ML11348A337
| ML11348A337 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/14/2011 |
| From: | State of NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 21541, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 NUREG-1437, V2 | |
| Download: ML11348A337 (148) | |
Text
NYS00131H Submitted: December 14, 2011 APPENDIX C SOCIOECONOMICS Table C.86 &timated economic effects of Wolf Creek Generating Station on Coffey County, 1989 Employment Direct basic 522 Indirect 397 Total plant-related 919 Percentage of Coffey County employment 17.5 Income (1989 $)
Direct 27,601,000 Indirect 9,752,000 Total plant-related 37,352,000 Percentage of Coffey County income 225 Source: ORNL staff computations based on approach used in NUREG/CR-2750.
Table Cfrl Projected employment effects of Wolf Creek Generating Station refurbishment on Coffey County, 2024 Refurbishment direct employment 455 Refurbishment indirect employment 108 Total plant-related employment 563 Percentage of Coffey County employment 6.8 Source ORNL staff computations based on approach used in NUREG/CR-2750 Table C.88 Projected employment effects of Wolf Creek Generating Station license renewal on Coffey County, 2025 Existing direct and indirect employment 522 Increase in direct employment 30 Increase in indirect employment Total plant-related employment 575 Percentage of Coffey County employment 7.1 Source ORNL staff computations based on approach used in NUREG/CR-2750.
C-221 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365 01037
ApPENDIX D AQUATIC MICROORGANISMS AND HUMAN HEALTH NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAG10001365_01038
AaUATIC MICROORGANISMS AND HUMAN HEALTH S<?me aquatic microorganisms normally opportunistic pathogen, although some present in surfac.e waters whose presence strains produce a potent enterotoxin that may be enhanced by thermal additions have increases its pathogenicity.
been recognized as pathogenic for humans.
Among these are Salmonella species (sp.), Pseudomonas aeruginosa can be found in Shigella sp., Pseudomonas sp., thermophilic soil, humidifiers, hospital respirators, water, fungi, Legionnaires' disease (LD) bacteria and sewage and on the skin of healthy
[Legion ella (L.) sp.], and the free-living individuals. Certain strains can produce a amoebae of the genera Naegleria (N.) sp., potent endotoxin, and the organism can the causative agents of various human cause symptoms that include fever, infections. bacteriuria, bacteremia, pneumonia, otitis, and opportunistic wound and ophthalmic Salmonella sp. is classified as a facultative infections. The organism can survive and intracellular parasite that has an incubation grow in a wide range of environmental period of 10 to 14 days and can cause conditions.
symptoms that include continued fevers, intestinal inflammation, formation of Actinomycetes are ubiquitous and can be intestinal ulcers, splenic enlargement, found in soil, water, and the oral flora of toxemia, and the production of a man (usually associated with caries).
characteristic "rose-spot" eruption on the Infections are primarily opportunistic, but abdomen. These bacteria are usually very aggressive strains can produce associated with areas of poor sanitation but pulmonary disease; cervical or intestinal can also be transmitted by the common infections are not uncommon. This organism house fly. The organisms do not multiply in can also survive a wide range of water but can live for several weeks in water environmental conditions, with thermophilic and can be transported over large distances. types being the most pathogenic.
Shigella sp. is similar to Salmonella sp. in its Although the above-mentioned organisms mode of transmission but has a much shorter are ubiquitous, the ingestion or inhalation of incubation period (1 to 7 days). It produces small quantities of these organisms would severe dysentery with production of a potent not adversely affect the health of individuals exotoxin. The optimum growth temperature who are not immunosuppressed. However, for the organism is 37°C (99°F), but it can inhalation of endotoxins and exotoxins grow at much higher temperatures. produced by several of these organisms, which are readily aerosolized, may Aeromonas sp. is also a facultative anaerobe theoretically affect even healthy individuals and has been isolated from tap water, rivers, who come in contact with mist, vapor, or soil, and marine environments, as well as minute droplets of water. No reports have various foods. It has been isplated from been identified that suggest such healthy individuals, as well as those with occurrences in power plant workers.
diarrheal symptoms. It is primarily an Legionel/a sp. infections, on the other hand, D-3 NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 OAG10001365_01039
AQUATIC MICROORGANISMS APPENDIXD can be infectious for uncompromised healthy (Fliermans 1985). In view of this ubiquity in workers. natural surface waters, it is not surprising that water in cooling towers and evaporative The clinical significance of Legionella sp. was condensers contains Legionella sp. These dramatized by tqe namesake outbreak in devices can then amplify Legionella sp.
1976 at an American Legion convention in concentrations and disperse the pathogen Philadelphia (McDade et al. 1977). At this through aerosolization.
convention more than 100 people became ill and 34 died. After an intensive effort, In contrast to Legionella sp., the presence of laboratory isolations were made of the Naegleria sp. in water and soil was known causative agent, L. pneumophila. Since 1977, before their clinical significance was various serogroups of L. pneumophila and recognized. Butt (1966) and Carter (1970) more than 30 species of Legionella have described the first cases of Naeg/eria sp.
been discovered (Thornsberry et al. 1984). infection in Floridian and Australian Legionella sp. are gram-negative rods children who were infected by swimming or approximately 0.5 x 2.4 J.1m in size. Infection bathing in Naegleria sp.-infested waters.
generally occurs by inhalation of the Naegleria sp. are small amoebae capable of aerosolized bacteria. Two disease syndromes using dissolved organic material or gram-can be manifested by infection with negative bacteria as a food source. They are Legionella sp. Legionnaires' Disease is a eukaryotic cells that generally have a single pneumonia with associated cough, fever, and nucleus and a centrally located nucleolus.
malaise (Lattimer and Ormsbee 1981). The Locomotion is by means of eruptive disease can be fatal, although Erythromycin pseudopodia. Four species of Naegleria have is effective in treating it. Legionellosis may been isolated. N. gruberi and N. jadini have also be expressed as Pontiac fever, a not shown any pathogenic potential in nonpneumonic, flu-like illness that also experimental animals or in man. N.
responds to Erythromycin therapy (Fraser australiensis is pathogenic for mice but as yet et al. 1979). has not been implicated in human diseases.
N. fowleri is pathogenic for humans and mice Estimates of the number of cases of (Rondanelli 1987).
Legionellosis range from 25,000 to 200,000 per year (W. H. Wilkinson, telephone On entry into the nasal passage of a interview with R. L. Tyndall, Oak Ridge susceptible individual, N. fowleri will National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., penetrate the nasal mucosa and migrate 1982). Some of the known Legionellosis along the olfactory nerve through the outbreaks were traceable to the cribriform plate to the cerebrum. The aerosolization of water-borne Legionella sp. ensuing infection results in a rapidly fatal by cooling towers and evaporative meningoencephalitis (Rondanelli 1987).
condensers (NUREG/CR-1207; Berendt et Antibiotic therapy is generally ineffectual.
al. 1980). The cooling devices are Fortunately, primates in general are resistant presumably seeded with Legionella sp. from to infection with N. fowleri. This has been their potable and natural water supplies. demonstrated in laboratory studies with That Legionella sp. in fact are normal chimpanzees and in epidemiologic studies at components of the aquatic flora was first sites where fatal cases of primary amoebic demonstrated by Fliermans et al. (1981) and meningoencephalitis (PAME) occurred has been confirmed by subsequent studies (Wong et al. 1975). In such cases, hundreds NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 D-4 OAG10001365_01040
APPENDIX D AQUATIC MICROORGANISMS of individuals were exposed, but only a impacts a public swimming area (Huizinga single case of P AME occurred. Reasons for and McLaughlin 1990).
the susceptibility of the occasional individual are unknown. After reports of fatal cases of In addition to testing for pathogenic P AME in Australia and Florida, other cases amoebae in cooling waters, the 11 nuclear of PAME were reported. Sources of power plants in the 1981 study were also infections included heated swimming pools studied for the presence of Legionella sp.
(Cerva 1971), thermal springs (Hecht et al. (NUREG/CR-2980). Concentrations of 1972), and a variety of naturally or Legionella sp. were determined artificially heated surface waters (Fliermans microscopically by fluorescent antibody et al. 1979; DeJonckheere 1978). Orie of the analysis, and infectious Legionella sp. were largest clusters of PAME occurred in demonstrated by guinea pig inoculation. In Virginia, where 16 cases were reported over general, the artificially heated waters showed a 9-year period (Duma et al. 1971 ). Unlike only a slight increase (i.e., ~ 10-fold) in the thousands of cases of Legionellosis per concentrations of Legionella sp. relative to year in the United States alone, only 100 to source water. In a few cases, source waters 200 cases of P AME have been reported to had higher levels than did heated waters.
date worldwide. Hallenbeck and Brenniman Infectious Legionella sp. were found in 7 of (1989) reviewed the world literature to 11 test waters and 5 of 11 source waters.
derive a risk analysis model that would be helpful in the management of PAME. They Subsequently, a more detailed study of concluded that the management of PAME Legionella sp. presence in the environs of risk was difficult; the prevention, almost coal-fired electric power plants was impossible. However, they estimated the undertaken to determine the distribution, lifetime risk of PAME to be 4 x 10-5, abundance, and infectivity and aerosolization assuming 10 exposures per swimming season of Legionella sp. in power plant cooling and 10 swimming seasons. As with Legionella systems (NUREG/CR-3364; EPRI/EA-4017; sp., simple, rapid assays for detecting and EPRI/EA-3153 ).
quantifying N. Jowlen in aquatic environments are not generally available. This study found that the infrequent occurrence of positive air samples at In 1981, cooling waters of 11 nuclear power locations not adjacent to cleaning operations plants and associated control source waters suggests that aerosolized Legionella sp.
were studied for the presence of associated with downtime procedures have thermophilic free-living amoebae, including minimal impact beyond these locations. Even N. Jowlen. Presence of pathogenic N. Jowlen within plant boundaries, detectable airborne was demonstrated by mouse inoculations. Legionella sp. appear to be confined to very While all but one test site was positive for limited areas. In these areas, however, the thermophilic free-living amoebae, only two more contact individuals have with the most test sites were positive for pathogenic N. concentrated Legionella sp.
Jowlen. Pathogenic N. Jowlen were not found populations-particularly if these become in control source waters (NUREG/CR- aerosolized as they do in some downtime 2980). A recent analysis of heated water operations-the more likely it becomes that from a nuclear plant that began operations workers may be exposed.
within the past 3 years also showed the presence of N. Jowlen. Water from the plant D-5 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAG10001365_01041
AQUATIC MICROORGANISMS APPENDIXD Exposure to Legionella sp. from power plant REFERENCES operations, while a potential problem for a subset of the work force, would not Berendt, R. F., et al., "Dose-Response of generally impact the public because Guinea Pigs Experimentally Infected concentrated aerosols of the bacteria would with Aerosols of Legionella not traverse plant boundaries. Plant pneumophila," Journal InJectious personnel most likely to come in contact Diseases, 141(2), 186, 1980.
with Legionella aerosols would be workers Butt, C., "Primary Amoebic Meningoen-who dislodge biofilms, where Legionella are cephalitis," New England Journal of often concentrated, such as during cleaning Medicine, 274, 1473-76, 1966.
of condenser tubes and cooling towerS. Since Carter, R. F., "Description of a Naegleria sp.
Legionellosis is a respiratory disease, Isolated from Two Cases of Primary workers engaged in such activities should be Amoebic Meningoencephalitis," Journal protected by wearing appropriate respiratory of Pathology, 100,217-44, 1970.
protection. Cerva, L., "Studies of Limax Amoebae in a Swimming Pool," Hydrobiologia, 38, Because the route of infection with N. 141-61, 1971.
Jowleri is nasal, workers exposed to aerosols DeJonckheere, J. F., "Quantitative Study of of this pathogen also should be protected Naegleria Jowleri in Surface Waters,"
with respiratory protection. If involved in Protistogica, 14, 475-81, 1978.
underwater maintenance or other activities Duma, R. J., et al., "Primary Amoebic, associated with thermally altered discharge Meningoencephalitis: A Survey in waters known to harbor N. Jowleri, workers Virginia," Archives of Environmental should wear appropriate gear to prevent Health, 23, 43-47, 1971.
entry of the amoebae into the nasal cavity. EPRIIEA-3153, S. W. Christensen et al.,
The observed risk to swimmers from waters Legionnaire's Disease Bacterium in Power infected with N. lowleri is low but not zero Plant Cooling Systems: Phase I Final (Hallenbeck and Brenniman 1989). Report, Electric Power Research Nevertheless, heavily used bodies of fresh Institute, Palo Alto, California, 1983.
water merit special attention and possibly EPRIIEA-4017, R. L. Tyndall et al.,
routine monitoring for pathogenic Naegleria. Legionnaires'Disease Bacteria in Power Policies for public swimming and water Plant Cooling Systems: Phase II Final skiing in plant discharges known or Report, Electric Power Research suspected to harbor N. Jowleri should be Institute, Palo Alto, California, 1985.
reviewed by state health departments. Since Fliermans, C. B., et al., "Isolation of Naegleria concentrations in fresh water can Naegleria Jowleri from Artificially Heated be enhanced by thermal additions, nuclear Waters," Journal Thermal Biology, 4, power plants that utilize cooling lakes, 303-6, 1979.
canals, ponds, or small rivers may enhance Fliermans, C. B., et al., "Ecological the naturally occurring thermophilic Distribution of Legionella pneumophila,"
organisms. Applied Environmental Microbiology, 41(1), 9-16, 1981.
Fliermans, C. B., "Ecological Niche of Legionella pneumophila," Critical Reviews in Microbiology, 1985.
NUREG*1437. Vol. 2 D*6 OAG10001365_01042
APPENDIX 0 AQUATIC MICROORGANISMS Fraser, D. W., et aI., "Nonpneumonic, NUREG/CR-2980, R. L. Tyndall, Presence Short-Incubation-Period Legionellosis of Pathogenic Micro-Organisms in Power (Pontiac Fever) in Men Who Cleaned a Plant Cooling Waters, Report for Steam Turbine Condenser," Science, October 1, 1979 to September 30, 1981, 205,690-91, 1979. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Hallenbeck, W. H., and G. R. Brenniman, Ridge, Tennessee, 1981.
"Risk of Fatal Amoebic NUREG/CR-3364 (ORNLffM-8809), R. L.
Meningoencephalitis from Waterborne Tyndall, Presence of Pathogenic Naegleria fowleri," Environmental Microorganisms in Power Plant Cooling Management, 13(2), 227-32, 1989. Waters: Final Report for October 1, 1981, Hecht, R. H., et aI., "Primary Amebic to June 30, 1983, Oak Ridge National Meningoencephalitis in California," Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, California Medicine, 117,69-73, 1972. 1983.
Huizinga, H. W., and G. L. McLaughlin, Rondanelli, E. G., ed., "Infectious "Thermal Ecology of Naegleria Fowleri Diseases," Color Atlas Monographs 1, from a Power Plant Cooling Reservoir," Amphizoic Amoebae Human Pathology, Applied Environmental Microbiology, Pi'ccin, Pavia, Italy, 1987.
2200-05, July 1990. Thornsberry, c., et aI., eds., Legionella, Lattimer, G. L., and R. A Ormsbee, Proceedings of the 2nd International Legionnaires' Disease, Mercel Dekker, Symposium, American Society for New York, 1981. Microbiology, Washington, D.C., 1984.
McDade, J. E., et aI., "Legionnaires' Wong, M. M., et aI., "Experimental Disease: Isolation of a Bacterium and Infections with Pathogenic Free-Living Demonstration of Its Role in Other Amoebae in Laboratory Primate Hosts.
Respiratory Disease," New England (A) A Study of Susceptibility to Journal of Medicine, 'NT, 1197-203, N. fowleri," Journal Parasitol, 61, 1977. 199-208, 1975.
NUREG/CR-1207 (ANL/ES-83), A P.
Adams and B. A G. Lewis, Microbial Aerosols from Cooling Towers and Cooling Sprays: A Pilot Study, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois, 1979.
D-7 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAG10001365_01043
OAG10001365_01044 ApPENDIX E RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT LICENS;E RENEWAL NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAG10001365_01045
OAG10001365_01046 RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT LICENSE RENEWAL R~diological issues are associated with the their basic standards, and scientific process of refurbishment and with normal consensus on an international basis is operation in the period after license ensured. The standards are published in the renewal. Both occupational personnel and Federal Register for public comment before members of the public will be affected by issuance in final form, and public hearings these processes as a result of radiation are often held.
exposures in the plants and as a result of small losses of radioactive materials in the gaseous and liquid effluents. E.2 RADIATION PROTECllON STANDARDS This appendix is intended to provide pertinent background information for E.21 Occupational analyses and to supplement discussions in the Generic Environmental Impact E.21.1 Basic Standards Statement (GElS).
The occupational radiation protection standards of primary interest are those for E.1 TIlE REGUlATORY STANDARDS exposure of the whole body. These standards PROCESS have changed at different times, as shown in Table E.1. The downward trend is evident, Government agencies establish basic from 1.0 R/week (or 50 Rlyear) in 1947 to radiation protection standards that are the current 5.0 rem/year total effective dose consistent with guidance to federal agencies equivalent (TED E). The table does not issued by the President. This guidance is reveal the fact that, before introduction of prepared by interagency committees and the TEDE quantity, the permitted dose from reflects recommendations published by radionuclides deposited in the body was in expert groups such as the International addition to the permitted dose from external Commission on Radiological Protection sources. The dose data for nuclear power (ICRP) and the National Cbuncil on plant (NPP) workers are presented in Radiation Protection and Measurements Section E.3.1. .
(NCRP). In the preparation of their reports, the ICRP and NCRP scientific committees The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (ABC) rely heavily on information published by the regulatory/Nuclear Regulatory Commission United Nations Scientific Committee on the (NRC) standards in 10 CFR Part 20 have Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) changed infrequently. Tables E.2 and E.3 and other publicly available information. The present a summary of the occupational UNSCEAR reports contain detailed standards which were in effect from 1960 radiobiological and epidemiological through 1990 (old Part 20) and standards in informatio.n that has been acquired on a effect from 1991 (new Part 20). On an worldwide basis. Through this system, the annual basis, the whole-body limit has U.S. federal agencies maintain consistency in decreased from 15 R (3 R/quarter) in 1957 E-3 NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 OAG10001365_01047
RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIX E Table E.1 Occupational radiation d~ limits for the whole bodf Year NCRpi' ICRpI' Federal guidance AECIDOEb AEC-RI;!:G/NRC" 1947 O.l/day 0.2/day O.l/day 0.5/week 1.0/week 1949 0.3/week 1950 3.0/week 0.3/week 1954 3.0/quarter 3.0/quarter O.3/week 0.3/week 1957 0.3/week 1958 3.0/quarter 3.0/quarter 5.0/year average 0.3/week 5.0/year average 1960 3.0/quarter 3.0/quarter 5.0/year average 5.0/year average 1961 l.25/quarter or 3.0/quarter with S.O/year average 1965 3.0/quarter 5.0/year maximum 1971 3.0/quarter 5.0/year maximum 1977 5.0/year EDE 1987 5.0/year EDE 5.0/year EDE 1988 5*.0/year EDE 1991 S.O/year TEDE aUnits: 1947-57, the roentgen; 1958-76, the rem dose equivalent (DE); 1977 to present, the rem effective dose equivalent (EDE).
The rem unit signifies the DE quantity except for the final entry in each column, where the quantity is the EDE. EDE is external, internal. or both The ICRP has announced its intention to reduce its limit to 2 rem/year total EDE, with a provision for operational flexibility. To convert rem to sievert, multiply by 001 bNCRP = National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; ICRP = International Council on Radiation Protection; AEC = Atomic Energy Commission; DOE = U.S Department of Energy; NRC = Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(external radiation only) to 5 rem effective Attachment E.A Before the new Part 20, dose equivalent (EDE) (external plus limits on the intake of radioactive material internal). Regulatory control over the intake into the body were based on the critical of radioactive materials in the workplace has organ concept. The critical organ for a always been a complex issue. Details are nuclide was the organ receiving the greatest presented as a matter of interest in radiation insult (considering its dose limit)
NUREG-1437, Vol 2 E-4 OAGI0001365 01048
APPENDIX E RADIATION PROTECI10N CONSIDERATIONS Table E.2 Occupational dose limits for adults under *Old Part 2C1' guidelines" Internal Tissue External radiation radiation Whole body 3 rem/quarter maximum, S remlyear average Lens 3 rem/quarter maximum, S remlyear average Extremities, including skin 18.75 rem/quarter All other skin 7.5 rem/quarter Thyroid 30 rem/year Bone 30 rem/year Marrow 5 rem/year Gonads 5 rem/year All other organs 15 rem/year "Old Part 20 guidelines were in effect since 1960; the new Part 20 came into effect in 1991.
Note: To convert rem to sievert, multiply by 0.01.
from the intake of a specific radionuclide in This method of control did not take into a certain chemical form. AEC/NRC licensees consideration the risk to organs other than were required to limit the quarterly intake of the critical organ. Beginning in 1991, NRC a given radionuclide to an amount that, abandoned the critical organ approach in under equilibrium conditions (rate of intake favor of the method published by the ICRP equal to the rate loss by decay or in its Publication 26 (described in elimination), would deliver to the critical Attachment E.A). Under the ICRP method, organ a dose equal to the limit for that the dose to each significantly irradiated organ. (The dose to the organ from organ is weighted according to its sensitivity.
radiation sources external to the body was The weighted doses are summed to produce not considered.) If a nuclide would not an EDE that can be added to the dose from achieve equilibrium in the critical organ external sources.
within 50 years, the quarterly intake limit would produce, at the end of 50 years, an The revised Part 20 provides additional annual dose equal to the limit for that flexibility for establishing more accurate dose organ. controls. It allows the use of actual particle-E-5 NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 OAG10001365_01049
RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIX E Table B-3 Occupational dose limits for adults under -New Part 20" guideline$'
Internal plus Tissue External radiation external radiation Whole body 5 rem/year total dose 5 remlyear total equivalent,b not to effective dose exceed 50 remlyear total equivalent,C not to dose equivalent to any exceed individual organ or tissue 50 remlyear total other than the lens of dose equivalent to the eye any individual organ or tissue other than the Lens 15 remlyear lens of the eye Extremities, including skin 50 rem/year All other skin 50 remlyear Thyroid Bone Marrow Gonads All other organs dNew Part 20 guidelines became effective in 1991.
bThe total dose equivalent is the sum of the external dose equivalent (at 1 cm depth) and the committed dose equivalent from nuclides deposited in the body.
'The total effective dose equivalent is the sum of the external dose equivalent (at 1 cm depth) and the committed effective dose equivalent from nuclides deposited in the body.
Note: To convert rem to Sievert, multiply by 0.01.
size distribution and physiochemical Although these adjustments might permit characteristics of airborne particulates to higher airborne radio nuclide concentration define site-specific derived air concentration limits to be used, the same degree of health limits. With NRC approval, these modified protection would exist because the radiation concentration limits can be used in lieu of dose (and risk) would remain the same as generic values provided in Part 20. Such that intended in the generic values.
adjustments result in the use of more precise estimates that use actual exposure conditions as compared with generic assumptions.
I NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 E-6 OAG10001365_01050
APPENDIXE RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS E.2.1.2 ALARA meeting or exceeding the ICRP overall occupational risk criterion of 1 fatality per Following the accident at Three Mile Island, 10,000 workers per year (ICRP the NRC required a number of Publication 26). In 1968, the percentage of improvements that caused the industry-wide NPP workers who received more than 5 rem annual collective dose (and the individual was 0.5 percent, and three persons had annual average) to increase temporarily. doses in excess of 12 rem. By 1986, the However, for two primary reasons, these percentage of workers receiving more than dose values soon began to decrease and 5 rem was less than 0.01 percent, and no have continued to do so. First, the NRC and individual received more than 12 rem.
a new industry organization, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, began to Two regulatory guides have been issued to demand better performance with respect to provide guidance on ALARA programs for dose reduction. Second, additional risk NPPs, one on ALARA philosophy (NRC information, primarily from the atomic bomb Regulatory Guide 8.10, Rev. 1R) and one survivor study, became available. In 1977, on implementation (NRC Regulatory the ICRP adopted risk estimates of Guide 8.8, Rev. 3). NPP licensees are 1.25 cancer fatalities and 0.4 serious genetic required to maintain and implement effects among 10,000 people (and their adequate plant procedures that contain progeny for two generations) receiving ALARA criteria. During plant licensing, 10,000 person-rem (ICRP Publication 26); in applicants commit to implement ALARA 1980, the National Academy IQf Sciences programs consistent with Regulatory Guides (NAS) published a revision of the 1972 8.8 and 8.10. The 1991 revision to 10 CFR Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation Part 20 codifies this requirement that (BEIR-I) report. The new report, BEIR-III, licensees implement a program to maintain contained a range of radiation-risk estimates radiation doses ALARA Compliance with that, together with the ICRP estimate, the commitments is required through 10 caused the risk value previously mentioned CFR Part 50 and the technical to be doubled. It was recognized that the specifications.
resulting 5 percent fatality estimate (to be associated with 5 remlyear for a working Recent developments among the Japanese lifetime) was derived from instantaneous atomic bomb survivors (as discussed in exposure, that actual lifetime occupational Section E.4) have revealed that gamma (and doses were far fewer than 250 rem as used possibly neutron) radiation delivered in the estimate, and that the estimate was uniformly at high doses and high dose rates therefore of limited use in the standards is an even more efficient carcinogen than development process. However, largely was believed (RERF TR 12-87). The new because of nonquantitative information occupational risk estimates that result imply indicating that instantaneous radiation was that an average annual dose of 0.5 rem may more carcinogenic than had been believed, not meet the ICRP criteria of one fatality efforts to ensure that radiation doses were per year among 10,000 workers. ICRP has as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) published revised recommendations were redoubled. Without specific concerning dose limits. Increased emphasis regulations, the average annual occupational on the ALARA concept is therefore dose for the nuclear power plant (NPP) indicated and is adopted in the 1991 revision worker population fell below 0.5 rem, of Part 20.
E-7 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365 01051
RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIX E E.2.2 Public the EDE, annual average concentration values [or maximum permissible E.221 Basic Standards for Dose from concentrations (MPCs)] were specified that Controlled Sources would deliver (under equilibrium conditions) the following doses to critical organs: thyroid The current federal guidance ,on radiation and bone, 1 remlyear; whole body and protection for the general public was issued gonads, 0.05 remlyear; all other organs, 0.5 in 1960 (FR 25, 97, May 18, 1960) and is remlyear (ICRP 1960). The MPCs were now undergoing revision by an interagency recommended by the ICRP and NCRP and committee chaired by the U.S. . used in 10 CFR Part 20 (until 1991). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). revised Part 20 employs the annual limits on The annual dose-equivalent limit for the intake (AL!<.) and derived air concentrations whole body specified in the 1960 guidance is (DACs) now recommended by these 0.5 rem. organizations. When these values are used, the EDE is limited to 0.1 remlyear. To For many years, the ICRP and NCRP provide additional protection for children recommended dose limits for the public that and others who are smaller than the were 10 percent of those foriworkers. "reference man" used for the calculation of During the 19805, both organizations the ALls, the new 10 CFR Part 20 specifies adopted a more conservative value of ALls and DACS based on 0.05 remlyear.
2 percent. In 1985, following a meeting of the ICRP in Paris, France, the ICRP R222 ALARA Standards released a statement that its principal limit for the whole body is 0.1 remlyear EDE In addition to the basic standards mentioned (ICRP 1985). However, a subsidiary limit of above, 10 CFR Part 50.36(a) contains 0.5 remlyear is authorized provided that the license conditions that are imposed on average dose does not exceed 0.1 remlyear. licensees in the form of technical The ICRP limit for the skin and lens of the specifications applicable to effluents from eye is 5 remlyear. In 1987, the NCRP nuclear power reactors. These specifications recommended limits of 0.1 remlyear EDE will ensure that releases of radioactive for the whole body under conditions of materials to unrestricted areas during normal continuous or frequent exposure and 0.5 operations, including expected operational remlyear for infrequent exposure (NCRP occurrences, remain ALARA Appendix I to 1987). The NCRP limit for the lens of the 10 CFR Part 50 provides numerical guidance eye, skin, and extremities is 5 remlyear. on dose-design objectives and limiting conditions for operation for light-water Prior to the 1991 version of 10 CFR Part 20, reactors (LWRs) to meet the ALARA the AEC and NRC required applicants for a requirements. As a part of the licensing license to operate a nuclear facility to process, all licensees have provided demonstrate that an individual would be reasonable assurance that the design unlikely to receive in excess of 0.5 rem to objectives will be met for all unrestricted the whole body in a year. In 1991, a limit of areas. 10 CFR Part 20 requires compliance 0.1 remlyear EDE was imposed. with EPA regulation 40 CFR Part 190, which also contains ALARA limits. The With regard to limits on radioactive material deposited in the body, until the advent of NUREG-1437, Vol 2, E-8 OAG10001365_01052
APPENDIX E RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS dose constraints are summarized in With regard to individual doses, Table E.8 Tables EA and E.S. reveals that fewer than SOO workers (O.S percent) received whole-body doses exceeding 2 rem during 1992. No worker E.3 NUCLEAR POWER PlANT exposure exceeded S rem during that EXPOSURE DATA calendar year.
E.3.l Occupational The NRC regulates the dose to the gonads and the lens of the eye by including those E.3.l.l Past Data organs in the definition of whole body. Also included in this definition are the blood-Individual occupational doses are measured forming organs, which are susceptible to by NRC licensees as required by the basic radiation-induced leukemia. No other organs NRC radiation protection standard, 10 CFR are specifically named in the definition. The Part 20. The measurement results of primary dose to the extremities and the skin is interest are those recorded for exposure of regulated, although higher doses are allowed the whole body to radiation from sources because of the lower risks. The data that are external to the body. The whole- presented in Tables E.6-E.8 for the whole body dose must be determined at a depth of body apply to the gonads, eye lens, and bone 1 cm from the surface of the body. marrow as well (neglecting attenuation).
Measurements of the whole-body dose are Data for the extremities and skin are normally derived from personal dosimeters recorded by licensees, but these data are worn by each worker. Since 1984, many of listed in NRC reports only in connection the NPPs have provided dosimetry programs with regulatory overexposures. NPP workers accredited by the National Bureau of are exposed to airborne radioactive Standards [NBS, now National Institute of material-primarily fission and corrosion Standards and Technology (NIST)]; in products-but such exposures have normally general, +/-SO percent accuracy is required. In been small in comparison with external 1988, NBSINIST accreditation became an doses. Under old Part 20, licensees were not NRC requirement. required to report inhalation exposures unless a quarterly intake limit was exceeded.
Whole-body dose data from NRC-licensed Therefore, reports of internal dose issued by L WRs are shown in Tables E.6 and E. 7 for NRC included overexposures only. Some the years 1973 through 1992. For each year, NPP licensees voluntarily include internal the number of reactors, the number of dose data in employee termination dose workers receiving measurable exposures, the reports to NRC. A study of these data workers' average annual dose, the collective indicated that for 58CO and 6OCO, the most (person-rem) dose for all reactors combined, prevalent nuclides, very few of the workers and the number of individuals exceeding had organ burdens of more than 1 percent 12 rem are given. (The collective dose is the of the maximum permissible (see Tables E.9, sum of all personal doses.) The collective E.1O, and E.ll).
and average annual doses appear to be leveling at about 30,000 person-rem and These data indicate that occupational 0.3 rem respectively. exposures within the nuclear power industry have been significantly reduced since 1973.
Individual doses are characteristically far E-9 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAG10001365_01053
RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIX E Table &4 Ten CFR Part SO, Appendix I, design objectives and annual limits on radiation doses to the general public from nuclear power plan~
Tissue Gaseous Liquid Total body 5 mrem 3 mrem Any organ (aU lO mrem pathways)
Ground-level air dose 10 mrad gamma and 30 mrad beta Any organb (all 15 mrem pathways)
Skin 15 mrem "Calculated doses.
bparticulates, radioiodines.
Note: To convert millirem to millisievert, multiply by O.Q1.
Table E.5 Forty CFR 190, Subpart B, annual limits on doses to the general public from nuclear power operations--
Tissue Limit Source Total body 25 mrem All effluents and direct radiation from nuclear power operations Thyroid, 75 mrem "
Any other organ 25 mrem "
"Calculated doses.
Note: To convert millirem to millisievert, multiply by O.Q1.
below the regulatory limit currently in effect, E.3.1.2 Considerations for the Future and the annual average is less than lO percent of the 5 remlyear limit that is The current 10 CFR Part 20 became now in effect. Effective implementation of effective in 1991. The new regulation the ALARA concept is largely responsible. adopted a 5-remlyear TEOE dose limit and The theoretical risks associated with the applies this limit to external and internal exposure data are discussed in Section E.4. doses combined. Although these constraints NUREG-1437, Vol 2 E-lO OAG10001365_01054
APPENDIX E RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS Table E.6 Occupational whole-body dose data at light-water reactors Number of Number of persons workers with Average exceeding measurable Collective dose annual Number of 12 rem in a Year doses (person-rem) dose (rem) reactors year 1973 14,780 13,962 0.94 24 1 1974 18,139 13,650 0.75 33 1 1975 25,419 20,879 0.82 44 1 1976 34,192 26,107 0.76 52 3 1977 42,266 32,508 0.77 57 1 1978 45,978 31,801 0.69 64 3 1979 64,073 39,982 0.62 67 1 1980 80,331 53,795 0.67 68 0 1981 82,106 54,144 0.66 70 1 1982 84,381 52,190 0.62 74 0 1983 85,646 56,472 0.66 75 0 1984 90,099 55,235 0.56 78 0 1985 92,870 43,042 0.46 82 2 1986 100,923 42,381 0.42 90 0 1987 104,334 40,401 0.39 96 0 1988 103,226 40,769 0.39 102 0 1989 108,252 35,930 0.33 107 0 1990 108,658 36,592 0.34 110 0 1991 98.161 28,515 0.29 111 0 1992 103,143 29,309 0.28 110 0 Source: NUREG*0713.
