ML20062J045
| ML20062J045 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0134, NUREG-0134-ADD, NUREG-0134-ADD-02, NUREG-134, NUREG-134-ADD, NUREG-134-ADD-2, NUDOCS 8009150523 | |
| Download: ML20062J045 (53) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:, --- i NUREG-0134 Addendum 2 Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of North Anna Power Station, Unit 1 and 2 4 Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339 Virginia Electric and Power Company August 1980 l Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulatica U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l l 8 00915@ Qg D
i Available from GPO Sales Program Division of Technical Information and Document Control U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Printed copy price: $3.25 and National Technical Information Service Springfield, Virgir. a 22161
i f l NUREG-0134 , l l t SECOND ADDENDUM T0 THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Related to Operation of NORTH ANNA POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-338 AND 50-339 l I AUGUST 1980 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS This Second Addendum to the Final Environmental Statement has been prepared by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (the staff).
- 1. The action is administrative.
- 2. The proposed action'is the issuance of Operating Licenses to the Virginia Electric and Power Company for the startup and operation of the North Anna Power Station, Units No.1 and 2, located on Lake Anna in Louisa County, 40 miles east of l
Charlottesville, Virginia (Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339). The facility will employ two pressurized-water reactors with a maximum design power level of 2900 megawatts thermal (MWt) per unit. Steam turbine-generators will use this heat to provide up to 980 megawatts (MWe) of electrical generation per unit. The exhaust steam will be condensed by once-through flow of water obtained from and discharged to Lake Anna.
- 3. On March 24, 1969, the Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPC0) filed an application with the United States Atomic Energy Comission (AEC) for permits to construct North Anna Power Station, Units No.1 and 2. Following reviews by the AEC regulatory staff and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and following a public hearing before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in Louisa, Virginia, November 23-25, 1970, Construction Permits No. CPPR-77 and No. CPPR-78 were issued on February 19, 1971. The applicant petitioned for licenses to operate both units and submitted in March 1972 the required environmental report (ER) to substantiate this petition. The staff reviewed the activities associated with the proposed operation of this plant and the potential impact. The conclusions obtained in the staff's environmental review were issued as a Final Environmental Statement (FES) in April 1973. By letter
-dated January 2, 1976 the staff requested that the apolicant update the Environ-mental Report for the North Anna Power Station, Units Nos.1 and 2, to ensure that the FES properly considers any design changes or other changes in conditions such as revisions in load forecasts. The information provided by the applicant in an Environmental Report Supplement was reviewed by the staff and the results of that review were issued in an Addendum to the FES dated November 1976 (NUREG-0134) and Errata to the Addendum to the FES. Where necessary, revision was made of the assessment of the environmental impact associated with operation of the North Anna Power Station. The Operating License for North Anna, Unit No. I was issued on November 26, 1977.
The information in this second addendum responds to the Commission's directive that the staff address in narrative form the environmental dose commitments and health effects from fuel cycle releases, fuel cycle socioeconomic impacts, and possible cumulative impacts pending further treatment by rulemaking (44 FR 45362 August 12, 1979.) ! 4. On the basis of the analysis and evaluation set forth in this addendum and the FES, and after weighing the environmental, economic, technical and other benefits against environmental costs, and after considering available alternatives, it is concluded that the action called for under NEPA and 10 CFR 51 is the issuance of an operating license for Unit No. 2 of the North Anna Power Station subject to the conditions for the protection of the environment set out in the FES dated April 1973, the Addendum to the FES dated November 1976 (NUREG-0134) and Errata to j l Addendum to the FES. l l l A-i l
l l FOR UORD This Second Addendum to the Final Environmental Statement was prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i (the Staff), in accordance with the Commission's regulations, 10 CFR Part 51, which implements the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The environmental review contained in this Second Addendum deals with the impact of operation of North Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. I and 2. Assessments that are found in this Second addendum clarify or amplify l those described in 1) the FES that was issued in April 1973 relating to con-l l tinued construction and eventual operation of North Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. I and 2; 2) Addendum to the Final Environmental Statement dated November 1976 (NUREG-0134); and 3) Errata to Addendum to the Final Environ-j mental Statement. l l l l l A-it l
A.S. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF STATION OPERATION A.S.2 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS A.5.2.1 Environmental Effects of the Uranium Fuel Cycle The environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle were discussed in the Addendum to the Final Envirornnental Statement (NUREG-0134) dated November 1976. On March 14, 1977, the Commission published in the Federal Register (42 FR 13803) an interim rule regarding the envirorsnental considerations of the uranium fuel cycle. It was to be effective for 18 inonths (it was extended sever 41 times, the final extension being to September 4,1979) and revised Table S-3 of 10 CFR Part 51. The new and updated infonnation contained in the interim rule was presented in the Errata to Addendum to the Final Environ-mental Statement. On August 12, 1979, the Commission published a notice announcing the outcome of a final rulemaking regarding the environmental effects of spent fuel reprocessing and radioactive waste management in the light water power reactor uranium fuel cycle. In its notice, the Coninission directed the NRC Staff to continue presenting in the envirornnental analaysis accompanying a proposal to issue a limited work authorization, construction pennit, or operating license for a power reactor an explanatory narrative addressing important generic fuel cycle issues - e.g., environmental dose commitments and health' effects from fuel cycle releases, fuel cycle socioeconomic impacts, and possible cumulative impacts (44 FR 45362 dated 8/12/79). The final rulemaking concluded a proceeding which began on May 26,1977 with a notice that a rulemaking hearing would be held to consider whether the interim rule should be made pennanent or, if it sheuld be altered, in what A.5-1
respects (42 FR 26987). The Hearing Board took extensive written and oral testimony from more than twenty participants. On August 31, 1978, the Board submitted to the Cammission a detailed sumary of the evidentiary record, followed on Octcher 26, 1978 by its Conclusions and Recommendations. 4 After studying the Hearing Board's recommendation and receiving written and oral presentations by rulemaking participants, the Commission adopted as a final rule the modified Table S-3 recommended by the Hearing Board. The impact values in this table differ only slightly from the values in the interim rule. With two exceptions, these values will be taken as the basis f for evaluating in individual light water power reactor licensing proceedi,gs, pursuant to requirements of the -National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the contribution of uranium fuel cycle activities to the environmental costs of licensing the reactor in question. The exceptions are radon releases, presently omitted from the interim rule (43 FR 15613, April 14,1978),M and technetium-99 releases from reprocessing and waste management activities.2/ 1
'1] With regard to radon releases, appropriate valu.s were presented in the Staff's testimony in the proceeding derived from ALAB-480 which involved a consolidation of numerous proceedings including those dockets involving the North Anna Power Station, Unit No.1 & 2.
2f With regard to technetium.99 releases from reprocessing and waste management activities, in 44 FR 45362 the Commission found:
"In view of the Hearing Board's conclusion that the conserv-ative assumption of complete release of iodine-129 tends to compensate for the omission of technetium from Table S-3, the Comission finds it unnecessary to reopen closed proceedings or to disturb consideration of envirorsnental issues in presently pending proceedings to provide for consideration of technetium-99 releases."
Thus, consideration of technetium-99 releases at North Anna Power Station are unnecessary. A.5-2
The rulemaking record makes clear that effluent release values, standing alone, do not meaningfully convey the environmental significance of uranium fuel cycle activities. The focus of interest and the ultimate measure of
~
impact for radioactive releases are the resulting radiological dose commit-ments and associated health effects. To convey in understandable terms the significance of releases in the Table, the Hearing. Board reconnended that the modified Table be accompanied by an explanatory narrative promulgated as part of the rule. The recommended narrative would also address important fuei cycle impacts now outside the scope of the Table, including socio-economic and cumulative impacts, where these are appropriate for generic treatment. The Commission directed the NRC Staff to prepare such a narra-tive. The Staff has prepared a narrative which will be submitted for public comment in a further rulemaking. In accordance with the Commission directive of August 12, 1979 regarding an explanatory narrative to accompany Table S-3, the enclosed narrative has been drafted by the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards staff. The narrative is of an explanatory nature, merely clarifies or amplifies information previously provided and does not affect the cost-benefit conclu-sion already made in the FES, addendum to FES and errata to addendum. A.5-3
1 August 1980 Section I. The LWR Urani a Fuel Cycle A. Purpose The purpose of this narrative explanation of Table S-3 is to assist the reader la identifying the major impacts of each step in the fuel cycle and in deterein-ing which fuel cycle steps are the major contributors to each type of environ-
~
Explanatory Narrative for Table 5-3, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data producing the uranium fuel for a nuclear power plant and fu disposing of the . spent nuclear fuel and the radioactive wastes. The values in Table 5-3 were estimated principally by methods which are described in detail in the reports WASN-1248, " Environmental Survey of the Urani a Fuel Cycle,*l NUREG-0116,
" Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Weste Management Pnrtions of tne LWR Fuel Cycle,"2 and NUREG-0216 "Public Comments and Task Force Responses Regarding the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Anagement Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle."3 In addition, at a p@lic hearing (Docket No. RM 50-3) on the reprocessing and waste management environmental effects, the Commission staff answered questions about the estimates for the back end of the fuel cycle and considered suggestions made by other participents in the hearing. The complete record of this pelic hearing and the three doctments cited above are available in the NRC's Ptblic Document Roce e 1717 H $tyv>;, N.W.,
Washington, D.C., and provide further explanation of the factors considered in developing estimates for Table S-3. These reference materials contain the complete technical basis for the estimates in the Table, and give detailed descriptions of the fuc1 cycle operations and their environmental effects. A,k
. . . _ _ .~ _ . .
2 3 The following narrative explanation of the values given in Table S-3 is drawn very long periods of time (i.e., an evaluatfori of repository impacts for the from the record and cross referenced to source documents for the benefit of repository considered in NUREG-0116.) Section IV contains a discussion of. readers seeking more information. The Table S-3 values which pertain to the socioeconomic impacts. front end of the fuel cycle (up to the loading of the fuel into the reactor) are taken from WASH-1248; values pertaining to the back end of the fuel cycle 8. Alternative Fuel Cycles are taken from NUREG-0116, with changes which are noted in the hearing record.4 The several alternative fuel cycles which can be used for present generation Since the narrative is designed to help the reader in interpreting the environ. LWR reactors can be primarily characterized by how the spent fuel is handled, mental effects given on Table S-3, the forementioned documents, together with since all presently available alternatives start with uranta fuel. The others that were cited in the documents or discussed during the hearirgs, are alternatives are: generally the only references cited in the narrative. The exceptions to this statement are found in Section III, where the staff has provided, for purposes Once-Through Fuel Cycle: of discussion only, information on how long term dose commitments might be o The spent fuel can be disposed of without recovery of residual fission-. csiculated, and what incremental releases from waste disposal sites might be. able isotopes; this is the present operating mode for U.S. nuclear reactors. Since these topics were not covered in detail in WASH-1248, NUREG-0116, NUREG-0216 or the hearing record, information not in the record had to be used Uranium-Only Recycle: to develop the material. o Urani m can be recovered from spent fuel by reprocessing and can be recycled in nuclear fuel. Plutonium can be stored for later use or Section I of the narrative describes the extant LWR uranium fuel cycle, the combined witn residual radioactive materials as wastes. Uranium-only broad alternatives and the individual operations of the fuel cycles; Section 11 recycle, including plutonium storage, was considered % be the most contains a description of the environmental effects of the LWR fuel cycles likely mode of operation at the time of preparation a WASH-1248 and of the individual fuel cycle operations; Section I!! contains a discussion (1972-1974), and was the fuel cycle addressed in that document.5 In of dose comitments and health effects resulting from releases of radioactive MUREG-0116, plutonium was considered to be a waste to be disposed of at a materials from the fuel cycle. Section III also includes a discussion of how Federal repository.6 dose commitment evaluations over extended periods of time might be performed (nd what their sir ificance might be. In addition, there is a discussion of Uranium and Plutonium Recycle: what, if any, incremental releases from waste disposal sites might occur over o Both uranium and plutonium can be recovered from spent fuel by reprocess-ing and recycling to the reactor, the plutonium being recycled with A.5-5
.1
4 5 uranium as mixed oxide fuel. The residual radioactive materials are Table 5-3. Since the fuel cycle rule is to cover Lb1ts during their operating wastes. The wide scale use of this mode of operation was under considera- lif'ti5. even though there are no reprocessing plants operating in the - I tion in the Commission's CESMO proceeding. United States at this time, the proceedings of January 1978 through April 1978 considered both the once-through and uranfue-only recycle fuel cycles to cover The Commission had been in the process of determining whether or not the wide the reactor Iffetime with scoe flexibility, scale use of mixed oxide. fuel in light water reacters should he authorized (CESIC proceeding) when President Carter published his
- Statement on Nuclear C. Fuel Cycle Operations Power Policy" on April 7,1977. After consideration of the Executive Branch's Many different operations are required for either the once-through fuel cycle and the public's comments, the Cosmission decided (42 FR 65334, December 30, or the uranium-only recycle fuel cycle. Operations involved in preparing 1977) that, among other things, it would: fresh fuel fo* use in a reactor are collectively known as the ' front end* of -
the fuel cycle. The operatfors following irradiation of the fuel in the o Terminate the GESIC proceeding. reador are known as the "back end" of the fuel. cycle. Figure i shows a '.'ock o Terminate the proceedings on pending or future plutonius recycle. flow diagram for the front end of the fuel cycle; Figures 2a and 2b shes tb e. related licensing appilcations, except for back end of the once-through and uranium-only recycle fuel cycles respecti sely. (4) proceedings on Ifcenses for the fabrication or use of small quantities of mixed oxide fuel for experimental purposes, and Five operations comprise the front end of the fuel cycle (Figure 1): ore is (b) those portions of proceedings which involve only spent fuel mined; the uranium content of the ore is recovered as an impure compound i storage, disposal of existing waste, or decontamination or (yellowcake) by milling; a purified uranium compound (UF ) is produced; the 6 decommissioning of existing plants. urani e-235 content of natural uranism is facreased at enrichment plants; and o Reexamine the above matters at a later date, uranita fuel is fabricated.0 The result of the Commission's decision is that there are only two LWR fuel - Two different sets of operations comprise the back end of the fuel cycle. In-cycles potentially licensable for wide scale use in the United States at this the o e-through fuel cycle (Figure 2a), spent fuel from the LWR is stored, time: the once-through cycle, and the uranium-only recycle fuel cycle. The either at the reactor or at special facilities away from the reactor, for back end steps of these two fuel cycles are considered in NUREGs-0116 and periods of time in excess of 5 years. The spent fuel is packaged and disposed
-0216, and the larger effect of the two fuel cycles is included in the of in Federal repositories. In the uranium-only recycle mode (Figure 2b),
A.54
f" 5 k
- ; m I C
[a z p g
=3 >
, G -g 2, c
{ X a E E a EV C n c m
- 1. =
=
3 b -
=
M a
! L- 5 8 o
1 - n o' C Q;E
% l a
\
j Q
% G
% V N
e f,. 8 a "- 5 "El E 3 I O 2 E o m 1 2 I o t y r 1 9' O E 5 m {e w - si h
! h i 5 2
(A
.Y N
LWR URANIUM FUEL CYCLE BACK END OPERATIONS f400s y EPluffutt FReap i aggg gggt M AC104 (leep M ACTOR (Weg 1 P SYBAAGEai AEALTOR . =.=. . - ,g V AWAV-f 40AS. (-~-*" "" 28ACTOAP90L STSAAGe I I
- - -- lj
.A...
