ML19280A528
| ML19280A528 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/15/1980 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| RULE-PRM-50-2, TASK-CC, TASK-SE SECY-80-382, NUDOCS 8009110006 | |
| Download: ML19280A528 (75) | |
Text
e UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION August 15, 1980 WASHINGTON, D. C. 2o555 SECY-80-382 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM T_o:
The Commission From:
William J. Dircks, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safe and Sa'equards Thru:
William J. Dircks Acting-Executive Director for 0 a ions
Subject:
DENIAL OE PETITION TO AMEND TABLE S-3 (PRM 51-5)
STATES OF NEW YORK, OHIO, AND WISCONSIN Purcose:
To obtain Commission approval to publish a notice of denial of the petition in the Federal Register (Enclosure A).
Cateoorv:
This paper covers a routine matter requiring Commission consideration.
Discussion:
The State of New York, together with the States of Ohio and Wisconsin, filed a motion before the Commission on December 15, 1978, which has been treated as a petition for rulemaking, proposing that Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.20(e) be amended to include dollar value impacts to account for the commitment of economic resources necessitated by the various nuclear waste activities involved in the uranium fuel cycle.
On September 7, 1978, the Commission published in the Federal Register an advance notice of intent to update WASH-1248, supporting document for Table S-3, 10 CFR 51.20(e), to update the fuel cycle rule to include all environmental effects, except economic costs, associated with the uranium fuel cycle.
The purpose of the'S-3 fuel cycle rule is to address the environmental impacts attribut-able to the uranium fuel cycle in a generic rulemaking proceeding to reduce the burden on the NRC staff, reactor license applicants, and other interested oersons by removing the necessity to relitigata such effects, whicn are not within the applicants' control, in every individual reactor licensing proceecing.
The States proposed that Table S-3 be amended to include also the economic impacts attribut-able to the various nuclear waste management activities involved in the uranium fuel cycle.
With respect to the States' motion, the Commission stated in the Statement of Considerations accomoanying the final rule (Docket RM-50-3) that collar imcacts were outside the scope of S-3, but
Contact:
T. R. Workinger, FCTA 427-4211 8000]Icoog
i 2
2 might be dealt with in a later generic rulemaking.
Accord-ingly, the Commission referred the motion to the staff for treatment as a petition for rulemaking.
The petition was docketed, Docket No. PRM 51-5, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.802, and a notice of petition and request for comments was published on November 14, 1979 in the Federal Register (44 FR 65598).
In response to the notice the Commission received one letter in support of the petition and six letters opposed to it.
In support of this petition, the States made a number of statements justifying consideration of their proposal.
Their main theme was that the impacts of the entire uranium fuel cycle should be quantified in Table S-3, particularly dollar values that will be used or irretriev-ably committed as a result of nuclear waste activities related to the uranium fuel cycle.
They maintain that inclusion of an assessment of nuclear waste management costs in Table S-3 is fundamental to compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, and essential to an accurate balancing of costs and benefits by the Commission as mandated by 10 CFR 51.20(b).
NRC staff responses to the States' justification statements are set out in to the letter to the States' Attorneys General (Enclosure "B").
The attached Federal Register Notice and denial letter point out that the purpose of the S-3 fuel cycle rule is to fix generically, by rulemaking, certain environmental effects attributable to the variety of uranium fuel cycle activities in support of a 1,000 MWe nuclear reactor, which are beyond the control of the license applicant, so that it is not necessary for each applicant and the NRC staff to redefine and litigate these values in every individual reactor licensing proceeding.
It is intended to improve the efficiency of l' censing proceedings since most of the environmental effects of the nuclear fuel cycle can be characterized in relation to typical fuel cycle activities (model facilities).
In this regard, the environmental effects are stated so as to umbrella the range of ettributable values from each segment of the nuclear fuel-cycle and-are quantified in absolute values, r
e.g., acres of land, metric tons of chemicals, curies of radioactivity, that do not vary significantly with time or economic factors.
Thus, even though the Ur.ited States policy on the future disposal of spent fuel is not yet established, nor has a method or site been selected for the disposal of high-level wastes, it was pSssible to generically assess the prospective environmental effects of these activities, based on postulated performance criteria that cover the likely environmental impacts
3 related to the various geologic media being considered as suitable for a high-level waste repository.
In relation to the total environmental impacts attributable to the nuclear fuel cycle, the ecological impacts associated with waste disposal activities are relatively small and therefore do not significantly impact on the benefit-cost analysis.
On the other hand, the economic costs associated with spent fuel disposal vary widely depending on timing and 00E plans that are still evolving.
Thus, such economic costs cannot be expected to remain valid very long and, if included in Table S-3, they would have to be frequently updated by rulemaking proceedings to amend Table S-3.
The necessity to frequently update economic values in the S-3 fuel cycle rule would defeat its purpose--to avoid constant relitigation.
Furthermore, cost data are somewhat regional and site-specific and vary with time; and the applicant has some control over costs by choice of alternatives.
For these reasons, the staff recommends that economic commitments related to the various nuclear waste activities involved in the uranium fuel cycle continue to be addressed on a case-by-case basis and discussed in the applicable sections of environmental reports and environmental impact statements.
Since the applicant and ';he staff both have iccess to current coat data and estimated costs, we believe that the evaluation of the economic costs of power generation and related cost-benefit analyses should be based en current regional or site-specific cost projections, rather than generic values.
Recommendation:
~ hat the Commission:
Acorove the Notice of Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, Docket No. PRM 51-5 (Enclosure A).
Note:
a.
Denial of the petition for rulemaking does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
Accordingly, no environmental impact statement, negative declaration, or environmental impact appraisal need be prepared.
b.
Letters transmitting copies of the Notice of Denial will be sent to the States' Attorneys General, at the same time that the notice is dispatched to the FEDERAL REGISTER for publication (Enclosure B).
c.
The House Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs, Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and Government Operations, and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, will be informed (Enclosure C).
s.
4 d.
No public announcement will be issued.
Coordination:
The offices of Standards Development, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and Administration concur in denial of the States petition to amend Table S-3 to include economic costs related to various nuclear waste management activi-ties.
The Office of the Executive Legal Director has no legal objection.
The Office of Public Affairs concurs that a public announcement is not warranted.
VWilliam J. Discks, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosures:
"A" - Federal Register Notice of Denial of Petition for Rulemaking "B" - Letter to States' Attorneys General, w/ attachments "C" - Oraft Congressional Letters "0" - Motion by States, 12/15'78, Docket No. RM 30-3, PRM 51-5 "E" - Abstracts of Comments RJeivad and Staff Responses "F" - Value/ Impact Statement Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Tuesday, September 2, 1980.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT August 25, 1980, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an Open Meeting during the Week of September 8, 1980.
Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Commission Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time.
DISTRIBUTION Commissioners Comission Staff Offices Exec Dir for Operations ACRS Secretariat
- s i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 51
[0ccket No. PRM-51-5]
States of New York, Ohio, and Wiscensin; Notice of Denial of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Denial of Petition for Rulemaking.
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a motion filed by the States of New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin in Docket No. RM-50-3, on December 15, 1978, which has been treated as a petition for rulemaking and assigned Docket No. PRM-51-5.
A notice of receipt of the petition and request for comments was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on November 14, 1979.
The petitioners requested that the Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data be amended to account for the commitment of economic resources necessitated by the various nuclear waste management activities involved in the uranium fuel cycle.
ADDRESSES:
Copies of the petition for rulemaking and the NRC's letter of denial are available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
1 Enclosure "A"
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
T. R. Workinger, Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 20555,. Telephone:
301-427-4211.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The petitioners proposed that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission amend Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.20(e) to include dollar value im] acts to account for the commitment of economic resources necessitated by the various nuclear waste activities involved in the uranium fuel cycle.
Specifically, the petitioners proposed that Table S-3 include the commitment of economic resources (cost /RRY*) for low-level waste disposal, fuel pool storage, transpor-tation, spent fuel containers, geological repository, and dismantling of the nuclear reactor at the end of its useful life; and proposed a range of values for each of these cost categories.
Basis for Reouest:
The States made several statements to justify consideration of their proposal.
Their main points are summarized below:
1.
Exclusion of economic values from Table S-3 "would not only be contrary to the Commission's statements regarding this reopened proceeding but contrary to the law governing the rulemaking."
" Reference Reactor Year (RRY).
2 Enclosure "A"
2.
The Commission's regulations " acknowledge the need to consider the impacts of reactor operation prior to reactor licensing.... To exclude adverse data would, of course, fatally prejudice the cost-benefit analysis."
3.
The Commission's regulation, 10 CFR S 51.20(e) (1977), states that "the impacts of the entire uranium fuel cycle are to be quantified in Table S-3 and that no further discussion of those impacts is required beyond Table S-3."
Relying on the 1977 rule, the petitioners state that"... inclusion in Table S-3 of economic data relating to the backend of the fuel cycle is mandated..." by this regulation.
The petitioners point out that Table S-3 quantifies various environmen-tal effects, but "does not state how many dollars will be used or irretrievably committed as a result of reactor operation and the fuel cycle activities, such as waste management, which are crucial to the protection of man and his environment." They claim that "the costs which have been omitted (from Table S-3] are unavoidable, direct and quantifiable...." They also claim that the costs of reactor decontamination, decommissioning, and waste disposal are substantial and that exclusion of these costs renders individual cost-benefit analyses for reactor licensing proposals " hopelessly invalid."
4.
"The true cost.s associated with the waste management and fuel reproces-sing portions of the uranium fuel cycle involve the irretrievable commitment of economic resources.
Thus the assessment and inclusion of these costs in Table S-3 are fundamental to ccmpliance with the 3
Enclosure "A"
National Environmental Policy Act, S 102(2)(0) and essential to an accurate balancing of costs and benefits by the Commission as mandated by 10 CFR S 51.20(b)." The Council on Environmental Quality's Guidelines specify that secondary or indirect consequences.should be included in analyses for environmental impact statements.
According to the Guidelines, these effects "may often be even more substantial than the primary effects of the original action itself."
(40 CFR f 1500.8(a)(3)(fi) (1977) Thus "[t] here could be no more appropriate application of this section of the CEQ guidelines than to the economic impacts of waste management activities."
"Present Status of S-3 Rule:
On August 2, 1979, after an extensive proceeding focused on the nuclear waste management and fuel reprocessing parts of the fuel cycle, the Commission pro-mulgated a final rule, 44 FR 45362-45374, which sets out revised impact values in Table S-3.
The impact values in this table differ only slightly from the values in the interim rule.
The final rule also specifies fuel-cycle-related subjects ihat are to be considered in individual licensing preceedings as part of the environmental cost-benefit analysis for a power reactor.
Reouest for Comments on Petition:
A notice of filing of petition for rulemaking was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on November 14, 1979 (44 FR 65598).
The comment period expired January 14, 1980.
Seven letters of comment were received in response 4
Enclosure "A"
to this notice.
One of the letters supported the petition and six letters opposed the petition.
The letter in support of the petition noted, in general, that costs are escalating significantly.
Four of the letters opposing the petition commented on the proposed costs for decommissioning a nuclear power reactor at the end of its useful life.
Two letters addressed the issue of whether reactor decommissioning costs should be considered in the fuel cycle. rule, since the S-3 fuel cycle rule was designed to assess the envir'onmental impact of the~ steps in the fuel cycle external to the reactor site.
Three letters commented that nuclear waste management costs are case-specific, vary with time, and should not be included in the S-3 fuel cycle rule.
One letter commented that the rule is of little practical value unless its elements are both (1) generally applicable (generic) as distinquished from being tied to the individual circumstances of a particular reactor (case-specific), and (2) reasonably stable and predictable over time.
Cost values probably would not remain up to date very long, and thus the necessity to continually update cost values in the rule would defeat the very purpose of establishing it --to avoid constant relitigation of the issues.
A copy of " Abstracts of Comments and Staff Responses:
Proposal that Nuclear Regulatory Commission Amend Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.20(e) to Include the Economic Impacts of Various Waste Management Activities of the Uranium Fuel Cycle-Docket No. PRM 51-5," will be placed in the Commission's Public 5
Enclosure "A"
Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. for public inspection and copying for a fee.
Discussion and Finding:
The decision whether to resolve issues by rulemaking or in individual licensing proceedings, and determination of the scope of a given'rulemaking proceeding, is a matter of Commission discretion.
By itself, Table S-3 does not and is not intended to implement all the requirements of NEPA.
Its pur-pose is to fix generically, by rulemaking proceedings, certain environmental effects attributable to the variety of uranium fuel cycle activities in support of a model 1,000 MWe. nuclear reactor, which are beyond the control of the license applicant, so that it is not necessary for each applicant, other interested persons, and the NRC staff to redefine and litigate these values in every individual reactor licensing proceeding.
Cost data are somewhat regional or site-specific and vary with time; and the applicant has some control over costs by choice of alternatives, e.g., method for waste treatment or method of decommissioning.
Moreover, generic dollar values would be subject to challenge because they may not remain valid for very long, and if included in Table S-3, they would have to be frequently updated by rulemaking proceedings to amend Table S-3.
The necessity to frequently update economic values in the S-3 fuel cycle rule would defeat its purpose--to avoid constant relitigation.
For these reasons, the economic commitments related to the various nuclear waste activities involved in the uranium fuel cycle should continue to be addressed 6
Enclosure "A"
e on a case-by-case basis and discussed in a manner similar to the way all other economic commitments are addressed in the applicable sections of environmental reports and environmental impact statements.
Since the applicant and the staff both have access to current cost data and estildated costs, the evaluation of the economic costs of power generaticn and related cost-benefit analyses in environmental reports and impact statements should be based on current regional or site-specific cost projections, rather than generic values.
