ML20234E336

Potential Health and Environmental Impacts Attributable to the Nuclear and Coal Fuel Cycles.Final Report

ML20234E336
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/30/1987
From:	Gotchy R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
NUREG-0332, NUREG-332, NUDOCS 8707070538
Download: ML20234E336 (73)

Text

l' NUREG-0332 l l

l Potential Health and Environmental Impacts Attributable to the l Nuclear and Coal Fuel Cycles Final Report l

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation R. L. Gotchy p tkB "f G N,

3. )

g Q ::$, '1 1 Q N.... !

I l

.s

• !a'?BR"

0332 R PDR 1

s

l

.. . .- 6 .

I NOTICE Availability of Reference Materials Cited in N8tC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources:

1. The NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W. l Washington, DC 20555 l

2. The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Pos+. Office Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013 7082 ,

3. The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publications, i it is not intended to be exhaustive. '

Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Docu-ment Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC Office of inspection and Enforcement bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investigation notices; Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and licensee documents and correspondence.

The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the GPO Sales Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceedings, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances.

Documents available from the National Technical Information Service include NUREG series reports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic j Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, ,

such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, federal and  !

, state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries.

l Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations,and non NRC conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited.

Single copies of NRC draft reports are available free, to the extent of supply, upon written request to the Division of Information Support Services, Distribution Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, ancf are available there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the

' American National Standards institute,1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.

NUREG 0332 Potentia! Health and Environmental Impacts Attributable to the Nuclear and Coa Fuel Cycles l

Final Repo,t Data Published: June 1987 R. L. Gotchy Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

.S. uclear g ry Commission g ""%

s

\

i

l ABSTRACT Estimates of mortality and morbidity are presented based on present-day knowledge of health effects resulting from current component designs and operations of the nuclear and coal fuel cycles, and anticipated emission rates and occupational exposure for the various fuel cycle facilities expected to go into operation during the next decade. The author concluded that, although I there are large uncertainties in the estimates of potential health effects, l

the coal fuel cycle alternative has a greater health impact on man than the l uranium fuel cycle. However, the increased risk of health effects for either fuel cycle represents a very small incremental risk to the average individual in the public for the balance of this century. The potential for large impacts exists in both fuel cycles, but the potential impacts associated with a runaway Greenhouse Effect from combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal, cannot yet be reasonably quantified. Some of the potential environmental impacts of the coal fuel cycle cannot currently be realistically estimated, but those that can appear greater than those from the nuclear fuel cycle.

9 i

k i

l NUREG-0332 iii a

L

TABLE OF CONTENTS P_ age ABSTRACT.............................................................. iii PREFACE............................................................... ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS....................................................... xi 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................... 1-1 2 POTENTIAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE............................................... 2-1 2.1 Potential Radiological Health Impacts of the Nuclear Fuel Cyc1e.................................................. 2-1 2.1.1 Radiological Effluents............................... 2-1 2.1.2 Environmental Transport Models........................ 2-5 2.1.3 Radiation Dose Models................................. 2-6 l

2.1.4 Health Effects Models................................. 2-8 2.1.5 Uncertainties in Radiation Risk Assessment............ 2-10 2.1.6 Collective Population Dose Commitments and Potential Health Impacts.............................. 2-12 2.1.6.1 Radiation Risks to the General Public........ 2-12 2.1.6.2 Occupational Radiation Risks................. 2-15 2.1.6.3 Radiological Health Risks From Accidents..... 2-15 2.1.6.4 Perspectives on Radiation Risk............... 2-17 2.2 Other Potential Impacts of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle........... 2-19 2.2.1 Nonradiological Risks From Accidents................. 2-19 2.2.2 Potential Impacts of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle on ,

Ecosystems........................................... 2-19 ]

2.2.3 Risks Associated With Proliferation and Terrorism.. . 2-20 1 2.3 Summary and Conclusions..................................... 2-22 3 POTENTIAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE C0AL FUEL CYCLE................................................ 3-1 3.1 Potential Radiological Health Impacts of the Coal Fuel  !

Cyc1e...................................................... 3-1 l

3.1.1 Radiological Effluents and Potential Health Impacts of Radioactivity From Combustion of Coal............. 3-2  !

3.1.2 Potential Radiological Impacts Among Coal Miners..... 3-2 3.1.3 Potential Long-Term Radiological Impacts of Coal Ash Piles......... ............................. 3-2 ,

i 3.1.4 Potential Long-Term Radiological Impacts of Coal Cleaning, Acid Mine Drainage, and Acid Rain.......... 3-5 NUREG-0332 v

Page 3.1.5 The Suess Effect..................................... 3-5 3.2 Potential Nonradiological Health Impacts of the Coal Fuel Cycle.................................................. 3-6 3.2.1 Potential Health Impacts of Coal Mining.............. 3-6 3.2.2 Potential Health Impacts of Coal Beneficiation....... 3-7 3.2.3 Health Impacts of Coal Transportation................ 3-8 3.2.4 Potential Nonradiological Health Impacts of Coal Combustion in Power Generation....................... 3-8 3.2.5 Potential Nonradiological Health Impacts of Coal Ash Waste....................................... 3-12 3.2.6 Health Risks Associated With Subsidence and Fires in Underground Coal Mines...................... 3-13 3.2.7 Perspectives on Nonradiological Risk................. 3-13 3.3 Other Potential Impacts of the Coal Fuel Cycle.............. 3-13 3.3.1 The Greenhouse Effect and the Relationship to Coal Combustion...................................... 3-13 3.3.2 Potential Impacts of the Coal Fuel Cycle on Ecosystems........................................... 3-15 3.3.3 Potential Materials Damage From Combustion of Coal in Power Generation.................................. 3-16 3.3.4 Potential Health Costs From Combustion of Coal in Power Generation..................................... 3-17 3.4 Summary and Conclusions..................................... 3-17 4 OTHER PERSPECTIVES ON RISK....................................... 4-1 4.1 Vol unta ry Ve rs us Invol unta ry Ri s k. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2 4.2 Risk Perception............................................. 4-2

4.3 Equity

Who Gets the Benefits and Who Takes the Risks?..... 4-4 4.4 Acceptable Risks Versus Accepted Risks...................... 4-5 4.5 Moral and Ethical Considerations............................ 4-5 5

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS.......................................... 5-1 6 REFERENCES....................................................... 6-1 7 GL0SSARY......................................................... 7-1 l

l NUREG-0332 vi

FIGURE

.Page -

1- Current Options for the Nuclear Fuel Cyc1e........................ 2 TABLES 1 Radioactive Effluents From the Nuclear Fuel Cycle per Reference Reactor Ye ar (0. 8 Gw(e) yr) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 2 Total Latent Cancer Mortality per 108 Person-Rem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9 3 Organ-Specific Cancer Mortality per 106 Person-Rem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9 4 Genetic Risk per 108 Liveborn.................................... 2-10 5 Comparison of Causes of Mortality in U.S. Populations, 1900 and 1970.............................................................

2-11 '

6 Collective U.S. General Population Dose Commitments and Potential Health Impacts Resulting From the Release of Gaseous Radio-active Effluents From Normal Operations of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle per GW(e) yr............................................... 2-13 7 Collective U.S. General Population Dose Commitments and Potential l Health Impacts Resulting From the Release of Liquid Radio-active Effluents From Normal Operations of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle per GW(e) yr............................................... 2-13 l

8 Summary of Potential Health Impacts Among the U.S. General Population From Normal Operations of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle per GW(e) yr..................................................... 2-14 9 Colle:tive Occupational Dose Commitments and Potential Health Impacts of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle per GW(e) yr................... 2-16 10 Comparisons of the Potential Health Risks Among the U.S. General Population From the Nuclear Fuel Cycle per GW(e) yr With Similar Risks From Other Sources of Radiation Exposure........... 2-18

)

11 Normal Annual Risk of Mortality Among the U.S. General P o p ul a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18 12 Lifetime Mortality Risks Numerically Equivalent to the Potential Risks of Mortality Associated With Occupational Radiation Exposures....../.................................................

2-19 13 Summary of Other Environmental Considerations for the Nuclear F u e l Cycl e p e r GW( e ) y r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21 i

NUREG-0332 vii L----_--_-____________________.

l Page i

14 Summary of Potential Health Risks Among the Total U.S.

Population per GW(e) yr for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23 15 Atmospheric Emissions of Radionuclides From EPA Model of a New Coal-Fired Station (2 Units) per GW(e) yr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3 16 Summary of Potential Health Effects Among the Total U.S.

Population per GW(e) yr for the Coal Fuel Cycle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14 17 Summary of Other Environmental Considerations for the Coal Fuel Cy c l e p e r GW ( e ) y r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16 18 Classification of Risk by Current Status......................... 4-6 l

1 i

NUREG-0332 viii

l 1

1 1

I I

PREFACE This report deals with a subject that is difficult because of its complexity, the diversity of risks and risk parameters, and, especially, the gaps and limitations of the underlying data.

The work was originally undertaken to assist in comparisons of alternative energy sources in connection with environmental impact statements, mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act, in support of evaluation of license applications for nuclear power plants. Inclusion of a comparative risk cri-terion (relative to alternative viable electric power sources) in the Commis-sion's proposed safety goal policy statement has created a possible additional point of pertinence of the report's subject to NRC actions and policies. I The predecessor of this report was issued for comment in September 1977, with a commitment to update the draft to consider comments received and the results of a wide-ranging study by the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy-Systems (CONAES) of the National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences.

The CONAES report was released to the public in January 1980. However, the Council, late in 1982, decided not to complete and publish the report of the -

l CONAES Risk and Impact Panel, which was to detail the findings and document the detailed analyses of comparative risk. That dacision was apparently taken on a Council judgment that the softness of underlying data would be an impedi-ment to producing a comparison that merits confidence.

Thus, while this report represents a state-of-the-art effort, the author cannot claim that his treatment of the subject is comprehensive or definitive. He hopes, however, that the report may help to inform and enhance public debate (as provided for by Section 141(b) of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended), and it is to that end that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has authorized issuance of this report.

The report is a compilation of results and views from many sources. Interpreta-tions and unattributed views are the author's own. The report has been neither approved nor disapproved by the NRC.

Readers are advised to keep in mind that (1) the principal modifications to the 1977 draf t of this report were completed in 1981, and are largely based on information available through 1980; (2) the analyses of the potential environ-mental and public health effects of the nuclear fuel cycle are based on exper-tise that is both internal and external to the NRC and reflect substantial work by the staff and others, including contract researchers; (3) comparable analyses of the potential effects of the coal fuel cycle, however, are based primarily i on the work of experts outside the NRC and include knowledge gained from the l literature, in discussions with recognized authorities, conferences, and work- l i

shops; and (4) since estimates of risk are based on evolving knowledge, tech-nology, and regulatory practices, it is expected that many of the estimates l

presented in the report will also be subject to change.  !

NUREG-0332 ix L-- _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The Commission has a continuing interest in the risks from coal and nuclear energy sources cnd the relation among such risks. Any further comments on the subject contindo to be welcome. They should be addressed to Mr. Frank J. Congel, U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.

4 i

i NUREG-0332 x

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to thank the many members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff who provided support and assistance in preparing this report and its pre-decessor. In particular, the author would like to acknowledge Harold Denton, Lawrence Chandler, Mark Doyle, Mary Mejac, Jacqueline Lynch, Dr. William Kreger, Dr. Miller Spangler, Dr. Frank Congel, Dr. Edward Branagan, Dr. Wayne Meinke, Dr. Wayne Houston, Daniel Muller, and George Sege, whose collective advice, encouragement, and assistance made this final report possible. The author would also like to acknowledge the numerous comments on the 1977 draft NUREG-0332 sent by private citizens and professionals, both in and out of government.

Most of the comments were useful and, where possible, have been utilized in preparing this final report.

l i

i NUREG-0332 xi l

a____-_______________-_-_______________

1 l

POTENTIAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE NUCLEAR AND C0AL FUEL CYCLES l l

1 INTRODUCTION The Nat.onal # Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires the Federal Government to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential con-siderations of national policy, to ensure, among other things, that the Nation may Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the l environment for succeeding generations.

Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, and productive and pleas-ing surroundings.

Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health and safety, or other undesirable and un-l intended consequences.1 Furthermore, with respect to major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA calls for considera-tion of, among other things, The environmental impact of the proposed action.

Alternatives to the proposed action.2 It is clear that the major alternative to nuclear power for meeting the Nation's baseload electrical needs for the rest of this century is coal power, although other alternatives (including conservation) will be contributing needed power.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) environmental statements have dis-cussed the impacts of the coal fuel cycle in terms of economics, and generi-cally address these impacts in terms of land and water use. However, on Jan-uary 25, 1977, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board rendered a decision that stated:

l l A disproportionately large part of the analyses comparing the coal and nuclear fuel cycles is focused on costs rather than environmental considerations.

While the effects on human and animal life of the emissions from the proposed nuclear plant are discussed in detail, there is no corre-sponding discussion with respect to the postulated coal plant.

No mention is made of the environmental effects of the coal fuel cycle.

NUREG-0332 1-1

Although exact identity in treatment with respect to every aspect of environmental comparison of alternatives may not be required, this kind of comparison goes to the heart of NRC's duty undar NEPA, where coal and nuclear power are shown to be the only two feasible alternatives.2 As a result of the above decision, the NRC staff prepared testimony for ongoing hearings, and similar input for current environmental statements where such considerations were lacking. That testimony, which was presented in numerous public hearings, was the basis for a draft report (NUREG-0332)s issued in September 1977 for public comment.

After receiving comments from Federal and State agencies, industry, and con-cerned members of the public, and reviewing a report by the National Researci, Council, National Academy of Sciences Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems,4 the author prepared this final report, and incorporated as many of the comments and as much new data as were appropriate.

In the analyses that follow, an average measure of the risk is estimated by multiplying the probabilities that an event will occur by the consequences of that event. The resultant risk is then expressed as a number of consequences expected.

In the present state of knowledge, all health risk assessments of energy systems  !

contain fairly large uncertainties. Some sections of the assessments, such as those dealing with risk of accidental death among coal and uranium miners, l can be estimated reasonably satisfactorily on the basis of recent experience.

Other parts, such as those dealing with the potential risk associated with serious accidents in nuclear power plants, can only be estimated to within per-haps one or two orders of magnitude because of the absence of actual experience.

Nevertheless, it is in the vital interest of the Nation that such assessments be made and updated as new information becomes available. Although many of the numerical values of health effects presented later in this document, in text l and in tables, will be given to more than one significant figure, it should be recognized that this is not an indication that these effects are known with even that degree of precision.

In the following discussions, all health risk and environmental impact esti-mates are normalized to the annual operation of a modern, coal-fired or light-water-cooled nuclear power plant that generates 1,000 megawatt yr (MW yr) of electric power (that is, a GW(e) yr). Thus, the reader can extrapolate the estimates to any number of power plants over any period of time simply by multiplying by the total projected electric power for these plants.* A similar unit is defined for light-water reactors (LWRs) in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 51,s as a reference reactor year (RRY) and represents the estimated releases of radioactivity from generating 0.8 GW(e) yr of electric power (a 1,000-MW(e) plant operating at 80% of capacity for 1 year).

• For example, one hundred 1,000-MW(e) plants operating at 65% capacity for 30 years each would generate about 2,000 GW(e) yr of electric power. Thus, the impact would be about 2,000 times the impact presented in thic report per GW(e) yr.

NUREG-0332 1-2

I 2 POTENTIAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE l In the discussions that follow, the potential impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle I range from potential health impacts of normal radiological releases on the pub- ,

f lic, risks to radiation workers, risks of accidents to the public and fuel cycle l 1

l workers, and more diffuse risks such as those from diversion of nuclear mate-rials for use by terrorists and the potential global risks associated with proliferation of nuclear weapons. Where possible, the risks are quantified in terms of the operation of a 1,000-MW(e) nuclear power plant for a period of .

1 year, plus the risks from operation of the supporting fuel cycle. Finally, I those risks that can be quantified are compared with other better known risks, l providing the reader with a different perspective to the potential risks of )

J the nuclear fuel cycle.

(

A diagram of the three current options for the light-water-cooled reactor fuel cycle is shown in Figure 1 to assist the reader in understanding the discussions that follow.

2.1 Potential Radiological Health Impacts of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle 2.1.1 Radiological Effluents The radiological effluents estimated for the supporting fuel cycle (that is, everything except the power reactor itself) for one RRY are specified in 10 CFR D:rt 51, Table S-3. These effluents represent the sum of the maximum probable releases occurring from reprocessing, waste management, and transportation of wastes for either of two options: no recycle of uranium or plutonium (the so-called throwaway option), or recycle of uranium only. The third option, shown in Figure 1, recycle of uranium and plutonium, results in population doses that are somewhat %ss but not significantly different from those for recycle of uranium only.

These effluents (gaseous and liquid) were selected from detailed studies, such as NUREG-0002, " Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Use of Mixed Oxide Fuel in Light-Water-Cooled Reactors - Health, Safety and Environment" (GESMO),6 a and the extensive Table S-3 Rule Hearings, conducted over several years by NRC, which resulted in the current rule. The radiological effluents used for this health risk assessment are shown in Table 1. Detailed bases are provided in NUREG-0002; " Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle,"

WASH-1248;7 " Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portion of the LWR Fuel Cycle," NUREG-0116 (Supplement 1 to WASH-1248);8 "Public Comments on the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle," NUREG-0216 (Supplement 2 to WASH-1248);9 and " Record of the Final Rulemaking Pertaining to Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts From Spent Fuel Reprocessing and Radioactive Waste Management,"

Docket No. RM-50-3.10 Because the GESMO study represented only a 26 year period (1975 to 2000) and the enviror. mental dose commitment period was limited to 40 years for each year of the 26 year period, it was necessary to extend the time integral for radon-222 NUREG-0332 2-1

SPEPtr FUEL FUEL d = "

• LW POWER REACTORS N v (b,c) (.)

l y& UO2FUEL

(%

REPROCESSING v

{c) FABRICATION A

i (C)

ENRICHED UF, RECOVERED URANIUM PuO2 MIXED OXfDE FUEL FABRICATION ENRICHMENT  !

b NATURAL UF, (c)

HIGH-LEVEL WASTES AND NATURAL UO 2 TRANSURANIC WASTES -

CONVERSION TO UF, a v _

v U3 0, FEDERAL WASTE REPOSITORY URANIUM MINES AND MILLS a = No recycle of irradiated fuel (" throwaway" option) b = Recycle of uranium only (U Pu)O2RODS c = Recycle of uranium and plutonium Figure 1 Current options for the nuclear fuel cycle NUREG-0332 2-2

1 l

Table 1 Radioactive effluents from the nuclear fuel cycle per reference reactor year (0.8 GW(e) yr)*

i Source of the Radionuclides Curies release released released Gaseous Uranium mines Rn-222 5,300-19,000**

Uranium mills and Ra-226 0.020 mill tailings Th-230 0.020 Essentially all U-234 0.0044 (Note: 0.000030 of the radiological U-235 impact is from Rn-222) U-238 0.030 Rn-222 1,500-12,000** !