ImAEMIdLET n PL WTDhHead, get,ti f si.t 100) l#AM&EVEL.e45198 1AAmsMA C Anu -Age ==--, ACaA 0 ret het WA6il SMf ACE STSA AGE ALLfUtk AtL f Wit .. f ACILIT T CYCLE PL ASIS CYCLE PL AEII ====== WWitL SESLG40C LeuHivel 49W48 VEL Mpeeste#V eASTES WASTE 8 IB M AA V
'v' 'V' LOW 4EVEL t WE VIL sasit WA810 SORIAL 898844 9EDE AAL WASTE pf PBSifdAV #f MBAL WAITE Metalitet rone 2s emThreesh Foss tyes. Fwe th esse.h. easy ansvise fees cyses l
8 9 spent fuel is stared at reactors for short periods of time (greater than 90 produces 182 metric tons of yellowcake,* which in turn is converted into 270 . days), and then shipped to reprocessing plants, where uranium is recovered in metric tons of natural 1;F . In the enricfment operation, such of this natural ~ 6 a fors suitable for feed to enrictment plants. Pletonism and other residual UF6 feed material is mjected from the fuel cycle as enichment plant tails. materials from the spent fuel (cladding, fission products, actinide elementu, Of the 270 metric tons of UF 6 feed, 218 metric tons are rejected from the fuel activation prodwets) a*e solidified, and packaged in a form suitable foe cycle as depleted uranium tails. The remaining 52 metric tons of enriched disposal, Current regulations (10 CFR Part 50, Appendia F) require that uranita product is the feed for the fuel fabrication plant and contains enough certaim wastes from reprocessing plants be solidified within 5 years of t%Ir uranium for 40 metric tons of t10 2 fuel (35 metric tons of contained uranium). generation and that these wastes be disposed of within 10 years of treir This amount of fuel is required annually by an LWR producing 800 par years of generation. Most of the waste from reprocessing plants will be disposed of at electricty. N Federal repositeries. The back end fuel cycle steps, described in WREGs-0116 and -0216, handle the D. Tre Model Reactor and its Fuel Cycle Recui nments post-fission products and wastes, including the spent fuel. The spent fuel - For the purposes of developing the values in Table 5-3, a model light water which still contains about 34 metric tons of uranium,II is removed from the reactor was defined in MSH-1248 as a 1,000 MW reactor asstmed to operate at reference reactor annually. (Approximately one metric ton of uranium has been j 30% of its maximum capacity for one year, thus producing 800 Md yrs of elec. converted to fission products and actinide elements.) The fresh and spent tricity annually.I The fuel cycle re: uirements averaged aver a 30 year operat- fuel is in the form of fuel assembifes, each containing between about 0.2 and ing life for this reactor were labelled an annual fuel reowirement (AFR) in 0.5 metric tons of uranium.12 hence, the ner of fuel assemblies handled in
' SASH-1248. Since that time, the AFR actwyn has been used to characterize each reactor reload ranges from about 70 to 180, depending on the type of away-fron-reactor storage of spent fuel. In WREGs-0116 and -0216 the termi- reactor. For the once-through fuel cycle, this ruel is stored under water for >
nology " reference reactor year" (RRY) was employed to describe the fuel cycle periods of time in excess of 5 years, either at the reactor site or at offsite requirements of a model 1000-Mee reactor operating for one year. The same facilities. Following the storage period, the spent fuel will be disposed of terminology will be utilized in this narrative. at a Federal repository.I3 The front end of the fuel cycle, as described in W5H-1248, covers the supply of fuel for the model reactor; 91,000 metric tons of ore (containing 2 parts of U 03 8 per 1,000 parts of ore) are reovired per RRY. Milling of the ore " Varying twel cycle operating conditions including reactor parameters, yellow-cake purity, enrichment talis assay, etc. effect the yellowcake RRY requirement which is thus subject to considerable variatfor,. AS4 4
10 11 For the uranium-only recycle option, the spent fuel is reprocessed to recover accomplished by one of two methods. Open pit mining, accounting for 535 of-uranium. Plutonium (about 0.35 metric tons per RRY I") may be recovered as ~ the ore produced in this country in 1971, is used when the ore body lies under . plutonium oxide in a separate stream. The fission products, other actinide material that is easily broken up 'and is found at depths w to several hundred olements, and activation products are concentrated into one or more solid waste , feet. Undergrocad mining is used when the cre body is located at depths . products which are disposed of together with any plutonium stream. greater than about 400 feet, or when it lies under rocks that require a great deal of blasting to break up.
.To develop the values in Table S-3, the environmental effects resulting from operating the model fuel cycle facilities were estimated. These effects were.
An open pit mining operation in a Western State was selected for.the model then normalized to reflect the effects attributable to the processing of fuel uranium mining operation since the environmental effect in terms of total for a single year's operation of a model reactor (RRY).
. volume of earth disturbed is greater in open pit mining than in underground mining, and since atout half of the known are reserves in the United States E. Fuel Cycle Facility Descriptions are located in relatively shallow sedimentary formations less than 400 feet -
To provide a perspective on the nature of the LWfi fuel cycle operations, and deep.17 The model mine has a capacity of 1600 metric tons (MT) of ore perj the types of environmental effects resulting from these operations, brief day, which is equivalent to a yield of approximately 960 MT of. 03g0 per year,' descriptions are given below for the model fuel cycle facilities used to sufficient to supply the fuel for 5.3 LWR RRYs. derive the environmental effects given in Table S-3. The dominant potentia 1' environmental effects from uranium mining include
- 1. The Front End of the Fuel Cycle (WASH-1248) disturbances of the natural terrain, an effect common to most mining operations; Uranium Mining 15 andMilling}6 a.
releases of radon;" and pumping eine drainage water from the mine. For this segment of the fuel cycle, a combined eine-mill complex was selected as the model since it is representative of a significant portion of the current (2) Milling and developing industry. As in a number of existing production complexes, the model mill, located adjacent to the model uranium eine, utilizes the acid leach process, since (1) 'Minin9 that process accourts for about 80K of the total 3g U 0 production.I8 The all! The commercial uranium ere deposits in the United States generally occur produces a uranium concentrate containing about 960 MT U 0 38 PN'' in the Western States. Uranium mining in the United States is generally Madon releases are not given in Table 5-3. A,5-9
12 In the milling operation, uranium is extracted from the ore and is concen-UF6 fu d to the enr h nt plants are produced by each method.' trated as a senf refined product that is sold in terms of its U 0 content. 38 The product, which is principally ammonium diuranate, can be any one of several uranium compounds and is commonly called yellowcake. ' entering with tne crude uranium feed is rejected from the dry process as Both mechau cal and chemica'. processes are involved in the milling operation. Initially, the ore is crushed and ground, after which it is leached with s s ved pHds in a nfNnate stnam. W model UF6 production plant is .
' either sulfuric acid or sodium carbonate solutions to extract the uranium.
The leach liquors are purified and concentrated, and the uranium is recovered by chemical precipitation with the solid product calcined, pulverized and drummed for shipment as yellowcake. Nearly all of the ore processed by the eill ends up as tailings, a fine sand-like material, in the tailings pond, An e e u us gene ted in W pnpantion of UF #"" together with large amounts of water and chemicals used in the process. The 6 water eventually dissipates, largely by natural evaporative processes. The tailings have the potential to cause the largest environmental effects from the milling operation. and fluorination. Fluorides and oxides of nitrogen are the more significant sources of potential adverse environmental impact. [ b. . Uranium Hexafluoride Production D There are two major aqueous waste streams associated with UF6 production. Many of the contaminants in the wet process are contained in a raffinate The yellowcake must be converted to a product (uranium hexafluoride. UF ) 6 which is volatile at a slightly elevated temperature for enrichment by the stream which is not released but held indefinitely in sealed ponds. The-gaseous diffusion process. Two processes are used for UF second aqueous waste stream is made up mostly of cooling water and dilute 6 Pd"CII'"'
- d'Y scrubber solutions. Some of these aqueous effluents are treated with calcium process (hydrofluor) and a wet pro:ess. The processes differ primarily in the technique used for purification. In the dry process, fractional distillation " "
is employed after conversion, while in the wet process, high purity uranium i A,5-]D
14 15 waste streams prior ta release from the plant. The solto salcium fluoride is RRY year are equivalent to the gaseous effluents released annually by a 45-sese recovered from settling ponds, packaged, and ultimately buried. go,y. fired plant.21 The discharge of heat to the environment, both at the. enrichment plants and the sites of individual electric generation plants, is Small amounts of natural uranium are released from the plant in ventilation also related to the power requirements of the enrichment plant. czhaust air as dusts and volatile UF , and in liquid effluents. Radioactive 6 material in the solid ash residue from fluortnation is largely from thorium d. Fuel Fabrication 22 and amounts to about 0.86 Cf per RRY for the hyarofluor process. In addition, radioactive materials entering witti the yellowcake appear in the solid residues The feed material for the fabrication of fuel for the model LWH is enriched f4r the dry process operations. UF6 . The UF6 is conu rted to W 2. which is formed into Pellets and then calcined and sintered at high temperatures. Finished pellets are loaded into 20
- c. Uranium Enrichment Zircaloy or stainless steel rods, fitted with end caps and welded. The completed fuel rods are assembled in fixed arrays to be handled as fuel elements or Isotopic enrichment of uranium-235 is necessary to provide fuel for a Ilght-water ,,,,,nig,,,
moderated nuclear reactor. The concentration of uranium-235 in natural uranium is about 0.7%, and the enriche1 uranium content for the current generation of In defining a representative model fuel fabrication plant, the conventional rsactors is 2-4L The facilities are large in size because a large number of ammonium diuranate process was selected for conversion of UF
- 6 2' separation stages are required to attain the necessary enrichment. The preset /. capacity was chosen to be 3 MTU per day, a large plant by 1972 industry standards, plant facilities are owned by the United States and operated by private inA y with an annual production of approximately 26 RRY of fuel.
under contracts with the Department of Energy. There are three facilities currently operating in the country. The model used in this study is a scaled Aen A major consideration in assessing environmental effects of fuel fabrication model of the entire complex. results from the fact that all of the fluorine f atroduced into the fuel cycle during the UF6 production phase becomes a waste product during the production The primary sources of environmental effects associated with the effluents of UO Powder. Gaseous fluorine wastes generated are effectively removed from 2 from enrichment of uranium are related to the gaseous effluents from the the air effluent streams by water scrubber systems. Calcium (lime) treatment coal-fired stations used to generate the electrical erergy required to operate is used on scrubber system wastes and process liquid wastes to remove flucride the enrichment facility. The effluents asuciated with production of fuel per ion as calcium fluoride (CaF ) precipitate. 2 A.5-11
17 16 Other significant creeical species in liquid effluents are nitrogen compsunds " " '
- that are generated frr.e the use of ammonium hydroxide in the production of UOy acce) repository defined in NUREG-G116. Operations of the reposit e f** the powder and from the use of nitric acid in scrap recovery operations. once-through option are similar to those of the uranium recycle option (see below), although 11 times as many canistees would be required for spent fuel.
- 2. The Back End of the Fuel Cycle (NUREGs-0116 and 0216) " * ** **
- a. Once-Through Fuel Cycle Several operations comprise the back end of the once-through 'wel cycle.
These are: storage of spent fuel, encapsulation of spent fuel after storage,
- and disposal of spent fuel; disposal of low-level wastes; and the c4contamina- * * " * *
- tion and decommissioning operations. The environmental effects cf all of " " "" '"
- these operations hase been aggregated and are given in Column N of Table S-3A.
released at the reprocessing plant. Long-ters 1spects from the r oository will (1) Spent Fuel be nonexistent if the repository perferes as espected and maintains the waste in Spent fuel assembifes are stored in water basins for tre order of 5 or more isolation.25 On the basis of the analysis presented in NUREG-0116, the staff years after their removal free the reactor. These storage basins may be * "* "'" " *
- Tocated at the reactor site or at offsite facilities. Storage would be followed *** **"****"*
- by an encapsulation operation, in which individual assemblies are packagd, ' **"
possibly in helfwe-filled steel canisters. The encapsulate 6 assambifes would be disposed of in a Federal repository, the final step in the once-through (2) Low-Level Wastes fuel cycle.23 Low-level wastes containing small quantities of radionuclides are produced in the normal operation of nearly all fuel cycle facMities, including nactors Environmental effects of spent fuel storage inciace heat releases, water use, * ** " " "'*"'**"*"*'**'Y"*******"'*I'"'d release of small amounts of gaseous radionucitoes, and generation of solid i " #1""1 "E * 'E i 11 '
- f '*di*""" i d* * * *' I" d***"**'I"** I'" *"'* *I *"' I' radioactive wastes. These westes arise from such operations as water "M M M aHy p sp a y su ace ur al at a purification.
"The reader is referred to Section II'% "or a discussion of the possible release of radionuclides natural processes from a waste repository is the event that a neber of unlikely are encountered.
A.542
i d 18 19 low-level waste disposal facility; the environmental effects of low-level Environmental effects of waste management include those from any interie HLW waste management and burial are included in the total shown for each of the terW wem muig Mgh-imi W TW waste fuel cycle modes. disposal, low-level waste disposal, and decontamination and decommissioning. (3) Decontamination and Decousissioning In the uranium recycle fuel cycle, the plutonium formed in the reactor is At the end of their useful operating Ilfetimes, all types of fuel cycle facilities considered to be a waste material and is transferred to a' Federal repository must be decossissioned in ways that assure pro
- action of public health and for disposal. All wastes to be disposed of at the repository will be treated SCfety.- In NUREG-0116, it was assumed that facilities would be decontaminated gg g g ,g
,, 9g to remove potentially hazardous radionuclides and that the radioactive wastes suitable for final disposal.
would be removed from the site. The largest impacts of decontamination and decommissioning result from the disposal of low-level wastes and wastes contasi-(1) Reprocessing26 nated with transuranic elements (elements with atomic numbers above 92). Following their use as fuel _in the nuclear power plant, spent fuel assemblies Decontamination and t.ecommissioning impacts were not considered in WASH-1248 are stored under water at the reactor to permit decay of the short-lived, and, therefore, are not included in the impacts of the individual types of isotopes and to reduce the heat generation rate. After cooling,' the assemblies facilities in Table S-3A, but are included in Waste Management, column H, of are transported to a reprocessing plant for recovery of the residual, slightly Vable S-3A. enriched uranium.
