ML19330B482

Response to Ecology Action of Oswego & Environ Coalition on Nuclear Power Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Re Emissions from Mill Tailings Piles & Water Pathways. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19330B482
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom, Hope Creek, Crane
Issue date:	07/18/1980
From:	Conner T, Silberg J CONNER, MOORE & CORBER, Public Service Enterprise Group, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
NUDOCS 8008040074
Download: ML19330B482 (24)

Text

7-..-

p,r

.;.gesW a

July 18, 1980 g

,2 9 $80 v. AJ C$ cts N'\\s e tts UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CMN sust

/g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

/

BEFORE-THE ATOMIC SA?ETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS In'the Matters of-

)

.)

PEILADELPHIA. ELECTRIC COMPANY et al.

)

Docket Nos. 50-277 (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,

)

50-278 Units 2 and 3)

)

~

)

)

. METRO"OLITAN EDISON COMPANY et al,

)

Docket No. 50-320 (Three Mile Itiland Nuclear > Station,

)

Unit 2).

)

)

)

PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS CO.

)

Docket Nos. 50-354 (Hope Creek Generating Station,

)

50-355 Units 1 and 2)

)

LICENSEES' REPLY TO THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE OTHER PARTIES Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.754(b)(3) and the Appeal

. Boards' Orders in this proceeding, Philadelphia Electric Company et al., Metropolitan Edison Company et al.,

and Public Service Electric and Gas Co. (" Licensees")1 submit their reply to the proposed findings of fact filed by intervenors Ecology Action o f Oswego ("EAO") and Environmental Coalition on Nuclear.

1-Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation has been dropped as a party to this proceeding because the Sterling project was

-cancelled.

See, Appeal Boards' Memorandum and Order dated June 23, 1980 at p. 2.

DSol

~

5 B008040 077 p 4

I J

o Power ("ECNP').' TO tho cxtent that tha propoccd findings of f act by EA0 and ECNP and not addressed specifically herein, Licensees' response to those findings is contained in " Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted on Beh'alf of Philadelphia Electric Como.anv et al., Me tropolitan Edison Companv. et al., and Public Service Electric and Gas Co.",

dated April 28, 1980.

2 The proposed findings of fact fi.'.ed by the Commission Staff (" Staff") on the radon source term issues are generally consistent with Licensees' proposed findings' and will there-fore not be addressed in this Reply.

The Staff also included a series of ' proposed findings on the health effects resulting from radon emissions.

Those findings are addressed separately in Licensees' response to "NRC Staf f Motion for Leave to Include Health Ef f ects Findings."

3 ECNP Proposed Findings 27 and 28 accuse Licensees and Staf f of

" fraudulent concealment" of the dangars of radon releases, and charge the Appeal Boards with~ " illegal conduct" and with committing an " arbitrary and illegal denial of due process" against ECNP.

These and.other charges of the same nature throughout ECNP's proposed findings are baseless and should be rejected.

Moreover, ECNP's findings are generally couched in abusive and inflanmatory language; this intervenor has been cautioned in the past against making grossly inaccurate statements and using language which 12 inculting and disrespectful in tone.

See, Metropol tan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB-474, 7 NRC 746, 748-749 (1978); Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-387 and S0-388, Order Denying Requests of ECNP (December 6, 1979), at 7

8.

Under similar circumstances, the Appeal Board has stricken filings and suggested that even more severe sanctions might be appropriate.

Louisiana Power & Light Co., (Waterford Steam Electric-Station, Unit 3), ALAB-121, 6 AEC 319 ( 197 's )..

- ~.

v.

'I.

! EMISSIONS FROM' MILL TAILINGS' PILES 1

-Implementation, Verification and Effectiveness of-Mill i

~

,A.? Tailings-Stabilization-Guidelines.

5. allege:a number cf shortcomings-

~

.I-37.

Intervenors lin.the proposed Staff ~ criteria and regulation's (" Regulations")-

forEthe management' and disposal of mill -tailings.

They. find.

~

-the j Regulati'ons ;" vague. and rather general. "

ECNP Proposed They claim'that there is no requirement that'

( F i n' i n g { " P F " ) 2.

d radon : emissions from: stabilized mill. tailings be measured to-2 assure compliance with the 2 pCi/m -sec~ limit (ECNP PF 3, EAO PF 6);.that even if. measurements are taken, it will be dif-

.fi' cult to show that actual releases exceed the' limit (EAO PF that Lthe Regulations do not-require remedial work until the

6);

measured' radon releases after stabilization actually exceed the (ECNP PF 6);6. that the Regulations do not require that

?

limit

. Proposed Findings I-1 through I-36 are included in the

' 4L Lic e'nse es ' Proposed Findings filed on April 28, 1980.

ECNP and EAOfhave endorsed and adopted each other's

~5 Therefore, their position will be referred to herein.

findings.

as-that of "Intervenors" without regard to which organization proposed a given finding.

[6f ECNP PF 3' states'that'the'Regutations do not require

remedial'- work "when the -calculated rate of radon releases

. exceeds two pico-curies per fsquare meter per second." This l

propo, sed 1 finding misinterprets the process envisioned by the

~ Regulations.. Prior to-licensing.of a mill, projected radon releases from its mill tailings-piles are calculated to. deter -

withthe2 "mine ;yhetherL they will comply (af ter stabilization) Staff witness Miller testified pC1/m -sec' limit.

taijings willinot be 11 censed unless the raden emissions from the J

af ter1 stabilization :are calculated not to exceed the 2 pCi/m -sec s

(continued 1next-page)

~ -

i i

e

=

• ee c

p

&g g

g y

s m

m fs (thb mill tailings sitec.bo identificd with signsi(ind'icating tha-

_ id,.);'and that the Regulations'do

~

toxic..natur e " of 7the' piles: ( d

-not requirefplacement: of ' mill-tailings ' in " permanent, l secure frepositories".;( g ).- These;eriticisms of the Regulations.are

'without; merit..

