# Appendix — Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. NRDC > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385009_0867%3A02 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1983 - **Citation:** 462 U.S. 87 ## Text | 112 Nod. ALEXANOER L. STEVAS, | Supreme Court of the United States : OCTOBER TERM, 1982 BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC Co., et al., ¥ Petitioners, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., Respondent. APPENDIX TO PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT GEORGE C. FREEMAN, JR. DONALD P. IRWIN LEE B. ZEUGIN HUNTON & WILLIAMS P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212 HENRY V. NICKEL (Counsel of Record) F. WILLIAM BROWNELL HUNTON & WILLIAMS P.O. Box 19230 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202/223-8650) Counsel for Petitioners Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., et al. WILGON - Eres Printing Co.. Inc. - 789-0096 - WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 r™ TABLE OF CONTENTS DECISION AND SUBSEQUENT ORDERS OF THE COURT Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Nos. 74- 1586, 77-1448, 19-2110, and 79-2131 (D.C. Cir. r a ne = ae Opinion by Senior Circuit Judge Bazelon (Opinion of the Court Opinion by Circuit Judge Edwards (6th Cir.) (concurring in part and dissenting in — x ˙ EEG Amended Judgment (Nos. 74-1586, 77-1448, 79- 2110, and 79-2131, April 27, 1982777 Order of June 30, 1982 (Nos. 74-1586, 77-1448, 79- 2110, and 79-2131) [denying petitions for re- e i seemnuiaiesiiiaeine Order of June 30, 1982 (Nos. 74-1586, 77-1448, 79- 2110, and 79-2131) [denying suggestions for re- hearing en bane per curiam] jn Order of September 1, 1982 (Nos. 74-1586, 77- 1448, 79-2110, and 79-2131) [staying the man- date for a period of thirty (30) days from date e ß alten Order of September 10, 1982 (Nos. 74-1586, 77 1448, 79-2110, and 79-2131) [amending the eee Order of September 10, 1982 (Nos. 74-1586, 77 1448, 79-2110, and 79-2131) [amending the dis- senting opinion of Circuit Judge Wilkey] ! PREVIOUS ORDERS OF THE COURT Order of July 21, 1977 (No. 77-1448) [holding petition in abeyance, inter alia, pending final de- cision of the Supreme Court Page la la 70a 117a 182a 185a 188a 190a 191a 193a ii TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Order of June 7, 1978 (Nos. 74-1586, 77-1448) [requesting parties to supply information and advice relevant to disposition in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Vermont Yankee EIEIO LE EN > RRR Pee NERO Order of November 16, 1978 (No. 74-1586) [hold- ing in abeyance pending the issuance of a final fuel cycle rule and requesting the Commission to ee eee of the rulemaking] .. ; ae Order of November 20, 1978 (No. 77-1448) [hold- ing review of interim rule in abeyance pending issuance of final rule, inter alia]... Order of September 28, 1979 (Nos. 79-2110, 79- 2131) [consolidating, swa sponte, by petitions to ti . Order of October 19, 1979 (Nos. 79-2110, 79-2131) {granting intervention of Commonwealth Edi- ETE LEE ALI ED Order of November 27, 1979 (Nos. 74-1586, 77- 1448, 79-2110, 79-2131) [requesting parties to supply information and advice relevant to con- sideration of the petitions for review, inter ET Pa SRS ca Order of February 11, 1980 (Nos. 74-1586, 77- 1448, 79-2110, 79-2131) [consolidating the peti- tions “for all purposes” and establishing a brief- r EE le Ne RE Order of March 12, 1980 (Nos. 74-1586, 77-1448, 79-2110, 79-2131) [clarifying order of February 11, 1980, to provide that the filing requirements therein do not apply to No. 74-1885] 196a 200a 201a 202a 203a 205a 210a iii TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Order of August 13, 1980 (Nos. 74-1586, 77-1448, 79-2110, 79-2131) [requesting simultaneous memoranda by September 5, 1980, on legal is- sues remaining in the cases including disposi- — ̃ A ⁵² A ⁵˙—x̃ e. ORDERS IN RELATED CASES Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al., v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United States of America, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp., Intervenor, No. 74-1385 (D.C. Cir. August 16, 1982) (show cause order as to remand) ) Nelson Aeschliman, et al., v. United States of America Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and United States of America, Nos. 73-1776 and 77- 1867 (D.C. Cir. August 16, 1892) (show cause order as to dismissal and further action) AGENCY DECISIONS, FINDING OF FACT, AND REGULATIONS Atomic Energy Commission, Environmental Ef- fects of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, 39 Fed. Reg. 14,188 (April 22, 1974) (Original Rule and Statement of Consideration)))))));r;ůh Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts from Spent Fuel Re- processing and Radioactive Waste Management; Effective Interim Rule, 42 Fed. Reg. 13,803 (March 14, 1977) (Interim Rule and Statement ESERIES i IE RICCO Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts from Spent Fuel Re- processing and Radioactive Waste Management ; Effective Clarifying Amendment to Table 8-3, 48 Fed. Reg. 15,613 (April 14, 1978) (Amended Interim Rule and Statement of Consideration) .. Amended Interim Rule 214a 219a 221la 224a 237a 240a 259a 27la iv TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Conclusions and Recommendations of the Hearing Board Regarding the Environmental Effects of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, October 26, 1978 Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts for Spent Fuel Re- processing and Radioactive Waste Management ; Extension of Interim Fuel Cycle Rule, 44 Fed. Reg. 45,374 (August 2, 197999 Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts from Spent Fuel Re- processing and Radioactive Waste Management; 44 Fed. Reg. 45,362 (August 2, 1979) (Final Rule and Statement of Consideration) —............. RELATED STATUTES AND REGULATIONS Administrative Procedure Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. $§ 558, 706 (1976) Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, §§ 1-3, 101-108, 161, 181, 189, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2011-2013, 2131-2138, 2201, 2231, 2239 (1970) Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, §§ 2, 104, 201, 208, 204, 301, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5801, 5814, 5841, 5843, 5844, 5871 (1976222 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, §§ 101, 102, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4331, 4332 111110 Council on Environmental Quality, Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements: Guidelines, 40 C.F.R. Part 1500 (partial) (published Au- gust 1, 1973, 38 Fed. Reg. 20,550 (1973), super- seded November 28, 1978, 43 Fed. Reg. 55,990 EE Council on Environmental Quality, Regulations, 40 C. F. R. 58 1500.1 (a), 1500.3, 1500.4, 1502.21 „„„ͤ„ „ •ͤ5Eü— —ʃ Page 274 391a 394a 414a 430a la Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Reports. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 74-1586 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. AND CONSOLIDATED NATIONAL INTERVENORS, PETITIONERS v. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENTS BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC Co., ET AL., INTERVENORS No. 77-1448 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., PETITIONER V. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENTS BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL., COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY, PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION, INTERVENORS No. 79-2110 THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PETITIONER V. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENTS COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY, ET AL., TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC Co., ET AL., STATE OF WISCONSIN, INTERVENORS No. 79-2131 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., PETITIONER V. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENTS COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY, Er AL., TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL., INTERVENORS Petitions for Review of Orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Argued September 17, 1980 Decided April 27, 1982 Ronald J. Wilson for Natural Resources Defense Council, petitioner in Nos. 74-1586, 77-1448 and 79-2131. Roger Beers also entered an appearance for petitioner, Natural Resources Defense Council. E. Leo Slaggie, Attorney, Nuclear Regulatory Commis- sion, with whom Sanford Sagalkin, Acting Assistant At- torney General, David Shilton, Attc-ney, Department of Justice, and Stephen E. Eilperin, Solicitor, Nuclear Regu- latory Commission, were on the brief, for respondents. George R. Hyde, Edward J. Shawaker and John J. Zim- merman, Attorneys, Department of Justice, also entered appearances for respondents. Ezra I. Bialik, Assistant Attorney General, State of New York, with whom Robert Abrams, Attorney General, State of New York, and Bronson C. LaFollette, Attorney General, and Patrick Walsh, Assistant Attorney General, State of Wisconsin, were on the joint brief, for peti- tioner, State of New York, and intervenor, State of Wisconsin, in No. 79-2110. Donald P. Irwin and K. Dennis Sisk were on the brief for intervenors Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, et al., in Nos. 74-1586, 77-1448, 79-2110 and 79-2131. George C. Freeman, Jr. also entered an appearance for intervenors, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, et al. Charles W. Van Beke and M. Elizabeth Culbreth were on the brief for intervenor Tennessee Valley Authority in Nos. 79-2110 and 79-2131. James P. McGranery, Jr. and Margaret R. A. Paradis were on the brief for intervenors and amici curiae, Com- monwealth Edison Company, in Nos. 74-1586, 77-1448, 79-2110 and 79-2131. Richard D. Cudahy entered an appearance for intervenor, Commonwealth Edison Com- pany. Ronald A. Zumbrun, Raymond M. Momboisse, Albert Ferri, Jr. and Lawrence P. Jewes entered apperances for intervenor, Pacific Legal Foundation. Before: BAZELON, Senior Circuit Judge, GEORGE C. EDWARDS, In.,“ Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, and WILKEY, Circuit Judge. * Sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 291 (a). 4a Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge BAZELON. Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part filed by Circuit Judge EDWARDS. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge WILKEY. PER CURIAM: Judge Bazelon’s opinion constitutes the opinion of the court. Judge Edwards concurs in all but Part IV-D of the opinion, and Judge Wiikey concurs in only Part IV-D. BAZELON, Senior Circuit Judge: These consolidated cases involve the continuing efforts of the Nuclear Regu- latory Commission (NRC)' to establish a system by which to consider and disclose the environmental impact of the uranium fuel cycle in compliance with the Na- tional Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).? The present controversy centers upon the radiological effluents as- sociated with the “back end” of the fuel cycle: the reproc- essing,*® storage, and “disposal” of spent fuel and other 1The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was estab- lished by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 88 5801 et seg. (1976), to assume the licensing and regulatory functions of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). The ad- ministrative proceedings challenged in this action began under the AEC and continued under the NRC. Hereinafter both agencies will be referred to as the “Commission” or the “NRC.” 2 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (1976). * “Reprocessing” is a process by which reusable elements of spent fuel are extracted for recycling and the remaining re dioactive wastes are concentrated. * As we stated in our initial opinion in this case, waste “disposal” is a misnomer for what, under currently projected technology, should be termed long-term waste storage. It refers to the last stage of the waste-management process, where wastes are expected to be contained for the tens of thousands of years necessary for them to decay naturally into nontoxic substances. But see p. 39 infra (other disposal methods unde. consideration). 5a wastes. At issue are three versions—the original,“ interim,“ and final versions —of the Table S-3 Rule,” which provide a set of numerical values intended to reflect the environmental effects of the uranium fuel eyele.“ Under the Rule, Table S-3 is to be included in 5 39 Fed. Reg. 14188 (1974). * 42 Fed. Reg. 13803 (1977). 744 Fed. Reg. 45362 (1979) (codified at 10 C.F.R. 88 51.20 (e) & 51.23(c) (1981)). The original Rule was codified at 10 C.F.R. Part 50 App. D and then transferred to 10 C. F. R. §§51.20(e) & 51.23 (e). 39 Fed. Reg. 26279 (1974). The interim and final Rules amended those two sections. Hereinafter only Federal Register citations will be noted. Although the original and interim Rules have been super- ceded by the final Rule, their validi 7 is still at issue. In- dividual licenses that were granted under those Rules have been challenged in separate actions, many of which are being held in abeyance pending the resolution of the broader issues presented in this case. In this circuit alone there are at least five such cases. Lloyd Harbor Study Group, Inc. v. NRC, No. 73-2266; Aeschliman v. NRC, No. 73-1776; Saginaw Valley Study Group v. NRC, No. 73-1867; NRDC v. NRC, No. 74- 1385; Coalition for the Environment v. NRC, No. 77-1905. The Rule is referred to as the Table S-3 Rule” because the Table, which originated in a staff report, was initially labeled 8-3.“ See p. 16 infra. In most relevant respects, differences among the three versions of the Table S-3 Rule are insignificant. References to the “Table” or the “Rule,” therefore, refer to all versions. The fuel cycle activities addressed by the Table include uranium mining and milling, the production of uranium hexa- fluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, spent-fuel stor- age and disposal, reprocessing of irradiated fuel, transporta- tion of radioactive materials and management of low-level and high-level wastes. For an explanation of the fuel cycle, see NRDC v. NRC, 547 F.2d 633, 637 n.3 (D.C.Cir. 1976), rev'd sub nom. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519 (1978). As stated above, these cases concern only the waste-management and disposal aspects of the Table. The final version of the Table is reproduced below. 6a Table S-8.—Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data! ormalized to model LWR annual fuel requirement [WASH-1248 - or reference reactor year [NUREG-0116)] : Maximum effect per annual fuel Environmental considerations Total requirement or reference reactor year of model 1,000 MWe LWR NATURAL Resources USE Land (acres) : Temporarily committed 2 ?:? 100 Undisturbed area ............... 79 Disturbed area .....................