I . BACKGROUND

RIO PUERCO MONITORING PROGRAM

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The impoundment of a uranium mill tailings pond failed at theUnited Nuclear Corporation (UNC) facility near Church Rock, NewMexico, on July 16, 1979 . As estimated 100 million gallons oftailings solutions and 1,100 tons of tailings solids weredischarged and flowed into the Rio Puerco .

Monitoring programs were initiated by several agencies immediatelyfollowing the spill . These programs were designed to determinethe effects of the spill on surface water quality and on wellslocated near the Rio Puerco . Agencies involved were the NuclearRegulatory Commission (NRC~), the New Mexico EnvironmentalImprovement Division (EID), the - Arizona-Department of HealthServices (ADHS), the Navajo Area Indian Health Service (IRS), theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regions 6-and 9, as well as

the UNC.

The ADIIS, the Navajo Area' IRS and EPA Region $ jo-intly conducted agroundwater and surface water monitoring program covering adistance of approximately 115 miles, from the site of the spill to

000555

the confluence of the Rio Puerco and the Little Colorado River .

Seven wells and four surface water locations were monitored to

determine the effects on water quality .

II . CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE RIO PUERCO MONITORING PROGRAM

A. Groundwater

1 . Radioactivity levels in each of the seven wells are less

than the "maximum contaminant levels" specified in the

National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations .

Z . Chloride- levels for- each of the seven wells did not

indicate any contamination from the spill .

3 . Sulfate levels in the Lupton Begay well increased

significantly during the last months of-the monitoring

program._ . This may indicate possible contamination by the

spill ; .howe.ver, this well is a hand dug, uncovered,

shallow cased well located within-30 feet of the Rio

Puerco . _This well is not used for drinking water or any

ether use because of poor water quality .

B6 Surface Water

.The spill caused radioactivity, particularly gross alpha, and

.,chemical background levels in the Rio Puerto to be dramat i-

000556

cally increased. All levels returned to pre-spill conditions

within days of the spill and have remained near or below

pre-spill levels since that time .

Appendix A supports these conclusions .

III . ADDITIONAL ISSUES RAISED

One of the findings of the Rio Puerco monitoring program is that

Arizona's Radiochemical Water Quality Standards are being violated

(see Appendix B) .

Violations of Arizona's Radiochemical Water Quality Standards in

the, Rio Puerco could result from point : sour-c'es or nonpoint

.sources . - Mine dewatering activities from Kerr-McGee with a

discharge of 3800 gpm and UNC- with an approximate discharge of

105-0 gpm constitute the entire river flow in the vicinity of the

mines during: dry* weather. These discharges contain radioactive

elements : . :uranium, radium and; others . £n: additional flow con-

..tribution to the Rio ._Puerco is also made by. the ..G ..allup Municipal

Wastewater Treatment Plaut, which is located- approximately 17

miles downstream, of,- the discharge .. : This discharge is 1500 gpm . -

thus. ., : the -T4 ne-dewatariag .d?scharge/coul_d ennstit to up to 76% of

the .. dry weather flcirz contributions . t o . the : Rio' Puerco while the

Gallup piaat-would be . responsible-for the .remaining 24Z of the

flow. Because some absorption' of river flow back . into the water

table occurs below the, mines, and possible contributions by

000557

a

ephemeral washes, the mine dewatering

constitute 76% of the river flow at the Arizona-New border .

However, one possible conclusion which could be draw from this

flow data is that the radiochemical water quality of the Rio

Puerco at the border is predominantly determined by the mine

dewatering discharges .

Analyses of Rio Puerco water samples, collected at the border,

show high radionuclide (gross alpha and Ra-226) levels, greatly'7:

exceeding Arizona's water quality standards . If the river flow is

dominated by mine dewatering discharges, then it is these

violations .

-The Rio Puerto - monitoring . program did not :identify possible

discharges which are responsible for the water quality standards

sources of radioactivity other than the two uranium processing.

facilities operated'by UNC and -Kerr-McGee: However, it is

.conceivable -there • may . be additional point and/or nonpoi ut sources- of radioactivity= contamination along the -Rio Pu-erco . These

sources iaight also be-a- contributing factor to - violations of the

-ArizonaRadiochem3.•cal .Water .Quality Standards .

