ML19221A802
| ML19221A802 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/28/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0555, NUREG-0555-05.7, NUREG-555, NUREG-555-5.7, SRP-05.07, SRP-5.07, NUDOCS 7907090152 | |
| Download: ML19221A802 (29) | |
Text
Section 5.7 February 1979 ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLA?,
F0P ES SECTION
- 5. 7 URANIUM-FUEL-CYCLE IMPACTS REVIEW INPUTS Environmental Report Sections 5.9 Ine Uranium Fuel tycle Environmental Peviews None Standards and Guides Paragraph (e) of 10 CFP S 51.20, " Applicant's Environmental Report -
Construction Permit Stage" (Federal Register Notice 42 FR 13803, March 14,1977 and 43 FR 15613, April 14,1978)
REVIEW OUTPUTS Environmental Statement Sections 5.7 Uranium-Fuel-Cycle Impacts Other Environmental Reviews 10.4.2 Benefit-Cest Balance: Costs I.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose and scope of this environmental standard review plan (ESRP) is to direct the staff's use of Table S-3, " Summary of Environmental Considera-tions for Uranium Fuel Cycle," of Paragraph (e) of 10 CFR S 51.20 and the associated staff analysis of this table, given in Appendix A to this ESRP, as the basis for the staff's evaluation of the environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle.
10 8
'9 7 C.
II.
REQUIRED DATA AND INFORMATION
's The following data will be required:
7 9070 90tSa 5.7-1
February 1979 Tai,le S-3 of Paragraph (e) of 10 CFR S 51.20.
The current amendment (as given in 42 FR 13803, March 14,1977 and 43 FR 15613, April 14,1978) is included in Appendix A to this E51P as Table 5.7-A-1.*
III.
ANALYSIS PROCEDURE No analysis of these data is required.
IV.
EVALUATION Tne ceviewer will ensure that the most recent amendment of Table S-3 has been provided as input to ES Section 5. 7 and will update tne staff analysis given in Appendix A to this ESRP when necessary.
The reviewer will ensure that all conclusions given in Aopendix A are appropriate for the proposed project.
V.
INPUT TO THE E"VIRONMENTAL STATEMENJ Appendix A to this plan provides the input that will be used in Section 5.7 of the environmental statement.
In addition, the reviewer will ensure that, if appropriate, a statement similar to the following is included in ES Section 10.4.2:
The staf f has evaluated the environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle as given in Table 5.7-A-1.
The staff has found th6;e impacts to be sufficiently small so that when they are added to the other environmental impacts predicted for the proposed project the fuel-cycle impacts would not alter the overall benefit-cost balance.
- The table has been further updated to reflect the changes contained in Attach-ment A to the Fuel Cycle Rulemaking Hearing Board's Conclusions and Recommenda-tions of the Hearing Board Regarding the Environmental Ef fects of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, Docket No. RM 50-3, dated Octotor 26,19/8.
5.7-2 lJb b
February 1979 VI.
REFERENCES No references other than those to be used with the input to t,1e Environmental Statement (in Appendix A) are provided.
108 r,
Li 5.7-3
Appendix A to ESRP 5.7 February 1979 ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR ES SECTION 5.7 URANIUM-FUEL-CYCLE IMPACTS APPENDIX A INPUT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT On March 14, 1977, the Commission presented in the Federal Register (42 FR 13803) an interim rule regarding the environmental considerations of the uranium fuel cycle.
It is effective through Septenber 13, 1978 and revises Table S-3 of Paragraph (e) of 10 CFR S 51.20.*
In a subsequent announcement on April 14, 1978 (43 FR 15613), the Commission further amended Table S-3 to delete the numerical entry for the estimate of radon releases and to clarify that the table does not cover health effects. The revised table is shown here as Table 5. 7-A-1.
The interim rule reflects new ar.d updated information relative to reprocessing of spent fuel and radioactive waste management as discussed in NUREG- 0116, Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Por-tig.ns of the LWR Ftel Cycle (Ref. 1), and NUREG-0216 (Ref. 2) which presents staff responses to comments on NUREG-Oll6.