UFs conversion plants V 0.0015 Uranium enrichment plants V 0.002 Tc-99*** 0.046 l Fuel fabrication plants U 0.0002  ;

Light-water-cooled H-3 1,200 nuclear power plants C-14 8.0 (Note: Over 90% of the Co-58 0.015 total radiological Co-60 0.06 impact is from H-3, Kr-85 470 C-14, Kr-85, and Xe-133) Sr-90 0.0010 Xe-133m 120 Xe-133 12,000 Xe-135 1,100 I-131 1 33 Cs-134 0.005 Cs-137 0.010 Fuel reprocessing plant H-3 18,100 (Note: Over 90% of the C-14 24 radiological impact is Kr-85 400,000 f rom H-3, C-14, and Kr-85) Sr-90 0.016 Tc-99*** 0.11 Ru-106 0.14 I-131 0.83 Cs-134 0.109 l Cs-137 0.055 U-234 0.000015 U-235 0.000004 U-238 0.000020 Pu-238, Pu-239 0.00088 Pu-241 0.020 Am-241 0.000014 Am-243 0.0000011 Cm-242 0.0015 Cm-244 0.00011 Geologic repository I-129 1.3 See footnotes at end of table.

NUREG-0332 2-3

Table 1 (Continued)

Source of the Radionuclides Curies ,

release released released Liquid Uranium mill tailings U and daughters 2.0 (released to ground)

UFe conversion plant Ra-226 0.0034 I Th-230 0.0015 U and daughters 0.044 Uranium enrichment plant U and daughters 0.02 Fuel fabrication plants Th-234 0.010 3 U and daughters 0.02 Light-water-cooled H-3 240 nuclear power plants Mn-54 0.0015 (Note: Most of the Co-60 0.0089 radiological impact is I-131 0.28 from Cs-134 and Cs-137) Cs-134 0.02 Cs-137 0.034 Shallow land burial Tc-99*** 1.2 l

• 0nly the major releases, in terms of ouantity and potential radiological impact, are included. Multiply all releases by 1.25 to convert to GW(e) yr releases.

• • 100- to 1,000 year period; includes long-term emanation from tailings piles (see Ref. 11 for further details).

• • • No Tc-99 source terms are specified in Table S-3 (10 CFR 51) at this time. j The values for Tc-99 shown here are based on current but conservative NRC staff estimates, and tre subject to future revisions (see Ref. 12 for further details).

(Rn-222) emissions from uranium mines and mill tailings piles to cover the maxi-mum period which the inherent uncertainties in such projections reasonably per-mit. A detailed discussion of these uncertainties follows in Section 2.1.2.

However, the Rn-222 issue has been thoroughly studied and soundly debated in numerous reactor licensing hearings (see, for example, Ref. 13), and in recent hearings 14 followed by generic decisiona by an NRC appeals board which support the general approach used in this assu sment.25'16 The Rn-222 source terms selected for this assessment represent a reasonable range of releases that might occur over periods of from 100 to 1,000 years into the future. These estimates are based on a recent reevaluation of this question by the NRC, and the reader is referred to Reference 11 for details on the methods used for estimating Rn-222 releases.

It should be stres:,ed that, for the time periods examined (that is, up to 1,000 years into the future), actual releases are expected to be lower than NUREG-0332 2-4

those shown in Table 1. This statement is particularly true for tritium (H-3),

krypton-85 (Kr-85), carbon-14 (C-14), and particulate because engineering and technological improvements appear likely to greatly reduce these releases.

(See, for example, Ref. 6, pp. IV E-23 through IV E-28.)

2.1.2 Environmental Transport Models To estimate the radiation doses to populations, it is necessary to use environ-mental transport models that describe the dispersion, deposition, and rcsuspen-sion of hundreds of radionuclides released by the fuel cycle during normal and accident conditions. The models used for normal operations are described in detail in NUREG-0002 (GESMO)6* and the Table S-3 hearing transcripts and reports.8 10 The environmental transport model for gaseous releases (normally and abnormally occurring) is a so-called wedge model that limits vertical dis-persion to a maximurr, height of 1,000 m (3,280 ft), which is typical for non-buoyant near-surface releases. After several miles of transport from the point of release, a fairly uniform cross-sectional concentration for the balance of the "first pass" across the United States results.

.Once the plume leaves the United States, the volatile radionuclides of suffi-ciently long radiological half-life are assumed to mix uniformly in the world's atmosphere or hydrosphere. Thus, longer-lived nuclides such as tritium (12 years), C-14 (5,700 years), and Kr-85 (10 years) have at least two exposure l modes to consider: first pass exposure and subsequent exposures. Global dis-persion of Kr-85 is simple to model because it is known to3mix fairly uniformly in the world's atmosphere (3.8 x 1021 liters [1.3 x 1020 ft ]) over a period of time that is short relative to its half-life. However, H-3 and C-14 are more difficult to model. After the first pass, tritium was reasonably assumed to mix in the earth's circulating water volume (2.7 x 1018 liters [7.1 x 1018 gal]),

and C-14 was assumed to mix initially in the world's atmosphere where it is l gradually r o oved to the ocean over a period of time that is short relative to its half-lite. Details of the C-14 long-term dispersion model used in this assessment are available in a recent Oak Ridge National Laboratory report.17 i No environmental removal mechanisms (such as losses to deep ocean water), only radioactive decay, were conservatively assumed for H-3 and Kr-85.

After the first pass, it was necessary to devise a method for determining long- I term dose commitments for iodine-129 (I-129) and technetium-99 (Tc-99) because of their very long half-lives (17 million years and 210,000 years,respectively).

It was assumed that I-129 would distribute uniformly in the world's stable iodine pool (6 x 1016 g [1.3 x 1014 lb]). It was conservatively assumed that no other physical removal mechanisms were operating. (Radioactive decay in 1,000 years is insignificant.) Details on the model are presented in Reference 9.

Technetium-99, the first man-made element, is more difficult to model because there is no stable technetium pool in the world in which to determine a final i specific activity as was done for I-129. To upper bound the potential dose impacts, it was assumed that after the first pass across the United States, the Tc-99 released would distribute uniformly in the world's circulating water .

l volume (same assumption as for H-3). It was conservatively assumed that no l

• See, in particular,Section IV J.

NUREG-0332 2-5

physical removal mechanisms (for example, precipitation or other means of deposition in sediments, or radioactive decay) were operating.

In the special case of Rn-222 cmissions from uranium mining and milling, the models used were developed for NRC by Argonne National Laboratcry l8 (popula-tions within 80 km [50 miles] from a model facility) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 19 (populations more than 80 km from a model facility). These models are more sophisticated than those used for GESMO, and result in more realistic evaluations of population doses. In general, these dose estimates are of the same order of magnitude as those in GESMO. More details are provided in References 11, 18, and 19, Appendix VI. '

For gaseous radioactive releases from light-water-cooled reactor accidents, ,

the atmospheric dispersion as described by the Reactor Safety Study 20 was I assumed. These dispersion estimates are based on a modified Gaussian disper-sion model (with vertical dispersion limited by the seasonal mixing depths).

Stability, precipitation, wind speeds., and directions are based on actual meteorology neasured at several different types of U.S. nuclear power station sites (valley, river, lake, ocean, and plains) over extended periods. For details on the models, see Reference 20, Appendix VI.

2.1.3 Radiation Dose Models The radiation dose models used in this assessment are those that permit estima-tion of collective population dose commitments.* These doses are collective ,

in that they represent the summation of all the individual doses in an exposed ,

population. These doses are also a commitment because they represent the total collective dose over extended periods from all radionuclides released per GW(e) yr. Two types of commitments are considered in this assessment. For each individual in the exposed population, a 50 year dose commitment is first calculated for each radionuclides that is taken into the body through inhalation and food pathways during the year a modern nuclear power plant and its support-ing fuel cycle operate, as well as external exposures from airborne radioactivity and radioactivity deposited on the ground (and resuspended) during that year.

The second type of dose commitment results from similar exposures to these same radioactive releases during subsequent years. The summation of the 50 year dose commitments for each of these years is called the environmental dose commitment (EDC). In practice, the EDC estimates are usually limited to periods for which reasonable estimates of population doses can be made. In this assessment, a ,

100- to 1,000 year EDC has been used to estimate the potential health effects i that the production of 1 GW(e) yr might cause among people now living and those living in the distant future.

• For example, the annual radiation dose to the total body of an average American is about 0.1 rem (1.0 millisievert) from natural background radiation. Most '

of the dose occurs during the year from external radiation (cosmic rays and terrestrial gamma radiation) and from potassium-40 in the food we eat. However, some internally deposited primordial radionuclides (uranium, thorium, and i actinium series) continue to give doses to certain specific organs (for example, '

lung and bone) for many subsequent years (a committed dose). The collective annual total body dose commitment from natural background radiation in the United States is about 0.1 rem /yr x 220 million persons, or 22 million person-rem (0.22 million person-sieverts).

NUREG-0332 2-6 l

I

The EDCs consider, within the limits of the present state of knowledge, collec-tive radiation doses from external exposure to radioactivity suspended in air and water, deposited on the ground and in sediments, and taken up through all potential food pathways (milk, drinking water, red meat, fish, invertebrates, vegetables, and grains) following initial deposition and redistribution in the environment. In general, dose commitments are determined by the concentrations of the radionuclides in air and water. For the U.S. population, most of each 50 year dose coamitment is determined by the "first pass" of those radionuclides over the United States. Only for a few very long-lived radionuclides, sucn as C-14 and 1-129, can the subsequent passes contribute significantly to the total EDC. The special case for Rn-222 emissions from uranium mines and mills will be discussed below in detail because the potential impacts could dominate the impacts of the fuel cycle. Details of the models are presented in Refer-ences 6-9, but because of space limitations are not discussed further in this report.

In the case of Rn-222 releases, even though Rn-222 is a short-lived radionuclides (3.8-day half-life), its predecessors have much longer half-lives. As a result, although Rn-222 impacts are primarily restricted to the U.S. population from the first pass of the Rn-222, these impacts may continue to accumulate over long timespans depending on factors that may increase or decrease Rn-222 emis-sions with time. In the GESMO Hearing, the Rn-222 impacts were incorrectly estimated because of a factor-of-10 error in the total body dose factor for lead-210 (Pb-210) in International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)

Publication 2.21 The estimates were subsequently corrected by the NRC staff in a memorandum to the GESMO Hearing Board.22 As a result, the GESMO popula-tion doses / commitments (Table IV J(E)-1) for uranium mining and milling were reduced by factors of 7.7 for uranium mining and 6.1 for uranium milling (no recycle), and similar factors for the other recycle options.

In addition, the staff subsequently concluded that the ICRP-2 lung model was inappropriate for Rn-222 and its short-lived progeny because it calculates an averaged dose for the entire lung while the critical tissue is the bronchial epithelium. This assessment, therefore, used the recommended dose conversion factors from Reference 11 for Rn-222 and daughters, based on more appropriate models for dose to the bronchial epithelium, as well as total body and bone.

For I-129 and Tc-99, long-term U.S. population dose estimates are believed to be conservative because of the assumptions made for environmental transport in the preceding section. The specific activity model for I-129 results in 1.7 x 10 5 picocuries of I-129 per gram of stable iodine per curie of I-129 released to the biosphere. The average dose rate to the thyroid gland would be about 7.1 x 10"9 millirem (mrem) per year per curie of I-129 released. In the case of Tc-99, the long-term dose would come from ingestion of seafood, which uptakes Tc-99 from lower trophic levels, resulting in bioaccumulation in edible flesh. Bioaccumulation and dose factors for salt water species are dis-cussed in more detail in USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.109 (Rev.1, October 1977).23 The current NRC model for Tc-99 indicates that for periods of about 1,000 years after the initial release, the average individual radiation dose commitment per curie of Tc-99 released to gaseous and liquid pathways would be about 9 x 10 8 mrem per year and 3 x 10 8 mrem per year (total body risk equivalent dose), respectively.12 Most of the accumulated doses accrue in the gastroin-testinal tract and kidney. Essentially, the entire radiation dose to U.S.

NUREG-0332 2-7

populations from I-I29 and Tc-99 up to 1,000 years into the future results from the first pass of these nuclides in the United States.

2.1.4 Health Effects Models The area of radiogenic health effects modeling is one that has undergone con-siderable growth during the last decade. More is known about the effects of radiation exposure than those of most other agents of biological stress. How-ever, there is considerable controversy concerning the effects of low-level ionizing radiation in spita of the fact that no reliable studies have been able to show a statistically significant increase in latent cancer risk at low doses and low-dose rates. The reader is referred to the 1980 report of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR III)24 for the most up-to-date and authoritative information on this i subject. The risk estimators derived from the BEIR III report concerning exposure to low-level low linear energy transfer (LET) radiation are summarized in Tables 2 and 3 and are the basis for the estimates of latent cancer risk from low LET radiation in this analysis. Estimates of the risk from high LET exposure (for example, to the progeny of Rn-222) are also based on guidance given in BEIR III. The risk estimators used for lung and bone cancer resulting from Rn-222 emissions from uranium mines and mills were 70 and 4 deaths per 108 person-rem, respectively, and were derived by using the BEIR III linear model.

It must be stressed that all such estimates are potential because the actual risks may be much smaller, and for low LET radiation could include zero risk (Ref. 24, p. 187).

To identify possible counterpoint to the current health effects models used in this assessment, it is noted that a recent monograph 2s has concluded that exposure to radiation up to certain levels may act as a stimulant to biological systems and result in increased life expectancy, greater reproduction, reduced mortality, and so forth. This hypothesis, called radiation hormesis. is sup-ported by over 1,000 documented studies with plants and animals. The studies with mammals indicate that radiation doses of about 10 rem per year represent an optimum for maximum benefit. If radiation exposures did in fact increase life expectancy, then the observed increased risk of cancer could be consistent with such a hypothesis, since cancer rates increase exponentially in old age.

Although the radiation biology community has not yet carefully examined this hypothesis, this new information will be reviewed in the years ahead. If proven, this hypothesis will radically alter the health effects estimates ,

presented here and elsewhere, because low-level radiation doses would result '

in positive benefits in terms of a long healthy life perhaps at the cost of a greater lifetime risk of death from nonradiogenic cancer.

As yet no human data are available which clearly define the genetic risks of low-level radiation exposure, not even from the large group of survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki who were exposed to very high levels of radiation. As a result, the BEIR III authors found it necessary to rely primarily on animal data, which now span many consecutive generations of exposed animals. The genetic risk estimates derived from the BEIR III report are summarized in Table 4 and were used in this analysis. These estimates represent expected genetic risk from exposure of one generation of parents over subsequent 3 generations of offspring (total time of several hundred years).

NUREG-0332 2-8 i

Table 2 Total latent cancer mortality per 10 8 person-rem

• l Male Female Both**

Dose / dose rate Acute exposure 144 158 151

< 25 rem Continuous exposur,e l

< 12 rem /yr 115 General public 107 123 Occupational i workers 97.6 (20-65 yrs) 81.8 113

• Based on Tables V-16 and V-19, BEIR III (Ref. 24). All estimates  !

should be rounded to two significant figures to avoid the unwarranted impression of great precision.

• • "Both" assumes equal numbers of both sexes (usually not so for occu-pational workers). l Table 3 Organ-specific cancer mortality per 106 person-rem I

Continuois exposure (<12 rem /yr)*

Acute exposure i General population Occupational workers  !

(< 25 rem) -

Type of cancer Male Female Both** Male Female Both** Male Female Both**

13.0 9.1 3.7 10.0 6.9 2.7 9.1 5.9 Thyroid 5.2 Lung 39.7 33.1 36.4 28.6 25.4 27.0 20.7 23.2 22.0 25.4 12.7 s0 19.5 9.8 +0 17.8 8.9 Breast *0 2.1 3.4 3.1 3.3 2. 5 2.4 2.5 1.8 2.2 l Esophageal 9.1 Stomach 15.1 14.6 14.9 10.9 11.3 11.1 7.9 10.3  !

6.9 7.0 5.0 5.3 5.2 3.6 4.8 4.2 l Intestinal 7.0 5.2 9.2 7.8 8.5 6. 6 6.0 6.3 4.8 5.5 Liver 7.7 5.6 7.0 6.3 Pancreatic 10.8 10.0 10.4 7.7 7. 7 4.5 4.2 2.8 3.5 3.2 2.1 3.2 2.6 Urinary 3.9 2.6 2.3 2.5 1.9 1. 7 1.8 1.3 1.6 1. 5 Lymphoma Leukemia and 20.9 15.7 18.3 i l bone *** 27.4 18.6 23.0 22.7 16.1 19.4 Other 20.0 18.3 19.2 14.3 14.1 14.2 30.4 12.9 11.7 l

151.0 107.0 123.0 115.0 81.8 113.0 97.6  !

Totals 144.0 158.0 j

• Lifetime exposure for general population; exposure between ages 20 and 65 for I

occupational workers.

• • "Both" assumes equal numbers of both sexes (usually not so for occupational workers).

• • • Bone represents approximately 2.2% of total for leukemia and bone cancer combined.

Based on Tables V-I4 to V-16, BEIR III (Ref. 24). j Source: l NUREG-0332 2-9 l

l; i

l Table 4 Genetic risk per 108 liveborn

• l l

l Genetic effect Range Geometric mean ~

i Autosomal dominant and X-linked disorders40-200 89 (factor of 12.2) ,

I Irregularly inherited '

disorders20-900 130 (factor of 6.7) {

Overall risk 60-1,100 I = 220

• Assuming one live birth per person per generation surviving to reproduce  ;

(zero population growth), the risks are approximately the same per  ;

108 person-rem (high or low LET radiation). '

Source: Based on Table IV-2, BEIR III (Ref. 24).

2.1.5 Uncertainties in Radiation Risk Assessment The uncertainties in analyses such as those presented in this report can be quite large or fairly small, depending on their source. For example, extrapo-lation of health ef fects into the future, by necessity, results in very large uncertainties (one or more orders of magnitude, depending on how distant the upper limit of the integral is). All these estimates are only semiquantitative in nature and are based on considerable professional judgment. On the other hand, estimates of deaths (both radiological and accidental) among miners can

) reasonably be based on recent experience and are probably accurate to within a factor of 2 or 3.

Large uncertainties in predictions of future risk come from several sources, of which the following are of major importance:

1. It is, and always will be, impossible to accurately estimate future popu-lation dose commitments because it is impossible to accurately project the size of the populations at risk.

2. The health risks associated with radiation exposure (cancer and genetic effects) change with time as societies change. Such changes cannot be predicted over long periods.

Let us now examine some of the reasons for these statements. Consider, for l example, that the U.S. Bureau of the Census claims about 125% accuracy in its best population projections over the next 50 years provided "there will be no large-scale war, widespread epidemic, or other major catastrophe."2s Projec-tions beyond 50 years are obviously far less likely to be accurate and I

meaningful, although they can be made based on selected assumptions. For more discussion in this area, see References 27-36.

l NUREG-0332 2-10

1 l

l The easiest course -is to assume that everything will stay basically the same j as it is today, allowing the U.S. population to grow to 300 million over the  !

next 50 years, and remain stable for the rest of this millenium. Although j j

experience has proven beyond any reasonable doubt,that the only thing that is constant is change, if one is willing to pretend a little, perhaps it is pos- 1 sible to estimate the U.S. population to within a factor of 3 or 4 during the l It may even be possible to estimate the U.S. population over l next 100 years. 1 the next 1,000 years to within a factor of 5 or 10.

