ML19345E632
| ML19345E632 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0063, NUREG-0063-ADD, NUREG-63, NUREG-63-ADD, NUDOCS 8102050331 | |
| Download: ML19345E632 (81) | |
Text
.
l l
NUREG M Addendum l
Final Environmental Statement l
related to the operation of William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, l
Units 1 and 2 l
Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370 l
l Duke Power Company
~
~~
~
O.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation January 1981
,s~..,,,
~.. :./'~
I Slo 205033)
l t
FORVARD This Addendum to the Final Environmental Statement (Fr") was prepared by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reacter Regulation (the staff), in accordance with the Conmissicn's regulations,10 CFR Part 51, which implerents the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The environmental review contained in this Addendum deals with the impact of operation of William B. FcGuire Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 a nd 2.
Assessnents that are found in this Addendum clarify or amplify those described in the FES that was issued in April 1976 relating to continued construction and eventual operation of William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2.
111
l l
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1
?*L*
l Fo rwa r d..............................
111 i
Summary and Conclusions......................
vii A.5 Environmental Effects of Station Operation.......... A.5-1 Explanatory Narrative for Table S-3, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data 1
I i
(
e 6
I I
i i
)
i V
i i
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS This Addendum to the Final Environmental Statement has been prepared by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (thestaff).
1.
This action is administrative.
2.
The proposed action is the issuance of operating licenses to the Duke Power Company for the startup and operation of the William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (the plant) located on Lake Norman in Mecklenburg County,17 miles north-northwest of Charlotte, North Carolina.
(Docket-Nos. 50-369 and 50-370).
Both units will employ pressurized water reactors to produce up to 6822 thermal megawatts (3411 MWt each). This heat will be used to produce steam to drive steam turbines, providing 2360 KJ (net) of electrical power capacity. The maximum design thermal output of each unit is 3579 MWt with a corresponding maximum calculated electrical output of 1239 MWe.
The units will be cooled by once-through flow of water from Lake Norman.
3.
On September 18, 1970, the Duke Power Company filed an application with the United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) for permits to construct William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units No. I and No. 2.
Following reviews by the AEC regulatory staff and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and following a public hearing before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in Charlotte, North Carolina, on various dates between July and November 1972, Construction Permits No. CPPR-83 and No. CPPR-84 were issued on February 28, 1973.
The applicant petitioned for licenses to operate both units and submitted in May 1974 the required environmental report (ER) to substantiate this petition.
The staff reviewed the activities associated with the proposed operation of this plant and the potential impact. Tne conclusions obtained in the staff's environmental review were issued as a Final Environmental Statement (FES) in April 1976. An environmental hearing was held in Charlotte, North Carolina, during March and April 1977. The NRC staff's Proposed Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Form of a Partial Initial Decision was issued on August 26, 1977. Further hearings on health and safety contentions and radon-222 emissions were held in Charlotte, North Carolina, during August 1978.
The ASLB Initial Decision was issued on April 18,1979.
The information in this addendum responds to the Commission directive that the staff address in narrative form the environmental dose commitments and vii
health effects from fuel cycle releases, fuel cycle socioeconomic impacts, and possible cumulative impacts pending further treatment by rulemaking.
4.
On the basis of the analysis and evaluation set forth in this addendum and the FES, and after weighing the environmental, economic, technical and other benefits against environmental costs, and after considering available alternatives, it is concluded that the action called for under NEPA and 10 CFR 51 is the issuance of operating licenses for Unit Nos. I and 2 of the McGuire Nuclear Station subject to the 4
conditions for the protection of the environmental set out in Facility License Number NPF-9.
l t
i i
4 1
viii
A.5.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF STATION OPERATION A.5.5 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS A.5.5.3 Environmental Effects of the Uranium Fuel Cycle The environmental effects of tne uranium fuel cycle were discussed in the Final Environmental Statement (NUREG-0063) dated April 1976. On March 14, 1977, the Commission published in the Federal Register (42 FR 13803) an interim rule regarding the environmental considerations of the uranium fuel cycle.
It was to be effective for 18 months (it was extended several times, the final extension being to September 4,1979) and revised Table S-3 of 10 CFR Part 51. The new and updated information contained in the interim rule was presented in the staff's testimony before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) during the environmental hearings of 1/
March - April 1977.
The staff evaluated the added environmental impacts that would be assumed from the use of the values in the revised Table S-3 and found that they did not tip the cost-benefit balance against operation 21 of the facility. The ASLB agreed.
On August 2,1979, the Commission published a notice announcing the outcome of a final rulemaking regarding the envircnmental effects of spent fuel 1/
Hearing transcript for April 22, 1977 in the matter of Duke Power Company, William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 following p.1779.
2/
Initial Decision dated April 18, 1979 in the matter'of Duke Power Company, William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units.1 and 2 at p. 532.
A.5-1
reprocessing and radioactive waste management in the light water power reactor uranium fuel cycle.
In that notice, the Commission noted the need for further discussion of the environmental impact of the values given in Table S-3.
Pending further treatment by rulemaking, the Commission directed the NRC staff to address these matters in the environmental analysis accompanying a proposal to issue a limited work authorization, construction permit, or operating license for a power reactor. These issues are to include but not be limited to environmental dose commitments and health effects from fuel cycle releases, fuel cycle socioeconomic impacts, and possible cumulative impacts (44 FR 45362 dated 08/2/79).
The final rulemaking concluded a proceeding which began on May 26, 1977, with a notice that a rulemaking hearing would be held tc consider whether the interim rule should be made permanent or, if it should be altered, in what respects (42 FR 26987). The Rulemaking Hearing Board took extensive written and oral testirony from more than twenty participants. On August 31, 1978, the Rulemaking Hearing Board submitted to the Commission a j
detailed summary of the evidentiary record, followed on October 26, 1978, by its Conclusions and Recommendations.
After studying the Rulemaking Hearing Board's Conclusions and Recommendations l
and receiving written and oral presentations by rulemaking participants, the Commission adopted as a final rule the modified Table S-3 recommended by the Hearing Board. The impact values in this table differ only slightly from the values in the interim rule. With two exceptions, these values will be taken as the basis for evaluating in individual light water power reactor. licensing proceedings, pursuant to requirements of the National A.5-2
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the contribution of uranium fuel cycle activities to the environmental costs of licensing the reactor in question. The exceptions are radon releases, presently omitted from the interim rule (43 FR 15613, April 14, 1978),-3/and technetium-99 releases 4
from reprocessing and waste management activities.~/
The rulemaking record makes clear that effluent release values, standing alone, do not meaningfully convey the environmental signficance of uranium fuel cycle activities.
The focus of interest and the ultimate measure of impact for radioactive releases are the resulting radiological dose commitments and associated health effects. To convey in understandable terms the significance of releases in the Table, the Rulemaking Hearing Board recommended that the modified Table be accompanied by an explanatory narrative promulgated as part of the rule.
The recommended narrative
-3/The staff presented testimony to the ASLB on radon released on April 22, 1977 at p. 1706. On July 20, 1978, the ASLB reopened the record on the issue of radon 222. Subsequently, the ASLB received the entire hearing record on radon-222 from the proceedings on the Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3.
And, the ASLB heard further testimony on this issue on August 30, 1978. Based on that record, the ASLB concluded in its Initial Decision at p. 543 that the health effects associated with radon releases are insignificant in striking the cost-benefit balance for the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.
They do.not tip the cost-benefit balance set forth in the Final Environmental Statement.
4/
With regard to technetium-99 releases from reprocessing and waste management activities, in 44 FR 45362 the Comission found:
"In view of the Hearing Board's conclusion that the conservative assumption of complete release of icM p-129 tends to compenate for the omission of technetium from Yable S-3, the Commission finds it unnecessary to reopen closed proceedings or to disturb consideration of environmental issues in presently pending proceedings to provide for consideration of technetium-99 releases."
Thus, consideration of technetium-99 releases at McGuire Nuclear Station are-unnecessary.
A.5-3 1
would also address important fuel cycle impacts now outside the scope of Table S-3 including socioeconomic and cumulative impacts, where these are appropriate for generic treatment. The Commission directed the NRC staff to prepare such a narrative.
The staff has prepared a narrative which will be submitted for public comment in a further rulemaking.
In accordance with the Comnission directive of August 2,1979, regarding an explanatory narrative to accompany Table S-3, the enclosed narrative has been drafted by the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards staff.
The narrative is of an explanatory nature, merely clarifies or amplifies information previously provided and does not affect the cost-benefit conclusion already made in the FES.
t l
l A.5-4
Explanatory Narrative for Table S-3, Table cf Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data
Section I.
Introductica The purpose of this narrative explanation of Table S-3 is to assist the reader in. identifying the major environmental impacts of each step in the fuel cycle and in determining which fuel cycle steps are the major contributors to each type of environmental impact shown in Table S-3.
Table S-3 summarizes the environmental effects of the normal operations of the uranium fuel cycle associated with producing the uranium fuel for a nuclear power plant and in disposing of the spent nuclear fuel and the radioactive wastes.
The values in Table S-3 were estimated principally by methods which are described in detail in the reports WASH-1248, " Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle,"I NUREG-0116, " Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle,"2 and t<UREG-0216, "Public Comments and Task Force Responses Regarding the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle."3 In addition, at a public hearing beginning on January 16, 1978, (Docket No. RM 50-3) on the reprocessing and waste management environmental effects, the Commission staff answered questions about the estimates for the back end of the fuel cycle and considered suggestions made by other participants in the hear,ing.
The complete record of this public hearing and the three documents cited above are available in tile NRC's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and provide further explanation of the factors considered in developing estimates for Table S-3.
These reference materials contain the complete technical basis for the estimates in the Table, and give detailed descriptions of the fuel cycle operations and their environmental effects.
i 2
The following narrative explanation of the values given in Table S-3 is drawn l
from the record and cross-referenced to source documents for the benefit of i
j readers seeking more information. The Table S-3 values which pertain to the front end of the fuel cycle (up to the loading of the fuel into the reactor) are taken from WASH-1248; values pertaining to the back end of the fuel cycle are taken from NUREG-Oll6, with cnanges which are noted in the hearing record.4 Since the narrative is designed to help the reader in interpreting the environ-l mental effects given in Table S-3, the aforementioned documents, together with others that were cited in the documents or discussed during the hearings, are generally the only references cited in the narrative.
The exceptions to this statement are found in Section III, where the staff has provided information on how long-term environmental dose commitments might be calculated, and what incremental releases from waste disposal sites might be.
Since these topics were not covered in detail in WASH-1248, NUREG-0116, NUREG-0216 or the hearing record, information not in the record had to be used te develop the material.
Section I of the narrative describes the extant LWR uranium fuel cycle, the alternatives and the individual operations of the fuel cycle;Section II contains a description of the environmental effects of the LWR fuel cycle and of the individual fuel cycle operations;Section III cont.ains a discussion of environ-mental dose commitments and health effects resulting from releases of radioactive materials from the fuel cycle.
Section III also includes a discussion of how dose commitment evaluations over extended periods of time might be performed and what their significance might be.
In addition, there is a discussion of-I what, if any, incremental releases from waste disposal sites might occur over l
3 very long periods of time (i.e., an evaluation of repository impacts for the repository considered in NUREG-0116).
Section IV contains a discussion of l
socioeconomic impacts.
B.
Alternative Fuel Cycles The several alternative fuel cycles which can be used for present generation LWR reactors can be primarily characterized by how the spent fuel is handled, since all presently available alternatives start with uranium fuel.
The alternatives are:
Once-Through Fuel Cycle:
o The spent fuel can be disposed of without recovery of residual fission-able isotopes; this is the present operating mode for U.S. nuclear reactors.
Uranium-Only Recycle:
o Uranium can be recovered from spent fuel by reprocessing and can be recycled in nuclear fuel.
