ML20207C656
| ML20207C656 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/23/1999 |
| From: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Ratliff R TEXAS, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9903090071 | |
| Download: ML20207C656 (10) | |
Text
.
k FEB 2 31999
' Mr. Richard A. Ratliff, P.E.', Chief Bureau of Radiation Control Texas Department of Health 1100 West 49th Street Austin, Texas 78756-3198'
Dear Mr. Ratliff:
This is in response to your June 16,1998, September 15,1998, September 28,1998 and two October 7,1998 letters regarding the Texas Department of Health's (TDH) five proposals to partially or fully terminate uranium recovery licenses for unrestricted use. In those letters, you asked if the NRC wishes additional material or information in order to make determinations regarding concurrence with your proposals.
As mentioned in our December 1,1998 letter, we are currently in the process of developing policy and supporting regulatory guidance to specify the extent of the information that NRC would need from an Agreement State to make this determination. We expect to compete the policy guidance in March 1999.
?
To expedite the review process, we have_ reviewed your submittals based on the draft policy guidance in parallel with our activities to prepare and issue final guidance. Additional information that we need prior to making our determination is documented in the Enclosure.
Please note that additionalinformation may be requested based on the final guidance.
If we can be of further assistance in this regard, please contact me or Kevin Hsueh at (301) 415--2598.
Sincerely, Orig;nal Signed By: '
PAUL H. LOHAUS Paul H. Lohaus, Director Office of State Programs
Enclosure:
As stated
'I
,. h I
Distribution:
DIR RF y0' sDCD (SP08)
C4 9C
.hjbyg Qf$
POR(YES_f NO
)
SDroggitis DSollenberger JMyers pop Texas File 10LU
- See previous concurrence.
DOCUMENT NAME! G:\\KPH\\RATLIFF2.WPD - f G:\\KPH\\RATLIFF3.WPD
-- T' receive e copr of this docenent, Indicate in the tr.x: *C' = CopWttfut attachment / enclosure "E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure "H" = No copy l OFFICE OSPh,,-l Ojhlbyl l NMSS OGC lNAME-KHsueh:nbX.l4-PHLo$us 14 CPaperiello FCameron (lDATE~
01/21/99 Ot'M -
02/12/99*
02/23/99
- I
,OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-27f 990:3090071 990223 PDR STPRO ESGTX PDR j
-J
"^-
u..
t.
j
'a -
UNITED STATES '
i g
g
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
-p WASHINGTON. D.C. 3000H001 February ~23, 1999
~
i 1
Mr. Richard A. Ratliff, P.E., Chief Bureau of Radiation Control Texas Department of Health 1100 West 49th Street
')
^
Dear Mr. Ratliff:
i l
This is in response to your June 16,1998, September 15,1998, September 28,1998 and two October 7,1998 letters regarding the Texas Department of Health's (TDH) five proposals to partially or fully terminate uranium recovery licenses for unrestricted use. In those letters, you
)
asked if the NRC wishes additional material or information in order to make determinations regarding concurrence with your proposals.
4 As mentioned in our December 1,1998 letter, we are currently in the process of developing policy and supporting regulatory guidance to specify the extent of the information that NRC would need from an Agreement State to make this determination. We expect to compete the policy guidance in March 1999.
4 To expedite the review process, we have reviewed your submittals based on the draft po! icy guidance in parallel with our activities to prepare and issue final guidance. Additional information that we need prior to making our determination is documented in the Enclosure.
l Please note that additional information may be requested based on the final guidance.
If we can be of further assistance in this regard, please contact me or Kevin Hsueh at (301) 415-2598.
nc rely,
, p
/
N.
v Paul H. Lohaus, Director Office of State Programs 1
Enclosure-As stated j
l
)
y>
^f i
i 1.
URI, Inc.
License No. : LO2704 i
Location : Bruni, Texas Type of Ucense : Non-conventional (in-situ leach) uranium mill license Full / Partial License Termination: Full license termination information needed:
i a.
Documentation that the injection, production and monitoring wells have been closed and plugged in accordance with the State criteria.
2.
Rio Grande Resources Corporation (RGR)
License No. : LO1234 Location : Benevides, Texas Type of License : Non-conventional (in situ leach) uranium mill license Full / Partial License Termination: Full license termination information needed:
a.
Documentation that all wells have been closed and plugged in accordance with the State criteria.
3.
USX Corporation (USX)
License No. : LO2449 Location : George West, Texas (Sparkman Production Area)
Type of License : Non-conventional (in-situ leach) uranium mill license Full / Partial License Termination: Partial license termination Information needed:
a.
Documentation that all wells have been closed and plugged in accordance with the State criteria.
b.
Documentation that release of this portion of the site will not negatively impact the remainder of the site to be closed at a later date.
4.
Rio Grande Resources Corporation (RGR)
License No. : LO2402 Location : Hobson, Texas Type of License : Conventional uranium mill license Full / Partial License Termination: Partial license termination Enclosure i
+
m
~
f Information needed:
a.
Documentation that completed surface remedial actions to the portion of the site to be released were performed in accordance with license requirements and regulations. We note that Texas regulations require the licensee to' submit a
" comprehensive report" including survey and sample results which indicates that the subject site area meets unrestricted release requirements, b.
Documentation that the completed groundwater corrective actions, if necessary, were performed in accordance with license requirements and regulations. Or documentation that there is no groundwater contamination issue associated with this partiallicense termination.
c.
Documentation that release of this portion of the site will not negatively impact the remainder of the site to be closed at a later date.
5.
USX Corporation (USX)
License No. : LO2449 Location : George West, Texas (Boots / Brown Production Area)
Type of License : Non-conventional (in-situ leach) uranium mill license Full / Partial License Termination: Partial license termination information needed:
a.
Documentation that all wells have been closed and plugged in accordance with the State criteria, b.
Documentation that release of this portion of the site will not negatively impact the remainder of the site to be closed at a later date.
I 2
j i
< TRANSACTION REPORT.)
,,_,3_1 _,,,,,
C-TRANSMIT. 3 NO.
DATE TIME DESTINATION STATION PO.
DURATION' MODE RESULT 3035 2-23 17:34 512 239 6362 4.0*01'52' NORM.E-OK' 4
O'01*S2" f
~, ~.
..; t' -
4 t
1
- t
)
j FAX INFORMATION I
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS STATE PROGRAMS FAX: (301) 415-3502 NUMBER OF PAGES:
including this page DATE:
February 23,1999 TO:
Richard Ratliff Texas Department of Health FROM:
Paul Lohaus, Director Office of State Programs
SUBJECT:
Texas Department of Health's five proposals to partially or fully terminate uranium recovery licenses for unrestricted use IF RETRANSMISSION IS REQUIRED PLEASE CALL OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS ON 301-415-3340/2326
l' L
i Mr. Richard A. Ratliff, P.E., Chief Bureau of Radiation Control Texas Department of Health 1100 West 49th Street Austin, Texas 78756-3198
Dear Mr. Ratliff:
This is in response to your June 16,1998, September 15,1998, September 28,1998 and two October 7,1998 letters regarding the Texas Department of Health's (TDH) five proposals to partially or fully terminate uranium recoverylicenses for unrestricted use. In those letters, you asked if the NRC wishes additional material or information in order to make determinations regarding concurrence with your proposals.
As mentioned in our December 1,1998 letter, we are currently in the process of developing policy and supporting regulatory guidance to specify the extent of the information that NRC would need from an Agreement State to makeibis determination. We expect to compete the policy guidance in March 1999.
To expedite the review process, we have reviewed your submittals based on theprdft policy guidance in parallel with our activities to prepare and issue final guidance. A,ddslional information that we need prior to makin0 our determination is documented i6 the Enclosure.
Please note that additional information may be requested based on the final guidance.
If we can be of further assistance in this regard, please contact.
Kevin Hsueh at (301) 415 2598.
Sinderely,
/
Paul H. Lohaus, Director j'
Office of State Programs
Enclosure:
/
As stated Distribution:
DIR RF DCD (SP08)
PDR (YES_f NO
)
SDroggitis DSollenberger JMyers /
Texas File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\KPH\\RATLIFF2.WPD gG:\\KPH\\RATLIFF3.WPD To receive a cop r of thne docuenent,indicato in the bar: 'C' = copMt attachment / enclosure *E' = Copy with att.
nt/ enclosure 'N' = No copy OFFICE OSPpi,,l O$ph#1 l NMSS l
\\l A l
l NAME KHsueh:nbf(.l4-PHLotSus 4 CPaperiello FCameron l
01/ 1/99 01/li/99 01/ /99 01/ /99 l
DATE 2
Mr. Richard A. Ratliff, P.E., Chief Bureau of Radiation Control Texas Department of Health 1100 West 49th Street Austin, Texas 78756-3198
Dear Mr. Ratliff:
This is in response to your June 16,1998, September 15,19, September 28,1998 and two October 7,1998 letters regarding the Texas Department of ealth's (TDH) five proposals to partially or fully terminate uranium recovery licenses for un estricted use. In those letters, you asked if the NRC wishes additional material or informatio in order tu make determinations regarding concurrence with your proposals.
As mentioned in our December 1,1998 letter, we are c rently in the process of developing policy and supporting regulatory guidance to specify th extent of the information that NRC would need from an Agreement State to make this det rmination. We expect to compete the policy guidance in March 1999.
To expedite the review process, we have reviewed ur submittals based on the draft policy guidance in parallel with our activities to prepare a issue final guidance. Additional information that we need prior to making our deter ination is documented in the Enclosure.
Please note that additionalinformation may be re uested based on the final guidance.
If we can be of further assistance in this regard, lease contact me or Kevin Hsueh at (301) 415-2598.
Sincerely, t
Paul H. Lohaus, Director Office of State Programs
Enclosure:
As stated Distribution:
DIR RF DCD (SP08)
SDroggitis PDR (YES_f NO
)
DSollenberger JMyers Texas File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\KPH\\RATLIFF2, PD l G:\\KPH\\RATLIFF3.WPD ru.e.w...
.t w. 4.eumnunoie.. in m. nom c cm Wo.nenm.nvenewum r. copy wn.ucnm.nv.ncaur. v. No copy
(
OFFICE OSPJo,,l C7%@2Ml
+ "' W,\\f OGC l
l NAME KHsueh:nbf(.l4-PHLM&us / )
CP'a'6eriels' I FCameron 01/ 1/99
/ 01/d/99 OMU/99 01/ /99 DATE 2
< TRANSACTION REPORT >
c2-23-1999<Tue> 17:36 E
TRANSMIT 3
NO.
DATE Tir1E DESTINATION STATION PO.
DURATION MODE RESULT 3035 2-23 17:34 512 239 6362 4
O*01'52" NORM.E OK 4
O*01'52"
r i
4 i
FAX INFORMATION U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS 1
STATE PROGRAMS FAX: (301) 415-3502 NUMBER OF PAGES:
Including this page F
DATE:
~ February 23,1999 TO:
Richard Ratliff Texas Department of Health FROM:
Paul Lohaus, Director Office of State Programs
SUBJECT:
Texas Department of Health's five proposals to partially or fully terminate uranium recovery licenses for unrestricted use IF RETRANSMISSION IS REQUIRED PLEASE CALL OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS ON 301-415-3340/2326
=--
,4,
,A eer,
e a
~ese,
%,m mw+m*~
' me-k
=
.=6
&w=4 klS KPa
)
T_D,H_
i Texas Department of Health Wi!!!am R. Archer Ill, M.D.
1100 West 49th Street Patti J. Panerson. M.D., M.P.H.
Comm=ianer Austin. Texas 78756-3189 Executive Deputy Commissioner (512) 458-7111 l
Radiation Control j
($12) 834-6688 i
June 16,1998 0
h i
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission fj 7
7 l
ATTN: Richard Bangart, Director
.;3 l
Office of State Programs
~2 Mail Stop 03H2O
)
Washington, D.C.
20555 C
u" l
Dear Mr. Bangart:
f The Texas Department of Health (TDH)URI, Inc., located near Bruni, Texas.has received Material License No. LO2704, issued to This site was, operated from 1979 to 1989 when production operations were ceased. The license authorized m kitu leach mining and processmg.
From 1984 until 1991 groundwater restoration was wrformed along with limited surface reclamation. The Texas Water Commission authorizei ceasing groundwater restoration and final plugging of all injection production, and monitoring welfs m May 1991 Enclosure 1).
Followmg plugging or all wells, full scale surface reclamation and decommiss(ioning beg i
During surface reclamation and decommissioning all material and equipment was surveyed disposed of by utilizing one of the following methods:pment which was contaminated w for radioactive contamination. Any material and/or equi 4
transfer to another licensed mine site; icted use; or decontamination and release for unrestr disposal at a licensed byproduct disposal facility.
4 Proper disposal of all material and/or equipment was documented by the licensee.
Surveys to confirm the effectiveness of reclamation and decommissioning activities were performed by direct and/or swipe surveys of equipment and structures to be turned over to the landowner, direct survey ofland by walking 2 meters apart moving across the wellfield pattern and/or defining a ten meter by ten meter area around hot spots and taking five samples from the area. The licensee subsequently requested termination of their hcense
{
(Enclosure 2).
Reclamation and decommissioning activities were completed in 1997.
j
?!
S f.
^
= : :, -
l
+!
\\.
(c.,
i' Richard Banjart June-16,1995 Page 2 i
In August 1994, TDH personnel performed confirmatory surveys of the facility. The surveys were performed usmg one-by-one sodium iodide probes and Ludlum 14C survey egulatory Guide 5.10, meters. Two times background was used as an allowable limit @Requestmg Release fo Guidelines for Conducting Close Out Surveys of Open Lands ancl Unrestricted Use). The survey was performed by walking 10 meters apart moving across the wellfield pattern. Background readings were approximately 1000 cpm on all meters except one which had background readings of approxunately 1500
- m. As a result of the surveys, six areas were identific i ss havmg readmgs grcater than 9 cpm. These areas were decontaminated prior to sainpling. One area luut readings sli greater than twice q
4 background. Five samples were takenTrom a 100 square meter area around all seven areas.
)
l Samples were also taken from all former pond areas. Analysis of all samples indicated that average radium and uranium concentrations were below flic release criterna of 5 pCi/g and 30 pCi/g, respectively.
1 In January 1998, TDH personnel performed confirmatory surveys of the creek beds and concrete blocks located at the site. One concrete block at the edge of " Pond B" had 4
l elevated radiation readings.
The block was transported to Rosita-Project for decontamination and releaseTor unrestricted use. No other readings above background were i
detected.
The area was f'ound to have elevated radium-226 levels durm, surveys of a discharge area.
In January 1998 TDH personnel also performed confirmatory g the survey and sampling 3
i accomplished in August 1993. A survey of the discharge area mdicated no readings above i
background. A soil sample was taken and results were within regulatory limits.
The discharge area is not part of the licensed area.
On-site disposal of solid radioactive material or byproduct material was not authorized at this facility, thus there is no land to be transferred to the State of Texas or the Federal Government.
As a result of these findings, we are proposing to terminate this license (Enclosure 3). All data supporting our proposal is kept on file, and available, at TDH should it be necessary for reference at a future date. Please advise if the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission wishes addi0snal material or information in order to make a determinauon regarding concurrence with our proposal to terminate this license.
If additional informauon is required, please contact Mr. Eugene Forrer of my staff.
Your expeditious processing of this request is appreciated.
Sincerely, ichard A. Ratliff,
.E, Chief Bureau of Radiatio Co tr 1 Enclosures i
, l
E e
a--as-4
.m-4-r.
em~#A
+-
- -s-Ee J
ir 6
-h*aa#
au---
-434 m
D--h-2.J-A-1
'9 i
a 1
4 J
f J
t i
i i
e I
l Enclosure 1
i I
i k
6 i
4 s
l 4
5 4
1 4
f b
i
+
n
r 1
l '.
J TEmeS WATER COMMISSION lL J.D. Head, General Counsel Past Hopkins,Charmen Michael E Field, Chef Examiner j
John O.Houchins,C...c s ;
Karen A.Phahes, Chief Clerk l
j R.J.Wynne,R1,Commasoner I
Allen Beinks, Executive Director f
February 10.'1938 T/' #
frJ0* I ' ',,,, 'f l
l Mr. Mark S. Felissa l
Knvironmental' Manager j
Uranism Resources. Inc.
12377 Merit Drive suite 750, 1.314 l
Dallas. Texas 75251 Restoration Determination of Production Area No.1 of the Senavides Mine j
Ret Site. Permit No. UR02312-011
)
,i 1
l Dect Mr. Felizza The Texas Water Commission has received the restoration data for Production A A review of the data indicates that Production No. I of the Benavides Mine $fte.
Aro's No. I has been restored in accordsnee with the spec'iY1 cations contained in as required by 31 TAC section 331.107. Your are hereby pe'rzit number UR02312-011 cuthorized to cease any restoration activities, including monitoring, at Prgduction Area No. 1.
j Within 120 days of receipt of this letter closure of the wellfield shall be i
accorplished in accordance with the approved plugging and abandonment plans for Any modiffeations to the plugging and abandonnent procedure j
this Production Area.
must be approved in writing by the Commission.
Please notify the commission prior to commencing plugging activities to provide the opportunity for TWC personnel to be present. If you have any questions (512) please contact Dale P. Kohler of the In Situ Uranium Mining Unit at 463-8278.
Sincerely, rry D.
ruett Director, Water Rights & Uses Division EKtjt TWC District 11' Office - Weslaco se Mr. David Lacker - Texas Department of Wealth Bureau of Radiation Control Aru Codc 512 463 7830 P.O tos 13087 Capnellianon
- 1700 North Conyeu Aw.
- Austa. Team 787113087
- Y.
1EAAS WATER COMMISSivN t
<, '...A J. Wynne. M. Chairman
.,, John J. Voy. General Counsel j
John E. Birdwell. Cornmissioner
% *(
Michael E. Flew. Chief Hearings Examiner j
claft ? m. Commissioner Gloria A.Vasques. Chief C3erk Allen Beinks. Executive Director May 16, 1991 j
1
- 16^' Mgl pd@
Mr. Mark Polizza i
URI, Inc.
i 12377 Merit Drive Suite 750, LB14 i
Dallas, Texas 75251 I
Re:
Restoration Determination of Production Area No. 2 of the Benavides Mine Site, Permit No. UR02312-021
Dear Mr. Polizza:
The Texas Water Commission has received the restoration data for i
Production Area No. 2 of the Benavides Mine Site.
A review of the data indicates that Production Area No. 2 has been restored in accordance with the specifications contained in permit number i
UR02312-021 as required by 31 TAC Section 331.107.
Your are j-hereby authorized to cease any restoration activities, including monitoring, at Production Area No. 2.
Within 120 days of receipt of this letter closure of the j
wellfield shall be accomplished in accordance with the approved plugging and abandonment plans for this Production Area.
Any modifications to the plugging and abandonment procedures must be l
approved in writing by the Commission.
Please notify the Commission prior to commencing plugging i
activities to provide the opportunity for TWC personnel to be i
present.
If you have any questions please cor.ca'.:t. Dale P. Kohler of the Ground Water Section at 512/371-6322.
i Sincerely, W
i A
f3 u n'. m...
Harry D. Pruett, P.E.
URI. DALLAS Director, Water Rights & Uses Division MAY 171991 HDP/DPX/km 9
cc:
TWC District Office #11 = Wesla II Jc C E t Y E U David Lacker - Texas Department of Healt f l
Bureau of Radiation Control l.-
P. O. Bom 13067 Capitol Station
- .S WATER COMMISSIOl.
I ca I'/yh
~'
AHa We.Ennuun Drenor
- s. J. w
. m. Ch. inn.n v
f'.
M.E M.Gwrat Comel PaulHopkim Commasioner 8',a.h ?/. :oster,Ch :Cleik j
John O. Houchim.Commmioner d
l June 5, 1989 gf e9 gLJ "
Mr. Mark S. Pelizza Environmental Manager Uranium Resources Inc.
12377 Merit Drive Suite 750, LB14 Dallas, Texas 75251 Re: Restoration Determination of Production Area No. 3 of the Benavides Mine Site, Permit No. UR02312 031
Dear Mr. Pelizza:
The Texas Water Commission has received the restoration data for Production Area No. 3 of the Benavides Mine Site. A review of the data indicates that Production Area No. 3 has been restored in accordance with the specifications contained in as required by 31 TAC Section 331.107. You are hereby permit number UR02312-03) aut,horized to cease any restoration activities, including monitoring, at Production Ar,ea No. 3.
Within 120 days of receipt of this letter closure of the we11 field shall be acyceplished in accordance with the approved plugging and abandonment plans for this Production Area. Any modifications to the plugging and abandonment procedure must be approved in writing by the Commission.
Please notify the Commission prior to commencing plugging activities to provide If you have any questions please 4
the opportunity for TWC personnel to be present.
contact Dale P. Kohler of the in Situ Uranium Mining Unit at (512) 463 8278.
Sincerely, e
2 Harry D. Pruett Director, Water Rights & Uses Division DPK:aa
~
cc: TWC District 11 Office - Weslaco E EC-Mr. David Lacker - Texas Department of Health W. M Bureau of Radiation Control 9
Dm e 1989 1memov7 P. O Bon 13087 Capitol Staten
- 1700 North Conyen Ave.
- Austm. Tem 787113067 e A,,a Ce* 612 463 7630
)
f
l i
aMS WATER COMMISSba t*
Paul Hopkins, Charman h
Larry R. Soward, Executive Director R*1 h Roming, Commasoner h,
Mary Ann Hefner, Chief Clerk P
John O. Hoechina, Cm...
= es Jarnes K. Rourke, Jr., General Cournel October 31, 1986 e
l
$*a s 3.:
do #
l Mr. Mark S. Pelizza tU f4>C
- p,gg)
Environmental Manager g b.,
i Uranium Resources, Inc.
Suite 735. Promenade Bank Tower i
1600 Promenade Center l
Richardson, Texas 75080 i
l Re:
Restoration determination. Uranium Resources. Iv1c., Benavides j
Mine Site Permit No. UR02312-041 Duval County
Dear Mr. Pelizza:
t l
The Texas Water Commission has received the three consecutive i
l sampling sets as required by 31 TAC Section 331.107.
A review of i
the restoration data indicates that Production Area No. 4 at the Benavides Mine Site has been restored in accordance with the l
specifications contained in permit number UR02312-041 and as required by 31 TAC Section 331.107.
You are hereby authorized to j
cease any restoration activities including monitoring at this i
production area, i
Within 320 days of receipt of this letter, closure of the we11 field l
shall be accomplished in accordance with the approved plugging and abandonment plans submitted as part of the permit application.
Any i
modification to plugging and abandonment plans must be approved in
{
writing by the Commission.
Please notify the Commission prior to j
conducting plugging activities.
If you have any questions, please call Mr. Dale Kohler of the Commission's Ground Water Conservation Section at (512) 463-8278.
i Sincerely, 1
Larry R. Soward Executive Director j
cc:
TWC District 11, Weslaco j
Mr. David Lacker, Chief. Bureau of Radiation Control, Texas Department of Health P.O aos 13087 Captalstaten
- Ausen,Temas 78711 e Area Code $12/463 7898
TL.'AS WATER COMMISSIOT J
- r..
4 O...s
\\Q{4;-
J. D. Head, General Counsel P;ul Hopkins, Chairman Michael E. Field, Chief Exammer John O. Hoochins,Comermadmer
- 8. J. Wynne, Bl. C,... ~- ' =a; Maren A.Philles. Chief Clerk AllenBeinke ExecusswDeeefor February 11, 1988
$ h,,,h.
FE i st :.
Mr. Mark S. Pelissa i
Environmental Manager i
Uranium Resources, Inc.
l 12377 Merit Drive Suite 750,1.314 Dallas, Texas 75251 Ret Restoration Deterzination of Production Area No.1 of the Longoria Mine Site.
Permit No. UR02222-011
Dear Mr. Polizza:
The Texas Water Comission has received the restoration data for Production Area No. 1 of the Longoria Mine $1te. A review of the data indicates that Production Area No. I has been restored in accordance with the specifications contained in permit number UR02222-011 as required by 31 TAC Section 331.107. Your are hereby authorised to cease any restoration activities, including monitoring, at Production Area No. 3.
Within 120 days of receipt of this letter closure of the wellfield shall be cecomplished in accordance with the approved plugging and abandonment plans for 4
this Production Area. Any modifications to the plugging and abandonnent procedure cust be app oved in writing by the Commission.
l l
Please notify the Comission prior to consencing plugging activities to provide
}
the opportunity for TWC personnel to be present. If you have any questions j
please contact Dale P. Kohler of the In situ Uranius Mining Unit at (512) 463-8278.
l Sincerely, f
l
- _g itry' D7Pruet t Director Water Rights & Uses Division i
i DKtjt l
cc TWC Dist 11 Office - Weslace Mr. David 1.acker - Texas Department of Realth i
I Bureau of Radiation Control i
P.O Son 11087 Casmo15 sten a 1700 Nonh Conyen Aw. e Ausm,Temu 7871130s) e Area Codc 512 463 7830 1
~
.r..A k,g/d J. D. Head. General Counsel Pau1 Hopkins, Chairman
..Jh/
Michael E. Field, Chief Emwnmer John O. Hoechins,Commasoner Karen A.Phillips, Chef Clerk
" ~ ~
- 3. J. Wynne Bl. C....i:W.
Asen Beinke,Emeeviiw Drector February 11, 1988 Mr. Mark 8. Pelissa Environmental Manager Uranius Resources. Inc.
12377 Merit Drive Suite 750.1314 D211es. Texas 75251 Re: Restoration Determination of Production Area No. 2 of the longoria Mine Site.
Permit No. UR02222-021
Dear Mr. Pelissa:
The Texas Water Commission has received the restoration data for Production Area No.
2 of the Longoria Mine Site. A review of the data indicates that Production Area No. 2 has been restored in accordance with the specifications contained in permit j
number UR02222-021 as required by 31 TAC Section 331.107. Your are hereby j
cuthorised to cease any restoration activities including monitoring, at Production Area No. 2.
4 Vi hin 120 days of receipt of this letter closure of the wellfield shall be cceoeplished in accordance with the approved plugging and abandonnent plans for l
j this Production Area. Any modifications to the plugging and abandoneent procedure l
cust be approved in wrf ting by the Cosnission.
l Please notify the Consission prior to commencing plugging activities to provide the opportunity for TWC personnel to be present. If you have any questions please contact Dale P. Kohler of the In situ Uranium Mining Unit at (512) 463-8278.
I Sincerely.
I l
-- gf~ ~ f l
Ilarry'D d ruett
~
Director. Water Rights & Uses Division l
EK jt act TWC Dist 11 Office - Weslaco Mr. David Lacker - Texas Department of Nealth l
Bureau of Radiation Control l
l l
l i
P.O tos 130s7 Caenollwen e 1700 North Canyses Aw. e Austm. Team 787113087 s Aru Code 512,463 7830 l
l
m- ; =:::. -.::: := a.==
L:-
l-331.101-331.107 3
L Subchapter F Standards for Cisss'III Well Production Area. Development 55331.101-331.107 N
^
These new sections are adopted under the authority of Texas 8
Water Code, 555.103, and 27.019, which provide the Texas water Commission with the authority to adopt rules reasonably required for the performance of its powers and duties under.the Texas Water code and other laws of the state.
5331.101. Applicability.
This subchapter establishes addi-tional standards for Class III well injection activities regarding i
the development of production or other areas authorized by an area l
psrmit and/or production area authorization.
L i
5331.102.
Confinement of Mining Solution.
Mining solutions shall be confined to the production zone within the area of des-l ignated production zone monitor wells.
l 5331.103.
Production Area Monitor Wells.
(a)
Production zone monitoring.
Designated Production Zone l
Monitor Wells shall be spaced no greater than 400 feet from the production area and no greater than 400 feet l
between the wells.
The angle formed by lines drawn from any production well to the two nearest monitor walls will l
not be greater than 75*.
Changes or adjustments in designated production zone monitor well locations may be authorized by the executive director so as to assura l
adequate containment.
These walls shall be subject to the sampling, corrective action, and reporting require-i ments in 5331.105 of this title (relating to Monitoring Standards) and $331.106 of this title (relating to i
Remedial Action for Excursion).
l (b)
Nonproduction zone monitoring.
At a minimum, designated non-production zone monitor walls shall be completed in the production area in any freshwater aquifer overlying l
the production zone.
These wells shall be located not more than 50 feet on either side of a line through the center of the production area with a minimum of one per every four acres of production area for wells completed in the,first overlying freshwater aquifer and one per y
every eight acres for wells completed in any additional overlying freshwater aquifers.
Changes or adjustments in designated non-production zone monitor well locations may be authorized by the executive director so as to assure adequate containment.
Those wells completed in the first overlying freshwater aquifer shall be subject to sampling, remedial action, and reporting requirements of i
5331.105 of this title (relating to Monitoring Standards) i and $331.106 of this title (relating to Remedial Action 2.
1 j
?.
i.
(
331.101-331.107 l
i l
for Excursion).
Monitor wells completed in any addition-l al overlying freshwater aquifers shall be subject to monitoring,. remedial action, and reporting requirements-i l
specified in the permit.
