1970-12-04 – NRC – Letter to Cotter Corporation – Noncompliance of licensed activities

. . _________ .4 S - - .V I P.y r-ý0 . i t. -4 Zo-Cr4r4iýb [I1T. -7 0 4 L fGF '!-I TI MOT ........ i... View Document

Post

1971-06-29 – Cotter – Letter to AEC – Weldon Spring Radioactive Waste Disposal Proposal

LAW OFFICES
EDWARD J. McGRATH
280 EAST J EF”FE:RSON STREET
RocKVILLE, Z.!;. RYt.AND 20850
130 11 4:> ~- 470 7
June 29, 197f
I
.. . ….. “”; : .. ,,
t~C 3~b – · …… _ .. …
…. ·: – …
.. ~ – ~ —~ …. , .,- – .,~ , , .. , . . … ,:-.. -., … ….. _,…:., .• . , ……… .,.._ _, . …… ,, .. ·····. : r
The Honorable Wilfri d E. Johnson
U.S . Atomic Energy Conunission
Washington, D.C. 20545
Re·: Cotter Corporation- Radioactive vlaste Disposal Propo’sal
Dear Commissioner Johnson :
Pursuant to your suggestion made during our conference
on June 24, 1971 , I am enclosing coptes of· the correspondence
between Cotter Corporation and the Commission relating to the
disposal of radioactive vraste materials ovmed by the corporation,
v1hich are nm’l locat~d in HazehTOod, Missouri. ·
I am also enclosing copies of a preliminary proposal for
on site burial prepared for Cotter Corporation by. the engineering
firmoof Ryckman, Edgerley, Tomlinson and Asso~iates, Inc., ·
together 1’li th a copy of a memorandum by .Mr, · l•larren Goff, Safety
Engineer for Cotter Corporation, reporting -on the conference
betvreen representa~ives of Cotter Corporation and Nuclear
Engineering Company, during which the latter firm gave an
estimate of $2,000,000.00 for burial Of the \’Taste material at
the site owned by that firm in Illinois .
As Mr. ~1arcott advised, ‘I’Te are preparing to submit more
detailed lnformation to the Commission on the proposal for
burial at the present site i n HazehTOod, Missouri. \tfe will
furnish you with ·copies of further submissions and correspondence.
On behalf of Mr. Marcott, Cotter Corporation , and myself,
I wish to thank you for providing us with an opportunity to
discuss with you the problems and public policy issues t’lhich
surround our efforts to dispose of the waste mater1als safely
and quickly.
EJM/dkb
Enclosures
;z_::;rz ·-
Edward J. · ~ath Attorney for Cotter Corporation

Post

1976-06-02 – MDNR – West Lake Landfill – Letter from Director Karch to NRC after Post-Dispatch Series

CHtKTOPHE* S BOND A /\ JAMES I WIISON
COVEKNOI K (l) DIRECTOR
missouri department of natural resources
P.O. »•« 1368 J.«l.f.»n City. Mifiowfi 65101 314/751-2815
June 2, 1976
Mr. James G. Keppler
Regional Director
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
799 Roosevelt Road
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Dear Mr. Keppler:
In articles published May 30 and June 1 (copies enclosed) St. Louis
Post-Dispatch reporter Margaret W. Freivogel presented evidence that
some seven tons of uranium were dumped in 1973 at the West Lake Landfill
in St. Louis County by an Atomic Energy Corjnission subcontractor
removing radioactive waste material fror. a site in Hazelwood, Missouri,
The area was closed as an industrial and sanitary landfill by this
Department in 1974 (a new sanitary landfill in an adjacent area protected
from groundwater contact now operates under DNR permit). The
closed area where the dumping allegedly occurred may be in direct
contact with groundwater. It has no monitoring wells to permit
evaluation of groundwater contamination.
In your letter to me of February 19, 1976 you stated that “a review by
the then AEC showed there was no significant health or environmental
hazard associated with the burial”. The letter to Cotter Corporation
from John G. Davis you enclosed stated, “It is our understanding from
your contractor that the material was then deposited under about
100 feet of refuse and earth at St. Louis County sanitary landfill
No. 1.” The investigation by the Post-Dispatch indicates that AEC_did
not know the correct location of the dumping, the local geology, nor
the actual concentration of uranium dumped. The depth cited must
also be incorrect since no landfills in the St. Louis area contain
100 feet of fill. I must therefore question the validity of the AEC
“review” of the burial operation.
I respectfully request that in view of the concerns of this Department
and the people of the St. Louis area, that the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission takes steps to:
1. Provide me with all documents which might assist me in verifying
the Post-Dispatch report, and in establishing the exact amount
and chemical form of radioactive materials allegedly dumped at
Vest Lake.
Exhibit A
1 of 4
Mr. Kcpplcr
Page 2
June 2, 1976
2. Require the Energy Research and Development Administration,
as successor to AEC’s source material operations, to
a) Include the West Lake Landfill in the areas it has selected
for intensive aerial and ground level radiation monitoring.
b) Locate the uranium precisely within the landfill, both as
to position and depth.
c) Install appropriate groundwater monitoring wells and implement
a monitoring program to determine the extent, if any, of
groundwater contamination.
d) Recommend actions to be taken to protect landfill workers
and the public from any potential hazards associated with
this material.
3. a) Advise •£ on who would be liable in the event that cleanup
costs are involved.
b) Ascertain whether federal laws or regulations were violated
by either the Atomic Energy Commission or its subcontractor
in the disposal of source material at an unlicensed site.
In a related matter, I was disappointed to learn that you do not maintain
records of radioactive waste burials carried out by licensees under
authority of Section 20.304 of Title 10 CFR. I hereby respectfully
request that your office obtain such records from all Missouri licensees
who have made such burials and make these records available to me.
Kenneth M.
Director
Division of Environmental Quality
KMK:JE:jhb
cc: Robert J. Koke, EPA Region VII
Enclosure
Exhibit A
2 of k

Post

1997-03-06 – EPA – West Lake Landfill – Enforcement Support Services Contract – Alternative Dispute Resolution

ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES CONTRACT
Funding: CERCLA
W10029
No.: 97T07WGBX
2. Contract No.: 68-W4-0039
5. Prime Contractor: DYNAMAC
8. Priority: Ex edi te
3. Work Assignnent #: C07 02 3
6. Amenctnent Nunber:OOOOO
ite/Facil ity Name: WEST LAKE LANDFILL
.ocation:
3. EPA Site/Facility ID#: MOD079900932
5. CERCLA ONLY:FMS Site/Spill ID: 14
7. CERCLIS/Event/Actlvlty/NSS: 2101- 1701·
18. Purpase: Initiate New Work Assignment
19. Task Type: Alternative Dispute Resolution
!1. Comient:
22. Total Funding Received
Previously Approved:
This Action:
Total:
LOE
0
301
301
Cost/Fe
0
so,ooo
so,ooo
2.,eriod Of Performance From: 03/10/97
,2.6.. ..I ,nit iator: Work Assigr1wnen¥t Ma nager CWAM> Name: steve kinser
30. Approval: Project Officer
(SIGN) _________________ _
Name: N/A N/A
34. Cont~Offl

Post

1997 – EPA – West Lake Landfill – Conflicting information on who chose West Lake Landfill for illegal disposal of uranium residues

Site Background
West Lake Landfill (the “Site”), Operable Unit No. 1, involves a remedial
investigation/feasibility study (“RI/FS”) being performed by Cotter Corporation (N.S.L.),
Laidlaw Waste Systems (Bridgeton), Inc., Rock Road Industries, Inc. and the U.S. Department of
Energy.
In 1966, the Atomic Energy Commission (“AEC”) sold 8,700 tons ofleached barium
sulfate, together with other radioactive residues, to Continental Mining and Milling Company
(“Continental Mining”). The radioactive residues were generated as by-products of uranium
processing performed by the AEC’s contractor. These processing residues were stored at the
AEC’s St. Louis Airport Storage Site (“SLAPSS”). Continental Mining moved the radioactive
residues to its facility at 9200 Latty Avenue in Hazelwood, Missouri. Eventually, Cotter
purchased the radioactive residues and shipped all but the 8, 700 tons of leached barium sulfate to
its processing facility in Colorado.
In 1973 approximately 8, 700 tons of radioactively contaminated leached barium sulfate
residues were mixed with approximately 39,000 tons of soil, and the entire amount was disposed
of in two areas of the Site. This material resulted from decontamination efforts undertaken by
Cotter at 9200 Latty A venue, St. Louis, Missouri, where the residues had been stored. Studies
have indicated that these two areas of the landfill are contaminated with uranium-238, uranium-
235, thorium-230 and radium-226. In addition to the radioactive materials in the landfill,
groundwater at the Site is also contaminated with radioactive materials as well as other
hazardous substances.
In 1993 EPA entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (“AOC”) for the
performance of an RI/FS at the Site. As indicated above, Cotter Corporation (N.S.L.), Laidlaw
Waste Systems (Bridgeton), Inc., Rock Road Industries, Inc. and the U.S. Department of Energy
were signatories to this AOC.
Allocation Support
To date the four respondents to the AOC have shared the cost of work equally. While
this allocation has worked for the RI/FS phase of the work, the upcoming remedial
design/remedial investigation (“RD/RA”) will be substantially more costly, and some of the
parties may have difficulty paying a 25% share. The RI/FS is still underway, so no Record of
Decision (“ROD”) has been issued and it is not expected that a ROD will be issued before this
allocation process is complete.
Despite the absence of projected remedial costs, both the PRPs and DOE are willing to
proceed with an allocation effort. In particular, DOE seeks a greater degree of certainty in its
budget planning process, and along with the PRPs may see allocation as an opportunity to adopt
more equitable basis for its liability than the current per capita scheme.
On December 5, 1996, a meeting of the St. Louis Site Task Force meeting was held in St.
Louis, Missouri, which was attended, inter alia, by DOE Assistant Secretary Thomas Grumbley,
EPA Region VII’s Administrator, as well as various other representatives of DOE, EPA, the
State of Missouri, the City and County of St. Louis and staffers from interested Congressional
offices in the state and affected district.
At this meeting DOE Assistant Secretary Grumbley announced that with regard to West
Lake Landfill OU-1, EPA would “allocate the responsibility at the site as best as it can over the
next six months or so, so that they can tell us what percentage of the responsibility that [DOE]
needs to take … . “(Italics added)
As any allocation of responsibility that EPA may prepare, such as an non-binding
allocation of responsibility, may expose EPA to charges of favoritism as DOE is a sister federal
entity. Discussions were held among the four identified potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”)
regarding how best to conduct an allocation. It was agreed that using a third-party neutral
allocator would best serve the interests of the parties and satisfy EPA’ s desire to maintain
neutrality.
Additionally, the private party PRPs, Cotter Corporation (N.S.L.), Laidlaw Waste
Systems (Bridgeton), Inc. and Rock Road Industries, Inc. have requested that in any allocation
performed the allocator give consideration and possibly allocate some responsibility to an
“orphan.” The orphan is B&K Construction Company, which acted as the transporter of the
radioactive materials for Cotter Corporation. It has been alleged that B&K actually chose the
Site for disposal of the wastes, although there appears to be some conflicting information on this.
Therefore, In order to accomplish the allocation, EPA would envision starting as soon as
practicable in order to meet the six-month deadline mentioned above, that is, six months from the
Task Force meeting, or May 5, 1997. While that may be ambitious, EPA still envisions that the
parties would be substantially involved in the process or nearly complete in their efforts by that
date.
The process would involve allocation, with the four PRPs, plus EPA as a party to
represent the “orphan” share mentioned above. An initial convening meeting is expected, with
several additional one-day meetings with all parties in attendance to follow until resolution.
Appropriate shares for costs may include consideration of PRP ability to pay issues, as
driven by a range of estimated costs for various likely, but as yet not selected, remedial
alternatives. Additional costs or liabilities to throw into the mix may include credit for past
contributions under the per capita allocation scheme, EPA’s “orphan” share contribution in the
form of forgiveness of oversight costs, or other mechanisms or sources that may come forward as
the allocation proceeds. EPA would expect that the convening phase of the allocation would
resolve may of these issues to further clarify what the parties expect from the process.
Scope of Work
A. Preliminary Work
1. The contractor shall select an allocator professional to act as convener and allocator for
this process in consultation with the Project Officer (PO) and Delivery Order Project
Officer (DOPO).
2. The allocator professional shall meet with the EPA PO and DOPO and members of
EPA’s team to discuss substantive and procedural issues and define potentially involved
interests and parties. At this meeting EPA representatives will provide more detailed
information with regard to the goals and outcomes expected of the process, list of
potential parties to be included in the process and a list of issues to be addressed through
the process.
3. The contractor shall submit a workplan to EPA in accordance with the requirements of
this contract.
4. The contractor shall be responsible for oversight of deliverables on this delivery order
and shall be responsible for transmission of monthly reports and invoices as required by
the contract.
B. Convening Activities
1. In consultation with the EPA DOPO, the contractor shall identify and contact the affected
parties to discuss the goals and purpose of the proposed allocation process, as well as the
technical or substantive issues involved in the allocation process.
The contractor shall contact parties identified by the EPA DOPO as “key parties” first. If
no barriers to an allocation process are identified, the contractor shall proceed to contact
all parties.
If initial contacts with the key parties reveal that an allocation process is not feasible, the
contractor shall notify the EPA PO and DOPO, explain the difficulties (lack of interest,
unequivocal opposition of a key party, disagreement about the definition of the problem,
wrong forum or process, etc.) and await EPA’s decision on whether to proceed with the
allocation process.
2. The contractor shall provide oral reports weekly to the DOPO on the general progress of
the convening effort.
3. The contractor shall provide one copy of the draft convening report to the EPA Project
Officer and five copies to the DOPO. The report will:
a. Summarize the results of convening contacts including such things as:
( 1) what parties were contacted during the period; and
(2) identification and a discussion of those issues which the parties agree will
be considered as part of the allocation process, and well as those issues
which the parties choose not to have addressed in the allocation process.
b. A discussion of the chances of a successful allocation process and the goals and
purpose of the process from the viewpoints of the parties affected;
c. Recommendation of potential additional parties that should also participate in the
consultative process.
d. If an allocation process appears to be feasible, the report shall include a design for
the process including such things as:
( 1) the structure and type of meetings between/among the allocator
professional and affected parties;
(2) the expected number, length, location and frequency of meetings;
(3) the research, data or information necessary prior to, or during the process;
( 4) the estimated budget for the process as designed and proposed by the
contractor; and
(5) whether an orientation session is recommended prior to the first meeting.
e. If a consultative process is not recommended, the contractor may suggest other
processes that could accomplish some of EPA’ s goals.
The PO and DOPO will review the draft convening report and provide comments and
revisions as necessary. The contractor will prepare the final report incorporating the PO’s
and DOPO’s comments and revisions.
The contractor shall distribute the final report to the PO (2 copies), the DOPO (5 copies)
and to each of the parties interviewed for the report.
4. If EPA decides to proceed with the allocation process, the contractor shall assist it in
contacting potential parties to obtain commitments to participate in the allocation process.
5. As a part of the convening effort, the contractor may arrange for and facilitate an initial
organizational meeting of the parties to discuss the form of the process and the parties to
be involved, to get commitments to go forward from each of the parties, discuss the
issues involved, and/or the ground rules for the process.
C. Allocation
This phase will implement the design of the allocation process as accepted by the EPA
DOPO and PO based upon the final convening report recommendations.
1. The contractor shall propose an initial draft of operational ground rules. At the initial
meetings, the contractor shall assist the group in further developing and refining the
ground rules or operating procedures of process.
2. The contractor shall provide a draft agenda to the PO and DOPO for each meeting. Upon
receipt and incorporation of the PO’s and DOPO’s comments, the contractor shall
distribute the final agenda to the PO, DOPO and participants in the allocation process.
3. The contractor shall facilitate all plenary, subcommittee and workgroup sessions. As
facilitator the contractor shall assist participants in articulating their interests, identifying
areas of agreement, and developing consensus solutions to the problems that divide them.
As facilitator, s/he shall keep the parties talking, listening, and moving – as much as
possible – towards the goal of the process.
4. The contractor shall communicate in person, by phone or in writing with process
participants to ensure that issues and concerns have been communicated accurately and
that all participants are adequately prepared for the next meeting.
5. The contractor shall provide draft meeting summaries to the PO, DOPO and the
participants. Upon receipt and incorporation of comments, the facilitator shall distribute
final meeting summaries to the PO, DOPO and participants.
6. The contractor shall provide meeting facilities and support for all meetings.
7. The contractor shall furnish a draft final report of the allocation process to the PO (one
copy) and DOPO (five copies). The contents shall include:
(a) A two page executive summary of the process including the background, the
issues discussed, and the resolutions of the issues;
(b) Final meeting summaries with relevant and necessary attachments;
( c) Copies of all documents compiled by the allocator during the allocation process;
( d) Relevant substantive correspondence between the allocator and the participants
and between the participants themselves (if available to the allocator); and
(f) A process evaluation by the allocator summarizing results of the process, analysis
of issues and balance of parties, procedural lessons learned, and recommendation
for improvements.
The PO and DOPO will review the draft final report and provide comments and revisions as
necessary. The contractor shall prepare the final report incorporating its comments and revisions.
The contractor shall provide 2 copies of the final report to the PO, and 5 copies to the DOPO,
and one copy to each party involved in the process.

Post

2015 – EPA – USACE – West Lake Landfill – Communication Summary for St. Louis District FUSRAP

Key Messages:
Key Stakeholders~
Congressional, public, community
groups, state and federal agencies.
Communication Goal:
Communicate the authority, missions and status of the
USAGE St. Louis FUSRAP Program
1. Public Health: FUSRAP protects public health and the environment by removing low-level radioactive contamination generated by activities of the
Manhattan Engineer District and the Atomic Energy Commission (MED/AEC) during the early atomic weapons program in the 1940s and 1950s.
2. FUSRAP has moved more than 1 million cubic yards of contaminated materials since USAGE took on the mission, and maintains an outstanding safety
record (4,288 days without injury.)
3. FUSRAP’s objectives are to protect public health, execute the approved alternative for cleaning up the radioactive contamination above health-based
cleanup guidelines, and minimize adverse effects on area business operations.
Key Talking Points:
Mission: USAGE St. Louis District, is conducting a radiological cleanup program for four Missouri sites (SLDS, SLAPS, SLAPS VPs, HISS).
These sites contain soils contaminated with radium, thorium, and uranium as a result of activities associated with the Manhattan Engineer
District/Atomic Energy Commission during the nation’s early atomic program in the 1940s and 50s.
Authority: Congress transferred execution of FUSRAP to USAGE, in the 1998 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill. Prior to this bill, FUSRAP
had been managed by the U.S. Department of Energy.
Sites: The complete list of active St. Louis area FUSRAP projects includes:
St. Louis Downtown Sites (SLDS, the Mallinckrodt plant areas and adjacent properties), St. Louis Airport Properties (SLAPS … completed in
FYO?), SLAPS Vicinity Properties, Latty Avenue Properties (HISS, Futura and adjacent properties) Also in the District FUSRAP Program is the
Iowa Army Ammunition Plant.
Madison Site, in Madison, IL, remediation was completed in 2000 and following the 2 year monitoring period, was removed from the list of active
FUSRAP sites in 2002.
Progress: In FY13, 28,500 cubic yards of contaminated material were shipped from the St. Louis FUSRAP sites to an out-of-state, licensed and
permitted disposal facility.
Completion: Tentative dates for completion are 2017-2019 timeframe. Completion dates depend upon future funding levels which are uncertain.
Public Involvement: The St. Louis Oversight Committee is an independent group of community leaders which serve in consultative and
participatory roles with the cleanup of the St. Louis FUSRAP Sites.
As a consultant, the Committee provides comments, recommendations, and community feedback for USAGE in its efforts to clean up these sites.
The Oversight Committee hosts public meetings semiannually, with FUSRAP and other state, local and federal agencies (EPA, Missouri Health
and Senior Services, MO DNR).
1) by Dept of Energy (in which cas
WLLFOIA4312- 001 – 0054055

Post

1988-02-17 – NRC – General Counsel recommendations of legal resources available to properly dispose of West Lake Landfill wastes

UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
1 ” 1983
MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard E. Cunningham, Director
Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety
Office of Nuclear Material Safety & Safeguards
FROM: Stuart A. Treby, Assistant General Counsel for
Rulemaking £ Fuel Cycle,
Office of the General Counsel
SUBJECT: WEST LAKE LANDFILL
In your memorandum of January 29, 1988 you requested advice as to the
legal resources avai.lable to the NRC to require a. former licensee, the Cotter
Corporation, to properly dispose of radioactive wastes dumped In the West
Lake landfill on the outskirts of St. Louis, Missouri.
The background information accompanying your memorandum shows that the
radioactive material, seven tons of uranium, was contained in some 8700 tons
of barium sulfate mixed with about 39,000 tons of soil. It was moved to the
landfill between July and October 1973 from the Latty Avenue site which had
been used by the licensee to dewater uranium processing residuals purchased
from the AEC prior to shipment to the licensee’s uranium processing mill at
Canon City, Colorado, for further processing. The operations at Latty
Avenue were carried out under a source material license, SUB-1022, which
was subsequently terminated. It is also abundantly clear that the AEC was
fully aware in 1974 of the admixture of the barium sulfate with soil and its
transfer to the landfill. See letter of November 1, 1974 from John G. Davis,
Deputy Director for Field Operations, Directorate of Regulatory Operations,
to Cotter Corporation.
Mr. Davis1 letter noted that, “The disposal does not appear to be within the
intent of the Commission’s regulations, 10 CFR Part 40, to allow alteration of
the physical nature of Source Material (i.e., dilution of solids with
nonradioactive source material) in order to obtain a physical mixture which
would no longer be subjected to licensing by the Commission.” An inspection
report, No. 040-8035/74-01, transmitted on May 17, 1974 identified the same
transfer of material to the landfill as a disposal contrary to the requirements
of 10 CFR 20.301. There does not appear to have been any follow up
enforcement action by either the AEC or the NRC to these two apparent
violations of regulations.
It is a foregone conclusion that the usual enforcement procedures of the
NRC, that is, a notice of violation or order to show cause leading eventually
to a civil penalty, would be of no avail in this case. In Secy-85-285 the
General Counsel and the Executive Director of Operations (for the Executive
Legal Director) provided a legal analysis of the application of 28 U. S. C.
2462, a federal statute of limitations, to enforcement action of the NRC. The
– 2 –
conclusions of that legal analysis, when applied to the facts of this case,
clearly Indicate that any administrative enforcement action that could or
would result in a civil fine, penalty or forfeiture, is barred by the five year
limitation on actions In that statute. The five year period commences to run
from the time of the violation. In this case that is October 1973, at the
latest. Accordingly, normal enforcement action by the NRC leading to civil
penalty would have been barred after the end of October 1978.
The only effective resource available to NRC at this point in time would be
judicial action under Section 232 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended. Section 232 authorizes the NRC, through the Attorney General, to
seek injunctive relief with respect to violations of regulations or orders.
This would, of course, draw into question whether an order to clean up the
landfill (if that action were to be selected to establish a basis for injunctive
relief) was lawful, as well as if the other necessary bases for injunctive
relief were met, for example, that no other remedy was available, and that
the health and safety hazard warranted judicial intervention. The question
of the lawfulness of the order would likely turn upon the question of
whether there was indeed a violation of regulations in sending the material to
the landfill. Whether there was a violation of 10 CFR 20.301, as stated In
the inspection report, depends upon how 10 CFR 40.13(a) is construed. We
note that there is nothing in that section or elsewhere in 10 CFR Part 40
that expressly prohibits dilution of source material in a mixture to below .05
weight percent in order for it to be exempted from the regulations In Part
40. If exempt, the requirement for transfer to an authorized recipient
would not apply. (See attached memorandum from W. Olmstead to J.
Lieberman) Thus, the licensee could argue that the dilution with soil was
legal and that the transfer and subsequent disposal were legal.
Although the doctrine of laches (a doctrine of repose applied in equity
cases, such as injunction proceedings, analogous to a statute of limitations)
does not apply to the United States Government, the fact that 14 years has
elapsed since the AEC/NRC had evidence of the disposal, and had considered
it a possible violation, argues against the need for immediate vigorous
enforcement through a judicial injunction. Added to this is the fact that the
AEC/NRC terminated the license with full knowedge of the disposal. One
could argue that the responsible regulatory agency, in terminating the
license without further enforcement action, haa determined that the alleged
violations were without merit. Finally, the United States has an alternative
The interpretative problems associated with 10 CFR 40.13(a) are
severe. We have not been able to find anything in its rulemaking history to
support a conclusion that it prohibits dilution, or that it is strictly limited to
chemical mixtures, solutions, alloys, or compounds, under a restrictive
definition of chemical. For example, chemical solutions, compounds, mixtures
and alloys could arguably be limited to those produced by or used in a
chemical process. Thus, the barium sulfate plus uranium would be a
chemcial mixture, but separated uranium subsequently admixed with ordinary
soil would not.
– 3 –
statutory remedy. Uranium is a hazardous substance under CERCLA
(Superfund) and the response authority under Section 104 of that Act could
be invoked.
If the staff determines upon proceeding judicially. Section 161c of the Atomic
Energy Act would authorize the NRC to conduct the necessary studies and
evaluations to support any order to be issued and any subsequent request
for enforcement of the order by judicial injunction. If EPA was to be
requested to proceed under Section 104 of CERCLA then EPA would initiate
the necessary studies and evaluations and supervise the remedial action. We
note that under CERCLA, EPA is not required to litigate responsibility
before proceeding. Under CERCLA, litigation comes after the fact and is
focused upon collection of agency remedial action costs and penalties
from responsible parties.
Stuart A. Treby, Assistant General
Counsel for Rulemaking 6 Fuel
Office of the General Counsel
Cycle
Attachments:
As stated

