ML20209C941
| ML20209C941 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Satsop |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1984 |
| From: | Muller D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-1456 NUDOCS 8405210411 | |
| Download: ML20209C941 (20) | |
Text
n - ,, n ammume!aqp p g C espacem 1
DISTRIBUTION: l M. ,
RAB R/F l AD RP Reading / File I Docket.No.: 50-508 i l MAY 0 31984 MEMORAN0tN FOR: Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing, DL _
- FROM: Daniel R. Muller, Assistant Director for Radiation Protection, DSI
SUBJECT:
WNP-3 FES (0L), RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS FROM ROUTINE OPERATIONS In response to a memorandum from G.W. Knighton .to F.J. Congel, dated March 29, 1984, we are enclosing the Radiological Assessment Branch's responses to comments received on the DES for WNP-3 (Er. closure 1). Since the publication of the DES, the staf f has revised Appendix C to describe and reference more clearly the models used in estimating radiological impacts from the fuel cycle (Enclosure 2). Although a few of the dose estimates in the revised Appendix C have changed slightly from the values in the DES, the basic con-clusion of Appendix C has not changed. Based on our review of comments on the DES, we have several additional changes to make for the FES (Enclo-sure 3). Enclosures 1-3 were gisen informally to V. Nerses of your staff in time for his deadline. This memorandum formally transmitts our response.
l This review was performed by Ed Branagan, RIS/RAB.
I l
- Original signed M Dai.let R. Muller j .
l l Daniel R. Muller, Assistaat Director j -
.for Radiation Protection Division of Systems Integration
Enclosures:
- 1. Response to Comments JFD-1 to 3; DA-3 to 7; WNP-3-1 l to 20; and 50-6, 10, 11, & 14
- 2. Revised AppenM x C.
- 3. Additional chariges for FES B405210411 840503
/ 2 cc: See next page
[j[' "ff ADOCK05000b08
,t p rf&
9 . !\ ,
i
^
- co .9.S 1,3,RA,B,,,,, ,, ,,,, ,
B,,,,,, ,pS,I,:M,ETB .p I,; RA,B ,,,,,,, y,h: & ,,,,,,, , ,A Q ;,R P, , , , , , , , , , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>-4 Brana9a9.5J . . .J ! vine . . ! Gk..,.,.,.,.,.,.
. cM f [f,J,,,,,g el ,, ,,, , p% r,,,,,,
.,.,h. . eh,e,:n,i a . s,,,
om) . .05/D.........
05/02/84 05 05 0 5. ./J. . ./. 8. 4. . . . . . .
.................. . . . . . . . . ./. 8. .4. . ./.5. . . ./. 8 4
. .f ./..'). . ./.84
......... ..../3.../.
. 84 Pc ro:" 328 4'o se> uncu o24o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY * "5 " " * '-*
- 2
- 7
f h f
) ,
4 N l
i i
I l
T. Novak .
i cc: w/ enclosure E. Branagan '
W. .%inke cc: w/o enclosures R. Mattson W. Gammill .
F. Congel I. Spickler C. Willis J. Levine C. Miller V. Nerses A. Thomas P. Easley .
..~
l i
I t
l emer) .................. ................... .......... .... ... ............. ... .. . ......... ..... ... ..... .... ....... ....................
NAMEf .................. .............. ...... ..................... . .... .......... .. .................., ......... .. ...... ....... ............
CATE) !
4acrr w sieno,soisacue2a O FFICI A L R ECORD_COJESL - . - __- _ _ _ A M5 ? !?'!-' '"
c 5 }
Enclosure 1
. 9.5.9.3 R4diological Impact from Reutine Operations DA-3 & 7 The Department of the Army states that impacts of " radiological contaminahts in the effluent discharge are not fully evaluated" because the effects of bioaccumulation of radionuclides and the acceculation of radio- "
nuclides in sediments has not been described.
The principal. pathways of exposure of humans to radioactive liquid effluents are described in Section 5.9.3 of the DES (note in particular pp. 5-18 & 19),
and quantified in Appendix D. The models used to estimate doses, take into account the bioaccumulation of radionuclides in the environment (see USNRC, Regulatory Guide 1,109,. Appendix A). Based on the estimates of releases of radioactive .effluants and dores to humans, no significant buildup of radio- -
nuclides in sediments is expected. Nonetheless, sediment samples will be taken downstream of the plant discharge to verify the effectiveness of inplant systems used to centrol the release of radfoactive materials and to ensu.re that unanticipated buildups of radioactivity will not occur in the environnent.
JFD-3: The commenter states that references should be provided to support the statement on p. 5-14 of the DES that "the icwer limit of the range would be zero because there may be biological mechanis'ns that can require damage caused by radiation at low dosesand/or dose rates.
See response to co:nments JFD-1 & 2 in Section-9.5.10 of the FES. In addition, refer to: (1)- Influence of. Dose and its Distribution in Time on Oose-Response Relationshipsfor LOW +LET Radiations, NCRP Report No. 64, National Council on Radiation Protection and lieatursents, 1980; and (2) "The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Icuiting Radiation," (BEIR III) National Academy of Sciences / National Research Council, July 1990.
