ML19275B565
| ML19275B565 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Peach Bottom, Harris, Wolf Creek, Saint Lucie, Hope Creek, Seabrook, North Anna, Sterling, 05000484, Washington Public Power Supply System, Cherokee, Marble Hill, Hartsville, Phipps Bend, Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/24/1979 |
| From: | Kepford C Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-PROJ-M-25 14548, NUDOCS 7912110043 | |
| Download: ML19275B565 (22) | |
Text
a.
m.
M as-ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION ON NUCLEAR POWER Co D, rectors: Mr. George Boomsma-R.D. m1, Peach Bottom, Pa. 17563 717 543 2336 Dr. Juditn Johnitud-433 ortando Avenue, State Conege, Pa.16801 814 237-3900 2h Cctober 1979 Dirce.or Dhision of Haste !!anagement U.S. liuclear Regalatory Countssion
'4ashington, D.C. 20$$$
Dear Madane or Sir:
Enclosed are tr/ coments on UURT,-C$11. These coments are voluminous, but this is an unfortunate necessity because of the large nunber of nisinterpret.ations and misstate tents of fact con-tained in the Draft Report and the glaring emissions from the Draft Report.I trust these conments, with the three attachnents, will be recroduced in their entirety in the Final Report. Full reproduction of coment.i in the Final Report, "ith the nsmociated response, is a much more satisfactory approach than to reproduce selected portions of certain coments 'out only af ter those coments have been snoothed and averaged and sanitized by the IGO Staff and homogenized with the associated responses of the Staff. I trust that the fomer procedure vill be utilized for the Final GIIS Report.
Sincerely,
,j
?
s ucy'fordt,./)
Xep Chauncerf Legal acoresentativa Erriiron= ental Coalition on Uuclear Power encl./j Q!,r,.
., k hG'JD %
pn... s g o cg g g M, s n
~
N0i! O 51979 > jj S
p d " 5 *gf,:ym
,L',.
U5mc V
,.,/
MOV 151079 > y@
"'i-N D
'Q p WX53
,,, 53 }, \\,' /
. Mall SECTICM
~
8 C
"/
/'A sI
/.
.... w.
&g g*.f (n' u, -
Cl2 f u m o9'3
,,um 14548 G
s C
N Introcluction
,0 D
'd In the Draft Ctetennnt on Hillin~, the IEC -occly underectinctrc rr. diction c ?ccure inform. tion by crec. tint-the in7recc'en that the c:rocure of ^he public fron itrrnir ; nillin." nctivitica end itc afterech cm.ccc only ninir:1 h c1th prot' - c.
Thic ccnclucion of the "ureft GJIO ic recched cnly bv entreno nenipelttienc rad dic-tertienc of ih. end in'or". tion. It in t-.v.17 =fortencto thet the 130 teff, 'thic'.
in che'"ed b.v tc.u vith the protection of the h cith end ccfet of the ~.Qlic, conscioucly hoc chocen to imore ita ctatuto 7 eblice.tionc :o ec to prc"oto nuclerr po cr, the dirticat and noct incidiouc of all ccurecc of c1cctricity, one for trhic.
the benefita are vnnececcery and the conta in tc== of cdditionc.1 hunen dar.the end cciditienc1 hu..rn aicory uill go on for cc long e.c thoro cre hunen on errth.
The nrince focuc of thoce ccreenta vill be upon the radiolo~ical c.c7ectc of u
this Draft 3tetenant. Cince the dote.ilc of the rcdiolocical diccuccic= in the Draft c.ro contained mostly, in Appendico C and G, thoce co ncnta cre direc^xed prin mily, ti ou ;h not exclucively, et these 1.p?sndicoc.
~
Mcin 2a,o'-t-Grmer~
1.
Ecvin~ read the cypendice: to thic report firct, I cc c,pc.lled et tho :'ur=r.7.
v It cocnc that nothing at all has been lerened f=n the unfortu".r.to c: ?crie..cas uith
'!A3"-lh00, cclled tho Pa.cracc3n Report. Ac n:r7 """ber uhich c.ppcor in the s
Sv1=ry tabic Got condenced fron ths tort end J.73cnf.icoc, e ctrence thing he.my".a.- the co7'idc".ca 14."i'u", o" uncc"'w 4.^.s ' * * ".,
ic c procccc if.lich I call Rcenacconicaticn. -
u-. '." 11a-di u.
",.a ".
N. -
s
'I.:ic grocecc ic ?ceticulcrly I.
cvident in the diccuccion of hocith offectc, c. cuphczica Ior precatu-a dcr.tn.
.icrc uncertcinty ocnd: which cT.y ccount to e fac1;;r c: 100 or core nr.ve ocon congletely dice:2ded.
..orco yet, cc deceribed in cy ce=cnta on 17peni'n G, th:.-'c7 ort
~
c"ic.tal" urderc."'w.".^wc
'wa.o."iv^-c..
o.c ;7"c~< '."",. a. A "w..... ~ ~., '.h i. - u. -..~.4a"_-
h 4
a a
cati =. tion of the cercer ( end other) ~de;th pr:Occi by the front end of Oc fuci c,", cIn. t'ae I<~'~" ao. p:"~-.'vly~ 1.cp c., ^wo ".-*'.c.'.' a aa"_'."..-'_. - -. r; m. c,
,,c=.
,. 7 _..".~..2. al
' " * " ^
e
.cc,.p ale.
.L.
A-
-A
-. c -.,....n,.,. e n, 4.,
vu_,,,,. m..A.~...-
A.,o ~ce
..,.n r,
e.
-- c c. o,...,_. c.. Awo
-,n a
-o 1
AA e.in-. w", Lm. C 1
.4. A,.e.1 A r
1Ct.eL,l o c.,. C.4 -g6 4_y..cn.... ~. e....-....,4 7 1 A. 1 0 3.v. ~, e,- ' o..:...
v4 w.s u
i A,
1.
-n.'..c
-<. T.C, co o g.e.e c?,
..r, pcn.A.N.,, Ah..e n_4, A,6,-..a o_ fc_..A,, c c -,
.,.1..,,
c%..
....4.~..
- - w n.-
C,1 C, u.,h..o,.
tL, n. Aorce o.o {,cVC.3.cn4 wo o no-
.%., c., A,
- c. 1,
- 4. 3 --7
-., 4 2
A
.e...~ ~.. C.,. A :w__-
v
- m..v.
.s
.c.,.,. A.4.CC w,., o
- 4.. *.C',. Awo prCVCnu p
w A - tL,, c j,.....:..., s?.o. < A,.- c --- e.,.e
- ,,41_1 A
41.f.,~,y4 ci, w-4.
~ ~ - w 2.
7.n
,,.ic *..N~-%..L',,.,.A cn 9 o. A.,, C.c coc-78,. 1 c7o,,
.,.*.1.,,
.n.
.,.--,A.,e.,,,..
u A
z As -
-.s_
-,. p-c%a O.. A. pp...y "O, Colc. Ao, n-itC. o_f. 1p,,r.
w c -.
M1n r.m-.nt-----_.1-4'. A - 4 ' N,.~.. i-TA 4..,.,
n a
s-ww---
. w
,,-y o,4. w% Ah.
A.
o,
.s 1
a o.e. A.r 5o ?.4 "v 1a-l w.16 C.i.'.,-..'.
_'^3>',
" ^ ' ~~--. s.. 6. A.. O ',"( w-...~-
C.' 1***._-
... L w
.w a
C.,.,.C
, L 40,,.,.~. cs.
2 e 4 16.. '..',4 g~c,.". a.
-.n t'.n.
....:. a-
"w..,.
.4.. a c.".>,a"...'.".v,
.. o..l.e. 'J 4 a
- c. J n gC.'.
. o %.w.c 0O c-,. m o o.r.
14V.'.Y.,
"..?.".C r'". A" " '.".. ". " '. '. "s - " _" o '.., *- * ^.^ Cn $%...' " * '.". o". 6. -
i t
~~-
s
.. c...,.. i t Q.O.
C.-".."",,
- "...h.. o f A *'.li ' 7.
".41_'_
"..#...'."'i.".#~,.- #-"**
~
_ "c"
- .... '.*.'.."s, "^*"+4.-
.". i. e.,2,,~...g.'
4.,.,
v..
., 7 Awo..,,
1A.g 4.,.rs,
.] p-., -
- r.._ --....,%....%...A~,
A s.. A..N....4A,,
u s....
w-
, e. > L...c.%.,
%.a
-.. -. 1 -..,.. c.'aO '. *. ' 7 'I F-.'.". C*^.".".*."'.'.'-.~-*
C". ' '~.' ' " C' " ' d..
..".4 -.".^'.'."a-r..,1 S
, it
..y w
C.r. 6. AS.
4 n.1 J. e.,,.- -. -
4 s.b c' A.
9,,
c7C.,,. C., C.e.,.,
s.
..n "o.n 4A 1-e.. e. -
gm o
--.e.
o.-
A.:.,.,.
O w.
~.-
,.,,1.4 A. d n,. or v.,.
u.g.n. p..A.i..'4 o n.a.n..A *..n %_ e rA.
C....'
" '. ' '... *.'c," C ^
- j" c."". ", #.. _4 ~..".C e,.".
a.
...A.o S.,o
,w-31 c f..i f,.,M.~.C.1 _4. A - v.o.c N..o,1 rg n__ee_ r_ _ A. s [ g. n...v..,.- },.r., eLn n,.As,,
_3,:e r
1 w-v
.n p.,.-. o n n.. n. A 4 g. 1. 4..r.p o f " "cd.cl_
..lll.
U..^"^
- , m'.
"_'"._.~.~~.'.#..'."-.*.'#..~...#.'..". ".. '.'..'.':
o." 'l..^.'__'
y "6 g..,
A.%.n.r,.g A..g
- { A gu.A.,4 g.,g.
s %., p.g a.
w
=_ - J 1 =,, g
%. % -1 n,..
- m...n,.
a A
Jn
,.... % n_w
.g
... J,.1
. {17
.,i..
w v..
s OI NNif.$
P
,t b
w M-a e}
s (Tab t.. 6.16) 10 coavcniently placed by the I '.C "taff in a cpercely "'_- '.tc'
- :c
'm <. to c.. ti f.i c i -11,7. o. dr.e. n.
'h. n,nc,,u1.a+4.c"..
a' On. %.. o '.'.*. a..'...', M '. '. _'
v"ic.." N...i r.." e.c ^u. ~. a.
t
~
o, n a.'u.4 e.n c."n. ru eb.
.h.4. '_ .^.. ~..~.'.h..a.".a.
_N.. c "- u'.v.".^. ~.. '..". ' - -... _ - -
e
."ilec, ct'ch es the one at Ihren_o, co the t. o f"ctore tend to ccq en:-to fc- -- '.
o t'ior.
Thic enfort,n'to citnation in the re'l :torld todey r.tct n: L b: c o--- r - i - -i -
the t'nconccinacbly feeble concol.ation offered. to fu'ure ccncration-17 the - : t -? ?
.n c. e. 0 If da redation or failure of icol: ^icn of "ill tailincc ucre to occur, it vould not leal to catactrophic rediatien effectc. There vould be crple tine to tehe corrective e.ction.
It c'tould here be obcerved thn.t icolation hac ncver t-hen place in 2" n~,,
- ni that the pile "n't only., rtiall.'r ctabiliced, oni-conc.that reducia: r:f.:n eni::1:::.
(SeeTable2.1.) The IIP.C chould c:r. plain ennetly ho t mny livec =ct ':e loct '::-f:-'
the ree.1 =c. nitudo of the problen ic reco.~niced rnd " corrective action" rill :s t-J: In.
Ucin:- the precent f.c" practice: of the I!P.C itcelf an en ec' ample.
v 3
The entire drcft chould be rcuritten to reflect the ree.1 rances an. ;=cc-- i. tit:
A ir. c s.. c.."., o th. o",. ~_.. '.,uro c'.c '.'a'
. id o"c"..et_i c.i.'
c.n^, ' ~m^ o,. ' d i c."...' ' c' e. -... _' --
coefficienta, end doce conver::icn factorn co the re-der crn cce fo~ ' ' - er h::cs'f the full, unainitorated rence of health effectc. both cho-t end lenc ' = (10 - tc=
in
'.N.. r.e..'.."._*.m.a-o." #.'.c fa'.l a,plic abl_ e n a"..i.c-.^., " '~.._' a,_' *o" a
_"o....---'.__..
=.
~
_m c
Final G'IS can not be confined to juct thoce fc t health offcetc rhich t e r.." - nt:
to rcvec1. The final GI'IS cnct include all hee'.th offectc for the Pfl peri:i of to.s.
c.4.i.,,..
h.
The diccuccien of dicpocal noden 10 incc plcte end nicled*"c.
1.t the batc:n of tho ??"e, reference ic nade to " failure" cvants.
.'. f.icenccion chefd al::= :a added ene:.r.ninc the concequence: of botn enor 2.:d 1cn(; ter7 (full perici of c::-ici-- ',
.c.-. 3.,.. c., n_.a..., c. o A.g. e,., h..,..vo. oc ". a.d.'.
-a '.m.
'., nd, _4 _' ' ' ^ ^ '." - -" o ' - -
m.
crncer epidemic rentioned above ic rny enx.,"le, ere prol ab3~ ctill ccc.u-inc.
e a
r;i..3,.. o p.,, _4 t - e o e.,. or.,, &,n,1,.t.,.e. e g. 4 _,c..,.,..o n-e s _,.c +.. n. co.&~
~oo of ureni'.:.7 produccd, accunin..> a.r. rice of T'0 '. 2:. ornd o'. U,C.
