ML20206K293
| ML20206K293 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/28/1999 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-1437, NUREG-1437-AD01, NUREG-1437-AD1, NUREG-1437-V1-A1-DFC, NUDOCS 9905130122 | |
| Download: ML20206K293 (57) | |
Text
/
NUREG-1437, Vol. I l,.
7 / ;,/f3 g, Addendum 1 Generic Environmental,sua4GL
. s rs v., w Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants 2
.0 Q
Main Report Section 6.3 Transportationn 3
Table 9.1 Summary of finding's on NEPA issues for license renewal of niiclehr power J
plants
/
~7 c t Draft Report for Comment
/
/
5? f 0 "--
~*\\
['W 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission OfTice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i,
Washington, DC 20555-0001
- n'228Alg m 2e 1437 R PDR
ADVANee Coy NUREG-1437, Vol. I p.
7 [ m/fd 6 Addendum 1 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Main Report G
Section 6.3 TransportationB ij Table 9.1 Summary of findings oli NEPA issues for license renewal of niicl@r power 0
plants Draft Report for Comment
- l "1)f O L U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
,/~'%
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
Washington, DC 20555-0001 99gsigog 99022s 1437 R PDR 3
r 1'
g AVAILABILITY NOTICE Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications i
NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC regu-NRC Public Document Room lations, and Title 10, Energy, of the Code o/ Federal 2121 L Street, N.W., Lower Level Regulations, may be purchased from one of the foi-Washington, DC 20555-0001 lowing sources:
< http://www.nrc. gov /NRC/PD R/pdr1.htm >
I 1-800-397-4209 or locally 202-634-3273 1.
The Superintendent of Documents Microfiche of most NRC documents made publicly Bo O2 available since January 1981 may be found in the Washington, DC 20402-9328 the v! Public Document Rooms (LPDRs) lo Loca
<http://www. access.gpo. gov /su docs >
icinity of nuclear power plants. The locations of the LPDRs may be obtained from the PDR (see 202-512-1800 previous pC3 graph) or through:
2.
The National Technical Information Service
<http://www.nrc. gov /NRC/NUREGS/
Springfield, VA 22161-0002 SR1350N9/lpdr/html>
<http://www.ntis. gov /ordernow>
703 -487-4650 Publicly released documents include, to name a few, NUREG-series rg arts; Federal Register no-The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and ad-tices; applicant, licensee, and vendor documents ministrative reports, including those prepared for and correspondence; NRC correspondence and international agreements, (2) brochures, (3) pro-internal memoranda; bulletins and information no-ceedings of conferences and workshops, (4) adju-tices; inspection and investigation reports; licens-dications and other issuances of the Commission ee event reports; and Commission papers and l
the,r attachments.
i and Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards, and (5) books.
Docurnents available from public and special tech-nical libraries include all open literature items, such A single copy of each NRC draft report is available as books, journal articles, and transactions, Feder-free, to the extent of supply, upon written request al Register notices, Federal and State legislation, as follows:
and congressional reports. Such documents as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and transla-Address: Office of the Chief information Officer tions, and non-NRC conference proceedings may Reproduction and Distribution be purchased from their sponsoring organization.
Services Section U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Copies of industry codes and standards used in a Washington, DC 20555-0001 substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process E-mail:
<GRW1@NRC. GOV >
are maintained at the NRC Library, Two White Flint Facsimile: 301 - 415 - 2289 North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738. These standards are available in the A portion of NRC regulatory and technical imorma-library for reference use by the public. Codes and tion is available at NRC's World Wide Web site:
standards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if y are Ame can Nadonal Standads, how
<http://www.ntc. gov >
American National Standards Institute All NRC documents released to the puolic are avail-11 West 42nd Street able for inspection or copying for a fee, in paper, New York, NY 10036-8002 microfiche, or, in some cases, diskette, from the
Public Document Room (PDR):
212-642-4900
g iT NUREG-1437, Vol.1 Addendum 1 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Main Report Section 6.3 Transportation Table 9.1 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants Draft Report for Comment Manuscript Completed: February 1999 Date Published: February 1999 Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
~.s 8
{
'l
)
i
p--
.i Supplemental Analysesfor Cumulative Environmentalimpacts...
l ABSTRACT This supplement to NUREG-1437, Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, documents the staff's analysis of the potential cumulative impacts to human health of transporting spent nuclear fuelin the vicinity of the proposed Yucca Mountain high-level waste repository.
l l
l l
f I
i
{
iii NUREG-1437, Addendum 1 j
p Supplemental Analysesfor Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts..
l l
CONTENTS A B ST RACT..............................................................
iii LI ST O F FI G U R ES........................................................ vii LI ST O F TAB LE S......................................................... vil AC RONYMS AND ABBREVI ATION...........................................
ix 1.
I NT R O D U CTI O N....................................................
1 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE SUPPLEMENT..................................
1 1.2 BAC KG R O U N D..................................................
1 2.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF TRANSPORTATION..........................
2 2.1 BAC KG R O U N D..................................................
2 2.2 A P P R O AC H.....................................................
3 2.3 CUMULATIVE HEALTH RISKS......................................
5 2.3.1 Radiological Risks...........................................
5 2.3.2 Nonradiological Risks.........................................
8 2.4 CO N C LU S I O N S..................................................
9 3.
IMPLICATIONS OF HIGHER BURNUP FUEL FOR THE CONCLUSIONS IN TABLE S-4......................................... 10 3.1 BAC KG R O U N D.................................................
10 3.2 AN ALY S I S.....................................................
10 3.3 CO N C L U S I O N S.................................................
12 4.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS......................................
13 i
5.
R E F E R E N C E S.....................................................
14 6.
LI ST OF P R EPAR E R S...............................................
15 APPENDIX: Cumulative Impacts from the Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel in the Vicinity of Las Vegas, Nevada, Associated with j
Nuclear Reactor license Renewal........................................
16 1
l 1
t i
\\
v NUREG-1437, Addendum 1 l
.i Supplemental Analysesfor Cumulative Environmentalimpacts...
LIST OF FIGURES A.1 Proposed Las Vegas beltway............................................
20 LIST OF TABLES 1.
Estimated cumulative radiation exposure resulting from SNF transport in the Las Vegas area...........................................
7 2.
Cumulative radiological transportation risks resulting from SNF transport in the Las Vegas area...........................................
7 A.1 Transportation route parameters used in RADTRAN analysis...................
17 A.2 Truck fatalities, injuries, and accidents.....................................
21 A.3 Cumulative radiological transportation risks in the Las Vegas area...............
23 I
vli NUREG.1437, Addendum I
7
.i Supplemental Analysesfor Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts.
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS CFR Code of FederalRegulations DOE U.S. Department of Energy DOT U.S. Department of Transportation EIS environmentalimpact statement Fed. Regist.
FederalRegister ft foot GEIS Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants GWd gigawatt-days km kilometer Ib pound LRFC lifetime risk of fatal cancer m
meter mrem millirem mSv millisievert MTHM metric tons of heavy metal (a conventional unit for high-level nuclear waste)
MT metric ton (i.e.,1000 kilograms (about 2200 pounds))
MTU metric tons uranium mwd megawatt-days NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NWPA Nuclear Waste Policy Act SNF spent nuclear fuel Sv sievert i
l ix NUREG-1437, Addendum 1 I
eI Supplemental Analysesfor Cumulative Environmentalimpacts..
- 1. INTRODUCTION l
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE SUPPLEMENT -
Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, which amends 10 CFR Pt. 51, was published
. This Supplement to NUREG-1437, Generic in the FederalRegisteron Dec.18,1996 EnvironmentalImpact Statement for License (61 Fed. Regist. 66537) and coditied the Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) addresses findings reported in NUREG-1437. The rule two aspects of high level waste amendment and the GEIS analysis were transportation that were not adequately initiated with the objective of improving the
' addressed in the GEIS: (1) cumulative efficiency of the license renewal process by impacts of transportation of high-level documenting in the GEIS and codifying in the
. radioactive waste in the vicinity of the' Commission's regulations those proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, environmentalimpacts that are well Nevada, and (2) the impacts of transporting understood so that repetitive reviews of those higher-burnup fuel. These issues are impacts could be avoided.
currently designated as CateJory 2 in 10 CFR Part 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(M) and Table B-1 of Chapter 6 of the GEIS addresses the
- Subpart A, Appendix B of Part 51, environmental impacts associated with the Designation of an issue as Category 2 management of radiological and requires that it be evaluated in each license nonradiological wastes resulting from license renewal application. Currently, therefore, the renewal. Section 6.3, " Transportation,"
i environmentalimpacts of the transportation -
addresses the environmental impacts of fuel and waste must be reviewed in each resulting from the shipment of (1) low-level renewal application, creating the potential for radioactive waste and mixed waste to off-site repetitive reviews among those applications.
disposal facilities, (2) fresh fuel to the plant, Designating an issue as Category 1 provides and (3) spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from the the basis for codification of the findings in 10 plant to a monitored retrievable storage CFR Part 51 and adoption of the findings in facility or permanent repository. Section 6.3 individual license renewa! reviews, with no also provides an assessment of the further analysis required. This Supplement applicability to license renewal of 10 CFR provides an assessment that supports 51.52 " Environmental Effects of changing the transportation impacts in Transportation of Fuel and 10 CFR 51 and Table B-1 from Category 2 to Waste-Table S-4." In Section 6.3.4, tha
)
Category 1.
NRC concluded that "The environmentat i
impacts from the transport of fuel and waste J
attributable to license renewal are found to j
1.2 BACKGROUND
be small when they are within the range of impact parameters identified in Table S-4."
)
The purpose of the GEIS was to provide the However, it was assumed in developing the technical basis for an amendment to the 1
data in Table S-4 that SNF would be shipped Nuclear Regulatory Commission s (NRC's) to a number of destinations rather than a j
regulations at.10 CFR Pt. 51 (Environmental single repository. Therefore, Table S-4 does I
Protection Regulations for Domestic not explicitiy take. to account the cumulative in Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions),
environmentalimpacts of the convergence of
(
with regard to the renewal of nuclear power high level waste shipments on a proposed plant operating licenses. The final rule, repository at Yucca Mounta,in. This Environmenta/ Review for Renewalof l
1 NUREG-1437, Addendum i i'
Suppl: mental Analys:s for Cumulativs EnvironmentalImpacts...
i Supplement provides that explicit at the time of the final rule published on consideration. Further, although the Dec.18,1996. The Commission stated, environmentalimplications of the use of more highly enriched fuel and of a higher burnup "As part of its efforts to develop than is considered in 10 CFR 51.51 (Table regulatory guidance for this rule, the S-3) and in 10 CFR 51.52 (Table S-4) is Commission will consider whether further essessed in the GEIS in Section 6.2.3, that changes to the rule are desirable to cection focuses on Table S-3 and not on generically address: (1) The issue of Table S-4. The analysis and conclusions cumulative transportation impacts and relative to Table S-4 presented in Section (2) the implications that the use of higher 6.2.3 are not referenced in the assessment of burn-up fuel have for the conclusions in transportation, Section 6.3. This Supplement Table S-4. After consideration of these corrects that omission and expands the GEIS issues, the Commission will determine discussion of the use of more highly enriched whether the issue of transportation fuel and higher burnup.
impacts should be changed to Category 1" (64 Fed. Regist. 66538).
This Supplement to NUREG-1437 and the rulemaking that it supports were anticipated
- 2. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF TRANSPORTATION
2.1 BACKGROUND
study only Yucca Mountain. Congress instructed DOE that if at any time Yucca Mountain was found to be unsuitable, studies The generation of SNF at power reactors and would be stopped, the site would be restored, its on-site and off-site storage is addressed in and DOE would seek new direction from Section 6.4.6 " Spent Fuel" of the GEIS. The contribution of license renewal to the Congress. DOE is in the process of preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) for inventory of SNF is discussed in Section a repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
6.4.6.2 " Effects of License Renewal." The After the EIS process is completed and environmentalimpacts of transporting the assuming the facility receives a license from SNF to a monitored retrievable storage NRC, it is ant,cipated that construction of the i
facility or to a permanent repository are eddressed in Section 6.3, " Transportation," of repository would begin. When construction is completed, SNF and high-level waste would the GEIS' be shipped to the site, beginning with the Idest materials.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) gave the U.S. Department of Energy Under the NWPA as amended, any NRC (DOE) the responsibility for finding a site for I cense for the repository must prohibit DOE disposal of commercial SNF and other high-from disposing of more than 70,000 metric level waste, and for building and operating an
. underground disposal facility called a tons of heavy metal (MTHM)in the repository until a second repository is in operation.
geologic repository. In 1987, Congress Ninety Percent (63'000 MTHM) of this emended the NWPA and directed DOE to NUREG-1437, Addendum 1 2
.e Supplemental Analysesfor Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts...
materialis expected to be SNF from highway accidents involving potential commercial nuclear power plants. The first radiation releases. Expected fatalities from repository will accommodate the SNF truck accidents not involving radiation generated through about the year 2010.
releases are also reported.
