.__ _ f ""%, [[[g 6 i * %...../ . O UNITED STATES N UCLE AR R EG UL ATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBER gh_f,(17 in the m atte r of, ana s um. FAC l _ _ - . 7 50- 326 EVIDENTIARY HEARING BEFORE 6 0 ,;3 5 9' S f 3 ~ AN APPEAL BOARD ON THE OC' - Nf [ , RADON RELEASE ISSUE O THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS POOR QUALITY PAGES Plac9: irarrisburg, Pennsylvania Date: February 27, 1980 Pages: 226 - 437 O | ! l INTERNATIONAL VERSATIM REPORTERS. INC. | | ;y 499 SOUTH CAPITOL STREET. S. W. SUITE 107 ) ! WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 202 484-3550 ' ' e o u a o a o 9 - y <y . . . .. . . . . - . _ - . ._ . . . . .- . - - .
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
.__
_
f ""%, [[[g6 i *
%...../ .
OUNITED STATES
N UCLE AR R EG UL ATORY COMMISSION
DOCKET NUMBER gh_f,(17!)Min the m atte r of, ana s um. FAC l _ _ -.
7
50- 326EVIDENTIARY HEARING BEFORE 6 0 ,;3 5 9' S f 3
~
AN APPEAL BOARD ON THE OC' - Nf [,
RADON RELEASE ISSUE
O
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS
POOR QUALITY PAGES
Plac9: irarrisburg, Pennsylvania
Date: February 27, 1980 Pages: 226 - 437
O |!l
INTERNATIONAL VERSATIM REPORTERS. INC. |
| ;y 499 SOUTH CAPITOL STREET. S. W. SUITE 107 )! WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002
202 484-3550'
'
e o u a o a o 9 - y <y
. . . .. . . . . - . _ - . ._ . . . . .- . - - .
-
l'- ,
'
:- 226 !'
i *
|. :
1. !
i .!!~ 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA !
l
!
2; NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '
4 t
!( =
|3 -------------------------------x
'4 'In:the Matter of: $.s
-
'
: Docket No.j 5 EVIDENTIARY HEARING BEFORE :
'
i : 50-277, 50-278, 50-320,|' 6 AN APPEAL BOARD ON THE :) : 50-354, 50-355, 50-485| 7 RADON RELEASE ISSUE :
]-4 :
7 o __________.. ___ _ _____ __x4
1 _.
9 Hearing Rooms A te BHarristown 2_ Building
to 333 Market StreetHarrisburg, Pennsylvania 17126-
) 11
Wednesday, February 27, 1980- 12
The above-entitled matter was presented and discussed,13
with Chairman Alan S. Rouenthal, presiding.14
' '' ^ - ' ~' ---~- - - -
15APPEAL' BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: i
16gj- DR. JOmi H. BUCK| ;t / DR._U. REED JOHNSON
'
! MR. ALAN S. ROSENTHAL '
18 !
On behalf of Metropolitan Edison Company: |19
JAY E. SILBERG |20' MATIAS F. TRAVIESO-DIAZ l
21 On behalf of Philadelphia Electric Company andj- ' the Public Service Electric and Gas Company:! 22|- TROY B. CONNER, JR.
f =23 ROBERT M. RADER1
! - 24 On. behalf of Ecology Action:
25 MS. GUE-REINERTt1
!
;'. , . - _ . _ __. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _- _ _ _ .__ _ _L_..,..
_ _ _ _
,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
-
.
i!
;
i. '1 on behalf of'Citizenc..for a Safe Environment:-
I.
f .
DR. CHAUNCEY KEPFORD- i2
i 'DR. JUDITY JOHNSRUD.
r
b 3:! On behalf of the. NRC Staff:! 4'
!
I DERNARD M. BORLENICK !''
5 ELISA' J. GRM21ER j
6 ii
!
7
8 ,
!
9 !
10
11,
,-
1
| 12
g 13,
14
15
16-
17-
18
10
20
21
22
23
i' 0 -24
125:
. . - ~ - - . ~ _ _ . . . . _ _ . _ _ . ._. . _ __ . - . . . .. . -
t ~
227
1
'' s _COMTENTS1'
y_
( ,/ 4 ?7ITNESS DIRECT CP.OSS REDIRECT RECROSS
3 'Hubert J. Miller.
resumed |4 (Kepford) - 228 % i
e..
5 Ralph M. Wilde ,' '(Bordenick) 344
G (Silberg), ,
429 2
.
7.
8
9
10
11
12
,-
) 13-
14
15
16
17
18
10
20
21
22
23
~, gg
25
228.
27/F0 1 P_ R O C E E D I_ IJ G Sp R&Tpe; 2 CHAIRMMi ROSENTHAI.: All right, are we ready to3 2 u.. a
3 proceed?
4 Dr. Kepford, the Board has given some thought over-
5 night to the matter of the length of your further cross-
6 examination of Mr. Miller. In the Board's view, considering
7 the scope of Mr. Miller's testimony and, further,.the amount
8 of cross-enamination which took place this afternoon -- excuse
9 me: yesterday afternoon -- It should be possible to complete
10 that cross-examination within a time frame of two to two-and-
11 one-half hours. '
12 At least, this is so if the cross-examination is
33 focused and nonrepetitive and if Mr. Miller confines his-
93 responses to the questions that are presented to him.
15 Enat uc propose to do is to allow you to cross-
16 exanine until 11:00 o' clock. At that point, we'll see where
the cross-examination stands. If the cross-examination17
jg between now and 11:G0 o' clock does appear to the Board to be
f focused and nonrepetitivo, and you're able to persuade the79!
20 | noard that there ctill remain points in Mr. MillerAs testimony
21 that warrant further crocs-examination, we will allou it.
22 On thct basis, you may proceed.
23 E. N ORD: Mr. Chairaan, could I make a couple of
e monts''24:
First ff, I en exceedingly dicappointed by this.25|
|
t
. . . - _ . . -
i !I: !
-229 |-
,,i
I
l' This-is a proceeding of-extreme importance, and --;
2.
CF2LI141AN ROSENTHAL: Dr. Kepford, nobody denies the
2 importan<:e of the proceeding; and we recognize, as well as do |.
.4 you, that it is important that all of the parties have a fairt
5 - opportunity-to-cross-examine witnesses on their testimony.
6 My point is that yesterday it appeared to the Board_
7 that thoro was a great deal of unfocused and repetitive cross- |;
8 examination, which seems to us that, considering the fact that |
9 under NRC procedures the testimony is made available to the
10 parties in advance, giving the parties an opportunity to
11 prepare their cross-exanination in adva.Tce, that the cross-
12 examination in this instance could have been more focused.
13 Nou, I -- now, why don't you proceed; and uc'll see
14 how ic, it stands at.11:00 o' clock.I
15 DR. KEFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to repeat:
! 13 In your order you did request testimonies to be
17_ served on or before January 18th. We did not get the testi-
. 13 monies until the first usek in February. We did not get the
19 revised testimony of Mr. Wilde and the back-up documents
20 until, for instance,. yesterday.
; 21 I would like to confirm a phone call at home last!i
23 night says that the material sent from Washington dit' indeed'
23 arrivo, not in tina to do much good.
24 I'd also like to point out that as far as the TMI-2
:e'
and Peach nottom intervenors go,-had we had time and resources: 25 _
._ =____ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ . _
,
__ _ __ _ _ _-- _ - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|||
| '2301
t 1
I in this proceeding, we would have liked to have presented I
7- vitnesses.
3 IfowcVer, being as this proceeding was inserted in j
|
4 the middle of two ohher ongoing procc5 dings, we were totally.
t
5 denied that opportunity. And to be now curtailed fron cross-
6 examination, I find most objectionable.
7 Furthermore, what you perceive as repetitive testi-,
|
|
0 many yesterday in my opinion was not in the slightest bit
9 repetitive. My attempts at getting a number out of staff
10 vitness Miller, while it may appear to have been repetitive,
11 uas nothing more than trying to get a corcon language that vc
12 could talk about, so we're, so no know what we're talking
13 about in terms of tine, in terms of definition.
14 And I am no more aware of what periods of tima Mr.
15 Miller's testi:c.ony addresceu nou that I was before I started
i l16
'
cross '.namination yesterday. !:
17 (Pau s e . )
ja .And I don't think it's the fault of the questioning.
19 CHaI1EiMI ROSE 5TIDL: All right. You may proceed, Dr.
20 I<cpford, vith the cross-0:: amination.
21 CROSG-3HT21INATIC1! (continued)~
\
n DY DR. G PFORD:
73 0 Iir.. Milici', in your tactimoni you talk about a.
24 | probably ra:: nr flood. Can you noll me what a " probable
O,
mc::i.aum flond" io?g
!
)- - - - _ _ . _ - _ . - . . - - . - _ _ _ _ . . _ ,. ------ _
,. . . - -- ,_. _-.
ai
231 Ij-
-1 MR, SILDERG: Excuse me.. Could you:just identify |-
2. - where~in the testimony we are? -
i3 DR.:KEPFORD: Well, first, I've got to find thes
; -testimony. |4
| !i- 5 - (Pause ~ ') -
J'
G Flooding is mentioned on_page 14, about tne middle
7- 'of the page,'on the far left: "probably maximum flood."~
D THE WITNESS: The definition of the' probable maximum
9_ flood - and I'll give a loose definition here, because I'm-
10 not a hydrologist. But it is the maximum expected flood at-a
_11 given site. It's calculated by hydrologists from the basedr
f .
I12 upon the co-called " probable maximum precipithtion," which in
13 deposited on the drainage area in question.
j 14 And it is based on climatologic records and the like.
; 15 I can' t . e: plain the details of exactly how that's calculated.
16 Y DR. KEEFORD:
7 Q- . One kind of flood which people talk about is thej
la hundrcd-year flood, 500-year floods, thousand-year floods.
A This'is the matimum credible flood. There is agg -
;- 20 document I've got in the room that givas a brief description of':
Iit. But I.think.-it essentially says that.21 .
22- O .Do you have'that document here?
A Y*U*23
Q 11, are you prepared to answer, to define what this24 - .
fl d-is?:
25
|
.
- -
._. _
' J t '. -
932.
1 A Well, I'll just repeat: it's.the maximum credible.,-.
/
. v) .( -2 flood at a given site.
3 (Pause. )
4 O Then what is the " maximum credible flood"?
5 (Pause. )
6 A You have to decide that on a case-by-case basis,
7 knowing the climate and'-- it's, it's determined by hydrolo-
O gists from climatalogic data; and if you want to' know how many ,
9 how nany cubic feet per second or per minute, you have to
10 determine that on a site-specific basis.
11 0 There's nothing in the regulations which defines
12 what a probable maximum flood is.
13 A In Regulatory Guide 3.8, which is the guide on dan(^')y
14 and embankment construction, there is a, a definition. And
15 it's, it is something that hydrologists -- it in my understande
16 ing -- hydrologists use. It's a common term,.a common concept.
g7 It's a flood that's much more infrequent than the thousand-yea:
fldod --gg
99 So~I can't give you a precise definition here,
20 because I'm not a hydrologist.
IE""U"*)21
22 DR. JOHNSON: Excuso me just a minute.
23 Mr. Miller, Ibr. Kepford's mentioned the term
O 24 "hundred-year ficod" or "500-year flood" or "thousand-year''Is
fl d."25 I- don't know if he went through the litany that way.,
I
| . - :
; . -
,
!-i-
233 .'
:
1 But most of us -in, who have had dealings with nuclear power- {,
2 plant licensing proceedings have seen these terms referred to.''
3 Can you give us any idea of what the maximum'
4 : credible flood'is, relative to a hundred-year or a 500-year or\'5 .a thousand-year flood?
6 TIIE WITNESS: Well, as I.just stated, Dr. Johnson,
7- it's much more, as I understand it, it's much less infrequent,
O much more infrequent. That is, the frequency interval is, is'
0 nore like'one in 10,000 than it would be one in 1,000.
i
10 DR'. JOIDISON: Well, you're saying the recurrence
t; rate, then, would be lower for this maximum credible flood
*
12 than it would be for a hundred-year or a 500-year flood. Is
13 that your testimony?
I4 THE' WITNESS: Yes.
15 DR. JOIDISON: Thank you.|
gg . You may go a%03cdi Dr. Kepford. I apologize.
17 Pance.)
7g . 3Y DR. IO3PPORD:
99 0 This flood is based on hictorical records?
A It, it'b ny understanding that it is. !20$
21 I. should expand scme here to say that the probable :-
:!'
! 22 maximum fl od:is calculated in the vay'that hydrologista do!
thir:.23- And it is what they believe to be the maximum credible
fl od at a site. .;24 -
G,
" , , _ There is then uhat is called the " probable maximum |.
!
!
i
e -- .. _.. . _ . - --
234
1 flood series," which because there is uncerta?.nty because then() 2 flood is based upon not only flood records t.it climate condi-
3 tions and what-not.
4 There are come multipliers that are abritrarily5 clapped on to the top of that.
6 Q Could you identify those multipliers?
7 A I, I cannot. I believe the document I have in the8 room would give an indication of the kind of thing that's9 done.
10 One-other thing that should, one other point ~that
11 should be made for perspective: in my testimony I do refer to
17. the probabic maximum flood. But I also indicate very strongly
(] 13 and, and repeatedly in the testimony that the sites where wev
14 are locating tailings are sites where you are near the head
15 end of the divide. The amount of rainfall that falls on two or16 that, that the amount of run-off that will be occurring at a
i !17 site will be very small.
.
10 And certainly we are not siting mills near streams.
19 There are a few oxisting mills where there is some upstream
20 draining; and it is in those few casesswhere in the long term
21 flooding is-a,-is a, is a thing of concern.
22 And so what we're talking about here is just a few
23 cases. In'most cases the flood is not of concern because ofg3 the place where the tailings are located.
('')>
25 (Pause . )
l
_ _ . _
- 235-
1 0 Under what' conditions can' tailings be placed in
[} 2 contact with groundwater?v -
3 .(Pause.).
4 A We had not established that.
5 (Pause. )
6 Q Do not the proposed regulations provide in criterion
7 5 that tailings can be placed in contact with groundwater?
8 A If you read those carefully, and unfortunately I
9 don't have the regulations with no here, but what thqse say is
10 -very clearly that wo will entertain the idea of patting tail-
11 ings in groundwater. But the regulations are written to
12 require a strong burden of proof to be shouldered by anybody
13 who would propose that, and that in fact in all licensing
14 cases that we have been involved in we have taken the conserva-
15 tive approach; that while ve think it would prebably be okay
16 to put tailings, given certain kinds of treatnent, into ground-.
37 water -- we have not allowed that.
18 (Pause. )|
,g Q The regulacions do not preclude it?.
20 A They do-not preclude them.-- subject to the statement
21 I mado_a minute ago.
22 DR. KEPFORD: Mr. Chairman, I might inquire at this
23 time if indeed the proposed regulations are part of this4
record? Are they part of Mr. Miller's testimony?24~() ,
(Pause. )''-
31
!
_ _ _ . . ,_ , ,s ---4 - - - - - -
',
.
236-'-
1 -MR. BORDEIUCK: Mr. Chairman, they were served with
2~ a 't:opy of 'the testimony an a convenience to the Board and. the
3 parties. And agiin, it's not'our task to, to offer them into ,.
4 the record. ;
5 MR. SILDERG: We assume that the Board can of c~ourse~
6 take official notice of any formal NRC pub.lication of this .
,
7 nature.~
8 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Well, they were attached, were *
9 they not, to Mr. Miller's testimony?
10 MR. BORDENICK: They were served as an attachment..
11 They, they were mantioned --
12 On pages 3 and 4, you uill note thht the mill
("'T 13 tailings radiation control act is mentioned, the GEIS isLJ
14 mentioned, and the proponed regulations are mentioned; and
15 then there's a centonce that says: "Copics of the above-
1G nentioned documents are attached for the convenience of'the-
37 Appeal Eoard and the parties.",
1
18 However, Festerday I had Mr. Mil'ler identify it as
1
gg tentiraony; and on ny request the Board ordered the testimony i
I
20 ')ound into the record,|
21 I did not specifically include any of these three,
22 items.
23 CHAIRMIG! ROSEMfHAL: Well, is there any disagreement
24 that *.!c can take official notico? ~~ of these documents,
''
including the proposed regulationc.- g
'.
9
. . . _- - - - - - ...
. _. _
237 i'
.
1- '4R. SILBERG: We certainly have no' objection. ;
,
..,
.( ') 2' -C11 AIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Dr. Kepford? ;8.s!
3 DR. KEPFORD: No objection. '
4 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Ms. Reinart, do you have any !,
, -
5 objection to the Board's taking official notice of thesen
| 6 documents?|!
c
| 7 All right. Well, we'll proceed on that basis.
| -i8 DR. BUCK: These are the ones that I presume wereji
!
! O issued Friday --
10 Are these the Federal Register and the Federal|
11 Register notice of Friday, August the 24th, 1979? Is that theL
12 set.that you're referring to?
'
(] 13 DR. KEPFORD: Yes, Dr. Buck.U
14 DR. BUCK: Okay.J!
15 (Pause.)
f 16 BY DR. KEPFORD: '
,
e
i 17 Q Mr. Miller, your Reference 3, the report by Nelsoni
L 18 and Shepherd -- that's the Colorado, can we call that thei!
|| 19 " Colorado State Report"?I
) 20 ] A Yes.
21 Q So wo know uhat we're talking about.I'
22 Thet report identifies a large nunber of potential,
'
73 failurcs and f-ilure mechanisms for mill tailing cites, does it
; 3,x 24 not?|*
\ 'l'25 - A Yes, as I stated yesterday.
.
- _sb-''. I'_.~~ _- _N_ . __._Nven---wr---,w-.---+s ._w _ -#
_ ._ _ _
.
23G |i
'
:
1 .O It categorizes the failures in terms of likelihood, .(i
2 among other-things,-is that' correct?_
-3 'A. Yes, subject to no measu'res being taken to guard !
4 'against them.~
5 0 Potential interactions with other failure mechanismai
6 A Yes,-it does. ,
,
-7 O Magnitude of release?
8 A Yes.
9 0 Whether or not monitoring is necessary?j
10 A Yes,
tj Q Whether or not naintenance is necessary?
12 A Yes.
13 Q And time periods over d ich failure mechanisms might
*
j4 occur.,
A Yec.15i
Q For instance, the process of gulleying on the cap.16
A Yes.j7 ,
}~ Q As I recall, the 2.cpoi t suggests that it's a variablogg
hI 'like]" od -- indeed, highly. site specific. Is that not99
correct?| 20;
21 I can't recall every statement nade in the report.A
| 22 Y u'd have to refer me to a page.
(Pause.)23
24 But I believe in, in general it certainly, you knorr,
-g-!
it certainly talked abcut gulleying being possible.g
.- . _......_ . _ . . _ __ _ _ - - _ ..-__--
~ _ _,_ ___. _ _ _ . . _ __
i239
,
1 (Pause. )H ,m_
( ) P- - Q The release, should gulleying take place, was also -v)
i. .3 variable, was it not? !
l4
7 Do you'have the report?!
) |
|- 5 'A Yes, right here. !!.
'
'
| 6 I believe in general, Dr. Kopford, that what this
7 report says and, and, and having worked with the authors,
8 taking the conclusions of this report and putting it_into the
9 GEIS is that all of these failure mechanisms are potential for
10 them are variablo and site specific -- and that if you take
11 the, and, and sei::e upon the siting and design measures that!, they identify in here as being possible to mitigate or12!
('/g 13 eliminate these potential failure mechanisms, you can avoidi q,
14 significant disruption of the pile.
15 Q Do the regulations require that these steps must be
16 taken?I
17 MR. SILDERG: Which steps?
18 DR. KEPPORD: The mitigation scops that the witness
f 19 has talking about.
/ 20 THE WITM8SS: Dr. Kepford, yes. |1 '
f 21 And the kinds of steps that I'm talking about areF
22 delineated in my testinony.
23 - DR. KEPFORD: Now, Uc're talking -- Mr. Miller, I
,- 24_ at' ed you a specific question:-
( )'"'
23 Do the regulations require -
_.-w+ "-
.. - --___ __ _ ._ - _- _
- . . . - .. . ~ .-. . . - -
;!
2401
i el' THE WITNESS: TYes.p. .- -
2:: .DR. KEPFORD 'JCould;you point to me, in the regula-3 tions --
.,
-4 (Pauso.)
._5 --;tha specific provisions which would prevent sub-
'6 sidance of a liner, for instance?
7 Sheet erosion by' water, for instance?.
8 Slope. failure of embankments, for instance?
9- / Galleying of embankmants,-for instance?i
( 10. THE UITNESS: Yes.i|' 11 They are Criteria 2, 3, and 4 prir .rily.
12 iPause.),
13 BY MR. KEPFORD:
14 0- It seems to me Criterion 2 is very vague and preventt
15 virtually nothing.
16 (Pauso. )
17 MR. SILDERG: Is that a question, Mr. Chairman?
Ja CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Yec.
13 DR..KEPFORD: How ' suld you respond to that criticism.
20 -Mr. Miller?-.
>?.1 TE .MITNESS : That in a very broad criteria. You1.
22 have to read with Criteria 2, Criteria 3 and Criteria 4; and
23 you nust also understand: the things that complement this
regulation..
9 -24'
As I've stated time and again, these problems are25
( _
e -
g_____ _.,-_--.__y__ . --.,.-.___._.__m. .,,-
|'
241
1 site specific; and the regulations are, in view of that, ,
&( )- 2 writt.en in terms that reflect that or recogniz'e that -- that%.; -
3 complementing. this is- the NEPA process that is followed on all'
4 of.our licensing actions, where you take these principles 'and\ .
l 5- .you optimize on those in a specific case..
. . ;. 2'
6 And you nail that down in a specific case in very7 preciso terms. The slope is defined. The cover material,
8 whether it's rock cover or whether it's vegetation, is9 established. Enhther it's above or belou grade, what the
10 amount of upstremt drainage is that afGects - perhaps the .
11 most til.gnificant contributor to the erosion potential of the
12 site --
A 13 0 Excuse me. Thcae are not in the rules? TheseV'
14 requirements?
,
15 A The -- and I'm saying they can't be in the rules'
4
16 because these things are things the. you can only optimize on
17 in a site-npocific case,
13 How, we involve the public in the process at each
19 case --
20 0 At what stage? +
|
| 21 A By issuing a draft entrironmental impact statement:'
1l
22 that '.a'cca those criteria, shows how de staff made decisions |1,
23 in light of thoce criteria, cpecifically at the site, showing!
24 diagrams and, basically,-the plan.|
-'
25 And that'is circulated for public comment. The staff..
1. <
t'
|
!k
- _
+---wm
,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ ._ _ ._ _
'1'
i - 242
If takes those public comments, resolves them, and takes action.pfS
2fg What I'm:;saying is that the regs in this 'usiness|
|
] 3 can only be part of the picture, because of the extreme|
4 variability and site-specific nature of the problem; that !
5 complementing that must be a case-by-case review. i
L6 And you, it's in the case-by-case situation that you
7 optimize onothese para;teters.
-0 .0 What you're relying on, then, is more than the
- 9 regulations is licensing practico by the NRC staff. Is that
10 not correct?
|
11 A Yes.
12 O By the time a draft environmental statement is
13 published, virtually all decisions concerning the nature of,
i 14 the tailings disposal option will have been made, will they1
i
! 15 not?
16 MR. SILBERG: I don't see the relevance to that
17 quantion at all to this inquiry. I cbject to it. I think
18 we're really getting very far afield.
19 CHRIRMMi ROSENTHiG: What is the relevance of the
10 . question?
I i
[ 21 DR. KEPFORD: This wholo process, Mr. Chairman,'
l '
f 27. -hinges on, it appears-to me, keeping this out of the public; '23 view. The regulations do not require much. !
<
l, -). 24 .CIIAIRMM7 ROSENTHAL: Well, that's your charactoriza- j-4
i ss -
-25 tion of it. .You are not testifying, Dr. Kepford. I mean - '
;
i
.
243
1 DR. KEpFORD: Mr. Miller yoGrerday and today has -
2 mentioned "public involvement" whereby the public can make
3 comments on the propocals. But the point I'm trying to make
4 is that by the time the public is inforr 4 Ahrough the draft
5 environmental statement the decisions Lave already been made.
6 And the public comment at that point is -- or public involve-
7 ment in far more window drecsing than anything else.
O MR. SIIBERG: We're really -- I think that ci.early
9 demonstrates the irrelevance of this line of questioning to
10 cur inquiry here.
11 Dn. EUCK: Speak up, Mr. Silberg, please.
12 HR. SILDERG: I'm sorry.
13 I, I think Dr. Kopford's characterization of the
14 line of quantioning clearly demonctrates its irrelevance to
15 what we're discussing here.i
16 DR. KEPFORD: I might point out the witness alsoii
17 | mentioned that much of this process involvec the catssfactioni
18 of ITEPA.
19 CHAIP2C ROSEm?HAL: Uell, I will allow the witnesa
|to respond to your question with respect to the state of the20
21 decisional process, at the time of the inpact statement issues.
22 i Eut I ten:1 to agree with Mr. Silberg; I don't think that this
23 io a line of inquiry that has that much direct relevance to
24 the natt: ara at hand.
25 But there vac some referenca on the part of the
i
>
.- - - . - . --- -.-_ .. - . . - .. _ . .
;
244 [
I witness-to public involvement; and I think Dr, Kepford is |fm
f () ...
t
2- entitled to pursue that'to determine whether there is in !
i-3 reality, as opposed to merely inform the opportunity for ii4 public involvement. j|5- THE WITNESS: I can answer tP.at question by pointing !
J !6 .to the Sweetwater case,'where the-st:aff issued a draft
7 environmental impact statement and the proposed action was-to
8 license an above-grado tailings impoundment. And through, and
9 throuyh. working with the State, as well as thinking about iti
f 10 some nore curselves, we revised our position betwecn draftI
| 11- 'and final.
12 Also, the staff requires all applicants to submit
Q 13 their environmental report, which we receive -- which is the,, v
| 14-g which'is the thing that we begin our review based upon the
15 very inception of the whole licensing phase -- would require
16 applicants to send that to a mailing list of local people and
17 people who are known to be interested in milling projects and
10- .this, for example, would include'the_ Wyoming Outdoor Council,
~19| in Wyoming, and other groups like that. So they see the
20 environmental- report, and they have that for review at the
'21 came time we have it for review -- and are given an cpportunity1
22 to comment to us on the environmental report.
23 (Pause.)
.24- O Perhaps we might talk about a particular project.i. Nq. .
-
J~25 Are you very familiar with the Pitch Project?
'l
,
t
2451
A I am familiar with it. I was not the project2
manager on that case, and --
3I am familiar enough to --
4DR. JOHNSON: Uhat page of the testimony are we
5dealing with now, Mr. Kopford -- Dr. Kepford -- excuce me.
6DR. KEPFORD: The Pitch Project would be an applica-
7tion, in my ninG, of the testimony -- to a real --
0DR. JOHNSON: It's not specifically referred to in
9the testimony, ls that --
10DR. KEPI'ORD : I do not believe it is.
DR. JOEUSON. Thank you.
19BY DR. KEPFORD:
,
13 0 Is not the appro:timate elevation of the Pitch Project
around 10,000 feet?,
h15 A If you say it 'is, I would accept that..
~
CHP.IRIEN R03EHTHAL: IiTell, do you have any independan t
I7 knowledge of that?
N THE WITNESS: Uell, no, I don't; but I think that's
10 probably right.
E'^' I presume you took that frca the environmental
2I statement,
"pI Du. KEP20RD: Yes.
n ,
-
23 THE WITNESS: All right, I would accept it.
24 B'? DR. KEPI'ORD :
23 0 Do not the impoundments on the embankments, the,
I I, t
il |
.
246
I tailings dams, and the Pitth Project involve slopen much
- 2 steeper hhan what are spelled out in the criterion?-
3 A Yes, I believe they, they do. That project was
4 licensed before the regulations were written. All licenses
5 over the past several years have been conditioned on backfitting
6 of an agreenent on the part of the licensee; and this is a
7 license condition, that he picks up backfitting of any
D requirements that come out of cur regulations.
9 Q Have indeed, has indeed backfitting taken place at
10 the Pitch Project?
11 A Conttruction has not started on that, on that mill.
12 And in fcet, the operator I understand is considering below-.-
13 grade burial.
14 (Paus e. )
15 0 Is that at the request of the staff?
16 A Actr. ally, not.
17 (Pause.)
18 0 Were not the dans in that project, at least one of
19 then act right in the middla of a drainage gu3 ley? I think it
20 was called Hale's Gulch.
21 A I should explain that program, the broad conceptual
22 aspects of it, to save us all come time.
23 It iG --
Could you first F ease answer the question?; 24 Q l
25 A I don't know specidically whether it was Halefs
\.'
247
1 Gulch or - it is not in the, in the, it is not, it is not in
2 a branch, major branch. It is at the head end of a divide,
3 with no upstream drainage. What rainfall' falls on that catch-
4 ment, what runoff occurs on that catchment is what comes from
1 Tape 1 5 precipitation directly on it.
o 2: G (Pause.)a R&T cont.
7 Q Does not the Colorado Stato Report poin'c out the
8 necessity of not only monitoring and maintenance but in a numbey
9 of cases, timely n'intenance efforts to prevent large-scale
10 relcaces and failurcs at tailings impoundments?
11 A Yes, but you must understand the assumptions that
12 are being, that are made when they make those statements.
,,
13 And what I mean by that is the alternatives that they
3 ,4 were focusing on when they made those kinds of statements, were~
not the kinds of alternatives that we are implementing.15
jg And while they made those kinds of statements, they
were clso making statements about what things could be done to17 i!
lprevent the failures, as I've said before.
33I
(2C"UG I19
In that repor', timo periods arc defined by thegi O ci
21 . "short term" being more or lesa a few hundred years,cuthors ac
I
! ''madi term" to oc a few thousand years, and "long term"22.
meaning approximately the first half-life of thorien 230. Isgi
ud| that not a reasonable characterisation?.
h Hat quite. It's the long long term --,, qc,.
.
.
248
1 But they had chort, medium, and long long-term.
2 (Pauso.)
3 0 For cap gulleying and cap erosion by sheet crosion
4 from water, wind erosion, flooding of the cap -- do those
5 particular failure mechanisms have any time dependence?
; (Pause.)
7 A Uell, obviously -- obviously, they do .
8 0 Thank you.
9 (Pause . )
'g The Colorado State Report does not, the authors are
;j not terribly optimictic nbout synthetic liners, are they? --
12 for tailings impoundments.
13 7. No, and neither are we -- about the long-term
14 perf rmance of synthetic liners.
15 0 In Figure 3 don't you specifically mention that a
16 cynthetic liner is being used -- in your testimony?
A Yes, but you must unuerstand Uhy we are using ag
gg synthetic liner, notuithstanding our feelings or uncertainty
gg about its long-term parformance.
20 The objective of lining the irapoundment du that
3g during that period of timo uhon from an average mill you're
22 dumping 600 rc.atric tons of solution into an impoundment, per
23 day, :/ou want to hold up the solutions; and you want to dry
24 them off and essentially dispace of the sclutions by evapora-^
tion,.y.a
.
'249
1 Once that' takes place, there is essentially no
]) 2 -additional significant cource of water, besides. precipitation.
3 But in these areas we're talking about evaportation rates
4 which far exceed prc'cipitation rates.r
5 And so that the period of concern, the period of ,
6 time' that it's essential that;you impede the process of seepago
7 is when you'ro handling massive amounts of solutions. But
8 after that time, - 4t's not essential.
9 Synthetic liners, we have confidence, will last' at
10 least the period of timo during no operation, supplementing,
31 confirming.that is, is a requirement for groundwater monitor- e
12 ing to determine that in fact that's true.
(''' 33 0 If the radionucleids move through.- the ground as\J
14 slowly as you intimate in your testimony, how would they be - -
15 detocted by monitoring? On the order of a meter or 'two per
16 year, is --
(Panse.)j7
A You probably won't pick Ehean up.IS
39 O So you really then couldn't toll much about a
fhilure.20
a Eau couldn't; and if it weren't, weren't moving very21
22 fast, it wouldn't be of much concern.
'
O Moving at a meter a year, in a thousand years it's23
g no a kilometer, right?24
/^)''x
A If y u set the assumption that something's moving a25
i> -,
- .-
.
250
I year, yes, in'a thousand years it'll move a thousand meters..
ry
(_f 2 'O Doesn't the GEIS say, for instance, that uranium
3 moves with the velocity.of the water?
4 (Pause. )
5 A You'd have to quote'me a specific section. It's a
6 very complex thing, as Dr. Pohl stated yesterday, extremely7 complex.. What chemical form is the uranium in when it reaches --
8 0 I juct asked you about the GEIS.
9 =A All right. I can't say. I don't really know off-
10 hand, Dr. Kopford.- If you can point out a location --
11 -(Pause.)
12 O I think it's page 6-7.
13 Yes, pago 6-7, fourth, fifth line up from the bottom,
14 fifth sentence, fifth line.
15 (Pause.)
16 A' I see what'it says there, and I also know that, that
17 uranium gets deposited in ore bodies. And that happens when,
18 typically, the uraniua goes from a zone that's oxidized to a
19 zone that's reduced.
20 (Pcuse. )
21 And in some cases uraniun is very mobile.
22 And when it roachc3 a, the right kinds of conditions,
23 it precipitates.
. ,m, - 24 Q You're hoping that it precipitates before it gets to( l'
25 tlic public.
,
I
251
1 (Pause. ) -
[ 2 A We expect they will.v
, ,
3 (Pause.)
4 Q To what extent are you counting on vegetation to
5 protect the caps at the various sites?
6 (Pause.).
7 A In the semiarid regions that we are talking about,
8 not very much.
9 And to give you an example, our recommendation and
10 in one case recently, the State of New Mexico in a licensing.
11 case was for rock cover of the entire tailings impoundment.
12 In Wyoming we are beginning to, particularly on
O 13 exposed embankments, to require rock cover.\,J
I4 Q That's the embankment. What about the cap?
?5 A You have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. Ii
IG hate to keep using that phrase; but I'm afraid, Dr. Kepford,
j7 it's the only approp. iate response to many of these questions.
18 (Pause.)
10 Q For those cases in which vegetation is relied upon,
20 is it being relied upon in any of the arid, any sites in the
arid areas?21
22 A I think we've licensed, the license conditions in
23 s me of our recent -- when I say "recent," the past several
n 24 years -- cases has involved vegetative cover. But I think' )
w 're moving much more towards an insistonce on use of rock;3
b ,
.
252
I cover, and I would expect that it't, very likely that the final
2GEIS place more emphasis on that and that in view of that,
3 you'll see backfitting of those casea where we've gone, we've
4 accepted vegetation as a stabilization.
5 (Pauce.)
6Q The Colorado State Report discusses rock cover, does
7 it not? -- peripherally?
O A- Yes, it speaks about the armoring that is provided
9 by rock cover.
10 0 The specific reference, as I recall, is to an area
1I in Death Valley, California, is that not right?
12 A That was cited as an illustration of, an illustration
f 13 of how a donert pavement can form, which is essentially a rock
14 dome cover.
15 (Pause.)
16 Q Would one of those be c::pected to last to protect
17 the entire site for the first half-life of thoriun 230?
18 A I can only say that I think it might.
19 (Pause.)
20 0 Do you know anything, Mr. Miller, about the failure
21 at the Church Rock, New IIcxico, tailings dam?
22~ A Yes.
23 O Coul.d you describe it, please?
- 24 A MR. BORDENICK: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to object to
L)25 that question. I don't-believe it'a within the scope of the
'~m __
.
253I witncan's direct testimony. Unlocs Dr. Kepford carcs to try2 .
to tie it up with something.3
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: What portion of Mr. Miller's
4 direct testimony is this question linked to, Dr. Kopford.5 DR. KEPFORD: I guess at least part of it is the
G radon cource not previously addressed.7
CHAIRMAN ROSE?T2HAL: Moll, give me a specific pago.O DR. KI:PFORD: Page 24.
9 (Pauso. ).
10 DR. KEPFORD: It's not listed there.i
:11 ! (Pauco. )
I12
'
CUAIIUM ROSEUTHAL: How, how is, do you cicplain to13
-
us how in your judgnent the line of inquiry you are embarking14 ca now ic tied to thin testinony?15 DR. KEPFORD: It's ny undcratanding that when that16 dmu failed on the order of 1,100 tons of tailingc got out; and17 I was wondering whether or not the regulations require that10 thoac tallinga be clained.
10 If they are not, or picked up, then there is another20 nource of radon which has not previously been addressed, that21 in the released tailings, with no protection whatsoever.
27. CHAIRHAU ROSEITfHAL: Why isn't that a permissible
23 inquiry, Mr. Bordonich?
24 MR. BORDEtiIC".: W211, on the basis of Dr. Kopford'six
25 c::planttion, I would withdraw my objection.
I'
.
.
254
I(Pause. )
'
, CHAIRMAN ROSENTIIAL: I take it you recall the
3 question, Mr. Millor?
4TIIE WITNESS: Yes: was I familiar with that
5 incident? And I naid "yes."
6BY DR. ICPFORD:
7 0 Could you briefly describo it, please?
8 A Yes, thero was a dan failure -- and I believe it was
0 July the 16th -- at Church Rock, New Mexico, mill. A breach
to in the dam, 2@000 tona, 1,100 tons of tailir.gs solids and11 about 300 million gallons of tailings solutions vero released12 into tho Rio Puerco, or a tributary to the Rio Puerco. The
13; material flowed in the Rio Puerco, which is a stream that,
s-
14 essentially vanishou after it gets 15 or 20 milen into the
15 State of A21sona.
16 [ The solutions, through a process of evaporation and17 infiltration, traveled about 10 or 15 miles in the State of
i
18| Arir.ona and then vanished.
ID (Pause.)
20 Q Do the regulationa require that Ehat 1,100 tons of
21 tailings solids will be retrieved?
22 A These regulations 11ere don't spehk directly to it,23 but we --
24 O They don't.
25 A They doa't; but the important thing 10 that we !
|
|
'
. - . _. -
255'
1 established with the Stato of New Mexico clean-up criteria.
'll 2 The State of Now Meiico, which is an agnement stato, directedO'
3 .the opciator to cloan up tailings. The operator went into the
4 arroyo and has since that time been removing the tailings.
5 And I can't cito the exact tonnages, but many more
G tons than the solida material and the contaminated material
7 thau were released have been returned to the tailings pile.-
0 0 Do you have any idea what percentage of the 1,100
g tons that was released hes.bocn picked up?
10 A I believo all of the 1,100 tons which was deposited
11 very quickly near the, near the embankment itself in a terrace
12 above the arroyo roccived the solutions, has been picked up.
'
13 0 Whatever radium was dissolved in the water and
14 thorium and uranium, probably very little thorium, were lost?
A Yes, tho -- there is clean-up along the entire area15
16 of.the offect, the, the antire affected area. Two levels that
17 UO havo prescribed in our clean-up critoria.
O Could you describe those icvels? Approximately.73
A Yes. It was 30 picocuries per gram of thorium,119
20 picocuries per gram of radium, unless -- yes, 10 picoeuries
21 por gr a of radium. And our calculations and our radiological
22 ansessment showed thSno would lead to exposures which wnme
23 small fractions of existing radiation protection limits -- to
24 the maximum exposed individual.O)\d Q dow do these concentrations corapare with previously25
. , - . - . . ,
U
256
1 oxisting concentrations of radium and thorium and so on. It
2 was prior to the operation of the dam.
3 Im. SILBEP.G: Previously existing concentrations
4 where?
5 THE WITNESS: In the stroan. Those, those regions
6 affected.
7 Approximately --
0 Well, radium couldn't be scon. You couldn't see
D radium at all.
10 BY UR.KEPFORD:
11 0 Prior.
12 A No. Irzann after. You couldn't distinguish it from
i 13 background,_-
ja All of the samples, the dirceu genna readings, and
the erroyo were background, all up and down, except for right15 i
Il*
16 |"O #*
Thorium was somcwhat elevated. And I can't give you97
a Precise nuuber. And where it is elevated, it's elevated inla
;g spots. Those are the hot spots, and that's where the clean-up
13 CC"Tri"9-20
O Is this the only dam failure that has occurred at a21
uranium mill?22
A UU* UU*23
- 0 H u many have thcro been? There have bacn others, I24
taka it.2a-
i} -
4
257
1 A Yes, there have been others.
(v3 2 0 Do you know how many?
3 'A No. It's right in here, and I can pull it out for
4 you,-if you'd like.
5 MR. SILBERG I'm sorry. Just for the record, can
6 you say what " hero" means?
.7 THE WITNESS: Yes. The GEIS.
O MR. SILBERG: Thank you.
9 BY DR.KEFFORD:
*0 0 Were the tailings released in those filiures cleaned.
11 up?
12 A I don't know the facts surrounding all those cases.
( 13 Nonc compared with the Church Rock failure.
14 0 In terms of what?
A V lume, but more than that, the e:ctent of contamina-15
tion. To my knowledge, no other dam failure has resulted in16
release of materials off site. And most failures have bacn37
small overtopping of the dam,~f8
0 Do the proposed regulations or critoria have anyjg
20 UPecific sections which address the need for better dams?
A We have a series of regulatory guides - -21
CHAIRMRN ROSENTHAL: Well, answer the quoction that3
Was Poned to you.c23
- 24-.THE WITliESS: No. But A-
_
^#- 'DR. KEPFORD: Thank you.
258
I THE WITNESS- Uc have a series of regulatory guidos
2 which give a lot of detail and specify how dann are to bo
3 constructed.
4 (Pause. )
E BY DR.KEPFORD:
6 Q Does that insure that the Church Roch failure will
7 not be repoated? The existance of regulatory guides?
6 (Pauso. )
9 A I'm trying to think of a short way to ensvar this
10 question, and get to the heart of what y'u're saying -- oro
11 uhat you're asking.
12 CHAIR!iAN ROSENTHAL: Well, he asked you a simpic
13 question: do thog assure it? or do they not? And --
14 THE UITUESS: Iwould say "yes." Dut I uould have
15 to expand on that.
16 CimIIDIAN ROSENTI?AL: Well, if he asks you for an
17 expannien. He asked you a quesbion; and you responded "yes."
18 And if he wants to pursue that matter, he can do so.
19 THE UITNESS: Yes. The reg guides, supplemented by
20 cur progrcm, thia neu would.
21 (P aune. )
22 LY DR.KEPFORD:
23 0 How cany of these reg guidos on dams are prepared?
24 A I can't give you an exact dato.
23 O The Federce Register notice here is dated August 197!'.
;. tI
h
.
259
1 Was it approximately before or after?
7. A 'Oh, before.
3 0 19787
4 A I believe it vac '70, '77, come time.
5 (Pause. )
6 Q Did not the Church Rock failure take place last yeari
7 A Yes.
6 (Pause. )
9 0 After tho, after the reg guides were in force? -- in
10 place.
11 A Yea, but the drua was conctructed and built before,
12 befora the time that we had the reg guidea and the other parts
13 f our prcgram to ccmplement that,
Q It got an excmption?g4
A The -- no.gg
0 It was not requirca to meet the regulation -- or16
whatever.37
A The Church Rock will was licensed before the timegg ,
gg uhen there was a conscious effort to upgrade tailings manage-
nont practicos in the United S'.atca. It van licensed by an20
agrecuent State.21
(Pau se. )g
Hith --23
CHAIMITJU ROSENTHAL: Well, did the staff apply itsg
regulatory guide -- or regulatory guid33 -- in this area tog
l
260
1 that particu).ar dam? .
,.
J,~
x-)( 2 THE WITNESS: No, I said that this was an agreement 2
i3 -State. '
4 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: All right. So.the response Y
5 then to Dr. Kepford's question, based upon the tim 6ng of the,.
!6 the accident and the issuance of the regulatory guido is, as.I-
.
7 take it, that the regulatory guides would not apply to that.
8 danu,
9 (Pause.)
10 THE WITNESS: There was an early version of Reg
11 Guide 3.8, which I understand the State used. We were not
12 involved, and so I can't say hou it was applied.
33 (Pause. )v
14 DR. KEPFORD: On page 25, toward the bottom, a 50-yet r
15 environmental half-life of, I believe, radium on the ground,
16radium which comes off, which is -- a dust which comes out
from the mill?g
DR. BUCK: Dr. Kcpford, I'm sorry; I didn't understar:110-
gg- that question at all. Would you repeat it, please.
20 DR. M FORD: Toward the bottom of page 25, there is
"" "88"*U0 ~~21
DR. BUCK: Tuonty-five?22:
Om Page 25..23
DR. DUCE: Of the testimony.24,_
DR. KEPFORD: Of the testimony. There Mr. Millerg
u-
- -- .
261
I refers to a so-callod -- I quote: "A so-called environmental ,
(g. 2 '
half-life of 50 ~ urs," I would assuno by the staff.
3 This is radium on the ground, I believe, from mill
4 operations.
5 Can you tell me whore that 50-year assumption comes
6 from?
7~
THE WITNESS: Yes.
6 - DY DR.KEPFORD:
9 Q Please do so.
10 A It's in a reference that's referenced in Appendix G
11 of the GUIS. If you want me to take the tizie, I'll dig througl-
12 and. find it.
[) 13 Q Well, as I see it, it's on page G-25 of the GEIS.v
14 ind I-don't see any reference listed. Now, an I wrong.
15 A It's in there comewhere, Dr. Kepford; and if you want
; 16 me to, I'll find it.
17 Q- At some point tcday, I wsuld appreciate it if you
13 would.
19 (Pausc.)
20 Let's go b# a minute, Mr. Miller, to our maximum
21 probable flood.
22 ' CHAIRMAN ROSEWIHAL: Now, this, Dr. Kopford, is what
23- I mean by unfocused quesLions. I mean, you have been hoppingi
-24 about hither and yon. There doesn't seem to me to have been ipO |
25 .. much of t J.ogical development cr progression of your cross- |,
l
1 --, _ _ _ ,_ - --
262
1 examination of this witness.
2 I for one, and I'm one of the peoplo that have the
2 responcibility for making a decision in this case, have great
4 difficulty in determining where you're going, what you're
5 trying to establish. And I just point this out.
G I mean, to mc cross-cramination, particularly again
7 where -- I'm not going to get into the matter again uith you
a as to when precisaly you got this tentimony; but I think by
9 your own agrcement you've had it for aeveral weeks --
i
10 { DR. IGPFORD: About three.
31 CIIAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: All right, three wecks.
And como 40-odd pm.ges of testimony here. And it12 :
I
'^
g3 would have cecned to me it would have been helpful in your,
v j
14 f own interent, as well as to the interest of the Board, had
!
33 there been some endeaver to set for*h an orderly progression'
of cronn-exeninntion.3g
37 How, you started off with maximum flood; you've been
3g bouncing around on other topics; now you're back on maximum ,
1
! flood. And I don't really -- for the life of ne, I'veg1
lictened to thic now for a little more than an hour. Andg
again, I speak only for nyaalf: but I don't understand 1(nereg,
|g you're going or what you're trying to establish.
Hou, you may have acmc idea along that line, but Ig
certainly don't.24'
Eut you can nou p cceed with it. But I'm talling youg
._ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _
f**
!'
'' 263|
~I| that .at this point I don't see any reason for not enforcing
.
I-r 2 that 11:00 o' clock tirae deadline I imposed upon you, though
3; that matter can.abido the ovent of 11:00 o' clock.L^
4 Proceed'.
5 .(Pause. )
6 DR. KEPFORD:- Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I
7 find exceedingly frustrating in this entire process'is that~
'
8 there seems to'be nothing firm to attack.,
'
9 For instance, the tune periods under consideration.
to by Mr. Miller, shore we went round and round yesterday -- I
11 haven't'seen the tranccripts, but it was my recollection that
| 11 periods of time involved, which Mr. Miller was talking about,i.
|h 13 - ware never identified.