"ince tho = r" t
.i u
-l-n.,c5 h4,*,C
%v.. n. ^ 70 c'.
- y,-
c n.
,v,-'dnd 6.n.d.' ~ '- '.'. C.,-- '.. >
( a"_r-a _i..^. a. -...".-..."..'.' -- -.
a 3
a y
a fa%w ;. n
,u n, u. a,
A'Ic.. n r c e.r..- 14 4.'w1e,in A i A.4.c *. i.".. _#. ~
- ....#. o" - ' ". - -, ^N..._...". ". '.=.
r a
w:
m a.
a
.u so A'le C o o* *w
- o#. ;" ~o,- ) '. " G'_# ",9 o""1 b
'u.. * +v 4"
,.A."....*.r.".". - #.. ;%.' <"I ) o _#. # 17_
'.c.#. '. _# f-~
.# ' r ~'
w w
a.
c'..pccr nore c:Ocncive by cc p::ricon.
6. ':' a.'.', '_ n..h, doc.. no^o c.,p e-- to e on^o ~_*.n ..e
'. ~'..
.. i -
A..
_"o_
l_'..a....f.
~' mi nonitoricc for ho tover 1cnc thoce cro to be c=-ici cut.
f.
- e. u. c co.,.,.:.,n, o.r
.413 +, n 4.,-.
- u.. _4 1.g
,.n. a.,_.. < n.. a-
.,..,-,n 1 6
...e.r...- --.,-....e.
- ~ - - -
v c
.,,,, y.,
n _
o.. o,,.;..
7,. i o ". ',, o 'vh. '. *,* o. '* ' ' * * * * ".. *,, " _. " ' " " - -".....
- -. ' N..'.'.."o,.*.*P.-
- . n..' ^. '.. - -. - - ~ _.
.~
cover:1 rs,ortc of.tnoral birth defects in ccriain countico in Colerci: hi i..
c m. i...:.3.,41, u..n.%..., 9 1 c..a m o_
1.,0 A.'. i n. ---....n.
o _r w 4
s 4
r%,
om.., %........... _.
..e--.s z
Ch eC'-
'h. a. '".n," c..".*e.".Ma.#.d^" C ",
.# 'l ^vh n.
N.'.*. y # '. '
O...
4.'.. 's"._'*%" o,...# #..'.' ' ".., -.-... -.
v
-.'1 C.d. A. '-. e n..i."* G
..n..1 v't nc,^4 c,.,
.".4 I
o'...e.-.
vo..
_#.g' w.a ~. 1'w ^o
- s. ----
'.'_'_'."..3 a
v.
4 A.. 7..,4.,-
M.1c o.,. c.P ",g, n. cn w, s. ].,,-
.n. _ p.
, _4 ' e., i gh.. A c n. a w e. h.
,9, v,4.-_n..-
- r. o...
A A
^
.b u
v.
A.,9 L
, g.y r. 1. s.. C p nc..N1
,r t
A,C w
- n... <, u.
1. n g.,
,a Ja c.
A
- 1
.,-A,
,., 73ns- -. - -
.J A.
.~ wv
...w.
.--aw e.
1.
ga-,Jp., -.,
1_ ^"s.". )
s a
t.
r_,, n.
c... _,,.. 4.. o.,
u..,.,. i. g e. n.,,
,..,,.s._...'
/,.,,..n. 76) don.- "*' +.,..
ett. 4.
1 4-4 e
s......
. t ort:d b-rnv real evidence. Coct ecci.ato rnd cc. 'ricenc cheul. Se - c.-l isd a
if thic hinf. of ctn.tc.Ont in to be rn.de.
In cu.ition, cere diccuccic: -hoc.ld 2 :
..p. n. _.. e n a. e.... n.... 4.p..
%... n..u n +, o i' dr. a".
- d. "..r. ". ' c.s
".d.. on ~_ M_ e.-.. a... o~.a- ^ '. n. '.. " _ "..
n-
, c icd of the ut", ten, ac in the co-.' ~icen in !c.,. endin T..
s s..
o
-O mU) h k[,l/
h k- -
O 9
The reluctence of the I'R0 Staf" to concti: c tN.e bcnefit (if therc rre 2-'
cnd coctc of the nill tailin-a portion of the nuclear fuel c;'cle ic undercc='..Y_ c b".t unecceptchic. To do a full coct nalycic :culd rcc,iro a full, oren, 0 n"._.
trc'tncnt of the ter:. oral rer_ctitude of thic r. don e'.i cionc.n oblen. ic'. ic inc colely to the intervention of men.
Inctord, :nc Orc.ft recortc to d 2,-i.-
c'c :
, roble.n.,
o'.m.in. in,
'Y...^., _ott"o... m. '__'.a.. e.to""a. 'a..-- "....._._. ".
- c.. 4... ^., n_.".c n. o f 'h.._a,
_ ~
de,7 livec (The Dernnro crjorienet offero thn hora for c futuro cociot" "hich d 11
,.n,... n. hu.a.n li.'a...o -a.
'h....*1.rc do. ),
o~.
4.vo'."._.- ".l e."..*. n. _., o...o.e o'".r.-_,.._.'.- -..-
. e
.. ~91_ m.....
"'n..i._- n' 7__'.^..'.'.
ul a.".. c o*_ cu. n.n i'..""-in
.,. n..a..on '.,o
.i. _,".o_ o. ".'.a.
ret.iation,rotection is that there chould be. no c:.'ocure uithout the e: ' cc.-i:n :f c,. c o..c.".m.m*.'.' n.
b n..".c_r_i '.
(:B'.IP. '.a_,o 'o,,.
- 9.,'.
T_ '... e a. '.. -., ^h.." '
^,,k. a. '..'.r'_'_"_i'_'_._-"..
i tt'%n itc bach on thic fluidt. ental,rinci,lo in c.~.1er to urhe thin.c c ci:r f:0 =
6.i_v_ ap,(>.s.'*_iQ1Cd g g_4 m m, fq. C'.n.- & _*.*
, c s._ on s _,1f m.
6 4.Cm.. n.1. 4.k = =..-Qn..i_ O'. em. e-* g
'w
.^..~~..s.-
n waw,..
r n
w a
y cor_ c.lc. tion betucen the potential duration of the probleu end the lonpvic, :f n'.,;
pro _,cced colutions to the problon, 10.
If the "concorvaticu in citinr; cnd deci-1" policice of the Staf' / c; e f c;, ecer.'., '.ho
.a..e dar. _ aa o - c or. - e. v ',,
..'..r ".. r.
..'.,...v~.. C,
^.%... _^... _ - '... =. _. -
'4-
'i-a -
tionc uill pay en enor.ouc tan to thic cenorctien'c pro'liccto uce of nucict:-'
t,c".c ".. ed el ec'.-.i.c1' ",- in 'u".e fo n o A"
_4 c'. ic. ~
s~..' ___'..."t".n. e.n. ' ".'..
o
-- F #. e. _c'.,ivi'u',r.a.' *. _i b.,it'..k.' c 'oo
^,,'.te.^.te1_ cs c1 e _'
- .o s.~.'. -e a -to -a a %___" _'..-. '. '.
A m
. _ ~ _
conce-vatica cre nero rhetoric and hrnd-ravix rnlocs there is cub stancia.1 cc.e.--t:-
cal evidence to cu7 port cuch ctatenentc. 1.nd if the cnforconcnt een of the
".~.0 "ill be
'a e. _".. c.".i
_d a. ".. _ ' " '.+.-_u_.
a.,
a.,.t cnd-m.,-ic'.,
.7 'vb.
_41'
'm i.l1n... p-obi _ n...
.._4',
-+_
4 a
a oon_
..o
.e
.a rencated, end cerious cc.fet;r violatienc at n"^1'--
pc::ec clrnts, t'icn 'hc cernir nillars clready biou the Ir.C uill cover for then end protect then fron tho ;nilic no
~.m'.^., c-ul' '., t'.te c o '. ' o b.".
_n h.e.. '.+.h
.~.1 '..."...:., ir..,'"."
".,.'.a.
.._o "....- -- "..=...-'."
v 10 nou clearing mic ucy _cor a rec, art ol r,.- u *, c:a ncen., eco
.,,.e crip;1_c:.._-;-
v A
A e
11.
The offe-o_r "nubl_ic acrt.ic_h_^.^. ion" in % -4'1
' i c ~... '.".., n - ~. n ~- ".. _ " _ ' _ ~._3_~..^...-
y cdly prove to be ac citen or c. hoan, chcrede, cnc fraud cc in the reaccer 1..ct.c n.-
prococc.
Ancro, of cource, ove-" co==cial ro ctor license rec.nectei hz: :=c u_,_-,..,.ec,,._ eg _ dlc - or- ^11e
.'._a.co. v c^ c*..c n., c.#
.'......c.., _'.'.- d a.. _' c _i r. o_.._',..
.~
c..
A a
A
%.4 on,
s_w.O'. on c..~.a w.4.on..
T3.r.p-o,
+%.. n. r.n...r,,9-n..p, 4 c... ^. o _-. ^. P. u~ ^4. ~~.#.~. -- _ '. *.
_A m
o w
..a s_n.d Ah.n..l. y, r - 3 ~..%._4,,', N ; 3C o..n_7_ ~- * -..s Ane 1_4C c.,.. 4 y -.,, S w e.n. u.. o..a,
,.A e
.. c s w..
_w u
.. s
..a
. A, _ 4 o c.c.c,, A.,_4.,.c :.,,,, 4 c
.yu...A_4 c.4...a. _4......e_ A. 3,-c %. e.,
e,..,. ~. _.-.
e.,,
u.s.. e e,
The IIE-2 liccaring proceeding in 1977 rar-the first in rhich the full n? nirne of the radon enir-ionc and projected health effects "cre r.ined for inclurion in che coct-benefit enclyriic. Tant is-ue, ar.d one other involving the probab'lity of a Cla-s 9 accident, renain unresolved as of thic..riting, but in the "cencsnee f'c ct, verdict later" tradition tyoical of IriC licencing croceedin;c, the ZE-2 resoc:- uts licenced to ocernte anyuay, "ac rushed into rer-M.ce so that the ounerc c:cl.d csc-italice on tax brea'<c in spi.te of a rach of nechn.nien1 difficulties, cnd, on : rch d, 1979, beg =.n the nation's woret rocctor accident, -h'ch ic ctill in prc: ost..-2 cever, the -tor / of the real ID.C liccasing cchena does not end there.
In April r_.c..=.y of 1979, the participants in the ori-inal EE-2 licensing proceeding, shoched b--
-he accident, peti.tioned the :."lC recuesting, anon-other thin;c, 2) to be in'c-.cd of a:rf conctniction at LII-2 or nodificction of ZZ-2 or nodifications of its cceratin; licence, and b) that public hearin3: be held prior to erc/ citerations of
.Z-2 cr chan3es in the operating license or its technical specificctionc, Tne r3cu.'.c cf thoco recuests in /pril and 1cy, 1979, uas th.t the :D.C cut off those cri;i '. 'and still fully participating) HE-2 Intervenorc fren any further information en 2-2 of any kind, including all information about the constructica cctivitiec fcr _'-icer 2 (the cycten decigacd to partially dacontaninate cone of the lecser contanincccc cac r at ZE-2), and failed to provide thecc Intervonrc with even a copy of the J.----'ren-mental !scccsnent" of Ipicor-II and proposed cha.n;es in the operating license
_h_
specification. Sone six nonths later, but only after Spicor-II was built, and onL--
af ter the Corms :ioners thencelves had already croroved and ordered imediate operation of I icor-II, the MC offered persons ::b.oca interests right be affected
?
a 20-dm/ period to petition the IEC for a public hea-in;, uhile the Zeicor-II systen was bein; allo cd to operate! This is the "pu'elic participation" of the 7.0 in action.
It in tIcly 'centence first, verdict later," "ith no effort sprad to covr to for the compary that perpetrated the accidan and to protect that conpan/ fran the public whon the IIdC is nandated to protect.
12.
Tnble 6, like Table 6.15 and ?peendix C., nust be rewritten to refla:t the full r-n ;c of open literal,ure values vhich go into each nunber. In addition, cns attention thould be paid to the real irorld, uch a the Curtre;o exce : of lung cancer.
It -eenr incredible tha.t the IEC 3.ff estinctes that feuer c=cers will 0:rr in n 10?? yerr period fron all uranium nilling th ough the year 2003 in the entire United States then have already been observed in a single to:nt of 10,000 in 13 year:
fron one partially stabilized nill tailings pile.
13 Footnote (g) of Table 6 contains a statenent with no factual basis whatacever:
viz., the last sentence. Since the doce conversion factor range for r: den dar*.ter:
ncntioned in the BSI2 Report goes fron 0.1 to 20 rais per W1% Olorking hvel Lonth),
there is a range of variation of 200, not h as ::ated.
lb. One subject niscing fron this Draft is a candid discussion of what the effect would be on the futura r anim n1111ng industrf of a set of regulations which night be sufficiently stringent to protect the public health and cafet/., including a stri::
regulatorf at oschere where licence suspensions of a few years duration night actur ' --
result for serious infractions by licensees. Since tha nill trilings undoubtedlr c=
be dispaced of cafc]y (by deep disposal, as is proposed for high level vaste) and pemencntly, it scann aponrent that the 130 Sta'f has decided, either consciously cr uncon cicusly, to condenn to pr=r.ture death sene errent lives and an chs m but potentially enor cus nunber of future liven, for the purroce of continuin; to allow the uraniun nilling industr/ to operate in the nanner to which it is accu:tened.
