ML20206E612

EDO Control of Rulemaking Package Re 10CFR51, Radon & Technetium Estimates for Table S-3. Continuation of Rulemaking Approved

ML20206E612
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/28/1984
From:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
References
NUDOCS 8606230460
Download: ML20206E612 (68)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:--. . = - 1 DEC 2 81984 MEMORANDUM FOR: John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards I FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

CONTROL 0F NRC RULEMAKING By memorandum of February 13, 1984, " Control of NRC Rulemaking by Offices Reporting to the EDO," Offices were directed that effective April 1,1984, (1) all offices under E00 purview must obtain my approval to begin and/or continue a specific rulemaking, (2) resources were not to be expended on rule- + makings that have not been approved, and (3) RES would independently review i rulemaking proposals forwarded for my approval and make recommendations to me concerning whether or not and how to proceed with the rulemakings. In accordance with my directive, the following proposal concerning rulemaking { has been-forwarded for my approval along with recommendations from RES con-cerning the proposal: (1) Proposed Amendment to 10 CFR Part 51, " Radon and Technetium Estimates for Table S-3." (Sponsored by NMSS. mem'orandum, Minogue to ED0 dated December 13,1984.) Continuation of this rulemaking is approved. The NRC Regulatory Agenda (NUREG.0936) should be modified to reflect the status of this proposal. Gi ned William J.Dircks f 'i William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations d cc: V. Stello Distribution: J. Roe WJDircks WSchwink J H. R. Denton VStello DEDROGR cf R. C. DeYoung JHSniezek Central File R. B. Minogue ED0 rf J. Phillips P. G. Norry i i 8606230460 841228 i M $0 PDR j i i / ,ob .....:.3 3..C....: ....... :.... /.+p R g.Qld. :......p'. :............ :......... D

DEDR0

EDO i

0FC :ROGR/5

ROG y

V,Stpjljo

WJDircks NAME SWSegwink zek t

...... :.._ _ _h84:12/N/84 !DATE212/19/84

12/

/84

12/t

~ yb"6,- p* "% UNITED STATES t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON Ab w o WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 2

j'/

DEC 131984 MEM0PANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations 1 FROM: Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research SUBJFrT: CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING: RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW 0F ONG0ING RULEMAKING SPONSORED BY NMSS Based on our independent review of the ongoing rulemaking, " Radon and Tech-netium Estimates for Table S-3," sponsored by NMSS, RES agrees with the recom-mendation of the Director, HMSS, that this rulemaking effort should continue. The rulemaking is presently being held in abeyance pending the cutcome of the review of the uranium mill tailings regulations. However, the rulemaking is needed for the reasons listed below and should be retained in the regulatory agenda to allow expeditious completion of the rulemaking once the review of the tailings regulations is complete. The basis for our recommendation is as follows: In 10 CFR 51.51(b), footnote 1 of Table S-3--Tabie of Uranium Fuel Cycle En-vironmental Data states that: Table S-3 does not include estimates of releases of radon-222 from the uranium fuel cycle or estimates of technetium-99 released from waste management or reprocessing activities; and, these issues may be the subject of litigation in the individual licensing proceedings. Adding a numerical value for releases of radon-222 and estimates for the environmental impacts of released radon-222 to Table S-3 would resolve conditions imposed by Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards on operating licenses making the licenses subject to the outcome of the radon proceed-ings currently before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board. The Board's decision (ALAB-701) is that fuel-cycle-related radon emissions would not have significant health effects. In response to a petition for Commission review of ALAB-701, the Commission decided to hold in abeyance its decision on ALAB-701 until completion of the current review of uranium mill tailings regulations and any rulemaking which may be needed to conform NRC's regulations to EPA's new radon emission standards published October 1, 1983. Adding a numerical value for releases of technetium-99 and estimates for the environmental impacts of released technetium-99 to Table S-3 would eliminate litigation from those licensing proceedings (potentially 30 pending l uensing cases) in which intervenors might file contentions con-cerned witt~ factoring technetium-99 effects into the cost-benefit balance for operation of the nuclear power plant in question. NRC staff has pre-sented prepared testimony at an operating license hearing in response to a

• William J. Dircks DEC 131984-contention that the quantity of technetium-99 which will be released from waste management or reprocessing activities resulting from plant operation has not been, but should be, adequately assessed.

The com lete RES independent review package has been sent to OED0 (Attention: DEDROGR and to the Director, NMSS. bJl~ 87b Robert B. Minogue, DTrector 4 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research I t t + )

4 Det3 1b'/[gy ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SUP /7 TO: (Name, omco symbol, room number. Initials Date buildsng. Agency / Post) 1. 06Do (M DED Ro &rd ,,,[ p ,-.hl!f 2. 3. L ,v 4. f / 5. XAction File Note and Return Approval For Clearance Per Cor versation As Requested For Correction Prepare Reply Circulate For Your Information See Me Comment investigate Signature Coordination Justify Af. MARKS (& n S &1} dL R 5 S .nm &aq Q "RQ R raAeuem-t,, q NM SS. c ~ Rf5 m Q <-lK,hM93,E U M " A ~f ,p a a_J &cmJa~>'. k k S S #" f c, w s s, y&ak xk W' 00 NOT usa this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals, clearances, and similar actions FROM: (Name, org. symbol. Agency / Post) Room No.-Bidg. i kOMNb kb j j Yy3-)Sth' W i-102 OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76) Prescetbed GSA FPMR (41 101-11.206 M s'&,e

h J DEC 131984 MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM: Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SUBJECT:

CONTROL OF NRC RULEKAKING: RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW 0F ONGOING RULEMAKING SPONSORED BY NMSS 1 Based on our independent review of the ongoing rulemaking, " Radon and Tech-netium Esticates for Table S-3." sponsored by NMSS, RES agrees with the recom-mendation of the Director, NMSS, that this rulemaking effort should continue. The rulencking is presently being held in abeyance pending the outcome of the review of the uraniun mill teilings regulations. However, the rulemaking is needed for the reasons listed below and should be retained in the regulatory agenda to allow expeditious completion of the rulemaking once the review of the tailings regulations is complete. The basis fcr our recommendation is as follows: In 10 CFR 51.51(b), footrote 1 of Table S-3--Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle En-vironmental Data states that: Table S-3 does not include estimates of releases of radon-222 from the uranium fuel cycle or estimates of technetium-99 released from waste management or reprocessing activities; and, these issues may be the subject of litigation in the individual licensing proceedings. Adding a. numerical value for releases of radon-222 and estimates for the environmental impacts of released radon-222 to Table S-3 would resolve conditions imposed by Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards on operating licenses making the licenses subject to the outcome of the radon proceed-ings currently before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board. The Board's decision (ALAB-701) is that fuel-cycle-related radon emissions would not have significant health effects. In response to a petition for Commission review of ALAB-701, the Commission decided to hold in abeyance its decision on ALAB-701 until completion of the current review of uranium mill tailings regulations and any rulemaking which may be needed to conform NRC's regulations to EPA's new radon emission standards published October 1, 1983. Adding a numerical value for releases of technetium-99 and estimates for the environmental impacts of released technetium-99 to Table S-3 would eliminate litigation from those licensing proceedings (potentially 30 pending licensing cases) in which intervenors might file contentions con-cerned with factoring technetium-99 effects into the cost-benefit balance for operation of the nuclear power plant in question. NRC staff has pre-seated _preparad_ testimony at an aperating_licensa hearird _in_ response ta = -nc.> sunnams > DATE > ac,onv sie ine-so, uncu c24o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

willian J.111rcks DEC 131984 contention that the quantity of technetium-99 which will be released from waste management or reprocessing activities resulting fron plant operation has not been, but should be, adequately assessed. The complete RES independent review package has been sent to OEDO (Attention: DEDRTR) and to the Director, PES. Dricinal signed by: ROBERT B. MINOG'JE Pobert B. f:inogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Distribution RAMRB r/f RES Central File R-2914 Circ /Chron RHinogue Dross FGillespie KGoller JMalaro WMills DHarmon JHenry I l l 1 1 l l I l l l O FFICE> RNtRB..[... RAMR I

RES I

R DS ....i ieip '! Ik s RBfiinog e kmAME).J.H.e.n../.m.f... c I ^">l.12/,3/84.....1 . /84... .12G84......12/../ .12/$84... anc Fonu sis no-son uncu ou OFkiCIAL RECORDYOPW

RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW PACKAGE

j RES If.DEPENDEQ REVIEW BOARD i V0ilt,G SHEET TO: F. P. GILLESPIE, CHAIRMAN, RIRB l FROM: } TITLE OF ROLEMAKING: " Radon and Technetium Estimates for Table S-3" '[hGREE WITH DRAFT RES REQUEST RIRB INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS MEETING. M IN DRAFT INDEPENDENT REVIEW PACKAGE. i I l MODIFY DRAFT RES NOT PARTICIPATING. l INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS l AS INDICATED BELOW. i i COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: 1 I 4 i i h i i f MEMBER, RIRB i /o/sf^f DATE i t ,,_.w._m._

J d ^(A RES ItsDEPEtiDENT REVIEW ED*R'. VOT1hG SHEET T0: F. P. GILLESPIE, CHAIRMAN, RIRB FROM: Karl R. Goller TITLE OF ROLEMAKING: " Radon and Technetium Estimates for Table S-3" / AGREE WITH DRAFT RES REQUEST RIRB V INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS MEETING. IN DRAFT INDEPENDENT REVIEW PACKAGE. MODIFY DRAFT RES NOT PARTICIPATING. INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDAT10!45 l AS INDICATED BELOW. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: andA W MEMBER, RIRB ?/ar/s4 DAiE

RES INDEPENDEta REVIEW BOARD VOTlhG SHEET l T0: F. P. GILLESPIE, CHAIRMAN, RIRB 0 E, 3 n.sscN; W8 M WR FROM: TITLE OF RULEMAKING: " Radon and Technetium Estimates for Table S-3" AGREE WITH DRAFT RES REQUEST RIRB INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS MEETING. IN DRAFT INDEPENDENT REVIEW PACKAGE. MODIFY DRAFT RES NOT PARTICIPATING. INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDATIONS I AS INDICATED BELOW. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS: f(#((Wea A h 068 / C. G, dassh r+ MEMBER, RIRB lofLffTh DATE

SEP N f Meu O UNITED STATES \\ s\\ g w) 5,0 [' g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

j W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

/ SEP 141984 j D s ' s /r'~ fY MEMORANDUM FOR: Frank Gillespie, Chairman [U RES Independent Review Board p'hb FROM: Karl R. Goller, Director y Division of Radiation Programs and Earth Sciences Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SUBJECT:

RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW RULEMAKING ENTITLED, " RAD 0N AND TECHNETIUM ESTIMATES FOR TABLE S-3" In response to Mr. Bernero's memorandum of July 31, 1984, on this subject, enclosure 1 contains the information addressed in Sec. II.C.1 of the document entitled " Procedures for Conducting RES Independent Review of Rulemakings, May 1984." I Also enclosed (enclosure 2) for your information is a copy of a memorandum i dated August 28, 1984, from the Director, OPE, to the Commission entitled, " Final Rule - 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B, Explanatery Narrative for Table S-3 (SECY-84-149)." Based on this memorandum, it appears that OPE and OGC strongly support the inclusion of radon-222 in Table S-3. Karl R. Goller, Director Division of Radiation Programs and Earth Sciences Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Enclosures:

1. Ofc. Findings on Proposed Rulemaking - 10 CFR Part 51 2. Memo to Commission from Zerbe dtd. 8/28/84 t 1 a

0FFICE FINDINGS ON PROPOSED RULEMAKING 10 CFR PART 51 1. Issue ) Adding numerical value's for Rn-222 and Tc-99 in Table S-3 of 10 CFR Part 51. Table S-3 now states with regard to numerical values for Rn-222 and Tc-99 that these values are, " Presently under consideration by the Commission." 2. Need ^ At present, the environmental effects of rs'en-222 and technetium-99 released from uranium fuel cycle facilities and operations can be litigated in individual nuclear power plant licensing proceedings. Adding l estimates for the environmental impacts of Rn-222 and Tc-99 to Table S-3 ) would eliminate potential litigation'of these issues in individual licensing cases. According to NRR, M' ore are at present 30 pending licensing cases which could potentially ir.volve litigation. However, it appears at this time that future litigation will be unlikely. Even if there is litigation it appears that the most likely consequence would only result in the expenditure of 'a few additional staff days involving the presentation of testimony before a ' licensing board at each litigated hearing. Notwithstanding the probability of litigation at i this time, the NRC has invested substantial research and resources in i developing appropriate values for Table S-3 as related to the environmental impact from uranium fuel cycle facilities and operations. One primary objective for this investment was to complete the Table and l "close out" this issue in the licensing process. i i ,. -, -... _,. - -, - ~ - - ~,, - _ ~

3. Alternatives The most viable alternative to this rulemaking treatment of the environmental impacts of Rn-222 and Tc-99 would be to continue to allow these environmental impacts to be brought into litigation in individual licensing cases. 4. Proposed Action By rulemaking action, estimates for the environmental releases of Rn-222 and Tc-99 would be added to Table S-3, and the narrative explanation of Table S-3 would also be modified accordingly. This will complete Table S-3 and remove environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle from further consideration and litigation in individual nuclear power plant licensing cases. 5. Effects of Proposed Action Except for the small amount of staff time to complete the rulemaking, this action will not it.; pose additional work or requirements on the public, the industry, license applicants, or the Commission staff. It will reduce the time required and the effort needed to complete nuclear power plant licensing proceedings. i 6. Resources and Schedule E NRC resources to complete the rulemaking are estimated to be 0.5 FTE scientific staff, with no contractual support. The rulemaking to add l Rn-222 and Tc-99 to Table S-3 and to modify the narrative explanation of the table can begin as soon as the Commission takes action on proposed Part 40 amendments to take into account EPA 40 CFR Part 192 requirements. Due to the limited nature of the proposed task and staff with firsthand experience in the development of Table S-3, it should be completed in approximately 3 months after the task is started. This staff and related first hand experience is likely to become unavailable in the 2 _~

future due to reassignments and retirements, etc. If the rulemaking is undertaken at a later date by staff without this firsthand knowledge and experience, a significant amount of additional resources would probably be~ required to complete the rulemaking. 7. Conclusions In view of the already substantial investment in the development of Table S-3 and the apparent minimal effort needed to complete the Table and "close out" this matter, it is believed that the completion of the subject rulemaking is in the best interest of NRC and the public. Accordingly, it is recommended that the RES independent review recommendation be that the rulemaking be completed. 3

CD 'o UNITED STATES 8 [" Ek NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION /) ,E W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 V ,o y August 28, 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Palladino Comissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Comissioner Bernthal Comis on Z ch .Zerb,Direch FROM: Joh 0 'ce of Pdicy Evaluation ~

SUBJECT:

FINAL RULE - 10 CFR PART 51, APPENDIX B, EXPLANATORY NARRATIVE FOR TABLE S-3 (SECY-84-149) In 1979 the Comission directed the staff to initiate a rulemaking to prepare an explanatory narrative for Table S-3 of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 51. Appendix B is the explanatory narrative for Table S-3, Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, which is to be used in making the NEPA cost-benefit, balance for light water reactors. The purpcse of Table S-3 and the proposed explanatory narrative is to eliminate from individual LWR licensing hearings consideration of the effects of fuel cycle impacts on the NEPA cost-benefit balance. This objective was to be accomplished by a generic analysis of such impacts and a showing that they do not significantly affect the reactor's cost-benefit balance., In SECY 84-149, staff recomends, consistent with prior Comission directive, that the proposed narrative be published now in final form so that it may be used in ongoing environmental hearings. Although we believe the proposed final narrative provides a much improved basis for eliminating the fuel cycle impacts from consideration in LWR cost-benefit balances, we recomend the Comission consider delaying publication unti'; Table S-3 and the narrative can be completed by the inclusion of radon, the radionuclide with the great-est potential for influencing the LWR cost-benefit balance and the primary focus in environmental hearings. 0GC concurs in this memorandum.