Plutonium can be stored for later use or combined with residual radioactive materials as wastes.
Uranium-only recycle, including plutonium storage, was considered to be the most likely mode of operation at the time of preparation of WASH-1248 (1972-1974), and was the fuel cycle addressed in that document.5 In NUREG-0116, plutonium was considered to be a waste to be disposed of at a federal repository.6 Uranium and Plutonium Recycle:
o Both uranium and plutonium can be recovered from spent fuel by reprocess-ing and recycling to the reactor, the plutonium bei.ng recycled with
uranium as mixed oxide fuel.
The residual radioactive materials are wastes.
The wide scale use of this mode of operation was under 7
consideration in the Commission's GESM0 proceeding.
There are only two LWR fuel cycles potentially licensable for wide-scale use in the United States at this time:
the once-through cycle, and the uranium-only recycle fuel cycle.
The back-end steps of these two fuel cycles are considered in NUREGs-0116 and -0216, and the larger environmental effect of the two fuel cycles is included in Table S-3.
Since the fuel cycle rule is to cover LWRs during their operating lifetimes, even though there are no repro-cessing plants operating in the United States at this time, the remanded hearing (Docket No. RM 50-5) of January 1978 through April 1978 considered both the once-through and uranium-only recycle fuel cycles to cover the possibility that spent fuel may be reprocessed at some future date.
C.
Fuel Cycle Operations Many different operations are required for either the once-through fuel cycle or the uranium-only recycle fuel cycle.
Operations involved in preparing fresh fuel for use.in a reactor are collectively known as the " front end" of the fuel cycle.
The operations following irradiation of the fuel in the reactor are known as the "back end" of the fuel cycle.
Figure i shows a block flow diagram for the front end of the fuel cycle; Figures 2a and 2b show the back enc of the once-through and uranium-only recycle fuel, cycles respectively.
Five operations comprise the front end of the fuel cycle (Figure 1):
ore is mined; tne uranium content of the ore is racovered as an impure compound
5 LWR URANIUM FUEL CYCLE FRONT END OPERATIONS it!NING V
[> MILL TAILINGS i
s MILLING V
{
\\
UF PRODUCTION 8
V FROM REPROCES$1NG> a%
>==
(URANiut>0NLY RECYCLU ENRICMMENT V
UO FUEL 2
FABRICATl0N l
V TO REACTOR i
Figure 1 LWR Uranium Fuel Cycle Front End Operations l
t
i i
LWR URANIUM FUEL CYCLE BACK END OPERATIONS SPENT FUEL FROM i
SPENT FdiL.
Faces g
REACIDR (80 )
REACTOR 190 3 2
2 1
r STORAGE AT -----,
1 r
i V
REACTOR
____,g f
[
l AWAY-F ROM-REPROCESSMBS REACTOR PSOL STORAGE II i
r V
l l
- - - -"'j WRAtluttTO ENRIC0000EWT' i
- - " ~ " ~ " ~
l PLUTONSWII, m
NMN4EVEL WASTES AND - - - -
WENT FUEL 199 )
2 TRANSWRA54CWASTES - - -
1 PACKA4858 V
RETRIEVAOLE SvRFACE STORAGE ALL FUEL FACILITY ALL FUEL umigt sE0 LOGIC CYCLE PLAalTS CYCLE PL ANTS l
LnW4EVEL REPOSITORY LDW LEVEL sWASTES 83REASY WASTES P
'y 1
P 1
r' 1
P LOWLEVEL LOW 4EVEL WASTE
[
WASTE BURIAL suRIAL FEDERAL WASTE REPOSITORY FEDERAL WASTE REPOSITORY 1
Flame 2h Uraniman-Only liesysie Feel Cysis Fiume 2s Dece-Tausseh feel cycle r
7 (yellowcake) by milling; a purified uranium compound (UF ) is produced; the 6
uranium-235 content of natural uranium is increased at enrichment plants; and uranium fuel is fabricated.8 i
Two different sets of operations comprise the back end of the fuel cycle.
In the once-through fuel cycle (Figure 2a), spent fuel from the LWR is stored, either at the reactor or at special facilities away from the reactor, for periods of time in excess of 5 years.
Tne spent fuel is packaged and disposed of in Federal repositories.
In the uranium-only recycle mode (Figure 2b),
spent fuel is stored at reactors for short periods of time (greater than 90 days), and then shipped to reprocessing plants, where uranium is recovered in a form suitable for feed to enrichment plants.
Plutonium and other residual materials from the spent fuel (cladding, fission products, actinide elements, activation products) are solidified, and packaged in a form suitable for disposal.
Current regulations (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix F) require that certain wastes from reprocessing plants be solidified within 5 years of their generation and that these wastes be disposed of within 10 years of their generation. Most of the waste from reprocessing plants will be disposed of at Federal repositories.
D.
The Model Reactor and its Fuel Cycle Reouirements For the purposes of developing the values in Table S-3, a model ligh*,-water reactor was defined in WASH-1248 as a 1,000-MWe reactor assumed to operate at 80'4 of its maximum capacity for one year, thus producing 800 MW yrs of elec-tricity annually 9 The fuel cycle requirements averaged over a 30 year operating life for this reactor were labelled an annual fuel requirement ('AFR)
8 1
in WASH-1248.
Since that time, the AFR acronym has been used to characterize away-from-reactor storage of spent fuel.
In NUREGs-Oll6 and -0216, the termi-nology " reference reactor year" (RRY) was employed to describe the fuel cycle requirements of a model 1000-MWe reactor operating for one year.
The same terminology will be utilized in this narrative.
The-front end of the fuel cycle, as described in WASH-1248, covers the supply of fuel for the model reactor; 91,000 metric tons of ore (containing 2 parts of U 03 8 per 1,000 parts of ore) are required per RRY. Milling of the ore produces 182 metric tons of yellowcake,* which in turn is converted into 270 metric tons of natural UF.
In the enrichment operation, much of this natural 6
UF feed material is rejected from the fuel cycle as enrichment plant tails.
6 Of the 270 metric tons of UF feed, 218 metric tons are rejected from the fuel 6
cycle as depleted uranium tails. The remaining 52 metric tons of enriched uranium product is the feed for the fuel fabrication plant and contains enough uranium for 40 metric tons of UO fuel (35 metric tons of contained uranium).
2 This amount of fuel is required annually by an LWR producing 800 MW years of electricity.10 The back-end fuel cycle steps, described in NUREGs-0116 and -0216, handle the post-fission products and wastes, including the spent fuel. The spent fuel,_
which still contains about 34 metric tons of uranium," is removed from the reference reactor annually.
(Approximately one metric ton of uranium has been 1
l
" Varying fuel cycle operating conditions including reactor parameters, yellow-l cake purity, enrichment tails assay, etc. affect the yellowcake RRY requirement which is thus subject to considerable variation.
4
l m
9 I
converted to fission products and actinide elements.) The fresh and spent fuel is in the form of fuel assemblies, each containing between about 0.2 and 0.5 metric tons of uranium.12 Hence, the number of fuel assemblies handled in each reactor reload ranges from about 70 to 180, depending on the type of reactor.
For the once-through fuel cycle, this fuel is stored under water for periods of time in excess of 5 years, either at the reactor site or at offsite facilities.
Following the storage period the spent fuel will be disposed of at a Federal repository.13 For the uranium-only recycle option, the spent fuel is reprocessed to recover uranium.
Plutonium (about 0.35 metric tons per RRY)l4 may be recovered as plutonium oxide in a separate stream.
The fission products, other actinide elements, and activation products are concentrated into one or more solid waste products which are disposed of together with any plutonium stream.
To develop the values in Table S-3, the environmental effects resulting from operating the model fuel cycle facilities were estimated.
These effects were then normalized to reflect the effects attributable to the processing of fuel for a single year's operation of a model reactor (RRY).
10 j
Section I - References 1.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, " Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle," WASH-1248, April 1974, p. iv.
2.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Environmental Survey of the Reprocess-ing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle, A Task Force Report," W. Bishop. F. J. Miraglia, Ed., NUREG-0116, October 1976, pp.1, ii.
- 3.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Public Comments and Task Force Responses Regarding the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle," NUREG-0216, March 1977.*
4.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Staff Recommendations for Minor Adjustments to Table S-3," submitted by James Lieberman, Counsel for NRC Staf f, Docket RM 50-3, January 19, 1978.
5.
WASH-1248, p. S-3.
6.
NUREG-0116, p. 5-12.
7.
"U.S. Nuclear 8egulatory Commission, Final Generic Environmental Statement on the Use of Recycle Plutonium in Mixed Oxide Fuel in Light Water Coo'ed Reactors," Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NUREG-000,
August 1976.
- 8.
WASH-1248, p. S-2.
9'.
Ibid., p. S-5.
1 10.
Ibid.
11.
NUREG-0002, Table IV C-9, p. IV C-75.
12.
Ibid., Section 3.2.6, p. 3-8.
13.
NUREG-0116, p. 4-6.
14.
Ibid., Section-3.2.7.1, p. 3-9.
l
- Available for purchase from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
l l
l t
11 Sectic, II.
Environmental Effects of the LWR Fuel Cycle A.
Environmental Oat.a Table S-3, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, is a summary of environmental impacts attributable to the uranium fuel cycle, normalized to the a.nnual fuel requirement in support of a model 1,000-MWe LWR.
Data from the " front end" of the uranium fuel cycle, based on WASH-1248, ha"e been combined with data from the "back end," which is based on NUREGs-0116 and
-0216 and the remanded proceeding (Docket No. RM-50-3).
Table S-3A, which follows, sets forth the contributions by the various segments of the fuel cycle to the total values given in Table S-3.
In general, Table S-3 presents the sum of the higher values taken from either the once-through fuel cycle or the uranium-only recycle option.
The following is a brief discussion of the environmental considerations related to the "back end" of the once-through fuel cycle and the uranium only recycle option.
1.
Back End of the Once-Through Fus' Cycle At present, spent fuel discharged from LWRs is bei.ng stored in the United States pending a policy decision whether to dispose of the irradiated spent fuel as a waste product--the once-through fuel cycle, or to reprocess spent fuel and recover the residual fissile values for recycle as feel in power reactors, in this case--the uranium-only recycle option.
In the once-through fuel cycle, the st6 rage and dispo' sal of spent fuel as waste, along with other waste management activities, constitutes the "back end" of the uranium fuel cycle.1
12 l
j The environmental considerations related to the once-through fuel cycle are summarized in column F of Table S-3A.
It is expected that spent fuel will remain in interim storage facilities for periods of up to 10 years or more to reduce radiation and heat emissions prior to packaging and disposal, and because facilities for the permanent disposal of spent fuel are not yet available.2 Thus, column F includes the environmental impacts of extended pool storage as well as spent fuel disposal in a deep salt bed, geological repository.
Low-level wastes, and decontamination and decommissioning wastes, from all segments of the fuel cycle are also included in column F.3 There are no significant amounts of transuranic (TRU) wastes generated in the once-through fuel cycle.
It has been assumed that spent fuel.or high-level wastes will be disposed of in a geologic, bedded salt, repository.4 Operation of repository facilities is similar for both spent fuel or high-level waste, and it has been assumed that a repository in bedded salt will be designed and operated so as to retain the solid radioactive waste indefinitely. However, the radiological impacts l
related to the geologic disposal of spent fuel are based on the assumption that all gaseous and volatile radionuclides in the spent fuel are released before the geologic repository is sealed.5 Since the gaseous and volatile radionuclides are the principal contributors to environmental dose commitments, J
this assumption umbrellas the upper bounds of the dose commitments that may be associated with the disposal of spent fuel,
i 13 2.
