ML20126M317

Forwards Analysis of Specific Points Revised in Amc & Kerr- Mcgee Briefs in Mill Tailings Case

ML20126M317
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/24/1981
From:	Miller H NRC
To:	Eilperin S, Trubatch S NRC
Shared Package
ML20126M127	List: ML20126M124 ML20126M210 ML20126M280 ML20126M317 ML20126M337 ML20126M362 ML20126M396 ML20126M416 ML20126M465 ML20126M476 ML20126M556 ML20126M566 ML20126M572 ML20126M586
References
FOIA-84-709 NUDOCS 8506200292
Download: ML20126M317 (37)

Text

F-,,

3,u a.._ .,

J

s. ., .

AUS 2 4 jg3; CTE TO: 5. eve Eiiperin Sheldon Trubatch FROM: Hubert J. Miller S'JEJECT: ANALYSES OF AMC Ah'D KERR-McGEE ERIEFS Attached as premised is the analysis of specific points revised in the industry briefs in the mill tailings case as it stancs as cf tocay. There are several parts. First, some general points are made concerning arguments in the jndustry brief s. The detailed comments on all of :ne specific arguments made by industry are presented.

j) -

Hubgr: J . Mill er Attachments: As stated a

ee 8506200292 850300 PDR FOIA PDR BERICK84-709

~ ~ '

. PERIOD OF CONCERN - '

• a,.* .

.jj)j

• 4 y Perhaps the most fundamental issue in this case relates to tne period of

. $, i - ,

)q; concern--the industry wants to take a short term, expedgious view of the probl em. The Congress viewed it otherwise Jn _UMTRC17."

• 43

, 4 Mill tailings will remain hazardous for many thousands of years. (Thorium 2h has a half-life of 80,000 years.) Congress d1early recognized the longevity 2

. ,. of'the hazards in passing Ur4TRCA and in establishing the directions it wanted taken in disposai of mill tailings waste.

". i' 5

in passing USTRCA, the Congress found tha: the potential;and significant health hazards posed by tailings "reevire that every reascnable effort be made o.. provide for the stabilization, oisposal and control..." of "...such tailings in order to prevent or minimize radon dif fusion into the environ-

j. .:,

'*a .

ment and to prevent or minimize other environmental hazarcs from such

$d! tailines."'

Concress also made it clear that solutions to tailings problems

_'i "

must be permanent, given the longevity of the hazarcs involved. UMTRCA calls for eliminating, to the extent practicable, the need for long term maintenance and monitoring of tailings disposal areas.

l'RC regulations are based upon the need for very long term containment.

Thick earthen covers, protected from erosion to assure there is littie need for onceing care.of the oisposal sites, are prescribed.

'P.L.95-604, UMTRCA, Findings and Purposes, Sec. 2(a). In Committee Report House of Representatives Report 95-1480, .: art 2) on P.L.95-604, the view

• that tailings oisposal must be cene in a .eny that will s ay put was clearly expressed: "The ' Committee does no; want to visit :..is ;-cblem again with additional aid. The remecial action must be done ri;h ;he first time."

D

~

. . . g v,, , .,

Viewed as a shorter term problem, less control than prescribed by the -

regulations is appropriate.

But this would t--4e fly in the f ace of reality and.the mandate of Congress.

s

.c RISK AND COET-EENEFIT EVALUATION The Industry alleges essentially that the regulation is not a health based standard -- that NRC made no finding that there was a significant risk with mili tailings which reovires regulation.

Tney allege the risks to individuals frca tailines are, in fact, insignificant when compared with other risks commonly faced.

Furtnemore, they allege that there is no relationship bet 'een:- the ecsts and benefits of the recuired ' levels of control.

The following points arImade in rebuttal:

/

$, 1.

"Not a risk based reculation" The staff performed an extremely careful and complete evaluation of .the .

potential health risks posed by tailings (

6.2.8, 6.3.8, 9. 2.8, 9. 3.8, g .4, 12.3, App. G):

This included evaluation of:

risks to individuais living near mills risks to populations (in the k'estern mining / milling regions and beyond This was done to conform to the long-standing principles of radiation protection as espoused by the interr.ational and national radiation protection bodies (ICRP and NCR?) that:

risks to individuals must be kept within acceptable levels

( ithin appropriate limits) all exposures (cumulative heaith effects and risks to populations) srai'. be recuced to as low as reasonab'f achievaole

f/ ,

~ - .

3 ,

lh *

, " 'y

, h) v.t ~ If the allegation were true--that this is not a health based regulation--th JE!f Ti supporting technical basis would be empty of such extensive health risk y.. evaluations. The contrary is of course true. '

. i

,-'!?i i.~ -

On the basis of its evaluation of potential' health impacts, it was conclude that "certain actions should be taken to ensure public health and ...

safety

.c ' l ( p. 12-1 ) .

t That is, a finding was made that there.is a sienificant risk

.- posed by taiiings.

The question then became "what level of tailings containmt and risk recuttien is appropriate?"

To .do this, a fuii range of control measures were evaluated, ranging from virtually no control to essentially complete control of emissions (radon is the princi;al poten-ial contributor to ris ) ( 12. 3. 4, 9. 3. @y 11. 3 ) .

..kh ._

2.

'"?otential Health Eisks are Insienificant"

. J

.,~..

oc l'.,

.. Potential pathways of exposures are described in 6.2.S.2.2 (see also 3.2 of Summa ry ) .

They include generally:

direct exposure to radiation in air and on ground inhalation of radiation in lungs ingestion of contaminated' foodstuffs Radon is an inert mobile cas and (along with its daughter products) is, I

. the greatest potential contributor to exposures.

i

. - i

f. . , ' ,

, ' 4 If tailings are used in construction of structures, exposures to occup i/[ can be excessive.

Such exposures are indicated by estimates presented in 9.3.8 (Table 9.11). A structure constructed on tailings (it would not

..i '

have to be a tailings pile) results in predicted exposures of 0.5 WL.

This exposure level is much higher than levels which have been establis as acceptable levels of risk in other cases:

Surgeon General for Grand Junction Cleanup 0.01 WL - 0.05 WLI *I ljs epa Florida Phosphate Guidance I 0.005 WL ") - 0.02 WL(

10 CFR 20 0.033 WL(*)

ta) I' cove acr.groenc . ,

(b) inciusive cf backgreund b"tl'k

. .,G. .