- b. Uranium-Only Recycle The cheefcal process for separating the usable uranium from plutonium and The operations comprising the back end of the uranium only recycle option can gg g p p be grouped into two major categories - reprocessing and waste management solvent extraction process, which has been the most widely used method for operations. Environmental effects from the reprocessing facility include recovery of fissile values from spent fuel for many years. In the fuel repro-those of the reprocessing operation, high-level liquid waste storage, high-level cessing plant, the spent fuel assemblies are sawed or chopped into sections waste solidification, and the short-term storage of solidified high-level and W M is N 6sh h hk d W wM h m%
waste at the reprocessing plant. plutonium and waste streams. These streams are processed into physical and chemical forms either for disposal or for shipment and further use in the fuel cycle. Environmental effects from reprocessing facilities have been derived A,5-13
n 1 21 20 with effluents from the rest of the plant. Their impacts are included among principally from data gathered in many years of experience in Federal government the impacts listed for reprocessing. 3 plants. The major environmental effects from reprocessing result free the asstmed release of gaseous fission products and activation products from the To prepare HLW for shipment and disposal, and generally to reduce the risk of
, g g f ,y,27 its dispersal,'the HLW must be solidiffeo as required by 10 CfR Part 50 High-level wastes (HLW) produced at the reprocessing plant concrin the highly radioactive fission products from the spent fuel. These wastes require a l p ss so cation e pmess assmed for pmduction of glass from system for their management that provides radiation shielding, protection l Ifquid MLW is a two-step process: first, producing a calcine, and second, against release, and a means of heat dissipation.
melting it together with glass-forming materials to produce the glass.. The product of the solidification process is a glass in a sealed canister ready The reference system for HLW management at the reprocessing plant includes the for shipment, storage or disposal, .The environmental effects of operation of . following steps: short-tern storage as liquid in tants; solidification; the solidification facility are included in the estimates for the reprocessing short-tern storage as a solid. Provision for a longer-ters interin storage plant. g before disposal cwid be necessary; its potential impacts have been included in the impacts of HLW disposal. If the solidified HLW is not to be shipped to a Federal repository soon after . solidification, a storage capability at the reprocessing plant must be provided. l j Temporary storage of liquid HLW in tanks has been practiced for over 30 years, ** " The most modern tank designs, which would be required for commercial fuel
* "I' * " ** * # "" **
cycle operations, have peoven virtually free of leaks and operational problems. * " '"'
' Tanks of similar design have been in operation at government facilities for of heat release and water usage are added to the impacts of the reprocessing more than ten years and have been storing commercial reprocessing wastes at facility.A West Valley, New York, for more than five years. The tanks are assumed to be stainless steel, located in stainless steel-lined concrete vaults with equip-ment for heat removal. These tanks are an integral part of the reprocessing "The present licensing staff position is that a number of alternative waste forms should be characterized before one is selected for use in the repository.
plant, and all effluents free the tanks are treated in plant systems together A.5-F
~ 23 22 Solid wastes contaminated with TRus are derived primarily from the operation (2) Waste Management of the fuel reprocessing plant. Wastes included in this category are solidified liquids, filters, cladding hulls and other fuel hardware, and general trash.
(a) Interim Storage of High-Level Wastes at a Retrievable
~ "" * * ** '
Surface Storage-Facility 3I the product in a high-integrity contairer, storing tt'e pckages onsite at the If final geologic disposal facilities are not available for receipt of solidi-91ed HLW wittin 10 years after it has been generated, a facility must be n Cn na was a we m foun e W smaH to be available fer interin HLW storage. One such conceptual facility is the retriev,
' '" ' I" *0I* $'
able surface storage facility (RSSF). The impacts for an RSSF have been conservatively included in the sulunation of waste management effects (wiven in (c) Disposal af HLW and TRU Wastes at a Federal Repository . column H of Table S-3A (see below)). Land use for the RSSF would be committed - only temporarily, and effluents fro normal operation would be very small. HLW and TRU wastes, including plutonium, comprise the materials from the nuclear fuel cycle that would be disposed of at a Federal repository. Deep In the event that extended storage might be needed, a sealed storage cask emplacement in a stable geologic medium (bedded salt) under the continental concept has been used to evaluate the environmental ef fects of extended storage.
** E* "* " ' "* "* Y daste canisters'are placed in thick-walled, high-integrity overpacks; this knowledge about the impacts of other alternatives is limited, the potential
' package is then placed inside concrete cylinders which provide shielding and impacts from bedded salt disposal are believed to be reasonably representative channeling for natural-draft air coolina. This concept has low vulnerability impacts that would result from any appropriately designed geologic emplacement." to accidents. The repository facility will be designed and the waste emplaced to keep the (b) Transuranic-Contaminated Wastes (TRU Wastes) wastes and the surrounding geologic media below temperatures which could result in nuclide migration or impair the structure of the geologic formation. Among the nuclides produced in nuclear reactor fuel are transuranics (TRU), sne mine will be constructed using existing technology to prevent flooding radionuclides having atomic numbers higher than uranium, which may be parents-of long-lived decay chains (tens of thousands of years). Waste materials con-taining significant quantities of these long-lived elements will be confined "The present ifcensing staff position is that three to five sites in several geologic media should be fully characterized before selection of a medium for and consigned to the Federal repository. a repository. A.5 _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ . - .-
24 25 and/or collapse during operation. Engireering features will be built iets the ""**'"'" * '*' " " "*"
- facility to provide containment of .aste materials. Operational (.aste eeplacement) both fuel cycles and are also included in colden H rather than in the colons lifettee of the facility will be between 20 aW 30 years. At that time the "
- factitty .111 be backfilled and sealed."
- 3. Transportation Effects free routine operation of the facility before decommissioning (includ;ng sealing of the underground shafts and tunnels) have been found to be small and "" ' ""* " * " '
comparable to those of the RSSF. Effluents (except for the large vol mes of '" ""*'"" '#* * "* " " " # * " " " ' " "
- salt from excavation) have teen projected to te very Icm. Radiological effluents * "* # *
- fece routine pactage inspection and repair activities are quite small relatin " " ~ ' **" * *'"* * * " " *"' * * "
- to those from major fuei cycle facilities (e.g., reprocessing) 33 *N D #6 production plant, and shipment of natural UF6 to the enrichment plant--involve the transport of low specific activity material. Two addittoaal (d) Low-Level Wastes steps fr. the front end of the fuel cycle-shipment of enriched UF to W 6
Low-Level wastes free the facilities of the front end of the fuel cycle are *""'"" 2
'" * *
- 2 * "'#* " '
essentially the same for both the once-through fuel cycle and the uranium nv n mmr o p en a Nuionable. Iow specWe actWy eaMah recycle mode. The additional back end f acilities for reprocessing and waste * * *" treatment in the urani a recycle mode produce sligntly larger quantities of ' "C*"88"I*
- 6"#2 conversion process.) In addition, the shipment of low-len) wastes than would result free sMet fuel stcrage and disposal in the ****"* 6 'I*"I'* maste from fuel fabrication plants, and certain wastes once-through fuel cycle. The impacts are included in colan H of Table S-3A " "'"#*"'"8 *"** " " #" "I I""d D"#I*I *" '""I"' *
(see below).34 transport of radioactive low-level solid wastes.30 (e) Cecentamination and Decommissioning of Urani a Recycle " ** *" "# E "* "
- I " '8" Facilities
~
is shipped to storage or disposal. In the back end of the urania-only recycle The additional impacts free the reprocessin2 and other back end facilities for fuel cycle, the shipments from the reprocessing plant involve tre fransport of uranium recycle are included in column H cf Table 5-3A (see below). Iscacts "'*" * "
- I* ** # 4 an 6 w ie w plant, and W tran g of soH d, high-level waste eaterial and plutoalue to a Federal waste storage facility.
"ine present iscensing staff position is that the oction to retrieve the eastes should be maintained for 50 years following operation to allow monitorirn and For all fuel cycle options, the three steps (shipment of fuel to, irradiated corrective actions if required.
A.5-16 {
27 26 Section I - References fuel from, and waste from reactors) covering the transportation of materials to and from nuclear power plants are considered in Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.20
- 1. U.S. Atomic Energy Comission, " Environmental Survey of the Urania Fuel and are not included in Table S-3.37 Cycle," WASH-1248, April 1974, p. iv.
- 2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Environmental Survey of the Reprocess-ing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle, A Task Force Packaging and transport of radioactive materials are regulated at theLFederal Report," W. Bishop. F. J. Miraglia, Ed., NUREG-0116, October 1976, pp.1, .
11. lovel by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) and the Department of Transpor-
- 3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Public Comments and Task Force .
tation (DOT). Certain aspects, such as limitations on gross weight of trucks, Responses Regarding the Environmental Survey of the Regrocessing and are regulated by the individual States. The regulations are designed ta
- 4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Staff Recomendations for Minor protect employees, transport workers, and the public from external radiation Adjustments to Table S-3," submitted by James Lieberman, Counsel for NRC and exposure to radiation and radioactive materials as a result of normal and accident conditions of transport. The requirements for packaging of low eccific activity material are such that it is most unlikely that a person
- 7. "U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Generic Environmental Statement could ingest or inhale a mass of material that would result in a significant on the Use cf Recycle Plutonium in Mixed 0xide Fuel in Light Water Cooled Reactors", Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NUREG-0002, radiation hazard under any circumstances arising in transport. Shipments of August 1976, fissile materials are limited by the packaging designed to ensure nuclear 8. WASH-1248, p. 5-2.
criticality safety under both normal and accident conditions of transoort. 9. Ibid., p. 5-5. Containers of solidified high-level wastes must be designed to withstand the 10. Ibid. offects of severe accidents. 11. NUREG-0002, Table IV C-9, p. IV C-7h.
- 12. Ibid., Section 3.2.6, p. 3-8.
The environmental effects of the shipment of materials in the nuclear fuel 13. NUREG-0116, p. 4-6 . cycle are those which are characteristic of the trucking industry in general. 14. Ibid., Section 3.2.7.1, p. 3-9. The increase in density of truck traffic from fuel cycle shipments will be 15. WASH-1248, Chapter A, p. A-1 ff, small compared with total truck traffic.38 16. Ibid., Chapter B, p. B-1 ff.
- 17. U.S. Atomic Ener January 1, 1972 pGJO Commission, 100 (1972),"p.Statistical
- 29. Data of the Uranium Industry, A.5-17 k
.m.______ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
29 28
* *" I ' " ' ""*" * ** * * #*
- 18. Robert Merritt, The Entractive Metallurgy of Uranium, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CG, Hil, p. o.
- 19. WASH-1248, Chapter C, p. C-1 ff, A. Environmental Data
- 20. Ibid., Chapter D, p. D-l ff.
- 21. Ibid., p. D Table 5-3. Table of Uranius Fuel Cycle Environmental Data,' is a summary of"
- 22. . Ibid., Chapter E, p. E-1 ff. environmental constoerations attributable to the urani a fuel cycle, nnrealized 23... NUREG-0116, Section 3.1.1, p. 3-1 ff. to the annual fuel requirement in support of a model 1,000-MWe twe. Data from
- 24. . Ibid. , Section 4.6.3, p. 4-113 f f. the " front end* of the uranium fuel cycle, based on WASH-1248, Pave been 'l
- 25. Ibid.,pp. 2-10, 2-11.' combined with data from the "back end," which is based on NUREGs-0116 and I
.J
- 26. NUREG-0002, Chapter IV, Sectica E, p. IV-E-20 ff. 0216 and the remanded proceeding (Docket No. RM-50-3). Table 5-3A which j
- 27. NUREG-0116, Section 4.1, p. 4-4 ff. follows, sets forth the contributions by the various segments of the fuel cycle
- 29. Ibid., Section 2.2.1, p. 2-4, and Section 4.2.1, p. 4-14 ff. to the tota' values given in Table 5-3. In general, Table 5-3 preserits the
- 29. , Ibid., section 2.2.2, pp. 2-4 and 2-5, and Section 4.2.2, p. 4-18 ff. sus cf the higher values taken from either the once-through fuel cycle or the
- 30. Ibid., Section 4.2.3, p. 4-24 ff. uranium-only recycle option The following is a brief discussion of the
- 31. Ibid., $ection 4.2.5, p. 4-29 ff. environmental considerations related to the "back end" of the once-through .
- 32. Ibid., Secton 2.3, p. 2-6 ff, and Section 4.3, p. 4-39 ff. fuel cycle and the uranium-only recycle option.
- 33. Ibid., Section 4.4, p. 4-71 ff.
- 34. NUREG-0116, Section 2.7, pp. 2-13, 2-14, and Section 4.7. p. 4-117 ff. 1. Back End of the Once-Through Fuel Cycle
- 35. Ibid., Section 2.8, p. 2-15, and Section 4.8, p. 4-129 ff.
- 36. WASH-1248, Section H, p. H At present, spent fuel discharged from twRs is being stored in the United States.
- 37. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission " Environmental Survey of, Transportation of pending a policy decision whether to dispose of the irradiated spent fuel as a Radioactive Materials To and From Nuclear Power Plants, W45H-1238, 1972, ~
Section II, pp. 5-10. waste product--the once-through fuel cycle- , or to reprocess spent fue1 and
- 38. NUREG-0116, section 2.9 pp. 5-15, 2-16. recover the residual fissile values for recycle as fuel in power reactors. in .
this case. --the uranium-only recycle option.. In the once-through fuel cycle,- the storage and disposal of spent fuel as waste, along with other waste management activities, constitutes the "back end" of the uranium fuel cycle.1 A.5 - - _. g
31 30 The environmental considerations related to the once-through fuel cycle are 2. Back End of t.se Uranium-only Recycle Fuel cycle Option summarized in column F of Table S-3A. It is expected that spent fuel will remain in interim storage facilities for periods of up to 10 years or more to At present, there are no spent fuel reprocessing plants in the United States reduce radiation and heat selssions prior to packaging and disposal, and that can reprocess LWR spent fuel. Moreover, if a policy decision is made to because facilities for the permanent disposal of spent fuel are not yet permit reprocessing of spent fuel, the capacility to reprocess spent fuel in available.2 Thus, column F itcludes the environmental impacts of extecded the United States may not be available untti about the early 1990s. However, pool storage as well as spent fuel disposal in a deep salt bed, geological if LWR spent fuel is reprocessed, the environmental impacts from reprocessing repository. Low-level wastes, and decontamination and decommissioning wastes, and related waste management activities are nearly identical for both recycling from all segments of the fuel cycle are also included in column F. There are of uranium and plutonium, or recycling of uranium-only, as fuel in nuclear no significant amounts of transuranium (TRU) wastes generated ir the once-through power reactors. Whether plutonium will be used as a fuel in LWRs, or breeder fuel cycle, reactors, or both, is a separate issue that will be resolved in connection with the policy decision whether to resume reprocessing in the United States. It tes been assumed that spent fuel or high-level wastes will be disposed of For this purpose, to cover the contingency that at some future date spent fuel' in a geologic, bedded salt, repository." Operati:n of repository facilities from LWRs may be reprocessed, it has been assumed that only the urentum that is similar for both spent fuel or high-level waste, and it has been assumed is recovered from the reprocessing of spent fuel from LWRs will be recycled as that a repository in bedded salt will be designed and operated so as to retain fuel to LWRs; and the plutonium is not used for its fuel value in LWPo Instead, the solid radioactive waste indefinitely. However, the radiological impacts it becomes a by product waste that may be disposed of in a manner similar to related to the geological disposal of spent fuel are based on the assumption that for hig51evel waste.6 This is called the uranium-only recycle option, that all gaseous and volatile radionuclides in the spent fuel are released and its envirormental considerations are summarized in columns G (Reprocessing) before the geologic repository is sealed.5 Since the gaseous and volattie and H (Waste Management) of Table S-3A.* radionuclides are the principal contributors to environmental dose commitments, this assumption umbrellas the upper bounds of the dose commitments that may be associated with the disposal of spent fuel. , It should be noted that column F, and columns G and H, are not added together to arrive at totals, but are presented as alternatives. The higher value from these two alternative fuel cycles is added to arrive at totals. A.5-19 u___________________-__-_ - -
32 32 3 .