Back End of the Uranium-Only Recycle Fuel Cycle Option 1
4 At present, there are no spent fuel reprocessing plants in the United States that can reprocess LWR spent fuel. Moreover, if a policy decision is made to permit reprocessing of spent fuel, the capability to reprocess spent fuel in the United States may not be available until about the early 1990s. However, l
if LWR spent fuel is reprocessed, the environmental impacts from reprocessing and related waste management activities are nearly identical for the recycling of urantum and plutonium, and for the recycling of uranium-only, as fuel in nuclear power reactors. Whether plutonium will be used as a fuel in LWRs, or breeder reactors, or both, is a scparate issue that will be resolved in connec-l tion with the policy decision whether to resume reprocessing'in the United i
States.
For this purpose, to cover the contingency that at some future datt spent fuel from LWRs may be reprocessed, it has been assumed that only the uranium that is recovered from the reprocessing of spent fuel from LWRs will be recycled as fuel.to LWRs.
The plutonium is not recycled for its fuel value in LWRs; instead, it becomes a byproduct waste-that may be disposed of in a manner similar to that for.high-level waste.
This-is-called the uranium-only recycle option, and its environmental considerations are sumrrarized in columns G (Reprocessing) and H (Waste Management) of Table S-3A, and the-other segments of the fuel cycle, excluding column F.*
j RIt should be noted that column F, and columns G and H, are.not added together to arrive at totals, but are presented as alternatives.
Column F presents the environmental effects associated with the back and of the once-through. fuel cycle (no reprocessing), and columns G and H present the environmental effects associ-ated with the back and of the uranium-only recycle-'(reprocessing) option.. The higher value from these 'two alternative fuel cycles is added to arrive at-totals.
a
14 With respect to waste management activities associated with the uranium-only recycle option (column H), the environmental considerations include the geologic i
disposal of high-level wastes (HLW), transuranic wastes (TRU), plutonium, low-level or nontransuranic wastes, and the disposal of wastes from decontamina-tion and decommissioning of fuel cycle facilities.7 The environmental consid-erations relevant to waste management activiti'es directly related to reprocessing, such as storage of liquid wastes in tanks, waste solidification and packaging, and interim storage of solidified wastes at the reprocessing site, are included in column G.
It has been assumed that a geologic repository will be designed ard operated so as to retain solid radioactive waste indefinitely.
However, to umbrella the upper bounds of the environmental dose commitments that may be associated with reprocessing and waste management operations related to the uranium-only recycle option, it has been as.umed that all of the gaseous and volatile radionuclides contained in the spent fuel are released to the atmosphere prior to the disposal of the wastes.O The gaseous radionuclides (tritium, carbon-14, and krypton-85) and the volatile radionuclide iodine-129 are the principal contributors to environmental dose commitments from the "back end" of the uranium fuel cycle.
B.
Environmental Considerati'ons of Uranium Fuel Cycle Options This section is a brief discussion of the environmental considerations of the uranium fuel cycle, which are summarized in Table S-3* and Table S-3A.
It
- Taole 5-3 summarizes the total environmental. considerations given in the column
" Total" of Table S-3A.
l J
I i
Tant.E 5 3A Susanary of Environmental Considerations for LWR Fuel Cycle by Component Normallied to Model LWR Reference Reactor Year A
B C
0 E
F G
H I
Spent leaste fuel Myst. for Enrich-Storage & Reprocess-Uranium Trans-
-Mining Milf
, Prod.
ment Fuel Fab.
Olsposal ing Recycle portation Total flatnral stesource Use lan.1(Acres) insporarily Consellted 55 0.5 2.5 0.8 0.2 7.7 32 9.0 100 y
tinillsturt.ed Area 30 0.2 2.3 0.6 0.16 7.5 20.5 8.6 79 Disturbed Area 17 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.04
.192 3.5 0.35 22 l'eriaanently Comenitted 2
2.4 0.02 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.12 8.4 13 Overlaarden moved 2.7
.001 0.1 0.0015 2.8 (alllions of HT) ltiter (millions of cal.)
Discharnel to air 65 3.3 84 11.4 6.6 0.69 160 Illschargeil to water bodies 23.0 11.006 5.2
.05 54.8 11.090 Olscharged to ground 123 3.1 3.5 127 Total Hater
-123 65 26.3 11.090 5.2 14.5 61.4 4.2 11.377 Ferisli Fuct llectrical energy 0.25 2.70 1.70 310 1.7 1.9 4.0 2.3 323 (thousarmi pMij (quivalent Coal (thous.lii) 0.09 0.97 0.62 113 0.62 0.7 1.5 0.82 0.016 118 Naturen. Gas.(million scf) 68.5 20.0 3.6 12 28.6 14 135 i
TABLE 5-3A (cont.)
Summary of Environmental Considerations for LWR Fuel Cycle by Component Nonnalized to Model LWR Reference Reactor Year A
B C
D E
F G
H I
W 5 L' Spent Fuel M9at. for Enrich-Storane'& Reprocess-Uranium Trans-Mining Milling
- UF Prod, ment Fuel Fab.
Olsposal ing Recycle portation Total 6
Effluents a*
Chemical (HT)
Gases (HI) 50?
8.5 37.0 29.0 4.300(1) 23 0.C35 5.4 0.06 0.045 4,4n0 NO, 5.0
.35.9 10.0(2) 1,130 6
0.04 21.9 0.065 0.62 1,190 liydrocarbons 0.3 1.3 0.8(3)
II 0.06 0.0004 0.5 0.02 0.062 14 LO 0.02 0.3
-0.2 '
28 0.15 0.026 0.5 0.029 0.38 29.6 l'.or t icula tes 9.7 7.6 1,130 6
0.000088 0.6 0.02 0.012 1,154 Other Cases 0.67 0.05 0.11 0.5 0.005 F-0.014 cg-0.013 0.0006 0.013 Linnsids
<3.02 9.9 504 4.5 5.4 25.8 0.1
- 2. 7 23 t:03 8.8 4.1 12.9 l'luoride.
5.4 5.4 Ca 8.5 0.09 0.2 8.2 Cl-3.9(4) 8.2
<0.02 12.1 na' 10.0 1.5 10.0 un3 0.4 0.4 re lallings 5(Gutions 240 240 (thousands) 91.000 0.42 91,000 40 26 Solids
TABLE 5-3A(cont.)
$smanary of Environmental Considerations for infR Fuel Cycle by Component Normalized to Model LidR Reference Reactor Year A
B C
D E
F G
ll I
Spent Idaste Fuel Mynt. for Enrich-Storaee & Reprocess-Uranium Trans-4 Mining Milllege UF Prod.
ment Fuel Fah.
Olsposal ing Recycle portation Total 6
lifluaits (cnnt.)
Radinlogical(curles)
C Gases (including entralament)(5)
Rn-222 4.5x10'I Ra-226 0.02 4.5al0'I 0.02 0.02 4.5xio'6
- 7. >10
0.02 Th-230 4.5x10' Urantime 0.03 0.0015 0.002 0.0002 7.3x10-0.000039 0.034 Tritlian (thousands) 14 18.1 -
6.8x10' 18.1 C-14 19 24
.7 24 Kr-85(thousands) 290.70 400.
1.1x10 400 Nu-lG6 0.14 0.14 I-129
- 1. 3 -
0.03 1.3 I-131 003 0.83
.3 0.83 Fission Prnducts
.001 0.203 3.1x10 0.203 amt Transuranics Lleluids 2
0.044 0.02-0.02" 5.9x10
5.4x10
2.1
. Hr.inline & Daughters 1:4 226 0.0034 0.0034 Th-230 0.0015 0.0015 Th-234 0.01 0.01 Trillies(thousands)
~
~
5.9:10-6 4.5st10'6 5.9:10'6 FIssinn aiul Activation Products Solids (hurled onsite)
Oti.cr than high level (shaltene)-
600 0.06 0.23 4100
'0.52 10.700 11.300 TRU and itW (deep) (millions) -
II 11 11 Therwl(hlllionsofstu) 69 20 3200 9
750 75.5 689 0.014 4.063
TAKE S-34 (cont.)
Susunary of Environmental Considerations for LWR Fuel Cycle by Component Homaltred to Model LWR Reference Reactor Year (l) Estimated effluents based upon combustion of equivalent coal for power ajeneration.
(2) 251 from natural gas use.
(3) Cambined effluents frcas coseustion of coal and natural gas and process tankage; contains 0.2 Mi of Hexane, y
(4) Contains about 80% Potasslum.
(5) In the " uranium recycle" case, gaseous radionuclides are assiased to be released in reprocessing, anJ the releases are shown la the " Reprocessing" column (G). In the "once through" case, where spent fuel goes to geologic disposal.
gaseous radionuclides are assumei to leak out of the fuel at the repository; the amounts are shown in colisen F.
Only the
(
larger of the two values is adJed into the " Total" colisen, since they represent alternative cases.
- Ilumbers presented for uranium milling are taken from HASit-1248. They are not necessarily consistent with more recent staff analyses, e.g.. those presented in lamEG-0511. "Draf t Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling." Published in April 1979.
\\
i
19 also provides a brief explanation of how the values in Table S-3, which has been normalized to a model 1,000-MWe reference reactor year (RRY), can be converted into the cumulative environmental effect over the 30 year reference reactor lifetime, and in turn converted into the cumulative environmental effect related to a prospective nuclear power forecast.* The narrative is drawn primarily from the WASH-1248, NUREG-0116; and NUREG-0216 documents, and the S-3 hearing record.
References to applicable sections of these documents are included in the narrative.
It should be noted that radon emissions from the front end of the fuel cycle and technetium-99 release estimates for the back end of the fuel cycle are not given in Table S-3.
Accordingly, radon and technetium releases, together with an appraisal of their impacts, may be the subject of litigation in indivicual reactor licensing proceedings.'
1.
Natural Resource Use a.
Land The total land use per RRY attributable to the uranium fuel cycle in support of a model 1,000-MWe LWR is about 113 acres, of which about 100 acres are tampararily committed, and about 13 acres are permanently committed.
About 80% of the temporarily committed land used by fuel cycle facilities is undis-turbed land.
Temporarily committed land, which is used during the life of specific fuel cycle facilities, can be released to. unrestricted use after aMost effluent values, unless indicated otherwise, can be converted from RRY values to reactor lifetime values by multiplying the value/RRY by 30 years (reactor life).
20 those facilities are closed down and decommissioned.
Permanently committed land is that land which may be used for waste disposal but may not be released for unrestricted use after certain facilities have ceased operating and are decommissioned.10 The mining of uranium ore accounts for about 55% of the temporarily committed land use of the entire uranium fuel cycle. Mining operations also account for most of the overburden moved:
2.7 million metric tons compared to a total of 2.8 million metric tons per RRY for the entire fuel cycle.
Next to mining, reprocessing and waste management operations use cost of the remaining temporarily committed land attributable to the uranium fuel cycle. Of the permanently committed land use attributable to the uranium fuel cycle, mining ano milling operations account for about 35%, and most of the remaining 65% is used for the disposal of radioactive wastes (8.5 acres /RRY).
To determine the cumulative land use effect related to a prospective nuclear 1
i economy, one must first convert thre land use per RRY to land use per model 1,000-MWe LWR lifetime (30 years), and then multiply that value by the equivalent number of model 1,000-MWe LWRs projected (GWe).
The weighted average factor I
'co convert land use per RRY to land use per model LWR life is about 40.
The conversion factor of 40 is a weighted average that results from considera-tion of three factors:
land use for facilities; land use for waste management, which increaset with time; and ore depletion and mill recovery performance over the life of the reactor.
In WASH-1248, uranium mining and milling opera-tions were based on an average ore grade of 0.2%, and 100% mill recovery,
21 which represented current operations.
However, a later analysis developed for NUREG-0002 indicated that when ore depletion and mill recovery performance is considered over the years 1976-2000, it would be more appropriate.to use an average ore grade of 0.1%, with 90% mill recovery, over the life of an LWR.