14 CHAIR 1!Kd ROSElifIIAL: When you made an endeavor to1
15 pin Mr. Miller dorm in that regard, you received a certain
'16 response from Mr. Miller. If you pressed the point -- and if
17 I recall correctly, you received the same response on several
18_ cubsequenh occasionn.
.!9 l'iow, you may find this very frustrating. But
20 apparently that's the only responsa that this witness was
. 21 prepared to give you on that quertion.
; 22- Now, you ';will have an opportunity, obvicusly, to
!| |23 submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. If it;
i24 is ycur belief that-Hr. Hiller's inability to be more precisc
25 - in certain regards cuats doubt upon' certain ' aspects of hi's,
,.
!'!.,
-- ,v-- ----%--- .. ...- --_ _ _ _ - _ _- -----------,I.
. , , , _ _ _ _ _ .
_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - - . . . - - _ _
264t
1 itentimony, you will boLfrco to ao indicate.m
>
hm;2- But.Mr. Miller has indicated, I thought, that in
1
3. many of these areas'in his judgment as an export witness it is
4 not possiblo to be'more preciso in fixing timo periods than he- |t,
|| 5 was.I
6 Now, that's his judgment; and there's nothing that|,
7 can be dona to alter it.
6 i DR. HEPFORD: I'd like to go back to again what I!
l
9 1 caid earlier this morning. The thrust of my questions was,1
10 i yesterday on this subject, was merely to try to get a' commoni
!
11 language, so we knou uhat ue are talking about.
! ?. And in my opinion, that effort has boon totally
13 fruftless.
14 CHAIRMAH ROSEWTHAL: Well, it may have been fruitlenol.
15 But if it has been, pursuing that same line today, tomorrow, orI'
16 the next day isn't going to make it any more fruitful.
17 My point simply wan, and is, that you explored this
L to with the witness yesterday. He responded to what socmed to me
19 .to be cccentially the same question on a number of different
20 occasionn. And that's his answor.
-21 Mow, you may find it frustrating. I daresay that
22 lawyera very frequently find cross-exnmination frustrating
gy, _ becauce they cannot obtain from the witness under cross-
.G. 24_ examination the answers that they would like to receive.
Q !.;
But we're really not talking about'that now. The-
253. *
c . ..______;._=- - _ _ - - - - - - _ _ _
__. . _ _ _ - - - --- _ _ _ _ _ _-____
, .
;
g 265
1 ~
.
. reason that'I, I interrupted.you was that it seemed'to me that' '2
you were returnidg- to a, the subject of floods, which you had ~
3 opened up your cross-examination on some hour ago; and, as I4 auggcuted to.you, it seemed to me that this was an illustratioh
'S d5 an unfocused ~ cross-examination, that you hop around amongl
cubjects, and then return to subjects that you've dealt with>
7 before.
8Imd I'm just saying that not only is this extremely
9 time-consuming, but it isn't'really . terribly helpful to the
10 mcmbers'of this Board.
JT-2 11 (Pause.)i
Ig *v
II 'WI' 12' DR. KEPFORD: lir. Chairman, if ny cross-examination |g
|h 13- in not focused, that is something you can blame personally on
14 r.o . .5ut I uculd.like -- j
15 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: I'm not trying to assess blame.(
16 DR. KEPFORD: I would like to pBint out that we are
17 .doing our best to assist the Appeal Board and the Consnission '
!i
-
101 -in-fulfilling its responsibilitics under NEPA, in particular |E
, 19 NEPI. as defined in the, by the Circuit Court of Appeals in
EO Calvert Cliffs vs. U.S. Atonic Energy Conrdssion.i' .
j. 21 And I'd like to quoto fron you from a clip opinion,!
22 page ~~
23 CHAIR?b5 FOSEMEAL: I don't think, Dr. Repford,
:g$ that that's really'necessary. {
23 Manbar ona, you can rest assured that all of the'
i~
,
_1 _ _ _ __ . _-- ..
.- .
.'
.
266i
racmbers of thic Eoard arc fully familiar with Calvert Cliffs.
2I could almost recite it from memory.
Secondly, to don't doubt your sincority in ondeavor-4
ing to acsist the Ccemiccion in diccharging its HEPA responsi-5
bilitico in this ar.ca c.nd, indcod, I think I speak for the6
en'iro Dcard in raying that no appreciate the tina and effortc
7that you particularly have devoted to this matter.
7.o
But vnat I'm trying to get acroca to you is that it
9 is nct terribly helpful to the process to your own objectives10
of being of as much assistance as possible in the carrying outU
of this process to have crone-examination by you, or indeed by12 any other participant, of a witncas which again is not focused,
i!
U! and ic to como extent at least repctitivo.-
IM If crosa-c':rzaination io going to ba helpful, the
i
6| Doard at least has to ha;c sono idea as to precisely what it isI
'8 C |' that you are endeavoring to elicit from the witness with rogard .
k17 :. to hic diract testimony. And I again can only repeat -- at theil
16 rich of bcing repetitive myself - that I have found your cetwwii89' c:mniration to this point to be rather unhelpful.
'O"
and thin is c. gain in part becausa you, you've bounced21 around fron subject :c.atter; and you, you got the cubject, drop
i
'm 1~; the cubject, and the subacquantly you coma back to it now withiI
e7' this, the flocau. And I really still cra unclear as to precisely |
,
t
1
M uhat it oint you are endeavoring to make through that cross- |
3{ examination.
I
I'
t.-
267
IDut I think that this dialogue is probably not <
2terribly fruitful, and it is time-consuming. And I would
3 nuggest that you get bach to your questions'of the witness.
4 (Pause.)
5 BY DR. IGPFORD:
6 0 lir. Millcr, uith proposed mitling activities on
7 Indian lands, do the propoccd criteria apply?O (Pauso. )
D DR. JOliNSON: Uhat was your responso to that questior ?
10 THE UITNESS: I haven't given one.
I1 DR. JOHNSON: Oh, excuco ne.
12 (Pause. )
' 13-
THE WITNESS: Yes.
14 DY DR. KEPFORD:1
i The proposed regulations have a qualification that if!13 O
16 , c Stato proposed, the Stato has the option to propose moret
17 ctrict regulations than the l'IRO, is that correct?
10 ; ?. Yes.
1D Q If thab taics pleco in a Stato, a nonagreenent State,q|
1.0 uhere thera is mining on Indian land, which regulations apply? < --
4
21 i milling on Indian lands.|
1'
22 A I didn't untlerstand tho'queation.
E3 I]1. EORD21 ICE: Mr. Chairman, I, I didn't object to
24 & first questi' a, which wac certainly quasi-legal in nature.r
25 I think the seco.'d question is ci.carly a legal question. And,
t -
|
n---___. _=
.
L 268|
l_ _
we haven't offered this witness as a legal expert.
2 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:. Isn't that right, Dr. Kepford?;
} 3 Weren't you calling upon this witness to express a conclusion
# on what is-essentially a question of law?
5 DR. KEPFORD: Well, not being an attorney, I'm not
6 in much of. a position to assess what is, in particular, a
7 legal question and which is not a legal question.
! O It seems to me there's a reasonably cleat-cut answer:
9 yes or no. The commission in sponsoring these regulations --
10 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: To cut this a bit short, if the
11 witness has an opinion on this, I'll allow him to express it,
12 recognising as Mr. Bordenick correctly points out that he is
13 here as a technical, not a, a legal witness.
14 - (Pause . )L
15 THE WITNESS: Dr. Kcpford, you're going to have to'
16 repeat that question, becauco I didn't understand it as you
i 17- phrased it.
!10- BY DR. KEPIN3RD:
I19 O Let's, let's take Wyoming as -- Uyoming is a_non-
20 agrae: ent State, _-is it not?,
21 A: Yes.
22 O If ~ there were a uranium mill oh Indian lands in the
I 23 State of Uyoming; and.if Wyoming has more strict regulations:*
I .24- for a mill tailings piles -- then the NRC's regulations,.would-
0 25 tho:3o regulations apply on the Indian lands?!
.w-_ _ -___ _ _ _ - - - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _-
1-
t
269
I ClIAIRMAN ROSEITfHAL: If you don't know, say so.
,THE WITHESS: That'c a legal question that I don't-
3 know.
'I (Paucc. )
5 DY DR. KEPFORD:
G Q The proposed criteria, ac I recall, have a section!
7 dealing with Indian lands and the financial surety -- I believe
O| it's Critorion ll-G.
9 (Pauce.)
10 Tno, does the custody of the nill tailings cite on
11 Indian lands revert to the Federal Government?
12 (Paucc.)'
13 A I have to study that for a nonent. This provision isi
14 taken directly from the uranium :r.ill tailinga R diation Control
15 Act and dces nothing rare than recito what is in the Act.
16 Now, if you want me to take a second to read it, I
17 1 can, I can do that.
18 The lands are already hold in truct Fay the Federal
19 , Goverrr.ent and co that it doesn't make senso to be talking abou- :i
ln0 j transfer to the Federal Coverrmont, and that's what thin
21 essentially ia saying - or recognizing.
22 t P ulce. )I
23 ' O I think in answer to a question yesterday you
, nd envisagcd provisions whereby reclahnee milla tailinga pilos
73 might parhaps be fcnced cff, to prevont injury, building thereon,
>
7.__ - -_ _ - -- .___ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _____ _
'. !; t
'
i. 270 l
! j| 1 -and co:on. ('
,-,
ij - 2 Would that also apply to the Indian land situation?'
; 3 A The cene poccibility would exist on Indian lands as|i 4 on non-Indian lands. |
|
5 (Pause. ) !
r''
6 DR..KEPFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would beg the Board's;
7- indulgence.
o I have, in the purpose of -- in the process of ,
|
9 preparation 6or this proceeding, writton out a few hundred ||
10 questions for Mr. Miller.,
I do not -- I had clininated the vast majority ofgg
12 them mycoif,.purcuant to your instructions.
.Unfertunately, the remaining questions which I had to- 13
auk this witneca, as a result, are not terribly well focused14
and consist to a cortain extent of picking up loose ends and ;15
jumping around from topic to topic. I thought I would tell you16
about it beforchand.g.j
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: All right. Well, maybe this;g
would ha a good time to take a midmorning recess on this.jg ,
We will n t count this against your time, and you ,
20
can collect your, come thoughtd.21
u 11 reccas for 10. minutes.22
rscoss.) (Brief recess.)DTaps 3R&T
/8. m
25
______;_______._, _
__ _ .___ .____
t 4
| tape 4 -
En-1 2711
.
sg 51 aim!ML ROSIMTIIAL: [.All,right, Dr. Kepford. 4
k LY DR. NEPPORD:,
!,
3
Mr. Millor, you havo_the , color; ado Stato Report.. - - .
,'
O' '
4-. . . . . . .- .'
I with you, do you not? N
| 5,.. ., - s
~
k ,_. ,,
'~0
O Could yo'u turn to pqqe si,x, please? -
.7. . . . . . . .
t Beginning with the r:econd, full paragraph,1 8
.
~ . . . .. ,, ' , ,
beginning with the first full parauraph, could you read'
9'that page please?
./ s10
. .c~,
" '-% A Yes. ,
11 'w. . . .
"The above brief, nn,d ver,y general summary,
12 ._ . . _ _ .. . _ . . .
empha.uices the difficulty in predicting the responses of '
O ' 13 . . . ..-
|i
'
-
tallinga impoundments on or near the earth's surface for1-
!,
1A - ..:.-.... . ..'
100,000 years. ,It is unwise to extrapolate measured rates '
15 . . _ _ . - . .
'.. .
' j of denudation or uplift .for 100,000 years.16 0
. . . . . . t
"It is possible 'o c.cne]u.de that the lastcj
.
17)
. .. . .
100,000 yearc of carth history hava boon eventful, and there ..i~
-10 . . -
i is little reason to expect the next 100,000 years to be19 . .
''
;,
1 css ' sei. " --
29 <
Do you want ne to ra,ad tip whole page?21 ._ ..
0 Yes.. .,
>
22- .- r-:
[ A "Pecapitulate, the l_act 1.00,000 years have been .
i. 23- _ _ . ,, :i- a period of one major climatic change with accociated
| . h ' 24 ... changon in crocion ratos and processes, vegetation denci'ty
| . -... i
'
. ;,
,$ ' ~.,,
, Ie
:.
( i:
h) !t
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ - . _ _ _-
! tape ~4
\
'
I
In-1 271*
1
b! AIRMAIL.ROSENTHAL t [.ill,right,Dr.Kopford. 's! ( . . .. .. ,
.
| DY- DR, REPFORD:, ,'3
O. Mr.Mi1[er,youhave;tho.ColobadoStatoReport'
| , 4, . . . ... . . . - .
with you, do"you not? N5 -
,_ , , , , , . , s.
' A Yon.| A
. . . . . .
! O Could yo'u turn to pqgo si.x, please? -
I 7
! "t Beginnin$withthesecond.fullparagraph,( ' l'
'
. .. .
! ' beginning with the first full paragraph, could you read9
'
that pago please?'
7~ , 10.s
i ~'%._ A Yes,|
"
{ 11 ~~~ -' w . . .'
,
"The above brief, an.d ver.y general summaryi
12 . . . _ ... ... i.
O emphacizes the difficulty in predicting the responses of l'
t13 . . . -- . ;
tallingc iir.poundmentn on or near the earth's surface for !,
.
SA . -. . . . . . .l:100,000 years. ,It is unwise to extrapolate measured rates |
,
|15 L .. - -.. ..
;1
j ] of denudation or uplift for 100,000 years, i ;8 16 1 . . .. -- - -. . J
"It io possible to conclu.de that the last '
17 ._ . . . _
100,000 years of carth history have been eventful, anil there '..'
13 .' :
is little roanon to expect the next 100,000 years to be(19 . .
.'
j -less no'." '
-
;
i 20 s.I| Do you want me to re.ad the whole page?
| 21 -- -- {r
'
O Yes.. |r
22 , -. m itA. " Recapitulate, the 1.ast 1.00,000 years have been j.y
a- period of one majo$ climatic change with associated: : ,g
_ . .. !; changea 'in orocion rates and procesces, vegetation densa.ty
25 ~~
:,!
[ . ( i.
} h.. i,
.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ .
2.
|4 272s
! .
and type, and major extinctions of plasticene fauna and
ing the formation of larga lakes in presently the arid areas.
"2) Major glacial mo,dific.ations of the northern '
part of the continents and the western monatains;{
"3) Major con level fluct.uations with acconnany- '
'
. .. .. .
,- ing river incision and depocition; -
6 i- -
"4) Continuing displacemont of the carth'si. 7
.. _. .. .. . . . _ _
! surface by faulting and inontatic adjustment to the'
,
8,
I
addition and removal of ice loads. !0 |. .. . .
l"If the pasti is inde,cd a , guide to the future,
'
10 i'
'it appearn that long-term erosion, erosional utability can-,
'
not be acsumed. Even whera glacial activity and faulting12
, , , . _ i
are improbable, climatic change and resulting change inU
river bahavior as well as change in the rates and mechanics.f4
|. of hill slope erosion provent accure storage of earthi 15 _, . . .
materials.16- . . _.
"For example, an initially secure storage cites
17- . __..- . .. .
can be rendered insecure by either an increase of precipita-18 . . . .
tion, which-will incroace Icass wasting (sliding, slumping),19 . . . .. .
or a decrease of precipitation which will cause reduction20
'
of vegetative cover and' increase surface erosion by raindrop,
21 - tj impact, overland flow and rilling."22 .. . . _. . .
O Thank you !!r. Mil 'r.r , .'23 ._- . -. .. . _ .
Do you have any cenurpnt? .g .24
,
ue.. .
. . . . . . .
2;'
25 .. .-
^_______a.-.__.=.--__:.._ . _ _ _ _ .. . .. ._-
- - ---- _ _ ._. _ _ _ - _ . . - - .. . --- . . _ .
.: r~
273'jn3^ I,'
,
'l '_ 9
4 Q Do you.,bolieve that.is a. reasonable charac~3
N( . terization of what.might be expected in the future?
A' l A I have no reason not,to believe it.*
4 {i) Q Onthenextpahe,.co.uldyoureadparagraph
-beginning.aboutinthemiddleofthepkge? Pago seven.''5 ,-,
:. . . .
; - 6 .,
The paragraph beginning, "Thus."."
.'
| .7 A "Thus, clinato will havo.a pronounced influenc~. . . . . . . . . . . - . , . ..
ei
1
|- on geomorphological proceNses, although it is fairly certain8'
:
f thatclimaticchanheswil5.oEcuruithinthelongtimoperiods9
i10 considered herein. The direction they will take is not -
11 predictable. This enphanides again,' certain itature of"12 ovaluations of long-term stability of tailings impo'undments.
. . . . .
13 | Q Do you have any corrient? .. ,
.. .
14 A Ho..
.
' . 8. ..
15 'O ' Could you please turn to page 316 of tha6 reNort?'
.. _ _ . . . .
16 A I'm there..
.17 Q And read section A,," Failure Mechanisms," please..
18 CIIAIlutdhtOSENTIfAT.:~
. I we,uld have thought, Dr.
19 Kopford, that rather than acking the witness whether ha
20' han any com=cnt, it would be preferable to inquire whether I
h.e agrees or disagrees $71th the paragraph that you're havinct21.
,
, . I
22 him rsad, !;
:.
23 You can proceed, as,you'w111, but you're not:.
. ,
t
listening very much Nhen you hkvc him read a paragraph and24 '
,
Is
cimply ask:him'nother he has any comment. I assuma you25 !w '
i:,..
~*
.,''
'.W. _ - _ _ - - - "pwpy 1
._ _
.
274
y appreciate that that thoce portions of that report have no,
h indepedent evidentiary ctanding at all. If the witness7,
agrecs with the paragraph, a particular paragraph or a j3l
4 particular r,tatement, then you have on the record thin 1
export uitncan' greement with it. Ill other words, hisea
own end rriament of the Statement, but the statement itselfG
han no, again, indepc''6rnt evidentiary uignificance because7
f te h that the of2icer's report is not present andO
.. ., - .-i ...., ct v <>.1 J m u ; - >. tr L v 1 v M o v:.v u a '.11 a s .r.vi t .
9: ,|-
U"' KI'EUi" I'll ECOP that in mind. Thank you,10 - -
! _ . . - _. .
i Ucc. Chairnan.11 i
I~
i DV DR. IEPFORD:l a, 't
- '
. { .-
I O Could you proceed, o,len.co?
A Do you want Ire bo re,ad, s, tarting with -, , >
. . .
Q " Failure r.:acheniorte . ''g .
.. . . .
A Failure ecchanisus.16
. .
''
i 0 'lo c .17 i
~ ^ I
A Uhicli goes on to' the, next, page?
. . . . . .
O 'J:h n t ' s c o c 20 t .Io d, -
||~~
ii A All right. * ^
20p_. _
aH "The hazard ircasad py tip presence of a
21 0; .. ,_ . - .. __ -
ta l lincp: impilcrent depandr. upon the nature of a partictl='
71.. .. .-
L failuro , tat my occur. Ti;c worce situation would be a?3 i
failure that rc$ nite in Ulencraion of :adioactive tailinan1?.5
-1
ovar a vida area. P.tilure of i opoundrontelcr.cata that 11
3-'
'* U-- .
a't
- - - - . - , . . . , _ _ __ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _
_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,
i <
i I'
! 1-
<
' 275i$n5
'
1 result in a slow or .locali, zed release of radioactiveO 2 material are less sovero. FromthatEtandpoint, bloods
3 appear to be the greatest potential cause of covere
4 failure. AfloodlargerthanthedesignNoodisalmost '
~
5 certain to occur over long periods, and, in fact, one
6 couldoccuratanytime. T$e maximum possibic floock 'is |-
I
- .. . . . - - . _ . . ~ . .. ..
7 almost impossible to predict. Isloo, , design measures to:
.. . . . . . . . . . . . .
..!i
g provent flood damage will be unreliable over long time. .. <
9 periods..
. . ,
I
10 'T ttrtherdore , if a major f, loc.d washes out 't
_. _ . . . . . . . .._ .. . .
gj an inpoundment, it vill disperse ta'ilingt over a very large. !
.
i!
. .._
tiren. Wind and water erosion of embankments and caps can12
. 13 disperse tailings over relatively larca areas..alc
|.. - . . . . .. . .. '
| 14 "Stabilizntion of sqrface,s can utilize either '
I veg tation or the pl$ cement of col [blbs and rosWS.15 Vegeta-
' tion may La nusc[phible to hailure due to drou'tht,.6.
fire,1
\ . - . . . . . . ,
$or pestilenco and it nay require a considerable maintenance.97. . _ . . ... . .. . . .
_
g " Stabilization of sqrface, by armorin; 'with'
rocks cay be stable for sevhral thousand years aid requireg. - . . . . . . - . .
! .almost no naintenance.. - . . .
20
" Earthquakes hh cau,ae di,sporaion of tailings
-if liquifaction of tailings can occur, however, s.:cpagei nacqu nuy, hu a23 . e n cu.
may be assumed th$t within a medium-long term peri;d all. . . _ _ .
free. water in the tailing'.s will h' ave secped out unit ssi;
;; 25. . . ' . .*
, .. .. . _
'VV'- , P-. , _ _ _ , . - - _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
__ _
jn6- 276 ]. ,
. .
..
rochargo is occuring. Failure'due to earthquakes would_g 2 .
. . . . . . . . . _ . . ,. !t
W probably be less sovoro after short long-term periods ~have '
:3 - .
failure to nome degree of all impoundmentpansed. .Tnus,;,
| 4 - |
| elements, i.o. , cap, liner and. cr5ankment, is highly |,
5 ~~ - - - - -- ' - * -
probable. Failure due to natural phenomena should be :
6-- would:be severe if caused by floods, carthquakes within
7 short-term periods, or dispersion k)y kvind or water erosiori;8 *~ ^ * * - --~ * ~~ " ~
failure due to other natural phenomena are less severe."
y ; _ _ _ . . .. ~ . .
| 0 Thank you., ,
' 10 |~~ -' ~
IIow do you feel abogt thq conclusions stated
jg. ... . . - .
,
,! therein?. l
12-
t
| A Dr. Kopford, I read.these,in context with other t
g - U.
.r
f otni:oments that are r$ade in this document, and with the
discussions witlI tNe authors of this repor5, having workedI'I '
.
i with them, and I forded the conclu$si$n that I mcdo yester-15!i
16 day uhon I said that the stanility of impoundments, which
are davaloped in t5E EEnne[$ hat N have described in my17-
,, g._ .. ._.. _. .. _ .
'; tectimony,'will reamin stable, and it's reasonable to expect
,
i
{ .that.they will red $in $hable many thousands of years.IO~
'... .. . - - . . . . .
[ Pause in proceedings.},
21 DYDR.KEPFOND$,i . .
}E |O' 'Mr. Mill $r, you nont_ioned, many thousands of'
g .. . . . . .. .
! 23 years, could you define "meny", please?|
- _ . - . .
24 MR. BORDENICK: ' Objection.:e: - -
25 -ci;3173tn1[ROSENTdAL: .'All,right, Dr. Kopford,.. .. . _.
,
|.
,4 r
|'
is
^
n7;'
. .277
d'
:
i 1 I-am telling you that this is' your titte period. It seens '
*toma, offhand,th5tyouarewas51ngit. We went'through |. h"
2,
i. . . . . . . . .\
I 3 this yestcrday. |
4 DR.EbPh0kD: fir. II%,ller ,vas- not asked to define t,
|. . . . . . . . . . .
i 5 "many" yesterday.. :
. . . - . . . . . . . - - . ..
6 CIIAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: ,Well,, I thought that he1
. ... . . . . . . . . . . .
i7 in the cource of his testimony had defined "many" but I '
|.. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .
0. uill allow the question to stand. II
9 TIIb WIThESS: I am to ans, wor the quest ton?
, .. . . .. - . . . . ||- 10 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: , Ye s ., '
11 TIIE WITNbSS: All r,ight.,. . . . . . . -
|.12 ' Just as you have heard me read, there's a lot |
'l' '
._ . __ . . . . _ . . . . .
13 of uncertainty concerning things 100,000 years into theO .. . . . _ . _ . . . . 1
,
I. |: ..
| 14 future.. i3 ,
i _. .. _. I
IS CIIAIRMAN ROSENTIIAL: Well, is there a range -- |,
.. .._ ... . . . . . . . . . . . .,
13 - THE WITNESS: As I s,tated yesterday, I cannot i
,
. .. - . . . . -. . -. .
g7- give you a firm number, ce--tainly on a generic basis, it.-.
:,
-_ _ .. . . . . . . . . .'
10 sould be~hard enough on a sites-upacific basis where you. . _ . . . . ._ . . _ - . . ... .
99 knew all of.the answorn to questions that are required te, . . - . . . . .. .
|
I
!~
20~ know the crosion~ potential of a given site.|
21. CHAIIU!AN ROSENTHAL: D L,nore a range you could
py -ive, an upper and-lower linit on the number of thousands of'. I. . .. . _ - .. .. .
1
. .. . .. . .
23 - years?
;24 THE WITNESS: No. , ,
-O M AIP4AH RO5NUTHAL: Dei y,ou have' your answer, '-
25. _ __. .. . ._ . . . . . . . . _ _ . . g .
Dr.. Kepford?-.
~
..a..w-.......*
41
..v.-.._ _ . _ _ ew ww-- et.a cr e-awww.- , _ _ . ms v.e e ..3- _ - ar .n - -_ _ rw- w- ar.- ee -.w emww w,-.- _ .
._. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ ___ . _ ___ _ _ _ _ _____ __ ___ _ _ __.
c ., ,
!
In8 '278. .
9- --
,
DY DR. KEPFORD , ,
9 2- -- - '- ~ ~ '
Q Are any. mill tailing,9 sitos sited in areas which I'
3 mightbecharacteriz$danhigh-uindarcac? Excuse me,,
6
4 .areasuhorehighw[ndsm[ghtpoopiblybeexpectedtooccur?,
.
|5 ~ ~~ ' * * '~~ ~ ' ' ' '"~ ' ''
A Uhat would you define as.a high vind? '
6 ** - * ~" ~~ ' -' * ^ -
i
O Uhen I'm talking abo.ut hi,gh winds, I'm talking *
7about them in the context referred to in the Colorado Stato I |
8 '' ' ' ' ^''~~-'~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ''
'
Report. I beliove in here thero's 6 diagran showing wind -- '
9 highwindspeedcon5o~urc. 'Nea~, page 281, please,g . . . ... . .._ . _- . . . _ - - . . .
DR. KEPFORD: Irat the, record show that I ami
U referring to figure 51 in tho Uolor$do btate Report.'
Ithi$kinmydeUini. tion,.Mr. Miller,Iwould12
[' . . . . . . . _ . . . .. _ . . . . . . , ,
13j . choooo a speed, meaning high wind speed, on the order of 'i
'
I4-._ .. ... . . - - _ . . . _ . . . _ . _ . . . . . __. <
80 to 90 rtilas an hour, in the definition listed there.
'1S 'fNE WINNESS: bat t$b[e ,says --- the ti51e of
~ ~
''
.
that table ic "Isotach .01 q$anhibi$s in milen .:ar hour:16
1
| annual, c::tres[$ild 30 hbet $b ha ground,100-year mean17i
! 16 recurrence interv51," and from that, I take it that these I
7 .., ... _.. .. .
isotach.1 chow what the 100-year wind, if you can. call i.t -
,
that, ia. You say 8O to 9b. Ihat enc Npasbes all of the' ~
20 't
~
2I arean whero nilling is occurring. -
. .._ .. . . . .
22 BY'DR. KEPFORD:, ,
.
,
23 0- Dcea the 100-isotacit contpur -- 100-mile-per-, ,
i. . ._. _ .. . . . . _ . . . . _ . . . .. _
24jg hour isotach contour include'any pdrbions approximately ofr .. . . .. ._ . . . , ,
. '. . . . . . . .
25 the ' Powder Rivar Besin?,
a w e . re me. w* . erw A % ,,s . .- 4 -
#
6
hI *
[,.
| -
, .,
279. e.,
D9 A' Yes, it includes -- -ih 'looks like three major*
4i ..: . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .
arcas ar und Casper, where there's milling going on..2
""" U " # "# * * ""[3 *
|wind areas?i
| 14; . . .
; A I w uld say that given the'other winds shown *
5[ . . . - .._. _ _ _ . .. . . . .
here'that that looks like'a higher vind area, windspeed area,'
6. .- . . - . . - . . . .. . . .
than most other partr 'of.the country.... . . _,. .. ._ . ....'s windy in Wyoming.It
7..
Q- I was born there, Mr. Mil,leri8
. . . . _ _. . . . . . . . .
A I know. , ,gt .n... . . _.
j- O Page 516, the second.,sent.ence you read refers: 10
to the worst situation being a failure that results in
dispercion' c f the .$1ill tailngs over a wide area. In that
ponsibilityincludedintehmsofradonrelbasesinany13
| .. .. . . . . .,
.
t' of the staff testirr>nv?1K
^
. .. - - . ,_.
A State that ngain, Dr. Kep, ford, please.
Q All right., ,
You have scat $nb twp of .that paragraph in front1! \ |
of you. !'
13..
,
, , !. A Yes.19 | !
<
O_ nna that is the ceco,,nd se.ntence of the section'
20 I
"Failarc Mechanisns," page 316 in Colorado State Report,
[ which you read.carlieri- 22'
.. . -. . .. .
, . IA Yes.-23 F
Q. Is thut klorst $1tuat, ion i,ncluded in any of the |'
. 24
.
staff,techimonies in regard to radon emissioni f25 , . .. _ . . . . .. l
iii
.. F
.
|.
~
':n10 -,
.
4
[ -- 280 |,
{' j- . .- |
:That is the possibility o,f dispersal of mill j*
'
64- -
I!2'
|-_ _
. tailings over a wide' area. |.
t
3 :
A -I understand the question. :
. g . . _ .. . . . . .. . . . . - ... .
;
Mo. . .
UQ Do any_of the staff.testip wies admit the possi-
1 . .__, .. _ . . . . .. . . .
6! bility of any dispersal of mill tailings and the resulting
'
1
7 elevated.releasesof'radonh0 '
A Are you speaking nov( about following reclamation,
O; following utilization?
0 Yes$~
10. ,
. ._ .
II A No. , ,
IndoinhkhebbPAan,alysi,s,Mr. Miller,on12 - Qj .. , . . . . . . ..
13 - mill tailings study, is cost-benefit analysis used?i . . . . _ - . . .
- . ..
!, I4 A- Yes. . .
15 Q' Arc there any b gu.ideli.nes or regu; .t: ions for
_ . . . . - - . . -. . .
16 how to~ carry out a cont ~ benefit analysis?,
None thNt bm m are pf. ,If you're talking aboutf 17~ A- '
i . . . .. _ . . . .. . . _ . . . ._ . . ...
| 18 a rigoroun, monetized weighting of, let's say, health effectsL . . - __ _ . . _ . . . _ .. .. .. ,
19 versus dollara apent for prevention, that would apply to.. . . . . . . .
20 uranium mill tailings.
21 0 Do not the botaissio.n's regulations require
22 acost-bonefitonalybis, including radiological cost?! . . . . ..... . .- . . _ l! 23 MR. SILBERC: Mr. Ch.airna,n,iT'm going to objoct. '
24 'I_ don'tcectherole$anc[inthistantimony. |
| 1I
;~
25 CHAIIUiMI ROSEMTEL: What,is the relevance of.. -- .. . .
'l; *.
\'. - . . . .. . . . . . . .
> '
.v--
.A,,--.. . . . ______._.-..w--~------ - . - - - . - ~ . - -_ _ _ . .--...-._,-.y- ~ ~ - . . . -
.. - _ . _ - . . _.-_ .---- . - _ _ _ --- --_._
v~ 201-in11'. ,
. , .
I th6 testimony?
2 1DR.KEPFbhkD: One of, the things I asked for
-3 ' . on discovery,..Mr. Chairman, was a workup of the TMI-2'
. 4- . cost-bonofit analysis with unrticular reference to the. . . - . . . . . . . . . .. .
5 inclusi.on-of radiological costa, and, as I recall my con- '
6 vercation with Ir. Rodenick, it was such that none had never'
-.
-. . . . . ... ...
7 been carried out, for'TMI-2.
O CHAIRIMN R SEUTbAL: , ITnat.'s the relevance of
9 .that to the iscue which n e considering here, which is'
j 10 the amount of the radon enissions in the mining and milling '
:
11 of uranium fuel? I don't understand what possible relation-
12 ship there ic between the mattor which you are now addrocsing '
_
. . .. - . . . . . .,
g 13 .and that question. If I'n missing something, you are free '
j; . .. .. . . . . . . . .
'
14 .to explain it to me.{;. .. .. .
It ie ,my ull ersbanding that itdi 15 DR. KEPFORD:i
| is_ parb of the HEPA $roce$s cost-benefit analysis is16
. _ _ . . . .. .__. ._ . _ _ . - . _ . i
'17 carried. The Commission's rules require that it be ca.rried.
''-
...._. ,. - . . ... . . .. ,
18 out, including radiological cost. But it appears, for
instance, in the GEIb, page 10- ~~ the Pitch Project --~
19
20 CHAIPJmu ROSEHTHAL: .Therp may be, Dr. Kcpford, |j.1- .. . _ . . .. . . i
| 21 . that requironent. But what I an getting at is, this- f3
. .. .-.-. . . . .- - - ;
22 particular procec61ng has a limited acope. What we aro- . .- _ . . _ . .. . ,
; , 23 itiquiring intoi today in the matter of the quantum of the - !, ;
L . .. . __ _ . . .. |
!' - 24 rndon emissions in the mining and milling of uraniun. Now, ,
'. . .
. . . - - . , . .. . - i
25 I don't understand hou the natter that you are seeking to !.
.-........a.. . ... . . . .
!'
ii
$. '. .
~
h WMt'iE'tr'.gM NM WWW - 49 7-FWWM-"*Md.9mi'++.WP''T-W'.'.'NWh.--'fr w es _ ---wPNr-''*wm' -1Nw-.W. - -W= '*'N*H''-NNON--
_ . - _ _ - _ -__ _ _ _ ._,_
'
n12 . 282.'
,
. .. .. . >
jinquiro into.now has any bearing upon that question. You are J
9 -. ,
- . . . .. . . . ._ . ..
^3 - nou getting. into the matter of the -- how the cost-benefit ! |"
/
t ; 2 - .,v . . . . . _. _. . . . . . . . .
. ;, , . '
I 3. balan e is being struck for Three Mile Island, and what
,. . _ _ . . . . . . i
is being included in that cost-benefit balance, as I under- ig
-. -. -. . . . . ... . . . .
L stand. it, and what m. int be included' in the cost-benefit5
.
.! . . .. . . .... , . . ; ;
balance. Now, how does that relato to the question we have i !
- 6.. . . . .
i
?4
at hand?| c. 7
,
-
I
| DR. KEP[dRD: The qu,ostio.n at hand is, with84.
.
regard to-the radon emissions. The connecti'n is thato! D
.. . . . . _ . _ . . . . ,
g- options are being chosen which are through some form of
10
cost-benefit analysis of -- which do not include the11
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
radiological cost, and as a result, allow radon emissions "
12. . . . . . . . ._ . . .
'
which, at levais which, were radiological costs included( j 13
.. , _ . . _ . _ . _ . . _ , ., . _ . . . ,
! might preclude that very option.'-
| 14. ... . . . _ . . . . . .,
j CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: , Eut ,I'm going to rule that'
15 , . . _ , ..,__ _ , _ __ _ .. , ,
that is beside the scope of this proceeding.16
MR. bbRDENICK: Mr.,bhair, man,couldIaddone17 . .~ .. . ... .. |
5 brief observation since my nane is being montioned?10
duNing dr. Kepford's, argument to the Board -- '
19
I'lltrytokeepitverybr5ef--hemanti$neddiscovery. "
| 20. ._ ., . . _ . .
| I 'I would point out to the Board during the course of a.
[ 21. . _ . .
telephone conversation several months ago, discovery in -
- P.2 _ . . . . . . . . - -
| thia proceeding closed quite socctine ago. Now, what Dr. '
L 23 . . . .. . ..
'
[ Kepford alluded to was the fact that fairly recently hei [^3 24 . . . . . . - . . .
~ ( ! contacted me for como document requests, and I treated those.
25 .. _ ... . -.
1
;-..-. m n .ae-....;----.- - - - . . _ - _ -_ _ __-.._____.. -. a-
.
- - ___ _ _ __ -_ _ - - _ _ . _ _ ._ .- _-___.- _ .--__ -
i: i'
II I- . 'e .
i .. -283 jin13- .
. !s
|. roguests >like 'I 'would- treat it from any. member of the public. '
Ly:'I
.. . ....
. .. .. .. .
'h I attempted to get for him what information he sought, and.2. . . . . -. . . . . . ..
- don % havo' a copy of the ' letter in front of me, -3
- -. . . .. . .. .. . . . . .
{ .
4 . CHAIR N .ROS M H W ,Well, I' don't think Mr.
j. .
.- . . . . . ... .- . ;
. D 2-denick, we really need to get into that, j5. _. . . . . . . . - . ... . . . . - .. . ,
MR. BORDENI m Wel(, I iust wanted to mention |'
'6;. . _ - _ . . . . . . .. , . . . . _ . . . .- . .
!it ninco it was part of his discussion, I' wanted it on the '
7L . . . _ . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . .. . .
record as.to exactly transpired between~Dr. Kepford and8;. . - . . . . _ . . . . . . . . ... . . .
! myself.|- 9i.
._ .._.
.MS. REINERT: Mr. Chairman, could I be heard'
i 10- -
| a minute on the <1uestion of the cost benefit analysis?7;11
i ._ .. . . . . . .. . .._. .
~
CHAIRMAN ROSENTRAL: ,Yes,. you may... . . . . - .. .
MS. REINERT: The wi.tness, testified -- one of
O 13>
. . _ . . . . ..
the p'oints-at insus here is whether the staff can assure'14.
'tha long-term stabil ty of mill tailings philes, that cer-.
.
. . . _ . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . .
tainly has direct hearing on emis'sions'from those mill. . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . .. . ,
tailings.
The witness has test.ified. time and time c. gain-
-18
'that the staff uses.the NEPA process in its case-by-
[ case analysis to design these teilings' piles so ths.t they20
. .'
.~ . . . . - .- . ..
will.not opread~out, they will=not be dispersed, there.. .. . . . - . . . . . . . . ... . . .
.. :will'be'no failure. I think that the question of how the22:
.. . . . _ . . . .. ,
staff arrives at those decisions is perfectly legitimate23
.. . .- . . . .. . - , . .. . - . . , . . -.. . .
and relovant.24.-
.........2 . . .
' CHAIRMAN RO3EUTHAL: .Dr. ,Kepford is, certainly' '
25-.. . . - . . . . - . - . - . . . . . - . , .
6=
+.
____.A _,~. _._i '. . . . . . J' . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ * _ _ . . . . - .
_ _ .
. . . _ . _ . ~ . _ _. . _ _ _ . . _ _ - . --- - - - . - - . - ------ - - - - - -
L.
p3 284 ;
fnl4 I free to purme with the witnean the manner in which the
g ...__. . . . _ . - _ . _ . . . . . . _ . .,'
. . . . . ..
.
staff went about reaching any specific conclusion it reached ',
...~ 3
.. ._ . .... . ._ . _ _ .
with regard to emicuion levels. It cloor not seem to me,.
5 .
4., ,. _. . ._. . ,
with-due respect, Ms. Reinert, that the line of inquiry that,
<, . _ . . . _ . . . _ . . . . . . . ._ . .. .
5 Dr. Ecpford is starting to pursue which * have just ruledi
. . . . _ - ._ . .. . . .
6! out no being beyond the scope of the prccteding, is doing, . . . . . . . . .. - _. . .
7 that a all.
He can corbainly as,', the ,witnms with respect,O*
. . . .. -. . .
9 again, any conclucien reached bj that wit r.ns in his testi-, . . . . . . - . . . _ _ _ . . . . . - .
10 mony regarding an emiccion lovel, how he (i t there.
i . . . . __._ ._. . . . . . . . . . . . - . . .
! 11 DR. KEPFORD: Mr. Ch.airma,n, I think I'm ju'st
12 about through with this witnecs, but could have a couple; .. . . . _ . . . . . . _ . _ . . . ... .. .. . .. .
{
,
13 | of minutes to paw through my notes?;. . . - - . . _ . - . . - . . . . . . . . . :
|14 CIIAIIUW4 ROSEl!TIIAL: , Yen,,you cn. |
-
. .. . _ . _ .. . . . _ _ . . _ . . _ .. .
15 Let's take a five ni_nute . recess. ma I prefer. . . . . . _ . _ . . . .. .. . .. _
.
16 the pacple, unless thera was an urgent reaco t to leave the._ _. _ . ._. . . . . . . . _.
17 rcon, that they stretched in place..
. . ... , ~. .
! IG [Shcrt racess. ] .j .
!. .. .. . . . . _ _ . . . _ _ .
19 LY DR. KEPFORD:.
.. ..._ . - _ . . . . _
| 20 Q Mr. Miller, for a giyan alte, usinv le 1-iEPA. .. .. .. .. ._ _.
e 21 j procars, bo'; ic a given tr.ilinga dispaaal alter.. .ive'
| . _. . .. - . . . . . ..
!..22 i chosan?
|23 A It is chosen by cons,ideri,ug the ahern.N.ivec
, ._ . _ . . _ . . _ . _ - _ . . . _ . . ._ . .
24 and weighing thona alternati zes in' te::ms of hU they meet. .. . . _ . _ _ . . . _ . . . . . . ..
.,
25' our criteria..
. . . _ . . . . .. ..
i
I
I
....-_.....-m:-.. . . - . - .L._.-~-.--'4 . - . - - . - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - ' - " - - - - - -
-- . - - . - - - _- --. _. _. - - _
.
M ' . 'g.15 - .
|,.. 285
,
1 0 Could you give any description as to what all - ',
2 howfactorsare-ucih1IAdin$ caching,whetherornotconpliance. .. .. . .. . . ,
3 is not, for instance, with the criteria?
Fornur.oicah. criteria, it's black and white.4 A
5 l'orcritoriathata1[$intendedto astroh.ong-termstability
6 which there are a nubber and of which there are interrelation-
chipamongfactorb,the$cisnoneatformula.7
O Q To what extent does,,the cost of alternatives. .. . - . . . .- .. .
9 play a part?
Only in I heby gross, cons,c. We on the10 A.. .. .. . .._
11 ntaff have not, and I think we have denonstrated it, have. . _ . _ . . . .. . _ . _ ,
12 :, not connidored cost in a - as a first :icreening or as ae
I13 rajor factor in absuring tklat the. recairenant that no active,
14 F ma'.nbanance in - that no active naintenance must beL, . . _ . . . . . . _ . .- . .. .
15 | requi. rad. Ima the example I cited yesterday of the oneif
___ __ . .. . .u
16 [ caca . : orc the operator proprod thic, built this, we said,i . . . . _ . _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ . . . _ ._ _ .
17 [ "No," and we made him do thin, which vac a balov;' grade- .. . . . . . . .. .. ..
18 burial schanu.
d . . _.
: 10 || DR. J01.COM: Excusq ne, fr. Hopford, do I} !!
underatand Srcn youE ancv[ar that the cacond schcna was /J l '
20'
21 nOre costly than the first?'
j _ ... . . . _ _ . ._
22 THE UITUL:SS : Yes. , ,
.- . .- . . . . . ._
| E3 DR, JOIIMGOM: Signif;i. cant,1y nore costly?
.. . .. .... . . . . . . . .
24 TlIE UI'HH:3S a Wallr.I can't rener er thej
O - - .- - .. . .-
25 m 'a t fi<p. ira s , but c. hat im tor of coct in that case was not-. . . . .. . . . ., -
.
1. . . . . . _ . . . _ _ . _ - __ . _ . . _ _ . . . - . - _ . _ . . _ . . _ - _ _ _ _ _ . . - . - . _ _ _ _ . - _
___ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _______ . _ . . . _ _
i% 6
. '-
;
t
286 1!
6I I . an issue. ' The' guy 'had built ?the dam, it was_ in -- dissected f-
- ]_
_ p_~
__ ,- : ---. .. .. . . , . .. ,- . -- . . .
~''' '
ia maj6r' diversion, it was clear it was not going ~ to .need our-.~
.
. +-._ .
.3'! requirement of. mill: maintenance, and we said,."No."- ,
'I
-4- |
DR. JOHNSON: Thank.you, pir.I'~5 ~ ^' -- ~ ~~- - -- ~~- - -
, . )'
.BY . DR.- KEPFORD :'- -- -
t
6 l' , - - - --- - - - - - -- - - - -- ; -
|10- on page - L-2 of. the vplume. II of. the GEISi therer
. + . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . a-y . .. . . . . . . .
are two tables showing, in -initial ranking and a weighted..
,
|..- ,
s. .....m._.__....... s...;.... . . - . . . _ . . _ .3 g-
',
i ;anking,o'f the alternatives considered therein.' Were n'ot-. . _ . . .. . . . _ . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
,9 '' alternative 7 and 8 excluded as a general rule for' required
!
.10- = ~ ~ - - ~~ ~' - ' - ' *
1 disposal because of their cost?- !:
;
lI H5E EE cost N1on[. .ThA reasons for elimiriatin'g-A
12' thosa-alternatives are stated,in many pages in chapter 12 ' '
. . _. ... . . . _ . . . . . . . . -. . . . -.
g'- .of the GEIS. It was.not on cost alone. And you'll not
,
,y .
. .. .. . .. . .. - .
j. that:this in-in an appendix and it's been relegated to an '|
15~ ~ ~ ~~"~~~ "" ~ ^~ ~'" - ~ ~
appendix bacause the evaluation of the alter, natives and.. . . . . .. ._ _ . . _ . . . . . . . .. . _ .
N - .the selection of certain modes of disposal and discarding.
II.
cof.'other modes ob dispo$$1 are discussed in great detail~
.,
E . in chaptor 12, and Tthe cost-henefit balance is done in~
that chaptcr.. ... . .~ .- ..'y~ ~
Radiological cocts wore,ngt considered?|Q ,
-
. . . . ._, . ._. . . _.g ~
A. I'c looked at that pe,rspec,tive and for the
_.. ,. . _ ._ . . . .,
| reasons that are stated in_ chapter 12, no neat dollars- . .
M /versus health effects averted formula was used.p. ,
Q Could you el5'$ orate pn .those reasdns, please? -
35-- . ;A- It will take someiti,me.L
.
c- f
i1:'-1'
Q. . . . b '.'
, . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
p. ,a;- -
-
i :- . . .
287 |
.
|jn171: .
.._
!~1 If the Board wishes ,that.I'do it, I'll do it.-["
= - .. . . _ . . . . ._ . .;
.
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:..'These are reasons that are i,s - 2-.
3- se't forth :- .you ; said in ' ch' pter 127a__.. .. . . . _ _ . . ...w..,- . . . . . . . . . . - - . - . . . .
{L .4 THE UITNESS: 'Yes, spctio.n 12.3.. . _. . . . . - . . ....-.. - ...... _ _.-. _.. . .
+S- CHAIPl!AN-ROSENTHAL: ,Are,you familiar with that
L
f6 chapter, Dr. Kepford?:
!--. . _ - ~ . _ . -.. . . ..
!'7 DR. KEPFORD: Mr. Ch, airman, I have resd it, but - >
p . . . . ..... ...._ .._._. . _ . . . . . . . . ,
| 8 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: ,I'm ,just getting at againi'
; . . . . . . . . . , . , . . . - - . . , . . . . .- . ..t. ..
i 9 the~ purpose that will be cerved by having him simply rehash!
. ,. . . . . .. ._ .. .. . . .
! 10 what is alrecidy in the GEIS. Nou, if you're familiar with '
+.. - . . .. . .--. .--. .. .
11 the contents of that chapter, and it suggests to you certain, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . _ .. .
12 questions with respect to some of the reasons that it may *
i:heancigned,youmaycedU.nh.yhu$suetherencons,but13
14 having Mr. Millor read into the record, simply for tho. . . . - . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . .
15 purpose of having the record reflect those reasons, unless *
. _ . . _ __ _.. . . _ . .
13 .you intend to pursue it, seems to me +t'o be of questionable t
.
; . . -. . .. _ . . . _
| 17 valuo.'
1
! -
.18 I think what I'n gotting.at is whether once. , _. .. . . . ' ,
.
19 he has' identified some of those reasons, you then plan,
1
20 to pursue-them?-
.
. .- .
i, 21 BY DR. KEPFORD: , ,
.-
p . ...-- . ,
iia ; 5 22 0 Are you aware of a rj.tuation where an
|'
u . .. . . . . . . .
523- . environmentally proferable disposal option might be.. . . . . .._- . . ~ . . _ _ . . . _ _ . .
- 24- rejected over a losser proposal because of cost?g .
W- . . _ _ . - _. _ . , .. . . . . . - . . . . _ . . . _ _ . . . . , .. _
. .:
.25 LA Yes, you're always ,--you can put tailings into. ... . .. _. _-_ , _ . . . .- ...
,
e.'
s
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _E___'_--.J ___ ,.m_ ___ __ _ -- . . . _ . . . . .- .. . _ _ ..
_ . _ .
. _ _ ~ , . _ . __.... . .
_ _ _..._ _. _ ._ _ __ _ _
t. I
L -,
'
L. |
s
if' ' 208 |
:- .. |'
' 3 Tdeep repositories,Tyou can haul them'off and constauct '.
{;a massiva Jdeep geologicIropository. Thatk[ouldgivo ];
2
::
.3 ..=
. . . .'
|; better isolation than the. schemes we're talking about, but F,
1
:isthatnecessarythgotohreatlengths durjudgmentis~ !4
.
.
1
f that in cach case we are doing a -- thNt the mod'e of I3i3-
disposal.10 ad5quate to-pSotect public health, safety, andj 6!
,
V .i. . . . - . . . . . . - . . ...:. . ... . .
j 7 the environment.- !.
:,
8 DR.'EPFORD: Mr. .ha,,irmatt,'we have no furtheri
i 9- .- . _ . . .. ... . - . ,, _. . . .. .!
questions for Mr. Miller, remembering that a few. minutes,. |'
... . .. . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , _ . . . . ..
10 or n.little while ago, I ached Mr. Miller to look up- - . . . . . , - . . . - . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . .. .
11- something, as I. recall. !,
i12 THE WITNESS: I have,not ,found that yet, Dr. f-
!
. . - - . - _ . . . . . - - . . . . . . . . . . i. 13 Kopford, I - am continuing -----
14 DR. EEPFORD: Oh, ye,c, tha reference for the |~
. , . . . .. |'
15 '50 yao.rs.. .
|
16 NIE h TkifEbb: Yes, I will , find that for you.
17 CHAIRMAd ROSEtINEAL: .I recall that, Dr. Kopford,' ~
18 and certainly if Mr. Miller locates that reference, he.. .. . . . . . . . .- .
19 will be called upon to supply.it.- . . . . . . . . . . - . . .
20- DR. EEPFORD: Mr. Cllaimra.n, one further thing *
21 I'd-like to add to ti$e extent that I[r. Miller s testimony'
7 *
enconnances GEIS or portion $ of thd dEIS referenced, we.22
1
; .. . . . . . . . ,,2,1 had mo notico of that, and have not been prepared to cross -
.24f examine | 51r. '51ille$ on those cc'ctions of the GEIS.: . . . _ _ . - - . . . _ . _ _ . . . . . . _ . . . . . . _ . . .
~
25 'CHAIRfiAN ROSENTHAL: Well., I think that Mr. Millor i+,
..
. .. . _ , _ . . . . . . . . _ _ .. . . . ..
.f;
. .
[ - ,,
,
. _ _ .... _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ .
1 i
i>t
[289 |;jn19
.
:
-1 . ,
-intanded his' testimony-to stand on his own. He *
.O was merely. citing the GEIS as a reference, and obviously. . , . . . . ., .. . ."
;||
. .. . . . _, , .. .. .. .. . .
any expert witness is free to, and many enpert witnesses do s
4 ' ' ' ' ' ' " ' '' ' ' ' ' ~ '
Icite what I would loosely describe as secondary sources in '
5 - ~ ' ' '
cupport of toctimony which they have given. If
6 ^ ' ' * ' '~ ~ ~ '
frequently. occurs that prior.to t'he receipt of the testi- +
,
...,......,.a . .. . . . . . . . !
7mony,.the councel for other parties will not be aware of
|0
~' ' ' ~
f-those sources.9--
_ . . . _. .. |We - appreciate your rcnking the record clear on
. i
10. . . . . .....-..a...w...~.. , , . - , . . . .
!
that-point.3
i: 11 Eefore NTcall for qtioctic.ns from the Board.-12
. . . . . . . . . . . . -. . - . . . . .. ... .. .. <
if I recall correctly, prior to the institution of inteiv'enor !
13. . .. -- . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
crosc-examination of Mr. Miller, you, Mr. Silberg, had' I4 . indicated thatyou had no cross-examination?
.'
. . _ . . . . . _ . _ . .._ . _ . _ . _. _ . . .
15 MR. SIL3 ERG: At tha.t. time,.yes.
| IG CUAIRMAN ROGElhTbE: 5t tflat tiNo.. .. . . - . . - . ... . . . . ..
17 MR. GILDERG: Thero ,are a,few questions that. .- . . - . . . .. - . . . - . . . . . . . .. .. ..
'I8 I coulu ack, they may be cleared up on redirect. I could+
. . . - . . . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . ..
19 ask then'nou or I could wait until -- _ . .. . . _ . . .
. - _ . - . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . .. .
20 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: ,Mr. Bordenick, will you.
,. , . _ _ _ . . - . . . . _ . . . . . _ . . _ . . . . . . .. .
j. 21 have redirect examination?|
h 122 MR[bORbbNICh k'fa vill, h Chairman.1 . . _. - .. . . . . . - . . . - .. .. .. ... ....
23 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: .All right, Mr. Silberg,
h .24
. . .. u .. . . _ _ _ ..
wodld you prafer to wait for the redirect?. <
,
2.3 MR. SILBERG: I'think !Y.might be cimpler that.,-. _...w. . . ._ :... .-
,
'1
_ - - - - _ _ _ - - . . . - . - _ _ _ _ _ _ - -- - _. M
i.-
r-,
i: . i
: , ;-~
l
in20'( . '290 ~
l*
.i.o i
j 1
..
I
..
way''Ilcan just -- 1)
9 '- ' ' ' - !2CHAIRMAN ROSI2iTHAL: .'All'right,-we'11 call
,3. _ .._ . . , . ._ . . . ...
for redi, rect. examination, and then we'll see if you have _;
a . . .. . - . . - .. . . |.g~any crosc-examination, Mr.-'Silberg, and then we'll have ;
- . . ~ . . _ -. ,..
3 '
Board questions. . ;
I 6 -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ "<
i i MR. SILBERG: Thank,you. , !i i
. . . . . _ . . . . , . . . . . . . . _ . . . _ . _ . . . . . .,7
I 'DR. JOmiSON: May I ask o.no right now?
g . _____ . .._. _ . . . _ . _ . .. .
CHAIRIMM ROSENTIIAL: ,Before_you'do that Dr.! U'[ Johncon, Mr. Hiller in obvioualy going to be engaged oni . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . .... . . _ ..... .
! -.10 that vitnesu stand for a while. Is it possible, Mr.
U Eordenick, for so7Eab$dv dee in your large legion that is
present.here to asciat r. [liller by endeavoring to find12i
i . . . . . - . . - . . . - - . - . . . - . . . . - . . _ . . . - - . . .. .' g- 'I3 the reference?
-. . . -
I4 DR. JOm SOU: That;. is- t.hc nabject of my.. -.. . . . . . - - - - . . . - . . - . -
'
15 ge- wiens air, I.thi..h I've found it.e
II I CHAIRMAh ROSENTIIAL: , Oh - - Dr. Jolmeca, pel. haps. .. ... . . . . . , . . _ . . .,
17 as a subat.ituto researchor in this matter.
-10 - T[lEhIThlbbS: b$nkyou,.Dr. Johnson.'
,
:10 DR. Jom1 Son: I.am o.ffendpd by your charac-
20 - .tcrinations,. cir... . . _ . _ . . _ . . . _ . . . .
M 'It is rufen ace No. 7 on .g-27, McDowell Boyer,'
.
. . _ ..._ . . _ . . _ . . . . . . . _ . . .. _ .
. 22 - whichLic environment il trancport pararnotors lead-210 and, ,
.. . . . . . _ . . . . . - . . :.~.... . _ . . .. . ..
23- uraninu'326., _ . . . . . . . .
14- THE VT.ITHESS: I don't think that's'it.-
..., ... _ , . . . . . . . - . . .. . .. ..
;''
. 25 DR. JOHMSON: Maybe J shquld be substitute
..y_ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . ,
.
f ,
1<
i-a
..
_ _
_ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . =
1
e291 |
..
91- researcher. .;= . .
THE UITNESS: I'm prpbably just going to have*-
2L . ... - . .. . . . . .
8.to go out, call offico, and have,my people hell me exactlyL 3
|.. . - . . . . - . . . .. . .
where it is, and I'll do that if thero's titne.4>. . . . . - - . . . . .. . . . .. .
' CIIAIICIMI ROSE 11 THAL: ,Ther,e's no one presentJ,.
,. . . . . .. . .
from the staff. I ste one head shaking negatively in the *
6; . _ . . . . . . _. . . . _ . . . .
L back of the room.) 7. .. . . . . . . . . . .
*DR. BUCK: Can't sompone.c1ce phone your friends
O. . . . . . . .. _.. . . .
on the statement.g
'* u "* * Y'10
-
.; __ _ . . . . .. . _ .,
not planning to depart before the end of the day.t
114
|__ . . . . . . _ . . . _ .
THE UIT;iESS: No, at, noontime, it's aG easy aC '--
, 'i _. .. . . .
13~ Why' don't'we leave it,CHAIRMAN RO3ENTHAL:
Dr. Kepford, if' that's agreeabic, Mr[ b1 iller will endeavor '
14. . _ . . . . - . . . . -_. . . . . . . . . . _.. .
over ,the luncheon recess to accortain --1 15
._,,._ _ _, , _. ,__
.DR. KEPFORD: That's, fine..
I 16_ _ . _ . . _ _ . . _ . . _ . .. . .
;
| CHIJCPl1NI POSENTHAL: .Very good. .
'
17.i
f All right, Mr. Bofde,nisk.,18
4_ . _ . . . . . . . .. .. _ _ _ . _
i liR. LORDENCIK: The redirect in to be conducted *
' '
! 19| ' '
by Ms . Grmrmer.f 20
~. _ . . _ _ _
REDIRECT EXAMINN.(COM ,'
t 21.. . _ . _ . _ . . _ . . .. .
,
! BY MS. GRICOIER: ~ '
| ?2
j Q I only havo one chert quqstion: 11r. Miller, '
t 23 >. .; . . _ . . . . . _ . . . . _ _ _ _. . . _ . .
i! could you briefly clarify the way in which tne NRC staff! 24
. _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . . . . . .,
; itapocca and enforces raquirements on licenaces through, ..
I*D .. . . . . . . . - . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. .'
'
'|
_ _ _ . _ _ - . - _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ ____. _ _=. _-.. . _ . _ . _ _ . _ , _ . . . . . , . _ _ = .
- - - - _ __,._. ..__ _._ .. ._ _,_ ___ _ - - - - - -
- !
I. | 292n22 1.. g''
licence' conditions above and beyond the' broad regulationy-, - _. . . . .. . .
I 2 p licies?.-
;._A Yes.
. .. .
E
3 , ,
. .. _ _ . _ .
And briefly, in response, the staff, as I4
| . . - _ , .._ . _ . . . . . . .
| testified carlier works out with the applicant or operators '. 5-
. .. . . . . . . _ .. . . . - . -._
| spe , details- of tamngi dhposal and, of come, - oh6
i .. _.... . . . . _ . -- . _ . . . . . _ . .
! aspects of the milling operation, and through license con-; 7i . . . . . . .. ., . . . . .
. ditions which go along the line of specifying specific! 0; .. . . . . .
I diagrams and sections in his reports, sections in our-9!
: . . - - . -. .-. . . . .
! cnvironmental statemnt, commit him to specific plans --10,
to doing specific things, and those license conditions114
; . .. .. .
i are just as enforecable as regulations. The writing of| 12
very upecific licenso c$ndibions is a extremaly iraportant, .. . . . .
| part of the licensing of a nill for all14 i1
; . .. . . __ . .. .,
! of the reasons I've stated in the pact day, i
! 15, . . . . - . . . . .. .
j 10.
Thank you.,j MS . GE7JMER:.,
._ . ... . .., . . .
j CHAIPl!IiN HOSENIHAD .,|That, concludes your redirecti. ,
i 17. .. _;
Ms. Gra:r:aer? . !
l18.. .. . _ _ . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . .
i.
MR. EORDENICK: Yes,,Mr ,Chairran. [19 l-
.
- . . . . _ . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . -
- MS. GPJJ@lER: Yes. '-
i 20 I* *
.. . _ _ . . _ . . . . . . .. . i
FP. . SILDERG: If I apuld just ask a few short :
, , __ _ .. . . ..
i questions? !.'
2t i
CHkIPflAN RO312iTHAL: , Ce'rty. inly. !
23. _ . , . _ . . . . ..
BY NR. SILBERG:,
.,
M o- . .. . ..h ! O Does the fact that there is no specs.. c provision25 I
;.. . . . . . . .. .. . . .- .
i ,
l !L i! i
i i
., .- .- __. . . - _ _ . - .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ - -_
ii'
:,
~293,
Ion the handling violations in the proposed regulations is '
'
i23
9 not meant to imply that there are no provisions for ~~~ -2 ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~' - - ~~ ' ~~ ' ' '
3'. handlingviolationsofbicSnsoconditionsorregulations '
f
| elsewhero 'whic$ goveEn mines and mills?4
i
5'
j think Santioned yesterday $ hat the3 pg,.
G~ "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ~ -
broad body of regulations,givds us the power to enfordi.a7 regulationsandli$endeconditions6.ndviolationsof hem,
. . . . . . . . _ . - . . . _ . . . . _ . . . _ . . . . _ . . . . - . .-g
i
G ThcEc EEb Eoma discupsion yesterday about0
i
10 whether indefinite - or site inspection over indefinite |'
!
11. . .. . . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . . . . - - . .
periods of tima is a requircment to the proposed regulat' ions?4
|.. . . . - . . .- . _ . . .- . . . . . .,
; 12. Y am not suro how the record-ccmo out. I was. uncertain. )j ., . . . . . _ . . _ - . . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _.
. )13 Doesn't criterion 12,requ, ire site inspections,.. .. .. ..
and wouldn'.t that apply indefinitely?. . ..
j 14
? -
15 A Yan, it uould apply _for a.s long as thare is a;.
,o . . _ . _. _. .. . . . . ...-. _ _ .._
16| - let's say a Governr.ent around to be able to do it._
;. . . . . . _ . . . . _ . . . . . .. i
17 ! O And, finally, there pas a discussion earlier.,
i ;4"
16 j, today about a r:entence on page 316 in the Colorado State '
i !
] 19f Report. YouwereAsk$dw$atheryouEtestimonyconsideredi i
'
. . . . . . . -.. .. .. ..
- 20 | the 30--called worst situation described, and you said it'
'i
4
f,:... .. . . ._. . .. . ,
2.1 didn't. wuld icu explain UL.y a.t didn't?j )
22 P;. . . _ . . . _ . . ._. .
A ~'iecause in order to ,get to that point, you!:
.. . .. . . - .
) 7.3 | have postulata the series of eventu occurring,. . . ..
and I think i4
; -
} 24 i that the kind of prograns that we are - with the kind: of! S
25 progran that ce hado horkc[ out with licensees, it-!
. . .. . . .. ~ . . .
4
. . - . . - . . ,._ n.-,. .-..,n,rrn,. en,.., .n, _ - . . -,-,---~n.----+~.------.---n--- . - - - . , ~ , - - - . . - - , , . . . . . . - _ _ -
_ _ . - _ _ _ . . - . . . _ . - . . . - . . . -
2
V --
,
f
i- 294:
,
i:,.
'y-jn24- provides enough conservatism noti to get into making
..
( 2.. _. - .__._ . . . . . .
{-tho. predictions that'involvo disperion of the tailings.
, . . . - ._. . . . . . . . ., . . . . .3 .We-started from one curio per AFR,~our estimates, if the
' 4 .-......._...._..:._~..... . ... . . . . .. . . ..
.
. tailings remains stabic, we caid that you dould inflateI'~ '
. _ _ . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . _ . . - . . . . .... .. .
that 10 times that given the uncertainties, as I testified _.
5.
. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . _ . . . . . _ . . _ . . . _ .- yectar<iay. 'We"wenE one step beyond ' hat. and said that,
. .
t - '.
"Okay,I esterday,_ . . - . . _ . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . _ _ . . . . . . ...
..7 y "all of the tailings ~ piles come uncovered, *
6. . _ . . . _ . . . . . . . _ . .. ... . . . . . . _ , . .
Jall of them, the average curies per AFR release would be, . . . . _ . . . . . . . . _ _ . ... . . . . . .' 9 1.10 curies."- .to take another step further, we frankly '
10. . _ _ . . _ . _ _ . _ . . . . ... . . . . . .
don't think that is a reasonable thing to do. I did not~
- . . _ . . . . . .
feel it vas a reasonable thincj itp do... .. .
11
. . . . _ - . . . - - . .
12 Q Son.you beJieve that,ther,a's adequate con",
,
..
.. -. . . ..._.. . . . . . . .. :_ . ,
13 cervaticn ' built into your rcgul.atory system to handle _ 1
14 reasonable categorios of conditions?|
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . _ . -- . .-.|t
15 A Yoc..
~ ~t1
| . . - . ,
'
16,
Q Or-a reasonable rang.e?, i_.
|117 A Yen.t-
I :, ,
i
f . . . .
!
IU j MR. SIIMEEG: That,'s al.1 the questions.
! . . . . _ , . . . .~ _ . ~ . _ . - . . _ . . . . . .
'
19 CHAIRMAli ROSENTrIAL: ,,Dr. Johnson?._ . . . . _ . . . . . . .
10 PR. J0mICON: Mr. - Miller,. yesterday, Dr. I:epford ',
. _ . _ . . . .. . .. . . ;21 asked you.a question or perhaps it was this morning with .
'
g ,
._ . . _ . _ -_ . . .. . ':-22 regcrd.to:the tima dopondence of whether their failure
j!i.
. . ... .. . . . .
| '23- cochanian that wo. tid affect an abandoned milling cite if,
,. -- - . . . . . . . .. . . .
|. 24 they-were subject to fcilure, would there be a time-
. -j
(25| dependance'in this failure? And you indicated, y .,,- thera ;r
v. y - e.., w - .a..a +, , . m4 .2 ..e "'' . i
'
r
b
I. . -
[.
>
- - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - . _ __ _
295'jn25 .
_
1would be. -
'
4
I don't underatand c; tact 1.y what either one of *
:
. .. 9 .. _ ... . . .
| you meant by tina dependeace, so cdn you tell me what you '
; 4 . .. ._... .. _ . . . . . . _. .,
I meant or what you underatood as the time dependence in ;i,
#,_. . .. . . . .. . . . . ..
| failure?
6. b!bWTHUSS: I was ,tryin,g to be very brief.!4
. . _ _ __ . .._ . . . ,7 DR. JOIINSON': I undepstand, and we appreciato '
,
.
4
0 thatyou.varobrief,butnoh$[i[1..youbelesNbrief?:
O 515W5TbSS: Ik[ill[oApknd.
.; 7, 1ikehou,~condikri[averybroadquestion,10~
',
4
|11 and that is why I didn't b y 5o launhc[1 inth a long c:rplana-
:~ ~~
12 tion. Thera's a long And a Ehobt of it, kgueAs[iskh$t ji
. _ .._. . . . - . . . . . . _ . - _ . .;
13 'it'a not a static situation and there are natural forces- ~' '
|- - 14 working, and so you've got a tina dependence. ,
1, . . . . . . . . . . _ . . - _ . . _ . .. . _ . . . . . . . .
1 15 The question was so broad, that, as I say, I
16. ._ . - . . . . . . . . _ . . . . .. .
don't knou how to give an answer more specific.,1
. . . . . _ . . _ . _ . _ . . . . . _ _ . . . . . . _ . . . _ . ... _.
17 DR. JOliNSON: Well, pne o,f the postulated.
,
70' failuro nochanisma l$at N t5Enk ue've discuscod thic !.
4
19 morning in gullying. '
,d, . . . . . . _ . . . . - . . _ . . . _ . . _ i
, _ THE WITNESS: Yes., ; ,
,,
I , .
,
I - 21 DR. JOH""' Fh Wonld,you e;pect a gully to develop * i
I
|- ~ .. ._ . _ _ _ _ . .
'
| 22 in a mili dailing cite in a seeke a month or a year?7
'
, ,
|. . ._.. . . _ . . .. _ . _ - . .. .-,
|23 Which of thosa would you -- sort of timo constant?*
-,
' -. _ . . . . _ _ . . . . ... .- -.. . .. . . .' 'A Tile WIEESS- I would chy that if there's
'
. ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. .. ..
25 protection of the acrt I described, uhen there is protection #
j '
.-... _ .. _ _ . _ .._m..._..... ... .
,
.,M .- L.- L-.- .1 _r---,. .......-______.__.._.-_s-_.-
,.
.
j m .1 .,
-
L .
:, 296'
,A~ l
t !
[.
Lof'the sort that I described in my testimony, things like/-~
'
in? .
-2 .
. . . . - . . .. .u,
. ,. . . . . . . . ' . ,,.
i7 . rock cover and the'like,'or below grade burial so that; . ;
i . . _ _ . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . .. .
i 3there are no. embankments to gully, that they will not occur. !
,.
:Theycanoccur,IAulphse,atanytime,butit' snot I$i
. . . . . . . . _ _ ~ . . . _.- . .. (,
5likely to occur: fora very,.*very.long p aiod of time, and I ~l |
|6 .- amthinking,hereagain,ohthouNandsofhears.
4
4 . . . . . . . - _ . . . . . _ .. . _ . . _ _
7|~ -DR. JOHUSON: But, i.,f for sorce reason, you made
~
t*
amistak'e,'ifthecriter{$Eerenotadequate. ',
8^
I believe
9.- _ .. . . . i
you have a initially a procram or'there.is a. program of
| 10 annual surveillance, would you say that the time dependent1
on the tima con $ dant ok f[ilure nochanisrds was generally| 11
} . _ . . ...,___. ..__ . _ _ _ . . . . .
12 consistent with an annual, excuse me, an annual inspection !I
.. _ . . . . . _ . . _ _ . ~ . . . . . . ~ . _ _. .
9. ..
13 rata?,
14 Tike UITNESS: Yes, I.,think that an annual. .. .. . . . . . . . . .
15 inspection rate is definitely frequent enough to discover _ '
. . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . _ _ _ . . . . _ . _ . . . . . ..
16 and rerody any kind of failuro and specifically thinking of; . . . . . _ .__ _ ._ . . . _ _ . . . . _ . . .. ._ .
| 17 gullying, that's a very appropriate period of time, in1
'
'. ._.. . .... . .. . . . . . .
| ~I0 fact, it's uore frequent than I suppose it would have -to be. ''
19 DR. JONUbON: hell,,inmo,ht TEC surveillance '
. . _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . - - . . .. . ..
programs thero is coma sort of .'.:npedence-matching between . ..20 *
I '
21 ! surveillanca rate and the suspect.ed failure rate, is thatt5
22 I. . . . . . . ~ . . .
true.
~23 TH5UNNESS: Foch N.RC programs are differont._. . .. . . . . . . . . .
. 2C - then r-ill tailings where you can quantify and put into --|
~
. 25 -you can nodei quantitatively what.thesa rates of failurc.
-.. , . . . . . . _ . _ .. . .. . . . . . . . . .
... _. _. - _... . . _ __ - . -. __._ .. . . _ . . . . . . . . .
_ _ . . _ . _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . . , . _ . . _ . _ _ , . _ . . _ _ _ . - _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ ._ _ _ ._. _
.
a.,
I *, ,
I 297;;;,.
~'
might be. There's a , logging of fast events, and what. not,k5 n27; :1
.. . . . _ . . . . . __ . - . _ . . _ . . . . . .
H :but you somehow put a - you can assess it somewhat c,tanti- '
2......... . . .. . . . . . - . . . . . . . .
' "U """ " * " " " Y'3'
. .. . . _ . . . _ _ . . . . . ... . . ,
have.been1 attempts to'model shcet crosion. There are no4
! ''
5
annualinspection,giva$thesignificanceodgullying|- 6
. . . . . . . _ . . . . . . .. . . .
if it were to occur, will be more than adequate.
. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. - . -
DR. JOHUSON: I gath_er th,at under the annual
; -inspection program,'there will be a body of data created! 9. . . - - . - - . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . .. -- - -.
|- -with regard to the etability of the tailings pile. 1610
_, . , , , , , ,: , , , , _ , _ _ , , _ , , , _ _ _ , ,
'there any mechaniom in place or a reviet of thic b'oey of11-
.. .. . . . - . _ _ . _ . . . - . ._ . _. . . - . . _ . . .
data with regard to confirmation of the caequacy of the12
. . . . _ _. __.. .. . . _ . _ _ _ . ._ . .
. program? Did you undcratand that long cluantion? -
. .- .. . . .. . . _ ._. . . . . _ . . . _ - ._. - .. --
THE WITNESS: No, I am no.t sure I understood.14
| the question. ;
DR. JOHMSON: hou'11. gath,er a body of data16-
. . . . . . . . . . _ . . . _ . . . . . - ._ ,
'
as a result of the survoillance inspection.17 .. . . . . . - . . - - _ . . . . _ . . _ - ~ . .. .. . .
gi.THE WITNESS: 'les , , sir . ,'
13 !
|DR. JOHMSON: Will t_his d.ata be brought to a*
Ii, 19 .. . .. . . . . . _ . . . . . . ... .
__
central organization or headquarters?20 . .. .. .. . . . . . - .- . _ . . . _ . . . . .
THE WITNESS: As I t,ostif. icd yesterday, in21 .. . .. . . . - - . . . . . . .
response to Dr. Buck's question, that process of exactly |'
i22 _ . . . . . . . _ ._- . . . . _. . . . . ..... . . . . . . .;
..
how we're going to idhitor frequency and what not in not !
|23 .m_ .. . . . _ _ . . . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ . . . _ _ .. _
j the epocific mannar in-which that will occur. It has~
-24 .
t-9 . . . . . . __ __ _ _. ...._. . _ . . . _ _ _ ..
!'
not been established yet. However, cor:non sense tells ne'
. . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . . . . . . . _ _ .. .. .... j25 . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ .
,
I;, i
.. __ .-- _ . . . . - - . . .. . . _ . . . _ . . ..- _._
1. c
,
d
); J -|'
'
f._ 298 [} jn28; y .>3 Jthat if you have a prc tram and as ' his ~ one, NRC will the [t.; ,
. . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . _ . . . .;'
v racer .of whether it's. DOE holding the land or having 9--
2 .
-
>. . . . . . _ . . . . .- . . . . . . . - - - .. .. . . .
custody, or whether it's the States. There will be a- !-3 ;
-,
| . keeping-of-records, and a periodic review of the records{4: .
4
'to see trends and the like, so I would say that. common -
5 - '
senso, based on corcon' sense, - that that would occur..
-. . , . _ _ _ _ . ~ . . . . _..
!6, ..-
i; . .
i - I expect. it to occur. -|| 7 >
, . . . . . . . . , _ _ . . . . |..~
|'DR. JOIIGSOU: ? This (s ,one, of the sorts of things !
8.
-|,:- ,
i that the lesaon learned from Three Mile Island II had I
t Bi
dictated, is it not? '
. . . _ ~ . . . . . . . . _ . _ . . . . . _ .
THE UITNESS: Absolr$,tely., :11 -
I
Eeing an engincer, t. hat'is just fundamental |,
12. - . . . . . . _ . ~ . . . . . _ . . . ..
principle that you learn from past mistakes, keep recordse 13. . - . . . - . _ . . . . . _ . _ . . .
to be able to --14
.. .. . . _ . . .
DR. JOIINSON: Well, ,follo, wing that just a13
, , , , _ , , _ , _ _ _, . _ _ , .
littic bit further and relative to a question that I askedf 16
. . _ . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . - . . . - . . . .
yesterday: If 100 years hance we were going through the17 . . . _ - . - - . _ . . _ . . . _ . . . . . _ .
sam proccas, and you had 100 years' worth of data, relative16 ._ ._ . - . _ . - . . .. . . . . .. .. .. -
to the performance of those tailing impoundments, and so19~; _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . . _ . - . . . . . .. . . . . _ . . . . _ . . . _ . -
|- .forth, '.rould you be in a better or worse opportunity to20
. . . . _ . , _ _ _ . _ . . . . . , _ . . , . . . _ . , . . _ , _ _ ..
offer your opinion as to the long-tern capability of these21 . .._._...._.c____..._._._..._._..-._ _ . . _ _ .. .
' impoundments?29 _ . . . . . . _ . . _ _ . . _ ,
-
'h: IIIYNESS : For sope fa,ilure mechanisms, I23 ' . . . . _ _ . . . . . . _ _ . _ . . _ . . _ .. . . _ . _ _ . .-
. suppose I'would. For other failure muchanisms, I don't. 24
.. _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ _ .. - _ . . . _ . . . . . . . - . . . ...
.
. think that I would.25 .-- . . _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ -
m_____.._._.__m- _ _ _ _ _ _ -
,
(. r
1- - !4- [
if
299 ,
b |-
,n29g
. -
'1 .,
r -
;DR. JOHNSON: Ono hundred years.later would not ' <
,. .
2 -- . ... _ . . . .._ . . . _ . .. . .j, ..
| -be sufficient?
:3 - , . ~ . . . . -!THE WITNESS: I don't,think so, because we're
-4 ... . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
italking about probable-maximum floods, and'I just read from:S .
. - . . . . - - - . - - - . - - - - - ..
..-. ..- .
4-the Colorado State Report, and you know the kind.of uncer-! G- . . . - - - - - - . - - - - . . - - _ ..... .-. --. . . - - .
. :!tainty that exists about those kinds of massive failures?'
7 - - - - - ,
DR. JOHNSON: Right., |,
4 8 .. . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . .
Despite comments of ,our~C,hairman earlier, I9 ._ ._ . ._..._. _... -..__ . .
am going to have to drift'around a bit and be somewhatI
----.-----L--- --- - ---- - - - -- -
10 .
,
unfocused.;1 . . - . . - - _ . -
What.is meant by the,envi,ronmental halflife i
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
12 .
I know the radiological halflife of radium-226'
of radium?
O 13$ - - - - - - -v -- - - - - - ' ~ --- ~ ~
is approximately 1600 years, What is the 50-year environ- '
'
;y, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - . . .
mental halflife refer to?
15 'EIE hITNESSA That (s really not the environ-16 mental halflifo of radium,''it's the environmental halflife
-~- --- ~~ ' - - -- ~ - -
*
-.
. . _ . . . . _ . _ _ _ . . _ . .. .._ . . . . .
'j7 of any kind of ground contamination, and as I stated in-_3g . . . . . . _ . . . . _ - . _ . . . . . _ . . . . ._, .
my.tactimony is to account for the removal of ground con-
-19tsnination through procascas 'such as cheriically fixing .g
c.-,
-
| ?.0 bindin{r of''the materialn and working of materials down,
i :. ; .. . .. . .-
4^~3. - - . . . . . _ . . . . . . . - . . - . , . .
| into the noil Leaching, rainfcll, . leaching of the matieriale 2
( gz. -
._ _
. . . . - , . . . . . . ~ . - . . . , . . ~ . . - . - - . . - - . . . . - . . . . . .
bringing it.down into the soil, so it's not then a.vailable'
for resuspension and inhale. tion. And I think it's important *
_ _ . . - . . - . . . . _ _ _ . . . _ . . . . . .. . _
3; ._y..-
O. - ito note here that I made estimates of this disperned source
'3 .-_ . . . . _ _ . _ _ _ . ._. _.... ..._. ._. . _. - . . . . . . _ . - -.
term, and. then just for' perspective,, said how that nmnber.--_.--......a...---..-..... . . . . .
.
--- o _______________________.._______a
300
1 could be reduced if you were to assume that there was sonc~
!jn 2 cort of removal an has been postulated. t
3 L DR. JO ESON[ Uall, ,in tha sakse that radium '
.
. __. . . . .. . ._- ,
4 par se, nat leact in the near term is the bad actor, and '
. .. . . . . . . . -. - . . . _. . .
5 .ncither fixing, chemical fining, or entbodiment in the. . . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . .- . .
G surface of the coil has any relevance as far as the. _ - _ _ . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . .
7 cmienion of radon from radium is concerned, or does not... . . . _ . . . - . . . . . _ . .
3 have a great deal of relevance. Does the 50-year halfli:?e*
. . . . . . . . - - - . . . . . . . . .
O period also apply to radium a cource of radon? It. . . _ _ . . . . _ . _ _ . . _ . . _ . . . .
10 would caen to te that these rr.echanisma do not remove thog,
11 contaminant or pollutant radh.bn ac far as it being a source. . _ _ . . _ . . _ . . . - _ _ . ._
12 of radon.IS CONC 3rnOd.-_.. - - ._ .
13 THI? UITNESS : I see yhat,you're driving at,
14 | and it would not entirely remova the radium as a source of
15 radon. It.wouldcertainlhreduceit, because you're
16 | beginning to br it up :Toma bhielding. I repeat what I've.
g . . . ... -. . . _ _..
77 y said 1:cfore that I made the actirato of what it would hei
. . . _ _ . . . _ _ . . .. . .
18 if nil or the rac'ium ware disporned on the ground and it.!n . _ . . - . _ _ . . _ . . ._
;g etayed t: hora. It was only for puropective that I brought
! .. . . . _. . _. _ .
oc f in the concept of removal of thia naterial.i; . _ .._ _
j- DR. JOm!300: On the, naq page:, I suppose, it i |gj| _. . . . _ _ _ _ . . . .
3! is the sama page -~. . -.. .,
23 TIIE WITNISS : Dr. J.ohlwon, what page in tlut?._- .. . , ._ ..
pj; ; Da. JOm! SON: Excuco, re, .page 25. Fed at a t
g5 i point h your testimEny [ou're decling with a source of. . . - . . . . . . . . _ . . . -. . .
<_
n . - -. - -
' ,!
.
-301- 1.
i
i
.
radodinot previously. addressed, and i.n particular you are . |-
!: n31c . .4 . . . . . - . . . ,
" ' ; dealing with.' ducting,cand you go through a calculation .
~
2,v- .
,, . ~ ._ .. - _ . . . - - . . . .. .,. . 4 .
3 .of - ' bacecT on some postulated values of dusting.
._ . . . ....
,
THE WITNESS: Yes;' ~
'4' .-~ -
,
5-DR. JOHNSON: ' Would ,you be able to give an' - ' ' ]
1.
i
-indication!of what fraction of the tails pile in-this.'
6 iy , - -. - . . . - - - . . - ... . ... . . . . . . . . . . ,
' - calculation 1are lost from tha-impoundment through'th~'..
'
7-, .
J,
. . . . ~ . .. _ . . . . . _ _ . . . . -. .. . .. .. . . . . _ . . . . . . .. . .
dusting nuchaniam?: .
.. Let mo give you 'a hi.nt. I haven't done the,
1-- 9- . .. - . . . . . . . . . _ - . . . . _ _ . . . . . .-.. .
_ .
? . calculation.at.all, but -- you end up with five curies of -
F 10g . . . . . . -. . . _ _ _ . . _ . . ..__ _ ._ . _ _ . . _. . _.. . . . .."
radium-226 out.in th2 environmant, so . presumably that. 11
. .- _-_ . . . _ _ . . . . . . ... . _. . ., _
| - five curies of radium, relative to the entire radium con- -
| ~ 12. _. . .. ._ . . _ . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
-
tant of. the tailinga pile would be the fraction that's13[ (V'y . .-... . . _ - . _ __ . . - ... . . . . . .
| lost by dusting. '
i. 14.. __ __. . . . . . _ . .!
} ~15 '.
I don' t have that ot3cr runnber at my disposal. t
., ... .. .. _. _ _ _ . . . . . _ . .. ,
, . THE WITNESS: Are yo,u r.sh,ing me, can I make that-
-
[ .16 _ . _ . . _ . . .._ _. . . . .
I calculation?ei 17 .. - .. . . . .I
_
DR. JOHMSON: Can yo.u de ,it? You don't have it10 -_.. . ._ ._..-._.._ . . _ _ _
[ off the top of your head?| 19 '
. .-. .. . . . . - _ . . _ . . .... _ . . . .I
p THE WITNESS: I don',,t havo it off the top of
( -20._ . __. . .. . . . . _ _ _ . . . ._ . .. . . . ._ .
| my handi I supposa in a couple of ninutes I could do ic.'
I 21 _ _. . . _ . . . . _.. .. ._ . - . . . . . . . ._, ._ . _
E DR.. JOHNSON: Can yop do ,it by after lunch? *
9>c - ... . .. . . . . . . - - . . . . . -_ .. ._ . -
THE WI'.lWESS : Yen, I,defi,nitaly can, and I j:23 . . . . .__ ._ -.. . _. .- -. ..
| - mast- again re-caphauize the conservatism of the nunbers~ '
24- . . . . . . - . .yj .. .
c. .. . ._ -. _ _. .. -
' f |- ithat I have used here but I can do it.25 . . . - . - . .,..a..-,-....... .. ... . . .
-
W 3 . -2. - '*FN F' NN9-9Pvn" h -.-:--J-~='w----- - - . - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - ' I= -_
' ' '
m
-
302.9
j DR. JOHNSON: Thank.you.32: } , , , , , . _ , , , , ,, , , , , , , , _ ,, ,
~} 2 On page 18'of your t,est!.rpny, the first para- -
,
v s. .. . ... ... .. _ ._. . . .
3 (graph of unquoted te5:t begins with the words, "As di'scussed ''.
. . .... ......- -.:...-
. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . -
in section 12.3.4." You arc discussing icn exchange of f4. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . -
5 thorium, uranium, and the last centence of that paragraph -'' !
. . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . .. - . - . . . .
G says, "Due to this phenomena,"'which I assume is absorption' '
. . . . . . . . . . _ - . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . ..
or ion _ exchange, "and the positive steps being taken '
7.. .. ....-. . -. . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
by the staff to reduce ceepago," what did you mean, precisely 5
g_ .
- . . . -- -. ..-.--.-.-. - - ... . .. .. . -
by "the ctcps being taken by the staff to reduce scopage"? '3
THE WITNESS: I menn, th3 Jcinds of steps that10- .. .-...: . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ..
_
I described in the two programs that talk about, startingg
on_page 19 involving the implacement of impermeable liners '
g. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. - . . - . . .
on the bottom and the sidewalls of the impoundments, to. (m\,
.... . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
_13y;"!' impede the secpage of --
14, . - . . . _ . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . _ .
DR, JOIRISON: -So these are the nonsynthetic15 - -
liners? Are you referring to a nonnynthetic liner?16i
. . . . . . .--....r. - . . .. . . . - .- .. - .. . . . ..
THE WITNESS: Both.g . ,
j ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ _ . . . . . . . .
,
'UA uce, in coma canec -- wa have accepted dis-. ,
pocals for uce of clay linera, and in other cases synthetic #
. . . . . . - - . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . .
linera.2.0
..-.. .
.DR. JOIRISon: But there are -- the synthetic21
~ '
, .
'
liner,-as I understood your earlier answer posed by Dr. '
. _ . . . . . . - . - . . . . . _ . _ . ~ . . . . _ - . _ . . . .. ..._... ...
_
Kepford,-the synthetic liner is caly intended to serve..-.. .- . . ~ . . ..
during the slurry period of the nill tailings, rather than -
y . . . . - - - . - - - . . .. . - - . - . . . . = . . . ...
.as ;n long- tarm seepage preventur?.' '
' 25_ . _ . . . . . . . - . - . .. . . _ . . . . _ . . _ _
.4
i
8
ig
a30o
THE UITliESS: It ic.o,nly , counted upon duringIjn33._ . _ _ . .. . . .
that period of time.2
DR. JOHNSON: Ucll, yout.re counting on positivo 6
. . . . . . . - . . . . _ . _ _ . .. .,
action in thic statement, and I think you're now -- you're !
- . . . . . .. . .. .
referring to long tino protection of groundwater, not. . _ . . . . . _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . . .
caepage of the mill tailings' liquid.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . - . . .. .. . .
THE UITNESS: I'11 ropeat,what I said before,. ... . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . .
and that ic that af ter tha time that the nill shuts down8 '
and that the avernga mill, you're no longer continuing9
. . . . - . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
to handle naccive amounts of solutions -- to give you an '
10 }! . . . _ .._.. . . ._. .. . .. . . . .
' a:: ample, 500 metric tons a dcy at tha average mill, andit
*
...
dispose of the a at the operation, then the only driving. - - ~ . . . . . . . - . . . . . ... . .. . .. . . .
force for - the only ':curce of water will be the rainfall.
13
ard infiltration, which will cactIr in those areas to very14
. . . - - .
little degrec.15
. . . . .
He heard a lot of discucaion yesterday by Dr.1G
.. . _. .
Pohl concerning the pheno:aana that Dr. Markon has17
thia is not $b nown, it's the process of$i pointed to,13
salinlection where the evapohdtio$[ [ato so far outstrip.,
19.- -..- . . . . . .
the -- in th: rainfall ratac, that you nei: tally hava20
'
riceofvolutioncui[ardAsopposedtoinfiltration '21
dctc:rvara throuh$ the pile na my point is khat after you 'r
22. _ . _ .. . . ._ .
dry the pile out, the relianca on a liner becomes lessm~
. . - ._ . . . . . . -
k oo r '; ..n t . It's nice to have, bu t- it's not as inportant.,
26. . . . . . .
DR JO!INSOM: R.ll, ,it ' F; ,cartainly on tha tine25
.. . . . . . . . . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _
acale bhat wc're in", rested in. You vouldn't consider. . . . . . . . . .
=cv-
r.,
,
304'
,
jn34 . ..
the liner to be a pofiitive stop for protecting the ground- '.;
. .- . - . . . . . . . . . - . - . . . . . . .^
water all of tho-life of the mill tail..t.,
-2<
%/
dHNhIbiNSS: ItI'~sa.posi[divesteponly$7 hen'
',a
._ .
.- . . . . . . - . - . =
it's-needed, and that'a during operation. After the period !
.. . . .. . . . . . . . . .
of operation, we don't feel it's an absolute necessity.. - . . . - . . -- . ... . . . . .
DR. JOHNSON: But tipse c.teps that you're- . .. . . . . . - . . . . . -. . . .. .
talking about are op priori steps bafore the system is put i
in place. There's nothing that the staff positively does -
. . . . . _ . . . . . - _ . . . . . .. . . . . ,
. . . . . .
to reduce seepage, subsequent to the impoundment of the
tails in.a particular fashion?.. _ . . _ . . _ . . . _ . . . . . . , . , _ . . _ . .-
, THE WITITESS: Right,,I so,e what you are driving I
... .- . .... . -... ... . . .. . . .
at. Certainly these are put in place,before the operation-
12
k(,-.s DR. dhNI[db[ b ou [Er$ ib$nt fied'yeskerday '
13' '
L.-as n person who night answer a. question,with regard to
14
when the NRC wou d ake o or in terr.s of cont olling '[he_ '
15. . _ . . .. . . - . . . _ ... .. _ . . . . .
residue.from the removal of ura.ium from a phosphate,
16. . . . . . . . .. .. . - .
fertili::er process. And it was suggested that if the17
_., .., .. _. ,_ _ , ., ,_ , , , _ , ,
c::inting recidues were there to be reworked, that-.
2
16} immediatelytheNRb$[ouldhaecontho[overthetailing '
10-_. _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . . . _ .. . . _ .. _ _ .. ..
; of this process, but it was not clear whether the NRC20
. _ . . . . . ~ . . . . . _ . _ . _ . . . .. . .-
would have jurisdiction over the tail or whatever.
21 .~.z._...-..~. . . . _ . . .
is analogoua to~the tail, rcsulting'from a process in which '
:22. . . . - _ . . . . . . _ . _ _ . . . _ . . . . . . . .. .
*
u'anium ic removed onstream in a phosphate fortilizer procass2 ,23
. - - - - - - - . - . . . . . - . . . . . . . .. . ... . . . . .
Can yot answer if the NRC would have control over those,m
3f e - . . - . .'-..w . . - . . - . ..'u tails?,
'
.,M,- . . - .
* a p.
I.
305jn35
1TIIE UITNESS : Yes, I,can , answer that.
2 ' - - - - ' - -- - - -
Key words in the Mil.1 '"ailings Act are in the -
3 definition of tailings as byproduct material are in that
4'
definition, anck they state that they define the tailingsn . . . . . . . . .. . .- _. . . - - .
an byproduct natorial as waste which is generated in a~
6- - ~ ~ ~ - - ' - - ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ '- -
proccan whose - the primary purpoco of which is to
,- .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. .
c:: tract uranium, and co in the case where the primary
3. . _ . . . . _ _ _ . . . _ . .. . . .
pu~ pose in to extract phosphate and only-as-a byproduct
ts.. out uranium, wo, i$i[ebEC, do not license the tailings.9
~T~~~. .- J -' '
marcris.l.' We do, in ract, license10~
J-~a a not .,icensoab.~.17.t 2,
the cource riatonal rack $ry operation, worker safety and11
that sort of tl[ing, but nc tailinga. I nean if there12
13. . . - . . . . . . .. . .
were a mi.ne or a phosphuric waste dump that was reworked. . . . _ . . . . . . _ _ . . _ . . . _ . . .. . . .
14 for the uranium valuou, in that care it wodct be a dif-. . . _ . . . - . _ . . _ . . . . . - . . . . .
15 feront cbory.
16} DR.hbbiSOU bre yo.u fam.iliar enough with,
_. -,, . .. .. . ~ . _ .
17 th r.t eccan to ancuar uhether the tailo would look or. . _ . . - . . . . . _ . _ . . . . . _ . . _ . .
18| bot we any differently if the uranium is romoved then ifI
IS !I th * uuta not removad :~ rom tha nhosphate fertilicer proccas?
20 ||._ -.. . . .. . . . . . ... . . _ . . . . . _ . . . . ._
11;11; MIThilSS : Behave _ differently if thehq
"'t Ii. _. . . . . . . _. . _ _ . . . _ . . . . . - . .
~1 n urnuir.n ;aro reaaved.D
U l'I DR. JOm!SOU: I!chave_diff.orontly, by that It
- . . . . . _ . _ . . _ . . . .. .
23 uann "pocifically with reJevance with this hearing, wouldi
i .. . . . . . ..
24 the raden eni.ccion fron thcae tails ha any way altered if.
,
.h
25 aleng tha way uraniu'a is rarcved from the proccas ntroom?__. _ _ _. .
.- .. .
. ie ,
306 |i.
i*.
|
.,
]n36' THE' WITNESS: Yea, obviously, uranium being a :
._ . . ... . . _ . . . - [- ~*
,
. .a
gL 2 progenator of
3 DR-.$0HNSON: Well,,with.the exception of f,
. . . - . . . . .. .. . . - .
a tho' fact.that uranium is the source of thorium, it's.
.. . . . . . ._ . . . . .. ;. .
h - {j. 5 rather a long term. I meant any immediate~~
.-,
! .
. . .. . . . . ~ , , .-,
| '6 difference? !
