New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, 14946-14949 [E8-5647]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
14946
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 73, No. 55
Thursday, March 20, 2008
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, 50, 70 and 72
RIN 3150–AH45
[NRC–2008–0030]
Decommissioning Planning; Extension
of Comment Period
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule: Extension of
comment period.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On January 22, 2008 (73 FR
3812), the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) published for public
comment a proposed rule on
Decommissioning Planning. The public
comment period for this proposed rule
was to have expired on April 7, 2008.
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and
several other stakeholders have
requested an extension of 90 days. After
due consideration of the requests and
considering the staff’s previous efforts at
public outreach during this rulemaking,
the NRC has decided to extend the
comment period by 30 days, until May
8, 2008. In a letter dated February 29,
2008, NEI requested the additional time
to provide review of the legacy site
issues raised in the proposed rule, and
to provide input to the NRC staff
regarding the specific proposed rule
text, potential unintended consequences
of the rulemaking, and draft regulatory
guidance released with the proposed
rule.
The comment period has been
extended and now expires on May 8,
2008. Comments received after this date
will be considered if it is practical to do
so, but the NRC is able to assure
consideration only for comments
received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any one of the following methods.
Please include the following number
RIN 3150–AH45 in the subject line of
your comments. Comments on
rulemakings submitted in writing or in
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
DATES:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:29 Mar 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
electronic form will be made available
to the public in their entirety in NRC’s
Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS).
Personal information, such as your
name, address, telephone number,
e-mail address, etc., will not be removed
from your submission.
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
E-mail comments to:
Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you
do not receive a reply e-mail confirming
that we have received your comments,
contact us directly at 301–415–1677.
Comments can also be submitted via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal https://
www.regulations.gov.
Hand deliver comments to: 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.
Federal workdays. (Telephone 301–415–
1677).
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301–
415–1101.
Publicly available documents related
to this rulemaking, including comments,
may be viewed electronically on the
public computers located at the NRC’s
Public Document Room (PDR), O1 F21,
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR
reproduction contractor will copy
documents for a fee.
Publicly available documents created
or received at the NRC after November
1, 1999, are available electronically at
the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at:
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. From this site, the public
can gain entry into ADAMS, which
provides text and image files of NRC’s
public documents. If you do not have
access to ADAMS or if there are
problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, contact the PDR
Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–
415–4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kevin O’Sullivan, telephone (301) 415–
8112, e-mail, kro2@nrc.gov of the Office
of Federal and State Materials and
Environmental Management Programs,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day
of March 2008.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8–5650 Filed 3–19–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 51
[Docket No. PRM–51–1]
New England Coalition on Nuclear
Pollution; Denial of Petition for
Rulemaking
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Denial of petition for
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is denying a petition
for rulemaking (PRM–51–1) submitted
by the New England Coalition on
Nuclear Pollution (now New England
Coalition (NEC)). The petitioner
requested that the NRC revise the value
for radon-222 in Table S–3, ‘‘Table of
Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental
Data,’’ of 10 CFR part 51,
‘‘Environmental Protection Regulations
for Domestic Licensing and Related
Regulatory Functions,’’ because it did
not disclose the long-term and longrange health effects of radon gas
released from uranium mill tailings
piles.
For a copy of the petition,
write to Michael T. Lesar, Chief,
Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing
Branch, Division of Administrative
Services, Office of Administration, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone:
301–415–7163; e-mail: MTL@nrc.gov.
Publicly available documents related
to this petition may be viewed
electronically on public computers in
the NRC’s public document Room
(PDR), O–1 F21, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland. The PDR reproduction
contractor will copy documents for a
fee.
Publicly available documents created
or received at the NRC after November
1, 1999, are also available electronically
at the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room
at: https://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/
index.html. From this site, the public
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
20MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 55 / Thursday, March 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules
can gain entry into the NRC’s
Agencywide document Access and
Management System (ADAMS), which
provides text and image files of NRC’s
public documents. If you do not have
access to ADAMS or if there are
problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS contact the NRC’s
PDR Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209,
301–415–4737, or by e-mail to
pdr@nrc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stewart Schneider, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–
4123; e-mail SXS4@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Background
On November 25, 1975, the NRC
docketed a petition for rulemaking
(PRM–51–1) dated November 19, 1975,
filed by Roisman, Kessler, and Cashdan,
on behalf of the New England Coalition
on Nuclear Pollution, now New England
Coalition (NEC). The petitioner
requested the Commission to issue a
number of amendments to 10 CFR part
51, Table S–3, ‘‘Table of Uranium Fuel
Cycle Environmental Data,’’ and to
postpone resolution of pending
applications for construction or
operation of nuclear power plants and
to reassess the conclusions for previous
authorizations for construction or
operation of nuclear power plants. Table
S–3 lists environmental data to be used
by applicants and the NRC staff as the
basis for evaluating the environmental
effects of the portions of the fuel cycle
that occur before new fuel is delivered
to the plant and after spent fuel is
removed from the plant site for lightwater reactors (LWRs).
