
E-6
-------
p-1
P-2
Typewritten copy of undated post card from Wells Eddleman, Durham, North
Carolina:
"Re uranium mill tailings cleanup standards: Can't vapor barriers,
additional covering in basements & foundations, & additional topsoil
mitigate the effects of radon & U-235 decay products?
"1% of the exposed people dying seems far too high to me. And the
calculations are wrong. 0.02 mrem/hour is 175 mrem/year of additional
gamma radiation. What value do you place on human life to say that,
because it's "difficult" to lower radon levels below .015 WL & extra
gamma below .02 miem/hr, it shouldn't be done? Is the EPA adopting
Ford's Pinto rationale? If so, make your homes and offices of tailings
first, then enact this rule."
w
16 June 1980
MEMO JO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Central Docket
Section, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
FROM: Dr. Edward A. Martell, National Center for Atmospheric
Research*, Boulder, Colorado
RECEWtD
SUBJECT: Comments on "Proposed Cleanup Standards for Inactive tNVlRONNENTAL PROTECTION
Uranium Processing Sites "(Docket No. A-79-25) AGENCY
JUN231980
CENTRAL DOCKET
In reply to your invitation for comment on "Proposed Cleanup SECTION
Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites,1 Federal Register,
27370-75, April 22, 1970, I wish to direct your attention to several
aspects of health risks from uranium mill tailings which have been
inadequately considered, or overlooked, as follows:
1. Inhaled Airborne Mill Tailings:
Although not included in the EPA listing of health hazards from
tailings, the inhalation of airborne tailings particles of respirable
size is potentially one of the most serious public health hazards. In
a study of windblown mill tailings near Grants, New Mexico, Sehmel
(1978) reports results which show that, in the respirable size fraction
of airborne particles, the average concentrations of radium-226 thorium-
230 and lead-210 are each about 1,000 picocuries per gram. Undoubtedly,
much of the particulate material in this size fraction is relatively low
in radioactivity and the more radioactive particles may have specific
activities of 1011 to 105 picocuries per gram or higher. Thus, the alpha
activity per particle may approach or exceed that of uranium metal dust
which is known to be a very effective carcinogenic agent (Hueper et al.,
1952). The alpha specific activities of airborne mill tailings particles
of respirable size must be determined in order to assess the potential
inhalation hazards. The solubility of the radioactive particles also
must be determined. Insoluble alpha emitting particles of respirable
size will contribute to the risk of lung cancer. However, if the radio-
active particles of respirable size are soluble, the bone-seeking radio-
isotopes (uranium, radium-226, and lead-210) will contribute to the risk
of leukemia and bone cancer.
The National Center for Atmospheric Research is sponsored by
the National Science Foundation.
-------
P-2
P-2
en
I
oo
2. Tailings Contamination of Vegetation:
There is a substantial degree of contamination of vegetation by
airborne radioactivity downwind of uranium mill operations. Thus, for
example, the concentrations of radium-226, thorium-230 and uranium on
vegetation one mile east of the Gas Hills Uranium Mill in central
Wyoming were 25 to 100 times higher than background vegetation levels at
greater distances (NUREG-0441, January 1979). The surface soil levels
of these radioisotopes also vary widely with distance and direction. It
is to be expected that uranium mill tailings also will be widely redis-
tributed in semi-arid areas. Strong, gusty winds of speeds exceeding 15
to 20 m/sec are sufficient to resuspend dry tailings deposits. The
prevailing direction of such winds locally will determine the pattern of
contamination. The contamination of surface soils and vegetation in
open lands in this manner gives rise to possible adverse effects on
grazing animals and to significant levels of contamination in dairy
products, cereal grains and other agricultural products. Standards for
radionuclide concentrations of vegetation on grazing lands and crop
lands should be developed.
3. Ground Hater Contamination:
In general, uranium mill tailings contain high concentrations of
sulfates, an acid»c and hygroscopic mixture which retains moisture and
promotes the solution and mobility of uranium, thorium and other mineral
constituents (Markos, 1979). As Markos points out, these characteristic
of tailings result in transport of contaminants to the upper surface of
tailings deposits where they can be redistributed by winds and leached
by precipitation and surface waters. These migrating salts also are
damaging to the vegetation of any protective soil and plant cover used
to stabilize tailings deposits. The solubility and mobility of uranium
and thorium radionuclides in tailings deposits indicates that uranium
and thorium contamination of ground waters, streams, wells and other
water supplies is to be expected. Standards for uranium and thorium
contamination of water supplies should be developed. In this connection
it is noted that uranium is just as effective as radium in the production
of malignant bone tumors (Finkel, 1953). If the uptake and retention of
ingested uranium in skeletal tissue is higher or lower than that for
radium, the standard for uranium in drinking water should be correspondingly
higher or lower than the existing standard of 5 picocuries per liter for
radium-226.
4. Proposed Cleanup Standards for Open Lands:
The proposed limit of 5 pCi/gm of radium-226 for cleanup of open
lands may be seriously inadequate, particularly in the downwind environs
of tailings deposits. Mill tailings deposited on the surfaces of open
land can give rise to unacceptable levels of airborne alpha emitting dust
particles of respirable size when disturbed by winds, vehicular traffic,
human activity, etc. (see Comment #1, above). The hazards from resuspended
alpha emitting dust particles must be evaluated. The levels of external
gamma radiation and of radon emission should not be the only criteria
for cleanup of mill tailings contamination on the surfaces of open
lands.
5. General Comment:
The concern about lung cancer risks from indoor radon progeny is
based on the high incidence of lung cancer in uranium miners. However,
uranium miners are exposed not only to a high cumulative exposure to
radon progeny, but also to aerosol constituents of uranium mine atmo-
spheres, including alpha emitting uranium mineral dust particles.
Uranium miners who smoke cigarettes have a much higher incidence of lung
cancer than non-smoking miners. The miners who smoke cigarettes are
subject to the additional risk from inhaled radioactive smoke particles
(Martell, 1975). Thus, the uranium miner is not subject to high radon
progeny alone, but to a combination of this and other factors which
combine to contribute to a high incidence of lung cancer.
It has been noted (Morken, 1959) that chronic expsoure to high
concentrations of radon progeny alone is not effective in the induction
of bronchial cancer. Simularly, estimation of lung cancers in the
general population based on the uranium miner incidence and on cumulative
radon progeny exposure alone, results in the prediction of an excessively
high incidence (Cliff, 1978). It is proposed that insoluble alpha
emitting particles which are inhaled and retained in the lung (Hueper et
al., 1952; Martell, 1975) play a key role in bronchial cancer induction.
» 6. References:
(1) Cliff, K.D., "Assessment of Airborne Radon Daughter Concentrations
in Dwellings in Great Britain. Phys. Med. Biol. 23, 696-711, 1978.
(2) Finkel, M.P., "Relative Biological Effectiveness of Radium and
Other Alpha Emitters in CF No. 1 Female Mice, Proce. Soc. Exp.
Biol. (N.Y.) 83, 494-498, 1953.
(3) Hueper, W.C., J.H. Zuefle, A.M. Link and M.G. Johnson, "Experimental
Studies in Metal Cancerigenesis. II. Experimental Uranium Cancers
in Rats," J. National Cancer Inst. 13, 291-305, 1952.
(4) Markos, G., "Geocheniical Mobility and Transfer of Contaminants in
Uranium Mill Tailings," Proc. Sympos. on Uranium Mill Tailings
Management. Fort Collins, CO, 1979.
(5) Martell, E.A., "Tobacco Radioactivity and Cancer in Smokers,
American Scientist 63^ 404-412, 1975.
(6) Morken, D.A., "The Biological Effects of Radon on the Lung,1
Proceedings Conference on Noble Gases. ERDA-TIC CONF.-730915,
Stanley, R.E. and Moghissi, A.A., Editors, 1973.
(7) NUREG-0441, DEIS, Gas Hills Uranium Mill, Docket No. 40-299, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 1979.
-------
P-2
P-3
(8) Sehmel, G.A., "Airborne Participate Concentrations and Fluxes at an
Active Uranium Mill Tailings Site," Proceedings NEA Seminar on
Management, Stabilization and Environmental Impact of Uranium
Mill Tailings. Albuquerque, N.M., July 1978.
Received
& Standards Division. OHF
Monsanto
Dates '
JUN201S80
JT'P-7
.MOUND FACILITY
Operated for the United States
Department of Energy
June 16, 1980
R)
I
Dr. Stanley Lichtman
Docket No. A-79-25
Criteria and Standards Division (ANR-460)
Office of Radiation Programs
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Dr. Lichtman:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
JUN241980
CENTRAL DOCKET
SECTION1
Attached please find comments from personnel in the Radon Program Group
at Mound Facility regarding the "Proposed Cleanup Standards for Inactive
Uranium Processing Sites," 40CFR192.
Mound Facility's Radon Group is currently performing environmental radon
and decay products evalutions at former MED/AEC sites (FUSRAP) and will
in the future perform the same evaluation at inactive Uranium Mill Tailings
sites for the Department of Energy's Environmental Control Technology Division,
Germantown, Maryland.
In light of our involvement and experience of measuring radon and its decay
products, we offer the following comments and opinions on the proposed
cleanup standards for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites, 40CFR192, FR45,
PP27370-27375. Docket No. A-79-25.
1. The proposed standard for radioactivity indoors is an average
annual radon decay-product concentration of 0.015 WL including
background. Because this is based on an annual average con-
centration, monitoring over a period of at least one year is
implied. In our opinion, the state-of-the-art instrumentation
for long-term monitoring of radon decay-products concentrations
is less advanced, less reliable, and less practical than that
for the long-term monitoring of radon. Obviously, if the annual
average radon concentration in a building is equal to or less
than 1.5 pd'/liter, then the proposed standard of 0.015 WL is
met. We strongly recommend that a standard for the average
annual indoor radon concentration of 1.5 pd'/liter including
background be included as an alternative to the standard of
0.015 WL. This would provide greater flexibility in the
monitoring of buildings, because instrumentation could be used
to monitoring either radon or radon decay products as deemed
Monsanto Research Corporation P. O. Box 32 Miamisburg, Ohio 45342
a subsidiary of Monsanto Company
(5131 866-4020
-------
P-3
P-4
Dr. Stanley Lichtman
- 2 -
June 16, 1980
M
I
appropriate by specific sets of conditions found in different
buildings. Also, this approach of alternate standards, one
based on radon concentration and the other on radon decay-
product concentration, is consistent with that followed by
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 10CFR20.
2. The proposed standard for radon decay products indoors (0.015 WL)
and the alternate recommended above for radon indoors (1.5 pCi/
liter) are based on an annual average. We recommend that some
guidance be included as to what constitutes an acceptable monitor-
ing protocol for determining an annual average radon or radon
decay-product concentration.
3. The proposed standard for radium-226 in soil on open land is
5 pCi/gm in any 5-cm thickness within 1 foot of the surface or
in any 15-cm thickness below 1 foot. Our interpretation of this
standard leads us to the conclusion that an infinite number of
samples would have to be analyzed to certify that this standard
has been met. We recommend that the meaning of "any 5-cm thickness"
and "any 15-cm thickness" be stated more clearly.
Thank you very much and if we can assist in further details don't hesitate
to contact us.
Sincerely,
William G. Yates
Radon Program Manager
UGY:km
JUN3Q1980
CENTRAL DOCKET
SECTION
QBattelle
June 23, 1980
Pacific Northwest Laboratories
P.O. Box 999
Richland, Washington U.S.A. 99352
Telephone (509) 376-0303
Telex 15-2674
Docket No. A-79-25
Environmental Protection Agency
Central Docket Section, Room 2903B
401 H Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Gentlemen:
COMMENTS ON "EPA PROPOSED CLEANUP STANDARDS FOR INACTIVE URANIUM PROCESSING
SITES" PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER VOL. 45, NO. 79, TUESDAY,
APRIL 22, 1980
Our overall impression of the proposed standards is that EPA has taken a
flexible approach, allowing DOE and NRC considerable freedom to choose
appropriate methods of implementation for each specific site. We agree
with this approach since sampling design and analysis requirements may vary
from site to site. However, it is important that EPA realizes the proposed
numerical standards are ambiguous with respect to their statistical inter-
pretation and implementation. For example, the word "average" is not de-
fined. Does it refer to the arithmetic mean ("expected value" in statistical
language), the median, geometric mean, or mode? Also, the surface area to
which the average applies and from which measurements or samples are taken
is not specified. For example, are average radium-226 concentrations in soil
applicable to surface areas of 1 m2, 10 mz, 100 m2, etc.?
A more important point perhaps is that the probability of taking remedial
action (RA) depends on the particular decision rule chosen^ i.e., whether
decisions are made on the basis of the estimated average )f or on an upper or
lower confidence limit on the true (unknown) average y. If the decision
rule
"Take RA if x > standard"
(1)
is used, this implies a 50* or greater chance of taking remedial action if the
true average y is equal to or greater than the standard. If the decision
rule is
"Take RA if x + s- >_ standard,
(2)
i.e., if the upper 84% (one-sided) confidence limit on v is greater than or
equal to the standard, this implies an 84% or greater probability of taking
RA when u > standard, (s- is the standard error, i.e., the standard devia-
tion of ir.T If the chosen decision rule is
-------
P-4
P-5
Gentlemen
June 23, 1980
Page 2
"Take RA if x - s- >_ standard,
(3)
i.e., if the lower 84% (one-sided) confidence limit on y is greater than
or equal to the standard, this implies a 16% or greater probability of
taking RA when y >_ standard. (The above statements assume x" has a normal
(Gaussian) distribution.) Other probabilities can be specified by using
a multiplier of s- other than 1.
Decision rule (2) above means that RA would take place even when x" is less
than the standard. Of course this would increase RA costs. This rule
essentially says that RA will be conducted unless there is statistical
evidence that x" is significantly below the standard. Decision rule (3)
above might be the view point chosen for a certification survey after RA
has been completed. Rule (3) says that additional RA will not be taken
unless there is statistical evidence that x" is significantly above the
standard.
The main point is that there are various viewpoints that can be taken
that influence the probabilities of taking RA. EPA should be aware of
these different approaches and consider whether additional comments are
needed in the standards. We believe it's best to leave such decisions to
the implementerssince this allows greater flexibility. Two references
that discuss the probability aspects of decision rules (1), (2), and (3)
are
Leidel, N.A., K. A. Busch, and J. R. Lynch. Occupational
Exposure Sampling Strategy Manual, U.S. Dept. of Health,
Ed. and Welfare, Nat. Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, Cincinnati, DHEW (NIOSH) Publ. No. 77-173,
Jan. 1977.
Bartlett, R. P., Jr. and L. P.' Provost, "Tolerances in
Standards and Specifications," Quality Progress, Dec. 1973.
Sincerely,
D. H. Denham
Sr. Research Scientist
Environmental & Risk Assessment
DHD:ncv
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT HOUSTON
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
June 23, 1980
RECEIVtD
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
JUN 2 6 1930
CENTRAL DOCKET
Docket A-79-25
EPA Central Docket Section
Room 2903 B,
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
To whom it may concern:
I have examined the proposed rule 40CFR192 beginning on page 27370
of the April 22, 1980 Federal Register and offer the following comments.
On page 27372- midway down the first column, it is stated that tailings
at 5 pCi/g of radium-226 will have less than 5 times the radon
emanation of ordinary soil which presumably has about 1 pCi/g
of radon-226. This implies that the emanating power of soil
and tailings are the same which in general is not a valid
assumption.
On page 27372 midway down, four characteristics of a standard
are listed. The fourth criterion, "practical" states that it must
be possible to accomplish the requirements in a reasonable time
with the techniques and personnel available. What does "available"
mean, particularly with regard to personnel? Does it mean personnel
already hired by an agency, say DOE, and readily divertable from
other less pressing tasks or does it mean available to be hired?
Similarly for techniques - does this imply techniques available
routinely to the agency or techniques known somewhere in the country
or perhaps the world which must be purchased or adopted?
While it is already recognized that your proposed standard of 0.015 WL
including background may be lower than concentrations observed in
non-contaminated structures, I would like to point out that recently
available data have strongly supported this fact. A Canadian study"!
involving nearly 10,000 ordinary dwellings found that 759 or 7.6%
of them had radon daughter concentrations equal to or greater than
0.15 WL. This study consisted of grab samples taken during the
summer months and may be biased to the low side for that reason.
Rundo et al2 studied 22 ordinary houses in Illinois and found
that 9 of 22 exceeded 5 pCi/1 of radon. Those radon values would
be expected to give rise to working level values greater than 0.015.
McGregor et al, Health Physics (in press).
2 Rundo et al, Health Physics 36. 729-730.
-------
P-5
June 23, 1980
Docket A-79-25
Page 2.
While less applicable to the U.S. situation, Stranden et al found
that 15 out of 140 dwellings studied in Norway had radon daughter
concentrations exceeding 0.014 WL. (The data presentation in the
paper did not allow determination of the number greater than .015).
These data suggest that the rules developed to implement the stan-
dard must be very carefully thought through to prevent needless
cost and anxiety.
In section 192.12{a) you state criteria for average radium-226
concentrations in soils. You do not specify what surface area
may be used in determining this average however, and this would
seem to be a serious flaw.
Stranden et al, Health Physics 36, 413-421.
cerelK,
F. Gesell, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of
Health Physics
TFG:pd
P-6
i?
U.S EPA
827 Jamaica Road
Schenectady, NY 12309
February 24, 1981
MAR 05 198 1
CENTRAL DOCKET
1,
401 M. Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear sirs:
cprjiON
Thank you for soliciting my comments on proposed remedial
action (40 CFR 192) for residual radioactive material from
inactive uranium processing facilities.
The proposed standards for remedial action appear to me
to be flawed by the fact that they are based on the presumed
historical origin of particular radioactive nucleii rather than
on their presumed future effect on public health. While this
absurdity may be the result of poorly written legislation, it
is inexcusable that EPA allowed itself to be placed in such an
obviously untenable position.
Sincerely,
Henry Hurwitz, Jr.
-------
P-7
April 15. 1981
w
I
Docket A-7Q-25
Environmental Protection Agency
Central Docket Section
Vest Tower Lobby
IMH K Street S.W.
Washington, D.C.
Dear EPA Officials!
RECEIVED
PROTECTION
AGENCY
APR 2 9 1981
CENTRAL DOCKET
SECTION
The proposed radioactive waste that Is to be
transferred from Canonsburg and dumped in our area
Is very alarming and of much concern to us and our
family.
The people In Burgettstown Boro, Hanover, Smith,
and Jefferson Townships in Washington,County-, Penna.
are combining forces with Hancock and Brooke Counties
In West Virginia to fight to the very end to keep this
from taking place.
We do not want this waste. We already have a
questionable clean-up site for a chloroform spill
that took place In Midway, Penna. last summer located
on the outskirts of Burgettstown within a half mile
of our Junior-Senior High School. The underhanded
methods used by all those Involved in setting up this
site leave the residents with much distrust of
governmental agencies and their officials. To add
insult to injury, the chloroform clean-up operation
was to have been completed by December 1980, but as
of today*fe date Is still an on-going project}
If this radioactive waste dump Is forced upon
us by the DEH and DOE (as the above clean-up was),
what will prevent this from happening again and again
until the whole area Is a vast wasteland of dumps.
We request that any plans for transferral of
hazardous waste from one area of Washington County
to another be dropped and other alternatives considered.
Sincerely,
Mr. & Mrs. J. Wm. Hemphill
11 Hindman Ave.
Burgettstown, Pa. 15021
(Washington County) ^12-9^
P-8
KhCEIVbU
L PROTECTIO.
<~L>!TRAL DOCKET
Submitted by
Marie Pnazek
2208 Knob Crsek 3d.
Johnson City, Tenn.
37601
April 26, 1981
,$£-
I wish to conmend director and staff of EPA project for
preparing standards "For Remedial Action for Inactive Uranium
Sites (40-CFR-192)", that clear, concise, and the Ideas,
arguments, presented In logical form. This document gives
Information about state-of-the-art to solve problems posed by
uranium mill tailings and other toxic elements found In the
pile which may pose a radiation health hazard to the public.
The recognition that transport by groundwater most likely means
by which radionuclldes may reach the biosphere Is significant,
but the means, that Is, liners, clsy or acid leaching to
minimize contamination, In my opinion, are woefully inadequate.
I would like to offer suggestion based not on mining
experience, scientific or technics! expertise, but cs concerned
Senior citizen, who listens to lectures, and reads articles about
the by-product of our industrial society, "garbage". These
wastes cannot decompose, or recycled and technology not develpoed
to contain wastes safely. After reading Item no. A.8.3, page
4-36, section on "Toxlcity of Major Toxic Substances Found In
Tailings", the Isst word on the ppge Is "sulfate". Immediately,
I remembered that graphite brick was made In 1940 by E. Fermi
and his group to slow down neutrons in an experlaant at Univ.
of Chicago. Also, In recent article there was reference to some
uranium deposit In coal mines. Ky question Is, whether It would
be possible to use hard coal, anthracite, wblch contains very
little moisture, to control effectively radioactivity. If, so,
the hard rock could be formed s*> a cover for piles to retard
radon gas and other particulste matter from escaping Into the
air. To contain migration of radlonuclides into the soil and
water the hsrd coal could be used as underlining, but It might
be necessary to shoft the pile, and use other means as terracing
slops, and digging trenches around flat land to be filed with
coal. Another "dead material", fossils, petrified rock might
be useful for this purnose.
Fortunately, hard coal deposits are located In western
states where many of the uranium piles are located. It would
be less hazgrdous to move the coal from the mines to the
inactive processing sites, than vice-versa.
There are two alnor clerical errors on the following p.'jges
that should be deleted, that Is, 7-2, line 12, and 7-8, llne"5.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Important
subject .
-------
P-9
P-9
w
i
CHARLES R. BUTL-ER
RECEIVED
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTICrt
AGENCY
MAY 06 1981
CENTRAL DOCKET
•"rr~".an
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Docket No. A-79-25
West Tower, Gallery 1, 401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
April 28, 1981
Re: Comment on Proposed Cleanup and
Disposal Standards for Inactive
Uranium Processing Sites
Dear Sirs,
I have reviewed Parts IV, V and VI of the EPA proposals for cleanup and
disposal standards relating to inactive uranium processing sites. In my
opinion the proposed standards are too stringent and Inflexible to allow
the intent of PL 95-604 to be accomplished at reasonable costs.
With r?spect to Parts IV and V which relate to cleanup of inactive sites,
I recommend that the standard of 5 pCi/gm be increased and made subject
to greater flexibility.
For example, in the Durango area, Ford, Bacon and Davis (Nov. 1977) recom-
mended that 24 inches of top soil be removed from the raffinate ponds area.
In view of the fact that most of the contaminants in the ponds area have
already been covered with several feet of overburden, the proposal to
remove 24 inches of soil defies logic. The available cover materials
adjacent to the raffinate area have a higher emission rate than the
average surface soils at the raffinate area.
Utilizing the proposed standards, I presume that DOE would drill a series
of holes to determine the concentration of radium 226 in the subsurface.
A determination of radium concentrations attributable to mill residues
represents a complex if not impossible problem to the DOE or its contractoi
especially in view of the fact that the residues are mixed with natural
soils that in many instances contain radium 226 in excess of 5 piC/g.
The standards should provide sufficient flexibility so that selective area;
of contamination can be defined and the contaminants removed. A series of
monitor holes between the Animas River and the raffinate area could be uti-
lized to determine the degree of ground water contamination, and a sensible
decision could then be made as to the type of remedial action program whict
EPA
April 28,
Page 2
1981
will provide long term protection to the public. The proposed standards
may provide DOE with no option other than removal of a ten or more feet
of material from the entire raffinate area at a cost of several million
dollars. If fill material were derived from the adjacent hillside, the
resulting radon and gamma emission rates would probably be higher than
the pre-project rates.
Part VI requires that ground waters not be contaminated beyond .1 Km from
the buried pile. There may be instances where a planned gradual release
of soluble minerals over a long period of time would make more sense than
a zero discharge long term impoundment of the toxic and radioactive sub-
stances. Sensible criteria for shale or clay or other types of insoluble
liners should be sufficient for the protection of ground water. A drinking
water or no degradation standard should be sufficiently flexible that a
non-aquifer medium of containment such as a shale formation not be subject
to a .1 or a 1 Km distance requirement.
I trust these comments are helpful in arriving at sensible standards for
cleanup and disposal of the uranium tailings at reasonable costs.
Very truly yours,
Charles R. Butler
CRB/n
-------
P-10
P-10
^^ LA<0dl\
f) -D j
.j^6o——«^<^ ^y
0^sv&Len.
A^msrwij
_*
/^—7 Hi //,
L^r
-------
P-10
-------
PrlO
P-ll
PI
I
Text of hand written letter received 12/16/81 from Robert J Kuchena of
Cuddy, Pa.
(Page 1)
Sir:
In reguard (sic) to the pollution in Canonsburg.
Why move this trash from one place & put it some other place. This
pollution should not have been put there in the first place. With all
this pollution going into the environment every day how are we going to
live.
I'm 35 years old, I'm worried about my to (sic) sons and my
grandchildren.
(Page 2)
We are going to have to find other ways to produce power and stop al1
pollution. The only way to stop it is to eliminate it at the source.
There is hydro & solar power, even wind power but this nuclear power
has to
(Page 3)
be stopped.
The nuclear waste c an't be handled so there is one reason to go to
some thing else.
The standards you are setting are to (sic) high. My family & I want
NO Pollution.
(Page 4)
After we screw this world up there isn't any other world for us to go.
We have the air polluted and even the oceans 78? of the world polluted.
Stop it
Robert J. Kuchena
Box 164
Cuddy, Pa 15031
Technical Information Project
P. 0. Box 602
Mandan, North Dakota 58554
May 6. 1981
Docket No. A-79-25
U. 3. Environmental Protection Agency
Central Docket Section
West Tower Lobby
401 M Street SW
Washington. D. C. 20460
NMEimLraO
AGENCY
MAY 2! 1931
CENTRAL DOCKET
~
Dear Sir/Madami
This letter is to comment on EPA's proposals for cleanup and
disposal standards for inactive uranium processing sites (40 CFR
Part 192). Our comments are centered around the following points:
(1) A lack of consideration of- the uptake and concentration
of radioactive and toxic elements by plants was evident in the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Remedial Action Standards
of Inactive Uranium Processing Sites (EPA 520/4-80-011) and is
reflected in the proposed standards. Considerable scientific
evidence points to the problem of uptake by plants of radioactive
elements (Athalye and Mistry, 1972| D'Souza and Mistry, 1970;
Moffet and Tellier. 1977i Morishima et al., 1977) and subsequent
contamination of the food chain (Garner, 1972). In North Dakota
a serious case of molybdenosis in range-fed beef cattle resulted
from vegetation growing near a waste site of a past uranium pro-
cessing facility. Selenium poisoning is also of concern.
Our concern in this area is heightened by recent reports from
studies in coal mine reclamation work (Power et al., 1979^ Merrill
et al. . 1980) which show that upward migration of salts (and
perhaps toxic elements) occurs in SErai^arid end arid regions. This
upward migration would eventually make buried waste available to
plants. If this occurs with the uranium mill tails in this pro-
gram the stricture that "the remdial action should be done right
the fitfst time" (HR Rep. No. 1480, 95th Cong., 2nd Sess., page 40
(1978)) will have been violated.
(2) Given the admonition that "no disposal method has been
tested sufficiently to establish its practicality or1 effective-
ness over long periods of time" (46 FR 2558), the lack of a re-
quirement for detailed background analysis at any new disposal
site and for strict, long-term monitoring fallowing remedial dis-
posal is unacceptable. We believe that a pre- and post-disposal
analysis and monitoring must include (a) an assessment of alpha,
beta and gamma radiation in ambient air at the disposal site on
a daily basis! (b) daily assessment of radon-222 concentrations
in ambient airi (c) weekly assessment of surface waters within
-------
p-11
p-11
1000 meters of the disposal site for total radioactivity and for
concentrations of radioactive and toxic element si (d) oarrtjily
assessment of groundwater fijom samples taken at the site and at
various distances from the site for radioactive and toxic elements;
(e) monthly assessment of soil cores for radioactive and toxic
elements; (f) monthly assessment of above- and below-ground por-
tions of the vegetation at the disposal site and at various dis-
tances from the site for radioactive and toxic elements; (g)
monthly assessment of the domestic animals and animal products
from adjacent farms or ranches for radioactive and toxic elements!
(H) quarterly assessment of small mammals within 1000 meters of
the disposal site for radioactive and toxic elements; (i) annual
assessment of the radiological status of the human population living
within 30 kilometers of the proposed disposal site.
(3) The indoor gamma radiation standard of 6.82 raR/hr would
exceed the average annual outdoor background dose by 100£. For
health reasons this should be lowered.
(M In areas where water shortages are a common occurance the
policy toward protecting groundwater must be no degradation of the
graundwater. This standard uses the background characteristics of
the groundwater as the yardstick by which future pollution is
measured. Operationally this standard requires numerous and frequent
sampling of the groundwater to assure compliance. Additionally
pre- and post-disposal sampling must be coordianted to allow for
a scientifically controlled and statistically valid methodology.
Merrill. 5.D., P.M. Sandoval, J.F. Power, and E. J. Doering. I960.
Adequate reclamation of mined land? presented at Symposium
of Soil Conservation Society of America and WRCC-21 Committee
Billings, Mont, on March 26-27, 1980.
Moffett, D. and M. Tellier. 197?. Uptake of radioisotopes by
vegetation growing on uranium tailings. Can. J. Soil Sci.
57.1 M7-425.
Morishima, H., T. Koga, H. Kawai, Y. Honda, and K. Katsurayama.
1977. Studies on the movement and distribution of uranium in
the environment—distribution of uranium in agricultural pro-
ducts. J. Radiation Research l8i 139-150.
Power, J.F., F.M. Sandoval, and R.E. Ries. 1979. Topaoil-Subsoil
requirements to restore North Dakota mined land to original
productivity. Mining Engineering 1708-1712.
I The Technical Information Project appreciates this opportunity
(-• I to comment. Please keep us informed of developments on these
0° standards.
Sincere
Donald Pay
REFFERENCES USED IH THIS LETTER
Athalye, V.V. and K.B. Mistry. 1972. Foliar retention, transport,
and leaching of polonium-210 and lead-210. Radiation Botany
12i 287-290.
O'Souza, T.J. and K. B. Mistry. 1970. Comparative uptake of thorium-
230 , radium-226, lead-210, and polonium-210 by plants. Radiation
Botany l£i 293-295.
Garner, R. J. 1972. Transfer of Radioactive Materials from the
Terrestrial Environment to Animals and Man. CRC Press, Rock-
ville, Maryland.
-------
P-12
P-12
1/iGb. 1
(•, 1901
L)or-lrot No. A-?9-?5
•nviron-^nnti 1 Prelection Agency
'>ntr"l locket Section
W<*st To'-'er Lobby
'4-ni [.i Street 3.W.
W«f?viInn-ton, U.C. ?r>l*60
TO i-iHOK IT MAY CONCiifiN:
AGENCY
IAAY121981
This It to norair."nt on the possible transfer <3r uraniuT. mill tailings
from t^e C^nnnsburK "nd Burrell Township sites in Washington County,
Fenna, to either the Dlns-"ore or Ash Dump Sites also in Washington
County, Fonn".
Ive protest the possibility of having a tailings disposal site In our
iresi for the following reasons i
HEALTH AND SAFaTif HA^AhDo
1.) The long term effect^ of low level radiation are unknown
in<3 of iruch controversy even among medical and scientific
erp»rts. There is no guarantee that the tailings would not
be a threat to the lives of us and to future generations.
?.) Lend around *-he proposed sites Is much too porous and
shifting rock strata from mine blasting could well permit
irovp^Tt or radioactive particles.
J.) The proposed sites are in the watershed of the Snrlth
Township Kunlcipal 'water Authority with the possibility of
•'-n ter-supply contamination, and also near at least two
^leT^ntary schools: Hanover and Collier.
'(-.) Health studies of the population around the proposed sites
have not been conducted to determine the existing cancer
rate or the current exposure to radiation or hazardous
elements in the environment. Additional exposure to
rTll"tion from thp tailings may then exceed so-called
"Tdf" llirlts" .
5.) Trans port ino- the tailings vrould be a large scale under-
taking which would expose both workers and the general
public to h"ilth anr) safety hazards, such as Hadon 222
exposure Tnd truck or rail accidents.
2ICONOMC HAZARDS
1.) Tronerty would be devaluated. (Who would want to buy a
hone ne3T a radioactive waste dump?)
T.) Tr'insnort-'t ion of the urinluir tailings could prove to be
tremendously oxnensive to locnl taxpayers if no guarantee
is i>"idr I o cover th" cost of highway destruction or damage
to health and property as a result of truck or rail
• traffic "nd acoldonts.
~).) Certsiirlnnt ion of the water supi ly would be very costly
to "10 "ji-lth Township Municipal Wi'er Authority and its
nnstnirors .
(Continued)
'J-.J It. •••ill ro^t taxpayers Tillions of dollars ir.ore to transfer
thr> tailinors to the Dlnsirorn or Ash Durrp Sites than It would.
to stnbillze them at Canonsburg.
/
HEAITHj. 5AFETYt_AtJj).ECCNCKIC HA/ARLb
1.) There are no guarantees that properties adjacent to the
Dins-Tore and Ash Duirp 3ites would not be used also for future
hazardous waste dumping, escalating all of the previously
listed hazards.
For all of the above reasons and the statements in the Federal
leo-lster, Part VI, dated January 9, 1981 - Environmental Protection
Acency - Proposed Disposal .Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing
'It^s; Proposed Rule and Extension of Comment Perlodi
"Although several States and the KRC have begun regulating
••nllinpis at active mills, no disposal method has been
t^str-d sufficiently to establish its practicality or
effectiveness over long periods of time." (Pg. 2558)
"DlSDosnl of t-iilintrs piles frotr Inactive processing
Annuities is a large scale undertaking for which
there is very little experience." (Pg. 2561),
t.'n Vnllovr th-it the prono'ril to trnnsfer ur-iniuir. mill t'lilings to
-I '"'i.nposnl -^Ite in our nr'-a be dropped and stabilisation in place
be the method adopted for correcting the situation.
Mr. & Krs. J. Vim. Hemphill
11 Hindman Ave.
Burgettstown, PA 15021
-------
P-13
P-14
m
i
ISJ
O
Docket A-79-25
Environmental Protection Agency
Central Docket Section
West Tower Lobby
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Sir:
9 Hindman Avenue
Burgettstown, PA
May 7, 1981
RECEIVED i^mu
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
MAY 1 5 1981
CENTRAL DOCKET
SECTION
15021
Recently it has come to the attention of our community of Burgettstown,
Washington County, PA that the Federal Government is considering dumping
residual radioactive uranium from the inactive uranium processing site
at Canonsburg, PA and Blairsville, PA to the Ash and Dinsmore sites in
Hanover Township.
I am very much against this as both sites are located in the middle of a
watershed area and near a very populated area. We understand that the ground
is very porous in that area which could result in contaminates leeching
away from your cjjoosen site.
This is a coal mining area and a lot of blasting is done and I wonder what
will happen in the long run to any site you might construct. Further
there are serious complications involved in transporting this waste. Do
you realize that with 80 thousand tons of waste from Blairsville and 200 to
500 thousand tons from Canonsburg, it would take 420 trucks per week running
simultaneously for 19 weeks travelling over bad roads and through our
communities to finish the job? Please think of the potential for accidents
and the radioactive dust that could be distributed while loading, travelling
from one site to another and unloading.
Rail shipment is not feasible as the tracks have not been kept in good shape
and a spur would have to be built at the unloading site.
It is surprising to me that our government is in the business of creating new
contaminated sites. There was one in Canonsburg which was moved to Blairsville
and now you want to move it again to create a third site.
Please take the time to make a responsible decision in this matter and have the
present site modified, treat the waste in some manner or transport it to existing
sites such as are located in Hanford, Washington. Please think of the people
of Burgettstown, of our children and of our children's children. Lets not put
the people in any potential jeopardy.
Burgettstown may be a small town community but our spirit is very large and we
will remain adamant on this issue.
Sincerely,
JHM:ajm
Route 3, dox 115-D
Las Cruces, M 88001
7 May 1981
'J.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Docket No. A-79-25
West Tower, Gallery 1
IjOl M Street
Washington, DC 201^60
RECEIVED
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGFNCY
MAY 21 1981
CENTRAL DOCKET
Jojce Hemphill Miller
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The proposed interim cleanup standards for inactive uranium processing
sites are meaningless because they assume that BEIR standards provide
adequate radiation protection and that cleanup technology is available.
Further, the first sentence of Section 192.21(d) is a self-destruct
button which cancels the rest of the proposed cleanup standards.
Enacting these standards into law will give the public a false sense of
security, load the books with more useless legislation and create the
impression that the Environmental Protection Agency has done something
to protect the environment.
BEIR standards. The National Academy of Sciences' Committee on the
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation — like every other august
body that has arrogated unto itself the right to tell us how much radi-
ation we may legally absorb — has a unique up-side-down method for
setting standards. If a manufacturer builds an airplane designed to fly
at mach-2, the plane is flown many times through increasingly tougher
tests before it is taken through the sound barrier. Radiation wizards
choose to start with the highest imaginable "safe" dose, then defend
their "standard" tooth and nail until someone establishes beyond question
that it is causing great numbers to fall over dead.
In 195U the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements
told Congress that 36 rads per year was a reasonable limit for public
exposure. In 1955 the annual limit for worker exposure finally was
reduced from 1000 rads to 25 rads. As late as 1961 the scientific
advisors to government agencies concerned with civil defense concluded
that an individual could withstand 200 rads over a few days and 1000 rads
in a year. Though the onus should be on the regulators to prove that a
standard is safe, it is left to the regulated to prove it unsafe.
One would have a difficult time selling BEIR standards to the likes of
Arthur Tamplin, John Gofman, Alice Stewart, Thomas Uancuso, Morris DeGroot,
Irving Bross, Brian McMahon or Ernest Sternglass — all of them respected
scientists, though not necessarily universally beloved. The EPA would so
well to heed Freeman Dyson; when Stemglass wrote a letter critical of a
1.
-------
P-14
P-14
Burns, Page 2
Page 3, Burns
w
i
to
Dyson article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Dyson replied (in the
bulletin):
I welcome this chance to call attention to Ernest Sternglass1 article
"Infant Mortality and Nuclear Tests" in the April Bulletin. I urge
everyone to read it. Compared with the issues Sternglass has raised,
my arguments are quite insignificant.
Sternglass displays evidence that the effect of fallout in
killing babies is about a hundred times greater than has been generally
supposed. The evidence is not sufficient to prove Sternglass is right.
The essential point is that Sternglass may be right
There is no maximum amount of garbage which a neighbor may throw in my yard,
whether it comes from his kitchen refuse or creeps invisibly from his mill
tailings.
Cleanup technology. The DOS estimates that all mill tailings could be
cleaned up for about $150 million, but it did not say what it was smoking
when it arrived at that figure. NEC's estimate for a "model mill" is
$322,000 to |26,2UO,000 with a possible cost of $136,590,000 if departures
from current technology are considered. But departures from current tech-
nology must be considered. The GAO says, reasonably effective means of
wind and water erosion control are available, although they will involve
continued maintenance costs." Does anyone think that continued maintenance
over the toxic life of the tailings is reasonable? The best GAO can say
for control of leaching is that "possible methods exist."
The State of New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division proposes that
mill tailings be covered with three meters of earth with vegetation on top.
However, soluble sulphate salts in the tailings together with dry conditions
at the surface would cause an upward flux that would bring radioactive
materials to the surface in a matter of months. The salts would kill vege-
tation on the surface, thus allowing wind and water erosion to go back to
work. I suppose that if you could find enough barium in the country, it
could be used to eliminate sulphuric acid from the waste before drying, but
then EPA would have to write cleanup standards for inactive barium mines.
One suggested method is an asphalt seal covered with an asphalt emulsion
covered with earth covered with vegetation treated with herbicides to
prevent penetration of the seal by the roots. So far no one has offered
to install such a system with a 10,000-year warantee.
Scrubbing and washing might reduce radioactivity on most structural surfaces,
though with some hazard to the workers. There is no technique which can
effectively decontaminate open land and vegetation.
What will work? There is one course which might stabilize the problem if
not the tailings. Until guaranteed cleanup technology is invented, we
could halt the mining of uranium except in quantities sufficient for
medical and research requirements.
This system, of course, would require some adjustments in electric power
generation and weapons manufacture. As to electricity, the sooner we
make the adjustment, the easier it will be. The weapons matter offers a
marvelous opportunity for conservation, uetween them, United States and
Hussis have sno-ijZh racloar weanons to deliver the equivalent of four tons
of TNT to every man, woman and child on earth, '''ow if .-jvT-yonfi vill rive
Uf tv;o tons of his sY.ar", it will not be necessary to build any new bombs
'jntil the copulation o!1 *.h= sarth acubl^s.
jast realists.
iincerelj
-------
P-15
P-16
PI
i
S3
N)
JGP-53
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
401 H Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Gentlemen:
4459 Kilmer Drive
Murrysville, PA 15668
May 8, 1981
-NVmONMEWAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
MAY 2 9 1981
CENTRAL DOCKET
SECTION
In reference to»the material covered in Docket A-79-25, it is my under-
standing that the EPA proposes to regulate radon emissions based upon
their point of origin and not by their health impact. I consider this
approach to be bigoted, highly discriminatory and inconsistent with
the intent of Congress in forming the EPA. Release of a material to
the environment may have a significant health impact, and it is your
responsibility to make that determination. It is not your privilege
to say that radon from one source is unsatisfactory (bad radon), but
from another source the identical radon is satisfactory (good radon).
The Food and Drug Administration does not determine the health effect
of a food material based upon where it was grown nor does it base a
drug's safety on whether it was derived in nature or synthesized by
a drug manufacturer. An extension of your approach would do just the
opposite. Your approach to the regulation of radon emissions is un-
scientific, illogical and a dangerous precedent if enacted. Therefore,
I protest this approach and urge you to redefine allowable radon
emissions based upon the normal approach of concentrations and quantities.
Very truly yours,
cc: Rep. Don Bailey
r
&*e^™»
-------
P-16
P-17
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
! 5 KEARNY STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108
415 411-6561
1715 I STREET, N.W.
SUITE 6OO
WASHINGTON D.C. SOOO6
loi 113-8110
Hay 8, 1981
1» EAST 4INO STREET
NEW YOKE, N.Y. 10168
III 949-0049
Dr. William A. Hills, Director
Criteria and Standards Division
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
West Tower Gallery 1
401 M street, S.W.
Washington DC 20460
RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
Remedial Action Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing
Sites (40 C.F.R. 192), December 1980, EPA 520/4-80-011,
and Accompanying Proposed Standards, 46 Fed. Reg. 2556,
January 9, 1981
PI
I
N>
U)
Dear Dr. Mills:
Enclosed are the comments of the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) and the Southwest Research and Information Center
(SWRIC) on the above-referenced draft environmental impact statement
and accompanying proposed standards. NRDC and SWRIC are both
public interest environmental organizations with long-standing
commitments to protecting the public from the hazards of uranium
mining and milling.
We believe that implementation of the proposed standards will
go a long way towards ensuring that disposal and clean-up of inactive
uranium mill tailings sites will be adequate to protect the public
from future exposures to radioactivity. However, as explained in
detail in our comments, the draft statement and proposed standards
omit consideration of critical regulatory and technical issues. In
addition, they fail to discuss adequately many of those issues that
are addressed.
These fundamental flaws can only be rectified by preparation
and circulation of a new draft statement and supplementary proposed
regulations.
Sincerely,
Lisa Gollin
NRDC
Geojfgi
NRDC
TOU*Jf Tsm-\Mfiofc, •
Paul Robinson
-------
P-17
P-17
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
85 KEARNY STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108
415 491-6561
1715 I STREET. H.W.
SUITE 600
SOI SSJ-8S1O
1SS EAST 4SHD STREET
NEW YORK. N.Y. !Ot68
sis 949-0049
COMMENTS OF THE
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL AND THE
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH AND INFORMATION CENTER ON
THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR
REMEDIAL ACTION STANDARDS FOR INACTIVE URANIUM
PROCESSING SITES (40 CFR 192)(EPA 520/4-80-011)
AND ACCOMPANYING PROPOSED STANDARDS
46 FED. REG. 2556, (JANUARY 9, 1981)
Submitted by:
Lisa Gollin~NRDC
Paul Robinson—SWRIC
Georgia Yuan—NRDC
May 8, 1981
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
II. THE DEIS DOES NOT MEET THE SUBSTANTIVE
REQUIREMENTS OF NEPA
A. The DEIS Fails to Provide an Adequate
Basis for Selection of the Proposed
Standards.
B. The DEIS Fails to Provide Adequate
Analysis of Health Hazards.
1. Acknowledged health risks were not
addressed.
2. The statistical analysis of health
effects in the DEIS does not take
into account population increases.
3. The DEIS fails totally to analyze
the potentially significant food
exposure pathway.
4. The DEIS does not adequately address
occupational health hazards.
III. THE DEIS AND PROPOSED STANDARDS DO NOT
ADEQUATELY ADDRESS CONTAMINATION OF WATER
OR SOIL NEAR INACTIVE MILL SITES
A. EPA Has Failed to Provide Sufficient
Information on Ground and Surface
Water Contamination.
B. The Proposed Standards Do Not Adequately
Address the Problem of Already Contam-
inated Surface and Ground Water.
C. The DEIS Does Not Adequately Assess
the Toxicity of Non-Radioactive Contam-
inants in Surface and Ground Water.
D. The DEIS Discussion of Soil Contamination
is Inadequate Because It Fails to Address
Non-Radiological Contaminants.
THE PROPOSED STANDARDS DO NOT CONTAIN
ADEQUATE MEASURES TO ENSURE IMMEDIATE
PROTECTION OR FOR PROPER IMPLEMENTATION
A. EPA Should Promulgate Standards Aimed
at Immediately Mitigating Hazardous
Conditions in the Period Before
Remedial Action.
IV.
1
3
3
5
5
8
11
12
12
15
17
18
19
19
-------
P-17
P-17
ii
IV. (cont.)
V.
Pi
I
C.
The Proposed Standards Should Include
Monitoring and Implementation Programs
to Ensure Compliance After Remedial
Efforts Are Completed.
The DEIS Remedial Standard for Contam-
inated Buildings Should Be More Specific
in Order to Aid Implementation.
CONCLUSIONS
21
23
24
I. INTRODUCTION
The Natural Resources Defense Council and the Southwest
Research and Information Center submit the following comments
on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Remedial Action
Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites {40 C.F.R. 192)
EPA 520/4-80-011 (DEIS) and on the accompanying standards (46
Fed. Reg. 2556) prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). The DEIS and proposed standards have been issued in
response to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of
1978 42 U.S.C. §7901, e_t se£. (UMTRCA) . UMTRCA, inter alia,
requires the EPA to "promulgate standards of general
application ... for the protection of the public health,
safety, and the environment from radiological and
non-radiological hazards associated with residual radioactive
materials ... located at inactive uranium mill tailings sites
and depository sites ... . "—
Although we are pleased with the progress signaled by the
issuance of these proposed standards and this DEIS, we are
compelled to note that the statutory deadline for promulgation
of these standards passed almost two years ago. Furthermore,
although we believe that implementation of these standards will
go a long way towards ensuring adequate protection of the
public, we urge EPA to supplement the standards to cover a
broader range of health hazards. Even though EPA took
_1/UMTRCA §275 (a) .
-------
P-17
P-17
n
i
- 2 -
substantial time to complete its mandate, the*proposed
standards are too narrow and this long-awaited DEIS is
unsatisfactory.
The impact statement fails to meet the requirements of
the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347
(NEPA), in two fundamental respects. The discussion of the
proposed standards is superficial and incomplete. The DEIS
does not provide adequate information for choosing the proposed
standards nor does it provide a well-reasoned rationale for
their selection. Additionally, the DEIS fails to discuss all
the health effects of uranium mill tailings. The limited
•
treatment of health effects in the DEIS hampers EPA's ability
to promulgate all the necessary health protection standards.
The proposed standards reflect the deficiencies of the
DEIS and fall short of the statutory mandate of UMTRCA. EPA
fails to address occupational safety, non-radiological
contamination of soils, surface and ground water which has
already been contaminated and protection of the general
population in the interim period before remedial action is
completed.
Inactive uranium mill tailings sites have long been
recognized as health hazards and EPA must act expeditiously so
that remedial action can begin. However, we believe that EPA
must prepare a new DEIS in order to correct the fundamental
deficiencies we identify below. Until a revised and
- 3 -
substantially improved DEIS has been prepared, there is
insufficient basis for promulgating the protection standards
mandated by Congress. The standards which EPA has proposed
must be supplemented in order to properly guide the remedial
action so that this decades old problem will finally be
solved. Finally, EPA should also provide another opportunity
for public comment of a revised impact statement and
supplemented proposed standards.
II. THE DEIS DOES NOT MEET THE SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS OF
NEPA
A. The DEIS Fails to Provide an Adequate Basis for Selection
of the Proposed Standards.
The DEIS is consistent in its failure to present
meaningful analysis of its proposed standards. This failure
has limited EPA's view of its Congressional mandate. EPA did
not propose occupational safety standards, ground and surface
water clean-up standards, or standards for the time period
before remedial action is completed. See Sections II.B.4,
III.B., and IV.D. below for more detailed discussion.
Moreover, the rationale for sele'cting the proposed
standards is unclear. Whether one looks at the indoor radon
standards or water contamination standards, EPA's treatment is
the same. Three different alternatives are presented: a
moderate alternative and two extremes. The DEIS then summarily
disposes of the two extreme alternatives and ends its analysis.
-------
P-17
P-17
- 4 -
- 5 -
I
ro
-j
In short, EPA provides no substantive analysis of its standards
in this DEIS. Although we feel that the proposed standards
will in large part protect public health after disposal and
clean-up are completed, EPA has not provided a basis for
choosing these standards in the DEIS.
The.DEIS discussion of the radon standard for tailings
disposal illustrates EPA's superficial treatment of the
proposed standards. The radon standard specifies the type of
measurement required -- dose, total release rate, or release
rate per unit area -- and sets a numerical limit on radon
emissions. The DEIS rejects both a dose standard and a total
radon release rate standard in two brief paragraphs DEIS, p.
8-4, 8-5. The rejections are not well supported and consist of
conclusory statements:
"We rejected a dose or exposure standard. It is
cumbersome to implement, with no compensating
advantages except that it relates directly to
risk. ... We also rejected a standard based on
the total radon release rate. Limiting the total
radon release rate fails to take account of the
great differences in radioactivity among the
piles." Id.
The choice of specific numerical limits is also not well
supported and relies only on the rejection of extreme cases:
"We considered setting a higher or lower radon
release standard. Higher levels, from 10 to 40
pci/m2-sec, perhaps, appear unjustified. ... We
also find near total control of radon release
from the tailings unjustified. Incremental costs
for achieving emission rates lower than 2
pCi/m2-sec rise faster than emissions drop, and
any achievable health benefits would be extremely
expensive." DEIS, p. 8-6, 8-7.
It appears from these discussions that EPA is relying more on
intuition than on actual analysis. We believe that in order
for this DEIS to meet the substantive requirements of NEPA, the
discussion of the standards must include a systematic
comparison of at least the costs, health impacts and likely
disposal options which would result from implementation of the
proposed standard and a higher and lower alternative. In
addition, the DEIS should discuss a similar range of limits for
each type of standard, i.e., dose, total radon release rate,
and release rate per unit area. Until such an analysis has
been completed, EPA has not provided an adequate basis for
setting its standards and has effectively shirked its
responsibilities to consider reasonable alternatives in this
DEIS.
B. The DEIS Fails to Provide Adequate Analysis of Health
Hazards
1. Acknowledged health risks were not addressed.
The health effects from exposure to both radiological and
non-radiological components of mill tailings are poorly
documented. Radiological health effects, in particular, are
very difficult to calculate with a high degree of certainty. A
recent U.S. General Accounting Office report points to the
-------
P-17
P-17
I
NJ
00
- 6 -
limited number of human exposure cases available for study and
the uncertain relationship of animal studies to human
situations as two reasons for the continued lack of empirical
data on radiological effects.—'
However, radiological health effects, although not easily
correlated with specific dose levels, are acknowledged in
previous studies and include leukemia, lung cancer, bone
cancer, and genetic defects. Even though the rate of leukemia
death is reported to be twice the State average in Mesa County,
Colorado (the location of the Grand Junction inactive
site),—' the DEIS considered only lung cancer in its
discussion of health effects. The limited view of health
effects in the DEIS resulted in narrowing the types of
standards proposed by EPA. For example, the emphasis on
controlling radon daughter products'evident in the proposed
standards clearly reflects the DEIS discussion of lung cancer
to the exclusion of other health effects.
In addition, EPA failed to recognize the need to consider
health effects for all non-radiologic components of the
tailings. As discussed in our comments below, EPA only
2/ U.S. General Accounting Office, "Problems in Assessing the
Cancer Risks of Low-Level Ionizing Radiation Exposure,"
EMD-81-1, January 1981, Vol. 2, p. 2-33.
3/ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Excess Cancer
Incidence in Mesa County, Colorado, NUREG/CR-0635, July 1979,
p. 17.
- 7 -
included six of ten identified mobile substances in its ground
water standard. See below. Section III.C. The decision to
base the ground water standard on National Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations was made after a cursory
consideration of health impacts. DEIS, p. 4-36. A thorough
consideration of health impacts is required by NEPA, and
equally important is a necessary basis for promulgation of
adequate protection standards.
2.
The statistical analysis of health effects in the DEIS
does not take into account population increases.
The DEIS estimate 'of radiological health hazards utilized
1970 population figures, even though population increases have
been significant near some sites. For example, 1980 census
figures for Salt Lake County reveal a 26% increase since <
4/
1970.—' The DEIS assertedly ignores population changes when
analyzing the effects on local and regional populations from
radon decay products. DEIS, p. 4-13. In addition, the-DEIS
does not discuss the slow migration of the piles as they erode
and cover larger areas potentially exposing people farther away
from the site. The DEIS thus minimizes the health impacts from
the tailings piles.
4/ U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980, Census of Population and
'Housing Advance Reports, PHC 80-V-46.
-------
P-17
P-17
- 8 -
- 9 -
3.
The DEIS fails totally to analyze the potentially
significant food exposure pathway.
SJ
vD
The DEIS only briefly mentions the food pathway. DEIS,
p. 4-23, 4-26. The cursory and confusing treatment of this
potentially significant pathway is wholly unsatisfactory. For
example, the DEIS dismisses the food pathway by asserting that
a scenario which assumes that the tailings are located in "a
sparsely populated agricultural area based on cattle ranching
maximizes the dose due to food," and is "inappropriate for
many of the inactive sites." Id. However, EPA fails to
discuss the many sites for which this setting is accurate. The
inactive site located in Mexican Hat, Utah on the Navajo
Reservation is currently used for grazing:
"The current land use of the Mexican Hat area is
grazing of sheep and cattle ... the pressure to
use the tailings location [for buildings] is
relatively low."_§/
The DEIS and the proposed standards must address the food
pathway even if it may not be applicable to all inactive sites.
EPA's superficial treatment of the food pathway goes
beyond the dismissal of grazing. Using data from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's (NRC) draft environmental impact
5/ Ford, Bacon s, Davis Utah, Inc., "Phase II - Title I
Engineering Assessment of inactive Uranium Mill Tailings,
Mexican Hat Site, Mexican Hat, Utah," GJT-3, March 31, 1977, p.
1-13.
statement on uranium milling,—' EPA concludes that the risk
due to ingestion of windblown tailings is less than one-tenth
the risk from breathing radon decay products. DEIS, p. 4-26.
However, the DEIS itself admits that the NRC analysis applies
to few of the inactive sites. DEIS, p. 4-23. Yet EPA provides
no better.analysis of direct ingestion.
In addition, EPA failed to consider potential health
hazards to fish. Although little research has been done in
this area, effects of molybdenosis in grazing animals—' and
contaminated algae in rivers near active mills—' indicate
that local species are capable of concentrating radionuclides
and other toxic elements; EPA must provide baseline
information on fish, wildlife, and plants to remedy this
significant deficiency of the DEIS.
EPA's failure to assess exposures to radioactivity
received via the food pathway is inexcusable since EPA itself
6/ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling, NUREG-0511,
1979, Volume II, Appendix G.
7/ Dollahite, J.W. et al., "Copper Deficiency and
Molybdenosis Intoxication Associated With Grazing Near A
Uranium Mine," The Southwest Veterinarian, Fall 1972, pp.
47-50.
_§/ Landa, E., Isolation of Uranium Mill Tailings and Their
Component Radionuclides From the Biosphere -- Some Earth
Science Perspectives," U.S. Geological Survey Circular 814,
1980, p. 8.
-------
P-17
P-17
- 10 -
- 11 -
PJ
i
recognized the significance of this pathway in 1978. Dr.
William B. Rove,, then EPA's Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Radiation Programs, stated at a hearing before the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee that further evaluation of the food
exposure pathway was required because of the inadequacy of the
[Department of Energy's (DOE)] Phase II reports.-^/ The
"Phase II" studies were prepared for DOE between 1976 and 1978
and were intended to provide basic data on engineering
solutions and costs for clean-up of eighteen inactive mill
sites. In each Phase II study the food pathway was identified
as one of the "major environmental routes of exposure to man,-'
•
yet each study also admitted that "this pathway was not
considered."—' EPA's omission of this pathway continues a
pattern which threatens the satisfactory isolation of these
uranium mill tailings.
_9/ Uranium Mill Site Restoration Act and Remedial Radioactive
Materials Act, Hearings, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, Senate July 24, 25, 1978.
10/ See, for example. Ford, Bacon & Davis Otah, inc., "Phase
II-Title 1 Engineering Assessment of Inactive Uranium Mill
Tailings Phillips/United Nuclear Site at Ambrosia Lake, New
Mexico," GJT-13, December 1977, p. 1-7 to 1-8.
4. The DEIS does not adequately address occupational health
hazards.
The DEIS devotes one brief paragraph to occupational
health hazards, acknowledging that workers moving uranium
tailings will be exposed to gamma radiation and radioactive
airborne particulates, but concluding that "any occupational
hazards will be temporary, and can be considered negligible
compared to the long-term impact of uncontrolled tailings."
DEIS, p. 6-10. Given the scale of the anticipated clean-up
effort, this conclusion is wholly unsubstantiated and
irresponsible. Whether the piles are buried or relocated,
individual worker exposure will be significant. Furthermore,
EPA's citing of a single study, covering one site, "in
preparation" and unpublished, substitutes poorly for an
informed discussion of worker safety. DEIS, p. 6-11.
The DEIS's treatment of occupational health hazards is
indicative of the narrow view of the standards maintained by
EPA. Since the standards are the basis of DOE'S remedial
action, occupational health hazards clearly have a significant.
effect on the types of measures proposed. In particular, iji
situ stabilization or removal of radium from the tailings might
be favored if occupational exposure standards are applied
during remedial action.
-------
P-17
P-17
- 12 -
- 13 -
i
U)
III. THE DEIS AND PROPOSED STANDARDS DO NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS
CONTAMINATION OF WATER OR SOIL NEAR INACTIVE MILL SITES
A. EPA Has Failed to Provide Sufficient Information On Ground
and Surface Water Contamination.
Admission of the need for surface and ground water
research appeared as early as 1966, when the Department of
Health,. Education, and Welfare (HEW) called attention to
elevated levels of radiation in surface water. Concerned about
the cumulative and long-term effects of uranium milling in the
Colorado River Basin, HEW recommended that:
"... in view of the very long-lived nature of the
radioactivity involved and the long-term poten-
tial for pollution of Basin waters, discussions
be held and binding agreements be reached as soon
as possible regarding long-term public and
private responsibility for adequate maintenance
of the tailings piles.
In 1974, EPA directly addressed the ground water issue,
recognizing the need for more data and placing hope in the DOE
Phase II studies of inactive mill tailings sites:
"Although surface water has been extensively
monitored, there are little or no data on the
effects, if any, in ground water in the vicinity
of certain piles where radiological contamination
appears possible. Ground water studies of those
locations should be conducted as part of the
Phase II effort.il/
ll/ U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Disposition and Control of Uranium Mill Tailings Piles in
the Colorado River Basin, March 1966, p. 8.
12/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Summary Report
of the Phase I Study of Inactive Uranium Mill Sites and
Tailings Piles. 1974, p. 11.
The relevance and importance of such information was
stressed again two years later in a 1976 EPA study:
"Because of the extremely long period over which
such wastes are toxic, it is fundamental that
detailed ground-water monitoring data be able to
determine and predict the extent of contamina-
tion. The stark contrast between a typical
20-year mill life and an 80,000-year half life
for the dominant radionuclide (thorium-230)
necessitates a much greater forward look than is
now evident in waste disposal practices and
preservation of ground-water quality."13/
However, subsequent EPA studies and DOE's Phase II
reports have not adequately documented ground and surface water
contamination and have simply repeatedly identified the need
for further studies. Although the DEIS also acknowledges that
ground water has been contaminated at some mill sites by both
radioactive and non-radio ctive toxic elements", DEIS, p. 3-6,
3-9, it fails to provide the essential data needed to assess
the impacts of its proposed standards. In its brief discussion
of this issue the DEIS admits that still:
"Not enough information is available to estimate
the chance that toxic substances from tailings
will move through water and expose people to
them. — There has been no systematic study to
establish the magnitude of ground water
contamination for tailings at either active or
inactive sites." DEIS, p. 4-34.
13/ Kaufmann, R., Eadie, G., Russell, C., "Effects of
Uranium Mining and Milling on Ground Water in the Grants
Mineral Belt, New Mexico," Ground Water, Vol. 14, No. 5,
1976, p. 307.
-------
P-17
P-17
- 14 -
- 15 -
W
I
However, instead of conducting systematic studies, EPA
merely observed that " ... under some conditions, ground-water
could become unusable over an area much larger than the pile."
DEIS, p. S-5. EPA is obligated to take a long-term approach to
the problem of ground water contamination. Contaminants are
most certainly on their way to ground water resources, and EPA
must set standards to protect both ground and surface water
contamination.
The DEIS, in referencing Markos, 1979,—^ suggests that
surface water contamination may also be a greater concern than
previously recognized. EPA, however, does not adequately
address this issue. Instead, EPA merely states:
"At present, it is unclear what methods, if any,
may be needed specifically to avoid harm to the
environment and public health from upwardly
mobili soluble contaminants." DEIS p. 5-10.
The referenced study, Markos, 1979, itself provides more
information on the potential problems and indicates which
methods of surface protection may not be adequate. Markos's
work shows that deep cracks may form from the surface into the
tailings and that vegetation can not be maintained easily since
salts rise to the surface as long as a moisture gradient is
14/ Markos, G., "Geochemical Mobility and Transfer of
Contaminants in Uranium Mill Tailings," from Proceedings of the
Second Symposium on Uranium Mill Tailings Management, Colorado
State University, November 1979.
maintained from the interior of the pile outward. So as the
surface dries, salts migrate outward, inhibiting plant growth
at their roots. This would seem to indicate that vegetative
and soil covers may be entirely inadequate to protect surface
waters from contamination.
Thus, as a preliminary step in formulating standards to
protect water resources already or now being contaminated, the
EPA must complete the following studies:
(1) identify the problem through testing of water
resources for both radiological and non-radio-
logical contaminants, and
(2) present, explain, and apply more fully in the
DEIS the recent studies which introduce new
theories regarding the movement of soluble
contaminants.—These studies have a
potentially critical impact on the methods used
to prevent water contamination.
8. The Proposed Standards Do Not Adequately Address the
Problem of Already Contaminated Surface and Ground Water.
As noted in the previous section, EPA studies confirm
that ground water contamination has already occurred. In
addition, DOE's Phase II reports, including those at Durango,
Ambrosia Lake, Gunnison, and Grand Junction, indicate surface
15/ See discussion in DEIS p. 5-10.
-------
P-17
P-17
- 16 -
- 17 -
Ui
u>
water contamination in the vicinity of inactive tailings
piles. In many instances, the level of contaminants,
especially selenium, was found to be greatly in excess of the
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations, in one
case as high as fourteen times the maximum allowable
concentration of .01 mg/1.—'
The proposed standards fail, however, to supply any
remedial action guidelines for contaminated ground and surface
water. Regarding ground water, the DEIS states: "Where ground
water contamination has already occurred, it may sometimes be
possible to reduce it, but requiring remedial actions to
satisfy pre-set standards in every case is not practical."
DEIS, p. S-6. The "impracticality" of standards, however, is
not substantiated. The DEIS fails to explore in any way the
alternative of providing standards for ground water already
contaminated by the tailings piles.
Similarly, the proposed standards fail to address
completely surface water which has already been contaminated.
•The EPA standards prohibit only the increase of contaminant
levels in surface waters from substances released from disposal
sites. Consequently, the problems identified in numerous
studies have not been addressed. Furthermore, the standards
require clean-up only when the contamination occurs after
disposal. We believe this requirement severely limits the
mandated clean-up of the hazardous conditions caused by
inactive tailings piles.
UMTRCA mandates EPA to prepare remedial action standards
to correct the adverse impacts already caused by the tailings
piles. The EPA proposed-standards address the clean-up of
ground and surface water summarily, ultimately rejecting the
propagation of any clean-up standard at all. We urge EPA to
meet its statutory mandate by adopting remedial standards
applicable to already contaminated water resources.
C. The DEIS Does Not Adequately Assess the Toxicity of
Non-Radioactive Contaminants in Surface and Ground Water.
The DEIS identifies ten toxic substances present in the
tailings piles having a high probability of being mobile. DEIS
p. 4-34. However, the proposed standards set maximum
concentrations for only six of these substances based on the
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. DEIS, p.
4-37 and Appendix D, p. 10. Maximum concentration levels for
nickel, beryllium, vanadium, and zinc are not addressed, even
though the Council on Environmental Quality has identified
nickel, beryllium, zinc oxide, and zinc chloride as possible
carcinogens and vanadium as an acute respiratory irritant and,
16/ Ford, Bacon 5, Davis Utah, Inc., "Phase II-Title I
Engineering Assessment of Inactive Uranium Mill Tailings,
Durango Site, Durango, Colorado, GJT-6, November 1977, p. 3-15
(hereinafter Phase II Report, Durango, Colorado).
-------
P-17
P-17
w
i
- 18 -
if ingested, a producer of systemic symptoms.—' Nor are any
of these substances addressed in Appendix C of the DEIS which
purports to cover "Toxicologies of Toxic Substances in
Tailings."
These are critical omissions by the EPA, and a more
thorough analysis of all the mobile and potentially toxic
constituents of mill tailings must be included in its DEIS. He
believe that relevant information supports setting a standard
for all ten mobile elements.
D. THE DEIS Discussion of Soil Contamination is Inadequate
Because It Faj.ls to Address Non-Radiological Contaminants.
EPA bases its clean-up standards solely on the amount of
radon detected in the soil, ignoring contamination from
non-radiological elements. However, UMTRCA clearly mandates
EPA to provide protective standards for radiological and
non-radiological hazards associated with mill tailings.iS/
Numerous studies confirm the presence of non-radiological
toxic elements in s,oil at inactive mill sites. For instance,
at many sites vanadium was found in particularly high
concentrations.—' In addition, other mobile constituents.
17/ Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality.
Seventh Annual Report, September 1976, p. 209.
18/ Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, 42
U.S.C. S7901 et seq. (hereinafter UMTRCA).
19/ E.g., Phase II Report, Durango, Colorado, p. 3-15.
- 19 -
such as cadmium and selenium, were often found.— Since
these elements may enter the food chain by plant uptake and
subsequent ingestion by wildlife or grazing animals, EPA should
set a soil contamination standard. Such a standard would not
only give guidance to the expected results of remedial action,
but could aid DOE's determination of priorities by setting a
limit as a basis for assessing the severity of contamination.
IV. THE PROPOSED STANDARDS DO NOT CONTAIN ADEQUATE MEASURES
FOR IMMEDIATE PROTECTION OR FOR PROPER IMPLEMENTATION
A. EPA Should Promulgate Standards Aimed at Immediately
Mitigating Hazardous Conditions in the Period Before Remedial
Action.
An expedient solution to the mill tailings problem,
unfortunately, is not in sight. After promulgation of the
final standards, UMTRCA allows seven years for the completion
of remedial action.—There is every reason to believe that
this time period will be extended and that annual
appropriations cannot be assumed. During these years, health
hazards will not only continue, but will increase as
populations grow, periods of individual human exposure
lengthen, and.more tailings are dispersed by wind and water
erosion. To protect human health and the environment, the
2Q/ Ford, Bacon & Davis Utah, Inc., "Phase II-Title I,
Engineering Assessment of Inactive Uranium Mill Tailings,
Riverton Site, Riverton, Wyoming," GJT-18, December 1977, p.
3-13.
21/ UMTRCA §112(a).
-------
P-17
P-17
u>
- 20 -
remedial action standards must address the immediate hazards as
well as providing long-term clean-up and disposal standards.
EPA should promulgate standards to address at least the
following areas:
1. Airborne particulate control
Radioactive dust can be minimized by regularly spraying
the piles with water or chemicals. In addition, this would
minimize the migration of toxic contaminants to the surface.
Standards should provide guidance on the frequency and method
of application, as well as worker safety.
2. Effective isolation of the tailings piles
EPA remedial action standards should ensure that the
tailings piles are effectively isolated. Besides the obvious
health hazards of radon gas and gamma radiation, stagnant pools
containing greatly elevated concentrations of radium and other
22/
toxics can be found near many of the sites.—Consequently,
the EPA should promulgate standards immediately requiring the
Construction of barriers, buffer zones, and posted warnings.
3. Grading of the piles to lessen erosion
Erosion of the tailings piles will continue to
:ontaminate air, water, and soil during the interim period.
altering a pile's shape to control and isolate the travel of
:ontaminants should be considered.
B. The Proposed Standards Should Include Monitoring and
Implementation Programs To Ensure Compliance After Remedial
Efforts Are Completed.
It is evident from the DEIS that there is a high degree
of uncertainty regarding both the extent of the hazards posed
by the tailings and the effectiveness of the contemplated
remedial actions.. In light of this uncertainty and EPA's
expectation that the remedial action standards will be met for
at least one thousand years, 46 Fed. Reg. 2562 §192.03, we find
the omission of a monitoring or implementation program
inexcusable. EPA's superficial approach to meeting the
standards is illustrated by the following discussion of
disposal:
"The longevity of any control method is difficult
to quantify. Certain methods should last longer
than others, but experience with all control
methods is quite limited, especially considering
the time that tailings will remain hazardous."
DEIS, p. 6-8.
EPA's expectations for implementation appear to involve merely
the utilization of mathematical models to calculate the
expected release rate of a disposal system. We disagree that
"Post-disposal monitoring can serve only a minor role in
confirming that the standards are satisfied.' 46 Fed. Reg.
2561.
DOE has seven years to complete the remedial action.—^
Based on the current pace of DOE activity, it seems they will
23/ UMTRCA §112 (a) .
_2/ See, for example, Ford, Bacon & Davis Utah, Inc., "Phase
I-Title I Engineering Assessment of Inactive Uranium Mil
'ailings, Grand Junction Site, Grand Junction, Colorado,
JT-19, October 1977, p. 1-9.
-------
P-17
P-17
- 22 -
- 23 -
PI
I
take longer. Consequently, we believe EPA should actively
monitor the disposal sites, until DOE has completed clean-up at
all designated sites. We are not satisfied with the one-time
application of a mathematical model to a recently completed
disposal and clean-up activity. EPA must devise a mechanism
for ensuring that the remedial action continues to meet its
proposed standards at least one decade after the work is
completed. A longer-term monitoring program is also essential
to confirm .that the disposal program has provided the expected
degree of isolation under natural weathering and erosion.
Specifically, the monitoring program should include:
•
(1) Surface and sub-surface* soil sampling for both
radiological and non-radiological contaminants
(2) Gamma dose-rate measurements
(3) Radon surface flux measurements
(4) vegetation monitoring
a) Vegetation maintenance
b) Analysis of vegetation for elevated levels of
contaminants as a result of root uptake or surficial
contamination of foliage by airborne particulates
(5) Ground water measurements for contamination
(6) Surface water measurements for contamination
(7) Maintenance of isolation barriers
(8) Aerial photography program to detect erosion patterns
Many of these mechanisms have been initiated by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission in its monitoring program for active
mills.—/ Certainly an equivalent oversight should be
required by the EPA for inactive mill sites, especially in
light of the clear Congressional mandate to supply standards
for remedial action.
C. The DEIS Remedial Standard For Contaminated Buildings
Should Be More Specific In Order To Aid Implementation.
The proposed standard fails to set any priorities for
undertaking remedial actions based on the type and use of
structures. The DEIS thus ignores the types of priorities
established in the Atomic Energy Commission's Grand Junction
Remedial Action Standards, 10 C.F.R. 12 (1972), which takes
into account the type of structure, e.g., dwellings, schools,
workplace; the magnitude of radiation; and the geographic
location. By considerations of this type, EPA could
effectively guide or determine the order in which structures
are cleaned-up. In view of the potential funding problems this
program may have in the future, we believe it is critical that
EPA set priorities for clean-up of contaminated structures for
DOE.
24/ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisson, Final Generic
Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling, NUREG-0706,
September 1980, Vol. 1, p. 10-3.
-------
P-17
P-17
- 24 -
- 25 -
V. CONCLUSIONS
In the comments above, we request many major revisions
and conclude that these revisions can only be accomplished by
issuing a new DEIS for circulation and public comment. Until
an adequate EIS has been completed, the merits of the chosen
standards are easily challenged and poorly supported.
The DEIS contains both formal and substantive
deficiencies. First, the lack of formal analysis of alterna-
tives is striking and disturbing. This fault, unfortunately,
exists throughout the entire document. Secondly, information
critical to the promulgation of the standards is missing.
Additional information must be included in the areas of ground
and surface water contamination, health hazard analysis,
occupational safety, and protection of the food pathway.
Regarding the proposed standards, the omissions are even
more critical. Standards aimed at the "protection of the
public health, safety, and environment from the ... hazards
associated with residual radioactive material" must cover
activities prior to the remedial action, during the remedial
action, and after the remedial action. We find that the
proposed standards not only deal incompletely with the actual
remedial action (i.e. , the absence of worker protection
standards), but deal not at. all with either prior or post-
remedial action time periods. Immediate and temporary remedial
action standards are needed, as are long-term monitoring
standards. Until EPA's proposed standards are expanded to
encompass a complete remedial action program, the protection
mandated by UMTRCA can not be accomplished.
-------
P-18
pi
OJ
00
AGFIMCY
JUN 2 1981
CENTRAL DOCKET
"
May 22, 19fcl
P.O. ISox 445
LI Prado, i,.I!. 67529
RErFivrn
William A. Mills, Director
Criteria & Standards Division
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. EPA
Washington, IJ.C.
Dear i\r. Mills,
People here in Hew Nexico are greatly concerned about the
Health effects of mining and milling of uranium and we would appreciat
a chance to comment on the DEIS on proposed remedial standards (40 CFR 192)
for redisual radioactive materials and proposed LPA clean-up standards.
The LID has only one copy and I had to xerox trie lieatn section wnich I
plan to pive to concerned people, but it's no way to invite public
comment. I would very much appreciate being put on your mailing list
for any future opportunities to comment on these uiatters.
Also, you have a report called ''Human Health Effects of Kolybdenumin
in Drinkinp Water", Chappel, W.R., et al, 1979,
US EPA Health Lffects Research Lab Report
EPA-600 1/79 - OOG. I wonder if I could possibly get my hands on this
as it might solve the nystery of why we have had ten cattle die in tne
neighboring valley.
Thanks for your time and concern.
Sincerely,
Phaedra Greenwood
P-19
ROBLEY D. EVANS
4621 EAST CRYSTAL LANE
SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA 852SJ
May 27, 1981
Or. William A. Hills, Director
Criteria and Standards Division (ANR-460)
Office of Radiation Programs
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Re: Remedial action for uranium processing sites (40CFR192)
Dear Bill:
Thanks for inviting my comments on several matters involved in EPA's
proposed disposal and cleanup standards for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites
(40CFR192) as published in FR 46, 2556-2563, January 9, 1981, (hereafter
"FR81"), and in the EPA CriterT? and Standards Division's Draft EIS for
Remedial Action Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites, EPA 520/4-80-011,
December 1980, (hereafter "DEIS").
I do have several substantive constructive comments and a few minor ones
to share with.you.
Recall the remarks made concerning quite different health hazards by a
water resource expert, Johns Hopkins' Professor Abel Wolman, in a 1960 JCAE
hearing:
"The development of criteria for the protection of health has in-
variably preceded full scientific understanding and acceptance... .
The criteria have been eternally subject to reinterpretation, adjust-
ment, and refraining as newer knowledge and experience were forthcoming.
My feeling is that there is sufficient new knowledge, not yet embodied in the
DEIS or the FR81 to justify substantial adjustment of several of the standards
proposed in FR81, paragraphs 192.12, and Tables A and B.
The Congressional mandate quoted in FR81 that "The Committee does not
want to visit this problem again with additional aid. The remedial action must
be done right the first time." does not commit the EPA to propose standards which
are overly severe in the reduction of radiation levels which are already so low
that they are small compared with fluctuations in the natural background radia-
tion. Rather, the Committee could have been asking that the balance be "done
right" between perceived risks, benefits, and costs.
The guiding principle probably is that exposures should be kept as low as
is reasonably achievable, economic and social considerations being taken into
account (ALARA). But where man-made exposures are significantly less than the
variations in the natural background that has long been accepted as a normal fact
of life, greatly increased expenditures of money and manpower, and possible serious
harm to workers and the general public, in reducing the exposure further cannot
be justified on any scientific basis. RECEIVED
CRITERIA & STANDARDS DIVISION, ORP
DATE. vUN 8
-------
P-19
P-19
Dr. W. A. Mills
-2-
May 27, 1981
Dr. W.A. Mills
-3-
May 27, 1981
My constructive comments on 11 topics may be abstracted as follows.
These abstracts are then followed by detailed discussion of each topic. I am
sorry I didn't have time to write a shorter commentary.
ABSTRACT
1. Radon Flux and Dispersion.
Table 4-2 lists theoretical radon decay product working levels (WL)
at distances downwind from a nominal uranium pile whose total annual
radon flux is taken as 10,000 Ci. Tne slow growth of WL with elapsed
time downwind is not recognized. The tabulated WL values can be con-
verted to intended Rn concentrations vs. distance from the pile.
Carefully measured radon values reported elsewhere for the piles in
Salt Lake City, Grand Junction, Monticello and Durango show that no
radon from these piles can be detected at distances beyond 1/4 to 1/2
mile from the pile. The theoretical values of radon concentration
are found to clearly exceed the true values as measured in the field,
especially within the first mile.
The dispersion model overestimates the radon concentrations, and the
incorrect assumption of 50% decay product equilibrium further enhances
the overestimate of exposure values in WL units. For the important
close-in distances in the vicinity of 0.5 mile or less the combined
overestimate can easily exceed a factor of 10. Therefore all of the
estimates of attributable lung cancer for the "local" (0 to 6 miles),
"regional" (6 to 50 miles), and "national" (beyond 50 miles) popula-
tions become invalid overestimates.
Those estimates totalled only 2 premature deaths per year from lung
cancer attributable to radon released from all the 22 inactive uranium
tailings piles without remedial action. This is to be compared with
the death rate of 92,000 per year from lung cancer.
2. Radon Flux: Natural and Han-Made.
In round numbers, the average radium concentration of the earth's suf-
face soils and rocks is about 1 pCi Ra/gram, or 2 Ci of Ra and 6 tons
of uranium per square mile to a depth of 1 foot. This radium is a
source which supplies atmospheric radon at a rate of about 1 pCi Rn/
meter^ • sec. Good grade uranium tailings piles, if dry and unstabilized,
have a nominal flux of about 640 pCi Rn/meter2 • sec. Therefore a
handy rule of thumb is that the annual average radon flux from 1 acre
of tailings is equal to that from 1 square mile of ordinary land,
prairie, back yard, pasture,or desert.