Note: To convert rem to sievert, multiply by 0.01.
E-ll NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 OAG10001365_01055
RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIX E Table E.7 Light-water reactor (LWR) occupational whole-body dose data for boiling-water reactors (BWRs) and pressurized-water reactors (PWRs)
I Annual average whole-body dose (rem)
Year All LWRs All BWRs All PWRs 1973 0.94 0.85 1.00 1974 0.74 0.81 0.68 1975 0.82 0.86 0.76 1976 0.75 0.71 0.79 1977 0.84 0.89 0.65 1978 0.74 0.74 0.65 1979 0.66 0.73 0.56 1980 0.72 0.87 0.52 1981 0.71 0.73 0.61 1982 0.66 0.76 0.53 1983 0.70 0.82 0.56 1984 0.59 0.66 0.49 1985 0.46 0.54 0.41 1986 0.42 0.51 0.37 1987 0.39 0.40 0.38 1988 0.40 0.45 0.36 1989 0.34 0.36 0.33 1~ 0.34 0.38 0.31 1991 0.29 0.31 0.27 1992 0.28 0.32 0.26 Source: NUREG.o713.
Note: To convert rem to sievert, multiply by 0.01 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 E-12 OAG10001365_01056
APPENDIX E RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS Table E.8 Number of workers at boiling-water reactor (BWR)~ pressurized-water reactor (PWR), and light-water reactor (LWR) installations who received whole-body doses within specified ranges during 1992 Dose range (rem) BWRs PWRs LWRs
<0.1 (measurable) 17,740 28,220 45,960 0.1-0.25 8,094 12,503 20,597 0.25-0.5 6,883 10,259 17,142 0.5-0.75 3,995 4,926 8,881 0.75-1.00 2,339 2,287 4,626 1.00-2.00 2,366 2,602 5,468 2.00-3.00 204 245 449 3.00-4.00 11 6 17 4.00-5.00 3 0 3 5.00-6.00 0 0 0 6.00-7.00 0 0 0 7.00-12.00 0 0 0
>12.00 0 0 0 Totals 42,095 61,048 103,143 Source: NUREG-0713.
Note: To convert rem to sievert, multiply by 0.01.
are more stringent, they are not expected to few, if any, workers will be affected by a have a significant impact on occupational reduction in the limit from essentially 12 to exposures at NPPs for three reasons. First, 5 remlyear.
the new regulation requires external/internal dose addition only if each type of exposure The ICRP has announced its intention to separately exceeds 0.5 rem in a year. Very reduce the 5-rem/year limit, which it few, if any, NPP workers are expected to currently recommends, to 2 rem/year, with a exceed 0.5 rem from internal sources. provision for maintaining operational Second, although the ICRP system being flexibility (Radiological Protection Bulletin, adopted by the NRC involves the No. 111). In ICRP-60, it is suggested that determination of organ doses from external the 2 remlyear be applied over defined sources (as opposed to the whole-body dose periods of 5 years. Further, provision is at 1-cm depth), the new 10 CFR Part 20 made that the effective dose should not continues to require measurement at 1 cm. exceed 5 rem in any single year.
Third, data in Tables E.6 and E.8 show that E-13 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAG10001365_01057
RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIX E Table E.9 Organ burden estimates submitted on employment termination reports from power reactors, 1975-1981 Number of Year Nuclide records Organ burden estimates 1975 S8eo 22 all burdens <1% MPOBa 6Oeo 22 all burdens < 1% MPOB 1980 S8CO 1410 98% of burdens < 1% MPOB 6OCO . 5098 98% of burdens <2% MPOB 1981 S8eo 1246 98% of burdens < 1% MPOB 6OCO 4418 98% of burdens <2% MPOB
°MPOB = maximum permissible organ burden Source' NUMARC (1989).
Table E.I0 Estimated number of workers with organ burdens (in % MPOW) from SlCo and 137Cs, 1983-1987' Y~ar <1% 1-2% 2-3% >3%
1983 8042 2 0 1 1984 5024 4 0 3 1985 2744 0 0 0 1986 2255 4 1 4 1987 1154 0 0 0
°MPOB = maximum permissible organ burden.
bO ata taken from termination reports for employees of power reactors.
Source: NUMARC (1989).
Table E.lt Estimated number of workers with organ burdens (in % MPOW) from tiOCo, 1983-1987" Year <1% 1-2% 2-3% >3%
1983 3480 8 1 0 1984 2284 4 1 3 1985 764 2 0 0 1986 772 2 1 1 1987 596 0 0 0
=
°MPOB maximum permissible organ burden.
bO ata taken from termination reports for employees of power reactors.
Source' NUMARC (1989).
NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 E-14 OAG10001365_01058
APPENDIX E RAI;lIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS E.3.2 Public adding the individual doses received by this population. For 1989, the total number of The radiation dose to people who live in the person-rem varied from a low of 0.0017 at vicinity of a V.S. NPP averages about Grand Gulf to a high of 16 at McGuire.
0.8 J.1rem/year. Pertinent data are provided in Seventy-five percent of the total came from the following paragraphs. 9 of the 67 sites, as shown in Table E.14. In the site summaries section of each report, Each year, the NRC issues a report titled dose data for each site are provided for Population Dose Commitments Due to airborne and waterborne pathways and are Radioactive Releases from Nuclear Power categorized by total body and individual Plant Sites in xxxx. The most recerit organs. The doses received by workers at the volume covers the year 1989 (NUREG/CR- plants and members of the public are shown 2850, vol. 11, February 1993) (see in Table E.13 for comparison.
Table E.12). Radioactive material is released in gaseous and aqueous effluents under Projections into the future can be made on stringently controlled conditions in the basis of current trends. Therefore, an accordance with technical specifications and analysis of dose commitment information NRC regulations. The term "dose was performed. The first objective was to commitment" indicates that the reported determine to what extent known information doses come from the inhalation and about the sites could be used to predict what ingestion of radionuclides, as well as from the dose commitment values for the sites external radiation from noble gases; the were for the years 1979-1989. The second population dose caused by direct radiation objective, if prediction of current dose from plant buildings is negligible. The doses commitments could be done adequately, was are calculated by the licensees in accordance to use the models to predict future dose with guidance provided by the NRC and commitment for U.S. sites by extrapolating based on measurements made at the point into future years the characteristics used in of release as well as in the environment. the model and the population projections for These measurements are performed and the sites. Table E.15 portrays information recorded by the licensees; however, the that was available about V.S. nuclear power NRC conducts its own verification reactor sites.
measurements. The prescribed calculation methods include several basic assumptions to Using these variables, other site ensure that the results are conservative. characteristics were computed. These include Table E.13 presents results obtained for a the following:
15-year period ending in 1989. The numerical entries are person-rem received by
- Interval from startup to observation those who live within an 80-km (50-mile) (calendar year-year of startup).
radius of a site; data for individual sites also
- Status. This variable was based on the appear in this report. capacity factor. If the capacity factor was below 25 percent for the year, the site The total population dose within 80 km was designated as "down." If the (50 miles) of each plant is calculated capacity factor was above 25 percent, (Table 4 in NUREG/CR 2850, vol. 11) for status was designated as "up" for that each operating reactor in the United States. year. The cutoff point was chosen based The number of person-rem is obtained by on the observation that sites generally E-15 NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 OAG10001365_01059
RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIX E Table B12 Individual public dose data from power plant effluents, 1988 Individual dose range (mrem) Percent of total Cumulative percent o to 0.000001 6% 6%
0.000001 to 0.(l()()O1 4% 10%
0.00001 to 0.00003 18% 28%
0.00003 to 0.0001 30% 58%
0.0001 to 0.0003 21% 79%
0.0003 to 0.001 13% 92%
0.001 to 0.003 5% 97%
0.003 to 0.01 < 2% 99%
0.01 to 0.03 <1% 100%
Source NUREG/CR-2850.
Note: To convert millirem to millisievert, multiply by 001.
were either substantially below that value or the linear model, based on the proportion of above it by a large margin. Status is a variability accounted for by the model.
categorical variable representing the level of operation for a given year. Because population total dose commitment is the sum of the estimated population liquid
- Total output, which is the product of dose commitment and the population air total megawatt size and capacity factor dose commitment, the liquid and air and is an estimate of output for a given components were estimated separately, and year. A linear model was fitted to the the sum of the two estimates was used as dose data using combinations of the the model estimate for the total population above variables as independent variables. dose commitment. This proved to produce a Clearly, observed doses cannot be better estimate than did a direct fit to the negative, and the model predictions also population total dose commitment.
should not be negative. For this reason, the linear model was fit to In(dose). The To determine the best fit, various resulting model was then of the form combinations of independent variables were tried based on percentage of total variability Dose = exp (linear function of independent accounted for by the model. Not all variables variables) . can be included at one time because some are determined by combinations of others.
The resulting model also provided a Because all boiling water reactors (BWRs) considerably improved fit to the data over in this analysis were manufactured by General Electric Co. (GE), it was not NUREG-1437, Vol 2 E-16 OAG10001365_01060
APPENDIX E RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS Table E.13 Summary of population and occupational doses (person-rem) for all operating nuclear power plants combined Population Year Liquid Air Total Occupational 1975 76 1,300 1,300 20,879 1976 82 390 470 26,107 1977 160 540 700 32,508 19 8 110 530 640 31,801 7
1979 220 1,600 1,800 39,982 1980 120 57 180 53,795 1981 87 63 150 54,144 1982 50 87 140 52,190 1983 95 76 170 56,472 1984 160 120 280 55,235 1985 91 110 200 43,042 1986 71 44 110 42,381 1987 56 22 78 40,401 1988 65 9.6 75 40,769 1989 68 16 84 35,980 1990 _Q 35,592 1991 28,515 1992 29,309 QData not available.
Source: NUREG/CR-2850; NUREG-0713.
Note: To convert person-rem to person-sievert, multiply by 0.01.
E-17 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365 01061
RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIX E Table E.14 Highest public dose data from nuClear power plant effiuents, 1988 Population within Population dose 50 miles (80 krn) Average individual Plant (person-rem) (persons) dose (mrem)
McGuire 16 1,800,000 0.0091 Summer 13 900,000 0.014 Zion 7.2 7,300,000 0.001 E. I. Hatch 6.4 350,000 0.018 Clinton 4 2,700 0.0015 Oconee 3.8 9,900 0.0039 Oyster Creek 2.2 3,600,000 0.0006 Harris 1.8 1,400,000 0.0013 Calvert Cliffs 1.7 2,800 0.00061 All sites 75 150,000,000" 0.0005 QThis figure is inflated because not all sites are 100 miles apart, and some persons within each 50-mile radius were counted more than once.
Source Adapted from NUREG/CR-2850.
Note: To convert person-rem to person-Sievert or miJlirem to millisievert, multiply by 0.01.
Table E.15 Information on U_S. nuclear power reactor sites that was used to model future trends Age-time characteristics Reactor operating characteristics Year of first startup (first year of Total megawatt capacity by calendar year (sum operation of any reactor at the site) of capacities of all reactors)
Calendar year (year of observation of Capacity factor by calendar year (percentage of dose value) total megawatt capacity output in calendar year)
Site reactor type (boiling water or pressurized water)
Reactor manufacturer (if more than one, designated mixed). Manufacturers were General Electric Company, Westinghouse, Combustion Engineering, Babcock-Wilcox, and mixed NUREG-1417, Vol 2 E-18 OAGI0001365 01062
APPENDIX E RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS possible to include both site type because it represented an accident scenario
[BWR/pressurized water reactor (PWR)] rather than routine releases, and the dose and vendor as independent variables. values were substantially larger for certain Including vendors proved to produce a years than at any other reactor sites.
better-fitting model. The independent variables that proved to be most predictive Tables E.16, E.17, and E.18 give the results of the In(dose) values included the of the linear model fitted to In(dose) for following: liquid, air, and average individual doses, respectively. If a variable (startup year, for
- calendar year, example) has a different pattern in the two
- year of startup, site types, the p value for each site type is
- size in megawatts, given because an overall value is no longer
- vendor or manufacturer, and meaningful. The overall model accounts for
- status (up or pown). approximately 42 percent of the variation in the In(air dose) values.
The first three variables are continuous and are included as covariates in the model. The Overall, liquid doses are r:nuch less last two are categorical variables and are predictable than air doses, as the resulting treated as class variables in the model. model fit for the liquid doses indicates. For Because the manufacturer proved to be an liquid doses, the best-fitl ing model important factor in the relationship of dose accounted for only about 20 percent of the to the independent variables, the vendor was overall variability in the model.
taken into account for each reactor in the prediction equations. To do this, estimates of The linear model accounts for 27 percent of the coefficients (and significance) for the the variability in the log of the average remaining independent variables were made individual dose commitment values.
separately for the vendor categories.
Because the covariates were estimated within Using the coefficients estimated within the the different manufacturer (vendor) analysis, it is evident that the population categories, differences in the values of the dose commitments by site and by calendar covariates among vendors are not taken into year are being systematically lowered.
account when vendors are compared. Thus, Results of the analysis were used to plot for example, if sites with GE reactors have historical data against predicted doses. (See larger megawatt capacities than do other example figures in Attachment E.C.) These reactors, that difference influences the figures portray how each reactor has comparisons for the vendors. performed with respect to other reactors in its class (i.e., age, size, and vendor). The Three sites proved to be highly variable in dominant theme is the decline in population dose commitments and thus tended to dose commitment, observed nearly unduly influence the linear model fit: universally. However, if the decline in dose Browns Ferry, Nine Mile Point, and Oyster to the public suddenly ceased, levels are Creek (all of which were GE BWRs). To sufficiently low that they already represent exclude undue influence of these three sites an insignificant insult to humans.
on the results, the results reported are those for the model fitted to the subset, not Data on maximally exposed individuals from including these sites. Three Mile Island airborne emissions are also reported semi-(Babcock-Wilcox, PWR) was also excluded annually to the NRC by each nuclear utility.
E-19 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAG10001365_01063
RADIATION PROTECI10N CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIX E Table E.16 Linear model for estimation of liquid dose Parameter Significance (Pr > T) Remarks Vendor 0.0001 Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) manufactured reactors have significantly higher liquid doses than do reactors made by other manufacturers; General Electric (GE) reactors are next highest. Mixed sites have the lowest liquid doses Status (by vendor) 0.01 (B&W) GE and mixed sites have higher doses from 0.10 (CEt liquid sources when they are down (below 0.05 (GE) 25 percent of theoretical maximum output).
0.06 (mix) Many mixed sites are partly GE reactors.
0.21 (Westinghouse) Reactors made by all other manufacturers, all of which are PWRsb, have lower doses when they are operating below 25 percent capacity (classified as down)
Calendar year (by 0.39 Liquid emissions are not decreasing vendor) significantly with time for any of the five types, although the coefficients are negative except for the mixed sites. Thus the general trend with time is for air doses to be decreasing considerably, while doses from liquid sources are not decreasing significantly. The decreasing trend in total dose commitment is caused by the lower air dose estimates Year of startup (by 0.29 (B&W) Liquid doses are higher in older reactors only vendor) 0.80 (CE) for GE reactor sites. For others, there is not a 0.0001 (GE) significant trend with reactor age (start year) 0.11 (mix) 0.63 (Westinghouse)
Total size, MW 0.57 (B&W) For GE and Westinghouse reactors, the larger (by vendor) 0.19 (CE) sites had higher liquid doses. The increase in 0.0001 (GE) liquid dose with megawatt capacity was much 0.78 (mix) higher for GE reactors than for the other types 0.03 (Westinghouse) aCE = Combustion Engineering hPWRs = pressurized-water reactors.
NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 E-20 OAG10001365_01064
APPENDIX E RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS Table E.17 Linear model for estimation of air dose" Parameter Significance (Pr > T) Remarks Vendor 0.0003 Manufacturer with highest air doses is Babcock-Wilcox [but highly variable-next highest is General Electric (GE)]. Lowest is Combustion Engineering (CE)
Status (by vendor) 0.0001 For all reactor types (manufacturers), air doses decrease significantly when the reactor is operating at less than 25 percent capacity.
This is not necessarily true for doses from liquid sources Calendar year 0.005 Air doses are decreasing with calendar year (by vendor) (for 1979-87) for all reactor types. Rate of decrease is fastest for GE reactors. Rate of decrease is much smaller for CE reactors than for others, partly because these are lower to begin with Year of startup 0.02 (B&W) With the exception of CE, all types have (by vendor) 0.004 (CE) higher air doses in older reactors. For CE, 0.0001 (GE) newer reactors have higher doses 0.13 (mixed) 0.0001 (Westinghouse)
Total size, MW 0.0001 Larger reactors had higher air doses. This (by vendor) relationship was strong and was a major contributor to the prediction of dose for each reactor site. This held true for all manufacturers but was much less evident in B& W reactors. The increase in air dose with size was largest for GE and Westinghouse reactors DThe overall model accounts for approximately 42 percent of the variation in the In(air dose) values.
These data for the period 1985-1987 were exposed individual is orders of magnitude compiled in NUMARC (1989). These data less.
are presented in Table E.19. Inspection of this table reveals that the highest organ and The NRC design criteria for NPPs are thyroid exposures to the maximally exposed 5 mremlyear from stack releases plus individual are on the order of 5 mrem. The 3 mrem from aqueous effluents. The EPA exposure level for the typical maximally annual dose limit (fuel cycle facilities) is 25 mrem. The anticipated new NRC limit from E-21 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365 01065
RADiATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIX E Table E.18 Linear model for estimation of aver,'ge individual dose commitment Parameter Significance (Pr > T) Remarks Vendor 0.0001 General Electric (GE)-manufactured reactors have significantly higher individual doses than do reactors by other manufacturers.
Status (by vendor) 0.08 (B&W) Sites with GE reactors have higher individual 0.11 (CE) doses when they are down. This is 0.04 (GE) presumably because of the higher liquid 0.96 (mix) doses. The doses from other manufacturers' 0.09 (Westinghouse) reactors generally decrease, but not significan tly.
Calendar year (by 0.63 (B&W) Only significant for GE and Westinghouse vendor) 0.98 (CE) reactors, for which individual doses have 0.04 (GE) been decreasing continuously through 0.18 (mix) successive calendar years.
0.04 (Westinghouse)
Year of startup (by 0.94 (B&W) For GE sites, older reactor sites have vendor) 0.47 (CE) significantly higher individual dose estimates.
0.0001 (GE) For Westinghouse and mixed sites, the 0.007 (mix) newer sites have higher individual dose 0.02 (Westinghouse) commitments Total size, MW 0.0001 Same relationship as for the air doses.
(by vendor) Larger sites have higher estimated individual dose commitments because of the air dose component all sources (other than medical and natural and known as the BEIR-V Committee. The background) is 100 mremlyear. It is evident BEIR-V report concluded that the risk of that these plants are operating far below radiation exposure was greater than government requirements with respect to previously estimated. The bases and effluent control. limitations of these estimates are described in Section E.4.1 of this GElS.
E.4 RISKS FROM RADIATION In light of these data, the ICRP requested EXPOSURE comment from a number of organizations on a draft of its revised recommendations on In January 1990, the National Research radiation protection (ICRP/60/G-01); on Council-NAS published a report on the June 22, 1990, the ICRP issued a press health effects of exposure to low levels of release recommending more stringent ionizing radiation (BEIR-V). This report was control over occupational exposures. These prepared by a committee on BEIR developments are very likely to affect the organized by the council for this purpose regulation of NPPs in the future but only NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 E-22 OAG10001365_01066
APPENDIXE RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS Table E.19 Doses, (mrem) to the maximally exposed individual from routine airborne emissio~
1985 1986 1987 Total Total Total Plant Unit Docket body Thyroid body Thyroid body Thyroid Arkansas One 1 50-313 NRb NR 0.0017 0.036 0.0023 0.0070 2 50-368 0.0060 0.83 0.0044 0.0054 Beaver Valley 1 50-334 NR NR 0.023 0.092 0.0014 0.0017 2
Bellefonte Nuclear Plant 1 NR NR NR NR NR NR 2
Big Rock Point Nuclear 1 NR NR NR NR NR NR Plant Braidwood Station 1 NR NR NR NR NR NR 2
Browns Ferry Nuclear 1 50-296 0.060 NR NR NR NR NR Power Station 2 3
Brunswick Steam Electric 1 50-324 NR NR NR NR 0.028 0.093 Plant 2 Byron Station 1 NR NR NR NR NR NR 2
callaway Plant 1 calvert Cliffs Nuclear 1 50-317 NR NR NR NR NR 0.44 Power Plant 2 catawba Nuclear Station 1 50413 0.88 NR 2.2 NR 0.89 0.67 2
Clinton Power Station 1 NR NR NR NR NR NR Comanche Peak Steam 1 NR NR NR NR NR NR Electric Station 2 Donald C. Cook Nuclear 1 50-315 0.057 1.9 0.020 0.27 0.024 1.3 Power Plant 2 Cooper Nuclear Station 50-298 0.57 0.60 0.40 0.56 0.018 0.097 Crystal River Nuclear Plant 3 50-302 0.022 0.31 0.21 0.0038 0.20 0.027 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power 50-346 0.0081 0.056 0.00064 0.00064 0.12 0.040 Station Diablo canyon Nuclear 1 50-275 NR 0.0014 NR 0.0043 NR 0.0047 Power Plant 2 50-323 NR 0.0041 NR 0.0035 NR 0.0029 See footnotes at end of table.
E-23 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAG10001365_01067
RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIX E Table E.19 (continued) 1985 1986 1987 Total Total Total Plant Unit Docket body Thyroid body Thyroid body Thyroid Dresdep Nuclear Power 2 50-249 NR NR NR NR NR NR Station 3 Duane Arnold Energy NR NR NR NR NR NR Center Joseph M. Farley Nuclear 1 50-348 013 0.18 0.12 0.090 0.081 0.054 Plant 2 Enrico Fermi Atomic power 2 NR NR NR NR NR NR Plant James A fitzPatrick Nuclear 1 NR NR NR NR NR NR Power Plant Fort Calhoun Station NR NR NR NR NR NR Robert Emmett Ginna NR NR NR NR NR NR Nuclear Power Plant Grand Gulf Nuclear Station 50-416 0090 NR 0068 NR 0.34 094 Haddam Neck Point 50-213 1.0 0.14 0.39 0087 0.66 0073 (Connecticut Yankee)
Shearon Harris 1 50-400 NR NR NR NR 0.022 0.022 Nuclear Power Plant Edwin I Hatch Nuclear 1 50-321 0.093 0.00065 0.0040 0.29 0.13 0.26 Plant 2 Hope Creek Generating NR NR NR NR NR NR Station Indian Point Station 2 50-286 0.00078 0029 000049 0062 NR NR 3
Kewaunee Nuclear Power 1 50-305 NR NR 0.12 0.013 0.00001 0.022 Plant laSalle Country Station 1 NR NR NR NR NR NR 2
William B McGuire Nuclear 1 50-369 NR NR 015 NR 0.081 NR Station 2 50-370 1.8 26 NR 0.42 0.0036 NR Millstone Nuclear Power 1 50-245 0.007 0.0007 0.22 0.0007 0.083 0.0015 Plant 2 50-336 0015 0038 0.01 0.043 0.013 0.04 3 50-423 NR NR 0.00052 0.1 0.017 0.014 See footnotes at end of table NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 E-24 OAGI0001365 01068
APPENDIX E RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS Table E.19 (continued) 1985 1986 1987 Total Total Total Plant Unit Docket body Thyroid body Thyroid body Thyroid Monticello Nuclear 50-263 NR 1.3 NR 1.2 NR 2.6 Generating Plant Nine Mile Point Nuclear 1 NR NR NR NR NR NR Station 2 North Anna Power Station 1 50-338 NR 1.3 NR 0.80 NR 0.44 2
Oconee Nuclear Station 1 50-287 0.15 NR 0.087 0.97 NR NR 2
Oyster Creek Generating 1 50-219 1.4 8.8 4.3 0.81 0.17 17 Station Palisades Nuclear Plant 1 50-2..';5 NR 0.10 NR 0.0073 NR NR Palo Verde Generating 1 Station 2 3
Peach Bottom Atomic Power 2 50-278 0041 1.2 0.12 0.70 O.ot5 0.13 Station 3 Perry Nuclear Power Station NR NR NR NR NR NR Pilgrim Nuclear Power 50-293 0.49 0.18 0.027 0.064 NR NR Station Prairie Island Nuclear 1 50-232 NR NR NR NR NR NR Generating Plant 2 Point Beach Nuclear Plant 1 NR NR NR NR NR NR 2
Quad-Cities Station 1 50-2..';4 0.0020 0.16 NR NR 0.0025 0.12 2 50-265 00020 0.16 NR NR 0.0021 0.10 H. B. Robinson Plant 2 50-261 NR NR 0.016 0.35 0.068 0.11 Salem Nuclear Generating Station 1 50-311 0.016 NR 0.028 NR 0.047 NR 2
San Onofre Nuclear 1 50-206 NR 0.16 NR NR NR 0.014 Generating Station 2 50-361 NR 0.41 NR 0.14 NR 0.049 3
Seabrook Station NR NR NR NR NR NR Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 1 50-327 0.19 0.054 0.0020 NR NR NR 2'
See footnotes at end of table E-25 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2
"
OAG10001365_01069
RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIXE Table R19 (continued) 1985 1986 1987 Total Total Total Plant Unit Docket body Thyroid body Thyroid body Thyroid Shoreham Nuclear Power NR NR NR NR NR NR Statiori South Texas Project 1 NR NR NR NR NR NR 2
St. Lucie Plant 1 50-335 0.013 4.2 0.011 5.8 0.0023 0.76 2 50-389 0.0062 24 0.0021 0.89 0.0028 1.1 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 1 50-395 NR NR 0.00051 NR 0.00000 NR Station 1 Surry Power Station 1 50-281 NR NR NR 0.035 NR 0.36 2
Susquehanna Steam Electric 1 50-238 0.10 0.14 0.0069 NR 0.011 NR Station 2 Three Mile Island Nuclear 1 50-289 NR NR 0019 NR 0.0028 NR Station Trojan Nuclear Plant 50-344 0.069 NR NR NR NR NR Turkey Point Plant 3 50-250 NR NR 00038 0.032 0.0087 0.20 4 50-251 NR NR 0.0042 0.025 0.0088 0.22 Vermont Yankee Nuclear 1 50-271 NR NR NR NR NR 0.42 Power Station Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 1 NR NR NR NR NR NR 2
Washington Nuclear Project 2 50-220 NR NR 0.013 048 0024 0.73 Wolf Creek Generation NR NR NR NR NR NR Station Yankee Nuclear Power 50-29 NR NR NR NR NR NR Station Zion Nuclear Plant 1 50-295 0.044 0'(Xl78 0.092 0.029 000047 NR 2
DData compiled from semi-annual reports submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by each nuclear utility.
Adapted from NUMARC 1989.
bNot recorded in source document.
Note: To convert millirem to millisievert, multiply by 0.01.
NT'!!! :;-1-t'7, Vol 2 E-26
.
OAG10001365_01070
APPENDIX E RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS after the current Presidential Guidance to by less radiation than previously believed.
Federal Agencies is modified to take them However, the opposite effect was observed into account. With regard to this GElS, the among the Hiroshima survivors. The new primary importance of these developments dose estimates include more structural lies in the selection of the most appropriate shielding and also include shielding by radiation risk coefficients to use for tissues overlying the affected organs.
evaluating health effects; it is therefore necessary to recount earlier developments. The second development concerned the number of survivors who later died from E.4.1 Background solid tumors, which was greater than had been anticipated. In the 1980 BEIR-III E.4.1.1 Stochastic Effects report, the committee expressed its preference for a risk model that essentially In 1972, NAS had sufficient epidemiological assumed that subsequent excess death rates information, primarily from the study of would be similar to those already observed.
Japanese atomic bomb survivors, to publish However, within a few years, publications (in BEIR-I) a radiation risk estimate that issued by the Radiation Effects Research was widely interpreted as 1 cancer fatality Foundation (RERF) reported a departure among 10,000 people receiving from this model, attributable to deaths from 10,000 person-rem. This estimate was solid tumors (RERF TR 12-87). The newer applicable to large populations receiving data tend to fit a model that predicts that acute doses instantaneously, such as persons the excess cancer deaths from atomic-bomb exposed to nuclear-weapon explosions. The radiation will be a constant percentage validity of such estimates for large or small increase over the cancer deaths from all doses received over a lifetime was (and other causes. In consideration of these remains) unknown. With additional findings, federal agencies began to use a risk information from the atomic bomb survivor estimate of 4 or 5 excess cancer deaths study, the NAS in 1980 published (in BEIR- among 10,000 people receiving 10,000 III) a range of radiation-risk estimates that, person-rem. For example, the EPA used 4 in general, doubled federal agencies' per 10,000 to arrive at the 10 mremlyear estimates. It was recognized that the new limit promulgated in 40 CPR Part 61 (FR estimates were derived from instantaneous 54,9612, March 7, 1989). NRC used 5 per exposure data and were therefore of limited 10,000 in the development of its Below use in the standards development process. Regulatory Concern: Policy Statement (1990).
The BEIR-III committee's linear quadric The following statement appears in the dose-response model for solid cancers did, executive summary of the BEIR-V report:
however, contain an implicit dose rate factor of nearly 2.5. On the basis of the available evidence, the population-weighted Subsequently, two developments in the average lifetime excess risk of death atomic bomb survivor study caused another from cancer following an acute dose doubling of the overall risk estimate. First, a equivalent to all body organs of reassessment of the radiation doses received 0.1 Sv [0.1 Gy of low-linear energy by the survivors was completed (National transfer (LET) radiation] is Research Council 1987). This study indicated estimated to be 0.8 percent, although that any gamma*radiation-induced the lifetime risk varies considerably malignancies at Nagasaki had been caused with age at the time of exposure. For E-27 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365 01071
RADIATION PROTECI10N CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIX E low-LET radiation, accumulation of
- some combination c ~hese conditions the same dose over weeks or months, exists, or however, is expected to reduce the
- any of an almost infinite list of lifetime risk appreciably, possibly by unknowns applies.
a factor of 2 or more.
The risk estimate published in the 1990
~e 0.8 percent estimate is equivalent to BEIR-V report is consistent with estimates 800 excess cancer fatalities among 100,000 published earlier by RERF scientists (RERF people, each exposed to 10 rem. It is TR 12-87) and by UNSCEAR (1988). Their important to note that the risk values estimates, shown in Table E.20, reveal the tabulated in the report are for a population greater susceptibility of populations that size of 100,000 and that the 0.8 percent include children, as well as the reduced estimate is applicable to instantaneous, effects if the radiation doses are low and uniform irradiation of all organs. With delivered at low dose rates (Le., protracted).
regard to the lower extreme of the dose In the pertinent literature, this phenomenon range over which the estimate is applicable, of reduced effects is usually referred to as the committee observes elsewhere in the the dose rate effectiveness factor (DREF).
BEIR-V report that "In general, the Risk estimates for instantaneous exposure estimates of risk derived in this way for are divided by the DREF to obtain estimates doses of less than 0.1 Gy are too small to be that can be applied to protracted exposure detectable by direct observation in conditions. Lack of data on humans dictates epidemiological studies." primary reliance on animal studies for DREF estimates. For the values reported in An absorbed dose of 0.1 Gy corresponds to Table E.20, a DREF of 2.5 was used by the a gamma radiation dose equivalent of 10 RERF authors. A DREF range of 2 to 10 rem. It is also important to note that the was used in the UNSCEAR report.
report does not provide a risk estimate for instantaneous doses of fewer than 10 rem. For its new reactor safety study, the NRC The committee's estimate is considered has published a DREF of 3 useful for estimating fatalities among large (NUREG/CR-4214). In the 1990 BEIR-V populations, including all ages, that are report, a DREF of 2 or more is mentioned irradiated instantaneously and uniformly to for low-LET radiation (gamma) as previously individual external radiation doses of 10 rem quoted; and a DREF of 4 is given as the or more. Risk assessments based on the "single best estimate" for tumorigenesis Japanese experience are on~y theoretical identified in laboratory animal studies. The under the following conditiqns: ICRP is considering the use of a DREF of 2 in the forthcoming major revision of its
- exposures are protracted, recommendations. The DREF question is
- the people are irradiated nonuniformly, critical to risk assessments and to decisions
- the exposed population is small, regarding dose limits and ALARA
- individual doses are fewer than 10 rem, requirements.
- the irradiation is caused by internally deposited radionuclides, Table E.21 shows the progression in the risk
- the exposed population differs estimate values used by federal government significantly from the atomic bomb agencies following the publication of survivor study group, authoritative reports on the subject, as discussed in the preceding narrative.
NUREG-1437, Vol 2 E-28 OAG10001365_01072
APPENDIX E RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS Table E.2O RERP and UNSCEARb risk coefficients; excess cancer fatalities All ages Adults RERF UNSCEAR RERF UNSCEAR High doses and 12 3-11 8 dose rates Low doses and 5 0.3-5.5 3 0.4-4 dose rates "Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) authors used a dose rate effectiveness factor (DREF) of 2.5.
bUnited Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) authors used a DREF range of 2 to 10.
Table &21 Radiation risk estimates used by federal agencies following publication of the documents shown Excess cancer fatalities among 100,000 people receiving instantaneous external radiation Publication doses of 10 rem 1972 BEIR-I report 100 ICRP Publication 26 200 1980 BEIR-III report 200 RERF Publication,s 400-500 1990 BEIR-V report 800 Note: To convert millirem to millisievert, multiply by 0.01.
