NUREG-0332, Forwards Info in Response to 791203 Comments on Des for Facilities & Economics & Radiation Hazards of Nuclear Generation.Includes Draft NUREG-0332, Health Effects Attributable to Coal & Nuclear Fuel Cycle Alternatives
| ML17138B097 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1980 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Warden W AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17138B098 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002260610 | |
| Download: ML17138B097 (21) | |
Text
~5 IlEoyrQ-
~
~
C Cl I;I O
l n ++*+~
CHAIRMAN UNITEDSTATES NUCL R REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 January 31, 1980 Mr. William G. Warden, IV 32 St. Anthony Street Lewisburg, Pennsylvania 17837
Dear Mr. Warden:
You wrote on December 3, 1979, commenting on the Draft Environmental Statement (DES) for the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station and expressed general concerns about the economics and radiation hazards of nuclear power generation.
I asked the NRC staff to develop the attached papers covering some of your points.
The NRC publishes all of the comments received on the DES in the Final Environmental Statement (FES), along with the staff's responses to these coments.
Therefore, your comments on the DES and our response will appear in the FES.
I hope these enclosures will provide some useful information.
ohn F. Ahearne Enclosures cc:
Attached List QJ 8003260 fyg
'Mr. W'illiam G. Warden, IV 2
cc:
w/enclosures:
Jay Silberg, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts 5 Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Edward M. Nagel, Esq.
Vice President.,
General Counsel
-" and Secretary Pennsylvania Power and Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 Mr.. Robert M. Gallo U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O.
Box 52 Shickshinny, Pennsylvania 18655 Ms. Colleen Marsh 558 A R.D. 4 Mount Top, Pennsylvania 18707 Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud Co-Director, Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Mrs. Irene Lemanowicz The Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers P.O.
Box 377 R.D.
1 Berwick, Pennsylvania 18603 Gerald Schultz, Esq.
Susquehanna Environmental Advocates 500 South River Street Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18702 Mr. Thomas M. Gerusky, Director Bureau of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Resources Commonwealth of Pennsylvania P.O.
Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Mr. William Barberich Nuclear Licensing Group Supervisor Pennsylvania Power 5 fight Co.
2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 Pennsylvania Power and Light Company ATTN:
Mr. Norman W.'urtis Vice President, Engineering and Construction 2 North Ninth Str eet Al1entown, Pennsyl vania 18101
ELECTRICAL DEMAND AND FORECAST Your concerns about the uncertainty of the future electrical demand'and the b'1't t fo ecast this demand 10 years into the future with any degree of precision is also our concern.
It is the electricity utility y,
industr not the.'nuclear industry as you indicate, that is responsible for the plannina and u
ima lt'ely providing reliable power to its customers.
This responsibili y entails planning, constructing and operating a mixture of base 1
~
~
e oad inter-mediate and peaking generating units together with a transmission 'and distribu-tion system.
It is the state rate commissions that regulate this industry, not the NRC.
The NRC's primary responsibility is to regulate the processing and utilization of source, byproduct and special nuclear material in order to protect the health and safety of the public.
{A copy of the "Nuclear Regulatory Legisla-
-tion roug e
th h th 95th Congress 20 Session" is enclosed.)
The NRC Environmental Statements are done in accordance with the Commission s Regulation 10 CFR Part 51
{see'age 392 of the enclosed copy) which implements the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
{NEPA)...This requires, among other
- things, a review of the "need for the facility" which involves NRC in the review and analysis of future electric power needs.
Based on a generic study which is in the draft stage our preliminary analysis in ica es d'
that the economic penalty or benefits of delaying a nuclear uni i is 1ons highly dependent on the relative cost of the alternative fuel, For reg where fossil fuel cost is less than about 1.5 times nuclear fuel cost, there is no significant economic penalty or benefit in delaying the issuance of a construction permit (CP) for a nuclear unit.
The regions of the country where fossil fuel cost is expected to be less than about 1.5 times nuclear fuel costs are Central
{NB, IA, KS, MO), North Central (CO, UT, WY, MT, ND, SD), Mid West (MH, WI, IL, IN, OH, MI).
For these regions the economic penalty for delaying a nuclear unit vihen it is in fact needed is about 1%. for each year it is delayed.
(S NUREG-0480 "Coal and Nuclear:
A comparison of the Cost of Generating Baseload Electricity by Region, copy enclosed.)
