ML19242B905
| ML19242B905 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/30/1977 |
| From: | Gotchy R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19242B898 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-PROJ-M-4 NUREG-0332, NUREG-0332-DRFT, NUREG-332, NUREG-332-1, NUREG-332-DRFT, NUDOCS 7908090522 | |
| Download: ML19242B905 (29) | |
Text
...
.. _...' ~"
, ~.
f '- _. ~
~' J.
.t
- .. a.. >
~
l- :.
e
.1 N
.~
[g, NU R EG-0332 y...-
g:s r#
@.Ti!
a
. 7.=. : i
- .s -
r..
t3M.I l#
Eh HEALTH EFFECTS ATTRIBUTABLE be TO COAL AND NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE n
e :w ALTERNATIVES y '.:.4
'.s; b
Draft h.$
^@"t Wst J.]i'4
?k 4 ~-
^dsi' R. L. Gotchy
.m
- f.
+-
'{
.i
.jIi.
Manuscript Completed: September 1977
[.?
Date Published: September 1977
.V
.,1r*
Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Ct k 0 0 S 05~}2r xi a
l
-[/'
~.L [
^
~.
^
..v._ 4_ *;.
~_
J
[
^
i ABSTRACT Estimates of mortality and morbidity are presented based on present-day knowledge of health effects resulting from current component designs and operations of the fuel cycles, and anticipated emission rates and occupational exposure for the various fuel cycle facilities expected to go into operacion ~in aporoximately the 1975-1985 period.
It was concluded that, although there are large uncertainties in the estimates of potential health effects, the coal fuel cycle alternative has a j
greater health impact on man than the uranium fuel cycle. However, i
t.se increased risk of health effects for either fuel cycle represents i
a very small incremental risk to the average individual in the public.
t 1
i i:
I s
i t
a i
i f
4 4
l s
ni C U C}
[J Ju<
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to thank the numerous members of the Nuclear Regulatory Connission (NRC) Staff who provided support and assistance in preparing this report.
In particular, the author would like to thank Lawrence Chandler for his tireless and invaluable assistance, and Jacqueline Lynch and Mark Doyle for their selfless help in assembling the data base used in preparing this report.
9 4
e ii n r -}
} b;'; )
ia i
s
,N 1
}
TABLE OF CONTENTS 3
Page I.
INTRODUCTION 1
II. RESULTS OF THE HEALTH EFFECT ASSESSMENTS 3
A.
Health Effects of the Uranium Fuel Cycle 5
- i B.
Health Effects of the Coal Fuel l
Cycle 7
C.
Other Considerations 10 1
III.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS 13 j
i i
APPENDIX A Some Important Assumptions Affecting the Fuel Cycle Health Effects Evaluations 15 ii TABLES 17 REFERENCES 23 g
iti f '3 C) h$ J 3,
$4:O Aj I.
INTRODUCTICN 1
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires the Federal Government to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to assure, 4
among other things, that the Nation may:
Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of j
the environment for succeeding generations.
1 Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, and productive and pleasing surroundings.
t Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health ar.d safety, or other j
undesirable and unintended consequences.
ej Further, with respect to major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, Section 102(2)(c) of the NEPA calls for consideration of, among other things:
k
)
The environmental impact of the proposed action.
I Alternatives to the proposed action.
I j
As a result of recent decisions by the Administration regarding the Nation's energy policy, it is clear that the major alternative to nuclear power for meeting the Nation's baseload electrical needs for the rest of this century is coal power.
MRC environmental statements have discussed the impacts of the coal fuel cycle in terns of econcmics, and generically address those impacts in terms of land and water use. However, on January 25, 1977, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board rendered a decision wnich stated:
A disproportionately large part of the analyses comparing the and nuclear fuel cycles is focused on costs rather than environ-mental considerations.
While the effect on human and animal life of the emissions from the proposed nuclear plant are discussed in detail, there is no corresponding discussion with respect to the postulated coal plant.
No mention is made of the environmental effects of the coal fuel cycl e.
[3 'g,
). J,._
Although exact identity in treatment with respect to every aspect of environmental comparison of alternatives may not be required, this kind of comparison goes to the heart of NRC's duty under NEPA, where coal and nuclear power are shown to be the only two feasible alternatives.
(Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units lA, 2A, 1B, 28), ALAB-367, 5 NRC 92).
As a result of the Hartsville decision, the NRC staff prepared testimony for ongoing hearings, and similar input for current environmental statements where such considerations were lacking.
That testimony, which has now been presented in numerous public
),
hearings, is the basis for this draft NUREG report.
Following receipt of connents from Federal and State agencies, industry, and concerned members of the public, and review of a forthcoming report by the National Research Council Comittee (National Academy of Sciences) on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, the NRC staff will prepare a final NUREG report, incorporating as many of the comments and new NAS data as appropriate.
D s'
[ ', ' l L"O
II. RESULTS CF THE HEALTH EFFECTS ASSESSMENTS In making these assessments, the entire fuel cycle rather than just t
I the pcwer-generation phase was considered in order to compare the total impacts of each cycle. For coal, the cycle consists of mining, processing, fuel transportation, power generation, and waste disposal.
The nuclear fuel cycle includes mining, milling, uranium enrichment, fuel preparation, fuel transportation, power generation, irradiated fuel transportation j
and reprocessing *,' and waste disposal.
In preparing this assessment it has been recognized that there are large uncertainties due to the lack of an adequate data base in certain areas of each fuel cycle alternative. The overall uncertainty in the i
nuclear fuel cycle is probably about an order of magnitude, while there may be as much as two orders of magnitude uncertainty in the assessments of the coal fuel cycle based on the range of published values.
The much greater uncertainty associated with the coal fuel cycle results from the relatively sparse and equivocal data regarding cause effect relationships for most of the principal pollutants in the coal fuel cycle, and the effect of Federal laws on future perfomance of coal fired power plants, mine safety, and culm bcnk stabilization.
Health effects, as it is used here, is intended to mean excess ** mortality, morbidity (disease and illness) and injury among occupational workers and the general public. The most recent and detailed assessments of health effects of the coal fuel cycle have been prepared by the Brookhaven (Ref s.1,2,3,4) and Argonne (Refs. 5,6) National Laboratories. The most ccmplete and recent assessment of the radiological healtn effects of the uranium fuel cycle for normal operations was prepared for the " Final Generic Enviramental Statement on the Use of Recycle Plutonium in Mixed 0xide Fuel in Light Water Cooled Reactors (GESMO I) (Ref. 7)."