Post

1972-12-05 – Cotter Corporation – Decontamination of Latty Avenue Storage Site, Hazelwood Missouri

..
n’ … __ …- ·’
0
WLA 2154
=··- ‘”:’l : “‘” ·- ~.
; ~ : .. ; f • .'”!;. ( _.
:.;..,: . .. =~-;”‘·:- …
tr. Frar~< ?it~nan, Pirec~or Divisic:~ cf W ~t:.a i-;ar.age~;ot: and Trans~or~ati~;o U.S. Ato::tic En\;r~y Ccr=.ission WashinEt~n, D.C. 205~5 Dece10e.r S, 1!:7 . Re: Cot:t:e~ Cor?cration-Decontaminat:ion of Storaz.a Si :-s, ~a::el""·ood, Hi..ssot.:ri Cott:c~ Cor~c~a~ion sub~its he~~with a orc~csa: fo~ ceco:1t:~=.ina~i~~ cf th~ si~ a a~ Lat:~y Avar.ue, fiez~ l\,oc::!, l·:.izso~=-i u;c::1 ·~~.:.c:t ce!'~clin r-z:.~ioac-:.i•Je r~si·.!ue~ cic:--ivad fror:: t: ite prccessi::~ of Co;;;.:o m"'a!"•i u::-. o:-cz have been store!oration al’.d 5 & :…
Const~c~ion Coo~a~y, !nc. 7 which set fo~h L~ de~ail~
the ~:u,e~ in wale~ t~e deconta~~tion orocess will
be ef!ec:tec. –
As ycu and your s~aff ~iow, Cot~er Cor?ora~io»
a~quireci tr.e residue cat:eri~l ~, lS67, and in ~h~
in~eri~, r~:ov~~,;rocessed and ~de ult~ate dispcsi~
ic~ of all resi~ues ~hich coulc eco~o:ically
be ~rea~~d except for 1:,uoo “tens oi Colcraco
raf£~ia-:=~ ~~ic~ ~i~l be shi?P=~ to the ~ll L~ ~t~
,.
I
\
()
~ •
WLA 2155
near future. The then re::naining ::.a:tarial, which is
t~e subject of this proposal, consis~s prir.cipally
of leae~ec bari~ sulfate, niseellar.eous residues
and da~ris, cocprising approximately a,soo tons.
We have ex~lored all altar~a~iv~s to dis~ositicn
at the Quarry DUr.p Site ~~d conclude tha~ none of the~
offer comparable advantages in terms of safety, convenience
and econo~cs. The Quarry Dump Site alreaay
contains similar raaioactive waste and must be consi~eraa
a permanent burial area, and its location in relation
to the Hazelwood stcrage site L~sures safe transpor~atic~
ove~ a distance ma~y ti~es shorter than the nearest
available alterna~ive.
We stand ready tc provi~a any !frr~her inforr~tiov
which you ~1 dasire i~ considering ~~d a~ting upon ‘
this proposal.
Ve~y truly yours,
COTTZ:R CORPORA.TIOi’j
By: ~a-.:J p. m ~·:ZI–
oav~c:; ?. ,.a;::-co”C~,
txecu~ive Vice Presidan~
WLA 2104
()
‘\.., .. ,..·
,_.. ..
PROPOSAL
for
\
DECONT~1INAT!ON OF LATTY AVENUE STO~.GE S!TE
HAZEL~·:OCD I HISSOURI
AEC License No. SUB 1022 (40-8025)
May, 1972
RETA-780
-., ~ …
~ .. .
.. .. –
INTRODUCTION
rt is the intent of this proposal to provide a
means whereby land leased by Cotter Corporaticn of Golden,
Colorado (t~e Licensee} may be decontaminated and returned
for•no~al ~and use with no restrictions, in full compliance
with all applicable rules a..11d regulations of the Atomic
Energy Co~ssion. The property in question consists of
Hazelwood, Missouri {see FI~J?~ 1).
D~~ recent years, the area has been use~ as a
.
.. storage and processing site for raffinates and c~~er radioactive
res~dttes, and other radioactive debris. This proposal
presents a plan of action for decontamination of the site and
ultimate disposal of the radioactive residues and debris •
RETA-780

().
–· RETA &
CD
Settling
Ponds
FIGURE 1
Latty Avenue
Sketch net to scale
Colorado
Raffinate
WLA 2106
COTTER CORPORATIOU
lATTY AVE::UE STORAG:: SITE
HAZLEH00}, iU SSOUR I
()
u.
·-·
WLA 2107
3
DESCRIPTION OF WASTE MATERIAL
The history of the residues is a long and complicated
one. The most complete historical review of this
material was compiled by Walter J. Raubach in August, 1967.
This review is included hereLn as APP~~~IX A.
According to Mr. Bauback, the original material
was obtained from the Belgian congo in 1944 for processing
by_Mallinckrodt at the Destrehan Street Plant in St. Louis.
acre trac~, located at Roberston, Missouri. In J~~e of 1960
the residues were offered for public sale for processing or
utilizaticr. by private industry.
•T.he intent of the ‘Offer for Sale’ was to allow
private industry to recover the valuable metals: copper,
nickel ~~d ccbal~ • . The original request for bid offered ~~e
bidder several al~ernatives. The pur~~aser could use the
RETA-780

• … _.
WLA 2108
4
existing site for purposes of concentrating and extracting
any desired material, or he could remove the residue from
the site for processing or utilization elsewhere. The
materials remaining qfter the purchaser’s processing operations
were over, could be disposed of oy b~e purchaser at the
\
Weldon Springs dump site whether or not processing was done .
on the present site or elsewhere. The Weldon Springs Quarry
Dump site was a pit located in St. Charles County on Missouri
State Bighway No . 94 apprc:;;imately five :niles SO’.!th~·;es t of
the Weldon Springs plant and approximately 30 miles from the
airport site. The site was accessible by tru~~ from Missouri
State Route 94 and a spur track lead off the eristi:1g east
way of. the Atcmic Energy Co~~ssion•s plant track system providing
railway access to the dump pit.”
Later in 1960, word was received that it was quite
.-unlikely that the private contract would be awarded since ~~e
United States Geological Survey forbade the dumping of the sludges,
processed or not, into the quarries in question because of the
high probability of contaminating the Missouri River shortly
above the im:akes for the St. Louis City and St. Louis County
RETA-780
WLA 2109
5
water supplies. Due to the many problems, the St. Louis
Area Office was contacted by Oak Ri dge Operations and asked
to hold up awarding any contract on airport sludge.
The material was subsequently obtained, in 1964,
(see APPENDIX B) by Continental Mining & Milling Company of
Chicago, Illinois. Continental bor rowed $2,500,000 from
\
Commercial Discount of Chicago to buy ane p~ocess the residues ,
using the resieues as security . Continental mvved tt~e mate=ial
from the airpor t to the present site on Latty Avenue. This move
required t en d~~ t–u~~ s for five months and cost Continental
$100 , 000. They were unable to maintain the loan pa~nnents while
~~–.—~. …..- -e- ‘””””” ” ~
they w.ere moving the material, so Commercial foreclosed ti · 1..:~ ~-~- – · .. ·
. • =·: .. ‘::~ ••• • “‘·
·.. ~ ~- “‘::::· ….. ·. ~ …. .. .
.. . ,., ..
-~·· :.. ·· … “” ____ _
The Cornroercial Discount Corporation paid $800,000
for the raffinates at a public auction of the assets of the
·· Continental Mining & Milling Company. lt was their only recourse
to protect the $2,500,000 investment they had in the raffinates.
In this foreclosure procedure, t hey obtained besides the 100,000
tons of waste mat erial, an office building, · three plant buildings
and the prope~t upon which the residues are now stored. ThE~e
R..~A-780
• •• I
CJ
WLA 2110
6
residues were again offered for sale at a public auction on
February 3, 1967, and they failed to draw a single bid.
Commercial D. iscount decided to process the residues
themselves by drying and shipping them to Cotter corporation
for mineral extraction (License No. SMC-907 (40-7603)]. The\
consulting firm of Ryckman, Edgerley, Toml~nson and Associat~s
(RETA), were retained to advise them on radiological heal~~
and industrial hygiene problems. In Novembe~, 1968, Co~~ercial •
Discount discontinued operation and the site was shut down.
In August, 1970, Cotter Corporation began d=Yi~g
,.. …… ___ ..&..,.: ___ iT.: _____ \.~- ~,.’t’f’\,.,,_-.~ 14A f’ltl’\.-…e-\1″1 –.:1 –‘–~ ~-.._., …..,_ -1:”—–•·•- a..–~-··– •”””-‘• ._,….,.., ..-w….. \,W WWJJf.;J ~f.””‘ Q,.;)h.C:Y. A~..C.I\. \..V
assist them with personnel monitoring ~~d related =aeiological
health aspects. In-August, 1971, Cotter Corporation had completec
shi?ment of the Ccn;o raffinates to ~~eir processing
site in Colorado. Low concentrations of valuable metals and
other elements rendered the remaining material economically
unfeasible to process in like manner.
Pre~~ntly, the remaining mat~rial stored on the site
includes (see FIGURE 2):
RETA-780
(~ \ ….
–· RETA &
Wl A 21 1 l
7
LATTY
I •’ t r’ I \ [ ,, I
. “‘. l !!f· a
AREA WHICH
-r, ~ MUST BE ,
STRIPPED •
RU99”. & ~ MISC. DEBRIS :
COLORADO
RAFFINATE l
I
I
FIGURE 2·
\
COTTER CORPORATION
LATTY AVENUE
PROCESSING SfTE ·
. f
0 . ·”‘
(1) Colorado Raffinate- 15,000 tons,
containing about 4S tons of uranium.
(2) Leached Barium Sulfate Cake- 8,700
WLA 2112
8
tons, :ontaining about 7 tons of urani~~.
(3) Miscellaneous Residues – approximately
200 tons, containing approximately 2 tons
of u.raniun.
These resicues are stored in deteriorated steel drums
and sparsely distributed aw~ng pieces of clothing, boots, floor
tile and other debris which render t he small aiUount of uranium
economically unobtainable. The drums are dete~ioratec to such
A more detailed description of the material remaining
can be found in A??ENDIX 3, pages S-11.
DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES
Referring to F:i:G”‘uRE .2, Bui!din9 “D” is the only buildillg
whic.~ wil! r;.~e decontaminatior: . !3uilding .. A” is an
office while Buildings •a” and ~c” were used for maintenance and
RETA-780
(- ~ .·
WLA 2113
9
storage,only. These ~~ree buildings were protected from
contamination by radioactive dust during ~~e drying operations •
.Building-. “O!’ housed the drying operations a.”ld is
slightly contaminated (:0.5 mr/hr}. To deconta~nate this
building it is first necessary to disma”ltle and steam clPA~
the dryer, conveyors, air pollution equipment, and other
miscellaneous ma~~ine~J. This equipment will then be ha~-~¥
from the ·site for subsequent salvage.
After all equipment is removed from the building,
its earthen floor will be stripped to eighteen (18″} inches
below ~riginal grade* The ceiling and walls will then be
scrubbed to remove any dust ?articles. Finally, the earthen
floor will be brought back up to existing grade using clean,
compacted fill material.
~e second step of decontamination requires that
all uncontaminated solid wastes be remcvee tc a licensed
.sanitary landfill.· Items which will be removed include logs,
trees, brush, abandoned appliances and other miscellaneous
RETA-780
\
WLA 2114
10
debris,_ which has been dumped on the site by area residents
during periods when the operation had been shut down.
All remaining Colorado raffinate will be loaded
\
into railroad cars and shipped to Cotterts processing site
for storage. At present, no economical means exist for extracting
additional metals from this material. The procedure
to be used for shipping the Colorado raffinates will be si~lar
to that for the Congo residue, except that the drying operation
will be omitted.
After the Colorado raffinate is removed, the remaining
de?ris, including the leached barium sulfate, will be t~cked
to the Weleon Springs Quarry dump site, as per the original
1960 proposal. After removal of the radioactive materials
from the area, the top soil will be stripped to a depth of 18” ,
.-or until radioactivity levels come below specified limits (Title
10, Section 20.105}. ~his material will be used to provide cover
for the residues in the Quarry.
RETA-780
0
WLA 2115
ll
To recapitulate, it is proposed that the Weldon
Springs Quarry Dump site be used as ult~~te disposal for
the following materials:
Leached Barium Sulfate 2800 c.y.
.Rubble & Other Debris 1000 c.y.
Deteriorated Steel Drums
& Miscellaneous Ite~s 1000 c.y.
Stripped Top Soil 19200 c.y.
TOTAL QUANTITY (approx.) 24000 c.y.
\
· A cursory visit to the quarry on May 3, 1972, showed
the area to be satisfactory for this use. The entire
premises is a secured area,,adequately fenced and equipped with
caution sigr.s. Evidence of past dumping was quite visible and
showed a mound of reinforced concrete rubble, steel dr~~s,
miscellaneous construction metals, an abandoned fork lift and
·othe~ equip~ent. The floor of the quarry is easily accessible
from State Highway 94. By carefully placing the radioactive
. residues and covering them with the stripped top soil, the
dumping of this material could, indeed, enha~ce the overall
appearance of the site.
R:E:TA-780
WLA 2116
12
As noted in the 1960 proposal, there is some concern
with possible contamination of water supplies. It should
be noted, however, that the quarry is placed high above the
flood level of the river and; hence; there is no danger of
flooding the quarry. Also, past experience with the residues
at the Latty Avenue site demonstrated that the material does
\
not exhibit a tendency to “leach” into the ground water. Since
beginning work with the residues in FebruarJ, 1967, there has
been no evidence of ground wa~er cont&~ination at ~~e storage
site.
RETA-780
n \ ….. __ ~ ,” ;
WLA 2117
_, ,
13
RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH PROTECTIO~ PROGRAMS
Because of its inherent. physical properties and/or \
radioactivity level, major health problems are not a~ticipa~ed.
Precautio~s will be taken, however, to insure that no conditions
develop which will endanger the health apd safety of
employees and the general public.
Personnel Monitoring
As stated in the Application for source Material License,
(see APPENDIX C) “each worker will be issued a fiL~ badge.” It
is proposed ~~at for the decont~~nation work, the film badge program
be discontinued. Under Section 20.202 (a) {1), personnel
monitoring is mandatory for persons, over 18 years of age,
-· entering a restricted area that receives, or is likely
to receive, a dose in any calendar quarter in excess of 25 percent
of ~~e al!owable dosage. Previous experienc~ (see TABLE 1)
has demonstrated that employees working at the site have not
been exposed to dosages in excess of the allowable 25 percent.
RETA-780
(~)
BADGE NO.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
NO.
TABLE 1
PERSO~~L MONITORING RECORDS*
LATTY AVENUE STOR}.GE SITE
HAZELNOOD, MISSOURI
CUMULATIVE DOSAGE
WEEKS DOSAGE PER WEEK
22 M
22 120
12 90
22 210
22 230 10.5
12 60
20 200
10 50
21 210
4 M
Not Issued
11 120
ll 120
11 130 ll.S
Average dosage – 1.8 mr/~k = 101.4 mr/qtr.
Maximum allowable without personnel monitoring;
25% of 1-1/4 rem = 312.5 mr/qtr.
WLA ~118
14
\
MAX. QTRLY.
DOSAGE ‘
Control
136.5 mr
153.4 mr
*Records obtained from Film Badge monitoring program for
period of drying operation (8/70-2/71).
RETA-780
(} ‘ .
WLA 21 l .[._. __ ___lil_ St_a:e_ ~;_ci·_Mix_er ____ _..,. _..~. — H,’,,” 03
~————-~ Saub
Aqut!.OUS
to
Waste
Organi~
(]
H~o3
—–<"'>f __ “””!””” ________ (
1
.::::::;.;– o~:::~~:~
Sttil”.\, 10 Stage Kidi·Mixer Scrub
~
Organic
to
Recovery
Aqueous Product
Centrifuge
. . .
A flowsheet for tne removal of otnar than the thoriu~ and uranium
has noc been developed and this now see~s a reasonabl~ Ching to
do at chis point. I£ ten or fif:een c=u~s of this ~ac~rial were
p~ocessed to dev~lop a flowsheet for the ~ecovery of the tho~iu~,
uranium, copper, nickel, cobalt, seleniu~, and a ~are earth fraction,
it migh~ be possible to raduce L~e ~adioactive contamin~tion
of the final waste raffinates such that they would be no problem
and could be disposed of almo·s·c anywn.ere.
The 250 kilogr~s of thorium-230 contained in these raf!inates
are more interesting than ionium per se; cost esti~ates are already
in existence for irradiation to protactinium-231 and subsequent
irradiation co uraniuc-232. Mound has ~welve thoriurn-230″slugs
on hand that were irradiated in the MIR at Idaho Falls i~ 1960.
It· •is planned to process these capsules in order 😮 develop a flowsheec
for the production of ?rotac~iniu~-231.
Augusc 15,. 1967
– 8
(-…)
\. ·,
· APPEND I X “B”
\

Post

1977-07 – DOE – Preliminary Report on the Results of a Radiological Survey Conducted at the Former Cotter Property

Data Capture
Document Discovery
(Iltis form will be used in recording the document information in the Site Research Database after the completion of the
scanning of the document.)
Reviewers-fill o11t all information. tbat applies to the document then place Ust in front of the document
Siw/Facility of Review: Date of Review:
N/fl-
Site That Document Applies To: Documem Type:
DOESile 0
Name:
AWE Site
Other:
Document Title/Comment;: _________ _
t?10rJ- ifl-!& ,k. 51Te retprfm
r-r3vlt of= 4olrllkfgd 5’vN>tJ-Irt7
Keyword(s): ——-
0
D
D
~
D
D
D
HistoricaJ Ia formation
En.vironmental Data
Radiologieallncidents/Accidents
Workplace Monitoring Data (i.e.; contamination
s~s, general area/breathing zone air sampling,
radonlthoron monitoring, area radiation surveys,
fix.ed location dosimeters, missed dose information,
Radiologi~ Ccntrollimits, Radiation Work Pennits)
Process Descriptions (i.e.; general description,
source tenns, encapsulation/containment practices)
Site Dosimetry:
D
D
D
0
Medi~aVX-ray & External Dosimetry
(i.e.; TLD Film Badges, Pocket Ion Chambers)
Internal Dosimetry {i.e.; urinalysis, feca~
In-Vivo, breath sampling, radon/thoron, nasal
sm~:ars)
Monitoring PrograiU Data (i.e.; analytical
methods for bioassay, dosimeter performance
characteristic~. detection limits, exchange
.frequencie!i, record keeping practices,
meastnment units)
Internal Information (i.e.; radionuclides
and associated chemical forms, particle size
distributions, respiratory protection practices,
solubility class).
CJaimaut Specific Document
Re<:ords Staff- flU o~~-tb¢ f~U.o~~g.prior to sc:arf~ing ·or wpyi&g () /000 ls-!l. . . . . Project Box Number: :·· Pr~j~~Dol:ument ~umber: ·: . ~ Folder Title:_·_.·_·.....__ ___. ....;-.,._. ......._ _._..,..:~-~.. ....,_--;--...:..;.;._...,...... ___- -.:.·-:·:. ._,·, .,..:.;...•. .....;-.·- '-:'-........... ;...._7------'-_...;_--...o........: . . . . : ,.;. ~· : .. ~ · .... -..... :-, .: ·. ·.· .. .. ·.· ~: • • -:4 '.:· : ~.:·:~~:· · . ...·.· .. . . . . -: ··. ·· . . _, .... :·· . :'. ·;·. · .... " . . ',1: . ',• ... : . OCT 21 1983 ~tr. John E. Baublitz. D1 rector';:.:_ D1v1s;on of Remedial Action Programs Office of Terminal waste Dhp!osal and Remed1 a 1 Act 1 on · ....... Office of Nuclear Energy Oepartment of Energy wasn1ngton, o.c. lOS4S Dear Mr. Baublitz: .. - This is fn response to your letter of October s. 1983 regarding the Department of Energy•s (DOE) research and development project at the fonmer Cotter Corporation site on Latty Avenue 1n Hazelwood. Missouri. ~Regarding the preliminary survey conducted in late September 1983, by your contracto·r. ·Oak .Ri.~s.e tlational Laboratory. we are aware that not all of the contamination is c~1ned to the p11e of contaminated soil. As indicated in the letter frQn w~ T. Crow to E. Dean Jarboe dated August 22, 1979 (enclosed) only the area identified as Parcel I has been released for unrestricted use. The decontam1nat1on of Parcel 11 was never completed because all decontamination efforts were stopped in January 1979 wnen Colonel Griggs. A1rport Director. requested that we delay transfer of the contaminated soil to the airport until quest1ons raised by Congressman Robert A. Young were resolved. After Congressman Young's concerns were addressed and he agreed that the contaminated soil should be moved to the airport site, the St. Louis Airport Authority decided not only d1d they not want the wastes from Latty Avenue but they wanted DOE to reassume title to the atrport site. We were pleased to note that Congress gave DOE authority and funds to take act1on at the Latty Avenue site. because our planned remedial actions have been ~ont1nually oe·t~ Missouri 63130
Norfolk and Western R.R.
ATTN: Mr. R.S. Michels
Regional Manager
Industria1 Rea1 Estate
.Railway Exchange Building
St. Louis~ Missourj 63101
Commonwealth Edison company
ATTN: Mr . J.J. O’Connor
Executive Vice President
P.O. Box 767
Ch icago , Il linoi s 60690
Missouri Di vision of Heal t h
-2-
AITN: Mr . Ken Mj11er, Acting Director
Bu~eau of Radiological Health
1407 Southwest Boulevard
P.O. Bux 570
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
ATTN: M~. Car~1yn Ashfuro. Director
1014 Madison Street
J efferso!! City, ~·1issouri 65101
Mr. Ed McGrath
28 Fr€de rick Avenue
Gaithe rsburg, Mary1and
: ..• ~ … -~ .-= ··: ··.·
,.-……
‘• !
PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE RESULTS OF A RADIOLOGICAl. SURVEY
CONDUCTED AT THE FORMER COTTER PROPERlY
Introduction
A radiofogica( survey was conducted during the periods June 27 throush
July 1 and July 11 through July 14, 1977, at the former Cotter property,
located at 9200 Latty Avenue in Hazelwood, Missouri. A summary of the
results is presented here. AH information presented in this report is of a
preliminary nature and wiU be updated when further analysis has heen completed.
There a~e four buildings, covering a total of approximately 18,000 ft
2
,
on this ll-aere site. The· buildings are presently being prepared for use in a
chemicoJ coating operation. At the time of the survey, there .were four construcfion
workers on the site. Scaled drawings of the property are shown m
Figs. l and 2.
Summary of Survey Ke.sults
Building 1: This structure measures 120 ft x 100 ft, has a 30-ft ceiling, a
dirt floor, and open areas along the wells (including spoces for
~; 33 windows) totaling approximately 2500 ft2.
Beta-gamma close rates were measun:cl at 1 em above the surface with
G-M wrvey meters on the floor, walls, ceiling, and ~supports. Measurements
on the floor and lower walls were mode at points determined by a 20 ft x 20 ft
grid (see Fig. 3), and additional measurements were made at potnts showing
hiehest external gamma radiation levels. . .. O~erheod measurements were mci§TI
. ‘AUG 8 ·· ~ . . . • –· .dJi;::..- • …..tj;.
. : ·;·i·- -~. .. •. – • . ; :.; : .
. . …..~. -·~: ,~y~~
·— ·-……—– “: ~-~~~’ -~’ — _,_ …. —- —

.,. .. f
.—…
-2- .·,
at uniformly and closely spaced points. Results ore given in Table:. J and 3
and Fig. 3. Beta-gamma dose rates in the building exceeded 0.20 mrod/hr
at most poinfl and were as high os 2.4 mrod;hr of 1 em above the dirt floor.
External gamma radration levels at l m above the surface were measured
with Nal scintillation meters and with closed-window G-M meters. Readings
were taken at the points of the grid mentioned before (see Table 1}, and
maximum external gamma radiation levels were determined within alternate
squares formed by the same grid (see Fig. 4). Readings were generally in
·the range of J00-500 JJR/hr.
Direct alpha readings wer~ taken on the walls, ceiling, and supports
with alpha scinti11otion. survey meters. Results ‘ore reported in Fig. 3 and
Table 3. Maximum readings within the grid blocks on the lower walls (that
is, Jess than 6 ft above the floor) exceeded 600 dpm/100 cm2 throughout.
The highest reading ·~as JS,OOO dpm/100 em2• Maximum readings generally
were observed on a steel ledge. Direct alpha readin9s WerP. tt.:~ken at
approximately 5 em above thP. dirt flo~r at a few points; these readi;,g:»
exceeded 5,000 dpm/100 cm2 at some points and probably resulted from
radon emanating from the soi I.
·Transferable alpha and beta contamination lttvels were measured on the
ceiling, wa11s, and supports. Results are reported in TabJe 4. Transferable
alpha contamination levels were s~nerally higher than transferable beta levels;
transferable alpha levels averaged JJS dpm/100 cm2 on the lower walls and
55 dpm/100. crn2 on overhead .surl’aces.
,. · . . ::·· .
. . __ ….. ……,…..:—-·-··-··-·–.. —– ~·-·—–· .. – . .. .
:.
‘ I ‘
·:.::· ..
.-:-•
Roden concentrations in air were measured continuously over 24-hr
periods with Wrenn chambers. Results are reported in Tobie 5. Although
the building was open at all times and underwent several air exchanges per
hour, radon concentrations were as high as 57 pCi/Jiter.
Building 2: This structure measures 60 ft x 50 ft and hos a dirt and
gravel floor. At the time of the survey, the building had
uncovered door, wall, and window operungs totaling approximately
500 ft2•
A survey plan identical to that for Buildjng 1 was employed except
that fewer grid blocks were used; each grid block measured approximately
20 ft X 17 ft (see fig. 5). Results for beta~amma cose rates ore presented
in Tables 2 and 3 and Fig: 5. Beta-gamma dose rates were gencrofly lower
than in Building 1 but exceeded 0.20 mrad/hr in some places. It appeared
that high gamma rodl~tion levels outside the building were in pc~t re~po11S•Lie
for the elevated beto-gam’!’O dose ro~e~ and P.xternol ;om:.:~ :-odi.:;io;·, it:vt:i:i
(see Table 2 •”Jnd F:g. 6) inside the structur~. Maxi.rr.um direct aipha readings
within srid block~ on the lower walls (fjg. 5} were generally in the range
1,300-2,600 dpm/100 cm2. Again, highest readings were on a steel ledge.
Traruferabfe alpha and beta contamination levels we~re slightly lower than
those in Building l (see Table 4). Radon concentrations in air in this open
building were as high as 7 pCi/liter.