WNP-3-17 & IB_: The Washington Public , Power Supply System states that "the fish consumption pathway dcsd' is based on excessiValy conservative dilution factors.
{
04/27/84 1
3 2 >
Footnotes to Table D-5 on p. 0-7 of the DES state that the dilution factors were assumed for purposes of an upper limit estimate. The rationale for using conservative dilution factors is described more fully in Chapter 4 of
" Preparation of Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG-0133, 1978.
WNP-3-19: The Washington Pubfic Power Supply System states that "it would be useful to remind the reader in Section 5.9.3.1.2 (p. 5-20) that this individual is hypothetical."
The FE5 uill cross reference Section 5.9.3.1.2 with Section 5.9.2.
WNP-3-20: WPPSS states that they will correct the typos in Table 6.1-7 of the ER-OL.
The staff will replace DES Table 5.3 with the revised Table 6.1-7 of the ER-OL if it is received prior to publication of the FES.
SD-6: Mr. Degens states that the capability of the proposed radwaste system to accommodate the solid wastes expected during normal operations was not evaluated or summarized. This seems to be a significant omission.
This information wil,1 be supplied in the Safety Evaluation Report. It was decided a few years ago to include the information in the Safety Evaluation Report rather than the FES, since the information is part of the review of the design adequacy of the solid radwaste system.
50-10: Mr.Degensstatesthatanevaluationofthecumblativeimpactofthe regional nuclear program was not included in the DES.
The DES did not contain an explicit evaluation of cumulative radiological impacts from routine operation of WNP-3 and other nuclear power plants in the region because the radiological impact from several reactors is not greatly different than the impact from one reactor when the reactors are more than a few miles apart. If several reactors'are at the same site, then the 04/27/84 2
, -\ >
cumulative radiological impacts are limited by means of 10 CFR Par't 20,tadd in some cases by Rulemaking 50-2. -
t 5
e f
. 04/27/84 3
_m_____.__.-
m
_ _') .
)
?
9.5.10 Impacts from the Uranium Fuel Cycle JFD-1 & 2: Mr. Doherty states that the EIS should contain estimates of the number of non-fatal cancers and non-fatal birth defects induced by radon releases from the fuel cycle over the' licensing period of 40 years.
The preceding comments reflect some misunderstanding regarding the potential effects of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. The commentor states that "the number of non-fatal cancer injuries induced by fuel cycle radon-222"
~
should be included in the FES.
The NRC staff is not aware of any studies that have established that there is no safe level of radiation. However, as a conservative and prudent assumption, it has been assumed that no amount of radiation is safe. As noted on p. 5-16 of the DES, the staff's estimates of potential health effects are based on health risk estimators that are consistent with the values recommended by the major radiation protection organizations. The health risk estimators used by the staff are based on health risk estimators for a population composed of all age groups.
Impacts from the uranium fuel cycle (including Rn-222) were addressed in a qualitative fashion in Section 5.10 of the DES, and quantified in Appendix C. ,
ImpactsarebasedontheradioactiveeffluentreleasevaluesinTable,yof
~
10 CFR 51. Since the releases in Table i-3 are listed on an annual fuel requirement basis, the impacts estimated in Appendix C are also esifmated on an annual fuel requirement basis. The cumulative radiological impacts due to 40 years of operation would be approximately 40 times the values presented in Appendix C. As stated on p. 5-14 of the DES "the number of potential non-fatal
~
cancers would be approximately 1.5 to 2 times the number of potential fatal cancers, according to the 1980 report of the National Academy of Sciences Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR III)." The number of potential non-fatal birth defects is estimated to be very small compared with the number of potential cancer fatalities.
04/27/84 4
OS Since the publication of the DES the staff has revised Appendix C to more -
clearly describe and reference the models that were used in estimating doses.' l Although a few of the dose estimates have changed, the basic conclusion of Appendix C has not changed. That is: "the staff concludes that both the dose l commitments and health effects of the LWR-supporting uranium fuel cycle are very small when compared with dose commitments and potential health effects to i
the U.S. population resulting from all natural-background sources" (DES page "
C-7).
50-11: Mr. Degens states that "a presentation of actual experience in storage, reprocessing and waste management would have been very useful."
Impacts from the uranium fuel cycle necessary to support MP-3 were addressed is in a gener fashion in Section 5.10 and Appendix C of the DES. A listing of g the actual experience in storage, reprocessing and waste management is beyond the scope of toe DES or FES. The reader is referred to the references in Section 5.10 and Appendix C for more detailed information.
50-14: Mr. Degens states that "there is no national consensus on the management of high-level radioactive wastes."
Impacts from the uranium fuel cycle, including waste management are described in Section 5.10 and Appendix C of the DES.