If the unit is not ne ee eded i.e., the growth rate is less than forecasted, there is no signficant difference in cost between delaying the CP and not delaying in these regions.
Alternatively, there is no cost penalty for building. early and significant advantages should derive from increased system reliability and/or provide adequate reserves in the event of unexpected growth.,
As you point out, future demand is very uncertain.
Therefore, utility planning must take into account unexpected increases in demand growth as well as unexpected declines.
For regions or utility systems where a significant fraction of electricity production (greater than about 15Ã) is generated using fossil fuels costing more than about 1.5 times nuclear fuel cost, the economic penalty for delaying a nuclear unit when in fact it is needed increases as the differences between nuclear fuel cost and fossil fuel cost increase.
The regions of the country where fossil fuel cost are expected to be greater than 1.5 times nuclear fuel cost are Hew England (ME, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI),
New YorkjNew Jersey, Middle Atlantic (PA, MO, DE, WV+, VA), South Atlantic (NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, TN, KY*,
MS), and Southwest (LA, AR, OK, TX, NM).
The economic penalty for delaying a
. nuclear unit when it is needed in these regions ranges from about lf. per year of delay where coal is the main fuel to about 6~ per year of delay (i.e.,
2+i of a 4 year delay) where oil or gas is the main fuel.
~ ince KY and VT are coa producing states they probable belong in the former grouping i ATTPCHYENT 1
If the growth rate turns out to be less than forecasted, the savings in fuel cost due to bringing the nuclear unit on before it is needed to maintain planning reserve margin ranges from about 4A to '10~ for each year. of early introduction.
The lower figure is for high cost coal as replacement fuel (coal costing about 2.4 times nuclear fuel cost) and the higher figure is for oil or gas (fuel costing about 6 times nuclear fuel cost).
This study shows that if there is an error in the forecast of electricity demand, it is better to err.on the high side and have too much capacity than to err on the low side and have less than the optimum amount of capacity.
In fact, the results indicate that it would be economical to bring nuclear units on early and retire and write off the remaining capital cost of old oil fueled'nits or high fuel cost coal units.
For systems with high cost of generation there may be no penalty for excess generation capacity because the optimum level of reserves resulting in the lowest cost to the consumer is higher than the minimum level of reserve based solely on reliability considerations.
PRICE-ANDERSON AND GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY Under the Price-Anderson Act (Public Law 85-256, as amended; 42 USC 2211) there is a system of private funds and government indemnity totalling up to
$ 560 million to pay public liability claims for personal injury and property damage resulting from a nuclear incident.
The Act, which was passed in 1957 and extended in 1965 for ten years until 1977 and was again extended in 1975 for an additional ten-year period through July 31, 1987, requires licensees of commercial nuclear power plants having a rated capacity. of 100,000 electrical kilowatts or more to provide proof to the NRC that they have financial protec-tion in the form of private nuclear liability insurance, or in some other form approved by the Commission, in an amount equal to the maximum amount of liability insurance available at reasonable cost and on reasonable terms from private sources.
That financial protection, presently
$495 million, is comprised of primary private nuclear liability insurance of $ 160 ~illion in the aggregate available from two nuclear liability insurance
- pools, American Nuclear Insurance (ANI) and Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters (MAELU) and a secondary retrospective premium insurance layer.
In the event of a nuclear incident causing damages exceeding
$ 160 million, each commercial nuclear.
power plant licensee would be assessed a prorated share of damages in excess of the primary insurance layer up to
$ 5 million per the number of power reactors *it is licensed to operate per incident but not in excess of $ 10 million for each reactor in any year.
With 67 commercial reactors operating under this
- system, the secondary insurance layer totals
$335 million.
The difference of $65 million between the financial protection layers of
$495 million and the
$ 560 million liability limit is the present government indemnity level.
Government indemnity will gradually be phased out as more commercial reactors are l,icensed and licensees participate in the retrospec-tive premium system.
At the time the primary and.secondary financial pro-tection layers by themselves provide liability coverage of $560 million, government indemnity will be eliminated.
After that point, the liability limit would increase in increments of $ 5 million for each new commercial reactor licensed without any cap on the limit.
With regard to your concerns on government subsidy; we know of no subsidy,'nique to nuclear power, in the funding of commercial nuclear power plants.