~ 'li j This calculated level is comparab'le to actual measured levels in structur contaminated with tailings.

One such strutture was recently measured .to have levels cf about 0.7 WL, which is 20 times higher than existing allowa exposure leveis (10' CFR 20).

The industry inappropriately focuses on risks to averag'e individuals in the population at large far from the tailings pile, as opposed to maxim exposed individuals in trying to show risks are insignificant (e.g., Kerr-McGee pp. 6-8).

This is not consistent with basic radiation protection principles stated above (protect most exposed individual).

e=

c -- -

• 7.- >

in:9\ : .

[,)f.[ . Kerr-KcGee compares risks to average individuals with the annualized risk

'M t

'l.20i.

of one in 1,000,000 that NRC used in NUREG-0586, the draft GEIS on

, . , . Decommi ssioni ng (see Kerr-McGee, p. 8, 'F.5i.1 ) .

4;7,.; pa K rr-McGee does not say in

.~;

9: .r.4 their brief that in NUREG-0586 this level is cited as an appropriate upper

, ('f'

..W.!  ; limit of risk acceptability for the most exo' o sed individuals--p-t:iQg i d iadi.: M a' y S :ttn::. . ' r- ? : :22. -In fact, the annualized risks associated with exposure levels in structures on tailings, as cited above

-e

+E ~.

(0.5 WL to 0.7 WL), are about one in 200 chances of premature cancer deaths.

~

This is much hicher than the acceptable risk levels cited in NUREG-0586.

1 (Risk estimates given here are made usinc estimators presented in App.G-7.)

4*

A.ise, large numbers of pt; mature cancer deaths would occur from the releases

[j"{jj

j. of raden that will continue to occur from the tailings fer many thousands of

v-if pQg yea rs .

.xm Qf(f -

Clearly, tailings are hazardous. They pose a significant risk.

=

ICRP 26 refers to annualized risks in rance of 10-5 to 10 -6 a,s being an upper limit of acceptability. Wilsen ( AMC, p. 22, F.N. 42 and Kerr-McGee, e

p. 7) cites 10 " as an appropriate upper limit in an occu:ational '

expcsure settine.

~

r

.. s .

2.

• ac 3 - "There is no relatienshi

.a, between ces:s and benefits cf the

r::esed raden cen:r:1 levels" 7 ;,

In devel ;ing the reculati ns, the c:s:s anc benefits of a full range :f L ',

rat:n cenir:1 levels were considered. As n :ec abOve, these were evalta ed in terms of len;-standing radiatien prete::icn prin:iples (ICEP , NCRF, NRC in sf-

.. ... .r).

.s .. r. c. . .

( S e e .:,,14 . : . , . .i p. ,i2 ..se, G.: 5.)

D'

.r .. ..-..,.......~.., .w.

m. ....s..,., j

...... .. . . e. e.e . . ..e3

... . " s i a.,- UF. i .'..' ' wa s

1. . .^ 11 t wa

The rati:nale supp:rtin; the ste:ifi:

y 1imi:s in the re;uittica {2 p*i and 2:)

is ;re.sented in 12.3.I.

Sun: aries are f::nc in 3 5.2.2 and ! Of the su::a y.

The felicain; additienal a

~ -

. - nf:rca:icn is prescated c:ncerninc the ;;in s = ace

,y in these GEIS se::icns anc the industry briefs.

,~

-w.

1 . a. ..

a nile the stri: ,iy numerica,

A

_ _w

^ ' cost-e:..:e::1veness analysis ceveic;ed in the GEIS was not utilized as the sole basis for establishirg the erical .

num recuirecents in the regs, it seppe- s the .

If :ne ces:-effe: iveness alan:e p int recc== ended by incustry in cc=menting on the GEIS' is ,

Table 12.5 (attached) sh:ss the prescribed level ::

be reas nable and appropriate. This is the case if the inevitable degradatien of tailings

< :cver perfer:cnce that will

ur is acccunted for and if health effe :s I

ever enly cne thousand to several thcusand of the =any thousands of 525 X :: 5500K per health effect aver:e:.

( AMC cc= ents en craft GEIS.

i Ais:, ses p. 55, A'C brief. ' Wilsen re:::: ends using 51000K per health

=.::e

.. ... .,y=...ew. .s -

~ . .

.. ' .-j a.. s. ,

.' hU'  ; ' .' '

' the tailings will be hazardous are considered More specifically, this is

' Ef:

~

based on the estimate that when tailings arg covered, _.. 2 m -sec '

to a M . level (this level is to be achieved on the calculated bas f9 _

rescribed IN 5

, in Criterion 6), vegetation and other.me~chanisms would evels lea

} .s which are really about 10 pCi/m2 ' set on average,<er?r-.o:

} .a.yJ1o.'L 5<t*' L*f' -) r*

• M <- -

e v.. ...m.

.i- *

• y s'

f Q: w . ., .

..(..c w r .

The estimate of health effects used in generating the cost-e veness c

I information in Table 12.5 is based upon the assumption that th re will be no decradation in cover performance over the very long term .

[ NOTE: .

Industry micht try to rebut this with reference to Cohe ns ci dra f t 'GEIS ( AM:

n co3ments) that health effects should be disc

.. ii,

-., account fer the real growth of invested funds that could be app 3 other,s risk aversion in the future.

.1 j In response to this, however, it q'^ '

should be noted that the increase in value of o be more a function of real productivity and economic growth tha n with inflation.

(See Vern Rogers' paper en this, attached.)

y( There fore, discountingcfhealtheffectsif, inappropriate.)

In no way can the industry say we did anything but perform us, a

careful and comprehensive study of cost and benefits of vario of control.

. 8

.- 8

.. t. The following tabulates risks to nearby individuals at the

~

2 pCi/m -sec level and makes comparisons with various established limits (taken from Table 12.2 and App. G-7 risk estimation):

V.

exposure Risk' On pile 0.004 4 x 10-5 At fencepost 0.0001 10-6

• Averace annualized risk level It can be seen that these risk levels are higher then. X are comparable j:c.. to'S - IC O

~

q.

to, those cited above-as beine acceptable (p Also, these are based upon the assumption that there is no degradation of cover over time. The risks would increase as piles degrade.

c. Industry claims that the selection of radon flux and tailings cover Y'

recuirements was arbitrary because of the statements in $12.3.4 (p.'12-12) y' re. "the guiding principl e. . ." Clearly implicit from the extensive evaluations of healtn impacts to individuals and populations is that the goti was to reduce potential health risks to near those which would exist X naturally from radon releases. As evidenced by analyses in312.3.4, over the long term, serious potential health risks are posed. The use of natural variability in. radon flux rates to select a final radon flux limit was the least arbitrary way of pickinc a -numerical limit from among a r. arrow range of cicsely lying alter.ative numbers, viz.1 to 5 pCi/m 2-sec.

