ML20148M990

Draft Compliance Determination Procedures for Environ, Radiation Protection Stds for U Recovery Facilities: 40CFR190

ML20148M990
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/30/1980
From:	NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:
Shared Package
ML20148M994	List: ML20148M990 ML20148M996
References
FRN-45FR26072, RULE-PR-20 40CFR190, NUDOCS 8012290032
Download: ML20148M990 (23)

Text

., .

~p - -

5 f1.-

i-

,r . , , - ,

2'I .

(( b.....

. 2 . ....;... .h. .'._

COMPLIA.NCd.DETdRMINATIONPROCEDURESFORl g -

. . , . -" . JU.. - -, ENVIRONMENTAL, RADIATION PROTECTION

.. . . . . . . . . .. .. ._ . 2... .

r. .. . :.:. u . . . .:a_, . : v. . .

5 . _ ". ". ' ,..'Jf_I

. ' ;.~. .7,.:.

~~'.M.. :

STANDARDS FOR URANIUM RECOVERY FACILITIES C. . . 40 CFR 190 t

i-

• .?

(.. ,

. . 3. .... .

.L.. .

y. - .

T. U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

"- ~' '

Division of Waste Management i Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch , .

,- o f

i i

' ~

' ~

November', 1'980 I b

i l

i i >

l l

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS  !

POOR QUAUTY PAGES 001 2290 gg i

_ - . . .. . _ _ . . - = . - . - - . - .

ug .- =

.A f ,

Ti tle: Compliance Determination Procedures for Environmental Radiation , I Protection Standards for Uranium Recovery Facilities - 40 CFR 190 .

l Background - -

'. - = -.'.

, Under Title 40 Code of Federal Rigu1ations Part 190 - Subchapter F .- . .

Radiation Protection Programs, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated " Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear.

Power Operations" which provides limits for the radiation doses received by members of the public in the general environment as the result of operations which are part of the nuclear fuel cycle.

Effective December 1, 1980, each uranium milling facility

• shall conduct its operations in such a manner to assure that the annual radiation dose equivalent of 25 millirems to the whole body, 75 millirems to the thyroid, and 25 millirems -

to any other organ of any member of the public is not exceeded. However, .

.the dose from radon and its daughters is excluded from these doses. The .

following discussion briefly describes the Nuclear Regulatory Commission'*s (HRC) program for compliance detennination for uranium recovery facilities.

In April.,1980, the NRC published a proposed amendment to 10 CFR Part 20

" Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations" and will shortly finalize this amendment which requires that a NRC licensee shall comply with 40 CFR 190. This program is also meant to ,

serve as guidance for the Agreement States in their implementation of 40 CFR 190.

As illustrated by radiological assessments performed in the uranium milling generic environmental impact statement,(GEIS), 40 CFR 190 compliance will be achieved only by strict emission controls at.the mill. The most significant sources of emissions are the tailings ponds / piles and the yellowcake dryer stacks. The NRC has made strict

. emission control a specific license condition in its licensing activities over the past several years; and it has been an NRC requirement that /*

exposure limits be met by emission controls to the maximum extent reasonably achievable. Such emission control requirements are contained in the '

May,1977 NRC staff position on " Tailings Management Performance Objectives" and in the final regulations on uranium milling issued in the Federal Register on' October 3, 1980. A copy of the criteria in these regulations covering emission controls is attached as Appendix B. Certainly land i use control, e.g., expanding the buffer zone around a mill site, cannot exclusively be used as a substitute for reducing actual emissions from the various milling processas. The primary means of meeting exposure limits must be by emission control.  !

"- "All uranium extraction facilities; to include mills, in-situ operations -!

and heap leach facilities. .(R&D facilities are not included here since i initial assessments indicate that their size and potential radiological 1 impact are insignificant; e.g., R&D in-situ operations. in general have i no airborne particulate releases.) ,

- +

.. L. ].._. _ ~ . _ . _

. . - , ... l There are inherent problems in accurately deterinining source tems,-

particularly from large area sources such as the tailings impoundments. -

Also, there are significant uncertainties in the atmospheric transport i .

models used to compute airborne radioactivity concentrations given a ,

scurce term, particularly where there is irregular terrain. Therefore, l the primary means of determining compliance must be by measurements made i at the point of receptor and the procedures outlined below reflect this.  !

On the other hand, compliance cannot reasonably be determinef and corrective action taken where necessary, by inflexibly and rigidly considering point of receptor data alone. Therefore, environmental measurements' at.

other locations near the mill and at background locations, effluent sampling, meteorologic data, and other similar infomation must be available to supplement point of receptor data. Such supplemental

• infomation is required most in cases where computed doses approach or

. exceed the limit. Other monitoring data will be necessary, for example,,-

to scr.een out effects.of mines that may be nearby and may be contributing to dose.

By no means will the mere assertion that.the mill operations utilize emission controls suffice to show compliance to 40 CFR 190 exposure l imits. The licensee must provide some supportable dose assessments based on actual environmental monitoring data which 'are compatible with the procedures discussed below. . .

procedure -

The ultimate goal of this program is to establish a standardized procedure which will be used to assess compliance subsequent to the establishment -

of each licensee.'s Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP). It will realistically require as much as a year's worth of effluent and environmental monitoring to fimly establish whether compliance exists at mills which are close to the limit or where there are significant nearby sources of radioactive emissions such as mines, which are not covered by the standard.

Much of this time will be spent on the fine tuning of the monitoring and analysis program that is normally required in setting up such programs to assure they are operating properly and producing reliable data. It wi11 also take some time to sort out the contributions being made by other sources. This may require some sherc-term, special environmental measurements. Special studies of the eft'ectiveness of selected emission control measures may be required. These evaluations may be supplemented by computer assessments as needed and appropriate.

~

Eventually, it is anticipated that concentration and dose ad. ion levels (which may even be higher than 25 millirems accounting for contributions from other sources) wil,1 be established in combination with specific control measures and levels as the threshold for determining compliance with the standard. This will reduce costs of implementation, eliminate

s .

_.q ,. .- .

L

e .

- . / .

. .. , y

,g , ,

uncertainty on the part of the licensee, regulatory agency and the

{. public (partic01arly in cases where there are significant extraneous >

sources), and assure that the need for ren,edial action is identified' '

most expeditiously if it exists.

j ._

l -

Before environmental monitoring data is available, which is the situation -

in licensing of new facilities or in authorizing significant modification

' to existing ones, predictive models must be utilized to evaluate the

potential impacts of the prospective new. operations. Use of predictive models,-in addition to consideration of what limited environmental data <

exists, is also being used by the staff in the initial 40 CFR 190 implementation efforts in December of 1980.- Predictive modeling assessments of radioactivity concentrations to which nearby individuals may be exposed involve making numerous assumptions and simplifications about important, but frequently. uncertain, factors such as mill releases and atmcspheric .

transport; for this reason, as discussed above, actual compliance detennination will be based on environmental monitoring data which indicate directly what such concentrations are. Predictive models, however, are necessary and valuable tools in evaluating what emission controls are likely necessary, in identifying potential problem areas, and in establishing '

environmental monitoring requirements. ,

The following describes the procedures which shall 'be foll' owed in (A) determining compliance with 40 CFR 190 based on environmental monitoring data, and (B) assessing proposed operations in term of their

.~~ ability to meet 40 CFR 190. ,

A. Assessment of Actual Environmen'tal Monitorino Data Figure 1 "40 CFR 190 Compliance Determination Procedure" shows a diagram of the various steps to be followed to ultimately assure '

compliance to 40 CFR 190 for all licensing applications. ,

1. Each licensee shall establish an Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP) consistent with NRC's Regulatory Guide 4.14

" Radiological Effluent and Environmental Monitoring at Uranium Mills" (April 1980). This document provides specific details

- for both a pre-operational and the operational monitoring programs which are considered adequate by the staff to obtain the necessary information to be used by the licensee to estimate the maximum potential annual radiation dose to any member of the general public as a result of actually measured mill effluent releases. In order to establish such an acceptable-EMP, each applicant / licensee shall be required to:

a. Develop 'an EMP and submit a plan to the NRC' for review and approval. Such a plan shall include specific details of the number, location, collection method (i.e. , equipment),

sampling frequency and analysis information for all l e I

. y. ..- .-

'e -

FIGURE 1 ~

101 CFR 190 . .

r-

! COMPLI ANCE DETERMillATI0il PROCEDURE -

.{

! @ASED ON ACTUAL EllVIRotiMEllTAL !40NITORING DATA) '

\ .

I EMP -

ESTAnLisii- A 40 m .E0 K ,

REPORTS '

El1P , COMPLIAtlCE 110 CFR 190 .

^

~

ASSESSMEllT COMPLIANCE g '

DETERMINATION l

h V

~

PLAtt DEVELOPED DATA .NRC PROJECT -

ilY APPLICAllT/ 6ATilERED BY MAtlAGER llCEllSEE LICENSEE REVIEW .

6

\r y U n APPit0 VAL DOSES COMPLIAtlCE LICENSEE VARIAtlCES AtlD l_ICEilSE CALCULATED DETERMINED CORRECTIVE REVIEHED/

AMEilDt1EllT ACTION llCEllSE IDENTIFIED AMEllDMENT l v LICENSE i

s, REPORT AMENDMENT Ef1P SuaMITTED ,

OPERATloriAL _

y i DOCUMEllTATION

IN ANNUACi  !

REPORT i I RI- .

f IllSPECTION

l

' sample types (e.g., air particulate, ra fon/WL,. stack -

. .i samples, surface and ground waters, vegetation, food, .

l fish, soil, and direct radiation). For each site (in'cluding ~ ~ -

l

, existing mills), at least one year of site specific .

meteorological data; e.g., wind speed and direction, .

stability class, etc., shall be collected, summarized,

+

and reported. A site map, including all affected off- l site areas, showing each point of sample collection shall also be provided. Participation in a Quality Assurance Program (QAP) as described in NRC's Regulatory Guide 4.15,." Quality Assurance Programs for Radiological Monitoring i Programs (Normal Operations) -Effluent Streams and the

! Environment" (February 1979) shall also be discussed in l

the'EMP plan.

b. Upon NRC's rey'iew and approval, the EMP shall be added to the license and any subsequent change or modifica. tion of the approved EMP shall require that a specific license amendment be initiated by. the licensee.- *

c. The EMP plan shall provide a time schedule providing.the date when each phase of the EMP will 'become operational.

For new license applicants, at least one year of pre-operational monitoring shall be required.c For existing facilities, a realistic time schedule shall be implemented; however, all phases of the EMP shall be operational within 120 days of NRC's approval of the EMP plan..

d. The NRC's.0ffice of Inspection and Enforcement shall conduct periodic on-site inspections of both the actual environmental monitoring systems / locations, as well as' l' all reports and records of such an EMP to ensure that .the actual operations of the EMP are within the approved EMP license condition. -

2. E'ach licensee shall provide an EMP report every six months, as required in 10 CFR 40.65, " Effluent Monitoring Reporting Requirements . " The report should contain the specific information as outlined in Section 7 " Recording and Reporting Results" of NRC's Regulatory Guide 4.14, suora.

3. As a license condition, each license shall be required to.

• submit, in conjunction with its every six months EMP report (EMPR), its own 40 CFR 190 compliance assessment for NRC review and action, as described below.

e

L_[ , . .}_ ._._ .__ .

l

-5 ,

.s

a. Such an assessment shall be based on data gathered by the~

' licensee from the approved EMP as discussed above. Such -

data gathering shall include a semiannual survey of. land use (i.e., residences, grazing, water wells, etc.) in the '

l area v".nin 8 km (5 miles) of the mill. Any difference in land usa from that previously reported shall be discussed f and evaluated with respect to 40 CFR 190 compliance.- In i order to minimize records keeping and formal reporting i

, requirements, while still maintaining a reasonable and [

timely review of the EMP, annual averages based on the  ;

imediate past two consecutive six month reporting periods i shall be used.for the compliance assessment and reporting  :

requirements.  ;

i

b. Dose evaluation using site specific input parameters .

shall be completed using the standardized procedures '

• delineated in Attachment A " Dose Calculational Guidance",  !

. which are based on NRC's draft Regulatory Guide RH!802-4, i

" Calculational Models for Estimating Radiation Doses to I Man from Airborne Radioactive Materials Resulting from l Uranium Milling Operations". These attached tables are [

provided to allow the rapid dose calculational assessme'nu  ;

of environmental monitoring data. Variations in specific >

asst.'.:ptions made in Attachment A will be considered by the staff upon request.

t

c. As necessary, a licensee shall indicate in the report what corrective action is being taken if non-compliance is determined. Each licensee shall complete its initial ,

, 40 CFR 190 compliance assessment and shall submit its EMP l report for NRC review'and approval prior' to January 1, .-  !

1982; and subsequently withing 60 days after January 1 l and July 1 of each year thereafter, so long as the license l is active.

J

4. Once each year, the NRC shall review and complete its own  !

independent determination of each licensee's EMPR and 40 CFR  ;

190 compliance assessment. Such a review shall consider the j influence of extraneous sources (e.o. , mining and transportation  ;

activities) and any anomalous data {e.g., the indication of  :

erroneous data generated during sample collection or sample analysis).

a. The NRC Project Manager (PM) shall review all submittals, and shall primarily be responsible for all approvals, license amendments and verification of 40 CFR 190 compliance..

I i

t i

t 7.-. . . - - . . . - - ... .

)

[

r

i. Upon detennination of compliance to 40 CFR 190, the PM will. document such findings via a brief Memorandum  ;

l to File (standardized form memo) for the subject .

i license within 30 days of receipt of reports submitted .

j j under3(c)..  ;

ii. Upon determination of non-compliance to 40 CFR 190, l

the PM shall assure that the licensee take any .

necessary corrective actions and shall issue specific +

license amendments as required to accomplish this. j

,1 i

iii. The PM shall review any variance request per 40 CFR 190.11, and shall initiate appropriate licensing action as j required. The EPA shall be notified whenever a  !

variance is granted. ,. (

iv. The WMUR PM for 40 CFR 190 Compliance assessment I shall issue a brief annual report summarizing the l results of the individual license compliance reviews.  !