$331.104.
Establishment of Baseline and Restoration Values.
i (a)
One or more water samples shall be collected from each designated monitor well (Production and Non-Production zone) and each designated production well in the permit or production area.
These samples will be analyzed and the results for each well submitted and summarized on I
forms provided by the executive director.as follows:
{
(1) mine area baseline - The averages and ranges of the parameter values determined for the designated
}
production zone monitor wells:
)
(2) production area baseline - The averages and ranges l
of the parameter values determined from at least j
five designated production zone walls in the produc-l tion arear and, (3) nonproduction zone baseline - The averages and ranges by zone of the parameter values determined for designated nonproduction zone monitor wells.
j (b)
All samples shall be collected, preserved, analyzed, and controlled according to accepted methods as stated in the
{
permit.
l (c)
The baseline water quality values for a permit or produc-i tion area shall be u ed to determine control parameter i
upper limits.
(d)
The baseline water quality values for a permit or produc-tion area shall be used to determine restoration table l
values.
Each production area authorization shall contain j
a restoration tab.1r.
The table may be developed by using i
either:
l (1) the higher value in either the column headed "Mine Area Average" or the column headed " Production Area Average" for parameters shown on the production area baseline water quality form for the production zones or (2) predictions of restoration quality that are rea-1 sonably certain after giving consideration to the factors specified in $331.107(f) of this title
,i (relating to Restoration).
]
4
$331.105.
Monitoring Standards.
The following r,aall be J
cecomplished to detect mining solutions in designated monitor i
walls.
(1)
Routine sampling - Water samples shall be taken at least twice a month at two-week intervals from all monitor walls for permit / production area (s) in which mining solutions have been introduced.
These shall be analyzed for the Control Parameters by the second i.
2
^
331.101-331.107
).
I*
1 1j working day and reported as required in 5331.85(e) l of this title (relating to Reporting Requirements).
The determined values shall be entered on appropri-j ate forms within three working days after analysis.
These data shall be kept readily available on site I
for review by TWC representatives.-
J (2)
Duration of monitoring program - The program of j
monitoring detailed in paragraph (1) of this sub-section shall be continued in each permit / mine area j
until the executive director is officially notified that restoration has commenced.
Further monitoring as required by permit shall continue until aquifer restoration and stabilization in that particular permit /mine area has been achieved in compliance with 5331.107 of this title (relating to Restora-tion).
l (3)
Verifying analysis - If the results of a routine sample analysis show that the value of any Control l
Parameter is equal to or above the Upper Limit l
established for that permit /mine area, the operator j
shall complete a verifying analysis of samples taken from each apparently affected well within two days.
i (4)
Sampling frequency when mining solutions present -
During the period of time when mining solutions are i
l present'in a designated monitor well, water samples i
l will be taken at least 2 times per week, and an-alyzed for all control parameters by the second day l
after the sample is taken.
i 5331.106.
Remedial Action for Excursion.
If the verifying l
analysis indicates that mining solutions are present in a designat-l ed monitor well, the operator shall take the following actions:
l (1)
Notification - Notify the district office by the next working day by telephone and notify the execu-l tive director by letter postmarked within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> i
identifying the affected monitor well and submitting l
the control parameter,, concentrations.
This letter l
shall be addressed to the executive director in care of the Director, Bazardous and Solid Waste Division.
i (2)
Analysis - Complete a groundwater analysis report for each affected well'on forms provided by the executive director (including Accuracy checks and Stiff Diagram) for the following pH, Calcium, Magnesium, Sodium, Potassium, Carbonate, Bicar-bonate, Sulfate, Chloride, silica, Total Dissolved Solids (180*C), specific conductance and dilute conductance, and any other specified constituents.
Results shall be reported in accordance with 5331. 85 (e) of this title (relating to Reporting Requirements).
l L
3 l
\\
331.101-331.107 1
i i
(A)
Clean-up - The permittee will clean up all' I
designated monitor wells, all zones outside of the production zone, and the production zone i
outside of the mine area that contain mining i
solutions.
The permittee may use any method i
jtoged necessary and prudent to define the i
extent of the mining solutions and to effect i
this clean-up in an expeditious and practical manner.
Well clean-up is deemed to be accom-plished when the water quality in the affected monitor well(s) has been restored to values 3
t consistent with current local baseline water l
quality as confirmed by three consecutive daily j
samples for the Control Parameters.
(B)
The executive director may determine that cleanup is not necessary if the permittee can j
demonstrate that the change in water quality is not due to the presence of mining solutions or i
fluids from other mining activities.
5331.107.
Restoration, j
(a)
Restoration table.
Upon issuance and renewal, Class III permits and production area authorizations shall contain a restoration table listing restoration goals as provided by 5331.104 of this title (relating to Establishment of Baseline and Restoration Values).
(b)
Mining completion.
When the mining of a permit or production area is completed, the permittee shall notify the appropriate Texas Water Commission district office, and the executive director, and shall proceed to reestab-lish groundwater quality in the affected permit or mine area aquifers to levels consistent with the values listed i
in the restoration table for that permit er mine area.
l Restoration efforts shall begin as soon as practicable but no later than 30 days after mining is completed in a particular production area.
The executive director, l
subject to commission approval, may grant a variance from i
the 30-day period for good cause shown.
l (c)
Timetable.
Aquifer restoration, where appropriate for j
aach permit or mine area, shall be accomplished in i
accordance with the timetable specified in the currently d
i approved mine plan, unless otherwise authorized by the commission.
Authorization for expansion of mining into i
l new production areas may be contingent upon achieving l
restoration progress in previously mined production areas j
within the schedule set forth in the mine plan.
The commission may amend the permit to allow an extension of 4
4 the time to complete restoration after considering the j
following factors i
(1) efforts made to achieve restoration by the original date in the mine plant 4
1
~
TZZZJ ZZ^ ~11^ 11 7 ~ ~~ '
~~~~^ ~ ^" ~ ~ ~'" ' ~ ^ ~
f 331.101-331.107 L.
l (2) technology available to restore groundwater for particular parameters (3) the ability of existing technology to restore groundwater to baseline quality in the arent (4) the cost of achieving restoration by a particular l
methodt (5) the amount of water which would be used or has i
been used to achieve restoration; i
(6) the need to make use of the affected aquifers and (7) complaints from persons affected by the permitted activity.
(d)
Reports.
Beginning six months after the date of ini-tiation of restoration of a permit or production area, as l
defined in the mine plan, the operator shall provide to the executive director semi-annual restoration progress j
reports until restoration is accomplished for the permit j
or mine area.
(e)
Stability sampling.
The permittee shall obtain stability 4
sampler.'and complete an analysis for certain parameters listed in the restoration table from all production area baseline wells.
Stability samples shall be conducted at a minimum of 30-day intervals for a minimum of three
}
sample sets and reported to the executive director.
The permittee shall notify the executive director at lease i
two weeks in advance of sample dates in order to provide the opportunity for splitting samples and for selecting i
additional wells for sampling, if desired.
To insure water quality has stabilized, a period of 180 days must i
elapse between cessation of restoration operations and l
the final set of stability samples.
The executive director shall determine within 45 days of the receipt of j
all sample analysis results whether or not restoration i
has been achieved.
Upon acknowledgament in writing by the executive director confirming achievement of final j
restoration, the permittee shall accomplish closure of j
the area in accordance with $331.86 of this title 3
(relating to Closure).
i (f)
Restoration table values not achieved.
After an appro-j priate effort has been made to achieve restoration to levels consistent with values listed in the restoration table for a production area, the permittee mar cease restoration operations, reduce bleed and request that.
J the restoration table be amended.
With the request for j
amendment, the permittee shall. submit the results of i
three consecutive sample sets taken at a minimum of f
30-day intervals from all production area baseline L
walls used in determining the restoration table to verify current water quality.
Stabilization sampling may commence 60 days after cessation of restoration i
operations.
i 5
+
._ ~
- 0 1.101-331.107
)
i (1)
In determining-whether the restoration table should be smended, the commission will consider the l
following items addressed in the' request (A) uses for which the groundwater was suitable at baseline water quality levels:
(B) actual existing use of groundwater in the area prior to and during mining; (C) potential future use of groundwater of baseline I
quality, and of proposed resto: ration quality; l
(D) the effort made by the permittes to restore the 1
groundwater to baseline;
}
(E) technology available to restore groundwater for l
particular parameterar i
(F) the ability of existing technology to restore groundwater to baseline quality in the area under consideration; (G) the cost of further restoration efforts:
(H) the consumption of groundwater resources during 1
iurther restoration and j
(I) the harmful effects of levels of particular parameter.
l (2)
The commission may amend the restoration table if it i
finds that:
(A) reasonable restoration efforts have been under-l taken giving consideration to the factors listed in paragraph (1) of this subsection l
'B) the values for the parameters describing water quality have stabilized for a period of 180 i
days
)
(C) the formation water present in the aquifer would be suitable for any use to which it was j
reasonably suited prior to mining; and j
(D) further restoration efforts would consume energy, water, or other natural resources of the state without providing a corresponding benefit to the' state.
(3)
If the restoration table is amended, restoration sampling shall commence and proceed as described in l
subsection (a) of this section.
1 j
i I
1 I
i b
l
]
l l
1 4
1
?'
1 e
l 1
+
f f
i 1
i 4
f.
I J
l 4
I l
i
)
l I
i I
i i
l i
i i
)
]
i l
i s
w_
URI, INC.
D R.I - T D W (A Subsidiary of Uranium Resources. Inc.)
% =91
.'n" T "?,!,1 7
%.1. ao.. s s.,,
.u.a.. s 7s Kshgsme.Teass 78363 us m a 9 Towphone (714) SM.7777 Tot m ($12)S9#5731 corpus Chnsti.TX ?$411 Tow:opy (714) SM 7779 T** copy ($12)Mbe433 s
Tow;eone (5171993 7731 TWx 914467 4701 Towcopy (612) 983 s744 April 13,1993 i
1 1
.i 1
FIECElVED TDH Mr. Richard Ratliff. Director Division of Compliance and Inspection APR 161998 i
Bureau of Radiation Control i
TEX AS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH BUREAU OF i
1100 West 49th Street RADIATION CONTROL 4
i Austin, TX 78756 3189 RE: License LO2704
Dear Mr. Ratliff:
The purpose of this correspendence is to initiate the closecut of the subject license.
The Longoria site has been completely decommissioned and surveyed.
Those area that showed contamination above 2x back The survey results are attachad.
The wellfield The Benavides site is nearing final decommissioning.
has been decommissioned and surveyed. The final decommissioning of the plant area will be completed shortly. We are presently awaiting approval by the TWC to dispose of pond water into our Rosita disposal well.
Closeout of the surface discharge locations is also progressing. The status of the Longoria surface discharge will be dependent on the outcome of the sampling program that will be conducted with our We will be the Benavides discharge location is essentia!!y complete.
submitting surveys of the Benavides surface discharge location, Benavides wellfields and Benavides pond area prior to closeout surveys.
e b-
~
Letter 13 R. Ratliff
. April 13,1993 l.
9000 2 i
i..'
By this letter, we are requesting the participallon of the Agency in the final clostout of the subject license. We would anticipate beginning with Our goal surveys of the Longoria sites, followed by the Senavides alte.
would be final closure by July 1st of this year.
3 Please feel free to contact me with questions, or Ms. Lille Canales to l
schedule a time to conduct the surveys.
Yours very
}
Mark S. Pe i a i
Environrnenta anager i
MSP/ dig Encl.
)
cc:
Lille Canales/URI Rosita j
Bill McKnight/URI Corpus Christi 1
1 i
i l
1 l
i l
1 3
e e
I i.
l-l I
I l 5 i
l' I
J l
I f
i l
4 I
I i
I f
I 1
t 4
. ~... _ _. - - -
L TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH MEMO
=
1
)
TO:
GENE FORRER i
LICENSE FILE LO2704
., /
ROBERT FREE.f r
/
THRU:
^
' ARTHUR TATE g
RUTH MCBURNEY F
\\
j FROM:
OSCAR LESSARD CL i
SUBJECT:
RELEASE FOR UNRESTRICTED USE i
j BENAVIDES FACILITY i
URI, BRUNI, TX t
j DATE:
MARCH 13,1998 l
j
'Ihe confirmatory close out survey and analytical results for Benavides facility are attached (dated August 30,1994, prepared by Thomas Cardwell). The surveys and sampling were accomplished i
in August 1993 by TDH.
Brad Caskey and Russ Meyer performed confirmatory surveys of the creek beds and concrete blocks on January 14 and 15,1998. One concrete block at the edge of " Pond B" had elevated radiation readings. The block was transported to Rosita Project for decontamination and release for unrestricted use. No other readings above background were detected.
J The discharge area was found to have -levatad radium-226 levels during the survey and sampling accomplished in August 1993. In January 1998, a survey of the discharge area was accomplished and no readings above background were detected. A soil sample was taken and results were within regulatory limits. The discharge area is not part of the licensed area.
Recommend Benavides facility be released for unrestricted use.
1 l
~
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AUSTIN, TEXAS INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM AUGUST 30,1994 THRU:
BOB FREE i
BRAD CASKEY I
HELEN WATKINS ART TATE l
To:
LIC #LO2704 FROM:
THOMAS CARDWELL SUBJ:
CLOSE OUT SURVEY OF URI BENAVIDES WELLFIELDS AND PLANT SITE FOR RELEASE TO UNRESTRICTED USE On August 4,
1993, I organized a survey team composed of Eric Skotak, Robin Cooksey, Erick Conard, Rick Munoz, Muhammad Zara, and i
Vic Whadford.
A survey was conducted of the wellfields, plant site, pond areas, and drainage areas at the URI Benavides facility.
The Survey was performed with one-by-one sodium iodide probes held approximately four to six inches above ground level.
The background readings were approximately 1000 counts per minute (epm) on all the instruments except one which averaged approximately 1500 i
cpm.
The survey was performed in straight lines approximately 10 meters apart with readings recorded every 10 meters. The surveyors l
were instructed to survey the entire line and if elevated readings were encountered, to stop and locate the area of highest reading.
l The areas were then flagged for sampling or further clean-up.
i
)
The readings were plotted on the graphs included as attachment 1.
The areas as indicated on the graphs correspond to the areas as i
marked on the map marked as URI, Inc Benavides Project, included as attachment 2.
The grids as marked in attachment 1 are not drawn to scale.
Each grid represents approximately a 10-meter by 10-meter square.
The grids in attachment 1 with green borders indicate
)
areas of elevated readings which were marked and decontaminated to j
background readings.
The grids outlined in red are areas which j
were sampled.
The sample results are included as attachment 3.
t i
The grids on the plot marked as area 3 in attachment 1, indicates readings of 10,000 cpm in three grids and 12,000 cpm in one grid t
l which was sampled, and 9,500 cpm in another grid.
The grids were j
marked during the survey.
The grids were decontaminated and sampled.
I i
=,;
.~ -
i The plant area and ponds were also surveyed.
No readings over background were encountered.
Soil samples were collected from the pond areas.
The results of the sample. analyses are included in
.~
attachment 3.
surveys of the Benavides discharge area were also performed.
However, areas of elevated readings were encountered. Soil samples were collected and, at the request of tJRI, submitted to Jordan -
Laboratories for analyses.
The results of the sample analyses are included as attachment 3.
The concentrations of natural uranium
.j mhd radium-226 in the discharge area at the Benavides site exceeded the limits for release to unrestricted use.
Therefore, the survey readings were not plotted.
The discharge area will need to be resurveyed prior to release.
1 I
1 l
i l
i l
l l
l l
i l
h TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TD H. - -
4 MEMO TO:
GENE FORRER LICENSE FILE LO2704 9'
THRU:
ROBERT FREE >'
ARTHUR TATE l
RUTH MCBURNEY,p FROM:
SUBJECT:
RELEASE FOR UNRiiSTRICTED USE LONGORIA FACILITY i
URI, BRUNI, TX DATE:
MARCH 13,1998 The confirmatory close-out survey and analytical results for Longoria facility are attached (dated August 23,1994, prepared by Thomas Cardwell). The surveys and sampling were accomplished in April and May 1993 by TDH.
Brad Caskey and Russ Meyer performed confirmatory surveys of the creek beds on January 14 and 15,1998. No readings above background were detected.
Recommend Longoria facility be released for unrestricted use.
l i
~
..~
,1, Ml _-[.. ~. <
a., -..,,
--.n-u.
a
-sa w n.>
>,n n. - ~ ~,
. ~,.
n.
ee l'
(
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH l
AUSTIN, TEXAS INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM l
l AUGUST 23,1994 THRUS BOB FREE ART TATE l
TO:
LIC L02704 i
j FROM:
THOMAS CARDWELL i
l SUBJ:
SURVEY AND SAMPLING OF THE URI LONGORIA FACILITY FOR j
l UNRESTRICTED USE l
j mesa
__a
+.
1 l
On April 21,
- 1993, Robin Cooksey, Victor Whadford, Muhammad Zareabbaszadehk, and I surveyed and sampled the Longoria discharge j
area.
The readings on the sodium iodide probes were slightly elevated. Several samples were collected from the creek area. The sample analyses indicated that the average concentration of radium l
and uranium in the creek sediment meets the limits for unrestricted i
use.
4 1
j On April 22,
- 1993, Robin Cooksey, Victor Whadford, Muhammad j
Zareabbaszadehk and I surveyed and sampled wellfield #2, the plant i
pad area and the ponds at the Longoria facility.
The survey was l
performed on a ten-meter grid using Ludlum 14Cs and one-by-one sodium iodide probes.
The background for the instruments averaged 1
approximately 1100 counts per minute (cpm). Readings were recorded 1
every 10 matars.
The highest reading encountered was 2400 cym.
j one area, as indicated on the attached plot of the area, which had i
a reading of 2200 cyn. was sampled and five samples were collected 4
from each pond as indicated on the laboratory forms.
The samples j
were submitted to the Bureau of Laboratories for analyses.
The i
analyses have been completed and copies of the results are attached to this memo.
The analyses indicated that the areas sampled meet f
the unrestricted use limits.
I i
.....-..---.a
... +.
.a. -
d r
1, I'
4.
l*
URI Longoria I
August 23, 1994 Page 2 1
2 On May 4, 1993, Robin Cooksey, Karan Raines, Eric Skotak-and I surveyed and sampled wellfield #3 at the Longoria facility.
The
' survey was performed with the same procedures as the April 22 i
survey discussed previously. Again two of the meters had a average j
background of, approximately 1100 cpm and the third meter had a background of approximately 2000 cym.
The survey was performed' along lines running south of southwest to north of northeast.
All readings in the wellfield were less than twice background and uniform readings were noted.
Therefore, one area was ' randomly a
select in the wellfield for sampling.
Samples were collected from i
0 - 15 centimeters and from 15 - 30 centimeters from the center and 3
the four corners of a 100 square meter area.
The samples were submitted to the Texas Department of Health, Bureau of Laboratorics for analyses.
The analyses of the area sampled indicate that l
wellfield #3 meets the limits for unrestricted use.
The plots of the wellfields and plant area surveys are included as attachments to this mano.
Also, the Agency sample analyses of the wellfields and discharge area are attached.
The Licensee's sample plot of the discharge area and sample results are included as attachments to this memo.
}
i I
i l
1 i
I l
I l
=
m
.m - 2
Jo(aos) 2Len kkC hk chm TDH A
3 i
g Texas Department of Health WiUiam R. Archer E. M.D.
1100 West 49th Street Patti L Patterson, M.D., M.P.H.
Commissioner Austin. Texas 78756-3189 Executive Deputy Commissioner (512) 458-7111 Radiation Control (512) 834-6688 sn$N September 15,1998 r3 3 1
3 9
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission o'
ATTN: Richard Bangart, Director Office of State Programs Mail Stop 03H20 Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Bangart:
has received a request to terminate Radioactive The Texas Department of Health (TDH)Rio Grande Resources Corporation, located near Material License No. L01234, issued to Benevides, Texas.
This site was operated from 1968 to 1986 when production operations were ceased. The license authorized in Eini leach mining and processmg.
From 1986 until 1995 groundwater restoration was performed along with limited surface reclamation. The TexasTVater Commission authorized ceasing groundwater restoration and final plugging of all wells in the Fall of 199,5 (Enclosure 1). Folfowing plugging of all wells, full scale surTace reclamation and decommissionmg began.
During surface reclamation and decommissioning all material and equipment was surveyed for radioactive contamination. Any material and/or equi disposed of by utilizing one of the following methods: pment which was contaminated w transfer to another licensed mine site; decontamination and release for unrestricted use; or e
disposal at a licensed byproduct disposal facility, f
Proper disposal of all material and/or equipment was documented by the licensee.
Surveys to confirm the effectiveness of reclamation and decommissioning activities were merformed by direct and/or swipe surveys of equipment and structures to be turned over to the Landowner, direct survey ofland by takmg readmgs at 10 meter intervals across the wellfield oatiern. Soil samples were taken from three 10 meter by(Enclosure 2).10 meter areas p
'icensee subsequently requested termination of their license Reclamation and decommissioning activities were completed in 1997.
j L
~ ~ ~. -
~~
^
~^
~~
^
l Richard Bangart Se tember 15,1998 Pa e2 s,
In August 1993, TDH personnel performed confirmatory surveys of the fa'cility. The surveys -
were performed using one-by-one sodium iodide probes and Ludlum 14C survey meters. Two -
times background was used as an allowable limit (Regulatory Guide 5.10, Guidelines for 3
Conducting Close Out Surveys of Open Lands and Requesting Release for Unrestricted Use).
The survey was performed by walkmg 10 meters apart movmg across the wellfield pattern.
Background readings were approximately 3000 cpm on all meters. Four areas exceeded two times the background levels. These areas were cleaned up by the licensee and resurveyed.
Post clean up surveys indicated no levels above background. Soil samples were taken from T
a 100 square meter area around the four areas that exceeded two times background. Analysis of all samples indicated that average radium and uranium concentrations were below the release criteria of 5 pCilg and 30 pCi/g, respectively.
i On-site disposal of solid radioactive material or byproduct material was not authorized at this j
facility, thus there is no land to be transferred to the State of Texas or the Federal Government.
Encl e;ure 3). : All As a result of these fm' dings, we are proposing to terminate this license (it be necessary data supporting our proposal is kept on file, and available, at TDH should i
reference at a Sture date. Please advise if the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission wishes additional material or information in order to make a determination regarding concurrence with ou_rproposal to terminate this license. If additional information is required, please i
contact Mr. Eugene Forrer of my staff.
)
i As maintaining this site places an undue economic burden and hardship on the licensee we L
request expeditious processing of this request.
l Sincerely,
,j i
Richard A. Ratliff, P,, C ief Bureau of Radiation ntrol Enclosures i
i i
j i
)
a d
i 4
J I
~
)
L T_D._H. _
Texas Department of Health william R. Archer III, M.D.
I100 West 49th Street Patti J. Patterson, M.D., M.P.H.
Commissioner Austin, Texas 78756-3189 Executive Deputy Commissioner (512) 458-7111 Radiation Control (512) 834-6688 September 15,1998 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Richard Bangart, Director Office of State Programs Mail Stop 03H2O Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Bangart:
has received a request to terminate Radioactive The Texas Department of Health (TDH)Rio Grande Resources Corporation, located near Material License No. L01234, issued to Benevides, Texas.
This site was operated from 1968 to 1986 when production operations were ceased. The license authorized in sint leach mining and processing.
From 1986 until 1995 gro.undwater restoration was performed along with limited surface reclamation. The Texas water Commission authorized ceasing groundwater restoration and final plugging of all wells i,n the Fall of 199,5 (Enclosure 1). Folfowing plugging of all wells, full scale surTace reclamation and decommissionmg began.
During surface reclamation and decommissioning all material and equipment was surveyed for radioactive contamination. Any material and/or equi disposed of by utilizing one of the following methods: pment which was contaminated w transfer to another licensed mine site; decontamination and release for unrestricted use; or disposal at a licensed byproduct disposal facility.
Proper disposal of all material and/or equipment was documented by the licensee.
Surveys to confirm the effectiveness of reclamation and decommissioning activities were merformed by direct and/or swipe surveys of equipment and structures to be turned over to the
- andowner, direct survey of land by takmg readmgs at 10 meter intervals across the wellfield 7attern. Soil samples were taken from three 10 meter by(Enclosure 2).10 meter areas Licensee subsequently requested termination of their license Reclamation and decommissioning activities were completed in 1997.
l
. Richard Bangart September 3,1998 Page 2 2
i
[
In August 1993, TDH personnel performed co' firmatory surveys of the facility. The surveys-n
- were performed using one-by-one sodium iodide probes and Ludlum 14C survey meters. Two times background was used as an allowable limit (Regulatory Guide 5.10, Guidelines for Conducting Close Out Surveys of Open L. ands and Requesting Release for Unrestricted Use).
The survey was performed by walkmg 10 meters apart movmg across the wellfield pattern.
Background readings were approximately 3000 cpm on all meters. Four areas exceeded two.
times the background levels. These areas were cleaned up by the licensee and resurveyed.
Post clean up surveys indicated no levels above background. Soil samples were taken from a 100 square meter area around the four areas that exceeded two times background. Analysis -
of all samples indicated that average radium and uranium concentrations were below the release criteria of 5 pCi/g and 30 pCi/g, respectively.
~
On-site disposal of solid radioactive material or byproduct material was not authorized at this facility, thus there is no land to be transferred to the State of Texas or the Federal-Government.
As a result of these findings, we are proposing to terminate this license (it be necessa. All'.
data supporting our proposal is kept on fire, and available, at TDH should reference at a future date. Please advise if the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission wishes j'
additional material or information in order to make a determination regarding concurrence with ou_rproposal to terminate this license. If additional information is required, please contact Mr. Eugene Forrer of my staff.
1 i
As maintaining this site places an undue economic burden and hardship on the licensee we l
request expeditious processing of this request.
f Sincerely, i<
i Richard A. Ratliff, P.E., Chief i
Bureau of Radiation Control
{
j Enclosures
~t+) k bec: PHM, REM, L01234 EFF:cff i
+
4 i
i
J O
o a
4 4
~
'r n2. 1
~
,h d
- John Hat, Obeirmes
- c Pam Reed, Commisseener
': * +
h R. 8. " Ralph
- Marques. Comm'asioner
/
}
' Den Pearson Enervtiw Direesor TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION Protecting Taras bg Reducing and Presenting Pollution -
July 21, 1995 I
M::. Kevin L. Raabe, coordinator l
Environmental / Safety Chevron Resources Company P.O. Box 1000 Hobson, TX 78117-1000 Re:
Restoration Deterinination of Production Area No. 1 of the Palangana Mine Site, Permit No. URO2051-011.
j
Dear Mr. Raabe:
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission has received the restoration data for Production Area 1 of the Palangana Site.
A l
review of the data indicate that the production area has been restored in accordance with.the specifications contained in permit l
UR02051-011 and as required by 30 TAC 5 331.107.
You are hereby authorized to cease any restoration activities, including l
monitoring, at this producti,,on area.
(
I Within 120 days of receipt of this letter, closure of the wellfield shall be accomplished in accordance with the approved plugging and abandonment plans for this site.
Allowances on the amount of time necessary to plug the wells may be granted provided that the Commission is notified ahead of time.
Any changes to the plugging procedures or the plugging schedule must be approved by the Commission.
i j
Please notify the Commission prior to commencing plugging 1
activities to provide the opportunity for TNRCC personnel to be i
present.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 512/239-f.
6636 or Johnny Williamson of the Uranium Team at 512/239-6631.
I sincerely, RECEIVED Dale P. Kohler j
UIC, Uranium, and Radioactive Waste Section MAY 181998 Industrial and Hazardous Waste Division BUREAU OF DPX/dpk RADIATION CONTROL cc: Johnny Williamson, UURW Section P.O. Box 13067
- Austin, Texas 787113087 + 512/239 1000
+
v a.~... n. m
~.
.m et o
O e
6
- 1. _ T 1 '
~
~~
~
~
~
~
~
PALANGANA URANIUM OPERATIONS Introduction 1
i The Palangana Project is an in-situ leach (ISL) uranium mine started in the 1950's as one of the original ISL test mines in the United States. The project has passed through the various stages of feasibili y, pilot testing, development, operatica (under multiple testing t
scenarios), standby, and reclamation. Along the way, valuable contributions have been made to the utanium mining industry. Much of the technology currently used in the ISL uranium mining industry in the U.S., was originally tested and developed at Palangana. Today, the mine and plant have been fully decommissioned. Groundwater restoration was achieved by:
July 1994 and declared complete in July 1995 by the TNRCC, after its approval of the Restoration Table Amendment.
Location and Description The Palangana site is located 6 miles north of the city of Benavides, on Farm to Market (FM) highway 3196, in Duval County, Texas. Palangana's uranium leases cover approximately 6,270 contiguous acres ofland.
The site facilities included a main building (housing offices, a warehouse, a lab, and maintenance facilities), a processing plant, five PVC lined water storage ponds (ranging from 80,000 to 1,200,000 gallons in capacity), a production well-field, an irrigation area, and a deep disposal well.