(See other discussicn on cost benefit.)

s

n_ e w ~

a.y,\

- ~~

s? .,. luj

., y/.,c c-r[s. s..

, y

.e. n ; s

' The industry claims that barring of. ongoing active maintenance as a recuir

,.y.,y.

l element of an acceptable tailings and mar.agement program is based myl.y C'-

the theory that the government will fail. *

.R It canno,t be denied that continuity

,,},.;.

~h. . .. ,% of government and institutional controls over the many thousands of years

.9 .

that the tailings will remain hazardous, is uncertain at best. More important M: -han this, however, is that continued effectiveness of such controls are m, , u'nce rtain.

It is not acce'ptable to beousath to future cenerations a virtually

-f endless commitnent to costly care of tailings piles.

The only experience of government controi of tailings sites has been very poor.

In the relatively short time since the Monticello pile has been covergV anc fenced by -the government, there has been degradation of the pile

>c coverf, evidence cf breakdown in fence controis (animais have apparently f;y gotten onto the site and des .royed vegetation).

m

=>

.; q "

a ,.:,. ,;

We do not have to argue failure of the government (i.e., buck the Cons:itution and A. Lincoln, pp. 51,32) to see the wisdem and necessity of avoiding

.c situations receiring ongen(g active care and maintenance.

a .

Moreover, the avoidance of ongoing active care is wholly consistent with the mandate of 'JMTRCA.

Tne industry has taken an unrealistic and expedinet short-tem view of the

, mill tailings problems. .

9

.n

_ ~

~~ .

9

._. COST ESTl!%TES -

/

Tne extensive steps taken in evaluating ccsts should ckcf be made j e brief.

A~ strong impression can be made on the Ccurt by reviewing what y was done as clearly laid out in the GEIS (App. X, Chapter

'N 11 , 3 12.3.4). The staff

/ carefully identified all those factors which could vary and aff -

and it considered these in its cost-benefit evaluations. These variable factors inciuded, for example:

- volumes, areas, thicknesses cf tailings piles

- size of mills

- cre grades processed "I~coisture, percsity,and cther prcperties of earthern erial s mat used in covering piles 3f 3

y/q - earn rates, equipments rates, material costs and availability llj Y

( App. K, Chapter 11, Chapter 12, see esp. ,

312345. . . , Yariability in Costs of Radon Control; very specific cites can be given tos.)sections ,

In developing cost estimatep, the staff consideredvbasic ng and earthmo construction cost data applicable to the mining and milling regions

, as well as obtained quotes from vendors and suppliers.

Virtualiy all cost estimates were reevaluated by an independent contracter in goin final GEIS.

g from the draft to the From th.is extensive review, the bases for cost estimates considered to be sound.

Der cost estimates have been shown to be consistent re ywith tho

. ill operators in numerous actual licenstr.:

cases (i.e., unit cost estimates are essentially the same).

b .

- - ~

10 AMC BRIEF 4 (.'

p, :.( ' ' '

Qi ' Detailed Analysis and Response to Industry Allecations

1. po.

. E'- It is stated that UMTRCA rectireT tTiiiland .

There is no mention of the "unless it can ..." be determin which 4}.

emphasizes Congress' ultimate goal that minimal contro .

2.

' pgs. 8, 9 - It is. stated that the " risks from uncontrolled uranium miil tailings are comparable to such commcnly undertaken

^

as smoking one cicarette in a lifetime or driving one time a year o the corner drug store."

Respense - Such arcuments are invalid, since if tailines re piles Chcor. rolled, tney.wG.1 release raden essentially forever The risks compared with smoking one cicarette, etc. are only those wh from one year's release of radon.

j Therefore, the industry is comparing apples and oranges.

3.

pg. 9 - footnote 21 - It is stated that "No scientific studies have been performed which measure healt'h effects at lowwhich doses to the general population is exposed.

KRC concedes that linear dose response calculations are "not intended to predict actualects health e but rather to give a basis for settir.; conservative exposure ards."

sta NRC's Uranium Fuel Cycle Study at A-7.

Linear extrapolations generally yield conservative results (2 FGEIS, Appdx. A at 34), and "

o o ogic data currently available would not rule out a value of zero e risk for th from incremental additional exposure cf the very 10w lev

~

or the general .oublic from uranium milli g operations ...

" (2 FGEIS, Appdx. A at 32). "

~ *

- ~

. ~ .

11 Response - See response to questions 10 and 11 from the Stratton

. Subcommi ttee.

(Ed Branagan may provide additional information on this specific issue.)

4.

a pg.10 - footnote 23 - Industry refers to NRC " refusal" to extend cobment period and subseouent addition of scientific documents into the record.

(Letter referred to was not from Daniel Martin but from John Martin.)

Response - Refer to H. Miller affidavit on 19 documents and reasser the basis fer the regulations is contained in the GEIS. Moreover, the industry statement suggests that we withheld documents; we did not .

WRC ex ended the period ty public temment on the GEIS which contained veroatum 7 the technical and financial criteria contained in the rules. The total

r period of public comment en the substantive parts of the rule and their j

.A detailed technical basis was ____, days.

5.

pg.10 a .d footnotes 24 and 25 - Industry discussion of tremendous .

volume of qomments submitted.

Response - We should reiterate that til comments were carefully con in finalizing the GEIS and the regulations. '

These'ccaments and staff response to them are documented in Appendix A.

Changes were made where it' was considered appropriate in respense to comments.

In fact, on the specific issues raised here--risk estimates--NP.C revised some aspects of its risk estimation procedures as a result of industry comments. It also updated . power projections in res;cnse to industry comments. More complete list of comments resulting it. changes can be given.

._ ~

., ~ ~ .

12

,, 6.

pg.10 - It is asserted that the risk from uranium milling and disposal is a tiny fraction of the risk fror background radiation .

[

Response - Although the risk to the individual in the population rge a

,u7s m

~'

s.