The second major source of uncertainty comes from the recognition that the potential risks from low-level radiation are strongly dependent on the charac-teristics of the exposed population and the capabilities of future medical  ;

ptactice. Consider the differences between the 1900 and 1970 U.S. populations in terms of mortality risks. As shown in Table 5, deaths from cancer and cardio- f vascular disease were not as great in 1900 as they were in 1970. Therefore, the somatic risks from radiation exposure were probably also less per person-rem, because cancer, whatever the causes, is primarily a disease of old age. In 1900, life expectancy at birth was at.out 45 years; by 1970, it had increased to over 70 years. Because more people survive diseases that previously would i have killed them before they reached age 40, the lifetime risk of radiogenic I

{

Table 5 Comparison of causes of mortality in U.S. populations, j 1900 and 1970 l l

c Deaths /100,000 population i I

Change in risk o' Cause of death 1900 1970 mortality by 1970 i Tuberculosis 194.4 2.6 Factor of 75 lower Typhoid and paratyphoid fever 31.3 0.05 Factor of 600 lower Diphtheria 40.3 0.05 Factor of 800 lower j 64.0 162.8 Factor of 2.5 higher Cancer Major cardiovascular Factor of 1.4 higher and renal diseases 345.2 496.0 Influenza and pneumonia 202.2 30.9 Factor of 6.5 lower ,

Gastritis, duodenitis, enteritis, and colitis 142.7 0.6 Factor of 240 lower f Accidents (including motor vehicle) 72.3 56.4 Factor of 1.3 lower j Other major diseases 58.4 35.1 Factor of 1.7 lower /

1 Overall 1,150.8 784.4 Factor of 1.5 lower l 4

Source: Reference 37. j NUREG-0332 2-11

cancer has gradually increased since 1900, and may continue to do so until i' some means is found to prevent or cure it.38 46 We can hope the future will bring change for the better, but in this analysis, it will be assumed that conditions will remain almost the same as they are today for the next century.

Beyond that, it is probable that the risks from radiogenic cancer and genetic  !

effects will be much less than they are today because of medical and techno- j logical advances. The uncertainties in current health effects modeling are l probably about a factor of 5 or 10, but may increase with the time integral to I one or more orders of magnitude during the next millenium. The competing risks associated with future catastrophic events such as an uncontrolled Greenhouse Effect would be an added source of uncertainty in estimating the risks of low-level radiation exposure (see Sec. 3.3.1 for more details). These uncertainties can only be imagined and will not he considered in this analysis. Additional discussions of these problems can be found in other works.4 23 27 34 ss 47 48 2.1.6 Collective Population Dose Commitments and Potential Health linpacts 2.1.6.1 Radiation Risks to the General Public The detailed results of the calculations using the radiological source terms and models just discussed are presented in Tables 6 and 7. In general, only those radionuclides that could result in dose commitments in excess of about 1 person-rem are identified in the tables. The rest are summed under the category "Other. " The combined potentia' health impacts of radionuclides in both gaseous and liquid effluents are summarized in Table 8.

H-3, C-14, Kr-85, and I-129 also contribute to exposure of populations outside '

the United States. However, most of the world population dose commitments during the next 1,000 years from H-3, I-129, and Rn-222 would be due to the first pass exposure of the U.S. population, and the population dose would not significantly change if the world population were considered. In the case of C-14, however, the world population dose would be about 5 times greater than  !

that to the United States for the next 100 years, and about 10 times greater j than that to the United States over the next 1,000 years. Similarly, the j Kr-85 population dose to the world would be about 20 times greater than that to the United States. Examination of Tables 6 and 7, however, shows that these increases could result in about 60 to 70% increases in the total cancer risk and 140 to 230% increases in the genetic risks shown in Table 8. Given the much larger uncertainties in projecting health impacts on other populations in the world (because of differences in life expectancies, spontaneous cancer mortality, and competing risks), the relatively conservative estimates pre-sented for the United States could be considered to reasonably reflect the can er risk to the entire world from the U.S. nuclear fuel cycle.

The risk of developing cancer is, in general, greater than the cancer mortality because some cancers (for example, thyroid) have a relatively small risk of mortality. BEIR III indicates that the overall cancer incidence for external or whole-body exposure is about 1.5 to 2 times higher than mortality.24 How-ever, because a large fraction of the fuel-cycle cancer mortality is from bone and lung cancer (from Rn-222 releases), which have an assumed 100% mortality in the BEIR III models, the overall fuel-cyle incidence should not be much greater than the mortality.

NUREG-0332 2-12

Table 6 Collective U.S. General population dose commitments and potential health impacts resulting from the release of Caseous radioactive ef fluents f rom normal operations of the nuclear fuel cycle per CW(e) yr*

Dose commitments (person-rem). Potential health impacts Total Potential Potential Source Total body-risk latent cancer genetic of dose Thyroid equivalent mortality effects commitment Nuclide body Bone Lung 720 2,600 520-1,900 - 210-740 0.063-0.22 0.012 0.042 Uranium mines Rn-222 53-190 15-120 200-1,600 150-1,200 - 58 460 Uranium mills Rn-222 42 0.033-0.15 0.013-0.036 and tellir.gs Ra-226 42 45 <1 -

Other 0.83 28 31 - 9.3

- - 16 0.011 0.013 0.020-0.024 light-water- H-3 16 -

- - 54-71 cooled nuclear C-14 54-71 -

11 power plants Co-60 11 Kr-25 <1 - - - <1 Xe-133 4. 8 - - - 4.8 1-131 <1 <1 <1 61** <1 Other 6.4 13 +1 +1 6.8

- - 230 0.050 0.055 0.092-0.10 Fuel reproc- H-3 230 -

essing plants C-14 130-170 - - -

130-170 Kr-85 28 - - -

28 1-131 <1 <1 <1 120** <1 C5-134 9.9 - - - 9.9 Cs-137 15 - - -

15 Other 2. 8 39 1.4 <1 + 3.3 Geologic 0.0040 0.0012 repository 1-129 5.5 - -

440 33 100- to 1000 yr 0.14-0.20 totals 0.16-0.44

• Totals are for time periods of 100 and 1000 years into the future when ranges are given. The impacts of all o*ber fuel-cycle facilities are insignificant by comparison and result in population dose commitments of less I than 1 person-tem each. J

• • A dose effectiveness facter of 1/10 is applied in computing thyroid cancer risk from exposure to 1-131 because 1 131 is only about 10% as ef fective as X-rays, gamma rays, or other fodine isotopes (see, for example, Ref. 20, pp. 9-26, and Ref. 24, pp. 353-354).

l Table 7 Collective U.S. general population dose commitments and potential health impacts resulting from the release of liquid radioactive effluents from normal operations of the nuclear fuel cycle per GW(e) yr*

Oose commitments (person-rem) Potential health impacts Total Potential Potential Source body-risk latent cancer genetic Total of dose equivalent mortality effects l commitment Nuclide body Bone Lung Thyroid  !

i UFs conversion <1 125 0.038 0.026 plants Ra-226 120 130 <1

- 5.3 0.0008 0.0014 l Light-water- H-3 5.3 - -

cooled nuclear 1-131 <1 <1 <1 19"* <1 Cs-137 s1 - - - %1 power plants 0.039 0.027 Totals "The impacts of all other fuel-cycle f acilities are insignificant by comparison and result in population cose commitments of less than 1 person-rem each.

• • A dose-effectiveness factor of 1/10 is applied in computing thyroid cancer risk from exposure to I-131 because 1-131 is only about 10% as effective as X-rays, gamma rays, or other iodine isotopes (see, for example, Ref. 20, pp. 9-26, and Ref. 24, pp. 353-354).  ;

NUREG-0332 2-13

Table 8 Summary of potential health impacts among the U.S.

general population from normal operations of the nuclear fuel cycle per GW(e) yr*

Source of Potential latent Potential dose commitment cancer mortality genetic effects Uranium mines 0.063-0.22 0.012-0.042 Uranium mills and tailings 0.033-0.15 0.013-0.036 UFs conversion plants 0.038 0.026 Light-water-cooled nuclear power plants 0.012-0.014 0.021-0.025 Fuel reprocessing plants 0.050-0.055 0.092-0.10 Geologic repository 0.0040 0.0012 Totals 0.20-0.48 0.17-0.23

• Where ranges are given, the values represent impacts for 100- and 1,000 year environmental dose commitments, respectively. Impacts from other facilities are too small to change the totals.

Finally, lest it be forgotten, a radiological risk is associated with almost any human activity, including tilling the soil (Rn-222 releases and resuspen-sion of naturally occurring potassium-40 (K-40) to the air where it can be inhaled); congregating for scientific conferences (K-40 gamma rays from inter-nal depositions in attendees); building tight energy-efficient homes, particu-larly with brick and stone (K-40 and Rn-222 releases from the building mate-rials); or generating electricity by coal combustion (principally uranium-238 (U-238), U-235, thorium-230 (Th-230), radium-226 (Ra-226), Rn-222, and K-40 emitted with the fly ash as discussed in Sec. 3.1.1). These releases may have public radiological risks that are comparable to those from normal opera-tion of the nuclear fuel cycle.85'49 66 i I

furthermore, Cohen 56 has calculated that, over geologic times, the nuclear fuel cycle may even save hundreds of human lives, resulting in a negative health risk per GW(e) yr. This idea, which surely deserves a special title (the " Cohen Effect," analogous to the "Suess Effect" for coal combustion),* is based on the fact that the uranium fuel cycie removes U-235 and U-238 from the uranium ore for use as fuel, leaving the balance of the decay chain headed by Th-230.

Because Th-230 has a half-life that is only about 0.002% that of U-238, the emanation of Rn-222 from uranium mill tailings is greatly reduced over billions of years relative to undisturbed ore, since erosion of the continent will con-tinually bring the uranium ore to the surface of the earth. Such calculations over billions of years into the future must be considered with caution because "H. E. Suess, "The Radioactivity of the Atmosphere and Hydrosphere," Annual Review of Nuclear Science. 8, 243, 1958.

NUREG-0332 2-14

of the uncertainties in populations and cancer risk over long periods. However, they should give second thoughts to those who calculate health risks associated with the uranium mill tailings and the nuclear fuel cycle over billions of years.

2.1.6.2 Occupational Radiation Risks With regard to occupational radiation risks from the nuclear fuel cycle, the GESMO and Table S-3 (10 CFR Part 51) analyses provide a detailed current a<sess-ment of occupational dose commitments.6'84 0 These estimates and the potential health risks are summarized in Table 9. Because most of the occupational dose commitments are from whole-body exposures to external radiation sources, no breakdown by radionuclides is practical. Only in the case of uranium miners do the risks from internally deposited radioactivity (short-lived Rn-222 progeny in the bronchi of the lungs) become of great importance. It should be noted that the major source of genetic risk among workers in the nuclear fuel cycle comes from nuclear power plant exposures. It is also worth noting that the total cancer and genetic risks over the next century for the nuclear fuel cycle (per JW(e) yr) are almost equally divided between workers (0.25 and 0.17, respectively) and the general public (0.20 and 0.17, respectively). However, because of the small number of nuclear workers, the average individual risks for workers or their descendants are much higher than for the general public, although still small compared with the ncrmal risks of these effects among non-nuclear workers, or careers associated with expost.res to nonradiological agents (for example, vinyl chloride, asbestos, and benzene).87'78 A recent report to Ge President indicates that occupational exposure to such carcinogens is believed to be a factor in more than 20% of all cases of cancer, ,

l while an unknown number of persons are at risk because of the seepage of car-cinogenic chemicals into domestic water supplies from waste dumps and other j

types of exposure.67 2.1.6.3 Radiological Health Risks From Accidents The potential health risks resulting from catastrophic accidents in the nuclear fuel cycle appear to be dominated by the risks associated with only a few of the most serious potential accidents in nuclear power plants.88 In particular, the Reactor Safety Study showed that most of the total risk of all potentially serious nuclear accidents depends on only a few types of accidents in either pressurized water reactors or boiling water reactors. Even though the probabil-ities cf occurrence for these particular types of accidents are estimated to be exceedingly small, the potential health consequences could be very high during such an accident, approaching in total numbers an amount equal to the annual death rate of U.S. highways.

The Reactor Safety Study estimated that the potential risk of cancer mortality from nuclear power plant accidents was 0.02 deaths per year of operation for a 1,000-MW(e) plant, and that the risk of early or acute fatalities from high radiation exposure was more than one hundredfold smaller. These estimates were based on an application of probabilistic risk assessment methodology and contain substantial uncertainties. An independent peer review of the Reactor Safety Study, entitled " Risk Assessment Review Group Report to the U.S. Nuclear NUREG-0332 2-15

Table 9 Collective occupational dose commitments and potential health impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle per GW(e) yr Dose commitments (person-rem) Potential heaYth impacts

• Source Total Potential Potential of dose Total body-risk latent cancer genetic commitment body Bone Lung Thyroid equivalent mortality effects Uranium mines 88 360 1,400 250 470 0.096 0.019 Uranium mills 88 440 1,000 40 370 0.076 0.019 ufo conversion plants <1 10 6.9 <1 2.3 0.0005 s0 Enrichment plants <1 5.9 14 <1 6.2 0.0013 s0 002 fuel fabrication plants 12 4.4 450 <1 130 0.027 0.0026 Light-water-cooled nuclear power plants 560 - - -

560 0.046 0.12 Irradiated fuel storage 3.6 - - -

3.6 0.0003 0.0008 Reprocessing 28 - - -

28 0.0023 0.0062 Transportation 1.8 - - -

1.8 0.0001 0.0004 Waste management <1 - - -

<1 s0 s0 Totals 0.25 0.17

" Based on an essentially all-male population of workers.

Sources: References 6 and 8-10.

Regulatory Commission," pointed out: "We are unable to define whether the overall probability of a core melt given in WASH-1400 is high or low, but we are certain the error bands are understated."*

i Uncertainties in the risk estimates arise from such varied sources as incom- l pleteness of the data base for component and system failure rates, and uncer-tainties associated with human error and operator intervention, with the data base for severe external events (for example, earthquakes), and with the mathematical modeling of complex physical phenomena associated with accident sequence events. These sources of uncertainty include both pessimistic (conservative) and optimistic (nonconservative) factors so that there is at least a tendency for them to balance to some extent. '

l 1

"H. W. Lewis et al., " Risk Assessment Review Group Report to the U.S. Nuclear '

Regulatory Commission," USNRC Report NUREG/CR-0400, September 1978.

NURFu-0332 2-16

The risk estimate for cancer mortality included the application of so-called dose and dose-rate effectiveness factors, which reduced the " upper bound" risk by a factor of 2. In the absence of BEIR III guidance, it is felt that, although.there are sound radiobiological reasons for these factors (for example, biological repair mechanisms), it is prudent to raise the WASH-1400 risk estimate to 0.04 deaths per GW(e) yr and this is the value entered in the summary, Table 14. It is important to note, that even if the catastrophic risks of nuclear power are as much as 100 times greater than the 0.02 death estimated in the Reactor Safety Study, catastrophic accidents could result in about two deaths (acute fatalities and latent cancers) per GW(e) yr. This increase, combined with those from normal operations, would make the total i risks from the nuclear fuel cycle approximately equal to the low end of the range of total mortality risks from the coal fuel cycle. Furthermore, as will be shown later, these risks are small in relation to the everyday, more familiar risks (for example, cigarette smoking, travel, and recreation).

2.1.6.4 Perspectives on Radiation Risk It lends perspective to compare the potential health impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle just calculated by comparing them with other more commonplace l

risks, even though many of these risks result from voluntary individual activities. It must also be kept in mind that the lower-bound radiological risks, particularly those among the public, may actually be zero for low doses  ;

and dose rates of low LET radiation. The following comparisons areThe not intended to be all inclusive, and other comparisons are possible.

calculated health risks among the general public associated with these exposures are for the U.S. general population. No attempts were made to quantify equities and temporal and spatial distributions of risks because these quantifications are presently beyond the state of the art (see Sec. 4 for further discussion of these issues).  ;

Naturally occurring background radiation is the first comparison shown in Table 10. The major sources for these doses are cosmic rays and terrestrial radioactivity, which r;; ult ,in both external and internal exposeres.24es9seo Similar risks to the same population from other common sources of radiation exposure, such as medical X-rays and color-television viewing, are the comparisons shown next in Table 10.24.ssoso l Table 11 shows comparisons of the naturally occurring risks of health impacts in the U.S. population.61'e2 Finally, comparisons between the radiological 88 mortality risks to occupational workers and more familiar mortality risks (generally from causes that lead to larger losses of life expectancy than does radiogenic cancer) are presented in Tabic 12.

These comparisons clearly demonstrate that the lifetime risks associated with the nuclear fuel cycle are extraordinarily small for the U.S. general popula-tion when compared with other everyday risks people face with relatively mild trepidation. Some possible reasons for the apparent differences in public and However, even expert perceptions of these risks are presented in Section 4.

if all the electricity in the United States were to be produced by the nuclear fuel cycle, the additional risk would represent less than a 0.01% increase in the risk of mortality from all other causes.

l t

NUREG-0332 2-17

l Table 10 Comparisons of the potential health risks among the U.S. general population from the nuclear fuel cycle per GW(e) yr with similar risks from other sources of radiation exposure Potential health risks-Population total body- Potential dose commitments latent cancer Potential genetic source of radiation exposure (person-res) deaths effects Average for U.S. from nuclear fuel cycle for 100 yr per CW(e) yr 1,700* 0.20 0.17 Average for U.S. from natural background radiation

(* 102 arem/yr) 22,000,000 2,500 4,800 Average for Denver, CO, from natural background radiation

(* 180 mres/yr) 180,000 21 40 Average for U.S. from television viewing

(* 1 mree/yr from low-energy X rays) 220,000 25 48 Average for U.S. from diagnostic M-rays

(* 72 mrem /yr) 16,000',000 1,800 3,500

• This includes both external total body doses and specific organ doses from internally deposited radio-nuclides. The genetically significant dose is about 750 person rem.

Sources: References 24, 59, and 60.

Table 11 Normal annual risk of mortality among the U.S. general population Source of risk Risk of mortality All causes of death 2,100,000 Major cardiovascular diseases 1,100,000 Total cancers 400,000 Smoking cigarettes 300,000 All accidents 120,000 Automobile driving accidents 57,000 Falls 17,000 Fires and hot substances 7,000 Drowning 6,200 Accidental poisoning by drugs and medications 2,400 Air travel accidents 1,500 Accidental electrocution (regardless of how the electricity is generated) 1,100 Railway travel accidents 660 Lightning 88 Nuclear fuel cycle per GW(e) yr 0.24*

Substitution of a coal-fired plant for a nuclear plant (based on estimates in the next section for the entire fuel cycle) 6,1-12**

• Would approximately triple if risks to workers were included.

• • Would increase by about 20 to 30% if risks to workers were included.

Sources: References 61 and 62.

NUREG-0332 2-18

Table 12 Lifetime mortality risks numerically equivalent to the potential risks of mortality associated with occupational radiation exposures Type of activity 1 rem 25 rem (emergency)* 45 rem / lifetime **

Smoking cigarettes 1 carton 25 cartons 0.5 cigarette / day *** ;

Drinking wine 66 bottles 33 bottles /yr*** 1 bottle /wk*** ]

Automobile driving 6,600 miles 3,300 miles /yr*** 5,900 miles /yr*** f Commercial flying 33,000 miles 17,000 miles /yr*** 30,000 miles /yr*** {

Rock climbingt 3.3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> 10 days 18 days Canoeingt 1.6 days 1.3 months 2.4 months Being a man aged 60 1.8 days 1.5 months 2.7 months

• 25 rem in one exposure.

