ML18085A546

Discussion of Environ Effects of U Fuel Cycle Activities Attributable to Operation of Salem Nuclear Generating Station,Unit 2. Explanatory Narrative for Table S-3 Encl

ML18085A546
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	12/30/1980
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML18085A543	List: ML18085A544 ML18085A545 ML18085A546
References
NUDOCS 8101230320
Download: ML18085A546 (93)

Text

DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

-OF THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE ACTIVITIES ATTRIBUTABLE TO OPERATION OF THE SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 2 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-311 PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION t:

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

' The proposed action is the issuance of Facility Operating License No. DPR-75 to the Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Philadelphia Electric Company, Delmarva Power and Light Company, and Atlantic City Electric Company authorizing operation of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 at reactor core power levels not in excess of 3411 megawatts thermal (100% power) in accorrlance with the provisions of the license and the Technical Specifications.

The purpose of this Discussion of Environmental Effects is to consider the contribution of the uranium fuel cycle activities to the environmental costs of operating this nuclear power facility. Table S-3, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, 10 CFR Part 51, of the Cornmission 1 s Regulations provides the basis for considering the significance of the uranium fuel cycle impacts resulting from

operation of the facility. A draft narrative prepared to convey in under-standable terms the significance of the values given in Table S-3 is attached to this discussion.

In November 1972, a document entitled "Environmental Survey of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle" (hereinafter referred to as "Survey") was published by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), predecessor agency of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Comments on the Survey were solicited, and an informal rulemaking hearing was held on February 1 and 2, 1973.

Written comments were received in response to the Federal Register notice, and recommendations for improvement were offered during the hearings.

~he environmental impact of the nuclear fuel cycle was not addressed in the cost-benefit analysis presented in the Final Environmental Statement (FES)

Related to the Operation of Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, issued April 1973.

The FES did note in the discussion of comments received on the Draft Environmental Statement that this matter "is being considered on a generic basis and will be subject to a rule-making proceeding, notice of \\'1hich was published in the Federal Register on January 3, 1973 (38 FR 49)."

After consideration of the written comments and the hearing record, the AEC promulgated the final fuel cycle rule (the so-called Table S-3) on April 22, 1974 (39 FR 14188).

It was intended that, with the inclusion of environmental impacts from Table S-3, the environmental impact statements for individual light water reactors would set forth a full and candid assessment of costs

(

\\

4

'~......

and benefits consistent with the legal requirements and spirit of the National

• Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

On January 19, 1975, the fl.EC was abolished and its licensing and regulatory responsibilities transferred to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission).

Cn July 21, 1976, the United States Court of Appeals for the Di.strict of Columbia Circuit decided Natural Resources Defense Council v. NRC, a case involving judicial review of the fuel-cycle rule, and Aeschliman v. NRC, a related case involving the exclusion of fuel cycle issues from an individual power reactor licensing proceeding.

The court approved the overall approach

~ftnd methodology of the fuel cycle rule and found that, regarding most phases*

j

\\ of the fuel cycle, the underlying Envi ronmenta 1 Survey represented an adequate job of describing the impacts involved.

However, the court found that the rule was inadequately supported by the record insofar as it treated two particular aspects of the fuel cycle - the impacts from reprocessing of spent fuel and the impacts from radioactive waste management.

In response to that court decision, the Commission issued a General Statement of Policy (41 FR 34707, August 16, 1976) announcing its intention to reopen the rulemaking proceeding on the environmental effects of the fuel cycle to supplement the existing record on waste management and reprocessing impacts to determine whether the rule should be amended and, if so, in what resp~ct.

The Commission thus indicated its intent to handle the question of the environ-

/ ') mental impacts of waste management and reprocessing generically rather than in individual licensing proceedings.

The Commission directed the NRC staff to prepare on an expedited basis a well-documented supplement (NUREG-0116) to He Survey (\\*!ASH-1248) to establish a basis for identifying environmental impacts associated with fuel reprocessing and waste management activities that are attributable to the licensing of a model light-water reactor.

The revised survey was completed in October 1976, and the Commission issued the October 18, 1976 notice regarding the proposed interim rule.

The comments received in response to that notice and the Commission 1 s responses to those comments comprise NUREG-0216, Supplement 2 to ~!ASH-1248.

1. on ~'arch 14, 1977, the Commission published in the Federal Register (42 FR I

\\ 13803) an interim rule regarding the environmental considerations of the uranium fuel cycle. It was to be effective for 18 months (it was extended several times, the final extension being to September 4, 1979) and revised

~-

Table S-3 of 10 CFR Part 51.

A rulemaking hearing was held to consider whether the interim rule should be made permanent or, if it should be altered, in what respects (42 FR 26978); this proceeding began on May 26, 1977.

The Hearing Board took extensive written and oral testimony from more than twenty participants.

On August 31, 1978, the Hearing Board submitted to the Commission a detailed summary of the evidentiary record, followed on October 26, 1978, by its Conclusions and Recommendations.

' I

-.,( \\ l

) After studying the Hearing Board's Conclusions and Recommendations and receiving written and oral presentations by rulemaking participants, the Commission adopted as a final rule the modified Table S-3 recommended by the Hearing Board (44 FR 45362 dated August 2, 1979).

The modified Table S-3 became effective September 4, 1979.

The impact values in this table differ only slightly from the values in the interim rule.

With two exceptions, these values will be taken as the basis for evaluating in individual light water power reactor licensing proceedings, pursuant to requirements of the NEPA, the contribution of uranium fuel cycle activities to th~ environmental costs of licensing the reactor in question. The exceptions are radon releases, 1/

presently omitted from the interim rule (43 FR 15613, April 14,_ 1978),-

and 2/

~yechnetium-99 releases from reprocessing and waste management activities.-

\\

1/

- With regard to radon releases,.the matter of appropriate values is under consideration before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board in the proceeding derived from.ALAB-480 which involved a consolidation of numerous proceedings.

The staff's testimony in this proceeding presents the staff's assessment that impacts* from radon rel eases are not significant.

2/

- With regard to technetium-99 release5 from reprocessing and waste management

---*activities, in 44 FR 45362 the Commission found:

"In view of the Hearing Board's conclusion that the conservative assumption of complete release of iodine-129 tends to compensate for the ommi ss ion of technetium from Tab 1 e S-3, the Cammi ss ion finds it unnecessary to reopen closed proceedings or to disturb consideration of environmental issues in presently pending pro-ceedings to provide for consideration of technetium-99 releases."

Thus, consideration of technetium-99 releases in connection with the licensing of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station Unit 2 is unnecessary.

The rulemaking record makes clear that.effluent release values, standing alone, do not meaningfully convey the environmental significance of uranium fuel cycle activities.

The focus of interest and the ultimate measure of impact for radio-active releases are the resulting radiological dose commitments and associated health effects.

To convey in understandable terms the significance o.f releases in the Table, the Hearing Board recommended that the modi~ied Table be accompanied by an explanatory nar.rative promulated as part of the rule. The recommended narrative would also address important fuel cycle impacts now outside the scope of Table S-3, *including socioeconomic and cumulative impacts, where these are appropriate for generic treatment.

The Commission directed the NRC staff to prepare such a ~arrative. The staff has prepared a narrative which will be l/tpubmitted fer public comment in a further rulemaking.

Pending further treatment by rulemaking, the Commission directed the NRC staff to address the environmental dose commitments and health effects from fuel cycle releases, fuel cycle socioeconomic impacts, and possible cumulative impacts i~ th~-environmen~al analysis accompanying a proposal to issue a limited work authorization,-construction permit, or operating license for a power reactor *

. In accordance with the Commission directive of August 2, 1979 regarding an explanatory narrative to accompany Table S-3, the attached narrative has been drafted by the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards staff. The narrative is of an explanatory nature, providing a discussion of the environmental dose commitments and health effects, socioeconomic impacts, and possible

r f cumulative impacts associated with the uranium fuel cycle activities representative of a fuel cycle for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2.

The fuel cycle effects presented in Table S-3, as discussed in the attached narrative are sufficiently small so that, when they are superimposed upon the other environmental impacts assessed with respect to operation of the reactor, the changes in the overall environmental impact from operation of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 are not substantial. Giving due consideration to the values given in Table S-3 and the information set forth in the attached narrative, the NRC staff concludes that the overall cost-benefit balance previously developed in the Salem Final Environmental

~Statement remains unaltered.

e.

August 1980 Explanatolj' Narrative for Table S-3, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data

l

\\

Section I.

The LWR Uranium Fuel Cycle A.

Purnose The purpose of this narrative e.xplanation of Table S-3 is t.J assis-. the reader in identifying the major impacts of eac!'I step. in the. fuei cycle al1d in det:ermin-ing wnictl fuel C'/de steps are the ;najor cont'l"ibutors to eacn type of envir~n menta1 impact shown in Table S:-3.

Table S-3 summarizes the enviNJnmenul e*ffects of t:ie normal operations of the uranium* fue*l cycle assoc~ated *.wHh

• producing the uranium fuel for a *nuclear power phnt and in disposing of the spent. nuc.lear fuel and the radioactive wastes.

The values in Table S-3 were estimated principally by methods *.wnic:"I are desc'l"ibed in det'ail i'n the reports 1

'.;'ASH-1248, "Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cyc1e, 11 ' NUREG-0116:,

11Environmental Survey of the, Reprocessing and Waste Managemeni: Portions of the LwR Fue.l Cycle, 112 and NURE~*OZ16, 11Public Comments and Task Forca~ Responses**-*

R'egardi ng the Envi N:inmentaJ Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fi.iel Cycle. 113 In addition, at' a* public hearing (Docket

~a. RM* 50-3) on the rep.rocessi ng and waste management' env i ronmenta.l ef fec::ts, the Comission staff answered questions about the estimates for the back end of the fue*l cycle and considere"<f"suggestions made by otrier par"ticipants in the hearing.

The comp 1 ete reco,rd of this pub 1 ic hearing and the t!'lree. documents cited ac.ove are* avai'1abl~ in the.NRC' s ?uclic Document ~oom lt li17 ri Street, N.'..J.,

'Nashington, O.C., and provide further explanation of the fact.ors considered in de'leloping estimates for Table s*3.

These reference materials contain the complete. t*ec!inical basis for t!':e :stimates in t!'le Table, and give detailed*

des.c'l"ipi:ions of the fuel cycle operatfons and their environmental effects.

/

\\

2 The following narrative explanation of the vaiues given in Tabla S-3 is drawn from the record and crtJss referenced to source doc1.11Dents far t!'le bene*fit of raade!"s seeking 1I10re information.

The Ta.Dle. S-3 values wnicn pertain to t!'le front end of the fuel eye le (up to the loading of the fuel into t!'le reactor) are taken fl"'om 'N'ASH-1248; 'la l ues per~ai ni ng ta t!'le bac~< er.d of the f 1Jel C"JC1 a are taken fl"'om NUREG-'.Jll6, 'Nith changes *,.;hi ch are noted in t!'le hearing record. 4 S'ince t.+ie narrative is designed to help tile reader in interpreting the envirtJn-

'Tlenta l effects given on iab.l e S-3, the forementi oned documents, together *,.;~th others that '"'ere ci tad in the. documents or discussed during t!'le hearings, are generaJly the only re*ferences cited in the narrative.

The exceptions ta this st.atament are found. *in Section III, 'lfhe~ the staff has prtJvi ded, for purposes of d.iscuss.ion only, infoM!ation on how long ter:n dose commit.'llents illight be

• caJc:i1ated, and '-¥hat incremental releases f'rom '"'aste disposal sites illight be.

Slnca these topics we,r.e not covered fn detail in 'i'IASH-1248, NUREG:-0116, NUREG:-0216 or the hearing record, information* not in the ~cord nad to be used to deve 1 op the ;natari al.

Section I of the narrative. describes the ext.ant L'N'R uranium fuel C"JCl e, the brtJad alternati'ves and the ind.ividual operations of the fuel cycles;Section II canta.ins a description* of the env.ironmenta1 effects of tl'le L'ifR fuel cycles and of the indivtdual fuel c;c:le operations; S.ection II! contains a disc:.1ssfon af' dose commit.11ents and healt.1 effects resulting from releases of radicac::i'le

naterials f'!"om the fuel cycle.

Section* I!! also includes a discussion of he*"'

dose commit.-nent evaluations aver ex-cended periods of time 11igl'lt be per;:ormed and '-lha=t t!'leir significance :night be~

In addition, there is a discussion of

!oiiiat, if any, incremental releases fl"'om *"'aste disposai sites 11igl'lt oc:::.ir over

i I

3 very long periods, af time (i.e., an e11aluation o.f repository impac-:s far t~e repository cons,idered in NUREG-0116.)

Section IV contains a discussion of socioeconomic impacts.

6.

Alternative Fuel Cvc1es The several alternative fuei cycles which-can be used for present generation LIVR reactors can be primarily characterized by how t!'le spent fuel is handled, si'nce, all presently availaole a:ltar~atives start *~ith uranium fuel., The alternatives, are:

Once-,Throuan Fuel Cvcl e:

a The spent fuel can be disposed of without recovery of residual fission-able isotopes; this is the present operati-ng mode for U.S. nuclear :-eac:tors.

U.ran i um-0 n 1 v Rec-1c 1 e:

a Uranium can be recovered from spent fuel by reprocessing and can be recycled. in nuclear fuel.

Plutonium can be sto.red for later use or combined wittr residual radioactive matariaJs as wastes.

Uranium-only recycle, inc:luding piut4lnium storage, was considered to be the :nest likely made o.f operation at the. ti.me of preparation of 1.tJASH-1248

( 19iZ:-*1974:), and was the fue 1 cyd e addressed in that doc:.iment. :

Li NUREG-0116, p 1 utoni um *~as considered to be a *~aste to be disposed of at. a Fe<teral repositorJ. 5

Jnnium and Plutanium ~ec*1cle:

o Both uranium and ;Jlutonium can be recovered from spent fuel by rei::irocass-ing ~nd ~cycling :o the reactor, the plutonium !:Jei11g recycled "'i':.h

A.,.

uranium as mixed oxide fuel.

The residual radioactive materials ara wastes.

Tne wide scaJe use of this mode of operatfon *.vas under c:nsidera-tion in the Commission 1 s GESM07 proceeding.

The Cammi ss ion had been in the process of determining *o11het:ier or not the..,.;; de sc.a 1 e use of.nixed oxide fue 1 in 1 i ght water reactors shou 1 d be authori :ed (GESMO proceeding) when ?resident Carter pualished his "Statament on Nuclear Power Policy 11 on April 7, 1977.

After consideration oi the EXecutive Branch 1 s and the pub 1ic 1 s comments., the Ccmmi ssi on dec:i ded ( 42 FR 65334*, December 30, 1977) that, among. other thi ng,s, it *.voul d:

a Terminate the GESMO p.roceedi ng~

0 Termfoate the proceedings on* pending or future p 1 utani um reC"JCla-*

reJated ncens ing app.1 i cations, except for* --

(a:)

p.roceedings* on 1 i*censes for the. fab.ricati:on or use of smal 1 quantities o.f mixed ox.ide fue;l for e.xp.erimental purposes, and (b~ those-portions of proceedings which ir.volve*only s~ent fue*l s-,tarage, disposal of exfat*i ng waste, o.r decontamination or decommissJoning of e.xis,ting p.lants.

o*

Reexamine the above matters at a 1 atar date.

ihe result of the C~mmission 1

s decision is t!'lat there ar1! only t'#o LwR fuel cycJes. potentially licensable for* wide sea.le use in the United States a:t this time:

the once-th.rough cycle, and the uranium-only recycie fuel C'/<<Zle.

ihe

~ack end st.eps of these t'#o fue i cyc*l es are* cons i cere<t in NUREGs-0116 and

-0215:, and the 1 arger eff*ect of the two fuel C'JCl es 1 s included in the

~...

Table S-3.

Since the fuel cyc1e rule is to cover L)olRs during their oper:ting lifetimes, even though there are no reprocessing plants operating in the Uni tad States a,t this ti me, the procaedi ngs of January 1978 threugh Apri 1 1978 considered both the* once-through and uranium-oniy rec;cie fuel cycles to cover the reactor lifetime *..;.ith some* flexibility.

C.

Fuel Cycle Ooerations Many diffe~nt operations are required for e*ither the once-through. rue1 cycle*

or the uranium-only recycle fuei eye-le.

Operations involved in preparing f'res,h fue.1 fo.r use. in a reactor are co 11 ect.i ve*l y known as the '1 front end"* of the fue1 cyc:le~* The,ope:rations follcwingirradiat.ion of the' fuei in :he reactor are known. as the "back end 11 of the fuel cycle.

Figure. r shows a block flow* diagram fo.r the f'ront end of *the fuel c:ycl e; Figures. 2a and. 2!:1 show the back end of the' once~througn* and uranium-only reC'ljC:le fuel cjCles respec:i'vely.

F*ive* o¢era:tions comprise thef'ront end of the f\\Jel c:yc:Je (Figure l):

'.J.re is'..

ni ned*; the uranium C:ont'ent of the ore is recovered as an impu~- compound (yellowcake} by m,iiling; a purified uranium compound (_UF0) is produced; the uranium-235: content* of' natural uranium is increased at anricnmen't jJlants; and

• , 1.* b. t d 8 uran1 um iue i s ia r1ca e *

• iwo ai f'ferent sets o.f operations comprise the back end o*f the fue 1 cycT e. r n the* once-throu§h fuel cyc:l e ( F*i gµre 2a), spent fue 1 from* the LWR is s,'tored, either at: the reactor or a:t special facilities away fr~m the reactor, for p.eri*ods of time in excess of 5 years.

ihe spent fuel is pac~<aged and disi:iosed o*f in Fe~e:ral repositories.

In the uranium-only reC'JCle mode (Figure Zb),

6 LWR URANIUM FUEI. CYCL.E FRONT ENC OPeRATlONS TO R!A~R r11J11n 1 !.!.VA Umaium Fuel Cvm Frunt E:id 011*mions

e I-WR URANIUM FUEL CYCLE DACIC END OPl;RATIONS f.l!llU c:= lil'llll fUU===ti 11* A<l 08 Juo,I u IHllllAiJE Al -

ll0tl08 -- - -v AlllAV*FllOU,.

tlfACltltl fOOl llOflAGf

/4-- - __ J i

'-4------_J All tun

. i:vcu tu1111 lOWH\\IEl lil'U11 tun cu~2*

fAl:kAtilllll 1~

l.OllH lVfl WAlill llUlllAl tu.11:11u WAlilE llEi'tllilfOllV c

fi1111111 2* 0111a1*lh111~~h fuul cv,11 I

fllllU II EA Cl 1111 lil'f~I fUll

• c1Ju:i1 UHANlllM JO llllUCUMUll fl lll'llNlllU, 111611 t.fUU WAlilU AllD - -

lDAllSUOAlllC WAiIU -:- - -1 I I

Alt. tun cvi:a.i l'lA1111 aow iEvia.

~~

lDl/4l.E\\lfl WAlilE llUIHAl.

~-

"-r- --

flDEllAl WAUE llHOUJORV I

i nu Ill( VAiil E IUHFAU :ifUllAlic fACllllV UllTH GEOI 061&

llfl'lllilf OJI V Iii llEAllV f'.'"" 2& u,....,,..0111, t*lva* f"" c,.i.

I i

I i I

I i '

8 spent fuel is stored at reactors for short periods of time (greatar :!'!an SO days), and then shipped to reprocessing plants, where uranium is recovered in a form suitacle for feed to enrichment plant:s.

Plutonium and other residual mate.rials from tne spent fue-1 (cladding, fission products, ac'tinide elements, activation produc't..s) are solidified, and ~ackaged in a form suitaOie fJr aisposal.

Cur1"ent regulations (10 CF:t Part 50, Appendix F) require t!'!at certain *#astes from-rep.rocessi ng* plants be solidified *1ti'thi n 5 years of their gene.ration and that these wast.es be disposed of within la years* of their generation.

Mos.t of the was-te from reprocessing pl ants wi 11 be di sp.osed of at-Federai repositories.

D.

ihe. *Moae l Reactor and its F*ue.

01 Cvcl e i<e(lui rements For the purposes o.f d~veloping the '1aJues in Tab.le S-3:, a modei ligpt w-a-ter reac-:or *;i1as defined. in WASH-1248 as a 1,000 MWe reactor assumed to operate at 80% of its maximum capaci'ty for* one year, thus producing 800 1'1W.-yrs of e:lec-tri city annually. 9 The fuel cycle requirements averaged -over a 30-year _ope.rat:- --

i ng life fo.r t:iis reac::tor*.were lace;lled an annual fuel requir~ment (AFR) in -

'i'IASH*-1'248.

