ML19323G781
| ML19323G781 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/21/1980 |
| From: | Hanrahan E NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| To: | Ahearne J, Gilinsky V, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006090020 | |
| Download: ML19323G781 (16) | |
Text
~
Gyrlfn UNITED STATES k((fb g
g)(* ;;g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION pg,#
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%....+
April 21, 1980
+
LMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Ahearne Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner Hendrie Commissioner Bradford FROM:
Edward J. Hanraha
SUBJECT:
POPULATION DENSITIES NEAR REACTOR SITES ABROAD:
COMPARIS0N WITH U.S.
Introduction At the Chairman's request -- and a similar request to SD by Commissioner Gilinsky -- we have made a quick, rough comparison of population densities near power reactors in several European countries and Japan with those anound U.S. nuclear power plants.
This memorandum presents the results.
SD col'aborated with us in preparing it.
IP helped with the literature search.
Sources and Limitations of the Comparison We used.NUREG-0348 (Ref. 1) for benchmark information on population density near U.S. reactors.
We know of nothing comparable on an international scale.
The foreign data we used came from various sources that we were able, to find quickly (Refs. 2 to 7).
The age, bases, and quality of the foreign data vary.
Sometimes the bases i
are not fully known to us.
For some countries (notably Japan) the data are incomplete and come from secondary sources.
In some cases nearby populations across a border may not have been included.
The various foreign-site data that we were able to find went o'ut to only 5 to 25 miles from the reactors; we do not know what comparisons for greater distances (up to, say, 50 miles) would show.
The comparisons are thus necessarily imprecise.
However, we believe that they should reasonably serve your immediate purpose of gaining a r'ough, general feel for similarities and differences.
CONTACT:
George Sege (OPE) 634-3302 THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS Richard Grill (SD) 443-5966 R00R QUALITY PAGES 400609c0 RO
For the Commission Results The principal results are presented in Table 1 and Figure'l.
Tabfe 1 shows comparative statistics for data that we were able to find on total population out to various specified distances from reactors.
Data for the U.S., France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Japan, Spain, Switizerland, and the United Kingdom are presented in comparison to popu-lation densities around three U.S. reactors selected as benchmarks. The benchmarks are Palo Verde, representative of a relatively isolated site; Vermont Yankee, intermediate; and Indian Point, in a relatively highly populated area.
Table 1 shows that reactor sites in the foreign countries indicated are often located in more densely populated areas than is typical for the U.S.
A number of~ German, British, and Swiss' sites have higher nearby populations than Indian Point.
The data we found for Japan, Spain, and France show nearby population densities that differ less sharply from U.S. figures.
It should be noted that the six foreign countries involved have much higher average population densities than the U.S.
(See Enclosure 1.)
Figure 1 presents plots of cumulative population vs. distance for selected reactors:
one for Japan and two each (one relatively high and one relatively low-population) for France, West Germany, and the U.K.
Plots for Vermont Yankee and Indian Point are shown for comparison. includes data on population levels around foreign reactor sites excerpted directly from some of the sources that we used in the comparison. presents, for comparison, data for nine U.S. reactor sites, taken from NUREG-0348 (Ref. 1).
Three of those sites are relatively isolated, three are intermediate, a'nd three are located in relatively densely populated areas.
References (1) For U.S.:
l l
NUREG-0348, " Demographic Statistics Pertaining to Nuclear Power Reactor Sites."
NRC, 10/79.
(2) For France:
l B. Clement, Service Centrale de Surete des Installations Nucleaires, l
France:
" Safety Analysis of French Nuclear Power Plants and Criteria."
(About 1975; from NRC-IP files.)
I E
h
~
^
Table 1 POPULATION AROUND REACTOR SITES IN U.S. AND ABROAD:
STATISTICAL COMPARISONS Relative Total Population i
(A = lowest Number of Nuclear Power-Plant Sites population; with Indicated Relative Total Population see Legend)
Country Within X Miles **
X=
2 5
10 20 A
U.S.
