ML19318D145

Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law in Form of Memorandum & Order Affirming ASLB 780714 Partial Initial Decision & Advising That Radon Releases Associated W/U Fuel Cycle Are Insignificant in Striking Cost/Benefit Balance

ML19318D145
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom, Hope Creek, Crane
Issue date:	07/03/1980
From:	Bordenick B NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:
Shared Package
ML19318D146	List: ML19318D145 ML19318D148 ML19318D152
References
NUDOCS 8007080001
Download: ML19318D145 (58)

Text

-

~

?

s UNITED STATES OF Af1 ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE AT0f1IC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL 30ARD In the Matter of:

)

)

'HILADELPHIA ELECTRIC C0l1PANY ET AL.

)

Docket Nos. 50-277

)

50-278 (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,

)

Units 2 and 3)

)

)

METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY _ET _AL.

Docket No. 50-320 (Threa Mile Island Nuclear Station,

)

Unit No. 2)

)

)

PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS C0.

Docket Nos. 50-354

)

50-355 (Hope Creek Generating Station,

)

Units 1 and 2)

)

)

NRC STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING RAD 0N RELEASE ISSUE IN THE FORM 0F A MEf10RANDlli AND ORDER i

Bernard M. Bordenick Counsel for NRC Staff JULY 3, 1980 8007080oog

07/03/80

' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMf11SSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of:

)

)

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ET AL.

Docket Nos. 50-277

)

50-278 (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,

)

Units 2 and 3)

)

)

METROPOLITAN EDIS0N C0!!PANY ET AL.

Docket No. 50-320

)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,

)

Unit No. 2)

)

)

PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS CO.

Docket Nos. 50-354

)

50-355 (Hope Creek Generating Station,

)

Units 1 and 2)

)

)

NRC STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT ANDCONCLUSIONSOFLAWREGARDINGRADONRELEAS{/ ISSUE IN THE FORlt 0F A MEMORANDUlt AND ORDER-

[DATE]

[ALAB-

]

I.

BACKGROUND 1.

The lengthy procedural background which led to our hearings on the radon release issue in these proceedings is set forth in previous decisions issued by us.2_/ In summary, we first became directly involved in the generic 1/ Also attached to these proposed findings are the NRC Staff's Proposed Transcript Corrections and a Moti]n for Leave to File Health Effects Findings.

2_/ See ALAB-480, 7 NRC 796 (1978); ALAB-509, 8 NRC 679 (1978); ALAB-512, 8 NRC 690 -(1978); ALAB-540, 9 NRC 428 (1979); ALAB-562,10 NRC 437 (1979);

andALAB-566,10NRC527(1979).

)

, radon release issue when the Commission (NRC) deleted the value previously assigned to represent the emissions of radon expected to occur as a result of the mining and milling of the uranium necessary to fuel an average-sized reactor for a year.E 43 Fed. Rg.15613 ( April 14,1978).

2.

In ALAB-480, 7 NRC 796 (1978), we decid d to' utilize the PerkinsM proceeding.

In that case the radon issue had already received considerable and detailed attention at the Licensing Board level.

7 NRC at 804-05. We directed that the record already compiled in Perkins be incorporated into all other proceedings pending before us.

Ibid.

Since the parties to those cases, with the exception of the NRC Staff, had n.t participated in the Perkins proceeding, we gave them the oppori. unity to " supplement, contradict, or object to" anything in the Perkins record, as well as to comment upon the decision later handed down by the Perkins Licensing Board.

7 NRC at 805-06.

Ecology Action of Oswego (Intervenors in the Sterling proceedingE) in response to that opportunity, asserted that there were alleged deficiencies E That figure was contained in Table S-3 (10 CFR Part 51), which pro-vided, for use in individual licensing proceedings, a summary of the environmental effects attributable to the uranium fuel cycle.

O uke Power Co. (Perkins Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), Docket Nos. STN D

50-488, 50-489 and 50-490.

Transcript references in this decision from the Perkins record are designated in the following manner:

P.Tr Transcript references from hearings involving the radon release issue before us in these proceedings are designated as follows: Tr.

N ochester Gas and Electric Company et al., Docket No. STN 50-485. The R

Sterling proceeding has now been terminated. See ALAB-596, 11 NRC (June 17, 1980). However, Ecology Action has been allowed to continue in these proceedings.

See unpublished Memorandum and Order in these proceedings dated June 23, 1980.

\\\\'

, in the Perkins record as to radon release rates.b After considering the various filings made by Intervenors, Licensees and the Staff, we noted that these proceedings "seemed ripe either for consideration at trial or (possibly) for summary disposition", 9 NRC at 432, as to radon release rates.

Consider-ation' of health effects wa: deferred. Acting on our invitation, Licensees, as to all.the alleged deficiencies, and the NRC Staff (Staff), as to some of the alleged deficiencies, t.aved for summary disposition.

In ALAB-562, we granted summary disposition as to some of the alleged deficiencies. The remainder we-found were appropriate for further hearings.

3.

Evidentiary hearings on the remaining alleged deficiencies.were held in Harrisburg, Pennsy1';ania on February 26, 27, and 28,1980.

Partici-pants included three of the Licensees noted in the caption aboveE,theNRC Staff, the Intervenors in the Peach Bottom and Three Nile Island, Unit 2 proceedings jointly represented by Dr. Chauncey Kepford, and Ecology Action represented by Ms. Sue Reinert (as to the Sterling proceeding).E As more O ntervenors originally asserted 26 alleged deficiencies. As a result I

of previous action by us, either sua sponte or.in ruling on Staff's and/or Licensees' motion for summary disposition, only 12 alleged deficiencies remained for. consideration at the evidentiary hearings ordered in ALAB-562.

E The Sterling licensee, prior to our temination of that proceeding,

' chose not to participate in the hearings. The remaining Licensees

jointly participated and made a consolidated evidentiary presentation.

8f either Dr. Kepford or Ms. Reinert is a member of the bar. The word N

" represented" is t'1us not used in the same sense as if it were applied to legal counsel.

Intervenors were consolidated for purposes of pre-senting a direct case. They were, however, considered as separate entities for purposes of cross examination.

i I'

l s

L

-~.. -

, fully discussed below, evidentiary presentations were made by Licensees, (except for the Sterling Licensee) (by Dr. tiorton Goldman, Fg. Tr. 441), by Staff (tiessrs. Lowenberg, ftiller, and Wilde, Fg. Tr. 126,151 and 355, respectively), as to all alleged deficiencies considered at the hearings and by Intervenors (Dr. Robert 0. Pohl, Fg. Tr. 24) as to some of the alleged deficiencies we considered. There was extensive cross-examination conducted by Intervenors. However, as we noted at the hearings (Tr. 222-24 and 228-30),

Peach Cotton-Three Mile Island 2 Intervenors' questioning was largely un-focused and vague.

For the most part that questioning did not, as noted below, materially assist us in reaching the findings of fact and conclusions of lav, expressed in this Memorandum and Order.

[ II. RECLAMATION OF WORKED OUT URANIUti MINES AND LONG-TERi1 RAD 0N RELEASES FR0fi WORKED OUT URANIUM MINES 4.

We turn now to a disposition of the alleged deficiencies in the Perkins record. We stated at' Consolidated Item 2EI of ALAB-562, 10 NRC 437 at 442 (1979), that the Perkins record did not indicate the extent to which abandoned underground mines can and will actually be " sealed". Moreover, we stated we could not determine the extent to which an unsealed mine could continue to emit radon through, for example, natural convection (citing alleged deficiency No. 3N ).

5.

Regarding open pit mines we further noted in ALAB-562 that there is uncertainty over the rate of emissions from both unreclaimed and reclaimed open pit mines.

In particular, it seemed to us that releases from unreclaimed mines may be higher than expected, due to the physical rearrangement of E/ n order to structure the hearings in an efficient manner, we grouped I

the issues raised by the alleged deficiencies into five categories according to their general subject matter. These categories are referred to in this decision as Consolidated Items.

1El This alleged deficiency asserted that:

"In the long run, radon emissions depend on the extent to which underground [ mines] are sealed and open pit mines are reclaimed. The NRC has no jurisdiction over mines.

In Perkins Staff and Applicant wittnesses (sic) refered (sic) to state laws which require sealing and reclamation as adequate to insure the cessation of emissions after mine's (sic) useful lives.

In testimony on June 27, 1978, before the House Subconnittee on Energy and Environ-ment. Betty Perkins from the New Mexico Energy and itineral Department, indicated in New Mexico abandoned mines have been improperly sealed, t

l have contaminated the soil, and have left ore storage piles exposed.

l

!!easurement at abandoned mines shows ganma radiation levels 10 to 100 times above background, a fact which demonstrates the existence of l

radiologic pathways for radon.

In view of the actual facts regarding l

abandoned mines, it is incumbant (sic) upon the NRC to make a' detailed i

examination of the statutory standards imposed on the operators of l

mines, the penalties fro (sic) failure to comply with such standards, and each state's enforcement experience before leaping to unwarranted conclusions regarding the efficacy of state regulation of mines."

1

4 - overburden as it is replaced in the pit (Citing alleged deficiencies No.

M and SE).

6.

The above subject areas both involve the issue of reclamation of worked out mines, that is, the refilling of open fit mines and the sealing of underground mines, and the poten+.ial for long-tem release of radon from worked out mines. We note at the outset that Intervenors did not challenge or rebut any of Staff witness Wilde's direct testimony (Fg. Tr. 355) including, El This alleged deficiency asserts that:

"The testimony in Perkins regard-ing emissions from open pit mines is extremly (sic) sketchy. ftr. Wilde at page seven of his affidavit states, "For open pit mines... there is just no reliable infomation available upon which to base estimates of radon release." Pages 2543 through 2558 Of (sic) the transcript enumerate many of the uncertainities (sic) regarding emissions from open pit nines.

Nevertheless, at page 2610 of the transcript, Mr.

Wilde perfoms a " quick and dirty" computation of emissions using a model open pit mine. He makes what is an apparently completely arbitrary choice of a mine.which covers one square mile.