Grounds for Denial:
The Commission has given careful consideration to petition for rulemaking PRM 51-5,'and the public comments received thereon, and has decided to deny the petition on the grounds that economic costs related to nuclear waste management activities are too variable to be treated generically and are more appropriately addressed on a case-by-case basis in the same manner as other economic cost data relevant to the evaluation of the cost of generating power.
Not only does the choice among alternative nuclear waste management activities affect the amount of economic resources committed, but the alternative selected is specific to ea::h reactor and is within the license applicant's control.
Since generic cost data are unlikely to remain valid for more than a short period of time, and since appropriate facility-specific data are readily available for use by the applicant, intervenors and the NRC staff, there is little merit in supplying generically derived cost data in Table S-3 for use in the benefit-cost analysis of individual nuclear reactors.
7 Enclosure "A"
Therefore, the Comission hereby denies the petition of the States of New York., Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Dated at Washington, D.C. this day of
, 1980.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Comission 8
Enclosure "A"
Identical Letters Sent to:
The Honorable William J. Brown Attorney General of the State of Ohio The Honorable Bronson C. LaFollette Attorney General of the State of Wisconsin The Honorable Robert Abrams Attorney General of the State of New York
Dear Mr. Attorney General:
This is in response to the motion filed by the State of New York, together
~
with the States of Ohio and Wisconsin, before the Commission in Docket No. RM 50-3, on December 15, 1978, to amend Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.20(e) to include dollar value impacts to account for the commitment of economic resources necessitated by the various nuclear waste management activities involved in the uranium fuel cycle.
The Commission stated in its Statement of Considerations accompanying the final rule that dollar impacts were outside the scope of S-3, but might be dealt with in a later generic rulemaking.
Accordingly, the Commission referred the motion to the staff for treat =ent as a petition for rulemaking.
The petition was docketed, Docket Number PRM 51-5, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.802 to recognize your request for amendment of the Com-mission's regulations.
A notice of the petition and request for comments was published on November 14,19791n the FEDERAL REGISTER. (44 FR 65598).
In response to this notice of the petition and request for comments, the Commission received one letter ~ in support of the petition and six letters opposed to the petition.
In support of this petition, a number of statements were made to justify consideration of your proposal.
The main theme was that the impacts of the entire uranium fuel cycle should be quantified in Table S-3, particularly dollar values that will be used or irretrievably committed as a result of nuclear waste management activities related to the uranium fuel cycle, which are crucial to the protection of man and his environment; and that inclusion of an assessment of nuclear waste management costs in Table S-3 is fundamental to compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)--and essential to an accurate balancing of costs and benefits by the Commission as mandated by 10 CFR 51.20(b).
NRC staff responses to the justification statements are set out in attachment 1.
In summary, the scope of the S-3 fuel cycle rule is a matter of Commission discretion.
By itself, Table S-3 does not and is not intended to implement all the requirements of NEPA.
Its purposs is to fix generically, by rule-making proceedings, certain environmental effects attributaole to the variety of uranium fuel cycle activities in support of a model 1,000 MWe nuclear reactor, which are beyond the control of the license applicant, so that it is Enclosure "B"
2 not necessary for each applicant, other interested persons, and the NRC staff to redefine and litigate these values in every individual reactor licensing proceeding.
Table S-3 is intended to improve the efficiency of licensing proceedings since most of the environmental effects of the nuclear fuel cycle can be characterized in relation to typical fuel cycle activities (model facilities).
In this regard, the environmental effects are stated so as to umbrella the range of attributable values free, each segment of the nuclear fuel cycle, and are quantified in absolute values, e.g., acres of land, metric tons of chemicals, curies of radioactivity released, that do not vary signifi-cantly with time or economic factors.
Thus, even though the United States policy on the future disposal of spent fuel is not yet established, nor has a method or site been selected for the disposal of high-level wastes, it is possible to generically assess the prospective envirornental effects of these activities based on postulated performance criteria that cover the likely environmental impacts related to the various geologic media being considered as suitable for a high-level waste repository.
In relation to the total environmental impacts attributable to the nuclear fuel cycle, the ecological impacts associated with waste disposal act.ivities are relatively small and therefore do not significantly impact on the benefit-cost analysis.
On the other hand, the economic costs associated with spent fuel dispasal vary widely depending on timing and DOE plans that are still evolving.
Thus, such economic costs cannot be expected to remain valid very long and, if inc uded in Table S-3, they would have to be frequently updated by rulemaking proceedings to amend Table S-3.
The necessity to frequently update economic values in the S-3 fuel cycle rule would defeat its purpose--to avoid constant relitigation.
Cost data not only vary with time, but are also regional and site-specific.
In the usual case, the applicant not only has access to current cost data but exercises some control over costs by choice of alternatives.
For these reasons, the Commission believes that Table S-3 should not be amended to include economic costs associated with nuclear waste management activities.
Instead, the economic commitments related to the various nuclear waste activities involved in the uranium fuel cycle should continue to be addressed on a case-by-case basis and discussed in the applicable sections of environmental reports and environment impact statements.
After careful consideration, the Commission has denied your proposal (Docket Number PRM 51-5) on the grounds that economic costs related to nuclear waste management activities are too variable to be treated generically and are more appropriately addressed on a case-by-case basis in the same manner as other economic cost data relevant to the evaluation of the cost of generating power.
Not only does the choice among alternative nuclear waste management activities affect the amount of economic resources committed, but the alternative selected is specific to each reactor and is within the license applicant's control.
Since generic cost data are unlikely to remain valid for more than a short period of time, and since appropriate facility-specific data are readily available for use by the applicant, intervenors and the NRC staff, there is little merit in supplying generically derived cost data in Table S-3 for use in the benefit-cost analysis of individual nuclear reactors.
Enclosure "B"
3 Attached also is a copy of the Federal Register Notice of denial of your petition for rulemaking.
Sincerely, Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission Attachments:
1.
NRC Staff Responses to Petitioners' Justification Statements 2.
Notice of Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Enclosure "B"
s.
ATTACHMENT 1 To ENCLOSURE "B" 4
NRC STAFF RESPONSES TO PETITIONERS' JUSTIFICATION STATEMENTS PRM 51-5
Contact:
T. R. Workinger February 1979 427-4211
INTRODUCTION The States of New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin filed a motion before the Commission on December 15, 1978, which is being treated as a petition for rulemaking, to amend Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.20(e) to include dollar value impacts to account for the commitment of economic resources necessitated by the various nuclear waste activities involved in the uranium fuel cycle.
In support of this petition, the States made a number of statements justifying consideration of this proposal.
Set forth below are the States' justification statements and the NRC staff responses to those statements.
1)
"It is the position of the States that, on the basis of the supplemented record, Table S-3 should be amended to account for the commitment of economic resources necessitated by various waste management activities.*
An exclusion of economic values from Table S-3 would not only be contrary to the Commission's own statements regarding this reopened proceeding, but contrary to the law governing the rulemaking.
As the Court of Appeals stated in NROC v. NRC, suora at 641:
- This motion to amend Table S-3 deals with an issue separate and distinct from the issue of " economic feasibility." ' Economic feasibility is a threshold issue for Commission determination.
In order to promulgate the Table S-3 rule, the Commission must as a preliminary matter determine that the nuclear waste management portion of the fuel cycle, envisf or:ed by staff as a basis for Table S-3, is economically feasible.
(Commission's Order, dated February 9, 1978, and Hearing Board's Memorandum and Order, dated December 23, 1977.)
The States submit-that the record in this proceeding does not support a finding of economic feasibility and that the Table must be rejected.
Moreover, the States submit that the record mandates a finding of economic infeasibility.
See State of New York's Closing Statement (November 17, 1978).
If the Commission should nevertheless accept the Table S-3 rule, the States submit it must be amended in accoroance witn this motion.
2 Decisions to license nuclear reactors which generate large amounts of toxic wastes requiring special isolation from the environment for several centuries are a paradigm of ' irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources' which must receive ' detailed' analysis under S102(2)(c)(v) of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. S4332(C)(v).
We therefore hold that absent effective generic proceedings to consider these issues, they must be dealt with in individual licensing proceedings.
In reaching that determination the Court reasoned that, "once a series of reactors is operating, it is too late to consider whether the waste they generate should have been produced, no matter how costly... reprocessing and waste disposal turn out to be..." id. at 640 (Emphasis supplied)."
STAFF RESPONSE The S-3 fuel cycle rule, by itself, does not and is not intended to implement all the requirements of NEPA.
Its purpose is to fix generically, by rula-making proceedings, certain ecological environmental effects attributable to the variety of nuclear fuel cycle activities in support of a model 1,000 MWe nuclear reactor, which are beyond the control of the license applicant; so that it is not necessary for each applicant, the NRC staff and other interested persons to redefine and litigate these values in every individual reactor licensing proceeding.
The determination of environmental impacts attributable to a number of facilities in the various segments of the nuclear fuel cycle is complex and involves a number of judgments.
Rather than require each applicant to analyze a wide range of data and make judgments as to the environmental impacts attributable to the fuel cycle, these values were determined collectively and generically by a rulemaking proceeding for use by the applicant and the NRC staff in the preparation of environmental reports and environmental impact statements
s 3
A decision whether to resolve issues by rulemaking or in individual licensing proceedings is generally one of discretion, and not of law.
The current fuel cycle rule is not a comprehensive rule dealing with all generic aspects of fuel cycle impacts relevant to licensing reactors.
Those impacts not specifically addressed by values in the S-3 fuel cycle rule, and the significance of the impacts of those values included in' Table S-3, remain open for review in individual reactor licensing proceedings.
They are addressed, as appropriate, in other sections of environmental reports and environmental impact statements.
The S-3 rule was int. ended to determine val'ues for environmental impacts attribut-able to the fuel cycle which are beyond the control of the applicant, and to remove those values from further consideration in individual licensing proceed-ings.
In contrast, cost data included in an EIS for an individual facility vary with time and, to some extent, vary with the choice among alternatives, e.g., method of waste treatment or method of decommissioning, which are facility or site specific.
The Commission believes that evaluations of power generation costs should be based on current regional or site-specific cost projections, rather than on generic values.
Information on current cost data and estimated costs is readily available to the applicant and the staff.
Accordingly, the Commission believes that economic impacts are more appropriately addressed on a case-by-case basis in individual licensing proceedings, rather than on a generic basis in the S-3 rule.
2)
The Commission's regulations acknowledge the need to consider the impacts of reactor operation prior to reactor licensing.
For each nuclear reactor construction permit applTcation, an Environmental Report must be prepared which
~
4
"(b)... shall include a cost-benefit analysis which considers and balances the environmental effects of a facility and the alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects as well as the environmental, economic, technical and other benefits of the facility.
The cost-benefit analysis shall to the fullest extent practicable quantify the various factors considered....
The Environmental Report should contain sufficient data to aid the Commission in its development and independent cost-benefit analysis."
10 CFR S 51.20(b) (1977) (Emphasis supplied).
The regulations further state that
"(d) The information submitted pursuant to paragraphs (a)-(c) of this section should not be confined to data supporting the proposed action, but should include adverse data as well."
10 CFR S 51.20(d)
(1977) (Emphasis suppliec).
To exclude adverse data would, of course, fatally prejudice the cost-benefit analysis.
STAFF RESPONSE As noted above, Commission regulations pr.f de for economic analysis, and i
consideration of adverse data, in environmental reports and environmental impact statements.
The proposed, revised 30 CFR Part 51 includes provisions for an early scoping process whereby the major issues will be determined and then specifically addressed in environmental proceedings.
3)
In terms of the uranium fuel cycle activities which are necessary to support reactor operation and protect man and his environment from reactor wastes, the Commission's rules make special provision:
"(e)
In the Environmental Report required by paragraph (a) for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors,- the contribution of the environmental effects of uranium mining and milling, the production of uranium hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of irradiated fuel, transportation of radioactive materials and management of low level waste and high level wastes related to uranium fuel cycle activities to the environmental costs of licensing the nuclear power reactor, shall be as set forth Attachme,nt 1
5 in the [ Table S-3].
No further discussion of such environmental effects shall be required."
10 CFR 9 51.20(e) '1977) (Emphasis supplied).
Thus, inclusion in Table S-3 of economic data relating to the back-end of
~
the fuel cycle is mandated by the Commission's regulation which states that the impacts of the entire uranium fuel cycle are to be quantified in Table S-3 and that no further discussion of those impacts is required beyond Table S-3.
STAFF RESPONSE There apparently is some confusion regarding the proper interpretation of the S-3 fuel cycle rule.
The S-3 rule addresses only environmental effects, i.e.,
fuel cycle release values, except radon and technetium-99, and such other numerical ecological data that appear explicitly in Table S-3.
Those values not addressed in Table S-3 and the significance of those impacts that do appear in Table S-3, remain open for review in individual licensing proceedings.
Economic data and analysis, which are presented separately in other sections of environmental reports and environmental impact statements, are also reviewed and evaluated in individual licensing proceedings.
4)
Presently, Table S-3 is expressed in terms of the acres of land which will temporarily and permanently be committed as a result of the fuel cycle, the millions of gallons of water to be used, the fossil fuel to be consumed, the quantities of radioactive solids, liquids and gases to be discharged, and the unavoidable man-rem exposure to workers and the general public.
All of these costs, which include those resulting from reprocessing and waste management, are quantified in the Table.
- However, the Table does not state how many dollars will be used or irretrievably committed as a result of reactor operation and the fuel cycle activities, such as waste management, which are crucial to the protection of man and his environment.
Consequently, adverse cost data concerning such activities are not uniformly being placed in environmental reports.
Such is not the case with Table S-4 (10 CFR S 51.20[g][1][1977] which does address the economic " risk" of transportation of fuel and waste to and from reactors.
In the case of Table S-3, the costs which have been omitted are unavoidable, direct and quantifiable; not mere " risks" of operation as are damages from transporta-tion accidents.