12 5
4 3
^
France Germany (FRG) 0 0
0 Japan Spain 0
0 1
1 Switzerland 0
0 U.K.
0 0
0 B
U.S.
81 74 49 41 France 1
2 FRG 5
0 0
Japan 3
2 Spain 6
5 4
3 Switzerland 2
0 U.K.
6 3
3 C
U.S.
18 31 58 67 France 4
7 7
FRG 14 15 15 Japan 1
1 4
1 Spain 0
1 1
1
.)
Switzerland 3
1 1
2 U.K.
3 5
7 D
U.S.
0 1
0 0
France 1
FRG 4
8 8
1 Japan Spain 0
0 0
1 Switzerland 2
6 1
U.K.
2 3
1
- )
No data.
- )
Additional sites may well exist that are not included in these numbers, since information used is likely to be incomplete.
9
\\
Legend:
Relative population density:
A:
Palo Verde or lower B:
Higher than Palo Verde, but not higher than' Vermont Yankee C:
Higher than Vermont Yankee, but not higher than Indian Point D:
Higher than Indian Point The population data for the three benchmark U.S. reactors are as follows:
Population out to X miles (thousands) (1979 est.)
X=
2 5
10 20 Palo Verde 0.002 0.2 1.9 10 Vermont Yankee 2.1 6.6 23 88 Indian Point 9.3 53 218 888 i
Data Sources:
References 1 to 7.
/
a e
e 6
i l_ b
~
- a. -
re
.m. --- n. n,m c....
- 17~7 4=u==d-5i b Figure 1 iM M M M.9 M.-.
s 7
sr.=======a-6.......
POPULATION vs. DISTANCE
-J_
m.JR
'SOME U S AND FOREIGH POWER REACTORS
=16 derm M (- M i?) ""
5~~-
9;.,=.2mid = =- u.w.r e:e-:-m m=
= =:==e =- - -- -= o..
. ' ' " " " M--ds
=E S-i iU___;___.
.L=.=
g._..
~-E==E: =E= _- _.==E:-
- - - --__:-.__==--;- _-:
_ _._ [ ' A ;
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~- -' 3
^~
~-
,.-r-8 r
2.
p
/
u.
-j Q',,
/-
. e 4
1000
,l e
i
--a.c=+- mw+ m -
==1 '== = = =1d- - -s
=i=a====?= ! = =Kibil==rW:= '=:=u- - -~== =. '=~5*== K R- - h~T=#: ~ =-
~~
=d==.li=L=i=2_.
-. ' : ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ^
5 55'2? ~~~'?&l
~.2=-~
2 -
.5 7 ~ ---
_.'~'Z~~.____---_
~ ' '
_~_
l^
~^ ~~C__~_~.2 L. ~
~? $55--f
' ^ ^ - = = ' ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~
.... 1
~ ^
{ --
- =
- - ' ^ - -
~'~~~-
6.....
- _. ~
=
n:
1
& L;.?~
= =-=- -.-2.
- = ===CLE=r %
._ _.--.--- - - =
+5=-e- ^.. +5 -5.= --=.: =+
-T.:E..^-j l=4: "+# =_-' = W2?M f_=- ~ ~ ~.: :
^
_Nk ~~
N-b;'_ = = - 3. ---
h
.=.__-----p,g=_=_--=--
4 3 :_-__;;__
. -.. -. _Id ". " ;.
~~
~-'
_-U
^
4..-.-
3
. = = _
3 ~ ~~
~~ d'y,=_ ___ _~'"[g__. __: --
Q _-=~~~'
~'
~
/
.... 3 g
_s -- -
p 2
J,'
l
}
- --\\
v' L
s E ~~ --
p
,e
?"
J I l
.E J
f.
ff
/
f f
l Z
j f ff a
/!
/
f I
/ t
/
e-=.
jJ f//
=
/
8j J
, './ /-i.m=a=&c/ '
z 100 a
?
wa=.;.-ea; e-1==esH=/=c- '.-=3: - - Q=A==4=$=zi+q_ ~ y;-a+e*==#.K--T~ =M-^a;~& _ =&Q=-3
A =
s
- = - =
==-
- --=======;,*^==-=--==-----====-
e m====
- =-- p g-yq=_ -
=-- -
5g==_==-
,-~
/-
_. y ___
_y
~ ~ ~ -
-~
7 C-
- j..