He computes a release of 100 curies /yr/AFR. Apparently the Board in Perkins was somewhat skeptical about fir. Wilde's calculation since in paragraph 13 of the Perkins decision the rate of emission from open pit mines was doubled to 200 curies /yr/AFR.

The Sweetwater DES indicates a release rate of 6090 curies per year.

The Sweetwater mine will have a capacity sufficient to produce 410 f1T yellow cake per year during its estimated 15 year life.

Using the Staff figure of 245 MT yellow cake per AFR would result in an annual release rate for the Sweetwater mine of approxinately 250 curies /yr/AFR.

This is another example of the actual facts deviating from the Staff's assumptions regarding radon emissions."

El This alleged deficiency reads as follows:

"Also with respect to open pit mines, the Perkins record gives no consideration to emissions from overburden.

Testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Energy Produc-tion and Supply on July 24 and 25,1978, indicates the overburden has a volume of 8 to 35 times the volume of the mine. Therefore all of the overburden cannot be returned to the mine. _ The overburden has as much as 107, of the r;dioactive conc entration of mill tailings.

South Dakota, with a mine reclamation law on the books, has fomer mining areas that are now sterile and bare. The overborden (sic) has been indiscrimi-nately piled on the landscape just like mill tailings."

. for example, the numerical estimates for the various radon releases from worked out mines or the technical feasibility of reclaiming or sealing mines. Nor did they attempt to establish any estimate of the length of time that mine reclamation or sealing would be effective in reducing or elimi-nating long term radon releases. The testimony of Intervenors' sole witness, Dr. Pohl, did not address radon releases from mining.

A.

Reclanation Of Worked Out flines 7.

When an open pit mine is worked out, the overburden or waste rock can be returned to the pit from which it was removed. The top soil can be replaced and vegetation reestablished if appropriate for the intended future use of the site. When an underground mine is worked out, the hoisting and ventilation shafts of the mine can be sealed by filling them with overburden, waste rock or soil. An additional seal may be provided by placing a con-crete plug in the collar of the shaf ts (Testimony of Ralph it. Wilde, pp. 5-6, Fg. Tr. 355).

We find, therefore, and Intervenors do not dispute the fact, that the technical feasibility of reclaiming worked out mines has been adequately demonstrated by Staff witness Wilde.

8.

The responsibility for the promulgation and enforcement of recle-mation regulations for uranium mines rests primarily with the state in which the mines are located. The flRC presently does not have Congressional authority-to regulate either uranium mining or mine reclamation. The actual regulation of reclamation for uranium mines varies fron state to state.

Some' states have extensive regulations and others have few or no state-inposed w

r

=

c

. regulations. Similarly, enforcement of and compliance with reclamation varies considerably from state to state. Thus, because the NRC has no authority under present law te regulate reclamation of uranium mines and because regulation and enforcement of reclamation requirements by the states is not uniforn, absolute assurance cannot be found from the record that all worked-out uranium mines will be reclaimed (Wilde Testimony, pp. 6-7).

However, the Staff, in its testimony, provided estimates of the radon releases from both reclaimed and unreclaimed mines which we discuss below.

B.

Current Estimates of the Long-Term Radon Release Rates From Reclained Mines 9.

In the Perkins proceeding, it was noted that various efforts were underway to upgrade the data base for radon releases from uranium mines (Testinony of Wilde, p.7, Fg. P.Tr. 2369). Two interim reports providing updated information fron ongoing research projects on the subject of radon releases from uraniun mines have now been published by Battelle Pacific NorthwestLaboratory(BPNL). These are: NUREG/CR-1273 (PN'L-3262) February 1980, "An Investigation of Radon-222 Emissions From Underground Uranium Mines, Progress Report 2" and NUREG/CR-0628 (PNL-2889 REV.) September 1979,

" Prediction of Net Radon Emission from a Model Open Pit Mine." These reports provide recent information on radon exhalation rates and also analyses of current and projected mining methods and practices which were used to develop l

l mine nodels and radon releases both for the period of active mining and for l

l the period of time after the mines are shut down. Therefore, there is l

presently a much improved data base for predicting the long-term release of radon from worked-out mines that have been reclaimed. This improved data 1

-9 base was used by the Staff to develop the estimates given below (Wilde Testimony, pp. 7-8).

10.

In flVREG/CR-0628, the status of the model open pit mine at the end of its active mining period is assumed to be a compromise between the com-pletely reclaimed mines anticipated for many present and future mining operations and the abandoned and unreclaimed open pits left by many past miring operations. Approximately 85% of the model open pit mine volume has been refilled with overburden (20 ppa U 0 ) and the balance of the over-38 burden, approximately 15%, remains as a pile on the surface.

There is also a surface pile of subore (150 ppm U 0 ).

This subore represents material 38 containing uranium which is of insufficient grade to be economically useful at the present time and is commonly set aside from overburden for possible future use. This model of a reclaimed open 91t mine projects radon emanation from overburdeq fill in six pits, subore and overburden exposed in the last unfilled pit, and subore and overburden dumps piles. As a result of this model it is seen that these sources contribute to long-term radon release of approximately 40 Ci/ year per Reference Reactor Year (RRY)El (271 MT U 0 )

38 during the post-mining period of a reclaimed open pit mine (Ibid at 8).

El The tem RRY and the tenn ~ nual Fuel Requirement (AFR) used in the Perkins record are synonymous (Tr. 356) and are used interchangeably in these findings.

El Size of RRY assumed for Perkins (Testimony of Wilde, pp. 4 and 5, Fg.

P.Tr. 2369).

It should be pointed out that in the Perkins record the S

RRY is presented in terms of 2.71 x 10 11T of uranium ore containing 0.1% U 0 ) = 271 MT V 0.

(Wilde Testimony, p.8, Fg. Tr. 355).

3g 38 l

n

. 11.

In NUREG/CR-1273 it was assumed that shafts of underground mines will be sealed and that, with proper sealing, the radon emission rates from

-worked out underground mine shafts will ba a negligible fraction of the rate during active mining. A small amount of waste rock (250 ppm U 0 ) that 38 remains on the surface will be the principal source that will contribute to long-tem radon release of approximately 20 Ci/ year per RRY (271 MT U 0 )

38 during the post-mining period of a reclaimed (sealed) ' iderground mine (Wilde Testimony, pp. 8-9, Fg. Tr. 355).

12. On the basis of the infomation now available from the BPNL interim reports, there is an adequate data base from which to predict the long-tem radon release during the post-mining period of reclaimed open pit 4

and urde r und uranium mines. The current estimate for this release, presented by the Staff, was based on: data from NUREG/CR-1273 and NUREG/

~

CR-0628, an RRY of 271 MT V 0 for uranium mining, and a projected distri-38 bution of U 03 8 production of 60% from underground mines and 40% from open pit mines. On these bases, it was shown that the long-term release of radon from reclaimed mines is approximately 20 to 25 Ci/ year per RRY (Ibid, p.9).

C.

Current Estimate of Long-Terr Radon Release From Unreclaimed flines

13. The BPNL reports, NUREG/CR-1273 and 0628, do not explicitly estimate the long-tem radon releases from abandoned, unreclaimed mines.E However,

-the infomation in these reports can be used to make such estimates.

E Licensees' witness, Dr. Goldman, in response to a question by Inter-venors, stated that there are more than 2,000 inactive underground mines and more than 900 inactive open pit mines in this country.

(Tr.

463-4).

. (i) Open Pit Mining 14.

By using the model open pit mine parameters given in NUREG/CR-0628 and by simply considering that none of the worked out pits are refilled, the Staff provided an estimate of the long-tern radon releases from unreclaimed mines. This model of an unreclaimed open pit mine, which we find reasonable, projects radon emanation from the overburden and subore exposed in seven unfilled pits, seven overburden piles, and a subore pile (Ibid, at pp.

9-10).

Table A Radon Emissions From Unreclaimed Model Open Pit Mines Arga Emission Rate Source (m )

(ppa U 0 )

3g (Ci/yr)

Abandoned pits 4

Subore exposed in pits 7(5.85x10 )

150 565 Overburden exposed in 5

pits 7(8.86x10 )

20 1141 1

l Dump piles 5

Subore pile 2.02x10 150 279 5

Overburden piles 7(9.45x10 )

20 1217 Total Radon Emissions 3202 Undisturbed surfaces eventually affected 7

by mining 1.21x10 4

-445EI i

Net Radon Emissions Due to Open Pit Mining 2757 E This figure represents natural background emissions.

i i

.s

-vx---

_. NUREG/CR 0528 states that the model mine will have produced 9620 f1T U 0 38 during its 17-year lifetime. Therefore, the emission of 2757 Ci/ year repre-sents a long-term radon release of approximately 80 Ci/ year per RRY (271 MT V 0 ) during the post mining period of an onreclaimed open pit nine (see 38 calculation below) (Wilde Testinony, pp. 9-11).

(2757 Ci/yr)(271 MT U 0 /RRY) = 78 Ci/yr per RRY 38 9620 MT V 0 38 (ii) Underground flines 15.

An accurate estination of radon releases from abandoned, unsealed underground mines presents a more difficult problem.

The phenomenon that would result in radon release from an unsealed underground mine is natural convective ventilation. This is the air circulation caused by the variation of air density with temperature and the action of convection.

Testinony shows that the amount of air flow induced by convection is primarily dependent on the difference in elevation between the openings of a mine and the tempera-ture difference between air inside and outside of the mine.

Even within a single mine the air flow induced by convective ventilation will be neither constant in volume nor consistent in direction. Thus, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to predict, with any degree of accuracy, the radon release from an individual unsealed underground mine and even more difficult to make such a prediction for underground mines in general (Ibid, p.11).

16. However, by making certain assumptions and by using radon release and U 03 8 production data from NUREG/CR-1273, it was possible for the Staff L

- 13 to postulate a model that may be used to make an estimate of an upper range value for the radon release from an unsealed underground mine.

In NUREG/

CR-1273, the lifetine of an underground mine is assuned to be 30 yers (Tr.

346).

17.