(i.e., far frcin the mill) may be a fraction of the risk from und back h radiation, risk to nearby individu'ais.

can be very high and cumulative R

'N population risks can 'be very large. These are avoidable risks.

\ X ed The level

~h of risk reduction stipulatM in the regulations was determined based g

upon the long-standing principles of radiation protection espoused b s

t international and national radiation prctection~ organizations such ICRP and NCRP:

(a) that exposures to nearby individuals be within h

Etteptable limits, and (Lt) that all expcsures be reduced to as low as reasonably achievable.

This involved consideration of a full range

' of cost and public health perspectives for varying ceprees of control 1 as documented in the GEIS.

(See Section 12.3 of the GEIS; see also the general ciscussion above.)

/

'7 .

pg.11 and footnote 26 - Industry asserts that " compared to risks faced by people in their everyday lives, the risk from uranium m small."

Response - Refer to responses to #2 and #5 above.

Further, such risks are avoidable.

/8.

pg.11 and footnote 27 - AMC claims NRC sericesly ur.derestimated co

\

and neglected to include many significant and obvicus costs (e.g., NRC assumed cover material would be available free of charge).

~

. .s

' ~ .

13 o '

..t..

Response - In determining the cost of cover material

, the NRC included

'l

s. the GEIS the cost of excavating, hauling on site ,

depositing, spreading.

.g, compacting, and the resurfacing with previously stripp ,

in

- ,.e:

$] addition, the costs of revegetation of the cover material s

/ rce area 7 were considered. The FGtIS doefot include a n ng thecosts cover

~x material because the majority of the uranium mills non-acreement states are located in areas of strip mining rations or

.on existing large tracts of land where earth cove availatie (see 9.2.8.4 cf FGEIS).

P U

The footnote sounds as if the majcr cost of. obtaining earth n materials for coverine tailings,is. related tc "canership" of the bor row material itself and that we grossly underestimated costs by assum

is "f ree" . aterial

,[?} As noted above, in most cases vast tracts of lands a 5.y

~

controlled by the operators. ~

In any case, in the wide-open western milling regions, costs for the earth itself are negligible pared to com costs cited above. [NrAE:

In cases of strip mining, the volumes of ear beine handled are many times greater than that required fo r covering the tailines piles and, with plans that coordinate mining ,

activities with tailings disposal, the unit costs are likely to be lo 1RC. wer than assumed by Cite NUREGs_ in record w.r.t. stripping rdtios--overbu cre.) .

._ , -. y_. ,Q,. - , . - -

~

.. *: 9. \

.':p ..

..- e .

J AMC commented that NRC's regulations are premat

,e1 .. ure (being issued prior

. EPA standards).

ga. y Act

[Q 10. page(c% t. ~ <A h Wnd: r).5 a

N ;'

11 - AMC claims substant'ial .cha-nfes'may be req later EPA Standards. red as a result of

~,pa NRC cannot know what the final be.

s will E Industry r.osts resulting from' changes could be s b

'. [fI u stantial.

~~?

17 Response - Again, refer to Motion for Stay repo n; ,, - Inactive Site Standards tre essentially the same ans

.y

.I raden control, and note that majority of costs wilis NR not be incurred for existing cperations until the M cf mill c~1osu're .

(This latter point is certainly true at existing mills.)

?**.

i,?

Ji. Industry on page 12 -9he FGEIS containe .g.,

i a new Appendix U presenting a limited cost-effectiven B ess analysis,

.} risk estimates were . lower by apprcxima ely a fa t c er of two, and 4 cost estimates were raised).

Response - As indicated in f5 above, changes we re made in going from draft to final in response to comments where y appre,riate.

The cost-benefit ciscussion contair.ed inwas 3 expanded 2.3 ofupon the DG 1

and a new Appendix U was added to the FGEIS.

As exp'.ained on page A-12, estimates of uranium demand and procuction were revise and lowered --

total risk estimates are reduced proportionat e y. l As indicated on page 40 of the FGEIS Summary and page K-10 in fir.alizing the GEIS. , cost estimates were reviewed They increased by an amount which in larg measure can be attributed to the inflation which occurred subsequent to issuance of the DGE15.

(Petroleum-based operations and materials increased by large amounts, as much as 100% in some cases).

f 6

=

_ w ..

15 Report 'what 'is in ~GEIS on inapplicability /inappro priateness of numerical

cost-benefit for the long-term tailings waste problem. disposal NRC approach was-least arbitrary.

12. page 12 - AMC asserts NRC refused to address the

. / risk. uestion of significant

, '7 NRC adopted a policy assump3 ion to return a

dispos l sites to its perception of conditions.. .of.. surrcunding lands Response - See general comment above.

l 13a. page 14 - footnote 31 - AMC notes that NRC ackno l d

/ w e ges that at the

\/ we picocurie level the soil used to cover.they tailings contribute ma

.atag-25).

" substantial fraction" of. the total IS surf i

Response - It should be further noted

, however, as also indicated on pg. 9-26, that, as delineated clearly in Criterion , in the 6

calculation of the thickness of cover required r ution the cont ib from the cover itself to the surfice radon s ignored -flux i (i.e.,

the soil contribution is considered ground to exhalation).

be back ,

13b. In footnote 31 - AKC also states that at the rad on limit established i

by the regulations, radon releases will " result i n minute (if r.ot insignificant)" . levels of risk beyond those oc curring naturally (1 FGEIS at 12-15).

Reduction of radon flux to a few2 pCi/m /sec as required by the regulations wocid reduce the contributio tailings to about 0.00002 n of mill of the dose (exposure) t o the U.S. population (1978) from natural soil surfaces and vegetati (1 FGEIS,a t 12-15). on (.evapotranspiration) 4 t

~

s': , 16 '

-s

was clarified by stating that steps be taken te th -

\

l e maximum extent i

practicable, "the major objective beine to assure that cu \

[ rrent or p:tenti d groundwater uses are preserved." d'h ~## ' '

./. ,j ( ,g: ,; b. v :1A. n's IM -t C^. s; ; e , b *.< dD .[

I '

). !:. <, . V ,

. ..) i a v.s.: -

J  :

l

. \

~~

. 17 l The changes referred to in Criterion 1 were ma(e i f- .

n response to comments

'I Y recuesting clarification of how the reovirements e appli d to existing a facilities (e.c. , see comment f47 - NRDC) . /Je

. E re' t: r: t' c r

,s..