Al trcugn the Administrations's ar nunced energy policy opposes the imple-mentation of commercial fuel reprocessing technology at this time, Table S-3 (10 CFR Part 51) assumes reprocessing.
This tends to upper-bcuna the radiological impacts since the recycle of uranium after repro-cessir.g results in more radiological effects than no recycle of uranium frca i rradiated fuel.
- " Excess' is used here to mean effects occuring at a higher than normal ra te.
In the case of death it is used synonymously with premature mortality.
- Consistent with the Connission's announced intention to reexamine the rule from time to time to accomodate new information, (39 F.R.14188, April 22,1974, and 42 F.R.13803, March 14,1977), staff studies are underway to determine what areas, in addition to waste management and reorocessing, may require updating in Table S-3 (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Occket No. RM 50-3, Environmental Effects of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, 41, F.R. 45849, October 18, 1976). c 0 ;/
JL t;O
Hcwever, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51.20(c), the current impact of the uranium fuel cycle (excluding reactors and mines) is defined by the March 14,1977 revision of Table S-3,10 CFR Part 51.***
Using the Table S-3 effluents and the models developed for GESMO I, it was possible to estimate the impact of the uranium fuel cycle on the general public for routine operations. These values are shcwn in Tables 1 and 2, and some critical assumptions related to estimates are shcwn in Appendix A.
Since Table S-3 excludes radon releases from uranium mines, tha heal th effects of such releases on the general public are not included in Tables I and 2.
The effects of such releases would result in some small increases in the total risks of mortality and morbidity as discussed below under "Other Considerations."
In addition, Table S-3 does not generically address releases for light water cooled pcwer reactors. The estimated total body population dose ccmmitments for both occupational workers and the general public were taken from GESMO I (U recycle only option)*.
In addition, the occupational dose commi tments to workers in uranium mines, mills, uranium hexaficaride plants, uranium fuel plants and uranium enrichment plants were taken from GESMO I, since they are not considered in Table S-3.
However, these dose ccmmitments are comparable to those which would result from the radiological releases in NUREG-0216, which provides background support for Table S-3.
The dose ccmmitments to the public and occupational workers in the March 1977 Table S-3 were used f or estimating health effects from the repro-cessing ano waste management aspects of the uranium fuel cycle.
The risk estimators used to estimate health effects from radiation dose ccamit-ments were taken frcm GESMO I and WASH-1400 (Ref. 8).
The impact of accidents in fuel cycle facilities (Ref. 9) and reactors (Ref. 8) generally does not markedly increase the impact of normal operations for the uranium fuel cycle, but has been included in this assesse:at for c cmpl e tenes s.
No comparable analysis of health effects resulting frcm accidents in coal-fired plants is available at this time.
Estimates of death, disease and injury frcm non-radiological causes for the uranium fuel cycle are from the Brockhaven (Refs.1,2,3) evaluations, with the exception of transportation accident related deaths and injuries, which were taken frca Table S-4,10 CFR Part 51. The results cf these assessments are shcwn in Tables 1 and 2.
It should be noted that there are two lines under the nuclear fuel cycle:
the first assumes all of the electricity used within the uranium fuel cycle is generated by nuclear pcwer (i.e., all nuclear economy); the second line assumes, as shcwn in Table S-3, "See footnote
- on page 1. qr 7 f (>
.}
j e
JU/
.. - _a
(10 CFR Part 51), that 100% of the electricity used within the nuclear fuel cycle ccmes from coal power. This is equivalent to a 45 MWe coal-fired plant, or 4.5% of the power produced.
A.
Heal th Ef fects of The Uranium Fuel Cycle Currently the NRC estimates that the excess deaths per 0.8 gigawatt-year electric (GWy(e)) (i.e., per 1,000 MWe power plant operating at 80% of capacity for one year) will be about 0.47 for an all nuclear economy. This is probaoly somewhat high due to the conservatism
- required in evaluations of generic plants and sites. However, it is not greatly different from estimates by others such as Comar and Sagan (Ref.10) (0.11 to 1.0), Hamilton (Ref.1) (0.7 to 1.6), and Rose et al (Ref.11) (0.50). The uncertainty in the estimate is abcut an order of magnitude.** If, as shown in Table S-3,100% of the electrical power used by the uranium fuel cycle ccmes f rom coal-fired power plants, the NRC would estimate there would be about 1.1 to 5.4 excess deaths per 0.8 GWy(e). Of this total, about 0.63 to 4.9 excess deaths per 0.8 GWy(e) would be attributable to coal power.
The uncertainty in the estimate is about one order of magnitude.
The total number of injuries and diseases which might occur among workers and the entire U.S. population as a result of nonnal operations arid acci-dents in the uranium fuel cycle was estimated to be about 14 per 0.8 GWy(e) for an all nuclear economy.
Injuries among uranium miners from accidents such as falls, cave-ins and explosions account for 10 of the 14 cases (see Table 2).
If 100% of the electrical power used by the uranium fuel cycle comes from coal-fired power plants, the NRC would estimate there would be about 17-24 injuries and diseases per 0.8 GWy(e). Of this total, about 3 to 10 excess effects per 0.8 GWy(e) would be attributable to coal pcwer (See Table 2a). The uncertainty in the estimate is also about one order of magnitude.
Although anticipated somatic *** effects associated with normal releases of radioactive effluents from the ru:;1 ear fuel cycle are limited to potential cancers and leukemias, for the h'per doses associated with serious nuclear accidents there is some small risk of various non-fatal somatic effects
( see footnote c, Table 2).
At this time only light water cooled power reactors (Ref. 8) have been thoroughly evaluated. However, it should
- Conservative is used here to mean that assumptions regarding atmospheric dispersion, deposition of particulates, bicaccumulation, and so forth generally result in estimates of impact that are typically " upper bound" estimates, and in most cases, the estimates would be lower for real pl an ts.
" " Order of magnitude" uncertainty means the estimate could be as much as ten times higher or ten times lower.
'" Heal th ef fects of a non-reproductive nature (i.e.; non-genetic).
~5-509 258
De noted that pcwer reactors probably account for most of the potential health effects associated with nuclear accidents in the uranium fuel cycle.