Contact:

Neill Thomasson, OPE X-41428 Jim Beckerley, OPE X-43295 1 l 1

The Comission 2 Need to Include Radon We note that omission of radon effects leaves a significant gap in Table S-3 and the supporting narrative. The Commission, in response to a petition for review of ALAB-701, which dealt glith the health effects of radon released in the fuel cycle, stated that consideration of the radon issue would be held in abeyance until the NRC mill tailings regulations were brought into conformance with the EPA uranium mill tailings standards. 17 NRC 745, May 27, 1983. The environmental impact of radon releases is'a pivotal issue associated with the effect of fuel cycle impacts on reactor cost-benefit balancing. Nevertheless, the staff considers it better to act now on the proposed rule, recognizing that amendments will be proposed when timely, and that promulgation of the rule and supporting narrative would be beneficial in ongoing hearings. We believe its absence from Table S-3 and the narrative ~ would seriously limit their usefulness in hearings. In fact, the effect of radon on the LWR cost-benefit balance can be litigated in individual hearings until the Comission has completed action on ALAB-701. Even if the effect of radon on the LWR cost-benefit balance were insignificant, issuance of the rule without radon could be challenged. on the basis that a series of impacts each with an insignificant effect could add up to a significant effect. Publication now without including radon would seem to us to eliminate the most important potential benefit to ongoing hearings, as an assessment of radon effects cannot be completed until issuance of the NRC mill tailings rule and action on ALAB-701. Moreover, as noted in Enclosure C of SECY-84-149, NRC is not under any court-imposed deadline for i ccmpletion of the Table S-3 narrative. Thus, we suggest that issuance of the Table S-3 narrative be delayed until the Comission revises the mill tailings regulations and acts on the petition to review ALAB-701. Based on our understanding of NMSS plans for conforming NRC regulations to j EPA's and the time required for the necessary Commission actions, we estimate that in six to nine months the narrative and Table S-3 could be revised to include the radon impact. A delay of as much as nine months in issuance would be preferable to going forward with an incomplete rule. Standard for Radiological Impact Evaluation Although the narrative presented in SECY-84-149 is a significant improvement over the 1981 version, we and OGC question the validity and defensibility of the staff's criterion for removing the fuel cycle radiological impacts from consideration in LWR licensing proceedings. The problem is that in Section i III of the proposed explanatory narrative (pages 39-41 of Appendix B in SECY-84-149) the staff determines the significance of fuel cycle radiological impacts by comparison with natural radiation background exposures. An l exposure level of 0.1% or less of natural background exposure is considered "not significant," i.e., requiring no further consideration in the NEPA i l i E

~ l s The Comission 3 cost-benefit balance for an LWR. The staff also compares the radiological i impacts of the' fuel cycle with " normal" cancer mortality and genetic effects not associated with nuclear plants. While such comparisons may provide " perspective" on the fuel cycle radiological impacts, they do not address the basic question posed by the rulemaking: Does the addition of these impacts to the cost-benefit balance for the.model 1000-MWe LWR nuclear power plant have a significant effect on that balance? We note that there is an increasing level of criticism of the use of background radiation a referencestandardinthisapproach,e.g.,bytheBritishandEPA.{a OGC's i memorandum of February 22, 1984 (Enclosure C to SECY-84-149) elaborates on this concern. The issue in the present rulemaking is not whether fuel cycle impacts are significant with respect to background radiation or its variation.

Rather, the issue is whether the impacts significantly affect the cost-benefit balance'associatedwithpermittingconstructionandoperationofgLWR. The staff's discussion of nonradiological impacts follows this logic.

Such comparisons of the nonradiological impacts of the fuel cycle with the nonradiological impacts of the nuclear power reactor -- the latter being part of the reactor licensing cost-benefit balance -- are clearly relevant to justification of the S-3 rule. In our view, however, the staff discussion of fuel cycle radiological impacts does not provide relevant justification. 1 l I In promulgating its final mill tailings standard, the EPA specifically l rejected suggestions that the significance of radon emission from tailings should be evaluated by comparison to natural background and to other common i hazards. 48' FR 45926, October 1983. EPA stated: " Comparison of the type suggested may be useful for setting priorities for efforts to reduce the variety of hazards to public health (to the extent that they are avoidable), but they are not useful for deciding the appropriate level of control for a specific source of hazard. That decision must be based upon the specifics particular to the hazard under consideration." 48 FR at 45934. A recent publication of the United Kingdom's National Radiological Protection Board has also stressed that comparisons to natural background are useful "merely to give perspective and should not be presented as a justification for the existence or the magnitude of the dose from waste disposal." Webb, O'Riorden, Reissland, and Hill, " Natural Radiation and Waste Disposal," NRPB-R156 (November 1983). 2For example, the consumptive water use in the fuel cycle is found to be only about 2% of that of a model 1000-MWe LWR cooling tower, fuel cycle heat i dissipation only about 8% of that of the model LWR, and fuel cycle electrical energy consumption only about 5% of the LWR electrical energy production. i 1

The Commission 4 Conclusion We recommend the Commissian consider delaying in issuance of the S-3 final rule and associated narrative until the radon effects can be included. A i number of other specific suggestions for improvements in the draft are presented above and in the attachment. The changes suggested would not in themselves be reason for delaying publication of the rule. However, if the Commission elects to complete the Table S-3 and narrative by including radon before the narrative is published, some of the suggested. changes could readily be made at the same time.

Attachment:

As stated cc: S. Chilk H. Plaine W. Dircks J. Davis l I +3*, f 4 i { l t i i l

J ATTACHMENT SPECIFIC SUGGESTED CHANGES FOR NARRATIVE TO TABLE S-3 1. Rev.ise the discussion of long-term radiological impacts by drawing from ( the completed record and decision of the Waste Confidence Rulemaking. 2. Expand the discussion to indicate that occupational health and safety impacts, mining radiological impacts, and non-radiological transporta-tion impacts are not included and explain why. 3. Discuss the significance of technetium-99 to the LWR cost-benefit balance and add this radionuclide to Table S-3. The present narrative identifies a conservative value (curies) for this isotope and outlines an environmental pathway model, but does not discuss the significance of technetium as it does other long-lived radioisotopes. See Table S-3 (44 FR 45362, footnote 33) and Appendix B in Enclosure A to SECY-84-149, pp. 40-49, 52-53. 4. Update values in Table S-3 for fuel cycle impacts to reflect currently available information from environmental impact statements, facility operating experience, and state-of-the-art models. (Insomecases,NMSS has considered our specific suggestions on updating and modified the narrative but has not adjusted Table S-3.) )

2 5. Update Table S-3 and modify the narrative to eliminate the need for an adjustment factor to account for changes in ore grade and uranium recovery efficiencies since WASH-1248, the 1972-vintage basic reference for.the table, was prepared. This affects the land use, water use, and liquid and solid waste estimates from some front-end fuel cycle facilities. 6. Briefly describe how the narrative and Table S-3 modeled the significant differences in facilities associated with mining and milling and their environmental impacts. (This was done for the two uranium conversion (UF ) Processes.) 6 7. Enclosure "B" to SECY-84-149, p. 3, 13, lines 6-8, indicates that technetium-99 is not addressed in the rule (Table) or the narrative, yet the narrative explicitly discusses this radioisotope. The apparent inconsistency should be corrected. 8. The last sentence of staff response to EPA comment 1 on page 15 of Enclosure "B" to SECY-84-149 expresses the opinion that further develop-ments are more likely to result in a reduction in the fuel cycle impacts than tip the LWR cost-benefic balance. We believe this is an irrelevant conjecture that should be deleted.

0-14IY JUL 311984 NOTE TO: Karl Goller Director Division of Radiation Programs and Earth Sciences. RES FROM: Robert M. Bernero, Chainnan RES Independent Review Board

SUBJECT:

DRAFT INDEPENDENT REVIEW PACKAGE: RADON AND TECHNETIUM ESTIMATES FOR TABLE S-3 The subject draft independent review package submitted to me with your July 19, 1984 memorandum does not contain the results of the RES staff review that support the draft staff recomendations. The staff review process is set out in Sec. II.C.1 of the independent review procedures. The process calls for a RES Task Leader evaluation that considers the 6 factors on the issue, necessity, alternatives, etc. plus preliminary judgments on need for the rulemaking, consistency with applicable policies, and the importance of the ruleraaking relative to accomplishing the NRC's mandate. The results of this review are needed before I can proceed with RIRB evaluation of the package. Robert M. Bernero, Chainnan RES Independent Review Board Distribution: RAMRB r/f Subj Filp g JHenry, JMalaro RBernero e. -cw ..R..A.. E.S.. . 8MB,RES.. .. Chairman. RIRB.. ..RBernerog. ...JH /Of.. ..J u aro.. .18?/B4.. .1. </84... .7/31/84.. unc roxu ns oo-soi nacu o24o OFFICI AL RECORD COPY

o,, UNITED STATES h< 8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o k*j p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 ,1 n r y S ..... /e ~ JUL 19 1984 i i MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert M. Bernero, Chairman RES Independent Review Board FROM: Karl R. Goller, Director i Division of Radiation Programs and Earth Sciences, RES i

SUBJECT:

CONTROL 0F NRC RULEMAKING: RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW 0F ONG0ING RULEMAKING 4 As requested in your memorandum of July 9,1984, on the above subject, enclosed is our independent review package on the rulemaking entitled, " Radon and Technetium Estimates for Table S-3." Don Harmon, Health Effects Branch, was the assigned Task Leader for this DRPES review. 4 Karl R. Goller, Director Division of Radiation Programs and Earth Sciences, RES l

Enclosure:

l Independent Review Package i + t i l i

DRAFT INDEPENDENT REVIEW PACKAGE t RULEMAKING ENTITLED " RADON AND TECHNETIUM ESTIMATES FOR TABLE S-3" The following presents the information in format and content per instructions contained in the document entitled, " Procedures for Conducting RES Independent Review of Rulemakings May 1984." a. A copy of the rulemaking with its accompanying documentation received from the sponsoring office: None available. This material has not as yet been drafted. b. Draft staff papers or other underlying staff documents, as needed to support the preliminary draft independent review: Memorandum for William J. Dircks from John G. Davis dated May 9, 1984, entitled, " Control of NRC Rulemaking - E00 Initial Review" c. Draft staff recomendations concerning whether to proceed with the specific rulemaking: Table S-3 of 10 CFR Part 51 contains environmental data which provide the basis for evaluating the contribution of the environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle in Environmental Reports for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors. The subject rulemaking would add raden-222 and technetium-99 values to Table S-3. This rulemaking is, however, being held in abeyance until completion of the current review of uranium mill tailings regulations and of any rulemaking which may be needed to conform Commission regulaticns to EPA's new radon emission standards which were promulgated October 1,1983. Based on information in a memorandum of June 22, 1984, to James J. Henry from Ralph G. Page entitled, " Radon and Technetium Estimates for Table S-3," there are thirty (30) reactor cases presently in the licensing process in stages where hearings could be held and Table S-3 estimates of Rn-222 and Tc-99 used. Accordingly, it is recommended that this rulemaking be pursued upon completion of the current review of uranium mill tailings regulations and rulemaking which may be needed to conform Comission regulation to EPA's new radon standards.

l RES Mail Control No. 841230B JUL 9 1984 MENDRANDlM FOR: Karl R. Goller Director Division of Radiation Programs and Earth Sciences, RES FROM: Robert M. Bernero, Chaiman RES Independent Review Board

SUBJECT:

CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING: RES INDEPENDENT REVIEW 0F ONGOING RULEMAKING i Enclosed is a rulemaking review package received from a sponsoring office for RES independent review. (Enclosure 1) In accordance with procedures approved by the EDO on May 30, 1984, the rulemaking review package is assigned to your Division for action. (Enclosure 2). The EDO-approved procedures allow a total of 20 working days for completing the RES independent revier. To assist RES in completing its independent. review in a timely manner, please submit the draft indeg..dsat review package for this specific rulemaking to RAMR8 by 10 working days from the date of this memorandus. Robert M. Bernero, Chaiman RES Independent Review Board

Enclosure:

1. Radon and Techgetium Estimates for Tdle S-3 2. Procedures for Conducting RES Independent Review of Rulemakings Distribution w/o encl. RES Central Files Circ /Chron RAMRB r/f RMinogue Dross RBernero MErnst JMalaro l JHenry Rh:RES.. yRd ES.. S ..DIDRA0;RE JHienry:de ( JCFalaro RMBe e .u===> ""f/4./64.. /84.. .7/. 184.. L_

0FFICE REVIEW PACKAGE FROM NMSS i )

g er-,, ~, Ar e y e.. w'n. e..e r. .e,_ .. <, m s.,.,x _ g ,a, y, y, w-i O .ft O l' O f (* O C b; O b f 's l p TWp ONur.. Wsostdpur.-4o,.g.,.ggemmaarJeesus agneeseeMaem

• a '
• t *** - *.* WS. p pe;' "** ar=*4 l 7

y .y,,,,,,.,__..__ -.,,,,, y,;,, 4 0H N G. B AV I S ',,- 5/9/84. i NMSS 6/1/84 RES6841'/ 30 L 5, ,n X , e. .c . n.. DIRCKS (ORIG. OF MEMO FDRWARDED X '.,l TO M&R SEC.- ATTN: RAMRB FOR .c,,,,,,,, ,c o...,c, a ..ri. INDEPENTENT REYIEW) ,,o .e. .. a o k,, et ,.,c i ,n co.. u ..e a DitCWDo. h he Nee' att t ha40 TO. Daft niet vt0 GT Daft 4 REVIEW PACKAGES FOR THE ABOVE g LISTED RU).E MAKING. ACTIVITIES p arnNran A/1 (o}4 ) w\\m . e - is %s 4fy REVIEW PACKAGES FOR THE'AB0VE INFO LY : MINOGUE,ivro encls LISTED RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES Ross KELBER Id ,) GILLE5PI ; P000LAK 8 f OKLESSON 1 ' fit.E' 8) Alts. RAS S -S J. ~. O a u ve6... cuaro., co .u. MIL COMROL FORM e o n

[..... ' c, UNITE D s1 ATE S Ie . ha J 'f ",I NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION h WASHINGTON D C 20555 'sY"ufl NY 9 Q MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM: John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

SUBJECT:

CONTROL OF NRC RULEMAKING - EDO INITIAL REVIEW In response to your memorandum of February 13, 1984, and in accordance with instructions provided in subsequent memoranda from the Office of Nuclear Regu-latory Research (RES), the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards has reviewed the on-going rulemaking activities listed below. On the basis of our review, we recommend the approval of continued activity on these rules. REVIEWED BY NMSS FOR EDO INITIAL REVIEW A. " Human Uses of Byproduct Material - revisions N. to 10 CFR Part 35" w J. " Radon and Technetium Estimates for Table S-3" C. " Reporting. Requirements for Safeguards Events" D. " Physical Protection Requirements for Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations" E. " Material Control and Accounting Requirements for low Enriched Uranium Facilities" F. " Clarification of General Physical Protection Requirements" WLE John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