Si nee that ti me, the AF,R acronym has been used to c!'larac:teri ze away-*f-rom-reacto,r s-torage of spent. fue-1.

In NUREGs-0116 and -0216 the t*ami-no logy "reference reactor year11

( RRY} 'iltas. ell!ll 1 oyed to describe t!ie fue 1 eye 1 e requirements_ of a ;node.l 1000.-MWe reac-:o.r ope.rating for one year.

The same ter.nino-lcgy,..,; 1l be ut i1 i zed in this nar~a~:ive.

The f'ront end of the fue 1 eye le, as desc'l"i be.a in '.lfASH*-i 248, covers the supp 1 y of fue 1 for the model reactor; 9.1, 000 :ile.tri c tons of ore ( containing 2 parts of u3a8 ;::er 1, 000 ~arts of ore.) are* reaui red per RRY.

Mi i1 i ng of t!ie ore

9 pr~ducas 182 metric tons of ye 11 owcake,"' wni ch in turn is conven.ed into 2i0 metric tons of natural UF6. rn the enric!'lment operation, much of this natural UF6 feed material is rejected from the fuel C"JCle as enrichment plant tails.

Of t!'le 270 metric tons of UF 6 feed, 218 metric tons are rejected from the fuel cycle as depietad uranium tails.

The remaining 52 ~etric tons of ~nriched uranium product is the feed for the fuel fabrication plant and contains enough uranium for 40 metric tons of uo2 fuel (3S metric tons of contained ur'lnium).

This amount of fuel is required annua 11y by an L'tJR producing 800 ~yea-rs of el ectri c"ty. 1 O The back end fuel C"Jcle steps, described in NUREGs-0116 and -0216, handle the post-fission products.and '.fastas, including the s;:ient fuel.

The scent foel,

'"hi ch sti 1i contains about 34 :netri c tJns of uranium, 11 is removed* frcm the reference reactor annua*lly.

(Approximate.ly one met'l"'ic ton of uranium has been converted to fission products. and actinide elements. )

The f'resn and spent fue 1* is in the form of fuel assemb 1 i es, each containing b.ebeen about 0. 2 and 0.5 metric tons of ura*nium. 12 *Hence, the number of fuel as*semi:Jlies handled in eac!'I reactor reload ranges from about 70 to 180, depending an the type of reactor.

For the. onca-t.'lrough fuel cycle, this fue-1 is stored under ~ater for periods of time in axcass of 5 years, either at t!"le reac-:or site or at offsite facilities.

=ailowing the storage period, the spent fue,1 *.tii'i be disposed of at a Federal repository. 13 3hiar11ng rue I cycle operating conaiticns including ~eactor ;:iaramet~rs, ye11ow-

~lc.e ;:urity, enric~ment tails as.say, etc. effect the* ye11awcaka ~RY 1"eauiremen1:.

~nic~ is t:ius subject to consiaerable variation.

,~

I \\J For the uranium-only ~C'JC1e option, the spent fuel is reprocessed to recover uranium.

Plutonium (about 0.35 metric tons per RRY14) may be recovered as plutonium oxide in a separate st"am. ihe fission products, other actinide elements, and activation products are concentrated into one or-mare solid waste products 'Nhi c!i are disposed of together with any p 1 utan i um stream.

To develop the 'lalues in Table S-3, the environmental effects resulting from operating the model fuel cycle facilities were estimated. ihese effects 'Here then normalized to reflect the effects attributable to ~ie processing of fuel for a sing.le year's operation of a model reactor- (RRY).

E.

F'ue 1 Cvcl e Faci 1 i tv Cescrfotions To provide a perspec~ive on the nature of t~e LWR fuel c:tcle operations, and the types of environmental effects resu-1ting fMm these operat~ons, brief desc:-iptions are given below for the model fuel cycle facilities used to deri*1e the* environmental effects given in Table S-3.

1.

The.Front End of the Fuel Cycle ('NASH-1248)

I

a.

Uranium Mining 15 and Mi 11ing16 Fa.r this segment of the fue 1 cycle, a combined. mi ne-:ni 11 c:::unp 1 ex was se 1 ected as the :nodel since it is representa:tive of a si*gnificant ;JOT"':ian of the c:Jr'!"ent.

and developing industry.

(1) :.tining The :cmmercial uranium ore deposits in the United States generally occur in the \\.iester:i States.

Uranium :nining in the ~nited States is generally

i 1 accomp*l i shea by one of two methods.

Open pit :nining, accounting for 53% af the ore* produced in tlii s country in 1971, is used when the ore body 1 i es under material that is easi*ly broken up and is found at depths :.ip to several hundred feet.

Undergr~und :iti ni ng is used 'Nhen the ore bocy is 1 ocated at ceot!'ls greater than-acout 400 feet., or "'hen it 1 i es under roc!<s tha.t require* a great deal of blasting to break up.

An open pit ;nining aperat1on in a '.ilestern State was selec-r.ed far the model uranium :ni ning ape ration si-nce the envi ronmenta.1 effect in terms af tota 1

• 101 ume of earth di sturtled is greater in open pit mining than 1 n underground mi-ning, and since acout half of the kno\\lln ore reserves in the United States*

are. loca*:ted in re*la"t.ively shallow-sedimentary formations less than 400 feet deep. ' 1 The model *mine has a capacity of 1600 metric tons (MT) af ore: per day, whi'ch fs equiva*lent to a yield. of approximateJy 9.60 MT of u3o8 pe.r year*;

sufficient ta succly the fuel for s:. 3 L\\iiR RRYs.

ihe dominan~ potenti'al' environmental effects from uranium mining include disturbances of tl'le natural terrain, an effect common to most itrining operations; re 1 eases of radon;* and p.umpi ng mine arai nage 'i¥ater from the :nine.

(2)

Milling As fn a :iumcer of exis.t.ing production complexes, the illode1 mi'11, located aajacent to :he* :node1 uranium mine, utilizes the ac.id leach process, since.

t!'!ait p.rocass a*cr:ount*s for about 80% of the :otal u3a8 pr:lduc:ti en. 13 The.ni 11 produces a uranium concentrate containing acout 960 ~ u3o8 per year.

• !'faaon re1eases are not gi*1en in iable S*3.

12 In the i11il1ing operation, uranium is ext;racted from the ore and is cancan-t.ra-ted as a semi refined product that is so 1 d in terms of its u3o8 content.

The product, which is principally ammonium diuranate, can be any one of several uranium c::lmpounds ana is commonly called ye 11 owcake.

Both mechanical and chemi ca 1 jJrocesses are involved in the mi 11 i ng operation.

Initially, the ore is cr'Jshed and ground, after which it is leached with either sulfuric acid or sodium carbonate solutions to extrac": t!ie uranium.

The 1 each 1 i quo.rs are purified and concentl"'ated, and the uranium is recovered by chemi ca 1 precipitation with the so 1 id p.roduct ca 1 ci ned, pu 1 veri z.ed and drummed for shipment as yellowcake.

Nearly all of the ore processed by the mi 11 ends up as tai 11 ngs, a fine sand* like material, in the tai 1 i ngs pond, toge:the.r with large amounts of ""ater* and chemicals used in the process*.

ihe

'Nater eventually dissipates, 1 a*rge-iy by natura-1 evaporative processes.

The ta.i 1 i ngs have* the* potential to cause the 1 argest environmental e,f-fects from the illi 11 i ng opera ti on.

l 0

b.

Uranium He:Xaf1 uori de P":"oduct.ion "'

The yellowcake i!lust :ie conver~ed to a product (uranium hexafluoride, UF5)

• ..;nic-h is '1olatile at a slightly elevated temcerature for enrichment t:ly the

,;aseous diffusion process.

Two precesses are used for UF-production, a dry

l

iroc-ass (hydrof1uor) and a *1tet process.

r:ie procasses differ primarily 1n the technique used for ~urif~ca.tion.

In the ary prccass, fnctional distilla-tion is employed af":.er conversion, '#hile in the *..,et process, high purity uranium

[

13 fe.ed is provided by a solvent extraction stap.

Roughly equal quantities of UF6 feed to the enrichment plants are produced by each method.

The. eff1 uents fMm the two processes differ.

The bulk of the impurities enterfog *..-ith the cr'..lde uranium feed is rejected f'rom the dry process as solids; in the wet process, the bulk of the ye.llowcak.e. impurities is rejec":.ed as* dis*sal'led solids in a, raffinate stream~ The modei UF:- production plant is c

as:sumed to produce one-half of its out;u:t by the _dl'""J process and one-half by

'the wet process., so that its envi'ronmental effec'ts. properly ref1ec: those of the average industry.

The model p.lant consists o.f. a 5,000 MTU/yr plant' and* is cap ab 1 e of supp 1 yi ng the fue-1 for Z7. 5 RRY s.

A numtler of p.rocess. o.ff-g~ses are generatad in the p.repa-ra.tion of UF.. fT"om*

• c c'l'"ude* uranium feed.

Most of these are. combustion products fT"om the. production*

of heat, but some-are volat*Hiz.ed: solids and gases e'iolved durfog calc.ining and. fl uori-nation.

Fluari des and oxides o.f nitrogen are the. more significant sourc.es of potential adverse enviro.nmental impac-:.

There a*re t'Mo major aqueous waste s-treams a*ssociated '"'~th UF,.. production.

O*

Many of U1e contaminants in the *itet proces*s are contained in a raffi nate:

s:tream which is not released but. held indefinitely in sealed ponds.

The second aqueous 1..-aste stream is made up :nost1y of cooling '..-ater and di 1 ute, sc':"ubber so 1 ut ions.

Some of thes*e aqueous eft1 uents are treated *..-i th calcium*

to p.redpita,te. calc:fom fluoride anci then diluted with a11 other clear water

/

14 was-te s-treams prior to release from the plant.

ihe solid calcium fluoride is recovered from sett l i ng ponds, packaged, and u.l ti mat.a 1 y buried.

Sma.11 amounts of natural ~ranium are released from t!'le plant in 'lentilation exhaust air as dus-e.s and volatile LJF., and in liquid effluents.

Radioac":i*1e 0

natarial in the solid ash residue from fluorination is largely from thorium and amounts to about a. 86 Ci per RRY for the hydrof1 uor procass.

In addi t:i on, radioactive mat.eri al s entering with the ye 11 O'#Cake appear in the so 1 id residues for the dry process operations.

c.

Urani'um Enrichment20 Zsotop.i c enri c:iment of urani um-235 is necass*ar1 to jlrov_i de fuel fo.r a* 1 i ght-*,ijater moderated nuclear reactor.

The concant:-ation of urani um-235* in natural uranium is about. Q. 'i'%, and the enriched uranium content for the curren-e generation of reac:-:or-s is* 2-4~. The faci 1 it i es are 1 arge in size because a 1 arge numcer of separation stages are required t;o a-ttai n the necessar1 anri climent.

The present plant facilities ar-9 owned o~ the United States and operated oy private industry undel'" contracts with the Oepal"'t.iien't of Energy.

There are three faci 1 i ti es curr9n,tly operating in the coun'trJ.

ihe model used in this s.tudy is a scaled-down rnodei of the entire co~lex.

The ~rimar1 sou?"t:es of environment.al effects associatad.,._;t.i the e-ff1uents from enY"ic:i':ment of uranium are rel atad to the gasa<:Jus effl uent.s from t!'le co-a l-fil"'9d stations us ad to genera=te the el ect.ri cal energy requir9d to operate the enri c:iment faci 1 i ty.

ihe effluents associ atad *..-i til produc-:i on cf fuel per

15 RRY year are equivalent to the gaseous effluents reieased annually by a 45-MWe coal*fired plant. 21 The discharge of heat ta the environment, both at the enricnment plants and the sites of individual electric generation plants, is also related to the pc~er requir9lllents of the anrichment plant.

d.

Fuel Fabric:ation22

• The feed mat*eria*l for the fabric:a:tion of fuel for the mode! l.WR is enriched UF 6.

The UF5 is converted to uo2, *,,;hich f s formed into pe il ets and then calcined and sinter1!d at high t~eratures. Finished pellets are loaded ini:.o Zirc:alay or stainless steel rods, fitted i,,;ith enc; caps and welded.

7he c:::~le*ted fuel rods aM! assambled in fixed arrays to be handled as fuel elements or ass.emb lies.

In de.fining a repMsentative model fuel fabrication plant, the convent.ianal ammcni um di uranate pt"'Jcsss.,.as se*l ected for conversion of UF 5 to uo2.

The capacity was chosen to be 3 MTU per day, a large plant by 1972 industry standards, with an annual prociuC-:ion of approximat*ely 26 RRY of fuel.

ii :najo.r consideration in assessing environmental effects of fuel facri"c.ation resu 1 ts from the fact that a-11 of the f1 uori ne i ni:.roduced into the fue 1 ::yc1 e during the uf 6 proauction phase becomes a waste ~roduct during the pr~duC:~on of uo2 ;:iowder.

Gaseous t'iucrine was'tes genera:ted are ef'fec":ively T"emoved from the air eff1 uent streams by *,,;ater scrti.bber sys tams.

Cai cium ( 1 ime) treatnent is us ad on scrubber system *,,;astas and process 1 i quid *~astes to re.'!love f1 uori de ion as calcium f1 uori de (CaF 2) precipitate.

i6 Other significant chemica.1 species in liquid effluents are ilitrogen compounds

~:iat are generated from the use of ammonium hydroxide in tne production of uo2 powaer and from the use of nitric acid in scrap recove?'"j operat.i ans.

2.

The aack E!"ld of the Fuel Cycle (~UREGs-0116 and 0216)

a.

Once-Through Fue 1 Cyc-1 e Severa 1 operations comprise t!1e back end of the once-through fue 1 eye 1 e.

These are:

storage of spent fuel, encapsulation of spent fuel after storage, and disposal of spent fuel; disposal of low-level wastes; and the decontamina-tion and decommissioning operations.

The environmental ef:feC'ts of all of these operations have* been aggregatad and are given in Column H of Table S-3A.

(1)

Spent Fuel Spent fuel assemblies are stored in water basins for the or~er of 5 or ~ore years after their removal from the reactor.

These storage bas.ins may be located at the reactor site or at offsite facilities.

Storage '"'ould be followed by an gncapsulation operation, in wi'lic!i individual asse.rnblies are packaged, possibly in he*lium-filled steel c3nisters.

The encapsulated assemblies *..iauld be disposed of in a Federal repositor"J, the final step in the onc.e-thro.ugh fuel CJC 1 e. 23 En vi ronmenta 1 effects of spent fue 1 storage inc 1 ude heat ra 1 eases, *..iatar use, release of sillall amounts of gaseous radionuclides, and gener2tion af solid radioacti'le wastes.

These *,o1astes arise from such operations as 'lfater purification.

(

17 Fue.1 canisters are assumed t*o be disposed of in a bedded salt. rei:iository, the model

"~oosit'ory defined in NUREG-0116.

Operations of the repository fort.he once-t:irough option are similar to those of the uranium recycle option (see below), although 11 t~:nes as many canisters 'NOuld be required for spent fuel i*S for high-level *,.;astes. 24 The environmental effe-:ts of spent fue*l disposal are similar to those of hi gn-1 eveJ *11as.te* di sjlos*a 1, except that in the once~ti'lrougn fuel cycle the remai ni rig, undecayed, gaseous radi onuc.l ides (tritium, cart:Jon-14, '.<rypton,. and iodine) ara assumed to be released at t:ie repositOT"'J prior to its being_ sealed, 111herCJas in the* uranium recycle fue 1 cycle these isotopes* are a*ssumed to be*

re 1 eased n the reprocessing p 1 ant.

Long-te.rm impac:t*s from the* reposi tOT"'J 1¥i 11 be nonexistent if the reposjtory performs as expected. and mai ni:ai ns the '"'aste in

~

25

. ~o.1 at., on.

On t!'le., bas.is of the analysis presented in NUREG-0116, the stair has rat.i ona-1 i zed, for both fue-1 cyc1 es, that* the rg leases from the reposoitory a,ft*a,r i't. ha-s

~e.en sea.Jed*, if it pe.rforns as expected, 'Ni i1 be sman anci, wne!'1

ioMiaH

ad to an :{RY, will' be insignificant.~'

Lcw-,1 evel was.t*es conta,i ning sma 11 quantities of' radi onuc*l ides ar9 produced in the normal oceratioli o,f nearly ail fuei cycle faci*1it:i-es, including r9ac:t.ors (for e:X~ 1 e, us*ed fi 1 tars from p.rocass 11enti 1 ati on systems, illat*ari als used

~n cJHning. uc 1pi11s o,f rad.ionuclides, or in dec:ont.amination o~er:t:ions).

Low-ievel *"'astes are nol"':llal1y ;::aci<aged, -=or ais~osal by surface :iuria*l at a

~:.ne r"C!ac'er is ~efer?"'!d :o Secticn rII9 for a discussion of t:-:e :iossib1e reiease o.f M.di enuci ; des from a.._aste :"'!pos i tory in the evenr. t.ha:t.: a.iuinoer of un l i !<e i y

iat:Jrai

.;:)r~cesses ara encoun'tered.

, Q....

low-level '"a:ste disposal facility; the environmental effects of 1ow-*1eve1 waste management and burial a*re included. in the* total shown for each of the fue*1 cyc.l e modes.

(3)

Decontamination and Decommissioning At the-end of their useful opel'"ating lifetimes, ali types of fuel eye.le faciliti-e*S must be deconuni ssioned in ways. that assure protection of public hea 1th and safety.

!n NUREG-0116; it was assumed that faci 1 i ti es wou 1 d be dec:intaminated

• to remove potentially hazardous rad.i onucl ides and t!'lat the radi oac::ti ve... astes

• .. ou 1 d. be r9!!1oved fl"om the site.

The 1 argest -impac:ts of decontamination and decommissfoning result ~NJm the disposal of low-le*1el wastes a11d *.-as-tes cont*ami-nated with transuranic elements (elements '""ith atomic numbers above 92).

Decontamination and decommissioning impacts '"'ere not considered in '.oiASH-1248 and, there.fore, are.* no.t. inc:1uded: in t."le: impacts of the i-ndividual types. of fadliti-es in Table S--3A, but a*re. included in 'tlaste ~anag~ment, column* H-, o.f Table S-3A.

b.

1J:ran.iur..Jnly Rec;c 1 e The. operations comprising the back end o.f the uranium-only recycle option can be grouped. i ntq t'<iilo maJor ca:tegori es - repr-oc-as's i ng* and was'te. management-opera'ti ens.

Envi NJnmental effec:ts from- :he reprocessing faci 1 i ty inc 1 uce t!ios*e of the reprocassi ng o~era:ti ori,. hi gh-i evel 1 i quid wasta storage, high-i eve 1

.,,_a-ste solidittc*at:ion, and the shart-tarm storage of s*olidified hign-1eve1

• ,.aste at :he reprocessing plant.

19 Er.vi rcnmenta i effects of *.. as'ta managemen-c i nc~l ude those from any i nt-eri m HLW s-torage (see below), transuranic 1o1asta processing, hign-level and TRU.*.. a-ste.

di s-posa 1, 1 OW!" l eve 1 waste disposal, and decontamination and deconuni S*S i ani ng.

In tne uranium rec'jd e fue 1 cyc.l e, the. plutonium f or.ned in ::ie reactor is consider~d :a be a waste material and is trans.fer~d to a Federal repository for dhp.osal.

• A 11 wa,stes to be disposed of at the repositor"J *.vi 11 be treated.

a-t* the reprocessing piant or other operations t'o p~duce-stacle materials suitable for final disposal.

( 1)

Rep-rocassi ng26 Fa li.owi ng their use as fuel in the nuclear power pl ant, spent fue 1 assemc 1 i es are. st~red unde.r water at trye r~ac:tor to per:ni t. decay of ttie short-*1 i ved*

i S'otopes: and ta. reduce the hea1t generat.ion rate*.

Afte.r cco.1 ing.*, the ass*emb 1 i es a-re tr~ns*ported t*a: a* ~~.rocessi"ng p 1 ant for recc.very o.f the res i.dua 1, sl i gnt*ly enriched uranium*..

ihe. chemical process for separating the usab*l e uranium from* p 1 u'toni um and.

unwanted fission products or act:i ni des ('#astes) i's assumed to be the ?urex so lv.ent extrac::i'an p.rocess, whid'I ~as been the, mo;s.t widely used :netliod for

~c~ver1 of' fis-sile: values from spent fuel for many ye-ars.

In the fuel rep.ro:-

cessi ng p.1 ant.,. the-spent foe l assemc 1 i es are. sa111ed or chopped into s.ec"ti ons and the fuel is then dis,solved by nitr-ic acid and. secarated into uranium, lJ Tu*to*nium and *,.;as ta straams.