#- I" ~ ' 3(Rl E .EE$
= 1:
W'th respect to waste management activities associated with the uranium-only 3 recycle option (coltan H), the environmental considerations include the geologic 4: I j ga .. . .
. . ,l . ,4 ,
disposal of high-level wastes (Hl.W), transuranic wastes (TRU), plutonium, "I low-level or nontransuranic wastes, and the disposal of wastes from decontamina- .3g2 ,
! , l
= 3 .1 E *e*8 * ,
** a 2 tion and decommissioning of fuel cycle facilities. The environmental consid- 8 jij *** * * * *
- erations relevant to waste management activities directly related to reprocessing, ;
such as storage of liquid wastes in tanks, waste solidification and packaging, J m L8 j 2h . d 3 *h Uk and interim storage of solidified wastes at the reprocessing site, are included $ ., 3 .- . . in column G. [g3 = 3 9*2 *: 8 9N* - 2
-E h"m- iml -- -
= -l = -9
-=
9* It has been assumed that a geologic repository will be designed and operated jI. 1 3 23
,, I .,
's 'j s
,3.
a.4 so as to retain solid radioactive waste indefinitely. However, to umbrella s }2 4
~ ;9 3
the upper bounds of the dose comeitsents that may be associated with reprocessing ! A~ . ,4 - ... . g and waste management operations related to the uranium-only recycle cption, it 3. sj j j3*
~ ~
has been assumed that all of the gaseous and volatile radionuclides contained 'j j
... 3 2 3.
In the spent fuel are released to the atmosphere prior to the disposal of the j- o
. ddd n '
a:i 'li. a eg wastes.O The gaseous radionuclides (tritium, carbon-14, and krypton-85) and '5 , F the volatile radionuclide fodine-129 are the principal contributors to environ-j n = j llg ; .
. .f . [ [ *s mental dose commitments from the "back end" of the uranium fuel cycle.
F I . 2 .
cs
- E 33= =4 ;
s.
- 8. Environmental Considerations -
3 l
- . =3' I This section is a brief discussion of the environmental considerations of the I 3 -
,33)1 ,,,
)* jOg'jj:
- 3 -3 1 uranium fuel cycle, which are summarized in Table S-3 and Table 5-3A. It also }* 3h '
provides a brief explanation of how the values in Table 5-3, which has been j I- U8 g[
-a hl 2 f3 l..
33 ~ l y r normalized to a model 1,000-MWe reference reactor year (RRY), can be converted j~x *x 3 : :.3 - ). ssa .j: a l ,1 , a
')
A.N
yj ^ l , i 890's tit 0 408 l'id Old 4 eDft 42 69 - (MO N N M
- u - u -
u - - - - - (' ail t i') (*" ers't t . Ont *01 (1's Oott it's te '9 est *'ast t*t5)(entose t out.4e6'I ** ** '=1
*WI J8430 esteg) EPIt*5 e1189ead eelse*llSt ,
* * * * * * ' Foo 9'9186 9 B"I f
. 9 88 85 't . 9.e.t *6 '1 . - + (spuesw1) e"talat s gg , . . - tg g - . . -
M 3-et ggte g . . . - - St00 9 *
- Otlin tree g * * - - -
6t00'S -
- 942's#
l'8
- 9.etet 'l 29 0 20 9 900'8 I 9 9.S t *t 'l #de lW819 80"et,i en t)seeJate9 31 pee tel'8 -
(02'O 100' - * - - "
" *8 " 8 8 80 0 - I.etet t IS 8 tod' - -
All-l gg . - 89 0 l't * * *
- IJ ' ' 8 gg O
- tt '8 * - * * * #I N 9
0,g d 'St.a t ' l 000 Bf OH * * * *
- I'P'"W IM -
64 Gt * * * * *
'I J g I 9t
- L 04 94 M"""III *H I#I t( 3 9
- I'.9tet 014 'd9 6tonuo e et st 'd 2005 0 200'0 St00'S CO 'S -
*le*'n 13 0 *
'I Ol'l e
- I f,elst 9 20'8 'KI El g i.e I;0t og 't -
d s.teg 9 20 0
- 922-en 22(-#3 ggg(queegestee Despeg ws) sessej
{ tai 7a>> p>i Wesiesi t seep ne= usi s ienet een nme endws sei ineene 9.a ima ise= peJ4Ian e sen nu esi iu
.weat =ie si -s ** =d's , enemis -vtai me 'lef91 g ang etten lead 5 I u 9 A 3 e 3 8 V mea ms)**g emessies p1 teP4 el Postle*8 4
, d4 elid) gong pg mg esegtesortsee) (nese*Jg"ang se Aseneg
('am)) Vt-1 Elevi e- . ef. t oD* te ID 0 *
- 92 09 000'l6
- Spi [e(
(H - - - - - Der - (stenaam) sceltalog sentitet tt - - - t6 - - - ej g 01 - - 0'et l' t - tuu t il 20'0* - I9 (t)6 t - -
,e.
l8 - 60 0 - iO I'0 * *
.13 6g * * -
D's . - e3 6 #1 9 52 l's - 89 * - opsml A (2 l'f IO - Ist 4s C0 ' 0* *
- D1 l't - -
.?'g'll 5PI pie e (40 4 9n00 0 8 10'0 * - - -
-t3 19 0 -
50 0 600'S t t 's EmL l'0 -
J J*440 tit
- q #10 0 20'O 90 SHOUno 's t Ot t
- 4 9i d '6 setepn14ed M 9H et '0 HO'O 99 910 0 ft 0 at Ie t 's 70 0 et 290 e 20 e l'8 me's 90 e is ()s e tt s '0 seat am tul' t 29'O $90 0 6' t! 90 0 9 Gil* t (19 91 4 'll O'S te opt
- t 100 9 90 0 t'l ll e ' 0 Eg (t)ont's 0 62 0'il l's
(!N)**S89 .'7s _ TimTiiTAl i S lomal f J l g enet cell:18ed opdwg Get *tij laaj leen 'poJa 'jn e6et tltu Genetu
-seeJg egeogg -sta ndog getodsl0 seeJong .g3g n y mg ' term long enseg t o*e5 I N 9 a 3 0 3 0 V met alme ***sesos p1 sepeu en poen gemson loseste) it spa 3 geog yqi mg seepesepgsee3 geiesuueJgang go Asemarig
('lon) VT-111tV1
L
.- 9 1s I '
i 37 1 into the cumulative environmental effect over the 30 year reference reactor 3 . Itfetime, and in turn converted into the cumulative environmental effect related to a prospective nuclear power forecast.* The narrative is drawn 3 srimarily from the WASH-1248, NUREG-0116, and MUREG-0216 documents, and the
; k 'g 5-3 hearing record. References to applicable sections of these documents are 3
,,f -
included in the narrative. li *jjg
, j_
7 E
~
r .:
- .~
==
y 4 3.tt S 5i It should be noted that radon emissions from the ' front end" of the fuel
*% 3 hb~h 3# -) g i -i !
53
.6 cycle, and technetium-99 release estimates for the "back end" of the fuel
- 3. Accordingly, radon and technetium releases, 113 1
-s -
s 1 cycle are not given in Table S-3. 4" j 2 ;: g
- -35 together with an appraisal of their impacts, may be the subject of Ittigation
^i glg = 2* 3 I :I3$ gp 3 it* i ~35, -- j= in individual reactor Itcensing proceedings.9
- 5
-g -
g g
] .j .e '2, 9
i ! p)i
! k 33 s 1. Natural Resource Use %3 ,) ; k*2; $3_2 li -: )
a
=
i .t ! ,*
'31 lr. -
.e . Land f 3 i
- 8 i-1*
-I'i~
1 j! 111~ The total land use per RRY attributable to the uranium fuel cycle in support
- . -j-3 [-]1 t l-: of a model 1,000-Mbe LWR is about 113 acres, of which about 100 acres are j
- f. j ij f!i
- . : . .;= temporsrily committed, and about 13 acres are permanently comm6tted. About I j. ggE j . -:.!. * .
23 s 80% of the temporarily committed land used by fuel cycle factitties is 2 j jj{g.1 i-g .; 8
- 5 undisturbed land. Temporarily committed land, which is used during the life
-{ ;y *3.Ig}832
- 9. -)
': 3 1
of specific fuel cycle facilities, can be released for unrestricted use after j $ 1p1sj. 2k 32332.13 3! I Ii 1: sg
- Most effluent values, unless indicated otherwise, can be converted from RRY O ~--- 00 0
- values to reactor lifetime valves by multiplying the valve /RRY by 30 years (reactor life).
h 'rN
, y n.
w -; \
*~
-. ~
/,. . . )
r wy n
'/.
y# st 4 - a
'd w ,
%y, i
% + *
- y R # - p , *d
, a + .o ,
- o. -
38 ,, 39
~ t a
those facMiti s-are t closed down and decomabsioned. Permanently ccomitted which represented current operations. However, a later analysis developspfar land is that land which may t,e used for waste disposal but may not be reIeased NUREG-0002 indicated that when ore depletion and atti recovery perfommepe is for unrestricted use after certain facilities have ceased operating and are considered over the years 1976-2000, it would be more appropriate to use an decommissloriad.10 ave ge ore grade of 0.1%, with 90% mill recovery, over the If fe of a ddt. Thus, to' convert land use per RRY to land use per LWR If fe committed to mining The mining of uranium ore accounts fcr about 55% of the temporarily committed and milling, the tard use'per RRY should be multiplied by 67. Added to this land use of the entire u*antum fuel cycle. Mining operations also account for value is the land use per RRY for UF6 production, enrichment, fuel fabrication most of the overburden moved: 2.7 million metric tons compared to a total of and reprocessing; and 30 times the land use per RRY for waste management 2.8 eflifon metric tons per RRY for the entire fuel cycle. Next to mining, operations. For the reason given above, since most of the " overburden moved *' reprocessing and waste managment operations use most of the remaining is related to the mining of uranium cre, the factor, used to convert MT/RRY of - temporarily coenitted land attributable to the uranium fuel cycle. Of the overburden moved to MT/ LWR Iffe is 67. permanently committed land use attributable to the uranium fuel cycle, mining and milling operations account for about 35%, and %st of the . /W N 65% is Environmental Effects: The land use requirements related to the fuel cycle in used for the disposal of radioactive wastes (8.5 acres /RRY). support of a model 1,000-MWe LWR do not represent a significant impact. A 1,000-MWe coal-fired power plant that uses strip-mined coal requires the To determine the cumulative land use effect related to a prose x .!- disturbance of about 200 acres of land per year for obtaining coal alone. economy, one must first convert the land use per RRY to lane use for model Thus, for comparison, the coal plant disturbs about 10 times as much land as 1,000 MWe LWR lifetime (30 years), and tnen multiply that value by the equivalent the disturbance attributable to the entire fuel cycle in support of the model number of model 1,000-MWe LWRs projected (GWe). The weighted average factor 1,000-MWe LWR. to convert land use per RRY to land use per model LWP life is about 40.
- b. Water The conversion factor of 40 is a weighted aveage that results from considera-tioe of three factors; land use for facilities; land use for waste management, The principal use of water in the fuel cycle supporting a model 1,000-Mie LWR which increases with time; and cre depletion and alli recovery perfomance is for cooling. Of the total 11.377 million gallons of water use per RRY, over the life of the reactor. In WASH-1248, uranium mining and milling opera- about 11,000 million gallons are required to remove heat, by once-through tions were based on an average ore grade of 0.2%, and 100% mill recovery, cooling, from the power stations that supply electrical energy for uranium A.5-23
43 41 enrichment. The discharge of water to surface streams is in accordance with c, p.,,43 g,1 the national Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systes Persits issued by EPA and tr.e states. Drainage water peped out of urania eines (123 million gallons /RRY) Electrical energy and process heat are used in the fuel cycle. The electrical and from waste management operations (3.5 million gallons /RRY) is discharged energy (323 thousand tedh/ARY), of which noout 96% is used for uranium enrichment, to the ground. Of the 160 million gallons of water evaporated per RRY, aoout is produced by conventional, coal-fired, power plants.U Most of the process 65 elllion gallons of water are evaporated from sill tailings ponds, and the heat used sn the fuel cycle is septied by the comoustion of natural gas other 95 million gallons of water are evaporated free cooling water from fuel (135 million scf/RRY). In general, accut 50E of the natural gas is used for cycle facilities. ye.lowcate crying.13 15% is used in UF6 production, 31 is used in f a1 fabH ca-tion. 23 is used in reprocessing, and ICK is used in waste management operations. To determine tte cumulative water use effect related to a prospective nuclear economy, one must first convert water use per RRY to water use per model To MmW W mlatM fossil fwl use effut MiatH to a prospMtM 1,000-sese LW lifetime (30 years), and then multiply that value by the nuclear economy, multiply the fossil fuel per RRY value by 30 to convert ta equivalent numoer of model 1,000-94se LWs projected (Cae). The factor used to tu fossil fM use over tM 30 year life of W ml LOOO-* LW, W tMn convert water use per RRY to water use per model LW life is 30. However, to multiply that value by the equivalent meer of model 1,000-ese LWs projected determine the water use evaporated or discharged to ground, the conversion (g), factor for eining and silling operations is 67; and the factor for other fuel cycle operations is 30. Environmental Effect: The fossil fuel use requirements related ta the fuel cycle in soport of a model 1.000-Mse LW on not represent a significant Environmental Effect: The water use requirements related to the fuel cycle in imput. TM eintrical og needs of tM fuel cycle are only mt SE of s;gport of a model 1,000-Mbe LW do not represent a significant tapact. If the electrical energy produced by tM model 1.000-ese LA. If the natural gas all plants supplying electrical energy used cooling towers, the water use of cons med by the fuel cycle were used to generata electricity, it would contributa the fuel cycle would be aoout 65 of that required by the model 1,000-mee LWR. g g7 g The evaporated water loss of the fuel cycle is aoout 3 of the evaporated water loss of a model 1,000-Mee LW cooljng tower. A.5-2ei
42 43
- 2. Effluents - Cheetcal c. Liquids and Solids
- a. Gases Some liquid chemical effluents are released to surface waters from 6UF ' '"'IC#
The gaseous cheetcal effluents from the fuel cycle result, for the most part. ment, and fuel fabrication facilities. Tailing solutiens from the urant a 9 rom the combustion of fossile fuel to provide electrical energy or process. mill account for the bulk of n ss of liquid (240 tPousand MT/ARY) and solid heat for fuel cycle facilities.I4 To determine the c oulative gaseous chemical (91 thousand MT/RRY) effluents from the fuel cycle. However, the tailing Offect related to a prospective nuclear economy, perfore the calculation in a solstions are slowly dissipated by natural processes, principally through-manner similar to that given above for fossil fuel. evaporation, leaving the tallings solids for eventual disposal.17 Envirorueental Effect: The gaseous chemical effluents related to the fuel There are two major aqueous waste streams associated with the wet UF6 conversion cycle in support of a model 1,000-MWe LWR do not represent a significant process.18 One is made up of dilute scrubber solutions which are treated with impact. Bastd on data in a Councif on Environmental Quality report,15 these line to precipitate calcium fluoride, and is then diluted with cooling water emissions represent a very small addition (about 0.02%) to emissions from effluent before it is released. The other is a raffinate stream which is held Bransportation and stationary fuel combustion in the United States. in sealed ponds and the water is allowed to evaporate. The solids which are recovered from the settling ponds are packaged and ultimately buried. The
- b. Other Gases discharged of water to surface streams is in accordance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systen Permit issued by EPA and the state.