The rule also considers other environmental factors of the uranium fuel cycle, including aspects of mining and milling, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, and management of low and high level wastes.
These are described in the AEC report WASH-1248, Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle (Ref. 3).
Specific categories of natural resource use are included in Table S-3 of the interim rule.
These categories relate to land use, water consumption and thermal effluents, mdioactive releases, burial of transtranic and high and low level wastes, and radiation doses from transportation and occupational exposures.
The contributions in Table S-3 for reprocessing, waste management, and transporta-tion of wastes are maximized for either of the two fuel cycles (uranium only and no recycle), that is, the cycle that results in the greater impact is used. The uraniem fuel cycle is defined as the total of those operations and processes AA notice of final rulemaking proceedings was given in the Federal Register of flay 26,1977 (42 FR 26987) that calls for additian sl public comment before adoption cr final modification of the ir.terim ru'e.
5.7-A-1
,d L
February 1979 associated with provision, utilization and ultimate dispositian of fuel for nuclear power reactors.
Tha two fuel cycle options that have been consideryd differ in the treatment of spent fuel removed from a reactor.
"No recycle" treats all spent fuel as waste to be stored at a Federal waste repository;
" uranium only recycle" involves reprocessing of spent fuel to recover unused uranium and return it to the system.
Neither cycle involves the recovery of plutonium.
The no-recycle option schematically presented in Figure 5.7-A-1.
Natural uranium is mined in either open pit or underground mines. The ore is transferred to mills where it is pror ?ssed to produce uranium oxide, or " yellow-cake."
A conversion f acility prepares the uranium oxide from the mills for enrichment by converting it to uranium hexafluoride (UF ),
which is than 6
processed to separate the relatively nonfissile isotope U-238 from the more fissile isotcpe U-235.
At a fuel fabrication facility the enriched uranium, approximately 3 percent U-235, is then converted to UO. The UO is pelletized, 2
2 sintered, and inserted into tubes to form fuel assemblies.
The fuel assemblies are placed in the reactor to produce power.
When the content of the U-235 reaches a point where the nuclear recctor has become inef ficient with respect tc 'outron ecc
- ,,y, the fuel assemblies are withdrawn from the reactor. After onsite storage for sufficient time to allow for short-lived fission product aecay and to reduce the heat generation rate, the fuel assemblies will be transferred to a Federal repository for interment.
Disposal of spent fuel elements in a repository constitutes the final i +,ep in the no-recycle option.
A schematic of the uranium-only recycle option is given in Figure 5.7-A-2.
The mining, milling, and UF c nversion operations are the same as for the 6
ri "ecycle option, but lesser quantities of materials would be processed. The first difference between the no-recycle and uranium-only recycle options is noted at the enrichment process where the natural UF feed stream is supple-6 mented by rccovered, slightly enriched uranium from the reprocessing plant.
The combined UF is processed to form UO nd fuel assemblies as in the 6
2 9'9
^
\\nU
~
5.7-A-2
February 1979 no-recycle option.
The second dit ference between the no-recycle and uranium-only recycle options follows fuel assembly removal from the reactor and onsite storage to permit decay of short-lived fission products and reduced heat genera-tion rates. At this point, the fuel assemblies are transferred to a reprocessing plant for f crther storage and subsequent processing to recover the residual slightly enriched uranium. Plutonium contained in the spent fuel is considered as waste, will not be recovered, and will be transferred to a Federal repository for disposal along with the transuranic and high-level wastes. These materials will be treated at the reprocessing plant to produce stable materials suitable for final disposal.
Disposal of these materials in a repository constitutes the final step in the uranium-only recycle option.
The following assessment of the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle as related to the operation of the proposed project is based on the values given in Table S-3 and the staf f's analysis of the radiological impact from radon releases.