These s-tre-ams a*re proces:.sed i n'to phys ica 1 and c!iemiccal forms either far d.isposal o.r f1;n* shipment and furi:her use in t:ie fuel

7cle.

Environmental e*ffec-ts f~om ~aprocessing facilities 'lave !:le9n derived

c 20

• pri nci pa 11 y from data gathered in many years of experience in Federa 1 government plants.

The major environmental effects from reprocessing result from the assumed release of gaseous fission products ind activation products from the t

4 1 27 spen 1ue.

Higti-1eve1 'N"as.tes (HUil) produced at the reprocassi ng pJ ant. contain the highly radioactive fi ss fon products from the, spent fue*l.

These wastes requ.ire a sys:tem for their.nanagement that provides radiation shielding, prot*ec:tfon ag.ai nst.. re,l ease*, and a means of heat dissipation.

The. reference. system for HU./ management at ':he r~processi ng p 1 ant i nc1 udes the following s:teps:

sno.rt*ter.11 sto.rage as Hquid in tanks; solidification; sho.rt*teMl.storage as a salid.

?rovisfon for a. ionger-tarm i'nterim storage be*f ore. di sposa 1 cou 1 d be nec.ess:ary; its p.atentia.J impacts have been included.

i*n the in:ipacts of HLW di sp.asaJ.

Te~oracy storage of liquid HU.I in tanks has been practiced for *aver 30 years.

The most modern tank designs, wn i ch would be r'!cu i red for

• comme rci a.1 fi.le1 eye.le. operations, have proven virtua11y free of le:aks and operational p.rob1ems.

iar:iks of s;imtlar desig"n :ia,v.e* been in oceration a:t gover~ment facilities' for

nore than* ten years. and Mave been storing commerci a 1 reprocessing *,i1astes a:t

'"'est Val l*ey, ~ew York, for more than five yea.rs.

The tanks* a:re as.sumed to be s'tainles,s steel, ioc~ted in stainless steel*lined ::onc:ret~ vaults *..-Hh equip*

nent for heat remov*al.

These tanks are an i ntegra i ;:iart cf the re~rocess i ng p.1 a:nt, and a 11 ef'f1 uents f'rom the tanks :re ':.reated in p Tant systems toget!"ler

"Nith effluents frcm the rest of the piant.

iheir impacts are included among the impacts 1 isted for reprocessing. 28 To prepare HLW for shipment and di sposa 1, and genera 11y to reduce the risk of its dispersal, the HL\\oJ :nust be solidified as required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix F.

.~ number of techno 1 ogi es e.xi st for so 1 i dification; reduction of the waste to a glass form has been selected in this analysis as the model process for s*olidification.1' The process assumed for production of glass from liquid HLW is a t'#o-s.tep process:

first, producing a calcine, and second, melting it together with glass-forming materials to produce the glass.

The product of the s*olidification process is a glass in a sealed canister ready for s.hipment, storage or di sposa.1.

The environmental effects of operation of the. solidificati'on facility are included in the estimates for the reprocessing P, *nt* 29~

.I~

If the solidified HL'H is not to be shipped to a Federal repository soon~ afte:r solidification, a storage c~acility at* the reprocessing plant must :ie pr~vided.

Faci 1 iti es simi.1 ar to spent. fue 1 storage pools are assumed for this pur,:iosa in the analysis.

Shielding, confine.'llent, and removal of decay heat are tlie rnajor functions of this facility.

During normal operations, only minor inc.':"'ements a.f ;1eat re.1 ease and water usage are added to the imcacts of the :-eprocessi ng faci 1 ity. 30 Jlt;ne present 1icansing staff posi't.ion is that a number of alternative 'liaste fOMi*S should ~e characterized before one is selected for use in the repository.

22 (2) Waste ~anagement.

(a.)

Interim Storage of High-L:avel °'astes at a Ret'l"ievable Surf*ace Storage F aci 1 i ty31 If final geologic disposal facilities are not avail ab.le for receipt of solidi-fied. HL'N *ii1ithin 10 years a*fter it has been generated, a facility inust be available for interim HU.I storage.

One such conceptual facility is the retriev-able s.urface storage faci-lity (RSSF).

The impacts for an Rss;:* have be~n conservatively included in t*he summation of waste management effects (given in

o.1 umn. H of Tab*l e S;..3A (see be 1 ow)).

Land use far the RSSF wou 1 d be convni tted only tamporari ly, and effl uent.s. front normaJ operation *11oul d be very smal J.

!'n'. the. event that extended. s-torage. :ni:ght be needed, a seal.ed stl'.l.rage cask coneept has been used to e11a luate, the envi*ronmental effects oJ e~tended sto.rag_e.

'.ilaste canisters a:re p.Taced. in thick-*,.,alled, high-integrity overpacks;. this pac;::k*age> is then pJaced. ins,i de concrete cylinders which pr.ovi de shi e*l ding_ and channeling for* natura:l-draft air cooling..

Th*is. co.ncept has low vulnerability to accidents.

(b)

Transurarii c-Contaminated '.iiastes (TRU 'l/astes)

~mong the nuc1ides produced in nuclear reactor fUel are transuranics (BU),

radtonuc:J ides havi_ng. atomic numbers nigher than uranium, whi c-n ;nay be pa*rents O*f.long-lived decay chains (tens of tho1:1sands of years).

Waste materials con-tai'ning significant quantities of these long-lived elements will be conffned e

rid consigned to the Federal repository.

23 So 1 id '"'astes contaminated *,.ith iRUs are derived primarily from t!ie oceratfon of the fue1 reprocessing p.l ant.

Wastes included in tni s categOl'""J are so 1 i difi ed 1 iquids, filters, cl adding. hulls and other fuel hardware, and generai._.-rash.

Overa 11 m~nagement i nvol 11es processing iRU '#astes to a stab 1 e f or.11, packaging the product in a hign-*intagrity container, storing t:ie packages onsite at the fuel reprocessing plant for up to 20 years, and finally shipping to. a Federal*

repository for 1 ong-*term storage. or geo 1 ogi c disposal.

• Envi ronmenta 1 effects f'rom ;nanagement of' TRU-contaminated wast.a *.. ere found to !::e too. sma 11 to be detectable in the. totals in Table S-3. 32 (c) o*;sposal of HLW and TRU Wastes at a* Federal Repository HUY. and TRU. *.. astes*, including pi u:toni um,. compri ~e the materfa 1 s from the.

nuc.l ear fUe:l cycle, that would be disposed of at a Feder a 1 repos i tol'""J; Deep emplacement in* a stable geologic. med.fum* (bedded* salt) under the* cont:inenta*l United States was the repos ito.ry model used in this' evaluation.. A*l though knew*ledge abeut the 1mpacts of athe.r alternatives is 1 imi'ted, the potenti a1 impacts from bedded salt disposal are believed to be reasonably representa-tive.

impacts that would resu.lt. from any app~priate.ly designed geolog:ic emplacement."'*

The repescl'ta.T""J fa:ci 1 ity *.w*i 11 be* desigried. and, the *~as.te ampl aced to keei;1 the.

wastes and. the surroundi'ng g.eologic media below temperatures which could.

result. in nuclide migra-tion or impa:ir the st.ruct.ure of the geologic foMlation.

The :nine wi 1l be construc:tad using existing teci'lno*l ogy to p.revent fi coding.

• <c, ma preserrt 1 i cens i ng staff pasi ti an is t!'lat three ':.o five sites in severa 1 g.eolo.g,ic. media should be fully characterized before sele-=t~*cn of a.nedium :':ir a :-eposital'""J.

('

24 and/or co 11 apse during opera ti on.

E:igi r.eeri ng features wi 11 be built into the facility to provide containment of waste ma,teria.ls.

Op.erational (waste emplacement) lifetime of the facility will be bet'.Ween 20 and 30 years.

At that.time the f'aci 1 i ty *11i 11 be backfi 11 ed and sea 1 ed.~

Effects from routine* ope.ration o.f the facility before decommissioning (including.

sea 1 i ng of the underground shafts and tunne*l s) have been found to. be small and comparable to thosa of:.tne RSSF.

Effluents (e::<cept for the large volume.s of salt f'rom excavation) have been projected to be vero-1 low.

Radiological effluents from routine* packag~ inspection and repair activities are quite small re i ative to those frcm iDajor fuel ~JC.le facilities (e.g., reprocessing). 33 (d} Lew-Level wastes Low.. Lever wastes from the* faci 1 i ti es o.f the f:ront end of the f\\Jel ~JcJ e.* a*re*

es,s*ent'.fa 11 y the same. for both the. once-through fue,1 c;ycl e and the' u.rani um*

recycle mode..The addi'tionaJ back end faci1ities for reprocessing and *~aste.

treat.'llent in the uranium recycle :node produce* s 1 i ght l y larger quantities' o:t* -

io"N-leve1 wastes than wou.ld result f'rom spent fue.1 sto.rage and disposal in the once-through fuel ~Jcle. The impacts are included in column H of Tab-le S-3A

( s*ee b.e l ow). 34*

( e) Oeeontami nation ~nd D.ecommi ss icni ng of Ur'3.*n-ium Recycle Faeilities The all!di t ~ ona l impacts from the* r~pr~eass i ng and other back end fa:ci Ht ies for uranium reC'JC1e are included in column Hof ial:Jle S-3A (see below).

fmpac~s

• rie ~res-ant. ncensing staff position is t:*,.at ::ie option to rei:;rie.ve tne *,o1as,ts,s should be :naintained for 50 years foiiowing opera'tion to allow monitor~ng and corre~ti ve ac:t..i ans if requ.ired.

25 from decommissioning t.~e front end facilities ~re essentially the same for both fue1 cycles and are also included in column H rather than in the columns for the individual facilities. 35

3.

Transportation Seven steps in the transportation of materials to and from facilities involved in the nuclear fuel cycle have been considered in determining environmental e*ffects* of the LWR-fuel cycle.

For' the front end of the fuel cycle, three steps*-shipment of ore fMm mine ta mill, shipment of uranium concentra*te from mill to UF6 production plant, and shipment of na'tural uF6 to :he enrichment plant--involve the transport of low specific activity material.

T*,.;o additional s~ps in the front end of t!'le fuel cycl e--shi pment of enri cned UF,. to the 0

~ranium dioxide cuo2) plant. and shipment of uo2 to the fuel fabrication plant--

involve the* transport of potentially fissionacle, low specific: activity material.

(The latt:ar transportation step is no.t required for fabrication plants 'N'i'lich inccf?orate the UF6 to uo2 conversion process.)

Li addHion, tj'ie shipment of

• ..;astes fMm UF6 p.lants, '"'aste from fuel fabrication plants, and certain wastes fnm fuel reprocessing ;Jlants ta commercial land burial sites involves the transport of radi oact. ive 1 ow-1 e'le"l so 1 i"d was.tes. 36

!n the back end of the once-through option, potantially fissionacle spent fuel is S'ii'ipped t'o sto.rage or disposal.

In the back end of t!ie uranfom-only recycle fuel 1:ycle, the shi~ments from the reprocessing plant involve the transpor~ of

-ac:ivered uranium as UF6 to an enrichment plant, and the transoort of sol id, high-ievel was.ta material and ;J'iutonium to a Federal '"'aste storage facility.

F'"1r all fuel cycle options, t:":e t!iree steps (shi;:ment of fuel to, ir":""adiated

( "e 25 fue 1 from, and wast*e. from reac:to.rs.) c~veri ng the tl'"ansportati on of matari a 1 s to and from nuclear power plants are considered in Table S-4 of 10 CF'R 51.20 and a*re not included in. Table S-3. 37 Packagi;ig. and transport of radioactive illater.ials are regulated a:r. th~ Federal 1eve1 by the ~uC'l ear Regu.l atory Cammi ssion (NRC) and the Department of Transpor-tation (DOT).

Certain aspects, such as limitations an gross ',!;eight o.f trucks*,*

are regulated by the individua.1 States.

The regulations: are designed to protect. employees, transport *11orkers, and* the. public from external radiation and exposure to* radi at.ion and radi aactive' :nateri a 1 s as* a result of normal and ac::i dent. conditi ans of transport.

The* requ:i rements for pac!<agi ng of 1 aw specific activity ;naterial*are. sucn* that i*t is most unlikely that a person

. cou:ld ingest or inhale a* rnass of ma,te:ri'al th*a*t ',.;ould res.ult in a significant radfation hazard under any ci rcl.llllstances arising. 'in* transport".

Shipments a f fi s:si le. mataria*Ts are* 1 imited by the pacxagi ng designed to ensure nuc-: ear.

crfti ca.1 ity safety under b.o:th norma.1 and acc:i dent conditions of transport.

Contai'ners of s.olidified high-leve.1 '#ast:es must be designed to *1tithstand the e.'ff*ects of severe accidents.

ilil! environmental eifects o:f the shipment. of m.aterials in t'he nuc:lear fuel c;/c:le are those *..;hich a*r@ c!iara:c":eris*tic of the trucking industry in genera*].

ihe. increase in density of truck traffic from fue 1 cycle sh'i pments '11i 11 be sma 11 compared with total tl"ucl< traffic. 3:3

(.

\\

27 Sectfon I - Referance-s

1.

U.S. Atomic Energy Cammi ssi on, 11 Envi ronmenta 1 Survey of tne Uranium Fue 1

Cycle, 11 \\..jASH-1248, April 1974, p. iv.

Z.

U.S. Nuc.lear Regulatory C~mmission, 11Erivironmeni:ai Survey of the ~eprocess

ng and '.o/a*ste ~anagement ?orti ons of

:ie LWR Fuel Cyc1 e, A iask Force Rep-art, 11 111. Bi shop.. F. J... '-!i ragl i a, Ed., NUREG-0116, Oc!ober 1976, pp.,,

ii.

3.

U.S. Nuc*lear RegulatoT"'J Commission, 11Pub-lic Comments and Task Fo.rce Responses Regar1:ing. the Environmental Sur-1ey of the Rep~cessi-ng and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle, 11 NUREG-02.16, Maren r9n.

4'*.

U.S. Nuclear Regu.lator"J Commis 0s~ion, '1Staff Recommendations for Minor*

Adjustments to Table S-3, 11 submitted by James Lieoerman, Counsel for NRC Staff, Oocke.t RM 50-*3, January 19, 1978.

5.

'.YASH-1248, p. S*3.

6.

NUREG*OT16, p. S*l2..

T.

11u.s-.

~uc*lear Regulatory Ccmmis:sion, Fina1 Generic Environmental Statament

• on t.ie Use o-f Recycle Plutonium in Mixed Oxide Fuel in Lignt '.Vater Cooled.

Reactors 11, Offi'ce of Nucl ea*r Material Safety and Saieguards, NUREG-0002, August l9.76.

a.

1,i/ASH-1248:, p. s*.z.

9'~

Ibid *., p. S-5.

10.

Lbid.

11.

Nl:JREG:-0002, Table: IV C*9, p. IV C-75.

12.

Ibid., Sectfon 3.2.6, p. J*a.

i 3.. NUREG-.0116, p *. 4-'5 14*.

Ib.id., Sect.ion* 3. 2. 7. 1, p*. 3:-9.

15.

'#ASH-1248, C!iaptar A, p. A,. l ff.

i6.

Ibid. I Chaptier B, p. a-1 ff.

T7.

U.. S. Atemic:Eriergy Commission, "Sta*tis'tit:al Oa:taof the.Uranium :naus7.rJ,

• Januar-1 1, *1972, 11 GJO 100 (1972), p. 29.

( e

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25..

26.

27.

28.

29.

30..

3L

32.

~.. -

..;;l.

34.

~..

... ~.

36.

37.

28 R~oert ~erT"itt, The Extractive Meta1iurqy of Uranium, Colorado School of Mi nes, uo 1 den, CO, I 9 / I, p. o.

wASH-1248, Chapter C, p. C.. 1 ff.

Ibid., Chapter D, p. D-1 ff.

Ibid., p. D-<1.

!bid., Chapter E, p. E-1 ff.

NUREG-0116., Section 3. 1. 1, p.* 3-*1 ff.

!bid.,. Section 4.5.3, p. 4-*113

~-

1T.

!b*id., pp:. 2:-10, 2-11.

NUREG-00.02, Chapter IV, Section E*, p. IV-E-20 ff.

NUREG-0116, Sectfon 4.1, p. 4-4 ff.

Ibid., Section 2.2. 1", p. 2-4,. and Section 4.2.1, p. 4-14 ff.

!bid., S.ection 2.2.2, pp. 2*4. and 2*5:, and Section 4.2.2, p. 4,.19 ff.

!bi"d., Section 4. 2. 3, p. 4-24* ff.

!bi*d., Section, 4 *. 2.. 5, p. 4*29 ff.

Ibid., Seeton 2.3, p. 2"5 ff, andSectfon 4.3, p. :1-39 ff.

Ibid~, S.ectfon 4. 4, p. 4"-71 ff.

NUREG'-0116, Section 2. 7, pp. 2:- 1 J, 2-14, and Section 4-. i, p. 4-117 Ibid., Section 2 *. 8., p.

• z-15*~ and Section 4.8, p.

~-129 ff.

1i'IASH-1248, Section H, p. H-1.

~..::*

I I.*

U.S. Atomic Ene.rgy Commission, 11 Ehvi ronmen'ta 1 Sur*1ey of iransi:Jortati an of Rad;foacttve,i.,aterials To and From Nuc1ear ?O\\Ver ?lan:ts, 11 '.ifASH:..1238, i972,Section II, pp. 5-io.

JS.

~lJREG-Ql16, S'ection 2.9, Pll** 5-15., 2-16.

(.

29 Section II.

Environmental Effec:t*s o.f the LWR Fuel Cycle A.

Environmental.Data Table S-3, Taole of Uranium Fuel Cycle ~nvironmental Data, is a summary of environmental considerations attributable to the uranium fuel cycle, normalized to the annua 1 fuel requi remen_t in support of a mode.l l, 000-~e L'tfR.

Data from the 11front ends.1 of the uranium fuel cycle~ based on \\"ASH-1248,' have been comi:lined with data from the "back end*," wnic~ is based on* NUREGs-011.6 and

-0216. and the remanded proceeding (Doc!<.e.t No. RM-50*3).

Tab 1 e s*3A, which follows, sets forth the contributions by the 11ari ous se.gments of the fue*l cyc-1 e to the total values given in Tab.le S-3.

Iii general, Table S*3 presents the:

sum oJ the* hi gner* v a 1 ues taken from e i tlie.r the once-through fue 1 eye 1 e* a r the.

uranium-only recyc1e option.. The following is*: brief di.scussfon of the-

.environmental ccnsi dera:t*i ons re:l ated to the "bac!< end 11 *of the once-through fuel cycle and t!ie uranium-on*ly rec1cl e option.

1.

6ack End of the Once-Through Fue 1 Cycle At present, spent fuel discharged from LwRs is. being stored in the United Sta-ces pending a po 1 i C"J dee~ s ion '"nether to di"spose a f t!ie irradiated s;:ien't fue 1 as a waste ;:iroduc:t*-tl'le once-through fuel cycle--, or to reprocess spent fue 1 and r-ecover the residual fissile values for recycle as fuel in powe.r reac:tors, in this cas.e, --the iJranium~only rec1cle OIJtion.

In the once-through fuel eye.le.,

the s~orage and dtsposa 1 of spent fue 1 as waste, a i ong with ot!':er "'aste :nanagement.

ac~ivities, constitiJtes t!ie back end 11 of the uranium fuel cyc1e. 1

(

\\

30 The environmental conside.rati"ons related to the once-through fuel cycle are summarized in column F of Tab 1 e S--3A.

It is expected that spent fuel wi 11 remain in interim storage facilities fo.r periods of up to 10 years or more to reduce radi a*ti on and heat emissions prior to packaging and disposal, and, because-fac:i 1 i ti es* for the permanent di sposa 1 of st1ent fue 1 are.iot yet ava'i 1ae1 e. 2 Thus, co 1 umn F i nc.1 udes the environmental i 1111Jacts of extended pool sto.rage as well as spent fuel disposal in a 'aeep salt bed, geological repository.

Low-level wast.es, and decontamination and decommissioning* wastes, from all se9!11ents of the-. fue:l cyc:le are also included. in coiumn F. 3 There are no s-ig_ni ff cant amounts of-tranilirani um (iRU) '#as.tes generated in the onca-*threugn*

fue 1 cyc.1 e.

I.t ha-s been as,sumed. that. spent. fue*l or hig~-1 evel wastes.,.,:; 11 be.d:i sposed of 1

4-

, n a, gea.l og1*c., bedded sa *t, repository.

Opera*t ion of repos.itor-1 facil i ti e*s:

is. s~imilar* far both* spent fi.Je*l or high-level waste, and it has been assumed.

ttra:u a. repos i"to.ry in bedded sa l.t w*i 11 be designed and oper!-ted. s:o a*s t*o re,t*afo the so.1 i'd radioactive: waste i nde1flni't*ely.

