23.04.2013 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

6.129<br />

TABLE 6.1.25. Transportation Non-Occupational Radiological<br />

Exposures--Abnormal<br />

Exposure, man-rem/plant year<br />

Transportation<br />

Step Ref. Facility P-T<br />

Spent Fuel 2.3 x 10-3 3 x 10-3<br />

Powder 2.3 x 10-10 3 x 10-10<br />

Fresh Fuel 6 x 10- 5 3 x 10- 5<br />

Cladding Hulls 1.2 x 10-2 1.3 x 10-2<br />

HLW 8 x 10- 4 6 x 10- 4<br />

NM-HLW 1 x 10-1 9.8 x 10- 2<br />

Totals 1.1 x 10-1 1.1 x 10-1<br />

A closer examination <strong>of</strong> the first factor reveals that the additional partitioning<br />

facilities would be colocated at reprocessing and fuel fabrication sites. These incremental<br />

changes are analyzed as they would affect operational, environmental, and resource<br />

considerations.<br />

Regarding the second factor, transportation impacts, the relatively small carrying capa-<br />

city <strong>of</strong> the canisters that would be used to transport the fresh and spent fuel means more<br />

trips per unit <strong>of</strong> fuel than with options involving unpartitioned wastes. Furthermore, more<br />

waste would be generated. This would lead to more transportation impacts. It is estimated<br />

that the facilities included in this option would process 2,000 MTHM per plant per year.<br />

This means an estimated nine trips involving hazardous material would have to be made each<br />

day, as compared with an estimated seven trips per day for fuel reprocessing without trans-<br />

mutation (Fullwood and Jackson 1980). Although the increased emissions, chance <strong>of</strong> derail-<br />

ment, and community concern associated with more intensive transportation could not be<br />

accurately determined until a specific disposal system is proposed, it is recognized that<br />

transportation impacts would be greater than those for the reprocessing-only case.<br />

Nonradiological health effects would occur as a result <strong>of</strong> construction and operation<br />

activities. In spite <strong>of</strong> scrubbers and other air-cleaning devices, small amounts <strong>of</strong> hazardous<br />

materials would be discharged into the atmosphere. There would be two main sources <strong>of</strong> these<br />

pollutants: the chemical processes themselves and the auxiliary services, primarily the<br />

steam supply system, which is assumed to burn fuel oil. Table 6.1.26 presents the annual<br />

health effects for transmutation. The data are based on estimates for the Allied General<br />

Nuclear services plant at Barnwell, South Carolina, but are scaled to allow for the larger<br />

size <strong>of</strong> the transmutation facilities. The health effects were estimated from epidemiological<br />

studies on SO2 and its relationship to the other pollutants.<br />

The increased transportation required for the transmutation alternative suggests a<br />

greater likelihood <strong>of</strong> occupational and nonoccupational hazards than with options not involv-<br />

ing partitioning. Unlike radiological impacts, nonradiological concerns should not vary<br />

significantly from those <strong>of</strong> an industrial facility not involved in nuclear activity.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!