For the purpose of developing its model, the Staff made the con-servative assumption that the amount of radon released under conditions of natural convective ventilation from the unsealed shafts of a worked-out nine will be no more than that released from an active mine under conditions of forced ventilation. This would result in an estimated hypothetical release of approximately 260 Ci/ year per RRY from unsealed mine shafts. There would be an additional small continuing release of approximately 10 Ci/ year per RRY from waste rock stored above ground (Wilde Testinony, p.12).

18. The Staff stressed that the foregoing estination of radon release from abandoned underground uranium mines involves extrapolation froa established data to a somewhat hypothetical " upper bound" conclusion. There are limitations and uncertainties in this analysis which tend to cverstate the amount of radon which may in fact be released. These caveats are dis-cussed below.

19.

In the BPNL study, radon release rates were determined for several active underground mines under conditions of forced mechanical ventilation.

Under these conditions, that is continuous operation of the ventilation fans and high air flow rates, all of the radon emanating within a mine is promptly l

discharged from the ventilation shafts to the atmosphere. The BPNL study, f

Q

.b therefore, provides an estimate of the quantity of radon that is emitted within underground mines and which is available for release to the atmosphere by either forced ventilation or natural convective ventilation (Wilde Testimony, p.13). The BPNL data show a good correlation between the quantity of radon F tted within a mine and the cumulative tons of are which have been extracted from a mine.

From this it can be inferred that radon emission will ir.:rease as more ore is extracted and wi)1 reach a maximum when a mine is worked out at the end of its active lifetime. However, the BPNL data for the radon released from a model underground mine have been used directly with no adjustment for increase in radcn emissio.1 with mine age.

20.

During questioning of Mr. Wilde by the Board, it was established that the underground mines sampled by Battelle and reported in NUREG-1273 represent a " mature" nine population and that there is no compelling reason to believe that radon releases from active underground mines will increase significantly in the future (Tr. 411-13). This was uncontroverted. Thus, there is no evidence to suggest that the releases from this source may exceed the Staff estinate.

i

21. On the other hand, it is implicit in the assumptions made for estimating the radon release from abandoned underground mines that the air flows induced by natural convective ventilation will be sufficiently large to exhaust to the atmosphere all of the radon that is emitted within a mine before a significant fraction of that radon has been lost by radioactive i

. decay.

It is unlikely that such a condition could exist in an actual under-ground mine.

The forces which drive convective ventilation are simply too small to induce tiie large air flow rates needed to satisfy this assumption (Wilde Testimony, p.14).

22. There are also other factors that will tend to restrict or prevent air flow. The workings of many underground mines are located below the water table and water must be pumped continuously from the mines to keep them dry. When such a mine is abandoned and pumping is stopped, the water level will rise and flood the mine workings and restrict or preclude under-ground air flow and radon release to the atmosphere.

Caving and collapse of workings and shafts will occur in abandoned mines which will also restrict or preclude air flow through the mine (Ibid, p.14).

23. Thus, the Staff's witness testified that the Staff estimate of 270 Ci/ year per RRY is " conservatively high and that actual releases will be appreciably less.

In my judgment, the actual radon releases from such mines will be much closer to 10 Ci/ year per RRY than 270 Ci/ year per RRY" (Wilde Testimony, p.16). On cross examination by Licensees, fir. Wilde, the Staff witnass, discussed measurements taken at two inactive mines. At the Barbara J tiine, the mine is flooded and has low air flow rates and radon releases on the order of 1.2 Ci/ year per RRY. The 11esa Top Mine was characterized as a "near worst case condition for an abandoned inactive mine".

Based on measured radon releases at this mine, fir. Wilde indicated releases from this mine would be about 70-80 Ci/ year per RRY (Wilde, Tr. 357-363).

1-

a

. 24. Moreover, Mr. Wilde stated, and we agree, that reclamation of open pit mines and sealing of underground mines would not be a difficult task (Tr. 428-9). Such reclamation efforts would substantially reduce the long-term radon release from worked out uranium mines.

25. Considering the foregoing, this Board finds that the Staff's estimate of approximately 270 Ci/yr per RRY for the long-term radon release from abandoned unsealed underground mines is conservatively high.

(iii) Overall Estimate 26.

Based on its estimates discussed above, the Staff provided an upper range estimate for radon releases during the post mining period for mines. These included a combination of unreclaimed open pit mines and unsealed underground mines. This estimate,190 to 200 C1/ year per RRY is based on an RRY of 271 f1T V 0 f r uranium mining, and a projected distri-38 bution of U 03 8 production of 60% from underground mines and 40% from open pit mines (Wilde Testimony, p.15).

27. The Staff's estimates of the long-term radon releases from worked out uranium mines presented to us are compared with the estimates of the l

same radon releases as given in Perkins in the following table.

a Table B Estimates of Radon Releases From Worked-Out Uranium Mines Staff's Estimates Perkins ASLB Current Estimates in Perkins Decision C, fear per RRY Ci/ year per RRY Ci/yr per RRY Reclaimed Open Pit Mines 40 none given Unreclaimed Open 17 Pit liines 80 10 2005/

Sealed Underground 111nes 10 0'18/

Unsealed Underground tiines 270 0'ig f Combined Uranium flining Industry Lower Range Value 20 to 25 none given 5/

100 Upper Range Value 190 to 200 none given U

.Tr. 2609-2613.

P E

.Tr. 2542.

P E

.Tr. 2542.

P E

8 f4RC 87 at 91.

E 8 f4RC 87 at 91.

. 28. With the additional studies and meastfrements which have become available since the hearing in Perkins, there have been substantial cnanges in the details of the Staff's estimates. However, the basic effect of this substantial additional infomation is to support the reasonableness of the overall estimate made by the Perkins Licensing Board. The Perkins Licensing Board in their Partial Initial Decision, Environmental Consequences of the Uraniun Fuel Cycle, adopted a value of 100 Ci/yr/AFR (RRY) for the long-term release of radon from worked out uranium mines.E This value is near the mid-point of the range of the estinates developed by the Staff in the present proceedings as set forth in the table above. The Appeal Board concludes that the Staff's upper range value is very conservatively based and, giving due consideration to this conservatism and to a reasonable mix of uranium from reclaimed or sealed mines and from unreclaimed or unsealed mines, an overall value similar to that selected by the Perkins Licensing Board is warranted based on this record.

D.

Disposition of Alleged Deft:1ency No. 1

29. By Order dated March 7,1980, we invited the parties to address the question whether our grant of summary disposition as to alleged defi-ciency No.1, made in ALAB-562_3/, had been materially affected by the 2

E erkins Partial Initial Decision, Paragraphs 11,12, and 13, (pages '6, P

7 and 8).

E 10 NRC 437, 447.

l r

information contained in the recent BPNL draft report entitled, "An Investi-gation of Radon-222 Emissions From Underground !!ines", Progress Report 2 (February.1980), NUREG/CR-1273 (See also Tr. 348-49).

30.

As earlier noted, Intervenors identified 26 alleged deficiencies in the Perkins record. The first of these deficiencies dealt with the Staff's methodology in determining the radon emissions from underground mining by averaging radon emissions per ton of uranium produced from all mines, instead of directly determining emissions from the mines that were to supply uranium for the particular facilities to be licensed. As we have prevously determined in ALAB-562, the Staff's methodology is reasonable, and Intervenor's suggested methodology is impossible of application as the actual mines to produce uranium for a particular facility are not known at the time of plant licensing.

Further, as set out in Finding 38-45, infra, recomputations of the average amount of radon emissions per ton of uranium produced does not affect the validity of the Staff's methodology.

31. The intervenors quoted excerpts from several BPNL letters and draft reports which confirmed a fact, not in dispute, that radon release varies considerably from mine to mine and that underground mines do not release the same amount of radon per ton of ore or U 03 8 pr duced, i.e., that there is a poor correlation between radon releases and production.

Inter-venor's alleged deficiency No.1 then concluded that:

"This is a specific instance of a deficiency in Perkins which results' from using models (rather) than data from actual mines.

The evidence referred to above indicates radon emission from

mining can only be detemined on a mine-by-mine basis. The environmental assessment for Sterling and Tyrone cannot be com-pleted until inquiry is made into the actual mines which will produce their u.'anium."

Thus, the deficiency asserted did not go directly to the numerical values used by the Staff at Perkins, but to the fundamental question of methodology.

That is, whether or not mine-by-mine data was required for the specific

. mines to be used to provide the fuel for Sterling and Tyrone.

32. On fiay 25, 1979, the Licensees filed a joint motion for summary disposition of the radon issues. As t: alleged deficiency No. 1. Licensees, did not focus on the Staff's methodology but, citing the same references as the Intervenors, asserted that "... the Staff's estimates in Perkins [were]

conservatively high" (Affidavit of Dr. Morton Goldman, flay 22, 1979; Para.

7,p.5).

33. On June 14, 1979, the Staff filed a response to the Licensees' joint motion for summary disposition of the radon issues. The Staff sup-ported Licensees' motion concurring in paragraphs 1-5 of Licensees' statement of material facts and paragraphs 3-7 of Dr. Goldman's affidavit in supportofthemotion.b 34.

In addition to concurring in the Licensees' position, and more importantly, the Staff went on to present what, in light of subsequent b

At the time of the Licensees' filing, neither the Staff nor we had any indication that subsequent developments in the BPNL research program would contradict the conclusion of Licensees' arguments.

. developments, is in our opinion the more pertinent argument as to alleged deficiency No. 1.

In sum, Staff argued, without supporting affidavits, that it would be virtually impossible for the Staff, or anyone else, to presently determine, on a mine-by-mine basis, what the radon release would be from the specific mines that will or might produce uranium for Sterling or Tyrone, or any other reactor, in the future.

Staff pointed out that what they had attempted to do in Perkins was to predict, in a generic manner, what the radon release rate will be from the uranium mining industry as a whole and to apportion that release to individual reactors on the basis of the quantity of radon released from mining and the amount of uranium needed to produce one annual fuel requirement.

(NRC Staff's Response to Licensees' Joint Motion for Summary D,isposition of Radon Issues (pp. 7-9) June 14,1979).