With regard to the question on government subsidy in insuring nuclear power
- plants, the extent of Federal subsidy cannot be precisely determined.
This is because there is some degree of uncertainty in determining. the risk associated with the ooeration of a nuclear power plant.
- However, we do not think this "subsidy" would significantly alter cost comparisons between nuclear
. power and its competitors.
'When the Price-Anderson Act was enacted in 1957 and when it was extended in 1965, the Government's involvement as indemnitor was seen as a temporary necessity.
The utility industry was eventually expected to assume the financial risks of its operations.
The subsidy issue was raised by a number of witnesses during hearings held by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy in 1974 and 1975 on the extension of the Price-Anderson Act.
- Indeed, the legislative proposals submitted by the Administration in both years uiere senSitive to thm concern and provided as a major provision, the phase out of Government indemnity.
H. R. 8631, the bill reported out by the Joint Committee in 1975 contained provisions for phasing out Government indemnity by assessing each licensee of a large power reactor a deferred premium which would be calculated as a prorated share of the damages exceeding the base ATTACHMEjiT 2
layer of insurance.
The Commission.was also sensitive to the subsidy argument when it established the retrospective premium at
$ 5 million per reactor per incident the maximum amount permitted by Public Law 94-197.
See 42 USC 2210(b) and 42 FR 49 (January 3, 1977).
As a matter of interest, it should be noted
. that no Federal payments have been made under the Price-Anderson Act for the Three tlile Island Accident.
The only other current subsidy we know of which is unique to the civilian nuclear power industry is uranium enrichment services.
This service is done with security classified equipment at Federal facilities with a charge to users of the service.
The 1978 charge is $88.65 per kg separative work units (swu).
Estimates of the cost of providing the service from a newly constructed private facility are
$ 100 per kg swu when all costs including taxes, private industry interest
- rates, and business profits are included.
If one ignores any benefits'which might accrue to the government from operating its enrichment facility for commercial purposes and considers the difference between the cost of new plant and current charges to be a subsidy, the subsidy would be approximately 0.4 mills per KHh.
Subsidies of various types are pervasive in our economy.
Accounting for subsidies in one industry, or energy source is difficult; a comparison between unsubsidized costs of alternative energy sources is almost impossible.
One should be extremely cautious in drawing conclusions as to which energy source receives the most subsidies.
For example, payments for black lung disease, indirect subsidies to barging,
- highways, and railroads; Federal and.state minerals exploration; leasing of mineral rights on public lands.
investment tax credit and preference tax and borrowing benefits all are sulsidies in varying degree to 'energy sources which compete with one another.
An attempt to enumerate Federal subsidies is contained in a Congressional Staff Study entitled "Federal Subsidy Programs," Joint Economic Committee, October 18, 1974; a copy is enclosed.
The section most related to energy subsidies appears to be Natural Resources which begins on page 96.
By far the largest subsidy listed is the excess of percentage over cost depletion (commonly called "depletion allowance" ).
These are granted to extractive industries wherein tax subsidies are allowed ranging from 22 percent of gross income for oil to 5 percent for certain minerals.
This depletion allowance of $2.96 billion in 1975 compares to approximately a $96 billion total for all Federal subsidies identified in this study on page 5.
In summary, government subsidies to various energy industries are pervasive.
- Horeover, the subsidies vary in both type and value from one energy source to another.
Therefore, it becomes an extremely difficult, if not impossible, task to compare the unsubsidized costs of power production.
OECOHHISSIONING OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES The nuclear field is reaching the degree of maturity that requires increased attention to the proper retirement or decomnissioning of
.facilities.
Mith this maturity, more nuclear plants and equipment will be entering the terminal period of their useful lives.
Since most of these facilities have been involved in handling radioactive materials, the emphasis must be upon the safety of the process of decommissioning and decontamination.
The present NRC decomnissioning regulations, originally promulgated by the Atomic Energy Commission, are contained in Sections 50.33(f) and 50.82 of 10 CFR Part 50.
These regulations require applicants for power reactor operating licenses to furnish the Nuclear Regulatory Coamission (NRC) with sufficient information to demonstrate that they can obtain the funds needed to meet both operating costs as well as the estimated costs
~
of permanently shutting down the facility and maintaining it in a safe condition.
The development of detailed, specific decomnissioning plans for nuclear power plants is not currently required until the licensee seeks to terminate its operating license.