O e 0 04/27/84 5
v1 Q
.s l CLe !v/u-c 1 k
l APPENDIX C l
IMPACTS OF THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE $
The following assessment of the' environmental impacts of the LWR-supporting !'
fuel cycle as related to the operation of the proposed project is based on the values given in Table S-3 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (10 CFR 50) (see Section 5.10 of the main body of this report) and the NRC staff's estimates of radon-222 and technetium-99 releases. For the sake of consistency, th'e ana' lysis of fuel-cycle impacts has been cast in terms of a model 1000-MWe light-water-cooled reactor (LWR) operating at an annual capacity factor of 80%. In the following review and evaluation of the environ-mental ir. pacts of the fuel cycle, the staff's analysis and conclusions would not be altered if the analysis were to be based on the net electrical power cutput of theyk Nuclear Generating Station. .
- 1. Land Use .
The total annual land requirement for the fuel cycle supporting a model 1000-MWe .
2 LWR is about 460,000 m 2 (113 acres). Approximately 53,000 m (13 acres) per 2 j year are permanently committed land, and 405,000 m (100 acres) per year are temporarily committed. (A " temporary" land commitment is a commitment for the .
i life of the specific fuel-cycle plant, such as a mill, enrichment plant, or succeeding plants. On abandonment or decommissioning, such land can be used ,'
for any purpose. " Permanent" commitments represent land that may not be re- 2 ,
leased for use after plant shutdown and/or decommissioning.) Of the 405,000 m 2 per year of temporarily committed land, 320,000 m z are undisturbed and 90,000 m are disturbed. Considering common classes of land use in the United States,* ,
e fuel-cycle land-use requirements to support the model 1000-MWe LWR do not represent a significant impact.
- 2. Water Use The principal water-use requirement for the fuel cycle supporting a model 1000-MWe LWR is that required to remove waste heat from the power stations supplying electrical energy to the enrichment step of this cycle. Of the 3 total annual requirement of 43 x 108 m 3 ( u.4 x 10 9. gal), about 42 x 108 m are required for this purpose, assuming that these plants use once-through cooling. Other water uses involve the discharge to air (for example, evap-oration losses in process cooling) of about 0.6 x 10 8 m3 (16 x 107 gal) per year and water discharged to the ground (for example, mine drainage) of about 0.5 x 108 m3 per year. ,
On a thermal effluent basis, annual discharges from the nuclear fuel cycle are' about 4% of those from the model 1000-MWe LWR using once-through cooling. The consumptive water use of 0.6 x 108 m 3 per year is about 2% of that from the
~
A coal-fired plant of 1000-MWe capacity using strip-mined coal requires the disturbance of about 810,000 m 2 (200 acres) per year for fuel alone.
.WW-3
._!Jeerfc1 FES C-1 _. __ _ _ _ _ _ g, _
-)
<.> G. ,
model 1000-We LWR using cooling towers. The maximum consumptive water use (assuming that all plants supplying electrical energy to the nuclear fuel cycle used cooling towers) would be about 6% of the model 1000-We LWR using cooling towers. Under this condition, thermal effluents would be negligible. The staff finds that these combinations of thermal loadings and water consumption are l acceptable relative to the water use and thermal discharges of the proposed l project.
l
- 3. Fossil Fuel Consumption
, Electrical energy and process heat are required during various phases of the fuel-cycle process. The electrical energy is usually produced by the combus- 1 tion of fossil fuel at conventional power plants. Electrical energy associated '
with the fuel cycle represents about 5% of the annual electrical power produc-tion of the model 1000-MWe LWR. Process heat is primarily generated by the, combustion of natural gas. This gas consumption, if used to generate electric-ity, would be less than 0.3% of the electrical output from the model plant.
The staff finds that the direct and indirect consumptions of electrical energy for fuel-cycle operations are small and acceptable relative to the net power production of the proposed project.
- 4. Chemical Effluents The quantities of chemical, gaseous, and particulate effluents associated with fuel-cycle processes are given in Table S-3. The principal species are sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. On the basis of data in a Council i on Environmental Quality report (CEQ, 1976), the staff finds that these emis- l sions constitute an extremely small additional atmospheric loading in compar-ison with the same emissions from the stationary fuel-combustion and transpor- )
1 tation sectors in the U.S. ; that is, about 0.02% of the annual national releases i for each of these species. The staff believes that such small increases in I releases of these pollutants are acceptable.
Liquid chemical effluents produced in fuel cycle processes are related to fuel-enrichment, -fabrication, and reprocessing operations and may be released to receiving waters. These effluents are usually pre'sent in dilute concentrations such that only small amounts of dilution water are required to reach levels of concentration that are within established standards. The flow of dilution water required for specific constituents is specified in Table S-3. Additionally, al-1 liquid discharges into the navigable waters of the U.S. from plants associated l with' the fuel-cycle operations will be subject to requirements and limitations set forth in the NPDES permit.
Tailings solutions and solids are generated during the milling process. These solutions and solids are not released in quantities sufficient to have a sign-ificant impact on the environment.
- 5. Radioactive Effluents .