6 STAFF RESPONSE Cost data related to spent fuel storage, transport, and disposal or high-level radioactive waste disposal, are addressed in Environmental Impact Statements in the section addressing Fuel Cost-Nuclear.
Costs for low-level radioactive waste disposal are included in reactor operating and maintenance cost projections.
Reactor decommissioning costs are addressed in the section on Decommissioning Cost.
5)
The true costs associated with the waste management and Tuel reprocessing portions of uranium fuel cycle involve the irretrievable commitment of economic resou,rces.
Thus the assessment and inclusion of these costs in Table S-3 are fundamental to compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, S 102(2)(D) and essential to an accurate balancing of costs and benefits by the Commission as mandated by 10 CFR S 51.20(b).
More-over, environmental impact statements require assessment of these costs:
"(ii) Secondary or indirect, as well as primary or direct, consequences for the environment should be included in the analysis.
Many major Federal actions, in particular those that involve the construction or licensing of infrastructure investments (e.g., highways, airports, sewer systems, water resource projects, etc.), stimulate or induce secondary effects in the form of associated investments and changed patterns of social and economic activities.
Such secondary effects,
... through inducing new facilities and activities, or through changes in natural conditions, may often be even more substantial than the primary effects of the original action itself."
40 CFR S 1500.8(a)(3)(11) (1977) (Emphasis supplied).
There could be no more appropriate application of this section of the CEQ guidelines than to the economic impacts of waste management activities.
STAFF RESPONSE As noted in the esponse to the previous comment, the economic impact of waste management activities is considered in the economic analysis of the cost to generate power.
6)
The Commission has made a determination to utilize this generic proceeding to fulfill its duty to ascertain the cost to society necessitated by the
7 production of high and low level wastes through reactor operation, rather than postpone that assessment to litigation in each individual reactor licensing proeeding.
A discussion and assessment of these economic costs is now part of the record of this proceeding through the efforts of the States.
STAFF RESPONSE In this generic proceeding, the NRC committed to consideration of the environmen-tal ecological effects attributable to the back-end of the fuel cycle, not all costs of the fuel cycle.
The Commission has also instituted a rulemaking proceeding on the storage and disposal of nuclear wastes.
The record of that proceeding (Docket No. 50-8), including an update of waste disposal scenarios and related costs, will also be available to the public. Moreover, as final plans evohe and the methods for disposal of spent fuel and other nuclear wastes are defined, the Department of Energy will publish the results of their studies, including the estimated cost related to such plans.
This information is available to reactor license applicants and the NRC staff for use in evaluating the economics of generating power, which is addressed in appropriate sections of the environmental report and environmental impact statement.
7)
The States have presented testimony in this proceeding which indicates that the direct costs of the fuel cycle activities of waste management ---
and fuel reprocessing are extremely significant.
Some of the specific activities within the general headings of fuel reprocessing and waste management categories listed in 10 CFR 6 51.20(e),... which entail significant costs, include:
(1)
Low level waste burial and long term operation of sites; (2) Retrievable spent fuel surface storage facility operations and facility decontamination and decommissioning; (3) Operations of Federal repositories for (a) Disposal and management of high level wastes frcm fuel reprocessing and/or
8 (b) Disposal management of spent fuel; (4) Fuel reprocessing operations and facility decontamination and decommissioning; (5) Reactor operation and reactor decontamination and decommissioning.
(6) Governmental monitoring, surveillance, emergency preparedness, technological research and development for waste management and fuel reprocessing.
For example,... the ultimate cost of reactor decontamination, decommissioning and waste disposal will be in the range of $1.01 to
$3.13 billion for a typical 1,000 MWe light water reactor.
These costs are not, as some might claim, included in " fuel costs."
STAFF RESPONSE Although the costs of waste management activities are not large in relation to the total cost of power generation, they are significant.
Accordingly, we believe the economic analysis should be based on current cost estimates related to the proposed reactor rather than generic costs.
In this regard:
Low-level waste disposal costs are included in the projected reactor operating and maintenance cost estimates.
By choice of alternatives, the applicant has some control over spent fuel storage costs.
These costs are reflected in reactor capital and operating cost estimates, and a portion of su:h costs may be shown as fuel cycle costs for away-from-reactor interim storage pending a decision on the ultimate disposal of spent fuel.
Estimated costs for the disposal of spent fuel or, alternatively, the disposal of high-level wastes in a Federal repository are
9 included in environmental impact statements.
These costs reflect the current 00E cost projection at that point in time.
Except for fuel reprocessing, the DOE cost projections include the items listed in Item 6 of the States' list of activities cited above.
Spent fuel reprocessing cost estimates are included in environmental
, impact statements as an alternative option to the once-through fuel cycle.
Reactor operating costs and decommissioning are addressed in environmental impact statements.
The ultimate decommissioning of a specific reactor, and the related costs, are beyond the scope of the S-3 fuel cycle rule.
8)
It is significant that the General Accounting Office has, after lengthy investigation, stated that the:
"NRC has not paid much attention to one of the biggest problems that may confront the public in the future--that is, who will pay the cost of decommissioning nuclear power reactors.
It has not made any plans or established any requirements for advanced accumulation of funds for decommissioning reactors or any facilities it licenses with the exception of uranium mills." General Accounting Office,
" Cleaning Up the Remains of Nuclear Facilities - A Multibillion Dollar Problem" (EMO-77-46, June 16, 1077).
_Such a cost is but one of the many which are incurred through reactor operation; the costs of protecting the environment from other reactor wastes, such as spent fuel, are likewise substantial.
Exclusion of these costs renders individual cost-benefit analyses for reactor licensing proposals hopelessly invalid.
10 STAFF RESPONSE At the time of applying for a license to operate a nuclear power plant, the applicant must show that he possesses, or has reasonable assurance of obtain-ing, the funds necessary to cover the estimated costs of permanently closing down the facility and maintaining it in a afe condition.
Present NRC regu-lations do not require the applicant to submit decommissioning plans and, in general, no definite plan for decommissioning has been developed.
However, at the end of its useful life, it is expected that the applicant will prepare a proposed decommissioning plan for review by the NRC, which will comply with rules and regulations then in effect.
Estimated costs for decommissioning a nuclear reactor vary from case to case and depend, for the most part, on assumptions as to the level of restoration of the site, which is site-specific.
The decommissioning issue is discus' sed in the environmental impact statement, in the section dealing with the relationship between local short-term uses and long-term productivity.
Table S-3 includes a value for the amount of radioactive material requiring disposal as a result of reactor dccommissioning because that value represents an effect on the ecological environment.
However, the economic cost of decommissioning the reactor does not represent such an effect and consequently, is outside the scope of the S-3 fuel cycle rule.
9)
The purpose of this rulemaking was to develop a thorough record on all the true costs eiaanating from the waste management and reprocessing portions of the fuel cycle, whether they be expressed in terms of acres, gallons or dollars.
The States feel that the testimony of Mr. Skinner has done just that; it deals specifically with the economic burdens and impacts of the reprocessing and waste management portions of the uranium fuel cycle as those portions are envisioned technologically by staff in NUREG-0116 and NUREG-0216 and by the Department of Energy.
11 The inclusion in Table S-3 of the true costs ne 1ssitated by the back-end of the uranium fuel cycle is, as demonstrated above, required by law.
STAFF RESPONSE The premise of the States' argur.ent is ir. correct.
The purpose of the rulemaking was not to consider all costs of waste management and reprocessing, but those environmental ecological values that were included in Table S-3 for waste management and reprocessing.
A decision whether to resolve issues by rulemaking or on a case-by-case basis in individual proceedings, and the determination of the scope of a particular rulemaking proceeding is generally one of discretion and not of law.
The fuel
. cycle economic costs are examined as part of the total power costs in the reactor licensing proceeding and were not intended te be included in the fuel cycle rule.
The testimony of Mr. Skinner notwithstanding, we need not include economic costs in the S-3 rule.
- 10) The states believe the record of this proceeding now clearly indicates Table S-3 must be amended as indicated in Attachment "A" to this Motion so as to account for the significant economic impacts described above.
If the Commission now finds that.the record has not been adequately supplemented so as to enable it to make such a determination, the states then move in the alternative to reopen the : hearings once again to further develop the record for this purpose.
STAFF RESPONSE The Commission has initiated a rulemaking proceeding, Docket No. RM-50-8, on the storage and disposal ti nuclear waste which will further develop and update the record on the commitment of economic resources necessary for waste manage-ment.
Such information will be available for use by applicants and the NRC
12 staff in evaluating the costs to generate power.
Apart from the geological repository and possible changes in land burial requirements, which are not yet defined, the alternative chosen affects the commitment of economic resources for decommissioning and for various waste management activities associated with the back-end of the uranium fuel cycle.
This choice is specific to each facility, is within the applicant's control, need not be included in the fuel cycle rule, and should be left open for evaluation in appropriate sections of the environmental impact statement and for possible litigation in individual reactor licensing proceedings.
m u Chairac-The Honorable Gary Hart, Chairman Regulation Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation it and Public Works Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
ation of the Subcc.7miEcc.losedaforothefiof:armatjopfof the Subcomt Rulemaking to be puol0eniali.oftRet3Ajonaforep]emaking to be put er 5,1979, "; Ex::rBy: letter;datediNovember 6;:1979,f the Subc:
Sta:e of I-
ed that t!3 x; lear,eTheapetitjonerssproposeddthati the Nuclear i If$
d to incluci col 1ar '.alS-3itoa'10sCS 51:20(e)f to include dollar vi
' ^ ~ DOM.g a
w-.
res ource s n e c e s s i ta : e commi tmenta fc economi c3 resources neces s i ta-
~'
~
o involved a :ne nucleamanagementiactivities involved in the nucle cle rule sc: asses dnThef presentl S-3e fuelecyclea rule. addresses (
~
data that ?:mir n lisuch-otheraecologicalEdata3that appear exp
~
na alone, ::
32nirelease ya: lues, standingf alone, do not mear
~Accorcir
- -fuelicycle activitiesi cAccordingly, the Cr e tc deal 1
a therS-3: fuel = cycle. ruleato deal:with all er
- r. r.: :of;the: uranium-fuel cycJeeimpacts relevant
~
cle impact;
- e fuel cyc 3
- s ::Thecpurpose3ofnthecS.-3n fueli cycles rule is -
rium fue' : : '3 '1 attributable-toi thecuranium-fue.1 cycle in i
~
na 1: su
-- - reduce :the-burden: on. the: NRC'staf f, reactot cee m
'dtesWitiE4 p~~~
rem ving 1.
, interested-persons-by" removing the necessi ndinitt' 1icart's c:
eare not.within: the applicant's control, in n
proceeding.
_ra ext that t.
- elt is:within.thisTcontext2that the petitior giggg ecer:pc amended;to: include-the:eroncmic impacts at
== w-
-1::e5 ir:
waste _ man 0gement~activ1tles involved in the
_cep fa, geq o cc
- cs-Except:for-the" geological repository and pc yegu1remenhhiL, a
- ja; requirements which-are not yet defined, th(
' g: # h waste _: management;activ"NThe: alternative. saTec' e The alternative selected is specific to ea, waste management activities affects the an-t
' Aapplicant'st contraIW;f :..
acplicant's control.
The economic costs re 5:
$actiiiftfeifaF5fddisse "
_r activities are addressed, cursuant to 10 Ci Vaf"TenvironmentdWip@%i- -
.$M of enviror. mental reports and environmental t.
$sniilar to andfafangf siailar to and along wita Other economic c:
%.m, hthei' cost.Jof;qen'erating 2
th%N
' 1%M W %
,~l the cost of generating pcwer.
a 1
In support of their petition, the States made a number of statements to justify consideration of their proposal.
Their main theme was that the impacts of the entire uranium fuel cycle should be quantified in Table S-3, particularly dollar values that will be used or irretrievably committed as a result of nuclear waste management activities related to the uranium fuel cycle.
They maintain that inclusion of an assessment of nuclear waste management costs in Table S-3 is fundamental to compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, and essential to an accurate balancing of costs and benefits by the Commission as mandated by 10 CFR 51.20(b).
NRC staff responses to the States' justification statements are set out in to the enclosed letter notifying the States of the denial of petition for rulemaking PRM 51-5.
In summary, the decision whether to resolve issues by rulemaking or in individual licensing proceedings, and determination of the scope of a given rulemaking proceeding, is a matter of Commission discretion.
By itself, Table S-3 does not and is not intended to implement all the requirements of NEPA.
Its purpose is to fix generically, by rulemaking proceedings, certain environmental effects' attributable to the. variety of uranium fuel cycle activities in support of a model 1,000 MWe nuclear reactor, which are beyond the control of the license applicant, so that it is not necessary for each applicant, the NRC staff, and Other interested persons to redefine and litigate these values in every individual reactor licensing proceeding.
It is intended to improve the efficiency of licensing proceedings since nost of the environmental effects of the nuclear fuel cycle can be characterized in relation to typical fuel cycle activities (model facilities).
In this regard, the environmental effects are stated so,as to umbrella the range'of attributable values from each segment of the nuclear fuel cycle, and are quantified in absolute values, e.g., acres of land, metric tons of chemicals, curies of radioactivity released, that do not vary significantly with time or economic factors.
Thus, even though the United States policy on the future disposal of spent fuel is not yet established, nor has a method or site been selected for the disposal of high-level wastes, it is possible to generically assess the prospective envirormental effects of these activities based on postulated performance criteria. hat cover the likely environmental impacts related to the various geolog1: media being considered as suitable for a high-level waste repository.
In relation to the total environmental impacts attributable to the nuclear fuel cycle, the ecolog- __
ical impacts associated with waste disposal activities are relatively smail and therefore do not significantly impact on the benefit-cost analysis.