The radon flux varies with rainfall and soil moisture content, freez-
ing and thawing, fluctuations in barometric pressure and surface wind
speed, plowing of fields, growth of crops, and other factors.
The 1966 to 1976 increase in the water level of the Great Salt Lake
produced a decrease in radon emission in the Salt Lake City area
which was 8 tiroes the radon emission of the Salt Lake City uranium
tailings pile. A change of 2% in the area of inland waters in the
U. S. changes the national radon emission by an amount exceeding .
the total radon emission from all inactive uranium tailings piles.
The total radon released from all inactive unstabilized uranium tail-
ings piles is a minute fraction of the variations produced by meteoro-
logical conditions and agriculture in the total radon released by
natural processes from all land areas. The level of radon-decay-
product exposure from unstabilized uranium tailings piles, at distances
greater than 1/4 to 1/2 mile, is a minute fraction of the range of
fluctuations of the natural background in the area. Under the ALARA
principle no substantial action to reduce the exposure is warranted.
3. Lung Cancer Risk Factors.
The DEIS gives 4 different values for the lifetime absolute
lung
cancer risk factor, ranging from 3.0 to 11.1 per 10,000 person-WLM.
These risk factors derive from unpublished data, never given peer
review, and relate only to underground uranium miners. For the low-
level exposure of the general population, not involved in underground
labor, the recently published recommendation by 6 widely recognized
senior specialists from 4 countries should be used. This is a life-
time risk with an upper bound of 1 per 10,000 WLM and with a lower
bound which may include zero.
Adoption of 1 x 10 per WLM in place of values between 3.0 and 11.1
x 10~4 per WLM will reduce all estimated health effects (2 deaths per
year, nationwide) by a factor somewhere between 3 and 10. Standards
which were prepared on the older basis of risk can be relaxed to 3
to 10 times the proposals in FR81. This shift is in addition to, and
in the same direction as, the corrections discussed earlier for radon-
decay-product dispersion patterns.
4. Working Level and Working Level Months per Year.
The WLM unit of exposure is the product of exposure rate expressed as
the radioactive concentration WL in the inhaled air, and the duration
of the exposure M in units of the nominal 170-hour working month.
Neither WL nor M has any dependence on air density or breathing rate.
Therefore, for an exposure rate of 1 WL, extending uniformly for an
entire year of 8760 hours, the exposure is 1 WL yr = 51.5 WLM. The
relationship 1 WL yr = 27 WLM used in the DEIS on ground of differences
in breathing rates is inaccurate. Differences in breathing rate is just
one of many parameters which enter the estimation of the lung cancer
risk factor for the general population from the basic data on uranium
miners.
-------
P-19
P-19
Dr. W. A. miis
-4-
May 27, 1981
Dr. W. A. Mills
-5-
May 27, 1981
I
J>
o
5. Fractional Occupancy Time.
The conversion factor between Wl_ yr and WLM does depend on the duratio
of exposure time M measured in units of 170-hours. If the relevant
exposure rate is in a workplace then the fractional occupancy factor
would be 170/730 = 0.23, and 1 WL yr would equal 0.23 (51 WLM/yr) =
12 WLM.
Lifetime exposure in WLM will depend upon a variety of WL exposure
rates experienced for various occupancy times in various work places,
residences, shops, out-of-doors, etc. Regulatory guides on permissible
WL in occupiable structures should recognize that the lifetime weighted
average WL exposure rate is more important than the maximum WL exper-
ienced in a particular home or workplace. An average occupancy factor
in the vicinity of 0.5 or less would seem reasonable. Then the conver-
sion factor 1 WL yr = 27 WLM could be retained on a basis of fractional
occupancy factor.
6. Indoor Radon Decay Product Concentration Standard.
With newer risk factors and cost effectiveness in view, an action level
of 0.03 WL or 0.04 WL would involve less risk and much less implementa-
tion cost than had been associated with the 0.015 WL proposed in FR81.
*
7. Radon Flux from Stabilized Tailings Piles.
No radiobiological justification is known for the proposed radon flux
limitation of 2 pCi Rn/m2 • sec. It is unnecessary for "the protection
of the public health, safety, and welfare, and the regulation of inter-
state commerce". Its implementation through massive translocations of
earth and/or tailings would be very expensive, would be inflationary to
the economy, and would be hazardous to the health of workers and the
general public.
The mathematical justifications given in FR81 are distinctly inaccurate
and hence the conclusions drawn from them are invalid.
The underlying purposes of PL 95-604 with respect to radon flux suppres-
sion would be fulfilled by procedures equivalent to providing a sturdy
and durable cover of soil and vegetation adequate to prevent erosion
and dispersion of tailings by extremes of weather, including rain, snow,
ice, and windstorms, and by including a small buffer zone without habi-
table buildings in the area under Federal or State custody after comple-
tion of the remedial action program.
radiation originates almost entirely from the outer one foot of tailings.
It is easily absorbed by one or two feet of earth cover.
The attenuation of gamma radiation from the pile by overburden does not
follow an exponential law, as would be the case for a point source.
The concept of half-value-layer is not applicable to extended sources.
Instead, the attenuation can be shown to follow a second-degree exponen-
tial integral. The actual attenuation by only 0.5 meters (20 inches)
of soil is more than 5 times greater than given by the simple exponential
transmission formula used in the DEIS. Some numerical examples are in-
cluded in the detailed commentary. This bit of radiation physics can be
corrected easily in any later version of the EIS. The FR81 is not
affected.
9. Longevity of Disposal Standards.
The FR81 requests "... comments on whether 1000 years is the best choice".
"Disposal" without any form of occasional surveillance is impracticable.
"Management", not "disposal", is a more realistic plan.
Brief consideration of the changes which have taken place in recent cen-
turies, from the Norman Conquest, to the fall of the Aztec civilization,
and the founding of our Republic, suggest that it is impossible to pre-
dict even the state of the healing arts 100 years from now.
With Federal or State custody of the stabilized tailings sites planned
under Section 202 of PL 95-604 after remedial action is completed, even
100 to 200 years seems a more than adequate time span.
10. Radium in Soil.
The 5 pCi Ra/g soil standard seems reasonable if it is intended to apply
to cover materials near the surface. But the proposed rule needs to be
clarified on the depth to which the "below 1 foot" rule applies. If
it is any considerable depth then the radon flux at the surface could be
5 pCi Rn/m2 • sec, another reason for dropping the 2 pCi Rn/m2 -sec concept.
11. Radium in^ Drinking Water.
Based on long-term epidemiological studies and on recent ICRP recommen-
dations on annual limits of intake (ALI), raising the EPA drinking water
standard for Ra-226 and Ra-228 from 5 pCi/liter to at least 30 pCi/liter
can be shown to have a safety factor of at least 3 to 4 orders of magni-
tude with respect to the international radium MPBB standard of 0.1 jjCi Ra.
This can be shown without making any assumptions about the shape of the
dose vs. response curve.
8. Gamma Radiation from Tailings Piles.
The gamma radiation offers no health hazard. Substantially all of the
gamma radiation is self-absorbed within the pile,. The external gamma
-------
P-19
P-19
Dr. W. A. Mills
-6-
May 27, 1981
Or. W. A. Mills
-7-
May 27, 1981
1. RADON FLUX AND DISPERSION
The estimate that without remedial action the radon from all the 22 inactive
uranium tailings piles might cause about 2 premature lung cancer deaths per year
in the nation (FR81, page 2558, column 1, and DEIS Tables 4-1 plus 4-6) should be
compared with the national lung cancer death rate of 92,000 per year (Am. Cancer
Soc. "Cancer Facts and Figures" 1978). As we shall see later the 2 lung cancer
deaths per year is a substantial overestimate. But accepting the estimate pro-
visionally for illustrative purposes, a remedial action which reduced the radon
flux from a typical tailings pile by say a factor of about 20 would reduce this
estimate to 0.1 lung cancer deaths per year (or.l per 10 years) attributable to
treated inactive uranium tailings. This is about one-millionth of the national
lung cancer mortality, and even if overestimated is surely below any realistic level
of significance.
The estimate of detriment due to radon from a tailings pile depends multi-
plicatiyely on three factors: (1) the radon flux from the pile, (2) the lateral
dispersion of this radon in the environs, and (3) the lung cancer risk factor per
working level month (WLM) for exposed persons.
The radon flux from a typical inactive and unstabilized tailings pile has
often been taken as about 640 pCi Rn/m2 -sec (e.g., J.J. Swift et al. EPA-520/1-
76-001, page 12) which will suffice here as a nominal "source term" although many
piles have a smaller flux (DEIS, page 3-2).
The radial dispersion of this radon in the environs is treated in DEIS,
chapter 4 and especially Table 4-2. This topic seems to me to require complete
reconsideration and revision. Although no basis is given in the text. Table 4-2
lists calculated exposure in WL at 8 distances from 0.2 miles to 40 miles from the
edge of a tailings pile which releases 10,000 Ci of radon per year (essentially
equivalent to the Salt Lake City tailings pile as listed in Table 3-1 of the DEIS).
The model used for this calculation can be reconstructed by plotting the tabulated
values. These turn out to form a straight line with a slope of -1.7 on log-log
paper (except for the point at 2 miles where the tabulated WL should read 0.0003
instead of 0.0004 WL). Therefore the radial dispersion model assumed by the author
of this section was simply:
WL = 0.001 D
-1.7
(1)
where D is the distance in miles.
reasons for rejecting this model.
There are several theoretical and experimental
The text states that the model assumes a symmetrical wind pattern around the
pile, with a constant speed of 6.5 mph. Also that a constant 50% equilibrium be-
tween radon and its decay products is assumed in outside air within 25 miles, and
70% equilibrium in outside and inside air at more than 25 miles.
Of course there are no decay products present when the radon emerges from
the tailings pile. At a wind speed of 6.5 mph the travel time to a distance of
0.5 mile is 4.6 minutes. The build-up of decay products in young air has been
shown to be well approximated by:
n QR
WL = 0.023 tU'ab (2)
for 100 pCi Rn/liter, and time t from 1 to 40 minutes (Evans, "Engineers'Guide to
the Elementary Behavior of Radon Daughters", Health Physics 17., 229-252 (1969)).
Therefore in the 4.6 minute air at a distance of 0.5 mile the WL is less than
9% of equilibrium, rather than the 50% assumed in Table 4-2.
The WL values in Equation (1) are clearly incorrect. Because WL = 0.5 for
100 pCi Rn/liter air was assumed for all distances in Table 4-2, one WL corresponds
to 200 pCi Rn/liter and we may rewrite Equation (1) in terms of radon concentra-
tion versus distance. Then:
Rn(pCiVliter) = 0.2 D"1'7 (3)
This power function relationship is slower than .an inverse square diminution of
Rn with distance. It bears no resemblance to the exponential Gaussian-type dis-
persion formulas commonly employed in meteorological atmospheric pathway models
(e.g., EPA-520/9-73-003-B, page A-2). No theoretical justification is found in
DEIS for this power-function dispersion model.
Recall that there are good experimental values for the annual average Rn
concentration as a function of distance from the tailings piles in Salt Lake City,
Grand Junction, Monticello, and Durango, by S. D. Shearer Jr. and C. W. Sill be-
tween June 1967 and October 1968 (Health Physics 17., 77-88 (1969)), and for the
Grand Junction pile between April 1974 and April 1975 by David L. Duncan et al.
(EPA publication ORP/LV-77-1). For all sampling stations which were free from
the overt local use of tailings, there was no measurable atmospheric radon from
tailings at distances of 0.5 mile or more. Shearer and Sill wrote:
"The tailings at Grand Junction are not affecting the atmospheric
radon concentrations beyond a distance of 0.5 mile in the prevailing
wind directions. At the other three study locations the effect of
tailings is not observed at distances greater than one-quarter to
one-half mile."
The measurements in 1974-1975 by Duncan et al. at Grand Junction, after that pile
was restructured and stabilized in 1970, were in substantial agreement with the
1967-1968 measurements of Shearer and Sill at all the 12 off-pile sampling stations
which were common to the two studies. Duncan et al. were unaware that at least 4
of their sampling stations were heavily contaminated, especially their station
No. 10 at 645 E. 4th Ave. This led them to propose, erroneously, that at Grand
Junction in the quadrant between 270 degrees (west) and 360 degrees (north) there
was a "power curve relation" (meaning a straight line of unstated slope on log-
log graph paper) between radon concentration and distance out to 1.5 miles. When
the contaminated station No. 10 is excluded from the stations in the 270 to 360 de-
grees quadrant, their "power curve relation" disappears. Duncan et al. could not
find any such relationship in the other 3 quadrants either. The radon concentra-
tion at distances of 0.5 mile or more from the center of the Grand Junction pile
have the background value of about 0.8 + 0.2 pCi Rn/liter.
Possibly the use of Equation (1) for the dispersion of radon from a tailings
pile arose from this inaccuracy of interpretation in the report of Duncan et al.
You will recall that I wrote to you on August 21, 1980 with full details of the
effects of the several contaminated sampling stations at Grand Junction, and that
you followed this up with a written request of September 24, 1980 to David Duncan
requesting a response. However I have received nothing so far from him.
-------
P-19
P-19
Dr. W. A. Mills
-8-
May 27, 1981
Dr. W. A. Mills
-9-
May 27, 1981
W
I
N>
Equation (1), in its Rn concentration form as Equation (3), predicts a con-
centration of Rn from the Salt Lake City pile of 1.0 pCi Rn/liter at a distance
of 0.4 mile, and 0.6 pCi Rn/liter at a distance of 0.5 mile from the pile. How-
ever in Salt Lake City the measured Rn concentration at stations 83 and 84, which
are about 0.3 and 0.4 miles from the pile, have annual average concentrations of
0.43 and 0.39 pCi Rn/liter. These are not statistically different from the average
background of the city which is 0.38 pCi Rn/liter.
It is impossible that the predicted value of an additional 1.0 pCi Rn/liter
at 0.4 mile and 0.6 pCi Rn/liter at 0.5 mile from the pile could have escaped detec-
tion. The power function model of Equations (1) and (3), and of Table 4-2 is in-
validated by the experimental evidence of radon dispersion as measured at 4 differ-
ent inactive tailings piles. The dispersion model overestimates the radon con-
centrations. The incorrect assumption of 508 decay product equilibrium further
enhances the overestimate of exposure values in WL units. For the important close-
in distances in the vicinity of 0.5 mile or less the combined overestimate can
easily exceed a factor of 10.
A more sophisticated model for the dispersion of radon from a large tailings
pile has been reported elsewhere (F. F. Haywood et al. "Assessment of Radiological
Impact of the Inactive Uranium-Mill Tailings Pile at Salt Lake City, Utah". ORNL/TM-
5251 (1977)). This model uses the Oak Ridge "Comprehensive Atmospheric Transport
and Diffusion Model" of Culkowski and Patterson (ORNL-NSF-EATC-17, 1976). Radon
concentrations predicted by this elaborate model are compared with the values
measured experimentally by Shearer and Sill for the Salt Lake City pile in Table
14 of the F. F. Haywood et al. document. At every one of the 10 away-from-pile
measurement stations, ranging from 0.3 to 2 miles from the Salt Lake City pile,
the ORNL model also overestimates the actual observed radon concentration. Again,
the discrepancies are particularly large for locations nearest to the edge of the
pile.
I was peripherally involved in the 1967 to 1968 radon studies by Shearer
and Sill at Grand Junction, Salt Lake City, Durango, and Monticello, and I can
personally certify to the accuracy of their sampling procedures and of their radon
measurements. Where there is disagreement between a theoretical model and the
measured radon concentrations it is the model which is inaccurate.
The conclusion is inescapable that the particular radon dispersion model
used, and indeed any known model grossly overestimates the actual radon concen-
trations attributable to the tailings piles. Therefore, all of the estimates of
attributable lung cancer for the "local" (0 to 6 miles), "regional" (6 to 50
miles), and "national" (beyond 50 miles) populations become invalid overestimates.
2. RADON FLUX: NATURAL and MAN-MADE
The average concentration of radium-226, in equilibrium with its parent
uranium-238, in surface soils and rocks is in the domain of 1 pCi Ra/g of earth.
At this concentration the content per square mile of ordinary land, to a depth
of 1 foot, is 2 grams (or 2 Curies) of radium and 6 tons of uranium. A portion of
the radon-222 produced by radium in the soil and rocks escapes from the crystal
grains and diffuses slowly throughout the interstitial voids. Some of this diffus-
ing radon, mostly from within less than 2 meters from the surface, reaches the
earth-air interface and escapes into the atmosphere. The flux of radon which dif-
fuses through the earth-air interface depends on several characteristics of the
soil or rock, including porosity, moisture content, grass or other cover crops,
freezing and thawing, and also on fluctuations in barometric pressure and surface
wind speed. A reasonable annual average value is 1 pCi Rn/m2 . sec, with varia-
tions expected mostly in the domain of 0.5 to 5 pCi Rn/m2 • sec. Rundo et al.
measured a flux of 7 pCt Rn/mz - sec from soil containing about 1 pCi Ra/g in the
unpaved crawl space under an Illinois home (Health Phys. 36., 729-730 (.1979)).
If the average inactive unstabilized uranium tailings pile releases a radon
flux of 640 pCi Rn/mz • sec (0. 0. Swift et al. EPA-520/1-76-001, page 12), then
each square meter of tailings would have the same radon release as 640 square meters
of ordinary land. In the same ratio, each acre of inactive tailings would have the
same radon release as 640 acres of land. But 640 acres is one square mile. Thus
we have the handy-dandy rule of thumb that on the average each acre of inactive
tailings releases to the atmosphere the same quantity of radon as one square mile
of land, prairie, back yard, pasture, or desert. In brief, for radon release:
1 acre of unstabilized inactive tailings m 1 square mile of ordinary land (4)
The Salt Lake City uranium tailings pile is one of the largest which is near
a well-populated region in the U. S. Its area is given as 100 acres (DEIS, page
3-3). The radon released from the inactive uranium pile at Salt Lake City is there-
fore equivalent to that from about 100 square miles of natural land, or a circle
5.6 miles in radius.
The Great Salt Lake lies in Salt Lake City's front yard to the northwest.
In 1976 the water level in the Great Salt Lake had risen about 11 feet above its
level a decade earlier. The lake had spread "over 1,700 square miles - nearly twice
the surface of a decade ago." (Utah's Great Salt Lake Advisory Board: United Press
International, Oct. 24, 1976). Thus some 800 square miles of land became covered
by water, and had its radon flux cut off. This natural process therefore reduced
the annual radon released into the Salt Lake City regional air by 8 times as much
as the annual release from the tailings pile. On a regional basis, even this great
tailings pile near a heavily populated area has an atmospheric radon influence which
is not only overwhelmed by the natural radon flux of the area but is much smaller
than the fluctuations in the regional radon flux which are caused by variations in
the water level in the Great Salt Lake. If the radon emission from the lake shore
is not worth controlling, what magnitude of resources should be expended to mini-
mize the much smaller radon emission from the tailings pile?
-------
P-19
P-19
Dr. W.A. Mills
-10-
May 27, 1981
Or. W.A. Mills
-11-
May 27, 1981
I
-P-
Moving along to the national scene, the total area of all the 23 inactive
uranium tailings piles, as listed on pages 3-2 and 3-3 of the DEIS, is 1021 acres.
Most of these have tabulated radon flux rates which are substantially smaller than
the nominal 640 pCi Rn/mz • sec. But for ease of visualization, we may consider
1000 acres of inactive tailings with nominal radon flux. Then all the inactive
tailings, if unstabilized, have a total radon emission equivalent to not more than
1000 square miles of land area. How shall we visualize 1000 square miles? It is
smaller than the area of a square 32 miles on a side, or of a circle with a radius
of 18 miles. One thousand square miles is less than 13! of the area of Colorado,
or of Nevada. It is less than l/3000th (l/30th 5$) of the area of the 48 continental
United States. Moreover, these states contain over 55,000 square miles of inland
water, hence every 2% change in the area of inland waters changes the national radon
emission by an amount exceeding the total radon emission from all inactive uranium
tailings piles. The Great Lakes have an area of some 95,000 square miles, hence
every 1% change In their shoreline area changes the radon emission by as much as
all the unstabilized inactive tailings piles.
The Netherlands have been gradually diking portions of the Zuyder Zee and
have created a total of 3,000 square miles of new land for agricultural and other
uses (Encycl. Brit. Macropedia, 12, p. 1058 (1974)). Thus the radon emission from
the new land area created in The Netherlands exceeds by a factor of 3 the radon
emission from all U. S. inactive uranium tailings piles. Would the Dutch, or any
of their neighboring nations, initiate remedial action to suppress this man-made
radon release? Would anyone contend that 3000 square miles of new land is an en-
vironmental hazard or tha't it introduced a risk of premature or excess deaths from
lung cancer?
The radon flux from farm land is influenced by many factors. Plowing exposes
new surfaces and radon-rich interstitial voids from beneath the surface. There is
surely a net surge of radon release during and for some time after plowing. Crops
and other plants and trees, whose roots are in the subsurface interstitial spaces,
where the concentration of diffusing radon is high, bring radon through their own
pores and can increase the overall radon emission per unit area of soil by as much
as a factor of 2 or 3 for some broad-leaf crops (J. E. Pearson and G. E. Jones,
Tellus 18, 655-662 (1966)). Large changes in radon flux are also produced by flood-
ing or drought and by freezing or thawing.
Significant increases in the radium-226 content, and hence in the radon flux
from agricultural lands in Illinois and other midwest areas, have been produced by
the use of some phosphate fertilizers and ground waters with elevated radium con-
tent, as Norman Frigerio pointed out several years ago.
In summary, the total radon released from all inactive unstabilized uranium
tailings piles is a minute fraction of the variations produced by meteorological
conditions and agriculture in the total radon released by natural processes from
all land areas. The level of radon-decay-product exposure at distances greater
than 1/4 to 1/2 mile, is a minute fraction of the range of fluctuation of the natural
background in the area. Under the ALARA principle no substantial action to reduce
the exposure is warranted.
Addition of the radon flux from the tailings of active uranium mills does
not change any of these generalizations. An earlier EPA statement of the total
area of tailings piles in 1970 (presumably in the U.S.A.) was 2100 acres (EPA-
520/9-73-003-B, (1973), page 51). If this estimate was accurate it would imply
that the active tailings piles were substantially equal in area to the inactive
piles. This would not double the total radon released because many of the active
piles have a high moisture content. ORNL concluded that "moist tailings" emit
only 50% as much radon as "dry tailings", while "wet tailings" emit only 20% as
much radon as dry tailings (ORNL/TM-5251, page 18). Submerged tailings can re-
lease substantially no radon to the atmosphere. In view of Shearer and Sill's
observation that the inactive piles at Salt Lake City, Grand Junction, Durango,
and Monticello produce no measurable increase in the atmospheric radon concentra-
tion at distances greater than 1/4 to 1/2 mile, it is comforting, but not surprising,
that Professor Marvin Wilkening could detect no radon from all the tailings piles
plus mine ventilation exhausts from Ambrosia Lake at his laboratory in Socorro,
NM, a downwind distance of nearly 100 miles (Personal communication, May 18,1981).
3. LUNG CANCER RISK FACTORS
Estimates of the health effects due to radon emission from inactive uranium
tailings piles depend multiplicatively on three factors: radon flux, radon disper-
sion in the environment and the growth of radon decay products with elapsed time,
and the lifetime lung cancer risk factor per working-level-month (WLM) of inhaled
radon decay products. We have seen that the measured values of radon concentrations
are very much smaller than the values derived from theoretical models. Therefore
the health effects were overestimated.
In the following discussion we will see that the lifetime risk factors per
WLM were also overestimated. These risk factors also contribute to the proposed
overrestrictive standards for radon flux after stabilization and for working level
(WL) values in occupiable buildings.
Health Effects Estimates in_ FR81.
Quantitative estimates of health effects are treated in paragraphs numbered
2 and 4 in column 1 on page 2558 of FR81. In paragraph 2 we read:
"For example, we estimate that individuals living continuously one
mile from a large pile would have about 200 times as great a chance
of a fatal lung cancer caused by radon decay products as persons
living 20 miles away (7 in 10,000 versus 3 in 1,000,000)."
This unfortunate sentence is obviously a misstatement. We recall that there is no
measurable difference in the ambient atmospheric concentration of radon at distances
greater than 1/4 to 1/2 mile from large unstabilized inactive piles. Any contribu-
tion from the pile is a small fraction of the normal fluctuations in the annual
average background due to meteorological and horticultural variables. The author
of the quoted sentence may have had in mind only pile-produced radon. But that is
is not what the prose says. A lay reader, a legislator, or a state or county officer
could be totally misled concerning the effective radius of pile-produced radon.
-------
P-19
P-19
Dr. W. A. Mills
-12-
May 27. 1981
Dr. U. A. Mills
-13-
May 27. 1981
The truth is there is no significant difference between 1 and 20 miles, not a
factor of 200.
The estimates 1n paragraph 4 concerning national effects on persons living
more than 50 miles away from a pile, "40 to 90 deaths from lung cancer per century",
(or 0.4 to 0.9 per year, out of an unstated national total of 92,000 per year) is
also both misleading and invalid.
Even though the possible detriment or harm from pile-produced radon is much
smaller than estimated in FR81 and the DEIS, I agree that the detriment from other
airborne radionuclides (U, Ra, Po, etc.), or from gamma radiation are "far less
significant" (FR81, p. 2558, line 3), indeed they are negligible. A year-long sur-
vey in 1974 at a station on the Salt Lake City pile showed that none of 26 separate
samples of airborne dust had activities greater than the MPCa for Ra-226, Pb-210,
Po-210, Th-230, U-234, U-235, or U-238 (F. F. Haywood, et al. ORNL/TM-5251, page 21).
Also the gamma radiation from this large unstabllized pile 1s small, decreases rapidly
with distance from the pile (Haywood, loc. cit., page 61), and would be reduced
everywhere to normal background levels by a covering of less than two feet of earth
(DEIS, page 5-8).
Health Effect Estimates in. the DEIS.
With respect to radon decay product risk factors FR81 properly states that
(page 2558):
p) "Additional uncertainty comes from our Incomplete knowledge of the
I effects on people of these generally low exposures"
£> The DEIS estimates of lung cancer risk (pages 4-6 to 4-11) per WLM involve both
relative risk and absolute risk. My preference is for absolute risk, which coin-
cides with yours, with that of Jacobi, Stewart, McLean, and Harley, and with ICRP
and NCRP. For absolute lifetime risk the DEIS appears to have as many as 4 differ-
ent values in a span of 4 pages of text. These warrant discussion and comment, for
resolution in future publications.
On DEIS page 4-8, we read:
"For absolute risk, we use the estimate of 10 lung cancer deaths per
WLM for one million person-years at risk reported by the National
Academy of Sciences (NA76)."
The bibliographic reference (NA76) is not found in the list of References. From
a similar statement credited to "Na76" in EPA 520/4-78-013 (1979) on Florida Phos-
phate Lands the reference must be a National Research Council report supported by
the EPA Office of Radiation Programs on "Health Effects of Alpha-Emitting Particles
in the Respiratory Tract", issued in October 1976 as EPA 520/4-76-013.
That entire document actually relates to the plutonium "hot particle" flap
generated by a Cochran and Tamplin hypothesis which fueled the National Resources
Defense Council petition to the EPA that the plutonium-in-lung standard be reduced
by a factor of 115,000. The major issues relate to the relative insensitivity to
radiation displayed by the alveolar region of the animal and human lung, as com-
pared with the hilar region. The conclusion was that for inhaled insoluble pluton-
ium aerosols "the carcinogenic response is more a function of the amount of radio-
activity in the lung than its distribution". Thus "hot particles" of plutonium
were judged to be no more hazardous than a uniform distribution.
The 18-page report has a 77-page appendix comprising comments on usually
relevant topics by the committee members. One of the 10 members of this ad hoc
committee on hot particles was Professor Edward Radford. Ted Radford's 3-page
contribution to the appendix deals mainly with the location (alveolar vs. hilar)
of lung tumors associated with various agents including cigarette smoke, asbestos,
compounds of arsenic, nickel, and chromium, various organic chemicals, and alpha
radiation. He comnented on the 1972 BEIR report estimate of 0.63 cases per 10°
person-rem-year for the radon decay product risk factor for underground uranium
miners (not for members of the general population),then stated"
"Finally, it has been possible to update the U. S. uranium miners
study group to 1972 (88). ... modifying the definition of period
of risk ... to 10 years after beginning of mining ... results in a
revised absolute risk of about 2 cases/rem/106 person-years."
Radford's bibliographic reference (88) to support this conclusion is:
88. V. E. Archer and E. P. Radford, unpublished data, 1975.
Thus no supporting data have been supplied, and Radford's recommendation in 1976
has never had peer review. Radford did not express his risk factor in units of
WLM. The dosimetric conversion used in the 1972 BEIR report was 5 rem • 1 WLM.
Applying this to Radford's statement would make his risk factor for uranium miners
10 cases per WLM for 106 person-years as used for the general public in EPA 520/
4-78-013 on Florida Phosphate Lands and in the DEIS. This 10-5 per WLM • yr 1s
derived from a proposal of Radford's, rather than being the concensus of any
committee of the National Academy of Sciences.
When this per-year risk estimate is integrated over a 70-year average life-
span, assuming that the per-year risk factor is independent of age and does not
diminish with time after exposure,that the rate of exposure in WLM/year is constant,
that competing causes of death do not shorten the average lifespan, that a 10-year
minimum latency is associated with each element of acquired risk, and that there-
fore the accumulation of risk and associated "wasted" WLM terminates 10 yrs before the
end of the 70-year lifespan, then the 10"' risk factor per year and per accumulated
WLM Integrates to an equivalent lifetime risk of 3.0 x 10*4 per accumulated WLM.
This numerical correspondence between the risk per year and the lifetime
risk is in agreement with a relationship which can be derived from an example of
lifetime risk given in Table 10 of the Florida Phosphate Lands document EPA 520/
4-78-013. Hence we appear to be in agreement that under the assumptions listed
above, the integrated relationship is:
[lifetime) _ 1/risk perVlife-long exposure^/ lifetime minus >2
^ risk J ~ ?\yr • WLMjV. rate in WLM/yr J ^latency, in yearsj
C5i
-------
P-19
P-19
-r. W.A. Hills
-14-
May 27, 1981
Dr. W. A. Mills
-15-
May 27, 1981
A second estimate of the lifetime absolute risk factor can be deduced from
the statement (page 4-9 of DEIS) that a life table analysis yields a 0.6% lifetime
risk for continuous exposure to 0.01 WL. Assuming that the 10-year latency con-
cept has been retained in this life-table analysis, the relevant lifetime exposure,
using the 27 WLM/WL yr conversion factor from page 4-6, is
(0.01 WL)(60 yr)(27 WLM/WL yr) =? 16.2 WLM,
and the lifetime risk factor would be 0.006/16.2 = 3.7 x 10"4 per WLM. It is inter-
esting that the shortening of some lives by intercurrent disease or trauma, which
occurs through the use of a life-table analysis, results in a higher lifetime risk
factor rather than a lower one. Incidentally, the lifetime risk of lung cancer in
the general U.S.A. population is said to be closer to 4% than to the 2.9% stated,
on page 4-9, to have resulted from the Cook et al. computer program and life-table
analysis. The discrepancies may be related.
A third estimate of lifetime risk is implicit in the statement at the bottom
of page 4-9 of DEIS, which reads:
"A person's average annual risk from a lifetime of exposure may be
obtained by dividing the lifetime risk estimates given above by an
average lifespan of 71 years."
This would mean that the lifetime risk is the annual risk multiplied by 71 years, or
(lO-VWLM • yr}(71 yr) = 7.1 x 10"4 per WLM. The integrations which lead to Equa-
tion (5) may have been overlooked when this simple relationship was stated.
A fourth estimate of absolute lifetime risk is the statement on page 4-10
of DEIS:
... our firmest estimate is that increased levels of radon will
produce an additional 1 to 3 lung cancer deaths per year of exposure
for each 100 person-working-levels of lifetime exposure".
For 100 persons at one WL, and the conversion factors and latency already discussed,
this is a lifetime exposure of (1 WL)(27 WLM/WL yr)(70 - 10 yr) = 1620 WLM. Then
the lifetime risk factor per person would be (1 to 3 deaths/yr)(60 yr)/(100 persons)
(1620 WLM) = 3.7 to 11.1 x 10-4 per WU-I •
Thus the 4 pages of the DEIS which deal with the lung cancer risk factor seem
to contain 4 different values for the lifetime absolute risk factor in units of 10'4
per WLM, namely 3.0, 3.7, 7.1, and 3.7 to 11.1. The range is nearly a factor of 4.
Update of Lifetime Risk Factor.
Fortunately this uncertainty can be resolved easily in a later version of
the EIS. As you know, there has just become available the "international concensus"
risk-factor which resulted from a week-long workshop of invited international
specialists invited by the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development in Paris to convene at the EPA offices in Arlington in
1978. As you know from your participation, the task group on radon included the
leading experts at the extremes of modeling (W. Jacobi) and of epidemiology (C. G.
Stewart) and all views in between. The manuscript recommendations of Archer,
Radford, Axelson, et al. were in hand. These were rejected, as was their paper
when later independently refereed and rejected by the editor of Radiation Research.
The radon task group easily reached unanimous agreement that the upper
limit of lifetime absolute risk is 1 x 10~4 per WLM for members of the general popu-
lation. The radon task group's findings were accepted by the international workshop
membership as a whole, which included strong representation of the ICRP (D. Beninson
B. Lindell, and others) and representatives of other nations besides the 4 nations
represented in the radon task group. The text of the radon task group's recommenda-
tions apparently got lost somewhere in the communication chain between the OECD,
IAEA, and ICRP, and did not appear anywhere in print. Following nearly 2 years of
subsequent correspondence, and a long series of drafts which resulted in unanimous
agreement on all final details of wording, the conclusions have at last been pub-
lished in the open literature. The reference is of course, R. D. Evans, J. H.
Harley, W. Jacobi, A. S. McLean, W. A. Mills and C. G. Stewart, "Estimate of Risk
from Environmental Exposure to Radon-222 and Its Decay Products", Nature 290, 98-
100 (March 12, 1981). The authors noted that 10-4 per WLM was to be taken as the
upper bound, and that "the estimate of risk for low-level exposure may even include
zero as a lower bound. '
I, for one, feel that the EPA now has a clear scientifically-based mandate
to adopt 1 x 10-4 per WLM as its upper limit for the lifetime absolute risk factor
in all future considerations of possible radon decay product health effects.
Influence of Risk Factor on Proposed Standards.
Adoption of 1 x 10"4 per WLM in place of values between 3.0 and 11.1 x 10
per WLM will reduce all estimated health effects by a factor somewhere between 3
and 10. Standards which were proposed on the older basis of risk can be relaxed
to 3 to 10 times the proposals in FR81. This shift is in addition to, and in the
same direction as, the corrections discussed earlier for radon-decay-product dis-
persion patterns.
Updating the DEIS Text.
Incidentally, in a rewrite of the DEIS section 4.3 on lung cancer risks, it
would be appropriate to replace the references EP78 and AR79 in the opening para-
graph by a more representative selection of recent.reports. Archer's AR79 is an
almost inaccessible paper at a symposium, and had no peer review. His most recent
full compilation and tabulation of the USPHS study cases, in a refereed journal,
is, I believe, V. E. Archer, J. K. Wagoner, and F. E. Lundin, Health Phys. 25_, 351-
371 (1973), and this would be a good basic reference. (These are most probably
the data with which Ted Radford made his recalculation of per-year risk in 1976).
Figure 4-2 on page 4-7, from Archer 79, is related to the rejected Archer-Radford-
Axelson manuscript and should be deleted because it is so misleading. The Czech,
Canadian, and Swedish data involve confounding variables and should not be plotted
with U.S. data. Two references which would enhance the bibliography in the opening
paragraph are, of course, D. K. Myers and C. G. Stewart, "Some Health Aspects of
Canadian Uranium Mining', AECL-5970, Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories (1979), and
W. Jacobi and K. Eisfeld, "Dose to Tissues and Effective Dose Equivalent by Inhala-
tion of Radon-222, Radon-220 and Their Short-Lived Daughters", GSF-Report S-626,
Institut fur Strahlenschutz, Munich (1980).
-------
P-19
P-19
Dr. W. A. Mills
-16-
Hay 27, 1981
ur. W. A. Mills
-17-
Hay 27, 1981
PI
I
cr.
The DEIS gives 4 different values for the lifetime absolute lung cancer
risk factor,ranging from 3.0 to 11.1 in units of 10-4 per WLM, i.e., per 10,000
person-WLM. These risk factors derive from unpublished data, never given peer
review, and relate only to underground uranium miners. For the low-level exposure
of the general population, not involved in underground labor, the recently pub-
lished recommendation by six widely recognized senior specialists from four countries
should be used. This is a lifetime risk with an upper bound or maximum value of
1 x 10-* per WLM, and with a lower bound which may include zero.
4. WORKING LEVEL AND WORKING LEVEL MONTHS PER YEAR
The DEIS uses 27 WLM for the full time continuous exposure of members of
the general population to one WL for a year, that is 1 WL yr = 27 WLM. The month
(M) in WLM is defined correctly as 170 hours on page 4-6 of the DEIS. The correct
relationship for full time 100% occupancy is:
1 WL yr = 1 WL yr(8760 hr/yr}/(170 hr/M) •= 51.5 WLM (6)
The 27 WLM conversion factor was based on the fact that members of the general
population breathe fewer liters of air per month than do underground uranium miners
(DEIS, page 4-6, and page 48 of the Florida Phosphate Lands EPA 520/4-78-013).
But under the universally accepted definitions of WL (1.3 x 105 MeV of short-
lived potential alpha energy per liter of air) and of the working month, M, (170
hours, rounded from 173), the WLM unit is totally independent of breathing rate.
For example, members of the general public or miners working at an altitude of
6000 to 7000 feet will have a breathing rate about 20% greater than persons in
similar activities near sea level because of the lower density and hence lower
oxygen content per liter of air, at higher altitudes. Breathing rate is in no
way involved in WLM determinations, which are based only on the radioactivity con-
tent per liter of air multiplied by duration of exposure.
The significant difference in breathing rate between uranium miners and
members of the general public at the same altitude is only one of many parameters
which require two lung cancer risk factors, - one for uranium miners and a smaller
one for members of the general public, as discussed earlier. Breathing rate is
already accounted for in the maximum lifetime risk factor of 10-4 per WLM.
5. FRACTIONAL OCCUPANCY TIME
The conversion factor 1 WL yr = 27 WLM can be salvaged and justified on a
basis of fractional occupancy time. What you would need would be an average occu-
pancy factor of 27/51 = 0.53. If a work place is being considered, then the occu-
pancy factor would be about (170 working hours per month)/(730 clock hours per
month) = 0.23. Only part of the remaining fraction 0.77 of the time is spent in
the place of residence. (The 0.75 occupancy factor for a residence as adopted in the
Florida Phosphate document, page 48, seems too high in spite of its distinguished par-
entage).
With respect to residences, most people do not spend a 70-year lifetime in one
residence, but rather in perhaps 5 to 10 houses. If one or two of these houses had
a substantially elevated radon decay product level, an individual's lifetime average
exposure could still be in a comfortable range. With this factor in mind, regulatory
guides on permissible WL levels in homes or work places should recognize that the
lifetime average WL exposure rate is more important than the maximum WL experienced
in a particular home or work place.
Probably an average occupancy factor in the vicinity of 0.5 or less would be
easy for you to justify, and hence to retain the 1 WL yr • 27 WLM, or even to adopt
some smaller value.
6. INDOOR RADON DECAY PRODUCT CONCENTRATION STANDARD
Remedial actions at sites designated under PL 95-604 are '... clearly directed
at potential health problems due to tailings ..."(DEIS, page 8-28). Also "... the
proposed remedial action level of 0.015 WL (including background) for occupied or occu-
piable buildings is the most protective level that can be justified for the PL 95-604
remedial action program" (DEIS, page 8-27).
The justification seems to be based on the engineering practicability of achiev-
ing levels as low as 0.015 WL, rather than on estimation of the health risk in compar-
ison with other risks regularly accepted in everyday life. It is also quite properly
noted that surveys of normal houses with basements in New York, New Jersey, and Grand
Junction, without tailings, indicate that (DEIS, page 8-27):
"... about 10% or more are above 0.015 WL. We have concluded that
efforts to reduce levels significantly below 0.015 WL by removing
tailings would often be unfruitful, and the funds expended wasted.
If an action level as low as 0.015 WL for tailings remedial action were to be
extrapolated by some agency at a later time to normal homes without tailings then
several million existing normal homes in the U. S. ("about 10% or more") would become
subject to remedial action, recognizing that natural radon from the soil is radio-
biologically the same as radon from uranium tailings or from phosphate lands.
An action level as low as 0.015 WL has an extremely high ratio of cost to bene-
fit. This is being demonstrated in Grand Junction where already some $11,000,000 of
federal and state tax money has been spent on tailings removal, and an equal additional
amount is projected.
Recall that even the long-term widespread dispersion of uranium tailings in
Brand Junction is not associated with any measurable excess in lung cancer, in leukemia,
or- in all cancers (T. J. Mason, et al., "Uranium Mill Tailings and Cancer Mortality
in Colorado", J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 49, 661-664 (1972); M. Cunningham, Colorado Disease
Bulletin, 6_, No. 31 (1978); and NUREG-0706, Vol. II, p. A-34).
Remedial action is taken in Grand Junction for schools and homes at 0.01 WL
above background, hence at something approximating 0.017 WL including background
-------
P-19
P-19
Dr. W. A. Mills
-18-
May 27, 1981
Dr. U. A. Hills
-19-
May 27, 1981
(if anybody could make measurements with such accuracy). Recalling 0.03 WL above
background as the midpoint of the Grand Junction 0.01 to 0.05 WL gray area in which
"remedial action may be suggested", it is interesting to note that the EPA categories
of WL as tabulated for 133 measured structures in Polk County, Florida, has its most
significant WL-category boundary at 0.03 WL including background, that is a cate-
gory from 0.01 to 0.03 WL and another at 0.03 to 0.05 WL. No break point at 0.02
WL is discussed (Florida Phosphate Lands, page 23-25). However in the related sub-
sequent publication in FR 44. 38664-38670, July 2, 1979, the recommended remedial
action level for residences is an annual average of 0.02 WL, rather than 0.03 WL.
My letter to you dated October 16, 1979 .discussed the problems of measurement
and enforcement at the suggested 0.02 WL, and recommended that some higher value
be chosen because, among other things, the lung cancer risk factor had been over-
estimated. Now the DEIS document and FR81 have suggested a still lower action level,
0.015 WL. Thus over a span of about 3 years the EPA's suggested action level appears
to have been sequentially tightened from 0.03,to 0.02, to 0.015 WL, whereas in the
meantime the newer scientific evidence has indicated considerably less risk per WLM
than previously assumed.
From the standpoint of the accuracy of environmental measurements or knowledge
of radiobiological effects, a standard expressed to 2 significant digits, such as
0.015 WL is unrealistic. Even a single significant digit, such as 0.02, 0.03, or
0.04 WL may imply unwarranted accuracy.
The lung cancer lifetime risk factor of 1 x 10'* per WLM, as an upper bound,
implies that an exposure rate of 1 WLM per year carries less risk of all cancers
than does the whole body exposure to 0.5 rem per year, which is the NCRP, ICRP,
and 10CFR20 permissible level for members of the general public. Using your
1 WL yr = 27 WLM conversion, 0.04 WL corresponds to 1.1 WLM per year, and 0.03 WL
corresponds to 0.8 WLM per year. I therefore recommend either 0.03 WL or 0.0,4 WL,
in place of 0.015 WL, as the minimum annual average for indoor air which requires
remedial action if it is caused by "residual radioactive materials from any desig-
nated processing site".
With the lifetime risk factor of 1 x 10'4 per WLM in view, as compared with
3 to 11 x 10-* per WLM used in the DEIS, the lifetime risk of 0.04 WL is less than
the lifetime risk which had been associated with the proposed 0.015 WL.
It should be noted that it would be incorrect to use l/10th of the occupa-
tional level of 4 WLM/yr, that is 0.4 WLM/yr for the general population. This is
because of differences in breathing rate, environmental factors, age and sex dis-
tributions, etc., which led to the designation of 1 x 10~4 per WLM as the upper
bound of lifetime risk for the general population.
In summary, with newer risk factors and cost effectiveness in view, an action
level of 0.03 WL or 0.04 WL would involve less risk and much less implementation
cost than had been associated with the 0.015 WL proposed in FR81, 40CFR paragraph
192.12(b) and Table B.
7. RADON FLUX FROM STABILIZED TAILINGS PILES
The total radon released from all inactive uranium tailings piles is a
minute fraction of the variations in the total radon released from ordinary soil,
rock, desert, and prairie, as discussed earlier. The level of radon-decay-product
exposure from unstabilized uranium tailings piles at distances greater than 1/4
to 1/2 mile is a minute fraction of the range of fluctuation of the natural back-
ground in the area.
Only long-term exposures very near to the pile, or directly on the pile,
actually have any possible interest as potential health hazards. Quantitatively
the DEIS estimate for the local (0 to 6 miles) population near the piles at Salt
Lake City, Grand Junction, and 4 other southwestern piles is less than 1 lung
cancer per year (DEIS, pp. 4-14 to 4-16). This is an overestimate, by more than
a factor of 3, because of the dispersion model and risk factors used. Even so, it
is insignificant compared with the unrelated expectation of about 100 lung cancer
deaths per year among the 416,000 persons living within 6 miles of these 6 inactive
tailings piles.
Thus there really is no significant health problem due to radon flux from
the unstabilized tailings piles. The piles could be stabilized and provided with
a physically sturdy and durable cover of soil and vegetation. The cover should be
designed to prevent erosion and dispersion of tailings by weather (rain, snow, ice,
and wind). A weather-resistant cover would be sufficiently thick to reduce the
radon flux by probably a factor of at least 10, that is from a nominal 640 pCi Rn/m^-sec
to the domain of 60 pCi Rn/m2 • sec. I know of no radiobiological reason for any
further reduction, provided that habitable structures are excluded from the imme-
diate area of the pile.
I know of no scientific basis for the proposed 2 pCi Rn/m2 -sec. Such a
standard would involve substantially more expense and more possibility of serious
harm to workers and the general public due to the hazards of moving large amounts
of earth. With the provisions in PL 95-604 for Federal custody of disposal sites
after completion of the remedial action program, it would seem that a small buffer
zone, landscaped but without houses, around a stabilized pile would more than suf-
fice for radiological safety. Thus the purposes of PL 95-604 as stated in Section
2(a) would be fulfilled. Far from being an eyesore, a properly stabilized and land-
scaped pile could be an attractive public park. Whatever radon flux exists on the
stabilized pile has zero WL of decay products initially, and decay products are
likely to become measurable only off the pile several minutes downwind.
The problem of estimating the attenuation of radon flux from tailings mater-
ial by layers of overlying semiporous materials has been the subject of many mathe-
matical studies. Extrapolating from the pathfinding work of Kraner, Schroeder,
and Evans at M.I.T. in the early 1960's I believe that many of the recent mathematical
models and computer printouts are inaccurate. You will recall my concern that much
of the material in the NRC's April 1979 Draft Generic Environmental Impact State-
ment on Uranium Milling, NUREG-0511, was dubious. In particular, the mathematical
formulation for multilayered systems involving widely different diffusion coefficients
and porosities, as given in Appenx P of NUREG-0511, seemed impossible to accept.
That simple exponential formulation however seems to have been adopted in the DEIS
-------
P-19
P-19
Dr. W. A. Hills
-20-
May 27, 1981
Dr. W. A. Mills
-21-
May 27, 1981
W
I
oo
in Chapter 4 and Appendix B. A very much fancier theory appeared in the revision
of Appendix P found in the Final GEIS on Uranium Milling, WJREG-0706, dated
September 1980.
However I can at this time give full support to the situation in which the
tailings material and the cover material have the same diffusion coefficient and
porosity. Then all formulations agree that the radon flux due to the pile will be
attenuated with exponential dependence on the thickness of the overburden. This
special situation allows the concept of half-value-layer (HVL) to be used, so that
for thickness t of overburden the transmitted flux is proportional to exp(-0.693t/HVL)
as is implicit in the table and graph on pages 5-4 and 5-5 of the DEIS.
The much more complicated dependence when several layers of dissimilar over-
burden are used may eventually be clarified by full scale experiments which are in
a very early stage at the inactive Phillips and United Nuclear pile at Ambrosia Lake.
The text of FR81 is flawed with respect to the proposed radon emission stand-
ard of 2 pCi Rn/m2 • sec. Me note that all the backup material in the GEIS operates
on a pure single exponential model, exp(-0.693t/HVL). The HVL is taken as a charac-
teristic of the particular overburden material.
Then see FR81, page 2559, column 2,
•Several analyses of controlling radon emission by covering piles 7
with soil suggest that the required covering thickness rises sharply
near an emission rate of about 1 pCi/m2 • sec."
This statement is as obscure and meaningless as saying that for an isolated radio-
active source with an initial activity of say 600 mCi the time one has to wait for
the activity to decrease rises sharply near an activity of about 1 mCi.
The footnote "7" is even more confusing. It reads:
"Reducing the emission rate from 10 to 9 pC1/m2 • sec (a 10% reduction)
requires about 1 cm of added soil: the same size reduction from 2 to
1 pCi/m2 • sec (50%) takes about 50 cm of added soil."
The author of these selections seems to be unclear on the behavior of exponential
systems as compared with linear systems. In this case, if a 50% reduction takes
50 cm of added soil, then the half-value-layer (HVL) is 50 cm. The addition or
subtraction of 50 cm of soil will always change the transmitted flux by exactly a
factor of 2. This is simply because exp(-0.693t/50) « 1/2 when t = 50. But for
a reduction from 10 to 9 pCi/m2 • sec, we have 9/10 = exp(-0.693t/50), from which
it follows that t » 7.6 cm (not "about 1 on") for any 1051 reduction in flux. The
numerical illustration in footnote 7 is not a misprint, it is simply wrong.
Still in column 2, of page 2559, of FR81, we read:
"Higher control levels, say 10 - 40 pCi/m • sec appear unjustified
because emission rates of that size can be lowered to 2 pCi/m2 • sec
for about 10% additional cost."
This seems to be another example of some writer's difficulty with exponential
functions and multiplicative relationships. To reduce from even a large initial
flux of say 600 pCi/m2 • sec to 40, is a reduction factor of 600/40 = 15. This
requires (In 15)/0.693 = 3.91 half-value-layers. To drop from 40 to 2 pCi/mf • sec
is a reduction factor of 40/2 = 20. This requires (In 20)/0.693 = 4.32 additional
half-value-lavers. Far from requiring "about 10% additional cost", going from
40 to 2 pCi/m' • sec requires 4.32/3.91 = 1.10 or 110% more material than was re-
quired to go from 600 to 40 pCi/m2 • sec. These relationships would be true for
any covering material, as long as the exponential decrement is valid.
The entire section in FR81 on Proposed Radon Emission Standards is thus
flawed by errors in mathematics and hence in reasoning.
I am not particularly troubled by these marked uncertainties and inaccuracies
concerning radon flux reduction by overburden, because we have seen that the reasons
advanced for proposing a 2 pCi Rn/m2 • sec guideline are invalid. It is not needed
radiobiologically, and it would be very expensive, cost ineffective and inflationary
to spend tens of millions of dollars reducing the flux toward such unnecessarily
low levels.
In summary, no radiobiological justification is known for the proposed radon
flux limitation of 2 pCi Rn/m' • sec. It is unnecessary for the "protection of the
public health, safety, and welfare, and the regulation of interstate commerce."
Its implementation through massive trans locations of earth and/or tailings would
be very expensive, would be inflationary to the economy, and would be hazardous to
the health of workers and the general public. The mathematical justifications given
in FR81 are distinctly inaccurate and hence the conclusions drawn from them are in-
valid. The underlying purposes of PL 95-604 with respect to radon flux suppression
would be fulfilled by procedures equivalent to providing a sturdy and durable cover
of soil and vegetation adequate to prevent erosion and dispersion of tailings by
extremes of weather, such as rain, snow, ice and wind, and by including a small
buffer zone without habitable buildings in the area under Federal or State custody
after completion of the remedial action program.
8. GAMMA RADIATION FROM TAILINGS PILES
It is true that the gamma radiation from a uranium tailings pile is small and
only offers a minute health hazard compared with the already very small health as-
pects of radon and its decay products. This is because the mean-free-path for the
gamma rays of the radium series is only about 10 on, or 4 inches, of tailings or
dirt. Substantially all of the gamma radiation is self-absorbed within the pile.
The external gamma radiation originates almost entirely from the outer one foot of
tailings.
The attenuation of tailings gamma radiation by soil overburden is not given
correctly by Figure 5-2, on page 5-8 of the DEIS. You would want to correct this
in any later version of the EIS.
-------
P-19
P-19
Dr. W.A. Mills
-22-
May 27, 1981
Or. W.A. Mills
-23-
May 27, 1981
Figure 5-2 is simply a graph of an exponential attenuation, exp(-0.693 y/0.1),
where y is the thickness of overburden in meters. However, pure exponential atten-
uation of gamma rays occurs only for a collimated beam or a point source.
In the case of an extended source, such as a flat surface on a tailings pile,
much of the radiation emerging through any square centimeter of surface will have
had a diagonal path within the extended source, and will therefore have suffered
more attenuation than radiation emitted perpendicular to the surface. When the
appropriate mathematics is carried out (see R. D. Evans and R. W. Raitt, Phys. Rev.
48, 171-176 (1935)) the attenuation of the gamma radiation from a uniform semi-
infinite source by an overburden of thickness y and linear attenuation coefficient
jj is given by the integral <*,
E,Cuy)
dz
(7)
This cannot be integrated in closed form but must be tabulated. Originally called
the Gold integral (E. Gold, Proc. Roy. Soc. ton. A82, 43 (1909)), Ejtuy) is now
known as one of a family of "exponential integrals". These are involved in the
shielding of nuclear reactors. Convenient tables will be found in H.Etherington,
"Nuclear Engineering Handbook", McGraw-Hill (1958), page 1-122.
The concept of half-value-layers does not apply to extended sources. The
consequences are significant. For example the ratio of extended source attenuation,
to point source attenuation, exp(-jjy) for several values of .uy is:
.ny
E2(uy)/exp(-juy)
0.693 1246
0.48 0.40 0.28 0.17 0.13
Thus Figure 5-2 of the DEIS underestimates the attenuation at 0.5 meters (20 inches)
of soil by more than a factor of 5. The effectiveness of overburden in attenuating
gamma radiation from a tailings pile is significantly greater than given in the DEIS.
This bit of radiation physics can be corrected easily in any later version of the
EIS. The FR81 is not affected.
9. LONGEVITY OF DISPOSAL STANDARDS
The FR81 requests ... comments on whether 1000 years is the best choice.
In my view "disposal", without any form of surveillance, is impracticable. When
the National Academy of Sciences' "Comnittee on Radioactive Waste Disposal" began
in 1968 one of the very first actions we took was to change the name of our com-
mittee by substituting "Management" for "Disposal". We felt that, in the very long
term, occasional surveillance would be essential, and that a walk-away-and-leave-
it-alone policy as implied by "disposal" was impractical. I still feel that way.
"Management" procedures and standards are practicable, "disposal" is impracticable.
Is there any person or group of persons who can predict the course of mankind
on this continent for the next 200 years, let alone a millennium? Could George
Washington have predicted the present state of commerce, population, communication,
or the healing arts? The Pueblo of Los Angeles, California, was founded just 200
years ago, in 1781 "... with a population of twenty-six including Mexicans, negroes,
and half-breeds ... upon the site of the old Indian village, Yang-na..."(E. B. Carter,
"Hollywood, the Story of the Cahuengas", H.H.S. Press, 1926). Its LaBrea tar pits
were a death trap, but have been "managed" successfully.
The very advanced Aztec civilization in Central America could not have fore-
seen its destruction by Cortes in 1519. And eyen the Norman Conquest of England
("1066 and all that") and the Magna Carta (1215J were less than 1000 years ago.
At present the mortality from all forms of cancer is only about one-half of the
morbidity. Who can say what the cure rate will be in 20 years, or 200 years?
For what it's worth, with Federal or State custody of the tailings sites
planned under Section 202 of PL 95-604 after remedial action is completed, 100 to
200 years seems to me to be a more than adequate time span.
10. RADIUM IN SOIL
The proposed 5 pCi Ra/g soil standard seems reasonable if it is intended to
apply to cover materials near the surface. But what is meant by the provision
"... in any 15 cm thickness below 1 foot, shall not exceed 5 pCi/g" (para. 192.12(a))?
To what maximum depth "below 1 foot" does this proposal apply, 5 ft, 20 ft, 1000 ft?
If it's to any considerable depth then the radon flux might be 5 pCi Rn/m' . sec, -
another reason for dropping the 2 pCi Rn/m2 . sec concept.
11. RADIUM IN DRINKING WATER
FR81, in paragraph 192.03(b)(l) and Table A, repeats the EPA drinking water
standard for combined radium-226 and radium-228 of 5.0 pCi/liter. As you know from
prior correspondence and conversations I feel that this is unduly restrictive,
inefficient in its cost/benefit ratio, and inflationary in the expenditure of
manpower and money which it is causing. Other scientists who have had significant
direct experience in the study of the radiobiological effects of radium share this
view. If this is a time for reconsideration, please consider the following.
The effects of Ra-226 and Ra-228 in humans has been under quantitative experi-
mental study for more than 40 years, and is probably the best understood of all radio-
biological responses to low, intermediate, and high level radiation. The permissible
body burden for Ra-226 was set at 0.1 .uCi in 1941 based on all the cases which we
had studied quantitatively up to that time (N.B.S. Handbook 27, NCRP Report No. 5).
Now, 40 years and 2000 studied patients later, the 0.1 iiCi Ra benchmark continues
to be the solid basis for all radiation protection guides for radium in man by the
-------
P-19
P-19
Dr. U. A. Mills
-24-
Hay 27. 1981
Or. W. A. Mills
-25-
May 27, 1981
w
i
NCRP and the ICRP (e.g., NCRP Reports No. 11 (1953), No. 22 (1959), No. 39 (1971);
ICRP Publication 2 (1959); Publication 30, Part 1(1979)). This 0.1 jjd Ra stand-
ard does not depend upon any model of dose vs. response, or of estimated tissue
doses in rad or rem. The Sr-90 and Pu-239 permissible levels were based upon this
radium standard (ICRP Pub. 2).
The 0.1 jiCi Ra bench mark was based on the directly measured residual body
burden of patients, long after they had acquired a much larger initial burden,
commonly the order of at least 100 times larger. When used as a radiation protec-
tion guide the 0.1 .uCi bench mark represents not a residual burden but the maximum
body burden reached during intake. Thus there. Is a substantial addit-'onal safety
factor of between 1 and 2 orders of magnitude built into the conventional use of
the 0.1 jjd Ra standard as the maximum body burden rather than as a residual body
burden evaluated many years after exposure (see, for example. Figure 16 in R. D.
Evans, "The Effect of Skeletally Deposited Alpha-Ray Emitters in Man". Brit. J.
Radiol. 39., 881-895 (1966)).
The ICRP has given long and careful consideration to n'sk analysis, and to
the risk associated with the ingestion of radium. Since the very first standards
were proposed by ICRP and NCRP for internal emitters, radium standards have been
based on the 0.1 jiCi Ra benchmark while standards for other radionuclides have
been based on calculations of rad, rem, Gray, and Sievert tissue doses.
The present ftRP occupational annual limit of oral intake (All) of radium
1s 70,000 Becquerelsfor Ra-226 and 90,000 Beoquerels for Ra-228 (ICRP Pub. 30,
Part 1, "Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers", page 99). For mixtures
of Ra-226 and Ra-228 we may use the average, 80,000 Bq/yr, which is 220 Bq/day, or
6000 pCi/day.
The ALI and average daily Intake were derived by using the alkaline earth
retention model of John Marshall (ICRP Pub. 20) and determining what ALI for each
of 50 successive years would result In a final body burden not to exceed 0.1 jjd
Ra-226 (J. Vennart, Health Phys. 40, 477-484 (1981)).
This ALI of 7 to 9 x 104 Bq, or 2 x 106 pCi, already contains the consider-
able safety factor of 10 to 100 attributable to the use of maximum burden rather
than residual burden, discussed above. If now an additional safety factor of 100
is applied for the general public as compared with radiation workers, the 6000 pCi
Ra/day becomes 60 pd Ra/day. The standard daily intake of drinking water is less
than 1 liter/day (ICRP Pub. 23, page 360). But putting in still another safety
factor by assuming 2 liters/day, leads to a value of 30 pCi Ra/liter as a very con-
servatively safe maximum permissible concentration for Ra-226 plus Ra-228 In drink-
ing water.
Thirty pC1 Ra/liter, expressed in S. I. units is 1 .Bq/liter, which is the
value adopted In Canada In 1978, prior to the publication of ALI values in ICRP Pub.
30. By coincidence, 30 pCi Ra/liter is the concentration which I recommended mostly
on grounds of dosimetry and dose-response relationships in my 11-page commentary
dated October 4, 1975 on EPA's 40CFR141, as well as in my letter of September 8, 1980
to William Lappenbusch of EPA's Office of Drinking Water. Those two commentaries
led to the same recommendation as now results from ICRP's approach, which is
happily independent of dosimetry or dose-response relationships.
In summary: based on long-term epidemiological studies and recent ICRP
recommendations on annual limits of Intake, raising the EPA drinking water stand-
ard for Ra-226 and Ra-228 from 5 pd'/liter to at least 30 pCi/liter can be shown
to have a safety factor of at least 3 to 4 orders of magnitude with respect to
the international radium MPBB standard of 0.1 jjCi Ra. This can be shown without
making any assumptions about the shape of the dose vs. response curve.
All of these comments are intended to be constructive. I hope they will be
helpful. I will be glad to discuss any of these matters with you and your colleagues
at any convenient time.
With best regards.
Cordially,
RDE:rans
Robley D. Evans, Ph. D.
Professor of Physics, Emeritus
Mass. Institute of Technology
-------
P-20
P-21
n
i
U.S. Environmental Protection AgenejiviRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Docket No. A-79-25 AGENCY
West Tower, Gallery 1
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington DC 20460
CENTRAL DOCKET
Gentlemen: crrT!ON
£^*~~fT~r\-£r*+^A*SLj
-------
P-22
P-22
PI
i
NJ
PROTECTION
AGENCY
JUN 1 R 1QA1
TO: Environmental Protection Agency ° rao'
PROM: Environmental Defense Fund CENTRAL DOCKET
DATE: June 12, 1981 SECTION
BE: Comments on Proposed Environmental Protection Standards
for Uranium Mill Tailings, 40 CFR Part 192, 46 FR 2556-
2563 (Jan. 9, 1981)
42 USC 2022(a), under which the proposed standards have been
developed, requires that the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency promulgate regulations 'for the protection of
the public health, safety, and the environment from radiological
and non-radiological hazards associated with residual radioactive
materials located at inactive uranium mill tailings sites and de-
pository sites fCjf such material.1
In order to satisfy the Congressional intent of 42 USC 2022(a),
and the intention expressed in the Committee Report on the Uranium
Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, ("The committee does not want
to visit this problem again with additional aid. The remedial action
must be done right the first time." (H.R. Rep. No. 1480, 95th Cong.
2nd session page 40 (1978)), several changes are necessary to the
proposed regulations.
(1) The proposed groundwater protection standards, 40 CFR 192.03(b),
46 FR 2562 (Jan. 9, 1981) which currently apply only to releases from
tailTngs that may occur after disposal of the piles, should be changed
to include protection from groundwater contamination prior to disposal
of the piles. In Supplementary Information 45 FR 2560 (Jan. 9, 1981)
it is stated 'it may sometimes be possible to improve the quality of
an already contaminated aquifer, but we believe a generally applicable
requirement to meet preset standards is not feasible.'
A generally applicable requirement that is feasible is therefore
proposed for consideration as an addition to 40 CFR Part 192.03:
When contamination of an underground source of
drinking water is occuring from substances re-
leased from residual radioactive materials prior
to disposal, action shall be taken (1) to prevent
release of such substances and, (2) to restore
groundwater quality to levels in Table A or to
former quality levels before substances were re-
leased from residual radioactive materials, to the
maximum extent practicable.
Environmental Protection Agency
-June 12, 1981
Page 2
This addition is necessitated by 42 USC 2022(a) which makes
no distinction between 'prior to disposal and 'after disposal'
in requiring the EPA to promulgate standards for the protection of
the public health, safety, and the environment.
(2) It is urged that proposed 40 CFB 192.03(b)(l) be amended to add:
(b) substances released from residual radioactive
materials after disposal will not cause (1) the con-
centration of that substance in an underground source
of drinking water to exceed the level specified in
Table A or TO EXCEED THE PRESENTLY EXISTING LEVEL IF
LESS THAN THAT IN TABLE A.
The inclusion of such words is justifiable despite the language
in Supplementary Information,46 FR 2599, (Jan. 9, 1981).
"we are proposing to allow minimal degredation of
very good quality water. There is no need for
stricter standards than we are proposing, and sub-
stantial additional resources could be required to
meet them for some piles."
Because of the tremendous uncertainty and potential dangers of
even very low levels of exposure to radioactive substances, approval
by the EPA of minimal degredation of very good quality water does not
protect the public health, safety, and the environment and is therefore
not within discretion authorized by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radia-
tion Control Act of 1978.
Since the Administrator of the EPA may periodically revise any
standard promulgated pursuant to 42 USC 2022(a), no degredation of
an underground source of drinking water should currently be permiss-
able. If it is determined in the future that there is no danger to
the public health, safety, and the environment from extremely low
levels of radiation, the Administrator of the EPA could then revise
42 CFR 192(b)(l) to its present language.
(3) Proposed 40 CFR 192.20(c), 46 FR 2563 (Jan. 9, 1981) should be
eliminated.
Although this cost/benefit analysis can only be used when the
values in Table B are only slightly exceeded, the language 'slightly
exceeded1 is to vague to be strictly enforceable, and seriously
weakens the standards of Table B. Such a standard would not protect
Environmental Defense Fund, 1657 Pennsylvania Street, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 831-7559
OFFICES W, NEW YOBC. NT (NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS), WASHINGTON DC; BERKELEY. CA, DENVER. CO
-------
P-22
P-23
Environmental Protection Agency
"-June 12, 1981
Page 3
the public health, safety, and the environment from radiological
hazards, and is therefore impermissable under 42 USC 2022 (a).
Respectfully submitted
Robert W. Lawrence
Environmental Defense Fund
DARREU R. FishER, Ph.D.
Radiation Biophysicist
1306 North Arthur Street
Kennewick, Washington 99336
(509) 735-3178
July 7, 1981
RWL:rc
PI
I
VJl
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Docket No. A-79-25
West Tower, Gallery 1
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
RE: Proposed Remedial Action Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing
Sites (Federal Register—April 22, 1980, January 9, 1981)
Gentlemen:
Although the intended purpose of the proposed standards is to
protect public health, safety, and the environment, the enactment
of the above standards could easily result in the most cost-ineffective
of any radiation protection program ever attempted in the history of
mankind.
According to the U. S. Department of Energy, the proposed
standards would cost the American taxpayers in excess of $1 billion
to implement1.
The health benefit of such remedial actions can be estimated,
but the calculation is subject to many assumptions and approximations.
A reasonable upper estimate of the number of premature health effects
that could be prevented by implementation of the proposed standards
is merely one to two deaths due to radon daughter-induced lung cancer
per year*.
In perspective, it is estimated that cigarette smoking in the
United States is responsible for 300,000 premature deaths from lung cancer
each year3. Using the risk coefficient adopted by Evans and others'*,
approximately 3,500 lung cancer cases per year in this country may
be attributed to naturally occurring "background" levels of radon
daughter products in the air that we all breath—irrespective of the
existence of inactive uranium tailings piles.
(continued)
-------
P-23
1-1
BSD 370
Darrell R. Fisher
page 2
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
July 7, 1981
On the basis of cost/benefit analysis, the proposed standards
should not be implemented, and Public Law 95-604 should be reconsidered.
Respectfully yours,
1) Remarks by Robert W. Ramsey, Jr. (U. S. Department of Energy),
"Implementation of DoE Remedial Action Programs," given at the
7 26th Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society, Louisville,
01 Kentucky, June 24, 1981.
2) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EPA 520/4-80-011), for remedial action at inactive
uranium processing sites.
3) Lester Breslow, "Cigarette Smoking and Health, in Public Health
Reports 915(5):451-455, September-October, 1980.
4) R. D. Evans, J. H. Harley, W. Jacobi, A. S. McLean, W. A. Mills,
and C. 6. Stewart, "Estimate of Risk from Environmental Exposure
to Radon-222 and its Decay Products, in Nature 290(5802):98-100.
March 12, 1981.
ROCHV mourrmin
EHERCSV compnnv
CLARK M BCXS
Environmental Protection Agency
Central Docket Section, Room 2903B
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Sirs:
April 21, 1980
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ACFNCY
APR 24 1980
CENTRAL DOCKET
SECTION
Re: Docket No. A-79-25
The following are comments on the proposed remedial action
standards for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites including Uranium Mill
Tailings and Cleanup of Open Lands and Buildings.
It is assumed that the proposed Radon-222 flux following
reclamation will be limited to 2.0 pCi/mZ/sec above background levels.
This is consistent with the proposed limit on Radon emissions for
tailings disposal as per the Draft Generic Environmental Impact
Statement (DGEIS) published by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The DGEIS further states, however, that Radon measurements taken in
common soils in the western milling regions indicate that the upper
range of flux is about 2 to 3 pCi/m /sec, (Appendix 0). Therefore,
the total flux for any particular tailings disposal site may approach
5 pCi/m2/sec.
In contrast, it is stated for land cleanup that "the average
radium concentration in any 5 centimeter thickness shall not be more
than 5 pCl/gm after cleanup." This statement is very ambiguous and
needs additional clarification. Despite the ambiguity, the Radon-222
flux resulting from 5 pCi/gm, using methods of Momeni, et. al. and
Clements, et. al. (references 1 and 2) would be approximately 3 pCi/m /sec.
This is within the statistical range of Radon-222 flux in the western
states as referenced in the DGEIS. The inconsistency between the hypo-
thetical Radon-222 flux from the tailings disposal site of 5 pCi/m2/sec
and the land cleanup of 3 pCi/m /sec raises questions concerning the
real basis, rationale, and purpose of the proposed standards.
Further inconsistencies arise when considering the proposed
standard for Indoor Radon decay product concentration of 0.015 WL,
including background.
-------
1-1
1-1
Environmental Protection Agency
April 17, 1980
Page 2
Environmental Protection Agency
April 17, 1980
Page 3
I
in
in
Concentrations of Rn-222 inside structures resulting from
diffusion of Radon-222 from underlying soil may be estimated by the
following equation and assumptions from Reference 3:
C = i AB
VX
where:
C = Radon-222 concentration (pC/m3)
(5 = Radon-222 flux (pCi/m2/sec)
A = Area over which flux enters structure (m2)
B = Flux reduction factor in entering structure
V = Volume of structure (m )
A = Effective removal rate of Radon-222 from the structure
Calculations based on B = 0.2
A/V = 0.41, and 1 pCi/1 Rn-222 = 0.005 WL
Table 1 shows the relationship between soil surface Radon-222
flux to working levels and effective removal rates (A) within structures.
From Table 1 it can be seen that the Radon-222 flux over
tailings disposal sites and land cleanup areas would result in 0.005 WL
for ventilation rates of 1 per hour and 1.5 per hour. The proposed
standard of 0.015 WL, including background, however, corresponds to
Radon-222 fluxes of 10.2 and 15.2 pCi/m2/sec for the same ventilation
rates.
Assuming that the ultimate goal of the proposed tailings
disposal and land cleanup standards is protection of the public for
health effects due to Radon progeny, and the criteria used that direct-
ly relates to health effects Is the "most protective level which can
be justified," it is unnecessary and extremely costly to industry to
set limits on Radon-222 flux and Radium-226 concentration which would
result in Indoor Radon progeny concentrations lower than the proposed
standard of 0.015 WL.
Further, the proposed standard for remedial action of 0.015 WL,
including background, is in contrast to the concentration limit of
0.03 WL above "background" levels proposed in 40 CFR 250.46-4 (reference
4) for exposure in residences built on reclaimed land. There does not
seem to be adequate justification for the differences in these stan-
dards. In addition, the nature of radiation exposures in the environ-
ment is such that only distribution statistics can adequately describe
any exposure condition. To be practical, the standards must include
confidence limits for measurements, acceptable probabilities of ex-
ceeding specified limits or other statistical specifications.
Sincerely,
LH/jdm
Attachments
cc: Clark Bolser
Dr. Lyda Hersloff
Environmental Specialist
-------
1-1
1-1
Table 1
REFERENCES
Relationship of soil surface Radon-222 Flux to working
levels and Effective Removal Rates (x) within structures
Rn-222 pCi/m2-sec
.005WL .01WL .015WL
X= 1/hr
X= 1.5/hr
A= 2/hr
3.4
5
6.8
6.8
10.2
13.6
10.2
15.2
20.3
3.
4.
Momeni, M. H., Kisieleski, W. E., Tyler, S., Zielen, A., Yuan, Y. C.,
and Roberts, C. J., "Radiological Impact of Uranium Tailings and
Alternatives for Their Management", presented at the Health Physics
Society Twelfth Midyear Topical Symposium on Low Level Radiation Waste
Management, Division of Environmental Impact Studies, Argonne National
Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois, February 11, 1979.
Clements, W. E., Barr, S., and Marple, L., "Uranium Mill Tailings Piles
as Sources of Atmospheric 2^2Ka", presented at Natural Radiation
Environment III, Houston, Texas, LA-UR 78-828, University of California
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, April 23-28,
1978.
"Interim Land Cleanup Criteria for Decommissioning Uranium Mill Site".
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Staff Technical Position, Fuel
Processing and Fabrication Branch, May 1978.
Federal Register, Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste,
Proposed Guidelines and Regulations and Proposal or Identification
and Listing, December 18, 1978, Part IV.
PJ
I
-------
1-2
1-2
April 2, 1981
TERRADEX CORPORATION
460 N. Wlget Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94598, U.S.A
(415)938-2545 • Telex 33-7793
RECF'V1
ENVIRONMENTAL I
AGENCY
APR 09 1981
CENTRAL DOCKET
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Central Docket Section
West Tower Lobby, Gallery 1
400 H St. S.W.
Washington D.C. 20460
To Be Filed In: EPA Docket No. A-79-25
Dear Sir;
Over 9000 measurements of radon in homes have been made over the
past year using the passive integrating Track Etch® technique. Terradex
Corporation cannot publish details of these surveys; that is the client's
privilege. On the other hand, the gross statistics of such surveys may
be of interest to the EPA in connection with the Proposed Remedial
Action Standards 40 CFR 192, and the public hearings on those
standards.
Attached is a summary of our findings to date; more data come in
continuously. Shown are the Bkg. Mean (close to the median) and the range
in average pCi/1 over the exposure period. These data have been arbitrarily
converted to WL assuming a WLR of 0.5. We have data to support that
assumption.
On the same basis the proposed 0.015 WL Standard converts to
3.0 pCi/1. We note that the average in many cases exceeds the standard.
None of these homes is near a uranium tailings site. Most of high homes
(but not all) have the lowered air change rates associated with energy
conservation.
My comment on the proposed standard would be that it is premature
to set it until more is learned about the "real world" of normal radon
levels in normal homes. If the standard cannot be achieved in Pennsylvania,
is it consistent to apply it in Utah? What are normal levels in Utah or
Colorado homes away from tailings? It seems to me that a standard which
cannot be met in a normal situation will be most difficult to administer
in an abnormal tailings situation.
Unfortunately, if there is in fact a real incremental lung cancer
risk associated with each additional 0.01 WL (as stated in Federal Register/
Vol 45, No. 79/p.27371), the nation may face a serious public health
problem unassociated with uranium mining and milling.
Respectfully Submitted,
HWA/kem
H. Ward Alter
President
i
ID
S
SIS
I Z
*
s-
3
nter***
CO
en
i
-P*.
1
3
01
11 -winter***
*
i
*
I
s
vt
•a
ring-summer***
S
t
cn m
3 §
C 0
winter
nter-summer**
— * CO
ro at
— • ro
i i
CO CO
rn
0
VI
«/»
C/l
c
en
CO
i
0
3
-h
*!
1
CO
ro
i
en
z
^|
winter-summer
S
CO
r~
ci-
O
3
1
VI
§
sr
o
|
S* »
(O
Pr*-
-»,
• 3
. — (0
S
TO
s
§
o
-p»
o
o
o
ro
§
o
o
o
o
ro
o
o
o
s
§
§
ro
§
§
ro
o
o
Ijf CD
Oi **
s to
1?
00000000 |»
ro—• —« ro w o o o ID*
01
-------
1-3
• AtMCONOA Copper Company
5SS Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80217
Telephone 303 575-4000
June 15, 1981
pi
w>
oo
Or. Stanley Lichtman
Criteria and Standards Division (ANR - 460}
Office of Radiation Programs
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, O.C. 20460
J'JN 2 6 198)
CENTRAL DOCKET
RE: Docket No. A-79-25
Anaconda Copper Company's Comments to the EPA's
Proposed Disposal Standards for Inactive Uranium
Processing Sites - Federal Register of January 9, 1981,
46 FR*2556
Dear Dr. Lichtman,
The Anaconda Copper Company 1s pleased to provide the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency with comments on the proposed
disposal standards for Inactive uranium processing sites which
were published on January 9, 1981. Anaconda Copper is a Division
of the Anaconda Company, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Atlantic Richfield Company and is involved in the exploration for,
and mining and processing of various minerals. Including uranium.
Anaconda s pports the position of the American Mining Congress on
this rulemaking and refers the Agency to the comments that AMC
submitted. Our comments, attached, reinforce the AMC positions in
two areas. These are:
Errors in the cost analysis which result in a significant
understatement in the costs of remedial action.
Lack of scientific support for the proposed standards.
The combination of these factors causes us to question whether the
standards proposed are necessary to protect public health or the
environment when less costly reclamation procedures can provide
adequate levels of protection.
1-3
Dr. Stanley Lichtman
June 15, 1981
Page 2
If you have any questions regarding the comments which Anaconda
Copper has submitted today, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Si
»/tf«W«v*/
John M. Connor
'Manager, Reporting and Regulations
JMC/RCS/ld
attachment
-------
1-3
1-3
COMMENTS OF THE
ANACONDA COPPER COMPANY
TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY'S PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR
INACTIVE URANIUM PROCESSING SITES
Pi
I
I.
Cost Analysis
The estimates which EPA provided for the costs of remedial action at
the 24 inactive sites are understated by more than fifty percent (50%). Total
costs of reclamation at these sites is more likely to approximate $1.0 billion
as opposed to the $300 million estimate which EPA provided.
The EPA's estimate of costs for remedial action is inaccurate for two
reasons. First, some of the cost bases which EPA used for particular com-
ponents of the cleanup activity are too low. As AMC noted in their comments,
while industry and EPA cost estimations are comparable in some areas, the
EPA's cost factors for below grade excavation, transportation, synthetic
liners, and soil stabilization through revegetation or covering with rip rap
are from one-half to one-third of the mine industry's cost estimates. These
costs, particularly for earthwork soil stabilization, are the major cost
factors in taking remedial action, therefore, total cost estimates are ex-
tremely sensitive to errors in these factors.
Secondly, EPA has not included in the costs of remedial action several
important activities which should be accounted for. These include costs for
engineering, and general overhead including supervision and contingencies.
Furthermore, EPA has not included in its cost impact analysis expenses for
building demolition, decontamination of used equipment, general reclamation of
mill site, or reclamation of borrow sites for soil or rip rap.
Combined, these errors in the estimated costs of remedial actions cause
EPA's overall estimate to be low by as much as $600 million. This is a very
significant difference which raises doubts as to the efficacy of the standards
as proposed.