Thus, to convert land use per RRY to land use per LWR life committed to mining and milling, the land use per RRY should be multiplied by 67. Added to this value is the land use per RRY for UF6 production, enrichment, fuel fabrication,
~
and reprocessing; and 30 times the land use per RRY for waste management operations.
For the reason given above, since most of the " overburden moved" is related to the mining of uranium ore, the factor used to convert MT/RRY of overburden moved to MT/ LWR life is 67.
Environmental Effects: The land use requirements related to the fuel cycle in support of a model 1,000-MWe LWR do not represent a significant impact.
A 1,000-MWe coal-fired power plant that uses strip-mined coal requires the disturbance of about 200 acres of land per year for obtaining coal alone.
Thus, for comparison, the coal plant disturbs.about 10 times as much land as the disturbance attributable to the entire fuel cycle in support of the model 1,000-MWe LWR.
b.
Water l
The principal use of water in the fuel cycle supporting a model 1,000-MWe LWR is for cooling.
Of the total 11,377 million gallons of water use per RRY, about 11,000 million gallons are required to remove heat, by once-through cooling, from the power stations that supply electrical energy for uranium
'l
22 enrichment.
The discharge of water to surface streams is in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits issued by EPA and the states. Drainage water pumped out of uranium mines (123 million gallons /RRY)
{
and from waste management operations (3.5 million gallons /RRY) is discharged to the ground.
Of the 160 million gallons of water evaporated per RRY, about 65 million gallons of water are evaporated from mill tailings ponds, and the other 95 million gallons of water are evaporated from cooling water from fuel cycle facilities.
To determine the cumulative water use effect related to a prospective nuclear economy, one must first convert water use per RRY to water use per model 1,000-MWe LWR lifetime (30 years), and then multiply that value by the equhalent number of model 1,000-MWe LWRs projected (GWe).
The factor used to convert water use per RRY to water use per model LWR life is 30.
However, to determine the water use evaporated or discharged to ground,- the conversion factor for mining and milling operations is 67; and the factor for other fuel I
cycle operations is 30.
Environmental Effect:
The water use requirements related to the fuel cycle in support of a model 1,000-MWe LWR do not represent a significant impact.
If all plants supolying electrical energy used cooling towers, the water use of the fuel cycle would be about 6% of that required by the model 1,000-MWe LWR.
i The evaporatec water loss of the fuel cycle is about 2% of the evaporated water loss of a model 1,000-MWe LWR cooling tower.
23 c.
Fossil Fuel Electrical energy and process heat are used in the fuel cycle.
The electrical energy (323 thousand MWh/RRY), of which about 96% is used for uranium enrichment, is produced by conventional, coal-fired, power plants.12 Most of the process heat used in the fuel cycle is supplied by the combustion of natural gas (135 million scf/RRY).
In general, about 50% of the natural gas is used for yellowcake drying,13 15% is used in UF6 pr duction, 3% is used in fuel fabrica-tion, 22% is used in reprocessing, and 10% is used in waste management operations To determine the cumulative fossil fuel use effect related to a prospective nuclear economy, multiply the fossil fuel per RRY value by 30 to convert to the fossil fuel use over the 30 year life of the model 1,000-MWe LWR, and then multiply that value by the equivalent number of model 1,000-MWe LWRs projected (GWe).
Environmental Effect:
The fossil fuel use requirements related to the fuel cycle in support of a model 1,000-MWe LWR do not represent a significant impact. The electrical energy needs of the fuel cycle are only about 5% of the electrical energy produced by the model 1,000-MWe LWR.
If the natural gas consumed by the fuel cycle were used to generate electricity, it would contribute j
less than 0.4% of the electrical energy produced by the model LWR.
l t
l 24 2.
Effluents - Chemical a.
Gases The gaseous chemical effluents from the fuel cycle result, for the most part, from the combustion of fossil fuel to provide electrical energy or process heat for fuel cycle facilities.14 To determine the cumulative gaseous chemical ef fect related to a prospective nuclear economy, perform the calculation in a manner similar to that given above for fossil fuel.
Environmental Effect:
The gaseous chemical effluents related to the fuel cycle in support of a model 1,000-MWe LWR do not represent a significant impact.
Based on data in a Council on Environmental Quality report,15 these emissions represent a very small addition (about 0.02%) to emissions from transportation and stationary fuel combustion in the United States.
b.
Other Gases Small amounts of halogen compounds are released as gaseous effluents to the l
environs, primarily as fluorides from UF conversion and uranium enrichment 6
operations.
Environmental Effect:
Measurements of fluorine in unrestricted areas indicate concentraticns below the level at which deleterious effects have been observed.16 r
Moreover, long-term observations have not revealed any adverse effects attributable to fluoride releases from UF conversion, uranium enrichment, and 6
fuel fabrication facilities.
l I
l l
[
l
25 c.
Liquids and Solids Some liquid chemical effluents are released to surface waters from UF, enrich-6 ment, and fuel fabEication facilities.
Tailings solutions from the uranium mill account for the bulk of mass of liquid (240 thousand MT/RRY) and solid (91 thousand MT/RRY) effluents from the fuel cycle.
However, the tailings solutions are slowly dissipated by natural processes, principally through evaporation, leaving the tailings solids for eventual disposal.1 There are two major aqueous waste streams associated with the wet UF conversion 6
process.10 One is made up of dilute scrubber solutions that are treated with lime to precipitate calcium fluoride, which is then diluted with cooling water effluent b. fore it is released.
The other is a raffinate stream which is held in sealed ponds from which the water is allowed to evaporate.
The solids which are recovered from the settling ponds are packaged and ultimately buried.
The discharge of water to surface streams is in accordance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit issued by EPA or the state.
A number of chemicals (primarily calcium, chlorine, sodium, and sulfate ions) are present in the liquid effluent from the enrichment plant. Water treatment and dilution by the receiving river reduces the concentratiun of chemicals to a small fraction of the recommended permissible water quality standards.19-The liquid effluent from fuel fabrication facilities contains nitrogen compounds resulting from the use of ammonium hydroxide in the production of UO2 Powder,
26 and from the use of nitric acid in scrap recovery operations.
The fluorine introduced into the fuel cycle during UF6 pr duction becomes a waste product during the production of UO2 p wder.
The gaseous fluoride is removed from the effluent air streams by water scrubber systems.20 The scrubber system wastes are treated with lime to precipitate calcium fluoride, which is filtered from the waste effluent stream and packaged (about 11 cubic yards /RRY) for disposal.21 I
The discharge of water to surface streams is in accordance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit issued by EPA or the state.
1 To determine the mass of tailings solution and solid tailings related to a prospective nuclear economy, which are a function of the average grade of ore processed, multiply the values for tailings solutions and solids in Table S-3 by 67 to obtain the mass of tailings solution and tailings generated over the i
model LWR lifetime.
Environmental Effect:
The liquid and solid chemical effluents related to the i
fuel cycle in support of a model 1,000-MWe LWR do not represent a significant impact.
All liquid discharges from fuel cycle facilities into the navigable l
waters of the Unitea States are subject to requirements and limitations set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit issued by an appropriate state or federal regulatory agency. When milling activities are terminated, the tailings pile must be graded, covered with earth and topsdil, and seeded to reduce radon emanation.*
AAt this time, radon emissions are excluded from the S-3 fuel cycle rule.
Proposed regulations related to the disposal of mill tailings were published in the Feceral Register on August 24, 1979.
7
=
27 3.
Effluents - Radiological a.
Gases and Liquids Table S-3 summarizes (except for radon-222 and technetium-99) the curies of radioactivity released per RRY in the gaseous and liquid effluents from the uranium fuel cycle in support of a model 1,000-MWe LWR.
In general, the natural radionuclides (radium, thorium, and uranium) are released from the front end, and the other radionuclides are released from the back end of the fuel i
cycle.
In the front end of the fuel cycle, small amounts of radium, thorium, and uranium are released to the environment in the gaseous process effluents and in the ventilation air discharged to the atmosphere from milling, UF6 production, enrichment, and fuel fabrication facilities.
Small amounts of uranium and its daughters also are released in the liquid effluents from these facilities, but most of these radionuclides become part of the solid waste collected in the tailings pile from milling operations or in settling ponds associated with the other-front end operations.
In the once-through fuel cycl.e, the' spent fuel is stored for five or more years and then disposed of in a geologic respository when the repository is av: liable to receive spent fuel.22 During interim storage prior to sealing of the repository, some of the gaseous and volatile radionuclides contained in i
the spent fuel may escape due to the failure of the fuel element cladding an'd leakage of_the spent fuel disposal containers.2 l
l l
[
I
28 About 50% of the krypton,10% of the carbon-14, and 1% of tritium and iodine contained in spent fuel exists within the gas space in the fuel rod and is likely to be released from the fuel rod if the cladding fails.
However, the curies of tritium, carbon-14, krypton-85, and iodine-129, given in Column F of Table S-3A, represent the total curies of each contained in 35 metric tons of spent fuel (the annual reference reactor fuel requirement), irradiated to 33,000 mwd /MT, and aged 5 years.
Since the site and method for spent fuel disposal have not yet been defined, the NRC staff cannot determine what amounts of radionuclides may eventually escape from the repository or when they may enter the environment.
However, the NRC' staff has identified which radionuclides have the higher probability of migrating from a repository, and which of these radionuclides are the principal contributors to environmental dose commitments if they do eventually enter the biosphere.
In general, the gaseous radionuclides that escape from failed fuel rods, or leaking waste canisters, before the repository is sealed, and the very long-life radionuclides that have low retardation in soils, such as iodine-129, which may migrate with groundwater and eventually reach the biosphere, are the principal contributors to environ-l mental dose commitments.
Accordingly, to umbnlla the upper bounds of prospec-I tive dose commitments, it has been assumed in Table S-3 that all of the tritium, carbon-14, krypton-85, and iodine-129 contained in 5 year-old spent fuel per RRY have been released to the environment.
In the uranium-only recycle option, the spent fuel is reprocessed.
During j
reprocessing, the gaseous radionuclides (tritium, carbon-14, and krypton-85) are released to the atmosphere; however, most of the iodine is removed from 1
1 I
L
29 the process effluents.24 The radiological effluents related to the uranium-only
~
recycle option.are given in column H of Table S-3A.
These values, per RRY, are based on the reprocessing of 6-month-old spent fuel.
[
Since the radiological effluents given in Table S-3 are based on the higher values taken from either fuel cycle, the radiological considerations related to the back end of the fuel cycle are based on 100% release of the tritium, carbon-14, krypton-85, and iodine-129 contained in 6-month-aged spent fuel, and small amounts of other fission products and transuranic radionuclides that may be released if spent fuel were reprocessed.
Environmental Effect:
Excluding radon, the radiological effluents released per RRY from the fuel cycle in support of the model 1,000-MWe LWR result in an estimated 100 year environmental dose commitment to a U.S. population ~of 300 million persons of about 650 person-rem, of which about 550 person-rem is attributable to gaseous effluents and about 100 person-rem is attributable to liquid effluents.
Of the dose commitment attributable to gaseous effluents, about 42% is from tritium, 31% is from carbon-14, 5%.is from krypton-85, 10%
is from iodine, and'the balance (12%) is from all other radionuclides, which contribute primarily to the local population dose cormitment.
Although tritium and carbon-14 account for most of the population dose commitment from the uranium fuel cycle, tritium and carbon-14 produced in the world's atmosphere by cosmic l
radiation contribute about 1% of the total population dose commitment from natural i
background radiation.
Howeve=, that 1% implies that naturally occurring tritium and carbon-14 will result in about 300,000 person-rem each year to the U.S. popu-lation, or about 30,000,000 person-rem over a 100 year period.
l
30 f
Although radon effluents are excluded from Table S-3, the dose commitment from radon has to be added to the above fuel cycle environmental dose commitment to arrive at the estimated dose commitment attributable to the entire fuel cycle.