On the other hand, the economic costs associated with spent fuel disposal vary widely depending on timing and DOE plans that are still evolving.
Thus, such economic costs cannot be expected to remain valid very long and, if included in Table S-3, they would have to be frequently updated by rulemaking proceedings to amend Table S-3.
The necessity to frequently update economic values in the S-3 fuel cycle rule would defeat its purpose--to avoid constant relitigation.
Furthermore, cost data are somewhat regional or site-specific and vary with time, and the applicant has some control over costs by choice of alternatives.
For these reasons, the Commission aelieves that economic commitments related to the various nuclear waste activities involved in the uranium fuel cycle should continue to be addressed on a case-by-case basis and discussed in the applicable sections of environmental reports and environmental impact statements.
Since the applicant and the staff both have access to current ost data and estimated 2
Enclosure "C"
costs, the Commission believes that the evaluation of the economic costs of power generation and related cost-benefit analyses should be based on current regional or site-specific cost projections, rather than generic values.
Seven letters of comment were received in response to the notice of filing of petition for rulemaking published in the Federal Register on November 14, 1979.
One letter supported the petition, and six letters opposed it.
Based upon a careful review, the Commission has denied the petition on the grounds that economic costs related to nuclear waste management activities are too variable to be treated generically and are more appropriately addressed on a case-by-case basis in the same manner as other economic cost data relevant to the evaluation of the cost of generating power.
Not only does the choice among alternative nuclear waste management activities affect the amount of economic resources commited, but the alternative selected is specific to each reactor and is within the license applicant's control.
Since generic cost data are unlikely to remain valid for more than a short period of time, and since appropriate facility-specific data are readily available for use by the applicant, intervenors, and the NRC staff, there is little merit in supplying generically derived cost data in Table S-3 for use in the benefit-cost analysis of individual nuclear reactors.
Sincerely, William J. Dircks, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosures:
1.
Federal Register Notice 2.
Letter to States, w/ attachments cc:
The Honorable Alan Simpson 3
Enclosure "C"
IDENTICAL LETTER SENT TO:
The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515 cc: The Honcrable Steven Symms The Honorable John D. Dingell, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515 cc:
The Honorable Clarence J. Brown The Honorable Toby Moffett, Chairman Subcommittee on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Government Operations United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515 cc:
The Honorable Paul N. McCloskey, Jr.
h.
4 Enclosure "C"
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
Amendment of 10 CFR Part 51
)
Docket No. RM-50-3 Licensing of Production and
)
Utilization Facilities
)
(Environmental Effects of
)
the Uranium Fuel Cycle)
)
MOTION BY THE STATES OF NEW YORK, WISCONSIN AND OHIO FOR THE AMEND-MENT OF TABLE S-3, 10 CFR S 51.20(e)
A.
The States of New York, Wisconsin and Ohio move to amend Table S-3, 10 CFR S 51.20(e), to account for the commitment of economic resources necessitated by the various nuclear waste management activities involved in the uranium fuel' cycle.
This motion is based on the record of the reopened hearing which was forwarded to the Commission by the Hearing Board.
(Hearing Board's Report, dated August 31, 1978).
To provide a background for the substantive discussion of this motion it is appropriate to first review some of the procedural history of this rulemaking.
On August 16, 1978 the Commission announced that it would reopen this rulemaking in response to the specific refusal of the Court of Appeals in NROC v. NRC* to uphold the prior conclusions' of the
^547 F. 2a 633 at 653 (D.C. Cir. 1976), reversed and remanded sub nom.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corocration v. NROC, 435 U.S. 519 (1978).
1 Enclosure "0"
~~
Commission concerning the impacts of fuel reprocessing and waste management as embodied in Table S-3, 10 CFR S 51.20(e).
The Commission announced that it would reopen this rulemaking for the purposes of:
" 1.
Supplementing the record on the reprocessing and waste management issues; and 2.
Determining whether or not on the basis of the supplemented record, Table S-3 of 10 CFR 9 51.20(d) should be amended and, if so, in what respect."
41 Fed. Reg. 34704, at 34708 (August 16, 1976).
Thereafter, a Hearing Board was appointed by the Commission and proceedings commenced.
Pursuant to the procedures adopted by the Hearing Board, the States of New York, Wisconsin and Ohio, full participants in this rule-making, filed certain testimony relating to the economic costs of the relevant fuel cycle activities as well as answers to questions and answers to follow-up questions.
Staff field data, purportedly relevant to the economic feasibility of its reprocessing and waste management model, and answers to questions on that data, and the States filed rebut-tal statements.
In addition the Staff and the State of New York presented oral testimony on these issues on March 28, and 30, 1978.*
"The State of New York's filings in this area include the following:
Statement of Peter N. Skinner on Behalf of the State of New York, dated September 30, 1977 and Errata; Answers to Questions, dated December 2, 1977; Answers to Follow-Up Questions, dated December 30, 1977; Oral Testimony, given March 30, 1978; Written Responses to Hearing Board's Oral Questions, sworn to April 20, 1978; and Rebuttal Statements on Behalf of the State of New York, served May 29, 1978.
2 Enclosure "D"
It is the position of the States that, on the basis of the supplemented record, Table S-3 should be amended to account for tne commitment of economic resources necessitated by various waste manage-ment activities.** An exclusion of economic values from Table S-3 would not only be contrary to the Commission's statements regarding this reopened proceeding, but contrary to the law governing the rulemaking.
As the Court of Appeals stated in NROC v. NRC, suora at 641:
" Decisions to license nuclear reactors which generate large amounts of toxic wastes requiring special isolation from the environment for several centuries are a paradigm of ' irreversible and irretriev-able commitments of resources' which must receive
' detailed' analysis under 5 102(c)(v) of NEPA, 42 U.S.C.
9 4332(C)(v). We therefore hold that absent effective generic proceedings to consider these issues, they must be dealt with an individual licensing proceedings."
In reaching that determination the Court reasoned that,
"[o]nce a series of reactors is operating, it is too late to consider whether the wastes they generate should have been produced, no matter how costly... reprocessing and waste disposal turn out to be..."
,I_d.
at 640 (Emphasis supplied).
- This motion to amend Table S-3' deals with an issue separate and distinct from the issue of " economic feasibility."
Economic feasi-bility is a threshold issue for Commission determination.
In order to promulgate the Table S-3 rule, the Commission must as a preliminary matter determine that the nuclear waste management portion of the fuel cycle envisioned by staff as a basis for Table S-3 is economically feas-ible.
(Commission's Order, dated February 9, 1978, and Hearing Board's Memorandum and Order, dated December 23, 1977).
The States submit that the record in this proceeding does not support a finding of economic feasibility and that the Table must be rejected.
Moreover, the States submit that the record mandates a finding of economic feasibility.
See State of New York's Closing Statement (November 17, 1978).
If the Commission should nevertheless accept the Table S-3 rule, it must be amended in accordance with this motion.
3 Enclosure "0"
The Supreme Court subsequently concurred in that finding.
In holding that the Commission acted within its statutory authority when it considered the back-end of the fuel cycle in individual licensing proceedings, the Supreme Court stated in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation v. NRDC:*
" Vermont Yankee will produce annually well over one hundred pounds of radioactive wastes, some of which will be highly toxic.
The Commission itself, in a pamphlet published by its information office, clearly recognizes that these wastes ' posit the most severe potential health hazard.... ' Fox, Radioactive Wastes, AEC No.18-508, 14-15 (Rev. Ed. 1969).
Many of these substances must be isolated for anywhere from 600 to hundreds of thousands of years.
It is hard to argue that these wastes do not constitute ' adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented,' or that by operating nuclear power plants we are not making
' irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. '
42 U.S.C. 9 4332(2)(C)(fi), (V)."
The Commission's regulations acknowledge the need to consider the impacts of reactor operation prior to reactor licensing.
For each nuclear reactor construction permit application an Environmental Report must be prepared which
"(b)... shall include a cost-benefit analysis which considers and balances the environmental effects of a facility and the alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects as well as the environmental economic, technical and other benefits of the facility.
The cost-benefit analysis shall to the fullest extent practicable quantify the various factors considered.
. The Environmental Report should contain sufficient data to aid the Commission in its development of an independent cost-benefit analysis."
10 CFR 5 51.20 (b) (1977) (Emphasis supplied).
- 435 U.S. 519 (1978) reversing and remanding on other grounds NROC v. NRC 547 F. 2d 633 (0.C. Cir. 1976).
4 Enclosure "0"
The regulations further state that
"(d) The information submitted pursuant to paragraphs (a) - (c) of this section should not be confined to data supporting the proposed action but should include adverse data as well." 10 CFR S 51.20(d)
(1977) (Emphasis supplied).
To exclude adverse data would, of course, fatally prejudice the cost-benefit analysis.
In terms of the uranium fuel cycle activities which are necessary to support reactor operation and protect man and his environ-ment from reactor wastes, the Commission's rule makes special provision:
"(e) In the Environmental Report required by paragraph (a) for light-water cooled nuclear power reactors, the con-tribution of the environmental effects of uranium mining and milling, the production of uranium hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of irradiated fuel, transportation of radioactive materials and management of low level wastes and high level wastes related to uranium fuel cycle activities to the environ-mental costs of licensing the nuclear power reactor, shall be as set forth in the (Table S-3].
No further discussion of such environmental affects shall be reouired." 10 CFR 5 51.20(e) ( M77) (Emphasis supplied).
Thus, inclusion in Table S-3 of economic data relating to the back-end of the fuel cycle is mandated by the Commission's regulation wt.-h states that the impacts of the entire uranium fuel cycle are to be quantified in Table S-3 and that no further discussion of those impacts is required beyond Table S-3.
5 Enclosure "0"
Presently, Table S-3 is expressed in terms of the acres of land which w111 temporarily and permanently be committed as a result of the fuel cycle, the millions of gallons of water to be used, the fossil fuel to be cc.nsumed, the quantities of radioactive solids, liquids and gases to be discharged, and the unavoidable man-rem exposure to workers and the general public.
All of these costs, which include those result-ing from reprocessing and waste management, are quantified in the Table.
However, the Table does not state how many dollars will be used or irretrievably committed as a result of reactor operation and the fuel cycle activities, such as waste management, which are crucial to the protection of man and his environment.
Consequently, adverse cost data concerning such activities are not uniformly being placed in Environmental Reports.
Such is not the case with Table S-4 (10 CFR g 51.20[g][1] [1977]) which does not address the economic " risk" of transportation of fuel and waste to and from reactors.
In the case of Table S-3, the costs which have been omitted are unavoidable, direct and quantifiable; not mere " risks" of operation as are damages from transportation accidents.
The true costs associated with the waste management and fuel reprocessing portions of the uranium fuel cycle involve the irretriev-able commitment of economic resources.
Thus the assessment and inclusion of these costs in Table S-3 are fundamental to compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, s 102(2)(0) and essential to an accurate balancing of costs ar benefits by the Commission as mandated by 10 CFR 6 51.20(b).
Moreover, the Council on Environmental Quality 6
Enclosure "0"
Guidelines on the preparation of environmental impact statements require an assessment of these costs:
"(fi) Secondary or indirect, as well as primary or direct, consequences for the environment should be included in the analysis.
Many major Federal actions, in parthular those that involve the construction or licensing of infrastructure investments (e.g., highways, airports, sewer systems, water resource projects, etc.),
stimulate or induce secondary effects in the form of associated investments and changed patterns of social and economic activities.
Such secondary effects,...
through inducing new facilities and activities, or through changes in natural conditions, may often be even more substantial than the crimary effects of the original action itself." 40 C.F.R. 9 1500.8(a)(3)(ii)
(1977) (Empnasis supplied).
There could be no more appropriate application of this section of the CEQ guidelines than to the economic impacts of waste management activities.
The Commission has made a determination to utilize this generic proceeding to fulfill its duty to ascertain the costs to society necessitated by the production of high and low level wastes through reactor operation, rather than postphone that asse,ssment to litigation in each individual reactor licensing proceeding.
A discussion and assessment of these economic costs is now part of the record of this proceeding through the efforts of the States.
TheStateshavepresente7testimonyinthisproceedingwhich indicates that the direct costs of the fuel cycle activities of waste management and fuel reprocessing are extremely significant.
Some of the 7
Enclosure "D"
specific activities within the general headings of fuel reprocessing and waste management categories listed in 10 CFR $ 51.20(e), which are discussed in the statement of Peter N. Skinner and which entail significant costs, include:
(1) low level waste burial and long term operation of sites; (2) retrievable spent fuel surface storage facility operations and facility decontamination and decommissioning; (3) operations of federal repositories for (a) disposal and management of high level wastes from fuel reprocessing and/or (b) disposal and management of spent fuel; (4) fuel reprocessing operations and facility decontamination and decommissioning; (5) reactor operation 'and reactor decontamination and decommissioning.
(6) governmental monitoring, surveillance, emergency preparedness, technological research and development for waste management and fuel reprocessing.
For example, as Mr. Skinner's written statement indicates, the ultimate cost of r'eactor decontamination, decommissioning and waste disposal will be in the ange of $1.01 to $3.13 billion for a typical 1000 MWe light water reactor.
(See Answers of Peter N. Skinner to Questions, dated December 2, 1977, p. 26).
These costs are not, as some might claim, included in " fuel costs."
It is significant that the-General Accounting Office has, after lengthy investigation, stated that the:
"NRC has not paid much attention to one of the biggest problems that may confront the public in the future--
8 Enclosure "D"
that is, who will pay the cost of decommissioning nuclear power reactors.
It has not made any plans or established any requirements for advanced accumu-lation of funds for decommissioning ceactors or any facilities it licenses with the exception of uranium mills." General Accounting Office, " Cleaning Up the Remains of Nuclear Facilities - A Multibillion Dollar Problem" (840-77-46), June 16, 1977).