Early history l
The Palangana Project was originally evaluated as a potential underground uranium mine site in the late 1950's. Following the sinking of a pilot mine shaft to study the l
geology, it was determined that the instability of the mineralized zone as well as the presence l
of hydrogen sulfide gas created conditions undesirable for underground mining.
l In the early 1960's an investigation into the possibility of mining the uranium via solution mining method (later termed ISL) was launched. In 1969-70, a two year pilot program was conducted at Palangana to demonstrate the feasibility of this emerging technology. After completing the pilot program,' the equipment was dismantled and the project abandoned until 1975.
During this period, several other companies in the U.S. were in the early stages of testing solution mining technology. Early test results demonstrated that this technology had the potential to allow economic access to uranium reserves that were smaller, deeper, and lower grade than reserves fitting the classic open pit mining technology reserve requirement.
Historicalinformadon 1
December 1997 e
t l**
. hoduction history In'1975, additional drilling and development of the ore body at Palangana was conducted, and in 1976, the project was expanded to full-scale production. Some 1,800-wells were installed in a 30.7 acre area that has become known as Production Area Authorization (PAA) No.1. An additional 1,150 wells were installed around the PAA, in a i
i 161.7 acre permit area.
The expansion program of 1976 provided the equipment to drill, case, and place into production, an estimated 250 production wells per year. In addition, an ion exchange (IX) plant was installed, with a production capacity of 220,000 pounds of U 0, per year.
3 Well completion techniques t
'Ihree different well completion methods were developed and put into operation at Palangana during the 1970's drilling program. They were (1) four inch integral screens, (2) under reaming, and (3) water jet perforation.
4 l
The four inch integral screened wells were the first wells used on a production basis.
'Ihis type of completion consisted of four inch PVC slotted screen sections separated by l
rubber shale traps between ore horizons, Some 750 production wells were completed by the fall of 1976 using this technique. Operating experience on patterns of these type wells quickly indicated problems with the shale traps. Lixiviant was leaking through the traps into the barren sandstone between the ore horizons, significantly reducing overall recovery. In addition, the use of four inch PVC casing with four inch submersible pumps resulted in many pumps being lodged in the casings due to calcium precipitates or formation sands filling the small gaps between the pumps and the casing wall.
In 1977, under reaming was used to counteract some of the problems associated with integral screens. All new well completions were also constructed of five inch, schedule 40, PVC casing. This larger casing size reduced the problem oflodged pumps, as with the four inch casings.
In the under reaming method of well completion, a set of blades was lowered down.
the well on drill pipe to the location of the ore horizon. High pressure water was used to i
extend the blades outward, and by rotation of the drill stem, the blades would cut through the PVC casing and cement, and into the ore horizon. The maximum diameter of the cut was approximately 11 inches. After the well was under reamed, a removable well screen sealed to the casing by a packer assembly war installed just above the ore horizon.
Through operating experience with these type wells, several disadvantages to the under reaming technique were observed: (1) No satisfactory system ofisolating an under reamed horizon was available, so that another ore horizon in the same well could be under reamed and leached; (2) Under reaming operations required the use of a drilling rig, with Huroricalhformanon 2
December 1997
'e j
. ~.
some formations requiring lengthy cuts, thus affecting drill rig utilization; and (3) Under reaming blades would wear out rapidly, and were expensive to refurbish or replace.
l Approximately 250 wells were completed using this technique.
The water jet perforation technique was developed by the Bureau of Mines by 1978.
This operation consisted of lowering a special high pressure, low volume water nozzle on a stainless steel tubing, into the PVC casing, to the bottom of the ore horizon, then pumping water at 10,000 psig through the nozzle. The nozzle was then rotated 180 degrees over a five minute interval. Water flow was then stopped and the nozzle raised one half inch.
Water flow was again staned, and the nozzle was again rotated 180 degrees in the same direction, thereby perforating the opposite side of the pipe. These staggered perforations would be repeated until the desired amount of horizon would be perforated.
Water jet perforation, along with proper well development, offered the most accurate and reliable method of providing access to an ore horizon. Approximately 450 wells were.
i completed using this technique.
Wellfeld patterus and pumping schemes -
In addition to the various well completion techniques used at Palangana, various well patterns and pumping schemes were also used. Among these were the push-pull technique and modified versions of the classic five spot pattern.
l In the pilot stages and the majority of full scale production, the push pull technique of in-situ leaching was used. This technique involved individual wells completed in the hean of 1
an ore horizon. The wells were fitted with submersible pumps with the capability to perform I
as either an injection or extraction well.
l A well would be started as an injection well with lixiviant added for a predetermined length of time, then the well would be switched over to an extraction well to recover the injected lixiviant as leach liquor. This technique worked fairly well from the standpoint of uranium recovery, however, control of grade and overall recovery was very difficult.
The modified version of the five spot pattern was utilized late in the production phase.
A simple modification of simply pairing extraction and injection wells to sweep lixiviant across a predetermined ore horizon, was used in areas oflower permeability. This technique allowed greater control of grade and recovery, however, due to the presence of clay lensing within the ore bearing zone, communication between selected wells was often distorted.
Another modification of the five spot pattern was the alternating line drive technique.
Here a pattern of alternating,. parallel lines of wells was set-up. Each line being either equally spaced injection wells, or equally spaced extraction wells. A line of extraction wells would be operated with an adjacent line ofinjection wells. Extraction and injection flow rates were controlled to provide the greatest area of coverage by the lixiviant weging Husoricalhybrmation 3
December 1997 1
i
across the ore horizon between the wells. When the area between the wells was deemed i
I depleted of uranium, the line of injection wells would be convened to extraction wells, and a j
new line of injection wells would be started. The lines of wells would alternate from injection to extraction, and the entire pattern would advance down the field. Like the well pairing technique, the complicated geology of the ore horizon distorted flow paths and i,
affected grade control and recovery.
i Reserves i
Extensive delineation drilling was performed in and around the Palangana Dome deposits during the various exploration and development programs. From this data, ore reserves were calculated.
Ore reserves included in-situ mining reserves of 5.6MM pounds U 0, within the 3
Palangana Dome boundary. An additional 2.4MM pounds U 0 in mineral trends outside the 3
j Dome were projected.
J Umnium extmetion l
The solution mining process consisted of pmping an ammonium bicarbonate l
lixiviant, supplemented with an oxidant (hydrogen peroxide and later oxygen), into the ore l
bearing horizon, 250 to 350 feet below surface, via a number ofinjection wells. The uranium minerals were thereby oxidized and dissolved into the ammonium bicarbonate j,
solution The uranium impregnated bicarbonate solution was then pumped from the formation to the surface via submersible pumps in a series of extraction wells. At the surface, the solution was processed through the IX plant to remove the dissolved uranium.
The solution was then refortified with ammonium bicarbonate and oxidant and re-injected into the formation.
i l
In the processing plant, after the uranium v as loaded into the ion exchange resin from the mining solutions, a portion of the resin would be stripped of the uranium by a solution of ammonium chloride. From this stage the ammonium chloride was acidified with j
hydrochloric acid, then the uranium was precipitated using anhydrous ammonia. The uranium precipitate was filtered into a final product, wet filter cake (called yellowcake) which was then shipped to another facility for further purification, drying, and final l
packaging.
1 Production battles at Palangana were hard fought, however rarely won. From this, came a growing understanding of the importance of selection of an ore horizon based on desirable geological and hydrological characteristics, in addition to mineralization.
Palangana had few of these desirable characteristics, given its' low permeability and j
numerous inter-bedded clay lenses. As a result, the total production of U 0 from 3
i Palangana, at the end of 1979, was reported at only 314,000 pounds.
hsorical1 formation 4
December 1997 9
j.
.i.
~ _ -.. _
5 In 1978, a task force was formed to evaluate the technology and economics of the -
project. In October,1979. the recommendation was made to terminate production and put the project on standby. In 19,81, the project was re-evaluated and the recommendation tm made to keep it on standby due to declining market conditions. Due to continued depressed market conditions, in February,1986, the decision was made to place the project in a full reclamation mode.
4 Reclamation Restoration of Production Area Authorization No. I at the Palangana Site in Duval County, was initiated in September,1986. The restoration method used at that time was groundwater sweep staning on the southern boundary and progressing in a northern direction. Water was extracted from the well-field (no re-injection) and either used for irrigation or disposed ofin a deep disposal well. Using the groundwater sweep method without re-injection created a hydraulic sink which resulted in native groundwater being drawn into the area.
'ne groundwater sweep restoration effons continued until July,1992. At this time it was discontinued to pilot test a different restoration technology aimed at accelerating groundwater restoration. This technology used calcium as a mechanism to accelerate the slow releare rate of ammonia from the clay sites, thus accelerating the overall groundwater restoration proccu. This would be followed by reverse osmosis (RO) to reduce the final total dissolved solids.
Pilot testing was completed in February,1993. Results indicated the addition of calcium to flush ammonia from the aquifer was unsuccessful. On the other hand, the use of reverse osmosis to rapidly improve the water quality was clearly demonstrated. Based on these findings, the decision was made to proceed into an Accelerated Restoration Program (ARP) using reverse osmosis only.
l 4
Following the completion of the pilot program in February,1993, the 50 gpm leased RO unit (used in the pilot program) continued to operate on well field waters. As during the l
l pilot testing, RO concentrate solution was disposed of via deep well injection, with RO permeate water being re injected into the mined aquifer. At this time, it was decided to add l
a 250 gpm RO unit.
In April,1993, the 50 gpm leased RO unit was purchased and added to the circuit.
This marked the beginning of the ARP. In May,1993, the 50 gpm unit was retrofitted with additional membranes to increase its capacity to 100 gpm, bringing the total RO processing capacity to 350 gpm. In August,1993, the program was given a boost when a second 250 gpm RO unit was purchased and installed, bringing the total RO processing capacity to a i
maximum 600 gpm.
Husoricalhfommon 5
Dectur iM h
i.
Also in August,1993, a higher pressure, higher capacity injection pump was purchased and installed on the Deep Disposal Well'to increase the injection rate. The new j
pump, along with frequent acid stimulations of the well, increased the disposal rate to a maximum of 120 gpm.
j All restoration fluids extracted from, and.re-injected into, the mined aquifer were through existing class III wells. No new wells were installed.
j During the last half of 1993, a total of approximately 85 million gallons (1.8 pore
}
volumes) of restoration fluid from the mined aquifer was processed through the RO circuit.
Approximately 80% of this volume was recycled and re-injected back into the aquifer as low conductivity RO permeate. The balance was disposed of in the deep disposal well.
j Restoration of the mined aquifer using groundwater sweep was conducted from 1986 through mid-1992, for a total of approximately seven pore volumes of water extracted from
}.
the aquifer. Accelerated restoration of the aquifer using reverse osmosis was conducted from l
April 1993 through July 1994, for a total of approximately five additional pore volumes j
("PV") of water treated. The grand total of water volume treated since 1986 was j
approximately 12.5 PV, which is equivalent to approximately 585 million gallons.
The deep disposal well ("WDW-134") was plugged and its surface site reclaimed in September 1995. All of the Class III w' ells, over 3,000 wells including the PAA wells, were successfully plugged in,the fall of 1995.
)
Surface decommissioning and decontamination of the plant site and the PAA area has j
now been accomplished. All byproduct materials (including piping, concrete, process equipment, contaminated soil, etc.) have been disposed ofin the Panna Maria tailings pond j
facility (RW 2402).
j Pending the state etgulatory agency's final radiological verification survey, any areas where soils were removed will be regraded, top soiled and re vegetated. Once adequate i
decontamination has been demonstrated and the operating license has been terminated, the I
property will be released for unrestricted use.
}
3 i
i i
l i
j h
Hutoricalinformation 6
y y
~ '
- w IP o s LAM t
i i
l PALANGANA 4
l URANIUM OPERATIONS i
l
)
PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING j
DECONTAMINATION, DECOMMISSIONING, j
RADIOLOGICAL SURVEYS AND SOIL SAMPLING l
IN SUPPORT OF LICENSE TERMINATION
)
l 4
e 1
4
a i Table of Contents 4
4 i
a i
P. ass i
.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................1 Purpose.....................................................................................................................................I
- 1. Decentamination of Land Surfaces...................................................................................... 2 A. S oil S urveyProced ures................................................................................................ 2 -
4
- 1. Clusification of Areas by Contamination Potential.......................................... 2
- 2. Background Surveys & Soil Sampling.............................................................. 2
- 3. Ra diological Instmmentation........................................................................... 3 4
- 4. Afrect ed S u rface Areas.................................................................................... 3 (a.) Byprodu ct (Soil) Removal................................................................. 4
]
(b.) Establishing Reference Grids............................................................ 5 (c.) Radiological (Survey) Measurements................................................. 5
- 5. Un afrect ed S u rface Areas................................................................................ 6 i
(a.) Establishing Reference Grids.............................................................. 6 (b.) Radiological (Survey) Measurements................................................. 7 B. Results of Radiological (Survey) Measurements.......................................................... 7 C. S oil S ampling Proced u res........................................................................................... 7 i
- 1. R egula t ory R equirements................................................................................. 7 i
- 2. S oil S ampling Method s.................................................................................... 9 (a.) S oil S ampling Device......................................................................... 9 (b.) Five Spot Soil Sampling for Afrected Areas....................................... 9 (c.) Chain of Cu st ody............................................................................ 10 i
(d.) S oil S ampling Frequency.............................................................. 11 (e.) Deep Dispo sal Well......................................................................... 1 1 (f.) Analysis of Quality Control Samples.................................................12 (g.) Irrigation Field................................................................................. 13 D. Results of Laboratory (Soil) Analyses......................................................................13 1
t
+
- Q:.
O E. Decontamination & Decommissioning History..........................................................13
- 1. Plant Co np ou nd........................................................................................... 13
- 2. Well Fi el d....................................................................................................
3. Irrigation Field............................................................................................... 15
- 4. Wut e Dispo sal Area..................................................................................... 15
- 5. S oil S ampling................................................................................................ 1 5 II. Decontamination & Decommissioning of Structures & Equipment.......................................16 A. B uilding Survey Proced ures......................
............................................................. 16
- 1. Classification of Areas by Contamination Potential........................................16
- 2. Byproduct Removal & Unrestricted Releases for Material and/or Equipment.....................................................................................................17
- 3. Regulat ory Requirements.............................................................................. 17
- 4. Radiological Instrumentation.......................................................................... I 8 5. Affee t e d Areas.......................................................................................
(a.) Establishing Reference Grids............................................................ 19 I
(b.) Radiological (Survey) Measurements............................................... 20 (c.) Removable Contamination Measurements........................................ 21
- 6. Un afrect ed Areas.......................................................................................... 21 (a.) Establishing Reference Grids........................................................... 21 (b.) Radiological (Survey) Measurements.............................................. 22 (c.) Removable Contamination Measurements.......................................,22 B. Results of Radiological (Survey) Measurements........................................................ 22 C. Decontamination & Decommissioning History......................................................... 23
- 1. Building.........................................................................................................23 (a.) Chem Lab & Chemical Storage Room.............................................. 23 (b.) Ch em Lab Drains............................................................................. 23 (c.) Ext erior (North) Wall...................................................................... 24 (d.) Interior (Office) Ceilings................................................................. 24 (e.) Ext erior (Roof) Vents...................................................................... 25
\\
ii i
l^
l t
- 2. B uilding Drains.............................................................................................. 25 3. Wa t er Tank...................................................................................................
4. S ep ti c Tank................................................................................................... 2 5 i
I
j..
PALANGANA URANIUM OPERATIONS 4
Procedures for Conducting Decontamination, Decommissioning, i
Radiological Surveys, and Soil Sampling in Support of License Termination Introduction j
These procedures were developed in accordance with the Texas Department ofHealth-Bureau ofRadiation Control (TDH BRC) Regulation Guide 5.10 (RG 5.10), and the Texas
]
Regulations for Control of Radiation (TRCR), Part 21 and Part 43, and it specifies the techniques (i.e., limits, guidelines, and regulations) used by the TDH-BRC to release the Palangana in situ facility (License No. RW1234) for unrestricted use. These procedures also encompass improved methodologies that reflect new information for the acceptable decontamination (or remediation) l of the surfaced land areas and buildings at the Palangana facility. The procedures will outline the steps that are necessary in order to perform the radiological surveys, gridding, soil sampling and documentation needed for unrestricted release ofland and buildings which have been restricted or potentially contaminated due to in situ uranium mining activities.
Purpose The purpose of these procedures is to ensure that all established requirements for ceasing licensed operations have been performed and that the removal of residual radioactivity from the site has satisfied all regulatory criteria determined to be environmentally acceptable.
l 1
Furthermore, the methods to achieve this purpose are twofold: (1) to quantify the radium (Ra-j 4
}
226) and natural uranium (U) content of the soil at the Palangana facility and to ensure that the surrounding land has been decontaminated properly and that this process has been adequately l
conducted, and (2) to also ensure that the building (interior and exterior) has been decontaminated and radiologically surveyed in a proper manner and the residual contamination reduced to acceptable levels for unrestricted release.
l 1
..n
l l
I. Decontamination & Decommissioning of Land Surfaces A. Soil Survey Procedures j
- 1. Classification of Areas by Contamination Potential l
The surface areas of the facility were divided into one of two groups. These two groups I
were classiSed by the extent ofradiological contamination that may be present: these were l
"affected" and " unaffected" areas. "Affected" areas have potential contamination (based on j
operating history) or known radioactive contamination (based on past or preliminary radiological f
surveys); such as the ion exchange facility and the lined holding ponds (both within the plant -
j compound), or the well field (Production Area Authorization - PAA #1) that is located to the west of the plant or the Deep Disposal Well Area. " Unaffected" areas are those not classified as affected, such as the irrigation field located to the north of the plant. See Figures 1,2 and 3 located in Appendix"A" for details.
Prior to conducting radiological surveys on the "affected" and " unaffected" areas, several i
background (i.e., baseline) radiological measurements and soil sample analyses were conducted at a location that was beyond any disturbed areas with respect to surface contamination from j
mining and milling activities.
- 3. Background Surveys and Soil Sampling As per TDH-BRC RG 5.10, " Background radiation levels should be established by surveymg areas adjacent to the survey ar-which are not affected by facility operations." The background radiation levels were established by surveying (scanning) an area which had not been affected by mining and milling operations. Background radiation levels were obtained from th average of ten (10)individuallocations taken from an area adjacent to the Palangana j
~ Uranium Operation. The background determinations were conducted starting at a point 10 meters northwest of the road to Waste Disposal Well-134 and 300 meters northeast of the waste disposal well site. Readings were taken at 10 meter intervals proceeding in a nonhwest direction from this i
point. This area possessed the same soil characteristics as the Palangana Uranium Operation and i
i 2
1 -
)
m
=.
.i
was free from possible contamination from past or present activities. See Figures 2 and 3 j
(Appendix"A") forlocations.
j
{
Soil samples were also'obtained from each of the ten (10) locations above to quantify the raolum and uranium background concentrations in the soil. Average concentrations ofradium j
{
226 (pCi/g) and uranium (ppm) in the soil at these locations were 0.52 and 0.89 respectively.
1 The background (baseline) value for Ra 226 was set at 0.50 pCi/g. See Table 1 in Appendix "B" j
for details.
Using a Ludlum Model 3 instrument with a Ludlum 44-2 probe (pR/hr),'three separate radiological survey readings were obtained at each of the ten (10) locations at this site. Lwse
]
readings were taken: (1) at 15 cm above the surface, (2) at the surface, and (3) in the sample hole.
]
This amounted to thirty (30) individual radiological readings for the ten (10) individual locations that were used to determine the radiological background measurements. These measurements I
averaged 10.5 pR/hr. This background (baseline) figure was set at 10 pR /hr. Twice the baseline j
value of 20 R/hr was set for decontamination purposes. See Table 1 (Appendix "B") for details.
l
- 3. RadiologicalInstrumentation The "affected" and " unaffected" land surface areas were surveyed using the appropriate l
radiological instrument (e.g., Ludlum Model 19 Micro "R" Meter or Ludluin Model 3 Survey Meter with the Ludlum 44-2 Probe). Refer to Exhibit I for the pertinent radiological instrumentation used during scanning and to Exhibit 2 the " Standard Operating Procedure" I
employed when utilizing these instruments. Both Exhibits are located in Appendix "C".
l
- 4. Affected Surface Areas c
l One-hundred per cent (100%) of the affected surface areas were radiologically scanned I
with the appropriate instrument. As the radiological scanning of these "affected" areas was conducted, pockets of elevated activity (those greater than 20 nR/hr or twice background levels) were identified, excavated and transported to the Panna Maria Uranium Operation's byproduct j
disposal facility in Karnes County. These areas of elevated activity (> 20 R/hr) were those that '
may contain a higher measured activity (Ra-226 content) than the established criteria (limit) of 5 picoeuries per gram (pCi/g) above background in the soil.
3 l
-v---
-. - -. + - -...
i
)
i l*
(a.) Everoduct Removal i
The soil and structural byproduct material removed from the Palangam facility was i
transported to the Panna Maria facility in accordance with all applicable reg Mons of he TDH-t BRC and a!! State and Federal Transportation Departments (DOT). See Exlu%it 3 (Appendix j
"C") for details concerning Byproduct Removal.
j Initially, the removal of byproduct material consisted of structural components and l
materials of constmetion from the plant's processing facility as well as the production area. This operation started on 08/03/92 (on a limited basis) and continued through the end ofDecember 1995. During this time two hundred and eighteen (218) truck loads containing 3,190 tons of structural byproduct material was transported to the company's Panna Maria Uranium Operation.
The radiological surveying and removal of the contaminated (byproduct soil and
)
i concrete) material from the plant area (ion exchange facility and the lined ponds) was started on I
01/02/96. The remediation consisted of transporting three hundred and sevnty-six (376) truck loads orcontaminated soil (or suspect contaminated soil) to the company's byproduct disposal facility in Karnes County (Panna Maria Uranium Operations). Each truck load had a rnaximum haulage capacity of approximately 25 tons. The total amount of byproduct material transported to Panna Maria was 7242 tons.
The radiological surveying and removal of the contaminated (byproduct) material from i
i the well field (production) area and the deep disposal well area was started on 04/01/96. Some tonnage was hauled from the plant area after 04/01/96, but most of the byproduct material removed from the facility during this time span was from the well field. In the field, radiological l
measurements in conjunction with soil excavation were continued until survey readings were less than or equal to 20 R/hr (less than or equal too twice background levels). The remediation l
consisted of transporting one-thousand, three-hundred and nine (1309) truck loads of contaminated soil from the well field to Panna Maria Uranium Operations. The total amount of byproduct material transported to Panna Maria from the well field was 30,430 tons. The total tonnage hauled from the plant site and the well field was 37,672 and the total number of truck loads was one-thousand, six-hundred and eighty five (1685). Including the structural byproduct 4
4
~..,,.. - ~ ~,. -
~-.~ - -
4
~
i 1
material as well as the contaminated soil and concrete,1903 truck loads were transponed to Panna Maria containing 40,862 tons ofbyproduct material. See Table 2 (Appendix "B") for details concerning Byproduct Tonnage Removed from the Palangt.na facility & transported to the Panna Maria facility.
i i
(b.) Establishine Reference Grids l
After all of the byproduct material greater than 20 pR/hr was removed from the facility, the entire affected surface area wu "gridded" in order to: (1) facilitate systematic selection of radiological measuring & soi! sampling locations, (2) provide a sneans for referencing a measurement or a sample back to a specific location & (3) establish a uniform and distinct identification system. A qualified surveyor established coordinates for large, sixty (60) meter by
]
seventy (70) meter grids that are approximately one acre in size. There were a total of fifty-seven (57) of these gridded acres and each of these acres were designated in this manner. The PAA #1 area was gridded so that the acres extend at least 15. meters beyond its boundary. See Figure 4 j
(Appendix "A") for details. All of the acre boundaries were marked with iron rods or wooden laths that were placed into each of the corners. These large acre grids were further subdivided
]
into srnaller, ten (10) meter by ten (10) meter grids, whose perimeters were established utilizing l
a tape measure. The boundaries of these smaller,10 m x 10 m (100 m ), grids were marked with 2
I blue flags at each of the corners. The north / south (Y) axis of the acres were delineated by alphabetical characters (A thm G) and the east / west (X) axis by numerical characters (1 thru 6).
1 j
This established unique grids of casily identifiable entities (i.e., A-1, C-3, E-5, etc.) that 2
represented each of the 100 m grids. These grids could then be easily plotted and/or located in the field. See Figure 5 (Appendix "A") for details. This grid map remained the same throughout j
subsequent radiological surveys, further excavation (if necessary), resurveys and soil sampling.
(c.) Radiolonical (Survevi Measurements Two or more qualified survey personnel walked slowly through the established grids with the instmment's detector positioned from 15 centimeters (6") to 30 centimeters (12") above the ground. The radiological measurements were obtained with the appropriate instrument set on a
" fast" response. A triangular grid, with a radiological measuring interval offive (5) meters to a 5
w
side, within the 100 m' grid was utilized to ensure maximum coverage. See Figure 6 (Appendix "A") for details. The survey personnel conducted the mobile walk-through survey and recorded thirteen (13) unique measurements per 100 m' grid. The response of the instrument was monitored continuously while the survey personnel conducted the mobile walk-through survey and the readings were documented every five meters to a specialized acre grid map. There was some overlapping of radiological measurements (per adjacent grids) due to the grid lay out, but this ensured that the maximum radiological coverage was obtained. The movement of the survey personnel thru each grid coupled with the triangular spacing mentioned above ensures that the scanning area of the radiological instrument did not exceed 2.5 meters. The highest radiological measurement obtained by the personnel between each survey point was recorded onto the specialized acre grid maps. The acre number, date and surveyors' names were also recorded onto each of the acre grid maps. See Figure 7 (Appendix "A") for details. If radiological 4
measurements greater than 20 R/hr were encountered, these spots were marked with yellow I
i flags and these areas were designated for further excavation and subsequent resurveying.
- 5. Unaffected Surface Areas The unaffected surface land (i.e., irrigation field) was scanned with the appropriate radiological instruments to ensure that a minimum of 10% of the surface was measured.
Identification of elevated radiological measurements (greater than 20 R/hr)in this unaffected area would have required reclassification of the area as "affected".
(a.) Establishing Reference Grids 4
As before, the qualified surveyor established coordinates for this area in order to establish a uniform and distinct identification system. This area was surveyed to encompass a much larger area, two-hundred (200) meter by two-hundred (200) meter blocks. There were thirteen whole or partial blocks designated in this manner. See Figure 8 for details. These 200 m x 200 m blocks were further subdivided into sixteen (16), fifty (50) meter by fifty (50) meter grids. See Figure 9 (Appendix "A") for details.
6 1
...____._w e
~
(b.) Radiofonical (Survevi Measurements
. Two or more qualified survey personnel walked slowly through the established grids with the instrument's detector positioned approximately 30 cm (12") above the ground. The l
radiological measurements ( R/hr) were obtained with the appropriate instrument set on a " fast" '
response. The paths of the scans were spaced 10 meters apart and the readings were taken every i
10 meters along these paths. A marked tape was used to insure a consistent pattern. The response 4
of the instrument was monitored continuously while the survey personnel conducted the mobile l
walk-through survey and the readings were documented to a specialized block map. There was some overlapping ofradiological measurements (per adjacent 100 m grids) due to the lay out of 2
the grids, but this ensured that the maximum radiological coverage was obtained. The movement l
of the survey personnel along the marked tape ensured that the scanning area of the radiological j
instrument did not exceed 10 meters. In this manner, four (4) measurements were recorded for l
each 10 m x 10 m area. See Figure 10 (Appendix "A") for details. The highest measurement j
obtained by the survey personnel between survey points was recorded onto the specialized block map. There were no radiological measurements greater than 20 R/hr (greater than twice t
background) in the irrigation field. The block number, date and surveyors' names were also l
recorded onto each of the block maps. See Figure 11 (Appendix "A") for details.
I B. Results of Radiological (Survey) Measurements The results of the radiological surveys conducted in the "affected" and " unaffected" 4
j surface areas at the Palangana facility are contained in their entirety in Appendix "D".
C. Soll Sampling Procedures i
l
- 1. Regulatory Requirements Soil limits for Ra-226 as well as natural uranium (U) concentrations were established by i
1 the relevant State and Federal Agencies to ensure that the decontamination of the licensee's 4
facility has been accomplished and that the licensee has adhered to the concept of"As Iow As Is Reasonably Achievable"(ALARA).
j 7
The licensee must decontaminate the surfaced lands which have been restricted or potentially contaminated due to the use ofradioactive material and the licensee must adhere to the following regulations, as per TDH BRC RG 5.10.
The TDH BRC adopted soil limits for radium-226 in RG 5.10 in accordance to TRCR 21 and in 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Section 336.6 (f) (3) as follows:
(1) 5 picoeuries per gram (pCi/g) above background in the first 15-centimeter (cm) layer of soil averaged over a 100 square-meter (m') area, and (2) 15 pCi/g above background averaged over a 100-m' area in any 15-cm layer thereafter."