II. Standards for Remedial Action
A. Period of Effectiveness
The EPA has proposed that the remedial action must result in com-
pliance with the standards for 1,000 years. Section 275(a) of the Uranium
Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act requires EPA to develop standards for
control of radiation from inactive uranium mill tailings sites which "to the
maximum extent practicable are consistent with the requirements of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act." We believe that requiring 1,000 years efficacy for
remedial action on mill tailings is inconsistent which the policy approach the
EPA has on proposed on February 5, 1981 for land disposal facilities (See 46
FR 11126). We recommend that the period of effectiveness be reduced to 50 to
100 years, which is comparable to the fifty year period proposed for land
disposal facilities under RCRA. This represents a period of time during which
it would be reasonable to expect that the standards would be met, given the
use of state of the art technologies for reclamation.
B. Disposal Site Standards
n
The radon emanation standard of 2pCi/nr - sec. appears to be based
on returning radon flux levels at reclaimed mill sites to radiation background
- 2 -
levels rather than on a need to protect human health. Congress did not intend
EPA to establish standards which represent near total elimination of radiation
from inactive tailings pijes. In this instance, we believe that a higher
standard of 20 or 40 pd'/m - sec., which would prevent 80% and 95% of the EPA
estimated 200 lung cancer deaths per century (in the absence of remedial
action) could be achieved at a much lower cost. The standards should repre-
sent a better balance between the expected benefits from control and the costs
of achieving these benefits.
The January 9, 1981 proposal contains certain provisions for the
protection of surface water and underground sources of drinking water con-
tamination due to the disposal of residual radioactive materials. These
provisions are unduly restrictive for several reasons.
First, the proposed definition of underground source of drinking
water, contained in section 192.02(h), would include any aquifer in which the
groundwater contains less than 10,000 mg/liter total dissolved solids (TDS).
This definition would include virtually all underground water sources. Yet
water containing 1,000 to 10,000 TDS is generally considered brackish, and
unsuitable as drinking water for humans. EPA's own drinking water regulations
have a cutoff of 500 TDS. The definition in section 192.02(h) should be
modified to establish a cutoff which truly defines the limits for TDS in
portable water.
Second, the proposal would require that seepage from mill tailings
ponds not cause water quality in surface or underground water to exceed the
Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards for selected contaminants. Blanket
adoption of these standards for remedial actions at inactive uranium mill
sites is arbitrary as the Office of Radiation Programs has not based the need
for this requirement on identified health hazards associated with releases of
hazardous substances from inactive mill sites. In many cases, normal back-
ground levels of these contaminants exceed the minimum contaminate levels in
the drinking water standards.
Finally, section 192.03(b)(2) and (3) would require that where current
groundwater exceeds the allowable drinking water contaminant levels, the
substances released from the disposal site will not cause the concentration of
any harmful substance to increase. This requirement is excessive since it
amounts to a nondegredation standard and ignors the fact that this water may
never be used as a source of drinking water. Groundwater and surface waters
ought to be protected to levels consistent with the existing or foreseeable
uses for that water.
C. Standards Applicable to Open Lands or Buildings
EPA has proposed that the average concentration of radium-226,
attributable to residual radioactive material from any designated processing
site not exceed 5 pCi/gm for any 5 cm thickness of soil or other material
within one foot of the surface and 15 cm thickness below one foot. This
standard is based on two arguments, the validities of which are question-
able. First, EPA has concluded that radon decay products greater than 0.01 WL
pose an unacceptable health hazard. EPA has not adequately documented the
designation of products greater than this level as posing an unacceptable
health hazard. Furthermore, natural background levels may exceed the proposed
-------
1-3
1-4
m
i
- 3 -
0.015 WL limit, which implies that EPA is, as with the groundwater protection
standards, asking for control of contaminants beyond naturally occuring
levels.
The second tenuous aspect of the SpCi/gm standard is the conclusion
that concentrations of radium-226 above that level will result in levels of
radon decay product beyond 0.01 WL. As the American Mining Congress notes in
its comments, there are several studies which raise serious questions about
the appropriateness of this correlation. Levels of radium-226 as high as 20
pCi/gm near the surface and 70 pCi/gm to infinite depth below the surface
yield annual exposure levels of about 0.02 WL. We concur with the Mining
Congress's conclusion that EPA has not shown a need for the 5 pCi/gm standard
for radium - 226.
With regard to the standards for radioactivity in occupied or
occupiable buildings, again EPA has not adequately documented the need for a
0.015 WL indoor radon standard based on protection of public health or the
environment. Further, though this standard purports to include the normal
background level of 0.005 WL. Background levels are highly variable and could
be as much as 0.03 WL. This brings into question both the achievability and
enforceability of the EPA's standard.
To summarize, Anaconda Copper finds that EPA has underestimated the costs of
meeting the standards proposed on January 9, 1981 at the 24 sites listed in
the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act. Those costs should be re-
calculated before the Administrator makes her final decision to promulgate
standards. Further the EPA's scientific and technical justification for the
standards for disposal sites and open lands are sufficiently in question to
warrant a complete review of available information to reassess the need for
public health and environmental protection standards as stringent as those
proposed.
A-
COVINGTON & BURLING
888 SIXTEENTH STREET. N. W
WASHINGTON. D. C. zoooa
TELEPHONE
(2O2) 4S2-6OOO
TWX: 7IO-azZ-OOOB
TELEX' B9-BO3
CABLE: COVLINO
(202) 452-6314
BY HAND
Environmental Protection Agency
Central Docket Section
West Tower Lobby
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
June 19, 1981
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGFTY
JUN 1 S 1981
CENTRAL DOCKET
SECTION
Re: Proposed Disposal Standards for
Inactive Uranium Processing Sites,
Docket No. A-79-25
Gentlemen:
Please find enclosed two copies of comments on
the above-referenced rulemaking proposal submitted on
behalf of Kerr-McGee Corporation and Kerr-McGee Nuclear
Corporation.
Ve
yours,
Encls.
-------
1-4
1-4
BEFORE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Re: Proposed Disposal
Standards for Inactive
Uranium Processing Sites,
46 Fed. Reg. 25566
(Jan 9, 1981)
Dkt. A-79-25
COMMENTS OF KERR-McGEE CORPORATION
AND KERR-McGEE NUCLEAR CORPORATION
Peter J. Nickles
Charles H. Montange
Covington & Burling
888 Sixteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Attorneys for Kerr-McGee
Corporation and Kerr-McGee
Nuclear Corporation
June 18, 1981
June 18, 1981
To: Environmental Protection Agency
Central Docket Section
West Tower Lobby
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Re: Proposed Disposal Standards for Inactive
Uranium Processing Sites, Dkt. A-79-25,
46 Fed. Reg. 2556 (Jan. 9, 1981).
These comments, filed on behalf of Kerr-McGee Corpo-
ration and Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation (hereinafter "Kerr-
McGee"), are addressed to the "Proposed Disposal Standards for
Inactive Uranium Processing Sites, ' published by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (hereinafter "EPA" or "the Agency")
at 46 Fed. Reg. 2556 (Jan. 9, 1981).i/ Kerr-McGee opposes the
proposed standards as unreasonably and unnecessarily stringent
and extravagantly costly. Kerr-McGee requests that they be
withdrawn, and suggests that EPA propose new standards which
are cost justified and reasonable in view of the very low
potential risk posed by inactive sites.
Interest and Experience of Commenter
Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation operates a number
of uranium mines, a uranium mill, and a uranium conversion
facility.-' Moreover, Kerr-McGee Corporation and Kerr-McGee
Nuclear Corporation have formerly operated other nuclear fuel
I/ The comment period originally expired on May 11, 1981.
The period was subsequently extended through July 15.
2/ Kerr-McGee's Ambrosia Lake, New Mexico uranium mill is
the largest such mill in the United States.
-------
1-4
1-4
- 2 -
- 3 -
M
I
cycle facilities and non-fuel cycle facilities. Several of
the facilities are currently in the process of being decon-
taminated and decommissioned.- In addition, decommissioning
plans are being required by licensing authorities for Kerr-
McGee's active uranium mill. Kerr-McGee accordingly has ample
experience with respect to the costs and technology associated
with decommissioning nuclear facilities, including source
material processing sites.
Summary
EPA's proposed inactive mill site standards are not
supported by an accurate and responsible analysis of the risk
which they are purportedly designed to avert. The agency
attributes only two adverse health effects per year to radon
from all inactive sites. This alleged risk is clearly "accept-
able," particularly when weighed against other risks commonly
and customarily assumed in our society. Moreover, the risk
calculated by the agency overestimates the potential risk by
a sizeable margin.
The costs imposed by EPA's proposed standards will
be in excess of $500,000,000. This sum bears no reasonable
relationship with the benefits likely to result from the
standards. This is a tremendous sum to expend to eliminate
3/ For example, Kerr-McGee is in the process of decommis-
sioning a small mixed oxide plant (Cimarron facility) and a
plant previously employed to produce, among other things,
thorium (West Chicago facility).
the two adverse health effects per year which the agency
hypothesizes may occur in the absence of any regulation.
2
The 2 pci/m -sec and the various groundwater pro-
tection standards proposed by EPA are unsupported, far too
stringent, and in some cases inconsistent with analogous
standards in other agency programs. In addition, the agency's
5 pCi/gm radium standard, .015 WL indoor radon restriction and
proposed 1,000 year controls are arbitrary and unreasonable.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
I. The Risk EPA Proposes to Regulate For
All Practical Purposes Is Non-Existent.
EPA has identified release of radon-222 as the
"principal health hazard" posed by inactive mill sites.^*
According to EPA's calculations, radon emanating from inactive
tailings piles will result in 1.7 to 2.4 premature fatalities
per year for a U. S. population of 200,000,000. This amounts
to a risk of about 1 in 100,000,000. This figure is about
equal to the risks posed by a "few puffs on a cigarette, a
few sips of wine, driving the family car about 6 blocks,
flying about 2 miles, canoeing for 3 seconds, or being a man
4/ Draft EIS for Remedial Action Standards for Inactive
Uranium Processing Sites (40 C.F.R. Part 192) ("Draft Inactive
Sites EIS") at S-4. EPA explicitly indicated that other
radiological risks "are much less significant" than the risks
posed by radon. Id. at 4-38. Indeed, the agency explained
that "[a]t most, they increase by 10% the risk estimated for
the regional population and the risk to the national population
is much less." Id. EPA indicated that the impact of non-
radioactive toxic substances on public health is site specific
and that a risk assessment "cannot [be] constructed." Id. at
4-33. —
-------
1-4
1-4
- 4 -
- 5 -
PI
I
u>
aged 60 for 11 seconds."^/ This level of hazard is far
less serious than other risks commonly and customarily
accepted in our society.-' Indeed, it is far less than
risks ordinarily regarded as acceptable by other regulatory
agencies.
Z/
S/ 46 Fed. Reg. 15167 (March 4, 1981).
6/ The following table sets forth a number of commonplace
and customarily accepted risks of premature death:
Cause
smoker
agricultural employment
motor vehicle-Total (1975)
air pollution-sulphates
government employment
truck driving employment
falls
alcohol
living for 1 year downstream of a dam
motor vehicle-pedestrian (1975)
drowning - from recreational activities
inhalation and ingestion of objects
home accidents (1975)
bicycling
person in room with smoker
one pint of milk per day (aflatoxin)
accidental poisoning-solids & liquids
electrocution
vaccination for smallpox (per occasion)
air travel - one transcontinental
flight per year
Individual risk/year
1/300
1/1,700
1/4,500
1/6,700
1/9,000
1/10,000
1/13,000
1/20,000
1/20,000
1,25,000
1/53,000
1/71,000
1/83,000
1/100,000
1/100,000
1/100,000
1/170,000
1/200,000
1/330,000
1/330,000
Source: OSHA Testimony of Professor Richard Wilson reprinted
in Hutt, Unresolved Issues in the Conflict Between Individual
Freedom and Government Control of Food Safety, 33 FD&C L.J.
558, 564-66 and 568 (1978). See also Cohen, et al., A Catalogue
of Risks, 36 Health Physics 701 (1979). Copies of the OSHA
testimony and the Cohen article are attached as Exhibit A.
7/ For example, NRC has explained that a risk of 1 in
1,000,000 is generally "acceptable.1 See NRC, Draft GEIS on
Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities at 2-11 (Jan. 1981)
(pertinent page attached as Exhibit B).
EPA's analysis indicates that the potential risk
posed by radon from unregulated inactive piles is insignificant
with regard to local or regional populations as well. For
example, the potential risk to the regional population around
Mexican Hat, Utah is, by EPA's calculations, approximately
1/28,000,000.-7
Another indication of the insignificance of the risk
which EPA seeks to address derives from analysis of the annual
release of radon from inactive sites in comparison to other
sources of radon release.^/ The amount of radon attributable
to inactive sites is a small fraction of the amount released
by American agriculture due to soil tillage. It is even more
miniscule in comparison to the amount of radon released from
8/ This number is based upon EPA's data set forth in Draft
Inactive Sites EIS at 4-14. Employing EPA's data, the greatest
potential risk appears to be presented to the local populations
of Gunnison and Grand Junction, Colorado. However, even the
risk to those populations is less than many risks commonly
accepted.
9/ The following table sets forth several significant natural
or man-made sources of radon.
Source of Radon
Release
Natural Soils
Evapotranspiration
Soil Tillage
Estimated Annual Release
(Curies/Year)
1.2 x 10
8.8 x 10
3.1 x 10
NRC, Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium
Milling ("GEIS") 19.
-------
1-4
1-4
- 6 -
- 7 -
natural soils.=—^ Indeed, "[t]he total radon released from
all inactive unstabilized uranium tailings piles is a minute
fraction of the variations produced by meteorological condi-
tions and agriculture in the total radon released by natural
processes from all land areas."
ii/
For example, fluctuations
in the level of the Great Salt Lake in recent years have had
eight times as much effect on the amount of radon released
into the Salt Lake City regional air as the annual release
from the Vitro tailings pile located in the city.
12/
In sum.
the potential risk posed by radon release from inactive tail-
ings pilest is accordingly de minimis and for all practical
purposes non-existent, even under EPA's analysis.
II. EPA's Risk Estimates for Radon Exposure
• Unreasonably Overstate Potential Adverse
Health Effects.
EPA appears to rely on a number of different and
inconsistent estimates for the potential adverse health effects
posed by exposure to radon. These estimates vary from 3.0 to
11.1 in units of 10 per WLM.—' The EPA estimates were
1_Q/ NRC has estimated that all mill-related releases will
amount to less than 0.0005% of radon released from natural
soils in the United States. GEIS at 6-68. At another point,
NRC gives the estimate to be about 0.4%. GEIS 19 Table 5.
Whichever is more correct, the amount is de minimis.
ll/ Letter, Prof. Robley Evans to Dr. Mills (EPA) at 10,
May 27, 1981.
12/ Id. at 9.
13/ ^d. at 14.
evidently derived from an unpublished paper by V. E. Archer
entitled "Factors in Exposure Response Relationships of Radon
Daughter Injury."^/ However, the latest studies by leading
experts indicate that the potential risk can be no greater
than one in 10 WLM. See Evans, et al.. Estimate of Risk from
Environmental Exposure to Radon-222 and Its Decay Products,
290 Nature 98 (March 12, 1981) (Exhibit C). Thus, EPA's
estimates concerning cancer risk from radon exposure are
excessive by a factor of between 3 and 11. Consistent with
EPA's stated policy of utilizing "the best available detailed
scientific knowledge in estimating health impact when such
information is available for specific types of radiation," EPA
must adjust its risk estimates in accordance with the Evans
paper. See 41 Fed Reg. 28409 (July 9, 1976).
EPA's health risk estimates are further defective in
that they are evidently based upon a dispersion model, embodied
in Table 4-2 of the Draft Inactive Sites EIS, which does not
correspond to actual measurements. Measurements indicate that
no radon above background can be detected at levels beyond 1/4
14/ This paper is cited in EPA, Draft Inactive Sites EIS at
4-40. Kerr-McGee notes that it is difficult if not impossible
to frame meaningful comments on proposed radiation protection
regulations when the agency does not identify the rationale
behind its risk estimates. EPA has failed to set forth the
rationale for the agency's various risk projections in the
Draft Inactive Sites EIS. See also Letter, Evans to Mills
(EPA), May 27, 1981 at 12-15 for a detailed discussion of
inconsistency in EPA radon risk estimates.
-------
1-4
1-4
- 8 -
- 9 -
15,
to 1/2 mile from an inactive pile.^^ The model also appears
to assume incorrectly a 50% decay product equilibrium. These
errors result in an additional overestimation of the local and
regional risk posed by radon exhalation by a factor of up to ten.
EPA's analysis of radon risks is deficient for an
even more fundamental reason. There is no clear evidence that
exposure to radon in the low levels involved here will result
in any risk to health at all. There is no discernible adverse
human health effect from exposure to radiation from radon
emanating from tailings piles, or, for that matter, other
sources such as natural soils and agriculture. EPA evidently
seeks to overcome this lack of evidence of adverse health
effects by applying the so-called "linear non-threshold model."
Employing this model, the agency has assumed that because very
high doses of radiation are hazardous, there would be some
potential ill health attributable to any exposure to ionizing
radiation and that the magnitude of the effect is proportional
to the dose received. The linear non-threshold model is based
upon the assumption that tumor induction is a straightforward
"one-hit" process in which any unit of exposure will result in
some carcinogenic activity. This assumption is inaccurate.
15/ See, e.g., Shearer & Sill, Evaluation of Atmospheric
Radon in the Vicinity of Uranium Mill Tailings, 17 Health
Physics 77-88 (1969) (Salt Lake City, Grand Junction,
Monticello, and Durango) (attached as Exhibit D); Duncan, et
al., EPA publication ORP/LV-77-1 (Grand Junction) (note con-
tamination of certain sampling stations in the Duncan results).
See Letter, Evans to Mills (EPA), May 27, 1981.
"[T]he bulk of evidence argues against the hypothesis that
neoplastic transformation is a simple 'one-hit' process and
therefore a linear function of dose." I Anderson, Pathology
347 (7th ed. 1977). Moreover, "[m]any radiation biologists are
of the opinion that since body cells have a demonstrated capacity
for repair there may well be a threshold dose below which the
damage is much below linear, possibly zero." In re Duke Power
Co. (Perkins Nuclear section. Units 1, 2, and 3), 8 NRC 87, CCH
Nuclear Reg. Rep. [1975-78 Transfer Binder] f 30,312 at p. 28,669
(Licensing Board) (July 14, 1978). The agency's total reliance
on the linear non-threshold model is thus unduly conservative
and overstates the risk posed by radon exhalation.—'
III. The Costs Which Will Be Imposed by EPA's
Proposed Standards Bear No Reasonable
Relationship to the Benefits Which May
Be Derived.
Kerr-McGee understands that the Department of Energy
("DOE") currently estimates that a remedial action program at
the 23 inactive sites under EPA's standards will cost at least
$500,000,000 and probably more than $700,000,000 to complete.
Kerr-McGee's own estimates are in accord, particularly since
DOE is being pressured to relocate and dispose of some piles
(e.g., the Vitro pile in Salt Lake City) below grade. The
16/ The linear non-threshold model is even more suspect with
respect to low-LET radiation such as gamma radiation. See
NAS, The Effects on Population of Exposure to Low Levels of
Ionizing Radiation (1980) ("BEIR III Report"); Boice, Cancer
Following Medical Irradiation, 47 Cancer 1081, 1088 (1981).
Thus, EPA's risk estimates for gamma radiation (see Draft
Inactive Sites EIS at 4-29) are especially excessive in their
projection of potential cancer fatalities.
-------
1-4
1-4
- 10 -
- ii -
w
i
costs imposed by the proposed standards are not all monetary
in nature: the earthwork and trucking involved in achieving
EPA's standards will involve substantial risks to workers and
to the public. For example, Kerr-McGee understands that
remedial action at Salt Lake City may take five lives and
cause over sixty injuries. This is a tremendous cost in view
of the de minimis risk posed by inactive sites. It amounts to
many millions of dollars and many serious injuries (up to and
including fatalities) per hypothetical health effect averted.
This expenditure of resources is manifestly unreasonable in
view of the %iniscule nature of the potential risks posed and
the other much more valuable uses to which the funds and
manpower may be put in our society. Put another way, the high
costs associated with the EPA standards do not stand in a
reasonable relationship to the benefits which can be reasonably
attributed to compliance with the standards. Indeed, the
substantial costs clearly outweigh the slight and hypothetical
benefits. Moreover, EPA's proposed standard is not a cost
effective means of preventing actual fatalities.^'
IT/ In adopting 40 C.F.R. Part 190, EPA indicated that it
believed that it was reasonable to expend $200,000 to $500,000
to avert a potential adverse health effect due to radiation
exposure. See EPA, Indoor Radiation Exposure Due to Radium-226
in Florida Phosphate Lands 60 (1979). In its inactive site
standards, EPA is essentially requiring the expenditure of at
least ten times that amount per health effect averted. (The
$500,000,000 cost if invested, would yield at least 1% per
year — 5,000,000 — in real interest. The agency estimates
approximately two fatalities per year. This works out to
$2,500,000 per potential health effect averted in perpetuity.)
The agency offers no rationale for this dramatic increase in
expenditures to avert hypothetical health effects.
EPA largely failed to analyze the costs imposed by
its proposed standards in comparison to their expected bene-
fits. Indeed, the agency largely eschewed any analysis of the
costs or benefits associated with its proposed water protection
criteria at all. This failure is inconsistent with EPA's
specific adoption of a cost-effectiveness approach in develop-
ing the radiation protection standards set out in 40 C.F.R.
Part 190. See 40 Fed. Reg. 23421 (May 29, 1975) (column 1).
It is also inconsistent with EPA's acknowledgement that use of
the linear non-threshold hypothesis requires the agency to
"weigh not only the health impact but also social, economic
and other considerations associated with the activities ad-
dressed." 41 Fed. Reg. 28409 (July 9, 1976).
EPA's failure to consider costs is additionally
inconsistent with the policy set forth in Section 2 of Execu-
tive Order 12291, 46 Fed. Reg. 13193 (Feb. 17, 1981). That
Section directs federal agencies to "adhere to the following
requirements:
"(a) Administrative decisions shall be based
on adequate information concerning the
need for and consequences of proposed
government action;
"(b) Regulatory action shall not be undertaken
unless the potential benefits to society
from the regulation outweigh the costs
to society;
"(c) Regulatory objectives shall be chosen to
maximize net benefits to society;
-------
1-4
1-4
- 12 -
- 13 -
m
i
"(d) Among alternative approaches to any
given regulatory objective, the alterna-
tive involving the least net cost to
society shall be chosen; and
"(e) Agencies shall set regulatory priorities
with the aim of maximizing the aggregate
net benefits to society, taking into account
the condition of the particular industries
affected by the regulations, the condition
of the national economy and other regulatory
actions contemplated for the future."
EPA's proposed standards transgress each of the requirements
specified in the Executive Order.
IV. EPA's Proposed Radon Flux and Water
Standards Are Not Supported.
A.
EPA's 2 pCi/m -sec Radon Emanation
Standard Is Unreasonable
EPA proposes to limit radon emanation from inactive
tailings piles to no more than 2 pci/rn -sec. This standard is
unreasonably low. It is far less than levels emanating from
natural outcroppings in areas where uranium is mined and
milled. It essentially requires reduction of radon flux to
the average levels ordinarily encountered in nature. It
amounts to an effort to reduce a potential risk which the
agency estimates is 1 in 100,000,000 to a possible risk which
is about 1 in 10,000,000,000 or less.—' This amounts to
insistence on risk-free disposal of the tailings. Such abso-
lutism has consistently "been rejected by the courts. North
Anna Environmental Coalition v. NRC, 553 F.2d 655, 665 (D.C.
Cir. 1976). Neither the Atomic Energy Act nor regulations
promulgated under it require risk-free regulation of the
nuclear fuel cycle. "We do not live in a risk-less society
nor could modern technological societies exist on that basis."
Nader v. NRC, 513 F.2d 1045, 1050 (D.C. Cir. 1975).
EPA's rationale for the stringent 2 pCi/m -sec limit
is unconvincing. The agency simply notes that reducing radon
flux to this level will eliminate 99.6% of the risk posed by
radon emanation from inactive sites. EPA fails to acknowledge,
however, that this reduction in radon flux is for all practical
purposes irrelevant because the risk posed by radon from
inactive sites is de minimis in the first place. EPA also
2
claims that the 2 pCi/m -sec limitation will cost only about
10% more than standards limiting radon exposure to 10 to 40
pCi/m -sec. The agency has not established that any radon
emanation standard is justified, much less one as low as 10 to
2 o
40 pCi/m -sec. Thus even if a 2 pCi/m -sec standard can be
achieved at only slightly more expense than a 10 to 40 pCi/m -sec
standard, the lower standard is nevertheless not justifiable.
In any event, 10% of $500,000,000 (the minimum total cost to
comply with EPA's standards) is $50,000,000 and the agency
should not lightly dismiss such costs without analysis of the
benefits expected from the additional expenditure. Even more
to the point, however, is Kerr-McGee's experience with decom-
missioning. That experience indicates that the cost for re-
clamation will increase 10% for each additional reduction in
2 ?
radon emanation of 1 pCi/m -sec below 25 pCi/m -sec.
18/ See Draft Inactive Sites EIS at 8-7 (proposed radon standard
"would reduce radon emissions and their possible effects by 99%").
-------
1-4
1-4
- 14 -
- 15 -
to
I
00
B. EPA's Groundwater Protection Standards
Are Wholly Arbitrary and Unsupported.
EPA proposes to protect any "underground source of
drinking water" ("USDW") from contamination due to release of
chemicals from inactive sites. The definition of "USDW's" is
therefore critical. The agency proposes to define "USDW" to
include any aquifer containing less than 10,000 mg/1 TDS.
This definition is contrary to common sense, since aquifers
with 4,000 mg/1 TDS, or even less, are unfit for human con-
sumption. Since it is technically difficult and quite ex-
pensive to treat water to decrease its TDS content, it is
•
•
unlikely that water with 4,000 mg/1 TDS or greater will ever
be used for drinking water purposes. EFA's only explanation
for this standard is that it "is based on the Safe Drinking
Water Act and its legislative history, which reflects Con-
gressional intent that aquifers in that class deserve protec-
tion."^/ But nothing in the Safe Drinking Water Act ("SDWA")
requires or provides for protection of all aquifers with less
than 10,000 mg/1 TDS. Moreover, the legislative history for
the SDWA is totally bereft of any scientific or technical
rationale for a 10,000 TDS standard. The SDWA thus lends no
support to the definition EPA proposes here.
EPA's definition is in fact even more stringent than
the definition of USDW adopted by the agency for purposes of
the SDWA. In its UIC regulations, EPA has provided a means to
exempt aquifers from USDW status. For example, if an aquifer
or portion thereof is not currently employed as a source of
drinking water and if the aquifer is mineral producing, then
it may be exempted from USDW status and contaminated without
constraint. See 45 Fed. Reg. 42502 (June 24, 1980), promul-
gating S 146.04. EPA has made no provision for exempt aquifers
in its proposed inactive site standards. The agency is thus
in the strange position of proposing to require the Department
of Energy to prevent contamination of an aquifer from an
inactive site while private parties and government agencies
are in the process of lawfully contaminating the aquifer
(because it is "exempt") from other sources.
, EPA also proposes to adopt certain contaminant
limits suggested in the National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations ("NIPDWR"). These limits would apply to
arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nitrate,
selenium and silver. EPA's only stated reason for this whole-
sale adoption of the NIPDWR is that these standards allegedly
"provide the best current guidance of adequate protection
levels for drinking water." EPA overlooks the critical fact
that the NIPDWR in question are applicable only to "community
water systems" whereas EPA's proposed standards are applicable
to groundwater which may never be used for drinking at all.
The NIPDWR standards for the chemicals in question
were specifically designed for "community water systems." See
19/ Draft Inactive Sites EIS at 8-16 to 17.
-------
1-4
1-4
- 16 -
- 17 -
PI
I
40 C.F.R. §§ 141.11 & 141.17.25/ "community water system" is
defined for NIPDWR purposes as "a public water system which
serves at least 15 service connections used by year-round
residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents.
See 40 C.F.R. § 141.2(e)(i). EPA's proposed inactive site
water standards, in contrast, will be applicable (if adopted)
not to community water supply systems but instead at any
distance greater than 1.0 kilometer if the disposal site is a
depository site. The proposed standards would thus apply to
water which was not being employed for drinking water purposes
and which might never be so employed. General application of
stringent standards designed for "community water systems" to
underground aquifers is not logical and is obviously wasteful
of society's resources. Moreover, such application is incon-
sistent with existing state programs which apply drinking
water standards only at the place where water is actually used
or may reasonably be expected to be used for drinking water
(e.g., New Mexico Water Quality Regulations). EPA has abso-
lutely no basis for applying standards designed for "community
water systems" to groundwater in underground aquifers as
proposed in the regulations.
EPA's proposed incorporation of the NIPDWR standards
is flawed for another general reason: many of the limits set
in the NIPDWR are arbitrary and are not required to assure
that water is safe for human consumption. A prime example is
the NIPDWR limit for selenium — 0.01 mg/1. This stringent
limit evidently had its genesis in early fears that selenium
was carcinogenic. These fears have not been borne out.— To
the contrary, selenium now appears to be anti-carcinogenic in
both animals^/ and humans.—' Moreover, research has dis-
closed that selenium is an essential trace element in human
and animal nutrition.—' It is a constituent of an enzyme,
glutathione peroxidase, which "reduces hydrogen peroxide to
water and hence protects the cell membrane and hemoglobin from
oxidative damage and hemolysis. The actions of selenium are
linked closely to those of vitamin E, and selenium has a
20/ The nitrate standard is applicable to "non-community
water systems" but these are defined as "public water systems"
with at least 15 service connections or which serve at least
25 people daily 60 days out of the year. 40 C.F.R. § 141.l(e).
2I/ As EPA has elsewhere noted, "The 1962 Drinking Water
Standards Committee lowered the limit for selenium in drinking
water [to 0.01 mg/1] primarily out of concerns over the car-
cinogenic properties of the element. Data supporting the
carcinogenicity of selenium has not been forthcoming . . . ."
EPA, Appendix A — Drinking Water Regulations 113.
22/ E.g., Shamberger, Relationship of Selenium to Cancer.
I. Inhibitory Effect of Selenium in Carcinogenesis, 44 J.
Nat'l Cancer Inst. 931 (1970) (contained in Exhibit E).
23/ E.g., Shamberger, et al., Selenium Distribution and Human
Cancer Mortality, 2 CRC Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory
Sciences 211 (1971) (contained in Exhibit E); Shamberger, et al.
Antioxidants and Cancer I. Selenium in the Blood of Normals and
Cancer Patients, 50 J. Nat'l Cancer Inst. 863 (1973) (contained
in Exhibit E).See also Goyer, et al., Toxicology of Trace
Elements 211-13 (1977) (cited by EPA).
24/ Hambridge, Trace Elements in Pediatric Nutrition, 24
Advances Pediatrics 191, 225; van Rij, et al., Selenium Defi-
ciency in Total Parenteral Nutrition, 32 Am. J. Clin. Nutrition
2076 (1979) (contained in Exhibit E).
-------
1-4
1-4
i
«-j
o
- 18 -
sparing effect on vitamin E requirements."^/ Selenium is
commonly found at levels far in excess of the NIPDWR standard
in human urine and blood, particularly in seleniferous zones.
No adverse impact has been associated with these levels.
There does not appear to be a single report of acute selenium
intoxication in the past half century.
EPA suggests that "bad health, gastrointestinal
disturbances and skin discoloration have been associated with
consumption of 0.01 to 0.1 milligrams of selenium per kilogram
of body weight per day."=^/ However, this association, even
if valid,»does not support a .01 mg/1 limit. Consumption of
0.01 to 0.1 mg/kg corresponds to consumption of .7 to 7 mg of
selenium per day for a 70 kg man. Such a man would likely
consume only 2 liters of water a day, or 0.02 mg of selenium
under EPA's standard. This is 1/35 the amount EPA claims may
be toxic. This is an unreasonable margin of safety.
Even more significantly, EPA's fears concerning .7
to 7 mg of selenium in the diet now appear to be discredited,
and there is increasing evidence that the low NIPDWR selenium
standard may contribute to life threatening selenium defi-
ciency. Selenium deficiency has recently been linked to
v
Keshan disease, a sometimes fatal endemic cardiomyopathy of
- 19 -
children which is prevalent in China.—/ A recent case was
28/
reported involving a two-year old Long Island girl.— After
a massive study involving over 26,000 children, Chinese research-
ers recommended consumption of supplemental selenium in the
amount of 0.5 mg/week for 1 to 5 year olds; 1.0 mg/week for 6
to 10 year olds; 2.0 mg/week for children over 11 and 4 mg/week
for adults in order to prevent the disease. The researchers
reported no harmful side effects after continuous administra-
tion of the supplemental selenium for three to four years.
They also concluded "that the dosage was a safe one."=-/ This
dosage is far in excess of EPA's NIPDWR limit which would
result in weekly adult consumption of only .14 mg of selenium
and weekly consumption by children of about half that. The
Chinese findings appear to be corroborated by some of the
agency's own references. One refers to animal studies indi-
cating that "[a] range of 0.04 to 0.1 mg/1 in the diet" is
important to protect against selenium deficiency.3-^/ The very
25/ Hambridge, supra note 24.
26/ Draft Inactive Sites EIS at C-9, citing EPA, National
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulation, EPA-570/9-76-003.
27/ Keshan Disease Research Group, Epidemiologic Studies on
the Etiologic Relationship of Selenium and Keshan Disease,
92(7) Chinese Med. J. 477 (1979) (contained in Exhibit E).
28/ Collipp, et al., Cardiomyopathy and Selenium Deficiency
in a Two-Year-old Girl, 304 N. Eng. J. Med. 1304 (1981) (con-
gestive heart failure due to intake of only .01 mg of selenium
per day) (contained in Exhibit E); see also Johnson, et al.,
An Occidental Case of Cardiomyopathy and Selenium Deficiency,
304 N. Eng. J. Med. 1210 (1981) (contained in Exhibit E).
29/ Keshan Disease Research Group, Observations on Effect of
Sodium Selenite in Preventing Keshan~Disease, 92(7) Chinese
Med. J. 471, 475 (1979) (contained in Exhibit E).
30/
EPA, Appendix A — Drinking Water Regulations at 115.
-------
1-4
1-4
- 20 -
- 21 -
M
I
low NIPDWR standard for selenium thus may actually contribute
to adverse health effects caused by selenium deficiency. The
NIPDWR standard is certainly insufficiently supported to be
extended by the agency to cover inactive sites as proposed
here, particularly in view of the new evidence on selenium
deficiency.
EPA has also proposed to adopt the NIPDWR standards
for radium and gross alpha particle activity for its inactive
site regulations. The NIPDWR standard for combined radium-226
and radium-228 is 5 pCi/1; the standard for gross alpha particle
activity (including radium-226 but excluding radon and uranium)
is 15 pCi/1. See 41 Fed. Reg. 28404 (July 9, 1976). The EPA
proposal is inconsistent with NRC's regulation governing
release of radium and other alpha emitters to unrestricted
areas. NRC's standards are set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 20,
Appendix B. EPA has in fact endorsed those standards in its
definition of "radioactive waste" for purposes of the under-
ground injection control ("UIC") program under the SDWA. See
45 Fed. Reg. 42502 (June 24, 1980), promulgating 40 CFR § 146.03
(incorporates 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table II, Col. 2
limits). For UIC purposes, EPA is thus permitting release of
up to 30 pCi/1 Radium-226 and up to 30 pCi/1 Radium-228 before
an effluent even falls within the definition of radioactive
waste material. EPA has given no explanation why inactive
sites must comply with more stringent standards.
EPA's inactive site proposals also include a stan-
dard for molybdenum even though that chemical is not covered
in the NIPDWR. The agency's proposed molybdenum standard —
.05 mg/1 — is totally arbitrary and unsupported. EPA's
analysis fails to take into proper account the substantial
evidence that molybdenum is not a significant health hazard.
The apparent toxicity of molybdenum ingestion is on the order
of potassium salts, i.e., very low. Molybdenum poisoning
has been rarely observed in man.-=/ Industrial populations
have been exposed to levels as high as 50 mg/day without ill
effects. Molybdenum is very rapidly absorbed and rapidly
excreted in urine. This appears to be an effective mechanism
for regulating blood and other tissue concentrations of the
element.—'' EPA cites one study (by Chappell, et al.) for the
proposition that "[c]hronic toxicity has been seen in persons
who have consumed 10 to 15 milligrams of molybdenum per day.
,33/
So far as Kerr-McGee is aware, this is the only study which
has purported to find adverse chronic effects from molybdenum
exposure. Even if this study is indicative, it hardly accounts
for a standard set at the extremely low level of .05 mg/1 as
proposed by EPA. The basis for the agency's proposed standard
is thus again obscure. Perhaps it is predicated on a purported
finding that increased copper excretion may occur if daily
31/ NAS, Drinking Water and Health 282 (1977) (cited by EPA).
32/ Chappell, et al.. Human Health Effects of Molybdenum in
Drinking Water 3-4 (1979) (EPA-6—1/1-79-006) (cited by EPA).
33/ Draft Inactive Sites Els at C-7 citing Chappell, et al.,
Human Health Effects of Molybdenum in Drinking Water, EPA-
6001/1-79-006, 1979).
-------
1-4
1-4
- 22 -
- 23 -
NJ
intake of molybdenum exceeds .5 mg/day. However, no clinical
effects have been reported for intake of molybdenum in amounts
up to twenty times that amount.-^/ Moreover, EPA overlooks
the conclusion in the Chappell study that "[i]t is not likely
that a drinking water standard for molybdenum is required."—'
EPA also proposes a 10 pCi/1 standard for uranium.
Like molybdenum, the NIPDWR specify no standard for this
chemical. EPA offers no support for its 10 pCi/1 proposal.
Employing conservative assumptions, the agency notes that
chronic chemical toxicity may result if humans drink water
containing*about 315 micrograms of uranium per liter.—'
However, this amount of uranium would be equivalent to 215
pCi/1 uranium^— not 10 pCi/1. The 10 pCi/1 figure specified
by EPA is thus totally arbitrary. It cannot be adopted.
Kerr-McGee believes that specific groundwater stan-
dards are not required for inactive sites. Most such sites
are located in an arid climate where it is unlikely that
significant seepage from the piles can occur. This being
the case, the piles are unlikely to cause any significant or
hazardous contamination of drinking water supplies. Such
problems as do arise may be addressed on a case-by-case basis
by the Department of Energy taking into account all relevant
factors. EPA has in fact acknowledged that potential ground-
34/ See id. at 4.
35/ Id. at 5.
36/ Id. at C-12.
water contamination problems are site specific in nature and
37 /
not amenable to being addressed on a generic basis.—
IV. EPA's 5 pCi/gram Radium Standard
Is Unreasonable
EPA proposes to limit the average concentration of
Ra-226 at processing sites to 5 pCi/gram per 5 cm thickness
within one foot of the surface and to 5 pCi/gram per 15 cm
thickness below one foot. These limits fall well within the
range in which Ra-226 is customarily encountered in the natural
soils where uranium is milled. The proposed levels are clearly
not necessary for the protection of public health, since EPA
admits that under the 5 pCi/gram standard, a person living
continuously atop the "contaminated" soil would be exposed to
only about 80 mrem of radiation per year.==/ Eighty mrem is
less than the natural background level of radiation to which
all persons are exposed in the United States and far less than
the amount to which persons in western mining areas are exposed.
37/ Id. at 4-33.
38/ Id. at 8-23. EPA's 80 mrem estimate is based upon a 100%
occupancy assumption which is, of course, unrealistic. A
person working outdoors could be expected to occupy a site for
only 20-30% of the time — not 100%. Moreover, a concrete house
slab would reduce the dose rate by at least a factor of 2-3 for
a person living at the site. Kerr-McGee believes that a better
estimate for gamma dose from radium-226 would be 15 mrem/year
based on continuous outdoor occupancy or 5 mrem/year based on
realistic outdoor occupancy for two reasons: (i) Ra-226 from
material deposited off-site decreases with depth thus markedly
decreasing dose and (2) radon emanation removes major gamma-
emitting daughters (Pb-214 and Bi-214) from the soil matrix.
39/ Average natural background radiation (cosmic, terrestrial
and internal body radiation) varies from State to State between
(footnote cont'd)
-------
1-4
1-4
- 24 -
- 25 -
The proposed Ra-226 standard is in fact so low that it will be
difficult if not impossible to achieve as an engineering
matter.
V. EPA's Proposed Indoor Radon Standard
Is Unreasonably Stringent
EPA proposes to limit indoor radon concentration to
no greater than .015 WL. This is a marked departure from the
Surgeon General's existing guidelines governing the Grand
Junction clean-up program. Those guidelines do not require
remedial action unless the indoor radon concentration exceeds
.05 WL.—' Even the Surgeon General's .05 WL standard is
unduly stringent in view of studies indicating that use of
tailings in building construction have not resulted in any
excess levels of leukemia or lung cancer.
41/
As already
indicated, the agency has overstated the risk from radon by
a factor ranging from 3 to 11. This suggests that the EPA
(footnote cont'd)
approximately 90 mrem and 180 mrem average exposure per year.
Variation is caused primarily by different altitudes above sea
level and by natural rock formations. Living near a granite
rock formation, for example, may result in 25 to 100 mrem
additional exposure per year. See Low-Level Ionizing Radia-
tion, Hearings Before the Subcommittees on Energy Research and
Production and Natural Resources and Environment of the House
Committee on Science and Technology, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. at
8-9 (1979); Biological Effects of Radiation, 15 Encyclopedia
Britannica 382 (1979). There is no evidence that this back-
ground radiation has had any adverse effect upon the population.
40/ EPA, Ind-jor Radiation Exposure Due to Radium-226 in
Florida Phosphate Lands 77 (1979) (520/4-78-013).
41/ See NRC, Generic EIS on Uranium Milling A-35.
standard is too low by a similar factor. The unreasonableness
of the EPA standard is further demonstrated by the agency's
admission that naturally occurring indoor radon concentrations
exceed .015 WL in over ten percent of the homes with basements
surveyed in Grand Junction, New York, and New Jersey.—' The
EPA standard thus appears to call for reduction of indoor
radon below commonly occurring levels. No standard should be
established until research has been completed to establish
natural background indoor radon levels in the areas where
inactive sites are located. Compare National Lime Association
v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 454 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (duty to collect
relevant data).
EPA's approach to indoor radon in its proposed
standards is in sharp contrast to the agency's past practices.
In its Florida Phosphate study, the agency noted that under
existing Federal Guidance, traditional ALARA principles were
applicable.—' Under these principles the possible benefits
4_2/ Draft Inactive Sites at EIS 8-27 (1980). Indeed, a
recent study indicated that indoor radon concentrations may
commonly be in the range of 12 to 33 pCi/1 (.13 WL to 1 WL
using the conversion factor set forth in 10 CFR Part 20, App.
B, footnote 3) -- levels far in excess of EPA's proposed limits.
See Rundo, et. al. Observation of High Concentrations of Radon
in Certain Homes, 36 Health Physics 729 (1979) (attached as
Exhibit F). Moreover, we understand the DOE has informed EPA
that it appears that 55 percent of the basements and 30 percent
of the first levels in U.S. homes exceed 0.015 WL. Letter,
R. Clusen (DOE) to D. Hawkins (EPA), Feb. 15, 1980. In addition,
NRC has noted that over 30 percent of the structures already
decontaminated at Grand Junction still exceed 0.015 WL. Id.
See also Letter, Clusen (DOE) to Costle (EPA), June 13, 1980.
43/ EPA, Indoor Radiation Exposure Due to Radium-226 in
Florida Phosphate Lands 77-78 (1979) (520/4-78-013).
-------
1-4
1-4
- 26 -
- 27 -
M
I
from a further reduction in exposure must be balanced against
the costs for the reduction. EPA's analysis supporting its
proposed indoor radon limits is largely bereft of such analysis.
EPA has offered no rationale for departing from traditional
ALARA principles in issuing these standards. Ho indoor radon
standard should be established until the agency has completed
an adequate analysis of its risks and costs.
VI. EPA's Standards Should Be Based on
Management of Tailings, Not Perpetual
Disposal
EPA proposes to require controls creating "a reason-
able expectation" that the agency's standards, will be met for
at least 1,000 years. See 46 Fed. Reg. 2562 (Jan. 9, 1981).
EPA admits that this choice is at least "partly arbitrary."4^/
It is also manifestly unreasonable as a design requirement for
appropriate controls. History is bereft of significant examples
of controls capable of surviving for that period of time on so
large a scale as proposed here. Thus, the very availability
of 1,000-year controls is unproven and sheerly speculative.
EPA's 1000-year control proposal is deficent for
another reason. It is evidently based upon the erroneous and
unsupportable assumption that the government will fail. EPA's
assumption is inconsistent with Congress1 action in providing
for government custody of stabilized tailings sites. Congress
took that action on the assumption that the government would
assure the security of the sites in question. In addition,
EPA's assumption that the government will fail is contrary to
45/
our Constitution which provides for continuity of government.
The underlying rationale for EPA's 1000 year controls is thus
fundamentally unlawful.
1,000-year controls will be a colossal and unrecover-
able waste of resources to the detriment of current and future
generations, particularly if fears concerning low-dose radon
radiation are not borne out or if effective treatment for per-
tinent adverse health effects is developed. Either of these
eventualities is a very real possibility. Under the circum-
stances, stabilization to control inactive site erosion for
the next 50 to 100 years will be fully adequate to protect the
public and will be sufficiently conservative as well. EPA
should require no more under the circumstances. Since the
44/ Draft Inactive Sites EIS at 8-20.
45/ Chief Justice Marshall explained in Marbury v. Madison, 5
U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803) that "[t]he [Constitu-
tion's] principles ... so established, are deemed fundamental.
And as authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can
seldom act, they are designed to be permanent." A Civil War
was fought over this issue, and as President Lincoln in the
First Inaugural Address (March 4, 1861) observed:
"A disruption of the Federal Union heretofore
only menaced, is now formidably attempted. I
hold, that in contemplation of universal law,
and of the Constitution, the Union of these
States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied,
if not expressed, in the fundamental law of
all national governments. It is safe to
assert that no government proper, ever had a
provision in its organic law for its own
termination.1' IV Collected Works of Abraham
Lincoln 264 (R.F. Easier, ed., 1953).
-------
1-4
- 28 -
UMTRC Act provides that the inactive sites in question will be
under government ownership and control, the costly clean-up
program EPA's proposed standards envision may be undertaken at
a later time if new information indicates that such steps
should be taken.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated in these comments and in
other comments filed in this proceeding, the proposed inactive
site regulations should be withdrawn and reproposed only after
appropriate modifications to assure that they are reasonable
and that the benefits associated with them will exceed their
cost.
Respectfully submitted,
Peter J. Nickl
Charles H. Montange
Covington & Burling
888 Sixteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Attorneys for Kerr-McGee
Corporation and Kerr-McGee
Nuclear Corporation
1-5
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
Ref: jm 136/81
A Subsidiary of
Union Pacific Corporation
July 2, 1981
AGENCY
Docket No. A-79-25
Central Docket Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency JULIO 1981
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20460 CENTRAL DOCKET
Re:
Proposed Disposal Standards for Inact-ive Uranium
Processing Sites; 40 CFR Part 192, Federal
Register January 9, 1981
Gentlemen:
Rocky Mountain Energy has reviewed the proposed disposal
standards for inactive uranium processing sites, 40 CFR 192,
published in the Federal Register January 9, 1981. We would like
to take this opportunity to provide comments on the regulations.
In particular, we would like to comment on Part VI which among
other criteria, sets forth maximum allowable concentration levels
for molybdenum and uranium in any "underground source of drinking
water" within 1.0 kilometer of an inactive uranium processing site.
EPA Jurisdictional Authority
EPA cites Section 275 (a) of the Atomic Energy Act (added
by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978) as
justification for its authority to develop standards for the
disposal of uranium process materials. The Act, however, specifies
that the program shall be developed to control tailings in an
environmentally sound manner and to "minimize or eliminate . . .
health hazards to the public.11 EPA should, therefore, base its
regulations on the actual or potential effects uranium process
materials may have on human health.
EPA has not shown that the proposed standards are
necessary to safeguard public health. In particular, the criteria
for molybdenum and uranium in ground water appear to be poorly
chosen. To our knowledge no definitive scientific data has been
published to prove that molybdenum levels of 0.05 mg/1 or uranium
levels of 10pCi/l (approximately 0.015 mg/1) are injurious to
humans. In fact, the current maximum allowable level of uranium in
domestic sources of water in Wyoming is 5 mg/1 or a factor of 40
above the proposed standard.
Unconventional Drinking Water Standards
Since the purpose of the regulations is to protect
"underground sources of drinking water" as they affect human
10 Longs Peak Drive
Box2000
Broomfield. Colorado 80020
303/469-8844
-------
1-5
1-5
w
i
health, it is clear that the molybdenum and uranium standards are
intended as informal drinking water standards. To our knowledge,
no previous drinking water limits have been established for these
parameters. We feel that this unconventional approach to
establishing drinking water standards is unacceptable.
In the development of the Primary and Secondary Drinking
Water Standards, EPA reviewed a sizeable volume of scientific
information. This information was evaluated and reevaluated under
public scrutiny before the final standards were established. (For
example, see Water Quality Oiteria, 1972, a Report of the
Committee on Water Quality Criteria and Quality Criteria for Water
published in 1976). We feel EPA should follow the same procedures
in developing molybdenum and uranium criteria. Perhaps the most
appropriate forum for evaluating these standards would be reports
published in EPA Water Quality Criteria Documents.
Natural Ground Water Variability
Natural ground waters in areas near existing or potential
tailings disposal sites commonly show large variabilities in
uranium concentrations, even over short periods of time. These
variabilities can easily exceed the standards proposed in 40 CFR
Part 192.
TabLe 1 shows monitoring data obtained from 14 wells over
a two year period. All wells were completed within the same
geologic stratum in the vicinity of a uranium ore body near Casper,
Wyoming. If the lowest value obtained during the sampling period
had been used to establish baseline conditions for groundwater, all
wells except two would have violated the requirements proposed by
the EPA. The proposed regulations require that uranium levels not
exceed 10pCi/l (approximately 0.015 mg/1) unless baseline
conditions are higher. If baseline conditions exceed this value,
baseline concentration is the highest allowable concentration. In
six wells, the lowest value observed exceeded 0.015 mg/1. Yet
other samples obtained from each of these same wells were higher in
0303 concentration and therefore would have violated the
regulations due to natural conditions. Of the eight remaining
wells which had "baseline conditions" (lowest range value) below
0.015 mg/1, six wells exceed the maximum 0.015 mg/1 value suggested
as a maximum allowable concentration.
Since natural variances can occur in ground water
quality, it seems unreasonable to assume that a small increase in
uranium concentration in monitor wells near a disposal site is
necessarily due to disposal activities. We therefore feel that if
EPA must develop a ground water standard for uranium, they should
take into account natural ground water variability.
Summary
Rocky Mountain Energy feels that the uranium and
molybdenum standards proposed for ground waters near inactive
uranium processing sites can not be justified. EPA has exceeded
its authority to develop regulations since it has not shown that
low concentrations of these elements can be toxic to humans. The
Agency has in effect established informal drinking water standards
without going through the normal review process.
In addition, if the Agency feels an urgent need to
establish such standards before scientific data has been presented
and evaluated, they should take into account natural ground water
variability which will affect sample results.
This concludes Rocky Mountain Energy's comments on the
proposed uranium and molybdenum standards for ground waters. We
hope they will be of some help to you in revising your proposed
regulations. We welcome the opportunity to be of any further
assistance.
Sincerely,
Richard E. Iwanicki
Licensing Specialist
cc
C.M.
J.A.
R.L.
.R.
.W.
P.J.
M.R.
J.
L.
Bolser
Yellich
Medlock
Benitez
Hersloff
Spieles
Neumann
-------
1-5
1-6
TABLE 1
n
i
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ENERGY
NINE MILE LfiKE SITE
RECTONRL M3NTPQR WELL DATA*
LAW OFFICES
WELL NUMBER
BM-1
BM -2
BM -3
BM -4
BM -5
BM -8
BM -9
BM-10
BM-11
BM-12
BM-13
BM-14
Rcfcb
Block E
RANGE IN
URANIUM OOJCEHTRRTICN
0.056
0.004
0.210
0.069
0.038
0.001
0.012
0.001
0.002
0.004
0.900
0.059
0.001
0.001
0.080
0.041
0.330
0.111
0.180
0.004
0.020
0.010
0.024
0.024
1.700
0.290
0.069
0.140
P. O-Boxioee
2*5 SOUTH CENTRAL AVENUC
BARTOW, FLORIDA SSBSO
(BI3) S33-HB1
5915 PONCE DE LEON BLVD.
CORAL GABLES .FLORIDA 331*9
(3O5) €67-4633
P O Box 3076
MOO SOUTH TAHIAHI TRAIL
SARASOTA, FLORIDA SSBTO
IBI3) 365-3321
HOLLAND & KNIGHT
29E9 EAST COMMERCIAL BLVO.
FORT LAUOERDALE, FLORIDA 33300
13O5) 491-6553
P.O.DRAWER BIO
BARNETT BANK BLDO.
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32302
(9O4) 224-7OOO
PO. DRAWER BW
az LAKE WIRE DRIVE
LAKELAND, FLORIDA aaao:
(813) 682-1161
P.O Box 1288
EXCHANGE BANK Bioa.
TAMPA, FLORIDA aaeoi
(813) £23-1621
P O. Box 1669
4O6 THIRTEENTH STREET WEST
BRADENTON, FLORIDA aasoa
(BI3) 746-TIG?
P O Box OlS44t
2250 S.W. THIRD AVENUE
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33101
(3O51 85G-B17O
HMD KNIQHT
TELEX s-zsao
*Data was obtained in 1978, 1979, and 1580 at Nine Mile Lake Project, 9
miles north of Casper, Wyoming. All wells are completed in a single geo-
logic stratum and are located within 4 miles of a possible uranium
tailings disposal facility. Concentrations shown are in milligrams
per liter (mg/1).
PLEASE REPLY TO:
Lakeland, FL
July 14, 1981
Environmental Protection Agency
Central Docket Section (A-130)
West Tower Lobby
401 M Street, Southwest
Washington, D.C. 20460
Docket No. A-79-25 - Proposed Remedial Actrd
Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites
Proposed 40 C.F.R., Part 192
Dear Sir:
The following comments are submitted on behalf of
the Florida Phosphate Council, Inc. (Council). The Council
is a trade association representing seventeen (17) member
companies engaged in the mining and beneficiation of
phosphate rock and in the production of phosphate fertil-
izer, elemental phosphorus, and other phosphate-based
products.
These comments are directed to proposed 40 C.F.R.,
Fart 192 - Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium
Hill Tailings (Proposed Rule). The Proposed Rule appears at
45 Fed. Reg. 27,370-27,375 (April 22, 1980) [Subparts B & C]
and at 46 Fed. Reg. 2,561-2,563 (January 9, 1981) [Subpart
A).
While some of the Council's member companies may
have direct interests in uranium mining operations, these
comments are directed toward the indirect effect the
Proposed Rule may have upon phosphate mining and reclamation
techniques in the State of Florida. Phosphate mining and
reclamation processes may result in an enhancement of the
low level radiation levels that are naturally associated
with phosphate ore. Residual clay materials and sand tail-
ings developed in the phosphate mining and benefication pro-
-------
1-6
1-6
Environmental Protection Agency
July 14, 1981
Page 2
Environmental Protection Agency
July 14, 1981
Page 3
-j
oo
cess are used to reclaim land in Florida for many beneficial
uses, although the predominant use after reclamation is
agricultural.
Thus, there is at least a facial analogy between
the processes involving "residual radioactive materials" as-
sociated with uranium processing sites and the processes of
phosphate mining and reclamation. The Council is concerned
that the Proposed Rule may become the basis for future regu-
latory action directly related to phosphate mining and
reclamation.
With regard to specific aspects of the Proposed
Rule, the Council asserts that it is overinclusive in that
it would set a requirement for remedial action to assure
that the average concentration of Radium-226 attributable to
residual radioactive material not exceed 5 pCi/g in certain
strata of "ope"h land". [Proposed § 192.12(a)]. The Council
believes that the only significant problem potentially asso-
ciated with low level Radium-226 concentrations in soils
arises when buildings on the soils are constructed in such a
way as to allow a buildup of concentrations of the
"daughters" of Radium-226 within the structures. To impose
remedial action requirements on all open lands is simply
unnecessary.
In addition, the restriction on annual indoor radon
decay product concentrations in any occupied or occupiable
buildings is unduly restrictive. [Proposed § 192.12(b)].
"We note that by letter dated May 30, 1979, then
Administrator Douglas Costle recommended to Florida's
Governor Bob Graham that the appropriate working level value
should be established at 0.02 WL, as opposed to the 0.015 WL
contained in the Proposed Rule. [It should be noted that
the Council does not necessarily agree that the 1979 0.02 WL
proposal was appropriate.]
The Council urges that any attempt to use the
Proposed Rule as a basis for future regulation of phosphate
mining or reclamation processes would be inappropriate.
First, we are unaware of any statutory authority for direct
control of reclamation processes involving the low level
radiation materials involved in the phosphate industry. In
addition, there are significant technical differences
between phosphate mining, processing and reclamation tech-
niques and uranium mining, processing and disposal
procedures. Finally, various agencies within the State of
Florida are already hard at work on developing zoning
or building codes that would address the primary perceived
area of concern, i.e., the radon daughter level within occu-
pied or occupiable structures. £-
We appreciate the opportunity to provides these
comments on the Proposed Rule. If you have any questions,
please contact me or Mr. Homer Hooks, President, Florida
Phosphate Council, Inc.
Sincerely,
HOLLAND & KNIGHT
RLRJr/dsl
Robert L. Rhodes, J
cc: Mr. Homer Hooks
Mr. Steven Tubbs
Mr. Gordon Palm
Members, RCRA Overview Committee
D. Burke Kibler, III, Esquire
Martha W. Barnett, Esquire
001850110-07141:25
-------
1-7
BIGBEE, STEPHENSON. CARPENTER, CROUT S OLMS7ED
at Lav
Ptitt Ogiem Box gOO
5«b Ft, Mv Mvtica SrsOl
July 14, 1981
vo
JUL15198J
Environmental Protection Agency
Central Docket Section
West Tower Lobby
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
RE:
Docket No. A-79-25, Proposed Disposal Standards for
Inactive Uranium Processing Sites
Gentlemen:
United Nuclear Corporation hereby submits its comments on EPA'
Proposed Disposal Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing
Sites, 46 Federal Register 2556 (January 9, 1981).
Very truly yours,
GSC:CMW/tcg
Enclosure
G. Stanley Crout
1-7
BEFORE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Re: Proposed Disposal
Standards for Inactive
Uranium Processing Sites,
46 Fed. Reg. 25566
(Jan 9, 1981)
Dkt.
COMMENTS OF UNITED NUCLEAR CORPORATION
G. Stanley Crout
C. Mott Wool ley
Bigbee, Stephenson, Carpenter,
Crout & Olmsted
Post Office Box 669
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
Attorneys for
United Nuclear Corporation
July 14, 1981
-------
1-7
1-7
i
00
o
July 14, 1981
TO: Environmental Protection Agency
Central Docket Section
West Tower Lobby
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
RE: Proposed Disposal Standards for Inactive
Uranium Processing Sites, Dkt.
46 Fed. Reg. 2556 (Jan. 9, 1981).
United tluclear Corporation ("UNC") submits the following
comments on EPA's Proposed Disposal Standards for Inactive
Uranium Processing Sites ("Proposed Standards"), 46 Federal
Register 2556 (January 9, 1981). We support the comments on the
Proposed Standards that have been submitted on behalf of Kerr-
McGee Corporation, Homestake Mining Company and, generally, the
American Mining" Congress. Our comments supplement those comments.
UNC's comments address three principal concerns:
(1) The failure of the EPA to take into account the
admitted disparity between its model data and assumptions, and
data which are available at actual remote sites;
(2) The failure of the EPA to provide that the exception
criteria set out in Subpart C Section 192.20 applicable to
0
clean-up standards are also applicable to disposal standards;
(3) The need for more objective criteria to enable the EPA
to adjust its general standards to actual conditions at remote
tailings sites.
As noted by both Kerr-McGee and Homestake, EPA bases its
estimate of risk to the public on the speculative assumption
that because high doses of radiation tend to result in adverse
health effects, low doses of-radiation will have a proportional
effect. As EPA itself admits:
"So one [presumably this includes EPA] can predict with
precision the increase of chance of cancer after exposure
to radiation. EPA and other standard agencies base risk
estimates on studies of persons exposed at high doses and
assume that the low dose effects will be proportionally
less. Sometimes this assumption may overestimate or
underestimate the actual risk but it is the best that can
be done at present." See, Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for Remedial Action Standards for Inactive
Uranium Processing Sites at p. 4-3.
Additionally, EPA admits:
"Additional uncertainty comes from our incomplete knowledge
of the effects on people of these generally low exposures."
Id at 8-3.
As can be seen by the draft EIS itself, EPA admits that the
only data it has relied upon are studies of persons exposed to
high doses. It simply does not follow that because there is an
absence of knowledge about the health effects to persons exposed
to low doses that therefore the effects upon persons exposed at
high doses is reliable to predict low dose effects. Quite
clearly, EPA lacks data on the effect of radiation exposure at
low doses. As a result, there is no reliable basis to assess a
definite health hazard, if any, from tailings piles. Moreover,
there is no justification for this absence of data in light of
the fact that it is only low exposure effects that EPA purports
to regulate. At a minimum, EPA must first obtain reliable data
on low level exposure effects and only then promulgate standards
in accordance with the findings of actual field data. Indeed,
as more becomes known about the effects of low radon exposure, a
consideration must be whether the standards EPA has set on the
basis of speculation will prove to have been erroneous, thus
-2-
-------
1-7
1-7
i
00
resulting in the wasting of -hundreds of millions of dollars.
Until such data are forthcoming, the EPA standards are based on
nothing more than guesswork.
The Draft EIS (supra) makes a similar error in that it
focuses principally upon tailings piles near urban areas where,
as a result of practices in the past, individuals lived and
worked very near the edge of tailings piles where the concentration
of radon is higher. Just as it is inappropriate to premise low
level health effects for radon on the basis of known health
effects of high doses of radon, it is similarly inappropriate to
promulgate general standards for remote inactive tailings sites
based upon the estimated collective risk to people who have
lived and worked at the edge of tailings piles.
As EPA admits, the exposure and resultant risk to people
depends on their distance from the tailings pile. EPA also
admits "The estimated number of lung cancer deaths associated
with a tailings pile is highly variable, depending not only on
the size of the pile but also the population density in its
immediate vicinity." Ibid, at 4-13. As presently drafted the
proposed standards make no allowance for such variation
with respect to disposal at remote inactive sites. Yet, EPA clearly
recognizes that the concentration of radon decay products
changes rapidly with distance from a pile. An accurate assessment
of risk depends not on modeling, but upon the actual site of
each residence and work place and its ventilation characteristics;
the actual length of time that a person is at such a location,
and the actual wind speed and direction. Such data are clearly
lacking. Therefore, the proposed regulations, as applied to remote
sites, are without basis.
It is apparent that proximity of population to tailings
piles is the concern of EPA in its proposed standards. The
concerns applicable in such circumstances are altogether absent
at actual sites where the nearest resident or structure is often
many miles removed from the tailings sites. In a study of
four inactive sites which were within populated areas (Grand
Junction, Durango, Salt Lake, Monticello) it was concluded that
"There is certainly no evidence of significant contribution of
radon to any of the cities beyond 0.5 miles from the piles."
Further, the atmosphere radon concentration at distances more
remote than 0.5 miles "will have been so diluted as to be
virtually negligible." See Shearer & Sill. "Evaluation of
Atmosphere Radon in the Vicinity of Uranium Mill Tailings" 17
Health Physics 77-88.
In addition, EPA assumes that urban areas, if not already
in existence at or near tailings sites will develop in the near
future. As stated by EPA:
"We do not consider the current remoteness of a pile
from population centers sufficient by itself to justify
relaxing the disposal standards. Even small numbers
of people nearby require protection, and the population
of an area could increase considerably over the one
thousand year period during which the standards apply.
Furthermore radon released from tailings piles travels
long distances." See Draft EIS at 9-5.
There is no basis whatsoever for these assumptions. As EPA
admits:
-3-
-4-
-------
1-7
1-7
M
00
Is)
"We ignored population changes since 1970.
A future increase in population density at several of the
urban sites seems likely, but because the actual place of
residence would be critical in determining exposure and
resulting health impact, we didn't try to incorporate
projected population growth." Draft EIS at 4-13. Id.
Thus, EPA itself admits it does not know what to expect in the
way of an increase of population at the remote inactive sites.
Indeed, EPA's assumption that there will be a future increase of
persons who voluntarily choose to live at or near a tailings
site is nothing more than an expectation that the population
will behave in a lemming-like fashion. Can it rationally be
assumed after the experiences of the past that people will be
flocking to live at or near tailings sites? With the widely
dispersed knowledge of tailings sites, it is irrational in the
•
extreme to assume that tailings sites will become the focus of
population centers. More fundamental,- it is inconsistent for
EPA to state it does not know what the population trends will
be, yet state that its disposal standards are required because
the expected population trends mandate residences and work
places at or near tailings sites. Precisely the opposite is
* the case. As the uranium ore supply is depleted in the more
remote regions of the Southwest, there is no longer an incentive
for urban development at or near those sites. In fact, as has
been exhaustively analyzed in the San Juan Basin Regional Uranium
Study, the historical pattern has been an initial influx of
population followed by a rapid"population decline upon termination
of operations. Consequently, the assumption of increased urban
population at or near remote tailings piles is erroneous and
unsupportable.
In addition, the EPA as-sumes that because it is purporting
to regulate a "one thousand year period" it must be assumed the
government will fail, and therefore, the standards must be set
in such a fashion as to provide protection absent government
controls. As a threshold matter, it is irrational and without
basis in law to assert jurisdiction over a matter based on the
assumption that jurisdiction is or will be lacking. The standards
set by EPA can only be applicable if the government permanently
retains jurisdiction.
Absent jurisdiction there can be no reason to recognize
government authority. Therefore, during this so-called "one
thousand year period" EPA's standards cannot apply -- indeed, it
is assumed there will be no authority to make them applicable.
The only logical result is that the EPA is setting standards
which it expects are not or will not be applicable. There can
be no rational basis to require compliance with standards which,
by definition, are expected -- indeed -- predicted, to become
inapplicable. Perhaps even more fundamental is that, in effect,
EPA has put the Government on notice that it can reasonably be
expected that it need not now comply with EPA standards because
there will soon be no authority to exact compliance. For, if it
is seriously assumed that in a given period the government will
fail, there is an equal chance it will fail tomorrow. If it is
now known that these standards are not going to be applicable it
is folly to comply with them at such great expense. On the
other hand, the only manner to assure that the standards are,
and will be applicable, is to assume that the standards are,
-5-
-6-
-------
1-7
1-7
en
oo
u>
Government will not fail but will continue to protect the public
during the next thousand years. In such case, the EPA standards
would be too stringent.
In summary, the actual conditions at the remote tailings
sites has been altogether overlooked in the promulgation of the
inactive standards. Either the general standards themselves
must be revised to account for these factual circumstances, or
the provisions of Subpart C, Section 192.20 must be expanded to
account for such local conditions.
The EPA has recognized the need for such exceptions with
respect to clean-up standards:
"The standards may be unreasonably strict in some
exceptional circumstances. If meeting the standards
is impossible, or if some clearly undesirable health
or environmental side effects are unavoidable,
applying the standards would be unjustified."
See Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
Remedial Action Standards for Inactive Uranium
Processing Sites at p.9-4.
However, this allowance for unavoidable circumstances is
not applicable to the disposal requirements of the proposed
standards.
In addition, the EPA in Subpart C, Section 192.20(c) takes
into account the cost of the remedial actions to comply with the
cleanup requirements. However, no such allowance is made with
respect to costs in implementing the disposal standards. There
is no rational basis for such a distinction. The clean-up and
disposal standards are purportedly designed to protect the
public health and safety. Since the purpose of the two is the
same, there is no reason to treat the two differently with
respect to applicable exceptions.
Finally, as EPA clearly- recognizes , the number of expected
deaths when a tailings site is remote from the population is
substantially less than when the population is close to a
tailings pile. However, the costs to comply with EPA's disposal
standards, regardless of remoteness of the tailings site are the
same. Clearly, this failure to adjust costs to the benefits to
be derived from disposal at remote sites is unwarranted.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the proposed inactive site
regulations should be withdrawn and reopened only after appropriate
modifications to assure the final regulations are reasonable.
Respectfully submitted,
G. Stanley Crout
C. Mott Wool ley
Bigbee, Stephenson, Carpenter,
Crout & Olms ted
Post Office Box 669
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
Attorneys for
United Nuclear Corporation
-7-
-------
1-8
1-8
PJ
oo
JS-
BKSBEE. STEPHENSON. OWflBVTEff. CTW7" t QLMSJED
La*
S—rJ.ft™.
Auf Q^fiw A>* ffo*
Sot* A.. Na> M**ica »t!OI
July 14, 1981
Environmental Protection Agency
Central Docket Section
West Tower Lobby
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Re: Docket No. A-79-25, Proposed Disposal Standards
for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites
Gentlemen:
We submit on behalf of Homestake Mining Company the following com-
ments on EPA's Proposed Disposal Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing
Sites ("Proposed Standards"), 46 Federal Register 2556 (January 9, 1981).
Sincerely yours.
G. Stanley Crout
GSC:sf
Encl.
Langan Swent
William Langston
John Parker
Ed Kennedy
Peter Nickles
Charles Montange
Sunny Nixon
C. Mott Woolley
Michael Yesley
July 13, 1981
Environmental Protection Agency
Central Docket Section
West Tower Lobby
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Docket No. A-79-25, Proposed Disposal Standards
for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites
Gentlemen:
Homestake Mining Company submits the following comments on EPA's
Proposed Disposal Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites ("Proposed
Standards"), 46 Federal Register 2556 (January 9, 1981). We support the
comments on the Proposed Standards that have been submitted on behalf of
Kerr-McGee Corporation, United Nuclear Corporation and, generally, the
American Mining Congress. Our comments supplement those comments.
The Proposed Standards are invalid because radon releases exceeding
the limit proposed for inactive uranium mill tailings sites do not pose a
significant health hazard, and because the costs to the government of achiev-
ing that limit are not justified by the meager health benefits that EPA
assumes will be gained thereby. In addition, the tremendous costs of comply-
ing with the proposed requirement that tailings be isolated for at least 1000
years solely by physical means cannot be justified, especially in view of the
simple institutional controls that would provide adequate protection. Finally,
the provisions relating to groundwater are unjustifiably stringent. In sum,
the Proposed Standards are unreasonable, arbitrary and unsupported.
Accordingly, EPA should withdraw the Proposed Standards and propose new
-------
1-8
1-8
w
i
00
standards that are reasonable in light of the extremely low risk posed by
uranium tailings at inactive sites.
I. Proposed Radon Emission Standards
A. Health Effects -- EPA has acknowledged that it lacks any epide-
miological data showing any health effects of uncovered uranium tailings on
nearby residents or the general population.1 Instead, EPA has based its
risk estimate on an assumption, the linear nonthreshold hypothesis, which is
inaccurate. See Comments of Kerr-McGee Corporation, pp. 8-9.
Professor R. D. Evans, Director Emeritus of the Radioactivity Center
and Consultant to Medical Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
recently testified that there is no scientific basis for a standard limiting
radon release from tailings to 2 pCi/m2-sec. Testimony of R. D. Evans
before the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, June 11, 1981
(attached as Appendix A), p. 37. In so testifying, Professor Evans noted
that epidemiological studies of populations exposed to much higher than
normal background radiation have found no adverse radiobiological effects
from such exposure.2 Id. pp. 13-15.
Studies of the effects of using uranium tailings as fill under dwellings
in Grand Junction, Colorado, have found no excess of lung cancer at
all and no exess of leukemia associated with houses built on tailings.
T. J. Mason et al., "Uranium Mill Tailings and Cancer Mortality in
Colorado," 49 Journal of the National Cancer Institute 661 (1972); M.
Cunningham et al., "Excess Cancer Incidence in Mesa County, Colo-
rado," NUREG/CR-0635 (Final Report Prepared for the Nuclear Regula-
tory Commission, 1979).
Among the studies cited by Professor Evans are the following, which
are attached as Appendix B: T. L. Cullen, "Dosimetric and cytogenetic
studies in Brazilian areas of high natural activity," 19 Health Physics
165 (1970); E. P. Franca et al., "Status of investigations in the
Brazilian areas of high natural radioactivity," 11 Health Physics 699
(1965); High Background Radiation Research Group, China, "Health
Survey in High Background Radiation Areas in China," 209 Science 877
(1980); A. P. Jacobson, P.A. Plato and N.A. Frigerio, "The Role of
Natural Radiations in Human Leukemogenesis," 66 American Journal of
Public Health 31 (1976); and R. J. Hickey et al., "Low-level ionizing
(Footnote 2 continued on next page)
B. Radon Dispersion. Professor Evans also noted that several
sampling studies at tailings sites have been unable to measure any radon
from tailings at distances beyond a quarter to a half-mile, and consequently
that model-based estimates of health effects on nearby residents are always
overestimated.3 Id., pp. 20-24. In addition. Professor Evans testified
that "the total radon released from all the inactive, unstabilized uranium
tailings piles is a minute fraction of the variations produced by meteorologi-
cal conditions and agriculture and the total radon released by natural pro-
cesses from all land areas." Id., p. 27. As an example of the relative
insignificance of radon from tailings. Professor Evans observed that a natural
change of 11 feet in the water level of the Great Salt Lake had cut off
several hundred square miles of land and thereby reduced the radon flux in
the vicinity of Salt Lake City by eight times as much as the radon flux from
the tailings site in that city. Id., p. 25.
In view of this evidence, radon emanation from uranium tailings at
several times the proposed limit of 2 pCi/W-sec. cannot be considered to pose
(Footnote 2 continued)
radiation and human mortality; multi-regional epidemiological studies,'
40 Health Physics 625 (1981). The Hickey study concludes that:
Extrapolation from high exposure levels to low exposure levels is
methodologically unsound. Reassessments of any hazards involved
with exposure to low-level ionizing radiation should be based on
ecologically realistic data acquired at the levels of concern without
extrapolation.
Our preliminary results suggest that adopting the nothreshold
hypothesis in the absence of strongly supportive observational data
at the actual exposure levels and levels of biological orgnization of
concern is a dubious procedure, (at p. 638).
The main study cited by Professor Evans is S. D. Shearer, Jr., and
C. W. Sill, "Evaluation of Atmospheric Radon in the Vicinity of Uranium
Mill Tailings," 17 Health Physics 77 (1969), attached as Appendix D to
the Comments of Kerr-McGee Corporation (supra).
-2-
-3-
-------
1-8
1-8
m
i
oo
a significant, or even a cognizable, health risk, and the linear nonthreshold
hypothesis should not be admitted as a basis for imposing such a limit. EPA
should propose a new, substantially higher limit based on epidemiological
data supporting a finding that radon release in excess of such limit would
pose a substantial health hazard.
C. Economic Considerations. Even if the linear nonthreshold assump-
tion is admitted arguendo, it produces an estimated risk of only two deaths
per year in the United States as a result of radon from tailings at inactive
sites. This is a minuscule risk - less than one in 100,000,000 - especially
when compared with the risks from the normal activities of everyday life.
See Comments of Kerr-McGee Corporation, pp. 3-6. A risk of this order
cannot justify a regulation that would cost $250 million, by EPA's estimate,
or close to $500 million, by the estimate of the Department of Energy
("DOE"). Testimony of Sheldon Meyers, Deputy Asst. Secretary, DOE,
before the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulations, Senate Committee on Envir-
onment and Public Works, June 16, 1981.
As an example of EPA's failure to justify the costs that would be im-
posed by the Proposed Standards, we note the following claims made by the
agency in its Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Remedial Action
Standards for Inactive Processing Sites ("Draft EIS"):
[R]educing an uncontrolled radon release rate of 450
pCi/m2-sec to 10 pCi/m2-sec would avert about 98% of
the potential effects of radon emitted from the uncon-
trolled pile, (page 6-5).
The proposed standard [of 2 pCi/m2-sec] typically would
reduce radon emissions and their possible effects by 99%.
(page 8-7).
[E]mission rates of [10 to 40 pCi/m2-sec] can be lowered
to 2 pCi/m2-sec for about 10 percent additional cost.
(pages 8-6, 7).
Taking these statements together, EPA is asserting that an additional one
percent of the potential effects of radon can be averted at a 10 percent
additional cost. Using figures supplied elsewhere in the Draft EIS, the
imposition of the Proposed Standard, instead of a standard of 10 to 40
pCi/m'-sec, will save two lives per century (1% of 200) at a cost of $25
million (10% of $250 million). Using the cost estimates of DOE [supra] and
industry (see Comments of American Mining Congress), the cost of avoiding
a hypothetical risk to two lives per century will be $50 million, even assum-
ing an extreme extension of the linear nonthreshold hypothesis. Clearly,
the cost of this additional protection is totally unjustified.
II. Longevity of Disposal Standards.
The requirement of the Proposed Standards that tailings must be con-
0
trolled by physical disposal methods that will last 1000 years is another
example of EPA's disregard of costs, even in the face of the agency's obser-
vation that longevity of physical controls is probably the main factor in
determining control costs. Draft EIS, p. 6-6. EPA has ignored economic
considerations in proposing the very costly 1000-year requirement (see
Comments of the American Mining Congress) and providing exceptions only in
the case of endangerment of public health or safety or absence of a known
remedial action to meet the requirement.
EPA claims that the 1000-year requirement meets the congressional
criterion that "the remedial action must be done right the first time." It
should be noted, however, that this criterion was not related to the elimina-
tion of long-term maintenance under sec. 203 of UMTRCA, but to the choice
-4-
-5-
-------
1-8
1-8
00
of technology by DOE in carrying out its remedial action program under sec.
108. See H.R. Report No. 95-7480(2) 40, reprinted in [ 1978] U.S. Code
Cong. & Ad. News 7467.
The tremendous cost of the 1000-year standard is due in large part to
EPA's insistence on physical disposal methods that will not require any
maintenance or monitoring during that period. EPA refuses to place any
reliance on such "institutional controls" or on land-use restrictions, even
though the tailings sites will be owned by the government. As justification
for this position, EPA cites its belief that institutional controls cannot be
relied upon for longer than one century. This is total speculation and
completely arbitrary. It assumes a failure of the government to comply with
UMTRAC. EPA is assuming the termination of government in the United
States within the next century, which would be a far more catastrophic
event than the exposure of the population to an assumed risk of two lives
per year. EPA's assumption leads into a morass of arbitrary speculation. If
the government is gone, there is no basis for population estimates, for
example. EPA has neither reason nor authority to assume the absence of
government control in carrying out its responsibility under legislation that
specifically establishes such control via ownership of the tailings sites. See
UMTRCA, sec. 104.
It appears that EPA has chosen the overly stringent standard of 2
pCi/m2-sec for radon release in part because of the agency's refusal to rely
on land-use restrictions. After admitting that a standard two or three times
higher would not affect persons offsite, EPA justifies its selection of the
lower standard on the ground that it would enable a "small community" to be
constructed on a tailings site. Draft EIS, pp. 8-5, 6. Since the govern-
ment will own the site, however, the simplest of institutional controls would
prevent such an occurrence. UMTRCA requires such controls, and EPA is
not authorized to speculate they will not be employed.