·-·-··– —··—-·–······ .. ·.
.:
t
‘ \ ! l i
, –.
“– :’
– 4-
Building 3: This structure measures 42 ft x 28 ft and has a 1.5-20 ft ceiling
and a concrete floor.
The floor and lower walls were divided into 7 ft x 7 ft blocks, and
maximum direct alpha readings and beta-gamma dose rates were detemined
for each .block (see Fig. 7). Direct alpha readings and beta-gamma dose
rates on overhead surfaces are given in Table 3. Transferable alpha and beta
contamination levels ore given in Table 4. E~ternaf gamma radiation levels
at J m above the surface at randomly selected points are given in Fig. 8.
Radiation levels were generally lower than in Buildings J and 2, except for
alpha contamination levels. Radon concentrations in air did not exceed
1 pCi/liter.
Building 4: This small structure (56 ft x 20 ft) was partially destroyed
in a fire and is undergoing extensive construction modifications,
particularly on thg v·,alls and ceiling. The buildhig has a
concrete floor.
Radiation levels were generC!!Iy low except for alpha contaminct!on on
the concrete floor. Direct alphc.! readings on the floor were in the range
50-530 dpm/100 cm2 (see Fig. 9), and transferable alpha contamination levels
were· as high as 60 dpm/100 cm2 (Table 4). fxternaJ gamma radiation levels
. – at randomly selected points are given in Fig. JO. ·
Outdoor Measurements:· The property was divided into .blocks by a .50 ft x 50 ft
grid system (see Fig. 11). At each intersection of grid line.s,· beta-gamma dose

rates at· J an and external gamma radiation lewis at 1 m were determined •
. • ….. · . . . . . : .. ·· …..
~~———-··· , …
-· ‘-!.

\
– 5-
Results ore given in lobi e 7. J n cddi ti on, within each block maxi mum
beta-gamma dose rates were determined. Readings for those blocks where
. the maximum within the block exceeded the ~axirMJm of the four corners
are given in Fig. 11. It is evident from the resutb shown in Table 7 and
Fig. 11 that beta-gamma dose rates at t em above the surface exceed 0.20
mrad/hr outdoors over o significant portion of the property.
Resu I ts .o f S0 1” I Sa mp I e A ro I yses: Co ncentrah•o ns o f 226Ro , 238U , on d 227A c
i.n soi I sampt es coli ected during a presurvey visit and in one samp I e taken
from a surveyor’s work boots are presented in Table 6. 227
Ac is in the
235u
chain and is a daughter of
231
Pa which is known to have been present in
large quantities in some of the residues once stored at the former AEC St.
Louis Airport Storage Site. Strictest NRC limits ·ror ~emitters apply to this
ra d1• 0nucl “• de . 1t appears t ho t sJ• gm·!!n” cant quan t•1t •1 es o f 226Ra , 238U , and 227Ac
ore contained in the soil on the proper!)’, porticli!~dy in the dirt floor in
Po U·I1 d·• ng 1. Be cause no spec:•· r·J C e r~r orts were mao·e to cemove 230rh f rom
pitchblende residue~ stored at the airport site, it must a,e assumed that’ this
radionudide may be present in large quantities. A linited number of samples
will be analyzed for
230
Th. The ~ample whose locotigq is described as “in
.
and aroond BuHdings 1, 2, 3, and 4” was token from ·C surveyor’s boots and
was soil and mud from the area shown in fig. 2. This sample contained t20
pCi
226
Ra/g and 110 pCi
227
Ac/g; the concentration .tJi 230
Th hos not yet
been determined. This sample should be representative of the contamination
beins carried into homes by workers ond visitors on the sfte. •
..
i f
t
t l
1
I • ‘;
.:.:·.·.:.
•__ :
….
~:..
==:;
~
:· • .,!
….. _~
Table 1. Building 1, floor: measurements at grid points of beta-gamma
dose rates and external gamma radiation levels
Grid point Beta-gamma dose r~te External gamma radiation
(Sec Fig. 3) at 1 em level at 1 m
(mrad/hr) {~R/hr)
Al 1.40 320
Bl 2.40 300
Cl 0.35 240
01 1.50 220
El 1.20 190
Fl 1.00 220
Gl 1.30 240
G2 1.00 160
F2 0.60 160
E2 0.40 190
D2 0.30 160
C2 0.30 160
B2 · u.s:> 180
….
“”” ·1.30 220
A3 1..30 240
B3 0.50 220
C3 0. 75 240 ..
D3 0.75 220
E3 0.70 210
F3 o.so 160
G3 o.so 120
C4 0.65 140
..
~
. ···-
~:
~===
:;:;
Table 1. (ccn~’d.)
Grid point
(See Fig. 3)
F4
.E4
D4
C4
84
A4
AS
BS
cs
05
ES
FS
…. ~
…. ¥
G~
F6
E6
D6
C6
86
A6
,,–.
.\ ‘ I
.Builcilng 1. floor: measurements at grid points of beta-gar.m:a·
dose rates and external gamma radiation levels
Beta-gamma dose rate
at I’ em
(mrad/hr)
o.so
0.40
0.35
0.70
0.50
0.20
0.20
0.25
o.so
0.80
0.90
1.00
l.lU
1.60
l.SO
0.90
0.90
1.40
0.65
0.1~
External gawma radiation
level at· 1 m
(lJR/hr)
140
160
160
240
180
120
90
180
210
160
270
190
180
240
240
130
130
160
110
100
..:

.
-··
I
~-~
•.
Table 2. Building 2, floor: measurements at grid points of beta-gamma
· dose rates and external_ gamma radiation levels
Grid point Beta-gamma dose rate External. gar.:..”na radiation
(See Fig. 5) ~t !’em level at 1 m
(mrad/hr) (lJR/hr)
Al 0.08 80
Bl 0.08 45
Cl o.os 40
Dl 0.07 70
D2 0.15 80
C2 0.28 80
B2 0.13 55
A2 0.06 40
A3 0.08 55
83 0.10 45
C3 0.15 55
D3 0.15 105
D4 0.10 95
C4 0.08 65
84 0.14 65
A4 0.15 80


..:
Building
.. 1
2
3
4
Table 3. Direct measurements of a and B-y contamination levels
on upper walls and ceiling in Buildings 1, 2, 3, and 4
Number of Direct a measurements e-y dose
measurement5 Average Maximum Average
(dpm/lOOcm2 ) (dpm/100c:m2 ) (mr::~d/hr)
67 900 ssoo 0.24
36 280 1144 0.16
-16 so 360 0.07
10 cc. a~cause some radon an~ progeny from previous 2000-
cond intervals remain in the Wrenn chamber, each reading act1.:::1ly rep:::csents a concentr.l’!’:i.C;-,
ich has been intet:;J.·ated over a period of 2 to 4 hr.
: ~· t .. ·–· — . ·-· ·–· -~-….,.—:—–.. ·-………….. -. ______ …. ..
… –·
I ”
::-:-:”:”
·.
Table 6. Concentration of radionuc1ides in soil
samples taken inside and near buildings
Sample
location Depth 226Ra 2380
(pCi/g) (pCi/g)
In and around Buildings
1. 2, 3. and 4 surface 120 N.D. a
Building 2, grid point C3 surface 28 20
Building I. near grid
point 04 6 – 9 in. 240 190
Building 1, near grid
point 04 0 – 6 in. 130 200
Building 2, grid point B2 surface 16 17
Outdoors, near grid
point GlO surface 3 2.1
Outdoors, near grid point
a
JCS • near railro~d spur surfa.ce 2700 N.D.
Building 1. grid point Gl surface 430 860
Building 1. grid point E4 surface 320 550
On railroad spur. near Sh’
~u .. wer of 8uilding 1 surface 470 530
Building l, grid point C3 surface 190 420
Building 1, grid point Al surface 540 1100
aN.D. : not determined.
• : . , ….
.. ..
227Ac
(pCi/g)
110
16
260
140
11
.: 1.3
1300
530
370
390
230
700
.. l
. I
–·
• ~~
-.
~
§=
~-
;=; ;
~– m..
I
,_ \. ··- .
Table 7. Outdoor measurements at grid points of beta-gamma
dose rates and external gamma radiation levels
Grid point Beta-gamma dose rate External gamr.la radiation
(See Fig. ll) at 1 em level at l m
(mrad/hr) (llR/hr)
Al 0.04 20
A2 0.50 125
A3 0.50 220
A4 0.30 220
AS 0.”35 1SS
A6 . 0.20 155
A7 0.18 180
AS 0.18 170
A9 0.25 155
AIO 0.10 80
All 0.10 65
Al2 0.18 110
Al3 . 0.18 140
Al4 1.20 375
A15 0.18 110
Al6 0.13 45
Al7 0.13 45
Al8 0.11 80
Al9 o·.u 80
Bl 0.03
•. 25
..
82 0.08 55
83 0.20 95
– ··-·- – – ____ … _. .. _.. .. –·”•• .
.:
t : . . ·-· ·- ‘ .
table 7. (coat~d.) Outdoor measurements at grid points of beta-gaE~a
dose rates and external_ gamma radiation levels
—-
” M ~.:.:
==
~~
::-::.
!’!” :.:..
=
:y;~ .
-~·· .
:
./ “”. \
‘-•:
Table·,. (cont’d.) Outdoor measurements at grid points of beta-gamma
dose rates and external· gamma radiation levels
Grid point Bet~~amma dose’rate -External_. ga.t-nma radiation
(See Fig. 11) at 1 em level at l rn
(mrad/hr)
.
(llR/hr)
C8 0.08 30
C9 0.09 40
ClO 0.08 45
Cll 0.04 20
Cl2 o.os 25
Cl3 0.04 20
C14 0.03 20
ClS 0.04 25
Cl6. 0.05 20
Cl1 0.23 85
C18 0.21 125
Cl9 0.80 3 ….. f;)
C20 ·0.25 220
Dl 0.05 45
02 0.30 170
03 0.08 45
04 0.08 45
OS 0.10 40
06 0.1·3 ss
D7 0.06 . 45
D8 . 0.08 45
·’ ,” .
.· .. , ..
.. •. •
….. -·
)
I
\ ·.. ·1
. . I
!
.: ….

= ~
:c…·

~
···t
Table 7. (cont rd.) Outdoor measurements at grid points of beta-gcurJna
dose rates and external gamma radiation levels
Grid point Bet~-gamma dose rate External gamma radiation
(See Fig. 11} at l em level a’t 1 m
(mrad/hr) (~R/hr)
09 0.10 45
010 0.08 45
Dll 0.04 25
D12 0.03 20
Dl3 0.03 20
014 0.03 20
DIS o.os 30
Dl6 0.08 45
Dl7 0.08 45
018 0.08 45
Dl9 0.08 65
020 0.15 220
El 0.55 190
E2 0.06 40
E3 0.04 40
E4 0.06 30
ES 0.05 40
E6 0.06 45
E7 o.os 30
E8 o.os .30
E9 0.04 20
.ElO 0.03 25 .
·- …. -···-. -.– ·–· – —–·
.– — ··-··· … –

‘ !

• ‘:””-:.:,.
:
~
==·
~
~~;
-~~i
‘ ,
Table 7. (cont’d.) Outdoor measurements at grid points of b~~a-garr~a
dose rates and external. gamma radiation levels
Grid point
{See Fig. ll)
Ell
El2
El3
El4
ElS
El6
E17
El8
E19
E20
Fl
F2
F.3
f4
F5
F6
F7
F8
F9
FlO
Fll
Fl2
Beta-gamma dose rate
at l em
.. : . >
(mrad/hr)
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.08
0.08
0.14
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.55
0.15
0.10
0.10
0.18
0.28
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.10
0.06
0.05
0.06
External ga~”a radiation
level at· 1 m
(JJR/hrj
20
25
30
35
40
85
35
30
45
150
140
45
80
140
95
65
25·
45
50
45
40
40
..

… – — ·- ··–~— -..
_.
i
i
t
t
t
-·~)
—‘ /-·.. .
; .) \ …
Table 7. {cont’d.) Outdoor measurements at grid points of beta-ga~~a
dose rates and external gamma radiation levels
…..
il ·-~·~”!
. . ~
:=.! ..
~
~
~
!..:.~. === :
;;;; -‘l .
.- ‘””;
Table 7. (cont’d.) Outdoor measurements at grid points of beta-garr~a
dose rates and external gamma radiation levels
Grid point Bet~-gamma dose rate External gar..rna radi. ~··:
.:’:~.).’.”
.. … . . ‘ ‘ .
··. ·::.:. ~ ::· ? ·~.:. .~ :.: . ·:·. .. :~~~·:;~.~:-.~;~-?·::. .
Enci~~ur~s -·.. = : ; ·· ‘\/.-:· ~:
, \ . .-:·:·:~._; ~::-::~: ….. ·-.. … .. .. .
PKF:pac
. . ·’:-‘.·
.·. .·• ·
.. . ; -··
. ~ … .:. . … . . : :..: .
….. ~
: …. ·· . !,: :.:· .. · . ·~ .. · .
. ..
,, .,:~:~’i ·. ”-;::\}.~ .
. .. . ~ .
. . · ··:.· ..
‘ t • •• • . . ~ …
I ) ‘ •.., • •• •., • • ; ·•
‘. :.,._. ………….- …’!’·” _… ..:. .·.: ;•’. ._: _;,.·;~.·..·;..:;·..:·._,..· :_.···-,.::….,.; ….;…..·. ~.·;, ..· ~.
: .· ·:
Auome·y Work ·P•o··du· ct·· · ·, . .· .. …..· .. ·. .. · ·· ·.-·~ ··::.. ~ :.: ,t ·:’. ·.~
. . . · ~ · -~ … ~ ~-.. ·:·;~:~:-·.-: ·:.·~ ~.:;~:- ~·:.~: · :·:·.~ :
Prepared .In Anticipation of ~~n’: . .. :. .. :~. .~ !r:.~·~>:·, ::. .~ ‘
.•
.. . ….. ! • • … ..- :.
· … · …. ·. ~· ·
…… , . ;- ~ ……. .
n.ew”+ n /.;._-.. ~——–=l·:_· 1>====9
:!l lia~~.;~;r;m~; win~u~ec======== · ….. ·.·
. · …….. .
.. ‘:-:.:._ ~
~. .. . •.
:-.:~·~;; ….. · .. · .. ·
. ·~ .: .. ,_ :·~
~; .
~:.·~ -~· ….
:..~ .–~
“!·. . : . ; .
. ··
..!…-. · -:.·
~.· .. . .
……….
._…,._
···.: :·, …. ..
‘ .. · … –
G
D
m
settling
-P-o-n-d·s· _ _
Colorado
Raffinate
– ·· ..
‘ ~·-·-·
….•.
£
·.~ …… . -· . ;”” .
. ….
.!, ‘ .. ., … ·.~~~
… .. .·, – ··… .
.. :
. f
…. · .• …
l .•f . …;.·_ . :.,.. .
?.~i~t-:., .. •, ·.
0 I . ,……:.
..
.. ·.···
, … ~ •• . • ‘!’:.• •
•• • : :; ·#
. . ~ .. . · … . . •… ..· -… . .
. ·:· ………. .
::..:,·.; .
…: .· . …
··-~
~.:…::• .- ••! .. • . ,. …
. . . ···-·· ·-,. .. · ·:.~· · . ~ tT-·.·.”~ .. ttt ¢ .• !4 . .I A.
Litty Avenue
. . .
0.30
Yellow
B~
0.06 o.os
. ……
c 0 06 0 30 0.100 0~0.02 . • . . • .. – 0.03
.· …. .
.. . … • …. -· • • .;.· .
~—-~o.2o 0 03 ·o.o2
0 0.10 • -0.02
0
· .. ;:-.’. . .
o.o<- -- ·'· \ .. . · ....... . ·- .-.. ·.•·:~ . : ~··: . •. -·. .·: .. .... :~ ~:~-~ ~~ . ..: ·- . ~~ ... -~··· r·...-- .:~· ;~~ ......... - ~:·r~- . ·:. . .·: ..... :, . ... · . ; ..... , ... ~,. 0.01 .,#~'" • .• ---· .• '.*· .• o.os 0.15 0.01 0.02 0.02 o.o1 0.02' 0.02 0.100.02 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.15 o. 04 o. 03 o.os RADIATION MONITORING SURVEY 0.04 0.03 0.07 Values of Gross Activity in MR/hr. at approximately three feet above qrade. April 29, 1974 0.1 0.25 ·"' ;. ~.. . .. .. . .. . :: ·. . . : .· ._.. .. . ..•.. 0.03 .. ~ o. 07 :..-: .. ~·7 .. ;. .·,.. 0~ 0 0.40 0.12

Post

1971-07-22 – AEC – Cotter Corporation – Radioactive Waste Disposal Documents

UNITED STATES
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
WASHINGTc:>N, D.C. 20545
() . rt/
JUL 2 2 1971
Ulys_ses l>f. Stae1Jler, OCN
COTTER ·CORPORATION — RADIOACTIVE HASTE DISP.OSAT. PROPOS/I~
On June 27, 1971, Hessrs. :HcGrath and Marcott of the Cotter Corporati.on
met 1·1ith members of our regulatory staff to discuss possible on-site
burial of radioactive ~-1astes at their Hazeh1ood,·Hissouri, site. At
that time it 1•1as explained that before ~.Ye lvO\tlcl be able to determine
whether, and under ,.1hat conditions, such burial could be authorized
w·e would need a complete description of:
1. The radioactive ~-7astcs involved (including principal radioisotopes
and activHies).
2. The ~roposed method o£ burial.
3. The burial site, including geographic, hydrologic, and geochemical
parameters which might affect miRration of the radioactive material
from the site.
It w·as also pointed out that Cotter Corporation might be required to
provide for perpetual maintenance of such a burial site and submit an
environmental statement in accordance tdth the National Environmental
Policy Act if it appeared that this on-site burial could significantly
affect the quality of the human environment.
Since the June 29, 1971, letter from Hr. l.fcGrath indicates that Cotter
Corporation is preparing to submit more detailed information on their
proposal, you may H:f.sh to include in your reply to this letter the
enclosed. documents, entitled “Licensing Requiiem~nt for Establishment
of a Land Burial Facility for Burial of Radioactive \rlastes” and
. ~ ,, ‘ .. , ….. \
!
~ ~
.. ‘” .,.,.,”‘· .-.,, … f.
!
-~’
I
·l
·· ~ ··· ·· L<;>tl~.(-.. -~~q.<>.t~\..\.1′.’)_.!
. I
·······:·•· … . …….. , ……………… ; …………….. ·····r·
Ulysses H. Staebler 2
“Guidelines for Decont ami nation of Facilities and Equipment Prior
to Release for Unrestr i cted Use or Termination of Li censes for
Byproduct , Source, or Special Nucl ear HAter.ial.”
Enclosures :
1. Li censing •••
2 . Guide •• •
f))l#—-. C. L. Henderson
Assistant Director of Regulation
for Administration
‘ ‘
!JQ!t:!§.!NG REOUIRE!jKNTS FOB.,.ESJ’f.,’3~lSHMENT OF A
LAND BURIAL FAG ILITY FOR BURIAL OF RADIOACit’lE \VASIF.S.
The land on which facilities for burial of radioactive wastes will
be located must be owned by the Federal Government or a State
Government. Section 20. 302 ~ 10 CFR 20, “Standards for Pro tee tioh
Against Rsdia tion 11 , provides that the Commission \11111 not approve
an application for a license to dispose of waste material by
burial in the ground o.n land not owned by the Federal Government
or a State Government.
. .
An application for a license should inc ~ude the fo llol-lihg. infor•
mation: · · :.
\
1. Total amount of byproduct material in curies,· source
material in pounds, and special nuclear material in
grams v1hich wil.l be possessed at any one timeo
2. The qualifications of the applicant and members of his
staff to ·engage in the proposed ac tivities9 including .
specialized training and experience in handling r~dioactiva
materials and dealing with radiation problemso ·
;3.:. A description of the radiation detection instrume·nts which
wi 11 be available, inc.luding the manufacturers 1 model numbers,
the sensitivity and range of the instrumen’ts., and the f:raquency
and method of calibrationo . ·
4. The r.~diation protection procedures including emergency
pro~edureft for each phase of ~he proposed programo
•’ . . _ _,,., .,..
5. A description of the .facilities that will be used·.for
/
storage including: .. ···
A. ‘Address
B. ·Nature of su~roundin~ area (i<>e., residential,· .i~dustrial) ·
. · …
c’; ‘Size ··of.· surrounding .. -~r~a con trolled by .. the, applicant
·n. ··sketch sho,-1ing loc·ation of building,’ portion of building
~·to be used for proposed licensed operations, identity and
locat~~n of other occupants (if any), and distances to
nearest other occupants and to nearest. ad joining occupants o ..•
· ·. I ) { } J .•: /\ V~. (.~ ·~~:~.tV J::~:.~;.;;
All licensees are required to comply with the Commission.’ s radia ti’on
protection regulations, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations~ Pat’t 20,
“Standards for Protection Against Radiation11 o This regulation estathishes
radiation exposure standards and precautionary proqedur~s _ ~hich must be
follo~1ad in handling licensed materiaL. Standard>,6p~raJ;ipg proqedures
should be based .. on fulfilling the requirements of. ~his:·regulationo . . ~ ·. :· ~ … :: . ~
‘·-
/
i
I
I
I.
i
i
I
I
. :
\-lith respect to the site and land in which wastes will be buried,
the applicant must include an analysis and evaluation of certain
information as to the nature of the enviroment including topograph””
ica 1, geographic a 1, me terorologica 1 and hydro logic a 1 charac ter:i.s·tics,
usage of ground and su.rfaco waters in the general area, and the n·at:ure
and location of other potentially affected .facilities. More specifi~
cally~ the following hydrological and geological information should be
·sumitted as pertinent and appropriate to the site under consideration:
1. Geologic .Framework
\
·A. Maps sho~oling surface and subsurface distribution of p·ertinent
rocks and sediments and their relations to topographic, hydroQ
graphic, and cultural features at the site and in the surround~
ing areas that might be affected by activities at the site.
B. Subsurface geologic data on pertinent rocks and seaiments at
the site and in the surrounding areas that might be affected
by activity at the site.
1. Logs of wells on and near the site, including descriptive
lithologic logs and geophysical logs of wells or test ho l es
at the site4
“., 2 . Correlation diagrams and vertical cross .sections that sho”\v
the lithology and continuity of pertinent subsurfac~ forma=
tions and their relations to surface t-opography and geology,
hydrology, and cultural features4 /
C. Data on geologic structures such as folds, faults, and joints.
lL Hydro logy /
Ao Surface water
1. Description of all pertinent surface~water features such as
lakes and ponds and drainage netv1orks of intermittent and
perennial streams, both at· the site and in the surrounding
areas that might be affec t ed by activities at th~ siteo
2. Uses of surface water on and adjacent to the site, including
quan.tity used in relation to maximum and minimum stream flows.
,; ·’ 3. Chemical quality of sur~~ce \·later.
4. Relation of surface water to gr ound ‘ivater, particularl)i in
context of areas of surface=tva ter infiltration and ground”‘·
water discharge that might affect the movement of radioactive
materials on or away from the site.
-…..
‘ I
t

l
~
! r
I I
I
‘ .
\
• •• J • •
…. 3·
B. Ground water
1. Description of the occurrence and chemical quality
of ground water in relation to the geologic frame~.~
-..·1ork ..
a . Generalized regional picture of occurrence ,
altitudes of ‘”ater table, and piezometric surface,
documented by adequate data from inventories of
\vells in areas adjacent to the site.
b •. Detailed “descri ption of pertinent-aquifers at
at the site documented by adequate dated f rom
hydrologic te s tingo
2. Movements of ground water
a. Areas and mechanisms of recharge, both -regional
and at the site o
b. Directions of movemen~both regional and at the
site ..
c . _Areas and mechanisms of discharge, both regional
and at the s i. te o
d.
/ Rates of movement as calculated from acqu_ifer
coefficients determined by pumping tests at the
s i te and by ,.1hatever addit ional data are available
on a regional basis o
e. Fluctuations of -.,qater leve ls and other hydrologic ..1 parameters as the result of natural seasonal or
climatic fluctuations, or as the result of man’s
ac t ivities such as pumpage from wellso
:,3. Use of ground -..vater at the .site and in adjacent areas,
documented by inventories of -..vells.
a.
b. Type of use.
c . Pumping rates and schedul es.
d. Projected future water use.
III. Geochemistry .. ~on exchange characteristics of soil in
\vhich burial trenches ‘vould be excav ated .
I
i
!
l
I.
I !
I i r !
t
f
I I.
t
1
l
.;.
” f
!
‘ .
-4-
IV. Monitoring
A., Plans for monitoring soils and v7ater in the context
of the total ~valuation of geology_ a~d_ t1y<;1rol9gy., ~ ~ B., Plans, if any, for monitoring ~vater offsite·; for instance9 periodic sampling of exi~tini wate~ w~iis nearby and down the ground="Y7ater gradient from the site-. The transportation of radioactive material in interstate commerce by rail· or ·public highway is· governed by Department of 'l'ransC>
portation regulations., A~ so~ similar regulat~ons . have been . ·. _ ..
adopted by the U” So Coast Guard for transportation by ~.jater” .
When these regulations are not applicable 9 such as in ~nt~astate
·transportation, AEC \vaste disposal licensees must conqu~t ·_their
transportation in accordance with a license ~ondition which
establishes requirements and contains specifications similar
to those of the Department of Transportationo
It is the policy of the AEC to publish a notice of proposed
issuance of a license permitting the conduct of a commercial
radioactive waste disposal service in. the Federal Register
·after the application has been revie\-led and the AEC
· fin.ds that the applic?nt can conduct the proposed programsafely
in compliance with current regulations and req~ire~
ments,. The notice specifies that a formal hearing ~.;rith
respect t o the is suance of the license may be requested
by the applicant of an intervener within fifteen (15) days
after the publication of the notice, pursuant to the .pro=·
cedures contained in the Commission’s . “Rules of Practice”t
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2o If a formal
hearing is not requested ‘o}ithin the specified period, and in·
·the absence of such public interest as -to warrant the Commis~
sion calling a hearing on its o’·m motion~ the license is
issue do
Section ·2.,101, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations 9 Part-‘2,:

1Rules of Practicetc, requires that a copy of ·an application
for a license to receive waste material from other persons
for the purpose of disposal shall be served by the applicant
on the chief executive of the municipality in \>1hich the ·
activity is to be conducted, or if the activity is not to
be conducted within a municipality, then on the chief
executive of the countyo
/
/
I
I
I
11/3/69
~’-
;’ _
/
I
) J,., ‘
. .··
* -··
.· ,.
GUIDELINEs· I•~OR DECONT1’J.1IHATION OF FACIT~ITIES Al.JD. EQUIPC-1F.N’l1
PRIOR TO RELEASE I<'OR UNRESTRICTED USE OR TEP.MINATION OF LICENSES FOR BYPRODUCT, SOURCF., OR SPECJAL NUCLEAR !ljA'J.'EHIAL U. s. Atomic Energy Commission Division of Materials Licensing · . Hashingto~, D. C. 2054-5 APRIL 22, 1970 · ,· 0. ~. .. ., ). ·, .· ... # __ . .. 4J.'he instntctions in this guide :in conjunction Hith Tablec I and II spec.i. fy the raclioacti v':i ty and rudia ti on expos u ce rate l im:i ts ,_.hich chould" be tt:>ed in accomplh;hi ng t h-: deconte.mination and survey of
s urfaces of prcmiGes and equipme.nt prior to a.bandonroeht or relea~e
for unrentr).cted use. The l ili’li ts in ‘l’ables I and II do not apply
to premises , equipment, or scrap containing induced r adioactivity
fo-r 1-1hich 1:-hE: racUo1ogical conside:rations pertinent to their use·
may he d.i fferent. ‘.l’he release of such facilities or items from ·
regulatory control Hill be considered on a case-by-case basis .
1. The licensee shall make e. r easonable effort to eliminate
. retiidu3l. contamins.tion.
2. Radioacti.vi ty on equipment or surfaces shall not be covered
by paint, platinB, or other covering mat eri al unless contumination
J.eve.ls, as detemtined by a survey and documented:
··are belo,·t t he limits spccifieq. i n Tables I or ·II prior to
applying the covering. A r easonable effort must be made to
minimize the contamination p.r.ior to use of any covel.·ing.
3. The. r adioactivity on· the interj.or surfaces of pipes, drain
lines, or duchrork shall be determined by making measurements
at aD. trapi’;; anc1 oth~r a.pp~;·..opri ~.te access pcir!te; provided.
that contamination at these l ocations is .-likely to be representative
of contaminatton on t he interio~ of t he pipes, drain
lines, or ductr,.rork . Surfaces of premises ; equipment, or Gcrap
vrhich a:ce likely to be contaminated but are of such size,
conot’ruction, or location D.s to make the surf’ace inaccessible
.. for purposes of measurement shall be presumed to be contandna.ted
in excess of the liut.i. ts.
.. . .. …
l~. Upon request) the Commission ro.ay authorize a licensee_ to relinquish
possession or control o:f:’ premises, equipment, or scrap having
surfaces conta!crim{ted \-lith ·ma.teriaJ.s in excetis of the l inli ts
specif i ed. ~li s may include, but would not be l imited to) special
circums tances such as raz ine of buildings, transfer of premise:>
to anot her organization conttnuing ‘vork \lith radioactive materials,
or conversion of facilities to a. long-term s~orage or standby
status. Such requests must:
a. Provide detailed, specific information describing the premises,
equipment or scrap, radioac tive c;ontamtna.ntsJ and the nature,
extent) nncl degl.’ee of residual surface contominati o~j(_H~~ /\ \tCH(V;?.’<' b. Provide a detailed healt h and saf ety analys i s \-lhich _reflects that the residual amounts of matcriel.s en· surface areas, together vTitb other considerations such as prosp_ective use of the premises, equi.pment or scrap, are Wllikcly to result · in an tmreasonable risk· to the health and safety of-the public . - 2 5~ ·Prior to release of premises for unrestricted use, the licensee shall make a comprehensive radiat:~,_in survey whi.ch establishes that contamination is -vri.thin the limits specified in Tables I or II. A copy of' the survey report shall be filed \vith the DirectorJ Division of · .,_. MatcTi.a.ls Licensing: US.Al!:c/;..;.'~·.~-shington, D. C. 2051~5, and also the . · ·<"YH1'ector of the Regional.'Di·.vision of Compliance Office having - ·jurisdiction. The report should be filed at least 30 days prior to the planned date of abandor~ent. The survey r~port shall: a. Identif.y the prcnuses. b. Sholf that reasonable effort has been made to eliminate residual contamination. c. Describe the scq~e of.the survey and general procedures followed. d. State the ~indings of the survey in units specified in the instruction. t) rr. ~' ~·~~ /\J~J .. ; .~:.t .t. \' tr~~~:·~ li'ollo-:rh-232, and . 5,000 2 dp~ ojlOO em .1,000 dpm a./100 ct:l.
associat ed decay products – i ‘M.a.ximt!to I 25,000 G.pm JlOO 2
: em
Other isotopes ‘tvhich decay 1,000 d:pm o/100
2
em 100 dpm a./100 em 2 ·Average ( 6) 2 by alpha eoission or by : 500 dpt’l o/100 em 100 .. dpm r:x/100
spontaneous fission ::” I Maximu:o
dp:n · ·wloo· f_m2– .. ., .;.~. 2,500
I · ~ … ;. ;.,: ., :;I cm(5) 2 Av~rage (6) Beta- ga.mma emitters (iso- ,., . 0 . 4 mrad/hr at 1 . 1,000 dpm ry/100 em . (5) 2 topes “tdth decay modes :•··· 0. 2 tlr ad /h.: ~·t lcm 1,000 dpm ~-y/100 ,:~ ‘
other tha:1 alpha e:c.issi on .~. .·. – . Ha:ximum or spontaneous fission) r … ~ 1 .0 mrad/hr a t cm(S) ,
…. !:, .J..
•, .•. . • .
. . fl> .•
(1) E i~her Table I or ‘table II may be used . For e…-ca:cple, if all beta-gamma r eadings were less than 0.4 mrad/hr a t 1 em,
Tab~e I could be used; but if the maximum reading were 0.8 mrad/hr, mat e=ial could be released under Table II provid~
ng·the average was less· than 0 .2 mrad/hr.
(2) t~er e surface contamination by both alpha and beta- gamma emitting .isotopes exists, the limits established for alpha
and beta-ga.n:.ma emitting isotopes shall epply independently.
·,
(3) As – • . “· ‘•f•t
~
;
‘1
.- .,, .. . _.,. -~! .
Mr. Edwar d J. Mc Gra t h .. : I
260 East Jefferson Street
Rockville , Naryland 20850
…….. ~
~ ‘
… …….. . ”• ····· ,. :•· ········ :- -,, . ~
Dear Mr. Mc Gr a t h :
t . • •••••• ·:· . …. .. •’ ””;l!<::~ ~. ~ .. ··~· ·····:·~·.! .- , .... ·· ··· ·-~ .... -. . : ' ! •' •': ,: • ••• ~· . ... ~ • ••• , '·:--· ... .... ... ~! Thank you f o r y.o ~ r l e t t er of June 29, 197.1. I beli eve you are now in d irect cont a c t wi th the proper organizations· within the Atomic Energy Commi ssion to provi de an~:n,,crs t o your. ques t ions rela t ed to d ispos a l of r adioac t ive wa s te ma t e r ial s own ed by the Cot t e r Corpo~ation . The question of burics.l of the materi 20850.
June 29, 1971
The Honorable ~fj,lfrid E. Johnson
. U.S. Atomic Energy Comm1ss’ion
Washington, D.C. 20545
..
Re·: Cotter Corp_Q}:”ation- Radioactive vlastc Disposal Prooosal
Dear Commissj.oner Johnson:
..;
I Pursuant to .your suggestion made during ou.r’ conference
on Ju~e 24, 1971, I am enclos1.ng copies of the corresponde:t..ce
between Cotter Corporation and the Co~~ is sion relati ng to the
disposal of radioactive waste materials owned by the corporation,
‘·rhich are novr located :i.n Haze1wood, Mj.ssouri. · ·
I am also enclosing copies of a preliminary propo~al for
on site burial prepared for Cotter Corporation by the engineering
firm~· of Ryckman, Edgerl cy, Tomlinson and Associates., In c.~
together \ Missouri. W~ will
furnj.sh you with copies of further submissions. and correspondence.·
· · On behalf of Mr. Marcott> Cotter d~rporat ion, and myself,
I wish to thank you for providing us with an opportunity to
discuss with you the problems and public p6licy i ssues which
surround our efforts to dispose of the waste materials safely
and quick4.y.
EJM/dl
G cr.c1~~ l ;.~n! le.;::~r·
United 8~~~eA ~to~ic
Ener£;s· Co;.~r.1 1::;s1~o n
\’!~sh~.n r.:t on D. C. ~05115
Re: CottcP Corpornt1on
\·Taste Dtsposal Projcot
Dea14j !·it’ . ~·~c1J.. “J.:~.~l~:~rr;.fo:rth: ,
;
:~:~~~r.yJ. u.no~1. tho facts ?..nd c~L:t•ct~l:!~ tances herc1nD.f’tcl”‘ set· fol”‘th.
Co~i;0.J.’ Co-rporat-ion hereby m.::tlwa a~)pJ.lc::tt.ton fo:.., a u.tho_rity to dis-.
po:30 or rad:1.oac t:,. ve. \’111~ te ~:;.~ t0.r>io:l at ·’l.on, :tn 1967, purchaned frnm e. pr>lv~te concern
a substnnt1Ql ~uant1ty of ~adiouctlve residues storod .et that time
at. the so cal:tot”l · “n h 1 port rd. te11 in St . Louis, ~·fifHlOUl’l for the pttr~
.-.!J on. ;L,’~. of~'”-‘ ‘-“‘”r_’:”;l”.J’..”._’ “‘0C”””””<''' s .4.1. r'tcr:,.:, t'n,;~:,V~- P•O ""~' ti.J.O. ".',~.. of 1l's.h r~.; tn..:.G :\.'t.·'r".'->‘)•-•’ “1.,,~..1_ ·~·•’1’1 ‘..1…. — “l1′ \•lL•\n.. .n..” 1 (r’…;.rJ otn;; .n’-
abJ.e to t:-.•catment in tho urcm1um n~tll or Cottc!’ Cor>porn’.;ion locutea
in Canon City~ Colo~ado .
‘i’he l”‘en1.dues pnrc:1a0e:1 ucrc ·the P!’Oduct of ~~.rlier Commission
on:·:<:--6.t ions, ~n~ rc pre~en-Gcc1 u. vubstant1al problem ~ t the t.ime \·rhcn th~y \'iCre P.cqn:lrcd by co~~tcr Co:•pm?nt:lon) hcca.use t:he f:J.rm \•lhich pu.rchascd them f'x'CP:1 the Commiss·icn Emd fi>om uhich Cot~t er Corpo:;”)nt:.
1.on ecq,,t:lr>s::H.1 thor: ~~::1 (1 ~one oo speculatively, . .,._:ithout ;:. progr e.n(1 t’uboequ.cntlv tcrm~umted its business -act:l v-
-.iti0t.
!nc1n·:.1et!.tion has
tr c:·.~l3 0Q:,”‘t0d ancl proccnned ~11 of’ the ”!<1. s te r:tate~r:i.eJ. · . \'7h5.ch Has a!~U~1~i.!ble to treatr.:en·;; and made arrano~mGnts for- disp.o"oiti~n of ~ lar>ge quant:t ty of unu~abl e loose r.taterial. ·uon .6 \J.C UJ.VJi:.;J
Thor.e re:::!:lil1S for c:1Cfl03ition ~PPl;O:dr:w.tcly one thoustmd
(1~000) drurn3 f’11lensh, that ~.~ 5.tems snch
as brj.cks > clot ‘I i. n’:”·, ho0tg l gloves. ~r~d t~~(~ 11 i;·:’. ‘.::’he c:!’UQ!S nr•0
Q \~~,~·o P.!; 1._~, 1. :· -~ :\ ~ ;• ;~ r\ ~ H~H:~ l wood_, ~-!:! n n:)’.1t’ 1 •
\ ..
\
.. -2-
Cottc:r’ Corporat. ion J if’ au. thor lzed by th~ Commission to do 80 I
‘·Till t ranspor\: tho. dru:ns .bY truck from HLH~ehYoocl; H:l.noouri to the
qun~ry· o1te at Weldon Spring (a dis\:ance of approximateiy thirt~
(30) m:lleo) o.n(1 dcpon:Vc thm:1 in the quo.l’ry, subject to Couunlsaion
nimD.ar contaminated material; that no conflict
e;dG~~::l :!n this Gituat1o.n \·t:l:’~h the Com.lni.ssion policy against engag:
tnb ~:…;: op·~l’at:ions competitive wj.th p1.~:1.vaJ~ e .tnctustry, s1.ncc exletint:;
p:..•ivatcly oper-ated Haste · dispos~.l fac5.lities ape not clee:l;.gned
in capacity or othcrwine for disposition 6f material in the ~an- ·
t :tty and for·m invol vcd in thie !’>:L tuntion; th:.J.t tho <:lintanco to· t:he ncarGnt comr:l0j."'cJ.uJ. disposal nite, even 1·1cre i.t capable of handlinE; th0 materi~l is t·,·~o hundre(l ( 200) mil e ~ .as opposed to e. cU.st2.nce ·of thii.'t;'l (30) ni.l"Cs fi,om Ha~eh10od to Holdon Spr:tnG, ane othc.riunds or depressions. ·
It is the desire of Cotter Corporatioi1 to reutrn to its Lessor· la~d \•thich
\·till in no vmy he limited in its usefulness or va1ue and \·Jill in no way
endanger the sm-rounding environment and its inhabitants.
1″} {) L~~ t\ .r~~. (· ~· 1.·. r ·~ \f D):.~i
RETA-780
….
\”
. •·. ……
l: .

RET/\
2~ 780
– — – … · ·-·- -rc”a7’f”Eyi\v0nue – —
–~———–~ ———–
CD
Settling
Pon ds
~
:::>
0…
(/) – -………
ex::
~
fi GURE 1
Sketch not to sc«lc
.· . .
Co lorado
Raffinate
·–

, •
• . ..~. ·f o: ·;u”f~·!:.:. ~.
l . , … ~f t\ ” f t l < ili'······' ) e., .f ' " ' I ~ ' , · · . ·coTTER CORPORATION LATTY AVENLIF. STORI\GF. ·SITE \t!J\ZLE~·IOOu, t4ISSOURI · '-' UNITED ST/,T.ES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION VIASIIINGTON, D.C. 205<1S !·lr. Ed·,Jard .T. NcCrath 260 East Jefferson Street RnckviJ.J.e, ~laryl.'ll.H'I 20fl50 D~ar Mr. McGrath: MAY 2 4 1971 JQJECJEKVED MAY 231971 _·E. J. l\1cGRATH ' This is in r esponse to your l etter of April 28, 1971, proposing to di~pose of cer t ain r adioactive ·Hastes mmed by the Cotter Corporation in an AEC-oHncd quarry at Helclon Spring, Hi ssouri. Your letter sta tes, in_.part; t hn … ”
This s l:atemcnt rai ses some questions on t..rh i ch ”-‘e ~vould apprec:i.a te
ftlt’thcr in~ormation . First, Hhat :i.s the intent of t he phraGe
” or othcn·ris c=’? ~ · Does it mean that the licensed burial ground
operators couJ.d not handle the material ~dthin the safety require-
. ments of their present licenses? Second, i s t he judgment cxpress~d
in this· statement tha t of the Cotter COl.·poration or that of the
licens ed burial ~t”ound o perators? Nore spe cifica lly, h~.v e the three
l i cens ed burial ground ~~crate rs (Nuclear Engineeringj Nu clear Fu~l
Services , nnd Chem-Nucl<:'\.:lr Services) s tated that they could not handle the material? fve twuld apprecia te your vieHs on these points in order to consider the proposal further . 1)0E Sincerely, i~oq~~:~ Divi sion of Haste and Scrap Hanagement ....... ... .... . ~. \ .. . · .. 'l y;. • .... • • l••t. . ~ . . . . .. · ,_~::. ~:.:...~;...:_ .... .:....~~· .. .:.~ ...,.;..,_, .... -: ...... ~~. .... __ _,,,· , . - ·.. ~- -·. ·. ....... . _.. ..... ,; ... ·- ..... ., . ·. o _ ..,., _.., ' •••. : ' .. : ... ,:· ,.r : .-· , ,_o - ~·, ,.•:~_, , 11 ,':.:..,.,-u...-;._.;.'i - .• .-~.,_.,..: ... ,, .,.,·.~&. •~ :_· • ~•a • • •• •-· 0. . -· I I UNITED STATES ATOM !C ENERGY COMM lSSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20S4S June 2S, 1971 HENORi\NDU£.1 FOR THE r'J.LES SUBJECT: NEE'f!NG \HTH RBPRESEN'l'Ni'IVES OF COTTER CORPORATION At the request of Senator Peter Dominick (Colorado) , · Commission e~ Johnson me t t.o~ith David Harcott, Executive Vice President, ~nd Edward McGrath, Washington Counsel, . fo r Cotter Corporation on June 24, 1971. Others attending were Dr. Martin Biles and u. M. StaebJ.er. 14essrs. Narcott and HcGrath had previously met \'lith personnel from the Divis ion of Haterials Licensing and l'fast.e and Scrap ~1anageme_nt . Cotter Corporation acquired r adioactive r e~idues from early 1\EC milling operations \•lhich had been moved from the St.· Louis Airport to Hazcl\,•ood 1 a site in metropolitan St. Louis, by a Ba ltimore Corporation Hhich Hent bankrupt. The material \·/as acquired from Commercial Di scount 1 the fin.~ncer. of the ori,gj.n~J. _ p,urc.l·~~.s.e. from the AE.C . Selected materials were sent to a plan t at Canyon City for recovery of valuable ~ine ra ls. Cotter has about 15,000 tons of materials to be disposed of in addition to about a thbus~nd drums of contaminated materials which can be disposed of. comme rcially at a reasonable cost. They are COillffiitted to restore the property on \·;hich the material is stored but have found that disposal on-sit~ is not acceptabl~ under present··:r;egulations. The $150, 000 they had ·a llow<::d for on-site disposal is to be compared \vi th an estimate of $2 million they have received from Nuclear Engineering for commercial disposal at a site about 200 miles a\vay. Mr. -Marcott \•Tould like to dispose of t tie material at the quarry formerly used by the AEC near the St. Louis operat~ons ~1hich is about -30 miles from · the Hazelwood site. Dr.' Biles revie\'/Cd the situation at the quarry , .concluding that disposal there would not be accept~ble. The ' basis for the estimate of $2 million for disposal · by Nuclear Engineering was not known but it did not seem consistent: l,vith -the usual charge or aboLtt. $0 . 7o .per cu. ft. for conuuercial disposal plus transportation. (Separate information indicates this estimat~ may incl ude decontamination of buildings at the site.) Dr. Biles suggested that· transporting the materi·al to Colorado 1.. { , v ,, r· r >; n ~~ ~-~~:~·-~
) … … ~ .1. :t :\ ,i. ~.~· . … , .S. !;, •..-. .. J • •• r.
.. . \ ..
\
… .
‘ . ….. >.11• :
. ·.
a nd adding it to e ~ is ti ng piles of tailings there might
be wor t h exploring since t he mate~ia l i s s imila r and
w~uld be quite small in quantity relative t o these pi l es.
It was agreed that:
a) Both Cotter and AEC (Biles ) would look into
the feasibility of di ~po sa l on other tailings
piles (~ncluding lice ns i ng) . ·
b) Cotter \>IOuld provide a brea’kdO\•Tn of the $2
million estimate from Nuc l ear Engineering .
c)
d)
AEC (Biles) would investiga ~e the basis being
used f9r private conune r c i a l disposal —
in particular whether pricing on a unit volume
basis ·,·las reasonabl e for t his kind of material.
Cotter \·lou l d pr ovi de a summary o f t he history
of t he materia l a nd t he contract obl .:Lga t,?.ons
r e l a t ive t o ul timate disposal associated \·1ith
the va ~ i o u s trans fers .
. “2f, )r] .• ~{;–:;-:<.t 1:~/;,./ U. M. Staebler , · cc: General· Nanager ......... ... .... ---.-" ... ·- Dr. Martin Biles, OS . ~. O'Neill, Cong. Rel. H. NoHak, \vSM C. H~nderson, DR .. · \ \ • ····- "· .... . •.· .• ·. r' •• - - · ; ,\_ •.. /'.· Reference is made to the June 28, ·1971 , fi 1 e memorandum from U ~ M. S taeb 1 er, concerning a meeting with Cotter Corporatjon representatives to discuss the disposal of their residues located in the St. Louis· area. The Cotter Corporation apparently proposed disposing of their residues in the Weldon Spring quarry. We can understand some reluctance to place these materials in the quarry, since the ground \'Jatet' situation in that area is not fully d.efined and "control" could, therefore, be questioned. Two points seem w·orthy of mention in this regard. · First, the dumping of the Cotter residues in either the quarry or the pits at ~leldon, Spring would represent an -exception to the radioa~tive waste burial policy as reflected 1n AEC 180/23. The possibility of establishing a troublesome. precedent should therefore ·be recognized. Second, - the negotiated sales . a9reement with Cotter stated the intent of the agreement to be the relllOVal of all residues, and specific effort \'las made to prevent a "creaming" of the material. Remova 1 from the Hazelwood site was therefore a recognized responsibility .of Cotter•s. --~-------------~~-~ ~ ._ ___ . , _ _ ...... ..... ..;.;..-._., __ ••.. .• ,\,' -i If Headquarters determinest however, that disposing of the Cotter residues_ at Weldon Spring should be approved, we believe that there is a much more acceptable alternative in the Weldon Spring area other than the quarry. The AEC-controlled raffina'te pits at the Weldon Spring site are excellently contained and isolated from the -environment. The Cotter residues are quite similar to what is a1r·eady contained in the pits and represent perhaps a · 10% addition to what is already there. There is .already about.,~ ~illiOB cubic feet of material in the pits, and the Cotter residues woul.:i 1 I ‘·!C t:i n:r 31
/ (~ it..H’. ‘”] ., , ‘ ‘ “”!II
… …. “” .. ….. … … .. … !
Martin B. Biles – 2 – July 14, 1971
be dumped directly into Pit 4, than to transport them across country. AEC
could conceivably negotiate a charge to Cotter for disposal in the pits,
based either upon current commercial rates, or upon our cost of 11directing11
the operation at our end, plus some crudely estimated cost for later
stabilizing the residues. .
We would be pleased to assist further in this matter if requested. As you
are a\’/are, the Genera 1 Manager would have to approve acceptance of offs i te
radioactive wastes at an AEC facility.
OS:JAL
cc: J. A. Erle\’line, AGMO, HQ
F. P. Baranowski, P, HQ
H. A. NOI’Iak, Wm, HQ
‘~s. R. Sapirie
Manager
Oak Ridge Operations
… , ·.:·· \::
UNITED STATES
ATOMIC ENERGY COiv1M lSS!ON
WASHINGTON. o.c. ~O!:i45
Mr.· Edward J. McGrath
260.East Jefferson Stree t
Rockville1 · Maryland 20850
Dear ~JX. McGrath:
.July 22 1 1971
: . .. …. – . – — – .
~hank _ ybu for your lett~~ of June 29, 1971. I believe
you a.re nmv in dir ect contact with the proper organi ?.a·tions
Hithl n the Atomic Energy Commission t o provid~ ans\’lers to
your questions re ~ at e d t o ~isposal o f radioactive waste
mate rials Ot.vned by ·the Cotter Corporati on.
The question of· burial of the material at th e . Haz ~ lwood,
M-issouri·, -site or any other prope rty .c on.troll.cd by Cotter
Corporation should be pursued _,..;ith ·the Divis ion of ~at e ri al s
tic~ nsi ng. Any. questions you may have r e gar ding -burial of
these materials on AEC s ite s s hould be addressed to t he
Divisi011 of Waste and Scrap Manag~en t.
Should there be any f u rther que st.ions, these t\·m Divisions
will either be abl e to answer them or will ens ure that other
appropriate Divisions· \v.i,ll ans~vet~ them f or you.
Sincerely,
(;
w:¥~7′ Comm1.ssioner ·
I ·.. . ……- -.’ … ~~~) ~)i.W f\H~~:;~. . {~!i::·~~:.
j. i·m … ~.J~.~-…. ,: ~
u . .., ….. … …. ‘ •
l
~
… ·• l 1 •Jn . rH·:u on .. 3.1.
·I th;r . -/ ..
rnrs,;lf:~ ( … i: …. ,., .. …… …….. • ·.·
····· · .. ··, . .. … . … , ……. ‘·· ., . . . ~ ….. .. ., ” ….. :; . ‘
i • J
·-· ….. ; -….. J’ –
.. ……………..’ “i!
r ! .. ….. __ … ,
•’ ….. ,.. . ….
I t l !
l. ! I
_ l’,·
J
M/
–Df. .· ·~ ;:.,
~~ ‘·. . ~ n! ~·. I I ‘
• :~.I