- 22 Equivalent to a 110 MWe coal-fired Permanently committed 13 Overburden moved a (millions of M') 5 28 Equivalent to 95 MWe coal-fired * power plant. Water (millions of gallons) : Discharged to air — 160 2 percent of model 1,000 MWe _ LWR with cooling tower. Discharged to water bodies.... 5 Discharged to ground .............. 127 Total 11,377 attributable to the licensing of a model light-water reactor. The revised survey was completed in October, 1976, and the Commission issued the October 18, 1976 notice regard- ing the proposed interim rule. The comments received in response to that notice and the Commission’s responses to those comments comprise NUREG-0216, Supplement 2 to WASH-1248 (hereinafter “Supplement 2”). The Commission indicated in that notice that the values proposed therein were to be considered as a proposed in- terim substitute for the values originally set forth in Table S-3A of WASH 1248. After receipt and analysis of comments received, a fina] interim rule was to be promul- *The Court of Appeals stayed its mandate in the proceedings which gave rise to the General Statement of Policy, and the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari has the legal effect of continuing the stay of mandate in effect. 5 Note 1, supra, n. 17, at 1154-1156. 244a gated for use in LWR licensing. The interim rule was to be made permanent only after a public hearing had been held to further facilitate effective public participation. Under a Supplemental Statement of Policy published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on November 11, 1976 (41 FR 49898) licensing of individwal LWR’s was resumed on a conditional basis pending promulgation of the final interim rule provided that the old values for reprocessing and waste management contained in Table S-3A were com- pared with the values in the proposed interim rule to determine if application of the new values would tilt the cost/benefit balance in individual cases. All values in the table except those relating to waste management and re- processing were to remain the same. The Commission has decided to pattern the final interim rule after the original Table S-3. Supplements 1 and 2 provide detailed narrative explanation of the new values in Table S-3 and give greater illumination to the back- ground and context of the revised values. SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF SUPPLEMENTS AND RULE At the outset the Commission wishes to make clear that its purpose in preparing Supplements 1 and 2 and the interim rule was quite limited. The sole purpose of prepa- ration of Supplement 1 and the rule was to identify and quantify environmental impacts attributable to the re- processing and waste management portions of the LWR fuel cycle. The environmental impacts so identified are to be used only in the preparation of environmental impact statements for individual light water reactors. Supple- ment 1 and the rule have fulfilled this purpose. It was not the purpose of this proceeding to decide which of the various waste management alternatives should or will be employed in practice, or to develop site selection criteria or to define parameters for licensing of any of the Energy Research and Development Administration’s (ERDA) waste management facilities. A separate and compre- 245a hensive series of programs has been undertaken to serve these broader purposes. ERDA has several programs in progress including a program for the preparation of a generic environmental impact statement on high-level waste management, a program to evaluate geologic forma- tions and specific sites for repositories, programs in re- search and development of waste solidification methods and development of interim storage sites. NRC’s ongoing programs include the preparation of regulations for the licensing of ERDA waste management facilities and ac- tivities, the development of performance criteria for solidi- fied high-level waste and the development of site suitability criteria for high-level waste repositories. These programs are described in greater detail in Ap- pendices B and C to Supplement 1 and other agency pro- grams are described in Appendix F to Supplement 2. Supplement 1 itself and the S-3 rule are only a very small part of these ongoing activities. In addition to these ongoing programs the Commission has undertaken the preparation of two generic environ- mental impact statements on fuel cycle issues. One, the Generic Environmental Statement on Mixed Oxide Fuels, “GESMO,” is in the legislative hearing stage of a rule- making proceeding. Work has commenced on the other, the Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling, and a draft statement is expected in mid-1978. The Commission has used some of the information in the GESMO document, NUREG-0002, in its preparation of Supplement 1 and the interim rule in much the same manner as it has used other available literature. While the Commission realizes that additional information may be generated during the GESMO proceeding, all of the information used in the Supplement, including the rele- vant information from NUREG-0002, will be re-examined during preparation of the final fuel cycle rule and will be subjected to close scrutiny during public hearings on the final rule along with other available information. To the / 246a extent that comments in this proceeding have raised issues related to the material in the GESMO decument, the Com- mission has independently evaluated the comments and taken them into account in this proceeding. SUFFICIENCY OF INFORMATION AND ASSESSMENT In order to fulfill its purpose of identifying in a generic proceeding the environmental impacts attributable to the reprocessing and waste management portions of the LWR fuel cycle, the Commission had to decide whether the infor- mation produced by Supplements 1 and 2 provided a suffi- cient basis for proceeding with an interim rule. The Com- mission addressed the questioin whether the risks of proceeding on the basis of information which may later be called into question in a final rulemaking proceeding out- the costs which would certainly flow from a hiatus in LWR licensing. See National Air Carrier Association v. CAB, 436 F.2d 185, 191 (D.C. Cir. 1970). The costs at- tributable to a hiatus in licensing were explored by the Commission’s Staff in a paper entitled “Impacts of Adopt- ing or Not Adopting an Interim Rule Permitting Con- struction or Operation of Nuclear Power Plants” which was cited by the Commission in its Supplemental State- ment of Policy (41 FR 49898) and placed in the Public Document Room along with NUREG-0116. The paper concluded that the environmental and economic costs at- tributable to a twelve-month delay in the licensing of reactors were substantial. A number of comments on the Supplement and the pro- posed interim rule also dealt with the adequacy of this study. These comments are discussed in detail in the docu- ment entitled “Response to Comments on a Staff paper entitled ‘Impacts of Adopting or Not Adopting an In- terim Rule Permitting Construction or Operation of Nu- clear Power Plants’”. In the Commission’s view, the study was adequate to fulfill its limited purpose of high- lighting for the Commission and others the costs of a 247a hiatus in licensing that would be caused by the failure to promulgate an interim rule. Even if environmental costs of a delay in licensing were excluded from consideration, the economic costs of a twelve-month delay would be high. Thus, the costs which would flow from a hiatus in licens- ing were explored by the Commission and the Commission has concluded that they would be substantial. However, as was noted above, costs alone could not determine the Commission’s resolution of the question whether to proceed by interim rule. Against these costs must be weighed the risks of proceeding by interim rule where the sufficiency of the information supporting the rule might be later called into question during the final rulemaking proceeding on the permanent rule. Accordingly, the Commission criti- cally examined the Supplement and, in light of some comments questioning its adequacy attempted to judge its quality. The Supplement supporting the new interim rule (NUREG-0116) was the product of extensive effort by a Task Force comprised of a number of highly qualified in- dividuals with years of experience in the field. Since a great deal of work in the field had already been completed when the Task Force began its analysis, the Task Force was not required to start completely fresh in its considera- tion of the issues. Supplement 1 is not merely an un- critical description of the available literature on the sub- ject of reprocessing and waste management. Rather, the Task Force carefully examined voluminous amounts of information in the field, selected from those sources the best possible information available and then critically analyzed the information and, where warranted, rechecked calculations and performed independent analysis. Further, the Staff performed a detailed analysis of the comments received on the Supplement. The responses to every sub- atantive comment received are contained in Supplement 2, NUREG-0216. Supplements 1 and 2 contain a detailed analysis of the impacts of waste management and re- processing and provide a sufficient informational basis for the interim rule promulgated herein. 248 The Commission has observed that there are gaps in the information needed for detailed assessment of waste man- agement and disposal technology. While there is the need to obtain additional data and to consider from time to time any new findings that would have a bearing upon the values set forth in Table 8-3, the lack of some relevant data in certain areas by no means excuses the Commis- sion from making an informed and reasoned judgment now regarding the environmental impacts which may flow from waste management and reprocessing activities. The situation is analogous to the Atomic Energy Com- mission’s issuance of interim acceptance criteria for emer- gency core cooling systems, as reviewed in Union of Con- cerned Scientists v. AEC, 499 F.2d 1069 (D.C. Cir. 1974). As the AEC did in that instance, the Commission recog- nizes that “analytical methods capable of realistic predic- tion of all phenomena known or suspected to occur” in the course of waste management and disposal are not avail- able and agrees that definitive experiments have not been carried out. However, the Commission’s position, which is reflected in the Task Force Report as revised, is the same as the one that was given judicial acceptance in Union of Concerned Scientists: In the absence of such perfection, adequate assurance of safety can be obtained from an appropriately con- servative analysis based on available experimental information. In areas of incomplete knowledge, con- servative assumptions or procedures must be applied. When further experimental information or improved caleulational techniques become available, the con- servatisms presently imposed will be reevaluated and a more realistic approach will be taken. 499 F.2d 1069, at 1086. It should be noted that the interim rule does not deal with a safety question as did the emergency core cooling system but rather attempts to quantify the environmental impacts of reprocessing and waste management. “[C]on- 249a servative analysis based on available experimental] in- formation” is even more appropriate in such a case where the goal is not to reach a conclusion whether a level of safety has been met, but rather to develop values for use in environmental cost benefit analyses. The Task Force Report (NUREG-0116) and the Com- ments and Responses (NUREG-0216) contain and docu- ment numerous conservatisms applied to the analysis of environmental impacts from waste management and re- processing activities. In those few cases where detailed estimates could not be made, the Task Force exercised its expert judgment to reach a best estimate. Since a calcu- lation could not be made, the conservatism of these few judgments cannot absolutely be established. However, it is the Commission’s view that the impacts estimated on expert judgments are quite small in any case and that adequate conservatism has been applied. The Commission would be reluctant to proceed if it be- lieved the values in Table S-3, and the information from which they are derived, were called into question to any significant degree by substantial evidence, but this is not the case. Union of Concerned Scientists, 499 F.2d at 1085. To some extent, as noted above, the setting of values in Table S-3 involved making “policy judgments where no factual certainties exist or where facts alone do not pro- vide the answer.” Industrial Union Department, AFL- CIO v. Hodgson, 499 F.2d 467, 476 (D.C. Cir. 1974). In such cases—especially where the evidence is “difficult to come by, uncertain, or conflicting because it is on the frontiers of scientific knowledge“ —it is appropriate for the Commission to proceed to apply its expertise; its con- clusions must be rationally justified, not based on hunches or wild guesses, but conclusions may be drawn “from theo- retical projections from imperfect data, from probative preliminary data not yet certifiable as ‘fact’, and the like.” Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541 F.2d 1, 28 (D.C. Cir. 1976) ; see also Amoco Oil Co. v. EPA, 501 F.2d 722 (D.C. 250a Cir. 1974). The Commission may, as to some extent it has done here, make probabilistic assessments that must suffice until data becomes “sufficiently quantifiable to yield to meaningful analysis.” Union of Concerned Scientists, supra, 499 F.2d at 1093. The Commission has also been mindful of its obliga- tion to identify the particular findings in the literature that it deems significant, Portland Cement Association v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 400 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied 417 U.S. 921 (1974), and to examine the reasons for mistakes in prior assessments in order that its assess- ment may be complete. In this regard, the Commission has examined past experiences in the waste management field. There, in several instances, past scientific judg- ments were shown to have been in error. However, one cannot look at those mistakes without recognizing that de- velopments in technology have since occurred which make repetition of past mistakes less likely. Past experience has provided an indication of the types of impacts that are possible. Furthermore, the Supplement is based on very conservative assumptions regarding levels of releases. The Supplement has included in its model only technolo- gies which are presently available and the Commission has made every effort to make the most thorough evalua- tion of the associated environmental impacts that the present state of available knowledge will permit. In summary, the Commission has decided to proceed with promulgation of the interim rule. It has looked at the uncertainties and unknowns identified in the Supple- ment. It has weighed the riske of proceeding with licens- ing on the basis of the interim rule against the costs of not proceeding. The Commission has found that the costs of not proceeding outweigh the risks of proceeding by interim rule especially given the fact that a relatively short period of time, eighteen months, may pass before a more thorough discussion of the issues will be completed in the final rulemaking proceeding. There is no perceived 25la need for the Commission to wait for site specific informa- tion or to wait for ERDA’s generic environmental impact statement on high-level waste management. In some areas—including critical areas where a substantial meas- ure of expert judgment had to be applied—it is unlikely that substantial new information of a quantitative nature will be available for years. As the Court said in Citizens for Safe Power v. NRC, 524 F.2d 1291, 1297 (D.C. Cir. 1975): Absolute or perfect assurances are not required by [the Atomic Energy Act], and neither present tech- nology nor public policy admit of such a standard. It was for the Commission to arrive at a rational, prac- tical and principled conclusion upon the basis of rea- sonably available evidence. INTERIM RULEMAKING Some of the comments have raised the question whether an interim rule, without the benefit of oral hearings, is an appropriate mechanism for establishing the impacts presented in Table S-3. The Commission continues to be- lieve that such action is fully warranted, in the light of the competing factors identified above. The fixing of values under an interim rule is consistent with the opinion of the court in NRDC v. NRC, as well as settled case and statutory law. Indeed, interim rules may be adopted without any prior notice and opportunity for public comment if public procedures would be imprac- ticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. § 553(b). The AEC’s adoption of interim accept- ance criteria for emergency core cooling systems was found to be a valid exercise of this authority, for example, in Union of Concerned Scientists, supra, 499 F.2d at 1085. Furthermore, the quality of the comments and of the Task Force responses to those comments as well as the additional information provided in the course of this inter- change give the Commission confidence that no major 252a issues lie hidden as a result of this procedure. While the Commission has chosen to use notice and comment pro- cedures for this interim rulemaking, it intends to hold public hearings in connection with the final rulemaking to facilitate additional effective public participation. The time, place, and format for the hearing will be set forth in a separate FEDERAL REGISTER notice. Such public hear- ings are, however, not required to satisfy any constitu- tional or statutory mandate and, therefore, the use of notice and comment procedures will suffice for interim rulemaking. In NRDC v. NRC, supra, the Court of Ap- peals for the District of Columbia Circuit referred neither to the Constitution nor to the Administrative Procedure Act when it set for itself the task “to decide whether the procedures provided by the agency were sufficient to venti- late the issues.” 9 ERC at 1156. Rather, the court’s anal- ysis of asserted procedural inadequacies in the earlier S-3 proceedings apparently rests on judicial notions, funda- mentally common-law in character, concerning what is re- quired to produce a record that will facilitate judicial review.“ The same court has stated, “Although we have recognized that provision of oral hearings may be wise in some instances, we have never held that due process re- quires oral presentation of views as a matter of course,” Pickus v. U.S. Board of Parole, 543 F.2d 240, 246 (D.C. Cir. 1976). In circumstances calling for prompt action it follows that use of notice and comment procedures for in- terim rulemaking is sufficient. The Commission has made every effort to present a full statement of available infor- mation, and to explain the reasons which persuade it to adopt, for a relatively short period, the values set forth in revised Table S-3. In order to reflect its interim character, the rule that is presently being adopted will be made effective for the limited period of eighteen months. The Commission be- * As earlier indicated in note 1, supra, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in NRDC v. NRC. 253a lieves that final rulemaking proceedings can be completed within this period and wishes to stress that the present rule is only a temporary measure pending completion of the final rulemaking proceedings which will reflect addi- tional public participation. However, if good cause is shown, the period of effectiveness of the interim rule can be extended. The amended rule incorporating revised Table S-3 is being made effective immediately because the Commission has determined that it has good cause for doing so: the revised Table S-3 provides a more current and compre- hensive basis for evaluation than does the original Table S-3; there is a need to base licensing decisions on the best available information; and the values in the interim rule are not substantially different from the values in the pro- posed interim rule upon which interested persons had the opportunity to comment. (Supplemental General State- ment of Policy, 41 FR 49898, November 11, 1976; see also 5 U.S.C. 553 (d) (3)). Accordingly, any operating license, construction permit, or limited work authorization (LWA) that may hereafter be issued must take into account the revised values con- tained in this rule. Licenses, permits, or limited work authorizations issued before July 21, 1976 in which the originally effective chemical reprocessing and waste stor- age values of Table S-3 were utilized will remain effective, principally because the values in the new interim rule are not sufficiently different from the values in the original Table S-3 to warrant revocation or suspension on cost- benefit grounds. Any show cause or similar proceedings initiated in these cases pursuant to the August 16, 1976 General Statement of Policy will be terminated. Operating licenses, construction permits, or limited work authorizations granted after July 21, 1976 and which therefore were subject to the outcome of the proceedings in NRDC v. NRC, will also remain in effect, and any show cause or similar proceedings initiated in response to 254a the August 16, 1976 General Statement of Policy in these cases are also to be terminated. The values in the interim rule are not substantially different from those which, under the Commission’s Supplemental General Statement of Policy, were required to be considered by Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards in connection with the issuance of such licenses. Where the the Boards have found that the cost-benefit balance would not be tilted by the values in the proposed interim rule, no further proceedings are necessary since the values in the final interim rule are not substantially different from the values in the proposed rule. Similarly, cases now pending before the Boards in which the evidentiary record on fuel cycle impact issues has been compiled are to be decided on the basis of the existing record; since the interim rule values are not sub- stantially different from those in the previously proposed rule, the reopening of the record to receive additional testimony would not appear to be justified. Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and sections 552 and 553 of Title 5 of the United States Code, the following amendment to 10 CFR Part 51 is published as a document subject to codification, to be effective on March 14, 1977. 10 CFR Part 51 is amended by revising § 51.20(e) to read as follows: § 51.20 Applicant’s Environmental Report—Construction Permit Stage (e) In the Environmental Report required by paragraph (a) for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors, the contribution of the environmental effects of uranium min- ing and milling, the production of uranium hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of ir- radiated fuel, transportation of radioactive materials and management of low level wastes and high level wastes re- lated to uranium fuel cycle activities to the environmental costs of licensing the nuclear power reactor, shall be as set forth in Table S-3, Summary of environmental considera- tions for uranium fuel cycle. No further discussion of such environmental] effects shall be required. This para- graph does not apply to any applicant’s environmental re- port submitted prior to June 6, 1974. The values set forth in Table S-3 in this paragraph will not be applied in any proceeding as of September 14, 1978. TABLE 8-3 Summary of environmental considerations for uranium fuel cycle! (Normalized to model LWR annual fuel [WASH-1248] or reference reactor year [NU 1161) Maximum effect per annual fuel Natural resource use Total requirement or reference reactor year of model 1,000 MWe LWR Land (acres) : Temporarily committed 94 Undisputed area = 73 Disturbed area 22 Equivalent to a 110 MWe coal-fired powerplant. Permanently committed 7.1 Overburden moved (millions of MT) ................ 28 Equivalent to 95 MWe coal-fired — m powerplant. Water (millions of gallons) : Dicharged to air 159 =2 of model 1,000 MWe L with cooling tower. Discharged to water bodies. 11,090 Discharged to ground ............ 124 Total 11,373 7S Se ae Fossil fuel Electrical energy (thousands of megawatt <2 Saas ee MWe hours) $21 L output. (thousands of MT) ............ 117 Equivalent to the consumption of 1 — to emissions from 45 e coal-fired plant for a year. Table S-3—Continued Maximum effect per annual fuel Natural resource use Total requirement or reference reactor 8 b E 8 et Sekt Principally from fuel reprocessing plants. 257a Table Maximum effect per annual fuel Total requirement or reference reactor year of model 1,000 MWe LWR Natural resource use Ra-226 Th-234 — 910 Fission and activation produets Solids (buried on site) : Other than high level Nii (shallow) ~60 Ci comes from conversion and spent fuel storage. No sig- nificant effluent to the environ- ment. Buried at Federal repository. 1.1510 7 pet of model 1,000 MWe 113 e pa 11 Secretary of the Commission SAMUEL J. CHILK 8 Estimated effluents based upon combustion of equivalent coal for power 258a Effective date: The foregoing amendments take effect on March 14, 1977. 83-703, 68 Stat. 048 (42 U.S.C. /s/ Samuel J. Chilk L. 93-438, 88 Stat. 1244 (42 U.S.C. ta b. L. Pub 02, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended, Pub. 1 Pub. L. 94-83, 89 Stat. 424 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Sec. 161, ; Sec. 202, as 2201) 5842) ) Dated at Washington, D.C. this 7th day of March, 1977. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 41.2 percent from natural gas use and process. (Sec. : 1 sis i 1 15 uren ff 1 1 111 i 1147153 171 iT i 0 i 2 1141 259a Title 10—Energy CHAPTER I—NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PART 51—LICENSING AND REGULATORY POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PRO- TECTION Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts From Spent Fuel Reprocess- ing and Radioactive Waste Management AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Effective clarifying amendment to Tables S- 3 and Response to Petition for Rulemaking filed on be- half of the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (Docket No PRM-51-1). SUMMARY: The Commission has previously published Table S-3 of 10 CFR Part 51 which identified environ- mente l effects for the uranium fuel cycle which are to be included in environmental reports and environmental impact statements for individual light water nuclear power reactors. This action amends the prior regulations to remove the value contained in Table S-3 for releases of radon and to clarify that Table S-3 does not include health effects from the effluents described. The rule as amended states that the fuel cycle rule does not preclude consideration of these impacts in individual cases. This action also responds to the NECNP rulemaking petition. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 1978. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jane A. Axelrad, Office of the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, phone: 301-492-7437. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (herein- after “NRC” or “Commission”) has decided to amend Table S-3 of 10 CFR Part 51 “Summary of Environ- mental Considerations for Uranium Fuel Cycle” in the Commission’s regulations “Licensing and Regulatory Pol- icy and Procedures for Environmental Protection,” 10 CFR Part 51. Specifically, the Commission has decided to clarify that certain environmental effects from the uranium fuel cycle are not included in the Table and may be litigated in individual cases. In conjunction with this notice of rulemaking, the Commission hereby gives notice that the petition for rule- making submitted by letter dated November 19, 1975 by Roisman, Kessler, and Cashdan, 1025 15th Street, N. W., Washington, D.C., on behalf of the New England Coali- tion on Nuclear Pollution is being denied in part. How- ever, the issues raised in the petition relating to Radon- will be addressed in a future ratemaking proceeding to amend the value for Radon in Table S-3. Accordingly, action on this part of the petition is being deferred. DESCRIPTION OF THE PETITION The New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution peti- tioned the Commission to amend Table 8-3 of 10 CFR Part 51, “Summary of Environmental Considerations for Uranium Fuel Cycle” in the Commission’s regulations “Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures for En- vironmental Protection,” 10 CFR Part 51. A notice of the filing of the petition, Docket No. PRM-51-1, was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on January 16 1976 (41 FR 2448). The petition for rulemaking was accompanied by two technical documents authored by Professor Robert O. Pohl, Professor of Physics, Cornell University, entitled “Nu- clear Energy: Health Impact of Carbon-14” and “Health Effects of Thorium-230.” These technical papers provided the technical bases for the claims presented in the peti- tion. On December 23, 1976, the NRC received a tinal draft of Professor Pohl's paper “Nuclear Energy: Health 261a Impact of Carbon-14” that replaced the draft previously sent to the NRC on November 19, 1975 as part of the original petition. The notice of petition filing invited interested persons to submit written comments or suggestions on the petition by March 16, 1976. Because of publie interest about the concerns expressed by the petition, the public comment period was extended to April 26, 1976 (41 FR 12365). The following responded to the requests for written com- ments: Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.; Commonwealth Edison Co.; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); General Electric Co.; Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. ; Ranchers Exploration and Development Corp.; Tennessee Valley