Thic tradeoff in facilitated 1r/ the gro-s underestination of the health con-necuencer of rndon dau;hter inhalation; by the proposed enttblichnent of 'ha; super-ficinlly ni;;ht aapear to be strict regul: Lions, but uhich in reality is only a cet of very loose perfomance criteria er objective: with no real capability or intenti::
of being enforced or even ingle.enbcd; and by the deliberate avoidance of c y sub-stantive and objectivo discussion of the potential for enor.ous nunbers of prenatura deaths and genetic disorders far off into the future. These natters are, of cerce.
at the heart of the uhole icone, and the7 ca not be dienisced or treated lightly.
Cuentions which remain unaddressed include:
(a) Uhat would be the effect on ur rd:n nining and nilling c.d on the public health and cafety of re ui-ir;; the deep dieposal of all nill tailings, at a dapth of approxi.ately 2000 feet belou the surface in bedded salt depocita?
(b) that uould be the effect on the industrf and the public health and safety of requiring tailings dis: sal accordin; to 31te=ative 0, i.e., fixing the tailings in concrete (3 parts tailin;;s to 1 part cenent)?
(c) Ehat vould be the effect on the industr/ and the public health and safety of cus,ending the licence of the Unit 2d Euclea-d'1 Churchrock,11.11., for five ye'r:, for ensanle, as a result of the licenece's inability or unvillin
.e " to prevent the t-ili.r cond dan f ailure uhich recently can-ed cent ninatica of an inport utt
m.
gVT
'D 9
D
' 3 Tf
-s-2L JJL 1 J
i water cupoly?
(d) Unat would be the effect of including a noneti cd value of health offects for the full period of toricity (2:ing, for exa.nple, the nothodology of coford in the 32-2 or Perkins 1, 2, and 3 reactor license croceedin:;c) to access the adequac-f of elternative tailings disporal options?
(o) To what extent is the IIRC currently in the proce:c of using its pover as a covernnental regulater/ c.gency to en.-ure that the ninin:;
and milling of uraniun proceeds relatively unhinderod? Here, a comparison is in order betreen the efforts of the AEC to encoura;;e uronium production durin;; the 1930's through the nechani:n (cnong many others) of offering nining cc::2nics freedon from restrictivo nino air cuality standards and the current 1:20 efforts at under-estination of health effects and neglect of long-torn health costs. The full end accurato esti : tion of long-tern health effects and their costs should be undertE-:en if th2 G3I3 is to serve the purpose of fully inforning the public, as !! EPA intended.
(f) Should not the American people be given the full details of this pending health tradeoff, uith cubter^ 33, so that they can ne':e an inforned decision based on the comlete analysis of costs and benefits, rather than a decision based on one-sided alle;;ations of need for more electricity accenpanied by onission of the full health consequences?
Chaoter 2 - Historr 4
- 1. The tr"ncated view of the uraniun nilling industry discussed in this chaptar nentions ureniun nining and the early progren of the OC to offer a vide variety m ers. Morever, thic histcr/
of encoura enents to uraniun nining conpanies nd r fails to nention the nore unpleasant, and totally avoidable, experience involving the coascious, rillful expo:ure of thous:nds of uraniun ninars to hi;;h levels of radon and radon daughters in inproperly ventilsted underground nines. ;;iners '
lives were traded, in effect, for higher profit..argins (ano.her bonus for nining compcnies). This exposure occurred in spite of the fact that, even as nining connenced, radon had already baen un=ista': ably identified as a potent cercinogon.
A dis ussion of this subject vould add a nuch needed cerspective to this entira chapter. The chapter also is lac':ing in that it fails to indicate that tha ? E0's ana :2C's attenpts to conceal the nagnitude of the long-tem enissions of radon from the nill tailings piles continue unabatad to this ver/ day, and nay be expected to do ::o in the absence of appropriate corrective action.
Chaoter 3 The definitions of the kinds of ore reservs categories on pages 3 'a are rather 1.vague, esoecially in the case of " Potential ?.ecorces." It appears as though those reserves in categorMs 2(b) and 2(c) are based rJ.nost entirely on hopes and faith.
Can any nrobability be attached as to the li':elihood that such -unntities of thesa listad in Table 3-6, or are the recorvos cetually 'do exist in the dollar cctegerf Staff' r entins tee based exclunively upon un -uncortrble conjecture?
2.
Footnote e of Table.'.5 cuoten a enlue of ?,'_d3,000 ton of ore rererves as used for plenning currosen. Hov ras this _'igura derived?
'~'ne Draft alto asserts that this figure represents a " conservative" 7.lue.
Some di cu: ion of how this value is cons:rvative vould be most interectin; rnd ver/ helpful.
3 Figure 3 2 sho.:s data only from 1978 on to the year 2000. It does not include data for previous yo?.r3 for those aspects of the inducttf stJ.ch are sh7:n in this Fir; arc. In e.ddition, it does not chow the urrnir. cr:uirenents of the 350 O'.l(e) of Cencrating capacity trhich tho Staff indicate: i: to be er,2cted af ter the year 2000.
'n a result, this graph onlf cho.:s 2 all portio:t of the total picturo vith renn2ct to uraniun recuirencnta. Ze cu gest that a cocond ;raph be included in the Final 03IC reflectin*, all avtilabic data for the yeTec fre..,
say,1960 through 2030, includi.ng the data uhich the Staff has already.crovided.
Chaoter 6 1.
On page 6-ho, the IGC excuses nuay what it considers one inorobable death by concluding that, should the death occur, its cau:e :ould be unrecognicab1c.
his renconing trould juctify nurder by artfone clever 2n: ugh to lesve no detectable tr..cos on the corpac. Tradition has led '..'estern n?n to regard a crine, such as ratrder, na bei.n; accociabcd trith the act of cc-.ittin; the crL.e.
'.!hether or not the ::ource of the crine is readily detectable is unin.,ortent and irrelevsnt.
I
\\
l l
5 f
Ol d,
1
~l~
1 Uhg U,
Annendix C u\\
J 1.
The IRC Staff in cuilty of a cerioun niarcp-ecentation en par;c 2, the third end fourth full parctrraphe, of thi:: ?.pp endin, vith regard to enicsions fro the rJ.l.1 tnilince pilen. The primary radiation ernocere occurc due to alpha particlec, a form of high-Li'I' radiaticn. 3; contract, the ctatenents contained in thoce tuo parcz raphs anMy to h! ?c-L' radiationc.
A3 stated in UCRP h), (1975) paces 11,12,
...the relative biological.cffectivenecc (R3E) of the high-I2.' radiation cust increaco as the dose decreases.
This hac been known for many years.
Similarly, as stated in the EZIR report (Appendin C, ref. 2, pace 88)
Hence, the R3B of high-LET radiations een be c:gected to increase vita decrease in tne cose er.d doce rate.
Hownere in the Draft are theco importent concepts enunciated.
Inctead, es in the above referenced parecraphs of the Ir?ft, the oppocite is sugscated. Alco, the possible nuncrical increacec in the E3: c.3 e. Snction of doco and doce rate cast be discucaed throughout the final report in relation to all of the calculatei doces due to high-LET radiations.
The Draft (page C-1 ) containa a brief discuccion of the "'..'orhing Level :~onth" 2.
4
('II) but containc no discuccien of the criticianc of the concept of the '.R: uhich have ennocred in the literature in relation to the actu?l doce delivered. Thic oriscicn in cicnificant becauco, an the Dr:ft itcelf obcertes (PC-l;), ncacured
^^
rcden cencontratiens do not refleet ta W.9 stien done. For excrple, come diccuccion of the problem of raden denghter build-up in buildin:-a should be incluisi to indicated the relationchipc enong anbicnt duct levela, air turncver retec, ch1nges in the UL'!, etc., in hores and buil<lingc. The discuccien of reden inhal:-1:n on pe;ec C-5 end C-613 in ters of radon concentrations, rather th?n the cene"het core necningA'1 tera '<M!.
This coction chculd be rccast in terca of '.I' rad fractions thereof.
Av endir "
1.
The three pa-to of Lppendir E are devoted prinerily to nathe ?tical ro2els of ground catcr contenination fron till taili sc pond (para 21),rathertarnto a discuncion of actual field ob certatiens.
Since uraniun nining cnd nillin;
~
hec eccurred in the West for a great ceny ; enc, it 19 ecpecially di:typointing to find no little diccuccion of the grovn' :.ter centrination prob 1cn3 t/nich exict (or do not enict) eround ective and inactive 11110. 'Jnat ctudien, if cny, h?.ve been ecnducted to.aseca the preblcn? If indecf problema hr.ve been o'ocerec1, cone indication of the reculator/ eg:ncy recpenc?, if cny, on both the state end feder?1 levels, chould be included in the final GZIC.
2.
In particular, the Dre ft report concludec (ptce E-19) that for the life of a till trilin~a pond, no rrdiun contrainatien of gcun1 uater 13 c:~ ected.
It is by no rean i clear whether or not thic cenchcion in cupported by ery?rienes where urtnium nillin:; han taken place. Cno c.ccunec that a study of the recent d?n collapaa allo'tinc the rele:~e of lcr e quantitica of conteninnted m.ter will be included in the Finni GTIC.
g IU
\\[
[d'i hfD
'lQ
,f :
-o-l~N u i (t hvn^i-G-1
~ 1.
On pec C-13, it ic ch orved that the onh-laticn of redon fron till t'ilin - r pil ce (all 00i10) in ctronely influenced by the.cicturo content of the t-il'.r."
(rnd coiln). Yet when it conec to the diccucrien of nden erhalaticn f---
net = al an!10 in Appendi- 0, thic effect of - eiarne is onit ed fren the dicc"::nn end the calc'ilatione. This inconsictency should be renoved.
Armandte G >
l.
?crar raph G-3 of thic !ppendix centninc a brief di cuccion of the concept of the "envirennental doce connittent" ("DO).
It is not cler, however, fro--
thir discucnion, or from the more couplete one
.t the end of.'.ppendir G-6, hou thic ZDC uorMc. Cince the ZDC is for one - er'c nill creration, eco; thi:
represent the tot:1 inpact of the nill? Does thi: cne year 20 set :nnti? lied by a factor of 15, for the accuned 15 year lifetine of the nill?
The Finn 1 report chould contain a thorcuch discu 31on of how the CC conc ?,
ic applied to a chronic radioactive relcace problen like racon from till taili.p pilec.
Annendin G-!t 1
1.
Thic Appendix contains a large nunber of g ::hc. F.?uever, the ti e perici cver uhich the ground concentrations of urcniun, thorit:2, and radiun occur cannot be discemed from these graphc.
2.
The relationship of Graphc G-h.7,-h.8, -L.9, -I2.10 and -h.11 to the cu=ti; ice of taterialc releeced frcn the codel Eill ac describ;d in Table $.$ in unclear.
Do these Graphc and thic Table represent the sans qucntitica?
3 There does not appear to be any discuacien of either the cucntity cf rden produc ed annually by the thcriun-230 end radi=-E:5 by thece ducts fren the nill or the percietence of these eniccienc. A discussion of these point: rou'i be inportant for conpletenecc.
_Annendix G-3 l.
In recent years, invecticators have develeyci a feu "lenc nedels" to trf to calculate doce conversion factors :or the lun; to tne alpna pcrticl: c-itti:_;
raden douchtcrc. Hone of those codels created crecificell:,- for raden d:u;hter doninetrf are referred to on page G-i1.
Insted, reference ic rade to a "nass 4
averaced lung" nodel and en IC2? lung nodel. The tent ud:cc no contien as to hov either of thcae codelo conpares to the alphe-perticle Irn; :: del; cr hor Opl* cable e*iN.: nodel ic to alpha particle erl.t:in; duct prticlcc.
2.
In addition, the GZIS chculd describe the effects upon critical tic:us; of the lung of each of the isotopec under dircussion, e.g., u-?niun-232 =d its relen nt dauj.tcr productc.
3 Tablec 0-$.1 =d -$.2 list inhalation dose c =:rcion fcctors fc- ~~"'
urmiun dau-hters. Eicsing fran thic litt are ?o " nd PoElh.
(200 -
converaien factor: for theco icotopea ere relev=t to raden i:9.:.latien).
Further.oro, althou-h the Tables liet doce: f:r e cosure:: to v eious crc n
= d the whole body, there ic no di cuccion relatin; doccc to thoce crcin: (cni the ' hole bo6-) to orc:n cen:itivity to al;h. : article orpo"u-c.
Aln: nic in; ic cn e crination of uhother or not the orcen; licted are the ::st critical crc nn for the vericus icotc7cc, with rc:pect t:
ncer inducticn.
~
9-D [D *D'9'TI f w
AU..nn
- 1;. The firnt rentencein Occ.1.2 ctatc3 that the only pr.th of
.ry into the body for raden c?.c is throuC. inhalation. Gere he.ve, houc. cr, ber. ro, :r :
h that ::.tcr which con be uccd for drinkint-m" c;ntain lovela up to l'.,3 7:. ~. iter or hich:r of dincolved redon. Cone diccuczien of thic path't -y as it -ert i r to nrenien nilling oucht to be provided, alene with doce convercion ft: tor: f:r the alpha-2 rticlo c-itting rad <.;n dau;hterc, rnd a di:cuacien of th: f;te cf rnden end ita deushtern incested through drin'-ing vater.
~
5 Ucc. 1.2 diccuccec radon in buildings. Sono diccuccion of air-tu =ever ratnc in av:ner end vintor vould be helpful, a: would c. diccuccien of "h'.t c:n-eti.tutent.n "adequt.tely ventilated roon" cnd a "nc= ally ventilated d re.linP.