This report shall also consider the cumulative dose  !

to any member of the population due to exposure from  ;

releases from multiple mill facilities, in the general i area. The EPA shall be provided with' a copy of this  !

sumary report for their review and gement. l i

5. The PM shall periodically review and evaluate the EMP, EMP ,  :

reports, and 40 CFR 190 compliance assessments, and shall  !

eliminate any requirements that experience shows 'a be nonessential l or shall require specific actions necessary to show compliance. l For example, if the airborne concentration measurements show  :

that there is no need to continue radium-226, thorium-230, or / i lead-210 analyses, then such requirements shall be elimiriated l from.the EMP. Effort will be made to streamline the periodic i compliance assessment effort by prescribing specific concentration  !

levels which, based on experience and in combination with l other readily observable parameters related to mill operations  !

and local land use, could be relied upon to determine compliance.  :

l B. predictive Modelino I l

Figure 2 "NRC 40 CFR 190 Assessment of Prospective Milling Operations" ( '

shows a diagram of the various steps to be followed by the NRC Project Manager in licensing reYiews. ,

1. All existing data, e.g. , source. tern, environmental monitoring j data, land use, population distribution, meteorology, etc. , j shall be gathered' and reviewed by the NRC Project Manager  !

(PM). l

1 l

I

.- _j

,7

2. The NRC PM shall complete an independent radiological assessment to 40 CFR 190 compliance based on predictive modeling using methodology as described in Regulatory Guide RH!802-4. - .

3. These assessments shall be documented in the Environmental -

Impact Statement (EIS) or environmental appraisal conducted in

- support of the licensing action. These assessments shall -

consider the cumulative dose to any member of the population -

due to exposure from releases from multiple mill facilities in ,

the general area.

G e

e o

a

• t 9

s l

l l

l  !

! i l

! u. . , ._.,7 .. . . _ . . . . ,

.. i

. f; 1

g*g $e d

i -o e' .-

5{g -

sh 55h h

3 ,. .

N W

d"o '

Ws s ..

$$g5 d' .

. . bg a.

8

,g

'Em Q $d2 -

-, e 5 A

. . . . . E u

$5 *de - g 5 d 3 4 EE E

'g$s@ 53 4 $m e ra -

8- eg s ig me gb $

=H "am s2 m- s$m s

f e e-

-sm8 m-.

b_5 ."s._:

b b .>-;

m

[,.

APPEND 8X A Attachment A

Dose Calculational Guidance

.  : /

The estimated dose' received by any member of the general population shall be calculated based on the applicable potential exposure of the nearest resident in the off-site area surrounding the mill site. The total dose shall be the sum of the external exposure (i.e., due to radiation sources outside the body) and of the internal exposure (i.e. , radioactive materials within the body) as follows:

1. External Radiation Exposure -

The direct radiation exposure may be assumed to be equal to ,

the actual personal or environmental dosimetric data less .

. the appropriate background contribution. ,

2, Internal Radiation Exposure - . .

The total dose to organs (e.g., lung, bone, whole body, 6tc.) .' -

shall be evaluated based on summing all applicable human pathways, such as: ,

a. Inhalation of Airborne particolates -

The measured airborne concentration multiplied by the dose conversion factors as given in Table A-1. '

b. Ingestion of Contaminated Food and Milk - t The measured concentration in the food product multipled by the dose conversion factor as given in Table A-2(a) through (c).

c. Ingestion of Meat or Milk from Livestock Grazing on ,

Contaminated Vegetation -  !

The measured concentration in vegetation (e.g., grasses  !

in grazing areas) multiplied by the dose conversion i factor as given in Table A-3(a) and (b).  ;

, i

d. Ingestion of Contaminated Water - i i

The measured concentration in potable water multiplied  !

by the dose conversion factor as given in Table A-4. l t

. . i

. (

l  !

?

l .

I_ ___- __---

u ... ._ . . . . _ . _ .- . .. .-

e. Ingestion of Meat'or' Milk from Livestock Watered on Contaminated Water -

The measured concentration in water used by livestock for watering purposes multiplied by the dose conversion factor as given in Table A-5(a) and (b).

If any of the human exposure pathways as given above are not in evidence at a mill site, then that dose contribution obviously does not need to be c.onsi.dered here. The total dose for each critical organ shall be obtained by summing the dose due to each radionuclide of the uranium decay chain series (i .e. , uranium, radium-226, thorium-230, lead-210, and polonium-210) and through each pathway, i.e. , inhalation plus external exposure plus any applic'able ingestion pathways. However, the dose due to the inhalation pathway shall be of primary concern, with the ,

other pathways providing supplemental information regarding possible exposure.'

Additionally, a thorough evaluation of background conditions must be completed so that any contribution due to the mill operations (i.e., value measured at point of receptor less applicable background level) may be adequately assessed.

The point of receptor data must be reviewed in connection with other environmental and effluent monitoring data, and other appropriate information,or assessme'nt tools (such as computer, modeline where this may be helpful). in cases' where extraneous

• sources may cause calculated doses to exceed the 10 CFR 190 limits or where ancmalous data may be encountered.

e l.

l l

l .

l 1

u, . ', . . ,,, _ , . . _ _ :_ _ .__._....;. _ _ _

1 i

..- l

.e i Table A-1 -

Dose Conversion Factors for the Inhalation of Airborne Particulates

~

(MilliRemperpCi/m)* 3

}

. 1

~ ~ l Whole Radionuclide Body Bone lunc ,

U-238 4.32 79.2 1 58 .-

U-234 4.92 79.5 180 l Th-230 166 5950 3220 Ra5226 30.9 309 6610 ,

Pb-210 4.36 135 772 Po-210 0.47 1.92 420

• The 50-year dose camitment for each year or -

exposure to 1 pCi/m5 of each radionuclide for an

• idult breathing rate of 20 m 3/ day. Particle size i i

of density1.55 of um2.4 AMA0 g/cm (i.g).,

beingmean diameter ofof1 um and representative uranium cre.

The Qualit '

tiens.is 10. The total'ydeseFactor per for organ alpha radia-is the i summation of doses due to each radionuclide.

(Regulatory Guide RHf802-4). -

r i

i s

1

\ l

[

=

h

[

I

. i

6. _ _ ._ _ .

. . . l

.- 1 j ..

to .

Tabli A-2(a) .'

Dose Converson' Factors for Ingestion of Centaminated Meat .

(MilliRemper" )*

Radionuclide Whole Body Ber.e 1.iver Kidney U-23B 3.55 E-03 6.01 E-02 0.0 1.37 E-02 U-234 4.05 E-03 6.55 E-02 0.0 1.56 E-02 Th-220 '4.46 E-03 1.61 E-01 9.16 E-03 4.42 E-02 Ra-226 3.60 E-01 3.60 E+00 4.49 E-04 1.28 E-02 ,.

l Pb-210 4.26 E-02 1.20 E'00 3.42 E-03 9.63 E-01 Po-210 7.01 E-03 2.79 E-02 ,5.92 E-02 1.97 E-01

'The 50-year dose conmitment for each year of ingesti'on of contaminateN meat. The abcve factors correspond to an adult ingestion rate of 78.3 kg/yr of meat (beef, poultry, park, mutton). (Regulatory Guide RHf802-4).

o 4

e

u? . ' ' .

• F Table A-2(b) '

Dose Conversion Factors for Ingestion of. Contaminated Edible Vegetation' (MilliRemper g) .

Radionuclide Whole Body Bone Liver ,

Kidney U-238 2.38 E-03 4.03 E-02 0. 0 9'.19 E-03 U-234 2.71 E-03 4.39 E-02 0. 0 '1.04 E-02 ,.

Th-230 2.99 E-03: 1.08 E-01 6.14 E-03 2.97 E-02  !

h Ra-226 2.42 E-01 2.42 E+00 3.01 E-01 8.56 E-03 )

. r Pb-210 2.86 E-02 8.03 E-01 2.29 E-01 6.'46 E-Ol' ' '

Po-210 4.51 E-03 1.87 E-02 3.97 E-02 1.30 E-01  :

'The 50-year dose comnitment for each year of ingestion of contaminated.'

• edible vegetation.'

~

A factor'of SCt activity reduction through food preparation was  ;

assumed, and an adult ingestion rate of 105 kg/yr total vegetable  ;

.. ingestion rate, as well as uniform concentration throughout all -

vegetable types. Should data be presented as concentratien of edible above ground vegetables, 4 ; potatoes, C2 ; and other below ,

ground vegetables, C3 ; then the f611owing weighted concentration  ;

Cy should be used when multiplying the above dese factors: '

Cy = 0.38 C) + 0.58 C2 + 0.05 C3 ,

Table 5 of Regulatory Guide RH!802-4 details the breakdown of i vegetable consumption.  :

)

i i

t l

i.d _ .,_ . ,' _. __

~

.  :/

Table A-2(c) ..

e Conversion Factors .for Ingestion of Contaminated Milk *

/'

(MilliRemperpCi/1)* .

E toe Whole Booy Bone L1ver Kicney U-238 5.90'E-03 9.97 E-02 0.0 2.28 E-02

. U-234 6.72 E-03 1.09 E-01 0.0 2.59 E-02 ,

! Th-220 7.41 E-C3 2.68 E-01 r 1.52 E-02 7.35 E-02 .

I Ra-226 5.98 E-01 , 5.98 E+00 7.46 E-04 2.12 E-02 l

Pb-210- 7.07 E-02 i.99E+00 5.68 E-01 1.60 E+00

> . l

! Po-210 1.12 E-02 4.63 E-02 9.83 E-02 3.28 E-61 -

I 1

"The 50-year :o:::nitnent for each year of ingestion of contaminated milk. l These values are based'en an adult censumption rate of 130 liters / year.

Since children drink greater quantities, the resultant dose is much higher for younger people. Dose conversion factors, 'au bef. ore, are for adults. Proper dose conversion factors and milk consumption rates for other age groups are presented in Regulatory Guide RHiB02-4. -

• e e 4

4 S

e to l

l I

l

s e e e

Table A-3 '(a)

Oose Conver'sion Factors for Ingestion of Meat from Cattle .

Grazing on Contaminated Vegetation -

(Millirem per Ci)..

1 Radionuclide ,

Whole Body Bone Liver Kidney ]

U-238 6. 04. E-05 1.02 E-03 0.0 2.33 E-04 U-234 6.88 E 1.11 E-03 0.0 2.65 E-04 Th-230 4.46 E-05 1.61 E-03 9.16 E-05 4.42 E-04 Ra-226 -

9.18 E-03 9.18 E-02 1.15 E-05 3.25 E-04 -

Pb-210 1.51 E-03 4.25 E-02 1.21 E-02 3.42 E-02 Po-210 2.39 E-04 9.90 E-04 2.10 E-03 7.00 E-03

• The50-yeardosecommitnent for each year of ingestion of meat. The above values are based on the following. ,

V i) Animal uptake of vegetation: 50 kg/ day ii) Environmental transfer coefficients: [oti/koI (PCi/ cay l ,

U - 3.4 x 10-4 Th - 2.0.x 10'4 Ra - 5.1 x 10-4

-4 "

P.b - 7.1 x 10

~

Po - 7.1 x ~10-4 iii) Adult meat ingestion rate: 78.3 kg/ year , ,

iv) Adult ingestion dose conversion factors (see Regulatory Guide RHfB02-4) 9

~: .

. Ta'ble A-3(b) /*

.. Dose' Conversion Factors for Human Consumption "

of Milk from Dairy Cows Ingesting Contaminated Vegetation

,! (Millirem per pCi),

kg ,

-! Radionuclide ' Whole Body Bone Liver ~ Kidney i

i U-238 1.80 E-04 3.03 E-03 0.0 6.94 E-04~

, U-234 2.05 E-04 3.31 E-03 0.0 7.89 E-04 Th-230 1.85 E-06 6.70 E-05 3.80 E-06 1.84 E: 05.. .- ,

Ra-226 1.76 E-02 .1.76 E-01 2.20 E-05 6.25 E-04 i Pb-210 4.24 E-04 1.19 E-02 5.97 E-03 9.59 E-03 ,

l Po-210 6.70 E-05 2.78 E-04 5.90 E-04 1.97.E-03 j . . . .

! *The 50-year dose commitment for each year of ingestion of milk. The above values are based on the following:

i) Animal uptake of vegetation

50 kg/ day' ii) Environmental transfer coefficients: foci /ko pCi/dayl U - 6.1 x 10-4 k ..

i Th - 5.0 x 10-6 ]

.O Ra - 5.9 x 10-4  !

Pb - 1.2 x 10-4 i r

i -

I

'I ,

Po - 1.2 x 10-4 l

- t iii) Adult consumption of miik: 130 liters / year -

iv) hdult ingestion dose conversion factors (see Regulatory Guide RH!802-4) ,

i l

l i

l I i

v -

w :- . _ a: _ _.

. .~.- . .

~'

Table A-4 Oose Conversion Factors for Human Consumption /

of Contaminated Water ,

(Millirem per DCi).

1 Radionuclide 'Whole Body Bone Liver Kidney ,

i

- - . . . . ... ----. U-238 1.68 E-02 2.84 E-01 0.0 6.48 E-02 , --

U-234 1.91 E-02 3.09 E-01 0.0 7.36 E-02 Th-230 2.11 E-02 7.62 E-01 4.33 E-02 2.09 E-01 i Ra-226 1.70 E+00 1.70 E+01 2.12 E-03 6.03 E'02 - '

Pb-210 2.01 E-01 5.66 E+00 '1.62 E+00 4.55 E+00 Po-210 3.18 E-02 - 1.32 E-01 2.80 E-01 9.32 E-01

. . *The 50-year dose comnitment for each year of ingestion o'f contaminated -!

water. The above values are based on an average adult consumption rate of 370 liters / year (Regulatory Guide 1.109) and adult ingestion- ,

, dose conversion factors (Regulatory Guide RHf802-4).

l 1

4 1

i s

. i

\

i e

v ,

n._ ... . '

. Table,A-5

/

Dose Conversion Factors for Ingestion

• of Meat from Cattle Watered on Contaminated Water .

'(Millirem per PCi). ,

1

~ ~ ~~-

' ~Radionuclide . Whol'e Body Bone Liver *'

Kidney .