34 cd .,,,, ,,,,

s t not-bs- pmtic e oi e7m u ; ng m ;,

15. page 15 - AM:

asserts NRC failed to make a finding of significa s.

Response - See ceneral comments above.

i

16. page 16 - AMC states that NRC failed to balance th e benefits of risk R

recuction against the cos s of complying with

. the reg l u ations.

fesponse - NR; carefully weighed costs anc ben s cf contrcl includin; II strict numerical effectiveness nalysi s.

a 2 Cost-

'J effectiveness considerations are described n in Appendi i able 12-5 l

of the FGEIS presents a summary of muchon.of this informa However, the staff did not rely solely on the cost b

- enefit analysis (although it supports the requirements in the manner described in the ,

general comment above) because .it breaks down for the tailings managem long-term uncertainty. problem due to

17. page 15 - AMC claims NRC regulations were premat to EFA standards).

ure (being issued prior Response - See fg above.

A

~ .- _

. . 18

& :3 , .

Jf '

' da ~18. page 18 -. AMC claims that NRC has statutoryromote obligation the R;

development and use of atomic energy.

2? _;#

~"

.Wi Response - This was one of the functions of the Atomic . s orE ,

e..,

However, this responsibility was transferred to ERDA (DOE) nerg3 Iik:.f

' Wi' Reorganization Act of 1974.

At th'at time, Congress recognized that promotional and regulatory functions were competing objectives w

~ !a .!S housed under cne roof.

,; /

/ 19. page 15 - Radon released from tailings is insignificant c

\[ released from natural soils or c:her sources such as farm a

their fields.

V-e Response - Regar, ding significance of risks, the GEISss esta are significant if uncontrolled. See general comment.

$a. . -s

20. page 19 - AMC presents risk estimates for members ofcthe and claims tha h se n*sks are exceedingly small in comparison with nsks from background radiation.

' Response - See response to cuestion 46 from the Stratton C

' general comment above.

Population impacts from radon release from milling, when added uo over the long periods of time during wh  !

tailings will remain hazardous, are very large (over 1000 years

- 6000 i

- i

- deaths will o'ccur).

Risks to persons -living near a tailings impoundment are significantly higher (over 100 times the "one in a million" b i for acceptable risk frequently cited by the industry for cases su that descr,ibed in general comments).

Note also that persons living "relatively.close to a mill" are far from the maximum exposed s.

.~, -

e ,, _~ , _ , . - . -

- .e

'. 19

21. page 20 - fooh. note 38 - AMO asserts that NRC based t

/ unrealistic scenario of a person living on top of the tailings

/

les.

They claim this can't happen in view of UV.TRCA government requi rements.

Response - See insert to Simpson hearine page 97 (attacned). These scenarios were not the basis for setting the limits; however, given the uncertainty concerning effectiveness of tailings containment e.nd institutional controls over the long term, it is not an unrealistic case to consider.

Also, it is in fact more unreasonable to avoid evaluating in rusier.

</ scenaries in evaluating long-term waste canagement r ems p obl

[ -tnt [n to consider such scenari.cs. It is a well established principle of waste mar.agement tr'It intrusion and its effects should be considered.

/22. page 20 - AMC states that radon concentration generally becomes

/

indistinguishable from background levels at distances of a few miles fro tailings piles.

Response - Refer to response to question f27 from the Stratton Coraitte (attached).

Just because you cannot measure it does e not mean that it is not there. It does not vanish.

23. pages 20 AMC asserts NRC failed to find significant risk and thus relied on policy asst.mption to return sites to conditions like background.

Response - See general discussion above.

k

. 20 '

skr.

7 ..;s... .,

24. pages 22 AM

.A

, .'Ib asserts that NRC arbitrarily refused to consider r,{q:

1, comparative risk data presented in-comments one DGEIS f5 . - . - ~ -

- tj _ -- same

• N w time NRC used such data in a Draft Occupational ory Guide and Regulat

,ao 4%# Table S-3 narrative.

%"- 0' Bi .

Y*5 Response - The staff was careful to consider a wide ran e of perspectives -

in determining ~what is appropriate control, inclu releases with other radon releases ( 12.3.4, Table .

e 5 of 12 3; T Sum:.sa ry ) .

Again, industry inappropriately looks at average .

s s. riAlso, k

they look at releases from mills fer only one year n adi health effects, gnore cumulative a u*.-

est 25. pages 25 AMC fsserts that NRC rejected reasonab ern.ative

P;

,j control measures because they did not achieve policy object

)(* . Most

-e risk recuttion achieved in going from 280-100 2 G6_.11C 7 D R a_ -

7 small. pCi/m-secgi'viry '

}-

IC Response - This " incremental reduction" results r in ave ti x62.m ng approximately 2000 deaths over a period of 1000 years.

y( Impact of the risk reduction to nearby individuals woul'd hardly be small tSdet j ,See general comments.

l

! j26. page 26 and focinote 53 - AMC asserts NRC mu

. T s

incremental control levels to determine point of diminishi ng returns.

Response - As indicated in !)6 above, NRC did perform an i ncremental cost-effectiveness analysis, but for reasons statedupon diditnot r solely, altho;Jgh it does tend to suppCrt limits established (See

)(" gi2.3.4.6 of the FGEIS.)

See general ccamer.ts.

w I ^

~ li

. - ~

.27. page 27 - footnota 53 - AMC states that WP.C " refused to undertake such an '

N, analysis" (cost-effectiveness analysis). This is factually wrong; see genera,1 comments.

28. page 28 - AMC asserts NRC was directed by Congress to pursue the goal of prcmoting atomic energy.

hiesponse - See f18 above.

29. page 29 - AMC asserts Congress was concerned about costs and wanted NRC to censider what was reasonable, particularly with respect to

' existing sites.

Response - NRC did consider costs; in fact, it performed a detailed c5st analysis.

Econogic impacts on existing sites were specifically co nsi ce red.

liote fEexibility in application cf most criteria to existing g ' facilities. See specifically 312.4 and statement of considerations.

i-

36. page 31 and footnote 59 - AMC references several statutes and tour.t

/

rulings related to the requirement for cost-ber.efit analysis as the i

basis for regulation.