Uould thsce places be habitable in Casper, '.tening, or Grcnd Junction, T'olcrrit, in the dend of vinter?
Ic such buildingc presently e:cist? Are thera sny plans to recuire that buildings constructed nea-2111 tailings piles co-ply with any cuch specifications?
6.
On p?ge G-hh, it is stated that the radon concentraticnn equ211ce bet res:
indoor end cutside under no=al ventilation ccnditions, rhich are undefined.
Vnat would ba the result for higher end louer ventilation r?.tes? On f. ?.t data are the Draft report's conclucions on this point be.sei?
7 On this 3rno page, it is stated that the c ncentrations of raden d ughtrz would be louer than the ecualized indoor-cutde:r radon concentre.tiens due to decay. This ceens phycically irpoccible. Zou does thic occ= 7 8.
A set of values for assumed radon end dan @.ter relative concentr:.tions in duellingc 10 given on page G-hh. These concentration ratio: affected by ch asin6 a) eir ~turnuver re tea, b) dust levels, and c) the relative '. - # dit-.
A diccuccion of these variab'.es ic necccca / to understanding raden e: osure:.
- A diccucalen of the rence of redon end daughterc:ncentratien ration under the above variable conditionc should alco be included, along with the effect of thece variables on the resulting reden daughter s:Occure.
9 The statenent at the top of pcce G-h5, conc:=ing a cuppoced "dsts.iled diccuccien" of raden daughter docinetry, is si ply not true. The diccuccion provided in the 3ZIR rencrt (pp 11;6-9) in.brief, frcenentney, and inecqlete.
Ue cucccct that the Staff encnine "Guidence for the Centrol of Radiatic:
Ea:arde in Ureniun Fining," Report Ho. 8,
?.rriccd, of the ?cderel w '
'4 -
Council (I20), 1967 Pven the FRC, uhone suespinc deniels of the nacceds or raccLanon ernosure led to ue Few a own discolutien, cuggested a value of 2.3 rada/ ':.~C.
Why doen the URC Stc.ff nou retreat frca th t velue?
10.
Furthe= ore, it ic not at all clen in the 3EIR report just where the value of 0 2' red 3/..TE cuoted at the to.n of.sc;e C-h3 cone fro 2.
It r ~.-:
to be baced at lecct in pcrt on unpublished c'uiics refered to in the 3ZIR Report. The 32IR Report does nentien a rence of values in ^he liter:'" 2 renging fron 0.1 to 20 rada per '.77.
Eouever, no raticnel e: plcnatien was provided in the 22IR P.eport for the choice
-ich it cdoptsi, and "hich "rs in tu = adopted on rece G-h3 of the Draft GCIS. It ic thcre:' Ore nece:cr:7 to present a thorough diccuccion of (a) raden d:2@ter doci.etry, and (b) "hy the ICC Stcff he.s choacn a doce convernien factor at the icw cnd of the published literature values.
11.
In the content of the above renarh, on pcca G 53 of the Draft report, the following claim is cado:
The approach t2 cn...han been to plcce concervative bound on health offectc....
Unlocc "concewc.tict" is to be (c,unted trith overloching the adverce he Ith effects of ctenderd nuclear inductry practicec "hcrever poccible, it ic difficult indcod to understand how the Staff'c colection of a valte naar the low cnd of the 32IR Report projectionc con be deceribed ec conservativo.
12.
Still at the top of ptco G-h$, in conjunction uith the diccuccion of the rence of doce ccnvercion factora for redon daughterc, the Draft rc, ort fails to include the offect of decreacinc dc,0c er.i doce rate on the REE (or c_uclity
.fcctor), mentioned in coc=tente on Appendix C, yl.
13 In the niddle of pecc G-h$, it in ctated that 50% of the inititl rcdio-activity in 1 cat in food properation. The reference given in to a ec--u er code. Thoro is no 11trther c:glenation. Ic this en accu =ptien uhich t:cnt into the code or en out,ut baced on other input acsr tienc?
lb. Table G-$.5 containc a list of doce-conversicn factors for ingecticn.
Again, the prinery reference is just to r. cc=puter code. 7:cctunably, the fcctorc are conputed in the code, but there is no vay of telling fro: the Draft Report itself. I!cr in there eny diccuccien of hou the (precrably) celculated doce convercion veluca in Table C--$ 5 cogere with an'; other valuec reported in the open ccientific literature.
Armena& G 7 1.
It 13 ccct interecting to cee, on pa; e G-$, th?.t the I!?.C is clo :b-accepting the "rolative rid" nethed of calculatin.- 1m; crncer fatelitics in h'.ucenc.
Thic cpproach was cuggested ten y tre rgo by Dr. John Gef n cni Arthur Templin in "The Coloredo Fle. tern: Jccchincthal Revisited?", thich appeared in hearingc before the Senato Co :-ittee on 'ublic 1..'o&c, I!ovonir,1-6,,
c "Under,~round Ucec of I!uclear Incrcy", pp. 351-77 In that docunent, thece an3 hors obcerved a decrecce in the "denbling deca" (that dcca re.Taired to p"oduce a doubled incidence of cer.cer) cc the tot 21 G e:;crare decrc c:d, in Scoring with the obcewationc of both the ~, ort end I!CRP h3 (zee rf co= ento, Appendix C, 91). A discuccion of the Gefren-Tcn?lin approcch, er even a reference to thic cuch eccliar and torc cc plete t:01tnont, ucul_ be ucefal.
I 2.
If the " relative rich" opproach is the core " consictent" approcch to deal with httan Innc ccncer, (pege G-$3), it is then dicturbing to cea titt the Staff arrives at the " central ve.lue" cf lung c ncer rich caticatec by averc6 n.; the "rola.tive ric" ectinatora uith the lecc appropriate " abs 61ute 1
'n explanation of the justificction for thic proc:in: e ic ri c" ecti=ntors.
n c.ecca_J in thic cection of the Staff report.
3 Ecually disturbing ic the fact that each of the fou-rit cctinatorc listed i
in the text on pcco G-60 has its c n linits of uncertcinty inherent in it.
Tot thtce are stripped cuay cnd forgottcn, cnd the "contral value" licted in Sble G-71 lictc only the rence of the four lictcd (including the tuo Eccc 2-rc-pria.te onoc) rid cctit torc. igain, cone e:--lent tien of thic dicappa-~~
j of rengcc of uncertcinty for each of th, w'-" dual value:: 10 necesce:;.
- h.
The ctatencnt ic cede that "long latency periodo end ve'/ lou probabilitics of occu rence" characterice chren c iou icvel e:pocuroc to radiation. Thic conclucion cecnc at odd vi;h hu 2.n data en thic cubject.
> cconenno, et al.
(Cencer, _27 $l$ (1971)) cheucd that for vnenium ninorc in louer ca.ocuro catecarica, the core prevalet fc== of cenecrc occnn cd :.ith conciderably chorter " induction-latent" perici thrn did the came cer.c::: in hi6her c:gocw. o categorica. Cone elsbore.tien en rnd juctifi^c. tion for the above quoted ctatectnt in needed or it.should te i-o.n.ned.
s cerious internal inconcictency appears in Table C-
~.L.
In thic Table, 5
A accuned value of the latency period for lung crncer cae ctated to be about 15 year. 113o given ic the relative rick per "..~~ of 3% incroace in lung concer deathc per '..U: c:gocure. The 3% increc.ce per '.IU corresponde to a "dcubling doce of abcut 33 'lIl!.
Thic value 10 ccnciatent..ith that fc n i in a st'.idy of Inn; cancor enonc Polich urcniun
~4 2r2 (HealthIhycic: '[0 h33 (1976). Houever, thic doubling doce did not 4 " "da cny allovenue for any latency period at all. A typical cace study nifat be ac follous: a 2:n b:cin; cining uranirn at $2 yerns of ace, vork: in ti r.in:: for lh recrc, ac nire: a cun. tic.tive c:cocure of chout 900 ' DIE, is dia;-. :ci ac havin-- lung ccacer, end die: the yeen he quito ninin.; at cge 66 (Cace.co, Jecher, et al., Eccith Phr ica 2,1 3$1 (1973), Tchic 5). In the cubccT cnt cnalycic, this death ic ccchined rith othere of approxinately the cine total e:rocuro (8h0 '.E:
to 1799 L'IE). A ctandcrd statictical enaly ic i perfored, cnd, indacd, ences: cencerc are obcc? red ac the total '.TZ: en;::ce increc.ces among the.gil over 400 dead ureniun miners. The problen hare 1 that1-account vac te':en for the enictence of the knoun latency perici, sa that the c:Occure received after the radiation denace uhich lead; to lunr c neer hac not been excl.ded from the cnalycic. Thic omiscion vould tend to crnce a potentially lar;c overectinatien of the e:gocure required to cana: the production of l=-
Ornc?r.
' n.'mv"r n. e"_.'. ~',."..#
.Tc. m..-+, + %...c.'."o. ir.c_' ud a a.. d '. a c". _*. ~... c _ 'uha.
- m...
_c.4...,.1 c
~
.. a s
how the lat-tcy period hac been treated in ctudits involviny both acut end chrenic lou dose radiation c:perinento di:cucced in the ccientific literatu-o or other rice relied upon by the 2: eft r2; rt.
6.
The Appendin :hould centnin a diccuccien of th? nethodolog/ u::cd in UASH-lh03 to develop rick estinatora end ho' this re; ort is rpplicable to hich-IM radiation problena.
Specifically, this discuccien should include rn e glenatien of hou (end "hy) '.!!.SH-lbC0 deve' c;ei ita t'=ce nethod: for ectinatin; latent cencer death; efter a reacter accident. Alco, thic diccuccion should inclu4.e the rationale, if any, for dicciniin; the "rele-tive rich" nethodolo. y of the 'fEIR report; the.;ustific ttien for callig thc-nothodole y ifnich produce: lover ectinates of erneer f atalitiec the ""'per bo=d" rich eatint. tors: rad the juctification for recurecticn of the "t'=:ch-e %-.~ A _4.. -, n.-
w,a
+%.. o_,e o_e.., d.4, +. cn c a.-
.4 i,.,.._.n1, i, a.-u.<.e.-_.,
cn n. ~c
_<.i.n 4-
..o _.
m.
e factorc." liternatively, all rich estinatorc fr:: * !.3H-1L : chould be di ccrded, end cl1 references to '.'!dH-lh00 "'"'
'-a a'4-4" tod.
1.11 data fron UASH-lh00 chould be thorouchly checked t incre that it ic applict.ble to the hich-IH radiationn fron this front en. f the fuel cycle.
d 7
Since the avoved intent of the Draft ic to place "concerative" bo=d: en concer rich ectirr.too, cene neasure of the dcyrs? cf conceratica uced uculd be helpfal. Thic could be acconnliched by ::ftrance to the r n cc of values of rich ectinctcrc, trencfer coefficientc, rni doze convercien factore hich have appeered in the open ccientific literatrz, uith con: indicaticn c: to
'/ccre the chocen value: lie in a civen remco cf v:.lue:,
In thic u27, the reader ccn decide for nic-or nerceli Sether the b: undo ere indeed "cencerr.tive.
i
u The ree. con for diccardin-the "relctive ric':' cctin~. tor-for bone concer v.
c.,. e rc vholla c-/sitrar.", (n. ce.,o G-60). Outcide tc.: fact th"t it uca vould predict rora tone crncer then the abcolute ri:. : ath d cdopted, thero oufit to be a cood reccon to cupply here.
9 Secrir; in cJnd that fer alr.oct cny incult, ti--~ i n latency period
- betuc<.n tha 4.n-ult end the eub-equentepperrence of crncer or other conc.r_ucnccc, cnd that c ncer rc.tec cre increacas in the r.c:nt "rrc at n accolcretin" rate, the uce of unaltered 1970 cancer cortclit;- 62ta (O;tb1:c G-.7 2, G-7 3, G-7.5> cnd ref. 6 >.i.nm. endi:: G-7) ic.nucclin.. 30 not thece ante. reflect inculta uhich toch place around 25 or noro yearc cre?
- 10.
illat vculd the cctic?. torc of Irnc cencer in Orble G-7 3 loch like if the I'RC value of 2.3 rads /,IIII ucre employed inctc-i of the erbitrary end uncurportedvclucfrontho3'I2 report (0.5resc/~:). Horc. bout the 20 rads /uIl! value? L?q uere those vclues not c cen ec'cnoule'.;ci to c:ict?
11.
The rick cctientor for bone cencer vec tc := fron "*/'E-ll."0.
How docc thic value cocpere uith vc.luen reportcd in the oren ccientific literstrzr?
12.
In acrly 1978, Rocci end IIcyc, publiched. di:ct:cion of the verie. tion of the R32 of hich-IG radiation: (neutrenc) r c - f>nction c'f doce for indt.ction of leuhenia. They cuccected thn.t ac the doce of neutren d cre? cec, the F3 inerencec (hop 1th Thycice, Vol. 31;, pp. 333 fi').
Eo. ce theco
..~.. ". C". -l a, < e-.?n*6,3
'2 fi-Cin-c, '.thich e*a "S. olls
%.. '... m.,.e e "...". 41
^,,'..a i _ _. > - e_, o
^w
-m referred to in coments on 1?pendin C,."1, iner.7 ::t:d into thic report?