• • 1 rem per year for 45 years (ages 20 to 65). )

I

• • • Use--50 years (ages 20 to 70).

tActivity--8 hours per day.

Note: One bottle equals about 0.8 liter,1 mile equals about 1.6 km.

Source: Reference 63.

2.2 00.w Potential Impacts of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle  ;

2.2.1 Nonradiological Risks From Accidents Some additional risks (other than cancer and genetic effects) involved in occu-pational activities (mostly mining) come from estimates in the latest National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report by the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems (CONAES).4 This analysis indicates the following mortality risks per GW(e)-yr: (1) mining, 0.2 death; (2) processing, 0.001 death; (3) transport, 0.01 death; and (4) power generation, 0.01 death, or a total of about 0.22 accidental death per GW(e) yr. A similar CONAES estimate for total accidental injuries per GW(e)-yr for the entire nuclear fuel cycle is 20 injuries per GW(e) yr. A value of 7 is shown in a 1973 Council on Environ-mental Quality (CEQ) report S4 (Table A-1), which gives the following breakdown on accidental injuries per GW(e) yr: (1) mining, 4.6; (2) processing (UFs, enrichment, fabrication, reprocessing, waste management), 0.76; (3) transporta-tion, 0.06; and (4) light-water reactors, 1.7. Clearly, most of t'ese injuries are associated with accidents in uranium mines (that is, the pattern follows the one for accidental deaths).

2.2.2 Potential Impacts of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle on Ecosystems The 1979 CONAES report concluded that the potential ecological impacts of the i nuclear fuel cycle are similar in nature to those in the coal fuel cycle from coal mining. However, the quantitative impacts per GW(e) yr would be much smaller because the fuel needs and mining requirements are much less than those for the coal fuel cycle.4 NUREG-0332 2-19

The CONAES Risk and Impact Panel concluded that radiation risk to biota would be insignificant as long as individual members of the public were protected.* This finding is consistent with the NAS BEIR Committee conclusions.24.co In addition to the principal concerns associated with potential radiation impacts from the nuclear fuel cycle, the NRC and its predecessor, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, have summarized the other major impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle stated in 10 CFR Part 51 (see Ref. 9). Because 10 CFR Part 51 omits impacts from reactor operations, it was necessary to extract them from Reference 6-(GESMO Tables 5(A)-1 and IV J(E)-17). Major items of interest are summarized in Table 13. The environmental impacts, including thermal and chemical effects, are generally insignificant for modern nuclear facilities that are properly designed and sited.

2.2.3 Risks Associated With Proliferation and Terrorism Although this assessment does not address the potential health risks associated with proliferation of nuclear weapons and terrorism, these concerns have been evaluated by CONAES.* This committee is split on the issue of proliferation, 4 and no one can yet reasonably quantify the risks.  !

CONAES carefully examined the sociopolitical question of linkage between com-mercial nuclear power and the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons (see especially pp. 392-415 of Ref. 4). It was concluded that even a cessation of commercial nuclear power could not stop proliferation, because other less l expensive alternatives for producing weapon material (for example, that used by India) are readily available.

However, CONAES argued for the use of political barriers to reduce the rate of proliferation, with the belief that slower proliferation would allow institu-tions to evolve to the point where the risk of nuclear war would be comparable to or less than it is today. These barriers would include strengthening of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and placing fuel cycle operations involving weapons-usable material under international control. CONAES concluded that a potential linkage may exist between expansion of commercial nuclear power in the world and the risk of nuclear war, but it is at most a weak linkage.

Thus, in time, other sociopolitical controls must be developed or proliferation could occur with or without a commercial nuclear power program.

CONAES noted that many energy sources face the terrorist threat. Examples are dams and fuel-storage facilities for oil, natural gas, liquefied fuels, and so forth. However, the risks of terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities (or diver-sion of nuclear materials) are easier to control thu those on the other sources because the areas are smaller and the number of personnel involved is less, making security tighter and facilities more defensible. Levels of security now required in nuclear facilities are not greatly different from those used in high-security projects, such as the Manhattan Project or in the protection of the gold at Fort Knox, which have succeeded in their objectives. Historically, personnel clearance for employment has been used routinely in the past without l -

• Personal communication from Dr. James Crow, Chairman of the Risk and Impact Panel, August 13, 1982.

l NUREG-0332 2-20 1

Table 13 Summary of other environmental considerations for the nuclear fuel cycle per GW(e)-yr Supporting nuclear fuel Light-water- Total Natural resource use cycle cooled reactors (approximate).

Land (acres) 28 10 38 Disturbed Committed 16 0.2 16 Water (millions of gallons)

Discharged to air 200 8,180 8,400 Discharged to water bodies 13,900 8,180 22,000 j Discharged to ground 160 - 160 i Plant effluents to atmosphere

(' metric tons)

Sulfur oxides 5,500 120 5,600 Nitrogen oxides 1,490 69 1,600 l

Hydrocarbons 18 5.0 23 Carbon monoxide 37.3 4.5 42 Particulate 1,443 16 1,500 Fluoride 0.84 -

0.84 Chloride 0.018 - 0.018 l

Plant effluents to water bodies (metric tons)

Sulfates 12.4 3,470 3,500 Nitrates 32.3 -

32 Fluorides 16.1 -

16 Calcium 6.8 -

6.8 Chloride 10.6 297 310 Sodium 15.1 -

15 Ammonia 12.5 -

13 Iron 0.5 -

0.5 Thermal (billions of 72,000 British thermal units [ Btu]) 5,079 66,900 Note: I acre equals 0.405 hectare; 1 gal equals 3.8 liters; 1 metric ton equals l 2,240 lb; 1 Btu equals 252 gm-calories. l l Source: Reference 6.

significant compromise of civil liberties. Thus, it is reascnable to believe that the same objective can be reached for the commercial nuclear fuel cycle.

Furthermore, CONAES concluded that high-security protection would add little i to the cost of nuclear power.4 NUREG-0332 2-21

2.3 Summary and Conclusions The health impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle per GW(e) yr estimated in this assessment are summarized in Table 14. Although any breakdown of potential health impacts represents an unusual mixture of items, it is clear that the potential impacts on the general public and occupational workers for the entire nuclear fuel cycle are small.in absolute numbers, and in relation to other everyday risks. Although one may argue that cancer risks to occupational workers are accepted voluntarily and the public's cancer risks are involuntary in nature, this distinction changes neither the pain and economic distress suffered nor the cost to society in the loss of one of its members because of i a premature death (see Sec. 4 for more discussion on this issue). Furthermore, occupational risks, which must be borne by any worker regardless of occupation, ,

may be dictated by forces (for example, economics, chance, and tradition) beyond .l the control of most workers, obscuring the distinction between the voluntary or involuntary nature of the risks. In that respect, the total cancer risks may be additive. In addition, other potentially greater occupational cancer risks (for example, those resulting from exposure to industrial solvents and dusts), have not been included because data concerning these risks are not readily available.

However, the 1980 Report to the. President by the Toxic Substances Strategy Committee indicates that occupational exposure to carcinogens (primarily nonradiological) may be a factor in more than 20% of all cases of cancer.57 It is also interesting to note the extent of the impact of the coal fuel cycle on the nuclear fuel cycle if (using the estimates from Table 14 and Sec. 3 of this report) it is assumed that the 0.056 GW(e) yr of electric power needed to operate the nuclear fuel cycle per GW(e) yr comes entirely from coal power.

Because most of this energy is currently used for uranium enrichment, and much pf the power is, in fact, derived from coal combustion, such additions are probably not unreasonable.

It should now be obvious that it is not possible to live without being at risk.

Yet needless risk can and should be avoided if the incremental reduction in risk can justify the expenditure of public res'ources. This important criterion for making such decisions was best stated by the NAS Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation:

The public must be protected from radiation but not to the extent that the degree of protection results in substitution of a worse ha-zard for the radiation avoided. Additionally, there should not be attempted the reduction of small risks even further at the cost of large sums of money that, spent otherwise, would clearly produce greater benefit. (Ref. 60, p. 2)

The environmental impacts of the chemical and thermal releases summarized in Table 13 are not significant for a well-sited nuclear power plant, and as noted by CONAES, the potential ecological impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle Per GW(e) yr are similar in kind but, with the exception of thermal releases,*

much smaller than those of the coal fuel cycle.4

• The overall thermal efficiency of a modern coal-fired plant is somewhat higher than that of a nuclear power plant. As a result, the thermal releases to the hydrosphere are less for a modern coal-fired plant.

NUREG-0332 2-22

l x

6 e a De Z k

• "o 4 + ese M C O 9" -

N. C

• @ ee + *=

M

• • O O o O N N e ,

a- 6^

• MM e

m ed e CO N e4 e I l

• • V 2 uJ w") f e e eO Ch O m e e M e

• J

{

V + C **

e O. m. o. O. e .8 M. C. N b l O

• .'s e+ M me en O. C m w we O O O O CD CD L l e

N e O b N eA

% N Ch O's N

• h C. O. -

en U e- m, to.

- en- + ^ en. N. O O (O.  !

.m,e- co -. O O e N

e e

O e O. -e -E

+ w e e c0 N C O +3 @N @ ** m O w O w

e p- b 4s e

O. O. O. N. N. E O m. M. O. O.

O E O O O O O O O O ea

> b

• - em ed ep en wy

+3 en c= C e h N m O

& WC D O

e er O D w N N e=e -es .e6 A &

v is es- Ch ^ O.

O. e=e. V *= CV A  % et T .

O M. G N b Q U G N ** meo O O O o N O m as- E6 b e 6 e ed ed

• b U@ e.

b N m e=e N s-s O CD m e

C C *E e

• C ei ce M N O's

+8 & C

= 0 @

E O. O. O. t O. O. O. N. *J en

- ts p 4, O O en A O eJ D U C O O O O

• O O W

@ es W CE u, 4

• a-C D es C DL - 4 CD w W4 D g wh to b ed C E O D

@ . G L -M D

.C w** O V ed es- es.

+s .eJe in e u em w N @ N a- -O j b cc

@w eO CL w Ch sw o @ wea m ed C j

O N O O N . Se en- ** D e=e N M O O C C 0 1 O v Q *=4 O. O- Es @** 1 46 y . C. . 4 4 -

A A i Os 8

h O O O O O O e e O ee. g ed V

== 0@ <'

^ A b b

@ e.- b e m. en- . l w

h W^ > @ ,

.5 -u e e

Cw en C 6 I O e.

@ ^ O b @ es & o-C 4 m es a an @

@ W CD en ed M b 3 N N Ch w-e 9 en b **

& Ch - N. O v mb w Q. ed 48 ^ C O - O. C. 3 N. *C en @

er O M C U -w e O O e O ~en en m

en Aw >

& C 4v >=. CD e

N M M@ Ss g

C e O

e N b e -V y en e

o. O 0 se @ b N O. M. a' e=.e N e e o@

et & - N Ch O e eJ T b ** W O D **

C C O O O CA O O

-*J - *

• O. a O. O. w a meC as e sa 0-e v @

O O O w ee- @ V ea * *6 C

- ** C O f f C 9 l l C mV e4 > i D -47 Mh a h O. *E==- W WC9U TT - 1 O +3 L -

> OCv C ea

% @ 4= m C C,

4 So

+4 U

C C

O U e=e

.C 4 e e b,

M O9 -t- es e N. en & CLD O en b a Cm U *-* * ^ e N D N N @ as- Og 3 D C laJ N Ow ed O*- O M N,  % @ e b O e4 W .W ad. C O O. DC D @ O N, 'ae O LI C@

-2 U C O O b O mCE O +J O 6-

• • v O. O. O. *

• 4 em m o O O * * / es ? A t w ar- e O # #

O C -eJ J

+* -U ew N&

b D

C .Gs e .U .a D ,

z n M es j hb *

• • I en en es en L as .E s- u C M%

C7 ** +J es t- er

+4 C C 9 en b ** il O E V +-

• - N W w es *= c 1 E .e as- gi e, 4 *V ee

• es ew m @ es= 3 en 9 C'J 5 OW =

(O.

b N &=

• es en ue *J w m N O er e4 e e4 V b

• • 9 4 4 *ae e e e N T h 4 e*= e @ e @ O C6 -

en C

• en en C @ N O 4A e e.n

• ed O aW b -81 5 - O . N. N. O. 4 e e e C e M C e e

• N O p at Cv z w O se so W eO R O en 3 es 4

• T h C G% Cea

-+4 ** C O b m @N *** M N Ch h g -*

• a .O*

Z ~ mu ca O s-e *=5 N en en. m. s.

6 -@

.U W eJV D C C D e

- U b f J. O. O. O. e a e N. 4 ae b -b >

e o E O

() O O O e e s O E # Al g e=

e C, e .a O M

-.A U C C *w 0, e- s'e e en. C g

-9 Cn *es Ob O *v O O Z *J **

a

• D w en u = en eg en be *=.

ese m es b m- 3 N Ch N A D @ is. C & 9 N

O e> h 4

e- CD

^

C O

- ed. O.

O O.

O en

.O @ en- ** v m - ==- C cp D

= e >CD E en h ew O O b N O en O eE b C *#

M s

• e e

N e

O e

e e & C s & CL W VW 86 & =* b

• -e en O e w M et O.

b en en D ea ** G @N O + @ b ** es= C C 9 4 2 C, O. O. O. s O. O. O. N. e O@w e E E u. O s= ee e O O O e O O O O OwVe +3 en 2 3 D ed m 6. O en- m --

-O O se.=e4 m C OO *9 9 E -

@O Y Y O Ar b es*

e *e>L m A @ il ** C *a-CesW M CW C 4 (D. D =s= Cs- em te

&U

• e C O ^

D e O @ e=

e .- TT - gL

. ca. p -

-@ Om es-+8^ w ed MCO & 6@EW a 4 eC ce M  !

m CL U CL w @ @ O N m

2. O.

en e CL ed es C e m = E sa D @O w O O O m. b v O.

e*

O. O. O. O et N. @

O O .a seu eu e .CD- bW y

OO O O O 4

• O an f #we TTEC O 9 en

& .Cc .Cc *e 4 G>

O 633-

• --U 48 9D sa & -en C ODOe0 Q C C CL em med O C C 6 e>

• C C t 0

g -en L

O l'a, eaw+C 8

0>

as- e mmeV b b D .

e er e a J

Ch C vo e

v -e w - es b en O OC O enV 4 D ** W DTU b W C b 'O O &4 C C4 b *W *-C- V b, e@ C *e b= .Gr

• 4 Ch en en C gv 4w

• • U M 3

O N *-*-D==*P-3 ** 9 C O 3 C e +8 b * + - e et O- L- k O s' b e b e e se5 **

• EL mb DE & CL D P ed CE $ ) E Q4 NUREG-0332 2-23

l 3 POTENTIAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE C0AL FUEL CYCLE ,)

The coal fuel cycle has associated with it steps similar to those of the nuclear fuel cycle: resource recovery, fuel preparation, transportation, fuel combus-tion, and waste disposal. However, the impacts for each step may be much different in character and absolute numbers. Major differences in quantities of fuel required per reference reactor year (RRY) result from the fact that a much greater mass of coal must be mined and transported and more wastes must be disposed of than for the nuclear fuel cycle. For example, currently about 200 to 300 metric tons of U 303 are required to produce a gigawatt year of electric energy. Thus, for ore containing 0.11% Ua0s, about 180,000 to 250,000 metric tons of uranium must be mined to produce enough U3 0s for an RRY. This ore is then shipped a relatively short distance to a uranium mill where about 90% of the uranium is recovered for use as reactor fuel. This relatively small amount of material (yellow cake) is then transported rela-tively long distances throughout the balance of the fuel cycle. The balance of the ore becomes uranium mill tailings waste, which is generally disposed of at the mill, although much of it could be disposed of in below ground burial l at strip mines or worked-out underground mines, usually in fairly desolate I areas of the western United States.

Coal, on the other hand, must be mined in huge amounts, about 3 million metric tons per RRY, and transported relatively long distances for power generation, .

leaving about 300,000 metric tons of solid wastes per RRY at the power station l for disposal, usually near urban areas.

In the following sections, the discussion will highlight similarities and differences between the two fuel cycles beginning with comparisons of radio-logical impacts and ending with nonradiological impacts that are quite differ-ent (for example, acid precipitation and acid mine drainage, potential impacts of stable toxic trace metals and carcinogens, the Suess Effect, and the Green-house Effect). l As a result of the controversial nature of coal fuel cycle impacts, the author j has attempted to pull together numerous sources of information that are cur-  !

rently not available in a few good references. As a result, it may appear that more detail regarding the potential impacts of the coal fuel cycle is provided 1 However, a great deal more detailed informa-I than for the nuclear fuel cycle.

tion about potential impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle is readily available from a multitude of easily obtainable standard references for those who wish to pursue the subject further (see Sec. 2).

3.1 Potential Radiological. Health Impacts of the Coal Fuel Cycle i

Although knowledgeable scientists have long been aware that the coal fuel cycle l relcases significant amounts of naturally occurring radioactivity to the environ-ment, relatively few studies have been done to assess the potential impact of the entire coal fuel cycle. Those that have been published have dealt primarily with the potential impacts of coal combustion.51'65 70 Some of these studies NUREG-0332 3-1

\ _ - - _ _ - - _ - -

neglect food pathways, while none have completely considered the potential impact of atmospheric Rn-222 emissions, leaching of Ra-226 and other long-lived

-radionuclides from coal-cleaning wastes and coal ash piles over long periods of time (centuries), releases of naturally occurring radioactivity from coal mines, and solubilization of toxic metals from s.ediments in lakes and rivers due to acid mine drainage and acid precipitation. However, the release of stable carbon dioxide depleted in C-14 from fossil fuel combustion results in a dilution of the C-14 from natural and man-made radiocarbon in the world's atmosphere. The dilution, called the Suess Effect, then results in a reduction in the population dose from C-14. It has been claimed that these reductions.

result in a negative radiological impact for the coal fuel cycle.87 These and other considerations are discussed below.

3.1.1 Radiological Effluents and Potential Health Impacts of Radioactivity From Combustion of Coal Although two United Kingdom (U.K.) reports s2 70 are very recent and carefully done, they may not be representative of the impact of coal-fired power plants in the United States because of the much smaller land area and higher popula-tion densities near U.K. facilities as compared with those near modern coal-fired plants in the United States. As a result, a 1979 Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA) report 51 was used for this assessment. The EPA release esti-mates, normalized to a GW(e) yr, are shown in Table 15. The atmospheric dis-persion models are similar to those used for radioactive releases from the nuclear fuel cycle and will not be discussed. For a new station composed of two late-model coal-fired power plants (meeting EPA clean air standards), EPA estimated a range of 0.0067 to 0.29 fatal cancer per GW(e) yr among the total population within 80 km (50 miles) of the model station over a period of 100 years for rural and urban sites. This range would characterize most of these facilities in the United States. Population doses beyond 80 km were not ad-dressed, but would increase the risks in varying degrees, depending on whether the site was urban or rural. The range of population doses on which the EPA health impact assessments were based appears to include the U.K. estimatess2 7o discussed earlier, and those by McBride and coworkers.50 1

3.1.2 Potential Radiological Impacts Among Coal Miners  !

The estimate used in this report is from Reference 70, one of the U.K. reports because the author has not seen similar assessments for U.S. mines. It is uncertain how much different the doses would be in U.S. mines because much of current U.S. coal mining is from strip mines, but the U.K. estimate is 650 working-level months (WLMs) per GW(e) yr for underground coal mining. Using j the same health effects model as the one for Rn-222 exposures from the uranium fuel cycle (70 lung cancer deaths per 106 person-lung-rem) and assuming 6 rem per WLM (as recommended in the BEIR III report [Ref. 24]) yields 0.27 fatal lung i cancer among underground coal miners per GW(e) yr, approximately equal to the occupational risk (per GW(e) yr) for the entire nuclear fuel cycle. One would >

expect a smaller value for strip-mined coal because much of the radon would be dispersed during the strip-mining process.