The petitioner stated that:
1. Table S–3 ‘‘seriously understates’’
the impact on human safety and health
by disregarding the long-term effects of
certain long-lived radionuclides and
that the health effects of uranium
mining and milling listed in the table
fail to disclose the long-term and longrange health effects of radon-222
released from tailings piles;
2. The health effects of krypton-85
and tritium releases from fuel
reprocessing plants are underestimated
in Table S–3;
3. Releases of carbon-14 from the fuel
cycle should be included in Table S–3;
4. Table S–3, by the exclusive use of
the term ‘‘man-rems,’’ does not provide
a meaningful representation of these
health effects, and that human deaths
from man-rem exposures provide a more
easily comprehended consequence of
the fuel cycle activities; and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:29 Mar 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
14947
5. The magnitude of the potential
death toll from mill tailings alone is so
great as to alter the previous judgment
on these matters and to require, as a
minimum, a reassessment of previous
conclusions to authorize construction
and operation of nuclear reactors and a
postponement of resolution of all
pending applications for construction or
operation authority until final
resolution of this issue by the
Commission.
The NRC published a notice of receipt
of petition on January 16, 1976 (41 FR
2448). The notice of receipt invited
interested persons to submit written
comments on the petition. Comments
were received from 10 organizations.
The Commission resolved the public
comments as discussed in a Federal
Register notice published on April 14,
1978 (43 FR 15613).
As further reflected in the April 14,
1978 notice, the Commission resolved
the petitioner’s fourth issue, namely,
that Table S–3 does not provide a
meaningful representation of health
effects, by amending Footnote 1 to Table
S–3 to indicate that health effects are
not covered in the table and may be
litigated in individual cases.
Finally, regarding the petitioner’s fifth
issue, the Commission in the April 14,
1978 notice, denied the petitioner’s
request to halt the licensing of reactors
and to reopen all proceedings where
construction or operation had already
been authorized. The Commission
concluded that the actions it had taken
(as described previously) effectively
addressed the concerns raised by the
petitioner.
Response to the Petition
In its April 14, 1978 notice, the
Commission resolved the petitioner’s
first issue (concerning the value for
radon-222 in Table S–3), in part, when
it amended Table S–3 by deleting the
value for radon-222.1 The Commission,
however, deferred instituting any
rulemaking on the radon issue,
including the insertion of a revised
value for radon-222, pending generic
consideration of the issue. The generic
consideration of the radon-222 value in
Table S–3 remained the one outstanding
item of this petition and is now resolved
by this denial, as explained under the
‘‘Reasons for Denial’’ section below.
As reflected in the April 14, 1978
notice, the Commission resolved the
second and third issues raised by the
petition when the Commission
published a revised Table S–3 on March
14, 1977 (42 FR 13803). In this revision,
the Commission added carbon-14 to the
table and revised the release values for
krypton-85 and tritium upwards.
Differences in the petitioner’s release
estimates and those of the NRC staff
were due to differences in the models
used. The basis for the NRC models is
described in detail in NUREG–0116,
‘‘Environmental Survey of the
Reprocessing and Waste Management
Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle,’’
October 1976, and NUREG–0216,
‘‘Public Comments and Task Force
Responses Regarding the Environmental
Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste
Management Portions of the LWR Fuel
Cycle,’’ March 1977.
The NRC is denying the remaining
outstanding issue from the petition for
rulemaking (PRM–51–1) submitted by
the New England Coalition on Nuclear
Pollution (now New England Coalition
or NEC), namely, the revision of the
value for radon-222 in Table S–3.
The update to Table S–3 was delayed
because, by the mid-1980s, there were
no new applications for construction of
nuclear power plants, nor, at that time,
were any future ones predicted.
Consequently, there was no regulatory
need to update Table S–3 and
competing priorities for rulemaking
resources eventually resulted in the
cessation of activities on the table. Since
the mid-1980s, the NRC has revisited
the issue of revising the value for radon222 in Table S–3 on more than one
occasion, but in each case higher
priority rulemakings led to a halt in
these efforts.
The NRC is denying the remaining
outstanding issue in PRM–51–1,
revising the value for radon-222 in
Table S–3 of 10 CFR part 51, because
the NRC has made a generic
determination that the radiological
impacts of the uranium fuel cycle,
including those from radon-222
emissions, on individuals off-site will
remain at or below the Commission’s
regulatory limits, and as such, are of
small significance. The NRC described
this generic determination and
conclusion in chapter 6 of the Generic
Impact Statement for License Renewal
of Nuclear Plants, NUREG–1437, May
1996, (NUREG–1437),2 which was in
turn, based upon the findings made in
NRC and Environmental Protection
1 The original radon-222 value in Table S–3 was
75 curies followed by the statement, ‘‘Principally
from mills—maximum annual dose rate < 4 percent
of average natural background within 5 mi of mill.