U-238 6.04 E-05 1.02 E-03 0.0 2.33 E-04' U-234 6.88 E-05 1.11 E-03 0.0 2.65 E-04 Th-230 4.46 E-05 1.61 E-03 9.16 E-05 4.42 E-04 Ra-226 9.18 E-03 9.18 E-02 1.15 E-05 3.25' E-04 Pb-210 1.51 E-03 4.25 E-02 1.21 E-02 3.42 E-02 Pb-210 2.39 E-04 9.90 E-04 2.10 E-03 7.00 E-03

• The 50-year dose ccmmitnent'for each year of ingestion of meat.

The above ' values are based on the following: -

i) Animal uptake of water: 50 liters / day ii) Environmental transfer coefficients: foci /ko 1

' pCi/ day )

U - 3.'4 x 10-4 Th - 2.0 x 10-4 Ra - 5.1 x 10-4 Pb - 7.1 x 10-4

• Po - 7.1 x 10-4 iii) Adult meat ingestion rate of 78.3 kg/ year

• iv) Adult ingestion dose conversion factors (see Regulatory Guide RHiB02-4) t

-, ~. .--.- . - . . . . -

, Table As5(b) ,/

Dose Conversion Factors for Hur.an Consumption .

of Milk from Dairy Cows Watered on Contaminated Water -

'(Millirem per pCi)*

1 Radionuclide Liver Whole Body Bone Kidney i

U-238 2.16 E-04 3.65 E 0.0 8.23 E-O'4 U-234 2.46 E-04 3.98 E-03 0.0 9.47 E-04 Th-230 2.22 E-06 8.03 E-05 4.56 E-05 -2.20 E-05 . ~

Ra-226 2.12 E-02 2.12 E-01 2.64 E-05' 7.50 E-04 l Pb-210 5.09 E-04 1.43 E-02 4.09 E-03 1.15 E-02 Po-210 8.04 E-05 3.33 E-04 7. 08.. E-04 2.36 E-03 l l

'The 50-year dose comnitnent for each year of ingestion of milk. -

,_, The a' bove values are based on the following: l t

i) Dairy animal intake rate: 60 liters / day l

i ii) Adult ingestion milk rate: 130. liters / year .j iii) Environmental transfer coefficients: l oci/ liter' '

l U - 6.1 x 10-4

( PL1/ cay j ,

l t

Th - 5.0 x 10-6 [

Ra - 5.9 x 10-4

Pb - 1.2 x 10-4  !

Po - 1.2 x 10 4 4-iv) Adult ingestion dose conversion factors (see Regulatory Guide RH!802-4) [

i

.F i

• 8 i

t i

t I

~

h

W -1

.-- ~

._ ,j Tsdirel Rzgistsr / Vol. 45f No.194 / Friday, October 3.'1980 / Rul:s and Regulstions 65535 3 -

l .

increans or decreasu resulting imm ?-"

- - 1.-. pacts of operetion: and to detect potential Criterion aA-Dauy inspecGons of tabas I lor:s term effects. or waste retentjon systems shallbe inDation, changes in engineeriny 9lans. .

Criterion s-Mihg operations shall be conducted by a qualifled ensinar or scientist activities performed. and any e Ler ccaducted so that aD airborne ei!!uent . and docurnented.The appropriate NRC conditions affecting costs.1tegardless of .

whether reclamation is p"hased through the releases are nduced to levels as low as is ngional ofDea as indicated in Appendix D of  ;

(* achievaW. The primary means of 10 CTR part :0. or the Director. 085ce of life of the operation or takes place at the end 1 I reasonably accomplis $ng this shall be by means of Inspection and Er.!orcement. U.S. Nuclear of operstjona, an appropriate portion of .

e=ission controla. Institutional controls, such ' Regulatory Commission. Washington.D.C. surety liabuity shall be retained until final . .

as extending the alle boundary and exclusion 20555, shall be i= mediately notiDed of any compliance with the J_ area. may be employed to ensure that afsite failure in a tahgs or waste retention system determined.This wiu reclamation yield a suretyplan is.at4.

ht is exposure limits are met but only after all .t which resuhe in a release of ta&gs or wasta least su.5cient at all times to cover the costs 1 practicable massures have been taken to. into unrestricted areas, and/or of any *- of deco"W and reclamation of the control emissions at the souren. .. unusual conditions (conditions not .- areas that are expected'to be disturbed , ..'

! Notwithstandag the existence ollodividual . , sentempleted in b design of the retention before the next license renewal.The term of dose standards, strict control of eminions is system) which if not cometed could indicate the surety mechanism must be open ended. .

necaesary to suure that population ,

b potential or lead to failure of b system unless it can be demonstrated that another exposures are reduced to the maximum -

and result in a release of tallings or weste arrangement would provide an equivalent extent reasonably achieveW and to avoid into unrestricted areas, level of assurance.This assurance could be site contamination.The greitest potential . provided with a surety instrument which is sources of oEsite radiation exposure (aside II.rmanc'ial Cdteria written for a speciSed period of time (e.g. l f em redon exposure) are dusung from dry Criterion 9-Financial surety arrangements five years) yet which must be automaucaDy i

rfaces of the tailings disposal ares not shall be established by ea'ch mill operstor renewed unless the surety notifies the covend by tailings solution and emissions prior to the commencement of operations to beneficiary (the Commission or the State from yeDowcake drying and packagine suure that suf5cient funds will be available regulatory agency) and the principal (the epennons. . to carry out b decontamination and licenan) some reasonable time (e.g. 90 days!

Checks abaD be mad'e and logged hourly of prior to the renewal.date of 11isir intention '

all parameters (e.g. di5metlal prusures and decomminioning the reclamation of any tanings of the or mni wasteand site. and not tofor renew.in such a situation the surety scrubber weter Dow retes) which deternme disposal areas.The amount of funds to be requirement stD) exists and the licensee ce effdency of yellowcake stack emission ensured by such sunty arrangements shall be would be required to submit an acceptable concrol gurpment operation. lt shall be' band on Commission-epproved cost replacement surety within a brief period of determined whether or not conditions are estimates in a Commission-approved plan for time to aDow atleest so days for the wit,iin a range prescribed to ensure bt the (1) decontamination and decommission!ng of regulatory agency to ceDect, equipment is operstma consistently near mill buildings and the milling site to levels Proof of forfeiture must not be neessary to which would allow unrescicted use of these coUect b surety so that in the event that tha Uk when perf a tNde anu upon decommissioning and (:) the licensee could not provide an acceptable

• rescribed rangen. Efluent control devices aclamadon of tauings and/or waste disposal replacement surety within the required time.

shall be opernove at au tima during drying b sumty shah be autmadcally coDected and packaging operadons and whenever air anu in scendance wis technical seria delinested in Section 1 of this Appendix. The . prior to its expiration. The conditions is axhausans from the yeDowcake stack, described above would have to be clearly licenses shall submit this plan in conjunction Drying and packaging operations abaD stated on any surety instrument which is as ter=inste when controls are inoperativa, with an environmental report that addresus th open ended, and most be agmed to by aD When checks indicate the equipment is not

• md,e ling expected envirotunentalimpacts operation, decomminioning and of theparties. Financial surety arrangements cperating withh b range prescribed for generaDy acceptable to b Commission are:

tauings reclam'e tion, and evaluates peak e!5ciency, actions shall be taken to (a) Surety bonda; ,.-**

rutore parameten to b prucrbd range . alternadves for mitigeting thue impacts. The When h cannot be done without shutdown . sumty shall also cover the payment of the (b) Cash deposits:

charge for long term nr einance and control (c) Certificates of deposit .-

and repairs, drying and packaging operations shall cease as soon as practicable. required by Criterion to. In establishing (d) Deposits of governmerft securitie,s:

Operetione may not be restarted after specific sunty arrangements. b licensee's (e) Irrevocable letters orlines of credit -

cessadon due to of-normal performance untu cost estimatu shad take into account total (f) Combinadons of the above or such costs that would be incurred if an types of arrangements as may be approved needed corrective actions have been identified and implemented. All such . Independent contractorwere hired to perform by b Commission.1lowever, self ins cessadona, corrective actions, and regtarts the decommissioning and reclamaden work. or any arrangement which essentiaDy shall be reported to the appropriate NRC , Inorder to avoid unnecouary duplication constitutes ulf insurance (e.g. a contract ,

regional office as indicated in Criterion SA, in and expensa, the Commission may accept . with a state or federal agency). wiu not j writms, within 10 days of the subsequent financial sureties that have been sadsfy the eurety requirement since this  :

consolidated with financial or surety provides no additional assurance other tha restart. . arrangementa established to meet that which already exists through license To control dusting from tauings, that reon not coveendby standing liquida shall . rwurements of other Federal or state requirements.  ?

wetted or chemically stabilized to prevent agencies and/orlocal governing bodies for Critenon 20-.A minimum charge of j or min-a blowing and dusting to b - such decommissioning. decontamination. S:50.000 (1975 dollars) to cover the costa of :

i maximum extent nosonably acnievable.This reclamation. and long term site surveulance . long term surveulance shad be paid by end

[' and control provided such arrangements are miD operator to b general treasury of b !

requirement may be relaxed if tailings are effecttvely sheltered from wmd. such as may t considered adequate to utisfy thou United States orto an appropriate State I i

' be the can where they are disposed of below requirements and that b portion of the agency prior to the termination of a uraniuni i ** *-

'

• grade and the tailings surfece is not exposed . surety which covers the decomminioning or thoriurn miD license. ' ,

1

• to wind. Consideration shaU be given in and nelamation of the min. min tauings site If site eurveulance or control requiremend plarming teilings disposal pro:; rams to and associated areas. .nd the long term at a particular site are determined, on the l

!, methods which would allow phased covering funding charge is clearly identified and basis of a site-specific evaluation.to be j I and reclamation of tauings impoundments committed for use in accomplishing these significantly greeter than those specified in since % will help in controiling paruculate acuvities.The licensee's surety mechanism Criterion 12. (e.g. if fencing is determined I and redon emissions dunns operatiorL To will be reviewed annually by the Commission be necesury) variance in funding '

control dusteg from diffuse sources, such as to assun that sufficient funds would be nquirements may be specified by the '

tailings arid ore pads where automatic avaUeble for completion of the reclamation Commission. In any case. the total charge t -

controls do not apply, operators shall oevelop plan if the work had to be perfor:ned by an cover the costs oflcng term surveitance sh written operating procedures spect!ying the independent contractor.The amount of surety ,be such that, with and assumed 1 percen; j methods of control which will be utilized. lisbility should be adjusted to recog .ize any annual realinterest rate the collected fung

.k *

$l

= l I

.._ ;- , ,' .I .

l G ,e - ,

References .

<. O U.S. Environmentaf Protection Agency - Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations

%, Part 190 - Subchapter F, " Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Pow'er' Operations" (40 CFR 190). ,

O U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Cc: lis'sion'- Regulatory duide 4.14, " Radiological Effluent and Environmental Monitoring at Uranium Mills" (April 1980).

~

O U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Regulatory' Guide 4.15, " Quality Assurance Programs for Radiological Monitori.ng Programs (Normal Operations) -

Effluent Streans and the Environment" (February 1979). .

O U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Regulatory Guide RHiB02-4, "Calcula-tional Models for Estimating Radiation Ooses to Man from Airborne-Radioactive Materials Resulting from Uranium Milling Operations" (draft, May1979).

• O U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Regulatory ' Guide 1.109, . " Calculation

• of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases o'f Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I" (Revision 1, October 1957). ,

e U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Final Environmental Statement, "40 CFR 190 Environmental Radiation Protection Requirements for Normal

' Operaticns of Activities in the Urnafum Fuel Cycle'," EPA 520/4-76-016.

(November.1976).

o V. 5. Environmental Protection Agency - Part IV - Supplemental Analysis-1976,

" Environmental Anal,ysis of the Uranium Fuel Cycle," EPA 520/4-76-017.

(July 1976). .

e 9

9 t

9

--.a s

r 7 s:7 np g

~ ~ '

! '" 9 l l L'~.

DECEMBER 1, 1980 o 40 CFR 190 TAKES EFFECT o ORDERS ISSUED TO ALL NRC LICENSEES o NRC ISSUES REPORT 0 PROSPECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF EACH FACILITY o PREVIOUS COMMITMENTS CONTINUE O INTERIM PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES 0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAMS o REVISE 10 CFR 20 TO INCORPORATE 40 CFR 190

PHASED IMPLEMENIATION DEC. 1, '80 PilASE 1 VARIABLE PHASE 2 TIME NRC A

~

PROSPECTWE INITIAL ONG0ING _

ASSESSMENTS 'SSESSMENTS A A5SESSMENTS-0 IDENTIFY LICENSES 0 COMPLETE POTENTIAL 0 INDICATOR POTENTIAL AMENDED BY INSTALLATION LICENSE CONCENTRATIONS PROBLEM ORDER - 0F EMP'S AMENDMENT WITH SPECIFIED AREAS 110 CFR 190 0 SORT Our ^ '"

INSTITUTE IAKES EFFECT ONDIU ONS EXTRANE0uS SIMPLIFIED 0 ESTAE' ISH SOURCE ASSESSMENT MONITORING CONTRIBUTIONS PROCEDURE REQUIREMENTS 10 CFR 20 0 METEORLOGICA'L DATA l INCORPORATES SET COMPLETED .

10 CFR 190 0 SHORT TERM STUDIES AND IESTS l

0 IDENTIFY NEEDED REMEDIAL CONTROL MEASURES, IF ANY l

I e

, . --s- -.____..._____,-,_m.~__ .--,,m_ -

.. , m .

I t

QRDERS AMENDING LICENSES .

O ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM 0 ESTABLISH PROGRAM - WHERE NO APPROVED PROGRAM EXISTS

_._ 0 MODIFY EXISTING PROGRAMS - MINOR CHANGES IN FEw CASES 0 SPECIFY SCHEDULE FOR INSTALLATION - WHERE NOT NOW INSTALLED _ ,_

0 INVOKE QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS - R.G. 4.15 0 PERIODIC DOSE ASSESSMENTS 0 COMMIT OPERATOR TO PERIODIC ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE O REPORTING 0 SPECIAL INFORMATION NEEDS -

0 SHORT IERM STunIES 0 METER 0 LOGY - Fult YEAR'S DATA WHERE NOT CURRENTLY AVAILABLE

~ ~ ~

0 IDENTIFY AND CHARACTERIZE ALL SIGNIFICANT NEARBY EXTRANEOUS SOURCES O SUPPLEMENT EXISTING DUST CONTROL REQUIREMENTS l

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '

O WRITTEN OPERATING PROCEDURES 0 WEEKLY INSPECTIONS

~

.l

NUCIFAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REPORT

+

0 PROSPECTIVE ASSESSMENT EACH MILL ,

O SUPPORTING BASIS FOR ORDERS O CONCLUSIONS , .