Note that the 1980 BEIR-III report used a survivor study are from solid tumors, DREF in the preparation of tabulated risk leukemia is now considered a small estimates and that the 1990 BEIR-V report contribution to the total risk. It is important did not. The occupational risk estimates of to recognize that if a DREF of 2 is used for current interest from both reports are given solid tumors as well as leukemia, the BEIR-in Table E.22. V fatality estimate is reduced from 2975 to 1666 excess cancer fatalities among Because 88 percent of the deaths included 100,000 adults each receiving 1 remlyear for in the later data from the atomic bomb a working lifetime.
E-29 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAG10001365_01073
RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIX E Table E.22 Radiation risk estimates to 100,000 adult workers (SO percent male and SO percent female) for continuous exposure to 1 rem/year during a working lifetime using the relative risk projection model BEIR-III BEIR-III BEIR-V Model L-oa Excess fatal cancers 551 2336 2975 dLinear-quadratic dose response model.
bLinear dose response model (combines leukemia and solid tumor deaths).
cLinear-quadratic dose response model for leukemia; linear dose response model for solid tumors.
Note: To convert rem to sievert, multiply by 0.01.
E.4.1.2 Nonstocbastic Effects ICRP Publication 41 (1983) provides the database supporting the position that, with Nonstochastic effects do not occur unless the exception of the lens of the eye, the radiation dose exceeds a threshold, nonstochastic effects will not be observed permitting the use of limiting values that among adults if every organ and tissue prevent rather than control the probabilities receives fewer than 50 remlyear. The NRC of occurrence of the effects. For parts of the is not aware of later radiobiological body (organs and tissues) such as the lens of information indicating that this dose limit the eye, the skin, and the extremities, should be changed and notes that the ICRP radiation protection standards are intended has proposed the retention of this value in primarily to control the dose from external the forthcoming revision of its sources. For the internal organs, it is recommendations (ICRP/90/G-01).
necessary to control the dose from internally deposited radioactivity as well. Because R4.2 Risk Coefficient Selection for this radiation can damage or kHI any living cell if Generic Environmental Impact the dose is sufficiently high, a nonstochastic Statement I dose limit must also be established for all tissues, including tissues other than those R4.2.1 The 1990 BEIR-V and the 1988 mentioned above. A significant point to UNSCEAR Reports consider in connection with an effect that has an accurately known threshold is that The BEIR-V risk estimate can be the implementation of the ALARA concept arithmetically converted to the more familiar to reduce doses to levels below the terminology of 8 cancer fatalities among threshold will not offer additional protection 10,000 people exposed to 10,000 person-rem, against that effect. However, if the organ or leading to a convenient expression, or risk tissue under consideration is also susceptible coefficient, of 8 x 10-4 fatalities per person-to radiation-induced cancer, such rem. This coefficient is considered useful for implementation will reduce that probability. estimating fatalities among large populations For this reason, the ALARA concept is irradiated instantaneously and uniformly to applicable to the nonstochastic inhalation individual external radiation doses of 10 rem standards. or more. However, since no DREF is included in this risk factor, as the individual NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 E-30 OAGI0001365 01074
APPENDIX E RAl)IATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS doses and the size of the exposed population A collective dose of 100 man-sievert is become progressively smaller, the fatality equivalent to 10,000 person-rem. In the 1990 estimates become speculative. As noted in BEIR-V report (p. 181), the NAS the previous section, a DREF of 2 is Committee on BEIR stated:
considered appropriate for use in the GElS analysis for license renewal. Moreover, epidemiologic data cannot rigorously exclude the existence of An additional source of uncertainty is that the threshold in the millisievert dose many of the exposed people who were range. Thus the possibility that there included in the atomic bomb survivor study may be no risks from exposures are still alive. The risk estimate is therefore comparable to external natural
- based in part on a projection of future background radiation cannot be excess cancer deaths that mayor may not ruled out. At such low doses and occur. For making this projection, the BEIR- dose rates, it must be acknowledged V committee chose a method (the relative that the lower limit on the range of risk projection model) that involves uncertainty in the risk estimates multiplying solid tumor cancer fatality rates extends to zero.
within an unexposed U.S. population by a constant percentage increase factor One millisievert is equivalent to 100 mrem.
determined for a Japanese population. The An important perspective to recognize is number of excess fatalities on which the risk that the approximately 140 million people estimates are based is epidemiologically who live within 50 miles of a U.S. NPP small. Of the 93,669 "in-city" members of receive about 43 million person-rem every the study group, 37,874 (or 40 percent) had year from natural background radiation.
died by the end of 1989; 8,422 (or 9 percent) of the deaths were caused by &4.22 Risk Coefficients Selected cancer. RERF epidemiologists estimate that 505 (or 0.5 percent) of the' cancer deaths are The risk coefficients used in this GElS are attributable to radiation from the bombs. listed in Table E.23. These coefficients are consistent with the risk factors repeated in The collective dose to a population must BEIR-V if a DREF of 2 is applied to become a great deal larger than current 88 percent of the cancer fatality risk (i.e., to doses from NPPs if health effects are to be a solid tumors) and are the same as those concern. In its 1988 report (paragraph 251), recently published by the ICRP in UNSCEAR stated: connection with a revision of its recommendations (ICRP/60/G-01).
The product of risk coefficients appropriate for individual risk and The somewhat higher public risk coefficients the relevant collective dose will give reflect the fact that individuals under age 18 the expected number of cancer at the time of exposure are more susceptible deaths in the exposed population, to radiation-induced cancer. To receive provided that the collective dose is at occupational radiation exposure, a person least of the order of 100 man Sv. If must be 18 years or older. Excess hereditary the collective dose is only a few man effects are listed separately because Sv, the most likely outcome is zero radiation-induced effects of this type have deaths. not been observed in any human population, as opposed to excess malignancies that have E-31 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAG10001365_01075
RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIX E been identified among people receiving average doses are about 0.3 rem for workers instantaneous and near-uniform exposures of (5-remlyear regulatory limit) and about 10 rem or more_ Considering the range of 1 ~rem for members of the general public uncertainty, the lower limit of the range is (25-mremlyear regulatory limit) who live assumed to be zero because there may be within 50 miles of a NPP. This performance biological mechanisms that can repair leaves reason to believe that the planned damage caused by radiation at low doses refurbishment operations and operation and/or dose rates. under license renewal can and will be conducted in a radiologically safe manner.
"E.5 OVERVIEW AND PERSPECIlVE Actual industrial costs for achieving this record have not been made available and E.5.1 Program Costs may not be known. A comprehensive analysis of programmatic effectiveness would The data presented in Section E.2 of this have to include the costs, in particular the document provide convincing evidence that cost in dollars per person-rem averted.
the U.S. nuclear power industry is These values could then be compared with conducting a highly successful radiation the criterion of $1000 per person-rem used protection program. The recent annual in Appendix I, 10 CFR Part 50, and with the Table R23 Nominal probability coefficients used in this generic environmental impact statement' Health effect Occupational Public Fatal cancer 4 5 Hereditary 0.6 1 aEstimated number of excess effects among 10,000 people receiving 10,000 person*rem. Coefficients are based on -central" or -best" estimates. To convert person-rem to person*sievert, multiply by 0.0l.
Source: ICRP-60.
considerably lower criteria used in Europe. protection costs would be commensurate Considering the distribution of radiation with the risk averted. However, even if the protection resources between workers and costs were accurately known, it would not be the public, this type of analysis would possible to determine whether actual risks provide a basis for prioritization. were being averted. The radiation risk data base does not provide the answers, creating RS.2 Risks a dependence on hypotheses and assumptions. This problem is becoming more The costs of radiation protection are serious as the costs become larger and recovered by the nuclear utilities through resources are demanded for other public charges for electric power. Ideally, radiation- health concerns. Because of the higher NUREG-1437, Vol 2 E-32 OAG10001365_01076
APPENDIX E RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS individual doses, the technical justification direction is often interpreted to mean that that can be offered for worker-protection such case studies are unnecessary. It may be costs is stronger than that for public important to note that the negative direction protection. However, studies of exposed finding has been replicated in studies that workers within recommended limits have not have been reported of people (including actually verified the existence of a low-level children) who live in areas of abnormally radiation risk. high natural background radiation. Despite these findings, the NRC is operating under a The most definitive study to date of the policy of caution. It is recognized that not all possibility of occupational radiation-induced of the workers in the Gilbert study have health effects among workers conducting died yet, and people in the high-background Department of Energy operations has' studies tend to live in areas where the recently been published (Gilbert et a1. 1989). average life span is relatively short. It is This study included almost 36,000 workers at possible that many of them do not live long the Hanford site, at Oak Ridge National enough to develop cancer that could Laboratory, and at the Rocky Flats Weapons otherwise be induced by natural background Plant. About 8 percent of the workers had radiation. For this and other reasons, the lifetime doses exceeding 10 rem. There was NRC has strengthened its occupational no evidence of a correlation between radiation protection program by clearly radiation exposure and mortality when stating, in the new 10 CFR Part 20, the role examining all cancers combined or when of the ALARA process within the radiation examining leukemia. When examining other protection program of each NPP.
specific cancers, the only one found to exhibit a statistically significant correlation Several workers in the nuclear power with radiation exposure was multiple industry have lifetime doses exceeding 10 myeloma. Twelve deaths occurred from this rem; however, in a very large majority of disease at the Hanford site; none at the these cases, the dose was accumulated over other two locations. The researchers report a period of many years. In the Japanese that it is not clear whether the Hanford atomic bomb survivor studies, statistically correlation results from a cause and effect significant increases in cancers have been relationship. Only three of the deaths detected only for the situation in which large occurred among workers receiving more populations were irradiated instantaneously than 5 rem. There is a 50/50 chance of and uniformly to external radiation doses of observing all three deaths in the same 10 rem or more. The dose rate effect for population. Overall, Gilbert et a1. found that humans is not well understood, creating a cancer fatalities occurred less often among dependence on animal data and molecular the more significantly exposed workers: and cellular studies. Repair mechanisms have "The relationship of cancer mortality and been demonstrated and are being studied. It radiation exposure was in the negative may eventually be possible to identify a dose direction in all three popUlations. II When a rate below which human health effects suspected carcinogen is examined in an either do not occur or have a probability of epidemiological study, a correlation in the occurrence that is sufficiently small to be of positive direction (progressively higher no concern. Until that happens, it would be disease incidence among the more highly wise to maintain the present interest in exposed groups) is usually followed by the occupational ALARA programs.
study of individual cases. A statistically significant correlation in the negative E-33 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAG10001365_01077
RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIX E E.5.3 Standards of worker protection and more than adequate for protection of the general E.53.1 Occupational public. Experience following the Three Mile*
Island accident indicates that refurbishment The new 10 CFR Part 20 contains a codified operations can temporarily increase requirement on the ALARA process, which occupational doses. Experience has also is in keeping with current trends in radiation shown that the judicious implementation of risk information. Greater emphasis would the ALARA concept can minimize such not necessarily mean greater costs, increases at low cost.
particularly if cost-beneficial source-term reduction methods are adopted. Although radiation doses are a tangible measure for evaluating the license-extension If, in the future, the NRC decides to lower question, the major issue comprises two the dose limit from 5 to 2 remlyear, this limit intangibles: the existence of risk from these will ensure a lower lifetime risk for a few of doses and the probability that health effects the most highly exposed individuals. If some will actually occur. The existence of risk has provision for operational flexibility were not been verified for protracted low-level made, a 2 rem/year limit should not be radiation. Under the assumption that the disruptive or needlessly costly, particularly if risks are without threshold and real, the dose reduction were achieved through probability of risk expression becomes the cost-effective and cost-beneficial measures. key issue. But until more is known about dose rate effectiveness, continued caution is The impact on plant refurbishment plans indicated for lifetime occupational doses.
should be preparatory in nature (i.e.,
planning should take full advantage of reasonable dose-reduction opportunities). E.6 REFERENCES E.5.3.2 Public BEIR-I, The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing The current and limiting standards of 40 Radiations, National Research Council, CFR Part 190 are not expected to be Advisory Committee on the Biological changed for some time, but it does appear Effects of Ionizing Radiation, National likely that 40 CFR Part 61 will be finalized Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.,
and will lower the annual total body dose 1972.
limit for members of the public from 25 to BEIR-IU, The Effects on Populations of 10 mremlyear for airborne radionuclides. Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Doses from NPPs are so low that this Radiation: 1980, National Research change in the limit is not expected to have Council, Advisory Committee on the an effect. Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, National Academy of Sciences, E.5.4 Conclusions Washington, D.C., 1980.
BEIR-V, Health Effects of Exposure to Low With respect to the radiological health Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National aspects of extending NPP licenses, under Research Council, Advisory Committee normal operating conditions, it is evident on the Biological Effects of Ionizing that the radiation protection programs Radiation, National Academy of currently in place are adequate in the case Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1990.
NUREG-1437, Vol 2 E-34 OAG10001365_01078
APPENDIX E RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS Gilbert, E. S., et al., "Analyses of Combined National Research Council, An Assessment Mortality Data on Workers at the of the New Dosimetry for A-Bomb Hanford Site, Oak Ridge National Survivors, Advisory Committee on the Laboratory, and Rocky Flats Nuclear Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Weapons Plant," Radiation Research, National Academy of Sciences, 120, 19-35, 1989. Washington, D.C., 1987.
ICRP Publication 26, "Recommendations of NCRP (National Council on Radiation the International Commission on Protection and Measurements), Influence Radiological Protection," Annals of the of Dose and Its Distribution in Time on ICRP 1(3), International Commission on Dose-Response Relationships for Low-Radiological Protection, Pergamon Press, LET Radiations, Report No. 64, New York, 1977. Bethesda, Maryland, 1980.
ICRP Publication 27, "Problems Involved in NCRP (National Council on Radiation Developing an Index of Harm," Annals Protection and Measurements),
of the ICRP, 1(4), International Recommendations on Limits for Exposure Commission on Radiological Protection, to Ionizing Radiation, Report No. 91, Pergamon Press, New York, 1977. Bethesda, Maryland, 1987.
ICRP Publication 37, Cost-Benefit Analysis NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory in the Optimization of Radiation Commission), Below Regulatory Concern:
Protection, International Commission on Policy Statement, available in the NRC Radiological Protection, Pergamon Press, Public Document Room, Washington, New York, 1983. D.C., July 3, 1990.
ICRP Publication 41, Nonstochastic Effects NRC Regulatory Guide 8.8, Rev. 3, of Ionizing Radiation, 14(3), Information Relevant to Ensuring That International Commission on Occupational Radiation Exposures at Radiological Protection, Pergamon Press, Nuclear Power Stations Will Be As Low New York, 1983. As Reasonably Achievable, U.S. Nuclear ICRP (International Commission on Regulatory Commission, 1978.
Radiological Protection), "Report of NRC Regulatory Guide 8.10, Rev. 1R, ICRP Committee II on Permissible Dose Operating Philosophy for Maintaining for Internal Radiation (1959)," Health Occupational Radiation Exposures As Physics, 3, 1960. Low As Reasonably Achievable, U.S.
ICRP (International Commission on Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1977.
Radiological Protection), "Statement NUMARC (Nuclear Management and from the 1985 Paris Meeting of the Resources Council), Study of Generic ICRP," Health Physics, 48, 828, 1985. Environmental Issues Related to License ICRP (International Commission on Renewal, Washington, D.C., 1989.
Radiological Protection), NUREG-0713, Occupational Radiation Recommendations of the Commission, Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power ICRP Publication 60, Pergamon Press, Reactors and Other Facilities, 1992, New York, 1991. Vol. 11, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory NBS (National Bureau of Standards), Commission, 1993.
Permissible Dose from External NUREG/CP-0101, Workshop on Rules for Radiation: Recommendations of the Exemption from Regulatory Control, U.S.
National Committee on Radiation Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1989.
Protection, National Bureau of Standards NUREG/CR-2850, D. A. Baker, Population Handbook 59, 1954. Dose Commitments Due to Radioactive NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 OAG10001365_01079
RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIX E Releases from Nuclear Power Plant Sites Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Life in 1989, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Span Study Report 1 Pt. 1, 1987.
Commission, 1993. SECY-89-184, Proposed Commission Policy NUREG/CR-4214, S. Abrahamson et al., Statement on Exemptions from Regulatory Health Effects Models for Nuclear Power Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Plant Accident Consequence Analysis; Commission, available in the NRC Low LET Radiation; Scientific Bases for Public Document Room, 1989.
Health Effects Models, U.S. Nuclear UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Regulatory Commission, 1989. Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiological Protection Bulletin, No. 111, A Radiation), Sources, Effects and Risk of Summary of the Draft Recommendations Ionizing Radiation: 1988 Report to the of the ICRP, 1990, National Radiological General Assembly, Forty-third Session, Protection Board, 1990. I Supplem~nt No. 45 (N43/45), United RERF TR 12-87, Comparison of Risk Nations, New York, 1988.
Coefficients for Site-Specific Cancer Mortality Based on the DS86 and T65R Shielded Kenna and Organ Doses, NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 E-36 OAG10001365_01080
APPENDIX E RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS ATIACHMENT E.A CONCEPTS, TERMINOLOGY, QUANTITIES, AND UNITS USED IN TIlE OID AND NEW VERSIONS OF 10 CFR PART 20 10 CFR Part 20 was first promulgated in These values of Q reflect the overall 1957. In 1961, the regulatiqn was amended efficiency of a given type of radiation in to add an appendix containing maximum causing latent effects and are not used for permissible concentrations (MPCs) and a early effects such as acute radiation new dose limit structure for whole-body syndrome. In the old Part 20, these Q values exposure to external radiation (1.25 are also applied to protection of the eye lens rem/quarter, or 3 rem/quarter with from cataracts and protection of the skin 5 remlyear average as a limit on the from cosmetic effects. The values were cumulative dose). The most recent revision derived in consideration of the ability of the went into effect in 1991. The 1961-1991 various radiations to ionize atoms in water version is often called "the old Part 20"; the as well as the relative biological effectiveness 1991 version, "the new Part 20." The new factors (RBEs) observed for specific effects.
version differs considerably from the old, Most of the dose limits given in the old particularly with respect to basic concepts, Part 20 are DE, and the rem unit is used.
terminology, radiation dose quantities, and the associated dose units. This attachment is The DE was used to calculate the MPCs in included for those who need to become the old rule. The MPC is defined as the familiar with important details that underlie concentration of a radionuclide in air that, if the coming changes in federal regulations. the hypothetical standard man were exposed to it for a working lifetime of 50 years, would cause an annual DE to the critical B.A.l CONVENTIONAL QUANTITIES (most highly exposed) organ after 50 years AND UNITS of exposure. Values are shown in Table E.A2. The quantity of a radionuclide B.A.l.1 Old Part 20 Quantities and Units maintained continuously in an organ that will cause the DE is referred to as the maximum In the old Part 20, the unit "rad" is usually permissible organ burden (MPOB).
used for the quantity "radiation absorbed dose" whenever early biological effects are The old Part 20 allows the worker to receive the concern. When latent effects (e.g., external radiation at the rate of 5 remlyear cancer and genetic effects) are being average plus a DE to each organ, as shown considered, the unit "rem" is used for the in Table E.A2. This regulation also ignores dose equivalent (DE) quantity. The the internal radiation risk from the DE to absorbed dose in rads is multiplied by an noncritical organs and ignores the DE overall efficiency factor Q to obtain the DE received by an organ from nuclides located in rem. Each type of radiation has its own in other organs.
value of Q, which in a very rough way makes absorbed doses from different radiations additive for latent effects. Values of Q in the old Part 20 are indicated in Table E.A 1.
E-37 NUREG.1437, Vol. 2 OAG10001365_01081
RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIX E Table E.At Efficiency for different radiation ~
Absorbed dose Dose equivalent Radiation (rads) Q (rem) 250-kVp X-rflYS 1 1 1 Gamma 1 1 1 Beta 1 1 1 Beta 1 1.7 1.7
<< 0.03 MeV max)
Alpha 1 10 10 Neutron 1 10 10 (spectrum unknown)
Note: To convert rem to sievert, multiply by 0.01.
Table E.A2 Annual dose equivalent limits used for calculating the maximum permissible concentrations Organ r (rem)
Thyroid 30 Bone 30 Gonads 5 Marrow 5 All others 15 Note: To convert rem to sievert, multiply by 001.
E.A 1.2 Collective Dose obtained as the sum of all individual doses or as the product of the average individual The old Part 20 makes no use of the dose and the number of people exposed.
collective dose equivalent (person-rem). The linear-non threshold hypothesis is However, this quantity is used extensively by accepted by the NRC for purposes of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) standards setting. Such acceptance means in risk analyses and in its decision-making that standards based on the hypothesis, processes. The collective DE may be coupled with the as-Iow-as-reasonably-NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 E-38 OAG10001365_01082
APPENDIX E RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS achievable concept, are believed to provide receiving the highest DE does not exceed an adequate degree of protection. this limit.
E.A22 Stochastic Effects EA2 NEW PART 20 QUANTITIFS AND UNITS For these effects, the ICRP in 1977 adopted the risk then associated with 5 rem in a year, All of the quantities and units discussed delivered to every organ, as the basis for its above remain in use in the new Part 20; the dose-limitation system. Therefore, the only change is that the "penetrating dose stochastic annual limit on intake (ALI) for equivalent" is noW called the "deep dose each radionuclide is the quantity that, if equivalent." However, NRC licensees must inhaled, would cause the same stochastic risk become familiar with several additional as a uniform, whole-body dose of 5 rem International Commission on Radiological delivered by external sources in 1 year. To Protection (ICRP) concepts and quantities. establish these ALIs, the ICRP considered the possibility that a given nuclide taken into The ICRP system is based on the the body eventually reaches the bloodstream recognition of two basic types of and is then distributed selectively to the radiation-induced health effects: stochastic various organs and tissues, where DEs are and nonstochastic. The stochastic (cancer delivered over a time course determined by and hereditary) effects are considered to be the retention capabilities of the organ or probabilistic in nature, and the objective is tissue and the physical characteristics of the to control the probability to acceptable nuclide. Using a radiation risk coefficient levels. For stochastic effects, the severity is specific for each organ or tissue and the not dose dependent (i.e., once caused, a 50-year integrated DE for each of these, the malignancy from 100 rem is no worse than risk associated with each is estimated. The one from 50 rem). In contrast, nonstochastic total fatality risk to the worker per effects are not caused at all unless a microcurie of this nuclide inhaled is the sum threshold dose is exceeded. The objective is of the individual organ or tissue risks. The to prevent nonstochastic effects, for which intake that will produce the same overall severity is dose dependent; for example, a stochastic risk as 5 rem of uniform external radiation-induced cataract caused by 400 rem radiation can then be readily calculated as will impair vision more than one caused by the ALI. Of course, the worker may be 300 rem. exposed to several airborne nuclides and to external radiation as well. When this E.A21 Nonstochastic Effects happens, the total risk is still limited to that associated with 5 rem in a year from uniform In ICRP Publication 41, technical external radiation. Compliance is achieved if justification is presented for the ICRP the fraction of the external dose limit that is position that, with the exception of cataracts received, added to the fraction(s) of the in the lens of the eye, nonstochastic effects ALI(s) inhaled, does not exceed unity.
will not occur among humans if the DE from external and internal radiation The risk of hereditary effects is included in a combined, to every organ and tissue, is special way that, in the view of the ICRP, limited to 50 rem or fewer in a year. To renders it additive to the cancer fatality risk.
achieve compliance, it is necessary during a The ICRP considered only detrimental given year to ensure that the organ or tissue effects that the worker is likely to E-39 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365 01083
RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIX E experience personally, so that effects column lists the risk coefficients from manifested after the second generation are ICRP-26 and their sum; namely, 1.65 x 10-4*
not included in the genetic risk coefficient This sum is the total annual risk to the used. The coefficient is also limited to very exposed person, assuming exposure to these serious genetic effects (i.e., those organs at 1 radlyear. [Multiplication by 5 comparable in severity to premature death). gives the annual risk at 5 radslyear (i.e.,
8.25 x 10-4 per year). This risk value means E.A23 Weighting Factors that if groups of 10,000 workers were to receive the dose limit every year for their Although all organs and tissues receive the entire careers, data as of the mid-1970s same DE under uniform exposure indicate that an average of 8.25 fatal conditions, the cancer risks often are not the occupational radiation-induced cancers per same. Each organ or tissue contributes its year would occur within each group.
own fraction of the risk. This fraction is Assuming the approximate worst case of called the weighting factor; the sum of all of 45 years of exposure, the toll theoretically the weighting factors is unity. The product would be about 370 deaths per group, or of the weighting factor and the DE is the almost 4 percent.] The fraction of this risk effective dose equivalent (EDE). This per rad for each organ can be obtained by quantity is used for both external and dividing its risk coefficient by 1.65 x 10-4
- internal irradiation and may be used for These fractions represent the relative individual organs and tissues or for the sum sensitivity of the organs; they are the of all organs and tissues. The unit used for weighting factors and are designated by the either quantity is the same as for the DE, symbol Wn where T represents the organ or namely, the rem (or sievert). In the unique tissue. The weighting factors appear in case of uniform irradiation of all organs and column three of the table. If T is the DE to tissues, the sum of their EDEs is by tissue T, then wTHT is the weighted dose definition equal to the whole-body DE. The equivalent. For example, wT for the lung is EDE may be determined irrespective of the 0.12. If a weighted lung dose of H rem is set degree of uniformity among the organ or equal to a highly penetrating, uniform tissue doses. The sum of the EDEs is not whole-body dose of 5 rem, allowed to exceed 5 rem in a year. The committed dose equivalent (CDE) is a 0.12 H = 5 rem and familiar quantity defined as the 50-year H = 41.7 rem; integrated DE to a specific organ or tissue following the inhalation of a radionuclide. by hypothesis and analogy, an annual DE of This quantity is still used, but only in 41.7 rem to only the lung would have the connection with nonstochastic effects. The same effect as 5 rem to all of the organs committed effective dose equivalent combined. For this reason, wTHT is called (CEDE) is the same quantity as the CDE, the EDE.
with the exception that, in the case of the CEDE, each DE is multiplied by a weighting Nonstochastic effects have thresholds, and factor. The rem (or sievert) is also the unit they become more severe as the dose gets for both of these quantities. larger. ICRP believes that none of the thresholds will be exceeded if the annual The mathematical weighting method used by dose does not exceed 50 rad. This the ICRP is shown in Table E.A3. The first nonstochastic limit is reflected in column column lists the organs, and the second five of the table, where it is evident that NUREG-1437, Vol 2 E-40 OAG10001365_01084
APPENDIX E RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS Table E.A3 International Commission on Radiological Protection-26 risk weighting system Organ dose equivalent (DE) Annual DE causing same permitted, Risk coefficients risk as 5 rem exposure of (effects per Weighting to whole body one organ Organs organ-rem) factors (rem) (remlyear)
Gonads 4 x 10-5 0.25 20 20 Breasts 2.5 x 10-5 0.15 33-1/3 33-1/3 Lung 2 x 10-5 0.12 41-2/3 41-2/3 Red marrow 2 x 10-5 0.12 41-2/3 41-2/3 Bone 5 x 10-6 0.03 166-2/3 50 Thyroid 5 x 10-6 0.03 166-2/3 50 1st RO" 1 X 10-5 0.06 83-1/3 50 2ndRO 1 x 10-5 0.06 83-1/3 50 3rd RO 1 x 10-5 0.06 83-1/3 50 4th RO 1 x 10-5 0.06 83-1/3 50 5th RO 1 x 10-5 0.06 83-1/3 50 Totals 1.65 x 10-4 1.0 aThe remainder organs (ROs) are the five organs that receive, from a given radionuclide, the highest effective dose equivalent, integrated over 50 years.
Note: To convert rem to sievert, multiply by 0.01.
nonstochastic effects are controlling for all RAJ INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM OF but four organs that have the largest UNITS weighting factors-the most sensitive organs with respect to highly serious effects. The International System (SI) units of particular interest to health physicists are the gray, sievert, and becquerel, shown in Table E.A.4. The SI units are part of the metric system; however, they are not yet E-41 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAG10001365_01085
RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIX E widely used in the United States. The new conventional and SI units would introduce Part 20 prohibits their use in records confusion under emergency conditions.
required by the NRC. The major concern of the NRC staff is that use of both the Table E.A4 Conventional and International System (SI) units Conventional SI unit Quantity unit SI unit equivalent Absorbed dose Rad Gray 100 rad (100 ergs/gram) (10,000 ergs/gram)
Dose equivalent Rem Sievert 100 rem (Q x rad) (Q x gray)
Activity Curie Becquerel 3 x 10- 11 Ci (3.7 x 1010 d/st (1 d/s)Q QDisintegration per second.
NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 E-42 OAG10001365_01086
APPENDIX E RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS ATI'ACHMENT liB TIlE ICRP DOSE LIMITATION SYSTEM In International Commission on Radiological stochastic radiation effects supports Protection (ICRP) Publication 26, a three- continuation of the application of the tiered system of dose limitation, was concept to the point at which the introduced-justification, optimization, and probabilities become too small to be of limitation. This system was adopted for concern.
occupational radiation protection in the 1987 Presidential guidance to federal agencies. In the case of public protection, the Revised Jrresidential guidance for protection Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the public is in preparation. (40 CFR Part 190) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (10 CFR Part 50) have established ALARA limits that E.B.l JUSTIFICATION are enforced rather than the considerably larger limits recommended by the ICRP and The first tier, justification, is an admonition the National Council on Radiation that governments should take radiation risks Protection and Measurements (NCRP). The into full consideration before adopting ALARA limits were derived using analytic programs that would involve the exposure of techniques to identify approximately the personnel to radiation or radioactive point at which the cost of providing material. An example of such a additional protection would exceed the risk programmatic consideration would be a averted. A more qualitative approach has decision to construct and operate nuclear been taken in the implementation of the electric power plants. Another example, on a occupational ALARA concept-no ALARA much smaller scale, would be a decision to limits have been set. The basic dose limits permit the use of jewelry containing small have been coupled with the avoidance of amounts of radioactivity induced by neutron unnecessary exposure. Soon after the ICRP irradiation. introduced optimization in 1977, a more aggressive approach was initiated. Operators began to identify dose-reduction measures E.B.2 OPI1MIZATION that were cost effective or even cost beneficial. Annual average doses among In ICRP Publications 26 and 37, the phrase occupational groups are now as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) characteristically below 10 percent of the was discontinued (for ICRP purposes) in limits. It is evident that actual doses to favor of the term "optimization." The ICRP workers or the public are controlled by the considers the terms to be synonymous but ALARA concept rather than by dose limits, apparently feels that "optimization" is more and that is why the ICRP lists optimization descriptive of the intent of its as the second tier of its system.
recommendation. In the United States, ALARA has traditionally been a concept ICRP optimization is an analytical method used to justify radiation protection measures through which the financial costs of dose that further reduce doses already within reduction are compared with those of regulatory limits. The probabilistic nature of radiation-induced health effects to find the E-43 NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 OAG10001365_01087
RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIX E point at which the total costs of both are government authorities. Because the primary minimized (i.e., optimized). lCRP risks of radiation are proportional to the optimization takes only radiation risks into lifetime accumulated dose, it is considered to accqunt. be safe in the case of workers to allow a relatively large dose infrequently as long as the dose is compensated for in previous or
- a.B.3 LIMITATION subsequent years by commensurately smaller doses. This situation permits operational The third tier is limitation (i.e., the flexibility without sacrificing control of the establishqtent and enforcement of dose lifetime risk. The ICRP and NCRP have limits for workers and the public). therefore recommended dose limits for Compliance with a dose limit normally workers that are not to be approached involves the measurement or calculation and routinely, but infrequently, if at all, as recording of radiation doses to individuals to special operational needs arise.
demonstrate that the doses did not exceed any limit established by cognizant NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 E-44 OAG10001365_01088
APPENDIX E RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS ATI'ACHMENT EC PWTS OF POPULATION DOSE COMMITMENTS BY REACfOR LEGEND:
~ Predicted total dose commitment (model)
- Air Dose Commitment (Data) o Liquid Dose Commitment (Data)
<> Total Dose Commitment (Data)
E-45 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365 01089
OAG10001365_01090 APPENDIX E RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS ORNL*DWG 95*1763 1000.000 SITE NAME = Arkansas One 100.000 10.000 E
...
CD I
c::
o
...enCD a.
0.010 0.001 ~~I~~~I'I~I~~I'I~I~~rl~'~-'~I~~~'TI~'~~"I~'~~"I~'~"~I 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 Calendar Year Figure liC.1 Person-rem per year for Arkansas One.
E-47 NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 OAG10001365_01091
I RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIX E ORNL-OWG 95-1764 SITE NAME = Beaver Valley 1000.000 100.000 10.000 E
...
Q)
I
~ 1.000
...
II)
Q) a.
0.001 Jl.,-,-....,.-,.....,...-,-,.-,' I..,...,"'--'-"r-rl.,....,~-"-'-! . .,. . ,. ~i, -' ...,........--,-,.-,--...,....,..--,-,,-~,.....,---
.,...., .,....,
79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 Calendar Year Figure liC.2 Person-rem per year for Beaver Valley.
NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 EA8 OAG10001365_01092
APPENDIX E RADIATION PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS ORNL-OWG 95-1770 1000.000 SITE = Big Rock Point 100.000 10.000 E
....
Q) c 0
...en 1.000
\'\
,
Q) c.
0.100 0.010 0.001 ~I I t I t I I t I I I I I I 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 Calendar Year Figure RC3 Person-rem per year for Big Rock Point..
E-49 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAG10001365_01093
RADIATION PROrrECTlON CONSIDERATIONS APPENDIX E ORNL-DWG 95-1771 1000.000 SITE NAME =Calvert Cliffs 100.000 10.000 0.010 79 80 B1 82 83 54 85 86 87 Calendar Year Figure RCA Person-rem per year for Calvert Cliffs.
NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 E-50 OAG10001365_01094
ApPENDIX F METHODOLOGY FOR AssESSING IMPACTS TO AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES NUREG*1437. Vol. 2 OAG10001365_01095
OAG10001365_01096 METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSING IMPACTS TO AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES F.l UST OF ISSUES were contacted for this document. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection The nonradiological aquatic effects of Agency (EPA) is responsible for protecting continuing operations during a license the quality of waters receiving discharges renewal period are not unique to nuclear from the power plants and regulating the power plants but instead are typical of operation of the condenser cooling water potential impacts from any large steam- intake and discharges. Regulation of intake electric power plant (whatever the fuel type) and discharge effects to prevent significant and operation of the associated condenser impacts to aquatic communities is carried cooling systems. The aquatic resources issues out by issuance and periodic renewal of listed in Table F.l have been identified from National Pollutant Discharge Elimination literature reviews, reviews of environmental System (NPDES) permits and, if necessary, impact statements (EISs), and professional by Clean Water Act Section 316(a) and (b) contacts. determinations (see Section 4.2 for a discussion of these regulatory requirements).
All of the issues listed in Table F.1 are Most often these permitting responsibilities addressed in Chapters 3 and 4, but primary have been delegated to the water quality emphasis is on the areas of water use, intake regulatory agencies of the individual states.
effects (entrainment and impingement), and Although the state fish and wildlife agencies, thermal and chemical discharges. These the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
areas consistently have been the most and the National Marine Fisheries Service common issues raised in power plant impact (NMFS) do not issue permits to the nuclear assessments and permitting actions, and they power plants, they are concerned about the have been the subject of considerable study protection and enhancement of aquatic and postoperational monitoring. resources and thus have an essential consulting role with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Resource F.2 SOURCES OF INFORMATION agency concerns may range from maintenance or enhancement of sport and Information about historical and ongoing commercial fisheries to protection of aquatic impacts associated with nuclear threatened and endangered species to power plants was obtained !from three restoration of anadromous fish or aquatic general sources: (1) contacts with state and habitats.
federal resource and regulatory agencies, (2) a survey of utilities that operate nuclear Information request letters were sent to 151 power plants, and (3) published literature. individuals representing 74 state regulatory and resource agencies and to representatives Agencies with responsibility either for in all of the regions of EPA, FWS, and regulating the construction and operation of NMFS. The letters solicited agency input protection and maintenance of aquatic resources in the vicinity of the power plants F-3 NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 OAG10001365_01097
AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES APPENDIX F Table F.l Aquatic resources issues associated with the refurbishment and oJA-' ation of nuclear power plants Refurbishment
- Soil erosion and sedimentation
- Water quality degradation from spilled chemicals Operation Water quality, hydrology, and use issues
- Water use conflicts
- Effects of consumptive water use on riparian communities
- Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures
- Altered salinity gradients
- Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity
- Altered thermal stratification of lakes
- Scouring caused by discharged cooling water
- Eutrophication
- Discharge of chlorine or other biocides
- Discharge of other chemical contaminants (e.g., metals)
- Discharge of sanitary wastes Aquatic ecology issues
- Threatened or endangered species
- Impingement of large organisms on the intake screens
- Entrainment of organisms into the condenser cooling water system
- Heat shock
- Cold shock
- Effects on movements and distribution of aquatic organisms
- Premature emergence 9f aquatic insects
- Stimulation of nuisance organisms (e.g., shipworms)
- Increased losses caused by predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses
- Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease)
- Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge
- Accumulation of contaminants (e.g., chlorinated organic materials or metals) in sediments or biota NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 F-4 OAG10001365_01098
APPENDIX F AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES about any existing or potential problems F.3 ANALYTICAL APPROACH associated with operation of nuclear power plants in their state or region and any issues Analysis of impacts to aquatic resources to be treated in thelicense renewal effort. focused on effects of power plant operation An example information request letter is on water quality, water use, and aquatic shown in Figure F.1. Responses were biota. The potential impacts to these received from 17 federal agency regions and resources stem mainly from operation of the 55 state agencies, some of which provided cooling water systems, although possible references to specific studies that had been effects of refurbishment during the license conducted to assess power plant impacts. renewal period were also examined.
These responses were used to augment information available from other sources on Potential impacts to aquatic resources during power plant effects. the license renewal period result primarily from operation of the condenser cooling A survey of all electric utilities that operate system. Water quality and availability can be nuclear power plants was developed by Oak altered by (1) use of biocides to prevent Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) staff condenser tube fouling; (2) loss of water and administered by the Nuclear through evaporation, especially from cooling Management and Resources Council towers; (3) discharge of salts, metals, and (NUMARC). The survey was intended to other chemical contaminants; and obtain the utilities' overview of the impacts (4) discharge of heated effluents. Aquatic of their power plants on aquatic resources. biota can be affected by entrainment, The survey contained nine questions related impingement, and water quality changes to aquatic resources; these are listed from discharge of heated effluents and in Table F.2. As with the agency information chemical contaminants. All of these effects requests, the utility responses to the survey were considered by the NRC in the EISs were used as another source of information associated with the construction permit and for assessment of power plant effects on operating license; they continue to be aquatic resources. evaluated by the EPA or the state water quality permitting agency as part of the For further information on laquatic impacts issuance and periodic renewal of the of power plant operations, published NPDES permIt.
literature was reviewed, including peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that The approach used to assess effects of resulted from impacts studies, as well as license renewal of existing nuclear power periodic and topical reports submitted to or plants was to obtain information relating to prepared by agencies [e.g., NRC EISs for these aquatic resources issues from the construction permit and operating monitoring data, other published license, environmental monitoring reports to information, and utility and regulatory the NRC, periodic reports to agencies agency contacts. If no impacts have been associated with NPDES permits, and Section demonstrated for a given issue during the 316(a) and (b) demonstrations]. initial operating period of any plant, then continued operation under similar circumstances during the relicense period would not be expected to result in significant impacts. If impacts have been demonstrated F*5 NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 OAG10001365_01099
AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES APPENDIX F ORNL-DWG-90-16007 Date Dear _ _ __
Oak Ridge National Laboratory is developing a report for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission that will evaluate environmental impacts of relicensing of nuclear power plants.
Information on 118 reactors at 74 sites in the U.S. is being gathered to evaluate potential impacts from relicensing and an additional 20 or more year relicense period (beginning 40 years after the original license).
The results of this study will be used to modify 10 CPR 51 "Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions." These modifications may result in some issues no longer being considered for nuclear plants in National Environmental Protection Agency evaluations at their time of relicensing. Therefore, it is important that we obtain information from your office to help in evaluating any impacts of nuclear plants in your state with regard to fish and wildlife resources.
We would appreciate any information you may have on existing impacts and on the presence of important fish and wildlife resources that may be affected by continued operation of the Nuclear Plant(s) and their power lines. For your convenience, a list of such
resources and potential impacts is attached.
We would like to have your response by June 30, so that we can use the information in preparing the draft report. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely, Glenn F. Cad a Aquatic Ecologist Bldg. 1505, ~S-6036 Phone: 6151574-7320 Roger L. Kroodsma Terrestrial Ecologist Bldg. 1505, ~S-6038 Phone: 6151574-7310 Figure F.l Example information request letter sent to state fish and wildlife resource agencies, state water pollution control agencies, and regions of the U.S. FISh and Wildlife Service, National Marine FISheries Service, and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
NUREG-1437, Vol 2 F-6 OAGI0001365_01100
APPENDIX F AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES List of Important FISh and Wildlife Resources and Potential or Known Impacts
- Important sport and commercial fisheries and level of harvest
- Important spawning, nursery, or other habitats for aquatic fauna
- Impacts of entrainment, impingement, or thermal and chemical releases on aquatic biota
- Adverse effects of water withdrawals or discharges on water quality and water use
- Other sources of impacts (e.g., other power plants, industrial discharges, agricultural runoff) that could contribute to cumulative impacts to aquatic resources
- Construction impacts (construction for relicensing is expected to be relatively minor and entirely contained within existing site boundaries)
- Aquatic or terrestrial flora and fauna that are listed as threatened or endangered
- Salt drift and icing impacts on vegetation as a result of cooling towers or cooling ponds
- Bird mortality due to collision with power lines and natural draft cooling towers
- Impacts on fauna as a r~sult of vegetation cutting and herbicides in power line corridors
- Rare plant communities
- Bird colonies
- Bird roosts (e.g., raptors)
- Waterfowl staging areas
- Wetlands
- Breedinglstruttinglwintering grounds for big game or certain gallinaceous birds Figure F.l Example information request letter sent to state fish and wildlife resource agencies, state water pollution control agencies, and regions of the U.S. FISh and Wildlife Service, National Marine FISheries Service, and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. (continued)
F-7 NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365 01101
AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES APPENDIX F Table F.2 Questions relating to nuclear power plant impacts on aquatic resources that were part of the electric utility survey
- 1. Post-licensing modifications or changes in operations of intake or discharge systems may have altered the effects of the power plant on aquatic resources or may have been made specifically to mitigate impacts not anticipated in the design of the plant. Describe any such modifications or operational changes to the condenser cooling water intake and discharge systems since the issuance of the operating license
- 2. Summarize and describe (or provide documentation of) any known impacts to aquatic resources (e.g., fish kills, violations of discharge permit conditions) or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) enforcement actions that have occurred since issuance of the operating license. How have these been resolved or changed over time?
The response to this item should indicate whether impacts are ongoing or were the result of start-up problems that were subsequently resolved
- 3. Changes to the NPDES permit during operation of the plant could indicate whether water quality parameters were determined to have no significant impacts (and were dropped from monitoring requirements) or were subsequently raised as a water quality issue.
Provide a brief summary of changes (and when they occurred) to the NPDES permit for the plant since issuance of the operating license i
- 4. An examination of time!trends in the results of aquatic resources monitoring can indicate whether impacts have increased, decreased, or remained relatively stable during operation.
Describe and summarize (or provide documentation of) results of monitoring of water quality and aquatic biota (e.g., related to NPDES permits, environmental technical specifications, site-specific monitoring required by federal or state agencies). What trends are apparent over time?
- 5. Summarize types and numbers (or provide documentation) of organisms entrained and impinged by the condenser cooling water system since issuance of the operating license.
Describe any seasonal patterns associated with entrainment and impingement. How have entrainment and impingement changed over time?
- 6. Aquatic habitat enhancement or restoration efforts (e.g., anadromous fish runs) during operation may have enhanced the biological communities in the vicinity of the plant and increased its impacts beyond that originally anticipated. Alternatively, degradation of habitat or water quality may have resulted in loss of biological resources near the site.
Describe any changes to aquatic habitats (both enhancement and degradation) in the vicinity of the power plant since the issuance of the operating license that may have resulted in different plant impacts from those initially predicted NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 F-8 OAGI0001365_01102
APPENDIX F AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES Table F.2 (continued)
- 7. Plant operations may have had positive, negative, or no impacts on the use of aquatic resources by others. Harvest by commercial or recreational fishermen may be constrained by plant operation or may be relatively large compared with fish losses caused by the plant. Describe (or provide documentation for) other nearby uses of waters affected by cooling water systems (e.g., swimming, boating, annual harvest by commercial and recreational fisheries) and how these have changed since issuance of the operating license
- 8. Describe other sources of impacts to aquatic resources (e.g., industrial discharges, other power plants, agricultural runoff) that could contribute to cumulative impacts. What are the relative contributions by percentage of these sources, including the contributions due to the power plant, to overall water quality degradation and losses of aquatic biota?
- 9. Provide a copy of your Section 316(a) and (b) Demonstration Report required by the Clean Water Act. What 316(a) and (b) determinations have been made by the regulatory authorities?
at some plants, then the amllysis attempted this GElS are necessarily less detailed than to define the source and extent of the the full analyses typically performed at the problem, to examine efforts to mitigate the initial licensing stage. In such full analyses, problem, and to determine whether these the applicant supplied an environmental site-specific impacts represent potential report containing detailed results of issues for the entire industry. The sampling programs, with appropriate conclusions of this analysis were used to analyses. The NRC staff reviewed this make judgments about limiting or material, usually obtaining clarification and eliminating the treatment of particular further information, and visited the site and issues in the license renewal applications of discussed the information in detail as part of particular types of plants. their independent analyses of the costs and benefits of the proposed action.
Because this Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) is intended to consider The possible endpoints of the evaluation of potential impacts across the industry and is aquatic ecological effects in this GElS are not a site-specific license renewal action, the also constrained, regardless of the amount of corresponding information required for the information available from operation during analysis is different. The objective is not to the initial license period. Power plant evaluate in detail the effects of each nuclear impacts cannot be measured simply by power plant on aquatic ecosystems but comparing preoperational data with rather to examine information available from postoperational data. To accurately evaluate a variety of sources from a large sampling of the impact of a power plant, one needs to plants with a view toward defining common, know what the environment would have industry-wide issues that may need to be been like if the power plant had not been addressed in (or can be eliminated from) built (NUREG-CONF-002). This is not future license renewal actions. The generally possible for aquatic systems.
assessments of aquatic resources issues in Reservoirs change as they age (in F-9 NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01103
AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES APPENDIX F productivity and potentially in species were drastic enough, an obvious change composition). Even in rivers or estuaries, coinciding with operation could be detected standing crops of fish change from year to when preoperational data were compared year, or even from decade to decade. These with postoperational data. Combined with systems' responses to changes in information about near-field plant impacts, environmental, biological, and anthropogenic the change could be attributed to the plant.
factors are poorly understood. Power plants With less drastic plant impact, monitoring superiq1pose their effects on a mosaic of might show maintenance of a balanced and background influences from water flow rates, indigenous aquatic community. This does not temporal pattern of runoff, temperature, always mean that the plant is without impact productivity of other trophic levels, . but could indicate that we are unable to competition and predation, chemical detect a change from preoperational pollution, habitat modification, fishing conditions (whether in spite of, because of, pressure, and other factors. However, the or regardless of the effects of the plant).
acceptability of power plant effects must be However, it is reasonable to conclude that periodically reconsidered in the renewal of system-level effects are not evident, and NPDES permits. The judgment that a facility whatever effect~ the plant is having are employs "best available technology" or acceptable.
ensures a "balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish and wildlife" connotes that When the amount of preoperational data such effects, although real, are acceptable. available is small, our confidence that the plant's impact is not serious is greatly Because the nuclear power plants considered reduced (Van Winkle et a1. 1981).
in this GElS are now operating, some kinds Uncertainties also arise when changes in the of local (near-field, short-term) impacts (e.g., system occur that may be caused primarily by on benthic organisms) can be measured from natural or anthropogenic factors (e.g., fish localized studies at the intake and discharge. restoration projects or changes in fishing Mainly of interest, however, are the regulations ).
system-level (ultimate, long-term, population-level) effects, particularly on fish The main purpose of our assessments is to and shellfish. Models and professional identify aquatic ecology issues that generally judgment have been used to extrapolate the do not need to be considered in the license local power plant impacts to the resulting renewal process as opposed to those that long-term, far-field effects on the whole mayor do need to be considered. By system (Section F.4). Comparisons can also examining evidence for system-level effects be made with sites not directly affected. (e.g., from entrainment and impingement)
Because of the interfering effect of other based largely on operational information, we factors, however, such comparisons do not can determine whether there is clear represent the actual system-level effects evidence for effects or whether the attributable solely to a power plant. importance of these effects is still uncertain and may need to be resolved before license It is possible to measure the behavior of renewal. In this latter case, we cannot aquatic systems affected by operating nuclear dismiss the issue for all plants, but its power plants through time. Usually, a limited potential importance for many plants would amount of data is collected before power be greatly lessened.
plant operation. If the effects of the plant NUREG*1437, Vol 2 F-lO OAGI0001365_01104
APPENDIX F AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES F.4 PLANT-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS F.4.1 Arkansas Nuclear One In addition to the review of all aquatic The ANO station is a 2-unit, 1762-MW(e) resources issues, selected issues were plant located in Pope County, Arkansas, on examined in greater detail for a subset of Lake Dardanelle, an impoundment of the power plants. These issues, entrainment and Arkansas River completed in the 1960s. Unit impingement of fish and the effects of 1 uses a once-through cooling system, thermal discharges on aquatic biota, were whereas Unit 2 has a natural-draft cooling the most common concerns expressed by the tower system. Intake water is withdrawn agencies. Because of factors such as large from the Illinois Bayou arm of Lake cooling water withdrawal and discharge Dardanelle through a 981-m (3220-ft) canal.
rates, high a -Ts (large increases in The discharge is through a 158-m (520-ft) temperature between intake and discharge) canal to an embayment of Lake Dardanelle.
(Table 2.3), unique charactenstics of the The a-T at full load is 8.3°C (15°F) for water body, or concerns expressed by the Unit 1. Because of the small volumes of resources agencies, the power plants selected blowdown associated with the closed-cycle for detailed evaluation are believed to cooling system of Unit 2, its contribution to represent the types of power plants with the discharge temperature increases is negligible.
greatest potential for intake and discharge Arkansas Power and Light (AP&L) has effects. These examples also represent a conducted an extensive environmental variety of aquatic systems affected by nuclear monitoring program relating to the effects of power plant operations, including reservoirs ANO on Lake Dardanelle, including the
[Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO) and William effects of heated water discharges, B. McGuire Nuclear Station], the Great impingement, and entrainment.
Lakes (D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant and the cumulative effects of Lake Michigan ANO has operated under a series of nuclear power plants), large rivers NPDES permits issued by EPA; no Section (cumulative effects of Hudson River power 316(a) demonstration has been required.
plants), and marine systems [San Onofre Utility consultations with EPA Region 6 in Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) and the early 1980s confirmed that there was no the Crystal River Nuclear Plant]. Although 316(b) requirement; reevaluation would be some power plants with once-through needed only if there were a dramatic change cooling systems operate in relative isolation in impact [AP&L, response to NUMARC from other obvious sources of man-induced survey (NUMARC)]. The following sections stress to aquatic biota, most of the examples discuss the impacts of ANO operation.
considered here may affect aquatic resources in conjunction with other nuclear and coal- F.4.1.1 Thermal Discharges fired pow~r plants, and therefore may represent the most severe cases. Where A portion of AP&L's monitoring program is appropriate, the cumulative effects of these designed to assess the impacts of the combined sources of stress have also been thermal discharge on fish and aquatic life discussed. (AP&L 1984). Discharge temperature is limited to 35°C (95°F), with a maximum increase over ambient of 2.8°C (5°F) based on a monthly average of daily depth-averaged values measured at F-ll NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01105
AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES APPENDIX F unspecified locations in Lake Dardanelle major in a heated enclosure relative to an (Geo-Marine, Inc. 1976; AP&L 1984). Most unheated control (CONF-740820).
of the heat added to the water is dissipated within 2.5 km (1.6 miles) of the point of Evaluating effects of the discharge on fish discharge (Rickett 1983). communities is one of the main objectives of multiyear fish surveys conducted by AP&L.
The plant discharge has been studied with Fish are attracted to the discharge area in respect to effects on physicochemical the winter and to the intake area in the parameters, phytoplankton, zooplankton, summer; sport fish tend to avoid the and fish. Statistically significap.t differences discharge area in the summer because of the in turbidity, suspended solids,1 chloride, and elevated temperatures [AP&L, response to hardness, but not conductivity, were found NUMARC survey (NUMARC)]. Concern between the intake area and an upstream was expressed in the Final Environmental area in Lake Dardanelle, but not between Statement (FES) for Unit 1 (ABC Docket the intake and the discharge (Rickett and 50-313) about potential cold shock in the Watson 1985). The differences appear to be event of rapid plant shutdown during the small and may be the result of winter. Recent information [AP&L, characteristically different water quality in response to NUMARC survey (NUMARC the Illinois Bayou and the Arkansas River 1990)] does not discuss whether such mainstream (e.g., Geo-Marine, Inc. 1976). A shutdowns have occurred, but only one comparison of the phytoplankton significant fish kill incident (excluding communities at close versus distant sampling entrainment and impingement mortality) is stations after power plant operation began reported from 1974 through 1989. The showed (1) no noticeable effects on deaths, in the discharge area, were related to phytoplankton abundance and the number lordosis (humpback or crooked spine). This of taxa and (2) no significant effects on abnormality may have been caused primarily diversity (Rickett and Watson 1983b), by toxaphene, an agricultural pesticide that although an indication is given that washed into the reservoir from the phytoplankton were stimulated at close surrounding watershed and was enhanced by stations (Rickett and Watson 1983a). The the thermal discharge. Toxaphene was heated effluent was considered to have banned, and lordosis has rarely been slightly suppressed overall abundance and observed after 1978 [AP&L, response to variety, but not diversity, of the zooplankton NUMARC survey (NUMARC 1990)].
community, and to have generally increased the ratio of phytoplankton to zooplankton Time trends in mean weights of adult fish abundance at close stations (Rickett and have been examined over several years Watson 1983a). Also attributed to the power (Tilley 1983). Mean weights for five species plant was a dominance exchange between of fish tended to be somewhat higher in the the rotifer genera Brachionus and Polyarthra, discharge embayment than in stations with the latter genus moving from third to elsewhere, as did the ratio of predators to first rank in terms of the number of times it prey based on weights. It was concluded that was dominant at individual sampling stations species composition in the reservoir had not (both close and distant). Such a shift is reached equilibrium in the 15 years after consistent with experimental results showing impoundment, and it was considered unlikely an increase in abundance of Polyarthra to do so in the future. The species composition in the vicinity of the discharge NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 F-12 OAGI0001365 01106
APPENDIX F AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES is, however, not significantly different from These fish were predominantly young-of-year that in other sample areas (Tilley 1983). and presumably stressed by low water temperatures (Zweiacker et al. 1977). Ten F.4.1.2 Entrainment and Impingement million fish weighing 97,900 kg (215,900 Ib) were impinged during the first year of The potential for entrainment at AND is not operation, compared with an average negligible. At full power opeliation, the plant impingement of 2 million fish weighing withdraws 48 m 3/s (765,000 gal/min) of 13,000 to 30,000 kg (29,000 to 66,000 lb) in water. If the reservoir is viewed as a closed ensuing years [AP&L, response to system, this is 0.5 percent of the reservoir NUMARC survey (NUMARC 1990)]. Also volume per day. Viewing the reservoir as an during 1974-1975, an air bubble curtain was open system, the intake is 5 percent of the evaluated as a possible means of reducing mean flow through the reservoir; much impingement. It was considered ineffective.
larger percentages can be calculated during Impingement levels were found to be periods of low flow. Although these inversely correlated with temperature percentages do not represent estimates of (Zweiacker et al. 1977).
entrainment or impingement, they may be large enough to result in significant impacts. An indication of the magnitude of ongoing impingement can be obtained by comparing An assessment of entrainment at AND has estimated impingement of fish with been conducted by AP&L (1990). Summary estimated reservoir standing crops. These data are presented for 1977-1982 for fish estimates were provided for 1981 for some larvae from meter net samples in the Illinois of the more important commercial and sport Bayou in the vicinity of the entrance to the fish and forage fish in the reservoir.
intake canal and in the intake canal itself. Impingement in 1981 represented less than Clupeid larvae represented 79-97 percent of 3 percent of the estimated gizzard shad all larvae captured in the entrainment population and less than 13 percent of the samples, depending on the year. Although estimated threadfin shad population, either clupeids were the most frequently entrained by numbers or by weight. For the 11 other larvae, these species have been able to species, the fraction was 1 percent or less reestablish themselves in the intake area and and usually less than 0.1 percent.
the reseI'\loir each year. AP&L does not Impingement rates of the magnitude regard entrainment at AND as having a estimated for threadfin shad could have a significant impact on these or other species significant effect on the population, although of fish in the lake (AP&L 1990). demonstrating (i.e., measuring) the effect would probably be impossible given the Impingement samples have been taken from limited preoperational data and the natural at least 1974 through 1982. Impingement has variability inherent in fish populations (Van been substantial. In the FES for Unit 2, Winkle et al. 1981). Loar et al. (1978)
NRC staff reported that from June 10, 1974, studied impingement of threadfin shad at 32 through July 19, 1975, 34 species had been southeastern power plants, including AND.
impinged at Unit 1; :estimated impingement The impingement rate of shad [number was 27.5 million fish weighing 213,000 kg impinged per million cubic meters (2.6 x (470,000 lb), of which 99.6 percent by lOS gal) of water withdrawn] at AND was number and 99.3 percent by weight were more than 4 times that of the second highest threadfin or gizzard shad (NUREG-0254). plant in their study and more than 10 times F-13 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365 01107
AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES APPENDIX F higher than rates at the other nuclear power Reservoir as it ages, or to other plants. Loar et al. concluded that the anthropogenic factors is not clear. Because characteristic of peak winter impingement of entrainment and impingement of largemouth thread fin shad was widespread for bass are low, substantial effects of AND on southeastern U.S. power pladts between 33 0 this species would only be expected as an and 370 N latitude (AND is near 35 0 N indirect consequence of effects on one of latitude) and that impingement rates were their food sources, clupeids; such effects on higher in reservoirs than on rivers. They clupeids were not detected.
could not firmly relate the rates to type of intake structure or to plant operational The combined effects of thermal discharges parameters (e.g., flow rates; velocity 'near the and entrainment and impingement stresses intake screens). are likely greatest on the thread fin and gizzard shad populations. Quantifying the FA.13 Summary of Impacts level of stress would require extensive additional analyses, far beyond the scope of Information about preoperational (1969-72) this GElS. Evaluating the consequences of and postoperational (1975-84, except for these effects and stresses at the fish 1979) standing crops of fish from Lake population level presents additional Dardanelle are available in one of the difficulties, due in large part to uncertainty National Reservoir Research Data Bases. about biological compensatory mechanisms Four multivariate analyses of variance, or (EPRI EA-5200s). However, as AP&L MANDVAs, of the Lake Dardanelle data points out, threadfin and gizzard shad are were conducted. These compared able to reestablish themselves in the intake preoperational status of fish communities in area and the reservoir each year [AP&L, the reservoir with postoperational status response to NUMARC survey (NUMARC based on standing crops for selected 1990)]. Effects of changes in zooplankton important commercial, sport, or forage dominance and high annual levels of shad species within four groups of fish: clupeids impingement are not apparent. In addition, (threadfin shad, gizzard shad, and skipjack state and federal regulatory agencies have herring); catfishes (channel catfish, flathead not expressed concern about operation of catfish, and blue catfish); basses (largemouth AND.
bass, striped bass, and white bass); and crappies and sunfishes (black crappie, white FA.2 William B. McGuire Nuclear Station crappie, bluegill, and longear sunfish). A significant (p < 0.05) difference was found The William B. McGuire Nuclear Station is only with the basses. The individual a 2-unit, 2360-MW(e) plant located on Lake univariate analyses of variance, or ANDVAs, Norman, the largest impoundment in North for individual bass species showed a Carolina. Both units use a once-through significant decrease in largemouth bass. cooling system, drawing a combination of However, a non parametric test using the surface water from a manmade embayment Mann-Whitney U statistic showed, in and deep water from an intake located near addition, a significant increase in striped bass the base of Cowan's Ford Dam. The near-(which had not been caught at all in the shore discharge is channeled through a canal preoperational period). Whether these 1 km (0.6 mile) long. The I!& -T (change in changes are related primarily to operation of temperature) at full load ranges from 8.6 0 C AND. to natural changes in Dardanelle NUREG*1437. Vol 2 F-14 OAGI0001365_01108
APPENDIX F AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES (15.5°F) in the summer to q.7°C (24.7°F) operation of McGuire. These have been in the winter (Duke Power Company 1985). attributed to a loss of oxygenated cool-water habitat. The original NPDES permit for Concerns about McGuire's impacts to McGuire specified a maximum discharge aquatic resources have focused mainly on temperature of 35° C (95° F). A new permit, effects of heated water discharges on issued in 1990, increases this limit to 37°C recreational fisheries (DUKE PWR/82-02), (99°F) during July to September. The new although entrainment and impingement are higher limit can be attained with a lower also of potential concern for aquatic life. proportion of cool, deep (hypolimnetic)
Water use has also been identified as an water from the lower-level intake structure.
issue. This in turn is expected to reduce the depletion of habitat for cool-water fish Lake Norman was impounded in 1963 species (primarily adult striped bass and primarily for power generation. The yellow perch).
Marshall Steam Station (coal-fired) also uses the lake for cooling water; with both Avoidance of the discharge area by fish facilities operating, the lake has the highest during summer, which varies depending on thermal loading from the discharge of once- the level of operation, has been documented through condenser cooling water of any lake and will probably increase with the new of comparable size in the United States thermal limit Because areas of Lake (DUKE PWR/82-02). Several sport fish Norman water affected by thermal species have been successfully introduced to discharges will be increased only by the reservoir. Largemouth bass, crappie, approximately 1 percent as a result of the striped bass, and white bass dominated the changed limits (Duke Power Company fishery in the early 19805 (DUKE PWR/82- 1988), the loss of summer aquatic habitat 02). should have negligible effects on fish popUlations. Attraction of fish to the The following sections discuss the major discharge area during cooler months has potential sources of impacts from the occurred in the past and will probably McGuire plant. continue. The likelihood of mortalities due to cold shock is substantially reduced with F.4.21 Thermal Discharges two units operating. No incidences have been reported of fish mortalities resulting Extensive attention has been devoted to from thermal shock in the first few years of evaluating the thermal effects on Lake operation (Carter 1990).
Norman of discharges from both Marshall and McGuire. Postoperational versus Gas bubble disease (GBD), which sometimes preoperational comparisons of fish standing leads to mortality, has regularly been crops based on cove rotenone sampling show observed in the discharge of the Marshall fluctuations, but the only documented trend plant (McInerny 1990). Duke Power (1985) is a decline in gizzard shad standing stocks projected only low incidences of GBD for near the discharge since operation [Duke the McGuire station, based on operating Power Company. response to NUMARC data from Marshall and the a -Ts expected survey (NUMARC 1990)]. Minor sporadic for McGuire. In the limited postoperational die-offs of striped bass and yellow perch data provided, the incidence of GBD was have been observed before and after low. Incidence of disease and parasitism was F-15 NUREG.1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01109
AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WA!rER RESOURCES APPENDIX F also low, both in preoperational and F.43 D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant operational years (Duke Power Company 1985). The D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant is a 2-unit, 2130-MW(e) plant located on the F.4.22 Entrainment and Impingement southeastern shore of Lake Michigan. The plant uses a once-through cooling system for The only report currently available about both units, drawing water from three intake entrainment and impingement is from a cribs located 680 m (2231 ft) offshore in preoperational, predictive study (Duke 7.3 m (24 ft) of water (Thurber and Jude Power Company 1978). Threadfin shad were 1984); Cooling water is also discharged expected to be the fish species most subject offshore through two slot-jet discharge to both entrainment and impingement. A structures located 366 m (1200 ft) offshore formal 316(b) demonstration has not been in 5.5 m (18 ft) of water. The maximum required at McGuire, and no extensive temperature to which discharged water is studies of fish entrainment and impingement heated above ambient temperatures (i.e., the have been conducted (Carter 1990). a-T) is variously reported as lOoC (18°F)
(Evans et a1. 1977; Evans 1984; Chang and F.4.23 Cumulative Impacts Rossman 1985) or 21°C (38°F) (Thurber and Jude 1984). A riprap bed of crushed Combined effects of the Marshall and limestone was deposited around the intake McGuire plants on fisheries are difficult to and discharge structures during construction document. This difficulty is typical of to prevent erosion and scour.
situations where not only power plants but also other external factors are operating on Concerns about D. C. Cook impacts to the system. Despite the potential for aquatic resources have focused on effects of entrainment, impingement, and thermal entrainment, impingement, and heated water effects, the overall fish populations of Lake discharges on recreational and commercial Norman appear to be healthy and to support fisheries. The most frequently impinged and an increasing amount of recreational activity. entrained fish species in Lake Michigan are In responses from federal and state agencies, alewife, yellow perch, and rainbow smelt the North Carolina Wildlife Resources (Jensen et a1. 1982). All three species Commission expressed a concern about support small commercial fisheries, and mortalities of large striped bass in Lake yellow perch and rainbow smelt are also Norman but also indicated that it was important to sport fishermen. In addition, uncertain whether these are related to there are important cold-water sport fishes operation of McGuire (Hamilton 1990). (e.g., lake trout and various other stocked salmon ids) that could be affected by thermal Consideration of impacts to aquatic discharges.
resources in Lake Norman is an ongoing cooperative effort between Duke Power Chang and Rossman (1985) report that the Company and the resource and regulatory plant no longer requires biofouling control agencies (Lewis 1990). This is evidenced by and that chlorination did not occur during the recent modification of maximum their study period. The spread of the fouling discharge temperatures of the McGuire organisms Corbicula and the zebra mussel in station to protect cool-water fish habitat. the Great Lakes in recent years may once again require the use of some type of NUREG-1437, Vol 2 F-16 OAGI0001365_01110
APPENDIX F AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES biocide. In any case, D. C. Cook would be impacts. Studies before and during operation unlikely to cause biocide impacts because it of the plant sought changes that could be discharges treated water through a diffuser attributed to operation. Few significant (to ensure rapid mixing and dilution) into a effects were detected from the entrainment large body of water. Chemical effluents of phytoplankton (Chang and Rossman would be rapidly diluted and are unlikely to 1985) or zooplankton (Evans et al. 1977),
accumulate in the system. and even these effects were considered inconsequential or highly localized.
F.4.3.1 Thermal Discharges Madenjian et al. (1986) used two statistical The rapid mixing of heated water and procedures to assess D. C. Cook impacts.
discharge into a large body of cold water is They compared catches of alewives and unlikely to result in significant adverse yellow perch before operation (1973-74) impacts. Evans studied benthic communities and during operation (1975-82). Both in the vicinity of the discharge structure and analyses disclosed no significant power plant found few or no differences between the impacts. State and federal resource agencies thermal plume and control areas in contacted for this document did not express abundances of bottom-dwelling organisms; concerns about the continuing operation of the few differences that were detected were D. C. Cook (Madenjian et a1. 1986).
limited to small areas within a few hundred meters of the intake and discharge F.4.4 Lake Michigan Nuclear Power Plants structures.