Results in 0.06 man-rem per annual fuel
requirement.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Reasons for Denial
2 NUREG–1437, Ch. 6., § 6.2.2.1 (pp. 6–8 to 6–18),
§ 6.2.4 (pp. 6–27 to 6–28), and § 6.6 (pp. 6–87 to 6–
88).
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
20MRP1
14948
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 55 / Thursday, March 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Agency (EPA) rulemakings as described
below.
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
EPA and NRC Regulatory Programs
Section 84a(2) of the Atomic Energy
Act (AEA) requires NRC to conform its
regulations to EPA’s regulations
promulgated under the Uranium Mill
Tailings Radiation Control Act, 42
U.S.C. 2022, 7901–7942 (UMTRCA) for
the protection of the public health,
safety and the environment from
radiological and non-radiological
hazards associated with the processing
and with the possession, transfer, and
disposal of byproduct material as
defined under section 11(e)(2) of the
AEA, e.g., uranium mill tailings. EPA’s
regulations at Subpart D of 40 CFR part
192 set forth a design standard requiring
that the tailings or wastes from mill
operations be covered to provide
reasonable assurance that radon
released to the atmosphere from the
tailings or wastes will not exceed an
average of 20 picocuries per square
meter per second (pCi/m2-s) flux for
1000 years, to the extent reasonably
achievable, and in any case, for 200
years.3 In 1985, the NRC conformed its
regulations at 10 CFR part 40, Appendix
A, to EPA’s regulations at Subpart D of
40 CFR part 192, by adopting the 20
pCi/m2-s flux standard.4 The NRC
regulations at 10 CFR part 40, Appendix
A apply to NRC or Agreement State
licensed mill tailings piles.
An EPA risk assessment conducted as
part of the 1989 EPA National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
rulemaking (promulgating 40 CFR part
61, subparts T and W), consisting of a
two-step analysis, established that
compliance with the 20 pCi/m2-s flux
standard for radon emissions from
uranium mill tailings piles would result
in an estimated lifetime risk of cancer to
the maximally exposed individual of
approximately 1E–4, a level determined
by EPA to be safe, under the first step
of the analysis, and provided an ample
margin of safety under the second step,
which considered additional factors
such as cost and technological
feasibility.5
On June 1, 1994, the NRC published
a final rule which conformed its
regulations at 10 CFR part 40, Appendix
A, to amendments made by EPA in 1993
to Subpart D of 40 CFR part 192.6 The
EPA amendments and the conforming
3 40 CFR 192.32(b); see also 48 FR 45926 (October
7, 1983).
4 50 FR 41852 (October 16, 1985).
5 54 FR 51654, 51682–83 (December 15, 1989); see
also 59 FR 36280, 36281, 36287–88 (July 15, 1994).
6 59 FR 28220 (June 1, 1994). The EPA final rule
amending 40 CFR part 192, Subpart D was
published on November 15, 1993 (58 FR 60340).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:29 Mar 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
NRC rule added provisions to fill a
regulatory gap related to the timing and
monitoring of NRC or Agreement State
licensed mill tailings piles. In a related
July 15, 1994 rulemaking, EPA found
that the NRC regulatory program
concerning radon-222 emissions from
these tailings piles ‘‘protect public
health with an ample margin of safety’’
and that the ‘‘NRC’s implementation
criteria set forth a rigorous program
governing the reclamation of the
disposal sites so that closure will (1) last
for 1,000 years to the extent reasonable,
but in any event at least 200 years, and
(2) limit radon release to 20 pCi/m2-s
throughout that period.’’ 7
NUREG–1437
In 1996, the NRC incorporated the
above EPA regulatory findings and NRC
standards reflected in 10 CFR part 40,
Appendix A into NUREG–1437.
Specifically, the NRC ‘‘supplements the
data on environmental impacts of the
uranium fuel cycle presented in Table
S–3 * * * to extend the coverage of
impacts to 222Rn, 99Tc, higher fuel
enrichment, higher fuel burnup, and
license renewal of up to 20 additional
years of operation.’’ 8
NUREG–1437 made the following
findings:
• Principal radon releases occur
during mining and milling operations
and as emissions from mill tailings;
• The long-term integrity of the
coverings for stabilized mill tailings
piles must be maintained because the
EPA and NRC regulatory standards (40
CFR part 192 and 10 CFR part 40,
Appendix A) require certification of
stability and the control of average
radon flux levels to 20 pCi/m2-s;
• The design and implementation of
the radon cover and erosion protection
features are the primary reliance for
maintaining radon emissions within the
10 CFR part 40 limits and significant
failure of the coverings for stabilized
mill tailings piles is considered highly
unlikely;
• A combination of engineering and
institutional controls will most likely
result in compliance with the 20 pCi/
m2-s flux standard for the foreseeable
future;
• For long-term radon releases from
stabilized mill tailings piles, the NRC
staff has assumed that the tailings
would emit, per reference reactor year
(RRY),9 1 Ci/year for
7 59
FR 36280, 36283 (July 15, 1994).
