ML20148B594
| ML20148B594 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/04/1978 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-43FR39801, RULE-PR-51, RULE-PRM-50-3 NUDOCS 7810310292 | |
| Download: ML20148B594 (3) | |
Text
..
- , - :: (. J' NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM
> &%-S04 -
r l
UNITED STATES '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555
- , ' ;r U' e-
'{ r Because the updating of the Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle is closely related to the S-3 Hearing on Reprocessing and Waste Management, the NRC is sending copies of the attached Federal Register notice to the entire service list for Docket No. RM-50-3. The date given at the end of the notice for submission of public comments contains a typo-graphical error. The correct date is October 20, 1978. ..
\ \ WI i1%
Si p
&" ngs 3[A<*
6f C
d h
D le s \a g81031 @9N
39801 s o
- ~ , ,
- proposecirules .
- .,~ , _ s, _ _ .m ~ _ . , , . _ . . , - _ , , . . . . . I
~ ~, -. w _
- j. - _
FOR FURTHER M CON cal repom, NUREG-J and (7590-01} CONTACT: NUREG-0216, were published as sup .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY gio piements to the WASH-1248 survey tn.
- support the interim rule. By notice of COMM15510N ao f Fuel l essmen May 20. I977, rulemaking proceedings !
< Cycle andr Materir ety. U.S. Nu-were reopened with the subject matter 00 CPR Pw W *.
clear Regulatory w sfuion. Wash-UCIN$4NG AND REGULATotY POUCY AND, ington. D.C. 20555, 301-427-4138. confined to the en ironmental effects l of spent fuel reprocessing and radioac- )
teoCIDutas Pog ENVitONMENIAL PRO- SUppT.nrFNTARY INFORMATIONi tive waste management in the light MCDO" The table S-3 fuel cycle rule; was pro- water reactor uranium fuel cycle, anct
^ mulgated on April 22,1974 (39 FR to the question whether the outcome E= w d W .fth h P d ' 14188) as an amendment to 10 CFR of the interim rul-awn? should'be Cyde Part 50. "Lic.nsing of Production and made permanent for future use, or if it
. l AGENT: Nuclear Regulatory Commis- Utilization Faciuties." The rule includ- should bealtered and in what respects i sion. ed a table (S-3111 sting the environ. (42 FR 26987). The rule mWng pro. 1 mental effecta from the uranium fuel ceedings.are now being completed.
ACTION: Advance notice of intent to cycle activities that ar. ascribable to On April 14.1978, the fuel cycle rule update. WASH-1248 (supporting docu-ment fortable S-3,14 CFR 51.201. . the provision of the anmal fuel re- was again amended, principally by re-
$quirement- for a light water reactor. moving the value provided in table i
SUMMARY
- On April 14; 1978, the All the fuel cycle activities from urani- for releases of radon during uranium l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiuion- um snining through spent fuel disposal- mintnr and milling operations. The published in the Frm:aAI. Rzcurra a were evaluated. The original intent of NRC staff has revised upward its esti-brief description of a plan to update. the rul-Mnr -was thati table S-3 mates of radon relea.ses. The Commis-and revise the supporting documenta values would be used by the applicant sion decided that, pending possible ge-which described the technical basis for and staff in the environmental review neric rulemaking on the radon issue the fuel cycle rule known as table S-3 and the preparation of environmental alone at a later date, the estimates of of the Comminzion regulacon in 10 impact statements. assessing the over- radon releases could henceforth be CFR Part 51. " Licensing and Regula- til enytronmental costs of the Ucens . considered in individual reactor Ucens-tory Policy and Procedures for Envi- ing of arrindividual. nuclear power re- ing proceedings, ronmental Protection." This rule as- actor. With the use of the values ~ in The above amendments to the fuel sesses and tabulates the environmen- f,able S-3, no further discussion (explse cycle rule were limited in scope to spe-tal effects from the uranium fuel cycle nation or justification) of those fuel cific portions of the fuel cycle or to in.
ascribable to an individual nuclear " cycle environmental effects was re- dividual effluents and did not full1L power reactor so that they can be con. quired. The original supporting docu- the intent of overall periodic u'pdating sidered in connection with issuance.of. ment, providing justification for the prescribed in connection with the a construction permit or operating U - values in the rule, was published as original rule promulgated in 1974.
censing for a Ught water nuclear WASH-1248, " Environmental Survey Therefore, the Commluien is prepar.
power reactor. The supporting docui of the Uraninm Fuel Cycle," in April ing to perform the overall updating of ments include WASH-1248 " Environ- 1974. the environmental survey. The cur-mental Survey of the Uranium Fuel The fuel' cycle rule and its suporting rent study to update the environmen. l Cycle. with its supplement 1 -document were prepared to determine tal survey win reevaluate the format (NUREG-0116. " Environmental Sur. the environmental effects genericaDy and content of the table S-3 to deter.
vey of the Reprocessing and Waste. because the evaluation of issues ge- mine the manner for most effectively Manngernent Portions of the LWR nerically would avoid considering the characterizing environmental effects.