Unless larger capacity is authorized for the first repository, a second repository will be The NAS report (1990, Table 4 2), commonly.
required for the SNF generated by plants that called the BEIR V report, gives estimates of are operating under their initial operating the number of cancer deaths expected to
' licenses. Whether a second repository would occur from a continuous exposure of have an authorized capacity large enough to 10 mSv/ year [1 rem / year) above background accommodate the SNF generated by plants from age 18 until age 65. This value results in with r'enewed operating licenses cannot be a risk factor of 4.0 x 10~8 LRFC per known at this time. Although there is a.
person-Sv [4.0 x 10" LRFC per person-rem) potential for SNF generated as a result of that is most applicable to occupational
. license renewal to be placed in a second and exposures. The BEIR V report also estimates third repository, this analysis of cumulative the number of cancer deaths expected to effects of transportation assumes that all the occur from a continuous lifetime exposure of SNF resulting from the initial 40-year -
1 mSv/ year (0.1 rem / year) above operating licenses and the 20-year renewal background, which results in a risk factor of licenses will be transported to the first 5.0 x 10-" LRFC per person-Sv repository (i.e., a repository at Yucca (5.0 x 10" LRFC per person-rem) that is Mountain currently under study). Further, it is most applicable to exposures of the general assumed in this analysis that all shipments of public. Note that the general public LRFC risk i
SNF converge on and are moved through factor is slightly higher than the occupational j
J Clark County, Nevada.
risk factor because the general public dose is assumed to be experienced by people of all ages while the occupational exposures are
,j -
2.2 APPROACH assumed to be experienced only by people from age 18 until age 65. Children and adolescents are presumed to be more The ' analysis estimates the potential susceptible to radiation-induced health cumulative health risk from radiation effects than adults.
exposure and highway accidents. associated -
- with SNF transport in the vicinity of Las The analysis was designed to be Vegas (Clark County). Nevada. Cumulative conservative, that is, intentionally structured health risks are the total potential fatalities i
h liWmpacts This within the Clark County population over the approach is used in situations where the
. period of shipment of SNF. Analyses of the impacts are expected to be of little radiation doses related to SNF transport m significance to avoid unproductive analytical the Las Vegas vicinity were performed using effort and because it shows that the the HIGHWAY routing computer code and conclusions are very robust. The other side the RADTRAN 4 risk assessment computer of conservative analysis is that it may lead code (see Appendix). Radiation exposures the casual reader to the impression that the are reported as collective dose to a expected impacts are larger than could population (person-Sv (person-rem]) and the actually occur. To avoid such confusion, the dose to the maximally exposed individual conservative nature of that analysis is
' (mSv (mrem]). Health risks from exposure t emphasized in the reminder of this section.
radiation are reported as estimated lifetime risk of fatal cancer (LRFC) resulting from accident free transportation of SNF and from 3
NUREG-1437, Addendum I a'
I
9
. Supplzmental Analysis for Cumulative Environmental Impacts...
For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed the surface, is conservative and actual that all SNF will be shipped by truck and that average radiation levels are expected to be the trucks will be routed on interstate much lower than 0.07 mSv/ hour j
highways to the maximum possible extent,
[7 mrem / hour) at 2 m (6.6 ft) assumed in this consistent with the U.S. Department of analysis.
Transportation regulations for highway route controlled quantities of nuclear materials (49 -
To examine the effects of license renewal,
. CFR 397.101). Rail transport of SNF is also the staff used two estimates of SNF that anticipated. However, rail transport would would be transported to the repository. The have smaller risks than truck transport (Dyer first was based on the assumption that no i
and Reich 1993). Evaluation of cumulative nuclear plants have their licenses renewed, impacts in the vicinity of Las Vegas carried and the second was based on the out in this analysis, therefore, represents an assumption that all existing nuclear plants upper bound because it assumes all SNF operate through a 20-year license renewal would move by truck rather than by rail or a period. The assumption used for the second combination of rail and truck to reach the estimate is conservative because some plant j
i repository.
owners have already decided not to request renewal of plant operating licenses.
The regulations governing allowable radiation levels during transport of radioactive As noted above, the NWPA prohibits DOE materials are found at 49 CFR 173.441 and from accepting more than 70,000 MTHM at 10 CFR 71.47. Those regulations require, in the Yucca Mountain repository. Based on this part, that the external radiation level be no limit, DOE estimates 37,639 truck shipments more than 0.10 mSv/ hour [10 mrem / hour) at of SNF to Yucca Mountain, assuming all SNF any point 2 m [6.6 ft) from the outer surface travels by truck in legal-weight casks (K.
of the vehicle. This analysis used the Skipper, Yucca Mountain Site Office, conservative assumption that the radiation personal communication to D. P. Cleary, level would be 0.10 mSv/ hour [10 mrem / hour)
NRC, July 11,1997). The Nuclear Waste.
at all points 1 m (3.3 ft) from the surface. This Technical Review Board (1997) estimates assumption corresponds to a radiation level that by the time the currently operating of about 0.07 mSv/ hour [7 mrem / hour) at all nuclear plants terminate operations points 2 m [6.6 ft) from the surface. Because (assuming no license renewal), about 85,000 shipment must be designed so that radiation MTHM of SNF will have been generated, levels do not exceed 0.10 mSv/ hour [10 mrem /hr] at any point 2 m (6.6 ft) from the For this analysis, the staff assumed that all surface, average radiation levels must be current and committed SNF, about much lower. Consequently, the assumption 84,000 MTHM, would be disposed of at that the radiation level is 0.07 mSv/ hour Yucca Mountain.8 Scaling DOE's estimated
[7 mrem / hour) at all points 2 m (6.6 ft) from number of shipments with the amount of SNF leads to an estimate of 50,185 truck shipments without license renewal. Assuming
'The exact wording of the relevant all plants renew their licenses and operate for requirement of $71.47(b) is that '...
- radiation i
levels for such shipment must not exceed the following during transportation"... "(3) 0.1 mSv/h
-2Although this estimate exceeds the (10 mrem /h) at anypoint 2 meters (80 in) from the '
70,000 MTHM limit in the first repository in the outer lateral surfaces of the vehicle (excluding the top i
and underside of the vehicle); or in the case of a flat.
NWPA, it represents a conservative assumption j
bed style vehicle, at any point 2 meters (6.6 feet) from (i.e., an overestimate) that would define an upper j
the vehicle (excluding the top and underside of the bound of potential impact for a repository at vehicle)."[ Emphasis added).
Yucca Mountain.
NUREG-1437, Addendum 1 4
l
m
.e Supplemental Analysesfor Cumuletive EnvironmentalImpacts...
an additional 20 years, the estimate 2.3 CUMULATIVE HEALTH RISKS increases to 75,278 truck shipments.
Construction has begun on a beltway that Health risks associated with SNF transport
- would extend around much of Las Vegas.
Include both those associated with radiation Two transportation route scenarios were exposures and those associated with the analyzed: SNF is transported on the current movement of heavy trucks carrying SNF freeway _ system, and SNF is transported on through the area (i.e., traffic accidents).
the proposed beltway. Because the beltway is expected to be complete before 2005 and because regulations require that spent fuel 2.3.1 Radiological Risks shipments avoid high population concentrations where possible, analysis of Radiation exposures can occur in two i
transportation on the route through downtown ways-exposure to radiation emitted by the on the current interstate system yields higher SNF cask during normal (incident-free) exposure estimates than would actually transport and exposures in the event of an occm accident that leads to release of radioactive materials. For incident-free transportation, The affected population is assumed to be the staff used the RADTRAN computer those residents of Clark County, Nevada, m del to calculate total body doses to the who live within 0.8 km (0.5 mile] of the route transport crew and the general population.
followed by ^e trucks transporting SNF.
The radiation source is characterized for Because dos n fall off quickly with distance RADTRAN by the radiation dose rate at 1 m from the roet. persons close to the route fr m the package surface. The regulatory receive and account for much more of the limit is 0.10 mSv/ hour [10 mrem / hour] at 2 m population dose than those who live away (6.6 ft] from the vehicle or container surface from it. The contributions to population doses (10 CFR 71.47). The rate of 0.10 mSv/ hour contributed by exposures to persons l..iving
[10 mrem / hour) at 1 m [3.3 ft](which more than 0.8 km (0.5 mile] from the route is corresponds to about 0.07 mSv/ hour
- negligible. The population density estimates (7 mrem / hour] at 2 m (6.6 ft]) was assumed were produced by the HIGHWAY computer because most shipments are not expected to code (Joy and Johnson 1983) based on 1990 be close to the regulatory limit, so the
. census data. Because the act,on would occur i
average dose rate was assumed to be lower i over 40 to 60 years, population growth in than the regulatory limit.
Clark County is expected. For the purpose of this analysis, population densities in downtown urban areas and existing suburban 3The regulations at 10 CFR 71.47 also limit areas are assumed to remain constant.
dose rate at any point on the outer surface of the Population growth is assumed to occur by package or vehicle to 2.0 mSv/ hour [200 mrem / hour].
development of the outlying areas; the Doses rates at most parts of the surface would population densities in the vicinity of the necessarily be much lower than 200 mrem / hour in order to meet the 0.10 mSv/ hour [10-mrem / hour] at 2 m proposed beltway are assumed to be s..lar.
(e.s ft] limit. To be exposed to a dose rate this high, an imi to those of other urban and suburban areas individual would have to be in contact with the package of Las Vegas, at its most radioactive spot. To receive a significant l
dose, an individual would have to lie in contact with the container at its most radioactive spot for a substantial time period. It is very unlikely that an individual would spend any time in physical contact with the package and even more unlikely that he or she would inadvertently choose the most radioactive spot on the package. Because such an occurrence is so unlikely, this exposure scenario is not considered relevant to analysis of cumulative impacts.
5 NUREG-1437, Addendum 1
i.
Supplimentil An lysts for Cumul:tivs EnvironmentalImpacts...
l Potential radiological accident effects include terrestrial gamma radiation are 0.75 to both acute fatalities resulting from very high 0.77 mSv/ year [75 to 77 mrem / year).'
radiation exposures (as might occur in the Assuming a Las Vegas population of about unlikely event of failure of an SNF shipping 300,000, this natural radiation leads to a risk container or cask), and the LRFC resulting estimate of about 11 LRFC/ year. The from smaller radiation exposures that occur average annual excess risk to the Las Vegas at the time of or after the hypothetical area population from SNF transport is about accident. Accident risk is estimated by 0.0031 LRFC/ year which is a risk estimate of summing the product of estimated dose and 3,000 times less than the estimate for the associated probability of occurrence for background radiatlon and 300,000 times less each of the accident-severity categories than the normalincidence of fatal cancer.
analyzed by RADTRAN.
The expected population doses estimated by the staff (see Appendix) are displayed in Table 1. Table 2 shows the health risks implied by the doses listed in Table 1. It is important to note that LRFC figures represent cumulative health risks or more simply put,
.the total potential fatalities within the Clark County population over the period of shipment of spent nuclear fuel which assumes that all currently operating reactors renew their licenses for 20 years. An examination of Table 2 shows that the probability of excess fatal cancer among the public as a result of the entire campaign of SNF transport in the Las Vegas area is less than 0.2E-1 (0.2) for all scenarios. The sum of incident free and accident risks is 0.1865E-1 (0.1865) LRFC for the city-route.
with-license-renewal scenario; other scenarios have lower estimated risks.
For perspective, the natural incidence of lifetime fatal cancer in the U.S. is 0.20 -
[20 percent). Assuming a Las Vegas population of about 300,000 and an average This outdoor dose rate estimate was d
life expectancy of 70 years, this lifetime provided by Harold L. Beck (Harold L. Beck, incidence of fatal cancer would correspond to Director, Environmental Sciences Division, tbout 900 LRFC/ year. In the Las Vegas area, Environmental Measurements Laboratory, U.S.
I the average radiation exposures resulting Department of Energy, New York, personal from cosmic and naturally occurring communication via electronic mail to Alan K.
Roecklein, NRC, Rockville, Md., Nov 4,1998) and based on extensive background radiation measurements summarized, in part, in NCRP Report No. 94, Exposure of the Population in the United States and Canada from Natural Background Radiation, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Md., Dec. 30,1987.
NUREG 1437. Addendum 1 -
6
.o Supplemental Analysesfor Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts...
Table 1. Estimated cumulative Table 2. Cumulative radiological radiation exposure resulting from transportation risks resulting frorn SNF transport in the Las Vegas area
- Radiation exposure (person-SV)*
Estimated lifetime risk of fatal cancer
- Incident-free Transport Accident transport accidents incident-free risk risk d
Crew
- Public Public Crew
- Public Public d
Bypass withoutlicense renewal Bypass withoutlicense renewal 2.068 0.58 0.338-0.0827 0.0290 0.0169 Bypass with license renewal Bypass with license renewal 3.102 0.87 0.506 0.1241 0.0435 0.0253 City route withoutlicense renewal City route withoutlicense renewal 2.206 0.85 1.63 0.0882 0.0425 0.0815 City route with license renewal City route with license renewal l
3.309 1.27 2.46 0.1324 0.0635 0.123
- Transportation risks were calculated
' Transportation risks were calculated using RADTRAN (v. 4.0.19, Nov.14,1996).
- 1 person Sv = 100 person-rem.
using pADTRAN (v. 4.0.19, Nov.14,1996).
l For crew members, the dose i
- Truck crew size was assumed to be conversion factor was 0.0004 estimated 2 persons. Crew dose is for the time spent lifetime risk of fatal cancer (LRFC) per person-driving approximately 161 km (100 miles)in rem, and for the public,0.0005 LRFC per the Las Vegas area; the dose involved in person-rem. The U.S. average lifetime risk of driving to the Las Vegas area is not included.
fatal cancer from all causes is approximately The incident free risk to the public 0.20. #
does not include the risk to the crew.
Truck crew size was assumed to be 2 persons. Crew risk is for the time spent driving approximately 161 km (100 miles) in the Las Vegas area; the risk involved in driving to thegas Vegas area is not included.
The incident free risk to the public does not include the risk to the crew.
The highest estimated risk to the crews is 0.2324 LRFC. This already-small risk is spread over the 40- to 60-year period during which SNF will be transported to the repository. On an annual basis, the crew risk averages about 0.0039 LRFC per year of SNF transport as a result of radiation exposures. This risk is spread among all the truck crew members, so the risk to any one driver is extremely small.
7 NUREG-1437, Addendum 1
Suppl: mental Analyses for Cumulativa EnvironmentalImpacts...
I The hypothetical maximally exposed from transportation of all SNF through the
)
individual would receive 0.31 mSv [31 mrem)
Las Vegas area is not greater than one i
i for a 60-year campaign, about 0.12 percent percent of the cumulative dose from all fuel of the average 70-year dose from and waste transportation calculated from background sources.5 The maximally Table S-4.
cxposed individual radiation dose is based on
)
e hypothetical individual located 30 m [98 ft)
Consequently, the cumulative doses for the from the highway during the entire shipment Las Vegas area only a small fraction of the campaign (a very conservative assumption).
cumulative doses implied by Table S-4 for all j
This dose is the estimated risk from incident-transportation of SNF plus transportation of free transport. The analysis overestimates other nuclear power plant radwastes. It impacts by assuming that all licensed nuclear should be noted that the cumulative doses for i
power plants would operate for a 20-year both sets of estimates are comprised of license renewal term, although many plants annual doses to individuals that are well will not renew their operating licenses. Also, if below the regulatory limits set by the NRC enother repository were established, the and by the Department of Transportation.
ciready small effects on Las Vegas would be further reduced.
