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

-------