Authority; Union Carbide Corp.; United Nuclear Corp.; and Westinghouse Electric Corp. All commentors except EPA, recommended that NRC should deny the petition because, in their opinion, the petitioners have provided insufficient bases and rationale to support their claims for reassessing Table S-3 and existing licenses and for the postponement of pending applications. EPA only supplied correspondence between EPA and Dr. Pohl be- cause of references made in the petition to EPA’s dose estimate methods presented in the EPA Uranium Fuel Cycle report, EPA-520/9-73-003-B, October 1973. In the petition, the petitioners state that: (1) The cur- rent Table S-3 seriously underestimates the impact on human health and safety by disregarding the long-term effects of certain long-lived radionuclides, particularly Thorium-230 which decays into radon gas, and that the health effects of uranium mining and milling, presently listed in Table S-3 as a total of 0.06 man-rems within five miles of the plant per annual fuel requirement, fails to disclose the long-term and long-range health effects of radon-222 gas released from tailings piles; (2) The health effects of Krypton-85 and Tritium releases from fuel re- processing plants are underestimated in Table S-3; (3) Releases of Carbon-14 from the fuel cycle should be in- 262a cluded in Table S-3; (4) That Table 8-3, by the exclusive use of the term “man-rems”, does not provide a meaning- ful representation of these health effects, at least in the case of those radionuclides involved in this petition, and that human deaths from man-rem exposures provide a more easily comprehended consequence of the fuel cycle activities; and (5) The magnitude of the potential death toll from mill tailings alone is so great as to alter the previous judgments on these matters and to require as a minimum a reassessment of previous conclusions to au- thorize construction or operation of nuclear reactors and a postponement of resolution of all pending applications for construction or operation authority until final resolu- tion of this issue by the Commission. The petitioners requested certain numerical changes and additions as well as a narrative text to be incorpo- rated into Table S-3 of 10 CFR Part 51 under the sub- heading entitled “Effluents—Radiological (curies), Gases (including entrainment) .” DISPOSITION OF ISSUES RAISED IN THE PETITION With regard to the first issue raised by the petition, the current Table S-3 value for Radon-222 is incorrect and does not include: Estimates of radon released from mining operations. Estimates of releases of radon from interim tailings piles after the mill has shut down and during the ensuing period while the tailings pond is evaporating and before stabilization programs are completed. Estimates of releases of radon from stabilized mill tailings piles. At the time the Staff developed the Table S-3 value for radon, the Staff did not have sufficiert data to quantify the releases from radon involved in the mining of uran- ium. The Staff was unable to find any field data for radon emissions, but field measurements taken by the 263a Bureau of Mines for radon concentrations in open pit mines revealed no significant alpha concentrations. Even though there was no meaningful field data for estimating a specific radon release quantity, the Staff was able to conclude that radon concentrations away from the immediate vicinity of the mine would not be detectable against natural background. This Staff conclusion was supported by conclusions reached in the BEIR report and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report, “Estimates of Ionizing Radiation Doses in the United States 1960-2000,”* both of which are cited in WASH- 1248. With regard to milling, estimates of releases from in- terim tailings piles were not included because it was as- sumed that these piles remained wet until stabilized and therefore did not permit significant releases of radon. The Staff considered available information, particularly the report of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency entitled, “Estimates of Ionizing Radiation Doses in the United States 1960-2000” to determine releases from stabilized piles. This document reported the results of studies made at active and inactive mill sites with covered and uncovered tailings which showed no significant radia- tion exposure to the public. Based on these studies, the Staff concluded in WASH-1248, B-23, that population doses attributable to the uranium milling industry would not be distinguishable from natural background radiation. However, since the original Table S-3 was promulgated, new estimates of releases have been devised that require 1 “The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ioniz- ing Radiation,” Report of the Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR), Nat'l. Ac. Sei., Nat'l Res. Council, Washington, D.C., (Nov. 1972), P. 15 (Cited in WASH-1248 at p. A-4). 2 ORP/CSD 72-1, Estimates of Ionizing Radiation Doses in the United States 1960-2000, U.S. Env. Prot. Agency (Aug. 1972), p. 27. (Cited in WASH-1248 at p. A-4). 264a upward revision of the value for radon in Table 8-3. Therefore, the Commission is amending Table S-3 to elimi- nate the value for radon releases. This issue may hence- forth be litigated in individual licensing proceedings since it is not now covered by the rule. A clarifying amend- ment to Table S-3 to this effect is set forth below. The Commission intends to evaluate data that is being collected in a series of ongoing programs described below and will determine when the Generic Environmental Im- pact Statement (GEIS) on uranium milling is issued whether to initiate a limited rulemaking proceeding to include a revised value for Radon-222 in an updated Table 8-3. In determining whether to initiate such a rulemak- ing, the Commission will evaluate the arguments of the NECNP petition. It will also consider statements made in a memorandum written by Walter H. Jordan, a mem- ber of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, to James R. Yore, Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Li- censing Board Panel. A copy of that memorandum, which raised issues similar to those raised in the petition, is on file in the NRC public document room. In any event, the Commission plans a general long-term effort to update the rule and the radon issue will be addressed then. The second and third issues raised by the petition were specifically addressed when the Commission published a revised interim Table S-3 in March of 1977 (42 FR 13803, March 14, 1977). Interim Table S-3 contains upward revisions of releases for both Krypton-85 and Tritium. The differences between the petitioner’s estimates of re- leases and the NRC estimates are due to differences in the models. The basis for the NRC models is described in detail in NUREG-0116 and 0216. Carbon-14 has been added to the interim Table S-3. The differences between petitioner’s estimates of releases and the NRC estimates are due to differences in models. The basis for the Carbon-14 model is described in NUREG-0116 and NUREG-0216. 265a The petitioner’s fourth issue is that Table S-3 does not provide a meaningful representation of health effects. Health effects were addressed in NUREG-0216 in response to comments that the Commission should have considered them. However, the Commission decided to pattern the interim rule after the original S-3 Table which did not include such effects in the actual table. The Commission implicitly addressed fuel cycle health effects in the Statement of Consideration accompanying Table S-3 when the Commission noted that “the environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle have been shown to be relatively insignificant.” * Accordingly, health effects were not dis- cussed in individual licensing proceedings until after the decision in Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nu- clear Plant, Units 1A, 2A, 1B, and 2B), 5 NRC 92, 103 (1977) where the Appeal Board required that they be considered in connection with comparison of the uranium and fossile fuel cycles. The Commission believes that, for the present, the purposes of NEPA are advanced by dis- cussing health effects in individual cases. To clarify this point, the Commission has removed all dose estimates at- tributable to gaseous effluents from the Footnotes in the Table and has amended Footnote 1 to indicate that health effects are not covered by the Table and may be litigated in individual cases. To summarize the Commission’s position on the NECNP petition : 1. The portion of the petition that recommends that Table S-3 be amended to include upward revisions of the values for Krypton-85, Tritium and Carbon-14 was in effect granted, although the specific values suggested by the petitioner were not adopted. These values were re- vised upward when the Commission promulgated the In- terim Table S-3 on March 14, 1977 and are being re- examined during the final rulemaking proceeding on waste management and reprocessing. #39 FR 14188. 266a 2. The portion of the petition that recommends that Table S-3 be amended to include health effects is denied. The Commission has determined for the present that these effects should be dealt with in individual licensing proceed- ings rather than by rule. The effluent release data set forth in the revised Table shall provide the basis for derivation of population doses and resultant health effects in individual licensing proceedings. The Commission will, at a later date, reexamine whether doses and health effects should be included in Table 8-3. It will also address the question of what period of time should be used to calcu- late doses and health effects. These issues have been raised in the final rulemaking proceeding on waste man- agement and reprocessing mentioned above and will be addressed in the overall revision of Table S-3 described below. 8. The Commission agrees with that portion of the petition that recommends that the values for Radon-222 in Table S-3 be amended. The Commission, however, is deferring instituting a rulemaking on this issue. The Commission recognizes that radon releases from the fuel cycle must be considered in licensing decisions. Pending generic consideration of this issue, radon released from the fuel cycle can be considered in individual proceedings. Petitioner has asserted that the NRC should halt licens- ing until the issues raised by the petition are resolved. The Commission believes that the clarifying amendment now issued removes any need for a blanket postponement of licensing. Some issues raised by the petition have al- ready been resolved by the Commission. Other issues, par- ticularly those relating to Radon-222 and health effects, may be considered in individual cases. The Commission beiieves that the information that is presently available should enable individual licensing boards to evaluate the significance of fuel cycle radon releases in striking the environmenta! cost-benefit balance for a nuclear power 267a reactor.“ The Commission has chosen to leave these issues open for litigation in individual proceedings, rather than freeze by an immediate rulemaking the form such an evaluation should take, in order that experience with vary- ing approaches may be gathered as a possible basis for generic rule later on. Also, much new information rele- vant to the environmental impacts of radon will soon be- come available. When the Commission considers environ- mental impacts in individual licensing actions, it need not also consider them generically. NRDC v. NRC, 547 F.2d 633, 641 (D.C. Cir. 1976) cert. granted 429 U.S. 1090 (1977) (No. 76-419). Accordingly, the Commission denies petitioner’s request to halt licensing of reactors. The Commission does not believe it is necessary to now reopen all proceedings where licenses have already been issued. With regard to the most serious issue, radon re- leases, as discussed below, a number of programs are in progress to gather additional information on the environ- mental impacts of mining and milling. Upon completition of these programs, the Commission may reassess its con- clusions as to the acceptability of the environmental im- pacts from mining and milling. Existing licenses may be reevaluated at that time if the data warrants it. It does not seem likely that any radon hazard associated with continued construction or continued operation of reactors in the interim will be significant. The short term re- leases of radon from mill tailings will be small, and steps can be taken in the future to reduce long-term releases.“ *It remains up to the licensing board, however, to determine in the first instance whether the evidence actually presented to it by the parties and the NRC staff is sufficient to support an environmen- tal analysis that meets NEPA standards. 5 The NRC Staff is currently requiring applicants for uranium mill licenses to commit to plans for tailings disposal in accordance with interim criteria developed by the Staff for tailings waste man- agement and disposal. Key features of thes interim criteria in- clude requirements to (a) locate the tailings iss area such that disruption and dispersion by natural forces are minimized, (b) re- If, however, anyone believes that the circumstances of a particular case dictate that a license should be reexamined to take into account new information on radon or on the other subjects on which the amendments set forth below would now permit case-by-case adjudication, then an ap- propriate request for enforcement action can be filed under 10 CFR § 2.206. Where limited work authorizations, construction per- mits, or operating licenses have been issued but proceed- ings are still pending before Licensing or Appeal Boards, evidence on radon releases shall be received as follows: duce the release of radon from the tailings disposal area to about twice the release rate in the surrounding environs, and (c) eliminate the need for routine long-term monitoring and maintenance pro- Licensees have proposed various methods to meet the performance objectives. One is a surface burial method whereby radon control and isolation is achieved through placement of a clay cap over the tailings covered by an overburden of several feet of soil with appro- priate consideration given to minimizing effects of wind and soil A more recent method that has been proposed consists of below rial of the tailings to provide increased assurance that tail- i ings posal virtually eliminates potential for disturbance by natural ero- sion and makes possible increased attenuation of radon re- rn of the tailings to open minepits has been selected as disposal method for one of our upplicants. Below grade being evaluated as the prime option for other mills cur- undergoing license review. The generic environmental impact statement on uranium milling presently being prepared by the Commission is considering a wide range of alternatives similar to those previously evaluated by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL-4903). For example, it will eval- uate alternatives which entail removing radioactivity from the 2 4 I In proceedings pending before Licensing Boards, the Com- mission hereby directs the Licensing Boards to reopen the record on NEPA issues for the limited purpose of receiv- ing new evidence on radon releases and on health effects resulting from radon releases. Where cases are pending before Appeal Boards, the Appeal Boards are also directed to reopen the records to receive new evidence on radon releases and on health effects resulting from radon re- leases. LWA’s, construction permits, or operating licenses al- ready issued shall remain effective unless a stay of the decision issuing the license or LWA is granted upon re- quest of a party pursuant to the criteria set forth in 10 CFR § 2.788. ONGOING PROGRAMS The Commission has a number of programs in progress, some of which will supply data necessary for a generic resolution of issues not now covered in Table S-3: Waste management and reprocessing. The Commission recently published a revised interim Table 8-3 (42 FR 13803, March 14, 1977) along with supporting docu- ments, NUREG-0116 and NUREG-0216. The Commission has already begun to conduct rulemaking proceedings to replace the interim Table S-3 with an updated rule in the areas of fuel reprocessing and waste management.