However, the radio logical impacts*

rg.latad ~o the g~ological disposal of spent. fuel are' based on the assumption.

that. all ga-secus and volatile radionuclides in the spent fuel are.released beto:re the* g_eo'logJc repo:sitor-1 is sea*led. 5 s:ince the gaseous. and volatile radi'onucl ides a-re the* pri ncip*a l contributors to en'li r~nmenta 1 dose commi t:nents, this assumption umbre*ll as the upper bounds of the dose commi t.11ents t!iat may oe a.ssodateci '#ith the disposal of spent fue-1.

31

z.

Sack End of the Uranium-<Jnly ReC"/Cle Fuel Cycle Op.tion At p.resent, there are no spent fuel repri:icess.ing piants in the United States ttrat* can reprocess !.WR sp*ent fue 1.

Moreover, if a ;:io 1 i c:y dec:i s ion is :nade t*o

ier.nit rep.rocassing of S!'lent fue.1, the capabi 1 ity to reprocess spent fue-1 in the United Stat-es. may not be ava.ilac.le until acout the early 199.0s.

However, if LWR spent. fue*l i S' rel'lroc:essed, the envi ronmenta 1 ill!l'acts from reproc:as:si ng and reTated waste illanagement activities ari!* nearly identical for* oo:threcycling of uranium and plutonium, or recycling of uranium-only,* as fuel in nuclear power reactors.

'Nhether ? 1 utoni um.,.,; l1 be used as a fue-1 in* LWRs*, or breeder*

reactors*, Or both, is a S8!'larate issue that '#ill be resolved. in connect.ion*.

'"'i th tne *pol icy dec.ision whether to resume reprocas*s i ng in the Uni tad States.

For th:fs* purpose, t*o cover tne conti ngenc:y that at some future da,.te spent fuel

• from L'NRs may be. reprocessed, it has been assumed that only the 0 uranium* t!:ra*t.

is, *recovered from th~, reproc:essi ng of spent fuei from' LWRs wi 11 _be reC"/cl ed as fue*l to lWRs*;. and. the plu:t*onium is not* us*ed for* its fuel value in LWRs.

Instead*.,

it becomes a by-produc: waste* that. may be disposed_ -Jf in a manner s*imilar t'o~

that for high-leve.1 wasta. s* This is called the. ur.anium-only r-ecyc:le option~

and its envi'r-onmenta.l considerations* are summari :zed in columns G (Repr.i:icessi'ng) and H (Wast*a Management) of Table S:-3A.1r*

'I I'

. should be* noted tlia*'t co.l umn F*, and co i umns G. anci H, ars no;~. added togettler to arrive a*'t totals, ~ut are p-res*ani:ea as al terl'la't i ves.

ihe hi ghe.r 11al ue fr.om thes:e. t"No a:lter\\iative fuel cycles is added to a:rrive at totals.

32 W-ith respect to waste managemen't ac:ti vi ti es as soc:.i a;ted w,i t:i the uranium-on 1 y rei:'p:le option (column H), the environmental considerations include the geologic dispcsa.1 01' high-leve*l wastes (HLW), transuranic wastes (TRU), plutonium, 1 ow:-1 evel or nontransuranic *.wastes, and the di spasal of *,o1astes from decontami na-tion and ciec:mmissioning of fuel cycle facilities. 7 The environmental consid-erations relevant. to* waste management activities directly related to reprocessing, suci'I as storage of liquid. wastes in tanks, waste solidification and packaging, and interim storage of so.lidifi-edwastas at the reprocessing site, are induded in column G.

!t has: been assumed that a geologic repository will be designed and operated s*o as to* retain solid rad:laact:ive *,o1aste indefinitely.

Ho,,.ever, to 1..:mbre*lla the upper bounds of the dos a* commitment:.s tha*t may be associ at*ea:...,; th reprocessfng and. waste* management op.eratfons. rel ateci to the. urani ~only recyc 1 e. option,. it has been !'SSJiiM91l. that. all o.f the gaseous and 'IOlati 1 e T"adionuc 1 ides conta:i ned i'n* the spent: i'ue r are released to the* a*tmasphere p.ri or to the dj spasa.l of the wa.st:es;. 8 The gas..eaus radi onuc:l ides (tritium*, carbon-14,. and kr;p.tcn-85) and the 1/.o:l ati-1 e radi:onuc:Ji de i odi ne~l29 ar.s the p.ri ncipal contri buUJrs to. environ-*

mental dose commit.'Tlents from the 11back end11 of the uranium ftJe 1 eycl e;.

a*.

Envi ronmenta 1'

• C~ns-iderati ons This s*ection is a ~rief discussion of the envil'"onmental consiaerations of t.!'1e ciranfom f.ue 1 eyc1 e, which* are summa*ri'zed in Tac*l e S-3 and. Tac 1 e S-3A.

It a 1 so lil~vides a brief explanation of how the 'lalues in Table S-3, which ;ias been noMtalized to a moael l,000-~e reference r9actor year (RRY), C3n be c~nvertad

11.a!ul'~I lh:~uun:11 U~11

~cl. f~..!!fl!~1

-..,... 1,o.. 111*11v r:i1111~1 u11~

!J11Jlst11rb1:J Ar~*

llhl11rb11J A1*u l'&:fllkUU:Hl ly [11111111 l°l~!i 0111:1*a.111*J.:11 lllOlll:J c;..1111011~ of tilt

!!!!!.!d!!!.! t!l.!!!~J!f..!1111. l 1ll~d1.inai:J lu *Ir l)hd1u91:J l.:. wdi:r lioJli:i l\\l~d111r9iiJ a*u !in1u11J folill lld1:1*

!:~~J ! !!!!!l ll1!1:lrlt:11I 1:1~lll'!IV

( U11111~1111J t11U1) fqulv11 lll11l C1111l ( ll!lluqU) f!.tul'oll li.i~ (111llU111! ~t:f)

S111111wrv of l11v.lr1!!~11&:*!~~* ~l!!*~f41:1*.ap1111~ fur (WM h1~I Cyd.: a.v C011111011unl

• *

• Hu11114tli~J l~ "1!<111, Ulll lluli:r1:111:11 lli:11clur V1:11r lili iii 11 2

2,1

!n_

121

0. 2!i 11.~9 I

O.li 0.2 O.l 2.4 6li

uo O.!U 611.li 2.!i Li O;~

0.1)?

0.0 o.6 0.2 11.0 J. l 84 21.0 H,Ollli 26.l 11,0!IO 1.71)

Q. 62 21).0 0.2 0.16 O.Ot 0.0 li.2 li.2 I.I 0.62 l.11 f

1.1 J.5

.IY2 1.1

. IJt!I 11.4

.Ob

_LL

14. !a l.'J Q.1 12 6

~1:pruca:1~

l1111

~2

• 20.b 1.5 11.12 0.1 6.6 lit.a 4.0 I. Ii 211.6 I!

w.. ~lil H~;,l. for Ura11IU111 Re:a:yci~

'J.0 8.6 ti. iii U.t O.lJOlli O.Ci!l

_],!._ __

4.2

q 11.112 Jri11Ui-1lUi*t.llo11 0.016 1110 i'J 22 ll 2.11 1110 11,000

__EL.

11.m J2l 110

1:00'1r.

7.t *o 9l o*

ooo'ir.

'f>ii~

07.

c r.11111>-:mnn 1 otz t*c t *ri

~""llS sli1i111 "l

t.t 0*01 0:01 i*g

' 9* 1

'*1111 l"i!I lO"IJ>

(t)6"[

,.. ii S"li r.o*o l"li 7."0

_IJ

• • 9

• • g l'j li"Zl l"t ir&

ir1.1u111..;

1nz Cl l"l I *o fi"li zo*o>

t*i;

!;*t

..!:~I!~ **

~",,.,

tlO"O

r. io

• o IJOOO*o t10*0

-l:l l!J"O qo*o

!lOtJ"O 9"1J fi*o

__. __.,J __

~:ir, "!J *'"'"

t91' I no*o zo*o 9*0 nnoooo*o 9

OCI' l 9"l l"&

~:i1111n:i11-**d

~

IJ"liZ uc*o r.zo*o ni 9w*o 91"0 DZ

. l"O t*o i!O"O 2:J

~*

ti z90*0 zo*o g*~

tooo*o 9tJ"O II ltJ11*0

[..

t*o

~uri11.111:in.*t ii Olil' l z9*0 990"0 6.. 17.

to*o 9

oti' 1

• z)o*o1 fi *i;i o*g

.Off oo***

!l.U"O 9o*o

!llO"O f.Z c 1)00£ **

tniz 0*1t i;*g

~bs_

(.IH)

~n~l'IJ l!ftiJ l"ijjj;;ijj lilH1tnlH1

'"'"1

""ll'lJOcf "l'K:1:11i llu1 rs'!d~iu

• q*j 1:inj 111:mi

• roJ.i 9.:1n wllnif ltH lii*iiilH

-~ilu1 11111111un

-!;~;t:mjif:i11

tl.*t'.lnlS

-*i,1.i1iJ JnJ *-;n.r.H

'""~

ti urn 1u:1 s 9

.:f J

i Jt':I~ JOJ:Ji>:tlf "'lllUllJllj lfiil lllrOtf *91 p:tli ('lli.tilft 111:.iin1l11101Kit11i;KJ 111nj ""' JPJ ~1io1ifJ:iit1~*inJ 1*1umrilin<i1iiilJ io K.1t1111111s C *1i11t:tJ YC-S llliYi

Pin'*

t10*0 fj""

g*t;t U'll fi ooze oz li!J liilii-jii-Wiiliil ijJ"-i Nii.iaiji ll ll ll t~

110 1111 111

) l1h1:ir) ""' "" 11111 oor.'11 0111 '01 v;*o 0110 cz*u 9n*o 009

"(""I l"'I~) lllllnl lllil'I \\ir111 *'"'llll (il11s11n r:il.111'1) s1*11ns sp11j10.1.t 11011i>AIPY

!1_01*r.*9 9-0~ 11'11 **

9

_o~wi;*c; rn(I 1101 ~~If C ~rn*~ninn J ""'11 i *'I 10*0 10*0 HZ-111

!:100*0 9100"0 UCZ-11.l mm*o tr.oo*o 97.l-l'll l"i!

9.0111* *g g.01"6"'1 i!ll"O z1i*o

.to*o l

~.m 1111in1>iJ y "'"I"-'!'

Sl'I" 'I I S:>llll>.lllSlll!.IJ I'""

coz*o 01*1 *c coz*o 100*

s"j Jlll'O.lrf 1101 SS I J r.n1

(-

cu*o t.oo*

m-1

£"1 co*o c*1 fill-I u*u tl"O

'10( *"ll (llJt 01*1*1 oo*

Ol"06i!

( sr11rs1ioi11' ~9-.1~

tl l-tz fil tf*J l"lil 01*9*9

'*01 ti

( ~rnrsnm11) ""'"Pl t['J"O 6-(illit., fitoooo*o ill w[ "l zooo*o ZUll"li 9100'0 co*o l'.1"0 9-01yc;*t 9-01 wg. t liJ"O ocz-111 i!'l"ll t-0 jwg **

(-iii **;-t zo*o 9i?i?-"ll l-l- -

ZZ7.* 111f

('I) (.1u:*n1111 *.*111:i li11111np111) s:o~"!I l ~li j:irn r lii'ijr.ii jiij jjrjj c*111n:t) Sl"""UH

'"'"l llnflO.Jotf lll:J.CJ'11f li*il 1*sotfsio

"'l*J t:in.i lll:IM

• f>oJrf ':1n

• fli*HUH lii1j111N

-~Ul'.Jj

"'"l'll'l

-n:i:m.111:t1

111iuo1s

-11'.lJ.lllj

.101. I *N

'""J

'imnls II 9

J J

ci Jr:JA JOl:J'"ll :1:111:i.1:i1='11 11111 tnrnH Iii ji:tr1t.nt1iJff 111:111orfntoJ A'! np.4j 1nnj 111'1 JoJ s11011*.l:-ir1slioJ i*1iiiiiillioJjilii1 10 A.111t1t111s f *11io:t) vt-s 1*mvt

10...

"fiifil I pdy llJ l':llfSll'I'"',. 'fill II llH lllnjll"*'ll llo 111:inr.t1111s pt>1lrn1 111111:>1n110.i11m1:11.1:111:191111.i11,. 'tlr,0-!'111111ll 111 l':llllll'l:l.ltl 11soin * *fj*11 *s:is.<I""" H"l'l 111:1:-o:t.I 11.111111 *11111 1111110:10:11n:l illPl>o:s:n:iu 1011 11.1*.<m1i

• nt?.1-llWn 1t10;ll 11:11"1 n.i" fillllll"' 11111111io.m.*nJ l'"l":>~:ud s.t:>*ff*"'ll,

• ns*:l 1111111111.11111111 111:ts:t.11lnJ llmn 11'.lhlS *uninio:t,.l*liJJ,. 11111 01111 1':11'1 'l""I'" nPi1 11111 JO Jnfi.**1

nn.<1110 "l 111nn10:0 "' WWII!' IUll s11m11rmr 11111 !.4Jn11sml:tJ '"" 111 '""' 111h 10 1110 """' 01 l':ilftll'l'lf IUll' S:lf'f PrillOff'llJ SllO:ISl'li

'll'Stithll" :l!liO(Ollfi 01 s1106 1:1n1 1muls OJ:tti" ':ISll:J,.111irin.i11I n:mo. riii1 Iii "C!'I) llnnl(O:J,.lillf~S:tJll.lll:ill. '"" "' 1114flll'l n.lf s:1,11:11:1J mn """ 'li111ss11:iu.11l:i.1 i11 r;in111:1.1 :tf1 01 1':1mns~11 tu' s11l'i 1:Jh1101ri!J s110:1srr. *inn,.11pA:>:i.i ~n*fliun., 11111 1i1 C~)

• nm1 ss*1n;t JOA 11101111 s111 "l""J ft)

"lllll'llllll.In JN z*o ~UfflllO:l !illil'11"1 'n:l"'Jd f'llt' !1'6 (l!Jrtlt'li f1111! IVO:l JO 11ousn1jt11o:J lito.IJ Ullllil(Hil fll1llff1100J

(()

• 11sn slifi '""'"" ""'" J'll (?.J "110f1U:tll:t5.l:t~ntl *'"' il'D:l 111:t1111111iim JO llOl1SlllJl'lll:l uodtt p:Jn11 Slll:llllJJ" f'llll'llllHJ co Jt:t4 Jopil:t" Ull:tJllJ:lff Ul'tl (:tl'OH 01 rnHPllLIOff 111:1um""'1J Kq iljjl!J 111n:f llffi JO.I suonir.iPpj~trU:l i1.>111:1uwiojj11iij IO oC.11mm111;

37 into the c:.unuJ at i ve env i ronmenta 1 effect' over the 30-year referenc:e reac:tor lifetime, and in turn converted into the cumulative environmental effect.

re.lated t~ a prospective nuc*l ear power forecast. i11 The narrat.ive is drawn p.ri mari 1 y from the 'i'IASH-1.248, NUREG-Oll6, and NUREG-0216 doc:uments, and the S-*3 hearing record.

References to applicable sections of these doc::.unents are i nc:.1 uded in the narrative..

It*. $ 0hQU.l d. be no.tad. that radon emtSS fonS: f?°Om the II f T°Ont end11 01' the fUe l cycle, and tecl'lnetium-99 release es.timaus for the "bac:!< end" of ':he fuel C"Jc:*l e: a*re not given in Table S*3..

Ac:cordi ngly, radon and tachneti um re i eases.,

together*'*~ith an appraisal of the.ir impac:ts, may be* the subject. of Hti'gation*

in i nci:ivi'dua.1 T"eacu.r 1 i censi ng proc:eedi ngs. 9*

~,..

• a*.

L.i'.Ad ihe: to;taJ land: us*e per* RRY a*ttri*butai:rl'e to t!'le uranium fuel C"JC:le* 7n sup!')ort*

o:f a mode*l l, OOQ-MWe. LWR is about W ac:res, of wni*ch acout 100 acres are temporarily cominitted, and about* l3 ac:7'"es a*re pe.rmanentiy comini'tt~d.

About a= o.f the: te"""orar.i'l y !%ormnit:tad 1 and us*ed oy fue 1 C"Jc*l e. fac.i 11 ti es is*

und:i.s:turtled land~

Te!11f,lorariiy committ"ad rand, wl'lich is used duri'ng ::he 1ife o.f S:!ileci fi c f1Jel C"JCle faci 1 i ti'es., cam be re-1 eased for unrestrictaa use a'fter Mos.t ef'f1 uent. va*l ues, unles:s indicatsd otheNi'se, can be converted from RRY values

.~ rHc-:*or 1 i fe*t.i me va 1 ves by illU l t.i p 1 ying the. 11al ve/RRY by 30-years

( rea~tor 1 ire).

(

38 those* faci 1 it i es are c-losed dcwn and decommission ed.

Per!!lanent ly committed land is that land which* illay be-used for waste disposal but may not be released for unl"i!stricted use aiter cartain fac:.il i ti es have ceased operating and are dec:mmission&d. lO ihe mining of uranium ore accounts for about 53 of the temporarily committed land use of the entire uranium~.fuel qcle.

Mining operations also account for mast of the overtlurden moved:

2. 7 mi 11 ion me.trk. tons c.:mpared to a tota 1 of 2.9 nti1lfon metric tons per RRY for the entire fuel cycle.* Next to :nining, reprocessing and *,.;a.S-te.nanagement operations use :nost of the remaining temporarily committ*ed land attributable to. the uranium foel cycle.

Of the pe.rmanent:ly committed land use. attributabJe to the: uranium fue-1 cyc:le, mining and mi l1 i ng operations ac::ount for about. 35%, and most of* the* remaining 65% is us*ea* for* the d:i sposaJ o.f radi oac:tive wastes (8. 5 ac:res/RRY).

To detaMTi ne the* cumulat.i-ve* 1 and us*e e*f'f ec:: re.1 atac to a prosp.ecti ve nuc:l ea*r economy, one must* firs-t convert. the 1 and use per RRY t.Q 1 and use per modeJ l,OQO MWe LWR lifetime (30 years), and then multip.ly that value by the equivalent number of :node*l l, 000-ti!We L)tfRs projected (G'iife).

The wei gnted average factor t*o *convert 1 and. use per -RR:Y to 1 and us'e per model LwR 1 ife is abou;e 40.

The c:inversi on fac::tor of 40. is a wei gh'ted average tha*t resu 1 ts from cons i dera-ti"on of :nree facto.rs:

1 and use for fac:i 1 i ti es; 1 and !JSe for *.. aste management.,

• ... i:ii:C:ii i nc:reases *i11i'th time; and ore dep 1 eti on and mi 11 recove!'"'IJ pe*rfo.rmanca over the life o.f the reac:':or.

rn 'liASH-!.248, ur'!nium :'!lining and milling ope,..a-tion*S' were based on an ave.rage ore grade of 0. ~. and 100%.ni 11 recovery,

(

39

• ..;ni ch representad* current opersti ons.

However, a later analysis developed for NUREG-0002 i nd.i cated that when ore depletion and mi 11 recovery per'fo rmance is cons:i dered over the year'S 1975-ZOOO, it. '#OU 1 d be more apprtipri ate to use an average* a.re ~rade of O. l..~, wi tn 9.0% :ni i 1 recovery, over the 1 i fe of a L}jR.

ihus, to convert 1 and use per RRY to 1 and use per L"'R i ifa cormni tted to mining and illi 1 1 i ng, the land use per RRY should be :nultiplied by 67.

~dded to this

'la:l ue* is the land use per RRY for UF6 production, enri*chment, fuel fabrication and; reprocessing; and 30 times t!'le land use per RRY for was,ta 111anagemerit.

operations.

For the, reason given acove, since most of the 11 overburden moved11

~ s related t:.:>. the mining of* urani u:n o.re,, the factor used. to convert Mr /RRY of overburden :noved ta MT/I.WR li-fe is 67.

Eiwironmenta1

~Jfects: The land use require.'llents related to t!'le f.uel cycle, in support of a mode*l l.,0.00:-MWe LjiR ::to not represent a significant impact.

A l;:JQ.G;..:11'.iie. coa,l-fired power plant that uses strip-:1rined coal requ.ires. the di s.t~ri:lanca of aiilout 2~0 ac'l'"es o.f 1 and per yea*r for* oota-i ni ng coal a 1 one.

!nus. for c:mpari son, the. coa,l pl ant *:1i sturbs *acout 10 times as much land as*

• the disoturbance at.tri*butaa le to. the anti re* rue 1 C'JCl e in sucpor~ of the :nodel 1, 000-~e L~R.

b..