O EXISTING REQUIREMENTS FOR EMISSION CONTROL..

SHOULD ASSURE 40 CFR 190 IS MET AT EACH FACILITY O NO SPECIFIC ADDITIONAL CONTROL MEASURES APPEAR REQUIRED 0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEEDED AT SOME MILLS TO MAKE FIRM CONCLUSION O CURRENT DATA ANOMALOUS OR INCOMPLETE O SCREEN Our EXTRANEOUS SOURCES 0 UNCERTAINTY As0uT EFFECTIVENESS OF CONTROLS 5

3 h

6 9

~

l f

40 CFR 190 COVERAGE O 25 MILLIREMS TO WHOLE BODY AND ANY OTHER URGANS 0 REASONABLE ASSURANCE O INCLUDES -

0 ROUTINE RELEASES FROM NORMAL OPERATIONS 0 ANNUAL AVERAGE O CUMULATIVE MILL SOURCES 0 EXCLUDES -

O RADON AND DAUGHTERS O NATURAL BACKGROUND KADI ATION .

O MINING OPERATIONS AND ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES 0 IRANSPORTATION O DECOMMISSIONING AND DECONTAMINATION O RELEASES PRIOR TO DEC. 1, 1980 AND ASSOCIATED GROUND CONTAMINATION l

. CONTROL OF SOURCES 0 INTERIM TAILINGS PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES 0 CONTROL BLOWING OF TAILINGS O ALARA - 10 CFR 20 0 NEPA - 10 CFR 51 .

0 OCT, 3 FINAL MILL REGULATIONS 0 CONTROL DUSTING FROM IAILINGS AND DIFFUSE SOURCES 0 FLE(IBILITY IN METHODS 0 WRITTEN OPERATING PROCEDURES O WEEKLY INSPECTIONS O EMISSION CONTROL PRIMARY REQUIREMENT 0 INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL SECONDARY 0 STRICT CONTROL OF DUSTING IIECESSARY, AS GEIS ILLUSTRATES l

l

? 2

t .

l l

COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS _

~

0 PHASED IMPLEMENTATION .

0 OBJECTIVES 0 ESTABLISH SIMPLE AND STANDARDIZED ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 0 ASSURE CONSISTENCY 0 BETWEEN MILLS 0 OVER TIME O ELIMINATE UNCERTAINTY 0 PUBLIC 0 MILL OPERATORS O REGULATORY AGENCIES 0 OTHER INTERESTED AGENCIES (E.G., EPA, STATE HEALTH SERVICE) 0 FACILITATE PROMPT IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS WHERE THEY EXIST 0 MINIMIZE COSTS AND STAFF IIME FOR COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS l

40 CFR 190 COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION e

0 BASED PRIMARILY ON ACTUAL MONITORING QAla O EMPHASIS 0N AIR SAMPLING AT NEAREST RESIDENCE O PREDICTIVE RAD ASSESSMENT MODELS WILL REI BE BASIS 0 UNCERTAINTY IN SOURCE IERM AND ATMOSPHERIC TRANSPORT MODELS f

0 NECESSARY AND VALUABLE TOOLS IN LICENSING OF PROSPECTIVE OPERATIONS 0 IDENTIFY NEEDED CONTROL MEASURES OR {

l POTENTIAL PROBLEM AREAS l

0 GUIDE DEVELOPMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ,

MONITORING REQUIREMENTS l

0 CODES MAY AID IN ACTUAL MONITORING DATA INTERPRETATION l

t l

l t

1 I

i -

MILDOS SOURCE ATMOSPHERIC DOSIMETRY IERMS , TRANSPORT = .

CI/ YEAR MCI /ML MILLIREM '

I 1

e o

__ _ . _ _ . . _ . . . _ . . _ . . _ _ __ . - . _ _ . . . . __ _ _ _ - l '. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

l COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION PROCEDURE O ESTABLISH ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM O COLLECT DATA O COMPUTE DOSES AT NEAREST RESIDENCE O SUBTRACT DOSE CONTRIBUTION FROM EXTRANEOUS SOURCES AND BACKGROUND i

0 COMPARE DOSE WITH STANDARD - DETERMINE COMPLIANCE O IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL CONTROLS, IF ANY NEEDED 0 IDENTIFY FuRTHER MONITORING, IF APPROPRIATE -

O REPORT TO NRC

@ Og WGM 448WWO

v. -

FIGURE 1 -

40 CFR 190 '

COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION PROCEDURE .

(BASED ON ACTUAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING DATA) j

~

EMP  ;

REPORTS NRC FR m  ;

COMPLIANCE + COMPL ANCE ESTABLISH -

EMP ASSESSMENT DETERMINATION E!.AN DEVELOPED DATA NRC PROJECT BY APPLICANT / GATHERED BY MANAGER LICENSEE  : LICENSEE REVIEW r

! DOSES COMPLIANCE LICENSEE VARIANCES AND LIC NSE CALCULATED DETERMINED AMENDMENT; CORRECTIVE REVIEWED / ,

ACTION LICENSE l l lDENTIFIED/

LICENSE AMENDMENT T T AMENDMENT ,

EMP REPORT l OPERATIONAL SUBMITTED _ J i r IGE DOCUMENTATION INSPECTION IN ANNUAL -

i REPORT

ONGOING COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION - PHASE 2

~ ~- -~~

o SIMPLE, STANDARDIZED PROCEDURE i

o POINT OF RECEPT 0R CONCENTRATION OR DOSE ACTION i LEVELS ESTABLISHED  :

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

o BASED ON PHASE 1 MONITORING AND ANALYSIS . . . . _ _ . ... .

l o MAY BE HIGHER THAN 25 MILLIREM o COMBINED WITH PRESCRIBED CONTROL MEASURES o No SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN LOCAL LAND USE

, OR NEARBY ACTIv! TIES

.... , . -- ~

o SIMPLIFIED PROGRAM IMPLEMENTED THROUGH LICENSE AMENDMENTS

. gg e.

M.M4dMM t

i i

~ . . . - .. ,

MONITORING AND ASSESSMENTS - PHASE 1 l

~

0 COMPLETE INSTALLATION OF EMP'S 0 FINE TUNING 0 OUAL*ITY ASSURANCE - R.G. 4.15 O SORT GUT EXTRANEOUS SOURCE CONTRIBUTION O IDENTIFY MINING AREAS, ORE STORAGE PADS, IRANSPORTATION ROUTES, ETc.

ESTABLISH SUPPLEMENTAL AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLING STATION O SHORT IERM SAMPLING 0 LIMITED ANALYSIS 0 CORRELATION OF METER 0 LOGICAL DATA O RE-EVALUATION OF DOSE ESTIMATES - ESTABLISH SIMPLIFIED CONCENTRATION OR DOSE ACTION LEVELS 1

i

, - i REPORTING REQUIREMENTS PHASE 1 PHASE 2 ROUTINE REPORTING -

QUARTERLY SEMI ANNUALLY (60 DAYS AFTER (60 DAYS AFTER QUARTER END) 1 JULY AND 1 JAN) 0 IN REG Gu1DE 10 CFR 40,65 4.14 FORMAT 0 MEETING WMUR COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION PROCEDURE NON-COMPLIANCE REPORTING NONE 30 DAYS AFTER DETERMINATION O PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 20 1

l i

REGULATORY GUIDANCE o ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM - R.G. 4.14

• +e-e o QUALITY ASSURANCE - R.G. 4.15 o DOSE CALCULATIONS - R.G. 802-4 o MILDOS CODE USER'S MANUAL l

l 1

l

- - - - - - - - - - , , -a -1 x ._...a.. , ,

- n... n. ..

4 ,o 0

. . - ~ ~ . - - -~~~--

19 igy w age ; e ad a n b

gP ei n ist .

cet u -

85 se N N h g'

i lililal M E l s$

l l

esBi m 8m a l l

l

i . . .

g . .

k .

.. s P

1.

'I .- .

.y

..i .- .

.V.> . ..

~

y

.. y..

l l

. . ;;. e .'. .

. .l{. .

..al *

. .~ * :. E *

....,f .

.4 , . ,

.= . :. .a '

-} =c .f.,. 4

. e, .' , . po ' . m ; ; + -

g . . .: .;. . . ,l hn

. . . ....= .: . :. . 1 . a-,.'

o m. :)v....1 k. gt*

- (.~z ?- .$ .w: ..u: .:n c y =. ; 'y,.. =4*. ~ ; .:-. ,

..t....,

1 ,

,~~** n'. & .;. ? ' G.* . . ; . .l .

g -

. Gu.1

. . .A.

.b:,. , . ' , i. . *1

. ..a g

....."..'*% -- ..g

. [ ,

a .

. . - . . . .g,.. . ..

m.g . C g. 4...-.. .j

. . , . .. . .......n.~... .p' e;.

. , . ~ s s. * , .: : *

• ,, j

. m,, l . u. . . ,

.. '."[* . , 'r

.} ...,~.g .,,.p

. . .v.

. . . . .. ..-,s, . .

. .. g,

,y . ; .. . .n _z. .. .. . .

.v . . .. . . ..,..,. .

. \

.t . . .

y n . . 4. .

c I M J. s L

. . ..i j.

1

y. .;

s

[ .

f ,- ,

{ .

a

., ,J y

g

. . ,. . \ . . ......

.~

. . \

. ,i .

\

l ...._;. .

~

i . , . ... .

> I ..

i - -

e p [ .. , , _ . . . .

.3 ,  : ,._.

t .c

i. .

/ .~

p - . . .

rn . . , .

.t . .

,a 3

g ,.n.-=~

, N.

~

.. q ..., . --G . . .

.m,.

........ ]r .... ,p e ..

n..

.r . .m '

. : . ., .c . . .:. . . . . .

l .. ..: .e... -

i-

~

%. .a # UNG.$ ' .

h e" -

ny

... _- .l_ .

y.yg

.( . .

...n...

m.. . .

. -aqs.  ; . ,y J mp.

w .. ,.

, y. '- .

. g . .

... . . a.

. M E. .=. . ...L

1. . ..., . . . .

cm.  :,.: C;z e _.

t ..

1

,.... ..=.. .

u. .

. . ...: . . n. ...,-l...,,.-.. . .. .

. . . r ; . . y.; , .

.:. . r .;,.;.- c. y . .. e

. .--a, w-

.,. . =}m : .~ .: .:= . . , .. ~ ' 4. . ..u,... .

...:s.,...-

. ~~, *-

...,u,-

. . - .. . ;,4

. . . .. ::. ,.:.n - A.e. . . . *y . . ,.

<.-..y . ,. _=v..

=_.;

e.. .= w .;. ,, .,,.

..-.x'. . .~;,;

.%~;,i:.3.,m.,._ ._,. .. n:

..m.c,; L....

-. .',... . . .. .. .. . . . , ..p. . . .

. ==.

..y..

gp t . .:. .  ; . n. a.

. . =. 4 .- ;- - l s. .. . e. , .

.m..e-- .;m .

.,.....x n 1

• . l l

i l f l, i

MINING

\

Pucommra.._m o [c+w ng

+

/

um m .4

L. ... . . . .

I ..

j

, i-l l MILD 05 COMPUTER CODE GENERATED 50-YEAR DOSE

, r 1

COMMITMENTS (in mrem) FROM TYPICAL MILL .

WHOLE BODY BONE LUNG i

i .

.D.1rg_ct Exp_osure Pathway - ' ~ - " ~ ~ ~'

. __ h _. ~ __ .

o Inhalation 0.173 5.21 7.78 i*

o External Gamma. 0.005 0.005 0. 005 -

Ingestion Exposure Pathway i

o Vegetable Intake (1) 0.712 8.60 0.71 3 o Meat Intake (2) 1.40 17.50 1,.40

', TOTAL 2. 30 31.3 ._9.90 -

t i

I

~

(1 ) Vegetables are assumed to $e grown in local gardens and the nearast resident' is assumed to consume only such

vegetables.

i (2) Meat ingestion was a.ssumed to be from locally grazed livestock.

l l

s.W.9 e

l I

i 1

- l ACTUAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM DATA FOR A TYPICAL MILL -

. l 1

LOCATION ANNUAL AVERAGE 50-YEAR DOSE COMMITMENT ,

CONCENTRATION (in mrem)  ;

pCi/m3 Whole  :

Body Bone Lung  !

Off-Site U-nat.~= 0.0142 0.0656 1.13 2.40 Nearest Ra-226 = 0.0080 0.247 2.47 52.9  ;

Residence - S Th-230 = 0.0085 1.41 50.6 27.4 .

Pb-210 = 0.0536 0.234 7.24 41.4 .

l TOTAL = 1.96 61 .4 124  ;

t i

Off' Site Nearest . t Residence - N U-n a t . = 0.0084 0.0388 0.667 1.42 l Ra-226 = 0.0052 0.1 61 1 .61 34.4 i Th-230 = 0.0031 0.515 18.4 9.98  !

Pb-210 = 0.0460 0.201 6.21 35.5 ,

. I TOTAL = 0.91 5 26.9 81 .3 [

l 1

h b

t

[  !

. f

(

I t

l l i l  !

O

J

~

j DOSE CONVERSION FACTORS FOR THE INHALATION OF AIRBORNE PARTICULATES (M1111 Rem per pCi/m3)*

. -- . . m Radionuclide Body, Bone Lung U-238 4.32 79.2 158 U-234 4.92 79.5 180 U-natural 4.62 79.4 ,169 Th-230 166 5950 3220 Ra-226 30.9 309 6110 P b- 210 4.36 135 772 Po-210 0.47 1.92 420 I

i L

7, [ f a

• The 50-year dose commitment for each year of exposure to 1 pCi/m 3 of each radionuc1'.de for an adult breathing rate of 20 m3/ day. Particle size of 1.55 pm AMAD (i .e., mean '

diameter of 1 pm and density of 2.4 g/cm3) being representative -

of uranium ore. The Quality Factor for alpha radiations is 10. -l The total dose per organ is the summation of doses due to each  !

radionuclide. (Regulatory Guide RH#802-4).  !