For the si.ke of consistency, the analysis of fuel-cycle impacts has been cast in terms of a model 1000 FNe light-water-cooled reactor (LWR) operating at an annual capacity factor of 80L In the following review and evaluation of the erovironmental impacts of the fuel cycle, the staff conc usions would not be altered if the analysis were to be based on the net electric.I power output of the proposed project.
The staff's analysis and conclusions are as follows:
A.
Land Use The total annual land requirement for the fuel cycle supporting a model 1000 FNe LWR is about 46 hectares (113 acres). Approximately 5 bectares (13 acret) per year are permanently committed land, and 41 hectares (100 acres) per year are temporarily committed.
(A " temporary" land commitment is a commitment for the life of the specific fuel-cycle plant, e.g., mill, enrichment plant, or succeeding plants. On abandonment or decommissioning, such land can be used *or any purpose
" Permanent" commitments represent land that may not be released for use af ter plant shutdown and/or decommissioning.) Of the 41 hectares per year of temporarily 5.7-A-3
February 1979 committed land, 32 hectares are undisturbed and 9 hectares are disturbed. Con-sidering common classes of land use in the U.S.,* fuel-cycle land-use requirements to support the model 1000 MWe LWR do not represent a significant impact.
B.
Water Use The principal water-use requirement for the fuel cycle supporting a model 1000 MWe LWR is that required to remove waste heat frcm the power stations supplying electrical energy to the enrichment step of this cycle. Of the total 6 3 6
6 annual requirement of 43 x 10 m (11,377 x 10 gal), about 42 x 10 m are required for this purpose, assuming that these plants use once-through cooling.
Other water uses involve the discharge to air (e.g., evaporation losses in process 6 3 cooling) of about 0.6 x 10 m per year and water discharged to ground (e.g.,
6 3 mine drainage) of about 0.5 X 10 m per year.
On a thermal effluent basis, annual discharges from the nuclear fuel cycle are about 4% of the model 1000 MWE LWR using once-through cooling. The 6
consumptive water use of 0.6 x 10 m per year is about 2% of the model 1000 MWe LWR using cooling tnwers. The maximum consumptive water use (assuming that all plants supplying electrical energy to the nuclear fuel cycle used cooling towers) would be about 6% of the model 1000 MWe LWR using cooling towers.
Under this condition, thermal effluents would be negligible.
The staff finds that these combinations of thermal loadings and water consumption are acceptable relative to the water use and thermal discharges of the proposed project.
C.
Fossil Fuel Consumption Electrical energy and process heat are required during various phases of the fuel-cycle process.
The electrical energy is usually produced by the combustion of fossil fuel at conventional power plants. Electrical energy asso-ciated with the fuel cycle represents about 5% of the annual electrical power A coal-fired power plant of 1000 MWe capacity using strip-mined coal requires the disturbance of about 81 hectares (200 acres) per year for fuel alone.
5.7-A-4
') Q 1 uu,
February 1979 production of the model 1000 MWe LWR.
Process heat is primarily generated by the combustion of natural gas. This gas consumption, if used to generate elec-tricity, would be less than 0.4% of the electrical output from the model plant.
The staff finds that the direct and indirect consumption cf electrical energy for fuel-cycle operations are small and acceptable relative to the net power production of the proposed project.
D.
Chemical Effluents The quantities cf chemical, gaseous, and particelate effluents with fuel-cycle processes are given in Table S-3.
The principal species are 50 '
x NO. and particulates. Based on data in a Council on Environmental Quality report,*
x the staff finds that these emissions constitute an extremely small additional atmospheric loading in comparison with these emissions from the stationary fuel-combustion and transportation sectors in the U.S., i.e., about 0.02% of the annual national releases for each of these species.
The staff believes such small increases in releases of these pollutants are acceptable.
Liquid chemical ef fluents produced in f sel-cycle processes are related to fuel-enrichment, -fabrication, and -reprocessing operations and may be released to receiving waters. These effluents are usually present in dilute concentrations such that only small amounts of dilution water are required to reach levels of concentration that are within established standards.