EPA •s -watery c;-uality planning, managemer_t .and_ implementation

regulations- 43.5.1.55O~(c)(4) :`stafea -. ..-"The-State . shall take into

:consideration the, water' quality standards of downstream waters and

.shall. assure-that it.s_water quality standards pro-ide for the

attainment of the water quality standard's of - dowtisrreim waters .'

000558

There is potential that NPDES discharge permits may havealtered if it is determined that mine dewatering discharresponsible for downstream water quality standards

ons .The State of New Mexico may wish to contact the Sta

Arizonaregarding the issue of compatible water quality standards alongthe Rio Puerco. A complete surface investigation should be madeto detect any additional point and/or nonpoint sources, ofradiochemical contamination along the Rio Puerco . In addition,since there is substantial potential for expanding mining and1milling operations in the area, monitoring programs to assessbackground conditions should be established .

Clearly, to resolve the issues which have been raised, cooperationand coordination is . needed among . EPA Regions 6 and • 9 ., .- the Statesof Arizona and New Mexico, and the Navajo Nation .

000559

Rio Puerco Monitoring Program

Introduction

On July 16, 1979, the impoundment dam of a uranium mill tailings pondfailed at the United Nuclear Corporation (UNC) facility near ChurchRock, New Mexico, discharging an estimated 100 million gallons oftailings solution and 1,100 tons of tailings solids . The tailingssolution and solids flowed into a catchment area through the break inthe dam. The catchment embankment was subsequently breached andtailings flowed into the ;'Pipeiipe .ArrQyo",_and into he Rio PuercoRiver,-which flows through Gallup, New Mexicoeventually dissipating near Chambers, Arizona .

APPENDIX A

and into Arizona,

.The facility owned and operated by UNC .is licensed by-the,State of New

.Mexico-under the provisions - of the NRC's State Agreements Program.

A sulfuric acid leach process is -used in extracting . the-uranium ore .The liquid and solid •wastes generated . from the . extraction_ process arediscarded into a .tailings pond . The tailings contain . .potentiallyharmful radioactive elements. of ; uranium., radium, thorium,-. polonium andlead . The' tailings also contain high- . concentrations . of :-sulfates andchlorides . The Rio Puerco flows from- approximately two miles above

000560

Church Rock, New Mexico, to the Little Colorado River in Ari a,

passing through a portion of the Navajo Nation and cros e

Arizona-New Mexico border near the Window Rock Bridge . erco

is an ephemeral stream with a small volume of continuous flow during

the months of November to April, except for flows resulting from flash

floods . The uranium mine dewatering discharges from the UNC and

Kerr-McGee facilities contribute approximately 4,850 gpm or 60 percent

of the dry weather flow in the Rio Puerco as measured at Gallup . These

discharges contain large quantities of naturally occurring

radionuclides which are part of the natural radioactive decay chain of

uranium 238 and thorium 232. Low volume discharges from the Gallup,

New Mexico wastewater treatment plant, Black Creek and other washes

also flow into. the Rio Puerco .

MONITORING PROGRAMS

Monitoring programs were initiated by several 'agencies . immediately .

following the spill and were continued for more than a . year. These

programs were designed to -determine the effects of the spill, if any,

on the surface: water, quality and on wells -located near the ; Rio Puerco .

Agencies involved were the NRC,-the New-. Mexico Environmental

Improvement IIi.vision (EID), . the Arizona Department -of- Health Services

(ADHS), the Navajo-.tea 1ndianwHealth Service .(IHS), the environmental

Protection . Agency (EPA) Regions . 6 and 9, as well. as' the IJNC .. The ADHS,

the Navajo . Area IRS and EPA. Region 9 jointly con-duct.ed a: groundwater

000561

and surface water monitoring program covering a

approximately 115 miles, from the site of the spill to the con

of the Rio Puerco and the Little Colorado River . Figure 1 rates

the groundwater and surface water monitoring locations

Puerco .

along the Rio

Groundwater :

The groundwater sampling program on the Navajo

Reservation and in, Arizona began in August 19.79 . The seven (wells)

groundwater sampling points, located approximately 10 . miles apart,

extend from Church Rock White Well near Pinedale, New Mexico, to the

Puerco Elementary School in Sanders, Arizona, a distance of

approximately 60 miles . Additional information concerning the seven

wells is found in Table 1 .