Six nuclear generating stations are located Spigarelli et a1. (1983) studied movements of on Lake Michigan. Except for the Palisades a cold-water sport fish, the brown trout, near Nuclear Plant, they all use once-through the thermal plume of a Lake Michigan cooling. Listed with the number of units, power plant similar to D. C. Cook they are Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant (1),
[essentially the same discharge rate and 4-T D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant (2),
(change in temperature)]. The trout took up Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant (1),
residence in the thermal plume instead of Palisades Nuclear Plant (1), Point Beach avoiding it, especially during the winter Nuclear Plant (2), and Zion Nuclear Plant months when ambient temperatures are (2). The near-field aquatic effects of one of lower than those preferred by the fish. In these, the D. C. Cook plant, have been Lake Michigan, fish can easily avoid thermal considered separately in this section. In plumes, but some species (brown trout, addition, EP~ the Illinois Environmental rainbow trout, alewife, carp, and salmon) Protection Agency, and the Illinois frequently occupy these gradients (Spigarelli Department of Conservation all specifically et al. 1983). identified entrainment and impingement of fish at the Zion Nuclear Plant as issues of F.4.3.2 Entrainment and Impingement concern; and studies of potential mitigative measures have been requested. In terms of Because of the large volumes of water the far-field, long-term effects, it is withdrawn for condenser cooling of the two appropriate to consider these plants as a units and the large numbers of important group and to examine their cumulative fishes in the vicinity, D. C. Cook has been impacts, considering also other sources of studied for entrainment and impingement impact (including fossil-fuel power plants)
F-17 NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01111
AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES APPENDIX F on Lake Michigan as a whole. This approach estimated that the "harvest" by power plants has been taken in several publications that through impingement was at least 7500 consider the cumulative effects of metric tons (8300 tons), or 15 percent of the entrainment and impingement of fish. total commercial landings (about 50,000 metric tons (55,000 tons), obtained Kelso and Milburn (1979) evaluated from references dated 1970 and before).
cumulative entrainment and impingement Because they considered their impingement during 1975 or 1976 at 89 power plants figures to be low, they estimated that using once-through cooling systems located impingement losses were in excess of on all five of the Great Lakes. The . 25 percent of the total annual commercial combined capacity of these plants was 54,118 fish harvest. Kelso and Milburn (1979)
MW(e). Consideration was also given to an estimated an annual entrainment in the additional 17 plants with once-through Great Lakes of about 1.2 billion larval fish, cooling systems not yet operational at that but because of inadequate information they time but expected to be operational by 1982, did not try to relate these losses to the size with 30,705 MW(e) additional capacity. Of of the commercial catch.
these, ~ existing and 3 planned plants, with 14,932 and 4,969 MW(e) ca' 3cities, Scott-Wasilk et al. (1981) believed that respectively, were located on Lake Michigan. Kelso and Milburn's (1979) comparison of the loss estimates with commercial catch Impingement information was available from data overstated the impact. They noted that 43 percent of the existing power plants. 85 percent of the impingement and Impingement in Lake Michigan was second entrainment was of "ecologically less highest (after Lake Ontario), with a broad desirable, but very abundant species" that peak from May to July. Entrainment are increasingly dominant in the commercial information was more limited, available from catch. Alewife and smelt stocks fluctuate only 24 percent of the plants. Regression substantially but have shown no consistent equations were developed for annual trends in abundance in Lake Michigan, impingement and annual entrainment as despite the entrainment and impingement functions of power plant size (apparently, and a steadily increasing commercial catch of with all units combined within plants); these alewives. They considered standing crops to were used to extrapolate to plants lacking be a more appropriate basis for comparison.
adequate data. Based on these equations, Viewed this way for Lakes Michigan and annual impingement at existing Lake Ontario and the western basin of Lake Erie, Michigan plants was estimated to be about annual impingement losses (expressed 15.4 million fish; the proposed plants were variously as numbers or as weights) typically projected to increase this by 755,000 fish. constituted less than 1 percent of total The corresponding estimates for entrainment stocks. Scott-Wasilk et al. (1981) also felt of larvae were about 196 million and 10 that the probable effect of power plants on million, respectively. sport and commercial landings was negligible and that (biological) compensatory reserves Kelso and Milburn (1979) estimated annual for impacted stocks, although unquantified, impingement in the Great Lakes by these were probably sufficient to minimize the power plants of approximately 100 million impacfof these losses.
fish. Calculating an average weight of an impinged fish at about 75 g (2.6 oz), they NUREG*1437, Vol 2 F-18 OAGI0001365_01112
APPENDIX F AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES Kelso and Milburn (1981), in their response, that impingement amounted to 10 percent of noted that although losses of alewife and the commercial catch of alewife, 3.6 percent smelt may be small in Lake Michigan, such that of yellow perch, and 3.1 percent that of losses might constitute a significant rainbow smelt which, given the recent reduction in the forage base for trout and predominance of alewife in the commercial salmon. The concern was also expressed that catches, compare reasonably well with Kelso diScrete stocks and local populations might and Milburn's (1979) calculation of be depleted by clustering power plants with 15 percent of total commercial landings (all once-through cooling systems in areas species), based on older catch data.
including the southern basin of Lake Michigan. The main advantage of the approach taken by Jensen et a1. (1982) is that, rather than A different approach, involving the just ratios, the effects of entrainment and adaptatipn and use of conventional fishery impingement can be estimated on standing stock assessment models, was taken by stocks and on maximum sustainable yields.
Jensen et a1. (1982) to estimate the effects Using the full-flow scenario, but including of 15 power plants on Lake Michigan. All of entrainment and impingement, they the nuclear plants except Big Rock Point estimated reductions of standing crops were included. Both the surplus-production (biomass) of 2.86 percent for alewife, and the dynamic- pool models were applied 0.28 percent for yellow perch, and to estimate the proportions of the Lake 0.76 percent for rainbow smelt.
Michigan standing stocks of alewife, yellow Corresponding reductions in the maximum perch, and rainbow smelt impinged and the sustainable fishery yield are larger: 4 percent proportions of eggs and larvae entrained. for alewife, 0.5 percent for yellow perch, and 1.2 percent for rainbow smelt. Using The impingement proportions should be "maximum" entrainment and impingement reasonably comparable to those calculated coefficients, there is about a 10 percent by Scott-Wasilk et a1. (1981) for 17 Lake decrease in biomass (species not specified).
Michigan power plants. Although all of the They concluded, "Although large numbers impingement estimates calculated in either of alewife, rainbow smelt, and yellow perch paper for Lake Michigan were less than are killed by entrainment and impingement, 1 percent, the estimates of Jensen et al. the proportions of the popUlations affected (1982) for alewife (0.25 percent and are relatively small. Still, the loss of fish 0.21 percent, depending on the model used) biomass is not negligible, and entrainment were substantially smaller than the and impingement impacts need to be 0.77 percent estimated by Scott-Wasilk et al. considered in the design of new intake (1981). Conversely, the Jensen et a1. (1982) facilities" (Jensen et at. 1982).
estimates for rainbow smelt of 0.15 percent (both models) were more than double the The main lesson to be learned from these Scott-Wasilk et al. estimates. analyses of entrainment and impingement impacts on fisheries in Lake Michigan is that Referring to the type of analysis conducted it may not be sufficient to evaluate the by Kelso and Milburn (1979), Jensen et a1. significance of these types of impacts one (1982) also presented estimates of biomass power plant at a time. The main effects of impinged as a percentage of 1975 concern are not local but relate to the entire commercial catch statistics. They estimated lake (or at least to entire basins). The issue F-19 NUREG.1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01113
AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES APPENDIX F is one of resource management, and the were near each end of the estuary beyond logical level for management is at the level the region for which data were available but of the resource: cumulative impacts of all also outside of the main spawning and plants (and other water uses) in an area or nursery areas of key fish species. Therefore.
on a lake. analyses assessed the cumulative impact of steam-electric power generation on the F.4.5 Hudson River Power Plants Hudson River estuary. Impacts on striped bass received greatest attention, but white Seven power stations (including two nuclear perch, Atlantic tomcod, American shad, stations, Indian Point 2 and 3), with ~ total alewife, blueback herring, and bay anchovy net rated capacity of 5798 MW(e), are were also considered.
located along the Hudson River estuary between river kilometers 8 and 228 Numerous mathematical models have been (Hutchison 1988). The most extensive developed to evaluate the extent and effects consideration of entrainment and of entrainment and impingement impingement impacts on the aquatic (Christensen and Englert 1988; Barnthouse environment ever undertaken centered on and Van Winkle 1988). The Hudson River these facilities. Ouring the late 1970s, the approaches differ from those used for Lake studies, analyses, and hearings involved four Michigan, in which the numbers entrained or federal agencies, five utilities, and numerous impinged were related to numbers or other parties and drew on the cumulative weights of fish in the lake or caught in the efforts of nearly 2000 technical personnel. fishery. Interpreting such comparisons is very The results of these studies have recently difficult because (1) the entrained (and been integrated and summarized as a case probably also impinged) fish are younger and study (Barnthouse et ala 1988b) that is the less valuable than those in the fishable stock best available evaluation of what can and and (2) impingement needs to be considered what cannot be determined about these in relation to the life-cycle of the fish, not kinds of impacts. just on an annual basis. In the Hudson River, these issues were moot because The greatest attention focused on the estimates of the absolute size of stock population-level effects of entrainment and standing crops or fishery yields were not impingement of fish at the three largest available, in part because of the open nature plants: the Indian Point Nuclear Generating of the estuary. Rather, emphasis was placed Station (Units 2 and 3) and the Bowline on the conditional entrainment and Point and Roseton fossil-fuel plants. In impingement mortality rates (Ricker 1975) particular, the final EPA hearing that ended (the fraction of an initial population that with the 1980 settlement agreement would be killed during the year if no other (Barnthouse et al. 1988a) focused on sources of mortality operated) imposed on whether reducing entrainment and each year class and on the resulting impingement effects by retrofitting closed- projected percentage reduction of the cycle cooling systems to the six active units standing stock.
at these three facilities was necessary.
However, most of the later analyses included A reasonable consensus was eventually the effects of five power plants by adding achieved about the magnitude of Lovett and Danskammer, two smaller entrainment impact (Englert and Bareman fossil-fuel stations. The other two plants 1988; Barnthouse et al. 1988a). Estimates of NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 F-20 OAGI0001365_01114
APPENDIX F AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES conditional entrainment mortality based on environmental problems." The remainder of historical and projected once-through Barnthouse et al. (1988a) provides details of cooling operations at the five power plants these elements of the settlement agreement.
ranged from 5 to 7 percent for Atlantic tomcod to 35 to 79 percent for bay anchovy The settlement agreement is expiring, and it (Englert and Boreman 1988). For most is not certain what administrative procedures species" the impact of entrainment was will occur in its aftermath. In responses to consideted more important than that for requests to federal and state agencies, impingement. For white perch, however, the NMFS mentioned that the Indian Point estimates of conditional impingement plant is "famous for entraining striped bass mortality were relatively large, ranging from eggs and larvae" (Gorski 1990). The NMFS 10 to 59 percent (Barnthouse and Van indicated that the attempt at mitigation by Winkle 1988). means of a striped bass hatchery has never been acceptable to the resource agencies, The Hudson River studies were relatively who have asked for closed-cycle cooling. The unsuccessful in meeting the broader New York State Department of objective of extending these direct impact Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) is estimates to determine the percentage the agency responsible for NPDES permits.
reduction of the corresponding fish It has expressed concerns about populations in the estuary (Klauda et al. entrainment, impingement, and thermal 1988; Barnthouse et al. 1988c). Out-of-court discharge effects at Indian Point (Wich negotiations among many of the parties 1990). At present, entrainment and involved began in August of 1979 impingement effects at Indian Point are (Barnthouse et al. 1988a) in an effort to end active issues; whether they will still be issues the stalemate that was increasingly apparent, at the time of license renewal will be especially concerning the long-term effects determined by the course of events that of the conditional mortality rates attributable cannot now be predicted.
to the power plants. These conditional entrainment and impingement mortality rates F.4.6 San Onofre Nuclear Generating became the measures used to assess the Station impacts of existing operation. The successful result of these negotiations is summarized in SONGS is a three-unit nuclear facility Barnthouse et al. (1988a p. 269): "On located on the coast of Southern California, December 19, 1980, the historic settlement roughly midway between Los Angeles and agreement was signed by all parties. For the San Diego. All three units use once-through to-year duration of the settlement, no cooling systems, withdrawing water from the cooling towers would be required. As an Pacific Ocean through submerged alternative, the utilities agreed to a variety velocity-capped intake structures located at of technical and operational changes distances between approximately 900 and intended to reduce entrainment and 980 m (3000 and 3200 ft) from shore in impingement. In addition, they agreed to about 9 m (30 ft) of water. During normal supplement the production of striped bass in operation, Unit 1 [436 MW(e)] withdraws the Hudson River by means of a hatchery, water at a rate of 22 m3/s (350,000 gal/min) to conduct a biological monitoring program, and increases its temperature about tOo C and to fund an independent research (18° F) during passage through the plant.
foundation for study of Hudson River Units 2 and 3 are each rated at 1070 F-21 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01115
AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES APPENDIX F MW(e), and each withdraws approximately towers should be installed as a mitigative 50 m3/s (800,000 gal/min), with a measure.
temperature increase of about 11 0 C (20 0 F).
The Unit 1 discharge is through a single Local adverse effects were measured on the vertical pipe in 7.6 m (25 ft) of water about kelp community in the San Onofre kelp bed 762 m (2500 ft) from shore. Discharge of (SOK), including giant kelp, kelp-bed fish, the larger units (2 and 3) is through 760-m and large benthic kelp-bed invertebrates.
(25OO-ft) diffusers offset from one another The best estimate of reduction in the area and positioned more or less in sequence; for covered by moderate- to high-density kelp in Units 2 and 3, they terminate 2500 m the SOK is 80 ha (200 acres). Fish living (8200 ft) and 1800 m (5900 ft) offshore, near the bottom in the SOK (e.g.,
respectively. sheephead, barred sandbass, and black surfperch) were estimated to be reduced by Extensive studies* of the effects of SONGS 70 percent [roughly 200,000 fish weighing on aquatic biota have been conducted by the about 25.4 metric tons (28 tons)] below the Marine Review Committee (MRC), abundance expected in the absence of appointed by the California Coastal SONGS. The abundance of 13 species of Commission, over the period 1975-1989. snails and of the white sea urchin was These studies have recently been estimated to have been reduced substantially summarized and interpreted in a report of (30-90 percent) below the levels expected the MRC (MRC Document 89-02) without SONGS; other kelp-bed invertebrate supported by many other technical reports, species too rare to permit accurate sampling databases, and other reports. Most of the were also thought to have declined.
conclusions are based on both near-field and According to the report, "these effects, far-field sampling before and after startup of although local, are deemed substantial Units 2 and 3. In the summary report, the because kelp is a valuable and limited extent of biological effects is estimated habitat." These kelp-bed effects were quantitatively. Adverse impacts are estimated attributed mainly to changes in the physical to the kelp community (kelp, some fish, and environment in the SOK as a result of the kelp-bed invertebrates), to local populations sometimes turbid discharge plume. These of midwater fish species, and to far-field key environmental changes were populations of fish in the Southern (1) reduction in light levels reaching the California Bight (the area between Point bottom, (2) increases in the flow and the Conception and Cabo Colnett in northern rates of particles near the bottom, and Baja California). Besides quantifying these (3) modification of currents near the plant.
adverse impacts and identifying other biological effects, the report considers Two kinds of additional adverse impacts several distinct mitigative techniques, a were attributed mainly to losses because of combination of which is considered capable entrainment or impingement (see also of providing complete mitigation (MRC Helvey 1985). First, reductions in the local Document 89-02). Note that the abundance of some midwater fish three-member MRC was not always populations were measured. The local unanimous in its judgments. In particular, abundance of queenfish (a forage fish) was one member felt that some of the reduced by an estimated 30 to 70 percent, conclusions understated the severity or depending on the location, out to a distance extent of plant impact and that cooling of 1.9 to 3.1 km (1.2 to 1.9 miles) from NUREG*1437, Vol 2 F-22 OAGI0001365_01116
APPENbIX F AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES SONGS. The estimated reduction for white although entrainment of fish larvae, which croaker (a sport fish) was similar in are concentrated inshore at about the depths magnitude, but over a smaller area. Several of the intakes, is considered an important other species were believed to have contributor to reductions in adult stocks, experienced smaller reductions. Loss in the there is no clear pattern of decreases in the int~ke, predominantly due to impingement, abundance of fish larvae near SONGS.
was considered capable of explaining the loss Differences between local and more distant of croaker and some of the loss of sand crab populations are also felt to be queenfish, but the operation of some other unrelated to plant operation. General factor (such as plume turbidity) would also patterns of increases were seen among local be required to explain some of the effects. benthic fish populations, soft-bodied benthic invertebrates, and mysids (semi- planktonic The second adverse shrimp-like crustaceans).
entrainment/impingement impact concerns far-field effects. Consistent with the Besides quantifying the biological effects of evaluation of such far-field effects in other the operation of SONGS, the MRC report plant-specific analyses (see, for example, the made recommendations concerning two sets Hudson River power plants), the MRC of potential mitigative options. The first set report also recognizes that "even a major concerned structural changes to the power effect will be so diluted that the change will plant. A majority of the MRC was opposed be indistinguishable from natural variation." to backfitting cooling towers, and the MRC For these effects, the MRC relied on also discouraged moving the discharge inferred reductions rather than on attempts diffusers. The second set of options would to measure effects. An "equivalent adult involve implementation of three to five losses" method was used to estimate losses mitigative techniques, selected from more in recruitment due to measured than 30 that were considered. Finally, the (interpolated for young juveniles too small MRC recommended increased monitoring as to be impinged) entrainment and part of the changes to the NPDES program impingement, and assumptions were made to determine the value of mitigative about the effect of biological compensation. measures.
Reductions "probably between one and ten percent" in the standing stocks of several F.4.6.1 Cumulative Impacts midwater fish populations in the Southern California Bight were inferred. Because The MRC report (MRC Document 89-02) these latter entrainment/impingement effects does not explicitly consider SONGS in the could occur over large populations, they context of other power plants, of which were considered by MRC to be substantial. there are at least six in the Southern California Bight (Helvey 1985). However, In contrast to these particular groups of the fact that entrainment and impingement organisms for which adverse plant impacts at these plants also contributes to impacts is were measured or inferred, other groups of recognized, and reduction of these impacts organisms showed no change or increased at other nearby plants is an optional part of locally in abundance. With the exception of one mitigative measure recommended by the meroplankton (benthic larvae), which MRC. In fact, noting studies at SONGS increased, other plankton was largely indicating that the thermal effluent from the unaffected by operation of SONGS. Also, plant is of little environmental concern, the F-23 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01117
AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES APPENDIX F MRC states that "the greatest (680,000 gal/min) (Table 2.1); the total environmental protection might result from discharge of the three once-through units is a waiver of thermal standards at Southern approximately 83 m3/s (1,318,000 gal/min)
California Electric's coastal power plants, (FPC 1985). The change in temperature of because this would minimize the volume of the Unit 3 condensers is 9.5°C (17.1°F) water pumped through the plants" (MRC (Table 2.3).
Document 89-02, pp. 297-298).
Important aquatic resources of Crystal Bay As of late 1990, the California Coastal include a diverse benthic macroinvertebrate Commission had not acted on the MRC's community, submerged macrophytes recommendations (personal communication, (seagrasses), coastal salt marshes, oyster reef R. F. Ambrose, Marine Science Institute, communities, and a variety of finfish (e.g.,
University of California, Santa Barbara, to bay anchovy, batfish, seatrout, red drum, S. W. Christensen, ORNL, Oak Ridge, spot, striped mullet) and shellfish (e.g.,
Tennessee, October 5, 1990). The final squid, shrimp, stone crab, blue crab) (FPC MRC report initially gives the impression of 1985).
considerable confidence in the conclusions of impact and in the ability of the Concerns about the impacts of the Crystal recommended mitigative measures to River Power Station on aquatic resources achieve complete mitigation. Further reading focus on thermal discharges and entrainment reveals the importance of many estimates (Gardner 1990; Smallwood 1990). Based on and assumptions made in reaching the data collected for the plant's 316(a) conclusions and an explicit discussion of demonstration (FPC 1985), thermal effluents uncertainties. Whether the report's from the multiunit power station were conclusions are contested or not remains to considered by the Florida Department of be seen. Nonetheless, the report Environmental Regulation (DER) to have demonstrates the ability of a focused, substantially damaged the benthic long-term project, applying consistent macroinvertebrate and seagrass communities sampling and study techniques, to reach in a ll00-ha (2700-acre) mixing zone around meaningful conclusions about the impacts of the discharge canal (Olsen 1986). The DER a power plant on aquatic organisms and also expressed concern about the about ways to mitigate these impacts. entrainment by Crystal River Units 1, 2, and 3 of bay anchovies, crab larvae, and penaeid F.4.7 Crystal River Nuclear Plant shrimp larvae. Conversely, DER agreed with the Florida Power Commission (FPC)
The Crystal River Power Station consists of conclusions that thermal discharges from five units that withdraw cooling water from Crystal River Units 1,2, and 3 had enhanced the Gulf of Mexico. Only one of the unitS, productivity in the nearby salt marshes and Unit 3, is nuclear powered; the other units increased the growth rates of oysters in are coal-fired. Two of the coal-fired units areas moderately affected by heat.
use closed-cycle cooling; the remaining units are once-through. All units use a common Impacts to aquatic resources continue to be 5.5-km- (3.4-mile-) long intake canal and a examined at this site as part of NPDES 2.6-km- (1.6-mile-) long discharge canal permit renewals. The Crystal River Station (FPC 1985). Unit 3 discharges heated water has recently been required by EPA to into Crystal Bay at a rate of 43 m3/s reduce total condenser cooling water NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 F-24 OAGI0001365_01118
APPENDIX F AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES withdrawals during a portion of the year quality permitting agency as part of the
[FPC, response to NUMARC survey discharge permitting process will need to be (NUMARC)]. This flow reduction scheme considered in the license renewal would reduce the number of entrained application.
organisms but would not reduce thermal ef(ects. Installation of helper cooling towers would reduce thermal discharges from the F.6 ENDNOTES Crystal River site (Charles Kaplan, Region 4 EPA, personal communication to 1. The discrepancy between the estimates G. F. Cada, ORNL, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, in the FES and the estimates provided November 12, 1990). by AP&L are probably explained in large part by one or both of two possibilities.
First, comparison of information in F.5
SUMMARY
Zweiacker et at. (1977) with AP&L's estimate suggests that AP&L's estimate A detailed consideration of these once- may consist of actual collections of through nuclear power plants indicates that impinged fish during sampling that many of the aquatic resources issues covered 6 days per week during 6 weeks evaluated in the licensing stage have not per quarter, without scaling up to materialized as significant problems. Even at estimate impingement during periods not facilities where impact potential is sampled. Second, the first year of .
considered to be greatest, these impacts operation represented by AP&L's have been difficult to quantify. For example, estimates may not correspond exactly to while localized effects of phytoplankton the period for which estimates were entrainment or scouring of bottom sediments made in the FES.
near the discharge structure have been demonstrated in some instances, such 2. The National Reservoir Research Data impacts have not precluded the maintenance Bases are available from Southeastern of balanced, indigenous populations of Wildlife and Fisheries Statistics Project, shellfish, fish, and wildlife; and the Institute of Statistics, North Carolina regulatory agencies regard these effects as State University, Box 8203, Raleigh, NC acceptable. 27605-8203. Documentation describing the data is not currently available. In Conversely, these examples illustrate that addition, other caveats apply: serial the entrainment and impingement of fish correlation is possible and may interfere and the discharge of heated effluents from with the analysis, and other assumptions once-through power plants continue to (e.g., equality of the within-group concern some regulatory and resource covariance matrices) sometimes were not agencies. In some instances, the NPDES satisfied or could not be tested.
permit and 316(a) and (b) review processes have not been completed, and the 3. The (calculated) estimates for both acceptability of impacts or the need for entrainment and impingement at the mitigation are still under consideration. As proposed plants appear to be too low by noted in Section 4.2, those aquatic resources at least a factor of 8 in relation to the issues that have not been resolved to the regression equations and the stated satisfaction of EPA or the state water number and capacity of the new plants.
F-25 NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01119
AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES APPENDIX F The reason for this apparent discrepancy Summary Report of Environmental cannot be determined from the Impact of Thermal Discharge, October information available (John Kelso, Great 30,1984.
Lakes Biolimnology Laboratory, personal AP&L. Summary of Entrainment at Arkansas communication to S. W. Christensen, Nuclear One from 1977 through 1982, ORNL, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, undated report with responses to the January 28, 1991). NUMARC survey, 1990.
Barnthouse, L. W., and W. Van Winkle,
- 4. The staff presents these results from "Analysis of Impingement Impacts on Jensen et a1. but notes that it is not able Hudson River Fish Populations,"
to reproduce approximately the estimates American Fisheries Society Monograph, 4, of percentages impinged, even though 182-90, 1988.
seemingly sufficient information is Barnthouse, L. W., et aI., "Hudson River provided in the paper. Insufficient Settlement Agreement: Technical information is provided to try to Rationale and Cost Considerations,"
reproduce the estimates of percentages American Fisheries Society Monograph, 4, entrained. 267-73, 1988a.
Barnthouse, L. W., et aI., "Science, Law,
- 5. The staff noted that the commercial and Hudson River Power Plants: A Case catch estimates presented and used by Study in Environmental Impact Jensen et at. for alewife in Lake Assessment," American Fisheries Society Michigan, but not for smelt, differ Monograph,4, 1988b.
typically by a factor of 2 to 4-depending Barnthouse, L. W., et aI., "What We Didn't on the year-from those given by Scott- Learn About the Hudson River, Why, Wasilk et a1. These differences result and What It Means for Environmental from the exclusion from the Scott-Wasilk Assessment," American Fisheries Society et a1. table of commercial catch data for Monograph, 4, 329-35, 1988c.
alewife in Green Bay. Carter, J. S., Duke Power Company, letter to S. W. Christensen, ORNL, Oak
- 6. The source of the variation in the Ridge, Tennessee, September 4, 1990.
entrainment and impingement Chang, W. Y. B., and R. Rossman, "Effects coefficients is not clear, but it may be of Power Plant Entrainment on derived from year-to-year variation in Phytoplankton Response,"
biomass in the models. Verhandlungen Intemationale Vereinigung Limnologie, 22, 2493-97, 1985.
Christensen, S. W., and T. L. Englert, F.7 REFERENCES "Historical Development of Entrainment Models for Hudson River Striped Bass,"
ABC Docket 50-313, Final Environmental American Fisheries Society Monograph, 4, Impact Statement Related to the Arkansas 133-42, 1988.
Nuclear One, Unit 1, U.S. Atomic Energy CONF-740820 (STI/PUB/378, Commission, February 1973. IAEA-SM-187/48), J. W. McMahon and AP&L (Arkansas Power and Light A E. Docherty, "Effects of Heat Company), Arkansas Nuclear One Enrichment on Species Succession and Generating Station, Dardanelle Reservoir Primary Production in Fresh-Water Environmental Monitoring Program, Plankton," pp. 529-46 in Proceedings of NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 F-26 OAGI0001365_01120
APPENDIXF AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES a Symposium on the Environmental FPC (Florida Power Corporation), Final Effects of Cooling Systems at Nuclear Report-Crystal River, 316 Studies, Florida Power Plants, 1975. Power Corp., January 15, 1985.
Duke Power Company, McGuire Nuclear Gardner, T., Florida Department of Natural Station, 316(b) Predictive Study of Resources, letter to G. F. Cada, ORNL, Impingement and Entrainment, Charlotte, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, May 30, 1990.
North Carolina, 1978. Geo-Marine, Inc., The Distribution of Duke Power Company, McGuire Nuclear Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen in the Station, 316(a) Demonstration, Charlotte, Vicinity of Arkansas Nuclear One, Final North Carolina, 1985. Report, Vol. 1, conducted for Arkansas Duke Power Company, McGuire Nuclear Power and Light Company, 1976.
Station, Summary of Ecological Impacts, Gorski, S. W., NMFS, letter to G. F. Cada, and Plan of Continuing Study: Supporting O:RNL, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, July 18, Documentation for Modification of 1990.
NPDES Permit No. NC0024392, Hamilton, R. B., North Carolina Wildlife Charlotte, North Carolina, 1988. Resources Commission, conversation DUKE PWRl82-02, J. E. Hogan and W. D. with S. W. Christensen, ORNL, Oak Adair, eds., Lake Norman Summary, Ridge, Tennessee, August 31, 1990, Vols. 1 and 2, Duke Power Company, clarifying a letter from R. B. Hamilton to Production Environmental Services, G. F. Cada, ORNL, Oak Ridge, Huntersville, North Carolina, 1982. Tennessee, dated June 20, 1990.
Englert, T. L., and J. Boreman, "Historical Helvey, M., "Behavioral Factors Influencing Review of Entrainment Impact Estimates Fish Entrapment at Offshore Cooling-and the Factors Influencing Them," Water Intake Structures in Southern American Fisheries Society Monograph, 4, California," Marine Fisheries Review, 143-51, 1988. 47(1), 18-26, 1985.
EPRI EA-5200s, Compensatory Mechanisms Hutchison, J. B., Jr., "Technical in Fish Populations: Literature Reviews, Descriptions of Hudson River Electricity Vols. 1-3, Electric Power Research Generating Stations," American Fisheries Institute, Palo Alto, California, 1987. Society Monograph, 4, 113-20, 1988.
Evans, M. S., "Benthic and Epibenthic Jensen, A L., et aI., "Use of Conventional (MicroclUstaceans, Macrobenthos) Fishery Models to Assess Entrainment Community Structure in the Vicinity of a and Impingement of Three Lake Power Plant, Southeastern Lake Michigan Fish Species," Transactions of Michigan," Verhandlungen Intemationale the American Fisheries Society, 111, Vereinigung Limnologie, 22, 488-94, 21-34, 1982.
1984. Kelso, J. R. M., and G. S. Milburn, Evans, M. S., et ai., "Effects of the Donald "Entrainment and Impingement of Fish C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant on by Power Plants in the Great Lakes Zooplankton of Southeastern Lake Which Use the Once-Through Cooling Michigan," pp. 125-39 in L. D. Jensen, Process," Journal of Great Lakes ed., Fourth National Workshop on Research, 5, 182-94, 1979.
Entrainment and Impingement, EA Kelso, J. R. M:, and G. S. Milburn, Communications, Melville, New York, "Response to Comment by J.
1977. Scott-Wasilk et al.," Journal of Great Lakes Research, 7,495-97, 1981.
F-27 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365 01121
AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WAlER RESOURCES APPENDIX F Klauda, R. J., et al., "What We Learned Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office About the Hudson River: Journey of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 1977.
Toward an Elusive Destination, II NUREG-CONF-002, S. W. Christensen, et American Fisheries Society Monograph, 4, al., "Defining and Determining the 316-28, 1988. Significance of Impacts: Concepts and Lewis, R. E., "Opportunity for Management Methods," pp. 191-219 in R. K. Sharma of Natural Resources Through Utility et al., eds., The Biological Significance of and Regulatory Cooperation, II Environmental Impacts, U.S. Nuclear Presentations at the 120th Annual Regulatory Commission, 1976.
Meeting of the American Fisheries Society, Olsen, L. A, Florida Department of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1990.. Environmental Regulation, interoffice Loar, J. M., et a1. "An Analysis of Factors memorandum to J. P. Subramani, Florida Influencing the Impingement of Department of Environmental Threadfin Shad at Power Plants in the Regulation, February 4, 1986.
Southeastern U.S.," pp. 245-55 in L. D. Ricker, W. E., "Computation and Jensen, ed., Fourth National Workshop Interpretation of Biological Statistics of on Entrainment and Impingement, Fish Populations," Fisheries Research Chicago, Illinois, December 5, 1977, EA Board of Canada, Bulletin 191, 1975.
Communications, Inc., Melville, New Rickett, J. D., Dardanelle Reservoir-Illinois York, 1978. Bayou Embayment Survey, Progress Madenjian, C. P., et aI., "Intervention Report Number 26, February 7, 1983.
Analysis of Power Plant Impact on Fish Rickett, J. D., and Watson, R. L.,
Populations," Canadian Journal of "Phytoplankton Community Structure in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 43, Dardanelle Reservoir, Arkansas, 819-29, 1986. 1975-1982," Arkansas Academy of McInerny, M. c., "Gas-Bubble Disease in Science Proceedings, 37, 70-73, 1983a.
Three Fish Species Inhabiting the Rickett, J. D., and Watson, R. L.,
Heated Discharge of a Steam-Electric "Zooplankton Community Structure in Station Using Hypolimnetic Cooling Dardanelle Reservoir, Arkansas, Water," Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 1975-1982," Arkansas Academy of 49, 7-15, 1990. Science Proceedings, 37, 65-69, 1983b.
MRC Document 89-02, W. W. Murdoch, et Rickett, J. D., and Watson, R. L.,
aI., Final Report of the Marine Review "Fluctuations and Relationships of Committee to the California Coastal Selected Physicochemical Parameters in Commission, California Coastal Dardanelle Reservoir, Arkansas, Commission, Marine Review Committee, 1975-1982," Arkansas Academy of San Francisco, 1989. Science Proceedings, 34,98-102, 1985.
NUMARC (Nuclear Management and Scott-Wasilk, J., et al., "A Comment on the Resources Council), SUl1!ey of u.s. Paper by John R. M. Kelso and Gary S.
Utility-Owned Nuclear Power Plants, Oak Milburn, 'Entrainment and Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Impingement of Fish by Power Plants in Tennessee, and NUMARC, Washington, the Great Lakes Which Use the D.C., June 1990. Once-Through Cooling Process,'" [1.