- Tou are the 3-'I2 report end the 1072-!;3 cc= nt; = the relttionchip of doce (cnd doce rate) end FI' included in thic rt rt-13 It ic nou octablished that prior to the cn'.02117 ober-inble c;r ptenc
-of icuhemia, neny children centract end die fr:r/r:ricus inf:ctiouc diccacn
-(Sec Brit. J. Ctncer E Ih3-57 (1978)). Yet tbc-den.tha de not aprecr to be listed in I,,cndin G 'I'.
'?J not?
1 15 I'eny reccarchers non concider certain f.ics?rsc of c"~*' end coronary
-caterica e7sociatcd uith the r outh of ethero: lerttic.1r..ren on the a
interior u?lle of the 'rtcric: to be ttro o~ =ic.
P ther? r relatienchi, betve:n radic. tion end hert dicence? A diccuc-i:n of thic relationchip chould be provided here..
f G-63) 10 overly brief 715 The diccus.icn of genetic rich ect'nttrrc cnd very cons:cin,:. Fron uhere do the "nn'rt-i.t" f.ctorc erico? Do they ref'ect en17 uncertainty in the value: in the Z r. ort, er do they r2r.e include the frequant1~ referenced (in the CZ~7 rmorti level of i~.or:nce a
conce ni c-the relatienchip betue:n ref'cticn =d.castic :-ffcetc? Eo rro nild c:'.tetienc included in the ectinatco of - n-t'.c r' ': Octira. torc (3 I2
!O, ? Hou do hich-IC redir.tian li% - w
.--- clec co~. m erc
--r m. ort n.
s
- to x-rcyc =d 2f-rcyc in ce".cin ccnctic den- ;o?
Trt c:ncri: cata hnero bcen perfor 1-d or cre vnde -tay ucin,- n1 hr.-rndiction to 2:te:-ine cenotic derrg2?
7
!.,,endin G 1 1.
The nrc.berc in nact of the tablec in thic
?-- nii: nrrer: thoro trhly 2c m icacni ed.
(l. nur.bor "hich hac becn 2'.c=c: nice:' ic rno choce b nda
-of vncerta.inty hevo been di c=ded at each ruc:c:.in-Icycl of preccntetion
. or m :nipulation). " Sat ere the er-or (or =ccrt-intf) 'Ornd on the nunbera in Orbica G ",.1 t'rouch Te.ble G ^.0?
,u P.
'Incce Tablea n c bef:cd on the 0.5 rad /.7 fi. :re pullci cut of t'.-in cir in the I.~2Il repo_t (one ccn only c.cenac). Ze r -::uld en: =c ale t'.:n-up to the 17.10 value of 0.0 rada, or the hi.f.' :T. talue of EC red / 7".
Ic 00:1c factor ciaply linear? "ou u uld the 10 7 6. :c :nd dc:3 r.to him:c: v 'c..
'Tntt cr. rt.n:1
'crr,teo?
ef the Pr, he included? In the ccale factor lin:1-to d:.fferinc ventilation rc.tec vith chancing sea:cna, diff:ri-_; duct 1 cycle.
cnd co on?
I e
6 9
0
-lh-Angendix J 1.
T.te Stn.ff technical nosition does not reflect a ucll considared or a pernr.snt colution to the mill tailing oroblen.
1tther, it represent: a cuick and dir--
-adnini:trative ettenot to postpone any real solution.
It is pemeated eith 10:;-
hole, vill do little on a long-torn basic, a.1 is even devoid of enforce.r.cn: ;r:-
vicionn. Is thin the intent of these pseudo-ra;ulations?
2.
Uo nontion is made in this appendix about dose conversion factors, but it suns safe to ascune that thase are little differeat from those of 'p.:cadix 3.
If this is the c :c, then tha Staff position is based on a ci;nificant underestination of the inhalation nrobicas associated with radon dau;;htcrc (cce ny cer.ents on 'ppandi:cs 0-$and0-d.
Accendix K-6 of r -.cns 1.
In Table K-6.2, some constant value of recoven rate of U,00 fron ores grades appears to have been used. Is the recovery rate really independent of cre grad 2? Perhap-a table thould be prep., red rhich relates ore ;rade to recovery rate for the grades of oro which are exoccted to be r.ined to cupport the nani=n anticipated nunber of nuclear pcuer plants for their entire operational lifeti e.
2.
The -ubject of dirt coverc for mill trilings piles receives only a curso"y discurrion in thic fppendb. Lacking is discussion of the longevity of the prr ::ed dirt cover, the ultin2tc fate of the nill t?ilin;;s piles, end the total cuantir of radca released to the air, particulates to the vind, and radiun to the water c rsr tine for the full period of toxicity.
It is di: graceful that the best dispos C
- option the RIC scans willing to tantatively rernest that nill onners apply is :nc drich has been in use for."any nillenia by feline: -- the "?uss'y cat" ncthod of rac,s disposal (wherein a little dirt is scrathed over the pile and the pussy cat pr: ptls-departs).
Accendix L
'dith the advantar; s of tailings disposr.1 option VIII so cbvious and over.-he':-ing, 1.it in dicturbing in the ent: One to see the O.C ain so lo r ('ppendix J) in its proponed colution to the nill tailings proble.. The "targat criteria" and Ju rer linit critorir" are voefully lex, end reflect an unfortunate eagerness on ;he rt of the IGC to recreate nill t.iling proble" ruch as those cre.ted by the O' in Grnnd Junction, Colorndo, only on a nuch nore n.s-ive scale, nd all rith the illusion of recurity.
Accendix 0
- 1. Tnble 0-1 lirts average radon flux ne?.rrenanty for a fe" locations in just five Ho mentien is made of the local conditions at the tine of naasurenant.
stater.
discussion offered as to th2 ti.e of year the naasurencnts va s Uor even is en/
There are also no locations licted c:.:n to both Ncles C-1 and 0-2, so it ir incorribic to deternine if there are ar7 trends or correlation betueen : aden ta3:en.
flte: and radiun co". centration.
hy is the data base so sparse? Those are th2 data fron which onc can only pronune the. estinated annual exhalation rate fren coi'. is derived (see Table 5, Vol.1).
Tnis *ppendix contains no discussion of the role played by seasonal variations 2.on the natural radon enhalation rate, li'.:e the effect of tenocratura, noistre, 2n:v
'let frca conerhere,_by cone meth d, sanchow, sonacc.e..as cover, plant cover, etc.
b:ca rble to cono up "ith a value of 1.2 x 10 curies as tha natural c halati:n Sinco this nunber is the one to which releases fron u sa.iun nilling 2nd taE-rato.
ings piles tre connared, a discussion of the c:-i-in and accuracy of this ntr.':ce is
inparative.
Apnendix R 1.
Tne inenection-nonitorine, costo lir>ted i. "...~o' a ' '
.ac.
'.'o7^.
~...a %.-.+.,
ho <cvar, gives'no i.dication a: to hou lon3 this nonitorin ; -dll :.ve to ':e carried out in the futuro, or ': hat vill be the r ::;=:c if d=:r=: c:n.itians are found in connequence of the inspection and nonitring.
- diiti =al irf :. tion on thoro rubjects chould be included in the fin-1 report.
Apcendix S 1.
In the 1 ret pneagraph on this page, the etate-.ent is n-de th.t the "taili p volune i-invermhy proportional to the ore grade." Is this strictly :=2? Zoes not the rate of recovery of urantun fron the ore also depend at lent reti 117 on the grade of the ore? ' hat.ould be the effect :n disposal Options of c=e proportional relationship betwee" ore grade (in, say, percent, and the recevar/
rate?
2.
In discussing the total fuel requirements, a c u ff at the ye r 2CZ is nade.
Tnis seens very arbitrary. Dven if no further nuclear power 7 =:: ce bui' t, 1
thase operating then "ill continue to need fuel for the renainir of their :perasi=d
. iles end of addini:nal liven, resultin;; in the production of additional nill tellin;;
radon eniccions.
An arbitrary cutoff of diacuccica at the yes. 20C0 is ::.refore cuite unrealistic.
't. hat vill be the total inpact of this proj e00-:-i 3i0 :.'.ie) of nuclerr genere. ting capacity, even assuming no fu-ther const=ctie.. of nuclesr pousr plante? that about the uraniun which uill be needed, the nt:frer of nines, r'.113, e:.,
the ciputge in oro grade, radon and particulata eficsior.s, ani the full rrn-s Of health effecW for the full period of the apyr:p-iz:2 to:-ici--? I short, r: f in the discussion truncated in time, when the intent is to procac:. bar:ni the par 2 C with the mining and nilling of uranium? Tne final GSIS nust ad.cass th= ^ ""=c::
of all urantun pr, duction.
3
- 11 previous connonts nade concerning the v;.rious a.nects f conputin; h2_lth effects alro np?ly here.
Tne narrow rangen -notsd here are ridiculcus.
': mantdoned earlier, the done converrion factor used in thie '~dt is nore -hrn a facto: of 5 belor one reconnended by the Federal radiation Council ten yer: rso end fac cr of LO belov the higheet literature value, ht".e :nly a fnetor :f 3 tb:ve the ver/
botton li.terature v'lue cuoted in the 33IR Report.
' nuch n:r: candii discus:icn cf cencern and other forms of radiation-induced Orc,.ture deaths is due and :nist be added to the final GJIS.
h.
For the rearans cited in the above err;unente on the envir:rnsntal do:: c=-
nitr.cnt ('ppendin G-6), the nunbers of prenature leaths conte-" '
~~ "' ^ 3-2 are confuring. Enr.ctly *. hat do they megn? Do reden er.ieri=: :::, at the yer.
20':0? For how long do they go on?
t."nat are the he:lth effe::: f:r as l= ; c3 the. so on? Has the HRC really ta'<e a "hard loo'.:" -- nuch les: a conplats one --
at the front end of the uraniun fuel cycle? Tne : Z is rec.nired to do so andar the ncndates of both the 'unic Incr;;y 5ct and the Jational }.vi annent='_ ?clicy 2 %* M.
Cencral Comments on the Use of Models Uranium mills have operated in the U.S. for well over ?? ye ars : :d by n:w it would seem that their operations, envircr. mental impacts, :::i:cecn.ic impacts, decommissioning and radiological impacts would be fairly well ;nderst:
3.
iiowever this dces not seem to be the case at all. There is very li.-le solid infor 3 tion on the past performances of uranium mills in this Draft CZIS.
The re.:n for this large general omission is not clear, but i; is tempting :: specul ;c that the performance of uranium millers has been so poor that the ':'. deetr't even want to talk about it.
Such a problem would be far from uni:ue in the history of the nuclear energy program (See my comments On Chapter 2',.
This difficulty, if it indeed is one, has been avoided by the.7.0 in this Draft.
There is very little in this Draft report which can be considered real, factual, or experimentally determined informati:n.
Instead, tn unusuilly heavy reliance is placed on what are called "models." These "models" take en many forms, but their purpose seems to be to use some sort of guess work, mathematical or otherwise, to approximate a set of parameters; so one doesn': have to go cut and measure the parameters or report what parameters are available.
The table below lists most of the models used in this Draft:
Chacter Subject described by a medel 4
Climate, air quality, topcgraphy, land res:urces and their use, geology, mineral resources, water res:urces,'ydrology, r
soils, bietic inhabitants, demography, ec:n: y, culture, politics, archeology, history, esthetics, 2nd recreation.
5 The mill itself, wastes, radioactive emissi ns for gases and particulates.
6 Environmental impacts of till operation en:
in general, the items listed for Chapter L, during construc-icn, curing mill operation, and, for a short period after - cper2 tion. The discussion is repeated for a model cluster of uraniam mills, including model continental radiological inpacts.
7 Accidents at uranium mills, e
Model technologies and techniques for mitica:irr envir:nmental impacts of the model mills, including =0:eir for t:ilings disposal alternatives.
9 Environmental impacts of alternatives, including th:rt term mill tailings disposal alternatives.
10 Post operational ecnitoring programs.
11 Monetary costs of alternatives.
12 Regulating criteria.
1L Costs of mill decommissioning and tailin s management.
_17_
General Comments on the Use of Models, cont'd Appendix Subject described hv a model D
Unter flow from mines.
E Groundwater contamination from tailings ponds, seepage water velocitics, and chemical ccepositions cf seepage water.
F Socioeconomic effects of mills, labor forces, personal distribution patterns.
G-1 Particulate deposition rates, radon diffusion rates through model soil.
G-2 Meteorology.
G-3 Ground concentrations of radioactive materials, concen-trations in vegetation, meat, and milk, environmental dose committments, transfer coefficients.
G-5 Lung exposures by two models (IC2P,1966 and UDAD computer code), inhalation dose conversion factors, ingestion doses, external dose conversion factors, food ingestion rates, ingestion dose conversion factors.
G-6 Regional exposures to radiesetive effluents from mill, environmental dose committeents.
G-7 Risk estimators for cancer and genatic effects.
O Radon exhalation from natural soil.
P Thickness of dirt required to reduce raden exhalation.
A reading of the text of the GEIS demonstrates that this profligate use of models has its costs.
One of these costs is the producti:n of a large lot of remodeled model numbers vhich come frer ther models.
Af ter so many of th ese trips through models, it becomes very cuestionable as te how much faith or trust can be put in any numbers in thi: report at all.
!:erely stating that numbers are conservative, overestimates, or whatever, is wholly insufficient. This is especially trna when arbitrary low values from models are used as input for other models, as was thoun in my comments on Appendix G.
As indicated in my comments on Appendix S, which is incorrec;17 labeled a sensitivity analysis, an attempt is made to gloss over and c:nceal this problem; but in reality, this Appendix does not represent a full-blown
- sensitivity analysis in the true sence.