[

i

EXAMPLE EMP MODIFICATIONS

,_ ... _ . . . . . _ . . . . ~ ~ ~~' -~ ~ ~ ~ "--~ ~ ~ - --

0 INVENTORY OF SOURCES 0 IDENTIFY MINING AREAS, ORE STORAGE PADSs TRANSPORTATION ROUTES, ETc, 0 ESTABLISH SUPPLEMENTAL AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLING STATION O SHORT IERM SAMPLING 0 LIMITED ANALYSIS ,

O CORRELATION OF METEORLOGIC L D TA 0 REVIEW DATA O RE-EVALUATION OF DOSE ESTIMATES G

i m m, D

l 1

t i

~

PRELIMINARY DATA COMPOSITE 50-YEAR DOSE COMMITMENTS TO THE INDIVIDUAL RECEIVING MAXIMUM EXPOSURE, FOR ONE YEAR, FOR EACH MILLING FACILITY Composite Dose Commitments, mrem Date and Whole Method of

, Facili ty - Body Bone Lung Dose prediction Reference _ ,

1 2.4 74.8 34.6 January .1979,' . FES NUREG-0453 o

. UDAD and HERMES Table 4.4 Codes 2 486 6.14 .782 July 1979, IEA Table 4 MILDOS Code (REF H) 3 1.22 15.0 6.83 September 1980, Appendix 6 MILD 05 Code l 4 .799 17.5 22.3 September 1980 Appendix 2

MILDOS Code I

5 2.37 16.0 3.22 May 1979, UDAD FES NUREG-0556 Code Table 4.6

, 6 .0081 .0831 .038 July 1979, MILDOS

• Appendix 6 Code l

. 7 1.58 22.7 9.2 September 1980, Appendix 1 i MILDOS Code

! 8 . 91 4 14.5 9.34 September 1980, Appendix 3 MILDOS Code l ,

9 .709 10.4 5.35 September 198b, Appendix 4 i MILDOS Code 10 1,57 8.98 8.09 July 1979, UDAD FES NUREG-0583, Code Table 4.5 11 1.96 45.0* 61 .1 * ,

, September 1980*, Appendix 5 l' MILDOS Code 4

12 0.97 1 .81 12.4 '

July 1980, MILCOS FES NUREG-0702 i Code Table 4.6 13 .08 .34 .28 February 1979, UDAD FES NUREG-0532, and HERMES Codes Table 4.2 L

! 14 2.0 11.5 24.2 February 1980, UDAD FES NUREG-0639 and HERMES Codes Table 4.9

)

• Based on overestimate of source tems in initial computer run. Being rerun; expect at least 50% reduction in estimated levels.

9

PRELIMINARY DATA DIRECT EXPOSURE AND INGESTION EXPOSURE PATHWAYS DOSE COMMITMENTS FOR EACH MILLING FACILITY

~

Direct Exposure Ingestion Exposure Dose Commitment, mrem Location Dose Commitment, mrei Location of Individual Corresponding

. Receiving Maximum Whole Fict11ty Direct- Excosure Oose Body Bone Lung Nghh*0ose Body Bone Lung 1 8 km E 2.0 74.4 29.6 Grazing 2.7 km .4 .4 5.0

._ SE-Neat __.

2 716 km NE .020 .373 .316 Veg.+ Grazing .466 5.77 .466

. 1.4 km NE-Meat 3 4.3 km NE .107 3.26 5.72 Grazing, .5 km 1.11 11.7 1.11 W

4 .55 km WNW .421 12.8 21 .9 Grazing 1.24 km .378 4 .71 .378 NE-Meat 5 4.5 km NNE 1.03 1.99 1.88 4.5 km NNE-Veg + 1.34 14.0 1.34 1.9 km N-Meat

• 6 35 km NE .0021 .0071 .032 Grazing 2.5 km .006 .076 .006 NE-Meat 7 3.1 ENE .179 5.22 7.79 Grazing 1.9 km 1.4 17.5 1.4 NE-Meat 8 4.8 km E .176 5.24 8.6 Grazing 1.81 km NNW-Meat .738 9.21 .738 9 3.2 km S . 0 91 2.77 4.73 Grazing 1.68 km .618 7.65 .61 8 NE-Meat 10 5.6 km N .830 4.31 7.35 4.2 km .738 7.67 .738' SSW Meat + Veg 11 2.5 km NW 1.11 34.3* 60.2* Grazing .4 km SE .852 10.7* .852; 12 8.7 km NE .03 .65 .87 Veg. + 1.4 km 0.94 11.7 0.94i ENE-Meat 13 10 km N .06 . 08 '

.26 Veg. + 13 km .02 .26 .02 I' NW-Meat i 14 2 km N Unavailable Veg. + grazing Unavailable 2.7 km ENE-Meat

• Based on overestimate of source tenns in initial ' computer run. Bei'ng terunt expect l at least 50%. reduction. in estimated levels. -

l

?

l .

I e

t

~

. }A81[ 2 .

SPERAllellAL SA514t0GICAL lEttl10dligra P90 GENI 108 tRAHital Illit5 . -

lype of sample 5esple Collectica Sample Analvslo type of Ihaber localles tiethod Ireveary frequency Analysis '

Stuf5 .

Particulates one for Yelleucate dryer Isettnetic quarterly Eech sample statural uraaliel each stack and pachaelag stack (s) 1h-2M,54-226, and th-214 ff not avall-

. able from other seesrces.

Ileasure stack flew rate seelanmually.

Particulates ene for 8ther stacks Barresenta- 5esta - ally Each sample slateral areales each stack Live grah Ik-2 M , Ba-226. and Ph-214. Measure stack ilaw.

Als Particulates ihreIe localless at er near Centiamous I *I Weekly filter change. Quarterl cespeelle, llatestal enraalue, the site bounderles and or mere frequently as bylocatfee of Ba-226, th-2M. -

la different sectors required by dust weeklysaaples and Ph-216 ,

that have the highest leadlag ,

predicted concentra-t tiens of alrherme .

g particulates(h), .

See or At the nearest resi- Continuous Weekly illter cl.ange, quarterly campostle, llatural eraalam, more deace(s) er occuplable er more fregisently by locallea, of Ea-226. Th-2 M ,

structure (s) as reqastred by dust weekly samples and Ph-218 leading See Centrol location (s)I*I Continuous Weekly filter chanee. Ituarterly cesposite. llatural uraalise, i

er mere frequently by Iscation, of pa-226, th-2M, l as required by alust weekly samples and th-218 leading ,

saden Cas five er Same locatleas as for Continuous At least one week per bathly On-222 i aere air particialates or at least calendar month repre-i one week ggy seating p almately *

! per meath the same Perled each month WAlfR j Grossad Wter Ihree er leydrologically deue Grah Ikuithly (first year) Meathly (first year) Sisselved natural more gradleat and rela- fluarterly (after llisarterly (after first uraalta.34-226 Lively close to the ggy first year) year) Th-2M, -

taillags lap - hant and Pe-21 e{le, At least Hydrologically egs Grah quarterly gestrierly Dissolved natural one con- gradient (i.e., nat uranlaan Ea-226 trol sample Infliacaced by seepage Th-2 M , Ph-218 from taillegs) , and re-218 O

i s -

IAttf 2 (Continued) '

OtidAllalt4L BA010(0GICAL 1511elleelhG P90GuMI 10E IdMiltal illlL5 lype of iample Sample Collectlen 5asele Analysis lype of thmber iocaLten it.Iheel Irequency Irequency Analysis one free fa b well used for .Grah Quarterly quarterly- 80ssolved and each well drinking water er . suspended natural

• watering of Ilve- eeranlass, Ea-226 stack et crops within ih-238 Ph-218, 2 La of the tallings and Pe-2tS lapeundsent surface idater Tue free Surface waters passlag Grah quarterly Quarterly Olsselve.1 and -

each water through the allt site suspended natural

! hedy or offsite surface uranissa, Na-226, waters that are sufft- lb-234,Pb-2l8, ciently close to the and Po-210(91 site to be sideject to .

sierface dralmage from potentially contael-nated areas or that ,

could he influenced by seepagefreetheLajl-Inds disposal area.sh) f-ene sample cellected ign-streas of mill site and I

one sample collected at' '

time downstrees site -

houndary er at a Isca-tien lamediately de w streas of locatlen of -

potential Influence . -

ene frea large water topound- Grah quarterly quarterly Bissolved and each water meets (i.e., takes, suspended natural

'hedy reservelrs) near the uranium,84-226, mill site that are ** 230, Pb-218 sufficiently close and Pe-210 I to the site to be sash-ject te dralmage free >

patentially contaelnated

• areas er that could he -

influenced by seepage free the tallings disposal area.

WGilAllott, f 000,  !

Me i1518 .

Veuetation gg ihree er f ree anloal graalms Grah ihree times ehering ' Esch , sample Ea-226 and Pb-21e er Israge more areas near time mill graslag season ..

site la the directles of the klebest predicted , , ,'

alaberne radianiscllde l

concentraliens

__ _ - -----__.__._ ,__ , - - ~ _ < _ _ - - - - , - ---,, e- . , . , , , - - - - -

-w ---- - - ,n, - _ _ _ _ _ - - . _ . _

IASIE 2 (CantinueJ)

SMEAllaldt RAD 1010GICAL lelell10EllG PeoGit#l ISE tRANital MIL 15 Iype of Sample Sample Collectlea Sample Analysis Type of Ihaber lacelloa leethed frequency frequency. Analysis feed ihree of. Crops, livestect, etc. Crah Ilse of harvest Once Ra-226 and each type raised withla 3 ha of er slaughter Pts-238 mill site Iish Each body tellecties of fish Erab Sealamanally Tulce Ra-226 et mter (if any) from lanes, ~

and Pb-218 rlwers, and streams la the site environs that may be sidiject to seepage or direct surface runoff free potentially contaal- .

aaled areas or that could be affacted by a tallines tapeand- .

ment failure -

Salt Ale 5fBildlti I Soil five er Same as for Grab Annually Annually ' llatural uranium ,

f amore air partic-g) ,

Ra-226.andPb-Ils

a. ulate samples 5ediment one er Same as surface Grab Annually . Annually ,

Natural uraalus, two free water samples (*) lb-230. Ea-226 each water and th-210 beEy .

BlH CI RADIAll001 Five er Sees as for air Coatinuous quarterly change quarterly Gamma espesure more particulate samples passive la- of passive desla- rate tegratlag eters elevice e

O e

q e 4 .

feminates for Tables I and 2:

(a) Cantinesmus callectlea means centionseme sampler operaties with filter change weekly or es rese Ired by dust leadlag. editchever is see's freepsest.

(b) the term "aearest' as used here seems the locatlam with the highest predicted airberme radleauclide concentratless aberlag allllag operalleas. ^

I (c) Care should he laten -In selectles af she costrel sempilag loca'lless se that it is representative of the site tsadillons. Im general, a loca-Llea la the least prevalent wind directlea from the site should provide a suitable location for a costeel sampling slie.

• (d) Various methods are acceptable; for esamples (1) Continneous cellectlen of a gaseous air sample with samples helas changed aheest every 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> for a 1 week perleJ er (2) centlinseins sampling.

(e) If the sample costales appreciable suspended material, it should he filtered as seen as pensible fellowing cellecties threisgh a membrane filter and the filtrate acidtfled to 11 hydrochloric acid.

(f) the localles of time eromeJ water sampling wells shoestd he eletermined by a hyalrological analysis of tlee potential anvenant of seepage free the taillags disposal area. In general, the objective is to place monitor wells la all directions areened the taillags area with the espliasis em the dewa gradleaL localleas.

(g) Surf ace-water samples to he analysed for disselved and suspended fonctless shoeste be flltered'as seen as pessible following cellectless flereugli a membrane filter and the flitrate acidified le 11 hydrochloric acid.

(h) natural dralmage systems (dry washes) that carry seerface tienett from the site follewlsig a precipitallen event shoestd be sampled following the event but at a frespaesecy met greater than aanthly. ,

(1) lhe milllas area refers to the area that locleados are storage pads, allt hulldleigs, ased other processlag etees.

(j) theimeliailnescent desleeters shoeste costala two er more chips or otheswise provide for two rqadings per espessere period (see segulatory .

8- Guide 4.I3).

(t) Surface sell samples alieseld he collected inslag a coasistemt techalapse to a depth of 5 ca.

f r

• • (I) Subsurface sell prellte samples should be cellected to a depth of one meter. Samples sheiste be divleled late three espaal sectless for analysis. .

(e) Several samples shoestd he collected at each location and composited for a representative sample.

(a) Ba. lea aakalatlea measaarements shoesid met be takea eherlag perleds when the grossad is fraten er covered with ice er saew or fellowles perleds of rain. IL is receanended that these measurements he Laten la the spring through the fall durlseg permal weather condilleas.

(a) Vegetallen er ferap saepilag need be carried east only it dose calceslattens lasilcate that the lagestion pathway free grastag amtmals Is a patentially significant espesuse patinsay (an empesure patinsay should be considered luportant if the predicted dose to en leadividual wenstd eaceed 5% of the appl cable radiation protectlen standard).

~

9 O.

I e

I e

_____m__ _ _ . _ _ __ _ _ . _ - -_____m._.-_. _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ __ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _

1. 5 TAtit )I*I SA M LE IONHAI ISS REP 08IlllG RMillotlelG BAIA .

1. SlyKSAMPM ,

for euh sample analysed, report the following informalleer

a. Sate saeple was cellected

b. location of semple cellectJoe

c. Stack flow rate (e*/sec)

• Concentration Error Estlaate(b) Release Este Error Estimate llSI *I g Badlem cIlde f El/st L fill /el) (Cl/ar) (Cl/er) jsEI/st) 5 FC *3 u mat th-234 s

na-226 Pb-21e ,

2. Ain 5AMi[5 for exh sample analysed, report the fellowing leformatlou

,s- 4. Cate sample was cellected

• i p b. Intetlon of sample cellectlen E Concentration Error Estimate 118 Radlanuclide (pCl/eQ_ ( El/el) (pCl/st)  % HPC u nal Ih-210 ,

Ra-226 Pb-218 -

En-222

• I lhls table Illustrates format only. It is met a complete list of data to be reported. (See tent of guide and Imbles I c.ed 2.)