Should license termination be desired, Section 50.82 of 10 CFR Part 50 requires that the licensee provide the Co7mission with information on the proposed procedures for disposal of the radioactive material, decontamination of the site and procedures to assure public safety.
Present
- guidance, as contained in Regulatory Guide 1.86, considers four acceptable alternatives for retirement of nuclear reactors.
These include:
protective storage or mothballing; entombment; removal and dismantling; and conversion to a new nuclear or fossil fuel system.
Protective storage or moth-balling involves removal of all fuel and source material, the disposal of all liquid and solid waste, and placing the facility under sur-veillance.
Entombment requires similar treatment
- and, additionally, the radioactive materials and components are encased
{usually in concrete) and isolated until they decay to unrestricted levels.
Removal and dismantling require that all radioactive structures, components and sys'tems be disposed of such that the site can be released for unrestricted use.
Since 1960, five licensed nuclear power reactors, four demonstration
- reactors, six licensed test reactors, and about
-fifty research reactors have been shut down using one or another of the techniques listed above.
In addition to nuclear reactors, the nuclear fuel cycle plants that support them also require some form of deconmissioning before the facil.ities or the sites can be released for alternative uses.
The licensed.fuel cycle facilities in question are uranium mills, UF6
. conversion plants, fuel fabrication plants and fuel reprocessing plants.
Because of the low hazards associated with uranium contamination of ATTACQfENT 3.
components and systems of the front end of the fuel cycle, the standard
~procedure for decommissioning is decontamination of the facility and disposal of equipment in accordance with the NRC staff's guidelines for release for unrestricted use.
While the Cotrmission's regulatory guides and regulations embody the NRC's current approach to reactor decotnnissioning, initiatives are under-way to improve the Commission's future decommissioning practices for all nuclear facilities.
The NRC staff, recognizing that the current generation of large commercial reactors and supporting nuclear facilities would substantially increase future decommissioning
- needs, began an in-depth review and re-evaluation of NRC's regulatory approach to decommissioning in 1975.
Hajor technical studies on decormissioning have been initiated at Sattelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory in order to provide a firm iniormation base on the engineering methodology, radiation risks, and estimated costs of decommissioning light water reactors and associated fuel cycle facilities.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is now considering development of a more explicit overall policy for nuclear facility decoamissioning and amending its regulations to include more specific guidance on decommission-ing criteria for production and utilization facility licensees and byproduct,
- source, and special nuclear material licensees.
in March 1978, the
<<RC released its report, Plan for Re valuation of NRC Polic on Decomnissionina Of Nuclear Facilities NUREG-0436
, which set forth in detail the NRC staff plan for the development of an overall agency policy for nuclear facility decommissioning.
This plan was updated in December 1978 as NUREG-0436, Revision 1.
The purpose of this plan is to assure that the NRC develops a general decomnissioning policy; develops the attendant changes for regulations; develops the detailed information for use in licens'ing decisions for decoomissioning; and establishes guidance for facilitation of decornnissioning.
Decommissioning costs are included as part of the fixed cost of capital (See Table 8 and Appendix B of HUREG-0480}.
Decommissioning cost, based on prompt removal/dismantling of generating units at the end'of their life, is about 0.5% of the total fixed cost and about 0.4;l of the total cost of power generation.
DIS AL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE
'adioactive materials which result from the nuclear fuel cycle can be separated into two main categories:
l.
Effluents -. those materials discharged to the environment as gaseous or liquid effluents (the radioactive-content of these effluents must fall within established NRC and EPA limits and must be as low as reasonably achievable) - and, 2.
Wastes those materials which are of sufficient potential radiological hazard that they require special care.
Radioactive wastes (the second category) are separated into two broad classifications:
"high-level wastes" and "other than high-level wastes."
High-level wastes are radioactive wastes produced in the first solvent extraction cycle of fuel reprocessing operations and spent fuel elements should they be discarded.
They are highly radioactive and require shielding and remote handling.
NRC regulations (Appendix F of 10 CFR Part 50) require that the inventory of high-level liquid waste at a fuel reprocessing plant be limited to that produced in the prior five years and that it be con-vel ted to solid form and transferred to a federal repository within ten years of its separation from the irradiated fuel.