3.1.3 Potential Long-Term Radiological Impacts of Coal Ash Piles A critical flaw exists in all the current evaluations of the potential long-term radiological impacts of coal combustion reviewed by the author. Those NUREG-0332 3-2

Table 15 Atmospheric emissions of radionuclides from EPA model of a new (.oal-fired station (2 units) per GW(e) yr*

Emissions f Radionuclides (Ci/GW(e) yr)

Uranium Series Uranium-238 4.2E-2 2,1E-2 Thorium-234 Uranium-234 4.2E-2 Thorium-230 2.1E-2 Radium-226 3.2E-2 Radon-222 2. 7 I Polonium-218 2 1E-2 Lead-214 4.2E-2 Bismuth-214 2.1E-2 Polonium-214 2.1E-2 l Lead-210 1.1E-1 Bismuth-210 2.1E-2 Polonium-210 1.1E-1 Actinium Series Uranium-235 2.1E-3 Thorium-231 1.0E-3 Protactinium-231 1.0E-3 Actinium-227 3.0E-3 Thorium-227 1.0E-3 Radium-223 1.4E-3 Radon-219 1.2E-1 j 1.0E-3 Polonium-215 Lead-211 1.0E-3 Bismuth-211 1.0E-3 Thallium-207 1.0E-3 Thorium Series Thorium-232 1.8E-2 Radium-228 2.8E-2 Actinium-228 1.8E-2 Thorium-228 1.8E-2 Radium-224 2.8E-2 Radon-220 2.2 {

Polonium-216 1.8E-2 i Lead-212 1.8E-2 l Bismuth-212 1.8E-2 Polonium-212 1.8E-2 Tha111um-208 1.8E-2  !

• These emission rates do not include contributions from any radio-  ;

l nuclides in scrubber reactants or coal ash wastes. Multiplied by 1.4 to convert to GW(e) yr basis (see Ref. 51, Table 4.4-8).

NUREG-0332 3-3

few studies (for example, Ref. 69) that mentioned the possibility of leaching uranium, thorium, radium, and other heavy radioactive elements from coal ash have failed to evaluate the potential leaching of heavy metals from coal ash piles over periods of tens or hundre.ds of years or longer, as well as the potential concurrent increase in Rn-222 emissions from the ash piles over i those periods.

Final decisions on the fate of coal ash produced in the future have not yet been made, making an assessment of this impact very uncertain. If flue gas desulfu-rization (FGD) sludges are neutralized and stabilized before being dumped with the ash, the likelihood of acid leaching of heavy metals from the vitrified ash will be reduced. However, the present practice is to dump the acidic FGD sludges with coal ash usually near or at the power plant because the disposal costs for 0.3 million to 0.5 million tons of these wastes per GW(e) yr are already quite high. The measurements of actual Rn-222 emissions from ash by Beck and others" (for example, using recently vitrified ash in distilled water) may not be relevant to long-term impacts because freshly vitrified material (a few years old or less) has not been subjected to enough weathering to provide a realistic estimate of the potential releases of Rn-222 as well as Ra-226 over decades or centuries. This fact is particularly true if acidic FGD sludges are also mixed with the ash. For example, if the acidic sludges were to leach half of the Ra-226 from the ash in 100 years, the radon-222 emanation rate per curie of Ra-226 from the leached ash would be comparable to that from Ra-226 in some uranium mill tailings because present-day recla-mation of coal ash (that is, a foot or so of dirt cover) would not greatly reduce the Rn-222 emanation rate. The estimated Ra-226 in the pile would be  ;

l about 2.7 Ci per GW(e) yr.51 For the subsequent 100 years, it would be reason-able to assume that the amount of Ra-226 leached into the interstitial pore space would gradually increase until a large fraction became available for l migration with ground water. Assuming that 50% of the Ra-226 in the coal ash is leached during 100 years, the Rn-222 emanation rate from an ash pile (with depths comparable to those cf unreclaimed uranium mill tailings) could be about 10 Ci per year per GW(e) yr. This rate can be compared with about 1 Ci per year per GW(e) yr during the 100 year period following reclamation of mill tailings required to meet current NRC standards for newly licensed uranium mills.71 The radiological risk from Rn-222 releases during the 100 year period following i production of 1 GW(e) yr by coal combustion, using the same models as for uranium tailings, would be about 0.005 cancer death. Cancer risks would prob-ably be higher for coal-fired plants located near large urban populations in the East (as opposed to those located in the Far West), and higher still for coal-fired stations using coal or lignite with higher-than-average concentra-tions of the uranium, actinium, and thorium series. The public health impacts from Rn-222 releases from coal ash waste conceivably could approach or exceed those from normal operation of the nuclear fuel cycle, particularly if present practices are not drastically altered.

Similarly, the leaching of Ra-226 from the coal fuel cycle to surface waters could result in radiological impact comparable to that of Ra-226 releases to l surface waters from the nuclear fuel cycle. The release of only about 0.13%

of the Ra-226 present in coal ash piles per GW(e) yr to the same river system assumed for the nuclear fuel cycle would result in the same public health risk (0.038 latent cancer death and 0.026 Genetic effect) as that from Ra-226 l NUREG-0332 3-4 l

1 released from the nuclear fuel cycle (UFs conversion plant) per GW(e) yr.

Release of a few percent or more of the Ra-226 in the coal ash pile could be comparable to the potential public health risk per GW(e) yr from the entire 1 nuclear fuel cycle including current estimated risks of catastrophic nuclear i I

accidents. However, on the average, the Rn-222 risks should be less, particu-larly if disposal methods for coal ash wastes are modified by stabilization of FGD sludges and reclamation practices are improved (for example, by use of clay caps or other less permeable cover). Although all these risks are small, con-siderable thought and care should be given coal-ash and FGD-sludge disposal to minimize leaching of Ra-226 and.the other 34 radionuclides also present in the ash (see Table 15) to public water supplies.

3.1.4 Potential Long-Term Radiological Impacts of Coal Cleaning, Acid Mine Drainage, and Acid Rain 1 As shown in the preceding section, only a small quantity of Ra-226 released to surface waters can cause a radiological impact on the public comparable to that i of the entire nuclear fuel cycle. However, because the content of Ra-226 (and l other natural nuclides) in coal is comparable to that in natural soil, it is j unlikely that the impact of these releases from coal cleaning, acid mine drain- {

age, or acid rain will be large per GW(e) yr. Unfortunately, the combined I

I increases in pH in surface waters from acid mine drainage and acid rain from i the region's mining and power generation may be different from the sum of the i individual contributions to acidity per GW(e) yr because the solubility of heavy metals may not increase in direct relation to acidity due to the presence of other solutes. As a result, to attempt to quantify generically the impacts of coal cleaning, acid mine drainage, or acid precipitation on increased availability of heavy metals in drinking water is not feasible. All that can be said is that increased acidity will usually increase concentrations of heavy metals (including Ra-226) in surface waters, and that population dose commitments and risks should also increase over time.

3.1.5 The Suess Effect As mentioned in Section 3.1, the relea ;e of stable carbon (as carbon dioxide) that is depleted in natural C-14 results in a reduction in the population dose from C-14 (both natural and man made) in the biosphere. The Environmental Protection Agency found about a 500 person-rem reduction in world population dose over 100 years per GW(e) yr from the Suess Effect.67 The British esti-mated a 2,200 person-rem effective dose equivalent reduction over a period of 500 years for coal burned in the United Kingdom, including both first pass and subsequent doses to the world population.52 A dose of 500 person-rem to a constant world population of about 10 billion persons results in an average dose of about 5 x 10 5 mrem per person (essentially over a lifetime). Thus,  ;

the dose reduction to a constant U.S. population of 300 million would be about 15 person-rem for a 100 year collective dose equivalent commitment. This corre- I sponds to a reduction of about 0.0018 latent cancer death in the United States during the next century. Thus, although the reduction in cancer risk to the world population may be comparable to the cancer risk from coal combustion to ]

people living within 80 km (50 miles) of a modern coal-tired plant (0.0067-0.29 i

[see Ref. 51]), the cancer risk to the U.S. population from coal combustion is not significantly reduced by the Suess Effect.

NUREG-0332 3-5 L- _ _- - - _

3.2 Potential Nonradiological Health Impacts of the Coal Fuel Cycle The nonradiological health impacts of the coal fuel cycle are now a subject of ir.tondo debate--much more so than those of the potential risks associated with exposure to low-level ionizing radiation. The impacts range from relatively small risks, such as an increase in asthma suffering, to macroscale impacts on the world, such as those that would result from an uncontrolled Greenhouse Effect. Considerable controversy surrounds the current health effects models used to est* mate the impacts of sulfur emission from coal-fired power plants, particularly when these models are used as the basis for regulating sulfur releases.

These and other problems are discussed in the sections that follow.

3.2.1 Potential Health Impacts of Coal Mining Health impacts of coal mining occur predominantly among the miners, result from chronic exposure to coal dust, and include acute mortality from many types of accidents. Chronic inhalation of coal dust (primarily in underground mines) r'esults in coal workers' pneumoconiosis (CWP), or black lung disease. (See Refs. 72-74 for more detailed information about CWP.) Since the passage of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 (PL 91-173), working con-ditions in underground mines have gradually improved. As a result, the l prevalence of CWP and accidental deaths and injuries is declining. In addition, l the percentage of coal mined by surface methods has continued to increase and now accounts for 50 to 60% of total coal production.

Both CWP and accident and injury rates are much lower in surface mines. Com-monly cited estimates of accident fatality rates for a 1,000-MWe plant operating continuously for 1 year (that is, a GW(e) yr) are 0.54 for under-ground mines and 0.09 for surface mines; however, these rates appear question-able.72 Earlier estimates of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) are considerably higher (1.67 and 0.308, respectively).64 The latter were employed l by the National Academy of Sciences for its 1979 estimates,4 and will be used for this assessment. These equate to 2.2 and 0.41 deaths per GW(e) yr. Since ,

surface mining now produces half the coal in the United States, the average l l would be 1.3 deaths per GW(e) yr. The CONAES report failed to estimate risks {

of injury and disease among coal miners. i Because the CONAES report apparently accepts the 1973 CEQ estimates,64 the CEQ accidental injuries values were also used for this assessment. Assuming that 1 the present production methods prevail (that is, about half the coal mined will I come from surface mines), the injury rate would be about 66 per GW(e) yr in I the United States. CONAES also failed to quantify the risks of CWP and progres-sive massive fibrosis (PMF), stating only that if current dust standards are maintained, the incidence of CWP should be less than 3%, and of PMF less than 0.25%. Reference 72 indicates that in 1973 (after these dust standards were achieved), productivity of miners was about 10.2 metric tons per miner-day. By astuming that it takes 2.5 million metric tons to produce a GW(e) yr and half that fuel comes from underground mines, one can calculate about 0.3 case of CWP and 0.03 case of PMF. Such small numbers do not significantly increase the overall risk of disease or injury among coal miners.

NUREG-0332 3-0 i

With increased coal utilization, an influx of inexperienced miners into coal mines is anticipated. Because historical data show that inexperiexed miners tend to have higher mortality and injury rates, it is possible that risks of ,

coal mine accidents may increase in the years ahead in spite of better regu-lated mines.75 A potential long-term health impact of underground coal mining may result from acid mine drainage into surface waters eventually used for human and agricul-tural purposes. This risk, while unquantifiable now, could be significant over a long period of time as increased acidity gradually leaches toxic and carcino-genic trace metals from bottom sediments into water supplies. These materials, including cadmium, nickel, mercury, the uranium and thorium series, and others, could be ingested directly or through food pathways (for example, finfish, shell-fish, irrigated crops, meat, and milk).

3.2.2 Potential Health Impacts of Coal Beneficiation After being mined, coal must first be cleaned (beneficiation) to remove impuri-ties before shipment. The fluid most commonly used for cleaning is water, which also removes mineral sulfur (for example, pyrite). As a result, the wash water becomes acidified before it is returned to surface waters. This acidity I I

not only dissolves heavy toxic trace metals from the waste, it can also act to remove similar metals from sediments as does acid mine drainage. Studies to date demonstrate that significant amounts of trace metals leach from coal pro-cessing wastes. Although the amount (approximately 30% of the total) is much less than that resulting from acid mine drainage, coal preparation wastes are ,

still accumulating, while acid mine drainage is gradually being reduced. As a J result, concentrations of certain metals, such as cadmium, may exceed U.S. l Public Health Service standards in some water basins because of combined drain- I age from mines, solid waste (gob) piles, and coal refuse banks.76 After physical cleaning of coal, the solid waste is usually dumped nearby to form spoil (colm) banks or waste piles. These piles are subject to slope i

failures and landslides, and, because of their coal content, are subject to spontaneous fires. Runoff from gob piles is an additional source of acid drainage, and gob fires in 250 million tons of burning waste in the United l States are believed to contribute about 5% of the overall national burden of carbon monoxide.72 As carbon monoxide emissions from automobiles continue to decline, this percentage may increase. In addition, the sulfur emissions are also substantial. Unfortunately, none of the potential impacts have been reliably quantified. New coal preparation plants are now required to meet EPA New Source Performance Standards by using the best available control technology.

If this practice continues, effluents associated with new facilities will be much lower than in past years and are not expected to result in a substantial increase in public health impacts.

The CONAES report estimates about 0.027 accidental death among workers per GW(e) yr, and this value is used in this assessment.4 The CONAES report failed to estimate risks of injury and disease among coal-processing workers. Because the CONAES report apparently accepted the 1973 NUREG-0332 3-7

estimates of CEQ,64 these accidental injury values were also used for this assessment. If the present cleaning methods prevail, the injury rate will be about 3.4 per GW(e) yr.

3.2.3 Health Impacts of Coal Transportation A 1,000-MWe coal-fired power plant will consume between 2.1 million and 3.4 mil-lion tons of coal per year, depending on the Btu content of the coal and the plant-operating conditions.72 With the exception of mine-mouth power plants, moving such large quantities of coal from the mine to the power plant requires combinations of trucks, trains, barges, and pipelines. At the present time, most coal is transported by truck from mines (particularly strip mines) to central shipping areas, where about half of all utility coal is then shipped by rail.

Typically, 1,000-MWe plants require about one unit train per day (one hundred 100-ton cars and five diesel locomotives). The average haul distance is grad-ually increasing (290 miles [464 km] in 1973, 500 to 700 miles [800 to 1,120 km) during the 1980s) as a result of shipment of coal to areas that have not, in the past, used much coal for power generation (for example, New England and the Pacific Coast).72 According to a recent study, coal trains are the cause of an average of 0.79 death and 8.8 injuries per million tons of coal hauled.72 Thus, a coal-fired power plant can be expected to be the cause of about 2.2 to 3.6 deaths and about 25 to 40 injuries per GW(e) yr. Most of these deaths would occur at grade cross-i ings in collisions between unit coal trains and automobiles. If the projected

increase in hauling distances occurs, these numbers could increase by about 160 l l to 230L On the other hand, mine-mouth plants would have much lower risks.

l These estimates of mortality and injury are comparable to the 1973 CEQ estimates l of deaths and injury (3.1 deaths and 31 injuries per GW(e) yr)64 that were ac-

! cepted by the NAS (CONAES) in 1979.4 About half of the deaths would occur among the general public according to NAS.

3.2.4 Potential Nonradiological Health Impacts of Coal Combustion in Power Generation j Coal-fired power plants release large quantities of a very complex mixture of gases, vapors, and particulate to the atmosphere. Althou0h laboratory studies  ;

that measure a range of endpoints from acute exposure to individual pollutants j have been carried out, it is possible that synergistic effects from chronic l exposure to complex mixtures downwind from a coal-fired plant result in much i different ef fects than the acute effects measurements would indicate. The prob-lems are similar to those facing radiation biologists estimating the effects of low-level ionizing radiation. Are the dose response curves linear to low doses?

Do thresholds for individual components of the mixture exist? Are there syner-gistic effects similar to those in the situation of exposure to asbestos and cigarette smoking? No one knows, and it is doubtful if a level of understanding comparable to that relating to radiation exposure will be reached for many more years. )

l  !

l The emissions from a coal-fired plant depend to a great extent on the type and geochemistry of the coal burned, and on the type of burner and operating con- i ditions at the plant. As the Btu content of the coal declines, more coal must l be burled to produce the same amount of electricity. An increase in ash con-tent nd a decrease in Btu content result in even greater particulate emissions NUREG-0332 3-8

for a given particulate removal system. Particulate emissions include over 30 naturally occurring radionuclides in the uranium, thorium, and actinium series (see Ref. 51 and Table 15) and over 50 stable elements, several of which are known carcinogens or toxic to living things.* Furthermore, the con-  !

tent of these various elements differs markedly for coal from different geo- l l

graphic regions 72 The particulate-removal efficiencies (99% or more) required for new coal-fir ( ' ,

plants are based on mass collection and do not reflect efficiencies for remo, 99 respirable-size particulate (older plants generally have little or no partic-ulate removal). Electrostatic precipitators. for example, typically have  !

overall operating efficiencies in the range of about 80 to 90% for removing respirable particulate (less than a few micrometers).72 Because deposition of the particulate in human lungs is a requirement for causing an effect, the  ;

I bealth risks from particulate emissions are much greater than those the mass-removal efficiency of precipitators (or other devices such as cyclone separators) would indicat( at first glance. Furthermore, the concentrations of toxic trace elements appear to increase with decreasing particle size; thus, the health risks become even greater.77 Finally, the smaller the particulate size; the greater the distance the particulate can be carried by prevailing winds (they can be carried from low population zones to urban areas where many more people would be exposed to them). During transport, the same trace metals assist in catalyzing the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfate (believed by some to be the major contributor to respiratory disease and death, as well as acid rain from coal-fired power plants).75'78 si In addition, the hydrocarbon content of coal is an incredibly complex and highly variable mixture of organic species, several of which are also known carcino-gens.78'78 The relative ignorance of the risks associated with exposure to these complex mixtures is analogous to the relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Cigarettes have been analyzed by every known proce-dure during the last decade, and several carcinogens have been identified. No one has conclusively demonstrated which of these carcinogens are the primary causes of lung cancer among smokers, yet few informed scientists doubt that the mixture, when inhaled, causes lung cancer. In the case of emissions of several known carcinogens (at high concentrations) from coal-fired plants, however, it remains yet to be shown that chronic public exposure at low con- , .

centrations is associated with a definite cancer risk, even though respirable l coal fly ash is definitely mutagenic.82 Because.the same uncertainty is true i for chronic, low-level radiation exposures from nuclear power plants,-it would l seem prudent to use a linear-dose-response assumption for each of the known carcinogens (at high doses) similar to that assumed for exposure to rediation.