This results from the fact that they represent 80 percent of all the fuel cycle facilities expected to be operating for the balance of this century (Ref. 7) and the majority of occupationally exposed individuals.
In addition, although the procability of serious accidents is extremely small, if one were to occur, the heal th ef fects would be larger than for any other type of fuel cycle facili ty.
Serious nuclear accidents in power reactors might also contri-bute about 0.04 excess deaths per 0.8 GWy(e).
There is soce controversy over the procabilities of occurrence of serious accidents, such as discussed in WASH-1400 (Ref. 8). However, even if the risks were, for example, twenty times greater than estimated in WASH-1400, the excess mortality for the uranium fuel cycle would only increase from 0.47 to 0.87 per 0.8 GWy(e).
Transportation related accidents are estimated to contribute about 0.01 excess deaths per 0.8 GWY(e) (see Table la, footnote d).
Early and latent non-fatal somatic effects which might be expected after high radiation dose effects include a variety of effects (see footnote c, Table 2).
It is possible that non-fatal somatic effects could be an order of magnitude greater tnan excess deaths resulting frcm accidents (Ref. 8), thus, the total number per 0.8 GWy(e) would be about 0.4 This accounts for about one-t 'ird of the morbidity sncwn for the general public and an all nuclear econcmy in Table 2. The number of non-fatal thyroid cancers (5-10% mortality rate) and benign thyroid nodules would be abcut 0.6 per 0.8 GWy(e) from routine releases to the puolic and occupational exposures (primarily external irradiation),
while otner non-f atal cancers would be less than or equal in number to fatal cancers (about 0.2 per 0.8 GWy(e)) (see footnote c, Table 2 and footnotes **
and ***, Table 2a).
It is believea (Refs. 6,12) that genetically related diseases
- and abnor-malities in the descendants of workers and the general public frcm both normal oper3tions and accidents would be perhaps twice the number of excess deaths due to cancer frcm total body irradiation; this could add another 0.3 health ef fects per 0.8 GWy(e) among workers and 0.1-0.2 health effects per 0.8 GWy(e) among the general public (see footnote c, Table 2).
In assessing the impact of coal pcwer used in the uranium fuel cycle, Table S-3 was the basis for the assumption that 100% of the electricity used in the uranium fuel cycle, primarily for uranium enrichment and reactor
" Includes ciseases such as cystic fibrosis, hemophelia, certain anemias, and congenital abnormalities such as mental retardation, short-limbed dwarfism and extra digits.
(See footnote c, Table 2),
$'99 ro D,
mme
4 operation, came from coal fired plant. Adding 4.5% of the health effects frcm the coal fuel cycle per 0.8GWy(e) significar1tly increases the health ef fects for the uranium fuel cycle per 0.8 GWy(e), as shown on the second lines of Tables 1 and 2.
3.
Health Effects of The Coal Fuel Cycle Current estimates of mortality and morbidity resulting frcm the coal fuel cycle are quite uncertain; this is the principal reason for the nice range of values reported in the literature. These uncertainties, as discussed in more detail below, result frcm the limited number of epidemiological studies and differences in interpretation of the results of such studies. There is additional uncertainty regarding the effet.ts of new Feaeral laws on coal cycle facilities in the next decade.
Current estimates of excess deaths for the entire coal cycle range from 15 to 120 per 0.8 GWy(e), while disease and injury estimates range from 57 to 210 per 0.8 GWy(e).
In the case of occupational effects, there is considerable uncertainty e
I because of anticipated reductions in health effects resulting from the implementation of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 (PL 91-173).
The provisions of this act should result in significant improvement of the underground work environment, particularly regaraing l
coal dust. Coal dust is both a cause of underground explosions and fires, and a cause of coal workers pneumoceniosis (CWP), commonly called black lung disease, and subsequent progressive massive fibrosis (PMF) (Refs.1,5).
j In addition, more coal in the, ears ahead is expected to be produced by strip mining which results in icwer mortality rates (Ref.1). As a result, the frequencies of both types of events is anticipated to decline in the years ahead, on a per GWy(e) basis. On the other hand, statistics show new coal miners experience higher mortality and injury rates than experi-enced miners (Ref. 5).
As a result of expected increases in coal production, in influx of inexperienced miners will tend to increase the mortality and injury rates for miners as a group.
In tne case of the general public', there is also consideraole uncertainty in the estimation of health effects. For example, althcugh there are estimates of health ef fects related to burning culm banks (waste banks frcm coal screening), recent efforts by mine operators have greatly reduced such fires, and future processing activities are expected to avoid fires as a result of new methods of stabilizing such banks to prevent slides.
( R e f. 13 ). Current estimates of excess deaths in the public from sul-fates frcm such fires range from 1 to 10 per 0.8 GWy(e) (see footnote 9,
- In tne case of coal plant effluents, considerations of health effects was limited to the population within 80 km of such plants.
ci;-
a JG l
~U Table 1).
Power generation is estimated to result in 3 to 100 excess deaths per 0.8 GWy(e) (see footnote g, Table 1), while excess morbidity ranges frcm about 10-100 per 0.8 GWy(e) (see footnote g, Table 2).
The uncertainties are even greater in the power generation phase of the coal cycle, where estimates of health effects range over several orders of magnitude. (Ref.10) This is largely due to the lack of a reliable data base for predicting health effects from the various pollutants emitted from coal plants, and the-effect of the EPA New Source Performance Standards for coal plants regarding particulate and sulfur enissions in future years on a long-term basis. There is some uncertainty as to whether these stand-ards can be met in large coal-fired power plants over the life of the plant.
The major pollutants emitted include:
1.
Particulates: Contain large amounts of toxic trace metals in respir-able particle size (Ref.14) such as arsenic, antimony, cadmium, lead, selenium, manganese, and thallium, (Ref. 5) significant quantities of berylium, chromium, nickel, titanium, zinc, molybdenum, and cobalt (Ref.15), and traces of radium-226, 228 and thorium-228, 232. (Ref.
16).
2.
Hydrocarbons:
Includes very potent carcinogens (cancer causing substances) such as benzo (a) pyrene.
3.
Sulfur oxides 4.
Nitrogen oxides 5.
Other gases:
Includes ozone, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, mercury vapor, and radon-222.