(b)frror ostimate should be calculated at SSI sancertainly level, based on all sources of randes errer, not merely countingyrror.

Signift.aat systematic error should be reported separately. See Sectimas 6.1, 7.1.4, and 7.3.

I'I All calculatleas of lower limits of detectiea (118) and percentages of maalaus permissible concentraties (WC) shoeild be lacluded as stwierental informallee.

4 6 8

e IAetE 3 (Continued)

I 5AfertE feeMAT fee BErosilleE Estil3elleG BAIA I

3. IlQuis SAMPLES f or each sample analysed, report the fellenlag leformatles:

e *

a. e.a. sample mes cellected

6. tocasia. ef sample callecties -

j c. Type of sample (for seamples surface, ground, draakine, stock, or irrigation)

Concentraties Error Estimate 118 IU_Il'Il saJianuclide hil/ ell 6.Cl/el) C u sat (dissolved) u nat (suspended)I I th-23e (dissolved) th-238 (suspended)IdI ,

sa-226 (dissolved) sa-226 (suspended)IdI I rb-21e (disseleed)

.E th-218 (suspended)Idl -

re-218 (dissolved) re-280 (suspended)I I .

4. WGLI AII0el. IOos. AIS Fl5N 5AHPtES s er each sample esalysed, report the felleulme latere4Llos:

a. Date sample was cellected

b. locatlea of sample cellectima

c. type of sample and partl*m analysed Concentration Error Estimate lit saJtenuclide 6.Cl/km met) hil/te) hil/6g}

u nat th-238 es-226 Pb-2ie . ,

l'a-218 .

m t all samplas must be analysed for suspended radienuclides. See Sectlene 1.2 and 2.2 of this galde.

I

, JAalE_](ComtInmed)

SAMPl[ f0AMM TOR BLP08IllE 191111108116 BAIA

5. Soll AIO $1BIHfNT 1AHrt(5 f or ead sample emelyzed, report the following lasersallees.

a. hate semple tsas cellected

b. tocallen of semple callection

c. Iype of sample and partien saalysed Concentraties Error Estimate  !!B -

Radleruellde ( El/a) (all/a) {sil/el U aat 18-230 En-226 Pb-210 re-210 ,

6. DIR1CI RAfsIAll006 MA50RfMful5 s

L f or each measurement, report the dates covered by the esasurement and the fellowla0 laternation:

f- .

C Espesure Rate Error Estlaate l eg at lee (sR/gr) (sE/er)~

7. RADON f(UM NfA$lefM MIS f or each measurement, report flea dates covered by the measurement and the following laformaties:

flue Error Estimate localleg {pCl/e8 sec) j oCl/e n. .c}

4 b

= $

J

- -. . _ ._ _ _ . . . . _ -s 9.

.y _

3 .4. . . .

m.

.._,,.-r, ,.- ..

b

,=

19 )

m ^ ,

~

, 11 . i

.. ,,6 t .

. J

.- . . l

..- .t b

r. . . .... . : .- ._- .

COMPLIA.NC5 DETdRMINATION PROCEDURES FOR-

-. _ 2

. c. .

.~ .

_.n..........

.

ENVIRONMENTAL, RADIATION PROTECTION - C -. J .

~ .- * . .. ..:. .. .,u . . . :-

. ,. ;.?. ,,.:. -1;r.. . r'.n_.'

. ~

~~

j. . . ". " , ,

. . . .. N. . .. .

STANDAROS FOR URANIUM RECOVERY FACILITIES .,-

~

f. .

40 CFR 190 i

t ,

. s

t. . .

,-e

-- c -

. g: ..

..s .

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission m._ . -. .

Division of Waste Management c: .

Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch E

?

November, 1980-8 .

• a

. Su %M # , g 4

'-.[..t f

Title:

Compliance Determination Procedures for Environmental Radiation ,

. Protection Standards for Uranium Recovery Facilities - 40 CFR 190

[.-

' Background *

['

. - [-

Un'd$r Title 40 Code of Federal'Resulations Part 190 - Subchapter F $--

Radiation Protection Programs, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 1 promulgated " Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear.

Power Operations" which provides limits for the radiation deses received by members of the public in the general environment as the result of operations which are part of the nuclear fuel cycle. Effective December 1, 1980, each uranium milling facility

• shall conduct its operations in such a manner to assure that the annual radiation dose equivalent of 25 millirems to the whole body, 75 millirems to the thyroid, and 25 millirems -

to any other organ of any member of the public is not exceeded. However, .

.the dose from radon and its daughters is excluded from these doses. The .

following discussion briefly describes the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Is (HRC) program for compliance detemination for uranium recovery facilities.

In April,1980, the NRC published a proposed amendment to 10 CFR Part 20

" Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations" and will shortly finalize this amendment which requires that a NRC licensee shall comply with 40 0FR 190. This program is also meant to ,

serve as guidance: for the Agreement States in their implementation of 40 CFR 190.

As illustrated by radiological assessments perfomed in the uranium

-+

milling generic environmental impact statement,(GEIS), 40 CFR 190 compliance will be achieved only by strict emission controls at the mill. The most significant sources of emissions are the c ilings ponds / piles and the yellowcake dryer stacks. The NRC has made strict emission control a specific license condition in its licensing activities over the past several years; and it has been an NRC requirement that  ?

cxposure limits be met by emission controls to the maximum extent reas.onably achievable. Such emission control requirements are contained in the May,1977 NRC staff position on " Tailings Management Performance Objectives" l and in the final regulations on uranium milling issued in the Federal Register on October 3, 1980. A copy of the criteria in these regulations covering emission controls is attached as Appendix B. Certainly land use control, e.g., expanding the buffer zone around a mill site, cannot exclusively be used as a substitute for reducing actual emissions from the various milling processes. The primary means of meeting exposure i limits must be by emission control. l l

1

" "All uranium extraction facilities; to include mills, in-situ operations and heap leach facilities. .(R&D facilities are not included here sin'ce initial assessments indicate that their si:e and potential radiological

impact are insignificant; e.g., R&D in-situ operations. in general have no airborne particulate releases.)

l i

. 1

~ -

l There are inhedn't problems in accurately detennining source terms, I

particularly from large area sources such as the tailings impoundments. -

Also, there are significant uncertainties in the atmospheric transport i models used to compute' airborne radioactivity concentrations given a source term, particularly where there is irregular terrain. Therefore, the primary means of detennining compliance must be by measurements made at the point of receptor and the procedures outlined below reflect this.

On the other hand, compliance cannot reasonably be determined and corrective action taken where necessary, by inflexibly and rigidly considering point of receptor data alone. Therefore, environmental measurements' at.

other locations near the mill and at background locations, effluent sampling, meteorologic data, and other similar. information must be avtilable to supplement point of receptor data. Such supplemental information is required most in cases where computed doses approach or exceed the limit. Other monitoring data will be necessary, for example...

to screen out effects of mines that may be nearby and may be contributing to dose.

By no means will the mere assertion that.the mill operations utilize emission controls suffice to show compliance to 40 CFR 190 exposure l imi ts. The licensee must provide some supportable dose assessments based on actual environment:1 monitoring data which 'are compatible with the procedures discussed below. .

Procedure -

The ultimate goal of this program is, to establish a standardized procedure which will be used to assess compliance subsequent to the establishment of each licensee's Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP). It will realistically require as much as a year's worth of effluent and environmental monitoring to firmly establish whether compliance exists at mills which '

are close to the limit or where there are significant nearby sources of radioactive emissions such as mines, which are not covered by the standard.

Much of this time will be spent on the fine tuning of the monitoring and analysis program that is normally required in setting up such programs to assure they are operating properly and producing reliable data. It will also take some time to sort out the contributions being made by other sources. This may require some short-ter n, special environmental l measurements. Special studies of the effectiveness of selected emission '

control measures may be required. These evaluations may be supplemented by computer assessments as needed and appropriate.

~

Eventually, it is. anticipated that concentration and dose action levels (which may even be higher than 25 millirems accounting for contributions from other sources) wil.1 be established in combination with specific control measures and levels as the threshold for determining compliance with the standard. This will reduce costs of implementation, eliminate l O

e

._g

[ . . _ . . . _ _ . . . . . . . . _ _ _ . __

1 j .

~'

. ./ .

uncertainty on,the part of the licensee, regulatory agency and the public ( .

sources)particularly

, and assure that in cases the need where for there remedial areaction significant extraneous '

is identified'. )

, most expeditiously if it exists.

~l - l l i moMtoring data is available, which is the siduation i

Before environmental .

I in licensing of new facilities or in authorizing significant modification  !

' to existing ones, predictive models must be utilized to evaluate the potential impacts of the prospective new. uperations. Use of predictive models, in addition to consideration of what limited envimnmental data -

exists, is also being used by the staff in the initial 40 CFR 190 implementation efforts in December of 1980.. Predictive modeling assessments of radioactivity concentrations to which nearby individuals may be exposed involve l making numerous assumptions and simplifications about important, but l

, frequently. uncertain, factors such as mill releases and atmospheric transport; for this reason, as discussed above, actual compliance detennNation l

will be based on environmental monitoring data which indicate directly what such concentrations are. Predictive models, however, are necessary i and valuable tools in evaluating what emission controls are likely necessary, in identifying potential problem areas, and in establishing

• environmental monitoring requirements. ,

The following describes the procedures which shall 'be foll' owed in (A) determining compliance with 40 CFR 190 based on environmental monitoring data, and (B) assessing proposed operations in term of their

. ~~ " ability to meet 40 CFR 190.

A. Assessment of Actual Environmen'tal Monitorino Data Figure 1 "40 CFR 190 Complian,ce Detennination Procedure" shows a diagram of the various steps to be followed to ultimately assure /

compliance to 40 CFR 190 for all licensing applications.

1. Each licensee shall establish an Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP) consistent with NRC's Regulatory Guide 4.14,

" Radiological Effluent and Environmental Monitoring at Uranium Mills" (April 1980). This document provides specific details

. for both a pre-operational and the operational monitoring programs which are considered adequate by the staff to obtain j the necessary infomation to be used by the licensee to estimate the maximum potential annual radiation dose to any member of the general public as a result of actually measured mill effluent releases. In order to establish such an acceptable- ,

EMP, each applicant / licensee shall be required to: i

a. Develop 'an EMP and submit a plan to the NRC' for review  ;

and approval- Such a plan shall include specific details 4

of the number, location, collection method (i.e. , equipment), j sampling frequency and analysis information for all  ;

I l

I

+___.__.___.._.___ -

r

! 1 Fli;uRE 1 110 CFR 190 .

v. .

COMPLIANCE DETERMINATlotl PROCEDURE .

(BASED Oil ACTUAL EllVIR011MEll'!AL MONITORING DATA) ,

i i

i .

EMP ESTAnLiSu A *M# # '

Ree0RTs ~

El1P COMPLIAllCE fl0 CFR 190 .

^

~

I ASSESSMEllT COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION g

s t V PLAtl DEVELOPED DATA flRC PROJECT .

BY APPLICAllT/ 6ATilERED BY MANAGER l_ i C EllSE E LiCEllSEE REVIEW . ,

I u v v ,

APPROVAL DOSES COMPLIANCE LICENSEE VARIAtlCES AtD l.lCErlSE CALCULATED DETERMINED CORRECTIVE REVIEHED/

AMEtIDf1EllT ACTION LICENSE IDENTIFIED AMENDMEllT l v LICENSE I

REPORT AMENDMENT F11P SUBMITTED 2 OPERAT10tlAL _

DOCUMENTATION

. _ _ IN ANNUAL:  :

IKl: .

REPORT lilSPECTI0tt _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. . = . . ,, . .

, 1

. sample types (e.g., air particulate, radon /WL, stack -

- samples, surface and ground waters, vegetation, food, .

fish, soil, and direct -adiation). For each site (in'cluding' -

existing mills), at least one year of site specific .

meteorological data; e.g., wind speed and direction, .

stability class, etc. , shall be collected, sunnarized, and reported. A site map, including all affected off- .

I r site areas, showing each point of sample collection shall '

also be provided. Participation in a Quality Assurance Program (QAP) as described in NRC's Regulatory Guide i

4.15 " Quality Assurance Programs for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations) -Effluent Streans and the Environment" (February 1979) shall also be discussed in

$he EMP plan.

'Upon NRC's rev'iew and approval, the EMP shall be added to b.

the license and any subsequent change or modifica. tion of the approved EMP shall require that a specific license amendment be initiated by. the licensee.

c. The EMP plan shall provide a time schedule providing.the date when each phase of the EMP will 'become- operational.

For new license applicants, at least one year of pre-operational nonitoring shall be required.c For existing facilities, a realistic time schedule shall be implemented; however, all phases of the EMP shall be operational within 120 days of NRC's approval of the EMP plan.

d. The NRC's.0ffica of Inspection and Enforcement shall conduct periodic: on-site inspections of both the actual '

environmental me nitoring systems / locations, as well as '

all reports and records of such an EMP to ensure that .the actual operations of the EMP are within the approved EMP license condition.

2. Each licensee shall provide an EMP report every six months, as required in 10 CFR 40.65, " Effluent Monitoring Reporting -

Requirements." The report should contain the specific information as outlined in Section 7 " Recording and Reporting Results" of NRC's Regulatory Guide 4.14, suora.

3. As a license condition, each license shall be required to.- .

submit, in conjunction with its every six months EMP report (EMPR), its own 40 CFR 190 compliance assessment for NRC review and action, as described below.

s

u_._.........____.. . .. _ _ . . . -_ -

f. y* .

-5 .. .