Enclosures:

Review Packages for the above listed rulemaking activities cc w/ enc 1: RES RM

ENCLOSURE 1

p, A DIVISION OF FUEL CYCLE AND MATERIAL SAFETY " Radon and Technstium Estimates for Table S-3" Division

Contact:

William E. Thompson 13AMT 174 sw i l 1 I J

e TITLE: Radon and Technetium Estimates for Table S-3 CFR CITATION: 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 51 ABSTRACT: In a Federal Register notice published on April 14,1979 (43 FR 15613) the Commission deleted the radon-222 value from Table S-3 because it was recognized to be underestimated. Table S-3 had not shown a separate estimate for technetium-99, but included it in the category of "Other Fission Products." Pending rulemaking action to provide new estimates for raden-222 and technetium-99 in Table S-3, the environmental effects of these radionuclides are subject to litigation in individual nuclear power plant licensing pro-ceedings. The purpose of the proposed rule would be to deal with this question generically for all nuclear power plants, thus saving the time and cost of repetitive consideration of the effects of radon-222 and technetium-99 in individual nuclear power plant licensing proceedings. New estimates of radon emissions from the entire fuel cycle were introduced into the public record at the February 1980 hearing on radon before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board in Harrisburg, PA. The Appeal Board decision of May 13, 1981 (ALAB-640) upheld the staff's new estimates of radon r61 eases, and the final decision (ALAB-701) affirmed previous decisions that fuel-cycle-related radon emissions would not have significant health effects. Estimates of technetium-99 releases and their environmental impacts have been given in individual nuclear power plant licensing proceedings. In response to a petition for Commission review of the Appeal Board decision given in ALAB-701, the Commission decided to hold in abeyance its decision on ALAB-701 until completion of the current review of uranium mill tailing regulations and and of any rulemaking which may be needed to conform its regulations to EPA's new radon emission standards which were promulgated October 1,1983. Pending the outcome of these matters, the rulemaking to add new estimates for radon-222 and technetium-99 to Table S-3 is being held in abeyance. TlMETABLE: EPA's New Standards promulgated 10/1/83 Revise NRC's Milling Regulations 06/30/84 New Estimates for Table S-3 12/31/84 LEGAL AUTHORITY: 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 5841; 42 USC 5842 EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESS ~AND OTHER ENTITIES: No AGENCY CONTACT: William E. Thompson Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555 301 427-4211 +v --r-m r

OFFICE FINDINGS ON PROPOSED RULEMAKING 10 CFR PART 51 1. Issue New estimates for Rn-222 and Tc-99 in Table S-3. 2. Need At present, the environmental effects of radon-222 and technetium-99 released from uranium fuel cycle facilities and operations can be litigated in individual nuclear power plant licensing proceedings. Adding new estimates for the environmental impacts of Rn-222 and Tc-99 to Table S-3 would eliminate the repeated litigation of these issues in individual licensing cases. 3. Alternatives The only alternative to generic treatment of the environmental impacts of Rn-222 and Tc-99 is to continue to allow these environmental impacts to be brought into litigation in individual licensing cases. 4 Proposed Action By rulemaking action, new estimates for the environmental releases of Rn-222 and Tc-99 can be added to Table S-3, and the narrative explanation of Table S-3 can be modified accordingly. This will complete Table S-3 and will remove all environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle from further consideration and litigation in individual nuclear power plant licensing cases. i

+ 5. Effects of Proposed Action This rulemaking action will not impose additional work or requirements on the public, the industry, license applicants, or the Commission staff. It will reduce the time required and the effort needed to complete unclear power plant licensing proceedings. 6. Resources and Schedule j NRC resources to develop the rulemaking are estimated to be 0.5 FTE scientific staff, with no contractual support. The development of j new estimates can begin as soon as the uranium mill licensing regula-tions have been modified to conform to EPA's new standards for radon releases. The rulemaking to add the new estimates to Table S-3 and to modify the narrative explanation of the table can be started in the last quarter of FY 1984 and completed by the end of the calendar year 1984.

i

• • • "'8%

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMissl0N / ( '.*-( j wasmucros. o. c. rosss ~ t O 2 2 1984

• r.

MEMORANDUM FOR: James J. Henry, Senior Health Physicist Regulatory Analysis and Materials Risk Branch, RES FROM: Ralph G. Page, Chief Uranium Fuel Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, NMSS

SUBJECT:

RADON AND TECHNETIUM ESTIMATES FOR TABLE S-3 The following infonnation is provided in response to your June 14, 1984, memorandum to George Beveridge, NMSS, concerning our proposed rulemaking to add new radon and technetium estimates to Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.51. The questions from your memorandum are shown as well as the answers. 1. Will the rulemaking be a proposed rule? If so, it is difficult to imagine the rulemaking being completed by the end of 1984. The rulemaking will involve the amendment of Table S-3 to insert new values for radon and technetium and to modify the footnotes to the table. The narrative explanation for Table S-3 (now awaiting Comission action on the proposed final rule) will also have to be modified to cover the new values for radon and technetium. We believe that a proposed rule can be submitted for Comission action by the end of the year. 2. Is a preliminary draft rule or Federal Register notice available at this time for review? No draft rule has yet been prepared. Information on radon and technetium has been presented in staff testimony in reactor licensing proceedings, and the transcripts are available for review. 3. In addition to revising Table S-3, will the rulemaking revise the footnote to Table S-37 What conforming amendments will have to be made to Part 51? Will there be any confom:ng amendments to Part 50? New environmental release source terms for radon and technetium will be added to Table S-3. The footnotes to the table will be revised accordingly. The narrative explanation of Table S-3 will be modified to discuss the environmental impacts of radon and technetium releases from fuel cycle facilities and operations. No other conforming amend-ments to Part 50 or 51 would be required.

1 l James J. Henry JUN 2 2 la.; 4. Will the rule include " maximum effect," i.e., entries under Column 3 of Table S-3? (The NMSS Office findings mention adding new estimates for the environmental impacts.) Yes, Column 3 entries would be provided. The environmental impacts of these releases would be discussed in the narrative explanation of Table S-3. 5. The Office findings state that the narrative explanation of Table S-3 can be modified accordingly. Does this mean that the new total curies for Rn-222 and Tc-99 will have to be published concurrently with the narrative for Table S-3? We plan that new estimates of the curies of Rn-222 and Tc-99 released from the uranium fuel cycle would be added to Table S-3. The explanation of the development of these estimates and their environmental impacts will be added to the narrative explanation of Table S-3, 6. How will new numbers for Rn-222 and Tc-99 reduce repetitive considera-tion in licensing proceedings? (There are no CP applications in the foreseeablefuture.) Will OL applicants supplement their ERs and will NRC have to issue supplemental FEIS's to "backfit" the Rn-222 and Tc-99 numbers? In other words, just how many CP holders will be able to use the numbers when published? At present, because Rn-222 and Tc-99 are not covered in Table S-3, their environmental impact estimates are described in staff testimony in individual reactor hearings for an OL. When the estimates are added to Table S-3, no further staff testimony will be required in the individual hearings. Since Rn-222 and Tc-99 are already being considered in the applicants' environmental reports and in the staff's environmental impt.ct statements, no "backfitting" is expected to be needed. The major change will be elimination of repeated staff testimony on Rn-222 and Tc-99 in individual licensing proceedings. Therearethirty(30) reactor cases still in the licensing process in stages where hearings could be held and Table S-3 estimates of Rn-222 and Tc-99 used. Past experience suggests that about half of these will require hearings in which Table S-3 testimony would be involved. f

i 2 2 E4 James J. Henry 7. If Tc-99 is released from waste management or reprocessing, is the total number of curies for Tc-99 established at this time and is the narrative explanation available at this time for review? (This assumes that completing work on Tc-99 need not wait for revising uranium mill tailings regulations.) Present estimates of Tc-99 curies are based on assumptions of total release over a long period of time from the waste repository. These estimates are presented and discussed in staff testimony at individual hearings for which transcripts are available. The proposed changes to Table S-3 and the narrative explanation have not yet been prepared in rulemaking fonn for review. @V RalphG.Pagh, Chief Uranium Fuel Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, NMSS cc: Mr. G. Beveridge, PSB \\-

F SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION 4 l

9388 Feder:1 Regist:r / Vol. 49. No. 49 / Monday. March 12. 1984 / Rules end Regulations l description of the proposed action. a by Federal. State. regional and local for protecting the non-aquatic l statement of its purposes. a description agencies havmg responsibihty for enuronment. proposed for possible of the environment affected. and discuss enuronmental protection The inclusion in the hcense as the following considerations: discussion of alternatives in the report ensironmental conditions in accordance (1) The impact of the proposed action shallinclude a discussion of whether the with I 50.36b of this chapter. on the environment. impacts shall be alternatives will comply with such 5 51.51 Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental discussed in proportion to their applicable environmental quality Data-m S4. significance. standards and requirements. s (2) Any adverse environmental effects (e) Adverse mformation. The (a) Every ensironmental report which cannot be avoided should the information submitted pursuant to prepared for the construction permit ) stage of a light-water-cooled nuclear proposal be implemented. paragraphs (bHd) of this section should IPLwer reactor. and submitted on or afteri (3) Alternatives to the proposed not be confined to information action.The discussion of alternatises supporting the proposed action but (September 4.1979)shall take Table S-3. / shall be sufficiently complete to aid the should also include adverse information. Table of Uramum Fuel Cycle Environmental Data. as the basis for Commission in developing and EnvironmentciReports-Pmduction and evaluating the contribution of the exploring. pursuant to section 102(2)(EJ Utilization Tacdities environmental effects of uranium mining of NEPA," appropriate alternatives to and milhng the production of uranium recommended courses of action in any I 51.50 Environmental Report-hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment. fuel I proposal which involves unresolved Construction permit stage. I fabrication, reprocessing of irradiated confhets concerning alternative uses of Each applicant for a permit to fuel transportation of radioactive available resources, To the extent construct a production or utilization materials and management of low level practicable.the environmentalimpacts facility covered by i 5L20 shall submit wastes and high level wastes re:ated to of the proposal and the alternatives with its application the number of uranium fuel cycle activities to the should be presented in comparative copies, as specified in i 5155. of a environmental costs of licensing the I ""; separate document, entitled nuclear power reactor. Table S-3 shall (4) The relationship between local .*Appbcant's Environmental Report-be included in the environmental report short. term uses of man s environment Construction Permit Stage." which shall and may be supplemented by a and the maintenance and enhancement contain the information specified in discussion of the environmental of long-term productivity: and I5 51.45. 5L51 and 51.52. Each (5) Any irreversible and irretrievable environmental report shall identify significance of the data set forth in the y table as weighed in the analysis for the commitments of resources which would procedures for, reporting and keeping proposed Wit)- h be involved in the proposed action records of environmental data, and any should it be implemented. conditions and monitoring requirements (b), (c) Analysis. The environmental - I report shallinclude an analysis which TaeJE S-3-TAsLE or URANluu FUEL CYCLE ENVIRONMENTAL DATA q 8 considers and balances the (*"*ze = aca' Lwa s'a* k="we"=a' t * *S* u.e3 one.- =6 m tNsEunsii sI environmental effects of the proposed action and the alternatives available for ts swenoies c ono e pi no ) reducing or avoiding adverse fLT, Wh*CL environmental effects, as well as the Ea-a- = w mne.o-enons Tais environmental, economic, technical and other benefits of the proposed action.

• m Assou=cs us

(* * ** The analysis shall. to the fullest extent practicable quantify the various factors [,_ ~ n { 22 ; Ew e e a no ww. cone po c pani e considered.To the extent that there are owtao a important qualitative considerations or -~~ ( Parne,.ney communed, J i) factors that cannot be quantified. those

• • • "*"P*o"*

considerations or factors shall be ~ ~ ~ I discussed in qualitative terms.The -- -.._- - - ] t i.o9c : environmental report should contain Dec+= ed e=== tema.- - "'I D"#"G"

• 8"-

sufficient data to aid the Commission in ...I son pr= a,noo. i.mc ww. Lwn.e onc. Tow its development of an independent ""o" *"'"o analysis. r om* ** '\\d) Status of compliance. The '**""""***'8'*"*'"'- 322 < S **c*"' * "*" ' "C "*

• L *" ""'

'"po.",j* ~ # * "* * *#" environmental report shalllist all Federal permits, licenses, approvals and other entitlements which must be h=* e= F*a a se us <o

• weaal e a=ov 'Sm was ~p win j

j Emem-c= =cMun obtained in connection with the ( proposed action and shall describe the c== enckee .-.no = ['*",,,"*"'"'"*'"'"'"**"""'*"' r quire ent en ron e al report u shall also include a discussion of the

• • oc*tm's status of compliance with applicable

,re,s, environmental quality standards and oe. p s7 Pmc===, som ur.,wdocima.nnch.n.ni..na,. requirements including. but not limited L- ,,""L7"*'7ll,',*"n.,*[,",*,lM*'I'", C I to, applicable zoning and land use natik i regulations, and thermal and other 8" water pollution' limitations or requirements which have been imposed

Fed;r:I R:gistir / Val. 49. N2. 49 / Mondn. M:rch 12.17.N / Rul. s and Regulttions 93rW Taats S-3-Tasts os Unawu Furt Cyctt E Nv'Romut=1 At Dat A 5--Conte es 4 $1.52 Environmental effects of u ,.e. , tw. w w. nas ir.ei..wm. nw.. invarc esisit transportat6on of fuel and waste-Table v ~ l* Es erv environmental report prepared l ,.",,',Ql" '"*,*' *.*.?7ll*oo%.*i o7.*@ ft,r the' construction permit atage of a A t o-,-,e oo e Tow light water-couled nuclear power i f I two. reactor, and submitted after Februar3 4 so. e e ! F,om.=camet w t.nn wa w.o. comoc. = cor.me..,o .o ou..as, 1975 shall coatnin a statement i %o. rs e ' so nur .a. -w e.o n. pm. i. c.,u,.. .no - mion. n,,e. ir e concerning transportation of fuel and e.

c. -

l.~._ s. .- i,, e. ci. es e.ve, imo as.v to ev imio. perm.s.3, radicarlive wastes to and from the i ha - $2 i .ir,s.ro. Tr. con.iwa'. in. mow..cmoa.ao reaetor. That statement shall indicate so o or - er. hM.-.ar rf.. h" that the reactor and this transportation t ;.L or. irouuna. e us _.... T r.o F< ora ca. or.7-a gnac.m.%=. = -one either meet all of the conditions in sae. - si ooo pr.w. wo,n c -no.ge'icam e ** =."* paragraph (a) of this section or all of the sm ems-R.e48 icm u Conditions in paragraph (b) of this

c. a6eew*s -. n--es f-ar m p,

m, -e-e. con.o-.w im m car,.ca) section. (a)(1) The reactor has a core thermal )< n.-m.. Tr rx _.__. _Mez i ca. l power level not exceedmg 3.800 c un,e. j 1,w trou.neo..._ _ _. in i l megaw atts. c.i..___.__ (2) The reactor fuelis in the form of U.IN ~ ~ _.Z. _ $ parwe nom w reproc m o

• sintered uranium dioxide pellets having r

i.126 __ ~ _. 13 ~ e uranium-235 enrichment not exceeding c$ ~ ~~. ~ ~~ ~. _ _ ...T prmni.,,io-cor o..t.e, in v. co 'ir i g

41. by weight, and the pelleis are X

Fassar Pomwe'..,0 t.m.swacs _ _ ~~'~MT encapsulated in ZirCaIoy rods: L' ave. (3) The average level of irradiation of urawr.-e a.ug vem. _ _. _ 2i per.rx.a, *om en.ws-cw is.,.wo eid e. a,n.o io,ue_nc.,i,,.nis v w. .,,.c. the irradiated fuel from the reactor does i "" " o'am not exceed 33.000 megawatt-days per Irx.T"_-_ ci Fre c iv van,<e.an p.<%._cono.renica ic p ce< assembly is shipped until at least 90 T3 23.. _ l~T Ns metric ton, and no irradiated fuel _ i_.

1. d".,7.".,, *,.' ".,*J '*"'5 ** "'"** " days after it is discharged from the Fs.or.,d.ct ton pro & sis Sohd. Itaruc ce.iel s e, to-*

tcactor; or, un n.r wm.n..c i. _. _. _ iuco e soc o co,

• om r

= cw..ro one (4) With the exception ofirradiated t sac o coma ** =r$o' o.co" -.w eac a. fuel, all radioactive waste shipped from k, o . m,, eno.e =,o i.n.,. v.s ,suo the reactor is packaged and in a solid ,_.,c,,,,a g.,,,,, so wee Amon'**r 80 o con =

• cor,-.oa form:

"* 7.n't" * " " ' ' ' " * * * * " " ' " ' * * * (5) Uninrsdiated fuel is shipped to the mu nne mw ic p> a n i. io a a m s.a-e n.oo,, smu.n.-e. s bron. reactor by truck: ftradiated fuelis t,.n.co,.on, s,,,.o,-.,,,e arm e-me,=._ a oss < s p.e-. a

o. i. ore uw. twa shipped from the reactor by truck ra.l.

i Espo.s. 8 --.n re e-+ = put*c as or barge, and radioactive waste other occis.w. =oow. s>.rm au ers,rrom,c.,. ne.no s.,,ny than irradiated fuelis shipped from the i ei.= e_e.ct r c==.n-. no :..n . ca., e., e. w.yo,e a,w.,nn. m,r.a m..i,....eu.~..,a e.,

r. ct

. te - reactor by truck or rail, and nc .1.t,ne,e.nc,ud ce e,, (T'.w.*'senc r.w.m222 rw v a.s..,,, no, z.e,,o,.,.ry n.3.,ca.r r n.

,.,,e M.ow. v, r

ver w u;. c, m. n, w r m m,, c w,h.,.,.,- -v (6) The environmentalimpacts of s.3.o. 5 aan 3 i,,.,in e

• =s T'iese e.ws e-a. t. r=* th+3 or Me.,yi r er ricrosa hcF.M proc.e.: - mv ***

transportation of fuel and waste to and re es NaCp u.2 64 co m n -, = . :,,,r,e n c e. m a. u.. m m. e. from the reactor, with respect to normal e,o n.s-izes. v.,-o.w.c c.n,e ac. s.v. .e.u.n.eeme. a.orw a r.e t.w,ra.r n.m o, rem hune.G.o is,oc.w,.ng n wn-at p E a ry w r ca. -w m..no T.c For ae a i wAs s Pons, or w ce e.PECA2,9. se, in S**.12 8$ en6 e e. F.r.a Conditions Of transport and possibi a.sooa kr nt s sv., or in ae e w n re vaa v.ing = u,.w, Fu.twa 6.,a c,cco+euw. eure,c,o ec ct. wom seem Fw.5 f5is,c 2 in Wm. ace w m.e.n e ,-. n =,W r. accidents in tranSpor.t, are as set forth in u m.em m o e iv =. cw =

• m a w.no e.=cm i.i.n. e.,.

no, o,.e ,5.no ma+a-ei u,..i. m.,n.w,.,t, Summary Table S-4 in paragraph (c) of c*. au Tn w x nc. . = w e.i.e w cr wr umo~,re ,,.. m. e eo .v m. n sn v..ut.w. ens this section: and the values h the table w w eve.o. e ei.cr i w,po,e

• om = am

,.,,,a,,.om,a. p.m.o.oc.w,.

r. no,,,n ev.a n

s-, e i si nai= o,e v..a_e e.,so we. 24 a.' =* ^ "o,.",**. represent the contribution of the va. ca w co 1.o. s in n.uton e maioor

• w

.e we. e a .x c s =x=. =enee= a e.e-e . we. on = em,. e s7==m iar sc,.. transportation to the environmental 0 7p'.',5'"4",,*,'d'7,C,'7na 7." !' *"'" '** " "" '"*'*"" costs of lic.ensing the reactor.

l 1 Fed:rc.1 Regi:t:r / Vol. 49. No. 49 / Mond y. hhrch 12. 1984 / Rules cnd R:gul:tions 9393 respecting the proposed action. This comment to make To the extent impact values set forth in Table S-3. prehminary recommendation will be practicable. NRC staff will grant Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle %) based on the information and analysis reasonable requests for extensions of Environmental Data. which shall be set av.rgmnentalimpact- }' described in peregraphs (a}-{d) of this time of up to fifteen (15) days. out in the i ith the exception o )$ hnetium_dergleases.f rarinn / section and il 51.75. 5L76. 5180 and stat ment 5 5t74 memon of dren environmntal .22_e nd no 51.85. as appropriate, and will be impoet statemnt and supplement to draft d d M mie Mean reached after weighmg the costs and benefits of the proposed action and 7,$",T*"'*""* **' *""*"I' values and other numerical data that appear exphcity in the Table shall be considering reasonable alternatives. In (a) A copy of the draft environmental required."The impact statement shall lieu of a prehminary recommendation. impact statement will be distributed to; take account of dose commitments and the NRC staff may ndicate in the draft (1) The Environmental Protection health effects from fuel cycle effluents statement that two or more alternatives ^8 set forth in Table S-3 and shallin remain under consideration' A y other Federal agency which acco n o co om i 51.72 Supplement to draft environmental has special expertise or jurisdiction by o[a impact statement. law with respect to any environmental impacts and such other fuel cycle (a) The NRC staff will prepare a impact involved or which is authorized supplement to a draft environmental to develop and enforce relevant environmental standards. impact statement for which a notice of evailabihty has been pubbshed in the (3) The applicant or petitioner for i 5 t.76 Draft envlommentalimpact Federal Register as provided in i 51.117. rulemaking and any other party to the statement-Manufacturing pcense. if. proceeding A draft environmentalimpact (1) There are substantial changes in (4) Appropriate State and local statement relating toissuance of a the proposed action that are relevant to agencies authorized to develop and license to manufacture a nuclear power enforce relevant environmental reactor will address the environmental environmental concerns, or standards. ma:ters specified in Appendix M of Part (2) There are significant new circumstances or information relevant to (5) Appropriate State, regional and 50 of this chapter.The draft environmental concerns and bearing on metropolitan clearinghouses. environmental impact statement will (6) Appropnate Indian tribes when the include a request for comments as the proposed action or its impacts. (b) The NRC staff may prepare a proposed action may have an provided in i 51.73. supplement to a draft environmental environmentalimpact on a reservation. (7) Upon written request, any $ 51.77 Distribution of draft environmental I impact statement when. in its opinion. organization or group included in the impact statement. preparation of a supplement will further master list of interested organizations (a)In addition to the distribution the purposes of NEPA. N (c)The supplement to a draft and groups r aintained under i 51.122. authorized by I 51.74, a copy of a draft d environmentalimpact statement will be (8) Upon written request, any other environmental statement for a licensing V' prepared and noticed in the same person to the extent available. action for a production or utilization manner as the draft environmental (b) Additionalcopies willbe made facility, except an action authorizing available in accordance with i 51.123 issuance, amendment or renewal of a impact statement except that a scoping (c) A supplement to a draft I cense to manufacture a nuclear power process need not be used. environmental impact statement will be reactor pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50. I 51.73 Request for comments on draft distributed in the same manner as the Appendix M will also be distributed to: environmentalImpact statement draft environmentalimpact statement to (1)The chief executive of the j Each draft environmentalimpact which it relates. municipality or county identified in the g statement and each supplement to a (d) News releases stating the draft environmentalimpact statement as i draft environmentalimpact statement availability for comment and place for the preferred site for the_ proposed distributed in accordance with ( 51.74. obtaining or inspecting a draft facility or activity. and each news release provided environmental statement or supplement (2) Upon request. the chief executive pursuant to i 51.74(d) will be will be provided to local newspapers of each municipality or county identified accompanied by or include a request for and other appropriate media. In the draft environmentalimpact j comments on the proposed action and (e) A notice of availability will be statement as an alternative site. t on the draft environmentalimpact published in the Federal Register in (b) Additional copies will be made statement or any supplement td the draft accordance with I 51.117. ava table in accordance with I 51.123. environmentalimpact statement and ft En 1 g will state where comments should be fg'c eme ts-P duct on on '#E Utilization submitted and the date on which the Facihties comment period closes. A minimum I 51.40 Draft environmentalimpact comment period of 45 days will be $ 51.75 Draft environmentalimpact statement-Matertale Bcense. provided.The comment period will be statement-construction permit. The NRC staff will either prepare a calculated from the date on which the A draft environmentalimpact draft environmental impact statement or Environmental Protection Agency notice statement relating to issuance of a as provided in i 51.92, a supplement to a stating that the draft statement or the construction permit for a production or supplement to the draft statement has utilization facility will be prepared in es for retenu of nn 222 and Tc.oo a been filed with EPA is published in the accordance with the procedures and siven in the Table The amount end sisnificance of Faderal Register. If no comments are measures described in il 51.70,51.71. Rn.222 releases from the fuel cycle and Tc4U provided within the time specified,it 51.72 and 51.73.The contribution of the re!*un from==ste manssement er reprocessins will be presumed, unless the agency or environmental effects of the uranium 7j' "j'g".,'$'jj'd',',h g gg ( person requests and extension of time, fuel cycle activities specified in 5 51.51 subiece of htisation in indmdunt hcensma that the agency or person has no shall be evaluated on the basis of raceedinse-

i Cite as 13 NRC 487 (1981) ALAB-640 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENSING APPEAL BOARDS Administrative Judges:' Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. John H. Buck Richard S. Salzman l Dr. W. Reed Johnson Thomas S. Moore in the Matters of l } PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC Docket Nos. 50-277 COMPANY. et al. 50 278 (Peach Bottom Atomic 5 Power Station, Units 2 and 3) [ I METROPOLITAN EDISON Docket No. 50 320 t COMPANY, et al. i i (Three Mlle Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2) P PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC Docket Nos. 50-354 AND GAS COMPANY 50-355 (Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) May 13,1981 t Following a consolidated evidentiary hearing concerning the environ-i mental release of radioactive radon gas attributable to the muung and j

• The Appeal Panel members heted are on one or more of the Boards asugned to hear the i

cephoned proceedings; their coDectzve designation is simply a convensence in issuing this -l decmon. s ~. ) j l ] I m+

...;.__~....- s.,. - +.y -~. . - - - -. -i----~~~ .; I ) l l .w i millmg of uranium for nuclear reactor fuel, the Appeal Boards adopt radon release values to be factored into the cost. benefit analyses for the Peach Bottom, Hope Creek and ihree Mile Island reactors. RULES OF PRACTICE: COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL Participants in a proceeding cannot be held bound by the record adduced in another proceedmg to which they were not parties. APPEARANCES Messrs. Jay E. Silberg, Matias F. Travieso.Diaz, Troy B. Conner, Jr., and Robert M. Rader, Washington, D.C., jointly appeanng on t behalf of the applicants, Metropolitan Edison Co. et al., f Philadelphia Electric Co. et. al., and Public Service Electric and Gas j Co. j Ms. Sue Reinert, Oswego, New York, as a representative of f intervenors, Ecology Action of Oswego. ] Dr. (hnnevy Eepford, State College, Pennsylvania, as a representative of the Peach Bottom.Three Mile Island intervenors, Citizens for a Safe Environment and the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power. i i Mr. Bernard M. Bordenick for the Nuclear Regulatory Commmion I stalT. I l i I M j j e 1 - --- a

~...... ....... ~ - -..... .w, a~.. -.. ..- n x CONTFNIS

1. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 490

11. TECHNICALINTRODUCTION 493 A. Basic RadiologicalConcepts 493 B. Characteristics and Sources of Radon 496 C. Estimation of Radon Releases 497 111. EMISSIONS ATTRIBtJTABLETO URANIUM MINING 499

\\ A. Underground Mines 499 B. Open Pit Mines 504 l C. Changes in Radon Release Values 509 1 IV. EMISSIONS ATTRIBUTABLETO URANIUM MILLING 513 A. Radon Releases Dunng Active Milling Operations 513 B. long-Term Radon Releases from Unprotected Mill Taihngs Piles $16 C. Long-Term Radon Releases from Protected MillTailings $18

1. Regulatory Authority 519

2. Stabilization Methods 523 I

3. Iong Term Stability of Protected Mill Taihngs 524 V. OTHER POSSIBLE RADON RELEASE MECHANISMS 531 A. Water Pathways

$32 B. Phosphate Residues $34 [ VI.

SUMMARY

ANDCONCLUSIONS 536 A. Application of Radon Release Findings $36 B. Prematurity of Health Effects Issue 544 Opinion of Dr. Buck and Dr. Johnson, dissenting with respect to Part VI B 547 i i i i '1

o n. .,,i ~. ~ s 7 TABLE 4 PORilON OF RADON BFI.F.ASES FROM THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE ATTRIBUTABLE TO OPERAllON OF SPECIFIC NUCIIAR FACILITIES Model Ught Water Reactor { Rating: 1000 MWe Total Fuel Requirement: 30 AFRs Release During Aedve Mining and Milling 198,000 0 Continuing Releases, Case 2 2,730 Ci/yr Continuing Releases, Case 3 6,900 Ci/yr I Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3 I Rating: 1065 MWe per reactor l Total Fuel Requirement: 64 AFRs t Release During Active Mining and Muhng 422,400 0 Continuing Releases, Case 2 5,820 Ci/yr Continuing Releases, Case 3 14,720 Ci/yr nree Mile idand, Unit 2 Rating: 906 MWe Total Fuel Requirement: 27 AFRs Release During Active Mining and Milling 178,200 0 Continuing Releases, Case 2 2,460 Ci/yr Continuing Releases, Case 3 6,210 Ci/yr i Hope Creek, Units I and 2 Rating: 1067 MWe per reactor Total Fuel Requirement: 64 AFRs Release During Active Mining and Milling 422,400 Q Continuing Releases, Case 2 5,820 Ci/yr Continuing Releases, Case 3 14,720 G/yr i l: 542 fi 9 l 2m

o

1. . m 4

i B. Prematurity of Ilealth EKects Ismae As we indicated in Part I (p. 493 supra ), now that the radon emissions attributable to the mining and milhng of uranium fuel have been quantified, we must confront the acceptability of the Perkins Board's de minimis approach for assessing the environmental significance of possible health efTects from those releases." We also have before us the stafTs motion - supported by applicants - for leave to file proposed findings on the health effects question. As explained below, however, the health effects question is i not yet ripe for decision. The stafTs motion is therefore denied. The intervenors were not parties to the Perkins proceeding and cannot be bound involuntarily by the record adduced in that case. In response to our prior orders on the radon question, intervenors objected to portions of the Perkins record on health efTects and sought to supplement the record on this subject." Accordingly, fundamental fairness dictates that intervenors now be provided an opportunity to challenge the factual underpinnings of the Ucensing Board's de minimis rationale. Only then may we properly face the applicability of the de minimis approach to the health effects question in the proceedings before us. j In our prior decisions we attempted to fashion feasible and fair procedures for resolving the generic radon issue without holding separate, repetitive trials in a large number of licensing proceedings.n The ? procedures we established involved novel and somewhat complicated steps, l' j which necessarily represented a compromise among the competing views of s "The lacensing Board in perh attaculated its de mbiinus findang as foDoes: l Based on the record available to this Board, we find that the best marhaa-I available to characterue the aigairm.a,* of the radon rdesses associated with the mining and milhng of the nuclear fuel for the Perkins facihty is to compare such 9 releasco with those assoaated with natural background. The incresee in background j associated with Perkms is so small compared with background and so eman in companson with the fluctuations in background, as to be comp &etely undetectable. [ Under such a ce_-'a ace. the impact cannot be agmficant. e I 8 NRC at 100. "See Response of Ecology Actaon of Oswego to AIA]M40, pp. 2 5 (July 26,1978) (chauenging, meer du, raram, rowed cetimaien of radon health effecu and failure to conader the greater health impacts on populations hving close to armarum mills); Response of 7kee

1. de Idamf. reach Aorrom intervenors to ALAIH80L pp. 3,7(July 27,1978)(aseerung need for suppicmentation of perh record on the health effects oflow level, low-does rate radiation).

See also Response of 2ker #de Insuf.reacA Aotsom intervonors to ALAB-509, pp. 9,20 i (February 19,1979)(in effect, eh="-aga: the rarasir Board's finding on natural becaground i radiation from radon). "See AIA]M40,7 NRC 796 (1978); ALAB-509,8 NRC 679 (1978); AIAB-512,8 NRC 690 l (1978) ALAB-540,9 NRC 428 (1979); AIAB-546,9 NRC 636 (1979); AIAB 562,10 NRC l 437(1979); AIAB-566,10 NRC 527(1979). l \\ N L

, ~ ~.. ._n

s..,

'm + l I the various parties. Insofar as providing a sound basis for deternumng the magnitude of radon emissions attributable to the mining and mdhng of uranium, these procedures proved adequate. At the same time, however, it appears that our prior decisions were somewhat ambiguous with respect to how we would factor the consequences of such radon releases into the cost. benefit analyses of the individual license prm Mage before us. No useful purpose would be served by an extended study of those decisions to ascertain the basis of the parties' difTering interpretations of them. SufTice it to note that the primary focus of our earlier decisions was upon the magnitude of radon emissions from the mining and mdhng of uranium.** We must now turn to the question of the health effects of those emissions. Toward that end, intervenors must be given an opportunity to challenge i t I "Ibe parues' diffenng interpretauons of our pnor haw== apparently stem from the cA-repeated language contained in ALAB 509 concerning the lacenang Board's de muisnes of health effects and our direction that the partaes bner the legal sufficosacy of that ) t as employed by the lower Board. See 8 NRC at 684. Nothing we said there was intended to deny the intervenors an opportunity to challenge shoes paru of the PerAias record denhag with heahh adecu to wluch they obpected in response to ALAIH80. Indeed, at the time we issued AIAB 509, intervenors' obpections to the Perkins record on heelsh effects were stau j outstandaag - a fact which we recognised in ALAB-309 when we stated that most of j intervenors' obpections fded in response to ALAB 480 "went to the adequacy of that record ce the questaca of health effects." 8 NRC at 683. "Ihr intended focus of ALAB-509 and our subesquent decisaons was on the magnitude of rados releases forum the suaang and of uranium rather than the health effects questaca. For saample, is ALAB 362, we in graatang summary disposition of intervenors' Danciency 22 that *st this stage we are sadl trying to ascertana the magnitude of the releases of redom involved in the relevant aspects of the fuel cycle; only aner that is does wdl health effects cosas into pisy." 10 NRC at 444 45. la that same opiason, we yted: *TWie remund the partise that health effects wel not be taken up at this haanas. 10 NRC at 448 fin. 36. Finally, upon the monom of one c( the appbcaats at the hennag on rados releases, we struck certain testimony cristervonors' witness deshag with haahb effecu on the ground that it was beyond the scope of that jii{--- ' ; Tr. 8 10,13-24. We cannot fully endorse the view of our dassenting couangues that the issues of natural background rados releases and rados concentrations are now entirely forh Whale intervenors did act advance deficasacies on those subpects in response to AIAB-309, they obpected to our taking up the dr mammus theory of haahh effects before the issue of rados releases had besa settled and they clearly empressed the view that A1AB 509 required them to assume, arpssada the natural and fuel cycle related redom issues found in # brains. Response of Peach Aersone.7hree Mar 1sised intervenors to AIAB 309, ik. 92, myrs at 9; Response of ] Ecology Accom of Oswego to AIAB-509, fa. 22 myrs at 18. Not w read our i deferral of the hashh e#ecu quasuoe in AIAB-509 as calhas for a deferral of ana tion of some of ther obpectons to the Params record as well; namely, the PerAmr quantancassoa of heehh efects and locahaad tempacts in the viciasty of the anses and saius, among othera. l Response of Ecology Actaca d Oswego lo ALAB-509, fa. 22, myrs at 4. Although locahmed redan concentrances may be estimated without proceedsag to evaluate their heshh effects, the enhpects are closely related as a practical mauer. And, in docessoas subsequent to AIAB 509, we faded to indicate that intervenors had saastead our directsve. ' i i -q.; u l _~.

....e.._ ,.,....~, .. _ -.. ~ sg y*w 9 I certain facts in the Perkins record on health effects to which they previously j objectsd." As soon as practicable, we will issue a memorandum detailing the procedures to be followed in that regard." Itis so ORDERED. FOR THE APPEAL BOARDS i, C. Jean Bishop Secretary to the Appeal Boards i l The opinion of Dr. Buck and Dr. Johnson, dissenting with respect to Part VI B (pp. 543 545. supra), follows.' 'rrbee-m directed us to reopen the record in pending cases "to receive asw evidence j on rados releases and on health effects resulting from rados releases." 43 Fed. Itag, at 15616. With all defersace to our dissenting - " s we beheve it is ascessary Arst to escaldash a proper record on the health effects, if any, frosa rados releases associated with the mining and 'l maalling of uraniumi fuel before discounting those impacts as remoes and speculatiw. It may ultimately be that any health effects from rados releases are so smaR as to be on.-L, e"y imagaaficant. But to reach that conclusion before intervenors have had as opportanity to j present and prove their case on that subject prejudges the issue. Such a result is contrary to law ) and econsistant with our pnor decimons in thisr---' '; See ALAM8(L 7 NRC at 305. "We do not that a hennag on the health effects questaca is inevitable. It may be that the issue can be. y resolved upon motions for sumunary dispositioc. 'Drs. Buck and Johnson constitute a majority in two of the three contested cases which ass the l subject of this decianos. As we pointed out in ALAB.509, however, the rados saatter is a j peeric one and any significant /.J.,-- ts in this p _- "; will have to be taken into i secount in our review of the uncontested casse still pending before us. 8 NRC at 683, fhs. 8 i and 9. la four of the five uncontested cases for which there is at presset a three -har Appeal Board, the conclusion of Messrs. Roosenhal, hl-a and Moore in Part VI B of this cyanion constitutes the majority view. Accordingly,it will govern the latyr number of radon l cases and is thus being treated as the anajority opiance. l ) I ' I 4

.-,_-s.. -~,.-s Cite as 16 NRC 1517 (1982) ALAB-701 ~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDS e Administrative Judges:' Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. John H. Buck Dr. W. Reed Johnson Thomas S. Moore in the Matters of e 1 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Docket Nos. 50-277 l et al. 50-278 l (Peach Bottom Atomic Power j ) i Station, Units 2 and 3) l f METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, Docket No. 50-320 et al. 1 (Three Mlle Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2) PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND Docket Nos. 50-354 GAS COMPANY 50-355 (Hope Creek Generating Station, Ur:lts 1 and 2) November 19,1982 The Appeal Boards for this consolidated proceeding determine that intervenors t have failed to demonstrate a need for a further evidentiary hearing on the question of the efrects on human health of the annual fuel cycle radon releases attributable to i the operation of the Peach Bottom (dnit 3). Three Mile Island (Unit 2), and Hope l 'The Appeal Panel nwmben hsted are on one or more of the Boards assigned to hear the captioned proceedings; their collective designation is simply a convenience in issuing this decision. 1517 ' en e 1

~. -s. .m ,.m.. .i ,..] i a Creek (Units I and 2) reactors; and conclude on the basis of the existing evidentiary record that the health effects of those annual releases are not sufficiently significant to tip the National Environmental Policy Act (N EPA) cost-benefit balances against operation of these facilities. The Boards terminate their review of the initial decisions in each of the three proceedmgs (LBP-74-42,7 AEC 1022 (1974)(Peach Bortom); LBP-77-70,6 NRC I I 85 (1977)(TMI 2); LBP 15,7 N RC 642 (1978) (Hope Creek)) and affirm each decision except to the extent modified in their previous review on other issues. TECHNICAL ISSUES DISCUSSED i Health effects (f radon releases from nuclear fuel cycle; Expertise of witnesses; Natural release of radon. I. APPEARANCES Jay E. Silberg and Matias F. Trasieso-Diaz, Washington, D.C., for applicants, f Metropolitan Edison Co., et al. i Troy B. Conner, Jr., and Robert M. Rader, Washington, D.C., for applicants, l Philadelphia Electric Co., et al., and Public Senice Electric and Gas Co. 9 Judith R. Johnsrud and Chauncey Kepford, State College, Pa., for Prach Bottom Three Mile h/and intervenors, Citizens for a Safe Environment i and the Environmental Coahtion on Nuclear Power, Bernard M. Bordenick for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff. DECISION in the fulfillment ofits responsibihties under the National Environmental Policy Act, this agency is required to consider, inter alia, the environmental effects associa:ed with the release of radioactive radon gas (radon 222) to the atmosphere as a result of the mining and milling of uranium for reactor fuel. Once determined, those effects must then be factored into the cost benefit analyses underlying I reacto. licensing decisions. in ALAB-MO,13 NRC 487,539-542 (1981), we found the annual amounts of mining and milling radon releases attnbutable to the operation of the Peach Isis _m

,. ~.. -.~_ m ~J ,4l i Bottom, Three Mile Island (Unit 2), and Hope Creek reactors. 7 tis decisino concerns whether their environmental (i.e., health) effects are sufficiently signifi. cant to tip the NEPA cost-benefit balances against the operation of those facilities.' For the reasons explained below, we answer that question in the negative without calling for any further evidence on the subject. I. A. The extended history of this consolidated proceeding was recounted in full i in ALAB-640, supra,13 NRC at 490-93. For present purgbses, we gnfine ourselves to a summary of the more important events. In 197c the Commission's regulations were amended to set fotth in tabular form the valon to be assigned to the various environmental effects associated with the uranium fuel cycle.10 CFR Part $1, Table S-3," Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data."In 1978 the Commission determined that the value then provided in Table S 3 for radon releases was in error and must be deleted. Rather t' than immediately initiating a new rulemaking proceeding to obtain a new and more 1 accurate value, the Commission elected to defer its further consideration of the matter of radon releases to await completion of the NRC staff's generic environ-mental impact statement on uranium milling. See 43 Fed. Reg.15613 (April 14, 1978). For the interim, the licensing and appeal boards were to " receive new evidence on radon releases and on health cffects resulting from radon releases."/d. at 15615-16.2 At that juncture, there were 17 construction permit and operating license proceedings pending before appeal boards. In addition, a licensing board had before it the construction permit proceeding involving the proposed Perkins facility. Upon receipt of the Commission's directive, that Board immediately embarked upon an evidentiary hearing on the radon release issue. On July 14, 1978, it rendered its decision on the issue, in which it determined that the radon emissions associated with the mining and milling of uranium added so little to the radon already in the environment (i.e., natural background radon) as to be both undetectable and insignificant from a health effects standpoint. DuAe Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units I,2, and 3), LBP-78-25,8 NRC 87,100 (1978). 1 I Peach Bottom and Three Mile Island-2 are fully constructed. (The former is now in operation, the laner has. of courw been shut down since its dnabhng accident in 1979.) Hope Creek is still under construction. 2 The staff's Tinal Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling." (GEIS), NUREG-0706. was issued m September 1980. In accordance with a Commmion duective, however, the determinations in ALAB.640 respecting release rases ressed upon the dnclosurea ia the adjudicatory record before us, rather than upon anything in the Gels See 13 NRC at 521. To deae, the Comnussion has nos promulgated a new Table 5 3 value fur radco.222 releases. i i l 1519 2

" -... _. _:L.. ^ : ~ ~ ^ L n. n.,..a:, n,., ^ L., . e L... 3 J f I ~,- 1 I Against this baciground, we decided to employ a " lead case" approach in { confronting the radon issue in the 17 proceedings that were in an appellate posture. I 1 Specifically, we gave the parties to those proceedings the opportunity "to supple-l ment, contradict or object to" both the PerAins record and the determinations made l by the Perkins Licensing Board on the basis of that record. ALAB-480,7 NRC l 796,804-06 (1978).5 Ultimately, we heard from intervenors in five of the proceed-i ings. They challenged both the sufficiency of the Perkins record and the correct-j ness of the result reached in that case. Upon our consideration of the submissions to us, we elected (1) to consolidate the five proceedings on the radon issue alone; (2) to divide the issue into two I components; (3) to conduct an evider.:bry hearing limited to the first component -i.e., for each reactor, the quantum of the radon releases attributable to the j uranium fuel cycle per > car of reactor operation;(4) to abide the outcome of that i hearing before addressing the second component (the health effects of the deter- ) mined releases); and (5) to hold in abeyance the entire radon issue insofar as j concerned the 12 proceedings in which that issue had not been put into contest by a i party. See ALAB-540,9 NRC 428,433 (1979); ALAB 562,10 NRC437 (l979). } Subsequently, the construction permit applications for two of the facilities in- } volved in the contested proceedings were withdrawn;* this reduced to three the i }. number of facilities encompassed by the hearing. B. Following the evidentiary hearing and the receipt of the parties' proposed findings of fact, we rendered ALAB-640. As previously noted, in that decision we determined the amount of radon which would be released in the mining and milling of the uranium necessary to provide fuel for the operation of each of the three facilities. We also concluded, by a divided vote, that a fulleropportunity had to be l i. given the parties to demonstrate that the determined releases might have sufficient health effects to tip the NEPA cost benefit balance for one or more of the facilities e against reactor operation.13 NRC at $39-42,543-45, t No party sought Commission review of ALAB-640 and the Commission de-clined to review it sua sponse. Thereafter, we issued ALAB-654,14 NRC 632 j (1981), in which the procedures for the further consideration of the health effects i aspect of the radon issue were detailed. In essence, we placed the burden upon those claiming a need for an evidentiary hearing on the health effects question to demonstrate at the threshold "the existence of a genuine issue of material fact respecting * *

• the environmental significance of fuel cycle related radon emis.

k sions."Id. at 634. The parties were :xplicitly informed that that demonstration would have to take the form of"the documented opinion of one or more quahfied authorities to the effect that the incrernental fuelcycle-related radon emissions will 1 i 1 8 The Per&ms record was fonnelly incorporasedin the record foreach of the 17 proceed nas before us. i

• Northere senses Power Co. (Tyrune Emergy Parh. Unst No.1), Dm ket No. STN $0 484 AccArster j

Gas and Urrsrw Corp. (Seerlag Power Propsct, Nuclear Unas 1) Duke No STN $0-485. 3 1520 i l i

• 9 i

F i .u.- amA . m. . ~ e

m.-< .. a m.,,. y, J have a significant environmental effect in terms of human health." /d. at 635 (emphasis in original). We recorded our expectation that "any such opinion will explicitly take into account ( 1) the comparative relationship hetween the amount of, those emissions (as found in ALAB-640) and of natural radon emissions; and (2) the fluctuations in natural emissions (indoor vis a vis outdoor as well as from one geographic area to another)."lbid. We concluded that, "[ijn the totality of circumstances, there is nothing un-reasonable about requiring the intervenors thus to shoulder *

• the burden of going forward on the question of the need for a further hearing on environmental.

impact."In this connection, we stated: the subject of health effects was thoroughly explored in the Perkins ' evidentiary hearing in the context of fuel cycle related radon emissions not dissimilar in amount to those later determined by us in these proceedings. And the Licensing Board's conclusion in that case that the incremental ; radon contribution of the uranium fuel cycle would not have significant ! health effects was grounded upon the testimony of highly qualified expert witnesses. See LBP 78-25, supra, 8 NRC at 95-100. One such witness was Dr. leonard D. Hamilton, a physician who headed the Biomedical and Environmental Assessment Division at the ' Brookhaven National Laboratory. For over thirty years, Dr. Hamilton had been involved in the appraisal of radiation health risks. Prior to joining Brookhaven in 1964, he had spent 14 years on the staff of the Sloan-i 3 Kettering Institute for Cancer Research in New York City and had also served on the faculty of the Cornell University Medical College. Referring to the testimony of other expert witnesses for the applicant and the staff, Dr. Hamilton had this to say: "As can be seen (from thatj testimony, the additional Radon-222 from the mining and milling [phasesj of the uranium fuel cycle makes an additional negligible contribution to annual natural background radiation and consequently, a similarly negligible impact an the health efects associated with thefuel cycle" (emphasis supplied). Not having been parties to PerAins, the intervenors now before us cannot be deemed bound by Dr. Hamilton's conclusions. (This is so even though Dr. Chauncey Kepford, the representative of the Peach Bortom. Three Mile Island intervenors, was permitted to cross. examine him on behalf of the Perkins intervenor). But in the absence of a concrete threshold showing that there is a difference in competent expert opinion on the health effects issue, there is wholly insufficient cause to require either the applicants in ! the instant proceedings or the staff to replow at yet another hearing the ground previously traversed by Dr. Hamihon and the other Perkins wit. Desses.

14. at 634-35 (footnotes omitted).

l t l 1528 .M 'e a me --,Wse..ni.----------_-____..--____..___~__-____- I

~ ~ .,.._,._. A..._. ~~. , -. -.~ \\ i A i C. In response to our invitation in ALAB-654, the Peach Bottom Threr Mile t Island intervenors filed a memorandum on the heakh effects question, supported } by the affidavit of Dr. Chauncey Kepford (one of their representatives).s Acccrd-ing to those parties, radon releases in the amounts determined in ALAB-640 will pose a significant health risk and, thus, tip the cost-benefit balance against these nuclear power plants. Replies to that submission were then filed by the Three Mile Islamlapplicants, the Prach Bouom Nope Creek applicants (in a single document authored by their common counsel) and the NRC staff. All of these parties asserted that Dr. Kepford was not a qualified authority on the subject of health effects and that, in any esent, his assertions lacked scientific basis and thus did not give rise to . a genuine i>>ue of fact necessitating resolution at a hearing. On the latter score, the Threr Mile Island applicants appended to their memorandum the affidavit of Dr. 1.eonard Hamilton, who (as noted in ALAB-654, p.1521, supra) had testified on j i the health effects question in Perlins? f 1 II, As earlier seen (p.1521, supra), ALAB-654 imposed Iwo specific obligations upon the inters enors in connection w ith their endeavor to establish the existence of ] a genuine issue of material fact on the health effects question,' First, the in-i tervenors had to demonstrate that "there is a difference in competent expert opinion" on the question; this obviously entailed "the documented opinion of one or more qualsfed authonties to the effect that the incremental fuel cycle-related radon emissions will hase a significant environmental effect in terms of human ] 'I ( i 1 8 lhat wbmauon noted that p was jomed in by the organitauon that had andersened in the procarding anvohmg the proposed Secrbng facihty. Ah'iough one of the five ongmal consohdaled pruceedings. $serhng =an damaned when the constrv(tion pernut apphcanon for et was laser withdrawn. See p. I 1520. syrd Note athuanding tha devetupment, at our invitauun the $1erhng sneervenor continued to } parucepete un the radon uwe See ALAB440,13 NRC at 492 n.6. No responic lo ALAB 654 was subnutsed by the Nepe Creet anservenor. j 61he Perlens inservenurs had filed estepteuns so the Licensing Board's redun deciuan LBP 78-25 sera Ahhuugh the partses bnefed those enceptions, we decided to hoki our ruhng on them m abeyance to aman the outcome of this consolidasedproceedsag. 1 Early tha year, leave was sought so eithdraw the fer&sas construction pernut applocation. For that j reason, we vacated three non final penial innsal decauuna rendered en the proceedens, anchsding LBP.75 25, and dasmated all pending appeals as moos We esphcstry saaeed, however, that this s.twa e j dad not "vmate the lesumuny and other evsdence contaened an the record on the inwe of the environmen-tal effech astouated w nh the release of radioachve radun gas f redon-2221 so the atnumphere as a sesuit 1 of the nunmp and nulhng of uramam for reactor fuel " ALA8464,15 NftC 450,452 n.3 (19820 la tha connecuon, we utessed that that record had provuled a puman of the beus for ALAB440 and might be employed in any wbwquent deceuens sa the connohdased redon ALAB 46N w as brought to the assenhen of the perhes now before us, nune eedsag.16sd Ahhungh eedtothe consenueduse of the ferims recurd ? It should be nosed that, in thew respunie to ALAB454, the inservenues dal nos challenge the placing upun them of the burden of going forward un the mouer of she need for an evidenciary heanns on shot l queueon in any event, we semmin persuaded then, for the reasons uaned in ALAB454 (see p.1521 saprel. that burden was pruperty allucased. j ,i A 1 1522 'e h.--. -. =

. - n.,. -..... ~. e .s, t i I health." Second, the expert opinion had to take into account both tis: amount of natural radon background radiation and the Ductuations in natural emissions from one locale to another.' On the latter score, we took specific note of the undisputed facts, disclosed in the Perkins record, that (1) fuel cycle related radon emissions are minute compared to natural emissions; and (2) the amount of natural radon found in the environment varies widely from one geographic area to another and inside and outside of buildings. ALAB-654,14 NRC at 633.' At the outset, I therefore, we must consider whether the applicants and the staff are right in their claim that the intervenors' submission failed to meet either obligation. I A. Dr. Kepford's affidavit is entirely devoid of any reference to his expert qualifications. Nor is this deficiency cured by anything in the intervenors' memor-4 andum to which the affidavit was attached. Indeed, it would be impossible to glean from either the affidavit or the memorandum any information at all respecting either his educational background or his experience. Perhaps intervenors thought such illumination to be unnecessary in light of the fact that Dr. Kepford had submitted a statement of professional qualifications in the Perkins proceeding and thereafter had been permitted by the Licensing Board l to testify on the health effects question presented in that case. See pp.1525, l 1527-28, infra. In addition, at the hearing below in the Three Mile Islaml proceeding now before us, Dr. Kepford's testimony on the question likewise was received. It appears, however, from ari examination of the records in the two proceedings that neither Licensing Board ruled on the matter For its part, the Three Mile island Board eapressly declined to pass upon Dr. Kepford's qualifications. Tr. 2929-31. As it indicated in its initial decision, his testimony had been admitted simply for "whatever weight is dectned apprepriate." LBP 77 70, 6 NRC 1185,1223 (1977). We have independently considered Dr. Kepford's qualifications as set forth in the PerAins record. His statement of professional qualifications (fol. Tr. 2819) discloses that he possesses a doctorate in chemistry obtained at the University of Calgary in Canada. Between 1%7 and 1969, he was employed as an industrial research chemist by the United Aircraft Corporation. During the ensuing two years, he held an assistant professorship in chemistry at the York Campus of the Pennsylvania State University. The statement does not tellect any employment i i s "Naurel enussions," which produce "amural badground redun." are derived from such th ngs as ordinary building masenals and soil. A1.AB454,14 NItC es 633 a S ' la that tegard. we cheerved ihm empuusres so induer redue concentrations e aceed cuidour esposures by, on the average, a factor of 30. See also, a 17, ips. 88 As funher appears in that decision. the Licensing board unumasely estached lentle, if any weight, so i Dr. Kepford's erstamany. See 6 NRC m 1224. Even had a licensens board driermined ihat Dr. Kepford was a qiinhfied e sport un the subpect at hand, that deternunation would out have been beding on iss. i isu I f 4 9

---

e m~.e

-a

~~a, .a ..~ \\ l subsequent to 1971; rather, it indicates without elaboration that, since that date, Dr. Kepford has devoted himscif fully to "the problems of nuclear power." Not long ago, we explicitly adopted the expen witness standard set forth in Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, w hich speaks in terms of" knowledge, skill, experience, training or education." DuAr Power Company (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-669,15 NRC 453,475 (1982). Applying that standard here, we are compelled to the conclusion that no basis has been provided by the intervenors for a finding that, by experience or education, Dr. Kepford has acquired knowledge or skill sufficient to qualify him as an expen on the heahh effects question to which his affidavit is assenedly addressed. Cf. Randolph v. Collectramatic,Inc.,590 F.2d 844,848 (loth Cir. I979); Ball v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,519 F.2d 715,718 (6th Cir.1975). In this connection, when interrogated on voir dire in PerAins, Dr. Kepford candidly and commend-ably acknowledged his lack of formal education or experience in medicine, health i physics or any other discipline hasing a perceivable relationship to the ascenain-j ment of the health significance of radioactise emissions. Tr. 20/7-78. i' B. In addition to intervenors' failure to have qualified Dr. Kepford as an expert on the subject under scrutiny, their submission made no mention of, let alone l discussed, the matter of the significance of the amount and distribution of natural l background radon. Once again, the record establishes without contradiction that l the radon contnbution of the uranium fuel cycle is a minute fraction of the radon that is released to the atmosphere from other sources - so minute, indeed, that that contnbution is not even detectable." This being so, there is at least room for senous question whether the fuel cycle radon emissions can be taken as, of themselves, having a significant impact upon human health. If anything, the doubt in this regard is reinforced by the equally undisputed fact that those emissions also are vanishingly small w hen compared to the fluctuations from plase to place in the amount of natural radon in the environment. PerAins Tr. 2276-77,2333. See also, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, Sources and E]Terss oflonizing Radiation 7l 74,80 (Table 30)(1977). For, at least in the absence of a demonstrated marked difference in radon induced health effects i between one geographical area and another, the existence of these fluctuations would appear to negate any theory that the fuel cy cle radon increment measurably l increases such health hazards as may be attributable to natural background radon. l Intervenors' seemingly deliberate choice to ignore these considerations is all the 8, more surprising in light of the testimony of Dr. llamilton in the PerAins proceed-ing, to which we made specific reference in ALAH.654. Dr. llamilton's expert H AffiJavn or Homer towenberg on ihr Itadun Value m Teble $.3, foi Params Tr. 2369, at p. 3 Although taheird as htt. towenberg's sitidavit in actualny sin sontent man spunnured by, and thus must be deemed the direct testmmmy of. Stall witnen Kathisen Blad ferims Tr. 2M9 f 9 1524 i a u a 2 ..l

. v. -_m.. .A > i g j i 1 ,2 m e i qualifications in the appraisal of radiation health risks are beyond cavil. See p. 1521, supra. In Perkins, he referred specifically to the " negligible"< additional contribution that fuel cycle-related radon emissions make to annual natural back- } ground radiation in concluding that ihose emissions have "a similarly negligible j impact on the health effects associated with the l'uel cycle." / bid.'2 Given thisjudgment of an established authonty, assuredly the intervenors had a duty to confront it in connection with their insistence that a genuine issue of j material fact existed on the health cffects question. Stated otherwise, if there exists i the contrary judgment of other competent authorities in the field, it was incumbent l l upon the.ntervenors to bring it to our attention. j C. Tnere is yet a third reason why it must be concluded that the intervenors have j 1 fallen Isr short of demonstrating the need for a further hearing devoted to the health I l cffects question. It appears from an examiaation of Dr. Kepford's affidavit that the thesis advanced therein differs in no material respect from the proposition that he put before the Perkins Licensing Poard several years ago in the capacity of a witness for the intervenors in that proceeding. Kepford, fol. Pr.-kins Tr. 2819. i Given the fact that the Perkins record has been incorporated in the record of this l consolidated proceedmg, manifestly no useful purpose would be served by a rehearsal of his testimony. In this regard, we need only reemphasize what was said in adopting the " lead case" approach in ALAB 480, supra: l In the circumstances, the Perkins record o e

• should be sufficient to serve as the base point for the examination of the radon issue in the [now consolidated proceeding l. This is not to say, of course, that every pany to cach of those proceedings will necessarily concur that that record is 1

satisfactory in every particular. No matter how thorough may have been the treatment of the radon issue in Perkins, one or more of the parties to other cases nonetheless may conclude that there were stones left unturned;i.e., that portions of the staff's new analysis were not adequately tested or that m. there is available evidence bearing upon the issue beyond that presented to j l the PerAins Board. Obviously, nonparticipants in Perkins cannot be held j bound by the record adduced in that proceeding. At the same time, however, it would be to no pany's advantage to insist that the radon issue l j be reli'igated from the starting line in his own case, so long as he were giv en an opportunity in his proceeding to supplement, contradict, or object j to anything in the PerAins record. In our view, this is a fair and appropnate i procedure. 7 NRC at 804-05. i l s2 Dr. Hamdson alnu alluded to the vast difference in the natural redun done received by indivulush; a ) diffennce setnbulatde to the flucinateuns in nasural background reden. Perasas Tr. 2276, 2278. e 1525 M i i b

... ~..._.i.. A ~.. L, 1. ~, %... -. ~ J . a. w. W.w.~... _, X y .i' S g 4 E x in sum, in contrast to the record on the quantity of radon releases, the Perkins 'f i record on health effects is complete for the purpose of our decision here." l Accordingly, we now turn to that record. We must determine whether it warrants a finding that the radon releases associated with fulfilling the uranium fuel require-i ments of the reactors at bar might tip the NEPA balance against plant operation. i f Ill. \\ In ALABMO, we found that the long-term release of radon associated with the 30-year operation of a single 1000 Mw(c) reactor could vary from 630 to 6900 ,{ l curies per year, according to the circumstances.13 NRC at 537,541 (Table 3)." l But the PerAins record establishes without contradiction that the natural release of radon in the United States is from I to 2.4 hundred million curies (Ci) per year." l Thus, the long term radon release rate associated with a single reactor stands in i relation to natural releases roughly in the range of from one part in 10,000 to one i part in 100,000. Dr. Hamilton testified that exposure to typical radon concentrations in outdoor j air results in a done to the bronchial epithelium (i.e., the cellular lining of the air passages of the lung)" of 5 millitads (50 millirem) per year. PerAins Tr, 2276." i 13 The heahh effects testmiony in Perims was, of courw, in the content of the radon relesw raies { disclosed by the evidence an that proceedmg. As noted in ALAB-654, however, those raies were not t i materially different from one rates determmed m ALAB-640 bened upon an espanded record. See p. 'l 1521, sacre Decause me are confining our consideranon to the Parlins record, no weight will be given to the affidava of Dr. Hanukon which accompanied the Thrre Mdr Island apphcants' memorandum in response to the intervenors' pust-ALAB454 submission. See p 1522. sacre. (he prucedures i estabhshed an ALAB434 did not provide for a reply by intervenors to that amdawn. We hkely would s have allowed sinh a reply enher on intervenors' motion ur, had one appeared necessary, on our own initiauve On the laner score, the Hanuhon amdawn (m common enh the Kepford amdavatidues not to add anything of real substance to the teshnsiny adduced previously in PerAms; rather, Dr. hon's pnncipal aim appeared to be to estabhsh that the conclusions to which he tesufied an ferams would nut be affected by our findsags in ALAB 640 ) l " his range of values is obtaaned by muhiplying the tusal yearly relenne of radun per annual fuel requirement t AF)t) for each of the three canes of Table 3 by 30 AFRs per reactor hfetune. See 13 NRC 1 I at $37. The highest value corresponds to Cane 3, whach assumes that underground uranium nunes are unsealed. open pa mmes are unrecovered and null tashngs piles are uncovered. 1 IS Gotchy, fol. Params Tr. 2369, as p 14. l 84 "Stact the observed lung cancers appear to anw pnmanly in t!'e brunchi near the hilus of the lung, most authors 6oncerned with the dwmetnc and radeobsological aspects of the problem assume the relevant biological target to be the banal cells in the brunchial epithehum." Federal Radiatsun Council, 1 ReportNo. n tRestsed) Guadancefer the ContrulofRadsation Hazards m Uransum Mmms 4911%7). 1 See also Commmee on the Biological Effects of ioniting Radiauon U S. Nanonalitewatch Council, J. l The Liecu on !qpelarnons of Esposure to low Lee els oflonking Radsarson:INO fREIRIII) 325 26 (1980) 81 De source of Dr Hanukon's 50 milhrem per year figure is the UN5CEAR 1977 report, which f j i compuses a done from outduur redon of 5 nulkrada per year using a natural ookkiur redon concentration of 0 I pecucunes (pCa) par hier and an outduur occupancy facter of 20 percent. Unsted Neuens i (Conunindl 1 e 1526 l ) 1 4

m.....,. s. w . J ;L w s I l Thus, the addition of the radon emissions from a single nuclear plant would cause an increase in the bronchial epithelium dose of from 0.0005 to 0.005 millirem per year. Dr. Hamilton further testified that the average bronchial epithelium dose due to naturally occurring radon concentrations indoors is 1600 millirem per year, and may vary from 210 to 23,250 mi!!irem per year. Perkins Tr. 2276,2278. Accord-ingly, in terms of radiation exposure, the radon releases attributable to a single 1030 Mw(c) nuclear power plant (0.005 millirem per year) add less than one part in 100,000 to the average exposure due to natural sources (1650 millirem per year (outdoor plus indoor)). In the circumstances, it is manifest to us that the fuel cycle contribution to the radon already in the environment - a contribution that, once again, is so slight as to be beyond detection (let alone measurement)- cannot serve to tip the NEPA i balance against the operation of any of these three facilities. All that we need or do decide here is that any incremental health risk occasioned by the releases attribut-ab!c to the fuel cyc!c is negligible, as Dr. Hamilton concluded. Moreover, that speculative and conjectural risk estimate, to the extent it need be considered under NEPA at all,is acceptable in the sense that it is ofinsufficient magnitude to alter I cost. benefit balances (such as those for the facilities at bar) that otherwisc justify the licensing of facility operation. Only Dr. Kepford expressed a contrary opinion on the radon health effects question. The springboard of his thesis is the premise, also used by the NRC staff j in Perkins, that low les cl> of exposure to ionizing radiation cause cancers in at least a linear proportion to the dose received. Proceeding from that premise, Dr. Kepford claims that continuous exposure to the incremental fuel cycle radon i emissions will result in significant adverse heakh efrects. For esample, according to Dr. Kepford, the long-term release of radon attributable to one of the Perkins reactors will result in approximately 0.16 (l.c.,1/6th) of a fatality per year, i Kepford, fol. PerAins Tr. 2819, at pp. 2-3 and Table 4 (line 5)." By extending his Saenutic commsttee vn she Effects of Atomsc Radnauun,$ources andEfecrs oflonizing Rabation 14 t 1977). (Dr Hanulton convened malhrads to nullarem by rr,ultiplymg by a relative biological effective. neu factor for alpha ra&ation of 10. Perims Tr. 2276,2298.) For contmuous outdoor esposure the dose would be 250 mdhrem per year. Using a different pubhcation as a source, a staff witness stated that continuous esposure to an outdoor radon concentranson of 013 pCi per inet would resuh in a bronchaalepithchumdoseof 450mdhremgryear Gotchy,foi PerAinsTr.2369,at p.14 Thisresult, adjusted to the same radon concentranon used by Dr. Hamilton (/.r.,0.1 pCi per hier), would yield an annual bronchial epithchum done of 300 mdhrem. is Scc, e s. Enwronmensaf Defense fund v. Hogman. 566 F.2d 1060,1067 (Bah Car.1977), Trour Unlunned v. Morron. $09 F.2d 1276,1283 (9th Cir.1974). 8' Dr. Kepford composed fatahties in has tesumony for the total anumed redon release as a resuit of the 30 year operation of the three unsts of the proposed Persins facthry, each of which had a full-mer ratmg of f 2s0 Mm(e). We have divided his figures by three to otnain a siepr. reactor value. Al gh cakulated on a somewhat different basis than that employed in ALA B-640, Dr. Kepford's per. reactor redon rekase value 6s in face quae close to the u desmon Compare Kepford, fol. Params Tr 2pper range of the release values we determined tu that 19, at Table I wnh AI.AB 640,13 NRC at 535,542 (Table 4. Model Light Waser Reactor Case 3) 1527 'd e .p

y .......,. e -w. s 'f? .a3 calculations over tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions ard even billions of years, Dr. Kepford arrises at his conclusion that radon emissions over j 3 these various time intervals will cause extremely large numbers of cancer induced fatalities. These fatalities, the argument continues, necessarily tip the NEPA cost-benefit balance against operation of each of the reactors in question. But, as Dr. llamilton pointed out, Dr. Kepford's extrapolations over unrealistic time penods are misleadmg: I think what we're trying to achieve is a reasonable understanding of what the nsks are to people using one form of energy compared with another. And we go about this in a generally conservative way, usually . [ taking upper-limit risks just to be sure that we are protecting the public. But w e try to e *

• relate these risks in a pretty reasonable perspective. It seems to me the whole basis for presenting these risks 4 to present them m some reasonable framework.

L l I Now with regard to radon-222 and the question of whether or not and for how many years we should project this risk,it is my view as a physician ... these long estrapolations into the future of the hazards of radon-222, q without any consideration of the framework, the background in which these hazards take place, [are] extremely misleading. 'Ihat's why I believe * *. that one should express this increase in radon-222 that one is going to get from the mining and milling in terms of the fractional increase in natural background radiation from radon-222 to w hich we are all exposed each year of our life from now to a billion years from now.... llamilton, Perlins Tr. 2274-75. See also Perlins Tr. 2333. It follow s that, if (as Dr. Kepford claims) a reactor's fuel cycle emissions result in approximately I/6th of a fatality annually, natural radon exposures will cause in excess of 16,000 deaths annually.2u We cite this comparison because it provides necessary perspective. As it graphically demonstrates, the incremental health risk to the population stemming from the fuel cycle emissions (if indeed there is any)is 5anishingly small. This is what we understand Dr. llamilton to have had in mind w hen, on the basis of the relationship between the fuel cycle releases and natural background radon, he characterized the health effects of the former as "negligi-ble." See p.1524, supra.25

• • Tha follom s from our determmauon that, in terms of radon eaposure, the radon releases attnbutable to a nucleat teactor add leu than one pan an 100.000 to the aserage eaposure due to natural sources See p.l$21. supra.

U Although not crucial to the resuh we reach,it in worthy of paning note that, accordmg to one witnen m Perivu. the miJe dnpanty m andour and outJour natural radon concentrauons t see a 9. smpra) is due in apprecubic measure to the choice of budding malen.ls te.g., the use of concrete block or bnck in place of woud). Goldman, fol. PerAms Tr. 2266. at p. 9. In tha regard, se appean that not only bnck and block, but such other commonly emplayed (but not indnpensable) construction items as gypsum fContmued) e 1528 J 4 9'

f i In each of the three individual licensing proceedings consolidated for purposes of consideration of the radon issue, all that remained for disposition was that issue.22 Accordingly, on the basis of the conclusions stated above, we hereby terminate our review of the initial decisions in those proceedings. Except to the extent that it may have been previously modified in connection with our review on other issues, each decision is afirmtJ,2' It is so ORDERED. i i FOR Tile APPEAL BOARDS 1 C. Jean Shoemaker Secretary to the Appeal Boards I i wallboard, produce, in the aggregate, radon dows m amounts far exceedmg those associated with the uraruum fuel cycle. See Umted Nations Sciennfic Comnuttee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, Soun ts anJ Efters oflonihng Radianon 77 (1977) Thus,it cannot be said that all sigmfacant sources of natural be:kground radon are beyond human control-i.e., in their totahty, the health nsLs of such radon are not always involuntanly assumed. It also should be noted that there is no current issue regarding the need for the power to be generatedi by each of the facilities at bar. Accord ngly, had the fuel cycle-related emissions been found to pose a significant health nsk, it would have become necessary to balance that nsk against, inter sha, the l health nska associated with the generation of electncity by other means. 22 In Three Mdelstand. see ALAB-e2,16 NRC 921,922 n.1 (1982);in HopeCreel, see ALAB 518, 9 NRC J4,41 (1979). Insofar as the Peach Bonom facility is concerned, Unit 3 was still before us m Apnl 1978 when the Comnussion directed the reconsideration of the rwion issue in all pendmg cases. See ALAB 532,9 NRC 279 (1979). But the same does not appear to have been true with regard to any proceeding mvolving Unit 2. Fur this reason, notwithstanding its inadvertent mclusion a the caption throughout the course of the consolidated proceeding, Unit 2 is not encurnpassed by this decision. I 23 Although the conclusions reached here are equally appbcable to the proceedings before us in which( the radon issue was not placed in controversy (see p.1520, sacra), we will abide the event of possible Commission review of this decision before taking formal actaan in those proceedings. 1529

9 Cite as 15 NRC 771 (1982) L8P 82 30 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 8efore Adminletrative Judges: James P. Gleason, Chairman Paul W. Purdom Glenn O. Bright in the Matter of Docket Nos. 50 387-OL 50 388-OL PENNSYLVANIA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY and ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2) April 12,1982 The Licensing Board issues its initial Decision, presenting findings of I fact and conclusions of law on the matters in controversy and authorizing the issuance of an operating license consistent with the conclusions of the Board. The issuance of a license is made subject to certain conditions which require the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to make find-ings on several emergency planning matters. The license is also subject to the outcome of radon proceedings pending before the Atomic Safety and 4 Licensing Appeal Board. i TECHNICAL ISSUES DISCUSSED: Quantities and health effects of isotope, Technetium; need for power; emergency evacuation; stress corrosion cracking; decommissioning; low level waste storage; health effects of transmission lines; emergency planning; I scram discharge volume breaks. APPEARANCES Messrs. Jay Silberg, Esq., Matias F. Travieso-Diar and Bryan A. Snapp, Esq. for the Applicants /C A)RC 771 (l9%& _,__..u , g m t.

o FINDINGS OF FACT e III. CONTENTIONS IIcalth Effects of Nuclear Fuel Cycle (Contention !) I, This contention was modified by the Board on March 27,1980, to treat technetium-99 (Tc-99) similarly to radon-222, following the Commis-sion's amendment of Table S 3 of 10 CFR $51.20 (44 Fed. Reg. 45362, August 12, 1979).

2. The Applicants. Staff and intervenor ECNP stipulated that a condition will be imposed on operating licenses for the Susquehanna units, making the licenses subject to the outcome of the consolidated radon proceedings currently before the Appeal Board. Except for the quant ties i

and health effects of technetium, and the stipulation regarding radon, the parts of this contention concerned with other isotopes were dismissed by the Board through granting motions for summary disposition filed by the Applicant and Staff.

3. Contention I, as litigated, reads as follows:'

l. The quantity of technetium-99 which will be released from waste management or reproceeding activities resulting from opera-tion of the Susquehanna facility, has not been, but should be adequately assessed. The radiological health effects of technetium should be estimated and these estimates factored into the cost-benefit balance for the operation of the plant. 4 Technetium, which is produced by fission of uranium 235 and by neutron activation of molybdenum-98, has no stable isotopes and is rarely found in nature. Tc-99's half life is 220,000 years and it decays to stable ruthenium 99 by emitting low energy beta particles. Because of its low beta energy, it poses no significant external exposure hazard, and the potential health hazard associated with Tc-99 is from possible ingestion or inhalation (Englehart, ff. Tr.1852 at pp. 2-3).

5. During operation, Tc-99 is produced at the rate of 14.3 Ci/MT of uranium or 500 Ci/RRY and essentially all of the isotopes produced by I

i ' Applicants presented testimony of Richard W. Englehart, Ph D., a Senior Executive Consultant and Manager, Radiological Programs Department Environmental Service Di-vision, NUS Corporation. The Staffs witnesses were Fred D. Fisher, Ph. D., leader of the Environmental Radiation Emergency Support Section, IJranium Fuel 1.icensing Branch, [ Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety. Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safe. [ guards, NRC; Dr. Edward F. Branagan, a Radiological Physicist and Dr. R. K. Struckmeyer, an Environmental Analyst in the Radiological Assessment Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. The Intervenors presented no direct testimony. ? I l /fNRC 806 (i?R2) j ? N i 4 'e

-y i fission remains in the encapsulated spent fuel. No releases occur in storage at the reactor or in interim storage facilities. (ibid. p. 3.)

6. Under the once through fuel cycle (no reprocessing), the stored spent fuel is packaged for ultimate disposal in a stable geologic formation.

Containment package integrity for a minimum of 1,000 years is required by the proposed 10 CFR Part 60 with a maximum release rate of one part in 100.000 per year thereafter. For the analysis by Applicants' witness, all of the Tc 99 is assumed to be dissolved in groundwater over a period of 100.000 years. (Ibid. pp. 4-5.) 7, in the uranium-only recycle operation, the spent fuel is dissolved in hot nitric acid forming a non-volatile stable pertechnetic acid and no Tc 99 releases are expected at this stage. The nitric acid solution is subjected to a series of solvent extraction cycles to separate the uranium from the fission products and in this partitioning, over the long term, it is estimated that 8 to 25 percent of the Tc-99 will remain with the uranium product stream with the balance going to the high-level liquid waste (HLLW) stream. The HLLW stream goes to a treatment process and, potentially, to environmental releases. In the uranium-only recycle fuel cycle, there is a separate plutonium waste stream that would contain I percent, more or less, of Tc 99, but because of the future uncertainty of plutonium recovery, it was conservatively assumed that the Tc-99 will be apportioned only between the uranium stream and the HLLW stream. (Ibid. pp. 6 7.)

8. In the conversion of the uranium product stream of fuel, some Tc-99 is contained in low level solid waste (LLW) produced which is buried in a shallow facility. At some future time, some fraction of 40 - 125 Ci/RRY-may be available for human intake because of groundwater intrusion and conveyance. (Ibid. p.10.)

9. In the re enrichment process, direct emission of Tc 99 to the atmosphere is estimated to be 6.6 X 10' Ci/RRY and to surface water, 8.5 X 10-'Ci/RRY. (Ibid. p.11.)

10. The predominant dose pathway for atmospheric releases of Tc-99 is soit deposition, root uptake, and human ingestion. The pertechnetste ion, which is the most stable chemical form of Tc-99 in aqueous solution, is weakly retained in non-organic soils and strongly retained by organic soils.

j Consequently, uptake by vegetation is site dependent. For inorganic soils, a conservatively high residence time is one year and for organic soils it would be much longer. For the calculations done by Applicants' witness, an average residence time of 15 years was used and a soil to-plant transfer factor of 50 pCi/g fresh vegetable weight per pCi/g dry soil weight, both of which are characterized as conservative. (Ibid. pp.1213.) I soe 2 I 3 t

.g i l I

11. Using models and calculations of Roddy, et al., population doses e

were estimated. However, since Roddy, et of., used a soil.to-plant transfer factor of 0.25 pCi/g instead of 50, Roddy's calculations were scaled up by a factor of 140 to account for the difference in transfer factors. As adjusted, and using a source term of 0.0066 Ci/RRY, annual population doses from atmospheric releases are calculated to be in man-rem /RRY: total body, 6.8 X 10'* bone: 0.0016; kidney: 0.031: and gastrointestinal (GI) tract: 0.134. Annual population thyroid doses based on factors from Killough, et al., are less than 0.1 man-rem /RRY. (Ibid. p.14.)

12. Doses resulting from surface water releases from enrichment pro-cesses are estimated to be in man-rem /RRY: 8.2 X 10' total body,0.12 GI tract, and 0.52 thyroid. (Ibid. p.15.)

13. A model developed by Adam and Rogers for the Maxey Flats commercial low level waste disposal facility was used by Applicants' wit-ness for computation of groundwater releases from shallow burial sites.

This model assumes a groundwater transport distance of 800 meters to a surface stream. Population doses result downstream from use before the stream reaches the ocean. The Maxey Flats pathway is one of the longest potential fresh water paths of any LLW site in the United States. The exposed population is assumed as 5.7 X 10'. For a shallow land burial of 125 Ci/RRY, calculated annual population doses are in man-rem /RRY: 0.0012 total body, 0.018 GI tract, and 0.077 thyroid, and it is assumed these rates will cominue over 10,000 years. (Ibid. pp.15-17.) 14 Calculations of Tc 99 from high-level waste repositories are based on the NRC proposed technical criteria which after 1,000 years of isola-l tion would restrict the annual release rate to I X 10' of the inventory (or 0.005 Ci/RRY from an inventory of 500 Ci/RRY). (Ibid. p.17.) I

15. Assuming, very conservatively, that the liquid pathway for deep repositories followed that of shallow burial sites, after 1,000 years of f

isolation the expected annual population dose would be four-tenths that of shallow sites or a maximum of 0.00048 whole body,0.0072 GI tract, and 0.0308 thyroid, man rem /RRY. (Ibid. pp.1718.)

16. According to the Applicants' witness, the major potential for population doses from release of Tc-99 would result if this material were to I

be released to groundwater from waste burial sites or repositories for either spent fuel or reprocessed wastes. It would be expected that such releases would not exceed 10' of the inventory per year for LLW sites, or 10' for HLLW sites. Yearly doses resulting from operation of Susquehanna from buried high level wastes based on a once through fuel cycle would be f n man-rem: 0.031 whole body. 0.46 GI tract, and 1.97 approximatti i thyroid. For the uranium-only recycle op: ion, the atmospheric releases over the life of the plant from enrichment process in man-rem are:.043 whole l 807 L __ e= . - n,. A

Jq body.1.97 kidney. 8.58 GI tract, and 6.4 thyroid; and for surface water releases: 0.52 whole body. 7.7 GI tract, and 33.2 thyroid. The Low Level Waste StoraFe for the recycle option release to Froundwater over 10.000 years results in population doses of in man rem / year:.077 whole body. 1.15 GI tract. 4.93 thyroid. High Level Waste Storage doses for this option would be the same as for the once through fuel cycle. (Ibid. pp. 18-19.) i

17. The Applicants' witness considers the releases of Tc 99 attrib-utable to Susquehanna to be an insignificant increment to the natural background dose of the affected population. The population dose from natural sources per year is assumed to be 100 millirem per person per year. This would be an annual dose of 570.000 man rem for a population of 5.7 million downstream from disposal site. From a shallow land burial of the yearly releasts of Tc-99 at Susquehanna, the increase per person in an average thyroid dose would be 8.6 X 10* mrem, the whole body dose increase would be 1.3 X 10 mrem, and from a high level waste reposi-4 tory the individual dose would be 3.5 X 10' mrem, or less than one-thousandth of a percent of the annual dose due to natural background radiation. (Ibid. pp. 20-21.)

18. The Staff's witness. Dr. Fisher, testified on the quantities of Tc-99 releases from the supporting fuel cycle for light water-cooled reactors. He considered operation without recycle and with recycle of uranium or uranium and plutonium. Using the ORIGEN burn-up code, the witness estimated that 391 Ci of technetium-99 will be contained in the spent fuel from one year of operation of a plant like Susquehanna. In calculating releases from this amount of Tc 99. Dr. Fisher then assumes total pnd prompt releases (less than 100 years) to surface waters of technetium-99 disposed of with low-level wastes by shallow land burial. For geologic repository disposal, it is assumed waste packaging will retain its integrity for 1000 years that groundwater required 1000 years to reach surface waters, and that the Icach rate of waste form is not more than 0.00001 per

{ year. For reprocessing. the estimates of releases were developed by combin-ing data on the properties of Tc-99 with operating performance char-acteristics and typical equipment used. Liquid releases associated with i spent fuel storage were calculated to be 3.2 X 104 Ci/RRY in both cases, i.e. with and without recycle. There are no airborne releases without i recycle, but there are with reprocessing. Liquid releases are computed from shallow land burial of low level wastes associated with recycle and the geologic repository for high level wastes in both cases. (Fisher, ff. Tr.1880 at pp.1-5.)

19. The testimony of Staff witnesses Branagan and Struckmeyer dealt with the radiological health effects of Tc-99 releases from the fuel cycle.

4 808 .J e-L 'Y ~

-,9 i Doses were computed in three steps and the quantities of Tc-99 released per RRY were taken from Dr. Fisher's testimony. RABGAD and LADIAP computer codes were used to estimate population doses per Ci of Tc-99 to the air and water and the parameters used in codes were taken from the Generic Environmental Statement for Mixed-Oxide Fuels I (GESMO), NUREG-0002. Population doses were estimated for 100 years and 1000 years and were estimated per RRY by multiplying the quantities released in gaseous and liquid form by the population doses per Ci of Tc 99 released. Cumulative releases were computed for the first 2000 years l and an annual release thereafter. (Branagan and Struckmeyer, ff. Tr.1894 at pp.1-3.)

20. Potential health effects were computed by multiplying the popula-tion dose per RRY by somatic (i.e., cancer) and genetic risk estimators.

The risk estimators used by the Staff were based on the BEIR I Report. These were: about 140 potential deaths from cancer per million person-rem and about 260 potential cases of genetic disorders per million person-rem. The cancer fatality risk estimates are based on the " absolute risk' model in BEIR I rather than the " relative risk' model which would produce higher estimates by a factor of four. The BEIR Ill Report i estimates 1.5 to 2 times as many potential non-fatal as fatal cancers. (Ibid. pp. 4-5.)

21. The total body risk equivalent population dose is about 5 person-rem /RRY for prompt releases. The annual total body risk equivaient population dose is about 4 X 104 person-rem /RRY and is abnut 1000 times less than the total body risk equivalent population dose for the first 2000 years (i.e., 5 person rem /RRY). The total body risk equivalent population dose for both 100 year and 1000 year environmental dose commitment times are about the same because almost all of the population doses are received in the first 100 years. (Ibid. p. 6.)

22. There may occur about 0.0007 cancer fatalities /RRY due to prompt releases of Tc-99. The number of potential cancer fatalities from cach assumed annual release of TC 99 from a high level waste repository for time periods beyond 2000 years (i.e., about 5 X 10' potential fatal cancers /3r/RRY) is about 1400 times less than the cumulative value for A

prompt releases during the first 2000 years (i.e., about 7 X 10 potential fatal cancers /RRY). (Ibid. p. 7.)

23. There may occur about 0.00006 genetic disorders /RRY due to prompt releases of Tc-99. The number of potential genetic disorders from each assumed release of TC-99 from the fuel cycle for the time periods beyond 2000 years (i.e., about 2 X 10' potential disorders /yr/RRY) is about 3000 times less than the cumulative value for prompt releases during the first 2000 years (i.e., about 6 X 10' potential genetic disorders /RRY).

1 809 W.

.. g This analysis indicates that the total body risk equivalent dose from TC-99 f is about 5 person rem /RRY. In the FES (p. 4-33), it is stated that the population dose should not exceed 100 person-rem /RRY a more conser-vative estimate. (Ibid. p. 7.) 24 The population dose per RRY (i.e., about 5 person rem, total body j risk equivalent) from TC-99 releases from the fuel cycle is about one percent of the population dose (i.e., about 640 person-rem, total body) for the rest of the fuel cycle. Consequently, the radiological impacts from { exposure to TC-99 releases from the fuel cycle have an insignificant effect on the cost benefit balance. (Ibid. p. 9.) ) l! 810 ) { 2 M s-

i 4 l i PART 51 e PROPOSED RULE MAKING i 'Accordingly, with the exception of

3. Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle

3. In Part St. a new Appendix A.

i redon-222 and technetium release values Environmental Data, and noting that the " Explanatory Narrative for Table S-3." i and their potential significance, there Commission has found, based on the Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle i shall be no further consideration of fuel narrative explanation given in Appendix Environmental Data,is added to read as cycle impacts addressed by Table S-3. A.10 CFR Part 51, that the fuel cycle fouows: 2 Table S-3 and the material in the impacts addressed by Table S-3 cannot I narrative will be referenced as support significantly affect the cost-benefit Appendix A-Explanatory Narrative for q 1 for a generic conclusion that these fuel balance for a light water reactor. With Table S-3. Table of Uramum Fuel Cycle i cycle impacts cannot affect s' 'ficantly the exception of redon-222 and. r Environmetal Data the cost benefit balance for a ' t water technetium release values 'and their Section 1. De LM7t Urenium fuel Cycle i reactor. I potential significance, there shall be no Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of further consideration of fuel cycle A. Introduction. He purpose of this 1954, as amended, the Energy QgtPacts addressed by Table S-3.ne J narretive explanation of Table S-3 is to I Reorganization Act of1974, as amended, unpact statement shall consider and assist the reader in identifying the malor 1 the National Environmental Policy Act take account of economic and environmental impacts of each step in l of 1989, as amended, and section 553 of socioeconomic impacts, possible the fuel cycle and in deteamming which Title 5 of the United States Code. notice cumulative impacts, and other fuel cycle fuel cycle steps are the maior Is hereby given that adoption of the impacts as may reasonably appear contributors to each type of a following proposed amendment to 10 significant. De cost benefit analysis environmentalimpact shown in Table CFR Part 51 is contemplated: will to the fullest extent practicable. S-3. Table S-3 summarizes the i

1. In i 51.20. paragraph (e) is revised quantify the various factors considered.

environmental effects of the normal l to read as follows: To the extent that these factors cannot operations of the uranium fuel cycle i be quantified, they will be discussed in associatedwith producing the uranium l 151.30 Appucent e enverenmentaireport-qualitative terms.De cost-benefit fuel for a nuclear power plant and in construcean penne sese'- analysis willindicate what other disposing of the spent nuclear fuel and laterests and considerations of federal the radioactive wastes.De values in (e)In the Environmental Report policy are thought to offset any adverse Table S-3 were estimated principally by required by paragraph (a) for light-environmental effects of the proposed methods which are described in detail in 4 water-cooled nuclear power reactors, action 1dentified pursuant to paragraph the reports WASH-1248, i the contribution of the environmental (a). Due consideration will be given to " Environmental Survey of the Uranium effects of uranium mining and milling. compliance of the facility construction Fuel Cycle."(1) NUREG-0116. j the production of uranium hexafluoride. or operation and alternative " Environmental Survey of the t isotopic ennchment. fuel fabrication. construction and operation with Reprocessing and Waste Management j reprocessing ofirradiated fuel, environmental quality standards and Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle."(2) and i transportation of radioactive materials requirements which have been imposed NUREG-4216."Public Comments and and management of spent fuel and low-by federal, state, regional, and local Task Force Responses Regarding the level wastes and -level wastes . agencies having responsibility for Environmental Survey of the related to uranium el cycle activities environmental protection, including Reprocessing and Waste Management j to the environmental costs of bcensing applicable soning and landme Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle."(3)In the nuclear power reactor, shall be as regulations and water pollution addition, at a public hearing beginning set forth in Table S-3. Table of Uranium limitations or requirements promulgated Fuel Cycle Environmental Data. No orimposed by the Federal Water on January 16.1978. (Docket No. RM 50-i further discussion of the environmental Pollution Control Act. De

3) on the reprocessing and waste management environmental effects. the effects addressed by the table shall be environmentalimpact of the facility will Commission staff answered questions required. This paragraph does not apply be considered in the cost-benefit about the estimates for the back end of to any applicant s environmental report analysis with respect to matters covered the fuel cycle and considered submitted prior to (dote ofpublication of by these standards and requirements i

final rule). irrespective of whether a certification or suggestions made by other participants 4 in the hearing. The complete record of

2. In i 51.23. paragraph (c) is revised license from the appropriate authority this public hearing and the three to read as follows:

has been,obtained. Including any documents cited above are available in e n e vh - W certification obtained pursuant to the NRC's Public Document Room at I,s m,,,,,m,, Section 401 of the Federal Water 1717 H Street. N.W., Washington. D.C Pollution Control Act.While satisfaction j and provide further explanation of the o Commission standards and criteria (c)ne draft environmentalimpact factors considered in developing i statement will include a preliminary penaining to radiological effects win be estimates for Table S-3. These reference cost-benefit analysis which considers "'C"**'Y"""'

• IIC'"*I"8 materials contain the complete technical I

requirements of the Am ne

Act, and balances the environmental and

&e cut-benent analysis @wiH. g basis for the estimates in the Table. and e 1 other effects of the facility and the 3 ve detailed descriptions of the fuel alternatives available for reducing or ( c)I cycle oPerstions and their ^~ " ts f e y and environmental effects. avoiding adverse environmental and

• i***

other effects, as well as the De following narrative explanation environmental, economic technicaland .vdese for twesese d an.m and Tem not of the values given in Table S-3 is other benefits of the facility.ne sine in ib Tobie. n. amount and memncmce or drawn from the record and cross-contribution of the environmental an m wesse he the feet cycle and Tees referenced to source documents for the effects of the uranium fuel cycle

• aa h= ' rem monasment or r*Procaans benefit of readers seeking more i

activities specified in 151.20(e) shall be new un eben be con ded in me dren information.De Table S-3 values " isci er mise"E"dN$n**s**

• which pertain to the front end of the fuel i

ab l addressed in the draft environmental l impact statement by setting out Table S-proceedines. cycle (up to the loading of the fuelin the l 1 51 PR 41 September 1,1982 a -

~ ( 3 NRC Form 8-C (4-79) NRCM 0240 COVER SHEET FOR CORRESPONDENCE Use this Cover Sheet to Protect Originals of Multi-Page Correspondence.}}