THE WIT 1!ESS:- Well, J don't think no.7 ;,
. _ _ , . . . . . . _ . . _ _ .. . . . ;
5 DR. JOHNSON: Is'it t. rue,,in your opinion, tha'd ! |, gj '
' *__. . . . . . . . . . . _ . . _ . . _ . . . . .. . ..
i is you remove the thorium from the tails in any milling |'
g,
t. ........__... ..-. .._i-. . . - -i .
j, process, that that would cut short the radon production *
gj
-. _ . _ . . . . . . . . _ . . _ . . ._ - .
chain at.lcast after the decay of radium?.
1 11s,
! THE WITNESS: Certainly.2 12 -
,
J
.. . . . - . . - . , . . . _ . ...._ ._
* DR. JOHUSON: Do yog have,any idea of what '
13 ,
ea na p a ns of nmoval of Goh at Ge '
I 14 ,
j g .._ . . . _ . _ . . _ . . . .
j ccmo time that you're rew)ving uranium would be? .T nasume ?
15, _ . . . . . _ . . - . . ,
that thu thorirm is presont in mo're orcless traco quantitics i4
16. _ . . . . _ . . _ . . . . _
| in -- or not abundant corsercial qunntities in uranium ore? Jl 17i . . _ . . . _ . . . _ . . _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . . . .. . . .
! THE WITNESSi Well,*we annuma, and I think it!c;-
18 . ' . . . _ ..i
_ . _ . . . . . . _ . _ . _ . _ . . _ . . . _'
pretty voll borne out by mencurements that the thorium
tends to be in occular equilibEiu[ or near there with
the othar nuclidec in the chain. We have evaluated removal - 1
21. . _ . . _ . ~ . . _ - . _ . _ . . . . . . _ _ . . . . . _ . . . - . .. . .
of radiuia and thorium from mill tailings in the GEIS, and I
; . _ _.... _ . ._ _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
'for the reasons stated there, Twa decided that it was not i
.23 ,
.- .._ ._. - _. .. _..... . _ . . . _
a --- something that una rcquired.,
- 24-, . . _ . . . . _ . . _ . . _ . . . . _ _ . .
I It's c co:q>1icated d,iccuscion. Again, I'll go I
.
: b.;- . , ___ _. ._ _ . . . . . _ . . _ . _ . . . .. .
!
!'
-
: }
:_
1.
. . . _ . . ._. ____ . . ._. _. ._ _- _.. . . _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ __.
j 1.
L307'
j n3'7 '-
e tinto'it, if you like -(. -
|' - DR.JOIbfSON: I woul,d lik,e only for you to give2 '
! .. ~ . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ..
3| mo a referenco to that discussion.
* ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' " ' '
'4| THE WITNESS: 7sll r,ight.,
ft's - - i$hnre is an alter. native, and it's" ~
i5
O alternativa number nine, $3 defined in chapter cight, and;
. . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . ... .. . ;4 .I 'it is then carried through and evaluated in subscquent |'
. . . . . . . . _ . . . . . _ .. . . . . . . . i
8 chaptors with a final conclusion about that and its cost- '
_ . . . . . . . _ . .. . .. . .
9 effectiveness in chapter 12. It evaluated the potential'
.. . .-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..
10 for removal of both radium and thorium through nitric
>
1 acid leaching.* 1
..._. ._ . _ . _ . .
12 DR. JOIIMSOU: Mr. Ch,airmqn, I have no further. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
13 questions of thin vihot.'s.!
. . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . _ . . . . . . . . .
14 CHAIITAN ROSENTHAL: .Dr. , Buck?. _. .. . . . . . .
; 15 DR. DUCK: No, I hav,e very few, as a matter 2of I
i .. .. . . . . . . .
{ 16 fact, I juct hava one.I . . .. .. . .
17 Listening to your to,stirqn yesterday, and having- .. . . -. ... . . . .- -
|' ' 18 read uhat you have writton, it seems to mo that you're'
i . . . .. . . . - - . . . . . . . .
19 confidence in the stability of mill tailings pile structures, *
.-. .. . . . - . . . . . .. .
20 how long it'a going to last and that sort of thing, depend '
- . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. ..
21 upon you, meeting come rather detailed criteria, which. . . . . .. . . _ . . . . .. _
.
.
22 , you have studied, ths. Colorado people have studied, . things 5
._. . . . . .- .... . . - . . . . - .- .- . .
23 l that you have Ec do. And I would presume that what you~
>;;
t . .. . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . .. . . . .-
24- - put under the pile and. the location of the pile. First of !
. - . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . - . . . . . - .... . - . . . . - - ..
i- 25 all, what you put under it, types of soil, and so on, what... . . . . . . . - . . . . . .. .. -
-.+-m . w- w..Pw~M.--.we-ee--%.rw.--w-. _____e..pr.y .-ve..*mWeWe'N1'-'ww__ .- . ...TV-. ,."'.'W.
__ __ _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ __ . . . _ _ _
,
. . . . .
a)n38 308. .
i- you put over it, stripes of rick-rack on top, the amounts,-.
i( 'i - 2 w -...........c. . .. ,. . . _ . . .. .. ._ . ..'~'and all this sort of thing.
3 'sosi,T grantee'that yo.ur cr.itoria are proper andt *.
4 .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . _
! will do the -}ob. Whether or not the stability is therei
is going to 'epend upon your quality control in meeting5 d
0 those criteria. I don't - Ihaven'tseendi,Imayhave '
. - . . . . _ . . . . .. .. . . _ . . . . . . . . .. .. . ....I7 missed it, see anything in the criteria or discusaion as-
I 8. . . . . . . . . . . . .. _ . . . . . . . ... . .
to what requirementa you are putting on the owners of the..
4
. . . . . . . .. . -. _....
~ ites, and so on, to maintain a quality assuranco ... .i s
organization and $ hat doing about maintaining their~
| 10
II own quality assurance Arganization to n[onEtor this. Can
youdiscussthisproblemorhaveyoNthoughtaboutikat12
! /N . . . - . . - __.. .U U all?. . ...
.!14 THE WITHESS: To go ,from,the general to the' !:
.+ . - . . . . ~ . . . .'
[ 15 specific - our licensing process, in addition to the. . _ . . _. I
i, . _. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . _ . . . . . . - _ . _ . . - . _.
16 environmental inpact statement that evaluates and determines._ .. . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . .. . . .
!17 and in the t' col for deciding how'to precisely dispose of-
.
.
18 tailings and what not, we do an evaluation, called "The.
L
j Safety Evaluation Report," and in that evaluation, which. . - _ . . .. j. _ . . _ . _ . - _ . _ _ _ . , . . . . . . . ... .. .. .
19|1 ,
j 20- is another public documant. No evaluate the overall nro- i|
21 gram of quality assurance and --. [
".. ._. ._ .. _ __. ~ . .... _ .._
,
|
[ 22 DR. DUCK: You do re. quire a quality assurance|
program on the.part $f the_ contract?23
, im
f (x_J)24 THE UkTIESS r Yes,,and 1.t's prinarily focused
;
| .; . ..
25' on a program to assure that in-plant safety starts fro,
'fr,
th
4 _ m_w - ;.__ - . . . . _ ~ - - - - - - ~
't
309jn39
I there, that the in-plant safety, that exposures are in
compliance with 20-CFR-09Q and the NLARA principle, but2
3 the cane organization rebuilt upon to got whatever quality
4 assurance we need concerning environmental factors, such
5 things as the installation of liners, meeting filter criteria
6 where there are underdrains, for example; it is the
7 i organization that we focus whatever quality assurance
6 requirem nts uo have -- now, bmustadmit,'thatasImen-
9 tiened yecterday, we started about three years ago when
10 tackling this problem. We have, I feel, made a lot of
I think ve* ve established the basic elerants in11 progress.-
12 the concoote and principles that nust be me There's
ijflushing out of the regulation required.
13 j|.-
.
14 We have a certain number ,of Reg Guides right
15 now in place that are quite specific on how to build a dam,g
i16 foods filter criteria, and a lot of very specific engineer-
!17 ing principlas, but beyond that, I can see us defining
l,
te i mare specifically how to, and mininum requirements for,
19 i thc.t would assure, as you say that these requirements arei
. . .<
20 car::ied out in a satisfacto? way, and that these would. . . .
21 bacon 1 Rag Guides or possibly into the regulation, and I
22 I nnou in certain cases in this former regulation, this final.
23 regulation, we will croh?.bly include nore detail.
24 The paint is, in the,t ell, of that will be'
25 folded and naec a p$rt of a real license, and so --. .
-
310in40
I- DR. BUCIO:. I would Iope t, hat It would. While,
- 2 I am stressing at the present moment that I haven't seen
3 anything here, and N understand your explanation of why I
haven ' t', but I have to enhhasi::e that you probably4)
U are awarci and the NRC is, and utilities ih general, ha've.
.h . .. . . . . . - . . . _ .
O had quality assurance probler.s, and these quality assurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7 situations are required to last for 20,.. _ ._ _ _ _25, 30 years.
Uhat wc'are lookiilg t he.ro is -- are some8 a.- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - .
9 rather detailed specifications'and criteria, which become...... . ._ ._. .. . . . . _ . . . . . ..- . . . . . . .
10 useless once they are followed in extrema detail as to the i
11 quality. AllIamtryingtbdonow'is,one, get your''
12 nacuranca that you are going to look at this, tVo, to
p13 emphasi::o that this is probably the biggest qualitygj _ ,
assuranceproblemthatankbodyhashver-faced.~
14
15 TIIE WI'5 NESS : kiell,,Iwol.comeyourcomment,'and '
16 | it's wall taken. I, au N cay, the need for following
17 . through is not lost on us, and N 15 ave to just say again. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..
18 that we have a ways to go in flushing out, and this is in. . . . . . . - . . . . . - - . . . .. . - . . . .
10 our program, in flushing out many of these things with.. . . . . .. . - . . . . . . . . . - . . .
20 this specific Reg Guido ~hich essentially guarantee or pro-. ...?. .- ., . . . . . . . .
21 vide for tha kind of quality assurance you're asking about.. . . . . .. . . . . . . .
22. DR. BUCK * Hell, the qual.ity assurance is,
_
} . .. .. ..
23 obviously difficult because, first place, you're working in'
'
<^ .24 .a field contruction nituation, and you're working with
(v) .
. .~ ..
25 ' people who' throw dirt and rocks around, and all this sort,
i ., , . . . -
t
I i
J'
311jn41'
,
1 of thing, so you've got a.real'problo.m.
b 2 TIIE- W5EdEdS : Nell, ,perhqps I should mention
that, youknow,ChurchP$c'Nisaperfectexampleo5where'
3
4 there wasn't adequate quality assurance, and that happene'd-
years - was - designed and built . years back. Nknouallof $5 '
. .. . . . . . .. . .
6 -o.ur-dams right now get the kind of quality assurance, on- -
7 siteinspection,andv$atnot,thatyouaretalkingabout. -
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
6 So, I don't mean to ho too modest here... . . . - . . . .
9- / DR. BUCK: I en not ,talki.ng about the past,
10 IrealizethatyouAbedo[nhsomething. I,am just trying
to emphasize what you're Eacing here is probhbly tNo most11
. -. . . . . . . . .- .
12 difficult quality assurance., . . . . . . . .
( ) 13- THE WITNESS: Right. I. understand..,
14 CllAIR*iAh ROSN b1AL: I ga,ther, though, that you,
.. . . _ . . . .. _ ... .
15 are addressing both aspects of it; one, the requirement. - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16 that the operators como forward with quality assurance.. . . . . . . . . - - . . . . .. .
17 programs which would catisfy the Commission, assuming
18 their implementation; andcocond,monitoringactivit1eson
the part of the Cor$rainaion to ensure that tho' quality'19
.. ._ . -. . .-
1
20 accurance program has, in fact, been carried out.
'.- .... - . . . . . .
21- Are you talking abotit bat.h those aspects?.. . . . . . .. .
1
22 THE WITNESS: De fini.tcly., j. - . . -. . . . .
23 The need to write ti.ght'l.icenses that have a~
D 24- major part of.them, $ progrEm on the pert of the licenseeAb
25 1 -to provide quality assurance and it is there, or the extent. . . .. .
b
4
L- . m
_ x.-'
e
4
312
b421 that it'c not, it's because we're doveloping our program,-,
'( 3
'' 2 and also certainly we have in rdnd the need,' And have'
knowledge of-' and. intentior, 'of following through from our'''~~ ~ ~' ' ~ ~ ' '
3 -
# cnd, the Offi$c of Inspec51on and Enforceldent in congert
5.. .-. . . . . . . . . , _ . _ . , , ..- .- .
with us to make sure that.these thingc aro done right, and
6 I don't mean to be too modest bdcausE right now for onbank- -
- . . . ..... . . . .. . .. .,
ments that are be.ing built, we are doing inspections at. . - . . . . - . .. . - . . . .
O'
certain predetermined stages in the process of construction
to ensure . quality Assdrance.9
CH INkAd ROSEdhh[AI$ , kbil,, with respect to the10
II embankments which aro being built nok are the' _
^
'
I2 constructors being reqEirek'. as a precondition to construc-'h . .. .. .. .. . . . . . .
[V U tion to como up with quality assurance plans?
\II tjn 14- ._ . .. . -
-|
fl u( l15 '._
| ..
16i4
17 1!
10
19
,
20
'
?.1
P2 ;
,
..
23' .
_ gt/
25 .
--4L -
__ ,-
313jra 1 , ,
spc.6 -
27 feb 8d Over what period of time embankments are being built; jgV 2 and I'm interestod in knowing just what is being expected
1 3 in terms of quality assuranco prograan as applied to whatever
4 specific requirements may oxist today.|
5 THE WITUESS: Right. There arc two things herc:|
[ G one .'s che things that arc being'done today; the installation|
.
L 7 of the 'inors; the construction of the embanknents, if that-i
1
| 8 is happening. Then thero are things that happen at the end;
|
!-
the installation of rift-raft or this or that.9 .- . . . - .
'; _,. ., .
- .
j 10 For those things that aro happening now, yes there isi
!( 11 quality assuranco. If you want the details, I would have to-- ,
t i
12 CHAIIMAN LOSENTHAL: Well, I don't want a lot of
13 small detail, but I would like to know whether, in connection
) 14 with what in being donc today, there are outstanding quality
|15 assuranco programs that have been submitted to the NRC and
IG approved by them.
|
! 17 If not, hou would the Connission know that proper GAiI in procedures arc being followed? For another way, would theyIi
I 19 |cncu that only through their own inspections?
20 ' TiiE UITUESS: The ancwor is, -I think in general,|'
- .
I L the quality assurance programs are in place; Regguide 3.0 on21}
f 22 the construction-of dams establishes that. I can't giveLr
[ 23 you. specific on cases.-
|: f~N., 24 . CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: I'm not asking for specifics| G-
25 on cases; this'was intended.to be a generic question appliedi
|i /
m-~~ ---.am ',..:_... _ - . _ - - - . . - - . - . . - - - . . . - - - . - . . . _ - . - _ ____ _ - .-,-
_ _ _ . . . . . _ _ - . _ - . . . . - - _ _ _ . _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
.,,
314;
1- to the wholo range of activitics that are going on now.,3,,
V 2 THE WITNESS: I would say that quality assuranceo
i
!
[ 3 is n major part of construction that :in going on right now;|
| 4 that's why I backed off and said I don't mean to be too modest)
5 but things that are happoning now, construction of dams, in-
[ G stallation of liners are being carried out with quality
|j 7 assurance.
O CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: And --
9 DR. BUCK: E<cuse me, A1. I think the thing that's
10 bothering me just a little bit in the 19 CFR on regular
il reactor construction, there is a section on quality assurance.
12 Is that transferred over to your operation? Or, how
{ (g%r~
13 do you get a quality assurance program over to your con-
14 tractors?
15 THE WITFESS: Dr. Buck, you know, this is a -- some-
, 16 thing, of course, that is a matter of degree as to how nuch,
17 quality assurance you apply; and how we stack up againct'
, to reactors, I really can't say precisely. I wouldn't know how.
19 to answer that question.
20 What I can do for you in to do what Dr. Johncon asked
21 mc to do yesterday, to characterico the kinds of thingc that
n- we are doing.,
i.I 23 DR. BUCK: You referenced a guid31ine a moment ago.
u Do you have a~guidelino on-quality assuranco now in your setL V-
25 of guidelines on construction?,
|
h.
|
/_. _ J _ _ - - _.- - _. _ x-
__ _ _ __. _ _ . _ . .
--
jr0 3'
' 315,-
;
1 THE WITNESS: There in no guideline on quality |
U' 2 ansurance alone. There is a Regulatory guide on construction ;
j 3 and design of embankments imposed and'another one for)
4 inspection of embankmonto. And, I would have to to into that'
|f
f 5 and fair through it to find where quality assuranc --
[ G DR. DUCK: Well', let's go back to the baae question:i
7 is there anything in the construction of embankmanta or any;
!
! 8 other type of conatruction that you are involved in a this:
Ii 9 particular operation that requires your contractors 1) have
I| 10 quality assurance prograns?.
! 11 THE WITNESS: I'll have to say I can't annur that
12 question right nou; if you vot.ld like, I could check ar.l get
; ,
) (J 13 ' Iou an answer after lunch an to exactly --. w
j 14 DR. DUCK: I'd very much like to have that info.ma-
.33 tion. .
i'
j 16 CHAIR 7GU ROSERTHAL: M1 right. Now, the NIC in-
37 2pection of the activitics - that 0.re going on now as co:ductos.
gg by I&E? .):
I
| gg THE HIT!!ESS: I has not boen; it has been conducted
Igo by our concultants.
! CHAIPlMU ROSEhTHAL: ly your consultants. Now, ic21
22 this going to beccme a function of the office of Inapoction,
i
f' and Enforcement?23
|| [^l 24 THE WITNESS: Mr. Eccenthal, we are in the process
i %j'
of working that out. -
25
s.- _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _
. .
'
: j rA. 4~' ''
316- ,
I CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Okay, so that'still-is un-. , - .
A certain?~ ,
3 THE WITNESS: Yes.- We are providing-for it.I
l CHAIPMLN ROSENTHAL: Dut, sonobody at this- point
5 are now.' dealing with the on going activities?
6 THE WITNESS: Yes.
7 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Somebody in or on behalf of
8 the 'Comi.ssion is'. conducting inspections?
9' IHE WITNESS: Absolutoly.
10 CHAIRMAN ROSEPTIiAL: And, are these done randomly
I1' or on n - -
12 THE WITNESS: No. In the Safety Evaluation Report
Q,m .13 that I talked about earlier, we do a full dam stability re-.
.-
14 view. And, the consultant establishes at which point -- the
15 criteria that must be followed;' he establishes at what
16. points-in the. construction of the dan, for example,.when the
17 excavation first starts, the operator has to wait inspection.
10 The inspector has to go to determine that, in fact,.there areL
19 ' no collapsible soils; there are no gypsiferous seams; there
~
T.O . .are no materials there thit'can create an unstable situation.
- 21 Then the operator is allowed to progress --:
22 .CHAIEMAN ROSENTHAL3 .So, there are inspections in.
23~ - ' stages, is what the concultant presumably regard as to
(J _ critical points.~'s 24
.25 * THE WITNESS: Yes. .I know for~a fact that is yes.-o
L - ' -yv L..
'
jra 5-
317
1 - CHAIIU!AN ROSENTHAL: All right..,~,
V 2- DR. BUCK: Well, any more information that you can
3' give us, I would be glad to get,.okay?
4 TIIE WITNESS: Yes, I would be pleased to do so.
5 CIIAIPEAN ROSENTHAL: .Do you have any more questions?.
6 DR. DUCK: I have no further questions.
~
7 CHAIEMAN ROSENTHAL:. Before we adjourn for' lunch~
8 and after lunch, Mr. Miller will bc back on the stand for the
limited purpose of suppl'ing this specific information that|9 y e
'
10 has been requested.1
11 I will invite further questions of Mr. Miller, but it
12 .must be confined, in the case of Dr. Kopford, to matters
i 13 that were either covered in the redirect or the recross-
14 examination or Board questions. Or in the caso of --
15_ DR. KEPFORD: That's understood.
1G CHAIIU!AN ROSENTHAL: Okay, or in the case of-
17 Mr. Silberg and Mr. Bordenick, to areas covered in the Board,
la questions. We will start with you, Dr. Kopford.
19 FURTHER CROSS-EX?JIINATION BY DR. KEPFORD:
20 Q Mr. Miller, in answer to a question by, I believe,
23 Ms. Granaar, you m'intioned conditions imposed by the NRC upon
22 the licensea. These are not written down beforehand, right?
23. They are worked out with the applicant for a permanent: --
O 24 they are,not actually a part of the regulations as to license(,/ .
25 conditions?
__ _ -o - _ - - _
,_ __.- . . , - . _ . - - . - . . - - . . - - . _ . - _ . - - --
'jrs 6: 318
i- .
.T'm not sure I follow you, Dr. Kepford..
1- A
.h 2 0 okay. kell, there are. essentially given a set of'i
3- regulations, general regulations.
4 -- A Yes.
'i 0 To implement them, you work out on a site-spedific
6 basis what the particular set of conditions shall be.
'
7' 'A Right.
i 6 Q For the license.|
|
| 9 A Right.
10' . O could those be charactorized as Staff policies?
11 A Well, we are probably going to get into a semantics
12 problem here. There are license conditions; they become as
13 onforceable as the regulations themselves, incorporated intog14 a licensc. The major substantive provisions that-the Staff'
'15 feels must be-incorporated into thoce license conditions
16 concerning tailings dispccal are identified up front in
the envilionmental statement that wo produce on a given pro-'
17
33 ject.. > . . . . .. .. -
;g 0 Eut, in working out what those license conditions
20 : ara, does not the Staff have some starting place? In there
-21 .nct a. Staff policy which says, all right; we want this -
y A Yes. The starting place is certainly the perform-
23 ance objectives in the case of li' censing over the pant several
- .21 years that I. alluded to in my testimony; and the other pieco.
offit nof-course,-is the environmental report submitted by,the25
. .
w .-....- ;.-.-.1 _ - ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ .. __ 'm
I|'
jra 7'
319
1 applicant. And you evaluato, an I caid, beforo the environ-
2 mental report and the proposals of the applicant and the
3 alternatives he looked at in terms of these conditions or
4 thoco criterion, the licensing croitoria; and, you establish i
3 the upccific program he taking the two and considering the
6 two together.
f 0 Would it be proper to say, then, that after the
a cito has been chosen by the applicant, it's then imcumbent
9 upon Um Staff to develop a policy which can thcn be applica
IC | to that sito; is that an appropriate characterization?
|11 A UO-
gg Q Ghat would be? |
)MR. SILBEP.G : Mr. Chainnan, I think all we are ij 33
m-
p3 doing is going over the explanation of how the Staff developa
its license conditionc, I really don't cue -- !';g
g CIIAIP11AU ROSIINTIIRL: Yes, what is the significance ;
77 of thin reference, continued reference to policy? I did
~, think that Mr. Miller how the Staff went about it and he hasn
,g also pointe.d out that licence condit.ione evolvo which are
20 binding upon the applicant. It uou}d seen to me, Dr. Kepford,
3that ra know how the Staff goes about the process, whetherg
on:: vants to call it oolicy deteruinations or wishes to usen .3a ,
IIg, | som other nomenclature, really icn't that significant; is
i
4t?x,
DR. KEPF0ED: Lir. Chair 7an, I guaes personally I |25
|
r
(.L
_ _______ -. ___ _ _. _ __ __
f! t- t -
jro-8''
!
320 i
I.
was a little bit unclear about how this process went.'forth or
'-) '2! proceeded. And, I was trying to get a l'ittle bit better angle1
3 on it.
4 ' CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Well, what aspects are you un-I h
5 clear on? You can ack questions of Mr. Miller directed to .}|
6 thos specific' aspects.
7 'I had thought that he had delineated with some degreol
'
! O of completoness, the process; but, if there are aspects of!
9 it that still are unclear to you, you can certainly ask him
10_ about them. Ii4
I II BY DR. KEPFORD: |
12 O In response to a qucction by Dr. Johnson that got
n13() back into the mo" 9s < .~ timo dependence, Dr. Johnson referred
>
14 to a question thac I had asked yesterday on time dependence
! 15 of failures.!J
!| 16 Arc not many of the steady mechanisms in the Coloradoi
f 17 State Ecport, ones which could occur at any time in the future
|? 18 in the context of the Colorado State Report. I don't think
j 10 they want beyond 100,000 years.4
! 20 A .If you are asking me can things happen any time
k 21 in the future, I would say yes.'
!
| 22 0 In specifically failure nochanisms?'
23. A Those things can possibly occur.
"' 24| Q Okay,-they cro independent of tima. Th se was somo *V )-;,
[ 25- that were said to happen say,~in the first 100 years; beyond!
- _.;_.-.=-..-._.--.---------.- - - - . -
_ _ _ _ _ _ --- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ -_
1, .
'
jrc 91 i321- .j
i
1 that, there are no problems. I think cap settlement was onej .gg
2 'which~ occurred early in the life of--| |
| 3 A That's a very complex think. You can talk about'
|
| 4 the-failures, but you also have to talk about the significanc' e[.I'_ 5 of the fallures.!
|k 6 Q The significance is something else. What I'm
7 addressing is time -- j
8 A Yes, there's a potentidl"for settlement for the- - -
9 cover materials and in response to that, we have gone -- we f
f 10 have put into regulations things like minimum thickness of |!
11- the cover to avoid a dependence upon thin covers that my ;
!
12 themselves might tend to control the radon, but don't give you
! 13 much reliability and much conservatism in the face of such
14 things as cap settlemanh.
115 Q Well, let me go back to me quesi. ion I raised on cap
i . , -'
16 settlement. I raised that as an example of one.which, as I
|17 recall it, had a very short period.of tima. And beyond the ,
4 |'
la first 100 or 200 years, as I recall it, after it was placed,
10 the authors of the report suggested that it was not a problem.
20 Go , ' it ' :: not a failure that.would be anticipated to
21 happan over' periods of time diccussed in that ' port.,
|: '
L 23 L . f?it. SILBERG: I think that na are getting into a!
{ 23 sem etiu circle again. The problem that Dr. Kopford, I think,
24 Lis tal' king about is whether it is a significant failure. The'
G.A25 cap - I think the_. witness has said that it can occar at any
i
1
I
|L ,
, a--... _ ._.u _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __ __,_. _ _ _ , _ , _ _-
7- -. _ - _ _ - .. . . _ - - - . . . - _ --_. _ , _ _
L jrc '101 322,
,
i i
i time, but'after some periods of timo, it just'oesn't matter. Id,-
'
d 2 :I think we may be going around in circles.
I f
3 DR. KEPFORD: That's not at a31 what we are talking !i
|; 1? |
4 about. (
5 CIUsIRMidi ROSENTHAL: All right. Restate your'
i
6 question.
t
7 DR. KEPFORD: My orginial question was: are not |
8 many of the failure mechanisms in the Colorado State Report ,
i,
g. ones which could occur --
f 10 CHAIRMAN ROSEUTHAL: All right. The witness answer--: i
i
11 ed that question, yes, that he couldn't rule out the possibil-1
f 12 ity of their occuning at any particular time.L
| T') 13 DR. 1EPFORD: With regard tc going back to thei .V
14 50-year environmental half-life of radium, hou is radon '
emicnions fr m that radon - excuue me -- how in-radon15
16eniosions from that released radium affected by chemical
' binding?7,
THE UITUE.SS: Dr. Repford, I think maybe you lostgg
me.39
20 .Well, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman,MR..DORDENICK:
i -
21 -that.the question is c1carly beyond the bounda of --
22- CHAIRIGH EOSENTIML: Yes, I don't see how that re-
.lates. Dr.: Johnson can be of greater assistance on that as.-23
. 2'1 to whether this is really in the bounds of the inquiry,of
gj
25- his. inquiry.of the witness.
1
11
'
- - _ . - . _ - . _ __-- m_ _ _ _ _ . __ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - __ _ ___ _ _ . , _ . _ _ _
, -
jrr; $1
323i
~1 DR. JOULISCH: The. short answer to. that in yes , it
g in. One of the mechanians uhich lead to the removal of-
:3 radium under tha renoval which than resulta in an environ-
4 nantal half-life was ntated by Mr. Miller to be chemical
3 binding. Another, and I think I, in fact, asked him whether
that would reduco the radon eniosion and I think ho answered6
7 no, that it uould nut. Maybe I misunderstood.
O THE WITNESS: I think you anked me wasld it clin-
inato'it, and I nald no. Would it reduce it, it probably9
10 would, in fact, it would to a certain extent.
DR. JOHi?SOII: Well, nny';c you better explain to bothyg.
g Dr. Kapforu and Dr. Johnson how chemical binding of radium
reducm2 ndon cainsionc.13_
TIP3 WITUESS: I'm corry. If you are talking aboutgm. . - c
chemical binding of it, I chould mko another distinction15
here. Uhat I'm talking about in my considering the environ-15
mental half-life and talking a'cout the procans by which youg,
?ccccodate for the fact that rcdirn dc as not uit right ong,
tha vary uppor surface of the land; th't du,t over time, youg
m pc aition o f wind-blown N51rento, you have rainfall20
falling on tha con N.mination u d cat'ing it to rove downg!i
| in'co the eoil and by thic procean, carrying it away from theg-
J,9
curf ace .md crnr, ting tha altuatler @ are there in essenti allyc.3
,
|~
j a tentation of uhatever radon in 'arr3d by that radium.,3ii
i .n I .;uld assune that t11 ordnating power 17culd still,.g.
f
, .?
-y,;; y.a,.:-u
,
3.
jra 12 324
1 remain around 20 percont, but it vould limit the amount that4 could encapo to the atmosphere."
"e DR. J0!iU30'ci: ~7 ell, I think it 10 noccosary to
make those dintinctions becaunc there are come, you said that/~
c" the half-life relaten to pollutant materials in general.
O Mow, there are como pollutant materials whose toxicity would
7 bo eliminated entirely were they to combino chemically in
6 some form and therefor 2, not be what they were when they
9 atarted; they would be a removal mechanicm that would be
totally effectivo and uhich attributes to an environmental10
li half-life.
12 In regard to chemical binding, por so, as one of the
1.j- 13 remaval machanic'ic, it doesn't appear to be a part of the
11 envricmnantal half-lifo ro~ oval machanica ac far an raden re-
15 laace la concerned; is that not your view?
16 T!!M iSITT:ESS: I ace the point of confusion.
17 Chanical binding will not chop radium from generating raden,
iC DR. JOIiUSON: Thank you, cir.
19 DY DR: Er2 FORD:'
20 0 Mr. Miller, as I recall your testinony, I don't
21 kncil where; I can't find it right offhand. You said that
22 the ionc involved in thin tend to ahoorb more readily; the
23 radionucliacc tend to absorb mcro readily in the soil.
24 Now, if the radium is dopcaite.d on the curface of the
25 soil, would it not he chemically bound tihere which ind. ecd it.
r -
jrn 13 d
I 325 ;
I does, and then cmit its radon on the curface?
A A Yea, there is soma nigration, and I think too much
3 play in boing made of the environ:aontal removal of radiun. I
'I stated in my tectiraony what the releases would be if you left
b |I..
it lay on top of the ground.
6 Than I caid the nev.t vorco possible case and what raight
7 happen and probably will happen, that this stuff will movo4
8 down auny from the very surface. And, to give you sorae per-
9 spective, hora is a tool that has bean used by come to estim-
19 ate that. Ucw, you can taka that, really, for Uhat it'a
II worth.
12 O In your discussioritrith, I think, Dr. Johnson, con-1
(-
! 13_
corning lincrc, I think you said casantially, after the
14 reclanution of the pile in comploto, that you don't really
15 count on the liner for anything; is ny impression correct?
IG A The way you stated is not exactly correct. Once
17 the milling op3 ration ia complete and tha solutionn-have been
10 driven off by evnparation, it's no . longer a requircrlent,
19 beacune t'lara i:, just no source of water.
EO Q On one oE the figurca of your teatimony, there is
21 a 10 Ecot difference, es I recall, between the tailings and
22 the cator tabel; is that not correct?
i
'J A Ya 2.,;
'i?4 f 0 rigure 1, u. I recall. Is that water tablo level
'
25 expected to be nonchr.nging? 10 feet is not vary much.
|
|
l
[ . .
/ jra 14 .. 326
I A No. And, in fact, the major issue in that cane is
2 knowing just that: catablish what la a reasonabic level that
3 in not going to be one that, with a feu uct years in Wyoming
4 you are going to have it rice.
U We ere keenly auare of the fact that we have flucuating
U levels in tla ground water, the pizco-matric (?) head of an
7 aquafer (?), and undefined aquafer. And, that's being taken
G into account.
9 Q Uhich praject are you referring to in Figure l?
10 A Morton Ranch.
11 Q If I recall, Morton Ranch lancar the south edge of |'
12 the Powder River (?) bacin.,
13 A I think it io in the Pawder River bacin.
14 Q Eow are variationo in the water table being taken
It !i > into account there?,
15 A I don't know the detalla of tha specific cace,
17 except to talk to the project manager involved. Censtruction
13 has not occurrol Jat. The cporator has been regr.irsd to ye
D and revica records of ualls and inst generally antecc the
E0 thing from the ground water, hydrology point of viey.
21 I'm sure there vill be an esticate made, there always
22 are Dr. Kepford, about how -- there will be a judgment made
7.3 and tie. will licence based on that. I hasten to point out,
?! that thst requirecont for isolation of tailinga from the
23 ground water is not done by the Staff because the Staff |
i
___
jra 15 |327
1 approved that to put the tailings into ground water, in a
,) - 2 do-watered state, when you remove tho-toxic solutions and
3 whatnot. It is not done on our knowledge that that would be
4 a bad thing. It is done just because that it is a conserva-
5 tive measuro that we fool it is purdent to take, given the
6 uncertaintics about that.
7 Q Dr. Buck brought up the subject of quality assurance
8 and quality control. Does the applicant submit a outline of
9 a quality assurance , quality control program to the NRC for
10 review in this process?
11 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: I thought, Dr. Kepford, tho
12 witness responded to that question, both Dr. Buck'and I went
(~') 13 into some detail with the witness as to the requirements thatV
14 are imposed upon applicants at this point.
15 How, I don't think there is any necessity to continue
16 to go over the same territory. If you have got some un-
'
17 certaintios with respect to his answers, you can pursue those,
18 if you want some elaboration. But, the question you havo
19 just asked, I_ thought had been answered.
20 DR. KEPFORD: I didn't think it had been asked.
21 There was discussion of quality assuranco and quality control,
I
22 but I didn't know the reason I asked the question was--
23 because I didn't know the answer.9
7 ~. 24' DR.-BUCK: I asked the question a short uhile ago.
V* . 25 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: All right. Mr. Miller, you can
|
I
|. _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _
$r: 16, .
'
328
I respond.
2 THE WITNESS: I would say that Dr. Kopford -- I
3 have not perceived that specific question being asked by
4 any of you. The general question --
5 CHAIRMAN ROFEMTUE: Then, ny apologias to Dr. Kepford
6 if that is the case.
7 TIIE WITHESS: He hac specifically what we require
8 in the application. And, I generally answered this, but
9 precisely, is a progran that is aimed primarily at inplant
10 safety; it is not callod a quality assurance program. It is
11 certainly not what in -- not the equivalcat or the exact
12 caraa thing as a reactor quality assurance program. Keep
/13 that in mind, because the level of, the significance of the#
ja issues is different hora.
15 To got more precice that that, I told the Board I would
gg get them some core detaila after lunch, and I think that is
37 the beat uay to leave thia question.
;3 BY DR. KEPFORD:
gg O Does the HRC during construction, for instance of
20 an embankment, does the URC or their contractor actually
21 inepect the oito and the construction process, or do they
22 inspect reporta?
A The site.23
24 G Thank you. Fac there inspection reporta filed with
25 the Nnc an a result of those inspections?|
I %
jr 17329
1 A Yes.,
7. DR. ICPFORD: Mr. Chaircan, I have no further
3 questions.
4 CHAIRMAU ROSENTHAL: All right. Now, I would have
5 norL1 ally suggested that we reduce the lunch from an hour and
6 15 minutos to an hour, but I think that would be unfair to
7 our witness who both has to cat and to mako these inquiries.
O' I take it that you would prefer the hour an'd 15 minutes,
9 Mr. Miller? '
to TIE WITNESS: Please.
11 CHAIFMAN ROSDiTHAL: All right. So, we will recur.e
12 at 1:30, and Mr. Miller will be only with renpect to those
, ja matters as to which ho has been asked to get additional
1,1 information. I am very hopeful that Mr. Miller will be
IS cxcuned within a period of about 15 minutes so that we can
16 then get on to Mr. Wilde, the remaining Staff uitners.
37 (Whoreupon, the hearing was receased at 12 :15 p.m.
33 for '.unch.)
19
20
21
22
23
24|
25
1
33027/80pe 7 1 AFTERNOON SESSIONP
2 (1:32 p.m.)
3 CHAIRM7di ROSENTHAL: Are you ready, Mr. Bordonick?
4 (Mo audible response.)
$ THE WITNESS: I've got all the facts I need. I
6 needed to nake that one quick calculation that Dr. Johnson had
7 asked me to make; and I'm just not cuite done with that.
8 DR, JOHNSOM: I'm not, I'm not in any great hurry
9 for that. I mean somethne, I nean --
10 CI! AIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Well --
11 THE WITNESS: If, if -- I beg your indulgence. If I
12 can just at a later tina -- it's something that'll take me
13 about two, three minutcc to do.
14 The more important questions I thought you were
15 after vere the questions of quality assurance and the question
16 about that reference. I've spent all my time trying to get
the answers to thoso.97
DR. JOHMSON: Uell, it doesn't matter to me when 'I13
93 get the number, whether it's now or -- if, if you can get the
20 nmber later, while romsono else is testifying, then it would
pg seem to me that it would shorten things up.
CHAIRMAN ROSEisTHAL: All right, all right.g
g All right, Mr. Miller, perhaps you could first |
24 enlighten us as to the place whero that reference appears.
THE WITNESS: Okay. I caid that there was, that theg
.
331'
I basic for that could be found, that being the reference in i
2support of a section in my testimony concerning the reaoval of
3 contamination fron the ground surface, on page 25 of my testi-
4 many. And I said that the reference which supports that could
5 he found in Appendix M of the GEIS.
6 I had a lapse of memory. I thc$ght that the GEIS did7 in fact have a reference in it, explaining the basis in: that
U removal or for the formula that's used to describe that removal9 mechanism. In purcuing it, there is in fact no reference in
10 the GEIS. That formulation was developed by the people at
II Argonne National Laboratorics, who prepared that particular
I2 section of the, of tho GEIS.
) 13-
There are at least two portinent points to make hero.
14 One is to repeat whab I have said nnnerous timas already today,
15 and that is that my testimony described the worst case. And.
16 the only point 'I was making in raising the question of removal
17 of radioactivity and radioactivo contamination from the surfac.
18 doun into the soil was just to suggest that it would get botter
19 over time, as opposed to remain at a fincd level.
20 And the preciso rato of removal I don't think is
21 important, certainly not to my testimony.
22 The second aspect of it is that I an informed that in
23 process of recalving comments on the GSIS draft that there have
r 24 been a number of cccments on that formulation, with references -
25 supplied to nuggest that the rate of removal is faster than the|
.
332
1 rato which could be predicted from that formulation. I can,
P- if it is felt in other people's mind that this is a significant.
3 point, dig further and get those references; I certainly cannot
4 do it today, but I can provide those.
5 But it's my feeling that that's not significant; it's
G only -- I hate to say it's a gratuitious part in my testimony --
7 but it's, it's supplomontary to the ma.'.n point that I was
8 making in my testimony.
r3 CHAIRMAN ROSENTIIAL: All right.
10 What about the quality assurance matter?
11 ,. THE WITNESS: The quality assurance --
12 DR. JOIINSON: Can I ask one clarifying thing on that?
g3 THE UITNESS: Sure.-s
;,4 DR. JOm4 SON: Is t.he nu'mber used 11. the GEIS, the
15 50 years half-life?
16 THE UITNESS: Yes. Oh, yes. That is, that is
g7 explained in the GEIS. And I --
73 DR. JOHNSOU: Where in it in the GEIS?
;g THE WITNESS: Yes, it's on page G-25, I believo.
20 (Pauso.)
21 TEE UITNESS: It's on page G-25 in section 6.2.
22 DR. BUCK: Are you saying "E-25" or --
23 THE WITNESS: 'G" as in George, I guess.
24 (P ause. )
TIIE WITNESS: It's the first equation that you see ong
,
- - - -
w: - :- m -
_ _ _ - - --_ -
12 ,
pk 333-
1 .that page.
:2- Di?.. JOIRISON: Well, 10 that the Lamda Star?
3 Oh', yes.- Okay.E
- 4 I see it..-I oce it.V
[ .5 (Pause. );.l .'
-6 THE WITNESS: I~ apologize for misleading, if I misledf. .
. '? before it was cortainly unintentional. I thought that there
i 8 was in-this document a reference to that. I, I know I've been
9 shown references, and I know-that they exist; but I --
10 (Pause.).
11 CHAIR!!AN ROSENTHAL: All right. Would you turn to
12 the quality accurance matter.
''
THE WITNESS: I just, you know -- so you know from; 13 : i
14 the -outset, this is going to take about 5 minutes for me to
15 run through the program.
16 Generally speaking, in Regulat'ory Guide 3.5, whichh
- 17 essentially' establishes.those things that the operator must
10. include in his application to us, there is a requirement for>'
j g' - Lhim to address matters of quality. assurance for all phases of-
r
-20 - his operation and to design the construction and the operation,"
-
:'
..
21 : radiological safety, environmental monitoring, thewwhole |
-22 program.
.p3 .As.I have stated before, that's'a broad requirement; ).
g -and we'in. general are working to'become more specific about
F 25L:uhat:these; quality. assurance programa should consist of.
t
'
,
-
. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3-t
334
1 The approach we have taken is, as again, as I stated
2- this morning, is to home in on, first, those things that
3 involve things that aro going on now, such as dam construction,
4 installation of liners, operation of the mill, or inspection of
5 dama after it's constructed, during operation of the mill.
6 And of course, in-plant safety, as well as environ- ,
7 montal monitoring.
8 The program that we have focused on and have chosen
9 to essentially build upon to, we establish full quality
to assuranco programs at mills -- it is the so-called safety
11 program at the mill -- which for years has been in place for,
12 in tho', to assuranco compliance with 20-CFR-190 and assura
13 compliance with the ALARA principle.
14 That program specifies the minimum qualificat'ons oii
15 all people who are in safety-oriented positions or in positions
16 that would involve quality assurance. And what I mean by that
37 is those positions that would assure, for instance, what the,
9g respect to environmental monitoring, which is not a dafety
19 issue par so but for which there must be good quality assurance,
20 those positions and all the safety positions in the mills have-_
g minimum qualifications specified for them.
22 This is from the working icvel, all the way through
the, throug'h the management levole that have any responsibility.~
23
.24 The, another basic provision.of this is that written
. 3 proceduros. be in place for all aspects that involve, again, .
.
4
335
1 safety or required quality assurance, that there is a require-
2- ment that periodically -- and typically, we're talking about
3 semiannually -- an audit of the program by a, a qualified
4 person on the organization at a management level, at some,.
5 ou;: side of the safety program itself -- an audit of the prograu
6 with recommendations, with review of the performance, review,
a
'7 of procedures, revicw of inspection reports, and the like; ,
8 recommendations by that individual to a higher level of manage-
9 ment with a requiremont, again as a license condition, that the
10 nanager Uho receives that report, that he takes, take actions
11 on the recortmendations.
12 And so ther+;s a, there is in place a quality assur-
ance progran that we are seizing upon to carry out and imple-13
14 ment -- there is a program that we are building upon to assure
15 quality assurance at the mills.
Now let me.be more specific about the, about the16
varicus areas that I'm talking about.17
Tailings dams, I,think Dr. Johnson uns asking ques-33(
tions which indicate to me a concern maybe with, it was Dr.gg
Duck- what are you dbing about things that are happening today ,
79_
understanding that the reclamation and the' final requirementsg
. for hou we determine compliance and how uc apply rick-rack anda
uhat-not nay be some tina in the future; what are you doing23
about the things that are going on today?24
Well, the operative reg guides here are Regulatory3
|
g _ , .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,
. -
336-
il Guide 3.11', which 'was issued, Revision 2 which was a, the major ;; .
*
2 updating of that reg guide to mako it a, a|useful.and compre-
3. hensive piece of regulstory guidance, was issued in December o:!
14 '77. . It covers the design, the construction, and construction
"5 ;of tailings retention structuros, and includes in it require-
:6- ments'for quality assurance.
7~ The companion guide to that is Regulatory Guide 3.11..~
.,
8 which was, issued in April o'f 1979, concerning operation,t
9 . operational inspections and surveillance of embankment struc-
10 . tures . - And it includes things like requirements for survey
itmonuments, picometers, other kinds of safety and performance
12 monitoring and equipment; and specifies the way that they shoult_
[ be. installed and, basically, lays out.how ongoing surveillance13
14 of, of embankments'should be carried out.
With regards.to tailings dam construction, we requireg~
L16that technical specifications be submitted. And-I can give as
- an example to, ~ for talking purposes here is the White Mesa case,,97
wt.oro the. technical specification was prepared by the applicantgg
- .and was reviewed indopendently by our t:onsultants; and it wasgg_
No. modified to,.to make it acceptable..
It,-after being approved, construction begins and at21
22 |:predetermined points-during the construction of the embankment,
y as I' testified earlier, inspections are made by our, by our
oncultants -- it could be IGE -- but in this case it was our"
:. 24
, consultant. : We required that 'after the dam was constructed,
_____
,. .-
I '
1 -.
337
1 that a contractor report be submitted to, to confirm the as-
2 built conditions of the dam and to evaluate, to basically con-
3 firm that the as-built conditions are as, are consistent with
4 and in conformance with the technical specification.
'
5 (Pause. )
6 The environmental monitoring progrmas that are
7 required and the operational kinda of monitoring programs can
0 be basically characterized -- well, the dam inspec~. ion, for
9 ins,tance, in monitoring is involved with daily inpsection of
10 the, of the dam -- by qualified people.
p The environmental monitoring program, are spelled out
jn in great detail in Chapter 10 of the GEIS, anr the assurance
13 that those are carried out properly fall within this organiza-
14 tion that I'm talking about, the safety organization.
15 I've boon a little bit disjointed in the way I have
16 presented this. We recognize that we're on the, on the ~~ we
need to do more in this area; and in fact, to establish regula-37
jg tory guides on quality assurance. We're not there yet.
DR. EUCK: (Unintelligible) -- go back and reemphasizejg ,
20 my point. What you've been giving me so far is a quality
21 assurance prcgram; primarily, it's been in effect for some time
22 in the operation of the mills and uhat you've been doing.
23 And you mentioned some programs that were instituted
24 back in 1977 on embankments and all thot sort of thing.
My peint in bringing up quality assurance was that25
.-
338
1 since 1977 the staff has, in a sence, changed its statement of
2 being able to retain the mill tailings and that sort of thing
3 for a hundred years, 500 years, nou even into thousands of
4 years. And it has done it on the basis of the- studies it has
5 made -- you and Colorado University and so on have done in
6 making sure that'the structures that you put up will retain the
7 mill tailings -- are such that they won't last as long.
8 My point about the quality assurance is that to me
9 this means a very special kind of quality assurance going into
10 these structures, not only in the design and so on, assuming
11 now that you've looked at your design and you've made some
12 studies of the designs that have to be made -- and we've
13 learned hou to build buildings the same way as the ancients did
14 to hold their rock piles together and so on.
And you come out, those criteria there <7sume that15
there's corrections.16
But ny problem is that the quality assurance that37
goes into those things has to be essentially 100 percent;3g
otherwiso, the criteria mean nothing if somcone comes up with99
the construccions.20
So my problen really has~been the the quali:y21
assuranco progren be in place c. rost immediately, particularly22
if you're building enhankments and you're building dems now,23
and youlic: starting to build, shall we say, settler.ont on and24
all this sort of thing. These things, if they're going to hold25
.- _ ..
339
-1 .to the criteria- that- you iset- up, has got to have the quality_
.