Radioactive effluents estimated to be released to the environment from repro-cessing and waste-management activities and certain other phases of the fuel-cycle process are set forth in Table S-3. Using these data, the staff has
__ Lim witR~FES C-2 Y l
r- ,
calculated for 1 year of operation of the model 1000-MWe LWR, the 100 year environmental dose commitmer.
- to the U.S. population from the LWR-supporting fuel cycle. Dose commitments are provided in this section for exposure to four categories of radioactive releases: (1) airborne effluents that are quantified in Table S-3 (that is, all radionuclides except radon-222 and technetium-99), (2) liquid effluents that are quantified in Table S-3 (that is, all radionuclides except technetium-99); (3) the staff's estimates of radon-222 releases; and (4) the staff's estimate of technetium-99 releases.
Dose commitments from the first two categories are also described in a pro-posed explanatory narrative for Table S-3, which was published in the Federal Register on March 4, 1981 (46 FR 15154-15175).
Airborne Effluents Population dose estimate.s for exposure to airborne effluents are based on the annual releases listed in Table S-3, using an environmental dose commitment (EDC) time of 100 years.* The computational code used for these estimates is the RABGAD code originally developed for use in the " Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Use of Mixed Oxide Fuel in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants," GESMO (NUREG-0002, Chapter IV, Section J, Appendix A). Two generic sites are postulated for the points of release of the airborne eff~iu-ents: (1) a site in the midwestern United States for releases from a fuel reprocessing plant and other facilities, and (2) a site in the western United States for releases from milling and a geological repository.
The following environmental pathways were considered in estimating doses:
(1) inhalation and submersion in the plume during its initial passage; (2) ingestion of food; (3) external exposure from radionuclides deposited on soil; and (4) atmospheric resuspension of radionuclides deposited on soil.
Radionuclides released to the atmosphere from the midwestern site are assumed to be transported with a mean wind speed of 2 m/sec over a 2413-km (1500-mile)**
pathway from the midwestern United States to the northeast corner of the United States, and deposited on vegetation (deposition velocity of 1.0 cm/sec) with subsequent uptake by milk and meat producing animals. No removal mechanisms are assumed during the first 100 years, except normal weathering from crops to soil (weathering half-life of 13 days). Doses from exposure to carbon-14 were estimated using the GESMO model to estimate the dose to U.S. population from the initial passage 'of carbon-14 before i.t mixed in the world's carbon pool. The model developed by Killough (1977) was used to estimate doses from exposure to carbon-14 after it mixed in the world's carbon pool.
In a similar manner, radionuclides released from the western site were assumed to be transported over a 3218-km (2000-mile) pathway to the northeast corner of the United States. The agricultural characteristics that were used in coin-puting doses from exposure to airborne effluents from the two generic sites are described in GESMO (NUREG-0002, page IV J(A)-19). To allow for an increase in population, the population densities used in this analysis were 50% greater than the values used in GESMO (NUREG-0002, page IV J(A)-19). <
- The 100 year environmental dose commitment. is the integrated population dose
~
for 100 years; that is, it represents the sum of the annual population doses for a total of 100 years.
- Here and elsewhere in this narrative, insignificant digits are retained for purposes of internal consistency in the model.
WAlb3_Li.w4ek FES C-3 g _
m in
\
_ .)
.
- Liquid Efflumnts Population dose estimates for exposure to liquid effluents are based on the annual releases listed in Table S-3 and the hydrological model described. in GESMO (NUREG-0002, pages IV J(A)-20, -21, and -22). The following environ-mental pathways were considered in estimating doses: (1) ingestion of water and fish; (2) ingestion of food (vegetation, milk, and beef) that had been producedactivities.
boating through irrigation; and (3) exposure from shoreline, swimming, and It is estimated.,from these calculations that the overall total-body dose com-
. mitment to the U.S. population from exp'osure to gaseous releases from the fuel cycle (excluding reactor releases and the dose commitment due to radon-222 and
)
technetium-99) would be approximately 450 person-rems to the total body for each year of operation of the model 1000-MWe LWR (reference reactor year, .or RRY). Based on Table S-3 values, the additional total-body dose commitments to the U.S. population from radioactive liquid effluents (excluding technetium-99) ~
as a result of all fuel cycle operations other than reactor operation would be about 100 person rems per year of operation. Thus, the estimated 100 year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases due to these portions of the fuel cycle is about 550 person rems to the total body (whole body) per RRY.
Because there are higher dose commitments to certain organs (for example, lung, bone, and thyroid) than to the total body, the total risk of radiogenic cancer is not addressed by the total body dose commitment alone. Using risk estimators of 135, 6.9, 22, and 13.4 cancer deaths per million person rems for total-body, bone, lung, and thyroid exposures, respectively, it is possible to estimate the total body risk equivalent dose for certain organs (NUREG-0002, Chapter IV, Sec-tion J, Appendix B). The sum of the total body risk equivalent dose from those organs was estimated to be about 100 person rems. When added to the above value, the total 100 year environmental dose commitment would be about 650 person-rems (total body risk equivalent dose) per RRY (Section 5.9.3.1.1 describes the health effects models in more detail).