NOTE:

We should try to play up the point made in their references that NEPA clearly does not require a fully monetized consideration of costs and benefits always be done. Further, this Ccurt has upheld EPA's use of cost-effectiveness analysis in setting "best practicable technology" emission standards. While not raquiring a fully monetized cest-benefit analysis, the Court noted that EPA had made a serious, careful, and comprehensive study of the costs which compliance with the regulations will impose en the industry. iiRC dic just this, thus we shcuid receive a sicila'r ruling from the court.

., 22. . -

31 . -

i, .. .

page 32 - AMC asserts that the statutory authority requires NRC to c' promote two goals, one being the promotiony. of atomic

% Response - see fl8 above.

., s _

q i 32. page 33 - footnote 62 - I.MC cites various policy stat

, ements and conclusions that cost-benefit balancing is extremely usef 4

n reguiatory decisionmaking.

Response - NRC does not' debate the appropriateness or u

' sefulness of

// cost-benefit balancing in decisionmaking on r::any issues .

NRC performed a cost-benefit analysis in the precess of deve' loping re gel ations. ngs the m

,7 As indicated in il5, this included a strictly nume r cal i cost-effectiveness analysis of various control levels KRC did not rely j solely on this Tumerical analysis (although itr tends the to i

~'

recuirements) because it breaks down for the .

tailings ca ement problem due to long-term uncertainties involved.

(See general comments.)

33 page 33 - AMC asserts that in Benzene the C0urt fo und the linear non-threshold theory to be invalid when used asy the basis primar for regulation.

Based on this they argue that it therefore is inva when applied to mill tailings.

Response - This argument makes little sense.

Simply because a method of

~

analysis is considered to be invalid with recard to one ty azard or-3 hazardous material by one court does not mean not be that it m entirely appropriate for another type of hazard.

In fact, the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion considers the linear -

o non thres theery to*be appropriate for esticating the health effects from radon associated with mill tailings.

(See response to item 3.)

e -

i

-,..- . 23

.. c @ ,

34.' page 35 - footnote 66 - AMC states that WRC chose g th

.:k/I .c .

level of radon emanation because this level would -

fnitural background exhalation rates.

/ However, they claim that the 1 chosen actually reflects an average and NRC has effectively a L

the variability in nature.

The range can be es much as ten times gr

.: than the average; thus NRC requires that the radon emanation rate returned to an average of all soils.

Response - First, the reference is clearly a health-based standard.

gensral comments.)

Second, it is factually incorrect to say we consi the average of background rather than a range.

t-

~

25.  ; age 35 - footnote 67 - AMC asserts that NRC shculd have pres

/

f

~ y]) -

".ed*

?' =

,e l/ .cests for regulations in terms of the percentage price of yellowcake.

Respense - Table 4 is misread.

s.f Groundwater controls are included in l'

tailings disposal cost estimates, wnich are virtually 100% of regu ces s.

A rigorous statistical analysis was perfcrmed (summarized in A;p. 0) which looked at the statistical rance. <

This was done at leas part in response to AMC comments.

' 36. page 35 - footnote 67 - AN:

/ asserts that based upon NRC's "small fract

/

theory, resulting costs to the electricity consuming public would be a

\/

least 5100,000,000 per year.

Response - Tom Fleming is providing.

m. -

24 5[

37I$ page 35 - AMC claims kRC rejectedt cost-in analysis. ata because of uncerta They say uncertainty is base.d on our unreaso eness.

Response - This statement by industryng.is baffli 3(' The uncertainties NRC is referring to in the GEIS ;as stated in g12 3

^ which will exist over the very long periods of time remain hazardous ~. at tailings will This statement is a sig~ n. of unreasonablenes on the other side--burying their head in the sand about g term.

the lon 37b. p.35/p.35, F.W. Sl - NRL, could have chosen an i j

i The ntegration period.

'laim EPA has propcsed a 1000-year integration peri .

0 7,e:

Tb EPA did njgt say that 1000 years was the period of concern.

sed standard reads for at least 1000 years.

37c. -

"WRC recognizes that consideration cf health effects

>-year integration period is useless because not it did present integrated health effects for periods beyond 0 years e vast uncertainties beyond Inis . time." ,

Res;

,e - AK; puts words in our mouth.

It is not the same to say "that uncertainty beyond 1000 years is large and u makes ro ti n a.

health effects beyond this time inappropriate" calculation of

. and "beyond 1000 years '

health effects are so uncertain as to be not app ropriate to consider."

The industry offers absolutely no convincing re 1000 years. asons for considering only 9/ Itv has no relationship at all with actual hazards

/

Other commentersar/guedforlongerperiods.

D

' c 3% -

.. y _

W page 36 - AMC claims WRC statedu that we musi use integration perio beyond 1000 years.

Response - This is factually incorrect.

No such statement' appears.

'n' hat is stated is that the period over which health effects should be integrated is highly subjective and commenters recomended use of tim '

periods ranging from very shcrt (M0 years) to very long (over100,000 years).

Consideration of a period of at least several thousand years ,

however, would not seem inappropriate civen the hundreds of thousand years durinS which the hazarc will exist.

r pg '

D' i

3E.increases.

,,.page 36 - Adcitional uncertainty/[ ems from future proje

[

G '

AM;Thims that/ th's cited UN study doei not support

,,/a 3'

l / j "

"cramatic increa'se" in recent years in the Norfh American '

population l e ,.. , .

g l. -

.- i j  ;

a-l.

Response - G. Gnugnoli/is providing.

t

' /' Also, c, heck Lyle. Roberts froni /

Arconne. ,. NJ t Q' . U.S./ popd1ation was assumed .to' virtually level off shortly Ef ter 2000'IApp. G-8, Tab.le 8.1 . -

s N 6

I

li - . 26 - * *

,-Qg; , , *

.s .,-

29. page 37 - AMC claims that NRC requires pr '

fi{

~;[j to perform a " balancing analysis" of 5-3.

as partospective reacto

,. !,; Their argument is that if we expect prospective licensees ..

'fi

.: s incongruous for us to argue that it i to make such evaluations it is

$y; s impossible for us to choose ir$

C1

'9 ~

reasonable values to do a strict -effectiveness numericalanalysis,cost

. 3. Response

=r. rs,

) WRC does not require reacto r licensees to make the q cost-benefit decisions like the ones at issue here 9 9 The second point is a non sequitur. J. as this cicht suggest.

t 'M '

• • "]. < Cf A;

.". .. uA sg.

a' a0. page 38 - AMC indicates that Table 12 5 de - ~

~

analysis can be cone to provide necessary informatimo regulation of radorremanation. on for the reasonable

• D 4 l Response - Yes.