The TDH-BRC states in Regulatory Guide 5.10 that soil contamination limits for other 2
radionuclides by, " averaging over a soil volume of 100-m by 15-cm depth is considered adequate for radium-226, therefore, it is practicable to use the same averaging technique for 2
natural uranium concentrations. The 100-m by 15-cm in depth sampling method may be used for soils contaminated with natural uranium and the associated daughter products resulting from uranium recovery operations."
The TDH BRC RG 5.10 further states,.aat "the licensee may average the concentrations of radium-226 and natural uranium over the first 15-cm of soil below the surface in a 100-m2 area.
In soil more than 15 cm below the surface, the concentrations may be averaged in 15-cm layers in a 100-m' area. The licensee should, at a minimum, sample the initial 15-cm layer (0-15 cm) i and the second 15-cm layer (15-30 cm) if concentrations in the initial 15-cm layer indicate deeper sampling is necessary. A minimum of five samples from each layer should be collected l
within the 100-m' area".
j "All areas which are sampled should be accurately identified on a scaled map. The j
samples should then be submitted to a qualified laboratory for analyses." TDH-BRC RG 5.10 l
also states, that " random soil samples should be co!!ected from the survey area, with a minimum of three samples per acre." '
l l
I i
l
?
\\ -.
l
\\
\\
-l l.
i*
I
- 2. Soil Sampling Methods l
(a.) Soil Samoline Device j
The sampling tool selected to conduct the soil sampling was a barreled auger consisting of a cylinder with an orchard bit welded to the bottom. Soil is forced up into the cylinder when l
the auger is turned (rotated) clockwise thereby minimizing the potential for cross-contamination
)
by eliminating contact of the sample with the sidewalls of the hole.
The soil sampling auger is composed of stainless steel and consists of a thread-on type '
j connection for the extension handle. The cutting edges of the bit are stelite hard surfaced, heat i
treated and are sharpened to a fine cutting edge. The cylinder of the auger is 6 %" long and is l
3 1/4" in diameter. The overall iength of the auger is 12". The auger accessories consist of a i
i H
thread-on, three (3) foot extension tube with a 16" cross handle. The extension tube and cross j
l handle are composed of chrome-molybdenum.
l
{
(b.) Five-Soot Soil Sameline for"Affected" Areas Soil samples were taken utilizing 'a five-point pattern in each of the grids (100 m'). One j
sample was taken at the center (midpoint) of the grid and the other four samples were taken at locations equidistant from the corners to the midpoint. The numerical designations (1 thru 5) j were used to identify these five-point samples within each grid. See Figure 12 (Appendix "A")
j for details. These five numbers in combination with the acre number and the grid designation L
were used to uniquely identify each of the soil samples.
The soil samples were cataloged as:
I A53-GI-4 1
Acre number Grid number Samplelocation Each of the initial soil samples were obtained from the upper 15 cm. The suger was marked at this depth (15 cm) and all subsequent soil samples were obtained in this manner. The suger was thoroughly cleaned (washed & dried) between each soil sample obtained in order to e
minimize cross-contamination. The auger was rotated to the designated depth (15 cm) and the -
4 i
9
_.y.
- - -. -. ~..... - ~ ~
e i*.
soil sample removed from the hole. The soil sample was then deposited into a 2-mil polyethylene l
bag, sealed and properly identified with the company's name, sample identification and date.
Example:
RGR A53-G1-4 3
06/24/97 j
If deeper sampling is necessary (15 cm to 30 cm) due to the laboratory analyses of the l
radionuclides in question (Ra-226 & U Nat) being higher that the standards allow, then additional soil sampling will be conducted in these areas. This soil sample will be taken at the depth of 15 cm to 30 cm. After the initial soil sample has been obtained from the top 15 cm, all J
of the loose material (soil) will be removed from this hole. The clean auger will then be placed back into this hole and rotated to a depth of 30 cm from the surface. This sample will be identified as sample number six (6) from each grid.
Example:
A53-G1-6 (c.) Chain of Custody A " Chain of Custody Record" accompanied the samples to the analytical laboratory. Each
" Chain of Custody Record" was identified by its own unique numerical sequence with no two of these record numbers being the same. Each " Chain of Custody Record" was signed by any person receiving or relinquishing the sample. The last person to receive and sign the record was
]
the designated laboratory personnel in charge of the soil analyses. See Exhibit 4 (Appendix "C")
for details.
The original (white) copy of the " Chain of Custody Record" was returned to the company with the completed radionuclide analyses. The second (yellow) copy was retained by the laboratory for their files. The third (pink) copy was returned to the company's files after the laboratory received the soil samples.
10 l
-~.
i.
i (d.) Soil Sampling Freauenev Using the radiological survey readings from the final survey, Rio Grande Resources' personnel sampled the highest grid in terms of radiological (micro R) measurements from each j
of the 57 "affected" acres using the five-spot sampling method mentioned above. Two more grids from each scre were also sampled using the five-spot sampling method, but these grids were selected for sampling in a random fashion. These two grid's were selected for sampling using a random number generator that is incorporated into a Hewlett-Packard (RPN) Scientific Calculator (HP-325). See Exhibit 5 (Appendix "C") for details. This resulted in three grids per j
acre being sampled for a total of 171 of the grids (100 m ) within these acres being submitted for 2
laboratory analyses.
j Furthermore, there were two " extra" grids sampled from inside the five excavated l
holding ponds for a total of ten (10) more grids to be sampled and submitted for laboratory analyses. The excavated plant processing facility was also sampled an extra two (2) times as above. This effectively totaled 183 grids to be sampled and analyzed. The sampled grid distribution through-out the well field and plant compound is shown in Figures 13 and 14 (Appendix "A").
(e.) Deco Disposal Well The deep disposal well area totals approximately one (1) acre. See Figure 3 (Appendix "A") for details. This partial acre was numbered as Acre 58. Therefore it followed the same l
pattern of sampling as above. One grid was selected for sampling that contained the highest radiological (micro R) measurements from that acre. Two grids were selected at random using the HP 32S random number generator. These three grids from the deep disposal well area were sampled using the five-spot sampling method. The total number ofgrids that were sampled and composited is now 186. The nomenclature for this partial acre was somewhat different than the other samples. Normally there are forty-two (42) of the 10 m x 10 m grids in each acre. The deep disposal well acreage contains only thirty-two (32) of the 10 m x 10 m grids. Therefore its unique identity number was as follows:
A58-WDW-28-1 Acre number Waste Disposal Well Grid Number (1 thru 32) Sample Location 11
The soil samples from each of the individua! grids were composited (186 composites) and the concentrations of the radionuclides, radium 226 (pCi/g) and natural uranium (ppm), were determined by laboratory analy'ses. Jordan Laboratories, Inc. (Analytical & Environmental Chemists) Corpus Christi, TX was selected to perform the necessary sample preparation and analyses. See Exhibit 6 (Appendix "C") for details'.
(f.) Analysis of Ouality Control Samoles A quality control program was established & maintained through the use of duplicate (replicate) samples and blanks to determine the precision and accuracy of the external service laboratory (Jordan Laboratories, Inc.). The duplicate & blank samples were submitted for analysis as unknowns to provide an intralaboratory comparison of analytical results &
consequently to provide a verification ofJordan Laboratories' quality control program The analysis of duplicate samples incorporated the usage of previously assayed samples containing significant amounts of detectable activity (Ra-226). See Table 4 (Appendix "B") for details concerning the selection ofgrids for quality control analysis. There were ten (10) grids chosen that displayed significant amounts ofRa 226 activities. These samples were from the original splits retumed to RGR from Jordan Laboratories that were obtained during the initial sample preparation & laboratory analysis of the 186 soil composites. See exhibit 6 for details.
Each of the ten (10) grids selected for duplicate analysis had been previously sampled using the 5 spot sampling method discussed earlier, therefore each grid contained five (5) individual l
samples to be composited. These five samples (splits) per grid were then renumbered to mask i
their identification and resubmitted for laboratory analysis. A special preparation for the samples was submitted to the laboratory (as previously discussed) in order to obtain representative i
samples. See exhibit 6 for details.
l There were also two (2) blank samples submitted for laboratory analysis. In order to ensure that the blank samples were free of all radioactivity, the samples were created using " field density sand" from Humbolt MFG. Co. This sand is normally used to determine the inplace density of soils. With these two (2) samples & the ten (10) samples above & considering that there were a total of 186 final composites to be analyzed, the total percentage of the analytical load consisting of quality control samples was approximately 6% %.
12 i-
\\.*
l l
The identification & cross referencing of these quality control samples with their l
- analytical results may be viewed in Table 4 (Appendix "B").
i i.
l (g.)1rdgation Field I
The fmal soil sampling in the ninety (90) acre irrigation field followed the same protocol j
as stated in Palangana's Radioactive Material License RW1234. The irrigation field was divided l
into eighteen (18) equal ponions (grids) of five acres each. Five individual soil samples were l
obtained from each grid using the barreled auger. See Figure 15 (Appendix "A") for details l
These five samples were composited to produce one unique sample for laboratory analyses.
j Therefore, there were eighteen (18) composited soil samples to analyze for Ra 226 and natural l
uranium. The same procedures involving soi! sampling (up;ier 15 cm), unique identification
^
j numbers and chain of custodies were followed as stated earlier. See Table 3 (Appendix "B") for j
the latest soil analyses of the irrigation field, taken in May and June of 1997. The analytical l
results clearly meet release limits.
D. Results of Laboratory (Soil) Analyses i
i The resulting analyses of the soil samples taken at Palangana and received from Jordan Laboratories may be viewed in Table 4 (Appendix "B"). The analytical results clearly meet release limits.
i j
E. Decontamination & Decommissioning History l
- 1. Plant Compound The processing plants structural components and tanks were dismantled. Salvageable items were cleaned, radiologically surveyed & either issued an unrestricted release to be sold or j
transferred to the licensed Panna Maria facility. All other material was classified as byproduct material and shipped to Panna Maria for disposal. All concrete foundations were broken into transportable size and shipped for disposal. After all of the rubble was removed, the plant footprint was surveyed. Several areas oflimited contamination were discovered. This contaminated material was removed and shipped to Panna Maria as byproduct material.
13 4
mv w
w+-
, - _ ~ - -
-w n
wsw wm w -
4
-,,-s
- o l
i j-AAer the solution in the holding ponds evaporated, the pond liners were cut, folded and.
removed as byproduct material. The underlying soil surfaces were radiologically surveyed & all material exceeding twice the b'ackground limits (> 20 R/hr) were excavated & removed as byproduct material.
AAer all of the contaminated material was removed from the holding ponds, the leak l
detection system was excavated & the piping removed. The excavations were surveyed ar.d
]
further contamination removed as necessary. All of this material was classified as byproduct material & removed from the facility to the Panna Maria disposal site.
i
- 2. Well Field 3
i The initial cleanup started with the dismantling and removal of all piping, wellheads, culverts, motor control centers, etc. from the well field. These items were transported to the i
Panna Maria disposal site as byproduct matedal. The initial radiological survey showed wide l
spread contamination throughout the well field along with numerous pieces ofbroken pipe, l
valves and other extraneous material.
i j
A one inch cut was taken through the entire well field to remove the material mentioned above. A follow-up survey revealed localized areas ofcontamination remaining in the east half j
i of the De Hoyos well field and in the south & cast sections ofthe Schallert well field. These were cleaned up and the contamination was removed as byproduct material.
After all of the contaminated material was removed, the well field underwent gridding &
i surveying as described previously in the procedures. Some small areas oflimited contamination 1
l were discovered and promptly cleaned and resurveyed.
In the process of decontaminating the well field, several wells were found that were not plugged. These were documented and plotted on a map for identification and subsequent action.
Dese wells were then plugged in the same manner as previous operations, the casings were cut three feet below the ground surface and the holes were backfilled.
14 w
,y-,-,
_ _ _.. ~. _,. _. _. _ -.. = -
- 3. Irrigation Field Dere was no decontamination conducted in the irrigation field as Palangana had followed a protocol of soil sampling & analyses for many years. De resulting analyses for the -
soils revealed no concentrations ofRa-226 or U-nat that exceeded the specified limits. The 90-acre irrigation field was subjected to gridding & a final survey as described previously in the l
procedures. The radiological surveys revealed that the irrigation field contained no measurements that exceeded twice background levels (20 R/hr).
- 4. Waste Disposal Area AAer the disposal well was plugged with cement, all the fences surrounding the well &
the control pad (skid 13) were dismantled. The disposal well pump and associated controls were cleaned, surveyed and shipped to Panna Maria's licensed facility. The remainder of skid 13 was demolished and the concrete foundations broken into transportable pieces. This material was disposed as byproduct material.
AAer everything was removed, th'e disposal well area was gridded & surveyed as l
previously stated in the procedure.
}
- 5. Soil Sampling AAer all of the contamination was removed from the site (i.e., plant compound, well field and waste disposal site) and aAer the process ofgridding & surveying was completed, a soil j
sampling program was performed as described previously in the procedures. These samples were l
sent to Jordan Laboratories for analyses. A chain ofcustody form accompanied these samples.
9 l
i f
1 1
l i
15 4
e J.
l IL Decontamination and Decommissioning of Structures 4
l A. Building Survey Procedures
- 1. Classification of Areas by Contamination Potential i
All inside and outside areas of the building at the Palangana facility did not have the same potential for residual contamination and therefore did not require the same level of radiological survey coverage to achieve an acceptable level of decontamination that would satisfy the established release criteria. By designing the survey in such a manner that areas with higher potential for contamination receive a higher degree of survey effort, the decommissioning j
process was both effective and efficient. Two areas were classified by the extent of radiological contamination that may be present: these were "affected" and " unaffected" areas.
In order to classify an area into "affected" and " unaffected areas" information accumulated through operational and license history aided in varying degrees, but it was j
necessary to supplement this information with actual survey data. This survey data provided a preliminary assessment of site conditions and enabled initial guidance in classification of the site 1
into "affected" and " unaffected" areas. See Table 5 in Appendix "B" for details.
This " preliminary" survey (scan) consisted of radiological measurements from those areas considered to be most likely to contain residual activity. This preliminary radiological t
survey was intended for expediency and classification, and was not intended to provide thorough i
or accurate data for the " final radiological survey" of the building. The " final radiological
)
survey" measurements for surface activity actually consisted of a combination of the preliminasy I
surface scans, direct measurements and measurements for removable activity.
Prior to conducting radiological surveys (including the preliminary surveys) all surface 4
i i
areas were subjected to a thorough cleaning. The cleaning was conducted to remove all visible material which may have contained some radioactive (removable) contamination and/or that may have concealed some types of radiation (i.e., alpha) that may have been present. As the preliminary surveys (scans) were conducted, and if areas of moderate to high radiological activity were discovered, then these areas were designated for subsequent decontamination.
Identification of elevated radiological measurements in an area classified as " unaffected", after cleaning has been performed, would have required reclassification of this area as "affected".
16 m
.__~ _ -... -. - -.
1 i*
j
- 2. Byproduct Removal and Unrestricted Releases for Material and/or l
Equipment.
Prior to conducting radiological surveys, any furnishings and/or equipment that were
]
located inside and/or outside the building and that may have restricted access to building
]
surfaces were removed. Any furnishings and/or equipment that was considered to be salvageable 4
j and may have been of some 6eure use, was subjected to the following conditions and were either: (1) decontaminated, radiologically surveyed and issued an " unrestricted release" for sale i
j or movement to another facility, or (2) cleaned, surveyed and transferred to Panna Maria's j
l licensed operation, or (3) placed inside one of the byproduct rr.aterial trailers and transported to the company's Panna Maria Uranium Operation disposal site. See Exhibit 7 for details q
concerning " Unrestricted Release Procedures" and Exhibit 3 for " Byproduct Loading and l
Transportation Procedures". Both of these Exhibits are located in Appendix "C".
- 3. Regulatory Requirements l
As stated in the " Texas Regulations for Control ofRadiation" (TRCR) Part 21.1303:
l
" Prior to vacating any facility or releasing areas or equipment for unrestricted use, each licensee shall ensure that radioactive contamination has been removed to levels as low as reasonably l
. achievable. In no case shall the licensee vacate a facility or release areas or equipment for unrestricted use until radioactive surface contamination levels are below the limits specified in f
Appendix 21-G." See Exhibit 7 (Appendix "C") for details on " Acceptable Surface j
i Contamination Levels".
l Release measurements for direct radiation levels on open land were expressed in units of exposure rate [i.e., microroentgens per hour ( R/hr)) for gamma radiation. The maximum limits l
for exposure rate measurements (gamma) were established at twice background levels or 20 l
R/hr.
l Surface activity measurements, applicable to building or equipment surfaces, were i
expressed in units of activity (i.e., rate of decay of a particular radionuclide) per surface area j
- (i.e., disintegrations per minute per 100 cm' (dpm/100 cm )] for alpha radiation.
2 c
L 17 l
l l.
1
.i
.2 n
l l
Measurements for surface contamination resuldng from beta / gamma radiation were i
l expressed in millirads per hour or mR/hr, (i.e., refer to Exhibit 7 and (TRCR) Appendix 21-O(IM-l NOTE: The unit of exposure to radiation, the roentgen (R), applies only to electromagnetic radiation, (i.e., x-rays and gamma rays) and abould not be used in reference to particulate radiation, (i.e., alpha and beta). The unit of adsorbed dose, the rad, applies to the energy deposited in tissue. Fortunately, the units R (for roentgen) and rad, while repi= 1.=
]
different quantities, are nearly equal in numerical value. Therefore, one (1) R (roentgen)
)
4 exposure was considered to be equal to one (1) rad adsorbed dose from "x" or gam na radiation.
J i
Furthermore, the equivalent dose (rem), which dennes the biological effect of radiation on man, is the product of the adsorbed dose (rad) and two modifying factors, (i.e., with "Q" as the quality
)
factor and "N" the factor for distribution, then rem = rad x Q x N): For most purposes the factor 1
j for distribution (N) is ignored. The quality factor for betas, gammas and x-rays is one (1).
l Therefore, the equivalent dose (rem) is equal to the adsorbed dose (rad) is equal to the exposure rate (R).
For the purpose of clarification, the term mR/hr (millirad /hr or millirem /hr) applied to all
]
radiological surveys for beta / gamma radiation levels obtained with E-140 instruments and HP-210 (pancake) probes, and the term pR/hr (microroentgen/hr) applied to gamma radiation as obtained with micro R metert i
- 4. RadiologicalInstrumentation All"affected" and " unaffected" surface areas were surveyed using the appropriate j
radiological instruments and probes. The alpha measurements were conducted using a Ludim l
Model 3 Portable Survey Meter with a Ludlum Model 43-5 or 44-7 Probe. The beta / gamma measurements were conducted using a Eberline Model E-140 Portable Survey Meter with a Eberline Model HP-210 (pancake) Probe. The gamma measurements were conducted using a j
Ludlum Model 19 Portable Micro "R" Meter or a Ludlum Model 3 Portable Survey Meter' with a j
Ludlum Model 44-2 probe. Refer to Exhibits 1 for the description of pertinent radiological I
instrumentation used during surveying and to Exhibit 2 the " Standard Operating Procedure" i
employed when utilizing these instruments. Both of these Exhibits are located in Appendix "C".
18 i
i
+
\\
l
- 5. Affected Areas Affected areas were those that had potential contamination (based on plant operating history) or known radioactive contamination (based on past or preliminary radiological surveillance). Affected areas included areas where radioactive material may have been used, j
stored, analyzed and areas immediately surrounding or adjacent to these locations. Also, areas l
where personnel may have inadvertently tracked radioactive materials into the building were also f
included.
]
One-hundred per cent (100%) of the affected area floors and lower wall surfaces were j
radiologically surveyed (scanned) with the appropriate instrument. The coverage provided for l
the upper walls and ceilings was dependent on the contamination potential and actual j
radiological measurements obtained.
i (a.) Establishinn Reference Grids After all of the identified elevated areas were evaluated, decontaminated as necessary, resurveyed and classified, then systematic measurements of surface activity were performed.
These systematic measurements were aided by the establishment of reference grids in order to:
(1) facilitate systematic selection of radiological measurement loc:.tions, (2) provide a means for l_
referencing a measurement back to a specific location and (3) establish a uniform and distinct identification system.
These grids consisted ofintersecting lines referenced to fixed locations or prominent building features. The grid lines were arranged in a perpendicular pattern to one another and divided the survey locations into squares or blocks of equal area. The grid patterns of the surfaces on the vertical axis were identified numerically and on the horizontal axis were identified alphabetically. This established unique blocks of easily identifiable entities (i.e., A-1, C-4, B 3, etc.). Refer to Figure 16 in Appendix "A" for details. These grid designations remained the same throughout all subsequent surveys, decontamination (ifnecessary), resurveying and measurements for removal activity (wipes).
The grids for the floors and the lower two meters of the walls were decigned so as not to h
19
<I'.
2 j
exceed one square meter (1 m ). AAer completion of the preliminary surveys and as the fmal 4
survey progressed, an area's classification could have required changing based on accumulated j
survey data.
l j
(b.) Radiolonical (Survev) Measurements
)
Preliminary radiological surveys (scans) were conducted prior to any fixed (final) or i
removable contamination measurements. The scanning detector was kept as close to the surface 1
as possible and moved across the surface at a slow speed. The distance between the detector and 4
l the surface was maintained at less than or equal to two (2) centimeters for the beta / gamma i
measurements. The alpha scans were maintained at less than or equal to one (1) centimeter i
distance between the detector and the surface. For gamma radiation, the scanning speed was j
1 somewhat greater and the survey path followed a serpentine pattern across the floor's surface.
j The gamma scans were performed with the detector held at one (1) meter above the floor's l
surface. The instrument was monitored continuously throughout the gamma radiation scans.
1 i
For fixed (final) or direct measurements, the residual radiological activity (visible) had l
been removed. The measurements for surface alpha and beta / gamma were conducted with their l
respective probes placed in direct contact with the surface without concern for contaminating the l'
probes. The fixed (final) direct measurements were taken at the highest radiological reading l
obtained during the scan of each of the one meter (1 m ) grids. These readings were recorded to a 2
l comprehensive radiological worksheet. Refer to Figure 17 (Appendix "A") for details.
Gamma exposure rate measurements ( R/hr) were conducted at one (1) meter level from the floor and lower wall surfaces. The instrument was monitored continuously throughout the gamma radiation scans and the data was recorded at systematically selected locations. These systematically selected locations ensured that the exposure rate measurements were performed at l
a frequency of one (1) systematic measurement per every four square meters (4 m ). Refer to 2
Figure 18 (Appendix "A") for details. These radiological measurements were recorded onto uruque worksheets designed for this purpose. Refer to Figures 19 and 20 (Appendix "A") for l
details.
20 l
I
(c.) Removable Contamination Measurements Swipes, for removable surface activity, were obtained by wip'mg an area of 2
approximately 100 cm, using 4.25 cm diameter Fisherbrand-dry filter paper (P5), while applying moderate pressure. The swipes were obtained in conjunction with and i=e6 aAer the direct surface activity (6xed) measurements were obtained per each one square meter (1 2
m ) grid. The swipe was taken at the same location that the direct surface measurement was obtained per each square meter. The swipe was identi6ed by number and location 0.e., #1, south wall, men's change room). After the swipe was taken and identi6ed, each swipe was placed into its on individual plastic bag (i.e., Minigrip Reclosable Bags, 2 mil thickness, 2 x 3 in size) to prevent the spread of contamination and/or cross-contamination with other swipes. The stored swipes in their plastic bags were later radiologically measured with an Eberline Scintillation Alpha Counter - Model SAC-4, and the beta / gamma was measured with an Eberline Count Rate Meter, Model E-140 Instrument utilizing an Eberline Model HP-210 (pancake) probe. The results obtained from the radiological measurements of the swipes were recorded to a comprehensive worksheet. Refer to Figure 17 (Appendix "A") for details.
6.Unaft'ected Areas All areas not classified as affected were classi6ed as unaffected. These areas were not expected to contain residual radioactive activity based on a knowledge of site history and previous survey information.
Raoiological measurements in the unaffected areas covered a minimum of 10% of the upper (>2 meters) wall surfaces and the ceilings. Refer to Figure 16 (Appendix "A") for details.
If scans or measurements of the upper walls and ceilings exceeded 25% ofguideline values, then these areas were gridded and surveyed in the same manner as the floors and lower two meters of 2
2 the walls. The guideline vslue was 5,000 dpm/cm and 25% of this value was 1250 dpm/100cm.
(a.) Establishinn Reference Grids Following the cleaning ofsurfaced areas, the systematic measurements of the surface activities were performed. The reference grids for the unaffected areas were established to perform the systematic measurements of surface activity for the same reasons as stated previously for the affected areas.
1 21
De same intersecting lines, in a perpendicular pattern, divided the survey locations into squares or blocks h; the same manner as the affected areas were delineated. The no**re I
used to describe thue blocks was different from that of the affer.ted arau. The blocks were i
designated alphabetically as, for example, AA, AB, AC, etc. Refer to Figurs 16 (Ap =adi "A")
)
for details. This established blocks of easily identifiable entities. He larger spacing of the grids l
in the unaffected areas reflected the probability oflowered (potential) contamination ar=*H in these areas. The grids for the upper portions of the wall (> 2 meters in height) and the ceilings were designed so as not to exceed ten square meters (10 m').
(b.) Radiological (Survevi Maamrements The methods employed to conduct the radiological surveys for the unaffected areas were the same as those stated previously for the affected areas. This refers to the types ofradiation to measure, instruments used, surveying speed, the distance the detector was positioned above the j
surface and documentation to worksheets. The only difference was that in the affected areas 100% of the surfaced areas were covered when conducting radiological surveys, whereas in the unaffected areas 10% of the surfaced areas were covered when conducting radiological surveys.
l (c.) Removable Contamination Measurements Wipes, for removable surface activity werg obtained in the same manner, over the same
)
l area (100 cm ), using the same kind of filter paper (swipes), the same kind of plastic bags for 2
i preservation and storage, the same identification patterns and radiological measurements as the methods outlined previously for the affected area wipes. Counting the affected and unaffected l
areas, the total number of wipes taken and measured was approximately 1,600.
i l
i 1
l B. Results of Radiological (Survey) Measurements i
The results of the radiological surveys conducted in the "affected" and " unaffected" structural areas of the Palangana facility are contained in their entirety in Appendix "E".
l l
l 22
?
.)
+,
C. Decontamination and Decommissioning History -
l
- 1. Buuding
)
j Any fhrnishings located in and around the building (i.e., shop heaters, central heater, transformers, etc.) that will remain with the building, were deco *==laa*d radiologically j
j surveyed and have met unrestricted relew r3 qui..c.:s.
l On the ground floor, the small and large offices were classified as unaffected. In the rest i
of the building on the ground floor, the lower two meters (2 m) of the interior and exterior walls i
l were classified as affected. The ceilings and upper portions (> 2 m) of the walls were classified j
as unafrected.
1 All of the mezzanine floors were classified as affected. The mezzanine and office walls, all of the ceilings and the roof were classified as unaffected.
All of these areas (i.e., the ground floor and the mezzanine), were cleaned, gridded and surveyed following the guidelines as stated p wiously. As the radiological surveying (scanning) proceeded a few of the interior and exterior areas had to be reclassified due to elevated measurements. These areas are listed and described below.
l (a.) Chem T.nh and Chemical Stormee Room l
The chem lab and chemical storage room were classified as completely affected. The
]-
floor, walls and ceiling were gridded and surveyed to reflect this classification. The entire surfaced areas were gridded into one square meter (1 m') dimensions. The radiological surveys 4
(fixed and removable) were then obtained from this design. Also the sinks, fume hood, door and ceiling tiles were removed from this area and transported to Panna Maria as byproduct material.
Refer to Figures 21,22 & 23 (Appendix "A") for details.
1 i
}
(b.) Chem T ah Drama j
After the sinks and floor tiles were removed from the chem lab floor, the drains in this j
area were investigated. The drains were surveyed with radiological instruments whose probes could be inserted into the drains in their entirety. These were the Eberline E-140 instrument with
]
the HP.-270 probe (i.e., for beta and gamma detection - mR/hr), Ludlum Model 3 instrument with 1
the 44-7 probe (i.e., for alpha detection - dpm/100cm ) and the Ludlum Model 3 instrument with 2
1 23 4'
_ = -.
i-:..
l l 9, j
the 44-2 probe (i.e., for gamna detection -pR/hr). As the radiological surveys (scans) proceed-d.
l the readings obtained from tl e chem lab drains revealed elevated measurements exWag the
}
guideline values. The drain and drain pipes were removed. Refer to Figure 24 (Appendix "A")
for details concerning the drains removed. This involved breaking through the concrete floors, remeving the contaminated drains and drain pipes and excaveting the dirt around these items. All of the floor and sink drains as well as the interconeing pipes were removed and transported to l
Panna Maria as byproduct material. The concrete and soil' removed during the excavation and the excavations themselves were surveyed and the radiological measurements did not exceed guideline values. Refer to Figure 25 (Appendix "A") for details concerning the worksheet j
utilized when surveying the drains.
i (c.) Exterior (North) Wall 5
l The exterior north wall of the building was also classified as affected. The north wall l
faced the plant compound where uranium recovery operations were performed. The north wall i
was gridded and surveyed to reflect this classification. The entire surfaced area of the north wall was gridded into one square meter (1 m ) dimensions. The radiological surveys (fixed and 2
removable) were then obtained from this design. Refer to Figure 26 (Appendix "A") for detaifs.