Based on recent studies, the 100 year environmental dose commitment per RRY attributable to radon emissions from mining and milling is about 210 person-rem.2 On this basis, the 100 year environmental dose commitment attributable to the entire fuel cycle is about 860 person-rem per RRY.
For comparison, the annual dose commitment to a U.S. population of 300 million from natural background radiation results in about 30,000,000 person-rem.
Thus, the dose commitment per RRY from the fuel cycle is about 0.003% of the annual dose commitment, and l
about 0.00003% of the 100 year environmental dose commitment, to the U.S.
population from natural background radiation.
Section III contains an assess-ment of the environmental dose commitment to the,0.S. population attributable to the radiological effluents, except raden, relaased from t.he uranium fuel cycle.
b.
Solids l
l i
The curies per RRY of radionuclides in buried radioactive low-level, high-level, and transuranic waste materials are given in Table S-3.
As discussed above, l
it is assum'd that there will be no release of solid radionuclides to the i
environment from buried solid waste materials.
Moreover, the radiological i
effluents from waste management are so small in relation to the other segments of the fuel cycle that they do not show up in the totals present2d in Table S-3.26 r
{
1
31 1
About 10,700 curies of mixed radionuclides are buried per RRY at low-level waste land burial sites. Of this total, 9,100 curies come from LWR low-level waste;27 1,500 curies are attributable to decommissioning of nuclear facilities,
/
including the reactor;28 and the balance, about 100 curies, is generated by the uranium fuel cycle operations in support of the LWR. About 600 curies of uranium and its daughters are added per RRY to-the tailings pile at the mill site.29
/
The high-level radioactive waste from the once-through fuel cycle is the spent fuel assemblies, which will be packaged and disposed of in a geologic repository.
The radioactive waste from the uranium-only recycle option consists of the fuel assembly hulls, the high-level and intermediate-level wastes from reprocess-ing, and the plutonium waste.
These wastes will be disposed of in a geologic repository in the form of solids which will have chemical and physical properties that mitigate the release of radionuclides to the environs.
It is assumed that the geologic repository will be designed and operated so that the solid radioactive wastes are confined indefinitely.
Environmental Effect:
There are no significant releases of solid radioactive i
materials from shallow land-burial facilities, or from the geologic repository, l
to the environment.
I c
4.
Effluents
. Thermal I
The uranium fuel cycle in support of a model 1,000-MWe LWR discharges approxi-mately 4 trillion Stu of heat per RRY into the environs.
Most of this heat, about 80%, is rejected to the atmosphere at the power plants supplying electrical 1
i l
I l
32 energy to the enrichment plant or at the enrichment plant itself.30 Waste management and spent fuel storage contribute about 18% of the heat rejected to the environs.
This heat results from the decay of radionuclides.
The rejection of prccess heat from fuel cycle facilities accounts for the remaining 2% of
\\
the thermal effluent from the fuel cycle.
To determine the heat rejection by the fuel cycle over the model LWR lifetime, multiply the thermal effluent value per RRY by 30.
Envircnmental Effect:
The thermal effluents related to the fuel cycle in support of a model 1,000-MWe LWR do not represent a significant impact. The i
thermal effluent of the fuel cycle is only about 8% of the heat dispersed to the environs by the model LWR.
5.
Transportation The dose commitment to workers and the public related to the transport of nuclear materials in support of a model 1,000-MWe LWR is estimated to be about 2.5 person-rez per RRY.31 l
To determine the transportation dose commitment over the model LWR lifetime, multiply the cose commitment per RRY by 30.
l Envireventai Effect:
The transportation dose commitment related to the fuel cycle in sup?crt of a model 1,000-MWe LWR does not represent a significtnt impac..
Compa ed to natural background radiation, this dose commitment is small.
l 33 5.
Occupational Exposure The occupational exposure value given in Table S-3 (22.6 person-rem) represents t
an upper exposure vulue related to reprocessing and waste management activities associated with the back end of the fuel cycle, if the model 1,000-We LWR is operated on the uranium-only recycle mode. Most of the occupational exposure attributable to the back end of the fuel cycle results from the variety of operations associated with reprocessing and related waste management activities involving the disposal of irradiated spent fuel.
For comparison, the occupa-tional exposure related to the back end of the once-through uranium fuel cycle is estimated to be 7 percon rem per RRY.
The occupational exposure attributable to the entire uranium fuel cycle in support of a model 1,000-MWe LWR is estimated to be about 200 person-rem per RRY. 2 Environmental Effect:
The occupational exposure attributable te the fuel cycle in support of a model 1,000-We LWR is acceptable.
NRC regulations limit the permissible occupational exposure of any individual to 5 rem annually.
I t
i l
l l
34 i
(
Section II - References
\\
1.
NUREG-0116, Sections 2.6 and 4.6.
2.
Ibid., p. 4-109.
3.
Ibid., p. 4-117.
4.
Ibid., Section 4.4.
5.
Ibid., p. 4-114.
6.
Ibic',, Section 2.5 and p. 4-100.
i 7.
Ibid., Sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 4.4.
8.
Ibid., p. 4-114.
9.
Federal Register, 44, p. 45371.
- 10. WASH-1248, p. 5-9.
11.
Ibid., p. 5-16.
12.
Ibid., p. D-14.
(
13.
Ibid., p. B-10.
14.
Ibid., p. 5-18.
15.
U.S. Council on Environmental Quality,."The Seventh Annual Report,"
September 1976, Figures 11-27 and 11-28, pp. 238-239.
- 16. WASH-1248, p. 5-18.
17.
Ibid., p. B-9.
18.
Ibid., p. C-4.
19.
Ibid., pp. D-18, 19.
20.
Ibid., p. E-3.
j 21.
Ibid., p. E-3.
22.
NUREG-0116, p. 4-109.
23.
Ibid., pp. 4-110 and 4-115.
4
35 24.
Ibid., p. 4-9.
)
- 25. NUREG-0511, Generic Environmental Statement on Uranium Millina, April 1979.
I t
- 26. NUREG-0116, p. 4-84, Table 4.16.
27.
NUREG-0216, p. H-17, Table VII.
{
28.
Ibid., p. H-18, Table VIII.
- 29. WASH-1248, p. S-24.
30.
Ibid., p. S-24.
- 31. NUREG-0116, p. 4-150, Table 4.35.
32.
NUREG-0216, p. I-2.
5 l
t 1
i l
l
36 l
III.
Calculated Population Dose Commitments and Health Effects of the Uranium Fuel Cycle In the Federal Register notice promulgating the final fuel cycle rule (44 FR 45362), the' Commission stated, in note 35, that one important issue to be addressed in the narrative is the question of the time period ove;- which 4
dose commitments from long-lived radioactive effluents should be evaluated.
The Commission also directed that the narrative address how dose commitment evaluations over extended periods of time might be performed and what their significance might be.
This portion of the narrative has been developed to meet the above Commission directive.
Section A contains a discussion of the population dose commitments and health effects calculated to result frcm the radioisot, ope releases given in Table S-3 when integrated over 100 years.a Section B contains a discussion of the period of time that the waste in a federal repository may represent a significant potential hazard, the incrementa? radioisotope releases from the repository which might occur during that period, and the period of time for which calculations may provide meaningful information.
Section C contains a discussion of how very long-term (thousands of years) dose commitments and health effects attributable to long-lived radioisotopes released to the envi-ronment might be calculated, and what the significance of the calculations might be.
1 WASH-1248 and Table S-3 did not address the question of population dose commit-a ments or potential health effects.
However, these topics were discussed in j
considerable detail in NUREGs-0116 and -0216 (Supplements 1 and 2 of WASH-1248).
These reports present a detailed reevaluation of the "back end" of the uranium
)
fuel cycle.
37 A.
100-Year Environmental Dose Commitments In this discussion, the environmental models used to calculate the transport of released radioactivity to man and to estimate the potential somatic and genetic health effects are the models discussed in the GESMO Hearings.I The models have been described in some detail in Appendix C of NUREG-0216. Basically, the models account for the dispersion of radioactivity released in the environment, the bioaccumulation in food pathways, the uptake by man and the cose commitments resulting from that uptake. There are two types of population dose commitments calculated:
the 50 year dose commitment from combined external exposure and internal dose resulting from the continued uptake of the radioisotopes released in a 1-year period, and the environmental dose commitment (EDC).
The EDC represents the sum of the 50 year dose commitments for each year of a specified period following the release of a given quantity of radioactivity.
It includes the dose from the release during the first year, as well as additional exposure from deposited and resuspended radioactivity and internal doses from biological uptake of radioactivity for the subsequent 49 years af ter the release.
In practice, it is impossible to estimate with precision the complete EDC for very long-lived nuclides, such as fodine-129 (17 million year half-life), as there is no way to predict with any degree of certainty the many variables that affect such estimates so far into the future, e.g., the growth of human population, technolcgical advances, the environmental behavior of long-lived radionuclides, and the occurrence of catastrophic climatic and geologic changes.
(See Section C for a discussion of how long-term dose commitraents might be calculated.)
i 38 l
NRC, EPA, and other agencies use a so-called incomplete EDC.
In$((MO,2 the length of the incomplete EDC selected was 40 years for a total U.S. population of 250 million.
Thus, 50 year population doses were calculated for each year i
of the 40 year exposure period and summed (i.e., the total length of time covered was 40 + 50, or 90 years). These calculations have been modified to extend the population dose integration period to 100 years, as recommended by the S-3 Hearing Board.
Since each year's exposure is calculated for 50 years, the total time covered is 150 years.
For the overall fuel cycle, the total body exposure is projected to be 550 person-rem /RRY for an assumed stable U.S.
population of 300 million.
It should be noted that for tritium and krypton-85 (two of the major dose contributors), there is little difference between a 40 year and a 100 year EDC, since about 90% of both nuclides will decay within the first 40 years.
Furthermore, much the same is true of most of the fission and activation products released from the nuclear fuel cycle (e.g., iodine-131, ruthenium-106, strontium-90, cesium-137).
For this reason, increasing the length of the EDC from 40 to 100 years results in much leis than a doubling of the estimated dose commitments and potential health effects; not much additional change would occur if the EDC were extended beyond the 10.0 years for most isotopes.
However, for the very long-lived radioisotopes such as carbon-i4 and iodine-129, among others, and the special case of 3.8-day radon-222 which continues to be formed by decay of long-lived parents, the EDCs continue to increase with time I
and the calculated health effects also continue to increase.
(See Section C for a discussion of very long EDCs.)
i l
39 I
In the area of health effects, it is possible that even the 40 year EDCs calculated for. the S-3 hearings overestimated the impacts of the releases.
The health effects models represent a linear extrapolation of effects observed at high dose rates (e.g., Japanese nuclear bomb survivors) to potential effects at low doses and low dose rates.
In addition, the assumption is made that there is no dose below which effects cannot occur.
It is believed that the use of such models, although useful for regulatory purposes, tends to over-estimate the effects of exposure to low-level ionizing radiation. Most animal and cellular studies indicate reduced somatic and genetic effects as the doses or dose rates are reduced.
At low doses and low dose rates, the effects per unit of radiation dose may decline due to cellular repair and other mechanisms.
The linear hypothesis, as the 1972 BEIR report indicated, in most cases probably overestimates, rather than underestimates, the risk from low-LET D radiation; and such estimates should not be regarded as more than upper limits of risk.
In this regard, beyond mining and milling, the population dose commitment from the uranium fuel cycle results, for the most part, from the exposure of about 300 million people to very low doses of low-LET radiation.
In general, the controversy about whether the risks related to high-LET radiation are understated pertains to the effects from exposure to neutrons and alpha particles, which are not significant in the uranium fuel cycle.
l The high-LET radiation from transuranic radionuclides in the uranium fuel cycle effluents contributes less than about 0.4% of the health effects attributable to the back end of the uranium fuel cycle.