Surface Water : Th& surface water• sampling .program .began -in, July 1979 .

The four sampling points, -located . at approximately 15-20 mile

intervals, extend from the, Window Rock Bridge near Lupton, : . Arizona, to

the confluence near Holbrook, Arizona, a_ distance of approximately 60

miles-along, .the Rio Puerco .

Chemical Analysis :, .S lfates_ and chl.o,ri,des, products of the acidleaching, process, were : selected as •,

rapt l

.y m gr-a_t ,ng monitoring

parameters .oz the, spill- . : . In addition, .the .Initiai, samples wereanalyzed for a. large number of . other parameterss to provide, background

000562

1101, BROOK115in1-

INORTH

FIGURE 1- RIO PUERCO MONITORING PROGRAM

SANDERS61 mi .

t

(1 t

30 in i .

09

TSA YAII T01118 mi .

AREAS OF ABSORPTION

40mi .

z0z

iNH h7>CHn0

i

i GROUNDWATER

SURFACE WATER ~` A P.773I1f~A

000563

=able 1 Description of t:.̂e Feven 'oni torinc 77e11s~ak'

fy

' •:'

•1 ar..a UseDi s ;:ance fromPt:erco (ft .)

')enh(ft . )

Church Rockiilite : • :ell

:lot in use, inconvenientAlmost dry in JuneDug, 16 sr . ft .

10_2n

::o coverinc:Cement casino

C.arch Rock Drilled, casedV

i1^D- 50:'incmill Stockwatering

Some haulinc-

_'sa '. a:. ^_c : . Private drinking.rate_ r 1 ' ~; 1n 1

5 )-1Serves 3 housesDrilled, cased

to Stc'c' : Tca..teri C:, sorepu ;1 iacYellow: in colorDug, _C sc . t .Cement cased

'_ton :pct-in use, inconvenient 25°3O_ "0-25Duc t

6 sc_ . f t .

,Cement cased=o cove--in r

:.ouc:: Drinking ; stock watering 1)('-150 . - 10.0-150Drilled, cased

Sanc:crs Drinhinc water ~,:;choo1 Drilled, cased_ SV 1 F,c

000564

information. Since the spill contained potentially harmful radioac

elements, the monitoring program also included analv

radionuclides .

Gross alpha, which is used for screening purposes in the analysis of

drinking water supply samples to show possible radionuclide

contamination, was used as a monitoring indicator . The maximum

contaminant level (MCL) for gross alpha as established by the National

Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations is 15 pCi/1, including

radium-226 but excluding radon and uranium . Radium 226 analysis is

necessary when gross alpha levels exceed 5 pCi/1 . The drinking water

MCL for combined Radium 226 and 228 is 5 pCi/1 . Please see the

analytical scheme used in this program on the following page .

I I

000565

P3pCi/1-+measuregross alpha

Ra-226

Ra-228

' >15 pCi/1

Ii

000566

DISCUSSION

Groundwater : Three of the seven wells, Church Rock Windmill,

Manuelito-Yellow Spring Well and Houck Windmill, required no further

radionuclide analyses beyond gross alpha since the results were less

than 5 pCi/l (Figure 2) . For the remaining four wells, further

analyses were conducted : (1) when gross alpha levels exceeded 5 pCi/1,

Ra-226 analysis was necessary ; and' (2) when gross alpha levels exceeded

15 pCi/1, Ra-226 and uranium analyses were necessary (Table 2) . All of

the Ra-226 results were less than 1 pCi/1, therefore, Ra-228 analysis

was not necessary as established- by the National Interim Primary .