····:
~~~~
,.
.-:~~
t .. ~
…. … . . …….., .., t l /· i
! i I f
! t
i 1
~ f
r f
?
r i
!
I. !
i’ i
I t I ~I ~ ! ~
~
..~. ·:. ~ :~.:. I .. , 1,:·: (. “” • .:.) f ‘:< .-. .. ~ I. • ~ ... ..... ........ UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION MEMORANDUI-1 'FOR THE WASHINGTON. D.C. 20545 June 28,·7 FILES ---~· SUBJECT: ' MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF COTTER CORPORATION At the request of Senator Peter Domi nick (Colorado) , Commissioner Johnson met with David Marcott, Executive Vice President, and Edv1ard McGrath, Washington Couns ~ l, for Cotter Corporation on Ju'ne 24, 1971 . Others . attending \vere Dr . Hartin Biles and U. M~ Staebler. Messrs. Narcott and McGrath had previously met with personnel from the Division of Materials Licensing and Waste and Scrap Management. Cotte~ Corporation acquired radioactive residues from early AEC milling operations \vhich had . been moved· from the St. Louis Airport to Hazeh!Ood, a site in metrop9li tan · St. Louis, by a Baltimore Co~poration which · w~nt bankru~t. · The material \'las acquired fr~:>n\ Connnercial Dis.co~nt I the
.financer of t:he original purch.ase f.r.om the AEC. Selected
materials ‘Vlere sent to a plant at Canyon City fo·r -recovery
of valuable minerals. Cotter has about 15,000 tons of
materials to be disposed of in addition to about a thousand
drums of contamirHited materials which · can be disposed of
con~ercially at a reasonable cost. They arc committed
to restore the property on which the material is stored
but have found that disposal on-site is not acce,ptable
under present regulations. · ·rhe $150 , 000 they’ had allowed
for on-sit~ disposal is to be compared with an estimate
of $2 million they have received from Nuclear F.nginoering
for commercial disposal at a site about 200 miles away.
Mr. Marcott t,o;ould like to dispose of the material at the
quarry formerly used by the ·AEC near the St. Louis.
operations \•lhich is about -30 miles from the Hazelwood
site. Dr. Biles reviewed the situati on ~t . thc_quarry 1
concluding that disposal there would not be ~c·ceptable.
The basis for the estimate of $2 million for di spo~al
by Nuclear:: Engineering \’las not knovm but it did not
seem consistet?-t \ • … ” :~ • ·1.~. ‘\, \
; .
”2J, ) 71, .467-X-t.evv
U, M. St aebler·
· 6c: Ge ne~al Manager
Dr . Martin Bil e s , OS
R. O’Neill , Cong. Rel .
H • Nowak , Y.1SM
C. H~nders on, DR
H. Ililc~
E .. ·l60
f<. Fatllkne:r P-1120 . il. ROWi!X G-117 C. Ue.t\tku:aon J~..ttn~ R. Cunninqharo OS:lS 58.94 7/14 respon.s~ .. LAW OFFICES EDWARD J. McGRATH 280 EAST J EF"FE:RSON STREET RocKVILLE, Z.!;. RYt.AND 20850 130 11 4:> ~- 470 7
June 29, 197f
I
.. . ….. “”; : .. ,,
t~C 3~b – · …… _ .. …
…. ·: – …
.. ~ – ~ —~ …. , .,- – .,~ , , .. , . . … ,:-.. -., … ….. _,…:., .• . , ……… .,.._ _, . …… ,, .. ·····. : r
The Honorable Wilfri d E. Johnson
U.S . Atomic Energy Conunission
Washington, D.C. 20545
Re·: Cotter Corporation- Radioactive vlaste Disposal Propo’sal
Dear Commissioner Johnson :
Pursuant to your suggestion made during our conference
on June 24, 1971 , I am enclosing coptes of· the correspondence
between Cotter Corporation and the Commission relating to the
disposal of radioactive vraste materials ovmed by the corporation,
v1hich are nm’l locat~d in HazehTOod, Missouri. ·
I am also enclosing copies of a preliminary proposal for
on site burial prepared for Cotter Corporation by. the engineering
firmoof Ryckman, Edgerley, Tomlinson and Asso~iates, Inc., ·
together 1’li th a copy of a memorandum by .Mr, · l•larren Goff, Safety
Engineer for Cotter Corporation, reporting -on the conference
betvreen representa~ives of Cotter Corporation and Nuclear
Engineering Company, during which the latter firm gave an
estimate of $2,000,000.00 for burial Of the \’Taste material at
the site owned by that firm in Illinois .
As Mr. ~1arcott advised, ‘I’Te are preparing to submit more
detailed lnformation to the Commission on the proposal for
burial at the present site i n HazehTOod, Missouri. \tfe will
furnish you with ·copies of further submissions and correspondence.
On behalf of Mr. Marcott, Cotter Corporation , and myself,
I wish to thank you for providing us with an opportunity to
discuss with you the problems and public policy issues t’lhich
surround our efforts to dispose of the waste mater1als safely
and quickly.
EJM/dkb
Enclosures
;z_::;rz ·-
Edward J. · ~ath Attorney for Cotter Corporation
– •• – . ::. .._. . t •• • . • • ..
LAW O FFICES
EDWARD J. McGRATH
260 I::A5T JEF F ERSON STREET
RocnV!LLE, HAn\’l.AND 2oaso
-·-
( 3 0 11 424-.. 707 –
!’ – “)
~
·. · ·April 2~, 1971
Jt.r. itobert E. Holl:tngm·rorth,
GGncrn l r-1anag0r’
United St aten At omic
Ener~y Commission
. lt.’a sh1ngton D.C. 205IJ5 ·
· : .
·: · … …. ….
. . .
Cotter- Corporation
Waste Disposal Project
– ·-

·.
..
n~u~0<:1. upon tho facts a.nd c:trcums tnnce6 hereinafter set forth. Cotter Corporation hereby make~ application for author!ty. to d:tspo: 1e o f radloactiv~ 1·1aste matel .. inl de scribed belo\'1 'by depositing th ~ s.~mP. in the abandoned quart•y _ ut1.11zcd f.or eueh dtsposal on the property owned· and controlled by the . Atomic Energy Gommissi.on at ~·feldon Sp~ing~ Ntsaouri. Cotter Gorpor>at.ton, :tn 1967, ·purchased !’r0m a private .e.oncern ·
a substantial quo.nt 1ty of radioactive residues stored ·at · that time
at the ao called “airport site” 1n St. r~ouis, Misaoul’i for the pur- ·
pos e: of’ reproces sin.g that portion of the material wbich ~rns smenaolc
to treatment ‘in the ut”an1um mill· of: Cotter Corporation looatcd
ln Canon City, Colorado. · · .- – ·_ ,. ,·_
. – . . . .
The residues· ·purchased l-lere the product of earlier Commission
oper>a.t1ons, and represented a euhata.ntial problem at the time· when
they Nere acquired by Cotter Corporation; becauee the flrm which
purchneed them from the Commission and f”rom tth1ch Cotter Corpor- ·. –
· o.tion ~cqu1rec1 them had done ao speculatively, ‘<~Ti~hout ·e. program · f~r d1Gpoa1t1on, and subsequently terminated 1ts business act1v- -: it1ea. · ·· · · ' • . ,. ~ Incltt\.le. 1.rhc drums . are . :. _·
· Q\JXrentJs ~ or.~t :~~.\ f.\ t. lh’\nelt~oocl” – ~1issonr1. · ..
· ..
:.
•• . : . • : .= ·.· . . . …
. -.
.· . . ; ·,. .. ,·
.• _.:.
. ..
. ·_. ·.
‘ : •.
– . …. . -. . · .. :: ~ .
. ·~ ·.·_:·
: ..
r. !
: {·
.. ..

… _
.. .
·::·: . ..
. ~. ·. . .
.. . . ‘
·.
‘ .
~:-. · .
, . .
. . . . :: .. : . .. · .. ..
. ::.; . • . . :
0 .. • • •• • ~-. : • :· • • ;~ • • •
. . .·-~ – . -_
. – ·· — .. ..-.-···::.·.- ‘ . ·. -.-

:~· ‘ -: ‘~ · .. : ··~· … · : .
,. . ·. ·:· :·: .. ~ ..- :· . !.· . · • -·
. ; ..
-2-
·. ‘· .. ·
… ‘.:. ~: .
Cotter Corporation, if autho~ized by the Commission to do so,
will transpo~t the drums by truck from Hazelwood, M1saour1 to the
qunrvy site at Noldon Spring (a distance or approximately thirty
{30) miles) and deposit them 1n the quarry, · aubjeot to Commission .
advice and direction, and at the expense of the corporation.
\ve believe deposit in th~ quarr’y’ to be the most sastiaractory
rc3olutiou or all substantial problems· involved in disposition of
the contarn1.nnten material. Among ·the factors \fhich dictate our
conclusion e.re ‘that the quarry site 1a utilized by the Commission
for. (1isposal of ~3 im:tlar contaminated material; -that no ~onflict
e;::tstrJ :ln this nituation ,,,ith the Comm1ae19n policy · aga~nst engag:
tn~ 1.n ope!’at:ions competitive \’lith private industry, since ~xist- ·
inF.; pl’ivately operated. ~oraste disposal ~ac111t1es are not · dee.lgned
in capacity oP other\lliae for disposition of material in -. the ~;\.iantity
and form involved in thia situation; that the distance to the
nearest comme:..–c :to.l disposal site, even \-‘Jere lt capable or handling
the material is two hundred (200) -miles as opposed to a · diatance
or thirty (30) miles from Hazelwood to \’Teldon Spring, and finally.
· the very sttbstantial difference in expense in dinpoaal other . than
at Weldon Spring quarry, even if ·such alternatives were otherwise
feaetb~.e. ·
vic request. the opportunity to present and discuss · thia prQ..:.
posal •tiith you and \’lith those of the Commiss:ton staff.’ . . concerned
\.
:. : , .’-
. .
‘ .·
·.
….
‘ .’ ‘ ….. .. :
. .. .
· . .. –~ .. ·.
t : ‘.
. : • ·:
-= • •• : •
;. . . .· – . .
. .. •’, ‘ : . :~· : .· ‘ ‘
I • ‘ ‘
.. . \
.~ : . : .• r
~ … : . . . ·. .. . .
‘ . . •, .
. :. ‘: , ,’,
. . >·
·. _ …… :.:· .·

.· ‘ . :·· · . . . . .··· : ‘ … ‘ · . . . ‘ : .··.,:. ‘ ……
.. -. .• ‘! :.:’ . ‘ • · . .:\ . . • .. • .
·.· .: .· :-··: ‘ :. .· :-:
. :: ~. ·. . : .· :. . ·. .• ·.. .: .~: ~:” .: ..· ‘· t·!·.· .. ·.
;-·

:. “I . :-;·
‘I
P R 0 P 0 S A L
for
Df.CONTAMINJ\TION
lATTY AVENUE .STORAGE SITE
Haze 1 \•Jood , · Missouri
AEC License #SUB 1022 (40-8025)
April, 1971
RETA-~80
…….. -.. -·
RYCKMAN· EDGERLEV ·TOMLINSON and ASSOCIATES
‘,·.
noo coR<'NET cu11.0ING • ;:~5 soGrH. M·." n"M. .£c .~~v·e:uu" •sAINT LOUIS. Mlsso.oni 63105. . . . TI:t.Et'HONF.: (314) 06?.-342.~. ·.:. It is the intent of this proposal. to provide a ~ans \·1hereby th~ Latty Avenue Ore Storage Site may be deco.ntaminated and returned for normal -..,.....---------·-- ··--· land. use \·lith no restrictions on future u5e, in full compliance \'tith all ~~- -""""" . ' · ~ applicable rules and regulations of the Atomic Energy Commission • 2 . ·Figure 1 sho\'/s a schematic of the Storage Site \•lith the stockpiled mate· . rial outlined. This Jlk1terial has had·a long and varied history in re1at~on to its ultimate disposal as outline·d in your Commission's Invitation to · .B id No. AT-{23-2)-52, dated January 10, 1964; At that time a partial·.· · ' : ;· . . . listing of the material included: 74,000 tons of Belgian Congo Pitchb1end. · Raffinate containing about 113 tons of uranium, 32,500 tons of Colorado Raffinate containing about 48 tons of (iranium·and 8700 tons of leached Barium Sulfate containing 7 tons of uranium. Material indicated on· the schematic represents those listed above as purchased by Commercial Dis-. cou~t Corporation of Chicago, Illinois [License #S~1C-907 ( 40-7603 )] • · Since August, 1970, Cotter Corporation has be~n drying and shipping the Congo Raffinate to their site of operations in Canyon City, Colorado. (License No. SUB-1022 (40-8035)]. At the present time this operation is heing completed. L0\'1 concentrations of valuable metals and other elements have rendered the remaining material economi.cally unfeasible to process in like rM.nner. For this reason it is proposed to bury the remaining material on site. The landfill \•Jill be constructed in a series of excavations and burials. . . The area previously occupied. by the Congo Raffi nate \·Ji 11 be further exca- . vated, with the original uncontaminated earth stockpiled in a spoils. ar~a; to provide suffici~nt space for burial of the Colorado Raffinate. The area . . . . . . occupied by the Colorado Raffinate vli11 be made available for burial of .. the leached Barium Sulfate settling pond residue and other non-compressible contaminated material. . · l)il):r: / 1 ' ~;i:J:'(i~. fi~k::; Building "D", refer Figure 1, shall be thoro~ghly \\:;.:.i~ :;~ .~ ~. .: ~:<· J·.r~~--::~ ;::;,. ·~:: j:<• ~ ..= ·.: · .. :~ ~:.:~·.::”:~f:· ~.::·.:::; :. . :.:· ·;: .•: : ·. •. : · ·.::. ..: . ., . ·, :: .· •. ·•·· :. …., :.: :. • • .., · ·: .. !1~ • ……. ;..: ··-=-;.. •• .-.’: ·,.r~· .. , •. ._.:;,_ ,, •. ,. .. –<..- ¢. --·~ . ,. , from the site. Building "N', an office, 118", a garage and dining area, and· "C", an equiprrent storage area will not tequi re extensive decant amination .. Dirt, debris and other material deposited \•lithin Building "011 duti ng the drying operation VIi 11 be r!:moved and buried,. a long \~ith slightly contaminated original earth, on top of the Barium ·sulfate.· The top layer of earth on al1 contaminated areas \•Ji11 be removed and buried until radiation levels have been reduced to be1m·l AEC limits. · 3 Guidelines for the burial pits \•Jill .comply viith good engi~eering practices as \'tell as the rules and regulations of your Commission. A11 pits wi11 be of sufficient size to insure a m{nimum of four feet earth cover·. on the finished installation; All excavations will be sealed on the top and bottom with a four inch (4 11 ) thick asphaltic layer. If 11\•tet" conditions are ~ncountered while opening the pit, a11 sides \•till receive the asphaltic seal. All areas \•li11 be scraped c1ean· of contaminated earth sufficiently d~ep to insure a maximum gross radiation level of 0.05 mR/hr. The entir~ site \'Jill bQ graded to insure proper drainage \·lith no_ unsightl_y nXlunds or dcpressi ons. · It is the desire of Cotter Corporation to reutrn to its Lessor land which will in no \•Jay be 1 i mi ted in its useful ness or va 1 ue and \·till in no \'lay endanger the surrounding environment and its inhabitants. RETA-780 . •. . ... :. ·,·· RETA & 780 Latty Avenue c D CD Settling Ponds FIGURE 1 Sketch not to scale .. · . . . .' . . Colorado Raffi natc ·coTTER CORPORATION LATTY AVENUE STORAGE SITE H/\ZLENOOV, ~flSSOUR I - . ,• 4 :.: .· I ' . . '' ·- - · ·--.--· .. UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2.0545 Hr . E. :· • ·’ ·••• ;’,\);:~X,; .\>U ,. ; :. i?.,;\i:J:;ii>:•.’fl’ “”‘·’~'(“~eJf,:%:o:.,~c’6 :;:: ” ;;, ., ., .• • .~’ ‘”” ·· <• ·"'~'' • • •·i' • · ·.' · ... ~(~:.2!;~~ UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMIS$lON WASHINGTON. D.C. 20545 I }.l (., June 28, 1971 J j.!pi r.:·~} r ~ ( ·. ~~ 1:. ~. =- ~ ·; "':"'! • I l . . I I ... ""'I ;. i I H<'·.< '7 . MEMORANDUN FOR THE F ILBS I •".!.~. . .. · ··· · ·· · · · ··· ·· · · , . I y_ .. I SUBJECT: MEETING \'liTH REPRESENTATIVbftOF':1COTTER. CORPORATION . ! . At the request of -Senator Peter Dominick (Colorado), Commissioner· Johnson met \>lith David Marcott, Executive
Vice President, and Ed\vard NcGrath, ~vashington Counsel,
for Cotte·r Corporation on June 2.4, 1971. Ot;hers
a~tending were Dr. Martin Biles and U. M. Staebler.
Messrs~ Marcott and McGrath had previously met with
personnel from the Division of Materials Licensing and
Wast~ and Scrap Nanageme_nt.
Cotter Corporation acquired radioactive residues from
early AEC milling operations Hhich had been moved from .
the St. Louis Airport to Hazelwood, a site in metropolitan
St. Louis, by a Baltimore Corporation which went bankrupt.
The material \·las acquired from Commercial Discount, the
fin.ancer of the orig.in~J. .p.urc.h?Js.c _fr.om the AEC. Selected
materials were sent to a plant .at Canyon City for recovery
of valuable minerals. Cotter has ~bout 15,000 tons of
materials to be disposed of in addition to about a thous and
.drums of contaminated materials which can be disposed of .
commercially at a reasonable cost.· They are committed
t o restore the property on ·which the material is stored
but have found that disposal on-site is not acceptable
under present r~gulations. The $150,000 they had allowed
for on-site disposal is to be compared with an estimate ·
of $2 million they have received from Nuclear Engineering
for commercial disposal at a site about 200 miles ar..;ay.
Mr . Marcott ·would Like to dispos~ of the material at the
quarry formerly usqd by the AEC near the St. Louis
operati.ons which is about -30 miles from the Hazelv10od
site. or: Biles reviewed the situation at the quarry,
concluding that disposal there would not be acceptable.
The basis for the estimate of $2 ~illion for disposal·
by Nuclear Engineering \-Tas not· knm’ln but it did not
seem consistent with the usual ~harge af ~bo~t-$0 .70
per cu.· ft. for commerciu.l disposa l _plus transportation.
(Separate information indicates this estimate may.include
decontamination of buildings at the site.) Dr.· Biles
suggested that ·transporting the material to Colorado
. ………. ·1
‘• ‘ , I
.-.
– 2 –
and adding it to ex~ sting piles of taili~gs there might
be worth exploring since the material .i s similar and.
would be quite small in quantity rela tiv~ t o these piles.
It was agreed that: . . · I .·
I
a) Both Cotter and AEC (Bi les ) \•lould look into
t he feas ibility of di~posal on other tailings
piles (i.ncluding licensing) .
b) Cotter t’lould provide a breakdown. of the $2
million estimate from Nuclear Engineering . . .
c) AE~ (Biles) would i nvestigate the. basis b?ing
used for private commercial disposal —
in particular whether pricing on ~ unit volume
basis ·was reasonable for this kind of ma~erial.
d) Cotter vlould provide a summary of the history
of the material and the contract obligations
rela~ive to ul timate disposal associated with
the various transfers . UO.l•~ l”‘~-~-J .. ~OJ.V .~ :~;:;.
· cc; General · Hanagcr
Dr. Martin Biles, OS
R. O’Neill, Cong. Rel.
H. Nowak, NSM
C .. H~nd~rs~n, DR
•2/, ) 7J .• ~b.£. 6./v’
U. M. Staebler
·-….. -.. – …….. _. ____ …… · ~ · · -· . …. , ..
UNITED STATES
ot J. T.~.·.

Post

1967-08-15 – AEC – Historical Review of the Mallinckrodt Airport Cake

— PVILIC II’O• ta NiO
TIWfSPOt(T A T10H
ICII:NCI oUID nCAAOLOGY
REPOSITORY–~~ ….. .._..~RCOLLECTION–_;.,;;.;;~—
BOX
NO. ~~-..:~~if–….-~—FO~
ER ~(JeJT~I?I. J uly 26 , 1973
0)4P371’E#~#stfl?~ Sr.~
Dr. !·lilllic.:m E. ! btt
Director
Division of Envirorlirental Control
Tec.~logy
Department of I:nergy
:·7a.shingta1 D.C. 20543
Dear or. ; iott:
-‘IUL ltriP – l -r-
4114 C1oarU …. “·,…, ·- … (31C)m-12111
IQISM_ …
Da ppa, Wt- CSIJt
01., ….
Enclosed is a copy of a paper pre ,:Jared by an AJ:X:. offi cial
in 1967, entitled “liistori cal r-.eviev1 of t he i·!al linckrodt
r.J.rport Cake . :• T’nis i s t he only v.rri ttcn info:t:.mation r
have been able to find on any Uranium nd.l l tailings left
in St • .WOuis.
}:1
If you should f ind any other infoi111ation on this subject,
I v.ould u?preciate yarr sen.d ing zre a <::q)Y . ..:.:..c.. .:..::» 1 • .P le~e feel 5:-ee to contact ne i f I nay :.>e of f’ l'(the~
ass 1s tance to yoo. r- n
N C!2
JPJ\:jj:
Sincerely, co < m ;i 0 - n -1(..~< -F.' ::0 J0<:1v . . • i-at .• 0 ~islative Assistant THIS WfATION'i:IIY rlt1Nl1:0 ON P'AI'CJII MADII. ¥UTH " t:CVCL&D l'lftlla ... .. HISTORICAL REVIEH · OF THE 1-'.ALLINCKRODT AIRPORT CAKE 1~ - .,. _' .. .. . In discussing the history of t~e airport cake raffinates, it is t necessary to define t hem and this has been attempted by the _ :_ simplified f~owsheet given in Figure 1. Mos t of the pitchblende ·; ·p r ocessed by K2lli::1ckrodt was obtained as a concentrate from the ' Belgian Congo in 1944 and was shipped to St. Louis from the Congo in 55-gall on metal drums. The pitchblende was digested in 56 per cent nitric acid (93-102°C) followed by sulfuric acid to precipitate the lead and radium \llhen the ore had a low sulfate content. The precipitate was removed by a string-di scharge rotary vacuum filter and was usually leached with sodium carbonate to remove · residual uranium. The sulfate cake was stored in a separate location. since the Belgians (African Metals ) maintained ownership of · the radium. These residues are•presently stored at the Lake Ontario Ordnance works at Niagara Falls, New York. Some pitchblende was al so processed at Fernald and a similar cake, still stored in silos at National Lead Company in Cincinnati, is known · as Fernald•s K-65 residue . Barium carbonate s lurry was then added to the supernate to remove the excess sulfate . The barium sulfate cake was removed by a continuous solid-bowl centrifuge, leached with sodium carbonate, and also stored in a separate area. · The supernate was made 1 ~ in nitric acid and the uranium extracted with diethvl Pt~~~- : 7ne uranium was stripped from the ether with dilute; nitric acid. ' In the first extraction colu::m a precipitate for.::~ed 'Which was, on ·· · occasion, ~emoved by a Sperry Fil terpres s . The Sperry Cake wa_s __ · · : found to be a good source of protactinL9m-231 and .~u~)processed ~ ' about 20 tons ( about eighty 55-gallon drums) and obtained approximately ~wo grams of protactinium-231. The supernate from the .Sperry Press and the aqueous uranium tails were de-etherized and tr~at ed with a hydrated lime slurry . The s upe~ a te frcm a continuous rotary vacuum leaf filter was di s charg~d to the river, and the limed fraction becawe the airport cake . The cake, up until 1960, was about 25 feec hig~ . and covered three acres. ··•· . . ..... ; ... ~ Organic I i ! HN03 Strip ! Urani uin Product Figure 1 Pitchblende Conce:ltrate v . ·. HN03 Digestion ~. H2so4 ll • Supernate ~ sa++ t Supernate I (J D iethy I Ether ' b . Aqueous --- ~ Ume ! Aqt·-•·->’)\
!11
!12
{13
/14 ·us
••
74)00{;
32,500
1, ;.oo
8,!00
350
117,050
Ta”ble I
Uranium Conten::
{Tons)
…..
;1.13
48
22
7
.-2 • 192
Dascriptio_!l
Pitchblende Raffincte1
Colorado Raffinate
Ba3 S04 Cake (unleached)
Barium Cake (leached) ·
Miscellaneous Residues
1 Estimated to contain
1,775,000 pounds Cobalt
• 2,085,000 pounds Nickel
1,098,000 pounds Ccpper
The i:”:~ten!: ~f tbe s~q~~-~~–fqr … Sale~~ was. tQ. allow private industry
to recover r.he valuable meta1.s: copper, nickel, and. co bait. -The
original request:”for bid offered the bidder several alternatives.
The purchaser could use the existing site for purposes of conca~
tra~ing and extracting a~y d~sired material or he could remove.
t~e residue from the site for processing or utilization elsewhere.
Th.e materials remaining after the purchaser8 s processing operanons
were over could be–disposed Ol: oythepurchase:::-at:l:n~\·]eldon
Spri-ngsdump s1._t_e_wnether ·or rioE pro.cessing .. was·-aone-ontfie-prE:-sc?nt
site o~ elsewhere. The Weldon. Spring·s–Quarcy~Dump-s1te wss a’ pit: ‘~
located in·St. Charles County on Ydssouri State Highway No. 94
. approximately five miles southwest of the \ve ldon Springs plant ~d ~ ~
approximately 30 rni~es frcrn the ai~port site. The site wa~ssible
by truck f~om Missouri State Route 94 and a spur track lead·
off the existing east way of the Atomic Energy Commission’s plant
track system providing railway access to the dump pi·t.
– 4 –
…..
1
In response to a ~equest in 1960, Mound made a cost estimate
based on a pro1uction rate of 1>000 grams of thorium-230 per year
·~ o\·~!7 a two to five-year period on the assumption the airport cake·
. i~ 3t. ~.ouis would be available. Pre.;urnably it may have been
I POE5ib!~ for Mound to obtain the thorium waste stream from the
1 private contractor hot~ever tha cost: estimate was based on start- :~ ,
‘j
‘ j
. ~
ir.g with unprc~~s~~d airport cake~ Inclu~ing manpower, shippi~g)
material, and arnortiza~ion of .c~piLal costs over a five-year
period, th~ estimated cosc of the thorium-230 was about $300 per
gram. At ~hat time, Mound was also instructed to make a survey
of all uranium mills in the country to determine if other potential
sources of thorium-230·existed ‘from which this amount of production
could be economically rnaint?ined. ?his survey is compiled in
MIJ1 .. l439, ~’Survey of Sources of Ionium, Thorium-230,~’ by P. E.
Figgins and H. W. Kirby •
Mound received word in September 1960 that the St~ Louis Area
Office was recommending that the bid be awarded to Contemporary
Metals; a company having a “portable processing plant.,. The AEC
talked with them about their probable process which was to be
‘:. car:ied oqt on site and it seemed that they were interested pri)
mar~ly in the cobalt and nickel. However, they also would have
!I’ a s~de st:ream. for co!’lc.entrating scandium and expected thorium to
. go 1.nto that stream.
. .
Later in 1960, word was received that it was quite unlikely that
tn~ private cont:rac~ would be awarded since the United States
~~ Geologic·al Survey forbid the clumping of the sludges, processed ·
:1 or not, into the quarries in question because of the high proba;
bjlity of contaminating’the Missouri River shortly above the
intak~s for the. St. Louis City and St. Louis County water supplies.
Due to the many· problems, the St. Louis Area Office was contacted
by_Oak.Ridge Operations and asked to hold up awarding any contract
:o~ airport sludge until the long range requirements for thorium-
230 could be fixed.

.i Ic is not clear exactly what transpired at this point (perhaps
;,·Conternporacy Hetals .bankrupted) since the material was subse-
. quently obtain~d by Co~~~~!l~_al !·~nin_g .. _and 1-A’d.ll~_I}.g _ of- Chicago
…. 5
· .. ..
£or $:26,000. Co~tine~~al borrowed $2~500~000 from Cc~~arcial
D,iscount of Chicago to buy ar.d p::oces-5-t:Ee-reiidu·e-s~–using the
riSidu:3 dS security. Concir.2ntal moved the macarial from the
l., i..,r… port t-.1:1 ~Q.th-=.r_si te in sp.”buroaQ.J1?z_glwoo..Q_. ‘!his mova required
ten dump trucks for five monch3 and co~t Continental $100,000.
they were unabl~ to maintai~ ~h~ loan paym~nts while they were
·. ~oving the materia:, so Caillffic~cia~ foreclosed tha loan • .. …
. fbe Commercial Discount Corp_Q_r_— Organic
HN03 Strip
J

1
~1
Aqt:ecus to
Mound
Adjus~ Addity
I
\~
10 Stage t-~idi-Mixcr
Org~ni~
H~03
<1 ..J>-,.
Strip
~1
Ac.u eous
t
Via
0
ste

~7
Organic
to
Recovery
10 Stage Midi-Mixer
..
..
Lime
Return to Airport·
– HN03
Scrub
— 0 rg~~~. ~ Scrub
.. )
Aqueous Product
~
Centrifuge
·-
. !’
. ‘
… -·-~ ….
A flowsheet for -t-he-·-Femo:v:al.-.of-.o.the.r … than the thorium and uranium
has not be.en developed and th_is. now see&7ls. a reas_onable thing to
do at this poinc:-‘!Ite-n-or-f’i””f·te·en-drums· ·o£ this r.~c:terial wera
processed to develop a flm~sheet for- the recovery of the thoriur.1,
uranium, copper, nickel, cobalt, selenium, and a ~are earth fraction,
it-migh:. be: possible to raduce t.~e ::adioactive contamin£”t.ion
of the final W8Ste raffinates such that they would be no problem
and could be disposed of alrno·s·t anywhere.
The 250 kilograms of thorium-230 contained in these raffinates
are more interesting than ionium per se; cost estimates are already
in existence for irradiation to protactinium-231 and subsequent
irradiation to uranium-232. Mound has twelve thorium-230 slugs
on hand that were irradiated in the }ITR at Idaho Falls in 1960.
It· ·is planned to process these capsules in order to develop a flowsheet
for the production of protactinium-231 •

·.
August: 15,. 1967
– 8 -.
l I
I
{
i t
I
j
I

Post

1965-11-05 – AEC – Committee Report on Disposition of St. Louis Airport Storage Site

/ ..
I. THE AIRPORT SITE
The. Commission maintains a 21.74 acre residue storage site adjacent
to the St. Louis, Missouri, municipal airport. The site lies
approximately 15 miles northwest of downtown St. Louis. It is
bounded by Brown Road to the North and East, the Wabash Railroad
main line on the South, and Coldwater Creek on the Vest (which is
also the property line of McDonnell Aircraft Corporation). South
of the Wabash Railroad right-of-way lies Lambert-St. Louis Municipal
Airport and an area occupied by the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation.
Aircraft take-off and landing patterns cross the property. A location
map is attached as Exhibit 1. An aerial photograph, Exhibjt 2,
locates the site with respect to adjoining property.
The site is completely fenced; there is a roadway access gate on the
North-side and a railroad gate on the South side, allowing Wabash
Railroad service to the plant via a spur line off the main line
track. The complete area, with its mounds of raffinate residues,
stacks of drums, hodge-podge of. scrap and temporar.y type structures,
has the appearance of a. typical spoil area common to chemical
indu3tries having residue storage ptoblems.
Consent to use and occupy the tract vas obtained by the Manhattan
Engineer District on March 2, 1946. Title vaa acquired to the
~operty on January 3, 1947, by condemnat~on proceedings for
‘20,000. The property was acquired for the purpose of storing
residues from the Destrehan Street Refinery and the Metals Plant.
The major capital improvements to the site were a concrete pit,
202 ft. x 42 ft. x 16 ft., constructed to store radi~bearing
residues (though it vas never used for this purpose), a covered
concrete pad 45 ft. x 250ft. for the storage of drummed materials
and a railroad siding with loading tipple. A detailed description
of the structures on site is given a·s the last section of this
Exhibit.
The site vas operated by the Manhattan Engineer District and the
Commission from 1946 until J1.1ly 1953. when the operation vas
turned over to Mallinckrodt Chemical Works. Guards were maintained
at the site from 1946 to 1951.
II. SOURCE OF iESIDUiS ON SITE
The Destrehan Refinery started operations in 1946, utili~ing
pitchblende ores and continued o.o this feed until early in 1955.
– 1 ..
EXHIBIT 5
I
I I
II
I . I
___ ..,…. –…. ~ -…. —..t -·–·. ·-·-·————-· ., … ….. … -~—— -·—–··· ….. j
The procurement contract for these ores with African ~tals
Corporation required the United States to store both the pitchblende
raffinate (AM-7), which contains metal values other than uranium,
such as nickel. cobalt, and copper, as well as the radi~bearing
residues (K-65). as African Metals retained ownership of all
uterial except’ .its uranium content. African Metals. subsequent~
transferred ownership of the ~7 raffinate to the Government.
A large concrete pit vas constructed to store the radium-bearing
residue (~65) but was not used for this purpose due to health
reasons. Instead, this residue was stored in drums at the site,.
from 1946 until early in 1948. It was then transferred to the Lake
Ontario Storage Area, Model City, Nev York, in 1948 and 1949. lhe
~7 vas stored on the ground in the open where it remains today,
except far about 350 tons of pitchblende raffinate (A~7} which vere
processed in a small pilot plant facility at Destrehan Street to
recover ionium. This material was processed in 1955-1957 and
returned to the originfl raffinate storage at the site.
The raffinate (AM-10) produced from subsequent operations using nonpi1chblende
feeds was stored separately. A barium cake residue
(AJ-4) produced b.f the refinery is also stored at the site; this
residue resulted from the precipitation of digest liquor with barium
carbonate to reduce its sulphate content. Both of these materials
are stored on open ground. ,
The residues generated by the refinery aggregate to greater than
95% of the material presently stored at the Airport Site.
The other major components of residues were generated as slag from
the reduction step of the metal operations at Destrehan Street.
Two types of this material have been generated. Initially the
reduction. bombs were lined with dolomite. The used dolomite liner
(C-liner) was shipped from Destrehan Street and stored at the Airport
Site in bulk on the ground. Shipments of the dolomite slag started
in March 1946 and continued until early in 1953 when the dolomite
liner was replaced by a recycle magnesium fluorine liner. Approximately
half of the C-liner has since been shipped to FMPC for
recovery of the uranium content.
In 1955 an Interim Residue Plant was constructed at Destrehan Street
to scalp the uranium content from the magnesium fluoride slag produced
in the Metals Plant. tailings from this operation (C-701)
were stored in the concrete pit at the Airport Site, and since have
all been shipped to FKPC for recovery of the contained uranium.
By 1960 there also had accumulated at the storage site approximately
50,000 empty drums and 3500 tons of contaminated stee1 and alloy
scrap. Hovever, by 1962 the bulk of these materials had been disposed
of for the metal salvage values.
– 2-
,I ‘ .
‘1
t
.r • t .
……….. -· .. —-·- –~·- .. — ……………… ·-·—·
Approximately 2400 drums remain in the area; these c~ain aiscellaneous
residues, Japanese uranium-containing send and contaminated
scrap materials.
Katerbl presently stored at the site is suamnari%ed belcnn
Gross Tons Approx.Tons U
Pitchblende Raffinate (AK-7)
hffinate (AK-10)
Barium Cake (AJ-4)
Other Miscellaneous Residues
· aDd Captured Japanese U
Precipitates
C-li.ner s 1a g
III. TOPOGRAPHY OF SITE
74,000
32,500
10.200
350
4,000
113
48
29
2
49
The original ground purchased 1D 1946 vas very uneven· and contained
e lov drainage area on the western section of the site. The land had
a drainage slope from East to West, with all surface drainage directed
to the Coldwater Creek at the western edge of the property. The
initial topography of the site is shown in the aerial photograph,
Exhibit 6.
It has been extremely difficult to reconstruct precisely the sequence
and location of contaminated materials and residues deposited on site.
The Committee has collected from various files and from McDonnell
Aircraft Corporation a series of aerial photographs which depict the
transition at the original site to its present state. Various reports,
drawings and sketches were also located which contributed to a general
understanding of the degree of contamination of the site. Numerous
individuals associated with the Airport Storage Site have been contacted;
however, since such a time has lapsed since the active
operation of the site, much of the information obtained by these
verbal inquiries is qualified by \Ulcertainties of memory. .Also, many
of the people who were intimately associated with the site during
its earcy operation are no longer available.
Judging from the knowledge gleaned from the above sources, it appears
that with respect to the western part of the site, early dispositions
of contaminated scrap metal were located in the low areas then existing
on the western end of the property. The scrap metal and other
debris were later covered (in 1952} with dirt received (gratis) Crom
McDonnell Aircraf’t Corporation and worked vi th heavy equipaent to
~ke a level storage area (see Exhibit 7). The reclaimed area is
nov occupied by AM-10 raffinate, drums of Japanese sand and contaminated
rubble and other waste from Destrehan Street •
• 3-

!
,’. :. .
~.
The existence of buried contaminated metal below the present surface
of the western section of the site was confirmed by tes; drilling
4escribed elsewhere in this report. Underground contaminated scrap
is reported to be on the order of magnitude of 50 to 60 truckloads
plus one contaminated vehicle.
the eastern two-thirds of the site presently is covered with mounds
of C-liner slag, raffinate (AH-7)t and barium cake (AJ-4). These
mounds of residue rise to approximately 20 feet above normal ground
level. Drainage from the mounds and the adjoining areas is directed
to the Coldwater Creek.
Drainage waters from the storage area have, in the past, produced
some minor contamination in Coldwater Creek. Continued monitoring
of the complete area and the creek waters, however, has indicated
that significant levels have never been reached and that all radiation
readings are well within permissible and acceptable limits presently
prescribed by .AEC directives and manuals.
A topographic survey map of the site (Exhibit 3) shows the existing
limits of residue stockpiles, the general topography of the remaining
area on the basis of one root contour intervals and the location of
principal structures at the site. The aerial photograph, Exhibit 4,
shows the site essentially as it exists today.
IV. INVENTORY OF STRUCTURES
I
The area is inclosed by a chain link fence. It contains the following
structure:u
A reinforced concrete pit consisting of floor slab and walls,
200 ft. long x 42 ft. wide by 12 ft. deep.
A storage shed consisting of a 250 ft. x 45 rt. concrete floor
pad, with a center wall 7 ft. high and 1 ft. thick running the
length of the structure. The pad is covered with a corrugated
metal roof supported on wood columns and trusses. Sides and
ends of the shed are open.
A single track railroad spur which enters the south fence near
the east end of the site.
A steel and wood· tipple is located along the spur.
A timber drum loading platform, 18! ft. x 8 f’t. x 3!- ft. high,
with stone fill ramp, is located just east of the tipple.
A reinforced concrete wash pad for trucks, measuring 51! ft. x
3Si rt. is located east of the Storage Shed.
1 l
)
• • ) .•
– —•-<# ---~------or• 14 -·-----......... ·- -~- -- ·-· ·--- ~-----. . ~.·-· .. ··-·-----·-····-A ____ , • If,. . - A reinforced concrete truck loading platform with tamp is located north of the wash pad and adjacent to the vest end of the Barium Sulfate residue. It is T-shaped, measuring 24 .rt. long x 6Sf ft. vide at the north side x lSi ft. vide at the south si~e. Three single-story wood buildings are also located· on the sitea A 32 tt. x 1~ .ft. office building at the main gate on the north side of the area. A 24j- ft. x 12 ft. guard house also at the main gate •. A 9 rt. X 7 ft. portable guard house located near the south fence, midway of the property. , - 5- . -.. -)..