Small amounts of halogen compounds are released as gaseous effluents to the onvirons, primarily as fluorides from UF6 conversi n and uranium enricha nt A number of chemicals (primarily calcium, chlorine, sodium, and sulfate ions) operations. are present in the liquid affluent from the enrichment plant. Water treatment and dilution by the receiving river reduces the concentration of chemicals to Environmental Effect: Measurements of fluorine in unrestricted areas indicate a small fraction of the recommended permissible water quality standards. O concentrations below the level at which deleterious effects have been observed.16 Moreover, long-term observations have not revealed any adverse effects The liquid effluent from fuel fabrication facilities contains nitrogen compounds attributable to fluoride releases from UF conversi n, uranium enrichment, and resulting from the use of ammonium hydroxide in the production of UO2 E "d 6 fuel fabrication facilities. A 525
44 45 and from tM sse of altric acid in scrap recc.ery coeratioes. The fluorine 3. Efflueats - Radiological. intr %ced into the fel cycle curirg if 6 E~'*** 1 ** **'*** * * **
- t* 8 #**#* " ' **** "M Li'"1 #8 '
.. curing the pet @ction of U12 po=cer. The gasecus flucrios is removed free the effluent air streams ty mater scesecer syntans The scruccer systes mastes Tacle 5-3 summarizes (except for racon-222 and technetium-99)' tM curies of a-e treated with lime tc precipitate calcita fluorios, wiich is filtered free a radicactivity released per ERY in the gaseous and 11guid effluents from the the wasta efflant streas and pactaged (about 11 ceic yares/ttv) for discosalN uranian fuel cycle in soport of a oocal 1,000-ese 1;me. In general, the The discsarge of water to surface streams is in accorcaxe with a hational natural radicauclices (radia, thorie and uranism) are released from the front. Pollutant Discha ge Eliminatica Systae Pemit issued by epa and the state. end, and the others are released free the bact end of the fuel cycle. Ta oetermine the mass of tailing saliitton and solid ta111rgs related to a In the front eM of the fuel cycle, small ascunts of radium, tactie and prosmective nuclear ecorray, wnich are a functica of the average grace of cre uranism am released to the environment in the gaseous process effluents and processed, multiply the values for tailings solutions and solids in Tacle 5-3 in the went11ation air disc *.arged to the atacsphere free e1111ag UF6 production, ey 67 to octain the mass of tailings solution and tailings generated over the enric? ment and fuel fatrication facilities. Small amounts of uraalas am its
.model Let Iffetime. daupters also an released in the liquid effluents free these facilities, but oost of tMse radionuclides become part of the solid weste collected in the Env1 w tal Effect: The liquid and solid chemical effluents related to the tailings pile free milling operations or in settling ponds associated with the fuel cycle in s4 port of a mooel 1,0CC-ese Out do not represent a significant other front end operations.
impact. All liguid discharges free f a l cycle facilities into the navigamle waters of the United States are s4 ject ta requireseats and limitatiens set In the once-tArourt fuel cycle, tM spent fuel is stared fee five or more forth in the mational Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systen Persit issued by years and then disposed of in a geologic respository wewi the repository is an approcriate state er federal regulatory agency. een silling activities are availacle to receive spent fuel.22 During interie storage prior ta sealing of tersiaated, the tailings pile any be graded, covered with earth aM topsoil, the repository, some of tM gaseous 4% volatile radionuclides contained in and seeded to redxe racon emanation." the spent fwl may escape due to the failure of the feel element cladding and leakageofthespentfN1disposalcontainers.23 At tais time, racon seissions are excluded from the 5-3 fuel eg le rule. Proposed regulations related to the disposal of mill tallings were pselished la the federal Register on August 24, 1979. A.M
46 47 About 50% of the krypton,10% of the catoon-14, and 1% of tritium and iodine the process effluents.24 The radiological effluents related to the uranium-only. contained in spent fuel exists within the gas space in the fuel rod and is recycle option are given in column H of Table S-3A. These values, per RRY, likely to be released from the fuel rod ff the cladding falls. However, the are based on the reprocessing of six sponth old spent fuel. curies of tritium, carbon-14, krypton-85 and iodine-129, given in Column F of Table 5-3A represent the total curies of each contained in 35 mitric tons of Since the radfological effluents given in Table S-3 are based on the higher , spent fuel (the annual reference reactor fuel requirement), irradiated to values taken from either fuel cycle, the ' radiological considerations 'related 33,000 mwd /MT, and aged 5 years. Since the site and method for spent fuel to the back end of the fuel cycle are based on 1005 release of the tritium. disposal have not yet been defined, the NRC staff cannot determine what amounts carbon-14 krypton-85, and iodine-129 contained in six month aged spent fuel, of radionuclides may eventually escape from the repository or when they may and small amounts of other fission product and transuranic radionuclides that enter the environment. However, the NRC staff made a generic assessment, may be released if spent fuel were reprocessed. based on a reference repository, to identify which radionuclides have the higher probability of migrating from a repository, and which of these radio. Environmental Effect: Excluding radon, the radiological effluents released nuclides are the principal contributors to environmental dose commitments if per RRY from the fuel cycle in support of the model 1,000-MWe LWR result in an they do eventually enter the biosphere. In general, the gaseous radionuclides estimated 100 year environmental dose commitment to a U.S. population of that escape from failed fuel rods, or leaking waste Canisters, before the 300 million persons of about 650 person-rom, of which about 550 person-ree is repository is sealed, and the very long-life radionuclides that have low attributable to gaseous effluents and about 100 person-rea is attributable _to retardation in soils, such as fodine-129, w'ifch may migrate with ground water liquid effluents. Of the dose commitment attributable to 1,aseous effluents, and eventually reach the biosphere, are the principal contributors to environ. about 42% is from tritium, 31% is from carbon-14, 5% is from krypton-85, IDE mental dose commitments. Accordingly, to umbrella the upper bounds of prospective is from iodine, and the balane (12%) is from all other radionuclides, which dose comettments, it was assumed that all of the tritium, carbon-14, krypton-85, contribute primarily to the local population dose commitment, and fodine-129 contained in 5 year-old spent fuel per RRY was released to the snvironment. AltV gh radon effluents are excluded from Table 5-3, the dose commitment from radon has to be added to the above fuel cycle environmental dose comitment to In the uranium-only recycle option, the spent fuel is reprocessed. During arrive at the estimated dose commitment attributable to the entire fuel cycle. reprocessing, the gaseous radionuclides (tritium, carbon-14 and krypton-85) Based on recent studies, the ICD year environmental dose commitment per RRY are released to the atmosphere; however, most of the iodine is removed from attributable to redon emissions from mining and milling is about 210 person-rem. A,5-27 ( f
49 48 The high-level radioactive waste from the once-through fuel cycle is the spent On this basis, the 100 year environmental dose commitment attributable to the fuel assemblies, which will be packaged and disposed of in a geologic repository. entire fuel cycle is about 860 person-res per RRY. For comparison, the The radioactive waste from the uranium-only recycle option consists of the annual dose commitment to a U.S. population of 300 million from natural background fuel assembly hulls, the high-level and intermediate-level wastes from reproces-radiation is about 3,000,000 person-rem. Thus, the dose commitment per RRY sing, and the plutonium waste. These wastes will be disposed of in a geologic from the fuel cycle is about 0.035 of the dose commitment to the U.S.. population repository in the form of solids which will have chemical and physical properties from nataral background radiation. Section III contains an assessment of the that mitigate the release of radionuclides to the environs. It is assumed environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population attributable to tra that the geologic repository will be designed and operated so that the solid radiological effluents, except radon, released from the uranium fuel cycle. radioactive wastes are confined indefinitely,
- b. Solids Envirormental Effect: There are no significant releases of solid radicactive .
materials from shallow land-burial facilities, or from the geologic repository,'. The curies per RRY of radionuclides in buried radioactive low-level, high-level to the environment. 4.nd transuranic waste materials are given in Table 5-3. As discussed above, It is assumed that there will be no release of solid radionuclides to the
- 4. Effluents - Thermal environment from buried solid waste materials. Moreover, the radiological effluents from waste management are so small in relation to the other segments The uranium fuel cycle in support of a model 1,000- We LWR discharges approxi-of the fuel cycle that they do not show up in the totals presented in mately 4 trillion Stu of heat per RRY into the environs. Most of this heat, Table S-3.25 about 805, is rejected to the atmosphere at the p'ower plants supplying electrical energy to the enrichment plant or at the enrichment plant itself. O Waste About 10,700 curies of mixed radionuclides are buried per RRY at low-level management and spent fuel storage contribute about ISE of the heat rejected to waste land burial sites. Of this total, 9,100 curies comes from LWR low-level the environs. This heat results from tne decay of radionuclides. The rejection waste;26 1,500 curies are attributable to decommissioning of nuclear facilities, of process heat from fuel cycle facilities accounts for the remaining 25 of including the reactor;U and the balance, about 100 curies, is generated by the thermal effluent from the fuel cycle.
the uranium fuel cycle operations in support of the LWR. About 600 curies of aranium and its daughters are added per RRY to the tailings pile at the mill 28 site A.5-28
50 51 To determine the heat rejection by the fuel cycle over the model LWR lifetime, associated with the back end of the fuel cycle, if the model 1,000- me LWR is multiply the thermal effluent value per RRY by 30. operated on the urant w-only recycle mooe. Most of the occ wational exposure
-attributable to the back end of the fuel cycle results frem the variety 9f Environmental Effect: The thermal effluents related to the fuel cycle in operations associated with reprocessing and related' waste management activities' support of a model 1,000- me LWR do not represent a significant impact. The involving toe disposal of irradiated spent fuel. For. comparison, the occupational thermal effluent of the fuel cycle is only about 8% of the heat dispersed to exposure related to the "back end" of the *once-through" uranits fuel cycle is the environs by the model LWR. es me o persena per RRY. W occupational exMsum attr h able to the entire uranium fuel cycle in support of a model 1,000- m e LWR is estimated
- 5. Transportation to about 200 person-rem per RRY.31 The dose commitment to workers and the public related to the transport of Environmental Effect: The occupational exposure attributable to the fuel nuclear materials in support of a model 1,000-We LWR is estimated to be about cycle in support of a model 1,000'-We LWR ls acceptable. NRC regulations 2.5 person-res per RRY.30 limit the permissible occupational exposure of any individual to 5 rem annually.
To determine the transportation dose commitment over the model LWR lifetime, multiply the dose commitment per RRY by 30. I Eneironmental Effect: The transportation dose commitment related to the fuel cycle in support of a model 1,000-MWe LWR does not represent a significant impact. Compared to natural background radiation, this dose coemitment is small.
- 5. Occupational Exposure The occupational esposure value given in Table S-3 (22.6 person-ren) represents an upper exposure value related to reprocessing and waste management activities A,5-29
l l
$3 52
- 24. Ibid., p. 4-9.
- 25. T- 1., p. 4-84, Table 4.16.
Section 11 - References
- 26. NUREG-0216, p. H-17, Table VII.
NUREG-0116, Section 2.6 and 4.6. 27. Ibid., p. H-18, Table VIII. 1.
- 28. WASH-1248, p. $-24.
- 3. Ibi d. , p. 4-109.
- 29. Ibfd., p. 5-24.
- 3. Ibid., 4-117.
- 30. NUREG-0116, p. 4-150, Table 4.35.
- 4. Ibid., Section 4.4.
- 31. NUREG-0216, p. I-2.
- 5. Ibid., p. 4-114.
- 6. Ibid. , Section 2.5 and pp. 4-100.
- 7. Ibid., Section 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5, and Section 4.4.
- 8. Ibid., p. 4-114.
- 9. Federal Register, 3 , p. 45371.
- 10. WASH-1248, p. 5-9.
- 11. Ibid., p. 5-16.
- 22. Ibid.; p. D-14.
- 13. Ibid., p. 8-10.
- 14. Ibid., p. 5-18.
15. U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, "The Seventh .mnual Report," September 1976, Figures 11-27 and 11-28, pp. 238-239
- 16. WA5N-1248, p. 5-18.
- 17. Ibfd., p. 8-9.
- 18. Ibid., p. C-4.
- 19. Ibid. , pp. D-18,19.
- 30. Ibid., p. E-3.
I 21. Ibid., p. E-3. I
- 22. NUREG-0116, p. 4-109.
- 33. Ibid. , pp. 4-110 and 4-115.