~

I-38.-(With1 respect to.the." vagueness" charge, Staff-witness Miller jestifiedithati the Regulations provide general

~

' standards - fort the Edisposition-of mil'1 tailings to assure their

~

The tallings. disposal

long-term stability.

Tr. 184 (Miller).,

.requireme~nts are expresse'd' in. terms of performance objectives;

~

because'of1the highly. site-specific nature of the tailings

~

. d is'po sal'-- ' r oblem, the details of the program must be developed-p

. c in-light of site-specific conditions.. Miller at p.

9.

Thus, in acordance' with S '203 of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Con' trol [ Act of 1978f( the " Act"), the Commission _(through its.

Staff)fhas the ultimate responsibility for f1'eshing out the

-details of the tailings disposal-program and ensuring that it is.c'arried. out appropriately.at each site.

Tr. 180-181, 1186 187..(Miller).

To carry out this responsibility, the Staff

-(continued);

Elimit?

Tr. 169-170 (Miller)... Af ter the mill is licensed and Ltallings _ piles'. ar e gener ated, confirmatory neasur ements will' be taken' and,11f actual-radon freleases exceed the-limit, remedial vork.will:be ordered.

Tr. 188 (Miller).- - No testimony was offered byl any:. party suggesting.thatLeemedial work should be undertaken beforefmeasu' red. releases'from stabilized' tailings piles exceed ltheilimit;ktherefor'e, ECNP ?? 6 has no basis on the record and mustibs1 rejected.:

1 j

}-

O Y

=

+/

.=..

F A

^

will'supplsment.:th'e' Regulations with. regulatory guides or.

~

i Lsimilaridocuments' establishing 1the details of the tailings

. disposal ~' and ' managemen t prog r am'. : :Id,.

"I-39.z With respect tolthe claimlthat the Regulations do not require.that.mear,urements be'taken, Mr. Miller stated:

1

-that the1 Staff -int' ends to. take periodic radon emission mea-

-curements a t ' the ' stabilized ~ piles - even if such measurements are

'not explicitlt manda'ted.by.the Regulations.

Tr. 186-187-k (Miller); see also, Tr.~171, 178-179, 188 (Miller).

I-40.

Regarding the alleged difficulty in ensuring _

that the emissions limit is,being met, Mr. Miller stated-that it may be:dif ficult by taking -radon flux measurements "to precisel? determine-that (the mill operator) is meeting the

-[limii]", but only because natural background "can vary from 1 2' -

to 3-[pCi/m -sec] or even higher"; the Staff nevertheless "wi'l be confirming... that-[the operator] is about (the 2 2

pCi/m -sec] level."

Tr. 171.(Miller).

I-41.

~ On the matter of deep repository disposal, Mr.

Miller tastitled that it would be possible to dispose of the -

millJ tailings by placing.them in a " massive deep geologic repository"_, but that it vas -unnecessary to. go to such -great l-

' lengths. to' isolate the tailings' because, "the' mode of disposal 7(selected Din each' ca'se] L is. adequate - to. protect public health, safetyland the? environment. "

Tr. 267-288_(Miller).

s

~

4

~

_5 a

u;

=

ar I-42.

. Finally, theLclaim'that the l tailing sites will

~

not 'have signs identifying -the; nature of the materials buried-therell's' erroneous, for_ proposed : Environmental Protection Agency criteria on radioactive waste storage and disposal-require emplacement ~of " passive me'thods of-communicating to '

future people'the potentia 1Lhazards which could result from an accidental oriintentional disturbance'of: disposed radioactive-wastes."

43 Fed. Reg. 53262,:53264 (Nov, ember'15, 1978); Tr.

1467-468 (Goldman).

Thus, the alleged shortcomings'do.not exist and Lthe Regulations,: as interpreted and applied by the Staff, will ensure' proper isolation of the mill tailings.

B.

Regulatory Control.of Mill Tailings Isolation.

I-43. Intervenors allege that there is "no basis" in the record for assuming that mill. tailings piles will be stabilized, monitored and maintained, or for expecting that 2

radon releases can be kept below the 2 pCi/m -sec limit for thousands of-years 7 ECNP PF 12.

These allegations are at odds 'with the; record, which contains ample evidence that mill tailings piles will be stabilized and will remain in that.

condition for many-thousands of years.8 Miller at pp. 11-17, 32f Tr.'205 to 216-a, 276-277 (Miller); Tr. 468-469 (Goldman).

2

.7

-Intervenors predict that _ the 2 pCi/u -sec limit "can and

will befviolated with absolute impunity" and that "the record rdoes' nowhere demonstrate that the existing allowable release rate for radon wiliznot be formally. r.elaxed, if not abolished n

Lentirely, as soon as ilt beccmes politically expedient to do so."

..ECNPLPF'll.

Such speculations find absolutely no support

inV the record.

8 IIntervenors fwould1 have the. Appeal Boards disregard the

-(continued next-page) 1,

m y

p.

32;fTr.;205 to 216-a, 276-277 (Millor)t.Tr.- 468-469_(Goldman).

I-44. Intervenors'also-insist that'long-term:stabil-

ity of mill tailings-will' require' continuous institutional.

. controls ando remediali work which -ca'n not be assumed to persist fore the ' period ~of toxicity of the tailings.

-ECNP ?F'4, 12, 16.

However,- the uncontfoverted testimony at the hearing shows that isolation ofLtailings will be accomplished by means of physical

~

barriers which do'not require ongoing active maintenance and institutional. controls to preserve isolation.

Miller at pp. 16, 33-34;.Tr. 195-196 (Miller)._ Indeed, maintenance-free disposal,. to the maximum. extent practicable, is required by the

'Act, the Regulations and Staff practice; Staff "would not license a mill where [it] knew that active maintenance would b~e requir e'd. "

Section 203 of the Act, 92 Stat. 3036; Tr.

195-196,_204-205 (Miller).

Nonetheless, institutional controls

(continued)

' testimony of Staff witness-Miller and Licensees' witness Goldman on the basis that Lneither is " qualified to testify about.the. rates 1and direction of future geologic and climatologicalv trends.and their ef fects on the integrity of (st'abilized mill. tailing s. ] "

ECNP PF 8, 20.