Such a cost is but one of the many which are incurred through reactor operation; the costs of protecting the environment from other reactor wastes, such as spent fuel, are likewise substantial.
Exclusion of these costs renders individual cost-benefit analyses for reactor licensing proposals hopelessly invalid.
The purpose of this rulemaking was to develop a thorough record on all the true costs emanating from the waste management and reprocessing portions of the fuel cycle, whether they be expressed in terms of acres, gallons or dollars.
The States feel that the testimony of Mr. Skinner has done just that; it deals specifically with the eco-nomic burdens and impacts of the reprocessing and waste management portions of the uranium fuel cycle as those portions are envisioned technologically by staff in NUREG-0116 and NUREG-0216 and by the Depart-ment of Energy.
The inclusion in Table S-3 of the true costs necessitated by the back-end of the uranium fuel cycle is, as demonstrated above, required bv law.
As noted, the Commission determined that this rulemaking should be reopened to supplement the record on the reprocessing and waste management issues and to determine "whether or not on the basis of the supplemented record Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.20(d) should be amended and, 9
Enclosure "0"
if so, in what respect." 41 Fed. Reg. 34707 at 34708 (August 16, 1976).
The States r elieve the record of this proceeding now clearly indicates that Table S-3 must be amended as indicated in Attachment "A" to this Motion so as to account for the significant economic impacts described above.
If the Commission now finds that the record has not been adequately supplemented so as to enable it to make such a determination, the States then move in the alternative 'ta reopen these hearings once again to further develop the
'-d for this purpose.
CONCLUSION TABLE S-3 MUST BE AMENDED SO AS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE COMMITMENT OF ECONOMIC RESOURCES NECESSITATED BY NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES Dated:
New York, New York December 15, 1978 LOUIS J. LEFK0WITZ Attorney General of the Bronson C. LaFollette State of New York Attorney General,of the 2 World Trade Center State of Wisconsin New York, New York 10047 Tel. No. 212-488-7562.-._.-
PATRICK WAL$H Assistant Attorney General JOHN F. SHEA, III Assistant Attorney General William J. Brown Attorney General of the State of Ohio COLLEEN K. NISSL Assistant Attorney General 10 Enclosure "0"
ATTACHMENT A AMEN 0 MENT OF TABLE S-3 COMMITMENT OF ECONOMIC RESOURCES
- COST COST /RRY (reference CATEGORY (MILLIONS 5) reactor year)
LOW LEVEL WASTE 0.058 - 0.116 OISPOSAL FUEL POOL 0.35 - 2.625 STORAGE TRANSPORTATION 0.525 - 1.75 SPENT FUEL 0.8
- 1.05 CONTAINERS GEOLOGICAL 1.08 - 5.25 REPOSITORY DISMANTLING 6.2
- 27.6**
TOTAL 8.913 - 38.391
- ALL AMOUNTS IN 1977 00LLARS
- ASSUMED REACTOR COST 51.3 BILLION REACTOR LIFE 30 YEARS BUILDING COSTS I.':DEX (BCI) RANGE CONSIDERED 4-8%
RATE-OF-RETURN (ROI) RANGE CONSIDERED 6-10%
NOTE:
TO CALCULATE THE RANGE OF COST /RRY FOR A REACTOR COSTING OTHER THAN THE S1.3 BILLION USED, MULTIPLY THE APPROFRIATE ORIGINAL FACILITY COST IN 1977 00LLARS FIRST BY 0.48% AND THEN BY 2.1%, ENTER COST RANGE INTO TABLE.
11 Enclosure "0"
- 4e?9%
4,O' IMAGE EVALUATION NNNN TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 g m saa 5 *u IH=1 z
=
m l,l h
- llll!==s I.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 4
6" MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART
- 4
+44 Ap f*
- saA<$
%y l////w
- $,y,3 p Ry+
y__
/
o 4>
%e>3&g>
o
/4,NNY, N\\N//F/h Y;> ()$>g,,
'2
///g/ a!*
14 %gy V>&
f 4
imieE evAtoATiOs TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0
'e En EM ll@ 1[E j.I
[m lll!M l.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 e
=
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART
+%
44+ sp$\\
+;[b, > >f7777D/j e
++) gag A
v,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
Amendment of 10 CFR Part 51
)
Docket No. RM-50-3 Licensing of Production and
)
Utilization Facilities
)
(Environmental Effects of
)
the Uranium Fuel Cycle)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies this 15th day of December, 1978, that the Motion By The States For The Amendment Of Table S-3 dated December 15, 1978 was served by first class mail, postage prepaid, on the 15th day of December, 1978, on the following persons:
Michael L. Glaser, Esq., Chairman Dr. Chauncey Kepford Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 433 Orlando Avenue 1150 17th Street, N.W.
State College, Pennsylvania Washington, 0.L.
20036 16801 Dr. John H. Buck Helene Linker and Roger Beers Atomic Safety & Licensing Natural Resources Defense Appeal Board Council, Inc.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2345 Yale Street Washington, D.C.
20055 Palo Alto, California 99306 Mr. R. Beecher Briggs Mr. Marvin J. Lewis 110 Evans Lane 530 Foster Street Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19111 Mr. Samuel Chilk, Secretary James Lieberman, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission James P. Murray, Jr., Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20055 Counsel for the NRC Staff Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20055 12 Enclosure "0"
Judith Johnsrud, Ph.D.
Mr. J. E. Gilleland 433 Orlando Avenue Assistant Manager of Power State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Tennessee Valley Authority Chattanooga, Tennessee 37405 George C. Deptula, Esq.
Gregory Thomas Union of Concerned Scientists Sierra Club 1751 N Street, N. W.
330 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Washington, D.C.
20003 Mr. Ellis T. Cox, Chairman Lawrence P. Jones, Esq.
Committee on Nuclear Fuel Cycle Pacific Legal Foundation Services 1990 "M" Street, N.W.
Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.
Washington, D.C.
20036 7101 Wisconsin Avenue Washington, D.C.
20014 Ms. Dida McMurray, President Environmentalists, Inc.
Vincent V. MacKenzie, Esq.
1339 Sinkler Road Energy Resources Conservation Columbus, South Carolina 29206 and Development Commission 1111 Howe Avenue George C. Freeman, Jr., Esq.
Sacramento, California 95825 Hunton & Williams P.O. Bcx 1535 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Richmond, Virginia 23212-Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Hill, Christopher & Phillips, P.C.
Edward F. Marwick, Esq.
1900 "M" Street, N.W.
5149 Morse Avenue Washington, D.C.
20036 Skokie, Illinois 60076 Mr. Stanley N. Ehrenpreis Dr. Monica E. Bainter PWR Systems Division Department of Physics Westinghouse Electric Corporation University of Wiscoisin P.O. Box 355 Steven Point, Wiscensin 54481 Pittsburg, Pennsylvania 15203 Herbert E. Sanger, Jr.
Dr. Marvin Resnikoff General Counsel 174 West Avenue Division of Law Buffalo, New York 14201 Tennessee Valley Authority 400 Commerce Avenue Bennett Boskey, Esq.
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Volpe, Boskey & Lyons 918 16th Street, N.W.
Michael B. Barr Washington, D.C.
20006 Hunton & Williams 1730 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Honorable Colleen Kaye Nissl Suite 1060 Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C.
20006 Environmental Law Section 30 East Broad Street, 17th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 13 Enclosure "0"
.=
Donald R. Marcucci, Esq.
David Jhirad Westinghouse Electric Corporation Executive Director Monroeville Nuclear Center Union of Concerned Scientists (Bay 564-C) 1208 Massachusetts Avenue P.O. Box 355 Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 Pittsburg, Pennsylvania 15230 Ellyn R. Weiss Docketing and Service Section Sheldon, Harmon & Roisman Office of the Secretary 1025 15th Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 500 Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20005 W. D. Rowe, Ph.D Mr. Austin P. Olney Deputy Assistant Administrator Acting Secretary for Radiation Programs State of Delaware
.(AW-458)
Department of Natural Resources U.S. Environmental Protection
& Environmental Control Agency Edward Tatnall Building Washington, D.C.
20460 Dover, Delaware 19901 Dr. Robert Pohl Joseph 0. Block, Esq.
Department of Physics Executive Vice President-Admin.
Cornell University Consolidated Edison Company Ithaca, New York 14850 of New York, Inc.
4 Irving Place Barton Z. Cowan New York, New York 10003 Eckert, Seamans, Cherin
& Mellott Mr. George D. DeBuchananne 600 Grant Street U.S. G9ological Survey Pittsburg, Pennsylvania 15219 Department of the Interior Reston, Virginia 22092 Patrick Walsh Assistant Attorney General James P. McGranery Department of Justice LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby 114 East, State Capitol-and MacRae Madison, Wisconsin 53702 1757 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Edward J. Sack, Esq.
Law Department Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
4 Irving Place New York, New York 10003 JOHN F. SHEA, III Assistant Attorney General 14 Enclosure "0"
ABSTRACT OF COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSES PROPOSAL THAT NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AMEND TABLE S-3 0F 10 CFR 51.20(e) TO INCLUDE THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF VARIOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE
- DOCKET NO. PRM 51-5
~-
Contact:
T. R. Workinger, FCTA FEBRUARY 1980 427-4211
INTRODUCTION The States of New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin filed a motion before the Commission (Docket No. RM 50-3) on December 15, 1978, which is being treated as a petition for rulemaking (Docket No. PRM 51-5), to amend Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.20(e) to include dollar value impacts to account for the commitment of economic resources necessitat ' by the various nuclear waste management activities involved in the uranium fue1 cycle.
The petitioners propose that Table S-3 be amended to account for significant economic impacts as follows:
COMMITMENT OF ECONOMIC RESOURCES
- Cost Category Cost /RRY (millions $)
~
Low-level waste disposal 0.058 - 0.116 Fuel pool storage 0.35 2.625 Transportation 0.525 - 1.75
-pent fuel containers 0.8 1.05 Geological repository l.08 - 5.25 Dismantling 6.2
- 27.6**
TOTAL 8.913 - 38.391 NOTE:
To calculate the range of cost /RRY for a reactor costing other than the $1.3 billion used, multiply the appropriate original facility cost in 1977 dollars first by 0.48% and then by 2.1%,
enter cost range into table.
"All amounts in 1977 dollars.
- Assumed reactor cost Sl.3 billion; reactor life 30 years; building costs index (BCI) range considered 4%-8%; rate of return (ROI) range considered 6%-10%.
1 Enclosure "E"
A notice of filing of petition for rulemaking was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on-November 14,1979 (44 FR 65593), allowing 60 days for public comments.
Seven letters of comment were received in response to the notice.
Abstracts of the comments and responses by the NRC staff are set forth below.
ABSTRACT OF COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSES 1.
Northeast Utilities Service Company COMMENT:
" Northeast Utilities Service Company (NUSCO) has determined that dollar value impacts are outside the scope of Tabla S-3 and should not be included.
The cost levels of the proposed categories frequently change and will be substan-tially different for each reactor site."
STAFF RESPONSE:
/
The objective of the S-3 fuel cycle rule is to fix, by a rulemaking proceeding,
~
certain environmental impact values to remove the burden from the NRC staff and
~
reactor license applicants of having to define the environmental impacts attrib-utable to the nuclear fuel cycle and to remove such impacts, which are beyond their control, frcm litigat on in each individual reactor licensing proceeding.
For the most part, the reactor licensee can determine the actual costs or cur-rent cost estimates relevant to the various fue ycle activities for his use in evaluating the cost to generate electrical power.
We agree that there is little, # f any, need for the NRC to provide generic cost data in Table S-3 for 2
E :losure "E"
this purpose.
Moreover, to some degree, certain waste disposal costs are within the control of the nuclear reactor operator or are site-specific.
Accordingly, we believe that economic impacts are more appropriately addressed in other sections of the environmental impact statement, and should remain open for review in individual licensing proceedings.
2.
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company COMMENT:
"The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company believes that the cost for decommissioning the model 1,000 MWe light water reactor referenced in the pro-posed amendment to Table S-3 is not appropriate because it does not include all the decommissioning alternatives, it does not reflect actual decommissioning experience chtained, and it does not consider and utilize reliable studies of costs for the decommissioning of nuclear olants.
n a n "In the aforesaid petition, the dollar value commitment of economic resources for dismantling of the plant is tabulated to range from 6.2 to 27.6 million per reference reactor year.
For the postulated 30-fear reactor life this would amount to a total commitment ranging frcm 186 to 828 million 1977 dollars for dismantling.
"It is apparent that the petitioners have overestimated the decommissioning costs by factors ranging from 2 to 10.
"Since the economic commitments for decommissioning are an important factor in the utility decisionmaking process with resoect to the construc+. ion of additional nuclear units, it is important that detailed engineering and economic analysis as noted herein be the foundation of such estimates."
STAFF RESPONSE:
The intent of the S-3 fuel cycle rule is to define, by a generic rulemaking proceeding, certain environmental imoacts attributable to the nuclear fuel cycle 3
Encicsure "E"
that are not within the control of the reactor license applicant; and to remove the need to litigate such impacts in every individual reactor licensing proceeding.
The decommissioning of a reactor is clearly related to a specific reactor, and is outside the scope of the S-3 fuel cycle rule.
For the reasons stated aoove, we agree that decommissioning issues are more appropriately discussed in other sections of the environmental impact statement, and should remain open for review in individtal reactor licensing proceedings.
3.
Washington Public Power Supply System COMMENT:
"We have carefully reviewed the proposed Table S-3 as displayed in the recent FEDERAL REGISTER announcement referenced above.
We find that this item is in error and/or is misleading in two respects.
"First of all, the table refers to only one method of decommissioning (i.e.,
dismantling).
As you well know, there are several other proven methods of decommissioning.