S.5-2
55 54 III. Calculated Population Dese Commitments and health Effects A. 100 year Environmental Dose Commitments The environmental models used to calculate the transport of released radio-of the Uranium Fuel Cycle activity to man and to estimate the potential. somatic and genetic health In the Federal Register Notice promulgating the final fuel cycle rule (44 effects used in the following discussion are the models discussed in the Geste .. FR 45362), the Commission stated, in note 35, that one important issue to be Hearings.I The models have been described in some detail in Appendix C of addressed in the narrative is the questf on of the time period over which dose NUREG-0216. Basically, the models account for the dispersion of radioactivity commitments from long-lived radioactive effluents should be evaluated. In released in the environment, the bioaccumulation in food pathways, the uptake particular, how dose commitment evaluations over extended periods of time by man and the dose commitments resulting from that uptake. There are two - f;ight be performed and what their significance might be are subjects that the types of population dose commitments calculated: the 50 year dose commitment from continued external exposure and uptake of the radioisotopes released in a Commission directed be addressed in this narrative. 1 year period, and the environmental dose commitment (EDC). The EDC represents This portion of the narrative has been developed to meet the above Commission the sum of the 50 year dose commitments for each year of a spectfled period directive. Section A contains a discussion of the population dose commitments du' ring which the radioactivity is released or remains in the environment, l-and health effects calculated to result from the radioisotope releases given in Table 5-3 when integrated over 100 years." Section 8 contains a discussion In practice, it is impossible to estimate realistically the complete EDC for cf the period of time that the waste in a Federal repository may represent a very long-lived nuclides, such as iodine-129 (17 million years half life), There is no way to predict with any degree of certainty the many variables significant potential hazard, the incremental radioisotope releases from the that affect such estimates so far into the future, e.g., the growth of human repository which might occur during that period, and the period of time for which calculations may provide meaningful information. Section C contains a population, technological advances, the environmental behavior of long-lived discussion of how very long-term (thousands of years) dose commitments and radionuclides, and the occurrence of catastrophic climatic and geologic changes. health effects attributable to long-lived radioisotopes released to the envi- (See Section C for a discussion of how long-term dose commitments might be ronment might be calculated, and what the significance of the calculations calculated.) sight be. NRC, EPA, and other agencies use a so-called incomplete EDC. In GESMO,2 the 1ength of the incomplete EDC selected was 40 years for a total U.S. population " WASH-1248 and Table 5-3 did not address the question of population dose commit-ments or potential health effects. However, these topics were discussed in of 250 million. Thus, 50 year population doses were calculated for each year considerable detail in NUREGs-0116 and -0216 (Supplements I and 2 of WASH-1248). Tt:ese reports present a detailed reevaluation of the "back end" of the uranium fuel cycle. A,5-31
57 The health effects models represent a linear extrapolation of effects observed 56 at high dose rate (e.g. Japanese nuclear bomb survivors) to potential effects at low doses and low dose rates. In addition, the assumption is made that af the 40 year exposure period and sumed (f.e., the total length o* time there is no dose below which effects cannot occur. .It is believed that the covered was 40 + 50, or 90 years). These calculations have been socified to use of such models, although useful for regulatory purposes, tends to (xtend the population dose integration period to 100 years, as recommended by overestimate the effects of exposure to low-level ionizing radiation. Most. the 5-3 Hearing Board. .Since each year's exposure is calculated for 50 years, animal and cellular studies indicate reduced somatic and genetic effects as the total time covered is 150 years. For the overall fuel cycle, the total the doses are reduced. Further,~ at low dose rates, the effecu per unit of body exposure is projected to be 550 person-res/RRY for an assumed stable U.S. radiation dose for somatic effects may decline due to cellular repair and population of 300 million. other mechanisms. It should be noted that for tritium and krypton-85 (two of the major dose 3 The health risk estimators from the GE5M0 studies are as follows:* contributors), there is little difference between e 33-year and a 100 year EDC, since about 90% of both nuclides will decay within the first 40 years. total body dose: 135 cancer deaths per million person-res Furthermore, much the same is true of most of the fission and activation g g products released from the nuclear fuel cycle (e.g., fodine-131, rutionium-106, thyroid dose: 13.4 cancer deaths per million person-rem strontium-90, cesium-137). For this reason, increasing the length of the EDC lung dose: 22.2 cancer deaths per million person-res from 40 to 100 years results in much less than a doubling of the estimated bone dose: 6.9 cancer deaths per million person-rem dose commitments and potential health effects; not much additional change
.ald occur if the EDC were extended beyond the 100 years for most isotopes.
Although the risk of a genetic effect occurring is about twice that of a However, for t..c v*ew long-lived radioisotopes s e as carbon-14 and fodine-129' cancer death, most of the genetic effects (assumed to be occurring at the ! among others, and the special case of 3.8-day redon-222 which continues to be equilibri m rate which requires about 5 generations) would not be fatal, formed by decay of long-11ved parents, the EDCs continue to increase with time and the calculated health effects also continue to increase. (See Section C *The conclusions in the S-3 narrative concerning potential biological effects are based on risk estimators in the BEIR I Report modified to reflect more for a discussion of very long EDCs.) recent radiobiological data in WASH-1400. The BEIR !!!, which reevaluates the risk estimators presented in BEIR I, recently has been published (July, 1980). Although the NRC staff review is still underway, the range of risk estimators for low level radiation presented in BEIR III appear to be essentially the same In the area of health effects, it is possible that even the 40 year EDCs numercially or less than those presented in BEIR I for whole body exposures. However, in some cases the cancer risk estimators for soecific organs in BEIR !!! calculated for the 5-3 hearings overestimated the impacts of the releases. appear to be different from (somewhat higher than) those in BEIR I and those in the S-3 narrative. Thus, cancer risk estimators for some specific organs could be somewhat underestimated in the S-3 narrative. However, since the bulk of the i collective population doses from the uranium fuel cycle (excluding radon) are ' whole body exposures, the conclusions of the S-3 narrative would be changed only - slightly, if at all, if the BEIR III risk estimators were to be used. A,54
58 Because there are higher dose commitments to certain organs (e.g., lung, bone, thyroid) than to the total body, the total risk of radiogenic cancer is not addressed by the total body dose commitment alone. By using the risk estimators presented above, it is possible to estimate the whole body equivalent dose would predict about 60 million cancer deaths from causes other than generation commitments for certain organs. The sum of the whole body equivalent Jose of nuclear power during the next 100 years.' Assuming that the occurrence of cousitments from those organs was estimated to be about 100 person-rom. When genetic effects remains constant, projections would predict about 25 million added to the above value, the total 100 year environmental dose commitment genetic effects from causes other than generation of nuclear power during the would be about 650 person-ren/RRY. next 100 years. 6 In s amary, the potential radiological impacts of the supporting fuel cycle Using the lifetime risk estimate cf 135 cancer deaths per 10 person-rem and (including fuel reprocessing and waste management but excluding radon averaging the 650 risk equivalent person-rom per RRY over the U.S. population emissions from mining and mill tailings) are as follows: of 300 million persons, the average lifetime individual risk in the U.S. from total body person-res/RRY: 550 (100 year dose commitment) cancer mortality from radioactivity released from the supporting fuel cycle is risk equivalent person-ren/RRY: 650 (100 year dose commitment)= about 3 chances in 10 billion per RRY. Assuming one RRY supplies electrical fatal cancers /RRY: 0.08g pw for approximately a million persons and that all of the cancer risk is genetic effects /RRY: 0.14 borne only by those users, the average lifetime risk to this population group Thus, for example, if three light water reactor power plants were to be operated for 30 years each, the supporting fuel cycle would cause risk equivalent whole body population dose commitments of about 59,000 person-rem and a genetically significant dose commitment of about 50,000 person reu, leading to estimates of 8 fatal cancers aN 13 genetic effects in the U.S. population (300 million persons) over a period of 100 years. Some perspective can be added my comparing such estimates with " normal" cancer mortality for the same population. Assuming that future population characteristics (age distribution, cancer susceptibility, stc.) and competing risks of mortality remain the same as today, such projections to 9 chances in 1 billion are as follows: a few puffs on a cigarette, a few sips of wine, driving the family car about 6 blocks, flying about 2 miles, canoeing for 3 seconds, or being a man aged sluty for 11 seconds." Using
- Includes dase commitments to other organs as well as whole body dose. electricity generated by any means for typtcel domestic use results in an A.5-33
l l )i l
. J d
e d e s e e l p r e v s u e t f s i e p s s l e a o r h t t er T i t a o w e o l s u -P sy e g n s e
) *.
e c d e l a ic c s g t e a
*L
- e e d
n e s e t l s m e a r a y b e d i h l l l w c i n s f
, e sa s s w (i i
s n o
, i t
a m i,a m p l l t e i a e s e aict e i i t s i s
, i a e e2 s l i h w r i t i ts l c t ee e f s i - C t c s ' t t i i w l f t
a es h t e = aa on te e e e a u ca t e c c is t u e e g s A s t c c d s i e . l p s s s n t m t t a e e c n i o e e a ** o o e l p h + a a i p s e ,r i s t s t r h m p T h e e s s e 4 p e f t m g s s t r ? m l e i i , n s t i e !
'a
- a. c e e w e l i .
A e at + e f t. i e a s i b e l y c h t n c t s
- a. le s
. s e
e l e v e e msse f si t k N rt r o a t l l o i t a,
,e 1
h t i o w c t e r t e a h - s e a f t a i na t e u e t t pl e i s
, s t e e a h g f e e t t r e s m a c a l n
ac ett s se oac t e n i e e i l t c y t d s
, e e
o ly n e o t c a s e s l i t h d e s e, a i s ms i a e, s a t a r i c e e i s o s o e w e f o a
- f i f
N s a r a e l i i t l mt s s af i d a l ; i f a C . e. s a a r ea s a a e s w f . n s f s a
- a. c i r n e i d r t e
o e e eb e l e t e C y tr il o c f l e a f f f 6 h s t u m s. a
- 1 s e r r f o t s a c t e t f m - .l e
( e v a g i e e s e s i e e e m o e el c t e h e l t r t l s t s e d n s n u p s C( 2> t p l a et a h e e h n e e ,. *.e a s a p t a ei o a g n m e t t a s
. p s
c t a s g i s _ t i e s
'pu r o
m f a- o a l l f i o r m msa t e e . 5, s o ne t o wi e b w w 1 s t i e i T h t E J o i r h t t s a a n f e r t s l e l l s t y o n a et
- f s d w
r, h T ro s. f
)e r e h e
s - i c n s w g ht o e t e c n l w im c a D t e o f i e e l c y i w o i c r e f t y b e ol g n f r i e a l a p s e t t e e t r t i s l i p mo t r e o a e e t t f a r s f t f l a s e v e t h l c a f et ta i i l i c e sa r e s o i t C a t e a e se
- e. m o e *. w e e .
m,.t y h s l h
- t e at+ e c t e - i s y o e t e t e
et a e t s se le a s i eoe Tm? c e , F , e e b e b a o er i y = i c et e f t N s s
- c c y ts - c. m f e p
- c w , c l e e f : F a i o y
s u c e e a PJ e c e c t f w t e y e
. e r
s a. s t e a ol d e t s l e mi o e n . s e e t s r s us i - t. e i o i r l c i t i c s s t,e l i T y e im fu r p r a s a J . s a e s b e o a ae o t a e t t a i r e s iw
- t a i f S S a
m s e i n P Ie t w e e c et - c s e is e f f a h s - n o o e T d a e a 3 3 A e . v d e
- e e ,
e t s h s e ic s
- t c
t o Ma y a c ec h t e 6 y c a s t a s e t a. s er e 1 1 f t t r e e r .t e *
. w l t r s c- o s t l l s t e s o a n p e a eu y
- a. b wif e i e 3 e e e s i f Ns a r
M I. ar t t ( s a e c a i t v u E t cas :c mac p e g s f o - m e i a at m 5 f a a s a s e 3
- s *t . er s s e
l a s b e d t o . ee. ita d e v m y e r s 5
- g e op e e $, i. a e a
i t s e s a e te e p d l w o e r s s e t s h t a
- 'e i
l c c et e s s u at f i s a e i i$ e it. le a w es c o a i d a w f b c r o t M m a lca T a l s a e e l o d, f o e3 S s r ce t i e. n
. c t t s t ln ev h a i t t s d n a , ir e s e t s C c
e le d n e s s a i e t a f o t s ) o t l e o p e b l s a l a e s a g e w- a - w s. a t e e c e mi n s s f l t w ro . ,e M s l ig s e v e s a t l a is e tt c I f t e e v t a e l o f n C i w e a s e. D c e s s s a a g g e a c e .e t
- t a l a i l e e e m c l t 9 f l i f n
e a a e se r w e - e
- c e it o n ac - o e pa c e a s s ,
- a s
i c t t 3 v 9 1 p rew e
- i s
r o e e s l a s i t a r 1 l I s e s i f i
- . c s
a3 e a s e p 6d c s a el 5 p o y e t n t e t d e ?c e S a i te a r e e p ,. . g R t y 0 e l h e ee s e n t s t i f d 6 m a ev t e a m i
. r n f s e l d i n e o s lo r s m t a e r a s f
r i T a e s er
, f t f t
e
. i e
t o d n f o f a s' f e. e . e e 3
- w l
g c 'o o a e. h p a e c . t e e d a a e a c f t e 3 e t t e o f 6 s e t f t s y ( g
- t -
g e r f e e t e t t e . s y 5 p , 12 a s C
- e. c v e s n r a a p , 0 y b e e I.s e e e a i a c e t e s -
w1 t l t l r st e h w
- w cy ic r e ta 1*. r 3 a e
p u
'ts e T e r )
f E s C t s c os l c a l l l e e S es s 9 s e o e S s a $ e e - pe s 0 c 6 l T w * . s 1 w a 1 e es de ps n m t 4 s y n s e t 2 t e s t - i 0 m r c 2 e : e. p i n e i d s S d a o ef - Y F s t e e e s 1 t t
- t i
a a e s w m Mt t I f
-- Alas i i e c s c te s e c $ o e ctee s l t f e t 6
l a z s a a e o sa e n s e a e ot i v l ev y f e es s f i t t w j o a l 5 t i w 1 e o p c n f s e r e m f e s e ce t o 1 d s r c 1 l r h s l 6 o l
- ew l p i 1 a E t d sao 1 e w'e s t s - e, i c f p
a e y a g 1 i 2 a a e f s f a s e co plo 0 t c 5
. f o e p C
- i m
s de t e f t s e i r 3 1 1 e e s e 1 t s i l e g f i t ,. - s l f e ia i c C t 1 s s d f c i u r d f e a e a e s e e a a o g a f o la n t s t c l y a r E P 5 3 i a e e Me n t j e t s M s e e eD p t t e r k - i e ev e O 1 t wt s de e er e l e e e et a ev e r o i s e n I t f f e i t r t I m S 6P e o f r s a m e a r n o ew T h I T J y s e T a v a o p iIlllIl;t
63 , 62 of the nonvolatile fission products, transuranic elements, and activation '8 "8' * * *" * *" * " products produced in the fuel in the course of irradiation. The main difference between the spent fuel and the wastes from urani e-only recycle
- is that the wastes from the latter contain only 2-5% of the residual uranium. Ns, on a broad comparative basis, since all other nuclides
"#" " 8 ** """"" "#* "* '" ' " ' "
- are presee ti about equal amounts in both wastes, the spent fuel represents
- a slightly greater long-ters risk because of its larger uranium content. tory, on the other hand, will be located in e hydrogeologic setting punesely selected to have no known or prospective contact with circulating grouneseter, Since all solidified wastes have been assumed for this study to Save equivalent nuclide retentian properties, and since spent fuel represents the greater long-term risk, the following discussion is based on spent fuel, packaging, will also include engineered features which are intended to prevent er greatly slow the release of the waste to'the host media.