§ 6.1 (p. 6–1).
9 The ‘‘reference reactor’’ is a model 1000–MW(e)
light-water reactor. One reference reactor year
(RRY) would be one year of operation of such
model reactor.
8 NUREG–1437,
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• 100 years (covering fully intact), 10
Ci/year for the next 400 years (covering
partially failed), and 100 Ci/year for
periods beyond 500 years (covering
failed).10
• The doses from radon-222
emissions from mines and tailings piles
consist of tiny doses summed over large
populations (the doses are very small
fractions of regulatory limits, and even
smaller fractions of natural background
exposure to the same population); and
• As each uranium fuel cycle facility
licensee must ensure that the
radioactive dose from such facility is
within the limit and be as low as
reasonably achievable (ALARA), the
doses to individual members of the
public are considered by the NRC staff
to be small.
NUREG–1437 served as the basis for
the NRC rulemaking which amended 10
CFR part 51, insofar as license renewal
impact considerations are concerned.
This rulemaking summarized the
NUREG–1437 findings regarding the
impacts of radon-222 emissions and
stated that ‘‘impacts on individuals from
radioactive gaseous and liquid releases
including radon-222 and technetium 99
are small.’’ 11 The NRC provided ample
opportunity for public comment on both
the draft and final versions of NUREG–
1437 and the related amendments to
part 51, including the issue concerning
the impacts of radon-222 emissions.12
Although NUREG–1437 concerned
license renewals, the NRC notes that the
NUREG–1437 radon-222 impact
determination is not unique to the fuel
cycle for renewed licenses and can be
applied to all NRC actions. In this
10 NUREG–1437 sets forth the NRC staff’s radon222 data in tabular format: Table 6.1 (p. 6–10)
shows data for radon releases from mining and
milling operations and mill tailings piles for each
RRY; Table 6.2 (p. 6–10) shows data for the
estimated 100-year environmental dose
commitment from mining and milling for each RRY
(i.e., prior to closure or stabilization of the tailings
piles); Table 6.3 (p. 6–12) shows population-dose
commitments from unreclaimed open-pit mines for
each RRY; and Table 6.4 (p. 6–12) shows
population-dose commitments from stabilized
tailings piles for each RRY.
11 11 61 FR 28467, 28494 (June 5, 1996), now
codified at 10 CFR part 51, Subpart A, App. B,
Table B–1.
12 56 FR 47016, 47022 (September 17, 1991)
(proposed rule); 61 FR 28467, 28477–78, 28494
(June 5, 1996) (final rule). The June 5, 1996 final
rule provided for an additional 30 day comment
period, requesting that commenters give ‘‘specific
attention’’ to a number of issues, including ‘‘the
cumulative radiological effects from the uranium
fuel cycle.’’ 61 FR 28467. In a December 18, 1996
final rule, the NRC responded to the one comment
received on the radiological impacts of the uranium
fuel cycle, from EPA, which requested clarification
on the collective effects, over time, on human
populations. 61 FR 66537, 66539–40 (December 18,
1996). The December 18, 1996 final rule made
minor clarifying and conforming changes to 10 CFR
part 51.
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
20MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 55 / Thursday, March 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules
regard, the NRC has received, and
expects to continue to receive,
applications for licenses to build and
operate new nuclear power plants. For
these applications, the NRC assesses the
validity of the value for radon-222 in the
environmental report submitted by the
applicant for a construction permit,
early site permit, or combined license
for a nuclear power reactor to determine
any impacts to the environment. The
NRC staff scales data to the model
reactor described in NUREG–1437 to
arrive at figure for the expected radon222 emissions resulting from the
operation of the proposed plant. The
health, safety and environmental
impacts of the expected radon-222
emissions are evaluated on an
application-specific basis, using the
NUREG–1437 generic analysis and
assessment.13
The NRC has determined that, at this
time, revising the value for radon-222 in
Table S–3, as requested in PRM–51–1,
does not provide any benefit over the
NRC’s current application-specific
review. In Staff Requirements
Memorandum COMGBJ–07–0002, dated
August 6, 2007, the Commission agreed
that PRM–51–1 should be closed.
Conclusion
For the reasons described above, the
NRC finds that a rulemaking to revise
the radon-222 value in Table S–3 is not
necessary. The NRC’s prior deletion of
the value for radon-222 in Table S–3 did
grant, in part, the petitioner’s request
regarding the value for radon-222. The
Commission is now denying the
remaining outstanding issue of the
petitioner’s request by not revising
Table S–3 to include a revised value for
radon-222.
