ML20202E032

Notation Vote Approving with Comment SECY-98-278 Re Changes to Requirements for Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses (10CFR51)

ML20202E032
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/16/1998
From:	Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
Shared Package
ML20202E002	List: ML20202D997 ML20202E005 ML20202E013 ML20202E021 ML20202E032 ML20202E035
References
SECY-98-278-C, NUDOCS 9902020217
Download: ML20202E032 (11)

Text

. _. -. -.- . - - - - - . - - - . - . _ . - . - - -

^ l NOTATION VOTE l

. l t

l RESPONSE SHEET  !

TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM: COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN

SUBJECT:

SECY-98-278 - PROPOSED RULE " CHANGES TO REQUIREMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OPERATING LICENSES (10 CFR PART 51)"

Approved X Disapproved Abstain i

Not Participating l COMMENTS:

See attached edits.

l e

l l

l l Si NATURE llo U DATE M IG,IU Y i Entered on "AS" Yes K No j

I 9902020217 990129 RESP DE E PDR i wmum i

Impacts of the transportation of opent fuel to a single repository at Yucca Mountain, it is assumed that all spent fuel generated by all commercial power reactors during both their initial 40-year operating license and a renewed operating term of 20 years will be disposed of at Yucca Mountain, a total'of up to 126,000 metric ton heavy metal (MTHM)* Although a portion of the shipments of spent fuel are expected to be by rail, it is assumed that all shipments will be by

,. truck. Truck transport will result in higher population doses thari rail transport because of the greater number of shipments required and the proximity of highways to larger populations.  !

The analysis was designed to be conservative, that is, intentionally structured to overestimate the likely impacts. This approach is used in situations where the impacts are expected to be of little significance to avoid unproductive analytical effort and because it shows that the conclusions are robust.

In Addendum 1, analyses of potential radiation doses were performed using the HIGHWAY routing computer code and the RADTRAN 4 risk assessment computer code. The HIGHWAY code was used to generate population density estimates within 0.8 km [0.5 mile) of the highway routes that would be used for spent fuel transport within Clark County, Nevada.

The code uses current and projected demographic data and data on existing and planned highways. Two highway scenarios were analyzed: the current freeway system and the proposed beltway around th' city of Las Vegas. Because the beltway is expected to be complete before the year 2005 and because regulations require that spent fuel shipments avoid high population concentrations where possible, analysis of transportation on the route through downtown on the current interstate system yields higher exposure estimat han would actually 3

Currently, the U.S. Department of Energy is authorized by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to dispose of up to 70,000 MTHM. Ninety percent (63,000 MTHM) of this materialis expected to be spent nuclear fuel from commercial power reactors.

8

_ . . _ . . . _ _ _ - - - - - - - - --- --' ~ - ^

~ ' ~ ^ ^ ~ '~ ~ 7 i

occur. The RADTRAN 4 code was used to estimate potential radiation doses related to the SNF transport crew and the public from incident-free transpor., and to the public from a potential transport accident with radiological releases. 'The calculations account for the estimated radiation levels per shipment, number of shipments, pack' age dimensions, route distance within Clark County, vehicle speed, population densities along the routes and, for various accident scenarios, the radiological inventory, dispersibility, accident severity, probability of occurrence, and estimated radiological risk assessment for each scenario. -

e. l In Addendum 1, it is shown that estimated cumulative person S ert (Sv)(person-rem), of X exposure and resulting estimated cumulative lifetime risk of fatal cancer (LRFC) that may result from the transportation of all commercially generated spent fuel through the Las Vegas area are i extremely small. Assuming that the spent fuel generated during the current operating license term and a 20-year renewed term from all currently operating reactors is shipped on highways through Las Vegas, the cumulative radiation exposure is estimated to be 3.309 person-Sv (331 person-rem] for the truck crews,1.27 person-Sv [127 person-rem] for the public, and 2.46 l ,

person-Sv (246 person-rem] for the public from transport accidents. These cumulative doses would be expected to result in cumulative LRFC of 0.13 for crews,0.06 for the public, and 0.12 for the public from transport accidents. Far less than 1 fatal cancer within the population of Clark l County, Nevada is estimated to be caused from transporting the spent fuel that could be generated over 60 years by all currently operating nuclear power plants.

For perspective, the natural incidence of lifetime fatal cancer in the U.S. is 0.20

[20 percent]. Assuming a Las Vegas population of about 300,000 and an average lif6 expectancy of 70 years, this lifetime incidence of fatal cancer would correspond to about 900

! LRFC/ year. In the Las Vegas area, the average radiation exposures resulting from cosmic i

?

l 9 l

1 4

• .w,

l 2 .

r e

% and naturally occu ng terres al gamma radiation are 0.75 to 0.77 mSv/ year

[75 to 77 mromlyeari 8 Assuming a Las Vegas population of about 300,000, this natural radiation leads to a risk astunate of about 11 LRFC/ year. The average annual excess risk to the Las Vegas area population frorn SNF transprxt is about 0.0031 LRFC/ year which is a risk estimate of 3,000 times less than the estimate for background radiation and 300,000 times less than the normal incidence of fatal cancer.

i E

The dose estimatez cu.ecraly displayed in the Table S-4 account for the total populatio exposed by tM transport of both high-level and low-level waste for one reactor-year of operation. These estimates represent total population exposure from both high-level and low-level waste over the transportation routes from individual nuclear power plants to multiple i

destinations. The NRC staff has reviewed the documents reporting on the data and methods used to develop Table S-4 and finds that the environmental values contained therein continue to be valid. These documents are WASH-1238, " Environmental Survey of Transportation of I Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants" (December 1972 and NUREG-75/038, Supplement 1 to WASH-1238, ' Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants Supplement 1" (April 1975).

An estimate of total cumulative dose can be developed from Table S 4 for comparison with the cumulative dose estimate in Addendum 1. It should be noted that the cumulative do I

5 This outdoor dose rate estimate was provided by Harold L. Beck (Haidd L. Beck, Director, Environmental Sciences Division, Environmental Measurements Laboratory, U.S.

! Department of Energy, New York, personal communication via electronic mail to Alan k.

Roecklein, NRC, Rockville, Md., Nov. 4,1998) and based on extensive background radiation

{ measurements summarized, in part, in NCPP Report No. 94, Exposure ofthe Population in the i United States and Canadafrom Natural Background Radia* ion, National Council on Radiation i Protection and Measurements, Bethenia, Md. Dec. 30,1987.

I.

1 10 i

)

i

10161,10168). Section 51.22 also issued under sec. 274,73 Stat. 683, as amended by 92 Stat. 3036-3038 (42 U.S.C. 2021) and under Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, sec.121, 96 Stat. 2228 (42 U.S.C.10141). Sections 51.43, 51.67, and 51.109 also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, sec.114(f), 96 Stat. 2216, as amended (42 U.S.C.10134(f)).

2. Section 51.53, paragraphs (c)(3)(ii)(J) and (M) are re. vised to read as i'ollows:

G 6 5153 Poetmnstruction environmental reoorts.

A r

(c)

(3)

(ii)

(J) All applicants shall assess the impact of the proposed project on local transportation during periods of license renewal refurbishment activities and during the term of the renewed license.

(M) The environmental impacts presented in Summary Table S-4 of 551.52 may be adopted in individual nuclear power plant license renewal reviews as long as the candidate site at Yucca Mountain is under consideration for licensing. The contribution to impacts of transportation of higher enrichment and higher burnup fuel need be assessed only when the 18

- + .-- _ 1

Supp,*emernal Annlysetfor Cumularke EnvironmentalImpacts

, assumirQ the facility r6cer'ves a kcerrse from Cumulative health risks are the total NRC, it is anthipate.d that cor@pction of potential fatalities within the Clark County the repositor / would begin. Wnen population over the period of shipment of construction is completsd, SNF and high- SNF. Analyses of the radiation doses level waste would be shipped to the site, related to SNF transport in the Las Vegas beginning with the oldest materials. vicinity were performed using the HIGHWAY routing computer code and the Under the NWPA as amended, any FC RADTRAN 4 risk assessment computer license for the reposito y must prohibrt UOE code (see Appendix). Radiation exposures frh dispos %imore than 70,000 metric are reported as col ive dose to a tons of heavy metal (MTHM)in the population (perso Sv [ person-rem]) and repository until a second repository is in )c the dose to the maximally exposed operation. Ninety percent (63,000 MTHM) of individual (mSv [mretn]). Health risks from this material is expected to be SNF from exposure to radiation are reported as  !

commercial nuclear power plants. The first estimated lifetime risk of fatal cancer l repository will accommodate the SNF (LRFC) resulting from accident free I generated through about the year 2010. transportation of SNF and from highway Ursiess larger capacity is authorized for the accidents involving potential radiation first repository, a second repository will be releases. Expected fatalities from truck required for the SNF generated by plants accidents not involving radiation releases that are operating under their initial are also reported.

operating licenses. Whether a second repository would have an authorized The NAS report (1990, Table 4-2),

capac.ity large enough to accommodate the commonly called the BEIR V report, gives SNF generated by plants with renewed estimates of the number of cancer deaths operating !icenses cannot be known at this expected to occurfrom a continuous  !

time. Although there is a potential for SNF exposure of10 mSv/ year [1 rem /yearl generated as a tosult of license renewa! to above background from age 18 until age be placed in a second and third repository, 65. This value results in a risk factor of this analysis of cumulative effects of 4.0 x 10-8 LRFC per person-Sv [4.0 x 10'd transportation assumes that all the SNF LRFC per person-rem] that is most resulting from the initial 40-year operating applicable to occupational exposures. The licenses and the 20-year renewal licenses BEIR V report also estimates the number of will be transported to the first repository cancer deaths expected to occur from a (i.e., a repository at Yucca Mountain continuous lifetime exposure of 1 mSv/ year currently under study). Further, it is (0.1 rem / year] above background, which assumed in this analysis that all shipments results in a risk factor of 5.0 x 10 LRFC of SNF converge on and are moved through per person-Sv [5.0 x 10

• LRFC per Clark Cour,ty, Nevada. person-rom] that is most applicable to exposures of the general public. Note that the geaeral public LRFC risk factor is 2.2 APPROACH slightly h!gher than the occupational risk factor bechase the general public dose is The analysis estimates the potential assumed to be experienced by people of all cumulative health risk from radiation ages while the occupational exposures are exposure and highway accidents assumed to be experienced only by pecple associated with SNF transport in the vicinity from age ia until age 65. Children and of Las Vegas (Clark County), Nevada. adolescents are presumed to be more 3 NUREG-1437 Addendum I

.- - - .- ~ - - . - _ . ._ - - - - . - _ . - . ._. - _ . ~

Supplemental Analysesfor Cumulatrve Environmentalimpacts. . .

4 2 m [6.6 ft) from the vehicle or container public as a result of the entire campaign of surface (10 CFR 71.47). The rate of SNF transport in the Las Vegas area is less 0.10 mSv/ hour [10 mrem / hour) at 1 m [3.3 than 0.2E-1 (0.2) for all scenarios. The sum ft)(which corresponds to about of incident-free and accident risks is 0.07 mSv/ hour [7 mrem / hour) at 2 m [6.6 ft]) 0.1865E-1 (0.1865) LRFC for the city-route-was assumed because most shipments are with-license-renewal scenario; other not expected to be close to the regulatory scenarios have lower estimated risks.

limit, so the average dose rate was q 00 6

assumed to t:e lower than the regulatory For perspective, the n turalincidence of limit.' lifetime fatal canceri the U.S. is 0.20

[20 percent). Assumi a Las Vegas Potential radiological accident effects population of about 3 000 and an include both acute fatalities resulting from ~ average life expectar cy of 70 years, this very high radiation exposures (as might lifetime incidence of <atal cancerwould occur in the unlikely event of failure of an  % correspond to abo RFC/ year. In the Las SNF shipping container or cask), and the Vegas area, the average radiation LRFC resulting from smaller radiation exposures resulting from cosmic and exposures that occur at the time of or after x naturally occukng terrestrial gamma the hypothetical accident. Accident risk is radiation are 0.75 to 0.77 mSv/ year [75 to estimated by summing the product of 77 mrem / year).* Assuming a Las Vegas estimated dose and the associated population of about 300,000, this natural probability of occurrence for each of the radiation leads to a risk estimate of about accident-severity categories analyzed by 11 LRFC/ year. The average annual excess RADTRAN. risk to the Las Vegas area population from SNF transport is about 0.0031 LRFC/ year The expected population doses estimated which is a risk estimate of 3,000 times less by the staff (see Appendix) are displayed in than the estimate for. background radiation

~ Table 1. Table 2 shows the health risks and 300,000 times less than the normal

'% implied by the doses listed in Table 1 An incidence of fatal caricer, examination of Table 2 shows that the p probability of excess fatal cancer'among the f

g gy

g

, o rep 4 CP M b.