Fuel Cycle") and supplement 2 same environmental issues repeatedly The study will also review and evalu.
(NUREG-0216, which presenta staff individual reactor Ucensing proceed. ste the results from a wide range of responses to comments on NUREO. tugs. With the promulgation of the applicable NRC and other agency re, 0116) and the current Hearing Board onginal generic rule, the Commi" ion search and analysis programs. The im-record. Docket No RM-50-3, in the noted that the study should be reeza- portance of new concepts and technol.
matter of uranium fuel cycle impacts mined from time to Ume to accommo-. ogies, such as centrifuge enrichment, from spent fuel reprc ;essing and ra. date new technology and new informa. mi.ning by in situ leaching, and spent dioactive waste. A preuminary outline tion. . fuel disposal win be consi:lered. In ad-of an updated environmental survey Since the initiation of this rule,, dition to the subject matter evaluated report has subsequently been devel, there have been two major amend. in depth in the original study, new in-oped. This notice indicates the Com, ments. On March 14,1977 (42 FR formation is expected to be available mission intention to update these sup. 13804), an mterun rule was promulgtt- to permit a more detailed considers.
porting documents and invites com. ed to incorporate revised values for tion of matters of occupational expo-Inent on the outline and on the study the environmental effects from waste sure of woriters decommissioning of in general. Its scope, content, calcula- management and fuel reprocessing fac!Hties, and the impact of nonradio-tional methodology, format, relative portions of the fuel cycle. Two techni- -
emphasis to be given the various com.
and reprocessing and remanded for further ponents or other pertinent matters. 'This rertton to the rule became neces. consideration. On Aortl 13.1978, the U.S.
stry when the U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Supreme Court subsequently reversed and DATES: The comment period expires Circuit) on July 21. 1976. set aside the pot. remanded the Appellate Court dec:,ston for October 00,1978, tions ottbe rule relacing to waste disposal additional eonsideration.
FIDERAt REGl$TIR, VCt. 43. NO.174--THUR5 PAY, SEPTIMbER 7,1973
- - m__ _
- - , r-
~ '
3980h ,j PROPo$m ItutlES logical effluints. A proposed cutlini cf unear reisti:nship between respons) 1. Introduction and durpose. .
th) c:ntent of the ovemil study is pro. and radiation dose be assumed for the 2. Background for this updating.
vided lu the appendix set fo*th below. updating study. 3. Assumptions and general methodology:
Som) of the specific subjects to be ad - (d) Ercluded Subfect Matter. Since . Description of the industry. .
dressed and for which public. comment the cost / benefit analysis performed Approach. '
is particularly invited are the follow- for each licensing decision concerning Scope.
ing:
a nuclear power reactor must compare ( Applicable Federal and State regulatory (a) Characterizing the Industry. The environmental costs of the nuclear limits and criteria:
~
environmental impact of operating a plant with costs from alternative ac, il Radiological: ,,
reactor over its lifetime of 30-40 years tions such as using fossil fuel energy EPA 40 CFR Part 190.
must be evaluated in.the preparation sources it has been argued'that there NRC 10 CFR Part $1.
Other Federal Oovernment regulations, of th') cost / benefit analysis required is some merit to including in table S-3 f:r licensing the reactor. Thus, the a comparable analysis for coal. In cur- (2 NonradioWeah ,
staff plans to consider the cumulative rent reactor licensing actions.the env1 (ifects from the supporting fuel cycle ronmental impacts.frorn coal as an al- ( $7 Solid wastes. '
facilities over that period, based pri- ternative energy source are examined 5. Description of components of the urani-marily on the applicatien of avcllable ~ and NRC studies are being performed um fuel cycle and analysis of environmental cr n;arly available commercial tech- to improve- those estimates. However. Impacts-n logy at. the present time or con- it is presently believed that to keep Chapter 5 would consist of 10 major sec.
ccived for the near term future. Be- .the scope of the uranium fuel cycle tions each' concerned with.a component of caus2 of the current natimal polley. update studies within ' manageable the fuel cycle. Each section would contain tha study will assume that the U.S. in. bounds, the studres s! ould -exclude the elements wtth headinas or their equiv.
dustry will not reprocess. spent fuel consideration of alternative actions. A alents as specified in detail under section 5.1 and the major study. effort will be survey of the environmental impact for uranium mining.
based upon the assumption of interim from coal as an alternative energy 5.1 Uranium mining-storage and disposal of spent fuel- source is under review in other NRC Description of the process.
