Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste - U.S. ...

4.78
4.7.1.2 Nonradiological Effluents of Once-Through Fuel Cycle Waste Management
Nonradiological effluents from AFR construction include dust and pollutants from
machinery operation. Burning the quantities of fossil fuels listed in Table 4.7.1 also
results in air pollution emissions, but concentrations in air at the fenceline from con-
struction and operation are not expected to degrade air quality beyond applicable limits
(40 CFR 50).
The major nonradiological effluent from operation of an AFR is the release of about
5 x 108 MJ/yr of heat through the cooling tower. These thermal releases are not expected to
have any significant effects, nor any measurable micrometeorological effects. Predicted
nonradiological effluent air concentrations from AFR operations will be considerably below
applicable Federal air quality standards or naturally occurring gaseous concentrations.
Nonradiological effluents from decommissioning will be comparable to effluents during
construction of the AFR and are not expected to result in any degradation of air quality.
4.7.1.3 Radiological Effects of Once-Through Fuel Cycle Waste Management
During planned operation of an AFR, the only exposure pathway to man is via airborne
effluents; there are no planned releases of radioactivity to ground or water. During decom-
missioning, it is assumed that the purified pool water and the contained radionuclides are
released to the local weter bodies, however. A summary of the 70-year total body doses to
the work force and the regional population during operation and decommissioning of an
example AFR is given in Table 4.7.3.
In this Statement, 100 to 800 health effects are postulated to result in the exposed
population per million man-rem. Based on calculated doses to the work force, 0 to 3 health
effects are expected over a 70-year period as a result of operation of one 3000 MTHM AFR.
The regional population dose estimated here is a few hundred times lower than that
estimated elsewhere for similar facilities (DOE/EIS-0015, Appendix B). This difference
results mainly from the extra conservatism used in the other study. Both studies indicate
that the doses to the regional population expected to result from AFR operation are very
small in comparison to the doses to the same people during the same time period from natur-
ally occurring sources.
TABLE 4.7.3. Doses Resulting From Operation and Decommissioning
of an AFR
70-Year Whole-Body Dose, man-rem
Operation Decommissioning
Regional Population 1.4(a) 9.8 x 10 1(a)
Work Force 3.6 x 10 7.0 x 10
(a) The dose to'the population from naturally occurring sources
during the same period is about 1 x 10 7 man-rem.