2.3.2 Nonradiological Risks l
The above estimates of radiation dose are consistent with the doses reported in The nonradiologicalimpact of concem is j
Table S-4. Table S-4 reports estimates of vehicle collisions. Based on recent 0.04 person-Sv [4 person-rem) per reactor national average truck accident rates, year for transportation workers, and between 12 and 20 vehicle accidents can 0.03 person Sv [3 person-rem) per reactor year for the general public. Assuming that be expected during SNF transport 100 power reactors operate for 60 years, through the Las Vegas area. The Table S-4 leads to estimated worker and probability of a fatality from public doses of 240 person-Sv nonradiological transportation accidents
[24,000 person-rem) and 180 person-Sv is estimated to be about 0.023 without (18,000 person-rem) for transportation license renewal and about 0.035 with workers and the general public, respectively.
license renewal (see Appendix, Comparing these dose estimates with the Table A.2). These very low risks are highest corresponding doses in Table 1 smaller than the radiological risks of SNF shows that the estimated cumulative dose transport in the Las Vegas area. Over a 40- or 60-year period, these risks amount to very small annual risks; approximately 5The background radiation dose is 0.0006 per year (with or without license assumed to be 3.6 mSv/ year [360 mrem / year),
renewal).
the current estimate given for average background radiation dose in the U.S. The value is based upon the following assumptions from the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements as summarized in Eisenbud and Gesell (1997). Doses are given in mSv/ year:
Cosmic radiation that reaches the earth at sea level 0.27 Radiation from the natural elements in the earth 0.28 Radon get in the home from ground sources 2.00 Radiation.n the human body from food and water 0.39 Average medical exposure 0.25 to 0.55 Consumer products (e.g., smoke detectors) 0.10 NUREG-1437, Addendum 1 8
.e Supplemental Analysesfor Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts...
2.4 CONCLUSION
S transportation impacts, mitigation measures, and alternative transportation As shown in Table 2, the conservatively modes in its EIS for the proposed estimated LRFC resulting from radiation repository at Yucca Mountain, mitigation exposure related to transportation of SNF is not appropriate for consideration as a in the Las Vegas area much less than Part of license renewal decisions.
one, with or without license renewal. For comparison, about 25 percent of the Las Vegas population is expected to develop a fatal cancer from causes unrelated to SNF transport. The estimates produced by this analysis do not appreciably change the cumulative dose estimates in Table S-4.
Nonradiological truck-vehicle accidents are possible as a result of transporting SNF through Las Vegas. The probability of a fatality is estimated to be less than 0.04 under all scenarios. For license renewal, the combined radiological and nonradiological risk to the public is estimated to be between about 0.10 and 0.22 fatalities over the course of SNF transport through Las Vegas, including incident-free and accident risks. Without license renewal, the combined probability of a fatality is estimated to be between about 0.07 and 0.15.-
The above analysis shows that even with conservative assumptions, the cumulative radiological and accident risks of SNF transport in the vicinity of Las Vegas are within regulatory limits and small, it also shows that there are opportunities to further reduce human health impacts.
Transporting SNF by rail rather than by truck would reduce human health effects by reducing the number of shipments and the likelihood of accidents. Shipping SNF via the proposed beltway would reduce health impacts compared to shipping via the current interstate highway system.
However, because DOE will address 9
NUREG-1437, Addendum I
Supplimental Analysss for Cumulative EnvimnmentalImpacts...
- 3. IMPLICATIONS OF HIGHER BURNUP FUEL FOR j
THE CONCLUSIONS IN TABLE S-4
3.1 BACKGROUND
Virgilio. NRC, to N. J. Liparuto, Westi.,ghouse Electric Corporation, The rule promulgated in 61 FR 66537
" Acceptance for Referencing of Topical gave license renewal applicants the Report WCAP-12488, ' Westinghouse responsibility to comply with the existing Fuel Criteria Evaluation Process," dated j
requirements of 10 CFR 51.52.
July 27,1994; FCF-BAW 10186P-A, Section 51.52(a) specifies six conditions
" Extended Bumup Evaluation," June 12, that must be met in order for an applicant 1997; and Memorandum from T. E.
J to adopt the values in Table S-4, which Collins to B. W. Sheron, " Waiver of j
represent the contribution of CRGR Review of EMF-85-74(P),
transportation to the environmental costs Revision 0, Supplements 1 and 2 Safety
)
of licensing the reactor, if the six Evaluation," dated February 9,1998).
conditions are not met, an applicant must Approved average bumup for the peak submit a full analysis of the rod now ranges from 50,000 to 62,000
.environmentalimpacts of transportation mwd /MTHM. The higher bumup rates of fuel and waste in accordance with are associated with uranium-235
$51.52(c). Two of the conditions limit the enrichment levels of up to 5 percent by fuel enrichment level and the bumup rate.
weight. Thus, it is likely that at the time of Paragraph 51.52(a)(2) requires a a submittal of a license renewal uranium-235 enrichment not exceeding application, many nuclear power plants 4 percent by weight in the fuel. Paragraph will be operating at higher fuel bumup 51.52(a)(3) requires that "The average and will be using higher enrichment fuel.
{
level of irradiation of the irradiated fuel
{
from the reactor does not exceed 33,000 J
megawatt-days per metric ton, and no 3.2 ANALYSIS l
irradiated fuel assembly is shipped until at least 90 days after it is discharged from The environmental consequences of the reactor." These two limiting conditions incremental increases in the bumup of have been exceeded through nuclear fuel and the associated use of higher power plant license amendments enrichment fuel is discussed with respect permitting incremental increases in the to Table S-3 and Table S-4 on pages burnup of fuel. During the 1990s, the 6-24 and 6-25 of the GEIS. This NRC has reviewed and approved vendor discussion is based on the analyses in topical repoits requesting approval for NUREG/CR-5009, which reviews the
- higher bumup rates. (Letter from M. J.
physical effects of extended bumup on f
NUREG 1437, Addendum 1 10
t..
Supplemental Analysesfor Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts...
the fuel and the fuel assemblies and the corresponding impacts for bumup associated potential for impacts during levels up to 60 GWd/ MtU and normal operation and accident events, uranium-235 enrichments up to The environmental effects were reviewed 5 percent by weight"(53 FR for each stage of the fuel cycle, including 6040).
transportation of enriched fuel to reactors and extended bumup of SNF from The staff further concluded that a finding reactors. This issue is discussed in of no significant impact was supported by Section 6.2.3 of the GEIS, which the collective studies:
addresses the sensitivity of values in Table S-3 and in Table S-4 to recent "The NRC staff has reviewed the changes in the fuel cycle, including higher anticipa' ted widespread use of bumup fuel and the use of higher extended bumup fuelin.
enrichment fuel. The discussion relative
' commercial LWRs. Based upon to Table S-4 was not repeated in the foregoing environmental Section 6.3, which specifically addresses assessment, the staff concluded the incrementalimpacts of license that there are no significant renewal on the transportation of fuel and
- adverse radiological or radioactive materials to and from nuclear nonradiologicalimpacts power plants. Because of that omission, associated with the use of this supplemental treatment has been extended bumup fuel and that developed to clarify the public record this use will not significantly affect regarding the Commission's findings on the quality of the human the sensitivity of values in Table S-4 to environment" (53 FR 6040).
the use of higher enrichment fuel and extended fuel bumup.
Subsequently, the staff has continued to perform plant-specific environmental Concurrent with the publication of assessments in reviews to raise fuel NUREG/ CR-5009, the Commission enrichment level, bumup rate, and longer published a notice: Extended Bumup fuel cycle limits in Operating Licenses Fueluse in Commercia/LWRs; and plant Technical Specifications. These Environmental Assessment and Finding '
assessments rely on the programmatic of No Significant /mpact (53 Fed. 'Regist.
environmental assessment in 53 FR 6040 6040). The environmental assessment and on a staff assessment entitled NRC-was based on NUREG/CR-5009, an Assessmont of the EnvironmentalEffects
' Atomic Industrial Forum report of Transportation Resulting From
. (AIF/NESP-032), and NUREG/CR-2325.
Extended FuelEnrichment and On the basis of these studies, the staff
/rradiation, which was published in the concluded FederalRegisteron Aug.11,1989 (53 FR 30355) in connection with the
...that the environmental Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, impacts summarized in Table S-3 Unit 1, Environmental Assessment and of 10 CFR 51.51 and in Finding of No Significant Impact.
Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52 for a bumup level of 33 GWd/MtU are conservative and bound the 11 NUREG-1437, Addendum 1
e,
.' Supplementti An:lys:s for Cumulativa EnvironmentalImpacts...
- In assessing the environmental effects of The values in Table S-4 and in the transportation for 53 FR 30355, the staff assessment of extended bumup fuel are reviewed the analyses in four studies calculated as annualized reference j
(NUREG/CR-5009, NUREG/CR-2325, reactor year values. Because these AIF/NESP-032, and WASH-1238) and values are independent of the number of compared the findings with the impacts.
years any given reactor operates, they given in Table S-4.~ The staff concluded apply to the license renewal period as that well as to the period of the initial operating license.
"The above evaluation sets forth the changes resulting from
3.3 CONCLUSION
S
. increased enrichment (up to 5 weight percent) and extended The staff has extensively studied the irradiation (up to 60 GWd/MT),in environmental impacts associated with the environmentalimpacts of fuel enrichment up to 5 percent uranium-transportation of fuel and wastes 235 and fuel bumup to 60,000 mwd /MTU J
to and from the light water and has found that these impacts are no j
. reactors set forth in Table S-4 greater than and likely less than the 10 CFR Part 51. The values set impacts currently in 10 CFR 51.52(c).
forth in this detailed analysis The analysis in the GEIS is cons! stent represent the contribution of the with the staff assessment of the environmental effects of environmental effects of transportation transportation of fuel enriched resulting from extended fuel enrichment with uranium-235 above 4 weight and irradiation presented in 53 FR 30355.
percent and up to 5 weight These findings are robust. Further, the percent, and irradiated to levels staff has reviewed and approved vendor above 33 GWd/MT and up to topical reports requesting average bumup 60 GWd/MT to the environmental for peak rod ranging from 50,000 to costs of operating the reactors.
62,000 mwd /MTHM. The higher bumup e
4 As shovin above, the rates are associated with uranium-235 environmental cost contributions enrichment levels of up to 5 percent by of the stated increases in fuel weight. An increase in bumup from
(
enrichment and irradiation limits 60,000 Mwd /MTHM to 62,000 are either unchanged or may in Mwd /MTHM will not significantly change fact be reduced from those dose levels associated with spent fuel summarized in Table S-4, as set transportation and may slightly reduce out in 10 CFR 51.52(c)" (53 FR the number of shipments. Therefore, J
30355).
these conciasions are applicable to any nuclear power plant license renewal in 53 FR 30355, the staff further stated application. Further, these conclusions
)
that, until Table S-4 is revised to include provide the bases for revision of 10 CFR t
the higher iuel enrichment and irradiation 51.52(a)(2) and (3).
isvels, it proposed to accept the analysis of the environmental effects of the transportation of such fuel and waste presented in that notice.
NUREG-1437, Addendum 1 12
p
- 2, L f
Supplemental Analysesfor Cumulative Environmentalimpacts...
l.
- 4.
SUMMARY
- AND CONCLUSIONS 1
This addendum to the GEIS assesses' for ravising the findings and the category l
(1) the cumulative impacts of.
designation of the Transportation issue in L
- transportation of high-level radioactive.
Table 9.1," Summary of findings on waste, specifically SNF, in the vicinity of NEPA issues for license renewal of the proposed repository at Yucca nuclear power plants," of NUREG-1437.
Mountain, Nevada, and (2) the impacts of The findings and category designation for transporting higher bumup fuel. The.
the transportation issue (NUREG-1437,
' conclusions reached in these
- p. 9-15) is revised as follows:
assessments provide the bases -
Issue
- Sections -
Category Findings Transportation Addendum 1, 1
SMALL. The environmental impacts presented 2.4 in Summary Table S-4 of Part 51.52 may be 3.3 adopted in individual nuclear power plant license renewal reviews as long as the candidate site at Yucca Mountain is under -
consideration for licensing. The contribution to impacts of transportation of higher enrichment and higher burnup fuel need be assessed only when the fuel to be used during the license renewal term is enriched to greater than 5 percent uranium-235 or average burnup for the peak rod will be greater than currently approved by the NRC up to 62,000 mwd /MTU. If the applicant anticipates exceeding these values for enrichment or burnup during the renewal term and has received or applied for a license amendment for the values anticipated and an environmental assessment has been prepared by the NRC, which considers transportation of that fuel to and from the reactor, then that environmental assessment may be cited in the renewal application and no further information is required.
13 NUREG-1437, Addendum I
s.
Supplzm2ntal Analyses for Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts...
l
- 5. REFERENCES AIF/NE SP-0321985. The Environmental.
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Consequences of HigherFuel 1997. Spent,Vuclear Fuel: Balance Bumup, Atomic Industrial Forum, Storage and Disposa/ Needs, URL:
Inc., June.
http://www.nwtrb. gov / issues /
Dyer, G.J., and W.J. Reich,1993, spntfuel.html, accessed Oct.14, Transportation Risk Assessment for.
1997.
the Oak Ridge K-25 Site Mixed NUREGICR-2325. The Transportation of Waste DisposalInitiative, ESIERITM-Radioactive Material (RAM) to and 68, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, from U.S. Nuclear Power Plants, Oak Ridge, Tenn., April.
Draft Environmental Assessment, Eisenbud, M. and T. Gesell.1997.
SAND 81-0118, U.S. Nuclear EnvironmentalRadioactivity from Regulatory Commission, Dec.1983.
Natural, Industrial, and Military NUREGICR-5009. Assessment of the Sources. Academic Press, New York, Use of ExtendedBum up Fuelin
' NY, February, IBSN: 0122351541.
Light Waterpower Reactors (PNL-Joy, D.S., and P.E. Johnson 1983.