Unfortunately, so little is known, even at high doses, about the dose response of many chemical carcinogens contained in coal that these calculations cannot be made yet with a high degree of reliability. A partial list of chemical

• 5crotal cancer (from coal soot) in children who were chimney sweeps was the first cancer shown to be caused solely by occupation. This relationship was discovered in England in 1775 by Sir Percival Potts.

NUREG-0332 3-9

carcinogens from coal combustion includes arsenic, cadmium, chromium, iron oxide, nickel, and benzo-a pyrene (plus other similar aromatic hydrocarbons).78 In the case of exposure to noncarcinogenic chemical species, it is now hypothesized that chronic exposure to low levels of pollution (accompanied by cigarette smoke and so forth) results in gradual irreversible damage to cardio-vascular functions over a lifetime, which, in turn, causes death in chronic sufferers when a severe air pollution episode occurs.* Many of these deaths occur among the elderly and severely ill during episodes such as those docu-mented in London (1952),79 Donora, Pennsylvania (1948),80 and New York (1963-68).81 These observations, plus increased asthma attacks and other episodes among children who have a higher sensitivity to air pollution, lend support to such a hypothesis, but cannot prove it in the presence of other critically important but unmonitored agents, such as exposure to cigarette smoke, in the urban environment. It should be noted that the classic studies by Winklestein and coworkerssa and Lave and Seskins4 are still the most quoted.

Lave and Seskin provide a vigorous defense of their models and results, claim-ing that suspended particulate, sulfur dioxide, and sulfate account for most of the variance in mortality using multiple regression analysis and that considerable internal consistency and reproducibility exist.85'58 Recent studies by others also conclude the relationships exist, and provide estimates of effects (mortality and morbidity) that range from zero to the hundreds, depending on the sulfur and Btu content of the coal, the nearness of the plant to population centers, and other factors.87.ss Nevertheless, the recent National Academy of Sciences (CONAES) report, concluded:

The health impact of air pollution from coal combustion products is inconclusive. The widely quoted studies indicating severe impact of sulfates resulting from atmospheric transformation of sulfur dioxide emissions are seriously flawed. On the other hand there is also no evidence to suggest conclusively that present standards are too tight, or even that there are no risks at present ambient levels.

The factor of time must be emphasized.... Experience has shown that important aspects of the epidemiological studies...cannot be hurried to meet the demands of policy,... chronic and late effects take time to develop.4 Moreover, the National Academy of Sciences CONAES4 rejected the initial findings of its Risk and Impact Panel on the health effects of coal combustion.**

The draft report of the Risk and Impact Panel indicated a range from near zero to several hundred deaths among the population within 80 km (50 miles) of the plant per GW(e) yr, depending on the method of analysis. However, the caveats

• See for example: A. J. Dvorak et al; "The Environmental Effects of Using Coal for Generating Electricity," USNRC Report NUREG-0252, p.144, June 1977.

• • National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, Risk and Impact Panel, " Risks and Impacts of Alternative Energy Systems," Washington, D. C. (unpublished draft)

NUREG-0332 3-10

were so constraining that they leave the reader in the difficult position of deciding whether the range of numerical mortality estimates, based on assumed emissions of sulfur oxides and particulate (as an index of total pollution),

are a reasonable reflection of the true uncertainties and their causal factors.

The present circumstances are believed analogous to other controversies that have plagued decisionmakers in recent years. These include such problems as assessing the risk of cigarette smoking, use of saccharin, and low-level radi-ation exposure. Such uncertainties generally arise because of an inability to prove cause and effects relationships, particularly from very low-level expo-sures whose effects (if any) are within the normal range of naturally occurring I mortality and morbidity.

As a regulatory agency, the NRC must make licensing and regulatory decisions based on the best information available. That is also true when comparing the risks of viable alternative energy cycles. Because the human health impacts of coal combustion are potentially greater than the impacts from nuclear energy, the author believes that it is helpful to provide decisionmakers with a reason-able range of estimated risks, even in the absence of a clear scientific-community consensus.

In this regard, the detailed investigative work and statistical analyses cf Lave and Seskinss>ss are a useful starting point for providing a range of estimated risks of air pollution from coal combustion which is a major source (

of air pollution in the United States. It is believed that statistical corre-lation methods such as those used by Lave and Seskin are, by themselves, not yet adequate to provide an accurate estimate of potential health risk.*

However, in conjunction with other toxicological and epidemiological studies,77'79 89 they provide a useful basis for estimating the order of magnitude of such risks.

Subsequent to publication of the CONAES report, investigators at Brookhaven National Laboratory have made more sophisticated analyses of the available epidemiological data, using the works of Lave and Seskin and others as a starting point. Hamilton estimated about 0.9 death within 50 miles and 9.2 deaths among the total U.S. general public per GW(e) yr from air pollution associated with operation of a modern coal-fired power plant.ss As with the case for ionizing radiation, the possibility of zero risk frcm low-level exposure could not be excluded by the data. A similar conclusion was reached by Morris after additional studies.** Morris concluded that depending on the presence or absence of an effects threshold for sulfur oxides, the potential mortality per GW(e) yr could range from 0 to 60 for the total United States from a plant situated in the Ohio Valley (median of 21 deaths with a 90% confi-3 dence interval). Assuming an effects threshold of 10 pg/m for sulfates reduces the upper range to 30 (median of 10), with a more probable value of about 5 deaths per GW(e) yr among the total U.S. population. In light of these more recent, although still cautious estimates, it was assumed that the potential impacts of modern conventional coal-fired power plants using state-of-technology These studies were the basis for the estimates of 4 to 140 deaths per GW(e) yr reported in the 1977 draft of this report.

• • S. C. Morris, " Health Risks of Coal Energy Technology, in Health Risks Associated With Energy Technologies (Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1983).

NUREG-0332 3-11

flue gas desulfurization range from 0 to 60, while more probable risks are in the range of about 5 to 10 deaths per GW(e) yr.

Although neither of these more recent studies provided estimates of disease or injury rates per GW(e) yr, clearly those effects, ranging from simple irritation of the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs to serious respiratory insufficiency and cardiovascular stress, must greatly exceed the mortality rates resulting from those impacts. For the purposes of this report it was assumed that the morbidity risks are at least 10 times greater than the mortality risks.

Quite obviously, substantial uncertainty also exists (as it does for the health risks of the nuclear fuel cycle) over future technological developments that would improve the cost-effectiveness of air pollution control systems. This is also the case for future regulatory requirements which may change the health effects estimates for the coal fuel cycle. No attempt has been made to assess such uncertainties.

The CONAES report estimated that the occupational accident mortality risk at coal-fired stations is about 0.013 death per GW(e) yr;4 this value was used for this report.

3.2.5 Potentia! Nonradiological health Impacts of Coal Ash Waste Mj As in the case of potential long-term impacts of radioactive leachates from coal ash piles, no one has quantified the potential long-term impacts of the nonradioactive materials from coal ash piles. Measurements of trace metals in fly ash and bottom ash transport water (water used to sluice ash to an onsite ash pond) definitely show that many of the metals can be readily leached from the vitrified ash in atid solutions, and some leaching occurs even in distilled water.72 7 cess It should also be noted that stable toxic and carcinogenic elements can literally remain hazardous forever because they do not disappear by radioactive decay. Most of these leachates (like many very 1cng-lived radio-nuclides) will almost certainly end up in sediments, where they will eventually become part of the lithospere, and thus be out of the food pathways for humans.

In the relatively short term (decades or centuries), some of these materials could have a significant effect on populations not only from uptake through food chains and drinking water but by removing certain surface waters from the total reservoir of potable water. Consider, for example, that about 20 to 30 tons of cadmium are disposed of in the ash pile of a coal-fired power plant per GW(e) yr. The ash concentration of cadmium is an order of magnitude (or more) higher than the average for the earth's crust or shale.80 If the cadmium content of surface or underground water is proportional to the cadmium present in the soil the water flows over or through, leaching of this metal from large numbers of ash piles when added to that from other sources could raise cadmium concentrations high enough in certain domestic water sources to preclude safe human consumption. Unless care is taken in disposing of coal ash (for example, by use of clay caps and liners and stabilization of FGD sludge), leaching of cadmium and other toxic or carcinogenic metals (for example, nickel, chromium, arsenic, lead, and selenium) could become a long-term, chronic exposure problem of unknown magnitude.

NUREG-0332 3-12

3.2.6 Health Risks Associated With Subsidence and Fires in Underground Coal Mines The general public is only now becoming aware of the results of the poor control of underground coal mining during the first part of the century and lacks an appreciation of the possibilities of underground coal mine subsidence and fires.

Many areas in Appalachia are now seeing a rise in subsidence, often accompanied by uncontrolled underground fires, as the normal slow process of settling in j mined-out areas occurs.91* Nevertheless, the health risks appear small rela-tive to other aspects of the coal fuel cycle and, therefore, will not be dis-cussed further.

3.2.7 Perspectives on Nonradiological Risk As in the case of the assessment of the nuclear fuel cycle, it lends perspective to compare these estimates with other more commonplace, familiar risks. Again, the comparisons are not intended to be all inclusive, and other comparisons are possible. The health risks for the coal fuel cycle are, unfortunately, somewhat obscured by the inability to estimate some of the potential health impacts. By using the data from Table 16, and conservatively reducing the 8.8-15 range of risks of mortality to 5 deaths per GW(e) yr, a reasonable estimate of the lower-bound risks of the coal fuel cycle can at least be provided. The uncertainty associated with tne lower-bound risks for the majority of coal-fired plants is fairly small because nearly half the risk comes from coal transportation for which the statirtics are fairly stable. The uncertainty associated with upper-bound risks is almost certainly one or more orders of magnitude since many of the potential unquantified risks are large, and cannot be reasonably estimated because final decisions regarding such items as regulation of coal ash and mining wastes have not yet been made.

Five deaths per GW(e) yr is about five times the total risk from the nuclear fuel cycle per GW(e) yr. This level of risk can be compared directly with those shown in Table 11 in the preceding section where risks of the nuclear fuel cycle are discussed. From Table 11, it is clear that the lower-bound risks for the coal fuel cycle are much less than those from automobile driving, falls, fires, or drowning, and represent possibly about a 0.05% increase in the risk of mortality from all other causes if all the electricity in the United States were generated by coal-fired power plants.

3.3 Other Potential Impacts of the Coal Fuel Cycle 3.3.1 The Greenhouse Effect and the Relationship to Coal Combustion It has been known for decades that combustion of fossil fuel releases carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. It has also been known that carbon dioxide is trans-parent to almost all incoming light from the sun, but strongly absorbs certain

• Reference 91 noted that only 2 million of the more than 9 million acres of land surface over mines has subsided, and 2 million more could subside by the year 2000.

NUREG-0332 3-13

Table 16 Summary of potential health etlects among the total U,$. population per LW(e) yr for the coal fuel cycle

• Potential radio- Potential acci- Potential non-Potential acci- genic cancer dental injuries radiogenic disease dental deaths mortality and dlbease mortality Totals Source of Occupa- General Occupa- General Occupa- General Occupa- General Injuries risk tional pubitc tional public tional public tional public Deaths and disease balmining 1. 3 *0 0.27 >0 66 >0 >0 >0

• 1. 6

• 66 n 0.027 >0 >0 >0 3.4 >0 >0 >0 + 0.027 + 3.4 Transpor-tation 1.1 L1 -0 *0 15 16 *0 *0

• 2. 2

• 31 Power Generattun 0.013 *0 >0 0.007-0.3 1. 8 50-100** >0 5-10 5-10** 50-100**

Weste management >0 >0 >0 0-1 >0 >0 *G >0 > 0-1 >0 totals

• 2.4

• 1.1

• 0.27

• 0.007-

• 91 66-120 >0 5-10 8.8-15 150-200 1.3

• The ranges presented in this table are the range of best* estimate values in the literature, and do not reflect the total range of values in the literature.

• • These ranges are currently controversial; the actual range could be from 0 to terhaps several hundred (see Section 3.2.4

'for details).

infrared heat radiation radiated from the surface of the earth back into space.

The principle is called the Greenhouse Effect.

Although a small constituent of the atmosphere (330 ppm by volume in 1979),4 28 carbon dioxide is a factor in the control of atmospheric temperature. The con-tribution of fossil fuel combustion -to the observed gain is uncertain, but apparently it is major 4 28'29 (Currently, about 20 billion tons per year from fossil fuels). Since 1950, the release rate of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere has been increasing about 4.3% per year: at this constant rate, the carbon dioxide concentration could double during the next century. At an increasing rate per year, doubling could occur within about 50 years.30 Doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere would lead to an estimated 10 K (18 F) increase in temperature over the Antarctic. This could cause melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet over a period of decades, thus raising the average ocean depths by about 5 m (about 16 ft).30 Such an increase, which could occur within the lifetimes of many people now living, would be economically, environmentally, and socially catastrophic (for example, many major sea ports and coastal areas would be flooded). (See Ref. 31 for a detailed example of potential flooding in the Nation's capital, located about 90 miles inland from the Chesapeake Bay.) Altho 2gh the uncertainties remain large, the potential short-term consequences arc so great as to require serious consideration.

Unfortunately, some experts warn that by the time such melting could be con-firmed, it may be impossible to prevent further melting even if all man-made sources of carbon dioxide were to cease. That is because it takes a long time for the oceans (the ultimate carbon dioxide sink) to remove the excess carbon dioxide from the environment. Thus, it appears likely that once the melting process has been identified, it may be irreversible.28.so Large-scale melting of the ice caps would result in much greater increases in ocean depths (several hundred feet), but would occur very slowly over a period of centuries, allowing time for mankind to gradually accommodate to the changes.4 28 Nevertheless, such a rise in sea levels would inundate large coastal land areas and ports '

causing serious economic penalties aiid social disruption.

NUREG-0332 3-14

In addition, such global temperature increases could lead to changes in regional rainfall and crop production.4 '28:29 In the United States, an increased global temperature could lead to an increare i'n desert lands and a decrease in grain production. Because surplus U.S. grains literally keep millions of people above the cutting edge of starvation, any decreases in U.S. grain production could have fairly immediate and devastating effects on them.

Although these changes might eventually be offset by greater crop production in higher latitudes 29 (for example, Canada, Greenland, Siberia, and Alaska),

the impact on many nations would be immense, and could be catastrophic without unprecedented international cooperation.

3.3.2 Potential Impacts of the Coal Fuel Cycle on Ecosystems The 1979 NAS CONAES report concluded that coal is one of the most ecologically disruptive energy sources available to man.4 The CONAES report also noted,

" Threats to ecosystems are generally speculative and subject to a high degree of uncertainty." Most of the' processes such as acid mine drainage, acid rain, and leaching of toxic (or radioactive) trace metals to surface and underground water, which could also lead to impacts on numerous ecosystems, are discussed in some detail in Sections 3.1 and 3.2. Some potential ecological impacts (sub-sidence, Greenhouse Effect, and increases in concentrations of toxic metals in surface waters) have also already been mentioned. In this section, potential ecological impacts are briefly presented although no attempt is made to evaluate these risks to the quality of man's environment, because at present no way of quantifying these impacts is known.

CONAES identified the following major concerns:

(1) Without proper management, underground mining can affect underground water systems and their drainage patterns and cause land subsidence.

(2) Strip mining, without proper reclamation, is ruinous to the surface land.

In some areas, lasting reclamation is doubtful especially where water requirements are high and water supply is low (for exemple, the Western States).

(3) Sulfur dioxides and acid precipitation from uncontrolled coal combustion can damage forests, agriculture, and fisheries, and through leaching processes, increase the ground and surface water concentrations of toxic trace metals.

(4) Carbon dioxide emissions from coal combustion could lead to (a) drastic alterations of both natural and agricultural ecosystems possibly within 50 years as a result of extensive and complex changes in precipitation patterns, and (b) a slow melting of polar ice leading to slowly rising sea levels (and declining salinity) and changing coastlines (affecting fragile wetlands).

Reference 72 (Tables A-C) represents an NRC-funded attempt to develop a generic table of environmental impacts and effects analogous to that presented in Sec-tion 2.2.2 for the nuclear fuel cycle. Table 17 shows a summary of some of these considerations. In general, with the possible exception of carbon dioxide NUREG-0332 3-15

releases, the ecological impacts of these releases should be acceptable for the coal fuel cycle as long as new mines and power stations meet the air and water quality standards tnat are being established by EPA. Thermal impacts should remain insignificant for properly designed, sited, and operated coal power stations.

Table 17 Summary of other environmental considerations for the coal fuel cycle per GW(e) yr Range for proposed Natural resource use current standards Land (acres)

Disturbed (assuming 50% from strip mines) 310-330 Committed 19-33 Water (millions of gallons) 8,600-11,000 Plant effluents to atmosphere (metric tons)

Sulfur oxides 21,000-43,000 Nitrogen oxides 21,000-24,000 Carbon monoxide 1,400 Particulate 1,100-3,600 Fluorine 0.11-0.36 Lead 0.11-0.38 Mercury 0.04-0.14 Nickel 1.1-3.6 Selenium 0.066-0.22 Thallium 0.033-0.11 Antimony 0.036-0.59 Arsenic 0.31-2.1 Beryllium 0.005-0.014 Cadmium 0.006-0.021 Copper 0.43-1.4 Plant effluents to water bodies (unspecified but (sulfates, etc.) potentially large)

Thermal (unspecified)

Note: See Table 13 for conversion factors.

Source: Reference 72.

3.3.3 Potential Materials Damage From Combustion of Coal in Power Generation This area was neglected Ly the 1979 CONAES report.4 Any such estimates are uncertain, but perhaps less so than those dealing with health effects or eco-logical damage, because they deal with relatively simple impacts (such as oxidation of paints and corrosion of materials) that can be measured in the laboratory.

NUREG-0332 3-16

One report summarized the monetary cost of damage from air pollution (all sources) in the United States as follows: 92 Type of damage Consumer cost and year of estimate ,

Electrical contacts (502and H25) $ 64 million (1970)

Rubber products (olone) $ 470 million (1970)

Dye fading (ozone) $ 206 million (1970)

Corrosion of metals (all pollutants) $1,450 million (1971)

Exterior paints (all pollutants) $ 704 million (not given)

A second study, which deals more directly with coal combustion, concluded that the cost of material damage was approximately $4.8 million to $5.3 million per ,

year of operation for a modern, large, coal-fired plant sited in an urban area.sa The cost declined (1) when the plant was located in a remote area or (2) if the sulfur emissions were reduced.

3.3.4 Potential Health Costs From Combustion of Coal in Power Generation "

An area closely related t o materials damage is health damage from air pollution.

Reference 93 estimated that health costs (medical expenses, absenteeism, and so forth) as a result of emissions from a large, modern, coal-fired power plant j would range from about $36 million per year for an urban site to about $13 million per year for a site in a ramote area. Chronic respiratory disease (at $250 per case) and aggravated heart-lung disease symptoms (at $20 per case) would account for most of the costs.

One study showed that costs associated with hospital stays for persons exposed to sulfur dioxide and particulate in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, came to about $9.8 million per year among a population of 1.6 million 94 Both respira-tory diseases and circulatory diseases suspected of being effects of these pollutants were studied. Lost work time and other social costs would add more to the total.

The relevance of these estimates to the health costs of coal combustion is highly uncertain in light of the current debate surrounding the health effects models currently available for estimating the health risks from sulfur and particulate emissions.