..y._.
---+.-p-
-r -
R':'
~"'
6 ^
E 4r i
c/
___s
==2=%?-t-f5CK lE=~;3E9"_ *% =~P$L - J..$ M ? '-- ~. [-- ~~- K ~ L F-~-
== r 2
~~
~
/==.- r-
- - - ~
...a
_;;;-== _;;u.. h :; :. __.-- u_=o==c
- = - - - -
A '
!~
- .}f 5._,
3...
~ ~ - - ' '
'g"I f
zN' W
f A
LEGEND r
.P
~
l 0.. l Indian Point (USA)
=
p
5 O
A I
- =
p
,5 i
,ll
.F /
X - Vt. Yankee (USA)
Z
+
i,..
i>
,,i
,f n ff i Q - M*ulheim-K$rlich (Germany)
- k.,
- lMd-/n'd-b ' "..[_2 =- -,4=2 =_E=-
- 9..-Wh, :. T.
.--w__
= _ = =,. = _ = -
5 r--
.:==y=kp- --. ;i=.;_ =. -_-.;_;_;;._ - _;=-- =- =;;_r;=
V - Brunsblitt1e' (Germany)
F
=-
=
- x s.
g.1
[- E;=' ff4=-2/MEE T=== L-C K- - Bugey (France) d.s p==w!.=..
.. _ _iaw m=..... _.m== = = r-....
A - Dampieere-en-Burley (France) @==
=~.
87
=-
s=
ag p=
=. m-mzrs = =;-earin=== = e m =M==e e meF.
a23 a
a
_v =.=w1= w===c=.=-:-m.a=====i== -=+ :===-
Traws f1ndd V K-L'
=-
-
'==;=
=:_-.
. _- _._EMif- = c- - ;. ~- -~ ~ =*.--- - z-
~=~E 8 - Hartlepool (U. K.)
W_-
=-
= _.3 3 --
f ' ' ___.- - _
=
.-.-- ? f
=.. _. -.
$ - Verbois (Switzerland)
-~
E
=
2.. ;:.g
_ g - ~ ----
C) - Tukal-Mura (Japan) g,
__,l4' - i i
6 1
I
. y i
4
.g f
i m -
4
~IIN I~"I' a I d t-1 --i r' - f"i" i
i 1 -I---N i'- ~1 1
i i
T 5
10 15 20 25 30 resmwerUUxcuuma
.=
..~..
For the Commission.
(3) For FRG:
K.P. Bachus and H. Schnurer, Federal Ministry of the Interior, FRG:
VSafety Policy for Siting Nuclear Power Stations in the Federal Republic of Germany." Published in " Siting of Nuclear Power Facilities:
Proceedings of a Symposium, Vienna, 9-13 December 1974."
IAEA, 1975.
(4) For Japan:
J. Tadmor and H.L. Striem:
" Quantitative Compari. son of Siting Policies for Nuclear Reactors."
Israel Journal of Earth Sciences,1974.
(From files of B. Grimes, NRC-NRR.)
Note:
This source presents data on three sites.
Data on a fourth site (Tokai Mura) were taken from Ref.
6.
(5) For Spain:
Perez del Moral, Junta de Energia Nuclear, Spain:
" Criteria Adopted in Selecting the Sites for Three Nuclear Power Stations in Spain."
In Spanish.
Published in " Siting of Nuclear Facilities," IAEA, 1975.
(6) For Switzerland:
R. Veya, Nordostschweitzerische Kraftwerke AG, Switzerland:
" Siting of Nuclear Power Plants in Switzerland." About 1975.
(From files of B. Grimes, NRC-NNR.)
(7) For U.K.:
W.S. Gronow, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, U.K.:
"The Development of Siting Policy for Nuclear Power Stations in the United Kingdom."