35.

Intervenors, on June 25 and 26, 1979, respectively, filed their responses to the Licensees' joint motion for summary disposition. The Intervenors attacked the Licensees' argument in opposition to alleged deficiency No.1, and restated their position that there is a lack of correlation between radon emissions and mine production. However, in retrospect, we note that no mention was made by Intervenors of what was the central issue of their alleged deficiency as it was originally stated by them; namely, that the radon released must, according to Intervenors, be measured from the actual mines that will produce the uranium for Sterling and Tyrone before the environmental assessment can be completed.

36. On September 10, 1979, we issued ALAB-562 in which we granted summary disposition as to alleged deficiency No. I without reaching a

. findir.g with respect to Licensees' assertions as to the reasonableness of Staff't numerical estimates in Perkins.

In restating this item, we focused on the same issue that Staff, in response to Licensees' joint motion, had identified as being central to this alleged deficiency:

"... the intervenors maintain that because radon releases vary from mine to mine, analysis of the radon releases associated with a given nuclear power plant cannot be completed until the parti-cular mines that will produce fuel for that plant are known" (10 NRC 437 at 447).

We then went on to say:

"This approach would be unworkable, for there is no way of knowing what a plant's sources of uranium will be over its forty-year life and the releases vary from tine to time even at a given mine. To compensate, the Staff uses for all nuclear power plants an estimate based on the emission rates from characteristic mining operations" (Id.).

37.

Subsequently, on September 27, 1979, the Sterlina Intervenor petitioned the Commission for review of ALAB-562 asserting that the Appeal Board had misconstrued Intervenor's position. Both the Licensees and the Staff responded to the petition for review.

Licensees asserted that Inter-venors had not set forth any evidence to contradict Dr. Goldman's affidavit in support of summary disposition as to alleged deficiency 1.

Staff asserted that Intervenors were still urging that the Staff's methodology was inappro-priate in that a mine-by-mine approach was not utilized.

In an order dated November 11, 1979, the Commission declined to review, at that time, any of the issues presented in ALAB-562 or the petition for review.

38. On November 15, 1979, Staff was advised in a letter from L.C.

Schwendiman of BPNL that additional sampling and analysis of data from the ongoing research project to measure radon releases from underground mines

s

. now indicated a much higher release rate in curies per RRY than had pre-viously been reported.

The Staff notified the Appeal Board and all parties of this new infornation on December 21, 1979. Basically, it now appears that BPNL had made a fundamental mistake in calculating mine production data which resulted in a significant overestimation of uranium production. Thus, the previously reported radon release rate per RRY was too low.

39. The week before the hearings were to take place before us, the Staff received an advance copy of the new BPNL report on radon. emissions from underground uranium mines (NUREG/CR-1273).

Copies of this new report were served on the Board and parties just prior to the commencement of the hearings and the Staff's necessarily hurried findings as to the report were presented at the hearings.

40.

In the following table we have identified the changes in radon release estimates from those presented at Perkins and those presented to us at the recent hearings. The release rates are for the total combined mining industry, both underground and open pit (60% : 40%) and an RRY of 271 MT U0.

33 TABLE C Curies Radon-222/RRYE Perkins (Ba:;is GESf10) 4060 Appeal Board Hearings (Basis NUREG/CR-0627, Sept. 1979, &

NUREG/CR-1273, Feb. 1980) 5200 E

r. 348-49.

T

)

o 41. The uncertainties associated with these estimates are such that we do not consider the difference between the estimates to be significant (Tr.

364,383-85). However, this is, of course, not to say that the Staff did not have an obligation to infom us of this new information.E/

42. The above findings still leave unanswered a point chat Intervenors have continued to press.

It has been variously stated at different times, but the following statenent from page 3 of the Sterling Intervenor's Petition for Review to the Commissica date' September 27, 1979, is typical:

"This

[ Staff position] simply does not speak to the issue of whether there is any correlation at all between radon emissions from mines and ore production.

Since the Staff's estinate of radon emissions from nines is based on such a correlation, this question is basic to the entire evaluation of radon impacts."

43. As was made clear by Staff witness Wilde, in response to questions from Ms. Reinert at the hearing (Tr. 390-391), the only way in which a correlation between any mine production parameter, e.g., annual ore pro-duction, annual U 03 8 production, cumulative ore production, etc. could be of use, would be an attempt to predict radon releases for those mines which were not sampled by using the relationship that was established at the El As the Conmission had occasion to note in Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Station, Units.l and 2), CLI-76-22, 4 NRC 480, 491 at n.11 (1976), the Staff, as it did here, is obligated to make every effort promptly to report newly discovered important information or significant developments related to a proceeding to the appropriate Board and parties. This duty to report arises immediately upon Staff's discovery of the infomation and the Staff is not to delay in reporting until it has completed its evaluation of the matter.

. sampled mines between an amount of production and radon releases. Neither B?NL nor the Staff attempted this sort of a prediction. The Staff has simply stated that the sampled underground mine population represented 63%

of the total domestic underground uranium mining production. The Staff further emphasized that this would be representative of the underground mining industry as a whole. The total radon emission from these sampled mines was then divided by the U 03 8 production from the same mines, and, in this case, there can be no question of the reasonableness of the corr lation because the correlation is perfect (Tr. 397).

44.

Later in the hearing, in Staff witness Wilde's responses to Board questions (Tr. 411-413), it was established that radon releases per RRY will only change slightly from year to year.

In addition, it was also established that BPNL had sampled a " mature mine society" and for that reason we do not expect radon release: to tend to increase appreciably in the future (Id,.).

45. hsed on our review of the record, summarized above, we find no warrant to set aside our previous decision to summarily dispose of alleged deficiency No. 1.

We further find that the existence of the new information presented to us does not in any way invalidate the arguments, summarized above, advanced by the Staff concerning sunmary disposition of alleged deficiency No. 1.

Assuming, arquendo, that the Staff originally erred by concurring in the Licensees' arguments concerning the " conservatism" of radon release estimates at Perkins, it is our view that we properly granted summary disposition in ALAB-562.

This is because the Staff's arguments in support of summary disposition are, in any event, unaffected by this new

26 -

infomation.

In sum, the infomation presented by Dr. Goldman's affidavit in support of summary disposition and the new information presented to us on the record in February are irrelevant to the fundamental assertion in Inter-venors' alleged deficiency No.- 1 that the Staff's methodology relative to radon emissions from mining was flawed.

4 l

4 I

4

-m1

. III. Ei11SSIONS FROM MILL TAILINGS PILES AND WATER PATHWAYS

46. By way of introduction as to this aspect of the hearings, we note that the Board received extensive testimony from Staff witness, Hubert J.

!! iller, who generally testified as follows regarding emissions from mill tailings and water pathways.

47. fir. fliller reviewed the asserted deficiencies in Staff estimates of radon released from uranium mills and mill tailings made by the Staff at the Perkins hearings. These alleged deficiencies included questions concern-ing the adequacy of regulatory authorities, uranium mill and mill tailings regulatory requirements, and the long tem stability of mill tailings impound-ments, fir. Miller testified that, in estimating radon releases, values for a number of variable, site specific factors must be selected.

In making radon release estimates, the Staff in previous testimony at Perkins selected average values for these factors; and where there was uncertainty, the Staff took what it considered, and we find, to be a conservative approach. Mr.

fiiller stated that he reviewed again the estimates of the previous Staff testimony and found, as we do, that such estimates upper bound radon release estinates (Miller Testimony Fg. Tr. 355, pp. 2-4).

48.

As to regulatory authorities -- the authority to require that mill tailings are adequately controlled and isolated -- Mr. Miller also reviewed the provisions of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UtiTRCA) of 1978 as amended (the Act).E That Act establishes a framework for E

.L.95-604, 92 Stat. 3021.

P

. direct NRC Regulation of tailings by defining them to be a licensable material.

The law mandates Federal technical standards and regulations for controlling tailings, and also provides for supplementary institutional measures to ensure that tailings remain adequately isolated from people and the surround-ing environs.

Among these institutional measures are requirements for financial sureties, establishment of long-tenn surveillance funds and requirements for State or Federal ownership of tailings disposal sites. The Act also establishes requirements intended to assure that milling operations and mill tailings are regulated in NRC Agreement states in a manner which will assure that minimum Federal Standards are applied nation-wide (Miller Testinony, pp. 4-6).

49. _ltr. itiller's testimony also reviewed the specific licensing requirements which have been developed by the Staff and upon which the Staff's radon release estimates are based. These include both interim tailings management performance objectives which have been applied over the past several years and proposed and final regulations governing uranium milling and mill tailings.

Licensees are required to commit to finn tailings disposal programs which meet staff performance objectives. The details of these programs are spelled out clearly in specific license conditions (Tr.

292).. Mr. fliller also testified that, in addition to effecting control of radon emanations at operating mills, the Staff requirements are intended to assure long tem stability through siting and design measures such as disposal of tailings below grade in the mines from which the ore was taken or in specially excavated pits. He reviewed in his testimony several recently

. licensed tailings disposal programs which illustrate this mode of disposal.

Mr. Miller also testified that containment of tailings is reasonably assured for many thousands of years (Miller, pp. 7-24).

50. Methods of reducing seepage from mill tailings impoundments to meet Staff requirements for groundwater protection were also reviewed by Mr.

Miller. These methods inhibit transport of radionuclides, including radon, and non-radiological heavy metal and contaminants in the tailings and tail-ings solutions.

Mr. iiiller testified, and we find as more fully discussed below, that these methods will assure that release of radon through the water pathway are completely insignificant (Ibid).

51.

Finally, Mr. fiiller testified that, in his view, it is clear that the tailings disposal requirements imposed on Licensees by the Staff are practicable as evident from the fact that the uranium mill operators have committed to specific programs for meeting them. Tailings disposal operations are basically dirt moving operations much like mining operations where mine operators handle 20 to 30 or more times as much material than they do in disposing of the tailings.

52. We now address the specifics of the alleged deficiencies asserted by Intervenors.

. A.