I l
(d.) Interior (Office) Ceilinn One of the ceiling tiles in the smaller ofBce located on the first floor, exhibited a j
radiological measurement exceeding 25% of the established guideline. The ceiling area was reclassified as affected. The ceiling was gridded and surveyed as the north wall in (c.) above.
{
Refer to Figure 27 (Appendix "A") for details. Upon further examination of the ceiling tile and the adjacent area in the smaller ofBee, it was determined that the tile was possibly contaminated
]
during storage or handling. Due to this discovery all ceilings possessing tile, whether located on j
the ground floor or the mezzanine, were reclassified as affected and consequently gridded and
)
surveyed accordingly, i
d 1
J 24
I (e.) Exterior (Roofn Vents As the surveys progressed, one of the vents located on the roof of the building exhibited radiological readings that exceeded guideline values. This vent was removed and the resulting hole was patched. This vent was transported to Panna Maria as byproduct material. AAer removing the vent, resurveys revealed that radiological guideline values were not exceeded.
Refer to Figure 28 (Appendix "A") for details
- 2. Building Drains Besides the drains mentioned previously (i.e., chem lab drains), the rest of the drains in the building were also investigated. Refer to Figure 24 (Appendix "A") for details concerning l
these drains. The radiological survey instruments and probes were identical to the ones listed j
previously in 1 (b.) Chem Lab Drains. The probes from each of the survey instmments were lowered into the drain openings and the radiological measurements were obtained. Wipes
{
(swipes) from each drain were also obtained. The radiological surveys (scans) of these drains revealed that guideline values were not exceeded. These measurements were recorded to a special worksheet. Refer to Figure 25 (Appendix "A") for details concerning the radiological
)
worksheet employed.
i
- 3. Water Tank i
The water tank located to the east of the building and plant compound was radiologically surveyed. The surveys were confined to the exterior of the tank as plant history revealed that l
only well water obtained off-site was contained inside the tank. Therefore, the interior of the l
tank was not surveyed. The pump was dismantled, cleaned and radiologically surveyed. Both the l
water tank and the pump displayed measurements lower than the guideline values. See Figure 29 (Appendix"A") for details.
1 i
j j
- 4. Septic Tank The contents of the septic tank were sampled. The liquid portion (upper level) was sampled separately from the solids (lower level). The liquid sample was taken first and placed into an appropriate container. The solid sample was obtained by slowly scraping the bottom of I
the tank with a dipper. This sample was placed into a marinelli beaker and allowed to settle. The 25 L
a liquid portion was decanted from the solids in the marinelli beaker and more sample was added.
'Ihis continued until the marinelli beaker was filled with solids.
Both the liquid sample and the solid sample were sent to Jordan Labs and analyzed for Ra-226 and U-nat. The analyses for the liquid portion revealed that the Ra-226 was equal to 1.7 pCi/L, and the U-nat was equal to.047 mg/L. The solid portion revealed that the Ra-226 was equal to 0.7 pCi/L, and the U-nat was equal to 35 ppm. Since these values were below the guideline values, the septic tank was sealed, covered and left in place.
a i
l I
l l
l l
I 26 i
a44 n
s, M,f e-a p4 4-44_
_s
_,J A
44
.h-4
,+54 d.
4 e
AAA4.W4 m,a.,
w
,e A
Wg y
'f
.e a mos s
M-R dM vbW.6 1%"
' ewe a
Wg pm m ws=w1+
i e
l-a J
l 1
i e
i i
i 1
1 r
i i
1 l
i 4
t 1
1 i
i 4i i!
I s
1 J
4 i
i d
,A 4
a J
J 1
E
+
1 1
1 1
3
~.
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH i
MEMO TO:
GENE FORRER LICENSE FILE IA2402 THRU:
ROBERT FREE ARTHUR TATE RUTH MCBURNEY FROM:
OSCAR LESSARD
SUBJECT:
RELEASE FOR UNRESTRICTED USE RIO GRANDE RESOURCES CORPORATION (RGR)
PANNA MARIA & PALANGANA DOME SITES DATE:
JUNE 4,1998 PANNA MARIA On November 17-20,1997, Russ Meyer, Eric Skotak, Terry Horan, and I performed a survey of portions of the Panna Maria facility at RGR Corporation to allow the Licensee to release the land and buildings for unrestricted use. Attachment A-1 shows the land and the buildings that were surveyed. The land surveys were performed using one-by-one sodium iodide probes and Ludlum 14C survey meters. The building surveys were performed using one-by-one sodium iodide and Geiger-Mueller probes and Ludlum 14C survey meters. Two times background was used as an allowable limit for land surveys (Regulatory Guide 5.10, Guidelines for Conducting Close Out Surveys of Open I. ands and Requesting Release for Unrestricted Use). Contaminated l
surfaces in the buildings, exceeding twice background, were swiped for removable contamination.
The land survey was performed by walking 10 meters apart moving across the welliield.
Background was established as 3000 counts per minute (cpm). Four land areas were identified which exceeded two times background (see Attachment A-2). These areas were cleaned up by the Licensee and resurveyed.
Sample #
Pre-Cleanun (cpm)
Post-Clennun (com) 1 (Acre 15) 10,000 3000 2 (Acre 17) 10,000 3000 3 (Acre 137) 20,000 3000 4 (Acre 138) 80,000 3000
i e
Soil samples were retrieved from these four areas after the I % cleaned them up. Soil samples collected were representative of the 100 square meter by 15 centimeter in depth sampling method.
Five each 15 centimeter deep core samples were collected in each 100 square meter area. The five core samples from each 100 square meter area were then dried and mixed together. A representative sample from the mixture was used for analysis. Results of the four soil samples for radium-226 and natural uranium concentrations in picocuries per gram (pCi/gm) are as follows (see Attachment A-3). Background for the land is approximately 1.0 pCi/gm radium-226:
4 Ramnle #
Radium-226 (oCi/emi Nat Urnnium (oCi/em)'
i 1
3.0 3.5 l
2 2.4 4.7 l
3 4.0 4.4 4
4.8 6.9 All soil sample results were within regulatory limits for radium-226 and natural uranium soil concentrations (5 pCi/gm and 30 pCi/gm, respectively).
l Buildings surveyed included the Main Building, the Security Building, and the Mill Building. No contamination was found in the Main Building or the Security Building. Ten contaminated surfaces were discovered in the Mill Building. Swipes were taken and laboratory results revealed l
that all surfaces were within regulatory limits for removable contamination. Attachment A-4 contains a layout of the Mill Building and sample results.
l On January 26,1998, Brad Caskey, Liz Rockett, Bernadette Baca, and I returned to the Panna f
Maria facility to perform a survey of six acres of land which were too wet to survey in November 1997 and to perform a survey of the Mine Shop building (see Attachment A-5). A survey of the _
i land resulted in no areas that exceeded twice background. A survey of the Mine Shop building i
resulted in one contaminated surface. A swipe was taken and laboratory results revealed that the i
surface was within regulatory limits for removable conenmination.
?
PALANGANA DOME On January 27-29,1998, Brad Caskey, Liz Rockett, Bernadette Baca, and I performed a survey of the Palangana Dome facility at RGR Corporation to allow the Licensee to release the land and a building for unrestricted use. Attachment A-6 shows the land and the building that were j
surveyed. The land surveys were performed using one-by-one sodium iodide probes and Ludlum 14C survey meters. The building surveys were performed using one-by-one sodium iodide and l
Geiger-Mueller probes and Ludlum 14C survey meters. Two times background was used as an allowable limit for land surveys (Regulatory Guide 5.10, Guidelines for Conducting Close Out Surveys of Open Lands and Requesting Release for Unrestricted Use). Contaminated surfaces in the buildings, exceeding twice background, were swiped for removable contamination. The land i
j survey was performed by walking 10 meters apan moving across the wellfield. Background was
]
established as 3000 cptn. Thirteen land areas were identified which exceeded two times background (see Attachment A-7). These areas were cleaned up by the Licensee and resurveyed.
j
y ;. e :.. '-" T.-
~ _._ _ _L :::::... *
~; :
"~
^
~^'~
~ ~
^ ~ ~ ~ ^~~
l l
e i
l ' ',
Sangdsf Pre-Cleanun (com)
Post-Clemmm (enm) 1 J
)
1 (Acre 1) 12,000-3000 2 (Acre 2) 5000 5000*
3 (Acre 15) 5000 5000*
i 4 (Acre 15) 12,000 3000 l
5 (Acre 35) 5000 5000*
6 (Acre 37) 8,000 3000 j
7 (Acre 38) 8,000 4000 l
8 (Acre 47) 18,000 4000*
i 9 (Acre 48) 8,000 3000 10 (Acre 49) 7,000 3000 i
j 11 (Acre 49) 8,000 4000*
l 12 (Acre 50) 13,000 3000 13 (Acre 50) 18,000 3000 Soil samples were retrieved frot : five areas (identified by *) after the Licensee cleaned them up.
Soil samples collected were representative of the 100 square meter by 15 centimeter in depth j
sampling method. Five each 15 centimeter deep core samples were collected in each 100 square meter area. The five core samples from each 100 square meter area were then dried and mixed together. A representative sample from the mixture was used for analysis. Results of the five soil samples for radium-226 and natural uranium concentrations in picoeuries per gram (pCi/gm) are as follows (see Attachment A-8). Background for the land is approximately 1.0 pCi/gm radium-226:
[
g jgl Radium-226 (pCi/emi Nat Uranium it,Ci/em)
}
2 2.9 3.7 4
3 9.0**
6.3 5
3.4 5.6 l
8 4.0 14.0
)
11 2.2 20.0 4
- exceeded regulatory limits All soll sample results were within regulatory limits for radium-226 and natural uranium soll concentrations (5 pCi/gm and 30 pCi/gm, respectively) except for the radium-226 concentration for sample #3.
)
The building survey consisted of the Main Building. No surfaces were contaminated in the building.
I
!o On April 27,1998, Brad Caskey, Mike Dunn, Scott Flowerday, and I returned to the Palangana Dome facility to perform a resurvey and retake sample #3 after the Licensee recleaned the area.
The resurvey resulted in background radiation levels of 3000 cpm and the retake of sample #3 resulted in radium 226 and natural uranium concentrations of 3.7 and 5.6 pCi/gm, respectively (see Attachment A-9)
CONCLUSIONS i
Recommend Panna Maria facility be released for unrestricted use (all areas outside of tailings i
pond restricted area) and recommend that Palangana Dome facility be released for unrestricted 4
use.
l I
i f
a i
+
l' DO F#e>
3
1100 West 49th Street Patti J. Panerson, M.D., M.P.H.
Commissioner Austin, Texas 78756-3189 Executive Deputy Commissioner (512) 458 7111
]
Radiation Control I
(512) 834-6688 September 28,1998 5
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7
ATTN: Richard Bangart, Director
' A, Office of State Programs Mail Stop 03H2O
- :]
Washington, D.C.
20555
-?.' -
Dear Mr. Bangart:
u The Texas Department of Health (TDH) has received a request from USX Corporation (USX),
Sparkman Production Area on Radioactive Material License No. pertaining to t Texas Uranium Operations, dated March 6,1997 (Enclosure 1),
LO2449. The Licensee is requesting that the area be removed from the license.
The license authorized in sint leach mining in the area. This area was operated from 1977 to 1987, when production operations were ceased and reclamation efforts were commenced.
From 1987 until 1995 groundwater restoration was performed along with limited surface reclamation. The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission authorized ceasing groundwater restoration and final plugging of all wells in November 1995 (Enclosure 2).
Following plugging of all wells, full scale surface reclamation and decommissioning began.
During surface reclamation and decommissioning all material and equipment was surveyed for radioactive contamination. Any material and/or equipment which was contaminated was disposed of by utilizing one of the following methods:
transfer to another licensed mine site;
]
decontamination and release for unrestricted use; or i
disposal at a licensed byproduct disposal facility, Proper disposal of all material and/or equipment was documented by the licensee.
-h-h
\\
- Q??!!cp/D 39yy
Richard Bangart September 28,1998 Page 2
~
Direct surveys, by the licensee, to couTum the effectiveness of reclamation and decommissioning activities of land were performed by derming ten meter by ten meter squares in a grid pattern across the production area and taking five readings in each square with a micro-R meter. The licensee subsequently requested removafof the production area from its license.
Reclamation and decommissioning activities were completed at the site in 1996.
In December,1997, TDH psurveys were performed usm,ersonnel performed a confum g one-by-one sodium iodide probes and Ludlum 14C__ survey meters.
The purpose of the survey was to allow the Licensee to release the production area for uins.trictmi use. Two times background was used as an allowable limit frDH Regulatory Guide 5.10, Guidelines for Conducting Close Out Surveys of Own I. ands and Requesting Release for Unrestricted Use). The survey was performed by wa: king 10 meters apart movmg across the production area. Background readings ranged from 3000-4000 com, except for one meter &
probe which background ranged from 1200-1400 cpm.
One area was identified which exceeded two times background. A visible pile of pipescale on the j-surface was the cause for the elevated reading. This area was cleaned up by the Licensee and a post-cleanup survey indicated no readings above background.
In December,1997, TDH personnel performed a survey of I.copard Creek which runs through the production area. The creek bed was dry except for one low spot that contained some water.
l The survey was performed using a one-by-one sodium iodide probe and a Ludlum 14C survey i
meter. Background readings were approximately 2400 cpm. No areas of the creek bed exceeded i
two times background.
Since no elevated readings were found in the production area (except for the pile of visible
]
pipescale), soil samples were not collected, j
i L
On-site disposal of solid radioactive material or byproduct material was not authorized at this facility, thus there is no land to be transferred to the State of Texas or the Federal Government.
As a result of these findings, we are proposing to remove the Sparkman Production Area from this license (Enclosure 3). All data supporting our proposal is kept on file and is available at TDH i-should it be necessary for reference at a future date. Please advise if the U. S. Nuclear l
j Regulatory Commission wishes additional material or information 'n order to make a j
determination regarding concurrence with our proposal to remove this area from this license. If additional information is required, please contact Mr. Eugene Forrer of my staff at (512) 834-6688, ext, 2208.
l l
i p
l l
1 I
l-i I
y
=
Richa rd Bangart Septe.nber 28,1998 Page;)
j As maintaining this site places an undue economic burden and hardship on the licensee, we request expeditious processing of this request.
Sincerely, h.
e i
Richard A. Ratliff, P.E., Chef Bureau of Radiation Control Enclosures l
Is; ; 'u ~
.. con'......_'-
- .a... _ -
e e
.e i
1 4
]
l
]
l l
_... _ _. _.. _ _.. _ -. _ _. _ ~.. _ _ _ _
_ ~ _ -.
--m...
Tex's Uranium Operations.
R M W-MO U-usx corp.r.iw i
or:w c v i
L
. o.orge west, Tx 7eo22 l,
sia ses ami March 10,1997 i
- r. Dale P. Kohler, Team Leader ndustrial and Hazardous Waste Division e
i Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 l
e, I
Re: Close-out Survey and Analytical Results Clay West Sparkman Wellfield Radioactive Material License No. RW2449 TNRCC Permit No. UR02130 PAA 021 i
l
Dear Mr. Kohler:
i USX/ Texas Uranium Operations (TUO) completed plugging and abandonment of the i
production, injection, and monitor wells at the Sparkman mine in March 1996. After the i
miscellaneous production and plugging debris was removed from the surface of the i
mine, a close-out survey and sampling program was completed. The results are discussed below.
i 1
PATTERN AREA l
A preliminary soil survey was conducted in 1995 prior to receiving permission to plug and j
abandon the wells in the Sparkman mine. This survey resulted in the removal of some soil from the bottom of Leopard (Panther) Creek. After the soll was removed, individual i
five-spot samples were taken from each of these areas at depths of 0-6 inches and 6-12 inches. These samples were taken on June 22,1995, the results of the soil analyses are j
shown in Table 1.
l Final soil surveying of the pattom area was completed in May of 1996. The surveying was conducted using a Model 19 micro R meter; background readings ranged from 8 to 10.iR per hour. Surveys were conducted on a 10 meter grid with 5 readings inside each gric. Copies of the survey maps and contour map are provided in Attachment 1; the surveys are also summarized in Table 2.
1 Two areas had pR/Hr readings that were at least twice background. The highest reading 1
was 25 pR/Hr. Since these were the same areas that were sampled in 1995, a five-spot composite soll sample was taken from the surface of each location for confirmation of the 1995 results. Map 1 shows the location of the two five-spots. In addition to the two five-spot sample areas, four other locations were selected to be sampled at Owe inches i
and 612 inches. Three vegetation samples were also taken from the pattom area. All analytical resu.its are shown in Table 1. Map 2 shows the location of the vegetation l
samples. Maps 1 and 2 are part of Attachment 2 7 RECEIVED 1
j IM. I 3 N
' Mar thon oil Company U Diversified Group E
E Tcmas oil & Gas Corp.
- m. _ _.
j o
Mr. Dale P. Kohler Page 2.
March 6,1997 JETTING PIT One jetting pit remains to be backfilled in the Sparkman mine. Documentation of the 4
surveys and samples taken from this pit were forwarded to your attention in a letter dated j
September 6,1995 from J. A. Baca (TUO). This letter requested that permission be
)
granted to backfill the pit and/or have personnel from the TNRCC inspect the pit. The l
Jetting pit will need to be dosed before the surface area can be released for unrestricted use.
[
SPILL REVIEW s
l Review of the spill files showed that four spills had been reported since 1977. Two of these spills were within the pattom area discussed in the previous section. Water from i
l two of the spills went beyond the pattom boundary surveyed for final closure.' In general l
the process water from these spills flowed in a northerly direction from P-228 in the i
southeast part of the mine, crossed the pattom road and collected in a low surface area j
within the monitor well ring.
This area was surveyed and soll was removed from one location because the micro R i
l readings were greater than 30 pR/Hr (-35 pR/Hr). The area was resurveyed and two composite samples were taken for analyses. Composite sample No. 4 had a Ra 226 f
l value of 8 pCL/g; the area was remediated and resampled. The final Ra 226 was 1.2 pCilg. Three additional soll samples were taken along the path of the spill. The sample locations ara shown on Maps 3 and 3A of Attachment No.1. The micro R surveys taken after the first clean-up are also shown on Map 3; tre analytical results are shown in l
Table 1.
N l
7 3
SUMMARY
Maps included with this report are a PAA location map from the Permit and pattom area l
map, both in Attachment No. 3; survey location maps and a contour map of the micro R j
readings; vegetation sample and spill clean-up sample location maps. A table listing the j
spills is also included with the spill maps. Tables included are the analyicci results and l
the micro R survey results.
The surface area of Permit 02130 PAA 021 has been remediated and documented.
j TUO is requesting that the surface area at the Sparkman mine be released for I
i unrestricted use. If the TNRCC intends to conduct confirmation surveys and/or sampling l
of the surface area, we are requesting a time-line estimate for completion of the survey, and the accompanying evaluation.
l If you have any questions or need additionalinformation please call me at 512-449-2515 i
or fax at 512-566-2442.
I i
Sincerely, 1
Charles N. Wentz Manager-Operations i
1
~
^
~
^ ^ ^ ~ ~ ^ ^ ~ - " ~ ^ ~ ~ ~
TABLE 1 I
SPARKMAN PATTERN Soll ANALYSES b
mwen l
Coordinate /
Depth Date U nat Ra 226 Five-Spot, etc ins.
Sampled ppm pCi/g i
First Five Spot (-210W/15N) 1 06 06 22-95 0.2 0.92 6-12 06 22-95 0.2 0.72 j
1A 06 06-22 95 0.6 0.71 6-12 06 22-95 0.5 0.82 15 0-6 06-22-95 1.2 0.92 6 12 06-22-95 11.2 1.10 l
1C 0-6 06 22-95 0.2 0.93 6-12 06-22-95 0.1 0.78 j
1D 0-6 06-22-95 1.0 0.71 6-12 06-22 95 0.4 0.65 Second Five Spot (-207.5W/67.5N) 2 06 06-22-95 2.4 0.82 I
6 12 06-22 95 2.2 0.79 j
2A 06 06-22-95 2.3 0.72 1
6-12 06-22 95 1.9 0.28 l
28 06 06 22 95 1.3 0.20 i
6-12 06 22-95 1.0 0.20 i
2C 0-6 06-22-95 14.5 4.69 3
6-12 06-22-95 11.7 3.43 20 04 06-22-95 12.8 2.56 l
6-12 06 22-95 28.7 11.19 l
Five Spot Composites C-6 (1 Series) 0-6 06-19 96 1.7 0.8 C-7 (2 Series) 0-6 06 19 96 3.4 1.5 Coordinate Samples 210W/10N 0-6 05-21 96 3.6 2.1 1
70W/40N 04 05-23 96 1.7 1.1 6-12 05-23-96 1.0 0.8 115.5W/45.5N 06 G5 23-96 2.6 1.1 4
6-12 05-23 96 1.4 0.6 165W/35N 0-6 05-23-96 1.4 0.9 6-12 05-23-96 1.2 0.5 205W/60N 06 05-24-96 3.6 1.2 6 12 05 24-96 5.3 1.5 255W/45N 04 05-24-96 3.6 2.4 6 12 05-24 96 1.6 1.2 1
70W/40N 6-12 06-13-96 5.6 1.8 117W/45N 6 12 06 13-96 2.6 0.7 160W/35N 6-12 06 13 96 1.4 0.7 250W/45N 6 12 06-13-96 1.4 0.6 Pa9e 1 of 2
. m e
7 i
TABLE 1 (Cont)
Ceordinate/
Depth Date U not Rs 226 i
Five-Spot, etc ins.
Sampled ppm DCi/g SPARKMAN VEGETATION ANALYSES j
Sample No.1 l
- Area around P-203, P-204 P-208, and N/A 10-21 96 0.12 0.064 P-209 i
Sample No.2 Around Wells P-227 N/A 10-21 96 0.17 0.538 through P 230 l
Sample No. 3 From near P 226 north N/A 10 21-96 0.16 0.041
]
along route of spills SOIL - SPILL SAMPLES i
Sample 1 06 10 21-96 12 4.4 l
l Sample 2 06 10-21-96 14 0.7 Sample 3 0-6 10 21-96 5.6 1.3 '
Sample 4 (4 point composite) 06 1021 96 17 P.0 Sample 5 (4 point composite) 06 10-21 96 12 4.5 l
Sample 4 Resample 0-6 12 20-96 14 1.2 4
J l
2
)
i a
' Page 2 of 2 i
~~ ^
~
.....-.... T. - - :. :.
.. ~ - : -. ~
' ~-
~^
~
" ~ ^ " ' ~ ~
"^
~~'}
^
- i..
USX/ Texas Uranium Operations TABLE 2 Sparkman Survey Resuhs l
Permit 02130 PAA 021 j
Pa9e 1 of10 4
l Micro R Micro R Micro R i
West North Reading West North Reading West North Reading i
Cord.
Cord.
uR/Hr Cord.
- Cord, uR/Hr Cord.
Cord.
uR/Hr i
j 0
0 0
80 5
9 0
10 9
5 0
9 85 5
9 5
10 9
10 0
9 90 5
9 10 10 9
15 0
9 95 5
9 15 10 10 l
20 0
9 100 5
9 20 10 10 25 0
9 1 05 5
9 25 10 10 30 0
9 110 5
9 30 10 10 35 0
9 115 5
9 35 10 9
40 0
9 120 5
9 40 10 9
45 0
10 125 5
9 45 10 9
50 0
9 130 5
9 50 10 9
205 0
10 135 5
9 55 10 9
l 210 C
10 140 5
9 60 10 9
l 215 0
10 145 5
9 65 10 9
1 220 0
10 150 5
9 70 10 9
j 225 0
10 155 5
9 75 10 10 1
230 0
10 160 5
9 80 10 9
235 0
9 165 5
9 85 10 10 240 0
9 170 5
9 90 10 9
245 0
10 175 5
9 95 10 10 i
250 0
10 160 5
9 100 10 9
i 255 0
10 185 5
9 105 10 9
260 0
9 190 5
9 110 10 10 265 0
9 195 5
10 115 10 10 t
270 0
9 200 5
9 120 10 9
j 275 0
9 205 5
15 125 10 9
i 0
5 9
210 5
20 130 10 9
5 5
9 215 5
10 135 10 9
l 10 5
9 220 5
10 140 10 9
j 15 5
9 225 5
10 145 10 9
}
20 5
9 230 5
10 150 10 9
25 5
9 235 5
10 155 10 9
+
)
30 5
10 240 5
10 160 10 9
35 5
9 245 5
10 165 10 9
40 5
9 250 5
10 170 10 9
45 5
9 255 5
10 175 10 9
50 5
9 260 5
9 180 10 9
55 5
9 265 5
9 185 10 9
60 5
9 270 5
9 190 10 9
65 5
9 275 5
9 195 10 9
70 5
9 200 10 9
75 5
10 i
= = = - - -.:;..::._: =:: -
USX/ Texas Uranium Opers6ons TABLE 2 (Cont.)
Sparkman Survey Resuhs Permit 02130 PAA 021 Pa9e 2 of10 i
i Micro R hGero R hGero R -
I West North Reading West North Reading West North Reading Cord.
Cord.
uR/Hr Cord.
Cord.
uRMr Cord.
Cord.
uR/Hr 1
205 10 20 130 15 9
60 20 9
I 210 10 20 135 15 9
65 20 10 215 10 14 140 15 9
70 20 9
220 10 12 145 15 9
75 20 9
j 225 10 11 150 15 9
80 20 9
)
230 10 10 155 15 9
85 20 10 l
235 10 10 160 15 9
90 20 9
l 240 10 9
165 15 9
95 20 9
i 245 10 9
170 15 9
100 20 9
250 10 10 175 15 9
105 20 10 1
255 10 10 180 15 9
110 20 10 l
260 10 10 185 15 9
115 20 10 l
265 10 9
190 15 9
123 20 9
I 270 10 9
195 15 9
125
-20 10 275 10 9
200 15 9
130 20 9
l 0
15 9
205 15 15 135 20 9
l 5
15 9
210 15 25 140 20 9
10 15 9
215 15 14 145 20 9
15 15 10 220 15 12 150 20 9
20 15 10 225 15 11 155 20 9
25 15 10 230 15 10 160 20 9
30 15 10 235 15 10 165 20 9
35 15 9
240 15 9
170 20 9
40 15 10 245 15 9
175 20 9
45 15 9
250 15 10 180 20 9
50 15 9
255 15 10 185 20 9
55 15 9
260 15 10 190 20 9
60 15 9
265 15 10 195 20 10 65 15 9
270 15 10 200 20 9
70 15 9
0 20 9
205 20 20 75 15 10 5
20 10 210 20 20 80 15 9
10 20 9
215 20 10 85 15 10 15 20 9
220 20 10 90 15 9
20 20 10 225 20 9
95 15 10 25 20 11 230 20 11 1
100 15 9
30 20 10 235 20 10 105 15 10 35 20 9
240 20 9
)
110 15 10 40 20 9
245 20 9
l 115 15 10 45 20 9
250 20 10 120 15 9
50 20 9
255 20 10 125 15 9
55 20 10 260 20 10
.-.... -- ~ -
e l
USX/ Texas Uranium Operations TABLE 2 (Cont.)
i Sparkman Survey Results Permit 02130 PAA 021 l
Page 3 of10 Micro R Moro R Micro R West North Reading West North Reading West North Reading Cord.
Cord.
uR/Hr Cord.
Cord.
uRMr Cord.
Cord.
uR/Hr l
265 20 10 195 25 9
125 30 9
270 20 10 200 25 10 130 30 9
j 0
25 9
205 25 15 135 30 9
j 5
25 10 210 25 15 140 30 9
l 10 25 9
215 25 9
145 30 9
l 15 25 9
220 25 9
150 30 9
20 25 10 225 25 9
155 30 9
j 25 25 10 230 25 9
160 30 10 30 25 9
235 25 10 165 30 9
l 35 25 9
240 25 10 170 30 10 f
40 25 10 245 25 10 175 30 9
45 25 9
250 25 9
180 30 9
l 50 25 10 255 25 10 185 30 9
55 25 10 260 25 10 190 30 10 l
60
?S 10 265 25 10 195 30 9
l 65 25 10 270 25 10 200 30 9
70 25 9
0 30 9
205 30 15 j
75 25 9
5 30 9
210 30 15 l
80 25 9
10 30 9
215 30 9
85 25 10 15 30 10 220 30 9
90 25 10 20 30 10 225 30 9
95 25 9
25 30 9
230 30.