But the most troubling aspect of this entire process concerns the use and abuse of models to try to account for uncertainties, in the course cf future events, among other things. Uhen faced with the largest source of radioactive emissions in the entire nuclear fuel cycle - r: den emissions from abandoned mill tailings piles - the URC suddenly refuses even to model, to try to estimate, the health effects over the full period of toxicity of the tiilings. The
General Comments on the Use of !!odels, cont'd URC also balks at even presenting the numbers so the reader can make his or her own calculations.
Instead of a forthright, open, and candid discussion of this subject of primary importance, the URC, in a complete abeu.-face, now uses the very existence of uncertainties as an excuse to refrain frc= modeling long-term radon emissions and health effects. This about-face comes even after the HP.C had so underestimated the health effects due to raden. The ressen, of course, is that with almost any model, the numbers of curies of raden released and the resulting premature deathu quickly mount to astr:nctical proportions.
(The third attachment to these comments shows the cal: laticns done by the NRC staff on potential radon emissions).
The solution to the problem of the long-term r2 don omissions from mill tailings piles, in the eyes of the URC, is to ignore the problem by citing uncertainties with regard to future climatic conditions, for example, as a justification for refusing to do any modeling at all. Cne alternative disposal method which the NRC superficially considers, and then discards for invented reasons, is te do the job right and inrure that the radon is forever prevented from entering the biosphere - alternative E.
In fact, that there are uncertainties in conditions in the future is mos: notable an indictment of the approach favored by the URC in order to keep the short term cost of uranium milling and milltailings disposal artificially 1:w. The S.C's " proposed solution," as outlined in the Draft GEIS and the proposed guidelines, represents nothing more than a continuing commitment to the attitudes that led to the
.cpidemic of lung cancer among early uranium miners, which continues to this day.
The URC must instead use the uncertainties about future conditicns to weigh its proposed mill tailings disposal optiens, and then to discard those uhich did not lead to the resolution of the uncertainties.
In the continuing disgraceful tradition of applications Of fission technclogy, the URC has chosen to uphold tradition, and to protect, cover for, and actively promote the nuclear industry at an unparalleled 2nd unprecedented cost in human lives.
Ucre there no other glaring deficiencies in this Draf t, this conscious condemnation of untold millions, billions, or m:re, cf yet unb rn humans to early and unpleasant illness and death is sufficient fustification for a complete rejection of this Draft document. But this is :nly the largest deficiency; there are many others, only some of which have been identified here.
Other commenters will undoubtedly identify additional deficiencies, which will enlarge upon the inadequacies highlighted here.
A thorough explanation of the points raised in these general comments on the use, abuse, and non-use of models is absciutely necessary in the final GEIS.
_19 Discussion The distortion of accepted knowledge b: gins early in the Draft. !n Appendix C, page 2, the URC attempts to apply c ncepts which are debaticle for x-rays, (-rays and beta particles, called 1:w LET radiations, to alpha particles, which are high LET radiations. In the third full paragraph en this page, the ghost of the long dead "thresPh:1d thecry" cf radiatien is raised, along with the unproven idea of cellular repair mechanists to repair tht damage caused by low LET radiation. As the *:20 is well aware, the r:distion problems caused by the mining and milling of uraniun are primarily due to alpha particles, or high LET radiation, to which the stated considerations On page 2 of Appendix C do not apply.
In fact, it is a reasonably well established principle that when the dose of high LET radiation is decreased, the RBE increases, and is not represented by a constant value. This principle is not even acknowledged in the Draft. In the Draft, an arbitrary value of the RBE of 10 is used throughout, even thesgh its variable nature has been discussed for years. The Final Statement en :llling would be greatly improved if it contained a discussien of the current status cf knowledge and controversy which is applicable to high LET radiatien.
The necessity of a more candid discussion than the Draft report provides is further borne out by the subsequent use of the :encept of the " working level" 11'j in Appendix C.
The brief and distorted discussi:n in the Draft falls far shor of being a balanced presentation.
It does n0t, for instance, mention the rea-sons offered by active researchers in the field as to why the NL is an inappr:-
priate measure of either radon daughter concentration or dese.
It must also be observed that in making the conversion from an exposure cf one 'el under conditions as. yielding a dose of 5 rer ( Appendix C, page L), the reader is referred to the 2EIR report and Appendix G.
Upon turning to Appendin 3 for details, the reader is again refarred cnly :: tha'3EIR r: pert.
But that report is grossly misrepresented on page 65 of Appendix G.
Mere the Draft Rep:r-states"The BEIR Report presents a detailed discussion of raden daughter dosimetry..." (footnote omitted)
However, when the section of the BEIR report which discusses raden is cansulted, the discuccion in that report is seen to be exceedingly superficial. Yorse yet, the conversion factor of 0 5 rad per ML month ( 1M) used in the SEIR report its elf does not even come from the numerous values in the published scientific literature.
On page Lk of Appendix G, the URC refers to an IPA report published in 1973 (ref. 9). In that report, which the then A::ric Energy C missi:n chose to ignore in its 1974 version of its "Envirc--=-'a Effects of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle," a fairly detailed discussicn of raden d:sitetry is given by the EPA.
However, since the conclusions of the EPA report d: not coincide with the pre-conceived notions of the "RC, they were apparen:1y ignored.
These omissions and misrepresentaticns are ':y no reans small or trivial.
They indicate just how far the NRC will go te ;r ect and cover for the indus :7-it is supposed to regulate.
It is difficult t: ::n lude that these mistakes,1 -:e underestimating the value of the RSE of alpha particles or underesticating the dose due to radon daughters were unconscious or accidental.
If indeed they were accidental, one would expect an approximately equal number of genuine overesti-mations of doses and effects. Such is not the case, as the 520, like its prede-cessor agency, traditionally and unfailingly errs en the side of the nuclear industry to the detriment of the health and safety of the public.
On page SE of Appendix G, the staff states that the relative risk model fi s lung cancer data from the uranium mines better than the absolute risk ecdel.
This postion was first advanced by Drs. Jchn G:buran and Arthur Tamplin about 10 years ago, at which time it was contested by the AEC.
Yet when the ERC calru-
-N_
lates a risk estimator for radon daughter exposure cn nage 60 of Appendix G, it includcu risk estimators it acknowledged two eages earlier to be inappropriate lung cancer esti..;ators. The inclusion of the tua inappropriate estimatora had the effect, not surprisingly, of lowering the calculated number of fatal cancer;.
Table G-7.A lists an assumed value of 15 years for the Intency period for lung cancer from radon daughters. t/hether this value is anyuhere near correct is not really known, because in the studies ths; *.;ve appeared in the scientific literature, from studies in the U.S. and Eastern Zurope, latency periods were not included in deriving the reported dose-response analyses.
In the usual treatment, the entire exposure of th7 unfortunate workccs is used as the value to calculate the exposure which caused cancer. Generally, these workers continued to work one or two years prior to the time they died of cancer. Thus the use of the entire exposure history of the workers without some accounting for the latency pericd overestimates the exposure required to produce lung cancer by a substantial margin, and contributes to the general underestimation of the risk of lung cancer due to radon exposure.
Furthermore, the NRC staff states in Appendix G, page SE, that low levels of radiation exposure are difficult to detect because of long latency perieds and low probabilities of cecurrence of cancers. It has been shown however, among the uranium miners in the U.S., that latency periods for low exposure to radon daughters are shorter than that for high exposures. The unswerving bias of the NRC toward protecting the nuclear industry a; the expense of the public health and safety is particularly evident here (Appendix G, page SE), there the URC assumes long latency periods, contrary to ava ' ' "' a experimental data, and 1cw probabilities of occurrence of cancers due to low level radiation.
Apparently the URC has left no stone unturned in its cuest to underestimate the risks of cancer from the uranium mining and milling precasses.
In Chapter 12 of the Draft, page 25, the URC assumes that even if the pro-posed coverings of mill tailings piles do er:de away,
... remedial action could be taken in a time frame that uculd prevent ny adverse health effects to the maxically exposed individuals.
The NRC leaves the public in the dark as to hcw anycne could detect problems at the abandoned tailings piles which occurs f ar off into the future, such as 100, 1000, or 10,CCO yecrs from now. After all, even with all of our technology and modern epidemiological capabilities, we are still unable to pinpoint the major causes of cancer today, let alone any national increases in cancer mortality.
Hou does the URC expect future societies, whose capabilities mty or may not exceed ours today, to be able to detect a local incresse in etncer mortality due to raden caissions from todays milling activities?
~- a
-e#t contains no discussion of this questien. Apparently the NRC sees no inconsistency by assuming, on one hand, that the effects of low-level radiation occur with low probability, and, on the other hand, that future peoples, with unkncun levels of technological ecmpetence, can detect the effects of low level radiatior tnd respond in a manner which we are unable to do todey.
In Appendix 5 page 1, the statement is made that the tailings volume is proportional to the ore grade.
This statement is true if the degree of recovery of uranium from the ore is a constant. However, there is no reason to expect that the level of uranium recovery is constant. As a result, it is reasonable to assume that the volume of tailings will be ; renter than that convaniently assumed by the NRC.
On this same page, the NRC states also that the activity of the tailings is proportional to the grade of the ore. However, as the ore grade drops, the total activity of the tailings recuired to be created to supply one year's fuel for a reactor will increase, due to the increasing amounts of
uranium not recovered from the ore.
In addition, as more uranium is left in the ore and the volume of tailings mounts faster than the inverse pro-portionality incorrectly assumed by the I:RC, the durstion of the problem of radon emissions shifts from a prob 1cm cer.tered on the EC,CCC year half-life of thorium-23C to a problem with a 4.C cillion year half-life.
The' Draf t report uculd benefit enormourly fr:n a thorcugh and candid discussi..o of these items and the more detailed re. narks made in the precedings sections above. The final GEIS should also explain why the !!RC so consistently seems to underestimate the adverse erfects cf radiation on man.
Conclusion Our oart exocriences with the !!20 Staff lead us to believe that the nany crucial oninnions, deceptive nisntatenants, an1 outright lies of the Draf t GlIS reflect a conscious and deliberate :;..C policy to jeopardize the public health and safety and thuart the objectivos of IIP.
'.ia cons to this conclusion because the claughter of hun:n lives resulting fron radon emissions fron the nill tailings piles has been the principal focus of an extensive, consolidated i'RC licansing proceeding for over tro years.
Throughout this period, through our nenbar groups, ve have actively participated in this still ongoing and y2t unresolved censolidated licensing proceeding. Furthernero, it van citizen intervanors, rathar thm the ::1C Staff or any applicant rho first raised the radon iscuo.
Virtu illy all of the detailed renarks v3 have nale here, ce have already, repeatedly, ntds durin; the ongoing consolidat2d radon licensin; procacding, vithout, nrrt naparent.inpact ithatsoever upon either the Draf; EI3 or the X.10 Staff. To illustrate the kind of connents subnitted throus?. cut this on,;oing radon proeneding, and thereby further inpugn th3 :30 Staff's actual notivas, ue append to and incorporate in these connents t:o docuneats fron tha consoli-dated redon proceeding. Furthernore, re apoend and incorperste in there conn:nts certsin pager fron the G"3MO proc?eding "hich denonntrate the fact th2t the IP.C Staff hn-been fully a-are of the full din:nsion of the radon problen for -everal yatrn.
Tragicslly, the Staff a parent 17 i p9rty to a nacabre conep4. racy to condenn 9n untold pnd prodigi. cue nunber of the yet unboni to an increa-d level of ill heilth and arenature death.
UNITED STATES C~ AMERICA flUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICCNSIfiG APPEAL BOARDS Alan S. Rosenthal, Chaircun Dr. John H. Buck Michael C. Farrar February 19, 1979 Richard S. Salzman Dr. W. Reed Johnson Jerome E. Sharfman In the Matters of METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY et al_.
Docket No.
50-320 (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit No. 2)
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY et al.
Docket Nos. 50-277
- --- )
50-278 (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,
)
Units 2 and 3)
)
and Docket Nos.
50-338 STN 50-482 50-339 STN 50-484 50-354 STil 50-485 50-355 STN 50-491 50-389 STN 50-492 50-400 STN 50-493 50-401 STN 50-518 50-402 STN 50-519 50-403 STN 50-520 50-443 STN 50-521 50-444 STN 50-546 50-482 STN 50-547 50-500 50-501 50-513 50-553 50-554 IN RESPONSE TO THE DE MINIMUS THEORY AND ALAB-509 In ALAB-509, the Atomic Saf Board") requires that the Interve DUPLICATE DOCUMENT Entire document previously entered into system under:
ANO N o.
of pages:
UilITED STATES OF AMERICA fiUCLEAR REGUL ' TORY COMMISS10:1 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY At!D LICE!! Sit:G APPEAL BOARDS In the Matters of
)
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPAtlY et al.
Docket flos. 50-277 (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, 50-278 Units 2 and 3)
)
METROPOLITA:1 EDIS0:1 COMPAtlY et al.
)
Docket flo.
50-320 (Three Mile Island fluclear Station,
)
Unit flo. 2)
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AtID GAS CO.
)
Docket fios. 50-354 (Hope Creek Generating Station,
)
50-355 Units 1 and 2)
)
fiORTHERfl STATES P0'1ER COMPAtlY et al.
Docket tio. STil 50-484 (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1)
)
ROCHESTER GAS Ar4D ELECTRIC Docket flo. STil f,0-485 CORPORATI0il et al.
)
(SterlingPowerProject,
)
fluclear Unit 1)
)
Affidavit of Dr. Chauncey Keoford Settina Fort's the Interve. ors' Statement of the Facts as to Which There is a Material Discu*gt.,
Chauncey Kepford, being duly sworn, states as follows:
1.