Post

1964-08-03 – AEC – Request for Bid for sale of residues at Airport Site

. . ~ .
‘ ) J”
. . .
• : . t ….
.. . ~;

..
\ . ..: ….
.. .’ . . ..
‘ ·m·· . ,., rr r::'”” r·”~ r\~ n· fJ . r _:, ~· f” \~ ,___ . . ~ ~ ~, . ….. _.
Ll · ·. · . · ‘I ‘ , · · . · ~ I . . ; i.1 \ \jj f[ i;;i /._)! i!\ L u·,.\J\ .· d I? u\\.’: ~.
!.! i ‘, !. I \ .l . [. : 1 \’ J I ‘ ! . I I I l … :…. I . ‘,
r.J ‘\:.:.:) ‘.J L-~ U 1 U ‘ · 1J L..:.::l • ‘
. .
, ‘ .
… .. . .. ·. :·.· . .. ‘• .. ·.~·· .
.. . . .. .: ·. .: ·.: . … : ;·–· . .. – – . . ·..·. .’ ‘ .
….. . :’ . . .
.. : :· .
·.; .
.·.
;•.t · . · .. · : .
. ·I” . ·;. ·.’ ~ . : .
. . …
· . . ,. ; .. _
. ……. ·. . ‘
‘ ‘
· . .
. … ·..,.. . .. ·; .• .
. .. ….. . ‘ . . .. .- . ~· ….. . ·:
;
. •. ..· .::::~ .. • . . ! . . . ‘ ; : .. . . ‘ . .,. .. J •••
. ….. – . .. . . .
. . . i- ·.
S~~lc~ biclr. in triplie ~tc cubjcet to th~ tc~; and cc~~itio~z net fcrt~l
h.:;:rcin, for the purchr.&e ~nd rc::ovt:l or the G-:>\•crr~~nt·c.~::t::t J)roj>ert)• l1.z.t. ~d
~n t~1!.~ Invit.::!:io:1, ,;Ul. be rccch’E.lo until the tirJ~, ~01lC S’!. Loui:: \-ff .. 3·!;MiJ
l&~ucd by St. Loais J~ea O!fice
.e.r:;. and 4~00 (‘.n., ·Ho!!.d.:.y throur,h l:ric.:-.)’ c: ll. Fioher, . . : . · · ./
I
. . . •·. . …. : . . . . .~ .. . . … • . … – ··~~- ~:_·
‘·.;.
. U •. S •. J.tc::~ic 1:~cr£y Co:.:.iuic•n . . … . . .. . … . .·… ·~ .: .. ..
J.c!dl’ct>o: So:: 1~70, St. Cht.:rlc(l, lH.Dsouri 63302 . ·,
P;:-:~~e:rty lo:co.tc,d in open storoz~ e-n &·21-~>erc trcct nt Ro!>z:rtsNI~ ·
Hic~m~ri, i::.~.!'(a~tel>· north of St. Louh 1-~unid.pd tJ.rror: end
c~=t ,,f 2-.~Uc.:~~dl l.irc’!:’nft Col·pot’lltic;;~ Plc:nt oa 1~:”0i·~ l~<.1.'ld :ln St. Lonir. Cc~nty. .Reciducn. O~Clrec1 11rc cho•..m on ctt~:hC\e c:~·•:;~;lnt ~ubj·:et, ·"l'c•pot,!".:>.~l”.iclll LClCllticn Clf Pl~nt FaeHit!.;n fr•r
· t-:c.llir.e!•re~t Chc:\lic£:1 \!orks,” l;CH Drrn~int 2io. 6·1/;.(1~-19.
.. · ;.
! • .
J
.. . .. . ‘ • · · .
. ii90
… … , ;
.: ·i
,.. · .. . :
.: . .
.,
. ·. .. :. .
… •. ..
. .. .
. .. ~ ..
IN STRU C’I’l O~~S /.lm ll\F O?.!·t’-. ‘I’I ON ‘l’O ll IDn::r:.s
..• . . . . . ..
I
. ·.· ‘ ,
‘• r ;: .
1~ · ·Tne p~operty offered for ~Dle under thi~ Invitetion 1~ th ~ Go~e
as previo~.:~ly· offen:!cl for scle under lnvitt~tion llo. 1!.~·(23-2) ·4&
.. – I ‘ .
.·· . ·’ ~- . . · . . : : .. .
.·. :·· .
… . .’. · · dated Much .7 . • 1962. and Invitation No. J:r. .. (23 .. 2) -5.2. .c. :1cte.d JLmuar)’ 10, ·1964,
..’•. • .·.:.. …. ··~ :. . 2. ·The Bidder’s Dttent:i.o~ is called to i~f~ri:’lation
Financi’al and E:>;perience Quenionnaire, pace& 4
be given to qualify bid.
.· . .·. ‘
required it\
. . · . … :. : ~
•.. ‘.
.. . . ..
. ~- . : .. ;
•,
.. r,. ·. … . ·. ·…. .. . .
· . .
·:·· .·.. · .··: .
r·· ..
. .
‘• . i’– ..
• ,>J
·.·: ……
.·-.· .·. · ..
• .! •• . •; _. ·:
.. . : ·.: .
. ~ :.
: ‘· ··
end .:S, ‘l-:hi.ch ‘QU.St
i . . .:. ~ . . ~ .
!’ ;·:·= .. ·.
… ·· ·. . .
3. !’r.c Bidder I & rsttent ion is -called t 0 the ·r e ‘lui-r’c::l2nt in Art iele v Spcci_£1 . .. .
Co~eitions th2t the succecnful Bidder will be required to o~tein n
Uccn~e prior to the rc.::::u::;·J~l of any reo :l..d’Jc:e .fro:n the c i tc, ,’: ·. ·,
·4. The :Bidder 1 & • 4lttention is cdled to· tlJC! Doscr:S.pt·i”;t contz;in~c1 in
Art1elc l of ‘th:! · S?ecicl Conditions , Apeci fic~lly to the rcllltiv·c.ly
. .. ll:rse Guantit i~s of r~re ~ lC”.men ts contl:in ~d in the p~tc hb lcmdc r eHi.natc
:: 1.thich conto::ins one o£ th~ lar~~s~ lmo:m ~tilou:-1tB of concontrotcd c.c&mdiu:-:l
~:~nd ioniuo::~.
·s. Eleclers should ncite the Te~uircroent for a perfor~cncc bond uhich sh~ll
.’ be \..•ritten i.n t~r:ws \lhich \..•ill “ua::-l.ntce the r~~”\•.al of dl ret:iduet:,
6.’ ‘I’HE BIDD:ER 1S APV:.Stn ‘rH,W Tr!’t /.1’0~-llC tHE~GY CC’i:f.UZSIO~ l1!LL HOT
PlmC?-~!it THE Uf’.Jo.Nit’:i r.ECOVE~ED FRO;~ I·nOC!:SSil:G 0!:’ r~SIDUI:S l’O Ji~
· :·,: PU:<.CHAS.i:D Ul\D:R THIS lli\'1 'L..".TI C:i. . , • . • ' :'_.~ ~ • t . 7. s:~~leD. Bidders ~re invit ed to inspect the rc&i~ue& nt the cite tnd . .. to t.sl:c sa~ples for the purpoce of mnl~in~ the~.r O\-.m estimJtc:c end e.·~ says of the c£uant it i e 5 end co:-~tE:nt c of t he Lla t er 1B 1 s fer;: :; slc. .. ~ .. : . ; .. -~ . . ....... . . ..... : ' . .'· ; . l)iC:clc:- s raay sclcc t a reos onF.ble ~uentit3', r.s clctc:rr;.i.ne.d h>· th~ Co v~ rn.-.:l~nt,
o! 5~mplcs for th~ir retention end U6e for t~~tinz purposes. 7he&e
: ·l£io1.1ples and contd.r.crs rc:t;uired for prepuing th~ cc:-::=’lcs for e;J-.ir·”•ant
. : v :l.ll be furnish ~ d “‘·i~hout charte to the Di~c:ier. Ship:> ine coste z:.h~ ll
. . . : … ·: – .. •’
0 op ;, I ,; o
.. :: .. be bo::-ne b)’ L:h~ ~idder. . . · \· .. ·· .. .· ..
: ·8 • . _,~l.-irl de~~sits £h~u~c1 . . be 1.’\ilC:e p.Dyab·l~,:· t,~,:~h~\~-·· S. />.to:dc ~:~;:gy ~o:….or.isd~n . … , .
.. .
. . . _.
. . .
~ … ~ ~ ·. .. .. … . ‘• :.: :·) . …… : ·:~< ;· .~. ~:~ ;':. ~· . :·. '.::::, ! .. ,.',_ .. .. , ... :·. .. .;.•,. ;· ~ ~·~: .. · -~ ' ...~ ··. . :. . . . , • : -~ . . \. .• . .. ·= . ., .. . .·. . : ' :<_-,-;_;:~ ·.·.·> .. – ·. ‘ .. ….. ·· .’ .. : ..
i . ·’ . . . ‘”:: ~ . :
· .. : .
; 0 – ~ l · .
. :. : ·~ .·. . .. :- :
. ·~ …. :: : :·. . ~. .
t. -.
. ‘
..’·. , ..: ..-.: .. . . .-:·. ._ ·. ·. · .’ :”. . ·.· .. ‘ .• · . ,. · : . . ‘ ; \ . . . . . . .. ~ . . . .. ~ ‘ : \ : .:.: “; ?;’ . ;: : ~ ‘ ‘ . . ?; ·..
• • . ~ . • . .. ‘ . . =:
.. . . .. ..· -:, -.~~–.~ …~. :~ . . ~ .. .; ….
. . . ·.:: ·. : . :. . : .. ··:~ · . : .. .:. · . . · .. \
..• ..I …• .•.: .•• : ·- ..
. : . : . . .
. · .
·. ‘ ‘ . .
. .. · .. . , .
,• . . .
,/: ~ .
.: .:: ..
._..; . . . . ! ‘ ‘ • . . · ..
. ·.• .
. . . ·~ ‘ .
.. : .’… ;\J -… .:;··: ..
: · · :. … ·.-. · ..
…: •. :.. •
· ·. f•: i ,/ , # • ·.’ . • – ~-::·’ ,… ,..,-. .. •••
· · .· . ‘ : .. – • Invitotion ilo, ~.f.Q~i)J~ .· ·.· ·. –
. . e • ; • • • . . .· . ‘ ‘ ..
• ¥ .. l . • ··
. . : ‘:’ … .. ‘· .. . . . ‘ .
. : .” ·. _.. … . f~e 3 ._. f_, ·i: ~~·.·.~>.- . . .· . ··. · . ..
SI~S OF C.OVCP. .\. “;~ln” PRO!’F~’rY · · ; .’· · ,·.:;\ · -· :···
…. I •. : ; •
. . · .. . .
~ • -· • 4 • •
0 • • -:. • • • •
•• • • • • .:: . • ‘;( _. 0 … ·.= …. :· · ..
• : .: ·~ • •••• : ! • • • • •
0 • .. • • : •• • 0
… ·.· . • ‘
‘o , I o
“‘: 1 •
. :. .·.
….. : .
·: –
..· ‘ !-ID . . . r
. .· pnte of ~id.:
. .·
f : . ‘. :
. I . •
~ • • • • •• • • …. • • • • 0 ! – .
·:· .· …
. –
19 – :.·
.. .’· . . :;: · .~ .. ln cempli~nee \71th Invitation ·No. I.T-(2.3·2) ·53 c.& idcntiHc~ on the cover
· · ·~· .. · . . p:.se hereof £no subject to the C~ncral end Special Tc:-ms .’ lind Conditions
~.-_:. >t ~: . · ettecheo her,ato 11nd tha inr;tructioliS to bidde-;e, ~;11 of phich arc incorporeto~ .·:
·~:·\ . ~> ·=.: .·. es. a p~rt .of thh !id, the unclertdt;r.cd of!cro snd e~rce~ 1 if this Bid. be
· .. :. t.e·cepted ~;ithin calendar days (60 c:alenckr ~:!)’& if no perioo be ~peeifieo
.·:. :.” · · · . .by the Bic:idcr 1 hut·.cnot ·~{;:l:l< - ~hlln 1-0 e£ilenG!:.r dt;y.! in any eeoc) tlftcr elate of , .... • .. · . ~id op~n~nz, tO purchaSe the rosiclues herl!indtC'l" t~C.Cr. ibtlrl and tO rC'.:JOVe CcUe . :::: .":<·; \:.•ithin the tped.fied nu::::~ber of eel'cncl_ su_!n _ o f
… …

· .. ,. :’ ·:.;
~ … . ! . .: ..
.,
‘ …-
: , : .. . . ~. =• . ‘ : .. …. . . • .. . .

..1. That he Dis, Dis ~ot, ·D Br.1:1ll bucinc&o concern. · .. . .·
– …
. … -.·
·.· …
. … . . :. ~ ·.
: ·. ~ . . 2. If Bid~~r rerrcsent& ha is a c~~ll busin~so con:~rn, he
furth~r reprencnto . hi~ epplic=bl ~ clccc1fic~t1on ac:
{Check one)
. . : ·· .
. ·.. .: ,
….. … · ·.·.:·’:· .· .
. ‘ ! !” .·
. . : I .. ·: . ·, . , · • .. ·.
t ‘ ‘ . . · ~ ·. . ~ , ·. . . . . : •’ .. : . . . . .
.::·. · _.:·~::.· ~’ ·;·> _;·.:>:· 3.·: (a) Th~t he D hu, JJ han nott. ~?loy~c1 o~ re trdne~ .-·: .. ·
. .. , .. . . . hn)’ CChtll>~ny or pcrGcu (oth£r ti1~n n full·tir.:e; bono ficc
. . ; :.· .
. . / .
·-· ~ · :- : · ·· ·. ec:ploy~c \;.”Orl:ins t:olcly ! or thl! Bid&cr)…lo GOlic.i.,l or . ;·· .. : : ~. . ::::,: : . : . .
·:’ ·· · . · . r;ecurc this contrBct 1 ~nd (b) thDt heLl ht.s, Ll he.~ no::;.
·.
·· .
. ·. ~:
~
. : .
.- .. .. peid or agr~ed to pt~y any cc::n;>any “Or pe!rcon (other than a ‘ ·.
full·tirn~ bCinJ-N ‘i
————————————~;—————–
. : . . · .
: . · ..
1
2. EUS!m:ss .IJ)Pr..tss ————————— .. :
3. tO!.E r-~O?rtiJ:TO~SP.IP I I k?ATtTNERSl!IP It
….. . *lF. ·p;.r.rN,RSliiP . LISTC.El’F.:l”JU. P.t-.!.l’lmasT
.. – **CO::~P O:t~:no:: Lf (C!iZC~~ o:~r.)
. . ·
**IF co:·{po;u . .’nm: , tts:r srNrt w 1–nucH It~ co:tPo:u~’Et!) —-=—–· _
. . ‘ : … .
·· … : . , I.. · AGt 0! fiP.!·! _______ (‘il:I.RS)
s.
. . : . . ..
:t\i:T \~OR’I’l~ $
Pr..Er-t r:r:zn. )
________.( CEnTifitD C~n· 0~ U.’XES’t tALI..::C£ S!U:I:l’
··. . ..
. : ·. “… 6. : LIS! B.t.m~ r.EFER!:NCZ ————————~–·i · -· —

7. LOCA’l’t v:: 0? l’L:’J\1′ I N l:lUCH tESlD’JI:S \-TILL .r.s PI\OCr;SS!:D .:-.——-
-.
. ..
..
.. · : 8. Pl..I>.NT’ S Pf-:t:Sz;t;I USF: 0:\ l’/..s’I’ IF lWT O?Er.ATINC ——– – – —
. . ~ . :. . .. . ——————————————————————– ! i
~· :· ‘
r’ · 9. CAPJ.C I!Y OF P~\T IH TO~:S/DA.Y· ——-· ———-….o…-
·.:: . .;-
· ll O. C}::!-::CCAL ‘PRCCESSU\G £H~r.:u~m;t OF C01~~’l -. ———~—- .. ;: .
. . :- .l . .
. .. …
.. ~. ···· . … .. ,·
• •·.· .
. .
; ..
t’ . . …. . . : ….
\:. .. ·.· ·.;
.. · …. · . . _ . .
. . . . . : .
, : :
· . . .·.
. …. .:·
.:·· . : .
.· : : __ … ~ .
.. : . ~ . I
. · · ··. •·
,, _. . ! . .
·.:·
…. tr….: …
.· .
· ..
.. ·.
•. 4!,_
. \ . . ·;
. .
.•• ·· ….
.. . . E~002 ll … ·.· .. . ;
. . ‘ .’; ‘ ·~ : ….
. . ,, ..

..’
.·• . ~ ..
.. ·:
. :••
, ~ · ~: Invitation
_: ,_,:_. .i..’ ·Pt:tc S
. .
‘ ·/
l~o . A’r-(23-2) -.53
.. ·. ‘ :. i
12. Tli’E U~~DZRSlC;-:!D HtRE’EY C~Rl’IflES ‘l’K..t..T T~ INrO!’.H/·.’riO:\ FlJrJUSl~D /~OVE
lS TaU::~ .hh”D CO:’.f\.EC1′. . . · ·
. , ..·· . •’ ·. ~ ….
· .. … .
.’ , .;·
….. ··
co:·lPt.J.·rt: ___________ _
BY:
~ITL~:——————————- : ·
J\O’!’E: ·nz CO~·:”·~ I SSl Ol~ 1\ES::::IWES ‘l’l:t r..IG:i! TO DI SQU/~lF~ /J{Y l’ROSPZC’l”I\’E
!It!>ER OR J.CTUA~ LJ.DDEr. OR TO ‘!’tR!!Il~A’l’t A!·”‘:Y CO:~tr.AC’I’ /.H.\tm:;:D Ir
1’iU.:~t lS 1-. t’AILU!’.t; TO J~Ns:·IE?. THE :FOREGOXHG QU~~TIO:,:s I-‘Ul.LY /J;O
; ‘
TRU~i-:FIJLLY. . . –
.. ~ ….
· …. …… i. .
(IF HO:tt SP/.C£ IS HtEDED- P~A$1’:: USE SPACt ntLO!v 0:?. BJ~CK SlDZ.)
·~ . • . . . • ! • . • : ·.· • • • • ‘1. • : • : ·. : .: : : • • • : ‘. .. • • • : ‘ ··:· • •
·· ..
… . . .

,.
…… . ‘ ·. ·
.. : …. . .
: .~

.. , .:
.’ .. …. ‘ .’. ·. . · ~:· ·. .:·.’ .:
‘ ·. : ~ . ,: . ·: . •. . . . ..
.. :· .. ~ :. · ·~· ~.: …. · . .. … : :’· … \ . . ·. :·
:::··: : •• ~ ·~ • :• • : ·: . :.’=’ •· : . . . ·.·• . .. . . • . . ·.
‘; ·.· … ;_~ .. :/.. ‘1 .·. . . : .. ~ ..
. ?./ .’. : ·~· ::’ ~.’! – _.= .:.-; ..
.. ·. ::·:~: ·.:\ ··~ ‘, .: . :. : ; .
. . ·: ·.- ….. ·(·.· . … .. : ~~ ·-~ ·:· ‘· :- ~ ..
… •. ; ·. …. .. . : ……. ;· ~ . . ..
. : ·: ! ·:-·· . . .. ~ .’· -~ .
~ • . ·• · . . ! . . ~ :: . . . ·. :’:'”
~ ·.’ : : .. ~··. . .
. :: ·- ·.
~: ~ :
. .\ …
•.
.. … .··.. .
. ~”‘: . . \’ .
} . ~· . ·’ .. · : .•
. .. .

:· . . . . ~- . ~ .· .:: . .
. . ·· . . • ..
.. .
. : ··. · . ·. ·:·· … …..
:-:
. ,
. ·’ . ·, .. ,’ …
., ‘•’
.. · ·,
~ . ‘ .;

… , • . ·’ …
• .~.. • .I
-:
J • • · ·. j-
…:
~ .I .·..
. :. :·r· …. … . :: .
. ·.,
•’

. ..
…. . ….
…. , ._ . .
..:,.·
· ..
: .. ~
.’
. : · ..
‘•
··· .
. …·• . ..
. •’
.. …
•,
‘ . _ ) ‘ . . ‘
. ‘·
; :. .
• l
·.. . ~ : ……….. .:. . – · ..: ~. .. .
· • • : • • •f
. .. . . .. .::· ( .<:· ... .. . ·... : . ';f= ~no·.:2j· .., '; .· .,{ ...' t: ... ..u . . . l.... ,•~ .· . . · . ·· .-.' . ... :: ·: . .. ·.· ; lnvit..r,;tion l~o. Al'··(23-2)·.S3 . :. · ·:.:· .' ·· ' ·· ·, J>Age 6 · .’ ·: :·· · .•
. . .~ . . : ·-· •· :· . . . . . : ~- . . ! < . . . 1. .. • . . : ' .. ... .. . . : . . ..· .! . · .. \ . ... .. · j ~!'>(: ::ti~. The Bidder b invited, ursed, and cautioned to ittspect
the ~ro~cr~y to be sold prior to sub~itti~s a bicl, Property will ·
.. ‘
..
be av~il~Lle for inspection at th~ places ~n~ timc5 opccificd in the
Invit~tio~. ln no case will failure to inspect ~onstitutc &round~ for
the. ~ithclr~\·:al•of a bi~ after op,ening. .· … .
. 2. Co~~i~e~t.tio~ o! Bids. ~he ~iddcr agrees th~t his bid will not be
\7::.thc-.:~ .. ..-. \::ithin the perioo of ti;·:~e spceif1e6 fo:: the :1cc:e-:>tance the:-cof
follo~in3 th~ opnnin~ of bids {siht~ (60) e’lcnc~r d~ys if no period
be speeificcl b)’ the Go\•errun~nt or by the Bidder but not less than tE’.n
(10) c~l~nd~r days in ~ny e~sa) and th~t durint such period hiS bi~
L.”ill rc:-.~ain firm and il·revo:able. The Gov~rn.~~nt rer.erves th~ right
to rf:ject any or .. 11 bide • :and to \lu.ive sny tcchnicGl defects in bids
“.: . ·: · .
c:~ C:ly b~ in the be.tt int~rest of the Covc.rn.”;lcmt. . .. .. . .· . . • l • · … : .. :-..
3·. · F:c t:” C’n ~ibilit’• fo:- Prot>~rt\’ Sold. The !Jurchaser ess\lJ:\~t. all recpo;”tsibility
·;r.:cs lic:bilil:y for th~ projl~rty 6fter the (i.>te of the Gove:;.·r.:n~nt’ ~
· C!Cct::r-tance. The Covern:nent \Jill exercise itli usual cr.re for protccticn
of · th~ mater i.:J.l, but the Govcrn.”i,e.nt vill not l•e retpon::ible for en;· 1 O!>S
· .or ·d~age frcc .in)’ c~use vho.tso~vcr.
4. ·u.~itr. t’i£!1 O!:’l Cov~~r::-.P.nt’ s Li;:.’!>ility. Except for tre;nsportation chC!rges
~hen a return of pro~cr:y al Covc~r~ent cott is authoriz~d by the
Gc:,v~-rrc.ent. the c:e.asurc cd thi: Goverru;;cr1t’s lit.bility in ar.y ease \;here
· . li~bility of the Goverrunent to th~ Purch~se~ hcs been est6blished thall
not exceed refund of such rortio·n of the purchcsc price ~s· the Go\’crr.. ” :’l:mt
mhy h~ve rcceiv~d.
~ .• .
. . …
. . .
: ·s. O:rr.l ~t~.ter:-.entr t.nd l!odificaticns.. Any oral statem~nt or reprcs bc.:cn e.-:Jploycd or retained to solicit or lil!cure this con~n:ct
upon ‘2.n .oc;rc-e;nent or unGc:’Slancang for .D CC:-:”:.li.ssion. pcrccntaee. b1·o!:cr;~gc.
or conting~nt fe~, exeeptins bon~ fide c•»?lo~ect or bona fide . cstabli~h~cl
cu.”t..·ae.;;c. ial ~se:nc ies mclcgtttc to Cong’:”css o-:
~-;’Ziciu;; Cc.•:::r.~i5sic.onc:t ~hl\11 b~ ~G..~itted to .:ny r.hnre: or p.1t’t of this
eonn·~·~t or to o:”‘)’ b~nefit tht.t rM:.y t~rhe thereft·o:n, unless it: b~ r.r.d~
1.1ith .a corpor01tio:. for ita; g~ncral ben~fit. . ..•
‘!’
‘ . .
• • – j .. … .. .:··
. .. • .··. ~ -.
. :•· ~ . . – .. .. : . . : . . . : …. :<· :.: ·. "; .. : .•· .! •• • •• :· ·. : : ~ . • • . :. ~ - · · '" :: · · · ,: ·. \{- ~::--; · :<' ;;. i · • f > r~·o &ir (
‘.i; :. :., •.• · ~· :, , ~· • > :> •…•. :: · . .’.i .· . ·. ·: ·:. . ..: :f ·[·’,’> :~ r ::}”.:~; ~ i1 o~.· Ro i1T-( 2 3• :;· S3·,.’. : ; .••• ·:;.; : ••
. . ·-8. Disput~s. E~cf!pt as otherwise providrscl in ‘thio eon’trAct.-. any di~puU, ·
·· . · · · eorj~ornine to qu~st’i.on Cl!’ !net ari~’i.ng W’ldc:O t~is ·contract. \·7M.ch ts not
. . : . fis?c~ed of by aeree~ent sh&ll b~ decided by th~ Co:~t!·.o.ctir.z Officf:r 1
: .. .’ .. ~ · : . . \;ho. t;h~l red~ce his ci~ cision to ~ri t\ng and rr..o.il or othert·:is6 !urniDh
_.-:_… ‘ a copy thcreo! to ‘\.be P1.u-ch~~or. Trio decision of the Contract1nh O.f!’icer
. . .
; : ·· . · .. shall ‘bo !i.~.n Lno. co;’)clusi ve \lnless, \li thin thi.l·ty 00) c;ays fro;;1 thG
. ; . ·, .. a~te o.r rE!eeipt of f:UCh copy, t.hc 1\u’ch:.seJ· r.:~ils or otht!n·Ji~a furni:-ho:! · · ·
_ .. . to t-h~ Corrtructing Offi.ccr e wri’t.te·n £’PP9~ r.ddr~~s~d ‘l-o the Co~ds:ion •
. · : .· .·· ~he d~cision of the Co:r:nlsston o:- hio duly auth~riz.ed ropresentativo
:.- ·_- · ·· :£or t’hc determ’i.n<>tion o~ such nppeals shall. be fil1d and conclusive u.~-
. loss cett;J r-r.,ined to hava be. en f:u:udulent, 0!” ca:priciou~ J . or erbi u·~y, 0!”
· £0 g!.”o!:sly errC\:1~ous as ~ecessarUy t.o ir.:ply br.ti .f£ith# oJ.• no·~ suppor~c!
. by subs’t.ent1d evidence. .1n co:n.~ecti c:l ~=i th en~· t.?pe=U. prvcE:Gdi.ne U!H’.-ar
. •’ •’
thi~ eleu:::e) the Purchaser shall be s.!forded en cpport’.!nity to b~ n3ard · .
. . and t(• o.f!er evidence in support o! hi~ a~pecl. • . ~onrling !innl oocisi.on .
. of a disp·ilte. hereunder, the Purch!ser s h ~ll proceed ctiliccntly ltith t.”1o
pcr!orr:Hmce of the contrr..ct cma in accordAnce ‘H.tth th~ Con\.!’~::tine; O!.i’ice~ 1 s
~eci&!.o::l.- · ·· . .. · : . ~ – …. . . . :

· –~ · 9 _- ‘D9.fini ti.o:is .· As u~ed throughout this conu·aet,’ the follOHinr. ~rr..!l ·sh:!ll
‘·. ·.. – · · -~h.:v~ t t)C’ ·mean ‘ins sot .forth belci-1: . .
..- -·
‘. ..: -:·.._ . . . .. .·. ..·. ~. : .. ·;·. .. ‘
:: :·.· . . . …. · .. (1.)
I. o ‘, •: ‘ – , ~- ‘ o o o o
. . .. ::•. ·.
. ; ·. ‘• ,·
0 a • ‘<• 'l'he term r.cont.-ac tir-e Offic~r,, ·v.~Dns the pe:-son c~:ecuttna .tho cont.ract on b ~ hal! of the Oovcrr.,,.:ent ~nd in~l\!de s hie successors or ~y duly ~uthoriz~d rep:-c:entat~ve of such }'>~TSO!lo
‘ • ::a
. .·. :· .-.~ · ·: . .•. . . .
•:
..~ ~ ·• . . . ‘ ._.·. ..
. ::~:> .~—: . .. ·.· · . . ·. ! :· •. •
·; ~.: ·.’<. : · •.. (~) . 'I'he t~l'l!l nco:-:-..· d.ssion, means the Uni t~d States At .o:d.c 'E.'le:-cr . :· . . .. Co~ iss ton cr. z:.y duly· £.uthQ:-ized rcprese.nt ati va thereof J . · ... · . · ineluding th~ Contr~cting Officer except for the purpo~c o! deciding nn ~ppea1 under Pc:ragraph 8 llereof enti t.lcd 11Disputo&11 • J • • ~ .. _. .. . - ~ ... .. : . ·.. . .· . . . . . .:·.•, ;., ·: · . .... -~ ;-: '(';) . 1'he uords 11residues'1 1 11property11 an~ uronte:-i~l{s)u ~1·e used . . . . .. . •: ·.. . :.- .' _. . in~::"chE-.nze .::.bly throuahout this document nnci refer to the · · · :: · .: .. .' · · -_. · · ; . .. · ·' · · ur-nni\l!ll•ba;a-inr; mtlterie.l described in Artielo I. · . . .. · · .·.'·.·.~:.. ·· ·.~··. . : •.. . • =·. . ·. .•...• •· .-: : . . .· . • . ! . .· ... :··.. . .~ -:- ~_ ·:.· . •. : ..- . . · · : ·.:._ .. ·: ~. : -:.·~ .: . : : . . ~ :. ,:·f ... ·. . ._ . . .. • ' ' • • • \o :" ,•· ,; ' ' '•• • '• '' l • .: . • • ._,, .:· -.. : ' • ·, • • ! • • ' .- .• • _:· ; : • • • ·,;. • . . . . ..... . . .. .. .. ·: . . . . ·. . . ..... ; . . . ~·. : . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . : . . . . .• - . . ·. . . . . :. : ~. . ': ·: .. : ' . . ;._ ·.. ·. . ·:··· .. . ;' . : ·. . .. . . . . . . . . : . . ... ·.: · ;D.:: · :_ r :,.. - : ;: ~.;~: .:N::.:\:-;·_!,:.:: :,"~ :·: ·: , ,~_·< -/,~, _::· :·.;.::·:~,)_:.·-.i-:-·:_; ;.·:_·.-•-.·. :: .. ;y:::;s/1·;_:\.}.. : •:.. · . ;:.. - : ; .· · ·• •.. . _._,: .•. :··.~..:. ... :.: ·;: _.:_·... .. · ·.·: .....- ' .. . . ·~- ·• ....... . . ... ·.-:. .':~= .. ~ -· · ... . ··. 0 • • • !': : ' . • -~. . • • •. ~: . . .... . . ~ :···. . . · : . ... · . . . . . . .. . . ·.·.· . . ; .. •.- ~ . . . . , . ·. : .·. . ., .. . . • •. • • • • • j I .-. ·· . . .. ...... . .. :· .. . ' . . • ' . - . . . . . . . ·-· . ~ ·. : . ... . . . .. . :~ ,• :.· . . I. ... ' . ...,, :. .. •' .. . .. ;' .. . . . ·•· .. '· :: : .... ~: . : ... ..: ' ~· . . ·. -. · :. ·· ;:.lnVi1:.atior. No. . . ·.·. -· · · ~-··. ·:· ... Pace s. Js-ce3:=ne! ~ r • -. f • 1 .. .. . . . . . ". ~ ~ •. .. . ·::~ > ..- .:: .·. …. :!. .: ·. .. :