~

a. 'Such an assessment shall be based on data gathered by the'

' licensee from the approved EMP as discussed above. Such '

data gathering shall include a semiannual survey of. land -

use (i.e., residences, grazing, water wells, etc.) in the area within 8 km (5 miles) of the mill. Any difference in land use from that previously reported shall be discussed ,

and evaluated with respect to 40 CFR 190 compliance.- In order to minimize records keeping and formal reporting requirements, while still maintaining a reasonable and

' timely review of the EMP, annual averages based on the immedia?.e past two consecutive six month reporting periods shall be used.for the compliance assessment and reporting requirements.

b. Dose evaluation using site specific input parameters .

shall be complet2d using the standardized procedures *

• delineated in Attachment A " Dose Calculational Guidance",

. which are based on NRC's draft Regulatory Guide RH!802-4,

" Calculational Models for Estimating Radiation Doses to Man from Airborne Radioactive Materials Resulting from Uranium Milling Operations". These attached tables are provided to allow the rapid dose calculational assessme'nt of environmental monitoring data. Variatidns in specific assumptions made in Attachment A will be c.onsidered by the staff'upon request. .

c. As necessary, a licensee shall indicate in the report what corrective action is being taken if non-compliance

. is determined. Each licensee shall complete its initial

, 40 CFR 190 compliance assessment and shall submit its EMP report for NRC review'and approval prior to January 1, .

1982; and subseouently withing 60 days after January 1 and July 1 of each year thereafter, so long as the license .

is active.

4. Once each year, the NRC shall review and complete its own independent determination of each licensee's EMPR and 40 CFR ,

. 190 compliance assessment. Such a review shall consider the influence of extraneous sources (e.o. , mining and transportation activities) and any anomalous data {e.g., the indication of erroneous data generated during sample collection or sample ,

analysis).

l

a. The NRC Project Manager (PM) shall review all submittals, i and shall primarily be responsible for all approvals, .

license amendments and verification of 40 CFR 190 compliance..  !

e f

. y . - . __. . _ . _ . - . _ . . _ _ .

t h-.- . _ . . .-_ . . . . _ _- _ .. _ _ .. .

[ ,,

i. Upon determination of compliance to 40 CFR 190, the PM will document such findings via a brief Memorandum l

to File (standardized form memo) for the subject .

i license within 30 days of receipt of reports submitted .

under3(c)..

ii. Upon determination of non-compliance to 40 CFR 190, the PM shall assure that the licensee take any .

. -necessary corrective actions and shall issue specific license amendments as required to accomplish this. r iii. The PM shall review any variance request per 40 CFR 190.11, and shall initiate. appropriate licensing action as -

required. The EPA shall be notified whenever a variance is granted. ,

iv. The WMUR PM for 40 CFR 190 Compliance assessment

- shall issue a brief annual report sternarizing the results of the individual license compliance reviews.

This report shall also consider the cumulative dose to any member of the population due to exposure from releases from multiple mill facilities, in the general area. The EPA shall be provided with'a copy of this summary report for their review and cormient.  :

5. The PM shall periodically review and. evaluate the EMP, EMP reports, and 40 CFR 190 compliance assessments, and shall eliminate any requirements that experience shows to be nonessential or shall require specific actions necessary to show compliance.

- For example, if the airborne concentration measurements show

• that there is no need to continue radium-225, thorium-230 or 1ead-210 analyses, then such requirements shall be elimiria,ted from the EMP. Effort will be made to streamline the periodic compliance assessment effort by prescribing specific concentration levels which, based on experience and in combination with other readily observable parameters related to mill operations and local land use, could be relied upon to determine compliance.

B. Predictive Modeline Figure 2 "NRC 40 CFR 190 Assessment of Prospective Milling Operations" shows a diagram of the various steps to be followed by the NRC ,

Project Manager in licensing reviews.

1. All existing data, e.g. , source. terin, environmental monitoring data, land use, population distribution, meteorology, etc. ,

shall be gathered and reviewed by the NRC Project Manager (PM).

6

- . _ . . - - - .- ,.-, - n . - - . . - , . , -

., 7 -

s

- t'

2. The NRC PM shall complete an independent radiological assessment to 40 CFR 190 compliance based on predictive modeling using methodology as described in Regulatory Guide RH!802-4. -

3. These assessments shall be documented in the Environmental -

Impact Statement (EIS) or environmental appraisal conducted in

. support of the licensing action. These assessments shall consider the cumulative dose to any member of the population due to exposure from releases from multiple mill facilities in '

the general area.

l 4

9 ,

O e

4 t

t b

i

.e

m.;_ _: ' .. ,

O

~

, 1 e

l 1

{l ge

~

g m e d * -

m*

E t 1 s E Esg$

EEls3 2 .

2$.

5 EES

/L b~

WW ._.

gu5 .

~M*

8$ 55 d

ww g- .

_. h$9 g.

b. , g A

{&.

95 a Dh 85 e g d

e 5 c- s a w a gg 4 m e --+ -w Em se - -

E, g2 me gem eb $

u as B v w ta ;= 5 c_ _.

a

=c gb ma m 8 b

l APPENDZX A Attachment A

Dese Calculational Guidance ,

The estimated dose' received by any member of the general population shall be  :

calculated based on the applicable potentia.1 exposure of the nearest resident in the off-site area surrounding the mill site. The total dose shall be the sum of the external exposure (i.e. , due to radiation sources outside the body) and of the internal exposure (i.e. , radioactive materials within the body) as follows:

1. External Radiation Exposure - .  ;

The direct radiation exposure may be assumed to be equal to .

the actual personal or environmental dosimetric data less .

. the appropriate background contribution. ,

1 Internal Radiation Exposure -

2,  ;

~

The total dose to organs (e.g., lung, bone, whole body, 6tc.) .' -

shall be evaluated based on summing all applicable human pathways, such as: ,

a. Inhalation of Airborne Particolates -  ;

The measured airborne concentration multiplied by the '

dose conversion factors as given in Table A-1. '

b. Ingestion of Contaminated Food and Milk -

The measured concentration in the food product multipled by the dose conversion factor as given in Table A-2(a) through (c).

c. Ingestion of Meat or Milk from 1.ivestock Grazing on Contaminated Vegetation -

The measured concentration in vegetation (e.g., grasses in grazing areas) multiplied by the dose conversion factor as given in Table A-3(a) and (b).  ;

d. Ingestion of Contaminated Water -

The measured concentration in potable water multiplied [

by the dose conversion factor as given in Table A-4. ,

l 1

I  ;

u. .. - - . -

i ..

- 2-

e. Ingestion of Meat'or' Milk from Livestock Watered on ' *'.

Contaminated Water -

The measured concentration in water used by livestock for watering purposes multiplied by the dose conversion factor as given in Table A-5(a) and (b).

If any of the human exposure pathways as given above are not in evidence at a mill site, then that dose contribution obviously does not need to be considered here. The total dose for each critical organ shall be ,

obtained by summing the dose due to each radionuclide of the uranium decay chain series (i .e. , uranium, radium-225, thorium-230, lead-210, and polonium-210) and through each pathway, i.e., inhalation plus external exposure plus any applic'able ingestion pathways. However, the dose due to the inhalation pathway shall be of primary concern, with the ,

other pathways providing supplemental information regarding possible exposure.*

Additionally, a thorough evaluation of background conditions must be completed so that any contribution due to the mill operations (i.e., value measured at point of receptor less applicable background level) may be adequately assessed.

The point of receptor data must be reviewed in connection with other environmental and effluent monitoring data, and other appropriate information or assessment tools (such as computer modeline where this may be helpful). in cases'where extraneous '

sources may cause calculated doses to exceed the M CFR 190 limits or where ancmalous data may be encountered.

e O

q. . '.. , 1.; _.__ .

f

. . g)

Table A-1 -

Dese Conversion Factors (Mil 11 for theper Rem Inhalatiog)*of pCi/m Airborne Particulates Whole -

Radionuclide Body Bone Luna U-238 4.32 79.2 158 .

U-234 4.92 79.5 180 Th-230 166 5950 3220 Ra!-226 30.9 309 6610 Pb-210 4.36 135 772 Po-210 0.47 1.92 420

• The 50-year dose cgninitment for each year of . '

,,, exposure to 1 pCi/m4 of each radionuclide for an .

' adult breathing rate of 20 m 3/ day. Particle si:e mean diameter of 1 um and  ;

of 1.55 of density um 2.4AMAD g/cm (i.k,being representative of  :

uranium ore. The Quality Factor for alpha radia-tiens.is 10. The total dose per organ is the summation of doses due to each radionuclide.

(Regulatory Guide RHf802-4).

l-Y l

i S

s I

~

i

\ h a

L~,.-..... . .. . .-

, o

[ -

1 .

Tabis A-2(a) /

) Oose Converson' Factors for Ingestion of Contaminated Meat ~

(HilliRemper[I)*

Radionuclide Whole Body Bone Liver Kidney U-238 3.55 E-03 6.01 E-02 0.0 1.37 E-02 U-234 4.05 E-03 ,

6.55 E-02 0.0 1.56 E-02 Th-230 4.46 E-03 1.61 E-01 9.16 E-03 4.42 E-02 Ra-226 3.60 E-01 3.60 E+00 4.49 E-04 1.28 E-02 ,.

Pb-210 4.26 E-02 1.20 E'00 3.42 E-03 9.63 E-01 Po-210 7.01 E-03 2.79 E-02 ,5. 92 E-02 1.97 E-01

'The 50-year dose commitment for each year of ingestfon of contaminate'd meat. The above factors correspond to an adult ingestion rate of 78.3 kg/yr of meat (beef, poultry, pork, mutton). (Regulatory. Guide RHf802-4) .

l

Table A-2(b)

Dose Conversion Factors for Ingestion of Contaminated Edible Vegetation *'

(Millirem per g)

Radionuclide Whole Body Bone Liver ,

Kidney U-238 2.38 E-03 4.03 E-02 0.0 9'.19 E-03 .

U-234 2.71 E-03 4.39 E-02 0.0 1.04 E-02 Th-230 2.99 E-03: 1.08 E-01 6.14 E-03 2.97 E-02 Ra-226 2.42 E-01 2.42 E+00 3.01 E-01 8.56 E-03 ,

Pb-210 2.86 E-02 8.03 E-01 2.29 E-01 6.'46 E-Ol' ' '

Po-210 4.51 E-03 1.87 E-02 3.97 E-02 1.30 E-01  !

~'

'The 50-year dose,cor.nitment for each yeaf of ingestion of contaminated.~

edible vegetation.'

A factor'of 50% activity reduction through food preparation was assumed, and an adult ingestion rate of 105 kg/yr total vegetable -

,. ingestion rate, as well as unifem concentration throughout all vegetable types. Should data be presented as concentration of edible above ground vegetables, C,; potatoes, C2 ; and other below ,

ground vegetables, C3 ; then the f6110 wing weigh ed concentration Cy should be used when multiplying the above dose factors:  ;

Cy = 0.38 C) + 0.58 C2 + 0.05 C3 .

Table 5 of Regulatory Guide RH!802-4 details the breakdown of vegetable consumption. ,

o i

?

L I

a.-.,'--.-._,'.-.. _

t :

Table A-2(c)

Dose Conversion Factors .for Ingestion of Contaminated Milk '

/ .

(HilliRem per pCi/1)*

Raoionuclide Whole Bocy- Bone Liver Kidney 1

\ .

U-238 5.90 E-03 9.97 E-02 0.0 2.28 E-02

U-234 6.72 E-03 1.09 E-01 0.0 2.59 E-02 i

th-230 7.41 E-03 2. 68 E-01 1.52 E-02 7.35 E-Os .

I

! Ra-225 5.98 E-01 -

5.98 E+00 7.46 E-04 2.12 E-02 Pb-210 7.07 E-02 1.99 E+00 5.68 E-01 1.60 E+00 l Po-210 1.12 E-02 4.63 E-02 9.83 E-02 3.28 E-61 -

'The 50-year cc=nitment for each year of ingestion -f contaminated milk. .

These values are based'en an adult consumption rate of 130 liters / year.

Since children drink greater quantities, the resultant dose is much higher for younger people. Dose conversion factors,1s before, are fo'r adults. Proper dose conversion factors and milk consunption rates for other age groups are presented in Regulatory Guide RHiB02-4.

e G

e J

- Table A-3 '(a)

Oose Conversion Factors for Ingestion of Meat from Cattle .

Grazing on Contaminated Vegetation .

Ci (Milli?.nper[g). .

Radionuclide Whole Body Bone Liver Kidney U-238 6.04 E-05 1.02 E-03 0.0 2.33 E-04 .

U-234 6.88 E '1.11 E-03 0.0 2.65 E-04 Th-230 4.46 E-05 1.61 E-03 9.16 E-05 4.42 E-04

~

Ra-226 -

9.18 E-03 9.18 E-02 1.15 E-05 3.25 E-04l

• Pb-210 1.51 E-03 4.25 E-02 1.21 E-02 3.42 E-02 Po-210 2.39 E-04 9.90 E-04 2.10 E-03 7.00 E-03

• The 50-year dose commitment for each year of ingestion c." meat. The above values are based on the following. -

i) Animal upta'e of vegetation: 50 kg/ day ii) Environmental transfer coefficients: [cci/ko1 (pCi/cayf 4 -

U - 3.4 x 10 Th - 2.0.x 10-4 Ra - 5.1 x 10-4

~4 P.b - 7.1 x 10 Po - 7.1 x 10-4 iii) Adult meat ingestion rate: 78.3 kg/ year ,

iv) Adult ingestion dose conversion factors (see Regulatory Guide RHiB02-4) i t

1 .

~

1 ..

ll ~ ..

~r

, . Ta'ble A-S(b) /'

Dese'. Conversion Factors for Human consumption '

of Milk from Dairy Cows Ingesting Concaminated Vegetation (Millirem per oci),

kg ,

i .

Liver ' Kidney

.i Radionuclide

• Whole Body Bone .

4..__ . ._.._ .

i I U-238 1.80 E-04 3.03 E-03 0.0 6.94 E-04' U-234 2.05 E-04 3.31 E-03 0.0 7.89 E-04 Th-230 1.85 E-06 6.70 E-05 3.80 E-06 1.84 E-05.. .. ,

Ra-226 1.76 E-02 1.76 E-01 2.20 E-05 6.25 E-04

, Pb-210 4.24 E-04 1.19 E-02 5.97 E-03 9.59 E-03 .

l Po-210 6.70 E-05 2.78 E-04 5.90 E-04 1.97 E-03

! The 50-year dose ecmmitment for each year of ingestion of milk. The above values are based on the following:

i) Animal uptake of vegetation: 50 kg/ day' ii) Environmental transfer coefficients: IoCi/ke I pCi/dayl b-6.1x10-4 L ..