& Linear energy transfer
r 40 3 studies are as follows:#
The health risk estimators from the GESM0 total body dose:
135 cancer deaths per million person-rem 258 genetic effects per million person-rem thyroid dose:
13.4 cancer deaths per million person-rem lung dose:
22.2 cancer deaths per million person-rem bone dose:
6.9 cancer deaths per million person-rem Although the risk of a genetic effect occurring is about twice that of a cancer death, most of the genetic effects (assumed to be occurring at the equilibrium rate) would not be fatal.d c The conclusions in the S-3 narrative concerning potential bio' logical effects are based on risk estimators in the BEIR I Report modified to reflect more recent radiobiological data in WASH-1400. The BEIR III, which reevaluates the risk estimators presented in BEIR I, recently has been published (July 1980).
Although the NRC staff review is still under way, the range of risk estimators for low-level radiation presented in BEIR III appears to be essentially the same numerically or less than those presented in BEIR I for whole body exposures.
However, in some cases the cancer risk estimators for specific l
(
organs in BEIR III appear to be different from (generally higher than) those in BEIR I, which were used in the S-3 narrative.
Thus, cancer risk estimators for some specific organs could be underestimated in the S-3 narrative.
- However, since the bulk of the collective population doses from the uranium fuel cycle (excluding radon) are whole body exposures, the conclusions of this S-3 narrative would be changed only slightly, if at all, if the revised BEIR III i
~
risk estimators were tc be used.
d It requires about 5 generations for a genetic effect to closely approach i
equilibrium in a specific population.
l 1
i i
i
I 41 I
Because there are higher dose commitments to certain organs (e.g., lung, bone, thyroid) than to the total body, the total risk of radiogenic cancer is not addressed by the total body dose commitment alone.
By using the risk estimators presented above, It is possible to estimate the whole bndy equivalent dose commitments for certain organs. The sum of the whole body equivalent dose commitments from those organs was estimated to be about 100 person rem. When added to the above value, the total 100 year environmental dose commitment would be about 650 person-rem /RRY.
In summary, the potential radiological impacts of the supporting fuel cycle (including fuel reprocessing and waste management but excluding radon emissions from mining and mill tailings) are as follows:
total body person-rem /RRY:
550 (100 year dose commitment) risk equivalent person-rem /RRY:
650 (100 year dose commitment)*
fatal cancers /RRY:
0.088 genetic effects /RRY:
0.14 Thus, for example, if three light water reactor power plants were to be operated for 30 years each, the supporting fuel cycle would cause risk equivalent whole body population dose commitments of about 59,000 person-rem and a genetically significant dose commitment of about 50,000 person-rem, leading to estimates of 8 fatal cancers and 13 genetic effects in the U.S. population (300 million persons) over a period of 100 years.
Some perspective can be added by comparing such estimates with " normal" cancer mortality for the same population.
Assuming
- Includes dose commitments to oth'er organs as well as whole body dose commitments.
i
\\
42 that future population characteristics (age distribution, cancer susceptibility, etc.) and competing risks of mortality remain the same as today, such projections would predict about 60 million cancer deaths from causes other than generation of nuclear power during the next 100 years.
Assuming that the occurrence of genetic effects remains constant, projections would predict about 25 million genetic effects from causes other than generat' ion of nuclear power during the next 100 years.
6 Using the lifetime risk estimate of 135 cancer deathe per 10 person-rem and averaging the 650 risk equivalent person-rem per RRY over the U.S. population of 300 million persons, the average lifetime individual risk in the United States from cancer mortality from radioactivity released from the supporting fuel cycle is about 3 chances in 10 billion per RRY.
The average lifetime risk per person of cancer mortality from radioactivity released, excluding radon, from the uraniva fuel cycle in support of all the currently projected and operating nuclear reactors, if operated for 30 years, is estimated to be less than 2 chances in 1 million.
Assuming one RRY supplies electrical power for approximately a million persons and that all of the cancer risk is borne I
only by those users, the average lifetime risk to this population group would be about 9 chances in 100 million per RRY.
This would also be the approximate average lifetime risk per person per RRY from the fuel cycle if all of the electricity used in the United States were produced by nuclear power plants.
)
However, since nuclear power presently provides about 10% of the total electri-city generated in the United States, the average lifetime risk per person in the United States would be about 9 chances in 1 billion per RRY.
I i
1
43 l
In order to provide some perspectives on the risk of cancer mortality from the supporting fuel cycle, some mortality risks which are numerically about equal to 9 chances in.1 billion are as follows: a few puffs on a cigarette, a few sips of wine, driving the family car about 6 blocks, flying about 2 miles, canoeing for 3 seconds, or being a man aged 60 for 11 seconds.4 Using electri-city generated by any means for typical domestic use results in an average
~0 risk cf 6 x 10 per year from accidental electrocution.5 Thus, a lifetime risk of 9 in 1 billian would be equivalent to using electricity for about one-half day.
Currently, the number of nuclear power reactors operating, being built, or tentatively planned in the United States totals about 190 which is estimated to provide a nuclear generating capacity in the United States of about 183,000 megawatts.
The estimated potential upper-limit he<h effect risk from manmade radioactivity released to the environment from the uranium fuel cycle, beyond mining and milling, in support of the projected 30 year operation of all currently operating or planned nuclear reactors-in the United States is as follows.
44 ESTIMATED RISKS OF CANCER AND GENETIC EFFECTS
- 100-Year EDCa*
10,000-Year EDC***
Cancer Incidence of Cancer Incidence of Mortality Genetic Effects Mortality Genetic Effects Health Effect Risk, All Currently Oper-484 771 652 1155 ating or Planned Reactors 6
6 8
8 Natural Occurrence 60 x 10 25 x 10 60 x 10 25 x 10 (300 million population)
-4
-3
-5
-5 Percent Increase 8 x 10 3 x 10 1.1 x 10 4.6 x 10 Over Natural
" Excludes mining and milling radon effluents
- Environmental Dose Commitment
- Increase results primarily from long-life C-14 and I-129 effluents Thus, for the currently projected U.S. nuclear power industry, the potential upper-limit cancer mortality risk estimates, estimated for a 100 year EDC and
-4 a 10,000 year EDC, excluding radon, are about 8 x 10 percent and about
-5 1 x 10 percent respectively, of the potential occurrence of natural cancer mortality in the U.S. popul.ation over equivalent periods of time.
The j
l incremental difference in U.S. population dose due to the projected growth of I
nuclear power would average less than 1 mrad / person / year.
According to the BEIR Committee, manmade radiation levels of 100 mrem / year can be regarded as comparable to other risks that are often accepted by the public.
l
l 45 i
l It is believed that the estimated Table S-3 values and the dose and health i
effects models used by the NRC to develop the above estimates result in conservatively high projections.
Therefore, they provide reasonable assurance that the radiological effects resulting from the releases in Table S-3 (as presented in NUREGs-0116 and -0216) have not been underestimated.
B.
Potential Long-Term Effects of Waste Disposal i
c NUREG-Oll6, Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle, contained estimates of the short-term impacts from waste disposal operations (i.e., those impacts that could result from the waste disposal operation during their operating life).
Although NUREG-Oll6 and NUREG-0216 contained data on potential long-term risks from escape of radionuclides from a repository and from low-level waste disposal operations,7 6
no entries were made in Table S-3 for these potential releases because they were judged to be too small to be of signtficance.
The staff has reviewed the long-term effects of low-level waste disposal and TRU and high-level waste or spent fuel disposal for both of the two fuel l
cycles covered by the present proceeding--once-through and uranium-only recycle.
The potential effects resulting 'from long-term releases of low-level waste have been addressed in NUREG-0216,8 and no additional consideration of the potential effects of disposal of these types of wastes is believed to be necessary.
Moreover, since it has been assumed that TRU wastes will be disposed of in a repository along with high-level wastes, there is no explicit discussion of TRU wastes because the TRU wastes are considered to be part of the high-level waste.
l
I 46 I
The wastes from the once-through and uranium-only fuel cycles that will be disposed of in federal repositories differ from one another in several ways as noted below:
o Waste Form - The cominant a' mount of radioactive waste from the once-through fuel cycle is in the form of spent fuel assemblies, with the fission products and actinides in a UO matrix; while the dominant waste from the 2
uranium-only fuel cyclo will be solidified high-level, plutonium, and TRU waste.
The letter will be in the form of solids having properties engineered to reduce mobility of fission products and actinides.
The NRC cannot at this time describe in any detail the variations in the properties (in terms of better long-term retention of fission products and actinides) of one type of waste form from the other.
Hence, for this discussion, the various forms of solid waste have been assumed to have similar nuclide retention properties.
1 o
Radionuclide Content - The spent fuel contains all of the nonvolatile i
fission products, transuranic elements, and activation products produced in the course of its irradiation, as well as all the residual uranium.
l Similarly, the high-level wastes in combination with the plutonium and l
any TRU wastes from the uranium-only fuel cycle contain essentially all l
l of the nonvolatile fission products, transuranic elements, and activation prcducts produced in the fuel in the course of irradiation.
The main difference between the spent fuel and the wastes from uranium-only recycle is that the wastes from the latter contain only 2-5% of the residual n
47 1
Thus, on a broad comparative basis, since all other nuclides are present in about equal amounts in both wastes, the spent fuel represents a slightly greater long-term risk because of its larger uranium content.
Since all solidified wastes have been assumed for this study to have equivalent nuclide retention properties, and since spent fuel represents the greater long-term risk, the following discussion is based on spent fuel.
The potential effects from long-term releases of radioisotopes from a reposi-tory require the consideration of two basic issues:
o over what period of time does the waste represent a significant potential hazard, and o
given the state-of-the-art of modeling transport of radionuclides, do calculations provide meaningful in/ormation over that period of time?
One way to address the question of time over which the spent fuel in the repository represents a significant hazard is to assess the net potential impact of the disposal of the waste relative to the potential impacts if the charge to the reactors (fresh fuel) had remained in the ore body.
For this assessment it is assummed that an engineered system, including waste from packaging, and the repository, can be expected to confine (isolate) radioactive l
waste materials at least as well as an isolated ore body.
This assumption is l
believed to be reasonable, based upon the following observations. Ore deposits l
were located in various geologic settings by natural phenomena and some may be l
l
.*9
48 in contact with groundwater, in soils with only moderate retardation of solute movement, and with varying ion travel distances to the biosphere. A reposi-tory, on the other hand, will be located in a hydrogeologic setting purposely selected to have no known or prospective contact with circulating groundwater, 1
high retardation of solute movement', and long ion travel distances to the biosphere.
In addition, the repository system, including waste form and packaging, will also include engineered features which are intended to prevent or greatly slow the release of the waste to the host media.
For waste placed in a repository system to reach the biosphere, one of two types of events must occur.
lhe first involves essentially commonplace j
occurrences and requires:
(1) water to infiltrate the repository; (2) the waste container to corrode; and (3) radionuclides to leach from the waste form.
Long-lived radionuclides will eventually reach the biosphere by migration of leached radionuclides with the movement of groundwater to a discharge point or to a well.
This type of event could expose man to radioactive materials via food chains or other environmental pathways.
T.9e second type of event involves unusual occurrences, such as disruption of the repository by man or l
natural events, which released radionuclides to the biosphere.
However, sites for waste repositories will be selected in areas where the probability that a natural event would disturb the repository is extremely low and located away l
l from identified natural resources to minimize the probability that man would accidentally disturb the repository.
An analysis of the consequences of a meteorite strike of the repository, an extraordinary event that would be classified as coming under scenario two, has been given in NUREG-0116.9 Thus, i
~
2 49 the analysis here considers primarily the probability of waste reaching the biosphere under the conditions of scenario one.
In the event water infiltrated the repository, it would take a long time for any of the leachep radionuclides to be transported to the biosphere by groundwater
~
migration.