Table S-3 specifies the flow of dilution water required for specific constituents. Additionally, all liquid discharges into the navigable waters or the United States from plants associated with the fuel-cycle operations will be subject to requirements and limitations set forth in an NPDES permit issued by an appropriate state or Federal regulatory agency.
Tailings solutions and solids are generated during the milling process.
These solutions and solids are not released in quantities sufficient to have a significant impact on the environment.
AThe Seventh Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality, September 1976.
Figures 11-27 and 11-28, pp. 238-239.
jU]
ug;7 0
9n 5.7-A-5
February 1979 Tailings solutions and solids are generated during the milling process.
These solutions and solids are not released in quantities sufficient to have a significant impact on the environment.
E.
Radioactive Effluents Radioactive effluents estimated to be released to the environment from reprocessing and waste management activities and certain other phases of the fuel-cycle process are set forth in Table S-3.
Using these data, the staff has calculated the 100 year involuntary environmental dose ammitment* to the U.S.
population. These calculations estimate that the overall involuntary total body gaseous dose commitment to the U.S. population f r s the fuel cycle (excluding reactor releases and the dose commitment due to radon 222) would be approximately 400 man-rem per year of operation of the model 1000 MWe LWR (RRY).**
Based on Table S-3 values, the additional involuntary total body dose commitment to the U.S. population from radioactive liquid ef fluents due to all fuel-cycle operations other than reactor operation would be approximately 100 man-rem per year of opera-tion.
Thus, the estimated involuntary 100 year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from radioactive gasecus and liquid releases due to these portions of the fuel cycle is approximately 500 man-rem (whole body) per RRY.
At this time Table S-3 does not address the radiological impacts asso-ciated with radon-222 releases.
Principal radon releases occur during mining and milling operations and, following completion of mining and milling as emis-sions from stabilized mill tailings and from unreclaimed open pit mines.
The staff has determined that relcases from these operations per RRY are as follows:
- The erc;ironmental dose commitment (EDC) is the integrated population dose for 100 years, i.e.,
it represents the sum of the annual population doses for a total of 100 years.
The population dose varies with time, and it is not prac-tical to calculate this dose for every year.
- "RRY" (referenca reactor year) will be used in place of " year of operation of the model 1000 MWe LWR."
108 ZL 5.7-A-6
February 1979 Mining:
(during active mining) 4060 Ci (Ref. 4)
Mining:
(unreclaimed open pit raines) 30 to 40 Ci/yr (Ref. 5)
Milling and Tailings:
(during active milling) 780 Ci (Ref. 6)
Inactive Tailings:
(prior to stabilization) 350 Ci (Ref. 6) 5tabilized Tailings:
(several hundred years) 1 to 10 Ci/yr (Ref. 6)
Stabilized Tailings:
(after several hundred years) 110 Ci/yr (Ref. 6)
The staff has calculated population dose commitments for these sources of radon-222 using the RABGAD computer code described in NUREG-0002,Section IV.J of Appendix A (Ref. 7). The results of these calculations for mining and milling activities prior to reclamation of open pit mines and tailings stabilization are as follows:
Esv.. mated 100-Year Environmental Dose Commitment (man-rem) per Year of Radon 222 Releases Operation of the Model 1000 MWe LWR Lung (bronchial Total Body Bone epithelium)
Mining 4100 Ci 110 2800 2300 Milling and active tailings 1100 Ci 29 750 620 Total 140 3600 2900 When added to the 500 man-rem total body dose commitment for the balance of the fuel cycle, the overall estimated total body involuntary 100 year environ-mental dose commitment to the U.S. population from the fuel cycle for the model 1000 MWe LWR is approximately 660 man-rem. Over this period of time, this dose is equivalent to 0.00002% of the r.atural background dose of about 3,000,000,000 man-rem to the U.S. population.
- A Based on an annual average natural Lackground individual dose commitment of 100 mrem and a stabilized U.S. population of 300 million.