Radon-222 At this time the quantitites of radon-222 and technetium-99 releases are not listed in Table S-3. Principal radon releases occur during mining and milling operations and as emissions from mill tailings, whereas principal technetium-99 releases occur from gaseous diffusion enrichmer.t facilities. The staff has determined that radon-222 releases per RRY froin these op'erations are as given in Table C-1. The staff has calculated population-dose commitments for these sources of radon-222 using the RABG@ computer code described in Volume 3 of NUREG-0002 (Appendix A, Chapter IV,"Section J). The results of these calcula-tions for mining and milling activities prior to tailings stabilization are listed in Table C-2.
The staff has considered the health effects associated with the releases of t
radon-222, including both the short-term effects of mining and milling and active tailings, and the potential long-term effects from unreclaimed open pit mines and stabilized tailings. The staff has assumed that after completion of active mining, underground mines will be sealed, returning releases of radon-222 WWfd
,Ljmerin FES C-4 y/
Table C-1 Radon releases from mining and miiling operations and mill tailings for each year of operation of the model 1000-MWe LWR * .
Radon source Quantity released Mining ** 4060 Ci Milling and tailings *** (during active mining) 780 Ci ..
Inactive tailings *** (before stabilization) 350 Ci i Stabilized tailings *** (several hundred years) 1 to 10 Ci/ year Stabilized tailings *** (after several hundred years) 110 Ci/ year
- After 3 days of hearings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (ASLAB) using the Perkins record in a " lead case" approach, the ASLAB issued a decision on May 13, 1981 (ALAB-640) on the radon-222 release source term for the uranium fuel cycle. The decision, among other matters, produced new source term numbers based on the record developed at the hearings. These new numbers did not
- differ significantly from those in the Perkins record, which are the values set forth in this table. Any health effects relative to radon-222 are still under consideration before the ASLAB. Because the source term numbers in ALAB-640 do not differ significantly from those in the Perkins record, the staff continues to conclude that both the dose commitments and health effects of the uranium fuel cycle are insignificant when compared to dose commitments and poten-tial health effects to the U.S. population resulting from all natural background sources. Subsequent to ALAB-640, a ,econd ASLAB decision (ALAB-654, issued September 11,1981) permits intervenors a 60-day period to challenge the Perkins record on the potential health effects of radon-222 emissions
- R. Wilde, NRC transcript of direct testimony given "In the Matter of
. Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station)," Docket No. 50-488, April 17,1978. ,
- P. Magno, NRC transcript of direct testimony given "In the Matter of Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station)," Docket No. 50-488,
' April 17, 1978.
to background levels. For purposes of providing an upper bound impact assess-
, ment, the staff has assumed that open pit mines will be unreclaimed and has calculated that if all ore were produced from open pit mines, releases from them would be 110 Ci per RRY. However, because the distribution of uranium-are reserves available by conventional mining methods is 66% underground and 34% open pit (Department of Energy,1978), the staff has further assumed that ~;
uranium to fuel LWRs will be produced by conventional mining methods in these proportions. This means that long-term releases from unreclaimed open pit mines will be 0.34 x 110 or 37 Ci per year per RRY.
wwo g
% FES C-5
~
) .)
i Table C-2 Estimated 100 year environmental dose commitment per year of operation of the model 1000-MWe LWR Environmental dose commitments Total body Lung risk Total (bronchial equivalent body Bone epithelium) dose Radon-222 (person- (person- (person- (person-Radon source releases (Ci) rems) rems) rems) rems)
Mining 4100 110 2800 2300 630 ,
Milling and active tailings 1100 29 750 620 170 Total 5200 140 3600 2900 800 Based on a value of 37 Ci per year per RRY for long-term releases from unre-claimed open pit mines, the radon released from unreclaimed open pit mines over 100- and 1000 year periods would be about 3700 Ci and 37,000 Ci per RRY, respectively. The environmental dose commitments for a 100- to 1000 year period would be as shown in Table C-3.
Table C-3 Estimated 100 year environmental dose commitments from unreclaimed open pit mines for each year of operation of the model 1000-MWe LWR Environmental dose commitments Total body Lung risk Total (bronchial equivalent body Bone epithelium) dose Time span Radon-222 (person- (person- (person- (person-(years) releases (Ci) rems) rems) rems) rems) 100 3,700 96 2,500 2,000 550 500 19,000 480 13,000 11,000 3,000 1,000 37,000 960 25,000 20,000 5,500 These commitments represent a worst case situation in that no mitigating circum-stances are assumed. However, state and Federal laws currently require reclama-tion of strip and open pit coal mines, and it is very probable that similar WNf3 FES C-6 X
)
._)
reclamation will be required for open pit uranium mines. If so, long-term releases from such mines should approach background levels.