Drinking Water Regulations . The maximum contaminant level (MCL) for'

gross alphaa excluding uranium: is . .15 pCi/1--bas,ed on -ar..i annual composite

.of four .samyles,:tak,en at . .quarterl~ intervals • • -,On September i1, 1979 ;d1(Tsa . :Yah Toh)- .and on January 18, 1980 (Sa .uders) , 'this level was ;7

exceeded with readings of 16 and 2 .7 pCi/l,= respectively ; Since allother: monthly- samples --for these _two wells.were : below 15 ; pCi/l (after ,excluding_ .uranium) , the- MCL was not exceeded .

The chloride levels . for .- each of -the seyeu veils . did not Indicate anytrends (increasingor-.decreasing;)-..throughout the monitoring period(Figure :3) . -_ The .. gulf ate .- data . ~&Iso •! slid- •no.t .indicate,aqy:.__trends, except,,that.Lupton (Begay) :Well has : .shxown a sharp- auA, . steady .1ncrease in ';sulfate levels . (F.igure _Q', since" •July,,, 19 O.a i.he : :'i:icrease possibly

000567

,

n

m

.

o

r1t)III(p 2'

`

.

.`

SAP~/N(*. nAmGRm"m°^m"'"IM ^m"

'

~III - 1 .11W LINA1 .4*19P., ^"".'=

o"_~P-A "~1.." ^`~~^^^

-_. .--_"^~.~.--- . .

"

'

.

W.1 '

i ~Hill

A

6~~

.'.~

^

`

. .

.

. .~

5 i 5

fr

000568

9/4/79

Church RockWhite We 11 18+2

LuptonTsa Yah Toh

10+410+4

Gross Alpha?ell

(rCi/1)

Church RockWhite Well 11+2LuptonSanders

9+38+1

8+28+1

Ra-225

Ra-222(nCi/1)

( :,Ci /1)0 .9+09+

I

e 2 Continued

.Results are . forthcoming* Greater than 15 pCi/.1 -excluding uranium

Jate WellGross Alpha

(pCi/1)Ra-226(pCi/1)

Ra-228(loci/1)

Uranium(pCi/1)

12/18/79 Tsa Yah Toh

Lupton

Sanders

20+2

20+2

6+1

0 .8+0 .3

0 .3

0 .3

9+2

12+2

1/18/80 Sanders 27+3** 0 .3 6+2

2/05/80 Tsa Yah Toh 10+2 0 .3

2/12/80 Lupton 7+1 0 .3

3/17/80 Sanders 9+1 0 .3

3/19/8uu Lupton 12+3 0 .3

4/10/80 Church RockWhite Well

18+4 0 .3 8+1

4/16/80 Lupton 17+3 0 .3 18+1

6/17/80

7/15/80

Lupton

Sanders

8+0 .6

3.1+1 .

0 .3

;0 .3

0+0 .3

0+0 .3

Lupton

Sanders

10+1

6 .2+234

9/16/80 Sanders . 7 .6+4 .0' .

0+0 .3

.0/15/80 Lupton- 9 .5+4 .2 0.4+0 .2

25+2 s _TC~

1/17/80 Lupton _ 16+10"0 .4+0 .2

2/15/80 Lupton

Sanders . :

6 .9+6 :6

9 .8+4 .,2

0 .;5+0 .3

0+0 . 3

3/24/81 Lupton . ." 5 .5+10 :2

/ .5+10 ~

000570

I

^

^

'

::': :

. ..

~~

--.-- .-'

z+

_---. .-

~

-~.-/

"~'"

===

^

~ . ." . .

~~.1C IJ~ .AT"N%V =~^~^*",w'.

-'^.'- ....~_~' . . .. .

-

~ ~ ' ; A/ .~ll:

AA ai. .

f-MM'mM`u*mdWATER 'm"*j^~.S

`

^

.~

.

\/

\y

I

000571

- '--=~r~~Kzz

'

,'^siom ^ .

.

^`

lx

\/

000572

indicates spill contamination .