9 5.7-A-7
/n/O ?o7 l
AO;
February 1979 The staff has considered health effects associated with the releases of radon-222, including both the short.-term effects of mining, milling and active tailings and the potential long-term effects from unreclaimed open p.it mires and stabilized tailings. After completion of active mining, the staff has assumed that underground mines will be sealed with the result that releases of radon-222 from them will return to background levels.
For purposes of providing an upper-bound impact assessment, the staff has assumed that open pit mines will be unreclaimed and has calculated that if all are was produced from open pit mines, releases from them would be 110 Ci/ year per RRY. However, since the distribution of uranium ore reserves available by conventional minirig methods is 66.8% under-ground and 33.2% open pit (Ref. 8), the staff has forther assumed that uranium to fuel LWRs will be produced by conventional mi.,ing methods in these proportions.
This means that long-term releases from unreclaimed open pit mines will be 0.332 x 110 or 37 Ci/ year per RRY.
Based on the above, the radon released from unreclained open pit mines over 100 and 1000 year periods would be about 3700 Ci and 37000 Ci per RRY, respectively.
The total dose commitments for a 100-1000 year period would *-
as follows:
Time Span Curies Population Dose Commitments in Man-rem Total Lung (Bronchial Body Bone Epithelium) 100 years 3,700 96 2,500 2,000 500 years 19,000 480 13,000 11,000 1,000 years 37,000 960 25,000 20,000 The above dose commitments represent a worst-case situation since no mitigating circumstances are assumed. However, State and Federal laws currently require reclamation of strip and open pit coal mines and it is very probable that similar reclamation will be required for uranium open pit mines.
If so, long-term releases from such mines should approach background levels.
~ <.
O O hd 5.7-A-8
\\U U
February 1979 G
For long-term radon releases from stabilized tailings piles the staff has assumed that these tailings would emit, per RRY, 1 Ci/yr for 100 years, 10 Ci/yr for the neM 400 years and 100 Ci/yr for periods beyond 500 years.
With these cssumptions, the cumulative radon-222 release frnm stabilized tailings piles per RRY will be 100 Ci in 100 years, 4,090 Ci in 500 years and 53,800 Ci in 1000 years (Ref. 9). The total body, bone and bronchial epithelium dose com.ait-ments for these periods are as follows:
Time Span Curies Population Dose Commitments in Man-rem Total Lung (Bronchial Body Bone Epithelium) 100 years 100 2.6 68 56 500 years 4,090 110 2,800 2,300 1,000 years 53,900 1,400 37,000 30,000 Using risk estimators of 135, 6.9, and 22.2 cancer deaths per millicn man-rem for total bady, bone and lung exposures, respectively, the estimated risk of cancer mortality due to mining, milling and active tailings emissions of radon-222 would be about 0.11 cancer fatalities per RRY. When the risk due to radon-222 emissions from stabilized tailings over a 100 year release period is added, the estimated risk of cancer mortality over a 100 year period is unchanged.
Similarly, a risk of about 1.2 cancer fatalities is estimated over a 1000 year release period per RRY. When potential radon releases from reclaimed and unreclaimed open pit mines are included, the overall risks of radon induced cancer fatalities per RRY would range as follows:
0.11-0.19 fatalities for a 100 year period 0.19-0.57 fatalities for a 500 year period 1.2-2.0 fatalities for a 1000 year period To illustrate: A single model 1000 MWe LWR operating at an 80% capacity factor for 30 years would be predicted to induce between 3.3 and 5.7 cancer fatal-ities in 100 years, 5.7 and 17 in 500 ye s, and 36 and 60 in 1000 years as a result of releases of radon-222.
5.7-A-9
February 1979 These doses and predicted health effects have been compared with those that can be expected from natural-background emissions of radon-222. Using data from the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP, Ref. 10), the average radon-222 concentration in air in the contiguous United States is about 150 pCi/m, which the NCRP estimates will result in an annual dose to the bron-3 chial epithelium of 450 mrem.