3.4 Summary and Conclusions In general, the potential radiological impacts of the coal fuel cycle, like those of the nuclear fuel cycle, appear to be small in relation to other every-day risks. Although these impacts cannot be defined as well as those for the nuclear fuel cycle, it would appear that the impacts per GW(e) yr could range between 0 and 1 cancer death in the United States during the next century, depending on many decisions (such as how coal ash will be disposed of) that are still being made and revised by Congress, the EPA, and other Federal agencies. The most realistic radiological impact of average coal utilization ,

should be no more than 1 cancer death per GW(e) yr, and genetic effects will be even lower. However, there is considerable uncertainty in such estimates, and actual risks in the years ahead could be quite different from those envi-sioned in this report. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that the radiological NUREG-0332 3-17

impacts over the next century will ever become as large as current estimates of other health risks in the coal fuel cycle (for example, occupational risks to miners and public risks from releases of stable toxic materials such as sulfur and nitrogen oxides, mercury, cadmium, chromium, and nickel).

The potential nonradiological health impacts contain some large uncertainties, particularly those relating to health risks from chronic exposure from power plant emissions and potential long-term health risks. As shown in Table 16, many currently unquantified risks among both workers and the general public exist. Only in the case of transportation has it been possible to provide reasonably accurate estimates of both the occupational and public risks of mortality and injury. Estimates of the occupational risks of accidental death and injuries and disease are also reasonably accurate. Collectively, these sources of risk account for about 4 deaths and over 100 accidental injuries per GW(e) yr with perhaps about a factor of 2 uncertainty in the near future.

Additional deaths, injury, and disease could exceed these values by factors of 10 or more, but the uncertainties are so large that the numerical estimates may have little real meaning.

The National Academy of Sciences (CONAES) concluded that the coal fuel cycle is one of the most ecologically damaging alternatives to the nuclear fuel cycle.

Damage results from the large scale disruption of surface ecosystems, disruption of ground water and pollution of surface waters from mining, acid mine drainage, and acid precipitation. The ecological impact of a future Greenhouse Effect could be very damaging to natural and agricultural ecosystems as well as coastal wetlands and estuaries.

NUREG-0332 3-18

4 OTHER PERSPECTIVES ON RISK Because the science of risk assessment is so new, parameters that are based on perceptions and social values cannot as yet be reasonably factored into quanti-tative assessments, such as those presented earlier in this report. However, NRC has been aware of the importance of these factors and has funded research in this area for several years.

The discussions that follow should not be construed as being a complete pre-sentation of the subject matter nor does the sequence of sections imply merit or importance. Rather they are an attempt to present some views on issues that have not been quantified in the preceding sections. These views are not necessarily those of NRC, but will add other perspectives to the report.

The NAS CONAES report 4 cautioned risk assessors that No society can be free of risk, nor is the goal of a risk-free society necessarily worth striving for. (p. 577)

An important question is how subjective evaluations should be taken into account along with the more objective measures, such as fatali-ties per GWe plant year of energy production. If the subjective values are ignored, energy policy may stalemate. (p. 578)

A point of difference between the objective quantification of risk and its sociopolitical assessment is the role of " attitude toward risk" in the latter. An energy system may be viewed as a hazard by I a particular group of people (organized or unorganized) for reasons that may not reflect biological or ecological assessments of the risks. Nuclear power, for example, may be opposed as a symbol of big government, impersonal corporate business, or unrestrained economic growth. (p. 578)

The CONAES report also noted that One conclusion that may be drawn is that adequate information must continually be made easily available to the public, to inform the decision-making process, and to prevent the spread of false conclu-sions and impressions. (p. 578)

This report is intended to contribute to that information process.

In the following sections, the questions of voluntary acceptance of risk versus involuntary exposure to it, perceived risk versus expert " objective" estimates of it, accepted versus acceptable risks, distribution of fuel cycle risks in space and time, and catastrophic versus everyday risks, and the ethical and NUREG-0332 4-1

moral perspectives of risk will be briefly discussed. It is hoped that such discussions will help draw the public and the experts' understanding of risk to a more common ground. More detailed information can be derived from the references cited.

4.1 Voluntary Versus Involuntary Risk In general, people feel that risks accepted voluntarily can be much higher (and acceptable) than thcse that are imposed on others against their will. l.aws are written to protect the public from involuntary and unwarranted risks from the acts of others. This is also one of the reasons Congress and the States have established regulatory agencies. However, decisions by such agencies for the benefit of the many almost always result in the imposition of involuntary risks on the few (see, for example, Ref. 95).

In what has now become a classic study, Starr" noted: "We are loathe to let others do unto us what we happily do to ourselves." He found that people

" accept" voluntary risks that are up to 1,000 times greater than those they are willing to accept involuntarily but with the same approximate benefit.

Starr also pointed out that the prevalent mortality rate (about 3 chance of death per year among 100 persor.s) appears to be a yardstick in determining the acceptability of voluntary risk. Thus, individuals subconsciously adjust their sporting activities so that, in general, risks associated with these activities do not greatly exceed those from disease. He noted that voluntary sports tend to reach a " mature benefit-risk balance" with time-~an example is the use of motor vehicles (originally a voluntary sport) which has achieved acceptance as a necessity of life for most Americans, even though about 57,000 people are killed and about 2 million suffer disabling injuries in accidents each year from this use,c2,97 and an unknown number may suffer death and disease from the byproducts (for example, asbestos fibers from brake linings, carbon monox-ide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen and sulfur oxide emission:,).

In reality, most individuals can seldom exercise full control over voluntary risks, and more often trade off one type of risk for another (for example, the risks of being mugged or murdered are much higher for those using public transit systems than for those driving a private auto, while the risks from transporta-tion accidents are much lower than for private autos). Similarly, love of family, tradition, and other factors may tie individuals to small, one-industry towns, greatly limiting their ability to control their own voluntary risks.

4.2 Risk Perception The subject of risk perception has been studied recently with increasing interest because how people perceive risks largely determines their reactions to the associated industries, technologies, or activities. If their perceptions are faulty, severely disproportionate uses of public resources to make small risks even smaller at the cost of ignoring other activities where the same resources could yield much greater benefits to society niay result. One study that com-pared subjective perceived risks of mortality from 30 activities and technol-ogies with expert estimates of the risks indicates that certain groups within thelaypublicperceivetheriskofnucleargowertobeasmuchas100 greater than that perceived by the experts.9 times NUREG-0332 4-2

i 1

4

)

It would be reassuring to believe that divergence in risk perception between various groups of people would be responsive to new information and evidence. .

However, Slovic noted: l l

People's beliefs change slowly and are extraordinarily persistent in  !

the face of contrary evidence. Once formed, initial impressions tend to structure the way that subsequent evidence is interpreted. New evidence appears reliable and informative if it is consistent with one's initial belief: contrary evidence is dismissed as unreliable, erroneous, or unrepresentative. .. .Likewise, opponents of a tech-nology may view minor mishaps as near catastrophes and dismiss the contrary opinions of experts as biased by vested interests.98 A recent NRC-funded study 99 concluded that technical experts must be able to describe to the public in plain language the basic tools of risk assessment, their strengths and limitations, and how the tools are used. Only then can the lay public responsibly participate in complex technological decisions.

A recent European report concluded (as have others not mentioned here) that l

" fear of disaster is a potent factor in the assessment of risks at individual and societal level."100 In genersl, man-made disasters are far less likely to be accepted than those caused by natural phenomena. It was concluded that antipathy toward nuclear power must have a psychological basis (as opposed to ,

a physical one) and may originate in the violent introduction of nuclet.r fis- (

sion during World War II, from fear of the unknown, or from a range of unrecog-nized factors. These and other factors affect individual and societal percep-tions of risk.

DuPont, a practicing psychiatrist, describes a phobia as Fear based on an exaggerated, unrealistic danger. For example, if you are afraid when a lion bounds out of a cage at the zoo and comes toward you, that is normal healthy fear: the danger you face is external and substantial. If on the other hand, you are afraid to go into the zoo at any time because the sight of a snake--even in a cage--strikes terror into your heart, that is a phobia....A phobia is a malignant disease of what ifs.... Phobic tninking always travels down the worst possible branchings of each of the what ifs until the person is absolutely overwhelmed with the potentials for disaster.191 l

He concluded that When I reviewed the Media Institute's network news riuclear energy i

tapes,* one of the striking characteristics I saw over and over I was the reporters continually going down those what if, worst case branches. That is exactly what happens with phobic people, i

CA total of 13 hours1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br /> of videotapes of nuclear energy news coverage, a great deal of it related to the Three Mile Island accident.

NUREG-0332 4-3 1 i l

l J

The problem becomes the what if rather than what is....I am con- i vinced that fear is the dominant theme of this p dlicular TV ,

coverage and that much of the fear of nuclear power has elements j i

of phobic thinking.101 i

4.3 Equity

Who Gets the Benefits and Who Takes the Risks?

The problem of equity is an age-old one that will never be resolved to every-one's satisfaction. In reality, both risks and benefits to everyone from both the nuclear and coal fuel cycles generally exist. Some are relatively immediate, others may be distributed over time and among future generations.

As discussed in Sections 2 and 3, both the nuclear and coal fuel cycles have l

immediate risks to populations now living. These risks include those to workers from all aspects of the fuel cycles. Because both feel cycles tend to be dis-tributed over large geographical areas, the public and occupational risks also are distributed over large geographical' areas. As a result, while workers directly benefit from their labors (and voluntarily accept the risks in return),

the people who, for example, must dodge coal trains at railroad crossings between the coal mine and the power generating station may accrue no direct benefit for their added risk of death and injury.

The same statement can be made for public risks from coal-cleaning waste and coal ash because these wastes accumulate primarily at the benefits (for example, wages, taxes, and electrical power) accrue.point where the On the i

other hand, the potential impacts associated with introduction of toxic trace '

metals into drinking water and tood pathways and the ecological and materials damage from acid rain and acid mine drainage may be " exported" to people in other areas and future times who receive little or no obvious direct benefits.*

This is also true for Rn-222 releases from uranium mine and mill tailings.

Economists would discount the effects on future populations by applying the principles used in determining the present worth of future dollars. Thus, if society were concerned about possible future health effects resulting from present-day technology, economists would discount these future effects at a reasonable discount rate. As an example, if one additional death resulting from the nuclear fuel cycle per reference reactor year were to occur 1,000 years from the year 0.8 Gw yr of electric power was produced, they might dis-count the value of a future death by 5% per year:**

Present value = V(1 + i) n = (1 future degth) (1 + 0.05) 2000

= 6.5 x 10 22 deaths today

• 0

• Although more uncertain, considerable indirect benefits to future generations may come from greater political, social, and economic stability resulting from a continuation of economic growth, high standards of living, and other factors that, in turn, depend on an abundance of reliable power.

• • Although the absolute values used for the interest or discount rates are highly uncertain, it must be stressed that the same conclusions can be reached at higher or lower rates. Higher rates, for example, mean that less money would be set aside or, for discounting purposes, that the present worth of future deaths (or dollars) is lower than for a lower discount rate.

NUREG-0332 4-4

Clearly, this method indicates that potential health effects in the far-distant future cannot affect such things as cost / benefit balances in today's society.

4.4 Acceptable Risks Versus Accepted Risks Fischhoff and coworkers 99 define acceptable risk as that level of risk associ-ated with the most acceptable alternative in a decision problem. The choice of an alternative, and its accompanying risks, depends on the alternatives, j consequences, facts, and values that were considered during the decisionmaling process. Many of these parameters (particularly values) tend to be volatile, l and can change as new data and technological advances develop, leading to a change in the acceptability of any of the alternatives. Furthermore, it was concluded, "Even in the same situation and at a single time, different people with different values, beliefs, objectives, or decision methods might disagree on which alternative is best. In short, the search for absolute acceptability is misguided.""

The Commission of the European Communities (CEC) defines an acceptable risk as one " worthy of being accepted," presumably in comparison to other risks and alternatives.too This Commission points out that in any society risks are already present at the time decisionmaking begins. These de facto risks may be accepted or unaccepted, and merely exist. An unacceptable risk may achieve de facto status if it has no technological or economically acceptable alterna-tives at the time. Where these risks may be modified by technical, management, or legislative means, de facto risks may become " acceptable." In the special case of natural phenomena (acts of God), low probability de facto risks become accepted fatalistically because there may be no reasonable alternatives to consider.

CEC also noted that in the past, the public has accepted certain risks (for example, automobile use) as familiarity with the risk has grown, even though risk experts have found the risks to be unacceptable. Thus, they argue, given adequate time and the opportunity to demonstrate its safety and economics, nuclear power could also become an " accepted" risk to a wider segment of the public.

The CEC report concluded that the status of certain risks can be categorized as shown in Table 18.

Because of the wide range of objective risks for each status category, the authors of the CEC report concluded that no correlation currently exists between acceptability or acceptance of a risk and the actual magnitude of risk.

Paradoxically, they found the objective nuclear power risks are approximately 100 times below the range of 10 4 to 10 6 shown for many present-day acceptable risks. The authors were unable to clearly identify any specific factor or factors that could explain this phenomenon.

4.5 Moral and Ethical Considerations Bioethicist Margaret Maxey has studied the ethical and moral issues associated with inequities in risk, both in space and in time. She concludes that, from the perspective of public ethics, perceived future risks from nuclear tech-nology (for example, radioactive wastes from the nuclear fuel cycle) derive from NUREG-0332 4-5

200 Table 18. Classification of risk by current status Order of Risk Risk (deaths per person year)

De Facto Natural background radiation s 10 5 (one chance in 100,000)

Floods, tornadoes, or earthyJakes

• 10 6 (one chance in 1 million)

Lightning

• 10 7 (one chance in'10 million)

Meteorite impacts s 10 22 (one chance in 100 billion)

Acceptable and Accepted Occupational deaths on railways (U.K.)

• 10 4 (one chance in 10,000)

Death from choiera or whooping cough s 10 6 (one chance in 1 million)

Train-passenger deaths (total)

• 10 6 (one chance in 1 mlIlion)

Radiation death from consumer products s 10 7 (one chance in 10 million)

Steam-boiler explosions or dam failures (U.K.) s 10 7 (one chance in 10 million)

Radiation from high-altitude flight s 10.s (one chance in 100 million) l

~

Radiation from color-televison viewing s 10 9 (one chance in 1 billion)

Unacceptable and Accepted Risk to individuals from dam failures

• 10 2 (one chance in 100)

Lung cancer risk from smoking (20 cigarettes /

day) or therapeutic use of antibiotics s 10 3 (one chance in 1,000)

Therapeutic use of antidepressant or antihypertensive drugs s 10 4 (one chance in 10,000)

, Overall road-accident deaths s 10 4 (one chance in 10,000) l Death from use of contraceptive pills or tuberculosis *

• 10 5 (one chance in 100,000)

Public risk from fossil fuel combustion

• _

or therapeutic use of antirheumatic drugs or death from diagnostic radiology N 10 6 (one chance in 1 million)

Acceptable and Not Accepted Brain damage from whooping cough vaccination s 10 4 (one chance in 10,000)

Passenger deaths in aircraft accidents s 10 5 (one chance in 100,000)

Dike flooding (Holland)

• 10 7 (one chance in 10 raillion)

Average radiation risk to U.S. population from nuclear power ** s 10 9 (one chance in 1 billion)

Unacceptable and Not Accepted Death from all causes at age 55 s 10 3 (one chance in 1,000)

Occupational pneumoconiosis

• 10 3 (one chance in 1,000)

Death from cancer, stroke, or heart disease

• 10 3 (one chance in 1,000)

Death from bronchitis or influenza s 10 4 (one chance in 10,000)

Occupational death in chemical industry

• 10 4 (one chance in 10,000)

Death from leukemia or tuberculosis *

• 10 5 (one chance in 100,000)

Public risk from fossil fuel combustion *

• 10 6 (one chance in 1 million)

• Borderline cases; could be either " Unacceptable and Accepted" or " Unacceptable and Not Accepted."

• • Predicted figure. No statistics available, NUREG-0332 4-6 1 1 <

l l 1

"public misperceptions of the risks involved and the ease with which those misperceptions have been exploited for ulterior political purposes by those who have chosen to politicize the nuclear energy option of this nation."102 Furthermore, she argues that the use of irreplaceable hydrocarbons for gener-ating energy when other fuels are available may be immoral because it deprives future generations of basic goods:

Public policy should exercise wise stewardship...by giving priority development to energy-only resources--i.e. , uranium, thorium, deuterium- so as to preserve for future generations the basic goods derived from precious hydrocarbons (medicines, fertilizers and pesticides for increased food production, petrochemicals, etc.)

which have no known or feasible substitutes.ios Maxey concludes that the problems being encountered by the nuclear power industry are only symptoms of a much deeper problem. She concludes, "The public must be educated to reallocate the financial and social costs of safety. Zero risks and absolute safety are indeed costly illusions. Man does not live b safety alone. Theultimatechallengeistorediscoverwhatelseweliveby.y102 l

l l

1 i

NUREG-0332 4-7

5

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS All the items considered in this report lead to the inevitable conclusion that, {

although the health risks of both the nuclear or coal fuel cycles are very small in relation to other everyday sources of risk, the coal fuel cycle certainly results in a much greater impact on man and his environment than does the nuclear fuel cycle. This conclusion stands even when the uncertainties in these estimates are included, as long as one compares the lower- and upper-bound estimates of the fuel cycles or the most realistic estimates of risk for both fuel cycles.

As shown in Sections 2 and 3, even if the risks from toxic and radioactive materials are much higher (factors of 10 to 100) than is currently believed, the risks of mortality and injury to the general public would not be great in relation to the most common causes of death and injury in the United States.

Finally, an examination of several of the subjective aspects of risk assessment leads to the conclusion that although these factors are operating in human society, there are no immediate prospects for their inclusion in quantitative risk assessment.

I NUREG-0332 5-1 l

--- a

s i

l 6 REFERENCES

1. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970.

2. Atomic Safaty and Licensing Appeal Board, Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units 1A, 2A, 18, 2B) ALAB-367, 5 NRC 92, January 25, 1977.

3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Health Effects Attributable to Coal and Nuclear Fuel Cycle Alternatives," USNRC Draft Report NUREG-0332, September 1977.

4. National Research Council, ' Energy in Transition: 1985-2010," National Academy of Sciences Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, Washington, D.C., 1979.*

5. Title 10, " Energy," Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, " Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures for Environmental Protection," 1981.

6. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Use of Mixed 0xide Fuel in Light Water Cooled Reactors -

Health, Safety and Environment," USNRC Report NUREG-0002., Vols.1-5, August 1976.

7. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, " Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle," USAEC Report WASH-1248, Washington, D.C. , April 1974.

8. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Environmental Survey of the Reproc- I i

essing and Waste Management Portion of the LWR Fuel Cycle," USNRC Report NUREG-0116 (Supplement 1 to WASH-1248), October 1976.

9. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Public Comments on the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel <

Cycle," USNRC Report NUREG-0216 (Supplement 2 to WASH-1248), March 1977.

l 10. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Record of the Final Rulemaking Per-taining to Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts From Spent Fuel Reprocessing and l Radioactive Waste Management," Docket No. RM-50-3,1977. l l

11. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Radon Releases from Uranium Mining and Milling and their Calculated Health Effects," USNRC Report NUREG-0757, '

j February 1981.

• A version published in 1980 by W. kl. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, ]

California, is also available. Page numbers will differ.