These witnesses

? declined - to';. offer any predictions as to what the climate will be'in theMfuture in the. areas where the tailings-will be

' loc a ted.-

_Moreover, their testimony does not hinge' on any set' of assumed climatic conditions; therefore, In te rv eno r s' criticism;is not valid.

Also, the qualifications of chese witnesses,Jas.shown in the record, are more than adequate to

-support 4their. status as expert vitnesses in the various areas in which they offered _ testimony-in this proceeding; these

qualificationsiwereLin no'way challenged at'the hearing.

Nor Edid'Intervenors-introduce any-evidence to contradict the testimony of Messrs. Miller and Goldman.

4 n-'

+ _

v.:, _

. _. -. z_

e

' I-45.

With respect to the quality control and monitoring program, Intervenors allege that the-Staff does not itselflinspect tailings ~ reclamation projects, and "25, 50 or 100 years. 'from now the mill tailings might not be inspected

~

very carefully.". ECNP PF 7.

Intervenors misconstrue the testimony which they allege supports this proposed ~ finding.

Comoare,.Tr. 176-177 (Miller).- A fair readin'g of Mr. Miller's

. testimony actually indicates that 'the methods of inspecting the

~

condition of stabili=ed mill tailings will vary f rom site to site; for instan'ce, where the stabilized pile is observed to have 40 or 50 feet of cover on it, no detailed inspection is necessary to' verify compliance with~the Regulations.9 A

detailed -inspection is, of course, not required where the pile is obviously in a stabilized condition.

And, contrary to Intervenors' proposed findings, the Staff proposes to implement a thorough inspection program featuring a combination of visual inspection,' ground-or aerial photography, water sampling, and other surveillance measures intended to verify that the tailings remain in stabilized condition. Miller at pp. 16-17; Tr. ' 178-179_, 199-200 (Miller).

9 Licensees' witness Goldman testified that erosion of stabilized. tailings is easy to detect, for loss of cover material ori gulleying of tailings piles can be determined visually without need to resort to radiation measuring

~ instrumentation.- Tr._461 (Goldman).

_g.

s9 A

> +

A

,S

_2

-a a

m A

}

~

C.- 'De-Stab ~ilizing Effects o'f Erosion, Tails Migration and

~

Other Factors on Stabilized Piles.

I-46.-Intervenors assert that, because of.possible

' climatic and geologic changes and other factors,i he integrity

~

t of ~ stabilized piles can not be guaranteed' over the full period of pile. toxicity of 80,000 years, the half-life of

~

thorium-230.10 EAOIPF 1;LECNP ?? 1,3,6,9,10,12,14,15.

Such-

- guarantee -is not legally required under the Act, theLAtomic Energy Act, or NE?A; indeed, it is impossible to give complete assurances that, 'if institutional controls disappear, every L

tailings pile will remain stabilized for such a long period of-time.

Miller'at-pp. 15-16; Tr. 213, 216-a (Miller); Tr. 498 (Goldman).

However, the disposal methods ~that the Staff is' l

requiring mill' licensees to i=1 ament in ace'ordance with the

~

Regulations will eliminate or minimize erosion of the stabil-l l

ising cover for thousands of years at most sites, and are in I

fact likely to lead to additional cover being deposited over 1

time:at the site's.

Miller at pp. 12-16; Tr. 210 (Miller).

I-47. Staf f witness Miller enumerated the site l-selection; criteria and disposal methods required by the

' Regulations that will assure long-range tailings stability.l'-

i L

~10 This!ProposedL finding _assnmos that remedial action will not.be available to' maintain the tailings in a stabilized l

l:

condition... As noted,1howev~er, any stabilization failures will-

.be remedied in a{ timely. manner.-Miller at pp. 15-17.

l Lil <The preferred ? tailings disposal alternative is below grade (continued next pa'ge) l

_9_

b=,_

a h

a

s

- These criteria and methods were developed in part on.the basis -

of:a study. conducted by. consultants to1the. Staff, J.D. Nelson-and T.A.J hepherd, " Evaluation of Long Tern Stability of S

UraniumETallings Disposal Alternatives", Colorado-State

. University, lap;il 1978.("the Colorado State study").. Miller at.

.p.

13; Tr. 237-238 (Miller).

The Colorado. State study.

identified the potentially most serious ' stabilization failure mechanisms'and suggested siting and design features that could be employed.to minimize or reduce them.

Miller at p. 13.

Thus, theisiting criteria and disposal methods maximize protection against floods and earthquakes by placing the tailings-away from upstream rainfall catchment areas, and away from po'tentiallyiactive faults; utilize sites where good wind protection exists; provide for relatively flat embankment

, slopes to minimize erosion; establish a vegetative or rip-rap

- cover to retard wind and water erosion; and provide for an i

impoundment design that incorporates features to promote deposition of sediments to. enhance the thickness of the cover over time.

Criterion 4;. Miller at p.12; Tr. 201, 205-207,

~

234, ~ 239-241, 251-252,-276, 295-296 (Miller).

These measures make it reasonably probable that, except for isolated,

~(continued)

Lburial in1 specially excavated pits or in mines. Criterion 3; Millerfat p. 12. -Where below grade disposal is not possible or desirable,. the. tailings are.to be disposed of above grade utilizing methods ' that minimize. erosion potential.

Criterion r

1; Miller at p. 12.

. J i

' )

~

--s.

=t-

'L__

=w e.t.

e..

t 4

,__n..

_.n.

nn_

.m u

~i Msite-specific failures,3the tailings will_be. protected 1for:very-long periods 1of time against the de-stabilizing effects of eros' ion 12 3nd-othe'r na'tural forces.13 3g113

,g pp. 13-14, 32.

D.

Radon Emission Rates i? rom Uncovered Piles.-

~

I-48.