Closing the petition does not preclude
the NRC from taking future regulatory
action to amend Table S–3. The NRC
will continue to evaluate, as part of its
annual review of potential rulemaking
activity, the need to amend Table S–3.
For the reasons cited in this
document, the NRC denies this petition.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day
of March, 2008.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Luis A. Reyes,
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. E8–5647 Filed 3–19–08; 8:45 am]
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
13 See, e.g., NRC final environmental impact
statements for early site permits to construct new
nuclear reactor facilities at Dominion’s North Anna
Power Station, in Louisa County, Virginia (NUREG–
1811, § 6.1.1.5); Exelon’s Clinton Power Station,
near Clinton, Illinois (NUREG–1815, § 6.1.1.5); and
Entergy’s Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, near Port
Gibson, Mississippi (NUREG–1817, § 6.1.1.5).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:29 Mar 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Docket No. FAA–2008–0154; Airspace
Docket No. 08–ASO–10]
Establishment of Class E Airspace;
Canon, GA
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This action proposes to
establish Class E Airspace at Canon, GA.
Airspace is needed to support new Area
Navigation (RNA V) Global Positioning
System (GPS) Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAPs) that have
been developed for Franklin County
Airport. As a result, controlled airspace
extending upward from 700 feet Above
Ground Level (AGL) is needed to
contain the SIAP and for Instrument
Flight Rule (IFR) operations at Franklin
County Airport. The operating status of
the airport will change from Visual
Flight Rules (VFR) to include IFR
operations concurrent with the
publication of the SIAP. This action
enhances the safety and airspace
management of Franklin County
Airport, Canon, GA.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 5, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule
to: U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200
New Jersey, SE., Washington, DC
20590–0001; Telephone: 1–800–647–
5527; Fax: 202–493–2251. You must
identify the Docket Number FAA–2008–
0154; Airspace Docket No. 08–ASO–10,
at the beginning of your comments. You
may also submit and review received
comments through the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov.
You may review the public docket
containing the rule, any comments
received, and any final disposition in
person in the Dockets Office (see
ADDRESSES section for address and
phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
An informal docket may also be
examined during normal business hours
at the office of the Eastern Service
Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, Room 210, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Melinda Giddens, System Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14949
Aviation Administration, P.O. Box
20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320;
telephone (404) 305–5610.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to
comment on this rule by submitting
such written data, views, or arguments,
as they may desire. Comments that
provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are
particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the
proposal. Comments are specifically
invited on the overall regulatory,
aeronautical, economic, environmental,
and energy-related aspects of the
proposal. Communications should
identify both docket numbers and be
submitted in triplicate to the address
listed above. Those wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this notice must submit with those
comments a self-addressed, stamped
postcard on which the following
statement is made: ‘‘Comments to
Docket No. FAA–2008–0154; Airspace
docket No. 08–ASO–10.’’ The postcard
will be date/time stamped and returned
to the commenter. All communications
received before the specified closing
date for comments will be considered
before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this
notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report
summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerned
with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.
Availability of NPRMs
An electronic copy of this document
may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through https://
www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can
also be accessed through the FAA’s Web
page at https://www.faa.gov or the
Federal Register’s Web page at: https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
Persons interested in being placed on a
mailing list for future NPRM’s should
contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking,
(202) 267–9677, to request a copy of
Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking Distribution
System, which describes the application
procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an
amendment to part 71 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to
establish Class E airspace at Canon, GA.
Area Navigation (RNAV) Global
Positioning System (GPS) Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures
E:\FR\FM\20MRP1.SGM
20MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 55 (Thursday, March 20, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14946-14949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-5647]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 51
[Docket No. PRM-51-1]
New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution; Denial of Petition
for Rulemaking
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition
for rulemaking (PRM-51-1) submitted by the New England Coalition on
Nuclear Pollution (now New England Coalition (NEC)). The petitioner
requested that the NRC revise the value for radon-222 in Table S-3,
``Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data,'' of 10 CFR part 51,
``Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and
Related Regulatory Functions,'' because it did not disclose the long-
term and long-range health effects of radon gas released from uranium
mill tailings piles.
ADDRESSES: For a copy of the petition, write to Michael T. Lesar,
Chief, Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch, Division of
Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-
7163; e-mail: MTL@nrc.gov.
Publicly available documents related to this petition may be viewed
electronically on public computers in the NRC's public document Room
(PDR), O-1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a
fee.
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after
November 1, 1999, are also available electronically at the NRC's
Electronic Reading Room at: https://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/.
From this site, the public
[[Page 14947]]
can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide document Access and Management
System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public
documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS contact the NRC's PDR
Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to
pdr@nrc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stewart Schneider, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-4123; e-mail SXS4@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 25, 1975, the NRC docketed a petition for rulemaking
(PRM-51-1) dated November 19, 1975, filed by Roisman, Kessler, and
Cashdan, on behalf of the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution,
now New England Coalition (NEC). The petitioner requested the
Commission to issue a number of amendments to 10 CFR part 51, Table S-
3, ``Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data,'' and to postpone
resolution of pending applications for construction or operation of
nuclear power plants and to reassess the conclusions for previous
authorizations for construction or operation of nuclear power plants.