( NUREG-0332 6-1 l

1

12. E. F. Branagan and R. K. Struckmeyer, Testimony on the Potential Radio- 1 logical Health Effects of Technetium-99 Releases From the Fuel Cycle, l Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, October 14, 1981. ,

13. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Transcript of the Environmental l Hearing for the Perkins Nuclear Power Station," Docket Nos. 50-488, 50-489, and 50-490, following p. 2369 and p. 2425, May 16, 1978.

14. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Evidentiary Hearing Record Before an Appeal Board on the Radon Release Issue, February 26-28, 1980," Docket l Nos. 50-277, 50-278, 50-320, 50-354, 50-355, and 50-485, 1980.

15. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Decision (ALAB-640), Docket Nos.

50-277, 50-278, 50-320, 50-354, and 50-355, May 13, 1981.

16. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Memorandum and Order'(ALAB-654),

Docket Nos. 50-277, 50-278, 50-320, 50-354, and 50-355, September 11, 1981.

17. G. G. Killough, "A Diffusion-Type Model of the Global Carbon Cycle for the Estimation of Dose to the World Population From Releases of Carbon-14 to the Atmosphere," Dak Ridge National- Laboratory Report ORNL-5269, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, May 1977.

18. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Final Generic Environmental Impact  !

Statement on Uranium Milling Project M-25," USNRC Report NUREG-0706, J Vols. 1-3, September 1980.

19. J. L. Heffter and G. J. Ferber, "A Regional-Continental Scale Transport, Diffusion, and Deposition Model," U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum ERL ARL-50, Air Resources Laboratories, Silver Spring, Maryland, June 1975.

20. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment  !

of Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants," Appendix VI, WASH-1400 i (NUREG-75/014), October 1975. '

21. International Commission on Radiological Protection, " Report of Committee II i on Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation," ICRP Publication 2, Pergamon i Press, New York, 1959.

22. Memorandum from NRC staff to GESMO Hearing Board, " Modification to Table IV J(E)-1 and Corollary Changes Resulting From 21oPb MPC Correction,"

Docket No. RM-50-5, April 8, 1977.

23. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.109, " Calculation of Annual Doses to Man From Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance With 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I."

24. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Committee on

( the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations, "The Effects on Population l of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: 1980," National Academy l Press, Washington, D.C., 1980.

NUREG-0332 6-2

25. T. D. Luckey, Hormesis With Ionizing Rad'. . ion CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, 1980.

26. U.S. Department of Commerce, Projections of the Population of the United States: 1977 to 2050, Series P-25, No. 704, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., July 1977.

27. J. Norwine, "A Question of Climate," Environment 19 (8), 6, November 1977.

28. C. F. Bees, " Carbon Dioxide and Climate: The Uncontrolled Experiment,"

American Scientist 65, 310-320, May-June 1977.

29. J. M. Mitchell, Jr., " Carbon Dioxide and Future Climate," U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, EDS, March 1977.

30. J. H. Mercer, " West Antarctic Ice Sheet and CO2 Greenhouse Effect: A Threat of Disaster," Nature 271, 321-325, January 26, 1978.

31. S. H. Schneider and R. J. Chen, " Carbon Dioxide Warming and Coastline Flooding: Physical Factors and Climatic Impact," Annual Review of Energy 5, 107-140, 1980.

32. N. Calder, " Head South With All Deliberate Speed: Ice May Return in a Few Thousand Years," Smithsonian 8 (10), January 1978.

33. L. Ponte, The Cooling, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,1976.

34. H. H. Lamb, Climate: Present, Past and Future, Vol. 2, Methuen, London; Barnes and Noble, New York, 1977.

35. R. L. Gotchy, "NRC Estimates of Health Risks Associated With Low-Level Radiation Exposure" in Proceedings of the 10th Annual National Conference on Radiation Control, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, April 30-May 4, 1978, HEW Publication (FDA) 79-8054, Food and Drug Administration, Bureau of Radiological Health, Rockville, Maryland, June 1979.

i

36. R. L. Gotchy, " Health Risks From the Nuclear Fuel Cycle," in Health Risks Associated With Energy Technologies, AAAS Selected Symposium, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1982.

37. U.S. Department of Commerce, Historical Statistics of the United States:

Colonial Times to 1970, Part 1, Series 8149-166, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., 1976.

38. R. Weiss, " Vaccination Against Virus Induced Tumors," Nature 267, 205-206, May 19, 1977.

39. S. Nagata et al., " Synthesis in E. coli of a Polypeptide With Human Leukocyte Interferon Activity," Nature 289, 316-318, March 27, 1980.

40. B. R. Bloom, " Interferons and the Immune System," Nature 284, 593-595, April 17, 1980.

NUREG-0332 6-3

41. S. Bram et al. , " Vitamin-C Preferential Toxicity for Malignant Melanoma Cell," Nature 284, 629-630, April 17, 1980.

42. M. 8. Sporn, " Combination Chemoprevention of Cancer," Nature 287, 107-108, September 11, 1980.

43. R. Derynck et al. " Expression of Human Fibroblast Interferon Gene in Escherichia coli," Nature 287, 193-197, September 18, 1980.

44. D. V. Goeddel et al., " Human Leukocyte Interferon Produced by E. coli Is Biologically Active," Nature 287, 411-415, October 2, 1980.

45. R. J. Avery et al. , " Interferon Inhibits Transformation by Murine Sarcoma Viruses Before Integration of Provirus," Nature 288, 93-95, November 6, 1980.

46. C. C. Zielinski et al. , " Surface Phenotypes in T-cell Leukemia Are Determined by Oncogenic Retroviruses," Nature 288, 489-491, December 4, 1980.

47. R. L. Gotchy, " Comparison of Long-Term Environmental Impacts; More Questions Than Answers." Paper presented at 1978 Annual Meeting of the American Nuclear Society, San Diego, California, June 18-27, 1978, TANSAO 28 1-804, 1978.

48. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Proposed Narrative Explanation of Table S-3, Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, 10 CFR Part 51,"

Federal Register Vol. 46, No. 42, pp.15129-15255, March 4,1981.

49. C. C. Travis et al., "A Radiological Assessment of Rn-222 Released From Uranium Mills and Other Natural and Technologically Enhanced Sources,"

USNRC Report NUREG/CR-0573 (0RNL/NUREG-55), February 1979.

50. J. P. McBride et al., " Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants," Science 202 (4372), 1045-1050, December 8, 1978.  ;

51. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, " Radiological Impact Caused by Emissions of Radionuclides Into the Air in the United States." Prelimi- i nary Report EPA 520/7-79-006, Washington, D.C., August 1979.

52. W. C. Camplin, " Coal-Fired Power Stations--The Radiological Impact of Effluent Discharges to Atmosphere," National Radiological Protection '

Board Report NRPB-R107, Oxon, England, June 1980, i

53. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, " Natural Back-ground Radiation in the United Stdies," NCRP Report No. 45, Washington, D.C., November 1975.

54. United Nations Scientific Cor.sitteu on the Effects of Atomic Radiation,

" Sources and Effects of Ionizi,g Radiation," Report to the General Assembly, UN No. E.77.IX.1, Niv York, 1977.

NUREG-0332 6-4

~

1 l

t 1

55. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, " Radiation Exposure From Consumer Products and Miscellaneous Sources," NCRP Report No. 56, Washington, D.C., November 1977.

56. B. L. Cohen, "The Role of Radon in Comparisons of Effects of Radioactivity Releases From Nuclear Power, Coal Burning and Phosphate Mining," Health Physics 40, 19-25, January 1981.

57. A Report to the President by the Toxic Substances Strategy Committee,

" Toxic Chemicals and Public Protection," Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C., May 1980.

S8. R. C. Erdmann et al., " Status Report on the EPRI Fuel Cycle Accident Risk Assessment," Electric Power Research Institute, Report NP-1128 Research Project 767-1, Palo Alto, California, July 1979.

59. D. T. Oakley, " Natural Radiation Exposure in the United States," U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Report ORP/SID/72-1, Washington, D.C.,

June 1972.

60. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations, "The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation," U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency, Washington, D.C., 1972.

61. American Cancer Society, Inc., Cancer Facts and Figures--1979, American Cancer Society, New York, 1978.

62. National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States: 1972, VOL. II. Mortality, Part A, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, D.C., 1976.

63. E. Pochin, "The Acceptance of Risk," British Medical Bulletin 31 (3),

184-190, 1975.

64. U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, " Energy and the Environment:

Electric Power," Washington, D.C., August 1973.

M. Eisenbud and H. G. Petrow, " Radioactivity in the Atmospheric Effluents 65.

l of Power Plants That Use fossil Fuels," Science 144, 288-289, 1964.

66. J. E. Martin, E. D. Harward, and D. T. Oakley, " Radiation Doses From Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Power Plants," in Power Generation and Environmental Change, D. A. Berkowitz and A. A. Squires, Eds. (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971).

i

67. J. E. Martin, " Comparative Population Radiation Dose Commitments of )

Nuclear and Fossil Fuel Electric Fuel Cycles," in Proceedings of the l Eighth Topical Symposium of the Health Physics Society, October 21-24, j 1974, Knoxville, Tennessee, CONF-741018, pp. 317-326.

68. R. J. Guimond and J. E. Fitzgerald, "The Radiological Implications of l Increased Coal Utilization," in Proceedings of the 10th Midyear Topical l Symposium of the Health Physics Society, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, j New York, October 1976.

NUREG-0332 6-5

69. H. L. Beck et al., " Perturbations of the Natural Radiation Environment Due to the Utilization of Coal as an Energy Source," Paper presented at DOE /UT Symposium cn the Natural Radiation Environment III, Houston, Texas, April 1978.

70. J. O. Corbett, "The Enhancement of Natural Radiation Dosage by Coal-Fired Power Generation in the United Kingdom," Central Electricity Generating Board Report RD/B/N4760, Research Division Berkeley Nuclear Laboratories, England, February 1980.

71. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Radon Releases From Uranium Mining l

and Milling, and Their Calculated Health Effects," Appendix B, USNRC Report NUREG-0757, February 1981.

72. R. C. Christman et al., " Activities, Effects and Impacts of the Coal Fuel Cycle for a 1,000 MWe Electric Power Generating Plant," USNRC Report NUREG/CR-1060, February 1980.

73. W. K. C. Morgan, " Pathophysiology of Coal Workers' Respiratory Diseases,"

in Health Implications of New Energy Technology, W. N. Rom and V. E.

Archer, Eds. (Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1980).

74. H. E. Rockette, " Mortality Patterns of Coal Miners," in Health Implica-tions of New Energy Technology, W. N. Rom and V. E. Archer, Eds. (Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1980).  ;

75. A. J. Dvorak et al. , "The Environmental Effects of Using Coal for Gen-erating Electricity," USNRC Report NUREG-0252, June 1977.

76. S. Torry, Ed. , " Trace Contaminants From Coal Preparation Waste and Ash Disposal," in Trace Contaminants from Coal (Noyes Data Corp. , Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1978).

77. D. F. S. Natusch, J. R. Wallace, and C. A. Evans, Jr. , " Toxic Trace Elements: Preferential Concentration in Respirable Particles," Science 1 183, 202-204, January 18, 1974.

78. U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, " Environmental Quality - 1979," j 10th Annual Report, Washington, D.C., December 1979.

79. Ministry of Health, " Mortality and Morbidity During the London Fog of l December 1952," Ministry of Health Report No. 95, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1954.  !

80. H. H. Schrenk et al. , " Air Pollution in Donora, Pa. ; Epidemiology of the l Unusual Smog Episode of October, 1948--Preliminary Report." Federal l Security Agency, U.S. Public Health Service, Washington, D.C., 1949.

l 81. H. Schimmel and L. Greenberg, "A Study of the Relation of Pollution to l Mortality; New York City, 1963-1968," Journal of the American Pollution Control Association 22 (8), 607-616, August 1972.

NUREG-0332 6-6

82. C. E. Chrisp, G. L. Fisher, and J. E. Lammert, " Mutagenicity of Filtrates j From Respirable Coal Fly Ash," Science 199, 73-75, January 6, 1978. 4

83. W. Winklestein, Jr., et al., "The Relationship of Air Pollution and i Economic Status to Total Mortality and Selected Respiratory System Mortality in Men: I. Suspended Particulate," Archives of Environ-mental Health 14, 162-171, January 1967.

84. L. B. Lave and E. P. Seskin, "An Analysis of the Association Between U.S.

Mortality and Air Pollution," Journal of the American Statistical Association 68, 284-290, June 1970.

85. L. B. Lave and E. P. Seskin, Air Pollution and Human Health, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 1977.

86. L. B. Lave and E. P. Seskin, " Epidemiology, Causality and Public Policy,"

American Scientist 67, 178-186, March-April 1979.

87. M. G. Morgan et al., "A Probabilistic Methodology for Estimating Air Pollution Health Effects From Coal-Fired Power Plants," Energy Syste_ms and Policy 2, 287-310, 1978.

88. L. D. Hamilton, " Comparative Risks From Different Energy Systems:

Evolution of the Methods of Studies," International Atomic Energy Agency Bulletin 22, 35-71, Vienna, October 1980.

89. D. R. Dreesen et al., " Solubility of Trace Elements in Coal Fly Ash," in Environmental Chemistry and Cycling Processes, D. C. Adrians and J. L.

Brisbin, Eds. , CONF-760429 (U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. ,

3978).

90. V. E. Swenson et al., " Collection, Chemical Analysis, and Evaluation of Coal Samples in 1975," U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 76-468, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1976. l

91. "GAO Estimates Cost of Land Subsidence," p. A-3, Washington Post, February 26, 1979. j l

92. J. E. Yocum and N. Grippone, " Effects of Power Plant Emissions on Mate- {

rials," Research Corporation of New England for Electric Power Research l Institute Report EC-139, Palo Alto, California, July 1976. I

93. D. W. Warner and M. W. Markhofer, "A Methodology for Analyzing Emission Control Strategies," Computer and Operations Research 3, 185-207, 1976.

94. B. H. Carpenter et al., " Health Costs of Air Pollution Damage," U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA-600/5-77-006, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, February 1977.

95. M. B. Spangler, " Syndromes of Risk and Environmental Protection: The l Conflict of Individual and Societal Values," The Environmental Professional i 2 (3/4), 1980. j NUREG-0332 6-7

96. C. Starr, " Social Benefit Versus Technological Risk," Science 165, 1232-1237, September 19, 1969.

97. National Safety Council, Accident Facts, National Safety Council, Chicago, Illinois, 1979.

98. P. Slovic et al., " Rating the Risks," Environment 21, 14-20, April 1979.

99. B. Fischhoff et al. , " Approaches to Acceptable Risk: A Critical Guide,"

USNRC Report NUREG/CR-1614, December 1980.

100. Commission of the European Communities, " Nuclear and Non-nuclear Risk An Exercise in Comparability," ISBN 92-825-1535-4, 1980, Directorate-General, Scientific and Technical Information Management, Batiment Jean Monuet, Brussels, 1980.

101. R. L. DuPont, Nuclear Phobia--Phobic Thinking About Nuclear Power, The Media Institute, Washington, D.C., 1980.

102. M. M. Maxey, "Radwastes and Public Ethics: Issues and Imperatives,"

Health Physics 34, 129-135, February 1978.

103. M. M. Maxey, " Energy Policy - Bioethical Principles and Priorities," in Proceedings of the American Nuclear Society / European Nuclear Society Topical Meeting on Thermal Reactor Safety, April 6-9, 1980, Knoxville, Tennessee, Vol. I, CONF-800403.

NUREG-0332 G-8

i I

7 GLOSSARY BEIR biological effects of ionizing radiation Btu British thermal unit 1 CEC Commission of the European Communities CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations ,

CONAES Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, NAS l CWP coal workers' pneumoconiosis EDC environmental dose commitment EPA Environmental Protection Agency FGD flue gas desulfurization GESMO Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Use of Mixed Oxide Fuel ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection LET linear energy transfer LWR light-water reactor NAS National Academy of Sciences NEPA National Environmental Policy Act ,

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission i PMF progressive massive fibrosis ppm parts per million RRY reference reactor year U. K. United Kingdom WLM working-level months I

i i

I I

I NUREG-0332 7-1

y 1

u s. Nucuma noutuoa, cO N i m om uu..Ea<a.~,., rec - N..... ,,

g*ou ni E'"/S'- BIBuOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG-0332

$EE INSTRUCTIONS D 6REVER$$ .

3 TITLE Amo sueTITLE 3 LEAVE SLANK Potential He th and Environmental Impacts Attributable the Nuclear and Coal Fuel Cycles

. oATE af oat fraTEo Final Report woNT- vEAa

. uv omsi j{ ,

6 oATEpORT t5$vED R. L. Gotchy " "'"

June f Il 1987 T .woa ,No o.aA z AT.oN NA.E A~ AiaNo Aoo,,iss ,,,,. i. co., . ..oacm As. u~n Nu..Ea Office of Nuclear Rea or Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulator Commission , ,,un c,,I ,,vo..,,

Washington, DC 20555 10 SPON509tNG OAGAN,2 ATION N AME AND MAILING DHESS f tnsfude le ceerf II. PE OF REPORT Office of Nuclear Reactor ulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co sion Washington, DC 20555 [ ' Techn ical A

M' September 1979-November 1981 12 SUPPLEMENT ARY NOTE 5 13 A)ST A Acl Gid teor @s g# 43/

[

Estimates of mortality and morbidit are prese based on present-day knowledge of

~

health effects resulting from curre compone designs and operations of the nuclear and coal fuel cycles, and anticipate emissip rates and occupational exposure for the various fuel cycle facilities expecte to gfinto operation during the next decade. The author concluded that, although there e garge uncertainties in the estimates of potential health effects, the coal fuel ~ cle alternative has a greater health impact on man than the uranium fuel cycle. Howey , the increased risk of health effects for either fuel cycle represents a very sgjir incremental risk to the average individual in the public for the balance of this c f'itur The potential for large impacts exists in both fuel cycles, but the potentialt mpact associated with a runaway Greenhouse Effect from combustion of fossil fuels, ch as c 1, cannot yet be reasonably quantified.

Some of the potential environmen. impacts . the coal fuel cycle cannot currently be realistically estimated, but th e that can a sear greater than those from the nuclear )

fuel cycle, d '

j A

14 DOCUMtNT AN AL Y5t$ - . .E

• WORD 5/D H8PTOR5 1 16 A A LAS lit v Environmental Impa Coal Fuel Cycle 4 Unlimited l Nuclear Fuel Cy >

,,,,co,,,,,L,,,,,c,,,,, j Health risks ,

,7,,,,,,,.,

,, ioEmi,,me,EN ENoi aus Unclassified

< rm, ,.,-,

Environmen impact statements Unclassified

% o NvusEmo*PAGEs 18 price

• U. 5, COVE Rhmthi DR!hfik; OrF ICE 19 87- 181 68 2 a 60148.i

, -7 ,

a. .>

UNITED' STATES - -

. ,,,,, m a

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ' Postaes e ress pano

' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 'wfE"E.c...

. PERMIT No. 047 '

OFFICIAL BUSINESS /

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE,4300 120555078877 1 1AN1RE

' ' "O' US NRC-0 ARM-ADM nIV OF PUB SVCS POLICY & PUB MGT BR-PDR NUREG W-537 -

7 WASHINGTON DC 20555 r

'\.

'. l 1

l' l

t .- - g.: {

l '-1 y

I l ,

. _l f

]

.., ., q

'y' 9

A

, a f

l i..

l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ m.. _