The Lupton well is a hand dug, uncovered, shallow, cased well locatedwithin 30 feet of the Rio Puerco . The well is not in use because ofpoor water quality . The well is located is an area predisposed torapid absorption of surface water due to the geology of the area . Ahydrologic assessment conducted at the time of the spill indicated thatthe aquifer in the alluvium from Lupton to the boundary of the NavajoReservation (past Houck) .and the_ alluvial area east of the Hogback(Gallup) absorbed most of the spill and is currently . absorbing most ofthe mine discharge water-. Thus, the Lupton area should be an areawhich_ would- be the most -likely to- provide information of the impact ofthe- spill on. groundwater water,, qua1i.ty .- ..-Sample . .from the Lepton Begaywgll, and the Sanders ,Puerto Fj : eArAry we b; ,were_ . -ialyz *~ for tracemetals and fund - ;to be

t?' the pr; ary :, dria ng wager standards

In July :1980, :one year ,after, the, sp#~11-n metre -gr:ouadwater monitoringprogram was reduced; to . _the, analysis- of; .s~.mp1_es_ from the Lupton andSanders, Puer ;co: FZemept .~Xy, Scboo.-I wells . ~ .,Sander& School did notindicates a problematic trend, ; . however, because-- of, the high gross alphareading. of 27in January . .1980 and because thee majority of tousers were school childreq,, -the well,,warrant.ed additional utonitoring,-Subsequent, gross alpha data &t ; Sapdsrs have . ;reaia-t necc1- . ,at less than orequal .to 1.1 pCi/l .

I

000573

OFIn January 1981, the groundwater monitoring program was againSampling and analysis are being conducted on samples fromBegay Well only .

Surface Water : In evaluating the Rio Puerco surface water data, itshould be noted that the flow in the Rio Puerco beyond Window RockBridge (in Arizona) was sporadic throughout the sampling program Flowin the four sampling locations, at any one point in' time, was observedonly once, during April 1980 . In June, there was no - flow in the RioPuerco on the'' West: s5:de of the Arizona-New Mexico for-der; therefore,

~-

surface "water -sampling -was discontinued . at that time. In addition,hYstottcal. ha-r kgrvuud • "xof.:orvisct.ion 'has shown' .that', dung the drys92son -,- f'1;.ow ir;'-the

n

ge:~ . .,aP .co.m i~,l .ning.op'eratio ~ the: GWllupx' wasta iate:a, tte'aa.me-tct pIaIrt 'aired sporadicrainstorm. runoff . . Yn. Arizona,=. _spo.radi c -flow . from. additional sources,such' .as Black Creel-. above : Chambers - and= the ;- two, .w'ashes above the1'etrifi .ed: F - irest can_ affect the. cater- quality --it the. monitoringlocati=ons o- --che Rio Puer :.o,

A ..represen:tati't?e 'S-ample .of the .tal .1.-ngs containe.d''•t h'e following_r,ontaminants :

Gi•c,cs EU,pVa .

., 1.30000 pCj/l. adi'ira- 226 ' .

9,000 pCi/l

C

000574

The most prominent short term health hazard was the low pH, indicatinghigh acid content in the wastes . Analyses of samples taken in Arizonaalong the Rio Puerco indicated the pH was neutral by the time the flow

_of the spill reached the New Mexico/Arizona border .

Gross alpha levels from water samples collected by the New Mexico EIDon May 29, 1979 prior to the spill, along :the Rio Puerco .(Gallup-ChurchRock area) in New Mexico, showed levels . that ranged from 212 pCi/1 to515 pC_i,/1 .: . . ;his . is .indicated, As.. -a diagonally.; hatched area on Figures 5.end .6,. --And :repreeseuts;-prer.Spi11 levels .