For long-term radon releases from stabilized tailings piles, the staff has assumed that these tailings would emit, per RRY,1 Ci per year for 100 years, 10 Ci per year for the next 400 years, and 100 Ci per year for periods beyond 500 years. With these assumptions, the cumulative radon-222 release from stabilized-tailings piles per RRY would be.100 Ci in 100 years, 4090 Ci in 500 years, and 53,800 Ci in 1000 years (Gotchy, 1978). The total-body, bone, and bronchial epithelium dose commitments for these periods are as shown in .
Table C-4.
l 1 Table C-4 Estimated 100 year environmental dose commitments from stabilized-tailings piles for each year of operation of the model 1000-MWe LWR - -
i Environmental dose commitments Total body Lung risk Total (bronchial equivalent body Bone epithelium) dose Time span Radon-222 (person- (person- (person- (person-(year) releases (C1) rems) rems) rems) rems) 100 100 2.6 68 56 15 500 4,090 110 2,800 2,300 630 ,
1,000 53,800 1,400 37,000 30,000 8,200 l Using risk estimators of 135, 6.9, and 22 cancer deaths per million person-rems 4
for total-body, bone, and lung exposures, respectively, the estimated risk of cancer mortality resulting from mining, milling, and active-tailings emissions
- of radon-222 (that is, Table C-2) is about 0.11 cancer fatality per RRY. When the risks fnom radon-222 emissions from stabilized tailings and from reclaimed and unreclaimed open pit mines are added to the value of 0.11 cancer fatality, the overall risks of radon-induced cancer fatalities per RRY are as follows:
0.19 fatality for a 100 year period 2.0 fatalities for a 1000 year period These doses and predicted health effects have been compared with those that can be expected from natural-background emissions of radon-222. Using data from the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP, 1975), the staff calculates
, the average radon-222 concentration in air in the contiguous United States to j be about 150 pCi/m3 , which the NCRP estimates will result in an annual dose to the bronchial epithelium of 450 millirems. For a stabilized future U.S. popula-i tion of 300 million, this represents a total lung-dose commitment of 135 million j person rems per year. Using the same risk estimator of 22 lung-cancer fatal-ities per million person-lung-rems used to predict cancer fatalities for the IvNP3 C-7
% k FES -
3,
> ) !
. l model 1000-MW2 LWR, th2 staff sstimates that lung-cancer fatalitics alone from background or 300,000 to radon-222 3,000,000 in the air can be calculated to be about 3000 per year, respectively. lung cancer deaths over periods of 100 to 1000 years, Current NRC regulations (10 CFR 40, Appendix A) require that an earth cover not l less than 3 meters in depth be placed over tailings to reduce the Rn-222 emana-abovefrom tion the dispose.d tailings to less than 2 pCi/m2 sec, on a calculated basis background.
In October 1983, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published environmental standards for the disposal of uranium and thorium mill tailings at licensed commercial processing sites (EPA 1983). The EPA re .
.i '
gulations (40 CFR 192) require that disposal be designed to limit Rn-222 emana-tion to less than 20 pCi/m2-sec, averaged over the surface of the disposed tailings.
its regulations regulations. for tailings disposal to ensure that they confo Although a few of the dose estimates in this appendix would change if NRC adopts EPA's higher Rn-222 flux limit for disposal of tailings, the basic-conclusion of this appendix should still be valid. That conclusion is:
"The staff concludes that both the dose commitments and' health effects of the LWR supporting uranium fuel cycle are very small when compared with dose commit-ments and potential natural-background health ef fects to the U.S. population resulting from all sources."
Technetium-99 The staff has calculated the potential 100 year environmental dose commitment to th9 U.S. population from the release of technetium-99. These calculations are based on the gaseous and the hydrological pathway model systems described in Volume 3 of NUREG-0002 (Chapter IV, Section J, Appendix A) and are described in more detail in the staff's testimony at the operating license hearing for the Susquehanna Station (Branagan and Struckmeyer, 1981). The gastrointestinal tract and the kidney exposure to technetium-99.
are the body organs that receive the highest doses from The total body dose is estimated at less than 1 person rem per RRY than 10 person rems per RRY.
and the total body risk equivalent dose is estimated at less Summary of Impacts The potential radiological impacts of the supporting fuel cycTe are summarized in Table C-5 for an environmental dose commitment time of 100 years. For an environmental dose commitment time of 100 years, the total body dose to the l
i U.S.' population is about 790 person rems per RRY, and the corresponding total body risk equivalent dose is about 2000 person rems per RRY. In a similar manner, the total body dose to the. V.S. population is about 3000 person rems per RRY, and the corresponding total body risk equivalent dose is about 15,000 person-rems per RRY using a 1000 year environmental dose commitment time.
Multiplying the total body risk equivalent dose of 2000 person rems per RRY'by the preceding risk estimator of 135 potential cancer deaths per million person-rems, the staff estimates that about 0.27 cancer death per RRY may_ occur in .
the U.S. population as a result of exposure to effluents from the fuel cycle.