For a stabilized future U.S.
population of 300 million, this represents a total lung dose commitment of 135 million man-rem per year. Using the same risk estimator of 22.2 lung cancer fatalities per million man-lung-rem used to predict cancer fatalities for the model 1000 MWe LWR, estimated lung cencer fatalities alone from background radon-222 in the air can be calculated to be about 3000 per year or 300,000 to 3,000,000 lung cancer deaths over periods of 100 and 1,000 years, respectively.
In addition to the radon-related potential health effects from the fuel cycle, other nuclides produced in the cycle, such as carbon-14, will con-tribute to population exposures.
It is estimated that 0.08 to 0.12 additional cancer deaths may occur per RPV (assuming that no cure or prevention of cancer is ever developed) over th ' ext 10) to 1000 years, respectively, from expo-sures to these other nuclides.
The lattar exposures can also be compared with those from naturally-occurring terrestrial and cosmic--ray sources.
These average about 100 mrem.
Therefore, for a stable future population of 300 million persons, the whole-body dose commitment would be about 30 million man-rem per year or 3 billion man-rem and 30 billion man-rem for periods of 100 and 1000 years, respectively.
These dose commitments c' auld produce about 400,000 and 4,000,000 cancer deaths during the same time periods. From the above analysis, the staff concludes that both the do;e commitments and health ef fects of the uranium fuel cyc!e are insignificant when ccmpared to dose commitments and potential health effects to the U.S. population resulting from all natural background sources.
n7 n
\\oS 5.7-A-10
February 1979 F.
Radioactive Wastes The quantities of buried radioactive waste material (low-level, high-level, and transuranic wastes) are specified in Table S-3.
For low-level waste disposal at land burial facilities, the Commission notes in Table S-3 that there will be no significant radioactive releases to the environment. For high-level and transuranic wastes, the Commission notes that these are to be buried at a Federal Reposito,y, and that no release to the environment is associated with such disposal. NUREG-0116 (Ref. 1), which provides background and context for the high-level and transuranic Table S-3 values established by the Commission, indicates that these high-level and transuranic wastes will be buried and will not be released to the biosphere.
No radiological environ-mental impact is anticipated from such disposal.
G.
Occupational Dose The annual occupational dose attributable to all phases of the fuel cycle for the nodel 1000 FNe LWR is about 200 man-rem.
The staff concludes that this occupational dose will not have a significant environmental impact.
H.
Transportation The transportation dose to workers and the publ'- is specified in Table S-3.
This dose is small and is not considered significant in comparison to the natural background dose.
I.
Fuel Cycle The staff's analysis of the uraniun fuel cycle did not depend on the sele i fuel cycle (no recycle or uranium-only recycle), since the data provided in Ieale S-3 include rnaximum recycle option impact for each element of the fuel cycle.
Thus, tne staf f's conclusions as to acceptability of ti e environmental impacts of the fuel cycle are not affected by the specific fuel cycle selected.
108 280 5.7-A-11
February 1979 VI.
REFERENCES 1.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle, NUREG-0116 (Supple-ment 1 to WASH-1248), October 1976.
2.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cem:rission, Public Comments and Task Force Responses Regarding the Environmental Survey of the_ Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle, NUREG-0216 JSupplement 2 to WASH-1248),
March 1977.
3.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, WASH-1248, April 1974.
4.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, In the Matter of Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station), Docket No. 50-488, Testimony of R. Wilde, filed April 17, 1978.
O 5.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, In the Matter of Long Island Lighting Company (Jamesport Nuclear Power Station), Docket No. 50-516, Deposition of Leonard Hamilton, Reginald Gotchy, Ralph Wilde and Arthur R. Tamplin, July 27,1978, p. 9274.
6.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, In the Matter of Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station), Docket No. 50-488, Testimony of P. Magno, filed April 17,1978.
7.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Generic Envirotc 2ntal Statement on the Use of Recycle Plutonium in Mixed Oxide Fuel in Light-Water-Cooled Reactors, NUREG-0002, August 1976.
8.
U.S.