;2- assurance as'soon as they start.-
-3: So-I think that you're facing here a very major, an6
i
4 I think a very iremediate problem of putting.a quality assuranc a
-5 program into effect, that guarantees that your criteria are
.6 going to be carried out.
7- TIIE WITNESS: Yes. I can say that I think in all
8 cases there is on the part of the operator a, a, all of the
9 . construction-that takes-place is done under the supervision of
10 qualified registered professional engineer --.
g DR. BUCK: All I'm saying: in addition to that, I
-: 12 want to be sure that the entire, the NRC has got that same --
. ~13 pr pensity to it.
- THE WITNESS: And that, I will say that we will notj4
have on-site a hundred percent of the time.15
DR. BUCK: I don't expect you to.16 .
THE WITNESS: Yes. What, what I've said is that wa37-
18 uould have at predetermined critical points --
'DR. BUCK: -That's all I'm asking. I mean, I want --gg,
-20 TIIE WITNESS: Yes. And the answer is --
DR. BUCK: -- to be sure that you've got the quality2tL
22 assurance program there in the sence guaranteeing, in my
23: pinion, guarantees the best quality assuranca program anybody
(24 has ever talked about.4
: es..25j
'
~
- __ __ -
-
340
1 DR. BUCK: And that's the poiht I'm making now,
a becauso you've got a quality assurance program for the present.
3 But you're up against a different problem here, an extension 01
4 the problem. And I think it, it, it warrants, it really does
5 warrant a first-class quality assurance program; it's got to
6 he specificd towards that particular part of the question.
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, I couldn't agree with you more.
8 The onc point I think I should make, though. And
9 that is, the dans are designed, according to Reg Guide 3.11, to
to contain the probable maximum flood multiplied by a number of
it factors for uncertainty. To withstand 61at flood during the
12 OPorational period of the mill, uhich is like 30, 40 years --
13 after that time, the Dile begins to dry up. The friatic-
14 (phonetic spelling) surface in the pile drops. And you are nc
i15 longer talking about a dam that is, it is beginning to increase
16 its stability over tine as the pile dries, dries up.
37 It's a very im.portant thing to understand -- or to
jg keep in mind.
jg ( The other thing is ~itthecarthquakeweconsideriff
20 the 1,000-ycar carthquake, For a dam that's only going to be
21 required to hold solutions for 30, 40 years. And so, as far
22 as den -- I'n not trying to make light of the importance of,
33 of having well-designed and well-conatructed and vall-
conctracted 'n v.he manner with a lot of quality assurance.g
Church Rock telic us that, if nothing else., . , -3
341
1 But it, in terms of long-tern stability it's not
2 needed.
3 DR. BUCK: But I still insist that the one thing
4 that you people have got to do is to have a quality assurance
5 prograa in place as quickly as you possibly can.
6 THE WITNESS: Yes.
7 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: I don't think you disagree with
8 that.
9 All right, thank you, Mr. Miller. IV.think you can
lo be excused, cubject to being recalled at a subsequent time to
11 provide the calcula. tion that Dr. Johnson asked for.
12 Mr. Bordenick, would you like to present Mr. Wilde?
'. 13 DR. KEPFORD: Do we get to ask any questions on that --
14 CIIAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: If, if there is some, I don't
15| uant to go over the savae ground once again. Now, Mr. Miller
-1
16 | uns Eched to supply a description of che program. Now, is1
17{ therc soma aspect of it that is unclear to you?f
73 Eccause if there is, I!11 recall Mr. Miller and youi
!
19| can pursue that with him.Ii
20 i And he, he was asued to provide simply some factual
21 information, which he provided. And if there.is, Dr. Kepford,
22 sona facet of what he said that is unclear in your mind, I'll
23 recall him now and you can ask him 6' It. !
24 DR. KEPFORD: Well, as I recall, thorn were two
25 aspects Mr. Miller was addrecsing. Ona had to do with the 50-
342
1 year half-life; and --;-
g 2CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Well, he told-you: in the 50-
3 year half-life the, I thought all he was asked to do was to
4 indicato whether there was a -- well, he had suggested that5 there was reference to this in the GEIS. And he told us a
6 . few ihinutes ago that he was in error in that rogard.7 Now, what possibic questioning on his statement to
O that effect could thera be?.
9 DR. 12PFORD: As I recall, Mr. Miller mentioned some
10 references concerning tl:e fact that the life might even be
1I shorter.
12 CHAIRMAN ROSEUTEAL: I don't, I didn't recall that.
G 13-( v ; Mr. Miller, maybe you'd better come back up here for14 a moment.
15 You can stay right where you are, Mr. Wilde.
16 MR. WILDE: I'll just move ~back to the seat behind.
17 CHKEPJiAN ROSENTIGJa: Well, you don't even need to de
18 that. I think there's two chairs.
I19 THE WITNESS: (recalled) : I made two coInents. One '
20 is, first of all, the insignificance of it. The second concent
21 I made was that the references that have been brought to our
22 attention any that the rate of removal will be faster than -- I
23 I'm Euro I said that -- faster than what would be predicted{
m 24 from that p rticular formulation.I
'(i25 DR. JOHNSON: I think your words were cast in toras |
1
343
4 .of the half-life; and I think you~ said that the' half-life-m(f 1 'would be shorter, which.is'the same thing.
_ 3 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Anything you want to ask
4~ further, Dr. Kepford, on_that point?
5 DR. KEPFORD: Were there any com tents that suggested6 .that it might.be longer?
7- THE WITNESS: People, my people say that there were
8 none, the~only references that1they could find were conments
9 that are the ones I described.10 DR. KEPFORD: And you mentioned you would provide
'11 those?
12 THE WI'CMSS: I'd be willing to. I'd be more than
(') 13' glad'to.x,/
14 DR. KEPFORD: 'I would appreciate it.
15 CHAIPJIAN ROSEPTHAL: All right. If you would --
16 Mr. Bordenick, if'you wouGE see to it that those
17 referencea are supplied to the other partien --
10 'HR. DORDENICK: Welle well, wait just a minute. I
19 want to make cure I -- I thought what you were t.'.1 king about
'20 were coumonts that had been supplied in response to the-
21- circulation of the draft environmental report.
22 Is it clear that there are specific literature
23 references to-the, I nean, that I' presume that the people who
. [24 are naking convents cay that we think the half-life is hhotter._
'
Do these comments have ascociated with them specific literaturn25.
.
.
344
1 references i;o such informatio.n? Or is it just someone's
.
2 idea? I don't think -- |>
.
3 THE WITNESS: Mo, I am told that there rc' rcfercince 3
4 provided.
5 MR. BORDENICK:- Okay. Thanks.
6 CHAIRMAIT ROSEliTILE: Thank you.
7 All right, Mr. Wilde, if yougwould stand up for' a
8 moment and raise your right hand.
9 Uhcrcupon,
10 RALPH M. WILDE
g; was called as a uitness and, after having been duly sworn, was
12 c:camined and testified as follows:
''; j3 DIRECT EXAMINATION.
g BY HR. B WDENICK:
- 15 Q Mr. Wilde, do you have with you a copy of a document
16 bearing The captions in the cases pending before the Appeal
97 Board and headed "NRC Staff Testimony of Ralph M. Wilde
> - jg (Reclamation of Workad-Out Uranium Mines and Long-Term Radon
gg Releases from Worked-Out Uranium Mines, Alleged Deficiencies
20 Numbera 3, 4, and 5)"?
|A Yes.21
O This is a 17-page document? I,,, , ,-,
A Yes.,c3
Q Ucw, specifically referring to the version of the |, g'
> 1
testimony which beara a notation in the upper right-handyma
-1
345
I . corner " Revised 2/22/80." Is that the copy you have before,,
V 12 .you?
E 3 A ,That's the document I have in my hand.
4 Q Would yousexplain to us what the notation on the
5 :uppor- right-hand corner is? Or in~oth~er words, how did it
6 como'about?''
7 A- In the testimony that I had previously prepared,~
8- which.was prefiled on January 18th, I referenced a document,_
! O NUREG OC27. On about 4:00 o' clock Wednesagy, afternoon after-
10 noon, last Wednesday, February 20th, I received a copy of a
11 new Betell report,-NURBG 1273, which superseded the document
12 that I had previously referenced in my testimony.
-(') 13 After I had revicued that new Betell report, I made' s_- .
14 some revisions in my testimony on the basis of the new data|
15. which was contained in that latest Betell report.
'
16 Basically, the. revised Botell report presents the
17 results of a significantly larger sampling of, of underground
18 uranium lines. And it presents a more complete and a more
j 19 . detailed analysis of- those results.
~
420 : cellfis now sempled and included in their analyis
!- 21 27~ underground mines in New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado, and,
L 22 Utah. These mines represent approximately 63 percent of the
231 total ponduction of underground uranium in the United States,
fj 24 -as-compared to.the previous report, which presented samplingLJ
~
25- .results from only seven mines in New Mexico, which represented
_ - ____ _ _ _ _ -
-
0
34G
1 approxhaately 25 percent of the underground production.
2 So wc, therefore have a much larger data base for our.
3 underground mine release nnmbers.
4 How, some of the more significant differences betweer.
5' the previously referenced. report, HUREG 061.-- 0627, dated
G September 1979 -- and the new Betell report, the February 198C- -
7 NUREG 1273, are as follows:
3 NUREG 1273 reports an increase in the estimate of
9 the radon relcase por RRY for active underground uranium nines.
10 NUREG 1273 also changes the projected mine lifetime
11 for an underground nine from 20 to 30 years. The basis for
12 this was simply in tire increase sanpling.
13 Bete 11 found that 35 percent of the mines that they
ja sampled had boon operating for longer than 20 years. The
15 lifetimes of the mines sa:cpled ranged from 2 to 29 years. And
jg it no longer sceued appropriato to consider the typical mine
lifetino te be 20, 20 yearn.17
gg The concept of a model underground mine wac not
79 included in the new Ectell report. To arrive at the value for
20 curies of radon released per ISR or per RRY, the total annual
r leas21 from all of the mines sampled was simply divided by
i the total annual production from those same mines, to arrive at22
the curies par matric ton of U-308.,35
And thus from that point, ycu just have to multiply24
by the metric tons in the 2RY to get curies for RRY.i 25
!
.- - - .
o,
347
1 My revised testimony has been prepared as a, as a
.A .
comparative text in such a fashion that the deletions and! i 2.
.
<
V
3 changes have been lined through'; the changes or additions have
4 .been underlined. And I believe, as you will see, that the, the
5 changes in the numerical values are in most cases, in my
iOP nion, very small and very minc,r.6
7 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: As a matter of idle curiosity,
8 Mr. Wilde, did'you have some advance notice ~that you were goinc-
9 to receive the Betell report last Wednesday?
10 THE WITNESS: No, I did not. As a atatter of fact, if,
11 y u res:ill, on December 21st we notified, or NRC notified, the
12 Board of the existence of che -- I'll call it the Schwindeman
| ' letter -- and all.the parties and the Board were provided with33w/ .
34 copies of that letter, which advised us that the new data that
I 15 Betell was generating was going to result in an increase in
16- the, their estimate of radon release for RRY from underground !
uranium mines.g7 .
t
| At that time, I ' contacted Dr. Schwindeman, of Betell,gg
jg to see if I could get from him a time schedule when we might
20 he able to expect this report. And I think that December 21st1
21 n tification -- I would have to look at it to verify --
|- g- projected that we expected to receive that report about the
-. g . first of I'ebruary ~ or January, ocuewhere in that time frame.
g I really expected to receive this report a month
V - o c I did. I was rather upset that I received it as late as_ P.S .
'
!-L
Ii
?
348
II did.
2(Pauso. )
3 DY MR. BORDENICK:
4Q Mr. Wilde, you stated that the revised Betell report
5 given a new valve for radon release from active underground6 ~
minen.
7 Does this new data in the revised report change your3 estimate of the rado release from active mines that you gave at.9 the rerkins proceeding?
10 A Yes, it does.
11 O In what respect?
12 g 3:m going to have to refer to come notes uhere I havt
13 my calculations, if I may.I
14 Sinco the tin, of the Perkins hearings, which were15 held in I believe May of '78, there have been two ongoing16 recoarch projects, both conducted by Betell to model and
17 measure the releases of radon: from both open-pit and under-.
18 ground mines.
19 Uc nou have the reports from Botell, both on their
20 estimates of releases frc:a active open pit minos and with this
21 latest Betell report their latest information on releases from
22 underground.
23 On the basis of these tuo Detrll reports of tho
24 underground or -- excuse me, the open-pit repont is NUREG 0628;
25 the underground mine is the one that I referenced before, NUREG
l,
, ___ _. . - _
349
I 1273. 'My present estimate of the combined industry release o:E2
radon -- this is on .the same basis as I have in the rest of my.,
.3 testimony: assuming that 60 percent of the production is
4 going'to come from underground mines, 40 percent of the~ pro-5 duction to come from open-pit mines -- would be a release of
6 approximately 5,200 curies per RRY.
7 In the Perkins case, Iddon't have the reference in
8 the transcript where the release numbers appear. However, in
9 the Perkins partial initial decision, on page 6, paragraph 10
10 .and on page 8, paragraph 15, you will find that the Porkins
11 board adopted values for radon release fyom mining in the12 range of 4,000 to 4,100 curies per RRY.
(') 13 So the new number I would generate on the basis of,L.J
14 of the new information that we have from the two Betull reports
15 would indicate an increase of about 25 percent above the number
15 that we testified to in Perkins.
17 (Pause. )
18 Q Etc Wilde, with respect to your testimony at Perkinn,
19 on page 1 of your testimony for this proceeding, you indicate
20 that a statement of your professional quali.fications appears in
21 the Perkins record, following transcript page 2369.
22 Are there any changcc or corrections or modificatior.s
23 to your statement of profession,a1 qualifications as it appears24 in the Porkins record? !
LJ1
25 A There are none.1
__ _
__ _ _.
.,
~. F--
,-
6
. 350-
1 !(Pause.')
<- Q,n.
-2. 'O With respect to your testimony as I have previously.
3 -identified,:are.there any corrections to that document?,4 A 'No.
-5 . (Pauso. )
6 Q And do you adopt this written festimony, this
_dccument which was previously, which I have previously identi-7
fica -- do you adopt that as your testimony in this proceeding 18.
g A I do.
10 MR. BORDENICK:. Mr. Chairman, I would request that'
gj the HRC Staff Testimony of Ralph M. Wilde, the version that
bears the notation " Revised 2/22/80" be incorporated into the12,
O 13 record as-if read.VI might add- parenthetically that except for perhapsi:14
for purposes'of comparing the testimony thhtt we previously15
16 served on January 18th, 1980, to the testimony-that bears the
notation 1" Revised 2/22/80" -- that the former document can bej7
discarded'and that all the references that have so far been18
gg made are.to the!so-called revised testimony.!
-
20 f So when we speak of Mr. Wilde's testimony for this- '
-
21 pr ceeding,'~ we're speaking of the 2/22/80 version.,
22 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Well, I hadealready discarded my+
23 . c py f the previous-version.
24| Any bjection?/~T~ \ t- t' ' ~
I
g MR. SILDERG: No, sir.
t,
|
.|1
- )' +
ub l
r
351
1 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Hearing nono, the --
A DR. KEPFORD: Mr. Chairman --
3 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Yes?
4 DR. KEPFORD: Could I have just a minute to crawl
5 through seme papers here a minute? I'm really not sure I knov
6 what's going on.
7 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: What is going on is that Mr.
8 Dordenick has asked that there be incorporated in the record
9 as if read --
10 DR. KEPFORD: Oh, I --
11 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: -- the prepared testimony of
12 Mr. Wilde as revised on February the 22d. That, that'c the
13 only matter that's at the moment before the House.
14 DR. KEPFORD: Yes, I -- I'm nware of that. I'm
15 looking for a copy of, I guess, that letter. I have the
16 testimony.
17 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: You meanr the covering < letter?
18 DR. KEPFORD: Yes.
19 CHRIRMAN ROSENTHAL: All that the covering letter
20 said was -- this was a letter to members of the Eoard signed
21 by Mr. Bordenick, and it reads simply:
22 9 Gentlemen:,
23 " Reference is made to my letter to you dated
24 February 22, 1980, which served a copy of the draft report
25 prepared by Betell Pacific Northwest Laboratories on recent
352
1 measureuents of radon releases from underground mining."
ZParagraoh:
3 "AM a result of this draft report, staff witness
4 Ralph M. Wilde has revised his testimony filed on January 18,
5 1980. A copy of Mr. Wilde's revised testimony is enclosed."
G So it, all it is is a letter of transmittai of the
7 testimony. It didn't say anything more than in effect: in
8 here is a revised version of Mr. Wilde's tenthrony, the revi-
9 sion having been the result of the Betell report.
10 DR. KEPFORD: If, if I heard correctly, this number
Il refer to curies during active mining, is that not correct?
12 CIIAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Well, we can talk about what's
13 in the testimony subsequently. All that's before the, before
14 un at the moment is Mr. Bardenick's motion that the revised
15 testimony of Mr. Wilde which I gather you received -- was it
16 yesterday? It was certainly no later than yesterday -- be
17 incorporated in t.he record as if read.
18 DR. KZPFORD: Well, my question is -- I was under
19 the impression that radon: releases fron active mining were not
i Tape 7 20 a subject of this proceeding. Is Ehat correct? |
p RET ||
7 f 21-
22
23
f- 24
25
- .
jra-1353
t::pe 81 CHAIRIAN ROSENTHAL: Yes, that's right, although
7P 180m.) 2. I'm going to ask Mr. Bordenick to --
3 MR. BORDENICK2 Well, that's not in the testimony,
4 Mr. Chairman, That was verbelly testified to just now. All
5 I'm offerring is what's in the four corners of the document.-
G The witness stated that he had some new data and he has pre-
7 sented it to the Board, verbally.
8 I think you are confusing two separate items, Dr. Kepford .
9 DR. REPFORD: That's why I wanted to stop and
10 get un-confused right now.
11 CHAIP24AN ROSEUTHAL: Well, have you read the tes-
\12 timony Of Mr. Wilde as am mded, which you rdceived yest day?
; 13 DR. KEPFORD: Yec. \'
- 14 CHAIMIM EOSENTUMit All right. Do you know what
15 that testimony covers? -
16 DR. EEPFORD: Y,es, but I'm very confused now
whether this 5200 curic/per RRY number comes from. As I17,
.t3 recall, that's not-id this testimony.d / ,k-
19 MR. UCRDENICK: 'Well, I would suggest that he can
20 acquire of the witness as to that, but I don't think that.-,
21 goes to the question of the admissibility of --
22 . CHAIDIAN ROSENTHAL: That's right. All that we%
23 are now dealing with is whether the testimony of'Mr. Wilde
T's 24 as revised is to be incorporated in the record as if read.<
4 ms
25 Now, with respect that anything that might be beyond the
.
.
jrJ 2354
I ambit of Mr. Wilde's testimony to which he may have referred,
2 you can ask him about that.
3 DR. KEPFORD: Well, again, whether or not I want to
4 object, I would like to know exactly what'I might be objected
5 to -
6 CHAIIU1AN ROSENTIIAL: Dr. Kopford, all that wo are
7 talking about now is this document, the Staff testimony,
8 the MRC Staff testimony of Ralph M. Wilde as revised 2/22/80.
9 That's all that's before us at the moment. The only
10 quastion at hand is whether or not this testimony, you know
11 what's in it, in to be incorporated in the record a's if read.
12 Now, we are not dealing with - and I take it* that 'you?
13 kncu what's in this testimony and it is not of innediate
la concern whether there has been come reference to something
15 that isn't in the testimony. All that we are talking about
16 is prepared testinony of Mr. Wilde.
17 Mow, if you have an objection to the prepared testimony,
ya of Mr. Wilde being incorporated into the record as if read,
10 I will entertain that objection.
20 DR. YEPFORD: Maybe my ears are deceiving me, but
21 I thought I heard reference to a modification of -
22 C?iAIFEAN ROSENTHAL: You may have heard that, but.
23 if you did, thct is not a matter which at this precise second.w are dealing with. Wo are only dealing with.the testimony
_
^
24
3r3 of, the prcpared Lestimony Mr. Wilde and what is in that
.
jr:< 3355
I testircony. Now, anything that might have been mentioned that
2 isn't in the four corners of this docum.ent --
3 DR. KEPFORD: I have no objection to the inclusion
4 of this document into the record.
5 CIIAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: In that circumstance, the
6 testimony of Mr. Wilde as revised on February 22, 1980, will
7 be incorporated into the record as if read.
8 (The testimony of Mr. Wilde is admitted.)
9
10
11
12
13s ,
14
15
16
17
16
10
20
21
22.
23
._
24
25
-. - ,
Revised*1 2/22/80
*; % ^
p.- q;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICANUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
In the Matters of: ).
)PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-277
-- --
) 50-278(Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, )
Units 2 and 3) ))
METROPOLITAN EDISON-COPPANY et al. ) Docket No. 50-320-- --
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, )Unit No. 2) )
)PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS C0. ) Docket Nos. 50-354
) 50-355(Hope Creek Generating Station, )
Units 1 and 2) ).) -
ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION ') Docket No. STN 50-4851 D et al.V --
)(Sterling Power Project, Nuclear Unit 1 )
NRC STAFF TESTIMONYOF RALPH M. WILDE
(Reclamation of Worked Out Uranium Mines and Long-Term Radon Releasesfrom Worked Out Uranium Mines - Alleged Deficiencies Nos. 3, 4, and 5)
I am Program Assistant to the Director, Division of Fuel Cycle and Material
Safety, Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A Statement of My Professional Qualifi-
cations appears in the Perkins1! record (Fg. Tr. 2369).,
'I# uke Power Co .-(Perkins Nuclear Station, Units'1, 2 and 3), Docket Nos. STN 50-488, !-- D.f s- (_)- 50-489, and 50-490. All transcript references in this testimony are from
~
'the Perkins1 record.
.
.
p - ~ar. ,.
'
..
.
2
:na:This' testimony ad' dresses certain alleged deficiencies which the intervenors
in these proceedings had asserted as to the Perkins record. Specifically, I
have reviewed and analyzed alleged deficiencies Nos. 3, 4, and 5 as well as
the Intervenor's Response to Applicants' Jointd.5 tion for Summary Disposition
concerning these alleged deficiencies. The results of my analysis are set
forth in this testimony and show that the above asserted deficiencies in the
Perkins Record are without foundation.
Introduction
In ALAB-562 the Appeal Board, in part, denied the motions for summary disposition
of twelve of the twenty-six alleged deficiencies which the Tyrone and SterlingA
'(_,) .intervenors had asserted as to the Perkins record. The Appeal Board grouped
the twelve deficiencies'for which summary disposition was denied into five~
. categories according to their general subject matter and summarized those >
areas where factual disputes appear to remain. The Appeal Board summaries of j
the two subject areas that encompass alleged deficiencies Nos. 3, 4, and 5 are
set out below.2i
|
-2. Underground Mines The record does not indicate the extent to which
abandoned underground mines can and will actually.be " sealed."
Moreover', we cannot' determine at present the extent to which an |l,
I) 2/-( s - Nu'mbering is.from ALAB-562.
.
. .
n. : 9 A-'
. _ _ - - - - _
.
3
-
/
unsealed mine could continue to emit radon through, for example,
natural convection (Deficiency No. 32 ).
3. Open Pit Mines There is uncertainty over the rate of emissions
from both unreclaimed and. reclaimed open pit mines. In particular,
releases from unreclaimed mines may be higher than expected, due to
3/This alleged deficiency asserts that: "In the long run, radon emissions dependon the extent to which underground [ mines] are sealed and open pit mines arereclaimed. The NRC has no jurisdiction over mines. In Perkins Staff andApplicant wittnesses (sic) refered (sic) to state laws which require sealingand reclamation as adequate to insure the cessation of emissions after mine's (sic)useful lives. In testimony on June 27, 1978, before the House Subcommit' tee on
('s Erergy and Environment, Betty Perkins from the New Mexico Energy and Mineral\_ ' Department, indicated in New Mexico abandoned mines have been improperly sealed,
have contaminated the soil, and have left ore storage piles exposed. Measurementat abandoned mines shows gamma radiation levels 10 to 100 times above background,a fact which demonstrates the existence of radiologic pathuays for radon. Inview of the actual facts regarding abandoned mines, it is incumbant (sic) uponthe NRC to make a detailed examination of the statutory standards imposed onthe operators of mines, the penalties fro (sic) failure to comply with suchstandards, and each state's enforcement experience before leaping to unwarrantedconclusions regarding the efficacy of state regulation of mines."
,.
e
r. _ __ _.- _
$
.
J.
4
;m.- i,
u' the physical , rearrangement of overburden as .it is replaced in the-
pit'(Deficie'ncies Nos.~4S and SEI).
;..
.
S/This allegedLdeficiency asserts that: "The testimony in Perkins regardingemissions from open pit mines is extremly (sic) sketchy. Mr. Wilde at pageseven of his affidavit states, "For open pit mines ... there is just noreliable-information available upon which to base citimates of radon release."Pages 2543' through 2568 Of-(sic) the transcript enumerate many of theuncertainities (sic) regarding emissions from open pit nines. Nevertheless,at page 2610 of the transcript, Mr. Wilde performs a " quick and dirty"computation of emissions using a model open pit mine. He makes.what is anapparently completely arbitrary choice of a mine which covers one square mile.He computes a release of 100 curies /yr/AFR. Apparently the Board in Perkinswas somewhat skeptical about Mr. Wilde's calculation since in paragraph 13of the Perkins decision the rate of emission from open pit mines was doubledto 200 curies /yr/AFR. .
(}- The Sweetwater DES indicates a release rate of 6090 curies per year. TheSweetwater.mine will have a capacity sufficient to produce 410 MT yellow cakeper-year during-its estimated 15 year life. Using the Staff figure of 245 MTyellow cake per AFR would result in an annual release rate for the Sweetwatermine of approximately 250 curies /yr/AFR. This is another example 2f the' actual- facts deviating from the Staff's assumptions regarding radon emissions."
5/- This alleged deficiency reads as follows: "Also with respect to open pit mines,-
- the Perkins record gives no consideration to emissions from overburden. Testimony-~
before the Senate Subcommittee on Energy Production and Supply on July 24 and 25,1978,Lindicates the overburden has a volume of 8 to 35 times the volume of themine. Therefore all of the overburden cannot be returned to the mine. The over-burden has as much as 10% of the radioactive concentration of mill tailings.South Dakota, with a mine reclamation law on the books, has formar mining areasthat are now sterile and bare. 'The overborden (sic) has been indiscriminatelypiled on~ the landscape just like mill tailings."
C)L/
.
d
.
e
.-~n.i i t-- _ _. - -
.
5 ;
-
,/
The two subject areas specified by the Appeal Board both involve the issues of
reclamation of worked out mines, that is, the refilling of open pit mines and
the sealing of underground mines, and the potential for long-term release of
radon from worked out mines.
In order to respond to the issues at hand, the following questions should be
addressed:
o Can worked out mines be reclaimed?
o Will worked out mines be reclaimed?
o What is the staff's current estimate of the long-term radon release
from reclaimed mines?'
OJ o What is the staff's current estimate of the long-term radon release
'
from unreclaimed mines?
The answers to some of these questions are straightforward and are supported
by an adequate data base. However, some of the answers require extrapolation
from or interpretation of existing data and the application of professional
judgment. I address each of these questions in the following discussion.
Discussion
o Can worked out mines be reclaimed?
When an open pit mine is worked out, the overburden or waste rock can be
returned to the pit from which it was removed. The top soil can be replacedfse i
aild vegetation reestablished if appropriate for the intended future use of the
.
.
. t
6 i ,-
~1- ,
site. When an underground mine is worked out, the hoisting and ventilation
shafts of the mine can be sealed by filling them with overburden, waste rock ,
or soil. An additional seal may be provided by placing a concrete plug in the
collar of the shafts.
It is, therefore, my opinion that the technical feasibility of reclaiming worked
out mines has already been adequately demonstrated.
o Will worked out mines be reclaimed?
The responsibility for the promulgation and enforcement of reclamation regulations
for uranium mines rests primarily with the State in which the mines are located.
7w In one State, New itexico, the U.S. Geological Survey, through an agreement(' with the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs,6/ has assumed responsibility for
defining and enforcing reclamation requirements on Indian lands. The U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission presently does not have Congressional authority
to regulate either uranium mining or mine reclamation.
The actual regulation of reclamation for uranium mines varies from State to
State. Some States have extensive regulations and others have few or no
State-imposed regulations. Similarly, enforcement of and compliance with
reclamation regulations varies considerably from State to State.
Thus, because the NRC has no authority under present law to regulate reclamation
of uranium mines and because regulation and enforcement of reclamation requirements-
S oth of these agencies are constituent parts of the Department of the Intorior.B
.
.
- - -,
_
...
(.*
7-
f3s;by the States is not uniform, the NRC cannot give absolute assurance that all
worked out uranium mines will be reclaimed. -The staff, therefore, is providing
in this testimony, estimates of the radon releases from both reclaimed and
unreclaimed mines.
of What is the staf f's current estimate of the long-term radon releasefrom reclaimed mines?
In the Perkins proceeding, I noted that various efforts were underway to
upgrade the data base for radon releases from uranium mines (Wilde p. 7,
Fg. Tr. 2369). Twa interim reports providing updated information from ongoing
research projects on the subject of radon releases from uranium mines have now
been published by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory (BPNL). These are:
r%. (_) HURES/6R-8627-(PHE-2888-REV3-September-1979- uRaden-Emissions-in-Ventiiation
Air-Exhausted-from-Underground-Branium-Mines u*- NUREG/CR-1273 (PNL-3262) February
1980, "An Investigation of Radon-222 Emissions From Underground Uranium Mines,"
Progress Report 2, and NUREG/CR-0628 (PNL-2889 REV.) September 1979, " Prediction
of Net Radon Emission from a Model Open Pit Mine." These reports provide recent
information on radon exhalation rates and also analyses of current and projected
mining methods and practices which were used to develop mine models and radon
releases both for the period of active mining and for the period after the mines
* NUREG/6 R- 0627-i s - c u rr ently- b ei ng- revi s ed- to-i ncl ude- the-i nte s t-i nf o rmati o nthat-is-available-f rom-this-ongeing-research project:--It-is-anticipated-thatthe-revised-report-wiii-be-issued-by-February-i--1980 --Preliminary-inf ormationnow-availabic-from-BPHE-(copies-of-which-have-been-furnished-to-the-AppealBoard and parties)-indicates-that-the-raden-reicase-from-onderground-mines perreference-reactor year-(RRY-)-may-be-as-much-as-50-to-60% greater--than previously
( )- reported:--f-expect-to-be-in-a position-to-testify concerning-this-intest7s
information-at-the-evidentisry-hearings-which-are presently-scheduled-to-commente''
on-February-E6--id30:.
.
.
8
,
Qare shutdown. Therefore, we now have available a much improved data base for
predicting,the long-term release of radon from worked out mines that have been
reclaimed. This improved data base has been used to. develop the estimates given
below.,
In NUREG/CR-0628,' the status of the model open pit mine, at the end of its
active mining period, is assumed to be a compromise between the comp etely
recidimed mines anticipated for many present and future mining operations and
the abandoned and unreclaimed open pits left by many past mining operations.
Approximately 85% of the model open pit mine volume has been refilled with
overburden (20 ppm U 0 ) and the balance of the overburden, approximately 15%,3g
remains as a pile on the surface. There is also a surface pile of subore.
O ciso 99= u 0 ). This senere represeats metertei coateiaiao "remium wnica is38
of insufficient grade to be economically useful at the present time and is
commonly set aside from overburden for possible future use. This model of a
reclaimed open pit mine projects radon emanation from overburden fill in six
pits,'subore and overburden exposed in the last unfilled pit, and subore and
overburden dumps piles. These sources contribute to the long-term radon
release of approximately 40 Ci/ year per Reference Reactor Year (RRY) (271 f4T
00) during the post-mining period of a reclaimed open pit mine.38
In NUREG/CR-06271273 it is assumed that shafts of underground mines will be sealed
and-that with proper sealin0. the radon emission-rates from worked out underground
& 7/Q - Size of.RRY assumed for Perkins (Wilde, pp. 4 and 5, Fg. Tr. 2369). -It shouldbe pointed'out that in the Perkins record the RRY is presented in terms of
.2.71-x'.105 f4T of uranium ore containing 0.1% U 0 .. from this information one3 3' ,can calculate' the value of an RRY in terms of til Va0 'as follows: (2.71 x 105 I4f3
uranium: ore) (0.1% U 0s) = 271 lif Va0 .3 3.
h
--
, _. , _ . . _ . _ . -___y . . . , - - . . , . _,
L
,
.
9
~
] _
mine shafts will be a negligible fraction of the rate during active mining. A
small: amount of waste rock'(250330 ppm U 0 ) that remains on the surface will be38
the principal source that will contribute to long-term radon release of approximately
2010 Ci/ year per RRY (271 MT U 0 ) during the. post-mining period of a reclaimed0 38
(sealed) underground mine.
On the basis of the information now available from the BPNL interim reports,
the staff believes that it has an adequate data base from which to predict the
long-term radon release during the post-mining period of reclaimed open pit
and underground uranium mines. The staff's current estimate for this release
is based on: data from NUREG/CR-06271273 and NUREG/CP-0628, an RRY of 271 HT U 038
for uranium mining, and a projected distribution of U 0 Production of 60%'38
from underground mines and 40% from open pit mines. On these bases, it can be
shown that the long-term release of radon from reclaimed mines is approximately
2520 to 3025 Ci/ year per RRY.
o What is the staff's current estimate of the long-term radon releasefrom unreclaimed mines?
The BPNL' reports, NUREG/CR-06271273 and 0628, do not explicitly estimate the,
long-term radon releases from abandoned, unreclaimed mines. However, the.
information in'these reports can be used to.make such estimates as is explained
below.
By using the model open pit mine parameters given in NUREG/CR-0628 and by
-(v) ' simply considering that none of the worked out pits are refilled, an estimate~'
.
8.
..
:
,
10
,
Vof -the long-term radon releases from unreclaimed mines can be obtained. This
model of an unreclaimed open pit mine projects'raaon emanation from the overburden
and subore exposed in seven unfilled pits, seven overburden piles, and a
subore pile. For case of' comparison, these data are presented in the following
Table A in a manner anal'ogous to Table V of ituREG/CR-0628.
Table A
Radon Emissions from Unreclaimed 11odel Open Pit f4ines>
, . .
Area Emission RateSource (m ) (ppm U 0s) (Ci/yr)2 3
.
-(] Abandoned pits.4
-Subore exposed in pits 7(5.85x10 ) 150 565
: Overburden exposed in5
|. pits 7(8.86x10 ) 20 1141
; Dump piles5
Subore pile 2.02x10 150 2795
Overburden piles 7(9.45x10 ) 20 1217
Total Radon Emissions 3202'
.
Undisturbed surfaceseventually.affccted
' 7by mining' l.21x10 4 -445*
Net Radon Emissions Due to Mining 2757
- (,,) -
-$This represents natural-background emissions.'
. . .
-
r
11.
; liUREG/CR 0628 states that the model mine will have produced 9620 MT U 0v 38
during its 17 year lifetime. Therefore, the emission of 2757 Ci/vear represents
a long-term radon release of approximately 80 Ci/ year per RRY (271 MT U 0 )3g
during the post mining period of an unreclaimed oper pit mine (see calculation<
. . ,
below).
(2757 Ci/yr)(271 MT Uds/RRY) = 78 Ci/yr per RRY%20Mi003 8
The estimation of radon releases from abandoned, unsealed underground mines
presents a much more difficult problem. The phenomenon that would result in
radon release from an unsealed underground mine is natural convective ventilation.
This is the air circulation caused by the variation of air density with temperature
and the action of gravity. The amount of air flow induced by convection is
baprimarily dependent on the difference in elevation between the opeaings of a
mine and the temperature difference between air inside and outside of the
mine. Even within a single mine the air flow induced by convective ventilation
willbencitherconstantinvolumenorconsjstentindirection. Thus, it
would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to predict, with any degree
of accuracy, the radon release from an individual unsealed underground mine
and even more difficult to make such a prediction for underground mines in
general., )
|
|
llowever, by making certain assumptions and using radon release and U 03 8 production |
data from flVREG/CR-06271273 it is possible to p stulate a model that may be used
to make an estimate of an upper range value for the radon release from an
unsealed underground mine as is explained below.,
b'
.
*S W *
1
.
12
i
71 As-stated-in-NHRE6/ER-0627--the model-underDround-mine produces-285-tons- '
L18 0g/ year---At-the-end-of-its-20 year-estimated-lifetime-the-model mine-will j3
have produced-5700-tons-8 0g-(5170-Mf-6 0g3- In NUREG/CR-1273, the lifetime i3 3
of an underground mine is Tisumed to be 30 years..,'
.
It is assumed that the amount of radon released under conditions of natural
convective ventilation from the unsealed shafts of a worked out mine will be
the same as that released from an active mine under canditions of forced
ventilation.
In addition to the release of radon from the mine shafts, there will also be a
continuing release of radon from waste rock stored above ground..
%() The totai-and net releases'of radon from an abandoned underground mine as
defined above are summarized in th. following Table B:
Table B
Radon Releases from Abandoned Model Underground Mine
Source EmissionRateCi/yr_per_BRX
Release from unsealed shafts 4532 259Release from wastes on surface 376 8
Total-Raden-Releases 4908
Natural-background emissions-from surfacesaffected-by-mining- -6
Net Radon Release Due to Mining 4902 267
f~')- (_f-
"
.
!
.
. WW "]
.
fL 13|
|,m
|(,,). _Since-the modei mine-wiii-have produced-5170-Hf-6 0g-during-its-20 year-lifetime-3
the-release of-4902-Ei/yr-represents-a-long-term-reicase-of-approximately
260-Ei/yrper-RRY-(271-HT-Ug0gt 1 ring-the post-mining period-of-an-abandoned
| . underground mine-with unsealed shafts-(see-caicdiriion-below)-
f4902_CI/Yr)1??l_UI_Un0s/88Y)-=-257--ifyrtper-RRY5170-Hf-8 033
It should be clearly understood that the foregoing estimation of radon release
from abandoned underground uranium mines involves extrapolation from established
data to a somewhat hypothetical conclusion. There are limitations and uncertainties-r
in this analysis and for this reason, there are certain caveats that should be
explicitly stated at the outset..
[)In the BPNL study, radon release rates were determined for several active!
underground mines under conditions of forced mechanical ventilation. Under
these conditions, that is, continuous operation of the ventilation fans andi
high air ~ flow rates, all of.the radon emanating within a mine is promptlyi
discharged from the ventilation shafts to the atmosphere. The BPNL study,
therefore, provides an estimate of the quantity of radon that is emittedi !'
within underground mines and which is available for release to the atmosphere 1
by either. forced ventilation or. natural convective ventilation.I
l
The BPNL data show a good correlation between the quantity of radon emitted.
within a mine and the cumulative tons of ore which have been extracted from a
mine. From this-it may be inferred that radon emission will increase as more
. ore is extracted and will reach a maximum when a mine is worked out at the end
: (~N,
. %,) |>
-.
-O
$ .s wc >
- .- ..
.. ,
14
;
[] - of its active-lifetime. Ilowever, the BPNL data for the radon released from a
model underground mine have been used directly with no adjustment for increase
-in radon emission with mine age.
~
It is.. implicit in the' assumptions made for esticating the radon release from~
1. .
abandcned underground mines that the air flows induced by natural convective
ventilation will:be sufficiently large to exhaust to the atmosphere all of the
radon that is emitted within a mine before a significant fraction of that
radon has been lost by radioactive decay. It is inconceivable that such a
condition could exist in an actual underground mine. The forces which drive
convective ventilation are simply too small to induce the large air flow rates,
- needed to satisfy this. assumption..
&
|''
There are also other factors that'will tend to restrict or prevent air flow.v
The workings ~of many underground mines are-located below the water taole and
water n cst be pumped continuously from the mines to keep them dry. When such
a mine is abandoned and pu,T;ing is stopped, the water level will rise and
flood the mine workings and restrict or preclude underground air flow and
radon release to the atmosphere. Caving and collapse of workings and shafts
will occur in~ abandoned mines which will also restrict or preclude air flow|
through the mine.
Considering the foregoing, it-is my opinion that the estimate of 260 approximately.
~ 270 Ci/yr per RRY for:the long-term radon release from abandoned unsealed under-
ground mines is' con'servatively high and-that actual releases will oc appreciably
A . less.%!
e
f: e
.
|- ~, . _, ,
--.
.!p
.
~
15
m( A1 The staff's current estimate.of a conservative upper range value for the ['
|'long-terin radon release during the post mining period of unreclaimed open pit;
and unsealed underground uranium mines is approximately 180190 to 190200 Ci/ year
per RRY. This estimated release is based on: the data developed above, an RRY
of 271 MT U 0 f r uranium mining, and a projected distribution of U 0 Production38 38
of 60% from underground mines and 40% from open pit mines.
3
In the following summary, Table C, the staff's current estimates of the long-term
radon releases from worked out uranium mines are compared with the staff's'
estimates of same radon releases as given in Perkins.
'
Table C'
'/~'' Staff Estimates of Radon Releases from Worked Out Uranium Minesd
Current Estimates Perkins EstimatesCi/ year per RRY Ci/ Year per RRY
Reclaimed Open Pit Mines 40 none given8!Unreclaimed Open Pit Mines 80 100
2/Sealed-Underground Mines 20 10 0
Unsealed Underground Mines P60 b0 05/
Combined Uranium Mining Industry
Lower Range Value 2520 to 3025 none given
Upper Range Value 180190 to 190200 none given~
.
8/TR.-2609-2613.EITr. 2542. |
.-10/ r. 2542.IA
-- T1.j J
|-
|.
.
. . . . ._ . _ ._ ___ _. - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - . .-
1 r ,,
-4-15
,
>
q ,. <-
^- The staff's current estilaate of, radon release f rom unreclaimed open pit mines
: is slightly' smaller than, but not significantly different from, that given in; Perkins.
I ,
The.small increase in the staff's current. estimate of radon release from-
sealed underground mines, 201_0 Ci/ year per RRY, is attributable to a previously l
. neglected source oftradon emission, namely, a small amount of waste rock that.
"remains-'on the surface'when an. underground mine is worked out.
i.4
The staff's current estimate of radon' release from unsealed underground mines,- '
,
260270 Ci/ year per RRY, is made up of two components. The 2010 Ci/ year per RRY,
'
from waste rock stored on the surface and the hypothetical release of 240260 '
! Ci/ year per RRY from unsealed mine shafts. It is my opinion, as stated earlier'
~in this testimony, that the estimate of 260270 Ci/ year per RRY for the long-term
- radon release from abandoned unsealed. underground mines is conservatively high,
and that actual releases will be appreciably less. In my judgment, the actualI
radon release from such mines will be much closer to 2010 Ci/ year per RRY than
260270_Ci/ year per RRY.:
|1 Conclusion
In theLPerkins proceeding,' I-provided information.concerning the long-term
radon-release ~from worked out uranium mines (Tr. 2541-2542 and 2609-2613).
SomeLadditional information was provided by Perkins applicant's witness Dr. Morton.
Goldman;(Tr. 2639-2640). . Based'on this..information, the Perkins-Licensing Board
Lin their Partial). Initial Decision,' Environmental. Consequences:of.the Uranium Fuelb
. k.
9
1
s
4 *
f' V 9 r iv = b .. y <%. , ~w- , , - + - -
..._ .- -
,
4
-,
17..,
1
( Cycle, adopted a '.value of 100:Ci/yr/AFR (RRY) for the l'ong-term release of
radon-from worked out uranium mines.11 - This value is near the mid point.of~
'
the range of.the'~ staff's current estimates for this release (lower range value-
of 2520 to 3025 Ci/ year per RRY,. upper range value of 180190 to 190200 Ci/ year
per:RRY). -Furthermore,'the v'alue of 100 Ci/ year per RRY, adopted by the Perkins -
board is, in myLopinion, reasonable and conservative and would be supported by
the staff-today. JTo put it another way, the staff's current estimate of the
long-term radon release from worked out uranium mines is not significantly
different from the value adopted by the Perkins Licensing Board.
.
O-
,
.'
|
|
-11/-- Perkins Partial Initial Decision, Paragra'phs 11, 12., and 13, (pages 6, 7 and 8)..
_..
v.
*]
.
f
4
jra 4
356I CHAIRMAN ROSElmIAL: Mr. Bordenick, do you have any
'
i(V adirect examination?
3 MR. DORDENICK: No, Mr. Chairman, I would jtst
4 note for the record that .- Save supplied the correct number
5 of copies to the reporter and that concludes our direct case
G-
and Mr. Wilde will be available for cross-examination,
7 CITAIRIN ROSEllTHAL: Is there any cross-examination
8 on the part of the applicants?
9 MR. SILBERG: I have just two very short questions.
10 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY. MR. SILBERG:
II Q First,1 Mr. Wilde, your testimony here.is in terms
I2 of curies per year per referenced reactor year, or RRY.
(') 13 A Yes, that in correct.V
14 0 I belleve that in the Perkins record, the numbers .
15 were in terms of curies per AFR, or sometimes curioD per year
16 per AFR. Could you just explain --
17 A The terms AFR, annual fuel requirement, and'ref.''
18 erence reactor year are used interchangably; they are
19 synonomous. -
20 0 Secondly, are you aware of any measurements, data,
21 involving radon releases from inactive underground uranium '
22 minas, measurements that might have been taken?
23 A- Yes, I am. May I refer to some notes, I believe
24 that-I have here?n; jfJ
25 O Certainly. j
1|
|
|
_ _ - _ . - _ - - . - _- -_- - - . - - - . _ . - _. .. . . . . . . . .
jr S
11 3571
I A As a matter of fact, in that Board notification lette::
2 of December 23, this was alluded to in that at that time, I
3 was aware that Datell was also conducting under a reasearch
4 contract with the Environmental Protection Agency, somo
5 measurements of radon releases from inactive mines.
6 I had at that time, obtained a copy of the draft report
7 from Datell. That report is still not final. But, based on
8 the preliminary data which I have obtained from Batell and
9 some production figures that I obtained from DOE Grand
to Junction and from come of ny colleagues from the Grants crea,.. . . - -
11 I have been able to do analysis of the EPA data, or the
12 Batell data done in that EPA study to arrive at some estimates
13( of release: rates from inactive mines.'
,
14 Batell, in their study, measured radon releases fran
15 two imactive mines in the Grants mineral area. These mines
16 were located withP c mile of one another, Heca Montinosa
17 in McKinely County, New Mexico. The mines are dis-similar
18 in the extremo. I'll discuss them separately.
19 One of the mines that was measured wae, the name of the
20 mine waa the Barbara J. This mine it a vertical shaft mino.
21 R2 don releases were measured at the chaft and at the -- this
22 is the hoisting shaft, and at the venti ation shaft. The
E3 mine appeared to be flooded; water could be seen at the bottom
'
24 of the chaft. The air flows u_ere so small that they cauld not,
25 he mencured with a vein anemometer. The air flows had to be
ira G 358
1 measured by injecting puffa of smoke into the chaft and timing
2 the rice time.
3 The production figures that I got from Grand Junction
4 indicated that thic mino had operated intermittently from
5 1957 through 1958 -- excuco me -- 1957 through 1968. During
G that time, it had produced about 222 metric tons of U308,
7 or about 8/10ths of an ERY, that's again using the same
0 referenco reactor year aire wo used in Perkins 271 metric
9 tonn,
10 On this basic or on the bacis of this production and
tj tha :celeaco ratec that Datoll measured from those chafts, the
12 relcaec from this mine would be approximately 1 curie, 1.2
13 curies por year por RDY produced.;
34 Nou, it'n ny opinion that the radon releasca from thic
particular cine, the Barbara J mine, are good indication ofpg
the aorta of releases that can be expected from the majorityjg
of the deep mines in the Ambrosia Lake, Grants mineral belt77
_
area of Neu Mexico. Like tl}c Darbara J, they are verticalgg
chaft nineo; they have very small differences in elevationjg
20 betueen mine openingn; nearly all of the nines are located
below the water table, co that when pumping stop3, the minen21
will fl od; and essentially what you will and up with is a22
dead-tad hole, even if you don't fill the shaft, which goes23
down to the water levol. And, there will be no interconnecting |9"7|
~
fl w--p th underground to partit radon to escape.25
|
|
.
jrb 7-. .