The potential effects from long-term releases of radioisotopes from a reposi-tory, require the consideration of two basic issues: types of events must occur. The first involves essentially common place
""* * " "* "E" o over what period of time does the waste represent a significant potential waste centainer to corrode; and (3) radionuclides to leech from the waste hazard, and fom. Long-lived radionuclides will eventually reach the biosphere by migration
* "' " ' " " *" **"
- 8* *" ** * ** *'8* E*'"*
e given the state-of-the-art of modeling tnnsport of radionuclides, do or a o non cou expon men o ndinctin naurials calculations provide meaningful information over that period of time? via food chains or ot'her environmental pathways. The second type of event One way to address the question of time over'which the spent fuel in the
" "" *"*"C " ' ' # " b *" # *E" D **" "
natural events, which released radionuclides to the biosphere. .However, sites repository represents a significant hazard is to assess the not potential impact of the disposal of the waste relative to the potential impacts if the for waste npositories will be selected in areas where the probability that a charge to the reactors (fresh fuel) had remained in the ore body. For this natural event would disturb the repository is extremely low and located away assessment it is assummed that an engineered system, including waste from fr e identified natural resources to minimize the probability that man would A.5-35 l
64 65 accidentally disturb the repository. An analysis of the consequences of a migrating groundwater should be extremely low. However, the oxidation conditions meteorite strike of the repository, an extraordinary event that would be are difficult to predict due to the effects of construction of the repository . citssified as coming under scenario two, has been given in NUREG-0116.8 Thus, and due to waste-rock interactions. The, e, technetium has been considered the analysis here considers primarily the probability of waste reaching the to be present as tir, pertechnetate oxyanion s $g) which is assumed to migrate bitspute under the conditions of scenario one. to the biosphere with the groundwater. In the event water inflitrated the repository, it would take a long time for , To determine the time period over which spent fuel might be deemed a significant any of the leached radionuclides to be transported to the biosphere by groundwater hazard, we have compared its dilution index with that of unirradiated uranium r,1gration. Movement of groundwater is itself slow, and retarding mechanisms fuel. The dilution index is a measure of the amount of water required to j such as ion exchange increase the travel time for most radionuclides such that dilute the concentration of radionuclides to the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 for it might take tens to hundreds of thousands of years for them to reach the unrestricted release, which can be used to compare the consequences of ingestion bitsphere.10 In this period of time, most radioactive material will have of radioactive materials. From Figure 3 it can be seen that in spent fuel decayed away before it could reach the biosphere. On the other hand, fission the fission products dominate the dilution inden up to about 200 years from products carbon-14, technetium-99, and iodine-129 have a combination of low reactor discharge. Beyond 200 years to about 50,000 years the transuranic retardation by fon exchange in soll and long Ilves. Accordingly, if these radionucitdes and their daughters dominate the dilution index, and beyond radionuclides were leached from wastes by in*iltrating water, they could reach 100,000 years uranium and its daughters dominate the dilution index. From the biosphere in relatively small concentrations over a rather long time Figure 4, it can be seen that the growth of urantum daughters radium and lead period. However, in developing the source terms for Table S-3 it was assumed dominate the dilution indet for aged unirradiated uranium fuel, such that by that carbon-14 and iodine-129 were released to the biosphere before the waste about 100,000 years the dilution indexes for both spent fuel and unfrradiated was sent to the repository. While not the actual case with respect to the uranium fuel are about the sass, both being dominated by uranfue and its disposal of spent fuel from the once-through fuel cycle, for the purpose of daughters. Thus, without consideration of dispersion or retardation relative the 5-3 rule this assumption bounds the upper 11stts relevant to releases of to groundwater transport time, at about 100,000 years the dilution index of crrt>on-14 and iodine-129 from the uranium fuel cycle. Technetium can exist in the waste in a repository is about the same as aged unirradiated uranium fuel. several oxide forms. Undes the conditions expected for groundwaters not in Moreover, since plutonium and americium have long delay times during transport contact with the atmosphere, insoluble Tc0 2 or related hydrated f res should from the repository to the environment, the dilution index of those materials be the solubility-controlling phases, and the concentrations of technettum in in the waste that could potentially be released is about the same as aged unirradiated fuel after 10,000 years. A.5-5
k m $ - o 1 i I 8
! I ]
9
* -l I 0
.b 2 1
.E
/ ,/ n .
- g 1
i !O E I 8 .a ai I g a- l -E- 1
, ,- ~ s .
e 4, O d 2 J' f , "' d \,h . I I {E 4 jo. ei i
-8 gj u '
i y s' I
/ /
c5's WW 4
\
) **
E 1"
' e w -f I
i < I ~ s-1 i ,
-8?f a d
\ / i ' N <
/ \ E Efg / ! s -I g v i f st\ l l ig j
!, 7! %l\ i i e a.
il i i 1 % 1 3 S (uH WVUDO11MfH 31VMgW) X3ONI NOllnllG G31V3b1NO k 4 g n i -
,- -g' (s / fy,'tigi" +E g i a/ - g; m! li oi #I 8g g
[\/5!g,! s sa i I E
,is: e1 I
. / N 1,mi i en 3 .
i 2 -
' e as..N I
,"/ -
f" }
" ~E
! , , , , _ g ) - 1 = [ l - 8[ " Og i I ~a! a i I
= .lE - -
s g h3
- .+: I I i t I 1 i i t gl g O b 1 % % 2
- luH WVHDOllM/W 31VMgW X3ONI NOlin110 031Y3HINO e
69 68 eatended periods of time signt be evaluated, and what their significance might Thus the answers to too previously posed ow stions concerning the potential be. In Section A, page 56, it was shown that a 100-year D C was adee, ate to long-te m effects of waste repositories may me framed as follows: provide the total dose comitment from aest isotopes. Very long-time EDCs are necessary if the complete environmental dose commitments from fuel cycle L For natural-type releases from a repository, significant net potential impacts of spent fuel relative to aged fresh f.sel entst for less than emissions such as carDon-14 and todine-129 are to be aetermined. In addition to these isotopes, the analysis given in Section 8 showed that a very conser- 1 10,000 years. In natural-type releases, there is a long time delay sative evaluation af long-tern emissions free a repository would show (M104-105 years) between the time the nuclide (or its parent) leaves the technetium-99 could be released from a repository. Applicable release's for repository and reaches the biosphere. The net impact of such releases these isotopes are: can be conservatively (high stoe) approximated by assuming the complete release of the techneti m-99. Given the nume,er of conservative asseptions Caroon-14 24 C1/ARY required to model the releases from a repository under natural-type Iodine-129 1.3 C1/RRY circostances and the small potential net isomet after 10,000 years, Techneti m-99 weer bound for long-ters releases from the calculating releases for natural-type conditions beyond 10,000 years repository is 500 C1/ tty, 1005 of the provides little meaningful information. technetium in fuel." f
- 2. If distoireances of a repository which could result in the direct release Carbon-14 and iodine-129 would be emitted as volatile materials; technetim of significant m.antitics of otherwise immobile isotopes are being considered would be leached from the waste repository and reach the biosphere diss31ved (well-digging), significant net potential hazards could persist for 100,000 years. The impacts from the disturoence would depend on the time in water.
and nature of the action. After 100,000 years, the waste in the repository Mathematical models are available for estinating the long-tere population presents no greater hazards 0;n the original materials charged to the doses from carbon-14 and fodine-129. No models are currently available for reactor, estinating long-ters doses from technetium. C. Dose Commitments and Health Effects free tono-Lived aadioisotopes Released from the urani e Fuel Cycles The Commission directed the staff to discuss the time period over wnich dose "Envirormental Standards being developed by EPA and regulations being developed commitments should be evaluated, how the dose commitment evaluations over by MRC are expected to require reasonable assurance that releases of Tc-99 are a ses11 fraction of this quantity. A.5-D
c 71 70
- 1. Calculation of Dose Commitments (2) Iodine-129 Ta calculate dose commitments and health effects over long time periods, one Appendix C, Section 3.0 of NUREG-0216 provides an adequate model for estimating must: (a) predict the population at risk; (b) model the time-dependent behavior long-term population doses from fodine-129. The GESMO model (RASGA0) can be af the nuclide in the environment and (c) predict the response of the population used for estimating the U.S. population dose resulting from the initial passage ta the exposure in terms of cancer mortality and genetic defects, of the iodine-129 prior to mixing in the world pool of stable iodine. For the
-12 long-term, the model assumed for the 5-3 hearings results in 1.1 x 10
- a. Population at Risk res/ year /Ci to each person in the world after the mixing occurs, with the In considering population at risk over time periods of 100,000 years or more, annual dose-rate declining with a half-life of 17 million years. Although several gross assuestions must be made. Realistically, geologic history would removal mechanisms probably exist which would result in an environmental predict several catastrophes such as ice ages (as many as 10 might occur over half-life much less than the 17 million year radiological half-life, the 250,000 years)11 and large fluctuations in population might be expected to be environmental half-life was conservatively taken to be the radiological half-life.
caused by such catastrophes. The staff, for went of a better rationalization, This conservatism is prudent until better long-term iodine models are developed. has assmed a stable world population of 10 biliton for the first 10,000 years af exposure, with periodic variations of population of from 2 billion to 10 billion as a function of time beyond 10,000 years. Further, the U.S. popula- c. Response to Empo wre tion was assumed to be a constant 35 of the world population.
-In considering response of the population to exposure to radioactive nuclides, the staff has no basis to choose any responses other than those estimated
- b. Models of Nuclide Behavior 6 0
currently--135 cancer deaths /10 person-rem, and 258 genetic defects /10 (1) Carbon-14 person-ren.U In an attempt to consider the potential effects of advances in technology, three scenarios were used--no cure or preventions for cancer or The GESMO a4 5-3 hearing record do not contain a model that adequately predicts genetic defect's; a possible cure or prevention for cancer and genetic defects the behavior of carbon-14 in the environment over long time periods. The in 1000 years; and a possible cure or prevention for cancer or genetic defects - GESMO model (RA8GAO) can be used to estimate the dose commitment to the U.S. in 100 years. population from the initial passage of carbon-14 before it mixes in the world's 12 carbon pool. The carbon-14 model developed by K111ough can be modified, using the population variations given above, to obtain long-term dose commitments.
~
A.5Ji L- _.
r 14e vostisq g g"#1111WL (009'S/t69'0)(000'Ot - 1) e .1) 6f t + ltt Og SA = ())J sea.uosJed
- taatto) se tapos it.3 s,qBnottly og uoneepoadde uo paseg,,
'3
_.usittigogL2 ucittiq Jo 2LJ' uo p uogje etn nded ynnettig (009'S/t69'0)(00l.1).* - ) 265 + 92 = (1) J ptJoa paensse seJ.uosJed
- saat toJ se (69251Nu0) topos gt.3 s,y6aottly og volteopoJdde to peseg, maJ.ue6Jo Jo (guettagnba ysgJ Apoq teto)) seJ.uosJed ggt u eso0 ss'd 1sJIJ ve
'(Apoq te)o) saJ.uosaed Jed qsp A)lte) Joe ey) og seJ.ue6Jo Jed isgJ At[te)Jos ey) 30 opeJ ey) Aq pagldptne asop ue6Jo y>ea put atop Apoq teto) ey) 30 ans ey) sg guetragnbe esop Apoq to)ol, i'l tt'O t'I 90'0 **000*I1 Ott 000'052 ..
U l*2 'It'0 90'0 u000'Ot Ott t*t 000'00t ( *2 Ol'0 l't 50'0 +006*8 06E 000'01 5'O SO'O E'O 20'O +006't 08L 000'i Z'O 60'0 l'0 20'O 008 OSL 00t PtJoM '5 'n ptJoM 'S'n ..ptJoM ov'S'n staajag 35)eoag em pegnen3 A1ltegaow Ja)ue) aa pegnen3 {eaEii~eDJ0) esoO tuesylucis At te3 paves empegnana y (,)uagen[nb) isig g'1) seg.uosaed empegnen) M soll s))aje0 spaueg so eJn3 Jo uopuanaJa ao eJn3 Jaaue3 oN opA3 ganj ey) soJs yt.3 Jo espeleg Ang/33 gg Jos spell] ytte*H lenuegod pue stuewigeso) eso0 uontindod I agget 4
- - i a I a
- g 4.
- e I s a ga s 3 s 8 2 s I a e I
- I a g a.: J 1
- : : a ,, s .
2 - . s 3 A "
- njs ys}ngIs E e. I ; e e : :Ut g ;,t t. .ga V -n- s -S - ; -
2 - askkas: s s-V.a.sc i j - 33 a a g c e s - - --- g e a s s a! = 5 3 e'.e a8 t' s-8 a s 1-I 3y I
=II,aa. s 5 : !yey S
- g. 1 i
sI3 "
-6s: : s 3
~
s;; s;n e I 5 g 2. . ! s: as g3 I :s 3s 3 e ,g e,e- t2 a e , g, [p.E:a mg e. s s x g :: s - I.y i 3 3i: s 1!a &II 8 g a.-
- g. 8 :
, t3 e
1
=
j i**8 gas
". g3 3 $
-I:hx 3 .I 3 -
r * '= .- e: v-3 : 8
~ . .
. =
8 3
- 8 r se. s 3 B
- I: I' a entuso so 1 3- E 3 u
l[s- g3 3 s: : yt,se . eaE=y3a s a r.
.-33 :
2 a y2, ,,ee3
. . - z-
. sr .e 3- 7 g ,sggs 3 . e 8
e = , a - . g-- . .
.-3.s s Ejes;V=~
s ga: I.gss3ss = e o s s a s y 3. g 31a2 cv. : - ysg-1:: 2 s a;33egxs-Ia e t t
*y:a e**1
- . 8 E S : -:
S .
* .y2.ss s p
] e .
l5 . gjs..Ee s 3EI-g i.g 3-
- s E 8 -
. E e a :
3
!aA : is es 3 e-
~
1:s 3 : I e . , at , : sI: : -
- saB
!IgAm.2g& t vmv
- : e: as i g o z :eoges asg
I Tabla II Population Dose Commitments and Potential Health Effects for 1.3 Ci/RRY Release of I-129 from a HLW Repository No Cancer Cure or Prevention or Cure of Genetic Defects Time Cumulative Person-Rem Cumulative Genetically Sionificant Gears) (total body risk eautvalent)* Population Dose (organ-res) U.S.** World** U.S.*** World*** 100 31 40 4.4 5.4 1,000 34 123 4.7 15 10,000 60 950 7.5 109 100,000 175 4800 20.2 530 2 250,000 390 12,000 43.9 1320 [umulative Cancer Mortality Cumulative Genetic Effects U. S. World U.S. World 100 0.0042 0.0054 0.0011 0.0014 1,000 0.0046 0.017 0.0012 0.0039 10,000 0.0081 0.13 0.0019 0.028 100,000 0.024 0.65 0.0052 0.14 250,000 0.053 1.6 0.011 0.34
" Total body dose equivalent is the sum of the total body dose and each organ dose multiplied by the ratio na of the mortality risk per organ rem to the mortality risk per person-res (total body),
First Past Oose = 31 person rem whole body risk equivalent aan First Pass Organ Dose 4.4 ergan-rem
?
E
- sv : ees- : 7, a1:
1=1 g r
-2
- .g 8
0 sca.
- R - o 2
r;*c g3 2 = ; 4, =gg :3 :-
!c a :E g 2as 1 :o &y.j Y 2 ; ac
- : - - r-" g g at
. ?