With the reorganization of the Atomic Energy Conmission into the Energy Research and Development Administration (now the Department of Energy [DOE])
and the Nuclear Regulatory Comnission (NRC),
NRC was given regulatory authority over storage and disposal of all commercially generated wastes and those 'DOE generated high-level radioactive wastes which are subject to long-term storage and which are not used for, or as part of, research and development activities.
To implement this authority and to provide
~ prompt guidance to DOE, the industry and the public, the NRC is developing new or revised regulatory standards and. guidelines for such storage ana disposal.
The regulations will require conformance with a fixed set of minimum acceptable performance standards (technical, social and environ-mental) for waste management activities while providing for flexibility in technological approach.
These standards and guidelines will be designed to assure public health and safety and protection of the environ-ment.
Facilities for storage and/or disposal of high-level wastes licensed by NRC will be designed and operated in accordance with NRC standards.
DOE was pursuing a program designed to accomnodate the anticipated need for'isposal of high-level waste or spent fuel that is expected to accumulate as the nuclear power industry continues to grow.
This pro-gram included, among other things, plans to develop several operations for disposal of high-level wastes in stable geological formations.
The purpose of these facilities would be to demonstrate the acceptability of a specific geological formation for permanent disposal of high-level and ATTACHMENT 4
transuranic wastes.
These facilities will be treated as permanent disposal repositories.
DOE is now awaiting a Presidential direction of policy and plans which +ill occur following completion of studies recommended by an interagency task force formed by the President.
There are several methods of high-level waste disposal which are technologically feasible.
DOE is expected to continue to investigate options to determine whether superior disposal alternatives can be developed.
For specific information concerning plans and programs,
~
contact the Director, Division of Waste Management, Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
20545.
.In parallel with DOE's research and development activities, NRC is developing performance criteria for solidified high-level wastes.
These criteria are being developed based on a systems analysis model which considers the normal and potential accident environments to which high-level solid matrices could be exposed during interim storage, transpor-tation, handling, emplacement and post-emplacement.
Repository site selection criteria are being developed and will encompass a broad spectrum of concerns including earth science, geographic, demographic and socioeconomic factors.
A study to detertttine the design and operating requirements for high-level waste repositories will provide a basis for the development of. standards and staff review methodologies.
Radioactive wastes other than high-level are buried in near-surface shallow trenches, usually in the containers in which they are shipped.
There is no intent to recover the wastes once they are buried.
There are presently six commercial facilities in the Vnited States licensed to bury low-level radioactive wastes.
They are located in West Yalley, New York; Horehead, Kentucky; Sheffield, Illinois; Beatty, Nevada; Hanford, Washington; and Barnwell, South Carolina.
At the present time, only the tatter three sites are receivinq waste for buiria)
~
Yalley and Haxey Flats sites are closed.
The Sheffield sste is filled to its licensed capacity.
A contested application for expansion of the Sheffield site is currently under review.
Burial of transuranium nuclides is limited at all but one of the sites.
Five of-the six comnercial burial grounds are located in Agreement States and are regulated by the states.
However, at two sites, the NRC licenses special nuc1ear material because the quantities authorized for posses-sion by the commercial operator exceed those which the Agreement States may license u'nder their agreements.
The Sheffield, Illinois site, located in a nonagreement
- state, is regulated by the NRC althouah the state licenses and controls activities at ihe site concerning naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioisotopes which are not subject to NRC control.
The sites are all commercially operated.
The states have assumed responsibility for long-term care of the sites.
'Since the formation of NRC's waste management program in mid-1975, efforts have been underway to identify regulatory needs for low-level waste management and to perform technical studies to support those regulations.
This effort was accelerated in mid-1977 with the creation of a Low-Level Waste Branch (LLWB} within the Office of Nuclear Material Safety'and Safeguards (NMSS) and increased resources throughout NRC.'he LLWB was assigned responsibility for technical analyses to prepare a regu'latory
- base, review license applications and coordination of NRC's technical and policy efforts for low-level wastes.
A preliminary low-level waste management program plan, NUREG-0240, was issued in October 1977.
The NRC staff has continued to refine our concept of the low-level waste program.
In addition, a number of'upporting technical studies have been initiated and preliminary results are being considered in program plan-ning.
Additional studies have been defined to support our regulation development efforts and these have been initiated or will be in the near future.
The principal objectives of the low-level waste (LLH) program are to develop a framework of criteria and regulations for long-term management of comnercial low-level waste disposal sites and to provide the tools for applicants to prepare license applications and for NRC to make uniform, timely licensing decisions.