Table S-3 lists environmental data to be used by applicants and the NRC
staff as the basis for evaluating the environmental effects of the
portions of the fuel cycle that occur before new fuel is delivered to
the plant and after spent fuel is removed from the plant site for
light-water reactors (LWRs).
The petitioner stated that:
1. Table S-3 ``seriously understates'' the impact on human safety
and health by disregarding the long-term effects of certain long-lived
radionuclides and that the health effects of uranium mining and milling
listed in the table fail to disclose the long-term and long-range
health effects of radon-222 released from tailings piles;
2. The health effects of krypton-85 and tritium releases from fuel
reprocessing plants are underestimated in Table S-3;
3. Releases of carbon-14 from the fuel cycle should be included in
Table S-3;
4. Table S-3, by the exclusive use of the term ``man-rems,'' does
not provide a meaningful representation of these health effects, 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 judgment on these matters
and to require, as a minimum, a reassessment of previous conclusions to
authorize construction and operation of nuclear reactors and a
postponement of resolution of all pending applications for construction
or operation authority until final resolution of this issue by the
Commission.
The NRC published a notice of receipt of petition on January 16,
1976 (41 FR 2448). The notice of receipt invited interested persons to
submit written comments on the petition. Comments were received from 10
organizations. The Commission resolved the public comments as discussed
in a Federal Register notice published on April 14, 1978 (43 FR 15613).
Response to the Petition
In its April 14, 1978 notice, the Commission resolved the
petitioner's first issue (concerning the value for radon-222 in Table
S-3), in part, when it amended Table S-3 by deleting the value for
radon-222.\1\ The Commission, however, deferred instituting any
rulemaking on the radon issue, including the insertion of a revised
value for radon-222, pending generic consideration of the issue. The
generic consideration of the radon-222 value in Table S-3 remained the
one outstanding item of this petition and is now resolved by this
denial, as explained under the ``Reasons for Denial'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The original radon-222 value in Table S-3 was 75 curies
followed by the statement, ``Principally from mills--maximum annual
dose rate < 4 percent of average natural background within 5 mi of
mill. Results in 0.06 man-rem per annual fuel requirement.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As reflected in the April 14, 1978 notice, the Commission resolved
the second and third issues raised by the petition when the Commission
published a revised Table S-3 on March 14, 1977 (42 FR 13803). In this
revision, the Commission added carbon-14 to the table and revised the
release values for krypton-85 and tritium upwards. Differences in the
petitioner's release estimates and those of the NRC staff were due to
differences in the models used. The basis for the NRC models is
described in detail in NUREG-0116, ``Environmental Survey of the
Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle,''
October 1976, and NUREG-0216, ``Public Comments and Task Force
Responses Regarding the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and
Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle,'' March 1977.
As further reflected in the April 14, 1978 notice, the Commission
resolved the petitioner's fourth issue, namely, that Table S-3 does not
provide a meaningful representation of health effects, by amending
Footnote 1 to Table S-3 to indicate that health effects are not covered
in the table and may be litigated in individual cases.
Finally, regarding the petitioner's fifth issue, the Commission in
the April 14, 1978 notice, denied the petitioner's request to halt the
licensing of reactors and to reopen all proceedings where construction
or operation had already been authorized. The Commission concluded that
the actions it had taken (as described previously) effectively
addressed the concerns raised by the petitioner.
Reasons for Denial
The NRC is denying the remaining outstanding issue from the
petition for rulemaking (PRM-51-1) submitted by the New England
Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (now New England Coalition or NEC),
namely, the revision of the value for radon-222 in Table S-3.
The update to Table S-3 was delayed because, by the mid-1980s,
there were no new applications for construction of nuclear power
plants, nor, at that time, were any future ones predicted.
Consequently, there was no regulatory need to update Table S-3 and
competing priorities for rulemaking resources eventually resulted in
the cessation of activities on the table. Since the mid-1980s, the NRC
has revisited the issue of revising the value for radon-222 in Table S-
3 on more than one occasion, but in each case higher priority
rulemakings led to a halt in these efforts.
The NRC is denying the remaining outstanding issue in PRM-51-1,
revising the value for radon-222 in Table S-3 of 10 CFR part 51,
because the NRC has made a generic determination that the radiological
impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, including those from radon-222
emissions, on individuals off-site will remain at or below the
Commission's regulatory limits, and as such, are of small significance.