. .e

[4 See the general discussion above.

i

'{ / Table 12-5' presents l

.3 ti the "results of a cost effectiveness anal

' one considers the long term nature of the tailiysis" (footn clearly supports the requirements as reasonable ngs canagem .

responding to charge that we failed to perfoThis shculd be used in rm such an antlysis.

for the reasons stated in the general discu However, ssion and in the GEIS, the results of this analysis were not reliedeupon y. sol i 4

9 e

9 e

L.

27

,- , 41. page 38 . .

.- AMC claims that we stated in Appendix U that we were unable to choose the cost per health effect since this w:uld involve " moral judgeme Response - NRC did not make such a statement.

us Rather, to the contrary, 3/ we stated that / selections of monetary values for health effects could be

.made.

However, the optimimzation methodology would still break down -for the case of the uranium mill tailin;s disposal problem largely due to the impossibility of correlating containment performance unicuely with all applicable ecsts.

That is, uncertainty over the long term prevents its sole use in establishing limits.

a2. page 2S - A!'0 asserts that using NRC's centrii value, the acceptable range of raden relearts is 9.7 'p;i for a 1000 year integration period.

' Response - As explained in the general discussion, this unrealistically assumes a perfect cover. over a long period of time.

43. page 39 - AMC argues that such an analysis can provide useful infbrmation which can be used as benchmarks in evaluating the reascnabieness of the

. ,i regulation.

(/ .

Response - OK.

Give nerspective if 5 or 10,000 years is assumed, which, cf ccurse, is reasonable if you consider the icn; term n4ture of the hazard.

Also, consider degradation and the selected numbers are seen to be reasonable.

. ~

4

r -

. ~ -

28 M;%. .

"g , .

.p:q 44. page 40 - AMC asserts that using NRC's figures

}N4

.xy . , costs for complying with tailings disposal alone would be between

. ,, - - 5760 000 000 and 51,521,000,000. _ ,

Ai

.w -

. m. ,

' j;,,

Response - Industry has combined several partial cost fi gures from the

~

~

GEIS with extreme misinterpretations of the rules to sup port the contenti that the rules are excessively costly.

Ficures in GEIS (510-216 x 10 for very conservative mill, which involve extensive meas x

ures not applicab' at existing mills, such as below.crade burial and n rol seepage liners, are used to muitiply by the number cf "model mill"

f. ., '..

.f_

projected to be operating in the year 2000.

ecuivalents

"^

assumed.

Seventy-six mills are g To the exteet there will be existing mills which will not incur the saae costs for lining systems and so on q]ct . costs will be g eatly

~.

reduced. ,

For assessment purposes the GEis assumed that t J]3 would operate for about 15 years. oe mill

, This leads to projecting more new mills than there will actually be.

Kerr-McGee, for example, has operated for nearly 20 years and is projecting as much as 20 y ears further operatione Also, because of the problems of speculating about a t c ual numbers of mills, mill sizes and lifetimes, the staff put the costs a d n economic impacts of meeting the regulations in te ms ofoutput unit and mill electricity costs.

Looked at in this way, costs are seen to be smal fractions of mill revenues and will mean negligible diff bills. erence in electricit; Due to these factors, the total industry cost (for mill s which are operatine by the year 2000) is probably aboutgure one half cited by industry.

Note 6

al so , that : . . . --ct- w : t hg ~ :'.h r-the up i

i cost estimates (52i_x 10 ) are nr ' ~M'; t: ;::t i :.: r

)

.- j,  !

..,;. .,._,e,-g C,- .

... s -h.a L.,; ws~~n; S: : ' - " ' ,3 ,, . . '

'.~*('. ' ' ,; T

,; , . ... , t - -

,[ ',

I I.' . ', ,'

fg ',!,_ l.

,, c 4 I ~

'. . . ,E --

. _ j i, .

.s;r-

- [. e'

'.,,*e' M. : <

-r s

e

a. c-

tg

.. .. 45. page 40 - AE asserts that NRC figures indicate that costs for operational controls on the mill itself would be between 525,016,000 and 5314,025,000.

Response - The upper estimate is based on extremely costly control alternatives briefly evaluated and rejected in the GEIS. (Dust control f' option costing 3.6 x 10 6per mill vs. the existing, acceptable option V costi ng 532,000 per mill is used. Costs are exaggerated by a factor of 100!) ( Appendix K-1.)

a5. page 40 - A!C asse(ts that total costs imposed on incustry for complying with the regulaticns would range from 5880,000,000 te nearly 52,000,000,000.

, ' Reiiponse - This method is invalid because it considers only costs for new milis and not existing ones as discussed above.

i j It also considers the absurd costs for neglected alternatives (see !45). It is because of r

the problem of projecting an actual mix of mills (i.e., new and old cills, mills which require extensive groundwater control measures and ,

those which do not) that total industry-wice costs were not computed in the GEIS for tailings disposal . Instead, economic impacts were presented as fractional costs (percentage of yellowcake costs).

The primary costs of tailings disposal will be associated with tailings cover, recentouring and erosion protection. At an existing mill with an above grade impound.Tient, these will be:

about 54 x 10 for cover costs (3m of cover) m .?

4 -

about 52 'x 10 for recontouring and erosion protection(sides

. v-are covered with rock and the slopes are made much flatter than would be necessary) -

(1.p;endix K-g, fer 3: cf cover'.)

'..-  : . . ' si a . ' . . .

L -

~

', . 30

- 6 They may counter with 59 x 10 upper limit cost if there is 5m of 6

cover, or.the 58-513 x 10 costs for importing cover materials.

The most likely cost for existing mills would be about 55 million

,O (54 million for cover an(_Sl million for erosion protection).

'We will have to discuss how to croject total costs for a likely industry mix.

47. pace 40 - AMC-asserts that nowhere .does NRC summarize its cost estimates in such a manner. ',i R,,e.sponse - See response to i46.

48. page 40 - AMC claims that NRC estima es that the costs of its various alternative disposal options permissible under the regulations would rance from 510,000,000 to 521,000,000 per mill.

i

/

Response - These are costs presented in Table 12.1 for new mills with, essentially, very conservative assumption about digcing of below-grade pits, lining of pit walls, and so on.

i S

l W

e

- 31 v

[.,

49. page 40 - AMC asserts that n is ridiculous to require that such vast '

. sums be expended to reduce already miniscule r~isks (which are low when

, . compared with other generally accepted risks).