Of the preceeding list of pollutants, there are no well established epide-miologic cause-effect relationships which can be used to accurately estimate total health effects either from acute exposures during air pollution episodes or from chronic long-term exposures.
Although definitive cause-effect relationships are lacking, tentative cause-ef fect relationships for sulfur emissions have been used by numerous groups to estimate health effects from sulfur enissions from coal plants.
They are described by the National Academy of Sciences in a recent report to the U.S. Senate. (Ref.17) The most widely quoted studies are those by Lave and Seskin (Ref.18), Winkelstein et al (Ref.19), and an unpub-lished study by EPA which was used in the NAS/NRC study for the U.S. Senate (1975). ( R e f. 17 ) 5e9 2u1
l l
In general, the effects range frcm excess deaths frcm cardiovascular j
failure and increases in asthma attacks during severe air pollution g
to excess respiratory disease from long-term chronic exposures. Most of the acute deaths are among the elderly and the severely ill, while j
moroidity frcm long-term exposure also includes children. Al though widely accepted cause-effect relationships were not derived from acute air pollution episodes in London (1952) (Ref. 20), Donora, Pennsylvania (1948), (Ref. 21), and New York (Ref. 22), these studies definitely support the conclusions regarding excess death and disease associated w th emissions from ccmbustion of coal.
4 There are no estimates of possible long-term carcinogenic effects by sulfur oxides or associated pollutants.
In addition, the recently com-pleted (1976)* large scale EPA Contiunity Health and Environmental Surveil-lance System (CHESS) study has failed to provide any new or definitive cause-effect relationships for any of the pollutants frcm coal-fired
}
plants which can be used to provide better estimates of health effects j
than are currently available (see for example Ref. 23).
Assuming that new coal-fired plants in the 1980's can meet EPA New Source Performance Standards (which could require on the order of 99% particulate removal, and 90% sulfur removal for high sulfur coal), and other Federal 1aws regarding mine safety and culm bank stabilization, the number of deaths snould be reduced. Thus, current estimates of 15 to 120 per 0.8 GWy(e), due largely to sulfates from combustion coal may be reduced by about nalf to 8 to 60 per 0.8 GWy(e).
Recently, Argonne National Laboratory has developed a predictive model for total deatns frcm emission of benzo (a) pyrene, which indicates about 1 to 4 deaths per 0.8 GWy(e) depending on use of conventional ccmbustion or fluidized bed combustion. (Ref. 6) Such effects, while greater than the expected deaths from the entire uranium fuel cycle (all nuclear economy), do not significantly change the total impact of the coal fuel cycle nd were not included in the effects listed in Table 1.
Probably the most reliable estimates of deaths associated with the coal fuel cycle are those associated with transporation accidents.
Since a 1000 MWe coal-fired plant consumes about 3 million tons of coal per year,
- Int s $22 million study attempted to correlate air pollution data collected frcm six U.S. cities with a variety of health prcblems.
-g-9 7
r o c)
LJL JG
there are literally thousands of carloads of coal being transported by rail from mines to plants.
It has been estimated that about one out of every 10 trains in the U.S. is a coal train going to a coal-fired power pl an t. (Ref. 24) These trains are estimated to travel an average distance of about 300 miles from the mines to the plants. (Ref.13) As a result, there are about 1.2 deaths per 0.8 GWy(e)among workers and the general public.
Further, since most of these deaths occur at railroad crossings, the numbers can be expected to increase as more automobiles are operated and driven j
greater distances, and as rail transportation distances increase when hauling low sulfur western coals to eastern markets.
Sickness among coal miners and the general public accounts for most of the non-fatal occurrences in the coal fuel cycle, with most of the remainder due to injuries among coal miners. As a result of implementation of Federal laws, it is probable that future rates among underground miners will be substantially reduced.
It is not unreasonable to assume that the current estimates of about 57 to 210 cases of sickness and injury among workers and the general public could be reduced in the years ahead, since occupa-tional sickness and injury currently account for about half of the total non-f atal health ef fects.
The Brookhaven estimates, which fann the basis of this testimony, show a range of uncertainty of about one order of magnitude. They are well within the range of values reported in the literature which range over about two orders of magnitude for the coal fuel cycle.
C.
Other Considerations Although the Reactor Safety Study (Ref. 8) has helped to provide a per-spective of the risk of mortality or morbidity frcm potential power reactor accidents ( the current experience for serious accidents is zero), there is the additional prcblem associated with individual perception of risk.
Thus, while the Reactor Safety Study concluded that, "All non-nuclear acci-dents examined in this study, including fires, explosions, toxic chemical releases, dam failures, airplane crashes, earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes, are much more likely to occur and can have consc quences compar-able to, or larger than, those of nuclear accidents," thert will continue to be uncertainty associated with such evaluations. Furthermore, there may be a problem of public acceptance of potential accidents, since the consequences can be severe.
In fact, it appears that scme people (Ref.
- 25) more readily accept, for example, having 55,000 people actually killed each year in violent highway accidents, one or two at a time, than would consider acceptable the unlikely occurrence of perhaps several thousand possible deaths from a single catastrophic accident during their lifetime. _
r g (, Q
(_ O '
Ja'
. AJ
I As noted in footnote 5 to the March 1977 revision of Table S-3 (10 CFR Part 51), the GESMO I radon-222 release increases from 74.5 Ci to about 4,800 Ci when releases from mines are included. This increase would result in a small increase in the total number of excess deaths shown in Table 1, although the moratality per 0.8 GWy(e) for the general public would increi se j
by about 301,.
g With regard to the coal fuel cycle, it is a well established fact that the use of coal results in numerous other costs to society which have not yet been adequately quantified. These include:
1.
The short and long-term impacts of sulfur and nitrogen oxides on biota and materials. Acid rain, for example, is known to be severely damaging to terrestrial and aquatic habitats.
Reference 5 provides a detailed discussion of these and other effects of sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions. However, as more coal plants ccme on line, these ef fects can be expected to expand to surrounding areas.
2.
Damage of materials, such as paints, building surfaces, statuary, and metals, frcm sulfur oxides, ozone and nitrogen oxide emissions.
A 1976 review of such effects indicates that the costs could range into billions of dollars per year in the U.S. alone.
(Ref. 26) 3.
Contamination of soil and vegetation to toxic levels by such mechanisms as deposition and bioaccumulation of trace elements present in gaseous emi ssi ons.