The cost of disposal of high level waste from the fuel cycle is included in the nuclear fuel cycle cost, (See Table C-3 in NUREG-0480, copy enclosed).
For the no recycle case the spent fuel disposal cost is about 7% of thefuel cycle cost or about 1% of. the total cost of electricity generation.
For the recycle cost the disposal cost is about > of the no recycle cost.
The cost of low level waste management is included su lie in the operation and maintainance cost (See Table 9 of NUREG-0480}
d pp s
and expenses.
The low level waste management cost is about un er 2% of the operation and maintainance cost or about 0.1% of the total cost of power generation.
THE GENETIC EFFECTS OF RADIATION While many of the meetings of the AEC Commissioners were closed to the public prior to 1970, the bases for their decisions regarding commercial nuclear power were readily available in documents such as the one you reference.
The Commission was mandated by Congress, through the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, to regulate nuclear power for the protection of the health and safety of the public.
This mandate requires that the Commission make decisions regarding such. issues as the potential biological effects of ionizing radiation on the general public.
Such decisions are to be made on behalf of the public by officials approved by Congress to carry out the wishes of Congress.
Since
- 1975, Commission meetings have been increasingly open to the public, and since 1976, the. Government in the Sunshine Act (5USC552b) has'required that essentially all Commission meetings be open to the public.
In the case of NRC staff. studies regarding genetic effects, all such studies are placed in public files, and much of the staff work regarding controversial issues (e.g., effects of low-level ionizing radiation) is placed before the public durin'g rulemaking hearings or hearings on individual licensing actions in which the public has ample opportunity to participate.
Similar procedures are followed by other government bodies such as the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Although some individuals may not agree with decisions made by government agencies, such decisions are only made after detailed studies and evaluations by people who are truly interested in reducing public health risks.
As an example, I am enclosing a copy of a recent NRC document which shows the comparative risks of both the nuclear fuel cycle and the coal fuel cycle.
From this document, you will find that the current estimated health risks of the nuclear fuel cycle for a typical nuclear power plant (e.g.,
Susquehanna) are relatively small even using what we feel are assumptions that tend to maximize the health effects of the nuclear fuel cycle.
For example:
1.
Potential latent cancer health effects over a 1,000 year period (to allow for future effects from long-lived radioactivity) after one year of operation of the entire nuclear fuel cycle related to the single power plant are on the order of 2 to 4 deaths or less in the whole U.S. population (also assumed to'remain constant for 1,000 years).
2.
Potential genetic effects. over five generations of humans (to allow any possible'mutations to spread throughout society) is on the order. of a single genetic defect for the U.S. population.
To help give so'me perspective to what that might mean, we find that comparing this with the other competing risks in the U.S.
may be useful:
l.
About 1% of the people deriving electrical energy from a typical nuclear plant (about one-million persons) will die ~durin the year the power was generated (i.e., about 10,000 deaths).
ATTACHMENT 5 2.
Of those that die, current statistics indicate that about 205 would die from cancer (i.e., about 2,000 cancer deaths in one year for the population of 1,000,000. persons
).
3.4f the 2,000 cancer
- deaths, most technical experts would estimate that about 1 to 105 would be from natural background radiation (i.e.,
20 to 200 deaths per year).
4.
At the present time it is estimated that of total conceptions, about 35~ to 70$ fail to result in a live birth.
5.
Of the babies that achieve a live birth, about 5X to 10'4 carry a genetic defect which will express itself as a genetically linked disease, congenital anomaly, or a constitutional or degenerative disease.
During the same year the electric power was generated, about 10,000'babies will be born to the 1,000,000 population, and of that total, about 500 to 1,000 will possess a
genetic defect of some kind that are totally unrelated to the operation of the nuclear power plant.
Mhile we recognize that all such unwanted effects represent personal tragedies to individuals and their families,'and represent a large hidden cost to society (e.g., hospitalization, suffering, and medical costs), it is important to recog-nize that such events will occur whether or not the nuclear power option is
- pursued, and comparable effects from other fuel cycles will probably be even greater.
Your comment about "the lack, of knowledge in an industry..." is unclear to us since the facts presented
- above, and the information base from which they are determined, are more complete and accurate than for most other hazards to which humans are exposed.