Given the extremely low risk posed by tailings, even as estimated by
EPA, and the relative ease and cost savings in the use of institutional con-
trols, EPA's 1000-year requirement, no less than the 2 pCi/mz-sec standard,
cannot be justified. EPA has ignored the directions of Congress to establish
acceptable levels and to initiate reasonable efforts. Instead the agency has
proposed to require a virtually risk-free environment, at tremendous cost to
the government. Clearly, such cost does not reflect a reasonable relation-
ship to the postulated benefits, and the Proposed Standards are therefore
invalid.
III. Groundwater Protection Standards.
A. Definition of Aquifer —
(1) The definition of aquifer is too broad. It is defined in a
geologic or hydrological sense, rather than in a sense directed to health or
use. For example, a geological formation may underlie thousands of square
miles, and may be tapped somewhere for drinking water. Unless it is used
in the immediate vicinity of the site, it should be ignored completely. If
seepage must travel substantial distances to the place of use, dilution,
absorption and other natural processes will result in any contamination being
innocuous. Thus, the definition of aquifer should be restricted to formations
actually used in the immediate vicinity of the site as a substantial human
drinking supply. Contaminants in ground water cannot cause harm except
where actually used.
(2) The definition of aquifer is too broad in that it includes
formations "capable"of yielding usable quantities of ground water to wells or
springs. There are many formations which are capable of such a yield, but
-6-
-7-
-------
1-8
1-8
S
are not actually used because of better formations, availability of surface
water, or other factors. It is unreasonable for the taxpayers to provide
very expensive protective measures for a formation capable of use, but
which is not used.
(3) The definition of aquifer is too broad in that it is not tied to
a year around permanent water supply for a significant population. The
standards used were developed for community water supplies, which consider
that people particularly sensitive to a particular contaminant will be included
in the population, and will use it for many years. Yet the definition would
apply to a ranch line camp with a well that is occasionally used by an adult
cowboy not particularly sensitive to a particular element, and most of whose
intake is from other sources. It is unreasonable for the taxpayers to pro-
vide very expenfive protection measures against such eventualities. Many of
the sites are in remote Western areas.
(4) The definition of aquifer is unreasonable in that it fails to
take into account that it may be far less expensive to provide a few users
with an alternate supply rather than protecting a particular source. For
example, state laws and regulations in New Mexico provide for exeptions to
standards if alternate supply arrangements are made.
(5) The definition of aquifer is unreasonable in that it fails to
take into consideration state law restrictions on use. For example, an aquifer
may be capable of supplying a water source for a substantial community, but
state law restrictions under impairments of prior appropriation may preclude
its use entirely, or preclude its use as a source for a substantial population.
The standards used were developed for use by substantial communities.
B. Definition of Underground Source of Drinking Water.
(1) The definition of underground source of drinking water is too
broad in that it is not limited to an actual supply for a large population.
The standards used were adopted with a large, continuous user population in
mind. See comment A.3 above.
(2) The definition of underground source of drinking water is
totally unreasonable in including aquifers containing up to 10,000 mg/l TDS.
It would be extremely rare for water containing 3,000 mg/l TDS to be used
by anyone, let alone a substantial, continuous population which was envision-
ed when the standards used were developed.
(3) The definition of underground source of drinking water is too
broad in that it does not tie the aquifer involved to actual use by a substan-
tial population in the immediate vicinity of the site. It is totally immaterial
that, for example, the Dakota formation is used in one part of the state, but
not near the site.
(4) The definition of underground source of drinking water is too
broad in that it is not tied to a continuous water supply for a substantial
population. The standards used were developed with such a situation in
mind.
(5) The definition of underground source of drinking water is
improper for the reasons given in comments above.
C. Definition of Surface Water.
(1) The definition of surface water is defective in that it is far
too broad for health purposes. The definition at 40 CFR 122.3(t) includes
many intermittent streams whose surface water is not used as a human drink-
ing source at all. EPA contends that even ephemeral arroyos are included
within the definition of 40 CFR 122.3(t). It is totally unreasonable to apply
-8-
-9-
-------
1-8
1-8
00
the standards where such surface water is not used for a water supply for a
substantial continuous human consumption. Further, dilution, absorption
and other factors will completely eliminate any health danger as contaminants
pass downstream.
(2) The definition of surface water is defective because the
definition at 40 CFR 122.3(t) was developed in connection with a system
applying BPT or BAT technological systems. Such a definition is not appro-
priate under UMTRAC, which is based upon health considerations.
D. Application of Stancards.
(1) The proposed regulations would prohibit any increase in the
concentration of a substance for which a standard is provided if the concen-
tration already exceeds the standard for other reasons. If in fact the stan-
dard is related to health, then EPA is arbitrary in assuming the water can
be used at all if the standard is already exceeded for other reasons. If the
standard is really related to health, then such water should not be protected.
There can be no justification for protection of water which is already unfit.
This would be true if c single standard is already exceeded. There is no
reasonable basis for a non-degradation standard for underground water.
(2) Application of the standards at an arbitrary point only 1.0
kilometer or 0.1 kilometer from, respectively, disposal sites or depository
sites is unreasonable and arbitrary. Underground water can cause no harm
except at a place of actual use. In many instances, a place of use does not
exist within the distances provided. The cost of reducing concentrations at
a shorter distance than the place of use may cost millions of dollars, with no
health benefits gained at all.
(3) The requirement that concentrations be controlled by point of
discharge is not proper. In many instances it will be far less expensive and
just as health effective to treat underground water at the place of use. If,
for example, a single rancher's well is affected at concentrations above the
standards, DOE should have the option of providing a simple treatment unit
at the rancher's well, rather than an enormously expensive control system at
the site of discharge.
(4) The proposed language for concentration in surface waters is
impermissibly vague, arbitrary and capricious. One cannot determine what
is meant by harmful, in terms of concentration, time or duration of concen-
tration or use, individual sensitivity, human or other use, combination with
diet, amount of use, and other factors relating to the subject. Unless the
discharge itself in combination with existing concentrations is harmful, there
is no reason to adopt a prohibition against increasing concentration.
(5) The proposed language for concentration in surface waters is
unreasonable in that it does not make allowance for the character of the
receiving water. The regulation should not restrict discharge, for example,
to ephemeral streams whose surface water will only exist in response to
precipitation events, and which are not used as a regular human drinking
water source on a continuous basis. Most intermittent streams in the West
are not used as a continuous drinking water source for significant popula-
tions. Because the regulation does not take into account the actual use of
the surface water, large sums of the national budget would be spent without
any health gains.
(6) The regulation for surface water is unreasonable because it
includes completely hypothetical future uses, which are totally speculative.
-10-
-11-
-------
1-8
1-8
(7) Limiting the concentrations to the proposed standards for any
underground source of drinking water is unreasonable because of the defini-
tion of underground source of drinking water.
(8) Use of the surface water definitions for NPDES permits is not
appropriate for UMTRAC. The NPDES system is not based upon reducing
adverse health effects, but requires limits on discharge even if the discharge
would not have adverse health effects. Further, the definition for NPDES
purposes itself is an unlawful definition, as it exceeds the authority granted
EPA for NPDES purposes. This is particularly true in the case of ephemeral
arroyos, a common occurrence in the West.
E. The Standards.
(1) The standards used are not appropriate considering the
definitions relating to water. The standards were developed with assumptions
concerning the variability in a substantial population of users, amount of
PJ
' use, sensitivity of users, duration of use by users, diet intake, and similar
O
factors. However, the proposed standards would be applied where those
assumptions do not in fact exist, and where there is nothing but speculation
that they ever could exist. The standards were further determined with
Certain assumptions regarding the ease, and cost of treatment in a distribu-
tion system, such as a city water supply treatment facility. These assump-
tions are not true when applied to a place of discharge, and under condi-
tions where a city water supply will almost never be involved.
(2) The standards used are not appropriate because they propose
concentration limits lower than are naturally found in many Western wells,
the use of which has been innocuous. For example, data indicates twenty-
nine New Mexico communities have at least one well exceeding the arsenic
standard, including Albuquerue, Clovis, Arteria, Espanola and Bernalillo.
This data shows six New Mexico communities have at least one well exceeding
the barium standard, including Las Cruces. The data showed five New
Mexico communities had at least one well exceeding the cadmium standard,
and that twenty-six communities in New Mexico had at least one well exceed-
ing the lead standard, including Las Cruces, Lordsburg, Hobbs, Gallup,
Portales, Santa Fe, Truth or Consequences, and Ruidoso. Many New Mexico
wells exceed the silenium standard. (Data source: New Mexico Public Water
Supplies Chemical Data, 1974, New Mexico Environmental Improvement
Agency.) This has not resulted in adverse health effects.
Radium.
The proposed standard for radium is unreasonable, arbitrary, capri-
cious, and not related to health protection. Dr. Robley Evans stated that
radium 226-228 is the most carefully studied dose to response relationship of
any toxin in man. Some midwestern towns have drinking water supplies
exceeding 30 pci/l. Elaborate epidemiological studies have revealed no dele-
terious health effects. In his opinion, a 30 pci/l level in drinking water is
innocuous to humans, animals and plants.
Dr. Evans submitted a statement of June 25, 1976, to the New Mexico
Water Quality Control Commission when it was considering a radium 226-228
standard. The New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission adopted a
standard of 30 pci/l. A copy of Dr. Evan's statement is submitted herewith,
along with his article. Radium In Man. 27 Health Physics 497 (1974) (Attach-
ment C).
Arsenic.
The arsenic standard of 0.05 mg/l is unduly restrictive, and a level of
0.10 mg/l (excluding pentavalent form) will result in complete health protec-
tion. «-»
-12-
-13-
-------
1-8
1-8
The National Academy of Sciences, in EPA document R3-73-033, March
1973, recommended a level of 0.10 mg/l. Since the pentavalent form is
harmless, it should be excluded from the calculation. The National Academy
of Sciences found that "[a]rsenic content in drinking water in most United
States supplies ranges up to approximately 0.1 mg/l. No adverse side
effects have been reported from ingestion of these waters." (p. 59).
A majority of the world's drinking water standards in recent years are
above the proposed standard. The average natural daily total intake of
arsenic ranges from 100 to 3000 micrograms. If the proposed standard is
used, a daily input from water of only 100 micrograms per day would result,
using conservative assumptions.
Selenium.
The proposed standard for selenium is too low, and is arbitrary, capri-
cious, unreasonable, and not based upon health considerations. Indeed, the
level is so low that it may be adverse to good health. There is no evidence
at all showing that selenium is harmful at much higher levels. The New
Mexico Water Control Commission, after expert testimony subject to cross-
examination, adopted a standard of 0.05 mg/l. Further, New Mexico's medi-
cal witness testified a standard of 0.10 mg/l would be safe.
Dr. Gerhard N. Schrauzer, Professor of Chemistry, University of
California, San Diego, supported a standard at least as high as 0.10 mg/l. A
copy of Dr. Schrauzer's written testimony is enclosed (Appendix D). About 114
wells out of 257 wells serving major communities in New Mexico exceeded the
proposed standard. Source: New Mexico Public Water Supplies Chemical Data,
1974, New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency.
Molybdenum
The proposed standard for molybdenum is not supported by evidence.
The Chappell study cited by EPA stated that a drinking water standard for
-14-
this element is not likely to be required, and the study shows no clinical
effects have been noted at much higher levels than that proposed.
Barium.
The proposed standard for barium is not supported by evidence as to
health effects. EPA sites fatal toxity at consumptive dose of 550 to 600
milligrams of barium chloride. This level of consumption does not support
the proposed standard of 1 mg/l, which even using conservative assump-
tions, would result in a consumptive dose of 2 milligrams. Almost no food
contains barium in an appreciable amount, so additive by diet is not signifi-
cant. See EPA Water Quality Criteria, 1972, p. 59. Barium sulfate can be
swallowed in enormous doses in an insoluable form without harm. Barium
does not accumulate in the body, as EPA has acknowledged. Even if one
consumed 100 liters of water per day, which is an impossibility, the dose
would be less than the minimum amount at which toxicity has been observed.
If the standard were increased to 5 mg/l, a very large safety factor would
be provided, even on the conservative assumption that 2 liters per day of
water were consumed from a single source.
Chromium
The regulations propose a standard of 0.05 mg/l, even though EPA
acknowledges lifetime exposure to laboratory animals to less than 5 mg/l in
drinking water caused no reported effects. There is a case in which a
family on Long Island used groundwater containing 20 times the proposed
standard for several years without apparent ill effects. See the testimony of
Dr. Victor Zalma, Director of the New Mexico State Health Agency, before
the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission, June 16, 1976, pp.
240-241, a copy of which is attached as Appendix E. Thus a standard of
0.10 mg/l would provide more than adequate health protection for this
-15-
-------
1-8 1-8
element which serves essential metabolic functions. ADDENDA
IV. General
page 2, footnote 1, Insert after the end of the footnote;
The applicability section states the proposed regulations are to apply
In addition, a study by the Colorado Health Department has found
"following any use of subsurface minerals at such a site. It is submitted
no excess of lung cancer in the region of Durango, Colorado. VII
this application is not authorized by UMTRAC, and there is not evidence or
Colorado Disease Bulletin No. 51 (Dec. 22, 1979) page 1.
reason justifying applicability for such a reason.
HOMESTAKE MINING COMPANY page 7, line 11. Insert after the word "invalid";
By BIGBEE, STEPHENSON, CARPENTER, Reliance on simple institutional controls during the period of
CROUT & OLMSTED
« _i_ concern will accomplish the same benefits at far lower costs.
By TS "^
-------
1-9
1-9
July 15, 1981
PI
I
BEFORE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Re: Proposed Disposal )
Standards for Inactive )
Uranium Processing Sites, )
46 Fed. Reg. 2556 )
(Jan. 9, 1981) )
Dkt. A-79-25
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS OF KERR-McGEE
CORPORATION AND KERR-McGEE NUCLEAR CORPORATION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ARPMI-V
JUL151981
CENTRAL DOCKET
ACTION
NOU23S
snnr
Peter J. Nickles
Charles H. Montange
Covington & Burling
888 Sixteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Attorneys for Kerr-McGee
Corporation and Kerr-McGee
Nuclear Corporation
SERvjr>-
OFFICIAL t
July 15, 1981
To: Environmental Protection Agency
Central Docket Section
West Tower Lobby
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Proposed Disposal Standards for
Inactive Uranium Processing Sites,
Dkt. A-79-25, 46 Fed. Reg. 2556
(Jan. 9, 1981)
These supplemental comments, filed on behalf of Kerr-
McGee Corporation and Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation (Kerr-
McGee) , are directed at the proposed disposal standards for
inactive uranium processing sites, 46 Fed. Reg. 2556, (Jan. 9,
1981). Kerr-McGee filed initial comments under cover dated
June 18.
1. The New Mexico Uranium Environmental Subcommittee
(UES) and Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation have recently filed a
preliminary statement with the New Mexico Environmental Improve-
ment Board (EIB) outlining their views concerning certain
salient features of the Uranium Mill Licensing Requirements
promulgated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In particu-
lar, the preliminary statement critiques NRC's 2 pCi/m -sec
radon emanation standard and three meter earth cover require-
ment. The views set forth in the statement apply with equal
force to EPA's proposed 2 pCi/m -sec radon standard and
1000-year control provision. The preliminary statement is
attached as Exhibit A and is hereby incorporated in these
Supplemental Comments.
-------
1-9 1-9
2. EPA's exclusive reliance on the linear non-threshold
hypothesis is inconsistent with pertinent epidemiological
studies. Such studies unanimously indicate that low-level
radiation such as that to which the public may be exposed EXHTBXT A
from inactive or active mill sites is not harmful and,
indeed, may be beneficial. See, e.g. , Hickey, et al. ,
Low Level Ionizing Radiation and Human Mortality: Multi-
Regional Epidemiological Studies, 40 Health Physics 625
(1981); Frigerio, et al., The Argonne Radiological Impact
Program (ARIP)-l. Carcinogenic Hazard from Low- Level, Low-
Rate Radiation* (Argonne Nat'l Lab. Report ANL/ES-26, Part 1)
(1973); High Background Radiation Research Group (China),
Health Survey In High Background Radiation Areas In China,
209 Science 877 (1980); Gopal-Ayengar, et al.. Evaluation of
the Long-Term Effects of High Background Radiation on Selected
Population Groups on the Kerala Coast in Peaceful Uses of
* Vtomic Energy, Vol. 11, Proc. 4th Int'l Conf. Peaceful Uses
!/
>f Atomic Energy, pp. 31-51 (1971).
Respectfully submitted,
Peter J. Nickles
Charles H. Montange
Covington & Burling
888 Sixteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Attorneys for Kerr-McGee
Corporation and Kerr-McGee
Nuclear Corporation
I/ Copies of the Frigerio and Gopal-Ayengar studies are
~ attached as Exhibits B and C respectively.
-------
1-9
1-9
EXHIBIT A
PI
I
VO
July 2, 1981
Mr. George H. Hensley
Chairman, Environmental Improvement Board
Crown Building
P. 0. Box 968
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503
Re: Regulation of Uranium Mill Tailings
Dear Chairman Hensley:
This letter is a preliminary statement of the views of the
New Mexico Uranium Environmental Subcommittee ("UES") and
Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation ("Kerr-McGee") concerning the
proposal pending before the New Mexico Environmental Improve-
ment Board ("EIB") to adopt additional regulations directed
against uranium mills and uranium mill tailings in the
State.—' The regulations under consideration emulate the
"Uranium Mill Licensing Requirements" promulgated by the NRC
at 45 Fed. Reg. 65521 (October 3, 1980). As you know, the
NRC has demanded that the EIB adopt these regulations in
order to retain regulatory jurisdiction over mill tailings
1. In compliance with your letter of June 24 to all the
parties to the mill tailings proceeding, the New Mexico
UES and Kerr-McGee intend to supply the Board with a
more extensive statement on or before August 1.
Chairman Hensley
July 2, 1981
Page 2
after November 8 of this year.— The New Mexico UES and
Kerr-McGee are opposed to the requirements specified in the
NRC regulations. Those requirements are totally unsupported.
They are not required to protect either the public or the
environment. They amount to regulation for regulation's
sake. Moreover, they pose a grave threat to the economic
feasibility of the uranium industry in New Mexico.
I. The NRC Regulations Are Totally Unsupported
Among the salient features of the NRC regulations are
the provisions relating to radon emanation. The NRC regulations
specify that radon emanation from tailings piles be restricted
to no greater than 2 pCi/m2-sec and that no less than three
2. NRC has asserted that Agreement State regulations
"should be at least equivalent to that of the federal
government. . . no later than November 8, 1981." NRC
Memorandum and Order dated May 26, 1981, relating to 40 Fed.
Reg. 65521. In a brief filed with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, NRC asserted that "it is
unreasonable to interpret [the Mill Tailings Act] as authorizing
the states independently to determine the extent to which
their implementation s of NRC Requirements would be practicable."
Respondents' Opposition to Motion for Stay in Kerr-McGee
Nuclear Corporation, et al. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
No 80-2043 at p. 27 (May 4, 1981). The New Mexico UES and
Kerr-McGee believe that NRC is flatly wrong in its assertion
that Agreement States may not diverge from NRC requirements
if those requirements are found impracticable within the
state. See 42 U.S.C. §2021(c)(2). (Agreement State need
conform to Federal standards only "to the extent practicable").
More fundamentally, the NRC requirements are totally invalid
(1) because they were adopted in advance of NRC standards in
express contravention of 42 U.S.C. §2021 (2) because NRC has
no record support for its requirements, and (3) because the
NRC requirements are unnecessary to protect the public
health or safety, or the environment.
-------
1-9
1-9
i
SO
Chairman Hensley
July 2, 1981
Page 3
meters of cover be placed over tailings piles for that
purpose.— These costly requirements, which are central to
the NRC regulations and are being proposed by NRC for adopt-
4/
ion by this Board,—' are totally unsupported.
NRC claims that these stringent restrictions are re-
quired to protect the public from alleged hazards from
exposure to radon, an inert, radioactive gas. However,
there is no discernible adverse human health effect from
exposure to radiation from radon emanating from mill tailings
piles. NRC frankly acknowledges that fact:
*
"We know of no data or studies which indicate
definitively that health effects do or do not
occur at the low levels of exposure that are
anticipated to result from operation of uranium
mills."5/
Even though NRC knows of no data indicating that health
effects occur at the low levels associated with uranium
milling, it postulates that some effects may occur on the
basis of the much criticized "linear non-theshold model."
This model assumes that because very high doses of radiation
cause health effects, there will be proportional effects at
low levels.
3. 45 Fed. Reg. 65534 (Criterion Six).
4. Proposed Appendix A to Part III of the New Mexico
Radiation Protection Regulations.
5. NRC, Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium
Milling A-35 (1980).
Chairman Hensley
July 2, 1981
Page 4
The linear non-threshold model is, however, an inaccurate
predictor of the effects of low-level radiation. Epidemio-
logical studies unanimously indicate that low-level radiation
does not cause any adverse health effects and may in fact be
beneficial, since people living in high-radiation areas have
a lower incidence of chronic diseases such as cancer than
people living in low-radiation areas.— Indeed, even NRC
admits that the "linear non-threshold" theory is of questionable
validity.-''
Even if one accepts the linear non-threshold theory,
the risk posed by radon from even totally unregulated tailings
piles is insignificant. By NRC's own calculation, it is
only about 2.9 in 210,000,000 or about 1 in 70,000,000 for
01
three times the number of mills now in existence.—
6. See, e.g., Testimony of Professor Robley Evans before
the New Mexico EIB at 14-14, citing Rickey, et al., Low
Level Ionizing Radiation and Human Mortality: Multi-
Regignal Epidemiological Studies, 40 Health Physics 625
(1981); Frigerio, et al, The Argonne Radiological Impact
Program (AHIP)-l. Carcinogenic HazarT'from Low^Teyel, Low-
rate Radiation (Argonne Nat 1 Lab. Report ANL/ES-26, Part 1)
(1973TISee also High Background Radiation Research Group
(China), HealthSurvey in High Background Radiation on Selected
Population Groups on tKe" Kerala Coast In Peaceful Uses of
Atomic Energy, vol. IT, Proc. Zfth int.~C~onf. Peaceful Uses
of Atomic Energy pp. 31-51 (1971).
7. GEIS at U-4 ("presently available epidemiological data
no not conclusively rule out the possibility of zero effects
at the individual low doses and dose rates involved here...").
See also In the Matter of Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear
3tation, Units 1, 2 and 3), 8 NRC 87, (1975-78 Transfer
Binder) Nuclear Reg. Rep. (CCH) 130,312 at p. 28669 (July
14, 1978).
8. See GEIS at 19.
-------
1-9
Chairman Hensley
July 2, 1981
Page 5
NRC has elsewhere explained that risks of this order
of magnitude are "about equal" to the risks posed by "a few
puffs on a cigarette, a few sips of wine, driving the family
car about 6 blocks, flying about 2 miles, canoeing for 3
seconds, or being a man age 60 for 11 seconds."—' It is
much less than many risks commenly and ordinarily accepted
in our society.—' NRC's low estimate in fact overstates the
risk"even under the linear non-threshold model. Professor
Robley Evans, joined by prominent experts from EPA and the
Department of Energy, as well as from Germany, England and
Canada, recently published a study indicating that the risk
from radon can be no greater than one-third that employed by
,,,
NRG per unit of exposure and may in fact be zero.—'
Moreover, NRC's risk estimates are based on a model which
hypothesizes increased exposure to radon more than one-half
mile from a tailings pile. However, n£ increased levels of
radon have ever been detected more than about one-half mile
127
from a tailings pile.—
9. 46 Fed. Reg. 15167 (March 4, 1981).
10. OSHA Testimony of Prof. Richard Wilson, contained in
Hutt, Unresolved Issues in the Conflict Between Traditional
Freedom and Government-Control of Food".
11. Evans, et al, Estimate of Risk From Environmental
Exposure to Radon-222 and Tts Decay Products, 390 Nature 98
(March 12, 1381).ETR"C's regulations take no account of this
recent study.
12. Shearer & Sill, Evaluation of Atomspheric Radon in the
Vicinity of Uranium Mill Tailings, 17 Health Physics 77
(1969) (concludes that "[t]he results indicate negligible
radiation exposure of the surrounding population...").
1-9
Chairman Hensley
July 2, 1981
Page 6
As professor Evans testified, NRC's erroneous estimate
for risk per unit of exposure and NRC's modelling errors
alone result in an overstatement by NRC of the maximum risks
posed by radon from tailings by at least a factor of ten.—'
Thus, the actual risk from unregulated tailings can be no
greater than about 1 in 700,000,000, again for three times
the number of mills extant. Even this maximum risk figure
is unduly high, because mill tailings are vigorously regulated
by New Mexico nad have been for years.
NRC's 2 pCi/m2-sec standard, as explained by Professor
Evans, can therefore not be rationalized on the basis of
14/
risk to the public.— The only rationale remaining to NRC
for its stringent requirements is that the agency wants to
cover the piles so they will remain covered for "thousands
of years."— NRC argues that such stringent and unprecedented
controls are required because "institutional controls" —
i.e., the government -- may fail and tailings sites may be
occupied and used for housing.—' NRC's rationale is funda-
mentally inconsistent with the concept of a national government
13. Testimony of Professor Robley Evans before the New
Mexico EIB at 33.
14. Testimony of Professor Robley Evans at 33.
15. 45 Fed. Reg. 54433 (Criterion One).
16. Draft GEIS at 12-10.
-------
1-9
1-9
t
v£>
00
Chairman Hensley
July 2, 1981
Page 7
and the firmly established principle that the United States
is a Union of States established for perpetuity.—' NRC's
rationale is also inconsistent with the provision in the
Mill Tailings Act for government control of tailings sites —
a provision which necessarily presumes that our government
will endure and that it can prevent people from building on
top of tailings piles.— /
Professor Evans remarks on NRC's proposal aptly summarize
the lack of rationale supporting NRC's position.
"I know of no scientific basis for the proposed
two pico curies of radon per square meter per second.
Such a standard would involve substantially more expense
and more possibility of serious harm to workers and the
general public due to hazards of moving large amounts
of earth. And with the provisions in [the Mill Tailings
Act] for federal custody of disposal sites after completion
of remedial action, it would seem that a small buffer
zone landscaped but without houses around a stabilized
pile, would more than suffice for radiological safety.
"There could be public parks. They could be
football fields, playgrounds, baseball, tennis —just
don't dig holes in them." 19/
Dr. Evans' testimony stands unrebutted in this proceeding.
Consistent with that testimony, as supported by Dr. Schiager
17. As Chief Justice Marshall explained in Marbury v.
Madison 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), our Constitution is
"designed to be permanent." President Lincoln led the
Nation through a Civil War to confirm this principle. As
Lincoln declared, "the Union of these States is perpetual.
Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental
law of all national governments." IV Collected Works of
Abraham Lincoln 264 (R.P. Basler, ed.
18. See 42 U.S.C. J2113(b)(2) & (3).
19. Testimony of Professor Evans at 37.
Chairman Hensley
July 2, 1981
Page 8
and other witnesses (including the NRC witnesses themselves),
this Board is compelled to conclude that tailings piles do
not pose a significant health risk due to radon. Accordingly,
cover requirements should be designed with the primary aim
of controlling the dust nuisance posed by the piles and to
prevent undue erosion.—f The New Mexico UES and Kerr-McGee
believe that this may readily be accompished by proper
sloping and about two-feet of appropriate cover. This
amount of cover, incidentally, will reduce radon emanation
from the piles by a factor of two to ten and reduce gamma
radiation essentially to zero. NRC's concern for longevity
of controls can be readily addressed through New Mexico's
Continual Care Fund and the Mill Tailings Act requirements
for government ownership and control. This approach suggested
by Professor Evans, the UES, and Kerr-McGee will be far less
costly and far more practicable than the proposals of NRC
and it in fact will fully protect the public health and
safety, and the environment, even from the hypothetical
risks vexing NRC.
There are many other unreasonable aspects to the regulations
proposed by NRC for adoption here. For example, NRC proposes
to require all companies to make arrangements with third
parties, such as bonding companies, to assure compliance
with the stringent Urnaium Mill Licensing Requirements. NRC
20. See, e.g. id. at 43.
-------
1-9
1-9
ro
t
VO
Chairman Hensley
July 2, 1981
Page 9
expressly forbids reliance on self-insurance. This bar on
self-insurance is totally unsupported by the record. Third-
party arrangements such as bonds are simply unavailable or
unavailable at reasonable costs for the type of liability
involved here. Moreover, various self-insurance mechanisms
will supply assurance of performance of reclamation obligations
equivalent to third-party arrangements and at less expense.
II. NRC's Proposed Requirements Are Economically
Infeasible and Impracticable
NRC's Uranium Mill Licensing Requirements are totally
unreasonable when judged by the costs to comply — if compliance
is possible at any reaonable price. Indeed, the proposed
regulations seriously endanger uranium mining and milling in
New Mexico and could result in curtailment and closure of
additional milling and mining operations.
According to NRC, the cost of complying with their
tailings stabilization requirements alone is — as best we
can determine — between $760 million and $1.5 billion.
Since half the uranium in the United States is produced in
this State, this means that New Mexico alone will sustain
about $400 million to $800 million in costs for one aspect
of NRC's requirements alone by the agency's own admission.
The New Mexico UES and Kerr-McGee believe that NRC's cost
figure is grossly underestimated.
NRC appears to assert that the cost to comply with
cover requirements will be only about four or five million
Chairman Hensley
July 2, 1981
Page 10
dollars per mill. This ts wrong. NRC's "prime option" is
below grade disposal. This requirement, applicable to both
new and existing mills, doubles the cost according to NRC.
Moreover, moving existing piles to comply with the below-
grade requirement will be extremely expensive — ten times
or more NRC's estimates. Kerr-McGee roughly estimates that
the cost to comply at its Ambrosia Lake facility will run
from about $20,000,000 to $100,000,000 or more. Another
indication of the excessive cost may be derived from the
latest Department of Energy (DOE) estimates for reclamation
of inactive sites. DOE estimates that it will cost about a
half billion dollars to comply with EPA and NRC requirements
at the approximately 1000 acres of inactive sites. This
amounts to $500,000 per acre.
It is no secret that many newly licensed mills are not
proceeding with construction activities, including mills
within this state (e.g.. Gulf). Moreover, mills that have
been constructed are not in operation (Bokum). Existing
mills have cut back or suspended operations (e.g.. Sohio and
Homestake Mining). The New Mexico uranium industry, which
is characterized by older and larger facilities than is the
case in other states, is in no position to bear the additional
burden of costly new regulations which are without rationale
and are totally unnecessary to protect the public health and
safety or the environment. In light of the above, it is
clear that implementation of the requirements proposed by
-------
1-9
1-10
o
o
Chairman Hensley
July 2, 1981
Page 11
NRC will have a very serious economic impact and may result in
further reduction in capacity, further stagnation of the
domestic uranium industry, and further loss of employment and
tax revenues to the State.
The UES and Kerr-McGee intend to file more detailed
comments addressing the concerns outlined above as well as
many other aspects of the NRC regulations proposed for
adoption here. Industry believes that the NRC regulations
are unsupported, inconsistent with the evidence, unduly
stringent, and wholly impracticable for adoption by the
Board for this State. While we acknowledge the desireability
and importance of reasonable regulations for our industry, we
firmly believe that the regulations proposed by NRC are simpler
unacceptable, arbitrary, and unnecessary.
Respectfully submitted,
William J. Shelley/ ?
Vice President of Nuclear Licensing
and Regulations, Kerr-McGee Nuclear
AMERICAN
COMORESS
POUMXO 1887
SUITE 300
1920 N STREET NW
WASHNSTON
DC 20036
202/BB1-2BOO
TWX710'822.0128
John A. Love
**•>£. Baley
aeon* B. Minn
Dnid M. Rakri*
N.T. Cmicm
J. Afcn Ovenon. Jr.
Henry I. Dwonhak
Edward E. Kennedy, Acting Chairman
Uranium Environmental Subcommittee
CJ. Poner. IndUn. Pi
•NT. CunidJ, Gran™*
•Gear B. Mum No Y«k
Rotal H. Atai. Houra
Sue* Bute. Jr., Leaven. Ky.
P. MibEtmofT. New York
•OrtF. Berber. f*w York
Bun Hoyi HI. deveand
Ou Bnnm. Jr.. Oevdend
•John C. Duron, New York
•JohDA.Love.Dnva
Hotel W. Hutlon. Cronwdi
E.B. LefeenriKj. Jr., PhUiddph"
George E. ATwood. Tuaan
•Ritph E. DBky. Sumford
Pml W. DoudB, New York
F.C Kroft, Jr.. New York
KJE. McBhmn. Ptotuili
John J. Dwyer. Ckvdnd
Smud K. Son* denlnl
Noraun J. TtavU, Lot Am*.
JmvaW. WJcock.Pirobinh
Itonu A. Halms. Wooddift Like. NJ.
•Pierre CouadnL Cnenwich
Nek W. Sulhrim. Sik Uke Oty
AJU Wbon, Sen Fnncko
Ratal H. Quenon. S. Louis
Ritph F. Q». Denver
Hwnui D. Barrow. SUmrord
Fnnk A. McPhenon, OkUnra Cky
W A. Grtmh, WiDnoc. Id.
Rctet F. Anoenon. Oevetad
•Olvin A. Cfenpbdl, Jr.. Oikw>
Hmy M. Conjer. S» faaaaa
HKjh W. Evn, Qiiiip
Rotel M. McCtan. B
KOmi C. MSto. Jr.,
W^ker E. Oaermnn. Jr.. CMcland
•Dml M. Roderick, t
WfcnM. Tn,
Ridmond B. Cnbmh. Hita
tUnmond E. S*«i. R. Lukntale
tHotai C Jneknn. Ondend
Ibn MuGreior, Greenwidi
July 15, 1981
The Honorable Anne M. Gorsuch RECEIVED
Administrator cNVIRONriENTM. PROTECTION
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency AGENCY
401 M Street, S.W. c .„.
Washington, D.C. 20460 JUL 6 •> 1WJI
Dear Madam Administrator:
CENTRAL DOCKET
SECTION
Re: Proposed Clean-up and Disposal
Standards for Inactive Uranium
Processing Sites
(46 Federal Register, January 9, 1981)
Docket Ho. A-79-25
Enclosed are comments of the American Mining
Congress (AMC) on the Environmental Protection Agency'
Proposed Clean-up and Disposal Standards for Inactive
Uranium Processing Sites.
The American Mining Congress is-a trade
association founded in 1897. Its membership is
composed of over 500 U.S. companies that produce
most of the nation's metals, coal and industrial
and agricultural minerals; companies that manu-
facture mining and mineral processing machinery,
equipment and supplies; and engineering and
contracting companies and banks that serve the
mining industry. The membership includes the
producers and processors of nearly all uranium
in this country.
We hope that these comments will be helpful
in preparing final remedial action standards for
inactive uranium processing sites. If you have any
questions with respect to our comments or if you
have need of additional information, please address
your requests to me.
Sincerely,
Senior Counsel
-------
1-10
1-10
BEFORE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
AMC Comments On EPA's Proposed Cleanup And Disposal Standards For
Inactive Uranium Processing Sites
Docket No. A-79-25
I
t->
o
IN RE PROPOSED CLEANUP AND DISPOSAL STANDARDS
FOR INACTIVE URANIUM PROCESSING SITES
(46 Fed. Reg. 2556, January 9, 1981)
Comments Of The
AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS
July 15, 1981
General Comments
A. EPA's Cleanup And Disposal Standards Must Be
Predicated On A Finding Of Significant Risk To Public
Health And Safety
B.
EPA Must Weigh The Benefits Of Its Proposed Cleanup And
Disposal Standards Against The Cost Of Compliance
1.
2.
Executive Order 12291 Requires EPA To Balance
The Benefits And Costs Of The Proposed Standards . .
Preparation Of A Cost-Benefit Analysis On the
Proposed Standards Is Otherwise Required By Law . . .
C. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement Supporting
The Proposed Cleanup And Disposal Standards Fails To
Comply With The National Environmental Policy Act .
II. Specific Comments
A. The Requirement That The Disposal Standards Be Met
For At Least One Thousand Years Is Unreasonable . .
B.
The Radon Emanation Rate Cannot Be Justified
1. The Radon Emanation Standard Must Be Predicated
On A Finding Of Significant Risk To Public Health
Or Safety
2.
3.
4.
EPA's Radon Standard Is Not Rationally Related To
The Potential Reduction In Risk
EPA Substantially Overestimated The Risk From
Radon Exposure
The Costs Of Achieving The Proposed Radon Standard
Far Exceed The Possible Benefits
C.
D.
The Proposed Water Standards Are Unreasonable ....
The Proposed Radium In Soils Standard Is Unreasonable.
1.
2.
The Proposed Standard Is Based On An
Erroneous Assumption
The Proposed Radon Standard Is Not Capable Of
Practical Implementation
8
10
10
11
11
14
17
18
20
22
22
24
-------
1-10
1-10
E.
F.
The Proposed Indoor Radon Concentration Standard
Cannot Be Rationally Justified
The Costs Of Compliance With The Proposed Standards
Are Inadequately Considered
Conclusion
26
27
30
W
I
O
ro
AMC COMMENTS ON EPA'S PROPOSED CLEANUP
AND DISPOSAL STANDARDS FOR INACTIVE
URANIUM PROCESSING SITES
On April 22, 1980, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published proposed
standards for the cleanup of open lands and buildings contaminated with residual
radioactive materials from inactive uranium processing sites (45 Fed. Reg. 27370).
These standards were made immediately effective pending public review and promulgation
of final standaros (45 Fed. Reg. 27366, April 22, 1981). Thereafter, on January 9,
1981, EPA published proposed standards for the disposal of residual radioactive materials
from inactive uranium processing sites (46 Fed. Reg. 2556). * Simultaneously, the
comment period for the cleanup standards was extended to coincide with that for the
disposal standards. The public comment period for these standards now concludes on
July 15, 1981.
The American Mining Congress (AMC) is an industry trade association whose
membership includes producers of most of America's metals, coal, industrial and
agricultural minerals; manufacturers of mining and mineral processing machinery
equipment and supplies; and financial institutions that serve this industry. AMC's
membership includes companies that mine and process a large portion of the Nation's
uranium.
AMC and its uranium producing members have a substantial interest in the
proposed standards, because of the potential connection between the proposed standards
and future standards for active uranium processing sites under Section 206(a) of the
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Public Law 95-604, 92 Stat. 3039,
42 U.S.C. S2022(b). Accordingly, AMC submits these comments on the proposed cleanup
and disposal standards and on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Remedial
1 Hereafter the two sets of standards will be referred to as "cleanup standards" and
"disposal standards", respectively.
-------
1-10
1-10
o
CO
- 2 -
Action Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing sites (40 CFR 192) (hereinafter DEIS)
issued in support of the proposed standards.
L GENERAL COMMENTS
A. EPA'S CLEANUP AND DISPOSAL STANDARDS MUST BE PREDICATED ON
A FINDING OF SIGNIFICANT RISK TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
In Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, 448
U.S. 607 (1980) (hereinafter cited as Benzene), the Supreme Court invalidated an
occupational safety and health standard for benzene promulgated by the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA had attempted to lower its benzene
standard from ten to one part per million (ppm) of air without any showing that exposure
at 10 ppm presented a significant risk of harm. OSHA had based the new standard on
a policy assumption — that no safe threshold level of exposure exists for carcinogens
in the absence of clear proof establishing such a level. On this basis, the agency set
the standard at the lowest level it considered feasible. Relying primarily on Section
3(8) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act),2 the Supreme Court held
that policy assumptions alone are an insufficient substitute for a finding of significant
risk:
[Bjefore he can promulgate any permanent health or safety
standard, the Secretary is required to make a threshold finding
that a place of employment is unsafe — in the sense that
significant risks are present and can be eliminated or lessened
by a change in practices.
448 U.S. at 642 (emphasis added). Central to the Court's decision was its determination
that Congress was concerned "not with absolute safety, but with the elimination of
significant harm." Id. at 646.
Similarly, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation
Control Act of 1978 were designed to protect the public from significant risks, not to
- 3 -
provide absolute safety. Under the Atomic Energy Act, federal regulatory authority
is limited to situations where it is "necessary or desirable ... to protect health or
to minimize danger to life or property." 42 U.S.C. $2201(b) (1976). In the Mill Tailings
Act, Congress first found that mill tailings "may" pose a "potential" and "significant"
radiation health hazard. 42 U.S.C. S7901 (Supp. HI 1979). This finding indicates that
the regulatory agencies were required to identify areas of significant risk, if any. If
the agencies identified any significant risk, "reasonable" efforts should be made to
"prevent or minimize" radon diffusion and other potential environmental hazards. Id.
The use of terms such as "significant" hazard, "reasonable" effort, and "prevent or
minimize" radon diffusion in the Mill Tailings Act, demonstrates that Congress intended
a reasonable, balanced implementation of the statute to reduce significant risks.
To constitute a significant risk and, therefore, justify regulation, an emissions
source "must make more than a minimal contribution to total exposure" to a particular
pollutant. Ethyl Corporation v. EPA, 541 F.2d 1, 31 n.62 (D.C. Cir.), cert, denied, 426
U.S. 941 (1976) (emphasis added). ' Indeed, the source to be regulated must contribute
"a significant increment to the total human [exposure] burden" of a particular pollutant.
Id. at n.63.
In view of the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and the Mill Tailings
Act, EPA must — under the reasoning of Benzene and Ethyl — affirmatively find that
uranium mill tailings present significant risks to public health and safety and to the
environment, before finalizing inactive uranium site standards. Moreover, under the
reasoning of Benzene and Ethyl, EPA must also establish that its proposed standards
will result in a meaningful reduction of such risks to public health and safety. EPA
has made no such findings with respect to the risks associated with mfll tailing at
2 Section 3(8) requires that occupational safety and health standards be "reasonably
necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of
employment." 29 U.S.C. §652(8).
3 In Ethyl, the Court interpreted language in the Clean Air Act granting EPA authority
to regulate gasoline additives that "will endanger the public health or welfare . . . ."
42 U.S.C. S1857(f) (1976). The Court held that "will endanger" meant "presents a
significant risk of harm." 541 F.2d at 13.
-------
1-10
1-10
I
I—"
?
- 4 -
inactive sites. Instead, EPA assumes as a matter of policy that any risk that may be
associated with mill tailings is unacceptable. On this policy assumption, EPA's standards
"virtually eliminate all the potential hazards" (DEIS at 8-7 and 8-8) and return disposal
sites to the agency's concept of "natural" conditions (DEIS at 8-4). However, as Benzene
makes clear, policy assumptions are insufficient substitutes for the required finding of
significant risk 448 U.S. at 634-652. * Until it has made a finding of significant risk,
EPA may not proceed to finalize these proposed standards.
B.
EPA MUST WEIGH THE BENEFITS OF ITS PROPOSED CLEANUP AND
DISPOSAL STANDARDS AGAINST THE COST OF COMPLIANCE
1.
Executive Order 12291 Requires EPA To Balance The
Benefits And Costs Of The Proposed Standards.
Prior to issuing cleanup and disposal standards for inactive uranium processing
sites, EPA must conduct a rigorous cost-benefit analysis on its proposal, consistent with
»
the requirements of Executive Order 12291 (46 Fed. Reg. 13193* February 19, 1981).
Under Section 2 of this Executive Order, EPA must in issuing any regulation:
0 Proceed only on adequate information
concerning the need for and the consequences
of proposed government action;
0 Act only where the potential benefits to
society from the regulation outweigh the
potential costs to society; and
* o Choose the regulatory "alternative involving
the least net cost to society."
* Recently, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding in Benzene that OSHA can
regulate risks only in cases where it has made a finding of significant risk. American
Textile Manufacturers' Institute, Inc. v. Donovan (Cotton Dust), 49 U.S.L.W. 4720
(June 17, 1981). There, the Court found that OSHA had fulfilled the significant risk
requirement. The Court noted that OSHA had deleted those assumptions of its carcinogen
policy which required the "automatic setting of the lowest feasible level" without regard
to a determination of significant risk. 49 U.S.L.W. at 4724 (citation omitted). EPA in
this proposal relies on the linear non-threshold theory for its conclusion that some
health effects will occur at any exposure level. EPA also assumes that any health
effect is significant. After Benzene and Cotton Dust, the linear non-threshold theory
and this policy assumption cannot serve as a basis for regulatory action. A supported
finding of significant risk is required.
- 5 -
EPA has failed to comply with these requirements in issuing the proposed standards.
As developed in AMC's specific comments, EPA's proposed cleanup and disposal standards
violate each of these mandates.
Additionally, in the case of a "major rule", 5 EPA must prepare a detailed
regulatory impact analysis consistent with the requirements of Section 3 of the Executive
Order. In view of the potential costs of compliance with the standards, which the
Department of Energy (DOE) estimates to be in excess of $500 million and which AMC
estimates to be about $1 billion (See discussion infra at 27-30), the proposed standards
constitute a "major rule" as defined in Section 1 of the Executive Order. Therefore,
EPA must prepare a regulatory impact analysis with the required rigorous cost-benefit
analysis before proceeding to issue final cleanup and disposal standards for inactive
uranium processing sites.
2. Preparation Of A Cost-Benefit Analysis On The
Proposed Standards Is Otherwise Required By Law
Preparation of a cost benefit analysis on the proposed cleanup and disposal
standards is required by the Mill Tailings Act. In that Act, Congress recognized the
need for a balancing process in regulatory decision-making. While also recognizing the
need for an effective regulatory program to control the disposal of mill tailings, Congress
provided for a balanced decision-making process. Section 2 provides "that every
reasonable effort be made to provide for the stabilization, disposal, and control in a
safe and environmentally sound manner of [mill] tailings . . . ." 42 U.S.C. S7901(a)
(Supp. m 1979). By using the term "reasonable effort," Congress intended benefits and
costs to be balanced in the development of any regulations.
5 Under Section l(b), of the Executive Order, a "major rule" includes any regulation
that is likely to result in (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal,
State, or local government agencies; or geographic regions. (46 Fed. Reg. 13193,
Feb. 19, 1981)
-------
1-10
1-10
p)
I
- 6 -
The courts have construed such language as requiring balancing of the benefits
against the costs of regulations. For example, the section of the Natonal Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act providing for the adoption of "reasonable, practicable and
appropriate" traffic safety standards, has been construed to require the Secretary of
Transportation to "identifty] some of the costs associated with the proposal and
[determine] that these costs are overridden by reasonably predictable benefit." H & H
Tire Co. v. Department of Transportation, 471 F.2d 350, 356-57 (7th Cir. 1972). (Stevens,
J., concurring opinion adopted by the court) (footnotes omitted). 6
Most recently, the Supreme Court has indicated that such language may require
a balancing of benefits and cost. American Textile Manufacturers Inst. v. Donovan,
No. 79-1479, 49 U.S.L.W. 4720 (June 17, 1981). In Cotton Dust, the Supreme Court
held that Section 6(b)(5) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. §655(6)(b)(5) (1976), does not require
cost-benefit analysis in setting standards governing toxic materials or harmful physical
agents. By comparison, however, the Court stated that other language in Section 3(8)
of the OSH Act 29 U.S.C. §652(8) (1976), could require a balancing of benefits and
costs for standards not covered by Section 6(b)(5). The Court stated: "the phrase
'reasonably necessary or appropriate' [as used in Section 3(8)] could standing alone be
construed to require some balancing of the costs and benefits of a standard." Id. at 4726.
Likewise, a balancing of costs and benefits is consistent with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et^ seq. NEPA requires that the
benefits to be achieved by a proposed regulatory action be balanced against the costs
of the action. For example, Section 101 sets forth the policy that federal agencies
6 Similarly, courts have construed provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Act
authorizing the adoption of rules "reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce an
unreasonable risk of injury", 15 U.S.C. S2058(c)(2)(A) (1976), as requiring the agency to
assess the expected benefits in light of the burdens to be imposed by the standard.
Aqua Slide 'N' Dive Corp. v. CPSC, 569 F.2d 831 (5th Cir. 1978); accord, D. D. Bean
& Sons v. CPSC, 574 F.2d 643, 649 (1st Cir. 1978).
- 7 -
"use all practicable means and measures ... in a manner calculated to foster and
promote the general welfare . . . and to fulfill the social, economic and other
requirements of present and future generations of Americans." 42 U.S.C. S4331(a)
(1976) (emphasis added). The need for balancing these factors is emphasized in the
Act's requirement that the federal government "assure for all Americans safe, healthful,
productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings . . . and achieve a
balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living
and a wide sharing of life's amenities." 42 U.S.C. §4331(b) (1976) (emphasis added).
Interpreting these provisions of NEPA, some courts have stated that NEPA
requires a "systematic" or "broadly defined" balancing of costs and benefits for major
federal actions. Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee v. AEC, 449 F.2d 1009, 1113
(D.C. Cir. 1971); County of Suffolk v. Secretary of Interior, 562 F.2d 1368, 1384 (2d
Cir. 1977), cert, denied, 434 U.S. 1064 (1978). While it is clear that NEPA does not
always require a fully monetized consideration of costs and benefits, these factors must
be balanced. Sierra Club v. Stamm, 507 F.2d 788, 794 (10th Cir. 1974). See also
Environmental Defense Fund v. Corp of Engineers, 492 F.2d 1123, 1133-1134 (5th Cir.
1974).
Indeed, where there is no evidence of actual risk to public health and safety
from the low levels of radiation associated with mill tailings and where the agency
has relied solely on the "linear non-threshold theory," the requirement of reasoned
rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act mandates a balancing of costs and
benefits. EPA has recognized this conclusion in promulgating its radiation protection
standards for nuclear fuel cycle operations:
Since potential effects from radiation exposure are assumed to
occur at any level of exposure, it is not possible to specify
solely on a health basis an acceptable level of radiation exposure
-------
1-10
1-10
PI
I
- 8 -
for either individuals or populations; it is necessary to balance
the health risks associated with any level of exposure against
the costs of achieving that level.
The agency has selected the cost-effectiveness approach as that
best designed to strike a balance between the need to reduce
health risks to the general population and the need for nuclear
power. Such a balance is necessary in part because there is
no sure way to guarantee absolute protection of public health
from the effects of a nonthreshold pollutant, such as radiation,
other than by prohibiting outright any emissions. The Agency
believes that such a course would not be in the best interests
of society.
40 Fed. Reg. 23420, 23421 (May 29, 1975) (emphasis added).
In this same regard, then Administrator Russel Train stated that EPA:
. . . cannot and should not set [radiation protection] standaids
without such consideration for two reasons: 1) [because] it is
prudent to assume that there is no threshold level for radiation
effects in setting standards, that is, risk is proportional to dose
all the way down to zero dose. Since there is no safe level
of radiation [exposure], there is no logical way to set radiation
standards other than to balance risks against costs of control;
and 2) the nuclear industry is too important, to the nation's
future power supply to ignore cost and technology consider-
ations.
Train Memorandum of October 19, 1973, to the President (emphasis added).
In summary, EPA must prepare a rigorous cost-benefit analysis before proceeding
with its proposed clean-up and disposal standards.
C. THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUPPORTING THE
PROPOSED CLEANUP AND DISPOSAL STANDARDS FAILS TO COMPLY
WITH THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 83 Stat. 852,
42 D.S.C. S4332(2)(C) directs federal agencies "to the fullest extent possible" to
include in every recommendation or report on proposals for
legislation and other major Federal actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed
statement by the responsible official on —
- 9 -
(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action,
(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot
be avoided should the proposal be implemented,
(iii) alternatives to the proposed action,
(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of
man's environment and the maintenance and
enhancement of long-term productivity, and
(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
resources which would be involved in the proposed
action should it be implemented.
EPA's DEIS fails to meet the requirements of Section 102(2)(C).
Compliance with EPA's standards will have unavoidable adverse environmental
effects. However, EPA has made litUe, if any, attempt to consider such effects.
To implement the standards, considerable stripping of land to provide necessary
cover material will be unavoidable. In the arid west, where all but one of the inactive
sites are located, the stripping of land has significant environmental consequences. No
consideration is given in the DEIS to such direct effects of implementing the standards.
* Further, remedial action will result in unavoidable health and safety effects. By
disturbing any earth, including tailings, radon is released. No consideration is given to
the potential exposure risks to the public and workers that would result from disturbing
and moving tailings. Such risks should be compared to the potential risks from
uncontrolled tailings and tailings that are controlled in place. In addition, earthwork
and trucking activities involve substantial actual risks. According to DOE, the remedial
action program at Salt Lake City alone will result in 5 fatalities and 62 injuries among
the cleanup workers. EPA makes no serious attempt to evaluate such actual risks to
workers and the public. EPA dismisses such risks as temporary and negligible (DEB at
6-10). Since statistics for these actual risks are readily available from other government
agencies, such actual risks of implementing the remedial action program should be
compared to the hypothetical risks that could be avoided by its implementation.
-------
1-10
1-10
PI
I
- 10 -
In the local communities, where the inactive sites are located, implementation
could have substantial socioeconomie impacts. No evaluation of "boom-town" effects
of implementation have been made. In view of the limited duration of the programs,
such impact may significantly affect the local communities. The work forces are likely
to be more transitory, less stable, and, therefore, more disruptive for the community.
The simplistic assessment in the DEIS of temporary benefits to the community does
not justify EPA's failure to consider such impacts. Consideration of potential impacts
to the cultural/archaeological resources of the area were also ignored, contrary to the
requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act, Executive Order 11593, and
the Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act.
For these reasons and those stated in our specific comments, EPA has failed to
comply with NEPA.
H. SPECIFIC COMMENTS
A. THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE DISPOSAL STANDARDS BE MET FOR
AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND YEARS IS UNREASONABLE
EPA requires "reasonable assurance" that the disposal standards will be met for
"at least" one thousand years. EPA asserts that such a period is necessary because of
(1) the long period during which potential hazards associated with uranium mill tailings
may continue and (2) the congressional directive that remedial action be done right
the first time. Although AMC agrees that a definite period should be established as
a target for the effectiveness of control techniques, the selected period of one thousand
years is unreasonable.
Neither of EPA's reasons requires a period of one thousand years. First, the
radiation associated with mill tailings is not different in kind from that occurring
naturally in the environment. Further, the amount of radiation is small in comparison
with other sources. Indeed, no evidence exists that radon exposure, which is the primary
- 11 -
focus of EPA's proposed standards, at the low levels associated with tailings, produces
any detrimental health effects. Second, for remedial action to be done right the first
time does not require a 1000 year period. EPA has chosen a period of one thousand
years to avoid any active maintenance or other reliance on institutional controls. Such
a requirement is on its face, absurd. Reliance on some active maintenance and
institutional controls is reasonable and probable in view of the low levels of risk,
relative isolation of most inactive sites, and the existing state of technology for disposal.
AMC suggests a 100 or 200 year period. Such a period is consistent with the
existing state of the art for tailings disposal techniques. Reasonable assurance can be
given that compliance may be achieved for such a period. Although some active
maintenance might be required, no unreasonable burden would be imposed on future
generations.
B. THE RADON EMANATION RATE CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED
Proposed 40 C.F.R. S192.03(a) limits radon emanations from inactive tailings
piles to an average annual rate of 2pCi/m2/ sec. EPA's apparent justifications for this
standard are: (1) that radon flux at inactive sites should be returned to EPA's perception
of background levels; (2) that the standard will "virtually eliminate" any risk; and (3)
that the cost of meeting this standard will be only 10% more than meeting some less
stringent level of control. EPA's justifications are insufficient to support this proposed
standard.
1. The Radon Emanation Standard, Must be Predicated On
A Finding Of Significant Risk To Public Health Or Safety
As discussed in our general comments, EPA must find a significant risk before
establishing a radon emanation standard. Reliance on policy assumptions, e. g.
-------
1-10
1-10
- 12 -
elimination of all risks by returning radon flux rates to background levels, is an
insufficient substitute for a finding of significant risk. 7
EPA claims that the primary source of potential radiation exposures from mill
operations is a gas called radon. Radon is a naturally occurring inert gas that is
emitted in variable quantities from a number of sources, including soil, rocks, water,
and building materials. In view of Ethyl, the incremental contribution of mill tailings
to total radon releases and exposures to the general public must be evaluated carefully.
The amount of radon that is released from uranium tailings piles is insignificant
when compared to that released naturally from the soil and other sources. NRC projects
that releases at active sites from the accumulation of tailings in the year 2000 will
amount to no more than about five one thousandths (.005) of that released from natural
soils in the United Steles. (1 NRC GEIS Table 5 at 19; at 6-68). 8 Moreover, certain
activities such as farmers plowing their fields will contribute roughly six times more
radon to the environment than mill tailings. (1 NRC GEIS, Table 5 at 19). Other
sources, such as water evaporating from soil surfaces and vegetation (evapotranspiration)
' The proposed standard is based on the erroneous assumption that there is an "average"
or "normal" background radiation level. Due to the extremely wide range of
environmental conditions which exist in nature, reliance on a computed average as the
basis for the standard is inappropriate. For example, the indoor radon decay product
concentration standard is based on average radium in soils and radon in outdoor air.
Yet, background radium can be as high as 200 pCi/gm and outdoor radon can fluctuate
substantially depending on site and atmospheric conditions. Further, indoor radon
concentrations are themselves highly variable.
* U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement
on Uranium Milling, NUREG - 0706 (September 1980), hereinafter "NRC GEIS." NRC's
uranium mill licensing regulations and GEIS are now subject to judicial review - AMC's
brief in that action is attached as Exhibit 1.
The NRC GEIS uses a figure of 0.000005 on page 6-68 instead of 0.005. Careful
review of NRC's references for the figure demonstrates that the agency's figure is
erroneous. This figure represents the estimated persistent, long-term radon releases
from the predicted uranium mills in existence or installed during the period from 1979
to 2000. (1 FGEIS at 18, 6-68).
- 13 -
will contribute sixteen times more radon. Id. Significantly, these comparisons are
based on NRC's assumptions that no measures will be taken to control radon emanation
from tailing piles at active sites and that uranium mill capacity will double in the next
20 years. (1 NRC GEIS at 3). Since tailings at inactive sites account for only about
one-sixth of all tailings in existence today (DEIS at 3-1), the incremental contribution
of inactive sites to total radon releases will be even smaller than that estimated by
NRC for active sites.
The risk to the public from this slight increase in radon release is exceedingly
small. EPA estimates that radon from uncontrolled tailings at all inactive sites could
result in about two health effects (estimated premature cancer deaths) per year, or
less than 1 per 100,000,000 persons in the United States. By comparison, NRC estimates
that radon releases from building interiors alone could result in 1,594 deaths per year
in the United States and that radon releases from natural soils could cause 1,152 deaths.
(NRC GEIS, Table 5 at 19). The two health effects, if they were to occur, 9 would
increase annual cancer deaths in the U. S. from 386,700 to 386,702. 10 Thus, the risk
from inactive sites is insignificant when compared to the risk from other sources of
radon and to the risk of cancer in general.
' These projected health effects from inactive sites are calculated estimates based
upon linear extrapolation from data on uranium miners exposed to far greater
concentrations of radon than those to which general populations are ever exposed.
(DEIS at 4-3, 4-6). No scientific studies have been performed which measure health
effects at low doses to which the general population is exposed. Moreover, linear dose
response calculations are "not intended to predict actual health effects but rather to
give a basis for setting conservative exposure standards." U. S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Radon Releases from
Uranium Milling and Their Calculated Health Effects. NUREG 0757 (February 1981) at
A-l (hereafter cited as NRC Uranium Fuel Cycle Study). Linear extrapolations generally
yield conservative results (2 NRC GEIS, Appdx. A at 34), and "[ejpidemiologic data
currently available would not rule out a value of zero for the risk from incremental
additional exposure of the very low levels expected for the general public from uranium
milling operations . . . ." (2 NRC GEIS, Appdx. A at 32).
10 Based on statistics for the year 1977. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States (1979) at 76.
-------
1-10
1-10
PI
I
o
vo
- 14 -
Rational regulatory decisions regarding public health and safety in this field must
be made by comparing the potential risks of mill tailings with other risks commonly
accepted by society. The process of relating risks from a regulated activity to risks
encountered in everyday life is called comparative risk analysis. Comparative risk
analysis demonstrates that the risk from uranium milling is much smaller than the risks
from many commonly undertaken activities. Based upon the risk estimates in NRC's
Draft GFJS (10 health effects per year), U AMC determined that the lifetime risk
from uncontrolled mill tailings at active sites was equivalent to the risk from the
following common activities: 12
• Smoking 1-1/2 cigarettes in a lifetime
0 Driving an extra 1/2 mile per year
o Living in a house without a smoke detector
for one month
o Crossing a street one extra time every two
years
o Taking one short airplane flight in a lifetime
o An overweight person eating 100 extra
calories (such as one piece of bread and butter
or one soft drink) in a lifetime
EPA's estimated risk from uncontrolled tailings at inactive sites (two health
effects per year or one-fifth of the risk in NRC's Draft GEIS) is less than that associated
with smoking one cigarette in a lifetime or driving to the corner drug store once a
year. The risk is insignificant when compared to other risks commonly accepted by
society.
I. EPA's Radon Standard Is Not Rationally Related To
The Potential Reduction In Risk
Even if EPA were to find a significant risk from uncontrolled tailings at inactive
sites, this would not authorize EPA to establish indiscriminately any level of radon
I1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
on Uranium Milling, NUREG-0511 (April 1979) at 6-72 (hereafter cited as NRC Draft
GEIS).
12 AMC comments on NRC Draft GEIS, captioned "Vol. 1, Part HI" at 82-83. AMC's
comments, which are in three volumes, are attached as Exhibit 2.
- 15 -
control. The control level chosen must be rationally related to the potential incremental
benefits, or risk reduction, achieved.
EPA's radon standard is not rationally related to possible risk reduction benefits.
EPA's own data show that 78% of its estimated 200 health effects per century could
be averted by reducing radon emissions from 450 13 to 100 pCi/mz/sec. (DEIS, Table 6-
2 at 6-7). In other words, if radon emissions were reduced to 100 pCi/m2/sec, estimated
health effects would be reduced to 44 per century, or less than one every two years.
The data show that 90% of this already small estimated risk (e.g. 180 out of 200 health
effects per century) would be eliminated by lowering emissions to 40 pCi/m2/see and
that 98% of risk would be averted by lowering emissions to 10 pCi/m2/see. Id.
However, EPA rejected all alternative control levels because they would not achieve
its policy objectives of eliminating all the potential hazards (DEIS at 8-7, 8-8) and
returning disposal sites to its perceptions of natural conditions (DEIS at 8-4).
EPA's arbitrary rejection of reasonable alternatives underscores the importance
of evaluating the relative significance of the risk at various levels of control. To
evaluate properly the need for a particular level of regulation, EPA must compare the
risk reduction potential at each incremental control level. In this way, EPA can
determine the point at which the incremental risk reduction potentially achieved by
additional control measures begins to diminish significantly. In this case, EPA has
unreasonably rejected alternative control levels and has failed to consider the diminishing
returns of increasing levels of control. Before issuing final regulations, EPA must
consider possible risk reduction benefits at other levels.
13 It should be noted that EPA's assumed radon release rate is considerably higher
than the 280 pCi/m2/sec assumed for NRC's model mill. (1 NHC GEIS at 9-24).
-------
1-10
1-10
- 16 -
EPA has also ignored reasonable alternatives to a radon emanation standard.
AMC suggests that a radon concentration or radon exposure standard should be
considered. EPA estimated that the total effect from all 22 disposal sites would be
about 200 health effects per century or two per year. (DEIS at 8-3). ** The data
show that more than 75 of these estimated health effects are attributable to the Salt
Lake City site 15 and that about 25 are associated with the Grand Junction site. (DEIS
at 4-14, 4-15). The remaining 100 health effects (or an average of less than 0.05 per
site per year) are distributed among the remaining 20 sites.
Moreover, EPA conceded that the number of estimated health effects from a
disposal site depends strongly on the size and location of the local population. (DEIS at
8-2). Based upon certain theoretical data. EPA determined that radon concentrations
u
" It is not clear whether this figure includes the Canonsburg site.
p) I5 Even the risk from this site, which is located in downtown Salt Lake City, is
I relatively small. EPA estimated that radon releases from this site would result in an
£ average loss of life of about 1.1 day per exposed person. (DELS, Table 4-1 at 4-14).
O Other risks to which society is commonly exposed result in the following average
estimated loss of life:
Health Risk
Smoking 20 cigarettes/day
Overweight (by 20%)
All accidents combined
Auto accidents
Alcohol consumption (U.S. Average)
Home accidents
Drowning
Safest jobs
All catastrophes (earthquake, etc.)
Salt Lake City tailings
Average Days of Life
Expectancy Lost
2370
985
435
200
130
95
41
30
3.5
1.1
- 17 -
are generally the same as normal concentrations in residential structures at distances
of one to three miles from disposal sites. (DEIS at 4-17). Indeed, one independent
study, based upon actual measurements at four tailings sites, showed that radon from
tailings is indistinguishable from background levels at approximately 1/4 to 1/2 mile
from tailings piles. 16 As a result, evaluation of risk is a highly site-specific
determination. (DEIS at 4-17, 8-2). For most persons, however, exposure to radon
from tailings piles will be indistinquishable from background exposures.
For these reasons, a concentration or exposure standard would permit differing
remedial treatment for the sites that better reflects the actual public risks.
Even if a radon emanation rate must be employed, EPA should develop a standard
that takes into account potential population exposures. Such a standard could include
a range of control levels which could be implemented on a site-specific basis according
to projected population exposures. In light of the small risk involved even for persons
living relatively close to a disposal site, 17 AMC believes that a range of 40 - 100
pCi/m2/sec would be more than adequate to protect the public.
3. EPA Substantially Overestimated The Risk From
Radon Exposure
EPA's own data demonstrates the insignificance of the risk posed by inactive
tailings sites. However, careful analysis of this data reveals that EPA's risk assessment
substantially overestimates the risk. For example, EPA's health effects estimates can
AMC comments on NRC Draft GEIS, Vol. 1 Part HI at 84-85; NRC, Draft Occupational
Guide, Instruction Concerning Risks From Occupational Radiation Exposure (May 1980)
at 13.
16 s. Shearer, Jr. & C. Sill, Evaluation of Atmospheric Radon in the Vicinity of
Uranium Mill Tailings. 17 Health Physics 77-88 (1969). NRC has stated that radon
from tailings is indistinquishable from background levels at distances "of a few miles."
NRC Uranium Fuel Cycle Study at A-7.
17 NRC estimated that radon exposures to persons living within SO miles of a typical
mill, using "worst case" assumptions, would amount to no more that about 0.005 of
background radiation exposure. (1 NRC GEIS at 6-68).
-------
1-10
1-10
- 18 -
be traced to unpublished data by Archer, which have been rejected by established
experts in the field. 18 EPA's reliance upon the discredited Archer data, resulted in
an overestimation of the risk by a factor of 3 to 10. (Evans Letter at 13-15). The
most recent, scientifically - accepted estimate of risk is 10"4 health effects per WLM
for members of the general population. (Id. at 15). 19 Significantly, 10~4 per WLM
is considered the upper limit of lifetime risk (Id.), i.e. the risk is probably even lower.
This upper limit estimate of risk was based upon meticulous review of all United States
and Czechoslovakia!! uranium mining epidemiological data by recognized experts in the
field. Incorporation of this reliable scientific evidence into EPA's risk assessment would
lower its already small risk by a factor of 3 to 10. (Id.). 20
4. The Costs Of Achieving The Proposed Radon Standard
Far Exceed The Possible Benefits
Estimated costs outweigh substantially possible benefits at the radon control level
proposed by EPA. EPA estimates that reducing radon emissions to 2 pCi/m2/sec could
avert 99.6% of the potential health effects, or reduce them from an estimated 200 to
0.8 per century. (DEIS, Table 6-2 at 6-7). Achieving this level of control would cost
18 Letter dated May 27, 1981 from Robley D. Evans to Dr. William A. Mills, Director,
Criteria and Standards Division, Office of Radiation Programs, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency at 12-16, hereinafter cited as the Evans Letter.
19 Evans, R. D. et^aL, "Estimate of Risk from Environmental Exposure to Radon-222
and its Decay Products," 200 Nature at 98-100 (March 12, 1981).
20 Another major error is found in Table 4-2 (DEIS at 4-18), which lists theoretical
radon decay product exposures at distances downwind from a hypothetical inactive pile.
The dispersion model used by EPA grossly overestimated radon concentrations, as
determined by actual measurements. Additionally, EPA's incorrect assumption of 50%
decay product equilibrium compounded the error. (Evans Letter at 6-8). For example,
exposures at distances within 0.5 mile of the tailings pile are overestimated by a factor
of about 10. (Id. at 8).
- 19 -
about $400 million according to industry estimates. 21 Thus, the estimated cost would
be $2 million per health effect averted per century.
The cost-benefit balance becomes even more absurd when the more reliable risk
estimates developed by Evans, e£ ah, are substituted for EPA's data. Assuming that
EPA overestimated the risk by a factor of 6.5, 22 reducing radon emissions to
2pCi/m2/sec would avert about 31 potential health effects per century. Thus, the
estimated cost, when more realistic risk estimates are used, is about $13 million per
health effect averted per century.
To impose such excessive costs to reduce such miniscule risks is highly
unreasonable. As stated in a concurring opinion in Benzene;
When the administrative record reveals only scant or minimal
risks of material health impairment, responsible administration
calls for avoidance of extravagant, comprehensive regulation.
Perfect safety is a chimera; regulation must not strangle human
activity in the search for the impossible.
488 U. S. at 664 (Burger, C. J. concurring).
AMC believes that a complete re-evaluation of the costs and benefits of EPA's
radon standard is necessary. EPA must develop standards which are reasonable and
which may be accomplished at the lowest possible cost. 23
21 See discussion of costs at 27-30 infra.
22 Evans estimated that EPA overstated the risk by a factor of 3 to 10 as a result of
its reliance upon the discredited Archer data. (See discussion 17-18 supra).
23 EPA rejected a control level of 40 pCi/m2/sec — a level at which 90% or 180 of
the 200 estimated health effects per century would be averted. According to EPA,
reduction from 40 to 2 pCi/m2/sec would cost only an additional 10%, assuming certain
favorable conditions. (DEIS at 8-6, 8-7). However, 10% of 400 million is a large
expenditure to achieve such miniscule benefit. Moreover, NRC's data indicate that
the incremental cost would be considerably higher. (See 1 NRC GEIS, Table 12.5 at
12-22).
-------
1-10
1-10
w
i
- 20 -
C. THE PROPOSED WATER STANDARDS ARE UNREASONABLE
AMC has a number of concerns with the ground and surface water standards of
proposed 40 CFR §192.03(b) and (c). EPA has failed to demonstrate any significant
public health hazard from uranium mill tailings or to establish that the proposed water
standards would alleviate any such hazard in a cost-effective manner. In addition, FPA
has unreasonably failed to consider the existing or anticipated uses of surface and
ground water. Rather, EPA proposes to treat virtually every underground water bearing
formation as if it were a drinking water source.
The proposed regulations provide that seepage from tailings ponds shall not cause
concentrations of selected elements in groundwater to exceed the maximum contaminant
levels under the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards. To the extent
•
that background concentrations already exceed maximum concentration levels (MCL),
any further increase in these concentrations is prohibited. This prescription, in many
cases, makes little sense. Because of the shallow depths of many uranium ore deposits,
the original quality of water at tailings sites may be suitable for no higher use than
industrial or agricultural purposes. If the initial water quality of an aquifer underlying
a uranium mill tailings pond renders it suitable only for industrial use, no purpose is
served by prohibiting a slight increase, or indeed a large increase, in the concentration
of one of the listed substances in Table A. 24
Further, EPA has provided no rationale for applying standards developed under
the Safe Drinking Water Act. The MCL's promulgated under that Act were developed
to assure the public a potable water supply free from significant health hazards.
24 Moreover, these standards may be frequently exceeded by normal background
conditions in uranium producing areas.
- 21 -
In view of the remote locations of most mill tailings disposal sites, it is arbitrary to
adopt such stringent standards absent a compelling rationale.
The proposal further lacks any plausible rationale for the requirement that
specified standards be met at either 1 km or 0.1 km, depending on the nature of the
disposal site. EPA's primary concern should be health effects resulting from utilization
of groundwater, which has hazardous concentrations of a particular chemical as a result
of the disposal facility. To the extent that the owner of a tailings disposal facility
owns or controls the use of groundwater, that controlled geographic area should be the
boundary for application of the standards.
Certain criteria listed in Table A are unduly restrictive. The suggested limit of
10 pCi/ liter (1) for uranium has no sound scientific basis. Guidelines for uranium in
water have been promulgated by federal, state, and international agencies. NRC limits
uranium concentrations in effluents released to unrestricted areas to 30,000 pCi/1.
NEC's limit assumes a dilution factor of 10 before the water is consumed by an
individual. Thus, the effective limit for human consumption is 3,000 pCi/1. The
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality has adopted a uranium in water standard
of 5 mgA. This translates roughly into an activity concentration of 3400 pCi/1.
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 30, "Limits for
Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers" (1979), also differs substantially from EPA's
uranium standard. The most restrictive Annual Limit on Intake (ALI) in ICRP Publication
30 is for the uranium-234 isotope, which is 1.08 x 10"5 curies. This is equivalent to
a water concentration of 14,800 pCi/1 for water consumed by radiation workers.
Normally, the value applicable to the general public is determined by dividing by a
factor of 30. This corresponds to a uranium in water concentration of 490 pCi/1.
The radium-226 water concentration acceptable for general population use based
on the ICRP Publication-30 is equivalent to 86 pCi/1. This indicates that the 5
-------
1-10
1-10
CO
I
- 22 -
pCi/1 limit for radium-226 (plus radium-228) is also too restrictive. Finally, no health
justification exists for the proposed limit on molybdenum concentrations.
EPA's water standards must be based upon a finding of significant risk. Therefore,
EPA must explain the public health and safety necessity for standards substantially
lower than those established by these other agencies.
D. THE PROPOSED RADIUM IN SOILS STANDARD IS UNREASONABLE
1. The Proposed Standard Is Based On An Erroneous Assumption
In support of the 5 pCi/gm radium in soils standard of proposed 40 CFR §192.12(a),
EPA relies upon the assumption that radium-226 soil concentrations of 5 pCi/gm or
more will result in radon decay product levels in structures in excess of 0.01 WL (DEIS,
p. 7-3).
No rational basis exists for the conclusion that 5 pCi/gm radium-226 will result
in indoor radon decay product levels of 0.01 WL or more. Radon flux rates for a given
radium-226 soil concentration are very sensitive to a variety of conditions including
grain size distribution, moisture content, soil compaction, and barometric pressure.
Indoor radon decay product levels are also dependent on the type of building materials
and configurations for the structures. Thus, no consistent correlation between radium-
226 in soils and indoor radon levels has been established. EPA has acknowledged this
fact (DEIS, at 7-3), yet it proposes a standard for radium in soils based on an assumed
correlation.
The proposed standard limits radium-226 in soils to a 5 pCi/gm in any 15cm
below one foot. The correlation between indoor radon decay product concentrations
and radium in various soil layers below one foot is even more tenuous. The physical
and chemical characteristics of the soils greatly affect the depth from which radon
can escape to the atmosphere. According to NCRP Report No. 45, "A soil layer about
0.25m thick furnishes the external radiation from the ground". However, EPA established
no depth limitation in its proposed standard. If the radium-226 standard is to have
- 23 -
any correlation to indoor radon decay product concentrations, an assessment of the
depth/exhalation phenomenon is needed.
EPA relies on two publications for its conclusion that a 5 pCi/gm radium level
will cause a 0.01 WL indoor radon concentration. One is the Healy and Rogers report
which makes a preliminary study of radium-contaminated soils. The report contends
that indoor radon decay product concentrations of 0.01 WL might be expected for soils
with radium concentrations of 1 to 3 pCi/gm. This is not a reasonably scientific
foundation for standard setting. The other publication is the NRC Staff Technical
Position on Interim Land Cleanup Criteria for Decommissioning Uranium Mill Sites,
Appendix J, NRC Draft GEIS, which includes a table entitled "Potential Exposures from
Radon Inside Structures on Contaminated Land." EPA uses this table to conclude that
3 to 5 pCi/gm of radium can cause indoor concentrations of 0.01 WL. However, the
table indicates radon levels inside structures on land averaging 5 pCi/gm of radium-
226 could range from 0.0024 to 0.04 WL. This wide range of values demonstrates the
questionable validity of using a radium-226 standard to determine WL concentrations
in indoor structures. NRC concludes that "since no simple numerical criteria in terms
of radium - 226 concentration in soil is applicable, no attempt has been made to express
these criteria directly in terms of radium - 226 soil concentrations". NRC Draft GEIS,
Appdx. J at 5-3, 5-4.
A comprehensive analytical study of radon flux rates that can be anticipated
under conditions typical of uranium mining conditions in the western United States has
recently been completed by AMC. A summary of the results of this work is attached
for consideration by EPA (Attachment A). Although this work is expressed in terms
of uranium mine waste, the concepts of the relation between radium in soils and indoor
radon decay product concentrations are applicable to mill tailings cleanup efforts. The
study shows that structures with average ventilation, which are situated on reclaimed
waste rock deposits having radium-226 concentrations averaging 20 pCi/gm to infinite
-------
1-10
1-10
PJ
I
- 24 -
depth will normally exhibit radon decay product concentrations on the order of 0.01
WL. Corresponding calculations for radium-226 concentrations averaging 30 pCi/gm to
infinite depth result in indoor radon decay product levels on the order of 0.02 WL.
Similar structures situated on deposits having radium-226 concentrations averaging 20
pCi/gm near the surface and up to 70 pCi/gm below the surface to infinite depth are
shown to exhibit decay product concentrations no greater than 0.02 WL. From this
study, it can be seen that using a 5 pCi/gm radium in soil standard to control indoor
radon decay product concentrations is far too low. If a radium in soil standard is to
be used, a standard of no less than 30 pCi/gm should be used.
A number of other publications addressing related issues exist, but EPA makes
no attempt to distinguish the conclusions of those publications. In Borrowman and
Brooks, a radiurfl-226 level of 20 pCi/gm was found to be acceptable for building
materials. O'Riordan determined that the use of construction material having an
average radium-226 content of 25 pCi/gm would result in an annual exposure of 0.4
WLM, which is about 1/10 of the annual limit for exposure to the general public
recommended by the ICRP.
2. The Proposed Radium Standard Is Not Capable Of
Practical Implementation
Nature exhibits an extremely wide range of environmental conditions. This is
particularly true for natural radioactive materials and radiation exposure rates.
Background levels of radium-226 in soils can be as high as 200 pCi/gm. Therefore, it
may be difficult to distinguish radium-226 associated with tailings from variations in
natural background radium-226 concentration.
One practical problem associated with implementing the standard is the lack of
accurate methods for location and detection of radium-226 in soil layers. Current field
instrumentation cannot detect radium-226 concentratons in the specified layers of soil.
Additionally, "clean" surface layers can shield deeper layers which may be contami-
- 25 -
nated in excess of 5 pCi/gm. To locate and detect soil layers which exceed the
proposed standard would require an extensive program of sample collection, including
core sampling, and laboratory analysis. Such a program would be very costly and time
consuming and would provide no assurance that all contaminated areas would be
identified.
Another problem is attributing various radium-226 concentrations to tailings
contamination. Natural background radium concentrations in the western States, where
most of the sites are located, are highly variable. Because there have been no
background surveys, it will be difficult to determine whether radium-226 levels in excess
of 5 pCi/gm are due to tailings contamination or to the presence of natural pockets
of high background levels. For example, only after a lengthy and costly program did
the NRC conclude that the main problem in Edgemont, South Dakota homes was natural
radiation, not tailings contamination.
The required compliance verification/certification program will also be difficult
tt
and costly to implement. Another extensive and costly measurement program will be
needed to determine compliance. Verification that every area greater than 5 pCi/gm,
attributable to tailings, has been detected and remedied to standards will be impossible.