NUREG-0254, Final Environmental Great Lakes Res., 5, 182-94 (1979)],
Statement Related to Operation of Journal of Great Lakes Research, 7, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, U.S. 491-95, 1981.
NUREG-1437, Vol 2 F-28 OAGI0001365_01122
APPENDIX F AQUATIC ECOLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES Smallwood, S., florida Department of Van Winkle, W., et aI., "An Analysis of the Environmental Regulation, letter to G. Ability to Detect Reductions in Year-F. Cada, ORNL, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Class Strength of the Hudson River May 31, 1990. White Perch (Morone Americana)
Spigarelli, S. A, et aI., "Selected Population," Canadian Journal of Temperatures and Thermal Experience Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 38(6),
of Brown Trout, Salmo Trotta, in a 627-32, 1981.
Steep Thermal Gradient in Nature," Wich, K. F., NYSDEC, letter to G. F. Cada, Env. Bioi. Fish., 8(2), 137-49, 1983. ORNL, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, July 6, Thurber, N., and D. Jude, Impingem~nt 1990.
Losses at the D. C. Cook Nuclear Plant Zweiacker, P. J., et aI., "Evaluation of an During 1975-1979 with a Discussion of Air-Bubble Curtain to Reduce Factors Responsible and Relationships to Impingement at an Electric Generating Field Catches, Special Report No. 104, Station," pp. 343-56 in Proceedings of Great Lakes Research Division, the 31st Annual Conference of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Southeastern Association of Fish and Michigan, 1984. Wildlife Agencies, Vol. 31, 1977.
Tilley, S., A Summary of the Dardanelle Reservoir Fishery Survey Annual Reports, Arkansas Power and Light, Environmental and Technical Services, 1983.
F-29 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01123
OAGI0001365_01124 ApPENDIX G POSTULATED ACCIDENTS NUREG-1437. Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01125
OAGI0001365_01126 POSTULATED ACCIDENTS G.t STATISTICAL ANALYSIS pressurized-water reactors (PWRs) and 10 are boiling-water reactors (BWRs). BWRs G.t.t Introduction can be further subgrouped based on the containment type (Mark I, Mark II, or Mark For 28 nuclear plants, final environmental III), but among the PES plants there are statement (PES) estimates of risk quantities only a few of each type. (For example, only exist: early fatality, normalized latent fatality, two are Mark I containment plants.) Using a normalized total dose, and normalized regression analysis that parallels the one to expected cost. The last three estimates are be described, tests were conducted for normalized to a per l000-MW(t) (thermal differences in regression parameters among megawatts) basis. The estimates are made the three boiling-water containment types, using the Calculation of Reactor Accident but none of significance for any risk estimate Consequences (CRAC) computer code for (i.e., p > 0.05 for all estimates) was found.
the middle year of the current licensing Therefore, at the outset, all BWRs were (MYL) period. The CRAC runs are costly identified simply as "B" and PWRs as "P."
and difficult, requiring expensive input data.
Prediction equations are based on regression There are also 16-, 80-, and 240-km (10-, relations between risk estimates and 50-, and ISO-mile) exposure index exposure indices. Perhaps the most natural projections for the MYL an4 for the middle starting point is the straight-line model:
year of the license renewal (MYR) period, estimate = a + b (exposure index) +
usually either 2030 or 2050, for the 28 random error. Because there are two reactor (PES) nuclear plants and 46 other (non- types, two lines are considered PES) plant sites. Exposure indices are simultaneously; that is, population averages weighted by wind-direction frequency, as discussed in Chapter estimate = atype + btype(exposure index) + e,
- 5. The exposure index projections are (G.t) relatively easy and inexpensive to compute.
Thus, the PES data will be used to where e denotes a random error, and type, B investigate the relationship between the or P, distinguishes BWRs from PWRs. The calculated PES estimates of the four risk error term represents the lack of quantities and the exposure index and to information that would be provided by other derive a prediction equation with which we independent variables, if available, as well as could (1) predict the MYR estimates as a the randomness of the 28 PES plants function of exposure index and (2) place considered as a random sample of all plants.
upper confidence bounds on the predictions. The CRAC estimate is deterministic in the sense that it is the output of a computer Because of the basic design differences, a program but could also exhibit randomness nuclear power plant's reactor type associated with random input arguments.
(pressurized water or boiling water) may be Eq. (G.l) has four parameters: two an important factor in the relationship intercepts and two slopes.
between the risk quantity estimates and exposure index. Of the PES plants, 18 are G-3 NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01127
POSTULATED ACCIDENTS APPENDIX G Fitting the model gives least squares additional (e.g., higher order) terms in estimates of the atype and btype. Call them Dtype the predictors might improve the fit o
and type. For each plant in the observed significantly.
data set, there are also predicted values, Dtype
+ Dtype (exposure index) and residuals, which 3. The residuals should be statistically aJ:e the estimates minus their predicted stable in the predictor(s) (e.g., they values. The residual for an observation may should not fan out). If the residuals are be thought of as an approximation to the not statistically stable, the error error for that observation, because under distribution probably changes with the fairly general conditions the difference predictors, so neither residuals nor approaches zero as the sample size errors can be lumped together for study, increases. at least without other strong assumptions.
The error component in a model like Eq. (G.l) is often assumed without Properties 1, 2, and 3 can be assessed using justification to be normal. Perhaps this is residual plots.
because the parameter estimates do behave normally as the sample size increases (Huber The following discussion makes use of the 1981, Section 7-2). However, in applications R2 statistic, known as "the squared multiple involving prediction, it is kn0wn that the correlation coefficient" and "the proportion assumption of normality can lead to serious of explained variance." R2 indicates how well errors. This is because laws of large data and model agree; it is 1 when the data numbers, which apply to parameter fit perfectly. However, a higher R2 does not estimates, do not apply to predictions of automatically imply a better model.
single new observations. Additional predictor variables always increase R2, regardless of whether there is The objective is to obtain a strong any significant improvement, and the regression relationship that will provide inclusion of insignificant terms in a model prediction confidence bounds and will allow can inflate the standard errors of predictions inferences to be made regarding the based on it. Also, sometimes R2 is quite high regression parameters. To do this, a good for models with severe outliers among the regression must exhibit the following residuals. These factors were considered in properties. the development of these models.
- 1. The distribution of residuals should be Now consider a new exposure index, say roughly normal.....symmetric and without exposure index " not necessarily in the extreme outliers. This property ensures original 28. A prediction of a new risk that the asymptotic (large-sample) estimate (estimate') at exposure index' is normality of parameter estimates can be obtained by simply plugging the new used as an adequate approximation in exposure index into the fitted regression finite samples, which in turn is needed to model for the appropriate reactor type.
make inferences about the parameters. According to the most common definition, an upper confidence bound U for estimate '"
- 2. The residuals should show no trend in is a function of the observed data that the predictor variable(s). The presence satisfies the probability statement of a trend in the residuals suggests that NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 G-4 OAGI0001365_01128
APPENDIX G POSTULATED ACCIDENTS When the assumption fails, Eq. (G.2) may P(estimate' s U) = 1 - u (G.2) be off considerably. This is discussed in further detail in Schmoyer (1990).
for some specified level of confidence 1 - u. Coming up with small-sample regression Often u is taken to be 0.05. The probability prediction confidence bounds without in Eq. (G.2) is with respect to an assumed making strong assumptions (e.g., normality statistical model, in our case Eq. (G.1), of errors) is a difficult problem for which no before (and not conditional upon) any of the good solution is currently known. Such observations. We have confidence bounds would be considered "distribution free" or "nonparametric,"
estimate' = a type +btype (exposure index') because they require no parametric
+ e' . (G.3) assumptions about the error distribution.
The random error components, e in Schmoyer (1990) discusses asymptotically Eq. (G.1) and e ~ in Eq. (G.3), affect the valid non parametric prediction confidence prediction problem in two ways. First, bounds. For these bounds, under a few weak estimates atype and Dtype are uncertain. conditions, Eq. (G.2) holds in the limit as Second, even if atype and btype were known the sample size increases. Schmoyer exactly, estimate' would still not be known discusses "bootstrap" (Stine 1985) and because of e ~. As indicated above, assessing "cross-validation" (Butler and Rothman the errors a type and D type is fairly 1980) prediction bounds. The bootstrap straightforward, although an asymptotic bounds are computationally intensive and approximation is usually incurred. The not exactly reproducible (Le., they involve a difficulty is in estimating the distribution of Monte Carlo procedure). The cross-
- e. Because our interest is in upper validation bounds were designed for confidence bounds for predictions, there is symmetrically distributed data. However, special interest in the upper tail of the error Schmoyer considers an asymmetric analog.
distribution. Usually, many more He also proposes new bounds and shows observations are needed to estimate upper that they tend to be better than the cross-tails than for central quantities such as a validation bounds in terms of approximating mean. [Eq. (G.2)).
Compounding the problem is that errors are The asymptotically valid approach seems not observed-they are only residuals. better than the standard approach, if Although the residuals and errors converge normality is unsubstantiated. However, the as the sample size increases, the sample size former is still premised on a large-sample is only 28. The residuals depend on atype and approximation. For this project, the D type' They do differ from the errors, and prediction bounds proposed by Schmoyer they are not statistically independent. were computed for comparison with the normal-theory approach. Disparity between The "standard" approach to prediction the two suggests that the normal-theory confidence bounds is based on the bounds may be off. These bounds will here assumption of normality of errors. When this be referred to as the "distribution-free" assumption holds, the standard approach is bounds.
optimal and valid in the sense of Eq. (G.2).
G-5 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01129
POSTIJLATED ACCIDENTS APPENDIX G In Schmoyer, it is argued that distribution- 0.1.21 Early Fatality Caused by a Severe free upper prediction bounds should not be Accident calculated for levels of confidence higher than 1-1/(n + 1), where n is the sample Because of a threshold dose phenomenon, it size. This is related to the idea that the does not make sense to normalize early la~gest distribution-free upper prediction fatalities. Therefore, only the 22 plants with bound from a simple random sample of size capacities greater than 3025 MW(t) (and n is the nth (the largest) order statistic, and consequently the largest source terms) were the probability that a new observation considered for this regression.
exceeds the nth order statistic is 1/(n + 1) .
Of these, the Wolf Creek plant has an If the assumption of normality is suspect, the estimated early fatality that is (identically) same caveats would seem to apply even zero and therefore had to be dropped when more strongly to the normal-theory bounds. logs were taken. This leaves 21 plants for One can formally use higher levels of the early fataHty regression. (Note that the confidence to obtain higher bounds. zero expected 'early fatality estimate may be However, attaching an interpretation such as illogical in the sense that the expectation of Eq. (G.2) to such bounds seems very a nonnegative quantity can only be zero if tenuous. the quantity is itself zero with certainty.)
As R2 decreases from 1, the issue of The FES consequence analyses found that statistical noise becomes more important and most early fatalities occurred within 8 to must be addressed. In particular, as R2 80 km (5 to 50 miles) of the plant.
decreases, the best predictions will tend to Therefore, early fatality was considered to become considerably lower than their be most highly related to the 16- or 80-km corresponding upper confidence bounds, (10- or 50-mile) exposure indices.
whether normal or distribution free. For Consequently, the regression of early fatality additional discussion of regression, residuals, on the 16- and 80-km (10- and 50-mile) prediction, and R2, see Draper and Smith indices was considered, first individually, (1981). then together in a multiple regression.
R2 values are 0.55 for the 16-km (10-mile) 0.1.2 Regressions index, 0.32 for the 80-km (50-mile) index, and 0.68 for the multiple regression. Each of Individual regressions are discussed in the these regressions has a high overall following paragraphs. For each regression, significance (p < 0.0001). However, in the models such as Eq. (G.1) were fitted both multiple case, the 16-km (to-mile) term is without and with log-transforming the data. significant (p = 0.0027), whereas the 80-km In the log case, logs of both estimates and (50-mile) term is not (p = 0.93). Therefore, exposure indices were used. In all cases, for only the 16-km (10-mile) exposure index and the regressions without log transformations, reactor type were selected for predicting the residuals have outliers and tend to fan early fatality.
out as the exposure index increases, whereas the residual plots look much better in the Figure G.1 is a residual plot for the log case. This is illustrated in residual plots, regression of early fatality on the 16-km which follow. Therefore, the no-log (10-mile) exposure index and reactor type.
approach has not been pursued. This and all subsequent plots in this NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 G-6 OAGI0001365_01130
APPENDIX G POSlULATED ACCIDENTS ORNL-OWG 95-1772 2
B B
P P P ~
(ij P P
- J P
pB P
'0 0 p iii Q) B c::
P p
-1 p
B e
-2 10 100 1000 10,000 100,000 16-km (10-mile) Exposure Index Figure G.l Residuals from regression of the log of early fatality (average deaths per reactor year) on the log of 16-km (IO-mile) exposure index of persons at risk (Reactor type: B = boiling water, P = pressurized water.)
appendix are on base-10 log scales. Thus a G.I.22 Normalized Latent Fatalities and difference of one unit in the residuals Normalized Total Dose Resulting corresponds to a factor of 10 difference from a Postulated Severe Accident between the fitted and actual values on the original scale. It seems to satisfy properties 1 Normalized latent fatalities and total dose through 3, except perhaps for a tendency for are thought to be related to the 240-km the B residuals to be slightly more scattered. (ISO-mile) exposure index. R2 for the This could be because the B-types are not regression of either the normalized total resolved into their three subclasses. The dose or latent fatality on the 240-km intercept and slope estimates (+/- standard (ISO-mile) index is 0.68. Both of these error) for this regression are -7.81 +/- 0.91 regressions are highly significant and 1.22 +/- 0.28 for PWRs and -S.09 +/- 1.40 (p < 0.00(1). Figures G.3 and G.4 are and 0.42 +/- 0.42 for BWRs. residual plots. In both cases, assumptions I through 3 seem to be met, except for (1) a Figure G.2 shows the log of acute fatalities tendency for the B residuals to be more within 16 km (10 miles) of 21 FES plants. dispersed, (2) a single P outlier, and (3) a slight suggestion that a quadratic term in the 240-km (ISO-mile) index might improve the fit. The significance levels for quadratic G-7 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01131
POSTIJLATED ACCIDENTS APPENDIX G ORNL-WG 95-1773 1 OE + 00 1 OE - 01
~ 1 OE - 02 B
"'iii iii u.. 1 OE - 03 p
>.
~
W 1 OE - 04 B
1 OE - 05 p B p
1 OE - 06 p 1 OE - 07 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 16-km (10-mile) Exposure Index Figure G.2 Log plot of early fatalities per reactor year within 16 km (10 miles) of 21 nuclear power plants [3300 MW(t) or greater], resulting from postulated accidents, regressed on log of exposure index (E1) for 16 kIn (10 miles). (EI is the sum of the products of wind frequency in 22.5 0 quadrants and population in those sectors. P = pressurized-water reactors, B = boiling-water reactors.)
ORNL-DWG 95-1774 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 iii 02
~
"2 01 ~ p a
&'" 00 I p
p p p
-01 p 'p
-02
-03
-04
-0 S
-06
-07~ __________________________ ~
100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 240-km (1 SO-mile) Exposure Index Figure G.3 Residua1s from regression of log of normalized latent fatality (average deaths per 1000-MW reactor-year) on the log of 240-km (l50-mile) exposure index of persons at risk. (Reactor type: B = boiling water, P = pressurized water.)
NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 G-B OAGI0001365_01132
APPENDIXG POSTIJLATED ACCIDENTS ORNL-OWG 95-1775 09 08, P 07*
06 05 04 P
03 Iii 02
- J Bp p p B 12 01
<II
~ 00 P
~B P
-0 1 P P Pp P
-02 p
-03 p
-04 B
-05
-06 p
-0 7 ~--------'--------:-:-::-:-:r 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 240-km (150-mile) Exposure Index Figure GA Residuals from regression of the log of normalized total dose (rem per l000-MW reactor-year) on the log of 240-km (ISO-mile) exposure index of persons at risk. (Reactor type: B = boiling water, P = pressurized water.)
terms, when included in the models, are 0.05 fatalities and fatal dose, it is reasonable to for normalized latent fatalities and 0.04 for project the expected costs for an accident normalized total dose. Fitting the quadratic during the license renewal period using terms does not improve the problem of the population or using the exposure index.
greater dispersion among B residuals. The Because the relationship of cost to the outlier, which is Indian Point, is discussed various candidate explanatory variables was further in Section G.1.3. Intercept and slope less clear than in the fatality or dose cases, it estimates are shown in Table G.1. was necessary to experiment with a greater variety of regression models. First considered Figures G.5 and G.6 show the normalized were the regressions of normalized expected latent fatalities and total dose, respectively, cost on 80-km (50-mile) radius population at 28 FES plants. values; the 16-, 80-, and 240-km (10-, 50-,
and l50-mile) exposure indices, and on each G_l.23 Normalized Expected Cost index in conjunction with population.
Resulting from a Postulated Severe Because only about half of the cost of an Accident accident is expected to be incurred within 80 km (50 miles), the 240-km (150-mile) radius Loss of property and other economic seems more appropriate.
impacts caused by a postulated accident generally would be larger as population Economic consequences were also increased. Consequently, as with latent benchmarked to the MELCOR Accident G-9 NUREG*1437, VoL 2 OAGI0001365_01133
POSTIJLATED ACCIDENTS APPENDlXG Table G.1 Regression estimates (+/- standard elT9r) for reactor plants Dependent variable Intercept Slope Pressurimd-water reactors Normalized latent fatalities -11.35 +/- 1.47 1.55 +/- 0.25 Normalized total dose -6.94 +/- 1.45 1.51 +/- 0.25 Boiling-water reactors Normalized latent fatalities -6.05 +/- 1.32 0.67 +/- 0.23 Normalized total dose -1.78 +/- 1.30 0.66 +/- 0.25 ORNL*DWG 95*1776 1 OOE + 00 p
1 OOE - 01 III
.9:!
-
- t::
'iii 1 OOE - 02
-.s I'll LL.
1.00E - 03 I'll
...J "tl
.~ 1 OOE - 04
'iii E
~ 1.00E - 05 1.00E - 06 1.00E - 07 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 240-km (1 50-mile} Exposure Index Figure G5 Log plot of normalized latent fatalities per 1000 MW(t) per reactor-year of 28 nuclear power plants resulting from postulated accidents, regressed on log of exposure index (EI) at 240 kin (150 miles). (EI is the sum of the products of wind frequency in 22.5 0 sectors and population in those sectors. P =
pressurized-water reactors, B = boiling-water reactors.)
NPR1.r, 1417, Vol 2 G-lO OAGI0001365_01134
APPENDIX G POSTULATED ACCIDENTS ORNL*OWG 95*1777 10,000 p
5! 1000 8
iii
- § 8
i,!::j
~o 100 I z p 10~--~--------~---------------
1,000,000 10,000,000 100,000 240.km (150*mile) Exposure Index Figure 0.6 Log plot of normalized total dose in person-rem per 1000 MW(t) per reactor-year within 240 kIn (lSO miles) of 28 nuclear power plants [3300 MW(t) or greater] resulting from postulated accidents, regressed on log of exposure index (EI). (EI is the sum of the products of wind frequency in 22.5° sectors and population in those sectors. P = pressurized-water reactors, B = boiling-water reactors.)
Consequence Code System (MACCS) calculated from MACCS, the regression computer code to ensure the calculated values should be adjusted through the use of values were based on the most current population-dependent correction models and data. The benchmark factors. Table 5.31 reflects average expected computations indicated that the CRAC cost values that were derived from the calculations used to estimate the economic regression and then corrected with the impacts for the PES plants did not have a following factors:
continuous linear relationship with population. Rather, the MACCS code
- Sites with MYR 10 mile populations predicted higher costs than did the CRAC S 10,000 multiply cost data by 40.
code; low population sites were
- Sites with MYR 10 mile populations underpredicted by substantial margins. The > 10,000 and S 50,000 multiply cost differences were primarily due to the data by 25.
difference in the handling of
- Sites with MYR 10 mile populations decontamination costs in the two codes. > 50,000 multiply cost data by 15.
Results from Tingle (1993) indicate that for the results to be comparable to results G-ll NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01135
POSTULATED ACCIDENTS APPENDIXG Also, the PES values were in 1980 dollars. -0.06 +/- 1.45 and 0.62 +/- 0.25 for To correct for this, the average expected BWRs. Figure G.8 shows the regression for cost values were inflated to 1994 dollars. normalized expected cost on the ISO-mile exposure index.
Because no expected cost data are available for Indian Point, these regressions are based G.L24 Comments on the Regressions on 27 observations. R2 values for the regressions are listed in Table G.2. The previous regression analyses have led to fairly simple straight-line models. There are All of these regressions are highly significant problems with the models, however, (p < 0.00(1). However, in each of the particularly the greater dispersion among the multiple regressions, the regression terms B residuals. If separate B types (1,2,3) are associated with population, after adjusting considered, the B dispersion is much for the exposure index, were insignificant (p smaller----so small, in fact, that the B residuals
> 0.05). Thus, the model based on reactor should not be used for making predictions.
type and only the 240-km (ISO-mile) This is because of the large number of exposure index were selected for predicting parameters (i.e., slopes and intercepts) being normalized expected cost. used to accommodate the B data. In this case, the P residuals alone should be used to Figure G.7 is a residual plot for the compute prediction intervals, even for the regression of normalized expected cost on B data, and there are only 18 P residuals.
the 240-km (ISO-mile) exposure index. According to our "1/( n + 1)" rule, even Assumptions 1 through 3 are supported, 95 percent confidence levels would then be except that the residual dispersion is greater suspect. We could use 90 percent confidence among the Bs than the Ps. The intercept intervals instead, but then the intervals and slope estimates for this regression are would be shaky simply because 90 percent
-4.12 +/- 1.92 and 1.30 +/- 0.33 for PWRs and does not represent a very high level of confidence.
Table G.2 RZ values for normalized expected cost regressions Predictors R2 value Reactor type and population 0.39 Reactor type and l6-km (to-mile) index 0.40 Reactor type and 80-km (50-mile) index 0.49 Reactor type and 240-km (ISO-mile) index 0.51 Reactor type, l6-km (lO-mile) index, and population 0.45 Reactor type, 80-km (50-mile) index, and population 0.48 Reactor type, 240-km (ISO-mile) index, and 0.56 population NUREG-1437, Vol 2 G-12 OAGI0001365_01136
APPENDIX G POSTULATED ACCIDENTS ORNL-OWG 95-1778 09 B
0.8 07 (ij 06
~
='
'(j) 05 I' Cl) I' 0::
'Z) 04 B 0 I' u 03 B
~
Cl) 02 I'
'0 Cl)
CL.
0.1 I' x 'P w 0.0 B I' I' p S
-0.1 I' PI'
-0 2 p I'
I'
-0 3 S I' S B
-0.4 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 240-km (150-mile) Exposure Index Figure G.7 Residuals from regression of the log of normalized expected cost (dollars per l000-MW reactor-year) on the log of 240-km (ISO-mile) exposure index of persons at risk. (Reactor type: B = boiling water, P = pressurized water.)
Alternatively, separate regressions could be G.13 Predictions performed for the Band P data. However, because there are only ten B data points, Predictions are computed simply by plugging the P predictions would still suffer from the predictors into fitted regression equations.
small size and the B predictions even more Collectively, they form the fitted regression so. line or curve. This is illustrated in Figures G.8 through G.16.
The best remedy for the problem of the greater B dispersion is to get more B data. That the MYL exposure indices are representative of the MYR exposure indices When the B residuals are numerous enough is evident from the cumulative distribution relative to the number of parameters being functions in Figures G.17 and G.18. A fitted to them, they can be used together cumulative distribution function of a set of with the P residuals to make predictions. data (here exposure indices) specifies for every number x the proportion of the set G-B NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01137
POSTULATED ACCIDENTS APPENDIXG ORNL-DWG 95-1779 100,000 p
iii o
C,.) 10,000
~
~
><
LLI
~ 1,000 i\i E
o z
100 100,000 1,000,000 10,'000,000 240-km (150-mile) Exposure Index Figure G.8 Log plot of normalized expected cost per 1000 MW(t) per reactor-year of 27 nuclear power plants [3300 MW(t) or greater] resulting from postulated accidents, regressed on the log of exposure index (EI). (EI is the sum of the products of wind frequency in 22.5 0 sectors and population in those sectors.
P = pressurized-water reactors, B = boiling-water reactors.)
NUREG-1437, Vol 2 G-14 OAGI0001365 01138
APPENDIXG POSTULATED ACCIDENTS ORNL-OWG 95-1780 1 OE + 00 1 OE - 01 1 OE - 02
~
- i 1 OE - 03 ** *
~ . *
'
~ *
~ 1 OE - 04
- a:::
L5 1 OE - 05 *
- 1 DE - 06
- 1 DE - 07 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 16-km (10-mile) Exposure Index Figure G.9 Log plot of early fatalities (average deaths per reactor-year) for final environmental statement pressurized-water reactor plants, fitted regression line, and 95 percent normal-theory upper prediction confidence bounds (dotted curve).
G-15 NUREG.1437, VoL 2 OAGI0001365_01139
POSTULATED ACCIDENTS APPENDIXG ORNL-OWG 95-1781 1 OE + 00 1 OE - 01 1 OE - 02 .
---
-.--_ .. -.- . -
~
~. ~
- J 1 OE - 03 ...
~
~
~ 1 OE - 04 0::
c(
UJ .. ..
1 OE - 05 1 OE - 06 1 OE - 07 -..--
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 16-km (10-mile) Exposure Index Figure G_IO Log plot of early fatalities (average deaths per reactor-year) for final environmental statement boiling-water reactor plants, fitted regression line, and 95 percent normal-theory upper prediction confidence bounds (dotted curve_)
NUREG-1437, Vol 2 G-16 OAGI0001365 01140
APPENDIX G POSTULATED ACCIDENTS ORNL*DWG 95*1782 1 OOE + 00
.
..................
1 OOE - 01 .................
?:
- J
~ 1 OOE - 02
.....................*........... .
i:f:
I-Z 1 OOE - 03 UJ g
C: 1 OOE - 04 UJ N
<< 1 OOE - as
~
a:::
0 z 1 OOE - 06 1 OOE - 07 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 240-km (150-mile) Exposure Index Figure G.ll Log plot of normalized latent fatalities (average deaths per lOOO-MW reactor-year) for final environmental statement pressurized-water reactor plants, fitted regression line, and 95 percent distnbution-free upper prediction confidence bounds (dotted curve).
G-17 NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01141
POSTULATED ACCIDENTS APPENDIXG ORNL-DWG 95-1783 1 OOE + 00 1 1 OOE - 01
~ ......; ......-......... -.................~.
~
..............................
~ 1 OOE - 02
~
I-Z 1 OOE - 03
- UJ
\-
~
o 1 OOE - 04 w
N
~
<< 1 OOE - 05
~
~
~ 1 OOE - 06 1 OOE - 07 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 240-km (150-mile) Exposure Index Figure G.12 Log plot of normalized latent fatalities (average deaths per 1000-MW reactor-year) for final environmental statement boiling-water reactor plants, fitted regression line, and 95 percent distnbution-free upper prediction confidence bounds (dotted curve).
NUREG-1437, Vol 2 G-18 OAGI0001365_01142
APPENDIX G POSTULATED ACCIDENTS ORNL*DWG 95*1784 10,000 Q) en 1,000 o
C Cij
- § "0
.~
c;;
100 E
o z
10 10,000,000 100,000 1,000,000 240~km (1S0-mile) Exposure Index Figure G.13 Log plot of normalized total dose (person-rem per l000-MW reactor-year) for final environmental statement pressurized-water reactor plants, fitted regression line, and 95 percent distnbution-free upper prediction confidence bounds (dotted curve).
G-19 NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01143
POSTIJLATED ACCIDENTS APPENDIX G ORNL-DWG 95-1785 10,000
~~
1,000
...*...................-;..*..........*.....*...*........ ....
100 *
- 10 10,000,000 100,000 1,000,000 240-km (150-mile) Exposure Index Figure G_14 Log plot of normalized total dose (person-rem per 1~MW reactor-year) for final environmental statement boiling-water reactor plants, fitted regression line, and 95 percent distnbution-free upper prediction confidence bounds (dotted curve)_
NUREG-1437, Vol 2 0-20 OAGI0001365_01144
APPENDIX G POSTULATED ACCIDENTS ORNL*DWG 95*1786 1,000,000 8en 100,000
-g t)
~
~ 10,000
~c;;
E
~ 1,000 100 10,000,000 100,000 1,000,000 240-km (1S0-mile) Exposure Index Figure G.15 Log plot of normalized expected cost (dollars per lOOO-MW reactor-year) for final environmental statement pressurized-water reactor plants, fitted regression line, and 95 percent distrIbution-free upper prediction confidence bounds (dotted curve).
G-21 NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01145
POSTULATED ACCIDENTS APPENDIX G ORNL*DWG 95*1787 100,000 iii U
o
"'C
- ~ ~
.............. ...................*.........*.. ....
~ 10,000 .........
8.
x LU
"'C
.~ . . .
"iii E
z o 1,000 .
100~----------------~--------------~
100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 240-km (150*mile) Exposure Index Figure G.16 Log plot of normalized expected cost (dollars per lOOO-MW reactor-year) for final environmental statement boiling-water reactor plants, fitted regression line, and 95 percent distnbution-free upper prediction confidence bounds (dotted curve).
NUREG*1437, Vol 2 G-22 OAGI0001365_01146
APPENDIX G POSTIJLATED ACCIDENTS ORNL-OWG 95-1788 10 09 08 c:
0
~ 07 0
c..
e Cl.
06 Q)
>
- 05 nI
-S 04 E
- I
()
03 02 01 .:rF A
CJ a 0 0 00 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 16-km (10-mile) EXPOSURE INDEX Figure G.17 Cumulative proportions of the midyear license date for 16-km (10-mile) exposure index: of persons at risk for final environmental statement plants and all other plants. [Year: ll. = middle year of license (MYL), 0 = middle year of license renewal (MYR).]
NUREG-1437. Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01147
POSTIJLATED ACCIDENTS APPENDIXG ORNL-DWG 95-1789 1 0 9o~rfJ II 09
.a:F/
08 ~I c:
0 07
t 0
- a. S J
0
..... 06 .::.
.. ll,E Cl.
,;0'/
Q)
> 05
..!!!
- l E 04
- l
<..)
- 1 03 02
- i 100,000 a
~
I 1,000,000 10,000,000 240-km (150-mile) EXPOSURE INDEX Figure G.18 Cumulative proportions of the midyear license date for 240-km (1SO-mile) exposure index of persons at risk for final environmental statement plants and all other plants. [Year: 6 = middle year of license (MYL), 0 = middle year of license renewal (MYR).]
having value no greater than x. In the but it is known to exacerbate the effect of figures, the MYL and MYR cumulative violating them.
distribution functions are similar, indicating that the two populations are similar. Plots When the assumption of normality of errors for individual reactor types are similar. fails, normal-theory prediction confidence bounds can be far from valid. Testing the Representativeness is an advantage in normal assumption in regression is a difficult several ways, one of which is that it implies problem. If regression errors were that the predictions are not extrapolations. observable (rather than just residuals), a Extrapolation itself does not violate the goodness-of-fit test for normality would be assumptions of prediction interval theory. straightforward. Unfortunately, goodness-of-NUREG-1437, Vol 2 G-24 OAGI0001365 01148
APPENDIX G POSTULATED ACCIDENTS fit tests must be based on residuals, which FES plants) were used to develop the depend on parameter estimates and are correlation for early fatalities.]
statistically dependent.
The n/ (n + 1) upper limit for a suitable level Even if errors were observable, it is of confidence for prediction bounds is thus essentially impractical to determine the either 0.95,0.96, or 0.97. Because 0.95 is a practical importance of accepting or standard level, it is used for all prediction rejecting with a goodness-of-fit test. The test bounds.
may be so lacking in power that an important deviation from normality ~ould The acute fatality regression is based only on most likely go undetected. In that case, plants of more than 3025 MW(t). These goodness-of-fit tests would likely also accept plants should tend to have greater expected many non-normal distributions, some of acute fatality estimates than plants of less which would imply considerably different than 3025 MW(t). Therefore, acute fatality prediction confidence limits. It can also predictions based on the fitted regression for happen that a goodness-of-fit test is so plants with less than 3025 MW(t) should powerful that even unimportant deviations tend to be high and thus conservative.Also from normality would most likely be computed for comparison were 95 percent detected with high statistical significance. distribution-free upper bounds, discussed in the introduction of this appendix and in In spite of the above caveats, a Shapiro- Schmoyer. Tables G.3 through G.6 contain Wilks goodness-of-fit test for normality was predictions and normal and distribution-free performed on the regression residuals for upper 95 percent prediction confidence the four models selected. Significance levels bounds for the variables. Although the best are p = 0.04 for acute fatalities, 0.55 for fitted lines for both Band P reactors are normalized total dose, 0.53 for normalized determined solely by their own respective latent fatalities, and 0.21 for normalized data, it is important to note that all (i.e.,
expected cost. Thus, at least in the case of both Band P) residuals affect the upper acute fatality, the normal assumption is prediction bounds, whether normal or immediately suspect. The outlying P residual distribution free. The MYR predictions are in the normalized latent fatality and based on a projection of the exposure index normalized total dose residual plots for those time points (usually 2030 or 2050).