Intervenors have questioned the-appropri-

~ teness, for low ore grades, of the linear. relationship between a

ore : grade 'and mill recovery fraction utilized -in Dr. Goldman's

'an al'ys i~s.

ECNP-PF'18.~4 Dr. Goldman's uncontradicted

-v 12. It isLalso worth - noting that the average denudation rate in-theLarid regions. in which the tailings will be located is

.quite slow, on the order of a foot every four thousand years.

Tr. 209-210 (Miller).

Thus, barring drastic changes in climate

~

or improbable,. extraordinary events (such as major floods or earthquakes) the stabilized tailings should remain in that condition' for many thousands of years.

Id..

'And, as stated above, it is equally likely that the stabilizing cover will actually' increase over time.

Tr. 210 (Miller).

132 ECNP ?F.10 states tha t the reclamation-techniques claimed by the Staff to reduce radon emissions from mill tailings _ for '

thousands of years are essentially the same techniques which, at the'Perkins hearing,'were said by Staff witness Gotchy to be e'ffective for.only 500 years..The Boards need1not examine the accuracy of ' ECNP's characterization, nor. that of the estimates made bycMr. Gotchy (which were made at Perkins just for the purpose of computing health effects and which have been described herein by. Staff witness Miller as " extremely

~

1 conservative",~Tr. 218 (Miller); Miller at p. 16) because the testimony offered'at the ?erkins hearing preceded the enactment fof l the Act, the issuance of the draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement'on Uranium Milling (NUREG-0511), and the publication of' the. proposed Regulations; the disposal methods E

and^criteriaDdescribed by Staff witness Miller at the hearing are based ~ on' the nsv regulatory requirements - and the additional

. knowledge' gained since the Perkins hearing.

Miller at pp. 3-4; T r '. 20 8-210,- 215 :(Miller).

Therefo re,- the ?erkins testimony

.notedLby7ECNPLis of no consequence because Mr.-Miller's

= testimony supersedes the.. evidence offer'ed in' Perkins.

j 1

~14-ECNP z ??- 18 seriousiv misconstrues; Dr. Gol'dman's testimony.

- (continued;next page) i

_11 l

~

1 n

[ 1 :-

y-^

. -L '

i

1

's s

-m s

w'.

1 s

..e

... s.

b bestimony, however, was that the relationship ha utilized gcyo theibest linear fit to the existing data points (which go down to the current cre grade of.1%) and was expected to be a reasonable approximation of the recovery fraction for ore grades down to.07%. Tr. 442, 475-479 (Goldman).

In any event, Dr. Goldman testified that radon emissions are far more strongly dependent on the bulk dif fusion coefficient and tailings depth than they are on the recovery fraction.

Goldman at pp.

5-7, 12-13.

Therefore, any inaccuracies that might exist in the recovery fraction projections for very low ore grades will be inconsecuential compared to the more determinative factors in the radon release computation.

(continued)

Dr. Goldman did not, as the finding claims, " ag r e e tha t othe r curves, representing a much larger increase of tailings volume with decreasing ore grades can be drawn through the existing data, and nay in fact more accurately reflect the underlying function which determines the data (Tr. 486-490)."

On the contrary, Dr. Goldman stated:

"I have no basis whatsoever for accepting tha t tha t (nonlinear] form of a curve might be a more accurate representation (than his straight line approximation]." Tr. 489.

He went on to say that the data points to which his straight line was fitted represent a variety of mills and processes acting on a variety of ores (Tr.

490) and that the r e is no analytical function that would describe the industrywide averages represented by those points (Tr. 493).

Dr.

Goldman was, moreover, quite emphatic in reiecting the curvilinear relationship presented to him on cross-examination as not representative of actual recovery experience at operating mills:

" Accepting the curvilinear relationship prepared by Dr. Kepford does not ccaport with my own knowledge of the performance of certain mills... I find it very difficult to accept the kind of relationship projected by the curvilinear relationship he has made... I have enough knowledge of individual mill performance to suspect tha t that curvilinear :elationship provides a projection that is too low for what I know the experience of selected mills to be operating on ore grades which are in the range of a 10th of a percent".

Tr.;491-492..

s

.I-49.- ' Another proposed' finding,(ECNP PF. 21) is that

"[n] o evidence' was ' introduced 'concerning - the actual depths of the' mill tailings piles which are being, produced to fuel the L

reactors which are ' subject-to this. proce'eding."

This is the same type of objection. raised by Intervenors in alleged deficiency No. l'with respect-to the mines from which uranium ore would come, and. rejected by the Appeal Boards in ALAB-562 Las unworkable.

See_, ALAB-562, 10 NRC 437, 447-(1979).

There is, of course, no waynof knowing the depth of the mill tailings

. piles that will. result 'from producing fuel over the next s

several-decades for the reactora in the instant proceeding.

~

Moreover,- such information is unnecessary, for the record shows without dispute that the average depth of tailing piles at active sites is between 12 and 13 m, as deter' mined independent-l ly by'the Staff and by Licensees' witness Goldman.

Miller at

p. 29; Goldman at pp. 11-12.

In the. absence of any indication to' the contrary, it is proper to assume that the average depth I-of tailingLpiles,at active sites is a reasonable approximation i-of the depth of tailings piles in future.15 p

L l

15 ECNp PF 21 also alleges that utilizing average pile depths "results in a substantial underestimation of short term radon

~

' releases, due 'to.the -shielding ef fect of piles which exceed certain' depths."-.To the extent, however, that_this_ allegation

-(wholly unsupported by the record) attempts to question the

estimates of the' short term radon releases from uranium mills durina --the active ~ milling period (which is the period during which _ the. tailings 1 piles have not yet achieved their ultimate

' depth), it Lconstitutes'an! impermissible attempt to interject a new: alleged " deficiency"Lof the Perkins record into this

The ?erkins ; record contains z an estimate of 1,130 (proc eed ing.

continued next pagej,

1. -... I 9

.L

- G.

Survivability of Uncovered Tailinos Piles.

I-50. Intervenors have proposed a finding that 1000 Ci/ year per AFR could potentially be released from an uncovered mill tailings pile.