6258), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory HIGHWAY, A Transportation Routing Commission, Feb.1988 Model: Program Description and NUREG-1437. Generic Environmental Revised User's Manual, ORNUTM.
Impact Statement forLicense 8759, Oak Ridge National Renewalof Nuclear Plants, U.S.
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May NAS (National Academy of Sciences) 1996.
1990. Health Effects of Exposure to WASH-1238. EnvironmentalSurvey of Low Levels oflonizing Radiation, Transportation of Radioactive BEIR V Report, National Academy Materials to and from Nuclear Power Press, Washington, D.C.
Plants, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Dec.1972.
NUREG 1437, Addendum 1 14
p-Supplemental Analysesfor Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts...
- 6. List OF PREPARERS D. P. Cleary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory L. N. McCold, Oak Ridge National Commission, M.A., Economics, Laboratory, M.S. Mechanical University of Florida; graduate Engineering, Oregon State University; studies in Natural Resource B.S. Physics, Oregon State Economics and Environmental Policy;-
University; 17 years of experience in B.A. Economics, University of environmental assessment.
Massachusetts; 34 years of Contribution: ORNL project experience in environmental management and technical assessment. Contribution: Overall integration.
project direction and Chapter 3.
W. J. Reich, Oak Ridge National
- P. E. Johnson, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, M.S. Nuclear Laboratory, M.S., Geography, Engineering, University of Missouri-University of Tennessee; B.A.
Rolla; B.A. Nuclear Engineering, Geography, University of Minnesota-University of Missouri-Rolla; 8 years Duluth; 20 years of experience in of experience in transportation transportation routing modeling.
analysis and risk assessment.
Contribution: Appendix.-
Contribution: Appendix.
l 15 NUREG-1437. Addendum 1 L
' Suppl:msntal Analyses for Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts...
APPENDIX Cumulative impacts from the Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel in the Vicinity of Las Vegas, Nevada, Associated with 1
Nuclear Reactor License Renewal free) transport and with potential introduction accidents severe enough to release l
radioactive material.
The purpose of this analysis is to supplement the analysis of transportation The focus of the analysis is on truck impacts in NUREG-1437 with estimates transportation since transport by rail of cumulative radiological exposure and would be expected to pose less risk to health risk resulting from spent nuclear the general public. Rail lines tend to be fuel (SNF) shipments in the vicinity of the located farther away from higher i
proposed high-level waste repository at population densities than the comparable Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The analysis highway routes, rail transport allows a far addresses the impacts of transporting greater payload and thus significantly SNF generated by nuclear power plants reduces the number of :.5ipments during their initial license period, plus required, and the risk of amidents is less transporting SNF generated during a 20 for rail shipments. When accident rates year license renewal term. Conservative between truck and rail shipments are
- (i.e., overestimating) assumptions are normalized for payload size and mileage,
~
used to ensure that the potential impacts the accident rate for rail shipments is are not underestimated.-
about 3 percent of the comparable accident rate for truck shipments (Dyer j
This study describes the transportation 1993).
risk assessment performed using the HIGHWAY routing code and the For purposes o'his analysis, it is RADTRAN 4 risk assessment code to assumed that all SNF generated by l
determine the cumulative transportation nuclear power plants is disposed of at impacts near the Las Vegas area Yucca Mountain. Current law prohibits associated with the transport of NRC from licensing DOE's disposal of I
commercial SNF to a proposed repository more than 70,000 metric tons (68,790 at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The study long ton) of heavy metalin a repository considers the effects of nuclear reactor until a second repository is in operation. If license extension that would extend another repository were established to existing 40-year operating licenses an~
accept additional SNF, the impacts on the q
additional 20 years and thus increase the area around the Yucca Mountain amount of.SNF being transported to a-repository would be smaller than those repository. The cdmulative impacts estimated here because some of the SNF 4
considered were human health effects assumed to go to Yucca Mountain would associated with both normal (incident.
go elsewhere.
NUREG-1437, Addendum 1 16
,o Supplemental Analysesfor Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts...
~ Background on the HIGHWAY Model Analysis of Routes Using the HIGHWAY Model The HIGHWAY computer code model (Joy 1983) was used to select routes and The total travel distance and the fraction analyze each transportation scenario.
of travel in each population density zone The HIGHWAY modelis designed to are necessaiy inputs to the RADTRAN 4 simulate routes on the highway system in code and are given la Table A.1. The the United States The data base includes routing data from the HIGHWAY model, all interstates, most U.S. highways, and which makes use of 12 population density
~many_ roadways with state, county, or zones, have been collapsed into 3 zones local classifications. It represents about (i.e., rural, suburban, and urban) to
-380,000 km [240,000 miles) of roadway.
simplify the analysis performed by the Several different routing options are RADTRAN code.
available in the highway program, including probable commercial routes, Factors such as population density, routes on the interstate highway system, accident rates, and vehicle speed can be and routes that bypass major urbanized varied for different zones. Each areas. Additional detailed routing analysis population zone, along with an can be performed by blocking individual associated road type, or sets of highway segments or intersections contained in the data base.
Table A.1. Transportation route parameters used in RADTRAN analysis
- The selection of preferred routes Average assumes that each shipment consists of Roadway population highway-route-controlled quantities of population Distance density radioactive materials. Travel time is density zone *
(km)
- (persons /km")
optimized based on maximum utilization Las Vegas N. bypass route of the interstate highway system, with Rural 157.6 2.2 preference given to bypasses around suburban 8.2 357 major cities, except where attemate Other 0
0 routes have been designated by state or local officials. Selected output pages from Total 165.8 the HIGHWAY computer code model are Las Vegas city route given in Attachment 1. These output pages supply additional information, QuYurban 56 including a detailed listing of each Other 5.4 2295 c
highway route as well as mileage and population density zones.
Total 176.9
- Based on HIGHWAY analysis (see Attactgnent 1 to this appendix).
" Rural"is defined as populations less than 54 persons /km'.
- Suburban
- is defined as population densities between 54 and 1284 t-persons /km'. " urban" is defined as population 8
densities greater than 1284 persons /km.
f 17 NUREG-1437. Addendum 1
Suppl: ment:;l Anslys:s for Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts...
make up a RADTRAN 4 transport link.
The Proposed Las Vegas Beltway
. Population density estimates for the transport routes were based on 1990 This section contains background Census data. The staff assumed that information on the proposed Las Vegas population growth of the Las Vegas area beltway including a schematic shown in would occur primarily by expansion of Figure A.1. Information in this section urban and suburban areas, rather than was obtained from the Clark County increasing population densities. For the Department of Public Works World Wide beltway route, population densities were Web page (Clark County 1997). The assumed to be similar to those of other planned beltway will eventually consist of i
urban and suburban areas of Las Vegas three connected segments including a to account for population growth induced southem, westem, and northem route by development of the beltway, which together will create a freeway " ring" around the Las Vegas Valley to take vehicles around, rather than through, the congested urban core.
The southem segment of the beltway is being built in sections, with each segment opening to traffic upon completion. The first phase of the project, from l-15 to McCarran Airport (Airport Connector),
was opened in 1994. Work on the second section, from Warm Springs Road to Windmill Lane, opened to traffic in Oct.
1995. In Feb.1997, the third portion of the project-from Windmill Lane to Eastem Ave.-became fully operational.
The fourth section of the southem beltway, Eastem Ave to Pecos Road, was completed in 1997.
The proposed northem and western i
beltway may ultimately be a 10-tane facility (a combination of mixed use and i
high-occupancy vehicle lanes) with adequate right-of-way to permit construction of a fixed guideway facility.
This is called the " ultimate facility" and will require a right-of-way width of 107 to 137 m [350 to 450 ft], plus land for interchanges or access to other transportation facilities. The planning horizon used for this transportation facility
-is 20 years it is anticipated that within the next 20 years, a 4-lane freeway between NUREG-1437,' Addendum 1 18 mi 1
-S Supplemental Analysesfor Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts...
Tropicana Ave. and Decatur Blvd. and a 4-lane arterial with signalized '
. intersections at future inter-change
~ locations will be needed between Decatur -
Blvd. and 1-15 in North Las Vegas.
Cumulative impacts of Spent Fuel Transportation in the Las Vegas Area This section describes the analysis of cumulative impacts associated with the transport of SNF to the repository near Las Vegas, Nevada. The methodology of q
' the risk assessment is presented, along i
with an analysis of the transportation routes, a characterization of the SNF, a description of the RADTRAN 4 code used
- to perform the radiological risk assessment, and a summary of cumulative transportation risks.
There are four transportation scenarios considered in this analysis, consisting of two routes, each with'and.without license
- renewal shipment volumes. The first -
route assumes that fuel will be shipped _
around the urban Las Vegas area using
. the proposed beltway, and the second route assumes that the shipments will be routed through the center of the city using the existing interstate system. It was 1
assumed that with license renewal, the shipment volume of SNF would increase 50 percent. Without license renewal, the estimated number of SNF shipments was 50,185. With license renewal, shipments i
were assumed to increase to 75,278. No consideration was given to the SNF.
volume limits being considered for the proposed repository, if such limits were maintained,.
19 NUREG-1437, Addendum I l
Supplement 1I Analys:s for Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts...
ORNL 98-6791/rra sn 157 f
f 8
m
\\
m is l
/*
N p'
h L.E.oum. 9
/
/
W
,f NELUS cnam f
g
,7' f Ain roncE sAsE
\\,
HEYENNE CHEYENNE p
cAnEv!
F
\\A Y
Y h^
y o...
\\
/B )
wAsNomroN
--#'d ("
80NhMZA
g I
i STEWAnT
[3 CHARLESTON N,
/3 l i
Mi
\\ 1'_lL-'
1 UA E
oEsEkrmN A
l sAees
\\W 7g II \\
(
FLAMSCO L
inopcINA
\\
/ f _,="ti
% \\__
l3
-u G
- a)
,E suNsEr4 L
m i
.,0 4 su N 'N l
1
\\\\
l f
3
- q. yAnmemNos
- WINDINR \\
wveena
_ g s,,
[/
PE8RE 1
Muf oiAmoNo 3
(is)
(
5
/
/
3 +#
\\
savNAnson i
Aniront Beltway a
Figure A.1. Proposed Las Vegas beltway. Source: Clark County Department of PuMc Works informational drawing, http://www.co. clark.nv.us/PUBWORKS/gif/beltmap.jpg (accessed Oct.14,1997).
t i
NUREG-1437, Addendum 1 20 I
n Supplementcl Analysesfor Cumulative Environmentalimpacts...
i the risks calculated by this study would.
as a result of the truck accident. This is decrease accordingly, in addition, for the the most common type of accident license renewal scenarios,it was expected to occur. Data on national accident statistics have been compiled assumed that population density along l
the beltway would increase because of from a number of sources by the U.S.
l future growth and expansion.- Population Department of Transportation (DOT),
density within the' city center was Bureau of Transportation Statistics, assumed not to increase. It was assumed between 1975 and 1995. Since 1990, that growth in population density along data have been collected on the number -
l the new beltway would increase about of accidents, injuries, and fatalities per 30 percent above 1990 Census levels 100 million truck-miles (DOT 1997).
l because there will be ample room and Based upon the accident rate data from newly created access routes.
1990 to 1995, the average rate of large truck accidents is 373 per 100 million SNF was assumed to be packaged in the truck-km [233 per 100 million truck-miles],
General Atomics Corp. GA-4 and GA-9 the average rate of injury is 34 per 100 l
legal-weight truck transportation casks million truck-km [21 per 100 million truck-l (DOE 1990; GA 1991) because they are miles], and the average fatality rate is l
the only legal-weight spent fuel casks that 0.67 per 100 million truck-km [0.42 per l
are close to being certified, and because 100 million truck-miles]. On the basis of l
larger casks that are being considered for these statistics-along with the l
certification would lead to lower dose HIGHWAY route data-the expected L
estimates (i.e., less conservative dose number of nonradiolo'gical accidents, estimates.) Radiological characteristics of injuries, and fatalities is calculated as l
the SNF were obtained from an analysis shown in Table A.2 for shipments during l
of the characteristics of potential the 40-year (without license renewal) and repository wastes (DOE 1992). Table S-4 60-year (with license renewal) repository (10 CFR 51) was based on the.
operations period.
assumption that the legal-weight truck was 33,182 kg [73,000 lb]; the current Table A.2. Truck fatalities, injuries, and accidents
- legal-weight limit is 36,364 kg [80,000 lb).
Higher-legal-weight trucks allow fewer Fatalities injuries Accidents shipments and lower risks.
Bypass withoutlicense renewal 0.022 1.09 12.0 Truck Fatalities, injuries and Accidents Bypass with license renewal
'U 6
'8^
f The staff estimated the number of nonradiological truck accidents that may City withoutlicense renewal occur during the transport of SNF to the 0.023 1.16 12.9 repository. A nonradiological accident is City with license renewal defined as a truck accident in which the injuries' or fatalities are caused by the 0.035 1.74 19.3 force of the impact; no release of or
,,,gg,y,nd rat sir"oYus"o$f(157)f a"
exposure to radiological materials occurs 21 NUREG-1437, Addendum 1 P
l
i' Suppl: ment:I An1lys:s for Cumulativs EnvironmentalImpacts...