I ~ I 3 L 2 .- g.' g C [2E ;
- r.3 ge*2n , *= s:C g ; s; a* c s e&o 1 . ,
s ,- - E g' oa7-
-[x g , ; a- 5 * ,8 s 5 a , r;I g
g: ; U I e z r
~
I- r g: rx g 1 . : 2 2 o
!. 3s1 2 I xg,8 O - r gg -
I :sr 3 o
. r
- !eg2-a= ;ar: a
= g 2, -8 o
-s 1 :
s
- : ae ec r
- *: g.:
L : : - 8 1
=
gs -
,ac 4- -
% o
* .g: . 2s:'
- =
a " ,* g g El= =Oc g-a - g * - T * ~g E- ~ o 3 2
~, -g a*
2 o &
- o C 28- :RE I'2 .
w: 2:y a2s- ag
- ~ a =
= agr e!o { c0 .g.f-a a "
I I r, * " & O . a
- E g4 i g-y
- n a =
- 2 , . 2 - . = r-2
=a
- Ig_ l 8 6g2
, y e==
- 2 tc& I
- -C g 1 1 e: .- $. -
E 2 sc : r .i sco I.- L .- g
=
fa .=
- r a a2 = = =:
- . .mgo ao : - ,I o a.3sa y:g a as2 geg
, a-xg: - 4:
e, a. -r as: s: - : e, 2 a-2 : := 2,"* [
- s;^r= i-g 1 g 1 8 g ; aL 12 t
- r;={sa S -
1 s 8 L .
.a R
g I ^I r* geg
=
- g,1 S r: a~ : i: .
.rs 2 2 .
xas 8 =
- 8 = ,- e aa2 gs=j y -=
r =
< a . ag
II 76 these calculations, the staff has had to make a series of assumptions based in a period of only 70 years, monumental changes have occurred in many health upon little foundation and in which it has little or no confidence. Because areas. For example, life expectancy at birth has increased from 33.0 years to i af the shortness of human life expectancy relative to the much slower changes 65.3 years for non-white Americans and free 47.3 years to 70.9 years for white I ! occurring on earth, such as variations in cifmate, continental drift, erosion Americans. This translates to a perceived increased risk of cancers and and evolution of species, it is difficult to comprehend the immensity of cardiovascular diseases in recent years simply because more people are living potential changes over long periods of time. Ionger than before, and therefore, have a greater probability of contracting such diseases which occur primarily in the later years of life. Fer comparatively short-lived isotopes, dose commitment integrations can be projected for what ascunts to infinite time intervals. For example, an infinite In medition, both cancers and cardiovascular diseases have tended to increwse i 1 time integration of population dose can be done for tritium or krypton-85 simply because of advances in the care, treatment and prevention of many other ' l since such a time integration effectively requires consideration of a period serious diseases. Since the total lifetime risk of mortality is I for everyone, att about 100 years or less. However, projecting population at risk, and when the statistical probability for mortality free a given cause declines, population response to risk over even such relatively short time intervals other probabilities must increase. For example, consider the following changes requires many assumptions which the staff has reason to question. It is in death rates for major diseases since the beginning of this century: possible, for example, to reasonaoly postulate the following occurrences Change in Risk of during the next 100 years: sajor changes in the size of the population at Cause of Death . Deaths /100.000 Population Mortality by 1970 1900 1970 risk because of war or global starvation; cures for or preventien of cancer T,herculosis 194.4 2.6 factor of 75 lower and genetic defects; the onset of the " greenhouse" effect; the depletion of Typhoid & Paratyphoid Fever 31.3 0.05 "
- 600
- Diphtheria * * "
sil, natural gas and eineral resources. Any of these occurrences may have 40.3 0.05 800
" " 2.5 higher Cancer 64.0 162.8 significa-t effects on worldwide conditions and affect tee validity of calculated Major Cardiovascular &
dose commitments and related health effects. Renal Diseases 345.2 496.0 1.4 Influenza & Pneumonia 202.2 30.9 6.5 lower Gastritis, Duodenttis, In addition to changes in the environment, it is also possible that the response Enteritis & Colitis 142.7 0. 6 240 ACC " of man to exposure to radiation will change either up or down in the future. , g , , , It is thought-provoking to compare the major health risks in today's America Other major diseases 58.4 35.1 1,7 I4 1,150,8 784.4 factor of 1.5 lower with those at the turn of the last century. U.S. vital statistics show that OVERALL: A.54
7. 78 79 Thus, it is clear that the effect <e control or elimination of many diseases which, in the beginning of the twentieth century, typically were fatal before Sec*fon !!! - References people reached an age where the risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease would 1. Docket No RM-50-5, Generic tuvironmental Statement on Mined Oxide Fuel (3ESMO). Hearing transcripts for January 19, 25 and 26,1977. have become significant has at least partially resulted in cn apparent increase
- 2. MUREG-0002, Chapter IV-J.
in such diseases by 1970. It is also clear, however, that the overall risk of
- 3. Ibid., Chapter IV-J, Appendix 8, page IV-J (8)-1.
mortality by major causes in the U.S. has declined by about one-third in only
- 4. Pochin E. E. , "The Acceptance of Risk," Br. Med. Sull. , Vol. 31, No. 3, the last 70 years. As a result, one might speculate that there may be an pp. 184-190 (1975).
" epidemic" of people dying from "old age" in the centuries ahead from causes 5. U. $. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Reactor Safety Study, Main Report, WASH-1400, 1975. Table G-3.
thtt are little known or rare by today's standards.
- 6. NUREG-0116, page 4-94 ff.
- 7. NUREG-0216, Appendix H. page H-16 ff.
Changes similar to those which have largely occurred in the past as the result
- 8. Ibid.
of dramatic medical discoveries may occur as science continues to seek and
- 9. NUREG-0116 Table 4-19.
discover more effective ways of curing or preventing cancer in the years
- 10. Oak Ridge National Laboratory," Siting of Fuel Reprocessing Plants and 4 thead. The future radiological impact of the nuclear fuel cycle can be affected Waste Management Facilities, ORNL-4451, July 1970. f by such research since latent cancer is the only known serious result of human 11. Norwine, J., "A Question of Climate: Hot or Cold?," Environment, 19, 88, i
- p. 7. Nov.1977, Mitchell, J. M. , Jr. , " Carbon Of oxide and Future Uimate," '
radiation exposures received at dose rates which do not result in early so-tality. E.D.S. , N.0. A. A. , Coenorce, March 1977; Calder, N. , " Head South with All Deliberate Speed: Ice Age May Return in a Few Thousand Years," Smithsonian,
- 8. f10, Jan. 1978.
The staff is unable to make any definitive statements about the possible 12. Killoud , G. G., "A Diffusion-Type Model of the Global Carbon Cycle for the Estimation of Dose to the World Population from Releases of Carbon-14 wiriations in the long-term dose comeitsents and health effects resulting from to Atmosphere," ORNL-5269, May 1977. potential future happenings. However, the staff believes that the cumulative 13. NUREG-0002, Chaper II-J Appendix 8. combined impacts from long-ilved radionuclides such as carbon-14 and iodine-129 14. U.S. Bureau of the Census, " Historical Statistics of the Uatted States: Colonial Times to 1970," Part ! Series 8 149-166. are saa11 relative to those from natural background which is about 100,000 billion person rem (world) over a 250,000 year total. The combined impact is only about 10*Ipercent of natural background. l l A,5.f6
81 80 Section IV. Socioeconcaic Impacts relation to the population size, the capacities of pubite service facilities impacted, the administrative capability of the impacted political jurisdictions, Socioeconomic ispects of the uranium fuel cycle can result from increases in snd other related factors. The size of work forces needed for reprocessing Isvols of employment and public services requirements. Because the topic is plants and waste-related facilities suggests that socioeconomic impacts should - sa broadly defined, it is desiraole to approach it as a series of interrelated be manageable through proper planning and mitigative efforts. In fact, the subcategories. Sriefly, these consist of: socioeconomic effects of estabitshing reprocessing plants and waste-related facilities are not expected to differ in quantity or quality from those asso-e Population - changes in population resulting from the influx of workers ciated with any commercial nuclear power plant. The socioeconomic considera-and their families at both the construction and operation stages of tions can be summarized as follows: facilities. Impacts that can be expected are comparacle to or less than those Economy - induced changes in income and expenditures, including demands caused by LWR construction activities and could include noise and o for services, both public and private. dust around the site; disruptions or dislocations of residences or businesses; physical or public-access impacts on historic, cultural, l While this factor was not discussed in WASH-1248, it was briefly covered in and natural features; impacts on public services such as education, the instant peoceeding on the back end of the fuel cycle, and the following utilities, the road system, recreation, public health, and safety; discussion is ba.ed on trie record of that proceeding. increased tax revenues in jurisdictions where facilities are located; increased local expenditures for services and materials, and social Ftr the nuclear fuel cycle, population and economic data can be obtained at stresses.I tach stage free mining, silling, and fuel fabrication through waste isolation. The tabulation of conventional socioeconomic impacts at each stage can provide With respect to the socioeconceic impacts that may be attributable to reproces-a generic measure of the conventional socioeconomic impacts associated with the sing facilities, NUREG-01162 cites TVA information showing the anticipated entire fuel cycle. socioeconceic impacts associated with the construction of an LWR are representa-tive of those socioeconomic impacts which can be expected from construction For each stage of the fuel cycle, the character and magnitude of the socioeco- and coeration of a reprocessing facility. j nomic ispects are site-specific and are determined by the size of the work ftrce, the size of the local populations, the number of incoming workers in A.W l 1
. _ - _ _ a
82 83 Since a 2,000 metric ton reprocessing plant (the size of the model reprocessing An added 1,630 workers to a rural employment base would mean a change in the plant) is capable of servicing 57 reactors annually, the socioeconomic impacts ec>nomy of the area. If the pattern followed the experience of large industrial . from construction of a reprocessing plant attributable to a single reactor can phnts locating in saali towns, the following observations could be espected be approximated as less than 2% of those of the reactor. to apply:I With respect to the socioeconomic impacts which can be attributed to a high- 1. Rural industrial development seldom produces an unmanageable popula-level waste repository (HLWR), commercial nuclear power plant information tion growth rate; it provides a stabilizing influence on populatlon; was utilized to illustrate the anticipated impacts. The anticipated impacts can be expected to vary depending upon the location of the repository and the 2. There is a tendency for lang distance commuting, which tends to size of the surrounding communities, spread out 1spects on community facilities; Preifsinary estimates of the constru.:tton labor force, developed by the Office 3. Housing would be a common problem in rural areas. of Waste Isolation at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, show a peak number of 800 people, in contrast to the average LWR work force of 2,000. The anticipated. If the settlement pattern were very concentrated, the impacts on community sociceconomic impacts of high-level waste repository construction thus could facilities and housing could be expected to be larger. It is believed that be expected to be less' than those of construction of an LWR. Since the proposed the lead times will be sufficient to allow the potentially impacted communi-I' repository has the capability of servicing a total of 133 reactors, and can l ties and the applicant to develop mitigative programs which would allow for an store fuel from 40 reactors (based on 1,200 RRYs over 30 years of operation), ordarly and manageable resolution of potential socioeconceic impacts. i the socioeconomic impacts resultf ra from construction of the repository, when allocated to a single reactor, would be only a few percent of the socioeconomic Should the repository be located within a relatively easy commuting distance, impact of constructing the reactor. It is believed that the surrounding communities should be able to absorb the 1,6 M workers with fewer impacts occurring and be able to resolve any potential In terms of operating wort force, preliminary estimates developed at the impacts requiring mitigation in advance of the operation phase. Office of Waste Isolation at CRNL set the number of peak labor force for a high-level waste repository at 1,630, about 10 times that of an LWR work force Based upon these assessments of socioeconomic considerations associated with (170). the construction and operation of reprocessing and waste burial facilittes, it A,5-45
e 85 84 ( Section D - Refennees - was concluded tmat when they are spreas over many power reactors, they add as
- 1. M -0116. Section 4.11.4. p. 4-168.
- insignificaet amount to the envirormertal impacts of an individual nector.
- 2. Ibid, p. 4-170.-
Thus, ne specific value for soCioeConceic consiotrations was placed in Taele 5-3.
- 3. U.S. muclear Regulatery Commission. Policy Research Associates. . . . .
" Socioeconomic Ispects: Nuclear Pouer Station Siting.* sutEG-0150 June In its effort to upeate Tacle 5-3, the Commission is performing soc 1* economic studies unics are intanced to provice more detailed 'oata on the tapacts actually experienced as a result of construction and operation of the facilities involved s-in eacs stes of.the viuclear fm1 cycle. The studies may provioe information that will pemit an incrosental assessment of socioeconomic f apacts attributed to the fuel cycle activities.
'l A.W
f,",f,#
"""' U.S. NUCLEAD REIUL ATORY COMMIS$10N
- 1. EPORT NUMBER (Assipperby DDC1 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG-0134, Add:ndum 2
- 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE (Add Volume No., of aporcprosse) 2. (Leave blmk)
Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of North Anna Power Station, Unit 1 and 2, Docket No. 50-338 and 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO. 50-339 Subtitle: Virginia Electric and Power Company
- 7. AUTHORLSI S. DATE REPORT COMPLETED M ON TH l YEAR August 1980
- 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND M AILING ADDRESS (Incluch Isp Codel DATE REPORT ISSUED Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation MONTH l YEAR U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 1980 Washington, D. C. 20555 6- (teove umk>
- 8. (Leave Nank)
- 12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION N AME AND MAILING ADDRESS (Include top Codel p
Same as 9 above 11. CONTRACT NO.
- 13. TYPE OF REPORT PE RIOD COVE RED (Inclussve dates)
Final Environmental Statement, Addendum 2 ,
- 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. (Leave o/mk)
Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339
- 16. ABSTR ACT (200 words or less)
A Final Environmental Statement for the North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, proposed for operation by Virginia Electric and Power Company, has been prepared by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission. Addendum 2 to the Final Environmental Statement clariffes or amplifies information with regard to the Table S-3 and does not affect the cost-benefit conclusion already made in the Final Environmental Statement and Addendum.
- 17. KE Y WORDS AND DOCUMENT AN ALYSIS 1 74 DE SC RIP T ORS 17b IDENTIFIERS.OPEN ENDED TERMS
- 18. AV AILABILITY ST ATEMENT 19. SE CURITY CLASS (This reporr/ 21. NO. OF P AGES Rakasable to the public. "A-- -
20 E$WNsff LLkWIThospage) 22 PRICE gva ilable at NTIS. Uncl a u f fieri s NEC FORM 335 17 77) ..
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR GEGULATORY COMMIS2 ION F l 2 W ASHINGTON. D. C. 203SS q PosvaGa AND FEES PAf D y u.s. MucLE Am McGutatomy OFFICIAL SUSINESS commesseoM m' FEN ALTv FOR PRIVATE USE. 83OO Ci g L J .. W 04 01 ml 2, 01 Ci E w. m m en Ei m r-
-4.
m O,
-4' O
-4 I
m O m 120555031837 2 AN m US NPC SECY PUBLIC DOCUMENT R009 [. q BR ANCH CHIE F 3 HST LCBBY DC 20555 2' W ASHI NGT ON O n 2 O A
-1 I
2 2 o O lE m E 2 O 2 C 2 5 a 2 O N C O C (n
-4}}