Dismantling is disti'nguished only by being the mest expensive.
If a decommissioning cost is to be included in this table, all the options should be included.
" Secondly, the amount of money set aside in this table for dismantling is grossly in error.
If we understand the somewhat inadequate and cryptic explan-ation correctly, the amount listed in this table is high by a factor ranging from 3 to 10.
This is based on a review of the most credible sources in the literature."
STAFF RESPONSE:
The S-3 fuel cycle rule defines certain environmental impacts attributaole to the nuclear fuel cycle in support of a nuclear reactor.
We agree that decom-missioning is specific to the reactor and is outsice the scope of the S-3 rule.
4 Enclosure "E"
4.
Hunton & Williams, on behalf of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, et al.
COMMENT:
"These companies have consistently supported, and continue to support, the appropriate use of generic rules as adjuncts to specific case analyses in the licensing of individual nuclear power reactors.
It is the view of these companies at this time, however, that the States' petition does not provide an adequate basis for instituting a rulemaking regarding the so called " economic impacts" of the uranium fuel cycle.
" Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, et al., urge dismissal of the States' proposal for rulemaking for the following reasons, which are stated in more detail below:
"First, the scope of the Table S-3 rule (or any equivalent rule) is discretionary with the Commission; the only requirement on the Commission is that matters which must be ruled on in the course of a licensing proceeding be adequately addressed, whether generically or on the facts of specific cases.
Thus, assuming arguendo the need to address economic lmpacts of the type proposed by the States in tne course of licensing proceedings, the Commission is free to choose whether that type of determination is to be done generically or on a case-specific basis.
"Second, the economic impacts being proposed by the States for generic analysis tend to be either so case-specific, or so variable over time, that the viability and durability, and hence the value, of any generic rule proposed to deal with them could ce subject to si'gnificant question.
" Third, because of the ephemeral nature of the economic values being proposed for inclusion in Table S-3, the application of such values in licensing proceed-ings would, in our review, be both inconvenient and vulnerable.
These concerns would apply regardless of whether the values used were those proposed by the States or not, and regardless of whether the economic values were fixed as part of the general update of Table S-3 or were set in a separate rulemaking.
" Finally, the values proposed by the States are based on values proposed by them previously in the context of the Table S-3 proceeding and found, upon review by the staff, other parties and the Hearing Board, to be too high, in some cases by an order of magnitude.
The Commission has already reviewed and accepted these appraisals of the States' proposals in its Statement of Considerations accompanying promulgation of the Table S-3 rule.
"In short, the States have not sustained either the legal or factual burdens which they must meet as proponents of a rule, and the Commission is under no obligation to adopt their proposal in either specific or general terms.
We urge the Commission to deny the States' proposal."
n x x 5
Enclosure "E"
STAFF RESPONSE:
We agree with the four major points made by the comment.
Current cost estimates and actual cost data related to the various fuel cycle activities are available to reactor license applicants.
There is little, if any, need for the NRC to provide generic values for use in evaluating the economics of generating nuclear power.
Moreover, in order to maintain values current, the updating of economic values in a generic rule would require frequent rulemaking proceedings to amend the rule.
Thus, it seems more appr'opriate to discuss economic impacts in other sections of the environmental impact statement, and to leave open for review in individual reactor licensing proceedings the current updated economic values related to the costs of generating electrical power at the proposed site.
COMMENT:
"..., in exercising its discretion the Commission should recognize that a rule is of little practical value unless its elements are both (1) generic, i.e.,
generally applicable as distinguished from being tied to the individual circum-stances of a particular reactor, and (2) reasonably stable and predictable over time.
In this regard, the States, as proponents of the proposed amendment to Table S-3, bear the burden of showing that the elements they seek to have included in the rule are generic and predictable."
STAFF RESPONSE:
The commitment of economic resources to store and dispose of spent fuel at a future geologic repository, to be provided by the Department of Energy (00E),
might be regarded as being generically tied to individual reactors.
Although the United States policy regarding the future disposal of spent fuel is not 6
Enclosure "E"
yet resolved, and the c'ethod and site for the Federal repository for disposal of high-level radioactive waste have not yet been selected, 00E publishes information about its plans and estimated costs for away-from-reactor storage ano spent fuel disposal -as such plans evolve.
These updated scenar,ios and estimated costs are available to license applicants and the NRC staff for use in evaluating power generating costs.
However, such costs vary widely with geologic media, method, and timing assumed for the disposal system.
- Thus, until these waste disposal issues are resolved (regardless of the value or whether the economic value was fixed collectively by a rulemaking proceeding updating the fuel cycle rule) it is not likely that the waste disposal cost issue can be removed from litigation in individual reactor licensing proceed-ings.
Therefore, we believe that the economic commitments related to waste disposal should continue to be addressed in other appropriate sections of the environmental impact statements.
This permits the waste disposal issue to remain open for review of current plans and related costs in individual licensing proceedings.
COMMENT:
"Thus, the only question remaining is whether the Commissiorr, in its discretion, should institute a generic rulemaking leading to the inclusion of ' economic impacts' of the fuel cycle in the S-3 rule.
Until such time as the States, as proponents of the amendment to the S-3 rule, bear the burden of showing convinc-ingly that such economic impacts are (1) generic, (2) stable and predictable, and (3) significant, the Commission should decline the petition for rulemaking."
STAFF RESPONSE:
We agree that economic issues are more appropriately sucjects for ciscussion and review in other sections of the environmental impact statements.
There is 7
Enclosure "E"
little, if any, nem.
c the NRC to provide generic cost values for use by the applicant in evaluating power generation costs, nor is it in the interest of the public as a whole to have issues related to the economic impacts of waste disposal removed from further consideration in individual rcuctor licensing proceedings by incorporating certain generic economic values in the S-3 fuel cycle rule. While not large, these unit cost values have some significance in the benefit-cost analysis, and should be based on the current costs relevant to each individual reactor licensing proceeding.
COMMENT:
"The purpose of establishing the S-3 rule was to reduce the burden on individual license applicants by removing the necessity to relitigate generic environrc. ental issues in every individual proceeding.
The NRC staff has correctly pointed out, however, that many fuel cycle economic costs are either not generic, not predictable, or not significant (44 FR 39801, 39802 (September 7,1978)).
As the staff has noted, varicus important cost elements are included in the reactor's fuel costs, which are considered in individual proceedings; many of these costs, are to some degree within each applicant's control.
Id..
Moreover, a rule purporting to set forth fuel cycle economic costs probably would not remain up to date very long, id.; the necessity to " update" continually such a rapidly changing rule would defeat the very purpo:e of establishing it--to avoid constant relitigation of the issues.
In this regard, it is by no means clear that the States' simplistic proposal to establish automatic ' escalators' of some sort in the rule itself, for a variety of fuel cycle steps involving a variety of public and private endeavors, could be implemented to account adequately for complex cost-function changes over time.
Finally, the States have failed to establish the significance of realistic fuel cycle costs in the overall context of the licensing of a reactor, particularly in view of the Commission's findings of the economic feasibility of fuel cycle facilities."
STAFF RESPONSE:
If the S-3 rule included certain economic impact values which had to be updated frequently at short intervals by a rulemaking proceeding to amend the rule, we 8
Enclosure "E"
mignt as well litigate the economic imoacts in eacn inoivicual proceeding.
Thus, we agree that the econcaic impacts should more accrocriately be discussed in those sections of the environmental statement dealing with fuel cycle costs and the balancing of cenefits and costs.
CCMMENT:
"It should be noted that the most signUicant entry in the States' proposed table of economic impacts is apparently for dismantling anc decommissioning the _ reactor itself.
See States' Petition for Rulemaking, Attachment A; 44 Fed.
Rec. at 65599.
Both tne Hearing Soard and the Co raission in the S-3 proceecing concluced that decommissioning of a reactor is not relevant to an assessment of generic fuel cycle imcacts."
STAFF RESPONSE:
We agree that the economic costs cf decomissioning a reactor are specific to that reactor, and are outside the scope of the fuel cycle rule.
The fuel cycle rule pertains to the environmental i=cacts attributable to the sucply of nuclear fuel and the disposal of nuclear wastes, including the disposal of spent fuel and the discosal of wastes generated by deco.missioning activities.
The S-3 table includes a value that reflects the amount of waste related to the decommis-sioning of a reactor at the end of its useful life.
5.
William J. Scott, Attorney General, State of Illinois CCMMENT:
"The People of the State of Illinois (' Illinois') ::y William J. Scott, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, sucpor:s the Petition of the States of New Yorx, 9
Enclosure "E"
Ohio, and Wisconsin in the above captioned proceeding to include dollar value impacts for nuclear waste management in Table S-3.
" Illinois adds that the table proposed by Petitioners may be low for the following reasons:
"a.
The costs of low-level burial have escalated significantly in the last 18 months; "b.
The costs of decommissioning and long-term care of low-level burial sites is significantly higher than originally anticipated.
Technology, Safety, and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference low-Level Waste Burial Ground (Draft), NUREG CR-0370, and Western New York Nuclear Service Center Study (Volume 2), Section 4.7, U.S. Department of Energy.
"c.
Other facilities within the nuclear fuel cycle will be required to develop plans for assuring the availability of funds for decommissioning.
This may have a significant impact on the cost' of their services.
See R. S. Wood,
' Assuring the Availability of Funds for Oecommissioning Nucleai Facilities,'
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
"d.
The costs of transportation have increased due to the rising costs of fuel."
STAFF RESPONSE:
For the reasons given above, we believe that it would be difficult to arrive at generic values for waste disposal costs that would remain valid very long.
Thus, the S-3 rule would have to be amended by frequent rulemaking proceedings to update economic values if such values were incorporated in the S-3 rule.
Therefore, it seems more appropriate to leave such values open for periodic updating by addressing economic corimitments in other appropriate sections of the environmental impact statament., rather than attempting to fix such values in the S-3 rule.
Furthermore, most of the low-level radioactive waste attributable to the fuel cycle is generated at the reactor.
Current informa-tion about waste disposal costs is available to the license applicants.
10 Enclosure "E"
Accor.lingly, there is little, if any, reason for the NRC to provide generic values in the S-3 rule for use by the licensee in evaluating power generation costs. Moreover, while not large, the costs of waste disposal have some signi-ficance in the benefit-cost analysis and, thus, current costs rather than generic values should be used in this analysis.
ti.
Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.
COMMENT:
"We do not believe it is necessary to include cost items in Table S-3 for the following reasons:
"1.
The costs referred to in the petition are routinely evaluated in individual licensing proceedings.
Such costs must be identified in the Commission NEPA review process.
This is specified in NUREG-0099, Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revision 2, ' Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations,'
and NUREG-0555, ' Environmental Standard Review Plans.'
Environmental reports prepared by the applicants and environmental impact statements prepared by the NRC staff are available to the public.
"2.
Costs itemized in this petition are specific to the operation of each nuclear power system and will vary depending on the alternatives a utility elects to use.
Further, the wide cost ranges shown in the proposed table serve little use.
"3.
Table S-3 was designed to assess the environmental impact of the steps in the fuel cycle.
Operating costs have no place in such considerations.
" Adequate recognition is given to both the costs al.. the benefits in the licenstg process.
The inclusion of the table entitled ' Commitment of Economic Resources' would serve no useful purpose.
11 Enclosure "E"
STAFF RESPONSE:
As noted in the response to the previous comments, we agree that it would be difficult to maintain updated cost information current in the S-3 rule, and other alternative means are available for addressing economic impacts in envi-ronmental impact statements.
Moreover, the purpose of the S-3 rule is to remove the burden of litigating in every reactor licensing proceeding those issues covered by the S-3 rule.
For these reasons, we believe that the benefit-cost analysis should be based on current actual costs rather than generic values, and should remain open for review in individual reactor licensing proceedings.
7.
Debevoise and Liberman, on behalf of the Utility Decommissioning Group COMMENT:
The Utility Decommissioning Group submitted comments on this petition for rulemaking directed to the relationship of the petition to power reactor decommissioning, which are summarized by the following paragraph headings:
"The-. proposed Table S-3 rulemaking would duplicate the ongoing decommissioning rulemaking.
n n n "An interim generic rule is not needed concerning decommissioning costs.
n n n
" Tying capital costs to generic decommissioning costs is unreasonable.
s x x "The term ' dismantling' is inaccurate.
s s a 12 Enclosure "E"
~,
" Decommissioning costs must be more precisely determined.
- * =
STAFF RESPONSE:
We agree that the eventual decommissioning plan is specific to each reactor and is outside the scope of the S-3 rule.
However, the environmental impacts related to the disposal of wastes generated by decommissioning activities, are covered by the S-3 rule.
Since the costs for decommissioning are somewhat specific to each reactor, we believe that the economic commitments related to decommissioning are more appropriately addressed in other sections of the environmental impact statement, rather than addressed generically in the S-3 rule.
13 Enclosure "E"
VALUE/ IMPACT STATEMENT CONCERNING PROPOSAL THAT NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AMEND 10 CFR 51.20(e), TABLE S-3, TO ACCOUNT FOR COMMITMENT OF ECONOMIC RESOURCES.FOR NUCLEAR WASTE ACTIVITIES IN THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE DOCKET NO. PRM S1-5 MARCH 1980 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
FOREWORD
~
This value/ impact statement has been prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards in connection with the response to petition for rulemaking PRM 51-5 filed by the States of New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
The petition proposed that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission amend Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.20(e) to include dollar value impacts to_ account for the commitment of economic resources necessitated by the various nuclear waste activities involved in the uranium fuel cycle.
The petitioners proposed that
. Table S-3 include the commitment of economic resources (cost /RRY) associated with low-level waste disposal, fuel pool storage, transportation, spent fuel containers, geological repository, and dismantling of the nuclear reactor at the end of its useful life.