The NRC described this generic determination and conclusion in chapter
6 of the Generic Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear
Plants, NUREG-1437, May 1996, (NUREG-1437),\2\ which was in turn, based
upon the findings made in NRC and Environmental Protection
[[Page 14948]]
Agency (EPA) rulemakings as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NUREG-1437, Ch. 6., Sec. 6.2.2.1 (pp. 6-8 to 6-18), Sec.
6.2.4 (pp. 6-27 to 6-28), and Sec. 6.6 (pp. 6-87 to 6-88).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA and NRC Regulatory Programs
Section 84a(2) of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) requires NRC to
conform its regulations to EPA's regulations promulgated under the
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, 42 U.S.C. 2022, 7901-7942
(UMTRCA) for the protection of the public health, safety and the
environment from radiological and non-radiological hazards associated
with the processing and with the possession, transfer, and disposal of
byproduct material as defined under section 11(e)(2) of the AEA, e.g.,
uranium mill tailings. EPA's regulations at Subpart D of 40 CFR part
192 set forth a design standard requiring that the tailings or wastes
from mill operations be covered to provide reasonable assurance that
radon released to the atmosphere from the tailings or wastes will not
exceed an average of 20 picocuries per square meter per second (pCi/
m2-s) flux for 1000 years, to the extent reasonably
achievable, and in any case, for 200 years.\3\ In 1985, the NRC
conformed its regulations at 10 CFR part 40, Appendix A, to EPA's
regulations at Subpart D of 40 CFR part 192, by adopting the 20 pCi/
m2-s flux standard.\4\ The NRC regulations at 10 CFR part
40, Appendix A apply to NRC or Agreement State licensed mill tailings
piles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 40 CFR 192.32(b); see also 48 FR 45926 (October 7, 1983).
\4\ 50 FR 41852 (October 16, 1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An EPA risk assessment conducted as part of the 1989 EPA National
Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants rulemaking (promulgating
40 CFR part 61, subparts T and W), consisting of a two-step analysis,
established that compliance with the 20 pCi/m2-s flux
standard for radon emissions from uranium mill tailings piles would
result in an estimated lifetime risk of cancer to the maximally exposed
individual of approximately 1E-4, a level determined by EPA to be safe,
under the first step of the analysis, and provided an ample margin of
safety under the second step, which considered additional factors such
as cost and technological feasibility.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 54 FR 51654, 51682-83 (December 15, 1989); see also 59 FR
36280, 36281, 36287-88 (July 15, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 1, 1994, the NRC published a final rule which conformed its
regulations at 10 CFR part 40, Appendix A, to amendments made by EPA in
1993 to Subpart D of 40 CFR part 192.\6\ The EPA amendments and the
conforming NRC rule added provisions to fill a regulatory gap related
to the timing and monitoring of NRC or Agreement State licensed mill
tailings piles. In a related July 15, 1994 rulemaking, EPA found that
the NRC regulatory program concerning radon-222 emissions from these
tailings piles ``protect public health with an ample margin of safety''
and that the ``NRC's implementation criteria set forth a rigorous
program governing the reclamation of the disposal sites so that closure
will (1) last for 1,000 years to the extent reasonable, but in any
event at least 200 years, and (2) limit radon release to 20 pCi/
m2-s throughout that period.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 59 FR 28220 (June 1, 1994). The EPA final rule amending 40
CFR part 192, Subpart D was published on November 15, 1993 (58 FR
60340).
\7\ 59 FR 36280, 36283 (July 15, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUREG-1437
In 1996, the NRC incorporated the above EPA regulatory findings and
NRC standards reflected in 10 CFR part 40, Appendix A into NUREG-1437.
Specifically, the NRC ``supplements the data on environmental impacts
of the uranium fuel cycle presented in Table S-3 * * * to extend the
coverage of impacts to 222Rn, 99Tc, higher fuel
enrichment, higher fuel burnup, and license renewal of up to 20
additional years of operation.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ NUREG-1437, Sec. 6.1 (p. 6-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUREG-1437 made the following findings:
Principal radon releases occur during mining and milling
operations and as emissions from mill tailings;
The long-term integrity of the coverings for stabilized
mill tailings piles must be maintained because the EPA and NRC
regulatory standards (40 CFR part 192 and 10 CFR part 40, Appendix A)
require certification of stability and the control of average radon
flux levels to 20 pCi/m2-s;
The design and implementation of the radon cover and
erosion protection features are the primary reliance for maintaining
radon emissions within the 10 CFR part 40 limits and significant
failure of the coverings for stabilized mill tailings piles is
considered highly unlikely;
A combination of engineering and institutional controls
will most likely result in compliance with the 20 pCi/m2-s
flux standard for the foreseeable future;
For long-term radon releases from stabilized mill tailings
piles, the NRC staff has assumed that the tailings would emit, per
reference reactor year (RRY),\9\ 1 Ci/year for
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The ``reference reactor'' is a model 1000-MW(e) light-water
reactor. One reference reactor year (RRY) would be one year of
operation of such model reactor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 years (covering fully intact), 10 Ci/year for the next
400 years (covering partially failed), and 100 Ci/year for periods
beyond 500 years (covering failed).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ NUREG-1437 sets forth the NRC staff's radon-222 data in
tabular format: Table 6.1 (p. 6-10) shows data for radon releases
from mining and milling operations and mill tailings piles for each
RRY; Table 6.2 (p. 6-10) shows data for the estimated 100-year
environmental dose commitment from mining and milling for each RRY
(i.e., prior to closure or stabilization of the tailings piles);
Table 6.3 (p. 6-12) shows population-dose commitments from
unreclaimed open-pit mines for each RRY; and Table 6.4 (p. 6-12)
shows population-dose commitments from stabilized tailings piles for
each RRY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The doses from radon-222 emissions from mines and tailings
piles consist of tiny doses summed over large populations (the doses
are very small fractions of regulatory limits, and even smaller
fractions of natural background exposure to the same population); and
As each uranium fuel cycle facility licensee must ensure
that the radioactive dose from such facility is within the limit and be
as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), the doses to individual
members of the public are considered by the NRC staff to be small.