EAO ?? 3; ECNP PF 23.

This value, however, constitutes an upper limit that would be ' reached only if the tailings pile were dispersed completely into a uniform, thin layer over a wide area of the ground and remained so dispersed through the tailing s toxicity period of 80,000 years.

Tr. 57 (Pohl);'Tr. 497 (Goldman).

There is no basis on the record for assuming that this improbable, " worst case" scenario will take place; its sole expositor, Intervenors' witness Pohl, declared himself unable to testify as to the reasonableness of assuming such a complete dispersal of the tailings piles.

Tr.

36-37 (Pohl).

On the other hand, both Staf f witness Miller and Licensees' witness Goldman rejected complete dispersal of the piles as an unreasonable and unrealistic postulation.

Tr.

' 293-294 (Miller); Tr. 502-503 (Goldman).

Dr. Goldman also testified tha t, in the unlikely event of complete tailings dispersion, the tailings would not remain dispersed in a thin layer over the surface of the ground and exposed for a long period of time, but instead would either be carried by surface (continued)

Ci/yr per AFR of Rn-222 emitted by the tailings piles prior to stabilization, which includes 750 Ci/yr per AFR associated with emissions from tailings during the active milling period.

See Affidavit of Paul J.

Magno, foll. Perkins Tr. 2369, at p. 2.

This estimate has never been challenged by any party.

_14-

f

- waters to the ocean or would be covered or deposited upon by -

other " soil materials.-

Tr. 502-503 (Goldman).

~

I-51. ' Intervenors also disagree with the testimony, thatimill tailings pilesEvill remain in place without substan-tialisrosion for long periods oof time even af ter loss of the stabilizing cover.'

EAO PF 1; ECNP PF 19.

They obj ect mainly-to - the relevancy of Dr. Goldman's testimony on the long-tcim survival of Indian mounG3 in the eastern and central part of the United States.- Dr. Goldman stated tha t there. are differ-

.ences between - the' Indian mounds and ~ mill tailings piles in

- ter.is' of' location,. climatic conditions, and existence of vegetative cover.

Tr. 445-446 (Goldman); Goldman at p.16. -

Nonetheless, the existence of the Indian mounds demostrates that even primitive earthen structures can survive, relatively j

undisturbed, the natural forces of erosion for long periods of l

l time without the ' benefit of modern angineering construction techniques.

Tr. 482-483 (Goldman).

The Indian mound experi-l-

l ence also suggests that any disp ~ersion of mill tailings piles, l'6 The areas in which the Indian mounds are located are 1 generallymore subject to rainf all erosion and flooding, but' less ~ subject. to wind erosion, thar. the arid regions in which the mill tailings are located.

Goldman at p.

16.

On the other hand,' in order L for the stabilizing-cover protecting the tailing s to have - disappeared, one would have to assume that climatic changes had ' taken ' lace, perhaps resulting in more p

precipitation in the now arid - regions in which the tailings will be1 disposed. See,'Tr. 209-210 (Miller).

Thus, the climaticj conditions 'at the : Indian mound sites may well

anticipate. those at thef mill tailing sites at the time the stabilizing... cover is lost. -.

+

d

-.'Y,'

,6 0*

~

tima without the banofit of modcen engineering construction techniques.

Tr. 482-483 (Goldman).

The Indian mound experi-ence also suggests that any dispersion of mill tailings piles, after loss of stabilizing cover, will be a slow process that allows ample time for remedial action to restore the piles to a stabilized condition.

Goldman at p. 20.

The slow dispersion of unstabilized mill tailings is also demonstrated by the

(

actual dispersion rates experienced at inactive =ill sites, for which Dr. Goldman calculated a mean dispersion rate of the order of.036% per year.

At this rate, complete dispersal of a pile would occur in about 2700 years.

Id.

I-51. Finally, Intecvenors raise the possibility of human intrusion -- accidental or deliberate -- into an inactive tailings pile.

EAO PF 4, 5, 7.17 However, the tailings will be disposed of in teruote areas and,. under the Act, ownership and control of the sites where the tailings are to be disposed will be lodged with the Federal or State government, so that intrusion into the tailings piles is highly unlikely in view of their remote 'ocation and the monitoring and remedial care to l

be provided by the government.

Section 202 of the Act, 92 Stat. 3033-3036; Criterion 1; Miller at pp.

5, 6, 17; Tr.

1 l

17 There is no support on the record for the fanciful l

speculation of ICNP in its PF 12 that the mill tailings may be viewed by future people as " relics of a past civilization and become tourist attractions for young families with small children"_or that future people may remove the rip-rap cover "to construct stone dwelling huts on the mill tailings piles."

e,

....m

^.

~

e 8

rodulting coloccca to ' tho intruder will lonly ba en icolated

~

~1ncident ' daat will. not alter the _ industry-wide radon release estimatesLprovided'by the witnesses in this-proceeding.

~II." ABANDONED UNDERGROUND MINES No - reply: findings.19

-III. OPEN PIT. MINES No reply findings. See n.

19, suora.

IV. ' WATER PATHWAYS IV-12. Intervenors find fault with the preferred method of mill tailings' disposal specified by the Regulations, i.e. below grade burial.

EAO'PF 8.

In their view, below grade burial "will bring tailings into closer proximity to the gro und wa te r. "

What matters, of course, is not whether buried tailings are in " closer proximity" to the groundvater but whether 'in. fact they.come'-in contact with it.

Staff witness.

~

Miller testified that, in licensing a mill for which the tailings will be placed below grade, a careful review will be

- l 19: No _ proposed-findings of fact were ^ filed by ECNP or EAO i

with~ respect 1 to radon Lemissions from abandoned underground mines, open' pit. mines,.and - those emissions associated with the recovery..of Luranium.as a.by-product. of -phosphate fertilizer

prod uctio n.

Therefore, Licensees' proposed findings of fact i

,in th'ese areas ~rema' in ' uncontested and should '. be adopted.

t 2-

[_.