Movement of groundwater is itself slow, and retarding mechanisms such as ion exchange increase the travel time for most radiondclides such that it might take tens to hundreds of thousands of years for them to reach the biosphere.10 In this period of-time, most radioactive material will have decayed away before it could reach the biosphere.
On the other hand, fission products carbon-14, technetium-99, and iodine-129 have a combination of low retardation by ion exchange in soil and long lives.
Accordingly, if these i
radionuclides were leached from wastes by infiltrating water, they could reach the biosphere in relatively small concentrations over a rather long time period.
However, in developing the source terms for Table S-3, it was assumed
. that carbon-14 and iodine-129 were released to the biosphere before the waste was sent to the repository. While not the actual case with respect to the disposal of spent fuel from the once-through fuel cycle, for the purpose of the S-3 rule, this assumption bounds the upper limits relevant to releases of carbon-14 and iodine-129 from the uranium fuel cycle.
Technetium can exist in several oxide forms.
Under the conditions expected for groundwaters not in contact with the atmosphere, insoluble Tc0 r related hydrated forms should 2
l be the solubility-controlling phases, and the concentrations of technetium in migrating groundwater should be extremely' low.
However, the oxidation conditions are difficult to predict due to the effects of construction of the repository T
a
50 and due to waste-rock interactions.
Therefore, technetium has been considered to be present as the pertechnetate oxyanion (Tc0 ) which is assumed to migrate 4
to the biosphere with the groundwater.
To determine the time period over which spent fuel might be deemed a significant hazard, we have compared its dilution index witn that of unirradiated uranium fuel.
The dilution index is a measure of the amount of water required to dilute the concentration of radionuclides to the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release, which can be used to compare the consequences of ingestion of radioactive materials.
From Figure 3, it can be seen that in spent fuel the fission products dominate the dilution index up to about 200 years from reactor discharge.
Beyond 200 years to about 50,000 years, the transuranic radionuclides and their daughters dominate the dilution index, and beyond 100,000 years, uranium and its daughters dominate the dilution index.
From Figure 4, it can be seen that the growth of uranium daughters radium and lead dominate the dilution index for aged unitradiated uranium fuel, such that by about 100,000 years, the dilution indexes for both spent fuel and unirradiated uranium fuel are about the same,.both being dominated by uranium and its daughters.
T",us, without consideration of dispersion or retardation relative to grounawater transport time, at about 100,000 years the dilution index of the waste in a repository is about the same as aged unirradiated uranium fuel.
M reover, since plutonium and americium have long delay times during transport from the repository to the environment, the dilution index of those materials in the waste tnat could potentially be released is about the same as aged'
'inirradiated fuel after 10,000 years.
51 108 TOTAL 7
e 10 5
1 TRANSURANICS
\\
+DAUGHT U ~ % }
6 g10 g
x
\\
=
l
\\
i
\\
E 105 1
"s 1
/..N i
t 4
f10 I
g 2
1 1
URANIUM +
d g
DAUGHTERS
$ 10 g
\\QOTA'L FISSION PRODUCTS 3 -
ua
/
b2 Te #
10 N N N
\\
10
\\
\\
1 I
I f
I I
i 1
10 100 1000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 DECAY TIME FROM REACTOR DISCHARGE (Yrs)
Figure 3 Dilution index for Spent Uranium Fuel.
52
. SPENT FUEL Pu 106
=~
- %C f
\\
\\
/
-g Am/
N
\\
joS/
g k
N
\\
N
\\
\\
\\
g AGED FRESH FUEL
- g
~
g
_J g
2 (RADIUM +
\\
- R ADIUM+ LEAD 2 10
\\ LEAD)
\\
~
4 w
\\
\\
E
\\
\\
E
\\
'\\
\\
"s
\\
\\
\\
3
\\
\\
g 10 g
___\\
8 E
_ Np___,,,,L,-
==%
)
\\
8
\\
t G 102 U
g
_g C
Cw I
I 10 -
- By NRC 1 -
i f
I f
f f
I 1
10 100 1000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 DECAY T!ME FROM REACTOR DISCHARGE ivrs)
FIGURE 4 Dilution Index for Actinides and Daughters in Spent and Aged Fresh Uranium Fuel
53 Thus the answers to the previously posed questions concerning the potential long-term effects of waste repositories may be framed as follows:
1.
For natural-type releases from a repository, significant net potential impactr of spent fuel relative to aged fresh fuel exist for less than 10,000 years.
In natural-type releases, there is a long time delay 4
5 (10 -10 years) between the time the nuclide (or its parent) leaves the repository and reaches the biosphere. The net impact of such releases can be conservatively (high side) approximated by assuming the complete release of the technetium-99.
Given the number of conservative assumptions required to model the releases from a repository under natural-type circumstances and the small potential net impact after 10,000 years, calculating releases for natural-type conditions beyond 10,000 years provides little meaningful information.
2.
If disturbances of a repository which could result in the direct release of significant quantities of otherwise immobile isotopes are being considered (well-digging), significant net potential hazards could persist for 100,000 years.
The impacts from the disturbance would depend on the time and nature of the action.
1 C.
Oose Commitments and Health Effects from Long-Lived Radioisotopes Released frem the Uranium Fuel Cycles The Commission directed the staff to discuss the time period over which dose commitments should be evaluated, how the dose commitment evaluations'over r
54 extended periods of time might be evaluated, and what their significance might be.
In Section A, page 38, it was shown that a 100 year EOC was adequate to provide the total dose commitment from most isotopes. Very long-time EOCs are necessary if the complete environmental dose commitments from fuel cycle emissions such as carbon-14 and iodine-129 ire to be determined.
In addition to these isotopes, the analysis given in Section B showed that a very conser-vative evaluation of long-term emissions from a repository would show technetium-99 could be released from a repository.
Applicable releases for these isotopes are:
Carbon-14 24 Ci/RRY Iodine-129 1.3 Ci/RRY Technetium-99 upper bound for long-term releases from the repository is 500 Ci/RRY, 100% of the technetium in fuel.
Carbon-14 and iodine-129 would be emitted as volatile materials; technetium would be leached from the waste repository and reach the biosphere dissolved j
in water.
Mathematical models are available for estimating the long-term population doses from carbon-14 at.d iodine-129.
No models are currently available for estimating long-term doses from technetium.
f nvironmentai Standards being developed by EFA and regulations being developed E
by NRC are expected to require reasonable assurance that releases of Tc-99 are a small fraction of this quantity.
55 1.
Calculation of Dose Commitments To calculate dose commitments and health effects over long time periods, one must:
(a) predict the population at risk; (b) model the time-dependent behavior of the nuclide in the envircnment; and (c) predict the response of the population to the exposure in terms of cancer mortality and genetic defects.
i a.
Population at Risk In considering population at risk over time periods of 100,000 years or more, several gross assumptions must be made.
Realistically, geologic history would predict several catastrophes such as ice ages (as many as 10 might occur over 250,000 years)11 and large fluctuations in population might be expected to be caused by such catastrophes. The staff, for want of a better rationalization, has assumed a stable world population of 10 billion for the first 10,000 years of exposure, with periodic variations of population of from 2 billion to 10 billion as a function of time beyond 10,000 years.
Further, the U.S. popula-tion was assumed to be a constant 3% of the world population, b.
Models of Nuclide Behavior (1) Carbon-14 i
The GESMO and S-3 hearing records do not contain a model that adequately predicts I
the behavior of carbon-14 in the environment over long time periods.
The GESMO model (RABGAD) can be used to estimate the dose commitment to the U.S.
population from the initial passage of carbon-14 before it mixes in the world's l2 l
carbon pool.
The carbon-14 model developed by Killough can be modified, using the population variations given above, to obtain long-term dose commitments, l
l l
r l
56 (2) Iodine-129 Appendix C, Section 3.0 of NUREG-0216 provides an adequate model for estimating long-term population doses from iodine-129.
The GESMO model (RABGAD) can be used for estimating the U.S. population dose resulting from the initial passage of the iodine-129 prior to mixing in the world pool of stable iodine.
For,the
-12 long term, the model assumed for the S-3 hearings results in 1.1 x 10 rem / year /Ci to each person in the world after the mixing occurs, with the
(
annual dose-rate declining with a half-life of 17 million years.
Although removal mechanisms probably exist which would result in an environmental half-life much less than the 17 million year radiological half-life, the environmental half-life was conservatively taken to be the radiological half-life.
This conservatism is prudent until better long-term iodine models are developed, c.
Response to Exposure In considering response of the population to exposure to radioactive nuclides, the staff has no basis to choose any responses other than those estimated 6
6 currently--135 cancer deaths /10 person-rem, and 258 genetic defects /10 I3 person-rem.
2.
Numerical Estimates of Dose Commitments and Health Effects The models described above, with the assumptions delineated for population and population response to exposure have been used to calculate long-term dose
57 i
commitments resulting from carbon-14 and iodine-129 releases.
The values are 1
4 given in Table I (carbon-14) and Table II (iodine-129).
It can be seen from Table I that integrating carbon-14 dose commitments over 10,000 years captures l
essentiallythe$otalpotentialpersonremdosecommitmentsfromcarbon-14.
These data indicate that the total U.S. population exposure to infinity is perhaps 3-4 times the first pass exposure and the potential infinite world population exposure is perhaps 8 times the first pass world population exposure.
Cumulative excess cancer mortalities /RRY of about 0.06 (U.S.) and 1 1
(wsrld) might be predicted from the carbon-14 releases. A cumulative total of about 0.1 (U.S.) and 3 (world) genetic defects /RRY would be predicted to l
result over a period of 100,000 years from the carbon-14 released.
It can be seen from Table II that the dose commitments from iodine-129 continue to increase with time, even beyond 250,000 years.
Since the model does not incorporate any removal mechanism other than radioactive decay (17 million year half-life), the calculations could, in theory, be extended to 200 million years or so to capture the total dose commitments of iodine-129.
This has not been done for the present treatment.
(A discussion of the significance of long-time calculations is given in Section 3. below.)
The data in Table II show that the 250,000 year dose commitments (whole. body risk equivalent) from iodine-129 (76 U.S. and 1,250 world person-rem /RRY) are j
ab:ut 12 to 16% of the 100,000 year (infinite) dose commitments from carbon-14 (430 U.S. and 10,600 world person-rem /RRY).
Cumulative excess cancer mortalities /
RRY for a 250,000 year exposure are about 0.01 (U.S.) and 0.17 (world); cumulative genetic defects /RRY (25C,000 year) are about 0.002 (U.S.) and 0.035 (world).
9 e
m
Table I Population Dose Commitaents and Potential Health Effects for 24 Ci/RRY Release of C-14 from the fuel Cycle fine Cumulative Person-Rem (T.B. Risk Equivalent *)
Cumulative Cancer Cumulative Genetic (years)
& Cumulative Genetically Significant Dose (Organ-rem)
Mortality Defects U.S.**
World**
U.S.
World U.S.
World 100 130 790 0.02 0.1 0.03 0.2 1,000 170 1,900+
0.02 0.3 0.04 0.5 10,000 380 8,900+
0.05 1.2 0.10 2.3 100,000 430 10,600++
0.06 1.4 0.11 2.7 250,000 430 10,600++
0.06 1.4 0.11 2.7 g ATotal body dose equivalent is the sum of the total body dose and each organ dose multiplied by the ratio of the mortality risk per organ-rem to the mortality risk per person-rem total body.
naFirst Pass Dose = 127 person-ren (total body risk equivalent) or organ-res
assumed world population of 10 billion y F (t) = (28 + 592 (1 - e (t-100)(0.693/5,600))),{
person-res Killough population of 12.21 billion Ci
" Based on approximation to Killough's C-14 model as follows:
10' 5.2 billion avg.