Emissions Fron flill Tailings Piles

53. As to emissions from nill tailings piles we stated at consolidated Item 1 of ALAB-562 that:

"The intervenors have cast doubt upon the accuracy of the value the staff has assigned to the emissions from uncovered tailings piles 5/)(Deficiency #10;seealsotheaffidavitofDr. Robert 0.

Pohl.2

54. Testimony of Staff witness Miller and Licensees' witness Goldman (Fg. Tr. 441, at pp.1-23 and 29-34) shows, for the reasons noted below, that the previous staff astimates of releases from uncovered tailings piles are reasonably accurate contrary to Intervenors' allegations.

55. The affidavit submitted by Dr. Pohl in support of Intervenors' opposition to Licensees' Joint flotion For Summary Disposition of Radon Issues (which presents the specific, technical aspects of this issue) asserts an average value of 330 C1/AFR-yr of radon as being emitted from the existing inactive piles. Dr. Pohl claims, therefore, that the estinates presented by Staff witness Magno at the Perkins hearings "... do not repre-l sent conservative upper bounds..." Dr. Pohl's estimate is based on his analysis of data on inactive tailings piles presented in an EPA report (EPA-520/1-76-011, " Potential Radiological Impact of Airborne Releases and E

This alleged deficiency reads as follows:

"The affidavit cf P. G.

Magno calculates radon emissions of 1,130 curies per AFR t' rough the inactive milling period. Following stabalization (sic), Magno's affi-davit indicates an emission rate of between 1 and 100 curies per year.

NT and EA are prepared to submit evidence, based on government docu-ments, that measured emissions at actual mills are greater than computed in Mr. Magno's affidavit." The Pohl affidavit was submitted subse-quently and is paraphrased in the staff response to the question.

l l-

. Direct Gamma Radiation to Individuals Living flear Inactive Uranium fiill Tailings Piles").

In that report the average depth of the tailings at the inactive sites is estinated to be 4.8 meters, the average unstabili. 3d pile area is given as 35 acres, and the associated radon release is estimated to be 2900 C1/yr. From these and other data, Dr. Pohl estimates the release of 330 Ci/AFR-yr from the average inactive unstabilized pile (Miller Testimony, p.28).

56.

For comparison, we find that Staff witness Magno's affidavit (Fg.

P.Tr.-2369) includes an estimate of 110 Ci/AFR-yr from his composite model tailings pile, which has an effective average depth of 38 feet (11.6 meters),

if it is completely dry and devoid of cover materials.

Since releases per AFR are inversely proportional to average tailings depth, it is readily apparent that this single factor accounts for most of the discrepancy (See also Tr. 30-31,53-55). Based on an effective depth of 11.6 meters, the value used by Magno, Dr. Pohl's estimate would be reduced to approximately 137 Ci/AFR-yr, which is still 24 percent greater than the Magno estimate.

The residual discrepancy is attributable primarily to differences in the specific flux coefficients utilized. The EPA report relied on by Dr. Pohl utilizes an annual average effective specific flux coefficient of 1.29 2

pCi/m -s per pCi/g of Ra-226 in the tailings, based on a maximum of 1.6 2

pCi/m -s per pct /g of Ra-226 and reduction factors of 0.85 and 0.95 to account for the emission-retarding effects of normal precipitation and the finite thickness of the tailings deposits, respectively. Magno's analysis used a diffusion coefficient for dry tailings which equates to the specific

2 flux factor of 1.07 pCi/m -s per pCi/g of Ra-226, about 21 percent lower than the effective value of 1.29 used by EPA (fliller Testimony at pp. 28-29).

57. Thus, we find that differences between Dr. Pohl's estimate of 330 Ci/AFR-yr and the flagno estimate of 110 Ci/AFR-yr are explainable on the basis of differences in the values of average pile depth and effective specific flux coefficient.

58. We also find that the staff value of 11.6 meters for ultimate average tailings depth compares well with the results of a staff survey of 18 active sites which yielded an average value of between 12 and 13 meters.

In fact, the Magno value appears to be slightly conservative.

Furthermore, Dr. Pohl's reference to use of a 6 meters effective pile thickness in the GEIS in support of his argument is very misleading.

It ignores statements in the document (such as in the Appendix S discussion of parameter vari-ability) which. indicate that average, effective depth is likely in the 12-13 meter range (Ibid at p.29). Moreover, Dr. Pohl conceded that mill tailings piles come in a variety of thicknesses.(Tr. 30-31) and the emanation rate depends on the piles thickness (Tr. 30-31,53-55).

2

59. Also, the Magno value of 1.0 pCi/m -s per pC1/g of Ra-226 in tailings for specific flux is considered by us to be conservatively realistic.

The technical basis for this value is somewhat stronger than the techaical basis for the EPA value, which is based on a single reference to a paper by Schiager..The Magno value has consistently been supported by ongoing research

, activities sponsored by the NRCE and agrees well with measurements of natural radon exhalation measurements as discussed in Appendix 0 of the GEIS. Dr. Pohl's estimate is based on the EPA estimates, which derive from calculationalmodels for releases.

The EPA release estimates are, therefore, not the "neasured emissions at actual mills" as asserted by Intervenors in alleged deficiency No.10 (liiller Testimony at 30). Accordingly, we find that Intervenors have not presented any testimony to show that previous Staff estimates regarding releases from uncovered tailings piles, made at Perkins, are not reasonably accurate.

B.

Stabilization of Tailings Piles

60. We also stated at Consolidated Iten 1 of ALAB-562:

"And the claim that the piles will be covered or stabilized, and can be maintained in that fashion, has not been suffi-ciently well established.

In this respect, the de-stabilizing effects of erosion, tails migration, and the sheer volume of the pile remain to be fully considered."

(Deficiencies #13,E E " Characterization of Uranium Tailings Cover flaterials for Radon Flux Reduction", Ford, Bacon and Davis Utah, Inc., NUREG/CR-1081 January 1930.

E This alleged deficiency reads as follows:

" fir. Kerr for the Staff testified the licensing restrictions for mills imposes a requirement on mill operators that tailing be stabilized so the radon emissions are no greater than 2X background. However, the record contains no information concerning what will be necessary to accomplish the desired objective.

Untill (sic) evidence is obtained which indicated (sic) precisely what must be done to reduce tailings emissions to 2X backgroaund (sic), it is not possible to conclude that as a practical matter the Commission's objective is attainable.

In addition, lir. Kerr did not indicate where the background is to be measured.

Is the background baseline a national average, or an average in the vicinity of the mill?"

. #1 M and #21E ; see also th Intervenors' Answer, pp. 7-8) geach Bottom-Three fille Island E

This alleged deficiency reads as follows:

"In computing the long range emissiois from mill tailings, the Staff assumes gradual deterioration of the vegatative (sic) cover.

However, no consideration is given to the effect of spatial diffusion of the tailings piles which is likely to follow upon erosin (sic) or (sic) the cover. As the surface area of the piles increases, the radon released also increases.

Evidence should be obtained indicating the* release rate of piles as their surface area increases."

E This' alleged deficiency reads as follows:

"ttill tailings will consti-tute a massive amount of material.

EA and NT are prepared to submit testinony that with respect to lesser amounts of radioactive materials the experience of the federal government has been that radioactive materials migrate to a much greater extent than originally anticipated and that there is every reason to believe this problem will be worse with the larger volume represented by mill tailings."

E The following is the passage referred to by the Appeal Board.

It is the Peach Bottom-Three tiile Island Intervenors' Answer (from pp. 7-8) addressing the Licensees' Joint Motion for Summary Disposition of alleged deficiencies Nos. 13,14,16 and 21:

"Regarding deficiency number 16, the Congressional detemination that adequate stabilization.

of abandoned mill tailings piles is necessary does not amount to a showing that pemanent stabilization of these piles is possible or likely. Since adequate long-tem mill tailings stabilization techniques have not been tested, developed, or even suggested, it would be arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and arrogant to assume automatically, merely upon a showing of Congressional recognitien that the problem is suffi-ciently pronounced to warrant legislation, that the problem will somehow be solved.

One cannot assume that the laws of the land will be imple-mented and enforced, particularly where implementation and enforcement may prove impossible.

Furthemore, no such laws require pemanent reclamation of the abandoned underground and open pit uranium ore mines.

Concerning Deficiency number 21, we note that there may be a trade-off between air pollution problems (radon emissions) and water pollution problens (radium and radon dissolved in ground waters) as a result of any future efforts to stabilize the abandoned mill tailings piles.

Furthemore, it is misleading to suggest that the Staff has concluded that "the stabilization of mill tailings piles will reduce radon emissions 100-fold" (Joint Applicants' Brief at 8). The Staff at most can be said to have stated that the short-term emissions of radon from (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

~

. 61. As noted above, we find that the existing program for regulation of mills and mill tailings provides a fim basis upon which to conclude that tailings will, in fact, be stabilized. Thus, for the above reasons and the further reasons detailed below, we reject the testimony of Dr. Robert 0.

Pohl, Fg. Tr. 24, where he questioned the very long tem stability of mill tailings piles.

62. With regard to erosion and long-tem stability, we find that the Staff's stringent siting and design requirements for tailings disposal E (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FR0li PREVIOUS PAGE) the piles might be reduced if enough dirt is placed on the piles.

But will this be done no matter how much dirt it takes? Are the Joint Applicants volunteering to pay the enomous costs of such an enterprise?

What will happen a few decades later when the dirt cover will have eroded away and the Staff still will not have developed a permanent solution, if any is to be found? What are the contingency plans if whatever " pussycat" method arrived at by the NRC Staff fails?

The conclusions drawn (Statement, para. 41-43) regarding the long-tem stability of the mill tailings piles constitute unsupported hand waving.

The setting of performance standards is a futile exercise if there is no enforcement and the record of the NRC with regard to enforcing even its own regulations is pathetic. There is no assurance whatsoever in either the TMI-2 or Perkins records to state conclusively that the stabilized piles will persist.

In fact, the reclamation " plan" (sic) are vague (Perkins Tr. 2401).