. ~ _)

f..

$ I'

'I

.m

.M

~*

k... -

y_

_.'p

f i

t

(:

~

{

made sof' the hydrology:)of1 the; disposal ;areakto' ensure ithat the-Ig l groundwaterf tabi'el does not"riseito :the : level of ~ the. tail-ings.

f..A 1

f:

lTr..325-3 27f.(Miller )f..

~

[

IV--13. j With : respect L to seepage Jfromethe. buried

- tailingsMintoJ thef groundwater :(another contamination mechanism t

F 1

postulated by Intervenors).there was undisputed. testimony' that

[

.radion~uclides ;do not dissolve readily fin groundwater, move very

slowl'y ?in it, 'and[tendito react chemically with the soil and y

q tbecom'e ' fixed to it.

.Tr. 513-517.(Goldman)._ Thus, any effect from. groundwater contamination by-tailings would be - confined' to the ~ immediate vicinity of the tailings and. would. not result in

~-any significant radon releases to the environment.

Id.

-Furthermore, the' migration of dissolved radionuclides from mill tailings.is no'different than the natural migration of these

?

substances fin :the groundwater, for the. ores from which mill.

m b

tailings. result are normally found below the groundwater.' table'..

(Wilde); Tr. 505-507. (Goldman); Miller at p. 41.

Thus, Tr. 358 p.

any radionuclides from mill tailings that' may-find their way into -the groundwater will at' most only increase slightly the L

concentration:. that would have occurred had the ores not been I.

' mined

• and milled,- and may actually. result in less transport.of radionuclides by-the' groundwater than if the. ore had not been mined.

Miller,-at p. 41.

l m

-.y -

_ l i

W

~._.

r7-

,l N.*"

L

..e=

v n,!

a-

_ a,1,.1 n.

ws q

t u-

'. n 1_.

-;V ; EMISSIONS: ASSOCIATED:WITH THE' RECOVERY OF ORANIUM AS'.A'-

• BY-PRODUCT OF.-PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER PRODUCTION s

L'y No Ereply; findings.

See n. 19', 'uora.

s w

Res'pectf ullyL submitted,

- SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS1&_TROWBRIDGE g-

\\.

\\.

M

'/

t./

% {-:

Jayf,E. Silberg Matkas:{. Travieso-Dia: g Couns~el for Me tropolitan Edison Company-

$F 18 0 0 _ M -.. S t r e e t, N.W.

Washington, D.'C.

20036 (202) 331-4100-

- CONNER-& MOORE-C~? vi _/ (,

kkb'

AY-f tJ E

.' Troy 3. / Conner, Jr

-'/~

Robert M.

Rader.

' Counsel for L

Philadelphia: Electric-Company, et al.

and^

Public Service Electric and Ga's Company-4

' Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

. Washing ton, c D.

C.

20006

~

.(202) 833-3500 Dated:: July 13, 1980.

^

- -- 19 --

I

. p.

t I

"e'y w'

i2 Y

T s.

lG.,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I-hereby certify that copies ~of " Licensees'~ Reply to'the

~

- Proposed Fihdings ;of. Fact of T the 'Other Parties," ": Licensees '-'

Reply lto. Filings by.Other Parties on Disposition of Alleged

' Deficiency L No. J 1~, " ' and '" Licensees ' Response to NRC Staff Motion-

~

forJLeaverto-Include Health Effects Findings,". dated July.18',

1980, in.theLcaptioned-matter,-have been served ~by deposit-in

.the United States mail-'this.'18th day of July,.1980, in accordance with - the attached. service : lis t.

W i

P.coert M.

Rader e

+

y

..s S

CocMiG N

- 0t3p.c p

g-jul 2 ogego *

-1:

8C..,,s e. w './i 116:

a '"-

e 0: 2 t1;", c" *.:..

'e' y

g.y-q C01 g\\

' l 4

d-4 1

T

6 b _')

21, I*

..?

' +2 ;.

b-

,.,6-

~---

t..N J 'd 6

, q..'w b.,

~.'" w *.

,y c

pp 4

4 %

t. A.: C ".' ".'.".

w" 'w'.t D w

w

.g9 f.n

.y. W e - - %=

~ ----

a.-

e.

,.g di L J U m_

C@

e --T.

?

m..: r.*h s.n.<-

. c.rt

.*r=

. s.n t ?.. m c n..t'r.

.t

.: ea. ?6 4.. : -*

l J=

w

' * ~

%.s.

.M s

.a.

ea.

..... w

)

=--. : n.:- :- s -- -.e - : c

.)

C-~.

%.1 w -.

.o e--

== / /

C'**^.'=.'a _,.=.~.'a

)

~

• G

'7*'

<3.,.

%=.

C

(*

2. =e46 J

aw e., % 2.= A e.o. /

T*

4.u r.

9 sJ

• \\

\\

Q b.

w J

_ dJ J

.= w

% 6..

.t

- r ~. .~..C. "1

-s.

a

.V J b.s a.1.. r.. ?. s

.s =.= f.

.?..e w J

.s.

-(*%.s 4 g -.

s 2

.C n.a. s

.y gA

.?

e a,. 3.a

.'.y y. 3 9

2. q w

• .3

.p m.

w G.

C..

y..

.*..:.s.3

e.,;

• 3 a

.- (*

- 4_.-J.,

~

j- _

a -a.

yu t

,.~~~., O. c.

.0..=.=

u

% ae.b

• .L e

s V.om b.4.w f

..e J

Oa g ~a 7

? 4.w, g 4.

3.

. -.~

• .t*.'"O 6." 7

= C C ~'.

O c'

- **L.

7. a.:.s.

O.e,.i2a

_ J

.e.J.,

w d

we

• 4 A

..; ~

~~.

y w : -.;.

n.

C.

' O.*..*...

.p 1..

~n.. :.

,: v Cn ~.,

as.

4

. 4 e.. w.= ~ = ;

...;a

.;.. y y 6, -

c e oa..

3: -:

sa

~

2C2 ~4.= -

.?

m=o g.