'
- -
- 359,
~.. I Now, if I may go on to the second mine. The second mine,
.b f 2 that-they measured was the Mosa-Top.
3 ~
'Q What was the name?
4 A Lot me spell it: Mesa, M.;E-S-A, Top,
5 '
the Mesa Top mine..
G The Mosa Top.is also a vertical shaft mine; but this'
7 mine, unlike the Barbarn J, is not isolated. It's inter-
8- ~
connected under-ground with several other inactive, also.-
9 activo mines. 'ssmo of those mines are s' .11 in production;
10 today. The ventilation at those active minea is operated
-11 .during'the week, Monday through Friday. On the weekends,
' 12 . Saturdays and Sundays, the ventilation fans at the producing.- -
- ) -13 mines are turned off and natural ventilation flow establishos)'
14- itacif.
-15 The other mines that the Nesa Top is interconnected with
16~ aro all adit. entry mines. Perhaps I should define some of.
17 those terms. An adit ontry is, essentiall'y, a horizontal
18 ; tunnel. driven into the side of a hill of a mesa.
19 Q . How do you spell that?%.
,
20 A A-D-I-T, adit. If this entry goes'_
.
.down, you referi o it as a decline; if it goes up, you. refer.21 t
22 to it'as an incline. .-But, generally. speaking, adit entries'.. . .
'
7 23 These other adit -entries for the other intorconnected:.~
.
j . pinse aroLat elevations'of.approximately 150 feet or more _)24!
. .
. lower'than-the: elevation of the top of the Mesa Top shaft' |25.:. .
-||
|
.1,
jra 8.
360
1 so, you have a large head difference from the mines.
_/ 2 Now, appreciable air flows were measured from Mesa Top
3 mine and rather appreciable concentrations of radon in those
4 air flows. The mines that are interconnected with this mine
5 are the Poison Canyon, the Malpais -- again, should I spell
G theco words?~
7 0 Yoc, for the reporter.
8 A Pro the reporter, Malpais is, M-A-L-
0 P-A-I-S, and Eant Malpais; the Doc Flea and EG Group -- you
10 uill find that mines are named in funny ways, but that's just
11 on the side. I could tell you how that name came about if you
12 want to know. And, the Doris and the West Extention of the
( ) 13 Doria.
14 The Poison Canyon and the Doris minos are the mines that
15 are still active today,
0 Those last two, could you repeatgg
17 those, please? |
A Tha Doris and the West'Extention of18
gg the Coric mine.
20 Now, I una able to obtain, again, production figures for
21 nost of the production from this uhole mino complex. Again,
73 fron DOE Grand Junction and from acmc of my old contacts in
the Grant area. Ecuever, I have nct been able to obtain the23
24 production of the Poison Canyon mino, the Grand Junction will
n t give ut production ficures for an active mines; they25
-Ijrn 9
361
I only will supply me with production figures prior to 1969. <
Z I do not have post-1968 or 1969 through present production
3 from the Doris mine; so that the production figure that I
#' have for this mine complex is actually too small, it should
5 be larger. But, on the basis of the production that I have
6 been able to obtain, this cerics of mines produced approximate-
7 ly 1,150 metric tons of U308, or about 4.23 RRY's.
8 Using this production and the measured radon releases
9 from the Mesa Top shaft, the releases from this mine would be
10 about 70 to 80 curies per year par REY. Now, unlike theA
Il Barbara J, I would concidor the Mesa Top to be a near-worse
12 case condition for an abandoned, inactive mine. There arei .
' _,' 13 largo differences between the elevations of the shaft and
14 the adit entries on the sides of the Mesa. All the air ways
15 are abill open; they are not caved, they are not flooded, so
16 there are still air pathways for air flows.
17 Doth of the values that I have arrived at for those
18 inactive mines fall within the range of values that appear
19 in my tectimony for the calculated releases for inactive, under-
P.0 cround mines.
21 Q That value was about 270, I believe, in your
22 testimony?
23 A That was nn upper case. I would like to say one
24 more thing about thic: the Mesa Top mino -- whab we are
25 looking at is a one-time acacuremant. If you went back to
i
I
jra 10 [362
1 McCa Top in the GunT.icr -- now, lee ma first say that the
2 flow at Mena Top waa out of the Mesa Top shaft; that means
the air was entering the adit entrics 100 down on the hill
4 and rining through the Mesa Top chaft. If yot went back to
5 that name mine in the Sumnar, you would find that flow
6 pattern is reversed, because it depende upon the difference
7 betucen the temperature inside and outside the mino. At
0 the timo that the measurements woro nado, the temperature in-
9 aide the mine was higher than tho outside temperature; there-
10 fore, you had a chinuancy ef fect. If you went back in the
M summartime, you would have seen the opposite flow. In some
U- cases when the temperature change from day to night is in
e' 13 the proper range, thece thinga will reverse twice a day; the
14 flows are extremely variabic, highly unpredictable.
15 Anyway, it is just a one-time chot, a one-time snapahot
16 in time.
17 0 UcII, in the other from Darbara J; was that a snap-
10 ! shot n=2er also, or was that --
19 , A Yes, alno. Ifewaver, in that case, since there was
T no in'recconnecting underground flou and what you had for
21 all practical purposes was a dead-end hole, 1 would expect that
22. rele2ae to remain constant winter and curmer. There was,
~13 essentially, no circulation in that hole.
24 0 Would it be your judginent that the 1.2 ciruns per
ES year per RRY for the Darbara J is in the right order of mag--
,
4
jrs 11
363
I ~
nitude for a 1ong torn nunber?
2 A For a typical verticle shaft underground mino?
3 Q Right.4 A Yes.
5 g. Would it be your opinion that tho 70 to 80 curies
6 per year per RRY for Mesa Top would be in the general order
7 of magnitude number for mines of that typo?
O A Given the same difference of evelation, given the
O same temperature differenti.11, yes.
10 MR. SILDERG: That's all the questions that I have,
II Mr. Chairman.
12 CHAIRMAN ROSENTIIAL: Dr. Kopford? Or, Ms. Reinert;
13 I don't know whether one or both of you propose to conduct' _ ,
14 cross-exmnination on this witness.
15 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. REINERT:
16 Q Mr. Wilde, you testified earlier in answer to a
17 question by Mr. Bordenick that the new number for active,
la underground mines -- I mean active mine releases was 5200
19 carien per RRY.
20 Nhat is the new number for underground releases --
21 releanes from underground mines? ,
22 A Approximately 8,000 curies per reference reactor yea:: .
23 Again, that's the 271 metric ton AFR.
24 O And, what was the previous number that you testified |
25 to in the Perkins case?
,
jri 12
364
I A 4,060..
O Chay, would you refer to this new Bato11 report,
3 NUREG CR 1273, and look at Page I?
4 A Yea?
5 0 At the bottom of that paga, there is a figuro that
6 gives an uncertainty of plus or minua 24 percent that the
7 95 porcent confidonce level. Could you translate that in
C .torma of what the underground mine figure in now, the 8,000
9 curien por RRY? What doco that translate out to?
10 A I'm not a statisticion, but I would assume that it
11 means that 25 percent of 8,000, or whatever that figure is.
12 That that in 8,000, pluc or minus 2,000, approximately.
I 13 O Now, the previous Batcll report --,
14 DR. JOHESOM: Ms. Roinert, excuco me. Are you on
15 Paga 1 of the Eatell report, the brand new --
16 CHAIRMAN ROSENTI?I4: Yes.
17 DR. JOHNSON: Where is the 8,000?
18 MO. REINERT: The 8,000 is not in that report; it
19 wau the witness' figure. It was based on a -- well, I'.11
20 ask him.
21 BY MS. REINERT:
22 O That 8,000 figure is based on a RRY of 271 metric
23 tons of U303?
2a % Yes.
25 0 And, the Datall figures are baced on a cmaller RRY;
1
._.
jr1 13
3G5
1 isn't that correct?
2 A Yes. May I explain that?
a Q I don't know that thero has to be any explanation.
4 DR. JOHNSON: I don't need an explanation of that.
$ I just wondered where -- I was expecting to see tho 8,000
6 on that Pago.
7 THE WITNESS: You will not find the 8,000 figure
8 because I have had to adjust for the size of the AFR.
9 DR. JOHUGON: I undorctand the 8,000 figure.'
10 BY MS. REINERT:
'
11 Q Uow, the previous Datell report on ventilation air
;2 from underground mines ic liUREG CR0627. Would you turn -- do
13 you have that report alao?-
A Yes, I do.ja
Q On Page 17 -- actually Page 16 and 17, there is a15
cection called, prediction of future radon emission rates.gg
Now, would you nay that generally the Eatell research;7
han found that thoro is a fairly good correlation between;g
the radon emitted from an underground mine and the cummulativegg
20 re production from that mino?
A A f airly go 3 correlation.21
O W uld you say that they have found a better corre-22
1 tion between those two numbers than between the radon emit-23
ted and current ore production?34,
A u.25
jr1 14
366
1 Q And, between radon emitted and U308 production?
2 A Annual or cummulative? -
%
3 Q Either one. : .,.
4 A Would you like to ask each question separate'ly?;.
5 0 Okay. Annually?
6 A The correlation is much better for curies and
7 cumulative' ore production.
6 0 How about cummulative U308 producation?
9 A The cummulative U308 production is nearly as good
10 a correlation as it is for cenmulative ore, not quite.
11 Q Mow, does this -- isn't it true that the previous
12 Datell report,.UUREG CR0627, suggests methods, data that would
13 have to be gathered in order to predict future radon omissions
14 from active underground mines based on commuletive ore pro-'
i
15 duction statistics -- .a,.
gg MR. SILBERG: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure where this v t,4
17 is g ing, but I think we have strayed off the five issues that '
18 this hearing is cupposed to be directed to. I thought this
;g line might terminate quickly.
9
20 CHAIEMAN ROSENTHAL: Well, that, I think, is right.'
And, I might say that I had thought at some early point the<g t
?.2 Staff councel might have addressed the question as to the
23 offect that the most recent batcll report might have on a
24 p rtion of our cummary disposition decision -- we are not
25 dealing with active mines here. One of the reasono that or.tha
_
I
I '
jr 15
3G7
I reason that we are not dealing with activo minos here is
2_ that to the extent that active minos were involved in the
3 deficiencies, alleged deficiencies in the motion for summary4 dinpocition, we have granted sunnary disposition.5 I would tend to think that wo do not have the active miner6 beforo us, at the same time, I think one of the questions
,
7 that is going to have to bo explored at some point, and' taaybo~B thin in going to be in nemoranda nubsequent to this hearing
9 is whether the' disposition of, I guess it was Dificiency 1,10 which appeared at the beginning of Page 23 of the Slip opinion11 of ALAB 562 is affected in any way by the Batell report.12 Noa, I think, of courso, that in a quoction and the
/ 13 quettion han got to be, at nome point, addressed. I don't
14 know, however, whether this is a --
13 MR. BORDEKICK: Mr. Chairman, object. ion to tho
16 question van caue by counsel tor the licensec, aa I was of
17 the impression and I gucca I certain benofits that the Boardi:' docrin' t have in that I have talked to Ms. Reinert prior to,
ii
thin henring. She and I, as a matter of fact, this witncss
20 had diccussions on just the point that you raised. And, I
21 thought that che and the witness ucro going to develop this22 line of questioning,
t
23 CHAIRMAN ROSENTRE: Well, apparently, you did not
24 bring into these discussions Mr. Gilberg.-
25 MR. SILBERG: Unfortunately, we were not aware --
.
jr: 163GB
I MR. BORDENICK: No , that's correct.
2 CHAIRMAN ROSE 11 THAL: Well, nou the fact is that I'm
3 just trying to get this procedurally squared away. The fact
4 is, of courso, that the activo mino matter is not within the
5 scopa of this hearing. I can it we are agreed on that?
G MR. BORDENICK: That's correct; but there was naw
7 data which we felt ue should present.
3 CIIAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: We11, that's the question that
9 I suppose that you and fin. Reinert reached that agreement -
10 MS. REINERT: fir. Chairnan, re did not reach any
11 agreement at all. I would like to be heard just one second.
12 Uhen Mr. Bordenick introduced this witness, he asked the
; 13 witness a question, doea he want to change his Perkins testim-'
14 ony and the witness did change his Parkins testimony on the
33 record. And, I think that it is no longer an acc.demic dis-
1S tinction. There has been testinony introduced in this
17 hearing on emissions from active minos and it is a changed
la nun'otr and I think that ue are entitled to cross-c:< amino on
;9 that issue since Mr. Dordenick raised it himself.
|20 ' CHAIRMAN ROSEFrIHAL: I thought Mr. Burdenick referred
;>,; ! to sc:.le conversations he had with you previously; did I mis-1
22 undersLmd?
23 MS. RUIDERT: He did,
r 24 MR. LORDF, NICK: This was with respect to the Board's
73 granting sur.mry disposition as to alledged Deficiency number
.
jra 17369
1 1. It was and still is the Staff's position that that was
2 an appropriato disposition of alledged Deficiency number 1.
3 I think this witness has prepared -- it was my impression
a that Mu Reinert uas leading to that point, to explain why
5 it was.appropriato.
6 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Well, what I'm hearing from
7 Ms. Reinort, I think, is that Mr. Wilde mado some reference
to the altered value with respect to active mines and inas-8
9 much as ha made that reference, she regards this as beine
10 appropriate subject for cross-examination.
Did I understand you correctly?;j
12 MG. REINERT: Yes. It was offered in answer to
a direct, not to -- it wasn't cross-examination, it was direct.13
14 Mr. Dordenick brought up the matter.
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Yes.15
DR. FEPFORD: Mr. Chairman, I might add, this is1G
a result of my confusion some moments ago. I thought I had --37
CHAIRfU1N ROSENTHAL: No, I know precisely what your18
confusion was, Dr. K;pford, and I was quite sympathetic togg
it. My point, at that timo, was wo were only endeavoring to20
get into the record the prepared testimony of Mr. Wilde21
which did not address the matter of underground nines.22
MR. BORDENICK: Mr. Chairman, I might add another_g
remark: as I said, I believe that the Board's diarosition- 24
of alledged Doficiency number 1 Vas appropriate. I think what25
-- A _ )
'~ jrs 10370
1 we are faced with, ossentially, la a situation where the,,
(_) 2 Staff had new data; wo felt we ought to present it. So, it
3 is a question, I gucas, should that portion of the record --
4 not the record, the allodged Deficiency number 1 is, in effect,
5 then dicpoacd of by virtue of ALAB 562. The quection then
G 'is whether or not it should be reopened. And, like any test
7 of that nature, the question is the significanco of the now
0 infornation.
9 So, on this bacia I'm perfootly willing to have Ms. Reinert.
10 explore that significance with the witness and the Board can
31make its oun determinations as to whether it is, in fact,
12 comething that should be reopened. The Staff's po'siticn is
() 13 that it in not nignificant and need not' be reopened on the
14 one hand. But, on the other hand, this report doen have new
15 data and we felt the witness should comment on it.
;g MR. SILEERC: If I could ju t re
g7 MR. BORD NICK: I think we aro --
16 DR. JOIINSON: Let me just give you the opinion of
39 one humble, technical Board member on that, Mr. Bordonick.
20 , We nado the summary disposition on alledged Deficiency
21 number 1 on the basis of evidence that appeared in the Perkins
22 record. At that time, that evidence was uncontroverted.
23 The basis upon which I gave my vote for summary disposition
24 has'bcen seriously eroded. It would scem to me that the Staff(},
25 having this new data at its dispocal has a rosponsibility to
;.|h _t
- .
$ro 19371
1 bring that question before this Board, positively, and not
(] 2 rely on someone else to do it. That's my humble opinion.\_ -
3 MR. SILDERG: Mr, Chairman, if I could just speak-
4 for a minuto.
5 Neodless to say, we were not parties to these discussions
6 and I cortainly hr. von't focused on allodge Deficiency number.
7 1 since the summary disposition motion was granted. I don't
8 think ue are prepared to talk about that right now. I think
'
9 wo would Le wasting all of our time if we have to be back
10 to those pleadings and refresh our recollections as to what
11 ovidence was presented and what the new evidence is and hou;
12 that interreintes,
r~ 13 It seems to me the appropriate way that this ought to be
V}14 handled, after the -- we ought to keep this hearing on the
15 issues that we arc all brought here to talk about. If the
16 Staf f has nou information or if intervonors have now infc::ma-;
17 tion, it ucems to me what they ought to do is file a motion
10 r an affidavit with the Appeal Board, after the hearing.
19 Perhaps the best thing to do,!!r. Bordenick and the Staffi
20 witnenses can prepare affidavits saying, here is the new infor-s
P.1mation; here is now it is developed; here is how it does or
P2 doesn't affect tho' disposition of- alledged Deficiency nu~cter
1. The other parties can then address it; they can either23
24 file counter affidavits or they-can file briefs. We can-g
s. ,
~#25 dispose of it that way, I'think. If we try to do it here on
|<
o. =, ., __
.- .
jra 20
372
I the record, we are going to'bc wasting a lot of time and, . . ,
(_] we won't be do.ing it efficiently.because a lot of us juni2
3 - aren't propared to talk'about that now.i
4 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Well, it seems to me we-have It
5 a choice.of one of two courses: that is either to -ursue it
6 nou, or to strike from this record.any references that may
7 have been made by Mr. Wilde to the active mine value..,
0- Now, I see Ms. Reinert shaking her head and I will give
9 you an opprotunity in a motcnt to be heard. But, I would
10 like you when you address this, Ms. Roinert, to focus on
11 Mr. Silberg's point. Mr. Silberg said, look I was brought up
12 to Harrinburg to discuss certain -- or he, brought up, dragged
( 13 up, as you will, shanghaied -- in any event, he was brought
14 up. He came to Harrisburg to discuss certain specific issues
15 which were identified in the Board's decision as being the
16 issues which would be considered at this hearing.
17 And, he says, he is not prepared now to consider 'any
la other issues and I would suppose ~that he is really saying that
19 it would be both inappropriate and unfair for this Board, at
20 th'is point,'to extend this -- the scopo of this hearing into
21 the' area of active-mines. If I heard hun correctly, and.I
22' .think.I did, what he in saying is that it is open to any
23. party in light of the new Bate'll. values to seek whatever relief
7, fthat party may think-appropriate with respect to the dispositic24~
a
b25 which the Board made of alledged Dsficiency nud er 1 in ALAB
|,
p',- .wa em s. . own.. '4 -,ed.w - e as
c;
-jra 21 .:373
1 562. That disposition having boon based, as Dr. Johnson
/~'t - 2U
~ Pointed out, on a record which contained values different
.3 from those which are not set forth in Batall, Batall's latest
4 report.
5 So, in responding, Ms. Roinert, I want you to focus
6- partic larly on the marit or lack or marit, as you see it,
7 of Mr. Silbterg's suggestion that he really can't be hold,
,
8 accountable for dealing with this issue on behalf of his
9 client at this tlato.
10 DR. JOHNSON: May I make a suggestion to the parties
11 that Chairman Rosenthal mentioned a moment ago the possibility
12 f striking the testimony of Mr. Wilde as a result.of the>
13 chan93 in the underground mine number.'
y Since'Mr. Wilde's testimony deals with the emission from.
15 aba doned mines, both underground and surface, and in (f.
, gg roa: ling of this testimony, I don't see that anything has
chinged very.much as a result of the new numbers. And, in37
fa:t, I'm not entirely sure why the now undergro"nd mino93
op3 ration number has any great deal of affect on his abandonedjg
mia data.20
MR. SILBERG: I-don't think we are talking about21
atri. king . this piece of . toutimony --p -
- .,3 - DR. JOHNSON: Well, that was one of the suggestions - -
. e.
g CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: No, no. All the --fV 'MR. SILBERG:. It was the oral testino ny --g-
,
a:. -s s -a.-.
p...
374/
I CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: No , no . I think you misunder-
,/-
m' stood me.,
DR. JOHNSON: Oh, excuse me, well I [ist --
4 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: The proposal was merely, there
5 -was a reference by Mr. Wilde, as I recall it, a reference.not
6 in his prepared testimony but in response to a question that
7 was orally directed at him by Mr. Bordenick, to a value for
0 active mines. And, in.iecd, Ms. Reinert suggested that because
9 =of that reference she was now entitled to cross-examine on
10 that testimony, even though it might be outside the scope of
11 the hearing.
12 And, I was cuggesting that ene way of dealing with that
C)Nmattor wac to strike that very limited portion -- it has13
q_14~ nothing, again, to do with Mr. Wilde's prepared testianony,
15 strike that very limited portion of this oral testiomony..
16 DR. JOHNSON: I nisunderstood.
17 MR. BORDENICK: One verbal question and one verbal
18 answor.
19 CHAIRMAN ROSENfHAL: There is one verbal question
20 and one verbal answer.
- 21 MR. SILBERG: And,ra1 ' tia later cross-examination
22 on.that same topic.
23 CHAIIUiAN ' ROSENTH2 ~ : Bot.. I think I'11 hear from
24- Ms. Reincrt and then the Board will probably want to consultp!
'
25 _among itself. All right;>Ms. Reinert?
. .._. .
., .
375
I MS. REINERT: I'll be specific first. 'Specifically,,- m(,) Mr. Silberg and everyone-olse should have been on notice2
3 that the question of correlation and the question of the
4adequacy of the figures for active underground mine releases
5 would come up under cross, because Mr. Wilde says in his
6 original testimony on Page 11, that he used the radon release
7 and U308 production data from the original Batell report
8 in arriving as his estimates of the release from unreclaimed
9 underground mines.
10 So, I think that anyone who read that testimony would
II kncu that the questions of the accuracy of the Batell re-
12 leases could be raised on cross-examination, the Batell
C) 13 figures.G
14 Hou, if you look at the original D2tell report, which
15 I did, the NUREG Cr0627, there are many references in that
16 raport to the lack of correlation betueen radon release and
17 daily are production, cumatulative U300 production, and the
18 difiiculities in arriving at a prediction that relates curies
19 of radon to production in an underground mine.
20 ho, I think that even if you struck the testimony, that
21 I would still go into the question of how reliable are
22 these figures that Mr. Wilde used, which he says he used,
~23 to arrive at his estimates, his worse case estimates of the
24q releases C om an unreclaimed, uncealed, underground mine.~V.
25 That's being specific. Now, just to be general: I
1___._____. .- - - - -.; _ -
jro 24376
1 would point out that when we defended our deficiency, we
(''/T z\_ mentioned, we cited'a letter, a progress letter from Batell;
3it wasn't as if there was no evidence in this regard at all.
4We have continued and continually cited this matter. We
S. brought up these letters from Batell and Batell has continued
6to say the:same things in report after report; they can't
7find a correlation between the production in a mine and the
.
Ocuries of radon emitted.
9It's true that the issue was summarily disposed of, but
10I don't think that it's -- I think it's just another example
.
II of the blinders that often get put on when an issue is raised
12 that isn't easily solved. That's to be general.
13 DR. JOHNSON: Well, may I answer a little bit on
14 that, Ms. Reinert, because in the preparation of ALAB 562,15 and I think in the wording .of it, -the -- your specific ob-
16 jection was that no correlation exists. It's my recollection
17 of the way we saw that was that perhaps no, that in terms of
18 any particular mine that no correlit.lon -- there was no
19 demonstrated correlation of curies por ton.
20 But, it further seemed to be suggested that you would21 hava to know hou many curies por ton from each mine that was
22 going to fuel a particular reactor before any estimate of this
23 number could be made, and the other approach was to average
24 over all curies and all ore production the way that it has-
v25 bcea done in the latest report to get an average value por ton
__ _ _
.jrs 25377
1 of oro produced.
f') 2 So, that in fact, no one, I. don't believe that 562v
3 suggested that there was a correlation, but it was possible to
4 get in average value of curies released par ton,of ore pro-
5 ' dt: . 1. I would say that that suggestion in 562, in my opinior.,
6 now may stand to be corrected because of the other correlatior.
7 that -- between total production that seems to be more valid.
8 CHAIP11AN ROSENTHAL: Is there anything that either
9 Mr. Silacrg or Mr. Bordenick wish to add?
10 MR. SILBERG: I have nothing else to add, no.
11 MR. BORDENICK: I have nothing, Mr. Chairman.
ja CHAIFl!AN ROSENTHAL: All right.
13 DR.- KEPFORD: Mr. Chairman?
14 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Yes.
15 DR. KEPFORD: Can I add something there?
16 This is not, obviously, a dificiency that I rai:ted.
j7 However, I would like to say that I would certainly hope that
gg this inne is handled not by affidavits, but by cross-examina-
39 tion at a hearing.
20 CHAIRMAU ROSENTHAL: All right. Wo are going to re-
21 cess bac:t here for a mcmant..
n DR. KPEFORD: May wo take a break?
~
23 ?HAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Yes, we will take a 10 minute
break.24
'~'25 Chereupon, the hearing recessed for a 10 minute brea t.)
- - . . . - - _ _ - - - - - - - . .. _ __ -- __ _
._.
I1
tEp 9 370
l CIIAIRMAN ROSEliTIIAL: ,Okay, we are all gatheredp q
2 ,again?,
, . .-..
''
I think on the one hand,,it is clear that we can-~
4 not consider today within the scope of the defined issues.. - . . .. 1
0 The questjon of the Board's disposition last fall of alleged'
'deficiencynumlIeEone.6
OnUheotherh$nd, as the, Board reads Mr. Wilde's7
, prepared testinony, $nd [ have particular reference to page 128
L
9 of that uestimony, and the -- more cuecifically the first. . ...- . .
10 full pangraph on page 12 -- Mr. Wilde -- well the paragraphr
11 renda: "It is asstnh.c'[ tha the abount of radon released'under
12 | condiuit ns of r$atural con [cctive ventilation from the unsealed1 -
/
13 ! shaft:I of the worked-out mine, will be the same as that<
(i . . _ _ .. . . _. _ _
14 releasai from an active mine under conditions of forced. .
15 entila -ion. ". .
16 In other wordA, as we read it with respect to,
_ . . . . . . . . . . .. . .
17 the rador releases from abandoned, underground mines, the
testimony of ME.' Wilde, Aith respect to what those releases woulil18
. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . - .
19 be, is tiW1 to the amount of radon released from an active. . .m.q . _ . ~ . . . ....
21 How, it's less than , clear,to the Board if that is.- . . . . -. . . . . - _ . ..-
22 a correct coutruction of 11r. Uilda's testinony as to how..... _ . . . _ . _ . . _ . . . .
23 l. uc could per.'J.t that portion of his testimony to stand' ' ' ~
24 withou:: havint at hand a value for the radon relcaEes from^
,-
. . . . . . . - . . . .
25 active minea..- . ..
W
379
1 "
In other words, it s,eems ,to us that Mr. Wilde's
04( 2 . . . .. . . .
testimony with respect to the releases of radon from an
3 - - -
abandoned, underground mine has content only if we proceed4 - - --- - - - -
from a base of a value assigned to active mines.
5 - - -- - -- - - - -
'How, we may have mis.under, stood the thrust of Mr.6 -- - - - - - - - .
Wilde's preparad testimony, or we may have missed something '
7 - - - - - - - -
clse along tb2 line, but that is the way it occurs to us.
-a -. .. ... .. .- -
tirst of all, let me, ask you, Mr. Wilde, do we
9 . . . .
correctly iiterpret your tectimony? I am now dealing again
10 - - - - - -
that you'v! followed no with page -- what starts with the
11first corplete paragraph on page 12 and then follows through
12 - - - - - - - -
the nubse7ent pages.
') 13 TIIb WITdESS: You fi,nally, restated and see if
34 _ . . . _ . . . . __ _ .
we are on the same wavelength.
15~~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ - ^ ~
I felt that for a uo.rst-c,ase assumption, to merely
16~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~~ " '~- '-~~ '-
assuna tiat the ventilation fans for all the mines continue
to run tien the mine $tEpped producing oro, or as of today. I
g . . . . _ _ _... _ _.. . . __ . . . . . . .
Let's as ;ute that _oday all the ore production stops, all
7g . _ _ . _ . _ . . . . . . _ _ _ . _ _ . . .. . . . . _ . . ..
the venti.lation fans continue to run, the radon releases from
20 - ' - ' ' ' - - - - - ~ - ~-~ -- - ~ - -
thoso It nos would be the came or essentially the same as is
report!I in the new Letel Eekport, NUREG-12h3,and.ifyou21
., . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . .
"'appor..on that redon ovur the total production that would
have e den place f$ on those mines, that kiould be a worst-cast2~*
#conti.t.on
r# CIIAITNkU ROSI:NTIIAL: . Right. Well, within the'
. . . . _ . . ..
- , mg h# - .sm. --musi 6 . , w ash E a.. Amm.
F
Y~
.380
f. c : -confines of' thia. worst-case condition, your testimony does
, s-'( ) h
rest on -- on the average vElue' which is assigned to the~ ~
3 . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . , .
. active mine?4 . . . . . . . . . . . , -
THE WITNESS: Yes. , ,
S . . , . . . _ . . . - .. . .. . .
On the number that was ge.nerated by Betel for '
,
6 . . . . . . . . _ . _ .. _ . . _ . _ . .
active mines.7 . . _ - - . _ -
_
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: ,So I,think that bears out the8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - . . . . . . .
assumption that the Board was procee' ding on. So the question,
9 . .....-.....: .. _. . . . ..
that I would address, I would think appropriately in the10 . _ . . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ . . _ . . . . . . .
first instance to Mr. Bordenick, is whether we are right, by11 . . . _ . . . . . . _ _ . _ . . . . - . . . . . _ . _ . .
"wo" I mean the Board, in our view that the consideration of,
12 . . ..._.. . . . . . . . . . . . .-. . _ . .
Mr. Wilde's testimony with respect to the worst case, basedf~% 13 . _ . _ . . . . _ - _ _.. . ..... . . _ . . . .
(_.) upon the worst case, whether our proceeding with that testi-ja . _ . . _ _ . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. . ... _ _ . . . .
many is dependent upon a value being assigned to the active
15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
mine, even though the active mine is not itself an issue in
16 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -
this proceeding.
17 - - - - - - - - - - - -
If you want to.think,abotit it, maybe Mr. Silberg-... s -
would like to express an opinion.on that.>
g9 ... _. . . _ . . . _ . . . . . - . . . . . _ _. ._ .
MR. SILBERG: I was , hoping that Mr. Bordenick would.
20 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Wall., unile Mr. Silberg and,
. . .'21 . .
-- -- - - - -- -~- -
Mr. Bordenick are thinking.about:that, let me ask you, Ms.!22 - ' - - - - - - - - - - - --- - -- -
Reinert,;was this, in general, your thinking on the matter?|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |23MS. REINERT: Yes. |
, ,
24 -- - - - - - - - --,s
.( ) MR. BORDENICK: I do,n't know whether Mrs. Rei.nert25 --- --- - - - - - -
had renponded to your question or not.. . . - . . - _ . . . . . , _ ._ . . .
-_ , . - . , ;- - - - - - n. ._ _ _ _- & '
_
?6 381,
'1 CHATRMAN.ROSENTHAL: ,Yes,,she said.yes.
- .. .. .. .. . . . .
j 2 MR. BORDENICK: I'm ,sorry,, I didn.'t hear the ques-_ . . . . . _ . . .. .
3 tion.
4 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: , You ,didn' t hear my . question. ..2..-.......... . . . .. . ... ..
5 to her?, . . . . . .
6- MR. BORDENICK: No . , ,
. ._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: ,I as,ked her'whether the. .- . . - . - . . - . . . . . . . . . - . - . . . . . . ,
a comments which she had previously made were intended to con- '
. . . . - - . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . ... . .
9 voy more or less the same thought that the Board has just. . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. .
10 expressed, and her response to that question was yes.. . . . . . . . . . . _ . .. . . . . . . . . .- .. . .
11 MR. BORDENICK: I'ggess I have several problems, -
. - - - . - . - . . . .
12 thoughts in my mind, Mr. Chairman. 'I am not trying to avoid... . . . . . . . ... . .
(N 13 answering the questions.v),
14 CHAIkMNROSbhTHAL: ,Uell, I'm not going to.let. . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 you avoid answering the questions.. . . . . - - . . . . . . . - . . . .. . ... .
16 MR. BORDENICK: I aTa,trying to sor.t things out. ... -.- ..... -. . - . . . . . . . . .
17 in my mind verbally. Of course, this portion of the testimony I
. . . - - . . . . . . - . - . . . . . . . . . . .- . . .
, 10 was prepared prior to this new Betel report. It seems,. _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . .
19 unfortunately, to have clouded things up..._.... .... _._. .__. . . . . . . .. . . .
20 I am afraid that app,les a,nd oranges have bcen- .. ... ..... . . . . . . .. .. .
21 thrown into the same bin. That's what I am trying to sort- '
22 out in my mind for the Board's benefit.- . . . . . . . . . . . --. . . . . . . . .
23 The time, Mr. Pilde ,will_ bear me out since he's
the authob'of the testiimo y - the tina he prepared his origina]j i24
25 testimony, it was not t.he staff's intent to address active_ _ _ . . _ . . _ . . _ .. . . . _ . . . . .
~. .
t'
! 382.
p j mince because~ that had been rule,d out.
CIIAIllMAN ROSb1TidL: Wellh,Iunderstanditwasn't2 ,
.. .. .. . . . ._
3 y ur intent to address it and that was fair enough, but that
would not preclude a SitneNs in addressing the matter of4
5 an abandoned mine to proceed on the basis that the --. . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . .-... . . . . . .
MR. DORDENICK: That,'s tr,ue.6.. . _ . . . . . . . ... . _ . . ..
CHAIIU4AN ROSENTIIAL: ,-- cmissions from that mine,7.. . . . . . . .. .. -.. . .
ca.lculated conservatively, would be equivalent to the emissions -
8.. . . . . . . - . . .
from an active mine.g
That 's tr,ue.MR. BORDENICK: i10.. .. . . . . ..
Again, I'n still try,ing to sort things out ing
ny mind.g
- CHAIRM N ROSENTHAL: Well,, would you like --,
DR.BUCIk: I think i,t would tell us, in answering '
that question -- see if you can give us another nunber that. . . . - . . . . . . . . .. . . . ..
is in thic testimony that gives the data for an abandoned,. .. . . . . . . - . . . . . - . .
, underground mine.. . . . . . - ~ .
MR. BORDENICK: Do ypu want Mr. Wilde to --. ._ . _ . _ . . . . _ . . . . . . . _ . .
THE UITNESS: Ercuse me,,what was the question19
-
.. ..... . .. . ..- . -
that you juch poned?.. . . _ _ . . . . -
DR. DUCE: I am saying th,at we have a nunber here21
~
which you hava stated is a conservative number for the. . . . . . . . . - . . . ... .
emissions from an abandoned nine.23
.. . . . . - . . . . . . . . .
THE WI7 NESS: What I think to be,'
, 24 .' . . . .. . . . .
DR. BUCK: Right., ,
'd' i
Now, that is right ip your testimony. This is the- . - . . . .. . . . . . . . .
IB'
.
._383
1 figuro you used. You point out it's conservative and '.. . _ . . . . . . . . _ . . . -
2 you think it's perhaps inconceivable that there will be as. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ..
3 muce emitted from an underground mine as an active mine with. . _ . - _ .- . .
4 the blowers on, and so on. You say, "Well, take that as an '
._.. . _ . . . .. __.. _. . . ... .. .-
5 outside maximun.". . ..._. .. _ ._ _ ___. .
6 Your testimony is based o,n using that figure as. . . . _ . . . . . . . . _ . . _ .. . ,
7 the outside maximum for an abandoned mine, okay?
. . ._..... . .._.... .. . . . . . . . _ . .
8 Nou, we've asked Mr., Bord,enick if our understand-
9 ing of this is right and that's the figure that we have to. . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . .
10 use for the conservative figure for the radon emission for an. . . . . . . .. . . _ . _ . . ._ . . . .
11 abandoned mine.. . _ . . . . _ . _
12 He was helpful about,this, and I said, "Well,. _ . . _ . . . _ . . . .. .
13 ten 11 un what other figure we can use on the basis of this( .
. - . . . . . _ . _ _ . . - . . _ .- . . . . .. .
14 testimony?"
THk UITUdSd[ I am not.an, attorney, but may I15.- . . . . . - . _ - . _
16 try to address this if I could please?. .. _ . - _ . . . . _ . . .. . - . .
17 { If I had not had use.d the, new ntuo.ber, which wasi . .. _ . . . . _ .. . . ..
la ! generated and presented in the latest Betell Report that I. __ .. . . _ . . _ ~ . .. . .
19 got last Wednesday, I would have still used the numbar,
i . _ . . . _ . . . . . . _ .. .
| that was in the previous report MUREG-0627 of September 1979,20; ._ ._. .... .. . .. _ _
21 which was a c.aaller release numb,or, b,ut it still would' not
j .. ._ ._..__. . . -
22 ! have been the same number that appeared in the Perk!.nc reccrd.
TwothingsIkappEned., In,the Perkins record,23
j . . . _.. . . _ . ._ .. ..
24 ' the number of 4,060 curies applied to both craen pit and...s.____... . . _ . . _ . . .. .
g underground mines. Since then we find that our original. . . . . . . , _ . .. . _ . . .. .. .. .
.
._
)9 - 384-
..
estimates for open pit mines far -- were far in excess of ' '
1 .. . . . . . . .. . .. . _
C's what the new data indicatii.t : 2U
.
The latest Betell iqformation on underground I. . . . . . -. . . . . . .. ,
3. - - .. .. . ... .. .
mines'says the number idn't 4,000 curies per AFR, it's some-4
thing of the order.of -- excuse me again -- 630 curies. So,
.. _._._ ... . .. . .. . . . . .
w 've dropped,that number by nearly an order of magnitude.6
. . . . . . _ . , . .. .. ..,
.
.,
On the other hand, 't.he 'ntpber that we now -have7
.. _ . . . . . . . . _ . _ . . . . . . _. . . . . -
* * r un ergr m m nes is larger dan we said h8 .
. . _- _- _ _. .._ . . . . . . . . _ ... .
was'.in Perkins.9
. . - . . . . _ - . . -
If I can expand on t. hat' j,ust a bit more, and.I.. .. . . . . . _ .
don't want to carry this on too much, and if I get too wordy,,li
. - _ . . . . . . .. . . . .
pleaso stop ne. -
,
. . . . _ . - . . .. -
In arriving at the oyigin,a1 estimate that we
) . .- __ . . . _ ..
- . . . . . ..
",presented or that I presented in my testimony in Perkins,:
14- . . _ . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . - . . . . - . _ . . . . . .
the-number that I presented there was generated originally '
15. - _ . . . _ . . . . _ - . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . .. _ . . . __. .. ..
for GEISMO, the Generic Environmental Impact Statement on16
. .... - ... - ...- .. . .. ... . . . ... ..... ... . ... _ . .. .. . ..
Mixed Oxide. In that original estimation which I made back_,.,,__, , , _ _ . _ . . . . , _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ . . , , , , _ . _'.17
and parhaps Bill Tho.npson can tell ne when we were working on10
. . . - . . - . _ _ . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . .
GEISNO, -- 1975, 1974.19
. _ _ . . . _ _ . . . . ~ . _ . . . . . ._
MR. TIiOMPSON: 1974.. .
THE WITNESS: Sometipe ar,ound that time.21-
. __ .. .. . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . .
I made a bacic assunioti'on,, and it was no more22
~ ~ '~~
than that, that the amount of radon released from undergroundu, . ,
. . . . _. . .. _ . . _. . .
mines would be proportional to the ore grade. That is if24
./] , _ . _ . , ., _ .. , , . , ,
'
-( ) you had a --25- . _ . _ - . . .
. .
.we m
'1.
It
%) 385.
BUCIb Proportignal to what?750 I DR., . . - - - . . .
2 THE WITNESS: It woqld bq proportional to the '
'
3 ore grade produced. That 5.f you had an ore-producing or.. . . . . . . ..... . .. . -
4 a nine producing two-tenths percent U-308 ore grade --. . . . . . . . - . . . .. .. ..
5 DR. BUCK: I underst,and t, hat, I just didn't hear. _ -- . ... -
6 the word.
7 THEWITNbhb: It would bq twics that for a 10. -- . . . - . . . ._ .. . .
8 percent.
9 The latest Datell information indicates that
assumption that I mah foh GEISMO was not correct. That10
.. - . . . . . . - - . . .. . . .
11 the radon release from underground ninas is essentially.. _ - . . . . . . . _ . . . . , _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12 independent of ore grado. It depends nore on what's left. . . . .- . .- .. . .- .. . . . .- -
13 i in the rock holes that are not mined than the ore grade
| .. - - - - . . . . . . . . - . . . .. .. . ~. .
14 | t. hat was producad from the :nine.
; .. . . - . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 It just turns out, p,erhap.3 it's coincidental,!
, . . - . - . . . . . . . . - . . . . . ... . -.
16 perhaps it's luck, that if I uent back and did the same,
i
17 estination tha'c I did for GEISMO criginally, without making; .. .... _ .. . . . .._ . .. ._. . .. .. . _ .
Ja that assumotion of proportionality for cre grade,!
d. .
19 l I woulr1 have generat,e, d a , number for GEISMO ofi! . _ . . _ ._ . _. . . _ . . . , . . .
20 ; 8,000 curies per refcronca por year. The number we now have:
3! in --- what did I say, 7,956, so it turns out that the number,
except for the one annuI1ption that has subseInantly been22
pro'."on inr:arrscE, the nudL[er that I crEginally generated in23i . . . - . ._ _
p, } 1974 for GEIE.MO is an goed a nwnbar as we have nw after11 . . . . _
25 , rampling G3 pe2: cont of ti)e underground nines.. ... . . _
b
4
386
N1 .So, I' don't know whe,ther I helped explain or
(m) - 2. clarify or what.. . . . . . . .. . . . ..
3' CHAIRMAlbRbSbbl[AL: ,Yes ,I think that's of some '
,
.. . . . . . . . _. . .
4 help, but I think we're still. faced with the status.of this. . . . . . . . . - . . ... .
5 -prepared testimony. If the mos't recent Betell value for an. *
. . .. . . . . . .. . . . .
6 active mine oro or alternatively some other value for an. . - . . - . . . . . - . . ... .-. .. .. . . .
7 act:ive mine is not factored in..
. . . . . . . . . . . . ._. . _ . .
8 MR. BORDENICK: Mr. , Chairman'd
9 CIIAIRMAN ROSEUTHAL:- Imh51tsay,ofcourse,that. .. . . . . . _ . . . . . . _ - . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . .,
8we :e only talking about the segment of Mr. Wilde's testi-10 '
.. . . . . -.. - . . - , - . . -. - .. .c
11 mony that refers.to the abandoned underground mine. There. .. -..-... - .... ... . . . . . .
12 are other sc<pnents that are not affected as we' read. his. . . . _ . . . . - . . _ . ~ . . _ . - . _ .. . . . . . . . .
p'a 13 tos:imony by this particular point.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - . . . . . . . . . . .
~
Mr. Bordenick, you lava Aow had'some opportunity'14'
l
15 to think about it.. . . . . . . . . - . . .
16 MR. BORDENICK: Well,, Mr., Chairman, I was' going '
. .. . . _ . _ . - . . . . . . . . . . . .. _ . . . . . .
17 to ray that -- we have th.a dat a from Betoll, had it in various '
. . . . - . - . - . . . . . - . . . . . - . . .
18 staqas in tho'-- other marties have had that data, the most. . . . . . . . _ . . . . _ _ . . . . . __ .. ._. .. . . . ,
19 recent of which was the co-called draft report of February. . . . . - . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . .
20 1980.
It'sStaff'spositio.n,fi,rstofall,withrespect21
22 again :o alleged deficien[y No.1. Th$ [iternl b$ttom line'
'
. . . . - . . . . - . . . . . . . - . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .
. 23 of that alleged deficiency was that -- '
. . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ . .. .
24 CIIAIRMAN ROSENTIIAL: Well, we're not talking about[D ' ~
\ '/25 alleged e'.nficiency No. 1. I: think everybody is in agreement
- . .. - -. . . .. . ... . .. .. . . . . . . .. . ._.
.
h
n52 1
3071
: that alleged deficiency No. 1 is not encompassed in thiso
2e . . . . ._. . _ _ . .
proceeding. What we are now getting, all I want you to address
3 Ij is the question of whether we can deal here with that portioni
4i of Mr. Wi'.le's testimony relating to radob releases from~
*
5 - '~ ~ ~* -~ ** - - - -- - - '
abandoned, underground mines without having a m ue for activo *
' - - ' - - ~ ~ - - ~ - " - - ' ' ' - - - - - - - - - - - ' ~ - ' ' ~ ~
6minec, given the correlation that his testimony sets forth
7between the two. . ,
g . _ _ . . _ . , _ . . . . . . . .
I am not interested ,in wiat we are going to dol
q _ ._ . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _.. .
~
uith clieged deficiency No. 1. That is something for the
w . _ . _ . . . . . . . . . - - - . . . .. ..
parties to address after this hearing is over in such fashion >
33. . . _ . . _ . . . . . _ . . _ . . . _.. . . . . .. . .
as they see fit.
MR. SILBERh: f[r. Ciairma,n, having heard all this, 't;
- ,,{ u._ . . . - .. . .._ ... . _ . ..
"' 2'm guess I'm sorry I made the objection in the first place. '
,
I:
- If CHAIRMAN ROSF,NTHAL: , Hindsight is always 20/20. |
+
D'. . . _ . . . . . . . . . . |:
Mn. SILBERG: It certainly is.
1* Mr. Wilde appears to,ne,,has used as the basisi
i i
17 f >r his estinate, or upperbound estinate on the emissions for
i:tactive undergrouddnEY, dEta $n activ$ underhround mines,M
. _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ , . . . . _ . . _ _ . _ . . _ . . . .
Do cad it accms to m2, Ms. Reinert is perfectly entitled to go |t '
20i '3:tto the basis of that data, active underground mining data,
1
21 1lxcause it forms the basis for his testimony on inactive,
! _ . . . . . - _ . . . . . _ . . . . _ . . . .. .
22 urderground mines.
|- . _ . - . . . . . . . . , _
| CUAIR:'AN ROSENTiML: , Hell,, that's where I would".
._- . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
24 con out, and I think that's where tho Board comes out.''
i!
! . . _ _ _ . - . .. .
25 You are withdrawing --- in, that conte):t, I take it.__ .. .. . .. .
t
388
I15 3 you're withdrauing your objection?
2 gg,' SILBERG: [es .,,
'3 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: ,Mr. ,Bordenick, you are not. '
4 making an objection in his place?
5 MR. BORDENICK: I did not,make it before and I
do not mike it now, ikr. dhairman.6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: ,All ,right.
O In that circumstance,, I d,o not think that there. .. . .. . - . .. .
9 is a need to strike that single question and answer now that '
we understand what use wil[ be made of the question and10
1I. _
answer.
12 MR. DORDbNICK: Agre,ed. .I think it sums back,, .. . . . . . . - . . . . .
13 to square one.
14 DR. KPPFORD: hir. Cll, airman?.. .-. . . - - ,
15 CHI.IRMAN ROSII; THAL: ,Just,one moment.
16 DR. JOHUUON: He's g,ot another problem... . .. . . . . . .
17 CHAInnAN ROSENTHAL: , Yes ,, Dr. Kepford?._ . . . . . .. . . . _
18 DR. KEPFORD: I'd liJ;e to, point out one slight. . . . . . . . . .
19 coment on what Mr. Bordenick was saying.~
Ua --- I was not Eerv,cd vi,th the heptember P&L20s
. . . . . ., . ,
21 report a.t. all.