Reliance was placed on some " Universal Soil Loss Equation" (Tr. 2402-3) which treated parameters in an averaged way (Tr 2403), and was not based on any measurements in that area where the tailings are located (Tr 2403-4).

In addition, Staff Witness Gotchy acknowledged that "the Commission has no position on long-tem stabilization of tailings piles." (Tr 2405).

In fact, the i

Staff does not take into account radon release rates over long periods of time, as asserted (Statement, 43).

Instead, the Staff assumes the stabilization efforts will fail in time, (sic) periods short compared to the half-life of thorium-230 (See Gotchy Affidavit, after Perkins Vr. 2369, page 4), and there is no reason to believe that reclamation will persist even for such short periods. No genuine pemanent solution which will protect the public from radon emissions has been tested, developed..or even suggested. This is true for radon emissions from the abandoned mill tailings piles, for radon emissions from open pit uraniun ore mines, and for radon emissions from underground uranium ore mines.

. assure long-term stability under natural weathering forces.

Examples of tailings disposal programs meeting these requirements were described by Staff witness liiller. Some of the features for reducing the erosion potential of tailings disposal areas include: below-grade burial of tailings; the siting of tailings disposal areas where upstream drainage areas are very small and where topography provides good wind protection; and placement of thick earthern covers over the tailings piles stabilized by such measures as rock or rip rap (fli"er Testimony at pp.11-13 and 32).

63. Specific scenarios regarding what constitutes long-term stability of the piles are not appropriate. Miller's Testimony (Tr. 209), however, showed that the average denudation rate in arid regions was about one foot per four thousand years. The fact that positive steps are taken to minimize the erosion potential of tailings disposal sites should provide reasonable assurance that the tailings disposal areas will, in fact, be eroding at rates which are less than this average.

This being the case, and the fact that tailings piles will be covered with more than ten feet of soil, we find that the tailings should remain isolated for many thousands of years.EI

64. The problems of managing and stabilizing mill tailings piles involve conventional earthmoving and civil engineering operations.

In addition, costs are a small percentage of mill product price (see GEIS El Although extensively questioned by Intervenors, Staff witness fiiller could not give an upper or lower bound of the number of years because of the uncertainties associated with weather phenomena and climatic changes over long periods of tine (Tr. 210,215,216a).

1

. Section12.3.3).E Therefore, disposal of mill tailings in a manner meet-ing staff licensing requirements is feasible from cost and engineering points of view. NRC licensed nill operators, who have extensive experience in similar operations of even larger scale through their mining activities, have committed to plans of disposal meeting these requirements (iiiller Testimony at pp.11-13 and 32).

65.

Notwithstanding the above, it is possible that, at least at some sites in the future, the tailings isolation will erode away entirely and the tailings eventually dispersed in the fashion described by Dr. Pohl in his testimonyE (Fg. Tr. 24). However, the Appeal Board believes it is non-realistic to assune that all tailings would be dispersed as a tihin layer unifomly over the ground and remain that way. As described by Mr. Miller (Tr. 299) and by Dr. Goldman (Tr. 502), through the same processes that brought the tailings to the surface, the tailings would be removed from the surface over time.

Furthemore, as Dr. Goldman testified (Tr. 502), when postulating such indefinite scenarios, it is appropriate to look at an equally likely scenario for perspective:

that of complete erosion of earth cover over natural ore bodies.

Therefore, the uranium and its daughters could eventually become unearthed to expose humans and mining the ore merely change; the point in time when this occurs.

Likewise, there are situations E e have taken official notice of the GEIS (Tr. 521-22).

W E Dr. Pohl did not express a basis for his prediction that sucil dispersal would take place. He also stated that he had not studied the question of eventual disposition of mill tailings piles but only sought to analyze a " worst case" situation regardless of its likelihood (Tr.-36-37).

o

' where impoundments can be Jasigned to cause deposition of sediment which would enhance the tn:ckness of pilings cover over time (Miller Testimony, p.12).

C.

Regulatory Control of Mill Tailings 66.

Consolidated Item 1 of ALAB-562 also states:

"Nor has there yet been demonstrated the requisite assurance that regulatory control of mill tailings can be majgtained fgg/

an appropriate length of time." (Def.iciencies A13 'l and 16-see o Peach Bottom-Three Mile Island intervenors' Answer, 67.

Testimony by Staff witness Miller described the approach being taken to account for the very long-lived nature of the tailings hazard. The primary means of isolation is provided by physical barriers which do not require ongoing active institutional control and maintenance. Tailings disposal siting and design criterir. are being implemented to assure that this is achieved (Miller Testimony, p.33). We are also stressing that quality assurance programs related to construction of tailings dams and impoundments are of importance (Tr. 310-17). We believe there is adequate E ee footnote 29.

S E

This alleged deficiency reads as follows:

" Staff testinony indicates that in agreement states mill tailings will be adequately isolated,and stabilized. However, a notice on page 17 of V.143 #81 of the Federal Register ( April 26,1978) captioned Assessment of Environmental Impact of Uranium-Mills in Agreement States, suggests concern on the part of the NRC as to the environmental review procedure used in agreenent states and the capability of such states to insure the isolation and stab!11zation of tailings."

1 E

See footnote 32.

. assurance that such programs will be required by the Staff and instituted by Licensees (Tr. 316,328-29,334-37).

68. As a supplemented control, arrangements for ongoing government ownership and monitoring of sites have been established. Also, regulatory control over tailings is fim and will exist long enough tc assure that tailings are disposed of properly (Tr. 293).

The period of time over which tailings will remain hazardous far exceeds the period of time any institution can be expected to exist.

It is for this reason that isolation of tailings prinarily by physical barriers which do not require ongoing active main-tenance has been required (Miller Testimony at pp. 33-34).

'hus, we find that the tailings piles can reasonably be expected to maint:in their pro-tection for thousands of years without reliance on institutional controls or the need for active maintenance (M. at p.13; Tr. 205-216a, 276 and 468-69).

69. We also find that the current uranium mill regulatory program established by 'diTRCA reasonably assures that technical control of tailings in Agreement States will be the same as in non-Agreement States (Ibid at p.34).

D.

Effect of Guidelines

70. Consolidated Item 1 of ALAB-562 concludes:

"And the effect of the guidelines under which such control is now cxercised is not clear.

For one thing, the guideline for stabi-lized piles' calls for radon releases to be more than twice back-ground radon emissions in the surrounding environs.

This guideline is fomulated in tems of curies of radon released per unit area.

Thus, the allowable release from a stabilized tails pile depends upon the area of that pile (as well as on the rate of radon emission

- 4L -

from the surrounding area). Because the volume of the tails pile left from milling one " annual fuel requirement" on the grade of ore being mined, (Deficiency 17)gR) would depend the area of such a pile is likely to be similarly dependent: Under the guide-line, this, in turn, would affect the amount of radon allowed to be released from the pile. But the guideline does not take account of this effect, i.e., the effect that ore grade would have on allowable radon emission.

This o'ission would be particularly pronounced if the fractional uranium recovery from ore diminishes as the ore grade decreases. And, in any event, there is no indi-cation that at the levels involved compliance with the guideline value for radon emission rate c ment (Deflciencies 13 and 16)."gd be verified by direct measure-(Some footnotes omitted)

71. Staff testimony presented at the hearings before us reviewed the requirements of proposed formal regulations and show that their effect would be to reduce slightly the estinates of eleases made by fiagno at the Perkin hearings based on staff interim tailin: 5 management criteria.

This is because the new criteria, in part, specify that sufficient cover should be placed over the tailings to result in e lower calculated exhilation of radon resulting from the tailings (Miller Testinony, pp. 9-10). Also, application of these criteria, (including their relation to background radon flux) and i

verification of compliance with the criteria was described by Staff (Tr.168 and188).

Based on this description, we conclude that prior staff testimony-in the Perkins proceeding adequately estimated radon releases for the fuel cycle.

(iiiller Testimony at p.35).

N This alleged deficiency reads:

"The uranium industry is already turning to lower and lower grades of ore.

This means higher volumes of tailings than assumed by Perkins. Although the number of potential curies may remain the same, larger piles will be more expensive and difficlut (sic) to isolate and stabilize.

EA and NT are prepared to present testimony on this point."

E ee footnotes 29 and 37.

S

• E.

Ore Grade and Recovery Efficiency

72. There are two aspects of the question raised concerning the effects of changes in ore grade and recovery efficiency.

The first aspect of the question is: are the !!agno estimates based upon an assumed 0.1% average ore grade accurate? The second aspect is:

if there is a lowering of ore grades from that assumed in Magno's estimate and an associated increase in tailings volumes, will the problem of tailings disposal be manageable?

F.

The tiagno Estinates Are Accurate

73. As noted above, the estimates of radon releases are dependent upon a number of variat.e factors.

The Staff at the Perkins hearings attempted to select typical or average values for these factors.

In answering these questions about oce grade and recovery efficiency it is necessary to review the effect that incorporating current best estimates of other important factors has on radon release estimates.

The following equation, which deternines post-reclamation radon releases per AFR, shows the relationship among these factors:

Q = ABR (3.156 x 10 )

())

3 GPLU where:

A=

total impoundment area, ha; (this can be related to a given volume of tailing by simply dividing volume by the effective thic'cness of a tailings impoundment);

. B=

f1T U 0 in yell weake fom required per AFR; 38 G=

average ore grade, percent U 0 3 38 L=

operating lifetine of mill, yrs; P=

mill ore processing rate, MT/yr; Q=

radon release rate after reclamation, Ci/AFR-yr; 2

R=

allowable surface radon flux from tails, pCi/m -sec; V=

uranium recovery efficiency, percent; and 3.156 x 103 = the necessary constant to account for units.

(ftiller Testinony at pp. 35-36).

74. As illustrated by Equation 1, the resulting allowable release rate per AFR is inversely proportional to the ore grade and the uranium recovery efficiency, as well as the ore processing rate and the operational lifetime i

of the mill.