.c..

p... o 3 a.

. t

.e. ~ea, e

w

• gu :-: -

s

-. g.-

e n..e ::.:

s i

Marshall I.

Miller, Esquire Chairman Atomic ~ Safety and Licensing 3 card U.~S.

Nuclear' Regulatory Commission Washington-D.

C.

20555 W

9

..f.

w"

..O-Q e

g

.M

c..

-Q.**a,g 4J~ 7= e J ces J w

.. ~ -.

g.7, 3 %,.

.s '.~. a..s.s. :, "

J.

o

.J a w.

• -.1

.c. J. t 1 47.

%t.,,. ? 3 L.w

s..

w

-e0a/.4 e'

/3 f

-.Q..

n.. C, t.,.

v w%d

).

S f. ' ).

.s.

g

. 3

)g g3.q q g

.g

• J C. 3

.ww.

N.

3.

. =.

- **u.

d.q

• T,3

--r n

J.

. w"" -,.o.

,J..i...

g a.

• *g.g b 4 g

i t3.3 *.f2. p C

' **2..e b E.e.-=.

O O.*..C. $.

<H

-.: ww

.w y

I-

~

k __ _ " _.

s

. $A.

-L

'~E-

- -~

l.

9 (*% s a

.s J

g d J.~a

,., A = J

,,. 3 t p

-p

_ A-

=;

- =

=...

o.

'e-Ay y -

o o i5

, d: 2 g-

?

- - ~,. +

e.n, e a ef..

.=.a*

1 = a w w. <-

w

~,.

e~

g.

[

j..

w-

.a.a e %' J m,. e. ;

_.* Q.*.2. 2 p-

.sJl

=. 3

.a J

a'

~ -*

.f

."' g,? %s.=

o f.

- ?

J

o..,.

.s ?

-;s3%,

, e l

--~.

=

..k, T.. L. -, 4 ;o,. e.. t.

J

.3..

F9

==.

w.

.V..

t em J.n,.-.

,... c.a.

4 W

l=

.--.s J e.b

. -. 7. a e '.. s J.,

.?,. =. *.* s a

. ;.e u-V C.%

' M...J.'..A..J.,. %. p.

,J o.

b.

.a w T

=. = 6,

4. s *.

J 9

....e..a

.s = =.=..a, e_,3, o

.s.?

i

a -.

t4.

s w

s...a..e a.'

4-s

.T 1 A.

!".' g

- c e.:

N.'

.s i

~w 1

..o e %

.s c.

~.

"Ms. ;s 5 w w.3.

o.

r*..: J.- ( ' :.. J ?,* 4,.

=

w 1.t,

. T.,

A.

7..*..*: p i

. = - s..a *4

w -- p

.V

~ :*

.?.

J, 3

.f a %, -

"Y".. C.. *:*

J

- :.i 3*

.O

., e.f w

w..

.w

.?. i a w -

.o O..o, 4 - -. - :., wJ e.

2,. J

• 4 4

.e..

- a.

J. -

a. 2 3 e w.=. o

- - -, ~

.a

.= w J t.,,:,.

..u :. s.,. :.2, e :

3 J.,

3 :... n Bernard M.

Sordenick, Esquire James M. Cutchin, Esquire f

Counsel for NRC Regulatory Staff Office of the Executive Legal Director U.

S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

~ Washington D.

C.

20555 s

s

.?...

3 n

~.r r.2 * =.,

• f 7..a %,~

.s aJ.

%~

w.

0 5. J i

., A e *

~.L J. s

.?..*..e.,,,. J r

.s

% = ;..

l

'."..'* Y T

.M 3 -_.E. -s.

,C. 8=.= n o.=

9 w

0%J

. A.m..i. g..b J. s O.o--e7,

.3-4s 1..:..* y.t.

p s.%

e G

~7...-

.C.a s

%..d.

e.

r*

\\

w. ;.

Cw!m J 3.A cc 4 e cs, 4==

.~ -

~ ~ - - ~ ~ -.

a.r : J,.o.

%.o 2.:.

w.s.f n.

w..

==. ;. ' =t..,. ' ~a.n J.e.,.;

• d t*

A :: 5 J m

=.

~

n '^.J : ~:.:.

• d.$ :-.-

tf

.g e.

s

. 3.s; A'P

-l'f J*5

$*.. J s

.,6 e

/.== 3 Y

~

. w.e de.

cs.'." d ~.: 4 ~o Ch

• ' -,cCl b :=.. *e..a.

l* 4 e,:s

~~w i

v.

r,,

- e.. i.., 3 J

?

i g Q.1.

2

\\

I N

N

=. -

hw 4

2

, T.2. w w

.T..s m d 4"l. V* n n..= a t

'Ca.3

a. Q.*.* q.. ~ p'

.O o **.* 3 *j'.I.*,' C ~' ~S

.I.

• h h -

.A ww~

J

]

N a

b 4

..N *g-.

.,).

.h.4 ' ' '^'

,[

e g p

.ew

, 3.,

QPJ '

w".9 9 7"P'?.C [ $_. QT '.*. *,f? ".3 19 'g*

i C

~.

s***

.

4.1 bg=.* ? **.;

• r=..

m 4"

..:Y.-

rA.ly.f.

m*

,=,a.g v..c. @-. W t c

b.A I

• lll *:

- ".""' f* "3.T 79**? - 1..e. r* V **b C.<**T".".**."*.?

1 V'".*/

9 7."a.*.***""*.*C.."".**i%. -. 0 7. T* *. ".4 O C.13 h.

/* *

.v.

.w.

4-

=

b.a

.V 3 t.,. a.w C.4. :

w.

)-

. b r.e.s.e v. J.-.

v-.?

.:.e.

)

W C C.v. ~.,

x.i C c.

.u, i - J w= **

c. : C - C' .'..'.'~s ',.. ? ~.'.'. ?.a

)

-a s.

2 0-3*3

)

-(= ~ne co.3 c s

..s.

o, 2

-)

C.

4.

.a.