_. m,y ,s w p a4

• The reguinbons at 10 CFR 71.47 also limit dose

• rate at any point on the outer surface of the package ev0< 0t 'wL ok 5% (

• A I p Nd" or vehicle to 2.0 mSv/ hour [200 mrom/ hour). Doses rates at most ports of the surface would necessarily p Je(*.xm,s ht all esce ger + g

< a n* 8 < "~ .a + t b

• m .c ai \

be much lower then 200 mrom/ hour in order to meet f r 7 j $% ,

the 0.10 mSv/ hour [10 mromlhour) at 2 m [6.6 ft] ' This outdoor dose rate estimate was provided limiL To be exposed to a does rate this high, an by Harold L Beck (Harold L Beck, Director, individuni would have to be in contact with the Environmental Sciences Division. Environmental package at its most redeschve spot. To receeve a Measurements Laboratory, U.S. Department of significent does, en individual would have to lie in Energy. New York, personal communication via contact with the container at its most radioactnre spot electronic mail to Alan K. Roecklein, NRC, Rockville, for a substantial time penod. It is very unlikely that an Md., Nov. 4,1998) and based on extensive individual would spend any time in physical contact background radiation measurements summarized,in twith the package and even more unlikely that he or part. in NCRP Report No. 94, Exposure of the she would inadvertently choose the anost redmachve Popula6on in the United States and Canada ham spot on the package Because such an occunence is Natural Background Radia#on, Natenal Council on so unlikely, this exposure scenario is not considered Radsten Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, relevant to snelysis of cumulatrve impacts Md., Dec. 30,1987.

NUREG-1437, Mdad- 1 6

Supplemerwal Analysesfor Cunndartoe Environnerwalimpact.r. . .

Table 1. Estimated cumulative radiation exposure resulting from SNF Table 2. Cumulative radiological transport in the Las Vegas area

• transportation risks resulting from SNF Radiation exposure (person-Svf Estimated lifetime risk of fatal cancer

• transpott accidents incident-free risk Accident risk Crew' Public8 Public Crew' Public'

! Public Bypass withoutlicense renewal Bypass withoutlicense renewal 2.068 0.58 0.338 0.0827 0.0290 0.0169 I Bypass withlicense renewal Bypass withlicense renewal 3.102 0.87 0.506 0.1241 0.0435 0.0253 Cityroute withoutlicense renewal Cityroute wrthoutlicense renewal l 2.206 0.85 1.63 0.0882'. 0.0425 l

0.0815 Cityroute withlicense renewal Cityroute withlicense renewal 3.309 1.27 2.46 _ 0.1324 0.0635 0.123

• Transportation risks were calculated

• Transportation risks were calculated l

using RADTRAN (v. 4.0.19, Nov.14,1996).

using *RADTRAN (v. 4.0.19 Nov.14,1996).

• 1 person Sv = 100 person-rem. For crew rnembers, the dose

' Truck crew size was assumed to be conversion factor was 0.0004 estimated 2 persons. Crew dose is for the time spent lifetime risk of fatal cancer (LRFC) per person.

driving approximately 161 km (100 miles) in rom, and for the public. 0.0005 LRFC per the Las Vegas ares; the dose involved in m., a. The U.S. average lifetime risk of

driving to the Las Vegas area is not included. et

• The incident-free risk to the public . O.

from allcausesis approximately f does not include the risk to the crew. g

• Truck crew size was assumed to be 2 persons. Crew risk is for the time spent driving approximately 161 km (100 miles) in the Las Vegas area; the risk in.olved in driving to the Las Vegas area is not included.

8 The incident free risk to the public does t

not include the risk to the crew.

l -

The highest estimated risk to the crews is 0.2324 LRFC. This already-small risk is spread over the 40-to 60-year period during which SNF will be transported to the repository. On an annual basis, the crew risk averages about 0.0039 LRFC per year of SNF transport as a result of radiation i exposures. This' risk is spread among all the l truck crew members, so the risk to any one

- driver is extremely small.

~

7 NUREG-1437, Addendum i 1

i ---. -- _- _- _.

- l Supplemental Analysesfor Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts. . .

The hypothetical maximally exposed estimates with the highest corresponding individual would receive 0.31 mSv doses in Table 1 shows that the estimated 131 mrem) for a 60-year campaign, about cumulative dose from transportation of all 0.12 percent of the average 70-year dose SNF through the Las Vegas area is not from background sources.* The maximally greater than one percent of the cumulative exposed individual radiation dose is based dose from all fuel and waste transportation on a hypotheticalindividuallocated 30 m calculated from Table S-4.

[98 ft] from the highway during the entire shipment campaign (a very conservative Consequently, the cumulative doses for the assumption). This dose is the estimated risk Las Vegas area only a small fraction of the from incident-free transport. The analysis cumulative doses implied by Table S-4 for overestimates impacts by assuming that all all transportation of SNF plus transportation licensed nuclear power plants would ' of other nuclear power plant radwastes. It operate for a 20-year license renewal term, should be noted that the cumulative doses although many plants will not renew their for both sets of estimates are comprised of operating licenses. Also,if another annual doses to individuals that are well repository were established, the already below the regulatory limits set by the NRC small effects on Las Vegas would be further and by the Department of Transportation.

reduced.

2.3.2 Nonradiological Risks The above estimates of radiation dose are consistent with the doses reported in The nonradiologicalimpact of concem is Table S-4. Table S 4 reports estimates of vehicle collisions. Based on recent national 0.04 person-Sv [4 person-rem] per reactor average truck accident rates, between 12 year for transportation workers, and and 20' vehicle accidents can be expected 0.03 person-Sv [3 person-rem] per reactor during SNF transport through the Las /

year for the general public. Assuming that Vegas area. The probability of a fatahtgrom 100 power reactors operate for 60 years, nonradiological transportation accidents is Table S-4 leads to estimated worker and estimated to be about 0.023 without license public doses of 240 person-Sv renewal and about 0.035 with license

[24,000 person-rem] and 180 person-Sv renewal (see Appendix, Table A.2)JThese

[18,000 person-rem] for transportation very low risks are smaller than the workert and the general public, radiological risks of SNF transport in the respectively. Comparing these dose Las Vegas area. Over a 40- or 60-year

_ period, these risks amount to very small annual risks; approximately 0.0006 per year

'The background radiation dose is assumed to be 3.6 mSv/ year [360 mrom/ year], the current (with or without license renewal).

estimate given for average background radiation dose in the U.S. The vaive is based upon the tonowing assumphons from the National Council on

2.4 CONCLUSION

S Radiabon Protechon and Measurements as e9mmanmHn Eisenbud and Gesey9g4 Doses

"# # As shown in Table 2, the conservatively estimated LRFC resulting from radiation Cosmic re$shon that reaches the earth et one level 0.27 exposure related to transportation of SNF Romahon from the natures elemente in the earth 0.2s Redon ges in the home from ground sourose 2.00 Reeshon in the human body from food and water 0.39 Averses motest exposure 0.25 to 0.55 Consumer products (e.g amoke desactors) 0.10 NUREG-1437, AM-ine 1 8

• ~

NRC PROPOSES TO AMEND REQUIREMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS OF APPLICATIONS TO RENEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OPERATING LICENSES

d. s. l The uclear Regulatory CommissionW s seeking public comment on a proposed i

amendment to its regulations on the requirements goveming environmental reviews of applications to renew operating licenses for nuclear power plants. The requirements were published in the Federal Register (61 FR 66537) on December 18,1996.

The amendment would codify generic analyses of the cumulative environmentalimpacts i associated with transportation operation in the vicinity of a high-level waste repository site and of the environmentalimpacts associated with the transportation of higher enriched fuel and higher bumup fuel. The requireinent that license renewal applicants perform these analyses would be removed from 10 CFR Part 51. Also, this amendment would add the requirement to address local traffic impacts attributable to continued operation of the plant during the license renewal i term. This requirement was inadvertently omitted from the current rule. The net effect of this

~

action will be to reduce the regulatory burden on licensees without compromising environmental protection. j I

d v

• v - w-

.- 'd UNITED STATES j

2 NUCLEAR RESULATORY COMMISSION CASHINGT!N, C.c. 2000Hopt

'+,. . . . . ,o The Honorable James M. Inhofe, Chairman Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In the near future, the uct ar Regulatory Commissic niends to publish in the Federal X Registerthe enclosed proposed amendments to the Commission's rule in 10 CFR Part 51,

" Changes to Requirements for Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses."

3 The amendment would codify generic analyses of the cumulative environmentalimpacts associated with transportation operation in the vicinity of a high-level waste repository site and of the environmental impacts associated with the transportation of higher enriched fuel and higher bumup fuel. The requirement that license renewal applicants perform these analyses would be removed from 10 CFR Part 51. Additionally, this amendment would add the requiremer;t to address local traffic impacts attributable to continued operation of the plant during the license renewal term. This requirement was inadvertently omitted from the current rule. The net effect of this action will be to reduce the regulatory burden on licensees without compromising environmental protection.

Sincerely, i Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs

Enclosure:

FederalRegister Notice cc: Senator Bob Graham l

L

,