10/78. (From files of R. Vollmer, NRC-NRR.)
Enclosures:
1.
Population Densities of Countries 2.
Excerpts from Refs. 2 to 7 3.
Population Near Some U.S. Power Reactors cc:
Leonard Bickwit, 0GC Samuel Chilk, SECY William Dircks, EDO Robert Minogue, SD Harold Denton, NRR Robert Budnitz, RES James Shea, IP Raymond Fraley, ACRS O
POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE (1974)
U.S.
- 59 s
France
- 249 i
West Germany
- 648 j
Japan
- 764 Spain
- 181
}
Switzerland
- 407 United Kingdom
- 593 4
k I
I e
Source:
1977 World A,lmanac 4.
e 6
I I
e e
g e
i
e 8
9 S
i EXCERPTS FROM REFERENCES 2 TO 7 O
e e
s 6
h
FRANCE Thousands of Inhabitants vs. Distance (km)
From Reference 2 i
Ir.h:.i icmts g
n ap; v o r u s./. ri o:
c r r v >:
-l- =.. _.,.
-l 1"kD i;;
..n:
l- -.
1.
u:
=
- l
. / '.. p__!,-9 U /. 'x,.
I n:
--/./
~~ - 7.i.['
i a
F-/
f,'..-.~l M
./
j' f/
^/---- l.
nD
!./
m',
t.
88 f,
j
[
/..
1 1
[' ~
l l
I
.=.-, &
u s
f I
'.*i i
i o
/ ri n
- j.,',.. '
l.i
/
'n
'. >/ /
~
CUGEY t
.>./f; t
OnAVEllhES l/.[
f f--
Shl:iT-L AU'!EliT t
/
' TP.itiSil;l L
1
~
f_'~f CREYS - MALY!LLE 01:!:0.4 1
-./
DA!.:PIEFli-en-DU!!LY
} ~
tisu.::tt (1- )
y 1
O 10 2D 3D 10 e
P~
From Reference 3 flote:
Item 1 (BASF) has been canceled; noi. counted in Table 1 of OPE memo, s
TABLE 11. POPULATION ROUND NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GER.%3ANY: NU.41EER OF INDIVIDUALS WITH]N RADIUS c.s;c r c.:
e..
c.s c.: l:k.
.t c.u c.z h..
h.
l le 6e he 6.
he 6.
le j 10D l 10 m l u, t:
Ittcl47Efsls03 rs M l1 n! Ec s
f.as".P tt t e n xl,,z ! m io mml.nu mu, j
=
> >e i ns I
l
. is. u cu l u m emi i.. i.. e in s t4 um
,e l so l sm I im t e l e ml u,a ! si.,,
4 i,-
n, sisml uml nm un j mm is.mi.,
s i n, um zj,co mzlsnm s,ml scum s
um
.s m nu z !
.n c,r....<.u im tm n,e am t, sa em
.,,s.
lim i ur
> x.
.i m n c:,
nn mm zi m i,w.
,, n> l n m ni c........
m
,,s
.a om mm mm ml ru
,ia l n ml y es j n ml m u t -
im mm mlum um,Ime,ss.mlem u
,,.i u n.
m in
,o m x iz ! u s l.n s,.
u t..i.e.
n om u 1, mm mi,m s m I.. m u
v....,
2 su 1, m n.s m u, um
- lu..
zler
.s m l u sl nml mm am
, se am s,
, m. w,u.
n i s,.
z t.e I n m n e,l m n, I n ns m n, I u, n3 j i o,
,ml 2m m ns l m m
.... ~.....
om um mm so! s m a mi mm u
. m.,...
, ns
.m
,,n um m sa s.
cm.s..
so i ns i n.
sn u os o ni nm mm mm s,
Phiiips.t.r, 4 l 3 sif l fl 4, 22 sn Es ss4
.E.t2 8.E 1, 20
!! 23 al,m m
- w..s...
,m 3,u 1,
n on nm re in mm A
ul n
St.4.
72 3a 3 rm e us u tz is es mm sn see
.l =
n u.,....