1 E,.

~$

a.

6 3-. J.c. %.':"

."'.C. *.'9

. 2 4 w.%,

J,

'"'3 e

.C.s

• w n

.?. ~e

.a.

m

-- p y

4,.

.C. g.J..o

. -.A

. ? 4 a.w,.4 c.y y %.3..i 2

a

• CE.J 5 s a.m.i

...w

~U.

.c. e

• *,. g i, a..s

.S.6,,

.i e.-

- J.e S 4,.

.t w..

=y 3

~

4, w4,

.wwp n.-c.

.eg--.e::

J y

.m..

/f.

.S.~e a..,4 Q"*C k q

w.

~.

J.,. - C g.J. a e 7 ' s A.

?4, -

y

.. a n.3.4 %,

1.- yg3i

=,

- C s. J - O s w a.i O

s

.~~

Q.

.C..

.q. e.1 ~a s

..2. as.

• a s. ~..

r*

a 4

a3e

w.

~.. ;

s-

.qee, u a _,.

p a.c.

>c.c..=..=.

i -

n C.e w T.

O. 3 W e -

.s ~.

.a

1. ~ J.- -.C S.J. a j.. g A. ? 4 n. a.w.3.4.

g g,3.,2 A.

O. s a.1. -

i.~.

.t. '. yI e.T. a. 2

-.2. a 9.s.

2

.i S.a..n.

=

% J N

sa a ^

• 4..:.-

N.

aa

.f

/. V w.

..M

~a $.,.,

T.

2 1.T

.~

Q.

3..

.o.

?s.4.

o

~

o.

egb.,

p, n.

.~

G 4.. a

-., g.J. -' v# s i. 4...

m..a.'.s.

v

..s,,.

O.,w S *,. C J

• 4...o

. O. C.C CVwp.

^Q

.?.

1./. J

..? J p

n :

e'*., 1..J 4.

J..s C. '>t.:..T. U b

p w

[m_ n_ E

.)

• a..

E

-Qa 4. gA

?a.E.' e m $.E = c, C

m e

--p.

O Cs, *4. ; O. s w n..T.

g.

.C,-

g.,

1.a..n O. e,

• s = ~.. ;

- (..

. - 4. 3,. J.

s.w

• ,S4

--.n..

b..

hb a

9 a c.=..=,

4V.

y.

..f f,

w

- M G,..T T.,C E.J O.Ec1

- ry y f*

'.e.. *.. 1 P.,.

3 e*

-...a.yJ L., -. J e.gJ.wm 3

-w.-

~n za :.n.:.. ~,

O. c.

4a.t.=..=..

u

. y.

, 8, a

w

.sdrai i

-g i

~-

v - - -

e a

D Tr..,. ~, b.i o

?..

.v J.~.u. a.i. :,

b.

.S.'s. 4

.v C*3Se...

c,o

%..a S

e

.i=

~

~

~7 C g qe++

n -.. a if (_s-a 3 1

..", c c,4. n. %

.- sA

.C e.". e # " =

E"""

• a.

J-y -j

--~~-

". a c.

,, 4 y.,.. s.

V

.J.J o,. J a,. b.o

-rd

-ar 4---.

O.a S i..

o S aJ e.s,

n.4s

~ ~ -

, A. ?

4 a

a..

q.. e t

4.

.e.

-J:

• t.

.t..a..s o,,is...

C..

.w-

.'s r"'.s --. s _1 1 2.. 4..* A 4,

a s.b :

3.

C.

• O.C

,.i

. u.

• -u..,

• % e.i,s,a a o.

.i..C. C 0.1

=

u.,

a-a

.~ --

- ~.,

a.

Cc s e.'. ' ~.~.

N=... =.. = ~~ ~=.=..~- ~.,r a" "- '. '

m e =.4.

o

,e

,.s o

,-.._.4.,..

sue. _- n.e m ~ ~

w--

s.- - -

g.

a.

.q,.

t a o,..., u., - C-- - # a s # ~..

a+es:-,--

, n.

C.

20.::

n 24 a

-: _4 q, u

, e., y r_. :

. uh1-J s,..,_..,._2 a.

, i.

.e. - -.i. c.4. a.

,, i

2., a _t :

.e.s,

- o

.,a; Gea C-e.7

-o o.= =

.v..e. la.a

.(". 5r )-

.evarkr g

..ew versev.

a i-.:.

.e,

.v. v.

v. 4

..a, v-a.

- e...

.. o,,

. e -:

~, e

,,. = y. C,tv V L, e,,

.= s, a

. 4

.e u a_.2 u,

-4

-,4..

ewe t-N n.w. A.

=.,

• T4,

.} u o' '.'..C.

C 3

- u s,7 ac, A

.M *.*

l' a~r 5 Cs,*...A- -.2

.a g

u.

u

=C3.,. 0 a,

c ewe.,. 3.,

,.ew..e sev.

Oc0c,0 a

.. w

.w a.

2.

2,.

u.e

..es a_ _.:.

r -,

a

.v a w :. a u, a...- -

=

nu

- 2.

,-e s.4.

a. 2. -

e 2,.

.,.ss

- a..

c, c.:,.

.-a.

,.u..

-a0 v,s-cu,-a eu-en-

"..a-,

N.ew u~a se" 0 # '.:.

>q.:

=,

a

.:, a-

...~p O8

.u, -_.v. e - - - m a u eu o at Sa':.-r.,

' Jew Jersey 03079 n.

a., 3 vo,.

u.

et. : ~ a, U.1.

C c r e -

-N. a --

3..=..',

c. :- 'n e a~-

sdC..

a y.,

t., a,.

. O _Y-(

9* T

,[

cu 9-.-

T

. u m. O.%.,

~

.D.

V"C.b 9

7..

7. 3-3 s.N 3 C'9 - N., C

%. - %.3 e s.,,.

b M

m A,v

,.,. a.

.p v

w

?

b.*ef4 */,

h.

.$. 0.$. 7., $.

4.J,. --- u - p k.--

m n-e: