ML20137C967
| ML20137C967 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/12/1985 |
| From: | Cunningham R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Harold Denton, Malsch M, Zerbe J NRC, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137C949 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-46FR15154, RULE-PR-51 NUDOCS 8601160464 | |
| Download: ML20137C967 (27) | |
Text
,
O-
- M*% UNITED STATES
, *4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 h.
%, DEC 121985
+....
MEMORANDUM FOR: Those on Attached List FROM: Richard E. Cunningham, Director Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety
SUBJECT:
REVIEW 0F DRAFT COMMISSION PAPER ON TABLE S-3 FINAL RULE Tab'ae S-3 rtilemaking has been delayed for so long that the need for it has greatly diminished. Accordingly, we are preparing a Commission Paper recommending that the rulemaking be dropped until we receive notice that Table S-3 will be needed in evaluating new reactor license applications.
There are already some indications that reactors for future nuclear power plants may differ significantly from the model 1000-MWe LWR on which Table S-3 is based. Therefore, it may be necessary to revise the entire table before its use with the next generation of reactor license applications.
We request your review and concuirence with respect to the attached Conmission Paper which explains in more detail the situation outlined above. Please give us your comments and concurrence by January 10, 1986.
i y Richard E. Cunningham, Director Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, NMSS
Enclosure:
As stated 8601160464 860109 PDR PR 51-4SFR15154 PDR f
Addressees - Memorandum dated DEC 121965 Martin G. Malsh, Deputy General Counsel. OGC John E. Zerbe. Director, OPE Harold-A.TeentenFMfWtbP,5NRR*
RoberfB.'Minogue, Director, RES Guy H. Cunningham, Executive Legal Director Joseph M. Felton, Director, DRR
. 4
DRAFT For: The Commissioners From: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
SECY-84-149 - FINAL RULE 10 CFR 51, APPENDIX B, EXPLANATORY NARRATIVE FOR TABLE S-3
Purpose:
To inform the Commission of new developments affecting the narrative explanation of Table S-3 and the inclusion in Table S-3 of new estimates for environmental releases of radon-222 and technetium-99, and to recommend delay of further work on Table S-3 until such time as the agency appears likely to receive new reactor license applications.
Category: This paper covers a minor policy matter requiring Commission consideration. The resource estimates, which are an important factor in the consideration, are Category 1.
Contact:
W. E. Thompson, NMSS Ex. 79024
2-Issue: Since there are no licensing cases still open which involve matters related to the Table S-3 narrative explanation as issues in the hearings, and since there are new complications which would delay development of radon-222 and technetium-99 estimates to be included in the table and in the narrative explanation, and since no resources are budgeted for work on Table S-3 in FY 1986 or FY 1987, the staff recommends that further work on Table S-3 be delayed until such time as the expectation of new reactor license applications makes it desirable to complete the final rule for Table S-3.
Decision A review of reactor licensing cases shows that there are Criteria:
no licensing cases still open in which matters related to Table S-3 narrative explanation are issues in the hearings.
The Table S-3 rule can still be used in its present form for reactor licensing cases, if it should be needed, even though it may be necessary to call for supplemental otaff testimony on radon-222, technetium-99, or health effects which are not now covered in the Table S-3 rule.
The provision of such testimony has been accomplished as needed in licensing cases for several years and has proved ecceptable to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards and the Appeal Boards.
9 i
Supplemental testimony involves extra effort by technical and legal staff members, which would not be necessary if the final rule on Table S-3 and the narrative explanation were completed and promulgated; but to date the extra effort has been accommodated without undue difficulty.
The decisions of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the D. C.
Circuit (685F.2d459,1982) and the Supreme Court (462U.S.87,1983) impose no requirement that the Commission publish the final rule adding a narrative explanation of Table S-3, but do indicate that they expect the Ccnmission to do so. A decision to drop the proposed rulemaking on the narrative explanation would have to be announced in a Federal Register notice and supported by a well-reasoned explanation in order to withstand an
" arbitrary and capricious" challenge. The opinion of the Executive Legal Director is that dropping the proposed Table S-3 rulemaking is probably within the Agency's discretion, but notice of such action must be accompanied by a good explanation.
'he U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California has ordered (Civil No. C-84-0656 WHO, August 5,1985) the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and issue by May 1, 1986, final standards for radionuclide emissions from licensed (active) uranium mills. The new standard should be considered in developing Table S-3 estimates for radon-222.
i
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ + e
r Technetium-99 has long been known to go with the uranium in fuel reprocessing and to be carried with the uranium through UF6 conversion and enrichment operations. It has shown up as an environmental contaminant at enrichment and fuel fabrication plant sites. To develop a realistic estimate of the total environmental releases of technetium-99, it will be necessary to perform research on the extent of environmental releases and on means for controlling them.
Resources for research and additional staff effort on Table S-3 have not been budgeted for FY 1986 and FY 1987; and because of other priorities for the use of resources, the staff believes further work on Table S-3 should be delayed until there is a need based on projections of new reactor license applications.
Revisions would then take into account reactor design changes and their effects on the' supporting fuel cycle.
Alternatives: 1. Continue to use the present Table S-3, supplemented by' staff testimony, if a licensing case comes up for which Table S-3 is needed in licensing proceedings. Defer all rulemaking actions on Table S-3 for several years until license applications for new nuclear power plants create a need for Table S-3 to be used in the licensing process.
At that time Table S-3 may r.-eed to be completely revised because-of changes from the present model 1000-MWe LWR nuclear power plant on which Table S-3 is based. At that time, also3 information should be available to allow radon-222 and technetium-99 to be added to Table S-3 .
!- and covered in the narrative explanation.
i
_. . ~. -
~
- 2. Adopt the present version of the final rule,vhich adds the narrative explanation, but does not provide new l
estimates for radon-222 and technetium-99. Defer action on radon and technetium until 'tihe basis for new estimates is established.
- 3. As instructed by the Commission, in the Secretary's memorandum of August 28, 1985, defer action on the Table S-3 rulemaking until the necessary NRC and EPA action on mill tailings has proceeded sufficiently to allow radon-222 to be incorporated into Table S-3, and ALAB-701 to be resolved (probably about mid-year of 1986). Incorporate an estimate for technetium-99 into Table S-3, as well.
Resolve, in an integrated and consistent manner, all of the outstanding related issues.
Background:
The proposed final rule, adding a narrative explanation to Table S-3, was published for public review and comment on March 4, 1981. Final rulemaking was deferred pending the i outcome of a suit on Table S-3 (Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. NRC, No. 70-1486) in the U. S. Court of -
Appeals. The Appeals Court decision on April 27, 1982, invalidated the entire Table S-3 rule. The Supreme Court reversed this decision on June 6, 1983. ~The proposed rule to provide a narrative explantion for Table S-3 was then revised to reflect new developmetns and the passage of time while the rulemaking was deferred. The proposed final rule, SECY-84-149, was submitted to the Commission for consideration on April 6, 1984.
In a separate action affecting Table S-3, the Commission published a Federal Register notice on April 14, 1979 (43 FR 15613) announcing deletion of the radon-222 value from Table S-3 because it was recognized to be underestimated.
The Commission also stated that pending rulemaking action to provide a new estimate for radon-222 in Table S-3 the environmental effects of radon would be subject to litigation in individual nuclear power plant licensing proceedings.
The licensing proceedings pending before the Appeals Boards at the time the radon-222 value was deleted from Table S-3 were consolidated into one Appeal Board proceeding for purposes of determining the amount and significance of radon releases associated with the mining and milling of uranium ore for fueling a typical light water reactor. In ALAB-701 the Appeal Board decided that the " record-establishes without contradiction that the radon contribution of the uranium fuel cycle is a minute' fraction of the radon that is released into the atmosphere from other sources -- so minute, indeed, that the contribution is not even detectable." The Appeal Board ~
also concluded that the health risk from radon-222 releases attributable to the uranium. fuel cycle is negligible and of insufficient magnitude to alter cost-benefit balances which have been found to justify the licensing of nuclear. power plant operation. ~This line of reasoning whereby fuel cycle radon releases are held to be insignificant because they are small compared to natural background radon has been called the "de minimis approach."
This decision was appealed to the Commission on the basis that 4
the Appeal Board erred in adopting the djt minimis approach to conclude that the uranium fuel cycle radon emissions were negligible when' compared to naturally occurring radon emissions. -
The Commission decided that the decision whether or not to review ALAB-701 should await the conclusion of EPA's establishment of standards for radon-222 releases from uranium mill tailings piles and revision of the NRC's uranium mill regulation to conform to i
EPA's standards.
L The new EPA standards for radon releases from inactive uranium mill sites were promulgated in October 1984.
i The NRC uranium milling regulations in 10 CFR Part 40 were revised to comply with EPA's new standards, and the final Part 40 rule was published on October 16, 1985 (50 FR 41852). This rule establishes the basis for 4
estimating the long-term radon releases from stabilized tailings piles after the mills have been shut down, f On August 5,1985, the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered EPA ta issue by May 1, 1986, final standards for radionuclide e.nissions from licensed 1
l (active) uranium mills.- EPA and the Sierra Club agreed to
'this court order rather than pursue a suit on the matter .
I
.i I
4 i
, f i' f
.r
, _ _ _ . _ - .- , _, - _ 1, . . . . _ , . _ . _ _ . . , _ . . _ _ . , .___. , _ . ._ _ _ . . _ , .- . ;.. . .a
The new EPA standards for active mills will be issued under the Clean Air Act, not UMTRCA, and will be enforced by EPA, but they will have an impact on the radon release estimates for active mills. Accordingly, the staff rer.emmends that the new estimate of radon-222 releases from the uranium fuel cycle not be developed until after May 1,1986, when the new EPA standards for active uranium mills are scheduled to be issued.
Discussion: Table S-3 has been the subject of almost continuous controversy -
since the July 21, 1976, decision of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit that the Table S-3 fuel cycle rule was inadequately supported by the record with respect to the impacts from reprocessing and radioactive waste management.
During the litigation, the hearings, and the public review and comment exchanges on proposed rulemakings, several issues have emerged as continuing focal points of' concern.
Issues:
I o The estimation of long-term environmental. releases'of radioactivity from waste management facilities and activities and the assessment of the consequent risks' to public health and safety.
l o The estimation of current and long-term releases of radon-222 j- from mining and milling and the assessment of their health '
effects .
}
e
+ ---c ---, , ~ . - , _ . , ,.-,y . . , - . , . _ . - _ _ , . y ,, , , . -_- p.,, , ,,m,,m-, ~ , .+4- .. , .,p..
o The Commission's confidence that methods of radioactive waste management can be developed to assure that risks to public health and safety can be kept within acceptable limits for very long periods of time.
o The assessment of long-term risks from long-lived radioisotopes such as iodine-129, carbon-14, tritium, technetium-99 and the natural decay chains of daughter products from uranium, plutonium, and other heavy elements.
o The Commission policy with respect to the clet minimis argument that radiation doses which are small in comparison to natural background are not significant in assessing health effects, o The source terms and the population health effects calculated for technetium-99 which may be released over very long periods from waste repositories and which is also released from the LWR uranium fuel cycle where it occurs as a contaminant introduced with uranium that ,
is being recycled after reprocessing (currently there is no commercial reprocessing in the U. S.).
New EPA standards for active uranium mills may require reduction of radon releases at some mills and this would make the current estimate of average radon releases (which is based on measured releases before the new EPA standards) more conservative for assessing the environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle. At mills where the releases are already below the new standards, the present estimates will be unaffected. However, new estimates cannot be developed to reflect these changes until the new EPA standards for active mills are promulgated in final form. Therefore, the staff considers it advisable to wait until the new EPA standards have been adopted before developing a new Table S-3 estimate for radon-222 releases from the uranium fuel cycle.
With respect to the healtn effects of radon-222, the Commission has not yet decided its position on the de minimis argument used in ALAB-701 to show the significance of the population dose conmitments from radon released from uranium fuel cycle facilities and operations. The staff notes also that the de eminimis approach to evaluating the health effects of exposure to low levels of radiation has been adopted in the regulations of the' British and the Canadians, 1
i
and is being considered for inclusion in the planned revision of the Commission's 10 CFR Part 20 regulations. It is the view' of the staff and of OGC that the discussion of health effects of radon releases from the uranium fuel cycle could be handled in the narrative explanation of Table S-3 without waiting for the Commission review of ALAB-701 or the revision of 10 CFR Part 20.
Technetium-99 is one of the radionuclides controlled under EPA's long-term release limits for high-level waste reposi-tories. These cumulative release limits cover the long-lived radionuclides which may escape from a high-level waste reposi-tory in 10,000 years after disposal of the wastes. The cumulative 10,000 year release limit for technetium-99 is 10,000 curies per 1000 metric tons of heavy metal waste stored in the repository (assuming a burnup range of 25,000 to 40,000 mwd /MTHM). The Division of Waste Management staff calculates that if technetium-99 is released from a repository at the maximum rate allowed under the NRC's 10 CFR Part 60 regulations, the releases will amount to 13 percent of the ,
EPA's limit; so technetium-99 releases are not regarded as a major concern. However, the fact that technetium is less readily sorbed from groundwater than other radionuclides gives it an unusual degree of mobility and causes it to become one of the major potential contributors to population dose commitments. Research on technetium mobility I
r 1
l is being sporsored by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory ResearchandbytheDivisionofWasteManagement. The staff believes that an acceptable estimate of technetium-99 releases to the environment from all uranium fuel cycle facilities and operations can be made today by using
" upper limit" assumptions in cases where reliable data arenotavaiiable. However, a better data base could be established with about a year's research to document and analyze actual releases at fuel cycle facilities.
Technetium enters the uranium fuel cycle through recycle 4 of uranium recovered from reprocessing; however, additional data are needed to quantify the levels of technetium contam, nation and releases to the environment. Since Table S-3 also includes consideration of the impacts of-reprocessing, we need to know what fraction of the technetium in spent fuel would go with the uranium through each step in the fuel cycle after reprocessing. Additional information is needed on the fraction of the technetium 1
throughput which escapes to the environment from each fuel cycle processing step. It is recognized that technetium also enters the LWR fuel cycle from other reprocessing even though U.S. nuclear power plant fuel is not being reprocessed. For example, DOE has at times, purchased a portion of its feed material for the gaseous diffusion plants from European spent fuel-reprocessors. Although l
there is a maximum technetium content specification for the uranium feed material, it nevertheless, contributes some amount to the total technetium throughput and to
. the environmental releases. More information is needed to provide data for better estimates of the technetium source terms and environmental impacts.
Since there is no compelling need for revision of Table S-3 at an early date, the staff recommends delay of the rule-making action to add a technetium-99 value to Table S-3 until the better data base is available.
l Review of all pending licensing cases by the Office of the Executive Legal Director shows that there-are no open cases in which matters related to Table S-3 have been introduced as issues of litigation. If issues related to Table S-3 should come up, the legal and technical staff 4
members are prepared to handle these cases with regulations in their present form, and with the technical information now available. After the completion of the current licensing cases, the only other actions requiring the use of Table S-3 will be license amendments to authorize higher burnup of the fuel. Highea burnup is pertinent because it reduces the quantity of uranium required for a year's operation of the
r; . .
reactor. Therefore, one would expect..tha't, since less uranium is required, the environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle would also be reduced. The NRC has not completed its Environmental Assessment of the impacts of higher fuel burnup in LWR nuclear power plants to show that this conclusion is technically correct, but the final report of a study by the Atomic Industrial Forum (AIF/NESP-32, June 1985) shows that Table S-3 in its present form adequately covers all environmental impacts of the uranium fuel _cyle to support operation at higher burnups up to 60,000 mwd /MTHM. The staff believes that further rulemaking action on Table S-3 will not be necessary to support the licensing of operations at higher burnup levels.
Recommendation: That the Commission:
- 1. Approve the indefinite deferral of further rulemaking action on Table S-3 and the narrative explanation until there are indications that Table S-3 will be needed in evaluating new nuclear power plant license applications.
- 2. Approve publication of the Federal Register notice set forth in Enclosure A.
- - -.. .. . . . - -_ _ . - . ~ . --
. . . [
- b' :
- 3. Note
- l 5
t
- a. That the Office of the General Counsel, the Office !
of Policy Evaluation, the Office of the Executive !
t Legal Director, and the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation have concurred in the information affecting their. interests in the Commission Paper. :
i !
- b. That it may be necessary to modify Table S-3 in
- the future to reflect changes from the present -l i
model 1000-MWe LWR on which Table S-3 is based.
1 !
j c. That the appropriate Congressional committees will i ;
j be inforned (Enclosure B). !
1 i !
- )
William J. 'Jircks :
l_ Executive Director for' !
Operations i j
j Enclosures- '
3 A. Federal Register Notice ;
B. Letter to Chairman of Congressional Subcommittees j
I i.
'I I
I f i t I !
4 r I t
s - .
[7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 51 Appendix B. Explanatory Narrative for Table S-3, Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
ACTION: Deferral of Proposed Rulemaking
SUMMARY
- On March 4,1981, the Comission published in the Federal Register (46 FR 15154) for public review and comment its proposed amend-ments and a new Appendix to the regulation 10 CFR 51 regarding the environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle. Final rulemaking was deferred pending the outcome of a suit on the uranium fuel cycle rule (Natural Resources Defense Council et. al. v. NRC, No. 70-1486). After a Supreme Court decision on June 6,1983, upheld the uranium fuel cycle rule, action to amend the rule was deferred pending the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards for radon releases from uranium mills. Although the new standards will be conpleted in 1986, the Comission finds that there are no currently open nuclear power plant licensing cases for which the proposed amendments of the uranium fuel cycle will be needed. In the future, when the Comission receives new nuclear power plant license applications, the fuel cycle rule will be needed again, but will probably have to be amended further to be applicable to the new nuclear power plant designs of the future.
Accordingly, the Comission is deferring rulemaking on the fuel cycle environmental effects until needed for evaluating new nuclear power plant j license applications.
1 Enclosure A l
1' l
[7590-01]
i i
EFFECTIVE DATE: (Upon publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: W. E. Thompson, Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D. C. 20555, telephone (301) 427-9024.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Background
On April 22, 1974, the Atomic Energy Comission (AEC) promulgated the fuel cycle rule (so-called Table S-3 rule, 39 FR 14188) in which Table S-3, the
" Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data," provided a summary of the environmental effects from fuel cycle plants and operations, expressing them in terms normalized to show the maximum environmental effects attributable to a year's operation of a single LWR of a typical 1000-MWe nuclear power plant. In 1974, Table S-3 was codified in 10 CFR Part 51; and the report, WASH-1248, " Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle," 1/ was published to document the technical bases for the table.
In this report and subsequent proceedings the Comission considered and disclosed the environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle and determined that they need not be considered and reweighed in individual reactor licensing proceedings. The Table S-3 fuel cycle rule was promulgated to inform the i
1/ opies C of all referenced source documents are available for public inspection and copying for a fee in the Comission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, DC 20555 2 Enclosure A l
l l
[7590-01]
public and to reduce the burden on the NRC staff, reactor license applicants, and other interested persons by removing the necessity to.relitigate in every individual reactor licensing proceeding the environmental effects attributable to the fuel qycle.
On July 21, 1976, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found, in NRDC v. NRC, 547 F2d.633 (D.C. Cir.1976),
that the Table S-3 fuel cycle rule was inadequately supported by the record with respect to the impacts from reprocessing spent fuel and radioactive waste manager.ent. On August 16, 1976, ir response to the Court's decision, the Commission announced (41 FR 34707) that the rulemaking proceeding on the environmental effects of the fuel cycle would be reopened before a special Fuel Cycle Rulemaking Hearing Board to suppl 6nent the existing record with regard to reprocessing and radioactive waste management, to determine whether the rule should be amended, and if so, in what respect.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff prepared a supplement to the survey, which addressed environmental impacts associated with reprocessing and waste management. This supplement, NUREG-0116, was published in October 1976. In March 1977, the public comments relevant to NUREG-0116, staff responses to comments, and additional information about reprocessing and waste management were made available in NUREG-0216. On March 14, 1977, i the Commission promulgated an interim, amended rule (42 FR 1383). Public hearings on the amended rule were held before the Fuel Cycle Rulemaking Board between January and April of 1978. The Special Fuel Cycle Hearing ;
3 Enclosure A
r
, s
- x v '
[7590-01]
=
Board upheld the revised fuel cycle rule and recommended that it be
~
supplemented by a brief explanatory narrative describing the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle, with references to specific sections of reports where more detailed information can be obtained. The estimates given in Table S-3 would be explained in the narrative and their impacts on public health and safety discussed.