1 Destruction of entire ecosystems in streams and rivers by acid mine drainage, and the potential for public health effects from dcwnstream use of such water for domestic or agricultural purposes.
5.
In adcition to the occurrence of excess mortalities, injuries, and morbidities, the costs to society in terms of medical costs, lost 3
productivity, and other social losses represent a significant consid-I eration which has not been completely evaluated at this time.
Some recent studies have attempted to deal with these extremely complex l
issues, (Refs. 27,28) and concluded social costs from one coal fired plant may currently be about $50 million per year, not considering the rest of the costs for the coal fuel cycle. g g
c.e P'
- ) G I
6.
The possibility of the so-called " Greenhouse Effect;" this phenomenon is expected by scme (Ref. 29) to result scmetime early in the next century at the present and future anticipated production rates of carbon dioxide frcm the combustion of fossil fuels. Since each 1000 MWe coal plant produces about 7.5 to 10.5 million tons of carbon dioxice per year (Ref.1) it is believed these emissions from hundreds of fossil fuel fired pcwer plants may result in greater releases of carbon dioxide than the atmosphere and oceans can cycle As a resul t, the carbon dioxide concentrations would be expected to increase in the a tmosonere. Since carbon dioxide strongly absorbs int-ared, it is p.stulated that the mean atmospheric temperature will r.se several cegrees. This may cause all or part of the polar ice caps to melt resulting in inundation of many inhabited areas of the world.
At the same time drought would be expected to prevail in many of the agricul-tural areas of the temperate zones resulting in huge crop losses.
It is possible that the particulates emitted by fossil plants will counter-act some of the Greenhouse Effect by reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface of the earth.
However, another effect from carbon dioxide released by coal combustion occurs since coal has essentially no carbon-14.
The stable carbon in ef fect dilutes the carbon-14 in the biosphere, resulting in a reduction in the radiological impact of both naturally occuring and man-made carbon-14 7.
An additional consideration which has not been evaluated for the coal cycle is the radiological impact of mining and burning coal. Of interest is the release of radon-222 from the decay of radium-226 in coal. Not only is the radon released during mining and combustion, but it will continue to emanate frcm flyash for millions of years after the coal has been burned. While Pohl (Ref. 30) has shown that this is not a problem with scme eastern coal (generally of high sulfur content but with 1-3 ppm uranium content), the average uranium and radium content of scme reserves of low sulfur western coal is about 50 times higher than most eastern coal (Refs. 31,32). Combus:'an of the coal and c is-posal of the remaining ash leads to approximately the same health (f fects calculated by Pohl frca raden-222 emissions as uranium mill tailings piles per GWy(e).
These releases would account less than 0.01 excess deaths per 0.8 GWy(e) frca fuel cycle activities during the rest of this century.
As a result, such releases do not significantly affect the conclusions reached with regard to a comparison of the two alternative fuel cycles. <
b cg Ju
In addition, some believe (Ref. 33) that when the physical and bio-logical properties of the radium released from conventional coal pcwered plants burning coal (with 1-2 ppm uranium-238 and Th-232) are considered, such plants discharge relatively greater quantities of radioactive materials into the atmosphere than nuclear powered plants of ccmparable size.
EPA has estimated radiation doses from coal and nuclear powered plants of early designs and reached similar con-clusions (Ref.16). Even if the health effects from radioactivity released by the coal fuel cycle are greater than the health effects from radioactivity released in the nuclear fuel cycle, the total health effects frca coal would not change significantly since these effects would be only a small parcentage of the total health effects from the coal cycle.
III.
SUMMARY
AND CCNCLUSIONS For the reasons discussed above, i t is extremely difficult to provide pre-cise quantitative values for excess mortality and morbidity, particularly for the coal fuel cycle.
Nevertheless, estimates of mortality and morbidity have been prepared based on present day knowledge of health effects, and present day plant design and anticipated emission rates, occupational experience and other data. These are summarized in Tables 1 and 2, with scme important assvaptions inherent in the calculations of health effects listed in Appendix A.
While future technological improvements in both fuel cycles may result in significant reductions in health effects, based on current estimates for present day technology, it must be concluded that the nuclear fuel cycle is considerably less harmful to man than the coal fuel cycle.
( Re f s. 1,2,3, 4,5,10,11,27,28,33,34,35,36) As shown in Taoles 1 and 2, the coal fuel cycle alternative may be more harmful to man by factors of 4 to 260 depending on the effect beinc considered, for an all nuclear economy, or factors of 3 to 22 with the assumption that all of the electricity used by the uranium fuel cycle ccmes from coal powered plants.
It should be noted that although there are large uncertainties in the estimates of most of the potential health effects of the coal cycle, the impact of transportation of coal is based on firn statistics; this impact alone is creater than the conservative estimates of health effects for the entire uranium fuel cycle (all nuclear economy), and can reasonably be expected to worsen as more coal is shipped over greater distances.
In the case where coal generated electricity is used in the nuclear fuel cycle, primarily for uranium enrichment and auxiliary reactor systems, the impact of the coal power accounts for essentially all of the impact of the uranium fuel cycle, I
g gt) p i i
However, lest the results of this analysis be misunderstood, it should be emphasized that the increased risk of health effects for either fuel cycle represents a very small incremental risk to the average individual in the public.
For example, Comar and Sagan (Ref.10) have shown that such increases in risk of health effects represent minute increases in the. normal excectation of mortality frcm other causes.
A more comprehensive assessment of these two alternatives and others is anticipated from the National Research Council Connittee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems in 1977 (Ref. 37). This study may 1
assist substantially in reducing much of the uncertainty in the analysis presented.
^l
. '-)
b
_)4_
r
,o A
1 g
APPENDIX A Scme Important Assumptions Affecting the Fuel Cycle Health Effects Evaluations:
1.
The Uranium Fuel Cycle (Ref. 7) a.
For mine ~nd mill emissions it was assumed there was a population censi ty om 7.5 persons /sq.mi. in the west, to 160 persons /sq.mi.
in the east, all uniformly distributed.
For all other facilities, assumed 60 persons /sq.mi. density.*
b.
Used "5cx" atmospheric dispersion model with vertical dispersion limited to 1,000 m, 2 m/sec windspeed, and 1 cm/sec deposition velocity for particulates.
c.