9 100 25 9
30 30 9
235 30 10 105 25 9
35 30 9
240 30 10 110 25 10 40 30 9
245 30 10 115 25 10 45 30 9
250 30 9
120 25 10 50 30 10 255 30 9
125 25 9
55 30 9
260 30 9
130 25 9
60 30 10 265 30 9
135 25 0
85 30 9
270 30 9
140 25 9
70 30 0
0 35 9
145 25 0
75 30 10 5
35 9
150 25 9
80 30 9
10 35 10 155 25 9
85 30 10 15 35 9
160 25 9
90 30 10 20 35 9
165 25 9
95 30 9
25 35 9
170 25 10 100 30 10 30 35 9
175 25 10 105 30 10 35 35 9
180 25 9
110 30 10 40 35 9
185 25 9
115 30 10 45 35 9
190 25 9
120 30 10 50 35 9
q l
I 1
- :.....'..... ;:.. -. --..; C = ^ ' ~ ~ -
. ~
=;
^^ ' ~:~
~ ~ ~~^ ^
^
^
~
~ ^ ^
USX/ Texas Uranium Operssons l
TABLE 2 (Cont.)
Sparkman Survey Results Permit 02130 PAA 021 Pa9e 4 of10 -
Micro R Micro R Moro R.
West North Reading West North Reading West North Reading
)
Cord.
Cord.
uRMr Cord.
Cord.
uR/Hr Cord.
Cord.
uRMr i
55 35 9
260 35 9
190 40 10 i
60 35 9
265 35 N/R 195 40 9
i 65 35 10 270 35 200 40 9
70 35 12 0
40 9
205 40 15 75 35 10 5
40 9
210 40 15 i
80 35 9
10 40 10 215 40 11 85 35 10 15 40 9
220 40 10 90 35 10 20 40 9
225 40 9
95 35 9
25 40 9
230 40 9
3 100 35 10 30 40 10 235 40 11 j
105 35 10 35 40 9
240 40 15 110 35 10 40 40 9
245 40 15
)
115 35 10 45 40 9
250 40 11 1
12G 35 10 50 40 10 255 40 9
125 35 9
55 40 9
260 40 10 i
130 35 10 60 40 10 265 40 10 l
135 35 9
65 40 11 270 40 10 140 35 9
70 40 13 0
45 9
145 35 9
75 40 9
5 45 9
j 150 35 9
80 40 9
10 45 9
i 155 35 9
85 40 11 15 45 10
)
l 160 35 11 90 40 11 20 45 9
l 165 35 10 95 40 10 25 45 9
1 170 35 9
100 40 10 30 45 10 j
175 35 9
105 40 10 35 45 9
4 180 35 10 110 40 11 40 45 9
185 35 9
115 40 10 45 45 10 3
f 190 35 10 120 40 11 50 45 9
l 195 35 9
125 40 9
55 45 9
{
200 35 9
130 40 10 60 45 10 l
1 205 35 15 135 40 9
65 45 10 l
210 35 15 140 40 9
70 45 11 215 35 11 145 40 9
75 45 10 4
220 35 11 150 40 10 80 45 9
j 225 35 9
155 40 9
85 45 10 230 35 10 160 40 11 90 45 11 235 35 11 165 40 10 95 45 10 240 35 9
170 40 10 1 00 45 10 245 35 10 175 40 9
105 45 10 j
250 35 10 180 40 0
110 45 11 255 35 9
185 40 9
115 45 10 2
^.. ::2 2. :. - x
~ ~ -- -
2- - ~' -
' - ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ -~
a 5
e USX/ Texas Uranium Operations j
TABLE 2 (Cont.)
j Sparkman Survey Resuus i
PermM 02130 PAA 021
]
Pa9e 5 of10 1
Micro R Micro R Micro R West North Reading West North Reading West North Reading i
Cord.
Cord.
uR/Hr Cord.
Cord.-
uR/Hr Cord.
Cord.
uR/Hr i
120 45 11 60 50 10 0
55 9
125 45 10 65 50 10 5
55 9
i 130 45 10 70 50 10 10 55 9
135 45 9
75 50 11 15 55 9
140 45 9
80 50 10 20 55 9
j 145 45 9
85 50 10 25 55 9
150 45 10 90 50 10 30 55 9
155 45 10 95 50 11 35 55 9
{
160 45 10 100 50 10 40 55 9
l 165 45 11 105 50 11 45 55 9
i 170 45 10 110 50 11 50 55 9
}
175 45 10 115 50 11 55 55 9
180 45 10 120 50 10 60 55 9
j i
185 45 9
125 50 9
65 55 9
190 45 10 130 50 10 70 55 9
195 45 9
135 50 9
75 55 10 200 45 9
140 50 10 80 55 10 a
i 205 45 17 145 50 9
85 55 10 210 45 17 150 50 11 90 55 11 1
215 45 11 155 50 10 95 55 10 i
220 45 10 160 50 10 100 55 10 225 45 9
165 50 10 105 55 10 230 45 9
170 50 10 110 55 10
+
l 235 45 12 175 50 10 115 55 10 240 45 12 180 50 10 120 55 10 i
245 45 11 185 50 10 125 55 10 250 45 11 190 50 10 130 55 10 i
255 45 15 195 50 9
135 55 10 l
260 45 15 200 50 9
140 55 10 0
50 9
205 50 17 145 55 10 j
5 50 10 210 50 15 150 55 10 l
l 10 50 9
215 50 10 155 55 9
15 50 10 220 50 10 160 55 10 20 50 10 225 50 10 165 55 10 25 50 9
230 50 10 170 55 10 1
30 50 9
735 50 9
175 55 10 35 50 9
240 50 10 180 55 10 j
40 50 9
245 50 9
185 55 10 45 50 9
250 50 11 190 55 9
50 50 9
255 50 12 195 55 9
$5 50 9
260 50 12 200 55 9
i V
\\
1
[
USX/ Texas Uranium Operations TABLE 2 (Cont.)
Sparkman Sufvey Results 4
Permit 02130 PAA 021' Pa9e 6 of10 Micro R Micro R Micro R West North Reading West North Reading West North Reading Cord.
Cord.
uR/Hr Cord.
Cord.
uR/Hr Cord.
Cord. -
uR/Hr 205 55 15 160 60 10 115 65 10 210 55 15 165 60 10 120 65 10 215 55 10 170 60 10 125 65 10 l
220 55 10 175 60 10 130 65 9
l 225 55 9
180 60 9
135 65 9
230 55 9
185 60 9
140 65 9
235 55 9
190 60 9
145
'65 9
240 55 9
195 60 9
150 65 9
245 55 9
200 60 9
155 65 9
3 250 55 9
205 60 14 160 65 9
5 60 9
210 60 14 165 65 9
10 60 9
215 60 10 170 65 9
15 60 9
220 60 9
175' 65 9
j 20
,60 9
225~
60 9
160 65 9
i 25 60 9
230 60 10 185 65 9
30 60 9
235 60 9
190 65 9
l 35 60 9
240 60 10 195 65 9
4 l
40 60 9
245 60 10 200 65 9
1 45 60 9
250 60 9
205 65 20 50 60 9
5 65 9
210 65 14 55 60 10 10 65 9
215 65 11 60 60 9
15 65 9
220 65 10 65 60 0
20 65 9
225 65 11 70 60 9
25 65 9
230 65 10 75 60 9
30 65 9
235 65 9
80 60 9
35 65 9
240 65 10 1
85 60 10 40 65 9
245 65 12 90 60 11 45 65 9
5 70 9
j 95 60 10 50 65 9
10 70 9
i 100 60 10 55 65 9
15 70 9
3 105 60 10 60 65 9
20 70 10 110 60 10 65 65 9
25 70 9
115 60 9
70 65 9
30 70 10 120 60 9
75 65 10 35 70 9
125 60 9
60 65 10 40 70 9
130
.60 9
85 65 10 45 70 9
135 60 9
90 65 11 50 70 9
140 60 9
95 65 10 55 70
'9 145 60 9
100 65 10 60 70 9
]
~ 150 60 0
105 65 10 65 70 9
i 3
155
~ 60 9
110 65 10 70 70 10 l
- -v T
--r
i.".....
.l T *..:
.-.-.. =
--.l~^'
^^
"~ ^
~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~~
i l
r l
. USX/ Texas Uranium Operations TABLE 2 (Cont.)
Sparkman Survey Results i
Permit 02130 PAA 021 i
Page 7 of10 Micro R Macm R Micro R
^
West North Reading West North Reading West North Reading 1
Cord.
Cord.
uR/Hr Cord.
Cord.
uR/Hr Cord.
Cord.
uR/Hr 75 70' 10 40 75 9
5 80 9
l 80 70 10 45 75 9
10 80 9
j-85 70 10 50 75 9
15 80 9
90 70 11 55 75 9
20 80 10 l
95 70 10 60 75 9
25 80 10 l
100 70
,10 85 75 9
30 80 10 105 70 10 70 75 10 35 80 9
110 70 10 75 75 10 40 80 9
l 115 70 10 80 75 10 45 80 9
l 120 70 10 85 75 10 50 80 9
125 70 10
, 90 75 10 55 80 9
1 30 70 10 95 75 9
60 80 9
135 70 10 100 75 10 65 80 9
140.
70 9
105 75 10 70 80 9
1 145 70 9
110 75 9
75 80 10 150 70 9
115 75 9
80 80 10 l
155 70 9
120 75 9
85 80 10 180 70 9
125 75 9
90 80 10 185 70 10 130 75 9
95 80 9
1 170 70 10 135 75 9
100 80 10 175 70 9
140 75 10 105 80 10 180 70 10 145 75 10 110 80 9
185 70 9
150 75 9
115 80 9
190 70 9
155 75 9
120 80 9
195 70 9
160 75 9
125 80 9
200 70 9
185 75 9
130 80 9
205 70 14 170 75 10 135 80 9
210 70 11 175 75 9
140 80 9
l 215 70 10 180 75 10 145 80 9
220 70 10 185 75 9
150 80 9
225 70 10 190 75 9
155 80 9
230 70 10 195 75 9
160 80 9
235 70 10 200 75 9
185 80 9
240 70 10 206 75 11 170 80 10 5
75 9
210 75 11 175 80 9
10 75 9
215 75 10 180 80 10 15 75 9
220 75 10 185 80 9
20-75 10 225 75 10 190 80 9
25 75 9
230 75 10 195 80 9
30 75 10 235 75 10 200 80 9
35 75 9
240 75 10 205 80 10
.r.,._
a USX/ Texas Uranium Operations 4
TABLE 2 (Cont.)
Sparkrnan Survey Results Permit 02130 PAA 021.
Ps9e 8 of 10 i
Micro R Micro R Micro R
}
West North Readin9 West North Reading West North Reading j
Cord.
Cord.
uR/Hr Cord.
Cord.
uR/Hr Cord.
Cord.
uR/Hr i
210 80 10 190 95 9
7.5 7.5 9
215 80 10 195 95 9
17.5 7.5 9
l 220 80 11 200 95 9
27.5 7.5 9
l 225 80 9
205 95 11 37.5 7.5 9
230 80 9
210 95 10 47.5 7.5 9
1 235 80 10 215 95 11 57.5 7.5 9
240 80 10 220 95 10 67.5 7.5 9
4 j
165 85 9
225 95 10 77.5 7.5 9
3 170 85 9
230 95 10 87.5 7.5 9
175 85 9
165 100 9
97.5 7.5 9
180 85 9
170 100 9
107.5 7.5 9
185 85 9
175 100 9
117.5 7.5 9
l j
190 85 9
180 100 9
127.5 7.5 9
195 85 9
185 100 9
137.5 7.5 9
200 85 9
190 100 9
147.5 7.5 9
205 85 11 195 100 9
157.5 7.5 9
i 210 85 12 200 100 9
167.5 7.5 9
l 215 85 10 205 100 11 177.5 7.5 9
)
i 220 85 11 210 100 11 187.5 7.5 9
225 85 10 215 100 10 197.5 7.5 9
230 85 9
220 100 10 207.5 7.5 20 l
235 85 10 225 100 10 217.5 7.5 11 l
165 90 9
205 105 11 227.5 7.5 10 l
170 90 9
210 105 11 237.5 7.5 9
175 90 9
215 105 11 247.5 7.5 9
l 180 90 -
9 220 105 9
257.5 7.5 10 l
185 90 9
225 105 9
267.5 7.5 9
190 90 9
7.5 17.5 9
i 195 90 9
17.5 17.5 10 200 90 9
27.5 17.5 10 205 90 10 37.5 17.5 10, 210 90 10 47.5 17.5 9
215 90 11 57.5 17.5 10 i
220 90 11 67.5 17.5 9
i 225 90 10 77.5 17.5 9
230 90 10 87.5 17.5 10 165 95 9
97.5 17.5 9
i 170 95 9
107.5 17.5 10 l
175 95 9
117.5 17.5 9
180 95 9
127.5 17.5 9
t 185 EG 9-
m
.... ~
i.
4 USX/7exas Uranium Operations TABLE 2 (Cont.)
j Sparkman Survey ResuRs i
PermM02130 PAA 021 i
Pa9e 9 of 10 l
Micro R Micro R Micro R i
West North Reading West North Reading West North Reading Cord.
Cord.
uR/Hr Cord.
Cord.
uR/Hr Cord.
Cord.
uR/Hr 138 17.5 9
257.5 27.5 9
107.5 47.5 11 i
148 17.5 9
267.5 27.5 9
117.5 47.5 11 l
158 17.5 9
7.5 37.5 10 127.5 47.5 10 j
168 17.5 9
17.5 37.5 10 137.5 47.5 9
178 17.5 9
27.5 37.5 9
147.5 47.5 9
188 17.5 9
37.5 37.5 9
157.5 47.5 10 l
198 17.5 9
47.5 37.5 9
167.5 47.5 11 4
208 17.5 18 57.5 37.5 9
177.5 47.5 10 l
218 17.5 10 67.5 37.5
'12 187.5 47.5 10 228 17.5 10 77.5 37.5 9
197.5 47.5 9
l 237.5 17.5 9
87.5 37.5 10 207.5 47.5 14 247.5 17.5 9
97.5 37.5 10 217.5 47.5 10 257.5 17.5 10 107.5 37.5 11 227.5 47.5 9
i 267.5 17.5 9
117.5 37.5 11 237.5 47.5' 11 i
7.5 27.5 10 127.5 37.5 10 247.5 47.5 10 17.5 27.5 10 137.5 37.5 9
257.5 47.5 12 27.5 27.5 9
147.5 37.5 9
7.5 57.5 9
5 37.5 27.5 9
157.5 37.5 10 17.5
$7.5 9
47.5 27.5 9
167.5 37.5 10 27.5 57.5 9
57.5 27.5 10 177.5 37.5 9
37.5 57.5 9
?
67.5 27.5 10 187.5 37.5 10 47.5 57.5 9
j 77.5 27.5 9
197.5 37.5 9
57.5 57.5 9
87.5 27.5 10 207.5 37.5 15 67.5 57.5 9
97.5 27.5 10 217.5 37.5 10 77.5 57.5 10 l
107.5 27.5 10 227.5 37.5 9
67.5 57.5 10 117.5 27.5 10 237.5 37.5 10 97.5 57.5 10 127.5 27.5 9
247.5 37.5 11 107.5 57.5 10 i
137.5 27.5 9
257.5 37.5 9
117.5 57.5 9
l 147.5 27.5 9
267.5 37.5 9
127.5 57.5 9
157.5 27.5 9
7.5 47.5 9
137.5 57.5 10 187.5 27.5 10 17.5 47.5 9
147.5 57.5 9
l 177.5 27.5 9
27.5 47.5 10 157.5 57.5 9
187.5 27.5 10 37.5 47.5 9
167.5 57.5 10 i
197.5 27.5 10 47.5 47.5 9
177.5 57.5 10 l
207.5 27.5 15 57.5 47.5 9
187.5 57.5 10 217.5 27.5 9
67.5 47.5 10 197.5 57.5 9
227.5 27.5 9
77.5 47.5 10 207.5 57.5 15 237.5 27.5 9
87.5 47.5 11 217.5 57.5 10 247.5 27.5 9
97.5 47.5 10 227.5 57.5 9
2
USX/roxas Uranium Operations TABLE 2 (Cont.)
Sparkman Survey Results PermK 02130 PAA 021
{
Page 10 of10 Micro R Micro R West North Reading West North Reading Cord.
Cord.
uRMr Cord.
- Cord, uR/Hr 237.5 57.5 9
137.5 77.5 10 247.5 57.5 9
147.5 77.5 10 7.5 67.5 9
157.5 77.5 9
17.5 67.5 9
167.5 77.5 10 77.5 67.5 9
177.5 77.5 9
37.5 67.5 9
187.5 77.5 9
47.5 67.5 9
197.5 77.5 9
57.5 67.5 9
207.5 77.5 11 67.5 67.5 9
217.5 77.5 10 77.5 67.5 10 227.5 77.5 10 87.5 67.5 11 237.5 77.5 10 97.5 67.5 10 167.5 87.5 9
107.5 67.5 10 177.5 87.5 10 117.5 67.5 10 187.5 87.5 9
127.5 67.5 10 197.5 87.5 9
l 137.5 67.5 10 207.5 87.5 11 147.5 67.5 10 217.5 87.5 10 i
157.5 67.5 9
227.5 87.5 10 167.5 67.5 9
167.5 97.5 9
177.5 67.5 9
177.5 97.5 9
187.5 67.5 9
187.5 97.5 9
l 197.5 67.5 9
197.5 97.5 9
207.5 67.5 20 207.5 97.5 10 217.5 67.5 10 217.5 97.5 10 227.5 67.5 10 227.5 97.5 10 237.5 67.5 9
217.5 102.5 10 7.5 77.5 9
17.5 77.5 9
27.5 77.5 9
37.5 77.5 9
47.5 77.5 9
57.5 77.5 9
l 67.5 77.5 9
77.5 77.5 10 87.5 77.5 10 l
97.5 77.5 10 107.5 77.5 9
117.5 77.5 9
127.5 77.5 9
- . =. m ;.- a -
.ec os. w a.
u.
..a--
~-
-.n..
= - - -..
.. ~.
f, a Bany R. McBee. Chairman gg g
R. B. -Ralph
- Marquez, Commissioner Pam Reed. Commissioner fff Dan Pearm Erecutive Directer TEXAS NATURAL RES0URCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION hotecting Texas by Reducing and Presenting Pullution September 18, 1995 f
USX Corporation Attn: Douglas P. Boyea, Jr.
Drewer V George West, Texas 78022 i
RE: USX CORPORATION PAA AMENDMENT; Permit UR02130-21 Enclosed is a copy of:
( ) e Permit for a wastewater treatment facility issued pursuant to Chapter 26 of the Texas Water code.
In order that you may comply with monitoring requirements-for your wasto discharge permit, self-reporting forms and instructions will be forwarded to you from the Watorched Management Division.
Please discontinue the use of any old self-reporting-forms that you may have and wait to fill out forms until you receive new ones from the TNRCC which reflect your new monitoring requirements.
For further infomation, please contact Mary Taylor at (512) 239-4570.
When your facility is placed in operation er goes into a new phase, please use the ettsched " Report of Progress of Construction of Wastewater Treatment Facilities" form.
This form will advise this agency and our region office of the completion or placement
- n operation of proposed facilities in accordance with the special provision neerporated into the permit.
) o Permit for a hazardous or solid waste facility issued pursuant to Art. 4477-7, Ns Revised Civil Statutes. Your attention is directed to Comission Rule 335.5 which may he applicable to your facility.
(W c Permit for a waste disposal well or an injection well issued pursuant to Chapter i
27 of the Texas Water Code.
In accordance with the Texas Water Code, you must file a copy of the permit with the city and county health authorities.
( ) a Permit for a municipal solid waste facility issued pursuant to Chapter 361, Texas Hasith and Saf ety Code.
The Site Development Plan, the Rite Operating Plan, and all oth3r documents and plans prepared and *:@mitted to support the permit application shall be considered as a part of this peinit and shall be considered as operetional rcquirements c,f this permit.
( ) c Radioactive Material License issued pursuant to 30 Texas Administrative Code, Chrpter 336.
Sincerely, 5
J Glcrio A. Vasquez, ChieVClerk -
-GAV:de cc: ' TNRCC Region 24
)
i j
512/2M1tWM Austin Tevas 7A711/MR7 PO Ras 1%A7 a
'MN@d-DOCKET
~
i j
PRODUCTION AREA AUTHORIZATION Mine:
Clay West-Sparkman Texas Production Area:
UR02130-021 Natural Resource This Production Area Authorization Conservation Commission supersedes and replaces Permit No.
i UR02130-021 issued September 15, 1980 Austin, Texas AUTHORIZATION to conduct underground injection under provisions of i
Permit No. UR02130-001 I. Name of Permittee:
A.
Name:
USX Corporation B.
Address:
Drawer V
+
George West, TX 78022 II. Name of Mine:
Clay West-Sparkman III. Standard Provisions:
A.
Restoration Table B.
Control Parameter Upper Limits Table I
C.
Designated Monitor Well Table D.
Permit Area Map E.
Mining and Restoration Schedule F.
Plan View of Mine Area G.
Baseline Water Quality Table CONTINUED on Pages 2 through 11 The permittee is authorized to conduct injection activity in l
accordance with limitations, requirements, and other conditions set I
forth herein.
This Authorization is granted subject to the provisions of Permit No. UR02130.
This Authorization is valid until amended or revoked by the Commission.
SEP 081995'-
DATE ISSUED:
Aus A../A4 c x (\\x ATTEST Ford he Commission j
e em
--.,.-u
.. ~ -
t.
s.
a 2
USX. Corporation
- 2 Production Area Authorization UR02130-021
. j l N
IV.
Special Provisions:
none t
i
)
e es*
a
i**
3 f'
USX Corporation Production Area Authorization
- 2 l
i UR02130-071 l
ATTaCaxEwT a i
RESTORATION TABLE (Amended)-
)
I 1
1 i
Parameter Unit Concentration i
i Calcium ag/l 95.
1 Magnesium ag/l 16.
J Sodium ag/l 354.
I Potassium ag/l 17.
t Carbonate ag/l 0.
I Bicarbonate ag/l 320.
Sulfate 29/1 300.
4 4
Chloride ag/l 424.
i Fluoride ag/1 1.1 Nitrate-N mg/l 0.06 Silica ag/l 43.
i pH std. units 8.2 4
TDS mg/l 1320.
l Conductivity ymhos 2431.
Alkalinity std. units 262.
Arsenic 29/1 0.044 Barium ag/l 0.43 I
Boron ag/l 0.97 Cadmium 29/1 0.0018 Chromium ag/l 0.01 f
copper ag/l 0.023 Iron ag/l 6.1 Lead ag/l 0.008 1
4 Manganese ag/l 3.3 4
Mercury-ag/l 0.0002 l
v" 0.3 i
t u
l l
(,
1
_. ~. _.....
t 4
l,*
- USX Corporation Production Area Authorization
- 2' UR02130-021 1-ATTACMMENT A (con't) l
' RESTORATION TABLE i
(Amended) 1 i
Parameter Unit Concentration Nickel ag/1, 0.10 f
1 1
selenium ag/l 0.05 i
i Silver ag/l 0.01 Uranium ag/l 0.477 s
Vanadium ag/l 0.2 i
Zinc mg/l 0.042 4
Ammonia aq/1 0.62 s
I i
l l
(
i i
I i
t i
i' 4
4 i
s 4
1 i
i 5
e 4
e 4
5
T.-
+
i 5
USX Corporation Production Area Authorization
- 2 UR02130-021
~
ATTACHMENT B CONTROL PARAMETER' UPPER LIMITS TABLE I
r Control Parameter Production Eene Ammonia, ag/l 5.62 Conductivity, ymhos 2663 Sulfate, ag/l 351 Uranium, 29/1 5.477 4
Non-Production Zone Control Parameter 111 2Dd Over1vina Overlyina Ammonia, ag/l 5.07 5.09 Conductivity, umhos 1262.5 2287.5 Sulfate, ag/l 181 162 Uranium, mg/l 5.001 5.001
.i e
e 5
n
6--......
\\
6 USX Corporation Production Area Authorization
- 2 UR02130-021 1
)
ATTACEMENT C
~
DESIGNATED MONITOR WELL TABLE
)
-l i
Production Zone 729 MD
)
l 785 MD 786 MD 787 MD 788 MD i
Non Production Zone First Overlyina Acuifer e
780 MS Second overivina Aauifer I
~
781 MS 1
)
i I
i t
l 7
i, i
1 t
J 1
a --
4
l t
1 i
7 l~
USX Corporation Production Area Authorization
- 2 UR02130-021 4'
ATTACEMENT D i
i PERMIT AREA MAP i
i
?
l l
1 s
t 4
4 t
[
......,.. t
.,s q
s i
i i
9...... J,.. g )
....... i
~....
~ ** - s. }..
y l
l l
/ehN
' 'N
,,.s.$.'
r.
V i
i.y v.
X 5 5
x w88
. I'ROWCTION AREA NO
!,,,, i=="",
\\
s 1
.y x
x
......u t.,i l j
..,q W. ' N '
[O i......
["l-l'.;:!'
. -j.x A
..u..,.a.
n..
us.
x y
3,
., x v w y:
+
A E
j 4
s.. X i
j i.\\
f a
j#
/.'
eum us,e
,v/'
s
.,.o....
I=* a -l i
s i. u...
s
+
. / u:.s.
.,,4 q
.......u...
.j r
.uu-
..a
u.s svert-N M, URAN!UW INC.
j i
useao t 3 * ='=* a a =' a' ' a==* a i l
SPARKMAN LEASE LIVE OAN COUNTY, TEXAS 5
3 E3 ****** * *.a.== ***a'*. i e as si munE 4 r.
't
+
........a i
W = = tica mata ao 2..
PERMIT AREA MAP
..p-u.,
n.<
~
4' I
i 4
1 i
.e t
..r.-..
.. ;- L
= _.
\\
\\
i USX Corporation 8
Production Area Authorization
- 2
\\
i UR02130-021 e
ATTACEMENT E MINING AND RESTORATION SCHEDULE Minina Phase ~
Restoration Phase s
Start IDd 11RI1 EDA Septer.ber 1980 June 1986 March 1982 October 1994 4
e e
es e
i i
i 4
e f
e i
I 1
f J
f 4
9 2
--pw---y
l e
[*
e 9
l' USX Corporation Production Area Authorization
- 2 I
UR02130-021 1
l I
ATTACHMENT F 1
PLAN VIEW OF MINE AREA 1
i 1
4
- /
e t
,i
~
l,*.
l
,)r t
- .s...
r r
a l
\\
g
(
4 J
y.
- ~
t =
[
\\
r
.' -h*:..
'(6q 'l,
}
)
c.:... j j
i j
.l.
m_. ;
l l/
,,s(
j
) L? ?.*
1 : s!!
- s s.. 9,
\\.
/ / / / Jl _.
._4 i
j c:
\\ u.\\
~
L- : :
rn i s 2
'* 00
- C ' * ** * * *
- b
(
.4 f"_o
~*
.. i.' '
"*o"*.
r i
s
^*^*^*^s
/\\, *y!
_o i
_r _._o.
f N
s
.g.
. ~..
//1 1
a.
j e
.'
- y. '
e p.
.I h, l
a L
.,. s
- n..;
y*"
+
{
.gp**
eure
.p= -
g
/..
I 4
s l
l
.]"r =:,
l
}
- n. 6 J
es e
,ee y
,s,,.
- ,,4.
/
g g*~..
s reem j
.\\
.A
~~,
j
/,,
i
~~ ~ /
../
}
N
+.. x+., e.c.
r vq-
- uxas maw crewoe i
k sa m ana u mas i
i
+
+\\
v.i s==
i g
,o s-MlPF. AREA MAP
+~
.J. a-4 e
er I
+-
- m 4
4
- ESSP PRODUCTION AREA wet.LS O 786MO*MINE AREA WELLS
@ 700MB NON PRODUCTION ZONE WELLS 4
a
+
9 J
d 10 USX Corporation
. Production Area Authorization
- 2 UR02130-021 ATTACHMENT G BASELINE WATER QUALITY TABLE a
...... =.....
Temas vrentum opersu_oru )
cm.,
omouwowATen Analysis neront svensany Aw et,y... mio.
Salt Lleft WAfin OUAll? Y T ABLE. la s.t.. U a.4.a hav Sportimen asey ze. 19a0 First Overlytne.
paocuet one tong weu e o ev amaa e,og wg.a.
moa pace. ace rosse **
eusse Anea.*
peocuctos Anea emoc.
Assesse l se.e zoest eg.,
p.e paeanetten unset (e.
A ape M.e to.
Aw.ay 88.en Lo 780,MS Caswa enan 31 2
mma 8.7 a-man 179 s
0 p--
anna 7.2 s
t -- :-
man 0
e tes.tseasp ami 304 f
tuses.e anna 31
,, e Cawwer man 168 8
8 ane..se man 0.96 I
0.01 so es.... as snna to s.ies man 19 I
'2 ta em saa ua.e 7.01 e
so 705 men 629 e
is ca ane =
^=
1010 i es a...
c.
see ua.e 2.49 i
se I
j se a
a*
sas1 D.009 I
t e.-
mei
'D.10 5
i i
2 ev.
saan D.S6 8
f.
Je cea** *=
men 40.0001 f
!?
c..ra.*=
men d0.001.
l M
c.v.s.
men D.002 t
8 u
.is
.e _a meh 0.10
.. j... _. ;..