. Background on the RADTRAN Model would have to be in contact with the package at its most radioactive spot. To receive a significant
~
d se, he or she would have to lie in contact with
. The RADTRAN 4 computer code the container at its most radioactive spot for a (Neuhauser 1984,1992) was used to substantial time period. It is very unlikely that an model the incident-free radiological individual would spend any time in physical exposure and the consequences of contact with the package and even more unlikely radiological releases resulting from that he or she would inadvertently choose the accidents. The incident-free risks are m st radioactive spot on the package. Because such an occurrence is so unlikely, this exposure dependent on the radiation dose rate scenario is not considered relevant to the i
from the shipment, number of shipments, cumulative impacts analysis.
package dimensions, route distance, vehicle speed, and population densities Both point-and line-source approximations along the travel routes. The accident risks were used based upon the distance between are dependent on the radiological the exposed individuals and the radiation inventory, accident severity, probability of sourco. Each truck shipment of multiple fuel-occurrence for each accident category, assemblies was modeled as a single pa kage with a homogeneous distribution of and the amount of invento'Y released' the radiological inventory. The characteristic aerosolized,.and inhaled, as well as the dimension (known in RADTRAN as the dispersibility of the waste form.
variable PKGSIZ) is the largest linear dimension of the configuration and is used in For incident-free transportation, the line-source approximation to calculate
- RADTRAN calculates total body doses total dose; 5 m (16.5 ft) was the assumed for the transport crew and the general length of the source. Because transport population. The radiation source is casks are designed to absorb most neutron characterized for RADTRAN by the radiation and because neutron radiation is radiation dose rate at 1 m from the absorbed by the air in short distances, the package surface. The regulatory limit is.
radiation dose to the public from the casks 0.1 mSv/ hour [10 mrem / hour) at 2 m (6.6 was assumed to consist endrely of gamma ft) from the container surface. The h"of,ation for calculat,on of the incident-free i
0.10 mSv/ hour [10-mrem / hour) at 1 m -
(3.3 ft) rate (which corresponds to about RADTRAN uses a dispersibility category that 0.07 mSv/ hour [7 mrem / hour) at 2 m (6.6 is based on the chemical and physical j
ft)) was assumed because most properties of the radiologicalinventory to shipments are not expected to be close to determine the fractions of the totalinventory
- regulatory limit, so the average dose rate that are aerosolized and respirable, and it Was assumod to be lower than the contains default values for aerosolized and regulatory' limit.1; respirable fractions of the totalinventory based on the assignment of dispersibility category. The user assigns a dispersibility 10 CFR 71.47 also limits dose rate at any category to each material and chooses point' on the outer surface of the package or release fractions based on the type of vehicle to 2 mSv/ hour [200 mrem. hour). Doses :
Package as a function of accident severity.
)
. rates at most parts of the surface would necessarily be much lower than 2 mSv/ hour [200 mrem / hour) in order to meet the 0.10 mSvinour
. [10 mrem / hour) at 2 m(6.6 ft) limit. To be -
exposed to a dose rate this high, an individual l
NUREG-1437, Addendum 1 22 i
s-Supplemental Analysesfor Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts...
Accident risks include acute fatalities and latent cancer fatalities (chronic) for both the Table A.3. Cumulative radiological current and future generations. The accident transportation risks in the risk (expected value of dose from accidents)
Las Vegas area *
~ is the summation of the products of Estimated lifetime risk of fatal cancer
- estimated dose for each accident severity category and the associated probability of Accident occurrence for the category.
Incident-free risk risk Crew
- Publicd Public Transportation Risk Assessment Using Bypass withoutlicense renewal RADTRAN 4 0.0827 0.0290 0.0169 The radiological health effects were Bypass with // cense renewal estimated for two transportation routes (through Las Vegas on the current interstate 0.1241 0.0435 0.0253 system and on the proposed bypass) and for two license renewal scenarios {no license City withoutlicense renewal renewal (50,185 shipments) and all plants 0.0882 0.0425 0.0815 operate through one license renewal term (75,278 shipments)). Table A.3 lists the City with license renewal estimated lifetime risk of fatal cancer (LRFC) 0.1324 0.0635 0.123 for shipments of SNF expected to result from e
radiation exposure during incident-free Transportation risks were calcu!sted using transportation and accidents. Radiation RADTpAN (v. 4.0.19, Nov.14,1996).
The dose conversion factor for crew doses to the population and truck crews were members was 0.04 estimated lifetime risk of fatal converted to LRFC using the upper limit risk cancer (LRFC) per person-Sv coefficient suggested by the
[0.0004 LRFC/ person-rem) and for the public,0.05 LRFC/ person-Sv [0.0005 LRFC/ person-rem]. The National Academy of Sciences (ICRP 1991; U.S. average lifetime risk of cancer from all causes
~ NAS 1990).
is apqroximately 0.25.
Truck crew size was assumed to be i
2 persons. Crew risk is for the time spent driving approximately 161 km (100 miles)in the Las Vegas area; the risk involved in driving to the Las Vegas area ig not included.
Incident-free risk to the total population does not include the risk to the crew.
The NAS report (1990, Table 4-2), commonly called the BEIR V report, gives statistics on the number of cancer deaths expected to occur from a continuous exposure of 10 mSv/ year [1 rem / year] above background from age 18 until age 65. This value results in a risk factor of 4.0 x 10' per person-Sv
[4.0 x 10" LRFC per person-rem] that is most applicable to occupational exposures.
The BEIR V report also considers the number of l
t 23 NUREG-1437, Addendum 1
t i
\\
Supplement:I An: lyses for Cumul tiva EnvironmentalImp1 cts. '..
cancer deaths expected to occur from a Even the hypothetical maximally exposed continuous lifetime exposure of 1 rnSv/ year individual would receive only a small lifetime (0.1 rem / year) above background,8 which radiation dose due to SNF transport in the results in a risk factor of 5.0 x 10'8 LRFC per Las Vegas area. The maximally exposed 4
person Sv [5.0 x 10 LRFC per person-rem) individual radiation dose is based on -
that is most applicable to exposures of the exposure during incident-free transport to a general public. Note that even though the hypothetical individual located 30 m assumod general public exposure is less than (100 feet) from the highway during the entire the assumed occupational exposure, the shipment campaign. This is a very general public LRFC risk factor is slightly conservative assumption because the higher--because the general public dose is hypothetical person would have to live an assumed to be received by people of all entire life at the same spot to receive the ages rather than just by people in the calculated dose. The hypothetical maximally workforce from age 18 until age 65. The exposed individual would receive 0.31 mSv younger population is more sensitive to (31 mrem] for the entire campaign, which is radiation-induced health effects.
8.6% of the 3.6-mSv [360-mrem) average annual effective dose received from natural The results (Table A.3) show that the background radiation sources, or 0.12% of a radiological risks of the truck shipments of 70-year dose from natural background SNF are. low. The LRFC expected from the sources.
I calculated exposures would not exceed 0.1324 LRFC for the crews or 0.0635 LRFC The results of the RADTRAN analysis for members of the public exposed during (Attachment 2) indicate that there would be incident-free transportation of SNF. It was no fatalities from acute radiation exposure as assumed that each 2-person crew would a result of the release of radioactive material perform 1 shipment per week over the from even the most severe hypothetical SNF lifetime of the 40- to 60 year shipment transportation accident. The largest campaign (a very conservative assumption).
population risk due to radiological accidents for any of the SNF transportation scenarios would be 0.123 LRFC (Table A.3). provides a listing of selected pages from the RADTRAN 4 output files for each scenario including all necessary input
'The background radiation dose is assumed parameters to duplicate the analysis, the
(
to be 3.6 mSv/ year [360 mrem / year), the current incident-free summary showing the
. estimate given for average background radiation population exposure in person-rem along with
- dose in the U.S.- The value is based upon the the maximum individual in-transit dose, and following assumptions from the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements as the expected values of population risk in summarized in Eisenbud and Gesell (1997).
person-rem as a result of accidents.
- "" 8 ""*
""~
The risk estimates listed on Table A.3 must be viewed in proper perspective. While the co.mic res. mon met cn m
,m t i.v.i o.27 7g.*,*no",,',"$',,'",,*,",,'" ** **'*
estimated risks are low, they are higher than Roseman in u num n boov erom mod nd weier om usually seen for SNF shipments because of
^".u"m.'"*p*roducYi.
Eo the extremely high volume of shipments con m dei.cers) assumed to pass through Las Vegas for i
purposes of this analysis. In addition, the analysis conservatively assumed that all,
NUREG-1437, Addendum 1 24
?
- Supplemental Analysesfor Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts...
' shipments would move by truck. In reality, GA 1991a. General Atomics, FinalDesign
' many shipments are expected to move by rail Drawing Package GA-4 Legal Weight which would significantly reduce the risk.
Truck Spent FuelShipping Cask, General Atomics Project 3462, Oct.
The study shows that use of the Las Vegas GA 1991b. General Atomics, FinalDesign bypass would reduce the risk to the public.
Drawing Package GA-9 Legal Weight The analysis is also conservative because it Truck Spent FuelShipping Cask,.
assumes that virtually all licensed nuclear General Atomics Project 3462, Dec.
power plants would operate for a 20-year ICRP (International Commission on license renewal term; many plants will not Radiological Protection) 1991.1990 renew their operating licenses. Finally, if Recommendations of the International another repository were established, the Commission on Radiological Protection, already small effects on Las Vegas would be ICRP Publication 60, Annals of the further reduced.
ICRP, vol. 21, No.1-3, Pergamon Press, New York.
Joy, D. S., Johnson, P. E.1983. HIGHWAY, A REFERENCES Transportation Routing Model: Program Description and Revised User's Manual, Clark County 1997. World Wide Web page:
ORNL/TM-8759, Oak Ridge National www.co. clark.nv.us/PUBWORKS/.
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn.
beltway.htm, Clark County Department NAS (National Academy of Sciences) 1990.
' of Public Works, accessed Sep. 30' Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels 1997 ofIonizing Radiation, BElR V Report, DOE (Ud Department of Energy) 1990.
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Cask Systems Development: GA-4 &
GA 9 Truck Cask, OCRWM Neuhauser, K. S., Cashwell, J. W., Reardon, Backgrounder, DOE /RW-0258, Feb.
P. C., McNair, G. W.1984. A Preliminary DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1992.
Cost and Risk Analysis for Transporting Characteristics of Potential Repository Spent Fueland High-Level Wastes to Wastes, Office of Civilian Radioactive Candidate SAND 89-2370, Repository Waste Management, Washington, D.C.
Sites, SAND 84-1795, Sandia National l
DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation)
Laboratories, Oct.
1997. Table 3-19, Truck Fatalities, Neuhauser K. S., Kanipe, F. L 1992.
Injuries, Accidents, and Vehicle-Miles RADTRAN 4: Volume 3, User Guide,
)
- and Associated Rates by Truck Size, SAND 89-2370, Sandia National World Wide Web page.
Laboratories, Jan.
www.bts. gov / programs /
UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Comm,ttee on the Effects of Atom,c i
i btsprod/nts/tbl3x19.html, accessed Oct.
14,1997.
Radiation) 1988. Sources, Effects, and Dyer 1993. G. J. Dyer, W. J. Reich, Risks oflonizing Radiation, United Nations.
. Transportation Risk Assessment for the Oak Ridge K-25 Site Mixed Waste l
~ DisposalInitiative, ES/ER/TM-68, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
-Tenn. April.
)
Eisenbud, M. and T. Gesell 1997.
EnvironmentalRadioactivity from Natural, Industrial, and Military Sources.
Academic Press, New York, Feb.
25 NUREG-1437, Addendum I
e 4
Supplemental An:tyses for Cumul:tivs EnvironmentalImpacts...
1. Listings of HIGHWAY routes examined in this study.
The following listings of the routes examined for this study have been captured from the HIGHWAY computer routing model developed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Joy 1983).
i
)
i l
(
)
)
1 i
l I
I i
NUREG-1437, Addendum 1 26 i
y Supplemental Analysesfor Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts...
1 Route 1. From I-15 northeast of Las Vegas through the spaghetti bowl.
From: OVERTON N I15 X93-NV Leaving : 10/02/97 at 9:14 PDT to : MERCURY S U95 LOCL NV Arriving: 10/02/97 at 11:08 PDT Route type: C with 2 driver (s)
Total road time: 1:54 Time bias:
.70 ' Mile bias:
.30 Toll bias:
1.00 Total miles: 110.0 4
l The following constraints are in effect:
1 - Links prohibiting truck use 7 - Avoid ferry crossings State mileage:
NV 110.0 Mileage by highway-sign type:
Interstate:
51.0 U.S.:
59.0 State
.0 Turnpike:
.0
)
County:
.0 Locals
.0 Other:
.0 j
' Mileage by highway lane type
.0 4
Limited Access Multilane:
52.0 Limited Access Single Lane:
Multilane Divided:
58.0
.Multilane Undivided:
.0 Prine,ipal Highway:
.0 Through Highway:
.0 Other:
.0 From: OVERTON N I15 X93 NV Leaving i 10/02/97 at 9:14 PDT to. MERCURY S U95 LOCL NV Arriving: 10/02/97 at 11:08 PDT Routing through:
.0 OVERTON N I15 X93 NV
.0' 0:00 10/02 9 9:14 51.0 I15 LAS VEGAS NV 51.0 0:47 10/02 9 10:01 1.0 U95 LAS VEGAS W U95 U95B NV 52.0 0:48 10/02 0 10:02 l
7.0 U95BU LAS VEGAS NW U95 U95B NV 59.0 0:59 10/02 0 10:13 51.0 U95 MERCURY S U95 LOCL NV 110.0 1:54 10/02 0 11:08
[
Population Density from: OVERTON N I15 X93 NV j
to : MERCURY S U95 LOCL NV i
Mileage within Density Levels
<0.0 5.0 22.7 59.7 139 326 821 1861 3326 5815 St Miles 0
-5.0 -22.7 -59.7
-139 -326 -821 -1861 -3326 -5815 -9996 >9996 NV 110.0 45.7 27.3 21.9
.3
.4 1.0 2.1 4.7 3.3 2.1 1.0
.3 Totals 110.0 45.7 27.3 21.9
.3
.4 1.0 2.1 4.7 3.3 2.1 1.0
.3 Percentages 41.5 24.8 19.9
.2
.4
.9 1.9 4.3 3.0 2.0
.9
.2 Basis: 1990 Census Do you want RAIyIRAN input data (Y/n) ?
I RADTRAN Input Data Rural Suburban Urban-Weighted Population People /sq. mi.
4.4 1471.7 5945.2 People /sq. km.
1.7 568.2 2295.4 Distance Total Miles 95.6 11.0 3.4 110.0 Kilometers 153.8 17.7 5.4 177.0 Percentage 86.9 10.0 3.1 Basis (people /sq. mi.)
<139-139-3326
>3326 1990 Census
' Notes'Due to rounding, the sum of the mileages in the individual population categories may not equal the total mileage shown on this report.
i 1
27 NUREG 1437, Addendum I
Supplementil Anzlyses for CumuLitive EnvironmentilImpacts...
Route 2. From I-15 south of Las Vegas through the spaghetti bowl.