(,' Response - See response to other comparative risk statements f2, 6, 7, etc Further, as indicated in the FGE15, 'the costs for complying with the regulations are estimated to a few percent of the product price.

Although, as AMC indicates, risks to the individual in the population at large frca one year's exposure may be small when compared with risks from backtrcund radiation-or other accepted risks, this ignores the perspective of risks to maximally exposed individuals or the basic prtticiples cf radia-ion protection that such risks are avoidable and thus should be reduced to as low as reasonably achievable.

50,.' page 41 - AMC asserts that the UDAD code is riddied with uncertainty and

/ .

.he submodeis contain unrealistically conservative assumptions. Risk and l

'/

exposure overestimations are compounded geometrically.

i Exposures'to nearby individual overstated by 40 to 600 (footnote 82).

Response - Dan Martin providing detailed response to the 40 to 600 claim.

e should expose this groundless industry claim. Ib should undermine their credibility. Generally, in making health risk estimates, staff consistently and consciously made best e'stimates on controlling parameters and factors. it eschewed selecting the "most conservative" v la ues in the range of uncertainty for each parameter but selected central or "best estimates."

e

_--  : _ ~ ,2 o ,- ,-

The full body ~ of information on the potential health effects ures-f to the kinds of radioactivity associated with tailings was evaluat e. d Health risk estimates were established Fas'ed'J upon the evaluation of the t-SEIR Committee.

(See Branagan testimony on how EEIR represents mainstream scientific thought on health effects from radiation. It is the most authoritative group in the country on health effects Estimates of potential health effects very considerably; BEIR .

sifted thrcugh all the data and full range of views of health risk estimators and came up with a balanced conclusion and consensus.)

51.,'page 42 - AMC asserts that the risk estimators us'ed by NRC in o

/

f L'

are inconsistent with the risk estimators contemporaneously empl 6

SRC in other contexts (e.g., GEIS = 230/10 / rem, Occupational = Guide 6 '

100/10 / rem).

Response - See E. Eranagan prepared response attached.

52. page 43 -AMC asserts that NRC assumes the cover material can be obtained on site, free of charge.

Thus, transportation costs and costs i for cover material itself are not included.

/

Response - See #5.

53. page 43 - AMC claims the amount of cover mate 11 required is enormous

, and would require excavating 4 square miles to a depth of 3 feet.

Response - As stated in the previous response, the am:unt of material

/

Is 1ecessary to provide 3 meters of cover is exaggerated and unfound ee d  !

AMC postulates a thin stripping of ea.rth te obtain the inflated volume!

/

of cover material that are presented.

In c:taining cover .the amount of disturbed surf ace area can be minimized by excavating to realistic de; .hs and/or in 1 areas.

See ::. mer.t in res::nse to RTAC industry

-ief.

l

33

,3

-54. page 44 - AMC claims. NRC has miscalculated the necessary amount of cover material. The un'derestimate is about 4,000,000 cubic yards of

$- ma teri al .

l Response - This claim that NRC has miscalculated the amount of cover material is just one example of where the AMC makes unsupported assertions.

AMC indicates that the underestimate is 4,000,000 cubic yards of material 4

and that this stems from a failure to consider satisfaction of the slope .

requirements. What the industry does not sey in the brief is that:

(1) the conservative way the staff figured cover recuirements in the draf t more than accounts for slope recontouring costs and (2) this comment was responded to in very pfecise and specific terms in the

/ final GEIS. In K-9, the staff evaluated in detail the ramification

~. that slope recontouring would have on cost.

G,.

This evaluation showed w that to.al costs Jt the average mill for cover and recentouring i (i.e. , sgepe rewerking and covering) would be aDout S4 x 10', (for 2.8 x 10 cy). Therefore, the industry allegation is seen to wholly 4 unf ounded by anyone reading the FGEIS.

.a}

']

, 55. page 44 - AMC states that 'the NRC has refused to consider the interest charges on the funds necessary to meet the regulations. .

Response - The cost to industry which is directly associated with the 1

NRC regulations for existing tailing piles will be incurred at the end of milling operations. The cover stabilization operation for the existing tailings piles is an operation that will take place at the end of the tailings pile life, which is after the industry has received the income for the milling of the uranium. Therefore, there is no interest charge, in fact, the industry funds to meet the requirements should earn interest until the actual operation takes place.

O b

s

' ~

34 . .

55. pages 44 AMC asserts that legislative history indicates that NRC must wait for EPA to issue standards before promulgating regulations (Rowe testimony). -'

Response - Refer to Motion for Stay response, Appendix A, page 87.

57. page 46 - AMC claims that because of h'RC proceeding prematurely operators may be recuired to suffer an intolerable etenomic burden.

Response - See s10 above.

58. page a5 - AMC states division of authcrity between. epa and NRC is not new.

Response - Refer to precedent set in Appendix I. -

59. p[ge 45 - AMC asserts _,that Criterion ! limits the type of financial surety arrangement to the deposit of cash or its ecuivalent.

F.esponse - This is obviously not true in view of option F "other.."

60. pages 4S AMC states that other state and federal agencies permit sel f-i nsuranc e . Even NRC permits a form of pooled self-insurance fer reacter cperations. NRC's refusal to consider self-insurance is arbit ra ry.

Response - NRC defined self-insurance as that option which provided no additional assurance to that which already existed through license conditions. The types of arrangements f recuently described by the industry - what NRC would call financial tests - could be considered by the staff on a case-by-case basis under prevision F of Criterion 9.

e 5

4 .. 35

., .s .

61. page 49 - AMC claims there is a lack of any reasonable method of comp 1.iance with Criterion 9. The only evidence in the record (the Surety Association letter) indicates that bonds are not available.

-Response - With an "other" option provided, it makes little sense to say that no methods of compliance are available. The industry can .

, be creative and propose nearly anything in good faith. Further, 6 /

\' / Xerr-McGee testified at the New Mexice EIS hearing that they were recently approved for a letter of credit (TR - page ?). Bonds have been written for NRC-licensec mill operators in Wyoming for many years.

These bonos are currently in place as indicated on page A-107 of the FGEIS.

e*.

~U i

1 i

e 4

f a