·~··· •’ ………. -~. :4··~···. ,··.· ..
:.: •”:.·. . . -. . ·.~ .: ,: : •. • t ·. •. •. ·:· ‘·~ ,* • , ••• ;·.~· ·:. • :. :’>· • “,·:; ‘I
.. ::; . .. .• ..·• :.- : ·.· ~ …. . …….. :· …. ·; ; . . . • . . •.. • · .. ! . . . ·:· . .
. ‘ .. · …
.= .\: ·.:·· .>· .<·::.~~:.~~·.:)/-·:.'\ ... ·.. . ··:·SPECIAl~ co:mi.l'lO:~S .·: ·: ~·=-·.·~ .'. . · ~<(\:··.~ ···:·.).;~>~·· …. ,’.:. ;. .· .
···: “}. ·.. .. · ., ~. ~ :··, … · … ; :··:·.~.>~:: ·~··; … : …. ·.-: ·~.:;: .. ‘·~·.· … :·!· : … ,·
!;;T!CL::; I •. ~· D!:SGRIPTICf.\ 0? RESI~JES . . ·-.. :· ·: . roxi.rc&W \J~it:hts of :the re~idues hauled to t.he site .frcjn t.he rt:!!incry.
fl’r;ey ao not· incluc.iG ~tone added !or ra’!lps end roods, caT’th ad dod b~,r reh~dlinr.
.p.t t’he’ resida~s, o!’ :m~istu& .c.hai6:ist- ..
~ ..
··· ~:ng levels of these ro&dv:aya arp not indicat1vo of tho dep\::h .of the piles of
. . r,as:pues· a ..”. a.”ly s-ivcn location. l’ho ett.irr.nted urani’.lm conten-t. is ba~HJ~ O.:’\ ~r.
.. · ; · a~CU.”:!\ll.ation Of a·seays t&kE:n on pipe Sllr.i?le::; .fro:n c;.cb b&!’-Ch h ·.as to cr~Jtalit3tiv~ end (luu.ti t~ti va eon tents of the rest dues to be ~old1 l:hich
:: · -are gan~r:.lly ci~teribed as follo;.;osa · . . . .. . .. ···
.. :·.:· … ·. . ~ … ~.-~ . .: =·. ·. …. ,· ·.·. :··.·. · .. : .’·’. ··: :-. :.: .· ·:·-:·. \.
‘•. ·. : . ··~· …… . . . . .· … ·.,·
! .: . . -:· ·:·,
:·. :. •. . … : .. : .. · Pitchblende Raf!inate
: : ~.> ;i~ ·: ·.;< The p~ tc:hb'l'cnde ra!' tin ate is· a resie~e ralHil ttng fr071 p r-ocessinr. · ... . · Bel~ia"'l Congo p~t.chblencle to~uther Hi th other \t~'t.n'i.n.":: coneor:trntt.::::. :' --. ~-~.- : !~P~;~~~ .t-Toss lleieht is 7L,o~,~~~~- con~•i~.i.nc ~bou~ ll) ~c~: , , ... ,.. .. · . A syst.~r.;at1c C~ueer SC::.·):·lin~ pror:rr...'f1 tor t.h:: })itr.hblcnoe rr,£i'ina V3 .... · .'. ·. pil!:s \:e:.s par!'o'!'";:led in J\.l..'1e of 1953. l3a.3ed. O!i thirty-sc1'\"Cn ca"ipl~ · . · .· · .. hoJ.ee \·:hich pro,-l.dcd nin'.:! t~'-six ~n~yti~al s~·~plct 1 the T.i'3t~l •· ;.~· · .,,.: ·~··= ·value:.l·1.n llpproximt:rtely 50,000 tons o! l~es1clue o~:ist.in(t at. thc;.t. ... · ·! · .. · · tiJr.e ~1ere estimated a:; tollo;:s: . · ... : . . .· · .. ; ~·. ·.-. ~·. . :- < ~ !. . :;·~·: ·~ .-· .. . ~.:·. . 1,55'3,0~,:> lbs. of Cob;.lt ..
: ·.· .. · · ·l,B4510:>) lbs. of l:~cl:el · .. – .<· · · · · 9711000'lbs. of Copper ··.: . ~· ;·. · •.. . ·. ·.. ~ .: .. ·:· · .. · . ; .... ; .. . .-'.: ~ .... . .; .. · ·'. · .. ~ . .. . . . .. .~ -~ ~. . '. .. • · .. ·.!' .. . . ..... ~ ·. .. . . .... ·. ... • -· ·. " .... · ... . · · .. .. ..- : . . .. .•· Subscc!uent aodi't.ions or r.uff1..r,ato to th~se piles increaEcd the: · .. · . &ross· ,,·eight to appro.xitr.atc.ly 7L.,OOO t{ln.G •. Assumi.""lg t~.e eoppe::- J cobcl. t r..nd nicksl content o!' ·the pitchblC=:'lde o-::-o processed dl!rirJe t..'lis pe.rioc \:~s tbe sa..,le as procescod prior t.o Juno 19$3 1mci neglect:ing any cont.ributi on t.o the lllGtal v.:a.lues bl ot.hsr urr.niu~ .. con~ainlnc llit:t!rials proc~ssed durir1g '\his period; 1-he 'total t~t.

    ·o …… . lb.c. C’! 2,08$ 1… 000 lbs. of
    l,098,.oo~ lbs. of
    .. .•. Cobal’t .. · .
    l:ickel
    Copper
    .. .. · . · . .. .. .. .
    ..• ..·. .. ·.
    Ot~e:- sample’!:! on \lM.. c.ll more c.omplota analyse~ vere rnado are> shC”·1:n
    .in 1’tlblo I. D.1e to t.ho het.cro~ancity of ‘t.h~ [Jitehhlc:md~ r,a!’!’int.ot-s,
    ~he~~ ~nalyses .shonld be· consiclcrt;d indi.oat;i.\•E: 6! the cornposi ‘\..io:\
    -…

    -· , .
    …….. : ….
    o!’ ~’le Jr.tl’\.eri:._:. ·: · · S102 : . · .
    0.2
    21.2 .
    .. ..· . . . ·. … · .· Th . .
    :0.8
    o.os
    0.$ – s.o ·.
    0.10
    •. ·.-:::( : ~02
    ··:. :·. tJ .
    . ·. V20 .. . . . ;, .
    Lo~s on
    : Ignition
    · .:. · s.L
    . ;,
    ·. 0.1 – l ·.o
    . 0.2
    . 0.62 · .
    l.l
    76.17
    A~, I~=~ B., Ba , ne, B11 Cd, Cr, Cu, GA_. In, X, N’o, St., ~.’l,
    · Sr, ll, Y, Zn l’.nclZ::’- till los:- tha.”‘l 0.1% o~>.ch.
    . …
    : .-·\:._- . –
    . ;.-. .·
    · …
    . :; · .
    -~’ho . r~i t”~’Ve CO!)tont or tho Colo!·ndo rn!fin~t,e is . 6 ir.lilnr to th~ t cr
    tl~c pi t-chbl~n~e rc.f!ina~.
    ·· ..
    . .•. ,• .. ·.
    ‘ • . .. .
    …… ·~ .
    : .. ·._ .
    . ‘ I
    ‘•, ‘ ‘ I
    . .
    ~ :.:. ·.
    . . . . .
    . -:
    ·~ ,,,’ . .. · ..
    . . . · . : ·.
    . ·. ~ .. ·. . .. . : : . .· .: . .. .. … .·. ….
    . . ·.· ·.
    ‘:.· ·: ·.
    – .1
    . … . . I’ , .. .. • ‘
    … .. .. .. . ·. ‘ •
    • • • • • · r: . ·’ . • • . ~-: . . ·-.. .: . . .··i . ::: . . :_ .. . : . .. .
    • • · : • • • : • • • • : • : .. . . • •• ;_ 0 • • _ .. . -~; •
    ~· . . : . -. ! ·. ::;: .. ·… ..
    .,
    ,. ‘ . .• .
    ; .’•
    s: ~.o o2 ;_~· ,..·. .- –
    ~ ·- … . – –
    ·.: :··: : . · .. · .. ·. :·· … ‘ .:/<·,:· :;.~-:-.- ··. : In,•it4ltion. 'No. AT-(23-2)-53 . . ··.:.· · :- . · ~-. ;: · : . >. .: –< .; ·· .: · ,·:.. : ;:'._.: .:. -~ ~ ·_ :. : Pa"e ll · : : · · .. ·, .· ... • .. ·.,: .. ' , . : .... _. :·:.:.: ... ·;~ .}.~:.C.·~t<.:·,~:::. ·:. ·:, u , : . ·. ·'·:,-; . ..-: ... ·· . -·: .; ~ ·.!• .• ,• 'I .· <:r.~ : ._.:::. t'· :. :s~t-i~~ · sulfate Calte ·{Un1esehed) -·· ...> >::·.·-~ ._:_.; ·.. …. ·: ._:·.- >. ../ :.
    . ~ .. ·-~ . .
    .. ·. · -~~ri~ ~>ulfate cake ‘(unleac:hed) is a resioue result ins freh.l the
    .. …….. :.’ :.·. · … ..
    . …….. : ..
    . · .. ·
    . . .. . ·. · . ·ref ir.ery opei”ation, Approxic;01te gross \Oc:ight is l, ~00 tont conte.in• .
    ins about 22 tons of uranill::l. Compo&ition of the cd~c is c&t im~ted
    · · :. ·· · ,· }:: ·. ‘es f oll o”‘s : · ·- … . ..;_::.::.~·:=:·. ~ . · . _; -_:./ ·_ :.’; · ..
    • •7 • ··: ‘• • • • •. • • ~ •• • :. _; :_: .: .· •• : .• • . ~ -;
    . -.. ·.: ..
    · · . . . · .. .. ,’. })llriuo Sulfate · ·.· :;”:: :·· ./· :·. ·’ 60-SO%
    ·:· : . . : .-… ::·• · ‘ .H20 .::_. ·.:’:’-~_: . . :· .. .’ . 15-SS%
    , …. .. .
    . . . . ..
    . •’, . . . – ..
    ..
    … :
    ·:
    : .
    ‘ •’ . .. · ·:.
    ~ :
    · ~: .· · Un:mium · · .. · ·- 1′!2 1.
    · · .. •ii:;c. Pb, cu. Ni, Fe, ete: · · 1-2 1.
    .. . ,._. . ··. Solicls- J'()ck. &rav.:!l, Dttnd, ct.c •. .’ 1-2%
    · .. ···. . . . ~ ~ ~ ‘
    :: … ..
    ·.
    ·.: ,·
    ..· .. •, . . .\.; ·.
    -.~ . ; .
    ~ ..
    • ‘ ·… t .• • • ‘
    .. ·. . .. ;
    . . ~ .
    ‘ – ::. ·: . .- L&rium c: ~ke (leachecl) is Zl re&S.duc resul tin ~ frm the refitH:ry or>e.’rlltiO;:’l •
    J.ppro.,.imatc gross weight is 8, 700 tons concd.nin& obout 7 tor.:; of . . .
    uranhsm, Cro.position of the c.ake 16 et:tir.t.t!::~ately . 2 . to:1s
    ·-·drums. l~o othe:r inforfi\.stion is
    .· ·.
    a s~oss ~;isht of ~p~r~xim~tely ‘ 350 to~i
    of uranium are stored in deterior~ted
    nvail~ble ~n theto rcsid~es.·
    ·- :_· ., /~’TlC!.!: I1 – QU.t..l~TI’n.FS ‘l’O B!: f.~·!OVEU
    …. ..
    . ·: . · .. :· :
    . – . ‘
    ·· :··
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ‘ ‘
    -All l:leterid lyi ns ,_,ithin the cro::s-hatched src.ns ~ho~m en D•~·.~inc No. 6·1403-H •
    whieh is ~ttae hed hereto Lnd u.nde s part hereof. chall be re~;•ovc d by the ·
    Purchase~ . I f advnn t~seous to the Purcha&er , he m~y rc~ov e ~ n~ r~sidue s lyins
    ~edi~tely o utside the cross-botched &reas. ‘ ·
    . . ··
    · ;· J.ll· reddues al:,ov.; groun&:1 level &h all be r£:movccl \dthin the cross-hatched
    .. e.re~s. In c~ se of oisagree::1ent on cround lc\•e.l clcv<:ltio4ls, they shdl be establishet b~ procucinz 2' contour&'fro~·clcv~tio;:'l s taken along pe~imctcr · fence ~ral ~ssut:\in6 tt.ere is uniform ch~nse in cle·vat ions olons the north-south grid line!:, lf £adv~nt~geous to t.he Purch::scr, he rucly rcr.\ove rc:.icluec Clnd/or. eontar1inoted e .nrth below cl~tcr.!li:le " .cround level. .. . .. Stone end other debri s c.ontaincc1 in th~ r e Sidue piles tnay be left Ot:\ t he site in dcsiznc:.tcd · ar ea~ c::st~blished by the· Contr.zcting O!ficer. l1po:-~ cc:n?lctio;t of tile p'u r chs:.er ' & rc:noval oper.ation, he shL~ll lett\'C the erercccntat.ion, c>:pressed oi
    W?licc!, £ S to the kind. size. weisht, ‘ludity. eharaetcr, de ~ cription, o:-
    : .. .·: ·. .· .· co:1dition of the rr.ateri~l; o:- its fitness for any use o:- pu~po&c; cr th~t it
    · · · · uill not c£ute injury or d~cge to pe-rcon:; cr pJ.·operty; or that t:ny i n fo!’r:.l:.tion
    · : ~ (incluc:Hnz t he 2:-~ a lysis, a part of the .rlc&criptio:l_, G£:t fo’!”t:h in . /~rticle 1)
    ‘• · . furni&t.e<1, its contE;...tn i nation, ot· other m&tters \.:hich t:..:y c:o:~cer<) it 16 .ee ~i'letc .. :·:.·. or ac e~~ ~te; ~r.d the Govertt::lcnt sh~ll not be hcrty
    · ..
    · .. purchll!;Cc! her”undcr. · · · ·. · .. · ·
    ‘ . .
    • 4 • ,. : • ‘: . .. ·. . .
    .. · ..
    • ·: •• : • 0
    .. . ·.· .. ,··.·
    , · , .: . : ··The resioue:. dctcribed herein con&titutc Gouree ~st~ric.l, the receipt, pos –
    . · .session. u~e Ot’ trantfer of uhich arc C\\bjN~t. tc H.c~nsinz r c:qui.n::uents Lnd
    … : .·. ·reguhtio:ts pr~ul&ated by the CC::::l\issi.on pun:u~nt tc the Ato:nie tn::::rgy /.ct
    . • _of 1954, ~s o::-ended (1~2 USC 2011). Accol·dintl>·, pureh~se-rs must obtl’.i.n s
    licen~~ 2n d cc:::;,ply \~ith the r equirc.:::enu of the regulc.tion.c pc:rt6ining t.o
    sou-rce ·material as set -forth in 10 CFR, l’artt ·20. 40 end ?0. . … . … . ~ . . . .
    … . .
    ~· · .!,!:.TlCt~ VI – t:OTlC!. ‘!’Cl PrtOCErJ> &nTH . Jl.~·:Oi.’.~l. AllD ‘I’X!·:E rc~ rJ:-!0\!f.L
    . . .
    The G o verr;::)~nt vill i ssue a notiee to proee~d with respect t.o l’C!:\OV:!l of
    : ……. , … ..
    . . ..
    . .
    •.. ·. · .. ::
    ·.· .. :.
    -rcsici..!O C, In no event sh.e.ll the Purchr.sC:\r l’c:r.ovc the rcs:i. ciues p:dor to cuch
    notice to proeeed.· “The Cover~~cnt vill not 1s£ue c notice to proceed prior . · ~:
    .·to the P~Tehaser’s o~tainin; a license as re~uired in Article V ehove. . 1 . .
    J.fter notice to proceed, the: Purchaser thP.ll r~:love the n~~idut!S \lithin 400
    caler..da~ clays ,
    . ·• . ·: .
    . . . .
    The Purchaser ~hall be re~:.Jhcd to fur nich i1 P crfe>~'”t.~:1nec aond in the c:ount
    of ~sc.ooo guZlr~nt ce inz the ·l.ciUo\·al o ‘f all retoichle&;. ··
    . . .
    !:El.C’L”=- V!Il – PAYl;:!:NT
    P … y.~.~nt pf the· pu1·ch~sc p.-iee ~htll h~ m::.dc \1ithin 30 dc.yc fr c;~ the otlte t>f
    r oacci!’t. o! rtotie~ fra::. the Go\’crr-“‘::cnt to .proce;ed vith the r~:.1 ov~l of t he
    pro;>crty •
    .· ·. :•
    ‘ … . ,·
    . ..
    ; · ‘ ..• :
    … … . . .
    . . …
    ·’
    • • • • • A .. t
    …. : ·:: .
    – .
    . -. ./· .. .. .. : f ·: . . ·; . . .· .. . . ‘
    .. … .:.. . ..· .. .. .- .. .-” .· .-. . . ~ ·’
    •• 0 •• •
    ·.·
    :· · ·.
    .. . . . ·. . ~ .. :· ‘:.
    . j
    • • t> • • –:. ..
    .. · .
    .. . ..· ·. . .
    . .. ; .
    .·,
    .. . · . .. · ‘:. .: … :· .
    ··’
    ·. • ‘ ….. … …..
    · .
    … . . .
    ‘ ….. . ~ . . .
    .. . . · … :-‘
    • • • 0 • … . . : : .
    . ‘
    ! : .. .. . l ·.·
    . t .
    ·…· ·.· ·· .
    :.. -…
    . . I .
    .Title to the propct·ty sh:.ll pnu to the Purch.,::cr upon pa~”;:)ent of the
    ·put: eb~se· price ~s providcJ in l.’rticle VIII above and furnisbin~ :Pcdo:-c~nee
    ~ond ns rec:l.!ireci in Article VII abt>Ve ~ . . – .. · f · .-:. .. . ~:~·· . . .
    . : :·. .. ~- …. .
    •· … ·. ~ .. ~ ~ – . . ..·; ~. ‘ .
    ( .
    ~ –
    . ~- J.s el£~\<7h.;;re pro\'idcd herein. the property sol'~ her~und~\: is 11£6 1&11 • ~- "'whet'c 1s11 and all 1 o.ldin& and rcmo\'l:ll cf . tha propert;y ~h-!!ll be ::lt tha · '•· .~ C):!,)enue of the PurchD&cr. ... .. ..·.. · · · · 1 l\w..;. · . . ·" . .• .. . ... ... . gTICLE XI - 0~-sr.r:: PRCCESSHlG · · · . . . . \~ ) . · ·- .. . . 'The Pu:-ch ~ ser ~ay ·perform on.-site precessing O?erl\tions follo~inz: · .. cubje.et to the .. .r '.I\ . ;: ~ .. . a. ·The PurchasE:r shall furnich at his O\m e.Y.p~r.se all processins eqd.pment :' .. :·.-. ·_' ... . 'a~d·provic3c ~ll · .ttruitu.res neeeSSC.l')' !or _cn•Si.te procer.sirg operati(Jn.L . : . . ·: ·.·· ~ . ... .. . -~ .. · · b. All processing .cquir.::.Jent • and ·t>tructures inz.tellcd fqr pro:cs£ o?eration.
    ·=’ , ·. ·?,1 · shell be re:!l.oved by and at thll c;.;pcnse of the rurchOl~el’, !pr~ptly upon
    ~ .. . · _.~ ~ – -~O’llplet ion of the \-10:::.”k. ~ ·
    ·.::·· -~;_ · … • . . . . . . — ~
    . <·:;~. c· . . Use of the.sitc fo:: on-site processing sh.sll not ere~to en)' .right,· ': : :·:. ~ ·title or intere.st .. to the site prop~rt:y in the Pm:chcser o:her than the · :· ; . · ·:. · ritht to p~rforr.l proccssins opet'o:t:ions thereon. . ; .· =, . . ·.· ..... · Cl. lor any The Purchaser s~&ll not .use or perr..it the use of any pDrt of the s i te other than on-site processing. The Purcha~er may not astign o:: tran~fer rig.ht of use of the site to others Yithol.lt the .approval of the Cc=ission. . . · ·.' e . · "r.ailir.g~ resl.!lting : frc:~ on-site procestin~ o! quantities of cotcri~ls ·.: .. - : . rec;ui'red to be r~ovcd • . es pr~vided in Articl e II .ebo-..e, _ &'t-.~11 be r~:n~vcd > · _..· fro;n the . site. : ..
    .· •t” .• ; ._. … .. £. “l’he Purchaser shall ee:uply ,with all Feocr~l, : Stat~~ County ,md· loc&\l
    la~s. ret,’1.!lations and ordinances. . .. . . . . .. : ·•
    . . g. : The Pl.lrehaser shall not construct or otber’lo’ise place upon the site
    . .. · an:; stru~ture abov~ SSO ft. elevntio:;; me:m sea level (approx~t~ly lS ft.
    :. . .. · abov~ troun~ level). · _ . ·. . .. , . – · ·
    . .
    h • . ~he Purch~s~r shall do nothing ~hieh ~111 interf~rc with lo~din£ C-line’t’
    £l02g 0:1 :t· ~il c:2rs by ·the Co!:::lission or its desisnee for off-site £h;:”,p~ent.
    This ~ateria 1 h located on th~ c~st end of the propert)’, ll& ~ho\m on
    l·:C~! t>rc.”.lint l~o. 6-1403-19.
    I ‘
    • • .-. • .,.j~ … .. _ •••••
    ‘ ~ ·.
    . ,•
    •·.
    .. ~ ·~
    .. … ·.·
    .:• .
    . . .
    :~. ‘• ..
    – .. -:
    -··.

    .. . .,., ·.·· .· . . ; ) . . · .:.
    . i
    .:·
    · .. ‘ . … . E·_~:(fO 2 ~ l’
    I
    . . “·
    ~· ‘.’ .. Invitation No •
    Pa~e 14
    }.’r-(23-2) -53
    ·• .. ..
    . ·: .
    1. The Purch~ser sb;.ll l>C: responsible’ and liDble for and .shllll. snve
    Govern~~nt h2nnless fr~ ~11 ~uits, ~lDimS and ~~ages of’~hatso~ver
    .a:-isi’:”.g cut of or in eonne~tion vith \:o.r. k perforr.1ed o~ the .site,

    I
    th~
    kind
    that CovBrnmcnt p1·operty ~onsisting
    of’spp~ox~atcly 21 acret £t-~obertson, Missouri. 1~~~dintcly north of
    ‘l’he· term .,sitE:” as used herein “cec-ms
    St. Lo~is l·!~mic’i.pal .Airport Qno east of l!eDo:mcll J~ircra~t Corro:~tion Plant
    ·on »ro•~ Road, ~ll in St. Louis Co~nty.
    . :·.
    …’
    . -. ..
    .: …
    .·-·.
    ··>

    . ~.
    .:- . ; : :
    . ~ .

    . .
    . ;
    • ..
    •.’
    ·-
    : . .
    ..··
    ….
    \ ~ .. ·-. .. ·
    .. ·.: : .. · .. ~ ·.
    ….. …
    .. ..
    . ·::
    ., .
    . ·~·
    ,· ..
    ·.~· ::. ·..
    .. ;··
    . ..
    ‘· .. ….. :””
    . ·:
    .· :..•
    ~ . ~· .
    0.
    t •.
    ….
    . . . •.
    . . . . . . ~ ..
    ,.:, .
    \ . :~
    .. ·.·
    “·
    ~ .. :
    ;,; .. ·
    :~.
    . ~ .: . .” ..

    “: .
    ”,’;·. ‘ .. .. •.
    .. ~ .
    ·-. =·. ·; .. ···· ….
    . ,. .. ~ ,:··
    , .;_.
    · ….
    .”.. •
    ,’·
    ~·. ‘.
    ··· .
    ···f; .: .. · .• ……
    . , … .
    .. ·.··
    ·.
    •• •• •! ,.
    .· .
    : .·: ….. ·
    :. . .,
    :: j . •
    ··-·-~
    0 ···.

    . .
    · .. :.:.. : ··
    :.
    ……..
    •, ,: ··.’.
    , … ·. … :
    : . . … ~·~· ..-.·.. ::. •.’ ‘:1 .
    ,.: •·. … ·.
    :~ .~ … , -~
    •• 7’ . :.···- ‘.·-: _
    ~ .: .. :: . . ·~ ,.
    . . . ~ .:.
    .. ·.·
    .. -·
    ·~
    • ~ : I •
    .:: ..
    .:;,.
    · ..
    .. : …..
    •·. ·.· … ·. .
    • … ~·
    .:; ;
    .· .r . . ·;..·.:. .
    ;
    . . . ~ · . ‘• …….·. ..

    ….
    . , .
    . ..
    .. •.
    ~·. ··
    .. · .
    · ..
    • .
    … .:.·
    . ..
    :;. ·.•··
    ,· .-..
    ·~ .
    ….
    . ~’-~:-~:~
    .·· .:.< ;.· •. ·.·· · .. • ..... :.· ~ ..·. r .. · .. ... ·. ·.·:'.'··: , ..... . .. ·· ··~~ .. ··: .•.. ~ .-·.~·· · . ·~··· ~. ~ :-: .... : .... :. : ~·. .;. . . .. \ ..... ' . .. ..·.' . .. .. .... . .. -~ ' · .. ···· ,. ·-·. . · . . . · .. ... .=··· ..... . : ... ·. ·."· : . ·' .·; .: :.· :·· .. ·· .•... • .. ·. , ... . ..

Search Document Archive

Navigating the Archives

The archives can be accessed here.

To make a detailed query of the text of every document in the Archives, use the search bar at the top of the screen

The file names for each record include up to three components:

  1. the date of publication;
  2. the acronym of the agency or organization involved (if applicable);
  3. and the subject matter of the record.

Search Queries:

To search for any record that contains one or more words in the body of the document, put those search terms in the search bar. A search query with two or more search terms (ie: Fukushima Daiichi) will return all records that include ANY of the terms entered(Fukushima AND Daiichi), even if they are not found consecutively in the document.

To search for specific strings of two or more search terms(ie: Fukushima Daiichi ), while excluding records that include separate references to each search term, place the search query in quotations "Fukushima Daiichi" in the search bar.

Document Collections

Records are grouped together into the following collections:

  1. Collections by Agency
  2. Collections by Organization
  3. Collections by Event
  4. Collections by Site