Ecwever, an analysis adequate ta activities and will be considered sepa , Environmental considerations.
bound the estimated environmental efe rately. .
Natural resource use. -
fects frorn spent fuel reprocessing haa The question of whether or not to Radioactive and chemical effluent re-been carried out in the recent Hearing include fuel cycle economic costs in a leases during normal operations and from Board record, docket No. RE50-3. generic rulemaking-has been reviewed accidents.
and it is planned that the ' study will by the NRC staff. The staff. haa con. occupational erposure.
include some considerstion of this al- ciuded that the important elements of Decon'"'"ition and decommtaloning.
CIrnative also. . fuel cycle cost determination are spe- Long term enanagement of radioactive .
(b) Very Iong Term'Impacta Whe.n ' cifically within the control of the indj. wastes.
d*Mrmining the environmental impact vidual appifcant, are a part of the ap- Resulting poputztkn expose and bealth from effects that may continue for ' plicant's auhmittion to the Commis- effects. '
thomanrit of years, such as the release sion, and are more appropriately cov- 8""""y of envir nmentalimpacts.
5.2 Ur nium mming, of radioactive radon gas from uranlunr cred in individual proceedings. In addi-min tailings, and appropriate time tion', the staff believes that a generic 5.3 Ur mium hexafluoride production.
. period for meaningful projections and rule for fuel cycle costs probably SA Ursnium enrkhment.
calculations must be-chosen. In cur- would not remain up to date very long. 53 m wersion and Nel fabrica@n.
.6 Intemmspent fuel storagt rent individual reactor heartngs on considering the recent history of rapid ##* "
- radon releases, the NRC staff has used change in costs of uranium fuel and h g p a period of about 500-1.000 years as other fuel cycle services, and there- 5.9 Transportation.
tha upper limit for reasonable projec- fore, the inclusion of cost data in a ge' 5.10 Alternate fuel cycle- reprocesstng tions. For projections beyond that neric rulammy would be inappropri- and waste disposal.
period, some parties have suggested ste. 6. Overall analysts of fuel cycle. environ-that public recognition be givTn to the' Comments on, the outline attached mental impacts:
fact that radon releases of some thag- in the appendix and on the aforemen- I, entineauen of major issues and impacts.
nitude will probably continue for tioned subjects should be provided by Um.ertainties in cnodels and analyses.
much longer periods but with indeter- October 1.1978, to: Analyses of sensiuvity to var:adons in minate consequences which the NRC . impact parameters.
can only attempt to evaluate by com , Cumulative imoact.iot the nuclear indus.
mens Branch. Dtvuton of 1"uel cycir! and panng the very long term releases Matertal Safety. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory try.
with releases from natural background Commmion. Wuh w.on. D C.10555. Conclusions, s e es. Dated at Washington. D.C., this sed el cyde mle Mr 10 CFR (c) Calculation of Population E:po- 30th day of August 1978* Sim sure and Realth E//cets. The study will Format.
attf.mpt to include the calculation of For the Nuclear Regulatory Com, Content, population exposure and resulting mission. Applicab!Ilty, health effects for environmental re. C:.rrronn V. Smm, Ja.. Radonalt '
leas:s from the uranium fuel cycle. It
!s recognized that there is much con
- I>irector. O//lce o/ Nuclear JiaferialSqfety and Safeguard 3.
troversy over issues such as the possi- Arrr:Norczs bility of a threshold for human re- Ar*notz-E:mmorna::frA!. SURYYT or rHE sponse at low radiation exposures and CaAmW Ftru. C7etz (To be determined and to be used pnnel.
Iow dose rates. and that major na;fon- pally to provide detailed supporting cata rnorosts coerrcers al studies are now being directed to and calculations for the discussions present.
Improve our understanding of these Abs..act ed in 115.1 througn 5.10) important issues. It has been proposed Summary, including - proposed revued that a no threshold criterion' and a table S-3: CFR Doc. 78-t5075 ?!!ed 9-4-78: 3:45 aml
. . .