“ Milling. Preparation of a draft Generic Environmental Statement (GEIS) on mill tailings is underway and is expected to be made available for public comment in September 1978. In conjunction with preparation of this statement, an extensive multiyear field measurement pro- gram was initiated in early 1977 to develop data to esti- mate effluent release rates from mills and stacks, from ore piles and from tailings piles. These studies will also Nothing in this Notice should be construed as affecting in any way the scope of the final rulemaking proceeding on waste manage- ment and reprocessing. 270a measure offsite concentrations to evaluate transport in- formation and the significance of food ingestion pathways. Specific laboratory studies are also being conducted to estimate radon emissions from tailings piles both during operation and following stabilization. More recently, a general study was initiated as part of the GEIS to evalu- ate the long term stability of mill tailings disposal alterna- tives. Data from these studies is expected to become avail- able in the summer of 1978. As a result of these studies the Commission will evaluate whether levels of radon re- leases should be further reduced. The Commission will explore several alternatives to de- termine what level of reduction of releases is environ- mentally acceptable including reduction of radon releases to natural background levels and reduction of releases to amounts equal to releases had no mining or milling taken place. Mining. A 2-year research program was initiated in the fall of 1977 to obtain measurements of radon-222 at underground and open pit mines. The initial measure- ments from underground mines are expected early in 1978. Information from this program and from research on uranium mills might provide a basis for the limited rulemaking proceeding on radon described above. As was stated previously, the Commission will make the determi- nation whether to initiate such a limited proceeding after the draft GEIS on milling is issued. Overall update of Table S-3. In addition to the afore- mentioned programs, the Commission has announced its intention to initiate a long-term effort to completely up- date the rule in all areas of the fuel cycle. (42 FR 26987, May 26, 1977). Specific efforts to produce a completely updated and revised Table S-3 and supporting document for the entire fuel cycle have begun. A technical assistance 27la effectively characterizing environmental impacts. The con- tractor will collect, evaluate, and synthesize the results from a wide range of applicable NRC research and study programs. The major research programs include field measurements of radon releases from mining and the GEIS on milling, as discussed above. In addition, em- phasis will be given to NRC studies of occupational ex- posure, decommissioning, and non-radiological effluents. The importance of new concepts and technologies, such as centrifuge enrichment, mining by in-situ leaching, spent fuel storage, and disposal will be evaluated. IMMEDIATE CLARIFYING CHANGES The amendments to Table S-3 set forth below clarify that the Table does not cover: Estimates of radon released; Health effects. Accordingly, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and section 553 of Title 5 of the United States Code, the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 51 are published as a document subject to codification. Since the amendments are of a clarifying nature, serve to relieve a restriction, and are necessary to enable correct information regarding fuel cycle environmental impacts to be utilized in ongoing and future licensing proceedings, the Commission has found that good cause exists for omitting notice of proposed rulemaking and public pro- cedure thereon, and that the amendments may be made effective upon publication. In Table S-3—Summary of environmental considera- tions for uranium fuel cycle, of 10 CFR Part 51, (a) the entry for Radon-222 under “Effluents—radiological (cur- a, ee now : 272a “Rn-222...... 74.5 Principally from milling operations and excludes contributions from mining.” is revised to read as follows: “Rn-222....... — Presently under reconsideration by the Commission.” and (b) footnotes 5 and 6 accompanying the Table are deleted and footnote 1 is amended to read as follows: In some cases where no entry appears it is clear from the background documents that the matter was addressed and that, in effect, the Table should be read as if a specific zero entry had been made. How- ever, there are other areas that are not addressed at all in the Table. Table S-3 does not include health effects from the effluents described in the Table, or estimates of releases of Radon-222 from the uranium fuel cycle. These issues which are not addressed at all by the Table may be the subject of litigation in individual licensing proceedings. Data supporting this Table are given in the ‘Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle,” WASH-1248, April 1974; the ‘Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle,’ NUREG-0116 (Supp. 1 to WASH-1248); and the ‘Discussion of Comments Regarding the Environ- mental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Man- agement Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle,’ NUREG- 0216 (Supp. 2 to WASH-1248). The contributions from reprocessing, waste management and transpor- tation of wastes are maximized for either of the 2 fuel cycles (uranium only and no-recycle). The con- tribution from transportation excludes transporta- tion of cold fuel to reactor and of irradiated fuel and radioactive wastes from a reactor which are con- sidered in Table S-4 of sec. 51.20(g). The contribu- tions from the other steps of the fuel cycle are giver in columns A-E of Table S-3A of WASH-1248,” 273a 3. The second sentence of 10 CFR 551.20 (e) is amended to read as follows: No further discussion of the environmental effects ad- dressed by the Table shall be required.“ Effective date: The foregoing amendments take effeet on April 14, 1978. (Sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended, Pub. L. 94-83, 89 Stat. 424 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Sec. 161, as amended, Pub. L. 83-703, 68 Stat. 948 (42 U.S.C. 2201) ; Sec. 202, Pub. L. 93-438, 88 Stat. 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5842) ; Pub. L. 89-554, 80 Stat. 383 45 U.S.C. 553).) Copies of the petition for rulemaking, the associated public comments, and the Commission’s letter to the peti- tioner are available for inspection or publication in the Commission’s Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20555. Dated at Washington, D.C. this 11th day of April, 1978. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. SAMUEL J. CHILK, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 78-9952 Filed 4-13-78 ; 8:45 am] 274a [SEAL] UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20555 October 26, 1978 MEMORANDUM FOR: Samuel J, Chilk, Secretary FROM: Fuel Cycle Rulemaking Hearing Board Michael L. Glaser Dr. John H. Buck R. Beecher Briggs SUBJECT: Conclusions and Recommendations of the Hearing Board Regarding the Environmental Effects of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, Docket No. RM 650-3 The Hearing Board has completed its conclusions and recommendations regarding the environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle, Docket No. RM 50-3. Accordingly, we are submitting them to the Commission as an attach- ment to this memorandum. We wish to call to the attention of the Commission the additional comments we have made with respect to the record in this reopened rulemaking proceeding. Such com- ments are set forth in section IV of the attachment, at Fum. CyYcLe RULEMAKING HEARING BOARD /s/ Michael L. Glaser MICHAEL L. GLASER 275a /s/ John H. Buck JOHN H. Buck /s/ R. Beecher Briggs R. BEECHER BRIGGS Attachment ec: Chairman Hendrie Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner Bradford Commissioner Ahearne 276a CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE HEARING BOARD REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE DOCKET NO. RM 50-3 CONTENTS Page e ̃ͤ . diatiiiiere natalie 279 II. Board Findings on Staff Models 280a JJ 28 la 1. Design Capacity of Model Reprocessing 0 — 3 282 2. Components of the Reprocessing System 283a III — 8 283a b. Centrifugal Cont actors 284a e. Conversion of Plutonium Nitrate 284a 11— 285a e. Solidification of High Level Wastes — —ůůů 285a 3. Facility Capacity Factor 286a 4. Staff’s Values for Releases of Radioactive ee 288a a. Level of Fuel Burnup .......................... 288a b. Time to Start of Reprocessing .......... 288a e. Reprocessing Plant Effluents ............. 289a d. Releases of Tritium, Krypton-85 and ee 289a e. Releases of Other Radionuclides ......... 290a f. Occupational Exposure 293 Le 295a 1. Wastes from Fuel Reprocessing .............. 295a 2. Spent Fuel 297a C. Disposal of Radioactive Waste in a Geologic Repository 298a 278a CONTENTS—Continued Page 1. Releases of Radioactive Material Before the Mine is Closeellllll . 299a 2. Integrity of the Sealed Mine 299a SS ._ e 300a b. Mine Shaft Sealing 301a e. Catastrophic E vente 302a D. Shallow Burial of Low Level Waste 303a E. Accidents and Sabotage 305a . Socioeconomic Dfec eis 306a 7 308a H. Economic Feasibility —..................-..---.0cccc0e000- 309a JJ 316a III. Board Recommendations 316 A. Summary of Recommendations 317a B. Adoption of Final Rule in this Proceeding... 317a C. Need for Explanatory Narrative 318a D. Recommendations for Updating the Rule 319a 1. The Models Should Be Realistie 319a 2. The Analyses Should Be More Realistic... 320a — 321a 4. Inclusion of Man-Rem Data in 8-3 Table 321a 5. Socioeconomics and Economies 322a 6. Cumulative Impacts 323a IV. Additional Board Comments 323 v. Conclusion 325 279a I. Introduction The history of this rulemaking proceeding has already been discussed extensively by the Commission in its Notice of Reopened Hearing' and in our recent Report to the Commission so that we need not repeat it here. It is sufficient to say that judicial review * of the original fuel cycle rule (the so-called Table S-3) while approving the overall approach and methodology leading to its adop- tion “found that the rule was inadequately supported by the record insofar as it treated two particular aspects of the fuel cycle—the impacts from reprocessing spent fuel and the impacts of radioactive waste management“.“ The Commission’s response to the court’s decision result- ing in this rulemaking hearing has been fully discussed in our Report to the Commission (pp. 7-16). Based on the record of this reopened proceeding to date, we now present our recommendations for modifica- tion of the present Table S-3. We emphasize that our findings and recommendations must be read in light of our discussion of the staff’s models and assumptions in our Report previously submitted to the Commission (see fn. 2, supra). We note that in reaching its conclusions on the en- vironmental impacts from reprocessing and waste man- agement the staff utilized a number of models of facilities and systems for reprocessing and waste disposal. The staff included in these models assumptions of time factors for certain steps in the processes and choices of method- 1 Notice of Reopened Hearing in the Matter of Amendment of 10 CFR Part 51—Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities (Environmental Effects of the Uranium Fuel Cycle) dated May 20, 1977. 2 Report of the Hearing Board to the Nuclear Regulatory Com- mission Regarding the Environmental Effects of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, Docket No. RM 50-3, August 31, 1978. 8 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. NRC, 547 F.2d 633. * Commission Notice of Reopened Hearing, May 20, 1977 at p. 2. 280a ology based on its understanding of current technologies. We will first discuss whether the staff’s models for re- processing and waste management are reasonable and then give our recommendations for modifications in Table 8-3. II. Board Findings on Staff Models In our consideration of the staff's models we have been guided by the following statements of the Court, made in its judicial review of the original fuel cycle proceeding: NEPA’s requirements for forecasting environmental consequences far into the future implies the need for predictions based on existing technology and those developments which can be extrapolated from it. NRDC v. NRC, supra, n. 8, 547 F.2d at 639-40. Where important changes in the state of the art or other major uncertainties are in the offing, mean- ingful assessments of future environmental impacts might be facilitated by making two alternative esti- mates: one based only on existing technology and another which takes into account developments which may reasonably be anticipated. Id. at 640, fn. 13. Finally, we reject the related argument that plenary consideration of alternatives was necessary in this proceeding. We agree with the Commission that this may be deferred until action is proposed to license particular disposal facilities. For purposes of this pro- ceeding, provided a sufficiently conservative and cred- ible assessment of a particular waste disposal method is used, it is not material that another method might turn out to be even more desirable. * * * Of course, we do not exclude the possibility that limited con- sideration of certain alternatives (e. g., the conse quences of not proceeding at all) may be necessary to meaningful judgments in a proceeding such as the present. Id. at 653, fn. 57. 