Calcu:ated the dose commitment frcm one year of operation for each type of fuel cycle facility. This dose commitment represents the sum of the 50 year dose commitments frcm the year of operation and each of the subsequent 39 years (i.e., a 40 year environmental dose commitment).
The total impact of the fuel cycle to the U.S. population for the years 1975-2000 was calculated using the needs for all types of facilities in order to meet current projections of power plants.
d.
Radioactive materials were not considered to be removed from food chains except by radioactive decay. Only in the case of carbon-14 was an environmental sink assumed to be acting upon biological avail aDil i ty.
e.
Krypton-95 and caroon-14 not removed from the plume in the U.S. was assumed to mix uniformly in the world's atmosphere. Tritium i s assumed to be mixed uniformly in the world's circulating water volume af ter depletion of the plume on its first pass over the U.S.
f.
Resuspension of deposited particulates was considered.
g.
Bicaccumulation of radioactivity in food chains was considered (generally upper bound estimates).
h..
Assumed an 80*. capaci ty f actor.
2.
The Coal Fuel Cycle (Refs.1,2,3)
Since the major impact of the coal fuel cycle resul ts from pcwer plant emissions, only those critical assumptions will be discussec:
- It shoulc De noted that most of the calculated health effects would occur outsice the 80 km radius of the plant.
The mortality rate for the U.S.
population is about 2,000,000 per,y_ ear from all causes. O E in r/
9'd Jb^
/_ C
APPENDIX A (continued) a.
Used actual population distributions within 80 km of several nuclear plant sites; the average population was 3.8 million people.*
b.
Used actual meteorology data from the same plants to calculate inhalation exposures to sulfates out to 80 km.
c.
Assumed a 1,000 foot stack for emissions, d.
Assumed use of 3% sulfur coal with 12% ash and 12 thousand BTU per lb (eastern coal) for an upper bound estimate of health effects; assumed 0.4% sulfur coal with 3% ash and 12 thousand BTU per ib (eastern coal) for a lower bound estimate (approximately the same sulfur emission as would result from use of high sulfur coal wi.h flue gas desul furization).
e.
'ssumed 99% particulate removal from plant emissions.
f.
Assumed a 10% per hour oxidation rate for conversion of sulfur oxides to sulfates.
g.
The dose-response relationships of Lave and Seskin (Ref.18),
Winklestein et al (Ref.19) and others(as discussed in Refs.1,2,3) were used to calculate excess mortality and morbidity; adjustments were made for fractions of sulfates in the total suspended par-ti cul ates.
h.
Resuspension of deposited particulates was not directly considered, al though deposition was.
- i. Assumed a 75" capacity factor.
Experiences accut 36,000 per year mortality rate from all causes.
Additional health effects from coal ccmbustion are expected to occur outside this area, but have not yet been estimated.
tj ).,
t cej jv
Table 1.
Current Energy Source Excess Mortality Summary per Year per 0.8 GWy(e)
Occupational General Public Totals Accident Disease Accident Disease Nuclear fuel Cycle (a)
(b)
(c)
(b)
(all nuclear) 0.22 0.14 0.05 0.06 0.47 (with 100% of elec-(a,d)
(b,e)
(c.f)
(g) tricity used in the 0.24-0.25 0.14-0.46 0.10 0.64-4.6 1.1-5.4 tuel cycle produced by coal power (U.S. population for nuclear ef fects-regional population for coal ef fects)
Coal Fuel Cycle (d)
(e)
(f)
(9)
(Regional Population) 0.35-0.65 0-7 1.2 13-110 15-120 Ratio of Coal to Nuclear:
32-260 (all nuclear)
(h) 14-22 (with coal power)
(a) Primarily fetal non-radiological accidents such as falls, explosions, etc.
(b) Primarily f atal radiogenic cancers and leukemias from normal operations at mines, mills, power plants and reprocessing plants.
(c) Primarily fatal transportation accidents (Table S-4,.10 CFR 51) and serious nuclear accidents, (d) Primarily f atal mining accidents such as cave-ins, fires, explosions, etc.
g (e) Primarily coal workers pneumoconiosis (CWP) and related respiratory diseases leading
.s c& ( f) to respiratory failure..
Primarily members of the general public killed at rail crossings by coal trains.
(g) Primarily respiratory failure among the sick and elderly from combustion products from te power plants, but includes deaths from waste coal bank fires.
(h) 100% of all electricity consumed by the nuclear fuel cycle produced by coal power; O
amounts to 45 MWe per 0.8 GWy(e).
l4 m
Table la (Breakdown of Table 1)
HUClEAR EXCESS MORTALITY per 0.8 GWy(e)
FUEL CYCLE OCCUPATIONAL GENERAL PUBLIC TOTAL COMPONINT ACCIDENT OISEASE ACCIDENT DISEASE
~TW-Ib c,d,)
lit,e, )
liiF RESOURCE RECOVERY 0.2 0.038
-0
+
(Mining, Orilling, etc.)
PROCESSING (f) 0.00S**
0.042 0.002 POWER GENERATION 0.01 0.061 0.04 0.011 FUEL STORAGE
~0
-O cu' TRANSPORTATION
~0
~0 0.01
~0 REPROCESSING 0.003 0.050 WASTE MANAGEMENT
~0 0.001 TOTAL 0.22 0.14 0.05 0.064 0.47 iThese ef fects are not included in Table S-3,10 CFR 51. Ref. 7 would indicate about 0.023 excess deaths per 0.8 GWy(e) due to radon-222 emission.
- The ef fects associated with these activities are not known at this time. While such ef fects dre generaily believed to be smaii, they would increase the totals in this column.
- Corrected for f actor of 10 error based on referenced value (WASit-1250)
(a) Ref.1
. (b) Ref. 7
' f,.
(c) 10 CFR 51, Table S-3 (d) 10 CFR 51, Table S-4 (e) Ref. 8 (f) Includes milling, uranium hexaflouride production, uranium enrichment, and fuel fabrication.
g
Table Ib (Breakdown of Table 1)
C0AL EXCESS MORTALITY per 0.8 GWy(e)
FUEL CYCLE OCCUPATIONAL GENERAL PUBLIC TOTAL COfiPONENT ACCIDENT DISEASE ACCIDENT DISEASE RESOURCE RECOVERY 0.3-0.6 0-7 (flining, Drilling, etc.)