75. Based on the following values used by Magno, the resultant allow-able release, Q, is calculated to be 0.92 Ci/AFR-yr:

Values Used in Magno Analysis 5

5 A = 56.6 ha (140 acres)

P = 5.12 x 10 x 10 tit /yr 2

B = 245 tit U 0 /AFR R = 2.5 pCi/n -sec 38 G = 0.10%

U = 90%

L = 26 yrs.

. 76. fiagno expressed this result as 1-10 Ci/AFR-yr to "take into account uncertainty about the integrity of the stabilized tailings area over long periods of time." (Ibid at pp. 36-37)

77. A more appropriate average ore grade for use may be about 0.07%

V0 rather than the Magno value of 0.10%.

The value of 0.07% derives from 33 data presented in a U.S. DOE report GJ0-100(78), " Statistical Data of the Uranium Industry", Grand Junction Office, January 1978, and represents the estimated average grade of all known uranium reserves recoverable at $50 per pound or less.

According to one recent estimate, the present level of known

$50 per pound reserves is sufficient to sustain the U.S. nuclear industry through about the year 2000, or, for about the next twenty years. However, based on the use of new equipnent and nore advanced technology, the uranium recovery rate would be expected to remain at about 90%, with any potential downward change being insignificant (Ibid at p.37).

78. Therefore, based on a more conservative estimate of average ore grade of 0.07% U 0, the fiagno value of 0.92 Ci/AFR-yr would be increased 38 only marginally, to about 1.3 Ci/AFR-yr. We find that this upward change is counteracted by the influences of recent events on two other involved paraneters.

The DOE enrichment tails assay has recently been reduced to 0.2wt% U-235, markedly decreas,ing the amour. of natural uranium required per AFR (the staff now estimates approximately 185 MT V 0 in yell weake form 38 required per AFR, as opposed to 245 ftT U 03 8 per AFR as assuned by fiagno)S/.

S/ 245 f1T 0 0 was used 'sy the Staff at the hearing in Perkins. As noted earlier,3 $1s figure has now been modified.

t

.. Also, as discussed previously, the staff has fomally proposed a regu-2 lation limiting post-reclamation radon flux to 2.0 pCi/m -s, which is 20%

2 lower than the value of 2.5 pCi/m -s assuned by flagno (Ibid at p.38).

79.

Upon consideration of all of these influences, we find that the previous itagno estinate of 1-10 Ci/AFR-yr remains reasonable and conser-vative.

G.

Tailings Disposal Will Be Manageable 80.

Staff testimony shows that tailings disposal methods have been devised for real sites.

Furthemore, fim connitments have been made by all mill operators under NRC license to complete p.*ograms of tailings disposal.

The differences in the volume of tailings which goes along with potential ore grade changes is not significant in tems of the degree of difficulty that exists in successfully completing these programs. There is much more variability in the size of tailings piles that in actuality will be reclaimed and stabilized at various sites than there is difference between the average tailings pile volumes that would result fron 0.1% and 0.07% average ore grade estinates. The size of pile is also much more strongly influenced by other factors such as size of are bodies being mined in the area, number of mines feeding the nill, the amount of competition existing between uraniun extraction companies (which influences whether they fom joint ventures to process ore or built separate mills), etc. Currently active mills vary in capacity from 400 to over 6000 Mt/ day with a similar degree of variation in ultimate tailings impoundment size expected (iiiller Testinony at pp. 38-39).

i L.

1

. 81.

Furthermore, the mining of ore feeding the mill may involve moving 30 or more times the amount of material handled in disposing of the tailings.

(See " Prediction of the Het Radon Enission From a flodel Open Pit Uranium fline", NUREG/CR-0628, September 1979, Table II.) As indicated in Staff testimony, tailings disposal will be carried out by conventional, straight-forward earthmoving operations. We find that the effect that changes in average tailings volune, which night occur as a result of possible changes in average ore grade and recovery efficiency, would have on managing the job of tailings disposal is insignificant (Ibid at p.39).

H.

Water Pathways

82. Consolidated Iten 4 of ALAB-562 states that:

"There does not appear to have been a complete assessnent of potential exposure to radon reaching humans through water path-ways.

In particular, it might be possible for groundwater to enter abandoned mines or mill tailings piles, to absorb radon or its progenitors and then to transport them to points which could ultimately lead t their inhgtion or ingestion by humans."

(Deficiencies #7 and #18.

)

(Footnote omitted)

83. Testimony shows, and we find, that it is unlikely that there will be any significant radon-222 released indirectly via the water pathway E

This alleged deficiency reads:

"Perkins considers only the atmospheric pathways for radon emissions from mining. However, it is possible for there to be releases to streans or the ground water.

Improperly sealed or unsealed mine test holes could fill with rain or ground water.

As (sic) EPA report, Water Quality Inpact of Uraniun flining liilling Act1-vities in the Grants itineral Belt New Mexico, EPA 905/9-75-001 Sept.

1975, found radioactive contamination of drinking water in mining facilities and ground water contamination exceeding EPA limits for certain chemical by 740%.

This report demonstrates the existence of hydrologic pathways for radon contamination."

E This alleged deficiency reads:

"Thc flRC is considering underground burial of mill tailings. Although this method of disposal seems (F00TriOTE CONTINUED ON fiEXT PAGE) l i

. either as a result of natural migration of nuclides or from intrusion scenarios which have been suggested (Miller Testimony at p.40).

84. We find that steps are being taken to reduce or eliminate seepage from tailings (Tr. 325-27). Tailings are in most cases being isolated from.

aquifers. Some seepage will occur but the nuclides involved tend to sorb or ion-exchange and not migrate to an appreciable extent.

If contaminants enter an aquifer, they can be released only at an outcrop of the aquifer or where a well is dug. We find that the factors which control the rate of movement and possibility for release to the atnosphere are so variable that it is not very illuminating to postulate generic scenarios as did Inter-vernors' witness Dr. Pohl (see e.g., Tr. 74,99-104).$

85. However, some perspective on the matter can be gained by consider-ing the fact that nost ore bodies are located in aquifers. Therefore, as far as natural migration of contamination is concerned, the situation follow-ing mining and nilling is comparable to that which exists before any uranium recovery. The water pathway may, in fact, be less significant for the case E (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREV.'3US PAGE) preferable from the point of view of preventing erosin (sic) by wind and water of above surface piles, buried tailings are more quanity (sic) of mill tailings might represent a prefered (sic) location for collecting [ groundwater.to] the burial sights, and thus be exposed to large Hence, people drilling for water wells may be attracted exposures through radium 226. This exposure pathway ought to receive careful attention before a decision is made to dispose of mill tailings in this way."

E

r. Pohl stated at the hearing that he was not attempting predictions D

of migration rates for thorium and radium. According to him, his testimony was offered to demonstrate the appropriateness of considering groundwater contamination over geologic periods of time (Tr. 67-70).

m

. where an ore body is mined than it will be for the case where it is not mined because of the steps which are being taken under mill licensing re-quirements to isolate tailings contaminants including residual radioactivity (both progenitors and daughters of radon-222) from the processed ore from groundwater (Itiller Testinony at p.41; Tr. 358, 505-07).

86.

If it is postulated that groundwater rises into the tailings or if the tailings remain wet because of incomplete evaporation or as a result of precipitation, the previous Perkins proceeding staff estimates of direct airborne radon-222 releases (Magno testimony) would be reduced significantly.

Because moisture in soils or in tailings has a major retarding effect on the diffusion of radon to the surface for release to the atmosphere, and because the staff estimates were based upon a dry tailings pile, we find that the reduction in releases from the airborne pathway would far outweigh any indirect release that would occur via the water pathway that might be postu-lated (Ibid),

Conclusion 87.

In summary, we find, for the reasons discussed above, that the alleged deficiencies asserted by Intervenors as to emissions from mill tailings piles and water pathways are without foundation. We further find, for the reasons discussed above, that the testimony presented in the Perkins proceeding, and the Licensing Board's decision, constitutes a reasonabl" accurate and indeed conservative statement of the releases of radon-222 from uranium milling and associated tailings disposal operations both during and after the period of active milling.

l

. IV. PHOSPHATE RESIDUES 88.

In ALAB-562, at 10 NRC 443, we observed, at Consolidated Item 5, that:

"The production of phosphate fertilizer leaves a residue which conceivably could be reworked to recover the uranium it contains.

Such operations could result in radon releases beyond those atten-dant upon the phosphate production itself.

The amount of such releases has not been sufficiently quantified to allow comparison with the amount of radon released from the direct mining and milling of an equivalent amount of uranium." [ Footnote omitted].

89.

Our observation was based on Intervenors' alleged deficiency No.

26 which asserted that:

"Morton Goldman, at page 2342 of the [Perkins] transcript, indi-cates some uranium is being recovered commercially from the slag which is a byproduct of the production of phosphate fertilizer.

Information should be obtained whether radon is released from the recovery of uranium by this process.

If this process results in radon emissions, such emissions should be quantified".

90.

In the Perkins proceeding, the Staff's estimates of radon emissions were only based upon the effluents that may be projected from the mining and milling of uranium ores (Testimony of Wilde and Magno, Fg. P. Tr. 2369).

91.

However, as quoted above, alleged deficiency No. 26 raised the question of the need for data concerning radon emissions associated with the byproduct recovery of uranium from phosphate fertilizers.

Staff witness Honer Lowenberg testified that current practice concerning the byproduct production of urantun during fertilizer manufacture is to extract the uranium from the intermediate phosphoric acid liquor and not from slags or residues as stated in alleged deficiency No. 26.

Further, Mr. 'Lowenberg testified that this process is clearly a byproduct operation and that the mining and l

I

T

. processing of phosphates was started long before there was a market for uranium in the commercial nuclear fuel cycle. We find that such mining and processing would continue whether or not uranium is recovered as a byproduct from such operations (Testimony of Honer Lowenberg, p.3 following Tr.126; Testimony of Dr. Morton I. Goldman, p.36, Fg. Tr. 441).

92. Based upon the above-noted testimony, principally that of Staff witness Lowenberg, which testimony was not disputed on cross-examination,$

we find that it is not possible to ascribe any of the radon emissions from phosphate ore mining and processing to the byproduct uranium produced. On this basis we also find that any amount of the uranium produced from such sources would have no related radon emissions and thus, in fact, would result in a decrease of the potential radon effluents attri.butable.o the uraniun fuel cycle.