Figure_ 5 represents . the. gt±oss alpha profile of . the Rio -Puerco from May29,- 1979 to -May 4 9 t .1980, a general, iiidicat:ion . that, the stream hasreturned ;to_pre-spi-ll1 cctndijtions . .- Since samples were not:-available forthe.. Gallup-Chnarch ,Rock_ areaa beyond: _July .17 •; 1979,-, samples taker atWindow Rock Bridge were • used -in .constructinlg. the profile 'after July 17 .Of, the four surface water sampling locations_, Wtnd-ow. Rock Bridge Vasthe closest tz Gali.up. . Figure ,S shows .-ro83' Alpha e.ve3 s, of 45,000,.40,000 aad .2.6,000- pCi/l at Gallup ov: :J.uy {6-, 1 .979, ,: the day of thespill ; ; -which . rapidly . declined to 1-,600 pCi/i .by July

Gross alphalevels of samples:, collected from . the :river in_- Arizona from September

I Mii

Sulfates 39,000 mg/1Chlorides 5,500 mg/1pH 1 .5 - 1.7

000575

I

FIGURE

3 Samples Collected. on 7-! 4,79

(a)

tc

o+

(2) v 2) (3) (3)

. QSAMPLING DATES AND LOCATIONS

5 : GROSS ALPHA PROFILE OF' THE RIO PUERCO

LEGEND FOR SAMPLE LOCATIONS AND DATES(1) . Gallup-Church RockI(2) Gallup(3) Window Rock Bridge

July 16, 1979 (Day of Spill

000576

Ir 25, 1979 through May 19, 1980 were generally less than pre-spillalthough there are anomalies in the data as indicated in FiguSamples collected on May 19, 1980 were the last ones taken for the year,since the Rio Puerco was rapidly drying up . Because the sample takenat the Petrified Forest Bridge was collected from a stagnant pool, thehigh levels of sulfates and chlorides may be attributable toevaporation . Therefore, we have not shown the trend lines in Figures 7and 8 .The data used in constructing all the graphs can be made available ifmore extensive evaluations are desired .33ecause of the increasing sulfate . ievels . f'i ,tha- groundwater data. at theLupton Begay well., monitoring :at. this. location will be continuedthrough December 1981 . "'he decl:.sion, to continue groundwater monitoringafter December 1981 will . : be . based. _on data, gathered in _the precedingmonths.

r

000577

N0

e

9

8

FANrLII91;'IACA'f IONS-~a 4 1i qw Rqck,_Bridge +

~ . .

Chambers RR Bridgep ---- Q lie'tr Pied Forest ridge9

- °-A Little Colorado @ Holbrook

rnre

LnNt

9

0~r1

cOn

ONrIrN! •

+

SAMPLING DATES

FIGURE 6s' SURFACE WATER - GROSS ALPHA

0OD

100N

1N

000

1r-1

1

000578

SAMPLING LOCATIONS

~~

0 Window Rock Br dge

M Chambers RR Bridge

a-o~ - 0 Petrified Forest Bridge

- - - - A Little Colorado @ Holbrook

Tailings revels 5,5©0 mg/?

SAMPLING DATES

FIGURE t SURFACE WATER - CH~9RiOE$

0

0N N 00 0

01 9 1 I .

IN ~DH NN

. N1m

CON

1O\ 0 H I

vNH

000579

APPENDIX B

In conducting the Rio Puerco monitoring program, UNC and Kerr-McGeedischarge permits and Arizona Radiochemical Water Quality Standardswere reviewed . A direct comparison of the effluent limits and thewater quality standards is difficult because each encompasses adifferent set of parameters . However, a limited comparison can bemade . In Attachments 1, II, and III and Table I, are portions of UNC'sand Kerr-McGee's -effluent limitations, the current ArizonaRadiochemical Water Quality- :Standards and Rio Puerco monitoring data .Arizona's current numerical standards became effective in January 1980,-after the discharge permits were issued

.n. review:_,- the- Manly ; ermpatable parameters

Rv-22,6

4, • g .rss Alpha .There are. no- .total .radiume226 ., fflu€at limits for . Kerr-McGee, but thereis =a limit of. _3.0 -pCi/I 'for- UN .C ._ Maximum levels. -recorded for totalradium-'226 .in -the Rio_ P.uerco at . several sampling , -locations . were within6be. :eff:luentf

limits :(.see Table L . ) . . . :- However, the' Arizona Water Quality.Standa5: d of 5 p-Ci/.i fo-r- -total. Ra-226 • plus 228- .wa's • eiceededa

Inaddition_, . . :the standard .ofL .30 .pCi/•1 £fo _gress alpha plus beta wasaxceeeded _by- large degrees. on -numerous . .sampling days

r-

r

I

000580

$8

11

r

?4-

I

I

SANPLANU 11)L1 1101v :)

Window Rock BridgeChambers RR Bridge

0 Petrified Forest BridgeLittle Colorado @ Holbrook

ISAMPLING DATES

FIGURE 8 ; SURFACE WATER - SULFATE

ON aN CYCC)Ln C14CAE 1,I r-I01 0 r-1 '! ICA r-i

000581

A-i EFFLUENT LIMIT .̀ IONS'AND `+~'ON1tyd kREOW_&E

.