I am a member of the Executive Board of the Environmental Coalition on fluclear Power.
I serve also as a consultant to this organization and its member groups on legal and technical matters.
I have appeared as an expert witness on the radon issue on behalf of the intervening citizen grcups (" Inter-venors")in the TMI-2 licensing proceedings.
I also have appeared as an expert witness on the radon issue on the behalf of citizen intervenors in the Perkins 1, 2, and 3 proceedings.
.h,,>U o
]Cl jQdd ) ) _
(,Jul
( [ U*
~ -
2.
This affidavit was prepared by me for the purpose of establishing before the Appeal Board that there are material facts as to which there is a dispute in this proceeding. The comments herein will refer specifically to the numbered paragraphs of the Applicant's " Statement of Material Facts as to Which There is no Genuine Issue to be Heard" ("Staterrent") and the " Affidavit of Morton I. Goldman" ("Goldman").
5 3.
The use by the Staff of a value of 2.71 x 10 metric tons (MT) of uranium ore per reactor year is inaccurate to c.1 extent that it defines a quantity of ore of a certain (unstated) set of reactor parameters (Statement, at 7).
In reality, the average grade of are being mined in the U.S. has dropped significantly in recent years and there is no reason to expect that it will not continue to decline as higher grades of ore are depleted.
4.
The ore grade problem is complicated by the fact that as the ore grade drops, the percentage of material to be recovered from the ore drops also.
What this means is that 10 tons of 0.2% U 03 ore does not, af ter milling, 3
produce the same quantity of recovered U308 as would 106 tons of 0.02% U 03 8 ore.
In fact, it would take more of the 0.02% ore, because a lower level of recovery of U 03 8 would be realized.
Since more of the lower grade ore will have to be 6
mined than the 10 tons, a larger radon-222 source tenn may result per reactor year, in addition to having the problem of stabilizing more than 10 times the volume and weight of the mill tailings than for the 0.2% ore.
Compare Sta tement, para. 49, 50, Goldman, para. 22, 23.
5.
The assumptior that deep mines produce no radon gas af ter shutdown (Statement 6,8) cannot be accepted as correct. A reading of the Perkins transcrip cited (tr. 2542) shows clearly that Witness Wilde acknowledged that natural
~
~
ventilation could bring up radon from the mine interior to the external environ-ment.
Neither the TMI-2. nor the Perkins proceedings addressed the question of how long whatever " seals" which are applied to underground mines would be effective at containing all radon emissions within the mines.
6.
The Perkins record contains a wholly inadequate examination of radon-222 releases from openpit mines (Statement, at 9-11, 15, 16, 17, 18).
The calculations offered by the Applicant are based on sweeping and unsubstan-tiated assumptions; they are not finnly based on experimental evidence.
In addition, Witness Wilde freely admitted his calculation was "quic'K and dirty" (tr.2610).
Furthermore, Witness Goldman used an overburden in his calculation with an apparent volume of 270,000 MT(tr. 2640), just that of one year's requirements.
This value is refuted in his own affidavit (Goldman,12).
Contrary to the Statement in his affidavit (Goldman,11) that his Perkins calculations included open pit mine emissions, the 100 curie and 200 curie values refer to emissions of radon from the overburden for two specific uranium concentrations (tr. 2640, 19-13).
7.
Radon-222 is a naturally-occurring radioactive decay product in the middle of a radioactive decay series which begins with uranium-233 and tenninates with stable lead-206.
Radon-222 is of particular concern for a number of reasons:
(a) While radon-222 has a short, 3.8 day half-life, it has parent radioactive materials with long half-lives:
uraniu1-238 (4.5 billion years) and thorium-230 (80,000 years).
(b) Radon is the only naturally-occurring radioactive noble gas, and radon-222 is the only naturally-occurring radon isotope with a half-life longer than about one minute.
As a result, radon-222 has by far the greatest opportunity to diffuse away from its point of origin prior to undergoing decay.
(c) Radon-222 has three short-lived daughter products which emit alpha particles, which are among the most damaging of the ionizing radiations. These daughter products, when in-haled, are known to cause lung cancer.
8.
In the process of obtaining fuel for nuclear reactors, naturally-occurring uranium ore is taken to mills where the ore is ground, about 90% of the uranium is renoved, and the " tailings" are washed out to a pond where, when the mill ceases operation, the tailings dry and radon, which otherwise would have been trapped in underground ore forrations, can escape to the air.
Once the radon is in the air, it can be transported with the winds and taken far from the mill tailings dump.
9.
In the case of a mill tailings dump, the primary " parent" of radon-222 is thorium-230, since about 90% of the uranium-238 is generally removed during the milling process. This means that the emission of radon will be governed primarily by a source with an 80,000 year half-life.
Of course, when much of the thorium-230 has decayed, e.g., after about 3 half-lives, or 240,000 years, the main parent then becomes the very long half-lived uranium-2.ti.
- 10. While the annual emissions of radon from the mill tailings used to supply fuel to a commercial nuclear reactor for one year are appreciable, abcut 74.5 curies to 100 curies when this annual emissions rate is integrated over time, the total emission-is seen to be truly enormous.
In the case of TMI-2, the radon which will be produced by the radioactive decay of the remaining thorium-230 in the abandoned mill tailings piles is about 320 million curies of radon.
If the decay of the remaining 10% of uranium-238 not renoved by the milling p ocess is considered, the radon produced for each year of TMI-2 operatie-increases to about 1.8 trillion curies.
It must be emphasized that these emissions are the result of natural decay of the thorium and uranium in the tailings piles produced to operate a commercial reactor for one year.
.s.
- 11. During the TMI-2 licensing proceeding, the fiRC, through the tes i-many of its witness, Gotchy, used a death rate of 0.023 premature deaths f.-
each 4800 curies of radon released to the at osphere.
From this value, a number can be computed for the premature deaths caused by these radon er 3 i :r.s due to operation of a commercial reactor such as TMI-2.
Gotchy's calcu
. :.s assumed a future population model which, in essence, freezes the present society at a particular population level and extends it as far as necessary into the future. On this basis, a value of 87,000 premature deaths for each year of operation of TMI-2 can be computed.
- 12. Using a conversion factor from curies emitted to deaths due to car. er derived by the EPA, which essentially differs from Gotchy's conversi:-
factor in that it uses a different lung dosimetry model, a value of 1.2 million premature deaths is calculated for each year that TMI-2 will operate.(See testi-many of Dr. Chauncey Kepford in the TMI-2 licensing proceeding.)
- 13. An additional issue in calculating 'he cost in human lives of the radon emissions concerns the dosimetry of radon daughters in the human lung.
This dosimetry is complicated by the fact'that radon concentrations vary widely in the natural environment.
In general, it is areas of more static air where the daughters of radon have a chance to accumulate.
Such more static condi-ions are more typical of underground uranium
,es and, for even lower concentrations.
the interior, of buildings.
- 14. Among researchers in the field, there does not seem to be an agret-d upon value for " typical" radon daughter concentrations for a given redon concen tra tion.
flor is there a generally agreed upon depth of penetration by the emitted alpha particles into the sensitive tissue of the lung. As a res :lt of these and other factors, there exists a wide range of factors which may be used to convert from a given exposure to a given concentration of radon into a radiation dose in the proper units, as rads or roentgens. The tiRC Staff uses a
value near the low end of the published range, reducing the effect of any calculated dose.
- 15. Furthermore, it has recently been suggested that a number called the " relative biological effectiveness", or RBE, which converts rads or roentgens into the more customary unit, rems, may be underestimated by a larje factor, perhaps 19 or more, for low doses of high LET radiation ("Leukcmia Risk from fleutrons", Rossi and liays, Health Physics E p. 353-60, 1978). The result of these above considerations (of dosimetry and low-level radiation effects) suggests that the above numerical estimates of premature deaths due to radon may be underestimated by a factor of at least 100.
16.
In addition to the 1.2 million or so avoidable, premature deaths attributable to the mill tailings emissions of radon for each year of commercial operation of a single nuclear reactor (based upon EPA's cor, version factor), and in addition to the factor of 100 underesticution which this enormous number of deaths may represent (as explained above), one must also consider the radon-related dea ths attributable to the mining of uranium ore (Perkins tr. 2465-67).
The prospects of serious mine reclamations efforts which would substantially reduce the long-tem radon emissions attributable to the mining partion of the nuclear fuel cycle appea' dim or non-existent.
(See, e.g., Dr. Ch&uncey Kepford's February 19, 1979, restonse to the de minimus theory, at! pages 10-16).
flei ther of these sources of radon-222 is scull, insignificant, or de minirus.
M
_ h e/c m / i h.th u 0
/'
Sworn to and subscy"ibed to Dr. Chauncey Kepford before me this JO day of 433 Orlando Avenue June, 1979.
State College, Pa.16801 liy Commission expires 63//b/f /
i j
Jeaa Mj$rns, h P Uc f *SiaYiQ.dce. Cen:re Ctu!/N!hhS'
! jay Commson Exctres f.t:rch 16.193L
c.'
~
UtlITED STATES OE AE?.ICA fl0 CLEAR REGULATORY C00ISSICil 1
BEFORE THE GEST.'O HEAR!M 30ARD l
In the Matter of GEilERIC EllVIR0tif4EtiTAL STATEMEilT
)
Docket flo. RM-50-5 ON MIXED OXIDE FUEL
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of flRC STAFF'S URITTE?! AtlSWERS TO QUESTIC:IS i
Ott CHAPTER IV F AtlD G (IllCLUDIrlG 7 AtlSUERS PERTAIllING TO IV E) in the above captioned matter have been served en the December 6,1976 Service List, by deposit in the United States cail, first class or air mail, or, as indicated below, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 13th day of December,1976.
Ms. Kathleen M. tiason Special Assistant for GEStD Office of the Secretary U. S. fluclear Regulatory Commissien Washington, D. C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U. S. fluclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.
20555 f/ l h* :.-
~N 41illiam J. Olmstaac Counsel fordlRC Staff
~ - -. -. -. - - - - -
FP-18-13 PARTICIPANT:
Natural Resources Defense Council SUBPARAGRAPH:
Chapter IV F, Summary PAGE AND QUESTION NUMBER (s): Pages 6 and 7, re Summary, Questions 1 anc 2 Questions 1.
On page IV F-4 it is stated that one of the significant effects of recycle for the period 1975 through 2:00 is:
222
" - Reduction of Rn enissions by about 2,500,000 curies due to uranium recycle and by about 5,300,000 curies due to recycling both uranium and plutonium."
How many additional curies would be released in the 1 million years following 2000, from the same quantity of uranium ore represented by the source of the 2,500,000 curies? How many between 2000 and infinity?
On page NF-5 it is statad:
227
" - Decrease in the release of
'Rn frca active mill tailings areas of about 470,C00 curies with uranium recycle and a to'.al reduction of about 990,000 curies with recycle of both uranium and plutonium."
2.
How many additional curies would be released in the 1 million years following 2000, from the same quantity of mill tailings represented by the source of the 470,000 curie?
I of 12 Attachmen: 1-57
~
. _. _._..-._._._E--...___....__..__.
FP-18-13 PARTICIPAtlT:
flatural Resources Defense Council SUBPARAGRAPH:
Chapter IV F, Su:rmary PAGEANDQUESTIONtlUMBER(s): Pages 6 and 7, re Summary, Questions 1 and 2 Answer 1.
The quantity of ore which constitutes the source of the 2,500,000 curies 222 6
of Rn referred to in this question is approximately 170 x 10 MT with an average grade of 0.1% U 0 -
38 222 The amount of Rn that would be released from this quantity of cre during the time periods specified would depend on the conditions under which the release is postulated to occur.
If it is assumed that the ore remains in place, undisturbed in its 222 natural geological setting, essentially all of the Rn (T 3.82 days) l/2 =222 would decay in the time required for diffusion transport of the Rn from its source at a depth of a few hundred feet underground to the 222 surface of the earth.
In this case the amount of Rn released to the environment would approach zero as a lower limit.
222 The maximum amount of Rn relea.e would occi:r if it is assumed that the ore is distributed at the surface of the earth in a physical form such 222 that all of the Rn formed by radioactive decay is released icmediataly to the environment. This case would define the absolute upper limit for 222Rn release.