281a A. Reprocessing * For the reprocessing alternative, the staff assumes that the spent fuel, after 150 days cooling at the reactor, will be shipped to a model reprocessing facility. In the model facility the fuel elements will be sheared into small pieces, and the uranium, plutonium and fission products will be dissolved in nitric acid leaving behind the cladding hulls and hardware. The uranium, pluto- nium and fission products will then be separated into three liquid fractions by the Purex solvent extraction process. The uranium will be converted to uranium hexa- fluoride that satisfies the purity requirements for recycl- ing in an enrichment plant. The plutonium, containing about five percent of the fission products in order to make diversion more difficult, will be converted to plutonium oxide and packaged for disposal in a Federal repository. The high level liquid waste (HLLW), containing the bulk of the fission products, will be stored for up to five years in tanks. Such wastes will then be calcined to a solid and formed into massive glass in a spray-calciner and in-can melter for disposal. Most of the other radioactive wastes at the reprocess- ing site will be contaminated with plutonium and other transuranium (TRU) nuclides to the extent that they will have to be disposed of in a Federal repository. The com- bustible wastes will be incinerated. Incinerator ash, other dispersible solids, and aqueous concentrates will be mixed with cement or other solidification agents and packaged. Cladding hulls, hardware and other noncom- bustible solid wastes will be appropriately packaged for disposal. Our review of the record indicates that no significant issues were raised regarding the staff’s choice of processes 5 As noted on page 4, supra, our discussion here must be read in conjunction with our previous Report to the Commission (see fn. 2, supra) and detailed references given in that discussion are not re- peated here. 282a in its model for the reprocessing. While some of the par- ticipants in this proceeding would have selected different processes or equipment, none actually contended that the staff’s choices were impractical. Substantial issues were raised concerning whether the staff had made a conserva- tive analysis of the performance of its model reprocessing facility; whether the capacity and capacity factor of the model are warranted; whether the radioactive releases and occupational exposures are conservative; and whether reprocessing is economically feasible. 1. Design Capacity of Model Reprocessing Facility The staff’s model facility is specified to have the ca- pacity to reprocess 2000 MTHM/yr* when operating with a capacity factor of 0.8. The staff assumed that such a facility would reprocess spent fuel from 57 model reactors. Each model reactor was specified to have a capacity of 1000 MWe, to have a capacity factor of 0.8 and to discharge 35 MT/yr of spent fuel with a burnup of 33,000 MWD/MT. Although the only commercial experience in this country with reprocessing of spent uranium oxide fuel from LWR’s was obtained from the 300 MT/yr (1 MT/day) Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) plant, the Barnwell plant (Allied Gulf Nuclear Services) has been built with a capacity of 1500 MT/yr (5 MT/day). Exxon Nuclear has applied for a permit to construct the Nuclear Fuel Recovery and Recycling Center (NFRRC) designed for an ultimate capacity of 2100 MT/yr (7 MT/day). The United States Government plants at Hanford and Savan- nah River, which reprocess low burnup uranium metal fuels by use of the Purex method, have capacities of 14 to 30 MT/day. *MTHM = metric tons of heavy metal (uranium and plutonium), MTU = metric ton of uranium, and MT = metric ton are assumed to be equivalent terms in this discussion. According to the staff, the model facility is intended to be representative of plants built after Barnwell. Three model facilities, in addition te Barnwell and NFRRC, would be required to reprocess the fuel from the 268 LWR’s expected to be operating or under construction in the early 1980’s. In view of the industry’s trend toward larger plants, the fact that much of the tech- nology is in use on a larger scale in the. United States government plants, the potential supply of spent fuel, and other factors in the record before us, we find that 7 MT/day is a reasonable choice of capacity for the staff’s model facility. 2. Components of the Reprocessing System Some of the components and systems included in the model facility have not been operated in a radioactive en- solver, the centrifugal contactor in the first stage of the Purex process, the facility for converting fission-product- contaminated plutonium nitrate into plutonium oxide, the incinerator for combustible TRU waste, and the process for solidifying HLW. a. Shearing A shear and dissolver in the NFS facility operated at 284a perienced at NFS, have been incorporated in Barnwell.’ A shear of similar capacity is being developed for the NFRRC. Moreover, special attention is being given to maintenance. Two shears are included in the design to enable the plant to reprocess at a rate of 7 MT/day. A program for developing an improved shear and mainte- nance system is beginning at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory under the sponsorship of the Department of Energy. Clearly, the solutions to the problems of shearing fuel elements experienced at NFS have not yet been demon- strated. However, the record here indicates that the head- end processing at Barnwell and NFRRC will be much improved over that at NFS. Use of two or more units per plant may be necessary to obtain a capacity of 7 MT/day and an adequate capacity factor, but nothing offered in the record suggests that the problems are so unique or difficult that they will not yield to good engi- neering and additional experience. b. Centrifugal Contractors Centrifugal contractors have been used in France and at Savannah River with good results. If the reliability of centrifugal contractors should prove to be inadequate, conventional pulse columns could be substituted. How- ever, in order to reduce the degradation of the organic solvent, such a change might require that, before re- processing, the spent fuel decay more than the 160 days assumed by the staff. Decay time before reprocessing is discussed at pp. 17-18, infra. e. Conversion of Plutonium Nitrate Processes for converting plutonium nitrate, highly de- contaminated of fission products, to plutonium oxide and 7A similar shear has been used recently to shear oxide fuel ele- ments for reprocessing in the La Hague plant in France. Appar- ently, difficulties have been experienced with maintenance of that shear, but it is not known how the provisions for maintenance com- pare with those installed at Barnwell, for handling the oxide in glove boxes are well developed. Leaving the plutonium highly contaminated with fission products to discourage theft means that these operations will have to be carried out remotely in hot cells. Although such a change is not trivial, the extensive experience with hot cell operations should make such a change achievable with moderate development. If the develop- ment should prove to be unexpectedly difficult, highly purified plutonium nitrate might be converted to the oxide and other means used to prevent theft or to con- taminate the plutonium oxide just before it is packaged. d. Incinerators There is little question that incinerators can be built and operated on the scale required for a 7 MT/day re- processing facility. Whether such a unit can be operated and maintained satisfactorily to burn waste containing TRU and fission product nuclides is in the process of being demonstrated. The staff chose this process over others for the model facility because it reduces the vol- ume, removes combustible material from waste to be sent to a geologic repository, and it is conservative in that it produces higher environmental impacts than would be produced by other possible alternatives. If this metho! e. Solidification of High Level Wastes (HLW) Although to the present no HLW from the reprocessing of LWR spent fuel has been solidified, the spray-calciner 286a engineering test apparatus. The results of this program give ample reason to conclude that the development can be completed to provide satisfactory equipment and process for the model facility. We find that equipment is presently available or can reasonably be expected to be developed for operating a facility of 2000 MT/yr capacity. We now consider whether the 0.8 plant factor is reasonable or necessary and the effect on the environmental impacts if that plant factor were not achieved. 3. Facility Capacity Factor The NFS plant operated with a capacity factor of only 0.33. The United States Government plants are reported to operate with a downtime of 20 to 25 percent which implies a capacity factor of 0.75 to 0.8. Because of im- provements incorporated in Barnwell and the fact that Barnwell will reprocess only LWR fuels, we find reason to conclude that the capacity factor at Barnwell will be substantially higher than at NFS. Unquestionably prob- lems will be encountered and it may take some time to achieve satisfactory operation. We also assume that no administrative barriers to high capacity factors will be imposed.* However, we believe it reasonable to expect that a model facility, following Barnwell and taking ad- vantage of lessons learned there, would achieve a still higher capacity factor. Nonetheless, we find no precedent in experience with fuel reprocessing facilities to support an assumption that the capacity factor would actually be as great as 0.8 over the 30-year life of a facility. For the purpose of Table S-3, the important assump- tion is that a model facility will reprocess fuel from 57 One such barrier, suggested by one of the participants in this proceeding would be to require that operation be interrupted in order to establish a plutonium balance for each batch of repro- cessed fuel (~ 35 tons). (Testimony of Pohl and Resnikoff, Ap- pendix A, pp. 146-147.) 287a model reactors. The annual impacts of operation of the reprocessing facility are divided by 57 to obtain the an- nual impact attributed to each reactor in the Table. The record shows that the staff was conservative in assuming that the model reactor would discharge 35 MT/yr of spent fuel with a burnup of 33,000 MWD/MT. A realis- tie discharge rate would be about 30 MT/yr with a burnup of 31,000 MWD/MT or 29 MT/yr if the burnup were 33,000 MWD/ MT.“ A model reprocessing facility operating with a capacity factor of 0.7 could reprocess the spent fuel discharged at these rates from 57 model reactors. We find an adequate basis in the experience with gov- ernment plants for assuming that commercial reprocess- ing facilities following Barnwell will be able to achieve capacity factors as high as 0.7. We find, therefore, that the staff’s model facility would be able to reprocess spent fuel from 57 reactors. The staff has also used a reason- able basis for estimating those impacts such as land committed which depend on plant size. By assuming that the model facility would have to operate with a capacity factor of 0.8 (35 MT/RRY) the staff has used a basis that should result in overestimates of impacts such as consumption of water and energy and releases of chemical effluents all of which depend primarily on the amount of spent fuel reprocessed per RRV.“ If it developed that the reprocessing facilities were un- able to achieve a capacity factor as high as 0.7 some of the impacts (primarily those determined by size and number of facilities) would increase. However, except for the releases of radioactivity, most of the impacts of reprocessing are only a small fraction of the total values of environmental impacts in Table 8-3. Large changes o See our Summary Report, p. 28. 10 RRY—Operation of the Reference (or Model) Reactor for one year. in capacity factor or plant size would not have much effect on the total impact values in Table 8-3.“ The Board finds that the capacity and capacity factor of the staff’s model facility provide a reasonable basis for its analysis of the environmental impacts of spent fuel reprocessing. No participant here has taken issue with the staff’s values for natural resources used, chem- ical effluents, or thermal effluents. We find that the im- pact values are reasonable and in most instances are over- estimates of the impacts that would actually occur. 4. Staff’s Values for Releases of Radioactive Nuclides The record shows that several factors in the staff's analysis of radioactive releases tend to cause the results to be overestimates of the releases that would actually occur. a. Level of Fuel Burnup Assuming the reprocessing of 35 MT/RRY with a burnup of 33,000 MWD/MT rather than the realistic value of 30 MT/RRY with a burnup of 31,000 MWD/MT causes the releases to be overestimated by a factor of 1.2. b. Time to Start of Reprocessing The staff assumed that the spent fuel would be re- processed after 160 days decay. Considering the rate at 1! Only in the cases of land temporarily committed, amount of natural gas consumed, and releases of radioactivity in gaseous ef- fluents do the impacts of fuel reprocessing constitute as much as 10 percent of the total impact values in Table S-3. The values for land temporarily committed for reprocessing is about one-third of the total only because it was not prorated over the life of the fa- cility as it was for other components of the fuel cycle. The consump- tion of natural gas and release of radioactivity are governed pri- marily by the quantity of spent fuel reprocessed per RRY and should not be much affected by plant size or capacity factor. which spent fuel will be accumulated and the time when reprocessing plants are likely to be operating, it is obvi- ous that for many years to come the spent fuel will decay for five years or more before being reprocessed. This is unimportant for nuclides having long half lives, but iodine-131 (8-day half life) would have decayed away, ruthenium-106 (368-day) would be reduced by a factur of about 30, and tritium and krypton-85 would be reduced by a factor of 1.3 or more. Overall the longer decay would reduce the number of curies of radioactivity and the heat from the radioactive decay by a factor of about 8. e. Reprocessing Plants Effluents All the radioactivity released to the environment from the reprocessing facility will be in gaseous effluents. The gas streams which would be expected to contain appreci- able amounts of iodine or other semi-volatile materials and radicactive aerosols are treated by one or more of the processes such as scrubbing, sorption and filtration in order to capture almost all the radioactive material. In present and past reprocessing facilities, excess process water, containing a low concentration of radioactivity, has been discharged into local rivers and streams. In the staff’s model facility, the excess water will be vaporized into the atmosphere and the vaporizer concentrate will be recycled to the plant waste system. Whether the excess water is discharged into streams or