Not only are the practical limitations of the field instrumentation and verification
process not considered, the problems inherent in existing analysis techniques for radium-
226 are ignored. Present techniques are slow and time-consuming and lack the precision
necessary to measure low concentrations accurately. A report comparing analyses of
aliqnots of 10 samples at a number of different commercial, government, and industrial
laboratories can be found in Attachment B. This report shows that existing laboratory
techniques are too imprecise to verify compliance with a standard as low as 5 pCi/gm.
Standard deviations between the laboratories were computed for each of the 10 samples
and range from 1.5 to 4.3 pCi/gm. Regression analysis of the relationship between the
-------
1-10
1-10
- 26 -
mean values and related standard deviations shows a correlation coefficient of 0.75.
This analytical variability at low radium-226 concentrations can be substantial.
In promulgating final standards, EPA should consider the advisability of adopting
a radium in soils standard in view of the practical problems of implementing such a
standard.
E. THE PROPOSED INDOOR RADON CONCENTRATION STANDARD
CANNOT BE RATIONALLY JUSTIFIED
AMC believes that the indoor radon concentraton standard of proposed 40 CFR
S192.12(b) should be reconsidered.
First, EPA has failed to find that indoor radon concentrations from mill tailings
present a significant risk to public health or that implementation of the proposed
standard would measurably reduce any risk. Although more than 20 years has elapsed
since uranium mine tailings were widely used as a source of building materials in Grand
Junction, Colorado, no increase in the incidence of lung cancer in that community has
been found. Indeed, the incidence of lung cancer in that county, Mesa, is no greater
than the incidence in five surrounding counties.
Second, since promulgation of the proposed standard, a new study has been
published that indicates that the upper limit of the risk factor is 10~4 per WLM exposure.
Evans, et^ ah, "Estimate of Risk from Environmental Exposure to Radon-222 and its
Decay Products", 290 Nature 98 (March 12, 1981). This upper bound value is based on
meticulous review of all domestic and Czechoslovakian uranium mining epidemiologic
data. Based on the risk assumption of this study, there is no proper scientific basis
for selecting the unnecessarily restrictive value of 0.015 WLM for the indoor radon
exposure limit, including background values.
Finally, the proposed standard varies from other standards established to protect
public health without any scientific justification. The remedial action level set for
persons residing on the Florida phosphate lands is 0.02 WL (DEIS p. 7-8). The Surgeon
General's 1970 remedial action guidance for Grand Junction, Colorado, consists of two
levels which recognize that different types cf buildings are occupied for different time
- 27 -
periods. These levels are 0.01 WL for residences and schools and 0.03 WL for other
buildings. These levels are above background. Additionally, NEC recommends a level
for non-occupational exposure of 0.03 WL (10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2).
EPA's 0.015 WL standard includes background. Although EPA assumes a "normal"
background of 0.005 WL, it recognizes wide variations in "normal" indoor background
levels exist (DEIS at 7-9). The data given in the DEIS itself, in Table 7-1, indicate that
10 to 20 percent of structures unaffected by tailings may have background levels above
the 0.015 WL standard. Samples taken in Chicago, Illinois had a "normal" level (i.e.
an average) of 0.03 WL. See Cohen, "Health Effects of Radon from Insulation of
Buildings," 39 Health Physics 937 (December 1980). Moreover, Table 7-2 of the DEIS
shows that 60 of 217 residences and schools in Grand Junction that have been treated
have not yet been brought below the action level (0.017 WL). In short, the background
levels in structures vary so widely that a 0.015 WL standard is too low.
F. THE COSTS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROPOSED STANDARDS
ARE INADEQUATELY CONSIDERED
The cost data presented by EPA is inadequate. First, no data is presented on
the cleanup standards. Without such cost data, the conclusion that "it should cost
little more to implement the proposed cleanup standard than to permit levels two to
four times higher" can not be justified (DEIS at 8-24). Additionally, without adequate
cost data, it cannot be determined whether the cost is reasonably related to possible
benefits. Second, the cost evaluation presented for the disposal standards is insufficient.
Chapter 6 and Appendix B of the DEIS address the monetary costs for tailings
disposal. Based on the experience of its members in earth moving and tailings
reclamation, AMC believes that the cost of remedial action to implement the proposed
remedial action standards will be considerably higher than EPA projects.
-------
1-10
1-10
- 28 -
- 29 -
W
I
AMC notes omissions of certain costs and inadequate consideration of other
factors. No consideration is given to costs for engineering, field supervision, or
contingencies. No provision is made for costs of reclaiming the land from which top
soil, cover, or riprap is obtained.
Riprap is not readily available; it may have to be quarried. EPA, however,
makes no provision for such costs. Experience on tailings pile stabilization shows that
riprap costs approximately $18.00 (versus EPA's figure of $12.90) per square meter,
0.5m thick. This includes quarrying, crushing, hauling and placing. Moreover, EPA
assumes a nearby source of suitable clay is available at no cost (DEIS at B-10). In
some locations, a suitable clay is either nonexistent or very scare; or if available, only
at a considerable distance.
In addition, EPA relies on inappropriate source material. The sources used for
computing the costs for various types of work, e.g. Dodge (DO 78) and Means (ME 77),
represent costs for the small commercial and residential market and do not compare
favorably with costs incurred with heavy earthworks or industrial construction.
AMC has made a comparison of EPA's unit costs (DEIS, Table B-l, at B-7) with
costs being experienced in actual tailings dam reclamation work. This comparison is
•
shown in Table 1, infra at 31. The industry experience in some instances compares
favorably with the costs in the DEIS, e.g., clay caps, asphalt, gravel, and fence.
However, for below-grade excavation, transportation, synthetic liners, and soil and
vegetation cover, the industry figures are 2.5 to 3 times higher.
The ranges for excavation costs shown in the first paragraph on page B-9 are
reasonable, but the lower range of these costs was used in the Table B-l unit costs.
EPA estimates costs of $0.92 to $1.58/m' for excavating, loading, and hauling surface
soil up to one mile (DEIS at B-9). AMC estimates approximately $2.80 per cubic meter
will be incurred for haulage costs alone. Costs for hauling, dumping and compacting
are in the range of $5.00/m3.
To evaluate the effect of EPA's methods, as well as the unit costs, estimates
for two cases comparing EPA and industry figures were made. Case I, shown in Table
2, infra at 32, includes stabilizing the tailings in place to a radon emanation rate of
2pCi/m2/ sec using a clay and dirt cover and vegetation for stabilization (DEIS, Table
B-10, Column 2). 2S Case II, shown in Table 3, infra at 33, includes stabilizing in place
to the same radon emanation rate but with riprap instead of vegetation for
stabilization. 26
Industry costs were from 2.2 to 2.7 times higher than EPA's in Case I, and were
from 1.8 to 1.9 times higher in Case II. In similar comparisons for moving the tailings to
a new disposal area (option 3 in the DEIS), the industry figures were from 2.7 to 2.9
higher than the EPA estimates.
The above data do not include costs for reclamation of the borrow sites. No
costs are included for cleanup around the mill sites, for remedial action at offsite
locations where tailings were used for fill material, survey and decontamination of used
equipment, burial of contaminated equipment, demolition and disposal of buildings, or
reclamation of the mill site. When costs for these items are added to the tailings
disposal costs, and AMC's estimates, which are two to three times EPA's, are used,
the total remedial costs for the 24 inactive mill sites, which EPA estimates at $200-
300 million (DEIS at 5-3), will be about $1 billion.
25 Case I assumptions are: Reclaim in place. Clay cap 0.6m thick over tailing sands
only - (excluding embankment slopes); earthworks include changing 2:1 embankment
slope (no tailing sand included) to an 8:1 slope by extension only with available earth
materials, and 1.5m of dirt cover; vegetation topsoil 0.2m over total tailings and
embankment area; engineering and construction supervision 15% of total direct cost;
and contingencies, 15% of total direct cost.
26 case II assumptions are: Reclaim in place; clay cap 0.6m thick over tailing sands
only (excluding embankment slopes); earthworks include changing 2:1 embankment slope
(no tailing sands included) to 8:1 slope by extension only with available earth materials
and 1.5m of dirt cover; riprap 0.5m over total area, and no topsoil or vegetation;
engineering and construction supervision 15% of total direct cost: and contingencies
15% of total direct cost. '
-------
1-10
1-10
- 30 -
Pi
I
Table 6-1 of the DEIS presents a range of costs for disposing of the tailings in
place and for moving them to below-grade disposal sites. Variations in costs for
different levels of radon control are also shown. Table 4, infra at 34, shows the
industry cost estimates for the "average pile" compared with EPA estimates for three
levels of radon emanation control: 100, 10, and 2 pCi/m2/ sec.
Table 4 also shows the estimate of total costs of disposal at all 24 inactive mill
sites, assuming 17 are reclaimed in place and 7 are moved to new below-grade disposal
sites (DEIS, Table 2-4, at 2-16 and 2-17). Based on EPA estimates, the total costs
will vary from $50 to $200 million for tailings reclamation alone. Not included are
the many other required remedial actions previously mentioned. Industry estimates
show that the total cost for tailings reclamation alone could range from $140 to $450
million.
In summary, EPA's evaluation of costs is inadequate and must be reconsidered
before issuing final standards.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, EPA should reconsider its proposed cleanup and disposal
standards for inactive uranium processing sites.
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF UNIT COSTS FOR TAILINGS DISPOSAL
EPA (Table B-l, Appendix B) vs. Industry Experience
UNIT COSTS. 1978 t
EARTHWORK - per m3
a. Below Grade Excavation
Below Grade Excavation in Shale
b. Dragline Excavation & Loading
c. Excavate, Load & Haul
d. Spread & Compact
e. Haul, Dump, Spread & Compact
CAPS AND LINERS
£ Available Clay, m3
b. Purchase Clay, m3
c. Synthetic, m"
d. Asphalt Emulsion (1/2" thick), m2
STABILIZATION - per m*
«LVegetation Soil Available
b. Vegetation Purchase Soil
c. Riprap (.5m thick)
d. Gravel (.5m thick)
e. Chemical
FENCING - per meter
E Chain Link, 5 to 6 ft.
b. Security fence (Person Grade)
IRRIGATION - per Hectare
a. Equipment (Excluding Pumps)
b. Annual Operating Costs
c. Submersible Pump. ea.
(1) Union Carbide Corporation experience
(2) Factored EPA unit
(3) Berger Building Cost File 1981 western edition factored to 1978
(4) R. Snow Means (77)
NE = No Experience
EPA
1.63
3.10
1.53
1.13—.
0.38 U 2.84
1.33— 1
2.07
5.00
4.41
1.76
0.75
2.51
12.90
2.57
0.74
29.69
84.51
1,070
273
1,000
INDUSTRY
4.51 (1)
5.45 (1)
1.80 (4)
5.00 (1)
2.80 (1)
6.76 (2)
10.00 (1)
2.10
2.25 (1)
7.50 (2)
18.18 (3)
2.68 (1)
NE
31.49 (1)
NE
NE
NE
1,000 (1)
-------
1-10
1-10
- 32 -
- 33 -
TABLE 2
EPA vs. INDUSTRY COST ESTIMATES
Option 2 - Clay & Dirt Cover with Vegetation
TABLE 3
EPA vs. INDUSTRY COST ESTIMATES
Option 2 - Clay, Dirt & Riprap Cover
Cover designed for
2 pCi/m2 x sec
Case I
Clay 0.6m, Dirt
1.5m, Veg.
Depth of Cover (m)
Volume of Cover (m3)
Area of Cover (m2)
Lght. of Fence (m)
Area w/i Fence (m2)
Earthwork
Cap (0.6m) .
Clay Available
Clay Purchase
M
1
[H Stabilization
0° Veg. No Soil
Purchase
Soil
Purchase
Riprap
Fencing
Chain Link
Total
Purchase Veg.
Purchase Clay
Purchase Both
EPA
Volumes, Unit Cost
Areas, Price $M
Lengths
2.1
687,000
281,000
2,280
324,000
585,000 m3 1.51 880
101,500 2.07 210
101,500 m3 5.00 520
280,000 m3 .75 210
280,000 m3 2.51 710
12.90
2,280 m 29.69 70
1370
1680
1870
2080
INDUSTRY
Volumes, Unit
Areas, Price
Lengths
2.3
962,800
284,100
2,292
328,300
537,000 m3 2.66
103,800 m3 * 2.80
103,800 m3 6.76
274,300 m3 2.25
274,300 m3 7.50
18.18
2,292 m 31.49
Cost
$M Notes
1430
290
700 Factored
EPA Unit
620
2060 Factored
EPA
70
2410 3130*
2820 3670*
3850 5010*
4260 5540*
Cover designed for
2 pCi/m2 x sec
Case II
Clay 0.6m, Dirt
1.5m, Riprap
Depth of Cover (m)
Volume of Cover (m3)
Area of Cover (m2)
Lgth. of Fence (m)
Area w/i Fence (m2)
Earthwork
Cap (0.6m)
Clay Available
Clay Purchase
Stabilization
Veg. No Soil
Purchase
Soil
Purchase
Riprap
Fencing
Chain Link
Total
Purchase Clay
EPA
Volumes, Unit Cost
Areas, Price $M
Lengths
2.1
687,000
281,000
2,280
324,000
585,500 m3 1.51 880
101,500 m3 2.07 210
101,500 m3 5.00 520
280,000 m3 .75 —
_ _ _
281,400 m2 12.90 3630
2,280 m 29.69 70
4790
5100
INDUSTRY
Volumes, Unit
Areas, Price
Lengths
2.6
830,900
289,400
2,312
334,100
537,000 m3 2.66
103,800 m3 2.80
103,800 m3 6.76
- -
— —
290,400 m2 18.18
2,312 m 31.49
Cost
$M Notes
1430
290
700 Factored
EPA Unit
—
—
5340
70
7000 9100*
7130 9270*
Industry Total plus 15% for engineering and construction supervision and 15% for contingencies.
Purchase Veg.
Purchase Both
•Industry Total plus 15% for engineering and construction supervision and 15% for contingencies.
-------
1-10
1-10
- 34 -
TABLE 4
COMPARBON OF COST ESTIMATES FOR RECLAIMING
"Average Pile" and «n Piles at Different
Levels of Radon Emanation Ratet
Average Me
Reclaim in place
Move and reclaim
below grade
AH Pflei
17 piles reclaimed
in place
7 piles moved and
reclaimed below grade
Total all piles
Radon Level
pCi/m2 it sec
Cost in $Million
EPA
Industry
100
10
2
100
10
2
100
10
2
100
10
2
100
10
2
0.6
0.8
1.0
5.4
5.8
6.0
10
14
17
38
41
42
48
55
59
- 4.3
- 5.4
- 6.3
-11.2
-12.5
-13.3
- 73
- 92
- 107
- 78
- 88
- 93
- 150
- 180
- 200
1.5
2.0
2.5
15.7
16.8
17.4
26
34
43
110
118
122
136
152
165
- 8.2
-10.3
-12.0
-30.2
-33.8
-35.9
- 140
- 175
- 204
- 211
- 237
- 251
- 351
- 412
- 455
ATTACHMENT A
-------
1-10
1-10
PI
I
NJ
o
Residential Exposure Evaluation
Although It is very unlikely residential dwellings will be con-
structed on reclaiaed overburden piles, the following calculations
are presented co illustrate that Ra-226 concentrations of 20 pCi/g
in the upper six feet of soil would not necessarily preclude such
construction. Radiua-226 is the precursor of Radon-222. a noble
radioactive gas which say eaanate froa the soil into overlying build-
ing structures. Emanation of Radon-222 has been assumed to be the
aost li=iting exposure route froa the standpoint of residential use.
Concentrations of Ra-22S inside structures resulting froa diffu-
sion of Radon-222 froa underlying soil aay be estieated by the fallow-
ing equation and assumptions frca Reference 1:
where:
C - Radon-222 concentration (pCi/a )
* - Radon-222 flux (pCi/B2-sec)
A • Area over which flux enters structure (m )
3 • Flux reduction factor in entering structure
V • Volume of structure (a )
x - Effective removal race of Radon-222 from the structure
Calculations based on 3 • 0.2, 1-1.5 hours'"
A/V - 0.41. and 1 pCi/1 Rn-222 - 0.005 WL.
flux of 20.3 ?Ci/3~-sec were utilized. It should be noted, however,
that for a Radiua-226 concentration ?f 20 pCi/g to infinite depth.
the calculations show 3 radcn concentration on the order of 0.01 WL.
The aaxiaun Ra-226 concentration in soil to an infinite depth which
would produce a Rn-222 flux of 20.3 pCi/a2-sec is 30 pCi/g.
Radon-222 fluxes were
e calculated following the aethods of Koo»ni,
1-. utilising a median value of 7.73 x 10"J
al.. ar.d Clenents, et al-. utilising
27s"ec for the effective diffusion coefficient and a value of 0.37
e_
ea
for the void fraction which would result in an effective diffusion
length of lOOca for Radon-222, (References 3 and 4). These values
are considered typical for soils in the Western United States. Table 2
presents the radcn flux data frca cover soil containing 20 pCi/g of
Ra-226 and underlying waste rock containing varying concentrations
of Ra-226 such that the total surface Radon-222 flux does not exceed
20.3 pCi/=2-sec (equivalent to 0.02 WL). These calculated radon
fluxes readily show that six feet of cover caterial containing an
average of 20 ?Ci/g of Ra-226 can be used to cover waste rock con-
taining up to an average 70 pCi/g of Ra-226. If the underlying
waste rock contains concentrations averaging greater than 70 pCi/g
of Ra-226. then "a greater depth of 20 pCi/g average cover saterial
would have to be applied to achieve a radon concentration inside '
structures of 0.02 WL.
The assusptions utilised in calculating the surface Radon-222
flux are thought to be very conservative since a diffusion distance
for low aoisture content, uncocipacted soil was used. The node of
developnent of aining waste duaps is such that the waste aaterial-
usually becoses highly compacted by the repeated aovesencs of heavy
equipaent. Therefore, the Radon-222 diffusion distance would be ex--
pected co be zuch shorter in the compacted waste materials and the
resultant surface radon flux would be expected to be much lower than
the values shown in Table 2. '•>
The EPA. in its proposed hazardous waste regulations, has sug-
gested that land reclaiaed by filling "...shall be used for residential
developnent only where provisions have been aade to prevent alpha ra-
diation exposure froa Radon-222 inhalation frca exceeding background
levels by 0.03 Working Level Units...". (Reference 2.)
By rearranging the above equation, the Radon-222 flux can be cai-
cul'tad which will yield a 0.03 WL concentration inside a structure.
Table 1 shows the relationship between working level concentration.
effective reaoval rate, and radon flux, "jr use in evaluating the'
Deposed 20 ?Ci/g Ra-226 concentration in :he upper six feet of soil.
a 30re conservative radon concentration o: O.C2 '-"_ and its associated
-------
o
I
I -O
c >
o o
•o ll
*> u
« « M
or
•I 0> I,
u > n
•« ',- 4*
i- U 3
3 01 i.
o -a -r-
*^ c jr.
c
o en
tl O
« :»
TABLE 2
Total Surface Radon-222 Flux
Obtained by Varying Depth of Cover Material
And Ra-226 Concentration
In Underlying Waste Material
ith of
ier Soil (ft)
6'
7'
8'
9'
lo-
ll'
12'
IV
14'
15'
.
Ra-226 Cone.
In Cover Soil
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Rn-222 Flux
e Surface From
Cover Soil
12.8
13.0
13.2
13.3
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
Ra-226 Cone.
In Underlying
Waste Rock (pCI/g)
70.1
90.2
118.0
173.8
206.1
293.2
394.1
538.5
730.8
1023.2
-
Attenuated
Rn-222 Flux
G Surface
From Waste Rock
(pCI/m2-sec)
7.5
7.3
7.1
7.0
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
0
Total Rn-222
Flux (? Surface
20.3
20.3
20.3
20.3
20.3
20.3
20.3
20.3
20.3
20.3
13.4
1/7
f*
J
3
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
E-121
-------
1-10 1-10
REFERENCES
1. "Interim Land Cleanup Criteria for Qeconnlssfonfng Uraniun Mill Sits*.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Stiff Technical Position. Fuel
Processing and Fabrication Branch. Ma/ 1973.
2. Federal Register, Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Waste.
Proposed Guidelines and Regulations and Proposal or Identification
•nd Listing. December 13. 1978. Part IV.
3. Moment. H.H.. Ktsleleskl. V.E.. Tyler. S.. Zlelen. A.. Yuan. T.C..
and Roberts. C.J.. 'Radiological lapact of Uranium Tailings and ATTACHMENT B
Alternatives for Their Management*, presented at the Health Physics
Society Twelfth Midyear Topical Symposium on Low Level Radiation Waste
Management. Division of Environmental lapact Studies, Argonne National
Laboratory. Argonne. Illinois, February 11, 1979.
4. Clements, U.E.. Barr. S.. and Marple. L.. 'Uraniua Hill Tailings Piles
as Sources of Ataosphcric 122*n'. presented at Matural Radiation
Envlronmen-t III. Houston, Texas. LA-UR 78-828. University, of California
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Los Alans. New Mexico. April 23-23.
1978.
n
-------
1-10
1-10
w
i
ro
Analytical Studv of Radius in Soil Sacrjles
The following Table lists the results of a comparative ana-
lytical atudy for radiun-226 concentrations in aliquots from 10
ioil samples. Participating in the study were cwo government
laboratories, three commercial laboratories, and five industrial
laboratories. Most of these laboratories have been conducting
radiua analyses for many years.
Sacple Preparation
Samples were dried ac 105° C to a constant weight. Organic
material such as cvigs, leaves arid roots was recoved. No large
rocks were included when the samples were received. Small stones
(V diameter and smaller) were included as part of the sample when
present.
Since Ch*se »a=ples were relatively sizall aasples at the ti=e of
collection (250-500 grass), the customary steps of successive size-
reduction accompanied by splitting and blending prior to pulverising
was oai"ed. The entire sample was pulverized in a 3raun pulverizer
and passed through a U.S. standard testing sieve, No. 200. Each
pulverized sa=ple was carefully blended in a bottle blender prior
to withdrawing the individual pulps which were distributed for assay.
Reporting of Results
This test is basically a test of precision, i.e., the ability
of individual laboratories to assay the sane sa=?Ie. No atteapt was
nade to quantify the radiua content of the samples prior to distri-
ution, although a lot of effort was spent trying to'iiaite sure the
sa=ples were carefully blended and split.
One additional colnri shows the statistical mear. and the stan-
dard deviation from statistical mean. Only the reported value was
used in calculating the nean; the reported deviation was not consi-
dered. A Hewlett-Packard calculator was used to calculate the I and
S. Che forzula for this being:
2 « S g
in
5 3. 1
s
-----SSI
is ; s i; £ s s
B S S S S S
n - 1
Hi
-------
S-l
S-2
PI
I
STATE OF IDAHO
DEPARTMENT OT HEALTH
AND WELFARE
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENT
SUUAOUK
Bob.. I
-------
S-2
S-3
Dr. Stanley Lichtman
Page Two
I hope you will find these comments useful in deciding upon your
final Cleanup Standards. If you have questions, please contact Pat
Woodruff at (801) 533-6083.
Kent Briggs
State Planning Coordinator
KB:jk
cc: Department of Health
Division of Environmental Health
to
(Jl
OF WYOMING
401 WEST 19TH STREET
of (onvitonmental
LAND QUALITY DIVISION
TELEPHONE 307-777-7756
ED HERSCHLER
GOVERNOR
CHEYENNE, WYOMING 82002
RECEIVtL)
LiNVIRONMEIMTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
JUN271980
CENTRAL DOCKET
June 19, 1980
Uate.
' atvis
Dr. Stanley Lichtman
Criteria and Standards Division (ANR-460)
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
RE: Interim Cleanup Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites (Docket No.
A-79-25).
Dear Dr. Lichtman,
This office has reviewed the proposed standards for cleanup of inactive
uranium processing sites (40 CFR 192, April 22, 1980). The standards of
§192.12 including the flexibility of subpart C appears very acceptable and
should be workable. However, § 206(a) of P.L. 95-604 requires standards for
both radiological and nonradiological hazards. DOE in implementing its
remedial action programs, should address both radiological and nonradiological
hazards of these wastes. I know that if the State is going to participate in
such a clean-up, we want to do it all at one time. I believe DOE shares this
opinion.
When and under what circumstances can we expect standards for nonradio-
logical hazards to be established which will provide guidance for the remedial
action program?
Sincerely,
Walter C. Ackerman
Administrator
WCA:GB:sh
cc: Paul Wagner, EPA
Bob Sundin, DEQ
Dr. William Mott, DOE
-------
S-4
S-5
O"
July 3, 1980
Environmental Protection Agency
Central Docket Section
Docket A-79-25
Room 2903-B
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
- b '
ENVmONMCNTALraOTECTION
JUL 1 1 1980
CENTRAL DOCKET
SECTION
COLORADO QEEPARTIV!I£!MT OF HEALTH
Richard D. Lamm
Governor
Frank A. Traylor. M.D
Executive Director
July 17, 1980
I
f
to
Dear Sir:
Since the comment period for the proposed cleanup standards for inactive
Uranium processing sites (40CFR192) published in the Federal Register
on April 22, 1980 has been extended, I will take this opportunity to
provide some input.
These regulations seem to be far superior to many regulations of the past
because they take cost-effectiveness into consideration. The regulations
address concentration of radioactive substances in the soil and levels
of radioactivity in buildings on inactive uranium processing sites;
however, no attention is given, in the regulations, to levels of radio-
activity or concentrations of radioactive substances in water retention
ponds, raffinate pits, waste stabilization lagoons, or holding basins on
these premises.
A great deal of water is used in the purification and processing of
uranium. I feel that regulations regarding cleanup of processing sites
should provide guidance on dealing with the process water.
A timely reply will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Burt McCullough
Environmental Specialist
Water Pollution Control Program
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
BM/lo
Mr. Douglas M. Costle, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Costle:
t
This letter transmits the state of Colorado's comments on the "Proposed
Cleanup Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing Site; Invitation for
Comment" published under 40 CFR Part 192 as printed in the Federal Regis-
ter dated Tuesday, April 22, 1980 (Volume 45, Number 79, pages 27370-27375)
and others.
With regard to the numerical values identified in Table B, the values are
essentially equivalent to the values currently in use for the Grand Junc-
tion Remedial Action Program (0.010 + 0.007 WL (background)). I am aware
of the comments provided by Ruth C. Clusen, DOE, in her June 13, 1980 letter
and find the DOE argument without substance with regard to the radon decay
product concentration standard. However, it is unclear as to how EPA intends
the standards listed in Table B to apply to a maximally exposed individual,
i.e., room, house, building, etc. Clarification appears to be a necessity
as to the intent in this regard.
I do not take issue with the EPA proposal with regard to the soil standard
of 192.12(a) of 5 pCi Radium-226/gram of soil. I do have a serious con-
cern for the mechanism by which compliance is to be demonstrated. Depending
on the bureaucracy emplaced, the cost of demonstrating compliance could far
exceed estimates of the entire project. It should also be pointed out that
over-digging of a contaminated site results in enormous volume of soil to
transport to a disposal site and its associated fiscal impact. Our experience
on such matters identifies requirements for prudent field judgment and
documentation. Extensive bureaucratic agency approvals are not costVeffee-"
tive.
Joseph P. Tccudale Governor
Fred A. Latter Director
Division of Environmental Quality
Director
-------
S-5
S-6
Mr. Douglas M. Costie, Administrator
July 17, 1980
Page 2
With regard to Subpart C - Exceptions, we acknowledge the comment of DOE
on number of locations that did not attain an acceptable reduction of
radiation exposure from initial remedial action efforts. The 32% refer-
enced includes initial actions made early in the Grand Junction Program when
thorough evaluations of the deposits were not made. The track record of the
current efforts achieves a better percentage.
A more important matter is that when an exception is deemed appropriate by
DOE, the agency must obtain the concurrence of NRC and inform the EPA.
My concern again is with the level of bureaucracy the program is burdened
with. The purpose of the entire effort is to significantly reduce the
radiation exposure of the public so effected. The criteria for eligibility
for inclusion into the program should be those identified in 192.12, as
published, but the provision of exceptions should only require sufficient
documentation to meet the criteria specified in 192.20. NRC has only to
concur in the proposed remedial action as provided by PL 95-60A. As such
information is a public record, such records are available to NRC and EPA
for their review.
I sincerely hope these comments will be of use to you in appropriately
amending 40 CFR 192.
Sincerely
AlBert J. HazlW, Director
Radiation and Hazardous
Wastes Control Division
AJH:bjw
•cc: Dr. Frank Tray lor, CDH
Governor's Office
Ruth M. Clusen, DOE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Post Office Box 2063
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
August 8, 1980
(717) 787-3720
Environmental Protection Agency
Central Docket Section
Room 2903 B
401 "M" Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20U06
Reference:
Gentlemen:
A-79-25
This refers to the proposed and interim cleanup
standards for inactive uranium processing sites contained in the
Federal Register, dated Tuesday, April 22, 1980.
We agreed totally with the statements and comments
contained in the June 13, 1980 letter from Ruth C. Clusen,
Assistant Secretary for Environment, Department of Energy to
Douglas M. Costle, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.
The standards for open lands and indoor radon decay product
concentration, as published, are not practical in every case. For
your information, we are enclosing a copy of the letter referenced
above.
Like the Department of Energy, we hope you will be able
to solve these issues prior to the promulgation of final
standards.
Very^truly yours,
n
THOMAS M. GERUSKY, Director
Bureau of Radiation Protection
Enclosure
co: William E. Mott
CENT;, „ . ...
SECTION
-------
S-7
S-8
Robert ?Gi*t
of ;
(Illjmnber
March 3, 1981
SALT LAKE
HEALTH
CITY-COUNTY
IEPARTMCNT
ISJ
00
Mr. David M. Rosenbaum
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Radiation Programs
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Mr. Rosenbaum:
(Capitol Conifilr
CuriDR fflitji,
HrnLre
AGFNCY
APR 0 9 1981
CENTRAL DOCKET
SECTION
Thank you for your recent letter regarding proposed
disposal standards for uranium tailings.
It appears that the principle of "cost versus benefit"
has not been adequately considered in the development of the
radon emission standard.
In the discussion of the proposed standard for an
emission mte for radon, the statements are made that "the
current emission rate from the tailings piles of several
hundred picocuries of radon per square meter per second
should be reduced to two picocuries of radon per square
meter per second. ' Further, the standard is supposed to
"reduce radon emissions and their effects by 99 percent."
The effect of the uncovered 22 tailings piles located in
eight western states and one eastern state is given as two
premature deaths from lung cancer per year, in the total
U. S. population. To obtain the 99 percent reduction in
radon emission would require covering all the tailings piles
with ten feet of dirt at the cost of many millions of dollars.
We believe that a reduction of 30 to 50 percent of the
effects of radon emissions is more practical, particularly
if the millions saved is put to use in other life-saving
programs.
Sincerely,
610 South 2nd East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Phone: 532 2002 KECEIVED
TERRY D. SADLER. Director NViRO.* NTAL PROTECT,.
Division of Environmental Health
;.:..o:, 1981
CENTRAL DOCKET
BOARD OF HEALTH
L C ROMNEY. Chairman
WILLIAM L. HUTCHINSON, Commissioner
Salt Lake County
WAYNE BAER
C. D. CLARK, D.D.S.
JAMES W. DAVIS, Mayor
South Salt Lake
L JED MORRISON, M.D.
.LAR6UL D. MUIR, Mayor
Murray City
HALF C. RICHES, Ed.D.
RULON SIMMONS, M.D.
ROBERT L. SORBONNE, D.D.S.
W. PAUL THOMPSON, Mayor
Sandy City
SANDRA K. ERCANBRACK
Secretary
HARRY L. GIBBONS, M.D. M.P.H.
Director of Health
March 16, 1981
V.S Environmental Protection Agency
Docket No. A-79-25
West Tower, Gallery 1
401 M Street
S. W., Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Sirs:
The Salt Lake City-County Health Dept. has been an
active participant in preparing the Vitro Uranium Mill Tailings
Pile for remedial action under PL 95-604. I am pleased to
see the proposed final cleanup standards promulgated in the
federal Register since we are now that much closer to resolving
the Vitro problem.
I believe that the proposed standards will provide
the measure of protection mandated by the Congress. Further,
I am pleased that there will be no need to re-evaluate or
reclassify involved properties due to radically altered
interim standards.
I wish to lend our full support for the codification
of the final rule.
Sincerely,
Terry D. Sadler, Director
Division of Environmental Health
TDS:BLH:ln
-------
S-9
S-9
PI
i
VO
rATE OF KANSAS
DEPARTMENT OF
TOT
DIVISION OF THE BUDGET
Room ,«. s,al.
Topeka. Kansas 6661?
913-296-2436
KANS-A-N 561-2436
WAY 1 3 1981
CENTRAL DOCKET
SECTION
REF: E.I.S. for Remedial Action
Standards for Inactive
Uranium Processing Sites
SAI: 9401
April 6, 1981
Mr. Stanley Lichtman, Project Leader
In Care of the Director
Criteria & Standards Division
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, O.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Lichtman:
The above referenced project has been processed by the Division of the
Budget under its clearinghouse responsibilities as described in the
Federal Office of Managment and Budget Circular A-95.
After review by interested state agencies, it has been found that the
proposed project does not adversely affect state plans. Enclosed is a
comment concerning this project for your information and referral.
If you need any additional clarification of information reoardinn the
state clearinghouse's action please contact this office.
Sincerely,
LYNN MUCHHORE
Director of the Budget
STATE AGENCY A-95 TRANSMITTAL FORM
Return to: Division of the Budget, Department of Administration, 1st Floor,
Capitol Building, Topeka, Kansas 66612
[ — 1 Notification o£ Intent
PROJECT TITLE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency f~l Preapplication
E.I.S. for Remedial Action Stds. for Inactive Uranium ProcessingQ Final Application
bltflfevlEW PROCESS STARTED
3-9-81
DATE REVIEW PROCESS ENDED
ASAP
SAI NUMBER
9401
PART I Initial Project Notification Review (To be completed by Clearinghouse):
The attached project has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the Federal OMB Circular A-95 revised. (jj] Return
This form provides notification and opportunity for review of f~~j Expedite
this project to the agencies checked below. Please fill in ( I ^^ info Avail
Part II and Part III below and return to the State Clearinghouse.
REVIEW AGENCIES
Aging
Agriculture - DWR
Civil Rights Commission
Economic Development
Education
F|,3h:;and Game Commission
Health and Environment
Historical Society
Human Resources
Kansas Corporation Commission
Park and Resources Authority
Social and Rehabilitation Services
State Conservation Commission
Transportation
Water Resources Board
PART II Nature of Agency review comments (To be completed by review agency and returned to CH)
Check one or more appropriate boxes. Indicate comments below. Attach additional sheet if
necessary or use reverse side.
Q Request clarification or additional info.
COMMENTS:
Suggestions for improving project proposa
By:
Alan 0. Conroy fj
A-95 Coordinator (/
LM:ADC:mfl
Attachment
PART III Recommended State Clearinghouse Action (To be completed by review agency and
returned to Clearinghouse):
Check one box only:
Q Clearance of the project should be
granted
Clearance of the project should be
delayed until the issues or questions
have been clarified by the Applicant
X
Clearance of the project should not be
delayed but the Applicant should (in
the final application) address or clarify
the questions or concerns indicated above
Request the opportunity to review the
final application prior to submission to
the federal funding agency
Reviewer's Name
(J
Div. /Agency
Date
-------
S-10
S-ll
m
i
U)
o
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
30 EAST BROAD STREET • 39TH FLOOR • COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215
Gl-04-a7 P
09
'614 / 466-7461
Dr. Stanley Lichtman
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
West Town Gallery 1
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
RE: Review of Environmental Impact Statement/Assessment
Title: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Remedial Action
Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites. Statewide
SAI Number: . 36-552-0004
*
Dear Mr. Lichtman:
The State Clearinghouse coordinated the review of the above
referenced environmental impact statement/assessment.
This environmental report was reviewed by all interested State
agencies. No reviewers has stated concerns relating to this report.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this statement/assessment.
Sincerely,
MAY 13 1981
CEWRAL DOCKET
/Judith V. Brachroan
Administering Officer
JYB:alf
cc:
DNR, Mike Colvin
EPA, nary Rhodes
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING COORDINATION
CAPITOL COMPLEX
CARSON CITY. NEVADA 8971O
I7O2) 88S-4B65
May 4, 1981
Mr. William A. Mills, Ph. D.
Director
Criteria & Standards Division
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection
Washington, D.C. 20460
RE: SAI NV 181300036 Project: Remedial Action Standards
Inactive Uranium Processing Sites
Dear Dr. Mills:
Attached are the comments from the following affected State Agencies:
Division of Health concerning the above referenced project.
These comments constitute the State Clearinghouse review of this proposal.
Please address these comments In the final or summary report.
Sincerel
Nolan for
Robert Hill
State Planning Coordinator
RH/MN/Jg
Enclosure
RECEIVED ...
CRITERIA & STANDARDS DIVISION. D*P
DATE
MAY 1 1 198t
-------
S-12
w
i
Comments: (use additional sheets if necessary}
It appears that th-> principle of "cost versus benefit" has not been adequately considered
In the development of the radon emission standard.
In the discussion of the proposed standard for an emission ratr for radon, the statements
are made that "the current emission rate from the tailings piles of several hundred pico-
curies of radon per square meter per second should be reduced to two picocuries of radon per
square meter per second." Further, the standard is supposed to "reduce radon emissions and
their effects by 99 percent." The effect of the uncovered 22 tailings piles located in
eight western states and one eastern state is given as two premature deaths from lung cancer
per year, in the total U.S. population. To obtain the 99 percent reduction in radon emission
would require Governing all the tailings piles with ten feet of dirt at the cost of many
millions of dollars. We believe that a reduction of 30 to 50 percent of the effects of
radon emissions is more practical, particularly if the millions saved is put to use in
other life-saving programs.
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT Of ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
State Grant-ln-Aid-Clearinghouse
5900 N. WESTERN OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 7311t f«05) MO-2111
May 7, 1981
Dr. Stanley Lichtman
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Docket No. A-79-25
West Tower Gallery 1
401 It Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
RE: 09D102 - Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
Remedial Action Standards for Inactive
Uranium Processing Sites (SAI #810507-001)
Dear Dr. Lichtman:
The environmental information for the above referenced
project has been reviewed in accordance with OMB Circular A-
95 and Section 102 (2) (C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act by the state agencies charged with enforcing
environmental standards in the State of Oklahoma.
The state agencies, comprising the Pollution Control
Coordinating Board, have reviewed the proposed project and
agree that no adverse environmental impact is anticipated.
Therefore, the state clearinghouse requires no further
review.
Sin
Don N. Strain
Director
DNS:mt
-------
S-13
S-14
PI
I
U)
NJ
Executive Department
155 COTTAGE STREET N.E., SALEM, OREGON 97310
May 7, 1981
William A. Hills, Ph.D.
Director
Criteria t Standards Division (ANR-460)
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Hills:
Remedial Action Standards for Inactive Uraninum Processing
Sites
PNRSt 8103 4 360
Thank you for submitting your draft Environmental Impact
Statement for State of Oregon review and comment.
Your draft was referred to the appropriate state agencies
for review. The consensus among reviewing agencies was
that the draft adequately described the environmental
impact of your proposal.
He will expect to receive copies of the final statement
as required by Council of Environmental Quality Guidelines.
Sincerely,
INTj
ITAL
allows DIVISION
Kay Wilcox
A-95 Coordinator
KW:cb
jgtfS
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Richard 0. Lamm
Governor
May 8, 1981
Frank A. Traylor. M.D.
Executive Director
Environmental Protection Agency
Central Docket Section
West Tower Lobby
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20WO
RE: Docket No. A-79-25 - January 9, 1981 Federal Register
Dear Gentlemen:
RECEIVED
cNVIRONKENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
MAY 1 8 1981
CENTRAL DOCKET
ACTION
Colorado has several active or proposed uranium mills plus numerous
inactive uranium piles. As we are an Agreement State with the NRC
the Water Quality Control Division has provided technical assistance
to the state licensing authority for several new and existing uranium
mills.
At this time, the Colorado Attorney General interprets uranium tailings
piles to be subject to control under C.R.S. 1973, 25-8-505. This section
of the Water Quality Control Act addresses groundwater and requires one
of two findings before the activity Is permitted. The findings are:
a) that no waters of the State will be polluted thereby; or b) that if
waters of the State will be polluted thereby, the pollution resulting
therefrom will be limited to waters in a specified limited area from
which there is no risk of significant migration and the proposed
activity is justified by public need. The Division has recommended
finding b) above, for the one operation which has applied for a permit.
Though distance and contaminant level criteria do not exist, the proposed
design will provide reasonable assurance for groundwater protection.
To be reasonably consistent with this Act, it is recommended that the
proposed numeric limits be imposed at a distance no greater than 0.1
kilometers from either an existing pile or a relocated pile. Nondeg-
radation should be the criteria when natural background levels exceed
the numeric criteria. Part of the reason for this is the fact that,
according to limited groundwater data in the 1977 Ford, Bacon and
Davis Utah, Inc. reports on the inactive sites in Colorado, many of the
piles have a potential for saturation during high stream flows. This
being the case, it would be very possible for a pile to be impacting
groundwaters yet not see the impact 1 kilometer from the site because of
seepage migration into surface waters. As the placement of uranium
tailings was previously based upon practicality and not good siting
criteria, monitoring close to the pile will make it more difficult for
a poor site to be accepted for final disposal. As saturation of the piles
may be periodic, extended periods of groundwater monitoring may be required
at existing sites to factually determine site adequacy for the 1000 year
period.
4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE DENVER.COLORADO 8022O PHONE C3O3) 32O-B333
-------
S-14
S-15
U)
to
Page 2
One additional reason for imposing criteria close to a site, is the fact
that most if not all the inactive piles are located in semi-arid areas.
As these same areas are being impacted by great population increases and
increased energy activities, the demands on the limited waters are
increasing.
The chemical and radiological characteristics of seepage from a uranium
pile are dependent on factors such as leaching process, ore source, soil
characteristics, etc. At the Cotter mill in Canon City, molybdenum
and uranium were found to be two of the most mobile metals in the ground-
waters. Selenium was found to be somewhat mobile and arsenic though
present in ponds, could not be found in adjacent groundwaters. The
groundwaters near other sites have shown elevated levels of thorium 230
and lead 210. Due to the fact that mobility of a given parameter at a
given location will indicate its value as an identifier of seepage, the
proposed list of parameters plus thorium 230, lead 210 and vanadium
should serve as suitable criteria. At this time, a suggested numeric
limit for these three parameters cannot be made. For a given site, once
the best indicators of contamination are identified, the remainder of
the parameters should be of secondary importance.
One additional criteria which should be included in the standards is the
location of the final disposal pile out of the floodplain of a probable
maximum flood event, for any adjacent drainage. Location within such a
floodplain can cuase erosion as well as saturation of portions of the
pile which will not allow compliance with the 1000 year cirteria.
The primary concern of this Division is that the proposed rules would
make the acceptance of existing sites as the final disposal site too
simple. It is very likely that none of the existing uranium pile locations
in Colorado would be acceptable for siting of a new pile. As congress
has determined that proper isolation of inactive uranium piles is needed,
the standards should be sufficient to insure that the uranium piles are
not left at a marginal site.
One general point of concern is the indication in the Federal Register
that limited groundwater impact is occurring at most sites. In review of
the specific site reports of 1977 by Ford, Bacon and Davis Utah, Inc.
limited data was available upon which to make any determination. If the
feeling of limited impact continues, it may bias the standards before
they are finalized.
Should there be any question on these comments, please contact this office.
Sincerely,
JOHN V. EVANS
GOVERNOR
Robert J. Shukle, P.E.
Unit Chief, Industrial Unit
Perm!ts Section
Water 0_uality Control Division
RJS/ky
cc: Al Hazle
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
STATE CAPITOL
BOISE 8372O
May 11, 1981
Dr. Stanley Lichtman
Criteria & Standards Division
(ANR-460)
Office of Radiation Programs
U. S. EPA
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Dr. Lichtman:
RE: Docket #A-79-25
We have reviewed the Proposed Cleanup and Disposal Standards
for Inactive Uranium Mill Sites (40 CFR 192) which we assume
will be applicable to the abandoned uranium mill site near
Lowraan, Idaho.
The standards appear to be practical and our enclosed comments
are general in nature.
We appreciate this opportunity for input on the vital issue
of radioactive waste disposal.
V. EVANS
GOVERNOR
JVE/bf
Enclosure
-------
S-15
S-16
Docket #A-79-25
Comments on EPA's Proposed Cleanup and Disposal Standard for
Inactive Uranium Processing Sites (10 CFR 192)
A. Open Lands(192.12(a)) - The proposed contamination level
of 5pCi/gm Ra-226 is low and such levels may be hard to
find in a facility.
B. Indoor Rn Daughter Concentration (192.12(b)) - .015 WL
is low from histories of studies in Colorado;a better
limit might be .025 WL.
C. Indoor Gamma (192.12(b)) - The standard of 20 uR/hr is
low and leaves no options to final disposition of tailings
except removal.
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
STATE PLANNING DIVISION
505 DON CASPAR AVBILJE
SANTA FE. NEW MEXICO 87503
(5051827-2073
1505) 827-5191
15051 827-2108
Hay 22, 1981
ANITA HISENBERG
DXECTOR
JOE GUILLEN
OEPUTV
W
I
Dr. Stanley Lichtman
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Radiation Programs
West Tower Gallery 1, 401 "M" Street
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Dr. Lichtman:
AGENCY
JUN151981
CENTRAL DOCKET
SECTION
Enclosed Is the only response we have received from New Mexico state
agencies concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Remedial
Action Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites. Our office sup-
ports the proposal.
Sincerely,
BR:Jeh
Enclosure
Betsy Reed
Planning Bureau
-------
S-16
S-16
U)
v/1
PLANNING DIVISION
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE)
MIS-4
Review and Comment
TO:
FROM:
Charles P. flood
Energy s Minerals Department
DATE: 3-31-81
Betsy Aeed
Planning* Bureau
SI 03 11 051
SAI NUMBER
PROJECT TITLE
Processing Sites
Planning Division - Planning Bureau
LEAD AGENCY
Please review and comment on the above application and return to the sender by April 27, 1981
1. Don this plan duplicate any programs which have similar goals and objectives to the proposed application?
_Y« (If yes, please identify these programs.)
2. Does the proposed application conform with a comprehensive plan developed for the area in which it is located?
__X_Not applicable
No (If no, please explain in what way it is not compatible.)
3. Does the proposed application conflict with any applicable statute, order, rule, or regulation (federal, state or local)?
v«« (If yes, please cite the conflicting statute, order, rule or regulation.)
. X No
4. Describe any suggestions or means of improving or strnngthpining the proposed application.
Please see the attached comments from the New Mexico Energy and Minerals Department.
COMMENTS
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
For Remedial Action Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites
April 22, 1981
Presented below are the comments which have been prepared by the New Mexico
'Energy and Minerals Department on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for Remedial Action Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites (40
CFR 192) :
1. Page 2-7 (Table 2-2) — The totals listed on Page 2-8 do not
correspond to the number of "x's" in the column; in the third
column, #23 and #25 (the Kite and Monticello sites, respectively)
weren't designated under PL 95-604.
2. Page 2-8 (Table 2-2) — The footnote "(d)" isn't listed in the
table. What site does it refer to?
3. Page 2-19 (Reference) — The title of Merritt's books is The Extractive
Metallurgy of Uranium" — not the title cited here (e.g. "The Extraction
Metalurgy . . . ")
4. Page 3 (third line from the bottom) — The word "unusually" should
be "usually"
5. Page 3-4 (first line) — The word "occurred" is spelled wrong.
6. Page 3-6 (second line from the bottom) — The reference "(NU 79)"
should actually be "(NR 79)", and should be listed at the end of
Chapter 3.
7. Page 3-10 (footnote) — What do the letters (GJT-13, 20 . . . )
refer to? Do these references relate to specific contract reports
done by Ford, Bacon, and Davis, Utah, Inc.?
No interest in, or comment on, this project.
Proposal is supported.
__2—Proposal is supported with recommendations.
Proposal is not supported.
Further information needed, review suspended and applicant notified of request.
_X_Comments attached.
On the basis of my review, I have indicated my response and/or recommendations above.
A-95 Revleo ConT-d-inaf-m
Signature of Reviewer
4/23/81
Date
Approved July, 1979
Secretary. DFA
Title
Energy and Minerals Department
Agency
1 - white - to applicant
1 * yellow - SPD copy
8. Page 4 (second paragraph, fourth sentence) — This sentence is not
stated correctly or clearly. It should read "Uranium decays since
the ore which was formed millions of years ago has built up an
inventory ..."
9. Page 5-6 (first paragraph, line 9) — The word "coats" should be
"costs"
10. Page 6-2 (last line on page)- — The word "method" is spelled wrong.
11. Page 7 (second paragraph, first sentence) — This sentence should
read: "Buildings, too, have been contaminated by tailings ..."
-------
S-16
S-16
PI
i
Comments — Draft Environmental Impact Statement
April 22, 1981
Page Two
12. Page 7-4 (last sentence on page) — "Other radioactive substances
in the tailing^ will ordinarily pose . . . radium-226.'
13. Page 7-9 (second line from top) — The word "eciding" should be
"deciding"
14. Page 8-3 (line 2) — This sentence should read "nay cause 40 to
90 premature deaths ... a pile."
15. Page 8-6 (last paragraph) — The DEIS states that "such emission
rates can be lowered to 2 pCl/nr-sec for about 10 percent additional
cost." The problem is this "10 percent additional cost" could
translate into substantial additional costs for the State's share
when the present rate of inflation and rising costs are taken
into consideration. Also, this 10 percent additional cost only
provides a small reduction in health effects avoided. For example,
when the radon limit is set at 10 pCi/m2-sec, 97.8 percent of the
associated health effects are avoided (see Table 6-2 on Page 6-7).
And when thS radon limit is lowered to 2 pCi/m2-sec, 99.6 percent
of the health effects are avoided. Thus, only a 1.8 percent reduction
in associated health effects is realized by lowering the limit from
10 to 2 pCi/m2-sec. Is this small reduction In health effects worth
the additional costs associated with lowering the radon limit? Will
lowering the limit expose workers (directly involved with the remedial
action program) to excess radiation levels?
16. Page 8-25 (under 8.2.2.1) — The third sentence states that "the
level must either not be exceedeji, or tailings must not be the cause
of any remaining excess." Is it possible, in most cases,-to
determine what percentage of radon concentrations are due to tailings?
The quoted sentence seems to make an assumption that isn't verified
in the DEIS.
OMB Approval No. 29-R07T8
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
Type Of Q Preapplication
Action (XmppHenion DEIS
D Notification CM Intent (Opt.)
O Report Of Federal Action
Applicant'!
application
Year Honlh Pay
3. State
application
identifier
81 03 11 051
b. Date
Anigned
Year month day
I9 81 03 18
Leave
Blank
a. Applicant Name
b. Organization Unit
c. Street/P.O. Box
d. City
f. State
h. Contact panon
{Name a telephone no.) (JQJ) 557-8927
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Radiation Programs
West Tower Gallery 1, 401 H Street
Washington «. county
O.C. »• ZipCode : 20460
Dr. Stanley Lichtman
7. Title and deeeriptton of applicant's project
DEIS Remedial Action Standards for Inactive
Uranium Processing Sites
The EPA is proposing standards for disposing of
uranium mill tailings from inactive processing
and for cleaning up contaminated open land & -
buildings.
10. Area of project impact (Namesofcitics.courtties.ttates.ctc,
Interstate project
13. Propoaed Funding
inel Districts Of:
.00
.00
a. Applicent
N/A
16. Project Surt
Oat, Year
day
11. Estimated
of penom
T/A"
b. Project
N/A
". Project
Year month date
N/A
Federal Employer Identification No.
N/A
(From
Federal
b. Title
Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act
8. Type of app.ic.mt/reeip.em
., Urn S-Sait H >*urpO«« tynri
•- Iftmun H-Cammunitv Action **
Enter appropriate letter
9. Type of aaaiettnce
A—Basic Grant O—Insurance
B—Supplemental Grant E—Other
C-Loan
tal Grant E-Other ,. -—.
Enter appropriate letrer(s) (ft 1 I
12. Type of application
A— New C— Revision E— Augmentation
B-Renewal D~Continu.rt.on -
Enter appropriate letter ]r
IS. Type of
A-lncrtUM Oall.tn
B— Decrease Dollars
C— Increase Duration
O—Decrease Duration
£*-Cancellation
For 12cor 12e
F-Qttor Specify:
Enter appro-
priate letter(t)
19. Exiiting federal identitiatian number
N/A
EPA
{Name, city, state, zip code}
22.
The
Applicant
CertifiM
That
23.
Certify'",)
a. To the best of my knowledge and
belief, data in this praapplication/
application are true and correct, the
document has been duly authorized
by the governing body of the appli-
cant and the applicant will comply
ith the attached asturances if the
sjstance is approved.
b. If required by OMB Circular A-95 this application was submitted. No Response
pursuant to instructions therein, to appropriate clearinghouses and resaoraf attached
all responses are attached: ^
- -- - - D Hx
a a
D a
ID New Mexico State Clearinghouse
a. Typed name and title
b. Signature
a
DC. Returned for
Jd. Deferred
K Withdrawn
32. Fundlne
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Year month day
36. Contact lor (ddrtionel informetioi
IName ami telephone number/
j. In taking above action, env comments received from clearing-
"juaes were considered. If agency response is due under provisions
of Pant. QMS Circuler A-96. it hes been or is being made.
c. Datesioned
Year month day
Year month dty
I.U,
rear month day
Ytar mtmih day
QVei QNo
b. Federal Agency A-BS Official
(Name and teliframe nmbtr)
(ALSO PLEASE COMPLETE REVERSE SIDE)
Standard Form 424 Page 1 110-751
rracrlftd by OSA. Federal Ma*H*meru Orailtr 74-7
-------
S-16
S-17
PLANNING DIVISION
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE)
REVIEW CERTIFICATION FORM
MISS
STATE PLANNING DIVISION
DEPT. OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION
505 DON CASPAR
SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO 87503
(505) 827-2073
TO:
Office of Radiation Programs
DATE: 5/B/81
®fft« of
PI
i
CO
SUBJECT: D PRELIMINARY REVIEW
D FINAL REVIEW
D STATE/AREA PLAN
a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PROJECT TITLE- DRAFT ENTOHMMENTAL IMPACT STAIBffiNT - REMEDIAL ACTION STAHDASDS FOR
INACTIVE URANIUM PROCESSING SITES
APPT.Tr.ANT- Office of Radiation Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
SAI MTTMHER: 81 03 11 051
.FEDERAL CATALOG NUMBER: 66.000
FEDERAL AGENCY: Office of Radiation Programs, P.S. Environmental Protection Agency
PROPOSED FUNDING (PER 424 FORM) AMOUNT
FEDERAL «
APPLICANT -
STATE 1
LOCAL :
OTHER ~
TOTAL
FOR FINAL APPLICATION ONLY:
REVIEW RESULTS:
x . The application is supported.
. The application is not in conflict with State, Areawide or Local plans.
Comments are attached for submission with this application.
^*JL)
AGENCY REVIEW C
AGENCY
TO THE APPLICANT:
You may now submit your application package, this form and all review comments to the Federal or State Agency(s)
from whom action is being requested.
Please notify the Planning Division (Clearinghouse) of any changes in this project. Refer to the SAI number on ALL
correspondencepertaining to this project. /
STATE PIJUWINGDIVISIONDI^CTOR
/w 2 - white
M. 1 - to applicant
DATE / ' DATE 1-tor Federal Agency
.AODrovedJulv.1979 . 1-pink-lead agency
Dtoctor
H E M 0 R A N
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Radiation Programs
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
FROM:
DATE:
Charles H. Badger, Administrator
Georgia State Clearinghouse
Office of Planning and Budget
May 26, 1981
JUN151981
SUBJECT: RESULTS OF STATE LEVEL REVIEW
Applicant:
Project:
Environmental Protection Agency
DEIS Remedial Action Standards for Inactive Uranium
Processing Sites (40 CFR192)
State Application Identifier:
GA 81-03-10-008
The State of Georgia is pleased to review the document and to see tne proposed
standards for disposing of tailings and for cleaning up contaminated open land
and buildings, However, the State is opposed to any waste management program that
may have influence on the State's groundwater system. As indicated in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, "Uranium Mines are usually below the water table;
therefore, ground water protection methods are sorely needed; at present, it's not
clear if effective methods are known." This type of uncertainty could lead to
opposition on the State's behalf in locating operations of this type in Georgia.
The State encourages the EPA and other federal agencies to continue and take a
lead role in trying to resolve the many waste dilemmas confronting our society.
The State will continue to work with all concerned parties (States, Federal, local,
etc.) towards improving waste management; however, the State will continue to exercise
its own rights in this matter in order to maintain and protect its natural resources
and the health and safety of the residents of Georgia. ^
-------
S-18
S-18
w
i
u>
00
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Richard D. Lamm
Governor
Frank A. Traylor. M.D.
Executive Director
June 9, 1981
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
JUN221981
CENTRAL DOCKET
Environmental Protection Agency
Central Docket Section
West Tower Lobby
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Gentlemen:
Colorado has long been concerned with the disposal of
uranium mill tailings. Since the early 1960's studies have
been conducted with the cooperation of others to determine the
impacts from inadequately stabilized tailings piles. Finally
in 1972, mill tailings were recognized by Congress as having
a significant potential impact. This was the passage of
PL 92-314 providing for the Grand Junction Remedial Action
Program on buildings where tailings were used. Continued effort
by the states and EPA resulted in Congressional action in 1978
with the enactment of PL 95-604 authorizing the inactive
tailings pile remedial program and providing strengthening
of the NRC and Agreement State programs to preclude another
generation of inadequately reclaimed and stabilized tailings
piles.
Within this state there are 9 inactive uranium mill piles at
7 general locations with a total of 11 million tons of tailings.
There are approximately 7,000 off-site or vicinity locations
contaminated by these 9 piles. Another 16 million tons of
uranium mill tailings or residues do not fall under the remedial
program addressed by Title I of PL 95-604. Proposed or new
mills yet to come on-line will generate an additional equivalent
inventory; however they will be handled right from the start in
a more fitting manner commensurate with.their long-term potential
hazard.
Colorado's comments are predicated on the fact that there must
be consistency in the criteria and standards of EPA, NRC, DOE,
and the States', and that among these entities there must be
continued consistency between the regulations and interpretations
implementing these standards and criteria.
Our specific comments regarding 40 CFR 192 as proposed are:
Subpart A.
192.03
a) EPA proposes a minimum of one thousand years
where NRC requires a longevity standard of
"thousands of years". The practicality of
the matter is that the proposed EPA value would
be appropriate if the protection parameters
would not change over the thousand years.
However, In a slight erosional environment,
depending on the reclamation site, periods of
thousands of years must be considered due to the
pecularities and erosional potentials of the
specific site. The specificity of one thousand
years is as inappropriate as is the concept of
using geological time. We feel that periods of
10,000 years are practical and can be economically
achieved.
b) The application of drinking water standards to
ground or surface waters is problematic. Values
for surface waters of Colorado generally vary
from-10 pCi Uranium/liter in the higher elevations
to equal to or greater than 100 pCi Uranium filter
in the lower reaches of major river basins. This
is primarily due to the solids content of the water.
In Colorado, the alpha radioactivity of these
solids range from 20 to 40 pCi/gram.
Radium values ranges from less than 0.IpCi/liter
to over 400 pCi/liter in groundwaters. These are
not man-enhanced situations. The value for radium
in drinking water was based on health impact and
the ability to treat elevated levels. The value
for uranium was based solely on health Impact.
Ability to treat waters with any degree of efficiency
for uranium removal is questioned. I envision
extensive usage of the exemptions proposed in Part C
to "accomplish" any form of remedial action thereby
identifying that the standards were improperly
formulated as to efficacy of attainment and enforcement.
c) If a river was within the prescribed measurement
distance (0.1 kilometer), a site could have signi-
ficant leaching but still be within the standard
due to the dilution by the river's influence on the
unconfined aquifer. The use of two different measure-
ment distances has an economic factor, however, it is
questioned if the health impact might play a more
important role. Further, the criteria should be
idential to that applied to active sites as the hazard
is identical.
4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE DENVER.COLORADO 80220 PHONE (303) 320-8333
-------
S-18
S-18
d) Vanadium, thorium 230 and lead 210 should be
added to the list of parameters in Table A.
Subpart B.
192.12
PJ
I
CO
vO
a.) Under (a) no guidance is provided for DOE's
"reasonable assurance" in the interpretation of
these standards. Additionally, there is no inter-
pretation on how the values are to be measured.
Colorado has gained a great deal of experience in
the implementation of the Grand Junction program.
We foresee problems in the varied interpretations
that have and will occur in the future on the proper
and consistent measurement procedures.
b) In respect to the radium in soil standard, the
determination of adequate cleanup should be determined
in conjunction with secondary measurements, i.e.
scintillometer readings, rather than solely by use
of multiple soil analysis.
c) Under (b) the radon standard does not state the
conditions under which the 0.015WL is to be measured.
Radon daughter levels are highly dependent upon the
conditions in a structure during measurements.
Further, the standard does not state if 0.015WL
is the maximum reading, or if it is the average of
several readings. The statements that it is financially
practical to lower concentrations greater than 0.017WL
is questionable. Our Grand Junction experience
indicates that the cost per radon daughter reduction at
the 0.017WL point is between $1.5 and $5 million per
working level reduction. Further on a statistical
basis there will be approximately twice as many false
positives undergoing expensive remedial action under the
0.015WL- criterion as under the 0.017 criterion (assuming
there is a standardized monitoring procedure - see above).
d) Under (c) the term "dose equivalent" is used and
references (a) and (b). However, the maximum dose
equivalent in rem as defined is not included in Table B.
Part C.
a) The exemptions provided in 192.20 and 192.21 are
consistent with the practices in Grand Junction,
which relates solely to the gamma and radon daughter
values. As such we envision their proper limited
usage. However, with regard to the other values, as
stated before, we envision extensive use of the
exemptions which indicates that the standards were
improperly derived.
Again, Colorado expresses concern for consistency between
agencies on standards and their implementation. We might
be more concerned with how DOE intends to implement these
Standards. When will their implementing regulations be
available for review and comment'
Attached are a letter from the Colorado Department of Health's
Water Quality Control Division and an internal memo from
our Grand Junction office with additional comments. Thank
you for the opportunity to comment on this standard.
Sincerely,
AYlTert J. H#zle, Director
Radiation and Hazardous
Wastes Control Division
AJH:vb
Enclosures: as stated
-------
S-18
S-18
M
I
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Richard D. Lamm \jf^lL^^^-^ Frank A. Traylor M D.
Governor ^^JfiVO^X^ Executive Oireclcr
May 8, 1981
Environmental Protection Agency
Central Docket Section
West Tower Lobby
1(01 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20'i60
RE: Docket No. A-79-25 - January 9, 1981 Federal Register
Dear Gent&men:
Colorado has several active or proposed uranium mills plus numerous
inactive uranium piles. As we are an Agreement State with the NRC
the Water Quality Control Division has provided technical assistance
to the state licensing authority for several new and existing uranium
At this time, the Colorado Attorney General interprets uranium tailings
piles to be subject to control under C.R.S. 1973, 25-8-505. This section
of the Water Quality Control Act addresses groundwater and requires one
of two findings before the activity is permitted. The findings are:
a) that no waters of the State will be polluted thereby; or b) that if
waters of the State will be polluted thereby, the pollution resulting
therefrom will be limited to waters in a specified limited area from
which there is no risk of significant migration and the proposed
activity is justified by public need. The Division has recommended
finding b) above, for the one operation which has applied for a permit.
Though distance and contaminant level criteria do not exist, the proposed
design will provide reasonable assurance for groundwater protection.
To be reasonably consistant with this Act, it is recommended that the
proposed numeric limits be imposed at a distance no greater than 0.1
kilometers from either an existing pile or a relocated pile. Mondeg-
radation should be the criteria when natural background levels exceed
the numeric criteria. Part of the reason for this is the fact that,
according to limited groundwater data in the 1977 Ford, Bacon and
Davis Utah, Inc. reports on the inactive sites in Colorado, many of the
piles have a potential for-saturation during high stream flows. This
being the case, it would be very possible for a pile to be impacting
groundwaters yet not see the impact 1 kilometer from the site because of
seepage migration into surface waters. As the placement of uranium
tailings was previously based upon practicality and not good siting
criteria, monitoring close to the pile will make it more difficult for
a poor site to be accepted for final disposal. As saturation of the piles
may be periodic, extended periods of groundwater monitoring may be required
at existing sites to factually determine site adequacy for the 1000 year
period.
Page 2
One additional reason for imposing criteria close to a site, is the fact
that most if not all the inactive piles are located in semi-arid areas.
As these same areas are being impacted by great population increases and
increased energy activities, the demands on the limited waters are
increasing.
The chemical and radiological characteristics of seepage from a uranium
pile are dependent on factors such as leaching process, ore source, soil
characteristics, etc. At the Cotter mill in Canon City, molybdenum
and uranium were found to be two of the most mobile metals in the qround-
waters. Selenium was found to be somewhat mobile and arsenic though
present in ponds, could not be found in adjacent groundwaters. The
groundwaters near other sites have shown elevated levels of thorium 230
and lead 210. Due to the fact that mobility of a given parameter at a
given location will indicate its value as an identifier of seepage, the
proposed list of parameters plus thorium 230, lead 210 and vanadium
should serve as suitable criteria. At this time, a suggested numeric
limit for these three parameters cannot be made. For a given site, once
the best indicators of contamination are identified, the remainder of
the parameters should be of secondary importance.
One additional criteria which should be included in the standards is the
location of the final disposal pile out of the floodplain of t probable
maximum flood event, for any adjacent drainage. Location within such a
floodplain can cuase erosion as well as saturation of portions of the
pile which will not allow compliance with the 1000 year cirteria.
The primary concern of this Division is that the proposed rules would
make the acceptance of existi'ng sites as the final disposal site too
simple. It is very likely that none of the existing uranium pile locations
in Colorado would be acceptable for siting of a new pile. As congress
has determined that proper isolation of inactive uranium piles is needed,
the standards should be sufficient to insure that the uranium piles are
not left at a marginal site.
One general point of concern is the indication in the Federal Register
that limited groundwater impact is occurring at most sites. In review of
the specific site reports of 1977 by Ford, Bacon and Davis Utah, Inc.
limited data was available upon which to make any determination. If the
feeling of limited impact continues, it may bias the standards before
they are finaIized.
Should there be any question on these comments, please contact this office.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Shukle, F.E.
Unit Chief, Industrial Unit
Permi ts Section
Water Quality Control Division
RJS/ky
4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE DENVER.COL.ORADO 80220 PHONE (303) 320-8333
cc: Al Hazle
-------
S-18
S-18
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Division or Section of Radiaric
INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION
TO :
FROM:
A I Ha-z«e\
Hal Langner
BATE :
SUBJECT:
June 2, 1981
Proposed EPA Cleanup Stan-
dards for Inactive Uranium
Processing Sites
The following comments are essentially the same as those made by me verbally
to Stan Lichtman upon his recent visit here in Grand Junction and are hereby
put in writing in accordance with your instructions for you to transmit to EPA
through the appropriate channels.
The most serious criti'cism that 1 have to make is that the proposed radon
daughter criterion is not a standard at all because it doesn't state the condi-
tions under which the 0.015 WL is to be measured and that in spite of the claim
in the published announcement of the proposed standards that the radon daughter
criterion is "unambiguous", it is a well known characteristic of radon daughter
behavior that radon daughter levels are highly dependant upon the conditions at
the structure during the measurements. In other words, you don't have a stan-
dard if you don't specify the standard conditions under which the measurement is
to be made.
One of the arguments used to justify the 0.015 WL criterion is that the
Grand Junction program has found it to be "usually technically and financially
practical to lower concentrations greater than 0.01? WL when the high working
levels are due to residual radioactive materials" and that "0.017'WL is practi-
cally .indistinguishable from our level of 0.015 WL". .Both of these statements
are highly subjective judgements and, depending on one's point of view, could
both be considered to be false.
Firstly, our experience in Grand Junction (data and graph attached) indi-
cates that the cost per radon daughter reduction at the 0.01? WL point is
between about 1.5 and 5 million dollars per working level reduction. Extra-
polating our data to 0.015 WL indicates an approximate cost of between about
2.3 million dollers per working level reduction and infinity.
Secondly, whereas it is difficult to distinguish 0.015 WL from 0.017 WL
in an individual structure due to the high variability of the radon daughter
concentration under changing conditions, on a statistical basis considering
several hundreds of structures, there will be approximately twice as many
false positives undergoing expensive remedial action under the 0.015 WL cri-
terion as under the 0.017 WL criterion.
The foregoing assumes that we are talking about an average of 0.015 WL
measured under some as yet unspecified set of "standardized" occupancy condi-
tions. If instead the 0.015 WL criterion means what it appears to say, namely
that the maximum concentration within the "building shall not exceed" 0.015 WL
under any conditions, then nearly half of all structures with tailings asso-
ciated with them that do not however have elevated radon daughter levels will
-2-
be false positives and will have to undergo expensive remedial action before
it can be concluded that the radon daughter levels are not "because of resi-
dual radioactive materials".
With respect to the radium in soil standard, I have considerable con-
cern that the way in which the standard is stated does not emphasize strongly
enough that the intended objective is the use of surrogate measurements Uucn
as scintillometer readings) to determine the adequacy of cleanup rather than,
in practice, making a multitude of actual radium in soil measurements. Experi-
ence with regulatory aaencies leads to the conclusion that if the guidelines
can be interpreted to mean using an awkward, expensive, clumsy and inefficient
way to do something, then they will often be so interpreted.
Signature
AD 6US-29 (10-29-100)
-------
S-18
S-18
100
i
i—•
*-
ISJ
BO/01/l'l. 10.11.26.
PROGRAM COETEF
INIT.
REC
.171-
.086
.052
.022
.054
.019
.051
03 1
1 12
.031
.119
.016
. 022
. 029
.200
.021
.053
.136
.037
/\*11
.015
.012
.203
.091
.061
1.105
.013
.019
.070
.658
.037
.225
.036
.069
.039'
.017
.029
.163
.025
.091
.117
.107
.021
.027
.135
.035
.050
.027
.093
.261
.055
.019
.026
020
.102
.010
.037
.190
.090
,O25
COST
EF'FECTIV
3.09E-06
1.71E-06
2.46E-06
1.23E-06
1.11E-06
S.50E-07
1.51E-06
5.56E-06
1.79E-05
1.89E-06
3.31E-06
7.00E-06
1.91E-07
9.28E-07
1.O3E-05
1.52E-06
1 . 37E-0"6
1.90E-05
6.93E-06
1 . B6E-06
7.19E-07
2.73E-06
8.70E-06
7.10E-07
1.11E-06
2.59E-01
2.36E-06
1.17E-06
4 . 53E-06"
4.B1E-05
5.69E-06
1 . 62E-05
1.08E-06
1.36E-06
9.46E-06
4.24E-06
2.25E-07
'l.6iE-06
3.33E-06
3.93E-06
9.49E-06
4.53E-06
1.08E-05
1.52E-06
1.97E-05
3.72E-06
1.93E-06"
1.46E-06
6.13E-06
1.53E-05
2.05E-06
5.71E-08
1.53E-07
2.S1E-07
1.39E-06
3.86E-07
2.52E-06
3.24E-06
3.65E-06
1.7SE-O6
UNIT FINrtl- DOLLAR
COST
3.21E+05
2.12E-fOS
1.06E+03
2.31E-I05
7.11E-I05
1.18E+06
2.22E+05
l.BOE+05
5.59E+04
5.31E+OS
3.02E+05
1.13E+05
2.01E+06
l.OBE+06
9.69E+01
6.56E+OS
5^31E+05
5.26E+04
1.41E+05
5."36E+05
1.31E+OA
3.66E+05
f.l5E+65
1.35E+06
7.07E+05
3.S6E+03
^1.21E+05
6.82E+05
2.21E"+6S"
2.08E+04
1.76E+OE
6Vi7E+0^l
9.23E+05
2.29E+05
1.06E+05
2.36E+05
•1.14E+06
~&'.2iE+QS
3.00E+05
2.55E+05
1.05E+05
2.21E+05
9.22E+04
6.57E+05
5.0SE+04
2.69E+05
2 ."03E+05
6.04E+05
1.63E+05
i.SSEiO^
1.88E-f05'
1.75E+07
" 2.21E+06
3.56E+06
7.19E+05
2 . 59E+O6~
3.96E+O5
3.O7E+05
2.71E+O5
2.09E+O5
RDC
.103
.020
.033
. 005
.010
.00 A
.016
.007
.123
.009
.022
.005
.017
.019
. 005
.010
.022
.003
.012
.007
.009
.011
.008
.012
.016
.02*1
.015
.008
.011
.059
.004
.011
.010
,013
.007
.010
.005
.009
,007
.007
.0~21
.016
. . 006
.008
.025
.016
.016
.005
.013
.032
.008
.004
.004
.010
.026
.011
.010
.OO9
.O1O
.COS
COST
22990
11009
7711
3975
32698
15298
0117
4315
12800
CM88
29279
6110
10190
11850
18900
7211
19223
6885
3610
8047
48094
11344
22987
106811
33943
4177
11870
7500
13024
12448
5800
13200"
24007
12836
3278
8722
106530
95635
5400
21396
13274
20086
1660
12480
8126
18551
"6894
13282
13874
14960
22920
245037
48587
35572
51674
75067
10695
55604
21942
,3554
LOC.-I-
00001
00001
00005
00006
00012
00018
00020
00023
00030
00074
00018
00076
OOOSO
00033
00089
00093
00095
00097
00098
oo'iib
00131
00160
00165
00168
c
L
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
b
1
1
1
Tl
1
i"
i
i
i
5
1
"4
5
00176 5
00183
00186
00207
00241
00254
00256
00264
00266
00268
00269
00271
00273
00274
00281
00298
00313"
00314
00315
00321
00344
00346
00351
00356
00376
00378
00399
00400
00101
00402
00403
OO107
0011O
00421
OO424
OO151
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
7
5
1
5
1
5
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
i
7
7
T
•7
7
7
1
6
5
1
-------
S-18
S-18
PI
I
022
OT' 1
.i.?.!.
.01'9
.117
.021
.019
. ISO
.032
.082
.112
.102
. 032
. 060
.097
. 020
. 087
. 030
.027
.123
.161
.029
.OlEi
. 06°
.089
.Oil
.031
.038
* 033
.101
, 035
.103
.102
.083
.032
. 031
.086
.011
.033
.026
.053
.052
. 035
,067
.016
.036
.077
.023
. 036
. 033
. 052
. 037
.025
.037
.203
,05
1.64E+05
1.69E+05
6.41E+05
3.64E+04
6.38E+05
6.63E+05
4.42E+01
2.43E+05
3.26E+Q5
1.22E-f06
1.56E+05
1.02E+05
2.70E+04
7.B9E+04
3.91E-f05
7.03E+05
1.13E+05
2.59E+05
1.79E+04
1.87E+05
2.20E+05
-3.67E+06
3.45E+05
1.14E+05
3.77E+05
2.87E+05
3.55E+05
S.2SE+04
1.03E+05
3.45E+05
2 . 35E+05
4.04E+05
1.&3E+05
2.30E+05
-7.B1E+06
3.63E+05
4.66E+05
2.22E+05
3.59E+05
7.S3E+65
2.87E+05
1.31E+05
" 6790E+01
I^^E-fOI
3.01E+05
2.3^!E+65
5.11E+05
2.96E+05
-8.83E>05* "
1.73E+05
1.05E+05
5.06E+05
.012
,O16
.027
.009
.020
.009
.008
.021
.007
.016
.012
.070
.015
.012
.004
.013
.010
.010
.016
.006
.012
.010
.007
.010
.019
.015
.010
.013
.022
.026
.020
.016
.022
.058
.037
.010
.030
.024
.013
.010
.014
.013
.012
.016
.007
.017
.007
.024
.010
.017
.012
.008
.014
.016
.057
.005
.029
.009
* 021
.010
.006
.036
.011
.010
.005
7O64
9490-
36563
9308
13500
12357
9OS2
25093
18968
7247
15560
2850
6808
7895
15633
4490
2800
12750
7347
5173
36865
6190
13448
9225
7O63
1321
1893
9780
7731
8460
3879
19421
14965
5493
18363
7243
6400
7534
7176
5680
3230
4020
7944
11990
15750
3100
16117
7843
9447
7163
8875
10400
8608
6037
27713
2690
21820
8130
6558
11241
6802
8884
23495
10295
""12138
OO475 1
Q04B5 1
00489 5
00493 1
00494 1
00495 1
0049.7 1
00498 1
00654 1
00667 1
00712 1
00729 1
00787 1
00802 1
00806 1
00921 1
00929 1
00977 1
00978 1
00980 1
00981 5
00982 1
00985 i
01032 1
01034 1
01063 1
02073 1
02731 1
02739 1
02748 1
02750 1
02751 1
02757 1
02339 1
02893 1
03O04 1
03013 1
03030 1
03054 1
03065 1
03069 "l
03097 1
.03LB5.JL
03190 1
03191 1
03229 1
03302 1
03312 1
03334 1
03397 1
03410 1
03480 1
03505 1
03509 1
03531 1
037 i5 "l
03821 8
03972 1
04006" 1
04029 1
04047 1
04048"!
04065 1
04093 1
04091 "l
. Ow-O
, £ -"; 2
,086
, JS55
. 176
.026
.018
.197
.187
.020
.019
.033
.116
. 250
. 0?S
123
. Os8
.011
. 0/--3
.026
.019
.032
.018
. 252
.096
.191
.036
. 202
.210
. 062
.014
.011
.011
.056
.011
. 0 1 8
. 1 90
.025
.028
.032
.050
.022
.020
. 021
036
.011
.033
.019
. 275
.015
.113
.013
.051
.032
.013
. 027
.026
, 01?S
,025
.011
. 02 1
. 032
.039
.010
.036
~2 .
2 .
9 .
3.
1.
66£- G6
82t£~0i
75E-06
07E-05
20E— 05
1.32E-06
1.
6.
1,
1.
4.
2.
2.
1 ,
1.
5 .
1 .
3.
7,
1.
5.
4.
A.
1.
6.
1_.
3.
5.
1.
2.
o t
7,
5 .
5 .
4.
"l.
i.
3 .
6.
*•>
1.
2,
1.
72E--06
26E-06
33E-05
23E-06
43E-06
6SE--06
41E-06
28E-05
19E-06
15E-06
09E-06
79E-06
51E-06
30E-06
12E-06
21E-07
53E-07
24E-0~5
34E-06
38E-05
14E-06
46E-06
11E-05
"60E-06
06E-07
42E-07
23E-06
61E-07
17E-06
39E-06
74E-05
0^£— 06
57E-07
60E-06
62E-05
01E--06"
85E-06
i --ssErOA
3.
2.
o
2 ^
1.
2.
-7 ^
6.
yi T
1 .
-1 .
1.
1.
3 .
1.
7 ¥
1.
3.
2.
•1 .
1.
38E-06
41E-06
03E-07
OOE-06
55E-05
93E-06
72E-06
07E-07
2_6E-0.6_
31E-06
67E-06
80E-05
B5E-06
61E-06
67E-06
06E-06
76E-06
43E-07
99E-06
93E-06
0 IE-OS
2
2
1
3
o
-7
5
1
7
8
2
3
4
7
6
1
2
2
1
•7
1
2
1
8
1
7
TT
1
7
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
5
3
i
3
6
4
5
5
2
4
1
5
6
3
1
1
2
2
-6
c;
5
2
5
1
5
2
3
2
o
-76E4O5
.54E+05
.11E+05
.25E+04
.31E+04
.59E+05
.82E+05
.60E+05
.23E+04
.11E+05
•23E+05
.73E+05
-15E+05
.84E+04
.72E+05
.83E+05
-45E+05
,64E-!05
-33E+05
.71E+05
.85E+05
.37E+06
.53E+06
.08£+04
-58E-f05
.25E+04
.19E+05
.83E-f05
. 12E+04
.35E+05
. 10E+06
.35E+06
.91E+05
.78E+06
.40E+05
.05E+05
.73E+04
.29E+05
.52E+06
.S5E+05
.16E+04
.91E+05
.40E+05
._4P_E_+Q5.