P*'8""I " F(t)'= { 12.21 g,g 44j, j79 gj _, -(t - 10,000)(0.693/5,600))g,g j
12.21 billion C1
Table II Population Dose Commitments and Potential llealth Effects for 1.3 Ci/RRY Release of I-129 from a litW Repository Time Cumulative Person-Rem Cumulative Genetically Significant 19 ears-)
(total body risk equivalent)*
Population Dose (organ-rem)
U.S.**
World**
U.S.***
World***
100 40 41 4.4 4.5 1,000 40 49 4.4 5.4 10,000 43 130 4.7 14.6 100,000 55 524 6.0 57.6 250,000 76 1,250 8.4 137 Cumulative Cancer Mortality Cumulative Genetic Effects U.S.
World U.S.
World 100 0.0054 0.0055 0.0011 0.'0012 1,000 0.0054 0.0066 0.0011 0.00.1 10,000 0.0058 0.018 0.0012 0.00.58 100,000 0.0074 0.071 0.0015 0.015 250,000 0.01 0.17 0.0022 0.035 A
Total body dose equivalbnt is the sum of the total body dose and each organ dose multiplied by the ratio of the mortality risk per organ rem to the mortality risk per person-rem (total body).
AA first Pass 00se = 31 person-rem whole body risk equivalent AAA First Pass Organ Dose 4.4 organ-rem (gonads)
60 1
3.
The Significance of Long-Term Dose Commitments In the above section, at the direction of the Commission, the staff has provided theoretical mathematical calculations for dose commitments and health effects of carbon-14 and iodine-129 for up to 250,000 years.
In order to perform these calculations, the staff has had to make a series of assumptions based upon little foundation and in which it has little or no confidence.
Because of the shortness of human life expectancy relative to the much slower changes occurring on earth, such as variations in climate, continental drift, erosion, and evolution of species, it is difficult to comprehend the immensity of potential changes over long periods of time.
For comparatively short-lived isotopes, dose commitment integrations can be projected for what amounts to infinite time intervals.
For example, an infinite time integration of population dose can be done for tritium or krypton-85 since such a time integration effectively requires consideration of a period of about 100 years or less.
However, projecting population at risk, and population response to risk over even such relatively short time intervals requires many assumptions which the staff has reason to question.
It is possible, for example, to reasonably postulate the following occurrences during the next 100 years: major changes in the size of the population at risk because of war or global starW. ion; important medical developments; the onset of the " greenhouse" effect; the depletion of oil, natural gas, and mineral Any of these occurrences may have significant effects on worldwide resources.
conditions and affect the validity of calculated dose commitments and related health effects.
61 i
The staff is unable to make any definitive statements about the possible variations in the long-term dose commitments and health effects resulting from potential future happenings.
However, the staff believes that the cumulative combined impacts from long-lived radionuclides such cs carbon-14 and iodine-129 4
are small relative to those from natural background radiation, which is about 100,000 billion person-rem (world) over a 250,000 year total, i.e., less than
~7 about 10 percent of those impacts resulting from natural background radiation.
4 4
62 Section III - References 1.
Occket No. RM-50-5, Generic Environmental Statement on Mixed Oxide Fuel (GESMO).
Hearing transcripts for January 19, 25 and 26,1977.
. 2.
NUREG-0002, Chapter IV-J.
3.
Ibid., Chapter IV-J, Appendix B, page IV-J (B)-1.
4.
Pochin, E. E., "The Acceptance of Risk," Br. Med. Bull., Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 184-190 (1975).
5.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, The Reactor Safety Study, Main Report, WASH-1400, 1975.
Table G-3.
6.
NUREG-0116, page 4-94 ff.
7.
NUREG-0216, Appendix H, page H-16 ff.
8.
Ibid.
9.
NUREG-0116, Table 4-19.
10.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory," Siting of Fuel Reprocessing Plants and Waste Management Facilities, ORNL-4451, July 1970.
11.
Norwine, J., "A Question of Climate:
Hot or Cold?," Environment, 19, #8,
- p. 7, Nov.1977, Mitchell, J. M., Jr., " Carbon Dioxide and Future ETimate,"
E.D.S., N.0. A. A., Commerce, March 1977; Calder, N., " Head South with All Deliberate Speed:
Ice Age May Return in a Few Thousand Years," Smithsonian, 8, #10, Jan. 1978.
12.
Killough, G. G., "A Diffusion-Type Model of the Global Carbon Cycle for the Estimation of Dose to the World Population from Releases of Carbon-14 to Atmosphere," ORNL-5269, May 1977 13.
NUREG-0002, Chaper II-J, Appendix B.
14.
U.S. Bureau of the Census, " Historical Statis. tics of the United States:
Colonial Times to 1970," Part I Series B 149-166.
1
63 Section IV.
Socioeconomic Impacts Socioeconomic impacts of the uranium fuel cycle can result from increases in levels of employment and public services requirements.
Because the topic is so broadly defined, it is desirable to approach it as a series of interrelated subcategorics.
Briefly, those consist of:
o Population - changes in population resulting from the influx of workers and taeir families at both the construction and operation stages of facilities.
Economy - induced changes in income and expenditures, including demands o
fo:' services, both public and private.
While this factor was not discussed in WASH-1248, it was briefly covered in the remanded hearing (Docket No. RM 50-3) on the back end of the fuel cycle, and the following discussion is based on the record of that proceeding.
For the nuclear fuel cycle, population and economic data can be obtained at each stage from mining, milling, and fuel fabricat, ion through waste isolation.
The tabulation of conventional socioeconomic impacts at each stage can provide a generic measure of the conventional socioeconomic impacts associated with the entire fuel cycle.
For each stage of the fuel cycle, the character and magnitude of the socioeco-nomic impacts are site-specific and are determined by the size of the work force, the size of-the local populations, the number of incoming workers in
64 f
relation to the population size, the capacities of public service facilities impacted, the administrative capability of the impacted political jurisdictions, and other related factors. The size of work forces needed for reprocessing plants and waste-related facilities su'ggests that socioeconomic impacts should be manageable through proper planning and mitigative efforts.
In fact, the socioeconomic effects of establishing reprocessing plants and waste-related facilities are r.,t expected to differ in quantity or quality from those asso-ciated with any commercial nuclear power plant.
The socioeconomic considara-tions can be summarized as follows:
I:apacts that can be expected are comparable to or less than those caused by LWR construction activities and could include noise and dust around the site; disruptions or dislocations of residences or businesses; physical or public-access impacts on historic, cultural, and natural features; impacts on public services such as education, utilities, the road system, recreation, public health and safety; increased tax revenues in jurisdictions where facilities are located; increased local expenditures for services and materials, and social stresses.I With respect to the socioeconomic impacts that may be attributable to reprocess-2 ing facilities, NUREG-0116 cites TVA information showing the anticipated socioeconomic impacts associated with the construction of an LWR are representa-tive of those socioeconomic impacts which can be expected from construction and operation of a reprocess-:ng facility.
)
65 Since a 2,000-metric-ton reprocessing plant (the size of the model reprocessing plant) is capable of servicing 57 reactors annually, the socioeconomic impacts from construction of a reprocessing plant attributable to a single reactor can be approximated as less than 2% of those of the reactor.
With respect to the socioeconomic impacts which can be attributed to a high-level waste repository (HLWR), commercial nuclear power plant information was utilized to illustrate the anticipated impacts. The anticipated impacts can be expected to vary depending upon the location of the repository and the size of the surrounding communities.
Preliminary estimates of the construction labor force, developed by the Office of Waste Isolation at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, show a peak number of 800 l
people, in contrast to the average LWR work force of 2,000.
The anticipated socioeconomic impacts of high-level waste repository construction thus could be expected to be less than those of construction of an LWR, Since the proposed repository has the capability of servicing a total of 133 reactors, and can store fuel from 40 reactors (based on 1,200 RRYs over 30 years of operation),
the socioeconomic impacts resulting from construction of the repository, when allocated to a single reactor, would be only a few percent of the socioeconomic impact of constructing the reactor.
In terms of operating work force, preliminary estimates developed at the Office of Waste Isolation at ORNL set the number of peak labor force for a high-level waste repository at 1,630, about 10 times that of an LWR work force (170).
66 1
An added 1,630 workers to a rural employment base would mean a change in the economy of the area.
If the pattern followed the experience of large industrial plants locating in small towns, the following observations could be expected to apply:3 1.
Rural industrial development seldom produces an unmanageable popula-tion growth rate; it provides a stabilizing influence on population; 2.
There is a tendency for long distance commuting, which tends to spread out impacts on community facilities; 3.
Housing would be a common problem in rural areas.
If the settlement pattern were very concentrated, the impacts on community.
facilities and housing could be expected to be larger.
It is believed that the lead times will be sufficient to allow the potentially impacted communi-ties and the applicant to develop mitigative programs which would allow for an orderly and manageable resolution of potential socioeconomic impacts.
Should the repository be located within a relative,1y easy commuting distanc6, it is believed that the surrounding communities should be able to absorb the 1,630 workers with fewer impacts occurring and be able to resolve any potential impacts requiring mitigation in advance of the operation phase.
Based upon these assessments of socioeconomic considerations associated with the construction and operation of reprocessing and waste burial facilities, it
67 was concluded that when they are spread over many pcwer reactors, they add an insignificant amount to the environmental impacts of an individual reactor.
Thus, no specific value for socioeconomic considerations was placed in Table S-3.
In its effort to update Table S-3, the Commission is performing socioeconomic studies which are intended to provide more detailed data on the impacts actually experienced as a result of construction and operation of the facilities involved in each step of the nuclear fuel cycle. The studies may provide information that will permit an incremental assessment of socioeconomic impacts attributed to the fuel cycle activities.
Section IV - References 1.
NUREG-0116, Section 4.11.4, p. 4-168.
2.
Ibid, p. 4-170.
3.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Policy Research Associates,
" Socioeconomic Impacts: Nuclear Power Station Siting," NUREG-OlSO, June 1977.
0" R[G053 U.S. NUCLEAR KEGULATORY COMMISSIOW BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET Addendum
- 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE (Add Vorume Na,,1appropreare)
- 2. (Leave e/m Af
~
Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2
- 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
- 7. AUTHOR $1
- 5. DATE REPORT COMPLETED M ON TH l YEAR
.la n u a r v 19Al
- 9. PFRFORMING ORGANIZATION N AME AND M AILING ADDRESS (Inc/ude lip Codel DATE REPORT ISSUED MONTH l YEAR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Annaru lon1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission e (teave stanas Washington, DC 20555
- 8. (Leave blank)
- 12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MA: LING ADDRESS (Include l<a Code /
- 10. PROJECTITASK/ WORK UNIT NO.
Same as 9 above II. CONTRACT NO
- 13. TYPE OF REPORT PE RIOD COVE RED (inclus<re dates /
Final Environmental Statement, Addendum i
- 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14 (Leave n/m*)
nnele n t Nnt En 1f.Q and 40 17A I
- 16. ABSTRACT Q00 words or less1 A Final Environmental Statement for theWilliam B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, proposed for operation by Duke Power Company, has been prepared by the Office of the Nijclear Re6ctor Renulation of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Addendum to the Final Environmental Statement clarifies or amplifies informatinn with regard to the Table S-3 and does not affect the cost-benefit cnnelusion alreadv made in the Final Environmental Statement.
l I
- i l
l i
i
- 17. KE Y WORDS AND DOCUMENT AN ALYSIS 174 DESCRIPTORS e
i 17h IDENTIFIE RS'OPEN ENDED TERMS 18 AV AILABILITY STATE MENT
- 19. SECUHITY CLASS iTn,s,eport/
- 21. NO. OF P AGES Unc1assified Unlimited 20 SE CURITY CLASS (This page)
- 22. PRICE 1fne11ec;I4gA N RC FORM 335 (7 77) l
.i
.