. MISCELLANEOUS These comments are in response to your specific concerns regarding retrofittsng
~
and security costs which, contrary to your impressions, are included in our cost estimates.
R t f'tt' In an effort to determine the effects of regulation on nuclear e ro )
ing:
power generation cost; the seventy operating nuclear plant capital s
co ts were studied for a 10 year period (1969-1978).
Since most of.these plants were 1
'han 10 years old the increase in capital cost was assumed to be due to cost of retrofitting to meet regulatory requirements and not snterim rep lace-ment of components.
The capital investment in plant and equipment increased about 3% per year from 1973 through 1976.
.After 1976 the.retrofitting cost appears to be declining which indicates that the newer plants have incorporated tlute latest regulatory requirements into their design before they were built and.thus the regulatorycosts are reflected in the higher capital cost of the plant.
In the enclosed HUREG-0480 report it is assumed that the plant, design meets all regulatory guidelines and that it will be free from future major backfitting requirements.
It.is expected. that by the early 1980's most of the design requirements to meet safety and environmental requirements will be incorporated into the plant design before it is built.
Security:
The operation and maintenance cost (Table 9 of NUREG-0480) includes the cost for a 56 man security force out of a total force of 314 persons.
ATTACHMENT 6
93d Confess ZOZHT COhDdXTTZE PRINT M Session FEDERAL SUBSIDY PROGRAMS
~,
5 4 ST~P STUDY PREPhRED FOR THE USE OP THE SVBCOi~QIITTEE OZ PRIORITIES MD EGOS 0>IY K GOVZRhRIEHT OP THE JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE CONBRZSS OP THE ~ITED STATES OCTOBER 1S, l974 Printed for the nse of the Joint Economic Committee S9-191 UD. GOVERNMENT PRlNTlNG OPFlCE
%'hsHINGToN t 19'or sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Gorernmeat Printing Ofsce Washington. D.C. 20402 - Price 51.60 Stoch Number 62T0-02670
NUBEG-0332 I
."HEALTH EIFiFECTS ATTRIIBUYABLE.
"TO COAL AND NUCLEAFIl F'UEL CYCLE.
ALYEBNAT.IIVES
~ Rfoy 0
e n
C O
~+
~a*++
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
COALAND NUCLEAR:
A COMPARISON GF THE COST OF GENERATING BASELGAID ELECTRICITY BY REGION J. 0. Roberts S. M. Davis D. A. Nash
~pR Rf'.Qy~
~4 O
Cy 1
o~
Wy*~4 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~ I' t'I'V it
'L. t gh t-,
k 1 ~
t t 1'pitj 'I g le P tt P'"
~ ' " t
"~I:':'"' ~ .j t
8
I
~'
~
~ I t11'I
. ',=:;.ZUCLZ&REBUL'GORY..LEGIST.TION'-'-'-'-
"-;.-."..:"'-:.-,:-;-;.':95TH"COHBRESS; D
SESSIOiW,-':';.<<..':"
~ -'.". 'THE-'SUBCO1GQTZEE 'ON "ENERGY.M)
.;.::. -": ': '.::.;":;";-'-::.:.THE EHVIRONRLENT."..:-;"".-,'.';
-".:-::.":"--'.,;" ',=.;:.;.:;-'-:;.C.OKhKTTEEOH., '.;. '.=:.-:-:.-:;:.
=---WTERIOR'~ INSUL~ APPLIES:
- ""'U.S.'HOUSE OF REPRZSEZTXTXVZS.-;
'.::.".,=-'-:;:";"'. "'"MHETZ'-SIXTH,CONGRESS i s ~
(J i FIBST SESSION
', -c.-.,',,q~..'.'. -,'."~~M for ge-nse.of the-.':::
."- -'. P",!~. "-", Committee'on. Inteitor anC Insular,hftatrs
."-" "..", "'i' l'
~ +t
~tt
~ ', tr V~
I\\
~
~ t 7
~ it, 3
~t 1
\\
~
mt C~t g
'I I
p C
'1
I
%W
~
~ 'V g4 V 1
<qivEs or>
CO Gy 1934 0
'~4 V
f 4.
a
QO Energy PARTS 0 TO 199 Revised as of January 1, 1979
. URG~~
44 VV
.~~~~T~~~
%=CPM~ -N~.~4
~Ip V
vs j
V
~r 4