.96E+05
. 15E+05
.24E+06
. OOE+05
. 15E+04
.41E+05
.30E+05
.65E+06
.35E+05
-32E+05
.OOE+05
•^ f- CT .1- C\ A
. 10Ef05
.77E+OS
-9SE+05
. 42E+05
-67E+05
.91E+06
-3SE+05
.07E+05
. 63E+04
.017
.011
.018.
.016
.014
.008
,014
.009
.045
.005
.020
.009
.014
.006
.006
.011
.015
.007
.011
.014
.006
.007
.010
.035
.019
.022
.011
.090
.011
.039
.006
.033
.007
.033
.008
.010
.017
.016
.024
.015
.021
.011
.009
.003
.008
.009
.028
."013
.016
.013
.009
.014
.007
.off
.020
.011
.013
.014
.OO,7
.017
.005
.017
.016
,015
T 009
124OO
109BO
7773
10050
13455
13660
19780
30028
10265
12160
6250
8958
42371
19134
11799
19625
12960
8970
6921
9250
2400
59322
O4175 1
•01499 1
04591 1
04734 1
04739 1
047-41 1
04743 1
0477? 1
04810 1
04827 1
04847 1
04850 1
04858 1
04867 5
04868 1
04906 1
04915 1
04930 1
01935 1
01942 1
04996 1
05033 3
.582_30_05034_ 3
17539
12137
12464
7972
20528
14160
8844
8830
14829
7073
40987
8625
7774
9920
2961
6091
6546
J785
5399
5941
8441.
8295
13270
6224
J.7995
16704
9200
13"471
6585
10326
4875
1200
890
7017
3380
10760
3400
10767
43677
7702
5173
2600
05O78 9
05082 1
05102 1
05209 1
05211 5
05244 5
05277 1
05363 1
05390 1
05461 1
05548 1
05604 1
05606 1
05648 1
05.664 1
0.5690 1
O5756 1
05764 1
05791 1
05904 1
.05936 1
05946 1
05959 1
06027 1
06057" 1
06099 1
0629.4. _1
07067 1
07175 1
07184 1
07281 1
07454 1
07773 2
08295 1
08747 1
08934 1
09207 1
09256 1
09493 i
09542 5
099^5 1
-------
S-18
S-19
-i A n
.01 8
. o \ a
. 020
A /i O
A -I O
. 026
.011
. 021
.096
.021
,02.1.
<:> A o
A ") O
0 7 "'
.025
. 1 1 7
''; ° 0
.01' 0
A ") '".
V w A.. \.*
. 025
A /i IT ... A /
. 1 6E--06
.4 IE -07
.55E--07
.8 IE- 06
.36E-07
A o i:r ... A /.
r i •>•* <— W \.t
.18E--06
. 50E-06
. 96E-06
.83E-06
. 17E-06
. 52E--05
.15E--06
. 11E--06
<:>••> i::..- A/.
*• * A« 1... W %./
w £1 £•.... A /;
, 00iiii--06
. 15E-07
. 13E--06
.39E--06
. 92E-06
.51E-06
.72E-06
.81E-06
.21E-06
.70E-07
1'
1
7
1
1
2
6
2
2
1
3
8
2
/)
6
5
1
2
1
1
2
2
6
2
5
8
1
.31E105
.91E105
.0 BE 106
.05E106
.02E105
. 98I.-I4-06
.71E105
.87E105
.22E1Q5
.12E105
.51E105
.54E105
,2 IE 10 4
.66E105
.96E105
.20E105
.51E105
. OOE105
.09E106
. 55E105
.95E105
.55E105
, 64E105
. 69E1 05
.53E105
.24E105
. 03E106
t A i •;•
.005
. 0 1 7
.008
.005
.015
. 0 1 1
.015
.006
.053
.010
.006
.013
.010
.019
.013
.026
, 0 1 1
. 0 'L 9
.007
.010
,006
. 006
*024
,013
.032
.018
51598
8310
7084
12561
4171
11920
8090
7173
3337
4800
3890
12810
19120
8850
9046
6212
13770
13191
1089
2793
4419
9690
9964
6993
7191
8236
4122
105:1.7
10607
11029
11538
11827
1224 1
12290
12496
12497
12538
13103
13201
13325
13353
13380
13382
13590
13683
14136
14378
14640
14920
15084
15415
15494
15590
15647
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.1
1
1
1.
1
1
1.
1
1
1
AGENCY
JUN241981
DOCKET
SRU 4.815 U!\'T£.
RUN COMPLETE.
NEW YORK
STATE ENERGY OFFICE
ROCKEFELLER PLAZA
ALBANY, NEW YORK 12223
JAMES L LAROCCA, COMMISSIONER
June 15, 1981
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Central Docket Section
Docket No. A-79-25
West rower Lobby
401 K Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20461
Dear Sirs:
The U.S. EPA's proposed disposal standards for inactive uranium
processing sites (46 FR 2556, January 9, 1981) have been reviewed by
the cognizant New York State agencies. In this regard, enclosed for
your consideration are comments developed and submitted to this Office
by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
New York appreciates being given the opportunity to comment on
this proposed regulatory action.
Sincerely,
JDD/JM:cjm
Jay D. Dunkleberger, Director
Bureau of Nuclear Operations
-------
S-19
S-19
COMMENT Off THE O,S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PROPOSED
CLEANUP AND DISPOSAL STANDARDS FOR INACTIVE PROCESSING SITES
Page Two
W
I
Although the EPA proposed standards are intended to protect the public
from the radiological consequences of exposure to uranium mill tailings, and
in particular the radon gas emanating from the tailings, the lack of standards
for other radium bearing materials such as iron mill tailings, coal ash and
phosphate slags, will almost certainly lead to broader application. To
minimize difficulties in application to these other materials, the standard
should consider and incorporate a radon emanation coefficient.
Radon emanation is the ratio of the rate of escape of radon-222 to the
rate of production from radium-226, usually expressed as a percent. It is
a measure of the self-sealing effect of the material itself. Crushed igneous
or metaphoric rocks usually have radon emanations below 1%. The chemical
solution of uranium and separation from the radium and thorium reduces
the self-sealing effect of the crushed uranium ore. uranium mill tailings
typically have a radon emanation around 20%.
An example of how the standard might be applied to other materials
will help to illustrate the point. A sample of iron mill tailings, rock
crushed to sand, contained a radium-226 concentration of 30 picocuries/gram
and a radon emanation factor of 0.5%, This can be equated to uranium mill
tailings via the following formula:
Radium-226 Concentration X
In this specific example;
Radon Emanation Coefficient
Radon Emanation Coefficient for
Uranium Mill Tailings
(i.e., 20)
— Radium
Concentration
Equivalent of
Uranium Mill
Tailing
30 pCi/gm X 0.5
20
- = 0,75 pCi/gm Uranium Mill
Tailing Equivalent
From the perspective of radon emanation, the 30 pcifim radium-226
concentration iron mill tailings would be less hazardous than the 5 pCi/gm limit
on uranium mill tailings by factor of 6.7.
EPA should consider the addition of the following or comparable provisions
to its regulations;
DEFINITIONS: (g) RADON EMANATION COEFFICIENT, of a material means the ratio
of the rate of release of radon-222 gas from the material to the rate
of production of radon-222 gas from the radium-226 contained in the
material. This coefficient can be estimated by measuring the ratio
of radon-222 gas that collects in a sealed container holding a
representative sample of the material, after the equilibrium has been
reached (i.e., about 15 days), to the activity of radium-226
contained in the sample.
STANDARDS: The average concentration of radium-226.., shall not
exceed 5 pCi/gm for a radon emanation of 10% or
above. For radon emanation below 10% the concentration
of radium-226 shall not exceed 5 pCi/gm multiplied
by the ratio of 10 to the radon emanation for that
material.
-------
S-20
S-20
n
i
. ,>'•'•'.:
./''"• -i'V"
WAI
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
GOVERNOR'S CABINET
SANTA KE
87603
BRUCE KING
GOVERKM
GEOHGC S. GfxnsiEM. PitD.
SECUTAKV 10k HEALTH I, ENVIRONMENT
June 15, 1981
KECEIVEL*
.NVIRONICNTAL PROTECTIO.-
JUN 2 (5 1981
CENTRAL DOCKET
Mr. David M. Rosenbaum
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Radiation Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
^^
Dear Mr. Rosenb
Thank you for your letter of January 29, 1981 concerning Proposed
Disposal Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites to me and to
the Governor. The Governor responded to you on March 27, 1981.
The staff has reviewed extensively the proposed standards and the
rationale used in determining the numbers. Also, a member of my
Department attended public hearings at Durango, Colorado on April 27,
1981 on this subject.
Paragraph 192.03(a) on page 2562 of the Federal Register, Volume 46,
No. 6 states the proposed standard of 2 pCi/mz-sec for radon emission
from a disposal site. Immediately below is a "Note" in small print
that allows the radon emissions from the covering materials to be
estimated as part of the disposal plan for each site and added to the
2 pCi/rr-sec standard to determine the specific standard to be met
for that site. If the covering material is obtained from the near
vicinity of the pile, but uncontaminated from the pile, then the
radon flux should be similar to the background rate for the area.
Generally speaking the allowable standard would be background plus
2 pCi/m'-sec. Therefore, we recommend that the "Note" format be
changed to full print and covered in paragraph 192.03(a). We do
not wish to comment on the adequacy of the 2 pCi/m'-sec standard at
this time as the status of this standard is-under litigation by the
Federal Courts, and under review in our New Mexico public hearing
process.
The standard of 5 pCi/gm for Radium-226 is soil in paragraph 192.1?(a)
pertains primarily to off-site radiation attributable to radioactive
materials from a tailings site. The high natural background found
in some areas of New Mexico may exceed this standard. This could
be a potential problem for future remedial work. However, the
Criteria for exceptions found in paragraph 192.20 provides a reason-
able approach applicable to these situations.
Mr. David M. Uuscnbaum
June 15, 1981
'Page -2-
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B of paragraph
20.601 lists the maximum permissible concentration for uranium in water
to unrestricted areas as 3 x lO"5 iiCi/ml or 30,000 pCi/liter. Table A
of Part 192 of your Federal Register announcement shows 10 pCi/liter as
the maximum permissible concentrations for uranium in water. These
figures are grossly inconsistent. The New Mexico Water Quality Control
Commission Regulations list standards of 5.0 mg/liter for uranium based
on chemical toxicity.
Table A of Part 192 does not list thorium or radioactive lead and 10 CFR
20.601, Appendix B lists Thorium-230 as being more restrictive by a factor
of 10 than uranium and Lead-210 as being more restrictive by a factor
of 100. This is inconsistent with the statement concerning most hazard-
ous tailing substances in the last paragraph on page 2559 of your
Federal Register notice.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission in October 1980 published final rules
for Uranium Mill Licensing Requirements, 10 CFR Parts, 30, 40, 70 and 150.
Appendix A to Part 40 requires that licensees place sufficient earth
cover, but not less than 3 meters, over tailings to insure stability
and reduce radon exhalation at the end of milling operations. The EPA
has not required the 3 meter cover in its regulations for Inactive
Uranium Sites under Title I of PL-95-604. This department agrees with
this omission. The depth of cover should be a site specific determina-
tion and pertain to erosional considerations and ability to isolate
tailings as well as radiological conditions.
Paragraph 2 of Radiation Effects from Air Pathways on page 2558 of your
Federal Register notice states "that individuals" living continuously
one mile from a large pile would have about 200 times as great a chance
of fatal lung cancer caused by radon decay products as persons living
20 miles away (7 in 10,000 versus 3 in 1,000,000)". Actual measurements
of piles in New Mexico by the Environmental Improvement Division indicate
that radon levels drop almost to background levels at about one-half mile.
The radon levels at 1 mile and 20 miles are indistinguishable from
background. Similiar measurements are reported by Ford, Bacon and Davis
Utah, Inc., in their assessments for the Department of Energy of ours and
other states' piles, particularly the Salt Lake City Vitro pile. Also,
at the International Conference of Nu,clear Power and Its Fuel Cycle
held in Salzburg, Austria, May 2 through 13, 1977, scientists from the
Energy, Research and Development Agency and Oak Ridge National Laboratory
presented information as follows "That for those residing continuously
v/ithin one-half mile of the tailings the risk of lung cancer incidence
is about double that for the general population". This statement refers
to the Vitro Site, Salt Lake City, Utah. The statement in paragraph 2
is inconsistent with information reported in other technical documents.
-------
S-20
F-l
Mr. David M. Rosenbaum
June 15, 1981
Page -3-
I appreciate your extending the comment period to June 15, 1981 since
this allowed the staff to attend other important meetings and
hearingsjKhich have a direct bearing on this matter.
Sine
George
Secretary
GSG:teb
tein, Ph.D.
w
i
Department of Energy
Washington, D.C. 20585
Mr. Douglas M. Cos tie
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Costle:
"13
RECEIVtO
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
JUN191980
CENTRAL DOCKET
SECTIOW
This letter covers the Department's comment on the CLEANUP STANDARDS FOR
INACTIVE URANIUM PROCESSING SITES for open lands and buildings, developed by
the Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with Public Law 95-604, the
Uranium Hill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, and published in the
Federal Register on April 22, 1980. Prior to publication, we supported the
concept of interim standards to permit timely remedial action at high priority
properties in the vicinity of the designated sites, but we did not support the
targeted values for the standards. Departmental staff has consistently stated
in discussions with Agency staff, and I stressed in my letter of April 14,
1980 to Mr. David Hawkins (copy enclosed), that our field experience indicates
that implementation and certification based on the proposed standards will be
very difficult. Our position remains that the intent of the Act can be met
by more flexible standards without in any way sacrificing the degree of radia-
tion protection provided to the public. Our specific comments relating to the
problems of implementing remedial actions and of certifying that the standards
are met under the highly diverse conditions known to exist at the hundreds of
vicinity properties involved follow.
Radon Decay Product Concentration Standard
The Department recommends that the proposed single limit of 0.015 working levels
for average annual indoor radon decay product concentration, including back-
ground, be replaced with graded action levels paralleling those used in the
remedial action program at Grand Junction, Colorado. The proposed limit of
0.015 working levels is less than that which exists in a significant fraction
of homes across the country. About 32 percent of the more than 350 structures
from which all apparent mill tailings were thought to have been removed in the
Grand Junction program still exceed 0.015 working levels. Thus, we feel that
in many cases to be encountered in the mill tailings program it will be difficult
to certify that all apparent mill tailings have been removed from the immediate
vicinity of a structure or otherwise prevented from affecting the radon decay
product concentration in the structure's interior.
-------
F-l
F-l
I
(—'
oo
The Supplementary Information Included 1n the Federal Register notice with the
standards appears to provide some flexibility by indicating that if all apparent
tailings have been removed, the remedial action can be considered completed
regardless of the working level. Because the proposed working level limit is
very close to background at many of the Western sites, it will be difficult
and costly to determine the cause of slightly exceeded working levels. Material
may have to be unnecessarily removed from under floors and foundations in an
attempt to demonstrate that no apparent tailings are present. There may also
be cases where structures are in the proximity of the processing site and there
Is no way to be certain whether the working level standard is being exceeded
because of tailings on the property or because of radon emissions from the site.
Because there would be no information on the radiological conditions before
tailings were moved to the property, a judgement concerning whether or not the
property contains tailings would have to await completion of remedial action at
the processing site.
When the working level limit is only slightly exceeded, the Criteria for Excep-
tions allows for an exception to be requested if the cost of removing additional
material is felt to be unreasonably high relative to the benefits. The alterna-
tives would be to proceed with the removal of additional material with the hope
that after a year the property could be certified or to become Involved in an
undefined exceptions procedure that could turn out to be complicated, cumbersome,
time consuming, and costly. In any case the individual owner would suffer because
the status of his property would be uncertain for an indeterminate length of time.
We are also concerned about the implications of potentially large numbers of
exceptions. For example, if exceptions are requested on a significant percentage
of properties in the vicinity of a site, the program could become so enmeshed in
a formal exceptions procedure that public confidence could easily be lost.
Exceptions should be for "exceptional" circumstances—not common situations.
There is little question that these difficulties could be avoided without any
significant loss of benefits. The Department urges therefore that flexibility
be provided in the standards by making 0.03 working levels as an upper limit so
long as it Is the lowest that can be reasonably achieved. Of course the goal
would always be 0.015 working levels or less.
> Contaminated Soil Standard
The layer specifications for contaminated soils on open lands still present a
grave concern. The concern is that It does not appear possible to detect the
specified layers of materials contaminated with five picocurles of radium per
gram with field instruments, and that it will be necessary to resort to the
collection, cataloging, and analysis of many thousands of laboratory samples
In order to meet the requirements of the standard as now written. As a consequence,
It will be necessary to either undertake a long and costly measurement development
program with no assurance of success or to encounter high costs and delays for
analyzing large numbers of soil samples. Because .the soil specification is not,
1n itself, directly and immediately related to public health and safety, I
recommend that further study be undertaken to develop an alternative soil
standard that can be readily measured with existing or easily adaptable field
Instrumentation and will provide adequate protection of public health. My
staff will be pleased to participate in the study, which should also include
other radiological survey and Instrumentation experts.
I very much hope you will be able to resolve these issues, which are so important
to the successful implementation of Public Law 95-604, before final standards
are promulgated.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
cc w/encl :
Docket No. A-69-25
Environmental Protection Agency
Central Docket Section
Room 2903 B
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Ruth C. Clusen
Assistant Secretary for Environment
-------
F-l
F-l
APR1 41980
David Hawkins
VO
t-lr. David Hawkins
Assistant Administrator for
Air, ;!o1se anJ i?aJ1ation
U.S. Environs *ntil Protection Agency
201 H Street. S.-1
Washington. IX 2JMSO
Dear Kr. Hawkins:
This conflms our telephone conversation on April 4. 10?W, about the
publication of standards for tivs Uranium r',111 'ailln-s rTo;Tdrii. While
It is trtia that so;'e of i\y previous concerns have b?yn alleviated in the
drjft »Mlch you provided on i-iarch 23. 19«0, we still have two i.ajor
concerns:
1. The 0.015 ViL llr.iU on Indoor ration daughter concentration 1s too
low since It is less than that wilch exists in n sl-nlficant fraction of
hones across the country not associated with tailings. There is r.o reason
to uellevc tnat tills H;.;1t can ce rat aftar rcrssdial actions since in
Grand Junction, 3^ pprcent of tlie structures exceed thai Unit after
rc.:.cd1al actions JMVB seen tafcan, i,'e a^ree tiiat U.Oly '..'S. Is a reasonable
tar;;ot critsricn or >-oal , cut 1t Is iwreasunoble to cscablish It as a flra
11:.'1t. .Je bc-Heva that O.J3 l!L Is a rie-re rsiuSO:iaLile u;>atr lir--.it. The
criteria wiilcn yciu ..'roussed for exceptions coulJ nt:i b« used to cstaolish
the point at vnic.i rer..eoial action vrojlJ te coiisidered corplate.
2. The layer sned flections for contaminated soils still rrrsents a
grave concern. Tha stsff acvlsos r.e tnat we cannot demonstrate cer.pl 1anca
with this re^iii»:Tiant i-ithouc un^crtflkina a very lono an-j costly r.;easure-
nen't pro-.-raii. Siivca tnis specification is not, In Itself, directly raldtsu
to puislit ;-,-jilt,i eiui sifoty, I sj.- .est thuc our staffs rest with experts iti
soil Tonitcrln-' to dovaloo * rsascn^iila altsrr.ata soil sijndard that can te
v,ith e:.1st1ni fiald lnstra'.sntation.
proposed standards. We are, of course, concerned as you are about the
protection of the public from exposure to radon and its daughters. However,
to accomplish this, we must assure that the standards can be effectively
implemented.
Sincerely,
Ruth C. Clusen
Assistant Secretary for Environment
Interim stsncanls will permit us to rove forward toward renedlal actions at
high priority loccticns. However, I Jo not support the publishing of trie
-------
F-2
F-2
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
NORRIS. TENNESSEE 37828
AUG 211980
ENCLOSURE
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY COMMENTS ON
THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S
INTERIM AND PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR INACTIVE URANIUM
PROCESSING SITES (45 FR 27366-27369 AND 45 FR 27370-27375),
40 CFR PART 192. SUBPARTS B and C
PI
I
Docket No. A-79-25
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Central Docket Section, Room 2902
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
We are pleased to provide comments on the interim and proposed environ-
mental standards for the cleanup of open lands and buildings contaminated
with residual radioactive materials from inactive uranium processing
sites. These standards, designated as 40 CFR Part 192, Subparts B and
C, were published in the April 22, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 27366-
27368 and 45 FR 2J370-27375). Our comments are provided as an enclosure.
Copies of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) were requested
from Dr. Stanley Lichtman by my letter dated June 3, 1980. We anticipate
that additional comments will be forthcoming after review of the DEIS.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these standards.
Sincerely,
_ T. El-Ashry, Ph.D.
Director of Environmental Quality
Enclosure
fjrcnvrn
''']"' "' CT'°N
,.
SECTION
2.
An Equal Opportunity Emplpyer
The standards require remedial action for structures where measure-
ments exceed 0.015 WL for the average annual indoor radon decay
product concentration, including background. This is inconsistent
with EPA's recommendations with respect to Florida phosphate lands,
remedial actions taken at Grand Junction, Colorado, and present
criteria applied at Edgemont, South Dakota, by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development. The reason for this lower limit is
not stated. The health risks associated with radon levels of this
low magnitude have not been documented, but rather, as in the
phosphate land studies, available data on miners has been extra-
polated to the general public. Cumulative doses and dose rates
among members of the general public are significantly different
from those doses and dose rates among miners and will be received
under different conditions. Thus, we do not believe that a limit
of 0.015 WL can be technically justified.
Also, EPA recognizes that "background" levels in many homes may
normally exceed 0.015 WL notwithstanding the lack of presence of
tailings material. While EPA predicts some 10 percent of all
structures may fall within this category, sufficient data exists to
indicate that this estimate understates the true percentage. As a
result, unless remedial measures are recommended based upon a
careful determination of the presence of tailings, remedial action
will be taken on many structures not affected by tailings. Moreover,
in requiring remedial action in structures at this low level, EPA
is in effect (and without basis) declaring many homes throughout
the country that are not near inactive processing sites to be
unsafe. This is an impact with far-reaching economic, legal, and
psychological consequences. Additionally, in light of the interagency
task force study of indoor radon effects recently undertaken, it is
premature to set such levels on a permanent basis. Therefore, we
believe that it is important to determine site-specific background
levels in order to evaluate the contribution of tailings to any
levels recorded and set reasonable goals for remedial action based
upon a better evaluation of health effects from such contribution.
Throughout the proposed and interim standards, there are references
to analyses and test procedures which need clarification. For
instance, we are unaware of any approved discrete sampling method(s)
to provide reasonable assurance that there is not in excess of
5pCi/g of radium-226 in any designated soil thickness. Also,
examples of "search and verification procedures which provide a
reasonable assurance of compliance with the standards" while
retaining "flexibility" for the implementers, as discussed in the
implementation discussion of the supplementary information, should
be given. Additional guidance regarding acceptable implementing
procedures for other necessary surveys is also needed.
-------
F-2
F-3
w
i
5.
6.
-2-
Also, the method of determining compliance with Section 192.12(c)
is not clear. This is especially true because it is stated (on
page 27373, second column, second paragraph) that "the environ-
mental pathways and biological effects of some" other radionuclides
"are not as well known as for radium-226."
The basis should be given for the correlation between the specified
limits of 0.015 WL for the average annual indoor radon decay
product concentration, including background, and 0.02 mR/hour for
the indoor gamma radiation above background (see Section 192.12(b)
and Table B).
Page 27366, Supplementary Information, second paragraph, second
sentence - The definition of "open land" given by Section 192.11(c)
excludes surface and subsurface land which is a disposal site or is
covered by a building. Therefore, we believe it is incorrect to
state that "the greatest hazard from tailings on open lands is
increased levels of radon decay products in buildings." It should
be clarified that the hazard is derived from the use of tailings as
building materials.
Page 27371, Tables 1(A) and 1(B). footnote 3 - For estimating
relative risk, the value "G3" appears to be a typographical error
for "365."
Page 27373, column 2, second paragraph - It is not clear who will
perform and fund the "further evaluation of the hazard pathways" to
determine "the degree to which any site would need to be cleaned
up."
Section 192.20(a) - The criteria for qualifying for an exception
under Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 192 is unknown since Subpart A is
currently labeled as being reserved. We believe that Subpart A
should be prepared and issued for comments to facilitate the review
of the entire regulation.
Department of Energy
Washington. D.C. 20535
JOCT 3 I 19£
RECEIVED
.WIRONMENTAL PROTCCi
AGENCY
JAN 0 8 1981
CENTRAL DOCKET
Dr. David M. Rosenbaum
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Radiation Programs (ANR-458)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington. D.C. 20460
Dear Dr. Rosenbaum:
This Is the Department of Energy's response to your request for comments on
the draft Federal Register notice. "Proposed Disposal Standards for Inactive
Uranium Processing Sites" (August 25, 1980), and the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, "Remedial Action Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing
Sites" (August 25, 1980). These documents do not alleviate any of the
Department's serious concerns related to implementing and certifying the
proposed remedial action and disposal standards, which were explained in
my letters of June 13, 1980 to Mr. Douglas M. Costle, of March 7, 1980 to
you, and of February 15, 1980 to Mr. David Hawkins.
The language in the standards implies that "reasonable expectation" and
"reasonable assurance" will be provided to substantiate that the numerical
values of physical and chemical quantities are nowhere exceeded after remedial
action. The Department's experience indicates that unqualified numerical
values could bs interpreted by many to be absolute limits. Consequently,
the numerical values that we have to achieve might have to be lower than the
standards so that the unavoidable inaccuracies 'in the measurement, and in the
survey and sampling procedures will not cause final conditions to exceed the
standards.
These difficulties can be avoided with no loss of health benefits if, in addi-
!l±rlL^.?^^*,^:31!!«J™"!™!?1,B -"P??*?*10" and "surance, the
1 n
^
E. Hott of my staff so that a meeting can be arranged.
Sincerely,
cc: Mr. David. Hawkins, EPA
Mr. Douglas Costle, EPA
Clusen
Assistant Secretary for Environment
-------
F-4
F-5
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION jl/ -CP"/C1I
WASHINGTON 2O426
IN REPLY REFER TOl
Soil
Conservation
Service
P.O. Box 2890
Wuhlngton. D.C.
20013
April 1, 1981
M
I
NJ
February 26, 1981
NVIRONMENTAL PROTECTS
Mr. William A. Mills, Ph.D.
Director, Criteria & Standards Div. MAR 17 1981
Office of Radiation Programs
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency CENTRAL DOCKET
Washington, D. C. 20460 ermoN
Dear Mr. Mills:
I am replying to your request to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission for comments on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for Remedial Action Standards for Inactive
Uranium Processing Sites (40 CFR 192) . This Draft EIS has been
reviewed by appropriate FERC staff components upon whose evaluation
this response is based.
This staff concentrates its review of other agencies' en-
vironmental impact statements basically on those areas of the
electric power, natural gas, and oil pipeline industries for
which the Commission has jurisdiction by law, or where staff
has special expertise in evaluating environmental impacts in-
voled with the proposed action. It does not appear that there
would be any significant impacts in these areas of concern nor
•serious conflicts with this agency's responsibilities should
this action be undertaken.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this statement.
Sincerely,
Dr. William A. Hills
Director, Criteria and Standards Division (ANR-460)
Office of Radiation Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
Docket No. A-79-25
West Tower Gallery 1
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Dr. Mills:
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Remedial Action Standards for
Inactive Uranium Processing Sites has been reviewed by the Soil Conservation
Service (SCS). We find the proposed action is not in conflict with any SCS
program or project.
Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to review the draft.
Sincerely,
THOMAS N. SHIFLET
Director of Ecological Sciences
j/ack ~M. Heinemann
dvisor on Environmental Quality
CRITERIA! STANDARDS DIVISION Off
MAR 4 »9ST
RECEIVED
CRITERIA & STANDARDS DIVISION, OW
Th« Sal ConMnutlon 3wvtc«
!• ui ig«ncy of 0M
DipwIiMnt of Agriculture
DATE;
APRS 1381
WO-AS-1
10-7»
-------
F-6
F-6
PJ
i
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
APR 30 1981
MAY 06 198j
ER 81/75
Environmental Protection Agency
Central Docket Section
West Tower Lobby
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Sir:
We have reviewed the proposed Disposal Standards for Inactive
Uranium Processing Sites, published in the Federal Register
January 9, 1981 and have the following comments and suggestions
for your consideration.
We are concerned that the proposed reclamation longevity standard
of at least 1,000 years be kept in proper perspective—a criteria
for minimal acceptability with far greater stability desired where
feasible. While the desirability of a longer period of stability
is recognized in the supplementary information, the proposed
regulations contain no word as to a possible requirement for a
longer period of protection. Instead, the criteria in Subpart C
all concern instances where the standards need not be attained.
These seem focused entirely on costs of reclamation with no
consideration of public health and safety or resources at risk.
Even though any alternate longevity standardswould still be
arbitrary, it would be desirable to specify the site conditions
under which the proposed longevity standard would not be sufficient,
kmong these should be sites on flood plains and drainage courses,
where the probability of erosion and exposure in the long term
would remain high in spite of remedial action.
It is stated that the longevity standard of 1,000 years was chosen
because adequate methods for demonstrating compliance for longer
periods are not clearly available and may be very costly (p. 2560,
col. 3, par. 4). The methods for demonstrating compliance are
intended to be analyses using "computational models, theories,
and expert judgment" as the major tools (p. 2561, col. 1, par. 2).
It is not clear that these tools, when used to evaluate the effects
of natural erosive forces on materials disposed near the earth's
surface, need be limited to 1,000 years. Uncertainty in the
analyses may indeed grow as the time period is extended and as
additional factors have to be Included in the evaluation. However,
uncertainty Is not absent even though analyses are limited to the
1,000-year standard. In fact, the shorter the period evaluated,
the greater will be the uncertainty over the efficacy of the remedial
action for very long times. For example, it appears to be quite
likely that the intended tools of analysis can provide reasonable
expectation that the proposed radon standard will be met for at
least 1,000 years at a particular pile, as well as reasonable
expectation that within 10,000 years that pile will be uncovered
again. In this case it appears clear that the 1,000-year standard
is not an adequate frame of reference.
It is probably not hydrologically practical to specify non-degradation
or no releases from tailings piles. Such a requirement would mean
that the tailings must be emplaced completely dried and completely
sealed forever against the entrance of water.
We suggest that EPA also consider whether or not restrictions should
be placed on land use options and ground water uses within an
appropriate distance from the tailings piles. Since proposed ground
water standards are to be measured at one kilometer from existing
piles, it would seem appropriate to have a similar standard to warn
people of inherent dangers on land use and ground water at least
within the one kilometer distance.
'.CECIL S. HOWMAN
Special Assistant to
iul>tan\ SECRETARY
-------
F-7
F-7
PI
i
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
ER 81/251
30
A8ency
401 H Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Sir:
i 'A:''',: 198'!
CENTRAL DOCKET
•'ON
We have reviewed the draft environmental statement for Remedial
Action Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites and have
the following comments and suggestions for your consideration.
It is stated that the longevity standard of 1,000 years was chosen
because methods for demonstrating compliance for longer periods are
clearly not available and may be very costly (p. 8-22, par. 1).
The methods for "demonstrating compliance are intended to be analyses
using "computational models, theories, and expert judgment" as the
major tools (p. 9-1, par. 2). A clear case that the reasonable
assurance these tools provide is limited to 1,000 years is not made.
Mention is made of climate, vegetation, and tectonic changes that
can affect tailings'near the surface when longer time periods are
considered (p. 8-20, para. 4); however, these factors must also be
considered for the 1,000-year period. Uncertainty in the analysis
may grow as the period is extended, but uncertainty is not absent
in the 1,000-year period, and it is not clear that the intended
tools of analysis dictate the proposed longevity standard. For
example, it appears quite likely that at some tailings piles the
tools of analysis can provide reasonable expectation that the
remedial action can meet the proposed standards for 1,000 years,
and equally reasonable expectation that within several thousand
years the pile will be uncovered again. If the longevity standard
needs to be limited, it should be made clear that it is not because
of lack of, or cost of, the methods for demonstrating compliance.
Longer periods of protection are stated to be likely to be required
by implementors at some piles (p. 8-22, para. 2). However, this
is not reflected in the proposed regulation, where we found no word
of the possible requirement for longer periods of protection. In-
stead the criteria for exceptions to the proposed standards appear
to concern cases where the standard cannot or need not be attained
(app. D, p. 8-9).
We note that existing ground water contamination from tailings is
not to be covered by the standards (p. 5-6, para. 3). However,
the statement should review the scope of such existing problems
and assess the impacts of the exclusion of existing tailings-related
ground water contamination from the cleanup of a site. The assess-
ment should include an evaluation of the potential for impacts on
the public via the contaminated ground water, including the possibility
of future use of the decontaminated open land and buildings or of
the surrounding area.
Seepage of contaminants from some tailings ponds has been reported
as being of considerable magnitude. In some locations this has
occurred under high water-table conditions; however, other studies
have indicated that even in dry climates precipitation can produce
a downward flow of water through tailings (p. 3-1, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6,
3-9). In most cases the contaminated ground water will continue
to move downgradient. Thus the statement should evaluate the impacts
of the exclusion from the proposed environmental standards of
contaminated ground water within a radius of 1.0 kilometer from a
disposal site that is part of an inactive processing site (app. D:
p. 4). The expectation that other Federal agencies can be counted
upon to take practical actions at sites where they are needed to
avoid harm from contaminants already released from the tailings
(p. S-6) suggests possible overlaps in administration which might
result in delayed solution of ground water problems. Impacts of
such an eventuality should be included in the assessment.
The statement should address the possibility that in some environ-
ments radon may be released upon withdrawal of potable ground water
affected by the tailings (p. S-2). This possibility should be
evaluated, because the radon, where present in domestic water
supplies, would commonly be released indoors where it could be
inhaled.
The naturally occurring emission rates, with a clearly stated range
of variation, should be included. The typical rate is given as
0.5 to 1.0 pCI/m2-s, with variations "...to several times these
values not unusual." (p. 8-4). Several times the high typical rate
results in a value of 3.0 pCi/m2-s as being not unusual. This is
above the standard proposed (2.0 pCi/m2-s) and requires additional
explanation. If 3.0 pCi/m2-s is not unusual, justification for
a lower standard may be difficult.
Setting the proposed remedial action level at 0.015 WL for occupied
or occupiable buildings seems excessive when: (1) 10 percent of
normal homes with basements naturally exceed this level, and (2)
0.017 WL was the action level used at Grand Junction. Under the
proposed action level, it is possible that additional action would
have to be carried out in Grand Junction on properties cleared or
treated earlier (pp. 8-27, 28).
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this program
f, i£ *i _£/• x
NN
Special Assistant to
Hainan* SECRETARY
-------
F-8
I
I-'
Ul
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
Public Health Sen
Centers for Disease Control
Atlanta. Georgia 30333
(404) 262-6649
May 6, 1981
Environmental Protection Agency
Docket No. A-79-25
Central Docket Section
West Tower Lobby
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Sir/Madam:
RECEIVED
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
JUN 1 1 1981
CENTRAL DOCKET
SECTION
Thank you for sending us your solicitation for comments on the Proposed
Standards (40 CFR-Part 192) for the cleanup and disposal of residual radio-
active materials (mainly tailings) from inactive uranium processing sites.
We have reviewed both the Proposed and Interim Cleanup Stnadards (Federal
Register, April 22, 1980), and the Proposed Disposal Standards for tailing
piles (Federal Register, January 9, 1981). We are responding on behalf of
the U.S. Public Health Service and are offering the following comments for
your consideration in preparing the final standards.
Proposed and Interim Cleanup Standards
We have some concern with the first sentence on page 27373, "If the allowable
level is still exceeded after all apparent tailings have been removed or
otherwise prevented from affecting the interior of the building, then the
standard does not require further remedial measures." This sentence should
be revised because it seems to provide a loophole through which someone could
decide to end remedial measures when tailings were no longer apparent or
could not be prevented from affecting the interior of a building. We do not
believe that remedial measures should be terminated when an occupant's
exposure to radon decay product concentrations from tailings is still con-
sidered hazardous to health. As a last resort, it may be the exposure that
has to be eliminated by moving and compensating the affected occupants and/or
owners.
Proposed Disposal Standards
The introduction (page 2556) reads as though the cleanup process actually
". . .reduces the potential health consequences of tailings. ..." Instead
of this wording, we recommend that the paragraph be rephrased to indicate
that cleanup process really reduces "public health exposure" which could,
consequently, result in a reduction of potential health problems. In the
references to the introduction, you may wish to update the reference on The
Effects of_ Exposure ££ Low Levels qf^ Ionizing Radiation (1972) to the 1980
Bier 3 Report.
F-8
Page 2 - Environmental Protection Agency
Since the air-transmitted hazards associated with radon decay products from
uranium mill tailings are the most significant in terms of public health
risks, disposal standards should consider other types of protection standards
in addition to allowable emission rates. While covering the tailings with
soils and clay may be a feasible method for controlling radon emissions to
2pCi/m2sec, disturbance of this cover in the future would negate any of its
benefits. One protection standard that should be considered is the imposition
of deed restrictions on the use of the land and/or disturbance of the cover
in the future. These restrictions are important because construction of any
ditches, pipelines, and structures on these sites in the future could expose
tailing and radon decay products.
Did the data used for calculations in Items 2 and 4 (page 2558) take smoking
into account? If this were ignored, smoking could actually increase the risk
following radiation exposure.
Was any consideration given to the potential health problems occurring in
populations exposed along the transport route if moving a mill tailings pile
is necessary?
The possibility of biological uptake from plants piercing the protective cover
over the disposal site and making available toxic and radiologically active
materials directly or indirectly to grazing animals (i.e., sheep, pigs, cattle,
etc.) and other food chain animals, including man, should be discussed.
To specify "nondegradation" (page 2560) as a proposed ground water protection
standard would be very desirable but highly impractical. Enforcement of non-
degradation standards at some distance from an existing site may be unrealistic
because of the contamination that may already be present in the ground water.
For a new site, the benefit of imposing a nondegradation standard and the
necessity of confining all tailings so that no interface exists between
ground water resources and the tailings in the disposal site would also seem
impractical.
While the use of a concentration standard is necessary, it may be inadvisable
to set a universally used distance standard for existing sites because of the
extent of contamination, resources available for cleanup, and possible varia-
tions in soil types, subsurface geologic conditions (i.e., fractured and
jointed strata, caverns, aquifers, faults, etc.), ground water flow paths
and rates, and other factors. The use of a site specific distance standard
might be more practical and, therefore, should be explored. For a new site,
the above-mentioned problems either don't exist or would be considered in
selecting a site. Thus, the establishment of a universal distance standard
for new sites seems more justified.
As explained above, the application of a ground water protection standard at
1.0 kilometer for an existing site may not always be justified. The distance
may sometimes be too great if it allows a larger area which isn't already
-------
F-8
F-9
Page 3 - Environmental Protection Agency
contaminated to become contaminated before mitigating action would have to
be taken or required. The application of a standard at .1 kilometer from a
new site seems justifiable provided mitigation efforts can be successfully
implemented to prevent degradation of ground water resources beyond the
distance requirement.
No mention is made in the proposed rules on the type, frequency, and depth
of measurements that would have to be made to determine the compliance status
with the proposed standards.
We appreciate the opportunity to review these proposed rules.
Sincerely yours,
Frank S. Llsella, Ph.D.
Chief, Environmental Affairs Group
Environmental Health Services Division
Center for Environmental Health
n
I
.DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
Public Hutth Swviu
MAY 18 1981
Food end Drug Administration
Rockville MD 20857
RECEIVED
-NVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
f'^Y tl 1981
CENTRAL DOCKET
"
Environmental Protection Agency
Docket No. A-79-25, West Tower Gallery
401 M Street. S.W.
Washington* D.C. 20460
Dear Sirs:
Members of the Bureau of Radiological Health staff have reviewed the health
aspects of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Remedial Action
Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites and the proposed rule
(46 FR 2556), January 9, 1981.
The attached comments are offered for your consideration. In general, we
find the approach of the Draft EIS and proposed rule to be appropriate.
Because of the possible implications this action may have on the issue of
acceptable radon levels in residences (particularly where energy savings
measures have been applied), the assessment of bioeffects and rationale
for cleanup and disposal limits needs to be very carefully considered'
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule and EIS.
Sincerely yours
Attachment
John C. VUlforth
Director
__, -Bureau of Radiological Health
-------
F-9
F-9
DEPARTMENT OF HEATLH AND HUMAN SERVICES
POOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
BUREAU OF RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20857
May 1981
c- Page 6-9, paragraph 1 - "Since longevity can only be described in
broad terms, it is impossible to relate the costs of specific long lasting
control methods directly to estimate the adverse health effects they will
avoid."
PI
I
Ul
Comments on
(1) Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Remedial Action Standards for
Inactive Uranium Processing Sites (40 CFR 192) EPA 520/4-80-011, Dec. 1980
(2) Proposed Disposal Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites;
Invitation for Comments (46 PR 2556), Jan. 1981
1. The EIS appears to be deficient by not addressing the problems that could be
expected when designing an adequate monitoring program to determine compliance
with the standard. In selecting the proposed standard, it is stated on page 8-22,
second paragraph, "that the disposal standard could be viewed as a performance
standard, stating conditions to be satisfied without addressing the means." Like-
wise, for the cleanup standards, it is stated on page 8-25, first full paragraph,
that we also expect that appropriate sampling techniques will be established to
locate and identify tailings material, determine its concentration of radium, and
verify compliance with the standard." The experience of Federal and State agencies
and Industry in measuring radon in occupied or occupiable buildings has demonstrated
the many variables that directly influence the radon concentration. Also, it is
likely that measurement of working levels close to the proposed standard will result
in both false positive and false negative values. Statistical methods for handling
such problems need to be addressed. We strongly believe that a section should be
added to the EIS that addresses acceptable measurement and sampling techniques and
analyses for both indoor and outdoor radon-226, and gamma radiations. Standard
methods should be referenced in the standard that are commercially available and
provide reasonable assurance that they would give results that would meet the
requirements of the standard.
2. The proposed rule and EIS states that the remedial action program for the dis-
posal of residual radioactive material shall be conducted in a way that provides a
reasonable expectation that the standard will be met for at least one thousand years.
The EIS is replete with qualification statements relating to alternative disposal
techniques that do not appear to support the long term premise. These include:
a. page 6-8, first paragraph - "Stabilization requires careful site
selection, and durable surface treatments. Disposal in a suitable location
deep underground appears to be the better way to avoid disruption of tailings
by natural events or people."
b. page 6.8, paragraph 3 - "The longevity of any control method is
difficult to quantify. Certain methods should last longer than others,
but experience with all control methods is quite limited, especially
considering the time that tailings will remain hazardous."
d. Pages 2-10 and 2-13, Stabilization discussion from Phase I studies -
"The State of Colorado adopted regulations in 1966 for stabilization and
control of uranium mill tailings by mill owners." "In no case, however, was
it found that the results could be considered entirely satisfactory. Some
erosion and loss of cover was noted in all cases, and the vegetation was
generally not self-sustaining without continued maintenance, usually
including watering and fertilization. Thus, the stabilization work done
to date represents a holding action sufficient for the present, but not a
satisfactory answer for long-term storage."
e. Page 5-3, first paragraph.- "Maintaining the integrity of thin,
impermeable covers over periods even as short as tens to hundreds of years,
however, is highly uncertain under the likely range of chemical and
physical stresses."
Despite these stated limitations of current assessment models and
disposal methods, the EIS then concludes:
- Page 5-12, third paragraph.- "Our general belief is that stability
against natural forces could reasonably be expected for a few hundred to a
few thousand years by dealing with the problem on a case by case basis and
taking site-specific factors into account."
- Page 8-4, first paragraph.- "Methods for controlling radon emissions
from piles are available. The most straight forward methods call for burying
the piles or covering them with appropriate combinations and thicknesses of
soils with erosion resistant surfaces. We believe the basic capabilities of
these methods to control radon releases, although largely untested, are
understood."
3. Despite the limitations noted above, the proposed rule states on p. 2561,
col. 1, that for implementation "computational models, theories and expert
judgment will be major tools in deciding that a proposed disposal system
will statlsfy the standard" (for at least 1000 years), and further notes that
"Post-disposal monitoring can serve only a minor role in confirming that the
standards are satisfied." In view of the limitations of current knowledge of
disposal methods noted in the EIS, post-disposal monitoring is probably the
only way to confirm the standards are satisfied. Further, it would appear
that applications for approval of a disposal system will require extensive
study, pilot projects and computational arguments regarding meeting the
1000 year limit.
-------
F-9
F-9
w
i
oo
It is possible that the data from DOE's research studies, the engineering
assessments, and more recent experience from stabilization or other alternatives
could be used to provide more definitive assurance on the longevity of the
control alternatives? If that Is the situation, then these findings should be
fully assessed In the EIS.
4. The EIS requires further elaboration as to the impact of the standard (radon
emission and gamma dose rate values) on the cleanup of naturally occurring levels
In the vicinity of processing sites. Table 7-1 seeps to indicate that 10Z-2QX of
normal buildings will require remedial action under proposed 192.12(b). It is our
understanding that EPA has been assessing the extent of elevated radon and Its
daughter concentration in residential structures that are believed to result from
high natural radioactivity deposits, radon In the water supplies, and residences
that have been fully insulated as an energy savings measure* It would be helpful
if additional material were Included addressing the impact of these aspects on
the levels of radon observed In residences* The EIS should also discuss the
feasibility of remedial actions to achieve confonnance with the proposed standard
in such structures.
5. In general, Section 4, Health Effects, is a reasonable and well written state-
ment* While the authors try to describe a worst case situation, this may not
have been achieved in one important respect; i.e., they use a simple linear extra-
polation from higher levels to lower levels of exposure- The preponderance of
uranium miner data from a number of countries show a concave downward curve at
lower exposure levels. The specific relative risk coefficient selected may com-
pensate somewhat for the lack of linearity* Another non-conservative assumption
is that population sizes will remain constant for a source which is essentially
permanent*
6. There are a number of places in Section 4 where documentation is needed.
These and other specific editorial comments follow:
Pages:
4-5, line 8 Change epithelium to epithelial.
4-6, par.*l Add "after considering the difference in the volume of
inspired air between working miners and people in
average situations*" at the end of this paragraph.
4-6, par* 3 Next to the last line, omit "many of whom smoked." If
a statement on Smoking is necessary, one to the effect
that miners smoked somewhat more than the general
population would be more appropriate. The effect of
this smoking differential has been estimated to increase
the expected number of lung cancer deaths by about 50Z.
4-8, par. 3 First sentence, clarify whether these WLM have been
adjusted for differential breathing rates of miners
versus the general population.
Pages:
4-9, par. 2 Add "an additional" before "0.01 WL" in line 10.
Add "to 1.8Z" to the end of the sentence in line 15;
on the next line "estimate" Is misspelled and add
"an additional" before "0.01 WL." The paragraph
should state whether or not a latent period was used
In the "life table" analysis. Shouldn't risk estimates
for a three times greater risk to children factor be
given.?
4-9, par.
3 The last sentence which starts on the page is unclear and
seems to contain an error.
4-17, par. 2 The sentence on lines 7 and 8 seems to be a non sequitur.
4-30, par* 2 In line 3, insert "population" before "Impact," and in
line 4, add "although the dose to Individuals living and
working near piles may be substantially elevated." at end
of sentence.
4-30, par. 3 Delete "—but not its probability of occurring—" as It
is doubtful If such situation exists.
4-31, -32 The origin of the risk statistics should be referenced
as well as the method of arriving at the numbers in these
tables.
4-37 In line 3 "oxidized" Is misspelled.
4-38 The inclusion In line 5 of all sites disagrees with the
title of Table 4-11. It is not clear to what the last
sentence in paragraph 1 refers.
4-38, par. 2 In line 3, does regional population mean local plus
regional, as defined In this manuscript?
6. Appendix B provides details on cost estimates for the various disposal alter-
natives. Section 4 provides a discussion of the health effects of radon and Its
daughters. It would be beneficial If the Information and data from Appendix B and
from Section 4 could be collated to formulate a cost-benefit analysis and be
Included In the EIS as a separate section.
-------
F-10
TENNESSEE^ VALLEY AUTHORITY
MORRIS. TENNESSEE 37828
JUN 12 1981
Docket No, A-79-25
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Central Docket Section, West Tower Lobby
401 M. Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Sir or Madam:
We are pleased to provide the enclosed comments on the proposed disposal
standards for inactive uranium processing sites and the "Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for Remedial Action Standards for Inactive Uranium
Processing Sites (40 CFR 192)," EPA 520/4-80-011. The standards, designated
as 40 CFR 192, Subparts A, B, and C, were published in the January 9, 1981,
Federal Register (46 FR 2556-2563). Our comments on Subparts B and
C, excluding Table A (45 FR 27366-27368 and 45 FR 27370-27375,
April 22, 1980), were previously transmitted to you on August 27, 1980.
gq We support the establishment of guidelines for the cleanup of inactive
I uranium processing sites. It is clear that some type of stabilization
H-* cover and isolation are needed for these areas to protect the health
^J and safety of the public living nearby. We recommend, however, that
the final standards should recognize practical constraints and be
made sufficiently flexible to assure reasonable and cost-effective
implementation when applied to specific sites. Cost effectiveness is
an especially Important factor since it is likely that these standards
will become the model from which guidance for active sites will be
drawn.
We hope as a consequence, that EPA will take a second look at the
proposed standards to evaluate the costs and benefits of the measures
discussed. Radon releases from nonoperational mill sites with minimal
cover and stabilization are a small fraction of releases due to
natural sources (background). Rigid application of the cleanup
criteria as now proposed would not, in our view, accomplish any
measurable benefit to the long-term health and safety of the general
population. There appears to be less expensive yet equally reliable
means which, in most cases, will adequately protect nearby residents.
Also of particular concern is EPA's choice of 0.015 WL (including
background exposure) for an annual indoor standard. This decision
simply ignores the fact that in many areas of the country, a significant
percentage of structures contain natural background readings of 0.010
An Equal Opportunity Employer
F-10
-2-
Docket No. A-79-25
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
to 0.015 WL and above (see 45 Federal Register 43510 (June 27, 1980)).
While in theory the 0.015 WL can be obtained in some situations, it is
economically impractical in others. This fact, coupled with the
knowledge that at such low levels there is no conclusive evidence
demonstrating measurable health effects, we believe requires EPA
to clearly justify the need, practicality, and benefit of a 0.015 WL
value (including background). Moreover, we suggest that the promulgation
of any indoor radon criteria is premature until the results of national
studies which are underway can be evaluated.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the standards and subject
environmental impact statement.
Sincerely,
Mohamed T. El-Ashry, Ph.D.
Assistant Manager of Natural
Resources (Environment)
Enclosure
-------
F-10
F-10
PJ
I
ENCLOSURE
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY COMMENTS ON THE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S (EPA) PROPOSED
DISPOSAL STANDARDS FOR INACTIVE URANIUM PROCESSING SITES,
40 CFR 192 (46 FR 2556-2563), AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) FOR REMEDIAL ACTION STANDARDS
FOR INACTIVE URANIUM PROCESSING SITES, EPA 520/4-80-011
40 CFR 192 Comments
1. Different types of radiological standards are proposed for disposal
sites and open lands, that is, a radon-222 emanation rate criterion
for disposal sites and a radium-226 concentration criterion for
open lands. From a practical viewpoint, both of these standards
will be very difficult to apply while cleanup and decommissioning
activities are underway. We envision that it may be necessary
to predict compliance or noncompliance with these criteria during
decommissioning activities involving the use of heavy earthmoving
equipment and, thus, a potentially high expense would be incurred
to maintain equipment and personnel availability. A rapid,
practical, and acceptable method for assuring compliance is
therefore necessary. Neither the standards nor the accompanying
supplementary information address sufficiently the methodologies
available and acceptable for implementing the standards. For
example, we believe that the use of gamma survey techniques
during decommissioning operations should be discussed as a
methodology for complying with the criterion on radiura-226
concentrations. The use of such a methodology would have clear
benefits in almost every case, but certainly in those cases where
tailings are to be disposed of at a new site and the existent site
must be decontaminated and reclaimed with uncontaminated borrow
and top soil. *
2. Section 192.12(a)—It should be made clear that the 5 pCi/g
value is an above-background value. The standard should be
more explicit in this regard. Also, there does not appear to
be any practical method of discrete sampling that can ensure
that "any 5 cm thickness" or "any 15 cm thickness" does not
contain in excess of 5 pCi/g of radium-226.
-2-
3. Section 192.12(b) and Table B—The value of 0.015 working levels
was determined using an assumed background concentration in homes
of 0.004 WL and information on remedial actions in the Grand Junction,
Colorado, area. (In the Grand Junction area, background is apparently
about 0.007 WL on the average.) However, there is great variability
in radon decay product concentrations in structures and data indicate
that a significant percentage of homes may contain background concen-
trations in excess of 0.010 or even 0.015 WL. A reasonable summary
of the limited data available is found in the June 27, 1980,
Federal Register (45 FR 43510).
4. Section 192.12(c)—The methodology for determining compliance with
this standard is not apparent. We recommend additional discussion
regarding implementation of this criterion using available data and
practical modeling techniques.
5. Section 19^.20(a) and (b)—A practical problem that should be
addressed in discussing and implementing the standards is the
presence of windblown or other tailings on open lands where risk
to cleanup personnel or the environment may exceed the cumulative
future risk to the general public or environment from the continued
presence of the tailings. Such areas include bluffs, steep hills,
riverbanks, and marshes. The presence of tailings in such areas
has been confirmed by surveys conducted by EPA and other
agencies at inactive uranium processing sites. The use of pro-
fessional judgment or a regulatory-agency assessment to approve on a
timely basis the use of less stringent standards in these areas
should be addressed.
DEIS Comments
1. Compliance with the proposed radiological standards (radon emanation
and radium concentration) would be extremely difficult to predict
during decommissioning operations involving use of heavy equipment.
-------
F-10
F-10
-3-
-4-
Numerous ganrnia surveys of tailings sites have been conducted at
inactive uranium mills. For example, see EPA's technical document
ORP/LV-75-5. Gamma survey criteria were used for the cleanup of
windblown tailings at the Shiprock mill. This experience should
be mentioned in the DEIS.
The criteria for cleanup and the implementing methodologies to
determine compliance with the criteria must be practicable.
Because measurement of radon emanation or radium concentrations
is very time-consuming, use of such measurement would impose
great hardship on decommissioning activities. We suggest further
discussion of practicable methods to use on a timely basis during
decommissioning operations. A related issue is the part of the
standard for open lands that addresses radium concentrations in
"any 15 cm layer below one foot. ' Implementation methods are
again unclear and should be discussed in more detail.
Based on our experience at the inactive Edgemont uranium mill in
South Dakota and the experience of other agencies in their surveys
of more than 20 inactive uranium mills, windblown tailings may
be located on open lands in areas that preclude practicable cleanup.
For example, these tailings may be located in areas of rough terrain
where the safety risk to personnel performing cleanup operations
would exceed the cumulative future radiological risk to the general
public. In these relatively uncommon situations, the public health
and safety might be better served by leaving these windblown tailings
where they are. We concur with the Subpart C proposals regarding
exceptions in such circumstances. Also, timely action must be
ensured regarding decisions about use of less stringent criteria
for cleanup of small, localized areas when practicability of cleanup
is questionable. This should be further discussed in the environ-
mental statement.
3-. Page 4-6, third paragraph—It is stated that, "risk estimates
(of lung cancer) for the general public based on these studies
of miners are far from precise." Four statements are given to
support this conclusion. However, on page 4-8, first paragraph,
it is stated that, "information from the studies of miners can
yield estimates, if not predictions, of the risks from radon
decay products to the general population. ' If the studies supply
information which is "far from precise," it is not clear how these
same studies can be used to provide meaningful information for
estimates or predictions of risks from radon decay products to
the general public. It would be helpful to include a comprehensive
appendix in the DEIS that presents the relevant assumptions and
calculational methodologies.
4. Page 4-20, first complete paragraph—Reference is made to a study
of 21 houses in New York and New Jersey. It Is implied that an average
of 0.004 working levels (WL) characterizes these homes with respect
to concentrations of radon decay products. This average ambient
concentration is assumed to be representative of ambient household
concentrations in the western area where uranium milling takes
place. We believe that this assumed value seems too low and un-
justified by other available data. Reference should be made to
data presented in the June 27, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 43510).
These data, suramarized^by^ the Radiation Policy Council, are indoor
residential concentrations for about 500 homes. The annual average
concentration of radon decay products was measured in many of these
homes with the weighted mean annual average concentration being
about 0.010 WL, over twice the 0.004 WL value stated by
the document.
5. Section 7.6 and Table 7-1—As noted above, the indoor radon decay
product concentration data presented by the Radiation Policy
Council should be included.
-------
F-ll
F-ll
$oo0t of Xeprfflentatifart
M
i
20515
June 15, 1981
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Docket No. A-79-25
(test lower Gallery 1
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
•Kj Nhoro It Hay Concern:
- re**'--
rrotixrtioo
Agency
..'.zx: -»•
1981
1.
AGENCY
JUL 011981
CENTRAL DOCKET
SECTION
This letter constitutes my
The need for cleanup of radioactive tailings at the old
Vitro uranium processing site in Utah helped stimulate passage of
the Uranium Milirrailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (EL 95-604).
This act applied general standards of radiation control which not
only necessitated cleaning up the Vitro site, but 24 other proces-
sing sites across the nation.
Other than Vitro, four sites are located in Utah: Bite,
Honticello, Green River and Mexican Hat. Two of these four tailing
sites were removed from further study, with the Monticello site
being on Department of Energy land and the Kite tailings having been
covered by the waters of lake Powell.
The proposed remedial action at Vitro is the ocrplete
renewal of the tailings. Both the Mexican Hat and Green River sites
would only incorporate stabilization of the tailings to prevent
further erosion and dispersal of the radioactive materials. Ihe
total cost of the 21 remaining projects would be $200 to $300
million (FY '78 dollars).
On a general level, the Draft EIS is very factual and well
referenced. Biere are, however, some technical deficiencies in the
statement. Beyond difficulties in readability for a ncn-technically
oriented reviewer, the DEIS apparently has sore more serious technical
shortfalls: there has been a general lack of specific, en-site
studies; data is inoonplete, and not comprehensive; the individual
cost of remedial action for each tailing site is lacking; and the
entire process is over one year late as mandated by PL 95-604.
Of mare specific concern is the process under which sites
were determined to have unacceptable radioactivity levels. Ihe fol-
lowing points illustrate inconsistencies which I found in the state-
msnt:
2.
T*» 015 units of radon level for acceptable radon con-
centrations in buildings seems unrealistic in light of
the fact that many structures with poor ventilation nat-
urally accumulate levels of radon equal to or higher
than .015 units.
Table 7-1 of the statement confirms that fact, indi-
cating that up to 20 percent of the buildings in
colder regions of the nation, those with heavy insula-
tion, can have these high yet quite natural radon levels.
A specific example of how this normal activity can
frustrate unrealistic regulations is detailed in Table 7-2.
The table shows a similar project in Grand Junction,
Colorado, wherein the Federal government has renewed
radioactive tailings from beneath 217 schools and homes.
Yet, 60 (alnost one-third) of the buildings "have been
treated but not yet brought below the action level."
The radon standard needs to be relaxed or modified to
achieve realistic radon level reductions for buildings.
Any radiation control programs under the current regula-
tions would be futile.
Table 4-2 projects fatal lung cancer rates for people 40
miles away from the disposal site. From this distance,
the radiation received from the tailings would be
statistically negligible, being only one-thousandth
of one percent of the background or normal radiation
level. Factors such as elevation, hone building
materials, etc., become much more important at these
radiation levels.
While radioactive levels for disposal should be tighter
than those for the cleanup of already existing tailing
sites, the cleanup standard can be more restrictive than
the proposed disposal standards. The cleanup standard
applies to levels of radiation as they occur in the
soil, rather than at the surface, as is the case with
the disposal regulation. The five units of radium
which are allowed in any thickness of soil for cleanup
sites can be as low as .2 units at the surface after
topsoil is spread over the tailings, as will be the
likely procedure. This is one-tenth of the disposal
regulation which is two units.
Since radioactivity levels at the surface are the main
concern, the standards should be changed to address
this contradiction. This may be achieved by limiting
radioactive levels to be five units within the soil or
two units at the surface, whichever is less restrictive.
-------
F-ll
F-12
Envirormental Protection Agency
Page 3
June 16, 1981
4. The average soil contamination from a tailings site must
not exceed five units of radium in any 5 cm thickness of
soil within one foot of the surface. It is quite possible
that large windblown areas, whether it be across western
deserts or suburban lawns, would be required to have the
top layer of soil removed in order to satisfy this regula-
tion. A more environmentally and economically sound
standard should be established, perhaps increasing the
5 cm thickness to 15 on.
5. The five units of radium level are too restrictive.
Table 6-2 details remedial actions with their anticipated
benefits. The five unit standard should avoid 98.9 per-
cent of the hazards presented to the public. On the other
hand, a ten unit level would avoid 97.8 percent of the
hazards, a reduction of only 1.1 percent, at a much lower
cost. Therefore, a less restrictive radium level should
be considered.
6. Finally, it appears that many projects have been included
for cleanup which should not have been. It is projected
I in Table 4-1 that approximately one life per year is
!-* lost as a result of the heavy concentration of people
S> living in close proximity to the Vitro site. This indi-
cates a very substantial hazard which should be remedied.
However, at the Mexican Hat site, only one life in 20,000
years is projected to be lost with even fewer at Green
River.
Remedial action is recommended for the sites in spite of
the fact that the statement itself is designed to realize
benefits only within a 1,000 year period. A longer time
frame "would not be wise."
In summary, in my opinion the Vitro site should be cleaned up
as soon as possible since it presents a very serious health hazard.
However, remedial action at Mexican Hat and Green River should be halted
until more substantial health hazards can be associated with them.
Sincerely yours.
U.S. Department of Justice
Land and Natural Resources Division
Office of the Assistant Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 20530
June 25, 1981
Docket No. A-79-25
Environmental Protection Agency
Central Docket Section
West Tower Lobby
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
RECEIVED
ENVIRONMENTAL rooTCCTION
JUN 2 5 1981
CENTRAL DOCKET
SECTION
To Whom It May Concern:
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these
proposed regulations. We certainly support the mandate to
cleanup and dispose of inactive mill tailings at the designated
sites in a safe and environmentally protective manner.
There are two issues on which we wish to comment.
Cost. Recovery
To fulfill the Attorney General's responsibilities
for obtaining reimbursement for costs of remedial action,
UMTRCA, Section 115(b), 42 U.S.C. 2021, cost accounting
documentation yielding admissible evidence sufficient
to show the bases for actual expenses must be followed and
available for potential later litigation. Checklists including
cost documentation procedures for on-scene coordinators
already prepared for §311, Clean Water Act, and to be drafted
for "Superfund" should be adaptable for this purpose. The
attached memorandum on cost documentation for Superfund
implementation outlines relevant considerations in general.
The Department would be pleased to assist in the development
of a checklist tailored to UMTRCA cost recovery. In that
connection, you may contact Mary Anne Maul, Environmental
Enforcement Section, (202) 633-5467.
James V. Hansen
Member of Congress
JVH:Hs
-------
F-12
F-13
- 2 -
The DEIS, at 6.1-6.6, omits mention of the
fact that costs may be recovered for all or any part of the
expenses of cleanup and disposal, supra, thereby lessening
any economic impact even further. While not an economic
impact of the project itself, the contingency of cost recovery
does present the ultimate potential of whole or partial
reimbursement. Therefore, the DEIS should include mention
of cost recovery in assessing economic impact.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Carol E. Dinkins
Assistant Attorney General
Land and Natural Resources Division
W
I
Attachment
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20566
JUL 1 1981
UMUR:KJH
406.3.1
Dr. David M. Rosenbaun
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Radiation Programs
401 H Street
Washington. O.C. 20460
Dear Dr. Rosenbaun:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
JUL 061981
CENTRAL DOCKET
SECTION
This letter 1s 1n response to your request for our review and comments
on the proposed ijlsposaf and cleanup standards for the uranium mill
tailings remedial action program under P.L. 95-604, the Uranium Mill
Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. In general, we agree with the
jHspgsai standards, finding them to be reasonable 1n light of our
experience In mill tailings licensing, research and regulations develop-
ment. It 1s considered that standards at least as stringent as those
which you have proposed are necessary in order to provide adequate
protection of the public health and-safety. However, there are a few
aspects of the disposal standards which concern us. These areas relate
to the proposed radon release Unit, the proposed period of application
for the standards, and the proposed'standards for groundwater protection.
As proposed, the standard requires that the average annual release of
radon-222 from the tailings not exceed 2 pC1/n -sec. The clarifying
note added to this final proposed version of the EPA standard recognized
that radon emissions will come from both the tailings and the cover
materials and it Is stated there that, "After disposal, the radon emission
standard Is satisfied if the emission rate 1s less than or equal to
2 pC1/m -sec plus the emission rate expected from the disposal materials".
It 1s recommended that the standard be clarified by replacing the words
"disposal materials" with the words "cover materials". Further, this
wording appears to Indicate that radon flux measurements will be required
to determine compliance with the EPA standard following reclamation.
NRC's approach to this Issue at active tailings sites (set forth 1n
Criterion 6 of Appendix A to 10 CFR 40) requires disposal, utilizing a
minimum of three meters of earth cover, which will result 1n a calculated
reduction In surface exhalation of radon emanating from the tailings to
less than 2 pC1/m -sec.
-------
F-13
F-13
Dr. David M. Rosenbaum
- 2 -
Dr. David M. Rosenbaum
- 3 -
W
I
NRC envisioned the compliance monitoring program would primarily Involve
confirming that final cover thicknesses and shapes are as specified in
an approved disposal plan. Radon flux and concentrations are highly
variable because they are dependent on such factors as temperature, wind
speed and barometric pressure which are also variable. Therefore, it
can take at least a year to make definitive measurements of radon flux.
The only practicable way to guide and to gauge the acceptability of
cover placement by heavy earthmoving equipment is to specify, and then
to measure, a given cover thickness. Flux measurements cannot reasonably
be used for this purpose.
The second area of concern referred to above relates to the proposed
period of application for the disposal standards. As indicated in our
comments on previous drafts of these proposed standards, it is considered
that the period of 1,000 years (being specified as the time over which
the standard will apply) must be a minimum. It is recognized that, as
proposed, the protection standards must be satisfied for at least 1,000
years. However, it is recommended that the Statement of Considerations
in the accompanying Federal Register Notice more strongly and specifically
emphasize the need to design for longer periods than 1,000 years where
practicable. For example, it has been proven practicable to design
disposal systems for periods longer-than 1,000 years at least with
respect to certain factors such as the potential for Impacts caused by
flooding. Our rationale on this matter is discussed more fully in our
February 13, 1980, and September 23/1980, letters to you on this same
subject.
With respect to groundwater protection, the proposed standards in Section
192.03(b)(2) prohibit an Increase in the concentration of a substance in
an aquifer where the concentration of that substance already exceeds the
specified levels. This requirement essentially constitutes a non-
degradation standard in terms of specific substances. Under certain
circumstances, however, some degradation may not in any way affect the
current or potential use of the water. Thus, it is recommended that
consideration be given to revising the provisions to require no deterioration
of groundwater supplies from their existing or potential uses.
Finally, while we consider the cleanup, criteria to be conservative, we
have some reservations about their possible lack of flexibility in
application. We would recommend use of these standards on a trial basis
to determine their practicability prior to finalizing them. Another
alternative might be to consider the criteria already used at Grand
Junction since there is a long .implementation history to draw upon.
John B. Martin, Director
Division of Waste Management
Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards
-------
F-14
F-14
PJ
I
July 15, 1981
eiwiRONUwmu. PROJECTIOM
AGENCY
JUL17 1981
Department of Energy
Washington, D.C. 20585
Ms. Kelsey Selander
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Ms. Selander: CENTRAL DOCKET
This is the Department of Energy's response to the Agency's
request for formal comments on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) for Remedial Action Standards for
Inactive Uranium Processing Sites (EPA 520/4-80-011,
December 1980) , and the proposed standards that were published
in the Federal Register on April 22, 1980 and on January
9, 1981. For the past year and a half we have expressed our
concerns to the Agency in letters and through meetings with
its.staff.
Of particular toncern is the interim cleanup standards that
the Agency has published. Implementation of these standards
(in other cleanup programs) has been shown to be costly and
technically difficult. The major reason for these difficulties
is that the proposed extremely low single-valued standards
must be applied to open lands and structures where there
are variations in the natural occurrence of radioactivity,
and where the proposed standards are near or below background
in many cases. The concept of "reasonable assurance" contained
in the preamble to the standards is too vague to be effective
for assuring compliance, and we want to avoid any use of the
criteria for exceptions wherever possible. If the remedial
action program is to be conducted at the lowest possible
cost to the taxpayer without jeopardizing public health,
there must be a reasonable range of numerical values in
the standards.
Flexibility is needed in the final standards not only to
facilitate the cleanup at the lowest possible cost of
the inactive uranium processing sites and vicinity properties
that are covered under Pub. L. 95-604, but also to
facilitate cleanup of radioactivity contaminated sites
under two other cleanup programs the Department conducts.
The mill tailings standards will set a precedent, for the
cleanup of residual radioactive material at sites where
nuclear operations were formerly conducted for the Manhattan
Engineer District and the Atomic Energy Commission, at
surplus radioactively contaminated DOE-owned facilities, and
at private properties in their vicinity. If the proposed
standards become applicable, the necessity for compliance
will increase the cost and time required for these cleanup
programs.
We are, of course, as concerned as you are about the protection
of the public from exposure to levels of radon and its decay
products that may pose potential and significant health
hazards. The Department will make every effort to eliminate
any potential hazards and to concomitantly keep the costs of
conducting radiological surveys and remedial action opera-
tions as low as possible. However, we feel it will become
difficult to justify requests for Congressional appropriations
for a program to meet standards that according to the Agency's
estimates will only prevent about two deaths per year as a
result of radon emanation from the 25 inactive uranium
processing sites over the present rate of about 92,000
deaths per year from lung cancer.
The following is a discussion of our specific concerns
regarding the proposed standards and the accompanying Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. Suggested alternatives to
the proposed standards which, if adopted, would allieviate
our concerns are included. Our comments here parallel and
supplement those we have made to the Agency since January
1980 and are also provided in a capsulized form in Enclosure
1.
Radon Flux and Dispersion
The mathematical models the Agency used to estimate radon
dispersion from unstabilized piles are in disagreement with
field measurements of radon concentrations versus distance
from the piles. All the data we have seen indicate that
radon concentrations are essentially the same as natural
background levels at about 1/4 to 1/2 mile from the boundary
of the site. As an example. Enclosure 2 indicates average
contours of constant outdoor radon concentrations (pCi/1) in
the vicinity of the inactive processing site in Canonsburg,
Pennsylvania, where the Department is maintaining a radon
monitoring network. The highest radon concentration is
about 0.7 pCi/1 near the boundaries of the site and decreases
to average background for the vicinity (0.3 pCi/1) in about
a half mile. We see no evidence of any potential health
impact to the public because the highest measured concentration
is only 25 percent of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
allowable value of 3 pCi/1 for nonoccupational exposure.
Additionally, data collected in aerial radiological surveys
at uranium processing sites in the West indicate that during
the flights radon concentrations in the immediate vicinity
of the sites were essentially at background levels. Further
evidence that radon concentrations in the vicinity of unstabilized
sites are much lower than the Agency's estimates was provided
in Dr. Robley D. Evans' letter of May 27, 1981, to Dr.
William A. Mills of your staff.
-------
F-14
F-14
w
i
Because radon dispersion from unstabilized piles does not
produce measurable effects even at short distances from
their boundaries, we cannot support the proposed 2 pCi/m2-
sec radon flux standard, which is very close to or lower
than background in many parts of the nation. As an alter-
native, we suggest a maximum average annual concentration of
30 pCi/1 of radon at 3 feet above the surface of a stabilized
pile or disposal site and 3 pCi/1 at the fenced boundary of
the property, and that the standard itself specify that the
average is to be determined by reasonable statistical measure-
ment protocols. Our suggested alternative is consistent
with the Commission's radiation protection standards of 30
pCi/1 for occupational exposure, which, for example, will
protect workers, repairing a stabilized site, and 3 pCi/1
for nonoccupational exposure, which will protect the public
if they are exposed at the fenced boundary.
The stabilized disposal locations for tailings are to be
government-owned, fenced, and licensed by NEC. It is the
intent of the Act that the Government both monitor and
regulate the use of the property and its perimeter. The
appropriate established limits for occupational exposure to
radon at a DOE operating facility is 30 pCi/1 of air (which
could apply on the stabilized tailings and be monitored at
an elevation three feet directly above the surface) and the
established fence line limit generally recognized as accept-
able exposure to an exposed individual at the point of
control is 3 pCi/1.
The measurement of radon flux is extremely difficult due to
its variability over a large area such as a tailings pile.
We therefore suggest that the standard for radon control of
stabilized tailings be based upon measured radon concentration
in air.
We believe that EPA may have overestimated the potential
health effects from radon by a factor of 10. Even assuming
that EPA's analysis of the potential health effects is
correct, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement estimates
that 78 percent of the total number of health effects can be
avoided by stabilizing piles at the 100 pCi/m2~sec flux
value, which roughly corresponds to 30 pCi/1 of radon three
feet above the surface. We estimate that a potential savings
in remedial action costs of $80,000 to $120,000 per acre, or
a total savings of $80 to $120 million dollars could be
realized if piles and disposal sites are stabilized at our
suggested radon concentration values rather than EPA's
proposed 2 pCi/m2~sec radon flux standard.
Radon Decay Product Concentration Standard
The proposed standard for radon decay product concentration
in structures is exceeded by, or is close to background
concentrations in a significant fraction of homes that are
not associated with mill tailings or other residual radio-
active material. The results of some American sampling
programs shown in Enclosure 3 indicate the variations that
can be expected. The results of extensive Canadian studies
of radon and progeny concentrations in residences summarized
in Enclosure 4 parallel the naturally occurring variations
found in American structures. These data lead us to conclude
that an inflexible 0.015, including background, working
level (WL) standard will in many cases require unnecessary
and expensive removal of material to background levels or
even below background.
The preamble to the standards indicates that if the allowable
working level is still exceeded after all apparent tailings
have been removed or otherwise prevented from affecting the
interior of the structure, then the proposed standard does
not require further remedial measures. However, we will
have to certify during the conduct of remedial action that
all apparent tailings materials have been removed. Substantia-
tion of removal will have to ultimately provided by indoor
radon decay product concentration measurements that can be
influenced by sources other than tailings. Potential diffi-
culties are indicated (a) by a recent review of post-remedial
action surveys in Grand Junction indicating that 32 percent
of decontaminated structures now have working levels greater
than the proposed standard, and {bl by preliminary results
of an analysis of radon daughter concentrations in residences
that is tending to suggest that 55 percent of basements and
30 percent of first levels in U.S. homes exceed 0.015 WL.
We face the reasonable possibility of post-remedial action
radiological surveys in structures indicating that certification
conditions have not been met. A dilemma will exist because
we will not be able to determine if the allowable radon
level is exceeded because contaminated material derived from
a processing site has not been removed, or because of the
presence of natural radioactivity in construction materials
and natural background radiation. The only alternatives
will be either to remove additional materials including
natural radioactivity from other parts of the structure such
as from under floors and footings, or to request an exception
from the Agency.
-------
F-H
F-14
PI
i
03
The number of significant figures in the 0.015 WL standard
is questionable. Some, but not all, available instrumentation
can probably determine working levels to three significant
figures under controlled conditions at a given time and
place. However, working level in a structure varies signifi-
cantly with the time of day, the season of the year, ventila-
tion conditions, and other factors. The collection and
analysis of samples under such variable conditions over a
period of a year to calculate an average annual working
level is a statistical procedure. We have no evidence to
convince us that 0.015 WL can be distinguished from 0.02 WL
and we seriously question whether an average of 0.02 WL can
be distinguished from 0.04 WL. Recognition of these real-
world limitations may have influenced the formulation of the
Surgeon General's flexible guidelines for remedial actions
in Grand Junction, Colorado. The statistical nature of
determining an annual average working level value has not
changed since those guidelines were written, and we must
have the flexibility to avoid the need for unnecessary and
costly removal of material.
As an alternative we suggest that the standard require
remedial action if the working level is greater than 0.05 WL
above background and is caused by the presence of mill
tailings, if the working level is between 0.01 WL and 0.05
WL above background and is caused by the presence of mill
tailings, the Department would decide if remedial action is
required, utilizing the so-called ALARA approach that reduces
radon concentrations to a level as low as reasonably achievable,
taking into account social, economic and technical considerations.
If the working level is less than 0.01 WL above background,
remedial action is not required. We feel that this standard
(a) will impose no measurable difference in health effects
relative to the Agency's proposed standard, (b) will signifi-
cantly reduce implementation and certification costs, and
(c) will allow us to avoid the exceptions procedure^
Radium in Soil
The proposed 5 pCi/g standard for radium-226 in soil is a
level that can probably be measured with available field
laboratory equipment, but at a cost. The proposed standard
is not directly related to potential health effects, and we
see no loss of health benefits if 10 or perhaps even 20
pCi/g were specified. Higher values would save time and
cost required for coring and analyzing samples taken from
large areas, and would significantly reduce the volume of
contaminated natural soil that must be collected, moved and
disposed of with any remedial action. We estimate for
example that 5 pCi/g material could exist in soil as deep as
25 feet beneath the ground level of the Salt Lake City
tailings pile. The removal of each foot of soil in decon-
taminating that site requires the removal, transport, dis-
posal and backfilling of 177,000 cubic yards of soil at an
estimated incremental cost of $4,600,000.
The word "any" in the specification of the occurrence of
radium-226 in soil is also a major source of additional time
and costs for radiological measurements and cleanup.
Enclosure 5 illustrates the substantial impact of the word
"any" on the time and cost to certify compliance with radium-
in-soil standards. The chart is based on the most recent
experiences of one of our radiological survey groups in a
DOE National Laboratory. The manpower and cost estimates in
the table relate to two protocols for certifying that after
cleanup of one acre of ground the amount of radium-226 in
the soil does not exceed 5 pCi/g. The first protocol is
necessary to assure that the "any" sample specification
required by the standard is satisfied, and the other pro-
tocol is a realistic statistical averaging of samples. The
percentage difference in cost between the "any" and averaging
protocols is significant; the "any" specification requires
68 percent more cost at 5 pCi/g than the statistical averaging
protocol. There is a savings of $3,900 per acre if reasonable
averaging rather than the proposed "any" sample were specified.
A reasonable specification of averaging as opposed to "any"
in the standards could save about $3,900,000 for certification
of the cleanup of the tailings piles. This estimate of
potential savings does not include the areas of wind-blown
and other dispersion tailings, and vicinity properties,
which might altogether triple the savings to perhaps $12,000,000
in certification costs. The savings will probably increase
substantially as experience with quality assurance operations
is gained during the conduct of remedial action operations.
These additional costs could be avoided if the word "any" is
deleted from the standard and the standard itself is replaced
by an average value of 15 pCi/g for radium in soil utilizing
the ALARA approach, and the statement that "the necessary
measurements are to be performed within the accuracy of
available field and laboratory instruments used in conjunc-
tion with reasonable survey and sampling procedures." We
believe that no measurable increase in health effects will
result from adoption of the above procedure.