PROCESSING 0.04 10 J0WER GENERATION 0.01 3-100 FUEL STORAGE TRANSPORTATION 1.2 WASTE MANAGEMENT TOTAL 0.35-0.65 0-7 1.2 13-110 15-120 ty, Ref. I c:;_
- The ef fects associated with these activities are not known at this time. While such effects are generally believed to be small, they would increase the totals in this column.
3
Table 2.
Current Energy Source Summary of Excess Horbidity and Injury per 0.8 GWy(e)
Power Plant Occupational General Public Totals MorbIility 1nlury MorbIifity
.Ig ury, Nuclear fuel Cycle (a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(dll nuCledr) 0.84 Il 0.78 0.1 14 (witty IUOL of elec-(e)
(b)
(g)
(h) tricity used by the 1.7-4.1 13-14 1.3-5.3 0.55 17-24 fuel cycle produced by coal power)
(U.S. population for nuclear effects; regional population f or coal ef f ects)
(e)
(f)
(9)
(h)
Cool fuel Cycle 20-70 17-34 10-100 10 57-210
?
(Regional population)
Ratio of Coal to Nuclear: 4.1-15 (all nuclear)
(i) 3.4-3.8 (with coal power)
ICPrisarily non-f atal cancers and thyroid nodules.
(b) Primarily non-f atal injuries astociated with accidents in uranium mines such as rock falls, explosions, etc.
(c) Primarily non-fatal cancers, thyroid nodules, genetically related diseases, and non-fatal illnesses following high radiation doses such as radiation thyroiditis, prodromai vomiting, and temporary sterility, id) Iransportation related injuries f rom Table S-4,10 CFR Parc 51.
(e) Primarily non-fatal diseases associated with coal mining such as CWP, bronchitis, emphysema,etc.
(t) Primarily injuries to coal miners f rom cave-ins, fires, explosions, etc.
(g) Primarily respiratory diseases among adults and children from sulfur emissions from coal-fired power t_n plants, but includes waste coal bank fires.
CC(h) Primarily non-f atal injuries aniong members of the general public from collisions with coal trains at railroad crossings.
a (1) 100% of all electricity consumed by the nuclear fuel cycle produced by coal power; amounts to 45 MWe per 0.8 GWy(e).
.no s
i t
t c
a e
L c
f A
i f
T 4
b e
O 1
a 9
T f
h 1
c l
u.
0 e
sn u
m
=
f eu ll s
d i
o r
n h c e
Y a
W c
R s
n U
)
1 1
i a
J b
0 0
0 0
0 t
.h c
C N
~
~
~
0
~
0 n
et 2
(
I I
e m
4 l
L m
i n a
B h
ti 0
t U
c a
P i
ss
=
f r
il L
Y n
h a s
X A
T e
tt r
431
)
R I
o e
6 1
e E
D r,
tt 4 c
- 0. =
(
N I
8 u
a r
n 0
1 y
E B
7 t
e a
s0s W
G R
n nh 0c e
e=
G O
0 a
wt s=l M
r o
= l a
us 8
u ne a
csd r
)
k s
) t roe 2
0 a
d a l
enc n
t e if ac n
e r
o or o
t nda l
e i
nc rX aanr b
p t
n y3 f ca a
c ei h
l aT Y
u r
t =
nl sa 2
R d
ad oart f
U o
l gs nt ea eo J
Y r
su ne8 acf l
N R
p eo il 2
0f n b n I
U
)
0 6
3 w
d u aX i
- 4. <
aw L
J a
1 1
2 e
t ud0 c2 T o D
A N
(
0 1
1 d
i y
l o 0
d N
N I
i ve cn=
sd =
k A
O r
ih x
= ri a
I u
tt ens eos e
Y T
o c
(
gr scrt r
T A
l a,
i e enyc B
I P
Y f
l snc i ah e D
U T
(
a el ren t ctf I
C I
4 x
sa eb a i
f B
C 0
8 e
em c
c l l l e
R O
l 0
t anl t t t r l
O i
h h s nd aaa M
R m
e caa aaai O
u hb t
fff t M
i t
l sa
- - e n
i o arf X nnn a
wt t e 0 ooe
)
1 r acX 1
NNG 5 u dd f n2 c
ee a
t R
t v
< c e
F g ae ss C n ii sd t n i
cl ri no Y g 0l oe eos ei R n N
T 1 l sb crt dt Ei 0
N i
s nyc i d Vl
)
l N
E
,m ay ah e cr Ol c
l O
M 4
l ctf ce A
E I
G E
- s sl e
ap Ci
(
E r R
G T
N G
S e t a l l d o
E RD G
E A
A A
I 1
d cr aa r
LT N
N R
T S
N L
eu ee t t c ol C N E,
I E
O R
S A
A
.l l
f n aai t a R
YE C g S
G T
O E
M T
fb c e
f f t cn
'e g A
CN R n S
S P
C O
ean
- - e an E
O Ui E
R S
O E
T RTI nnn eo L
LP O n C
E L
N R
T ee ooe RN C
EM Si O
W E
A P
S
)))
h r NNG U
UO EM R
O U
R E
A ab c T d N
FC R(
P P
F T
R W
(( (
n, C 4
[
C
Table 2b (Breakdown of Table 2)
C0AL MORBIDITY per 0.8 GWy(e)
FUEL CYCLE OCCUPATIONAL GENERAL PUBLIC TOTAL COMPONENT MORBIDITY INJURY f10RBIDITY INJURY RESOURCE RECOVERY 20-70 13-30 (Mining, Drilling, etc.)
PROCESSING 3
POWER GENERATION 1.2 10-100 FUEL STORAGE TRANSPORTATION 10 WASTE MANAGEftENT TOTAL 20-70 17-34 10-100 10 57-;!10 Ref. 1 s_]
e-C
- The effects associated with these activities are not known at this time. While such effects are generally believed to be small, they would increase the totals in this column.
p.:
l References 1.
L.D. Hamilton (ed.), "The Health and Environmental Effects of Electricity Generation - A Preliminary Report," Brookhaven National Laboratory (July, 1974).
2.
L.D. Hamilton and S.C. Morris, " Health Effects of Fossil Fuel Power Plants,", In: Pooulation Exoosures - Proceedings of the Eighth Midyear Topical Symposium of tne Health Physics Society, (Oc tober, 1974 ).