'i'ia'tar ihe princ:i"pal use of water in the fuel cycle supporting a,11odei l,000-MWe L':-l'R is for coo*i i ng.

Of ttle tota 1 11, 377 mi 11 ion gaJ fons of water use Fler RRY,

.:mout 11, 000 :ni 11 ion. ga 11 ans are require'a to remove heat, by once-t!'lrougn cooling, from the power stations t!'!at supply elec-:.rical energy for uranium

4C enrichment.

The discharge of 1o1ater to surface streams is in accordance *..ii th the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Per.nits issued by E?A and

-Che stat.es.

Drainage water pumped out of uranium :nines (123 million gallons/RRY) and from *,o1aste illanagement ope rat i ans ( 3. 5 mi 11 ion ga 11 ons/RRY) is discharged to the ground.

Of the 150 million ga 11 ons of *o11ater evaporatea per ~RY, about 65 mi 11 i an ga 11 ans of water are evaporated f'rcm mi 11 ta i1 i ngs ponds, and the other 95 mi 11 ion ga 11 ans a.f water are evaporated f'rom coo 1 i ng water from fue 1 cycle fac.i 1 iti es.

To determine the cumulative '"'atar use effect. reiated to a prospective nuclear economy, one illUSt first convert. watar use per RRY to ""ater use per illode 1 1,000-~e LWR 1 ifet:ime (30 years), and then multi ply that va1 ue by the equiva.lent number of model 1,000-til'#e Li/Rs projec-:ed (G'i'ie).

The factor used. to convert* water use per RRY to*-~ater use per mode*l L:NR 1 ife. is 30.

However*, to determine the '"'ater use evapora:ted or discharged to ground, the conversion factor for mining and illillingoperations is 67; and the. factor far other fuel eye 1 e operat.i ons is 30.

Env*ironmental !ffect:

The water use requira'!lents related to t!ie fuel cycle in support of a :ncdel 1,0.IDO-MWe LWR do not represent a significant impact.

all plant*s supplying electrical energy used cooling towers, the '#a:ter use of the fuel cycle would be acout*6% of that required by ~'ie :nodel l,000-MWe LJIR.

The evapol"'atad *"'a*ter lass of the i'uel cycle is about 2% of theevapor:tad

'ii/ater lass of a model l,000-MWe L1.WR i:ooljng tower.

(

41

c.

Fossil Fuel

iectrical energy and process heat are used in the fuel cycle.

The electrical energy ( 323 thousand M\\tlh/RRY), of wni ch about 9~ is used for uranium enrichment, is produced by conventional, coal-fired, power plants. 12 Most of* the process heat used in the fuel cycle. is supplied by the combustion of natural gas (135 million* scf/RRY).

In gl!neral, about 50% of the natural gas is used for yel1o.,.,cake cr1i-ng, 13 15% is used. in UF... produc-:.ion, ~-is used in fuel facrica:-

o

ion, 22% is used. in reprocessing, and 10% is used in wasta management operations~

To detaM1ine tne cumulative. fossil fuel use effe~t related to a prospect.ive nuc 1 ear economy, :nu 1 ti p.1 y !he fess~ 1 fua l per RRY *;a 1 ue by 30. to convert to

he fos-s i 1 fuel use over the 30-year 1 if e* of the model l, 000'-M\\i/e LWR, and then multiply that value by the equivalent numaer o.f model l,000-M\\tle LWRs. project:ed

(~e).

E*:wi ronmenta 1 E.ffect':

The fess i 1 fue.1 use requ.i rements re*l a-tad* to the i'ue 1 cycle in su~port of a :node-I l,000-M'#e LWR do not represen't a significant impact.

The electrical energy needs 01' the fuel cycle are only atiout 5% of the. eiectrical *energy produced by the model l,000-~e L'tdR.

If the na-tural gas consumed !Jy the fue 1 C'Jd e were used to generat.e e 1 ectri city, it **oul d contri b.ut*a less ':han O.~% of the elect:-ical energy produc:ad !Jy the :nodel L.WR.

42

2.

Effluents - Chemical

a.

Gas as The gaseous chemical effluents* from the fuel cycle result, far the :nost par":.,

frt.:im t:ie comaus'tion of* fossile fuel to pr":lvide elec-:rical energy or procass heat far f-ue:l cycle facilities. 14 io determine the cumula.tive gaseous chemical effect r-e 1 ated to a prospective nuc l ea-r-* 9ccnomy, perform the ca:l cu 1 ati an in a.

nanner* si mi 1 ar to that given acove for fos*si 1 rue l.

E-iw i ronmenta l Effect:

The gaseous chemi-ca 1 e-f fluents related to* the fuel c1cle in support of a model l,000-MWe LWR do-not repres.ent a.signtficant impac:t.

i*c:

Based. on data in a*. Counci r on :nvironmenta.l Qua.l ity repo.r't,.... tties.e

~miss.ions represent *a ver-y small adaition (acout* 0.02%) to em.iss~ons from tr~nsporta.tion* and stati or:iary fue.1 comcust.ion in the Uni'tad. States.

b.

Q.tner Gases Sma l J amounts* of ha:l ogen compounds are re*l eased as gaseous ef'f1 uent.s. t*o the 9nvirons, p.rimari ly as fluorides from UF6 conversion and uranium enrichment oser3t.i ans.

O'ilvi ronmental Ef'1'*e~t:

Measur~ments o.f f1 uor-i ne in unrestri'ctad areas i ndi caite i 6 i:;oncentratior:is be 1 C\\lt the i eve 1 at whi oh de 1 e:ter-~_ous effects have been observed. -

M(freo.v,er, 1 ong:-ter:11 ooservati ans have not !'"'!'le-a 1 ed any adverse e.ffects a:tt*ri butac 1 e to f1 uori de rt*l eas*es frcm UF-conver5 ion, ur-anium enri cnment, and 0

fue 1 facri car. fan fac~ 1 i ti es.

(

43

c.

Liquids and Solids Some liquid chemic.a1 effluents are released i:.o surface waters frcm UF0, enrich-ment, and fuel fabrication facilities.

Tailing solutions from t!"le 'Jraniu.11 mill account for the. bulk of mass of liquid (240 t:iousand MT/RRY) and solid (91 thousand MT/RRY) a*fi'1uents from the fuel cycle.

However, the tailing solutions are slowly dissipated by natural processes, principaliy through evaporation, leaving the tailings so 1 ids for eventua 1 di sposa 1. 17 Then are t'#o :najor aqueous waste streams associated wit!'! the wet UF ~ conversion 0

process. 18 One is made up of dilute scruci:er solutions whic!i are t'!'"eated *,.,ith lime to pncipitate calcium fluoride, and is then diluted with cooling water ef'f1 uent before it is re.1 eased.

The other is a,ra.ffi na.te stream which is he 1 d in s.eal ed ponds and the water is a 11 owed to evaporat.e.

The so 1 ids.,.,;,;.c:i are recovend from* the set:tl i ng ponds are pac:<aged and u 1 ti ma tel y buried.

The.

discharged* of water to surface str<Jams is 1n accordance with a ~at:ional Pollutant Discharge E1imination Sy.stem Permit issued by E?A and the state.

A number of chemicals (primarily calcium, chlorine, sodium, and sulfat*e ions) a*re p:resent in the 1 i quid e*f'f1 uent fT"om t!"le anr~ c!"lment p 1 ant.

'ifater :r~at.iient and dilution by the r<Jceiving river reduces t!'le concentration of c!'lemic.als to 1Q a small fT"act.ion of t.'ie recommended ~ermissible *.o1ater quality standar~s-.-

ihe liquif!I ef'f1uent from fuel ratirica*t.ion faciii<:.~es contains nit:-ogen comcounds resulti:ig from t!'le use of ammonium hydroxide in t:ie production of uo2 powder,

and from the use of nitric:. acid i*n scrap recovel'"'J operni ons.

ihe fluorine i nt-:-oduc:ed into the fuel cycle during UF. produc:ti on becomes a '"'aste product

0.

during the product.ion of uo2 powder.

The gaseous f1uoride is removed from the eff1 uent. air streams by '"'atar* scrubber systams. ZO ine scrubber system *i11as:tas are treated \\ol-i ttr i i me to preci pi tata ca 1 c:ium fl uori ae, wiii ch is fi 1 tered from the waste e-f'1'1 uent stream and packaged (about ll cubic yaras/RRY) for* di sposa 1. 21 The disc:targe of \\lllatar to surfaeie streams is in ac:::ordance w~th a Natfonal Pollutant Discharge E1 imination Sys;tem Permit issued by EPA and the state.

~*

i o de-termi ne the :nas-s of ta i 1 i ng. so*1 uti on and sol id ta i 1 i ngs re fated to a pr~soectbe nuclear economy, '#iii c:h are a function of* the average grade of ore p.roc:assed.~ ;'111,JJt:ipJy. the vafoes for taiHngs solutions and solids in Table S;-3 b~ 67 to ob.t*ad,n* t*!'le mass of* t*ailings solut.ion and tailings. genera:tad. over the

node;l LWR 1 i fetfme.*

~itvi'l"'Onmental EJ'f*ect:

The, 1 i*qui:d. and so.1 id chemical e:fr'i uents re 1 ated to the fue:l cyc*Je, in suppo.rt of a modal l,000-HWe I.WR' do not rei:iresent a significant i*mpac-:.

• A 11---Hquid discharges from rue l eye: le faci 1 i ti es into the navi g~ 1 e wateM of the United States are subject to requirements and 1 imita'tions set fo,rth tn the Na,t.iona*l ?ollutan:t Oi'scha*r:"ge E1imina*ti:on System Permit issued by an. ali)li)ropri ate state or federa 1 regu.l atOT"'J agency.

'iilhen :ni 11 i ng ac-:i vi ti es are tarmi.nated, the taiiings pile ;nay be. graded, covered *i11it!i ea-r":.h and topsoil, and saeded. to reduc:a radon* emana:tfon."

'"" At this t.ime, radon emfasi ons are exc:l uded from the S-3 fuel cyc:l e rule.

?rcp.osed regula:tions rela.tad to the dispo?al of illiil tailings *i11ere. pubiished in* the Federal Regi*ster on.~ugust. 24, 1979.

(

45

3.

~frluents

• Radiological

a.

Gases and Liquids iacie S-3 summarizes (except for raaon-222 and technetium-99) t:ie curies of radioactivity released per RRY in t.!ie gaseous and liquid effluen'ts from the uranium fuel i:-;cle in sup-port of a model l,000-MWe LWR.

In general, the natural rad.ionuclides (radium, thorium and uranit,;m) are releasea f'N:lm the front end, and the others are relea-sed from the back end of the fuel c;cle.

In the front end of the fuei cycle, sma11 amounts of radium, thorium and uranium are re 1 eased to the environment in the gaseous process efrl uents and in the v02nt.i 1 ati on air di sc:iarged to the at:nospnere from :ni 11 i ng*! uF6. produc:ti on, enric:imen't. and fuel fabrica!.ion facilities.

Smal1 amounts of uranium and its daughters also. are released in the liquid effluents from these facilities., but;

nest of these radi onuc1 ides become part of the so 1 id '"'aste co 11 ec~:ed ~ n the tailings pile from milling operations or in settling ponds associated *.with ':.he other front end ope*r:ati ons.

In the onca-througi"I fuel cycle*, the spent. fuel is stored :"or five or,11ore years and then d.i sposed of in a geo 1 ogi c respos i tOT""J when the repository is availac1e to recaive spent fuel. 21 During interim stor:ge prior to :ea-1 ing of the r~pos~t~r"J, some of the ;aseous and volati~e radionuclidas c::intained in the spent ft:e 1 ;nay escape due to the fa i1 ure of the fue 1 e i ement : 1 acidi ng and 1 ea*kage of the spent fue 1 di sposa 1 cont.ai ner5. 23

(

~bout 50% of t:ie krypton, 10%* of the carbon-14, and l~ of tritium and iod.ir.e contained i*n spent fuel exists *.iti thin the gas space in the fue 1 rod and is 1 i ka l y to be r~ 1 eased from the fue 1 rod if the cladding fai 1 s.

However, the curies ot tritium, carbon-14, krnton-65 and iodine-US, given in C;;,lumn r of Table S-3A represent. the total curies* of each contained in 35 mitric tons of spent* fue,1 (the annual reference r-eac:t*or fuel requirement), irT"adiated to 33*, OQO MWd/MT, and aged 5 yea*n.

Si nee tl'!e site and method for spent fue 1 di sp.osa i -have not yet been defined, the NRC staff cannot detarmi ne-...,hat amounts.

of r:di onucl ides* may e'lentua*ll y escape from the repos i to.r-; or 1o1nen they may enter the environment.

Howe'ler, the NRC staff made a generic assessment, based on a reference reposito.ry, to identify '#i'lich raaionuc1 ides have the higtler* probabi 1 it;y of migra-ting t~m a repositor-1, and which of these r:dio:-

nuc-lides: are tlie principal contribu:c-o.rs to environmental dose commi<:..11en'ts if they do eventually enter the bi asp here*.

!i'I genera 1, the, gaseous radi onuc1 ides that escape from -fai1 ed fuel rods, or-re*ai<.i ng *.-iaste, canisters, bef'ore the*

repository is. s*ea led, and the, ve,...1 1 ong-life radi onuc:l ides that nave low r-e:tardation in* soils, such as iodine-129, whicn* may migT"ate *with g:rourid '#a:ter and eventua11y

• l""!acn* the biosphere, are-the principal cont*rib.u-cors to envi'ron-menta'l dose commitments.

Acco,rdingly, to umbrella the upper bounds of _p~spective dose c:ommi t:nents, it wa.s assumed tha:'t all of the t:ri ti um*, ca*rbon,.14*, l<r"'}ll!ton-85, *

• and fodi*ne-129 contained in S-year-o.1 d sperit fue 1 per RRY \\¥as :-e*l eased to the environment.

In the ur3*nium-only recycle option, t*he S!iJent fue*l is rel!Jrocss:sed.

During*

reproc:using., the ga-seous rad.io.nuc:lides (tritium, C!:r:ion-l4and kr-Jp'ton-SS) are re-1 eased to the* a:t.~os.pnere; however, most *::if the iodine is removed fr~m

47 the process affluents. 24 The radiological eff1uen~s related to t!'le uranfom-only recycle oi:>tion are given in column Hof Table S-3A.

These values, per RRY, are based on* the reprocess*ing of six month old spent;fue.1.

Since* the radiological effluen~s. given in Tac le S-3 are based on the higher

• 1alues taken from either fuei cycle, the radiological cons.iderations 1"9lated to the back end of the* fuel cyc*le. are based on 100% release of the. trit.ium, carbon-14, (l"'JP.ton-85:, and i odi ne-lZ9 contained in s i'x month aged spent fuel,

and sma11 amounts of other* fission product and transuranic radionuclides that may be re*l eased i* f spent* fue 1 were reprocessed.

Environmental E'ffect.:

Excluding raaon, the radiological effluents release.a pe.r RRY from the fuerl cycle: in support of the model l,000-MWe LiiR result i*n an estima*ted lOO~year environmental dose conunitment to a U.S. populat.ion ot 300 million pe.rs*ons o.f* about: 55*0 person-rem,. of-wnic:h about 550 person"".rem_*i*s:

at-:ri butab 1 e to gaseous ef1'1 u_en't.s and* about* 100 person-rem is attri'buw 1 e to liquid effluents.

0:1' the dose commitment attributab.le* to gas*eous e,ff1uents, acout 42% is from tritium, 31.~ is fromcaraon-14, 5% is from krypton-85, 10%

is from iodine, and the: balance (l.2%) i_s from all other radionucHdes', *.vhich i:ontri buta. pri*mari 1 y to the l oc:al pop.u.1 at:i on dos*e commi t."llent.

Al though radon effluents a1"9 excluded from Tao 1 e S-3., the dose commi t:nent fi:-om.

radon has U:J be added to the aaove fuel eye.le environmenta.1 dose i:ommibent to ar.rive*a:e the estimated dosei:::unm:itmen~ attributable to tne entire fue,l cycle.

Based on recant studies, tl'le 100-year environmental dose i:ormni t.11ent per RRY attr'fbutae 1 e to radon emissions f'rcm mining and rni 11 i ng is acout 2!0 person-r~m.

-.o-On this basis, the 100-year environmental dose commit.":lent at::.ributable to the enti l'"9 fuel cycle is about 860 person-:"em per RRY.

For comparison, the annua 1 dose commitment to a U.S. popu 1 ati on of 300 mi 11 ion from natura 1 backg~und rad.i a:t.i on is about 3, 000, 000 person-rem.

ihus, tne dose commi t.11ent per RRY f'rom the fue 1 cyc: 1 e is about '). 03~ :)f ~he dose commi t.-nent to t.'ie U.S. population from natural background radiation.

Section III conta i.ns an assessment of the envil"1:lnmental dase commitment to the U.S. popu.lation attributacle to the rad.iologica-1 e,ff1uents, exceli)t radon, released from: t.~e uranium fue-1 cycle..

b.

Soli"ds The* curies per RRY of* radi onucl ides in ouri ed radi oact.i've 1 o'#-1 eve l, hi gh-1eve1 e

anQ transuranic* wast:e matari a.1 s are given in Table S--3.

As ci.i scussed above, ft*- i*s assunied* that ther-9.,_; 11 be no re*l eas.e of so 1 id radi onuc:*l ides to* t!'le environment' f~m-ouri ed so*l id: waste ma:teri a 1 s.

Moreover, the radi*ologi cal e:ffTuen:ts from was,te management are so sma 11 i n re 1 at ion to the other segment:s c:f the fuel cycle that-they do na:t shew up in the, totals. prasentad in Tae-1 e* s-3. 25*

Acout ~O, 7QQ curies o.f mixed radfonuc l ides a-re buri'ed per* RRY at 1 ow-1 ev.e 0l

'wla-ste 1 and b.ur~ a'l sites. ' Of this tota'1, 9, 100 curies c~mes from i..~R 1 ow-leve 1

• 4as:te; 25 l, 500 c:uri es ar-9 attri but.ab 1 e to deconuni ssi oni ng o.f nuc l ea*r fac:i 1 it i es,

tnr:l udi "11 the reac:T.or~ 27 and the ba l anc:a, about lOO curies, is generated by the uranium fuel cycle Ol'Jerations in support of' the LwR.

About 500 curies o:f u.ranium and its daughters are added per RRY to the ta.i 1 i ngs pi 1 e at the :ni 11 sft'e. ZS

• e The high-level radioactive wasta fr~m the onca-t~rough f~el cycle is the spent fuel assemblies, *..;hich will be packaged a_nd disposed of in a geologic repository.

The r-adioactive "*aste from the uranium-only recycle option consists of the fue,l assemc 1 y i1u i 1 s, the hign-1e"e1 ana i nteMtedi ate-1 eve l was't*es from reproces-sing, and t:ie plutonium *.o1aste.

These wastas *..iil1 be disposad of in a geologic r-epository in the form of solids '"'hich wi11 have chemical and physical proper'ties that mi ti gate the rel ease of i-adi onucl ides to the environs.

rt is assumed that the geo 1 ogi c reposi tOr'J *.wi 11 be designed and opera-tad so that the so 1 id radioactive *,o;astas are confined i ndefi ni te ly.

Environmenta-1 Effect:

There are no significant releases of solid radioactive materials from shallow land-::iurial facilities, or from the geologic repository, to tha envti-onment.

4*.

EJf1 uents - Therma*l The uranium fuel cycle in support of. a mcdel l,000-MWe L'tiR discnar~es approxi-mately 4 tri 11 ion Btu of hea.t per RRY into the environs.

Most of this heat, about 80%, is rejected ~o the atmosphere at the po... er plants supplying electrical energy to the enr.i chment p 1 ant or at the enri c!iment plant i tse 1 f. 29

'i'laste*

illanagement and spent fuel st~raqe :ontributa acout ~a~ of the hea~ rejected to the environs.

This heat r9sults from the decay of radionucl ides.

The reject.ion of process heat from fuel cycle facilities ac::ount.s foi-the remaining 2% of the therma.i eff! uent from the fue 1 eye 1 e.

Sd io determine the heat rejec-cion by the fuel cycle over the model LWR lifetime, multiply the thermal effluent value per RRY by 30.

Environmental Effect:

The therma 1 eff1 uents re I ated to :he fuel eye 1 e in support of a model l,000-MWe LliR do not represent a significant. impact..

The thermal effluent of the fuel c-;c:le is only about 8% of the heat dispersad tc the environs by the model LWR.

5.