. Ch~r*ng the period beglnnyng the ef •f..ecti .v.e .dates„' 1astari~`t~~Roug6~ the expiration datedatethe pcrunittee is authorized to dischur~ a Pram oad[ull(e) serial numbers)

001' mine dewateri ng ofmine shaft Rio . 1 .

S~~ch zliyc lea es shali be limite(t andr monitortdl b y the penirittee'as specified below:below:J:rnt ,d(iarucieriatic

** See Part

Paragraph C.

L'ischarge Limitations

Monitoring Requirements_;kgjJ.ay jDbs!day)

(bier Units (Speciry)iLUaily Ayrg

111111 Ky an

wily Avg

lA,cay ldn:

Mn uency:

6;. "1! ~ -atant acd un3$c n©r mate tanThe j~lY s iu11 no~ be Less thanThere su~a!i i%- no disclharrge of floating solids or visible townwn b -deer than trace amounts,.

oil

9 .

Ncnauremcnt

SampleTYpe

!uW6 and shall be monitored

Simples taken in cornieliance with the dnonilonng regi remcnis specified above shall be taken at the following location(a) :At the discharge pipe rrom the ton exchange plant .

. ' . • , .,

7 MZ NiC)O~N JOPOJ

HA iJ/A F * (,*) Continuous RecordTelapera-ture . N/A ti/A *oF *oF 1/week GrabTotal' 5'usp"ei~c~a ;n :Solids ti/A ii/A 20 mg/1 30 mg/1 1/week 24-hr composite**Cheln(ca1 0xyigeri 1Demanfl HA (9/A 100 nuj/1 200 mg/1 1/week 24-hr •composite*ALutist line . . N/ N/A 0_5 Mg/1 1 .0 mg/1 1/week 24-hr composite**f~icS'nlv .( ;i

iiLMini ??6 N/A-- lA, *pClll 3 3 pCi/1 2/~J--Pk 24-hr composite**1-gaily 226-.T Pl/A ____ N/A in 0 pri/1 in 0 pri/1 1/WPPk 24-hr cntUpuS i to**,

J601 th-a.il )1 U ;u N/A BJ/A *

11101 2 .0 mmm9/1 2/week 24-hr composite**Total t10"Iyt,de mn N/A H/A * mg/i * mg/I 1/week 24-hr composite**10ta 1 . Seas ; J.tjllt, . I ti/A. . [QA * mn/1,- * mg/1 1/week, 24-hr composite**Total :V.nadAum r . . `N/A ti/A * uig/ 1 * mg/ I I /week 24-hr composite**

000582

9 J~IIIL. Iil char:actI •̀r 2Sidr.'

- l" `y- a ~ lU~Y (MdD)Temperaturebola! Suspended SolidsTotal Uraniuml iSSo1. . d_Iidlum-Total MolybdenumTotal Selcnjun3Total Vanadium

i

A

A, 'E ~.e .c,°~.hf`P H. i VtbFlOS'A~Vb MONftOR ! f̀6'i#b a rl: .Boring the periad'aat;:nrmg 7-1-77

. ,

andlasthij lhroaigh the expiration date,Ole pe rmittce is author~zcd to discharge from ouUall(s) serial number(s) 001 ,Such discharges shall be limi6,ed and monitored by the permlttee as specified below :

DisOarge Limitations

Monitoring Requirements.kg/(iay (lbs/day)

Othbr Units (Specify)Measurement

SampleDaily-Mg Daily Max Dai y Avg Daily Max . Frequency 'Type

N/A'

N/A

N/A

N/AN/A

`Pl/'A

2C ' in6/1

30 ' mg/1N/A

N/A

N/A

2 mg/1N/AN/AN/A3-3 pCi/1N/A

N/A

N/A

N/AN/A

N/A

N/A

N/AN/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

!1 .