.j i.'.. t"'
ao 40.001 A. yg..
-es o.01s '
I Y.:..
."32
. _ S.90971..
. L.
2_
.. h. ;
i' -- %*
as'
.9.04 _ _
i i
3
=.
3 f.<0 a.coi l
/.L f.- "'
. P._..
g.,g n N
sw en a.t
_# M.
aps
'O. 003... '.....
.a.
7.......
1
..4 enen 49L.~..
J.
as a.
50,001i..
....i....
7.
8a
.u...a.
mee
......... 1 g.
~
- h. s 01.
.. 1.
..1 av.swa==
,my,.
-..,40.01........
i
--.y...
a g
e40 W.***.*
men i
t g
,g 38 ' Gabe.In M for. 4 l
i O,
I F,.
I I
p I.
__j
~~ --
~
...m.._
i e.
1,
.o 11-l
USX Corporation Production Area Authorization: #2 UR02130-021 f
f ATTACHMENT G (con't)
BASELINE NATER QUALIT1f TABLE i
n i
I 7
i i
i t
w.
........nwwnw e tesse Uraniusa Operettores j
~
Clay West Nine l
Cm0VNO WAf tR ANALYSi$ MEPORT
SUMMARY
A.4 specame,i SASt LeWE WATER OUAUT Y TABLt. ea 5 i.e Ibn.m.%===
Ah.ie A.e4 esey 28. 1980 c.,,g,,,,,,,.,-
- J I
Seeend Overlying aau e o ay anaa.
'#00*cv Ose 20ssa
,,og pa00vctsosi now enoo.2cus 1
8 20 essa as.ese Ane A a encoucta0se seea I
en00 pamaties ten Uht t to.
Ave. age ed.e Low Ave.ap es.p to.
A.e. age es.p 2 osse u,
- p. games S7 60 70 74 61 47 75 701 MS729 se 227P la 11 14 16 11 12 14 thru thrW j
i
===n j
f 1
^ - -
292 238 279 314 333 344 3S4 732 MD 23oP 1
s ammA i
~
mean 7.4 12 14 17 16 17 17 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
782 19 mean 4
2aa 187 227 120 232 253 307 thru t
C.;i -
mina I
4 4.re.timas.e inan 12 97 119 176 150 109 201 783 IW 1
StiMe.e mean 42a 360 386 420 415 419 424 e
Oessee A
1.5 0.82 0.93 1.lo 0.77 0.86 1.01 i
e rese..de seen 0.05
<0.01 0.04 0.0S 0.01 0.04 o.06 to eenee.e. m
. inn 27 34 36 41 32 38 43 I
l' Sus man
-,.... u ase s.4 7.Se 7.43 7.79 8.20 7.2o 7.41 7.91 if 40 1273 1320 1}N 21 8
- ~k 1020 900 104S 1116
- ~ ' ' *
- TOS se/i W
2053
}
in cean.s easian 1830 1640 1847 2012 123 262 190 207 252 4
et ane.,
s.s u
- 236 171 l
in
?8 ar 0; g
- 0. 00'b 0 014 0.044 0.002 0.005 0.006 i
0.64:
0.06 0.16 0.32 0.02 0 15 o.43 1
0.79i 0.S4 0.62 0.78 o.SS 0.91 ' O.97
_l
- ,, 6=
mea 0*.'QC,0? "
[0.0001 0.0004D;00601 0.0001 0.0001 0.0003 jf
- 4. ea sann 7e casa wa one 0.002
<0.001 o.005 D.010 0.001 0.003 0.006
~
i i
n cas.
=e 0.004
<0.001 0.004 0.023 0.001 0.004 0.008 l
17 ot r anon i
0:07 0.01 0.23 1.7 0.04 1.59
'6.1
{
L l
M y ms,
_sae,(,,,,
49 001e 40.001 0.002 0.000 <0.001 <0.001 co.001
. a.
me q
~~~C_, _[__
0.30 l 0 00) 0J40 3.30 0.037 1.195 3.050 uff w m, e, _
o ss...
i
< 0.o001 ;..,., to.o001,.o.0001,o,.oo0: <0.,oom <.0001,,4.000).,,,,,,,
":.c" m'
5,0 91.
..<. 9 91._%9LE91_*o.9.L.S.03J
- 0.01
.5..--
M...
<0 00 4.._..
(oe991 59,19u9 991._91991.E.001 0 00d
_.gf,m91_Lg.L <o.01
<0.01 - <0.01 !
)
4 p-.
e
<0.01 3
2' ae 0 90%...._.. 40.00h 0.027. 0.gn o.o04.,, o,.02,0,o.o42 :
1
.n..
-0.2s,1 i
2
^ - - - - "
.-P i4 AP......
0,o2 Loat..I b61. 0,1.1, 0 d 7 0 915 }c.t.32 0.477
- 4 001 49,001..o.0 M. 0.040 s
1 3
-a' P
.""?..'_%._
T.
- 0.01.,.
- 9 03.'0.0' 0 30_ 0.01_ 0.01... 0 02 6._.
..__ 1<g, o1~.
<0.01 0.0e o.2o
<o.ot o.cl Eon
~~'g~~~~[~
ve -
-e
~!1. 6 0.40 2.20 9.47 256' ~~
420 727 i
~ ~ ' ~
4 i
E * *6** MS ad
{
,.m.
r. -
l
. ust t*e scentwicat:0= a esieras tw.wus i.sen f., cat m t t e.w 4vreeam s.rn r.u.....re 11-I 4
E t
i
- i 1
i i L
. m f
., _. ~
y
I l
l i
l I
i i
1 i
I 1
J l
i l
I 1
1 4
i 4
1 4
.l I
+
1 I
1 t
ii 1
o I
I J
l.
l 1
s I
i 1
1 1
i 4
i l
i i
I
m._
~ ~ ~ - - -
e S
g(A U Bany n. McBee.Cnsimen 1
- n. n. n.i,6 un u c
.a.e.n, 7
gd. [
John M. Baker.hm Dan Pearson Esecutise Dirador TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION Protecting Taras by Reducing and Presenting Munen November 29,1995 Doug Boyea USX Corporation Drawer V George West, TX 78022 Restoration Deter,mination of Production Area No. 2 of the Sparkman Mine, RE:
Permit No. UR02130-021
Dear Mr. Boyaa:
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission has receive Production Area 2 of the Sparkman Mine. A review of the data indicates that the produ area has been restored in accordance with the specifications contained in permit UR
. as required by 30 TAC 5331.107. You are hereby author zed to cease any restora i
activities, including monitoring, at this production area.
Within 120 days of receipt of this letter, closure of the wellfield shall be accomplishedf accordance with the approved plugging and abandonment plans for this site. Allowances on time necessary to plug the walls may be granted provided that the Commission is ahead of time. Any changes to the plugging procedures of the plugging schedule mus approved by the Commission.
Please notify the Commission before commencing plugging activities to provide the i
opportunity for TNRCC personnel to be present, if you have any questions, please c i
512/2391030, Mail Code me at 512/239-6636 or John Santos of the Uranium Team at i
}
i.
\\
i Sincerely, 1-Dale P. Kohler Uranium Team Leader j
l UIC, Uranium, and Radioactive Waste Section Industrial and Hazardous Waste Division f
DPK/JJS
(
cc:
John Santos 512 2391000 Ph. Dos D06t - + Austin. Texas 787113087 i
1 m
j i
The Natural Resource Conservation Commission Attn Enforcement Support Unit, Watershed Nanagement
\\
REPORT OF PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES 1
Today's Date
+
Wo Name_of Permittee Permit No.
Responsible Official:
Name Title Phone Number Facilities are operational /are estimated to be operational Date (month / day / year)
The volume and phase in operation (Interim / Final) (million gallons per day) f Operator of this facility will be Name class of certificate Social Security Number t
Employed by (if applicable (Name of Operations Company),
Signature
.I TNRCc Enforcement Support Unit / Watershed Management /P.O. Box 13087/ Austin, Texas I
78711-3087/ Area Code 512 239-4570 7
J 1
l. : :~.:
.._ a - 3 e
~
- M TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSIO 3r
.c P.O. Bos 13087
'd t 1.A narillo 3918 Canyon Dnve. Amarillo. TX 791094996 806 353 9251 FAL 806/358-9545 Regional Manager. Brad Jones 2 Lubbock 4630 50th St., Suite 600. Lubbeck.TX 79414 3509 806/796 7092 FAL 806r796 7107 Regional Manager. Jim Estes 3 Abilene 209 Scuth Danville, Suite 200B, Abilene,TX 79605 915/698 9674 FAL 915/692 5869 Regional Manager. Winona Henry
- 4. Arlington 6421 Camp Bowie Blvd., Suite 312 1019 N. Duncanville Rd.
8174 32 5531 FAL 817n32 0175 Fort Worth, TX 76116 Duncanville.TX 75116-2201 Regional Manager. Melvin Lewie 817n32 5531 FAX: 817n32-0175 214/298-6171 FAX: 214n091181
~
~
~
~ TNIrth Ced7Rli gESuiie30, 40 Duncanville. TX 75116 214/283 3703 FAX: 2145091181
- 5. Tyler 1304 South Vine Ave.
11406 Hwy. 64 East 903/566 0476 FAL 903/566 9216 Tyler.7% 75701 Rt.14. Bos 254, ler TX 75707 Regional Manager.14roy Biggers 903/595 2639 FAX: 903/5951562 903/566-0476 F 903/566 9216 2916 Teague, Tyler, TX 15701 903/595 5466 FAX: 903/593 2542 6-El Paso 7500 Viscount Blvd., Suite 147. El Paso, TX 79925 915n7R 9634 TAL 915S78 4576 R gional Manager. Hector Llla
- 7. Odessa 2626 J.D Shepperd Pkuy. Blvd., Bldg. B.101, Odessa TX 79761 915/362 6997 TAL 915/362 4517 Acting Regional Mar.ager.Jed Barker 8 San Angelo 301 W. Beauregard Ave.. Suite 202, San Angelo,TX 76903 915/655 9479 FAX 915'658 5431 "d
i Regional Manager. John Haagensen 9 Waco F1 6801 Sanger Ase. 5;i:e 2500. Waco,TX 76710 7807 1
- g.
,~
1 8174 51 0335 FAX $17nT2 9241 c,
Regional Manager. Gene Fulton 84 N
- 10. Beaumont I
C
' ' I 3870 ssten Fry.,! ate 110. Beaumont,TX 777031830 i
409'898 383S TAX 409'892 2119 E.,
f.
Regional Manager. %c Fair
- 11. Austin 4;
j 1921 Cedar Bend. !:e.150, Austin. TX 78758 c
' /1 6.,a.8 512/339 2929 FAL 512/339 3744 ff, Regional Manager. Larry Smith h3 T j 12 Houston 4150 Westheimer. Heunion. TX 7702,7 4417 71M25 7900 FAX 713'625 7987 Regional Manager. Allen Parker 13 San Antonio 140 Helmer Rd.Sune 360. San Antonio.TX 78232 5042 210/490 3096 FAN 210'545 4329 R:gional Manager. Richard Garcia l
14 Corpus Christi 1231 Agnes St., Suite 103 4410 Dillon Ln., Suite 47 512/85184$4 FAX 512 8512666 Corpus Christi.TX 78401 Ccrpus Christi,TX 76415 5326 Regional Manager. Buddy Stanley 512/882 5828 FAX: 512/882 7364 512/851 4484 FAL 512/8512666 l
l 15 Harlingen Mat Bldg, Room 204 813 East Pike Blvd.
l 210 968 3165 FAX 2109691315 513 East Jackson Weslaco, TX 78596-4935 Rigional Mar.ager. Ti,ny Franco Harlingen.TX 78550 210/968 3165 FAX: 210/9691315 210/425 6010 FAX: 210/412 5059 TNRCC Laboratory I
5144 E. Sam Housten Pkuy. N, Houston, TX 77015 711/457 5229 FAN 713'457 9107 le,b Manager Jim Busceme Gl.2 9/95
s.o
~'
{ '-
TNRCC REGIONAL STRUCTURE I
emme.r.:=
.I.
i.. d. _..
!l..~ g 1
i i
i
[
y ;......_}L, i
l
- - - ^ -
i i
d::.;,2;%
.d l;
~"* t
-.n.-
=LlL-m. L i 41.r.
F.r'F"g:.;,uc,,,..;;-
W
~
- s
,m \\~ s l
,.-, E. -l =7. E~k" "]~
u..a
% i
^ ' '
'. (
.........l...i....
.....L.. i-... J
---Wh;r:V. -' ~E~
A. ;*;
n L: ;
-- - ;~. r
.-. M(
f.
._,,"p"7.A=rit.ms..p
~ ~ ~;Mj'~.,,
1 a-yq\\i..,,
s O k.*,,,,f ^.\\...A..
s M. L m~g: W...
e.t.:.".s a N. sW'.,..'
(
,.%,.\\-
,s
~ r
!......!..._, ~ '
5 4.
'. =~*
,'. % ( ~ 1
..~
. @.. \\~b',i-a.,, 1.. 4 - Q ~._.
~ ~
.y i
-a d.J
.'>- 1. l
.-~
m t.
s.
n
./h= g,,,.
1a
.e.
..i.
.,j % -
I i :M. A* '~
- T 1.
L '.g: st.=
)
/
~
- 3. w -
at #3 a88W*"'
6 L I 9. N.f--(Y
/
/.
u..
-m
-8 s Q e*
Region Location
=+.g w
1 Amarillo pt,
2 Lubbock it l
3 Abilene
~ " (~
j 4
Arlington
~
f
{
5 Tyler
/- 't. :
6 EIPaso t
~/
Odessa 1
e 8
San Angelo 9
Waco l
10 Beaumont l
11 Austin 12 Houston 13 San Antonio 14 Corpus Christi 15 Harlingen o prini.e on r.cyci.e p.p.r using.oy.b o wk I
l i
l
h e
l l
l l
l I
t l
1
- ._w s
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH MEMO l
1 l
TO:
GENE FORRER LICENSE FILE IA2449 l
THRU:
ROBERT FREE ARTHUR TATE l
RUTH MCBURNEY I
FROM:
OSCAR LESSARD l
)
SUBJECT:
RELEASE FOR UNRESTRICTED USE i
SPARKMAN PATTERN USX CORPORATION, GEORGE WEST, TX j
DATE:
MARCH 3,1998 4
l SPARKMAN PATTERN:
1 On December 1-4, 1997, Bureau of Radiation Control employees, Helen Watkins, Chuck McClendon, Tommy Cardwell, Jackie Carter, George Gonzalez, and Bruce Calder, performed a survey of the Sparkman Pattern at USX Corporation in George West, Texas. The surveys were performed using one-by-one sodium iodide probes and Ludlum 14C survey meters. The purpose i
of the survey was to allow the Licensee to release the 6.5 acres for unrestricted use. Two times background was used as an allowable limit (Regulatory Guide 5.10, Guidelines for Conducting i
Close Out Surveys of Open Lands and Requesting Release for Unrestricted Use). The survey was performed by walking 10 meters apart moving across the wellfield pattern. Background readings i
}
ranged from 3000-4000 cpm, except with Tommy Cardwell's meter & probe, background ranged i
from 1200-1400 cpm. Maps and survey results are attac%d.
One area was identified which exceeded two times background. A visible pile of pipescale on the 1
surface was the cause for the elevated reading. This area was cleaned up by the Licensee and a post-cleanup survey resulted in a background reading.
On December 16,1997, Bureau of Radiation Control employee, Bradley Caskey, performed a i
survey of Leopard Creek which runs through Sparkman Pattern. The creekbed was dry except l
for one low spot which contained some water. The survey was performed using a one-by-one sodium iodide probe and a Ludlum 14C survey meter. Background readings were approximately 2400 com. No areas of the creekbed exceeded two times background. A map and survey results i
are attached.
7 i
l 1,.&
The close-out survey and analytical results for the Sparkman Pattern performed by USX Corporation are described in a letter dated March 27,1997, signed by Charles N. Wentz.__Results are attached.
Since no elevated readings were found on the Sparkman Pattern (except for the pile of visible pipescale), soil samples were not collected.
Recommend Sparkman Pattern wellfield be released for unrestricted use.
4 i
i I
l 4
l i
l
ww r
. x
-w TDH Texas Department of Health William R. Archer III, M.D.
1100 West 49th Street Pani J. Patterson. M.D., M.P.H.
Commissioner Austin Texas 78756-3189 Executive Deputy Commissioner (512) 458-7111 Radiation Control (512) 834-6688 es October 7,1998 E3
~
Om E
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9
ATTN: Richard Bangart, Director j
Office of State Programs 4
Mail Stop 03H20 i
Washington, D.C.
20555 b"A
Dear Mr. Bangart:
Texas Department of Health (TDH) hr.s received a request from Rio Grande Resources Corporation (RGR), dated January 23,1998 (Enclosure 1), pertaining to the 2,793 acre area outside of the 150 acre Panna Maria Tailings Impoundment Restricted Area, on Radioactive Material License No. LO2402. The Licensee is requesting that the area be removed from the license.
l This site was operated from 1977 to 1992, as a conventional uranium mine and milling operation.
)
From 1992 to 1997 RGR oprated the site as a commercial byproduct material disposal site.
i Restoration and decommissioning activities commenced in 1992.
The license authorized conventional uranium mining, milling of uranium ore, and byproduct material disposal in the tailings impoundment.
During surface reclamation and decommissioning all material and equipment was surveyed for radioactive contamination. Any material and/or equipment which was contaminated was disposed of by utilizing one of the following methods:
transfer to another licensed mine site; decontamination and release for unrestricted use; or disposal in the licensee's tailings impoundment.
Proper disposal of all material and/or equipment was documented by the licensee.
/v<-
r -
,:n -..
~--
Richard Bangart -
October 7,1998 i
Page 2 Surveys, by the licensee, to confirm the effectiveness of reclamation and decommissioning l
activities of equipment and structures were performed by direct and/or swipe surveys. Surveys to confirm the effectiveness of reclamation and decommissioning activities of open land were t
performed by defining ten meter by ten meter squares in a grid pattern across the licensed area and taking five readmgs in each square with a micro-R meter. The licensee subsequently requested that the 2,793 acre area outside of the 150 acre Panna Maria Tailings Impoundment i
Restricted Area be removed from the license.
I Reclamation and decommissioning activities were completed in 1998.
In November 1997, TDH personnel performed a confumation survey of the facility to release the land and buildings for unrestricted use. The land surveys were performed usmg one-by one j
sodium iodide probes and Ludlum 14C survey meters. Two times background was used as an allowable limit for land surveys (TDH Regulatory Guide 5.10, Guidelines for Conducting Close Out Surveys of Open Lands and Requesting Release for Unrestricted Use).The land survey was performed by walking 10 meters apart moving across the licensed area. -Background was established as 3000 counts per minute (c am). Four land areas were identified which exceeded two 4
times background. These areas were c: caned up by the Licensee and resurveyed. Soil samples were retrieved from the four areas after the Licensee had cleaned them up. Soil sample results 1
were within the regulatory limits for radium-226 and natural uranium soil concentrations of 5 pCi/gm and 30 pCi/gm, respectively.
i j-The building surveys were performed using one-by-one sodium iodide and Geiger-Mueller probes and Ludlum 14C survey meters. Contaminated surfaces in the buildings, exceeding twice background, were swi >ed for removable contamination. Buildings surveyed included the Main Building, the Security 3uilding, and the Mill Building. No contamination was found in the Main i
Buildmg or the Security Building. Ten contaminated surfaces were discovered in the Mill Building. Swipes were taken and laboratory results revealed that all surfaces were within regulatory limits for removable contamination (TDH Regulatory Guide 5.13, Guidelines for i
Performing Close Out Surveys and Sampling Procedures for Releasing Buildings and Equipment
{
for Unrestricted Use).
In January 1998, TDH personnel returned to the facility to perform a confirmation survey of six acres of land that were too wet to survey in November 1997 and to perform a survey of the Mine Shop buildinJ. A survey of the land indicated that no areas exceeded twice background. As no
[ building indicated one contaminated surface area. A swipe was taken an areas exceec ed twice background, no soil samples were taken. A survey of the Mine Shop revealed that the surface area was within regulatory limits for removable contamination.
Os-site disposal of solid radioactive material or byproduct material was not authorized outside of the tailings impoundment restricted area, thus there is no land associated with this action to be j
. transferred to the State of Texas or the Federal Government.
S 6
~.
jo s
c' j
I. -
Richard Bangart 1
October 7,1998
)
i Page 3
-l As a result of these fmdings, we are proposing to remove the 2,793 acre area outside of the 150 acre Panna Maria Tailings Impoundment Restricted Area from the license (Enclosure 2). All data supporting our proposal is kept on file and is available at TDH should it be necessary for reterence at a future date. Please advise if the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires additional material or information in order to make a determination regardmg concurrence with l
1 our proposal. If additional information is required, please contact Mr. Eugene Forrer of my staff at (512) 834-6688, ext. 2208.
}
As maintaining this site places an undue economic burden and hardship on the licensee, we request expeditious processing of this request.
S' ly, Richard A. Ratliff,).. Chief Bureau of Radiatio
- 'o ol Enclosures
/
j i
l J
t I
G e,
e e
r g
t e
i 9
1 l
i 1
i 1
1 1
1 l
- ff-h
- r h ma ananas assouness consonanen
........ '2.'M
~"'#
January 23,1998
- - ~ l;..... ~ "2 Mr. Arthur C. Tate, Director Division of Compliance and Inspection Bureau ofRadiation Control Texas Department ofHealth 1100 West 49th Street Austin, TX 78756-3189 Re:
PANNA MARIA FACILITY, RML NO. RW2402
Dear Mr. Tate:
Rio Grande Resources (RGR) is requesting an unrestricted release and an agency verification survey for the remaining portion of the Panna Maria site. During the week of November 17,1997, your staff conducted verification surveys at the Panna Maria site and according to Mr. Brad Caskey completed all areas except the West Shop and six acres that were to wet to survey. This request includes two copies of a report that contains all of the prefuninary and final urvey data for the West Shop Facility.
The veriScation survey of the West Shop and the remaining six acres has been scheduled for January 26,1998 with Brad Caskey ofyour staff.
TGR is awaiting soil sampling results which are due in February to complete documentation of cleanup activities. Once we receive these results, a final report including soil sampling results, Restad results and maps will be submitted to complete the documentation required for an unrestricted release l
of the land and facilities outside of the tailings pond restricted and fenced area. The tailings pond restricted area is currently being fenced and should be completed within this time frame.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me by phone at 830-780-3911 ext.238 or by e-mail at rgr5kir@aol.com. RGR is looking forward to working with you and your staff.
Sincer 0I KEVW L *[-( l E"' ? *-
Kevin L. Raabe, RSO, REM Rio Grande Resources y(, RA Manager, EnvlSafety 9
7810 encl:
$\\
cc:
- file,
~
Pat Mutz PO Box 1000. Ho8 son. TEXAS 78117 FAX (830) 780-2005
- (830)700-3911 COUNTY ROAD 240. FOUR MELIS EAST OF HotSON TX CM FM 81. Hott0N.TEXA8 78117
gg vos l,.
& ma ananos nasouness consonanen y9yn43997 BUREAUoF November 3,1997 i
L Mr. Arthur C. Tate, Director Division of Compliance and Inspection i
Bureau ofRadiation Control l
Texas Department ofHealth i,
1100 West 49th Street l
Austin, TX 78756-3189 Re:
PANNA MARIA FACILITY, RML NO.RW2402 l
Dear Mr. Tate:
l Rio Grande Resources (RGR)is requesting an unrestricted release and an agency verification survey i
for a portion of the Panna Maria site. This request includes two copies of a repon that contains all i
of the preliminary and final survey data, soil sampling results and procedures for release of the buildings and land in the subject area. 'Ihe area (12 acres) that RGR is requesting release for is shown i
on a map in the repon and includes the former miltshop/ lab / warehouse building, security building and l
main office building. RGR has plans to utilir.e these facilities for a new business that does not involve radioactive materials and will provide jobs to personnel who would otherwise be laid off early next year. RGR is requesting that this required verification be scheduled for the week ofNovember 17, j
1997 as discussed during our meeting on September 30,1997.
1 1 hank you for your consideration in this matter. Ifyou have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me by phone at 830-780 3911 ext.238 or by e mail at rgr5ktr@aol.com. RGR is j
looking forward to working with you and your staff.
l Sin
- ely, f
$0Nkg
.#' T ****4
($[/ KEMNL h i
Rio Grande Resources
[h
{
Manager,EnvlSafety
[&,gE,FJ/ g 16 7610 /
j encl:
{
cc:
- file, Pat Mutz
_f
)
)
1-Po box 1000. Ho8 son. TEXAS 73117 FAX (330) 780 200s (a30) 700 3311 -
COUNTV ROA0140. POVA MLit I AST OF N0480*s. TX 088 N 01. H0880N. TEX As feit?
E 4,
e%
,e i
O e
t I
j e
i P
i i
l J
r e-r
= -
i...
[
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH MEMO i
l TO:
GENE FORRER j
LICENSE FILE LO2402 i
THRU:
ROBERT FREE
{
ARTHUR TATE RUTH MCBURNEY l
FROM:
OSCAR LESSARD i
SUBJECT:
RELEASE FOR UNRESTRICTED USE l
RIO GRANDE RESOURCES CORPORATION (RGR) l PANNA MARIA & PALANGANA DOME SITES DATE:
JUNE 4,1998 4
l i
i PANNA MARIA i
l On November 17-20,1997, Russ Meyer, Eric Skotak, Terry Horan, and I performed a survey of portions of the Panna Maria facility at RGR Corporation to allow the Licensee to release the j
land and buildings for unrestricted use. Attachment A-1 shows the land and the buildings that J
were surveyed. The land surveys were performed using one-by-one sodium iodide probes and i
Ludlum 14C survey meters. The building surveys were performed using one-by-one sodium l
iodide and Geiger-Mu:ller probes and Ludlum 14C survey meters. Two times background was i
i used as an allowable limit for land surveys (Regulatory Guide 5.10, Guidelines for Conducting i
Close Out Surveys of Open Lands and Requesting Release for Unrestricted Use). Contaminated surfaces in the buildings, exceeding twice background, were swiped for removable contamination.
The land survey was performed by walking 10 meters apart moving across the wellfield.
Background was established as 3000 counts per minute (cpm). Four land areas were identified j
which exceeded two times background (see Attachment A-2). These areas were cleaned up by the Licensee and resurveyed.
hmnle #
Pre-Cleanun (enm)
Post-Cleannn (enmi 1 (Acre 15) 10,000 3000 j
2 (Acre 17) 10,000 3000 l
3 (Acre 137) 20,000 3000 4 (Acre 138) 80,000 3000 i
I o
- _ ~ __-__._...
i i.
j**
Soil samples were retrieved from these four areas after the Licensee cleaned them up. Soil samples collected were representative of the 100 square meter by 15 centimeter in depth sampling method.
Five each 15 centimeter deep core samples were collected in each 100 square meter area. The 1
five core samples from each 100 square meter area were then dried and mixed together. A l
representative sample from the mixture was used for analysis. Results of the four soil samples j
for radium 226 and natural uranium concentrations in picoeuries per gram (pCi/gm) are as follows
)
(see Attachment A-3). Background for the land is approximately 1.0 pCi/gm radium-226:
l Samnle #
Radium-226 (oCi/em)
Nat Uranium (oCi/em) 1 j
1 3.0 3.5 l
2 2.4 4.7
)
3 4.0 4.4 j
4 4.8 6.9 l
1 All soil sample results were within regulatory limits for radium-226 and natural uranium soil concentrations (5 pCi/gm and 30 pCi/gm, respectively).
l Buildings surveyed included the Main Building, the Security Building, and the Mill Building. No j
contamination was found in the Main Building or the Security Building. Ten contaminated j
j surfaces were discovered in the Mill Building. Swipes were taken and laboratory results revealed l
that all surfaces were within regulatory limits for reinovable contamination. Attachment A 4 l
contains a layout of the Mill Building and sample results.
j On January 26,1998, Brad Caskey, Liz Rockett, Bernadette Baca, and I returned to the Panna Maria facility to perform a survey of six acres of land which were too wet to survey in November l
1997 and to perform a survey of the Mine Shop building (see Attachment A-5). A survey of the land resulted in no areas that exceeded twice background. A survey of the Mine Shop building i
resulted in one contaminated surface. A swipe was taken and laboratory results revealed that the j
surface was within regulatory limits for removable contamination.
i PALANGANA DOME 1
l On January 27-29,1998, Bral Caskey, Liz Rockett, Bernadette Baca, and I performed a survey
{
of the Palangana Dome facility at RGR Corporation to allow the Licensee to release the land and l
a building for unrestricted use. Attachment A-6 shows the land and the building that were j
surveyed. The land surveys were performed using one-by-one sodium iodide probes and Ludlum 14C survey meters. The building surveys were performed using one-by-one sodium iodide and i
Geiger-Mueller probes and Ludlum 14C survey meters. Two times background was used as an allowable limit for land surveys (Regulatory Guide 5.10, Guidelines for Conducting Close Oc j
Surveys of Open I. ands and Requesting Release for Unrestricted Use). Contaminated surfaces in the buildings, exceeding twice background, were swiped for removable contamination. The land survey was performed by walking 10 meters apart moving across the wellfield. Background was established as 3000 cpm. Thirteen land areas were identified which exceeded two times l
background (see Attachment A-7). These areas were cleaned up by the Licensee and resurveyed.
i
=
+
~
~
1 o l.