On April 27, 1982, in deciding a suit by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, (685 F.2d 459, D.C.
Cir.,1982), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the Comission's fuel cycle rule which governs the -
treatment of uranium fuel cycle environmental impacts in individual ,
nuclear power reactor licensing proceedings. This decision was appealed, and on June 6,1983, in a unanimous decision (Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. v. NRDC, 51 U.S.L.W. 4678), the United States Supreme Court upheld the Comission's fuel cycle (Table'S-3) rule.
s i In 1979, the Comission had directed the development of an explanatory narrative that would convey in understandable terms the significance of r
relcases summarized in Table S-3. The narrrative was also to address such important fuel cycle impacts ar, environmental dose comitments and s,
- health effects, socioeconomic impacts, and cumulative impacts, where these ;
were appropriate for generic treatment. On March 4,1981, the Comission published for public comment in the Federal Register (46 FR 15154) proposed amendments and a new Appendix to its regulation 10 CFR. Part 51. The Appendix provides a narrative explanation of Table S-3, " Uranium Fuel Cycle 4 Enclosure A s
c
-m--- . - ,
r e -e v- - - - ~ *s~~ - - - * '- ~ ' ' '
r- _
' _s l i [7590-01]
j Environmental Data." The purpose of the explanatory narrative is to briefly describe the bases for the values contained in Table S-3, and to convey j their sightficance by placing them.into perspective with respect to the .
riskq they ' impose upon the total hopulation of the United States. The ;
I Appendix is based upon and supplemented by the additional information available in WASH-1248, NUREG-1248, NUREG-0216, and the Table S-3 fuel -
cycle rulemaking record.
It should be noted that two radioisotopes, which may be released from various fuel cycle operations, are not included in Table S-3 as a result of Comission decisions. By Federal Register Notice on April 14, 1978
. x (43 FR 15613), the Comission removed the value contained in Table S-3 x for releases of radon-222, noting that pending generic consideration of the issue, radon releases from the fuel cycle, together with an appraisal of impacts, could be considered in individual licensing proceedings.
Subsequently, on May 27, 1983, the Comission's Memorandum and Order, CLI-83-14, In the Matter of Philadelphia Electric Company, et al.,
def rred consideration of the radon issues in individual licensing l proceedings pending the final Comission decision on the appropriate dj! position of ALB-701 (16 NRC 1517, November 19,1982) in which the Appe'el Board addressed the question of the health effects of radon releases from the nuclear fuel cycle. In ALAB-701, the Appeal Board decided that the " record establishes without contradiction that the radon contribution of the uranium fuel cycle is a minute fraction of the radon that is released into the atmosphere from other sources -- so minute, indeed, that the contribution is not even detectable." The Appeal Board 5 Enclosure A I
- - ~ . , - . - , . _ . . .
O ~
4 .
/ 'l Li s [7590-01]
( .
also concluded that the health risk from radon-222 releases attributable
- b l to the uranium fuel cycle is negligible and of insufficient magnitude
'< to alter cost-benefit balances which have been found to justify the licensing of nucler power plant operation. This line of reasoning whereby fuel cycle radon releases are held to be insignificant because they are small compared to natural background radon has been called the "de minimis approach." J _ j This decision was appealed to the Comission on the basis that the Appeal Board erred in adopting the de minimis approach to conclude that the uranium fuel cycle radon emissions were negligible when compared to naturally occurring radon emissions. The Commission decided that the decision whether or not to review ALAB-701 should await the conclusion of EPA's establishment of standards for raden-222 releases from uranium mill tailings piles and revision of the NRC's uranium mill regulation to conform to EPA's standards.
I The new EPA standards for radon releases from inactive uranium mill sites were promulgated in October 1984. The NRC uranium milling regulations in 10 CFR Part 40 were revised to corply with EPA's new standards, and the final Part 40 rule was published on October 16,1985, (50 FR 41852).