1,000 Year Disposal Site Compliance
The concept of "reasonable assurance" included in the proposed
standard is not clearly defined. Computer codes that have
been confirmed by field measurements made over time, and
expert opinions are inadequate substitutes for experience.
Disposal site technologies are being developed and evaluated
and cost effective systems may not be available for some
years with a confidence level of centuries. The alternative
we suggest takes advantage of the fact that the sites are to
be Government-owned and fenced, and licensed by the Commission
for the indefinite future. This will allow sites to be
-------
F-14
F-14
PI
i
carefully monitored and evaluated annually for 10 or 20
years to confirm the efficacy of the stabilization, and to
make any necessary repairs or additions to the stabilization.
Exceptions Procedure
Flexibility should be provided in the standards themselves
rather than in the preamble to the standards and in the
exceptions procedure. An exceptions procedure will fae
costly, time consuming, and difficult to implement. The
procedure could undermine public confidence in the remedial
action program because significant number of exceptions is
anticipated for the present form of the standards, and the
public would perceive that residual health hazards exist if
the standards were exceeded. Flexible standards will enable
the Department to pursue the ALARA objective, minimize
costs, and adjust the remedial action without measurable
loss of health benefits, because implementation decisions
can be based on an adjustment of design parameters rather
than a requirement for meeting a single valued standard.
Water Standards
An extensive sampling program could be required to establish
the concentration of substances that are now present in
water in the vicinity of potential disposal sites and what
concentrations are released after the disposal is completed.
An even greater concern to us is the concentration of sub-
stances in ground water at sites were tailings piles will be
removed. We do not have specific alternatives at this time,
but we want to discuss with the Agency the basis for and
potential impact of the water standards.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
A review of the cost figures presented in the DEIS by Sandia
National Laboratories indicates that the EPA estimate is low
by at least a factor or two, and, more likely, by a much
larger factor. The Sandia analysis also illustrates the
extremely high remedial action cost per health effect eliminated
that can result from the conduct of extensive remedial
action at remote sites. It should be noted, however, that
the cost-benefit ratio is still very high if the calculation
is performed just for sites in the more populous areas.
Additionally, the DEIS presents very limited and, in our
view, inadequate consideration of alternatives to the standards
proposed. Health effects are not estimated for any of the
standards except radon flux. We feel that the final DEIS
should compare the cost effectiveness sensitivity of each of
the standards that are promulgated, and should include
assessment of the cost effectiveness of both more or less
restrictive standards as part of its justification for the
selection of the standards being proposed.
We will be pleased to discuss our comments in greater detail
with the Agency.
Sincerely,
Stephen H. Greenleigh
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Environment, Health and Safety
5 Enclosures
cc: Sheldon Meyers
-------
CTA Proposal
2. (cent.)
Impact on DOE Remedial Action
Programs/Health
Suggested Alternative
Effect of Chance
(cont.)
Compliance vlth standards may not be possible In all cases
e.g., 32Z of structures in Grand Junction that have had
at leaat one reaedlal action still exceed 0.015 WL.
Health
The standard la near or below background levels in many
structures not affected by tailings, and the resulting added
benefit to public health over that resulting
from a less stringent standard is questionable.
•a-
r-t
I
3. Radluai in Soil Extensive sampling at Increased cost
standard - 5 pCl/ga and tine will be required since "any"
in "any" layer. la equivalent to "all" layers.
The standard Is not related to
potential health effects
An average of 15 pCl/g and
the standard Itself (not
the preaable) states that
the necessary measurements
are to be performed within
the accuracy of available
field and laboratory
Instruments uaed In
conjunction with reason-
able survey and sampling
procedures.
Program
Implementation and certification
costs will be markedly reduced -
e.g., 9SZ confidence certifica-
tion that "any" aoll sample does
not exceed 5 pCl/g costs 4U
•ore per acre to certify than a
90X confidence certification
based on a reasonable statistical
averaging procedure.
Health
Mo measurable Inertasa In health
effects.
It. Came Radia-
tion Standard -
0.02mr/hr above
background.
3. Exception!
procedure.
Program
Costly, tine consuming and difficult
to Implement.
DOE has no objection
Flexibility should be
provided in the standards
rather than In the
exceptions procedure or
the preaable to the
atandards.
Program
DOE will save time and cost
because remedial action
implementation decisions can be
made In the field rather than
In Washington.
Enclosure 1
EPA Proposal
1. Radon Dis-
persion and
Radon Flux
Standard -
2 pCl/m2 above
background.
Impact on DOE Remedial Action
Programs/Health
Program
Stabilisation costs will be
eignlflcant to meet 2 pCl/o2 -
sec. standard on the tailings
piles.
Health
Suggested Alternative
If stabilisation is
necessary, use 100
pCl/m* -Asec or NRC's
3 pCl/1 near the
boundary line of the
site.
The resulting additional benefit to public health over
thet resulting from a less stringent standard is questionable
since:
Effect of Change
Program
Reduced coata and remedial
action time.
Health
About 78% of EPA estimated
radon health effects sre
avoided at the high priority
altes (DEIS, page 6-7).
r-t
I
a. The value of 2 pCi/m2 —sec is near or below background
in some areas uneffected by tailings;
b. Radon dispersion from unstablllzed piles is overestimated
by EPA computer codes; and,
c. Aerial radiological surveys and DOE ground monitoring data
indicate that radon concentrations in the immediate vicinity
of Inactive uranium processing sites (about 1/2 mile away) are
essentially at background levels.
2. Radon
2. Radon Decey
Product Concen-
tration Standard
Avg Annual Value
of 0.015 WL
including back-
ground.
Program
Annual average working level is a
statistical quantity which cannot
be determined to 3 significant figures
nor can average annual values be
distinguished between 0.02 and 0.04 Wt.
There should be a range
of working levels of:
Program
Implementation and certification
costs are reduced.
WL<0.01 above background The exceptions procedures will
r«.«!4.1 „»»-. . . be gyoUgJ,
Health
action la not
required.
. 0.010.CWLC0.05 above
background. DOE will decide
if reaedlal action Is
required (if working levels
are in this range), utiliz-
ing an ALARA approach.
• WL^o.05 above background,
remedial action Is required.
Ho measurable increese in heslth
effects.
E-170
-------
EPA PROPOSAL
8.Stabilization
or removal of
a disposal site.
IMPACT ON DOE REMEDIAL ACTION
PROGRAMS/HEALTH
Program
Will Involve large sums of money
and very high coats.
Health
Resulting benefit to public
health is not justified by'the
costs of meeting the standard.
SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE
DOE Is considering the
potential implications of
stabilizing only the high
priority processing sites,
and fencing and control
access to the medium and
low priority sites.
EFFECT OF CHANGE
Program
Significantly reduced implementation
costs.
Health
At least 58-71% of the EPA estimated
health effects per century (excluding
vicinity properties) will be
eliminated. (See the table below.)
Fatal Cancers Per Century - Local Populations Only (1)
Certain High Priority Sltes(2) Relative Risk Absolute Risk
Grand Junction, Colorado
Gunnlson, Colorado
Rifle, Colorado (1 site)
Shiprock, New Mexico
Canonsburg, Pennsylvania
Salt Lake City, Utah
TOTALS
(1) Data taken from EPA's DEIS
29
3
1
4
29
72
18
2
1
3
17
79
138 (587. of Deaths per
century)
120 (71Z of estimated 170 deaths
per century)
(2) Local population effects were not presented for the high priority sites at
Durango, Colorado, and Rlverton, Wyoming in the DEIS.
EPA PROPOSAL IMPACT ON DOE REMEDIAL ACTION
PROGRAMS/HEALTH
S.(cont). (cont.)
The procedure could undermine
public confidence in the remedial
action program because a signi-
ficant number of exceptions are
anticipated and the public may
perceive a residual health hazard
to exist if the standard is
exceeded.
SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE
EFFECT OF CHANGE
6.Disposal Sites-
Standards will be
net for 1,000 yrs.
The standard can't be Implemented
because the concept of "reason-
able expectations" Included in
the proposed standards is not
clearly defined.
Institutional control of disposal
sites will be required for an
indefinite period of time.
Disposal technology will have to
be developed.
Monitoring of the sites
annually for ten or 20
years to establish a rea-
sonable guide for expected
longevity. The sites will
be Federal property and
will have to be licensed
and fenced.
An assessment of the effectiveness
of disposal technologies over time
can be accomplished.
Health
Public health will not be adversely
affected because of Federal ownership
and fencing of the sites.
7.Water Standards
An extensive sampling program
could be required to establish
the "present conditions" that
are not to be exceeded. This
program will be costly
DOE has no specific
alternative at this time
but would like to discuss
the water standards with EPA.
E-171
-------
Enclosure 3
mm COT mman KOT mmncriro;
7rrsIB reri^w
KOU5S LOtMIBI
crttt. m - m • mo
Hmmft. KT • EM t MB
1M (MBhCi fcltW - III
JWTOnRVTE
_SCS_
It
11
a
21
M
u
1
I
a
MUSK
RMW
1.0
j£S
(C.CS)
IS
0.01
O.W
C.0033
-'.054*
oiou
W
lit
Til
TO
n
i.ti
:M(
0.1 (1.001)
0.017
0.011
1.01*
M
tn
at
MS
41
m
MS
• clm« fir • «•» bttgn ukl«| I ink iMpta *r I
EnclosureZ
E-172
-------
'JIS OF TOE AND COST PER ACRE (ABOUT 4.000»Z) TC CinTiR1 CO'PUANCE WITH SpCI/g
RADUM-1M-SOIL STANDARDS USIN6 AVAILABLE POBILE FIELD U.aJWrnv ESTmHTATIOH (I)
«t
|H
I
o 95X Confidence that "Any- sanple
dots not exceed pCI/g of Radlw-226
In soil
SsaJa.
• 1 sample taken froa each n
(4,oco total)
> Blend and analyze cooposlte of 25
sables fnn ecch 25 D? (160 total)
• i of every 4 composite samples
ccnflrned at peraenent lab
TIKE: 28 person-days
• COST: $9,600
o 90S Confidence that a statistical
average of samples does not exceed
5 pCI/g of RadluM-226 In soil
- An average of 4 sarples taken at randoi
fraa each 100n< (2) (160 total)
- Analyze each sanpTe
- 1 of every 10 sag^les confliMd
at permanent lab
- TINE: 16 person-days
- COST: $$.700 (3)
(1) Mobile laboratory systeas Included • ganta ray spectrometer
(2) Typical ground area for a house
(3) The savings provided by statistical averaging will Increase as operational quality assurance
experience Is gained.
<
ce
o *
§ rf
< K
i 3
5 o
-------
F-15
F-15
PI
I
g>. Jjouse of fcrprtficntatints
COMMITTTE ON ARMED SERVICES
lm. B.C. 20515
MCLVIN PRICE (IU-I. CMAIMMAN
March 2, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD .
SUBJECT: Unrealistic EPA Regulations on Mill Tailings Cleanup
Interim regulation* on the cleanup of uraniua mill tailings were
promulgated by EPA during the last days of the previous administration
(attachment !)• These regulations will have serious multi-billion dollar
impact and regulatory conatraints on the nation's Dining industry, nuclear
energy program, and nuclear weapon* program. For example, although the
interim and proposed flnsl standards sffect inactive tailings (30,000,000
tons - cost $770,000,00) these standards will establish the precedent which
will affect another 140,000,000 tons now at active mills feeding the commercial
nuclear energy and weapons programs and a projected additional tonnage of
170,000,000 tailings from now until 2000.i' Th« costs for disposal of the
Istter are unknown and the latter amounts are 22 times the inactive tonnage.
The atandards for radon and radium are unduly restrictive, frequently
exceeding concentrations in nature, mining complexes, and dwellings in the
U.S. (attachment 2). The radon standards are based upon uranium miner
lung cancer data and are considered irrelevant and invalid* The miners in
qitSUuu utie expbsed to high levels of gamma radiation, particles of
uranium, radium, rock and toxic metal dust, dynamite and exhaust fumes1, and
heavy smoking—as well as radon. In contrast, the public off-site from the
tailings, presumably to be protected by the standards, is exposed to very
low levels of gamma radiation, some tailing particles, and radon levels
near background. Public exposure can be mitigated by covering the tailings
to reduce the gamma radiation levels and amount of wind-blown tailing
particles and to reduce the radon fluxes and concentrations.
The interim radon and radium standards translated to the Vitro tailings
pile in Salt Lake City by EPA will be directed primarily toward a plan for
removal [of the tailings] to another location..!' This means 2,300,000
tons of tailings and other material dug up and moved about 100 miles end
burled again (91,800 twenty-five ton truckloads, 18,376,000 truck miles
taking 1 years and $138,000,000 according to DOE estimates).
i/PL 95-604 title says that the ETA standards will be applicable to the active
mill sites licensed and regulated by NRC and agreement states.
I/From "Draft EIS for Remedial Action Standards for Inactive Dranium
'recessing Sites (*0 CFX 192)*, December. 1980. EPA 520/4-8O-011
-2-
In promulgating Che regulations Che previous administration has
neglected Co satisfy che following requisites:
1. Issuing standards based upon realistically valid health effects (risk)
data.
2. Issuing standards compatible with natural and technologically augmented
levels of radium and radon in the U.S.
3. A realistic. Integrated and comprehensive cost analysis of the regulation*
and their Impact. (EPA estimates a cleanup cost for the Inactive tailings
at $300 million while DOE's estimate 1« $771 million and $138 million for
Salt Lake City, only one of the 25 inactive sites.)
4. The potential risk* to the public and remedial action workers from the
tailings have aoc been quantified and compared to the comparable publically
accepted risks.
5. EPA Indicates that the standards 'would prevent 200 premature deaths per
century"^ (+ 2 death per year) based solely on uraniua miner data. The
bases for this risk analysis is invalid and have not been technically validated.
6. The risks to the remedial action workers versus those to the public
have not been quantified and compared. For Salt Lake City tailings a 7-year
remedial action program to remove tailings is estimated to incur 5 fatalities
and 62 injuries among the cleanup workers (attachment 3). EFA's EIS states:
'these expenditures should benefit the local economy.".*/
7. Alternatives for specific tailing cleanups are still under study and
not finalized. Tet DOE is proceeding on a cleanup program based upon (a)
unresolved costs, (b) Invalid standards, and (c) unselected and unresolved
remedial action alternatives. The DOE program and NRC programs should be
reoriented and coordlnaced to solve these problems first.
c. The mill tailings standard* have not been critically reviewed la total
and the current and future active tailings are at least 22 times more than
the tonnage of the inactive tailings. Economic Impact of these standards
on the mining, energy, and defense sector have not been addressed.
9. Indor.jr radon standards for dwelling* erst still being studied by EPA,
DOE, NRC and Radiation Policy Committee. Standards on Indoor radon and
mill tailings are closely related and should noc be promulgated separately.
The Inactive tailing* programs have other mitigating factor*. Those
organizations contributing to formulating the requirement* for remedial
action* are often also la line to benefit economically from the standard*
and the remedial action progmu. The federal government pays 90Z + of the
survey and cleanup costs on Inactive site* with the state* putting up 10Z -;
hence little incentive- for cost reduction exists. The public, in the vicinity
of the 25 sites, ha* been sensitized to the tailing* risk by conservative.
i "*/ * A/Quote frost "Draft EIS for Remedial Action Standard* for Inactive Uranium
"-processing Site* (40 CFR 192)", December, 1980. EPA S20/4-BO-O11
-------
F-15
F-15
-3-
ATTACHMEHT 1
W
I
• invalid, allusory and invidious data on lung cancer induction and a number
of state governors having inactive tailings sites have been pressured to
publicly advocate total cleanup. Those opposing nuclear energy and the
environmental movement are lobbying for cleanup as a common thrust against
nuclear energy and weapons (attachment 4).
Although the mill tailings piles cleanup problem per se is unresolved,
some oininun remedial actions are needed, such as covering and stabilization
to reduce gamma radiation, wind-blown particles, and radon and radon daughter
immobilization. These efforts should logically continue. Also, some
dwellings and public buildings were constructed on or of tailings (e.g.,
Grand Junction and Salt Lake City) and remedial actions on these should
continue.
The mill tailings issue really Involves the question of the degree of
cleanup needed relative to the real risks, costs, benefits and the ensuing
domino effect on the nation's further mining, nuclear, and defense activities.
Fiscal brakes should be applied to the DOE, and NRC (Edgenont SO) Inactive
site program in FY 1981 and 1982 until the requisites to a sensible program
by DOC studies In this area. Costs are escalating daily; and the future
costs based on the EPA standards are unknown. Th»g. standards should
likewise be held In abeyance, until ? mom thorough assessments «f" r\>m
acceptable risks, impacts, costs and remedial alt»t-n»r<«.« <- p..-f,-..-™-.4 -tr. ^
« timely nvuinrr •"••!- r~t^.«~l —tii n-f fr,. FTlt11ilr with certain people in
the West but plans are currently underway to dig up, transport, and dispose
of tailings from several Inactive sites at great cost to the taxpayers with
questionable benefit. Once this precedent is established, the pressure on
the active tailings will be unsurmountable starting with SO,000,000 tons of
comlngled tailings (attachment S).
Seymour Shwiller
Professional Staff Member
The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978
(PL 95-604) requires EPA to set generally applicable standards
to protect the public health, safety, and environment from
hazards posed by uranium mill tailings at 25 specific inactive
processing sites, located in the Western U.S. and Pennsylvania.
Three documents are germane to these standards. On
April 22. 1980. EPA published in the Federal Register "Interim
Cleanup Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites - Part TV*
and "Proposed Cleanup Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing
Sites" (Attached). At the same time EPA issued a "Draft ELS
for Remedial Action Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing
Sites."
Basically, the standards require for at least 1000 years
following disposal—thati (1) the average annual release from
radon-222 from a disposal site to the atmosphere will not exceed
2 picocuries per square meter per second (2 pCi/m -see)* and
(2) the average concentration of radium-226 attributable to
radioactive material from any designated processing site in any
5 cm thickness of soils or any other- materials on open land
within 1 foot of the surface, or in any 15 cm thickness below
1 foot, shall not exceed 5 plcocuriea per gram (5 pCl/g).
* 2 x 10'12 curies/m2/sec
* 5 x 10~12 cnries/m2/see
SS:b
attachments (6)
-------
F-15
F-15
-2-
ATTACHKEOT 2
Zn addition, levels of radioactivity in any occupied or
occupiable building should not exceed 0.015 Working Level (Wt,)'M
including background end 0.02 milliroentgena per hour (raR/hr).
NRC haa also promulgated similar standards for active
mills ('Final GETS on Uranium Milling,• NUR£G-0706, September,
1980).
Similar regulations also exist for cleanup of structures
of or on tailings in Grand Junction. Colorado (10 CTR Part 12 -
•Grand Junction Remedial Action.*
RADON AND RADIUM STANDARDS VERSUS NATURAL AND
TECHNOLOGICALLY AUGMENTED SOURCES
PI
I
RADOK RELEASE (pCi/m2-see)
Release Rate Standard for Cleanup
Background for Release Rate (U.S.)
Massachusetts
Illinois
Florida (P-area)
Mill Tailings
OTF^O.l - 1)
1.34
0.56 - 1.4
34
20 - 1714
RADON CONCENTRATION (pCi/1)
Air Concentration Standard (Air)
Background Air (U.S.)
Mill Tailings levels (Air)
Grand Junction
Monticello
Salt Lake
Durango
Well Water (642 U.S. Sites)
74%
21*
5*
Main*
15%
10X
Base Metal Mines (Western U.S.)
16 Pennsylvania Coal Mines
Natural Gas (in. line*)
LNG
Dwellings la U.S.. (Air)
Hew York, Hew Jersey
Butte, Montana
Florida (100 homes)
Energy efficient Homes
(0.01 - 1)
11
4
10
12 - .19
<2,000
>2.000
>10,000
< 100. 000
> 200, 000
200 - 1,000
0.1 - 147
2.3 (0.5 - 119)
1O - ISO
1-2
3.3
2.5
1-4
About 1.5 x 10 curies/liter for radon and its decay
products In equilibrium.
* Zn equilibrium with daughter* 1 WL - 100 pCi/1,
0.015 HL • 1.5 pCi/1
-------
F-15
F-15
Cleanup standard (Soil)
Background (U.S.)
Mill Tailings
Drinking Water (O.S.)
Eggs
Calf Femur
Industrial Wastes (Some)
Granite
Coal
Phosphate Ore
Gypsum (FL)
Brick
Concrete
-2-
RADIUM SOIL CONCENTRATION (pCi/Q)
i:r<0.2 - 4)
65 - 1474
0.002 - 0.036
0.01
0.072
10 - 300
3
0.3 - 67
42
33
2.6
2
ATTACHMENT 3
X-l
P)
I
RISK VERSUS RISK
A. General
Risk versus risk trade-off analyses are applied to
alternative «<»«»«• •jons to determine whether or not a
particular remedial action to be taken to •itigate or
eliminate one risk vill. in turn, create another risK.
If the latter risk approaches or exceeds the tormer risk,
the remedial action alternatives are reevaluated and
other alternatives are sought.
The risk versus risk trade-off analysis is done in the
fields of medicine, consumer.product safety, and public
and occupational health and safety. Although the overall
mill tailings problem may be conducive to risk versus
fTsX analysis? it is more readily applied to the problem
on a ease-by-case or site-by-site basis, considering
specifically the comparative populations at risk, types
of risk, and resulting risk values.
B. Hypothetical Case
The Salt Lake City Vitro tailings site is used as e
hypothetical case, not considering effects for off-site
properties and buildings. It is an extreme case intended
to scope the problem for purposes of bounding the com-
parative risks of two polar alternatives. The hypothetical
case alternatives examined are no remedial action versus*
the removal of all tailings and contaminated material
from the present location to a disposal site.
In the case of the mill tailings as they are today with
no remedial action, the surrounding population at risk
is assumed to be working or living adjacent to the Vitro
site. The primary potential risk is inhalation exposure
to radon and its progeny which is above .background levels
within 0.5 miles of the tailings pile.-i/ The secondary
risk is exposure to whole body gamma- radiation from radium
in the tailings, which is above background within
0.2 miles from the tailings.!/ Other effects, such as
inhalation of tailings particles are considered tertiary
I/
DOE. 'Radiation Pathways and Potential Health impacts
from Inactive Cranium Mill Tailings," p. 4 GJT-22,
July 1978.
-------
F-15
F-15
X-2
x-3
I
I—1
00
effects in this analysis and in previous analyses. %/' ^
The potential risk to the public is a protracted radiation
risk.
In contrast, those performing the remedial action, which
is assumed to be removal of tailings and 'structures, are
workers and truckers involved in measuring, clearing.
excavating, loading, transporting, unloading, and cover-
ing tailings at the existing site and at the designated
disposal site. The workers and truckers are exposed to
two types of risks: (1) potential occupations.! injuries
and fatalities, attendant with the construction, excava-
tion. and trucking trades, and (2) potential radiological
risks from intimate exposure to tailings for thousands
of hours in their workplace.
There would also seem to be some risk ay n erg ism associated
with the above remedial action to both the workers and
public. The tailings are estimated to contain 1380 curies
8f, *« U60 pCi/g average), and 2.6 x 108 pCi/sec of
Z2ZRn (550 pCi/K2/sec) are continuously emanating from
Sh? ^i^SCfe*4 $fAlin?.5"2' ,9!ner radionuclides such as
234, 233, 23BU^ 238. 232JJ,, 228,^, 210po, ^ 2lOPb are
present in the tailings. While the tailings are undis-
turbed. all airborne activity for these nuclides except
Z22Rn. may be considered as "not present." The total
average annual airborne activity is less than 3% of the
maximum permissible concentration for air at the sewage
treatment plant at the site.*/ When the tailings are
disturbed in the process of their excavation and removal,
the release of radon and respirable airborne particulate
material will increase. Workers and public alike will be
subject to higher levels of exposure during the period of
remedial action. The effects upon the public from higher
levels for shorter periods of exposure has not been
evaluated here and should be considered in future
analyses*
F. F. Haywood, ET XL., "Assessment of Radiological Impact
of the Inactive Hill Tailings Pile at Salt Lake City,
Utah. ORNL/TH 5251.
Ford, Bacon, and Davis Utah Inc., "Phase II - Title X
Engineering Assessment of Inactive Uranium Hill Tailings -
Vitro Site, Salt take City, Utah" April 30, 1976, GJT-1.
C. Public Population Risk from Undisturbed Tailings
Table X-l summarizes the risks to the public as inde-
pendently estimated by OR1JIA/ and Ford. Bacon, and Davis
Utah Inc.*/ Both references conclude that health effects
from radiation sources, other than radon and radon progeny
inhalation and whole body external gamma radiation expo-
sure, are inconsequential, very small, or negligible.
Table X-l shows the comparative values in health effects
per veer for the population within a 7-mile radius of the
tailings from References 2 and 3. Reference 3 shows
effects within a half-mile radius. Both assume the present
population and future populations for both medium density
and high density urban growth. The majority of the
potential health effects occur within a 0.5 mile radius.
1. Radon and Radon Prooenv Inhalation Effects
For the population potentially -at risk to radon
inhalation, the values are fairly close (0.4. 3, and 4
versus 0.5, 3, and. 5 health effects per year respec-
tively) for the 3 population densities assumed. This
is explained by the health effects assumptions used. fi
References 2 and 3 use a risk coefficient of 1BO x 10~
per-year per WLM. By comparison, NCRP recommends a
risk coefficient of 10 x 10~6 per year per WUl.i/
Using; the latter, the radon health effects would be
S'/i of those shown in Table X-l. The possibility
exists that environmental or slightly elevated radon
daughter levels do not induce lung cancer.=/
The data are extrapolated in Table X-2 for the current.
population for 1, 7, and 15 year periods and are com-
pared, to estimated effects from natural background
and the expected lung- cancer cases in the Salt Lake
City area from all causes. The results, are 0.5 effects
per year, 3.5 effect* in 7 years, and 7.5 effects ia
15 years, for the present, population. The radon back-
ground health effects are about 14 times greater than
the estimated radon effects from tailings and the lung
cancer incidence- from all causes is about 100 times
the tailings incidence.
Spahn, James A., "HCRP Response to Federal.Register of
6/27/80 Request for Public- Comment, on Radon in Structures."
7/17/80.
-------
TAIU X-l. COMPARATIVE POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS . I'HESKNT POPULATION
IIITIUN 1-I4ILCS HAU1US Of VlfHO V.UHNOS SIT!
IflADOH 1MIALATIOH)
ASSUMPTIONS
• LUNQ CANCER. ALL CAUSES . « .
SLC METRO AREA • 1.2 * W'AEAH*'
FOR 400.000 PEOPLI (CONSTANT)
• TAILINOS EFFECTSAR O.S FROM
REFCREHCI 1 USED
• VITRO NLI INACTIV8 IS, YEARS
• 7 YEARS SELECTED AS CLEANUP
PERIOD ONLY
PERIOD
1 YEA* (PER. YEAH)
7 YEARS
15 YEARS
TAILINGS
HEALTH EFFECTS
O.S
1.5
7.5
BACKGROUND
HEALTH EFFECTS
7
41
IDS
LUNO CANCER
ALL CAUSES
SLCMA
48
116
720
" HEH/Nttlonil C«nt*r for Hcilth St*tl«tlc», "Vlt«l Statlitlc* of
th< United St«t«*. \96B. Vol. II Kartellty,-
TARLI
CSTIMATCO POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS TO PURLIC . SALT
LAKE CITY TAILINGS (ASSUMING NO REMEDIAL ACTION) •
REFERENCE!
J/ORNL/TN
(pp 81-4)1
TAILINOS
RADON DATA
•VERY CONSERVATIVE,"
TAILINOS OAMMA
DATA -CONSERVATIVELY
ESTIMATED*
1/OIT-l
Ip 1-14)
TAILINOS
RADON DATA
UNCERTAINTY
FACTOR
ABOUT 1
J/OJT-1
(p 1-15)
TAILIHQS
RADON DATA
UNCERTAINTY
FACTOR
ABOUT 1
ASSUMPTIONS USED
SEVEN MILE RADIUS
PRESENT POPULATION (400,000)
MEDIUM DENSITY URBAN GROWTH
(12.000/M12 OR (.nSO.OOO PEOPLE)
HIOH DENSITY URBAN GROWTH
(20.000/MI* OR 1.000,000 PEOPLE)
SEVEN MILE RADIUS
PRESENT POPULATION
(41B.OOO * 151,000 EMPLOYEES)
MEDIUM DENSITY (1, BSD, 0001
HIOH DENSITY (1.000.000)
ftALF-MlLE RADIUS
PRESENT POPULATION
(1100 * 1200 EMPLOYEES)
MEDIUM DENSITY (28,000)
HIOH DENSITY (45.000)
HEALTH EFFECTS (PER YEAR)
TAILINOS
RADON
\>.4
1
4
O.S
1
5
0.?
1
4
TAILIWIS
EST. OAMMA
O.OS
NOT OIVEN
NOT OIVEN
0.04
0.1
0.4
0.0)
0.1
0.4
BACKGROUND
RADON
7 » j
12 i 22
SI i IS
NOT aim
NOT OIVEN
NOT OIVEN
NOT GIVEN
NOT OIVEH
NOT GIVEN
BACKOROUND
OAMMA
2.8 + 7
NOT OIVEN
NOT OIVEN
NOT OIVEN
NOT OIVEN
NOT GIVEN
NOT OIVEN
NOT OIVEN
NOT OIVEN
LUNO CANCER
RISK (ALL
CAUSES)
NOT OIVEN
NOT OIVEN
NOT OIVEN
50
221
160
0.11
1.16
5.40
in
i—i
i
• lxelt»l*« of Vicinity proportion.
E-179
-------
F-15
F-15
w
i
00
o
X-6
2. Direct Whole Body Ganwa Radiation Effects
In- Table- X=3~tSe~health effects from direct whole
body gamma radiation from tailings for the present
population are 0.05 effects per year, 0.35 for
7 years, and 0.75 for 15 years for the present
population of 400,000. The whole body gamma radia-
tion effects from the tailings ara about 100 times
less than those from radon inhalation from tailings.
3. Total Potential Health Effects to Public
Total health effects to the public are 0.55 for
1 year, 3.8 for 7 years, and 8.2 for 15 years for the
present offsite population. Background health effects
are about 20 times higher than those attributable to
tailings.
It is emphasized that this is an engineering analysis
which arbitrarily uses comparable risX coefficients
used in previous analyses*/* J/ of the Vitro tailings.
NCRP has stated: "The possibility exists that environ-
mental or slightly elevated radon daughter levels do
not induce lung cancer."4/
D. Remedial Worker Risk from Tailings Removal
A model of remedial action, assuming removal of the tail-
ings, was constructed in order to scope the risk to
remedial action workers. The model assumed the following
parameters:
• Amount of tailings
e> Amount of other material
» Total amount, moved
e> Amount moved per truck
* Total truckloads (round trips)
•• Distance to disposal sit*
e- Round trip mileage
e* Total truck miles
• No. of truckers
• No. of workers (tailings 6
disposal site)
1,880,000 tons
417,000 tons
2,297,000 tons
25 tons
91,880 trips
100 miles
200 miles
18.376,000 miles
50 persons
150 persons
X-7
• No. of commuters
• Round-trip commuting mileage
• Total commuting mileage
(2 person/pool)
e Span time of remedial action
e Worker person-months
200 persons
20 miles
3,850,000 miles
7 years
12,600 p-m
The following accident statistics were also assumed:
16.7/100 worker-yr
57/100,000 worker-yr
5217/100,000 worker-yr
• Accident Rate (Heavy fi ,
Construction Industry)-'
• Death Rate (1978 -
Construction) ±f
• Disabling Injury Rate
sabling Injury Rate 7/
(1978 - Construction)-7
Motor Vehicle Death Rate
(1978)2/
Motor Vehicle Disabling
Injury Rate (1978).i/
Truck Accident
Rate8'
Death Rate - Truck Accidents
{% Fatal)
Injury Rate - Truck Accident
(% Disabling; Injuries)
Gamma Health Effects -
Worker**/' **
Radon Health Effects -
Workers!/' 3/
Particle Health Effects -
Worker*
3.4/108 miles
131.6/108 miles
2.1 x 10~6 accidents/mile
10% (assumed)
20% (assumed)
100 effects/106 person-rem/yr
180 effects/106 person-WIJ4/yr
Same as Rn effects (assumed)
U.S. DOS/Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Occupational Injuries
and Illnesses in 1977 - Summary Report 561," 1979.
National Safety Council, "Accident Facts - 1979 Addition," 1979.
NRC, "Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium
Hilling - Project H-25 - Summary and Text," NUR£G-O7O6 Vol. I.
Sept. 1980.
-------
F-15
F-15
w
i
00
•••• f Hat
s§ g ss
8. S C,
2? 8 29
53 T :s
!f ! U
ii j sf
U> 4
I i
M a
p p
•4 w
III Ui
*
l?i
if
PEOPLE ICOHSTAHT)
* 1000 PCRSON-REHAR
UKD EXPOSURE
i
3
1
o
2
4te ».
M « M
tHOXidHnSCV
M
o
o
Is
u
BACKC
HEALTH
n v
31
u
3
A
M
iZS
o r H
§
X-9
1. Occupational RisXs to Workers and Truckers
a. Commuting Risk
During the process of commuting to and from work,
the worker and trucker population of 200 would
be expected to encounter a total of 0.13 fatali-
ties and 5 disabling injuries. This is based
upon 200 persons commuting 20 miles to and from
work in 2 person carpools traveling a total
distance of 3.850,000 miles (7,700,000 person-
miles) during the 7-year remedial action period.
b. Worker Risk
In the process of excavating and loading tailings
at the Vitro site and unloading and burying
tailings at the disposal site, worker population
of 150 would be expected to encounter a total of
0.6 fatalities and 52 disabling injuries from
about 175 occupational accidents. This is based
upon a rate of 16.7 accidents per 100 worker-years
in the heavy construction industry, a fatality
rate of 57 per 100,000 worker-years, a disabling
injury rate of 521T per 100,000 worker-years, and
a total of 1050 worker-years for the 7-year
remedial action period.
e. Transportation Risk
In the process of traveling 18,376,000 truck
miles or 91,880 round trips, the trucker popu-
lation of -SO and public would be expected to
encounter a total of 3.8 fatalities and 7.6
serious injuries from 38 truck accidents. P^5
is based upon an accident rate of 2.1 x 10~6
accidents per mile, and assumes a single fatality
in 10% of the accidents and a single injury in
20% of the accidents.
2. Radiological Risks to Workers
a. Radon Risk
The measured radon concentration above undis-
turbed tailings at the Vitro site averages
8-X
-------
F-15
F-15
I
t—'
00
X-10
10 picocuries per liter-' corresponding to 0.1 WL,
assuming equilibrium with its progeny. A 24-hour
outdoor value of 13.4 picocuries per liter was
measured at the sewage treatment plant.» Zn the
process of excavating the tailings, the release
rates of radon and its progeny would be expected
to increase and, therefore, a value of 0.15 WL
has been assumed.
Using a value of 12.600 worker-months at a con-
tinuous concentration of 0.15 WL, a total of
1890 worker-WLK (270 WLM/yr) is derived for the
7-year remedial action period. Assuming the same
value used in References 2 and 3 of 180 effects
per ID6 WLM per year, one derives 0.35 fatalities
among the worker population from radon and its
progeny for the period of remedial action.
b. Particle Inhalation Risk
The inhalation of particles was assumed to result
in a risk equal to the radon risk or 0.35 fatali-
ties among the worker population. Further,
refinement of this value should be made since
some biomedical researchers indicate that respir-
able "hot* particles of tailings debris containing
radium, radon daughters, and toxic metals could
be more damaging to the lung than radon and its
progeny. Workers and truckers will be exposed to
high concentrations of particles during the tail-
ings removal process.
c. Direct Whole Body Gamma Radiation
It is assumed that the whole body gamma radiation
to workers is 1.1 •R/hr, based upon measurements
in Reference 4. It is further assumed that 100
health effects per 10° person-rent would result.
This yields a value of 0.25 fatalities among the
worker population.
3. Total Occupational and Radiation Risks to Workers
Table X-4 summarizes the potential occupational and
radiation risk to remedial action workers for the
7-year remedial action period. The potential risk
is S.S fatalities and 64.6 injuries.
W
3
PAL WORKER
SB
M
8
m
UI
V
Ok
*
»
M
? ? r f 2
t« n M z M
O O
g g s P
W »< M 50
O Z H
r o a M
~ jj
0
z SB
58* §
8 * S
i §
z
Q
*.
UI
01
*•
o>
wop
O 0> H>
UI
UI
90
M
r«
H
•fi
H
*^
B
o
•n
••>
25
^i
f
to
o
H
g
e
H
W
1
n
§§
O W
H »
M
O »
Z M
M
•~X
01
DHEW, Bureau of Radiological Health, "Evaluation of
Radon 222 Near Uranium Tailings Piles," OER 69-1, March
1969.
-------
F-15
F-15
X-12
£. Risk Versus Risk
Table X-5 compares the risk to the public versus the risk
to the worker. For a 7-year period of comparison the
worker risk is greater than the public risk, assuming
restrictions on population growth are enforced adjacent
to the site.
The .worker risk is dominated by occupational injuries,
wherein the risk coefficients are subject to far less
uncertainty than the radiological risk coefficients used
to estimate both public and worker risks.
On the basis of this analysis, the types of alternative
remedial actions should be evaluated such that the risk
to the worker population is held to a minimum. It
appears that total removal of the tailings from the site
is the type of alternative, which will tend to both
maximize the risk to the worker population and elevate
the radiation doses to the workers and public during the
period of remedial action.
I
(-"
oo
(II
K
5
ID
05
•
til
1
,j
K
|
ID
$ft
•
O>
Ul
tn
•
IN
2
Ok
•0
g
i
«
P
3»
e*0
»3 e
•C 09
c^
§"
10
5
frj
>»
J^
3 §
M ?C
TO
M
— tn
•0 O
V Z
w
0) O
•S*
Ji-o
c
SOB
f
•O M
co
5^
H M
M CO
O X
z
>z
M O
(n
CS
Z O
W 9
ox
•—• M
9
99
M
£
CT-X
-------
F-15
F-15
Federal Register I Vol. 46. No. 37 / Wednesday. February 25,1981 I Proposed Rules
14O21
t.NviRONMENTAL REPORT
W
I
00
-P-
10 CFR Part 40
IDOCtol No. PRM-40-tJJ
Sierra dub; FMImj ol Petition lor
RuIemsMrra
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTWIC Publication afPeUliom far
Rulemaking from Sierra dub.
•UMUAHV: The Nucleu Regulatory
Comnussion it publishing far pubUc
comment • petition for rulcmoking filed
before the Commission on December 9.
1980. by the Siem Club. The petition.
which he» been assigned Docket No.
PRM-40-n. requests the! the
Conuniilioo emend 1U regulation, 10
CFR Pert«. to licenu the possession ol
urifuuoi mill telling* ot ineeuve storage
sites.
OATSS Commeflt period expire! April 37.
1981.
A00«s»r A copy of the petition for
rulemeking is svsilsble for public
inspection in the Commission'* Public
Document Room. 1717 H Street NW.
Washington. D.C A copy of the petition
m*y be obtained, by writing la lie
Division of Rules end Record* Office of
Administration. U.S. Nucleu Regulatory
Commission. D.C JOS5S.
All person* who desire to submit
written comments concerning the
petition for rulemeking should send their
comments to the Secretary of the
Commission. US. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. Washington. D.C ZOIU.
Attention: Docketing end Service
|. M. Feilon. Director. Division of Rules-
end Record*. Office of Administration.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Washington. DiC. 20335. Telephone; 301-
49Z-7ZU.
wufiaamaa mmuumox n*
petitioner stele*-• * * the Comminlan
violated ircllon n of the Atomic Energy
Act of IBM. *s amended. 42 US.C. ail.
Inthallllxempled1 • • |w*nlum mill
toiUnes and inactive •long*' siltel " * *
from ucensing H byproduct material
without nuking In* express rMfngr
required by section II Out such
exemption will of. constitute o»
unatonable risk* * Mo the health
md safety of the public.' Alia, the
Mtfttaner elites (Asl-* • • tach
lasses or sites of byproduct material*
la Imperil public health and safety end.
ccardlngly. that no exemption tberafar
en be (unified under thai Atoenle
nertyAcL"
The petitioner requests lhal tW
ommlssioo grant relief a* fottowe:
ID Tot Conuniiilon ihould rtfxal the
purported liccniin| exemption /or the
•inactive1 uranium mill uilmBt lilM which
are lubirci lo the remedial prosria of the
Department of Encrxy under lilt Uraniuai
Mill Tiilinii Ridiauon Control Aa ol 1971.
Pub. L 95-004. Thii cxamptioo ii MI forth u)
Ihi afntndinenu to 10 CFR 40 promulgated by
thi Commiuion In U Fit SSU1 {Oclobsr X
two). Thii repul eould be iccoeipllilnd by
|a) dalitUuj the last unnmcs o! I « !!•! o(
nidi ntulalnmr f» dililinf lubparspepb
(a) oT 140H; and (c| nnrisint •ubp.r.tr.pti
(bl of | «Ue to provide that the
will raouira s license lor poMaailon e|
byproduct eiaurlal thai la located at a site
warn oiiDing operslioas are ao loafer active.
HI n* Cooumfiioej ifcould ftirtaar aaund
section 4Ua of such refutations to provida
tkal the CanmiailOB will require a license for
panenioa of byproduct ajaleriol located aa
any other real property or usprovsoMnt
Ikmron which Is in loo vtdnuy of the
•lucttva' Mil laillnei lilss referred to to (1)
above, where euch byproduct nelerisls aa
Ihsse vUMly properly have bee* darrnd
from inch sties.
ID AJiamoUvely. the GoauiiMen should
conduct • rul.mxklns la dstereilns whether e
Ucenslni otsmptton of such silts or cissies
oT byproduct auurlaLraiWrod to above. wO
-eonsUluls en imnasonable risk to Ike heallk
and safety of the pabttc,-
Oalsd at Washington. D.C. nua l*tb day noise standards for buses and stricter
noise limits for trucks:
• cndle-to-grave hazardous waste con-
trols that am a "monument to mindless
eicess";
«• Irak substances controls thai threaten
10 -emulate (the Food and Drug Ad-
ministration's] 'regulatory 'ag' for new
chemical products";
• new source performance standards for
industrial boilen to control sulfur dioxide
and nitrogen oxide cnrissiom. which
could cost industries up to S2 billion
by 1985. (Congress ordered EPA la set
federal emission limits for new sources
in 1977 to prevent the stales from loos-
ening pollution limns ta attract lew in-
dustries.)
OMB COMPLAINTS
OMB-s analysis of EPA programs.
net iinpredicubty. rmrrora meal of Stock-
man's concern and goes beyond them
in some areas, such as new water pol-
lution rules. IFof a /trf of the far/efeaf
regulation!, let box. f. 2SSI
EPA's most terious problems, the doc-
ument concludes, are "its inadequate
legislative authority to consider costs
and its lack of oversight and control
of growing informational activities."
OMB praised the agency's "disciplined
program of policy oversight" for keeping
senior managers, on top of rule makings.
The budget office noted that EPA's for-
mal system of tracking and reviewing
regulation served largely as the model
for President Carter's March 1978 ex-
ecutive order directing agencies to choose
the lean burdensome ways of meeting
regulatory goals.
That order, which expires in April.
is expected to be replaced by a Reagan
executive order lhal will give more ex-
plicit direction to federal agencies.
"We're going to be putting down very
hard rules for them." Miller said al
a meeting of the National Retired Teach-
ers Association and American Associ-
ation of Retired Person earlier this
OMB's report maintain lhal EPA
hu considerable discretion in rule mak-
ing. Only in selling national ambient
air quality standards, il said, must EPA
ignore cosu. The dean Air Act would
have la be amended to introduce cost-
beneiil analysis, and the Administration
ia expected to propose just thai this
'Pri*aT when Congress holds reauthori-
tation hearings. Reagan's executive order
wiU cover other EPA mica, (See NJ.
11/li/iO. f. 1927.1
EPA's impact on the national econ-
omy. OMB warn, is now beginning to
expand exponentially. The agency's m-
•uenee goes far beyond its budget, which
totals MJ billion ink* fiscal year. Of
that, only SI.4 billion represents agency
2S« NATIONAL JOURNAL I/M/II
-------
F-15
F-15
PJ
i
oo
• or]X:r.iline eosu The rest of Ihe money
•.ubMCVcN municipal ftcwugc treatment
construction. «hich it a lop candidate
Tor budget trimming because or its po-
tentially inflationary impact. (See this
.<">. 171.1
V. r-.. agency now has under active con-
sideration some 400 separate rules, which
stem from 12 environmental statutes.
Some of these regulations are just be-
ginning 10 implement Ihe more recent
laws, such as the 1976 Resource Con-
semliun and Recovery Act, which dolt
with the transportation and storage of
hazardous waMe. Others reflect the 1977
amendments to the 1970 Clean Air Act
and ihe 1972 Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. (far a review of the
environmental movement. see JtJ.
Public and private expenditures for
pollution abatement came 10 $54 billion
in 1979. according to Ihe Council on
Environmental Quality. That represented
2.3 per cent of the gross national product.
About half this spending—$28 billion
—was borne by the private sector.
Electric utilities and the auto industry
bore ihe brunt, paying more than 60
per cent of .979*1 private pollution con-
irol costs. Most of ihe remainder wai
paid by the steel, petroleum, chemical
and paper industries.
^ In addition lo pollution controls, OMB
predicts, the-cosu of other environmental
regu^'^'fti will "growdramatically**over
the l^r few years, although they will
tot be as targe: These involve hazardous
*asie. toxic substances, pesticides and
wise control.
The most significant measurement of
EPA's burgeoning regulations, however.
i what OMB calls their -incremental
ion." These- are the pollution control
expenditures that go beyond chose that
would have been incurred in the absence
of regulation.
EPA regulations required incremental
public and private spending of $33.5
billion in 1979. which represented an
80 per cent increase over I977*i in-
cremental estimate. In 1973, the incre-
menial cost was only S9.4 billion. Cu-
mulatively for the 1980s, these costs
could total $500 billion unless some of
ihe regulations are killed or postponed.
(Str iabte. p. 239.)
"EPA has steadily expanded the num-
ber of pollutants and industrial sources
that are subject to regulation, and has
adopted increasingly stringent control
standards," OMB's analysis stales. "Air
and water pollution abatement still ac-
count for the bulk of the agency's reg-
ulatory activities, and for the bulk of
Ihe jost of complying with environmental
regulations.**
COSTS AND BENEFITS
In evaluating EPA's regulatory per-
formance, OMB lauded the agency's
"economic sophistication.'* iu diligence
in improving rule-making procedures and
the development of such "innovative
techniques"* as the "bubble" concept for
air pollution controL (Stt this ixsvf.
p. 287.) But OMB nevertheless criticized
the agency for failing to give sufficient
weight to the cons, of compliance in
some of iu more recent regulatory ac-
tions. It cited these examples:
•> Revisions of ambient air quality stan-
dards for nitrogen oxides and carbon
monoxide that affect primarily the auto
industry and retain "excessively stringent
standards.**
» Revision of the effluent guidelines for
non-toxic water polluianu affecting both
the paper and steel industries that have
"ovcrinfJated" the""cost reasonableness**
standard ordered by Congress in 1977.
EPA* has adopted a standard thai it
say] would cost industry 51.15 a pound
based on the cost experience of municipal
seuage treatment plants. But the paper
industry and OMB argue that a rea-
sonable standard should cost closer to
40 cents a pound. The difference is
"several billion dollars." OMB asserts.
» Hazardous waste treatment and dis-
posal regulations that did not even at-
tempt to apply cost considerations Carter
ordered in 1978. OMB challenges EPA's
contention that the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act prohibits com-
pliance cost considerations.
» Visibility rules and prevention of sig-
nificant deterioration (PSD) provisions
lo protect the "clean air** areas of the
country lhai are "so vague and pro-
cedural^ complex that EPA has been
unable to assess their economic impact.**
OMB's new attempt to apply cost-
benefit analysis to every aspect of en-
vironmental regulation alarms William
Drayioir Jr., former assistant EPA ad-
ministrator for planning and manage-
ment. Drayton was known as "the gum
of regulatory reform** in th* Carter Ad-
ministration, and it was largely the reg-
ulatory and budgetary management pro-
cedures he instituted at EPA that OMB
praised in its recent analysis.
**1' see the new Administration ca-
reening in a direction that will be coun-
terproductive to what President Rea-
gan really wants—sensible regulatory
reform,** Drayton said in an interview.
"What is now happening suggests a pe-
riod where OMB will have very high
influence, and that's too bad because
they are poor managers.
James C Miller III (ritntl. headoflnr
OMB off ce that compiled an analysis of
•nvironmenial reflations by EPA:
i We 're going lo be pulling down very
\ard rules/or them. ~ William Drayton
Jr.. formerly of EPA. said that ~OMB
ioesn 'i have the expertise to second*
'aess the professional staffs of the
OMB Has Us Eyes on These Regulations
Allowing are Environmental Protection Agency regulations that the Office of Management and Budget is reviewing
a cither deferral or rescission. Rules marked with an asterisk (•) have been specially targeted by OMB. Regulaicry
costs marked with a dagger (t) are annual.
Regulation
Affected industry
AIR
•Nilrogen diotidr emissions for 1985 trucks
Paniculate emissions for 1985 heavy diesd truck*
Etaporatlte emissions for 1985 heavy trucks
• 1984 hi-h altitude standards
Fuels and fuel addilive*
•New source performance standards for industrial boiten
Airborne carcinogen*
•Beniene rules
• Pre>enlion of significant deterioration expansion to new
pollutants
•Ambient air qualify standards for ozone, carbon monoxide,
nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and paniculate*
•Excursion policies for ambient standards
•Carbon monoxide »ai»en for can
Nilrogen dioxide w aiters for diesel can
Panieulale emissions for 1982 diesel can and small truck*
1981 high altitude standards
1984 emisuaa standards for Eghl truck*
19S4 emission standards for beavy truck*
Testing, labeling and warranty
•New source performance standards for electric uliDuat;
prevention of significant deterioration rules for paniculate*
and sulfur dioxide; risibility rule* for national park*
J4 billion over five yean
S690 million over five yean
110 million
S660 million over five yean
S35 milliont
SI ton billion
SI to S2 billion
7
SI to S2 billion
SI6billionr
$110 $2 billion
$300 million
•>
SI toS2 billion
SIO million
SI 3 billion over five yean
SJ.6 billion over five yean
SI 00 million
$6 billion by 1988
auto
auto
auto
auto
many
sleel. chemical
chemicsi
electric utilities, sleel and
.petroleum
•uio. electric utiliUe*
auto, electric utilities
auto
auto
auto
auto
auto
auto
electric utilities
and mining
, petroleum
^ATER
^/huenl guidelines for declric ulullie* 1700 million
'•EIKu.nl guidelines for pulp and paper $900 million
• Effluent guidelines for iron and steel S600 million
Organic chemicals in drinking water SI billion over three yean
•Pretrealmenf standards for discharges lo mumctptl sewage ?
treatment plant*
electric utiliiiea
paper
steel
public water systems
electroplating, textiles and
leather unning
HAZARDOUS WASTE .
•Disposal regulation*.
Superfund regulations for cleanup
JlSbiffionovertOycaii
many
TOXICSUBSTANCES AND PESTICIDES
Test rules for ehloromethane and chlorinated benzene* ' ?
•Preminufaelurenolmcalioav JIO million
Chlorofluorocarboal production limit! J450 million
Pesticide registration guideline* SliOmilKonT
cjicmiol
chemical
chemical
chemical
NOISE
•Emission standards for base*
•Emission standards for railroad*
•Emission standards for truck*
•Emission standards for garvage trucks
•Emission standards for motorcycles
STOmiDion
T
SlOOmilUont
$30 milliont
S10 milliont
auto
railroad
auto
auto
motorcycj*
RADIATION
Disposal of radioactive waste*
IBM miDion t
nuclear power and befeAfr?
"Jim Tozzi sees OMB as in conv
peituon with the [U-S.J Regulatory
O 1. But OMB doesn't have the
cipcrinc to seoem.l-g.weu the profcuicml
surfs of the agencies. The Regulatory
Council b a good vehicle for reform in the agencies. This sets up a destructive
because it complements rather than confiia pattern that creates defensive
threatens.** game-playing rather than responsible
But. Draytoa added. "OMB's often conduct. Regulators warn to do a good
insulting altitude produces poor reactions job, 100.**
NATIONAL JOURNAL 2/>4/*l 257
251 NATIONAL JOURNAL 2/M/tl
-------
H-l
H-l
jfbrt. Bacon A^nvte Utah 3nc.
«•«.•«*( - CMtluCVOM
April 13, 1981
rfort. Bacon *3tavi6 Utah 3nc.
|BCl»tl*l - COKllMlCIOM
April 13, 1981
Page 2
I
(-"
00
COMMENTS ON EPA DEIS FOR REMEDIAL ACTION STANDARDS FOR INACTIVE
URANIUM PROCESSING SITES (40CFR192) WORKING LEVEL STANDARD
Data given in Chapter 1 indicate that 10 percent to 20 percent
of buildings in areas that experience cold weather, have radon
daughter concentrations (RDC) greater than 0.015 WL (Working Levels).
Thus, one in five structures where tailings have been identified is
likely to have RDC in excess of 0.015 WL. In addition, as more
energy saving measures are taken in residences, the proportion of
residences with RDC greater than 0.015 WL will increase to perhaps
one in every three.
It is also shown in Chapter 1 that 60 of 217 residences and
schools in Grand Junction, Colorado, have been treated but not yet
brought below the action level of 0.01 WL above background
(—0.007 WL) or a total of 0.017 WL. This level appears to be too
low for practical remedial action procedures or the results may in-
dicate that these structures would have had higher than normal WL
in the absence of tailings because of their construction and materials,
and further attempts at reductions would be futile.
The action level should be set at the upper end of the range of
normal background levels, such as 0.02 WL, since values above that
level indicate an anomaly probably due to tailings if they have been
found on the property. This 0.02 WL remedial action level should be
applicable only to residences and to schools or structures where em-
ployees spend significantly more time than the normal 40 hour week.
In businesses, a higher WL level should be allowed since em-
ployees would be exposed to the higher levels about one quarter of
a year (2080 hrs/8760 hr = 0.24). A working level limit of 0.02 WL
to 0.04 WL is proposed. This leads to one-tenth of the acceptable
annual integrated WL exposure allowed for miners. Business exposures
would be primarily experienced by individuals of employable age with
only insignificant exposure to children, the aged, and the infirm.
Cleanup of Open Lands
There is a difference of opinion in the remedial action commun-
ity as to whether or not the standard of 5pCi/g of radium in soil
includes background radium or not. The wording in the proposed
standards is very clear that the "average concentration of radium-
226 attributable to residual radioactive material from any designated
processing site... shall not exceed 5pCi/g." Radium occurring
naturally in soil beneath tailings did not come from a processing
site. The excess radium in contaminated soil results from five tail-
ings particles mixing with the soil or from the adsorption of leached
radium on soil particles beneath the tailings. In both cases, the
additional residual radium in the soil after cleanup, came from the
processing site, and therefore the final level should be stated as
5 pCi/g of radium plus the natural background radium concentration in
the soil. The standard is incorrectly referred to in Section 8.2.
The EPA also states that the standard applies to any 5 cm or
15 cm thickness of soil depending upon the depth of the sample. If
one reads this literally, no single spot could exceed 5pCi/g of
radium. No area averaging is permitted. This leads to excessive
monitoring and sampling.
The average concentration of radium from a processing site must
not exceed 5 pCi/g of radium in any 5 cm thickness within one foot of
the surface. In many cases, large windblown areas exceed this stan-
dard. If the contamination were averaged in 15 cm, large areas of
fragile desert would not require decontamination by scraping and re-
moving all vegetation along with the soil. This decontamination
results in a significant environmental impact. where homes and bus-
inesses are located in the windblown areas, lawns and shrubbery
must be removed. Such contamination will eventually JLmigrate down-
ward about one foot into the soil from precipitation or irrigation.
The DOE has calculated that contamination of 5 pCi/g of radium
in soil to an infinite depth (actually about 15 ft.) beneath a struc-
ture could result in RDC of 0.02 WL. However, no such contamination
profile exists. The radon flux from a thin layer of contaminated
soil at 10 pCi/g decreasing to background within a depth of two feet
would have a lower flux than the 5 pCi/g infinite depth case. Con-
trary to the DEIS, an increase in the standard by a factor of two to
10 pCi/g could save many millions of dollars in excavation and haulage
costs. One additional foot of excavation at the Vitro site in Salt
Lake City and transport of the contaminated soil to the disposal
site would cost more than one million dollars.
A standard should be set that does not somehow require implemen-
tation to achieve even lower levels (ALARA). Just because it would
be easy to remove one additional fooL oi soil, it is not reasonable
to do so if the cost benefit far exceeds the cost of protection in
other industries. The cost/benefit/ratios are exceedingly high for
the mill tailings program based upon the standards. To require more
extensive remedial action worsens the cost benefit ratio
COMMENTS ON EPA DEIS FOR REMEDIAL ACTION STANDARDS FOR INACTIVE
URANIUM PROCESSING SITES (40CFR192) STANDARD FOR CLEANUP OF CONTAM-
INATED' OPEN LAND'S"! ' '
The environmental standards proposed by the EPA for cleanup of
open lands contaminated with radioactive materials from inactive
uranium processing sites potentially contradict proposed standards
for disposal of inactive uranium mill tailings and do not allow, in
-------
H-l
H-l
M
I
00
-J
jfbrt, Bacon 4 Davis Utah 3nc.
April 13, 1981
I'age 3, 1981
their present form, for the exercise o£ good judgement. These problems
are discussed below.
The Contradiction
The cleanup standards, on one hand, require that contaminated
open lands must be cleanud up such that the average radium-226 con-
centration attributable to residual radioactive material in various
thicknesses of soil does not exceed 5 pCi/g. On the- other hand, if
the tailings and contaminated material were disposed of, essentially
in place, the average annual release of radon-222 from the disposal
site to the atmosphere by residual radioactive materials (assumed to
be that in excess of naturally-occurring amounts of radium-226) may
not exceed 2 pci/m2-s.
From Figure 1 it can be seen that a 15-cm thickness of tailings
or contaminated material which is covered by slightly more than 1 m
of dry soil and whose radium-226 concentration is about 50 pCi/g
will produce a flux at the surface of about 2 pci/m2-s. Suppose then
that contamination extends to 1 ro below the intended final grade and
the average radium-226 concentration attributable to residual radio-
active material at 1 m below the final grade is 5 pci/g, as required
by the proposed cleanup standard's. The radon-222 flux at the final
grade which would result from a 15-cm thickness of such contaminated
soil at the 1-m depth would be about 0.2 pCi/m2-s. Thus the proposed
cleanup standard under likely conditions may be much more restrictive
than the proposed disposal standard, in terms of release of radon-222
to the atmosphere. That is to say, whereas the proposed disposal
standard allows radon-222 release to the atmosphere which is consid-
ered acceptably low in terms of risk to the public, the proposed
cleanup standard for contaminated open lands und^r likelv conditions
would potentially require a radon-222 releaae rate 10 times smaller,
Finally, the question is raised, "If the risk to the public is ac-
ceptably low for disposal of tailings and contaminated material, why
should the contaminated material be cleaned up to standards which
may be 10 times more restrictive?"
This contradiction between the proposed disposal standards and
the -proposed standards for cleanup of contaminated open lands should
be resolved by relaxing the cleanup standards for contaminated open
lands.
The Exercise of Good Judgement
A comparative cost-benefit evaluation provides a quantitative
tool for the exercise of good judgement and demonstrates that relaxing
the cleanup standard for open lands is the prudent thing to do.
If the costs and benefits (in terms of public health! of cleaning
up contaminated open lands are evaluated, a basis for the exercise of
good judgement can be developed. As an illustration, the costs and
April 13, 1981
Page 4
benefits of removing 15 cm of contaminated soil (or tailings) under
various conditions, as well as the resulting benefits, were esti-
mated for a 100-m2 area at the Vitro site in Salt Lake City. The
cost-benefit ratio is presented in Figure 2 as a function of depth
below final grade, with ladium concentration at; a parameter.
The note on Figure 2 shows that removal of IS cm of typical
tailings (600 pCi/g of radium-226) from 100 m2 of the present sur-
face has a cost-benefit ratio of about $73,000 per health effect
(case of lung cancer) avoided. This suggests that removal of the
top 15 cm of tailings is a very cost-effective undertaking, when
measured in terms of health effects avoided. By contrast however,
tffe cOst-benefit ratio of removing 15 cm of contaminated soil with
a radium-226 concentration of 10 pCi/g at a depth of 1 m below final
grade is a startling $9,000,000 per health effect avoided, or more
than 100 times less cost-effective.
Continuing the illustration, imagine that excavation during
cleanup had extended to a depth which was 1 m below the intended
final grade, and the radium-226 concentration was found to be
10 pCi/g in the next 15 cm of soil. Also allow that the naturally-
occurring radium-226 in soil of the general vicinity is known to
range from 2 to 3 pCi/g. The answer to the question of whether to
remove an additional 15 cm of contaminated soil at that depth is
suggested by reference to Figure 3- Since the return is so small
compared to the additional investment required ($9,000,000 per health
effect avoided), the judgement is made that decontamination is com-
plete, even though the radium-226 attributable to residual radio-
active material is in excess of the presently proposed standard by
as much as 3 pCi/g. Even under these conditions, the radon-222 re-
leased to the atmosphere will not exceed 0.5 pCi/m2-s — which is
well below that allowed if the contaminated material were disposed
of at that location.
Conclusion
Because of the potential contradiction between the proposer.
standard for cleanup of contaminated upen lands and the proposed
standard for tailings disposal, and because of the need for common
sense, allowing for the exercise of good judgement during decontam-
ination, the standards for cleanup of contaminated open lands should
be relaxed. The concept depicted in Figure 2 forms a rational basis
for a quantitative tool to be used in such exercise of good judgement.
-------
H-l
H-l
fort*. Bacon S Divle itab Jnc.
rort>. Sacon & Davle Hub 4nc.
oo
00
0.01
FIGURE 1
3 •>
DEPTH BELOW SURFACE (m|
RADON - 222 FLUX AT SURFACE FROM A 15-cm THICKNESS
OF TAILINGS VERSUS DEPTH BELOW SURFACE
COST - BENEFIT RATIO FOR REMOVING A
15 • cm THICKNESS OF TYPICAL TAILINGS
(600pCi/a) FROM THE SURFACE OVER AN
AREA OF 100m2 EQUALS $73,000 PER
HEALTH EFFECT AVOIDED.
DEPTH BELOW FINAL GRADE (m)
FIGURE 2 COST - BENEFIT RATIO VERSUS DEPTH BELOW FINAL GRADE
-------
H-l
H-2
forb, JBacon & Vavte (tab Jnc.
100-1
DEPTH BELOW FINAL GRADE (ml
FIGURE 3 POSSIBLE STANDARD FOR CLEANUP OF
RADIUM - 226 IN OPEN LANDS
STATEMENT FOR EPA HEARINGS - APRIL 24, 1981
My name is Alvin E. Rickers. I am the Director of the Division of
Environmental Health of the Utah State Department of Health. I will
comment on the proposed standards for uranium mill tailings.
The EPA proposed standards for clean-up and disposal of uranium mill
pmfSfd.
tailings included in the EIS have been ^t too close to the levels
encountered in nature. The standards will require much additional
expense in the clean-up of small residual amounts of tailings both at
off-site properties and on the mill site. This expense is not justified
by a corresponding health benefit. The standard must be set to protect
the public health with a margin of safety. The question is, "How much of
a margin?"
The public looks at official limits set by health related agencies as
a demarcation between safe and unsafe conditions. Very little is known
about the risks involved at the low levels represented by these proposed
standards and for this reason a linear non-threshold response theory has
been used as a conservative method to estimate risk by extrapolation from
higher doses.
As public health officials, we are obligated to protect the public
from harmful effects within reason and, in the area of the unknown, we
take a conservative position. However, a conservative position does not
imply the elimination of all risk.
-------
H-2
H-2
PI
i
VO
O
The 1976 Phase II Engineering Assessment of the Vitro Site by Ford,
Bacon, and Davis estimated that 11 health effects would occur in 25 years
within one-half mile of the Vitro site with no remedial action and no
building ban. When the tailings are removed along with contaminated
sub-soil, the difference in health effects will be insignificant if we
use a clean-up standard of 15 pCi/gm radium-226 instead of 5 pCi/gm. The
standard seems to be directed toward restoration of natural environmental
levels rather than the prevention of health effects.
Similarly, the proposed remedial action level of 0.015 Working Levels
(including background) for radon daughter contamination of occupied
buildings is too low when at least 10 percent of the normal houses with
basements in Grand'Junction, New York State, and New Jersey exceed this
level.
Setting standards for remedial action, which are near the conditions
encountered normally where there is no tailings problem, has an adverse
effect on the public. Many people will be worried that their homes are
unsafe when this is not the case. Since many of the public still look to
the EPA for guidance concerning what is safe and what is not, you have a
grave responsibility.
I propose as an alternate standard the following:
1. Revise Part 192.21 Table B to read
Average Annual Indoor Radon Decay
Product Concentration - above background - Background to be the
average of at least 50 well dispersed first floor measurements
in non-basement residences within 10 miles of the tailings pile
but at least 1 mile from any known tailings locations.
(WL) 0.015
Indoor Gamma Radiation -
above background (milliroentgen/hour) .05
2. Review Part 192.12 to change all references of 5 pCi/gm to 15
pCi/gm.
Alternative standards would provide the following advantages:
1. The number of radon related health effects would not be
significantly increased and this would avoid difficulities
involved in areas of high background.
2. The number of gamma related health effects would still be less
than those related to radon.
3. No significant amount of radioactivity would be left at the
location from which tailings is removed.
-------
H-2
H-3
4. The standards would be more closely related to health effects
and not add so much to the public over-reaction to radiation
risks.
5. The cost of the remedial action would be significantly decreased.
April 25, 1981
TO: Officials of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.)
FROM: Stanley T. Holmes III
278 'D' Street - #3
Salt Lake City, UT 84103
SUBJECT: Comments to hearing on disposition of residual radioactive materials.
cw
415
w
i
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to have Input into this segaent
of the nuclear energy/weapons decision-making process. If our society is going
to persist with its proliferation of nuclear energy and weapons development,
then we will be constantly forced to deal with issues attendant to radioactive
materials processing.
I have a few questions and comments to present to you.
First of all, I would like to know how safe, or dangerous, uranium mill
tailings really are. In April, 1979, as a student at the University of Utah,
I set out to do research on the locations of tailings from the old Vitro pro-
cessing plant, here in Salt Lake City. I also wanted to ascertain what danger
those tailings presented to the residents of Salt Lake County.
In my pursuit of information, I Incurred some obstacles, and had to do a
bit of unnecessary running around. Officials of the Radiation and Occupational
Health section of the Utah Division of Environmental Health, who did not under-
stand my concern, told me that they did not have the information I sought. I
was referred to the consulting firm of Ford, Bacon and Davis Utah for informa-
tion on tailings locations. At Ford, Bacon and Davis Utah, who did the Vitro
analysis for the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration (E.R.D.A.),
I was told to wait while Dr. Vern Rogers checked with Grand Junction (Colorado)
for clearance to grant my information request. According to Dr. Rogers, Grand
Junction said "no", but he added that Larry Anderson and the folks at Environ-
mental Health did have the information I wanted. Back, again, to the Radiation
-------
H-3
H-3
I
H-*
to
and Occupational Health office, where Mr. Elaine Howard did give me several
reports from which I finally extracted tailings addresses. When I asked
whether any residences or businesses existed at those sites, I was told that
since there was no danger from the tailings, they wouldn't cause unnecessary
problems for those living, or working, over the tailings by giving me that
Information. I had to do my ova field survey to get that info.
((Attachments #1 and #2 are, respectively, copies of a report I made to the
Daily Utah Chronicle and an article the Chronicle ran on the story.))
Since that time, Utah officials have admitted that there are enough
grounds for concern to evacuate one Salt Lake fire station, which was built
atop the tailings.
Residents of Salt Lake County, and all Americans, deserve to know exactly
what the dangers are from tailings, and from tailings in aggregate with other
natural and man-made radiation sources.
Second; given Energy Secretary Edwards seeming preference for a future
increasingly reliant upon nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, how much more
residual radioactive material will be generated between now and the year 2000?
With the proposed reactivation of weapons-related plutonium reactors, and
stepped-up NRC commercial reactor licensing in the offing, what provisions have
been made to address the exacerbation of problems we haven't yet managed to
solve?
Thirdly; I am glad to see you folks (the E.P.A.) conducting these hearings.
If It were left up to Vitro Corporation —which is still turning government
profits In places as far afield as Oxnard, California and Bath, Maine— these
problems would not b
-------
H-3
2
H-3
I
I—«
oo
the determined uackground c/s for the location by 50 °r more c/s."
Anyone interested in researching the reports for more infor-
mation will find copies of both at the Radiation and Occupational
Health section of the Utah State Environmental Health Services (at
150 West N. Temple, SLC). Be prepared for some resistance, though,
as some personnel there would rather that you, the "general public",
were not aware of the exact locations of the tailings. Government
employees explained to me that since the radioactivity being
emitted by the tailings is not really dangerous, it would be unfair
to publicize the names and addresses of businesses operating on,
or near, tailings material. Keep in mind, however, that our
government is not above misinforming, or deceiving, the public
about certain issues. The neople of St. George were led to believe
that no rep.l danger existed, for them, from the Nevada nuclear
tests. I, for one, do not trust the government to be candid with
me about all matters which may have an adverse effect on ny life.
Besides, costs of the NERC and Ford Bacon and Davis Utah, Inc.
surveys were ultimately borne by we, the taxpayers, who have been
sheltered from the findings. As regards nuclear effluents, I
would feel much better knowing that I do not live on, or near, the
sites where radioactive wastes have been deposited, and that I am
not consuming any commodity which has been processed or stored on,
or near, such sites.
The following list of the seventeen tailings locations, assumed
by Ford Bacon and Davis Utah to require remedial action, includes
each site's code number, address, and owner as they appear in
the NERC report:
#423V» 37°° S. Main St. SLC Fire Dept.
#42528 2583 S. 800 E. J. 1. Brunswick
#42321 3339 S. 900 W. S. Cornell
#42356 661 W. 3300 S. name not given
#42472 368? S, 2740 W. J. A. Carter
#42330 3195 S. 900 W. Won Door Corp.
#42329 3215 S. 900 w. Won Door Corp.
#42408 184 W. 3300 S. Kohler Plumbing Supply
#42363 1101 S. 700 W. Koldaire
#42311 3585 S. 500 W. A & R Meats
#42296 2545 S. 300 W. *see note*
#42999 adjacent to #42296 *see note*
#42998 adjacent to #42999 *see note*
#42319 3432 S. 900 W. N. Norman
#42413 3007 S. State St. Millstream Trailer Park
#42412 3040 S. State St. Holiday Inn
#42396 3365 S. 300 W. Boyers Food Products
*notei At the time of the NERC survey, #42296 was a vacant lot,
owned by the U.S. Government. Sites #42999 and #42998
were identified after the 1973 NERC report, and are close
to #42296. One State employee, who helped take measurements
of radioactivity in the area of the three sites, confirmed
that R & W Dairy Products Co. (2575 S. 300 W.) is on, or
near, tailings.
PACE
*r 3
3 of -3
-------
H-4
H-7
w
i—'
VO
-P-
aatct InHnulknal OMOan
EMrgySyMim Group
8900 De Soto Avenue
Canoga Park, CA 91304
Telephone: (213) 341-1000
TWX 910-494-1237
TELEX: 181017
April 9, 1981
Rockwell
International
In reply refer to 81ESG-3426
Director. Criteria and Standards Division (ANR-460)
Office of Radiation Programs
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Public Hearings on 40 CFR Part 192 (Proposed)
Gentlemen:
Subject:
The Federal Register of March 12, 1981 announced that public hearings
would be held on the proposed 40 CFR Part 192, Remedial Action Stand-
ards for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites." It was stated that
members of the public may suggest questions for the presiding officer
to ask of speakers. After reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EPA 570/4-80-011) we have several questions that we feel
should be clarified at the public hearings. These are:
*
1.. The DEIS in Chapter 4 provides estimates of number of fatal
lung cancers which may result from exposure to radon decay
products from the tailings piles, (a) What would be the expected
number of lung cancer fatalities in the same population group
due to all causes? (b) How many of these fatalities are
estimated to be due to smoking?
2. Chapter 4 of the DEIS assumes a linear risk associated with
radiation health effects with no damage threshold, but assumes
a threshold for non-radioactive toxic materials. What would
be the effect on the conclusions reached if a damage threshold
were assumed for radiation health effects?
3. Chapter 6 discusses occupational hazards associated with the
remedial actions. What is the estimated number of construction
and traffic fatalities as compared with the number of cancer
deaths avoided?
We feel that these questions should be addressed at each of the public
hearings to help provide a better perspective of the impact of the
proposed remedial actions which will result from this rulemaking.
Very truly yours
W. D.
Program Manager
Decommissioning
PRESENTATION
EPA Hearings in Durango, Colorado
on
Standards for the UMTRAP
by
Albert J. Hazle
Colorado has long been concerned with the disposal of uranium mill tailings.
Since the early 1960's studies have been conducted with the cooperation of others
to determine the impacts from inadequately stabilized tailings piles. Finally
in 1972, mill tailings were recognized by Congress as having a significant
potential impact. This was the passage of PL 92-304 providing for the Grand
Junction Remedial Action Program on buildings where tailings were used. Continued
effort by the states and EPA resulted in Congressional action in 1978 with the
enactment of PL 95-604 authorizing the inactive tailings pile remedial program
and providing for strengthening of the NEC and Agreement State programs to pre-
clude another generation of inadequately reclaimed and stabilized tailings piles.
Within t-his state there are 9 inactive uranium mill piles at 7 general locations
with a total of 11 million tons of tailings. There are approximately 7,000 off-site
or vicinity locations contaminated by these 9 piles. Another 16 million tons of
uranium mill tailings or residues do not fall under the remedial program addressed
by Title I of PL 95-604. Proposed or new mills yet to come on-line will generate
an additional equivalent inventory; however they will be handled right from the
start in a more fitting manner commensurate with their long-term potential hazard.
Colorado's Garments are predicated on the fact that there must be consistency in
the criteria and standards of EPA, NRC, DCE, and the States', and that among these
entities there must be continued consistency between the regulations and inter-
pretations implementing these standards and criteria.
Some specific comments regarding 40 CFR 192 as proposed are:
Subpart A.
192.03
a)
b)
EPA proposes a minimum of one thousand years where NRC requires
a longevity standard of "thousands of years". The practicality
of the matter is that the proposed EPA value would be appropriate
if the protection parameters would not change over the thousand
years. However, in a slight erosional environment, depending
and the reclamation site, periods of thousands of years must
be considered due to the peculiarities and erosional potentials
of the specific site. The specificity of one thousand years is
as inappropriate as is the concept of using geological tine.
The application of drinking water standards to ground or surface
waters is problematic. Values for surface waters of Colorado
generally vary from--' 10 pCi Uranium/liter in the higher elevations
to equal to or greater than 100 PCi Uranium filter in the lower
reaches of major river basins. This is primarily due to the solids
content of the water. In Colorado, the alpha radioactivity of
these solids range from 20 to 40 pCi/gram statewide. Radium
-------
H-7
H-8
I
I—'
Ui
c)
values range from less than 0.1 pCi/liter to over 400 pCi/liter in
groundwaters. These are not man-enhanced situations. 'The value
for radium in drinking water was based on health impact and the
ability to treat elevated levels. The value for uraniunfwas based
solely on health impact. Ability to treat waters with anv degree of
efficiency for uranium removal is questioned. I envision"extensive
usage of the exemptions proposed in Part C to "accomplish" any form
of remedial action thereby identifying that the standards were im-
properly formulated as to efficacy of attainment and enforcement.
If a river was within the prescribed measurement distance (0.1
kilometer), a site could have significant leaching but still be with-
in the standard due to the dilution by the river's influence on the
unconfined aquifer. The use of two different measurement distances
has an economic basis, however, it is questioned if the health impact
might play a more important role. Further, the criteria should be
identical to that applied to active sites as the hazard is identical.
Subpart B
192.12
a) Under (a) no guidance is provided for DOE's "reasonable assurance"
in the implementation of these standards. Additionally, there is
no interpretation on how the values are to be measured. Colorado
has gained a great deal of experience in the implementation of the
Grand Junction program. We forsee problems in the varied interpre-
tations that have and will occur in the future on the proper and con-
sistent measurement procedures.
b) Under (c) the term "dose equivalent" is used and references (a) and
(b). However the maximum dose equivalent in rem as defined is not
included in Table B.
Part C
a) The exemptions provided in 192.20 and 192.21 are consistent with
the practices in Grand Junction, which relates solely to the gamma
and radon daughter values. As such we envision their proper limited
usage. However, with regard to the other values, as stated before,
we envision extensive use of the exemptions which indicates that
the standards were improperly derived.
Again, let me express concern for consistency between agencies on standards and
their implementation. What I might be mere concerned with is how DOE intends to
implement these standards. When will their implementing regulations be available
for review and comnent?
I anticipate that the Department's Water Quality Control Division and the Colorado
Department of Natural Resources will provide conments on the proposed standards
eith at your hearings or by letter during the continued cortment period.
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony before the panel. We will be
providing these comments in writing also within the concent period. If there are
any questions that you might have, I would be most happy to respond.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
D MONTE PASCO£. Eaeeuwe Director
1313 Sherman St.. Room 71B, Denver. Colorado 80203 866-331.1
Dr. William A. Mills, Director
Criteria and Standards Division
Office of Radiation Programs "^^
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
April 22, 1981
Dear Dr. Mills:
The Colorado Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for Remedial Action Standards for
Inactive Uranium Processing Sites (40 CFR 192). We would like to specifi-
cally address Section 8.1.5, titled Period of Application of Disposal
Standards. In this Section, the EPA states that "We believe that one
thousand years meets the Congressional criterion that 'the remedial action
must be done right the first time.'" The Colorado Department of Natural
Resources would like to point out that this statement is in direct conflict
with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's uranium mill licensing requirement
that tailings disposal be effective for "thousands of years. The NRC
states that "In selecting among alternative tailings disposal sites or
judging the adequacy of existing sites, consideration should be given to
specific site characteristics wnich will assure meeting the broad objective
of isolating tailings and associated contaminants from humans and the environ-
ment without ongoing active maintenance for thousands of years.
The Colorado Department of Natural Resources has been involved in the review
and analysis of disposal sites for uranium tailings throughout Colorado.
Contrary to the opinion expressed in Section 8.1.5, we feel that tailings
standards for periods as long as 10,000 years are practical and can be
economically achieved. The study of geology, specifically Quaternary geology,
geomorphology, and engineering geology, can effectively analyze the long-term
stability of disposal sites. A stable repository can satisfy the NRC
criterion of "thousands of years, if geologic conditions and processes are
Thank you.
-------
H-8
H-9
n
i
ON
Or. William A. Mills, Director
Page 2
April 22, 1981
carefully analyzed. To insure that geologic conditions are fully
analyzed, we recommend that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
siting criteria be adopted and incorporated into the EPA impact statement.
In summary, we feel that the 1,000-year standard proposed by the EPA
does not adequately protect future generations and thus does not meet
the Congressional criuurion. Because geologic conditions have been and
can be used to determine the long-term stability of uranium tailings
repositories, we recommend a minimum disposal requirement of at least
"thousands of years" be adopted and that the U.S. NRC siting criteria be
incorporated and discussed in the EPA Environmental Impact Statement.
D. Monte Pascoe, Director
Colorado Department of Natural Resources
9P
My name is K.T. Scott, I am Chairman of the Board of the
La Plata County Commissioners. I am not a geologist, so I
will not use a lot of the terms used by them, but simply use
the common sense approach.