The upper limit values can be calculated for the time periods of interest
-t by using the rad"sactive decay equation N = tt 8 and the following 0
physical constants:
2 of 12 -58 1
+
FP-18-13 PARTICIPAffT:
flatural Resources Defense Council SUBPARAGRAPH:
Chapter IV F, Sun ary PAGEAtlDQUESTI0ftflUMBER(s): Pages 6 and 7, re Su= nary, Ouestions 1 and 2 Answer (Cont'd) 238 Atomic Mass U = 238 gm 222 Atomic Mass Rn = 222 gm 238U = 3.33 x 10-7 Ci/gm Specific Activity 222 5
Specific Activity Rn = 1.54 x 10 Ci/gm 9
T U = 4.51 x 10 years l/2 A (decty constant) 238U = 1.54 x 10-10
-I year 222 Calculations are as follows for the maximum curies of Rn released 6
from 170 x 10 MT of 0.1% U 0 ore:
38 238 6
Amount of U originally present in 170 x 10 MT of 0.13 U 0 ore 3g (170 x 10 MT)(10 gm/MT)(1 x 10-3 9' U 0 /gm)(0.848 gm #U/gm U 0 )
- 6 6
38 38 Il 238 1.44160 x 10 en g
238 6
6 Amount of U in 170 x 10 MT after 10 years decay time
-At ti = N e
-(1.54 x 10-10)(10 ) e II 5
il = 1 44160 x 10 e
Il c,238g ti = 1.44138 x 10 6
Amount of U which decayed in 10 years (1.44160x10II) - (1.4138 x 10Il) = 2.2 x 107 c,238U 222 7
238 Amount of Rn formed by decay of 2.2 x 10 gm U
222 238 ) (222 cn Rn) 7 222 7
(2.2x10 gm (238 gm 238 )
= 2.05 x 10 gg Rn U
9 3 of 12 -E.:
~
e FP-18-13
]
PARTICIPANT:
Natural Resources Defense Council l
SUBPARAGRAPH:
Chapter IV F, Summary PAGEANDQUESTIONNUMBER(s): Pages 6 and 7, re Summary, Questions 1 and 2 Answer (Cont'd) 222 6
Curies of Rn formed and released in 10 years - upper limit 7
222 5
222 222 (2.05 x 10 gm Rn)(1.54 x 10 Ci Rn/gm Rn) =
12 222 3.16 x 10 Ci Rn
\\
Calculations are as follows for the maximum curies of radon released in an infinite number of years:
238 In this casr. O of the 0 originally present in the ore will decay in 28 ra infinite period of time. Therefore, the amount of U which decays ll 238 is simply 1.4416 x 10 cm U.
222 Il 238 Amount of Rn formed by decay of 1.4416 x 10 gm g,
222 (222gm pn) 11 222 (1.4416 x 10 ) gm 7
3 8) (238 gm 0
238U ) = 1.34 x 10 gm Rn 222 Cttries of Rn formed and released in an infinite number of years -
upper limit (1.34 x 10 gm Rn)(1.54 x 10 Ci Rn/gm Rn) = 2.06 x 10 Ci 222,
Il 222 5
222 222 16 z
Curies of Rn Released in Time Pericd 6
10 years.
infinite years Lower Limit 0
0 12 16 Upper Limit 3.16 x 10 2.06 x 10 4 of 12 -60
FP-18-13 a
f PARTICIPANT:
Natural Resources Defense Council SUBPARAGRAPH:
Chapter IV F, Summary l
PAGE AND QUESTION NUMBER (s): Pages 6 and 7, re Summary, Questions 1 and 2 Answer (Cont'd) 222 The amount of Rn which is released to the environment will depend on the assumptions that are made concerning the conditions under which such a release would occur, that is, what fraction of the radon formed is assumed to enter the atmospheric environment. The upper limit values from the table above can be multiplied by the assumed fractional 222 6
release to obtain the projected release of Rn from 170 x 10 MT of 0.1% U 0 are during the time pericd of interest.
3g 2.
The quantity of tailings which constitutes the source of the 470,000 222 curies of Rn referred 'to in the second part of this question is 6
approximately 170 x 10 MT of tailings.
An approach similar to that used in the answer to the previous part 222 of this question can be used to calculate the amount of Rn released 0
during 10 years, except that in this case the fractional amount of raden can also be calculated.
222 Calculations are as follows for the curies of Rn released frcm 7
6 170 x 10 MT of tailings in 10 years.
222 6
Fraction of Rn released from 170 x 10 MT of tailings (same basis as GESM0 model mill and tailings pile).
222 Curies of Rn released per year per MT of tailing (GESMO model mill) 5 of 12 -6'
FP-18-13 i
PARTICIPANT:
Natural Resources Defense Council SUBPARAGRAPH:
Chapter IV F, Sumary PAGE AND QUESTION NUMBER (s): Pages 6 and 7, re Summary, Questions 1 and 2 1
Answer (Cont'd) 222 1.02 x 10-4 Ci Rn/yr MT tailings
=
13500MT/ day (30 a
r)(26 years) 222,7y, 6
222 4
(170 x 10 MT)(1.02 x 10-4 C1 Rn/yr MT) = 1.734 x 10 Ci p
t i
222 226 6
Curies of Rn formed per year by decay of Ra in 170 x 10 MT of tailings 226 226Ra activity = 2.82 x 10-4 Ci. Ra/MT 226 Atomic Mass Ra - 226 gm 222 Atomic Mass Rn - 222 gm 226 Specific Activity Ra = 1 Ci/gm 222 5
Specific Activity Rn = 1.64 x 10 Cligm T
Ra = 1602 years l/2
-I A(226Ra) = 4.33 x 10-4year 226 6
Amount of Ra originally present in 170 x 10 MT of tailings 8
226 4
226 (1.70 x 10 MT)(2.82x10-4 Ci Ra/MT) = 4.794 x 10 Ci Ra 4
226
= 4.794 x 10 gm Ra 226 6
Amount of Ra present in 170 x 10 MT of tailings after one year decay time N=N*
N = 4.794 x 10 e-(4.33 x 10-4)(1) 0 4
4 226 N = 4.7919 x 10 p Ra 6 of 12 -62
........a.
FP-18-13 PARTICIPAtlT:
flatural Resources Defense Council SUBPARAGRAPH:
Chapter IV F, Sun 7 nary PAGE ATID QUESTION NUMBER (s): Pages 6 and 7, re Summary, Questions 1 and 2 Answer (Cont'd) 226 Amount of Ra which decayed in one year 4
4 226 (4.7940 x 10 )-(4.7919 x 10 ) = 21 cm Ra/yr 222 226 Amount of Rn formed by decay of 21 grams of Ra in one year 226 222 (21gm Ra)(222am Rn) = 20.63 Sm Rn/yr 6
226 gm Ra 222 Curies of Rn formed by decay in one year 222 222 22 2 (20.63g Rn/yr)(1.54 x 10 Ci Rn/gm Rn) =
6 222 3.177 :. 10 Ci Rn/yr 222 Fraction of Rn formed by decay which is released frcm tailings 1.734 x 10 Ci Rn/vr 5.46 x 10-3 4
222 6
222 3.177 x 10 Ci Rn/yr (fraction released) 222 During the million year interval of interest the amount of Rn present 222 in the tailings, and thus the amount of Rn released will be controlled 230 first by the decay of the once re,oved parent Th activity, and later, 230 after the Th has decayed to about 10:', of its original activit) (equal 238 to the U activity of the tailings), by the decay of the parent U
of the series.
7 of 12
- -63 i
L._....._.__...___.
e FP-18-12 i
l PARTICIPANT:
Natural Resources Defense Council l
SUBPARAGRAPH:
Chapter IV F, Sumary PAGEAf(DQUESTIONtiUMBER(s): Pages 6 and 7, re Su=ary, Questions 1 and 2 Answer (Cont'd) 230 222 The first interval during which Th decay controls Rn release 230 is about 3.3 half-lives of Th (T1/2 = 80,000 years)or 264,000 yurs.
230Th activity = 2.82 x 10-4 Ci Th/MT 230
~
238 Atomic Mass 9 - 238 gm 230 Atomic Mass Th - 230 gm 222 Atomic Mas:
Rn - 222 ga 238 Specific Activity U = 3.33 x 10-7 Ci/sm 230 Specific Activity Th = 1.94 x 10-2 Ci/gr 222 5
Specific Activity Rn = 1.54 x 10 Ci/gm 4
T Th = 8.0 x 10 years 1/2 230 A
Th = 8.66 x 10-6
-I year 9
T U = 4.51 x 10 years l/2 238 A
0 = 1.54 x 10-10
-I year Amount
, 230Th originally present in 170 x 10 MT of tailings 6
(2.82 x 10-4 Ci Th/MT)(1.7 x 10 MT) 6 c,23073 230
= 2.47 x 10 (1.94x10-2 Ci.230Th/ga) 230 6
5 Amount of Th in 170 x 10 MT of tailings after 2.64 x 10 years of decay time 8 of 12
- -64 i
_m. _ _... _. _.. _ _. _ _ -
FP-18-M i
l PARTICIPANT:
Natural Resources Cefense Council SUBPARAGRAPH:
Chapter IV F, Sumary PAGEANDQUESTIONNUMBER(s): Pages 6 and 7, re Suninary, Questions 1 an: 2 l
Answer _(Cont'd) l N = N e-At o
N = 2.471 x 10 e-(8.66 x 10-6)(2.64 x 10 )
5 6
5 g,230Th N = 2. 51 x 10 230 5
Amount of Th which decayed in 2.64 x 10 years I
6 230 5
230 (2.471 x 10 gm Th)-(2.51 x 10 gm Th) =
6 230 2.22 x 10 cm Th 222 6
230 Amount of Rn formed by decay of 2.22 x 10 gm Th 2
6 6
222 (2.22x10 g,230Th)(222 m
) = 2.14 x 10 gm Rn 230 230 gm in 222 230 5
Curies of Rn formed from Th decay in 2.64 x 10 years 6
222 5
222 (2.14x10 gm Rn)(1.54 x 10 Ci/gm Rn) =
ll 222 3.30 x 10 Ci Rn 222 222 230 Curies of Rn released frcm Rn formed from Th decay during 5
2.64 x 10 years ll 222 (3.3 x 10 Ci Rn)(5.46 x 10-3) = 1.F.0 x 109 222 Ci Rn 9 of 12 Attachmer.- 1-65
~
..-... '... -... =....-
FP-18-13 PARTICIP/ fit:
Natural Resources Defense Council SUBPARAGRAPH:
Chapter IV F, Sumary PAGEANDQUESTIONNUMBER(s): Pages 6 and 7, re Summary, Questions 1 and 2 Answer (Cont'd) 222 During the entire million-year interval Rn will also be formed by 238 decay of 0 and released from the tailings pile 238 6
Amount of U originally present in 170 x 10 fit of tailings would be 238 9.5% of the amount of 0 in the ore (90.5% mill recovery)
II 238 )(0.095) = 1.36952 x 1010 q,23Sg (1.44160 x 10 gm U
238 6
Amount of 0 in 170 x 10 MT of tailing, cfter one million years of decay time
-At N=Ne 10 -(1.54 x 10-10)(10 )
6 N = 136952 x 10 e 10 238 N = 1.36931 x 10 gm g
238 6
Amount of U which decayed in 10 years (1.36952 x 1010)-(1.36931 x 1010) = 2.1 x 106,238g 222 6
238 Amount of Rn formed by decay of 2.1 x 10 grams g
2 238 ) (222 cm
= 1.96 x 10 g,222Rn 6
6 (2.1 x 10 gg g
(238gm 28)
U 222 6
238 Curies of Rn formed in 10 years from U decay 6
222 5
222 Il 222 (1.96x10 gm Rn)(1.54 x 10 Ci Rn/gm) = 3.02 x 10 Ci gn 10 of 12 -ff
---a--.-----..--------
.........-..-.. =
FP-18-13 PARTICIPAtlT:
flatural Resources Cefense Council SUBPARAG'RAPH:
Chapter IV F, Sunnary PAGE AtlD QUESTI0tlflUMBER(s): Pages 6 and 7, re Summary, Questions 1 and 2
- Answer (Cont'd) 222 222 238 6
Curies of Rn released frem Rn formed from U decay in 10 years Il 222 9
222 (3.02 x 10 Ci Rn)(5.46 x 10-3) = 1.65 x 10 Ci Rn The total radon release during the million year period is, therefore 9
9 9
222 (1.80 x 10 ) + (1.65 x 10 ) = 3.45 x 10 Ci Rn To place these release quantities in scme perspective they may be 222 compared with the amount of Rn which enters the atmosphere frcm the natural exhalation of radon from the earth. Wilkening, Clements and l
222 Stanley estimate the world-wide total Rn exhalation from the land areas of the globe to be 52 curies per second. The contributions from lava covered areas, oceans, and the ice caps of the Antarctic continent and Greenland are negligibly small. This is equal to a release rate 6
222 of 4.49 x 10 Ci Rn per day.
222 The natural release of Rn durir.g a million year period would be:
7 5
15 222 (52 Ci/sec)(3.15 x 10 sec/yr)(10 yr) = 1.64 x 10 Ci Rn IM. H. Wilkening, W. E. Clements, and D. Stanley, " Radon-222 Flux easura-ments in Widely Separated Regions," Proc. Second Internationai Symposit i on the flatural Radiation Enviror. ment, August 7-11, 1972, Houston, Texas USA. Volume II, pp. 717-730.
11 of 12 -67 i
~....
e FP-18-13 PARTICIPAflT:
fiatural Resources Defense Council SU3 PARAGRAPH:
Chapter IV F, Sumary PAGE Afl0 QUESTIO:1tlUMBER(s): Pages 6 and 7, re Summary, Questions 1 and 2 Answer (Cont'd) 222 Because Rn has a short half-life, 3.82 days, all of the radon released does not accumulate in the atmosphere, most is lost by radioactive decay. An equilibrium condition is soon established where radioactive decay removes radon from the atmosphere at a rate equal to the release rate.
222 The maximum atmospheric inventory of Rn may be calculated frcm the expression:
I
= QC t max where I
= maximum atmospheric inventory max QC = release rate (Ci/ day)
(tau) = mean life = Tl/2 /ID t
222 Mean life Rn = 3.82 days /0.693 = 5.51 days 6
The maximum atmospheric inventory for natt-al release (4.49 x 10 Ci 222Rn/ day)is:
6 222 7
I nacural = (4.49 x 10 Ci Rn/ day)(5.51 days) = 2.47 x 10 Ci max For comparison the maximum atmospheric inventory from the radon released 6
from 170 x 10 MT of uranium mill tailings at the beginning of the 222 million year period under consideration would be 248 Ci Rn.
ICEl'3 12 of 12 -fi