2?. MR. SILEERG: Neithe,r was,I._. . . . _ _ ._ . _ _ _ . .
23 MR. EORDENICK: Could I r,espond to both gentlemen?
| . - . .
24 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Well, I hope briefly --i,
|.. . 1
23 MR. DORDEUICK: It will be brief.,
.
389
CHAI1UIAN ROSENTHAL: .Tha , hour is growing later '
._ . . . . . . . - - .
'.5 4 by the minute. We've spent a lo.t of time just sifting. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
out other problems. Let's make it very brief.. . . . . . _ .
MR. BORDEMICK: I wi,ll w $e it very brief.
This was alluded to in the conversation held'
' '
5
between the Appeal Board and parties, and I will simply6
-. . . . . _ _. .. .. . . .
reiterate now what I said then, the only party in this7
proceeding that gave what I' consider legititrate -w I. won't8
., . ._ ,, __. ,_ , . ,, . , ._
use that word legitimate -- timely discovery Jan the Sterling9
. .. . . . _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-. _ __. . .
intervenor, Mrs. Reinert, and in respor 7e to numerous requests10
. . . _ _ . . . . _ . . . _ . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . _ . ... ,.
I made nany documents available for her, including the docu-11
- .. . ._ .._. .......-..._. .. . . .
mants that we are now discussing.12
.. . _ . . . . . _ . _ . . _ . . _ . . . . . . . .._ .
It was my understand,ing d,uring"the-telephone'
13 _., . _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
conference with the Board that Dr. Kopford would look at14 . _ .. _ _ _. .. . _ _ . _. . _ _ . . . . . _.
what Mrs. Roinert got, and it was also my assumption, possibly15 .. . . . . . _ _ _ _ . . . _ . . . . . . . . _ . . - . ._ _ _ _;
; erroneous, that she'would make available to him whatever
| it is she got, . _ . . . _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . ..16
; and he would como to me with whateveri
17 ._ . . _ . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . _ _ . . . . _ . . . . . .._ . . ,
supplementation he wanted.~ So as c response to both Dr. i
|13 . . _ . - . - - . _ . - _ - _ . . . . . . .. .. .
Kepford and Mr. Silberg, I don't-know of any requirements19 _ _ . . . . _ . . ._ _.. ._._, _ . . . . . . _ . _ .
i that references in a witness' testimony be served in advance. '
20 ! . . . . . . . _ . . . .. _ _ . _ . . . . ._. _ . _ .
'I think that counsel.would hava ,to be, clairvoyant to know,21 . .. . ....._ _. _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . . . . _ . . . . ... . . . . .. .
i for instanca --L22 .. . . . . . . . _
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: ,I th_ ink you've made your.?.3 . . . - . . . . .. . . . _
point, Hr. Bordonick.24 . . . . . . _ ..
-
MR. BORDEHICK: Than,k 'fou,.25 . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAIRMAN ROSDEHAL: ,,Let'p proceed with the. . _ . . .. .
,
l,390
I cross-e:canination. Ms. Reinort?
2. _ . . . . . . . . . . . . .
j n _. MS. REINERT: I meaq,to s,ay that I think that
3 conversation was hold before I ever got this. I'm pretty. . _ . _ _ . . _ _ . _ . _ . . .. . . ._. . . .
4 sure it was before.. _ _ . . . _ _ . _ . _ . . . _
5 CHAIPlWi ROSENTHAL: Well,, whether who struck,,
. ..__ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . .. . _ _ . . . . . .
6 John in thi.s matter, is probably never going to be resolved,. . . . _ . . _ . . . . . _. . _. . . _ . . . _.
7 and it doesn't help us anyway.. . . . _ . . _ . . . _ . . . . _ . .__._
8 MS. REINERT: We war,e on,page 17 of NUREG-CR-0627. '
.. .__ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ . __. ... . . - _ . _ . . . . . . . .
9 BY MS. REINERT: , ,,
. . . . _ . _ . . . _ . .. . .
10 Q At the top of page ,17, i,sn't it true that this. . . _. .. .- ... -- -
11 report says that, "In order to make predictions based on. . _ . . - . _ - . . . . . .
12 cumulative production statistics --. .. . .. . ... . .
'
1.3 DR. BUCK: I can't h, ear a word you're saying._ _ _ . _ . . _._ . . .
14 Could you speak up and speak closer to the microphone?. . .. .. _..~ . . . . . .
15 BY MS. REINERT:,,
. . ___. .. . . .
16 Q Does the report say ,here,,isn't it true that the.. .. . _ . _ . . . _ . . _ _ . . . . _ . _ . . . . . ..
17 report says here that in order to make predictions based. . . . . . . . . _ - . - _ . . . . . . . . . . .- -
18 cn cunulative production statistics, it will be necessary to.. . . . _ . . . _ _ . - . . . . . _ . . . . . ._. .-__ .. . .. ~ _.
19 survey each mine individually, tabulating its cumulative
20 production in an e::pected liftime? Is that true?. . _ . . _ - . _ . _ . . . _ . . . - .. ._
21 A Those are the words ,that, appear in that paragraph._. . _. . . . _ . . . . . _ . . . . . .
22 Q Do you know whetherfehis,was done, and whether
23 this formed the basis of the later bate 11 Report?. . _ _ _ . _ . . . . _ . . - . . . _ _
-^ 24 A It as not done. , ,
. . _ . .._ .. .
25 The purpose of this ptatement was to indicate. _ _ . . . . . . _ . . . . . .. ..-
16 .
.. 391
I that if you did not sample overy mino, the best way to try
to predict for those ndnes which you dEd not sample, what the2
3 releases would be, wou5d be to tabulate their cumulative
4 production, ore production, and to use the apparent relation-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . _ . . _ . . . . . . . . . . - . .. . _
5 ship between cumulative production and radon release to predict *
.. ..._..-.__- -..._ ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
6 for those unsampled nines what' radon releases would be.
7 At this point, wo no,w hav,e rather than a 25 percent -
.. . _ _ _ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . _ . . . . _ . . . , . ._ _
0 saraple, we have 63 percent sampl,e. T,wo-thirds of the industry. -
9 So it appears to ma that it is no longer necessary to try to '
.. .. . . . _ . . _ . . _ _ . . . . . _ .
to predict for those uncampled mines what releases will be.. _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . . _. . _. .
11 O How, if -- do I have,the , correct understanding
12 that when you say that the rate of radon emissions is related
moreclocclytocumulNtbcobeprcd'uctionthan to other(', 13
. _ _ . . . _ . . . _ _ _ . .. . .. . .
14 pararzeters, what you are really saying io that as the mine
{ . .. - . - . . . - - - . . - . . - . . . . ..
15 i gets oldar, as more ore is produced from that mine, the amount_ . . . _ . . . . . - . . - . . . . -. . _ . - _ . ..
16 of radon that uould be emitted per ton of ore would be greater.. .. . . . . . . . . . - - ~ . .- . -
17 than for a newer nine?. _ . . . _ . . . . . . . _ _ .
18 A Yes., ,
'
19 O Could you refer to t,he noyr Betell Report? NUREG-. .__ . . . .. , . - . . . ... . . - . . . .. . _.
20 CR-1273, again page 17? .-
,
21 A Yes. , ,
22 0 Allriglb,woul you,look,at figure five on top *
_. . - . . _ _ . . . .. . _.. . . . _ _ . . . . . .
23 iof the page?I
. _ _ _ _ . . . . _ .
24 A Yes. , ,
25 ; Q General k the $[ange,of t.otal ore production thero. .. . . . - . . - . . - . _ .
%
_
,
@ jn57- 392- -
I rahlges from less than one to mor,e than 2.97(y - . - - . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .
,,
' . ,) DR. JOdNSON: Millio.n rat.ric tons.*
'
- . - - _ . .........n. .~ - .- . ..5 BY'HS. REINERT: , ,
.
4.. _ _ . . _ ~ . _ . . . ... .. ._
Q Million metric ton's.,,
.. _. . . _ - - . . . . . . . . . . .
5 A I think it's million,short tons,'but it's im-- . .. ... .. . . . . . .. . - . ... . . ._- . .
6 material.'
. . - ... .....
7 Q Thank you. . .
.. _ : ..O
..- ... . . . . . . _ ,
Is that so?. .
9 A That's what figure f,ive shows.. . . . .. -.-..-.-........ . . . . .
10 0 And where do the mine3 th,at were sampled, where i
. _ . _ - ... .. . . _ . _ . . . _. . . . . . .
11 do they fall? Where do the majority of mines fall"in that. . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . . . . . . . _ . . ..._. _
12 rango? Are they less than.-l.~9 getric short tons -- a million '
. .- . - . . . . .
A 13 short tb.ns ore more than 1.9? .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . - .
O;r . ..
..--..a._.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14 A. I do not know., ,
. . . . . . . . .
15 Q You can't tell from ,that; figure?:_ . _ _ . _ - . . - . _ . _ . . .. . .. .... . . __.
16 A I .can't tell from th,at figure.. _. _ . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . ._ . . .
.,17 Ucll, it appears that - ,I take it back -- I
16 can tell'from this figuro. It looks like that in every- '
. _ . _ . . . - - . _ _ . - . _ - . . _ . __ . . __.-. . _ . . . - . , . . . ._
IS rango that is given, there are about the sare number of mines. I
20 That there are probably, approximately, five mines in the L '
. . . - . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . .
21 less than one range, there are six mines in the 1 to 1.9.-- --.---. ..- -.._.._... .. .- . . . . . . .. . .- . - . .
22 rango, there are soinawhere around three mines in the 2 to 2.9 8
. - . . - - . . . - - . . . . . . - - . . . . . . . . . - - - . . . ..
23 range; and three mines in the --. . . - . . . . . . . . .. . - - . . ..
24- A So, thero arc more qines,in the -- th't ha, h- 1(m)f
,
- 25 duced in the lowar ranges of ore production, woi In' c you say? '
. . . _ _ . . . . . . - _ _ . . . . _ . _ . . . _ _ .._ _ . _ . . _ .
'^'
a4.- _ - . _ . w.-- _ .A.^m'. J' * - --'--^^r'---A dN^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
. , . . . .
.. _. 393
1 A Yes. , ,
~
i p, Q TheBetellfithuresthaty,ouused,dotheyreflect. . . . ... . . . . . . .. .. .
3 1978 ore production and radon emissioa?. . . . . . . . _ _ . . - . . . .. .
4 A' Y*8* - -
Actu~ ally the $c'asure,ments,were made during 1978 +
5.. . _ . . _ _ . . . . . .. . . .. . . _ ... .. .
6 and '79.
7 A oul ou refer to p, age 3.9 of the Betell~ Report, *
. .. . . . . - . . . - .. . .
8 Table ll?
NoIh,5here'sacolum,nthe,reentitled"Curiesof '9
._ . . . _ _ . . . . .
10 Radon per Ton of U-308." Do you see that column? That's. . _ . . . . . . ._. . . . . . .. .
the fourth column from the left.3;
.. .. . . . . . - . . . .
A Y* ' I UO*12 - -
- - . . . _ . - .
ou a you tell me d,at the range is?(3 13qj _. . . _ _ . _ . . . . . _ . _ . . - . . . - .. . . . .
A It's from six curies,per ton to three hundredt -
14_ . . . . _ . . . . _ _ . . . . . . _ . . . . . _ . . ._. .
15~ "" E" ""
. - . . - . . _ _ . . _ . _ . .
e s basicC_1y,,in t,erms of the touts,16
reference reactor year, does this convert'to a range of from !-. . - - . . - . - . - . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1,000 curies to 55,000 curies por .eference reactor year?18
- . . . . _ . . _ . _ _ . . . . . ._. _.... _ . . . . . . .
If you have prcblems., . you can look on page.38. ---g .
. . . . - . . . . . .. . . .. . . . _ .. ..
The third paragraph on that page.20
. . . . _ . . _ _ . . . . .. _.. . . ...
A The report staten co.nvert.ed to ciuries perg.. .. . . , . . . . .. _.. .
reference' reactor year of 182 metric tonD, the range would '
befrom1,000 cur [esto55$000curiesperreferencereactor'
23. -- . . . .
year..g,
' 7, . .
'
O Using your reference .ceac. tor year, which.. . . - . . . . . . - .. . - . .
.
__ m
.
a59,
394
1 is 271 metric. tons rather than 182. Those numbers would even '
. .. . . . _. .. . .
2 be highor, wouldn't they?. . .. . .
3 A Yes, in direct propo,rtion... . . . . .. .. ..
4 O The number that you used ,for your predictions. - - . . . . . . . . . . . - - .. . . .
5 is based.i. simply dividing the total ore prod'ction by theu._.. . . . . . _ . . . . . . .. ..
6 total curies of radori were the other way around, is that. . . . . . . . . . . . . - .. . .. . .. . - -. -
7 correct?'
8 A If I can refer you t,o pag,e 37, the previous page._ . . . . . . . ... -. .. . .
9 of the report, it is arrived at~by simply dividing the curies.. . . _ . _ . _ __ .. .. __ .. . .
10 in the ventilation air, total radon relcace from.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . .
11 operation of 27 mines sampled in this study, as follows,
12 dividing the radon in ventilation air 150,'000 c$$ ries per~
.
13 year, by the '[8 production given to us by the Grand dunctiont
14 DOE, Grcnd Junction Office, or those mines, 5,760 short tons
15 of U-308. The radon por ton of U-308 wt.s' thus 26.7 curies_ . . _ . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .
16 per ten, chort ton, or 29.4 curies per metric ton, and to.-. ........ . .... . .. . -. ., . . . . . . . . . . ,. ..
17 obtain the figure that I used, I cimply divided the 150',000 i
.. . . . .. . . . - .. .. . . .
16 by 525,000 metric tons -- 5,225' rictric tons - multipli'c'd 'by
19 the nize my AFR, which was 271. .
. . . . _. .
20 . O So, basically, you t.ook an average?'i
. . . _ . . . . . . . . . . ..
21 A Yes., ,
22 O And you 5cok a$ aver. age relating the 1978, that. _. . . - . . .. ,
23 related to l'978 production to the 1978 caissions only,[ correct? I
.. ._/.._.___...-.._. ._ _ ...
24 A For?, ,
. . . . - . .
25 O For thoso mines?,,
.. . . - . . . . - . . . . . .
.
395
40 1'A Yes. Those mines - ,'they,were actually sampled
("., g -. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C./ in a period that extended from '78 into '79. But the pro- i
3 ^ ~ '''' ~~~'* ''' ' ' ' ~' ' ''~~~ '' '''~~ ^^ ~ * ' ~
duction was from ' 78. The assumption was made that the pro- -
4 . . . . . . . . ..-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .--
duction in '79 would not be significantly different than it *
5was in '78.'
~' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' * ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ ' ' * ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~^^ ~~~ '
__
G - ' ~~ ' ' ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '
Q This was not -- the ,figur_es that you used'did
7-not relate curJ.es to cumulative ore production from any of '
d. ' ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ' - ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ' ' ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' -
, g, g
theykidnot.9 A Ne., .
Ur. Wild 5, ho[httre arboE oU this figure you10Q -
11 havc? How reliable do you th. ink ibs?12
.. . - . . . . . . - . - . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
A :I am sorry, which figure?.. . . . _ . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . .
(]- 13 0 'lhe figure that you have ,in your testimony fors.
14 the upperbound?
15 Is .I am still not sure ,whic'n upperbound figure --.. . -- . - - ..-. .... ...... ..- - - . . . .
IG Q The figure that you give ,in your testimony of.. . -
'
.- . . - . . - - - . . . - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17 200 curies por rear por RRY that is based on these figures !
. ~ . . . . . - ... - . . ... . . .. ... ...-.. .. .
18 from tlie Betell .leport..
. . . . - . - . . . . .
19 A ITnat page? '
, ,
20.. .. - - . . - . . , -
0 ' On pac o 14 of your testirpny.. ... . . . . _ . . . . . _ _ . . . . . _ . . . . . . _ . . . . _ .
21 A Page 14i, .
. . . . . . _ _ _ - . _ . . . .
22 g yes,, ,
. .. ._-
23 A 2707. , .
, ._. _ _ _ .
;n 24 0 270, at the bottom o,f the, page.t ,i
=. - ... . . . .. . ..
25 A Thank you., ,
. . . . _ _ . . . .S
e
1
_ M^-
.- 396
Iin61 I feel that that fig,ures ,is as reliable as the-
2' -Z . - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - --
reliability of the Bete 11 measurements of radon releases,
3 '- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - -
and as reliable as the assumptionc that I have mado in my*
4 . . . . . . . _ . _ ... .. ... .. .
calculations.
5O And itoE reliable do you t,hink that the NL data
6 -- ---- -- - -- - - - - - - - -- -- - -
are?
7A Well, you asked me to read a section from it
-- - - - ~ - - - - -- - - - -
8before that indicated that they thought that their air at
. . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . .. . ..
gthe 95 percent confidence level was approximately plus or
10 minua 4 to 5 percent.
g .. . _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . .
O But dr.r.'t they also pcy t, hat there is not a
12 good correlation between current ore production and radon-
. - . . . . _ - . . _ . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . _ . . _ . _ _ . . . . _ . _ _
I4 I th[.nk Ee have a cenanti,e problem here. The'
A
15 term " correlation" in this regard is referring specifically *
to the correlatic c$effi$ientNhibh lefines th$ goodness -
of pit of a lineb rehreAsi$n analhsic17
M If you are trying to,octablish a straight-line '
relationshipbetweentwovadables[fEreSample,currentore~
D -
,,.. . . . . . . _ . . _ _ _ .. . . . . _ . . . . . . ... ._ . .
# prcduction or current U-308 production and radon releases.
If you try to plo[tl$$$o points b a graph, and use the2I
. . _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . .. . . . ..
linear rcgrecsion technique tc draw a straight line through"'-
. . _ . . . _ . . . . . - . . . . .. . . . - . . . . . . _ . . . _ . _ . . _ . .-
23 thoca curies, you can drau.a straight line and the correla- '
. . . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ - . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . ._ .. .. _
24 tion coefficient, whi @ in R quare, I believe. He finds'
. . _ .._... . . . _. . . . . - . . - _ . . . .. ..
25 the goodness of fit. If the cor.: elation is perfect, that
. . _ . . _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ . . _ . . . . _ . _ . . . . . _ . _ _ . . . . . _ . . . . . _ . _
397
in62 1
,Correlation coefficient will be 1. It will range somewhere
g . . _ _ . _ . . _ _ . . _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _
betwcon there and zero.
3 - - - - - - -~~- "-- -
. hat Beto11 is saying is ,that the correlationW
4 ._ . ._ _ . . . _ . . . . . , _ . _ . . .
coefficient, if you try to do a linear regression, is --
5 "- ~~--~ ~~ ~~ - ~~ * ~ -~- " *
well, I don't know what the absolute value is. I am guessing
it's probably .2 or .1, 'something like that,'- which says you- '
6 - - - ' - - - ~ - - - - - - - ~~ --" ' - ~ - ~ - -
7can't draw a good straight line through those data.
. . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ . . _ . . . . . . . _ . . . . _ . . . . . . . . .gO I understand, but, M,r. Wi,1de, in your tectimony "
0 aren't you essentially drawing a straig,nt lino and saying. .
10 that as the oro production goes up, the radon emissions will
9. . . . . - . . - . - _ . - . . . . . . . . . - . . . .. .. .
rise by the same amount pc ton?. . . . . - . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ .
A No, I am not. I am pimply dividing, I have simply
done as Botell has dono divided the total radon emission13r
. .__..__.. - .. ...._ _ . _ _ . . . _. . .
by the total ore production. In this case, the correlation. . . . . - . . . . . . - - . .. . - - . . -. .
6 is perfect, there is no question of correlation.
16 Q Do you think that thp number would be the same.
.. - . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ _ . . . - . . . . . . . .
next year?'
I6 A No, I don't think it woul_d be appreciably dif-
forent, but I am sur$ tha U t Eo,t$1d no [be t[$e same.D
20. . . . . . . . - - . . . _ . . . . - . .. . .. .. . ..
If I mated it 10 fears f, rom now, it would not
d,-. - . . - . . . - - . . . . _ . . . . - - - . . . . - .. ... _. .
. be the sama.
22.. - - . -
Q How sensitivo 'do yott thin)tthis number is to' the '
-
23 production rate of ore?
24 A I don't understand ypur question.._ . . _ . . . . ..-_ .-- _.- - . . . ...
25 Q For instance, would yo'u 'expact that the nurber --. . .. .. . . . .. .-_ . . . _ . .. . . ._
i. 15
_,
m ___ _-.,
.,,
s 4
33_
398:-
4s 1. cumulative -number lof--- ' total- number 'of ' curies emitted Will'
,, _ . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . - - . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . .
i )? f2 fall off'if production go.es~down?,- . (, 7
. . . . . . - _ . . ~ . . . . . . _ _ _ . . .
;3 :Could'I change that , quest, ion, please?>-
-
2 1. . .4 . e.. . ; . . . _ . _ . . . ..
L. 4~
A- Certainly. I. haven',t ans.wered yet.s -
t.
. . _ ,~
.. . . . - . . . . . ... . . . . . ..
Q What.do.you.think the sur,ies per RRY would'be '
~S..........2.. . . . . . . . ... . .. ...
if production of these mines were cut in half?36,
v,
And if the ventilati,on fa,ns. continued to run,.. -_._..._.-._..-:. . . ._.-- . . - . . . . .
| -- A7:' 1
_ . . . . . . . . . ... . - . . . . . . . . . -. -. .. ..
it'.would double.8 ..,
....__.;.__..._. . .
O- Mrc Wilde, in ' answer to a questica by Mr. Silbers, '*
.9- -.,
p . . .. . _ _ . . . _ . - _ . . . - - - - . .. ..
L you testi.fied that there had been some measurements of radon- r
!- 10:
- . . . . . - . . . - - . - . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . .. ..
11 caission's at abandoned mines?'
11 .-
. . . . - . . . . . . . - . . - . . .~
Atf nactive mines. - * - ~ -'i~< .A
12 . < . - . . ... .
' ~ '[N ..
). 13-.
;At inactive mines, 4,nde~rg,round mines?-Q,
v .. . .- - _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . - . _ . . . - . .. _ . _-
i A Yes. * *; 141 . -. .,
Q- How many measurement,s we:qe made at each mine?'-
_ .._. _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . - . . ..
A Very few. They were,made,over the period of
L i
| a couple ~of weeks. I17
. . . _ . . _ _ , , _ ,
; O . Were they contini' us, meas.urements or graph samples? ' '
- 18.
| .; _f... .. .. . . . . . - . - . . _ _ . . . . . . .- . . .
' 'A; T -In -- there were sorge of .both. There were.some
10 ' ' -p ;- w.x2--.-----:-----------------. - ~ , - - ~-
graph __ samples, there were some continuous measurements..20- -w
, . . . . . _ . . _ _ -_.a._.._...._._....... - . _ . . . . . _ . . . . _ . , . . . . . ..
' *
-Qf At both mines? ,.. ,
' 21. ..; . .. - _ . . . . _ _ . - . . - _ . _
'
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: . Excqsc me, Ms. Reinerti, *.
22=.-- - . .. - _ _ , . _.
we're sti;11 having coma difficulty over on this end of the !"-
.. .,
! m. 23 ,. T .
. . . . _ , _ _ - _ _ ~4 -...r__...._.___ - _ _ _ . . . . _ . - . . __ ..,
~_ .
.
bench!in hearing ybu. ' I wonder if you.again -- 7{f*. ..
-(N 224' ;. ..- ..- . - ._,. . . . . . . _ . . -._.__.-.=_v._p .
w. . .
THE WITNESS: - Ecr o2;, me? ~ . W ,,.,
M >..I "s a
, ' ' f '';
( .j... .- ~_ +_ .. . .. ,;
''h O t
,. .
,
4
s a , ,
I -f-_L i',
, .
o, ,
|1
i64 64 ! 399
.
'I CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: ,No,,I was referring to Ms.. . _ . . _ . . . . .. . .. . . . . .
3 If you would speak up and,use the microphone.
DR. BUCb Md. Reinert, i,f you are speaking over4
inthatdirection,wouldy$u~put5hemicrophoneoverin'~ ~
5
'
that direction? And wou13 yoki pull yourE a little bit closer?6 i
IhearyoupretthI[el[7',
8 THEk-[ITNE[h Ifyokfinallyrefertothe~
. .. . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . .
9 Betell draft reports, I think I can answer your question more -
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . _ . . . . . . . . ..
10 exactly.
S[eaking of the Mesq Top fline, they say: " Con-'
11
12 tinuouc radon monitors were installed at the shaft and the '
. _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . __ . . .. .
13 escape vent." Graph samples were collectc.d at the shallow '
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- - ..
14 vent holes. So both seJaples were connected, both types of. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . - .. ... . .-
15 samples were collected at Mesa Top... ...- .. .. ..-. . . . . .
16 At Barbara Je three J:berl,ine continuous radon_ ... . . . . .. . . _
17 monitors were installed on tnis site. One was located ati
. . _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ . . . _ . . ._
18 the shaft, one at vent No. 3, an open vent nearest the. _ _ . _ . . . . . . _ . . _ _ _ . . . . . . _ _ _ . . . _ . . .. .
19 shaft; tha third was installed about 100 meters upwind of
20 the shaft, and its adjacent waste pile to collect -- excusc
21 ma -- ambient air.. _ . . . . . . . _ _ . _
22 Graph samples were collec.ted at other vents, so.-._.....-..........a, :. . -
23 both types of samples were collected at both mines.. . _ . _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . .
24 SY MS. REINERT: , ,
25 O Do you know if the inactiye mines ihat were.. . - . . . . _ . - . - - - . _ .-- .. .. .
.
400
.n65 connected to Mona Top also had vents'.that were unsealedsor '
3. .u.... _ . . . . . . _ . .
openings?2
I wou5d hhve to rely,on i.nformat!an that wasAg.. _ . . . . . . , ..
cupplied to me..by. .someone elsel- '.- -
,
4. . . . _ . . . . . . . .. . . . .
In crder to obtain t,he production data that I*
5
did, the post-1969 production d n a which was not available ' '
6_ _ . . . . . . . _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ . . _ . . . _ . . . _ .. _ . . . . . . . . .
for Grand Junction. -
7
For it least some of the _ mines that wereg._ ._ _ . . . . . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . .. . ..... . ..
interconnected, I called an colleague from France, New Mexico. '
g. . . . - . . . _ . . . - . . . _ . . . . . . . _ . ._. _. - . . . -. . .
His name is Irving Rappaport. He is the nature partner of '
. . . . _ . _ . _ . _ _ . . . . _ . . _ . . . . .. . _ .. . . .
Four Corners E::?loration. This company operated that mine *
. . . . . - _ _ . . . - . . . - . _ - . _ . - . .. . . ._ .. . . .. . .
icomplex known is the Dog, Flen and B.G. group. Mr. Rappaport'
was able to si.pply me with the additional production .,
13. . _ . . . . . . _ . . . _ _ . _ . . _ . _ _.. . .
data from th!t mine group from 1969 until present.. . . _ . . . . . . _ - . - _ . . . . ._ .. . . . ...
C also obtained info.rmation from Mr. Rappaport,- '
.. . . . - _ . . . . - . . . .. . . .. . . -
that yes, irdecd, the vents at Mesa Top uere the only.. . . . . _ . . . ... . ... . . . . . . . .. . . ..
vents f. on i. hat group of mines at the surface. At all of the17
. . _ _ . _ . . . . _ .. .. .. . . . ._ .. ..
other mince either were adit entries, or in the case of16
. . . _ . . . . . _ _. .. .
',
. . _ . _ . . . _ . . . . . . . . . _ .
the Flen Mil o, the vent holcs that Mr. Rappaport had drilled -
_ , . . . . _ . . _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ . . _ _ . . _ . . . . . . . . ..
for the sur: ace had been filled.20
. _ .-_. - ... . - _ _.. . _ . . . . . . . . . -
They had cir: ply been, filled with waste rock dumped '
.. ._ _ . . . _ . . . . _ . _ _ . . . . _ . . _. . ..
in from tho surface antil the aole was full. The adit22
. . _ . . _ _ . . . . . . ...... .__ ._. . .. . . _
opening of L-he -- both the Flen and of the~ Dog Mine had been23
bulkheaded and filled with vaste rock, so neither of those24
. . . . _ - _ . _ . . _ _ .. . _ . . . . . . . .. . .
provided i Ventilation pass.25
. . . . . _ . . . _ _ ._
..
40166 . .
'
1 So, the ansuer to yo.ur question is, on the basis i
- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . .
2 of secondhand information, yes, Mesa Top and its associated !
3 ventilation shafts were the only openings on top of Mesa.. _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ . _ . . . . . . . .. . ..
!4 Q Did that information also, cover Poison Canyon?
5 A Yes. , ,
. .. . . . _ . . .
6 Q Melpais and East'Me(pais?,. . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . - . . . . . . . _ .
7 A Mr. Rappaport was iqtimat,ely familiar with all '
. . _ . . . _ . . . _ . . . _ _ . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
8 of those mines.. . . . . - . - . . . . .
9 You have to understa,nd th.at are deposits do._ . . . _ . . .. . .. . .. . . .
10 not stop at claim boundaries. And frequently minos will be -
. . . - - _ . .. .. . .. .
11 developed in conjunction with one another, so that the. ._ _ . . . ._. . . . . _ _ . . _ _
12 operator of a mine that is next to the claim of another mine '
. . . _ . _ _ . _ . . . . _. . , ._ .
13 operator may well break into the other's workings, so that. - . . - . . . . _ . . .. .. . . . - . . . . -
11 in a cace like this I am sure thct Mr. Rappaport was. . . . ... .. . .. ... _. . .. . . .
15 familiar.with all of the conditions that existed at Poison '
.. _ . . _ . _ . . . _ . . . . .. ._.. . .
16 Canyon. 'Ihe operator of the Poison Canyon Mine, in turn,'
. . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . . . . . _ _ , ..
pf would be familiar with the conditions which existed at Mr.. . . . . . . . . - . . . _ . _ . . _ . . .. .. . . . - . _ .
ja Rappaport's mino, and so on down the line.i, .. _. . _ _ _ . . . _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
jg Q But the active mines,woul_d have vents to tho,
_ _ _ . . - . . _ . . . . . _ . - . . - . . _ . . . . _ . . ._
20 curface?._ . . . . _ . . . _ . .
A What? . .21 ,
.. . - _ . _ .
22 O The active nines that are connected would have,
__ . . . _ - . _ _ . . . _ _ .. . . .
venta to the surface?23
No, they did no[ have vents to the surface.A33. .. . _ . . _ . . . . . _ . . . _ . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . _ . . .
In fact, what they vere 11 sing as their surface '
25. . .-......_.-.........: . .. .. . - -
n67 402. .
1 -ventwas'theMesaTopshabt. Uq,or qonditions of actived
d(' '' ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' ' ~ ' ~ - ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ ^ ' ' ' ' ' ' * ~ ' ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ' ~ '
2 ventilation,~the Mesa Top shaft was downcast. Fresh air. . . . . . . . . . . . _ . _ . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . _.
3 was being drawn down the Mesa Top shaft in ~its exhaust fans, ',
........ . .. __ . . - . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . _
4 and oxhausted through the active. workings of the Poison. . _... _ _ ..._ . , .. _. .. . .. . . . . . ,
5 Canyon and the Dorin Mine, and exhausted out the adit at the '
.. . .. . .. ... .-. . .. ._. . .. ..
6 Mesa entry.,
7 Do you follow what I,'m saying?. . _ . . _ . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . _ _ . . . . . . . .
8 O So tlu Mesa' Top meaqurement would be made at the '
9 adit and at the vent?. . . . ~ . . . . . _ . . . . . _ .
10 A No, they were mado a,t tho, vent, on top of the
11 Mosa, which wn3 150 feet higher in elevation than the other.
12 adit entrios af the mines.. _ _ _ . _ . . . . _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . .
{ g3 JR. JOHNSON: The mqasure,mcYtts were made when.. _. . . . _ . _ . . _ . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . - . . ..
14 the fans w'.fre off?
. . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 THE WITNESS: Were o,ff.,
16 DR. JOHNSON: The one yoq just -- the situation i
.. __. . . . . ~ . . . . . _ . . . . . - . . . _ . . . . . . . .. . . . . . _ . .
37 you just described is the. situation where they were using '
. - . . _ . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . .- .
ja . Mesa Toy. as an air-suction --. . . . , _ . . _ _ . . _ . . _ . . _ . . _ _ .
gg THE WITNESS: As thq air , inlet.,
. .__ ... _ . . ._.. .. . . _ . . . . . _ . . . . .
20 DR. JOHNSON: Right,,,but ,the measurements we're,
. . .= ... ~ ..__ .. . . ._... .. . ... . .
21 subscruently mado with those fans turned off and a ss W9. . . _ . . _ . _ . _ . . . . . - _ . . _ . . . _ . . . . . . _ . . . _ . . .
22 simpl/ being ventilated by natural circulation?,. . . _ . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . .
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, and un, der.those conditions,. '-.
. ;_ . _ . . _ . .. . . _ . . . . . . . .. _
-,% y ali. of the adit entries would have been upcast. Air would() . . . _ . - . . . . . . _ . _ . . . . . . . - . . . . . ._ . . .
-25 hue been entering all of the adit en,tries and being exhaunted '
. . . . _ . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . ~ . . . . _ . . . . . . . _ . . . . .
jn60 .
- -- 403
1 up through the ficsa Top shaf t.
'
BY MS. REkNbRT[_2
, ,
... _.._ . . . . . . .
3 0 Mr. Wildo, on page (4 of.your testimony, the
4 bottomofthepage,youh$vechangehyot$roriginS1 estimate. . . _ . _ . . ._. .._ . . . . . _ . . .. - . .
5 of 260 caries per year fron an unsealed worked-out underground.. .._.. .._.. ... .. .. .
6 mino to 270 curies a year, which is -- se. ems to be a rather_ . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . _ .. .. . . . -
7 small Ihange considering the magnitude of the cource term '
. _ . _ . . . _ . . _ _ . . . . . . _ . . .
8 changr. Is this becauce the mine life had been increased by
9 10 ynra, therefore, there were RLY's?. _ . _ _ _.. _.. . _ _.._.. . . . . _ . . . . . _ . . . . . _
10 A That is exactly corr.c,at. .
. _ . . . _ . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . _
11 There was two facto 2;,s whi_ch loth charged, and it~
'
12 juct turned out that they were compensatt.ng. One entors. _ . . . _ . . . _ . . . . . . . _ . _ . . . . _ _ . . . _ . .. . .
13,
the denominator of the fornula, one enters the enunerator,
14 of the fornula. The relenno frcin an act!.ve nino increaned ;
. . . . . . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . , . . . . . . . . _ . . . _ . . . . .. ..
15 by approxinately 60 percent. 'The nine lifetime increased.
| 16 h3 approxinately 50 percant, but since they were offsett,ing.,
. . . _ _ _ . . _ _ . . . . . . . _ _ . . . _ . _ . . . . .-
'17 ;.ay nearly exactly balanced one another.
. . . _ . . . . . _ _ . _ . . - . . . _ . .. . . . _ _ _ _.
.. Was there any additi,onal .ir. formation, othe,r:'18 Q'
<._ _.: . . . . _ . . . _ . . _ . . . ./_. .. .
19 .han that Ebbell had changed their estimate of mine life-
.. _ _ _.. _..____ . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20 that e"acedl you to chango your ectimate, to change your..
N c ;y . _ . . . . _ _ . . . _ . . . . _ . . . . _ . . . . . _ . . . . . _ . . . _ . _,
'' 21 nurtor? | ,,
....|._..._
t 22 A I dda't understahG the qacEtion,]f.
._. . _ . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . . _ .
23 ' Q The Date11 reports --- ba' queen the two Botell .
. ,-
24 Poports, the nd/ac lifo roso by 30 yearc./y__.~.....--._.... . . _ . _ . _ _ . . . - . - . . .
2, A Yes. *: ,
'4
f /ev| //
/'
.--
404
n69 .~ .,
1. O~l Was there anything o.lse 1 esides what the1.
in~Q 2 Betell Ropor't,says that caused'you to -adopt that;during
., . . - . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . - . . . . . . - . , . . . . . . . .
,,
3 your mine life,.rather than 20 years?- . . - . ~ - . . . . - . . - . . . . . . .
4 A. No. . .
5 1[S.REIURT: Mr. Chpirma,n, Dr. Kepford has._ .- . .- . ....._.. . . . .. . . . . . . . .
6 some questions for the witness.,
. . . . . . - - - . . . _ .
7 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: ,Do I,Make it, Ms. Reinort, '
. .- - . . - . . . . . . . - .. . . . . .
8 that your questioning of the witness on behalf of your
9 client id completed?. . . . . . - . . . . . .
10 i/MS. REINERT: Please, don',t say my client, but
y,. . . . . . . . - . . . - - - . . -..-.. . - -. . . . .. . . . .
11 yes', it is completed.. . . . . . . . . . . _ - _ . . . . .
12 CHAIRMAU ROSEliTHAL: ,You , object to them being
/mi 13 referred to as your' client?V
>. . . - . . - . . . . . . . . . . . - .
14 HS. REINERT: Yes. .It ce_rtainly isn't that
15 type cf relationship at all.. . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . .
(6 CHAIRMAN ROSEUTHAL: ,I do.n't know what in that
17 cirematances. -- the lawyers here who.have what/,
/
18 they think could ba clients might feel --... . . . . __.. ...... . . .. . . . . . . .. ..
.
19 LY IA1. KE? FORD: -
, ,
ov..c< c ....-... ....-_.
20 0 I-b. Wilde, on page s,ix, y.ou mentioned that one-
.- . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21 State, Nou Mexico, USGS through ~ BIA defines, enforces 4
y.... . . . . - -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . - . - - . . . - .
22 reclamation requirements on Indian lands. What about
k '
23 Indian lando in Colorado?. . _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ . . . . . . . . .
(7, 24 A I do not know. , ,
's.j - - . . . . . . . . ..,
25 0 New Mexico? . .
. - - _ . _ . . . . . . .
n
. h. ..
405
10 -
1,
A The statement here applies to --.... . .. . . . . .. . . .
2 Q My apology. Arizona,? .
3 A I do not know. , ,
4 O Utah? , .
. .-.. . . - . .
5 A I do not know. . .
6 0 Wyoming?, .
7 A I do not know. , .
O Q Do you know if there's mi.ning in those States .
.. . . . . . _ . . .. .. .
9 on Indian lands?. . . . - - . . - -
10 A I believe there is,,but I am not positivo.
11 Q Hou mentioned in one,of y.our early responses
12 to a question by Ms. Reinert you had not inventoried 63. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. - . . . . ..
13 Percent of the industry?. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .
14 A I said that Detell h_ad - , .
15 Q My apologies, Batell,..
. . . - . . . - . . . . - . . . . .. .. ..
|16 A -- samples, mines representing 63 percent of '
-. .-.-. .. . . . . . . . . .- .
|17 the underground production of U-308. '
.. . - . . . .. . . . - . . ...
10 Q It's not 63 percent pf the mines then? .
. -. . ....- . . . ... .- .. . - . . . .
10 A No, it is not 63 per. cent of the mines.. . . ._.._ . .._ . . . . . .. _ ;
20 Q Would it be a larger,or qmaller proportion of. . _ . .. . . ._ . . . . . . . _
21 the mines?- . . . . . - . . . . .
22 A It would probably be,a smaller proportion of. .- . . - . . . . - . . - . . . .. . .. . . .- .
i the total nines. Since Eatell hau concentrated their efforts i23. . . . . . - . . - . . . . . . .. .. . .
24 n the larger mines.,
- . . . . .. _ _ _._ . .
25 Q Do you know if there,'s any correlation between. . _ . . -.. . . . - - . . - . . . . - . . . ... ..
.
o9
. _ _ - _ . - - . . _
,
--|
y~c 406)n71
!.
' I mine size.and radon emission?i C ') . _ _ . . .- . . . _ . . . . .. . . . . .' U 2 A As has already been .ostalgliched, the correlation
3__ ._ . _ . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . _ _
between mino production and radon release is very poor.
4. . .. . . . . . . _ . . . . . . .. .... .. . ..
DR JOHNSON: May I.get qlarification on that.
|
| 5 ancwor.- 'I thought the correlation was poor between pro-. . . . . . _ ..._.. ... . . . .. . . ._ . _. . . .,
| 6 duction rate and emissions, but that the size of a mineL, . . . . . . . _ . - . . _ - . . _ _ . . . . . . _ . . . . _ . . . . . ]
7 we relate to its total cumulativo production, .n which case'
'
. . .. . . . . . _ . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8 the correihtien and I'think the word " correlation"'is used -~
.. ... . _ - . . -...... . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . , _ . . . . .
9 in the, popular senso hero rather than in a mathematical- - . - . . . - . _ . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 censo. The correlation was better for total cumulative .
. . . . . . . . _ . _ . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . _ . . . _ . _ _- .
11 production than(it was for production rate, and, therefore,...._:._.._.__.....-..._.__.._....
.12 thoro might be a size to radon cuission correlation.. - . - . .. .
| _n . . . . _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ _ . . . _ . . . . _ - _ . . . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . .,, .. .
(J 13 / THE WITNESS: First,,to t,he question of size, I_. . . _ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . - . - . . . . . . . . - .
14 inferred from Dr. Kepford's question that by size ho meant-
.
i 15 -daily or. annual production. Perhaps I chould have asked him\r . _ _ - - . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . . . _ . . _ . . - _ . _ - . . . . . . ...
16 to clarify what ho meant by mino size.. _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ . _ . . . . - . . . . . . . . _ . . . ..
17 DP.. JOHMSON: Right.,,
18 I thought he meant t.hc le,5gtlk 05 the chaft and
19 things like that.. . -. .... . ..._. ... . ..._ . _ .. . . . .
20 THE WITNESS: I ansvycd th,o other. Porhaps
21 I shouid ask hin what he meant...m.~ . ....,... . .~ ,w e. ,, . .-
22 LY DR. KEPFORD: , ,
_. ._. _ . . _ . _ . .. -_ ..
I 23. 0 You2.tpoints are both, wall. taken. .
.a . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -..
(~} 21 A I'd like to got back,to y, cur question of corre'-(/ ..
2$ lation, if I may. I don't want to lot that hang.'
..
- i. . . . . _ . . _ . . . _ . _ _ . . . .. ._
Ii.
4 ,
|> .
, .
__ _- . _ _ - . _ -__ - - _ _ _ -_ - - - - - - - - * " -
_
*
407.
,jn72 y~
Q By mine size, I was_ refer, ring in my mind more, . , _
V) 2.! ~ ' ' ~ ' ' - ' - ~ ~ ~ ' ' - - ' ~ ' ' ' ~ ' ' ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ''
to the average annual production rate and perhaps thereby
'
some -- well,,let's stop there.
4 - ~ ~ ~ ~~"'" ~~~~'' ~~ ~ ~''" ~~
A That's what I answerpd yo,ur question. That's
5 - * " ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~ ~ " ~ " ' " ' ~ ' ~ ~ ' ' ' '~ ' ~
the way that I answered your question -- I assumed that
6 ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' * * " ~ ~ ~ ~ ' " ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' * '~ '''
it was daily or annual production rather than cumulative
7 . . _ _ . . _ . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
product 3on as you assumed.
8- *"~~~~~'~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'DR. JOHNSON: No, let Dr. Kepford go ahead,
9. . ._ . . . . . . _ . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . .. - __
and you will have an opportunity to respon'd to that question -,
.. .,.. ..._._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ..
10 and that con: ment.
THE hITNESS$ 57oul'd you p, lease be sure to ask11
. . . _ . . . . _ . . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . ._ .
me againt . . .
m . . _ . . . . . . . .
Q 13 DR. JOHNSON: I'll qurely,ask.
CHAIRMAN ROSIkTkAb , If 5, koesn't, hou c14
.. .-. - . . . . - . . . _ . . - . _ . . _ . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 remind him.
1G [ Laughter.], ,
_ . .__ _._ _ . . _
17 BY DR. KEPFORD:. .
. -. . . . . , _ _ . . . . _ . _ .
18 O Do you know how nany unreclaimed, open-pit'
19 mines there in the U.S. now, uranium mines?
20 A No, I do not. There,is a, draft EPA
21 report currently in pub-lication k$1[icht gives that figur[,~
. _ _. .. . _ . _ ... .. .. __ _. .. . _ . _ _ __ . . . . . .
22 but I do not have it with me, There are a large number., . . . . - _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . _ . . . , .. . . .
23 Q Can ve get.within aq order of magnitude?~
~. . . . . . . _ . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A 24' A IIundreds,t t - -
J . ._ .-..-
~25 Q Thank you., ,
. ._ _ . _ .. _ _ . |:r- .
..
..$. __ t...._ . _ .
17 3 40f, ,
. . . ... ... _ .
.. . I now about unsealed uJ1derground mines?
2 A Probably the ama or,mayb,e oro.
Oc've been t$15$g kuite ,a 5[k aboth. repor^ts from3 0-'
. . . _ _.. .. .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . .
'4 Betell concerning measurements. Docs the NRC itself measure,
takeany.ofthe$eAca$ure~m$ntsatminesh'
'
5
_ _ . . . . _ . . . . . . . _ _ . _ . . . . . _. . .. . .. ..
6 A Not to my knowledge.,, .
. .. . . . . _ . . . ._ .
i7 0 With regard to radoq emisj..ons from both open-.._ . ._. . . . . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . . . -
G pit and underground mines, reclaimed, sealed, unreclaimed, '
-. ..... ..._.. . . - . .. ... . .
9 unsealed mines, the source term involved there is not
10 thoriunv230, is it? Th co rolling precursor of radon?_ . . _ . . _ - . . - . . . .. _. .. . .
11 Is it not'' uranium-238? Do you gnderstand what I mean?
12 A Not exactly. , ,
. _ _ . _ . ._ ._ . . . . . _
! 13 The controlling pre'c.ursor,of the amount of
radonreleas$disradium. hf raditba is [n secular equilibrium .14
. . . . . . . _ . . . _ . . . . . . . _ _ _ . . .. . . _ . _ . . . . .. _ ._
15 with its parent thorium ifni'ch is in equilibrium with,. . . . - _ . . _ . . . _ . . _ . . . . . . . . . . - . - . . . . _ . . _ .
'16 secular equilibrium, with its parent uranium-238, uranium-
--. 238 could be considered as the controller.17{
..
18 O The point is, with t,he mi,11 tailings piles,'
13 the controlling procurocr, at least for the first couple
of hundred thouhhnd hea d is thor [um-230, iN th$t not cc,rrect? ,20. . . . . . _ . . . _ . _ . . . . . _ . _ . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . ... . ..
'21 A ror the first few thousand years, yes.
.. ._ . _ .. . . . . _ .. .. .
2 ?. Q In the case of the epanations from the mines,_. _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ . . . . . .. .
P.3 the various kinds, scaled and unsealed, is it a good assump-
tion to assu[ cocul$r eq$[[ib$ u-h in U-258724; )
. . . . . . _ . . . - . . .. . ..- ._. - . . .
2:1 A Yes. , ,
.. . ._.
G
.
409*t
. .
f.. ... .
,
O. Then it's not the control, ling parent of radon.4
emissions, uranium-23b?. . . . . . . . . . . . .
A Yoc. , ,
4C And it has a half-li,fe of 4-1/2 billion years?
9
I would 5 ave to check my radiological handbook,'
5 A !
6 but that sounds about right. '
7 DR.UEhbbnD: I have,no f,Ntb r questions, Mr. '
. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . - . . -
.. . . . . . . .
D CHAIINAN ROSENTHAL: ,All ,right, Dr. Buck?r
10 DR. LUCK: I don't think ,I have any at the moment. l*
. ~ . . . - . - - .. .
II CHAIR'4AN RCSENTHAL: . Dr.J,ohnson?
12 DR. JOIESON: Uc11,, lot's, deal with the one, . .~ .. . - . . . . . .. ...
! 13 that you're anxious to talk about, firat._ ,
. . . . -- - -. ... ..-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14 Hs. Reinert asked yo.u a q,ucation a little while. ._ . _ . . - . _ . . . . . _ _ . .. ._ . . . . . . ...