NUREG-1437 served as the basis for the NRC rulemaking which amended
10 CFR part 51, insofar as license renewal impact considerations are
concerned. This rulemaking summarized the NUREG-1437 findings regarding
the impacts of radon-222 emissions and stated that ``impacts on
individuals from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases including
radon-222 and technetium 99 are small.'' \11\ The NRC provided ample
opportunity for public comment on both the draft and final versions of
NUREG-1437 and the related amendments to part 51, including the issue
concerning the impacts of radon-222 emissions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 11 61 FR 28467, 28494 (June 5, 1996), now codified at 10
CFR part 51, Subpart A, App. B, Table B-1.
\12\ 56 FR 47016, 47022 (September 17, 1991) (proposed rule); 61
FR 28467, 28477-78, 28494 (June 5, 1996) (final rule). The June 5,
1996 final rule provided for an additional 30 day comment period,
requesting that commenters give ``specific attention'' to a number
of issues, including ``the cumulative radiological effects from the
uranium fuel cycle.'' 61 FR 28467. In a December 18, 1996 final
rule, the NRC responded to the one comment received on the
radiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, from EPA, which
requested clarification on the collective effects, over time, on
human populations. 61 FR 66537, 66539-40 (December 18, 1996). The
December 18, 1996 final rule made minor clarifying and conforming
changes to 10 CFR part 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although NUREG-1437 concerned license renewals, the NRC notes that
the NUREG-1437 radon-222 impact determination is not unique to the fuel
cycle for renewed licenses and can be applied to all NRC actions. In
this
[[Page 14949]]
regard, the NRC has received, and expects to continue to receive,
applications for licenses to build and operate new nuclear power
plants. For these applications, the NRC assesses the validity of the
value for radon-222 in the environmental report submitted by the
applicant for a construction permit, early site permit, or combined
license for a nuclear power reactor to determine any impacts to the
environment. The NRC staff scales data to the model reactor described
in NUREG-1437 to arrive at figure for the expected radon-222 emissions
resulting from the operation of the proposed plant. The health, safety
and environmental impacts of the expected radon-222 emissions are
evaluated on an application-specific basis, using the NUREG-1437
generic analysis and assessment.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See, e.g., NRC final environmental impact statements for
early site permits to construct new nuclear reactor facilities at
Dominion's North Anna Power Station, in Louisa County, Virginia
(NUREG-1811, Sec. 6.1.1.5); Exelon's Clinton Power Station, near
Clinton, Illinois (NUREG-1815, Sec. 6.1.1.5); and Entergy's Grand
Gulf Nuclear Station, near Port Gibson, Mississippi (NUREG-1817,
Sec. 6.1.1.5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC has determined that, at this time, revising the value for
radon-222 in Table S-3, as requested in PRM-51-1, does not provide any
benefit over the NRC's current application-specific review. In Staff
Requirements Memorandum COMGBJ-07-0002, dated August 6, 2007, the
Commission agreed that PRM-51-1 should be closed.
Conclusion
For the reasons described above, the NRC finds that a rulemaking to
revise the radon-222 value in Table S-3 is not necessary. The NRC's
prior deletion of the value for radon-222 in Table S-3 did grant, in
part, the petitioner's request regarding the value for radon-222. The
Commission is now denying the remaining outstanding issue of the
petitioner's request by not revising Table S-3 to include a revised
value for radon-222.
Closing the petition does not preclude the NRC from taking future
regulatory action to amend Table S-3. The NRC will continue to
evaluate, as part of its annual review of potential rulemaking
activity, the need to amend Table S-3.
For the reasons cited in this document, the NRC denies this
petition.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of March, 2008.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Luis A. Reyes,
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. E8-5647 Filed 3-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