Transportation The dose commitment t*o *io1orl<ers and the public reh-ted to the transport of nuc-1ear materials in support of a-model l,000-MWe LWR is estimated to be about e

Z. 5 person-rem pe.r RRY. JO To determine the transportation dose commitment ove.r the model I.WR lifeti'me, multiply the dose commitment per RRY by 30.

Envi ~.nmenta 1 Effect:

The transportation dose commi-tment re 1 ated to the fue 1 cycle in support of a :nodel l,000-MWe Lli/R does not represent a significant i mpaet.

Compared to natu.ra 1 oac!<g-round r~di at ion, t.'ii s dose commitment* is smal 1.

c:

,Jo Occ:u!;)ational Exposure The oc:upational exposure 'lalue given in Table S-3 (22.6 person-rem) represents an upi:ier exposure 'lalue related to reprocessing and *,o1aste :nanac;ement ac-:.ivities

51 assoc:i atad with the bac!< end of the fue 1 cycle, if the mode 1 l, 000-MWe LliiR is operated en the uranium-only recycle mode.

Most of the occupational exposure attributable t~ the back end of the fuel ~/cle results from the variety of operations associated with reprocessing and related *.wast.e management activities i nvo 1 vi ng the ili sposa l of i rradi atad spent fue 1.

For comparison, the oc:upat i ona 1 exposure related to the "back end 11 of the 11 once-through 11 uranium fuel cycle is estimated to be 7 person-rem per RRY.

The occupational exposure attributable to the enti-re uranium fuel cycle in support of a model l,000-MWe LWR is estimated to about 200 person-rem per RRY. 31 Environmental Effect::

The occupational exposure attributable to the fuei cycle in support of a moael l,Ooa:.MWe LWR is acceptable.

NRC regulations limi.t thepermissible occupa.t.ional exposure of any individua.1 t*o S-rem annually.

52 Section II - References

l.

NUREG-'Jll6, Sec'tion 2.6 ana 4.6.

2.

Io id., p..;-109.

3.

!bid. ' 4-11.7.

4.

!b.i d., Section 4. 4.

5.

Ibid., p. 4-114.

6.

Ibid., Sec~ion Z.S and p~. 4-lOO.

i.

Ib*i d., Sect*i on 2:. z*, 2. 3*, 2. 4 and 2. 5., and Sect..i on 4. 4-.

a.

Il:lid., p. 4-U4.

9.

Federal Register, ~. p. 45371.

10.

'i'iASH-1248, p.. S-9.

ll.

!bid., p. S-16.

U.

Ibid.; p. IJ*l4.

u.

!!:lid;., p. a-10.

14.

Ibi*d., p. s*u.

15.

U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, 11The Seventh Annual Repor't, 11 Sep:tamcer 1976, F*i gures 11-27 and ll'.9 28, pp. 238-239..

lS.

WASH-1248, p. S*lB.

.7.

Ibid~, p. B-9.

18.

Ibid., p. C-4.

19.

Ibid., pp. Q*lS, 19.

20.

!bid., p. E-3.

21.

Ibid., p. E-3.

22.

~fURE*S-0116, p.

~-109.

23.

Il:>id., pp. 4,..uo and 4-115.

53 j

24.

Ibid., p. 4-9.

25.

!bid ** p. 4-84, Tacle 4.16.

25.

NUREG-0216, p. H-17, Table VII.

27.

Ibid., p. H-lB, Table VIII.

28.

'NASH-1248, p. S-24.

29.

Ibid., p. S-24.

30.

NUREG-0116, p. 4-1.50, iacle 4.JS-.

31.

NUREG-0216, p

• I-Z.

III.

54 Calculated ?opu.lation Dose Cl:lmmitments and Health Effec:ts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle In the Federal Register Notice promulgating the final fuel cycle rule (44 FR 45362), the Cammi ss ion stated, in note 35, that one i fltlJOr'tant issue to be addressed in the nar'l"ative is the question of the time period over '""hich dose commitments f'l"ora long:-lived radioactive* e1'f1uents* should be evaluat~.

In particular, how dose conanitment evaluations over extended periods 01' time m~ght be per-formed and what their significance might be are sucjec:ts that the Cammi ssion directed be addressed in this nar'l"ative.

This por-tion of the-nar'l"ative-has been developed to meet the above Connniss.ion direc'tive.

Section A contains a discussion of the population dose commitments and health effects calculated to "sult f'rom the* r-adioisotope r-9leases given in* Tab*l e S-3 '"'hen integrated ove.r 1 oe years. :1r Sectfon 8 contains a discussion of the period of time that the waste in a Federal T"9posito1"'/ may represent a significant potential hazard, the inc"11!ental radioisotope releases from the "posit~ry wni en might occur during that period., and the peri ad of time for which calculations may provide meaningful information.

Sec:tion C contains a di'scussion of how very long-term (t.'iausands of years) dose comm:it:nents and hea 1th effec'ts attri bu:tab 1 e 'to 1 ong-1 i ved radioisotopes r91 eased to the envi-ronment ;night be calcula-ted, and lifliat the significance of t.!ie calculations might be.

" \\llASH-1248 and iacle S-3 did not address t:ie question of ;::iopulation dose commit-

nents or potential health effec-ts.

However, these topics.,,.ere discussed in co.nsider-acle detail in NUREGs-0116 and -0216 (Supplemen'ts 1 and Z of 'liASH-1248).

ihese repol"!s ~~sent a de*tailed l"eevaluation of the 11 bac~< er.d11 of the 1JT"anium fuel cycle.

55 A.

100-year Environmental Dose Commi~~ents The environment.a] models used to calculate the transport. of released radio-ac:-ti vi ty to.11an and to es ti mate the potenti a 1 somatic: and genetic hea 1th e-ffect-s used in the following di sc:.iss ion are the ;node ls discussed in the GESMO u

l nearings.

The.models have oeen described in some detail in Appendix C of

~UREG-0216. 8asical1y, the models account for the* dispersion of raaioac:tivity released in the environment, the bioac:c:umulation in food pathways, the uptake*

by man and the dose commitments resulting from that up.take. There* are two

':.ypes of population dose commit:nents calculat*ed:

the SO-year dose commitment fMm continued ext.ernal exposure and uptake. of the radioisotopes re 1 eased in a 1-year period, and the envi ronmenta 1 dose commi t."llent ( EtlC).

ihe EOC represen~

the swn of the SO-year dose commitments for eac:h year of a specified period.

durfog *..ihic:h the radi oac:ti vi ty is re 1 eased or remaci ns in the environment.

!n prac:t.ice, it fs i!Df,los.sible to estimate rea.listically the complete EDC for

• 1er*y 1 ong-1 i ved nuc:J ides, such as i odi nr 129 ( 17 mi 11 ion ye.ars ha 1 f 1 if e).

iher~ is no way to ?redi ct* wi ti'I any degree of ceru i nty the :nany vari ac l es that affect suc:h estimates so fa*r into the future, e.g., the g:i-O'lllth of human population, technological advances, the envirenmental behavior of long-lived radionuc:lides, and the oc:cur"T"enc:e of catastrophic c.1ima:tic and geologic changes.

(See Section C for a discussion of how long-term *:iose ::Jmmit.-nents ;night :ie calculated.)

~RC, E?A, and other agencies use a so-::a11ed incomplete :JJc.

In GESM0, 2 t.'ie length of the incomplet*e E!JC se.1ec:ted was 40 years for a total U.S. peculation o*f zs*a :ni 11 ion.

Thus, SO-year population doses *.iere c:a 1cu1 ated for each year

(

56 of the 4-0-year exposure period and summe<i(i.e., the total length of time covered '"as 40 + 50, or 90 years-).

Thes.e cal cul at ions have been modified to extand the population dose integration peri'od to 100 years, as reco11111ended by t:ie S*3 Hearing Board.

Since eac:h year 1 s exposure is ca-1culated. for 50 years, t!ie-total time covereil is 150 years.

For t!ie. ove.ra11 fuel cycle, the t.:itai cody exposure is projectad to be 550 person-rem/RRY for an assumed stab 1 e. U.S.

population of 300 11i1Tion~

It should* be noted tha-t fo.r tritium and kry!]ton-85 (t.iiio of the :najor dose*

contri-butors), there is little di"f~e~nc:e-between a 40-year and a 100-year EDC., si-nc:e acout 90% of both nuc:li des w:f 11 decay within the. first 40 years.

Furthermore, muc:h the same is true of inost of the fi*ssion and activatfon p.roducts released from the nuc::l ea:r fue-1 cycle (e.g., i odi ne-131, r'Jthenium--106,.

s,tront:iwr.'90.,, casi um-137}.

For th:i-s reason, increasing the 1 eng:th of the E!lG:

from 40 to 100 years r.sults-in :nuch less* than a doubling: of the estimat-ed -

dose commi tinents and potentia 1 hea-1 th e:ffect:s; not much addi ti ona 1 change

_ 1o1oul d occur if the EDC were* ex-tanded beyond the 100 years for :nest* isotopes._

However, for the 11e'f"J 1 ong-1 i ved rad:foi sotopes suc:!'t: as car':lon-14 and iodi"ne~ 129, among others, and the special case-of 3.S*day radon-222 which* con:tinues to be*

formed by decay o~f 1 onq-1 i ved parents, tl'!_e EiJlCs c:ont:fnue to.increase.,.; th time a111d the' c:a:lcula:ted. health e*ffec't:S also continue to inG'!'"e*ase.

(See-Sec:ti*on C for a* dfsc1;1ssion of ve.ry long SCs.. )

fa the, a*rea of hea 1th effeG't'S I it is possi b 1 e: that even the ~O-y-ear EOCs cakula;ted for the S-3 heari*ngs overestimated the i~acts of the rel eases.

I

\\

57 rhe health effect*s illodels represent a linear extrapolation of effects observed at high dose rate (e.g. ~apanese nuclea*r bomb survivors) to potential effects at low doses and low dose rates.

In addition, the assumption is 1nade tha:t*

there* is no dose below '#i'lich effects cannot occur.

It is be 1 i eved that the use of such mode 1 s, al though usefu 1 for regu 1 at~T"'J puri:ioses, tends to overestimate the effects o.f exposure to 1 ow-1 evel i oni zing radiation.

,"lost animal and ce 11 ul ar studies i nd:i ca:te reduced scmati c and genetic eff'ects as the doses art! reduced.

Further, at low dose* rates, the effects per unit of radiation dose for somatic effect*s may decline due to cellular repair and other mecnani sms*.

rhe hea.lth risk es,timat'ors: from the GESM03 s,tudies are as follows.:*

total body dose:

135 cancer deaths per million person-rem 258. genetic effects per mi 11 ion person-rem thyroi-d dose:

H.4 cancer deaths pe.r ;ni 11 ion person-rem 1 ung dose:

22 *. z cancer deaths per mi 11 ion -pers*on~rem bane do,se'!

6. 9-* cancer deaths per million person~rem Although the ri'sk

• 01' a genetic e*ffect occurring is -about tw.ice* that of a cancer death, most of the* genetic effects (assumed "-O be occ:urri ng a,t the equfl ibri'um ra'te '#hich raquires about 5 generations) would. not be fatal.

• Tne conc1us~ions in the S-3: na*rrative concerning potential biologica*l e.ffe..zts a.re based on risk es,timators in the 8EIR r Reoort :nodified to reflect more recent radiobiologica1 data in WASH-1400.

The BE!R III, which reevaluates the risk es.ti-ma tors cresented in B:EIR I, recentl v has been oub 1 i shed ( Ju.1 y, 1980).

Although the NRc' staff review is sti11 unde,.....'lay, the range of risk estimators fer low 1 evel radiation pres*ented in B:E.IR III appear to* be essentially the same numel"'ci a 11 *1 or Tess tha*n thO'Se oresented in 3E!R I fo.r* who 1 e body exposures.

Ht;iwever, in some cases the cancer risk estimators for s.oecific orga*ns in 3EIR I'II a,ocea*r to be different from (somewhat higher than*} those in SEIR r a-nd those in the. S.-3. na,rrat:ve.

7hus, cancer risk estimata*rs for some specific organs could be somewhat underestimated in the S-3 na,rrative.

However, since the bulk of the.

ce11ec'ti'le population doses from the uranium fuel cycle (excluding radon) are

'"'hole bodv excosures, the conclusions of the S'-3 narrative would be changed only sli'ghtly,* if a*t* all, if the SEIR !IT risk estimators *,o1ere to be ~sed.

r"

l. * -

58 Because t:iere are hi gner dose commitments to certain organs (e.g., 1 ung, bone*,

thyroid) than to the total body, the total risk of radiogenic cancer is not addressed by

~:ie t:lt-al body aose c:lmmitment alone.

3y using the risk estimators p.resentad above, it is po*ssib.le to estimate the whole body equivalent dosa ccmmit:nents far cartain organs.

The sum of the whole body equivalenl: dosa ccmmi tments from those organs was es ti mated to be about 100 person-rem.

'..Jhen added to the above 11a1ue, the total 100-year enviror.mental dose commit.11ent

• "'ou.1 d be about 650 pers*on-rem/RRY.

In s:u111111ar1, the potenti a 1 radio 1 ogi ca 1 i rnpact.s of the supporting fue 1 cycle (including fue'l re~rocessi ng and. was-te management but excluding radon em*is*sions from mining and mill t*ailings) a*re as* follows:

totaJ body pers*on-rem/RRY:

ri's'k equ.iva 1 ent pers*on-rem/RRY:

fat*al cancers/RRY:

550 ( 100*:1ear dose commitment) 650 ( lQO*year dose commi t.11ent)".

0. 088 genet.ic e,ff ec'ts/RRY:

0. 14 Thus,

• fo.r e~*ampl e,, if three 1 i gnt* water* reactor power pJ ant*s 111ere to be operated..

fo*r 30 yea,rs eac:r, the supporting fuel cycle '"'ou 1 d cause ri s*k equi va 1 ent who1 e, trody pepul'at:ion dose ccmmit.'llents* of about 59,000 p.ersen-rem and a genetica.liy s.tgni rte ant* do~e ccnmi t.11ent o.f about 50, 000 pe.rson-rem, 1 eadi ng *.to est i mat.es *

. oi 8 fatal cancers and l3 genetic effects in the U.S. population (300 111illion persons.) over a period of 100 yea*rs.

Some perspective can oe added by comparing such es,timates with* "normal" cancer mo.rtali-ty for tl:le same popul a.ti on.

Assuming:

t*h'at: future popu.lat..ion ~haracteristics (age distribution, cancer* suscaptibi 1 ity.,

e:te.) and conq:Jeti'ng' l"isks of mortality re!llai n the same as today, sue!'! projec:ti ons

"'!r:icludes dose ccmmit:nents ~o other organs as well :s.*..;hoie body dose.

(*****

59 wou 1 d predict about 60 mi 1li on cancer deaths from causes other than genera ti on of nuc*l ear power during the next 100 years.

Assuming that the occurrence of*

genetic effects remains constant, projecttons would predict about 25 million genetic effects from causes other than generation of nuclear power during the

~ext 100 years.

Using the 1 ifeti me ri*s k es;ti mate of 135. cancer deaths per 106 person-~ and ave.raging the. 650 risk* equivalent person-rem per RRY over the U.S. pop.u.lation of 300 million persons., the averag~ lifetime individual risk in the U.S. from cancer :nor'taHty from radi'oactivity released from the supporting fuel cycle is*

acout 3 chances in l 0 bi 11 ion per RRY.

Auumi ng one. RRY suppl i es* e,1 ect.ri ca 1 power for approximate.ly a. !llilHon persons and that all of the cancer risk is.

borne on*ly by thos.e use.rs., t!ie average* lifetime risk *to this popu.1 at<ion group*

..,ould: be about. 9 chances i'n* 100 million per* RRY.

This would* a-ls-a. be the a~11n~oximat*e average llf'e1i:ime ris*k pe.r pe~~on per RRY from the: fiJel cycle if a*l 1 of* the* e:l ec:tri'ci ty used in.* the. Uni*ted States were i:iroduced by nuc:lear pewer plants..

HO'#ever, since nuc.lear power presently provides about 10% of the to ta 1 E!'l ectri c:i ty generated in the United States, the average 1 if et ime risk per person in the U.S. *,.;ould be about' 9* chances in 1 billion pe.r 1'RY.

In order to. provide some perspec!ives on the risk of cancer ino-rtaJity from the supporting fuel cycle, some :nortal ity risks which ar9 numerically about equa.i to 9. cl'lancas in 1 b*illion* are as follows: i few puffs on a cigarette,.3 few.

siJilS o.f w*ine, driving the family car about 6 blocks, flying a.bout 2 :nil es, canoeing_ for 3 s.econds, or being a man aged s*ixty for ll seconds. 4 Using ele.c:tl"'i city generuad by any means for typical dcmes.t. i c use resu 1 ts in an

(

50 average risk of 6 x 10-6 per year fl"om accidental electrocu~ion. 5 ihus, a risk of 9 in billion would be equivalent to using electricity for about one-half day.

It is believed that the estimai:ed iable S-3 values and the dose and health e*f'fects models used by the NRC to develop the above estimatas 1"1!Su.l t in ccnserva-tively high iJMjKt:ions.

Ther1!fore, they pf"'Jvide reasonaele assurance that the radioiogic:al ef*fects resulting fi-ora the releases in Table S-3 (as present.ad*

in NURECs-01116. and -OZ16) have not been underes*timated.

B.

Potent i a.1 Long-Term Effects of 'llas-te Ci soosa l NUREG-0116, Environmental Survey of the Repf"'Jcessi ng and. *~asta Management Po.rtions of the LJiR Fue*l Cyc.l e., contained estimates of the short-term impacts fMm~ *111ast*e disposal o!i)erations ( i. e., those impacts that could M!su l t from the was*te di'sposal o!i)era,Uon during their operating. life).

Although NUREu-0116 and* NUREG-0216 contained data on potential long-term risks from escape o.f radi onuc 1 ides fl"om a repos i tol"'i and fMm l ow-1 eve l waste disposal ope.rations, 7 no entries were* made in iable S-3 for these potential re*leases because they

\\llera judged to be too smal 1 to be of si-gnificance.

The staff has revie'ilted the long-term effects of low-level '#aste disposal and TRU and hi gn-1 eYe l wast-a or spent fue 1 disposal far both of the t'Wo fuel O"/Cl es c:lvered by the pr~sent procaedi ng*-once through and uranium-only recyc:l e.

The po:tential effects -resulting fMm long-urm releases of low-level,,.aste have be9n addressed in NUREG-0216,8 and no additional consideration of the poi:eni:iai effects of disposal of these types of wastes is believed to be

61 necessary.

Moreover, si nee it has been* assumed that nu \\Wastes wi-i 1 be disposed of in a reposito..,..1 along *..-ith high-level wastes, there is no explicit disc.ussion of iRU wastes because the iRU wastes are considered to be. ~art of the high-level ihe 1o1astes from the once th~ugh and uraniwn-only fuel cycles tha*t will be dis;iosed of in Federal rei>os.i'tories differ f'rom one* another in se~era-1 ways. as no.tad below:

o Was.ta FoMI - ihe. dom.inant amount of* radi oacti 'le waste. from* the once-*throug.h fuel c7C'1e is in the form of spent fuel assemblies, '"'ith t:.he fission p~ducts and: ac:ti ni des in a uo2 matrix; *i11i'li i e the demi nant :,o1aste from the*

uranium-onry fuel cycle. *i11i11 be* s*alidified hign-ievel, plutoni-um, and i"RU to* reauce moci lity o*f fi s;si on p.roduct;s and* ac:tini des*.

ine' NRC cannot. a,t*

this ti me descr1*be in any detail the 'lari ati ons in tl'le prope.rt i es* (in te*rms of bet:er-long-term retention of fission* products and actinides) of one.type of waste form from the other.

Hence, for this discussion, the v.a*rious fo.r:ns o.f solid waste have been assumed to have similar o

R'adionuc:lide Content - The Silent fuel contains all of the nonvolatile fis:sion p.roduc:ts, t'l"ans.uranic elements, and act.ivation products producaa in the course of i*t:s. irradfation, as we*11 a:s a.11 the r~sidual urani.um~

S.fmi1a.rly, the h.igi'l*level wastes in combina'tton *,.,i':.l'I t!ie ;::ilut.onium and any irtU '"'as.tas from t!ie uranium-only fuel ::yc1e contain essentially a11

(

• of the nonvolatfle fission products, transuranic. elements, and activation products produced in the fuel in the course of irradiation.

The main d:i f1'er9nce be:t'Meen the spent fue 1 and the wastas from uranium-only recycle is that the was:tas f'rom the latter contain only 2*~ of the residual uranium.

Thus, on a broad co~arative basis, since all ot:ier nuclides a*re present in aeout equa 1 amounts in both wastes, the spent fue 1 rep.resents a s 1igl'lt1 y. gruter.1 ong-tenn risk because 01' its larger* uranium contant.

