6 (c) Why does H. R. 12535 fail to require any participation by the owners of
these sites, either through financial contribution or donation of the land,
where appropriate, or through other means.

Reply: We agree with DOE that it would not be equitable to require partial owner responsibility for clean up since no one was aware of any adverse health or safety consequences. We would add that the procurement contracts made no provision for reimbursement of the cost of tailings disposal.

We have previously described our own actions in stabilizing the six piles then under our control in replying to 6 (b); we do not feel that we should be subjected to additional expense.

6 (d) Since these sites are owned by private interests, what is the legal basis
for the DOE to perform remedial action thereon, short of condemnation
if the owners do not want such action taken? No provision is made in
H.R. 12535 for agreements with these owners or for consultation with
them. Why?

Reply: Union Carbide, as owner of several sites, has no objection to additional remedial action which DOE would undertake on these sites. We do believe, however, that it would be desirable to recover any residual uranium (and vanadium) in those piles where such recovery is economically feasible and support the statement by Representative Jim Johnson before the subcommittee on June 19, 1978. Mr. Johnson recommended that "language be included in the final version...... which incorporates a provision for allowing the participation of private industry in the tailings restoration process when reprocessing of the tailings may be a viable option."

6 (g) What beneficial use can be made of each of these sites once the remedial
action is completed?

Reply: In the case of four of the sites on properties controlled by Union Carbide, there would appear to be little future use other than the original, which is grazing. In the case of the new Rifle site, however, further use of the milling facilities may depend on use of the adjacent area for deposition of other mineral tailings, for construction of liquid effluent disposal ponds, or for building of raw material stockpiles. If this land use is essential for future operation of the milling facilities, provision should be made for the owner to retain the property rather than for the state to acquire it, so long as the health and welfare of the public are assured through remedial action.

6 (h) Please explain the reasons for the land acquisition provisions of section 5 (b) of H. R. 12535 and the reasons why, in some cases, state ownership is needed, but not in cases of lands "in the general vicinity of the processing site.'

Reply: We generally agree with DOE that acquisition should preclude windfall profits to present owners but feel that consideration should also be given to special situations where retention of ownership by the present owner would be otherwise desirable, as described in our reply to 6 (g).

7 (a) So long as the work is performed in accordance with the requirements of the DOE, NRC and EPA, why is it necessary to mandate that the DOE or its contractors do it?

Reply: We concur in DOE's response that there be no mandate for DOE to do the work and suggest that the site owners, in some instances, may wish to submit a bid to perform the remedial action.

We have no comment in regard to questions 8 (b) and 8 (c).

We recognize the importance of the proposed legislation and hope that these suggestions will prove helpful to your committees in its consideration of H. R. 12535 and H. R. 11698. If we can be of further assistance, please let me know.

STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE • DENVER, COLORADO 80220 - PHONE 388-5801 R. L. CLEERE, M.D., M.P.H., DIRECTOR

NOTICE

PUBLICATION OF REGULATION ADOPTED

BY THE COLORADO STATE BOARD OF HEALTH

In compliance with the provisions of Section 3-16-2 (11), Colorado Revised Statutes 1963, publication is hereby made of the attached regulation adopted by. the Colorado State Board of Health at its regular meeting on December 12, 1966, after due notice of the hearing thereon was published as provided by law. Said regulation was adopted pursuant to authority contained in Section 4, Chapter 181, Colorado Session Laws of 1965 and Sections 3-16-2 and 3-16-4, Colorado Revised Statutes 1963, and is captioned as follows:

RADIATION REGULATION NO. 2 REQUIRING

STABILIZATION OF URANIUM AND THORIUM MILL TAILING PILES

The effective date of the said regulation will be January 26, 1967.

Dated December 15, 1966.

Roy L. Cleere

Roy Lleere, M.D., M.P.H.
Secretary

Colorado State Board of Health

All uranium and thorium mill tailing piles and ponds from inactive mills shall be stabilized in the following manner:

1. Ponds shall be drained and covered with materials that prevent blowing of dust. Water drained from the ponds shall be disposed of in a manner approved by the Water Pollution Control Commission.

2. Taking into consideration the types of materials at each site,

3.

piles shall be leveled and graded so that there is, insofar as

possible, a gradual slope to ensure that there shall be no low places on the pile where water might collect. Side slopes shall be stabilized by riprap, dikes, reduction of grades, vegetation, or any other method or combination of methods that will ensure

stabilization.

If pile edges are adjacent to a river, creek, gulch or other watercourse that might reasonably be expected to erode the

edges during periods, of high water, the exposed slopes shall be stabilized and the edges shall be diked and riprapped sufficiently to prevent erosion of the pile.

4. Drainage ditches shall be provided around the pile edges

sufficient to prevent surface runoff water from neighboring
land from reaching and eroding the pile.

5. The pile shall be stabilized against wind and water erosion. The method of stabilization may consist of vegetation or

a cover of soil, soil containing rock or stone, rock or stone, cement or concrete products, petroleum products, or any other soil stabilization material presently recognized or which may be recognized in the future, or any combination of the foregoing as may be required for proper protection from wind, or water erosion..

6. Access to the stabilized pile area shall be controlled by the

operator or owner and properly posted.

7. The pile shall be maintained in such a manner that excessive erosion of, or environmental hazard from radioactive materials does not occur.

8. The owner of the tailing pile site shall give the Colorado State Department of Public Health written notice ten (10) days in advance of any contemplated transfer of right, title or interest in the site by deed, lease or other conveyance.

The written

notice shall contain the name and address of the proposed purchaser or transferee. Prior written approval of the Department shall be obtained before the surface area of the land

shall be put to use and it shall have been determined that the radiation dosage to the public resulting from the proposed use does not exceed 0.5 rem per year.

9. With the exception of use at a mill or for reprocessing at the

site or another location, prior written approval of the Colorado

State Department of Health must be obtained before any tailings material is removed from any active or inactive mill.