into the atmosphere is immaterial to this proceeding. The vaporization pro- cess will not reduce the amount of tritium that is re- leased. That extra step can, however, be expected to re- duce the amount of strontium and cesium and other less volatile radionuclides which would otherwise be released in the aqueous effluent from the plant. d. Releases of Tritium, Krypton-85 and Carbon-14 For purposes of Table S-3, the staff has assumed that all the tritium, krypton-85 and carbon-14 in the spent 290a fuel is discharged to the environment. No party in this proceeding contends that the staff has underestimated the releases of these three nuclides. We find that the 18,000 ci release of tritium from reprocessing is an over-estimate by a factor of 1.2 to 1.6 because of the factors discussed supra. The overestimate is likely to be greater because a substantial amount of tritium may be found in the fuel cladding. The krypton release of 400,000 ci is also an overestimate by a factor of 1.2 to 1.7 because of the factors discussed supra, and the staff may also have used a high value for the yield of krypton-85. Whether the carbon-14 release is an overestimate is uncertain because the amount of nitrogen in the reactor fuel is variable.” The value of 24 ci/RRY in Table S-3 is what one might realistically expect to be released from fuel that contains nitrogen impurity well into the medium to high range of values. We find that the use of the 24 ci emission value is reasonable. e. Releases of other Radionuclides The releases of other radionuclides depend on the effec- tiveness of the systems designed to contain them. The effluent control measures proposed for the staff’s model facility have not been operated in the combinations pro- posed and some have been tested only in the laboratory. The staff has examined each contro] system in detail and has calculated the releases on the basis of what it con- cludes is the lower range of performance of each of the systems. The designers of Barnwell and the NFRRC expect the systems to be one to two orders of magnitude more effective than has been assumed by the staff. How- ever, the Sierra Club, among others, contends that the control measures have not been developed and demon- strated sufficiently to support the use of decontamination factors for the model facility that greatly exceed those demonstrated in the NFS facility. 12 The carbon-14 in the fuel is produced by neutron reaction with nitrogen-14 impurity in the fuel. 291a The staff has used a decontamination ™ factor of 40 for iodine in the reprocessing facility. This results in a release of 0.03 ci/RRY of iodine-129 and 0.83 ci/RRY of iodine-131. This decontamination factor was arrived at on the basis that 90 percent of the iodine would be released into the off-gas from the dissolver and 10 per- cent would remain in solution with the fuel and other fission products. The off-gas stream would be scrubbed with a mercuric nitrate-nitric acid solution and passed through silver zeolite sorbers with an overall decontami- nation factor of 10° or more. The iodine in the solution would eventually enter the vaporizer where mercuric nitrate would be added to obtain a decontamination fac- tor of 4 and an overall iodine decontamination factor of 40. We find that the staff has considerably overestimated the likely release of iodine from the reprocessing facility. Laboratory studies have shown that 99 percent or more of the iodine can be volatilized into the dissolver off-gas stream. Methods are also available for substantially re- ducing the release of iodine from the liquid waste stream. Iodine-131 has an 8-day half life, and based on a realistic appraisal of reprocessing prospects, will have de- cayed away before reprocessing is likely to begin. The iodine-129 removed in reprocessing would be packaged and shipped to a disposal facility. For the purposes of Table S-3, whether the iodine-129 is released in reprocess- ing is of no consequence. The staff has assumed that all the iodine-129, 1.3 ci/RRY, would be released from spent fuel and escape to the environment if spent fuel were disposed of as waste in a repository. The value for total release has been included in Table S-3. The staff has used a decontamination factor of 1 x 10* for ruthenium-106, 5 x 10% for non-volatile fission prod- 13 Decontamination factor as used here is the ratio of the num- ber of curies of a radionuclide entering the plant in the zel to the number of curies released in the effluents. ucts such as strontium-90 and cesium-137, 2 x 10° for plutonium and 5 x 10 for other TRU nuclides in estimat- ing the release from the reprocessing facility. The lower decontamination factors for ruthenium and plutonium reflect the greater volatility of ruthenium under some conditions and the greater amount of processing of the plutonium. These decontamination factors compare with a decontamination factor of about 10° measured for ruthenium, strontium and cesium at NFS. On the basis of the record before us we are persuaded that faulty design and possibly faulty operation of the acid concentrators and waste evaporators at NFS were largely responsible for the low decontamination factors experienced there. We fird the evidence convincing that the decontamination factors assumed by the staff for its model can be achieved and probably surpassed by use of well engineered evaporator systems and the air filtration systems that are now in use.“ The Sierra Club expressed concern that ruthenium and technetium would be volati- lized and released in the process of solidifying the high level wastes. We believe that the results of the Waste Solidification Engineering Program (WSEP) provide sufficient evidence that the waste solidification process will not cause the ruthenium-106 releases to exceed those estimated by the staff.“ Although no measurements of decontamination factors for technetium were made dur- ing the tests, chemical considerations support 2 conclu- sion that technetium would be contained at least equally well. We find that the staff has overestimated the amounts of ruthenium, non-volatile fission products and TRU nuclides that are likely to be released during nor- mal operation of a model reprocessing facility. This evidence while not found in the conclusional statements in NUREG-0116 and the GESMO report, NUREG-0002, is obtained from technical reports referenced in these documents. 15 See our Summary Report, p. 58. A substantial fraction of the technetium will accom- pany the uranium through the Purex process. Some of the participants in this proceeding questioned whether the technetium could be separated well enough from the uranium, during the fluor nation, for the uranium hexa- fluoride to meet the specifications for feed for the en- richment plant, and whether the technetium would be released to the environment from the fluorination process. We find that this record“ indicates that the uranium hexafluoride can be decontaminated sufficiently and the technetium can be contained and packaged for disposal as a waste. Except for the releases discussed above, all the radio- activity that enters the reprocessing facility decays or is packaged as solid waste for shipment to a disposal facil- ity. The magnitude of further releases depends on how well the radioactivity is contained during the subsequent interim storage, shipment and handling, and how well it is confined by the media in which it is finally buried. f. Occupational Exposure The staff has estimated that the occupational exposure to workers in the reprocessing facility would be 1250 person-rem per year or 22 person-rem/RRY. This ex- posure was calculated on the basis of the number of peo- ple in various work zones and design values for the radi- ation levels in those zones. The estimate is for normal operation, including minor incidents, but does not include exposures incurred in recovering from major accidents or unexpected equipment failures. The Sierra Club contends that the staff’s estimate is much too low.“ This contention is based on comparison 16 See Summary Report, pp. 59-60, particularly notes 136, 139, 141, 143 and 144. 17 See our Summary Report, pp. 64-66. 294a with occupational exposures experienced at NFS and con- sideration of the much larger amount of more highly irradiated fuel that would be reprocessed in the model facility. However, the testimony of the Sierra Club in- dicates that operation of the NFS was mostly abnormal and the need to reduce occupational exposures was one of the reasons for shutting down the plant for modifica- tions. In a similar vein Dr. Walton A. Rodger,“ a wit- ness for BG&E, in answer to Board questions stated that approximately 40% of the total occupational exposure at NFS came from problems with the cranes, shears, saw and the whole process mechanical end (Tr. 863). He also noted that in 1968 and 1969 when the plant was operating reasonably well and had its largest throughput (150 and 136 tonnes for 1968 and 1969, respectively), total occupational exposure (permanent plus temporary workers) was about 900 man-rem. However, in 1970 and 1971 when major maintenance work was being performed throughput dropped to 37 tonnes (1970) and 69 tonnes (1971), but exposures rose to 1531 and 2366 man-rem respectively (Tr. 867 and 870). Dr. Rodgers expressed confidence that lessons learned from NFS would produce exposures at the Barnwell and NFRRC facilities within the staff’s estimate. Future facilities will be designed and operated to com- ply with the Commission’s ALARA requirements. How- ever, the staff’s values are based on calculations, are un- supported by reference to experience in any of the U. S. Government plants and appear to allow no margin for major maintenance. Therefore, we cannot find the ex- posure values to be conservative for a model facility that reprocesses fuel cooled for only 160 days.“ But, on the 18 Dr. Rodger had several years personal experience with opera- tion of NFS. 10 Note, however, our recommendation, pp. 65-66, infra, concern- ing the staff model which uses the 160-day decay time before re- processing. 295a evidence presented on the designs of Barnwell and the proposed NFRRC as compared with NFS and realistic decay times, there is reasonable assurance that the staff’s estimate of occupational exposures is realistic. B. Interim Storage Present concepts of facilities for disposing of HLW and spent fuel that is treated as waste, are based on the assumption that the radioactivity will have decayed for ten years or more before those wastes are placed in a geologic repository. The decay eases the problems of cooling and handling the waste, and increases the amount that can be stored per unit area of repository. Other TRU wastes, including plutonium, could be disposed of shortly after they are generated. When repositories for permanent disposal will be available is uncertain, so the staff has considered the impacts of longer interim stor- age in deriving the values for Table S-3. 1. Wastes from Fuel Reprocessing The canisters of solidified HLW are to be stored in a water basin at the reprocessing facility for five years or more until the radioactivity has decayed for ten years after removal from the reactor. The staff assumed that the waste might then have to be shipped to a Retrievable Surface Storage Facility (RSSF) where it would be stored for up to twenty years until a geologic repository becomes available for permanent disposal. The sealed storage cask concept was specified for storing the canis- ters of HLW at the RSSF on the recommendation of a committee of the National Academy of Sciences. (NUREG-0116, Section 4.2.5, Refs. 1 and 4). The packaged TRU wastes were assumed to be stored at the reprocessing facility for 15 to 20 years before being shipped to a geologic repository. The drums of cladding hulls and hardware, which generate appreciable heat, would be stored in the fuel storage basin. Other packaged, solidified waste would be stored in an earth- covered concrete vault. The containers of plutonium oxide would be stored at the reprocessing facility for up to five years. Then, if a permanent repository were not available, they would be shipped to a facility with a capacity specified to be suffi- cient for storage for twenty years. For interim storage, each container of plutonium oxide would be placed in a pressure vessel that would be inserted in a stainless steel lined hole in a thick concrete slab. Air would be cir- culated through the holes to remove the heat from decay of the radioactivity. Water basins are used for storing highly radioactive materials throughout the nuclear industry. The other facilities for interim storage of wastes from fuel re- processing have been studied in conceptual designs. None of the facilities presents problems so difficult or unique as to raise serious questions of practicality. The staff assumed that some radioactivity would be released from containers that were contaminated or were damaged or failed during shipment, handling and storage. The facil- ities would be equipped with air filtration systems and equipment for processing liquid waste. The staff esti- mated that the amount of radioactivity released during normal operation of the interim storage facilities would be small in comparison with the amount released during reprocessing. Although questions were raised, no participant took serious issue with the staff’s choice of facilities for in- terim storage or the assessment of the impacts of normal operation. We find that the staff choice of facilities is reasonable. Because of the uncertainties as to when permanent repositories for waste will be available and when or whether reprocessing facilities will operate, it is necessary to include interim storage, beyond that at the reprocessing facility, in the staff model. The assump- tion that such storage would be for about twenty years seems to be as reasonable for the purposes of Table S-3 as any other that might be made at the present time. We consider the staff’s assessments of the impacts and releases from normal operations to be reasonable. Al- though the impacts from interim storage of plutonium were not fully analyzed the staff’s judgment that they would not significantly increase the values in Table 8-3 seems reasonable. 