Department of Energy, Statistical Data of the Uranium Industry, GJ0-100(78), January 1,1978.
}00 5.7-A-12
February 1979 9.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, In the Matter of Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station), Docket No. 50-488, Testimony of R.
- Gotchy, filed April 17, 1378.
10.
National Council on Rediation Protection and Measurements, Publication 45 (1975).
O fhh ~7:o0 5.7-A-13
February 1979 Table 5.7-A-1 SummaryofEnvironmentalConsigerations for Uranium Fuel Cycle (Normalized to Model LWR Annual Fuel Requirement [ WASH-1248]
or Reference Reactor Year [NUREG-0116])
Maximum effect per annual fuel ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Total requirement or reference reactor year of model 1,000 MWe LWR Natural Resource Use:
Land (acres):
2 Temporarily committed 100 Undisturbed area 79 Disturbed area 22 Equivalont to 100 MWe coal-fired powerplant.
Permanently committed.
13 Overburden moved (millions of MT) 2.8 Equivalent to 95 M,le coal-fired powerplant.
Water (millions of gallons):
Discharged to air 160
= 2 percent of model 1,000 MWe LWR with cooling tower.
Discharged to water bodies 11,090 Discharged to ground 127 Total 11,377
< 4 percent of model 1,000 MWe LWR with once-through cooling.
Fossil fuel:
Electrical energy (thousands of MW-hour).
323
< 5 percent of model 1,000 MWe LWR output.
Equivalent coal
_,(thousands of MT) 11F Equiva ant to the consumption of a 45 MWe coal-fired i,werplant.
k O b d '
5.7-A-14
February 1979 Table 5.7-A-1 (Continued)
Maxi 11um effect per annual fuel ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Total require.nent or reference reactor year of model 1,000 MWe LWR Natural Resource Use: (cont'd.)
~
Natural gas (millions of scf).
135
< 0.4 percent of model 1,000 MWe energy cutput.
Effluents - Chemical (MT):
Gases (including entrainment): 3 S0 4,400 x
N04..
1,190 Equivalent to emissions from Hydrocarbons 14 45 MWe coal-fired plant for C0.
29.6 a year.
Farticulates 1,154 Other gases:
F-
.67 Pr,ncipally from UFc production, enrichment, and reprocessing.
Concentration within range of state standards - below level that has effects on human health.
hcl
.014 Liquids.
50..
- 9. 9 From enrichment, fuel fabrication, NO$
25.8 and reprocessing steps.
Com-Fluorice 12.9 ponents that constitute a poten-Ca++.
5.4 tial for adverse environmental C1' 8.5 effect are present in dilute con-Na 12.1 centrations and receive additional 1 0 8 ~p o,,
5.7-A-15
February 1979 O
Table 5.7-A-1 (Continued)
Maximum effect per annual fuel ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Total requirement or reference reactor year of model 1,000 MWe LWR Effluents - Chemical (MT)_ (cont'd):
NH 10.0 dilution by receiving bodies of 3
.4 water to levels below permissible Fe standards.
The constituents that require dilution and the
'ow of dilution water are:
NH - 600 cfs.
3 NO - 26 cfs.
3 Fluoride - 70 cfs.
Tailings solutions (thousands of MT) m ;0 From mills only - no significant effluents to environment.
Solids 91,000 Principally from mills - no signif-icant effluents to environment.
Effluents - Radiological (curies):
Gases (including entrainment):
Rn-222 Presently under reconsideration by the Commission.
.02 Th-230
.02 Uranium
.034 Tritium (thousands) 18.1 C-14 24 Kr-85 (thousands) 400
.14 Principally from fuel reprocessing Ru-106 1-129
- 1. 3 plants.
.83 Fission products and transuranics
.203 g] j 5.7-A-16
February 1979 Table 5.7-A-1 (Continued)
Maximum effect r2r annual fuel ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Total requirement or reference reactor year of model 1,000 MWe LWR Effluents - Radiological (curies) (cont'd.)