93. The Board finds that the radon emissions from phosphate fertilizer operations are not properly ascribable to the nuclear fuel cycle.

Further, we find that if all uranium sources from such unconventional operations were to be included, then the radon emissions attributable to the fuel cycle would be decreased (Testimony of Homer Lowenberg, pp. 4-5, Fg. Tr.126).

I N ross-exanination of Mr. Lowenberg was conducted by Ms. Reinert, repre-C sentative of the Sterling Intervenor (Tr. 127-143). The thrust of her I

questioning went to the quantity of uranium mined concurrent with phosphate ore mining.

Such questioning and the answers elicited did not, in our view, dispute or contradict any of Mr. Lowenberg's direct testimony.

l l

l

. V.

HEALTH EFFECTS 94.

In ALAB-562, 10 NRC 437, 441, we deferred consideration of the health effects issue in these proceedings until we had detemined the magni-tude of radon releases and the levels of radon concentrations from mining and milling.

In the previous portions of this decision we have now found that the alleged deficiencies in the Perkins record asserted by Intervenors regarding radon releases are without nerit. As to new data developed subse-quent to the Perkins hearings, we have also found that such new data does not significantly change the radon release rates found by the Perkins Licensing Board.

Accordingly, we have detemined that no useful purpose would be served by our receiving further evidence on health effects, particularly in the absence of any asserted deficiencies by Intervenors as to this aspect of the Perkins record. Thus, we turn now to a censideration of the de, minimis effect of the release of radon as found by the Perkins Licensing Board.

De itinimis Theory

95. With regard to the de_ mininis effect of the release of radon, we notedinALAB-509,El that the Perkins Licensing Board had stated that:

Based on the record available to this Board, we find that the best mechanism available to characterize the significance of the radon releases associated with the mining and milling of the nuclear fuel for the Perkins facility is to compare such releases with those associated with natural background. The increase in back-ground associated with Perkins is so small compared with back-ground and so small in comparison with the fluctuations in background, as to be compeletely undetectable.

Under such circum-stances, the impact cannot be significant. 8 NRC at 684 (Footnote omitted).

El 8 NRC 679.

. We also observed that:

If we were to subscribe to that view, there would appear to be no reason to consider the question of health effects further.

Consequently, we believe it appropriate to consider this aspect of the Board's decision at the outset.

I d_.

96. Accordingly, we provided the opportunity for any party who dis-agreed with the approach taken by the Perkins Licensing Board to brief the matter. Sterling and Tyrone intervenors expressed their views in a response filed on February 19, 1979.

Peach Bottom and Three Mile Island 2 intervenors expressed their views in a response also dated February 19, 1979.

97. Although articulated in various ways, the thrust of the several objections by Intervenors to the "de minimis" approach of the Perkins Licensing Board decision is as follows. They claim that it is improper to reach the conclusion that the health effects from radon released from the uranium fuel cycle are insignificant by comparing such releases to natural background radon. They also argue that the Perkins record shows that the 8

estimated releases for Perkins,10 curies per 110 annual fuel requirements (AFR) for 1000 years, results in 132 deaths. They then argue that since this relationship will hold for all time, "we recognize 4800 deaths during the 10,000-year period and 230,000,000 deaths during the billion year period."

They argue that it is this value of 230,000,000 ultimate deaths which must be weighed against the perceived benefit of generating electricity.

In short, they urge that such a large cumulative increment in health effects cannot be dismissed as insignificant by comparing it to background radon exposure.

l l

. 98.

Intervenors' argument uses a sinplified computation of health effects similar to that used by Dr. Kepford in the Perkins record.

This computation simply takes health effects, based on Staff witness Gotchy's estimates for the first 1000 years, and extrapolates such effects, based on release rate estimates, out to enon1ous periods of time into the future.

(Page 19 of Sterling-Tyrone intervences' February 19, 1979, filing uses the figure 230 million deaths over a period of a billion years into the future.)

99.

In our view, the crux of the problem is actually sidestepped by such a formulation of the question.

If, indeed, the future health effects attributable to the radon released from the uranium fuel cycle were, in fact, a known quantity, then the point Intervenors have raised would be valid and might warrant an additional, and concedely difficult, assessment of how, under the policies which underly NEPA, a known future damage is to be weighed against a present benefit.

However, to frame the issue in this fashion, as have Intervenors, poses a question different from that which faced the Licensing Board in the Perkins proceeding.

100.

In the Perkins record, and in that Licensing Board's decision, the difficult problem facing the Board was how to estimate what the potential future health effects might be which may be attributable to radon released thousands of years into the future from activities carried out today.

The record in Perkins makes clear three very different approaches concerning treatment of the difficult unknowns involved in such an attempt to estimate health effects far into the future.

r

.. 101. Dr. Kepford's approach is mentioned above. Staff witness Dr. R.

L. Gotchy provided a conservative numerical estimate of cancer mortality for periods of from 100 to 1000 years into the future based on the data from other witnesses and the assunptions set forth in his testimony (Gotchy Written Testimony following P. Tr. 2369).

Dr. Gotchy's testimony, however, also discussed the difficulties associated with projections far into the future: viz., changes in population patterns, climatic conditions, life expectancies and medical knowledge which are all essential components of any estimate of the level of radiation exposure and estimates of health effects attributable to any given level of radiation exposure (Gotchy Written Testi-many at 11-13, and P. Tr. 2418-20).

102.

In light of the inability to make meaningful projections of health effects beyond 1000 years into the future, Dr. Gotchy provided a comparison of doses from projected radon releases against those fron natural background radon. This comparison shows that radon releases associated with production of uranium for one reference reactor year or one AFR is, for time periods out to 10,000 years, approximately 10/100,000 percent or, as a fraction, about one one-millionth of natural background radon dose. He con-cluded, and we agree, that this tiny fract'onal increase is insignificant compared to natural background (Gotchy Testimony pp.13-18 and Table 8).

103.

Dr. L. Hamilton, Perkins Applicant's witness, took another track.

His testimony discussed why the use of traditional risk estimates are i' pro-priate at such exceedingly low levels of exposure as those discussed on the Perkins record. Specifically, the exclusion of repair mechanisms may be

inappropriate at the very low levels of exposure under consideration in connection with radon released from the uranium fuel cycle.

(P. Tr. 2271, 2323,2333). Dr. Hamilton then went on to compare such exposures attrib-utable to radon released from the uranium fuel cycle to natural background radiation and to the fluctuations in natural background radon exposure. His estimates show the exposure estimated for radon releases from production of uranium for one AFR results in an avarage exposure of less than one thousandth of one milliren. He then compared this incremental exposure with the fluc-tuations due to everyday experiences, such as traveling around the country by airplane, and to the differences in radon exposure due to spending time indoors as distinguished from spending time outdoors.

(P. Tr. 2322-23, 2278,2280).

Dr. M. Goldman, another Perkins Applicant's witness, and a witness in the hearings before us, gives quantitative values in his Perkins testimony of releases and provides perspective on Dr. Hamilton's testimony.

Dr. Goldman's testimony before the Perkins Licensing Board indicates radon doses, for indoor exposures in concrete or brick houses, may be on the order of 10 times greater than the average outdoor radon exposures.

Dr. Goldman then testified that the lung dose commitment calculated by the NRC Staff for radon releases from mining and milling for the first 500 years (5,200 man rea) would be balanced by (or is the same as) reducing the amount of time the average person in the U.S. population spends indoors by less than 10 minutes once in a 500-year period.

(Goldman, p.8-10, Fg. P. tr 2266).

104. The Perkins Licensing Board, we believe, correctly assessed these different approaches and, based on the record, accepted as the best mechanism to characterize the significance of radon releases a compariser of such

releases with natural background radiation and the fluctuations in such natural background radiation.

105.

Thus, with evidence demonstrated by a number of approaches that the health effects attributable to radon releases from mining and milling in the uranium fuel cycle are very small, we believe that comparison to fluctu-ations in background radon exposure resulting from everyday experiences provides a valid basis for characterization of the significance of such impacts and such comparison shows that the impacts attributable to releases of radon fron uranium mining and milling for Perkins (and the plants before us) is insignificant.

106. Accordingly, we believe intervenors' arguments concerning "de minimis" do not present any serious basis for asserting that the approach used by the Perkins Board was invalid. With the exception of the question of stability of tailings piles, we believe this is also the case even if we were to totally accept the recent testimony presented to us by Dr. Pon1. As to the question of tailings pile stability, we have found, for the reasons detailed above, that steps can and will be taken to assure that such piles can be stabilized over a long-term basis.

f~I VI.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 107.

In response to the Commission's directives contained in the statement of consideration issued in connection with the amendment to Table S-3 of 10 CFR Part 51, published in the Federal Register on April 14, 1978 (43 Fed. Reg.15613), this Appeal Board has carefully considered presently available information concerning the releases of radon-222 associated with the uranium fuel cycle and health effects that can reasonably be deemed associated therewith, and concludes:

A.

That, except as modified by this decision, the Partial Initial Decision - Environmental Consequences of the Uranium Fuel Cycle issued by the jggmic Safety and Licensing Board in Perkins on July 14, 1978,-- is hereby affirmed; and B.

that such releases and impacts are insignificant in striking the cost-benefit balance for the proceedings pending before us on April 14, 1978.

4 W

l 48I LBP-78-25, 8 NRC 87.

f e

VII. ORDER Based upon thf s Appeal Board's findings and conclusions, IT IS ORDERED that, in accordance with Sections 2.714, 2.760, 2.762, 2.764(a), 2.786, and 2.788 of the Commission's Rules of Practice,10 CFR Part 2, as araended, this decision shall be effective iramediately and shall constitute the final action of the Commission forty-five (45) days after the date of issuance thereof, subject to any review pursuant to the Rules of Practice.

Respectfully submitted, M

Bernard fi. Bordenick Counsel for flRC Staff Dated at Bethesda,fiaryland this 3rd day of July,1980

.-.