Since all soiidified wastes have been assumed for this study to have equiva-lent nuclide l"'etention p.roperties, and since spent fuel r9pr9sents the gr9ater l ong:-tarm risk, the fo:l 1 owing di scussi an is based on spent fue 1.

The potentfa*l effects from 1 ong**term r-a:l eases of radioisotopes from a repost*

to.T'"J,. r-aqui re the co11s.ideration of t"#o basic issues*:

o ove.r* what psriod o:i' time does the waste repr-asent a si-gnific:ant* potent*ia'.1 hazard, and

. o given the stat*e-of*the-art o:f modeling transport of radionuclides, do caloula*tions p.rovide meaning:ful information over that period of time?

One '"ay to address the question of ti*me over which the spent fuel in the*

repositOI""/ re1:u*esent.s, a significant ha:Zard is !o assess the net potential impact of the disposal 01' the '"aste relative to the potential impacts if the 1Zhar9e* to t!'le reactors (fresh fue.1) had remained in the or-a body.

For this assessment it is assummed that an engineered syst.am,_ including wasu from

(

• 53 packaging, and the reposito.ry, can be eJqlected to confine (isolate) radioactive waste mueri a 1 s at 1 east as we-11 as an i so 1 a'tad ore body.

This assumption is beJ i eved to be r-easonab 1 e, based upon the f o 11 owing observati-ons.

Ore deposits

.,ere 1 oc:at*ed in various geo*l ogtc settings by na.tura*l phenomena and some may be in contact with ground'#ater, in soils with only moderate reta1"1lation of solute movement, and.,,,f.ith var"'jing ion tl"avel distances ta t!ie bios1:1here.

A reposi-tary, on the other hand, will be** located i*n a hydrogeolog:ic setting purposely se:l ected to have no known or pl"ospective cant.act w.ith ci rcu 1 ati ng ground'#ater*,

high* r-etardation of so 1 ute movement and 1 ong ion travel di stances to the btosphere.

!n addition, the repository system*, including was:te form and packaging, w*ill also include engineered features which are int*ended to prevent o.r great.1 y slow the re*l ease of the waste to. the* hast media.

Fo.r was ta pl aced: in a repository system to: reach the bi osphe.re, one* of. ':iia types 1J*f event*s :nust oc:ur.

The first *involves essentially. commcn p.1 ac:e.

occur,.enc:es and requi*res:

(l) water to infiltrate the reposttory;. (Z) the.

• ,.,aste: cantafoer to caM"Ode; and. (3.) T"adionucli des to 1 each fl"'om the wa~te.

form.

Long-*11ved radi:onuclides* will eventual_1y reach the* bios1:1nere by_migr.ation o.f leached radionuc:lides with: the movement of groundwater to a discna'1"'9e point a.r to a we*11.

This type o'f event i:oufo expose man to rad.i oac:-:; ve mat*eri a ls vi a f'ood chains or o'ther environmenta 1 pathways.

ihe second type of event i nvohes unusual occurrences, such as di srt1pti on* of the respos*i tor-1 by :nan or*

natural events, wi'lich reieased radionuc:lides to the biosphere.

However, sites for was:'ta. reposit!i)ries.__,ill be* se*lectad in. a*reas '"'here the* jjrotlabi1ity ':.hat a natural everi't would disturb the repository is ex'tremely 1ow and 1ocaua away from iae1:i:tified natura.1 resources to minimize the probability ':.hat man 1ri1ould

(

\\

/

64 ace~ denta.l i y di sturt> the repository.

An analysis of the consequenc:as of a meteorite strike o.f tha reposi toey, an extl'"aordi nal'""J event that 1itou 1 d be classified as coming under scenario t'.-o, has be9n given. in NUREG-0116. 9 Thus, the ana.lysis here considers primarily the pr-::icatrility of waste 1'1!ac:hing t!'le.

biosphere under the conditions of sc.enario one.

In tha event wat*ar i nfi 1 tra-ted the -repos:itoey, it *.vou 1 d take a 1 ong ti me for any of the-1 eacl'led radi onuc::l ides to be transported to the biosphere by gMundwater mi grat.i on.

Movement. o.f groundwate~ is i tse 1 f s 1 ow, and 1'1!tardi ng *:nechani sms*

sucl'ta.s ion 4!XChange fnc:ruse the* travel time for :nest radionuclides such that it: mi gt1't take tans to hundreds of thousands of* years tor them to ruc:Ji the biosphere. 10- In this period o*f time, most radi*oac:tive-111atarial will have:

de.cayed away befo~: it could ruc:n the bjospne.re~

On-the other hand, fission-produc!s c:a*rilon-14-,

te~hrietiuar.-~9, and iodine-*129: have a c:ome:inatfon of iow r<atardation by ion exc:h~nge in* soH and. iong lives.

Ac:ordingly, if-these radionuc:lides '#@!'"'!leached from* wastes by infiltrating wat.er, they could reac:h the biosphere in re:l actively _smal 1, concentrations ove_r.a rather long. time-perfod.

However, in develoi>ing the:* source taMts for Table S:-3 it '"'as as,sumed t.ha*t c:artlon-14 and iodine-129 were,* re*leasect ~ the biosphere before the waste was s:ent. to tl:le ~i:iosi tOl'""J.

\\oihi'l e no:t the. ac:tua T case wH-h respec.t to the disposal of spent fue 1 from the onc:a:-through fue 1 cycle, for the-purpose of the 5:...3 ru.1 e this assuJJlli)ti on bounds the upper ii mi t-s_ re*l evant to re 1 eases of c-anon-14 and iodine-129 from the uranium fuel c:-;cle.

Technet.ium can exist in severa.1 oxide forms.

Under the conditions expec~ed for groundwaters :iot in contac:t '#'ith the atmosphere, insoluble Tco2 or related hydrated*forms should oe. the solucility-contM11ing pnases, and the c::nc2ntrations of 1:.achnetium in

\\.*

65 migra:ting groundwater should be extremely low.

However, the oxidation conditions are di1'fic:ul t tc predict due to the e,ffec:ts of construction of the reposito.t;1 and due to was:te-reck interactions.

Therefore, technetium has been considered to be present a*s the perteehnetata* oxyanion (Tc04) which is assumed to mi*grata to the biosphere with the ground'#ater.

To determine the time peri'od over whici'lspent fuel mignt be ~eemed a significant hazard, '#e have c:::i~ared its di 1 uti on index wit*h that o.f uni rradi ated uranium fue 1.

The di 1 ution f ndex is a measure of the amount. of water requi r9d ta:

dilute the concentrat.ionof radionuc:lides to the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 for unres.tri cted. ra*l ease*, whi ctr can be used to compare the consequences* of i ng~sti on*

of radioactive ma:teria:ls:.

From* Figure 3, it. can be s.een t."lat. in spent fuel the: fis:si on products demi na:te* the, dHution index up to acout* 200 yean from reac:tcr discharge..

Beyond. 200 yea*rs tc about SO;aaa years the transuran*ic.

radionuc:1 ides and thefr daughters dominate the d.i lution index~.!nd beyond 100, 000 years uranium and i*ts daughters demi na.te the: di 1 uti on index.

F'rom* **

F:; gure 4, it can be seen that the* grO'#th of uranium daughters radium and 1 ead demi nata. t.'ie ail uti on index for aged uni rracti ated uranium fiJe*l,

• suc:n that by

!bout 100,000 years the dilution indexes for oo.th spent fuel and unirradiated urani:um* fuel are* about the same, both be:i ng domi.nated by uranium and: its daughters.

Thus, '1'fithou.t. considera'tion of* diS!Jer,ion or* retardation relative to gr~undwater trar:ispor:t time, at acou't* 100,000 years the dilution index of the *itasta in a r~osi~ey is about. the same as aged unirradiated uranium fue.1.

MoM!over, si.nca plutonium and. americium have long de-lay times during transport

'f'r.om the reposi'tOT"'J to tlie environment, the Clilution index of those materials*

in the wasu that ccu1 d po:ten:ti a 11 y be re 1 eased is acout t!"le same as aged uni rradi ated fue 1 a*ftar 10, 000 years.

I

(

/

10 56 T~ANSURANICS.

+ DAUGHTERS *-.....;,,. \\

-~

\\.

\\

~

\\

\\

\\

"--~

\\

• • '\\\\

\\

/URANIUM\\

\\.

DAUGHTcRS \\

'~OTAL FISSION PRODUCTS 7-------,--

I Tc:99

---

~

' ' ' \\.

\\

1 __________________________________________, ___________ __

1 10 100 1000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 DECAY TlME FROM REACTOR DISCHARGE (Yrs)

Figure 3 Dilution Index for S~t Uranium Fuel.

--:i

<( --

0 0

~ -

~ ---

w r-

<(

3

~-

x

w.

Q z -z 9_

i --

Q Q

w

~*

.u --

~

67

---

SPENT FUEL orr-_--: __

---.--~P~u---0:::~~~

10 i:.

.,,,.~

-... em Am-"

'""'-.....,\\.,_

10Sb,/

\\ -

\\

\\

AGED

\\

\\

FRESH FUEL*_,_,___~~

\\

(RADIUM+

\\

RACIUM+l.EAC

\\ LSAC)

\\'(

\\

\\

\\

\\

I\\

\\

I '

\\

I

\\.

\\

~---7-*-------~

N?

~---~-~

\\

ia4 1a3 L

. \\ I 1 o 2

~-~*

• .J.-1. * -----* -* ---__ *.

---

*. \\/

10 1

1

\\'

\\.

\\

• By NRC 10 100 1000 10,000 100,000 1.aao.aoo OECAY T1ME F'ROM REACTOR OISCH.ARGE (Yrs) i=~GURE 4 Dilution Index for Actinides: and Daughters in Spent and Aged Fr9Sii Uranium Fuel

68 Thus the answers to the previously posed questions concerni"ng the potential lonq-tarm e*f1'ect:s of waste "positaries may be framed as f'ollows:

l.

F1:1r. natural-type "1 eases fl"tlm a repos*i"tory, si gni fi cant net potentia 1 impacts of spent fuel relative to aged fresh fuel exi s:t for less than 10, 000 years*.

In natura 1-type rel eases., there is a long time de 1 ay (Nl04-lOS years) be:t'Meen the. time the nuclide (or its parent) leaves the r9positoey and. reaches the biosphere.

The net i~act. of such releases c:an*oe consarvative.ly (high side:) approximated by assuming the* complete release o:f the technetium-99.

Given the number of conservative ass~tions required to madel the re*l eases f'rom a "posi tor/ under natura*l-type c:i rc1J111stancas and the small potenT.i aJ net impact. after lO, 000 years, caJ cu Tat*i ng rel eases for* natura.1-type* conditions beyond 10, 000 years

• .,,,_ ::.:_o**

p.f'(lvides, little rneaning:fu.1 informa.ti'on.

z*.

rf di'stureances o,f a repositol'"'f..,,n;cn could resu.l t in t!ie j.frec:t rel ease*

of.signi'fic:ant: quantit:i'es: o:f otnen1ise immobile isotopes are ~eing considered (weH-dfggi*ng), significant net po.tential hazards could per,ist* for 100,000 years.

The impacts f'T."0111 the disturbance would depend on the time

• and na:ture of the action.

Aftar !00,000 ye~rs, t!ie -,.as'te in t!'!e repositOl""J presents no g)'"ea:ta,r haards than the original il1a:teri a 1 s ci'larged to t:ie C.

O.o,s:a, C.cmmit.'llen.ts a1:1d H.ea 1th Ef~ec~s from 1 ona-L.ived Radi o.i so toe es ReJeas.ed f~iilin 'tne. Uranium Fuei Cvcl es ihe Co11111iss~on direc-i:ed the staff ta discuss the time period over *..inich dosa

~~mmit.'ltents snou1d !le. evaluated, how tne dose cormnit.11eni: e.valuations over

69 extended periods of time :night be e'l.a1uated, and what their significance might be.

In Section A, page 56, it was shown that a 100-year EDC was adequate to provide the to.ta 1 dose comi t."Dent from !TIO St i sot*opes*.

'lery 1 ong-t i me ED Cs a~

necenal'""J if the complete envi ronmen'ta 1 dose ccmmi t:nents from fuel C'/Cl e emi ss i ans suc:h as cart:lon-14 and i odi ne-129 are to be aetermi ned.

In addition to these iso.topes, the analysis given in' Section B sho.,.,ed that a very consei-vative evaluation of long-term-emissfons from a repository would show techneti um-99 cou 1 d be rel eased from a repository.

App 1icatl1 e re-1 eases-fc.r these isotopes are:

Carbon-Iodine-129 iechnetium-99 24 C1/RRY

1. 3 C.i/RRY upper bound fer 1 ong-ter:n re 1 eases from the repoS>i-tory is 500 Ci /RRY, loo: of the-technetfom in fue.l."

Carbon-14 and i odi ne--129 would. be emitted as vo lati 1 e mat-eri al s; technetium.

would be leac."1ed. t'ro11 the wasta ~positor; and reach the biosphere dissolved in* water-.

~athematical :ncdels are availab:le for estimating. the long-term popuh*tion doses f'l"om carbon-14 and iodine:-129.

No models are currently avaflable for estima-ting long-term doses from' techneti*um.

"EliVironmental Standards being developed by E?A and regulations being develoced by NRC a-re expec:tad to requir'! reasonat:ile assuranca tha't releases of ic-99 ar'!

a small fraction o.f this quan'tity.

70

l.

Calcuia-tion of Dose Commitments To calculate dose commit::len1;s and health eff'ec:ts ove.r long time periods, one must:

(a) predict the population at risk; (b) ;nodel the time-dependent behavior of the nuclide 1n t!':e environment and (c) ;Jred:ic't the-response of the population to the exposure in terms of cancer :nortality and genetic defects-.

a.

Population at Risk In considering population at risk over time periods of 100,000 years o.r !llore,.

several gross assumptions must be made.

Realistically, geologic: history '"'ould predict several catastrophes. suc:n as i c:e: ages (_as many as 10 might oc:c:ur over 250, 000 years) 11 and 1 arge* fluctuat:i ans in population might be expec'ted to be caused by suc:n catas.trt:lphes.

The staff*, for wa*nt of a better rati ona:l i zati on, has assumed a. stable wor*ld popu.lat.ion of 10 btl1ion for the first 10,0.00 years of exposure., wit.'1 periodic: variations of populat.ion of from Z bill ion to 10-btllion as a function of time beyond 10,000 year~.

Furthe.r, the U.S. popuia:-

ti*on *..-as assumed to be a constanf 3% of the '#Or1 d population.

b.

Mode 1 s of Nuc::1 i de Behavior (1)

Cartlon-14 The G£SMe and S-3 hearing record do not contain a :nodel t!'lat adequataly predicts the. !ilehavi or 01' car~on-14 in the* environment over 1 ong time periods.

ihe GE*SMO model (RABGAO) can be used to estimata t:ie dose commit;nent to the U.S.

populat.i'on from the in*itia1 passage o.1' carbon-!4. be*f*or9 it mixes in t!'le '"'or1d 1 s.

cart:on pool.

The ca~on-14 ~ode1 developed by Ki11ougn12 can be modified, using the popula.tion 'lariations given at>ove, to obtain 1ong-tarm dose commi':.11ents.

f (2)

!odine-129 Appendix C, Section 3.0 ot NUREG-0216 provides an adequat.a moael for estimating 1 ong-term ;::opu i at:ion doses from i odi ne-129.

ihe G~*S1'10 model (AABGAO) can be used for estimating the U.S." population dose resulting f~om t!'le initial passage of t!'le iodine-129 prior to mixing in the world pool of stacle iodine.

For the long:""term, the model assumed for the S-3 hearings r.esults in 1.1 x 10-l.2 rem/year/C.i to eaci'I person in the world after ~!ie mixing oc:urs_, *1tith the annua 1 dose-rue de.cl i ni ng with a ha 1 f-1 i fe of 17 mi 11 ion years.

A 1 though remova 1 mec!iani sms prol:lab l y exist. 111ni ch *o11ou 1 d result in an-environmental ha i f-1 i fe mucn less than the 17 mi 11 ion year r-adi o 1 og.i cal ha lf-1 i f'e*, the environmental half-life was conserva,t.ively taken to be the radiological ha.lf-life.

iMs conservatisiD is prudent until be:tter long:""term iodine models are developed.

c.

Response to Exposure In considering response of the population to exposure to radioactive nuclides, the s.tatt has no basis to choose any r-esponses other than those estimated currently--13-5 cancer d~aths/10 6 person-rem, and ZSS genetic de:fects/105 perscn-r'l.'!I. 13

!n an attamp.t to cons.; der the potential ef"t'ec~s of advani:es in technology, three scenarios *itere used--no cure or p.reventi ons for cancer or genetic de*fe~'t*s; a possible cur~ or pr~vention for cancer and genetic defects in 1000 year~; and a possible cure or prevention for cancer or gene*tic defects in lOe years.

(

/

72 Numerical Es:tima:tes o.f Dose Commitments and Health Ef'fect:s The mcdels described above, tegether with the assu~tions delineatad for popu.1 a*t.i on and popul a:ti on ruponse to e.1eposure have been useil to ca 1 cuJ ata long-term dose commitments rHulting f'Nlm cartlon-14 anct iodine-129* releases.

The vaJues are. given in Table I' (cart2on-14) and Tab.le II (iodine-129).

It can be seen f'r'om Table I t.iat integ.rating_ c:a~on-14 dose co111111itments over 10,0GO year1. captuns essentially the to.tal person-rem dose commitmen'ts f'!"om ca~on-14.

These data indicate that the total U.S. population exposure* to infinity is acout 3-4 times the ~irs.t-pass e.1eposure* and the infinite world population exposure. is about a times the first-pass world population exposure.

If no cancer cure: is found,. cumulative ucess cancer morta.1 i ti es/RRY of ai:lout 0. 06 (U..S.} and l

~""orl d) illight ce p.M!dicted* from the ca*rt2on-T4: re 1 eases.

If'a*

cane: er cun is e:ff ec:ted* in 1000 y~a*rs, the excess cancer mortal iti'es/RRY wciu.l d.

peak a,t about o*. 02 (U.S. ) ar.d O.J (world:)..

A cancer cure in lOO years '#OUld:.

1 imit uc:es-s cancer mortal ity/RRY to about. 0. 02 (U.* S.). and 0. 1. (world.).

A cumuJaUve' total of acout. 0. l (U.S.) and 3 (wor*ld) genetic: defects* RRY would be predi c:ted to r95u 1 t over a peri.od: 01' l OQ, 000 years f~m the ca~on-i 4 re-leased.

If prevention 01' gene'tic defects were possible fn 1000 years, the cumulative, g_ene:ti c. de't!erts/RRY *.would be aaout O. 05: (U. s.. ) and 0. S (Yilorl d);

w.ith p,re*1ent.ion in 100 years', the cumulative gene:tic: defects/RRY 'IWould be about 0. 04 (U.S.* ) and 0. Z (Yilorld}.

r:t can be seen f.'J"Cm iacle U tha:t the dose commit:nenu from iodine-1Z9 contim:Je to increase '"i th ti.me' even beyond 250 '000 years. s i nca the :node 1 does not incorpo.rate any removal mechanism other than radioactive decay (17 :n_i11ion

lime J~~!'ll 100 l,000 l0,000 l00,000 250,000 lalile I Pl!pl*lalio1l pose Cpuwiilmeols am.I P.olenti.~I lleallh Effecls

• f*ol' 21 Ci/RUY Rele~se of C-!4 f*l'0111 l!1e fuel Cyde No_ Ca11cer Cure or Prevention pf Cure of Genetic Oefecls C11111t!!aU,ve Person-Hem (l.8. Rt~~ ftH1ivalenl~)

& Ct!!ll!*l*a_U.ve Genetic:a ll}'_jiunif lca.1il 0Qse ffi.!:oan-re!!l.}

Cu11u~ lat i ve Canc:er Mortality u.s.u WQrh.1~*

u. s.

World 150 800 0.02

0. 1 lBO l,900*

0.02 0.3 390 0,900*

0.05

). 2 440 10,0001 t 0.06

). 4 440

)),00011 0.06

1. 4 C11111~1 I ati ve Gene l ic De feds U.S.

~/orld 0.04 0.2 0.05 0.5 0.10 2.3

0. 11

2. 7

0. 11 2..,

Iola! !iody ~lose eq11jva,Je,il is the Sl!H! oJ the lolal body dose and each organ do5e multipllet.I by l.he 1*alio of l:he morlaHly rh.k 1ier organ-r!!m lo the murtalily risk per per*sqn-rem l9lal body).