The petitioners also indicated a range of values for each of the above cost categories, and for their totals.
The petitioners contend that adverse cost data concerning such activities are not uniformly being placed in environmental reports, and none of these economic issues are presently being addressed in individual licensing proceedings.
After consideration of the values and impacts of technicai and procedural matters, this statement concludes:
That economic cast commitments related to nuclear waste management activities should continue to be addressed on a case-by-case basis and discussed in a manner similar to the way all other economic cost data are presented in environmental reports and environmental impact statements; That the commitment of economic resources for various waste management activities associated with the back-end of the uranium fuel cycle are more appropriately discussed, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, in those sections of the environmental reports and environ-mental impact statement that address Nuclear Fuel Costs and Decommissioning Costs in.accordance with:
$51.45(n)(5), any irrevers-ible and irretrievanle commitments of resources; 551.45(c), analysis that be. lances the environmental effects and benefits; taking into consideration 951.45(e), adverse information; and The Commission should deny petition for rulemaking PRM 51-5 on the grounds that there is little, if any, need to supply generically derived cost data in Table S-3 for use in the economic cost evaluation of individual nuclear reactors.
Except for the geo-logical repository and possible changes in land burial requirements, which are not yet defined, the choice of alternatives for decom-missioning and for various waste management activities associated with the back-end of the uranium fuel cycle that affect the amount of economic resources committed is specific to each facility.
Since the alternative selected is specific to each reactor and is within the applicant's control, generic costs for waste management activities need not be included in the fuel cycle rule, and should 1
Enclosure "F"
m be left open for evaluation on a case-by-case basis and discussed in appropriate sections of the environmental impact statement.
This statement is available for public inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC.
Single copies may be obtained by writing to:
John O. Philips Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 VALUE/ IMPACT ANALYSIS 1.
Objective To determine whether to institute a generic rulemaking proceeding to ascertain the true costs to society necessitated by the back-end of the uranium fuel cycle, and to amend Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.20(e) to include the co=mitment of economic resources to protect man and his environment from reactor wastes so that the impacts of the entire uranium fuel cycle are quantified in Table S-3 and no further discussion of those impacts, beyond Table S-3, shall be required in each individual reactor licensing proceeding.
2.
Settina and Backorcund 10 CFR Part 51 sets forth the Nuclear Regulatory Commission policy and procedures for the preparation and processing of environmental impact statements and related documents pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in connection with the Commission's licensing and regulatory activities.
In Subpart B - Facilities, section 51.20 defines what is required in an applicant's Environmental Report - Construction Permit Stage.
This section contains the so-called S-3 fuel cycle rule in paragraph 51.20(e)," which in essence states:
"In the Environmental Report... the contribution of the environ-mental effects of...
(the fuel cycle)... to the environmental costs of licensing the nuclear power reactor, shall be as set forth in Table S-3, Su= mary of Environmental Considerations for Uranium Fuel Cycle.
No further discussion of the environmental effects addressed by the table shall be required...."
Table S-3 is qualified by a footnote at the end of the table that states, "In some cases wnere no entry appears, it is clear from the background documents that the matter was addressed and that, in effect, the table should be read as if a specific zero entry had been mace.
Mcwever, there are otner areas that are nct adcressed at all in the tacle...."
The background documents suoporting this table, " Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle," WASH-12a8, April 1974, and suoplements thereto (NUREG-0116 and NUREG-0216) were not a full environmental review of the uranium fuel cycle.
They were designed to serve "ine properea revision of 10 CFR Part 51 has provision for tne S-3 fuel cycle rule in paragraph 51.51.
2 Enclosure "F"
as a primary data base for ecological effects listed in Table S-3 and not as an analysis of alternatives and costs and benefits of the entire uranium fuel cycle.
Among other things, the background documents do not discuss the commitment of economic resources related to the uranium fuel cycle. Moreover, although the S-3 rule addressed, for the most part, fuel cycle release values, there apparently was some confusion regarding the proper objective of the fuel cycle rule:
at least initially, some apparently interpreted it as cutting off further discussion of all fuel cycle impacts.
Accordingly, as the remanded S-3 rulemaking progressed, participants submitted a substantial amount of public comment and testimony addressing matters not dealt with by the S-3 rule.
Early in the remanded proceeding in the matter of Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts From Spent Fuel Reprocessing and Radioactive Waste, Docket No. RM-50-3, the State of Wisconsin objected to the Hearing Board's Order of November 18, 1977, which sustained certain objections to questions propounded to other parties by Wisconsin that dealt with economic matters.
By Memorandum and Order of December 23, 1977, the Hearing Board overruled Wisconsin's objections, but considered the subject of the economical and technological bases of reprocessing and waste disposal facilities and concluded that a limited amount of cost data should be made available to allow the parties to test the economic feasibility of the reprocessing and waste disposal scenarios.
The Hearing Board stated, however, that this test warranted only a limited inquiry by the parties, and did not require a cost / benefit analysis of any kind.
Accordingly, in order that the parties might have an opportunity to test the economic feasibility of these facilities, they directed the Commission's staff to make available appro-priate data respecting the reprocessing and waste disposal facilities from which the values shown in Table S-3 were derived.
They also allowed witnesses to provide oral testimony on this limited point.
Nevertheless, to clarify and expand the scope of this proceeding, in a joint motion filed January 11, 1978, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin, participants in the fuel cycle rulemaking, asked the Commission to direct the Hearing Board (1) to place on record certain testimony regarding economic costs of waste management and reprocessing which the States believed the Board had excluded; (2) to develop a record which includes a discussion, assessment, and quantification of all the true costs associated with the waste management and reprocessing portions of the uranium fuel cycle for the purpose of amending Table S-3; and (3) to require answers to certain questions concerning economic issues directed to other participants by
~
the State of Wisconsin:
contendhg that adverse cost data concerning such activities are not uniformly being placed in Environmental Reports and none of these economic issues are addressed in individual licensing proceedings.
By Order of February 9, 1978, the Commission denied the motion filed by the States of New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin stating, among other things, that this rulemaking was not intended to encompass a full economic analysis leading to inclusion of economic costs in the uranium fuel cycle rule.
However, economic feasibility is relevant to the question whether the environmental impact values proposed for inclusion in the final fuel cycle rule are realistic.
On August 31, 1978, the Hearing Board submitted a 137 page report to the Commission which summarized the record of the remanded hearing and outlined the significant issues raised by the participants.
Shortly before the Eoard's recommendations were issued, the Commission announced that it would receive participants' written statements commenting on the rulemaking record and the Hearing Board's recommendations.
On September 7, 1978, the Commission published 3
Enclosure "F"
in the Federal Register (43 FR 39801) an advance notice of intent to update WASH-1248 (supporting document for Table S-3, 10 CFR 51.20(e)).
This notice inviicated the Commission's intention to update the fuel cycle rule to include all environmental effects, except economic costs, associated with the uranium fuel cycle.
On October 26, 1978, the Hearir.g Board submitted its Conclusions and Recommendations, which concluded, among other things, that fuel cycle cnsts are examined as part of the total power costs in the reactor licensing proceeding and need not be included in the fuel cycle rule.
On December 18, 1978, the States of New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin filed a motion before the Commission, which is being treated as a petition for rulemaking pursuant to 10 CFR 2.802, that proposes that Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.20(e) be amended to include dollar value impacts to account for the commitment of economic resources necessitated by the various nuclear waste activities involved in the.
uranium fuel cycle.
On August 2, 1979, the Commission promulgated a final rule (44 FR 45362) which sets out revised impact values, specifies fuel cycle related subjects that are to be considered in individual licensing proceedings as part of the environmental cost / benefit analysis for a power reactor,* and noted its intention to conduct a further suoplementary rulemaking to adopt as part of the rule an explanatory narrative addressing the environmental significance of the impact values tabulated in the final rule.
The Commission also noted that it intends to conduct a generic proceeding on storage and disparal of nuclear waste.
The latter will be separate and different in scope and purpose from fuel cycle rulemakings dealing with an S-3 narrative and general update of S-3, but will in part review and update the conclusions regarding waste disposal which have been reached in the remanded S-3 rulemaking.
Although the Commission made cle'ar in promulgating a final rule, and earlier in an order issued February 9, 1978, Docket RM 50-3, that the remanded rulemaking was not intended to encompass a full economic analysis leading to inclusion of economic costs in the uranium fuel cycle rule; the earlier order left open the possibility that the detailed economic costs of the fuel cycle might be dealt with in a later generic rulemaking.
Accordingly, at issue herein is whether the Commission should institute a generic rulemaking, possibly leading to the amendment of Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.20(e) to include economic impacts for nuclear waste management activities along the lines proposed by the States of New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin (PRM 51-5).
"The Commission nas directed the NRC staff to continue presenting in individual proceedings and evaluation of dose commitments and health effects from fuel cycle releases, and economic, socioeconomic, and possible cumulative impacts of fuel cycle activities, as well as such other impacts of the fuel cycle as may reason-ably appear to have a significance for individual reactor licensing sufficient to warrant attention for NEPA purposes.
These matters remain open for litiga-tion in individual proceedings.
The present S-3 rule settles only the question of fuel cycle release values, except for radon and Tc-99 releases, and such other numerical data that appear explicitly in Table S-3.
4 Enclosure "F"
Ot..er rulemaking actions interfacing with the States' petition, PRM 51-5, to amend the S-3 rule are a new 10 CFR Part 60; a new 10 CFR Part 51; a general update of the S-3 rule and Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle; and the waste confidence rulemaking proceeding, Docket No. RM fo-8.
The States of New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin are participants in the waste confidence rulemaking proceeding.
This analysis takes into account the proposed revision of 10 CFR Part 51, with proposed conforming amendments, which reflects the Commission's policy to take account voluntarily, subject to certain conditions, of the new regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA.
3.
Alternatives The present S-3 rule stipulates fuel cycle release values, except for radon and technetium-99, and certain other numerical ecological values that appear explicitly in Table S-3, Summary of Environmental Considerations for Uranium Fuel Cycle.* It also stipulates that no further discussion of the environmental effects addressed by the table shall be required in each individual reactor licensing proceeding.
Its purpose is.to reduce the burden on individual license applicants and the NRC staff by removing the necessity to relitigate generic environmental considerations for the uranium fuel cycle, which are not within the applicant's control, in every individual reactor licensing proceeding.
However, an evaluation of dose commitments and health effects from fuel cycle releases, and economic, socioeconcmic, and possible cumulative impacts of fuel cycle activities, as well as such other impacts as may reasonably appear to have a significance sufficient to warrant attention for NEPA purposes remain open for litigation in individual reactor licensing proceedings.
The dollar value impacts to account for the commitment of economic resources neces-sitated by the various nuclear waste activities of the uranium fuel cycle are specifically addressed in those sections of environmental reports and environ-mental impact statements that discuss reactor operation and maintenance costs, nuclear fuel cost, and decommissioning cost.
This analysis considers two alternatives:
1.
update S-3 fuel cycle rule to include all of the environmental effects, except economic, associated with the uranium fuel cycle, and continue to address economic effects in other appropriate sections of environmental reports and environmental impact statements; and 2.
include economic effects in an updated S-3 fuel cycle rule.
"The proposec revision of 10 CFR Part 51 contains the fuel cycle rule in 551.51.
Environmental Effects of Uranium Fuel Cycle - Table 5-3.
i Enclosure "F"
4.
Value and Imoact The purpose of the S-3 fuu gle rule is to reduce the burden on the NRC staff and individual license applicants by removing the necessity to reliti-gate in every individual reactor licensing proceeding certain generic environmental considerationt related to the uranium fuel cycle that are not within the applicant's control.
The present S-3 fuel cycle rule addresses only fuel cycle release values, except for radon and technetium-99, and such other numerical ecological data that appear explicitly in Table S-3.
The rulemaking record makes clear that effluent release values, standing alone, do not meaningfully convey the significance of fuel cycle activities.
sus, an evaluation of dose commitments and health effects from fuel cycle releases, as well as economic, socioeconomic, and possible cumulative impacts of fuel cycle activities remain open for litigation in individual reactor licensing proce-edings. On September 7, 1978, the Commission published in the Federal Register (43 FR 39801) an Advance Notice of Intent to update WASH-1248 (sup-porting document for Table S-3, 10 CFR 51.20).
This notice indicated the Commission's intention to update the fuel cycle rule to include all of the environmental effects, except economic costs, associated with the uranium fuel cycle.
A generic rulemaking proceeding is required to amend the S-3 fuel cycle rule to include an evaluation of dose commitments and health effects from fuel cycle releases, socioeconomic values, and such other impacts as may reasonably appear to have significance for NEPA purposes.
In response to the Commission's announced intention to update the S-3 fuel cycle rule, the staff has begun a general update of WASH-1248, Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, dealing with all environmental effects, except economic, of the uranium fuel cycle impacts relevant to reactor licensing proceedings.
The Commission also has initiated a rulemaking proceeding (RM 50-8) on the storage and disposal of nuclear waste.
The record compiled in this proceeding, including economic data, will be available for consideration in the general update of the Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle.
It is in this context that the petitioners proposed that the Commission also amend the S-3 fuel cyclc rule to include certain dollar value impacts to account for the commitm et of economic resources necessitated by the various nuclear waste activities involved in the uranium fuel cycle.
Specifically, the petitioners proposed that Table S-3 include the commitment of economic resources,
~
expressed in cost /RRY, associated with low-level waste disposal, fuel pool storage, transportation, spent fuel containers, geologic repository, and the dismantling of the nuclear reactor at the end of its useful life.
To take account voluntarily, subject to certain conditions, of the new regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA, the Commission proposes to revise 10 CFR Part 51.
The new CEQ regulations have certain features that are intended to focus the NEPA process on the important environmental issues and alternatives which are at the heart of the process, and to help improve decision making, to treat briefly peripheral matters which tend to obscure the important issues.