3.
L.D. Hamil ton, " Energy and Heal th," In:
Proceedings of the Connecticut Conference on Energy (December,1975).
4.
S.C. Morris and K.M. Novak, Handbook for the Quantification of Health Ef fects from Coal Energy Systems," 'draf t report, Brookhaven National Laboratory (December 15, 1976).
5.
" Health and Ecological Effects of Coal Utilization," Draf t Report, Argonne National Laboratory (November,1976).
6.
"An Assessment of the Health and Environmental Impacts of fluidized -
Bed Combustion of Coal as Applied to Electrical Utility Systems,"
Argenne National Laboratory, Draf t Report (January 25, 1977).
7.
" Final Generic Environmental Statement on the Use of Recycle Plutonium in Mixed 0xide Fuel in Light Water Cooled Reactors," NUREG-0002, U.S Nuclear Regulatory Comission ( August,1976).
8.
" Reactor Safety Study," WASH-1400 (NUREG-75/014), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (October,1975).
9.
"The Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors (Light Water-Cooled) and Related Facilities," U.S. Atomic Energy Comission, WASH-1250 (July,1973).
10.
C.L. Comar and L. A. Sagan, " Health Effects of Energy Production and Conversion," In:
J.M. Hollander (ed.), Annual Review of Energy, Vol. 1, p. 581-600, (1976).
11.
D.J. Rose, P.W. Wal sh, ar.d L.L. Leskovjan, " Nuclear Power -- Com-pared to What?," American Scientist 64:291-299 (May-June,1976).
12.
D. Grahn, " Cost-Benefit as Weighed on Genetic scales."
In: Energy and the Environment-Cost-Benefit Analysis, R. A. Karan and K.Z. Morgan (ed.), Pergaman Press, N.Y., P. 371-366 (1976).
13.
" Energy and the Environment," Council on Environmental Quality
- p. 43, ( August,1973).
14 D.F.S. Natuscn, J.R.Wallace, and C. A. Evans, " Toxic Trace Elements:
Preferential Concentration in Respirable Particles," Science 183; 202-204 (January 18, 1974).
C)
L. ' U '
15.
S.T. Cuffe and R.W. Gerstle, " Emissions frcm Coal-Fired Power Plants: A Comprehensive Summary" U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, PHS-999-AP-35 (1967).
16.
J.E. Martin, E.D. Harward and D.T. Oakley, " Radiation Doses from Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Power Plants,"
In:
D. A. Berkowitz and A. M. Squires (eds.), Pcwer Generation and Environmental Change, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass (1971).
- 17. " Air Quality and Stationary Source Emission Control," Committee on Natural Resources, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, for the U.S. Senate Committee on Public Works, Serial No. 94.4, p. 599-610 (March,1975).
18.
L.B. Lave and E.P. Seskin, "An Analysis of the Association Between U.S. Mortality and Air Pollution," J. Am. Statistical Association 68: 284-290 (1970).
19.
W. Winkelstein, Jr., et al, "The Relationship of Air Pollution and Economic Status to Total Mortality and Selected Respiratory System Mort.ality in Men:
I. Suspended Particulates," Arch. Environ.
Health 14:
p.162-171 (January,1967).
20.
" Mortality and Morbidity During the London Fog of December,1952,"
Ministry of Health, Report No. 95, London, Her Majesty's Stationary Office (1954).
21.
H.H. Schrenk, et al, " Air Pollution in Donora:
Epidemiology of the Unusual Smog Episode of October,1948," Preliminary Report, Public Heal th Bulletin No. 3C6 (1959).
22.
H. Schimmel and L. Greenburg, "A Study of the Relation of Pollution to Mortality; New York City, 193-1968," J. Am. Pollution Control Association 22, (No. 8): 607-616 ( August,1972).
23.
C. Norman, " Castles in the Air," Nature 264: 394 (December 21, 1976).
24 L. A. Sagan, " Health Costs Associated with the Mining, Transport g
and Comoustion of Coal in the Steam-Electric Industry," Nature 250:
q 107-111, (July 12, 1974).
.?
25.
B. Ccmmoner, "the Poverty of Power," Al fred A. Knoff, Inc. (Subsidiary d
of Random House, Inc.), New York, N.Y. (May,1976).
26.
J.E. Yocon and N. Grappone, " Effects of Power Plant Emission an Materials," The Research Corporation of New England, for Electric Power Research Institute (July,1976).
2]7,1, r
i 1
27.
S.M. Barrager, B.R. Judd. and D.W. North, "The Economic and Social Costs of Coal and Nuclear Electric Generation," Stanford Research Institute, (March,1976).
28.
D.W. North and M.W. Merkhofer, "A Methodology for Analyzing Emission Control Strategies," Comput & Ops. Res 3_:187-207, Pergamon Press, Great Britain 1976).
29.
C.F. Baes, Jr., et al, "The Global Carbon Dioxide Problem," ORNL-5194
( August,1976).
30.
R.0. Pohl. " Health Effects of Raden-222 from Uranium Mining," Search
__7_( 5 ), 345-350 ( August,1976).
31.
N.W. Denson, et al, " Uranium in Coal in the Western Unitr States,"
U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1055 (1959).
32.
R.F. Abernschy and F.H. Gibson, " Rare Elements in Coal," Info.
Circular 8163, U.S. Department of Interior, Bur. of Mines (1963).
33.
M. Eisenbud and H.G. Petrow, " Radioactivity in the Atmospheric Effluents of Power Plants that Use Fossil Fuels," Science 148:288-289 (1964).
34 L.B. Lave and L.C. Freeburg, " Health Ef fects of Electricity Generation from Coal, Oil and Nuclear Fuel," Nuclear Safety 14_(5):
409-428 (Septemoer-October,1973) 35.
"Ccmparative Ri sk-Cost Benefit St.udy of Al ternative Sources Electrical Energy" WASH-1224, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (Cacember, 1974).
36.
K. A. Hub and R. A. Schlenker, " Health Effects of Alternative Means of Electrical Generation," In:
Population Dose Evaluation and Standards for Man and His Environment, Tiitirnational Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna t1974).
37.
" Interim Report of the National Research Council Comittee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems," Assembly of Engineering, NRC/NAS, Washington, D.C. (January,1977),, f
- J q,g s