,m.
sm s,n 2, m am mm mi, n
- s. ] : sw
,en u os n ui n ni
., si n=
m iz n
,,o i
n se j m c, t
2z
.m im u as an G
4 4
a e
- ~
E o-
~.
.o
~.
~.
5' o
- 2 0 ::
0 ;;
3.
1 o
a g
o e
e 8
R 2
., ' R :
~
e
,~.
.~
o m
~
p g
g -
~
g
~.
~
e o.
.~
8 o
.~-
~..,
~
~
~ ~
n
~
e e
~
~
e a
g i
a o
e o
o o
e
~
o o
.o e.,
. - ~
o e.
~
o
~.
~
., ~
m
~
~
~
- ~
n
,. ~.
~
.~
~ -
~
~.
~
~
g
=
7
~
2 8
8-8 8
o o
o,
,o.
.c.
e.
~
o e
o
- ~
m o.i e
e..
- o. I 8
~.
~..
o.
a
~
e
. ~..
.~.
.o.,
.o e
~
e
.~.
o.
o 8
~
8 o
o R
8, 2
8 8
8 8
I 8,
8, E
g e
~
o R
o
~
o
.~.
o
~
.~.-,
- ~
n n
o.- 8 o
o
~
o o.
. ~
m o
~
~
o
.8 8
e 8
o o
.~.
w
~
e u.
o e
o a -
~
e
.~.
.o.
~.
~
o e
n
~.
~
v
.o.
e,
~..,,
o o,
.o
.o
+.
~,
o c=
e
~.
.~,
o z
o
- 4
~
~
4 g
c e
m c
o a
e 8
w 8'
8 o,
.o
)
o
~
a
~,
m.
cc
~.
~ ~
. ~
- n
~
~
~
a.
.e g
.o, o.
e o
e.
~
. ~
8 o
e
~.
~
~
~
~
u 3
~ ~
~.
L 8
7 g
8 8
8*
g a
m
.~
8
.I.
2, 8 *
-2
,8 8
S 2 8
e
~
~
n
~
O,
~
8 o
,8
~
e o
8
,8,
~.
~
~
~
n
.g 49 L.
~
c e
I-o e
o o
o 8 8 b
_N e o
8 o
~
o
.~
~.
~
e
~.
8
.o 8
6 R
o o
e o
S
~.
e m
.m.,
e.
n
~
o N.
~
N
.m
. t l
t e
o 8
t.
,e.
o.,
8 8
~. ~
~,.
o
~.
~
g, ei 9
- 3. E 6. E S
eE E
E E
- s. E
- 3. E E
E E
3
- 3. E
- e. E
- 3. E eE E
4, M.
- e. to en. e en.
en.e4 en m.
en.
am M. e. to.
e t.o.
ga e.s M.
e.n. en en.
e4 m
a 3
3 3
.3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 E.E e..
- e..
m.
hE.. E ". E,E E.4 E
.E. E
- E
.4.l.
s-E.I E
EE E -E
.E E
E E E
- m..'. m.
z a
o
.a.
o, w
~
.s.
[~
a e.
m s 1 sa
.a e
a g.
3.
n s
1..
. ~o.
s c.,..
e w
o ae
.e 3
W9 E
b D' s "*
.e
=
S 3
3 W X **
5 *s **
- "a"="
'o'"**
3 m
ea 4
- a e
==
.x
=
e
.c e.
8 u
uIw a.
8
=
4 6
=..m B
u'a-3' U
" w*
e
- 65. s 2
E
<r 2
= e em E
w m,-
- ..m
.e
.,....e.
9
SPAIN From Reference 5 1
i e
10 <-
y i
/
1 l
1 I
I I
I
\\
c'-
l yl..
d lI f/
/
/
0
/
/
k
./
/
f. d' h
lg?'.
l f
I / 6
/.* 4
/ / i4
/
4
/!.
,/,/
1
/./ *
/,'/
65.