From: NIPTON W I15 S164 CA Leaving 10/01/97 at 16:37 PDT i
to s, MERCURY S U95 LOCL NV Arriving: 10/01/97 at 18:38 PDT l
-Route type: Q with 2 driver (s)-
Total road time: 2:01
(
Time bias:
1.00 Mile bias:
.00 Toll bias:
1.00 Total miles:
111.0 The following constraints are in effect:
1 - Links prohibiting truck use 6 - HM-164/ State preferred routes 7 - Avoid ferry crossings
{
11 - Nonintersecting Interstate Access Weighting used with preferred highways: 10.0 j
State mileage:
1 NV 101.0 CA' 10.0 j
Mileage by highway sign type j
Interstate:
52.0 U.S.:
59.0 State:
.0 Turnpike:
.0 j
County:
.0 Local:
.0 Other:
.0 q
Mileage by highway lane' type:
Limited Access Multilane:
53.0 Limited Access Single Lane
.0 Multilane Divided:
58.0 Multilane Undivided:
.0 i
Principal Highway:
.0 Through Highway:
.0 Other:
.0 j
From: NIPTON W I15 S164 CA Leaving 4 10/01/97 at 16:37 PDT to : MERCURY S U95 LOCL NV Arriving: 10/01/97 at 18:38 PDT Routing through:
i
.0 NIPTON W IIS S164 CA
.0 0:00 10/01 9 16:37 52.0 I15 LAS VEGAS' NV 52.0 0:54 10/01 9 17:31 1.0 U95 LAS VEGAS W U95 U95B NV 53.0 0:55 10/01 9 17:32 7.0 U95BU LAS VEGAS NW U95 U95B NV 60.0 1:06 10/01 9 17:43 51.0 U95 MERCURY S USS LOCL NV 111.0 2:01 10/01 9 18:38 l
l Population Density from: NIPTON W I15 S164 CA to : MERCURY S U95 LOCL NV l
l Mileage within Density Levels
<0.0 5.0 22.7 59.7 139 326 821 1861 3326 5815 St Miles 0
-5.0 -22.7 -59.7
-139 -326 -821 -1861 -3326 -5815 -9996 >9996 NV 101.0 19.7 51.3 13.7
.9 1.8 3.0 2.6 4.2 2.0 1.0 1.0
.0 CA 10.0
.0 10.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0 f
Totals 111.0 19.7 61.3 13.7
.9 1.8 3.0 2.6 4.2 2.0 1.0 1.0
.0 Percentages 17.7 55.2 12.3
.8 1.6 2.7 2.3 3.8 1.8
.9
.9
.0 Basis: 1990 Census-j RADTRAN Input Data Rural Suburban Urban
' Weighted Population People /sq. mi.
5.7 1108.7 6181.1 People /sq. km.
2.2 428.1 2386.5 Distance Total Miles 97.3 11.7 2.0 111.0 Kilometers 156.6-18.9 3.2 178.6 Percentage-87.6-10.6 1.8 i
Basis (people /sq. mi.)
<139 139-3326
>3326 1990 census Note: Due to rounding, the num of the mileages in the individual population categories may not equal the total mileage shown on this report.
NUREG-1437, Addendum 1 28
l s.
Supplemental Analysesfor Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts...
Route 3. From I-15 northeast of Las Vegas using bypass.
From: OVERTON
-N IIS X93 NV Leaving : 10/01/97 at 16:40 PDT to : MERCURY S U95 LOCL NV.
Arriving: 10/01/97 at 18:23 PDT
' Route type: C with 2 driver (s)
Total road time: 1:43 Time bias:
.70 Mile bias:
.30 Toll bias:
1.00 Total miles: 103.0
.The following constraints are in effects 1 - Links prohibiting truck use 7 - Avoid ferry crossings State mileage NV 103.0 Mileage by highway sign type:
. Interstate:
43.0 U.S.:
48.0 States
.0 Turnpike:
.0 county:
.0 Local:
.0 Other:
12.0 Mileage by highway lane typer Limited Access Multilane:
55.0 Limited Access Single Lane:
.0 Multilane Divided:
48.0 Multilane Undivided:
.0 Principal Highway -
.0 Through Highway
.0 Other:
.0 From: OVERTON N I15 X93 NV Leaving : 10/01/97 at 16:40 PDT to. : MERCURY S U95 LOCL NV Arriving: 10/01/97 at 18:23 PDT Routing throught
.0 OVERTON N I15 X93 NV
.0 0:00 10/01 9 16:40 43.0 I15 N LAS VEGAS' N.
I15 BYPS NV 43.0 0:40 10/01 9 17:20 12.0 BYPAS LAS VEGAS NW U95 BYPS NV 55.0 0:51 10/01 0 17:31 48.0 U95 MERCURY S. U95 LOCL NV 103.0 1:43 10/01 0 18:23 Population Density from: OVERTON N IIS X93 NV to : MERCURY S U95 LOCL NV Mileage within Density Levels
<0.0 5.0 22.7 59.7 139 326 821 1861 3326 5815 St Miles' O
-5.0 -22.7 -59.7
-139 -326 -821 -1861 -3326 -5815 -9996 >9996 NV 103.0 45.8 28.1 22.0
.2 1.8
.7 2.4 1.6
.4
.0
.0
.0 Totals 103.0 45.8 28.1 22.0
.2 1.8
.7 2.4 1.6
.4
.0
.0
.0 Percentages 44.5 27.3 21.4
.2 1.7
.6 2.3 1.6
.4
.0
.0
.0 Basis: 19?0 Census RADTRAN Input Data Rural Suburban Urban Weighted Population People /sq. mi.
5.7 924.0
.0 People /sq. km.
2.2 356.7
.0 Distance Total' Miles 97.9 5.1
.0 103.0 Kilometers 157.6 8.2
.0 165.8 Percentage 95.0 5.0
.0 l
Basis (people /sq. mi.)
<139 139-3326
>3326 1990 census Note: Due to rounding, the sum of the mileages in the individual population categories may not equal the total mileage shown on this report.
29 NUREG-1437, Addendum 1
Suppliment:I Analys:s for Cumul1tive Environment:1 Impacts...
1 Route 4. From I-15 south of Las Vegas using bypass.
From:-NIPTON W.
115 S164.CA Leaving : 10/01/97 at 16:44 PDT to : MERCURY S, U95 LOCL NV Arriving: 10/01/97 at 18:48 PDT Route type: C with 2 driver (s)
Total road time: 2:04 Time bias:
.70 Mile bias:
.30 Toll bias:
1.00 Total miles: 118.0 The following constraints are in effect:
1 - Links prohibiting truck use 7 - Avoid ferry crossings State mileage:
NV-108.0 CA 10.0 Mileage by highway sign type:
Interstate:
44.0 U.S.:
48.0 State:
.0 Turnpike:
.0 County:
.0 Local
.0 Other:
26.0 Mileage by highway lane type Limited Access Multilane:
70.0 Limited Access Single Lane:
.0 Mult11ane Divided:
48.0 Multilane Undivided:
.0 Principal Highways
.0 Through Highway:
.0 Other:
.0 From: NIPTON W I15 S164 CA Leaving : 10/01/97 at 16:44 PDT to : MERCURY S U95 LOCL NV Arriving: 10/01/97 at 18:48 PDT Routing through:
.0 NIPTON W I15 S164 CA
.0 0:00 10/01 9 16:44 44.0 I15 LAS VEGAS SW IIS X34 NV 44,0 0:46 10/01 9 17:30 2 6. ' BYPAS LAS VEGAS NW U95 BYPS NV 70.0 1:12 10/01 0 17:56 48-
'95 MERCURY S U95 LOCL NV 118.0 2:04 10/01 9 18:48 Pop' tion Density from: NIPTON W IIS S164 CA to : MERCURY S U95 LOCL NV Mileage within Density Levels
<0.0.
5.0 22.7 59.7 139 326. 821 1861 3326 5815 St Miles 0
-5.0 -22.7 -59.7
-139 -326 -821 -1861 -3326 -5C15 -9996 >9996 NV 108.0 20.1 50.8 13.6 4.1 4.5 4.8 5.2 4.3
.6
.0
.0
.0 CA 10.0
.0 10.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0 I
Totals 118.0 20.1 60.8 13.6 4.1 4.5 4.8 5.2 4.3
.6
.0
.0
.0 Percentages 17.0 51.5 11.5 3.5 3.8 4.1 4.4 3.6
.5
.0
.0
.0
{
Basis: 1990 Census 1
RADTRAN Input Data Rural Suburban Urban Weighted Population People /sq. mi.
9.3 766.5
.0
' People /sq. km.
3.6 295.9
.0 Distance Total Miles 103.1 14.9
.0 118.0 Kilometers 165.9 24.0
.0 189.9 Percentage 87.4 12.6
.0 Basia (people /sq. mi.)
<139 139-3326
>3326 1990 Census Note: Due to rounding, the. sum of the mileages in the individual population categories may not equal,the total mileage shown on this report.
NUREG-1437, Addendum 1
-30 l
l-Supplemental Analysesfor Cumulative Environmentalimpacts...
i. Selected pages from the RADTRAN 4 computer code runs.
RRRR-AAA DDDD TTTTT RRRR AAA N
N R
R A A D D'
T R
R A A NN N l
R R
A-A D D
T R
R A A NNN L
RRRR A
A D D
T RRRR A
A N NN RR AAAAA D D
T RR AAAAA N N
R R A
A D D
T R R A
A N N
R
.R A
A DDDD T
R R A A N N
4 4
4 4
4 44444 4
4 4
RADTRAN 4.0.19 VERSION DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 1996 MODE DESCRIPTIONS NUMBER NAME CHARACTERIZATION 1
TRUCK LONG HAUL VEHICLE 2
RAIL COMMERCIAL TRAIN 3
BARGE INLAND VESSEL i
4 SHIP OPEN SEA VESSEL 5
CARGO AIR CARGO AIRCRAFT 6
PASS AIR PASSENGER AIRCRAFT 7
P-VAN PASSENGER VAN 8
CVAN-T COMMERCIAL VAN 9
CVAN-R-COMMERCIAL VAN 10 CVAN-CA COMMERCIAL VAN l
l 31 NUREG 1437, Addendum 1
(
l l
L
p l
Supplemental Analyses for Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts...
ECHO CHECK
&& Edited Thu Oct 2.16:57:21 1997 l
&& _Las Vegas _ bypass _without license _ renewal _
&& _ Version _1.0_
TITLE _ BYPASS _WITHOUT_ RENEWAL.
4 FORM UNIT DIMEN 21 8 3 10 18 PARM 1 3 2 1 0 PACKAGE-LABGRP GAS SOLID VOLAT SHIPMENT LABISO H3 GAS FESS CO60 KR85 SR90 RU106 SB125 TE125M CS134 CS137 CE144 PM147 SM151-EU154 EU155 PU238 PU239 PU240 PU241 AM241 CM244 NORMAL NMODE=1-8.069E-01 1.916E-01 1.500E-03 8.856E+01 4.032E+01 2.416E+01 2.000E+00 1.000E+01 'O.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 2.000E+01 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 2.000E+00 1.000E-01 0.000E+00 1.000E+00 4.700E+02 7.800E+02 2.800E+03 ACCIDENT SEVFRC NPOP=1 NMODE=1 4.62E-01 3.02E-01 1.76E-01 4.03E-02 1.18E-02 6.47E-03 5.71E-04 1.13E-04 NPOP=2 J
NMODE=1 4.35E-01 2.85E-01 2.21E-01~ 5.06E-02 6.64E-03 1.74E-03 6.72E-05 5.93E-06 NPOP=3 NMODE=1
.5.83E-01 3.82E-01 '2.78E-02 6.36E-03 7.42E-04 1.46E-04 I
1.13E-05 9.94E-07 RELEASE RFRAC GROUP =1 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 -1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.10E-01 1.10E-01 1.10E-01 GROUP =2 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.00E-08 5.00E-08 5.00E-08 5.00E-07 5.00E-07 GROUP =3 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.00E-08 2.00E-04 2.80E-04
~1.00E-03 1.00E-03
-EOF ISOTOPES
-1 50185 1.00 10.000.
1.00 0.00 FRRSNF H3 GAS 9.99E+02 GAS-10
' FESS 3.64E+02 SOLID 2
i
)
CO60 4.31E+03 SOLID 2
KRB5 1.0BE+04 GAS 10 l
SR90 1.30E+05 SOLID 2
j RU106.~1.05E+03 VOLAT 7
(
SB125 2.92E+03 SOLID 2
)
{
j TE125M 7.13E+02 SOLID 2
i,
'CS134' 1.54E+04 VOLAT 7
J CS137 '1.93E+05 VOLAT 7
CE144 2.40E+02 SOLID 2
NUREG-1437, Addendum 1 32
n Supplemental Analysesfor Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts...
PM147 1.60E+04 SOLID 2
SM151 9.07E+02 SOLID-2 EU154-1.20E+04 SOLID 2-
. EU155. 4.59E+03
, SOLID 2
PU238 1.00E+04 SOLID 2
'PU239 7.30E+02 SOLID 2
PU240 1.13E+03 SOLID 2
PU241' 1.88E+05 SOLID 2
AM241 '4.26E+03 SOLID 2
CM244 8.29E+03 SOLID 2
LINK 1 1.58E+02 8.80E+01 2.20E+00 4.70E+02 1.37E-07 R 1 LINK' 1 8.20E+00 8'80E+01 3.57E+02 7.80E+02 3.00E-06 S 1 PKGSIZ FRRSNF 5.00 EOF
_ BYPASS WITHOUT... RENEWAL _
INCIDENT-FREE
SUMMARY
INCIDENT-FREE POPULATION EXPOSURE IN PERSON-REM PASSENGR CREW HANDLERS OFF LINK ON LINK STOPS STORAGE TOTALS LINK 1 0.00E+00 1.96E+02 0.00E+00 4.45E-01 4.97E+01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.46E+02 LINK 2 0.00E+00 1.02E+01 0.00E+00 3.26E+00 4.28E:00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.77E+01 RURAL 0.00E+00 1.96E+02 0.00E+00 4.45E-01 4.97E+01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.46E+02 SUBURB 0.00E+00 1.02E+01 0.00E+00 3.26E+00 4.28E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.77E+01 URBAN 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 TOTALS:.0.00E+00 2.06E+02 0.00E+00 3.70E+00 5.40E+01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.64E+02 MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL IN-TRANSIT DOSE LINK 1 2.07E-02 REM LINK 2 2.07E-02 REM RUN DATE: [
2-OCT-97 AT 16:57:53 )
PAGE 6
_ BYPASS _WITHOUT_ RENEWAL _
EXPECTED VALUES OF POPULATION RISK IN PERSON REM GROUND INHALED RESUSPD CLOUDSH
- INGESTION TOTAL LINK -1 4 43E-01 2.04E-03 8.29E-03 5.89E-06 0.00E+00 4.54E-01 LINK 2 3.25E+01 1.47E-01 5.95E-01 5.19E-04 0.00E+00 3.33E+01
' RURAL 4.43E-01 2.04E-03 8.29E-03 5.89E-06 0.00E+00 4.54E-01 SUBURB 3.25E+01 1.47E-01 5.95E-01 5.19E-04 0.00E+00 3.33E+01 URBAN
'O 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 TOTALS:
3.30E+01 1.49E-01 6.03E-01 5.25E-04 0.00E+00 3.37E+01 33 NUREG-1437, Addendum I
4 Supplement:I An lyses for Cumulltive EnvironmentIlImpacts...
- NOTE THAT INGESTION RISK IS A SOCIETAL RISK; THE USOR HAY WISH TO TREAT THIS VALUE SEPARATELY.