Ramnle #
Pre-Cleanun (comi Post-Cleanun (enm) i 1 (Acre 1) 12,000 3000 l
2 (Acre 2) 5000 5000*
l 3 (Acre 15) 5000 5000*
l 4 (Acre 15) 12,000 3000
~
5 (Acre 35) 5000 5000*
i 6 (Acre 37) 8,000 3000 7 (Acre 38) 8,000 4000' 8 (Acre 47) 18,000 4000*
9 (Acre 48) 8,000 3000 l
10 (Acre 49) 7,000 3000 11 (Acre 49) 8,000 4000*
12 (Acre 50) 13,000 3000 13 (Acrc 50) 18,000 3000 l
Soil samples were retrieved from five areas (identified by *) after the Licensee cleaned them up.
Soil samples collected were representative of ta 100 square meter by 15 centimeter in depth sampling method. Five each 15 centimeter deep core samples were collected in each 100 square
]
meter area. The five core samples from each 100 square meter area were then dried and mixed together. A representative sample from the mixture was used for analysis. Results of the five soil i
l samples for radium-226 and natural uranium concentrations in picoeuries per gram (pCi/gm) are j
as follows (see Attachment A-8). Background for the land is approximately 1.0 pCi/gm radium-226:
1 Ramnie #
Radium-226 (oCi/ami Nat Uranium (oCi/am) 2 2.9 3.7 3
9.0**
6.3 5
3.4 5.6 t
8 4.0 14.0 f
11 2.2 20.0 l
- exceeded regulatory limits
)
All soil sample results were within regulatory limits for radium-226 and natural uranium soil l
concentrations (5 pCi/gm and 30 pCi/gm, respect vely) except for the radium-226 concentration i
i for sample #3.
The building survey consisted of the Main Building. No surfaces were contaminated in the building.
1 e
.a..
On April 27,1998, Brad Caskey, Mike Dunn, Scott Flowerday, and I returned to the Palangana Dome facility to perform a resurvey and retake sample #3 after the Licensee recleaned the area.
The resurvey resulted in background radiation levels of 3000 cpm and the retake of sample #3 resulted in radium-226 and natural uranium concentrations of 3.7 and 5.6 pCi/gm, respectively (see Attachment A-9)
CONCLUSIONS Recommend Panna Maria facility be released for unrestricted use (all areas outside of tailings pond restricted area) and recommend that Palangana Dome facility be released for unrestricted use.
i 2
l i
I i
l l
l l
1
[
.1
~~
\\
y i
T_D__H_
Texas Department of Health William R. Archer Ill, M.D.
1100 West 49th Street Patti J. Patterson, M.D., M.P.H.
Commissioner Austin, Texas 78756-3189 Executive Deputy Commissioner
($12) 458-7111 Radiation Control W
(512) 834-6688
$C October 7,1998 5:
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Richard Bangart, Director y
Office of State Programs
'r.n Mail Stop 03H2O Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Bangart:
The Texas Department of Health (TDH) has received a request from USX Corporation (USX),
Texas Uranium Operations, dated December 8,1997 (Enclosure 1), pertaining, to the 80 acre Eoots/ Brown Production Area, near George West Texas, on Radioactive Material License No.
IA2449. The Licensee is requesting that the production area be removed from the license.
The license authorized in-situ leach mining in the production area. This area was operated from 1977 to 1987, when production operations were ceased and reclamation efforts were commenced.
From 1987 until 1996 groundwater restoration was performed along with limited surface reclamation.
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission authorized ceasing groundwater restoration and final plugging of all wells in July 1996 (Enclosure 2). Following plugging of all wells, full scale surface reclamation and decommissioning began.
During surface reclamation and decommissioning all material and equipment was surveyed for i
radioactive contamination. Any material and/or equipment which was contaminated was disposed of by utilizing one of the following methods:
transfer to another licensed mine site; decontamination and release for unrestricted use; or disposal at a licensed byproduct disposal facility.
Proper disposal of all material and/or equipment was documented by the licensee.
Direct surveys, by the licensee, to confirm the effectiveness of reclamation and decommissioning 1
activities of land were performed by defining ten meter by ten meter squares in a grid pattern across the production area and taking five readings in each square with a micro-R meter. The licensee subsequently requested removal of the production area from its license.
fo"/-244@ /W MM
,g..We4J-4m i4-
- We4 4
_t1.C tW"u*+M'F*'W%#M4' d
a_ _...
t Richard Bangart October 7,1998
' Page 2 Reclamation and decommissioning activities were completed at the site in 1997.
1 In April,1998, TDH personnel performed a partial survey of the production area. The survys were performed using one-by-one sodium iodide probes and Ludlum 14C survey meters. Tne purpose of the survey was to allow the Licensee to release the approximately 80 acre uction area for unrestricted use. Two times background was used as an allowable limit (TDH atory Guide 5.10 Guidelines for Conducting Close Out Surveys of O mn I2nds and Request lease for Unrestricted Use). The survey was performed by walking L0 meters apart movmg across the production area. Background readings were 1500 cpm, 2000 cpm, and 3000 cpm for the mstruments used. Twenty-nine areas were identified which exceeded two times backpound.
These areas were cleaned up by the Licensee and resurveyed by TDH personnel. A.1 areas resurveyed had readings which were less than two times background.
In May,1998, TDH personnel returned to the production area and retrieved soil samples from 13 areas (TDH Regulatory Guide 5.10, Guidehnes for Conducting Close Out Surveys of Open Lands and Requesting Release for Unrestricted Use). Soil sample results were within the regulatory limits for radium-226 and natural uranium soil concentrations of 5 pCi/gm and 30 pCi/gm, respectively, except for two soil samples which exceeded these limits.
1 In August,1998, TDH personnel returned to the production area to resurvey and take soil samples after the Licensee had cleaned the two areas that had exceeded release limits. Soil sample results were within the regulatory limits for radium-226 and natural uranium soll concentrations of 5 pCi/gm and 30 pC1/gm, respectively.
On-site disposal of solid radioactive material or byproduct material was not authorized at this facility. Thus, there is no land to be transferred to th~e State of Texas or the Federal Government.
As a result of these findings, we are proposing to remove the Boots / Brown Production Area from this license (Enclosure 3). All data supportmg our pro msal are kept on file and is available at TDH should it be necessary for reference at a future date. Please advise if the U.S. Nuclear l
Regulatory Commission wishes additional material or information in order to make a determination regarding concurrence with our proposal that the production area be removed from this license. If additional information is required, please contact Mr. Eugene Forrer of my staff at (512) 834-6688, ext. 2208.
As maintaining this site places an undue economic burden and hardship on the licensee, we request expeditious processing of this request.
i i
l Sincerely, p/
i Richard A. Ratliff, P.E.
hief Eureau of Radiation Co trol I
l l
Enclosures
g am,,
9
- O 44
^
H M@86'-
M h
O O
p 4
I
~ -
. ~.
UsX Corporstlose Texes Uranium Operatione orewer v George West,TX 78022 t,128882441
{
March 19,1998 L
Mr. Brad Caskey Division of Compliance and Inspection.
RECSYED 4
i Bureau of Radiation Control D
j 1100 West 49th Street MAR 2 01998 j
BUREAU op RADIATION CONTROL l
Re: Survey Release Requests, License No. RW2449
)
Dear Mr. Caskey:
l.
The purpose of this letter is to request confirmation release surveys on three additional projects. Also, we would like verification of the remediation completed j
at the Pawlik mine. These projects are discussed in the following paragraphs.
l 1.
Pawlik Mine During confirmation surveying of Pawlik mine pattom ares (TNRCC Permit No. 02368) several soil samples were taken by personnel from
}
the TDH and TUO. Three sets of surface soil samples showed Ra 226 values higher than the release limit of 5 plCl/g above background. A copy of the letter I sent Mr. Oscar Lessard regarding the final results on two of the remediated areas is attached with this letter. The third area, TDH Sample No. 8 (TUO 4
l location 550 E/W by 230 N/S), showed a total Ra 226 of 6.9 pCl/g in the TDH j
sample and 4.2 pCilg in the TUO sample. We remediated this area also, as only i
one spot in the five-spot sample area had an elevated pR/Hr reading. The third i
area was also re-sampled and the results should be available in about one
?
week. We are requesting a final survey of the three remediated areas.
2.
Concrete Five satellite areas at the Clay West and Bums Ranch facilities have concrete pad material ready to be surveyed. The concrete slabs at four of these areas were cored and analyzed for uranium and radium before they were broken up. Summary sheets of the core analyses are attached with this letter.
The concrete from the fifth area, Bums Ranch Satellite I, did not originate from a process area and was not cored. Micro R readings on all five areas are also
. attached with this letter.
3.
Bums Ranch Central Plant Process Ponds These small process ponds (approx. 70 ft X 70 ft) are located near the former area of the' Bums Ranch Central Plant. All sludge, liner material, and sub-soil have been remediated.
Documentation of the soil analysis and micro R surveys is attached with this letter.
Marathon oil company U88 u.a.Cheremed aroup m
_ ~
I.
Mr. Brad Caskey Page 2.
2 March 19,1998 4.
Boots / Brown Mine The pattom areas at the Boots / Brown mine (TNRCC
{
Permit No. 02154) have been surveyed, remediated, and re-surveyed. A map l
showing the surveys is attached with this letter. The readings in red,20 to 24 pR/Hr are being sampled as five spots. Since the TDH will most likely take soil samples also, we would like to proceed with the close-out survey as soon as it can be scheduled.
These projects are listed in the preferred sequence of confirmation. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please let me know.
i Sincerely, l
t j
CAcA w.e 4 l
Charles N. Wentz Manager-Operations i
f e
l i
i 4
I 4
4
e 4
~
9 6
e og dw e gas mw ee*M--
O l
O
=.m--
I
. OCT B7 '9011841 FR USX TX LEANILF1 CFER 5125662442 TO 1512E346698 P.82 h5Cd(M [1/ Mi 1.
- ,.[,,
g
-)
Barry R. McBee.CAedamme
- n. a. *xalph* Marques. c<wwu
. T..
e i, g,,,g,,cg;, s.s.moner 9.
.i. u-m
......1......
Jef(rey A.Saitas Erwuske Deerfor
.(MMM
((
TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION holuting Taros 4 Mr6e.M end nwontme Psilatiour y
Mr. Douglas P. Boyea, Jr.
Reservoir Engineer i
USXTrexas Uranium Operations j
George West. TX 78022 Re:
Restoration Determination and Extension of Plugging Deadline i
Production Area 1, URQ2354-011Ats]Br 2wn Atline J
Dear Mr. Boyea:
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) has received the restoration data for Production Area 1 of the Boots / Brown Mine. A review of the data shows that the production area has been restored according to the specifications contained in Permit i
UR02154 and as required by 30 TAC 5331.107. You are now authorized to cease any i
restoration activities, including monitoring, at these production areas.
j Since, you also requested an extension of the 120 day deadline for plugging and abandonment of the wells, an extension until May 1,1999 is hereby authorized.
l The Commission must approve any changes to the plugging procedures or the plugging schedule.
j l
Piease notif y the Commission bef ore commencing plugging activities to provide the opportunity j
for TNRCC personnel to be preser.t. If you have any questions, pitase contact Mr. John Santos 512/239-1030; correspondence should be sent to mail code MC131.
i j
Sincerely,
]
- t.L.
LatP i
Ben Knape
['
F?,
I4.
UIC Permitting Team Leader i
f, j
Underground injection Control & Radioactive Waste Section 3
Permits Division 7
i a
BK/JJS/)b
(
-q i
cc:
Mr. John Santos
- 1. ;
T Ci g,
u.s
)
f~
MuRWnsANTOs\\usxt21 Set 2154 011.P&A 4
i P.O. Boa 13067
- Austin. Teams 787113087
- 512/239 1000
- Internet address: www.tnrecatate.tz.us
]
l l
r
~
~
OCT M '90 11:41 FR USK TX t.NNILM CPER 5125662442 TD 15128346690 P.03 i-i. ii
/
3 u me e
- C
-( I l
PR.ODUCTION AREA AUTHORIZATION i
4 Production Area: UR02154-011 Texas NaturalResource This Production Area Authorization supersedes Conservat. ion Commission and replaces Permit No. UR02154-011 issued-September 14,1988.
AUTHORIZATION to conduct underground j
i, injection under provisions of j
Permit No. UR02154401 4
1.
Name of Permittee:
l A. Name:
USX Corporation l
Texas Uranium Operations B. Addres s:
P. O. Drawer V George West, Texas 78022 11.
Name of Mine:
Boots / Brown 1
j 111.
Standard Provisions:
A. Restoration Table
(
l B. Control Parameter Upper Umits Table C. Designated Monitor WellTable D. Permit Area Map i
4 CONTINUED on Pages 2 through 9 i
i The permittee is authorimod to conduct injection setMty in accordance with Emitations, requirements, and other conditions set forth herein. This Authorization lo granted subject to the provisions of Permh No. UR02154 001.
i This Authorization is valid unta amended or revoked by the Commission.
S. EP 041998 i
DATE ISSU
'O ATTEST:
--.I M 7 ~.'" M
For the Cdmmis'sion'
--9
- p.. a 1
OCT 87 '9811841 FR USX TX (JiANILM CFER 5125662442 TO 1512ED46690 P.04 USX Corporation Page 2 Texas Uranium Operations,
Production Area Authorization UR02154-011 E. Mining and Restorstion Schedule F. Plan View of Mine Area G. Baseline Water Quality Table i
IV.
Special Provisions:
A.
The control parameter upper limits for well 822-MS will be changed to
- s the following:
)
Electrical Conductivity 3932 pmhos/cm Sulfate 420 mgA Uranium 6.4 mgA Ammonia 5.42 mgh B.
Monitor well WW59-A, which has been plugged and abandoned, will no longer serve as e designated monitor well, and will be replaced by well 838 MS.
4 a
ed 4
)
4
~.
4
n OCT Erl '9811:42 FR USX TX t#UNILM CPER 5125662442 TO.iS12ED46690 P.05 i
Page 3
~
USX Corporation Texas Uranium Operations 8* " ""* ""
. ' t a' * ' *
's i : e ei -.-
P'rodUction d'reE Wutbilza#oi ""
UR02154-011 I
ATTACHMENT A
)
~
RESTORATION TABLE (Amended) t s
Parameter Unit Concentration Calcium mph 75 Magneslun5
.mgA 14 o
Sodium mg/l 221 Potassium mgM 12 Carbonate mg4 0
Bicarbonate mga 350 Sulfate mgh 75 Chloride mgA 266 Fluoride mgA 1.2 Nitrate-N mgA O.2 Silica mgh 45 pH standard units 6-8 TDS mon 811 Conductivity pmhos 1423 Alkalinity standard units 260 Atsenic mgA 0.059 Cadmium mg/l 0.0001 fron mgA 0.2 Lead mgA 0.003 Manganese mgA 0.05 Mercury mall O.0011 Selenium mga 0.002 Ammonia mgA O.5 Molybdenum mgA 1.0 Radium 226 pCi4 150 Ulsnium ma/I 0.280
y:.
OCT 97 '90 11:42 FR USX TX LRANILFI CPER 5125662442 TO 15128346698 P.96 l
i Page 4 I
USX Corporation Texas Uranium Operations -
Production Area Authorization j
UR02154411 I
ATTACHMENT B-l CONTROL PARAMETER UPPER LIMITS TABLE J
l 1
Production l
Nonorodudion Zone Contrel Parameter _
Zons all wells except wells
[
763MS and 822MS 763MS and 822MS i'
Uranium (mg/I) 5.4 5.4 5.4 j
Ammonia N (mgn) 5.46
- 5.42 5.42 1
I I
Conductivity ( mhos) 2887 2512 3932 Sulfate (mgn) 324 335 420
~
at 4
o i
~.
4
7 OCT Er? '90 11 42 FR USK TX LRANILM DPER 5125662442 TO 151 N 90 P.97 USX Corporation Page 5 Texas Uranium Operations Production Area Authoriastl6n UR02154-011 ATTACHMENT C, DESIGNATED MONITOR WELL TABLE
.i
~
Production First Overlying Zone Nonoroduction Zone 701MD - 717MD 761MS - 766MS j
l, 721MD - 742MD 778MS 773MD - 775MD 780MS 801MD - 815MD 781MS 768MD 784MS 769MD 785MS 789MS l
816MS - 823MS 829MS 838MS 1
\\
e
~,
l 1
OCT B7 '90 11842 FR W TX LRANILF1 OPER 5125662442 TO 1512E046690 P.00
=
Page6 USX Corporation Te$as Uralhu/n dp#ia\\iorld'"
" " "** = m e =
e+i
.i
, e iim, e,,,, n....... o,
)
Production Area Authorization UR02154 011 1
i ATTACHMENT D PERMIT AREA MAP w$'k&
\\,..
a
..~..
ss.gs.:s.+v,,,J /
. _.! l&g,(-
.,A
. ' c :,. :',.
i
~. s.
. c.
7.,~,N.--a:p;. a: a t,
me im
.sy,,.
r 4
s6.
. /
.p gy.;.
mX,...
f.
~
t'.
.I m
6,,,,._
...b
+.
r A ?
Js 3
. t,
[. --
' Nb..
y,:k 7
\\,i t.
h
...,[#
l
'~
~~
3
~~:-
y j
i i.] z.c..
- ~ u.,..,.
.Q.'s
.: /.y.4 f - - -- % i-
=. minrr.} _,
.c.
+r,..M..
i viwy-.
prt.
/,r 4
.u
.. s.: n'y, s g e ^ -.$
Q..Qs' *1.,_
y<.
/
Y: ' ;*,. ?,s A.
..etz. v, -
a.
.a
///+.. nl...
. -.,w.h t.- v.,2
- y g '. s s.,, l_
rs m.e passocTu-esta tL;w>y /
s g
e 7
r
_s
%. ' __ W. w w / ;.
f UE ' ' s A
- 4-t s
~
g
~4
,( e-
.t.- ~~ t _.y _ ;a 4,;
-....at
... :. -..~u c~d~4 s
/
- r, i
- y. v. 3.,.,4..,,....,
u,,.. /.
s..
\\
ow=< =<=r --
anas h
_T ' *D I
- ..s b
es l
c
't
.is 4
j
'e.
.f l
/s t
I 8
/ ' ' '
9[*,..)%':l*.::r' i
- J
/.
~\\.
- \\
/
.2 s
.4*
T.
s.
I
)
g d/ ' je I
f.
sv-i 3
3 8
sp
.,,o a 1 e.
. J.
- z. w
<r y
z i
~
hh
. ?-Y."
'>Y
.t'
.%" \\
~
~
ai-(
v y
yn
-. ) --.)
~.
-.... /. L.b-)
p%
M.,
L
=
,.e,
..Q'. s G
u-l
- x....
f *,-
~
. -.,'"~).-r 4..
M.i l
t m.&a.
.%....,s..Y...s..
-J ;.R t
-,e c 1s s
s..
- e.,
. s v.- m. Ag
[
s h.. I
(
TEXA5 i
ATTACWelf to i
i
._1 l
81 GEORGE WEST'ARE'A
/~, ~ 8 uvt ou coumn.nns 1
N,,,, =' '
8 4
I victurr<r Id AP g,
.-[
{
t
- - ~,
d
". i p
(
l 1
- c...:
l OCT Erl '9811:43 FR USX TX WRAHlW OPER 5125662442 TO 15128346690 P.09 f.
s.
l Page 7 USX Corporation i
Texas Uranium Operations Production Area Authorizatl' n o
UR02154 011 ATTACHMENT E 5
MINING AND RESTORATION SCHEDULE
(
Restoration Phase Minino Phase _
l V w 1978 - July 1987 March 1981. March 1997 2
J
)
i.
4 5
1
.S e
l e
e e
4 OCT Irf '9011:43 FR USX TX LRANILPI CFER 5125662442 TO 15126346690 P.10
\\
l Page 8 USX Corporation Texas Uranium Operations-
[
Production Area Authorization UR02154-011 l
ATTACHMENT F
[ PLAN VIEW OF MINE AREA I
s, t
t,;
l;V 4}.
I r
I i t l
J ; g ;,\\
g le
- j. j
\\,
j l
p'
\\
I c
l J
l
,!N~
I i
u;;
\\%
- )
t'
~
.\\,9 J
ll
[
- J 3
.i uj pl a
1 4
e
OCT M '90 11:43 FR tsX TX LRAHIL.F1 (PER 5125662442 TO 15128346698 P.11
.~.
s Page 9 USX Corporation
, Texas Uranlgm, Ope,rptipns,,,
,,y,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,.,
Production Area Authorization UB02164 011 ATTACHMENT G -
BASEUNE WATER O' 'LITY TABLES s.
}
a
=.
r s!!ne s
. is 3 1 J:alar. :ve
-, +,
s e =
- c s e a n u as 22 e
l l ; e!
2 t i!18 8 'EIR fi t Ja E
3 c=
s es em c e z 9l O
d 5llj i e!I E l Ele m
5 8
EI Rj
- R 38 e ste ss : si l
=
o i,8,g a
a snE _e=s
- ,s,g.
,g l J
^,
8 o.
=
e m fs x...
a x 3
~9
~
q,, g a
. o
.o e
o o o ig,,, o gg
.i o
hi l
hqiWs:ssi s is i,..,8E!s s e el :
s s
n:,e...
g],,,
o R
,9a p p
- o o e o e
~
a- -
=
. co o
.ra u
.. a
- o s i!Ell.isi s Ess'
- [sti ilIi i t 3
~es w... -ss l
,,ge g s v,.isv e,, = e g q
.::s:
pe e og s 9 99
.: s-3 o
d a
" 5!! L'::!d I Ih =l1 i
,, :: a
- eo:a: "=it*.n3ga*lfd h.,.... ~;
q =.l=,
2 l
g o o
e i
B
},
a a
~ ~
e w[o ototgo.o e9 mo E o.
c o <=
~
- a m o
3 g
- c. c k5 kk N
~,
h l
I
.,5 4
g 3k o,g e,e e o,,h ee e q,
- - o e.,;
s o
l
. ~
- o i,R,Ea E%i,d,,Es isjsi Es 9
,d
, 3,5 s
- ; a y.
- o g.
g, c o o
, c o
- o Jpt,fl, 6,
I
$9 22:4- [da's E
. e!aj-n i ! =
s a8 :
me o
- c. - m e a o e o,o qo og
, q o
o g1 r
a q a no l-J.
J g *.
1,
~~8E.k. Jp" s.
s
~
.f g.g M
7,,o
- l j ;: S o eg eve, "es,e"I g 1
p,e.
i y
,o m,
,j5,,,*o,jq, k,k,,,.$E,lk85,,.'
EE
],,
l)
U.
a 2 3 o e i
w a
3 a
p, s
:2 *k.,
j f:
n I
1 "A
g 1 1iT1 1 1 1 1 1 1 : d : t t1 1 1 M. 1,111t t
.. thin.
s i
_ 3. g 3
d jE g a[
1, Is s
s
~
i
.2 s8 i ;;
! gI 4
2
- 3i Ldd lI,l f' us Wg DEUhki/j);It 3.$l.!!
l
~
- dd*l*l*!kkle,:le ejzle!
dnl ftlr.)::!;rl Alm lal;;lzlsilgldl=la!algh!al I
- TOTAL PAGE.11 **
i.
i
j 1
e e
l a
4 0
0
1 lr TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH J
l MEMO TO:
GENE FORRER
{
LICENSE FILE LO2449 THRU:
ROBERT FREE ARTHUR TATE RUTH MCBURNEY
}
[
FROM:
OSCAR LESSARD
SUBJECT:
RELEASE FOR UNRESTRICTED USE BOOTS / BROWN PATTERN j
USX CORPORATION, GEORGE WEST, TX DATE:
SEPTEMBER 21,1998 On April 27-30, 1998, Bureau of Radiation Control (BRC) employees, Brad Caskey, Oscar i
Lessard, Mike Dunn, and Rick Munoz, performed a partial survey of the Boots / Brown pattern j
at USX Corporation in George West, Texas. The surveys were performed using one-by-one sodium iodide probes and Ludlum 14C survey meters. The purpose of the survey was to allow the Licensee to release the approximately 80 acres for unrestricted use. Two times background was used as an allowable limit (Regulatory Guide 5.10, Guidelines for Conducting Close Out Surveys of Open Lands and Requesting Release for Unrestricted Use). The survey was performed i
by walking 10 meters apart moving across the well field pattern. Background readings ranged from 1500 cpm for Oscar Lessard and Mike Dunn, 2000 cpm for Rick Munoz, and 3000 cpm for Brad Caskey. Maps and survey results are attached (see Attachment A-1).
29 areas were identified which exceeded two times background. These areas were cleaned up by the Licensee and resurveyed.
Sample #
Sample ID # Background Pre-Cleanup (cpm)
Post-Cleanup (com) 1*
10/100 1500 4000 1500 2*
340/80 1500 11,000 1500 l
3*
490/220 4000 6000 6000 4
470/100 2000 15,000 2000 5
710/240 1500 15,000 1500 6*
720/220 2000 22,000 2000 7*
860/220 1500 15,000 1500 8
870/230 1500 25,000 1500 1
i Samnle #
Rample ID # Background Pre-Cleanup (enmi Post-Cleanup (enm)
.9 975/320 2000 8000 4000 4
L 10*
950/270 3000 6000 6000 l
11 1350/600-2000 10,000 3000 12 1400/600 1500 15,000:
1500 13*
1400/610 1500 200,000 1500 i
14 1420/600 3000 8000 3000 15 1490/610 2000 10,000-2000 16 1490/610 1500 30,000 3000 17*
1520/630 1500 30,000 2000 1
18 130/80 2000 12,000 2000
{
19*
120/170 3000 50,000 3000 l
20 120/210 2000 20,000 2000 l
21 180/140 2000 12,000 2000 22-170/170 1500 30,000 1500 i
23 180/170 3000 8000 3000 l
24*
180/180 3000 8000 3000 l
25 220/120 2000 10,000 3500 l
26*
230/120 3000 6000 6000 l
27 230/130 1500 12,000 1500 i
28 370/220 2000 8000 3500 29*
490/490 1500 40,000 1500 j
Background
- NW of well field 2500 2500 2500
- soil samples obtained On May 11-14,1998, BRC employees, Brad Caskey, Oscar Lessard, Tim Schley, and Scott Flowerday returned to the Boots / Brown pattern and retrieved soil samples from 13 areas (Sample
- 's 1,2,3,6,7,10,13,17,19,24,26,29, and Background) after the License: cleaned them up.
Soil samples collected were representative of the 100 square meters by 15 centimeters in depth sampling method. Five each 15-centimeter deep core samples were collected in each 100 square meter area. The five core samples from each 100 square meter area were then dried and mixed together. A representative sample from the mixture wr.s used for analysis. Results of the 13 soil samples for radium-226 and natural uranium concentraCcas in picocuries per gram (pCi/gm) are as follows (see Attachment A-2):
Sample #
Radium 226 (pCi/emi Nat Uranium (pci/_emi 1
2.8 [1.8]
2.3 2
4.8 [3.8]
2.2 3
3.8 [2.8) 4.1 6
3.2 [2.2]
3.5 7
5.1 [4.1]
4.7 4
j
-. - ~. _.. - -.. - - - -
s' 3+
Ie i
Sample #
Radium-226 (nCi/mi Nat Uranium (pCi/mi 10
. 8.4 [7.4]**
16 13 1.9 [0.9) 3.6 17 2.5 [1.5]
2.6 i
19 6.1 [5.1) {+/-} 0.4 -
< 2.0 24 4.2 [3.2]
,2.6 26 16 [15]**
6.6 29 5.1 [4,1) 3.2
Background
1.0
< 2.0
[x] results after subtracting background
- exceeds regulatory limits i
Soil sample results were within regulatory limits for radium-226 and natural uranium soil concentrations (5 pCi/gm and 30 pCi/gm, respectively) except for soil sample #'s 10 and 26.
On August 11-13,1998, Brad Caskey, Oscar I.essard, and Martin Utley returned to the Boots /
4 Brown pattern to resurvey and retake soil samples after the Licensee recleaned the land areas identified as sample #10 and sample #26.
I Results of the two soil samples for radium-226 and natural uranium concentrations in picot ties per gram (pCi/gm) are as follows (see Attachment A-3):
Sample #
Radium.226 (pci/mi Nat Uranium (pci/mi 10 4.1 [3.1]
10 26 2.1 [1.1]
4.9
[x] results after subtracting background The request from USX Corporation for the close-out survey, the surveys accomplished by the Licensee, and soil samples collected by the Licensee are attached (see Attachment A-4).
CONCLUSION-Recommend Boots / Brown pattern well field be released for unrestricted use.
9