Continuous

N/A1/week

Grab1/week

24-hr composite1/month

24-hr composite1/innnth24-hr rnmpncitP1/month

24-hr composite1/month

24-hr composite1/month

24-hr composite

shall not cc'Wsq thD~ 6, 0 s ~~ii1 rc acui'ts trioi reate f~~an~,p standard units and shall be monitored3i, ce per week : by

ab sample,There shall be no discharge o? floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts .Samples taken in compliance wit, tl'e Monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following location(s) :At outfall 001, the outlet of flIna1 settling pond . CUQ --1N OC)LnN

000583

1 .

.

ARIZONA RADIOCHEMICAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

B . Radiochemicals - In all Arizona surface waters, radioactivematerials attributable to or influenced by the activities of manshall :

Be maintained as far below the specified limits as practicableas determined by the council . In determining practicability,consideration shall be given : to the state of technology, and

Not 'exceed those' limits established by the regulations for thecontrol f` ionizing 'radiation adopted by the Arizona Atomic`Etch gy Commission .

-'96t be preaeit: :in `the water . or . in sedimeurs i5i 'amounts whichcould c:ati~4` rbiful "accumulation in plants, `animals, aquatica'_.fe, or humans .

ATTACHMENT III

r

the econcimicsa o$ improvements iii 're1atlon to = benef its to thepublic health .

Mot - exceetd an' aetivity 'Cbncentratiou of `8 piccoturies of totalStront-iuva `90 }per `liter of water .

0 5 . ant exceed an * activity concentration of 5 picocuries of Radium

000584

c

46

6 .

226 plus Radium 228 per liter of water .

Not exceed a combined gross alpha and gross beta particle

activity concentration of 30 picocuries per liter when the

identity and concentration of the radionuclides are unknown .

000585

TABLE I

Surface Water Data

1 - Results are for total Ra-226 and total Ra-228 .* - .Indicates violation of Arizona Water Quality Standard :

5 pCi/l for Ra-22630 pCi/l for gross alpha

Date Location

Gross Alpha Ra-226 1 Ra-228 1 Uranium(pCi/1) (pCi/1) (pCi/1) (pCi/1)

9/25/79 Petrified Forest

160 + 10* < 0.3 182+9Bridge(P .F.B.) ( :160 + 10)

9/26/79 Window Rock

210 + 10* < 0.3 260+10Bridge(W .R.B .) (~:280 + 10)

10/16/79 W.R.B . 200 + 10* 4.4+0.3 < 3 240+10Chambers RR

Bridge(C .R.B .)18 + 2 0.5+0.3 8+2

11/27/79 W.R.B. 230 + .10* 0.4+0 .3 140+7C .R.B . 43+2* < 0.3 67+3P .F .B . 31 7- 3* 0 .7+0 .3 68+3

1/02/80 W,R.B . 9.7 •+ 5* . 19+1* < 3 29+3C.R.B . 9'30. -+ .40* 4 37 0 .3 •

2-+1 103+-5P.F.B . e O.. + .40* .5 .•O+O .6* 2. 12+2

.2/28/80 W.R.B . 100 .+ 10* < .0.3 86+1C .R.B. 9U + .g*. 8 .8+0 .7* < 2 64+1P .F .B. 50 + 6* 0 .4+0 .2 < 2

4/08/80 W.R.B . 940 + .130* 0.0+0 .3 80+4C .R.B. 39,5 + .19* 0.0+0.3 1+0.3P .F.B. 590 + .52* 0.7+0 .2 57+3

5/19/80 W.R .B . 260 + 66* 0.7+0.2 450+20C .R .B . 430 + 16* 0.0+_0 .3 0+2P .F .B . 78 + 9* 0 .7+0 .3 110+5

000586

Appendix AAppendix B

barcodetext: 927467barcode: *927467*