AA first flass Uose.::; 127 ptn*son-r*em (lolal hody risk equivalcnl) or oruan-rem 1llased on approxi111alio11 lo KilltHlfJh's C-l4 1110.del (ORNl...:5269) as follows:

!!e*:~Q!~~!~ f (l) = 28 -t-592 (I _ e-(l-100)(0.693/5,600)

~ssu111ec.J __ world populdq~1~ of _!0 llilJion C1 Klllouoh population of l2-:2l llllffon 110Jsed on approxi111i!lio11 to Kil1ouuh's C-14 model as ft.illows:

• ,4 IJ

Pop&1lalion Dose ~Cllll111Hments anlJ Potential lleallh Effect:;

for 1.3 Ci/flflY Releasu of 1-129 frow a llLW Reposito1*y No Cancer C~ire or Prevention or Cure of Genetic Defects lime Cu111!rlat ive t1ersoo-H~l!l C110111la!_i_ye Genet ifa l l~~i ficg_nt IY~~r~'l Hot.al6ody rE~-roiiT v.~ l~n t} ~

Populatf{)n 09~an-reill u.s.u WorM 4 ~

!!.:..S. uA World4 u

~-*-

IOO 31 40 4.4 5.4 1,000 3~

12'3 4.7 15 l0,000 60 950 7.5 109 100,000 175 4000 20.2 530 2ti0,000 390 12,000 43.9 1320 Cu111!llative Cancer* Mor* ta ~l.!:.¥ Cumulative Genet. ic Et feels U.S.

~~*lJ U.S.

Worll.1 100 0.0042 0.0064 0.0011 0.0014 l,tlOO 0.0046 0.017 0.0012 0.0039 lO,000 0.0001

0. l3 0.0019 0.028 lOU,000 0.024 0.65 0.0052 0.14 250,000 0.053

l. 6 0.011 0.34 Iola l body dose e11uivalenl 1s the S!lll! of l!1e lot.al lu~dy dos!! and each oru~n dose Ull!lliplied by the ratio of lhc moa*tiilHy rbk per orua11-rc111 to the IUOt'lality risk per [UH'!i!-lU-t'Clll (total body).

"Ii.A first Past Dose=:: 31 1uu*son rem whole bo~y risk equ.valent AA'A fi.rsl Pass Or!JiUI Dose.4. 4 oroan-rem

~

75 year half**life), the calculations could, in theol"'j, be extended to 200 million years or so to c~ture the tota.1 dose co1111i tmants of i odi ne:-129.

This has not been done for the present treatment.

(A discussion of the significance of long-time calc:.ilations is g.iven in Section 3. below.)

The* data in Table II shew that the 250,000 year dose commitments (whole body risk equiva.lent) from iodina-129 (390 U.S.. and 12,000 world person-"91/RRY')

• are about equa 1 to the 100, 000 yea*r ( i n1'i nite) dose commi t:nents from c:a~on-14 (440 u.s*. and ll,000 '"'orld person-rem/RRY).

Cumu:lative: excess* cancer mortal ities/RRY for a 250,000 year exposure are about 0. 05 (U.S.) and 2 (wor*ld.);

cumulative genetic defects/RRY (250,000 year) are about 0.01 (U.S.) and o*.3 (world}..

If a. cancer cure* wei-9 achieved 1000 years hence, excess cancer morta 1 i ti es/RRY from iodi'ne-lZ.9: wof:Jld be* limitad to about 0:.005 (U.S.. ) and o.. 02 (worid).

for a: cancer cure in TOO years, exc:ass cancer mor..al i ti es/RRY fr~m i odi ne-129 would peak at about 0.004 (U.S.) and 0.005 (world).

If prevention of' genetic defects *..,.ere i]ossible in 1000 yeaM, genetic: defec:ts/RRY would.tota*l about" O.OOJ (U.. S.) and 0.004 ('#Or*ld);. if genetic de.fec:ts *.-ere prevenuole in 100 ye*ars" geneti'c: de*fe~o.'.S/RRY waul d. tota 1 acout O~ 001 (U.S.. and wo.rTd).

3*.

The* Si gnif i c:olnce of Long* ier.n Dose C~mmi t:nents In* the above section, at the.direction of the Commi.ss*ion, the staff has provided t.heo.retica 1 ma'themati cal ca.1cu1 a:ti ons for dose ccmmi ":.'71ents and hea 1 tii e.ffec:t.s of carb.on-14 and iodine-i29 for up to 250,000 years.

!:i order to perform

I 76 these calculations, the staff has had to make a series of assumptions based upon little foundation and in 111hi c:h it has 1 i ttl e or :io confi denc:e.

Because of the shortness of human life exi:ect*ancy ~lati'le tQ the much slo'lllH!r changes oc:ur.ring on ear+..n, s*ucl'I as vari'ations in climata, continental dr'ift, erosion and evolu.tion of s;:iecies, it is aifficu.it t*o comprehend the immensHy of pot.ential changes over long periods of time.

Fo.r* compara'ti-ve.ly shoT"t**lived isotopes, dose comitment integra'tions can be projected for 11tliat amounts to infinite time interva.ls.

For example, an infinite t.ime integration of population dose can be done for* trit~um or krypton-SS sinca such a time integration effectively requires. consideration of a period of acou:t. 100 years* or* less *. Ho'#ever-, project.ing: population at risk, and populat.ion response to* risk over even such i-eiati;1ely short time intervals requires many assumptions \\liliii eh the. s,taff h*as reason to question.

I-t i's po.s;s;i-ble, for* example., to reasonae:ly postulate the follo'#fng oc:;-.Jrrenc:es' during t!'le next 100 years:

major cnanges in the size of tne population at l'"isk because o.f war or global s:tarva*tion*; cures for* or preventi'on of cancer and genetic defec:-..s; the.. onset of.the 1'greennouse!' effac::; the depletion of ofl, natural gas and mineral r-esaurcas.

Any of these oc::urrencas may have

. s:igni'f'!car:it. ef'fa~ts* on,wor.ld\\iltde conditions ~nd affect t:ie va.iidity o.f ca*lcu.lataci dose comm1 t:nents and related i'!ea l th ef'f ec~s.

In addition to changes in the envirtJmnent, it is also possible that the response o.f :nan tQ exposure* to raai ati-on *,.,n 1 change ei*ther up or down in tl"le* future.

It fs thought*!)rovoking to ccm!)are tl'le,najor health risks in today's America 1¥ith those a't the turn of the last cent.ury.

u.s~ vital s"tatistics 14 show that

(_,\\

L 77 iri a period of only 70 years, monumental c!'langes have occurred in many health ar-aas.

For ex.le, life expectancy at oirth has increased from 33.0 yeaM t.o 65.3 years for non-._,hita Americans and fT"<Jm.+1.3 years to 70.9 years for *,11hite Americans.

ihis t'!'"anslates to a perceived* increased risk of cancer"s and cardiovascular aiseases in recent years simply because more peo~le are living longer than before, and therefo", have a greater probability of cont.racting such diseases wnid'I occur primarily in the later years of life.

In addition, both cancars and card.i ovascul ar diseases ha*1e tsnded to increase simply because of advances in the care, treatment and prevent.ion of many ocher*

serious diseases.

Since the total lifetime risk of mort.ality is 1 for everyone, when the statistical probability for* marta l i ty frtlm a given cause dee lines, at.her* probab.ili ti es :nus.t increase.

For axamp le, cons i de!" the foll ow.ing c!'langes in de-ath rates for*majo.r diseases since the beginning ot this centur-1~

Chang.e in Risk ot Cause of Death/*-.

0.eattls/10.0 1000 ?o.cul a.ti on

~or~alit;t ov 1970 19:0.0 19.70 iuberculosis 194. 4--

2.6 fac::tor of.. =

I.., lower iJt;phoid 3' Parat~hoid F~ver 31.3 a.as II II 600 II Diphtheria

40. 3 iJ. 05 II II

.eoo, Cancer 64.0 16Z.S II II 2.5 higher Majo,r Cardi ovascu l a*r !i Renal Oiseasas 345.Z

.196.0 II II l..;:

ii IM1uenza & Pneumonia 202.2 30.9 II II 5.5 lower*

Ga,s:tri ti s, Duodenit.is,

~'i'lteri tis &i c~ l iti s 142.7 0.6 II II 24-0 II Acz::idents (including motor. venicle) 72.3 s*s. 4-II II

1. 3 II Other major diseases E!:..+/-

35. l II II

1. 7 II OVE-~ALL; l, 1 so, a i84.4 factor of 1. 5 lower

78.

Thus, it is ciear that the effective contro*l or e*limination of many diseases which, in the begi-nning of the t'Wendeth century, typically *oo1ere fa:tal be*fOl'"e*

peo?le !"i!ac:hed an age where the risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease would have become. s.i gni fi c:ant has at 1 east partially resulted in an apparent increase in such d.iseases by 1970.

rt* is also :lear, ho'lllever, that the overall risk of marta*l ity by major causes in the U.S. has dec:l i ned by acout one-third* in only the 1 ast 70 years.

As a resu 1 t*, one might*. spec:u 1 ate that there may be an 11 epidemic:" o.f peap.1 e dying from "old age" in the c:enturi es ahead from causes*

that. are litt'.le known or rare by. today's standards.

Changes* similar ta those* which have largely occurred in ':he past as the* r9sul t of dr.amati*c. medi c:a.1 di'scov.e.ries. mcty occur* as sci enca continues to. seek and d:i s*cover mo.re: effective: ways of curi*ng: or* p.revent*i ng canc:ar

• in: the* years ahead.

The. future. radiological impact of the nuclear fue*l qcle can* be. a*ffec:ted b~ s.ui:h resea-rch since latent cancer* is the on*ly kno... n* seri.ous resuJt of human radiation 9'C;!Osures rec:e~ved at das:e* rates *oo1ni*e!'I do* no.t result.in ea*rly :nortali ty.

The sci.ff i"s unatrle t4 make any de,ffoi tive* S:t:atements about the pos*s*i"bi e.

va-riations in ttie long-term dasa commit.-nents and healtl'I effects resulting from potent:ial fut1.a~e. nappeni.ngs.

Ha"Weve.r, tne* s'ta-ff believes that* tl'le c::..mula:ti.ve ccmai ned i!llli)ac:t*s. from long~li ved radionuc.1 ides such as: ca~on-14 and iodi-ne~ 129 are.small r~lative ta those from natural !:lac:!<ground *..-nich is about 100,COO b~il1ion per~an rem (world) o~er a 250,000 year ta~a1. ilie combined impact is only about io:*7 percent of na*tural background.*

1.

2.

3.

J..

s.

5.

7.

8.

9.

1 a.

11.

79 Section !!! - References Docket No. RM-50-5, Generic Environmental Statament. on ~ixed Oxide FtJe1 (GESMO').

Hearing transc:""'ipts for Janua.ry 19, 25 and 25, 1977.

NUREG-0002, Chapter !V-J.

Ibid. I Chapter IV-J, Appendix a, page !V-J (9)-1.

?oci'lin, E. E.,

11The Acceptance o.f Risk, Br. Med. Su11., Voi. 31, No. 3, pp. 184-190 (1975).

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, The Reac-:or Safety Study, Main Report, 'IJASH-1400, 1975.

i ab 1 e G:-3.

NUREG-0116, page 4-94 f'f.

NUREG-0216, Appendix. H, page H--16 f'f.

Ibid.

NUREG-0116, Table 4-19.

Oak Ridge. Nati ona.l Laboratory, 11 Si t.i ng of Fue 1 Reprocessing ?1 ant.s and* --

\\oJast:e Management Faciliti*es, ORNL-4451, July 1970.

No:N.ine, J., A Question of C1imate:

Hot* or Cold?, 11 E:wfronment, 19:, #8,

i.* 7, Nov. 1977, Mitchell, J.. M., Jr.,

11 C4*J°bon Qioxiae ana.Fwt.ur9. Ciimat.e,

E *. IJ.S., N.0.A.A., i:omerce, Marc!'! 19i7; Calder, N., Head South with All

!Je*liberate Speed:

Ice Age May ~et.urn in a Fe111* Thousand Years," Smithso.nian,

§, 1'*1 O, Jan. 1978.

12.

Killough, G. G., "A Oi'f'fiJsion-Type Model of the G1oba1 Cartlon Cycle for the Estimatfo*n-of !Jose to t!'le *..-orld* ?opulation f'rom Releases of Cal"bon-14 to At.'llospnere, 11 QRNL-5269, ~ay 1977.

13.

NUREG~aoo2, Chaper II-J,.~ppend.ix 8.

14..

U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Historical Statistics. of t:ie United St*ates:

Co.l oni a 1 ii mes to 1970," ?art. ! Seri es 3 149-160.

r*

' \\

80 Section !V.

Soc.i oeconomic Impacts Soc:ioeconcmic impacts of tl'le uranium fuel cycle can result from inc:ruses in 1evels o.f enq:i*loyment and puclic services requirements.

aecause t..,e t-.:i;:iic is so b.1"1:ladly defined, it is desirable t*o approach i't as a series of interreiatad s.ucc:ategori es.

Bri ef1y, these consi s-t of:

o

.Population - changes in population resulting f'l'"~m the influx of wori<ers and their*fami1ies at both the cons*truc:tion and operation stages of faci1i":ies.

0 Economy - induced cnanges in income and expenditures, including demands for serlicas, bo*t."'I *pub 1 i c and private.

'Nhi le th'i s* fac:tor* ~as not* discussed in WASH-1248, it wa*s bri e*f1 y covered in the; instant proc:Hdi ng on the back end of the fuel eye 1 e, and the following discussion is.based on the record of that proceeding.

F-Jr the nuc:l ear fue 1 eye 1 e, pqpu 1 at ion and economic data c.an be obtained a't

• e.ac-n Sibge f'l"om* mi*ning; mi1ltng*, and fuel facric.a't~on througji waste isolation.

7he: !aeu.lat.ion of conven'tional socioeconomic impac:":.°s at each stage can p.Mvide.*

a generic. measure of the conven'tional socioeconomic impacts associated with the en.ti re* fuel cycle.

~o.r each *stage 01' tl'le fue 1 cyc1 e, the character and :nagri i tuae of the soci oeco-nomi c i mpac:-:s are si ta-specific and are deteMti ned by t!ie size of the ;.;ork fo,rca, the size of t!ie 1oc:a1 popu 1 at ions, the numcer of incoming '"'crkers in

(.

81 relation to tne population s.ia,, the capacities of pubiic service facilities i!l11ilacted, the administrative capability of the impacted political jurisdictions, and other related factors.

The s i"ze of* work forees needed for reprocsss i ng plants a.nd *~aste-nlated faci"lities suggests that socioeconcmic impac-:ts should be ;nanageable through proper planning ana mitiga:tive.:ftoi-...s.

rn fact, t.'ie socioeconomic effects o:f es:taa ii shi ng reproces*s*i ng p 1 ants. and* wa-s-ta-re*l ated faci 1 iti es are not expected to differ i*n* quantity or quality from* those asso-ciated with. any commereial nuclear power plant *. The* soc:ioeconomic considera-tions can be summarized as fol lows:

Impacts that can oe expected are cc~arabl e to or 1 ess. t.ian those caused: by LWR constrtic't:ion ac:tivit:ies and could include noise and dus.t*around: the: site*; di s,rupti ons or* d:i s 1 oc:ations of res i denc:as: er b.usi nessas; physical o!"* public-access impacts: on hi s:tori c::, cu;l tura,1,

and natura.1 featur"9s;.. impacts on pub.l ic: s:ervices such as educatJon,.

utilities,, the road syst*em, recrutfon, public health, and safe,ty;.

i ncreas*ed tax revenues in juri'Sdi c:ti ons where fa:ci 1i ti es are 1 ocatad; i nc:reased loca 1

• expenditures fa.r services and. materials, ana social stresses. 1

',iii*t:i r~spect to the soci oec:inomi.c impacts that may be a*t-:ri bu tac 1 e to reproces-sing faci Hti es, NUREG-01162 cites iVA i.n,fo.rmat.i-on s hcwi ng the. ant ici pa'ted soc:i oecsnomic. i!lllilaC'ts assoc:i ated *..ti th the.:cnstructi on of an L.WR are representa-tive of' those socioeconcmic impact's wi'lich can !:le expecteil from constr*Jc:tion and opera'ti_on of a reproc:essi'ng facility.

32 Since a 2,000 met:"'ic ton reprocessing plant (the size of the model reprocassing plant) is capaole of servicing 57 reactors annually, the socioeconomic impacts f'rom const:"'uction of a reprocessing plant attributaqle to a single reactor can be approximat:ad as 1 ess than 2% of those of ~!'le reactor.

~ith respect to the socioeconomic impacts which can be att:"'ibuted to a hign-le.ve.1 waste repository (HLWR), commercial nuciear power plant information

• ..-as uti1ized to illust:"'a:ta the anticipued impacts.

The anticipated imcacts can be expected to vary depending upon the iccation of the repositOT"'/ and the S'iZe of the sur~unding communities.

?re*l imi nary est i ma-tes of the construct*fon 1 acor force, deve 1 oped by t!ie Office of 'l'iaste Isoluion at Oak Ridge National L.acoratory, show a peal< numcer of aoo peop-1 e, in con-trast to t::e average L)IJR 1o1ork force of Z, 000.

The an.ti cipated soci*oeconomic i:ncact*s of high-level waste repository construction thus could be expected to be 1 ess than those of const:"'uc::.ion of an LW'R.

Si nca t:ie prcpos*ed reposi tOT""J ha-s the capaail i ty of servicing_ a to-cal o:f 133 reac:-::irs, and can store fue*l f'rom-40 1"9actors (based on 1,200 ~RYs over 3*0 years of operation),

the-socioeconomic i ~acts resu 1 ting from construction of the* reoos i tor"J, wnen a.1 lOc:ated to a s*i-ngle ructor, ltfould be only a f-e"' per-:ent of t:ie socioeconomic i mpac:t of construct.i ng the reactor-.

In terms of opera'ting '#Ork force, preliminal""/ estimates developed at the Ofi'ke of 'ifas~e !so 1 ati on a-t ORNL s.et the nwncer 01' peak 1 acor fores for a high,.level waste r'!?Ository at 1,630, acou't 10 times that of an LWR 1o1ork for-:s

( 170}.

83 An added 1, 530 -.worX.ars to a rura 1 emp 1 oyment base *..iou 1 d mean a change in the economy of the area.

If the pattern followed the experience of large industrial plants locating in small towns, ~ie foliowing observations could be expected to apply: 3

1.

Rural industrial development seldom produces an unmanageable popula-tion gl"Owtn rate*; it provides a stabilizing influencs on population;

2.

There is a tendency for long distance commuting, which tends to s;::i.read out impacts on community fac:i 1 i ti es;

3.

Housing woui d be a common p.~b lem in rura 1 areas.

If the settlement pattern were very concentra,tad, the impacts on community facilities and housing could be expected to be larger.

It is believed that the lead ti mes

• .-~ 11 be s u ffi ci ent to a 11 ow the potant:ia 11 y i mpactad communi

• ties and the applicant to develop mitiga*tive programs which would a.llow for an orderly and mana9eaiilie resolution of potential socioeconomic impacts.

Shaul d the repository be 1 oc.ated *..ii thin a re 1 ati ve 1 y easy cormnuting* di stance, it is* believed that the surT'ounding communi'ties should be able to absorb the 1, 630 worken wi t!'I fewer impacts o~:urT'i ng and be able to reso 1 ve any potent i a 1 i mp*acts requiring mi ti gati on in adv,anca of the operation phase.

3ased upon

~!"Iese assessments of socioeconomic c~nsi de rat i ans as*soci ated with tl:le constl'"'JCtion and operaticn of reprocessing and *..iaste burial facilities, it

34

'""as concluded that. 1tthen they are spread over many pc...,er reac:..Jrs, t."ley add an insignificant amount to the environmental impacts of an individual reactor.

Thu.s, no specific value for socioeconomic: considerations '#as placed in Table S-3.

In it.s effor'!. to update Table S-3, the Ccmmission is performing socioeconomic studies *... nich are intended to provide more detailed data on the impacts actually experiencad as a result of construc~ion and operation ot* the facilities involved in eac:n step of the nuclear fuel cycle.

ihe studies may ~rovide infon1atfon that *..-i 11 permit an i nc:r~ental assessment of socioeconomic impac:ts attributed to the fue.1 eye 1 e ac:ti vi ti es.

I I

~.

j"**

~ ~ '

85 Sec:ion IV - References

1.

NUREG-0116, Section 4-. 11. 4, p. 4-168.

2.

Ibid, p. 4-170.

3.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Policy Resear~:i.~ssocia.t.as, "Socioeconomic Imcacts:

Nuclear ?-:iwer Stat.ion Sitfog," NURE*~-0150, June 1977.

.