BYPASS _WITHOUT RENEWAL _
EXPECTED RISK VALUES - OTHER LINK ECON EARLY FATALITY 1
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 TOTAL 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 TOTAL EXPOSED POPULATION: INCIDENT-TREE LINK 1 5.56E+02 PERSONS LINK 2 4.68E+03 PERSONS TOTAL 5.24E+03 PERSONS TOTAL EXPOSED POPULATION: ACCIDENT (PERSONS UNDER PLUME FOOTPRINT FOR A SINGLE ACCIDENT)
LINK 1 2.97E+03 PERSONS LINK 2 4.82E+05 PERSONS EOI END OF RUN I
l NUREG-1437, Addendum 1 34
- 1
h,4
~
Supplemental Analysesfor Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts...
ECHO CHECK l
&& Edited Thu'Oct '2 17:16:14 1997-l
&& Las_ Vegas _ bypass _with_ license _ renewal _
&& Version 1.0_.
. TITLE BYPASS WITH_ RENEWAL, FORM UNIT-t.
DIMEN 21 8 3 10 18-L
_. IPARM 1 3 2 1.0 i
--PACKAGE'
(
LABGRP l
GAS
' SOLID:
. VOLAT l-SHIPMENT l
LABISO
~
FE55 CO60 KR85 SR90 RU106 H3 GAS SB125' TE125M :
CS134' CS137 CE144 PM147 SM151 EU154 EU155 PU238' PU239
.PU240 LPU241 AM241 CM244
- NORMAL
~NMODE=1 1.500E-03 8.856E+01 4.032E+01 2.416E+01
.8.069E-01' 1.916E-01 2.000E+00 '1.000E+01 0.000E+00 -0,000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00-0.000E+00 0.000E+00 2.000E+01 'O.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 l
2.000E+00 1.000E 0.000E+00 11.000E+00 4.700E+02 7.800E+02 2.800E+03:
ACCIDENT.
SEVFRC NPOP=1. '
.NMODE=1
,I 4'.62E-01 -3.02E-01 1.76E-01 4.03E-02 1.18E-02 6.47E-03:
5.71E-04 1.13E-04 NPOP=2 NMODE=1
. ~
1 i
4.35E-01: 2.85E-01 2.21E-01 ~5.06E-02 6.64E-03 c1.74E-03 C.72E-05'-5.93E-06
-- NPOP=3
'NMODE=1" 1
5.83E-01 3.82E-01 2.78E-02 6.36E-03 7.42E-04 1.46E-04 1
1.13E-05 9.94a-07 RELEASE' RFRAC
. GROUP =1 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+0C 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.10E-01 1.10E-01 1.10E-01 GROUP =2 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.00E-08 5.00E-08 5.00E-08 5.00E-07 5.00E-07 GROUP =3 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.00E-08 2.00E-04 2.80E-04
'1.00E-03 1.00E-03 EOF ISOTOPES
-1 75278
'1.00 10.000-1.00 0.00 FRRSNF H3 GAS 9.99E+02
' GAS. 10
' FESS 3.64E+02 SOLID 2
CO60 4.31E+03 SOLID 2
KR85 1.082+04' GAS 10 SR90' 1.30E+05 SOLID L2 s RU106.1.05E+03-VOLAT 7
)
SB125 2;92E+03 SOLID 3-l I
-TE125M7.13E+02 SOLID. 2 CS134-1 54E+04
' VOLAT 7
CS137--1.93E+05 VOLAT.
7' CE144.~.~ 2. 4 0E+02 '
. SOLID 2
PM147 1.60E+04' SOLID 2
SM151.'9.07E+02 SOLID 2
. EU154' 1.20E+04 SOLID-12 35-NUREG-1437, Addendum 1
s Supplement:1 Analyses for Cumulativs Environment 1Iimpacts...
I EU155 4^.59E+03 SOLID 2
PU238 1.00E+04 SOLID 2
PU239. 7.30E+02 SOLID 2
.PU240 1.13E+03 SOLID 2
PU241 1.88E+05 SOLID 2
AM241 4.26E+03 SOLID 2
CH244 8.29E+03 SOLID 2
LINK 1 1.58E+02 8.80E+01 2.20E+00 4.70E+02 1.37E-07 R 1
' LINK 1 8.20E+00 8.80E+01 3.57E+02 7.80E+02 3.00E-06 S 1 PKGSIZ FRRSNF 5.00 EOF
_ BYPASS _WITH_ RENEWAL _
INCIDENT-FREE
SUMMARY
l INCIDENT-FREE POPULATION EXPOSURE IN PERSON-REM PASSENGR CREW HANDLERS OFF LINK ON LINK STOPS STORAGE TOTALS LINK. 1 0.00E+00 2.94E+02 0.00E+00 6.67E-01 7.46E+01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.69E+02 LINK 2 0.00E+00 1.52E+01 0.00E+00 4.89E+00 6.42E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.66E+01 RURAL 0.00E+00 2.94E+02 0.00E+00 6.67E-01 7.46E+01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.69E+02
. SUBURB.0.00E+00 1.52E+01 0.00E+00 4.89E+00 6.42E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.66E+01 URBAN 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 TOTALS: 0.00E+00 3.09E+02 0.00E+00 5.55E+00 8.10E+01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.96E+02 MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL IN-TRANSIT DOSE LINK 1 3.10E-02 REM
&TNK 2 3.10E-02 REM RUN DATE: [
2-OCT-97 AT 17:16:36 )
PAGE 6
., BYPASS _WITH_ RENEWAL _
EXPECTED VALUES OF POPULATION RISK IN PERSON REM GROUND INHALED RESUSPD 'CLOUDSH
- INGESTION TOTAL LINK' 1 6.65E-01 J.06E-03 1.24E-02 -8.84E-06 0.00E+00 6.81E-01 LINK-2 4.88E+01 2.20E-01 8.92E-01 7.78E 0.00E+00 4.99E+01 f
RURAL G.65E-01 3.06E-03 1.24E-02 8.84E-06 0.00E+00 6.81E-01 SUBURB 4.88E+01 2.20E-GA 8.92E-01 7.78E-04 0.00E+00 4.99E+01 URBAN 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 TOTALS:--4.95E+01 2.23E-01 9.04E-01 7.87E-04 0.00E+00 5.06E+01'-
j NUREG 1437/ Addendum 1 36
c;;'~
- Supplemental Analysesfor Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts...
- NOTE THAT' INGESTION RISK IS A SOCIETAL RISK';
THE USER MAY WISH TO TREAT THIS VALUE SEPARATELY.
(
37 NUREG-1437, Addendum 1 l
l
Supplement:I Analyses for Cumulative EnvironmentzlImpacts...
_ BYPASS _WITH_ RENEWAL _
l
' EXPECTED RISK VALUES - OTHER LINK ECON EARLY FATALITY 1
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 TOTAL 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 TOTAL EXPOSED POPULATION: INCIDENT-FREE LINK 1 5.56E+02 PERSONS LINK 2 4.68E+03 PERSONS TOTAL 5.24E+03 PERSONS TOTAL EXPOSED POPULATION: ACCIDENT (PERSONS UNDER PLUME FOOTPRINT FOR A SINGLE ACCIDENT)
LINK 1 2.97E+03 PERSONS LINK 2 4.82E+05 PERSONS
.EOI END OF RUN l
l ECHO CHECK l
&&~ Edited Fri Oct 3.12:23:55 1997
&& _Las_ Vegas _ city _without_ license _ renewal _
&& _ Version _1.0_
-TITLE._ CITY _WITHOUT_ RENEWAL _
FORM UNIT DIMEN 21 8 3~10 18 PARM 1 3 2 1 0
-PACKAGE LABGRP GAS
. SOLID VOLAT SHIPMENT LABISO H3 GAS FE55 CO60 KRB5 SR90 RU106 SB125 TE125M-CS134 CS137 CE144 PM147 SM151 EU154 EU155 PU238 PU239 PU240 NUREG-1437, Addendum 1 38
s.
~
Supplemer:tal Analysesfor Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts...
PU241 AM241 CM244 NORMAL NMODE=1 8.069R-01 1.916E-01 1.500E-03. 8.856E+01 4.032E+01 2.416E+01 2.000E+00 1.000E+01 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 2.000E+01 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 2.000E+00 1.000E-01 0.000E+00 1.000E+00 4.700E+02 7.800E+02 2.800E+03 ACCIDENT SEVFRC NPOP=1 NMODE-1-'
4.62E-01 3.02E-01 1.76E-01 4.03E-02 1.18E-02 6.47E-03 5.71E-04 1.13E-04 NPOP=2 NMODE=1 4.35E-01 2.85E-01 2.21E-01 5.06E-02 6.64E-03 1.74E-03 6.72E-05 5.93E-06 NPOP=3 NMODE=1 5.83E-01 3.82E-01 2.78E-02 6.36E-03 7.42E-04 1.46E-04 1.13E-05 9.94E-07 RELEASE RFRAC GROUP =1 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.10E-01 1.10E-01 1.10E-01 GROUP =2 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.00E-08 5.00E-08 5.00E-06 5.00E-07 5.00E-07 GROUP =3 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.00E-08 2.00E-04 2.80E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-03 EOF ISOTOPES
-1 50185 1.00 19.000 1.00 0.00 FRRSNF H3 GAS 9.99E+02 GAS 10 FESS 3.64E+02 SOLID 2
CO60 4.31E+03 SOLID 2
KR85 1.08E+04 GAS 10 SR90 1.30E+05 SOLID 2
RU106 1.05E+03 VOLAT 7
SB125 2.92E+03 SOLID 2
TE125M 7.13E<02-SOLID 2
CS134 1.54E+04=
VOLAT-7 CS137 1.93E+05 VOLAT
.7 '
CE144 2.40E+02 SOLID
.2 PM147 1.60E+04 SOLID 2
SM151 9.07E+02 SOLID 2
EU154 1.20E+04 SOLID 2
'EU155 4.59E+03 SOLID 2
PU238 1.00E+04 SOLID 2
PU239 7.30E+02 SOLIO 2
PU240 1.13E+03-SOLID 2
PU241 1.88E+05 SOLID 2
AM241.4.26E+03
. SOLID' 2
CM244 8.29E+03.
SOLID. 2 LINK 1 1.54E+02 8.80E+01 1.70E+00 4.70E+02 1.37E-07 R 1 LINK 1 1.77E+01.8.80E+01 5.68E+02 7.80E+02 3.00E-06 S 1 LINK 1 5.40E+00 7.20E+01 2.30E+03 2.80E+03 1.60E-05 U 1 PKGSIZ FRRSNF.
5.00 EOF 39 NUREG-1437, Addendum I
Supplemental Analyses for Cumulative Environmentd Impacts...
1 1
_7ITY_WITHOUT_ RENEWAL.
INIS b s 5 $ E I
INCIDENT-FREE POPULATION EXPOSURE IN PERSON-REM PASSENGR CREW HANDLERS OFF LINK ON LINK STOPS STORAGE TOTALS LINK 1 0.00E+00 1.91E+02 0.00E+00 3.35E-01 4.84E+01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.40E+02 LINK 2 0.00E+00 2.19E+01 0.00E+00 1.12E+01 9.24E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.24E+01 LINK 3 0.00E+00 8.18E+00 0.00E+00 3.49E-01 1.53E+01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.38E+01 RURAL 0.00E+00 1.91E+02 0.00E+00 3.35E-01 4.84E+01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.40E+02 SUBURB 0.00E+00 2.19E+01 0.00E+00 1.12E+!al 9.24E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.24E+01 URBAN 0.00h+00 8.18E+00 0.00E+00 3.49E-01 1.53E+01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.38E+01 TMALS: 0.00E+00 2.21E+02 0.00E+00 1.19E+01 7.30E+01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.06E+02 MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL IN-TRANSIT DOSE LINK 1 2.07E-02 REM LINK 2 2.07E-02 REM LINK 3 2.07E-02 REM l
RUN DATE: [ 3 -O'; -97 AT 12:24:15 ]
PAGE 6
_ CITY _yITHOUT_ RENEWAL _.
'_2PECfED VALUES OF POPULATION RISK IN PERSON REM GROUND INHALED RESUSPD CLOUDSH
- INGESTION TOTAL LINK 1 3.34E-01 1.54E-03 6.24E-03 4.44E-06 0.00E+00 3.42E-01 LINK 2 1.12E+02 5.03E-01 2.04E+00 1.78E-03 0.00E+00 1.14E+02 LINK 3 4.75E+01 2.14E-01 8.68E-01 7.84E-04 0.00E+00 4.86E+01 f
RURAL 3.34E-01 1.54E-03 6.24E-03 4.44E-06 0.00E+00 3.42E-01 SUBURB 1.12E+02 5.03E-01 2.04E+00 1.78E-03 0.00E+00 1.14E+02 URBAN 4.75E+01 2.14E-01 8.68E-01 7.84E-04 0.00E+00 4.86E+01 TOTALS.