Th - 5.0 x 10-6

.o Ra - 5.9 x 10~4 Pb - 1.2 x 10-4 Po - 1.2 x 10-4 l

iii) Adult consumption of miik: 13011ters/ year iv) Adult ingestion dose conversion factors (see Regulatory Guide RH!802-4)

O e

. -e-, _ - - . - - - - . , - . . - . - - . - , . - - _ . --_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _

u u .... . .c ..

e

~'

Table A-4 '

. Dose Conversion Factors for Human Consumption .

/

of Cont minated Water '

(Millirem per DCi).

8

(

Radionuclide Whole Body Bone Liver Kidney ,

- _ . . . -. . . _ _ _ _ . U-238 1.68 E-02 2.84 E-01 0.0 6.48 E-02 , - - -

U-234 1.91 E-02 3.09 E-01 0.0 7.36 E-02' Th-230 2.11 E-02 7.62 E-01 4.33 E-02 2.09 E-01 i '

i Ra-226 1.70 E+00 1.70 E+01 2.12 E-03 6.03 E'02 .'

Pb-210 2.01 E-01 6.66 E+00 '1.62 E+00 4.55 E'00 Po-210 3.18 E-02 1.32 E-01 2.80 E-01 9.32 E-01

. *The 50-year dose connitment for each year of ingestion o'f contaminated -

water. The above values are based on an average adult consumption rate of 370 liters / year (Regulatory Guide 1.109) and adult ingestion' ,

. dose conversion factors (Regulatory Guide RHf802-4).

9 9

e i

- a

V n_...  ;. .-. -

-- -~ ;

- - ~~~

~

' . Table.A-5 .'

Dose Conversion Factors for Ingestion -

of Meat from Cattle Watered on Contaminated k'ater .

l (Millirem per pci),

1 l

- 1

\

~ "~

' 'Rudionuclide Whol'e Body Bone Liver -

Kidney .

U-238 6.04 E-05 1.02 E-03 0.0 2.33 E-04' U-234 6.88 E-05 1.11 E-03 0.0 2.65 E-04 Th-230 4.46 E-05 1.61 E-03 9.16 E-05 4.42 E-04 ,.

Ra-226 9.18 E-03 9.18 E-02

~

1.15 E-05 3.25 E-04 Pb-210 1.51 E-03 4.25 E-02 1.21 E-02 3.42 E-02 Pb-210 2.39 E-04 9.90 E-04 2.10 E-03 7.00 E-03 .

• The 50-year dose commitment'for each year of ingestion of meat.-

The above ' values are based on the following: - -

1) A,imal uptake of water: 50 liters / day ii) Environmental transfer coefficients: foC1/ko 1 U - 3.'4 x 10-4 'C1/ day)

Th - 2.0 x 10-4 Ra - 5.1 x 10-4 Pb - 7.1 x 10-4 -

Po - 7.1 x 10-4 iii) Adult meat ingestion rate of 78.3 kg/ year t

iv) Adult ingestion dose conversion factors (see Regulatory Guide RH!802-4) l 1

l l .

i

v v- .. . - . . . . .--. .. - ....- ,

9

- .1

, Table A-5(b)

• Dose Conversion Factors for Human Consumption .-

l of Milk from Oairy Cows Watered on Contaminated Water , ,

1

'(Millirem per pCi).

1 Liver Radienuclide Whole Body Bone Kidney

! U-238 2.16 E-04 3.65 E-03 0.0 8,33 E-04 U-234 2.46 E-04 3.98 E-03 0.0 9.47 E-04 l Th-230 2.22 E-06 8.03 E-05 4.56 E-05 2.20.E-05 . '

Ra-226 2.12 E-02

'.12 2 E-01 2.64 E-05' 7.50 E-04 Pb-210 5.09 E-04 ' l.43 E-02 4.09 E-03 1.15 E-02 Po-210 8.04 E-05 3.33 E-04 7. 08. . E-04 2.36 E-03 i .

'The 50-year dose commitnent for each year of ingestion of milk.

, _ , The above values are based on the following:

i) Dairy animal intake rate: 60 liters / day ii) Adult ingestion mil'k rate: 130. T iters/ year iii) Environmental transfer coefficients: 'oci/ liter)

U - 5.1 x 10~4 P Y Th - 5.0 x 10-6 Ra - 5.9 x 10-A Pb - 1.2 x 10-4 Po - 1.2 x 10-4 iv) Adult ingestion dose conversion factors (see Regulatory Guide RHfS02-4)

G 9

e c .

,- - A+

_ , , , y Fad:rd Regisl:r / Vol. 45, Noe 194 / Friday. Octobzr 3,1980 / Rules end Reguhtions 65535 7 - i l increases or decreases resuhing from9- #

r - Impacts of operstion: and te detect potentia! ' Criterion BA-Dauy laspecGons of tabas 4

lor 3 term effects. or waste retendon systems shan be inflation, changes in engineering plans. .

• I Criterion a-MiU1ng operations shan be conducted by a qualifled eng.nur or scientist activities performed. and any other cenducted so that au airborne affluent and doeurnented.The appropriate NRC conditions affecung costs.Regardless of .

releases are reduced toleveis aslow as is regional c5ce as indicated in Appendix D of whether reclamation is p'hased through the masonably, achievable.The primary means of to CTR Part :4. or the Director. O!5ce of life of the operation or takes place at the end -

accomplishing this sbau be by means of Inspecuan and Tnforcement. U.S. Nudear of operations, an appropriate portion of e ission controla. !=stitudonal controla, such *Resulatory Comminion. Washington. D.C. surety liabWty shall be retained untu final . . )

as extending the site boundary and exduion zor.ss, shau be immediately notiSed of any compliance with the reclamation plan is , w ,

determined.This will yield a surety ht is al'

, . ama. swy be employed to ensum ht offsite failure in a tahre or waste miention system exposure lindts are met, but only after all ? which resuhe in a release of tahas or weste least sumcient at all times to cover the costs '

. * ". practicable measures have been taken to. ' into unrestricted areas, ant'!or of any *- of decommissioning an laclamation of the {

control emissions at the souros. > unusual conditions (conditions not .

areas bt are aspected'to be disturbed , ..r

. Notwithstanding b existence ofladividual ' contempleted in b design of b retention before b next license renewal.The term of dose standards, strict control of eminalens is . systers) which if nas carmeted could indicate the sursty mechanism must be open ended. 1 necessary te suure that population . b potential or lead to fauure of & eystem unless it can be et-aastrated that another '

exposures are reduced to b maximum -and result in a release of tamngs or wesie arrangement would provide an equivalent extent reasonably achievable and to avoid into unrestricted areas. level of assurance.This as site contamination.The greatest potential . . provided with a surety instrument which is sources of olisite redlauon exposure (aside U. 7"manda! Criteria written for a speciRed period of time (e.g.,

from redan exposure) are dusting from dry Criterion 9--. Financial surety arrangements Sve years) yet which must be automaticaDy '

refaces of b taulags disposal ama not abau be established by an'ch mill operetor renewed unless the surety notifies b covered by tanings solution and enluione prior to b commencement of operations to beneSciary (the Commission or the State from yellowcake drying and packaging auure ht su!Beient funds will be avausble mgulatory esency) and b principal [b eperenons. - to carry out b decontamination and licensee) some reasonable time (e.g. 90 days Checas shad be m.a d's andlosped bourly of prior to b renewal.date of their intention l au parameters (a.g.dt5erential prusuru and decornminioning the reclamauon of b mm of any taulnes and site and or waste . notfor to renew.in such a situation the surety I scrubber weter Dow retes) which determine disposal areas.The amount of funds to be requirement still exists and the licensee )

the efEciency of yeDowcake stack emission ensured by such surety arrangements shall be would be required to submit an acceptable concr.1 eqwpment operetion. It shall be bued on Commission-epproved cost replacement surety within a brief pened cgf estimates in a Commission-spproved plan for time to abow at least eo deys for the renIePm c d to e the the (1) decontaminaden and deco ==f ssioning of reFulatory agency to coDect.

equipment is operating consistendy naar miU buildings and the milling site to levels Proof of forfeitum mut not be necesary to !

bau be Nk who perf rm ca out de og which would aUow unrestricted un of bu coUect b surety so that in the event bl %

amas upon decommissioning. and ( ) the hcensee could not provide an acceptable <

• presc:ibed rangen. Efluent control devices reclamation of tailings and/rr waste disposal replacement surety within the required time.;:

shall be opmave at all times durks drybg the surety shan be automaticaDy collected 1 aren in accordance with technical criteria and packaging operations and whenever air delineated in Secton 1 of this Appendix.The , prior to its expiration. The conditions 1 is exhaustLng from .he yeDowcake stack. described above would have to be dearly licensee shall submit this plan in conjunction Drpng and peckaging perstions shall with an environmental report that addresses stated on any surery instrument ts minate when contro a are inoperadve.

th,e expected environmentalimpacis of the open-ended, and must be agmed to by all When checha indJcate b equipment is nog

• m>Hiria opmdom, decomminioning and pardes. Financial surety arrangements l operating within the range prucribed fee generaUy acceptable to b Pa=='a= ion are:

tamngs redsmouon. and evaluetu peak emetency, actions shall be taken to -

rutare parametm to b prwcrbd range. alternativu for mitigeting bu impacts.no (a) Surety bonds: "

When thk cannot be done without shutdown . surety shaU also cover the peyment of the (b) Cash deposits: . '~,-,<

end repairs. drying and packaging opnadona charp for Icas term eurnulance and control (c) Cartificates of deposit  ;- ;

shall cease es soon as practicable, requred by Criterion 10. In establishing (d) Deposita of governmed securities:

Operetions may not be re-started after specific emry arransments. the limnm's (e)Irrevocableletters orlines of credit -

capation due to os. normal performance until cost utimatu shall take into account total (f) Combinadons of the above or such e costa that would be incurred if an types of arrangements as may be approved needed corrective actions have been identifled and implemented. All such . Independent contractor wm hired to perfarm by the Commission. However, self insurance cewanorss, correceve actions, and re-starts the decommissioning and nelamation work. or any arrangement which euentiaDy j

. In order to avoid unnecewary duplication consttrutes self insurance (e.g., a contract i shall be reported to the appropriate NRC regional otDee as indicated to Crtterion aA in and expensa, b Comminion may accept ,

with a state or federal agency). will not i

wnting, withim io days of the subsequent financial sureties bt ha ve been satisfy the eurety requirement since this j consolidated with financial or surety provides no additional assurance other thag restart. . .

that which already exists through license !

To control dusting from talhnga that arrangementa utablished to meet requirements.

portion not oavetad by stanMng liquids sbil . regarements of other Federal or state . ,

be wetted or chemicaUy stabihzad to prevent species and/or local governing bodies for Criterton to--A minhnum charge of or minunwa blowing and dusting to the ' such decommissioning, decontamination. S:50.000 (ters dollars) to cover the costs ojf maxunum extent reasonably achieveble.This reclamation. and long term site surnillance . long term survedlance shan be paid by eng requirement may be relaxed if tailings are and control provided such arrangements are mill operator to the general treasury of the i effectively sheltered from wind, such as may considmd adequate to satisfy then United States or to an appropriate State

a be the case where they are disposed of below requirements and that b portion of the grade and the taulnes surfsee is not exposed surety which covers b decomminioning and nelamation of b mm.miH tauings site agency prior to b terminatio or thorturn miD license. ' ' -

if site eurvemance or control reluiremen; to wind. Consideration sh4U be given in t planning teilings dieposal programs to and awociated areas. .nd the long term at a particular site are determaned, on the rnethods which would allow phned covering funding charge is clearly identified and basis of a site-speafic evaluation, to be and reclamadon of tauings impoundments committed for use in accomplishing these significantly sneter than those specL' led in smce this will help in controlhns peruculate acuvities. The licensee's surety mechanism Cnterion 12. (e.g if fencing is determmed t:

l and redon enussions dunna operation.To wiU be reviewed annually by the Commission be necenary) variance in funding .

control dusung from diffun sources, suc.b es to assun that sufficiant funds would be requirements may be specified by the tauings and ore pads where automaue sesijable for completion of toe reclamation Commission.In any case the total charge t controls do not apply, operators shall develop ph a if the work had to be performed by an cover the costs oflong term survemance s written operating procedures specifying the incoendent contractor.The amount of sunty ,be such that, with and assumed 1 percen; methods of control which wm be utilised. lisbih.y should be adjusted to recog .ize any annual realinterest reta, b collected fun.

> , ~

.a

-c 6 ,

Reference -

<. o U.S. '

amental' P'rotection Agency - Title 40 code of Federal Regulations

, Part Nuc Subchapter r,ier F, (40 Operations" " Environmental CFR 190). Radiation Protection Standards for, O P uclear Regulatcry Cc: mis'sion'- Regulatory duide 4.14, "Radiolo

. .ent and Environmental Monitoring at Uranium Mills". (April 1980)gical

5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Regulatory' Guide 4.15, "Qiality

.<ssurance Programs for Radiological Monitori.ng Programs (Normal Operations) -

Effluent Streams and the Environment" (February 1979). .

J U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissier. - Regulatory Guide RHiB02-4, "Calcula-tional Models for Estimating Radiation Ooses to Man from Airborne-Racioactive Materials Resulting from Uranium Milling Operations" (draft, May1979).

O U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Regulatory ' Guide 1.109, . " Calculation

• of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases o'f Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Ccmpliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I" (Revision 1, October 1957). ,

o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Final Environmental Statement, "40 CFR 190 Environmental Radiation Protection Requirements for Normal

• Operations of Activities in the Urnaium Fuel Cycle'," EPA- 520/4-76-016.

(November.1976).

o U. 5. Environmental Protection Agency - Part IV'- Supplemental Analysis-1976,

" Environmental Anal,ysis of the Uranium Fuel Cycle," EPA 520/4-76-017.

(July 1976). .

e D

4 I

l

.l l

l 4

__ . m -