(Figures G.3 and GA) casts doubt on the The MYL actual estimates, when available, normal assumption for these variables as are included for reference.
well, in spite of the acceptance of the goodness-of-fit test (p > 0.05). In comparing the normal theory and distribution-free predictions bounds, the Figures G.9 through G.16 contain the normal bounds can be either higher or observed MYL data; the fitted regression lower. In the case of acute fatalities, they lines; and normal-theory 95 percent (in the are higher, in the other cases, they are sense of Equation G.2) upper prediction lower. In all cases they are clearly different.
confidence bounds for the fatality, dose, and What the difference means in terms of cost variables. In our application, the sample practical importance is critical here, but it is size n is either 21, 27, or 28. [FES early not a statistical issue.
fatalities could not be normalized, so only plants with MWT(t) > 3000 (21 out of 28 G-25 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01149
POSTULATED ACCIDENTS APPENDIX G Table G.3 Middle year of the license renewal (MYR) early fatality predictions I
16-km MYLb early MYR early Normal Distribution (lO-mile) fatality fatality theory free Reactor exposure estimate prediction 95 percent 95 percent Power plant typed index x WOO x 1000 UCBe x 1000 UCB x 1000 Arkansas P 1993 0.17 3.3 2.1 Beaver Valley P 9535 2.0 1.1 25 17 Bellefonte P 2317 0.20 4.0 2.5 Big Rock Point B 476 0.11 2.7 1.9 Braidwood P 2126 0.38 0.18 3.6 2.3 Browns Ferry B 2019 0.20 4.3 2.8 Brunswick B 1195 0.16 3.5 2.2 Byron P 1468 0.26 0.11 2.3 1.4 Callaway P 541 0.10 0.034 0.69 0.44 Calvert Cliffs P 1232 0.093 1.8 1.2 Catawba P 7219 1.1 080 17 11 Clinton B 760 00090 0.13 3.0 2.0 Commanche Peak P 1518 0.10 0.12 2.3 1.5 Cooper B 411 0.10 2.6 1.8 Crystal River P 1064 0077 1.5 0.98 DC Cook P 4163 0.41 8.4 5.4 Davis Besse P 979 0.070 1.4 0.89 Diablo Canyon P 1020 0073 1.5 0.93 Dresden B 2..145 0.22 4.6 3.0 Duane Arnold B 6283 0.33 8.0 5.6 Farley P 1021 0074 1.5 0.93 Fermi 2 B 4919 074 0.30 6.8 4.6 Fitzpatrick B 1532 018 3.8 2.5 Fort Calhoun P 1155 0.086 1.7 1.1 Ginna P 2291 0.20 3.9 2.5 Grand Gulf B 562 0060 012 2.8 1.9 Haddam Neck P 5476 0.57 12 7.7 See footnotes at end of table NUREG-1437. Vol 2 G-26 OAGI0001365_01150
APPENDIX G POSTUlATED ACCIDENTS Table G.3 (continued) 16*km MYLb early MYR early Normal Distribution (IO-mile) fatality fatality theory free Reactor exposure estimate prediction 95 percent 95 percent Power plant type" index x 1000 x 1000 UCB" )( 1000 UCB x 1000 Hatch ,B 372 0.099 2.6 1.8 Hope Creek B 1807 0.0090 0.19 4.1 2.6 Indian Point 2 Indian Point 3 0.83 Kewanee P 671 0.044 0.89 057 La Salle B 1307 0.17 3.6 2.3 Limerick B 10709 5.4 0.41 11 8.7 Maine Yankee P 1246 0.094 1.8 1.2 McGuire P 4919 0.50 10 6.7 Millstone 3 P 9420 0.20 1.1 25 16 Monticello B 1832 0.19 4.1 2.6 Nine Mile Point B 1568 0.20 0.18 3.8 25 North Anna P 704 0.047 0.94 0.60 Oconee P 5184 0.53 11 7.2 Oyster Creek B 5584 0.31 7.4 5.1 Palisades P 2421 0.21 4.2 2.7 Palo Verde P 96 0.0021 0.0041 0.11 0.078 Peach Bottom B 1972 0.20 4.2 27 Perry B 5020 0016 0.30 6.9 4.7 Pilgrim B 1435 0.18 3.7 2.4 Point Beach P 1612 0.13 2.5 1.6 Prarie Island P 2188 0.19 37 2.4 Quad Cities B 2228 0.21 4.5 2.9 Rancho Seco P 835 0.058 1.1 0.73 River Bend B 1857 0.40 020 4.1 2.7 Robinson p 1889 0.16 3.1 20 Salem p 1808 0.15 2.9 19 See footnotes at end of table G-27 NUREG.1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01151
paSTULATED ACCIDENTS APPENDIX G Table G3 (continued) 16-km MYLb early MYR early Normal Distribution (10-mile) fatality fatality theory free Reactor exposure estimate prediction 95 percent 95 percent Power plant type" index x toOO x toOO UCBe x tOOO UCB x tOOO San Onofre P 5179 1.0 0.53 11 7.2 Seabrook P 5234 0.60 0.54 11 7.3 Sequoyah P 3471 0.33 6.6 4.2 Sheron Harris P 1773 0.18 0.14 2.8 1.8 Shoreham B 5915 0.32 7.7 5.3 South Texas P 278 000070 0.15 0.33 0.22 St. Lucie P 11447 0.070 1.4 32 22 Summer P 902 0.17 0.063 1.3 0.80 Surry P 6796 0.74 16 10 Susquehanna B 3976 0.77 0.27 6.0 4.0 TMI P 10327 1.2 28 19 Trojan P 12556 1.6 37 25 Turkey Point P 17852 24 60 42 Vermont Yankee B 2408 0.22 4.6 3.0 VogUe P 141 0.010 0.0066 0.16 0.11 WNP-2 B 134 0.32 0.064 23 20 Waterford P 6163 0.57 0.66 14 9.1 Watts Bar P 1241 0.093 1.8 1.2 WolfCreek P 381 0.022 0.47 0.30 Yankee Rowe P 1998 0.17 3.3 2.1 Zion P 16913 23 56 39 lip = pressurized-water reactor; B = boiling-water reactor.
=
bMYL middle year of license.
CUCB = upper confidence bound.
NUREG-1437, Vol 2 G-28 OAGI0001365 01152
APPENDIX G POSTULATED ACCIDENTS Table G.4 Middle year of the license renewal (MYR) normalized latent fatality (NLF) predictions 240-kro Normal Distribution (150-mile) MYLh NLF MYR NLF theory free Reactor exposure estimate prediction 95 percent 95 percent Power plant typed index )( 1000 )( 1000 UCBc )( 1000 UCB)( 1000 Arkansas P 265479 1.2 4.5 6.0 Beaver Valley P 1021547 8.3 9.8 35 49 Bellefonte P 678549 5.2 18 26 Big Rock Point B 136942 2.5 11 13 Braidwood P 1615088 4.0 20 76 100 Browns Ferry B 491751 6.0 22 30 Brunswick B 256923 3.8 15 19 Byron P 1214624 4.7 13 47 64 Callaway P 373564 22 2.1 7.4 10 Calvert Cliffs P 1459323 17 64 86 Catawba P 914688 3.6 8.2 30 42 Clinton B 1418383 6.6 12 45 61 Commanche Peak p 353530 1.3 2.0 7.1 9.9 Cooper B 428471 5.4 20 27 Crystal River p 573211 4.0 14 20 DC Cook P 1051654 10 37 51 Davis Besse p 1104797 11 40 55 Diablo Canyon P 302887 1.5 5.4 7.4 Dresden B 1193394 11 40 54 Duane Arnold B 329426 4.5 17 23 Farley p 344405 1.8 6.6 9.1 Fermi 2 B 1287935 12 11 42 57 Fitzpatrick B 270532 4.0 15 20 Fort Calhoun P 242370 1.0 3.9 5.3 Ginna P 357773 1.9 6.9 9.6 Grand Gulf B 388245 1.4 5.1 19 25 See footnotes at end of table.
G-29 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01153
POSTULATED ACCIDENTS APPENDIX G Table G.4 (continued) 240-km Normal Distribution (150-mile) MYL" NLF MYR NLF theory free Reactor exposure estimate prediction 95 percent 95 percent Power plant type" index x 1000 x 1000 UCW x 1000 UCB x 1000 Haddam Neck P 1722399 22 85 110 Hatch B 347873 4.7 18 24 Hope Creek B 1955878 21 15 58 76 Indian Point P 2863844 49 200 260 Indian Point 2 300 Indian Point 3 Kewanee P 440217 2.6 9.4 13 La Salle B 1396350 12 45 60 Limerick B 2647224 29 18 74 95 Maine Yankee P 391929 2.2 7.9 11 McGuire P 890305 7.9 28 40 Millstone 3 P 1510698 15 18 68 90 Monticello B 487606 5.9 22 30 Nine Mile Point B 273322 6.9 40 15 20 North Anna P 876587 7.7 28 39 Oconee P 867675 7.6 27 38 Oyster Creek B 1970098 15 58 77 Palisades P 1041961 10 37 51 Palo Verde P 290395 1.2 1.4 5.1 6.9 Peach Bottom B 1453860 12 46 62 Perry B 1021049 8.0 9.7 36 49 Pilgrim B 486154 5.9 22 30 Point Beach P 469985 2.9 10 15 Prarie Island P 375227 2.1 7.4 10 Quad Cities B 854803 86 31 43 Rancho Seco P 992605 94 34 47 River Bend B 432680 16 5.5 20 27 See footnotes at end of table.
NUREG-1437, Vol 2 G-30 OAGI0001365 01154
APPENDIX G paSTULATED ACCIDENTS Table 0.4 (oontinued) 24O*km Normal Distribution (150-mile) MYLbNLF MYRNLF theory free Reactor exposure estimate prediction 95 percent 95 percent Power plant type" index x 1000 x 1000 UCW x 1000 UCB x 1000 Robinson P 738770 5.9 21 30 Salem P 1979840 27 110 140 San Onofre P 1284282 9.7 14 52 70 Seabrook P 523715 2.2 3.5 12 18 Sequoyah P 769140 6.3 22 32 Sheron Harris P 688554 3.2 5.3 19 27 Shoreham B South Texas P 579617 2.8 4.1 14 21 St. Lucie P 727763 2.4 5.8 21 29 Summer P 852405 34 7.4 26 37 Surry P 846246 7.3 26 37 Susquehanna B 2279528 6.9 17 66 85 TMI P 1928285 26 100 130 Trojan P 944628 8.7 31 44 Turkey Point P 345115 1.8 6.6 9.1 Vermont Yankee B 1286085 11 42 57 Vogtle P 590283 70 4.2 15 21 WNP-2 B 132195 15 2.5 10 13 Waterford P 370569 1.7 2.0 7.3 10 Watts Bar P 798733 6.7 24 34 Wolf Creek P 363380 1.6 2.0 7.1 9.9 Yankee Rowe P 1739663 22 86 110 Zion P 1107448 11 40 S6
=
ap pressurized-water reactor; B = boiling-water reactor bMYL = middle year of license.
cUCB = upper confidence bound.
G-31 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01155
'>OSTULATED ACCIDENTS APPENDIX G Table G5 Middle year of the license renewal (MYR) normalized total dose (NID) predictions 240-km Normal Distribution (150-mile) theory free Reactor exposure MYLDNTD MYRNTD 95 percent 95 percent Power plant type" index estimate prediction UCB" UCB Arkansas P 265479 18 64 85 Beaver Valley P 1021547 87 130 480 650 Bellefonte P 678549 72 250 360 Big Rock Point B 136942 39 160 200 Braidwood P 1615088 53 270 1000 1300 Browns Ferry B 491751 91 330 440 Brunswick B 256923 59 220 290 Byron P 1214624 64 170 630 840 Callaway P 373564 35 29 100 140 Calvert Cliffs P 1459323 230 840 1100 Catawba P 914688 50 110 400 550 Clinton B 1418383 110 180 670 880 Commanche Peak P 363530 17 28 100 140 Cooper B 428471 83 300 400 Crystal River P 573211 56 200 280 DC Cook P 1051654 140 500 680 Davis Besse P 1104797 150 540 730 Diablo Canyon P 302887 21 77 100 Dresden B 1193394 160 590 790 Duane Arnold B 329426 70 260 340 Farley P 344405 26 93 130 Fermi 2 B 1287935 160 170 620 830 Fitzpatrick B 270532 61 2..'m 300 Fort Calhoun P 242370 15 57 74 Ginna P 351773 27 98 130 Grand Gulf B 388245 26 78 280 380 Haddam Neck P 1722399 290 1100 1400 See footnotes at end of table.
NUREG-1437, Vol 2 G-32 OAGI0001365_01156
APPENDIX G POSTULATED ACCIDENT~
Table G.5 (continued) 240-km Normal Distribution (150-mile) theory free Reactor exposure MYLb NTD MYRNTD 95 percent 95 percent Power plant typeD index estimate prediction UCBe UCB Hatch B 347873 72 270 350 Hope Creek B 1955878 300 220 850 1100 Indian Point P 2863844 630 2600 3200 Indian Point 2 3800 Indian Point 3 Kewanee P 440217 38 130 180 La Salle B 1396350 180 660 870 Limerick B 2647224 410 270 1100 1400 Maine Yankee P 391929 32 110 150 McGuire P 890305 110 380 530 Millstone 3 P 1510698 290 240 890 1200 Monticello B 487606 90 330 440 Nine Mile Point B 273322 90 62 230 300 North Anna P 876587 110 370 520 Oconee P 867675 100 370 510 Oyster Creek B 1970098 230 860 1100 Palisades P 1041961 140 490 670 Palo Verde P 290395 18 20 73 97 Peach Bottom B 1453860 190 680 900 Perry B 1021049 130 150 530 710 Pilgrim B 486154 90 330 440 Point Beach P 469985 41 150 200 Prarie Island P 375227 30 100 140 Quad Cities B 854803 130 470 630 Rancho Seco P 992605 130 450 620 River Bend B 432680 240 84 300 400 Robinson P 738770 82 290 400 Salem P 1979840 360 1400 1800 See footnotes at end of table G-33 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365 01157
POSTUlATED ACCIDENTS APPENDIXG Table G5 (continued) 240-km Normal Distribution (150-mile) theory free Reactor exposure MYL" NID MYRNID 95 percent 95 percent Power plant type" index estimate prediction UCB" UCB San Onofre P 1284282 110 190 690 910 Seabrook P 523715 31 49 170 240 Sequoyah P 769140 87 310 430 Sheron Harris P 688554 41 74 260 360 Shoreham B South Texas P 579617 66 57 200 280 St. Lucie P 727763 29 80 280 390 Summer P 852405 47 100 360 500 Surry P 846246 100 350 490 Susquehanna B 2279528 110 250 960 1200 TMI P 1928285 350 1300 1700 Trojan P 944628 120 420 580 Turkey Point P 345115 26 93 130 Vermont Yankee B 1286085 170 620 830 VogUe P 590283 91 59 200 290 WNP-2 B 132195 23 38 160 200 Waterford P 370569 20 29 100 140 Watts Bar P 798733 92 320 450 Wolf Creek P 363380 29 28 100 140 Yankee Rowe P 1739663 300 1100 1500 Zion P 1107448 150 540 730 ap = pressurized-water reactor; B = boiling-water reactor.
bMYL = middle year of license cUCB = upper confidence bound.
NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 G-34 OAGI0001365_01158
APPENDIX G POSTULATED ACCIDENTS Table G.6 Middle year of the license renewal (MYR) normalized expected cost (NEq predictions 240*km Normal Distribution (150*mile) MYLb NEC theory free Reactor exposure NLP' MYR NEC 95 percent 95 percent Power plant typeD index estimate prediction UCBd UCB Arkansas P 265479 850 3600 4700 Beaver Valley p 1021547 11000 4900 21000 27000 Bellefonte P 678549 2900 12000 16000 Big Rock Point B 136942 1300 6500 8100 Braidwood p 1615088 4100 8900 41000 51000 Browns Ferry B 491751 3000 12000 16000 Brunswick B 256923 2000 8800 11000 Byron P 1214624 2500 6200 27000 34000 Callaway P 373564 1200 1300 5400 7400 Calvert Cliffs P 1459323 7800 35000 44000 Catawba P 914688 2100 4300 18000 2..1000 Clinton B 1418383 2..100 5800 24000 31000 Commanche Peak P 363530 1100 1300 5300 7100 Cooper B 428471 2700 11000 15000 Crystal River P 573211 2300 9300 13000 DC Cook P 1051654 5100 22000 28000 Davis Besse P 1104797 5400 23000 30000 Diablo Canyon P 302887 1000 4200 5500 Dresden B 1193394 5200 22000 28000 Duane Arnold B 329426 2..100 9900 13000 Farley p 344405 1200 4900 6600 Fermi 2 B 1287935 7000 5400 2..1000 30000 Fitzpatrick B 270532 2100 9000 11000 Fort Calhoun P 242..170 760 3300 4200 Ginna P 357773 1300 5200 6900 Grand Gulf B 388245 780 2600 11000 14000 Haddam Neck p 1722399 9700 45000 56000 See footnotes at end of table.
G-35 NUREG*1437. Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01159
POST . \ TED ACCIDENTS APPENDIX G Table 0.6 (continued) 240*km Normal Distribution (150-mile) MYLb NEC theory free Reactor exposure NLF" MYRNEC 95 percent 95 percent Power plant type" index estimate prediction UCBd UCB Hatch B 347873 2400 10000 13000 Hope Creek B 1955878 12000 7000 31000 39000 Indian Point P 2863844 19000 100000 120000 Indian Point 2 Indian Point 3 Kewanee P 440217 1600 6600 9300 La Salle B 1396350 5700 24000 31000 Limerick B 2647224 19000 8500 39000 48000 Maine Yankee P 391929 1400 5800 7900 McGuire P 890305 4100 17000 23000 Millstone 3 P 1510698 23000 8200 37000 46000 Monticello B 487606 3000 12000 16000 Nine Mile Point B 273322 2400 2100 9000 11000 North Anna P 876587 4000 17000 22000 Oconee P 867675 4000 16000 22000 Oyster Creek B 1970098 7100 31000 39000 Palisades P 1041961 5000 21000 28000 Palo Verde P 290395 590 960 4000 5200 Peach Bottom B 1453860 5800 25000 32000 Perry B 1021049 2000 4700 20000 26000 Pilgrim B 486154 3000 12000 16000 Point Beach P 469985 1800 7200 10000 Prarie Island P 375227 1300 5500 7400 Quad Cities B 854803 4200 17000 2..1000 Rancho Seco P 992605 4700 20000 26000 River Bend B 432680 17000 2800 12000 15000 Robinson P 738770 3200 13000 18000 Salem p 1979840 12000 56000 69000 See footnotes at end of table NUREG*1437, Vol 2 G-36 OAGI0001365_01160
APPENDIX G POSTULA1ED ACCIDENTS Table G.6 (continued) 240*km Normal Distribution (150-mile) MYLbNEC theory free Reactor exposure NLF' MYRNEC 95 percent 95 percent Power plant typeD index estimate prediction UCBd UCB San Onofre P 1284282 5600 6600 29000 37000 Seabrook P 523715 1700 2100 8300 12000 Sequoyah P 769140 3400 14000 19000 Sheron Harris P 688554 1400 2900 12000 17000 Shoreham B South Texas P 579617 680 2400 9500 14000 St. Lucie P 727763 1600 3200 13000 18000 Summer P 852405 1700 3900 16000 21000 Surry P 846246 3800 16000 21000 Susquehanna B 2279528 2700 7700 35000 43000 TMI P 1928285 11000 54000 66000 Trojan P 944628 4400 18000 24000 Turkey Point P 345115 1200 4900 6600 Vermont Yankee B 1286085 5400 23000 30000 VogUe P 590283 4700 2400 9700 14000 WNP-2 B 132195 780 1300 6400 7900 Waterford P 370569 1300 1300 5400 7300 Watts Bar P 798733 3600 15000 20000 Wolf Creek P 363380 1100 1300 5300 7100 Yankee Rowe P 1739663 9800 46000 57000 Zion p 1107448 5500 2..1000 30000 Dp = pressurized-water reactor; B = boiling-water reactor bMYL = middle year of license.
cNLF = normalized latent fatality dUCB = upper confidence bound G-37 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01161
POSTULATED ACCIDENTS APPENDIX G G.2 ENDNOTES G.3 REFERENCES
- 1. Current evidence indicates that, for Butler, R, and E. D. Rothman, "Predictive BWRs, the type of containment may Intervals Based on Reuse of the significantly influence the public risk Sample," Journal of the American compared with PWR containments, and Statistical Association, 75, 881-89, 1980.
the degree of influence may vary Draper, N., and H. Smith, Applied Regression between the different BWR containment Analysis, Second Addition, Wiley, New types. This variation of risk influence York,1981.
among containment types does not seem Huber, P. J., Robust Statistics, Wiley, New to be as prevalent for PWR York, 1981.
containments. Schmoyer, R L., "Asymptotically Valid Prediction Intervals for Linear Models,"
Technometrics (submitted), 1990.
Stine, R A, "Bootstrap Prediction Intervals for Regression," Journal of the American Statistical Association 80, 1026-31, 1985.
Tingle, A, CRAC2S-MACCS Comparison of Exposure Index Calculations, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, N.Y.,
February 1993.
NUREG-1437, Vol 2 G-38 OAGI0001365_01162
ApPENDIX H ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS AFFECTING LICENSE RENEWAL ACTIVITIES NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01163
OAGI0001365_01164 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS AFFECTING LICENSE RENEWAL ACTIVITIES H.~ INTRODUCITON H.2 FEDERAL STATUTES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS This appendix summarizes the statutes and executive orders that may affect license H.21 Land Use renewal applications for nuclear power plants. The summary builds on the . Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as information in Section 2.3, "Plant Interaction amended, Title 16 U.S.c. 1451, et seq.
With the Environment," and addresses the following topics: land use, water use, water Congress enacted the Coastal Zone quality, air quality, aquatic resources, Management Act (CZMA) in 1972 to address terrestrial resources, radiological impacts, the increasing pressures of over-development solid waste, chemical impacts, and upon the nation's coastal resources. The socioeconomic factors. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration administers the Act. The The federal and state statutes and the CZMA encourages states to preserve, executive orders presented in this part protect, develop, and, where possible, restore include or enhance valuable natural coastal resources such as wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, (1) statutes and executive orders that could beaches, dunes, barrier islands, and coral require the Nuclear Regulatory reefs, as well as the fish and wildlife using Commission (NRC) or the applicant to those habitats. Participation by states is undergo a new authorization or voluntary. To encourage states to participate, consultation process with federal or state the CZMA makes federal financial assistance agencies outside the NRC; or available to any coastal state or territory, including those on the Great Lakes, that is (2) statutes and executive orders that could willing to develop and implement a require the NRC or the applicant to comprehensive coastal management program.
renew authorizations currently granted or holdl additional consultations with federal H.22 Water Use or state agencies outside the NRC.
Water use law is dominated by state This summary is provided as a general regulation rather than federal regulation.
overview to assist the applicant in identifying environmental and natural resources laws H.23 Water Quality that may affect the license renewal process.
The summary is not intended as a complete (a) Clean Water Act, as amended, Title 33 and final list, and the applicant is reminded U.S.c. 1251, et seq.
that a variety of additional local and regional requirements may exist for the specific plant The Clean Water Act (CWA), formerly site. known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, is intended to "... restore H-3 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01165
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS APPENDIX H and maintain the chemical, physical, and the United States from any point source biological integrity of the Nation's water" must apply for and obtain a permit.
(Section 101). The CWA has five elements: (1) a system of minimum Section 502(6) of the CWA defines the national effluent standards for each term pollutant to include radioactive industry, (2) water quality standards, (3) materials. In its implementing regulations a discharge permit program that (40 CFR 122 in particular), however, translates these standards into EPA refined the definition of pollutant enforceable limits, (4) provisions for to exclude radioactive materials special problems such as toxic chemicals regulated under the Atomic Energy Act and oil spills, and (5) a revolving of 1954 (ABA), as amended. Thus, construction loan program (formerly a although the CWA and its implementing grant program) for publicly-owned regulations clearly apply to naturally treatment works. occurring (e.g., radium) and accelerator-produced radioisotopes, they do not The CWA requires the Environmental apply to source, byproduct, or special Protection Agency (EPA) to establish nuclear materials as defined by the effluent limitations for the amounts of ABA specific pollutants that may be discharged by municipal sewage plants and industrial Note that, quite apart from the CWA, facilities. The two-step approach to states may under certain circumstances setting the standards includes exercise a limited role in the regulation (1) establishing a nationwide base-level of these materials. Until Section 274 was treatment through an assessment of what added to the ABA in 1959, states had no is technologically and economically role in the licensing and regulation of achievable for a particular industry and source, byproduct, or special nuclear (2) requiring more stringent levels of materials. Section 274, however, treatment for specific plants if necessary provided a statutory basis by which states to achieve water quality objectives for could assume from NRC a measure of the particular body of water into which authority over the regulation of that plant discharges. For example, EPA byproduct and source materials and sets limits based on water quality to special nuclear materials in quantities control pollution in waters designated by not sufficient to form a critical mass. To the states for drinking, swimming, or effect this transfer of authority, (1) NRC fishing. must find that the state's radiation control program is compatible with The primary method by which the CWA NRC's and that it is adequate to protect imposes limitations on pollutant public health and safety, (2) the state discharges is the nationwide permit must establish its authority to enter into program established under Section 402 an agreement with NRC, and (3) NRC and referred to as the National Pollutant must enter into an agreement with the Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). governor of the state desiring such Under the NPDES program, any person authority. Thus far, 29 states have responsible for the discharge of a entered into such agreements with NRC.
pollutant or pollutants into any waters of Even in agreement states, however, NRC retains regulatory authority over NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 H-4 OAGI0001365_01166
APPENDIX H STATUTES AND REGULATIONS several important areas, including (b) Marine Protection, Research, and construction and operation of production Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Title 16 U.S.c.
and utilization facilities 'and disposal of 1431, et se9.
certain source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials [AEA, Section 274(c)]. The MPRSA (Pub.L.92-532) regulates ocean dumping of waste, provides for a Section 404 enables the Corps of research program on ocean dumping, Engineers in the Department of the and provides for the designation and Army to issue permits for the discharge regulation of marine sanctuaries. Also of dredged or fill materials into ~aters of known as the Ocean Dumping Act, the the United States at specific sites. The Act regulates the ocean dumping of all Corps specifies a site by applying material beyond the territorial limit or 3 guidelines promulgated by EPA (40 CFR miles from shore and prevents or strictly 230). Further, any proposal to dump limits dumping material that would dredged or fill material into the ocean adversely affect human health, welfare, must comply with the dumping criteria or amenities, or the marine environment, set forth in Section 227.13 of the Marine ecological systems, or economic Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries potentialities." "Material" includes (but Act (MPRSA) regulations. Under is not limited to) dredged material, solid Subsection 404(c) of the CWA, EPA can waste, incinerator residue, garbage, prohibit (or limit the use ot) a proposed sewage, sewage sludge, munitions, disposal site or withdraw an already chemical and biological warfare agents, designated site, under regulations radioactive materials, chemicals, codified at 40 CFR 231. This biological and laboratory waste, wrecked determination may occur if EPA foresees or discarded equipment, rock, sand, unacceptable impacts on municipal water excavation debris, and industrial, supplies, shellfish beds, fishery areas, or municipal, agricultural, and other waste.
wildlife and recreational areas. However, The term does not include sewage from such a determination must be made after vessels or oil, unless the oil is consultation with the Corps and the transported via a vessel or aircraft for permit applicant. the purpose of dumping. Disposal by means of a pipe, regardless of how far at A significant 'feature of Section 404 is sea the discharge occurs, is regulated by that the Corps may issue general permits the CWA, through the NPDES permit on a state, regional, or nationwide basis process.
for dredging or fill activities that are similar in nature and cause only minimal Some of the waste material as defined individual and cumulative adverse above may be transported to and impacts. General permits are granted for dumped into the ocean under conditions a period not to exceed 5 years. The stipulated in a permit issued by EPA or Corps issues individual permits for the Corps of Engineers, depending upon actions that have a potential for the type of waste involved. Ocean significant environmental impacts. dumping, however, is only possible if no other reasonable alternatives, such as landfilling, are available.
H-5 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01167
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS APPENDlXH I
(c) Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, definition of a "non-transient non-Title 42 U.S.c. 300 F., et seq. community water system" as a public water system that is not a community In 1974 Congress enacted the Safe water system but that regularly serves at Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to manage least the same 25 people for 6 months potential contamination threats to per year (e.g., work places and groundwater. The act instructed EPA to hospitals ).
establish a national program to prevent underground injections that would The SDWA requires EPA to establish endanger drinking water sources.. Primary primary water regulations for drinking water standards promulgated contaminants that may cause adverse under the SDWA apply to drinking water public health effects. The regulations "at the tap" as delivered by public water include both mandatory levels (maximum supply systems. contaminant levels) and nonenforceable health goals [maximum contaminant level Section 1447 of the SDWA states that goals (MCLGs)] for each included each federal agency having jurisdiction contaminant.
over a federally owned or maintained public water system must comply with all MCLGs have extra significance because federal, state, and local requirements, they can be used under the administrative authorities, and processes Comprehensive Environmental Response, and sanctions regarding the provision of Compensation, and Liability Act safe drinking water. Sections 1412, 1414, (CERCLA) as amended by the and 1445(a) of the SDWA provide Superfund Amendments and drinking water regulations and specific Reauthorization Act (SARA) as operating procedures for public water applicable or relevant and appropriate systems. requirements in national priorities list cleanups.
Public water systems, as defined in 40 CFR 141.2, provide piped water for H.24 Air Quality human consumption and have at least 15 connections or regularly serve at least 25 Clean Air Act, as amended, Title 42 U.S.c.
people. Public water systems are either 7401, et seq.
(1) community water systems, that is, On November 15, 1990, President Bush public water systems that serve at signed into law sweeping revisions of the least 15 connections used by year* Clean Air Act (CAA). The new law contains round residents or regularly serve at titles that least 25 year-round residents; or
- strengthen measures for attaining air (2) non-community water systems, all quality standards (Title 1),
other water systems (e.g.,
- set forth provisions relating to mobile campgrounds and gas stations). sources (Title II),
- expand the regulation of hazardous air On July 8, 1987 (FR 52, 25690), EPA pollutants (Title III),
amended 40 CFR 141.2 to add a NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 H-6 OAGI0001365_01168
APPENDIX H STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
- require substantial reductions in power subject to permitting and stringent plant emissions for control of acid rain retrofitting or offsetting requirements. In (Title N), serious ozone NAAs, "major sources"
- establish operating permits for all major include those with the potential to emit more sources of air pollution (Title V), than 50 tpy of volatile organic compounds. In
- establish provisions for stratospheric severe ozone NAAs, "major sources" include ozone protection (Title VI), and those that emit 25 tpy or, in extreme areas,
- expand enforcement powers and 10 tpy. For serious CO NAAs, a "major penalties (Title VII). source" is now one that emits 50 tpy. For serious particulate matter NAAs, a "major The CAA Amendments will have fai- source" is now one that emits 70 tpy.
reaching effects not only on environmental activities at federal facilities, but also on The new source performance standards procurement, maintenance, and motor (NSPS) set minimum nationwide emission vehicle operation activities. limitations for classes of facilities. The NSPS are set at levels that reflect the degree of The original 1970 CAA authorized EPA to control achievable through the application of establish National Ambient Air Quality the best system of continuous emission Standarqs (NAAQS) to limit levels of reduction that has been adequately pollutants in the air. EPA has promulgated demonstrated for that category of sources.
NAAQS for six criteria pollutants: sulfur The NSPS must take into consideration the dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide cost of achieving such emissions reductions (CO), ozone, lead, and particulate matter. and any non-air-quality health and All areas of the United States must maintain environmental impacts and energy ambient levels of these pollutants below the requirements.
ceilings established by the NAAQS; any area that does not meet these standards is a The National Emissions Standards for "nonattainment" area (NAA). Hazardous Air Pollutants aim to control pollutants that may reasonably be anticipated The 1990 Amendments require that the to result in either an increase in mortality or boundaries of serious, severe, or extreme an increase in serious irreversible or ozone or CO NAAs located within incapacitating, but reversible, illness. Since metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) or 1970 EPA has listed only eight hazardous air consolidated metropolitan statistical areas pollutants and has established standards for (CMSAs) be expanded to include the entire only seven. The 1990 Amendments directed MSA or CMSA unless the governor makes EPA to establish technology-based standards certain findings and the administrator of for 189 hazardous substances based on the EPA concurs. Consequently, all urban use of "maximum achievable control counties included in an affected MSA or technology."
CMSA, regardless of their attainment status, will become part of the NAA Title V of the CAA Amendments established a federal permitting program, similar to the Under previous law "major sources" were CWA permitting program, which is to be those with the potential to emit more than administered by the states. Title V declared 100 tons per year (tpy). The CAA that after the effective date of any approved Amendments reduced the size of plants or promulgated permit program, it will be H-7 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01169
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS APPENDIX H unlawful to operate a major source, affected irrigation, navigation, and hydroelectric source, or any other source (including an power) may conflict with the goal of area source) subject to regulation under the conserving fish and wildlife resources.
CAA unless the source complies with all air Conversely, developers can design water quality requirements and has an operating development projects to enhance the pt;rmit. Under previous federal law, quality and enjoyment of fish and construction permits were required only for wildlife resources if such goals are new sources; existing sources were left incorporated into project plans.
largely unpermitted, unless the state elected to require an operating permit. The CAA The act authorizes the Secretary of the Amendments eliminated the distinction Department of the Interior (001) to between new and existing sources; all major provide assistance to and cooperate with sources are now required to have an federal, state, and public or private operating permit. agencies and organizations in the development and protection of wildlife The neW permit program will be fee-based, resources and habitat; make surveys and and federal facilities are explicitly required to investigations of the wildlife in the pay a fee or charge imposed by a state or public domain; and accept donations of local agency to defray the costs of its air land and funds that will further the pollution regulatory program. The statute purposes of the act.
sets minimum rates for such fees at $25 per ton of each regulated pollutant, up to 4000 The act requires consultation with the tpy. The EPA administrator may set other head of the state agency that administers amounts to adequately reflect reasonable wildlife resources in the affected state.
costs of the permit. program. The following The purpose of this process is to sources must have a permit to operate: promote conservation of wildlife resources by preventing loss of and
- major hazardous air pollutant sources, damage to such resources and to provide
- major sources under NAAQS, for the development and improvement
- all affected sources under Title IV, and of wildlife resources in connection with
- all sources subject to NSPS. the agency action.