Liquids:
Uranium and daughters 2.1 Principally from milling - included in tailings liquor and returned to ground - no effluents; therefore, no effect on environment.
.0034 From ufo production.
.0015 Th-234
.01 From fuel fabrication plants - con-centration 10 percent of 10 CFR 20 for total processing 26 annual fuel requirements for model LWR.
-6 Fission and activation products 5.9 x 10 Solids (buried on site,;
Other than high level (shallow) 11,300 9,100 Ci comes from low level reactor wastes and 1,500 Ci comes from reactor decontamination and decom-missioning - buried at land burial facilities.
600 Ci comes from mills - included in tailings returned to ground s 60 Ci comes from conversion and spent fuel storage.
No significant effluent to the environment.
TRU and HLW (deep) 1.1 x 107 Buried at Federal Repository.
108 Tu, c,
5.7-A-17
February 1979 O
Table 5.7-A-1 (Continued)
Maximum effect per annual fuel ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Total requirement or reference reactor year of model 1,000 MWe LWR Effluents - Radiological (curies) (cont'd.)
Effluents - thermal (billions of British thermal units) 4,063
< 5 percent of model 1,000 MWe LWR.
Transportation (person-rem):
Exposure of workers and general public 2.5 Occupational exposure (person-rem).
22.6 From reprocessing and waste management.
1In some cases where no entry appears it is clear from the background documents that the matter was addressed and that, in effect, the Table should be read as if 3 specific zero entry had been made.
However, there are other areas that are not addressed at all in the Table. Table S-3 does not include health effects from the effluents described in the Table, or estimates of releases of Radon-222 from the uranium fuel cycle.
These issues which are not addressed at all by the Table may be the subject of litigation in the individual licensing procedures.
Data supporting this table are given in the " Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle," WASH-1248, April 1974; the " Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portion of the LWR Fuel Cycle," NUREG-0116 (Supp. 1 to WASH-1248); and the " Discussion of Comments Regarding the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle," NUREG-0216 (Supp. 2 to WASH-1248). The contributions from rcorocessing, waste management and transportation of wastes are maximized for eit. r of the two fuel cycles (uranium only and no recycle).
The contribution from transportation excludes transportation of cold fuel to a reactor and of irradiated fuel and radioactive wastes from a reactor which are considered in Table S-4 of g 51.20(g). The con-tributiens from the other steps of the fuel cycle are given in columns A-E of
}Thecontributionstotemporarilycommittedlandfromreprocessingarenotpro-able S-3A of WASH-1248.
rated over 30 years, since the cc nplete temporary impact accrues regardless of whether the plant services one reactor for one year or 57 reactors for 30 years.
3Estimated effluents based upon combustion of equivalent coal for power generation.
41.2 percent from natural gas use and process.
e h,0 5.7-A-18
February 1979 r
SPENT FUEL _
FUEL A
LIRii-JTER FCWER FE ACTORS UO FUEL p
FAERICATION ba Ei,RICHED tT 6 4
ENRIChvENT V
A tiATURAL UF 6 A
FECERAL WSTE REPOSITORY CONVERSICN TO UF 6 A
U0 3g LM NILM MI'iES AND MILLS Figure >5.7-A-1.
The Uranium Fuel Cycle:
flo-Recycle Option 5.7-A-19 1 0 8
<2 0. m:.
February 1979 9
1 i;Uir l o! L FL;E L 1000 MWe LIGHT-WATER PCWER PEAETCRS l
RE; OCESSING UOg FUEL FAE,1CATICN b
I ENRICHED UF6 ara <
E N R I C ri"E N T I
I' nS U'6 HICH-L E'iEL 'r A5TES.
b T;AN5Ur>NIC WASTES, ND PLUTCNIUM NATURAL UF6 l
CONVERSION TO UF6 A
FEDERAL WASTE REPOSITGRY U038 URA'ilUM MINES & MILLI Figure 5.7-A-2.
The Uranium Fuel Cycle:
Uranium-Only Recycle Option
\\ CS u
5.7-A-20