This rule establishes the basis for estimating the long-term radon releases l l x. from stabilized tailings piles after the mills have been shut down. i l < l l On August 5,1985,'the U. 'S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered EPA to issued by May 1,1986, final standards for radionuclide emissions from licensed (active) uranium mills. EPA and the ;
6 Enclosure A i
k l
[
[7590-01]
Sierra Club agreed to this court order rather than pursue a suit on the matter. The new EPA standards for active mills will be issued under the Clean Air Act, not UMTRCA, and will be enforced by EPA, but they will have an impact on the radon release estimates for active mills. Accordingly, the Commission cannot develop a new estimate of radon-222 releases from the uranium fuel cycle until after May 1,1986, when the EPA standards for active uranium mills are scheduled to be issued.
Technetium-99 is one of the radionuclides controlled under EPA's long-term release limits for high-level waste repositories. These cumulative release limits cover the long-lived radionuclides which rey escape from a high-level waste repository in 10,000 years after disposal of the wastes. The Commission notes that if technetium-99 is released from a repository at the maximum rate allowed under the NRC's Part 60 regulations, the releases would amount to 13 percent of the EPA's limit; the quantity of technetium-99 releases is not regarded as a major concern. However, the fact that technetium is less readily sorbed from groundwater than other radionuclides gives it an unusual degree of mobtiity and causes it to become one of the major potential contributors to population dose commitments. Research on technetium mobility is being sponsored by the Commission. The staff believes that an acceptable estimate of technetium-99 releases to the environment from all uranium fuel cycle facilities and operations can be nede today by using " upper limit" assumptions in cases where reliable data are not available. However, a better data base could be established with research to document and analyze actual releases at fuel cycle facilities. -
7 Enclosure A
I -
[7590-01]
Review of all pending licensing cases shows that there are no open cases in which matters related to Table S-3 have been introduced as issues of litigation. Further, after the completion of the current licensing cases, the only other actions requiring the use of Table S-3 will be license amendments to authorize higher burnup of the fuel. Higher burnuo is pertinent because it reduces the quantity of uranium required for a year's operation of the reactor. Therefore, one would expect that, since less uranium is required, the environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle would also be reduced. The NRC has not completed its Environmental Assessment of the impacts of higher fuel burnup in LWR nuclear power plants to show that this conclusion is technically correct, but the final report of a study by the Atomic Industrial Forum ( AIF/NESP-32, June 1985) shows that Table S-3 in its present form adequately covers all environmental imoacts of the uranium fuel cycle to support operation at higher burnups up to 60,000 mwd /MTHM. The Commission expects to complete its Environmental Assessment of the effects of higher fuel burnup in 1986 to show whether or not further study and preparation of an Enviroinmental Impact Statement will be necessary.
8 Enclosure A -
[7590-01]
FINDINGS The Comission has determined that the present fuel cycle rule, including Table S-3 can be used without amendment for applications that may arise from current licensing cases. Considering that it is not possible at this time to make all of the planned amendments to Table S-3 and the fuel cycle rule, the Comission finds that rulemaking action should be deferred for an indefinite period until the fuel cycle rule is needed in evaluating new nuclear power plant license applications. At that time other changes may be necessary to reflect differences in new reactor designs from the standard model 1000 MWe LWR on which Table S-3 is based. Accordingly, the Conadssion is terminating the rulemaking action announced on March 4,1981 (46 FR 15154) to amend its regulation 10 CFR 51 by providing amendments to Table S-3 and a new Appendix containing a narrative explanation of the Table.
Dated at Washington, D.C. this day of 1985.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM41SSION ,
Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Comission i
l l
9 Enclosure A f
.,o - - - , --. , , _ , - . . . . , - , , ,,,,--.,7. ,.-r,w-
. - , , , . ~ - , . , , , . .
P DRAFT CONGRESSIONAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed for the information of the Subcommittee is a copy of a Federal Register notice of the Commission's decision to defer indefinitely a planned rulemaking to amend its regulation 10 CFR Part 51, " Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures for Environmental Protection."
This final rulemaking is not needed at present, but will be reactivated in the future when more information is available.
The enclosed Federal Register notice gives additional information on the de.ferral of the rulensking action.
Sincerely, 4
John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
1 Enclosure B
--