H.25 Aquatic Resources Although the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior and state (a) Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as officials are not binding, the federal amended, Title 16 U.S.c. 661-664, et agency must give them full consideration.
seq. Furthermore, any reports and recommendations made by those officials The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act become an integral part of any report (FWCA) , as amended, proposes to prepared by the responsible federal ensure that fish and wildlife resources agency when seeking authorization for receive equal consideration with other the water-resource development project.
values during the planning of water Such a report must also include an resources development projects. The act estimate of the wildlife benefits or losses was passed because the goals of water- to be derived from the proposed project related projects (e.g., flood control, and a description of the conservation NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 H-8 OAGI0001365_01170
APPENDIX H STATUTES AND REGULATIONS measures the agency finds should be of conservation plans and programs for adopted to obtain maximum overall nongame fish and wildlife. The act also project benefits. encourages federal agencies to conserve and promote the conservation of The FWCA authorizes federal agencies nongame fish and wildlife and their to acquire lands in connection with water habitats. Conservation plans are required development projects for use in activities to identify appropriate nongame fish and designed to conserve and enhance wildlife species and significant problems wildlife resources. These activities should that may adversely affect these species be conducted in accordance with plans and their habitats. The conservation plan approved by the federal agency, the must also determine the actions that Secretary of the Interior, and the head of should be taken to conserve the the applicable state agency. The report nongame fish and wildlife species. The that accompanies the authorization designated state agencies are expected to request should describe the probable consult with the appropriate federal extent of land acquisition. agencies during the development, revision, and implementation of the plan.
In other cons.ervation provisions the FWCA authorizes the Secretary of DOl H.26 Terrestrial Resources
[through the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Bureau of Mines] to Endangered Species Act of 1973, as investigate and report to Congress on the amended, Title 16 U,S.c. 1531, et seq.
effects of domestic sewage; mine, petroleum, and industrial wastes; erosion The Endangered Species Act (ESA) originally silt; and other pollutants on wildlife and passed in 1973. It provides for the to make recommendations for alleviating designation and protection of invertebrates, their effects. It also directs the Corps of wildlife, fish, and plant species that are in Engineers to consider fish and wildlife danger of becoming extinct and conserves resource and habitat in its management the ecosystems on which such species of water levels in the upper Mississippi depend.
River.
The act defines an endangered species as any Two general types of activities exempt species that is in danger of becoming extinct from the act are (1) water impoundments throughout all or a significant portion of its with a surface area of less than 4 ha range (the act excludes recognized insect (to acres) and (2) programs for land pests from this definition). A threatened management and use carried out by species is one that is likely to become federal agencies on land under their endangered in the foreseeable future. The jurisdiction. act makes it illegal for any individual to kill, collect, remove, harass, import, or export an (b) Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of endangered or threatened species without a 1980, Title 16 U.S.c. 2901, et seq. permit from the Secretary of DOl. DOl's FWS performs most administrative and The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act regulatory actions under the act. The provides federal technical and financial National Marine Fisheries Service in the assistance to states for the development H-9 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01171
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS APPENDIX ~J U.S. Department of Commerce deals with Commerce must also carry out obligations actions affecting marine species. under two international agreements: the Convention on International Trade in To be protected, a species must be listed by Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora the Secretary of the Interior as endangered and the Convention on Nature Protection and or threatened. The listing process generally Wildlife Preservation in the Western begins with a petition to the Secretary. Hemisphere.
Consultation with affected states is required prior to listing, but the Secretary makes the All federal agencies must utilize their final decision. Whenever possible, a authorities to carry out programs for the designation of critical habitat accompanies conservation of endangered and threatened the listing of an endangered or threatened species. Regulations promulgated under species. The Secretary must publish and Section 7 of the act define the process periodically update the lists and develop and whereby proposed federal actions that may implement "recovery plans" for the affect threatened or endangered species are conservation and survival of endangered and approved, disapproved, and appealed. In threatened species. Recently, the American particular, "Each Federal agency shall, in bald eagle has been removed from the list consultation with. and with the assistance of because of FWS recovery plans. the Secretary [of DOl], ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by The act directs the Secretaries of Interior such agency ... is not likely to jeopardize the and Commerce to establish programs to continued existence of any endangered conserve fish, wildlife, and plants, including species or threatened species or result in the endangered and threatened species. Also, the destruction or adverse modification of Department of Agriculture oversees the habitat of such species which is determined import and export of endangered and by the Secretary ... to be critical ...
threatened species. Implementation of such [Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2)]."
programs usually includes acquisition of lands under the act itself and under the FWCA of H.27 Radiologica1lmpacts 1958, as amended; the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended; and the Migratory Bird Occupational Safety and Health Act Conservation Act of 1929, as amended.
The Occupational Safety and Health The act mandates cooperation between the Administration (OSHA) of the Department U.S. federal, state, and foreign governments. of Labqr is responsible for the The Secretary of the Interior must cooperate implementation of the Occupational and with the states to acquire and manage land Safety Health Act. The act establishes safe and has authority to enter into cooperative and healthful workplace standards.
agreements to provide assistance to those Employers who fail to comply with OSHA states that establish programs for the standards can be penalized by the federal conservation of endangered and threatened government. The act allows states to develop species. The President and the Secretary of and enforce OSHA standards if such the Interior may provide financial and programs have been approved by the technical assistance to foreign countries to Secretary of Labor.
encourage conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants. The Secretaries of the Interior and NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 H-lO OAGI0001365_01172
APPENDIX H STATUTES AND REGULATIONS H.28 Solid Waste involving research and development of new techniques for producing energy from wastes.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of DOl oversees mineral waste problems, 1976, as amended, Title 42 U.S.C. 6901, including recovery of metals and minerals et seq. and methods for stabilizing mining wastes.
In 1976 Congress remodeled the Solid Waste Generators of hazardous waste must notify Disposal Act, which dealt with the disposal of EPA that the wastes exist and require nonhazardous waste, into a major new management in compliance with RCRA program on hazardous waste. The Resource Proper identification and initial management Conservation and Recovery Act (RCM) of hazardous wastes promote the success of outlines the framework for national programs the "cradle-to-grave" program. Generators to achieve environmentally sound must determine if the wastes are hazardous.
management of both hazardous and If so, they notify EPA that they are nonhazardous wastes. RCRA also promotes managing a hazardous waste; obtain an EPA resource recovery techniques and methods to identification number for the generating reduce the generation of waste. The facility; and verify that the transportation, Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of treatment, storage, and disposal of the waste 1984 (HSWA) both expanded the scope of is conducted only by others with EPA RCRA and increased the level of detail in numbers.
many of its provisions.
Generators must also prepare a Uniform RCRA, as amended, contains ten subtitles. Hazardous Waste Manifest to accompany Subtitle C, "Hazardous Waste shipments of hazardous waste. The manifest Management"; Subtitle D, "State and includes the name and EPA identification Regional Solid Waste Plans"; Subtitle I, number of persons authorized to manage the "Regulation of Underground Storage waste and serves as a document of Tanks"; and Subtitle J, "Demonstration accountability to prevent improper disposal.
Medical Waste Tracking Program," The manifest system promotes self-constitute the regulatory portion of the law. enforcement of RCRA's requirements.
The other subtitles provide the legal and administrative structure for achieving the Under RCRA., no material can be a objectives of the law. hazardous waste without first being a solid waste. RCRA defines a solid waste as ..... any EPA., the Department of Commerce, the garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste Department of Energy, and DOl all have treatment plant, water supply treatment specific responsibilities under RCRA EPA plant, or air pollution control facility and issues guidelines and regulations for proper other discarded material, including solid, management of solid wastes, oversees and liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous approves the development of state waste material resulting from industrial, commercial management plans, and provides financial aid or mining and agricultural operations, and to agencies and firms performing research on from community activities ... [excluding] ...
solid waste. The Department of Commerce solid or dissolved materials in domestic encourages greater commercialization of sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in proven resource recovery technologies. The irrigation return flows, or industrial Department of Energy oversees activities discharges which are point sources subject to H-ll NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01173
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS APPENDIX H permits '1Inder Section 402 of the Federal underground storage tanks in the United Water Pollution Control Act .... or source, States and to prevent their leaking. Under special nuclear, or byproduct material as this subtitle RCRA regulates the storage of a defined by the Atomic Energy Act [ABA] of product (e.g., petroleum products), rather 1954 *.. [Section 1004(27)]." than hazardous waste. In addition the substances regulated under Subtitle I include RCRA then defines a hazardous waste as "a all the hazardous substances (except those solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, regulated as a hazardous waste under which because of its quantity, concentration, Subtitle C of RCRA) defined under or physical, chemical, or infectious CERCLA Hazardous substances under characteristics may ... cause, or significantly CERCLA encompass a ~de variety of items contribute to an increase in mortality or an regulated under other federal statutes increase in serious irreversible, or including the CWA, CAA, and Toxic incapacitating reversible, illness; or ... pose a Substances Control Act (TSCA).
substantial present or potential hazard to (Radionuclides, which are specifically human health or the environment when excluded under RCRA's definition of solid improperly treated, stored, transported, or waste, are regulated under CERCLA disposed of, or otherwise managed [Section because they are defined as hazardous air 1004(5)]." pollutants under the CAA) Subtitle I of RCRA regulates underground storage tanks The 1984 HSWA addressed Congressional containing radioactive materials unless they concern that inadequate or improper are "mixed" with hazardous waste, in which controls for management of hazardous waste case they are regulated under Subtitle C.
would increase risks to human health and the environment. HSWA introduced three major Federal agencies and departments that own changes in RCRA or operate underground storage tanks are subject to and must comply with all First, Congress restricted land disposal of applicable federal, state, interstate, and local untreated hazardous waste unless it could be requirements, except when the President demonstrated that there will be no migration determines that exemption of specific tanks of hazardous constituents from the disposal from these requirements is in the unit for as long as the wastes remain "paramount" interest of the United States.
hazardous [Section 3004(d)(1)]. Second, facilities were required to adopt "minimum Section 3006 of RCRA authorizes states to technical requirements" for landfills and develop and enforce their own hazardous surface impoundments to keep hazardous waste programs in place of the federal constituents from migrating into groundwater program administered by EPA Before and to permit detection if migration occurs. administering any of the provisions of Third, EPA was granted the authority to HSWA, authorized states must again go require corrective action for releases of through the state program approval process.
hazardous constituents from any solid waste disposal unit at a facility seeking a RCRA H.29 Chemical Impurities Subtitle I (implemented at 40 CFR Part Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 280), added by HSWA, established a Rodenticide Act, as amended, Title 7 U.S.C.
program to regulate the three to five million 135, et seq.
NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 H-12 OAGI0001365_01174
APPENDIXH STATUTES AND REGULATIONS The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and The Archaeological Recovery Act of 1960 Rodenticide Act as amended by the Federal gave DOl the major responsibility for Environmental Pesticide Control Act and preserving archaeological data that might be subsequent amendments, requires the lost through federal dam construction. The registration of all new pesticides with EPA Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act before they are used in the United States. of 1974 amended and significantly expanded Manufacturers are required to develop the scope of the 1960 Act by requiring toxicity data for their pesticide products. preservation of archaeological data affected Toxicity data may be used to determine as a result of any federal or federally related permissible discharge concentrations for an land modification activities.
NPDES permit.
The act made the Secretary of the Interior H.210 Socioeconomic Factors responsible for coordinating and administering a nationwide program for the Historic Preservation Requirements recovery, protection, and preservation of scientific, prehistoric, historic, and Five laws, one executive order, and a archaeological data that would otherwise be Presidential memorandum have been passed damaged or destroyed through federal action.
during the last 75 years to help protect and This act, also referred to as the preserve the nation's archaeological and Archaeological Salvage Act or the Moss-historic resources. Bennett Act, for the first time authorized up to 1 percent of the cost of a project to be The Antiquities Act of 1906 provided for the transferred to the Secretary of the Interior protection of historic and prehistoric remains for preserving archaeological data on federal and monuments on federal lands. It construction projects, other than dam established a permit system for conducting construction. The 1 percent limitation can be scientific archaeological investigations, which waived by federal agencies after obtaining could only be conducted by recognized concurrence from DOl and then notifying institutions that would report results and Congress.
maintain all collections for the public.
The most comprehensive national policy on In 1935 Congress passed the Historic Sites historic preservation was established by Act that declared it was a national policy "to Congress with the passage of the National preserve for public use historic sites, Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). In buildings, and objects of national this act historic preservation was defined to significance." This act extended protection to include "the protection, rehabilitation, sites on both federal and non-federal lands restoration and reconstruction of districts, by giving the Secretary of the Interior the sites, buildings, structures, and objects authority to survey, document, evaluate, significant in American history, architecture, acquire, and preserve archaeological and archaeology, or culture." The act led to the historical sites throughout the country. It led creation of the National Register of Historic to the creation of the Historic Sites Surveys, Places, a file of cultural resources of the Historic American Buildings Survey, and national, regional, state, and local the Historic American Engineering Record significance. The act also established the (now the National Architectural and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Engineering Record). (the Council), an independent federal agency H-13 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01175
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS APPENDIX H responsible for administering the protective jur ~ diction or control that appear to qualify provisions of the act. for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. It also required DOl to Two of the major provisions of the NHPA develop criteria and procedures for federal for federal agencies are Sections 106 and I agencies to use in these reviews and to. Both sections aim to ensure that historic nominations. As a result, both Section 110(a) properties are appropriately considered in and E.O. 11593 require each federal agency, planning federal initiatives and actions. in cooperation with the state historic Section 106 is a specific, issue-related preservation officer in the state involved, to mandate to which federal agencies must "establish a program to locate, inventory, adhere. It is a reactive mechanism that is and nominate to the Secretary (001) all driven by a federal action.Section I to, in properties under the agency's ownership or contrast, sets out broad federal agency control by the agency, that appear to qualify responsibilities with respect to historic for inclusion on the National Register in properties. It is a proactive mechanism with accordance with the regulations promulgated emphasis on ongoing management of historic under Section tOl(a)(2)(A)."
preservation sites and activities at federal facilities. Amendments to NHPA in 1980 also provided additional guidance and clarification Section 106 requires that the head of any to the historic preservation program.
federal agency having direct or indirect Congress gave 001 the authority to waive jurisdiction over a proposed federal or the I-percent limitation on the use of project federally assisted undertaking in any state, funds to defray the costs of data recovery, and the head of any federal department or increased the role of the state historic independent agency having authority to preservation officer in the administration of license any such undertaking, must ensure the National Historic Preservation Program, that the provisions of the NHPA are and clarified federal agency responsibilities administered. Section 106 also mandates under E.O. 11593.
consultation during such federal actions. It compels federal agencies to "take into The Archaeological Resources Protection Act account" the effect of their projects on of 1979 was enacted to provide a historical and archaeological resources and to comprehensive framework for protecting and give the Council the opportunity to comment regulating the use of archaeological on such effects. resources on public and Indian lands protected by the Antiquities Act of 1906. The Section 110(a) of the NHPA and Executive act requires that a permit be received from Order (E.O.) 11593 (which was substantially the federal land manager for the excavation incorporated into the NHP A amendments of and removal of archaeological resources on 1980) require agencies to provide leadership public land.
in preserving, restoring, and maintaining the historic and cultural environment of the The President's 1978 Memorandum on nation. The 1980 NHPA amendments Environmental Quality and Water Resources expanded the NHPA of 1966 by making Management directed the Council to issue federal agencies responsible for identifying, final regulations under the NHPA and preserving, and nominating to 001 all sites, directed federal agencies with water resource buildings, districts, and objects under their responsibilities and programs to publish NUREG*1437, Vol 2 H-14 OAGI0001365_01176
APPENDIX H STATUTES AND REGULATIONS procedures implementing the NHPA within by Congress as a stand-alone provision, 3 months after promulgation of the final Title III, of SARA Council regulations.
Title III was passed in response to Federal agencies should coordinate National concerns regarding the environmental Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and safety hazards posed by the storage compliance with the responsibilities of the and handling of toxic chemicals. The NHP A to ensure that historic and cultural disaster in Bhopal, India, in which more properties are given proper consideration in than 2000 people suffered death or the preparation of environmental serious injury from the accidental release assessments (EAs) and environmental impact of methyl isocyanate, triggered this statements (EISs). However, agency concern. To reduce the likelihood of obligations under NHPA are independent such a disaster in the United States, from NEP A and must be complied with even Congress imposed requirements on both when an EA or EIS is not required. That is, states and regulated facilities. Facilities for proposed projects that are not classified must notify the local emergency planning as major federal actions with significant districts regarding materials and releases environmental impacts, federal agencies must at sites.
still consider impacts to historic properties and sites. Where both NEPA and the NHP A The emergency planning aspect requires are applicable, draft EISs must integrate local communities to prepare plans to NHP A considerations along with other deal with emergencies relating to environmental impact analyses and studies. hazardous substances. The community (See 40 CFR Part 1502.25.) right-to-know aspect creates new rights for members of the public and local To coordinate the independent governments to obtain information responsibilities of the two acts (NEPA and concerning potential threats in their NHPA), federal agencies should undertake neighborhoods involving hazardous compliance with NHPA regulations as soon substances. EPCRA provides the tools as it is determined that a National Register for local governments and members of listed or eligible property may be affected by the community to make their own a proposed project or program. decisions regarding hazardous materials in their communities.
H.211 Other EPCRA contains three subtitles. Subtitle (a) Emergency Planning and Community A, "Emergency Planning and Right-to-Know Act of 1986, Title 42 Notification," establishes mechanisms to U.S.c. I 1001, et seq. enable states and communities to prepare to respond to unplanned The Emergency Planning and Community releases of hazardous substances.
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), enacted on October 17, 1986, represents a significant Subtitle B, "Reporting Requirements,"
first step toward a major federal role in contains three distinct reporting areas previously regulated by state and provisions concerning two different local government. EPCRA was enacted groups of chemical substances. The first two sets of reports require submission of H-15 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01177
STATIJ1ES AND REGULATIONS APPENDIX H inventory-related data on hazardous licenses, or allocations to private parties chemicals (i.e., those substances for for activities involving wetlands on which a material safety data sheet is non federal property.
mandated under the hazard communication regulations of OSHA). (d) Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 The third reporting provision requires annual reports to the EPA and to the This legislation focuses on treating and state in which the reporting facility is disposing of waste rather than on located of environmental releases of meeting source reduction limits. The listed toxic chemicals manufactured, millions of tons of pollution generated processed, or otherwise used at the each year could be reduced in a cost*
facility in excess of specified threshold effective manner through changes in quantities. production, operation, and types of raw materials used in industry. The technique Subtitle C, "General Provision," contains of source reduction is considered a variety of general provisions, including, fundamentally different from and more but not limited to, civil, criminal, and desirable than waste management and administrative penalties for violations of pollution control. EPA is to carry out the statute's reporting requirements; the responsibilities set forth in this act.
enforcement actions that can be brought by citizens, states, and emergency (e) The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection planning and response entities; and Act restrictions on an owner's or operator's rights to make trade secrecy claims in the The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection reports required by EPCRA Act prohibits knowingly (or with disregard for the consequences of one's (b) National Electric Safety Code actions) taking, possessing, selling, transporting, importing, or exporting the The National Electric Safety Code American or golden eagle, dead or alive, provides a comprehensive listing of without a permit.
criteria regarding electrical safety.
(f) The American Indian Religious Freedom (c) Executive Order 11990, Protection of Act Wetlands The American Indian Religious Freedom Executive Order 11990 was issued to Act (AIRFA) clarifies U.S. policy avoid direct or indirect support of new pertaining to the protection of Native construction on wetlands wherever there Americans' religious freedom. The is a practicable alternative. Federal special nature of Native American agencies are required to evaluate the religions has frequently resulted in potential effects of any actions they may conflicts between federal laws and take on wetlands when carrying out their policies and religious freedom. Some responsibilities (e.g., planning, regulating, federal laws, such as those protecting and licensing activities). However, this wilderness areas or endangered species, executive order does not apply to the have inadvertently given rise to problems issuance by federal agencies of permits, such as denial of access to sacred sites or NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 H*16 OAGI0001365_01178
APPENDIX H STATUTES AND REGULATIONS prohibitions on possession of animal- (g) Native American Graves Protection and derived sacred objects by Native Repatriation Act Americans.
The Native American Graves Protection AIRFA, passed in 1978, acknowledged and Repatriation Act, enacted on prior infringement on the right of November 16, 1990, established a means freedom of religion for Native for American Indians, including members Americans. Furthermore, it stated in a of Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian clear, comprehensive, and consistent organizations, and Native Alaskan '
fashion the federal policy that laws villages and corporations, to request the passed for other purposes were riot return or "repatriation" of human meant to restrict the rights of Native remains and other cultural items Americans. The act established a policy presently held by federal agencies or of protecting and preserving the inherent federally assisted museums or right of individual Native Americans institutions.
(including American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, and Native Hawaiians) to believe, The act also contains provisions express, and exercise their traditional regarding the intentional excavation and religions. removal of, inadvertent discovery of, and illegal trafficking in Native American AIRFA is primarily a policy statement. human remains and cultural items.
Approximately half of the brief statute is devoted to Congressional findings. All federal agencies that manage land Following the Congressional findings, the and/or are responsible for archaeological act makes a general policy statement collections from their lands or generated regarding American Indian religious by their activities must comply with the freedom: "... henceforth it shall be the Native American Graves Protection and policy of the United States to protect Repatriation Act.
and preserve for American Indians their inherent right to freedom to believe, (h) Marine Mammal Protection Act express, and exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian, The Marine Mammal Protection Act Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiians, (MMPA) was enacted in 1972 to protect including but not limited to access to and manage marine mammals and their sites, use and possession of sacred products (e.g., the use of hides and objects, and the freedom to worship meat). The primary authority for through ceremonial and traditional rites implementing the act belongs to the (42 U.S.c. 1996)." FWS and National Marine Fisheries Service. The FWS manages walruses, The final section of the act requires the polar bears, sea otters, dugongs, marine President to order agencies to review otters, and West Indian, Amazonian, and their policies and procedures in West African manatees. The National consultation with traditional native Marine Fisheries Service manages religious leaders. whales, porpoises, seals, and sea lions.
The two agencies may issue permits under MMPA Section 104 (16 U.S.C.
H-17 NUREG*1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01179
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS APPENDIX H 1374) to persons, including federal applications for federal licenses, permits, agencies, that authorize the taking or loans, or grants.
importing of specific species of marine mammals. (j) Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, Title 42 V.S.c. 2021b, et seq..
After the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce approves a The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy state's program, the state can take over Act is designed to improve the responsibility for managing one or more procedures for the implementation of marine mammals. Regulations governing compacts providing for the establishment the transfer of responsibility were and operation of regional low-level published in May 1983. Although certain radioactive waste disposal facilities. It states actively participate in the also allows for Congress to grant consent management of marine mammals, as of for certain interstate compacts. The August 9, 1994, no state has fully taken amended act sets forth the on this duty. responsibilities for disposal of low-level waste by states or interstate compacts.
The MMPA established a Marine The act states the amount of waste that Mammal Commission whose duties certain low-level waste recipients can include reviewing laws and international receive over a set time period. The conventions relating to marine mammals, amount of low-level radioactive waste studying the condition of these mammals, generated from both pressurized and and recommending steps to federal boiling water reactor types is allocated officials (e.g., listing a species as over a transition period until a local endangered) that should be taken to waste facility is operational.
protect marine mammals. Federal agencies are directed by MMPA Section (k) Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Title 205 (16 U.S.c. 1405) to cooperate with 42 U.S.C. 10101, et seq.
the commission by permitting it to use their facilities or services. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 provides for the research and (i) Executive Order 11988,. Floodplain development of repositories for the Management disposal of high-level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, and low-level Executive Order 11988 was issued to radioactive waste. The act consists of avoid direct or indirect support of three titles and several subtitles. Title I floodplain development whenever there includes the provisions for the disposal is a practicable alternative. A federal and storage of high-level radioactive agency is required to evaluate the waste and spent nuclear fuel. Subtitle A potential effects of any actions it may of Title I delineates the requirements for take in a floodplain. Federal agencies are site characterization and construction of also required to encourage and provide the repository and the participation of appropriate guidance to applicants to states and other local governments in evaluate the effects of their proposals on the selection process. Subtitles B,C, and floodplains prior to submitting D of Title I deal with the specific issues for interim storage, monitored NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 H-18 OAGI0001365_01180
APPENDIX H STATUTES AND REGUlATIONS retrievable storage, and low-level material, or byproduct material (as such radioactive waste. terms are defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and regulations issued under (1) Toxic Substances Control Act such Act) .... " [TSCA, Section 3(2)(B)(iv)). Although TSCA excludes Congress enacted TSCA in 1976, to nuclear material, the TSCA-regulated become effective January 1, 1977. The portion of a mixed nuclear and regulated act authorizes EPA to secure information waste must comply with TSCA on all new and existing chemical requirements. Materials that are not substances and to control any of these chemical substances or mixtures are not substances determined to cause an subject to the various requirements of unreasonable risk to public health or the TSCA environment.
The TSCA program is run by EPA and Under earlier laws EPA had authority to is not delegated to any state agency.
control toxic substances only after damage occurred. The earlier laws did (m) National Environmental Policy Act not require the screening of toxic substances before they entered the NEPA of 1%9 as implemented by marketplace. TSCA closed the gap in the E.O. 11514 and E.O. 11991 established earlier laws by requiring that the health national policies and goals for the and environmental effects of all new protection of the environment. NEPA chemicals be reviewed before they are aims to encourage harmony between manufactured for commercial purposes. people and the environment, to promote efforts to prevent or eliminate damage Determinations regarding compliance to the environment and the biosphere, with TSCA must be made on a case-by- and to enrich the understanding of case basis if an activity fnvolves the ecological systems and natural resources manufacture, processing, distribution in important to the country.
commerce, use, and/or disposal of a new or existing chemical substance or mixture NEPA is divided into two titles. Title I that may present an unreasonable risk of outlines a basic national charter for injury to health or the environment. protection of the environment. Title II Although the definition of "chemical establishes the Council on substances" explicitly excludes from its Environmental Quality (CEQ). CEQ scope several materials that might monitors the progress made toward otherwise meet the definition, including achieving the goals set forth in Section those that are regulated under other 101 of NEPA CEQ's duties include federal statues, TSCA is potentially advising the president on environmental applicable to all "chemical substances" issues and providing guidance to other and "mixtures" that are manufactured, federal agencies on compliance with imported, processed, used, distributed, NEPA Accordingly, CEQ promulgated and/or disposed of in the United States. regulations (amended in 1986) governing By definition, TSCA-regulated chemical the NEP A process for all federal substances and mixtures do not include agencies .
..... any source material, special nuclear H-19 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01181
STATU1ES AND REGULATIONS APPENDIXH Section 102(2) of NEPA contains briefly explains why the agency's action "action-forcing" provisions that ensure will not have a significant impact on the federal agencies act according to the environment.
letter and the spirit of the law. These procedural requirements direct all federal Although NEP A requires agencies to agencies to give appropriate take what is known as a "hard look" at consideration to the environmental the environmental consequences of their effects of their decision making and to actions, it does not force them to take prepare detailed environmental the most environmentally sound statements on recommendations or alterative.
reports on proposals for legislation and other major federal actions significantly (n) Comprehensive Environmental affecting the quality of the environment. Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Agencies must establish specific criteria for classes of action that (1) usually Congress passed CERCLA of 1980, also require an EIS, (2) normally require an known as "Superfund" in response to a EA but do not necessarily require an growing national concern about the EIS, and (3) require neither an EA nor release of hazardous substances to the an EIS (the "categorical exclusions"). environment. SARA, signed by President Reagan on October 17, 1986, amended If the action requires an EIS, the agency many provisions of CERCLA SARA must publish a notice of intent and begin has been the only major revision of the scoping process. Then the agency CERCLA since its enactment in 1980.
prepares the draft EIS, solicits comments from affected parties and various CERCLA provides for liability, governmental entities, and drafts the compensation, cleanup, and emergency final EIS after considering the comments response for hazardous substances received. The contents of the final EIS released into the environment and for must be considered when making a the cleanup of inactive hazardous waste decision on the proposed action. The disposal sites. CERCLA [Section 101 agency must prepare a record of (14)] defines hazardous substances as decision, a concise statement of its decision discussing its choice among (A) any substance designated alternatives and the means that will be pursuant to Section 3U(b)(2)(A) employed to mitigate or minimize of the Federal Water Pollution environmental harm. Control Act, (B) any element, compound, mixture, solution, or If the agency action does not fall within substance designated pursuant to the category of actions designated as Section 102 of this act, (C) any categorical exclusions or as requiring an hazardous waste having the EIS, the agency must prepare an EA characteristics identified under or The EA determines whether an EIS is listed pursuant to Section 3001 needed. If the EA determines that an of the Solid Waste Disposal Act EIS is not needed, the agency must issue (but not including any waste the a finding of no significant impact that regulation of which under the I
NUREG-1437, Vol 2 H-20 OAGI0001365 01182
APPENDIXH STATUTES AND REGULATIONS Solid Waste Disposal Act has occurs more frequently than the permit been suspended by act of stipulates, it is subject to CERCLA Congress), (D) any toxic reporting requirements. Future pollutant listed under Section regulations may exempt federally 307(a) of the Federal Water permitted facilities and continuous-Pollution Control Act, (E) release facilities on a case-by-case basis.
any hazardous air pollutant Permits do not cover abandoned waste listed under Section 112 of disposal sites, and these sites are clearly the Clean Air Act, and (F) subject to CERCLA any imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture CERCLA, as amended by SARA, with respect to which the provides for a fund, called the Administrator has taken Superfund, that EPA or state and local action pursuant to Section 7 governments can use to pay for the of the Toxic Substances cleanup of hazardous waste sites listed Control Act. on the national priorities list (NPL). The NPL, compiled by EPA, lists those sites, Releases of source, byproduct, or special including federally owned facilities, that nuclear material from a nuclear incident appear to pose the most serious threats are excluded from CERCLA to public health or the environment.
requirements if the releflSes are subject EPA determines whether to place a site to the financial protection requirements on the NPL by using the hazard ranking of the AEA Releases of source, special system (HRS).
nuclear, or byproduct materials from a processing site designated by the Under the HRS, pertinent data about a Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control site are evaluated and "scored. II A site Act of 1978 are also excluded [CERCLA may receive scores for items such as Section 101(22)]. waste volume, waste toxicity, proximity to population, and distance to CERCLA intends to provide for underground drinking water. The response to, and cleanup of, cleanup of sites must conform to EPA's environmental problems that are not National Contingency Plan, the covered adequately by the permit operating rules for Superfund cleanups programs of the many other promulgated by EPA under Section environmental laws, including the CAA, 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA The NPL is CWA, SDWA, MPRSA, RCRA, and dynamic. As HRS studies are performed, AEA In general, if a release to the releases and waste sites may be removed environment constitutes a "federally from or added to the list. As of May 31, permitted release," as defined by Section 1994, the NPL included 1,286 final sites 101(10) of CERCLA, the release is not (150 in the federal section) and 54 subject to CERCLA reporting proposed sites (six of which are federal requirements. However, if the release sites).
exceeds the permitted limit for a specific substance by the reportable quantity of If liability for the release of a hazardous that Isubstance or more, results from substance can be firmly established, the startup or shutdown of a process, or liable or "potentially responsible party" H-21 NUREG-1437, Vol. 2 OAGI0001365_01183
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS APPENDIX H must pay for the cost of remedial study are collectively referred to as the responses. Generally, funds from the "RIfFS."
Superfund do not go toward paying for the cleanup of releases from federally Record of decision-After completing the owned facilities [Section 111 (e )(3)] RIfFS, EPA selects the appropriate except to provide alternative water cleanup option and publishes it in a supplies in cases involving groundwater public document known as the record of contamination outside the boundaries of decision.
a federally owned facility if the federally owned facility is not the only potentially Remedial design-The remedial design responsible party. . includes the technical analysis and procedures that follow the selection of a Under Section 120 of CERCLA, each remedy for a site.
department, agency, and instrumentality of the United States is subject to, and Remedial action-The remedial action must comply with, CERCLA in the same involves the actual construction or manner as any nongovernmental entity implementation of a cleanup.
(except for requirements for bonding, insurance, financial responsibility, or In general the proposed remedy for a applicable time period). site must meet two threshold criteria: (1) to protect human health and the The Superfund process includes the environment and (2) to comply with following steps: "applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements". Federal and/or state Preliminary assessment-EPA performs a requirements are considered preliminary assessment of a site (often a "applicable" if they are "... based upon review of data without an actual site an objective determination of whether visit) to determine if further study is the requirement specifically addresses a necessary. hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, Site inspection-A site inspection is an on- or other circumstance found at a site investigation conducted to find out CERCLA site" [40 CFR Part 300 whether there is a release or potential (9)(1)].
release and to determine the nature of the associated threats. CERCLA, if not reauthorized by Congress, will expire in 1995. Referred Remedial investigation-A remedial to as the Superfund Reform Act of 1994 investigation, conducted by the lead (The Act), HR-3800 and S-1834 have agency, determines the nature and extent emerged as the primary amending of the problem presented by the release. statutes on Superfund law. The major features of these bills are intended to Feas'ibility study-The lead agency enhance EPA's information-gathering undertakes a feasibility study to develop activities; sharply limit joint and several and evaluate options for remedial action. liability as it applies to de minimis The remedial investigation and feasibility parties; limit the liability of lenders; create more flexibility within the remedy NUREG-1437, Vol 2 H-22 OAGI0001365_01184