15 ago with regard to whether there'c a better correlation. . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . ..... - . . . . . . . . . .
16 ! between curica release and oro production rate then ore. . . . . . . . . . . . . . - .. . . - . . . .
17 curies of radon produced per cunulative ton of ore produced, .
............ .-....... . . .. . .. -
18 and she uses the word "corrolation" in tho, what I would. - - . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . .. . . .
!9 call the popular or corcon sence,and I believe the popular !
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... . . .
20 conce is that of a linear relation. ship which you can multiple :
. . . - - - . . - . . . . - . . - . . . -- .. . . . .
21 the ore rata or the total production by a number and come
7.2 up with an estimate of the curies produced.. . _ . _ - . . . _ . . . _ . . ... _ . . . . _ . . _ . . .
23 I -- looking simply ,at ti e tablo E-ll, table 11l-
. . - - . . . . . . -.. . .. . . - . . . .
FA on page 39, it in almost cbvious that the correlation in_ . _ . . _ . . . , . . . ......._.... ..- ... . .
25 my sanna, uhich in the popular sense is better for cumulative... -.-.... ... . . . . . . - . . - . . . . - -
._.
.____- . __
-s.
. . :y -.y% b %' < '
;, gl['. 410'
.c w..i % . m'$.,
875_j n - production then it is for the ore rate./x; 4 . .. . . . . . . . . . . _ . . _ - . . . . ... . .. .. ..
V 2 Now, you may take is,, sue with what I said.,
. . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . - . - . . ..
3 THE WITNESS: I do not take issue with what._ ._ _. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .
4 you say. ..
~
5 1.is. Reinert and I ha,ve previously '-
. . _ . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . ._--. .. --
6 discussed this question by telephone. Is that not correct --'
. - . . . - . . . . . . . - . . - - . . . - . - . . _ . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . ..
7 ~ CHAIBMAN ROSENTHAL: ,He'e we.havn.the witnessr_
8 asking questions --~
.
-
~ . . _ . . . . . . . . _ . .*9 [Laus,. iter. ]
, ,
. .. . . . . . . . . _-
10 THE WITNESS: Just to verpfy that we previously 'u
.- . _ . . . - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . > .. ... .
11 had discussed this problem of correlation.,
- - - . . . - .-.-..- . - ....- . - _...-.
12 CHAIR!WN ROSENTHAL: ,Let ,the record show that. . . . ~ . . . - . . . . . - . . . . . . = . . .~. . -- .- _ - . . .
fd' 13 Ms. Reinert nodded her head.. . - . . . . . - . . . . . . . _ . . _ . .
'14 THE WITNESS: Decaus.e I r.ealize that this was
. . . _ . . _ . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . _ . . . . . -.. .. .
15 probably going to bacome an issue at this hearing, I have. - . _ . . . . _ . . . . _ . . _ . . . . _ _ . . . . - . . . - . _ . . _ .
*
16 been in cloco contact with the principal investigator'on. _ . - _ . . . . . - . . . _. .- . - -...- . ... .. - .._ _ . . .
17 this report, Mr. Pete Jackson, and he does agree, in fact, i
18 insists, that when he uses -- when Betell aces correlation -
. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . - . . _ _ - . - . . . . . - . . . -- . . . -
19 in this report, they m9an the R-square correlation coefficient- i
20 from your regression..
. . . . . _ ._.. _... _..
21 If you will thumb jqst a ,few pages further back~
i
. .---. _ ..... .. . ... ... ..... -. . . - . . .
?2 in the report to page 41.--. . . . . . _ . _ . . . _ . . . . . . . _
23 DR. JOHNSON: I've been t,here.
{v}24 THE WITNESS: -- you will, find a graph of a
25' linear regression from -- of the data from table 11 corrolating, i
. . . . . . . . . _ . _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . ,
.
.
I hl .. O
,.__ ...
1
411.
-.
n 76 1if you will, cumulativo are production with radon emission.9 .. .
2Now, I should point , cut t,o you -- let?s remember
3 thatthisreportisstamp$d"advancocopy,"there' san^ . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . >
crror in this graph. A -- and if you look you can see
5 byinspectionthatthch'Yeslippedad$cimalpoint--Ashould'6 . . . . _ . . . _ _ . . - . .~ ... ,~ ,...-. . . .., . .. .
~ .
be'0.4, not 0;.'64. 'Plus or minus 0.14. And they list the -
7 next line, T.-squaro whib[t 5sthecorre[ationcoefficient,8 as 0.53.
Again, A am not a at,atistician, but 0.53 doesn'tOI
10 look to' nie to be a very go$d corb$lation coefficient...... .. . ....._. .. . .. .- .. . . .
Il DR. JOHNSOH: I thinJ: the,only statement,
. . . . . . . . . . .
12 l was that it':.5 better than the ore rate --. . . . . . . . . .
'- |,
. - - . .. . -. .. . . . ..
V 13 THE WITNESS: Yea, i.t is,better than either the -
-_ . . ._ _. . . . . . _ . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . .
14. . _ _ . . . . .
ore rate, daily oro producticn, annual ore production,.
,
i
15~
cumulativo U-300 production, wid any of the' other three. . _ . _ . . _ . . . . _ _ _ . . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . _ . . . . .. ..
IG parameters that they tried to perform linear regression on..,
| . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . - . . . .. . . ..
174 DR. JOHMSON: Do yo'; -- c,an you think of any-
_ _ . . . . . . _ _ _ . . _..I8 thing that might reault in the r..laber that we 're dealing ...
{.
._. . . . . .....- . - . . . - _ . . . . . .- ..
10 with here and the number, I bolaeve, is comething like. .
+
. . - _ .. -_... . . . . . . . ..
20 5400 curict.; per AFR RRY in the 1 Cent Betall Report?.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - . .
21 i Why that nnbar might tend to go.17 i,n the near future?_
,
1
, . . _ . . . . - . . . . _ . . . . . . _ . . . . . . _ . . . _ . .. . ...
22 THE WITNESS: I don't 1.hi,nh I indicated that.. _ . - . ... . . . . .. . ..
23 I expected it to go up. Tha question was acked if I expected_
'
.. _ . - . - - _ . _ _
24 it to change?. .. . _ . .. _ _ . .
25 DR. JOHNSON: You sa,id yqa would guarantee it'
. .. . . . . . . .... . .. . . . . . - - - . .
vould change, but I understoed'your 2.nster to be change in.-
. . . . . . . .. .. . ... .s. - - . . . - . . - . . . . . . . _ - . . . . . .
_.__..n
412. .
s.. _.
I the sonse statistical fluctuation. I ata asking -- I have -- -
L7 . . _ _ . _ . _ . . . . . . .. ._ .. . . .
2 my question to you is, can you think of a fundamental reason. _.._..__.. . .. ..- .. . . . . . . . _ . ... . , .
3 why it might tend to increase.' The trend would be to.-....... . - ._.. .. . .- .s . . _ - . - _ . - . . . . .
4 ^ increase?. _ . _ _ . . . . _ _
5 THE WITNESS: Mo, I.cannot.. .._. . _ . . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . . . . . _ .
6 DR. JOIUTSON: Well, ,as ti e mines get older 'and 3l
7 the average cumulative production of each ine would bej0 larger, would it not? /-
, -
9 THE WIT!!ESS: Yes, it would, but at the sa'ne
10 time, as mines -- and there are mines that are reaching the '
_ . . _ . . . . . - _ . - . - _ . . . . . _ . _ _ - . . . . . . - . . _ . .
11 end of their lifeuico right now, as thoaa mines get to the
12 ond of their active lifetime, they drop off the top end of.._.. _ . ____.. _ __- _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . . . - . . _ . .__. ..._._ . ..
';3 the curve, and there are mines that are just new coming into,
a_ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . .
14 production, which start out at the bottom end of the curve i
. . _ . . _ _ . . . . _ . _ . _ . ..._...__.. . .._._ ._..
y; so that for, again on average, for every mine that you
16 lose at the end of a 30-year lifetine which has developed. . . . . . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . . . _ . . . ~ - _ . . . . .
;7 its maximum potential radon release, for everyone of thoso
ja mines that dies at the end of its 30 year '_ifetime, you have. _ - . . . _ _ . _ - - . . . _ . . . . . . - . . . ._. . . . . _ -
;o a new born which is born at zero years lifetime.I
DR. JOIhSchi: l $15, 5 hat. hould be a mature mine20. . _ _ . . . _ - . . - . . . . _ . . . . . ... .
21 society. Is it your opinion we now have a mature mine. . . . . _ . . . . . . . . _ . . - _ . . . . . _ .
d2 cociety, or do we have a developing Line society. I an making. . . . . _ . - . . . .. . .
7,3 up a word or phraca "mine society. " A mature. . . _ _ . . _ _ . _ . . _ _. . . ,. .
, p,a , population of mines with an equilibriun nun? : of comers and. . . . _ . . . _ . . . . . . . . . ._ _ ._
p3 goers?. .. .
.
413,
. . .
jn78 3iTHE WITNESS: I tbc-k it's a good term, and..
- 2
to respond to' that, I would suggest that we look at -- at3
. . . _ . . _ . . _ . . . . . _ . . . . _ . . . . .. ._ _. .. . .
pago 17 of the report. And it appears from the data here. _. . . _ _ _ _ . . . . ... . _ . . .. .. . . . . . . .
that we hwe a mature population. The total number of years.. ____ _ . . . . .- _ . . . . . . .. _ . . . ..
in production, and I am quoting, "The total number of years0
. -_ .-. . . . _ . . . - . _ . . - . . ._... . ..
in production, was reported for 23 months. " Nou, why they -
7_ . . . . . . _ . - _. . _ __._ _ _ ._._ . _ . _ ..
didn't giu the years in production for the other four, I8
don't know. "$1elding a sEmplo average oi 5d years. The9 . _ _ _ _ . _ . . .. . _ _ _ . _ . . . .
valties ranged from two years to ,,29 years. " Now, the combina-10 .. . , _ . .,_ _ _ _ . _. ._ __., ... . .. . . . . _ _ . . . . ,_
tion of those two stateme.nts indicates to me that we do,11 .__ _ . . _ . _ . . . . . . _ . . _ . _ _ . . _.. . . . _ . . .
in fact, have what you have defined as mature production12 . . . _ . . _ . . _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . . . . _ ._ . . _ _ . _ . . . _ . . . . . .
1 uith youngstera and oldsters and middle-aged in between.13, . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ . . . . . . . . _ , . . ..
DR. JOHNSON: Thank you. ,14 . ._. . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . _ _ . . _ . . . _ . . . . . .
On a number of occas, ions you alluded to the15 . ._ . _ _ _ - . . _ . . . . _ . . . _ _ . . . . . . _ . . . . . . .. . .
fact that you re: e net abic to got information from quote,16 . - _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ . . . . . _ . . _ . . _ _ . . . _ _ . . . . _ . . . . . _ .
" Grand Juncbion," unquote, for years subsequent to 1969.
17| ..- - -..__ -... -. __. . . _ _ . . . . ..
i I have two questions,: On_e who is Grandr
18 l' . - . . . . . - . _ _ . . . . . . .- . _.. . - .
! Junction? and, two, why can't the inforamtion be obtained.
10 | .. . . _ . . . _ _ . . . . . . . ._ .. ... .. . . .
} for the purposes to which you're obviously putting it?20 [ . _ . _ . . .. . . . . _ . .._. _ ._ .
: THE ?!ITNESS: Dr. Kop 'ord,, can you give me back
21 | - .- _ _ . - . _ . . _ - . . . - . . -. .. ...
the two reports that I just gave to you?22 .. -..-._-..._ _ ... - ..- . ._-- . . - . .
Thank you., ,
23 - - - - - - - - ---
| Each year, the Grand, Junction Operations Office,24 1 . .-_ . -_. -. -. -- - - -.- .- - - - . - -
- . - -.
I, of DOE putn out a document called "GJO-100 (79)" the paren25 - - . - - - . - _ - - -- -- --... -.
being tha year of issue. The title of this document in. . _ _ . . . _ _ . . . . _ . . . . . .. . . . . _
i.
il .o
.
414 4 -,
--- - .s. .- . ..
jn79. . . .
.I " Statistical' Data.oftheUraniumhndustry." Inthis annual i(r 4 g
compendium, they present all sorts of statistics concerning th 'o. . ~ . . - - .O . _ - . - . . . . . . . . . _ . . . _ _ . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . .
uranium minin$ and milling industrf.-A -
, Grand Junction collepts t,he ' data from the ' mining* * ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ' " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' " * ' " * - * -
i, '
5.
companies in order to put this volu.Te out. The reason that*
!6 Grand Junction is not willing~ to provide me with data post- '
. .u . . . . . . . . .:. _ .... ..--... _-._ ..7 1968 is'2that the companies who preivide their production- - .
. c,.. .. . . . . . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . _ _ . . _ . .. . .. .
I O data to D'OE Grand Junction, not because they.have to, buta.
- -
- . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . .. ..9 because they are cooperating of their own free will with. .
B . . _ .....___._ . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ . _... .
10 Grand Jtuiction. *
._. ,... . .._ ._ _, .
Il They ' consider their prodqction data to be
I2.. .-- . _ . . . . _ . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . - . . .
proprietary informatior., and, therefore, Grand Junction-
. . . - _ . . . . . . _ . . . . . . .. .. _ . . . . . _ . .
Operations Office is unvilling to release to me on an. .
' 13s/
. . . . . . _ . . . . . _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . . . . . . . . . _ . . . .. _ . .
14 individual mine-by-mine tasis., production data.. . . . . . . _
~15_ __._...._.._.._..._...,....m.
Now, the rearon that,ther were willing to pro- i-
.- - - . . . . . _ . . . - . . . . . . - - _ . . . . . . ..
16 vide that same information prior to' 1968, was because at.-
.. ..._. - _.. .._. ._... .. . .... . . . .
17 that time, the Government was t.he solo purchaser of the. . .
i.
18 yellow cake that was produced from the ore, so at that time "
.. _.-..... . ...--...... ..- .........
19 it could not be proprietary info.mation, it was free to. . . . ..
.
. .. :* .
. ... . ....-_ . . . - _ . . . _ . . - . . . _ - . . . - . . . . . _ . . .
ED anyone who wished to have it, but now uranium has become.
'
. . . . . . . . . ......._... ... .. . . .. .
21 a corsodity.on the ope, market,'~ production data is pro-...
. .. .. ....... _. _ . . .. . . . . .._ . . . .
22 prietary.. _ . . . . _ . . .-
. . , ..
. . _ . _ . .
23 How, Grand .7 unction .yas willing and did provide -.
- f) 24. to Betell production da:a, not from individual imine, butw/
. _ . . . , _ . . . . _ . . . . . . . . _ _ . m.. . . . ..
25 from groups of mines. " hat's why that total figure down.......-.w.. .. .. . -. . . - . . . . .
.
.+
,
415. . .
jn80y
.there at the bottom.is just a line. They said, "Here areg . . . . . . . - . . .. . . . .,
- the nines we . surveyed, now you tell us what the total pro- i
3 - - - ~~- -'' - ~-- - ~ - ^ ~ ~ ~
duction was from those 27 mines in 1978." And Grand Junction '
4 - -- --- - - - - - -- -~ -'
did that. But they would not havo given them individual
5 - - - - - - - - - -- -- -- -
production data. The individual production data that appears !
6 *--'~~-------~~---~ ~ - - * * - - - - ' ~ ' - - - ^
in this report was given to Betell, again, as a cooperative-
'
., . . . - . . - . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . - . .
gesture by the mine operators themselves.
g . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..._ . .
DR. JOHNSON: Thank you, ,that's more clear.
9. . . - - . . .. ._. .. . - . . .
The discussion aarly in your answer to
10questions in regard to Mesa Top which you, I believe,
ch.iracterized Es NorS5-cEse $bando[cc[mine situEtion, theseU ~ '
i
are the radon er.[csions b[cdt$se of the elchation between~
12
x . _ . . . . . . _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . . . ..._ _ .. .. ._. . . . .
exist and entrance?~
v
. .. . .... . - - . . . ..,~
To what extent could air , flow through that mine,'- '
L. ._. . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
accurdng that it is abandoned and not being worked?D,
. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . _ . . . .. . . . . . . .
To what extent could that air flow be reduced to either zero '
or a very cma[1 Nuber to thbat the hui.5[ of the radon wouldU '
decay witip)in the mine rather than be enhaled from it?... .
_ , . . - - . . . . - . . . . . . . _ - . . .. . .E
M 'j . - . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . ... ... ..
THE WITNESS: You me,an wh,at could you do --
,O._ . - . . . . _ .. . .... .. . . .
' DR. JOHNSON: Well,,now y,ou plug up the holes. ._ . . . .. . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . . . . . .
21 is what you do, I am asking you how extensive a job is that...3..:,_.-~..-..._..-...-..-.. ... . . .
and why is it not'dgne?.
??-
. . . . . . . . . - - . . _ . . . . .
23 THE WITNESS: Well, ,the r,eason is that i.t's. .- . . . . . . . . - . . .
probably not been done in Mesa Top is the sane answer that..^ 24
,
.. . . . . _ . . , . . . _ . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25 I gave to Ms. Reinert, is that it's still being used as an..______...-_...a__ .. . . . . . . _ . . _ . . . .. .. .
, , .
.
,
416
'
j n'81 1.
.
.; . active ventilation shaft.d(G 2
nR. JOHNSON: I mean,in g,eneral why don't people - 1~
3 . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ...-
3take'a step'of sealing abandoned, underground uranium mines?4 . . . . . . . . . - . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .t
THE WITNESS: I gues,s bec,ause the mining regula-5 _.
. . .. . .._. . . . ._ _ - ..
tions .hav.e,'not really looked at this as a potential6 ~ . . . . . . .. - - - . . - . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....._.. ._. .... ...
. problem where mine regulations call for sealing o'f shafts, *
7 >.
. - - - . . . . - ...... . . ..
. . . . . . - . . . . - . . . - . . '
of entila' tion h' oles, they.have not been strictly enforced. !'v'
a S .. . . . . . - . . . . , . . . . ... .. .. . . . . . . . -.
DR. JOHNSON: And 'th.e sec,ohd part of it, would, *
9 , . . _ - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . .. . . .
this be expensive? Would it be an economic hurden to;........._._.__.._.__. . _ . . . . :10 t
mine operators? %-
11 . . _ . . . - - . . . . . . . . .
.THE WITNESS: My fr.ijnd i,n Grants, Mr. .
'
12 V. -. |-.......................... .
,
..--~
*Rappaports said that he c!.mply filled his ventilation ho1es,13 .' .-.u. . .. . .... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . - . - . . . . - . . . . . . - . -
I think h'e'said they were about 12-inch holes, 16-inch holes. '
14 . . . _ - - . _ . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . ._
5.'his may sound like rather a crude method, he dropped a15 . . ~ . . . . - . . .- - . . - - - . . . - . . . - . ..
telephone pole down +.ne vent hole --,
16 ' " w.m _ _. - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[ Laughter.] i'., ,
17 . -- . ---.... .-
THE WITNESS: -- I'q un' der oath.
18... CHAIRMAN ROSENTHALi,Yps, you're under oath,!
- . . . . . . . _ - . - . . .. . . . _ ..-
19 . . . . _ . . _ _ _ . _ . . - __....... . . - . . . .
2 . . _
but happy for you, what'you're offering is what somebody '
20 . ...- _.~ __.. . -..._... -. .. ., ... ... . . .. ... . . .
.else said. ,
2i. . . THE WITNESS: Droppe.d a telephone pole down a
..-....- .-- -'
. . . . ... . ... . . .. . . . .. . :... .. .-
22.
-This will. provide a M se, and th2n.. . .
.
t
16-inch vent hole.a
23 e...:---------'---.-- . - - - * . - - - - - . . . . -
took a front-end loader and filled.che rest of the hole .
-p.. --. - - . . - . . _ - - - . - - = - - - . - . . - - - - - .24 .
. - - - . . - - - - - - = 'V from wherever the telephone pole was, 150 feet down in"the
- - ' - - - - - - - - - - . - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- -
25 ~ ~ - - . - - - -
rground, to.the surface of the ground with dirt.. . . - - - ~ . . . . . . . . . . - . . _ _ . . - _ . _ . . . _ . . . . . .
.
?.-
417jn82 . .
4~
Or in the case of ti e decline entries for thet i
g ._ . - _ _ . . . . . . .. . . .
Dog and the Flea, he bulkheaded, went back 300 or 400 feet !
., ........- .-.. - _ .. .. .. ... - ...... .. . . . .~
down on the decline, installed a timber bulkhead, then took '
4 '* -~~~~ ~"~"*~~~~~~-"~ ~~ -' * '' '
a front-end loader and filled from there to the surface.' - ~
S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ * * * '~ ~ ~''
So, it's not an erpe.nsive, -- not a difficult~
,-
6 - -~~ '~~ - -" *~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ *~~ ~' ~ ~ ~ * '~
proposition. It can be done. All-you need to do is take a i
7 . . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . __ . ..
i front-end loader, or if you could,give me enough time'and ...
'
g .... _._.. . _ _.... . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . _. . . .
a number.two shovel, I'll do it.
9 . . _ . . . _ . . . . _ . . - - - . . . . .... .. . ...
DR. JOHNSON: Well,,it's.not a matter of doing
10anything but intercepting the airflow?
.
, . . . - . - _ . . . . . . _ . _ . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ ..
THE WIT E S: What? ,.
IADR. JOIbibON: It s o more than putting a damper i
13- on a natural convection a b bed -
14 THEhIbhEhh Ye .
I5 DR. JOHNSON: You.do,n't h, ave to hold back the '
16. . ~ - . . _ . _ . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - _
world or even'hermetrically seal it, all you really want to '
17. u._.._.._..___._._....._._..._._.._-_._.... .. . . . . ..
do is intercept the gross flow of air through -- '
. . . . _ . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . _ . , . . .. _ . . . . . . . . .18 THE WITNESS: That's,-rightc And for those minesi
13 that ficod, the water effectively does that.* . _ _ . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,
DR. JOIHTSON: You ch,aracteri::o your accumption21
. .. . _ . _ . . _ _ . - . . _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .e .
on the fact that a abandoned, underground mine night have''-22 a rolesse ccxp.'.rnble to an active underground mine as
. .._ .. . . . _ .
23. . . _ _ . . . . . . _ _ _ . _ . .. . _ . . _ . . .
a worst case and is very conservativo. What are the air. _ . . _ . . . . _ _ . - _ - _ _ . _ . . _ _ . . . . _ . . . . . _ . . _ _ . .24 change per hour rate typical in an active underground mine?
. .
2S THE WITNESS: probably of, the order of less than. . . . - . . - . . . . . . . - - . _ . . _ . - . - - . . _ . . . . - . . _ . . .
418
I.)n83 an hour residence time, and probably much less than an hour,
2 of the order of half hour.
DR. NOIE[SONI Right., [3 '
THE WITNESS: Th ventilatio[fNnsonthesemines4 '
. . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . .. . . _ . _ _ . . . -
5 aro operat'ing.at ' differential pressures of as much as 18 to
20inchesofwat$r,fanliorschoNerr$gefEomlh0to400-500G
. . _ . . . . - . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . - _ . . _ . _ . _ . . - _ _ . . . . . .. -
7 horsepover fans. , ,
_ . . . . . _ . . . . . _ . .
O DR. JOHNSON: That's,one.end of the spectrum.. . _ . _ .- . . . . . . . _ . . .. .
' It's really the other end of the spectrum that I'm interested. . . . . . . . . . - . - - . . ... .
10 in.
11 In one of these repo,rts,,,I honestly
12 cannot remember which one, although I think it is probably '
. .. . . . .. . . . . . . - _ . . . . .- .. ~ .
13 NUREG-627., it indicates that tho total emission, in terms._ . _... . . . _ . . . .. . . _ . . . . . _ .. . ,
14 of curies .per day or year appeared not to be a function. ._ .. __ ... . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . .
15 ef ventilation rate, at least for minor chames in the........ _ . _ . ... .. _.__. . _.. _..._ .
16 ventilation rate, and my quaculon to you is, is that not
17 what you might expect given that tho halflife of raJion is. . _ . . _ _ . . . . . . . ~ _ . - . . . _ - . . . . . . . _ . . . . .
19 3.0 days.. If the air change rate is as low :.d the order of
......_. _._. .._.._ .. _. . . _ . _ . _ . . . . ._ .. .
19 once per day or once per two days, wvuld you not get virtually. . . . . . . . . . . _ . . _ . . . _ . _ . . . . . . _ . . . . _ _ _ . _ .
20 the same amount of radon out?. _ . . _ . _ _ . . . . . . _ .. .-
21 THE WITNESS: That'q, corr.ect
. ._ - _ . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ .
22 DR. JCHNSON: So tha.t you -- in order to stou. .. _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . .
23 raden emission, you really do have to ste , -- do a fairly
24 decent job of interdicting the airflow?_ . . . - . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . . _ . _ _ . . . . . _ _ _ . . . . .
25 THE WITNESS: Yes. ,, ,
.. ._ _ . . . . . . _ . . . . . _ . . .
May I expand on that,for one moment?- .. .~ _... ....... ._.... .._...-. . . . . . . - . .
419
h84 . ,
1 .I perforned that cal.culation for Mesa Top... . . . . .. .. .. .
2 Assuming a -.I have to go back and check my calculations,_ . . . . . _ . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . ..
3i I think the valua I used was a 1-1/2 cubic .: yards per ton, *'
4. . . . . _ - . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . - - .
anyway, a given volume of space developed per ton of ore. . _ _ _ . . . _ . . _ . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . .. ..
5 mined.
T1kisisjustaccount.ingf,orthe'cre,notaccount-6
... ._ _ . . . . . .. ._ . _.. _ . . . _ . . -
7 ing for waste rock production. And assuming that that is. . . . . . . . . . . _ . . _ . . . . . . _... .. .- .. .
O the mine voltuaa that is being ventilated by Mesa Top. The
9 flow rates that were measured at"the Mosa Top shaft, the
10 hoisting shaft, and at the ventilation shaft, would give~
. . _ . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . . ..... .. ... . . . . ..
11 you air changes of the order of once overy four days of. . . . .. . _ - . .. . . . . .. . .. _ _
12 once about ev'ery halflife of radon. So, that those low,
13 flow rates, half of the radon would ahve decayed on the_. .
14 ground and would never have been releaced in any case. -
'. 5 . . .
. .- ~
l jn 16
._. . . . . . _
1.nd jn :7. . . _ . . . _ . _ _ _ .
p fis ja. . . . - . - .
19
20
21
2.2
23
-.- 34
25
.
jrc 1tape 11 420
, ,
1 DR. JOHUSON: On page 9 of your testimony, thoro is
2 in the first paragraph the revision shous that the PPM of U308
3 on the waste rock incroaces from 250 to 330. But, that the
4 release of radon resulting from this waste rock changes from
5 20 to 10, which is a reduction; can you explain those numbers
G to me?
7 THE WITNESS: I certainly can. The initial number
8 was based on NUREG OG27 of the seven mines that had boon
9 sampled at that time, if I an not mistaken. Botell found
to one mine uhich IV.d a waste pile. There was no waste pile
11 at the other six mines.
12 And, I don't recall whcther the measured or estimated
) ;3 the uranium cancentration of that wasie pile.,
,
34 In the revised NUREG, whatever --
15 DL. JOHUSON: 1237.
16 T!E WITNESS: 1273. They have now found that that
g fi'rst vaste pile that they found was, in their A typical, both
18 with regard no size and with regard to uranium content. They
gg hava now mada come actual maasurements of the concentration
ga of uranium J.1 the vaste and they find that it is higher then
21 they had pra71ously thought. However, on the other hand, they
21 find that th3 typical uasto pile, or the~ average waste pile
23 at a minn la much smaller then they found at that first nine
( 2; that they lcoked at. So, they find smaller wasta piles with
25 alightly hither concentrationc..
''
jr:: 2421
.
1 And, as a result, the not has been to reduce the rocidual
~
_
2 concentration -- or contributions from the wasto.
3 DR. JOHNSON: That explanation is plausible and
4 undorstandahlo; it might well have been included in the tes-,
5 timony. However, when you had numbers changing, one number
6 changed up and the other number looking like it resulted from
7 it going in the other direction, was a little bit confusing
a to the average ronder.
9 TIIE WITUESS: I hope you appreciate that I had from
to 4 o' clock Wednenday until noon Friday to revise this.
tj DR. JOHMSON: Right. On Page 14, of your testimony
12 the first, the paragraph, the first full paragraph on that
13 page, the next to the last contonce says, that it is incon-w
coivable that such n condition could exist in an actual under-24
15 ground mine. And that is the situation in which the exhaust
rate of radon is the same after operation as it is during op-16
eration.37
18But, I think fr:om what you have just told me, at Mesa
Top, the rates are -- I mean the condition is almost Euch that79
half the radon that muld come out during normal operation20
comes out in the abaidoned stage; is that --g
THE WITUE|l!;: That's close, yes,nDR. JOHUEa?!: Whatever that numbor works out to be.g
So, unciar the rinht --24
THE WITNO3S: And, again, I consider that to be a25
.
v
.
jrs 3422
1 near worse case situation.
2 DR. JOHNSON: But, under the -- well, there are
3 mines, as you described, that have aid entry and vertical
4 entry so that with that particular situation, given the
s
5 temperature changes that may occur, it is not totally incon-
6 ceivablo to have radon emissions, at least in the same order
7 of magnitude as you would hav.o in an active mino.
O Slightly different --
9 THE WITNESS: In' conceivable may have been a poor
to choice of words.
11 DR. JOHNSON: Yes. A slightly different subject;
12 and this goes to the -- your estimate of radon emissions from
) 13 unreclaimed open pit mines. And, I think you had reference-
--
pi to table, Roman numerial X, in the Betell report 628, which|
15| is on Page 19 of that report.!
16 j Tile WITNESS: Yes.
|37 | DR. JOHNSON: In this tabulation, the open pit
|
10 mine is refilled with overburden, presumably earth that was
39 dug off of the ore in order to get to the ore, and then it is!
'
20 put back in.
21 And, you also make a correction to the number or there
i
22 in a correction made to the total number fromi on the basis
, . , . of what would be the enission from the natural ground in that. ,
i
g | area. _
Why do you say that the overburden has a uranium content3
,
i
jrs 4 423-
I of 20 parts per million, but that .the ground in the area only
2 has 4 parts por million? It would seem to me that unless the-
3 overburden -- well, the overburden ought to have a uranium
4 content which was sort of typical of the uranium content in
5 the ground in that area.
6 I koop saying, you; I mean the poople in Betoll. You
7 have adopted their number.
8 THE WITNESS: Well, I think -- I spent 20 years
9 out therc in the buciness and I think Botell used the right
10 approach in what they have done here.'
11 As you approach closer and closer to that ore body
12 that you digging toward, you find in ecsonce, what you could/
) 13 call a halo of mineralized material which is higher in uranium,,
14 than the surface soil; yet not as high as the cub ore nor
;3 as the ore.,
16 And, if you will visualizo, if you will, how you open
g up a pit, you take the curface coil out first and it ends up
16 n a pilo over here. Then, you are digging out material that's
ig being -- that'n higher in uranium concentration, piling that
20 on this pile; there is always mixing going on. So, that the
21 total or rather, the average concentration of the overburden
22 pile by the time that you finally get it built, is not the
4 Parts per million that you found at the surface. It is23'
probably comcwhere between there and what your cub ore gradeg4
25 wac. And, when you put that material back into the pit, again||
i
jra 5 424
1' you do a homogenization of the materials, so that you don't-
f 2 end up with 4 parts per million overburden; you end up with
3 something of the order of 20 parts per million ovorburden.
4 DR. JOIINSON: Right. And, therefore, you feel
5 that this choice of numbero comports well with the actual
G practico in the mining region ,-
And in\appropriate.7 TIfE WITNESS:
O UR. J011NSON: All right.
0 You indicate that you have long experience with the
10 uranium mining inductry. I've-asked'you come quantions about
itwhat could be donc to manage -- oh, I have a more specific
13 question then the one I was about to launch into.
33 One of the things that appears from reading the newest
ja Betell report is that one reason that the radon emission per
33 ton of ore vent up this year was that the -- in general --
gg tho oro produchion rate-fron the mines included was down in
the year 1979; in that -- you are frouning; therefore, is37
that a propor characterization?;g
TIIE WITNESS: Cloco, but not quite.gg
20 The production statistico that Botoll got earlier and
used for their savon minos that they reported in 0627, NUREG3;
0627, was obtained from the mine operators themselves. They.,,
| uent to the mino operator and said, what is your production,,m ,
l
24 | in tons of ore par day, and what is the ore grado?
Betell made a mistake in assumption that mines operate25
.!jr: 6425 '
1 365 days a year. They went back to the laboratory and
2 multiplied that production, daily production figuro which
3 they had been given by the mine operator by 365 days.
4 When they went back and asked the question again, they
5 suddenly find out that mines typically do not operate 365-
6 days a year; they operate closer to 250 days per year. So,
7 that really, the production didn't change; Bete 11 had mis-
O calculated the production originally; if you see the point
9 that I am making.
10 DR. JOHUSON: Precisely.
11 TIIE WITNESS: And, had over-estimated what the
12 production would be, which therefore, underestattos the
13 release per RRY..
\
14 DR. JOiINSON: Well, this leads cractly to uhere I.
15 want it to load; and that is when the mines are not operating
16 in appocred that it was common practice the ventilation
17 syntem in operation; is that true or not true?
18 THE WITNESS: That is true.
19 DR. JOHNSOM: Other then it is a good way to burn
20 up electricity, can you give me another reason why they
21 might do that? Let's say they have a 3-day ueekend or just
22 a 2-day weakond; why would they leave the ventilation system
23 in operation over a weekend?
24 THE WITNESS: To maintain the conditions underground
25 cuch that they don't have to wait for 8 hours before they can| i
!
i
jrs 7 426
I sond a man back down Monday morning to start working the mine2 again.
3 DR. JOHNSON: To a certain extent, that was fairly
4 an obvious answer. However, what is to preclude them from
5 turning the blowere on at midnight.on Sunday and to get that,G at least to get 48 hours worth of non-emissions?
7 TIIE WITNESS: Well, as you just pointed out, that
0 really docan't gain you much because you are talking about,9 perhaps, a 2-day shutdown with a 4-day half-life material.
10 So, it in still accuraulated underground and when you turn
11 the fan on, it blows it right out into the atmosphere again.12 DR. JORMSON: Well, but another thing that came
13-
through, and this relates to the correlation between radon
11 emission and total ore production; there seems to be a
15 number of cases in which there were multi-shaft mines, some
16 of the nhafts of which were not -- had been worked-out but
17 were still interconnected to the entire system. And, it
is would appear to me the bulk-heading of those areas would
climinate or reduce at a very low cost, the radon' emissions19 '
20 fron those areas of the mine that are no longer being operat-
21 ed.
22 THE WITNESS: To a large e,xtent, that sort of23 practico is done, not only for the reason that you cite, but
24 to make it easior to controll.tho atmospheroic concentrations|'
of radon daughters for workera who are exposed, because those25
,
_ _. ___
- 427'27/80 in T-11'
I w rked-out areas.which' contribute radon to..the ventilation '
.
rpg.(j 2 - stream also contribute radon daughters |which need to be
.
3 ventilated to keep the working levels for. occupational
4' exposure down.
5 So in many cases in underground miness areas are
6 bulkheaded, are sand-filled, so that they do not continue to
7 be a, a source of radon forever,
8 (Pauso. )
9 DR. JOHNSON: My general question. if you were, as,
.
to a inembe:: of-an NRC group, were suddenly given jurisdiction
11 over the uranium mining industry, as another'NRC' group has
12 recently been giv'esjurisdiction over the milling of, of
(] 13 uranium, do you believe that it would be possible through
14 ronsonable regulatory control to - of the type that we've
15. 'been discussing in here all day relative to milling - do you
16 believo it would .be possible to make a marhei.1 decrease in the
17. amount of rtdon emissions and, from, as a result of the mining
to oporation - and also to bring about conditions that might maku
-19 i- mining operati.on more safe for miners?f
20 You can separate those two if you like - if you,
21 think .-22 - THE. WP.WESS : Does the first part of your question
23' refer to both active and inactive mines?
DR. JOHNMN: Well, let's talk to the first part of. ,G - 24(M
25 the question: would it:be possible to reduce the' radon
:4: >r
jg .
cmi ai x; from activa mining oparction? 420
1 TIIE WITNESS:c In the case of open--
,
a pit mines, I do not believe there 'is'any#hing more than l's''
3 currently be'ing tried with the sequential opening of pits 'and,~
4 and cubsequent backfil'11ng of pits as they're worked out. I
5 don't believe therc's much more th'an that that you can'do for'
G open-pit mines.
7 There might be aome additional bulkheading or sand-
8 filling or sealing of worked-out areas' in underground mines
9 other than what is already being done which might be done.
10 I don't believe the improvement would be, the poten-
11 tial improvement or the possible improvement, would be large.
12 In the case of worked-out mines, refilling a, an
__13 open-pit mine with overbm2 den is no more than a large earth-
14 moving operation. That could easily be done.
15 Scaling of hoisting shafts, ventilation shafts, adit:
'?6 is again a sinple proposition. You can take a frcnt-end loader
17 and drop rock and dirt down that hole until it's level with the
13 ground. If you wish to provide even more or a seal, I recently
19 made astour of the Grants mining area in October, November'of
20 last year, talked with several of the mine operators; and they
21 tell me that they're planning on doing those sorts of things,
22 plus putting a concrete plug at the shaft collar.
23 So it wowId be a fairly simpOe proposition for worked-
'
24 out mines: seal them to the point that radon emissions would
25 he very little more than they were before the mine was opened.
420,,
.
1 In the case of active mines, the same sort 3 'of tnEnfs-
2 that you do to release or to reduce the ultimate total releaso
3 of radon to the atmosphora -- all of those things vould have n-
,.
4 commensurato equ'ivalent offect on reducing worker exposure,
5 since radon is the progenitor or tho parent of the radon
G daughters that you are worried about for the exposure to the .
7 bronchial epithalic.
8 DR. JOHMSON: Thank you very much.
9 I havo no further questions.
10 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Do you have any redirect, Mr.
11 Bordenick?
12 Recross, Mr. Silberg?
I 13 MR. SILDERG: Just onc moment.
14 (Pausc.)
15 RECROSS EXAMINATION
10 DY MR. SILBERG:
17 0 Just one question. Earlier in the cross-examination
10 by Ms. Reinert, you werc asked about the reliability of the
'
19 270-curic-per-year figure on the bottom of page 14; and you
20 said as far as you're concerned, ib's still reliable.
21 Do you still think that that figure is conservatively
22 high, as stated in the testimony?
23 A Yes.
g4 HR. SIL3 ERG: Thank you.
I have no other questions.25
m
______ __ ,
43d
I CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Ms. Reinert?
) 2 MS. REINERT: I'd just like to go into the question
3 of correlation and how iti's defined.
4 (Pause. )
5 When you say there will be a certain number of curies
6 of radon emitted per RRY, are yoQ not assuming that there is a
7 linear relationship between production of ore and curies
8 emitted?'
9 (Pause. )
10 THE WITHESS: No.
g1 MS. REINERT: A different type of relationship? not
12 linear?
(~') 13 THE WITNESS: I am, I am not assuming any sort ofV
14 relationship. I am simply performing a division of one number
15 by another, of a quantity in curies divided by metric tons of
16 U-308.
MS. REINERT: But in terms of, you know how many17 s
18 metric tons of U-308 are required for a reference reactor year,
gg correct?
20 THE WITNESS: I have a figure which I use for that,'
21' YOU*
MS. REINERT: Now if you assumed that more metric22
23 tons of U-308 wore required for a reference voactor year, your
,-_. g curies emitted per reference reactor year would go up propor-t
tionately, wouldn't it? _g
sL. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
431 '
1 TIE WITNESS: Directly proportionally.
2~
' And you don't call that a linearMS. REINERT:
3 relationship?
4 (Pause.)
5 'THE WITNESS: I, I call it a proportionality -- and
6 which I consider to be different than a linear relationship.
7 But I think we're arguing semantics.
8 MS.'REINERT: Well, the reason I'm interested in
9 that in because you defino correclation basically as, in
to layman's terms. If you assume a linear relationship, the
jt degrc< af correlation would tell you he:r;/;likely it is that
12 your actual data will fall on that line. Isn't that correct?
( 13 (Pause. )
g As you assume that there is a certain relationship,
g, straicIht-line; and if you have a good correlation, then most
16 of your actual data will fall along that line. If you have a
37 poor correlation, then most of it will not fall along that
line. Is that what you --- would you agree with that?jg
10 THE WITNESS: If you are referring to correlation
20 n, as I have definsd it, as the correihtion coefficient of a
21 linear regi'ossion -- yes.
MS. REINBRT: I have no further questions.22
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Dr. Kepford?3
DR. . ECCK: " . Mr. Wilde, I notico that --'
24i'
Oh, Mr, Kepford, you have --g
t
432r
I CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Yes, Dr. Kepford.
E DR. BUCK: I'a:sorry.
3 DR. KEPFORD: It's -- it's all right.
'l (Laughter. )
5 DR. KEPFORD: As I recall in an answer to a ques-
6 tion, you were talking about the reduction of, from 20 to 10
7 curies, from some emission -- I guess it had to do with the
8 ore piles? waste piles?
9 In Table C.
10 THE WITNESS: It has to do with.the first paragraph
11 of page 9 of my testimony.
12 DR. IGPFORD: And I think you mentioned.tt had to
13 do uith,.there was one mine that had an atypical, you thought
14 was atypical, out of seven? The pile was atypical? or some-~
15 thing like that.
16 TE WITNESS: What I said was that the, that in the
17 original Detell report the pile of waste rock that Detell
18 found in their survey of seven mines, they in their opinion
to was, after surveying 27 mines, the first one wac atypical.
20 DR. KEPFORD: Okay, I didn't hear the 27; I thought
21 it was one out of seven. I -- okay. It was 27 months.
22 This is an underground mine?
23 TE WITNESS: The second report covers 27 undergroutd
24 mines. The first report covered seven mines.
25 DR. KEPFORD: Fine. No further questions.
I!
I
,
.
433
1 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Let me just ask one questionp)-_ ,
i
2 before Dr.' Buck..
3 That is, this last Betell report is labeled as
4 " Progress Report Number 2." What likelihood is there that a
5 month from now we'll have Prograss Report Number 3, a month
6 from then Progress Report Number 4, and each month your s
7 testimony might be revised -- after the event?,
'8 THE WITNESS: Ah --
9 CHAIRHAN_ROSENTHAL: If you know. I don't know
to whether you --
11 THE WITNESS: To the beat of my knowledge, the next
12 report that will be produced by Botell on this particular
O-s' 13 research project will be the final report.
14 Now,-to what extent that will cover the, the
15 watorfront as far as the percentage of mining opdrations they
16 have sampled I do not know.
37 If. I nay refer you to a paragraph on page 4 of the
ja -report --
19 CHAIRMAN.ROSENTHAL: Page what?
20 THE WITNESS': Page 4 of the report. The second
21~ paragraph on.that page.
22 This defines what they're reporting at this time.
23 We ha#e made'many additional madon measurements not discussed
) -24. in the interim report.- It' is the purpose of this document to
present results of.the study that were not, that were reported25
.
$
?. ~..
434 -%1
11 but notLinterpreted.in the first report and to present the( )
2 results of new measureinents of radon in uranium mine exhausts'"
'3 Although the results reported here add significantly4 to the data base on radon release, this report is not a final
~
,
'. 5 report.
6 Works ~still anticipated includes additional mine'
,
7 sampling.
8 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Yes, I saw that. You --
9 At the present time there's no way of knowing when .
10 that final' report is likely to be rendered -- or at least
11 you don't know.
12 THE WITNESS: No. I, I do not know for a fact.n(,,,) 13 This, this particular piece of research is being conducted
14 through the Office of Research within NRC. I am in the Office
~15 of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, in an -
~
16| CHAIEMAN ROSENTHAL: I appreciate that.
-17 All right. Well, if you don't know the answer,
gg that's --
19 THE WITNESS: I, I, I do not know.
20" CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Dr. Buck?
2g DR. BUCK: That was the question I was going to ask
22 him.
23 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: All right.
f') . -24 Well, I think you may be excused.v-
25- '@"U8**I.
-.-
I I435
j MR. BORDENICK: Mr. Chairman.
2 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Yes.
3 MR. BORDENICK: Before -- this does not involve Mr.
4 Wilde, so he can --
5 CHAIRMMI ROSENTHAL: Mr. ~.Wilde, you may be excused
6 with our thanks.
7 HR. BORDENICK: Before the Board goes on to other
8 matters, I believe Mr. Miller has an outstanding calculation
9 for Dr. Jchnson.
ja CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Yes. Why, I was going to
11 invite the return of Mr. Miller; but before ue did that, I'm
12 assuming that this will be very brief, because all he's been
g3 asked to do is to provide a specific calculation. There may'
be a few questions based on it. The --14
MR. EORDENICK. As far as I know, it should be15
brief.16
CHAIRMAN ROSEWHAL: All right. Well, then theg
question is going to be, where do we go frca here? -- thisyg
evening. W have one witness remaining, and that is the10
Applicants' witness. Dr. Goldman. It's now 5 after 5:00.20
I think the question will be whether we should21
procacd with Dr. Goldmtut this evening, either in the hope ofg
finishing him or at least the hope of getting him far enough23
al ng the road that we would conclude at a reasonable hour24
tomorrow -- I should have said5 instead of " finishing him,"2,5
,
436
1 finiching "with" him, t/nich is what I assume produced the
2 gales of laughter at the Applicants' table.
3 But let's be thinking about that for a minute while
4 we ask Mr. Miller to resume the witness stand.
5 And I an going to be asking the parties, after we
G; finish with Mr. Miller, for some rough estimate as to what
7 they thin 13 their examination time would be on Dr. Gol6 man.
8 All right. New --
0 Ibr. Miller, I take it you have that calculation?
10 MR. MILLER: Yes. I've been asked to -- by Dr.
11 Johnson -- to calculate what fraction of the total volume of
12 tailings generated. Th63 cmount of tailings that I have
( 13 stated in a worst-case could be dispersed from the pile during
14 the operation period.g
15 I've mada that calculation. And'the fraction is
16 .056 percont. That's the fraction in terms of volume or mass' ,
17 In terms of release, because again my assumption
10 was worst-case, I -- and because of Ehe -- that is, because
19 the contenination lies on the very upper surface of the
20 ground, as opposed to having any self-shielding, the fraction
21 of radon release would be 1.3 percent of Ehc radon released
na during that same period of operation and drying out -- that
23 is, the pericd of time over which this dispersed.
24 I'm going to backtrack: that is, the fraction of
25 release from the dispersed material over the releases that
,
.
437
1 would occur from an uncovered pile.i
2 And let no briefly nake two remarks, since I've
3 been asked to expand on this. Let me expand -- or not expand,
4 just repeat -- two points that I made in direct connection
5 with this same argument, on page 25 of my testimony. And
G that is, that this scenario assumes no clean-up and decontam-
7 ination at the end of the mill life that we know will occur.8 And tuo, it assumes no control of dusting during the
o operational period of the mill -- again, which wo know is
to being invoked, is being implemented through license conditions.
11 (Pause.)
12 CHAIPBAN ROSEUTHAL: Are they any questions of --
'
13 DR. JOHNSON: I have no question. Thank you.
g.t CHAIRMJdi ROSENTHAL: All right, Mr. Hiller; you can
3,3 be once again excused with our tanks.
16 The hearing is adjourned for today, to resume at
p7 0:30 tomorrow morning and starting uith Dr. Goldman as the
18 final witnesc.
19 GTnercupon, at 5: 25 o' clock p.m. , the hera-ing was
20 adjourned.)
21
22
23
24
25
,
Related Documents