2.60E+02 7.19E-01 2.92E+00 2.57E-03 0.00E+00 1.63E+02
- NOTE THAT INGESTION RISK IS A SOCIETAL RISK; THE USER MAY WISH TO TREAT THIS VALUE SEPARATELY.
_ CITY _WITHOUT_ RENEWAL _,
EXPECTED RISK VALUES - OTHER NUREG 1437, Addendum 1 40
F
+
Supplemental Analysesfor Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts...
LINK ECON EARLY FATALITY 1
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2
0.00E+00.
0.00E+00 3
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 TOTAL
-0.00E+00 0.00E+00
.' TOTAL EXPOSED POPULATION: INCIDENT-FREE LINK.1 4.~19E+02 PERSONS LINK 2 1.61E+04 PERSONS
. LINK 3 1.99E+04 PERSONS TOTAL 3.64E+04 PERSONS TOTAL EXPOSED POPULATION: ACCIDENT (PERSONS UNDER PLUME FOOTPRINT FOR A SINGLE ACCIDENT)
LINK 1 2.30E+03 PERSONS LINK 2 7.67E+05 PERSONS LINK 3 3.11E+06 PERSONS EOI.
LEND OF RUN ECHO CHECK
&& Edited Fri Oct - 3 12:21:37 1997
'&& _Las_ Vegas _ city _with_ license _ renewal _
&&. Version _1.0_
TITLE _ CITY WITH_ RENEWAL _
FORM UNIT DIMEN 21 8-3 10 18 PARM 1 3 2 1 0 PACKAGE.
LABGRP GAS
. SOLID-VOLAT SHIPMENT L?JISO H3 GAS FESS CO60 KR85 SRoo RU106
.SB125 TE125M-CS134 CS137 CE144 PM147 SM151:
EU154 EU155.
PU238 PU239 PU240 PU241' AM241 CM244 NORMAL NMODE=1-8.069E-01 1.916E-01 1.500E-03 8.856E+01-4.032E+01 2.416E+01 2,000E+00 1.000E+01 :0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 - 2.000E+01 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
-2.000E+00 1.000E-01 0.000E+00 1.000E+00 4.700E+02 7.800E+02 2.800E+03
~ il NUREG-1437, Addendum 1
Supplement:I Analyses for Cumuiltive Environment:Iimpacts...
i l
ACCIDENT-SEVFRC'
-NPOP=1 NMODE=1 4.62E 3.02E-01 -1.76E-01 4.03E-02 1.1SE-02 6.47E-03 5.71E-04 1.13E-04 NPOP=2 :
NMODE=1:
4.35E-01' 2.85E 2.21E-01 5.06E-02 6.64E-03 1.74E-03
'6.72E-05 5.93E-06 NPOP=3 -
NMODE=1-5.83E-01'-3.82E-01 2.78E-02' 6.36E-03 7.42E-04 1.46E-04 1.13E-05 9.94E-07 RELEASE
-RFRAC
' GROUP =1 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.10E-01 1.10E-01 1.10E 01 GROUP =2 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.CLE+00 1.00E-08 5.00E-08 5.00E-08 5.00E-07 -5.00E-07 GROUP =3 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.00E-08 2.00E-04 2.80E-04 1.00E-03 1.00E-03 EOF ISOTOPES
-1 7r.178 1.00 10.000 1.00 0.00 FRRSNF' H3 GAS 9.99E+02' GAS 10 FESS 3.64E+02 SOLID 2
CO60' 4.31E+03-SOLID 2
KR85 l.08E+04 GAS 10 SR90 '1.30E+05 SOLID 2
RU106 1.05E+03 VOLAT 7
SB125 2.92E+03 SOLID 2
TE125M 7.13E+02
. SOLID 2
'CS134 1.54E+04 VOLAT 7
CS137 1.93E+05 VOLAT 7
CE144-2.40E+02' SOLID 2
PM147. 1.60E+04 SOLID 2'
SM151, 9.07E+02 SOLID 2
EU154 1.20E+04 SOLID ~ 2 EU155.-4.59E+03 SOLID 2.
' PU238 1.00E+04.
SOLID 2
PU239; 7.30E+02 SOLID-2
.PU240 -1.13E+03 SOLID 2
PU241 1.8BE+05' SOLID 2
AM241 '4.26E+03 SOLID
.2 CM244 8.29E+03
-SOLID 2
LINK 1 1.54E+02 8.80E+01 1.70E+00 4.70E+02 1.37E-07 R 1 LINK-1 1.77E+01 8.80E+01 5.68E+02 7.80E+02 3.00E-06 S.1 LINK 1 5.40E+00 7.20E+01 2.30E+03 2.80E+03'1.60E-05 U 1 PKGSIZ
)
FRRSNF:
5.00
' EOF -
NUREG 1437, Addendum 1 42
.,+;..
Supplemental Analysesfor Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts...
)
_ CITY WITH_ RENEWAL _
l i
INCIDENT-FREE
SUMMARY
INCIDENT-FREE _' POPULATION EXPOSURE IN PERSON-REM' PASSENGR CREW HANDLERS OFF LINK ON LINK STOPS STORAGE TOTALS'
' LINK 1 0.00E+00 2.86E+02 0.00E+00 5.02E-01 7.27E+01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.60E+02 LINK 2.0.00E+00 3.29E+01 0.00E+00 1.68E+01 1.39E+01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00.6.36E+01 LINK 3 0.00E+00 1.23E+01 0.00E+00 5.24E-01 2.29E+01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.57E+01 RURAL ~ 0.00E+00 2.86E+02 0.00E+00 5.02E-01 7.27E+01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.60E+02 SUBURB 0.00E+00 3.29E+01 0.00E+00 1.68E+01 1,39E+01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 6.36E+01 URBAN 0.00E+00 1.23E+01 0.00E+00 5.24E-01 2.29E+01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.57E+01 TOTALS: 0.00E+00 3.32E+02 0.00E+00 1.78E+01 1.09E+02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.59E+02 q
l MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL IN-TRANSIT DOSE LINK 1 3.10E-02 REM LINK 2 3.10E-02 REM LINK 3 3.10E-02 REM RUN DATE: (
3-OCT-97 AT 12:22:11 )
PAGE 6
_ CITY _WITH_ RENEWAL.
' EXPECTED VALUES OF POPULATION RISK IN PERSON REM GROUND' INHALED RESUSPD CLOUDSH
- INGESTION TOTAL j
LINK 1 5.01E-01 2.31E-03 9.36E-03 6.66E-06 0.00E+00 5.13E-01 LINK 2 1.68E+02 7.55E-01 3.06E+00 2.67E-07 0.00E+00 1.71E+02-LINK 3 7.12E+01 3.21E-01 1.30E+00 1.18E-03 0.00E+00 7.28E+01 f'
. RURAL 5.01E-01 2.31E-03 9.36E-03 6.66E-06 0.00E+00 5.13E-01 SUBURS l'68E+02 7.55E-01 3.06E+00 2.67E-03 0.00E+00 1.71E+02 URBAN 7.12E+01 3.21E-01 1.30E+00- 1.18E-03 0.00E+00 7.28E+01
' TOTALS:
2.39E+02 1.08E+00 4.37E+00' 3.85E-03 0.00E+00 2.45E+02 l
- NOTE THAT INGESTION RISK IS A SOCIETAL RISK; THE USER MAY WISH TO TREAT THIS VALUE SEPARATELY.
_ CITY._WITH_ RENEWAL.
EXPECTED RI3K VALUES - OTHER-LINK ECON
.EARLY FATALITY 43 NUREG-1437, Addendum 1
Supplemental Analyses for Cumulative EnvironmentalImpacts...
1 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 TOTAL 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 TOTAL EXPOSED POPULATION: INCIDENT-FREE LINK 1 4.19E+02 PERSONS LINK 2 1.61E+04 PERSONS LINK 3 1.99E+04 PERSONS TOTAL 3.64E+04 PERSONS TOTAL EXPOSED POPULATION: ACCIDENT (PERSONS UNDER PLUME FOOTPRINT FOR A SINGLE ACCIDENT)
LINK 1 2.30E+03 PERSONS LINK 2 7.67E+05 PERSONS LINK 3 3.11E+06 PERSONS EOI END OF RUN I
NUREG 1437, Addendum 1 44
7__
i ATTACHMENT 2 STAFF REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM d
1,
Mp ctog%
Action:
Collins, NRR f
UNITED STATES Cys:
Travers y
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Knapp j
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20555-0001 Miraglia
%g +..,
- j/
Norry January 29, 1999 Blaha Papereillo, NMSS ornce or Tws secRE TARY Thadani, RES Congel, IRO Lohaus, SP MEMORANDUM TO:
William D. Travers Lieberman, OE Shelton, CIO Executive Director for Operations Meyer, ADM FROM:-
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary
- fA.
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-98-278, PROPOSED RULE -
" CHANGES TO REQUIREMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OPERATING LICENSES (10 CFR PART 51)"
The Commission has approved for publication in the Federal Register the proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 51 and the Notice of Availability of NUREG-1437, Addendum i subject to the attached editonal corrections and clarifications.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
3/1/99) 19980000 cc:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dieus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield OGC ClO CFO OCA OlG OPA Office Directors, Regions ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E Mail)
POR DCS s-q
_t.
i
y f
l Clarifications and Editorial Changes to the Attachments to SECY-98-278 l' '
1.
The proposed rule states, in part:
(M) The environmentalimpacts preserited in Summary Table S-4 of 51.52 may be I
adopted in individual power plant license renewal reviews as long as the candidate site at Yucca Mountain is under consideration for licensing..
l This could be interpreted that if additional sites are considered in the future, licensees can adopt l
[
the environmentalimpacts presented in S-4, as long as Yucca Mountain is under consideration.
l The staff should reword the proposed rule to ensure it is clear that a review, similar to that for Yucca Mountain, would need to be performed for any future site (s) under consideration. In addition, this issue should be clarified in the Background and Discussion sections of the Federal Register notices.
In addition, the quoted sentence in subsection (M) would appear to preclude reliance oa any of the environmentalimpacts presented in Table S-4 if Yucca Mountain is no longer unoer consideration for licensing. That obviously is not the intent of this Subsection. 'ne first sentence in Subsection (M) should be replaced with the following:
The environmentalimpacts presented in Table S-4 ofsection 51.52 may be adopted in individual nuclear power plant renewal reviews. In addition, the cumulative impacts of shipments to a single repository must be addressed. To do so, the conclusions regarding the cumulative impacts of transporting high-level waste to a single repository in Appendix B to subpart A of this part may be adopted as long as Yucca Mountain is under consideration for licensing.
2.
On page 8, last line correct to read ". higher exposure estimates..";
1 i
' 3.
On page 9,1" sentence of 1* full paragraph, correct spelling of
- Sievert..";
4.
On page 10,1"line, correct spelling of ".. occurring terrestrial. "
5.
On page 18, Section 51.53, sh'ould be " Post-construction... "
6.
On page 3 of NUREG-1437, Addendum 1,line 11 of second column, correct to read
" (person-mSv [ person rem).."
7.
On page 6 of the NUREG, revise second full paragraph to read "The expected I
population doses estimated by the staff (see Appendix) are displayed in Table 1. Table 2 shows the health risks implied by the doses listed in Table 1. It is important to note that LRFC figures represent cumulative health risks or more simply put, the total potential fatalities within the Clark County population over the period of shipment of spent nuclear l
j fuel which assumes that all currently operating reactors renew their licenses for 20 years.
An examination...
8.
On page 6 of the NUREG, third paragraph, second and third sentences correct to read
..this lifetime incidence of fatal cancer would correspond to about 900 LRFC/ year. In the... naturally occurring terrestrial.. "
] L a
9.
On page 7 of the NUREG, Table 2, footnote b, last sentence correct spelling of " fatal";
10.
On page 8 of the NUREG, third sentence oflast full paragraph needs a space between
" fatality" and "from";
11.
Revise 1" sentence of press release to read "The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRG) is.. "; and 12.
Revise 1" sentence in letters Congress to read "In the near future, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRG) intends.. "
NRCFoRM s3s U.0. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMiss40N
- 1. REPORT NUMBE?t G4R (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rw.,
EsE BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET
'"d^'**"d"*""""*""*""
NUREG-1437, Vol.1,
- 2. TITLE AND SU6 TITLE Addendum 1 Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statement for Ucense Renewal of Nuclear Plants Main Report 3.
DATE REPORT PUBUSHED Section 6.3-Transportation l
- 8 Tcble 9.1 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants February 1999 Draft Report for Comment
- 5. AUTHOR (S)
- 6. TYPE OF REPORT Draft regulatory
- 7. PERICO COVERED (hetusive Deses)
- 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATICM. NAM! AND ADDRESS &NRc, gave Dvesen. Omco a Regen u s Nucieer RegvAeby comnwssen, and meeg address, s xmtecw, Ivovede name end medmg address)
Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555-0001
- 9. SPONSORING ORGAN 12ATlON NAME AND ADDRESS @NRC, type *Semees e&ei 4contecW, pov& NRC Ovann omco a Regen, U S. Nucteer Regute&y Commasar ans me+ng edeoss }
SIme as above to. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
- 11. ABSTRACT (200 nads y sess)
Th'a addendum to NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Ucense Renewal of Nuclear Plants, documents the staffs analysis of the potential cumulative impacts of human health of transporting spent nuclear fuelin the vicinity of the proposed Yucca Mountain high-level waste repository.
- 12. KEY WORDS/r/dSCRIPTORS (List words or phases #iet udt assist researchers a accabag #ie repar) 13 AVAILABluTY STATEMENT unlimited Generic Environmental lmpact Statement Uc'nse renewal H SECURWcLASSEATON Nuclear Power Plant Fhis Pege)
Environmental Protection unclassified Spent Nuclear Fuel g3,, Re,,,
unclassified
- 15. NUMBER OF PAGES
- 16. PRICE NRC FORM 335 Q40) v
on recycled paper Federal Recycling Program
!t i
It 8 lll!
I
,I i(
.. e plgli 58 l
l1 l1 II l,
.~ y
.