Multiplying the total body dose of 790 person-rems per RRY by the genetic risk estimator of 258 potential cases of all forms of genetic disorders per million WWO sLfa b k FES t
C-8
)(
i
m T
) )
person-rems, the staff estimates that about 0.20 potential genetic disorder per RRY may occur in all future generations of the' population exposed during the 100 year environmental dose commitment time. In a similar manner, the ,
staff esti' mates that about 2 potential cancer deaths per RRY and about 0.8 potential genetic disorder per RRY may occur using a 1000 year environmental '
dose commitment time.
Some perspective can be gained by comparing the preceding estimates with those from naturally occurring terrestrial and cosmic ray sources. These average about 100 millirems. Therefore, for a stable future population of 300 million persons, the whole-body dose commitment would be about 30 million person-rems per year, or 3 billion person-rems and 30 billion person-rems for periods of 100 and 1000 years, respectively. These natural-background dose commitments could produce about 400,000 and 4,000,000 cancer deaths and about 770,000 and 7,700,000 genetic disorders, during the same time periods. From the above analysis, the staff concludes that both the dose commitments and health effects Table C-5 Summary of 100 year environmental dose commitments per year of operation of the model 1000-MWe light-water reactor Total body risk Total body equivalent Source (person-rems) (person-rems)
All nuclides in Table S-3 except radon-222 and technetium-99 550 650 Radon-222 Mining, milling, and active tailings, ,
5200 Ci 140 800 Unreclaimed open pit mines, 3700 Ci 96 550 Stabilized tailings, 100 Ci 3 15 Technetium-99, 1.3 Ci* <1 <10
. Total 790 2000
- Dose commitments are based on the " prompt" release of 1.3 Ci/RRY. Additional releases of technetium-99 are estimated *o occur at a rate of 0.0039 Ci/yr/RRY after 2000 years of placing wastes in a high-level-waste repository. .
of the LWR-supporting uranium fuel cycle are very small when compared with dose commitments and potential health effects to the U.S. population resulting from all natural-background sources. ,
- 6. Radioactive Wastes The quantities of buried radioactive waste material (low-level, high-level, and transuranic wastes) associated with the uranium fuel cycle are specified
'in Table S-3. For low-level waste disposal at land-burial facilities, the k FES C-9 I
~
3 .)
Commission notes in Ttble S-3 that there will be no significent radio:ctivo r21 eases to tha environment. The Commission notes that high-level and trans-uranic wastes are to be buried at a Federal repository and that no release to the environment is associated with such disposal.
background and context for the high-level and transuranic waste values inNUR Table S-3 established by the Commission, indicates that these high-level and transuranic wastes will be buried and will not be released to the biosphere .
No radiological environmental impact is anticipated from such disposal.
- 7. Occupational Dose '
The annual occupational dose attributable to all the model 1000-MWe LWR is about 200 person rems. phases of the fuel cycle for The staff concludes that this occupational dose will have a small environmental impact.
- 8. Transportation The transportation dose to workers and the public is specified in Table S-3. .
This dose is small in comparison with the natural-background dose.
- 9. Fuel Cycle The staff's analysis of the uranium fuel cycle did not depend on the selected fuel cycle (no recycle or uranium-only recycle), because the data provided in cycle. S-3 include maximum recycle option impact for each element of the fuel Table Thus the staff's conclusions as to acceptability of the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle are not affected by the specific fuel cycle selected.
- 10. References Branagan, E. , and R. Struckmeyer, testimony from "In the Matter of Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, Allegheny Electric Cooperatives, Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, presented on October lowing page 1894. 14, 1981, in the transcript fol-Council on Environmental Quality, "The Seventh Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality," Figs. 11-27 and 11-28, pp. 238-239, September 1976.
Gotchy, R. , test:imony from "In the Matter of Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear filed April Station),"
17, 1978.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket No. 50-488, Killough, G. G. , "A Diffusion-Type Model of the Global Carbon Cycle for the Estimation of Dose to the Morld Population from Releases of Carbon-14 to the Atmosphere," ORNL-5269, May 1977.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, NCRP, " Natural Background Radiation in the United States," NCRP Report No. 45, November 1975.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, " Environmental Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings at Licensed Commercial Processing Sites (40 CFR 192),
" Federal Register, Vol 48, No. 196, pp. 45926-45947, October 7, 1983.
WNM Li ick FES C-10 I
~
U.S. Department of Energy, " Statistical Data of the Uranium Industry,"
GJ0-100(8-78), January 1978.
~
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0002, " Final Generic Environmental Stntcment on the Use of Recycled Plutonium in Mixed Oxide Fuel in Light-Water-Ccaled Reactors," August 1976.
-- , NUREG-0116, " Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Partions of the LWR Fuel Cycle" (Supplement 1 to WASH-1248), October 1976.
~.
- i.
?
Limerick FES C-11 A
.- : ) -s Wud 3
~
radiation dosa offects. Although, as in the case of chemical contaminants, there is debate about the exact extent of the effects of very low levels of radiation that result from nuclear power plant effluents, upper bound limits of deleterious effects are well established and amenable to standard methods of risk analysis.