The La Plata County Commissioners are pleased to have this
opportunity to testify at this EPA hearing with respect to
proposed standards for the cleanup and disposal of uranium
mill tailings at inactive mill sites. Our comments are as
follows:
1. The standards should be sufficiently realistic and
flexible so that the Department of Energy can proceed forthwith
the remedial actions authoried by Title ] of PL 95-604.
2. The standards should be reasonably achievable at
reasonable costs.
3. The standards for allowable emissions at disposal
sites should be set in such a manner that the diversity of
radon emission rates of potential burial and cover materials
is recognized.
4. The standards for clean-up of inactive mill sites
should be formulated with recognition of the fact that
parts of the Durango tailings are presently situated on slag
materials from previous base metal smelting operations. A
local geologist has reported that these slag materials are
slightly radioactive. Thus, the proposed standard of 5
pCi/gm of radium-226 attributable to residual radioactive
material should be examined in the light of this special
circumstance.
Likewise, the natural soils in the vicinity of the
raffinate ponds immediately South from the Durango mill
-------
H-9
H-9
I
h-«
VO
- 2 -
site are reported to contain quantities of radioactive materials
in excess of average soils. Here again, we urge you to examine
carefully, the special problems inherent in the raffinate ponds
area where relatively small quantities of raffinate residue
are mixed with natural soils.
5. The proposed standards relative to surface and under-
ground waters, require drinking water quality or zero increase
in the concentration of contaminants within .1 kilometer of
the disposal site. This concern for safe drinking water is
shared by the Commission. However, we urge that these pro-
posed standards be re-evaluated in the light of engineering
cost estimates and the very remote possibility of contamina-
tion of aq-uifers which are presently or may in the future be
a source of drinking water.
One of the sites under consideration by the DOE for
disposal of the Durango tailings is Bodo Canyon. We recommend
that the standards for the protection of ground and surface
waters be sufficiently flexible so that other factors such
as costs, convenience, dangers of highway transport, etc.
can be considered in the evaluation of acceptable burial
sites.
6. In summary, the Commissioners and the citizens of
La Plata County are most anxious that remedial actions be
done in a proper, safe and expeditious manner. Time is of
the essence and the time factor alone, not to mention the
cost, which has to amount to many thousands of dollars of
taxpayers money for meetings, hearings and further ^tudy is
far beyond anyone's imagination.
- 3 -
To consider the tine spent by myself and many other
citizens of La Plata County with meetinqs and hearings both
locally and with other government agencies, it appears as
though this project is bogged down in the bureaucracy or it
would be much closer for some positive decisions and noticeable
action.
We believe that the standards could and should be modi-
fied and flexible enough so that they will not exceed the
natural soil in that area before the tailings are placed
there. We will look forward to an expeditious and favorable
decision.
RTS:cdl
4-28-81
-------
H-10
H-10
vD
OO
DEUEL and ASSOCIATES
P. O. BOX 6754 • ALBUQUERQUE. NEW MEXICO 67197 • (505) 247-1 160
EPA TESTIMONY STANDARDS FOR UMTRAP
(Uranium Kill Tailings Remedial Action Project)
April Zl, 1981
Durango, Colorado
Introduction
My name is Jamieson K. Deuel. I am the Principal of
Deuel and Associates, an environmental consulting firm head-
»
quartered in Albuquerque, New Mexico. We have had a variety
of experiences with uranium and nuclear power, including the
following: 1) we were responsible for all of the environ-
mental work and permitting on the world's only uranium mill
tailings reclamation and recovery project in Naturita, CO,
and 2) we worked on the unsuccessful attempt to duplicate
that operation here in Durango. We, and I think Rahe Junge
(Colorado Geologic Survey) gave us a testimonial earlier,
have been working for over two years with Pioneer Uravan on
the design, environmental work and the permitting of what
several regulators have judged to be the nation's most
environmentally advanced uranium mill project which is located
in San Miguel County of Colorado. We are also working on a
low level uranium ore heap leach operation in the Gas Hills
2.
District of Wyoming. In addition, I era President of a Grand
Junction firm called Environmental Reclamation Managers (E?,:-'j)
which was formed solely to offer a service to the DOE in the
disposing of virtually one-third of the entire volume of the
UXTRAP project. I have also been, I guess one would say, the
initiating catalyst in 1977 for the Uranium Epidemiology Study
CUES), which I will speak about in more detail in a moment. I
have spent a quarter century of my life in service to the federal
government. I ara a retired nuclear submariner with the rank of
commander. I am here today to represent Ranchers Exploration
and Development Corporation of Albuquerque, a former client
of mine. I must confess that I feel less easy in this small
group of experts than I did a few years ago when I was an inter-
national Olympic wrestling referee involved in a tournament
in Ankara, Turkey, where there were 6,000 spectators all with
cauliflower ears and you can rest assured that they were experts.
II. The Durango Story
Since we are in Durango, I would like to start my testimony
with a little bit of history and talk about the "Durango Story"
as we have sometimes described it in the past and how it may
relate to the subject at hand. Ranchers, with our services,
worked from 1976 to the very last day of 1978 to make this a
going commercial operation. It was an attempt to duplicate the
already, what we consider, successful and proven techniques and
technologies in nearby Naturita.
Naturita was a project which involved about 600,000 tons
of tailings where Durango would have been about 2J times that
-------
H-10
H-10
3.
W
I
VO
size, about 1,500,000 tons. During the Durango project in
over a year's time we looked at 18 different sites for geologic
and environmental acceptability and chose the "best" one which
we presented in our license submittal. It is somewhat ironic
to me that a few years later we find another incentive to do
this same work coming up with the same conclusion which was
judged not totally acceptable in 1978.
I feel somewhat like the child in Aesop's fable of the
enperor's new clothes. Although I do not have all of the
technical background in some of the fields, I do feel that I
have a reasonable engineering intelligence to ask questions.
People tell me things and yet when I look at the reality of
it I do not see it there. To rae the reality was that here was
a commercial operation that was going to take and move these
tailings piles then not being here testifying about how to
do it today and save the taxpayers, you and I, depending upon
what estimate is used, a substantial sum. I notice that in the
Federal Register you (EPA) estimate $11,000,000 per site.
Ranchers, perhaps a little bit more experienced in this area,
estimated over $20,000,000 potential savings to the taxpayer.
We posed at that time a type of environmental syllogysm
that went something like this: If radon and the hazards are
as bad as some people suggest they are, and if having a radon
source near a large population is dangerous, isn't it sensible
to move them as quickly as possible with, perhaps to use a number,
90°i of the perfect solution then to leave them there and spend
years trying to get that refinement? On the other hand, we
posed the alternate question that if it is not that serious,
and we can afford to sit around and discuss this and appropriate
monies for'it, should not a company that is willing .to do this
now be allowed to do it? The permitting difficulty was, essentially,
and there were some other points, the question of whether the
company's committment to a 2-3 feet of compacted clay cover would
be accepted versus the newly emerging standard of 3 meters and
of course it was fudged not to be acceptable.
III. The Time Element Question
I am confused as I listen to the testimony and read what is
being proposed about the time element. The legislative intent,
and I was one of several testifiers in 1978 before both US
House and US Senate Subcommittees, as I read it, charged the
EPA to develop standards within one year. And yet the EPA did
not do this—so apparently legislative intent is not that much
of a mandate or that serious. And yet now we are saying that
there is a great urgency to go out and do things. I am confused.
I am confused that we seem to be looking this year and, maybe,
into 1982 for a permanent solution for s problem that will last
1,000 years at least without providing for less impacting, less
environmental and economically impacting future solutions and
without, at least, so far from what I can determine, an initial
cost benefit analysis. I understand you gentlemen have now
indicated that you will be.required to do that. Thirdly, and
-------
H-10
H-10
5.
6.
I
NJ
o
o
what was nest ccr.fusing when we wcrkei or. t.-.e I^.-ar.cc project,
was that no one out there co-Ic tei; r.e what is the iitcac; :f
finding this massive anour.t of sell ccver" Wnat will t'r.at
impact be on the environment? For Curango we dij sosewhat
of a "back of the envelope calculation". We concluded that.
if we wished to minimize the er.viror.ner.tal s:ar arour.i this
beautiful part of southwestern Colorado by excavating no deeper
than two feet so that we didn't leave behind a big pit or quarry,
that we would take about 400 acres out of circulation in this
area. I can't imagine that going unnoticed in this part of the
state. So I am wondering, are we rushing into some solutions
that we think we' are smart enough to design for permanently,
or should we in fact have provision for emerging technologies,
which I am aware are underway at the moment?
IV. What is the real danger?
Some of the testifiers have talked about the hazard and
the danger. I question what is the real hazard and the real
danger? I would like to quote from the January 9th Federal
Register, p. iSS"<° where the EPA in its introduction, talking
about this program, says,
"Tailings are hazardous primarily because one, breathing
radon and it's decay products exposes the lungs to alpha
particles; two, the body may be exposed to gamma rays;
three, radioactive materials and nonradioactive toxic
elements from tailings jnay_ be swallowed from food and
water" and then as sort of an amplifying note, indicates
"The longevity of these hazards played a major role in
determining the proposed standards".
And yet, on the next page the information takes as the basis
for health effects the uranium miner as a reference point for
assessing the relative hazard and it says,
"This uncertainty (referring back to the data related to
uranium miners) is increased when the data is used to
estimate the risk to the general population".
Further on in this Federal Register, on page 2559, is this
one sentence quote,
"However there has been no opportunity to test these
analyses against field scale full experience".
I would have to say that that is a categorically incorrect
statement on two points. First of all, Naturita results are in
fact a working field test. We did the post-operation monitoring
for this project and found background readings around the
reclaimed tailings of 2.45 pCi/m2-sec. The readings on top
of the reclaimed tailings, this 600,000 tons of tailings with
approximately 2-3 feet of a very carefully compacted finely,
engineered raancos shale cover, was 1.81 pCi/m2-sec, which
suggests to me that perhaps man was able to improve on the
environment in this field situation. The second experience
that I have and concern with the statement that there was no
opportunity to test relates to a contact made to Ranchers through
me by a researcher, Mr. David Dreeson at LASL (Los Alamos
Scientific Laboratory) in early 1979. He suggested that before
Ranchers recover the completed tailings material that a full
scale field experiment could be conducted with federal support.
The company was reluctant to delay their obligation and yet
-------
H-10
H-10
e.
PI
i
NJ
O
recognized that this could have a total benefit to the industry.
They authorized me to proceed into technical negotiations with
LASL. A proposal was prepared by LASL, it was submitted to the
federal agencies, both the NRC, the DOE, and 1 believe the EPA.
Tiiere was a certain time element because Ranchers, understandably,
was not willing to sit around waiting and have their tailings
exposed. Finally, the LASL people and myself were told that the
federal government could not act quickly enough (3-4 months) to
make this decision.
V. Uranium Epidemiology Study
I mentioned the Uranium Epidemiology Study. This is a
multi-year (estimated 15-25 year) low level effects study being
conducted by the University of New Mexico Cancer Research and
Treatment Center. It started in 1977- It began with the review
of 23,000 pre-employment physicals of uranium miners in the
Grants-Ambrosia Lake District to see if a statistically significant
sample population, qualifying under two counts could be developed.
The two counts were (1) that the individual have actual under-
ground working experience and (2) that that underground experience
be a minimum of one year. A sample cohort of over 4,100 workers
was identified and the study is proceeding to track these people,
their health and those who have died. It is trying to learn
about them as individuals and as data for this low level effects
study. The principal investigator and I were talking just last
week and he feels that right now this study has the world's most
extensive low level exposure records on file. They have
i
discovered all sorts of old records that were ir. dusty file
cabinets. Today they are continuing to reduce the data.
There is an interesting early figure that I would like
tc share with you. In the post-196-0 group there are about
2700 miners of the 4100 total. In the early search through
mortality records, those death records within the local counties
and within the state, there is not one single solitary recorded
miner death of cancer. Now this is preliminary data because we
still have to take and check through a lot of federal sources,
such as social security to see if any miners may have moved
away to other states and died there. Also many are not yet
in the cancer latency period, but I think that it is a dramatic
emerging statistic when one is trying to really find out what
low level effects there may be. We do know about the highly
publicized uranium cancer miner deaths in New Mexico, seven
cases which have been put on television, and dramatized in print
again and again. They were all pre-1960 miners, they all had
over 200 working level months (WLM) exposure and all of them
were known smokers.
The UES is reviewed by a prestigious Advisory Group that,
in fact, has it's annual meeting at the end of this week. If
anyone here were interested in attending that meeting, I feel
that I could extend an invitation. Members of that Advisory
Group include such eminent people as Dr. Vic Archer, Dr. Robley
Evans, Dr. Clark Cooper, anc so forth.
-------
H-10
H-10
n
N)
o
NJ
9.
I would now like to show you a graph which was developed
from the Uranium Epidemiology Study Research. The abscissa is
tine, the ordinate is working level months (WLM). At the
beginning cf the graph the industry standard exposure was
le^tl
twelve working^months per year. In' 1969 the federal govern-
ment established a new standard which was to be implemented
by 1971. The twelve working^months had to drop to four working
level months. If you look you can see that industry started
implementing these standards immediately in 1969! although
they didn't become mandated until 1971. In the post '71
period, the average exposure level is 1.30 WLM. This is
•
important evidence of reducing the exposure levels and being
able to control the low level exposures.
VI. Other evidence against the 2pCi/m2-sec standard
I do not know what other uranium miner radon exposure
experiences you may have been privy to but there is a recent
paper that Dr. Bernard L. Cohen prepared, that is significant
enough that I will take the chance of perhaps repeating it.
Dr. Cohen's paper is titled "Radon Daughter Exposure to Uranium
Miners" and was published just a few months ago. I don't
remember whether it was published at the end of 1980 or the
first part of 1981, but I can certainly make it available if
anyone had an interest. In his study, and he worked with some
of the data that the UES has developed, he investigates the
uranium miner that you are using today as your reference point
for health effects. That is why I am taking a moment on this
WLM
ro
0
*.
0
CD
0
00
o
o
o
U1
o
Ftgure 1
-------
H-10
H-10
10.
a
i
S3
o
subject. Ke reports that uranium miner has a working average
life tine of 60 WLK. That is intermediate between the previous
lowest levels of exposure for which lung cancers were identified
(they were'in the range of 120 to 240 WLM) and the average
environmental exposures which are about 16 WLM. Dr. Cohen uses
both the term loss of life expectancy (LLE) and the standardized
mortality ratio (SMR) but we will concentrate on just LLE for
simplicity.
Let's look at the two groups that he identified. Cohen
called hypothetical Group A the range of 120-240 working level
months, which was the lowest prior indication where excess cancers
had occurred. And then the normally occurring environmental
exposure he called Group B. The loss of life expectancy in
Group A, worse than the reference point today, was 45 days out
of someone's life and in Group B the environmental exposure loss
of life expectancy was 10 days. Now how does that compare if
someone is not used to working with LLE? If you remain unmar-
ried throughout your life you lose 2200 days. This was sited
once before at a presentation that I made and one of the quicker
wits in the audience said, "Yeah, but it only seems like you
live longer when you're married". Smoking cigarettes, z pack
a day is also a 2200 LLE effect. Simply being poor and uneducated
loses 800 days of one's life time. Being 10% overweight is 400,
motor vehicle accidents alone are another 200 and yet we are
worried about the population, which in the worst case, has a
45 day LLE.
One of the nation's most eminent health physicists is
Dr. Keith Schiager and in October of 1979 he presented some
testimony in Albuquerque before an NEC hearing and, again, I
beg the panel's apologies if you are totally familiar with his
work. He looked specifically at your 2pCi/m -sec flux value.
First of all, he makes an argument that if there were no
covering of any of these tailings in our country, over 1000
years there would be only i of a premature cancer death per
year, or 250 over the total period. He states that even for
the very unlikely worst case situation of a residence built
directly on a reclaimed tailings pile with radon emission rate
of at least 10 times larger than the proposed limit, which of
course is our 2pCi/m2-sec, the indoor exposure rate would still
fall within the range of natural background.
The last citation that I would like to make today is to a
work by Union Carbide PhD, Dr. Harry Rhodes. He has a very
excellent paper on the cost-benefit analysis which I would again
leave to your study if you have not seen it. But I would like
to share with you this risk assessment chart that he developed.
The abscissa is flux values in pCi/m2-sec and really only per-
tains to the four curves. These highlighted notations are just
a for instance, and is where they fall on the ordinate which is
risk for "health effects per million persons exposed per year".
Note the flux limits 10, 20, 30, 40 and so forth. Here we have
four curves and the GEIS which is the NRC prepared GEIS on
Uranium Mining and Milling. Notice that all four of these curves,
-------
H-10
H-10
RISK (HEALTH CFFtCTS/IIUIOn KUOfB Cl
s s
I a
W
I
K9
_,—^ —^.- - - p rrr-3Tmrz*~: > -z. --V > —_ ,-_ L -* —
i
I
the curve for regional GEIS, continental GEIS, the far field
GEIS, plus the American Mining Congress" own interpretation of
the data—the value that you're talking about (2pCi/m2-sec> is
almost down here at this edge near zero risk. And if we accept
wnat I understand are the normally accepted risks to the general
population, and any health physicist can correct me, they should
be between 0.1 and 1 health effects. Any one of these curves at
2 is well below the 0.1 to 1 health effects range. We could even
go up to 10 pCi/m -sec on the most conservative one before
reaching 0.1 health effects.
VII. Conclusion
In conclusion, 1 have lived most of my adult life with
5 i, radiation and radiologic effects and believe that the proposed
"
3 standards are too inflexible. I feel that they are too demanding
and that some of the questions that came out in the cestimony
before mine are on the right track. We must look at cost-
benefit analyses and there is numerous data that I have that
perhaps you also have. I see no provision for emerging and/or
developing technologies, although I am sure that you are all
aware of the research and work going on at Battelle Pacific
Northwest and other places and some of the experimental work
that is already being done. I would expect to see breakthroughs
within our life times that could significantly reduce the environ-
mental impact of obtaining the huge three meters of soil cover.
I think that the impact of that amount of soil cover has to be
assessed some place and if it already is perhaps someone would
-------
H-10
H-18
w
NJ
O
13.
share it with me. I have looked around and have not found
such an assessment. And I pose a question that I think is
an interesting one. Ranchers Exploration and Development Corp.
came to what was one of the country's waste heaps and reclaimed
for the nation valuable assets of vanadium and uranium. What
do we know about the future generations and their need for
resources and the new recovery technologies that may be available
to them that allows us to bury today's waste heaps under three
meters or more of soil cover? Are we denying them resources
that may be important to them? Finally, I must disagree with
my friend Rahe Junge emphatically on the practability of
evaluating inactive sites and active sites with the same standard.
Our firm has worked with both and there is clearly a distinction
to be made when you start with a new mill that is not yet in
existence. You have a lot more options in siting than you do
when you come into an existing inactive site that is a residual
from the WW II national crisis days. There is a dramatic
difference in those two conditions.
Thank you. I will try to answer any questions you may have
for me.
AMERICAN
MINING
CONGRESS
FOUNDEDIB97
SUITE 300
1920 N STREET NW
WASHINGTON
DC 20036
202/661*2800
TWX710«822-0126
J. ALLEN OVERTONJR
PRESIDENT
Testimony of Robert G. Beverly
Director, Environmental Controls Division
Mining and Metals Division
Union Carbide Corporation
On Behalf of the American Mining Congress
On the Environmental Protection Agency's
Proposed Disposal and Clean-up Standards for
Inactive Uranium Processing Sites
(46 Fed.Reg_. 2556, January 9, 1981)
May 14, 1981
-------
H-18
H-18
tsJ
O
The American Mining Congress is an association of companies
engaged in every aspect of the mining and minerals processing
industry. As such, the AMC represents the principal domestic
producers of uranium. Because of the potential connection between
the proposed standards for inactive uranium processing sites and
future standards for active sites, the AMC, as a representative
of its members, is an "interested person" entitled to comment on
the proposed standards. For this reason, we express our appreciation
for this opportunity to testify.
As a preliminary matter, we call the attention of the
Agency to Executive Order 12291 (46 Fed.Reg. 13193, Feb. 19, 1981).
This order, which was effective upon its issuance, requires
in specific terms EPA to engage in cost/benefit analysis before
promulgating any Vegulation. When proposing a major rule, the
Executive Order requires the Agency to prepare a draft, and later
a final, regulatory impact analysis to accompany the proposal
through the regulatory process. We believe, for reasons hereafter
stated, that the proposed inactive site standards constitute a
major rule requiring a regulatory impact analysis. We, therefore,
request that the comment period not be closed until the regulatory
g
impact analysis is issued and until sufficient time is allowed
for public comment upon it.
I. The Proposed Standards Fail to Conform to the Requirements of
the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act.
A. The Purpose of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act.
The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act state.
that "uranium mill tailings...may pose a potential and signifi .ant
radiation health hazard to the public" (emphasis added). From
this statement, two noints must he made. First, Congress did not
find that uranium mill tailings present a significant hazard.
Secondly, Congress indicates that it 'is significant health hazards
that are of concern. Thus, the level of public protection con-
templated by Congress is to be that which is necessary to minimize
significant health hazards.
This intention is confirmed by the direction to develop a
program "to stabilize and control...tailings in a safe and
environmentally sound manner and to minimize or eliminate radiation
health hazards to the public" (emphasis added).
B. EPA Has Failed to Establish a Need for the Proposed Standards
The Act requires the development of a program to control
tailings in a safe manner. A safe manner is not tantamount to a
risk-free manner. The Act, as reasonably construed, requires only
the minimization of significant risks of material harm.
EPA has not provided an adequate assessment of the nature
and extent of the hazard* if any, posed by residual radioactive
materials. EPA's analysis is based on a series of assumptions
which conclude that some health effects may occur.
-2-
-1-
-------
H-18
H-18
w
i
EPA acts on the assumption that anyri.sk is unacceptable.
However, as indicated by the decision in the Benzene case, Congress
could not have reasonably intended EPA to have such authority.
Before EPA can impose specific standards, it must be established
that a significant risk of health hazard exists. This the Agency
has failed to do.
No comparison with other publically accepted risks is made.
It is even admitted that at the low radiation levels involved,
the effects may not be detectable (DEIS page 4-1). No clinical
evidence of medically significant effects is presented. No attempt
to realistically assess the harms and risks is made. Only a brief,
pseudo-theoretical assessment of the health risks posed by the
tailings piles is discussed. Further, this assessment makes no
attempt to scientifically distinguish the various theoretical
risk estimate techniques. The estimates are based on unpublished
scientific documents which have not been subjected to peer review.
For example, the health effects discussion in the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) relies heavily upon a Florida phosphate
study which relies on an unpublished report entitled "Facts in
Exposure Response Relationships of Radon Daughter Injury" by
V. E. Archer. This unpublished highly questionable report also
is relied upon directly in the DEIS. Such use of unpublished
information is inappropriate, especially when published, peer-
reviewed information of high scientific credibility is available
e.g. BEIR III, and "Estimate of Risk From Environmental Exposure
to Radon-222 and Its Decay Products, R. D. Evans, et al., Nature,
290, March 1981.
To put the EPA estimate in perspective, the AMC offers
the following information. The EPA assumed estimate is about 2
premature deaths per year. Setting aside the problem that such
a low rate would not be detectable in the population, this
assumed rate should be compared to other risks of fatalities.
Other risks of fatalities per year, based on clinical evidence
are: all accidents - 100,000; automobile accidents - 50,000;
alcohol - 56,000; drowning - 8,000; poisons - 4,000; choking
on food - 3,000; and firearms - 2,500. Thus, the 2 assumed
fatalities per year from the inactive tailings sites represent
several orders of magnitude less of a danger than many other
actual risks commonly accepted by the public. NRC's Generic
Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG-0706) estimates the maximum
number of premature deaths in the U.S. from background radiation
is 8,060 per year, this, compared to 2 premature deaths from
uncovered tailings.
Thus, the entire costly remedial action standards are based
not on substantive evidence of significant risk of material harm
to be controlled, but on a series of assumptions and policy
considerations designed to justify elimination of all possible
theoretical risks which might be posed by tailings. Such standards
are contrary to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act and
are unreasonable and arbitrary.
II. DEIS Does Not Comply With the National Environmental Policy Act
The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act requires
that the program for control of tailings be conducted in an
environmentally sound manner. The National Environmental Policy
Act requires the consideration of the environmental impacts of the
regulations. These two acts require that an assessment of the
environmental impacts of the standards be conducted to assure that
the least environmentally disruptive alternative is selected and
that environmental mitigation measures are inlcuded where practicable.
-4-
-3-
-------
H-18
H-18
PJ
i
NJ
O
00
The environmental impact assessment provided by EPA in
the DEIS is inadequate. Only the hypothetical impacts of the
tailings are considered in any rlcpth. No evaluation of the
detrimental environmental impacts of implementation of the
proposed standards is made.
In the arid West, where many of the sites are located,
stripping of land has very important reclamation considerations.
Delicate vegetation is destroyed by both the actual earthwork
itself and the movement of heavy equipment in the peripheral
areas. Such vegetation must be replaced. The environmental
and health effects of such actions have not been evaluated.
Earthwork and trucking activities involve substantial
risks. For example, it has been estimated that a seven-year
•
remedial action program to remove tailings from Salt Lake City
will incur 5 fatalities and 62 injuries among the clean-up workers
(Memorandum for the Record dated March 12, 1981, U.S. House
Committee on Armed Services). Yet, EPA makes no attempt to
evaluate these actual risks to remedial action workers against
the hypothetical risks to the public from the tailings piles.
EPA dismisses these known risks from occupational hazards as
temporary and negligible (DEIS page 6-10). For the workers killed
or injured, these hazards are not temporary or negligible.
Other risks associated with remedial action work to the
levels in the proposed standards have not been given adequate
evaluation. No evaluation of the potential public exposure as
related to the exposure from other alternative standards has been made.
Moreover, the socioeconomic impacts of the standards have
not been given adequate consideration. The simplistic assessment
in the DEIS o£ temporary benefits does not justify the avoidance
of consideration of impacts to the local human community.
Consideration of potential impacts to the cultural/archaeological
resources of the area were also ignored, contrary to the require-
ments of the National Historic Preservation Act.
III. The Proposed Standards are Unreasonable
A. Natural Background Assumptions are Erroneous
The proposed standards are based on the erroneous assumption
that there is an "average" or "normal" background radiation level.
Due to the extremely wide range of environmental conditions which
exist in nature, the use of a computed average as the basis for
the standards is unduly restrictive. The standards should either
be on a site-specific basis or, if general standards are to be
applied, they should be within the range of natural background.
This would assure that present and future generations would not
be subjected to risks that are different in kind or magnitude
from those imposed by nature.
-6-
-5-
-------
H-18
H-18
i
N9
O
VO
B. One Thousand Year Effectiveness
The selection of a 1000-year period is unreasonable. The
state-of-the-art cannot be guaranteed to be effective for at least
1000 years. A time period of 100 years, during which there would
be a reasonable expectation that the standards will be satisfied,
would be realistic and reasonable. The time period selected
should be based on what can reasonably be projected to provide
{control. On this basis, a target period of 100 years is reasonable.
C. Radium in Soils
The proposed clean-up standard for radium-226 in soils
provides for reasonable assurance that in any 15 cm thickness
below 1 foot, the Ra-226 concentration shall not exceed 5 pCi/gm.
This standard is based upon a consideration of the radium-
radon exposure pathway. In its discussion, EPA relies upon two
basic assumptions. These are that (1) indoor radon decay products
in excess of 0.01 WL pose an unacceptable health hazard, and
(2) radium-226 soil concentrations of 5 pCi/gm or greater will
result in radon decay product levels in structures in excess of
0.01 WL.
The conclusion that indoor radon decay products in excess
of 0.01 WL pose an unacceptable health hazard is highly questionable.
A significant portion of structures in the U.S. exceed the proposed
limit of 0.015 WL even though they are not associated with tailings.
Radon flux rates for a given Ra-226 soil concentration are
very sensitive to a variety of conditions including, for example,
grain size distribution, moisture content, compaction, and baro-
metric pressure. The indoor radon decay product levels are also
dependent on the type of building materials and configurations.
Thus, establishment of a correlation between radium-226 in soils
and indoor radon levels is precarious at best. If the radium-226
standard is founded on indoor radon decay product concentrations,
some assessment of the depth/exhalation phenomenon is needed.
EPA relies on two publications for its conclusion that a
5 pCi/gm radium level correlates with a 0.01 WL. One is the
Healy and Rogers report which makes a preliminary study of
radium-contaminated soils. The report argues, it does not conclude,
that indoor radon decay product concentrations of 0.01 WL might be
expected for soils with radium concentrations of 1 to 3 pCi/gm.
This is not a reasonably scientific foundation for standard setting.
EPA also relies on the NRC Staff Technical Position on
Interim Land Clean-up Criteria for Decommissioning Uranium Mill
Sites in the NRC Draft GEIS. EPA uses this document to conclude
that 3 to 5 pCi/gm of radium can cause indoor concentrations
of 0.01 WL. However, the table indicated radon levels inside
structures on land averaging 5.0 pCi/gm Ra-226 would range anywhere
from 0.0024 to 0.04 WL units. This wide range of radium values
points out the questionable validity of the use of a radium-226
standard for remedial action.
A comprehensive analytical study of radon flux rates that
can be anticipated under conditions typical of uranium mining
conditions in the western United States has recently been completed
by industry. This was provided to EPA as part of AMC testimony
on EPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Regulations
(Statement of S. Baker on March 9, 1979). The study shows that
structures with average ventilation which are situated on reclaimed
-7-
-------
H-18
H-18
PI
i
tSJ
waste rock deposits having Ra-226 concentrations averaging 20 pCi/gm
to infinite depth will normally exhibit radon decay product con-
centrations on the order of 0.01 WL. Similar structures situated
on deposits having Ra-226 concentrations averaging 20 pCi/gm
near the surface and up to 70 pCi/gm below to infinite depth are
shown to exhibit decay product concentrations no greater than 0.02 WL.
From this study, it can be seen that a 5 pCi/gm cut off used to
control indoor radon decay product concentrations to 0.01 WL is
unreasonable.
The health risk posed by tailings material on open land has
not been assessed. The highly tenuous correlation of radium-226
in soils with indoor radon decay product concentrations makes the
use of such correlation unreasonable. No discussion of alternate
indoor radon controls has been made. No need for the 5 pCi/gm
»
radium-226 standard has been shown.
Nature exhibits an extremely wide range of environmental
conditions. Inadequate consideration has been given to the practical
problems associated with the implementation of the proposed standard.
Current field, instrumentation cannot detect radium-226 concentrations
in the specified layers. There would be no assurance that all areas
.contaminated by tailings in excess of 5 pCi/gm would be identified.
Another problem is how to attribute various radium-226 levels to
tailings contamination. Considering the wide range of radium
background concentrations in the western states and that there has
been no background survey, it will be difficult to determine
whether some areas exhibit radium-226 levels in excess of 5 pCi/gm
due to tailings contamination or because of the presence of natural
-9-
pockets of high background levels. Verification that every area
of greater than 5 pCi/gm radium-226 levels attributable to tailings
has been detected and cleaned-up to standards will be impossible
to achieve.
Not only are the practical limitations of the field instru-
mentation and verification process not considered, the problems
inherent in existing analysis techniques for radium-226 are ignored.
Present techniques are slow and time-consuming and lack the precision
necessary to measure low concentrations accurately.
Since the radium standard is not directly related to health
effects, an assessment of alternative bases for standards should be
considered, for example gamma flux. A flexible standard based
in part on local background concentrations may be another potential
alternative. Under the proposal, dirt removal will be required
to comply with the standards. Reclamation standards should be
considered. Such alternatives could provide the degree of health
protection desired for the public at a much reduced cost.
D. Radon Emanation Rate
EPA has proposed that radon emanation from inactive tailings
piles not exceed an average annual rate of 2 pCi/m2 x sec. EPA's
justifications for such a standard are that it will return radon
flux to levels near background; that the cost of meeting the 2 pCi
limit will be only 10% more than meeting some less stringent level
of control; and that it will avert 200 lung cancer deaths per
century.
To begin, the assertion that 200 lung cancer deaths will
result if no remedial action is undertaken is erroneous. Better
data (Evans, et al.) indicate that no more than 30 per century
will occur.
-10-
-------
H-18
H-18
PI
i
K>
EPA's stated objective of returning radon flux to levels
in the range of natural background is not related to health risk
and therefore is not an appropriate basis for a health standard
like the proposed inactive site standards. As stated above, EPA's
authority under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
is limited to proposing standards that are health based. The same
holds true for the statement that the 2 pCi standard is reasonable,
because it will only cost 10% more than a standard of 10-40 pCi.
Ten percent of several hundred million dollars is an absurd amount
to spend if it results in very little benefit. Requiring such an
unnecessary expenditure violates Executive Order 12291.
The inactive site standards must be based on a reasoned
evaluation of health risk. They must also be cost-effective.
Even if EPA's estimate of health effects was accurate, it is
unreasonable to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to prevent
the equivalent of 2 estimated deaths per year from lung cancer —
a number that is totally indistinguishable from the thousands of
deaths attributed to lung cancer every year in the United States.
The EIS estimates that a radon exhalation limit of 2 pCi will
prevent 99.6% of the 200 health effects that would occur each
century if the piles were left uncovered (EIS, p. 6-7) . The 1978
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act does not mandate
total elimination of risks.
As indicated by Evans, et al., the risks associated with
radon emissions from tailings are insignificant. On this basis,
AMC proposes that no radon flux standard should be included in
the inactive site standards. This is consistent with the Uranium
Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act which requires a showing of
significant risk by EPA before it issues regulations.
E. Indoor Radon Daughter Concentrations
The 0.015 WL remedial action level for habitable buildings
was promulgated without public comment by EPA as an interim cleanup
standard. This interim standard is at distinct variance from the
remedial action level set for persons residing on Florida
phosphate lands, namely 0.02 WL, including background. The
b
citation for the source document recommending 0.015 WL in the
Draft EIS is AR 79, p 4-40. The reference citation was not
accepted by peer review for publication.
The EPA is using a risk factor estimate of 10"^ per WLM
for radon exposure related health events which is not generally
accepted. The most scientifically based risk assessment factor
is 10~4 per WLM as an upper bound of the risk (Evans, et. al.).
This upper bound value is based on meticulous review of all USA
and Czeckoslovakian uranium mining epidemiologic data. Based
on these data, there is no proper scientific basis for selecting
the unnecessarily restrictive value of 0.015 WL for the indoor
radon exposure limit, including background values. In the draft
EIS, the large, uncertainty surrounding the risk estimate for
radon related health effects is freely admitted and casts
doubt upon the probity of extending the results to the general
public.
NRC's 10 CFR 20 recommends limits for nonoccupational
radiation exposure a level of one-tenth the occupational exposure
limit, or 0.03 WL. This is a more rational level and has wide
acceptance in the scientific community. The Surgeon General
recommended 0.05 WL as an upper limit for cleanup in Grand
Junction buildings contaminated with uranium mill tailings.
-12-
-------
H-18
H-18
en
U.S. Radiation Policy Council advises that a generic study
of the frequency distribution of radon exposure in structures
should be made a necessary first step before Federal control
actions on more than a local, problem oriented level are
contemplated. We believe EPA should delay setting such a
standard and rely on the Surgeon General's guidelines of 0.05 WL
upper limit for cleanup of potentially contaminated habitable
structures near inactive tailings areas.
F. Groundwater Contamination
AMC has a number of specific concerns with respect to the
ground and surface water standards. EPA has not given any
consideration to the existing or anticipated uses of the surface
and groundwater it is proposing to regulate. Because of the
•
shallow depths of many uranium ore deposits, it is not uncommon
for the original quality of water where a tailings disposal
site is located to not be suitable for drinking water. Rather
than acknowledging this, the proposed regulations set out to
treat virtually every water bearing formation or water body as
if it were a drinking water source.
The proposed regulations require that seepage not cause
concentrations of selected elements in groundwater to exceed the
maximum contaminant levels for particular substances under the
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards. This pre-
scription would in many cases make little sense. For example,
if the initial water quality of an aquifer underlying a uranium
mill tailings pond renders it suitable only for industrial use,
what purpose would be served in prohibiting a slight increase.
or indeed a large increase, in the concentration of one of
the listed substances?
It appears arbitrary to lift a set of standards from one
statute applicable to drinking water supply and apply it to
another statute intended to govern groundwater absent to compelling
rationale. Such a rationale is, however, lacking anywhere
in the DEIS.
Certain criteria listed in Table A appear to be unduly
restrictive. These criteria will commonly be exceeded by normal
background conditions.
The suggested limit of 10 pCi/liter for uranium does not
appear to have any sound scientific basis. Guidelines for uranium
in water have been promulgated by federal, state, and inter-
national agencies. NRC, based on chemical toxicity, proposed
30,000 pCi/1 for workers which calculates to 3000 pCi/1 after
dilution. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality has
adopted 5 mg/1 or 3400 pCi/1. Colorado Department of Health
suggests 10 pCi/1 is too restrictive. The ICRP (Publication 30-1979)
established an annual intake for workers based on radiological
effects equivalent to 14,800 pCi/1 for the public. This may be
conservatively low because the ICRP model may overestimate the
radiological bone cancer risk factor. Again, these standards
must be health based under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation
Control Act. EPA has not established the health need for these
groundwater standards.
IV. The Cost of the Proposed Standards are Underestimated
A. Costs are Ignored
-14-
-13-
-------
H-18
H-18
PI
i
In Chapter 6 and the cost estimates in Appendix B of the
DEIS, AMC notes numerous omissions and inadequacies. Costs
for engineering, field supervision, or contingencies are not
considered. Provisions for reclaiming the land from which topsoil,
cover, or riprap is obtained are not considered. To purchase
topsoil may be impossible, as most states require saving topsoil
for reclaiming the land from which other cover material
is borrowed. If the tailings are moved to a new location, the
topsoil at the new location will have to be excavated and
vegetation established to prevent erosion during the storage
period until the tailings are moved. Riprap is not a readily
available material, nor is it free. It will probably have to
be quarried, and we see no costs to cover this. In some
locations, a suitable clay at a nearby location is nonexistant
or is very scarce; or if available, only at a considerable
distance. These costs are not considered.
The unit costs in the DEIS were compared with costs being
experienced in actual tailings dam reclamation work. The
industry experience in some instances compares favorably with
the costs in the DEIS; however, for below-grade excavation,
transportation, synthetic liners, and soil and vegetation cover,
the industry figures are 2.5 to 3 times higher.
Te evaluate the effect of the estimating methods as well
as the unit costs, estimates for two cases comparing EPA and
industry figures were made. For Option 2, reclamation in place,
industry costs were from 1.8 to 2.7 times higher than EPA's.
-15-
By similar comparisons for moving the tailings to a new disposal
area (option 3 in the DEIS), the industry figures were from
2.7 to 2.9 higher than the EPA estimates.
The EPA estimates do not include the costs for reclamation
of the borrow sites and makes no provision for costs of cleanup
around the mill sites, remedial action at offsite locations where
tailings may have been used for fill material, survey and
decontamination of used equipment, burial of contaminated
equipment, demolition and disposal of buildings or reclamation
of the mill site.
B. Total Cost of Project
AMC believes the total remedial costs for the 24 inactive
mill sites which EPA estimates at $200-300 million (page 5-3
and 9-8 in the DEIS) will more likely approach $1 billion if
the proposed EPA standards are adopted.
We have estimated the total cost of the 24 inactive
mill sites assuming 17 are reclaimed in place and 7 are moved
to new below-grade disposal sites (Table 2-4, pages 2-16 and
2-17 in DEIS). Based on EPA estimates, the total costs will
vary from $50 to $200 million. This is the cost for tailings
reclamation only and does not include many other remedial
actions required as mentioned earlier. Industry estimates that
the total tailings reclamation cost could range from $140 to
$450 million.
C. Cost-Benefit Considerations
The thicker the cover, the higher the cost, and the less
radon release from the covered tailings. The DEIS states that
"...reducing an uncontrolled radon release rate of 450 pCi/m2 —
-16-
-------
H-18
H-18
I
h-»
*-
sec to 10pCi/m2 — sec would avert 98% of the potential effects
of radon emitted from the uncontrolled pile.1 Taking into
consideration all the im<-tive piles, this would theoretically
reduce the 2 premature deaths per year to 0.04 per year.
Using a more recent estimate of risk from exposure to
radon-222 as proposed by Evans et. al., the 90% reduction of
radon would reduce the premature deaths from 0.3 per year from
the uncovered piles to O.OOC per year. This would be equivalent
to a cost of $2.1 million (EPA) to $17 million (industry) per
premature death averted per century. This value is, of course,
absurd.
Reducing the radon by approximately 80%, or to an
emanation rate of 100 pCi/m^ x sec, would reduce premature deaths
from 0.3 to 0.06, per year at a total cost of $50 to $360 million.
Even this calculates to be $2 million (EPA) to $15 million
(industry) per premature death averted per century, still an
unreasonable figure. The inclusion of a radon emanation limit
in the proposed standards cannot be justified on health effects.
In summary, we believe the total cost for the entire
remedial action project designed to meet the proposed EPA
standards will likely approach a billion dollars. This will
result in a cost-benefit ratio which, using even the lowest
'figures, is greatly out of reason. Less restrictive standards
will greatly reduce costs and still insure long-term stabilization
along with reducing health risks which, even without controls,
are not now at unacceptable levels. In fact, for health effects
alone, the expenditure of $300 million to $1 billion, whatever
estimate one uses, would be far better spent on many more
critical risk avoidance measures.
Because Congress and state legislatures must approve the
appropriations for all remedial action, it appears prudent in
these times of budget constraints to develop standards which
are reasonable and which may be accomplished at the lowest
possible cost. The magnitude of costs required to meet
EPA's unnecessarily strict standards may jeopardiEe the entire
program.
-18-
-17-
-------
H-19
H-19
m
i
hO
I—•
Ol
Testimony for Water Quality Standards
Washington, D. C.
May 14, 1981
James C. Gilliland
My name is James C. Gilliland, Director of Environmental
Control for the Molybdenum Division of AMAX Inc. AMAX's
activities and interests cover a broad range. Metal and
mineral interests include molybdenum, tungsten, nickel,
cobalt, aluminum, copper, lead, zinc, cadmium, iron ore,
metal powders, precious metals, coal, agricultural chemicals,
oil and natural gas. As the world's leading producer of
molybdenum, we are naturally concerned about any proposal
that could, either by inference or actuality, impose a new
constraint on the production and use of this important
mineral. Almost half of all molybdenum produced is used in
alloy steels. Moly chemicals are important as catalysts,
paint pigments, corrosion inhibitors, smoke and flame
retardants, lubricants and in agriculture.
I should explain that AMAX at this time has neither any
inactive uranium processing sites nor active uranium
processing sites. Our interest in this proposed regulation,
therefore, is the precedential aspect regarding the question
of a molybdenum water standard which could impact directly
via future regulations or permitting pathways on any activity
wherein molybdenum is produced or used.
We have submitted our complete testimony in written
form, including both the legal and scientific arguments.
This oral presentation will highlight only some of the
scientific toxicity questions raised by the proposal, except
for, at this time, brief mention that our legal position is
that EPA has no authority to promulgate the standard under
the Uranium Mill Tailing Radiation Control Act. However,
assuming that EPA had the legal authority to do so, and
acknowledging that EPA has the legal authority under other
Federal legislation to do so, it is our scientific position
that the status of available knowledge concerning the
toxicity level of molybdenum in water denies that a standard
is justifiable at this time.
We have been advised by Dr. Stanley Lichtman of EPA that
the document relied upon as the basis for the proposed
molybdenum standard is a report entitled "Human Health
Effects of Molybdenum in Drinking Water". This document was
prepared for the EPA Health Effects Research Laboratory under
a grant provided to the Environmental Trace Substances
Research Program at the University of Colorado, Boulder,
Colorado. The principal investigator for this study document
is Dr. Willard Chappell and I will use his name when
referring to this document. In that document, you will find
that Chappell states that "It is not likely that a drinking
water standard for molybdenum is required. But, we believe
that 50 micrograms molybdenum per liter represents a prudent
guideline." Chappell's justification for this 50 micrograms
molybdenum per liter guideline is stated as "Since no
biochemical changes were found in subjects consuming water up
to 50 micrograms molybdenum per liter, it can be assumed such
a level does not cause any adverse biochemical or health
effects." We view this assumption as hardly a scientific
determination of the level of toxicity to be used for the
setting of a standard by EPA.
The proposed molybdenum standard subject to this hearing
today was selected by EPA "on the basis of avoiding toxic
effects in humans". The Chappell study found no biochemical
changes in humans at that level. Other levels could have
been as easily decided upon as no biochemical changes were
-2-
-------
H-19
H-19
experienced at drinking water levels below 100 micrograms per
liter and a majority of subjects showed no biochemical
changes at much higher levels. In fact, as distinguished
from biochemical changes, there were no human health effects
found at any level of consumption of molybdenum of less than
1.5 mg/day. Insofar as human water consumption is concerned,
this equates to a concentration of molybdenum in water of
somewhat greater than 600 micrograms per liter to reach this
daily intake of 1.5 mg/day. At a level of 50 micrograms per
liter of molybdenum in water, however, all we know from the
study is that there is an absence of any biochemical changes.
Most certainly this does not define a level in excess of
which might represent a threshold of hazard to human health.
Dr. Walter Mertz, Agricultural Research Service
Nutrition Institute, U. S. Department of Agriculture, also
addressed this, subject of dietary intake of molybdenum in a
1975 paper entitled "Defining Trace Element Deficiencies in
Toxicities in Man". His interpretation of the same studies
reviewed by Chappell reached the same conclusion that
molybdenum intakes of 1.5 mg/day do not appear to have any
noticeable human health effects. Dr. Mertz states a
tentative conclusion that "a molybdenum concentration of 150
to 1000 micrograms in the diet is probably safe and
sufficient".
Further, Mertz addressed the question of dietary
deficiency of molybdenum as well as its excess in the
following manner. "It is important to know that it is not
only the excess of the trace element which is unsafe, but
equally important, the deficiency. Although man's activities
are better known for their introduction of excessive levels
into the environment, they can also result in deficiencies.1
In the light of some recent studies from China that have
shown a very high incidence of human esophageal cancer in
areas where there is a molybdenum deficiency in the
agricultural soils, this question of molybdenum deficiency is
receiving increasing attention.
As to chronic toxicity, there is some information suggesting
that a daily intake of up to 10 to 15 mg of molybdenum may
present a problem in this regard. Assuming a normal intake
of molybdenum via food, this would take concentrations of
molybdenum in water of up to somewhat more than 7000
micrograms per liter to reach this level of chronic concern.
It should also be pointed out that the Chappell study
relates this guideline level of 50 micrograms per liter to
drinking water and not to groundwater quality as would be the
case in this EPA proposal. Even then, as the Chappell
results relate only to a guideline, it seems clear that the
establishment of an appropriate molybdenum standard for
either ground or drinking water represents little more than a
guess. This guesswork is clearly distinguishable from the
detailed procedures and methodologies employed by EPA in the
establishment of water quality criteria for the 65 toxic
pollutants, among which molybdenum is not included.
Even under EPA's more expansive interpretation of its
legal authority under this Act, with which we disagree, EPA
has authority to promulgate standards for the protection of
public health and safety from hazards. All we have here, the
whole basis of information around which the standard has been
proposed, is a recommendation of 50 micrograms per liter as a
guideline and not as a standard. And, at this guideline
level, there is a showing of an absence of any biochemical
changes or health effects. This guideline level, therefore,
does not define nor was it intended to define a level in
excess of which might represent a hazard to human health. It
should be noted that molybdenum is not listed as a hazardous
or toxic substance under the Resource Conservation and
-3-
-4-
-------
H-19
H-20
i
ro
Recovery Act or under the Clean Water Act. Neither is it
included in any of the water quality criteria documents of
recent issuance by the EPA, nor in the National Interim
Primary Drinking Water regulations.
In addition to consideration of the potential health
effects of molybdenum in drinking water, the proposed
standard for molybdenum is presumably based on a
consideration of its potential mobility through groundwater.
However, the supporting draft environmental impact statement
document indicates that the determination of mobility for
molybdenum ions is based on, admittedly, "extremely limited
data" and it is not listed in the draft environmental impact
statement as having a high probability of being mobile. EPA
states, moreover, that prevention or reduction of seepage of
known high mobility substances such as selenium and zinc
should control those other substances for which no confirming
data are available, such as for molybdenum. Therefore, at
least in this particular circumstance, it would seem that EPA
need not concern itself with a standard for control of
molybdenum which is a less mobile substance than selenium or
zinc even if the toxicity levels were such as to warrant the
establishment of a standard.
In summary, therefore, notwithstanding the legalities of
whether the Uranium Mill Tailing Radiation Control Act
provides EPA the authority to promulgate a groundwater
standard for molybdenum, it is our opinion and our position
that such a standard under this Act is inappropriate and
unnecessary and should be deleted from the final regulation.
If it appears necessary for molybdenum in water to be
regulated, EPA has ample authority under other legislation to
do so, wherein procedures are carefully designed to ensure
that such a standard setting process is not an arbitrary and
capricious action unsupported by substantial evidence.
CLIMAX MOLYBDENUM COMPANY
AM AX MOLYBDENUM DIVISION
AAAAXwc.
May 7, 1981
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Dr. Stanley Lichtman
Director, Criteria & Standards Division (ANR-460)
Office of Radiation Programs
U. S. Environmental Protection agency
Washington, 0. C. 20460
Re: proposed Standards for Inactive Uranium
processing Sites
Dear Dr. Lichtman:
As stated in my letter to you dated May 5, 1981,
enclosed are written comments prepared on behalf of Climax
Molybdenum Company with regard to subject proposed standards.
Very truly yours,
James C. Gilliland
Director of Environmental Control
JCG:hmn
Enclosure
cc:
D. Delcour
J. Raisch
0
13949 West Colfax Avenue, Bldg. No. 1 • Golden, Colorado 80401 . 303/234-9020 • TWX: 910-937-0746
-5-
-------
H-20
H-20
PS
i
NJ
I—"
OO
Comments on EPA's Proposed Disposal Standards
for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites
AMAX Inc.
May 11, 1981
SUMMARY
The Environmental Protection Agency does not have
authority under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control
Act (UMTRCA) to promulgate a groundwater quality standard for
molybdenum. The promulgation of a molybdenum standard is not
consistent with the standards established under the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (SWDA/RCRA) and, therefore, is not in
accordance with UMTRCA. The toxicity level and the level of
hazard to the public health from molybdenum is not quantifi-
able at the p&esent time. The sources cited for the proposed
standard are in conflict internally and with other reputable
sources, and do not establish a concentration level which
represents the threshold of avoiding human health hazards.
The decision as to the proposed molybdenum standard is not
supported by scientific evidence and is clearly arbitrary.
ANALYSIS
I. Legal Authority to Promulgate Molybdenum Standard
A. Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of
1978, P.L. 95-604
1. The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
(UMTRCA) does not authorize EPA to promulgate standards for
nonradioactive substances such as molybdenum. EPA's
authority under UMTRCA is limited to radioactive materials.
The UMTRCA provided in Title II, Sec. 206, amending Sec. 275
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C., Sec. 2022, that
EPA:
shall, by rule, promulgate standards of
general application — for the protection
of the public health, safety, and the
environment from radiological and
nonradiological hazards associated with
residual radioactive materials...located
in inactive uranium mill tailings sites...
EPA has interpreted the above language to mean that EPA
may control nonradiological materials (such as molybdenum)
that are incidentally found associated with residual radio-
active materials. We believe this interpretation to be in
error and that the proper interpretation is that EPA may
control nonradiological hazards (such as toxicity levels of
uranium) directly associated with residual radioactive
materials. The term "residual radioactive materials" is
defined in the Act and in legislative history as only the
radioactive components of tailings and other wastes. In
summary, we believe that EPA's authority is limited to
control of residual radioactive materials and that such
authority can be applied to either radiological or nonradio-
logical hazards of such radioactive materials.
The remedial action to be taken by the Secretary of
Energy is to "assure the safe and environmentally sound
stabilization of residual radioactive materials..." UMTRCA,
Sec. 108, 42 U.S.C. 7918(a)(2). Although the House Committee
on Interior and Insular Affairs may have suggested that the
UMTRCA authorizes EPA to promulgate standards to control non-
radioactive substances, it is apparent that the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce reporting to the entire House
of Representatives did not intend to give EPA authority to
control nonradioactive substances such as molybdenum.
2. Even if EPA's interpretation of the scope of
Section 206 is correct, the standards to be promulgated by
the Administrator under UMTRCA are "to the maximum extent
practicable to be consistent with the requirements of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended " 42 U.S.C. 2022a.
-------
H-20
H-20
i
M
I—»
10
The legislative history of UMTRCA shows that the House
intended that these "standards must be consistent with the
Solid Waste Disposal Act" (emphasis added). House Report
95-1480 - Part 2, on H.R. 13650, p. 46; U.S. Code Cong, and
Admin. News, 95th Congress, 2nd Session, Vol. 6, p. 7473.
The EPA promulgated rules for hazardous waste disposal under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Amendments to the
Solid Waste Disposal Act on May 19, 1980, at 45 Fed. Reg.
33084. Those standards do not include molybdenum which is
proposed to be controlled under the UMTRCA disposal
standards. Thus, the inclusion of molybdenum in the UMTRCA
disposal rule proposal is inconsistent with the requirements
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act and not in accordance with
the UMTRCA.
3. EPA is authorized to promulgate standards
applicable to disposal of uranium mill tailings from inactive
sites under the Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA), and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). However, such standards must be properly developed
and promulgated in accordance with such applicable authority.
(See for example, the procedure and methodology used in
promulgating the toxic pollutant criteria, 45 Fed. Reg.
79318, November 28, 1980.) Molybdenum has not been desig-
nated a toxic or hazardous waste to be controlled under the
CWA or RCRA, nor has the substance been included in the
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards under SDWA.
No clear authority is provided under UMTRCA for development
of groundwater standards for materials other than those
wastes which the Secretary of Energy has determined to
present a radioactive hazard. EPA should not promulgate a
standard for molybdenum in groundwater based upon insuffi-
cient authority where other legal authority (including
established procedural methodologies) exist.
B. National Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations
As stated above, the UMTRCA requires disposal standards
to be consistent with the requirements of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act. It does not require consistency with the
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDWR).
Nevertheless, these regulations are relied on by EPA in its
proposal at 46 Fed. Reg. 2559 for the proposed groundwater
protection standards. Even if consistency with the NIPDWR
were a factor required by the UMTRCA, such groundwater
protection standards should not be promulgated unless they
have been shown to be necessary under the detailed standard
setting process afforded substances controlled under NIPDWR,
40 C.F.R. Part 141. While this may be the case for some of
the nonradiological substances listed (As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Pb,
Hg, N, Se, Ag), it is not the case for molybdenum inasmuch as
the NIPDWR do not even include molybdenum. Hence, if EPA
believes consistency with the NIPDWR is a factor in this
action, no molybdenum standard should be promulgated.
II. Toxicity Level of Molybdenum
A. Determination of Toxicity Level
As stated above, it is our position that EPA has no
authority to promulgate a standard for molybdenum as a part
of the disposal standards for inactive uranium processing
sites. However, assuming that EPA had the legal authority to
do so, and acknowledging that EPA has the legal authority
under other federal legislation to do so, it is our position
that the status of available knowledge concerning the
toxicity level of molybdenum denies that a standard is
justifiable at this time.
-------
H-20
H-20
PI
i
IV]
NJ
O
B. National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
As stated above, the UMTRCA requires disposal standards
to be consistent with the requirements of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act. It does not require consistency with the
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDWR).
Nevertheless, these regulations are relied on by EPA in its
proposal at 46 Fed. Reg. 2559 for the proposed groundwater
protection standards. Even if consistency with the NIPDWR
were a factor required by the UMTRCA, such groundwater
protection standards should not be promulgated unless they
have been shown to be necessary under the detailed standard
setting process afforded substances controlled under NIPDWR,
40 C.F.R. Part 141. While this may be the case for some of
the nonradiological substances listed (As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Pb,
Hg, N, Se, Ag), it is not the case for molybdenum inasmuch as
the NIPDWR do not even include molybdenum. Hence, if EPA
believes consistency with the NIPDWR is a factor in this
action, no molybdenum standard should be promulgated.
II. Toxicity Level of Molybdenum
A. Determination of Toxicity Level
We have been informed by Dr. Stanley Lichtman that all
available knowledge concerning the toxicity level of molyb-
denum to humans is summarized in Section C.7, Appendix C of
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Remedial Action
Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites (DEIS) USEPA,
EPA 520/4-80-11, December, 1980. Dr. Lichtman informed us
that no additional criteria document exists supporting the
proposed molybdenum standard and that the level decided upon
for the proposed standard, 0.05 mg/1 Mo in drinking water,
was based on Human Health Effects £f_ Molybdenum in Drinking
Water, Chappell, et al., EPA-600/1-79-006, USEPA, January
1979, p. 77. This study found no biochemical changes in
humans at that level. Other levels could have been as easily
decided upon, as no biochemical changes were experienced at
drinking water levels below 0.1 mg/1 and a majority of sub-
jects showed no biochemical changes at much higher levels.
Chappel, pp. 75-77. In fact, no human health effects were
observable at any level of consumption of molybdenum of less
than 1.5 mg per day. Chappel, pp. 64-77. Assuming that
ingestion in food averages 0.21 mg of molybdenum per day and
a 2 liter per day water consumption*, a concentration of
molybdenum in water of 0.645 mg/1 would be required to reach
this daily intake of 1.5 mg per day.
As stated above, it is our position that EPA has no
authority to promulgate a standard for molybdenum as a part
of the disposal standards for inactive uranium processing
sites. However, assuming that EPA had the legal authority to
do so, and acknowledging that EPA has the legal authority
under other federal legislation to do so, it is our position
that the status of available knowledge concerning the
toxicity level of molybdenum denies that a standard is
justifiable at this time.
Chappell states that "It is not likely that a drinking
water standard for molybdenum is required. But we believe
that 50 ug Mo/L represents a prudent guideline". Chappell
p. 5. His justification for this 50 ug Mo/L guideline is
*The assumption of 2 liters/day of water consumption for an
average adult male is the figure used by Chappell; however,
we believe this figure to be rather high. The figure is also
used in the assumptions for the Water Quality Criteria
promulgated under section 304 of the Clean Water Act, 45 Fed.
Reg. 79324, November 28, 1980.
-------
H-20
H-20
PI
i
stated as "Since no biochemical changes were found in
subjects consuming water containing up to 50 ug Mo/L, it can
be_ assumed that such a level does not cause any adverse
biochemical or health effects" (emphasis added). Chappel,
p.77. This assumption is hardly a scientific determination
of a level of toxicity to be used for the setting of a
standard by EPA.
Although Chappell found no level of minimum sufficient
dietary intake of molybdenum (Chappell, p. 65), a 1975 paper
entitled "Defining Trace Element Deficiencies and Toxicities
in Man", Walter Mertz, Agriculture Research Service Nutrition
Institute, 0. S. Department of Agriculture, reached a
tentative conclusion "that a molybdenum concentration of
150-1000 ug in the diet is probably safe and sufficient."
Mertz, pp. 13 and 14. Hertz studied the question of dietary
deficiency of molybdenum as well as its excess. In this
regard, Mertz stated:
It is important to know that it is not only the excess
of a trace element which is unsafe, but equally
important, the deficiency. Although man's activities
are better known for their introduction of excessive
levels into the environment they can also result in
deficiencies. Mertz, p. 1.
The Mertz paper interpreted the same studies utilized by
Chappell to conclude that molybdenum intakes of 1.5 mg/day do
not appear to have any noticeable health effects. Mertz, p.
12. As previously noted, this figure translates to a con-
centration of 0.645 mg/1 via drinking water, assuming a daily
intake of 2 liters of water-based liquids and 0.21 mg Mo in
food.
Chronic toxicity has been experienced at daily intake
levels of 10 to 15 mg of molybdenum. DEIS, p. C-7; Mertz,
pp. 11 and 12. A chronic toxicity threshold of 10 to 15 mg
per day (Mertz, p. 12) is equivalent to a chronic toxicity
concentration in water of 4.895 to 7.395 mg/1, assuming 0.21
mg of molybdenum intake via food and 2 liters/day of water
consumption.
The Chappell and Mertz studies show that significant
differences exist in the interpretation of the available
information about molybdenum toxicity. The EPA has even
further exacerbated these differences by applying the
inconclusive results of these studies to groundwater quality
rather than drinking water as was the subject of the research
performed, it is apparent that, based on the information
available at this time, the establishment of an appropriate
molybdenum standard for either ground or drinking water
represents little more than a guess. For any standard to be
enforceable, it should be capable of withstanding careful
scientific scrutiny. The proposed standard of 50 ug/1 most
certainly does not meet this test.
This guesswork is clearly distinguishable from the
detailed procedures and methodologies employed by EPA in the
establishment of water quality criteria for 65 toxic
pollutants. See 45 Fed. Reg. 79318 et seq., November 28,
1980. In summary, we do not believe that the proposed
molybdenum standard of 0.05 mg/1 will withstand sceintific
scrutiny. Rather, it appears that its inclusion is an
arbitrary and capricious action unsupported by substantial
evidence.
B. Proposed Molybdenum Level
1. The proposed molybdenum standard was selected by
EPA "on the basis of avoiding toxic effects in humans." 46
F_ed. Reg. 2559. The proposed molybdenum standard does not
represent a threshold of hazard to human health, but instead
is only an assumption presumably on the basis of one study.
-------
H-20
H-20
w
i
NJ
Remarkably, as noted previously, this study recommends that
"It is not likely that a drinking water standard for
molybdenum is required. But we believe that 50 ug Mo/L
represents a prudent guideline". Chappell, p.5.
Even under EPA's more expansive interpretation of its
legal authority with which we disagree, EPA has authority to
promulgate standards for the protection of public health and
safety from hazards. The study cited shows that the .05 mg/1
level for molybdenum is related only to the absence of any
biochemical changes and does not define a level in excess of
which might represent a hazard to human health.
It should be noted that molybdenum is not listed as a
hazardous or toxic substance under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act or under the Clean Hater Act. Neither is it
included in any Effluent Limitation Guidelines for Standards
of Performance for specific industry subcategories.
Molybdenum is not listed in "Quality Criteria for Water" (the
Redbook) nor is it included in the recent (November 1980) EPA
publication of Water Quality Criteria or in the National
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. The
justification, therefore, for a standard for molybdenum in
either surface or groundwater has not been sufficiently
substantiated to warrant promulgation.
indeterminate at this time and represents a much lower
potential risk of hazard to human health and the environment
than EPA's proposal suggests.
EPA states that prevention or reduction of seepage of
known high mobility substances (e.g., selenium and zinc)
should control those other substances for which no confirming
data are available (e.g., molybdenum). Ibid. Therefore, EPA
need not promulgate a standard for control of molybdenum,
which is a less mobile substance than selenium or zinc, even
if the toxicity levels of molybdenum were such as to warrant
the establishment of a standard.
In summary, therefore, notwithstanding the legalities of
whether the UMTRC provides EPA the authority to promulgate a
groundwater standard for molybdenum, it is our opinion that
such a standard under this Act is inappropriate and
unnecessary and should be deleted from the final regulation.
2. In addition to consideration of the potential human
health effects of molybdenum in drinking water, the proposed
standard for molybdenum is presumably based upon a
consideration of its potential mobility through groundwater.
DEIS, pp. 4-38. However, molybdenum is not listed in the
DEIS as having a high probability of being mobile. DEIS, pp.
4-34. Only certain anions of molybdenum are deemed to be
even relatively mobile, and such determination is based upon
admittedly "extremely limited" data. DEIS, pp. 4-35. The
mobility of molybdenum from uranium mill tailings is thus
-------
H-21
H-21
PI
i
N)
Gentlemen:
Hy name is Victor Lescovitz, I am a state representative from the 46th
Legislative District in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Hy district includes
parts of Washington and Beaver Counties, two counties'in the western end of the
state.
In recent months, there has been a great deal of local attention focused
on the Canonsburg Industrial Park in Canonsburg, Washington County, Pennsylvania,
which is one cf the 25 sites around the country designated for remedial action
under Public Law 95-604, the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978.
Along with the attention has come a great deal of misinformation which has generated
unnecessary fear on the part of local residents. While the Canonsburg site is not
located in my district, it is located only a few miles away, and several sites have
been chosen for relocation of the waste, two of which lie in my district. Accordingly,
I have been contacted by a number of residents who are concerned with what will be done
with the waste, and what kind of measures will be taken to ensure that the waste is
made secure and that no further contamination will occur.
I believe that citizen participation in matters of this nature is of the utmost
importance, both to calm the fears of anxious residents and to provide them with some
kind of input. That is the reason I have asked to testify here today.
I was first made aware of these hearings by an advertisement which appeared in
the Monday, May 11, edition of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. In a matter of such
importance to so many Western Pennsylvanians, four days notice is hardly enough time
for anyone to plan a trip to Washington and prepare testimony for a public hearing,
nor is it financially feasible for most citizens in my area who would be interested
in appearing, to make a trip to Washington. Also, until I saw the ad, I was not
aware that EPA had set a June 15 deadline for public comment on these proposed uranium
cleanup and disposal standards. The timing of the advertisement and the location of
-2-
the hearing itself has effectively precluded any participation by concerned
citizens from my area.
Further, of the 25 inactive uranium mill sites in the United States, the
Canonsburg Industrial Park is the only site in the Northeast. Given this, it
seems only fair that the citizens of Western Pennsylvania be given the same
opportunity to present their views as the people of Salt Lake City, Utah, and
Durango, Colorado, where, I understand, public hearings were held prior to this
one.
Also, the conditions surrounding the Canonsburg site are different than
those surrounding sites in the West. Geologic an environmental conditions are
not the same, not to mention the difference in population density. The site in
Canonsburg is a mere 15 miles from Pittsburgh.
In addition, I have a number of questions concerning certain sections of
the proposed standards which illustrate the need for further discussion. On
page 2558 of the Federal Register of January 9, 1981, you readily admit that
"no disposal method has been tested sufficiently to establish its practicality
or effectiveness over long periods of time. Also, in a footnote on the same
page, you remark that "some processes occurring in tailings piles tend to carry
dissolved contaminants upward, perhaps even through soil coverings. Yet burial
in permeable barriers such as soil is one option which is considered in the pro-
posed standards. Perhaps additional time is needed for public contribution so
that some of these questions can be cleared up.
Also in Subpart C - Exceptions, the proposed standards, state that provisions
may be made for exceptional circumstances. Would the Canonsburg site, because of
the population density of the surrounding area, be considered under this section
for special remedial action? The waste site, as well as proposed relocation sites,
is well within the Pittsburgh metropolitan area, and is within a few miles of a
number of small boroughs, as well as a major airport.
-------
H-21
H-22
-3-
Further, the proposed standards do not address the problem of transporting
the mill tailings to other sites as one possible remedial action. One proposal
that has been offered as a remedy to the Canonsburg problem is to transport the
material some 18 miles to sites which supposedly could better meet safety re-
quirements. Nowhere in the proposed standards is there any provision for
transportation of radioactive mill tailings.
Based on these factors, I ask that the EPA extend a similar courtesy to
the citizens of Western Pennsylvania, and hold public hearings in Canonsburg,
or at least in the area, on the subject of the proposed standards for cleanup
and disposal of mill tailings, and that the June 15 deadline for public comment
be extended to give citizens ample time to voice their concerns and provide in-
formation which may be helpful to EPA in their consideration of this matter.
Thank you for the opportunity to come here and testify.
I
NJ
hO
JAMES C. ROSS
•INATE POoT OFFICE
THK STATE CAPITOL
HARRIBBURO. PA. IT1SO
17171 7B7.SO76
BBB THIRD STREET
• EAVCR. PA. IBOO*
I41Z) 7744444
INVIHONMKNTAL HUOURCU
HULA* • nicunvi NOMINATION*
TIUNIPOxrATION
UIWAN AWiim • HOUBINO
•TAT« COUNCIL Of ClVn. BOTNM
May 14. 1981
Mr. Stan Lichtman
U.S.E.P.A.
401 M Street
South West
Washington, D.C. 20465
Dear Mr. Lichtman:
I would like to thank the Environmental Protection Agency for allowing
le opportunity to submit the following remarks at the public hearing being
«-u{*. .4^.. Uoir 1 5 1QO1 in Ua ejVi i nrt+rtn . Tl _ r1 _
me the opportunity —
held this day. May 15
1981 in Washington^ D.C
As you are aware, the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978
has designated Canonsburg, Pennsylvania as a site to be included in the
remedial action program to stablize and control uranium mill tailings in a
safe and environmentally sound manner.
Within the past month, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources has researched possible disposal sites within the Commonwealth. Two
of these sites which have received much public attention and labeled by the
Department of Environmental Resources as the most promising locations for
disposal fall within the boundaries of my Senatorial District in the Township
of Hanover. I, as well as many others, have gone on record in opposing the
transfer of this material from Canonsburg to Hanover Township or any other
area within the state. It is my belief that all efforts should be concentrated
toward the stablization of this material at the Canonsburg site.
In reviewing Public Law 95-604, I have found that it is the E.P.A.'s
responsibility to promulgate standards for the clean up and disposal of
radioactive materials from the uranium processing sites located throughout
the United States.
-------
H-22
page 2
I commend the E.P.A. for scheduling public meetings such as this one held
today for the purpose of providing public participation. Given the fact that
Canonsburg is the only site located in the eastern half of the United States,
I believe that the residents of Pennsylvania should be afforded the
opportunity of a public hearing in their state. I am, therefore, requesting
that the E.P.A. hold a public hearing in Washington County, Pennsylvania prior
to the establishment of formal standards, rules and regulations governing the
disposal of radioactive uranium mill tailings.
Your attention and approval of our request is greatly appreciated and
we look forward to your response as soon as possible.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
JER:adr:kac
M
I
10
-------
INDEX TO APPENDIX E
Page
Index to Comment Letters by Identification Number — Table E-l ..... E-l
American Mining Congress (1-10)
Washington, D.C .............................................. E-100
Anaconda Copper Company (1-3)
Denver ; Colorado ............................................. E-58
Baird, Robert (H-l)
Ford, Bacon & Davis Utah, Inc.
Salt Lake City, Utah ......................................... E-186
Beverly, Robert G. (H-13)
Union Carbide
Grand Junction, Colorado ........................... • ......... *
Beverly, Robert G. (H-18)
American Mining Congress
Washington, D.C .............................................. E-205
Buckskin, Robert (H-14)
American Indian Movement
Ignac io , Colorado ............................................ *
Burns, Edward B. (P-14) (Letter dated 5/7/81)
Las Cruces , New Mexico ....................................... E-20
Butler, Charles (H-15)
Durango , Colorado .. .......................................... *
Butler, Charles R. (P-9) (Letter dated 4/28/81)
Durango , Colorado ............................................ E-14
Colorado Department of Health (S-5) (Letter dated 7/17/80)
(Radiation and Hazardous Wastes Control Division)
Denver, Colorado ............................................. E-126
Colorado Department of Health (S-18) (Letter dated 6/9/81)
(Radiation & Hazardous Wastes Control Division)
Denver , Colorado ...................... . ...................... E-138
Colorado Department of Health (S-14) ^Letter dated 5/8/81)
(Water Quality Control Division)
Denver , Colorado .......................................... E-132
E-226
-------
INDEX TO APPENDIX E (Continued)
Page
Committee on Armed Services (F-15)
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C E-174
Craig, Roy (H-1.1)
Durango Chamber of Commerce
Durango, Colorado *
Denham, Dale H. (P-4)
Battelle-Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Richland, Washington E-10
Department of Energy (F-l) (Letter dated 6/13/80)
Washington, D.C E-147
Department of Energy (F-3) (Letter dated 10/31/80)
Washington, D.C. E-151
Department of Energy (F-14) (Letter dated 7/15/81)
Washington, D.C E-166
Department of Health & Human Services (F-9) (Letter dated 5/18/81)
(Bureau of Radiological Health)
Rockville, Maryland E-156
Department of Health & Human Services (F-8) (Letter dated 5/6/81)
(Center for Environmental Health)
Atlanta, Georgia E-156
Department of the Interior (F-6) (Letter dated 4/30/81)
Washington, D.C E-153
Department of the Interior (F-7) (Letter dated 4/30/81)
Washington, D.C E-154
Department of Justice (F-12)
(Land & Natural Resources Division)
Washington, D.C E-163
Deuel, J. K. (H-10)
Deuel and Associates
Albuquerque, New Mexico E-198
Eddleman, Wells (P-l)
Durham, North Carolina E_7
Ellsworth, Preston (H-16)
Durango, Colorado *
E-227
-------
INDEX TO APPENDIX E (Continued)
Page
Environmental Defense Fund (P-22)
Denver, Colorado E-52
Evans, Rob ley D. (P-19)
Scottsdale, Arizona E~38
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (F-4)
Washington, D.C E-152
Fisher, Darrell R., Ph.D. (P-23)
Kennewick, Washington E-53
Florida Phosphate Council, Inc. (1-6)
Lakeland, Florida E-77
Georgia Office of Planning and Budget (S-17)
Atlanta, Georgia E-137
Gesell, Thomas F. (P-5)
University of Texas
Houston, Texas E-ll
Gilliland, J. C. (H-19 & H-20)
Molybdenum Division of AMAX, Inc.
Golden, Colorado E-217
Gonzalez, Eloina (P-16)
Langiloth, Pennsylvania E-22
Greenwood, Phaedra (P-18)
El Prado, New Mexico E-38
Hansen, James V. (F-ll)
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C E-162
Hatfield, Bob (H-12)
Durango City Council
Durango, Colorado *
Hazle, Albert J, (H-7)
Colorado Department of Health
Denver, Colorado E-194
Hemphill, Carole G. and J. William (P-7) (Letter dated 4/15/81)
Burgettstown, Pennsylvania E-13
Hemphill, Carole G. and J. William (P-12) (Letter dated 5/6/81)
Burgettstown, Pennsylvania F-1Q
E-228
-------
INDEX TO APPENDIX E (Continued)
Page
Holmes III, S. T. (H-3)
Salt Lake City, Utah ......................................... E-191
Home stake Mining Company (1-8)
Santa Fe , New Mexico ......................................... E-84
Howard, Blaine N. (H-5) .......................................... *
Salt Lake City, Utah
Hurwitz, Jr., Henry (P-6)
Schenectady, New York ........................................ E-12
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (S-l)
Boise, Idaho ................................................. E-124
Idaho Office of the Governor (S-15)
Boise, Idaho ................................................. E-133
Imrnitt, Robert (H-6) ............................................. *
Tooele County Chamber of Commerce
Tooele, Utah
Kansas Department of Administration (S-9)
Topeka , Kansas ............................................... E- 129
Kepford, Chauncey (H-24) .......................................... *
Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power
State College, Pennsylvania
Kerr-McGee Corporation and Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation (1-4)
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (Letter dated 6-18-82) .............. E-60
Kerr-McGee Corporation and Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation (1-9)
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (Letter dated 7-15-81) ............. E-93
Kittinger, W. D. (H-4)
Rockwell International
Canoga Park, California ...................................... E-194
Kuchena, Robert J. (P-10)
Cuddy , Pennsylvania .......................................... E-15
Larson, Helene (P-21)
Taos , New Mexico
Lescovitz, Victor (H-21)
State Representative, 46th Legislative District
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ................................. E-223
E-229
-------
INDEX TO APPENDIX E (Continued)
Page
Martell, Edward A. (P-2)
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder , Colorado
Michael, Don (H-17)
La Plata County Commissioner
La Plata County, Colorado .................................... *
Miller, Joyce Hemphill (P-13)
Burgettstown, Pennsylvania ......................... .......... E-20
Missouri Department of Natural Resources (S-4)
Jefferson City, Missouri ..................................... E-126
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and Southwest
Research & Information Center (P-17)
San Francisco, California .................................... E-23
Nevada Governor's Office of Planning Coordination (S-ll)
Carson City, Nevada .......................................... E-130
Nevada (State of) Executive Chamber (S-7)
Carson City, Nevada .......................................... E-128
New Mexico Governor's Cabinet (S-20)
Santa Fe , New Mexico ......................................... E-146
New Mexico State Planning Division (S-16)
Santa Fe , New Mexico ......................................... E-134
New York State Energy Office (S-19)
Albany , New York ............................................. E-144
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (F-13)
Washington, D.C .............................................. E-164
Ohio State Clearinghouse (S-10)
Columbus , Ohio ............................................... E-130
Oklahoma State Grant-In-Aid-Clearinghouse (S-12)
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma ...................................... E-131
Oregon Executive Department (S-13)
Salem, Oregon ............................................. E-132
Pay, Donald (P-ll)
Mandan, North Dakota .............. . ................ F-17
E-230
-------
INDEX TO APPENDIX E (Continued)
Page
Pasco, D. Monte (H-8)
Colorado Department of Natural Resources
Denver, Colorado E-195
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (S-6)
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania E-127
Perry, Lawrence (P-20)
Black Hills Energy Coalition
Rapid City, South Dakota E-51
Pnazek, Marie (P-8)
Johnson City, Tennessee E-13
Rickers, A. E. (H-2)
Utah Department of Health
Salt Lake City, Utah E-189
Robinson, Paul (H-23)
Southwest Research and Information Center
Albuquerque, New Mexico *
Rocky Mountain Energy (1-5)
Broomfield, Colorado E-75
Rocky Mountain Energy Co. (l-l)
Denver, Colorado E-54
Ross, James E. (H-22)
State Senator, 47th Legislative District
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Beaver, Pennsylvania E-224
Salt Lake City-County Health Department (S-8)
Salt Lake City, Utah E-128
Scott, R. T., Chairman (H-9)
La Plata County Commissioners
La Plata County, Colorado E-196
Tennessee Valley Authority (F-2) (Letter dated 8/27/80)
Norris, Tennessee E-150
Tennessee Valley Authority (F-10) (Letter dated 6/12/81)
Norris, Tennessee E-159
Terradex Corporation (1-2)
Walnut Creek, California E-57
E-231
-------
Page
INDEX TO APPENDIX E (Continued)
Page
Tope, William G. (P-15)
Murrysville, Pennsylvania E-22
United Nuclear Corporation
Santa Fe, New Mexico E-79
USDA Soil Conservation Service (F-5)
Washington, D.C E-152
Utah Office of the State Planning Coordinator (S-2)
Salt Lake City, Utah E-124
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (S-3)
Cheyenne, Wyoming E-125
Yates, William G. (P-3)
Monsanto-Mound Facility
Miamisburg, Ohio E-9
*(0ral testimony. Available for review in Docket A-79-25,
Environmental Protection Agency, Gallery One, West Tower Lobby,
401 M St., S.W., Washington, D.C.)
E-232
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing!
REPORT NO. ~
EPA 520/4-82-013-2
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Final Environmental Impact Statement for Remedial
A9H*on Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites
(40 CFR 192), Volume II 8
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
. AUTHOR(S)
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
October 1982
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office.-of Radiation Programs (ANR-460)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
6. ABSTRACT
The Environmental Protection Agency is issuing final standards, for the long-term
control of tailings piles at inactive uranium processing sites and for cleanup of
contaminated open land and buildings. These standards apply to tailings at locations
that qualify for remedial actions under Title I of Public Law 95-604, the Uranium
Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. This Act requires EPA to promulgate
standards to protect the environment and public health and safety from radioactive
and nonradioactive hazards posed by residual radioactive materials at the twenty-
two uranium mill tailings sites designated in the Act and at additional sites where
these materials are deposited that may be designated by the Secretary of the Depart-
ment of Energy. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (Volume I) examines health,
technical considerations, costs, and other factors relevant to determining standards.
Volume II contains EPA's responses to comments on the proposed standards and the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EPA 520/4-80-011).
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
D.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
uranium mill tailing8
inactive uranium mill sites
radioactive waste disposal
radon
radium-226
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control
Act of 1978
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMET
Release unlimited.
19. SECURITY CLASS f This Report)
Unclassified.
21. NO. OF PAGES,
313
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified.
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«v. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1983-O-395-a91/39U
------- |