2. Spent Fuel Although some capacity for storage of spent fuel is provided at the nuclear power plant, additional capacity will be required if spent fuel is disposed of as waste. The staff assumes that the spent fuel will be stored in water basins for ten years and then placed in canisters and shipped to a Federal repository for storage. Water basins are in use for storing fuel elements at the nuclear power plants and the technology is well estab- lished. A small fraction of the spent fuel is expected to leak radioactive materials into the pool water. About one percent of the krypton-85 in the fuel would be re- leased to the atmosphere. The radioactive materials in the pool water would be removed, packaged and shipped to a burial facility. We find that the staff has chosen a reasonable facility for interim storage of spent fuel and has made a reasonable analysis of the environmental! im- pacts. Some participants in this proceeding indicated that the fuel would have to be stored longer before re- positories could be brought into operation, and that deterioration of the cladding for longer storage in water could lead to greater releases and impacts. The evidence indicates that deterioration of the cladding is unlikely geologic repository.” We find that the assumption of longer interim storage of spent fuel would have little or no effect on the values in Table S-3. This Board, how- ever, is greatly concerned that consideration of the en- vironmental impact of temporary storage of spent fuel has not, to this date, resulted in any positive action to build off-site interim storage facilities for the rapidly mounting volume of spent fuel. The record here indi- cates that within five years the lack of such storage space will have serious environmental and economic impacts on the country. C. Disposal of Radioactive Waste in a Geologic Repository The staff has assumed that the HLW, TRU waste, and plutonium from reprocessing of the spent fuel will be dis- posed of by burial in a geologric repository in bedded salt. This mode of disposal has been under study since 1957 when it was recommended as à promising method by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council. Experience was gained in the han- dling of radioactive waste in a salt mine in Project Salt Vault. A large program has been in pregress for several years on design studies for a repository and on the thermal, chemical, mechanical, radiation and safety prob- lems that can be foreseen. Field investigations have been undertaken to determine promising locations for reposi- tories. We see no reason to doubt that the model repository could be constructed and operated to bury the wastes as proposed. The testimony in the record, including state- ments by the U.S. Geological Survey, supports the con- 2° For purposes of its cost analysis, the staff assumed that the spent fuel would be stored in water basins at the reactor facilities for ten years. It would then be packaged and transported to an RSSF where it would be stored for twenty years. Storage in a pool would serve equally well. clusion that sites can be found which satisfy the criteria being developed by the Department of Energy and the NRC. A substantial number of investigations would have to be made at the site before beginning construction, as the mine was being opened, and, possibly, during the first years of operation in order firmly to establish site suit- ability. 1. Releases of Radioactive Material before the Mine is Closed. In its analysis of the environmental impacts of normal operation, the staff assumed that some radioactive ma- terial would be released during the handling and emplace- ment of the wastes. Radioactive particles would be re- moved from the ventilating air by HEPA filters and the radioactive gases would be discharged to the atmosphere. The amount of radioactivity released would be very small except in the case of disposal of spent fuel. The staff as- sumed that all the tritium, krypton-85, carbon-14 and iodine-129 would be released from the spent fuel.“ This assumption was made on the grounds that the fuel canis- ter and cladding would be corroded by the salt and those nuclides or their volatile compounds would be released by the fuel. The staff assumed that after the repository was backfilled with salt and the shafts were filled and sealed no radioactive materials would be released. 2. Integrity of the Sealed Mine The major concern with regard to the integrity of the repository is whether water might enter, dissolve the radioactive materials, and transport them to the bio- sphere. The staff’s position is in part based on the fact that the salt in which the waste would be buried would have existed for millions of years free of water except for 21 In calculating the release the staff assumed that the radioac- tivity had decayed for only five years after discharge of the fuel from the reactor. 300a a small amount of entrapped brine, and could be expected to continue to so exist. The location would be one of low seismic and volcanic activity and with few resources im- portant to man, so the probability of intrusion by nature or by humans would be small. Salt is plastic and would tend to heal some types of intrusions. Furthermore, if water were to reach the repository and dissolve the waste, natural barriers provided by media surrounding the salt would slow the rate of transport so that most of the radioactivity would decay before it could reach the bio- sphere. a. Effects of Heat Concern was also expressed on this record that the pre- sence of the repository might create conditions that would give access to water from aquifers in strata above and below the bedded salt. One matter that has been of par- ticular concern is the effect of the temperature rise pro- duced by heat released by decay of the radionuclides. It has been suggested that excessive temperatures in the region surrounding the waste would result in migration of brine to the waste. Furthermore, chemical reactions might occur that would make the waste more easily trans- portable. In addition, the heating of the earth in the vicinity of the repository would cause some expansion of the salt and rock, and thus uplift the surface. As the radioactivity continued to decay, and the heat dissipated, the surface would subside. These events might produce fractures that would give water access to the salt. Measures can be taken to reduce the temperature gra- dients in the vicinity of the waste canisters, so that the maximum temperature and the severity of the effects of heating in a given repository are governed by the specific heat rate in kilowatts per acre. Heat rates of 150 kw/ acre and a maximum temperature of 250°C in the salt are among the emplacement criteria that have often been mentioned. For a given repository the maximum tem- 301a perature and the heat effects would be reduced by redue- ing the emplacement density and, thereby, the heat rate. Insofar as the staff’s impact analysis and the values in Table S-3 are concerned, reducing the emplacement den- sity and heat rate would increase the land committed, the energy consumed and the heat released by the facility operations. During this proceeding the staff proposed to change Table S-3 on the basis that spent fuel, or HLW, TRU waste and plutonium combined, would be emplaced such that the heat rate would be 24 kw/acre or less for the model situation that was calculated. With these con- ditions the average temperature rise in the salt at the waste disposal level would be less than 30°C. The surface would be raised less than 0.8 meters in 1000 years and would subside over tens of thousands of years. The cal- culations were only illustrative of what one might expect in a model situation. Much more elaborate analysis would have to be made for specific repository sites. However, the calculations indicate that measures can be taken to satisfy the concerns about temperature effects. b. Mine Shaft Sealing Another major concern is with the mine shafts and bore holes that pass through aquifers and into or near the repository. Unless the holes are sealed when the reposi- tory is closed they would provide pathways for water to reach the waste. Development work is in progress that the staff believes will provide reliable seals. It is expected that, over the long term, the salt would flow and maintain the seals in the zone within the salt bed. Whether failure of a seal would lead to release of radioactivity depends on many circumstances. The waste would be buried deep within the salt bed. Information in the record indicates that large flows of water over salt beds dissolve the salt away at rates of the order of five or six feet per 1000 years. Or, if all the water flowing through the aquifers above a potential repository site in New Mexico were 302a diverted to flow through the salt, it would take 50,000 years to dissolve the salt associated with one year’s waste.” We find that the staff has described a reasonable facil- ity for the deep burial of the HLW, TRU waste, plu- tonium and spent fuel. The values for the environmental impacts, as modified during the proceeding, are based on substantial information, are reasonable for most im- pacts and highly conservative with regard to releases of radioactivity from spent fuel. We find a high degree of assurance that the radioactivity will be confined to the vicinity of the repository for hundreds of thousands of years after the repository has been closed and sealed. According to the record, geological, hydrological and other studies will be carried out, before the repository is built and during its operation, to provide assurance that the criteria necessary for the long term operation of the re- pository will be met. The areas will be posted with per- manent markers to deter intrusion by man. e. Catastrophic Events We find substantial reason to accept the staff’s assump- tion that the waste will remain undisturbed for millions of years, although this cannot be proven. Several studies have been made of the possible consequences of events that might cause radioactivity to be released. If a very large meteor were to strike the earth above the repository it could penetrate to the waste. Some of the radioactivity would be dispersed into the atmosphere. Most of the radioactivity would be deposited over an area within sev- eral miles of the repository. The local consequences would be severe but worldwide consequences would not. The probability of such an event occurring would be extremely low and the risk is small. (NUREG-0116, Section 4.4.2, Ref. 1). 22 Summary Report, pp. 87, 88. 303a Earthquakes or other events might open paths for water to reach the waste. Again, depending on the circum- stances, local consequences could be severe. But the prob- ability of an event occurring or of the conditions being the most unfavorable are generally judged to be low and the risks small. (Ibid.) After a few hundreds years, the radioactive nuclides in the waste will have decayed sufficiently that the carbon- 14, iodine-129, technetium-99, and plutonium and other TRU nuclides in the waste are the principal hazards. For purposes of Table S-3 the staff has assumed that the carbon-14 and iodine-129 are released, but that the other nuclides decay before they can reach the biosphere. The studies on the retention of plutonium by soils (including the experience at the OKLO site) indicate that the staff’s assumption of no release to the biosphere is reasonable for the purposes of Table S-3. We find that the staff has described a reasonable model facility for the geologic disposal of radioactive waste and has made reasonable estimates of the environmental im- pacts of normal operation of the facility. D. Shallow Burial of Low Level Waste The staff has assumed that the low level radioactive wastes that contain less than 10 nei/g of TRU nuclides will be disposed of by shallow burial in licensed facili- ties located on state or federal land. This method has been used for many years. As a result of experience at existing burial facilities, some of which has not been sat- isfactory, the staff has developed criteria for future burial facilities. Its analysis of environmental impacts is based on a model facility that satisfies those criteria. The present burial facilities at Branwell, South Carolina and Beatty, Nevada satisfy most or all the criteria. It is gen- erally agreed that many locations that satisfy the criteria can be found. 304a The staff's analysis assumes small releases while the burial facility is operating and no release to the biosphere after the facility has been closed. Monitoring of the environs, maintenance of the cover over the burial area, and restricted usage of the site may be required for sev- eral hundred years after the facility has been closed in order to prevent releases. We find that the siting and operation of future facili- ties for shallow burial of low level waste can be expected to be improved over those of the past. The information available indicates that the staff may have underestimated the amount of waste that must be disposed of, partic- ularly the amount from decommissioning of facilities by immediate decontamination and dismantlement.“ How- ever, increasing the permanently committed land to com- pensate would increase the total permanent commitment in Table S-3 by only a few percent. We find the staff’s estimates of the other impacts from normal operation to be reasonable. They are generally so small that they could be in error by factors of 2 or 3 without much effect on the overall values in Table S-3. The validity of the staff’s assumption with regard to the long term release of radionuclides is much less cer- tain. The nuclides of most concern here are nickel-59 and nibium-94 (from reactor components and corrosion prod- ucts), iodine-129, technetium-99, and the TRU nuclides. Because of the good sorptive properties of many soils, it is reasonable to expect that the TRU nuclides, nickel and nibium, unless complexed by reaction with constitutents of the waste, would remain in the burial area. Over the very long term iodine and technetium could migrate with the ground water. 23 According to the Battelle studies (NUREG-0395 or NUREG/ CR-130) the burial volume from decommissioning a large PWR would be about 18,000m* or 450 to 600m°/RRY as compared with the staff’s value of 360m*/RRY for the decommissioning of all the fuel cycle facilities. 305a Likely modes of transfer of the radioactivity into the biosphere are intrusion by man, erosion, and dissolution over very long times. These are being considered in de- veloping the limits on amounts and concentrations of the various radionuclides that will be permitted in waste dis- posed of by shallow burial in the future. The objective is to set limits such that individuals making unrestricted use of the disposal area and subjected to exposure by the other processes at times after the strontium-90 and cesium-137 have decayed would not receive excessive doses of radiation. We find that the staff assumption of no release under- estimates the amount of radioactivity that is likely to be released to the biosphere from shallow burial facilities over the long term. We consider the matter further in our recommendations. E. Accidents and Sabotage In arriving at values for impacts of fuel reprocessing and waste disposal, the staff considered the impacts that might result from accidents in each of the model facili- ties and processes. The accidents are described briefly in NUREG-0116 and the GESMO report NUREG-0002 and in more detail in the safety analysis reports for the Barn- well and NFRRC facilities and in other principal refer- ences. They include minor accidents that would releas [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385009_0867%3A02. Public record. Not legal advice.