Thus the risks to the maximally exposed member of the public outside of the site boundaries or to the total population outside of the bound-aries can be readily calculated and recorded.
are presented below. These risk estimates for WNP-3
( .ree k h W )
The risk to the maximally cxposed individuaj ii s estimated by multiplying the d
- risk estimators presented in Section 5.9.3.1.1 by the annual dose-design objec-tives for total-body radiation in 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1. This calculation, results in a risk of potential premature death from cancer to that individual from exposure to radioactive effluents (gaseous or liquid) from 1 year of reac-tor operations of less than one chance in one million." The risk of potential premature death from cancer to the average individual within 80 km (50 miles) of the reactor from exposure to radioactive effluents from the reactor is much less than the risk to the maximally exposed individual. These risks are very small in comparison to natural cancer incidence from causes unrelated to the operation of WNP-3.
I t
Multiplying the annual U.S. general public population dose from exposure to radioactive effluents and transportation of fuel and waste from the operation '
l of this facility (that is, 81 person rems) by the preceding somatic risk esti- ;
mator, the staff estimates that about 0.011 cancer death may occur in the ex-posed population.
The significance of this risk can be determined by comparing it to the natural incidence of cancer death in the U.S. population. Multiply- ,
ing the estimated U.S. population for the year 2000 (s260 million persons) by :
the current incidence of actual cancer fatalities $20%), about 52 million cancer deaths are expected (American Cancer Society, 1978). For purposes of evaluating the potential genetic risks, the progeny of workers are considered members of the general public. Multiplying the sum of the U.S. population dose from exposure to radioactivity attributable to the normal annual operation of the plant (that is, 81 person rems), and the estimated dose from occupational exposure (that is, 500 person rems) by the preceding genetic risk estimators, the staff estimates that about 0.15 potential genetic disorder may occur in all future generations of the exposed population. Because BEIR III indicates that the mean persistence of the two major types of geneti.c disorders is about 5 .
. generations and 10 generations, in the following analysis the risk of potential genetic disorders from.the normal annual operation of the plant is conserva-tively compared with the risk of actual genetic ill health in the first 5 gen-erations, rather than the first 10 generations. Multiplying the estimated population within 80 km of the plant (s760,000 persons in the year 2000) by the current incidence of actual genetic ill health in each generation (*11%), about 420,000 genetic abnormalities are expected in the first 5 generations of the 80-km population (BEIR III).
The risks to the general public from exposure to radioactive effluents and transportation of fuel and wastes from the annual operation of the facility are j
- The risk of potential premature death from cancer to the maximally exposed individual from exposure to radiciodines and particulates would be in the l same range as the risk from exposure to the other types of effluents.
1 WNP-3 DES 5-20
Os )
4
}o the other hand, potential releases from severe accidents via the groundwater pathway are much larger. for WNP-3 than for typical U.S.
A power reactors. However, even for WNP-3, the total risk from this
% pathway is judged to be small compared to the atmospheric pathway.
%w Further, as for the atmospheric pathway, doses from these releases d
can be reduced if mitigative measures are taken soon after a postu-lated accident (Section.5.9.4).
Ah 3'r { (o) The NRC staff has determined that the environmental impact.ef-tMs facility on the U.S. population from radioactive gaseous and liquid
'y
[ releases (including radon and technetium) resulting from the uranium el cycle'his very small when compared with the impact of natural i
background radiation. In addition, the nonradiological impacts of y the uranium fuel cycle have been found to be acceptable (Section 5.10).
(p) The operation of the WNP-3 unit will provide approximately 6 billion ;
kWh of baseload electrical energy that will be producec annually.
This projection, conservatively low, assumes that the unit will ,
operate at an annual average capacity factor of 55%. The addition of the plant will also improve the ability of WPPSS to supply system load requirements by contributing 1240 MW of generating capacity to the northwest region of the U.S.
5.
This statement assesses various impacts associated with the operation of the facility in terms of annual impacts and balances these impacts against the anticipat,ed-arinual energy pr,oduction benefits. Thus, the overall assessment and conclusion would not be dependent on specific operating life. Where appropriate, however, a specific operating life of 40 years was assumed.
6.
The Draft Environmental Statement is being made available to the public, to the Environmental Protection Agency, and to other agencies, as specified in Section 8.
7.
The personnel who participated in the preparation of this statement and their areas of responsibility are identified in Section 7. '
8.
On the basis of the analyses and evaluations set forth 'in this statement, af ter weighing the environmental, technical, and other,benefi.ts.against Gnvironmental costs at the operating license stage, the staff concludes that the action called for under the National Environmental Policy Act of ,
1969 and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51 is the -
issuance of an operating license for WNP-3, subject to the following i conditions for the protection of the environment (Section 6.1): ,
(a) Before engaging in additional construction or operational activities f that may result in a significant adverse impact that was not evaluated or that is significantly greater than that evaluated in this statement, the applicant shall provide written notification of such activities ,
to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and shall receive written approval from that office before proceeding with such activities.
WNP-3 DES viii
_