Among others, these features include an early sco:ing process to determine and define the important issues, provisions for incorporation by reference, and provisions for combining documents by tiering.
These features appear to provide alternative procedures for achieving the desired end result of an updated S-3 fuel cycle rule and will be considered relevant to implementing 6
Enclosure "F"
e e
the new CEQ regulations.
The proposed revision of 10 CFR Part 51 provides in paragraph 51.51 for the inclusion of the present S-3 fuel cycle rule.
As noted earlier, t"e purpose of the S-3 fuel cycle rule is to establish by generic rulemaking pro ~ceedings, and thus remove from consideration in individual reactor licensing proceedings, certain environmental effects attributable to the uranium fuel cycle that the applicant and the NRC staff shall use in the benefit-cost analysis related to proposed reactor licensing actions.
Thus, as proposed by the petitioners, an updated S-3 fuel cycle rule that included all environmental effects including economic commitments would:
(1) fix by regulation certain generic economic cost values for nuclear waste management activities to be used by the applicant and the NRC staff in evaluating the cost to generate power, and for use in related benefit-cost analyses; and (2) remove from further consideration in individual reactor licensing proceedings all consideration of the uranium fuel cycle activities and their related environmental effects, including those economic effects defined in the S-3 fuel cycle rule.
The objective of removing all fuel cycle considerations frc.n individual reactor licensing proceeding has merit, but it may not be practical at this time because national policy has not yet been established relevant to the dis-posal of spent fuel or related high-level nuclear waste.
For example, the generic cost estimates and the related generic waste management scenarios are subject to change as national policy evolves.
Thus, the dollar value economic impacts in Table S-3 are subject to challenge unless updated to reflect cur-rent waste disposal plans and related cost estimates.
However, the upcate of Table S-3 values requires a rulemaking proceeding to amend Table 3, which is a somewhat cumbersome, time consuming process.
Therefore, it would be difficult to maintain updated economic values in Table S-3 so as to avoid challenge in individual reactor license proceedings: thus it is not likely that the petit-ioner's proposal would accomplish its intended objective.
Accordingly, the NRC staff believes it would be more appropriate to base evaluations of the cost to generate pcwer and related benefit-cost analyses on current nucler waste management cost estimates in a manner similar to the way all other acono-mic cost data are presented in environmental reports and environmental impact statements and subjected to possible litigation in individual reactor licensing proceedings.
A decision whether to resolve issues by rulemaking or in individual licensing proceedings is one of discretion and not of law.
In this regard, the Hearing Soard in the remanded S-3 rulemaking proceeding concluded that the~~
~
issue of fuel cycle costs should be examined as part of the total power costs in the licensing proceeding and need not be incluced in the fuel cycle rule.
The basic problems with including cost data in a generic rule are (1) they are somewhat regional or site-specific, and (2) they vary with time and therefore have to be updated frequently.
Moreover, for the most part, actual cost data and current estimated costs are ava.lable to tne acolicant.
Therefore, there is little, if any, need to supply generically derived figures for use in the economic cost evaluation of the reactor.
The economic costs of the fuel cycle are summarized in the staff's economic cost analysis contained in the 7
Enclosure "F"
environmental impact statement prepared for each reactor.
These topics are discussed in the sections of the environmental reports and impact statements that address nuclear fuel cost and decommissioning costs.
In general, the pre-sentation of cost data in the environmental impact statement is summarized, rather than broken out in detail.
However, they remain open for review and possible litigation in individual reactor licensing proceedings.
The petitioners proposed certain nuclear waste activities and related ranges of costs for inclusion in an amended S-3 fuel cycle rule.
If generic costs for each of the proposed activities were to be developed in a rulemaking proceeding, they would likely be somewhat different than the values proposed by the petitioners, some higher and some lower, and they would likely change with time. Accordingly, the following discussion focuses on the issues related to the inclusion of cost commitments for certain nuclear waste activ-ities in an amended S-3 fuel cycle rule, as proposed by the petitior.ers, irrespective of the cost values that might be related to the activity.
Low-Level Waste Discosal Most of the low-level radioactive waste shipped to commercial burial grounds from the nuclear power industry comes from the nuclear reactors.
To some extent the licensee has certain control over the amount of low-level radioactive waste that is generated, and thus the cost for its disposal, by the choice of technology used for waste treatment and packaging.
Cost infor-mation related to the transport and disposal of low-level waste at commercial burial grounds is available to the licensee.
The projected costs for treat-ment, packaging, and disposal of low-level waste are included in the projected operating and maintenance costs for each reactor.
The low-level waste dis-posal costs associated with fuel cycle activities, which are a relatively small amount compared to the amount generated by the reactor, are included in the cost of the nuclear fuel.
Accordingly, there is little, if any, need to develop generic cost data on low-level waste disposal for the licensee's use in evaluating nuclear power costs.
Fuel Pool Storace At present there is uncertainty aoout timing and the method that will be used to eventually dispose of spent nuclear reactor fuel.
However, the Depart-ment of Energy has made a number of studies and has published the results of various analyses related to likely scenarios, time schedules, and cost esti-mates for resolving the spent fuel storage and disposal problem, including generic cost estimates for various away-from-reactor spent fuel storage scen-arios.
Using such information, a licensee can make a judgment to provide onsite storage capability for a certain quantity of spent fuel, and arrive at a reasonable estimate for spent fuel storage costs to be used in estimating the cost of generating power.
Accordingly, there is little, if any, med for the NRC to develop generic cost data related to spent fuel storage costs for the licensee's use in evaluating nuclear power costs.
Transcortation The cost of transporting spent fuel varies somewhat with the mode of transport (rail, truck, barge, or combination) and the distance.
For the most 8
Enclosure "F"
part, these factors are site-specific.
Cask rental and shipping cost information is available to the licensee.
Accordingly, there is little, if any, need to develop generic cost data on spent fuel transport costs for the licensee's use in evaluating nuclear power costs.
Soent Fuel Containers and Geologic Recository Although many proposals have been put forth, the method or met.*ods which will finally be used for high-level radioactive waste disposal are as yet unselected.
In May 1979, the U.S. Department of Energy published DOE /ET-0028, Technology for Commercial Radioactive Waste Management, which presents the resul+5 cf studies and related cost estimates pertaining to alternative scenarios for the disposal of spent fuel in various geological media.
The total system costs are somewhat sensitive to certain assumptions such as discount rate, timing, and requirements for retrievability.
However, the results of the above cost analysis indicate that the total system unit costs for management of spent fuel are likely to fall within the ranges of 0.7 to 1 mill /kWh in equivalent 1978 constant dollar power costs.*
The proposed new regulation 10 CFR Part 60, Disposal of High-Level Radio-active Wastes in Geologic Repositories:
Subpart E - Technical Criteria, proposes, among other things, that the option to retrieve spent fuel remain open during the entire operating period and for a period of 50 years after the end of the repository's operating period.
This differs somewhat from the assumptions upon which the above cost estimates were based.
Thus, it is likely that the current proceeding on the storage and disposal of nuclea'r waste will focus, in part, on updated scenarios for disposal of spent fuel and their associated costs.
Generic cost data for spent fuel disposal, developed during the course of this proceeding, could be used by licensees in evaluating power generating costs.
Di nantlina of the Reactor f
At the time of applying for a license to operate a nuclear power plant, the applicant must show that he possesses, or has reastnable assurance of obtaining, the funds necessary to cover the estimated costs of permanently closing the facility down and maintaining it in a safe condition.
Present NRC regulations do not require the applicant to submit decommissioning plans and, in general, no definite plan for decommissioning has been developed.
However, at the end of its useful life, it is expected that the applicant will prepare a proposed decommissioning plan for review by the NRC, which will comply with rules and regulations then in effect.
Estimated costs for decom-missioning a nuclear reactor vary frcm case to case and depend, for the most part, on assumptions as to the level of restoration of the site, which is site specific.
" Total system unit costs include interim storage, packaging, transportation, and disposal in a geological repository.
The unit cost of interim storage and transportation, included in the total system unit costs, amounts to about 0.4 mill /kWh.
9 Enclosure "F"
The decommissioning issue is discussed in the environmental impact statement, in the section dealing with the relationship between local short-term uses and long-term productivity.
Table S-3 includes a value for the amount of radioactive material requiring disposal as a result of reactor decom-missioning.
However, the cost of decommissioning the reactor is site-specific and is clearly outside the scope of the fuel cycle and, thus, it would seem inappropriate to include the economic commitAnts related to reactor decom-missioning in any update of the S-3 fuel cycle rule.
Consideration of reactor decommissioning alternatives should remain open for review in individual reactor proceedings.
5.
Soecification of Criteria The history of S-3 rulemaking suggests that the basis for developing generic values exists when the issues are complex, or involve a number of-facilities that are not within the control of the applicant, and where the basis for judgments involves a number of assumptions relevant to a wide range of data to characterize the nuclear fuel cycle activities and their environ-mental affects, such that if left tc each applicant's judgments the assessment of environamntal effects attributable to the uranium fuel cycle could result in a wide range of values.
Accordingly, rather than place this burden on each aoplicant in individual reactor licensing proceedings, and to mitigate such differences in judgments between the applicant and tne NRC staff, it was decided to arrive at representative environmental impacts that umbrella the nuclear fuel cycle generically via a rulemaking proceeding.
Since most of the environmental effects of the nuclear fuel cycle can be characterized in rela-tion to typical fuel cycle activities (model facilities), they a e stated so as to umbrella the range of attributable values from each segment of the nuclear fuel cycle.
Moreover, most values are quantified in absolute values e.g., acres of land, curies of radioactivity released, that do not vary signi-ficantly with time.
Similarily, for facilities that do not yet exist, such as facilities for away-from-reactor spent fuel storage and the final disposal of spent fuel or related high-level radioactive wastes, the prospective environ-mental impacts can be assessed generically and included in the S-3 rule based on the proposed performance objectives for such facilities.
That is, attributable generic imoacts were postulated based on spent fuel handling and storage experience, or postulated so as to cover tne likely impacts related to the various geologic media being considered as suitable for a high-level
~
radioactive waste repository.
In relation to the total environmental impact attributable to the nuclear fuel cycle, the ecological impacts associated with spent fuel storage and dis-posal are relatively small and therefore do not significantly impact on the benefit-cose analysis.
On the other hand, the economic impacts associated with the dispusal of spent fuel, while not large, are significant and vary widely depending ucon the method for disposal.
Moreover, values placed in the S-3 rule that vary with time or plans that are still evolving, such as the economic costs related to spent fuel discosal, do not remain valid very long and would have to be updated frequently by rulemaking proceedings to amend the rule.
Accordingly, such values are best left open for updating and evaluation in individual reactor licensing croceedings, rather than updated by frequent rulemaking proceedings.
10 Enclosure "F"
6.
Conclusions and Recommendations A decision whether to include economic values in the generic fuel cycle rule is one of discretion and not of law.
Except for costs associated with the future disposal of spent fuel, actual cost data or current cost estimates are available to the reactor license applicant to account for the commitment of economic resources neces:,itated by the various nuclear waste activities involved in the uranium fuel cycle.
There is little, if any, need to supply generically derived figures for use in the economic cost evaluation of a nuclear reactor.
The United States policy on the future disposal of spent fuel is not yet established, nor has a method and site been selected for the disposal of high-level wastes.
Estimated costs related to various spent fuei disposal scenarios under consideration vary widely with time, method, and geological media.
If such cost data were included in the generic fuel cycle rule to reflect the mest current plan under consideration, to update cost estimates the rule would have to be amended by a rulemaking proceeding at frequent intervals.
However, such information is based on Department of Energy studies, the results of which are made available to the public.
Since the economic impact values cannot be fixed in a generic rule for an indefinite period pending a need for an overall update of the rule, it would be more appropriate to leave such values open for update and evaluation in other sections of the environmental impact statement and for review in the related reactor licensing proceeding.
In summary, we find little merit in the proposal to include certain economic resotree commitments in the S-3 fuel cycle rule--which would cause the economic cost evaluation of the reactor to be based in part upon generic costs rather than site-specific costs, and also remove from further consid-eration and litigation the economic issues related to waste handling and disposal alternatives.
We believe that this would not be in the interest of the public as a whole.
The costs to decommission a riuclear reactor are site-specific and are outside the intended scope of the S-3 fuel cycle rule.
The econcmic commitments related to the future decommissioning of the reactor are more appropriately considered and evaluated in other sections of the environmental impact statement.
After consideration of the values and impacts of technical and procedural matters, the staff recommends:
That economic cost commitments related to nuc; ear waste management activities are more appropriately addressed in a manner similar to the way all other economic cost data are presentad in Environmental Reports and Environmental Impact Statements; That the commitments of economic resources for various waste management activities associated with the back end of the uranium fuel cycle are more appropriately topics for discussion, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, in those sections of the environmental recorts and environmental imcact statements that address Nuclear Fuel Costs and Decommissionino Costs in accordance with:
s51.45(c)(5), any irrever-sicle anc irretrievaole commitments of resources; $51.45(c), analysis 11 Enclosure "F"
.)
that balancas the environmental effects and benefits; taking into consideration X51.45(e), adverse information; and The Commission should deny petition for rulemaking PPM 51-5 on the grounds that there is little, if any, need to supply generically derived cost data in Table S-3 for use in the economic cost evalua-tion of individual nuclear reactors.
Except for the geological repository which is not yet defined, the choice of alternatives that affect the commitment of economic resources for decommissioning and for various waste management activities associated with the back-end of the uranium fuel cycle is somewhat specific to each facility, is within the applicant's control, need not be included in the fuel cycle rule, and should be left open foi evaluation in appropriate sections of the environmental impact statement and for possible litigation in individual reactor licensing proceedings.
12 Enclosure "F"