(,
/
zon u?A tussop g
4
++++d' VANOELLCS (197C) it A
- SANTA MI CAROCA (1960) f ALMA RAZ (IS70)
=
hg 4
LEWONIZ (1970) 3 f
ASCO (1970) 3
$l 5
4 ic
. 3 4$
10 to 30 $C 10 0 2
FIG.I.
Fottacion en funcien de la distancia a Im emplatamientes de varias cen*.ra:es nucleares.
1 e
4 I
e G
+
P
- ~_.. _.
4 4
3 i
From Reference 6 i
1 5
d i Nf. teas.s 330)
.1
_... 3 eso I
l...
/
t
~~
I
.,.c.s,..
i 2
l
, 8 8
.. g.....i
. t //
v eo 1
l
/.e-l j,,
.o'.e.e i
p:
T i
i /)-
/,,s-j
+;
.i. '
- !~~
---g,-
.e.sa..
,p, Ct i..?-
y.
\\
..,:w
-1 Y-20
.,,c p *
'_ me.
3 ;-
-s i
I O
1 2
3 4
5 Centeace s miles)
. Fig. 2 Cumulative population vs. dis-tance for Swiss sites.
i h
i l
4 e
e e
t i
t 6
}
e 4
e J
e S
8 s
-O F
s
UNITED KillGDOM, from Reference 7 TABLE I PRESENT FOPULATION AROUITD NUCLEAR SITES 0-1 MILE 0-1} MILES 0-2 MILES 0-3 MILES 0-5 MILES 0-10 MILEE f
30 360 30 360 30 360 30 360 30 360 30 36 BERKELEY 19 95 1004 1520 1900 4071 2819 9512 3244 16982 15719 86 ERADWELL 62 570 862 2008 891 2091 964 9t:38 1779 12218 2229 84 1671 10225 40671 Set llUllTERSTON 30 50 90 210 125 275 4521 7575
,5
!!INKLEY POINT 10 24 107 213 1093 1311 2125 2500 2975 5800 5781 45 TRAWSFYNDD 101 210 327 159 337 830 380 2353 3330 8253 3380 20 DUNGENESS 35 220 255 440 378 563 878 1389 1678 3889 5578 12 SIZEWELL 0
225 1865 698 3813 5083 5873 8636 6873 14136 10673 25 OLDBURY 15 30 1807 659 417 679 528 1332 4518 54932 15418 9
WYLFA 84 336 1332 1747 1392 2342 1492 3258 1652 4088
.5052 1
- -- L.
lHWSHAM 604 3972 4729 142179 9886 20785 19516 56035 41936 93635 48556 15 liARTLEP00L 0
140 1036 1300 11946 6070 12556
'4130 61116
.2093590_,_01516,52 l
From Reference 6 i
i f
(
i i
sooo.
.. u. w,,,,,.
~~
s 4
8000-
- t-
.d--
0 500-
.,i - -
' j ',~~~F f#~ ~ ~,,5
"~~
]
3 w,6..
i i ** '
}9' - c;?
l
- f 2 a us
}
g iOO.
t
/.
f' 4
ed en Pw. us - -
s g
So.
, /, _
- w. ~. omes 2
=
20-1, a
c io._</__
C 8
l S-
-~~~-
/
2-4 l
E
?
O 5
80 15 20 25 Distence (miles) e 4
Fig. 4 Cumulative population vs. dis-tance, international comparison O
h 9
l I
I I
\\
1 1
l i
P
~
POPULATION NEAR SOME U.S. POWER REACTORS (From Reference 1)
Total Population Out to X Miles (Thousands)
L i
Reactor X=
2 5
10 20 30 WPPSS 2 0
0 05 48 92 Sundesert 0
0 0
0.09 0.09 Palo Verde 0.002 0.2 1.9 9.6 20 Main Yankee 0.4 3.7 26 75 197 l
Dresden 0.5 6.3 31 192 568 j
Vermont Yankee 2.1 6.6 23 88 212 i
' Limerick 4.9 67 153 776 3,840 Zion 6.9 46-190 530 1,263 Indian Point 9.3 53 218 888 3,985 e
e e
[
9 i
e 4
...